1998-01-13 SP
(Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 1/13/98)
QUEENSBURY PLANNING BOARD MEETING
SPECIAL MEETING
JANUARY 13, 1998
7:00 P.M.
MEMBERS PRESENT
CRAIG MAC EWAN, CHAIRMAN
CATHERINE LABOMBARD, SECRETARY
ROBERT PALING
LARRY RINGER
TIMOTHY BREWER
GEORGE STARK
CODE COMPLIANCE OFFICER-CHRIS ROUND
PLANNER-LAURA NOWICKI
STENOGRAPHER-MARIA GAGLIARDI
OLD BUSINESS:
PETITION FOR ZONE CHANGE - P1-97 CRACKER BARREL OLD COUNTRY
STORE OWNER: DOUBLE “H” HOLE IN THE WOODS RANCH.
INC./CHARLES R. WOOD LOCATION: CORNER OF AVIATION &
GREENWAY NO. CURRENT ZONING: SFR-10 PROPOSED ZONING: HC-
1A APPLICANT REQUESTS REZONING OF A 4.377 ACRE PARCEL FOR A
CRACKER BARREL RESTAURANT. WARREN CO. PLANNING: 1/14/98
TAX MAP NO. 98-2-1, 98-3-1, 5 LOT SIZE: 4.377 ACRES
JOHN LEMERY, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT
MRS. LABOMBARD-And the public hearing was on November 18 and
th
December 9, 1997, which was tabled.
th
MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. Any new Staff comments?
MS. NOWICKI-The following.
STAFF INPUT
Notes from Staff, Petition for Zone Change P1-97, Cracker Barrel Old Country
Store, Meeting Date: January 13, 1998 “This application was tabled on
December 9, 1997 because the applicant wanted time to review the public
comments. At that time the Planning Board requested a drawing (8.5 x 11”)
indicating the zones for the area. The Planning Board also requested a further
explanation of the traffic study. Planning Staff is providing a drawing of the
area with the different zones shaded. Creighton Engineering submitted a letter
providing further explanation of the traffic study (December 18, 1997). As of
January 7, 1998 here have been no submittals from the public.”
MR. MAC EWAN-There have been no new submittals from the public, is that
what you said?
MS. NOWICKI-On December 7. As of now, there’s two, and that was, you
th
received a letter from Lemery & Reid, and one from David Kenny.
MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. You’ve received nothing else. We received a folder
tonight. No more engineering comments. I guess, then, the floor is yours, Mr.
Lemery.
MR. LEMERY-Mr. MacEwan, members of the Planning Board, my name is John
Lemery, Counsel to Cracker Barrel Old Country Store, Inc., the applicant here
1
(Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 1/13/98)
for a change of zone. This matter before the Board was adjourned at the last
meeting, so that we would have a chance to respond to a document which was
submitted the evening of the meeting by Mr. Strough, who I gather either lives
in the neighborhood or is involved in this change of zone application. I just see
that he’s submitted a booklet to the Planning Board tonight. I might want
another adjournment so that I can look and see what’s in there that may be of
concern to us, so that we can properly respond. I guess what I’m, rather than
have this go on forever, is that there probably ought to be some time frame
established, by which everybody has to have a submission, beyond which no
submission will be heard by the Planning Board, so that everybody has a
chance to look at what people have to say by way of written comments or
otherwise, and can get their comments back to the Board so that you have time
to address them. The comments we submitted since the last meeting were the
response to Mr. Strough’s letter to the Board, and I wrote a letter to you, Mr.
Chairman, today, simply reiterating the fact that we would amend the petition
to accept, rather than the HC-1A zone, the Highway Commercial zone, that the
applicant would accept the Plaza Commercial zone, and to further reiterate that
the buffer that we have provided to the site would be permanently dedicated to
the Town conservation easement, fee simple, or whatever other method works,
so as to assure the residents of Greenway North that it would be a permanent
buffer and could not be disturbed for any purpose. Our only condition being
that we be allowed to take it into account in determining the green space for
the use of the rest of the site, but I don’t think it’s fair to proceed. I have no
idea what’s in that document.
MR. MAC EWAN-Neither do we.
MR. BREWER-Craig, I thought we had a time frame set.
MR. MAC EWAN-We did. We looked up in the minutes, Tim, and what
originally were going to do is the fifth of January as a cut off, then as one of the
last things we did in that meeting was that we were going to take public
comment right up until the 13. So it’s here tonight. It’s been dropped in front
th
of us and none of us had an opportunity to read it over, nor has the applicant.
So we can proceed and see how far we can go with this. If you feel that you
want to ask for a tabling, we can take it under consideration.
MRS. LABOMBARD-We could take time and read it right now.
MR. MAC EWAN-It’s an awful lot of reading to do in 15, 20 minutes.
MRS. LABOMBARD-It might take an hour. We’re going to be here an hour
anyway.
MR. BREWER-There’s 50 some pages.
MR. LEMERY-What’s the Board, if I might inquire, what’s the Board’s sense if
we table this again, putting a time limit by which everybody has to get their
comments in, including us, of course.
MR. MAC EWAN-Personally, I was willing to do that the last meeting. I would
really encourage us, if we put a table on it, that any comment would be held to
a date, and that’s it. Nothing would be accepted after that.
MR. LEMERY-Right.
MR. MAC EWAN-This has been going on, what now, three months.
MR. LEMERY-I believe this is our third meeting, Mr. Chairman.
MRS. LABOMBARD-Well, we could read it in an hour, if you guys want to wait.
MR. STARK-To be fair, Craig.
2
(Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 1/13/98)
MR. MAC EWAN-What do you want to do, John?
MR. LEMERY-There were serious inaccuracies in Mr. Strough’s last set of
comments to this Board, which we’ve attempted to respond to. Maybe the
thing to do here is to table this. Ask the parties to submit to the other parties.
If people want to provide booklets to the Planning Board, or any other kind of
correspondence, it ought to probably be provided to the other party here, or
other parties in interest. We ought to set a date by which people have to
submit, and then re-convene. I hate to do this. I know this is very disruptive
to the Board. I know that the people who live in the area don’t want to have to
keep packing up and going out on a cold night. I don’t know what else to do
about it when there’s a half an inch thick booklet provided to you. I have no
idea what’s in it.
MR. MAC EWAN-Well, we have to come to a determination sooner or later, here.
Our meeting schedule for February is the 17 and the 24? Right, that’s our
thth
regular meetings?
MS. NOWICKI-Yes.
MR. MAC EWAN-It’s too early for submission, so you really don’t have any kind
of idea what the agendas are going to look like, do you?
MR. ROUND-No.
MR. BREWER-What’s wrong with doing it this month?
MR. LEMERY-Have a separate meeting?
MR. RINGER-We don’t have a meeting scheduled for the 27.
th
MR. MAC EWAN-Do we have this room available on the 27?
th
MS. NOWICKI-I will have to find out. I recently canceled it.
MR. BREWER-I know how we could make this meeting go fast. Lets have it out
in the parking lot. The comments would be real quick.
MR. MAC EWAN-The 27 okay with you, if we can pencil it in?
th
MR. LEMERY-Sure.
MR. MAC EWAN-Is the 27 okay with everybody in the audience if we can
th
pencil it in? What we will do, instead of belaboring this thing any longer,
Wednesday the 21 will be the cut off date for any materials submitted for this
st
project, which will be the Wednesday before. I would ask, and I know the
Board has asked before, if there is any new information, make it available.
Lets please not re-hash old information, and we’ll have it to Staff by close of
office here on the 21. Nothing will be accepted after that. We’re talking about
st
doing this January 27. Right?
th
MR. LEMERY-Yes. Is everybody here on the Planning Board at that date? Is
everybody available for that date?
MR. MAC EWAN-Well, it’s normally a scheduled meeting, but we took it off
because we didn’t have a full agenda for the month. So we should have the
room available. It’s a normal regular meeting.
MR. PALING-There’ll probably only be five here.
MR. STARK-I’m not here.
3
(Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 1/13/98)
MRS. LABOMBARD-Four. Wait a minute, five, right.
MR. MAC EWAN-Five.
MR. PALING-There’ll be five. Now in your dates, are you requiring that the date
that the applicant, they receive the information that same date, or just the?
MR. MAC EWAN-Staff receive any additional comments at all, by the 21, close
st
of business.
MR. PALING-Then they’ve got to get it to us and the applicant before the
weekend, I would think.
MR. MAC EWAN-We would get it the 23 when they deliver packets.
rd
MR. BREWER-If they get it Wednesday, we could have it by Friday.
MR. MAC EWAN-Yes, Friday when they deliver packets. Is that fair?
MR. BREWER-It’s fair to me.
MR. LEMERY-I’d prefer we have a date when everybody can be here on the
Planning Board. I would prefer not to have a partial Board.
MR. BREWER-How do we do that?
MR. LEMERY-Change the date then.
MR. MAC EWAN-We currently have one vacancy on the Board. We don’t have
anyone sitting on that. How long are you going to be gone for?
MR. STARK-I’ll be back the second meeting in February.
MR. MAC EWAN-The second meeting in February.
MR. BREWER-Why don’t we, Craig, can we ask anybody in the audience or
whatever, if there’s new information, maybe we can do it in two weeks. When
do you leave, George?
MR. STARK-Tonight.
MR. BREWER-I guess that’s not going to work.
MR. STARK-That’s the first time I’m back, Craig.
MR. MAC EWAN-We’re now looking at the second meeting in February. Okay.
Change already. February the 24 is our meeting, and deadline for submittals
th
will be February the 18.
th
MR. PALING-Craig, are you sure you want to mix this in with the regular
schedule?
MR. MAC EWAN-Yes, because I don’t think that February’s going to be all that
heavy. I really don’t.
MS. NOWICKI-The first meeting in February is the 17.
th
MR. MAC EWAN-Right, and she’s already saying that they haven’t got much in
anyway.
MRS. LABOMBARD-I will not be able to make it the 24. I’m taking a course
th
on the new educational benchmarks in science.
4
(Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 1/13/98)
MR. PALING-That means we’d be four.
MR. RINGER-I may not be here on the 24, either. We leave for the month of
th
March.
MR. MAC EWAN-Who said being Chairman was an easy job.
MRS. LABOMBARD-I think that we should go and read this right now, and we
could do it in an hour. We’re planning to be here late tonight anyway, and if
Mr. Lemery could read it along, and if he feels that he needs extra time to make
the comments after he’s read it, it could be redundant, it could be still material
that we’ve already had. I mean, the pictures certainly look the same as what
we’ve been looking at, then maybe we can knock this off tonight, maybe. I’m
not saying we can, but that’s the way I, I’m ready. I’ve lost sleep over this, and
I’ve belabored this for three months now, and to tell you the truth, I’d like to get
on with it, but that’s my opinion.
MR. BREWER-That’s fine.
MR. MAC EWAN-What’s the rest of the Board want to do?
MR. BREWER-I don’t care. I’ll do it.
MR. RINGER-Tonight’s fine with me.
MR. PALING-I don’t think we really should do that unless the applicant agrees
to it.
MRS. LABOMBARD-Okay.
MR. PALING-Because he’s got to have time, I don’t know what’s in there. It
looks to me like it’s mostly site plan stuff, by quick look at it. They’ve got to
have time to review it.
MRS. LABOMBARD-I just said that maybe Mr. Lemery can read it also in the
next hour, and if he feels that he needs adequate time to respond in his office,
and get other information together, then that would be fine.
MR. PALING-If he’s willing, that’s fine with me, but I don’t think we should
pass that through.
MR. BREWER-It’s up to you, John.
MR. MAC EWAN-We either go tonight, or you’re probably looking at the earliest
is March.
MR. BREWER-Do we have any other days? When do you come back, George?
MR. STARK-The 18.
th
MR. PALING-Of February.
MR. BREWER-All right. Are there any days after the 18? It doesn’t
th
necessarily have to be on a Tuesday, does it? That we might be able to arrange
a meeting? If George is back the 18, the 19 or whatever.
thth
MRS. LABOMBARD-The 18 of February.
th
MR. BREWER-The 25 you can’t do it.
th
MRS. LABOMBARD-What about the 18? I do want you to realize, the 18 of
thth
February is the week that the schools are off.
5
(Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 1/13/98)
MR. MAC EWAN-There’s a Zoning Board of Appeals meeting on the 18 in here
th
I believe.
MR. BREWER-The 19.
th
MRS. LABOMBARD-Fine.
MR. BREWER-The 19 I can do it.
th
MR. PALING-George is back then. Maybe we’ll have another member.
MR. MAC EWAN-Is the 19 okay for you, if we can do it?
th
MR. STARK-Fine.
MR. RINGER-The 19 is fine with me.
th
MRS. LABOMBARD-Okay, the 19 is fine.
th
MR. MAC EWAN-The 19?
th
MR. LEMERY-That’s fine.
MRS. LABOMBARD-If anything else comes, we’ll mail it to him.
MR. STARK-The applicant needs a copy of this.
MR. MAC EWAN-Do you have extra copies for him?
JOHN STROUGH
MR. STROUGH-No, I don’t. I have a copy he could use for this meeting, if he
could give it back to me at the end of the meeting.
MR. MAC EWAN-I don’t think that would be appropriate.
MR. STROUGH-He can always FOIL it.
MR. LEMERY-You don’t need to FOIL it. It’s a matter of record.
MR. ROUND-Mr. Lemery, there’s a copy right here you can utilize. Can I offer
some information? I’ve looked through it. There’s probably two pages of
subjective information. The rest is the Town Code photocopied, some photos
copied. There’s very little information, in my opinion, that you would have to
address, but, I mean, that’s up to you.
MR. MAC EWAN-If we do this on the 19, then you’re looking at the deadline
th
being on the 11 of February.
th
MR. BREWER-Craig, can I make one more suggestion? Why don’t we let Mr.
Lemery take a look at this. Give him 15 minutes. If there’s something in there
he thinks he needs to respond to, then we’ll table it and go ahead with it. If
not, then we’ll take another half an hour and read through it and then go on
with the meeting?
MR. LEMERY-Sure, that’s reasonable, Mr. Chairman.
MRS. LABOMBARD-Thank you. That sounds good.
MR. MAC EWAN-Do you want to do that?
MR. LEMERY-Sure, I’ll be glad to do that, if I could get a copy to read.
6
(Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 1/13/98)
MR. BREWER-Okay. Take my copy, John, take 15 minutes.
MR. LEMERY-No, you read it. You need to read it.
MR. BREWER-I’m going to wait until you look through and see if there’s
anything you need to respond to, and then I’ll read it.
MR. MAC EWAN-We’ll take a 20 minute recess.
ROGER BOOR
MR. BOOR-Could we request that we get to see what he has submitted also? I
mean, it’s only fair that we see his new information.
MR. MAC EWAN-It was submitted to Staff, the other day.
MRS. LABOMBARD-You mean the letter?
MR. BREWER-If he needs to submit something, we’re going to table the
meeting, give him the time to submit it to us, then you can get a copy of it.
How’s that?
MR. MAC EWAN-This was submitted to the Town yesterday, Roger. Maybe just
for people’s understanding to know how the submittal process should probably
work. Everything that’s submitted as far as comment periods regarding any
project that’s in front of this Board should be submitted through the Planning
Department, so that they can record it in and make it part of the public record.
Coming in here and dropping stuff off on the table the night of the meeting is
not helping anyone’s cause. What it does is it just slows down the whole
process for everyone.
MR. BOOR-I agree 100%. I say, we’ve got 15 minutes, it would be very nice if
we got to see what he submitted also.
MR. BREWER-The point of that, Roger, is he’s going to look at this for 15
minutes. If there’s something he needs to submit, we’re going to table the
meeting.
MR. BOOR-I’m talking about his submittal.
MRS. LABOMBARD-He’s talking about the letter.
MR. BREWER-I’m sorry. I misunderstood him.
MR. MAC EWAN-Staff has it. It’s part of the public record.
MR. BOOR-So we can see a copy of it tonight during the 15 minute period?
MR. MAC EWAN-Yes.
MR. BOOR-Great.
MR. MAC EWAN-I have no problem with that. Okay. Twenty minutes?
MR. LEMERY-Sure.
MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. Okay. Mr. Lemery.
MR. LEMERY-Thank you, Mr. Chairman. We’re prepared to proceed.
MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. If you want to go ahead and go over your responses, I
guess, from the January 12 letter. Is that what you’d like to do first?
th
7
(Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 1/13/98)
MR. LEMERY-Well, I guess I’ll make my response very brief, because I think
this whole issue of re-zoning turns on a couple of critical items. In my letter to
the Board, in response to Mr. Strough’s comments and letter that he provided
to this Board on December 9, I emphasized the word “fairness”, and I said in
th
my letter, fairness is important, and that in any application for a change of
zone there are three parties in interest, the Town as a whole, in this case the
Town of Queensbury and its residents, represented by the Planning Board, the
owners of the property surrounding the site, which is the subject of the change,
which is represented here by the neighbors assembled, and the owner of the
property, which is the subject of the change of zone. The one thing that
bothered me about Mr. Strough’s letter, more than of the other issues, was the
question in my mind of the fairness to the land owner, and I said in my letter to
you that if the applicant had his way, or its way, it would be great to have the
parcel re-zoned in its entirety re-zoned Plaza Commercial, and if the neighbors
to the north had their way, they would prefer that it be kept SFR-10. The
Town, presumably, would like to have a resolution, which one and for all
resolves the issues relating to the site, provides for reasonable development,
and accommodates both the land owner and the neighbors. We believe that
the application submitted by Cracker Barrel proposes a solution which is fair
and equitable to all the parties represented here this evening. The one problem
that, in all the times that we’ve been in front of your Board, that we haven’t
seemed to be able to communicate at least to our neighbors, and what appears
at least to me to be the issue suggested in keeping it SFR-10 is that it will never
be developed, and therefore it becomes this pocket park, if you will, on Aviation
Road that remains SFR-10, and remains in its natural state. I don’t think
there’s anybody on this Board, and there was nobody on the two previous
Boards, some of you who were on those Boards, some of you may be new, who
believe that this parcel is appropriately zoned SFR-10. During the entire time
it has been re-zoned from 1988 to the present, there has been not one proposal
submitted to the two owners of this site, Mr. Wood and the Double “H”, to
develop this residentially, while it was listed as an SFR-10 site residential in
the Town of Queensbury. So it’s clear that it is not appropriately zoned
residential, and my letter to you deals with the 1989 Comprehensive Land Use
Plan which was adopted eight months after this piece of land was re-zoned,
and which we think speaks to this parcel of land in its entirety. What we
propose, and at the risk of repeating myself, is a re-zoning which allows for the
development of what amounts to the front half of the site, consistent with the
main arterial, which this site rests on, and directly across from the principal
and largest retail center in the Town. It provides for roughly a two acre buffer
to the residents of Greenway North and others, to protect that property to the
north on the other side of Aviation Road. It provides for a landscape mitigation
plan, which will deal with in-filling that buffer, and any other items that the
Town Planning Board, in your site plan process, would require. The lighting
and the other issues we believe are responsible, and we believe that the
residents have a right to know where the lights are going, and we believe that
they have the right to know where the dumpster is going to be located and how
that’s going to be shielded, and we think that they have the right to know all
these things. Those are all site plan issues, which this Board has dealt with
many times and will deal with again. One of the questions I was asked, and I
called one of the residents and asked if I could get together with them to
discuss our position, and I proposed at that time that we would be willing, our
client would be willing, to, in whatever form would work with the residents, we
would be willing to take that 100 feet we’re talking about, and that’s two acres
of land, roughly, and we would be willing to put it in some sort of conservation
easement. We would be willing to deed it to them if they formed an association
where they wanted it. We would deed it to the Town, whatever way worked, so
as to assure those folks that it would not be used for any other purpose than a
permanent buffer for that site. I didn’t get a call back. I asked if I could speak
to some people and whether that might be appropriate. The only question I
raised, which is what I raised in my letter to you, Mr. Chairman, today, is that
we would want to be able to use the parcel that’s dedicated as part of our green
space for the development of the remainder of the site. So in conclusion, let me
say the following. We believe we’ve proposed a resolution for this four acre
8
(Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 1/13/98)
piece of land which meets the criteria of the residents of the Town of
Queensbury, the neighbors to the north, and the land owner, all of whom have
a legitimate interest, and all of whom have to be represented by the Planning
Board, and all of whom have a right to be heard and have a right to a
reasonable and fair solution. It’s not fair to leave it the way it’s zoned, because
it’s not going to remain a pocket park, and nobody’s going to pay to have it
remain a pocket park. The residents would say it’s not fair not to provide us
with a reasonable buffer, and the land owner says it’s not fair to leave it the
way it is because I can’t use it for anything, and when I had the property
originally in 1967, it was zoned commercial. We’ve been provided with copies
of petitions. I called the Planning staff yesterday and on a regular basis asked
them to updates of what was coming in so I could respond, and I got petitions,
four, five or six pages of petitions. People have a right to petition, but some of
the signatures were from Fort Edward. One was from Olmsteadville, that I
recall, a couple from Hudson Falls, Luzerne, Glens Falls, and the problem with
petitions is, for the applicant anyway, is that we don’t know what somebody
said when someone was asking for that person to sign a petition. We don’t
know what was represented to them. All we can do is deal with the facts as we
understand them to be. So while I recognize the benefit of the petition for
counting heads and for taking names and trying to build a dynamic, I’m not
here tonight with the 40,000 other people in the Town of Queensbury who say,
lets be fair about this whole thing and lets deal with it in a way that everybody
gets taken care of, in a way that allows for the in-fill, which is what is part of
the Town Master Plan, and provides for employment for our people, and at the
same time protects the residents to the north. The way the land is zoned now,
it does not protect them, and will not protect them. The only other thing I
would mention, Mr. Chairman, is that we would like a right to respond if you
have any questions that Mr. Strough’s submittal has raised regarding traffic
issues. That was the only thing I saw in there that may be of some issue, and
if that’s of concern, I’d like the chance to respond to that. Thank you for your
time and attention. I know this has been a difficult issue for you and I
appreciate your willingness to bear with us. Thank you.
MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. Thank you. At this point, I think what we’ll do is we’ll
take some public comment. We would ask that comments be new, something
that e haven’t talked about before, and they be kept brief and addressed to the
Board. For the record, just identify yourself and your address when you come
up to speak. Anybody?
PUBLIC HEARING OPEN
MS. NOWICKI-Craig, did you want me to read the two public comments that
were submitted, the one from Dave Kenny and the one from Lemery & Reid?
MR. MAC EWAN-Yes.
MS. NOWICKI-A letter is addressed to “Dear Ladies and Gentlemen: As a
business person in the Town of Queensbury, I believe that the property located
on Aviation Road and Greenway North should be rezoned to a commercial
designation as it was under the 1967 zoning ordinance. The subject site
remained Commercial C-3 property until 1982 when it was rezoned Urban
Residential UR 5. In 1988 the Town enacted extensive changes to the zoning
ordinance which resulted in the zoning designations as they exist today. This
site was designated as single family residential as part of these changes.
However, this site does not fit the definition of single family residential and is
incompatible with adjacent zones. Prior to the 1988 zoning changes, the
Aviation Road corridor was substantially developed with commercial properties
which include among other things, the expansion of the Aviation Mall and other
various commercial uses in the area surrounding this site. The 10,000 square
foot lot requirement for residential uses would allow a maximum of 14 or 15
single family homes to be built on this site. Residential properties fronting
Aviation Road does not make any sense. Additionally, if this site is to remain
residential, there is no prohibition against an owner clear cutting the property
9
(Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 1/13/98)
or developing the property for residential uses without a minimum fifty foot
buffer between it and the subdivision which lies across Old Aviation Road. The
application of Cracker Barrel Old Country Stores, Inc., as a commercial parcel
would provide for a 100 foot buffer. Again, a buffer is not required if this site is
developed into residential uses. I served on the 1988 Queensbury Advisory
Committee, along with Joseph Carusone, the Chairman, and we were involved
in the rezoning of this site to SFR-10, residential designation. Mr. Carusone
informed the Planning Board at the time the Advisory Committee was unsure of
what designation to give this site. In fact, Mr. Carusone was quoted as saying
on behalf of the Committee that “we recognized that the property on Aviation
Road should probably be zoned commercial that the Aviation Road was
essentially commercial property and it only made sense that this would be that
way.” (A copy of the minutes from the meeting are enclosed for your review.)
During the course of our Advisory Committee meetings, I believe, that we had
three concerns for this site, they were traffic, sewer and a buffer. Since 1988
the sewer has been addressed with the installation of a Town Sewage System
and the traffic is currently being handled with the expansion of the Exit 19
bridge. The last item we were concerned with was a buffer between this site
and the surrounding residential area and it is my understanding that the
Cracker Barrel has proposed to include a 100 foot buffer. Traffic would not
increase significantly above the present levels with the development of a
commercial facility due to the widening of the I-87 overpass which will alleviate
traffic congestion. The Planning Board has approved several commercial uses
on Aviation Road and Route 9 in the vicinity of this site, which were approved
without traffic issues and without significant conditions placed by the Board
regarding traffic mitigation. In addition, it is my understanding that the sewer
district has sufficient capacity to accommodate flow from a commercial
development, so this is not an issue either. Lastly, commercial development on
the front half of the site would be in conformity with the surrounding
commercial properties as well as to serve the economic interests of the Town
through the collection of sewer fees and the increase of tax revenue as well as
providing additional jobs. Sincerely, David Kenny” The following letter is,
“Dear Members of the Planning Board: This letter is written in response to
John Strough’s comments to the Planning Board submitted on December 9
th
during the public hearing for the petition for change of zone to the site on
Aviation Road owned by Double “H” Hole in the Woods Ranch, Inc. Mr.
Strough’s comments start out, by among other things, suggesting that the
citizen participation in government be encouraged because it promotes
fairness. Fairness is important. In any application for a change in zone there
are always three parties in interest, the Town, the owners of the property
immediately surrounding the site which is the subject of the proposed change
of zone and the landowner seeking the change of zone. Mr. Strough’s
comments take no account of the interest of or the fairness to the landowner of
the subject parcel. A thorough reading of Mr. Strough’s comments to the
Planning Board suggest that the site should remain SFR-10 not because a
residential zone is appropriate, but rather because by leaving it SFR-10 it is
likely never to be developed and therefore it remains a “pocket park” which he
suggests represents the best interests of the community. The record is very
clear that an SFR-10 designation for this site is wrong. Certainly the applicant
would like to have the parcel rezoned plaza-commercial in its entirety, the
residents of Greenway North would like to have it remain as is and never be
developed, and the Town presumably would like to have a resolution which
once and for all resolves the issues relating to the site, provides for reasonable
development and accommodates both the land owner and the neighbors. The
application of the Cracker Barrel Old Country Stores, Inc., proposes a solution
which is eminently fair and equitable to all of the parties in interest. First,
virtually the rear half of the site, approximately two acres of the four
developable acres is proposed to be kept as a buffer for the residential area to
the north. Not only is a buffer proposed but the applicant has offered via the
submittal of a landscape mitigation plan to fill in the buffer so as to provide
complete site screening to those properties on the north side of Old Aviation
Road. The only portion of the parcel that would be developed would be the
front half fronting on Aviation Road which is the principal corridor for
10
(Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 1/13/98)
commerce for the Town of Queensbury. The residential neighborhood to the
north gets a permanent full buffer, the property owner gets to develop the front
half of the site in a manner to which it is suited and the residents of the Town
of Queensbury get to have a neighborhood protected as well as a piece of land
developed which will provide an additional tax base and employment to its
residents. Mr. Strough discusses at length citizen participation in the planning
process. Comments regarding an implied lack of opportunity for public
participation and comment in the review of the petition by the applicant before
this Board are flatly incorrect. The Planning Board of the Town of Queensbury
as a matter of practice schedules and notifies all residents within 500 feet of a
petition for rezoning and of public hearings on the petition. In the Town of
Queensbury, the residents in a rezoning matter are in fact afforded two public
hearings on every petition for rezoning. One before the Planning Board and
one before the Town Board. In terms of an overall planning process, the record
clearly establishes that the Town Planning Board has in fact utilized an
extensive public outreach in terms of every rezoning request put before it.
Citizen participation is encouraged, everyone is allowed to speak, everyone is
allowed to submit written comment and all of it is made part of the record. We
respond to Mr. Strough’s argument that rezoning of this parcel is not in
accordance with the current comprehensive land use plan. We respectfully
submit that the statement is not correct. The current comprehensive land use
plan adopted in 1989 was adopted 8 months after the current zoning and map
were adopted. The applicant has submitted as part of the record the
comments made by Joseph Carusone, who was in 1988 the Chairman of the
Planning Committee dealing with the comprehensive land use plan. Mr.
Carusone’s statement was to the effect that all of the participants in the
planning process at that time recognized that this site should not be zoned
residential but did not know what to do with it at that time, recognizing that
there ought to be some buffer provided and so rather than zone it one way or
another decided to avoid the issue altogether. At the time this parcel was
rezoned in 1988 it was done without a completed and adopted comprehensive
land use plan in place. There are significant references in the 1989
comprehensive land use plan that support this rezoning petition. We submit
the following: 1. Planning Strategies as related to Geology (p.9) - “Develop
land use densities based on soil and slope characteristics whereby areas with
soil limitations or steeper slopes received less development and areas with good
soil characteristic and gentle slopes received more development. Comment:
Soils are excellent. The soil consists of sandy loam, and is well drained.
Ninety-five percent (95%) of the site has slopes between 0-10% grade.
Additionally, septic discharge is not an issue as the proposed development will
be included in the existing sewer district. 2. Planning strategies as related to
Terrestrial and Aquatic Ecology (p.p. 24-25) - Comment: A thorough review of
this section of the comprehensive land use plan finds many references to
various plants and animal species ranging from globally significant to locally
distinctive. However, neither the text nor the Terrestrial and Aquatic maps
make any reference to this site as a habitat for any species of plants or animals
as even being locally distinctive. Furthermore, of the overall parcel size of 4.44
acres, 2.04 acres (45%) will be undeveloped and left as permanent buffer in its
natural state. 3. Highway Hierarchy (p.p. 26-27) - Comment: Three (3)
original arterials exist within several hundred feet of this site, with one,
Aviation Road, serving as the southeasterly border of the parcel. Regional
arterials are defined as roads which carry vehicles through town, they are often
limited access; and carry a majority of the non-residents. The remaining two
roads bordering the site are Greenway North, Old Aviation and Birch Lane.
These are designated as local streets which provide access to individual
parcels; through traffic is discouraged. The three regional arterials listed above
are three of the most heavily traveled roads in the Town. The NYS Department
of Transportation projects 36,000 vehicles to be traveling the Aviation Road
Bridge over I-87 by the year 2018. Three types of roads and traffic volumes are
typically associated with commercial land use and reflect the character of the
area as the Town’s commercial center. Residential zoning of this site, in
consideration of the transportation facilities adjoining and surrounding it, is
not in keeping with the comprehensive land use plan and is illogical. Among
11
(Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 1/13/98)
the policies listed on page 28 of the Comprehensive Land Use Plan, the plan
states that strip commercial and residential development should be restricted
along collector and arterial roads. Comment: The proposed plan calls for
substantial restriction and containment of the development. Of the total gross
land area, 45% will be left undeveloped and in its natural state. The lot size is
more than four (4) times the minimum lot size of one (1) area; the proposed
building size is 16% of the allowed statutory density of 15,000 square feet per
acre, and 42% of the maximum potential of the site. Furthermore, the
undeveloped area in the conceptual site plan s strategically positioned and
concentrated to provide maximum benefit as buffering to the residential
neighborhood. It should be noted that the proposal contains significant,
enforceable restrictions on development, clearing, impervious area, and
buffering. Under the current zoning of SFR-10 these restrictions are
significantly less. With the proposed restrictions in place, the petition for zone
change is in accordance with relevant policies and strategies relating to
development along arterial roads. 4. Land Use (p.p. 29-40)- The site is in the
center of the neighborhood #5 entitled “Commercial Center”. The plan
describes the area as the “Commercial hub of Queensbury” (p. 34). The plan
notes that “commercial development has spread from the Town’s major
intersection (Rt. 9 and 254) along Route 9, Quaker Road and Aviation Road.”
The biggest commercial draw in the Town, as stated by the plan, is across the
street from this site, the Aviation Mall. The implication in the comments made
by Mr. Strough is that the land use committee when writing the plan in 1988
wanted the subject site to serve as a conservation area. The plan in its final
form does not support this opinion. The plan states on p. 35 that the only
conservation land use in this neighborhood area is the Halfway Brook stream
corridor and makes no mention of the subject parcel as an area worthy of
conservation. Further reference by Mr. Strough is made to a quote taken from
a meeting of the comprehensive plan committee of 1988 about the SFR-10 zone
designation as a method of protection. As a matter of fact the parcel if
developed as residential under the SFR-10 designation will have greater impact
to the adjoining properties through loss of vegetation and dimensional buffer
than the proposal now before the Planning Board. The only protection provided
is at the expense of the owner of this site. Located in such a densely
commercial area the property will never be developed as residential property.
Once again this is not a speculative statement. The property has been listed as
a residential property for many years and has not received one indication of
interest from a perspective buyer/developer of residential property. The plan
on pages 399-40 calls for several strategies relating to land use and
commercial development which are relevant to this petition. These are:
Establish buffer zones between industrial, commercial and residential zones
which require the use to protect the integrity of the adjacent zone. Comment:
The proposal contains significant and ample buffering (2.02 acres or 45% of
the overall parcel) of the residential neighborhood with additional plantings
proposed to further screen potential visual impacts and filter potential noise
impacts. Limit highway commercial zones to reduce strip development along
arterials…increase lot sizes for highway commercial activities to a minimum of
one (1) acre. Comment: The petition has been revised to plaza commercial
further limiting highway related development. The building size and overall
development area is a fraction of the overall lot and statutory limits under the
current zoning ordinance. The lot area is more than four (4) times larger than
the increase called for in the plan. Where these problems (density in areas
without water and sewer) can be overcome by extension of water and sewer
line, consider increasing the density of these areas once service has been
provided. Comment: The parcel will be fully serviced by water and sewer, yet
is more than four times the increased minimum lot size. Finally, Mr. Strough’s
comment that no evidence exists to support the history of this parcel as
commercial is incorrect. The parcel was zoned C-3 commercial in 1967 when
Queensbury’s first zoning was enacted. This petition balances the interests of
the parties in interest and does not narrowly focus on one agenda or the other.
The proposal before the Board is a fair and reasonable approach to the
rezoning which will ultimately be in the best interests of all the parties. Very
truly yours, John C. Lemery”
12
(Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 1/13/98)
MR. MAC EWAN-Is that it?
MS. NOWICKI-Yes.
MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. The floor is yours.
DONNA HARRIS
MRS. HARRIS-My name’s Donna Harris. Thanks for giving me the chance to
speak. I wanted to directly address some of the issues that Mr. Lemery raised
a few moments ago during his discussion. I believe that I might have been the
resident that he says he tried to contact, as he and I had a discussion outside
this building after our last Planning Board meeting, and he had suggested that
he’d like to get together with the neighborhood and discuss the landscaping
issues. I haven’t attended any neighborhood meetings, and I wanted Mr.
Lemery to understand that that’s why he was never invited to any of the
neighborhood meetings to speak to the neighborhood, because I hadn’t been
there, and I was the one who had suggested that. I also wanted to put to rest
any issues about signatures from Olmsteadville, Fort Edward, and so forth,
being on that petition. We did word the petition such that it was “Citizens of
the Town of Queensbury and Residents who travel to Queensbury for”, not
residents, but people who travel to Queensbury for purposes of work,
employment, or shopping, I think it was. I don’t remember what it was. The
point is that the people who signed that petition are the people who are
supporting the businesses inside the Town of Queensbury. It’s not just the
people inside the Town of Queensbury, and so therefore if we put a Cracker
Barrel Restaurant there and we bring all the jobs to the area, it’s not going to
be necessarily the residents of this area or this Town that are getting those
jobs. We don’t have any opposition to a Cracker Barrel Restaurant, and the
way that the petition was presented was actually the question was asked right
up front. I got 196 of those signatures. So I’m pretty sure I know how it went
down. The question was, how do you feel about Cracker Barrel Restaurant
coming to the Town of Queensbury? And the answers were pretty much along
the same line, that would be great. That would be fine, but it’s always followed
by, “Where”, and there’s people in this Town would love for chicken fried steak
to come to Town with good country gravy, but just not on that property. I don’t
know who the 40,000 residents of Queensbury are that are siding with Mr.
Lemery that think that that land should be developed, because I haven’t met a
single one of them, and I’ve even conveyed this to children’s groups, Girl Scout
troops and things like that, very, very objectively, and they’ve argued it both
ways, but ultimately they end up deciding that that wouldn’t be the right thing
to do for the Town of Queensbury. I think it’s not the case, either, of the
residents that they don’t want the land developed. If it can’t be developed, then
Mr. Wood has a bad piece of property, and he wouldn’t be the first person ever
to have a bad piece of property, but to overdevelop it in a restaurant way would
be rendering all the properties around it to be almost worthless. We keep
hearing about the 100 foot buffer, which is going to exist to the north of the
property. That picture shows residences to the north of that piece of property.
We have to bear in mind, also, that there’s a street running through the middle
of that property, and there’s five properties on it. Two of the properties directly
abut the parcel of property that we’re talking about. The properties that abut
the parcel have been promised only 75 feet of buffer. Because of the slope of
the land, which Mr. Lemery pointed out in his letter is about 10 degrees, 10
degrees this way and 10 degrees this way, it’s an interesting lot, it’s going to
have to be raised. In order to raise it, they’re going to have to berm it. So after
the berming, those residents aren’t going to have a full 75 feet of buffer either.
I didn’t have a lot to do this weekend, so I hung out on the corner of Old
Aviation Road and Birch Lane and did an old fashioned traffic count. Between
the hours of 3 pm and 9 pm, there was 684 cars that went down that road,
which is highly suspicious for a road that has six properties on it, a
neighborhood with 10 properties on it. The way that they reconfigured
McDonalds hasn’t really helped the traffic situation, because people have little
13
(Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 1/13/98)
cars, and they can still turn that way. Jeep Grand Wagoneer can’t do it, but a
Honda Civic can. Kentucky Fried Chicken has still been wide open, and that’s
where a majority of the traffic has been going. So the point keeps coming up
that McDonalds changed their parking lot, the problem’s all fixed. It’s not.
This morning when I took my daughter to the bus stop because it was a cold
morning, which is on the corner of Greenway North and Old Aviation, the bus
stop is right where that stop sign is. I’m not sure why the middle school bus
won’t stop on the other side of the road, but the school bus is right there. My
daughter was running a little bit behind, so we only sat on the corner for three
minutes, and in three minutes, 28 cars went through that intersection. We’re
talking about putting more cars on Greenway North, as I believe that’s where
one of the entrances was proposed. Again, the residents aren’t saying that that
property should never be developed. They feel that we could put a subdivision
in there nicely. Barnes and Noble we wouldn’t have turned down. I think the
property was too expensive for Barnes and Noble. Because we would have
accepted a bookstore, and I wanted to let Mr. Lemery know what steps I’m
going to take in the next few weeks, so that it doesn’t come up as new
information at the next meeting and another postponement isn’t suggested.
I’ve been in contact with eight real estate agents who say that that property has
never been marketed through the MLS, as it’s been discussed here that it had.
I will get copies of old MLS books and prove that it hasn’t been properly
marketed. So that’s really all that I need to say. I did, Page 69 is me, in your
little book, and I’ll just read it so that everybody’s familiar with what it says.
Because this is a situation that bothered me a great deal. “It was the summer
of 1997, July I believe, I was returning home from work. As I turned on to my
street, Birch Lane, from Old Aviation Road, I noticed a bus illegally parked in
the turning circle at the end of Old Aviation Road.” That was one of the 684
cars this weekend. “This is not the first nor last time I have seen buses parked
there, they park there often. They park there to allow their riders to eat lunch
or dinner at either McDonalds or Kentucky Fried Chicken restaurants. After
parking in my driveway I heard noises coming from my backyard. I went to my
backyard and saw a bunch of teenagers and young adults (early 20’s) playing
on my trampoline, I asked what are you doing and they responded by saying
that they thought this house was vacant. I said, “didn’t you see my garden?”
After a bunch of rude comments they returned to their bus.” I at that time also
noticed a bunch of people playing basketball on my driveway court. “I then
realized that one of them must have gotten into my rear closed-in porch,
because that is where we keep our basketball, they ball they were playing
with.” This is a very, very violating feeling, but this isn’t something that’s
unusual. Because we see these people walking down the street all the time.
It’s just when our houses look vacant, I’ve seen them go to the neighbor’s
house and play basketball, but they leave their basketball out, so they don’t
have the same issue as I do. I don’t know if you can imagine going home and
seeing six to eight rather large strangers in your yard playing with your kid’s
stuff and you’re the only one at home, in a neighborhood full of elderly people.
This is going to happen more as these buses are brought to Cracker Barrel and
brought closer to the neighborhood. I’m sorry to have reiterated old stuff. It’s
just that it’s extremely disturbing and I think that we reiterate it so much
because we’re not sure we’re stating it strongly enough, and it’s not that we
don’t want development of that property. We want to make sure that, not only
for us, but for the Town of Queensbury, it’s developed the right way. Thank
you.
MR. MAC EWAN-Thank you.
JOHN STROUGH
MR. STROUGH-I’m John Strough. The document I handed you, I’m sorry I
handed it to you late, but that was really hot off the press, and it was a lot of
effort by a lot of people to get that done. What it’s meant to do is to provide
you with documents that you may refer to, if you wish to, while we present our
cause. We don’t think that this site earns or deserves a radical rezoning, and
we would like to show you in three ways, traffic, history, and zoning. Roger
14
(Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 1/13/98)
Boor and Harry Troelstra will present to you reasons why this does not make
an appropriate area for a radical rezoning, as far as the traffic issue goes, and
that’ll be followed by Brad Patch and he’ll present to you the history, and that’s
important, and the third will be presented by Doug Miller, and he’s going to
discuss some of the zoning issues, and again, they’ll refer to documents, and if
you wish to see them, that’s why I provided that for you. Okay. Thank you.
MR. MAC EWAN-Just, before we go any farther, will this all be new
information?
MR. STROUGH-This will be new information as far as I’m concerned, because
the way it’s presented is not a way that you’ve ever seen it before, Craig, and
it’s important.
ROGER BOOR
MR. BOOR-Good evening. My name is Roger Boor, and as John said, to make
this go as quickly as we can, because I know this is no fun for you people. As
Cathy said, you guys have been here a long time discussing these kinds of
issues. We’ve divided it up. I’m going to handle the traffic. I’m going to start
with the Planning Board minutes, 11/18/97, of this Board, and it’s Page 22,
Line 15, the applicant states that, and I quote “Traffic on Aviation Road is
continuing to increase. It’s the mostly heavily trafficked road in the Town.” He
goes on to say, “It’s basically the center of the community now, it’s the center of
every community, including Glens Falls actually”. I happen to agree with all of
that. The applicant, at the same meeting of this Board, Page 49, at the bottom,
states, “Traffic studies, to my way of thinking, you could go out and get traffic
experts to tell you what you want to hear. We can drag traffic people through
here and they’ll tell you that the bridge will do this. In the Year 2010 thiswill
happen, in the Year 2004, and all the rest of it, and that doesn’t answer the
central question, which is, every time this Board”, that’s you, “the Town Board
or the Zoning Board approves another project in the Town of Queensbury, it
has traffic affect, whether it’s this site or some other site, and I don’t want this
site to be pinned with some traffic issue”. So what the applicant is stating is,
Number One, he wants the Board to rezone the parcel residential to HC-1A. He
wants it Highway Commercial. Number Two, this parcel is the most heavily
trafficked road in the Town. That’s the applicant’s words. Number Three, every
time the Planning Board, the Town Board, or the Zoning Board approves
another project in the Town of Queensbury, it has traffic affect, and Number
Four, he doesn’t want to be pinned with some traffic issue. The applicant is
asking too much. I have concerns that many of the benefits we might
experience by the bridge widening might be negated by unwise decisions that
you, the Board, might make tonight. Lets look at the traffic history. Warren
County, 1997, there were 1700 accidents in Warren County investigated by the
Sheriff’s Department. Accidents on Aviation Road numbered 114, so 6.7% of
all accidents investigated in Warren County Sheriff’s Department. Accidents on
Aviation Road at the cross streets of Route 9 to Highway 87, there were 73.
That’s 4.3%, and that doesn’t include accidents that were on Route 9 at that
intersection. These are accidents that were on Aviation Road at the Route 9
intersection. Then we looked at the New York State Department of
Transportation, who has not compiled the 1997 statistics yet, but lets look at
the last five years. In 1992, this half mile section, which runs from the 1,002
tenth of a mile marker, which is at the east side of the bridge, to Route 9, that’s
a half a mile. In 1992, there were 62 accidents. In 1993, there were 100
accidents. In 1994, there were 95 accidents. In ’95, there were 86 accidents,
and in ’96, there were 85 accidents. So in five years, we’ve got 428 accidents
on that one half mile. Lets look at the problems with Creighton Manning
Engineering report, which is the report submitted to you by the applicant, his
traffic study. The entire report is based on the assumption that a Cracker
Barrel restaurant is to be the ultimate tenant of the parcel in question. The
hearing scheduled for January 13, 1998 is not a site plan review for a Cracker
Barrel, but in fact a hearing to determine if a zoning change is appropriate for
this parcel in question. Number Two, Page One of this report under this
15
(Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 1/13/98)
subtitle, “Proposed Developments”, last sentence states, “No driveway access is
planned directly to Aviation Road.” Page Five, the sentence below Table Two,
Level of Service Summary, again states, “This analysis assumes all site traffic
will access Aviation Road, Greenway North, Aviation Mall driveway onto
Greenway North”. These assumptions are contrary to the drawings and the
statements made by the applicant that show ingress and egress directly to
Aviation Road as well as Greenway North. The study is flawed in its inception.
It does not reflect and is contrary to statements in mass presented to this
Board which show a curb cut on Aviation Road. Number Three, the traffic
study on Page Six, second paragraph, states, access to the site should be
provided through a full access driveway that intersections Greenway North,
and, and I emphasize, maximizes the distance between the site driveway and
Aviation Road. When one scales the site plan, it is clear that the parking lot
and entrance is only two car lengths from Aviation Road. Compounding this
shortcoming is a six foot drop in grade as one enters the parking lot off of
Greenway North. Number Four, Page Five of the study states under “Analysis”,
second bullet, the minor signal timing changes will allow the intersection to
continue to operate at LOS, Level of Service, B, during the 1998 no build and
build conditions. I contend that with the completion of the bridge modification
and expansion, it’s reasonable to assume that the traffic will more easily and
expeditiously arrive at the Greenway North intersection. It’s also reasonable to
assume that the minor timing changes are going to be holding greater volumes
of traffic at this intersection. They’re going to try and accommodate more left
hand turn ingress and exiting traffic off of Greenway North. In summary,
currently, Greenway North is the only signaled access and exit to the
residential area adjacent to the property in question. It should also be noted
that Greenway North does not meet the current width standards, and is
reduced to a one lane road during months where snow removal and banking
occur. This study does not address the impacts of having cars exiting the
restaurant, turning right onto Greenway North, and looping around to Carlton
Drive, thereby avoiding what appears to be a very tight and restrictive exit from
the parking lot to Aviation Road. There are other problems with the report, but
in essence, the report is narrow in its focus and it doesn’t cover potential
impacts of other HC-1A uses. Again, I think it’s inappropriate to be discussing
site plan review issues and traffic studies for a particular business, when at
present no business is allowed on that property in question. This Board
should not be looking at the plans of a specific HC-1A zone, but instead should
be determining what uses would best suit the owner, the existing residential
neighbors, and the citizenry as a whole. All of us in the community use
Aviation Road and many of us on a daily basis. Finally, I think the applicant
was correct when he stated you could go out and get traffic experts to tell you
whatever you want to hear. One really only needs to visit the site, look at the
lay of the land, and what surrounds the parcel, and it becomes clear that the
physical carrying capacity, and I want to emphasize that, the physical carrying
capacity of the property as it relates to the residential neighborhood and the
possible ingress and egress to Aviation Road is not suited for high use.
Common sense should tell us that there are many HC-1A uses that would not
be suitable to this site. It’s my sincere hope that the HC-1A zoning is not given
to this property. Whatever this Board decides, I think it would be prudent, if
not wise, to hold it’s determination of the zoning change application until the
release of the Comprehensive Land Use Plan, thereby taking advantage of the
work the Committee has done. Their work obviously looks at the community
as a whole. It takes into account all the needs of the community and not a
select few. Harry has maps, if anybody wants to look at it, that show the
ingress and egress and other features. That’s about it.
MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. Thank you. Anybody else?
HARRY TROELSTRA
MR. TROELSTRA-Good evening to all of you. Roger has done a good job of
presenting his part of this program, and as mentioned potential problems that
16
(Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 1/13/98)
come with the proposed zoning. Before I go further, can I hand you a copy of
what I’m trying to read.
MR. MAC EWAN-If you want to give it to Staff, to make it part of the public
record, and could you also, for the record, identify yourself, please.
MR. TROELSTRA-Okay. I’m sorry. I’m Harry Troelstra, Two Carlton Drive. I’ll
get those other papers. I’m sorry. Okay. Lets try again. Roger has mentioned
some of the potential problems that come with the proposed zoning. I would
like to show you these and other related situations on this plan which was
prepared after the 1996 rezoning denial. It shows a 75 foot buffer zone to the
north and a 50 foot buffer zone on the east. These are the two zones in
question here. It shows also the old George (lost word) residence, now owned
by Mr. Wood, which has a covenant mentioning residential use forever. That is
this parcel here that’s about a half an acre. The house is right here. On these
drawings, the house has been removed. Never mind the covenant restriction.
This cross section, AA, from the buffer zone, shows an incline from east to west
of approximately seven feet. This is AA. This is the cross section they show,
and it shows there is approximately an incline in this seven foot section, and I
didn’t draw this drawing. This was prepared by Lands of Charles Wood, the
Miller Associates Landscape Architects. So it has a seven foot raise in this 50
foot buffer zone. It also shows there is a proposed berm of five foot high. This
drawing indicates to scale that there’s a proposed berm that raises the land five
foot high. So that means all the way around the back side here the berm will
be five foot high, and also it will carry on to a certain point which is not
indicated on this map. Again, this is an old proposal that I will start with this,
because Mr. Lemery has also mentioned in his speech tonight, and that’s the
first time I’ve heard it, that they’re proposing a 100 foot buffer zone, but also
they’re proposing something for a smaller (lost word) to help more I guess for
the protection of the buffer zone or to make the buffer zone more dense. I have
never heard of this before, but it was mentioned tonight. The proposed berm is
five foot high. That means five foot fill is planned to level the property, without
doing harm to the remaining buffer zone. Here, right in this green part, it says
50 foot wide buffer area to be maintained. No clearance or grading will be
allowed in this area. Now there was some concern from Donna that when the
construction would be going on, if this all would go through, that the buffer
zone would be disturbed. I’m sure that Mr. Lemery will hold to his promise
that nothing.
MR. MAC EWAN-Mr. Troelstra, can I interrupt for just a second, please. What
do these plans have to do with this rezoning application for tonight?
MR. TROELSTRA-It shows how we go from one plan to the other plan.
MR. MAC EWAN-No. It doesn’t. We have a rezoning application in front of us
tonight, and that’s all we’re entertaining. We’re not entertaining any site plans
or anything to that matter.
MR. TROELSTRA-Okay. I’ll go to the next page, then.
MR. LEMERY-This is way too confusing to people. This has no relevance and
no bearing on what this.
MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. John, please. Do you have any new information
pertaining to tonight?
MR. TROELSTRA-Yes. I’ll go along with the point that they have. May I say
one more thing about this plan? This plan is very deceiving. The plan
presented on Page Number Two.
MR. MAC EWAN-Is this also site plan material?
MR. TROELSTRA-It’s called a preliminary plot plan.
17
(Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 1/13/98)
MR. MAC EWAN-We’re not dealing with that either tonight.
MR. TROELSTRA-We’re dealing with an issue of a rezoning application that the
applicant has requested and the applicant has got it on for a Highway
Commercial zone. We’re not dealing with any subdivisions or site plan
applications tonight.
MR. TROELSTRA-It was mentioned by somebody. I don’t know who it was, we
were talking about the ingress or egress on this property, and nobody objected
to this kind of talk. I’m going to, with this plan, I’m going to show how they put
the ingress and egress on this property, which is very confusing to the Board
members.
MR. MAC EWAN-But we’re not dealing with the site plan issue here tonight.
We’re only dealing with a request for a rezoning change, which has nothing to
do with ingress and egress and how many cars are going to be there, what kind
of buildings are going to be there, how big it’s going to be.
MR. TROELSTRA-You just mentioned the cars, Mr. Chairman. I just heard talk
from Mr. Lemery on cars.
MR. MAC EWAN-On cars?
MR. TROELSTRA-Yes, how many cars were parked over the throat on the new
Aviation Road.
MR. MAC EWAN-He didn’t say anything about cars. He may have addressed in
a letter that he was responding to John Strough’s letter of last meeting.
MR. PALING-Shouldn’t we also mention that petition has been changed to a
request for Plaza Commercial? We keep referring to Highway Commercial, but
the applicant changed it.
MR. MAC EWAN-I don’t think the application’s changed, has it?
MR. STARK-They made a letter.
MR. PALING-The petition has been changed.
MR. MAC EWAN-I’m looking at what’s on the agenda tonight.
MR. PALING-We keep referring to Highway Commercial, but it is a Plaza
Commercial request.
MR. TROELSTRA-Maybe for the audience and for you people here, can I maybe
show a drawing that shows basically how this parcel is divided, how it was
divided, how it’s now, to get a little bit better understanding over how we get to
a four acre parcel?
MR. MAC EWAN-Yes. I don’t have a problem with that.
MR. TROELSTRA-You don’t want to hear anything about buffer zones any more
or anything like that then right now?
MR. MAC EWAN-No, we’ve heard this, unless you have something new about
buffer zones.
MR. TROELSTRA-Is there any objection if I read what I have down so far, to
Page Two or Page Three?
MR. MAC EWAN-Page what again, Harry?
18
(Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 1/13/98)
MR. TROELSTRA-I think it’s Page Three, but it says on top, “See Drawing
Number Three”. This drawing is on the same scale as Drawing Number One
and Two. I will skip the first two drawings. It further says, “Lot Number One
is 2.62 acres owned by the Hole in the Woods”. Lot Number Two is 59 acres
owned by Mr. Wood. I’ll put Number Three on this. It basically shows the
proposed plan and the buffer zone where Mr. Lemery has been talking about,
and we have, in Mr. Lemery’s letter I guess tonight he’s talking about the buffer
zone, and I would like the two point some acres he is devoting to the buffer
zone, can I comment on that?
MR. MAC EWAN-Yes.
MR. TROELSTRA-The buffer zone in question of Mr. Lemery I guess is this
buffer zone right here. It still shows at this time the old residence or the
residence of Mr. Wood. All right. I have the map right here. It’s the same
map, exactly the same as what you have, John. I got a copy of yours. So
whether you’d like to look at yours or mine, it doesn’t make any difference to
me.
MR. MAC EWAN-Please. I know it’s going to be a long, arduous evening here.
If we can keep the comments to new information pertaining to the rezoning
application only. The Board is not interested in listening to anything relevant
to what a site plan would be or an ingress/egress and parking and site plan,
building sizes or anything like that. It would help make the evening go on a
little bit quicker, I think.
MR. TROELSTRA-Okay. It’s tough for me to get started on something I’m asked
to do free hand now. So I don’t know whether this will be quicker or not. I
think what I’m trying to say is what my opinion was over the thing that we have
been working on for the last two months, and I spent an awful lot of time here,
and now basically I’m hearing things that I maybe don’t quite understand, but I
don’t think that it’s fair that whoever has been up here so far has had basically
the right to say what he wanted to say, and tonight, I’m being cut short a little
bit, and if you’d just let me read it quick and explain it quick, I’ll be out of here
in no time, and I don’t need any interruption from Mr. Lemery either at this
point, thank you. The drawing is on the same scale as Drawing Number One
and Two. It shows the following. Lot One is 2.62 acres. It’s this big lot here.
Lot Two is .59 acres is this. Lot Number Three is approximately one acre. The
100 foot buffer zone to the north, the residence owned by Mr. Wood, the 75 foot
buffer zone on the east, proposed residence, three homes on Birch Lane. The
proposed ingress and egress, but it does not show the steep grade. It’s right
there. I know Roger has talked about this, too, but I didn’t know what he was
going to talk about. So I’m probably covering him a little bit here, doubling
up, but by putting the roads and the grassy berms on this plan, it shows how
close the ingress and egress is to the intersection. The plan proposed over
here, it’s a guess. You don’t know. It looks beautiful on paper, but when you
put it over here, it shows how close it is. There is hardly room for the stacking
of two cars on Greenway North. What would happen if this second car was a
bus or a pick up truck with a 30 foot travel trailer behind it? This one right
here? It would totally block the traffic going north on Greenway North and
traffic on Aviation Road if cars would attempt to turn on Greenway North.
Compare this with the ingress and egress to Friendlys Restaurant what is here.
You can see how much room they allow here for cars to stack up. There are
140 parking spaces planned. They will decrease if no retaining walls are
planned. Ten parking spaces are for buses and handicapped. That leaves 139.
Hours for business are between six a.m. and ten p.m. That makes 16 hours a
day, times 7, is 112 hours.
MR. MAC EWAN-Mr. Troelstra, I don’t mean to interrupt, but this is all site
plan relevant material, and we have no idea what’s going to go in there.
MR. TROELSTRA-We don’t know, right, but the first time this came about, it
was always talked about the Cracker Barrel restaurant going in. Now it has
19
(Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 1/13/98)
changed. So maybe I’ll see what’s ahead in the next page, then. Maybe I’ll
continue with this. I’ll leave the figures alone. If you can’t go left to exit, most
locals will try to get out over Greenway North and Carlton Drive. They’ll head
this way to Carlton Drive. Now the residents will follow to do the same, and
our quiet residential streets will become busier and busier. Carlton Drive and
Aviation Road is the intersection most residents avoid using. With the forever
residential covenant on the property of Mr. Wood, this plan for the restaurant
does not work. Mr. Wood’s residence should also have the proposed buffer
zone. In all fairness, if this has a covenant, the buffer zone should look like
this. This drawing shows a reduced drawing of the four acre parcel. Note, and
I’ll skip over all the roads, Birch Lane, etc. starting all over here and all the
different roads in the development. It also shows the residential lot owned by
Mr. Wood. Again, this parcel here, the one acre parcel also right here in yellow,
the 2.62 acre parcel starting at the blue line and with the yellow enclosed
there. The ingress and egress to the proposed lot, I skipped the word
“Restaurant”, the 100 foot buffer zone to the north, the 75 foot buffer zone, and
then on Point Number Four it shows Sage Road. The blue line here is Sage
Road. Sage Road was a planned residential road sold to Mr. Wood in 1990 by
the Town of Queensbury. All these lots make this plus or minus four acre
parcel. By the way, this clearly shows that the one acre parcel, this one acre
parcel here was a planned residential lot up to 1990, the 300 foot residential
frontage on Aviation Road that shows right here, I mentioned residential, and
the new Aviation Road for which Mr. Wood got reimbursed fairly. All this
frontage here and the road were sold to the State I guess. The road was sold
to the State. During the November 18 meeting, it was stated by Mr. Wood’s
th
attorney that Mr. Wood should be treated fairly. I think this has happened
already. By developing Aviation Road, Mr. Wood gained over 1500 foot
Highway Commercial zoned frontage. This little piece he still has, but he got
all this Highway Commercial frontage with that deal. The four acres in
discussion are zoned on three sides residential, to the west, I’m sorry, right
here, to the north and to the east. Does that make it commercial? Now lets see
how most residents are using the roads in this development. Most residents
are using this intersection, Greenway North. A few will go to the Carlton Drive
intersection to make a right hand turn. That is right here. As you can see, I
made it a very narrow red line because it’s used very little to make a left hand
turn, and most of them will make a right hand turn there. Also you see all
these little marks here. Suppose they were cars, and you can see how darker
this line gets, and that’s where Donna gets her count from, I guess, that all the
cars, started going Carlton Drive, I won’t say all the cars, but most of the cars,
especially the older folks like to use this intersection. What will happen if, the
overflow from a high volume restaurant will go this way, I’m sorry (lost words)
in here. Already people are using Carlton Drive to go to Wal-Mart and park on
Greenway Drive. People come in here, go to Wal-Mart and park right here.
Buses are using the Greenway North intersection to go to McDonalds. People
are also using Greenway North to get to the True Value Hardware Store. It was
stated by Mr. Wood’s attorney that this parcel was the only residential lot on
Aviation Road. This is not true. There is, by the way, four, on the east side of
Birch Lane, on the west side of Birch Lane. It’s the lot in discussion here, and
also this large lot here on the west side of Greenway North. People like to live
here because it’s close to the shopping centers, churches and schools. Easy
access to the Northway, good place for the young couples to buy starter homes.
Hardly any For Sale signs. I believe there are two in the whole development
right now, and there’s reasons for it, too. It clearly shows that rezoning this
parcel is the wrong choice. Within the green border, it shows how densely this
area is developed. If you make this yellow parcel, if you put that orange line
around it, you can see that this whole area gets enclosed with commercial
zoning. Also, the commercial zoning now shows up right up against all these
houses here. It will take on a totally different pattern, and it kind of juts right
into the residential zone. On the next plan, I will try to show you that this
parcel could work as a residential area. It will fit right in with the houses on
Birch Lane to the east, the houses on the Aviation Road on the north and west.
It will fit in with these houses, the houses here and on the west side. This is
Drawing Number Six. This is the development that I sketched, and I’m not
20
(Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 1/13/98)
really a professional. I’ve never been a house builder, but it’s being mentioned
all the time, and I guess that Mr. Lemery has a drawing here that shows 14
houses. Is it necessary to put 14 houses in here? I question. I think if I was a
developer, and if I wanted to do something with this, to sell the houses, and not
to expose it to the traffic, I would develop this lot like this. Now I mentioned
before that there are only two For Sale signs, and I think there are over 100
houses in here, and I think that’s a pretty good ratio. If you go to any of the
other developments, you will see a lot more For Sale signs. I didn’t put in 14
houses, but I left enough green space for people to say or to feel that at least
they’re not living on top of a busy highway. I have seen developments like this
all over in Florida. It basically makes a transition stage form. People on this
side of Old Aviation Road, the north side of Aviation Road, certainly wouldn’t
object to this kind of development. It’s a planned parcel for residential
development. Planning it this way, and I keep hearing it from Mr. Lemery, that
it won’t take the total buffer zone away. I can tell you one thing, if you put
houses like this in here, and you look from this side, these people right now
will have a hard time seeing the Aviation Mall, (lost word) visible right through
the trees right now. Houses like this will offer a much better buffer zone than
trees. I used a road, I made a circle here. I only put in 70 homes. Hopefully
this house that is totally being neglected right now, is the worst looking house
in the neighborhood, hasn’t been lived in for I don’t know how many years, I
had one of my employees that wanted to live there, and he was refused to rent
the place, so the house is totally being deteriorated, and I think it’s a plot to
say the house is no good. We have to tear it down. So they’re doing it this
way. I think it can be developed. Lots of trees can be saved, and a reasonable
buffer zone retained. Homes constructed at an affordable price range should
sell readily. By the way, no need to look for a name for the new road. Lets
keep it Sage Road. Thank you.
MR. STROUGH-Okay. John Strough again, and Brad’s going to talk a little bit
about history, but.
MR. MAC EWAN-Please, could we keep it to new information.
MR. STROUGH-But first of all, maybe you could educate me, play the role of
teacher. You call it a site plan review.
MR. MAC EWAN-No, we don’t.
MR. STROUGH-Well, what you call some things that we were doing part of site
plan review, let me clarify. What we’re trying to show you is that this property
cannot be zoned Highway Commercial or Plaza Commercial if you’re going to
look at the maximum impact uses that are allowed under HC or PC, okay.
That’s what we’re trying to show you. Because for example, lets say you
approve rezoning. I know you’re only doing a recommendation, but your
recommendation is going to the Town Board saying, you should approve this or
you shouldn’t approve this, whatever the recommendation may be. Now, what
you’re saying is that we think that you should approve rezoning, but then when
you do site plan review, you see the serious problems. Now that seems to be
backwards, to me, I mean, maybe I’m missing something here. It seems like
it’s too late, then, to do a proper, once it’s rezoned and then you have a
proposal, and then you want to do site plan review, it seems that you have to
look at site plan issues, if you’re going to look at rezoning. I can’t see how you
can separate the two.
MR. MAC EWAN-I guess in a nutshell, you could place it and say that there are
many uses that are allowed in different zones, whether it’s Highway
Commercial, Plaza Commercial or Neighborhood Commercial, doesn’t mean
that all the uses are appropriate to that zone, and all they are asking for is a
petition to rezone.
MR. STROUGH-But your consideration, and you must consider it, is the
maximum impact of a commercial enterprise that would be allowed with that
21
(Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 1/13/98)
type of zoning. You have to consider the worst case scenario when considering
a rezoning.
MR. BREWER-I would agree with that. That’s what our job basically is, to look
at the worst case scenario of what could go on that property, not necessarily
the Cracker Barrel, any use allowed in that zone could go on there. I think he’s
right.
MR. STROUGH-We’re trying to show you that some situations would not work
out that way.
MR. MAC EWAN-But where do you draw the line from discussing how many
cars are going to go in and out or how big of a parking lot it’s going to be, or
how big of a building it’s going to be?
MR. BREWER-By the guidelines in the zoning ordinance. I mean, you could
take, for instance, say it’s a Highway Commercial, the largest building built,
how many cars to accommodate, or how many parking spaces to accommodate
that, and then just figure out what could go there and what couldn’t go there,
and just look at all the scenarios that could go there.
MR. MAC EWAN-But the zones give you the densities, Tim, and what you can
allow in them.
MR. BREWER-I mean, you don’t have to look at the Cracker Barrel. I believe
that you have to look at any scenario that can go on that property, if we’re here
to rezone it, or any other parcel of property.
MR. MAC EWAN-I think we have, and I think we’ve tried to listen to all of the
issues here, and what I’m hearing tonight, and this is my opinion, but what I’m
hearing tonight is a rehash of what we’ve been hearing for the last three
months.
MR. BREWER-I’m not disagreeing with that. I’m just saying that point.
MR. MAC EWAN-I want to hear something new.
MR. STROUGH-Yes, but sometimes showing it in a pictorial way, the way Harry
was trying to do, will show you how a usage, lets say a highway traffic usage or
putting in a commercial enterprise that would call for highway traffic flow, high
traffic flow, would not necessarily work for that parcel. That’s what he’s trying
to show. We’re not saying restaurant. We’re saying a high impact situation,
would show you that traffic flow may not be appropriate there. That’s why
maybe you ought to be a little cautious in offering a recommendation for
rezoning. I mean, that’s what we’re trying to do. That’s the story that we’re
trying to present. That’s all.
MRS. LABOMBARD-See, John, I mean, you’re right. You can look at the worst
case scenario, but when the final, you know, when the preliminary site plan
comes to us.
MR. MAC EWAN-If it should ever come to us.
MRS. LABOMBARD-If it comes to that point, or on any parcel that we’ve done,
sometimes it takes the longest time to solve all the problems on the site, and
sometimes it isn’t workable. So you can’t put that on, and you have to go to
something else.
MR. STROUGH-Well, that seems almost, I can see the difficulty, Cathy, with,
and you can see the difficulty we’re trying to have, too.
MRS. LABOMBARD-So maybe the worst thing that you put on the site that
could be on the site, when it finally comes to site plan review, doesn’t work.
22
(Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 1/13/98)
MR. STROUGH-But in the mean time, you’ve opened the door to that potential,
and then.
MRS. LABOMBARD-Yes, of course. I’m not going to disagree with that.
MR. STROUGH-Okay. If you will, we’ll just go over a brief history of the
property and the importance of that, and I think you have to think about all
these things.
MR. MAC EWAN-If it’s new. We already know the history of the property.
We’ve gotten all sorts of documentation in front of it. We’ve been getting it for
literally months.
MR. STARK-We’ve seen this already. We’ve been over this a lot. We know
when it was zoned, rezoned, and what the zoning is now.
MRS. LABOMBARD-What should you tell us that you feel, like, is there a
couple of things that would be salient points in that history that you feel that
we should know that we haven’t?
MR. STROUGH-Do you want to reduce it to just make your basic points.
BRAD PATCH
MR. PATCH-My name is Brad Patch. The home, like this property here, two
pieces owned by Hole in the Woods, one piece is owned by Charles Wood. It’s
the home that’s standing. It has a covenant on it that it will be residential use
only, and the foregoing covenants shall remain with the land, shall be binding
on the parties hereto, heirs, executors, administrators, successors, and
assigns, and then it says in the end, it’s right here on Page 36, forever, and we
haven’t reached forever yet. This has got to be binding somewhere. Take that
piece out of there, this won’t fly, and all of us in that development, there’s 113
homes. We all have covenants. We can’t say, okay, we don’t want that in
there. We’ll just sneak it out of here somehow. When Mr. Wood bought all this
property, it was 1965. We were residential at that time. In ’67 it went to
commercial, yes, I’ll go with that, then it came back to residential when they
put the new road in and brought that piece of property in line with what is
existing. You’re in residential. It’s a transition zone, maybe, but it’s not a
commercial zone, and residential is working. It’s keeping what it is. If it was
marketed for, we’ll say residential, and the price was reasonable, not
outlandish, and they could get somebody to do something in those guidelines.
Okay, you might have a buyer, but to say that this zoning doesn’t work is
wrong, and I don’t think it should be changed for the betterment of one person,
when you’ve got 113 homes behind there, and we all can’t do what Mr. Wood
can do, or the Hole in the Woods. We’re just small people. Our investments
are in these homes. Eight-five percent of people in here are elderly. They’re
retired. These are like retirement homes. Very few have children. There are
some. We can feel safe in this neighborhood. We don’t have the crime that
runs. We can walk around without getting hit, at least now we can. The roads
narrow down in the winter time from a one lane to maybe a one and a half, but
the people can still get around. You can walk here and there, and our life it
pretty good in there. Why should we have to be subjected to a major change
when that type of zoning does not fit that piece of property. That’s about it.
MR. MAC EWAN-Thank you.
MR. STROUGH-Okay. Now we’re going to discuss some pretty serious zoning
issues.
DOUG MILLER
23
(Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 1/13/98)
MR. MILLER-My name is Doug Miller. I live at 4 Stonepine Lane. I will try to
keep this as brief as possible. Everything that I’m going to mention is in the
packet that John has presented to you tonight. For the purpose of the people
here, and sort of as just a reminder, and I don’t mean to be insulting, in terms
of hitting the chapter in the zoning book, 179-2, the Purpose and Objectives.
“The purpose and objectives of this chapter is to promote the health, safety and
general welfare of the community and to provide for a variety of housing
opportunities and densities and protect the property values and aesthetics of
the community by channeling and directing growth by regulating and
restricting the height, number of stories and size of buildings and other
structures…” The community is the applicant’s piece of property. The
community is the residential homes that surround that piece of property. They
both need to be protected, and it is a very difficult task you’ve got in front of
you. The change that occurred tonight to make this instead of Highway
Commercial, make it Plaza Commercial still requires that you look at the
maximum impact that could occur on this site, and as John (lost words)
brought out, it’s a difficult task, which is first. It sometimes seems like we’ve
got the cart before the horse. That section I just read is on Page 71 of the
packet that you have. The impacts or the uses that are allowed in HC-1A are
also in that packet as you I think all are well aware. They are almost identical
to Plaza Commercial, with the exception of setbacks and a few other minor
details. They start on Page 62 in the packet. I’m not going to go through those.
On Page 66, another piece of your guidance, so to speak, your zoning book, is
development considerations, 179-39, and there are a litany of things that come
up in that. One in particular is Section C-2 A & B, “Site development
considerations shall be as follows: Other site factors (a) Adjoining and nearby
land uses.” And we are surrounded by residential homes here, with the
exception of the new Aviation Road side, and then the adequacy of the site. I’ll
leave it at that. That’s on Page 66. You can read through that at your leisure.
Page 7 goes into some of the Staff notes for this application. These are Staff
notes dated November 18, and on Page 8, which is the second page of the
th
Staff notes, “Staff comments: Based on the review of the previous zoning
request concerns regarding the project have centered around traffic and
compatibility with adjacent single family land use”. The Staff has extreme
concerns with that. Down further, “If the site was developed to the fullest
extent for either zone”, and the case that was in front of the Board when they
made these comments was HC-1A or SFR10, “would the site still fit with the
character of other developed zones is the area?” My assertion is that if it goes
HC-1A, it would not. If it stays SFR-10, it would. I’m not saying SFR-10 is
necessarily the right use either. Property History, Brad just went through that
with you. On Page 44 in the packet you have Property History. It lists a little
more in detail for you. The first application in February 25, 1992, Planning
Board rezoning denial, Town Board rezoning denial in February of ’92, and on
through. I’m not going to insult your intelligence. You can read those yourself.
Also what comes up in there is the chronologic acquisition of the pieces of
property that this development makes up, or this area makes up, and
essentially there’s four pieces. The last being the purchase of Sage Road from
the Town on a Quit Claim, $1 from the Town. The last one was, there were
actually three of them, all occurring between 10/26/90 and 1/21/90, when
the area was zoned as it is now. Page Nine goes into some tax information.
Comments were made that the applicant is unfairly burdened with high taxes
because of the location of the site. Page Nine gives you each of the three lots in
question. The largest lot, 2.62 acres, 300 feet of road frontage, has a total
assessment of $37,000, school taxes of $484.70, Town taxes of $241.19, total
$725.89. The next lot that I have on the list is the .59 acre, with the house on
it. Total assessed value, $57,700, and the combined taxes are $1112.36. The
third lot is 1.09 acres. Total assessment $15,400. Total taxes $302.13. The
total assessment of this parcel is $109,000. I think I could sell it for
residential properties and make some money. If I want to get my maximum
value, I would go for something that I could sell for a million dollars, basically
$250,000 an acre. I don’t think any of you are going to purchase, or anybody
in this room, with maybe a very few exceptions, are going to purchase a piece
of property, a one acre lot for $250,000, put a house on it. For commercial
24
(Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 1/13/98)
development, yes. What’s going to happen to, again, the land owners around
that that have homes? What’s going to happen to their value? There’s a great
increase in value for the applicant if this is allowed to be rezoned commercial.
There were almost unquestionably be a decrease in value of the surrounding
residential properties, particularly those that are on Birch Road. They are
pinned in. They will be completely surrounded by commercial. East, west, and
south. Total taxes on the three pieces of property are $2140.38. It was
mentioned by Mr. Patch the deeds. The deeds for one of the parcels we have,
the original deed, and that is on Page 36B, on Page 36, you have, let me go
through 36B. From Jack Oranch to George Pfeiffer, 1976, and it lists the
covenants, deed restrictions. One being, Number One, “The premises hereby
conveyed shall be used for residential purposes only”, and it goes on with what
type of residential structure can be built there. Number Three, “No noxious or
offensive trade or activity shall be carried upon the premises, and nothing shall
be done thereon which may be or become an annoyance or nuisance to the
neighborhood.” And these deed restrictions were to go with the property
forever. The deed from George Pfeiffer to Charles R. Wood, dated October 17,
1986, has the first deed restriction, “The premises hereby conveyed shall be for
residential purposes only”, and there’s a few more on the residential portion.
Interestingly enough, the part about the use and being a nuisance to the
neighbors is not there, which I find a little bit interesting. Thirty-seven is the
Quit Claim deed from the Town in 1991, January 21. It was the final version
st
of this, conveying Sage Road, from the Town of Queensbury to Charles R. Wood
for a total of $1. Page 57 has some minutes from the master plan meetings
that took place, that’s dated July 11, 1988. Present at this meeting were
Dorothy Burnham, Pete Cartier, Joe Carusone, Bob Eddy, Dave Kenny, Dick
Roberts, Joan Robertson, Sharon Simmons, Marilyn Sommerville, Ted Turner,
Jr., Lee York, and Fred Holman. Absent were Sue Goetz and Keith Jablonski.
Item Number Eight, “The property behind and east of the silo was discussed.
This area will be recommended to change to SFR 10 to protect the single family
uses in this area.” The last thing I have is, on Pages 41 to 43, in your packet,
are a number of quotes from the October 27, 1992 minutes, referring to this
piece of property at the rezoning at that time. You can read through those at
your leisure. I, again, I’m not going to go through each of those. There are
some in there that talk about the fact that a real estate appraiser “We did
consult with a real estate appraiser, and not to our surprise, certainly, and I
don’t think to anyone else’s surprise, we were informed by a qualified real
estate appraiser that obviously a commercial use in close proximity to a
residential use decreases the property values for the residential use.” I don’t
think we are protecting, this is not a win/win situation. We’re not protecting
the property values of the applicant and of the surrounding homeowners.
Again, I think that you need to look at, keep in mind the purpose and
objectives as stated in 179-2 of your Zoning Code. You need to make sure that
you are looking at the maximum impact that can occur on this site, if you’re
going to allow it to be rezoned. You have then, as was discussed a few minutes
ago, opened the door. I think the deed restrictions on this site need to be
enforced, and unfortunately, as I’m sure you’re all aware, that’s not part of the
Town’s responsibility to enforce deed restrictions, but I think it’s something
that you need to be aware of that are running with this property, and I think
it’s also important you look at the sequence of time here. When this property
was purchased, it was purchased in a town that did not have zoning. It was in
a residential area. Residential development was occurring. When the last
piece of property was purchased, Sage Road, it was clearly residential, and no
other zoning was even being considered at that point in time. That was 1991.
Thank you.
DAVID KENNY
MR. KENNY-David Kenny, resident of the Town of Queensbury. Like he
mentioned, I was on that Committee. Our choices at the time were to leave this
Single Family 5,000 square feet, which we felt was not proper, to rezone it
Highway Commercial, which we seriously looked at, which would allow 50,000
square feet of retail in there, with no buffer. Prior to 1988 there was no buffer
25
(Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 1/13/98)
zone required in the Town of Queensbury. We felt that probably wouldn’t work.
Our hands were pretty well tied. What do we do? That’s why in 1988, in the
zoning, we proposed the buffer zone, which we didn’t know if it would pass,
(lost word) commercial property in the Town of Queensbury, a 50 foot buffer
zone. We felt that if this was ever going to go commercial, it had to be limited
commercial road, although we felt on Aviation Road that was probably the best
use, but we still had to protect the neighbors, which we couldn’t. It was
impossible. Because we had rezoned it 50,000 square feet of retail, according
to the current zoning, could go in there, 12,500 square feet per acre. That’s
what our Code allows. Tim Brewer basically said, yes, you do have to address
the highest use. I believe the developer has addressed the highest use. He’s
saying, instead of putting 50,000 square feet, which our zone allows, I’m using
very minimal use of the property. Our zone calls for a 50 foot buffer. The
developer’s agreeing to a 100 foot buffer, more than our zone. If this proposal,
I believe, was before the 1988 Committee, we would have seriously looked at it,
and I believe it would have been passed. That was our problem. Our hands
were tied. We couldn’t say, you can only develop 15% of the parcel. You have
to give a 100 foot buffer, you have to do all these things. Those were our
concerns. We couldn’t address it, and we didn’t believe it was 5,000 square
foot lots either. We were hoping at some point in the future Sue would go in.
Traffic issues are being discussed tonight. Just as a simple thing, when
Aviation Mall put a 150,000 square foot expansion, I did not see these people
here complaining about traffic right across their street. If they’re talking about
that intersection there, Aviation Mall came in here and put 150,000, with no
traffic concerns, without even the bridge being widened. Were there
objections? When Wal-Mart went in, they took our Zoning Ordinance and
threw it out the window, and did these people object with traffic, with a 30 foot
setback? There was one person in this room that strongly objected, that’s Dan
Olson. I don’t believe the Zoning Board would have given them all those
variances, a 30 foot setback in the back, which we require 50 foot. I mean, the
big objection was when they knocked down all the trees without even approval.
I was at most of the meetings. I don’t know where we’re going. The traffic has
never been an issue with the Aviation Mall expansion. We took and created a
new zone for the Aviation Mall, to address a lot of issues in the Town of
Queensbury. This man is far and exceeding, or this developer is far and
exceeding every code in the Highway Commercial zone there is today. He’s
saying, I’m going to take four acres and only develop X amount. Either our
zone is totally out of whack, or he’s addressing the issues. If we say he can put
12,500 square feet per acre, that’s what we say in our zone. That’s 50,000
square feet, and he’s only recommending putting 10. Geez, if he can’t make
that work, our zone, there’s something wrong. That’s why I disagree with Tim.
I agree he has to address the highest and best use. He has by saying he’s
going to limit the size of the building. He’s not going to try to use the
maximum amount.
MR. BREWER-I never said that he was, David. I just said that we have to
consider the most extreme use that it allowed in the zone that is before us to
rezone.
MR. KENNY-I agree.
MR. BREWER-You’re saying he can put 50,000 square feet. Right now he
can’t.
MR. KENNY-Right. What I’m saying is in four acres, if you do limit the size of
the development, it will address those issues within itself. It addresses the
buffer zone. It addresses all those issues.
MR. BREWER-I’m not saying that it won’t. I’m just saying that that’s what we
had to consider.
MR. KENNY-And I agree, but I think if you look at it seriously, it does address
those issues, this type of development. The traffic issues, this development of a
26
(Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 1/13/98)
restaurant there I can’t believe will cause any more, and not only that, if the
restaurant is rezoned commercial, the property is rezoned as commercial with
limited use. He’s asking for rezoning as a limited use with restrictions. That’s
what he’s asking for, and I don’t believe he’s asked for a change from Highway,
he would accept either one. He would have to verify that. What I heard tonight
is we’ll take the Highway Commercial or, so he hasn’t changed the application.
He said, if you make the determination of Plaza Commercial.
MR. BREWER-He has changed it.
MR. KENNY-I heard him say tonight he would accept either one. Okay. If he’s
just going for Plaza Commercial, then that’s not what I thought I heard. I was
on that Committee, and I’m going to tell you, I had serious concerns with
sewer. There was no sewer up in that area at that time, protect the
neighborhood. We couldn’t rezone it commercial, even though we felt the road
frontage along Aviation should be commercial. We wanted to protect the
neighbors. We couldn’t. The zone didn’t allow us to, and we really felt that
hopefully at some point the road improvements would go in, which are going in
now. So, you know, for anybody to tell me that road frontage on Aviation Road
property use isn’t Highway Commercial or some type of commercial use, with a
limited amount of development, I feel that’s very hard to believe, and that’s my
honest opinion as a citizen in the Town of Queensbury. Thank you very much.
MR. MAC EWAN-Thank you. Anybody else?
DAVID STRAINER
MR. STRAINER-Hi. My name is David Strainer. Things that bother me about
this property, when you buy a piece of land, at least I should hope so, you
know what you’re purchasing. When Mr. Wood bought this piece of land, it
was plotted out to have houses on it. He’s now crying foul that he can’t do with
his land what he wants to do. Yes, he can. He can build those houses. You
can’t tell me you can’t take that buffer zone, put it on the Aviation Road side,
and put the houses the other way. We’re not here for the fact of what he can
do and what he can’t do with his land. We’re here for the fact of the greed, and
that’s all it is, because he wants the highest dollar value, and he wants these
people to pay for it. It really, it’s a bothering thing, because he knew when he
bought the land he had residential land. How can you not look at a piece of
property, see it plotted out for houses, see a Town road in there, and think that
you have bought commercial land. Also, you know, and this bothered me, too.
Donna brought up a good point, that Mark Levack said that property was
listed. I went through the old MLS books. I am a realtor. I have access to all
that. I never saw it, and I could be wrong, but I looked, and I’m sure, and all
the people I asked, where no one saw it either. So I kind of wondered about
that, but truly when Sage Road was sold, that was when the problem started
out, because that did offer a new way to look at this piece of land. These
people aren’t saying that you can’t develop this land. They have rights and so
does the applicant. The fairness issue that Mr. Lemery keeps talking about is
totally one sided. He wants the fairness to be on his side, and the heck with
these people. These people cannot pick up their investments and move some
place else. They are locked in here. They have as much right, as does the
applicant. That’s why we have zoning. It bothers me also that we’re
complaining about, he feels he purchased commercial land. I never saw him
fighting the tax people saying that he should be paying higher taxes on that
land. Thank you.
MR. MAC EWAN-Anybody else?
JACK HEWITT
MR. HEWITT-Hi. My name’s Jack Hewitt. I talked to you a couple of months
ago about the same thing, property value. My house has been on the market
for over two years. I’ve lived in it for 10, and I can’t get what I paid for it. I live
27
(Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 1/13/98)
on June Drive. June Drive is right here. This is my property. With the
widening of the bridge, the State or whoever took out about 32 tree stumps
right here, and I have a beautiful view of Seven Steers now. A realtor came to
my house yesterday, said those 32 stumps cost me about $8 to $10,000
property value. That’s all I have to say. I’m not making any money on my
property.
FRED TROELSTRA
MR. F. TROELSTRA-Good evening. I’m Fred Troelstra, owner/partner of the
Silo on Aviation Road and Garden Time on Quaker Road. I am also a licensed
engineer in the State of New York. I would just like to have the Board, I
appreciate your patience. I want to state this publicly. You’re doing a dynamic
job listening to all the issues that are here presented to you tonight, and I’m
sure over the past five years I believe this has been tabled, and I also noticed
that you’re getting a little antsy, so I’ll be short, is that I ask you to query your
experience of what has been presented and also your gut. I think that there
are pertinent issues that were presented tonight regarding the use of this
property. Again, as Doug had mentioned, we may, or, I’m sorry, Mr. Strough,
that we may be getting the cart in front of the horse, but I also have been party
to this presentation for the last two, three times in particular. The applicant
has presented much information. I don’t think to use this forested property
that we’re seeing the forest from the trees. There is a proposed 100 foot buffer
along Old Aviation Road. If that is to exist, it is my professional opinion that
parcel is becoming landlocked. You cannot get people or cars, I should say,
with the highest impact, through, off that property onto Greenway North. It’s
just not going to happen. Now I know Jim Martin is in the audience tonight.
He said, well, we’re going to deal with that. I didn’t feel comfortable, and I
don’t know how you people felt, about how they’re going to deal with that, in
terms of getting that volume of traffic onto Greenway North. It’s going to
become a stacking issue. From what the applicant has proposed, for the 100
foot buffer, is that they are going to not allow traffic to go onto Old Aviation
Road, is my understanding. Now, in the future, when this subject comes back
up in front of Planning Board, I understand this is not planning review, but I
want it to be pointed out that that is what is proposed, a continuous buffer
around this property. I have had an opportunity to talk to New York State
Department of Transportation, Mark Kennedy. They have not been queried on
this at all at this point, but his comment to me was that even though there is
an ingress/egress of some nature on Mr. Lemery’s plan, the State is going to
look to allow only ingress/egress on secondary roads, not on Aviation. That’s
Mark Kennedy’s quote to me. So, the State would approach this as such that
they would want traffic either to go on Old Greenway or on Old Aviation Road.
Now, if that is, again, a continuous buffer, the only site that I see that they can
get in and out, would be onto Greenway North, and I ask you at outset of my
presentation, there’s no notes or anything, is that, deep down look at what is
going to happen on that corner. Thank you.
MR. MAC EWAN-Thank you.
DAN OLSON
MR. OLSON-Strictly new information. Daniel Olson, 29 Carlton Drive. My
comments, as this meeting went on tonight, and noticed you don’t have an
attorney here from the Town, or anyone representing the Board. The legal ads,
any legal ad that I saw in the paper and notification I had was these hearings
were about a Highway Commercial zone, change to a Highway Commercial
zone. The issue came up tonight as a Plaza Commercial zone, which is a
completely different zone. Are you within your bounds? Are you legally able to
change in the middle of the stream what you’re going to consider, when you
once advertised and talked about a different type of zoning change? I don’t
know if the Plaza is a more restrictive or less restrictive zoning. I know
sometimes you can come down, but you can’t go up, but I just question the
28
(Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 1/13/98)
legality of continuing a public hearing and issuing a decision, once the
applicant has changed, in the middle of the stream, to a different request.
MR. MAC EWAN-I believe that within our jurisdiction that we can grant a
zoning change on an application for something other than what the application
requests, without having to post it legally, but we will check on that for you.
We have done that in the past.
MR. OLSON-Okay. I would just question, there might have been people that
were interested in appearing if they knew it was a different, a hearing for a
different zone other than the Highway Commercial. It’s just a legality, but I
would really question the legal part of it.
MR. PALING-If the Plaza Commercial were less restrictive, we’d have a problem,
but the Plaza Commercial, I believe, is a lot more restrictive than Highway
Commercial.
MR. OLSON-I thought so, too, but I don’t have any Zoning Ordinances with me
this evening or any books that I could research that with. I’m only bringing
that to your attention. I know the evening’s getting late, but I just want to draw
your attention to another item to bring up that was in the Post Star I think last
week in a letter to the Editor. It was a letter talking about plaza rezoning
should be denied. This letter was written by Mary Russell, who lives in the
area, and I have permission from her to discuss this, and I hope you saw this
article. It wasn’t made part of the record, but I think I’m going to copy it and
turn it into the record, and Mary, and I’m just going to skip over, it talks about
living in the area for more than 40 years, and she talks about, and the best
part of it, “I can’t believe at 83 I am still trying to keep what our deeds term one
family residential. We lived through the construction of the Northway Mall,
new Aviation Road. Houses that were in the way for the new Aviation Road
were moved to Schoolhouse Road and Carlton Drive. In order for us to get
safely onto Aviation Road, all of us have to use the lights at Greenway North.
So does the Queensbury school bus”. Here’s a woman that’s 83 years old. I
hope to be that age myself some day and live in the same area, but she’s
speaking not only for herself but for other people that live in that area. “Lets
keep dumpsters, buses and traffic where it belongs. Why crowd it into a zoned
residential zone? Why not into one of the vacant spots already zoned
commercial? We are Queensbury pioneers who have fought to retain this
development. Young couples buy starter homes here so their children can go
to Queensbury School. They will pay their taxes just the way we have done for
years.” There’s a little bit more that Mary talks about, playing hockey on the
streets, football, bike riding, roller blades. I live around the corner from her on
Carlton Drive, and we have this kind of activity on our streets. That’s what
we’re asking for. We’re asking to keep the development the way it is, keep the
element of the people that live there the same as they are, and restrict the
traffic if we possibly can. This will be a real burden to us if this development
comes on. Thank you very much for your time and attention. Thank you.
MR. MAC EWAN-Anybody else?
MR. H. TROELSTRA-Can I come back for just one minute?
MR. MAC EWAN-Two minutes.
MR. H. TROELSTRA-Two minutes, beautiful. As everybody has been talking
about the buffer zone, I want to bring this drawing out that I had originally,
and I never had a chance to really point out where the buffer zone looks like
right now. The proposal is for a complete buffer zone. Right now, the buffer
zone ends up right here, and it starts again over here. This house is going to
disappear. On the proposed re-planting plan, we have talked about three to
four foot high blue spruce. This property is going to be raised in order to make
it workable. If you were into this property five feet, and you proposed a three,
four foot high blue spruce as a buffer zone, where will you look at? Also, on
29
(Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 1/13/98)
the original plan, this plan was drawn up by the engineer, also shows the same
buffer zone, shows the house that they’d like to tear down, and it shows very
big the existing trees. They probably are these existing trees. It doesn’t offer
any buffer whatsoever. Basically, the buffer what you see is a tree trunk this
size. On the picture, it looks like a 30 foot wide. There is no buffer from a two
foot tree. These are the proposed blue spruces to make the buffer. This is the
proposed berm. This is how it will look at the proposed buffer zone. It looks
nice on the plan. It’s very deceiving. Don’t get fooled. Thank you.
MR. MAC EWAN-Anyone else?
MS. NOWICKI-Craig, I have one additional letter.
MR. MAC EWAN-Okay.
MS. NOWICKI-“Dear Mr. MacEwan: I ask on behalf of the applicant that you
accept this letter as an amendment to the petition before the Planning Board
for the Change of Zone to the Double “H” Hole in the Woods Ranch, Inc. parcel
on Aviation Road. The applicant is willing to accept, rather than the HC-1A
zone, the PC-1A zone, Plaza Commercial. We would also like to reiterate in
writing that the applicant is willing to provide a conservation easement, a fee
simple dedication to the Town, or any other special condition recommended by
the Planning Board for the permanent 100 foot buffer, which is proposed by
the applicant. The only condition to a permanent dedication of the buffer
would be that it be allowed to be counted as green space for the applicant’s
development of the remainder of the parcel, which is the subject of the
application. In sum and substance, therefore, the buffer would be permanently
set side and could not be used for any other purpose, and in addition, the in
fill and other items proposed by the applicant would all be provided either as a
condition to the Change of Zone or as a part of the Site Plan Review process.
We hope that this confirmation will alleviate some of the concerns expressed by
the Greenway North residents that the buffer could be changed in the future.
John Lemery”
MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. Thank you. Is there anyone else who wants to speak
in the public hearing?
MARK SARGEANT
MR. SARGEANT-Thank you, Mr. Chairman, Planning Board, Citizens of
Queensbury. My name is Mark Sergeant. I’m with the firm of Creighton
Manning Engineering. In response to some of the traffic engineering comments
that we’ve heard here tonight, I’d like to talk briefly about traffic impact
methodology that we applied, that we used on this project, why it’s appropriate,
and what the conclusions of our study revealed. The first thing that we do with
a Traffic Impact Study is collect existing conditions information. In this case,
that includes signal timing, lane use, lane widths, grades traffic volumes,
things of that nature. The next step is to analyze the operations of the
intersection. The standard procedure that we use is Level of Service Analysis.
For those of the audience who are not familiar with Level of Service, in
standard engineering practice, Level of Service ranges from A to F, A indicating
very little delay on the order of O to 5 seconds average delay per vehicle, all
the way to F which would be excessive delay on the order of 60 seconds or
more per vehicle. We analyzed the operations of the Greenway North, Aviation
Road intersection and found that it operated at Level of Service B, overall.
Level of Service B is delay on the order of 5 to 15 seconds of delay. Now that
wasn’t exactly confirmed by field observations because while we collected the
turning movement count information, we observed the traffic cueing up from
the interchange through this study area intersection. It was backing all the
way up down the hill. So there are actually greater delays being incurred than
our analysis showed, but that wasn’t the result of the operation of this
intersection. It’s essentially the bridge, and the limited capacity there, and as
you’re aware, DOT is coming through with an improvement which will eliminate
30
(Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 1/13/98)
that problem, and then this intersection will be able to operate more efficiently.
The next step of the study is to predict how much traffic will come to and from
the site. We projected future traffic volumes that are 17% higher than we
counted out there for a no build case, to be conservative and consistent with
the DOT bridge project. We added the site traffic, which we’ve estimated to be
on the order of 90 vehicles in the peak hour, roughly equivalently split between
arriving and departing vehicles. So 45 in and 45 out. We then analyzed the
operation of the intersection again, with the additional traffic from the site, and
it showed that it is capable of continuing to operate at Level of Service B with
the additional traffic from the site. Now, that is essentially what a standard
traffic impact study will focus on. If the Level of Service degrades, then we look
for mitigation, such as additional turn lanes, widening or things of that nature.
The issues, the secondary, I shouldn’t say secondary, but the site plan issues
that have come up with regard to specific access locations and things of that
nature, we have not looked at in detail. We have analyzed the impact of all the
traffic coming out onto Greenway North. We believe that to be a conservative
analysis of the intersection. While the DOT may, in fact, look for all access to a
secondary road such as Greenway North, they may be inclined to allow some
type of right turn in, right turn out driveway onto Aviation Road. Access to the
parcel is preferable on the secondary road, versus Aviation Road. There will be
some cueing, obviously, and stacking on Greenway North, as it approaches the
signal. Average cue lengths we expect to be on the order of two to three
vehicles per cycle in the peak hour. Maximum cue lengths on the order of five
to six vehicles. This could include two to three vehicles on Aviation North, and
then two to three vehicles on site during the worst case design period. Signing
could be provided on the site driveway, to prohibit people from blocking the
intersection and things of that nature. So the site issues would be worked out,
and we feel that it can operate adequately. Thank you.
MR. MAC EWAN-Thank you.
CHERYL ROBINSON HOFFMAN
MRS. ROBINSON HOFFMAN-Hello. My name is Cheryl Robinson Hoffman. I
live in Queensbury. I think the traffic report that we’ve just heard is very
interesting. However, I think the busiest day of the year in Queensbury is the
day after Christmas, and if any of you were out around Aviation Mall, the wait
was 20 minutes that I was in front of Wendy’s on Glen Street trying to get
across the bridge because I live on the other side of the bridge. I do commonly
use Birch Lane to get to my son’s music lesson, because otherwise it’s a 20
minute ride to go from one side of Aviation bridge to the other side, and it’s in
Northway Plaza. The reason I’m saying this is because there is a study done by
the Smithsonian Institution and some very renown scientists. They say when
you enlarge a road, that it attracts more traffic because it’s perceived as being
easier to get through, and I think we’ve not seen any real change with the
widening of Aviation Road on the west side of the bridge. We still have long
lines, especially between the hours of eight and ten in the morning, between
noon and three, and again between five and seven. I’m here because zoning is
important to the whole community, and I don’t think you can take one
neighborhood and dissect it from the rest of the community, and zoning effects
all of us, where we choose to buy and how we choose to live, and with those
thoughts, I would like to say thank you very much.
MR. MAC EWAN-Anybody else? Okay. We’ll close the public hearing.
PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED
MR. MAC EWAN-Mr. Lemery.
MR. LEMERY-I’ll just respond to a couple of points. First of all, there was a
question raised about a Barnes & Noble bookstore. I’d like the record to reflect
that neither Charles Wood nor the Double “H” ever had any proposal submitted
by Barnes & Noble to locate any bookstore on that site. We wish it had, but
31
(Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 1/13/98)
there was no offer. No discussion. Nobody came around. Nobody had any
interest in it to my knowledge. We understood that they were in the area, but
we also understood that they didn’t feel that the demographics up here
supported a Barnes & Noble. So nobody came to Charlie Wood or to Double
“H” and talked about the location of a Barnes & Noble. We would have been
very pleased to support it and would have hoped that you would have approved
it. This road that people talk about. In 1991, the Town came to Charlie Wood
and asked him if he would take title to it. They didn’t want to deal with it, it
was a dollar, and there was no consideration. Mr. Wood had no interest in it,
and it was in effect an abandoned parcel by the Town of Queensbury.
MR. MAC EWAN-I would ask that you folks show the same consideration they
did for you when you were speaking, please. Please continue.
MR. LEMERY-The house that some people have represented would come down
would not be, that land would not be used for commercial purposes. That land
would be part of the forever dedicated buffer, and as I said before, and I
couldn’t get anybody to respond, we were willing to not only treat it as a
conservation easement, but we were willing to deed it back to the residents
back there, if those folks created some sort of association or group that could
hold title to it, so long as, as I said, it could be used and counted as our green
space. So they could control it and deal with it. I urge you to deal with this
site and not support the rezoning. This parcel has been before this Board three
times, and each time the Planning Board has recommended that it be rezoned
Plaza Commercial, or HC, Highway. All three times it has been recommended
that it be rezoned. We never put it to a vote before the Town Board. It has
never come to a vote before the Town Board. I have pulled the application, at
least twice, if not three times, before going to the Town Board. That was in
Mike Brandt’s tenure and I believe in Mr. Champagne’s tenure. So it has not
been the subject of a denial of a rezoning before the Town Board. It’s been
taken back. No one has come forward and offered to buy it and use it as a
park. That would be a great thing, but no one has made that attempt. The
other thing I will tell you is that, and we made it part of the application, is that
I have represented, as a lawyer, and I have seen, the multiple listing. I saw one
for the 1992 multiple list where this property was listed. It was listed as
residential, and that’s SFR-10.
MR. STRAINER-What was the price?
MR. MAC EWAN-I would ask you to please remain quiet. Please.
MRS. LABOMBARD-If you don’t stop, I will ask you to leave this room. You
have been awful for the past three minutes. I have watched you.
MR. STRAINER-Well, you know, I believe when (lost words) should be told the
truth. I will leave. I can’t stand to sit here and listen to these lies.
MR. LEMERY-Well, I was provided with a copy of the listing, Mr. MacEwan. I
just would like you to know that it was listed SFR-10, in 1992, in the multiple
listing. SFR-10 is residential property. Thanks for your time.
MR. MAC EWAN-I have a couple of questions I would like to ask you.
MR. LEMERY-Sure.
MR. MAC EWAN-A couple of questions were raised regarding deed restrictions
on that corner parcel that has the vacant home on it, can you please address
that for the Board, as to the deed restrictions that go with that?
MR. LEMERY-I don’t believe that particular parcel was subject to the deed
restriction. It was on this side of that parcel, that road, and it was not subject
to the deed restriction.
32
(Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 1/13/98)
MR. BREWER-Is the copy of that deed we have, that deed?
MR. LEMERY-Right.
MR. BREWER-That states the restriction in it?
MR. LEMERY-No. It’s not.
MR. BREWER-I don’t know what piece of property it is. I looked at it, and I
couldn’t figure out what.
MR. LEMERY-It’s on this side of Old Aviation Road, and it was not subject to
the deed restriction, I don’t believe.
MR. BREWER-I guess what I was looking at is, it describes the property, but it
doesn’t mean anything to me.
MR. LEMERY-Are you looking at the application?
MR. BREWER-No, I’m looking in this.
MR. LEMERY-Well, that’s not.
MR. BREWER-That’s not that property Mr. Wood owns?
MR. LEMERY-Correct.
MR. BREWER-Okay, but it says his name on it, John.
MR. MAC EWAN-There’s a parcel on 36B, from a Jack Oranch, residing at 7
Birch Lane, deeding it to George Pfeiffer, who lives at Bonner Drive, and George
Pfeiffer, on Owen Avenue, deeding it to Charles Wood. Are those two deeds not
the same parcel?
MR. BREWER-It doesn’t really say, I don’t think.
MR. MAC EWAN-No.
MR. BREWER-I just don’t know what piece of property it is. I mean, that could
be anywhere.
MR. LEMERY-It’s not part of, I don’t believe it’s part of the 4.3 acres to be
rezoned.
MR. MAC EWAN-While you’re up there, could you please show me, for my
interest, where was that Sage Road? Do you know? That’s Sage Road. That’s
Aviation Road. Where’s Birch Lane?
MR. STARK-What do you want to know about it?
MR. MAC EWAN-I want to know if this property is part of that. What is going
to be the future use of that parcel, if it is part of this application?
MR. LEMERY-I don’t think it is part of the application.
MR. BREWER-My only question is, that piece of property described in that
deed, I just would like to know where it is on the map, for my own information.
I mean, if you need time, John, that’s fine. So it’s adjacent to that house
they’re talking about?
MR. LEMERY-In any event, the plan, ultimately, is to take that structure down,
and there would be nothing placed there. There’s no plan to use it for anything
other than for additional buffer at some point.
33
(Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 1/13/98)
MR. BREWER-Well then if that’s the case, then that’s not an issue.
MR. LEMERY-No. I said it’s not going to be used for any commercial purpose
and it’s not going to be used for any residential purpose. It’s going to be taken
down.
MR. MAC EWAN-Also a question was raised regarding that corner parcel where
the buffer would stop there. Would there be any indication of a buffer being
replaced there, if that home was to be razed? That some additional buffer
would be put in there to compensate for the void in that corner?
MR. LEMERY-Yes. The in fill plan that we provided was nothing more than a
conceptual in fill plan, and the applicant, and Charlie Wood, when he owned it,
fully understood. When we came here the last time, and there was a
discussion about rezoning, one of the former Town Board members suggested
that we come back with a mitigation plan for in filling the buffer area so as to
make sure that during the winter months when the deciduous trees were down,
that there would be some protection. We retained Jim Miller to go in and do a
concept plan, but the plan is to fully buff that, in fill it so that it provides both
a sound barrier and a visual barrier, and if there are any vacant spaces, they
would be filled in. I’ve also talked to the Cracker Barrel people about a
stockade fence, something that was colored and compatible up against the
buffer, so as to further create a reasonable and decent looking visual scene,
and to further buffer any noises, but that’s at site plan review, and I will make
this statement today, that the answer is, yes, it will be fully buffered.
MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. Does anybody else on the Board have any questions?
MR. PALING-I have one question for you. We’re kicking the term “buffer zone”
around, and I want to be absolutely sure that we understand what the border
line of the buffer zone is, not necessarily the plantings on it, for the moment.
Would you define the buffer zone as the preliminary plot plan dated 9/15?
Could we use that as the definition of the boundaries of the buffer plan?
MR. LEMERY-Is that the one that we submitted?
MR. PALING-You have submitted it.
MR. LEMERY-It’s the 100 feet from the lot line, the back lot line. It would be
100 feet in depth, and on the Old Aviation, 75 feet coming down the side.
MR. PALING-Yes. I just want to be sure we’re talking out of the same, and
that’s the one that we’re using?
MR. LEMERY-Yes.
MR. PALING-So we can use that?
MR. LEMERY-Yes.
MR. PALING-Okay. That’s all I have.
MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. George?
MR. STARK-No. Cathy? Larry?
MR. RINGER-I’m trying to find this 100. I’ve got 75, but I can’t find the other
25 John is talking about.
MR. LEMERY-The original one that may have been submitted early on was 75,
and we added another 25 feet to it, to make it 100 feet.
34
(Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 1/13/98)
MR. RINGER-Okay, John.
MR. MAC EWAN-Tim, any questions? Anything further from the Staff? Okay.
MR. LEMERY-Thanks for your time.
MRS. LABOMBARD-There’s a lady out in the audience that has her hand up.
MR. MAC EWAN-I’m sorry. The public hearing is closed.
MRS. LABOMBARD-Can you re-open it?
MR. MAC EWAN-I’ll re-open the public hearing. One more question.
PUBLIC HEARING RE-OPENED
IRENE TROELSTRA
MRS. TROELSTRA-My name is Irene Troelstra, and I live at 2 Carlton Drive,
and I don’t like to do this, but I went up and I checked the deeds, and the map
that I have here, this map, I went up and I asked them if they would please
show me Charlie Wood’s property. This property right here, and this is the one
in question, with the house, is part of this plan. I asked them. This is Charlie
Wood’s house. This is the one that he purchased, and he knew it was
residential. He purchased it residential. This is a tax map. This is his home,
and this is part of it that is included in this whole plan. This is the one that
has the covenant on it. This is the one that is right in the neighborhood. This
is the property right here, this one acre, that was on the other side of Sage
Road. Sage Road was owned by the Town of Queensbury. Nothing happened
with this property until Queensbury, whatever happened, gave it to Charlie or
whatever. Charlie had two pieces of property, one on one side of Sage Road
and one on the other side of Sage Road. He bought this home knowing that it
was residential. He also bought it knowing that Sage Road belonged to
Queensbury. So basically this whole issue boiled down, at the very beginning,
to two pieces of property that Charlie had left over after he gained all this
property that went all the way down to Route 9 when the New York State put in
that new Aviation Road. So instead of having this little piece of property, he
had all of that going down, and the only two pieces of property in question at
that time were two pieces of property that Sage Road ran between. I asked the
gentleman at Warren County if he could please show me where Sage Road was,
and he said, yes, I can. He said this is it right here, and that was the old
Pfeiffer house which is included in this plan, which says it can never be used
for commercial, which would mean that all the buffer then would have to come
all the way around that property, which it does not. So we’re talking about two
pieces of property. Basically the house was purchased as residential. He knew
it was residential. He knew it had a covenant, and he’s just defied the
neighborhood, and it’s very difficult for me, I’m not a politician, but that’s the
way it is, and that is the piece of property, and I did obtain that from Warren
County. The gentleman was very nice. I had a new experience going through
these. I’m the one who found some of these deeds, and believe me, I had
someone who knew what she was doing, and we went through all the books,
and we researched it, and that is what we found. So this piece of property that
is the Pfeiffer house is part of this acreage, and it does have that covenant on
it, and when you think that the Town of Queensbury, and all of a sudden it
belongs to this gentleman who can now make a million dollars on it, it just
blows my mind. I can’t comprehend this. None of us could ever do it. It was
the Town of Queensbury that really hurt their own people. I’m sorry if I get
emotional, but this really bothers me.
MR. MAC EWAN-Thank you.
35
(Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 1/13/98)
MR. TROELSTRA-And I’ve had a lot of sleepless nights over what I found, too.
It’s one thing, everybody wants to do the right thing, but if you have enough
power and wealth, look what happened to OJ. Thank you.
MR. MAC EWAN-Now, I will officially close the public hearing.
PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED
MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. Any discussions from Board members? Would anyone
like to entertain a motion one way or the other?
MR. STARK-Yes.
MR. MAC EWAN-Go ahead. Put something up on the table.
MOTION TO RECOMMEND FOR RE-ZONING TO PLAZA COMMERCIAL THE
PIECE OF PROPERTY THAT’S CURRENTLY ZONED SFR-10 TO THE
PROPOSED PC-1A OWNED BY DOUBLE “H” HOLE IN THE WOODS,
Introduced by George Stark who moved for its adoption, seconded by Larry
Ringer:
That the property owner and the Town of Queensbury each agree that the
buffer zone, as shown on Cracker Barrel Preliminary plan dated 9/15/97, be
forever wild. Number Two, that an independent traffic study be made part of
any site plan review, and this traffic study should cover but not be limited to:
a. trip generation effect caused by the I-87/254 bridge and road work b. trip
generation effect caused by whatever business may be proposed for this site, c.
a forecast of conditions referred to in the New York State Traffic Study, dated
June of ’96, in Tables ES-1 and ES-3. Number Three, that no CO be issued
until the I-87/254 bridge and road work is complete and the site plan approval
is obtained. Item Four, an environmental assessment of the property to
determine if there’s any endangered species habitating the property, and
Number Five, the buffer runs with the lay of the land and not any future site
plan applications or approvals.
Duly adopted this 13 day of January, 1998, by the following vote:
th
MRS. LABOMBARD-I think that Mrs. Troelstra brought up a good point as far
as that parcel of land in the corner. I mean, if it does indeed, there’s a
covenant in there that that never can be.
MR. STARK-Cathy, did you read this, 36A?
MRS. LABOMBARD-Yes.
MR. STARK-They don’t have any buildings on it. They’re not going to put any
buildings on it or anything.
MRS. LABOMBARD-No. The point is that if the buffer is not going along that
piece of property, it means that there will, that will be partly used for the,
anything that’s going up on that piece of property.
MR. STARK-They’re going to buffer that whole piece of property.
MRS. LABOMBARD-But it doesn’t have it in the drawing, that corner. They’re
going to put, you mean the trees and stuff?
MR. STARK-He asked for continuous buffer.
MRS. LABOMBARD-Okay. All right.
MR. PALING-Isn’t that part of a legal issue?
36
(Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 1/13/98)
MRS. LABOMBARD-Well, that’s what I would say, that that would have to take
place at the time of sale with the deed transfer.
MR. MAC EWAN-It would take place at the time that the Town Board would
entertain, you know, if we could get an approval tonight, or get a
recommendation tonight, it would take place at the Town Board when they
would entertain the resolution to rezone, how that fits into it.
MRS. LABOMBARD-Okay.
MR. PALING-That could change a lot, depending on where that’s located.
MRS. LABOMBARD-I think it could.
MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. So we’re up to like six items, I think it was.
AYES: Mr. Paling, Mr. Stark, Mrs. LaBombard, Mr. Ringer, Mr. MacEwan
NOES: Mr. Brewer
MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. It’s a recommendation. It goes on now to the Town
Board for their request for a zoning change. Thank you.
On motion meeting was adjourned.
RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED,
Craig MacEwan, Chairman
37