2007-10-16
(Queensbury Planning Board 10/16/07)
QUEENSBURY PLANNING BOARD MEETING
FIRST REGULAR MEETING
OCTOBER 16, 2007
INDEX
Site Plan No. 50-2001 Jean Hoffman 1.
MODIFICATION #2 Tax Map No. 227.17-1-9.1
Site Plan No. 14-2007 Redbud Development 2.
Tax Map No. 238.7-1-7
Site Plan No. 45-2007 C.R. Bard, Inc. 2.
Tax Map No. 302.8-1-3
Subdivision No. 14-2005 Hayes & Hayes 10.
PRELIMINARY STAGE Tax Map No. 308.6-1-86
Subdivision No. 1-2007 Cerrone Builders, K. Kennah, Wm. Joslyn, 24.
PRELIMINARY STAGE C. Bishop
Tax Map No. 315.5-1-1, 315-1-1, 315-1-4
Site Plan No. 51-2007 Lehigh Northeast Cement 38.
Tax Map No. 310.7-1-1
Site Plan No. 52-2007 GRJH, Inc. 40.
Tax Map No. 309.14-1-6
Subdivision No. 12-2007 Christine Germaine 48.
SKETCH PLAN Tax Map No. 301.18-2-34
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.
o
(Queensbury Planning Board 10/16/07)
QUEENSBURY PLANNING BOARD MEETING
FIRST REGULAR MEETING
OCTOBER 16, 2007
7:00 P.M.
MEMBERS PRESENT
THOMAS SEGULJIC, ACTING CHAIRMAN
GRETCHEN STEFFAN, SECRETARY
STEPHEN TRAVER
DONALD SIPP
MEMBERS ABSENT
TANYA BRUNO
THOMAS FORD
CHRIS HUNSINGER
GIS ADMINISTRATOR-GEORGE HILTON
TOWN COUNSEL-FITZGERALD, MORRIS, BAKER FIRTH-MATT FULLER
STENOGRAPHER-SUE HEMINGWAY
MR. SEGULJIC-AII right. I believe we're ready to go. We only have four members here
tonight. So, Counsel can jump in on this. That means, to approve a motion, we need a
unanimous vote. Because you need.
MR. FULLER-A majority of your Board.
MR. SEGULJIC-A majority of the Board. It's a seven person Board, so we need four
votes. Okay. All right.
SITE PLAN NO. 50-2001 MODIFICATION #2 SEQR TYPE JEAN HOFFMAN
AGENT(S) WILLIAM KENIRY, ESQ. OWNER(S) SAME ZONING WR-1A LOCATION
93 CLEVERDALE ROAD APPLICANT HAS CONSTRUCTED A 978 SQ. FT. DOCK
AND BOATHOUSE WITH A 704 SQ. FT. SUNDECK. BOATHOUSES IN THE WR
ZONE REQUIRE REVIEW BY THE PLANNING BOARD. CROSS REFERENCE AV
46-05, AV 90-04, AV 91-01 WARREN CO. PLANNING 3/14/07 ADIRONDACK PARK
AGENCY YES LOT SIZE 7.27 ACRES TAX MAP NO. 227.17-1-9.1 SECTION 179-5-
050
MR. SEGULJIC-With that, I'd like to call the first application, Jean Hoffman, which I
believe is not here. So we're going to table that motion. Do we have a motion prepared?
MRS. STEFFAN-According to what George put in the Staff Notes.
MR. FULLER-I would just amend that to make a motion to table indefinitely, with the
Article 78 and Declaratory action that are going.
MR. SEGULJIC-Okay.
MRS. STEFFAN-What should the language be, Matt? Because the language in the Staff
Notes said so that the applicant can re-visit the dock variance with the Queensbury
Zoning Board of Appeals.
MR. FULLER-I'm looking at your resolution. Again, I would just make a motion to table
the application indefinitely at the request of the applicant. The applicant's attorney
contacted me today, and in light of the pleadings that are going back and forth right now
with the Judge, that's probably a good idea.
MRS. STEFFAN-Okay.
MOTION TO TABLE MODIFICATION #2 TO SITE PLAN NO. 50-2001 JEAN
HOFFMAN, Introduced by Gretchen Steffan who moved for its adoption, seconded by
Stephen Traver:
Tabled indefinitely at the request of the applicant's counsel.
1
(Queensbury Planning Board 10/16/07)
Duly adopted this 16th day of October, 2007, by the following vote:
AYES: Mr. Sipp, Mrs. Steffan, Mr. Traver, Mr. Seguljic
NOES: NONE
ABSENT: Mrs. Bruno, Mr. Ford, Mr. Hunsinger
SITE PLAN NO. 14-2007 SEQR TYPE UNLISTED REDBUD DEVELOPMENT
AGENT(S) REDBUD DEV. OWNER(S) GREGG BROWN ZONING WR-1A
LOCATION 31 KNOX ROAD APPLICANT PROPOSES CONSTRUCTION OF NEW
RETAINING WALLS AT THE SHORE OF LAKE GEORGE, BLUE STONE PATIOS,
LANDSCAPING AND STORMWATER CONTROLS. FILLING/HARD SURFACING
WITHIN 50 FEET OF THE SHORELINE REQUIRES SITE PLAN REVIEW BY THE
PLANNING BOARD. CROSS REFERENCE SP 44-92, AV 59-96 WARREN CO.
PLANNING 4/11/07 ADIRONDACK PARK AGENCY YES LOT SIZE 0.64 ACRES
TAX MAP NO. 239.7-1-7 SECTION 179-4-020
MR. SEGULJIC-I believe there's also been a tabling request for that.
MR. HILTON-Yes, there has. There is a request, and they have requested to be tabled
to the first November meeting, and they're, I guess, asking the Board to be allowed to
submit information on Monday the 22nd. Obviously the deadline for November has
passed, but I guess they're seeking a special exception, if you will, to get that information
on the 22nd. So that's, you know, entirely up to you.
MR. SEGULJIC-How does November look at this point?
MR. HILTON-It's looking pretty full. I'm also looking at, see, I've got two different piece
of correspondence here regarding the same application, and I guess another one is
actually, which is dated today, from their counsel, is saying that they could be tabled to
the December meeting, and that they can most likely make the November 15th deadline.
MR. SEGULJIC-Okay. Why don't we do that.
MOTION TO TABLE SITE PLAN NO. 14-2007 REDBUD DEVELOPMENT, Introduced
by Gretchen Steffan who moved for its adoption, seconded by Donald Sipp:
Tabled to the December 18th Planning Board meeting with a submission deadline of
November 15th, and this tabling was requested by the applicant.
Duly adopted this 16th day of October, 2007, by the following vote:
AYES: Mr. Traver, Mrs. Steffan, Mr. Sipp, Mr. Seguljic
NOES: NONE
ABSENT: Mrs. Bruno, Mr. Ford, Mr. Hunsinger
SITE PLAN NO. 45-2007 SEQR TYPE UNLISTED C.R. BARD AGENT(S) WILLIAM
J. KELLER OWNER(S) SAME ZONING LI LOCATION 289 BAY ROAD APPLICANT
PROPOSES ADDITIONAL PARKING LOT LIGHTING AND INSTALLATION OF AN
EMERGENCY GENERATOR AT C.R. BARD, AN EXISTING MEDICAL DEVICE
MANUFACTURING BUSINESS. EXPANSION OF USES IN THE LIGHT INDUSTRIAL
ZONE REQUIRES SITE PLAN REVIEW AND APPROVAL FROM THE PLANNING
BOARD. CROSS REFERENCE SP 36-02, AV 65-02, SP 4-91, AV 96-90, AV 55-07
WARREN CO. PLANNING 9/12/07 LOT SIZE 6.72 +/- ACRES TAX MAP NO. 302.8-
1-3 SECTION 179-4-020, 179-9-020
WILLIAM KELLER, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT
MR. SEGULJIC-If you could identify yourself.
MR. KELLER-Bill Keller, Facility Engineering Manager for C.R. Bard.
MR. SEGULJIC-Okay, and if I recall you were here last month, I believe.
MR. KELLER-Yes, sir.
2
(Queensbury Planning Board 10/16/07)
MR. SEGULJIC-And we requested a few pieces of information from you. If you could
just, if you wish, go over those quickly.
MR. KELLER-Okay. We sent an engineer's stamped memo that confirms the
stormwater management system installed as required for the above referenced parking
area is functioning as designed, and in accordance with plans and specifications
approved by C.T. Male Associates P.C., engineer for the Town of Queensbury at the
time of the design and construction. Also included with that information was the
information the Board requested regarding what the sound would be with our emergency
generation system, and I'm just going to read a quick summary. This, again, is from Rist-
Frost Associates. Sound level at a distance from the generator equivalent to that of the
most directly exposed house greater than 1,070 feet have been estimated to be around
53 decibels. This is based on an open, free field model, and doesn't take into account
the effect of intermediate woodlands or other reflective surfaces. It also gives you some
information on the type of noise that can be heard, compared to a typical library or quiet
residential area can be around 40 decibels. A refrigerator, rainfall, or average home can
be around 50 decibels. Normal conversation is around 60 decibels. When I spoke last
month, the type of noise attenuation device is a critical hospital grade engine exhaust
silencer, the muffler. So C.R. Bard has spent, you know, more money than somebody
that's going to be out in the middle of nowhere on a critical hospital grade engine
exhaust silencer. Those are the two pieces of information that the Board asked for.
MR. SEGULJIC-Okay. So clarify that then. So the closest house that would be affected.
MR. KELLER-There was a map attached to the information that I sent to Town. It's the
closest house in direct, with, you know, very little buffering except for the woods and/or
the parking lot. So you can see the line goes out to 1,070 feet. There's other dwellings.
I think it's a garage at 730 feet, another house at 840, but that noise would be buffered
by our Building Four. Another house at 588, but that noise would be buffered by
Buildings Three and Building Five.
MR. SEGULJIC-And if I'm understanding it correctly, even at 588, you would have a
sound decibel of 58, which would be comparable to an electric toothbrush.
MR. KELLER-Yes.
MR. SEGULJIC-AII right. Does the Board have any questions?
MRS. STEFFAN-What about the outstanding violation issue, what that addressed?
MR. KELLER-I brought this to Bruce Frank and I'm assuming it was addressed.
MRS. STEFFAN-George?
MR. HILTON-That's my understanding as well. I mean, we don't have any updated
correspondence from Bruce, but, you know, this memo did come in and it does seem to
indicate that the stormwater system is designed and is operating as it was designed.
MR. SEGULJIC-If I recall also it was sort of nebulous. It didn't require any action, it just
said it wasn't, there was ponding. That's all it said. It didn't say you have to come up
with a new plan. It just said there was ponding.
MR. KELLER-Correct me if I'm wrong. In your Town law you allow 12 or 13 days for the
water to recede, especially in the spring runoff season when you've got three feet of
snow out there and you get another big storm, the ground is saturated, and even the
Town law allows you 12 days. In two days that water was gone.
MR. HILTON-Well, honestly I've never heard that. I'm not familiar with that section, but,
again, there was a letter stating that the system is installed as designed and is
functioning as designed.
MR. SEGULJIC-Right. So, any issues.
MRS. STEFFAN-No.
MR. SEGULJIC-Okay. To me, it appears as if it has been satisfied because Bruce just
said there was ponding and he didn't require any action, actually, and the applicant went
and got a letter from an engineer stating that.
3
(Queensbury Planning Board 10/16/07)
MR. KELLER-It works as designed.
MR. SEGULJIC-It works as designed. So I think that's been satisfied.
MRS. STEFFAN-Okay.
MR. SEGULJIC-And then we have the noise issue.
MRS. STEFFAN-The lighting issue.
MR. HILTON-I just wanted to go over the lighting. I've made my comments, obviously,
again, we're talking about downcast lighting. I think at the very least some consideration
should be given to at least the lights that are facing westward and that would be visible
from those residential properties. Perhaps if there's something that can be done with
those lights to make them downcast, I guess, just something. The concerns were raised
last week by the residents, and it's, I guess, something the Board should consider.
MR. SEGULJIC-Is that possible, to have them downcast?
MR. KELLER-That'll limit the amount of light in the parking lot which we're trying to
increase security for our employees. So, yes, they're adjustable. Like I said earlier,
they're at a 45 degree angle instead of a complete downcast. However, you've got 800
plus feet of woods between our parking lot and those neighbors on North Road. There's
more light trespass from Hannaford than there is from Bard.
MR. SEGULJIC-Refresh my memory. These are the new lights that were installed over
the summertime?
MR. KELLER-Yes. The old lights, these are better than the existing lights that were
there since, you know, I started 20 years ago. So these are now, you know, before these
were just flood lights that pointed out. Now you add 45 degree angle towards the
ground, and they're a smaller wattage and they meet what the Town of Queensbury
requires as far as foot candles.
MR. SEGULJIC-Right, because I remember, I don't have the plan in front of me, but it's
very low lighting, and also I believe they were complaining about wintertime when the
trees were down. So they haven't seen your new lighting yet, and it should be less.
MR. KELLER-I didn't confirm that.
MRS. STEFFAN-The Code talks about downcast lighting. Obviously when this was
approved, it must have been.
MR. KELLER-Those lights there on that wood telephone pole have been there for over
20 some years. I can't tell you when they were installed. So they've been at that site
forever. We upgraded, you know, my mistake as I spoke last month was I got a hold of
the Town, found out they had a light ordinance. We did our design to meet the light
ordinance. I did not get an application for a Site Plan Review. My mistake. So those
lights that are on that wooden telephone pole have no power going to them and in time
they'll be taken down. So I don't know if there was a picture next to it of a.
MR. SEGULJIC-Excuse me. Those lights on that pole are not used?
MR. KELLER-No.
MR. SEGULJIC-Okay.
MR. KELLER-That wooden telephone pole are the ones that are no longer used. So
they're not being used.
MRS. STEFFAN-So are the lights that you have on the rest of the parking lot downcast?
MR. KELLER-They are a downcast fixture. They're at a 45 degree angle, not a complete
90 degrees to the ground or whatever.
MR. SEGULJIC-And his lighting plan, I believe, had no more than one and a half to two
foot candles.
4
(Queensbury Planning Board 10/16/07)
MR. KELLER-Yes, it's a full cutoff fixture, but you can use it as a, you know, a 45 degree
or it's adjustable.
MR. SEGULJIC-AII right. Any other comments? We've got a public hearing. Anyone
from the public wish to comment on this application?
PUBLIC HEARING OPEN
MR. SEGULJIC-This lighting plan we're looking at just reflects the new lights?
MR. KELLER-It depends on which plan, there's two plans there, one with the old lights
and one with the.
MR. SEGULJIC-Yes, it says new lights.
MR. KELLER-Okay. If you look up in the top right hand corner, is the stats on it, gives
you your Min, Max and Average foot candles for each zone.
MR. SEGULJIC-Anyone have any issues with the lighting? As it's portrayed on the.
MR. SIPP-These are all 45 degree pointed in towards the parking lot.
MR. KELLER-Yes.
MR. SEGULJIC-The parking lot is two foot candles. Correct?
MR. HILTON-Yes. I think that the averages and the foot candles are okay, but I guess
what I'm saying is because the light is not downcast, completely downcast, at a zero
degree, as opposed to a 45, that, you know, some concerns were raised by the residents
that they see lights now. If you have a 45 degree angle on a light, you've got the
potential that that light's going to shine onto your property.
MR. SEGULJIC-What are your lights now, year round, prior lights. Those were the ones
that were straight out.
MR. KELLER-Straight out. Those were the ones that you had, the fixture was on the
wooden pole.
MR. SEGULJIC-And if I'm correct, the residents behind you were complaining about
seeing them potentially in the wintertime, but since then you've put the lights on a 45
degree angle.
MR. KELLER-And we've changed the lights.
MR. SEGULJIC-You've lessened the wattage, I believe, also. So, I'm all set.
MRS. STEFFAN-It's a very difficult situation because they're not downcast. It doesn't
meet the Zoning Code, the 45 degree angle. So there is some opportunity for spillage,
and what we're trying to do is dark sky. I understand that, and that's why we want
downcast fixtures.
MR. HILTON-And I understand the safety concern. That's where my comment came
from that perhaps, you know, more poles could be added that were completely
downcast, that would provide more light and give them the levels that they require, while
not at the same time potentially impacting the surrounding properties.
MR. TRAVER-Is there a specific definition in the Code with regard to what constitutes
downcast, in terms of degrees.
MR. HILTON-Yes, zero or 90, however you look at. If you're looking at a vertical, you're
going to go 90 degrees to that. So it's essentially straight down to the ground.
MRS. STEFFAN-Okay.
MR. TRAVER-So these are not to Code.
MR. HILTON-The Planning Board does have flexibility in this, though.
5
(Queensbury Planning Board 10/16/07)
MR. SEGULJIC-Well, the one option that comes to my mind quickly is that you put the
lights completely downcast. If it doesn't work for you, you come back. I guess, we could
approve it at a 45 degree angle.
MR. HILTON-Well, that's what I guess I meant by flexibility.
MR. SEGULJIC-Because otherwise I don't want to send you away again. I don't know.
I'm getting the sense from the Board that you guys want to see downcast lights.
MR. KELLER-Can we compromise, and what you mentioned before on the westward
facing lights, that the lights that are facing toward Bay Road, I'll put them at the 90 or
zero degree mark, the new lights?
MR. SEGULJIC-I think it's the other ones.
MR. KELLER-No, it's the ones facing north, that would be west, North Road is west.
Those are the neighbors that came in and had comments.
MR. SEGULJIC-The ones facing North Road.
MR. HILTON-The ones facing the residents to the west is what I'm talking about.
MR. KELLER-If you went back to where that noise picture is, that's west going towards
North Road. All these houses along here are on North Road. So it would be these
parking lot lights along this line here, which I think there's two or three, that would be
faced, there's two new light fixtures there.
MR. SEGULJIC-So, excuse me, it would be these lights here that you're speaking of?
MR. KELLER-Right. Those two right there. They put those at zero degree or 90 degree
downcast, and that should take care of the neighbor's complaints.
MR. SEGULJIC-Potential neighbor complaints, yes.
MR. KELLER-Potential, yes.
MR. SEGULJIC-Would that work for you? I think that'll speed the process along.
MR. KELLER-I can try. I think it's a fair compromise.
MR. SEGULJIC-The lights along the west side of the Warren County Bike Path?
MR. KELLER-Yes.
MRS. STEFFAN-You have this labeled Zone Two.
MR. KELLER-These would be new Light C.
MRS. STEFFAN-Correct.
MR. KELLER-There's a Zone Two to the northwest of Building Nine.
MRS. STEFFAN-Those are the ones we're talking about?
MR. KELLER-Right. Those are the ones that are facing North Road. Those two sets.
Do you want me to point them out to you up there?
MRS. STEFFAN-No. We've got them. I just want to be sure. Because if we say the C
lights, then that would include Zone One and Zone Two.
MR. KELLER-No, it's just Zone Two.
MR. SEGULJIC-Okay. Any other discussion then? With that we'll close the public
hearing.
PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED
MR. SEGULJIC-And we're ready for a motion then.
6
(Queensbury Planning Board 10/16/07)
MR. HIL TON-Mr. Chairman, it's actually an Unlisted Action. So you'd have to do a Short
Form.
MR. SEGULJIC-Short Form. Nothing's simple.
MRS. STEFFAN-Okay. MRS. STEFFAN-"Does the action exceed any Type I threshold
in 6 NYCRR Part 617.4?"
MR. SEGULJIC-No.
MR. SIPP-No.
MRS. STEFFAN-"Will the action receive coordinated review as provided for Unlisted
Actions in 6 NYCRR, Part 617.6?"
MR. SEGULJIC-No.
MR. SIPP-No.
MRS. STEFFAN-"Could the action result in any adverse effects associated with the
following: C1. Existing air quality, surface or ground water quality or quantity, noise
levels, existing traffic patterns, solid waste production or disposal, potential for erosion,
drainage or flooding problems?"
MR. SEGULJIC-No.
MR. SIPP-No.
MRS. STEFFAN-"C2. Aesthetic, agricultural, historic, or other natural or cultural
resources; or community or neighborhood character?"
MR. SEGULJIC-No.
MR. SIPP-No.
MRS. STEFFAN-"C3. Vegetation, fauna, fish, shellfish or wildlife species, significant
habitats, or threatened or endangered species?"
MR. SEGULJIC-No.
MR. SIPP-No.
MRS. STEFFAN-"C4. A community's existing plans or goals as officially adopted, or a
change in use or intensity of use of land or other natural resources?"
MR. SEGULJIC-No.
MR. SIPP-No.
MRS. STEFFAN-"C5. Growth, subsequent development or related activities likely to be
induced by the proposed action?"
MR. SEGULJIC-No.
MR. SIPP-No.
MRS. STEFFAN-"C6. Long term, short term, cumulative or other effects not identified
above?"
MR. SEGULJIC-No.
MR. SIPP-No.
MRS. STEFFAN-"C7. Other impacts (including changes in use of either quantity or
energy)?"
MR. SEGULJIC-No.
MR. SIPP-No.
7
(Queensbury Planning Board 10/16/07)
MRS. STEFFAN-"Will the project have an impact on the environmental characteristics
that caused the establishment of a Critical Environmental Area?"
MR. SEGULJIC-No.
MR. SIPP-No.
MRS. STEFFAN-"Is there or is there likely to be controversy related to potential adverse
environmental impacts?"
MR. SEGULJIC-No.
MR. SIPP-No.
MRS. STEFFAN-Then I'll make a motion for a Negative SEQRA Declaration.
RESOLUTION WHEN DETERMINATION OF NO SIGNIFICANCE IS MADE
RESOLUTION NO. 45-2007, Introduced by Gretchen Steffan who moved for its
adoption, seconded by Donald Sipp:
WHEREAS, there is presently before the Planning Board an application for:
C.R. BARD, INC., and
WHEREAS, this Planning Board has determined that the proposed project and Planning
Board action is subject to review under the State Environmental Quality Review Act,
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT
RESOLVED:
1. No Federal agency appears to be involved.
2. The following agencies are involved:
NONE
3. The proposed action considered by this Board is Unlisted in the Department of
Environmental Conservation Regulations implementing the State Environmental
Quality Review Act and the regulations of the Town of Queensbury.
4. An Environmental Assessment Form has been completed by the applicant.
5. Having considered and thoroughly analyzed the relevant areas of environmental
concern and having considered the criteria for determining whether a project has
a significant environmental impact as the same is set forth in Section 617.11 of
the Official Compilation of Codes, Rules and Regulations for the State of New
York, this Board finds that the action about to be undertaken by this Board will
have no significant environmental effect and the Chairman of the Planning Board
is hereby authorized to execute and sign and file as may be necessary a
statement of non-significance or a negative declaration that may be required by
law.
Duly adopted this 16th day of October, 2007, by the following vote:
AYES: Mr. Traver, Mrs. Steffan, Mr. Sipp, Mr. Seguljic
NOES: NONE
ABSENT: Mrs. Bruno, Mr. Ford, Mr. Hunsinger
MOTION TO APPROVE SITE PLAN NO. 45-2007 C.R. BARD, INC., Introduced by
Gretchen Steffan who moved for its adoption, seconded by Donald Sipp:
1. A site plan application has been made to the Queensbury Planning Board for the
following: Applicant proposes additional parking lot lighting and installation of an
emergency generator at CR Bard, an existing medical device manufacturing business.
Expansion of uses in the Light Industrial zone requires site plan review and approval
from the Planning Board;
8
(Queensbury Planning Board 10/16/07)
2. A public hearing is scheduled for 9/25/07, 10/16/07;
3. This application is supported with all documentation, public comment and application
material in the file of record;
4. Pursuant to relevant sections of the Town of Queensbury Zoning Code [Chapter 179],
the Planning Board has determined that this proposal complies comply with the
requirements as stated in the Zoning Code;
5. The requirements of the State Environmental Quality Review Act have been
considered and the Planning Board has adopted a SEQRA Negative Declaration; and if
the application is a modification, the requirements of the State Environmental Quality
Review Act have been considered, and the proposed modification[s] do not result in any
new or significantly different environmental impacts, and, therefore, no further SEQRA
review is necessary;
6. Final approved plans, in compliance with the Site Plan, must be submitted to the
Community Development Department before any further review by the Zoning
Administrator or Building and Codes personnel. The applicant must meet with Staff after
approval and prior to issuance of Building Permit and/or the beginning of any site work.
Subsequent issuance of further permits, including building permits is dependent on
compliance with this and all other conditions of this resolution.
7. The applicant will provide as-built plans to certify that the site plan is developed
according to the approved plans prior to issuance of the certificate of occupancy;
8. If applicable, Item 8 to be combined with a letter of credit;
9. The Sanitary Sewer connection plan must be submitted to the Wastewater
Department for its review, approval, permitting and inspection;
10. MOTION TO APPROVE SITE PLAN NO. 45-2007 C.R. BARD, INC., Introduced by
Gretchen Steffan who moved for its adoption, seconded by Donald Sipp:
According to the resolution prepared by Staff. Paragraph Four complies.
Paragraph Five Negative. This is approved with the following conditions:
1. That Zone 2 the proposed lights along the Bike Path that are shown facing
towards the west will be downcast, according to our Queensbury Zoning
Code.
Duly adopted this 16th day of October, 2007, by the following vote:
MRS. STEFFAN-This is approved with the following condition, that Zone Two, new lights
will be downcast, according to our Queensbury Zoning Code.
MR. SEGULJIC-But Zone Two also, we only need the ones along the Bike Path,
believe.
MRS. STEFFAN-Right, that's what Zone Two is.
MR. SEGULJIC-Okay.
MR. KELLER-Zone Two would be all these lights here. So you're going to have the
westerly facing lights would be clarification.
MR. SEGULJIC-Only those two lights along the Bike Path. Correct?
MRS. STEFFAN-Okay. Amend that condition so that Zone Two, new lights will be
downcast on the west side facing the Warren County Bike Path.
9
(Queensbury Planning Board 10/16/07)
MR. SEGULJIC-No. It's on the west side of the Bike Path?
MR. HILTON-On the Bike Path facing toward, the ones that are facing towards the west.
MR. SEGULJIC-The ones along the Bike Path facing towards the west.
MR. HILTON-Yes.
MRS. STEFFAN-I said west, facing west toward the Bike Path.
MR. KELLER-No. If I could correct you. If you're facing the lights toward the Bike Path,
it would be facing east.
MR. SEGULJIC-Try it again.
MR. TRAVER-There actually are no lights facing the Bike Path, correct?
MR. KELLER-Not in that zone.
MR. TRAVER-Facing the parking lot, nearest the Bike Path.
MR. KELLER-There's some building lights that would keep it from being run (lost words).
MRS. STEFFAN-George, from an enforcement point of you, how should this be worded?
MR. HILTON-I think the easiest way would be to say the proposed lights along the Bike
Path that are shown facing towards the west are to be downcast.
MR. SEGULJIC-Understood?
MR. KELLER-They'll be done tomorrow.
MR. SEGULJIC-Okay.
AYES: Mr. Traver, Mr. Sipp, Mrs. Steffan, Mr. Seguljic
NOES: NONE
ABSENT: Mrs. Bruno, Mr. Ford, Mr. Hunsinger
MR. KELLER-Thank you.
MRS. STEFFAN-Good luck with your generator.
SUBDIVISION NO. 14-2005 PRELIMINARY STAGE SEQR TYPE UNLISTED HAYES
& HAYES AGENT(S) NACE ENGINEERING OWNER(S) SAME ZONING SR-1A
LOCATION LUZERNE ROAD APPLICANT PROPOSES A CLUSTER SUBDIVISION
OF A 23.16 ACRE PARCEL INTO 18 LOTS RANGING IN SIZE FROM 0.34 ACRES TO
9.23 ACRES. SUBDIVISION OF LAND REQUIRES PLANNING BOARD REVIEW AND
APPROVAL. CROSS REFERENCE REVISED SKETCH REVIEW 8/22/06 WARREN
CO. PLANNING N/A LOT SIZE 23.16 ACRES TAX MAP NO. 308.6-1-86 SECTION
A- 183
STEPHANIE BITTER & TOM NACE, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT
MR. SEGULJIC-Good evening.
MS. BITTER-Good evening.
MR. SEGULJIC-If you could identify yourself.
MS. BITTER-Stephanie Bitter, for the applicant, together with Tom Nace and Tom
Center. I wasn't sure if Staff was going to review the memo, or if we should just respond
to it.
MR. SEGULJIC-Do you want to review the memo?
MR. HILTON-That's up to you. Certainly, I can just give you my comments.
10
(Queensbury Planning Board 10/16/07)
MR. SEGULJIC-Review the memo.
MR. HILTON-I've just mentioned in my notes the fact that this application is being
presented as a cluster subdivision, and therefore the Cluster Regulations in the
Subdivision Code apply. As I've mentioned, many of the lots are proposed to be under
an acre with many around .35 acres in size, and this subdivision, as proposed, does not
appear to contain any land proposed to be set aside as open space. Ultimately the
Planning Board should determine if this application is consistent with the Cluster
Provisions, one of those goals, one of those provisions including preservation of open
space. That's part of the cluster subdivision. I guess lastly, from a design standpoint, I'm
asking the question, does the applicant propose relocating a driveway for Lot 16? Right
now it's currently off Luzerne Road, and our recommendation would be to have that
actually be relocated to the internal street as proposed. That's really all I have at this
time.
MR. SEGULJIC-The table is yours.
MR. NACE-Okay. For the record, Tom Nace of Nace Engineering and Tom Center with
Nace Engineering. The first item regarding the clustering. I think we've reviewed that
several times through the concept and first Preliminary review stage. We are well within
the required maximum density. I think that the maximum density allowed, if you look at
the calculation for density on Sheet One, it's twenty lots. We're proposing 18 lots. Two
of those lots we've labeled as estate lots. They're fairly large, I think around five acres
each, and they incorporate a wetland area that will be preserved in the back of the lots,
and that's one of our primary reasons, or justifications of clustering, but I think we've kind
of reviewed that and I thought we were past the clustering issue with our previous
reviews. As for the driveway on Lot 16, the existing house on Lot 16 is to be remodeled,
and left in place, but the driveway for that lot will be relocated off of Luzerne Road and
onto the new subdivision road.
MRS. STEFFAN-You're talking about subdivision road for, it can't be the cui de sac, so
it's got to be for Lot 17?
MR. NACE-I'm sorry, Lot 16, I think.
MRS. STEFFAN-Sixteen and Seventeen will share a driveway?
MR. NACE-No.
MR. CENTER-No, ma'am. Sixteen, there's an existing house on Lot Sixteen on the
corner, and then 17 and 18 are the estate lots. Sixteen is, as you come in the new
subdivision road, right to the right, there's an existing house there that has a horseshoe
driveway. If you look on Sheet S-2 you can see that, and we're going to remodel the
house and relocate the driveway to the new subdivision road. We're going to remove
that driveway completely off of Luzerne Road. Do you have Sheet S-2?
MRS. STEFFAN-I'm looking at it. I'm just not understanding how that's going to happen.
MR. CENTER-There's a driveway here. We're going to remodel the house.
MRS. STEFFAN-All right, but this will maintain its driveway.
MR. CENTER-This is another parcel.
MRS. STEFFAN-Correct. Thank you.
MR. NACE-We have also received engineering comments which are a response to, our
response to their original comments. If you would like, we can go over any particular
ones of those that you have any concerns over. I think we're down to the point that most
of the comments are fairly minor, and can certainly be cleared up between now and
Final, but if there are any particular ones there that are of particular interest, we'll be glad
to go through them.
MR. SEGULJIC-Anything else then?
MR. NACE-No, that's all.
MR. SEGULJIC-Okay. Anything from the Board?
11
(Queensbury Planning Board 10/16/07)
MRS. STEFFAN-I'm looking for an education, actually, on the two estate lots that you've
got. The test pit data that's there identifies that there is water at 40 inches on one lot.
Test Pit Number Seventeen there's water at 40 inches. On Test Pit Eighteen water at 66
inches. When you're looking to put a septic in place, what is the acceptable?
MR. NACE-The acceptable is anything over 24 inches, okay.
MRS. STEFFAN-Over 24 inches.
MR. NACE-Okay. There's a division line. At less than 24 inches, it requires what's
called an alternative septic system, which would be a mound or a fill system, and those
are not permitted by the Health Department in a new subdivision anymore. They're
permitted for individual construction on an existing lot, but they're not permitted in a
subdivision. So 24 inches is the real breaking point for a subdivision. Between 24 and
48 it's what's called a shallow absorption system, and at 48 it becomes a standard.
Anything greater than 48 is a standard absorption system.
MR. SEGULJIC-You have really fast perc rates there, too, less than a minute.
MR. NACE-Yes, and in fact I think six or seven of the lots are modified soil to reduce the
perc rate.
MR. SEGULJIC-So you're going to modify the soil?
MR. NACE-Yes, absolutely. Again, a Health Department requirement.
MR. SEGULJIC-AII set, Gretchen?
MRS. STEFFAN-Yes.
MR. SEGULJIC-Okay. Mr. Traver, anything in particular?
MR. TRAVER-Referring to the engineering comments, when he's talking about Sheet S-
2, Number Three, he's talking about the existing wetland should be labeled
environmental easement.
MR. NACE-We've labeled that, as we have in the past, on areas that we want to
preserve. We've labeled it no cut. An environmental easement infers that you're
providing an easement to some other entity that has the right to get on and enforce or
use that land. In this case, with previous discussions with the Board, we felt that the best
preservation for that wetland area is to allow the homeowners to have a deed restriction
that would keep them from cutting anything back there, and it would also provide a
buffer, a no cut buffer around the rest of the subdivision, but it would be a deed
restriction, and it would be put on the subdivision plat. So if the Town needed to enforce
it they could.
MR. TRAVER-I see. Thank you.
MR. SEGULJIC-But that wetland area, wouldn't it be part of Lot 17 and 18?
MR. NACE-That is correct.
MR. SEGULJIC-So wouldn't that be just on those lots, not the Homeowners Association?
MR. NACE-Well, there is no Homeowners Association, but we've also provided a no cut
buffer around the entire subdivision. If you look at, so it should be on S-2.
MR. SEGULJIC-That's what you were speaking of. All right.
MR. NACE-Okay. So the no cut buffer is really serving two purposes. One to preserve
the wetland area, and keep anybody from doing anything back there. It's also to provide
a buffer to the rear of all the lots.
MR. TRAVER-With regard to the other comments in the engineering report, you're
expressing confidence that all these issues will be addressed.
MR. NACE-We have drafted a letter. We haven't sent it out yet because we were waiting
to find out what other comments there are from the Board tonight, but, yes, we've drafted
12
(Queensbury Planning Board 10/16/07)
a response letter. We feel that we certainly can either accommodate the comments, or
we can discuss them with the Town Engineer to come to resolution.
MRS. STEFFAN-In the engineering notes, it identifies that although there appears to be
adequate test pit information shown on the plans, it should be noted that this reviewing
engineer has not witnessed any of the test pits or percolation tests on the site, but on the
plan here it identifies Mike Shaw who is from our, is that the same Mike Shaw?
MR. NACE-No, that's a different Mike Shaw.
MRS. STEFFAN-Okay.
MR. NACE-Mike Shaw is with the State Department of Health.
MRS. STEFFAN-Okay.
MR. NACE-And he witnessed the first 18, I believe, and then the other 18 through 21
were witnessed by Dan Ryan of Vision Engineering. So I think the comment from Mr.
Wilkinson was more or less semantics, that he didn't want to infer that he had witnessed
the test pits, but they were witnessed by your Town Engineer, Dan Ryan.
MR. SEGULJIC-Okay. All right. Mr. Sipp, do you have anything?
MR. SIPP-No.
MR. SEGULJIC-For Staff, could you clarify the clustering for me, and the issues that you
have?
MR. HILTON-Yes. I mean, if you look at the Cluster Provisions, it talks about allowing
applicants to go below the lot size requirements, but with some kind of community goal,
community purpose in mind, and one of those items that's discussed is preservation of
open space, providing or constructing smaller roads or lesser amounts of utilities, things
along those lines. I'm just not sure leaving wetland that wouldn't be developed anyway,
under private ownership, as opposed to some kind of public open space, is really consist
with the Cluster Subdivision, but again, that's up to the Board to decide. So I've left the
question to you to consider or decide whether or not you feel that this is consistent with
the Cluster Provisions and qualifies as a Cluster Subdivision.
MR. NACE-I think if you'll look on S-3, it shows our no cut, proposed no cut area, a little
more distinctly than it does on S-2, and you look around those wetlands, we've included
quite a bit of additional land as no cut that provides additional buffer to that wetland, we
feel serves the purpose of creating open space even though it's not open space that's
publicly usable.
MRS. STEFFAN-One of my concerns with this whole deed restrictions versus putting
things on the plat, is that, you know, I've had some direct experience with this up in the
area where I live, where there have been deed restrictions, and folks have cleared in
excess of the deed restriction, and unless as a neighbor you want to call the police to try
to stop them from doing that, you really don't have much course of action. The other
thing I'm concerned about is, even if this is a plat notation, and then the Town would be
responsible for enforcement, we don't have enough Code Enforcement in the Town, and
the Code Enforcement we do are spread so thin that many of the things that we do are
virtually unenforceable, just because of the short Staffing, and so, you know, having this
as a separate, having that environmental, the property that was included in this
environmental easement, you know, I'm feeling like I concur with the Town, that it should
be a separate parcel not included in that lot.
MR. NACE-Well, I think we've dealt with this on some other subdivisions, and I think
we've done it fairly effectively. I'm trying to think, Quincy Lane, Sutton Place. I think
there was some other one recently, the one on Sherman Avenue that Rich
Schermerhorn originally developed, that Tom Farone is now building lots on. What's the
name of the one next to? Pine Ridge. We had some concern that neighbor, that people
didn't dump stuff in the back of their lots and we went out and originally flagged the
backs, those no cut lines, and put up signs on the property lines at the no cut lines, and
for the most part so far I think it's been fairly effective. I'm not sure if there's any other
solution to your dilemma that's going to occur, and I'm not sure that a little piece of land
like this, whether there's any other entity there that's willing to own and maintain that
land. (Lost word) where the Queensbury Land Conservancy is interested in some lands
if they can make them contiguous to make a large chunk that they want to preserve, but
13
(Queensbury Planning Board 10/16/07)
for the smaller pieces, I don't know that we have any other choice, other than relying on
the deed restrictions, and the enforcement of the Town.
MRS. STEFFAN-It is one of those dilemmas.
MR. NACE-I'm not sure I have the solution for you.
MR. SEGULJIC-Well, one thing at a minimum I'd like to see is, this is going to be a no
cut zone around the wetland area.
MR. NACE-That's correct. That whole shaded area.
MR. SEGULJIC-Extend that out 100 feet from the wetland area instead of, what is it, 50
feet now?
MR. NACE-It's 50 feet now, yes.
MR. SEGULJIC-Extend it 100 feet, because if I'm correct, local code now is 100 feet for
a, no disturbance within 100 feet?
MR. HILTON-Yes. My understand, though, with this application, though, is that this was
in prior to that law, that local law being adopted. So we're looking at the older Code.
MR. NACE-My only concern with the 100 foot would be on Lot 17, that it might be a little
too restrictive. What about 75? Or if you want 75 on Lot 17 and 100 on Lot 18.
MR. SEGULJIC-Well, I guess why couldn't you get 100 feet on Lot 17?
MR. NACE-If you look, because of the shape of the lot, it gets narrow, to a triangle up
front, and to give the house the ability to have a back yard.
MR. SEGULJIC-How does the Board feel about that? Have a 100 foot no cut zone
around the wetlands on Lot, it's proposed at 50 now.
MR. TRAVER-So that would move the no cut zone to the line indicated saying 100 foot
setback?
MR. SEGULJIC-Correct, but what the applicant is saying, they're fine with that on Lot 18,
but on Lot 17 it's going to.
MR. TRAVER-It looks like it would, unless the house is moved, it would give them about
a 30 foot width back yard. Can a house on Lot 17, as depicted now, can that structure
be moved to the south a little bit to give them? If we had the 100 foot buffer, to give them
a bit more?
MR. NACE-Well, those are the little larger lots. We've kind of set it back a ways so that
they can have a buffer between 17 and 18, so that they're not up at the narrow area
where there would be less opportunity to buffer the two lots.
MR. TRAVER-But in turn 18, then, could be moved to the east. Could it not?
MR. NACE-That is true, it could. Yes.
MR. TRAVER-To keep that distancing, and if we did that, we could accommodate the
1 00 feet.
MR. NACE-If it were a deal breaker, yes, we could accommodate the 100 feet.
MR. SEGULJIC-The houses along Luzerne Road, are they up close to the road?
MR. NACE-I'm trying to think. I may have an aerial photograph.
MS. BITTER-George has one.
MR. NACE-George to the rescue.
MR. HILTON-It should be coming up in a minute.
14
(Queensbury Planning Board 10/16/07)
MR. SEGULJIC-Well, I guess, back to the clustering issue. How does everyone feel
about that? We'll deal with the setback. As I understand, the applicant is, ideally what
we want is a separate parcel carved out. However, that's not really reality.
MR. NACE-But who do we deed that to?
MS. BITTER-Right.
MRS. STEFFAN-And if you look on Sheet S-2, when we're talking about moving the
houses around on 17, Lot 17 and 18, you've got some sloping there, which may prevent
them from moving.
MR. NACE-I'm sorry, say that again?
MRS. STEFFAN-On Lot 17 and 18, the prior conversation about moving the houses to
different locations, moving them closer to the already developed property along Luzerne
Road. Some of the topography may not allow that to happen.
MR. NACE-Make it a little more difficult, yes.
MR. TRAVER-Maybe we can split the difference.
MR. SEGULJIC-Meaning?
MR. TRA VER-Seventy-five.
MR. SEGULJIC-Well, 100 feet on 18 and 75 on 17.
MR. NACE-Yes. That we could certainly live with.
MR. SEGULJIC-AII right. Back to the clustering issue, then.
MS. BITTER-Pursuant to your Code, we're just referencing it in the sense that the open
space requiring that such lands be restricted by deed restrictions, restrictive covenant,
conveyance of a scenic easement or other conservation restrictions. So I understand
what Mrs. Steffan is indicating.
MR. SEGULJIC-Which one are you reading?
MS. BITTER-A-183-34 Standards, Section E for a cluster subdivision.
MR. SEGULJIC-Okay.
MR. FULLER-What was that, Stefanie?
MS. BITTER-Article 9, 183-34 Standards, Section E, when it talks about utilization of this
article, whether it either be dedicated for park purposes or open space, it says requiring
that such lands be restricted by deed restriction, restrictive covenant, conveyance of a
scenic easement or other conservation restriction to the Town, and I know that Tom just
discussed with regards to the conservation, they don't really want to take it since it's not
adjacent to other lands. So we are at least going, pursuant to your standards, that are
referenced in the Subdivision Regs.
MR. SEGULJIC-Here's a crazy idea. What if you set aside all of Lot 18 with the wetland
area? Eliminate one of the lots. Then we'd have 10 acres.
MR. NACE-Set aside for what?
MR. SEGULJIC-With access to the road.
MS. BITTER-I'm sorry, why would we be setting it aside?
MR. SEGULJIC-For open space.
MR. NACE-We're already two lots less than what the clustering provision.
MS. BITTER-Right, we're under the density. So that's why we're reserving this area and
the additional space adjacent to it.
15
(Queensbury Planning Board 10/16/07)
MR. SEGULJIC-Queensbury Land Conservancy, is that the proper? Have you
approached them at all?
MR. NACE-It really doesn't fit, you know, I work with Leon day in and day out, and we've
discussed various projects for their.
MR. SEGULJIC-You understand our dilemma in that we're trying to do this, but never do
we come across a site that ever meets it.
MR. NACE-Well, actually, Sutton Place, we've found, because it was contiguous to the
Clendon Brook corridor, that they were putting together, we found that was dedicated to
them.
MRS. STEFFAN-Yes, that was a very unique piece of property.
MR. NACE-Yes, and I think it came out very nice.
MRS. STEFFAN-Yes, that one really worked.
MR. SEGULJIC-Any other thoughts at all? The public hearing open?
MR. HILTON-The public hearing was tabled until this evening.
MR. SEGULJIC-Okay. Does anyone in the public wish to comment on this? If you'd
come up to the table and state your name.
PUBLIC HEARING OPEN
COLBY LA BELLE
MR. LA BELLE-My name's Colby LaBelle. I live at 462 Luzerne Road, also 456 Luzerne
Road. My concern is really not to stop Mr. Hayes from building this. My concern is the
water problem, the water issue. The water is very heavy back there. As you notice,
there's a house next to my house. It's now torn down because of the swamped his
house, and my house, this Spring. Water comes up from his property, even with a two
day steady rain the middle of the summer, water flows up to our houses, and there's A TV
trails back there, and it moves in the A TV trails like rivers, and I have photos here of the
water from 2006 to 2007. He needs to address the water problem, and I hope the Town
Engineer really looks at it really good, because the water, there's a lot out there, and it
gets very deep, and it flows really bad. It cost me over $5,000 this Spring from his water
coming to my house. Because there's no Code on French drains around your home, and
I was told it's sand, you shouldn't have to worry about it, when I built my new home three
years ago, and my home borders his property in the corner.
MR. SEGULJIC-Just for clarification, you're the lot?
MR. LA BELLE-My lot would be on the right hand side in the corner.
MR. SEGULJIC-That one there? Okay.
MR. LA BELLE-Yes. These are the photos that I took, 2006/2007. Just two days of rain
and you can get this kind of water, coming up from the ATV trails. You can look at them
if you want.
MR. TRAVER-The ATV trails that you're speaking about, do they currently go through
the area that's proposed for this project?
MR. LA BELLE-They do. They run all through there. I don't own ATV's, but they're all
out there. It comes from his property, and it runs down a lowland, and it finds those
trails, and then goes throughout. The next door neighbor's house is actually being torn
down because of the damage to his cellar, the foundations. It looks like you're looking at
a river, but it's really not. It's just a roadway.
MR. SEGULJIC-What I need you to do is, I'm looking at a number of photographs.
assume this is your house, but I'm not sure what it is.
MR. LA BELLE-It's actually my back yard.
16
(Queensbury Planning Board 10/16/07)
MR. SEGULJIC-Would you take these photos and then, at the time, describe to us
quickly what they are.
MR. LA BELLE-Okay. These photos here were taken 3/4/06. This is water coming up
behind my house in the A TV trails. This is more water flowing up through the A TV trails
from Mr. Hayes' lot. This is the entrance of the water coming from Mr. Hayes' lot down
onto the backside of mine, the same thing. They flow around where these A TV trails are
like rivers, as you see here. Now this is just from two days of rain, these pictures here.
Okay.
MRS. STEFFAN-Is your property at a lower elevation than that property?
MR. LA BELLE-The lower elevation, yes. This is the neighbor's house that's being lost.
The fire company pumped it out. These here are 4/16 & 4/18. The swamp water
actually ran around this gentleman's house.
MR. SEGULJIC-This gentleman's house is where?
MR. LA BELLE-It's being torn right down now. It's right next to my house.
MR. SEGULJIC-Okay.
MR. SIPP-Here's Luzerne Road here. You're here.
MR. LA BELLE-This house is gone now. They're tearing it down because the cellar's
damaged from water.
MR. TRAVER-That's the one that's in that photograph?
MR. LA BELLE-Right. That is his house. Water ran around that house for two days and
the culvert in my front yard from two solid days, four foot wide.
MR. SIPP-AII right. Where is your house in relation to this?
MR. LA BELLE-My house is here, and the other house is here.
MR. SEGULJIC-I guess what we should do is could you go up to the map on the screen
there and show us where the A TV trails are?
MR. LA BELLE-The ATV trails run all across that back lot there.
MR. SEGULJIC-In particular, well, you showed us the picture of the water running down
the A TV trail, if you could show us on that, as best you can.
MR. LA BELLE-This here look's like it's Donny Hunt's. This is mine. This is my other
house, and this is my back parcel. These are A TV trails as you see here. They go to the
pole lines. They run towards Birch Road. They run up actually to where the farm house
is up on top of the hill, the yellow house he's talking about that's going to be remodeled.
All A TV trails through there. The water came down through here and it actually
swamped Donny Hunt's house, filled his cellar right out, out the cellar windows there was
so much water there.
MR. SEGULJIC-So the one picture you showed us of the water running down the ATV
trails, which one was that?
MR. LA BELLE-That's probably 600 foot behind my house, and it comes up to the barn.
That's my concern is just the water, making sure it's going to be drained properly.
MR. SEGULJIC-Okay. If you could give those to the Staff.
MR. LA BELLE-This is where the water was running around his house for two days.
That's my concern is just the water and where it's going to drain to. I know they put
drainage to the back side of Sherman Avenue going to the river, like the drainage on
Luzerne that's south to the river. There were 14 neighbors right there in that area had
the same problem with the water. It runs almost to the pole lines, because his water runs
down through where the new development is being built on the back side of Sherman
and Luzerne. He put some drainage in there to help the situation. That's my only
concern is the water. Hopefully it's being addressed properly, because you're going to
17
(Queensbury Planning Board 10/16/07)
put houses out there. I know what I've dealt with. I have over five thousand dollars
worth of receipts for water in my basement. I'm just feeling for those people, too.
MRS. STEFFAN-You put a French drain around your house?
MR. LA BELLE-I put a French drain, after I built the house, I put one there, almost
$3,000. It could have been done for $400 when the house was first built, but everybody
said you've got sand, no problem.
MRS. STEFFAN-Are the A TV trails organized trails, or are they just people trespassing
on the property?
MR. LA BELLE-They're just people trespassing. They come from the pole lines, they
come from all over. They're just trespassing. Yes. That's my only concern. That's alii
have.
MR. SEGULJIC-AII right. Thank you.
MR. LA BELLE-Okay. Thank you.
MR. SEGULJIC-Would anybody else like to comment? Okay. No one else? I'll leave
the public hearing open.
MR. NACE-Okay. To address the concerns and comments about water, a couple of
things. I think he was talking about the area down in here, at the lower side, in fact
actually beyond the lower extremity of Mr. Hayes' property. The Hayes' property goes
from an elevation of about 301. Is that correct, Tom? 301 at the lower portion, to about
320 where we're developing the road up here. The water that's of concern, I believe, is
part of what your Town Engineer, Dan Ryan, is attempting to deal with, which is affecting
Michaels Drive, which is actually higher than, significantly higher than this, but also this
area in back here, this area that's been logged in the not too distant past has a good bit
of wetland on it and high water table, and that water migrates down to this area, as does
a lot of the water from up in here. We're going to be much higher than that. We're taking
all of the runoff from hard surfaces, the houses, the driveways, the roads, and infiltrating
that through drywells and infiltration trenches in our subdivision design. So that that
water will do just exactly what it's doing now. It falls on the ground and soaks into the
ground. There's very little runoff, unless maybe in frozen conditions. There's really no
runoff from this part of the site currently, and that's the way it's going to be when we're
done. Even in frozen conditions, our drywells are deep enough that they'll handle the
runoff that's generated up here on this part of the site. We do have the two estate lots in
here. One of the reasons we didn't develop this lower part is because of the low water,
or high water table as you get down toward the lower corner. The portion of those that
we're going to develop with the two houses is up high. There is a, the wetland area if
you look at it on the map that we're talking about the setbacks from runs up through here
and it's fairly narrow, almost looks like a man-made ditch line at one time or another that
runs from approximately this corner of the site down through.
MR. SEGULJIC-Okay. Anything else?
MR. NACE-I don't think so.
MR. SEGULJIC-What's the Board's pleasure?
MRS. STEFFAN-One of my concerns, based on what we've heard, is I'm worried about
some of the folks that are there on Luzerne Road. If Mr. LaBelle's having water issues
with runoff, and you're going to be developing this site, what about the Parkers, the
Barbers, the Murrays, and the Bowmans?
MR. NACE-Well, actually let me add to my previous, what I just said. We've been
working with the Town Engineer, with Dan Ryan to see, he wants to possibly cross the
Hayes property with a drainage facility which would help mitigate the problems up in
Michaels Drive, okay, and in doing that, he's looking also at that same drainage system
taking care of the lots that front on Luzerne Road.
MR. SEGULJIC-If you could just back up. I missed that part.
MR. NACE-Okay. Dan Ryan, one of the reasons he witnessed our test pits is he, when
he was looking at Michaels Drive and trying to solve the drainage problem in Michaels
Drive, he's looking at alternatives to come across the Hayes property with that drainage,
18
(Queensbury Planning Board 10/16/07)
and come out to Luzerne Road with it. I'm not sure where he ended up. I don't know
whether George has seen anything further from Dan as far as a final report. I have not
yet.
MR. HILTON-I have not.
MR. FULLER-I know, actually I've been working with Dan on this, too. They are working
on a study right now of the Michaels Drive area. I've been out there with him, and I think,
if they haven't been started yet, they're dropping test wells right now on a majority of the
lots along the right of way in the Michaels Drive area.
MR. NACE-But that's one of the reasons he witnessed some of our test pits is he wanted
to see what the soils were like while we were out there doing that, to see, you know,
what conditions he would have, bringing a pipe or a drainage facility across.
MR. SEGULJIC-So there's a potential that either a pipe or a drainage system could be
across this site then? Is that what I'm hearing, but we don't know where that is at this
time?
MICKIE HAYES
MR. HAYES-Dan Ryan has done a few stops up there for some test pits to see the levels
of the water because he was looking at all the possibilities, maybe creating a pond,
perforated drain or hard piping into the large stormwater system that's on Luzerne Road,
to help drop the water table, I guess, up on Michaels Drive that's had a problem recently.
So Tim Brewer as well as Dan has asked us if we would be willing to cooperate to try to
solve the problems on Michaels Drive, to have a possible easement through our
property, which I imagine that's your interaction with him to see if we would be
cooperative, help that street out.
MR. NACE-When I was talking to him out there, and I walked the property with him, he
was talking about a route that would be somewhat east of the house location on Lot 18.
MR. SEGULJIC-So in the eastern most section of the property?
MR. NACE-Correct, the lower section, okay.
MR. SEGULJIC-And if I'm understanding correctly also, the gentleman before, you're
thinking that a lot of his water problems are associated with the Michaels Drive problem?
MR. NACE-Correct.
MR. SEGULJIC-So they hopefully will address both issues.
MR. NACE-That is correct.
MR. TRAVER-The public comments also spoke to a significant contribution of the ATV
trails directing the water flow for that area. I'm assuming that, should this project go
forward, you'll probably discourage the A TV riders from going through that area?
MR. NACE-Absolutely. Absolutely.
MR. SEGULJIC-Okay.
MRS. STEFFAN-I guess one of the things I would like to see, if you're working with the
Town to alleviate the Michaels Drive stormwater issues, and if you were going to do
some kind of retention pond, and obviously you're putting a stormwater plan in place for
your development, but I really want you to be concerned with the Bowmans, the Murrays,
the Barbers and the Parkers, to make sure that they're not going to get undue water from
the development of your subdivision.
MR. NACE-AII of our water, if you look at our road design, the road is the low point of the
lots, and everything drains to the road, and the road is self-contained with dry wells at the
low points.
MR. SIPP-And I have a concern that you're not that far from Queensbury Forest, and we
all know what happened there, and is there going to be a repeat of that kind of thing.
19
(Queensbury Planning Board 10/16/07)
MR. NACE-Absolutely no. We've done a lot of test pits out there. We're confident of
where the water table is. In fact, if I can pat myself on the back, I'm the one that finally
solved the Queensbury Forest problem.
MR. SIPP-In some cases, it's at five feet.
MRS. STEFFAN-I'm not familiar with, what was that?
MR. NACE-That was a subdivision off of Peggy Ann Road that had all the water piped
down into the lower part of the subdivision and tried to put it into infiltration areas where
the groundwater became high at times, and it went on for years. Various engineers
looked at different possibilities of solving the problem, and I finally came up with a
solution to get that water under drain piped out to the other side of Peggy Ann Road and
down toward the reservoir.
MR. SEGULJIC-It also appears as if we've had two engineers working in vacuums on
this. Well, not you. We've had Paragon Engineering reviewing it, and then Dan Ryan
looked at the holistic water problem, which would solve some of the other water
problems.
MR. NACE-Correct.
MR. SEGULJIC-So Paragon was only speaking specifically about certain portions of this
project.
MR. NACE-No. Paragon was reviewing all of our design.
MR. SEGULJIC-Right.
MR. NACE-Okay. Dan was simply there observing so that he could get as much
information about the area as possible so he could help solve his problem on Michaels
Drive.
MR. SEGULJIC-Right, and I guess what I'm uncomfortable with, we had a public
comment about water issues. Is this something we can have Dan Ryan look at, then?
But he can't look at it from this project's perspective? I'm just looking for some level of
comfort saying that once that problem gets solved, they'll solve the other problem.
Because if we do this and he still has water.
MR. HILTON-My only suggestion would be to try to get some kind of comment from the
engineer who reviewed this project.
MR. SEGULJIC-So if we have Paragon Engineering review it.
MR. HILTON-They're the ones that are reviewing this.
MR. SEGULJIC-Yes, and in light of the water problem and the potential solutions.
MR. NACE-I would think if you're going that route, he and Dan Ryan ought to get their
heads together.
MR. SEGULJIC-Right. Well, I'm just looking for some level of comfort that, and it sounds
like you're going to take care of this problem.
MR. NACE-If you look at the lay of the land, they really are two separate problems.
MR. SEGULJIC-I just don't see anything in the Paragon letter about the water issues.
MR. NACE-Sure.
MR. SEGULJIC-Then that would make it real easy.
MR. HAYES-The water issues that Dan's working on are really, we don't have any water
issues on our site. It's for the other site. So Dan is actually trying to alleviate some of
the problems on the other site with our site. So that's why it's kind of confusing.
MR. SEGULJIC-Right, but my concern is that the gentleman before brought up the fact
that he had water running down the A TV trail across your site, and I just need some level
of comfort that that's not an issue, or if it's going to be addressed?
20
(Queensbury Planning Board 10/16/07)
MR. HAYES-Absolutely. I agree totally.
MR. NACE-Just for clarification, I think most of those A TV trails that become wet are
down on the flat area, down below our site and to the north of our site. There are a
couple of trails through our site, but there's a good slope to them.
MR. SEGULJIC-AII right. Any other issues then?
MR. SIPP-My concern is the number of small lots, three-tenths, four-tenths of an acre.
As George says, this is not what we intended to do with clustering, and I think there's a
problem here with being able to work with these smaller lots, just to make a lot of
houses.
MR. NACE-I think that it meets, one of the criteria of your clustering provisions is to
reduce the amount of infrastructure the Town has to maintain, and these lots at a third of
an acre are really not very different from what has been developed in that general area in
the past.
MR. SIPP-Is this on public water?
MR. NACE-This is on public water, yes.
MR. SIPP-Well, it just seems like you're stuffing a lot of small lots, and calling it
clustering and, they're going to be pretty close together.
MR. SEGULJIC-Well, in some ways that's what clustering is.
MR. NACE-Actually, I'll take offense at that because I live on a third acre lot and I have
more yard than I really want to mow anyway.
MR. SIPP-I'd like to see one or two of these lots maybe turned into a playground. It just
seems to me that we're having a lot of houses on lots where we've got drainage
problems and stormwater management is going to be a very, very tough match here.
MR. TRAVER-Well, we'll have an opportunity to re-visit the drainage problem as we
move forward, I think, if it's not addressed, to some degree.
MRS. STEFFAN-I certainly would like to see a couple of the lots combined, but, you
know, I've voiced that lots of times, even with clusters. I mean, there are opportunities
here, and some of the bigger lots in the back like Lots Seven or Eight, you know, they're
three-quarters of an acre. So a couple of these could be combined to make it more
spacious, like Lot One and Two, then you'd have three-quarters of an acre. If you
combined Lot Three and Four you'd have a little over a half an acre. So, you know,
some of those could be combined for less density, and it would make a nicer
development, but I think, and there's only four of us here on the Board, and I know the
next time you probably come back there will be seven of us. So you'll have more
opinions than just four.
MR. HAYES-Which is fine. I think one of the things with clustering is the fact is a good
portion of the property is never going to be touched as far as keeping tracts of lands
undisturbed. Most of the bottom portion with a conservation easements, with the
wetlands and the no cut zones, whatever the Boards would like to see down there, huge
tracts of the land are not going to be ever touched. I think that is the general, for
clustering, that's kind of the purpose, as far as I understand it.
MR. SEGULJIC-What kind of houses are you envisioning?
MR. HAYES-It would be moderately priced housing, because the area, the lots, they're
not estate lots. The lower lots, obviously, are huge lots, but they'd be moderately priced.
There's kind of a little bit of a lax of that in the community right now.
MR. SEGULJIC-I was going to say, there is a need for that.
MR. HAYES-Definitely.
MRS. STEFFAN-There's none of that in the Town of Queensbury right now.
21
(Queensbury Planning Board 10/16/07)
MR. HAYES-Which is sad, because moderately income people should have a place to
live, if they want to raise their family here, which a lot of people do.
MR. SEGULJIC-Okay. What do we want to do about the clustering? Ideally what I'd like
to see is Lot 18 left open space, if they're going to do that for us.
MR. HAYES-We'd certainly take any suggestions you individually have and we'll try to
see what we can do.
MR. SEGULJIC-Clarify for me. So this is Preliminary.
MR. HILTON-This is Preliminary, yes.
MR. SEGULJIC-Do we give them the approval with conditions on it?
MR. FULLER-Generally, a major subdivision, with a Preliminary and then a Final, the
goal of the Preliminary is really to reach a final version of the subdivision. So that the
Final subdivision approval is generally just the Final plat approval, is generally just
supposed to be the Planning Board reviewing what was approved at the Preliminary with
any conditions. That it should be almost a, it's actually a point where the applicant's
entitled to approval at that point, if they meet what you required on the Preliminary plat
approval. You see that? Okay, and if it doesn't, if it doesn't meet the conditions in the
approval of the Preliminary plat, then you go through the process again, but assuming, if
you impose a bunch of conditions, they come back and meet all those conditions, there's
not a second chance to review it, so to speak. This is the stage.
MR. SEGULJIC-AII right. So what issues do we have, if any?
MRS. STEFFAN-Well, we have several Paragon Engineering comments, from their letter
of October 12th. You've identified that you wanted to expand some of the no cut zones
on, you wanted to expand the no cut zone on Lot 17 and 18. We've talked about less
density. So I don't know whether you want an alternate plan with less density. The
clustering issue still seems to be undecided, and then we've got the stormwater issue.
MR. SEGULJIC-So we can ask the applicant to re-visit the clustering issue, for example,
looking at Lot 18, making that open space?
MR. FULLER-Yes. Again, I think what you want to do is do that as part of the
Preliminary review right now. You wouldn't make a condition for them to review it, and
then come back for Final because then it's not really a Preliminary. You should do it all
now. Then when they come back, they're submitting the Final plat of everything you
approved in the Preliminary stage and then it's an out.
MR. SEGULJIC-I guess with regards to Lot 18, I guess, approaching Queensbury Land
Conservancy, see if they'd be interested in it. Because the nice thing about that is you
have access to the road. That's almost 10 acres.
MR. HAYES-What's your request for Lot 18? I wasn't here earlier. I'm sorry.
MR. SEGULJIC-Well, some of the discussion was with regard to clustering and having
open space, and you had proposed the wetlands, and what I'd like you to consider is
having Lot 18 be open space with access to the road, and maybe the Queensbury Land
Conservancy would be interested in it, at least approaching them and see if they have an
interest in it.
MR. HAYES-Okay. For them to have the lot for ownership of their own?
MR. SEGULJIC-Yes.
MR. HAYES-Okay.
MR. SEGULJIC-If they don't then we're back to what you have proposed, I believe.
MR. HAYES-Okay.
MR. SEGULJIC-And then having Paragon Engineering meet with Dan Ryan to discuss
the stormwater issue highlighted during the public comment period.
22
(Queensbury Planning Board 10/16/07)
MRS. STEFFAN-Can we make that as part of the resolution, to have Paragon
Engineering talk with Dan Ryan from Vision Engineering? Can we put that in the tabling
motion? Because that's something we want, but it's not necessarily something that the
applicant has to do.
MR. TRAVER-They're not going to be able to come up with a final solution, but perhaps
a letter from them.
MR. SEGULJIC-Well, speaking for myself, we had public comment about these water
issues, and I just want to make sure we're not going to make them any worse than they
are, if anything, you know, as was pointed out, it might be all associated with something
else, not this site, and just a letter stating that.
MR. TRAVER-Yes, a letter stating that they are aware of the issue, that they are working
to together to resolve it, and perhaps that they are confident.
MR. SEGULJIC-And if anything (lost word) this will solve it.
MR. TRAVER-Right.
MR. SEGULJIC-That's all we're looking for. Hopefully, if it comes to that.
MRS. STEFFAN-So you want a formal report?
MR. SEGULJIC-Just a letter. I mean, hopefully it doesn't come to a report.
MRS. STEFFAN-From Dan Ryan.
MR. SEGULJIC-I don't think Dan Ryan could do it, though. Paragon has to do it.
Correct, Staff?
MR. NACE-Well, Dan could do it, possibly looking at making sure that what we're
proposing doesn't interfere with the problem he's trying to solve. That's really what
you're asking. Right? That our drainage doesn't interfere with an existing problem.
MR. SEGULJIC-Right, and there was, once again, comment about their stormwater in
this section of the site. Is the Hayes property causing that problem.
MR. NACE-Right. Yes, and I think we'll certainly look at it in the scope of his study he's
doing.
MR. SEGULJIC-Right, but our dilemma is Paragon is the engineer for this particular
project. Correct? So Paragon has to give us a letter.
MR. HILTON-Well, it sounds to me what you're looking for is to have Paragon review or
provide some comment on the proposed mitigation to the north, and some kind of, some
coordination, some kind of comment that this plan, Number One, won't, I guess,
adversely impact those proposed plans? But what, if any, benefit will come?
MR. SEGULJIC-But in addition, right, but also we had public comment on the stormwater
on this site running off site onto his property.
MR. TRAVER-I think if we got a letter that there was cooperation between those two
engineering firms, and indicating that this project, in the context of the total evaluation
that you're doing of the area, you know, is achievable from a water management
standpoint. I mean, they're not going to be able to give us a specific plan, but if they can
just say that this will fit in the context of what they're trying to do, and that this water
problem can be mitigated. I mean, if they can't say that, then we might need to wait for a
plan, but if they can say we can handle it and it's going to fit into the context of the other
stuff that we're doing, then I think we can move forward, on that issue.
MR. SEGULJIC-Gretchen, do you have something for us?
MRS. STEFFAN-All right. The things I have, Number One, to address the Paragon
Engineering comment letter of October 12th, to expand the no cut zones on Lot 17 and
18, specifically 75 feet on Lot 17, 100 feet on Lot 18. We also want to get a letter from
Paragon Engineering regarding coordination of this stormwater management plan with
the Michaels Drive project.
23
(Queensbury Planning Board 10/16/07)
MR. NACE-Can I ask for a clarification on I think Item Number Two regarding the 100
foot, 75 and 100 foot buffer, that should be buffer from the wetland, so that's not applied
to any other portion, like we have a buffer around the rest of the lots, and that is not
intended to be 100 feet.
MRS. STEFFAN-So they're not no cut zones, they're buffers?
MR. NACE-Well, the no cut zone, the 100 foot and 75 foot cut zone or no cut zone are
from the wetland.
MR. SEGULJIC-From the wetland.
MR. NACE-Okay. Specifically, so that they're not interpreted as being the rest of that
buffer or the rest of that no cut zone, would show.
MRS. STEFFAN-To re-visit clustering, specifically looking at Lot 18 as open space, and
the other thing that I wrote down, and I don't know whether we're all on the same page,
an alternate plan with less density, which could be what re-visiting the cluster specifically
looking at Lot 18. What do you think?
MR. SEGULJIC-That's fine.
MRS. STEFFAN-Okay.
MOTION TO TABLE PRELIMINARY STAGE SUBDIVISION NO. 14-2005 HAYES &
HAYES, Introduced by Gretchen Steffan who moved for its adoption, seconded by
Donald Sipp:
Tabled to the first meeting in December with a November 15th application deadline. It is
tabled:
1. So that the applicant can address the Paragon Engineering comment letter of
October 12, 2007,
2. So that the applicant can expand the no cut zones on Lots 17 and 18, specifically
75 feet on Lot 17 and 100 feet on Lot 18, and this is the buffer from the wetlands,
3. To provide an alternate plan with less density,
4. To provide a letter from Paragon Engineering regarding coordination of this
stormwater management plan with the Michaels Drive project,
5. To revisit the clustering, specifically looking at Lot 18 as open space.
Duly adopted this 16th day of October, 2007, by the following vote:
AYES: Mr. Traver, Mrs. Steffan, Mr. Sipp, Mr. Seguljic
NOES: NONE
ABSENT: Mrs. Bruno, Mr. Ford, Mr. Hunsinger
MR. NACE-Thank you.
MR. SEGULJIC-Thank you.
SUBDIVISION NO. 1-2007 PRELIMINARY STAGE SEQR TYPE UNLISTED
CERRONE BUILDERS, K. KENNAH, WM. JOSLYN, C. BISHOP AGENT(S) NACE
ENGINEERING VAN DUSEN & STEVES OWNER(S) SAME ZONING SR-1A, RC-
3A, WR-3A LOCATION WEST MT & CORINTH ROAD APPLICANT PROPOSES
SUBDIVISION OF A 227 + ACRE PARCEL INTO 26 RESIDENTIAL LOTS RANGING IN
SIZE FROM 1.0 ACRES TO 47.13 ACRES. SUBDIVISION OF LAND REQUIRES
REVIEW AND APPROVAL BY THE PLANNING BOARD. WARREN CO. PLANNING
N/A LOT SIZE 222.2 ACRES, 3.44 ACRES, 1.84 ACRES TAX MAP NO. 315.5-1-1,
315-1-1,315-1-4 SECTION A-183
MICHAEL O'CONNOR & TOM NACE, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT
MR. SEGULJIC-The table is yours.
24
(Queensbury Planning Board 10/16/07)
MR. O'CONNOR-The table is mine. Well, I'm Mike O'Connor from the law firm of Little &
O'Connor. I'm representing the applicants here, which include Cerrone Builders, Inc.,
Kathy Kennah, William Joslyn, and Cindy Bishop. Steve Cerrone, from Cerrone
Builders, is here in the audience. Kathy Kennah is here. Bill Joslyn is here, and Cindy
Bishop is here. Tom Nace is the project engineer, and he had to go out to his car to get
his next set of plans for you. Okay. Basically, we were here for concept, and then I think
we were here once before for Preliminary, and Tom will tell you more the reasons, but
what we have done is prepared, answer all the engineering comments, and I think we've
got a signoff letter on the engineering, and what we'd like to do is phase this project, as
opposed to before when we were coming in and asking for total approval of the entire
project, and part of it is so that we are sure that we do it correctly. Last time there were
some comments by one of the neighbors about groundwater that flowed from West
Mountain onto the property. We've done some investigation, with regard to that. We
have some information for you with regard to that, but we would like to actually see what
happens this Spring, to be sure that we accommodate what we need to accommodate.
So what we would like to do is get Preliminary approval, and we would then approach the
project in two phases. One will be the southerly cui de sac, which would be the first
phase, and the second phase will be the northerly cui de sac, and we'll come back for
your December meeting, probably, if not the November meeting, and ask for Final
approval of the southerly phase, and then next Spring we'll come back and ask for Final
approval of the next phase.
MR. SEGULJIC-If I could just ask you. So what you're asking for is Preliminary approval
on the entire project?
MR. O'CONNOR-Yes.
MR. SEGULJIC-And then it would be divided out for Final approvals?
MR. O'CONNOR-Yes.
MR. SEGULJIC-Can that be done?
MR. O'CONNOR-That's the way phasing is normally done.
MR. SEGULJIC-We review the entire project, and then give Preliminary approval on the
entire project. Then they'd be, for lack of a better term, segmented out, and you'd look
for final approval on the southern project, and then come back with the northern project
once you're able to get more information. All right.
MR. O'CONNOR-Okay. Let me just, I said I had other additional information. What we
did do is went back to the file, and there's been a dispute between the operator of West
Mountain and the Joslyn family, if you will, that's run over a number of years. The Joslyn
family, who are the three individuals that we represent here tonight, they're family has
owned this parcel for approximately 140 years, and they've been there since long before
the Ski Center was built, long before there was any development on West Mountain.
They actually have a permanent restraining order or an injunction against the West
Mountain Corporation, saying that the West Mountain cannot divert any water by
manmade facilities onto their property. I had seen that order before, and until somebody
came in and spoke at the public hearing, had presumed that it was all taken care of, but
I've been told that everything that should have been removed when they did the tubing
park, which is immediately adjacent to the north, wasn't necessarily removed, and Mr.
Barbone, who is the neighbor that is immediately next to that, in front of our property,
also happens to be the manager, or I'm not sure what his relationship, but he is the
fellow that's now in control of the mountain. He has visited with us and said that we will
work out issues that we have. He was not aware himself of the injunction saying that
they would not divert water onto the property. So that basically is the overall view. I'll
give Tom Nace the mic, and he can talk directly, I think, as to the engineering.
MR. NACE-I don't know how much I can talk here. The issue is the fact that at the end of
the tubing hill, the run out area for the tubing hill has essentially built up a dam, and it
does divert water over onto, at least there's evidence that it has in the past, diverted
water onto our property, which it looks like that water comes across here, and eventually
works its way back into the back end of the Walker and the Joslyn properties. We really
wanted to see that in the Spring, to see how much water and where it can be diverted to
safely to keep it away from this area that we're planning to develop. So, one way or
another, there appear to be several different solutions possible. So, because of the
25
(Queensbury Planning Board 10/16/07)
injunction, it's really up to the ski area to take those steps, but we just want to make sure
that it's effective before we go ahead with the final phase of that.
MR. SEGULJIC-Just clarify this for me, then. So there is water, it appears as if there's
water running from the neighbor onto your site.
MR. NACE-We haven't observed it happening, but we see the evidence.
MR. SEGULJIC-And that's probably spreading snow melt.
MR. NACE-Correct.
MR. SEGULJIC-So, in theory, it's West Mountain's issue and they should be able to
straighten it out then.
MR. NACE-That's correct.
MR. SEGULJIC-But if they can't.
MR. NACE-If they can't, it would have to be straightened out on our property, we can do
that.
MR. SEGULJIC-You may have to do a re-design of your stormwater management.
MR. NACE-It would be simply a diversion to collect that water and pipe it to wherever it
can safely be released.
MR. SEGULJIC-AII right. Questions from the Board?
MR. O'CONNOR-I've got a copy of that injunction if you want that I'll put in your file also.
MR. SEGULJIC-Yes, I guess if you could give that to Staff.
MR. O'CONNOR-I have more than one copy.
MR. TRAVER-Has it been the practice of West Mountain to acknowledge at any point in
the past to use a man made structure to deliberately divert or channel water onto this
property?
MR. O'CONNOR-I was not the attorney for the property owners at the time of this
litigation, but this actually was a trial, and there's testimony. There's a summation of the
testimony of Mr. Brandt that I attached to the back of that, which is, the papers that were
delivered to me are probably about a foot and a half thick. I didn't want to bring
everything for your reading.
MR. SEGULJIC-Thank you.
MRS. STEFFAN-We appreciate that.
MR. O'CONNOR-I didn't want to read it, either, but we've talked to Mr. Barbone and
we've given him a copy of this, and we're going to work out something on the basis that,
you know, both sides are going to live next to each other's property line.
MR. NACE-Having looked at this site, I don't think there was anything intentional to divert
water. I think it was just a matter of the construction of the runoff for the tubing hill,
happened to create a problem.
MR. TRAVER-That's kind of what I was wondering, if it was by design or if it's just the
folks knew they had a water problem and the closest place to point a finger at was the ski
area, and of course that would have some impact, but it wasn't perhaps intentional.
MR. NACE-I doubt that it was intentional, but it's obviously that the tubing hill had
created, construction of the runoff has created the problem.
MR. TRAVER-Right.
MR. O'CONNOR-I'd differ a little bit, just for the record purposes. If you look at the
sketch that was attached, it was an exhibit, it was Exhibit Number 61 in the pleadings, or
in the litigation, there was a lot of manmade piping, swales, ditches and berms. It may
26
(Queensbury Planning Board 10/16/07)
have not been an intentional desire to hurt someone's property. I have no idea of
anybody's intention, but it was an intent, obviously, to divert water.
MR. TRAVER-It looks like there was some engineering to do that. Yes.
MR. O'CONNOR-Yes, and some of that's been removed, okay. The piping in the lower
part has been removed. Some of the berms are still evident and still present, and the
ditch that ran along the common boundary line that brought the property from the west to
the east is still there I'm told.
MR. TRAVER-And those items that were removed, was that concurrent with this action?
MR. O'CONNOR-It was subsequent to the action.
MR. TRAVER-Subsequent.
MR. O'CONNOR-Subject to the court decision.
MR. SEGULJIC-I guess, overall, that's something you guys are going to deal with.
MR. O'CONNOR-We're going to deal with it. We think that there are many different
possibilities of ways to deal with it, and it won't be an overall problem.
MR. SEGULJIC-First you need to study it, then you can do something about it, all right.
MR. O'CONNOR-Yes.
MR. SEGULJIC-Anything else?
MRS. STEFFAN-There's a question in the Staff Notes that I would like to ask. Have any
studies been prepared that will show the visual impact of the proposed clearing on the
surrounding area? It's a concern for me on that slope. Obviously this is a sloping piece
of property, and I'm concerned about the development there.
MR. NACE-Okay. There have not been any studies, no. If you look at the property, all of
our proposed development is on the lower slopes and sort of on a flatter area, before it
starts to steep rise in back, okay. On the southern cui de sac, if you look at it, our
proposed cui de sac road goes up a short steep section and then levels off along a
plateau that's there, and the houses and the clearing on that lower side of that, where
there is some slope, it's not steep, but there is some slope, they're still fairly low to the
road, and there's a goodly buffer that will be left at the back of the lots that will screen
that from the road. There really is not any of our development that will get up the hill far
enough to be able to have a visual impact from any distance.
MRS. STEFFAN-So if you're driving on Corinth Road and you're coming toward the,
what I'll call the Pumpkin Farm, you will not be able to see any of the houses that will be
developed on the basement.
MR. NACE-You may see, because of the road, you may see Lot 13. You may see a
house on Lot 13, and there were probably, on Lot 14 and 15 you'll probably see those
because they're right down on the road, but the rest of the lots in there have
approximately 100 foot back from the road before there would be any real development.
The houses are going to sit up closer to our new road.
MR. SEGULJIC-So, on your Sheet S-6, that's your proposed no cut zones?
MR. NACE-S-6 is the, okay it shows the clearing limits, yes.
MR. SEGULJIC-That would be the clearing limits.
MR. NACE-We haven't shown an actual no cut zone across there, and actually that's a
good drawing. You can see what I said about Lot 13. You probably will be able to see,
there will be a view port up into Lot 13, but the rest of the lots will have a fairly good treed
buffer behind them.
MR. TRAVER-Possibly Lot One as well it appears.
MR. NACE-Lot One is, yes, you might get a little bit of a glimpse up into Lot One.
27
(Queensbury Planning Board 10/16/07)
MR. O'CONNOR-We combined Lot One and Two, (lost word) to accommodate that.
This is 25 lots. Before we were here, I think, with 26 lots, and I think even your Staff
Notes talks about 26. It's actually 25.
MR. SIPP-You've combined One and Two?
MR. NACE-What is Lot One now on your plan used to be two separate lots.
MR. SIPP-My question is, on Corinth Road you've got a benchmark at 393, and if you go
to Lot Five, I'm just picking one out where it's easy to see you've got a contour of 430
which gives you 37 feet above Corinth Road. Adding on to that the 30 foot height of a
house.
MR. NACE-But your view ports from Corinth Road are up close to the red line and your
trees in there are probably a 50, at least a 50 foot canopy, and they're up closer to you.
So they'll block, you know, distant object much higher.
MR. SEGULJIC-So you are going to limit the houses on the northern, the western side of
the road close to the road?
MR. NACE-Well, by nature they would be up closer to our road. If you want us to put a.
MR. O'CONNOR-Closer to the intersection for the subdivision road, as opposed to the
back of the lot, which would be down toward Corinth Road.
MR. SEGULJIC-I'm concerned about the impact on the views also, but it doesn't look
like, looking at these depictions, it doesn't look like you should have any impact. The top
of the house is 60 feet above the road, Corinth Road.
MR. NACE-If you're way up at the higher elevation.
MR. SIPP-Four thirty on Lot Five, you're not that far back off of the cui de sac.
MR. NACE-On Lot Five. Okay, but you're looking for view ports from Corinth Road,
right?
MR. O'CONNOR-All the front lots are, if you follow the 410, they're at about 410 where
we show the houses, that heavy line running right through the, where the 410 elevation
is.
MRS. STEFFAN-I would like to see what that is. I just
MR. SIPP-Well, the 410 is 17 feet above.
MR. NACE-But again, you've got a tree canopy in there that's at least 100 feet wide, and
it's got a tree canopy of at least 50 feet, probably 60, and you're up close, so your view
port is up close to that tree buffer, so your view line is going to be on a slant up above the
trees. It's going to hide, you know, that 60 foot tree canopy up close.
MR. SIPP-But for stormwater management and septic system you're going to have to cut
a lot of those trees.
MR. NACE-Well, we've shown what that would be.
MR. SEGULJIC-Yes. If you maintain all those no cut zones, you should be in good
shape.
MR. NACE-Yes, we can do, we can put a no cut zone out back there.
MRS. STEFFAN-I would like to see a visual representation. One of the concerns that
came up when we were meeting on the new Comprehensive Land Use Plan were some
of the scenic views and vistas and the West Mountain area, obviously it's very
mountainous. A lot of it can't be built on. I understand that, but then, you know, there
are the places that are in between that are buildable, and if you shave the mountains out
and you put in homes and right now we don't have any design standards that went along
with our Comprehensive Land Use Plan, so that leaves us open to, you know, cutting out
tracks for houses, in an area, as the mountain starts to go up, and then the folks are
building white houses or, for example on Lake George, pink houses with, you know,
stucco, and obviously people build houses that look the way they want them to, but
28
(Queensbury Planning Board 10/16/07)
sometimes they can stick out like a sore thumb, and, you know, even the, we've
obviously re-written the Comprehensive Land Use Plan a couple of times, but one of the
common threads through each one of the revisions is that they want to make sure that
we preserve the views of the Town.
MR. O'CONNOR-What are you thinking of as far as the depiction? Are you talking about
us having the surveyor go out and try and shoot a line that would be say 70 feet above
where his viewpoint is from the road? I think he's probably going to be blocked by trees
when he looks at it.
MR. SEGULJIC-Yes. I agree with you and I agree with what Gretchen's saying. I think
what we need, we need to identify where we want these views from, for example Corinth
Road, I don't know, the Northway?
MRS. STEFFAN-Because I think West Mountain Road is low enough so that you're not
going to see it, but when you're coming from Corinth Road, you come to that "Y" in the
road and it's all clear, in front of the Pumpkin Farm, there are no trees there, and so what
you're looking at is you're looking at the Farm and then you're looking at the back drop of
the mountains. I think there are a couple of different ways to do it. I know that there's a
graphic way to do it, and that there's a depiction, you know, a drawing, a rendering, like
when we ask for elevations.
MR. SIPP-If you take the Lands of Joslyn, next to Lot Seven and Fifteen, are these fully
treed lots or have they been cut over?
MR. NACE-I think what you're talking about, Gretchen, here's your house, okay, up on
the hill. Here's your cui de sac road, then here's another house, okay. You have this
area in between these houses cleared. You've got trees up here and trees down here.
Your view port way down here on Corinth Road is going to be something like that,
because of the (lost word) high canopy close to it, from Corinth Road. As you get further
away, it takes a taller and taller object to get above that view port over the top of the
canopy. I mean, we can draw a section like, but I can guarantee that's about what it's
going to show.
MRS. STEFFAN-Okay.
MR. SIPP-And we're not cutting too many trees, because contractors tend to cut trees
because it makes it much easier for them to maneuver around the lot.
MRS. STEFFAN-Just as an example, and I want to make a point visually. When you
drive down the Northway, when you're traveling on the Northway, northbound, between
Exit 19 and 20, and you are approaching The Great Escape, and you look at the
mountainside, and there is a cut in the hill, and there's a house that sticks out. It's a light
color home, and it affects the view, and so that's a representative example, I think, of
what I'm talking about.
MR. NACE-I understand your concern. I am 100% confident that we don't have that
here, because in fact we're not very far up the hill and we do have a fairly high tree
canopy.
MR. SIPP-How about architectural standards to color of shingle? We don't need any
bright shingles up there.
MR. NACE-We can do that.
MR. O'CONNOR-We don't have a problem either, Gretchen, conditioning or making it a
condition of your approval that there be only earthen tones on here, so you don't have a
yellow. We will not have white, white is an earthen tone, apparently, if you look at it from
a scientific point of view, and I don't know where, we will have dark shaded or darkened,
earthen tones. They have that stipulation I think over in Bedford, the initial subdivision
regulations had that. You go through there, most of those houses are earthen tone. The
same thing, I think, on the initial subdivision that Brandt did on his other, on the other end
of the ski mountain. They're earthen tones, and that's why there are more houses in
there, and there are more houses higher up than what our houses are going to be. You
don't see those houses.
MRS. STEFFAN-Well, and that's one of the points that I'm trying to make. We actually
had a program last year in the Town, and there was a speaker from Vermont who talked
about upland development and design standards that don't destroy the views.
29
(Queensbury Planning Board 10/16/07)
MR. O'CONNOR-I think there's 122 acres of upland here that's not going to be cut or
disturbed.
MRS. STEFFAN-And we're happy about that.
MR. SEGULJIC-Again, I think they've done a great job because everything's down close
to the road, but we just want to verify it.
MRS. STEFFAN-Yes, because one of the thing that happens, as one Planning Board
member, we had a couple of projects in the Town that were being built on slopes, and
the renderings, when we asked for elevations, they seemed okay, we weren't going to
affect some of the views and those things, and then once they're built, it's very different.
The actual building as it's built is very different than some of the renderings.
MR. O'CONNOR-I've done visual depictions, but typically when you do those for any
importance or to make them really realistic, you're talking about a view of a half mile or
something of that nature. You take a picture of it and then you show, on a computer,
what you're going to put in the site, and they then do a second picture, and impose that
on it. It's an expensive process. I think it's $1500 per view, at least the last time we did
it, and that was a long time ago, the last time I did them. I did them for a mining project.
MR. SEGULJIC-I don't think we're looking for that level.
MRS. STEFFAN-No.
MR. SEGULJIC-I think a cross section.
MR. NACE-I think if we drew a cross section we could demonstrate.
MR. SEGULJIC-I think, looking at your plans, I think you've done a nice job in that you're
keeping all your development down low on the slope. You have very good no cut zones
that will help reduce any visual impact. I guess what we need is a comfort level that it's
achieving what we want, what the Town wants.
MR. SIPP-We're worried about those boaters out there on the river getting glare from
reflective glass in their eyes.
MR. O'CONNOR-I'll get you the rowboat if you want to go out and take the picture.
MR. SEGULJIC-Okay.
MR. SIPP-I think if we can get muted colors.
MR. O'CONNOR-However you want to phrase it, that's not going to be problematic.
MR. SIPP-And a definite sticking to the no cut zone. Now I have a question above what
we've got here from the upper hill here. You're going to call this a no cut zone, forever
wild, whatever designation you want to put in?
MR. O'CONNOR-Yes.
MR. SIPP-Okay. If this is in a deed restriction, and somebody on Lot Five decides to go
cut some firewood back there, what is the power of, or who enforces this rule?
MR. O'CONNOR-You can tailor it as you want it. Typically, a restrictive covenant is
enforceable by those within the subdivision that benefit from it, but what I've seen lately
is that the Town Board's will ask that it also be enforceable by the Town, in addition to
the individual lot owners. So the lot owners themselves couldn't basically get together
and change that portion, and if that's what you want, we don't have a problem with that.
MR. SIPP-Because I wonder here, in a subdivision where somebody sells off 10 lots and
then the person who did the deed covenant dies.
MR. O'CONNOR-Well, the deed covenant runs with the land, unless, you also, and some
people have put in, you know, sunset provisions. We don't, I typically don't put sunset
provisions in the covenants. Some people put in that the covenants are good for 25
years or 50 years, unless renewed by two-thirds of the members of the subdivision. I
think it's a good sales point to say that they run with the land, they're permanent.
30
(Queensbury Planning Board 10/16/07)
MR. SIPP-Yes, but who, in that case, is the enforcer?
MR. O'CONNOR-Either other people within the subdivision, or, and if you want to make
it broader, you tell us that, we'll offer the Town the opportunity to also be an enforcer.
MR. SEGULJIC-Okay.
MR. O'CONNOR-And the no cut zones would be no cutting of any vegetation except
diseased or damaged. I mean, these lots are big enough, if you've got somebody that
wants to go and cut his own firewood, he can probably go cut his own firewood without
doing any damage to the view shed.
MR. SIPP-Are these areas going to be posted so there'd be no hunting, trapping?
MR. O'CONNOR-Not necessarily.
MRS. STEFFAN-That would be up to the individuals. They'd have to do that themselves.
MR. O'CONNOR-I mean, some of those areas are going to be well past the 500 feet that
you're restricted from. You can't discharge firearms within 500 feet of a house.
MRS. STEFFAN-An occupied dwelling, yes. Not that that stops individuals.
MR. SEGULJIC-Anything else? A question for Staff. In your notes you say
consideration should be given to including no cut zones at the rear of Lots Seven
through Thirteen.
MR. HILTON-Yes. Again, in keeping with the discussion about visual impact, if you were
driving along adjacent to this property, or you're coming from the north along Corinth
Road, and, you know, is there a chance, Number One, to see the backs of these homes
from the road, and Number Two, trying to minimize that view of the backs of these
homes, as it appears they'll back up to the road as much as possible from the
surrounding properties and from, you know, people that are driving by I guess.
MR. SEGULJIC-Maybe I'm missing something, but there is no cut zones on each.
MR. NACE-They're clearing, there's typical clearing limits.
MR. HILTON-Right.
MR. SEGULJIC-So you're just saying.
MR. HILTON-I'm just saying pay attention to what kind of clearing is taking place on
those.
MR. SEGULJIC-So your clearing limits could become no cut zones.
MR. NACE-Or we could propose a no cut zone that's a real no cut zone. These clearing
limits are just to depict what a typical house and septic system would take up.
MR. O'CONNOR-Do you want 50 feet?
MR. FULLER-One suggestion that you might have on that, I'm looking at the map right
now, is that the right?
MR. O'CONNOR-S-7 is probably the best one.
MR. FULLER-And we're looking at the lower lots, right, on that map?
MR. O'CONNOR-Yes.
MR. FULLER-Because of the boundary, if you make it 50 feet from the boundary, it's
going to be, you know, somewhat haphazard. Whereas, if you measure it from the
centerline of that road, you get a uniform line. Do you see what I'm saying?
MR. NACE-Sure.
31
(Queensbury Planning Board 10/16/07)
MR. O'CONNOR-I see what he says. I don't know if it's a good idea. On Lot 10 you've
then got a 200 foot no cut zone in the back yard.
MR. SEGULJIC-Exactly.
MR. O'CONNOR-Fifty feet from the back of Lot Nine extended across say to Lot 12, and
then Lot 13 maybe it's got to be a little bit different. Maybe Lot 13 would say take that an
angle. You could start at the 50 foot extension and then maybe go over, Tom, to this
elevation point that you've got. Do you see what I'm saying?
MR. NACE-Yes.
MR. SEGULJIC-No.
MR. O'CONNOR-Okay.
MR. NACE-I think what we're suggesting would be a line approximately here. That may
not be exactly accurate.
MR. SEGULJIC-Something like that, but then we want to see the visual impact.
MR. O'CONNOR-All right. We'll give you a depiction.
MR. SEGULJIC-Then we can discuss it from there.
MR. O'CONNOR-Can we ask for a Preliminary approval subject to us showing this on a
map, showing a visual depiction that shows that there's no impact, and that we stipulate
that we have muted colors. If we can't come in with a satisfactory depiction, elevation
depiction, you tell us we've got to change it, but we could start with Preliminary approval
and be on for Final approval subject to those things being to your satisfaction.
MRS. STEFFAN-I have a concern with that, because if the visual rendering comes back
and it's not what we want, then we've already Preliminarily approved that. So that makes
me nervous.
MR. SEGULJIC-That becomes an issue then?
MR. HILTON-I can only think of, well, not only, but my first thought I guess I should say is
that if you come to that question in the SEQRA review and you can't answer that, but if
you can get past that and you can answer the question satisfactorily.
MR. SEGULJIC-Okay.
MR. O'CONNOR-Well, we've represented that we have no visual impact, or no
significant visual impact. Tom has a suggestion, too. How about if you put us on your
November agenda, only for the visual impact, and we can submit for your December
meeting for the Final.
MR. SEGULJIC-Well, I guess, does the Board have any other issues other than visual
impacts?
MRS. STEFFAN-Vision Engineering runoff problems I had.
MR. SEGULJIC-And that goes back to the stormwater issue that they've acknowledged.
MRS. STEFFAN-Right.
MR. SEGULJIC-So that's really the only issue we have, then. Correct?
MRS. STEFFAN-Those were the three.
MR. SEGULJIC-So what you guys are proposing is that you can come back in, in
November.
MR. NACE-To address the visual impacts, have the visual section for you. At that time
you would have enough to be able to do SEQRA.
MR. SEGULJIC-We table you tonight. You come back in, in November, with the visual,
and then hopefully you get Preliminary approval. Is what your strategy is.
32
(Queensbury Planning Board 10/16/07)
MR. HILTON-That's up to you, if you want to put them on a November meeting.
MR. SEGULJIC-That's the only issue that I really have, and I think that that would work,
and I don't think that it would take that long to do that.
MR. TRAVER-So, again, Tom, just to clarify. November would only be for visual impact.
MR. SEGULJIC-Well, we're saying that.
MR. O'CONNOR-Complete your Preliminary approval. If you're not comfortable doing
Preliminary tonight, do Preliminary after we show you the visual. I would argue the other
way, but I'm not try to.
MR. SEGULJIC-Right, because I guess the sense I'm getting from the Board is that
that's the only issue we have, other than the water issue, which is really a separate
issue.
MR. TRAVER-Right.
MR. SEGULJIC-So to keep this rolling along, it shouldn't take that long, in November, to
look at the.
MR. TRAVER-Yes, that's fine.
MR. O'CONNOR-Just so I understand your response, are you comfortable with our
suggestion on the water issue? We've got a signoff, as I understand it, from engineering
at this point. We've answered all their comments that they had in their prior letter. Is that
correct, Tom?
MR. NACE-That's correct. The only thing they stated was that the ski area drainage
issue which we discussed.
MR. O'CONNOR-Which we're going to put off until Spring.
MR. SEGULJIC-And my only concern with giving Preliminary approval on that is what if it
changes the design of your stormwater? What happens then?
MR. NACE-Say that again?
MR. SEGULJIC-What if the stormwater issue materially changes your plans?
MR. NACE-On the northern piece?
MR. SEGULJIC-Yes. We've already given Preliminary approval for it.
MR. O'CONNOR-Preliminary approval doesn't stand if we can't go to Final, and again,
we're talking about the condition that we can handle satisfactorily, to the Board's
satisfaction, the stormwater. If not, you tell us we're back to Phase I.
MR. SEGULJIC-It sounds reasonable to me. Is that an accurate assessment?
MR. TRAVER-Yes. Preliminary is just that. Subject to Final.
MR. FULLER-Again, it's the SEQRA question. As long as you guys.
MR. SEGULJIC-Okay. Yes.
MR. FULLER-As long as you're not segmenting the SEQRA review, you're fine.
Segmentation's not absolutely prohibited, but if you're going to do it, you better justify it.
MR. SEGULJIC-Then we'd have new information to re-open it.
MR. FULLER-But again, if you know up front, if you can't answer one of the questions,
you need to address that. You can't segment that review, unless you have a very good
reason for doing it.
MRS. STEFFAN-Okay, and based on our experience, I'm not comfortable doing SEQRA
and relying on new information coming in and having us change our mind. That has
33
(Queensbury Planning Board 10/16/07)
never worked for us. In the four years I've been on this Board, it has never worked for
us.
MR. O'CONNOR-Well, you can segment that portion of it, as long as you say that you
are, and the reason that you're doing it and the justification. We can push this through.
From an engineering point of view, I think we can satisfy what we have right now, but
we're being conservative ourselves in saying that we want to be sure that the Spring
justifies what we think that we see.
MR. TRAVER-So we would do SEQRA just on Phase I?
MR. O'CONNOR-No.
MR. SIPP-You've got to do it on the whole.
MR. SEGULJIC-It seems easy, but the administrative stuff is what kills you.
MR. FULLER-From a practical standpoint, looking at this subdivision. I hate to
characterize it this way, but it is almost two separate, you know, developments. So I
mean if you were going to try to make a justification for segmenting, you might be able
to, based on the differences in the, I mean, the stormwater issues don't roll from one
development to the next, so far as I understand them.
MR. SEGULJIC-There's a ravine in the middle.
MR. FULLER-Right. So you've got a natural buffer, so to speak, that segments it in and
of itself.
MRS. STEFFAN-But it is one subdivision, though, so we have to look at it in total.
MR. FULLER-And you can phase it. They are correct about that.
MR. SEGULJIC-When you say they can phase it, the SEQRA review?
MR. FULLER-No, you can phase it for your subdivision review. Again, if you're going to
segment it, they've come in with one development plan. So SEQRA tells you, initial
instincts, segmentation's a no-no. You have to review it all at once. If you're going to
segment it, you need to justify why you're segmenting it, for SEQRA purposes.
MR. O'CONNOR-But you can.
MR. FULLER-You can. That's right. You need to, you just, it's a question, you need to
be able to justify it. That's why you would do it up front, is justify why you think it can be
segmented, even though it's presented as one development.
MR. O'CONNOR-Mr. Fuller, couldn't they also give us approval of Lots One through
Seventeen, I think, and table the balance of it? One through Fifteen? I mean, as long as
it's on the record and you indicate what we're supposed to do to get the balance of the
approval, we're satisfied with it.
MR. SEGULJIC-And I can understand that. I'm just looking to Counsel and Staff.
MR. FULLER-As far as conditioning it on the visual, I mean, the first part, they're asking
you to conditionally approve the Preliminary, subject to a Final, and I think your
preference is to get that information and then issue a final determination on the
Preliminary Stage.
MR. SEGULJIC-Correct.
MRS. STEFFAN-In November, and then we can do the SEQRA then, too.
MR. FULLER-Probably the way to go.
MRS. STEFFAN-And we also have a public hearing.
MR. SEGULJIC-Right. I was just going to say, to keep this rolling, would anyone from
the public like to speak to this application? Okay. The table is yours.
PUBLIC HEARING OPEN
34
(Queensbury Planning Board 10/16/07)
MIKE BARBONE
MR. BARBONE-Mike Barbone. I'm actually 43 West Mountain Road, and General
Manager of West Mountain Ski Center. I wasn't aware too much about the history before
I became Manager, and I'm more aware of it now as we develop this land next to West
Mountain, and me purchasing recently, a year, two years ago, on West Mountain Road.
I'm all for the development, and I've spoken to the clients. I'm all for trying to fix
whatever we have to do to make it all work. We'll look at it this Spring and we'll see what
we can do to make it all work. It only benefits West Mountain to stick by more houses
there, businesswise. So it's to my benefit to make sure it all works, and we can fix it. I'm
sure between the both of us we can make it work. So that's what I want to say. Thank
you.
MR. SEGULJIC-Okay. Thank you.
MR. SIPP-Is this overflow from the pond, is that basically what we're talking about in the
Spring?
MR. BARBONE-No, no the pond has nothing to do with it. The pond's over on the north
side of the parking lot, of the property.
MR. SIPP-So this is actually just an intermittent stream?
MR. BARBONE-Correct. It's dry, it's completely dry in the summertime, and you've got
about two months of early Spring runoff of the total land, which is West Mountain and the
upper part of West Mountain, what runs down. So we'll look at the whole picture this
Spring.
MR. SEGULJIC-Okay. Thank you very much. Anybody else? Okay. All right. So what
I'm hearing here is that what we want to do is table this application for submission of the
no cut zone and the visual assessment in light of the no cut zones. Tabled until
November, and at that time we'll look at Preliminary (lost words). Is that correct?
MR. HILTON-I just want to know when, I guess as far as coordination, which meeting,
Number One, and when would the deadline be for them getting the information in?
MRS. STEFFAN-It would have to be the last meeting, the November 27th meeting, and
you just missed the application deadline. How long do you think it would take to get this
together, Tom?
MR. NACE-It's going to take me, with everything else going on, a couple of weeks, if I
can get in maybe like the 5th of November, would that give you enough time to look at it?
MR. SEGULJIC-I guess more of a question is if Staff can distribute.
MR. HILTON-I mean, we would have to forward it on for engineering review.
MR. O'CONNOR-The engineering's been completed.
MR. HILTON-Certainly, but I think with something on the level of a visual impact, we may
want to get their opinion as well, but I guess the 5th sounds like it could work.
MRS. STEFFAN-Okay, that's three weeks, although there's a holiday thrown in there,
but we're looking at reviewing this the week after Thanksgiving.
MR. SEGULJIC-Would that work for you? Okay.
MR. O'CONNOR-Mr. Nace is going to be the one submitting that, not Mr. O'Connor.
MR. SEGULJIC-Okay. Anything else?
MR. O'CONNOR-Okay. Are we on the same track as far as the SEQRA business? I
mean, we might as well address that. I don't mean to prolong the, I think the request is
going to be to segment the stormwater review.
MRS. STEFFAN-But as you identified, it's your responsibility to make sure that the
stormwater on your property is managed, and so, regardless of the situation with West
Mountain, you're responsible. So your plan has to meet this.
35
(Queensbury Planning Board 10/16/07)
MR. O'CONNOR-And Mr. Nace tells us he's confident we can do that. If we do it entirely
on our property, it's a question of how many lots we lose. It's as simple as that. If we
can do it with the neighbor, it certainly makes it a much better project for us.
MR. SEGULJIC-So with the stormwater issue, we give them approval with regards to
addressing the stormwater issue.
MR. FULLER-Which are we on now, SEQRA, subdivision?
MR. SEGULJIC-Well, we give them a Negative Declaration, for example.
MR. FULLER-That's for the whole project.
MR. SEGULJIC-For the whole project, and then stormwater becomes an issue.
MR. FULLER-Well, stormwater is part of that. It's certainly an environmental issue.
MR. SEGULJIC-But then it becomes, for example, small to moderate.
MR. FULLER-But that's not a SEQRA. Now you're back over into your zoning.
MRS. STEFFAN-So in November we go through the SEQRA and give them a Negative
Declaration. Then they wait to come back for Final until the Spring when they've
identified the real runoff situation and whether it can be managed on site. If it can't, and
they have some other issues, when they come back, we may have to re-open SEQRA.
MR. FULLER-I'll give you exactly what you're dealing with. Considering, this is from
SEQRA, considering only a part or segment of an action is contrary to the intent of
SEQRA. If a Lead Agency believes that circumstances warrant a segmented review, it
must clearly state in its determination of significance the supporting reasons and must
demonstrate that such review is clearly no less protective of the environment. So that's
what you're dealing with. Next month when you get to the determination of significance,
if you think that there are good reasons why that stormwater discussion should be put off
until the rest of the development comes in, you should clearly state the reasons why you
think that's the case, and that becomes part of your Neg Dec, so that next time, when
you get to that review of that other phase, that the SEQRA, I guess for lack of a better
term, has been left open on that issue. So you can do it.
MR. SEGULJIC-So, for example, it's a whole other stormwater basin.
MR. FULLER-Yes, but you can do it, it's just a matter of doing it properly.
MR. SEGULJIC-Okay.
MR. FULLER-Again, it's for the most limited of circumstances. Practically, I can see
where there's a difference here, because it is cut by that ravine. So you could justify it, I
think, if you wanted to.
MRS. STEFFAN-George, in next month's Staff Notes, can you please identify in the Staff
Notes what exactly we need to do.
MR. FULLER-I'll try to get you something on that as well.
MRS. STEFFAN-Because I know that there's four of us here tonight, and a month goes
by, and we all have full-time jobs doing other things, and so by next month we'll come
back and this'll be gray. So I just want to make sure that we're on the right page and we
do the right thing.
MR. HILTON-I guess just one concern I'm thinking of is getting to that second phase, at
some point in the future, and for whatever reason, the assumption's made that the
SEQRA was done with this phase, and I guess, you know, as part of any approval, if this
is the route you want to go, you'd want to stick conditions in there that say that next
phase we're going to do SEQRA for such, and such, and such, and the next phase, that
those issues will be looked at at that later point.
MR. O'CONNOR-And we don't have a problem with that, but my real desire here is to be
able to go to Final approval on the southerly end of the project. This Spring, or this
coming Spring, they can start working there, while we're designing and doing the other
36
(Queensbury Planning Board 10/16/07)
part of it, and everybody then, you know, gets their goals accomplished. Okay. All right.
I thank you for your patience with us.
MR. SEGULJIC-So a motion is in order. The building standards, is that something we
should put in now, for the colors?
MR. FULLER-For them to submit?
MR. SEGULJIC-Yes.
MR. SIPP-Yes.
MR. O'CONNOR-Aren't we just going to put a notation on the plat and we'll carry it
forward to restrictive covenants that all exterior colors will be muted earth tones?
MR. SEGULJIC-Put that in the motion, we'll have that on the plat.
MR. O'CONNOR-I mean, you're bringing 40 different greens, and I can't tell you that
somebody is going to pick that green.
MR. SEGULJIC-Good point. Right.
MRS. STEFFAN-I'll make a motion.
MOTION TO TABLE PRELIMINARY STAGE SUBDIVISION NO. 1-2007 CERRONE
BUILDERS, K. KENNAH, WM. JOSLYN, C. BISHOP, Introduced by Gretchen Steffan
who moved for its adoption, seconded by Donald Sipp:
This will be tabled to the November 27th Planning Board meeting with a submission
deadline of November 5th:
1. The applicant will provide us with no cut zones on Lots Seven through
Thirteen,
2. The applicant will provide a rendering that will show the visual impact of
the proposed clearing on the surrounding area and view shed,
3. And also to put a plat notation that exterior faces of the housing will be in
earth tones.
Duly adopted this 16th day of October, 2007, by the following vote:
MR. O'CONNOR-You said no cut zones on all lots. I thought you requested no cut
zones on those lower lots, Seven through Thirteen.
MRS. STEFFAN-That's what the Staff Notes said. You guys indicated that you want it
on all.
MR. SEGULJIC-No, that's correct, on seven through thirteen.
MRS. STEFFAN-Okay. You define how big they are. We started to talk about.
MR. NACE-And we may adjust that once we do the visual profile.
MR. SEGULJIC-Exactly.
MRS. STEFFAN-Right. That's why I left it open.
AYES: Mr. Traver, Mrs. Steffan, Mr. Sipp, Mr. Seguljic
NOES: NONE
ABSENT: Mrs. Bruno, Mr. Ford, Mr. Hunsinger
MR. O'CONNOR-Okay. Thank you. My comment to Tom was, we are going to show
other no cut zones. I'm not sure we're going to have no cut zones on every lot.
MR. SEGULJIC-Okay.
37
(Queensbury Planning Board 10/16/07)
MR. O'CONNOR-Okay, because the upper land we also will designate as a no cut zone.
Thank you.
MR. SEGULJIC-AII right.
SITE PLAN NO. 51-2007 SEQR TYPE II LEHIGH NORTHEAST CEMENT
OWNER(S) GF LEHIGH CEMENT CO. ZONING HI-3A LOCATION 313 LOWER
WARREN ST. APPLICANT PROPOSES EXPANSION OF AN EXISTING
CONTAINMENT BUILDING RELATED TO AN EXISTING CEMENT MANUFACTURING
BUSINESS. EXPANSION OF CEMENT MANUFACTURING USES IN THE HI-3A
ZONE REQUIRES REVIEW AND APPROVAL FROM THE PLANNING BOARD.
WARREN CO. PLANNING N/A LOT SIZE 46.97 +/- ACRES TAX MAP NO. 310.7-1-1
SECTION 179-4-030
ED KOKOSKI, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT
MR. SEGULJIC-Good evening. If you could just identify yourself and tell us about your
project.
MR. KOKOSKI-My name's Ed Kokoski. I'm engineering manager at Lehigh Northeast
Cement, formerly Glens Falls Cement. We're requesting a permit to modify an existing
building at the plant, basically enlarging an existing building by removing some existing
walls and then building over the existing footprint and enlarging the building footprint.
The purpose of the project is to allow enough space for the installation of a secondary
containment, which is required by New York State Code, which presently does not exist
in the existing system. In addition to the secondary containment, the mechanical
equipment will be replaced with new, and the tanks will be replaced with new. The
nature of this system is a grinding aid facility, which stores grinding aid liquid, and has
pumps and piping to provide conveyance of that liquid to our grinding mills. Really, that's
alii have to say about the actual project scope and the purpose of it.
MR. SEGULJIC-Just one clarification. It's just this area here?
MR. KOKOSKI-Yes.
MR. SEGULJIC-I guess a question for Staff. How come they're here?
MR. HILTON-It's expansion of a use that's allowed in the zone. So it requires Site Plan
Review. I mean, as strange as it may seem.
MR. SEGULJIC-It's expansion of a use.
MR. HILTON-Yes. Construction related to the use. The new building related to this use
is being called, I'm referring to as an expansion. It's the same as if you had a
commercial shopping center in an HC zone, and somebody came in and added some
square footage to that. That use would be here for Site Plan Review. This is an allowed
use in the zone that's adding something on. So it requires Site Plan.
MR. SEGULJIC-AII right. Well, it seems straightforward to me. I'm sorry you had to go
through this.
MR. SIPP-This is strictly for grinding stone?
MR. KOKOSKI-It's the same facility that we have now. It's just that we are, it's so old
that we're replacing the tanks, the pumps, the piping, but the important thing that we're
doing is adding the secondary containment. Now we have two tanks that are there, and
if we have spillage, we're required, now, by New York State, to have 110% secondary
containment.
MR. SEGULJIC-So it's chemical bulk storage.
MR. KOKOSKI-It's chemical bulk storage. Right.
MR. SIPP-So there's no dust that could escape this?
MR. KOKOSKI-No, it's not dust producing. It's very small scale, mechanical equipment.
The pumps are a couple of horsepower pumps, there's three of them. The rate in which
the fluid is pumped through the mills is only millimeters, I mean, cubic centimeters per
minute. It's a very small system.
38
(Queensbury Planning Board 10/16/07)
MR. SEGULJIC-Okay. Does anyone have any questions? Public comment, does
anyone in the public wish to comment?
PUBLIC HEARING OPENED
NO COMMENT
PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED
MR. SEGULJIC-With that I'll close the public hearing.
MRS. STEFFAN-And we have no SEQRA.
MR. HILTON-No SEQRA. It's Type II.
MRS. STEFFAN-And I will make a motion.
MOTION TO APPROVE SITE PLAN NO. 51-2007 LEHIGH NORTHEAST CEMENT,
Introduced by Gretchen Steffan who moved for its adoption, seconded by Donald Sipp:
1. A site plan application has been made to the Queensbury Planning Board for the
following: Applicant proposes expansion of an existing containment building related to
an existing cement manufacturing business. Expansion of cement manufacturing uses
in the HI-3A zone requires review and approval from the Planning Board.
2. A public hearing is scheduled for 10/16/07; and
3. This application is supported with all documentation, public comment and application
material in the file of record; and
4. Pursuant to relevant sections of the Town of Queensbury Zoning Code [Chapter 179],
the Planning Board has determined that this proposal complies comply with the
requirements as stated in the Zoning Code; and
5. Final approved plans, in compliance with the Site Plan, must be submitted to the
Community Development Department before any further review by the Zoning
Administrator or Building and Codes personnel. The applicant must meet with Staff after
approval and prior to issuance of Building Permit and/or the beginning of any site work.
Subsequent issuance of further permits, including building permits is dependent on
compliance with this and all other conditions of this resolution.
6. The applicant will provide as-built plans to certify that the site plan is developed
according to the approved plans prior to issuance of the certificate of occupancy; and
MOTION TO APPROVE SITE PLAN NO. 51-2007 LEHIGH NORTHEAST CEMENT,
Introduced by Gretchen Steffan who moved for its adoption, seconded by Donald Sipp:
According to the resolution prepared by Staff. Paragraph Four complies. This is a Type
II SEQRA, so Paragraph Five does not apply [removed]. Paragraph Eight and Nine do
not apply [removed]. This is approved with the following conditions:
1. That any additional lighting must be downcast, cut off lighting.
2. That consideration should be given to providing inlet protection during the
construction demolition proposed for the duration of the project.
Duly adopted this 16th day of October, 2007, by the following vote:
AYES: Mr. Traver, Mrs. Steffan, Mr. Sipp, Mr. Seguljic
NOES: NONE
ABSENT: Mrs. Bruno, Mr. Ford, Mr. Hunsinger
MR. KOKOSKI-Thank you.
MRS. STEFFAN-Thank you for coming.
MR. SEGULJIC-Thank you.
39
(Queensbury Planning Board 10/16/07)
SITE PLAN NO. 52-2007 SEQR TYPE II GRJH, INC. AGENT(S) LLOYD HELM
OWNER(S) QUEENSBURY PETROLEUM ZONING MIXED USE LOCATION 107
MAIN STREET APPILCANT PROPOSES CONSTRUCTION OF 2,400 SQ. FT. GAS
STATION AND CONVENIENCE STORE. GAS STATIONS CONVENIENCE STORE
USES IN THE MU ZONE REQUIRES PLANNING BOARD REVIEW AND APPROVAL.
CROSS REFERENCE AV 23-07 WARREN CO. PLANNING N/A LOT SIZE 1.02 +/-
ACRES TAX MAP NO. 309.14-1-6 SECTION 179-4-030
LLOYD HELM, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT
MR. HELM-Good evening.
MR. SEGULJIC-Could evening. If you could identify yourself and tell us about your
proposal.
MR. HELM-My name is Lloyd Helm. I am acting as agent for GRJH, the property owner
of the Citgo Station off Exit 18, and we're a Sunoco Citgo distributor, and mainly we have
properties which we lease out. We purchased this property approximately two years
ago, and are unable to lease it to anybody because of the small size of the store, and
having a store and a mechanic, and, you know, it's just not really, it doesn't fit into our
business plan. What we are proposing to do is to take down the current building and
build an identical building to the Sunoco Station we have at Exit 19. We went through
quite a long process on that one in the Planning Board deciding the exterior color and
the roofing color and everything, and so we feel that we like the look of it and it would
look good down there as well.
MR. SEGULJIC-Anything else?
MR. HELM-No.
MR. SEGULJIC-Okay.
MR. SIPP-What's existing there now? A gas station was there.
MR. HELM-Ramsey's old Citgo Station.
MR. SIPP-The buildings that used to house rent a (lost words). They're all gone?
MR. HELM-Yes. There's a small retail area in the front, and then directly behind that
there's a single bay service area for cars, and then built behind that was a two bay
garage where you had some lifts. Those back two portions of the building we have never
used since we purchased the property.
MR. SEGULJIC-So, if I'm understanding your plans, you're going to leave the existing
canopy in place?
MR. HELM-Leave the existing canopy in place, and the existing gas pumps and the
tanks all remain where they currently are.
MR. SEGULJIC-And then what's going to happen with the store?
MR. HELM-We're going to take down the building and put up a 2400 square foot
convenience store.
MR. SEGULJIC-And what is it now?
MR. HELM-Well, if you look at the first sheet, on the right hand side, it gives you a
rendering of how the new store compares to what the present footprint is. I guess it's on
the proposed Detail sheet. So we're almost keeping within the same, we're smaller than
the existing footprint.
MR. SEGULJIC-Any comments, Mr. Traver?
MR. TRAVER-There were some comments from Staff regarding the location of the
property relative to the connector, the new connector road. Did you see those?
MR. HELM-From Vision Engineering?
40
(Queensbury Planning Board 10/16/07)
MR. TRAVER-No, these are actually from the Development Department.
MR. HELM-No, I haven't seen those.
MR. TRAVER-It talks about, consideration should be given to providing access to the
site through the proposed connector road to the east.
MR. HELM-I think the problem with that is we don't own the property in between.
There's a National Grid right of way there, where the utility lines go. So our property
ends, then there's that strip of land that goes there, and then there's the road. I mean, I
guess with an easement or something from National Grid we could put in an
entranceway there, but I haven't seen that, or I'm not really, I guess, they want us to
have an entrance off the new road. Is that correct?
MRS. STEFFAN-George could explain that, I think.
MR. HILTON-I could certainly explain if you want. In looking at the overhead here,
presently there's, you know, quite, I'll say large, and it's existing, curb cut here, and it
seems like the property is also accessed through this National Grid, that right of way as
well. My thought was perhaps, and right over this building, right now this building is
gone, that's currently where they're constructing the connector road, and my thought was
since that is probably going to be a signalized intersection, or at least a, I guess more
formal intersection, if you will, somehow having access from the site over to the
connector road as opposed to having multiple curb cuts on a busy road, therefore
alleviating stacking, congestion, and, you know, promoting all those good things that we
always talk about, as part of access management. Understanding that it would require
some kind of easement. I'm assuming there's an easement now, as it appears that
there's parking related to this site on that National Grid right of way, but in the interest of
good planning, my comment was to perhaps have a full access to the connector road
where people could access that full connection from Main Street, and, you know, have a
right in/right out only here, in such close proximity to the Interstate.
MR. HELM-I think it sounds like a good idea.
MRS. STEFFAN-The idea has merit, because now they're constructing the Tribune
Media building off of that connector road, and there's over 500 people that are working
there.
MR. HELM-Right. I'd love to be able to have access to that road.
MR. TRAVER-And that whole area is very problematic in terms of traffic flow.
MR. SEGULJIC-So there'd be an elimination of one of the curb cuts on Main Street?
MR. HILTON-Well, that's my thought.
MR. SEGULJIC-And does that sound good to you?
MR. TRAVER-And that would be right in/right out.
MR. HILTON-Right in, right out directly in front of the property, with a full access being
from that connector road. That's, again, those are my comments.
MR. TRAVER-I think that's an excellent idea and should be considered.
MRS. STEFFAN-But how does that happen? I mean, does the applicant have to contact
Niagara Mohawk to do that, to get an easement?
MR. TRAVER-And there's some evidence that there may be some relationship there
now.
MR. HILTON-Yes. I can't speak to that. I'm only assuming, since it appears that the
property, that the National Grid, NiMo property is somehow being used in relationship to
this, that perhaps there's an easement there, and if that's the case, perhaps it can be
modified somewhat to access. If not, you know, perhaps somehow it could be looked
into or examined.
MR. TRAVER-Yes.
41
(Queensbury Planning Board 10/16/07)
MR. SIPP-George, is there any clue as to when, if ever, there's going to be a new exit
ramp off of 1-87, in that area? Come down through the restaurant, as it stands now.
MR. HILTON-Well, I think the planned improvement on the south side of the street is the
relocation of Big Boom, relocation of that to the east to line up with that connector road. I
don't think there are any interchange, changes proposed for Interstate itself, but maybe
farther south, but I think in that direct vicinity, the Big Boom is going to be, Big Boom
Road is going to be aligned with that intersection. That's as far as I know.
MR. FULLER-I think that's in the works right now.
MRS. STEFFAN-That would actually improve access to this site, that road.
MR. TRAVER-And that's all the more reason to do this now.
MR. SIPP-That's what I thought it was going into Carl R's restaurant there. That would
alleviate some of the need for, you know, that jams up, there's a light there, and I
assume that light will stay, and no matter how many lanes they put in there, there's
always going to be a bottleneck, and that should eliminate some of the problem,
hopefully. Are the utilities going to be underground?
MR. HELM-Yes. I saw the notes for the detail on the curbs and utilities, and that can
easily be prepared.
MR. SIPP-The dumpster, where are you going to put a dumpster on this property?
MR. HELM-Probably towards the back, off the paved property we could put a dumpster
enclosure.
MR. SIPP-The sign that you have out front, are you going to try to go to an electronic
sign that you have up on Aviation Road?
MR. HELM-I'd love to, but I think they changed the Sign Ordinance.
MR. SIPP-You'lI have a tough time convincing me.
MRS. STEFFAN-I was just about to say, it's the red sign.
MR. SIPP-And I'd like to see a monument sign there, rather than a freestanding.
MR. HELM-I didn't intend to change the sign at all, just leave it as it is.
MR. SIPP-It's a freestanding one now.
MR. HELM-It's a freestanding one now, yes.
MR. SIPP-What's the height of that, do you know?
MR. HELM-It's pretty tall.
MR. SIPP-How about cutting it down? Think about it. There's a question here on
handicapped, size and placement of handicap spaces. You've gotten the engineer's
report on?
MR. HELM-I did get the engineer's report, and I do agree with that. It should be looked
into.
MR. SIPP-The distance, 24 feet clear aisle distance between parking spaces eleven
through fourteen and fifteen through seventeen for handicap, and handicap locations
need to include a passenger loading zone, eight foot wide.
MR. HELM-I don't know. He drew in two handicap spaces. Are two required? Normally
we only have one.
MR. SIPP-Well, what's the width at now? One inch equals twenty feet.
MRS. STEFFAN-I'm sure he was using the regulations and State regulations for
handicap parking spaces.
42
(Queensbury Planning Board 10/16/07)
MR. SIPP-Now, in this convenience store, is there going to be an provision for tables,
chairs, people to sit down and eat or is it just the milk and bread?
MR. HELM-No. We do intend to have prepared foods there and have small tables
similar to what we have at Exit 19 Sunoco station. There's like three small tables that
seat two people a piece.
MR. SIPP-And the diesel pumps are going to stay?
MR. HELM-Will remain where they are.
MR. SEGULJIC-Anything else?
MR. SIPP-That's all I can think of right now. Stormwater stays the same as what's on
the property now.
MR. HELM-Exactly.
MR. SEGULJIC-Did your plans take into account the proposed re-working of the area?
MR. HELM-What do you mean? I'm not sure what your question is.
MR. SEGULJIC-The new intersection.
MR. HELM-Not really. We've been thinking about doing this for a long time. We've had
a building permit to do some renovations to the existing building and.
MR. SEGULJIC-One thing led to another.
MR. HELM-One thing led to another, and we couldn't really, you know, it's really such an
eyesore, the way it is, and, you know.
MR. SEGULJIC-But you agree with the agree with the idea of Staff's comments about.
MR. HELM-I agree with the Staff's comments on connecting to that side road. I'd love to
be able to do that. I've never met with anyone from National Grid before, and I don't
know how susceptible they would be to that. If I set up a meeting, if I could get someone
from the Town there also, maybe that might help me. I'm not sure.
MR. SEGULJIC-Would Staff be able to help him out with that?
MR. FULLER-Yes. Certainly if they had, you know, some direction that the Planning
Board was very much in favor of.
MR. SEGULJIC-The access from the new road?
MR. FULLER-Yes.
MR. SEGULJIC-And one curb cut off of Main Street.
MR. FULLER-And I don't know what the status of the title is, there could be something
there right now.
MR. HELM-Yes, I'll have to look into that.
MR. FULLER-Okay. It is doable. You can approach them.
MR. SEGULJIC-So you'd be willing to approach NiMo and have the access onto the new
road and one curb cut along Main Street?
MR. HELM-Definitely. Yes.
MR. SEGULJIC-Okay.
MR. HELM-The one curb cut along Main Street, I just don't know where you would put it,
just because, if you divide up the property, you know, you can't really put it over to the
east side, because then it would be almost impossible for our delivery trucks to get in.
MR. TRAVER-Well, if it's right in/right out only, you could put it toward the west side.
43
(Queensbury Planning Board 10/16/07)
MRS. STEFFAN-I think two curb cuts work on that site, just because if somebody's
turning in, somebody gets off the Northway and needs to make a left hand turn, and
you've got traffic stacked up, you know, to get at that light, I think you'd need two curb
cuts on that location.
MR. HILTON-Again, my thought was, you know, let's assume, anyone coming from the
west or the east, if they want to get to that property, they would have full movement onto
the connector road, and I was thinking that it might be beneficial if people coming off the
highway connected to this, got onto this property through the connector road, because
you may eliminate or at least cut down on the stacking that goes to the west. The tanker
trucks would most likely be able to make that movement onto a Town road and then into
the property, and perhaps as I mentioned right in/right out to get people back to the west
that are going to the highway or further west, and if people were going further to the east,
they could use the connector road. That was my thought.
MR. SEGULJIC-I guess we could ask the applicant to review that, see if that would work
for you.
MR. HELM-Yes.
MR. SEGULJIC-One curb cut, and if it's not going to work for you, show us something
else.
MR. HELM-Okay.
MR. SEGULJIC-And my one comment would be, if you have the two curb cuts, you have
one at 50 feet and one at 42 feet.
MR. HILTON-As far as all these scenarios that are going back and forth, I just want to, I
mean, I'm certainly not a traffic engineer. It's just certainly my opinion, but I think
ultimately our engineer should review any proposal, and provide comment on traffic
impacts, whether it's one right in/right out, two curb cuts, whatever.
MR. FULLER-Yes, because one of the things we were just talking about here is certainly
you want to look at what impact traffic stops on the connector road would have on the
access in and out, you know, people coming off the Northway turning onto the connector
road and then trying to make another left in, if traffic's stacked on the connector road, so
that access may have to be looked at where it is, you know, visa vie that intersection,
too.
MRS. STEFFAN-If you have a tanker coming in to make a delivery around four, five
o'clock in the afternoon.
MR. SEGULJIC-Okay. With regards to landscaping, if I'm looking at your plan, I don't
see any streetscape trees along Corinth Road. They seem to be Juniper shrubs. Is that
correct?
MR. HELM-That's correct.
MR. SEGULJIC-Okay. Now Main Street, if I'm correct, requires the, George, do you
know off the top of your head? What is it, every 20 feet of?
MR. HILTON-I don't.
MR. SEGULJIC-I had it. I lost it. Anyway, there's a Main Street corridor design.
MR. HELM-I am aware of the corridor design because I had to go to zoning first to get a
setback for the building.
MR. SEGULJIC-And they granted you that setback.
MR. HELM-They did, yes. I didn't catch the part about the tree every 20 feet.
MR. SEGULJIC-Don't quote me on that yet. Here you go. Street trees, minimum three
inch caliper trees shall be planted every 20 feet and a 5 foot wide strip located between
the sidewalk and the asphalt, but now the trouble comes up, soon, in theory, they'll be
ripping up the street. So he's going to plant all these beautiful trees and make it look
beautiful and they'll be torn down. So how do we handle that? I think, thinking out loud
44
(Queensbury Planning Board 10/16/07)
here, is he should have the plans that that would have to be installed six months after
completion of Main Street, something like that.
MRS. STEFFAN-We had some language in the approval for Vortex Technologies, which
is on Main Street, because we had a similar situation. We wanted them to put in
landscaping and we knew that when Main Street was put in it would have to be ripped
up. So we put some language in that motion, but I don't remember what it was.
MR. SEGULJIC-I guess the question is, can we have two sets of landscaping, one
before and one after? Can we have two landscaping plans, one before and one after
Main Street?
MR. FULLER-A logistical thing we were just talking about here, is the impact that the
Main Street plan may have on this, as far as the actual design of the site.
MR. SEGULJIC-Design of it.
MR. FULLER-If the Main Street corridor ends up taking property from any of those
property owners in there, it's going to push the road that way, and if you build a canopy,
and then the road gets pushed closer to that canopy, it's almost, it would be good if he
got a copy of that plan, to see what impacts it's going to have on that Site Plan, right
now.
MR. SEGULJIC-You are not planning on moving the canopy?
MR. HELM-No.
MR. SEGULJIC-Okay. So, are you aware of the Main Street plan?
MR. HELM-Just in what I had to, the building setback really. I know they're widening the
road.
MR. SEGULJIC-And there's a whole, how many years now, eight years, something like
that.
MR. SIPP-They're adding another lane. So at that point.
MR. SEGULJIC-And you're in a prime spot there. The plan is not finalized yet, correct?
MR. HILTON-It's not constructed certainly.
MRS. STEFFAN-I was going to say. The plan's finalized. It's just not constructed.
MR. SEGULJIC-I guess, do we just want to.
MR. SIPP-I think his final landscape plan would have to represent what is denoted for
the Main Street corridor.
MR. SEGULJIC-Right, but we don't want him to run out and do that now.
MR. SIPP-No.
MR. SEGULJIC-We'd love to have him run out and do it now, but.
MR. SIPP-At the present time, who knows.
MR. SEGULJIC-Right.
MR. TRAVER-Over what timeframe are you talking about bringing this project to
completion?
MR. HELM-We'd like to do it as soon as possible.
MR. TRAVER-As soon as possible.
MR. HELM-In fact I have a deposit on the building.
MR. SEGULJIC-Well, I think it'll be a very nice piece of property. I just don't know when.
Any thoughts?
45
(Queensbury Planning Board 10/16/07)
MRS. STEFFAN-I'm not compelled to have the applicant invest a lot of money in
landscaping when we know that it's going to change. I mean, you know, we'd be in the
unfortunate situation of incurring debt for somebody that.
MR. SEGULJIC-One thing, just thinking out loud here, is that he's really, what you really
want is to expand and change your building.
MR. HELM-Correct.
MR. SEGULJIC-Just thinking out loud here. If we grant him that approval, once the Mai
Street is all sorted out, he has to come back for landscaping. Can we do something like
that? Because I don't know where we go from here.
MR. HILTON-I guess I wouldn't shy away from approving the other landscaping, along
the western, I mean, if you're concerned with the immediate Main Street, I understand
we're struggling here to find out what to do, but I guess I would be of the opinion that all
the other landscaping that's proposed should be included with this.
MRS. STEFFAN-Right. So what's in the plan is acceptable. It's just that what, I don't
know.
MR. SEGULJIC-So we're talking about the western boundary, and that would be the, so,
what we'd be looking for is landscaping along, shall we call it the Northway, the western
edge of the property, to meet the Code requirements of 179-8-040, which, if I'm
understanding this correctly, would be one shade every 250 square feet.
MR. HELM-What did you say that number was, 179?
MR. SEGULJIC-179-8-040, B in particular. Because our problem is, as I'm sure you've
discerned by now, is that Main Street, in theory, is going to be all ripped up and re-done.
MR. HELM-Right.
MR. SEGULJIC-In the near future.
MR. HELM-Right.
MR. SEGULJIC-And we don't know exactly, we, in theory, know what it's going to look
like, but we don't know exactly what it's going to look like.
MR. HELM-Right.
MR. SEGULJIC-And there are landscaping requirements for Main Street. We don't want
to have you install all of that and a year from now be ripping it out.
MR. HELM-I understand.
MR. SEGULJIC-So the western edge of your site should not be affected, though.
MR. HELM-Right.
MR. SEGULJIC-So you should have that landscaping in place.
MR. HELM-Okay.
MR. SEGULJIC-And then I think, and just thinking out loud again, we can probably have
the building. We just have to get some renderings for the building I think, more
information on that, and then you really should sit down with Staff and get a better
understanding of what Main Street's going to look like, talk to NiMo about getting that
access off of the new road, and take it from there.
MR. SIPP-The eastern side, especially behind the convenient store.
MR. SEGULJIC-Yes. I guess you'd need buffer along the east and west sides of the
building, according to that 179-8-040.
MR. SIPP-And you should have a sketch here of that building, entrance/exit.
46
(Queensbury Planning Board 10/16/07)
MR. HELM-An interior sketch, is that what you want?
MR. SIPP-Yes, and the convenience store, where the entrance is, and exit, egress,
color, lighting.
MR. HELM-Okay. In our application we submitted elevations showing the entrances on
both sides, and we were proposing that the color be exactly the same as our other store.
MR. SIPP-The same thing, all right.
MRS. STEFFAN-Well, we'll ask him to bring some swatches, renderings, whatever.
MR. SIPP-And the colors on that.
MR. SEGULJIC-AII right. So lighting. Any proposed changes to lighting?
MR. HELM-No proposed changes to lighting. We've depicted a lighting plan with the
only lights that would be different would be the new lights on the side of the building.
MR. SEGULJIC-Okay. What we're going to need, we're going to need information on
those lights.
MR. HELM-The cut sheets?
MR. SEGULJIC-Yes. You submitted those also?
MR. HELM-I believe that was a requirement for me to submit those also.
MR. HILTON-Yes. Those were submitted. My comment was it was unclear whether or
not they were completely downcast or not. I couldn't quite tell, based on what was
submitted for the wall mounted lights. Based on what was submitted for the wall
mounted lights, it was just unclear to me as to whether or not they were completely
downcast or not.
MR. SEGULJIC-Okay.
MRS. STEFFAN-Don, when you were talking about ingress/egress, you were talking
about the building itself?
MR. SIPP-The building itself. I don't have a picture of that, and I didn't know what the
building looked like. I see it now.
MRS. STEFFAN-It's in the back of the Staff Notes. There's a lot in there. So what we're
looking at is the Vision Engineering comments, to explore the National Grid easement for
access to the connector road, and possible curb cut alternatives, to provide color
schemes, to ensure that the new lighting is compliant with the Zoning Code, to provide
landscaping, adjacent to the 1-87 ramp to Town Code, specifically referencing 179-8-040.
MR. SEGULJIC-Just clarification, on the east and west side of their property.
MRS. STEFFAN-The landscaping?
MR. SEGULJIC-Landscaping on the east and west sides, portions of the property in
accordance with the Code, but not the front yet.
MRS. STEFFAN-So also on the other side?
MR. SEGULJIC-Yes.
MRS. STEFFAN-Okay. I didn't hear that.
MR. SEGULJIC-You're not planning any drive-thru's, correct? According to your plans
you're not.
MR. HELM-No, no drive-thru's.
MR. SEGULJIC-Good. Okay. No car washes?
MR. HELM-No car wash.
47
(Queensbury Planning Board 10/16/07)
MRS. STEFFAN-We've had quite a few of those lately.
MR. SEGULJIC-Anything else?
MRS. STEFFAN-That's alii gleaned from the discussion.
MR. SEGULJIC-I guess the overall lighting of the site, I have driven by this place enough
at night. So I should know, can anyone tell me what (lost words) looks like?
MRS. STEFFAN-I'm sure that there's spillage from other places, and, you know, it
doesn't stick out. I don't know, but the applicant is trying to use the existing, the lighting
that was there. The canopy, for example, is staying.
MR. SEGULJIC-Right.
MRS. STEFFAN-That doesn't change. That's why I put new lighting, ensure new lighting
is compliant with the Zoning Code. So if existing lighting, they're going to maintain the
existing lighting, that stays the same.
MR. SEGULJIC-Okay. Anything else?
MR. HILTON-You have a public hearing.
MR. SEGULJIC-I forgot all about that. Thank you. Does anyone wish to comment on
this application?
PUBLIC HEARING OPENED
MR. SEGULJIC-Okay. With that we'll leave it open.
MRS. STEFFAN-Okay. I'll make a motion.
MOTION TO TABLE SITE PLAN NO. 52-2007 GRJH, INC., Introduced by Gretchen
Steffan who moved for its adoption, seconded by Donald Sipp:
Tabled to the first December meeting of the Planning Board, December 18th, with a
submission deadline by November 15th. So that the applicant can:
1. Address the Vision Engineering comments.
2. Explore a National Grid easement for access to the connector road and
possible curb cut alternatives.
3. That the applicant can provide the color schemes for the new building.
4. To ensure that new lighting is compliant with the Zoning Code.
5. That landscaping on the east and west portions of the property will be
designed to Town Code 179-8-040.
Duly adopted this 16th day of October, 2007, by the following vote:
AYES: Mr. Sipp, Mr. Traver, Mrs. Steffan, Mr. Seguljic
NOES: NONE
ABSENT: Mrs. Bruno, Mr. Ford, Mr. Hunsinger
SUBDIVISION NO. 12-2007 SEQR TYPE UNLISTED SKETCH PLAN CHRISTINE
GERMAINE AGENT(S) VAN DUSEN & STEVES OWNER(S) SAME ZONING SR-20
LOCATION SHERMAN AVE. & LAMBERT DR. APPLICANT PROPOSES
SUBDIVISION OF AN 8.6 ACRE PARCEL INTO 10 LOTS RANGING IN SIZE FROM
0.46 ACRES TO 3.10 ACRES. SUBDIVISION OF LAND REQUIRES PLANNING
BOARD REVIEW AND APPROVAL. REQUESTING WAIVERS FROM DRAINAGE &
GRADING. CROSS REFERENCE NONE FOUND WARREN CO. PLANNING N/A
LOT SIZE 8.6 +/- ACRES TAX MAP NO. 301.18-2-34 SECTION A-183
MATT STEVES, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT
48
(Queensbury Planning Board 10/16/07)
MR. SEGULJIC-Okay, and you are, for the record?
MR. STEVES-Good evening. Matt Steves, representing Christine Germaine on this
application.
MR. SEGULJIC-It's all yours.
MR. STEVES-Okay. This is property that is located on the north side of Sherman
Avenue and on the east side of Lambert Drive. If anybody's been up in that area, you
know that it's a white farmhouse that sits out near the road on Sherman Avenue, right
across from Michaels Drive, and we're proposing to subdivide this project of eight acres,
8.6 acres, into ten residential lots. It's a 20,000 square foot zone. All the new lots, with
the exception of Lot 10, would front either off of Lambert Drive or Timmons Lane, Lot
Nine being the existing house on Sherman Avenue, and Lot 10 being a lot that would be
double the lot width that would be required in that zone. So it could have its own
driveway on Sherman Avenue. Like I said, we would have no problem with stipulating
that the other lots all have to enter off of Lambert. That corner lot we would not allow to
enter off of Sherman Avenue, even though it does have the 202 feet. It just doesn't
make sense to allow it to enter off Sherman. It's pretty straightforward. We've done our
one foot contours. Test pits were done on this by Nace Engineering, a couple of years
ago. We are going to be re-doing those. They were in the witness of an engineer other
than Mr. Nace at the time. They all, it's beautiful sandy soils in this area, pretty
straightforward. We did ask for a waiver on the Sketch grading and drainage plan
because we are developing the one for Preliminary. It is predominantly all wooded as
you can see. We already showed the woods line that is just behind the existing house.
So we will show the clearing limits for each particular house, driveway and septic area.
This is Town water, and Mr. Nace is working on the septic details and the grading plan.
MR. SEGULJIC-Comments?
MRS. STEFFAN-It looks pretty straightforward. So you're going to have entrances on
Sherman Avenue, Lambert Drive, and Timmons Lane, depending on?
MR. STEVES-Correct. Lot 10 will enter off Sherman. Obviously it's a 200 foot lot width,
Lot Nine being the existing home will continue there. All the rest of them will enter off
Lambert and/or Timmons, in other words, Lots One through Eight will be entering off of
those two roads. That corner lot, Lot One, would not enter off Sherman is what I'm trying
to say, and we would stipulate to that.
MRS. STEFFAN-Okay.
MR. SEGULJIC-And then Lot Eight, that driveway would be right up in that corner there?
MR. STEVES-That's correct. That is a Town road, Timmons Lane. The requirement for
minimum road frontage, as I discussed with Craig Brown, is 40 feet. It's a huge lot, and
being right in the corner there, the road width at that point, being 50 feet, and they didn't
make a radius, they made it a square. It's a huge amount of, kind of wasted space in the
corner. You could share a driveway if you wanted to in there. There's a lot of parcels in
Queensbury that are on cui de sacs that only have about 45 feet on every lot on the cui
de sac, but as you see by the time you get back to where the house is, it's about 150 foot
in width. It's a 1.03 acre lot in a 20,000 square foot zone, but we don't see any problem
with that. The grade in there is fine. If you come off existing Timmons Lane, minimal
grading. If there was a concern with the Board, we could probably show some type of a
shared driveway. We'd rather not if we didn't have to in there. It's not a high traffic road.
MR. SEGULJIC-Yes, I was going to say.
MR. STEVES-Timmons Lane is a cui de sac, I think, with four other lots besides the
three we show on there.
MR. SEGULJIC-What's your contour on this map, two foot?
MR. STEVES-One foot.
MR. SEGULJIC-One foot.
49
(Queensbury Planning Board 10/16/07)
MR. STEVES-It's actually not very much of a grade, like Lot Three looks like it's a lot of
grade to it. It's about five and a half, six feet across there. They're one footers. We like
to do that whenever possible, it just helps with the grading plan.
MR. SEGULJIC-So it's about a five percent grade across that site?
MR. STEVES-Yes. Very workable.
MR. SEGULJIC-Okay. Anything else?
MRS. STEFFAN-It looked pretty good to me. Makes sense.
MR. SEGULJIC-Again, it's the nature of the area, the nature of the beast, I guess.
MR. STEVES-Well, it conforms with everything that's around there, plus it keeps the
original house lot on three acres. Like I say, most of the other lots in the area, if you look
on the site location map, when you look at the one acre, most of the runs around there
are 15 to 20,000 square feet. So trying to keep consistent, but yet at the same time they
want to maintain a larger parcel with the existing home.
MR. SEGULJIC-Okay. It looks good.
MR. STEVES-Okay. Anything besides the grading plan and the details that you can
think of? It's a pretty straightforward 10 lot subdivision.
MRS. STEFFAN-Right, because the Staff identified clearing plans, soil information,
grading and drainage at Preliminary. So we'll have all that.
MR. STEVES-You'll have all of that. Is there anything else? There's no real reason for a
landscape plan unless you want to see like a standard, I mean, they're all going to be
residential homes, obviously, and consistent with the rest of them on Lambert Drive and
Timmons Lane. We're going to leave quite a bit of treed area on each lot. It's not over
the 20 that requires it. If you want it, just let me know now and I can have Jim Miller draw
something up for me, but we are going to keep quite a bit of trees on these lots. I mean,
it's consistent with the area.
MR. SEGULJIC-Yes, that's what we like to see is trees.
MR. STEVES-Yes, absolutely.
MRS. STEFFAN-Well, and certainly with the existing house, if that's a treed lot and
you're going to maintain the trees there, then that's kind of a bonus for all the lots that will
potentially be developed, because then they'll have trees in their backyard.
MR. STEVES-Exactly.
MRS. STEFFAN-So that could work out very nicely.
MR. STEVES-Okay. Thank you.
MR. SEGULJIC-I thank you.
MR. STEVES-We'll be back with all that detail. Thank you. Have a good night.
MR. SEGULJIC-Okay.
MOTION TO ADJOURN THE QUEENSBURY PLANNING BOARD MEETING OF
OCTOBER 16, 2007, Introduced by Gretchen Steffan who moved for its adoption,
seconded by Donald Sipp:
Duly adopted this 16th day of October, 2007, by the following vote:
AYES: Mr. Traver, Mr. Sipp, Mrs. Steffan, Mr. Seguljic
NOES: NONE
ABSENT: Mrs. Bruno, Mr. Ford, Mr. Hunsinger
On motion meeting was adjourned.
50
(Queensbury Planning Board 10/16/07)
RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED,
Thomas Seguljic, Acting Chairman
51