2006-05-16
(Queensbury Planning Board 05/16/06)
QUEENSBURY PLANNING BOARD MEETING
FIRST REGULAR MEETING
MAY 16, 2006
INDEX
Site Plan No. 16-2006 Stephanie & Travis Norton 1.
Tax Map No. 290.-1-84
Subdivision No. 7-2006 Rick Cobello 2.
SKETCH PLAN Tax Map No. 309.14-1-46
Site Plan No. 2-2006 Schermerhorn Res. Prop. Holdings 2.
Tax Map No. 309.10-1-45
Site Plan No. 5-2006 Stewarts Shops Corp. 9.
MODIFICATION Tax Map No. 301.8-1-33
Site Plan 19-2006 Adirondack Factory Outlet Center 26.
Tax Map No. 288.12-1-22
Site Plan No. 66-2005 Martin Barrington, Mary Devine
28.
Tax Map No. 226.15-1-21
Site Plan No. 18-2006 Michael Stevens 44.
Tax Map No. 290.10-1-29
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 05/16/06)
QUEENSBURY PLANNING BOARD MEETING
FIRST REGULAR MEETING
MAY 16, 2006
7:00 P.M.
MEMBERS PRESENT
ROBERT VOLLARO, CHAIRMAN
GRETCHEN STEFFAN, SECRETARY
ANTHONY METIVIER
THOMAS SEGULJIC
DONALD SIPP
THOMAS FORD
CHRIS HUNSINGER
LAND USE PLANNER-SUSAN BARDEN
STENOGRAPHER-MARIA GAGLIARDI
MR. VOLLARO-I’m going to start off with a couple of housekeeping items, and then we’ll
get on with what we’ve got to do.
SITE PLAN NO. 16-2006 SEQR TYPE II STEPHANIE & TRAVIS NORTON OWNER(S)
SAME ZONING SR-1A LOCATION 920 RIDGE ROAD APPLICANT PROPOSES
CONSTRUCTION OF A 576 SQ. FT. GARAGE WITHIN 50 FEET OF THE SHORELINE OF A
WETLAND. FILLING OR HARD SURFACING WITHIN 50’ OF THE SHORELINE
REQUIRES SITE PLAN REVIEW BY THE PLANNING BOARD. CROSS REF. AV 24-06
WARREN COUNTY PLANNING 4/12/06 LOT SIZE 0.69 ACRES TAX MAP NO. 290.-1-84
SECTION 179-4-030, 179-6-060
MR. VOLLARO-The first thing I want to do is to table Stephanie & Travis Norton.
MOTION TO TABLE SITE PLAN NO. 16-2006 STEPHANIE & TRAVIS NORTON, Introduced
by Robert Vollaro who moved for its adoption, seconded by Gretchen Steffan:
Tabled to July 18, 2006, following a scheduled ZBA hearing on June 28, 2006.
Duly adopted this 16 day of May, 2006, by the following vote:
th
MR. VOLLARO-We’re going to table that to August 15, 2006, following a scheduled ZBA
hearing on June 28, 2006.
MRS. BARDEN-August 15?
th
MR. VOLLARO-Yes, because if we bring it up to seven, they won’t have time to get their
information in the way, we just talked that over here, Gretchen.
MRS. STEFFAN-With the June 28 Zoning Board meeting, they wouldn’t be able to get
th
their information in by 6/15, which is the July Planning Board deadline.
MRS. BARDEN-I think they have their information in now.
MR. VOLLARO-All of it?
MRS. BARDEN-I think so, yes.
MR. VOLLARO-If they have it all in, we can move it to July 18. Does that fit your
schedule?
1
(Queensbury Planning Board 05/16/06)
MRS. BARDEN-Sure, and maybe you can just look at the application and decide whether or
not you think it’s complete. If not, then we can table it to August.
MR. VOLLARO-I don’t have the application in front of me.
MRS. BARDEN-I mean when you do your completeness review.
MR. VOLLARO-We’ll have to look at it, but in the meanwhile, I think we’ll put it back to
July 18, and then we’ll look at it. If they have everything in, we’ll leave it there. Okay.
th
Thank you.
AYES: Mrs. Steffan, Mr. Sipp, Mr. Seguljic, Mr. Ford, Mr. Hunsinger, Mr. Metivier, Mr.
Vollaro
NOES: NONE
MR. VOLLARO-The next one is the Sketch Plan for Cobello.
SUBDIVISION [SKETCH] SUB 7-2006 SEQR TYPE N/A RICK COBELLO AGENT(S)
KEVIN HASTINGS, P.E. OWNER(S) ANTHONY & FRANCINE POIRER ZONING WR-1A
LOCATION RIVERSIDE DRIVE APPLICANT PROPOSES SUBDIVISION OF AN 18.91
ACRE PARCEL INTO 9 RESIDENTIAL LOTS RANGING IN SIZE FROM 1.2 TO 3.8 ACRES,
WITH 1,150 LINEAR FEET OF ROAD. SUBDIVISIONS OF LAND REQUIRE PLANNING
BOARD REVIEW. CROSS REF. NONE FOUND WARREN COUNTY PLANNING N/A LOT
SIZE 18.91 ACRES TAX MAP NO. 309.14-1-46 SECTION A-183
MR. VOLLARO-I’ll read into the record the letter from Mr. Hastings dated May 16, 2006.
“Dear Mr. Vollaro and Board Members: The applicant, Rick Cobello, has been unable to
secure the owner’s authorization to act as agent in this matter. We respectfully request that
Subdivision 7-2006 be tabled from tonight’s agenda. Please retain the application for
placement on the next available agenda in June or July. We will continue to resolve getting
legal authorization for Mr. Cobello. If anything else changes, we will let the Board know
promptly. Thank you for your attention in this matter. We apologize for the short timing of
this notice and any inconvenience of the Board’s business.” So we are tabling that Sketch
Plan to June 27 and all materials and documentation have been received.
th
MOTION TO TABLE SKETCH PLAN SUBDIVISION NO. 7-2006 RICK COBELLO, Introduced
by Robert Vollaro who moved for its adoption, seconded by Thomas Ford:
Tabled to June 27 and all materials and documentation have been received.
th
Duly adopted this 16 day of May, 2006, by the following vote:
th
AYES: Mr. Ford, Mr. Seguljic, Mr. Sipp, Mrs. Steffan, Mr. Hunsinger, Mr. Metivier, Mr.
Vollaro
NOES: NONE
MR. VOLLARO-Okay.
OLD BUSINESS:
SITE PLAN NO. 2-2006 SEQR TYPE UNLISTED SCHERMERHORN RES. PROP.
HOLDINGS OWNER(S): ST. ALPHONSUS CHURCH ZONING MR-5 LOCATION PINE
STREET/LUZERNE RD. APPLICANT PROPOSES TO CONSTRUCT 40 TOWNHOUSE
APARTMENTS WITH ASSOCIATED UTILITIES, ROADS, PARKING, AND SITE WORK.
MULTI-FAMILY DWELLINGS REQUIRE REVIEW BY THE PLANNING BOARD.
APPLICANT HAS SUBMITTED ADDITIONAL INFORMATION IN RESPONSE TO THE
PLANNING BOARD 2/28/06 TABLING RESOLUTION. CROSS REF. AV 7-06 WARREN
COUNTY PLANNING 2/8/06 LOT SIZE 4.87 ACRES TAX MAP NO. 309.10-1-45 SECTION
179-4-040
JON LAPPER & TOM NACE, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT; RICH S.,
PRESENT
2
(Queensbury Planning Board 05/16/06)
MR. VOLLARO-I’m going to ask the Board if they have any questions on this. I think that
this application has completely satisfied our tabling conditions, and if anybody has any
questions on this, please speak up.
MR. FORD-I do.
MR. VOLLARO-Go ahead, Tom.
MR. FORD-Can you elaborate a bit on the playground size and so forth? I note it’s in the
northeast portion, the northeast quadrant there. It seems like a single play area, but also a
single.
MR. SCHERMERHORN-I brought a picture of it. It’s the same one that you guys approved
for my North Brook project, off Meadowbrook Road.
MR. FORD-So there’s swings and a slide, and climbing ladder?
MR. SCHERMERHORN-Yes, a slide and things like a toddler seat as well. I get them right
through Garden Time. They’re in stock. It’s an AC-2 Deluxe they call it.
MRS. STEFFAN-Is it called a playground?
MR. SCHERMERHORN-You could call it, it’s a combination swing set tree house, I guess.
MR. FORD-You’ve used those before, so do you find with the family numbers that you’re
anticipating here with children that that will be sufficient size? That was my main concern.
MR. SCHERMERHORN-Yes, and typically what we find is it’s the small children that use
it. It’s not the big kids. Quite honestly, it’s not used all the time, but they do get used, but
it’s sufficient for the amount. Because honestly with a complex of 40 units, it might sound
like a lot, but you’d be surprised that sometimes we get few children. You get children, but it
doesn’t mean t hat they’re all children that use swing sets. They’re various ages. We never
seem to have a problem. They like to skate board in the parking lots and rollerblade more
than they do swing on swings. It’s unfortunate.
MR. FORD-Thank you.
MR. VOLLARO-Does anybody else have questions? I think that Staff had a question
concerning the location of the walkway leading out onto Luzerne Road, and I’ve looked at
that. Does anybody else have any questions concerning the placement of that walkway,
before I get into it? Anybody?
MR. HUNSINGER-I have questions, but not on the walkway.
MR. VOLLARO-Okay.
MR. HUNSINGER-Go ahead.
MR. VOLLARO-I’ll talk about the walkway for a minute. I think the walkway is well
placed, because if it was taken all the way out to the corner of Luzerne and Pine, that means
that the bus pick up for the children would have to probably stop right at the intersection.
This way they stop behind the intersection, allow traffic to move in and out of that without
interference from the school bus being parked almost dead across Pine Street and Luzerne. So
I think that’s a correct application for it. I think it sits in the right place, and that was my
only comment on the Staff comment on that. If anybody else has comments on that.
MR. HUNSINGER-I was just wondering why you were going to use asphalt when the rest of
the sidewalks were going to be cement.
MR. LAPPER-That’s what we talked about at the meeting.
MR. SCHERMERHORN-I think it was brought up at the meeting. It didn’t matter to me
either way, to be honest with you.
MR. HUNSINGER-Okay.
3
(Queensbury Planning Board 05/16/06)
MR. NACE-It comes out of the corner of the parking lot. We just anticipated taking the
pavement right on out, rather than concrete.
MR. HUNSINGER-But wouldn’t a concrete sidewalk last longer?
MR. SCHERMERHORN-Not necessarily.
MR. NACE-The asphalt’s easily repairable, if there is damage. Six of one, half a dozen of
another.
MR. HUNSINGER-That was the only question I had.
MR. NACE-You’re right. Concrete looks a little more dressed, but this is not coming off of
another concrete sidewalk. It’s simply coming out of the corner of the asphalt parking lot.
MR. VOLLARO-Do you have any other questions?
MR. HUNSINGER-I wasn’t at the last meeting, but the first time you were before the Board
the question I raised was about how the project would look from the street, and one of the
things we talked about was having the front of the building not look like the back, and I
didn’t see if that was discussed at all at the last meeting. I wasn’t in attendance. So that was
my comment. He gave us a, you know, you gave us an elevation drawing. I think your
building certainly looks nice, but I don’t think it would be appropriate for the street front of
the buildings to look like a backyard.
MR. SCHERMERHORN-The last meeting, you weren’t here, but that was discussed.
MR. HUNSINGER-Okay.
MR. SCHERMERHORN-One of the things we did is, a big thing that helps is by running the
sewers so all the septic fields that were going to be behind the buildings are eliminated now.
Which means we’ve moved all the buffer in, and this particular piece of property, if you drive
by it, even scenarios that I have, it’s very heavily wooded. It’s heavily wooded with eastern
white pines, trees that the needles fall off and come right back. So it keeps a buffer year
round. So honestly I don’t really even think you’ll see it from the road. My intentions are
not to have this be seen from the road, because we do have a great buffer, but the concern was
there. We’ll more than address it with the buffer.
MR. HUNSINGER-How deep is the buffer in the front?
MR. NACE-It’s a little better than 60 feet here and the narrowest here is 30 feet.
MR. SCHERMERHORN-And every bit of that, Chris, is heavily dense.
MR. HUNSINGER-Yes. I drive by that intersection a lot and of course every time I drive by
it now, I remember the first meeting that we had and some of the neighborhood concerns and
some of the issues that came up, and, you know, it’s clearly a second generation forest. I
mean, it’s certainly not a native forest at all, and most of it looks just like, you know, I might
call them scrub pine or something, but, I mean, it’s certainly not a mature forest with large
trees that are going to create a large buffer, and my concern is because the trees that are there
are so thin, that they’re really not going to offer the kind of buffer that we’re anticipating
here.
MR. LAPPER-It is significant in terms of the distance, sixty feet.
MR. HUNSINGER-Yes, thirty feet’s not, though. I mean, certainly 30 feet you’re going to
be able to see right through those trees at the corner of the building. I don’t think the south
end would be a problem, but the north end I think would be pretty visible. You’re going to
be looking at sliding glass doors, and I just question how appropriate that is.
MR. FORD-And decks.
MR. HUNSINGER-And decks, yes.
4
(Queensbury Planning Board 05/16/06)
MR. SCHERMERHORN-Actually we do patios instead of the decks, because patios you can
put at ground surface versus the decks being elevated. So it’s less noticeable, but, yes, you
may possibly see the sliding glass doors, but my intentions are to keep as much buffer because
it is going to provide privacy. The people that live in my units are going to want the privacy
as well.
MR. HUNSINGER-Sure.
MR. SCHERMERHORN-I mean I certainly would address that if I thought it was going to
be an issue. If I even maybe put up a nice fence, scalloped fence (lost words) the other parts,
to buffer it, but certainly before we even do any clearing now, we set all our clearing limits
and then Bruce Frank actually meets with the people that are going to do the clearing for me
so it’s not just my word telling them, hey, if you go over the line, we’re in trouble.
MR. HUNSINGER-Right.
MR. SCHERMERHORN-So I’ll make sure Bruce Frank’s there and he will preserve every
bit that we possibly can, and I’ll address it after the fact, even if it is visible from the road
because, yes, it would be undesirable because the cemetery’s very quiet, right across the
street, but I’ll try and buffer from people looking out at a cemetery below. So you can trust
me on this, Chris, if there is visibility there, I will buffer that.
MR. VOLLARO-I think when we had our meeting the last time we did discuss this, and I
think the buffering is what left us to leave it the way it was, as opposed to changing it.
MR. HUNSINGER-I’m just putting my concern out there. It’s up to the rest of the Board
how you want to handle this.
MR. FORD-Yes, I concur because I also missed the same meeting that he did, but Chris and I
shared that concern before about the buffering.
MR. VOLLARO-Well, we had 11 items on the tabling motion, and as far as I can see, all
those eleven items that we had asked for have been satisfactorily answered.
MR. SCHERMERHORN-I just want to add one thing. I did add an item that wasn’t on
there, but because of Tom’s concern, and Tanya’s, I did put some shadow lines and did a few
things to the elevation.
MR. VOLLARO-I saw that.
MR. SCHERMERHORN-Just to add it.
MR. VOLLARO-Okay. There’s just one thing that I’m going to be adding as a condition,
and I’ll read it off to you. I was asked to put this in by the Zoning Administrator, so this is
not something coming out of my particular head on this thing, but I’ll talk to you about it.
Okay. The condition of approval is, this approval is conditioned upon the approval of the
map plan and report and ultimate approval of the sewer extension. Certificate of Occupancy
for the first building constructed will be based in part on the connection to the municipal
sewer.
MR. LAPPER-That’s fine.
MR. VOLLARO-And that’s really all I have. Any other questions on this application?
MR. FORD-Just one request for the future. Assuming that you appear back before us again,
this front elevation is very helpful, but at least two of us on the Board have indicated an
interest in the view from Pine of the rear of the structure. So that would be very helpful in
the future to have that available.
MR. LAPPER-Okay.
MR. FORD-Thank you.
5
(Queensbury Planning Board 05/16/06)
MR. VOLLARO-Tom, let me ask you a question. You’re saying what you’d like to do, if you
had your druthers, you’d like to have this building turned around facing Pine? I think both
you and Chris are of the same opinion on that? The building should be facing Pine Street?
MR. HUNSINGER-Yes, and it’s really the same logic as the, and I can’t remember who the
developer was on Aviation, across from Sokol’s, where we required the building to have a
street presence.
MR. VOLLARO-And it does.
MR. HUNSINGER-It gives it identity, gives it character. In fact, when I was reviewing this
plan, to me, this is a, I mean, I have nothing against the project. I think it’s a great project.
I don’t have a problem with what you’re trying to do here, I just thought, you know, we
could get a better façade, and a slightly better design, because we did get a rear elevation, and
I just don’t think it’s appropriate to be looking at back decks and sliding glass doors.
MR. FORD-I’m sorry. I have a single sheet here. You’ve got them both?
MR. HUNSINGER-Yes, this was from the previous submission. That’s all. I like the
dormers on this elevation. I mean, the dormers are great, but it wouldn’t take much to dress
up the entryway.
MR. LAPPER-Well, we had a big discussion about that last time, and it’s too bad you guys
both weren’t here and it was really, Tom Nace showed that if we changed it around, we’d
really be affecting the buffer, because you have, in terms of parking, and having people have
access to the front doors and that the elderly people that are a lot of Rich’s tenants wanted to
be close to their cars for packages, and it really was a whole pretty thorough discussion that
we looked at alternative building locations and the Board agreed that based upon
maintaining the buffers with some extra fencing and stuff that we did for the existing
neighbors that this was the best alternative.
MR. HUNSINGER-Yes, I mean, personally, I’d rather look at a nice façade, though, than a
fence, too. So I don’t think, you know, offering a fence, I don’t think that resolves the issues.
MR. LAPPER-Well, that’s what the neighbors that have their driveways encroaching on
Rich’s property wanted. They wanted fencing.
MR. HUNSINGER-Well, you know, I’m talking about the Pine Street side, where it faces
the street, and I remember that discussion from the first meeting.
MR. LAPPER-If there was a fence right along the street, we’d agreed with you, but since
that we have all those trees.
MR. VOLLARO-I think what we did across the way from Sokol’s, and I think that Chris is
correct, on that one we looked for street presence on that building, but if you drive there now,
that building’s very close to the street, and it’s absolutely visible, and the tradeoff there is
that they had no buffer. There isn’t any. I mean, they’re sitting right almost on the street
and it does look good. So I think there’s a tradeoff here. It’s a balancing act as to how we do
this, but I think the rest of the Board, at the time we talked about this, considered the fact
that the sewers being eliminated and the buffer being what it is, did a pretty good job of
buffering the building. So that’s where the Board came down on the last time.
MR. SCHERMERHORN-And again, the one thing I pointed out is I believe I’ll be a nice, I’ll
do a nice job on that corner because I do have a few things against me. I’ve got the transfer
station on the one side and then I have the warehouse on another side, and then a cemetery.
So, I’m going to do my very best to keep that sheltered with buffering and if I have to add
some, I certainly will do it, and I’ll certainly give you my word on that.
MRS. STEFFAN-Well, I also think the other issue is that if we turn the buildings around, we
had this conversation the last time, is that the townhouses on the back side of the property,
their front entrances would be looking into the back decks of the front units, and so we looked
at several different things. We looked at the density, because the original discussion was
reducing some of the density in there, but we decided that based on putting the sewers in,
that it would be appropriate to keep the 40 units, and so we really thought that the green
6
(Queensbury Planning Board 05/16/06)
space and keeping the existing trees around the outside of the property would really shield it
from passing traffic, and we had considerable discussions.
MR. HUNSINGER-Okay.
MR. VOLLARO-Okay. Anybody else? Questions?
MRS. STEFFAN-There were a couple of things in the Staff notes about the pedestrian
connection within six months of developing.
MR. LAPPER-Those six month timeframes are fine.
MRS. STEFFAN-Okay. So they should just be included in the motion, that’s all.
MR. VOLLARO-Is this concerning the agreement to support a future Town Code sidewalk
provision?
MRS. STEFFAN-Yes.
MR. VOLLARO-Right.
MR. LAPPER-Both that and the pedestrian access to the park and ride, Staff had suggested
after the Town Board constructed it.
MR. VOLLARO-Right. I had asked the question, I drove by there the other day and there
seem to be houses there. I don’t know what’s going to happen in that area, how they’re going
to run this connection through there. Is a stub good enough? When the time comes we’ll
decide where to put it, if we ever do. So if somebody would like to make a motion. Gretchen,
I see you writing here pretty well here. So if you’d like to make a motion on this, why, go
right ahead.
MR. SEGULJIC-Could I just bring up one last thing?
MR. VOLLARO-Sure, Tom.
MR. SEGULJIC-It gets to the building architecture. You had referenced that you would put
shadow lines on the buildings. If I recall correctly, and I looked in the notes, we had asked for
bump outs, and you had indicated you’d be willing to put in bump outs and offsets, and I
don’t see any bump out’s or offsets in the building design.
MR. SCHERMERHORN-Well, if I remember correctly, I think it was you and the other
woman, just asking for anything, but bump outs, I think we were under the, doing bump outs
I think wasn’t adding. I think it was more of a concern that you had, and I said I would try
and do the best I can. I think it was more of trying to move the building, stagger them, it
wasn’t so much bump outs as it was to stagger the buildings, but staggering the buildings
didn’t allow us, by staggering them, it just offset it and took away from buffer. I think that
was more what you were talking about.
MR. SEGULJIC-I mean, that’s still my concern is that we have a big, you know, monolithic
asphalt. Could we do something with the buildings, and I really don’t see much of a change in
the architecture here, other than, if I’m correct, the highlights around the windows.
MR. SCHERMERHORN-Again, I think we had a lengthy discussion, and I really tried to
compromise with a lot of the other items that we discussed, and I know, and I said it before, I
probably wasn’t going to please you, Tom, maybe not even 50%, but architectural review
process is important, I understand that, but there’s a lot of other things that we discussed
that I was willing to compromise on, on a lot of things by helping the neighbors, and as you
can see, I think the room, when we first started, the room was filled with people. The second
time it got a little less, and this time it’s a little less because I think I was able to accomplish a
lot of the concerns that were there. Again, I did the best that I can, and I think we also
discussed that there’s a lot of nice things that can be done to all these buildings, but the more
we start doing to these buildings sometimes it makes them to the point where they start
getting unaffordable for people to be able to afford to rent them, and, this day and age, I
mean, we all know that things are getting more and more expensive, and the more I do to
these projects, it’s already enough that I put a lot of landscaping into these projects. These
7
(Queensbury Planning Board 05/16/06)
are safe buildings. There are sprinkler systems in these buildings. A lot of new Codes, and
things that go into these, and we do keep nice properties, but the more I keep adding with
these bump outs and I think we joked about this. It’s like the customer that wants to build a
house, and he says, can we bump this out two feet, and you give him a price, and you tell him
that’ll be three or four thousand dollars, and they have a stroke. I mean, it adds expense to
keep adding a lot of different things like that, but I thought I did the, I tried to do the best
that I could.
MR. SEGULJIC-I guess does anyone else have that concern, or am I on my own here?
MR. VOLLARO-Well, Tom, what I was looking at, we struggled around a good deal with this
the last time, and we came up with 11 items that we asked him to, there was 11 items for
tabling issues, and he’s answered satisfactorily all of those, and we said some of the buildings
would take on some aesthetic enhancements to the current plan, and those aesthetic
enhancements are what he’s given us in the shadow lines, I think.
MR. SIPP-I think, Bob, we were mainly thinking of the next set that Rich would be building,
and there’s a time here that we can make things look a little better than they have. They all
look the same on Meadowbrook or Blind Rock, and maybe the next set there’s a change that
can be put in that make these buildings stand out a little better and not all look like cookie
cutter kind of arrangements. I realize that it’s kind of late now to start this, but maybe
thinking about it in the future to enhance these buildings to make them look a little better.
MR. SCHERMERHORN-I did add a few changes to the, you know, the cedar shakes and a
few of the gables on the front, but as far as Tom’s concerned, it’s not significant enough, and I
certainly, on other locations, other projects, you know, I will come back to you and we’ll do
different enhancements, but again, remember, the location of where I’m putting this, I’m
trying to keep it affordable, but I’m also trying to keep in character with what’s there, and
again, this is going to be buffered within its own little community.
MR. SIPP-All right. I understand that not very much of this is going to be seen from the
street, and the neighbors across the street aren’t going to be worrying about it.
MR. SCHERMERHORN-Right.
MR. SIPP-But I think it’s maybe a start to look at what can be done in the future in the
Town of Queensbury to make these look a lot better than they do.
MR. SCHERMERHORN-Yes, I understand.
MR. LAPPER-One thing I’d just like to add, one of the big enhancements that Rich gave
here was the sewer line, and just to explain that, and of course that had the benefit of the
buffer that we talked about, but since we were here last time, we were contacted by the
emergency squad, and they’ve asked if they could have the opportunity to look at whether
they could hook up to the sewer line. So there’s probably some other benefits to the
community that we didn’t even contemplate because he’s bringing the line 1,000 or 1200 feet
to get to this property, that there are other people on the other side that can take advantage
as well.
MR. VOLLARO-I think putting the sewer in, in my mind, was a giant step in this project,
really.
MR. FORD-That was a big issue on the previous meeting where Chris and I were both in
attendance, and I agree, that’s a giant step, very positive. Thank you for that response.
MR. VOLLARO-Okay. Gretchen, are you about ready?
MRS. STEFFAN-I think so.
MR. VOLLARO-Why don’t you go ahead and do it.
MOTION TO APPROVE SITE PLAN NO. 2-2006 SCHERMERHORN RES. PROP.
HOLDINGS, Introduced by Gretchen Steffan who moved for its adoption, seconded by Robert
Vollaro:
8
(Queensbury Planning Board 05/16/06)
WHEREAS, a site plan application has been made to the Queensbury Planning Board for
construction of 40 townhouse apartments with associated utilities, roads, parking, and site
work.; and
WHEREAS, a public hearing was advertised and was held on February 28, 2006 and April
25, 2006, and
WHEREAS, this application is supported with all documentation, public comment and
application material in the file of record; and
WHEREAS, pursuant to relevant sections of the Town of Queensbury Zoning Code [Chapter
179], the Planning Board has determined that this proposal complies with the requirements
as stated in the Zoning Code; and
WHEREAS, the requirements of the State Environmental Quality Review Act have been
considered and the Planning Board has adopted a SEQRA Negative Declaration and
WHEREAS, final approved plans, in compliance with the Site Plan, must be submitted to
the Community Development Department before any further review by the Zoning
Administrator or Building and Codes personnel. Subsequent issuance of further permits,
including building permits are dependent on receipt.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that we find the following: The application is
hereby approved and subject to the following conditions:
1. That the applicant install a pedestrian connection within six months of the Park
& Ride development on the adjoining site.
2. That the play area in the northeast corner will look like Model KC-2 Deluxe from
Garden Time, swing set and tree house.
3. That the applicant to support future Town Code sidewalk provisions within six
months of a Town Board action.
4. That the applicant agrees to fortify the buffer around the property border if
buildings are visible from road fronts, and that this approval is conditioned upon
approval of a map plan and report and ultimate approval of sewer extension and
the Certificate of Occupancy for the buildings constructed will be based in part on
connection to the municipal sewer.
Duly adopted this 16 day of May, 2006, by the following vote:
th
AYES: Mr. Hunsinger, Mr. Metivier, Mr. Ford, Mr. Seguljic, Mr. Sipp, Mrs. Steffan, Mr.
Vollaro
NOES: NONE
MR. LAPPER-Thanks a lot.
MR. SCHERMERHORN-Thank you.
SITE PLAN MODIFICATION 5-2006 SEQR TYPE: UNLISTED STEWARTS SHOPS CORP.
AGENT(S): CHAD FOWLER OWNER(S): SAME ZONING: NC-10 LOCATION: 347
AVIATION ROAD REMOVE EXISTING FUEL STORAGE TANKS AND REPLACE.
INSTALL NEW CONCRETE ISLANDS AND PAD. INSTALL NEW CONCRETE DRIVE MAT,
NEW CATCH BASIN, MOVE EXISTING DRYWELL, REPLACE CURB AT RIGHT
ENTRANCE. PROPOSED CHANGES TO EXISTING SITE PLAN REQUIRE REVIEW BY
THE PLANNING BOARD. CROSS. REF. SP 34-86, SP 40-86, SP 50-93, SP 20-94, SP 24-99,
AV 92-93 WARREN COUNTY PLANNING N/A LOT SIZE 7+/- ACRES TAX MAP NO.
301.8-1-33 SECTION 179-9-020
CHAD FOWLER, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT
MR. VOLLARO-Good evening, and for the record, you are?
9
(Queensbury Planning Board 05/16/06)
MR. FOWLER-My name is Chad Fowler. I work for Stewarts Shops in Saratoga Springs,
New York.
MR. VOLLARO-Okay. Chad, before you get started, we got your letter, and we got your
new site plan. I believe that’s the one you just put up?
MR. FOWLER-That’s correct, yes.
MR. VOLLARO-And you said in your letter that you were going to explain the C.T. Male
questions, and that won’t, there are two outstanding unanswered C.T. Male letters, one is
March 14 and one is May 9, 2006, and they’re going to have to be answered by you in
thth
writing to Staff, and Staff will have to go back to C.T. Male with those. We put up a motion
at the Planning Board that Staff essentially would be the clearing house for information from
engineering. So, just understand we’re going to let you go through this, but you’re going to
have to be tabled until such time as that cycle takes place.
MR. FOWLER-Tabled for another Planning Board meeting?
MR. VOLLARO-Yes, until the C.T. Male requirements are answered. There’s two
outstanding letters from C.T. Male, March 14 and May 9 that are unanswered.
thth
MR. FOWLER-But the changes have been made to the March 14.
th
MR. VOLLARO-I don’t have any documentation.
MR. FOWLER-Okay. The changes were made. Perhaps there wasn’t a letter to go along
with that.
MR. VOLLARO-Yes, C.T. Male comments on that. That they were surprised. They have a
comment letter stating they were surprised, they said the submission package does not
contain itemized response to our, I’m reading from C.T. Male’s May 9 letter. The submission
th
does not contain itemized response to our letter dated March 14, 2006. It appears many of the
comments contained in that letter have not yet been addressed. That’s his latest letter of
May 9. So he has no idea what you’ve done here at all, until he gets some information.
th
MR. FOWLER-I was unaware that a written response was required. We’ve made the
changes after the last Planning Board meeting, and the new May 9 letter from C.T. Male has
th
additional questions not included in the March 14.
th
MR. VOLLARO-That’s correct.
MR. FOWLER-So they’ve added to.
MR. VOLLARO-Yes, they have.
MR. FOWLER-Okay, and I can answer them all.
MR. VOLLARO-I’m sure you can, but it’s got to be answered back to C.T. Male and they’ve
got to, essentially what we’re looking for is a signoff by C.T. Male that says, yes, C.T. Male
signs off on this application.
MR. FOWLER-Can that be done administratively through the planning office versus coming
back here? I have agreed to the interconnect and the sidewalks and all issues that the Board
has raised.
MR. VOLLARO-I saw, all of what you’ve done is correct, but the problem is we need a C.T.
Male signoff in order to approve this, and you’ll have to come back for that.
MR. FOWLER-What that means is it puts me off another probably two months, I would
say.
MR. VOLLARO-No. They turn things around pretty quickly.
MR. FOWLER-No, I meant as far as filing dates and Planning Board agenda. I don’t even
think I can make the next meeting with the filing date.
10
(Queensbury Planning Board 05/16/06)
MR. VOLLARO-I’m surprised you didn’t know and that Staff didn’t tell, did Staff have a
copy with a pre-application conference with Stewarts where he knew he had to respond to
C.T. Male’s questions? I believe you had a pre-application conference.
MR. FOWLER-We had a conference.
MRS. BARDEN-We did have a conference, yes.
MR. FOWLER-And I did hear the comment at the last Board meeting I was at that said, do
not contact C.T. Male directly, go through Planning. I was unaware of a letter that needed to
go with that. I made the change to the plan and I re-submitted. I made the changes. I
didn’t know that I had to address anything to C.T. Male. I thought it all came through the
Town, which is what I did. I sent it all through the Town.
MR. VOLLARO-You sent responses back to the Town?
MR. FOWLER-I did not send an itemized response. I had made the changes and submitted
the plan to the Town.
MR. HUNSINGER-So does the revised plan take into account all of these concerns?
MR. FOWLER-From the March 14 letter it does, but the May 9 letter has additional
thth
comments which I received on the 10. So that’s not on these, but most of those are
th
questions that are the plan either being misread or misinterpreted, most of the questions that
were asked in the May 9 letter. We actually discussed a lot of what the C.T. Male questions
th
were in the minutes of the March 21 meeting, as far as geological issues, where the drywells
st
came from, how they’re moving, things like that.
MR. VOLLARO-One of the problems I think, and Staff has contacted me on that, is that in
order to keep things straight at the Staff level, they need to have these response letters back
to C.T. Male to know exactly what’s happened. Without maintaining this kind of track
record, keeping a file of papers so that we know what we’re doing, allowing that to run open
loop and saying, well, okay, we really don’t need that, now C.T. Male has a file that remains
open, and there will be no signoff on this, and we won’t be able to, you won’t be able to get
your project running without a signoff from C.T. Male. It just won’t happen.
MR. FOWLER-Does the signoff have to appear before this Board, or could it just be done
administratively through the Planning Office, as a conditional approval, pending C.T. Male
signoff?
MR. VOLLARO-We’ve talked about that in the past, and my agreement with Staff has been,
and it’s an agreement that Staff has asked us to look at, is that if there’s a minor, the
questions from C.T. Male are minor, one or two items are remaining open that the applicant
hasn’t satisfactorily answered, then we could possibly condition the approval, if we do make
an approval, we can condition the approval on the receipt of a signoff by C.T. Male, but if
C.T. Male’s questions are fairly extensive, then we won’t be able to do that.
MR. FOWLER-They’re actually very minor. I mean, again, most of this was addressed by
this Board in the last meeting.
MR. VOLLARO-Not the eight or nine items that are existing on the May 9 letter. The May
th
9 letter has questions on Sheet One, questions on Sheet Two.
th
MR. FOWLER-Correct. The Sheet One was answered by the Board, and Items Six and
Seven on S-2 were addressed.
MR. VOLLARO-But, see, the problem is that C.T. Male doesn’t have the answers.
MR. FOWLER-That’s why I submitted the revised plan for this meeting, that addressed the
March 14 letter from C.T. Male. For me to address a May 9 letter for tonight’s meeting was
thth
not possible. That’s why I wrote in my letter that I would verbally let you know that these
will be addressed, only I would consider them all minor. I mean, it was talking to the
neighbor. We already discussed where drywells came from.
11
(Queensbury Planning Board 05/16/06)
MR. VOLLARO-That I see is done. That’s the only one thing.
MR. FOWLER-But I was unaware I needed to put a detailed letter regarding each number
from C.T. Male. When I got this letter was the first I ever heard of that.
MR. VOLLARO-That’s normal process. You’ve done it before. Stewarts has done it before.
This is not the first time Stewarts has been before the Board.
MR. SEGULJIC-How long is it going to take you to respond to the letter, to get a letter to
Staff to get to C.T. Male?
MR. FOWLER-I can do it tomorrow. I mean, that’s how quick it can happen.
MR. SEGULJIC-If he gets the letter, I don’t think there’s many big issues here. Can we
entertain this next meeting?
MR. VOLLARO-Sure. I’m amenable to that. I just can’t say to C.T. Male, you’re not going
to get an answer to your letter. He’s actually stated in here that he hasn’t gotten a letter to, a
response to his March 14 letter.
th
MR. SEGULJIC-Right, and the applicant has indicated he can get this off tomorrow, as soon
as possible, I would suggest.
MR. VOLLARO-Yes.
MR. SEGULJIC-And if C.T. Male can respond to it by next meeting, is that, everyone
comfortable with that?
MR. VOLLARO-I’d be comfortable with it, if we got C.T. Male signoff by the next meeting,
yes.
MR. FORD-That’s a good solution.
MRS. STEFFAN-Let’s ask Staff, Susan, how reasonable is that?
MRS. BARDEN-Well, it’s totally up to you. You have seven items next week, but it’s
whatever you want to do.
MR. VOLLARO-If we can get through this site plan tonight, we’ll take the hit for the 8
th
meeting, if everybody’s agreeable to that. If it’s just a C.T. Male signoff, that’s what we’re
do. If everybody agrees, we’ll do it. I’ll start off with, Tony, what do you think?
MR. METIVIER-Unfortunately, I’m not here next week. So you can do whatever you want.
MR. VOLLARO-Okay. That sounds reasonable to me. Mr. Hunsinger?
MR. HUNSINGER-Are you asking me if I think this arrangement is okay, or if I have
questions on the plan?
MR. VOLLARO-I’m asking if you think this arrangement is okay.
MR. HUNSINGER-Yes, I mean, the way I look at this letter, I don’t know if I would quite
say that they’re immaterial, but to me it’s kind of in the gray area. Because, I mean,
sometimes it’s easy to say, you know, just take care of these little issues, you know, we’ll
condition it on final signoff.
MR. VOLLARO-Exactly.
MR. HUNSINGER-It’s not quite to that point, but I also don’t see anything in here that’s
saying, geez, we’ve got to.
MR. VOLLARO-There’s no show stoppers here.
MR. HUNSINGER-Yes, exactly.
12
(Queensbury Planning Board 05/16/06)
MR. VOLLARO-That’s what you’re saying.
MR. HUNSINGER-Yes. So I see this as being a gray area. I’m perfectly fine with.
MR. VOLLARO-If you can come back by next week with a signoff.
MR. HUNSINGER-Yes, that’s fine by me.
MR. VOLLARO-Because we do need a C.T. Male signoff.
MR. HUNSINGER-I realize that.
MR. VOLLARO-I don’t want to leave them hanging, because they’ve actually stated in their
May 9 letter that they haven’t received anything.
th
MR. HUNSINGER-Well, at the very least, we would condition it pending a final signoff.
MR. VOLLARO-Yes. Okay. Now I think what you can do, you can go forward with your
plan. I think the only thing that you’ve really changed that’s really germane in there is the
connection to the adjoining property.
MR. FOWLER-That’s right. We matched what was previously approved by the neighbor.
The Planning Staff had supplied us with a plan of what happened next door, for their
approval, and we matched that, and that was nice of them to provide that information.
MR. VOLLARO-Right, and that’s about the only thing that I see on the plan that you’ve
recently submitted to us, that I got yesterday at about noontime, delivered to the house at
noontime, roughly. That’s the only thing on that plan that I see that deviates very much
from your previous S-1, S-2. How do members of the Board feel about that we got, this S-1,
S-2 submission showing the connection to the neighboring property. Tom, what do you
think?
MR. SEGULJIC-I’m fine.
MRS. STEFFAN-As long as C.T. Male signs off on it. Because there are some issues, you
know, regarding soil suitability, and drywells, which are issues that are pretty important on a
site that’s got gas tanks and so C.T. Male has to sign off on those.
MR. HUNSINGER-Yes, I guess I said I was okay too quick. I would like to know if you had
done any investigation of the soils and if you had, if you had found anything.
MR. FOWLER-We did top of tanks here, which is piping, about six, seven years ago. So we
have soil data from that information. That was a spill that was open then for DEC. That has
since been closed. So we have info., information. Other than that, there is only, prior to the
spill being closed, when the monitoring wells were being monitored, but they are no longer
being monitored. So we have investigation from that.
MR. HUNSINGER-So what’s the standard procedure when you remove the tanks? Do you
have to test the soil around them?
MR. FOWLER-Correct, if we find impacts, yes. We uncover the tanks, and if we find
anything that has any odor, or any evidence of pollution, we are required to contact the State
DEC hotline within two hours. That opens a spill for that site. We replace tanks routinely.
So we are prepared, here, to take any contaminated soil to a burn plant in Fort Edward called
ESMI, and we are approved for that already, because we do not like to stage any soil on the
site. Everything goes right into the truck. We do expect to find about 750 to 800 tons of
polluted soil around the tanks that are within the liner still, within the secondary
containment, so not to the environment, but within the holding, the liner of the secondary,
it’s a vinyl liner. So we do expect to find that, just from experience of doing this 25 times so
far in the last two years. We do have an on staff geologist that will be on site for any of the
dirt work, right from the very beginning, and we have OSHA qualified people from, OSHA
certified people that do the excavation for us, Dorimple Company. They do all the gas work
for Stewarts for the past 30 years, and the geologist as well is OSHA certified. So we
routinely do, having 285 gas stations, we do a lot of this type of work.
13
(Queensbury Planning Board 05/16/06)
MR. HUNSINGER-You have to get good at it.
MR. FOWLER-We think we are good at it.
MR. HUNSINGER-Yes, thanks.
MR. SIPP-I also was concerned about that, if there is pollution, you are responsible for
removing it.
MR. FOWLER-Absolutely. We are what the State would call a responsible party.
MR. SIPP-Now, Number Nine, consideration of having all runoff run through a hooded
structure, so that oil and the water and antifreeze and so forth are separated. Is that part of
your stormwater plan?
MR. FOWLER-Yes, and it is on the plan, from the beginning. Every catch basin we install,
we install a “T” on the outflow line and that acts as a water separator. Similar to the hooded
structure that the C.T. Male.
MR. SIPP-Where is the oil and antifreeze disposed of?
MR. FOWLER-It stays on top of the, if there’s a spill, it’s contained within the oil water,
within the catch basin so that we can retrieve it, either with a vacuum truck or absorbent
pads.
MR. SIPP-Yes, you probably have 3 or 400 cars a day going past those pumps. Some of them
are leaking oil. Some of them are leaking brake fluid and so forth. You have a way of
removing this from the stormwater and disposing of it?
MR. FOWLER-If we have noticed evidence of impacts, we have a way to remove it. We hire
a contractor to come in with a vacuum extraction truck, or if it’s very minor, we can pad it
out with absorbent pads that only absorb hydrocarbons, not water.
MR. VOLLARO-On Sheet Three, detail 7/S-3, has that changed? In other words, Sheet
Three hasn’t changed, just Sheet One and Two.
MR. FOWLER-Correct, and that’s actually mis-marked. It’s Detail 2 S-3 is the oil water
separator from C.T. Male.
MR. VOLLARO-Okay, and do you understand why he says it’s unclear where this structure
is located on the plan sheets?
MR. FOWLER-I do not. All catch basins, which are the three we’re installing, refer to that
detail. Again, it’s easy to clarify, though. We can easily make a change in the plan.
MR. VOLLARO-In order to get some of these questions answered, you usually have to
contact C.T. Male and discuss it with them.
MR. FOWLER-Through this office. I do not contact directly, is my understanding.
MR. VOLLARO-You write your answers to these questions.
MR. SEGULJIC-Excuse me. He is free to call them and discuss it though, right?
MR. VOLLARO-Yes, you can call them. It just has to be written. I mean, you can say, hey,
listen, what about this, but then based on discussions with C.T. Male, you answer their letter,
and then they’ve got a clearance. There’s no prohibition against you speaking directly with
them, but your answer goes through Staff.
MR. FOWLER-Okay.
MRS. STEFFAN-Because then otherwise we don’t get the information.
MR. VOLLARO-Well, they keep a record of it, and for Staff to keep their paper trail working
correctly, they need responses like this. I think you understand the problem. Okay. Does
14
(Queensbury Planning Board 05/16/06)
anybody have any questions with S-1 or S-2 as it’s been modified with the connection to the
west?
MR. SEGULJIC-I’m all set.
MR. VOLLARO-Okay. The public hearing is still open. I see some people here who might
want to talk to this application, and I’d like you to give up your seat for a minute. Does
anybody here want to speak to this application?
PUBLIC HEARING OPEN
RICHARD JONES
MR. JONES-Good evening. My name is Richard Jones, and I’m here tonight representing
Mountain View Commons. It’s the property owner to the west of the Stewarts site, which is
the Glens Falls National site, and also the property directly behind Stewarts which is the
Queensbury Family Health site. We’re vehemently opposed to any interconnects between
our site and Stewarts. In looking at the meeting minutes from the last public meeting that
you had, there was a major discussion in regards to the interconnects. Stewarts had indicated
that they have over 1,000 vehicles a day on their site. The site for the bank is an extremely
difficult site. It’s very tight, and basically it’s set up on a one way drive that comes in off
Aviation Road and loops around the back of the building, then it goes out on the drive
through side. Any introduction of additional traffic on our site would be disastrous. It would
totally destroy the traffic flow that we currently have on the site. The interconnect point
that you’re proposing basically comes in behind the one way intersection that comes in off
Aviation Road. What you’re doing is, by connecting at that point, you’re inviting people to
come from the Stewarts site, drive the wrong way through our one way drive, which they
already do from Manor Drive. It’s a major problem on our site. We average probably two
dozen cars a day going the wrong way, and at this point, we’re going to have a major accident
somewhere on our site. Our roadways are not designed as highways. They’re designed as
parking lots, and we do not want the additional traffic. Originally when Stewarts was in here,
I’m going to say maybe 10 years ago, for a site plan review, they were looking to expand the
building, and it was realized at that time that their parking lot is actually right on the
property line on the west side. There was a major drainage problem from their parking lot,
and they had to actually introduce new curbs along the west side. They put in new drywells
at that point, and there’s a drainage swale that comes off the back side of the property line,
off the back side of their parking lot, and loops around where you’re proposing this
interconnect. So you’d be bisecting that drainage pattern that’s there. There’s a little paved
swale that goes around to a drywell on the back side of the site. We do not want connection
for traffic flow and we do not want the connection because it’s going to provide more runoff
onto our site, and we don’t need it. We have enough runoff from the paved areas we have. If
you’re really looking to help the site, one of the things that I would like to see is consolidation
of the drives onto their property. They’re proposing to relocate the tanks and replace them.
The only thing they’re not doing is relocating the drive through canopy for the pumps, and in
looking at the traffic conditions that we have in that area, we’ve got too many ingresses and
egresses as it is, and if we can consolidate their entrance into one point, preferably to the east
side of the property, making it wide enough for traffic coming in and out, I think we could
ease the traffic problems that we currently have. I think the more direct alignment with the
exit off of Sokols, which is to the east side of their property, would be much more appropriate.
That would also allow you to address the sidewalks that you were talking about last time.
Right now there is no area for sidewalks along that front side. The other problem that we
have in that general area, there’s a drainage swale that was installed by the Town of
Queensbury along the north shoulder of Aviation Road. It runs basically from Stewarts, the
front of their area, across the front of the bank property, and across the front of the adjacent
offices to the west of us now. Because of the elevation changes that occurred in that swale,
there’s a high spot before you get to the catch basin now. So the water backs up all the way
along that swale, all the way to Stewarts property, and it has created some problems. It just
does not drain, and now the shoulder is totally deteriorating in that area. The Town needs to
go in there, and I talked to the Town DPW the beginning of March about this. They were
waiting for the offices to the west of us to finish before they addressed that drainage swale
problem, and I’m thinking that if Stewarts is going to be realigning and re-doing curbs going
in and out of their property, the Town DPW should wait until that’s done, but it needs to be
addressed, because there’s a major low spot coming in off of Aviation Road onto the bank
property and it just does not work. Basically, we have enough problems on our property
right now with traffic coming from Manor Drive through the wrong way across the front of
15
(Queensbury Planning Board 05/16/06)
the bank and out the in onto Aviation, and we can’t control it. They don’t read signs. They
don’t slow down. They speed through the site, and we do not want to introduce anymore
through traffic. If we had realized that that was going to happen originally, we would not
have done the interconnect between the health center and the bank on the front side, but at
this point we can’t take it out. The health center depends on it for access for patients from
Aviation Road who do not know where Manor Drive is. So that’s basically where we’re
coming from. We do not want the interconnect, and we will fight it. We do not want it to
happen. Thank you.
MR. VOLLARO-Thanks a lot. Anybody else want to speak to this application before the
applicant comes up? Okay. I’d like to hear comments from the Board on that. The
interconnects are something that we’ve always asked for, but I think it’s not a requirement,
but it’s nice to have. I don’t know whether it’s cast in stone in any of our Codes, though. I
may be wrong here, but I think that, I don’t know what the Comprehensive Land Use Plan is
going to look like. Is that going to insist on it and the Code will follow that?
MR. HUNSINGER-Well, it’s good planning.
MR. VOLLARO-Yes, I realize that, but listening to Mr. Jones talk in this area, it sounds like
this interconnect is not going to help our traffic flow at all, in the way we normally visualize
it.
MR. HUNSINGER-Well, you know, I mean, I’m not trying to doubt his concerns. Certainly
his concerns are genuine, and they are real, but, you know, the whole idea of an interconnect
is to alleviate traffic, and in this case traffic on Aviation Road, and what it does is it allows
you to go from the bank into Stewarts without going onto Aviation Road and then back, you
know, to make another turn. One of the problems with that neighborhood, if you will, is the
lack of curb cuts across the street. It’s just all pavement. You can pull in and out anywhere
you want, and I think that’s more of a problem in that area than anything. I’ve never, I
mean, I don’t live there. I don’t police that driveway. So I don’t, I mean, I have no reason to
doubt what he’s saying is true, but, you know, again, it’s good planning, and it was something
that we required of the bank, when they came before us for site plan review.
MR. VOLLARO-Yes.
MR. HUNSINGER-And it’s a beautiful project that they’ve constructed.
MR. VOLLARO-Well, I can certainly understand what Mr. Jones is saying here, in terms of
putting additional traffic onto that site where that site is having problems with traffic as it
exists. Not being a traffic engineer, I don’t, you know, I would have to, you know, think very
carefully about people who operate and live on the site and see the site operate on a daily
basis, as to what this would do to them. Again, I see you’re looking through the Code there,
Chris. Is there anything in the Code that mandates that we do this, or is this kind of
something that? I know what it’s for, and most interconnects make good sense, because it
keeps people off main roads and allows them to get into one site and the other without having
to go back on the main road, but if we’re doing something here that really is causing a severe
traffic problem on the adjacent property, then I’d have to, my own concern is I really have to
think about it.
MRS. STEFFAN-When Stewarts was here the last time, I wasn’t sure whether an
interconnect was necessary on this particular property because if folks wanted to go to the
bank, it’s a very short walk over a piece of grass to get to the bank.
MR. HUNSINGER-Except in the wintertime. That’s part of the reason why we required a
sidewalk.
MR. VOLLARO-Well, there’s a sidewalk on this plan, except that it gets interrupted by that.
MRS. STEFFAN-It’s a very short piece of sidewalk.
MR. VOLLARO-Very short piece. It doesn’t go anywhere, but it’s a sidewalk.
MR. FORD-I know sometimes Chris doesn’t like it when I bring in my anecdotal record here,
but I’ve got another one, Chris. Last week, as I went to the Health Center to see my
physician, I encountered one of the ladies going the wrong way on that one way street. I was
16
(Queensbury Planning Board 05/16/06)
trying to access the physicians office from Aviation. She was trying to access Aviation going
in the wrong direction. Traffic conditions being what they were, I turned in to the Stewarts
shop, found a parking spot where I could turn around and made it back out onto Aviation
after she had left. Mr. Jones, had there been an interconnect there, I could have made that
transition more easily, not that that’s a great advocacy for it, but that does make that point
that it could be done more easily than the way I had to encounter it and do it.
MR. VOLLARO-So you had to go back out onto Aviation Road, essentially?
MR. FORD-Yes. Pulled into Stewarts, turned around, went back out onto Aviation Road,
and went the very few feet it was after she had left going out onto Aviation from the wrong
way.
MR. VOLLARO-But had she not been going the wrong way, you would have been fine.
MR. FORD-Sure.
MR. VOLLARO-And that’s exactly what he’s bringing up, is the fact that people are going in
the wrong way. People don’t read signs and all of the stuff that we do here about signs and
signage and in one way and out with the other. It sometimes doesn’t really work on the site,
and in this particular case it apparently is not working on their site very well at all.
MR. FORD-It isn’t.
MR. VOLLARO-What’s your take on it, as far as Stewarts is concerned? What’s Stewarts’
position? You did that because we asked you to do that. Is that correct?
MR. FOWLER-That is correct, and it was my understanding, I thought it was a Code. If it’s
not a Code, that’s news to me.
MR. VOLLARO-I don’t know that it’s grounded in the Code, in our 179 Code, and Mr.
Hunsinger’s looking that up now, I believe.
MRS. BARDEN-It’s under commercial driveway spacing standards, to relax that standard,
again, because there’s only about 10 feet between the property to the west and this first
driveway, that’s where the interconnects come into play, as far as waiving that driveway
spacing standard.
MR. VOLLARO-Is that 179-19?
MRS. BARDEN-Yes, 10.
MR. VOLLARO-Okay. I believe that’s 179-19 is where you’ve got to go.
MR. HUNSINGER-Yes, I mean, it’s not an absolute requirement, but what it says is that
conflict points can be reduced to appropriate limitations on the number of driveways,
driveway spacing, and by establishing provisions for vehicles to move between parking areas
to access abutting properties.
MR. VOLLARO-So it’s kind of a recommendation, and probably when we do that, if it’s
appropriate, that’s fine, but if we do that and propose or put conflict on one of the other,
that’s probably.
MR. HUNSINGER-Yes, it then goes on. This is what I was looking for. Because I thought
it had stronger language. Item Five says, driveways may be required to be located so as to
provide shared driveways and/or cross access driveways with an abutting property or
properties, and then goes on to say, shared driveways, cross access driveways, interconnected
parking and private roads constructed to provide access to properties internal to a subdivision
shall be recorded, and it doesn’t say that it’s absolutely required.
MR. VOLLARO-It’s advisory, really.
MR. HUNSINGER-It uses the word may.
17
(Queensbury Planning Board 05/16/06)
MR. VOLLARO-Right, and we’ve got to use our best judgment against that advisory
recommendation in the Code, it seems to me, and that’s what we’re being asked to do here, as
opposed to leaving it in. Personally, I very seldom use that bank or any of those
interconnects at all. So I have not a very good on the ground understanding of that,
personally, although I know Mr. Jones, and Mr. Jones has practiced before this Board and
he’s a reputable citizen within our community. I know he wouldn’t mislead us in any way.
I’ve known the man for a long time.
MRS. STEFFAN-I use that property all the time, and that bank lot is very constrained in
that you really need to follow the traffic patterns. Otherwise, it’s very difficult to get
through, and I have accessed the bank from Manor Drive, and it’s kind of circuitous. You
have to kind of weave your way through, and if somebody is not following the traffic pattern,
somebody’s got to back down, because there’s nowhere to go, and I can see Mr. Jones’ point
that, you know, if you add another dynamic to that very constricted site, it may make things
very difficult.
MR. VOLLARO-Well, the dilemma is, do we take that out and revert back to the original
interconnect that goes to the back? You had, your original S-1, S-2 showed an
interconnection straight back.
MR. FOWLER-It’s the same owner.
MR. VOLLARO-You don’t want that, either?
MR. FOWLER-And my concern with that was the speed that can be gained going through
our parking lot, it’s just a straight shot. I did have a concern. So when the interconnect did
turn, I felt that would be a better design than the original proposal of going straight through.
MR. VOLLARO-Well, how does the Board feel about this? We’ve got to make a resolution
here. Do you want to just eliminate the interconnect altogether?
MR. METIVIER-I think we should. I definitely think we should.
MR. VOLLARO-I’m inclined to.
MR. FORD-I just want to reiterate the fact that the reason I turned into Stewarts at that
time was in the hopes that there was an interconnect there. I just want to make that point.
To avoid that woman coming out and the other traffic, that was the move I made, and there
was no access there.
MR. VOLLARO-Well, I think Gretchen brings out an interesting point. When you start
adding additional dynamics to an already heavily loaded traffic pattern, being that we don’t,
we’re not on the ground here and don’t really understand that from a bird’s eye view and
watched that whole thing work.
MR. FORD-I don’t know the extent to which improved signage might alleviate some of the
problem.
MR. VOLLARO-Well, I think Mr. Jones made the point that people don’t read, and I tend to
agree with him.
MR. HUNSINGER-I don’t know how we can do that, because when we approved the site to
the west, we approved it on the condition that there be an interconnect to Stewarts, if
Stewarts ever came before this Board. I mean, it was a condition of their approval. I mean,
I’m very sympathetic, though, to any stormwater runoff, and I think, you know, Stewarts
would have to do something to make sure that that doesn’t happen. Because that’s
something that clearly is against the Code, but in terms of the interconnect, I think we
already set the precedent when we approved the bank facility, with all due respect to my
colleagues that made comments on that.
MR. VOLLARO-I understand where you’re coming from.
MR. HUNSINGER-It was a lengthy discussion, and we made them modify their site plan
extensively so that they could accommodate it, and we told them in no uncertain terms, it’s
something you have to put on your drawing and construct in the future, and I remember a lot
18
(Queensbury Planning Board 05/16/06)
of discussion about where that would be and they put it in where they felt was the best
location for them.
MR. VOLLARO-And we’re matching that.
MR. HUNSINGER-And we’re making Stewarts match it. It’s not like the Planning Board
said, okay, draw an interconnect in here and at some point in time you might be required to
actually build it. I mean, I don’t know if other members who were there then want to
comment on it, too.
MR. VOLLARO-I was there. You’re absolutely correct. There’s no question about it, that
we discussed that at length, and we said, you know, you pick the spot. I remember that
discussion very well. I think that took place when Mr. MacEwan was Chairman.
MR. HUNSINGER-I was just going to say Tony did say that Mr. Jones was opposed then,
too.
MR. METIVIER-Actually, I remember the conversations we had, and, you know, frankly,
I’ve used the bank a few times. Obviously not that much to know that there’s problems
there, but Chris brought up a great point. Perhaps the whole site on both sides needs to be
looked at a little bit more. I mean, not that we want to get that involved now, or, you know,
interrupt anything that’s already taken place, but I don’t know how we could do that, but
Chris does bring up a good point, too. So, I don’t know which way to go on this.
MRS. STEFFAN-Yes. Sometimes, and I wasn’t here when the original plan was approved,
but sometimes things don’t work, and so, since I’m using it, I’m taking in all the information
and seeing both sides, and I do understand about the planning part, but I also understand the
traffic part. So I’m really on the fence on it.
MRS. BARDEN-Can I just make a suggestion or a comment, that it was a condition of Mr.
Jones’ approval, as Chris indicated. Mr. Jones has to come back and modify his site plan
because that hasn’t been constructed. I would suggest that you leave the interconnect on
Stewarts, and it’s up to Mr. Jones to decide, modify his plan or construct the interconnect. So
he does have to come back.
MR. HUNSINGER-Even if the interconnect was shown on his plan as a future development?
MRS. BARDEN-He either has to build it or have site plan modification to not build it.
MR. HUNSINGER-Okay.
MRS. BARDEN-So if he comes back and the Board says we want you to build it, Stewarts
has their interconnect on their piece that would meet it.
MR. VOLLARO-So you’re saying we could leave this, what I call a stub on the Stewarts
design, just the way it is, and if Mr. Jones does not want to interconnect, then he comes back
for a site plan modification to his plan to either connect it or not connect it.
MRS. BARDEN-Right,
MR. SEGULJIC-What happens if the interconnect is moved on Stewarts property, then
Stewarts has to come back also?
MR. VOLLARO-No.
MR. SEGULJIC-If it’s not constructed where it is on Stewarts property, would they have to
come back then, also?
MR. VOLLARO-Well, see, the site plan that Stewarts is presenting to us has the interconnect
there. I guess what happens is if we go along with this, they will put that in just the way it’s
drawn there, and it’ll stop, and it’ll be looking for a connection from the western property. If
the western property says, no, I’m not going to do that, then the western property’s got to
come back and talk to this Board about a site plan mod, and that stub at Stewarts just stays
the way it is.
19
(Queensbury Planning Board 05/16/06)
MR. SEGULJIC-But I don’t think we want to have them just build a stub.
MR. VOLLARO-Well, either that or it would be unfair to Stewarts.
MR. FORD-It wouldn’t access that road, that one way road?
MR. VOLLARO-If you want to get up and just go before the Board and just give us a little
idea of the traffic movement from Stewarts.
MR. FOWLER-This is the property line, right at the very edge of our blacktop here. So the
interconnect, as we show, does provide new blacktop here, to make that turn, which is now
green space, to access the neighbor’s property. The neighbor had a very good concern about
drainage, that it is an issue. They are lower than us. So when we connect these two, unless
we make a big dip or something to catch water, or have some kind of a trench drain or
something like that, the water does go to the drywell that is on the neighbor’s property. That
is a legitimate concern. I mean, as we’re showing it now, the water and that interconnect goes
to that drywell on their property. Now if I was just to end that, I would have to curb it or
something to keep that water in.
MR. VOLLARO-To prevent your water going to him. Because one of the concerns we have
in the stormwater area is that we don’t allow stormwater from one property to proceed over
to the other, and what we’re doing here is exactly that. We’re allowing your stormwater to
get into his.
MR. FOWLER-That would require some engineering to solve that, but to have me construct
that, knowing that the Jones do not want this, or probably will never have it.
MR. VOLLARO-It doesn’t make an awful lot of sense.
MR. FOWLER-It’s creating some expense. I could label it as future as well, and that’ll be
the end of it, but that’s up to the Board.
MR. VOLLARO-If you made that comment, what actually would you do on the ground, just
leave it the way it is?
MR. FOWLER-I wouldn’t change anything there.
MR. VOLLARO-You wouldn’t change anything there.
MR. FOWLER-I’d keep the drainage as it is, which is on my, he’s got his water, I have my
water. It’s a dead end, as far as the traffic coming in.
MR. VOLLARO-You could just put a note on the drawing that said for possible future
interconnect, and let it go at that, and then Mr. Jones would have to come back if he wants to
modify his site plan in any way. How does that sound? We’ll put it on the drawing, state
that it’s for future use, and then I think Mr. Jones has to make a decision as to what he wants
to do, come before the Board for a site plan mod or come before us and convince us that he
doesn’t want to do it at all.
MR. FORD-I have one additional question. Is that one way street exclusively on, is that
right on your property, Mr. Jones?
MR. JONES-The one way comes in off Aviation, and loops behind the building. The parking
behind the building is bank employees. Basically the drive that comes in off Aviation right
here is one way in, and the parking lot behind our building.
MR. FORD-Is that yours and you maintain that?
MR. JONES-Yes. We maintain this connection. We maintain both parking lots. It’s not a
Town road. I’d like them to take it over if they’d like it.
MR. VOLLARO-It’s not three rods wide. So they couldn’t do that.
MR. JONES-Basically, the parking lot behind our building is full of employees for the bank
and our office, and we have overflow employees from the Health Center back there as well.
20
(Queensbury Planning Board 05/16/06)
So this parking lot is full every day. The only place that these people who come in here, if
they want to go to the bank, they’re going to go the wrong way through our one way again to
park here in front of the bank, which they do routinely. They’ll come in the back, the wrong
way, and park or they’ll go right out to Aviation. What my concern is, is that if we allow this
to happen, we’re going to have a major congestion point right here. We’re going to be
introducing more traffic, both ways, we’re going to have a major accident right here, because
people assume this is one way from one way coming in. What we have back here, people
come through from Manor Drive so quickly, and we have elderly patients walking the parking
lot. They come through here at 35, 40 miles an hour, and then they come the wrong way in
front of the bank doing 40 miles an hour. We’re going to have a major accident. Somebody’s
going to get hurt.
MR. METIVIER-Why do you think that is, that they just go straight?
MR. JONES-They don’t read signs, Tony.
MR. METIVIER-I mean, how big are the signs?
MR. JONES-The signs are huge. It says Do Not Enter. One Way. I mean, we had arrows.
We put a speed bump here. It doesn’t slow them down. They just don’t stop. They don’t
read signs. They don’t care.
MR. METIVIER-It’s bizarre to me. It just seems it’s stupidity more than anything.
MR. JONES-I know you approved the development west of us, the offices to the west of us,
and that’s a one way in off of Aviation, but people from Manor Drive are already using it to
go out onto Aviation the wrong way. It’s not going to work. One way drives do not work in
the Town. I mean, you’ve got a prime example on Quaker Road in front of Lowes. They go
the wrong way. They turn the wrong way. They don’t care. They’ll drive over the curbs.
They knock the signs down. We’ve had people using this parking lot for the drycleaners on
the back corner, and any damage we’ve had to the property has always been vehicles that
shouldn’t have been there. We’ve had three light poles knocked down from people parking in
the parking lot, backing into things. It’s just a continuing thing, and our concern is
somebody’s going to get hurt. I mean, we’ve had an accident at the drive through where
somebody drove through the wrong way. I mean, it’s crazy. They come in the wrong way
and they do a U Turn at the drive through, and we can’t stop them.
MR. METIVIER-Is it the same people, or is it, I mean, I know that’s a silly question, but,
you know.
MR. JONES-I don’t know. A lot of it is the apartments on Manor Drive. They use this thing
as a thoroughfare to get to Aviation Road, and what they’ll do is they’ll come through here.
They’ll cut across to Sokol’s parking lot, and Sokol’s has the little cut around to Dixon Road
at the end of the building, and they cut through there. So they’re missing all the
intersections, and they’re just going the wrong way all the time. Originally, we had people
coming in from Manor driving right across the lawn into Stewarts, and I know Stewarts put
up the fence here on the back side, and that curtailed that, but we did have someone that
attempted to go from this parking lot to the Health Center and hit a stump and tore the front
end off their car. So that stopped them at that point, but it’s a continuing thing. It just
happens on a daily basis.
MR. METIVIER-I can’t see it working any better if you were to extend that into Stewarts
because at that point you have pedestrians crossing the Stewarts parking lot, and you have
somebody that whips around.
MR. JONES-There’s about an 18 to 24 inch grade change here, and I know there was talk
about a connection to the west as well, but we’ve got almost a three foot grade change on that
side, and when we have cars at the drive through, it’s not uncommon for them to back up
around into the corner of the parking lot here on the back side as well. So anybody that
comes in from here, if they don’t go back there, cannot go out through, and they’re going to
go the wrong way.
MR. VOLLARO-So essentially we’d be just compounding a safety issue. It’s more than just
traffic and traffic flow and interconnects and all of that. There’s a safety issue involved here.
21
(Queensbury Planning Board 05/16/06)
MR. JONES-There’s drainage, safety, and traffic flow. There’s a lot of issues.
MR. METIVIER-You’ve been there a few years. How many accidents have you seen out in
front of Sokols and Stewarts?
MR. JONES-To be honest with you, since we’ve gone in, I don’t think there’s been two
accidents. There used to be one a month, but I think that people have started to slow down
on Aviation Road now, because of the volume of traffic.
MR. METIVIER-Well, you have to, right.
MR. JONES-Yes, and I think the biggest accidents, the most that were occurring, were
people getting rear ended, people would stop to make a left turn and the people behind them
just wouldn’t see them and would plow into them, but since we’ve been in this building, with
the modifications and the drive through, I think we’ve had one accident on Aviation and we
had an accident in the drive through. We had somebody come through the wrong way.
MR. VOLLARO-Well, I think the one approach here that might work is just to put a note on
the drawing that if you don’t do the interconnect it doesn’t get on the ground. You just put a
note to indicate that this is a potential interconnect for future use and just leave it be there. I
don’t know how to solve this problem, personally, I just don’t know how to solve it. See, one
of the problems, when we do this kind of thing, I don’t think we have the ability to foresee a
lot of what’s going to happen. We say when you need an interconnect and you’ve got to have
one and so on, but we don’t really know. We know what it says. We know what we try to do.
We try to keep people, I think Chris is right. We try to keep people off the main roads.
That’s the whole idea of these interconnects is so people don’t go out on the main highways
and come back in again, but, you know, this is a unique situation, and I really don’t see
adding another dynamic, as Gretchen has used the term, it’s a good term, to that intersection.
So I would recommend, from one Board member, that a note be put on the drawing that is to
be used potentially for future interconnect, and that’s it, and not do it, and then if, I think
one of the things we have is we have an approval, and Chris makes the point that there’s an
approval already on the drawing, based on your site plan, and you’d have to come before us
to get that modified and say, look, we don’t want to do it. We didn’t know enough when we
put it down. We’d like to take it out, and that’ll be a site plan mod. How do we all feel about
that. Chris, what do you think?
MR. HUNSINGER-I’m not sure.
MRS. STEFFAN-My only confusion now is if we put that that it’s a potential interconnect.
We already know, from our discussion, that we’re going to have a stormwater problem. We
would have stormwater running from this site to another, and so if we say that there’s a
future connect, I think we have to address the stormwater issue.
MR. VOLLARO-Then. Once it starts, and people will know, once we say, we are going to do
the interconnect, the engineers will right away realize that there’s a difference in elevation
between the two and the water’s going to flow downhill.
MR. FOWLER-I should remove the contours and just not even show the grades at that
interconnect. Add the note, future connection point.
MRS. STEFFAN-But I guess that’s one of the questions that I have. If the interconnect is
not the responsibility of Stewarts, if it ends up being the responsibility of, say, Mr. Jones,
then what happens when say they come back for a modification and they’re going to put the
interconnect in, how do we deal with the stormwater that runs off Stewarts’ lot?
MR. VOLLARO-Well, I think that has to be done as an engineering modification for the site
plan, if they come in for a site plan mod. We’ll tackle that, the problem of water flow, at that
time. I don’t think we can tackle it tonight. I think that what we’ll do tonight, my
recommendation, it seems like some of the Board members are agreeing, that we just put a
notation on the drawing that this is for future interconnect and leave it there, do not do it,
and let’s see what we can, I think Mr. Jones would probably have to come back, because his
site plan definitely shows that there’s going to be an interconnect, come back and convince
this Board that this is the wrong thing to do based on traffic flow around that site, and that
will be a site plan mod for him, and that would end it. So I don’t think we’d have to do that.
Does the Board agree with that solution pretty much?
22
(Queensbury Planning Board 05/16/06)
MR. SIPP-Do the two properties have to agree? If in the future they want to put a drive
through through there, do both properties have to agree, or can one dissent?
MR. VOLLARO-I think there’s got to be a mutual agreement when there’s a connection. I
don’t think one can say, we’re going to connect, and by the way, we’re going to take the
stormwater that’s on our property and drive it into yours by virtue of the fact that we’re
connecting these two properties together.
MR. SIPP-What about the suggestion of improving the front end?
MRS. STEFFAN-Don, I think if it’s on the plan and it’s approved, Don and Bob, if it’s on
the plan and it’s approved, we’ve identified that that’s the way the plan’s supposed to be.
MR. VOLLARO-Unless the site plan owner of that site comes back for a site plan mod.
MRS. STEFFAN-Right.
MR. VOLLARO-He’s got to come back for a modification. He can’t do it without that. He
has to come back for a site plan mod.
MRS. STEFFAN-If he would go forward and the stub is on Stewarts’ drawing, then Stewarts
has to be part of that.
MR. FORD-But his modification, according to what he said tonight, is to have it withdrawn.
MR. VOLLARO-But he has to come back for a site plan mod to do that.
MR. FORD-So what’s the point of having this designated as some future sort of access or
egress that nobody is looking at as a possibility?
MR. VOLLARO-Well, it’s on the drawing, and the other side of it is, let’s go back to Square
One and not do anything there, nothing. Do it like, leave it like it was before.
MR. HUNSINGER-Well, that’s what I was going to say. I mean, if the Board is of the
opinion that this isn’t going to work, I think we can just deal with it tonight. I mean, we still
have an approved site plan from the western property owner saying future interconnect, you
know, why make them come back if the Board’s of the opinion if it’s not going to work and
we’re not going to, I mean, if all we’re going to require of Stewarts is to put it on a map and
never build it.
MR. VOLLARO-That’s true, absolutely.
MR. FORD-What’s the point.
MR. HUNSINGER-What’s the point.
MR. VOLLARO-What’s the point. You’re absolutely right. I’ve been trying to kind of walk
the tight rope here.
MR. HUNSINGER-We’re making more work for ourselves and for the taxpayers.
MR. VOLLARO-Sure. I think the right thing to do is to take it out altogether, and we’d still
have to deal with your question which is a good one. It’s on the neighbor’s site plan at the
present time, and it was approved that way. I think he’s got to come back for a site plan mod
if that’s what he wants to do.
MR. HUNSINGER-Well, I mean, it goes back to the whole concept that both property
owners have to build it. So if we tell this property owner that you don’t have to, what does it
matter if the other property owner still has it on an approved site plan or not. If I’m out of
line, maybe Staff can correct me. I mean, maybe this would be a discussion for legal counsel.
MR. VOLLARO-Well, it’s almost not a Staff decision. The decision lays on this Board, I
think.
23
(Queensbury Planning Board 05/16/06)
MR. HUNSINGER-Well, maybe Staff, I mean, I know they pulled out the map and gave the
neighbor’s map to Stewarts so that they know where to put it. I don’t know if they reviewed
that resolution. I mean, I haven’t reviewed that resolution since we approved it.
MR. VOLLARO-No, I haven’t, either.
MR. HUNSINGER-So, I’m flying dark here.
MRS. BARDEN-Well, again, it was a condition of approval for Dick Jones as part of the two
curb cuts that were approved by the Planning Board with the interconnects. Again, his site is
not in compliance right now.
MR. HUNSINGER-Right.
MRS. BARDEN-He does need to come back if he doesn’t want to construct that
interconnect.
MR. HUNSINGER-Regardless of what we do with Stewarts?
MRS. BARDEN-Yes.
MR. HUNSINGER-Okay.
MRS. BARDEN-It’s a condition of his approval.
MR. HUNSINGER-Okay, and I guess that’s the issue that we haven’t really, Staff brought
up, Susan brought up earlier. The reason why we gave additional curb cuts was to provide
the interconnect to accommodate that, to mitigate the traffic concerns with additional curb
cuts.
MR. VOLLARO-But now we’re seeing what’s happening on the ground and it’s not quite
working out the way we thought. That’s part of the problem. This gentleman back here, do
you want to speak to this application?
DAVID KENNY
MR. KENNY-I’ve got a possible suggestion. David Kenny. I guess, why don’t you just
make this application conditional, the same as you did the other? Make it drop, if Stewarts
comes in and gets theirs taken off, then it dissolves this. You can make that condition. He
has to have it on, but it’s conditional upon what Stewarts does, and then if Stewarts gets
taken off, his comes off.
MR. VOLLARO-He still has a valid site plan with that on it.
MR. KENNY-Stewarts.
MR. VOLLARO-No, I’m talking about Mr. Jones. He has a valid site plan, and that curb
cut, that interconnect is on his plan.
MR. KENNY-That was a condition.
MR. VOLLARO-As an approved plan.
MR. KENNY-You can put that same condition on this gentleman, the Stewarts, but now if
Jones changes it, his changes automatically, too, make that part of the condition. So then if
you go before Stewarts, Stewarts comes in, or the bank comes in in the future and doesn’t get
a change, then they have to be connected, or if he decides something else, you have that
condition on both, which if it proves no good, it disappears, and you could also make the
condition that if it does happen, Stewarts has to address their stormwater at that time, but if
it disappears, it disappears. If they come in and prove it’s invalid.
MR. VOLLARO-Well, then we would take it off their site plan, and it would be over.
MR. KENNY-And take it off his, too.
24
(Queensbury Planning Board 05/16/06)
MR. VOLLARO-Yes. His wouldn’t even be on there.
MR. KENNY-If it’s not on there, then you can’t make it conditional. My recommendation
would be to leave it on there as a condition, until it’s proven by the bank it’s no longer valid.
You made his conditional and you made his conditional in the past. You could make this
conditional, and if Jones comes in and shows it’s not valid.
MR. VOLLARO-Jones’ was not conditional. Jones’ was an approved site plan with an
interconnect. There wasn’t a conditional thing. That was on the drawing, and the drawing
was approved that way.
MR. KENNY-But it was only going to take place if Stewarts came in.
MR. VOLLARO-That’s correct, and now Stewarts is here.
MR. KENNY-That was a condition, right. There was a condition on it, if Stewarts came in.
Now Stewarts has come in and you’re realizing it’s not valid. So to give him time to take it
off, you make his conditional upon the same.
MR. VOLLARO-Once we take it off his, there’s no need for Stewarts to do anything.
MR. KENNY-Right, then it comes off Stewarts. Then it comes off Stewarts at that time.
MR. METIVIER-Let me ask you this. Stewarts has to come back next week anyway. Can
Staff find Mr. Jones’ site plan and can we do a modification during the?
MR. KENNY-Thank you.
MR. METIVIER-I’m not interrupting you, by the way. I’m adding on to what you’re
saying. I’m saying, can we do a modification as part of the resolution for this, on his?
MRS. BARDEN-No. It’s Mr. Jones’ site plan approval. It’s his site plan.
MR. VOLLARO-It’s relatively simple for Mr. Jones to come before us and convince us one
way or the other.
MR. METIVIER-All right. Let’s move on, then.
MR. VOLLARO-Mr. Salvador, do you have something germane here? Because I’m watching
the clock here, and we’ve spent an awful lot of time.
JOHN SALVADOR
MR. SALVADOR-Yes, I do. If there’s a condition on a site plan, and the condition is to be
raised or removed, doesn’t it open the basis for the whole site plan approval? Would the site
plan originally have been approved if this condition was not accepted by the applicant?
Would the Jones site plan have been approved if Jones was not agreeable to this condition?
MR. VOLLARO-It may or it may not have. It depends on the way the Board looked at it at
the time. Because we don’t have, in our Code, an absolute requirement for.
MR. SALVADOR-The Code aside.
MR. VOLLARO-No, I don’t want to put the Code aside.
MR. SALVADOR-The applicant agreed to a condition.
MR. VOLLARO-He agreed to put a stub there, yes.
MR. SALVADOR-Yes. He agreed to a condition in order to get his site plan approved, okay.
You didn’t hold a gun to his head. Okay.
MR. VOLLARO-I understand, but we know a lot more now than we knew when we had him
put that on, John.
25
(Queensbury Planning Board 05/16/06)
MR. SALVADOR-My question is, would the Board have approved that site plan without this
condition?
MR. HUNSINGER-I say, no, and that was the point I made earlier.
MR. SALVADOR-Then you open the whole site plan, the Jones site plan, for review. There
has to be another solution.
MR. HUNSINGER-We required him to put it on his plan.
MR. VOLLARO-Right.
MR. SALVADOR-And if he wants to take it off, it opens the whole project to review. Maybe
there’s some other compensating arrangement that has to be done to satisfy this condition.
MR. VOLLARO-Fine, but that site plan for Mr. Jones is not before the Board right now. It
probably will have to come before the Board as a site plan modification, and once he requires
that to be pulled off, we’ll have to look at the site plan, but the problem is the site is already
done. It’s working. Are you going t start busting up concrete. It’s just not practical. This is
only paper that we’re dealing with here.
MR. SALVADOR-The other point I’d like to make is that such a condition on the Jones site
plan is a taking from Stewarts.
MR. VOLLARO-We’re not condemning anything, John, as a taking.
MR. SALVADOR-No, I’m saying.
MR. VOLLARO-A taking is a condemnation.
MR. SALVADOR-No, it’s a regulatory taking. You have encumbered Stewarts with a
condition on Jones. That’s a taking, a regulatory taking. Thank you.
MR. VOLLARO-Okay. Do you want to come back up? Okay. What’s the Board’s position
on this? My take is to bring that site plan back to its original condition. One. Two, Mr.
Jones comes back to this Board for a site plan review and discusses that, the fact that he’s got
that. I think that’s the only practical solution. Otherwise we’ll be here until midnight trying
to figure this out, and it’s running pretty late. I think that’s a reasonable solution to this
problem. I mean, there may be others, but that’s a reasonable solution. I’d like not to go any
further than that. I think we’ve got a point where we’ve got a reasonable solution here, and
he has to have a C.T. Male signoff in any event, but I think what we’ll do is go back to your
original S-1 drawing, as opposed to this S-1 drawing, and use that as the basis, as opposed to
S-1, S-2, go back to the original S-1, S-2 drawings.
MR. METIVIER-Agreed.
MR. FORD-I think to take that off the plan virtually gives an automatic pass to Mr. Jones,
upon his return, and I agree with Mr. Salvador, in terms of the potential for our looking at
something that we very well may wish to re-look at again, and that’s the whole, because this
obviously is not working the way it is now.
MR. VOLLARO-Well, we could do this if Mr. Jones’ application was merely paper. He’s got
concrete on the ground. I don’t know what you do with that. Do you want to go in there and
start breaking up concrete?
MR. METIVIER-Well, actually, if you really think about it, Mr. Jones is in compliance right
now. Because he has the stub in there. His site plan is in compliance. The fact that Stewarts
is here, if you just took that whole thing out, and we just moved on, he really doesn’t have to
come back because you’ve closed it off at this point.
MR. VOLLARO-That’s another logical position. He may want to clear, he may want to clear
his site plan. Would you like to come up again. I haven’t closed the public hearing yet, so
you can come up.
26
(Queensbury Planning Board 05/16/06)
MR. JONES-If Stewarts is approved without a future connection, then my future connection
could stay on my site plan. At some point in time, my tenants may change, and the future
connection may be something that’s realistic at that point, but the way the site is utilized and
the existing tenants make it prohibitive. They really do at this point, and I don’t have a
problem with it being shown as a future connection, and, I mean, we have a future connection
to the west. They have a future connection on the west side to the east, and that doesn’t
work. So, I mean, I guess you’re saying that they’re going to come in for a site plan
modification for the offices that were just constructed to the west of us, to take that off?
MR. VOLLARO-Well, we’d have to look. See, what we’re looking at now, we’re getting very
myopic in our view. We’re looking at a site plan. We don’t have the whole picture in front of
us. What we need to make a logical decision here is to have that site plan and all the site
plans to the west to see whether any kind of interconnection makes sense in traffic flow at all.
We don’t have that in front of us. So we’re void of information here in order to make that
kind of decision.
MR. JONES-The connection, I mean, we could leave the future connections on our site plan.
They could show it as a future connection, and if Stewarts tenants change. Right now they
have I think a conferencing space in the back side of their building, but if they change
tenants, and our tenants change, and the Health Center goes out in the back side, then it may
be realistic to do the interconnects, but at this point it isn’t, with the traffic flow that we have
for the bank, and I think the thing that really makes it difficult is the one way because of the
drive through.
MR. VOLLARO-I understand the traffic flow there. I’m beginning to put it together, even
though I don’t have the picture in front of me. I’m beginning to understand what you’re
talking about. I would just as soon let Stewarts go back, though, to their original plan, and
leave it at that.
MR. JONES-So would I.
MR. VOLLARO-And then you can make a decision on your own whether you want to come
back for site plan review or leave it that way.
MR. JONES-And I think in all honesty we would leave it that way at this point, because our
tenants may change, and it may be feasible at some point to do an interconnect, but right
now with the traffic flow, it is not.
MR. VOLLARO-Okay. I understand that.
MR. HUNSINGER-If I could ask one quick question, and I’m almost embarrassed to ask it,
though. Do you have a sidewalk on your site along Aviation Road?
MR. JONES-No, we don’t.
MR. HUNSINGER-Yes.
MR. VOLLARO-I like what you’re going to do in the PORC Committee, if I can just digress
for a minute, and say that you’re going to essentially, the plan, the proposal, it’s not cast in
stone obviously, but people who come before this Board would probably have to have a fee, a
sidewalk fee, that would be put in some sort of an escrow that said when the Town decides to
put a sidewalk from A to B that makes sense, they’ll do it out of that fund.
MR. HUNSINGER-Well, that was one concept put out there, yes.
MR. VOLLARO-To me, that makes sense. Okay.
MR. FORD-And that’s germane to this how? Never mind.
MR. VOLLARO-Okay. We’re going to make a, we’re going to have to table this site plan.
We understand what you’re going to do, now. You’re going to come back. S-1 is now going
to be injected into it. S-2 will be injected into it. S-3 stays the same, and you’re going to
answer C.T. Male’s questions on their two letters.
MR. FOWLER-Correct.
27
(Queensbury Planning Board 05/16/06)
MR. VOLLARO-So if somebody wants to make a motion. Do you understand what we’re
doing here? Remove the interconnect. We’re going to table it for him to come back with
that change. Because right now the official change is up in front of us, come back with that
change, and also come back with the answers to C.T. Male’s questions in their two letters.
MR. FORD-We’re approving the removal of the interconnect?
MR. VOLLARO-We’re going back to S-1, which does not have any interconnect at all.
MR. HUNSINGER-Well, this S-1 dated 5/9 does.
MR. VOLLARO-Well, that one, but the S-1 prior to this does not. I don’t have the other one
with me, but I know that there’s a prior S-1, prior S-2.
MR. FOWLER-That’s correct. The original applications.
MRS. BARDEN-Can you specify when Mr. Fowler should have that information back?
MR. VOLLARO-Sure. Do you want to make it other than what we have as regular?
MRS. BARDEN-Well, you’re asking him to come back next week. So tomorrow?
MR. SEGULJIC-Can you have it ready tomorrow?
MR. FOWLER-I can have it ready tomorrow. It may not have an engineer’s stamp on it,
but you’ll have everything.
MRS. BARDEN-Because we do have to get it to C.T. Male, and they need to respond as well,
and the meeting’s Monday.
MR. VOLLARO-The meeting is 22. So we’ve lost a day. Can you have it in by the 17?
th
MR. FOWLER-Yes, I can.
MR. VOLLARO-Okay. Does somebody want to table this?
MOTION TO TABLE SITE PLAN NO. 5-2006 STEWARTS SHOPS CORP. Introduced by
Anthony Metivier who moved for its adoption, seconded by Robert Vollaro:
Tabled to May 22. We’re looking for S-1 to reflect that you’re removing the interconnect
nd
and to respond to C.T. Male’s letters of March 14 and May 9 and C.T. Male sign-off. They
thth
have to have that information in by the end of business on May 17, 2006.
Duly adopted this 16 day of May 2006 by the following vote:
th
AYES: Mr. Metivier, Mr. Seguljic, Mr. Sipp, Mrs. Steffan, Mr. Vollaro
NOES: Mr. Hunsinger, Mr. Ford
MR. VOLLARO-I guess that’s it, folks.
MR. FOWLER-Thank you.
SITE PLAN NO. 19-2006 SEQR TYPE II ADIRONDACK FACTORY OUTLET CENTER
AGENT(S): DAVID KENNY OWNER(S): SAME ZONING HC-INT. LOCATION 1454
STATE ROUTE 9 APPLICANT PROPOSES A NEW 210 SQ. FT. COVERED ENTRANCE
LOCATED ON SOUTHEAST SECTION OF BUILDING. MODIFICATIONS TO SITE PLAN
REVIEW USES REQUIRE REVIEW BY THE PLANNING BOARD. CROSS REF. MANY
WARREN COUNTY PLANNING 5/10/06 LOT SIZE: 6.5 ACRES TAX MAP NO. 288.12-1-
22 SECTION 179-9-020
DAVID KENNY, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT
MR. VOLLARO-Would you introduce yourself for the record, please.
28
(Queensbury Planning Board 05/16/06)
MR. KENNY-Good evening, I’m David Kenny, the owner of the Adirondack Factory Outlet
Mall.
MR. VOLLARO-Thank you. There is a public hearing on this tonight. It’s a Type II action.
There’ll be no SEQRA. I, personally, as one Board member, have no comments, because I
want to listen to everybody else. Has anybody else got any comments on this?
MR. HUNSINGER-Well, we brought up the interconnect. I’m going to make a comment on
the interconnect.
MR. VOLLARO-Go right ahead.
MR. HUNSINGER-Mid-December I went shopping to the Outlet Centers, early on a
Saturday morning. Got a perfect parking spot. I parked at the center to the south of you,
knowing that I could walk that whole complex and then walk over to yours. There was a
snow bank this high. There was no way you were going to walk over there. So I had to get in
my car, even though I picked the perfect spot to shop both centers at the same time. So I had
to get in my car, drive out onto Route 9, to go 10 feet down the road.
MR. VOLLARO-The only thing I can say about that, I understand what you’ve done, but,
you know, maybe we can stop the snow bank. I don’t know. We live in a snow belt.
MR. KENNY-The sidewalks hadn’t been plowed yet.
MR. HUNSINGER-The pile was the size of this table. It wasn’t like it was this wide.
MR. KENNY-The Town takes care of that.
MR. METIVIER-Yes, I’ve seen the Town up there, the Bobcat that goes through there.
MR. KENNY-Yes. They hadn’t gotten to it yet. Usually that sidewalk that we put in is
plowed off.
MR. METIVIER-I have nothing on this application.
MR. VOLLARO-I think it enhances the store. The only question I have, and I see some
pictures here, the one question is, and I’m sure you’re going to have to replace some of the
handicap parking out front, or does it stay exactly where it is?
MR. KENNY-It stays exactly where it is. The only thing that happens is, if you look at this
picture I supplied,
MR. VOLLARO-I’m looking at it now.
MR. KENNY-The back is going to look like this. That will become a designated entrance
rather than have the whole back, as people walk up there. So that that will make that define
that as the entrance.
MR. VOLLARO-All right. I see. Okay.
MR. KENNY-So that it won’t come out any further than the awning is now, so it’s not going
to be coming in to the parking lot.
MR. VOLLARO-Okay. All your parking lot striping stays the same.
MR. KENNY-It stays the same.
MR. VOLLARO-I have no comments on this application. Does anybody else?
MR. FORD-I do not.
MRS. STEFFAN-I think it’s great.
MR. HUNSINGER-Yes, it looks great, too.
29
(Queensbury Planning Board 05/16/06)
MR. VOLLARO-Let’s make a motion to approve.
MR. METIVIER-You have to open the public hearing.
MR. VOLLARO-I’ll open the public hearing. Anybody have any questions on this at all?
PUBLIC HEARING OPENED
ERIC BUNYAN
MR. BUNYAN-Good evening. My name’s Eric Bunyan. I’m with Gordon Companies,
representative of Gordon Companies, who’s also the owner of Mountain View Outlets,
property just to the north, and my Company is very much in favor of these improvements of
Adirondack Outlet Mall and are also in favor of any improvements that would help bring
additional retailers into the Lake George Outlets, the Queensbury Outlets, and feel that all
businesses within the immediate proximity would benefit from improvements and bringing
additional retail tenants. Thank you.
MR. VOLLARO-Thank you very much. Does somebody want to move this? The public
hearing is closed.
PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED
MOTION TO APPROVE SITE PLAN NO. 19-2006 ADIRONDACK FACTORY OUTLET
CENTER, Introduced by Gretchen Steffan who moved for its adoption, seconded by Robert
Vollaro:
WHEREAS, a site plan application has been made to the Queensbury Planning Board for the
following; Applicant proposes a new 210 sq. ft. covered entrance located on southeast section
of building. Modifications to Site Plan Review uses require review by the Planning Board.;
and
WHEREAS, a public hearing was advertised and was held on 5/16/06; and
WHEREAS, this application is supported with all documentation, public comment and
application material in the file of record; and
WHEREAS, pursuant to relevant sections of the Town of Queensbury Zoning Code [Chapter
179], the Planning Board has determined that this proposal complies with the requirements
as stated in the Zoning Code, and waivers have been granted for landscaping, lighting, and
stormwater; and
WHEREAS, final approved plans, in compliance with the Site Plan, must be submitted to
the Community Development Department before any further review by the Zoning
Administrator or Building and Codes personnel. Subsequent issuance of further permits,
including building permits are dependent on receipt.
Duly adopted this 16 day of May 2006 by the following vote:
th
AYES: Mr. Hunsinger, Mr. Metivier, Mr. Ford, Mr. Seguljic, Mr. Sipp, Mrs. Steffan, Mr.
Vollaro
NOES: NONE
MR. VOLLARO-Thank you very much.
MR. KENNY-Thank you.
SITE PLAN NO. 66-2005 SEQR TYPE II MARTIN BARRINGTON, MARY DEVINE
AGENT(S): THOMAS FROST, JR. ARCHITECTURE OWNER(S) SAME ZONING WR-1A
LOCATION 84 BAY PARKWAY APPLICANT PROPOSES A 3,419 SQ. FT. SINGLE FAMILY
DWELLING WITH ATTACHED GARAGE WITHIN 50 FT. OF THE SHORELINE OF LAKE
GEORGE. ADDITIONALLY, A STONE PATIO AND WALKWAY LAKESIDE. HARD
SURFACING WITHIN 50 FEET OF THE SHORELINE REQUIRES SITE PLAN REVIEW BY
30
(Queensbury Planning Board 05/16/06)
THE PLANNING BOARD. CROSS REF. AV 85-05 WARREN COUNTY PLANNING 5/10/06
ADIRONDACK PARK AGENCY YES LOT SIZE 0.34 ACRES TAX MAP NO. 226.15-1-21
SECTION 179-6-060
MICHAEL O’CONNOR & TOM FROST, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT
MR. O'CONNOR-For the purpose of your record, I’m Michael O’Connor, from the law firm of
Little & O’Connor. I represent the applicants. With me is Tom Frost and Denise Platt from
Frost Architecture in Saratoga. We are here looking for site plan approval of placement of
hard material, hard fill, surfacing, I guess, within 50 feet of Lake George. What this involves
is a 324 foot permeable stone patio. If you take a look at the maps that have been submitted,
it is the area that is on the north side of the property. The stone are going to be two foot by
two foot blue stone, placed in stone with separation of about six inches, four inches between
them, less than that, so that the patio itself will be permeable, not non-permeable. This is
also, and it’s not clear, I don’t think, this is not a raised patio. If you come out the front steps
of the new home, and you go to the north, you will go down two steps into the patio. It’ll be
approximately 15 inches below grade. There’ll be a small wall around the outside of the
patio. This is the tail end, if you will, of a long process. This is a lot that has an existing
house on it and the people have gone through the Zoning Board of Appeals process and
obtained permission to demolish the existing house and build this house in its place. The
existing house, if I recall correctly, had like five bedrooms in it, but most of the bedrooms
wouldn’t comply with building codes because the height, the ceiling height, in most of the
rooms. A lot was done, and I’ll refer to one comment on the Staff comments, to try to
preserve an open space appearance on this lot and on the adjoining lots, and to take
advantage of the existing development of the adjoining lots, particularly the lot to the south,
the lands of Bolnar. Their camp, or their home is to the south of their lot, and by placing this
property or this house on the north end of the property, it preserved a good expanse of open
space between the two existing properties. Also, there was a great attempt here to preserve as
much of the existing vegetation as could be possible, and the house, in fact, has been cantered
a couple of times, moved a couple of times, trying to preserve trees, and in particular the tree
that Staff referred to. So that basically is what we have. As I understand it, this was
reviewed by C.T. Male, and Tom Jarrett is the engineer who did the stormwater, and we have
an e-mail from C.T. Male saying that they are basically satisfied based upon comments and
submittals that he’s made, and this is from Jim Houston to Craig Brown, and, Susan, I guess
it’s actually to the Town, with copies to us, and I don’t know if you have that in your packet
or not.
MRS. STEFFAN-What’s the date?
MR. O'CONNOR-May 16.
th
MRS. BARDEN-They do not.
MR. O'CONNOR-At 4:44. So you may not have had it. Your packets were prepared a little
bit before then. It says, “In response to our May 10, 2006 comment letter for the above
referenced project, we have received a comment response letter dated May 12, 2006 from
Jarrett-Martin Engineers. Additionally, we received excerpts from the revised plan sheets
through e-mail. We had some outstanding concerns which were brought to Jarrett-Martin’s
attention. Since then we have received a revised plan, S-1. The response plan and revised
drawings address our comments. We are prepared to issue a signoff letter for this project once
we receive a complete set of final revised plans.” My understanding is that they have been
submitted to the Town.
MR. VOLLARO-What is the date of, what date plan are they talking about? I have a site
plan dated 4/6/06, S-1, proposed site plan.
MR. O'CONNOR-Okay. I have a site plan with revisions 5/12/06.
MR. VOLLARO-So we’re not talking about the same thing, but let me say this. All this
Board is supposed to be doing under this is taking a look at hard surfacing within 50 feet of
Lake George. The rest of the stuff that I saw, C.T. Male information and so on, to me,
appeared extraneous. When I look at the 50 foot mark and the mean high water of 320.2 is
what it’s supposed to be. It’s not on here, but that’s okay. All I’m looking at is the hard
surfacing within that 50 feet, and so I don’t know why, I’ve had this conversation with our
Zoning Administrator today, as a matter of fact, and I don’t know what, the other
31
(Queensbury Planning Board 05/16/06)
information in there, to me, it’s extraneous. I’m looking at the patio that’s supposed to be
permeable.
MR. O'CONNOR-Yes, that’s your jurisdictional.
MR. HUNSINGER-I was going to say, I respectfully disagree, Mr. Chairman.
MR. VOLLARO-Do you?
MR. O'CONNOR-That is your jurisdictional portion.
MR. VOLLARO-That’s what we were told by our Zoning Administrator today, that the only
thing we were to be looking at was the hard surfacing within 50 feet, and that’s how it’s been
portrayed in the notes. If you look at what it says.
MR. HUNSINGER-I think that’s what requires them to come before us with a site plan, but
since we’re reviewing site plan, we’re open to discuss any item that’s on the site plan.
MR. VOLLARO-We had the same problem with Kurshion. It’s the same problem as
Kurshion, and, you know, Kurshion came before us with a site plan, and we were to do 50 feet
to the lake. Exactly the same situation as we have here.
MR. HUNSINGER-Yes, I remember that, and I felt the same way then as I do now.
MR. VOLLARO-You know what, I’m going to sympathize with you, because, and we still
haven’t settled this with the Zoning Administrator. Our Code says.
MR. HUNSINGER-Well, he doesn’t need to hear our.
MR. VOLLARO-I think he does. I think our Code says that if a site plan is, we are to review
the entire plan, our Code says that.
MR. HUNSINGER-Right.
MR. VOLLARO-The Zoning Administrator said, no, the only thing you’re supposed to be
doing on this is reviewing within 50 foot of the lake. We have to resolve this yet, between
Staff and ourselves, frankly.
MR. HUNSINGER-Okay.
MR. SEGULJIC-And I agree with Mr. Hunsinger on that, for the record.
MR. VOLLARO-I also agree with Chris, but I’m trying to determine in my mind what the
Zoning Administrator is telling us we are supposed to take a look at. I feel we’re supposed to
take a look at this entire site plan here, because it’s exactly what it says in our Code. The
reason I’m saying this, gentlemen is to get this on the record. I happen to agree 100% with
what Mr. Hunsinger is saying, and I agree with what Mr. Seguljic is saying, and I think the
rest of the Board may agree, but right now, we’ve been, and the way this is written, it says
only the first 50 feet. We’ve got to determine, when something comes before us as a site plan,
we’ve got purview to look at the entire plan, and our Code says that.
MR. FORD-I think this is a perfect example, because had this entire site plan looked at
placing that garage and that entire structure, including the patio, back closer to Bay
Parkway, this wouldn’t even be an issue.
MR. VOLLARO-What wouldn’t be an issue?
MR. FORD-What we’re supposed to be confining our discussion to, the stone patio.
MR. VOLLARO-Okay.
MR. FORD-It would be back outside that 50 foot zone.
MR. O'CONNOR-The provisions that you’re looking at, though, don’t say that you don’t
necessarily have hard surfacing within 50 feet. It says that any time that you do place hard
32
(Queensbury Planning Board 05/16/06)
surfacing within 50 feet, it requires your review to make sure that it’s done in an appropriate
manner so as not to impact. You’re going to have a lot of hard surfacing within 50 feet of
lakes, streams and what not, and that’s what gives you your jurisdiction. It doesn’t say it’s
prohibited. It says it requires your review of it to make sure that we do it in a manner that
will not impact the lake. This particular patio being set up so t hat it’s impervious and set up
so that it’s below surface, I think greatly answers any of the issues or questions that you
might have.
MR. VOLLARO-Even the wood walkway, it’s been determined that there’s a certain amount
of porosity to that, to the wood walkway as well.
MR. O'CONNOR-It’s slotted so that it will still drain.
MR. FORD-Water will drain between?
MR. O'CONNOR-Yes, and I didn’t necessarily start off, and you may be looking at this and
have a lot of questions. I can go back and historically tell you, we’ve improved the setback
from the Parkway. We’ve improved the setback from the north boundary. We have letters
from both the party on the north and the south and from some of the other neighbors who
came who said that they thought that we had done a great job in doing this. We actually
moved the house back from the lake, which was the main concern. I think the main structure
before was 41 plus change from the lake, and this main structure now is 52 feet. So we made a
lot of trades when we went through the process.
MR. FORD-I understand that.
MR. O'CONNOR-Okay.
MR. FORD-I did some research on the history of it. So, thank you.
MR. VOLLARO-The letter from C.T. Male addressing Jarrett’s concerns have been
submitted to Staff?
MR. O’CONNOR-I believe so.
MR. VOLLARO-Do we have that letter in the file?
MRS. BARDEN-I have a letter dated May 12 to the Chairman and to the Board from
th
Jarrett-Martin addressing C.T. Male’s letter dated May 10 and revised drawings. I have an
th
e-mail, I have one in-between. I have an e-mail from Jim Houston to Tom Jarrett, dated
Friday, May 12, responding to comments, and then finally the e-mail that Mr. O’Connor
th
just submitted dated today, which he read into the record.
MR. VOLLARO-Okay.
MRS. BARDEN-So you’re correct. You don’t have the revised drawings.
MR. VOLLARO-We don’t have the revised drawings at all, no, and if we’re going to do a
complete site plan review, which I think is required, we should be doing it, past practice was
that we do that when we have the current drawing before us and not the prior drawing,
because the revised drawing reflects some of the work that Mr. Houston had asked Mr. Jarrett
to do. Is that correct?
MR. O'CONNOR-All which had to do with stormwater, not with regard to the placement of
the patio. The drawing is still the same, I believe, as to the placement of the patio. Your
drawing before you has not changed in any manner.
MR. VOLLARO-No, but there is some, on the drawing I believe there’s a depiction in that
drawing by Mr. Jarrett of, and I guess it’s on handling the stormwater. Does this drawing
change? It’s called Detail 1C-1?
MR. FROST-That changes. EC-1 is a change, and our site plan has been updated, and all
copies of that were given to Staff yesterday. They’re sitting right there in a pile.
MR. VOLLARO-But I don’t have it.
33
(Queensbury Planning Board 05/16/06)
MR. FROST-I don’t understand why you don’t.
MR. O'CONNOR-This was initially submitted to the Town March 15. I mean, we have a
th
little bit of a problem with the fact that we didn’t even hear from C.T. Male until this week or
the beginning of last week, which is maybe an internal problem that should be something
that’s addressed. You now have a letter before you that says that they will sign off, or that
they have signed off.
MR. VOLLARO-We don’t have a letter before us. That’s part of the problem.
MR. O'CONNOR-You have 15 copies of it right there.
MRS. BARDEN-They do, but the Planning Board has a policy that they do not accept
information.
MR. O'CONNOR-Even from your own consultants?
MR. FROST-We understand that. I’d like to just address the timing of this. We received a
fax from C.T. Male on the 10. That was Wednesday. On that evening, I made a wild goose
th
chase to the Warren County Planning Board, on the advice of Staff, and I ran into Tom
Jarrett, handed him a copy of the letter from C.T. Male, it had eight points that needed to be
addressed. Most of them landed in his jurisdiction, Jarrett’s jurisdiction. The next day he
made all the changes he could to his drawings, advised us of the changes we needed to make
to our site plan. That was a Thursday. We got this stuff to C.T. Male probably Friday by e-
mail, giving C.T. Male a day, maybe, to review it, revise it if necessary, get back to Tom
Jarrett with comments, then get back to the Planning Board with his approval, which he
finally e-mailed tonight. You want this a day in advance, and that’s understandable, but we
had a weekend in there. This doesn’t make sense when we had the drawings in, the same
drawings in that C.T. Male reviewed and wrote a review of on Wednesday. We had them in to
Staff on March 15, two months ago. So why, in the last minute, are we dealing with these
th
things? And you, right now, don’t have, I mean, I understand why you don’t want to be
faced with this stuff, the day before. I understand it can’t be distributed, but it at least could
be sitting in front of you.
MR. VOLLARO-Don’t forget, when I did, or maybe other Board members, I worked on this
Sunday afternoon, and it was my understanding that this was it. Sunday afternoon, you
can’t talk to anybody. You sit in your own knothole and you do the best you can with this
stuff. When I’m working that way and the wrong material, it’s just a day wasted to me, or
time wasted.
MR. FROST-I understand.
MR. O’CONNOR-The system has got to be changed, but let me go back to the substance of
what we’re talking about. The comments from C.T. Male had to do with the stormwater.
We’ve satisfied those comments. I don’t know what is outstanding, and what you’re talking
about being submitted the night of your meeting is from your own consultant. That doesn’t
seem like it’s something that’s going to cause a delay for us, unless you’re going to supersede
your own consultant on stormwater.
MR. VOLLARO-No. I’m looking from Jim Houston. It says we had some outstanding
concerns which were brought to Jarrett-Martin’s attention. Since then, we have received a
revised S-1 plan. The response letter and revised drawings address our comments. We are
prepared to issue a signoff letter for this project once we receive a full set of final revised
plans. That means he doesn’t have the final revised plans, and that means Staff has got to
get those final revised plans in to Jim Houston and he looks them over and then he said he’s
prepared to make a signoff letter.
MR. O'CONNOR-What I would ask for is your approval subject to his satisfaction. If he’s
not satisfied with what’s submitted, we would then come back. I don’t know why you would
make an applicant come back to have him say that he’s finally satisfied, and I have a little bit
of the history of that. C.T. Male isn’t under an agenda quota that I’m aware of. Are they or
not? I mean, they should have gotten this packet in March, because we were headed for the
April agenda, and we got bumped because of other matters on your agenda, but that
34
(Queensbury Planning Board 05/16/06)
shouldn’t have bumped us or changed the timetable of review by C.T. Male. I don’t
understand that.
MR. HUNSINGER-I guess what I was going to ask, Mr. O’Connor, I mean, when I looked at
this and I can only speak for myself. I can’t speak for the rest of the Board, but when I
looked at this, I really didn’t see anything that would cause me any concern. I mean, I really
felt as if it would be something that we could approve this evening. So maybe what would
make the most sense would be for you to maybe outline what changes were made to S-1. I
mean, I imagine they’re pretty minor, and then, you know, we can make, collectively make a
decision on the Board if we think it’s, you know, I mean, does that make sense, Mr.
Chairman?
MR. O'CONNOR-We’d be happy to try to do that.
MR. VOLLARO-Yes.
MR. HUNSINGER-I mean, I understand what you’re saying is you want to have the most
up to date drawings, and we all do, but, I mean, in this case it seems pretty straight forward.
MR. VOLLARO-We made a resolution here, not too long ago. We made a resolution on this
Board, and I think you were present when we made the resolution on this Board, that said we
would not accept new information on the night of the meeting, and really we don’t have the
current information in front of us. It’s really bothersome that I sit down and review these
things and sit before this Board and find out that what I reviewed is essentially not correct.
MR. HUNSINGER-I feel the same way. Believe me I do.
MR. FORD-I went on site with this document.
MR. HUNSINGER-That’s not the applicant’s fault. It’s not our fault, and I think in this
case, you know, if there was some major change or some, you know, glaring major issues here,
I think that would be one thing, but I thought it looked pretty straightforward. That’s just
my opinion.
MR. VOLLARO-Yes. I think it’s straightforward, too. I think this is a matter, mostly, of
process versus, you know, not having the right stuff before us. I’m neglecting to read this,
because it’s an e-mail that went out on Sunday to Craig Brown, Sunday at about 4:30, but I’ll
read it anyway. It’s Sunday afternoon and I’m looking over Martin Barrington and Mary
Devine’s Site Plan 66-2005, hard surfacing within 50 feet of shoreline requires site plan review
by the Planning Board. This application is loaded with current and proposed drawings, a
detailed septic design, Eljen system, supported by design details, stamped by Keith R. Manz,
professional engineer, stormwater plans and calculations by Tom Jarrett, P.E., C.T. Male
Engineering report dated 5/10/06, eight items unanswered. All this is for hard surfacing
within 50 feet of the shoreline. How does this application differ from Site Plan 9-2006 for
Steven Kurshion? Does Barrington have a building permit like Kurshion did? We need to go
over this one more time before Tuesday night so I know what you’re thinking and what we
should be doing on this one. That’s the e-mail. So that’s how confused I was on Sunday, just
so you know. Okay. Now, where do we want to go with this?
MR. HUNSINGER-Well, I made a suggestion that the applicant walk through the changes
that were made to S-1 from what we reviewed, and then we can individually and collectively
make a determination if we think they’re significant enough to table the application or if we
feel comfortable moving forward.
MR. VOLLARO-Okay. It’s a good proposal. Gretchen, how do you feel about that?
MRS. STEFFAN-It sounds reasonable.
MR. VOLLARO-Tony?
MR. METIVIER-Absolutely.
MR. VOLLARO-Okay. How about you, Don?
MR. SIPP-Yes.
35
(Queensbury Planning Board 05/16/06)
MR. SEGULJIC-Run with it.
MR. FORD-Go for it.
MR. VOLLARO-All right. Why don’t we start off with C-1, which is the Jarrett-Martin
Engineers stormwater program. Are there any changes to that from the C-1 drawing that’s
dated October 2005, 10/17/05?
MR. FROST-I believe on that one he has identified the actual brand and manufacturer of the
trench drain that’s in the driveway. That’s one of the additions he put on that.
MR. VOLLARO-The calculations haven’t changed on your stormwater calc’s?
MR. FROST-The calculations should be the same. I think that’s the only change. That’s the
only change on that one, I believe.
MR. VOLLARO-Okay.
MR. FROST-And EC-1, basically that details a silt fence, and the silt fence was added to the
site plan. So the revised silt plan shows a silt fence that would be in place during
construction.
MR. VOLLARO-And that would be?
MR. FROST-That would be S-1.
MR. VOLLARO-Okay.
MR. FROST-The site plan, the revised site plan, does now show that silt fence. That’s, again,
not something you have in front of you. I think in general there was a question about
removal of the existing septic system, because we’re putting in a new one, and there’s a note,
now, on the site plan that states that the septic tank will be removed, and the entire existing
drain field will also be removed prior to placing the new system, that the backfill in those
areas that would be under the new footprint of, the footprint of the new building, those areas
would be backfilled according to architect specifications.
MR. VOLLARO-What about the material you’re taking out?
MR. FROST-The material we’re taking out will be sent to an approved toxic waste landfill. I
can’t remember the wording. Waste material from the former system would be disposed of off
site at an approved solid waste facility. That really answered, I think, the major questions on
the septic system. One, I think C.T. Male had asked for an invert elevation of the drain field,
relative to contours. We did not have a contour map, and that was one of their questions as
to why not. Basically, what we’re saying is that that invert elevation is 30 inches below
grade. We have some spot elevations on the site plan, but they’re architect spot elevations.
So we would say they might be off six inches because we did it with an eye level. They were
good enough for us designing the house and making sure we had things in the right place on
the site, and apparently Jim Houston has agreed that we don’t actually need a topographic
survey for this. One of the other things that deals with the stormwater was a comment from
C.T. Male that suggested that we treat some of the stormwater, other than what’s in the
driveway. The main stormwater that Tom Jarrett was concerned about initially was the
driveway and runoff from the garage roof onto the driveway, because he felt that that was an
area where there’d be more contaminants than any other location, and to really get rid of that
stormwater. What we’d done, to satisfy C.T. Male’s suggestion, was put a second, or another
stormwater distribution unit, just in front of the patio that you gentlemen are looking at.
That patio, his notes actually say it’s going to be under the patio, but we’re putting it in front
of it, between the patio and the lake.
MR. VOLLARO-So does that change now appear on the S-1 that we talked about?
MR. FROST-Yes, it’s on the new S-1 site plan.
MR. VOLLARO-So there’s two changes. There’s the one you mentioned with the silt fences
that is not on here, that is on the new S-1.
36
(Queensbury Planning Board 05/16/06)
MR. FROST-Silt fences on the new S-1. The notes about the septic system removal are on S-
1. That new stormwater drainage piece is on there, just in front of the patio.
MR. FORD-What’s the size of that, please?
MR. FROST-It’s one of the units. They’re 10 feet by 30 inches, I think, or whatever they are,
on his C-1.
MR. VOLLARO-It’s this unit, Tom.
MR. FROST-I’m sorry, seven and a half feet long by thirty-six inches wide. It’s one of those
typical units that’s placed under the driveway.
MR. VOLLARO-You’re showing us what we should be having?
MR. O'CONNOR-That’s what you have copies of right there.
MR. VOLLARO-So this is all new on the drawing?
MR. O’CONNOR-Yes.
MR. VOLLARO-Okay, and the silt fence is where?
MR. O'CONNOR-The silt fence is right here.
MR. VOLLARO-Okay. What it does is totally violate the process.
MR. FORD-Exactly.
MR. O'CONNOR-Is that your task to approve the stormwater?
MR. VOLLARO-Once you get on to a site plan like this, stormwater is a big problem for us,
always has been. In other words, we’re charged with making sure stormwater doesn’t, that
the runoff is not any greater than it was before the site plan was put together.
MR. O'CONNOR-New construction, which is what this is determined, it’s not a modification
of an existing structure, I can go there for the record, a new construction, my understanding
is there is no Planning Board review, on a single family house.
MR. VOLLARO-You’re absolutely correct.
MR. O'CONNOR-If this were an existing blank lot, or it would be a blank lot after
demolition, and it’s not a modification, there is no site plan review.
MR. METIVIER-You’re meeting the setbacks. You got your variance.
MR. O'CONNOR-With variances, we meet the setbacks.
MR. METIVIER-Exactly.
MR. O'CONNOR-The only thing that brings us here, I guess, is that 300 square foot.
MR. METIVIER-And actually next week I think we have two of those on the agenda, the
same thing.
MR. O'CONNOR-Patios.
MR. HUNSINGER-Yes.
MR. O'CONNOR-Do they come in with just plans for the patio? Which was a question.
MR. METIVIER-Yes, actually they did.
MR. O'CONNOR-With just plans for the patio?
37
(Queensbury Planning Board 05/16/06)
MR. METIVIER-Yes.
MR. O'CONNOR-Okay. So, by giving you all the information, we don’t have a problem with
you reviewing it, because we think we’ve satisfied C.T. Male.
MR. SEGULJIC-However, keep in mind, you are in a Critical Environmental Area.
MR. O'CONNOR-That doesn’t change the rules.
MR. SEGULJIC-It gives us more latitude.
MR. METIVIER-And actually overall this site.
MR. O'CONNOR-We’re satisfied that we meet and exceed the stormwater issues. So I think
you’ve got an in-house jurisdictional issue that Mr. Hunsinger raised. I don’t know how you
answer it myself. I’m not going to suggest how to answer it. How do we go forward?
MR. SEGULJIC-I have a couple of issues.
MR. VOLLARO-Go ahead, Tom.
MR. SEGULJIC-You refer to the patio as a permeable stone patio.
MR. O'CONNOR-Yes.
MR. SEGULJIC-However you said they were two by two foot flagstones I believe?
MR. O'CONNOR-Yes.
MR. SEGULJIC-When I look at the drawing, there’s absolutely no space between the stones.
MR. FROST-There’s a one inch space, typically, between the stones. I don’t know what
drawing that is.
MR. SEGULJIC-I’m looking at A3.1. I guess you do refer to it as a one inch joint.
MR. HUNSINGER-Yes, one inch joint.
MR. FROST-It just refers to it.
MR. SEGULJIC-Well, as I look at it further.
MR. FROST-See the note? That’s a section through the patio, okay.
MR. SEGULJIC-But when you look at our definition of what permeable is, it says ground
surface through which water can percolate in a natural manner. Said ground surface could be
undisturbed, natural terrain, or a landscaped area with generally unpaved surfaces. In my
opinion, that’s not a permeable stone patio, then.
MR. VOLLARO-Yes. What kind of material are you using?
MR. FROST-Well, it’s a flagstone material. It has dry joints in between it. So any rain that
goes into that patio will just go down between the joints in the stones to a sand and then
gravel base underneath the whole thing.
MR. SEGULJIC-Well, I guess my thing is I would like to see it accurately, it is impervious, in
my opinion. I don’t have a problem with the patio in and of itself, understood. Okay.
MR. VOLLARO-What we normally do is even gravel surfaces, in our reviews, site plan, even
gravel surfaces are considered to be impervious areas, and we count them in terms of when we
do our, you know.
MR. O'CONNOR-Gravel areas are likely to be impacted, so that they don’t drain in a normal
sense, I think is what your definition is. Susan can look that up.
38
(Queensbury Planning Board 05/16/06)
MR. VOLLARO-Well, no, it’s very clear. It says that.
MR. O'CONNOR-You’re talking about parking areas.
MR. VOLLARO-No. We’re talking about gravel surfaces. When we do permeability
analysis, those surfaces are considered to be non-permeable. There’s a site plan analysis.
MR. O'CONNOR-I don’t know, materially, if you differ with opinion, I respect that. I think
if you go back, the percent of non-permeability is 20.36, without including that patio. If you
include that patio, you’re still going to be well below requirement.
MR. SEGULJIC-I don’t have a problem with that. It’s just that this patio is represented as
being permeable. I don’t think it is.
MR. O'CONNOR-We spoke of that with the people from the Waterkeeper, with the Zoning
Board, and said this is how we would treat it, and this is the material we would have, and
they seemed to be satisfied, and I’m not sure who started the term of permeable or non-
permeable, but we were, there’s a letter back in the zoning file from the, either the Lake
George Association or from the Waterkeeper saying that they wanted to be sure the drainage
of the patio was addressed.
MR. VOLLARO-Yes. In looking at the Site Development Data, I see where the permeability
existing was 65. You’re now at 79.7%, on the proposed house. So it looks like the
permeability has gone up from the original plan. Is that correct, or am I wrong?
Permeability was 65% on the existing plan.
MR. O'CONNOR-Just the reverse. No, on the existing house, it was 85. It was, non-
permeable was 14.5.
MR. VOLLARO-Am I looking at the right Site Development Data plan? Is this it?
MR. O'CONNOR-This one here?
MR. VOLLARO-And it says existing house, and it says permeability required is 65%, and
what you’ve got is 79%, 14 and a half, I’m sorry, 14.5.
MR. O'CONNOR-Yes, that would have been 85.
MR. VOLLARO-Right. It says 85.
MR. O'CONNOR-And we’re moving that to 70.
MR. VOLLARO-Seventy-nine percent. So whether the patio is or is not permeable will
probably not take you down to the requirement of 65. Okay. See, all of these things are fine
when we talk about them here. It all makes sense, but the record is now unclear. The record
that Staff will hold is an unclear record of what, I mean, all we now have to do is go through
everything that was said on these microphones and try to piece it all together, and that’s just
the wrong way to do it.
MR. O'CONNOR-My suggestion is, if you’re satisfied with C.T. Male’s approval, or their
approval that is to condition your approval for the patio based upon them being satisfied that
all the changes that they made are accepted, be shown on a set of plans, and you give us 10
days to submit it to them, and then we go from there.
MR. VOLLARO-See, it says we are prepared to issue a signoff letter for this project once we
receive a complete set of finalized revised drawings.
MR. HUNSINGER-Does everyone on the Board understand that this patio is going to be
down in the ground?
MR. VOLLARO-In the view that I looked at it, I thought it was going to be level with the
top of the.
MR. O'CONNOR-The ground surface?
39
(Queensbury Planning Board 05/16/06)
MR. VOLLARO-No.
MR. O'CONNOR-That said 15 inches below ground.
MR. HUNSINGER-Yes.
MR. SEGULJIC-My thing is just accuracy. I don’t think it’s permeable. It’s impervious
surface. That’s all.
MR. HUNSINGER-Yes. I understand the point you were making, Tom.
MR. SEGULJIC-With regards to the septic system, did you look at holding tanks at all?
MR. METIVIER-You can’t do holding tanks.
MR. SEGULJIC-Why not?
MR. METIVIER-Because you can’t do holding tanks anymore in the Town of Queensbury,
unless it’s a seasonal residence.
MR. O'CONNOR-The holding tank, or the septic system as proposed is in full compliance. In
fact, they changed the house so that they didn’t need variances for that. The back of the
house was wider at one point and we had to bring the house over so you got the proper
separation, maintained the proper separation from the Town line and maintained the proper
separation from the side line. They did perc tests. They did a soil sample.
MR. VOLLARO-Yes. All the details concerning the septic, this is an Eljen system, by the
way, so that everybody knows, but all the details and calculations that were done on the
Eljen system were stamped off by Keith R. Manz, who is a P.E., on the whole septic system
design. I don’t have a problem with that. Once I see a P.E. stamp on that.
MR. METIVIER-Frankly, we can’t, I mean, I hate to say it, but we don’t, we’re not looking
at that, again. The fact remains.
MR. VOLLARO-We do have a public hearing. I know there’s going to be somebody that
wants to talk to the public hearing on this. I know who he is, as a matter of fact. So I will
open the public hearing. Let’s give the public a chance to talk to this application.
PUBLIC HEARING OPENED
JOHN SALVADOR
MR. SALVADOR-My name is John Salvador, and I’ve listened to you debate this issue, and
I just have a few quick comments before I make my little presentation. With all the
questions arising, I think the Zoning Administrator should be present at these meetings.
There’s good grounds today to just table this application. There are too many open
questions. With regard to your differences with the Zoning Administrator and his opinions,
anyone can take an appeal of the Zoning Administrator’s determination. You can
individually or as a Board take an appeal.
MR. VOLLARO-On Kurshion he’s already going to come before the Board. I’ve requested
that he be here for a determination of the Kurshion site plan application.
MR. SALVADOR-Some of these issues have to be settled in an arena where they can be
discussed, and that’s the ZBA, and if you want to take an appeal of his determination, you
can do that, and we’ll be right behind you. Okay. Your hard and fast rules about not
accepting any new information, I think that applies only to the applicant and not to the
public. Otherwise, what is the purpose of a public hearing, but to gather information. That’s
why I’m here tonight, to make you aware of something I don’t think you’re aware of. I agree
100% that this stone patio is not impervious. You take these size stones, put them down on
the ground, let them sit there for two, three weeks, a month, go pick up the stone. It’s bone
dry underneath, and all the bugs and creepy crawlies are living under there, and they don’t
live in water. The only area that might be impervious is that one inch space, that’s the only
area that might be impervious. The way this is designed, it will probably fill up like a
40
(Queensbury Planning Board 05/16/06)
bathtub. As I listen, it sounds to me like you’ve got three professional engineers beating up
on the same site plan. I don’t know how that works. There is a Staff note here with regard to
the stormwater. It just says, the proposed stormwater management plan should be discussed.
What that means, I’m not sure. In any case, I just have a few comments about this. I notice
that Staff continues to characterize this portion of the Barrington/Devine residential
development as a Type II Action for purposes of SEQRA review. When this project in a
somewhat different form, first entered the review process in November, before the ZBA, it
was also determined to be a Type II Action, that is not requiring SEQRA review, but also
missed the fact that the project is in a CEA, as Mr. Seguljic remarked. I appeared at the
November ZBA hearing and I made this presentation. I’ll read a couple of sentences, and
then I’ll read you Mr. Abbate’s response. The Lake George Park Commission has put a
Critical Environmental Area in place along the shoreline of Lake George. That went back 500
feet from the lake, and the Critical Environmental Area finds its definition in the SEQRA
law. A Critical Environmental Area means a specific geographic area designated by a State or
Local agency having exceptional and unique environmental characteristics. The Town
Planning Board is the only Board that can address issues of SEQRA, and the Critical
Environmental Area, and it seems to have been eliminated in this case. What I’m saying
there is that Staff, in their framing of the project, did not include the fact that it is in a CEA.
This project is in a designated CEA. Now I wanted to give Mr. Abbate this document, and he
refused to accept it. He said to me, I’m sorry, I won’t accept any information, any document
at this late time, and so I walked away with this in my hand, but I’d like to make it available
to you. This is a document that was received by Mr. Stephen Borgos, the Supervisor at that
time, on October 13, 1988. It’s from the Lake George Park Commission. “Dear Mr. Borgos:
On May 11, 1988, the Lake George Park Commission adopted rules and regulations
promulgated as Part 645 and 646 of Title 6NYCRR. Regulations took effect June 3. A notice
of adoption of these rules and regulations is included. Notification of adoption of State
Environmental Quality Review Act procedures, Lake George Park Commission. The
Regulations are intended to implement the State Environmental Quality Review Act for
Commission actions and establish environmental review procedures, designate certain actions
as Type I or Type II actions, pursuant to 6NYCRR 617 and delineate a Critical
Environmental Area consisting of Lake George and the near short area within 500 feet of the
mean high water mark. That’s in the law. Let me continue. I’ll leave this copy with you.
MR. VOLLARO-Actually, we’ve reviewed all, I have, and most of this Board, has reviewed
all of NYCRR Part 617 from Point One through Point Fourteen, and I agree that it
specifically states that if it’s a Type II, and then it goes on to talk about the fact that the
Type II shall not impact in any way the Critical Environmental Area, and we’ve just changed
one here from Type II to Unlisted because of what we read in 617.
MR. SALVADOR-Okay. May I? The project size and style has since been modified so as to
attempt to escape serious site plan review except for hard surfacing within 50 feet of the
shoreline. The activity called hard surfacing, although not defined in the Town Code, is one
of many activities regulated under Section 179-6-060, titled Shoreline and Wetland
Regulations. Mr. O’Connor will agree with me that in another neighboring Town this subject
is treated as an overlay zone. They call it a shoreline overlay zone. So we have shoreline and
wetland regulations which is nothing more than an overlay zone. Shoreline and Wetland
Regulations has four parts. There’s a purpose. There are regulations for cutting and
planting. There are contractual access requirements, and then there is something called
Miscellaneous. Section 179-6-060D, Miscellaneous, has two parts, sewage facilities and
alteration to the shoreline. One of the aspects of alterations to the shoreline are specific
conditions that apply, and one of four specific conditions is shoreline fill and hard surfacing.
Okay. Section 179-6-060D(2)(E)4 allows hard surfacing within certain site activities being
exempt from this part. However, driveways which exceed 15 feet in width are not. I believe
the plan shows a 24 foot, plus or minus, driveway. There has been no application for a
variance from this limitation. Section 179-6-060D, and Paragraph One there under, requires
all sewage facilities in the shoreline are to comply with Chapter 136, Sewers and Sewage
Disposal. The proposed on-site wastewater treatment system, as designed and located, is not
compatible with Chapter 136.
MR. VOLLARO-You’re saying 136 does not address Eljen systems. Is that what you’re
saying?
MR. SALVADOR-It does not address the type of system of which Eljen is one. Okay. Eljen
is a manufacturer’s, okay, the Eljen system is what we call a gravelous system. It’s a
41
(Queensbury Planning Board 05/16/06)
gravelous system. Our Code does not allow a gravelous system. It doesn’t address it. Now
we’re using these Eljen systems all over the countryside. Why don’t we change the Code.
MR. VOLLARO-John, I just heard the buzzer, and it’s a quarter to ten, so I think I’ve got a
pretty good idea of where you’re going with this.
MR. SALVADOR-I’ve got a couple of more.
MR. VOLLARO-Well, I don’t want to let it run too long, John. We’ve got a rule on. A little
bit later, if you want to come back, we’ll let you come back. Let’s see how this thing goes.
MR. SALVADOR-I’d like to come back later, if I may.
MR. VOLLARO-Yes, you may, but I don’t want to let this thing run, because if this goes by
eleven o’clock, I’m going to close this meeting. It’s written right on the top of this.
PETER BROTHERS
MR. BROTHERS-Good evening. I’m Peter Brothers. I am a resident there on Assembly
Point, and my parents have owned property there for a long time, over 30 years, and
certainly enjoyed the area a lot. It’s a beautiful area, and we certainly would like it to remain
a nice area, and what we have seen, unfortunately, in the last few years, is housing going up,
people coming in and seeing maybe buying property with a small house, a shack, whatever, or
maybe even a nice residence such as even this place here on Bay Parkway, and just bulldozing
it and building a McMansion, which, you know, when you’re looking, in a boat, from the
shoreline, it’s very unsightly, and I’m very concerned about that. I should also mention, with
regard to the Zoning Board, I think Mr. Stone is one of the ZBA members, and I do feel that
while he’s not on this Board, I do feel it’s important to see how the vote got the decision
carried to this Board, I feel that he has a conflict with not only being a member of this Board
evaluating decision making and also being on the Board of the Lake George Association
which is supposed to, I believe, be a watch dog for the protection of the lake, and I feel that
that was a conflict in his decision, and I also feel that Mr. Rigby, I think, if I recall correctly,
I think he was at this meeting, I didn’t get a chance to check the minutes before here, but I
feel that it was a conflict for him as well, being that he, I believe, does some work with the
Fund. I do not know exactly, either accountant or whatever, but I just feel that his, if he was
involved in that decision.
MR. VOLLARO-You’re talking about the decision that the ZBA made?
MR. BROTHERS-Yes, and how that got to this point. So I just wanted to try to keep it
very simple, and I in no way represent either organization whatsoever. It’s just my personal
opinion. I just would like you to think seriously about the impact of the proposed project,
and what it might do, environmentally speaking, to the area, and I’d certainly concur with
Mr. Seguljic being a Critical Environmental Area. I would like that to be taken seriously into
consideration as you are evaluating this project.
MR. VOLLARO-Well, one of the things that came before this Board a few minutes ago from
Mr. Salvador that I didn’t realize was a very distinct word, and that is a designated CEA has
a connotation that it’s been through review. It’s been through public hearing, and that’s how
it gets designated as a CEA, and I didn’t realize that certainly the frontage of Lake George
was the designated CEA until just now.
MR. BROTHERS-Okay.
MR. VOLLARO-Because 617 talks specifically to designated CEA’s.
MR. BROTHERS-Okay. Well, I’m hopeful, I’m confident that the Board will make the
right decision and certainly appreciate your taking the time this evening to let me speak
before your Board. Thank you, and thanks for your consideration in whatever decision you
make.
MR. VOLLARO-Okay. Thank you. Anybody else out there want to speak to this
application for Martin Barrington/Mary Devine?
42
(Queensbury Planning Board 05/16/06)
MRS. BARDEN-I have one written correspondence. Dated May 16. To Mr. Vollaro,
th
Chairman of the Town of Queensbury Planning Board. This is from Chris Navitsky, P.E.,
Lake George Waterkeeper. “Dear Mr. Vollaro: I have reviewed the above referenced
application for Site Plan review. I’m unable to attend the Planning Board meeting due to a
conflict, but would like to submit the following comments for consideration. 1. There are
questions regarding the on-site wastewater treatment system. This project is considered new
construction, and therefore there should be a 200 foot separation distance from Lake George,
a public drinking water source, for the new on-site wastewater treatment system. If this
requirement cannot be met, additional wastewater treatment should be provided. It should
be determined whether there will be garbage grinders in the new house. Garbage grinders are
not permitted to discharge to Eljen systems as per manufacturer’s recommendations.
Additionally, the septic tank size should be increased if spas and/or garbage grinders are
provided. 2. There are concerns about the proposed stormwater management system. The
project is designed as a minor stormwater project. The project is located within a Critical
Environmental Area, i.e. within 500 feet of Lake George, as determined by the Lake George
Park Commission, and therefore the Planning Board should treat the project as a major
stormwater project. It does not appear that all the runoff from impervious surfaces will be
directed to the infiltration system. Based on the grading at the site, it appears the trench
drain will collect runoff from Bay Parkway, which will reduce the volume available for
stormwater management from the project site. Additional information should be provided for
the grading. Thank you for your consideration. I look forward to working with the Town of
Queensbury Planning Board in defending the natural resources of Lake George and its basin.
Sincerely, Christopher Navitsky”
MR. VOLLARO-Thank you.
MRS. BARDEN-You’re welcome.
MR. VOLLARO-I never got to see a copy of that letter. So I don’t know, did it come in, did I
get a copy of it?
MRS. BARDEN-Today, May 16. Faxed.
th
MR. VOLLARO-Okay. I don’t have that, either. How does the Board feel about where we
ought to go with this?
MR. METIVIER-Well, you know, I was just thinking, listening to that letter, with all the
monstrosities that have gone up in Lake George in the past year, I mean, we’re dwelling on
this application for well over an hour, and really for no reason, except for the patio. I mean,
the house is going to be excessive. It’s actually an overall improvement, however, I
personally love this house and it breaks my heart, but that’s a personal thing. It’s an overall
improvement to the site. You’re getting the house off the lake a little bit. Any time you have
a brand new septic system put in, I don’t care, it’s an improvement, because you have no idea
what’s there. It could be an old barrel, and believe me, a lot of those are old barrels. So, you
know, dwelling on this for this long a time, and frankly we really should just be looking at the
patio, and, you know, I think it’s time to move on. I mean, honest to God. It’s time.
MR. VOLLARO-I think Chris brought up a very good point, though, and in our 179 Code it
says once a site plan is triggered, the Planning Board shall be able to go through and use all of
the resources of this document, meaning 179. I think that’s what you were driving at when
you talk to it, and just looking at the patio doesn’t really do it, in terms of what we’re charged
to do.
MR. METIVIER-But of course if you take the patio away, they wouldn’t be here.
MR. VOLLARO-Yes. If you took the patio away, we may not be here. That’s true, because
now there would be no hard surfacing and this would just get passed through as any other.
MR. METIVIER-That’s right. It would be up to the Town and those guys to follow through
with it.
MR. HUNSINGER-And with the patio, there’s no way that water is going to go from the
patio into the lake without going through the ground.
43
(Queensbury Planning Board 05/16/06)
MR. METIVIER-I mean, you are technically talking about a better situation than you have
right now overall, and yet we are going to dwell on this and hem and haw for probably
another half an hour.
MR. VOLLARO-I’ll tell you what, Tony. If you feel that strongly about it, make a motion
and see where it goes.
MR. METIVIER-All right.
MR. SEGULJIC-I have further discussion.
MR. VOLLARO-A member is allowed to put a motion before the Board.
MR. METIVIER-I’ll hold off. I’ll wait for other discussion.
MR. SEGULJIC-Something Mr. Salvador brought up is something I’ve been looking at is
Subpart 646, which, as I read it, it says you need to get approval of the Lake George Park
Commission for various activities on the site. I’m not exactly sure what this says, but have
you looked at the applicability of that?
MR. O'CONNOR-My answer to you might be, I don’t know what you’re looking at there, but
typically it would be like if we were going to construct docks on there, and we came here for
site plan review for the docks themselves. You give your review based upon your review and
your review standards. You don’t presume to give review for some other agency and if it’s, if
we’re obligated to go to that other agency, we have to undertake that and make that as a
separate application.
MR. SEGULJIC-And I would like to see that approval before I were to go forward, if you
need to obtain such a approval.
MR. O'CONNOR-I don’t believe we do. Why do you think we do?
MR. SEGULJIC-Because it says under Section 646-4.5, wherein the Commissioner has
assumed jurisdiction for stormwater management within the Lake George Park Commission
pursuant to Section 46-01123 of the Environmental Conservation Law and unless otherwise
exempted herein, no person shall build, construct, erect, expand or enlarge any building or
structure or place or construct any pervious surface such as pavement, blacktop, macadam,
packed earth and crushed stone without first receiving a permit issued by the Commission
pursuant to this Part.
MR. O'CONNOR-Okay. The Town of Queensbury has not accepted the Lake George Park
Commission’s stormwater. In fact, I think there was a lawsuit about that. Maybe Mr.
Salvador is more aware of it than I am.
MR. SEGULJIC-Well, I’m not aware of all that.
MR. O'CONNOR-Okay. I’m just telling you that. The Lake George Park Commission was in
the process of drafting stormwater rules and regulations. They put out one set. There was
litigation with regard to that set. They were withdrawn, and then they were in the process of
doing a second set of rules and regulations, and for that set of rules and regulations, and I
practice here, Lake George, and Bolton, they asked the Towns to voluntarily agree to
implement those. They do not, they don’t have a stormwater permit that they issue for the
Town of Queensbury.
MR. SEGULJIC-So you’re saying this is all hooey?
MR. O'CONNOR-Yes. I think it says that the Commissioner may adopt rules and
regulations, if you go through that whole thing.
MR. SEGULJIC-Well, the way I looked at it was the State came out with these rules to be
the Lake George Park Commission. Then the Towns could rise up and come up with their
own rules and enforce them.
MR. O'CONNOR-How many lake applications have you done, and how many?
44
(Queensbury Planning Board 05/16/06)
MR. SEGULJIC-Well, let me put it to you this way. This whole concept of the Critical
Environmental Area, a lot of people weren’t aware of, and I’m kind of surprised that in your
application, you didn’t make us aware of that.
MR. O'CONNOR-Okay. I presumed everybody was aware of that. There’s also 250 feet of
Critical Environmental Area all around Glen Lake and around Rush Pond. The same one, I
tried to get them to make it 500 feet, and they wouldn’t make it 500 feet. Glen Lake is 100
feet.
MR. VOLLARO-Those are designated CEA’s. Rush Pond I know is a designated CEA,
absolutely.
MR. O'CONNOR-To the point of 100 feet, and I tried to get it to go to 500 feet like this here
and they wouldn’t. I think the Town is aware of that, and most consultants are aware of
that.
MR. SEGULJIC-Then why wasn’t it put on our plan, making us aware of it?
MR. O'CONNOR-I don’t, where does it come into play with what you have?
MR. SEGULJIC-Well, it definitely raises greater concerns for me when I find out it’s in a
CEA.
MR. O'CONNOR-You’re talking about hard surfacing within 50 feet of the lake. That’s the
rule and regulation that we’re looking at.
MR. SEGULJIC-Well, I beg to differ, because under 179-9-020, it allows us to open up the
entire site.
MR. O'CONNOR-Okay. I don’t necessarily say, I think you have a jurisdictional problem,
but say you have the whole site open, okay, you’ve had your Town Engineer look at this,
review it, and has given you a signoff letter. You’ve had your Zoning Administrator, or say
that he would give a signoff letter under the typical conditions, amend the plans to show
exactly what you’ve told us you were going to do and we will give you the signoff.
MR. SEGULJIC-Then what’s the purpose of this Board?
MR. O'CONNOR-Well, you either are satisfied or not satisfied with your engineer. Do you
overrule your engineer?
MR. VOLLARO-We don’t have his position yet, though, in front of us. We do by letter. We
do by e-mail and so on, but we don’t have a nice closed loop, as I like to call it, between
engineering and ourselves.
MR. O'CONNOR-I understand that and say condition what you’re going to do upon getting
that closed loop, but don’t make the applicant spend another $5, $600 or better than that to
come back and take care of administrative issues that the Town hasn’t addressed.
MR. SEGULJIC-Well, most of the concern that there’s several trees on the site that you’re
going to be removing, if I’m understanding the plans correctly.
MR. O'CONNOR-There are no trees in the area of the hard surfacing.
MR. SEGULJIC-There are three trees, as I look at the plans, that are going to be removed.
MR. VOLLARO-I think there’s only one in the hard surfacing area, though.
MR. SEGULJIC-Well, I still stand, we have a right to look at the entire site.
MR. VOLLARO-You are right, we do, and I think Mr. Hunsinger brought that up before.
I’m trying to get into 179-6-060.
MR. O'CONNOR-We had a photo presentation that we made to the Zoning Board of Appeals
which probably would be persuasive, more persuasive than my telling you what we’re doing
and not doing. By putting this house on the north side, we actually did some superimposition
45
(Queensbury Planning Board 05/16/06)
of the new house on the existing foliage, trees that are there, and we’ve showed the amount of
green space that we’re going to preserve on the south side. That’s the whole reason that we
didn’t come in with a cookie, we wouldn’t have needed half the variances if we did a cookie
cutter house, plopped it in the middle of the lot, and said, okay, we’re going to abide by the
setbacks. We’re not going to preserve the trees that are there, and we’ve got a paper
indication of that, if you want to see that, that shows, you know, how much green space is
being preserved by doing what we’re doing. Mrs. Barrington’s biggest concern was the
number of trees that she was going to have to take down. Tom, you had the specific species.
MR. FROST-I think what you’re talking about, there are two small trees near the front.
They’re being hit by a walkway. Those are the two together, by the front, I mean the street
side.
MR. FORD-Toward the road.
MR. FROST-There’s a very large Hemlock tree. It’s the one on the southeast corner of the
building. That’s the major one that we’re going to try to save. It’s shown dotted on this site
plan, probably on the same site plan you have, it should be shown dotted. That one, and that
would indicate that it’s going to come down. It’s very important to the owners that we keep
that. We’re going to do everything we can to keep it. Probably the foundation of that
enclosed porch will be a grade beam instead of a deep frost wall, so that we don’t cut all the
roots off. I don’t think there’s any guarantee that it’ll survive, but we’re going to go to a
large expense to try to save that. It’s not going to come down initially, and I guess that
would be this guy right here. That also shows the patio, so you get a real clear picture. You
can see it there in the front, but that basically shows what the vegetation is on the site. Most
of these trees are accurate. There’s a very heavy tree line here. This is the one we will try to
save. We’re not going to take it down initially. I think we can save it.
MR. METIVIER-Actually that tree is beyond the 50 feet, isn’t it?
MR. FROST-Yes. Right on the 50 feet.
MR. O'CONNOR-This is a Power Point presentation that was made as to the Area Variance.
This may help you see what we’re talking about. This is how we preserve the area between
the two residences, and with the adjoining owner on the south agreeing, thinking it was a
betterment to the neighborhood, as opposed to shifting the house in to the front. We also
have a picture of the existing house, and then we have a picture superimposed as to.
MR. VOLLARO-This was a Power Point presentation given to the ZBA?
MR. FROST-Yes.
MR. O'CONNOR-The ZBA, and that’s the slide presentation. That’s the proposed house.
Architecturally, they’ve done a great deal of work trying to preserve this without much
disturbance. When we first started this thing, now, we can eliminate a couple of the variances
if you just push the house a little bit further south, and there was a great resistance in that,
based upon the existing trees that are on the south, and the gardens that are on the south,
and the desire of the owners to preserve those. He’s more familiar with the property than I
am.
MR. METIVIER-I have to say that those gardens actually are stunning on that property. I
mean, the work that went into those, the years, and that’s why, you know, it breaks my
heart, but if they’re preserved, I mean, really, you have to realize what goes into that
property, the work that went into that property.
MR. O'CONNOR-This is not something to bulldoze and rebuild, and if you take a look at the,
actually there’s some actual showings of the prior footprint and new footprint. There is not a
great deal of difference in that, and in order to, we did do some things, but in order to move
the house back, to get it compliant, beyond the 50 feet, some of that caused some of the
problems that we’re talking about. I guess I don’t know what you expect of the applicant.
MR. VOLLARO-Well, I guess what I expect, as one Planning Board member, is a complete
set of, I’m adrift on this one. I really am. I’m going to admit it to every member of this
Board. I am adrift on what to do here. We were not presented with a complete set of plans
and drawings to look at. 179 definitely says when a site plan is triggered we have the
46
(Queensbury Planning Board 05/16/06)
responsibility look at everything in this Chapter. That’s what it says. Chris is absolutely
right. He brought that up an hour ago, an hour and a half. So if somebody wants to make a
motion. If not, I will make a motion, and I will make a simple motion.
MOTION TO TABLE SITE PLAN NO. 66-2005 MARTIN BARRINGTON, MARY DEVINE,
Introduced by Robert Vollaro who moved for its adoption, seconded by Thomas Seguljic:
Tabled to June 20, 2006. Until such time as we receive a C.T. Male signoff, after they have
issued a signoff and received a final set of revised plans, in accordance with their letter, or
their e-mail dated May 16, 2006, and that we get a complete set of drawings.
Duly adopted this 16 day of May, 2006, by the following vote:
th
AYES: Mr. Seguljic, Mr. Ford, Mr. Sipp, Mr. Vollaro
NOES: Mr. Metivier, Mr. Hunsinger, Mrs. Steffan
MR. VOLLARO-We’re going to table this application, and we’re going to table to a specific
date.
MR. O'CONNOR-So I understand your motion, we have everything on file, and you have
tabled it until you get a written C.T. Male signoff.
MR. VOLLARO-That’s correct, in accordance with their e-mail.
MR. O'CONNOR-All right. If you get a signoff, how far before your next meeting before it
gets restored to the agenda?
MR. VOLLARO-Let me take a look at that, to answer your question. I would assume, we
should be able to get all this information to us in a hurry, the stuff that Staff has now. So
the only outstanding thing would be the C.T. Male requirement. You can get that stuff to us
very quickly, and I think we should be able to, C.T. Male should be able to respond. Forget
about the 6/15 requirement. C.T. Male should be able to respond fairly quickly, and we
should be able to get this on for July 18, 7/18.
th
MR. FORD-We can’t do it in June?
MR. VOLLARO-I’m sorry, I was looking at the wrong one. Yes, you can do it in June. 6/20.
Sorry about that. We could schedule this for June 20.
th
MRS. BARDEN-That’s fine.
MR. VOLLARO-Okay.
MR. O'CONNOR-Would the Board feel prejudiced if we, at this time, withdraw the
application for the patio, and proceed with the residence, and come back later for the patio, so
that we can proceed, but not trying to backdoor the Board.
MR. VOLLARO-I think there’s a resolution before the Board to table this, though. I think
we’ve got a tabling motion.
MR. O'CONNOR-Well, I’m trying to be up front with you.
MR. VOLLARO-I understand that, but one of my problems, I can see we’re all adrift, at least
I am, and some other members are adrift here.
MR. O'CONNOR-In this instance it’s not the applicant’s fault, though. I mean, they
submitted us March 14, and you’re now putting us off three months for a 300 foot patio
th
that’s below ground.
MR. VOLLARO-I understand that.
MR. O'CONNOR-The system isn’t working here. You’re not making the system work.
MR. HUNSINGER-I agree with what Tony said earlier.
47
(Queensbury Planning Board 05/16/06)
MR. O'CONNOR-Out of frustration I’ll just say that it’s ridiculous that the property owners
have to pay, and I probably should stop at that point. I mean, I send out the bills and I’m
embarrassed. We’ve got to get a better system. Thank you for your patience.
MR. VOLLARO-Thank you, and we’ll leave the public hearing open.
SITE PLAN NO. 18-2006 SEQR TYPE II MICHAEL STEVENS OWNER(S) SAME ZONING
SR-1A LOCATION 1112 RIDGE ROAD APPLICANT PROPOSES CONSTRUCTION OF
SINGLE FAMILY DWELLING REQUIRING FILL OF APPROXIMATELY 0.25 ACRES OF
FILL WITHIN 50’ OF THE SHORELINE OF A WETLAND. FILLING WITHIN 50’ OF A
WETLAND REQUIRES SITE PLAN REVIEW BY THE PLANNING BOARD. CROSS REF.
AV 34-96 WARREN COUNTY PLANNING 5/10/06 ADIRONDACK PARK AGENCY YES
LOT SIZE 4.73 ACRES TAX MAP NO. 290.10-1-29 SECTION 179-6-060
MR. METIVIER-Mr. Chairman, I am going to recuse myself from this application. I do have
a business relationship with the owner of the property, and so therefore I’ll remove myself
from the table.
MR. VOLLARO-Fine. Okay. Would you identify yourself for the record, please.
MR. STEVENS-Hi. I’m Mike Stevens, owner of the Ridge Road piece of property.
MR. VOLLARO-This is also a Type II SEQRA with no SEQRA review. A public hearing is
required. Do we have any comments from the Board? Does the Board want to make
comments on this? I think a lot of this revolves around the wording in the permit. If you’ve
read that permit, there’s a lot of wording in the permit that I think has to be read.
MRS. STEFFAN-Is this a spec house, or this is for you, or is this a spec house?
MR. STEVENS-When it initially started, it was going to be, but because I lost my house to a
fire, I believe I’ll be living in it.
MR. VOLLARO-Has everybody read the Department of the Army letter dated February 27,
2006 and the attached special conditions that go with it?
MR. SEGULJIC-Yes, and I guess with regards to Special Conditions A, within three months
from the date of this letter, the permittee shall have the remaining wetlands delineated and
plotted on the drawing. Has that been completed?
MR. STEVENS-No, sir, because that was, the part that didn’t get put in there was if it went
through. Obviously, if this building didn’t go through, I wasn’t going to go through to the
expense of doing all the rest of the survey and everything. So, through contact with Mr.
Bruce, we just figured we’d hold off until we saw what the results of the meeting were.
MR. SEGULJIC-Okay. Then it goes on to say the permittee shall secure a conservation
easement or deed restriction, same thing. So you’re prepared to do the delineation as well as
obtain the deed restriction?
MR. STEVENS-Most of it was done. There was just a little bit on the tail ends of the
property that had to be finished.
MR. VOLLARO-Within three months of the date of this February 27, that’s 10 days from
th
now, and is somebody going to give you relief on that? Is that what you’re saying? There’s,
the fellow that did this is, I guess it’s.
MR. STEVENS-Kevin Bruce wrote that letter, I think.
MR. VOLLARO-It’s George Needs.
MRS. STEFFAN-Yes, Kevin Bruce is a contact. The person who signed it is the Chief of the
permit section.
MR. VOLLARO-All right, and then it says this authorization is also conditioned on the
applicant’s receipt of a required water quality certificate or waiver from the New York State
48
(Queensbury Planning Board 05/16/06)
Department of Environmental Conservation. No work may be accomplished until a required
approval from DEC has been obtained. So there’s a lot of restrictions that go along with this
letter that I want to make sure that the Board understands what this letter says. I’m
assuming they’ve all read it.
MR. STEVENS-The water quality was signed off. They’ve got it. It was done.
MR. VOLLARO-It was done?
MR. STEVENS-Yes. As a matter of fact, it was done when that letter came out. It went
right to, they sent a letter directly to them.
MR. FORD-Who’s “they” and “them”?
MR. STEVENS-I think it was DEC or Lake George Park Commission, one or the other did it.
MR. VOLLARO-Do we have a copy of that, Staff wise?
MR. STEVENS-You should have a copy.
MRS. BARDEN-I don’t have anything from DEC or the Army Corps.
MR. STEVENS-It was done.
MR. VOLLARO-Yes, but we have to have a letter in file that we can lean on. See, this Board
can only go on documentation that’s presented before us to make a decision. A lot of the
verbiage that’s done doesn’t really count. It just doesn’t muster, in my view anyway. I like
to see the papers that back up all the decisions we make, so that if an Article 78 is ever filed
against this Board, without us having done due diligence on what we’re supposed to do, we’re
going to lose.
MR. SEGULJIC-Why are you proposing to fill this area?
MR. STEVENS-The Building Department required that to meet the setback requirement. It
wasn’t my idea.
MR. FORD-So you fill in wetlands to get away from being too close to wetlands?
MR. STEVENS-Correct.
MR. VOLLARO-This is a mitigation thing that they’re doing. They’re filling in some
wetlands, as I understand it anyway, they’re filling in a small portion of, .21 of the wetlands
is what they’re filling in right here, in this area. That’s what they’re filling in.
MR. FORD-I understand.
MR. STEVENS-It doesn’t really have to be done to build the house. It has to be done to
meet the requirements of the Building and Codes. That’s the way it was put to me.
MR. HUNSINGER-I think the way it was put earlier made all the sense in the world. We’re
filling in wetlands so that we can avoid impacting the wetlands.
MR. STEVENS-Believe me, this has been going on for a year and a half and it makes no more
sense to me now than it did a year and a half ago.
MR. FORD-Can you, in a minute and a half or less, give us a little history lesson on this
parcel, please?
MR. STEVENS-Charlotte Potvin, Mitch Potvin and myself, the property came up for sale
from the Mannix, and this is not to sound like sour grapes, but I was the builder. We thought
we’d build a house at the time, a spec house. I called the Building Department, they called
the Building Department, and wanted to know what we were going to get into.
MR. FORD-This parcel specifically?
49
(Queensbury Planning Board 05/16/06)
MR. STEVENS-This specific parcel, and we were told we were not in any sort of wet area to
worry about. We were not in a designated wet area.
MR. HUNSINGER-When was that?
MR. STEVENS-2002.
MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. Because the wetland regulations did change within the past few
years.
MR. STEVENS-But we’re still not in a designated wet area.
MR. HUNSINGER-Yes. Okay.
MR. STEVENS-And they were correct when they told us that, however, the Building
Department insisted we get a hold of Lake George Park Commission and then the Army Corps
of Engineers, which we did. Then the Army Corps of Engineers said, yes, there is a little bit of
a wet area there. So they went into that whole deal. Then to satisfy the building permit, we
could actually set the house on area that wasn’t wetland, but if I can explain this, because it
is complicated, to make it meet the setback requirements, the wetland area has to be pushed
back. It can’t be right up to the build.
MR. HUNSINGER-Right.
MR. STEVENS-So that’s why it has to be under a quarter of an acre, and Kevin Bruce was
very pleased with, you know, out of 4.73 acres, that we were only going to have to fill less
than a quarter of an acre. He thought that was a very good use of a chunk of land like that,
and by the time we parcel off the forever wild and everything, it’ll be a good use of it. It’ll be
a nice little spot to watch the deer come and stuff. It’ll really be nice, really.
MR. FORD-Thank you.
MR. STEVENS-Does that answer your question?
MR. FORD-If that’s the history, that answers it.
MR. STEVENS-That’s the history.
MR. FORD-What’s the total acreage of this parcel?
MR. STEVENS-4.73.
MR. VOLLARO-It’s a fairly big parcel, actually, from the looks of it. I just want to make
sure that we’re compliant with the Army Corps of Engineers requirements there.
MR. SIPP-Have any test holes ever been done on this piece of property? Any percolation
tests?
MR. STEVENS-Yes. The front elevation is 10 feet higher than the back elevation, where it’s
actually wet. The front elevation is perfect soil conditions, sandy loam. Perc perfect. It’s an
engineered septic. The Building Department has it. It’s all engineered, and it was fine.
MR. SIPP-We drove around this last Saturday, not knowing exactly where this road was, or
supposed to be. So we went up into Stonehurst and looked down on the property, and we
could see the water percolating from Stonehurst.
MR. FORD-Running.
MR. SIPP-So obviously your parcel is going to be pretty wet in some spots.
MR. STEVENS-Apparently there used to be a stream that ran through on just the far end of
this property.
MR. FORD-There was a stream running through on Saturday.
50
(Queensbury Planning Board 05/16/06)
MR. STEVENS-Yes, but where the house is going to be, it’s very much forward of the
stream.
MR. SIPP-And that’s on a sandy soil?
MR. STEVENS-Yes. That soil is good conditions. It percked good. We got an engineered
system. It was good soil. We dug holes all the way up at maybe 300 feet, we put a bunch of
holes, and it really was perfect, but you’ve got to remember, where the septic is going is 10
feet of elevation more than where that wet area is.
MR. FORD-It looks like your fill area is going to go well down into that area where we saw
water running.
MR. STEVENS-It may look it, but there was a stream, and it kind of winds and stuff, and
the way we actually will do it, we’ll kind of keep that winding and the stream, and believe it
or not, since 2002, this is the first year we’ve ever seen the water go like this, but that’s really
good because now we’ll know how to run that fill.
MR. FORD-So this is not an accurate depiction of the fill area?
MR. STEVENS-Not after what I saw, well, yes it is. It winds a little bit, but it does follow
my property line, and then some of that line is on the Stonehurst side, too. They’re carrying
some of that wet area, their backyards. Not along this property. In other words, I’m not
looking at it, but if you look at it, it bumps out a little bit, kind of starts going around, and
that wet area will be back in the Stonehurst area where it always was.
MR. VOLLARO-I think that Army Corps letter also mentioned something about confirming
the existence of DEC wetlands on the property, and I noticed that in the Warren County
Planning Board comments it says, Staff recommends no county impact with the comment
that the applicant confirm New York State DEC permit requirements. Have you done
anything with that at all? Is there, okay.
MR. STEVENS-Nothing. All the agencies deferred it to Army Corps.
MR. VOLLARO-Army Corps.
MR. STEVENS-Lake George Park Commission, DEC, they all.
MR. VOLLARO-And we have a letter of non-jurisdictional interest from DEC?
MRS. BARDEN-We don’t have anything from DEC.
MR. FORD-We still don’t. Since the last time we asked.
MR. HUNSINGER-You realize, though, why that is. Army Corps has the most stringent
wetland definitions. So DEC will basically say, hey, if the Army Corps’ happy, we’re going to
be happy, too. Because APA definitions and DEC definitions and Army Corps definitions of
wetlands are all different.
MR. VOLLARO-They are. I realize that.
MR. HUNSINGER-But the Army Corps are the most stringent.
MR. VOLLARO-Why doesn’t DEC just give us a letter, give a letter that says it’s non-
jurisdictional as far as we’re concerned. We’ll defer to Army Corps?
MR. HUNSINGER-It’s kind of like someone going to the Zoning Board, and the Zoning
Board saying, go to the Planning Board, and you get a letter from the Planning Board saying
they have no jurisdiction.
MR. VOLLARO-Okay.
MR. SEGULJIC-It’s tough to get a letter out of them.
MR. HUNSINGER-Yes.
51
(Queensbury Planning Board 05/16/06)
MR. STEVENS-Yes, they never do it. We call them, and they said, no, whatever they say
goes. They’re the last stop, the Army Corps.
MR. HUNSINGER-Yes, that’s right.
MR. FORD-Yes, basically they really are the last stop.
MR. HUNSINGER-With wetland issues they are.
MR. FORD-Really. They’re just basically a rubber stamp and another way to say yes.
Because they do that with far greater frequency than they say anything else.
MR. SEGULJIC-Mr. Chairman, could you open up the public hearing?
MRS. STEFFAN-Yes.
MR. VOLLARO-I don’t know if there’s anybody out there, but I will open the public hearing
on this, if somebody wants to speak.
PUBLIC HEARING OPENED
KATE MILLER
MRS. MILLER-Hi. My name is Kate Miller. I’m at 32 Stonehurst. I have great concerns
because the area where he is proposing to fill in is directly behind our houses, and our land,
everyone in Stonehurst, drains into that area, and if you take that area and you fill it in, and
you leave one little stream, and the water’s coming down through, and it has no place to go
except for in that direction, towards Stonehurst, what’s going to happen to our property?
Water’s going to back up into our basements. It’s a direct effect on us.
MR. VOLLARO-So the properties, the Stonehurst properties drain into his area?
MRS. MILLER-Yes. All of the properties. That was all done through Mr. Maine, and
inspected by the Town of Queensbury.
MR. VOLLARO-Here we’ve got an interesting situation.
MR. HUNSINGER-How wet is your property?
MRS. MILLER-My property right now is dry.
MR. HUNSINGER-Even after all this rain?
MR. We’re on a level.
MRS. MILLER-Right.
DAVID MILLER
MR. MILLER-(Lost word) ideal building situation, and it’s noted as being wet throughout
that whole area, but where he’s concerned, where he wants to build, is soaking wet, and he’s
on a side hill, and his proposal of where the wetland was flagged, he’s talking about not
getting near wetland. He’s talking about actually covering wetland.
MR. HUNSINGER-Yes, no, he’s going to fill, .21 acres of wetland.
MR. MILLER-He’s going to fill an incredible amount actually, if you look at it, considering.
So I don’t know how much fill that would be, probably about 10 feet high, 60 feet straight
out, because what he’s going to do is channel that water, and water’s going to find it’s own
course. We’re concerned about undermining, environmental impact. It’s going to be a
considerable amount of trees that are going to have to be taken out of there. It’s a poor area.
MRS. MILLER-Our buffer zone between Stonehurst and Ridge will be really impacted,
because a lot of trees, between taking the trees out in the wetlands, filling it in, putting a
52
(Queensbury Planning Board 05/16/06)
house, two car garage, you know, driveway, it opens up a whole entire area, he will leave
minimal trees road frontage to Ridge, and that is just unacceptable, to think that that whole
area is going to be opened up like that. It’s a big impact on the residents of our area of
Stonehurst.
MR. SIPP-Could you indicate, quickly, where you are located on this map?
MRS. MILLER-Where we are?
MR. MILLER-That’s the proposed road right here. He wants to locate his house right here.
This is our residence right here.
MRS. MILLER-And as far as this land being probably the wettest this year. Now use your
own judgment. We have had hardly any snow, all winter, hardly any rain. We have been
there for six years. We have literally seen ducks flying in. It has been that wet. Probably
before Mr. Stevens owned the property. So it gets very, very wet. It’s just, the timing of the
Army Corps of Engineers coming in there was pretty good for him because it’s been a dry
season. It was dry last summer. Dry all winter. Dry this season.
MR. HUNSINGER-Well, they use the presence of vegetation more than the presence of
actual water to determine where wetlands are. So they would argue that that really didn’t
matter.
MRS. MILLER-Right. Well, I wish you people could see the property, just to see it. Because
what’s happening, as you well know in Queensbury, people are building everywhere, and just
to preserve something, it’s very beautiful, and I feel bad because, you know, it’s an
investment when you buy property and it’s not buildable, but this, it seems, it’s not
buildable. If you have to fill in a wetland, and, you know, re-route water which could impact
quite a few residents. These men here probably want to speak, too, because they’re going to
be affected, too. When you re-route water, bad things happen, and we can already see it,
what’s going to happen. So I just hope that you will take that into consideration.
MR. FORD-Have you been there long enough to see any building around you? Were you
there when other structures went up?
MRS. MILLER-We were one of the first ones down there.
MR. FORD-Okay. So you’ve seen what the impact was of other houses being built on your
street?
MRS. MILLER-Yes.
MR. FORD-And describe that if you would, please.
MRS. MILLER-Well, I know everybody tries to comply, you know, through your Building
and Codes, too, for septics. We are very, very wet over there, and there is definitely a
problem with septics, and that arises after you people leave. After they’re all inspected, then
they have problems. So what happens to us when you approve this and we have problems?
MR. FORD-What kind of problems?
MRS. MILLER-Percolating on top of the ground, you know, water coming up, standing
water, smell.
MR. VOLLARO-The septic’s aren’t perking. That’s what’s going on there.
MRS. MILLER-Right.
MR. VOLLARO-It’s the same thing that’s happening in Surrey Fields.
MRS. MILLER-So it’s already wet in there. My question is, too, how do we take care of this?
Say you give him the approval, and all of a sudden all of these scenarios that we have, we’re
thinking are going to happen because we’re using our heads and we’re seeing what we think is
going to happen, what if it happens? Who do we go back on? How do we rectify our
53
(Queensbury Planning Board 05/16/06)
problem? So, you know, who’s responsible? Because this will become a problem. It’s filling
in wetlands. That’s the big problem. Do you guys want to speak?
MR. MILLER-Thank you.
RAY EVERT
MR. EVERT-I’m Ray Evert. Nothing against you at all. Trust. We’re just trying to protect
what we have here now. I’m at 24 Stonehurst, just a few houses up from the Millers. About a
third of my yard, all year last year, was all wet.
MR. FORD-Could you identify yourself on the map?
MR. EVERT-I hope I can. I’m around this section here. Again, I’m on about and acre and a
half of property. About 1/3 of it I can’t use at all. It’s all wet, all summer long, and last year
was a very dry summer. I still can’t go back there at all. Everything keeps draining right
down to my property and stuff, and new construction, with this here going on, it’s going to be
a nightmare. It’s really, really going to be. This is my first year here, first winter and stuff.
I’m used to different things, but it smells rancid, and all times of year. Pinkish, reddish color
coming out of the ground, it really, really stinks bad. Again, nothing against you at all, and
everybody wants to live someplace and all, but we’re there already. We want to protect what
we have and all, and the problem’s going to get worse, a lot worse.
MR. VOLLARO-Anybody else?
SCOTT TYNON
MR. TYNON-Good evening. My name is Scott Tynon. I live at 37 Stonehurst. It’s at the
cul de sac on the end, the only house down there on the end, and I own the two lots to my
west.
MR. VOLLARO-Okay.
MR. TYNON-And there’s a culvert there, between I believe it’s his land and my land. It’s
probably.
MR. VOLLARO-Can you get up and point to that so we can take a look at, we know what
we’re talking about.
MR. TYNON-It’s right in here, and that’s all running. Even summertime, dry summers, it
still runs. I don’t know where it’s coming from. It always seems to be running, and it’s this
color, the lot, too. I never saw it. If it was oil, probably none of us would complain. We
would just drill it out, but I’m concerned about if it’s built on, is that going to change my
water table at all, in the future. I’m not sure about that.
MR. VOLLARO-Well, filling in the wetlands would probably move the water around. I don’t
know how much, but filling in wetlands normally move water around. It displaces the water
that’s there, and it’s got to go somewhere. It goes someplace else.
MR. TYNON-And how far down before it changes water tables? We’re all clay. That’s
another thing. It doesn’t absorb anything.
MR. VOLLARO-That’s why your septic systems aren’t working.
MR. TYNON-Well, mine, that’s a raised bed. My house is like two years old.
MR. VOLLARO-Okay.
MR. TYNON-I’m just concerned what’s going to happen, because the groundwater is really
on the ground, because it can’t get through the clay, no matter what, and will that change
anything with what he plans on doing? Who knows?
MR. VOLLARO-We’ve got other places in Town that are up against the same situation, you
know, that there was an approved system. I think Surrey Fields is probably the system right
now that’s been impacted the most, but they’re totally in clay, and have a whole bunch of
54
(Queensbury Planning Board 05/16/06)
backed up septics in Surrey Fields. So, I don’t know what this, I have no idea in my own
mind what filling in these wetlands will do to the water table at your house.
MR. TYNON-And I’m at the end. I’m at the south point. Everything runs downhill,
whether we like it or not. I just don’t want the bad stuff coming down. Nobody’s going to be
able to build behind me, as far as I know, which would be the south even more, and I was
wondering, is there any way to find out when that was established as a building lot?
MR. VOLLARO-I’m sorry, I didn’t get you.
MR. TYNON-Does anybody know when that was established as a building lot, surveyed out,
in a legal building lot?
MR. VOLLARO-On his site?
MR. TYNON-Yes.
MR. VOLLARO-I don’t have any idea what, I don’t know. We don’t have a deed here. The
deed would tell us, but there’s no deed included in this application.
MR. TYNON-So obviously it was okay to build on when that decision was made. Is that
correct?
MR. VOLLARO-I think it’s an approved building lot. That’s my guess. I think it’s an
approved building lot, or he couldn’t have supplied, you know.
MR. TYNON-Which the Town of Queensbury dictated that, right?
MR. VOLLARO-Yes. I would think that somebody surveyed this lot out, and the survey of
the lot is probably up at the County, and the survey would tell you when it was instituted as
a building lot.
MR. TYNON-All right. So no Army Corps of Engineers were ever involved until recently?
MR. VOLLARO-Until this gentleman made an application to build on that lot. They found
out that there was Army Corps wetlands on that lot and that’s where the Department of the
Army got into writing this letter.
MR. TYNON-Okay. Because I’m just trying to figure out like, it was really high risk to start
with, but what the heck, why not make it a building lot anyhow. I’m confused on that. How
does that work?
MR. FORD-See, this is where I was trying to get with when I asked for the history of this
particular lot. Because there are other lots. The one to the north, for example, extends back
a long ways, but they’ve put the house up closer to the main road. There are others there, but
this seems to be carved out, and the chances are, I believe it probably was carved out for a
reason, and I think that reason has been stated tonight by the other residents along that
neighborhood.
MR. TYNON-A channel for the water to run.
]
MR. HUNSINGER-I wouldn’t draw that conclusion.
MR. VOLLARO-Tom, what do you mean it was designed for that particular reason?
MR. TYNON-It looks like a ravine, actually, if you stand there physically and look at it, it
looks like a ravine, quite a ways, it makes bends and everything.
MR. SEGULJIC-Could you, just in 30 seconds or less, just tell me what the topography looks
like?
MR. VOLLARO-Yes. We don’t have any on this plan at all. That’s another problem. We
don’t know what the slope of the ground looks like.
MR. TYNON-I’ve never been up in that end.
55
(Queensbury Planning Board 05/16/06)
MR. SEGULJIC-But Stonehurst is higher than this particular area?
MR. TYNON-Well, this particular area is a ravine, a small ravine, if you can picture that.
Ridge Road’s got height, elevation, and then I’m at the bottom. Then Stonehurst elevates
up, as you go north.
MR. SEGULJIC-Okay, and then there’s a stream down the middle?
MR. TYNON-Yes. Ridge Road’s here, a ravine.
MR. FORD-It’s constituted largely by that lot, or the ravine is.
MRS. BARDEN-I wanted to deal with the subdivision question, to see if this was part of an
approved subdivision, and then I can put that aerial back up for you. Those are the
subdivision lines, those yellow lines. There’s the wetlands line here. They’re actually not
even really showing up on this parcel. They’re on, this wetland line is that light blue line, is
shown in Stonehurst.
MR. VOLLARO-What we have here is a thing that looks like this. It’s a big bathtub, the
way they’re explaining it. This is high. This is high. This is low. So, you know, water’s
going to run down.
MR. TYNON-Ridge Road has some height. Stonehurst has height, and the ravine’s in the
middle.
MR. VOLLARO-This is a big, essentially what we’re looking at here, this piece is a dip.
MR. TYNON-Yes.
MR. FORD-It’s a ravine with water running through it.
MR. STEVENS-But it’s not all a ravine, not in any way, shape or form. Where the house is
going to go is 10 feet higher than.
MR. TYNON-I’m just concerned about, as long as the water tables don’t move. I’m just
worried about all my stuff, because everything comes down the hill.
MR. STEVENS-The only fill area is a 40 by 60, and it’s not 10 feet high. It’s three feet high,
and that isn’t going to have any impact on that. It’s required by the Town, to push it back.
I didn’t want to bring in any, and I didn’t need to, really.
MRS. MILLER-I’d like to know what the rear view of the house would look like if the Town
of Queensbury didn’t impose that upon him, upon bringing in fill. I mean, because we have
walked the lot. The lot is high at one end, which is at the tip, way up, way up, up north, and
then it slowly comes down, and then it becomes quite a ravine, and where he has proposed to
put the house, because we have seen the plan, it’s a small area, and it’s right on the wood line
towards Ridge, and that’s the most level area. Then it drops right off, and so it’s quite a ways
away from the house that they’re proposing fill. So what is the logic in that anyway? If
they’re bringing in fill that far away from the house, and filling in a wetland, I don’t see the
logic in it, and also I wonder how it’s going to benefit Mr. Stevens. Who does this benefit by
filling in this wetland?
MR. STEVENS-You can see the vegetation right here. This is all high, right here. This is the
same height here as it is here. This low area right here is where this stream comes in and it
gullies down. The house is going to go right here in this high part. Where we’re proposing to
fill is right here, this little spot, right here. It won’t have any effect on any of this. The water
that he’s worried about, he’s dumping on this property. I’m not dumping on him. These
people are, I’m being penalized because everybody’s dumping their water on my property,
but in effect they really should be taking care of their own water, but in any case, the water
runs this way, and it comes down this way. This little fill area will be right here. This little
fill area right here. Out of this whole 4.73 acres, it’s 40 by 60, this high, and if you think
that’s going to have a serious impact, you people are really mistaken.
56
(Queensbury Planning Board 05/16/06)
MRS. MILLER-Who is responsible after this is done and it does affect us? That’s what I
want to know, because it will affect, when you block off water like that and you re-route it,
you’re going to see a change in, as you said, the topography. The lay of the land, it’s going to
change. It does run now, but where he’s filling in is marsh land. It disperses evenly and
there’s this very small stream. It’s going to push it over, and that stream’s going to become
bigger because it does, on a normal year, when we get normal precipitation.
MR. VOLLARO-Well, what we don’t have here is the lines that show us, topography lines
that show us what the slope of this land is. If the slope is in this direction and it’s gullied,
then the water is not going to impact you at all. It’s going to run right through here. It
depends on how the land is sloped, and I can’t tell that from this drawing.
MR. FORD-It does show drainage flow, however.
MRS. MILLER-You’re already going to change it just by putting in the foundation, digging
that earth out, putting a house there. Then you have beyond that, that’s the plan that we
were shown.
MR. VOLLARO-I just want to talk to my colleagues for a minute. I don’t think that this
means, this means that the wetlands continue. It doesn’t mean the water flows in this
direction.
MR. FORD-It says drainage flow, proposed septic, drainage flow into it, away from it.
MR. SEGULJIC-But that’s just his design.
MR. VOLLARO-See, there’s also drainage flow in this direction. So, I’m confused by the
arrows that are on here.
MR. SEGULJIC-We don’t have enough information here.
MR. VOLLARO-No.
MR. SEGULJIC-I’m not crazy about this project, but I don’t have any information here.
MRS. MILLER-Please go out and look at the lot. That would be probably the best thing. If
people on the Board could see things, you know.
MR. VOLLARO-We go on site visits.
MRS. MILLER-Do you?
MR. VOLLARO-We go on site visits every Saturday.
MRS. MILLER-I think that you would be amazed, really, to go out and see this.
MR. SIPP-Is the road that would go in here right across from the firehouse?
MRS. MILLER-No, it’s just a little ways down from Jack Mannix’s house.
MR. SIPP-South?
MRS. MILLER-South of Jack Mannix. It’s actually flagged. You do have markings.
MR. SIPP-The road would be to the right or the left of that power pole that’s on the east
side?
MRS. MILLER-There’s Jimmy Gray’s house on one side, and then there’s a kind of an
orangey colored ranch on the side, between, with big, big pine trees, and it goes right through.
You can access it. That’s what we did, because we can’t access it from our side. Most of the
lot, three quarters of the way in is wet. You can’t walk it. You have to go in from his side.
MR. SIPP-Your piece of property, I’ve got a contour line of 350, and then some lines that go,
and I can’t tell which way, because you’re right up in the corner of the topographic map, and
there’s no way of telling whether they’re going up or down, but also on the soils map you’ve
57
(Queensbury Planning Board 05/16/06)
got a soil which is classified as a C here, which is very poorly drained. I assume we’re in the
right corner.
MRS. MILLER-Right. Well, already that whole area has been impacted. I guess when they
thought it out to build Stonehurst, period, maybe it wasn’t well thought out, because it was
wet, too.
MR. HUNSINGER-I had some questions, too.
MR. STEVENS-Everybody’s commenting how poor this piece of property is, but I’ll have to
tell you, after walking the back of their yards, this piece of property is probably better than
most. If you look at the vegetation right from here, you can see the high area. Better than
60% of the land is probably 10 feet higher. The water that’s coming down comes from the
north to the south. It’s not going to affect the drainage at all. If I thought it was, I wouldn’t
build it. Period, and the Army Corps of Engineers, not to argue with you, sir, was extremely
critical on checking the soil and what the impact was. Believe, Kevin Bruce put me through
the grinder. We tried four or five different spots. I originally tried north more. You can see
it’s a little bit wider up there, and he didn’t like that spot, thought it was poor, and the
impact was going to be harder. So he came with like the third or fourth time we decided this
spot was the minimum, the best for impact, and all that, you know, and at no time was he
concerned at all that it was going to flood out or hurt anybody else’s, because the fill area was
so small. It was a very minimum amount of fill there.
MR. FORD-Let me clarify my position. In attending the workshop with the U.S. Corps,
where they stated the frequency with which they turn down an application is almost nil.
They work real hard to come up with reasons to say yes, and that’s all I was referring to.
MR. STEVENS-Well, just to say one more comment on that, when you start filling, you go
over that quarter acre fill, then you find out how slow it is, but under a quarter acre on a 4.73,
like he said, the impact is minimal. That was the reason that we tried to keep this fill area
under a quarter. Anything over a quarter they really start putting you through the stuff.
Under a quarter, it’s such a small area that they don’t get too worried about it.
MR. HUNSINGER-I had three questions for you, if I may. One of them you already
answered, and that was, how high is the fill, and you said, three feet. The other one, there
was some comments made about cutting trees, and when you look at this aerial shot, you
really can’t tell. How much clearing would you need to do in order to put in the house?
MR. STEVENS-I think there’s two or three dead trees that we would take down. We’re
going to leave up just about everything else we can.
MR. HUNSINGER-Okay.
MR. STEVENS-I’m not going to take down anything more than I have to. That was the
whole purpose, to keep it kind of the way it is.
MR. HUNSINGER-I mean, it kind of looks like there’s a clearing there, but you can’t really
tell.
MR. STEVENS-It is pretty clear. Most of that vegetation’s junk, you know. There’s some
beautiful pine trees in there that I’d never take down. They’re beautiful.
MR. HUNSINGER-Then the final question that I had, well, you just commented that the
Army Corps has been there a number of times. At any time did they recommend that the
wetlands that are being filled in be replaced?
MR. STEVENS-No. Because it was such a minimum amount, and he’s going to come back.
We’ll delineate the rest of it, and that’ll be forever wild. It’ll never be touched. So that was,
that answers, that’s why he said that. That’s why that was written in there, that that’s part
of the tradeoff, so that nobody else can go there and build it and later on, the Mannix’ were
the ones that owned it before. They wanted a private area back there. That’s why they
surveyed that off and did it. They own other property, and that’s the story I got from the
Potvins when they originally contacted the Mannix’, and then because of financial reasons
they decided not to build on it. They just didn’t want to do it.
58
(Queensbury Planning Board 05/16/06)
MR. FORD-It does somewhat resemble a number of other areas we have in this Town that
are designated forever wild, not that this has been.
MR. STEVENS-Well, there’ll be quite a bit of it that will be. I mean, we’re only shooting for
one house on the 4.73, and in that statement there is that nobody can ever come back and try
to whack that in half and do it again.
MRS. STEFFAN-Right. You have a conservation easement.
MR. STEVENS-Right. Which I thought was a very fair usage of 4.73 acres.
MR. VOLLARO-I think we have another, the public hearing is still open. I have another
gentleman who wants to speak here.
JOHN SALVADOR
MR. SALVADOR-Good evening. My name is John Salvador. I really believe that Mr.
Stevens is in his quandary because the Town really doesn’t know what to do. If I understand
correctly, he’s required to be before some Board because he has been seeking a building
permit, and he’s been told by the Building Department that he has to do something about
meeting a setback. Is that my understanding? Okay, and so to cure this setback we’re going
to fill a wetland. I never heard of anything so bizarre in my life. Usually when you take
wetland, you’ve got to mitigate and create wetland. Okay. The second thing is, the Army
Corps of Engineers, I believe, has absolutely no jurisdiction here. The U.S. Supreme Court
has determined that unless the wetlands are contiguous to a navigable body of water, the
Army Corps does not have jurisdiction. That’s a Supreme Court decision that goes back three
or four years. We don’t pay any attention to it. We keep calling them on the phone and we
keep them busy. The second thing is, this application is before you because they need site
plan review from 179-6-060. That Section, as I tried to point out in the Barrington/Devine
hearing, is entitled Shoreline and Wetland Regulations. Now the Section that we’re involved
with here says Shoreline Fill. That’s not fill in the water body. It’s fill on the shoreline, on
the upland side. He’s involved with fill beyond the shoreline. That Section does not apply,
and we have a Section of the Code called Wetland Regulations, and that’s what applies, not
this Section, and how anyone can advise to fill in the wetland without mitigating is dead
wrong, and I don’t care who they are.
MR. VOLLARO-I’m in agreement with that, John. There’s not enough information here for
us to make any kind of a decision at all on this.
MR. SALVADOR-Mr. Vollaro, with all due respect, this project is improperly characterized.
That’s the problem. It’s just like the Barrington/Devine one. It’s improperly characterized.
Thank you.
MR. VOLLARO-Okay. The only thing we have to go on here, and I keep reading this
document, is the document from Army Corps. I know what Mr. Salvador’s saying, that they
don’t have jurisdiction here. I’m not going to argue that point at this point, but there’s, these
special conditions, to me, within three months of the date of this letter, this means the, you’ve
got 10 days to do this, I guess, from tomorrow, the permittee shall have remaining wetlands
on the 4.73 acre site delineated and plotted on a drawing. You’ve got 10 days to do that.
That’s what it says here.
MR. STEVENS-Yes, and that’s part of the part about the mitigation. That’s what he
required. That was what he wanted for what he gave me.
MR. VOLLARO-Okay, but see all of the discussions, and all of the comments, and all of the
verbiage and the interplay, I only can read what’s in front of me, what’s been proposed in
front of this Board to take action on. All the rest of this dialogue helps, but it doesn’t get me
out from under some of these special conditions that Army Corps has put on here, and that’s a
problem. The permittee shall secure a conservation easement or deed restrictions for these
wetlands to guarantee the preservation of wetlands and wildlife resources. Copies of the
instrument affecting such easement shall be submitted to the New York State District Corp of
Engineers for approval prior to execution and the instrument shall be executed in accordance
with Warren County Registrar of Deeds within six months of the date of this letter. In order
for us to know what that conservation easement is, and what it says, we’ve got to see it. All
59
(Queensbury Planning Board 05/16/06)
of this is conjecture. I don’t have anything to go on here. I don’t know how other members
feel, but I don’t think there’s enough information here to go on. I really don’t.
MR. STEVENS-But I think you do, because most of it was based on whether I got a permit
or not. I certainly would not go through the time or the expense to pay for a re-survey to
delineate all that property, if you folks are going to say, Mike, you can’t do it. It’s an unfair.
I don’t even want to fill it, and don’t have to, to put my house up.
MR. VOLLARO-I’m not saying that. What I’m saying is, I’m reading what the special
conditions say you have to do, and I don’t see any of it in front of me. Other Board members
may feel differently about it.
MR. STEVENS-Because it doesn’t have to be done yet. The 27 isn’t here yet.
th
MR. VOLLARO-I know that.
MR. STEVENS-I must be getting tired, because I’m sorry, I don’t understand you, because
to me, if the date isn’t here yet, do I have to, Mr. Bruce said he’d come up any time. I mean,
he’s been very, very obliging. He’s been up to the property four times, but in all honesty, I
don’t want to call him up here unless we know we’re going to go through with this thing.
Why would you waste your time and his time to do it? I don’t mean to be disrespectful, but
I’ve been put in kind of a position where, you know, I never wanted to fill that little area in
the first place, but to meet these other requirements, I have to. I’d be just as happy if you
folks said go ahead and do it and we don’t need to fill it. You’ve made everybody happy.
These people would be happy, too, because it’s not necessary to do it. It’s not necessary to
build a house to do it. It’s the requirements of the Building Department, and, you know, it’s
not mine. I’d just as soon keep the 400 yards of fill out of there.
MR. VOLLARO-Who told you had to, tell me the person?
MR. STEVENS-Believe me, I don’t, it’s the Building Department. I’m not going to get into
that.
MR. VOLLARO-Is it the Building Department or is it the Planning Department?
MR. STEVENS-It’s the Building Department.
MR. VOLLARO-It’s the Building Department, under Mr. Hatin.
MR. STEVENS-It’s that group, and the way they put it is, where this house is going to be set
is on a dry spot, but you need to meet the requirements, you need to push that wetland back
50 feet to meet the requirements.
MR. VOLLARO-What requirement? That’s what I don’t?
MR. STEVENS-The 50 feet. It says right on the, the 50 feet.
MR. VOLLARO-You want to be 50 feet from the wetland itself?
MR. STEVENS-Yes.
MR. VOLLARO-You’ve got to be setback 50 feet.
MR. STEVENS-Yes.
MRS. BARDEN-Seventy-five.
MR. VOLLARO-So we’re creating a new line, by filling this, that says now you are now 75
feet from that line. Is that what we’re saying?
MR. STEVENS-Yes, you’ve got it exactly.
MR. VOLLARO-Wow. What a convoluted area this is. I don’t understand it at all.
MR. SEGULJIC-We don’t have enough information.
60
(Queensbury Planning Board 05/16/06)
MRS. STEFFAN-John Salvador might be right. Is the project improperly characterized?
MR. VOLLARO-Well, we’ve got two of them that were characterized improperly, I think,
Barrington and this, and Kurshion.
MR. STEVENS-I have to say that if it’s improperly characterized, it’s because it’s coming,
and again, I don’t mean to sound like, but, you know what, this is not coming from me.
These are orders from the Building Department. I’ve been waiting two years for this, and
this is getting a little old. Two years of going back to them with this, and, you’ve got to have
this. This is ridiculous.
MR. SEGULJIC-Couldn’t he get a Freshwater permit?
MR. HUNSINGER-That’s what I was just saying. Yes.
MR. SEGULJIC-And avoid all that.
MRS. BARDEN-That’s DEC.
MR. SEGULJIC-But it’s not a DEC wetland, is it?
MR. STEVENS-No.
MRS. BARDEN-I mean, I suppose he could seek a variance. What he’s doing is he’s filling in
the wetland to meet the 75 foot shoreline setback. I suppose he could reduce the fill area and
seek a variance for shoreline setback, not meeting the 75 feet.
MR. VOLLARO-He could seek a variance from the wetland line that’s there without doing
any fill at all.
MR. STEVENS-But that’s not what I was told in the Building Department.
MR. VOLLARO-Well, I understand that. I think we need more information from the
Building Department to understand what we’re doing on this Board. This Board just can’t,
willy nilly, go along and surmise what could be or what is. We can only deliberate, on this
Board, with the material that’s been put in front of us. All of the other discussion is fine. It’s
helpful, but the material in front of us is what we make our decisions on, and not on
conversation.
MR. SEGULJIC-Mr. Chairman, 25 feet of road frontage, how much road frontage do you
need, isn’t 40?
MR. VOLLARO-Forty feet.
MR. HUNSINGER-Yes, but they got a variance for that.
MR. VOLLARO-But they got a variance from that.
MRS. BARDEN-That’s in your packet.
MR. SEGULJIC-I apologize.
MR. STEVENS-That was done some time ago.
MR. VOLLARO-Yes, they got that. That’s okay. I just need to know who asked them to
put fill in so that they would be 75 foot back from an artificial line.
MR. STEVENS-This is costing a lot of time, a lot of money, and a lot of aggravation.
MR. SEGULJIC-What do we want to do from here? I think we need to get further
information.
MR. VOLLARO-Well, we’re going to have to table this. We can’t make a decision here
tonight. We’ve got to table this to seek information and get further information, probably
61
(Queensbury Planning Board 05/16/06)
from ourselves, as opposed to from the applicant, to find out what is the basis for filling this
in and why has it been done. I don’t see the logic in this at all.
MR. HUNSINGER-The frustration here is what are we going to ask the applicant to
provide?
MR. STEVENS-Yes, because the applicant has no idea. I feel as bad for you guys as I do for
me because we’re not accomplishing anything here. I say, just let me build the house, forget
the fill. I won’t fill it, and everybody’s going to be thrilled.
MR. SEGULJIC-Mr. Chairman, why don’t we have Staff talk to the Building Department,
make a determination as to what exactly we need to do.
MR. VOLLARO-Well, I don’t want them to tell us what to do.
MRS. BARDEN-There is a letter from the Zoning Administrator in your building permit file,
dated July 21, 2005, and this is in regard to the building permit application that was
submitted for Mr. Stevens project, and the Zoning Administrator looks at this for compliance
with the Zoning Code. “I’m writing to you in order to document our July 14, 2005 telephone
conversation regarding the above referenced project and our concerns regarding the potential
site constraints with the property. As discussed, we need to see the actual field delineation of
those areas designated to be wetlands by the Army Corp of Engineers, or one of their accepted
wetlands biologist. Ideally, this information will be provided to you in the form of field
demarcation and subsequent survey location on your property survey. This representation
will allow for both you and us to determine the applicable setbacks for your proposed
development. We request to be present during such field delineation. Craig Brown”
MR. STEVENS-And all that was done. That was all done.
MR. VOLLARO-Okay, and that’s what this map is, that’s the delineation that the Zoning
Administrator’s talking about.
MR. STEVENS-Yes.
MR. VOLLARO-Okay, and then once that was delineated, in order to meet a requirement of
75 foot setback from the house, from the wetlands, they created an artificial arc, and that
artificial arc is set back from the house 75 feet. Is that what’s going on here?
MRS. BARDEN-That’s correct.
MR. VOLLARO-So we’ve created an artificial wetland in order to get a 75 foot setback. Am
I wrong?
MR. SEGULJIC-I’m following you.
MR. STEVENS-But this is happening all the way up Ridge Road. I mean, this isn’t the first
time this has happened. I mean, if you go down the road, they’ve filled in 18 apartment
units, just down the road from it.
MRS. MILLER-That doesn’t make it right.
MR. SEGULJIC-This is one way to approach the issue, to fill it in. The other way is to seek
variances, I guess.
MR. VOLLARO-I need better information from our own Town as to why they decided to get
a 75 foot setback from the wetland, when it could have been an easy variance on that,
without putting this fill in here, but even without that fill, I think even with the fill,
personally, I think if this is going from north to south, it probably will not impact, but I don’t
know that, and what everybody here is saying, well, there’s going to be some fill here, and
that fill’s going to create a problem. I’m not sure that it will, but I’m not even sure that it’s a
good idea for us to create an artificial arc here, just to get 75 foot back from the wetlands. I
don’t see the logic in it. I’ve got to talk to somebody about it. We’ve got to talk to somebody
about it. We need the Zoning Administrator to tell us, or the Building Department, what was
the logic of asking this man to fill this.
62
(Queensbury Planning Board 05/16/06)
MR. FORD-There has to be a rationale, and I’d like to know what it is.
MR. VOLLARO-I’d like to know what it is.
MR. STEVENS-The rationale was to meet the setback requirements, period. That’s the
rationale. That’s all. No logistics to it. That’s what it’s to meet.
MR. VOLLARO-Something’s wrong with that.
MR. SEGULJIC-Do we want to discuss it with the Zoning Administrator?
MR. VOLLARO-Well, we need to get better information as to why this was done.
MR. SEGULJIC-Table it and give him a list of information we need. For example, we need
the test pit data. We need topographic information on the site. I don’t know if C.T. Male has
reviewed this at all.
MR. VOLLARO-It hasn’t gone to C.T. Male. It wasn’t required.
MR. SEGULJIC-Okay. It hasn’t gone there.
MR. STEVENS-Perc test, we did it. It’s an engineered septic. Hatin, they wanted it. That’s
been done, and it was approved.
MR. VOLLARO-But we don’t have any of that information.
MR. STEVENS-That’s been in the Building Department for a year. That’s not my fault.
MR. VOLLARO-See, you know what this looks like to me? This is a single, private house,
private residence, and I think that it went before the Building Department for a building
permit, and what we did is the Zoning Administrator then looked at this and said, wait a
minute, this doesn’t meet the 75 foot setback.
MRS. BARDEN-That’s right.
MR. VOLLARO-So the Building Department said, well, what do you want to do with it, and
the Zoning Administrator, I’m just talking out loud now, the Zoning Administrator said,
what we can do, or what we need to do, is artificially create that 75 foot setback by filling
this. This started as a building permit. This didn’t start as a site plan when it first went in.
That’s what I think is going on here, but we need more information from our in-house people.
I don’t know how we can do this without it.
MR. STEVENS-It isn’t 75 feet of fill, it’s 50.
MR. VOLLARO-No, on the chart, on this chart, it says 75 foot setback from the wetland
from the point of your house to the wetland, that’s what it says, 75 feet.
MR. STEVENS-Okay. It’s kind of redundant anyway, because you guys aren’t going to fly
with it anyway, right?
MR. VOLLARO-Well, we’ve got to get more information here, in order for us to make any
kind of decision at all. I don’t know why this has been filled. I just said what I think
happened. You came in and applied for a building permit. Am I right?
MR. STEVENS-Yes, absolutely.
MR. VOLLARO-Okay.
MR. STEVENS-Almost two years ago.
MR. VOLLARO-And then Dave Hatin and Company said, well, you’ve got to do some things
now. You’ve got to give us some information on perc information for your septic tank. These
are all things that apply to the building permit. Then somebody said, just a minute. This
house has to be 75 foot setback from the wetland. Right now the flag on the wetland shows
that it’s not 75 feet, but it’s probably more like 25 feet. So in order to gain the 75 foot
63
(Queensbury Planning Board 05/16/06)
setback, we’re asking you to fill this and make this arc equal to the arc that shows 75 foot.
These arcs look like they’re about the same.
MR. STEVENS-See, you’ve got all the information. You’ve got it perfect. That’s exactly
what happened.
MR. VOLLARO-That’s what happened.
MR. STEVENS-Over a long period of time, yes.
MR. VOLLARO-Okay. We’ve got to go back and find out why this couldn’t have been a
variance for the setback, and you wouldn’t have this at all. It wouldn’t be here. We wouldn’t
be talking about this. This would be a plain old building permit with a variance.
MR. HUNSINGER-Well, my concern is we get that information from the Building
Department or the Zoning Administrator, and then what do we do? I mean, I would rather
tell the applicant, okay, let’s assume that we need to continue down this path. What
additional information will we need in order to properly review this, at least to give him some
idea, so that we don’t come back here, a month from now, and have the same discussion.
MR. VOLLARO-I wouldn’t know what to tell him on this lot, to be honest with you. I
wouldn’t know what to say I need in addition to what. The one thing I see as the guiding
document here, says there’s things he has to do.
MR. HUNSINGER-Yes, but he doesn’t have to do those things for us. He has to do those
things for the Army Corps.
MR. VOLLARO-Yes, right, but we normally want to see that completed.
MR. STEVENS-But it’s unfair to ask an applicant to complete that until he has a permit,
because let’s just take the scenario, sir, that it doesn’t fly. Why would somebody go to all
that expense and work?
MR. HUNSINGER-Yes. It’s like an APA permit. You can’t even apply to the APA until
you get a building permit from the Town. So it’s the same thing.
MR. SEGULJIC-On the other hand, let’s take the wild assumption that there’s not one acre
of developable land. Because we don’t know what the total wetlands are yet.
MR. HUNSINGER-I see what you’re saying. What I was about to say is I think the one
piece of information that would be useful, and I think it would certainly be very beneficial,
given the concerns of the neighbors, and that would be to have some sort of a topographical
map of your site, and then we could say, you know, we could begin to make some of those
judgment decisions that we were struggling with tonight, that we don’t have the information
for.
MR. VOLLARO-In terms of water flow.
MR. HUNSINGER-Yes, in terms of water flow, fill and.
MR. STEVENS-But it’s conflicting information to me, because are we going to go for, are we
going to try and change this over to a variance, because then that changes everything.
MR. HUNSINGER-Well, and that’s your decision. I mean, that’s not ours. We can’t.
MR. STEVENS-Well, it’s not my decision. If you’re telling me that I can come back with a
topo, that’s fine. That’s what I’ll do, but I don’t want to go, you know, I want to know that,
I’ve been doing this for over a year and a half.
MR. HUNSINGER-And I appreciate your frustration.
MR. STEVENS-I’m getting extremely frustrated, because this is exactly what’s happened
probably, 30, 40 times to that Department, and every time it was, oops, here, you’ve got to
have this, and then, oops, we’ve got to have this. It should have been right up in front, right
from Day One, and it wasn’t.
64
(Queensbury Planning Board 05/16/06)
MR. HUNSINGER-I guess what I was trying to say is, in order for us to continue to review
this as you’ve presented it, what is the information that we would need, and to me that’s one
of them. I mean, if you end up pursuing a variance request through the ZBA, you don’t have
to come back to us anyway. So there’d be no need to do a topo.
MR. VOLLARO-Yes, that’s right.
MR. SEGULJIC-Right.
MR. VOLLARO-I think that, if I were in your shoes, I would go that route. I would like to
get a variance from the 75 foot setback, not fill this in, and build a house.
MR. STEVENS-The funny part was I originally filled out that variance form by mistake, and
they said, no, you can’t use that. You’ve got to use this.
MR. VOLLARO-You can apply for a variance. Anybody can apply for a variance. It’s your
right to go before the Zoning Board of Appeals.
MR. STEVENS-That may be, but that’s not what I was advised to do by the Building
Department, a year and a half ago, after I paid by $600 for the permit. After I paid the
$1,000 for the blueprints. After I paid the thousands for the surveys, after I paid to get the
delineations re-surveyed. Talk about aggravation. So, is this what you people want from me,
a topo and what else? The other information, sir, I don’t feel like I want to have that
delineated until I know what I’m doing. I mean, not to argue with you, but I would make
that subject to the permit.
MR. HUNSINGER-Well, to go back to Mr. Seguljic’s comment, one of the things that we
have to be able to determine is whether or not it’s a buildable lot. In order to determine if it’s
a buildable lot, you need to show that you have at least one acre of developable land.
MR. STEVENS-Well, there is. Fifty percent of it is good, hard, dry land. It’s just that the
other part starts going into the gully and the wet area.
MR. VOLLARO-I think this all revolves around the fact that they’ve asked that the
remaining wetlands be delineated on the site, and until that’s done, Tom is right. We don’t
know whether we’ve got a buildable site here.
MR. HUNSINGER-And probably the wetland delineation will follow the topo lines.
MR. STEVENS-You’ve got where the house is going to be delineated. You see that. The
house site’s not going to move.
MR. VOLLARO-No. The house site’s not going to move. What Tom is saying, and I
understand what he’s saying, is that until we get a total look at all the wetlands on this site,
because this letter says that they’re asking somebody to completely delineate the wetlands on
this site, if this is not a complete delineation of wetlands, and if we get more wetlands on this
site, we’ve got to make sure that there’s enough clear one acre piece that’s not impinged by
wetlands that you can put your house on, and we don’t even know that. There’s so much
missing.
MR. STEVENS-Well, you’ve got more than an acre right there.
MR. HUNSINGER-I was going to say, if you drew a line here and there, is that more than an
acre?
MR. STEVENS-Absolutely. There’s more than an acre there already.
MR. HUNSINGER-I mean, if you just assume everything that’s not delineated is wetlands,
he’s say there’s already more than an acre there.
MR. VOLLARO-Yes. Okay. All right.
MR. STEVENS-It’s already been surveyed.
65
(Queensbury Planning Board 05/16/06)
MR. SEGULJIC-I feel uncomfortable looking at something that has a lot of wetlands on it
like this.
MR. HUNSINGER-No, I’m agreeing with you.
MR. SEGULJIC-And if it’s not wetlands, then it’s a real easy survey that shouldn’t take
them very long, but we’d also have to see test pit information for the septic.
MR. STEVENS-That’s all been done.
MR. HUNSINGER-You have test pit information?
MR. STEVENS-That was, that’s, the Building Department’s had that for a year.
MR. HUNSINGER-That should be on the map.
MR. VOLLARO-See, when he came in for the building permit, that’s what they asked him to
do.
MR. HUNSINGER-Sure.
MR. VOLLARO-They asked him to get test pit information to verify where his septic, this
was all, up until a certain point, my guess is this has been all building permit, I think until
our Zoning Administrator said, wait a second, you don’t meet the 75 foot setback from the
wetland, and it took it out of the building permit category and put it here.
MR. HUNSINGER-Yes.
MR. STEVENS-Yes. I wasn’t asked. I was told.
MR. VOLLARO-I understand. I understand.
MR. HUNSINGER-Again, I just want to make sure we don’t send him away without some
guidance, so that we don’t go through this exercise again, a month from now.
MR. SEGULJIC-Well, should he meet with the Zoning Administrator and say, hey, if I
request a variance from the 75 foot setback from the wetland? Then if he chooses to go that
way.
MR. VOLLARO-It’s his right to do that.
MR. SEGULJIC-Yes.
MR. VOLLARO-They can’t tell you you can’t do it. It’s your right to go before the Zoning
Board of Appeals and ask for a setback. Nobody can tell you that you can’t go to the Zoning
Board of Appeals. It’s a citizen’s right, and I don’t understand why they said, you can’t do
that. That doesn’t wash with me.
MR. SEGULJIC-If you want to continue with this fill, then we’re going to need to see
topographic information, wetlands delineated, and test pit information. So I guess what we
need to do is table this application looking for that information. If he decides to get the
variance, then he’ll withdraw his application.
MR. VOLLARO-We can table this for you to get a map with decent topo information on it,
and I think to satisfy us all, all the wetlands would have to be delineated on this map so we
know. I think, intuitively, I think Chris has said, okay, what about if you take this, is that
an acre, you go, yes, that’s plenty. That’s an acre, but it’s not, you know, we’ve got to know
that. You can’t just think about it.
MR. STEVENS-That map is to scale.
MR. VOLLARO-I know it’s to scale. I understand it’s to scale, but until all the wetlands on
this map are delineated, we don’t know that for sure, that none of this property is impacted
by the wetland, the rest of it I’m talking about here. So if you can come back with a topo of
66
(Queensbury Planning Board 05/16/06)
this, give us an idea of what the flow is, and I know the flow. The flow’s got to be from north
to south. I understand that.
MR. STEVENS-So you want the delineation and the topo.
MR. VOLLARO-Yes. That would help.
MR. SEGULJIC-And the test pit information.
MR. HUNSINGER-And the test pit information.
MR. STEVENS-Well, the Building Department already has that.
MR. VOLLARO-Well, we’d have to extract that from the Building Department.
MR. HUNSINGER-Yes, you should put it on your plan.
MR. STEVENS-Okay.
MR. HUNSINGER-Put the data on the plan.
MRS. STEFFAN-What about the trees and clearing? I heard that come up in discussion.
MR. VOLLARO-Well, there’s no cut zone information on this at all, as to what can be taken
out and what can’t be taken out, and I think that’s what Tom is saying. There’s not enough
information on this drawing for us to do what we have to do. I’ve got to go to completion
review tomorrow morning at nine o’clock. I’ve got to be at the Town Hall for completion
review for the next month’s stuff. Can I get this Board’s permission to talk to the Zoning
Administrator about this application?
MR. SEGULJIC-Yes.
MR. SIPP-Yes.
MR. VOLLARO-All Board members agree that I can go in and talk to him, or what?
MR. HUNSINGER-Sure.
MR. FORD-Go for it.
MR. VOLLARO-Okay. All right. I will be at Town Hall tomorrow morning, nine o’clock. I
will get a hold of Craig Brown. We’ll sit down and talk about this application, and if
necessary, I’ll bring Dave Hatin to the table and find out what’s going on here.
MR. STEVENS-Do you want me there?
MR. VOLLARO-No, I really don’t. I really don’t.
MR. STEVENS-So do you want to speak to me after and let me know the information you
want?
MR. VOLLARO-I’ll have somebody else speak to you.
MR. HUNSINGER-Staff will, yes.
MR. STEVENS-Okay.
MR. VOLLARO-See, there’s a thing called ex-parte communication, one of these legal things,
that I’m not allowed to talk to anybody.
MRS. MILLER-How are the homeowners notified of that meeting?
MR. VOLLARO-We’ll manage, the public hearing has remained open.
MR. HUNSINGER-Do we want to table this to a specific date?
67
(Queensbury Planning Board 05/16/06)
MR. VOLLARO-I’d like to leave that open until I talk to them tomorrow.
MR. HUNSINGER-Okay.
MOTION TO TABLE SITE PLAN NO. 18-2006 MICHAEL STEVENS, Introduced by Chris
Hunsinger who moved for its adoption, seconded by Robert Vollaro:
Tabled to June 27, 2006, pending the receipt by May 31, 2006 of the following information:
1. A topo map,
2. A wetland delineation, and
3. Test pit data.
Duly adopted this 16 day of May, 2006, by the following vote:
th
MR. SEGULJIC-Can’t we stall our decision for one week to talk to the Zoning Administrator
and then next week make our motion?
MR. VOLLARO-I don’t think you can do that. I think we have to make a motion to table it
to a discreet date. I don’t think you can do that, just say, well, we don’t want to act on this
at all. It’s improper to not act on an application.
MR. HUNSINGER-The problem in picking a date is we run into the same thing we always
run into, the submission date for next month was yesterday, and you hate to put it off to
July.
MR. FORD-It couldn’t be re-opened next week with that information available?
MR. VOLLARO-I don’t know if he can do this in a week.
MRS. BARDEN-No.
MR. VOLLARO-I don’t think he can do this.
MR. STEVENS-I couldn’t get a topo by then.
MR. HUNSINGER-If we table it to the second meeting in June, providing he submits
everything by the end of the month. Is that reasonable, or is that unreasonable, Susan?
MR. VOLLARO-I think that’s reasonable, by the 31 of May.
st
MR. HUNSINGER-Well, I was asking Staff if that was reasonable.
MRS. BARDEN-Well, we can certainly try, and if Mr. Stevens doesn’t have it in by the 31
st
of May, then he doesn’t come back on whatever meeting you decide in June.
MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. So we’ll table this to the June 27 meeting, pending receipt of all
th
the requested information by May 31.
st
MRS. BARDEN-Okay.
MR. STEVENS-Thank you.
AYES: Mr. Ford, Mr. Seguljic, Mr. Sipp, Mrs. Steffan, Mr. Hunsinger, Mr. Vollaro
NOES: NONE
ABSENT: Mr. Metivier
MRS. STEFFAN-How do we deal with the information we got, the information that we got
on the Stonehurst said that some of the septics weren’t draining, that there was water laying
on top. Is that a Department of Health issue?
68
(Queensbury Planning Board 05/16/06)
MRS. BARDEN-I’ll talk to, yes, I’ll talk about that tomorrow.
MRS. STEFFAN-Okay. Good.
MR. FORD-Please.
MRS. BARDEN-I wrote it down.
MRS. STEFFAN-That has to be dealt with.
MRS. BARDEN-Yes, I think so.
MR. VOLLARO-I’m going to close the meeting.
On motion meeting was adjourned.
RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED,
Robert Vollaro, Chairman
69