2000-12-19
(Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 12/19/00)
QUEENSBURY PLANNING BOARD MEETING
FIRST REGULAR MEETING
DECEMBER 19, 2000
7:00 P.M.
MEMBERS PRESENT
CRAIG MAC EWAN, CHAIRMAN
CATHERINE LA BOMBARD, SECRETARY
LARRY RINGER
ROBERT VOLLARO
CHRIS HUNSINGER
JOHN STROUGH
ANTHONY METIVIER
EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR-CHRIS ROUND
PLANNER-LAURA MOORE
TOWN COUNSEL-MILLER, MANNIX & PRATT-MARK SCHACHNER
STENOGRAPHER-MARIA GAGLIARDI
MR. MAC EWAN-Subdivision 6-2000 for Michael Vasiliou is being tabled to our first regular
meeting in January because they did not receive the mailers.
MOTION TO TABLE PRELIMARY STAGE FINAL STAGE SUBDIVISION NO. 6-2000
MICHAEL VASILIOU, Introduced by Craig MacEwan who moved for its adoption, seconded by
Robert Vollaro:
To our first regular meeting in January.
Duly adopted this 19 day of December, 2000, by the following vote:
th
AYES: Mr. Vollaro, Mr. Ringer, Mr. Metivier, Mr. Strough, Mr. Hunsinger, Mrs. LaBombard,
Mr. MacEwan
NOES: NONE
PUBLIC HEARING OPEN
MR. MAC EWAN-Next item is to approve our minutes for November 17 and 24.
thth
CORRECTION OF MINUTES
October 17, 2000: NONE
October 24. 2000: NONE
MOTION TO APPROVE THE MINUTES OF OCTOBER 17 AND OCTOBER 24,
thth
Introduced by Larry Ringer who moved for its adoption, seconded by Robert Vollaro:
Duly adopted this 19 day of December, 2000, by the following vote:
th
AYES: Mr. Vollaro, Mr. Ringer, Mr. Metivier, Mr. Strough, Mr. Hunsinger, Mrs. LaBombard,
Mr. MacEwan
NOES: NONE
DISCUSSION ITEM:
PZ 1-2000 VETERANS FIELD INDUSTRIAL PARK FINDINGS STATEMENT
MR. ROUND-I’ve forwarded you a copy of our third draft of the SEQRA Findings Statement for
the Veterans Field Generic Environmental Impact Statement. The Town Board is Lead Agency.
The Planning Board is going to have to adopt the Findings Statement as well. My December 12
th
memo outlined what I think are the three major changes that are office made to the EIS Findings.
They were traffic impact mitigation fee, review of building design and repeated language about the
cost and infrastructure for the development of the Park. To just summarize, the review of building
1
(Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 12/19/00)
design, there are design guidelines that are included within the new zoning that’s provided for
Veteran’s Field, as well as information in the EIS. The Planning Board hadn’t been completely
comfortable, it’s very hard to articulate design guidelines for industrial facilities and still retain some
flexibility. So what was proposed was that the building design would be reviewed by a joint
committee of the Glens Falls local development corporation and the Queensbury Economic
Development Corporation. That committee is in place right now. It consists of two members of
each of those organizations, the City Mayor and the Town Supervisor, as well as a seventh appointee,
which would likely be the Warren County Regional Economic Development Corporation, and also
be reviewed by our office for consistency with what’s included in the Ordinance. Traffic impact
mitigation fee, there’s concern about the overall long term build out of the facility. You’re talking
about 500,000 square feet of industrial space, and it’s been identified in the EIS that several
intersections are going to require mitigation. They’re going to require signal installation at Sherman
and Western Avenue, signal installation at Luzerne and Western, and a signal installation at
Richardson, Veterans, Luzerne Road intersection. Those three intersections, plus there’s additional
turning lane improvements that are required for on site access. What we did was we calculated a
total of 642 vehicle trips that are going to be generated in a peak hour, assuming 500,000 square feet
of industrial space gets built out. Utilizing those vehicle trips, we assessed a cost per mitigation for
those signal improvements, based on the vehicle trips. So you divide the $200,000, which it’s
estimated for those installations, divided by 642, you come up with a unit rate, so that a developer
would be assessed a fee based on the number of vehicles he generates at the site. Also, we’ve
included a proposed service connector road that’s been planned. We don’t know the location of that
service road, but it’s a connection between Luzerne Road and Main Street. There’s two or three
alternatives that have been identified for that connector road. Planning estimates are that that road
would cost approximately $800,000. What we’ve done, the same methodology. We expect
approximately 160 vehicles are going to come off the Main Street corridor. Out of that 642,
approximately, based on the traffic impact analysis, approximately 160 are going to come from Main
Street/Exit 18 area, find their way to the site. So using that same rationale, we know what the total
number of vehicles that are estimated to use the service road, in total. So what we’ve done is
assessed a proportional share of that total highway improvement cost to Veterans Field, and that
comes up to approximately $200,000. So, for total traffic mitigation for the entire site, it’s estimated
at $400,000, and what will happen, as the developer comes in, as a user comes in, they’ll pay that
traffic mitigation fee. As you saw in the EIS, the first 100,000 square foot of construction doesn’t
require that any traffic mitigation be installed, but after that, those improvements are going to have
to be programmed. The connector road is not absolutely required, as a mitigation for traffic, traffic
impacts, but it’s seen as a preferred alternative to utilizing Pine Street as a truck route or utilizing one
of those other side streets. So in the overall, long term plan, we’d prefer to have that service road in
place. So those monies will be paid in to a special account, at the Town, and the Town will construct
those improvements in the future. They may construct them in advance of having all the money in
that bank account. They may construct them at the completion of that, depending on the
monitoring of those intersections, when those reach critical thresholds. It’s a kind of a little long
winded explanation, but it’s a somewhat complex issue. Hopefully you have a grasp of that particular
issue, but the third change was cost of infrastructure. Water and sewer have to be extended
throughout the site, in stormwater collection systems. Those costs are approximately $750,000 for
total infrastructure improvements. In the previous SEQRA Findings, it was identified the City and
Town are going to share in those costs. Well, we anticipate that they’re going to share in those costs.
There’s no mechanism in place, as of yet, defining what that cost sharing mechanism is. So we did
not want to include that language in the Findings, to say that, to obligate the Town to share those
costs. Again, we anticipate they will. So what we did is we struck that language and all the
infrastructure costs are going to be borne by the City of Glens Falls, in lieu of a cooperative
agreement to that effect. Those are the three things, the traffic mitigation fee, the review of building
design and cost of infrastructure, and I think the two previous iterations of the SEQRA Findings,
together with these most recent modifications, address the Planning Board’s concerns. We’re not
here to adopt the Findings tonight. We’re here to make any final adjustments that you think are
necessary, and then hopefully we’ll be able to make those changes. You’ll be able to adopt that at
next week’s meeting, or a January meeting that the Town Board will adopt a similar or an identical
Findings Statement as the Planning Board, and I’m here for any questions you might have about the
project. I know John had a couple of questions, and I don’t know if you want me to respond to
them, if you want to ask them and then I’ll respond.
MR. STROUGH-Yes. Well, my concern was the traffic study was, the traffic impact assessment
used a half a percent background growth.
MR. ROUND-Right.
MR. STROUGH-And generally speaking, other traffic studies that I’ve ever seen have used as a
standard a two percent growth. Why was there that significant difference?
MR. ROUND-It’s a good question. Short answer, Creighton Manning Engineering, we hired them
to evaluate the traffic impact analysis, that they felt that one half of one percent was an appropriate
2
(Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 12/19/00)
background growth. Long answer is that you’ve seen some regional planning studies, or studies
where there are no project specific quantification of what traffic impacts are, like the Exit 18
Corridor Study. There was, so that two percent is excessively high or a very conservative estimate of
future traffic growth, conservative meaning conservative on the high side. That’s a large volume of
traffic. A/GFTC maintains a “T” model, which is a regional forecasting model for traffic growth,
based on labor and census statistics, and growth in households and growth in employment. The
number that they utilize is one percent. So that’s generally the accepted practice is one percent
growth factor. Again, that’s without the benefit of a project specific estimate. You’ve seen other
studies utilize one percent as a background, when you’re on an arterial or a regional highway system,
as, again, a pretty significant number. One half of one percent is not uncommon, and I’ve talked,
after you had that question I talked to Creighton Manning, I talked to Transportation Council, and
they’re very comfortable with the one half of one percent, that it’s relatively insignificant, compared
to the project specific impacts, and they don’t feel that it’s an underestimation of traffic growth, and
they’re very comfortable with that.
MR. HUNSINGER-Well, the related question that I had, and I raised it when we were first
addressing the EIS, the Draft EIS, is I thought that the trip generation was skewed in the wrong
direction. They were anticipating the majority of the traffic would come from the east, when, you
know, there was really no documentation to support that assertion, and I think they underestimated
the impact of the Exit 18 area.
MR. ROUND-It was, we did, I mean, we’re at the Findings Statement aspect. So, it’s different. I
mean, those are the kind of issues that should be addressed through the development of the
document itself, but I’ll answer that, I think. It was very difficult to forecast because we really do not
know what kind of manufacturing enterprise is going to land on the site, and what their labor needs
are, and we’re already, right now we’re in a labor shortage. We don’t have employees. So right now
I would expect that people, if it’s a very attractive, high paying manufacturing operation, you might
attract people from one direction, whether it’s east or west. We know where our population centers
are locally, but generally, if we’re attracting a quality employer, we’re going to be attracting people on
a regional basis, and so it’s not unfair, or not incorrect to assume that a significant population is
going to come off the Northway. We felt that the, we made some assumptions, and we agree with
those assumptions, about trip distribution. It’s really throwing a dart. It’s really difficult to, it’s a best
guess, but we’re very comfortable in that the traffic growth that’s anticipated on the corridor is, the
Exit 18 Corridor Study that was performed for the Transportation Council, that the County is now
going through with constructing, that that’s going to accommodate a significant volume of growth.
The Exit 18 Corridor anticipated two million square feet of industrial development, and forecasted
that one million square feet of industrial development would be constructed over a 20 year time
period. If you look at our history, a million square feet of industrial space hasn’t been built in the last
20 years. Retail development, which was our high traffic generators, they anticipated 200,000 square
feet of retail space was going to be constructed on the corridor within the next 20 years, and that was
based on physically looking at the property, what can the property accommodate, and what’s a likely
build out. So we assume that 75% of the total potential development on the corridor was going to
occur in the next 20 years, and based on that, that’s a significant traffic volume increase on the
corridor, let alone this 500,000 square foot project. Based on that, they made traffic forecasts, and
they said that the intersections, based on a three lane construction, would accommodate that
forecasted traffic growth. So based on these two things that are going on, we have the benefit of a
regional study and a real long term picture. Had we not had that Exit 18 Corridor Study, we’d have
very strong concerns about the issue you’re raising, Chris.
MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. Well, no, it’s a great answer. I hadn’t heard that before.
MR. STROUGH-To get back, impact statements generally use worst case scenarios, and here the
study uses a half a percent, and I’ve never seen anything, I mean, that’s the least I’ve ever seen, and
like I said, and I think you kind of agreed, between the sentences that we have used a two percent
figure before, although you said the State uses a one percent.
MR. ROUND-Yes.
MR. STROUGH-Both of those, two percent and one percent, are above a half a percent. So, I’m
suggesting that why didn’t the study look at one percent or two percent, and as you say, the
corridor’s growth may even be in excess of two percent, when we look at that. My concern is, you
know, the impact the additional traffic, both background and the traffic that this project may
generate. What kind of impacts will that have on Richardson and Pine? I’m just wondering, you
know, I think my conclusion was that if we had looked at the traffic and used the two percent figure,
or even used a one percent figure, we may come quicker, or more conclusively, to doing this
connector road project, as a necessary project for this, to really come to fruition.
MR. ROUND-I don’t know that I’m going to satisfy your debate about half a percent or one
percent. I think we’re comfortable with it. The traffic engineer is comfortable with it. What may
3
(Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 12/19/00)
help you gain some comfort, that there is a strong desire to have a service road connection between
Main Street and Luzerne Road, and there are, we will be pursuing that as an initiative, and that’s why
we did strengthen that there are monies in this. Optimistically, I think Mr. Vollaro asked us, well,
what’s the likelihood of a, you know, what are you going to see on this particular site, and how
quickly are you going to see a facility, 100,000 square foot industrial space. The QEDC and the LDC
are entering into an agreement to develop the first two lots, as soon as this process is completed.
We’re going to aggressively pursue attracting an industrial component to that, but again, you know,
common sense. There’s a lot of competition out there for industrial facilities. We haven’t
constructed, and Chris Hunsinger can speak to this. We haven’t attracted 100,000 square foot
manufacturing facility in these parts. So that the likelihood that that connector road is going to be
needed tomorrow, I think, is minimal, but we are, with the mitigation fee, that gives us a revenue
source. By identifying the findings, it states a need for it. The Exit 18 Corridor plan indicates that
it’s not necessary, but if constructed, it would take 15% of the traffic off Exit 18. I think the
connector road is more closely linked to the Exit 18 Corridor, the Corinth Road corridor
improvements, than it is the Veterans Field project, and we’re going to be pushing that. We have
been pushing that, and lobbying the County and the State to include the connector road as a
component of the Exit 18 project. That’s the best answer I can give you.
MR. STROUGH-Well, my other point was that, what I’m getting at here is, looking at the traffic
study in my mind, more realistically coming to the conclusion that you’re going to have to put a
connector road there, would actually save a lot of money, not only on behalf of the tax payers, but
also on behalf of these mitigation fees that are being proposed, because if you do the connector road,
you might not need the red lights at the corner, the three red lights, the turning signals. You might
not need those mitigation measures. So you actually save money.
MR. ROUND-Well, what’s in the Findings Statement is a mechanism that, if a mitigation such as a
connector road is constructed, that the necessity of those other mitigation measures, would be
evaluated, that you may not need that. If you find that you’re able to construct the connector road,
you will not have to reconstruct Pine Street, or bring Pine Street up to a particular standard. So that
is in there, and it does address that, and we hope that that will be the case.
MR. STROUGH-And the third point that I thought we should look into is bringing the
infrastructure over to the site, might actually be cheaper by doing it in conjunction with the
connector road. Has that been considered?
MR. ROUND-When you say water and sewer infrastructure? Well, there’s currently, the problem is
that the Main Street project is 2002 or 2003. So that’s two to three years away, best case. There is no
sewer on Main Street. So if we’re talking about sewer, gravity feed is on Luzerne Road. Water, there
is already water on Luzerne Road, and there’s already water on Sherman Avenue. So the
infrastructure is a connection between, is down Veterans Road, between Sherman and Luzerne.
MR. STROUGH-And that would basically work, and I’ve agreed with you on this before, for Phase
I, the first 100,000 square feet. It seems to be okay, but what I was hoping to see, when I read the
most recent, the December 12 memorandum from you, was something that really forced, after
th
Phase One, before we do any further mitigation measures, or any mitigation measures at all, at that
point, is to take a look at that connector road. Now, I know that you have listed it as Item Number
Seven. It’s a step in the right direction. I just didn’t think it went far enough.
MR. ROUND-I hear you. Those are good points.
MR. VOLLARO-Well, I had a different take on that, I guess.
MR. ROUND-Sure.
MR. VOLLARO-Taking a look at the connector road, and it goes along with my comments to you
today, that I would be opposed to spending a lot of money on the connector road, unless I had a
certain amount of confidence in the fact that we were going to get that first 100,000 square feet. It’s
the chicken and egg position and, you know, being the conservative mind that I am, I would wait to
see if somebody was going to sign on the dotted line before I went to build the road, but that’s not
my only concern. In your December 12 letter, Chris, if we really are hoping that the Glens Falls
th
Common Council, which are involved agencies here, are going to sign on to this, some of the
wording that’s gone into the revised findings with respect to installation of water and sewer, it could
be we could soften those words just a little bit, or explain why we’ve got what we’ve got in there. In
other words, what you’ve done is you’ve said, you pay for it. Essentially, that’s what this says,
because they haven’t responded to us. I understand the mechanics here, but there may be we ought
to just explain that a little in the words and say because we haven’t gotten reply from the City of
Glens Falls, we’re making this position.
4
(Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 12/19/00)
MR. ROUND-I appreciate that. We have communicated. There is a joint committee for the
development of this entire site, and that includes the Mayor, the Supervisor, and so they have been
privileged to this information, and our position on it. So I think we’ve done the leg work, to keep
them informed. They’re in the loop.
MR. VOLLARO-Somebody’s on to that. I have a couple of questions. One is on Page Eight, and it
says flat, it used to be on the previous memorandum. I called it Memorandum Number Two, it used
to say that flat roofs are not allowed, and I still think we ought to go back to that. I mean, it says flat
roofs are discouraged, but we should not allow flat roofs on those buildings at all. I mean, we
learned that 150 years ago, that water runs downhill. I think we ought to stay with that, you know.
MR. ROUND-What we did is in evaluating, we tried to come up with more detailed design
guidelines and looked at other industrial facilities. We looked at design guidelines from other
communities. We looked at, Plattsburg has some pretty good design guidelines for a new facility they
have up there on Lake Champlain, Vermont, etc., and most do allow flat roofs, and in looking at
design of industrial buildings, generally, buildings when they become that large, do have flat roofs,
and they capture stormwater, coming off the roofs. It’s not appropriate in that case, so when you
have a 100,000 square foot building, you’re going to have a flat, you’re generally going to have a flat
roofs. If you look at some of our retail establishments, they have flat roofs, but we have requested is
articulation of the roof lines to hide roof mounted equipment, etc. So what we didn’t want to do is
put something in there that wasn’t achievable or cost effective, as an economic development issue,
under an economic development issue.
MR. VOLLARO-Well, cost effective has a lot to do with the maintenance, too.
MR. ROUND-Sure.
MR. VOLLARO-You’ve got to plug the maintenance factor in as well, to see how cost effective you
really are, over a five year, ten year period, and that’s why.
MR. ROUND-One of the things, you know, we are going to develop an informational sheet, so an
applicant knows exactly what all of these things are, rather than have to dig through a findings
statement and look for all this information. It’s already part of the Zoning Ordinance, and there’s
additional information in here, above and beyond the Zoning Ordinance, and we’ll, you know, we’ll
give instruction to this design review board that, you know, flat roofs are discouraged, but the whole
idea is to make sure that the architecture, there are additional enhancements about colors, building
materials, that the architecture is consistent with its environment, with its context. So that when you
look at, we had talked about the West Glens Falls Firehouse, so that it’s consistent with that
particular piece of architecture. So those are the kinds of things we’re going to be looking at, and we
didn’t want to eliminate flat roofs altogether and then have to have an applicant come back, hey, I’ve
got a 50,000 square foot facility. I’m not going to be able to put a pitched roof on such a large
structure because of the roof span. Let’s, you know, come back to the Planning Board. We want to
avoid that. So we want to give them some flexibility.
MR. HUNSINGER-That was actually a question that I had, was whether or not this new language
on the architectural guidelines would be inserted into the new Zoning Ordinance that is proposed.
MR. ROUND-I’m not sure. We could add it. I mean, since it’s in the Findings, it is binding. We
could edit that to do that, because flat roofs is also, flat roofs are prohibited is in that. So that’s a
good point.
MR. HUNSINGER-That’s part of the reason why I asked the question.
MR. STROUGH-Would it be a problem, too, just to try and suggest we’re trying to suggest
something that’s upscale for this kind of industry.
MR. ROUND-Our exercise, our objective was to go through and come up with a design manual to
come up with a graphic, but for industrial, it’s much more difficult to do. We really struggled, but
what we will be doing is building that, like a design manual that will assist a Board or a Planning
Board to say, hey, this is good. So, you know, strive to do what we like.
MR. STROUGH-I was just wondering if you could guild your options a little bit, I mean, you have
may remaining exterior walls of each building shall be constructed of masonry, concrete, metal panel
or similar material, etc. Could we just add constructed of stone masonry, concrete, you know, just to
suggest you’re looking for something a little upscale, and it just leaves it as an option. It’s not
mandatory.
MR. MAC EWAN-Maybe you could say something to the effect like stone or brick veneer is
encouraged.
5
(Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 12/19/00)
MR. ROUND-Well, the facades proposed are masonry material such as brick or pre-cast concrete.
So that’s a façade. So that’s included in there, but your point’s well taken.
MR. STROUGH-And on the architecture, as long as we’re on that topic, we have a 35 foot height
limit. What’s the reasoning for that? I mean, if I was to come in and I wanted a four story structure
in here, personally, I’d be very glad to see it count. What’s the reasoning, though, behind the 35 foot
height requirement?
MR. ROUND-That’s another aspect that we’ve instructed that it may be modified, the height limit
may be modified before it’s adopted, because that was also a concern, in that if proper setback and
proper building scale on its site, that height’s really not concern, and that 35 foot or 40 foot limit is
limiting, if you look at, you know, a significant industrial facility. So that we hope to modify that
before this is completed.
MR. MAC EWAN-I mean, if you were fortunate enough to attract a heavy manufacturer that
requires use of overhead cranes, you’re looking at a building height of probably 50 foot.
MR. ROUND-Well, that’s good to hear that you’re receptive to that, because I was concerned about
that particular aspect.
MR. STROUGH-Well, it’s an industrial park, and we’re looking for good jobs and we don’t want to
deter anybody from coming into the area, because that’s a 35 foot height requirement.
MR. ROUND-Right. Where’s the newspaper? I’d like to have that quoted in the newspaper.
MR. MAC EWAN-Let’s stay away from the newspaper for a while.
MR. HUNSINGER-I can tell you lots of stories where height restrictions did stop projects.
MR. ROUND-Right. I’m going to bring that change to the Ordinance, and it’s going to, I don’t have
it, to be honest with you.
MR. MAC EWAN-Anything else?
MR. VOLLARO-Yes. I have. Page Ten, I’m trying to get some idea. It says, in calculating
transportation mitigation fees, developers will construct any of the improvements on one through
seven in the findings three, shall receive appropriate credits and offsets. Now what’s the story on
that? Why is that?
MR. ROUND-There’s a transportation mitigation fee.
MR. VOLLARO-Yes, I understand that.
MR. ROUND-And that’s linked to a signal. So if a developer comes in and constructs a signal at
Western and Luzerne Road. They would be credited for that, and we would not charge them a fee
for that. So the fee is linked to the improvement. To construct the improvement, you waive the fee.
MR. VOLLARO-Okay. I see. He does it in lieu of essentially, that’s an in lieu of situation.
MR. ROUND-Correct.
MR. VOLLARO-Okay. I just wanted to get that square. There’s a typo at the end of Ten, too.
Your Roman Numeral should be 10, the lead agency.
MR. ROUND-Yes, I see.
MR. VOLLARO-Just real quick. I’ve got a couple of things I looked at.
MR. STROUGH-Well, while Bob’s looking at that, dealing with the same page that Bob was on,
Chris, now we’re thinking about allocating a fee, and that fee, based on the 200,000 mitigation, which
I think is not necessary, but let’s go along with the 200,000 mitigation proposal, and you figure 642
trip vehicles, right? And that, I see where you’ve X’d out the $311.54, and you put $23.06 per peak
hour. I didn’t understand that.
MR. ROUND-Basically it doubles. It’s $623.06.
MR. STROUGH-Yes, that’s if you put the other 200,000 with it.
6
(Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 12/19/00)
MR. ROUND-Right. So it’s a total of $400,000 in mitigation fees, and that would equate to $623.06.
MR. STROUGH-What’s the $23.06? You mean?
MR. ROUND-No, it’s $623. Instead of being $311.53, it’s $623.06.
MR. STROUGH-But the figure I want to know is the figure next to that, that’s in parenthesis, the
$23.06. Is that right? I see, the scratch line.
MR. ROUND-Yes, that’s a strike through.
MR. STROUGH-Okay. Yes, the strike through.
MR. ROUND-Yes, it’s tough, red on red, it doesn’t help.
MR. STROUGH-Okay. I understand.
MR. MAC EWAN-Is that it?
MR. STROUGH-No, but Bob has the floor.
MR. MAC EWAN-Bob, back to you.
MR. STROUGH-Well, while Bob’s looking.
MR. VOLLARO-Go ahead.
MR. STROUGH-We have two scenarios. Okay. One is to construct eight lots, and one scenario
might be the four lots. Now why would the eight lots be 400,000 square feet and the four lots be
500,000 square feet?
MR. ROUND-If you look at the model site plan, you’re talking eight lots, eight buildings, and that’s
what they could, is a maximum build out for eight lots. When you go to four lots, you can construct
larger buildings, and there’s greater utilization of the property, so the building area increases a little
bit, the total cumulative building area.
MR. STROUGH-Okay.
MR. MAC EWAN-Not as much infrastructure.
MR. ROUND-Right.
MR. MAC EWAN-Go ahead.
MR. STROUGH-Is Bob still looking?
MR. MAC EWAN-Still looking.
MR. VOLLARO-Yes, I think I’m going to be.
MR. STROUGH-Now, the other question I had is, how do we ensure that landscaping will be done
here? Have we got some pre-approved models, suggestions?
MR. ROUND-Yes, there’s a model site plan that demonstrates the guidelines that are in the
Ordinance itself, in the Veteran’s Field district regulations, and the subdivision approval and the
model site plan approval will bind the developers to perform and plan consistent with that approval,
and I don’t have a model plan in front of me, but it’s significant and it’s specific. It is very specific.
MR. STROUGH-So, it would not necessitate that they come back to the Planning Board?
MR. ROUND-Correct.
MR. STROUGH-Okay.
MR. MAC EWAN-That’s the whole object of this exercise.
MR. VOLLARO-Page Four. I think that, up at the top where you have December 18, 2000, that’s
going to need an amended resolution, I believe.
7
(Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 12/19/00)
MR. ROUND-Right. We had plugged it in. You didn’t pick up on “addition” on Page 10. Most
recent “addition” a-d-d-i-t-i-o-n, it should be e-d-i-t-i-o-n.
MR. STROUGH-Well, right on that sentence I would suggest that the most recent edition, I think, is
the sixth edition.
MR. ROUND-Six is the current. In the event that it’s 10 years from now, we want to make sure that
they’re using version seven or version nine, whatever that happens to be.
MR. STROUGH-But the most recent isn’t, I just thought it might be more accurate.
MR. ROUND-Isn’t specific enough?
MR. SCHACHNER-Well, John, the point is we don’t want to say fifth addition, because at some
point in the future it wouldn’t be the fifth edition.
MR. STROUGH-Well, their findings were based on what they used out of a certain manual. They
should be specific about what that manual was.
MR. ROUND-The IT rates change on a regular basis.
MR. STROUGH-I know that. That’s why I thought maybe you should be specific about you’re
basing your findings based on this particular manual.
MR. ROUND-I know your point. I don’t know that that’s a critical issue. I think the way it reads is
to the benefit of.
MR. STROUGH-Not a critical issue with me. It’s just a suggestion, and the Town Board’s going to
be lead agency?
MR. ROUND-The Town Board is lead agency, yes.
MR. STROUGH-So the sharing of costs, I’m on Page 12, Roman Numeral Three, and the cost of
sewer extension service (lost words) shared pursuant?
MR. VOLLARO-May be shared.
MR. ROUND-Yes.
MR. VOLLARO-The word “be” is left out there.
MR. ROUND-Yes.
MR. STROUGH-May be shared, pursuant to a cost sharing agreement between the lead agency and
the City of Glens Falls. Basically, when you say the lead agency, that means the Town?
MR. ROUND-Correct.
MR. SCHACHNER-The Town Board
MR. ROUND-Well, Town Board, Town, it’s the same.
MR. STROUGH-The Town Board specifically isn’t going to share the cost. The Town is going to
share the cost, unless Dennis is going to reach in his pocket, which I doubt.
MR. SCHACHNER-And the Town Board would authorize whatever cost they’re talking about, not
some other entity, not the Planning Board.
MR. STROUGH-Okay. All right. Fine.
MR. MAC EWAN-Okay?
MR. STROUGH-Yes.
MR. MAC EWAN-How about you?
MR. VOLLARO-Since you’re anxious to go, Craig.
MR. MAC EWAN-I’m not anxious. No. If you’ve got questions to ask, ask them.
8
(Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 12/19/00)
MR. VOLLARO-No. I’m finished.
MR. MAC EWAN-Larry?
MR. RINGER-No.
MR. MAC EWAN-Tony?
MR. METIVIER-No.
MR. MAC EWAN-Chris?
MR. HUNSINGER-No, I already asked mine.
MR. MAC EWAN-Cathy? Anything else to add?
MR. ROUND-I’ll take the changes noted, the couple of minor issues, and I’ll look at that height
issue. You’ll have a clean copy. You won’t have any of the strike throughs, etc. in front of you, for
adoption.
MR. VOLLARO-So we’re going to get a third final?
MR. STROUGH-Possibly the language could be a little stronger in directing us toward the connector
road?
MR. ROUND-I don’t think that that kind of language is going to change.
MR. STROUGH-Well, see, my position is that if you had used other vehicle traffic figures, the two
percent background growth for example.
MR. ROUND-I guess the answer I gave you, and I can’t explain it in any more detail, is that the
growth on the Exit 18 corridor is much more significant than the growth of Veterans Field, and the
growth of the corridor combined with the growth of Veterans Field, regardless of a background
growth or any increment, one or two percent increment, isn’t going to bring the necessity for the
construction of a connector road to imminency, and the construction of the connector road is more
closely tied to the growth on the corridor, and we are going to push that. I mean, the traffic analysis
reviewed by a traffic consultant, the analysis said it wasn’t a necessity, and they accepted the half of
one percent.
MR. STROUGH-The point that I’ve made at a previous meeting was that even if you look at after
the immediate mitigation measures and total build out, five year, and there was total build out on this
project, that you’re still looking at D’s, C’s for level of service, even after the mitigation measures,
based on a half a percent growth, weren’t great. I’m suggesting that anything else, it may have failed.
So you’ve got to look at this connector road. Okay.
MR. MAC EWAN-Can we explore that a little bit farther?
MR. ROUND-I’ve been working on the project for a year and a half, and traffic has been my
number one concern, with the quality analysis that was done, our particular analysis, all that’s going
on, and I’m comfortable that we’ve examined it, and that we’ve utilized the correct assumptions, and
that we’re making the strongest argument for the connector road. I don’t think we can put the
connector road as a necessity of the Veterans Field build out, but we are pursuing it, and I think
you’ll hear some good news to that effect, in the coming months, that it’ll come closer to reality,
regardless of whether we strengthen the language of that Findings Statement or not. I think the
incremental change that we brought to the Findings Statement identifying it, was above and beyond
what our consultant said to include, and that was language that we, to go towards John’s end, that
was language that, to move towards John’s position on it, and we feel we’ve pushed it far enough in
that direction.
MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. Where we stand right now, then, is you’re going to take these
considerations and fine tune it a little bit more, and we’ll see you, final, final, final?
MR. ROUND-Yes. You’ll have a document to adopt either next Tuesday or, it doesn’t matter
whether the Town Board does theirs first or you do yours first. So you could adopt it as soon as
Tuesday. The Town Board’s looked at it. The Town Attorney’s looked at it, consultants have
looked at it, and they’re all, they think we’ve done our job on it.
MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. Anything else? Thank you very much.
9
(Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 12/19/00)
MR. ROUND-Thank you.
MR. MAC EWAN-If we can, just for a minute, before we move on to our next application, jump
back to Subdivision No. 6-2000. I failed to mention that we’re going to leave the public hearing
open, and continue to leave it open. Okay. Next item on the agenda.
MR. VOLLARO-Vasiliou?
MR. MAC EWAN-Yes.
OLD BUSINESS:
PUD SITE PLAN NO. 8-2000 TYPE: UNLISTED QUEENSBURY PARTNERS, LP
OWNER: BAY MEADOWS CORP. AGENT: NACE ENGINEERING/JONATHAN
LAPPER ZONE: SR-1A/PUD LOCATION: NORTH SIDE OF CRONIN ROAD – BAY
MEADOWS APPLICANT PROPOSES A TWO LOT SUBDIVISION AS PART OF THE
PUD TO ACCOMMODATE ONE 27.1 ACRE LOT FOR ELDERLY HOUSING PROJECT,
ONE 66.2 ACRE LOT TO BE LEFT AS OPEN SPACE, AND ONE LOT OF 4.0 ACRES TO
BE DEDICATED TO THE TOWN. APPLICANT PROPOSES CONSTRUCTION OF 96
APARTMENTS FOR ELDERLY, FIXED INCOME HOUSING AND ONE MANAGER’S
RESIDENCE ON LOT 1. CROSS REFERENCE: SP 18-93, SP 38-93, SB 21-1993, SB 12-1993,
P6-91, P10-89 BEAUTIFICATION COMMITTEE: 10/9/00 WARREN COUNTY
PLANNING: 10/11/00 TAX MAP NO. 60-2-5 LOT SIZE: 97.3 +/- ACRE LOT SECTION:
179-58
JON LAPPER, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT
MRS. LA BOMBARD-And the public hearing back on October 24 was tabled.
th
MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. Staff Notes, please. Do you want to just summarize.
STAFF INPUT
Notes from Staff, PUD Site Plan No. 8-2000 Queensbury Partners LP, Meeting Date: December 19,
Staff Notes:
2000 “
Application/Project Description:
The applicant is seeking preliminary and final approval of a three (3) lot subdivision of the property
to allow for property transfer and development. The applicant is also requesting site plan approval
of a 96 unit elderly housing facility and manager's apartment on 27.1 acres (lot 1), plus 66.2 acres to
remain as open space with a relocated golf driving range, and 1 lot of land along Halfway Brook
consisting of 4 acres to be donated to the Town.
The Planning Board tabled the Public Hearing and their review of this application during their
10/24/00 meeting, so that the applicant could submit requested materials and information.
PUD Agreement
The applicant must file a PUD Agreement with the Town to incorporate other details or restrictions
as required by the Town Board. Town Board approval is required for dedication to the Town of
lands as shown on Sheet C-1 and other applicable sheets. The Recreation Commission has
submitted a letter to the Town Board (see attached) noting several concerns. Access to these lands
has not been determined. Access from Cronin Road within the road frontage distance to be
dedicated is difficult due to limited sight distance. Parking requirements and a viable access point,
along with wetland filling and permit considerations, should be determined.
Another item that needs to occur is a deed restriction preventing future development of the site by
the Bay Meadows Golf Course (except for the relocated driving range).
Site and Subdivision Plans
Sheets SP-1 through SP-7 have been revised to 11/13/00. Sheet SP-8, dated 11/13/00 contains a
Lighting Plan. Building elevations have been submitted, dated 1/14/00.
Applicable sheets need to be revised to show that there are three (3) lots, as discussed during the
previous Planning Board meeting. Although the Town Board has not yet accepted/approved
recreation lands to be dedicated to the Town, the separate lot designation for the 4.0 acres proposed
needs to be shown so that property transfer can occur, and so that the County can assign a tax map
number to the property. [Note: As per 179-78.1, exemption from subdivision for Town property
applies only when certain property is to be purchased by the Town.] The applicant has indicated to
10
(Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 12/19/00)
staff that all three (3) lots and exact boundaries of the dedicated lands will be shown when the Town
Board approves/accepts the dedication of the recreation lands.
Subdivision/Site Plan Review
The approval process and factors for consideration are outlined in Ss 179-58. During the 10/24/00
Planning Board meeting, the Planning Board and applicant noted items to be discussed/reviewed
during the next Planning Board meeting:
??
show vehicular access from the club house to the driving range (not done)
??
show the flood hazard area (done; see Sheet SP-4)
??
discuss plans for a bus shelter (not done)
??
obtain the ACOE response to the applicant wetlands mitigation measure as part of the
Warren County Soil & Water Conservation Service habitat restoration project along Halfway
Brook; the applicant is to donate funds to this project (not done)
??
determine pedestrian access to the clubhouse and for connection to commercial facilities
located west of the project (not done)
Planning Board resolution items for submission included:
??
Architectural drawings and elevations (received)
??
A response to C.T. Male's review, and specifically to T. Nace's letter of 10/24/00 (letters
from C.T. Male and/or Town Water/Wastewater letters expected)
??
A lighting plan which would indicate lights and illuminations (received)
??
Trip generations for the development and any other traffic generated information as
required by Staff (received)
Lighting
Sheet SP-8 shows the site lighting. Lighting as proposed will be uneven. Maximum to minimum
ratios of 10:1 and uniformity ratios of 4:1 (avg. to min.) are the ideal indicators for even lighting. The
lighting plan shows 57:1 and 10.9:1 respectively. Since the parking lots are very close to the street
drives, lighting for both aspects should be considered jointly. This is shown by the applicant.
An average horizontal illuminance of 1.1 fc is shown. This is suitable for a residential complex
parking lot, but is high for a local road. According to the IESNA guidelines, local roadway lighting
can vary between 0.3 and 0.8 fc. Suggested for a low level use parking lot (such as neighborhood
shopping) is 0.8 fc. Although there is a natural tree buffer along Cronin Road, there are
neighborhood concerns about glare. Lighting fixtures are cut-off types with 250 watt metal halide
bulbs proposed. All lighting should be high pressure sodium.
The height of the poles could be reduced to 18 or 16 ft. from the proposed 20 ft. This would address
some neighborhood concerns. (The Glen at Highland Meadows, another senior facility, has 18 ft.
poles for the drives.)
Trip Generation
Trip generation figures are accurate and will not provide significant traffic burden for the access drive
or for nearby road intersections.
SEQRA Review/Findings
A Negative Declaration was made via Town Board Resolution 395,2000 for SEQRA, noting no
significant environmental impact.
Next Steps
??
The applicant has requested preliminary and final site plan approval.”
MR. LAPPER-We’ve submitted responses to the notes. Maybe we could just read those into the record.
Whatever you prefer.
MR. MAC EWAN-Are you talking about the Nace letter of December 19?
th
MR. LAPPER-Yes.
MR. MAC EWAN-That just came in today?
MR. LAPPER-Yes.
MRS. MOORE-Does the Board want to take five minutes to read through that?
MR. VOLLARO-Yes.
MRS. LA BOMBARD-Okay.
11
(Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 12/19/00)
MR. LAPPER-We got the Staff comments yesterday, and Tom prepared this letter in response. I think
the issues are pretty simple at this point, and I have to apologize. Tom threw his back out, and that’s
why he’s not here tonight. He’s home in bed.
MRS. MOORE-I just put it on your desk this evening.
MR. RINGER-I don’t know what I did with it, then.
MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. Good evening.
MR. LAPPER-Good evening. For the record, Jon Lapper, and again, I apologize, but Tom Nace is
ill and couldn’t be here tonight. I think his letter is pretty succinct and addresses the open issues, and
since you all read it, I probably don’t need to read it, but we did, in response to the Planning Staff, we
did change the lighting proposal, and that’s been documented to go to the 18 foot with the lower
wattage. I don’t know if I need to add anything at this point. I’m here to answer questions.
MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. Chris, we’ll start with you. Any questions?
MR. HUNSINGER-Well, when we looked at this, back in October, I think there were three sort of
major concerns that were raised, and I guess in my judgement two of those three I think have been
resolved, the first one being the lighting that you just mentioned, the second issue being traffic,
which I think is well addressed in the letter that was in the package. The third issue I was still a little
concerned about, and that’s stormwater management, and reading the stormwater management
report, and I don’t know if you can answer the question. We’ll throw it out there. On Page Three of
that report, it talks about the hydro cad result for a 50 year storm, and when you look down through
that chart, on the percent storage capacity used, there’s one particular depression where the capacity
is at 97%. When all of the rest of the depressions, a lot of them are in the 20, 30% range. The next
highest, I think, is 61%. It sort of raises the concern, you know, what if the calculation was off just a
little bit. I guess I need some reassurance that the stormwater management won’t be a major issue.
MR. LAPPER-I guess the only thing that I could do, Chris, is just point to the C.T. Male letter where
on Number Four they say the revised stormwater management plan addresses the storage capacity of
the depressions and capacity of the roadway culvert. We concur with the results of these analyses,
and with the revised stormwater management plan. Without Tom here I really can’t give you a more
detailed analysis about the numbers and that depression that you’re referring to.
MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. Particularly since fill’s going to be brought in for the project.
MR. LAPPER-Actually not, very, very little bit of fill on this. With the prior project that was
proposed in the early 90’s was like Lowe’s, bringing the site up many feet, but this is not.
MR. STROUGH-Well, it does say in the report that fill is going to be going in.
MR. HUNSINGER-Yes.
MR. STROUGH-And it refers to a certain type, it’s a Type B. It’s a medium sand grain. Something
not common to this area. I’m going to stop there. I’ll come back.
MR. HUNSINGER-Anyway, that was really the issue.
MR. LAPPER-Okay, and that may require Tom to answer that. If the Board’s not comfortable with
C.T. Male’s response.
MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. That was it.
MR. MAC EWAN-Cathy?
MRS. LA BOMBARD-Yes. My concern was mainly the wetlands, and I’m just saying that, as far as
our Town Engineer, C.T. Male, I have to go along with their opinions and their expertise and their
monitoring of the whole thing, and whatever, you know, they say needs to be changed or needs to be
mitigated or needs to be corrected, I know that you guys will do it. So I really don’t feel like I’m an
authority on this to make any big time recommendations. I have faith in you guys.
MR. MAC EWAN-Bob?
MR. VOLLARO-Yes. I have a procedural question, to start off with, and that’s just basically to
discuss with the Board, and not necessarily with the applicant, but we can get to the applicant on it.
On our Code, 179-57B, if you read that, and it’s just something that I came across, and somebody
12
(Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 12/19/00)
might want to take out their book, if they’ve got it, and read along with me, and it’s 179-57, and the
interesting section in there that talks about a notice of intent, and I’ve often been uncomfortable with
taking a look at Sketch Plan before we really know very much about it. Notice of Intent says, and
this is under PUD Application Procedure and Approval Process “Prior to filing an application for
sketch plan approval, the developer shall submit a letter of intent to the Town Board for referral to
the Planning Board”. Now, what I had in my notes is there is a letter, dated 1/20, from Jon to Mr.
Brower, and that’s, this was January of this year. Was that to fulfill the requirement of the letter of
intent?
MR. LAPPER-It probably fulfilled that requirement, but it was to get the process started, which
requires it being referred to this Board for recommendation, which did happen.
MR. VOLLARO-Well, I mentioned this to Staff. I talked to Marilyn Ryba about it, and she agrees
that we ought to, not necessarily for this application, but we ought to pay attention to that one. It’s
like a leader that’s coming in before we have to take a look at the Sketch Plan and say, yes, that looks
good. We’ve been notified with a letter of intent of what the applicant is really trying to do. That
seems to be what 179-57 B is stating.
MR. LAPPER-We did come to the Board, Bob, for your recommendation, before it went back to the
Town Board. We came to the Planning Board, presented the project for your recommendation.
MR. VOLLARO-Yes, but what it says is that letter of referral goes to the Planning Board. That
notice of intent comes to us, so we have some idea before you even come to us.
MR. MAC EWAN-No. The letter doesn’t go to the Planning Board. The letter goes to the Town
Board.
MR. VOLLARO-The Town Board for referral to the Planning Board. That’s what it says.
MR. MAC EWAN-What it’s saying is the letter, they are to write a letter to the Town Board, asking
the Town Board to refer this action to the Planning Board for a referral.
MR. VOLLARO-That’s correct.
MR. LAPPER-Which I did.
MR. SCHACHNER-The truth is that actually occurred, whether the applicant’s counsel wrote that
letter for the intention of fulfilling the requirements of 179-57 B or not. It would seem, and I don’t
have the letter in front of me, although I do recall this occurring, but it would seem that that was
fulfilled because, in fact, the applicant submitted a letter to the Town Supervisor, asking for the PUD
rezoning process to begin, and the PUD rezoning application was referred to this Board for its
advisory recommendation on the rezoning. It was then returned to the Town Board for its
determination on the rezoning, as well as the SEQRA determination, and is now back in front of this
Board for the site plan/subdivision approval process.
MR. VOLLARO-The only thing I recollect seeing was the sketch plan presentation.
MR. SCHACHNER-As opposed to what?
MR. VOLLARO-As opposed to having prior exposure to this project by a letter of intent.
MR. SCHACHNER-When you say the only thing you recall seeing is the Sketch Plan presentation,
do you mean after the Town Board enacted the PUD rezoning, or before?
MR. VOLLARO-Before, after. No. It was after they enacted the PUD.
MR. SCHACHNER-Maybe you missed the meeting, I mean, or something, but this was here for the
rezoning referral.
MR. LAPPER-That must be on the proposed resolution also.
MR. VOLLARO-It is. Your letter is there, and it’s dated, and I gave you the date of it. It’s 1/20/00.
That’s the letter that you introduced. That was your first introduction to the program, was your
1/20/00 letter.
MR. SCHACHNER-Right, but then notice there’s a February 15, 2000 Planning Board
recommendation. So that references when this Board, though February 15 doesn’t strike me as a
th
third Tuesday. Sure, it could be, first, eighth and then fifteenth.
13
(Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 12/19/00)
MR. MAC EWAN-I’d like to get this moving along if we could.
MR. SCHACHNER-Yes. It would seem that this Board did make a recommendation, Bob.
MR. LAPPER-Bob, you may, perhaps, have been out that night, but.
MR. VOLLARO-No, I wasn’t out. We can talk about this in a workshop, but I think there’s
something more to this than that. Okay. The subdivision and the site plan is a concurrent process
for the PUD. Now, the three lots should be shown with exact boundaries. Is that correct? The
three lots that they’re proposing should be shown with exact boundaries?
MRS. MOORE-Yes.
MR. VOLLARO-Then I haven’t seen that.
MRS. MOORE-Okay. In Tom Nace’s letter, he provides information about that third lot that
indicates that it’s based on if the Town Board accepts the third lot for recreational. If they don’t
accept it, then it is only two lots. That’s correct.
MR. LAPPER-That’s right.
MR. VOLLARO-Okay, but in concert with that, there’s a concern by the Rec Commission, in the
letter dated 12/14, that most likely changes the calculation for density and bonus. It seems to me
that, if you read the letter that we got from.
MR. LAPPER-Bob, we don’t know if the Town’s going to accept the land at this point. So we’re
looking at it either way.
MR. VOLLARO-I’ll tell you, the letter presents a fairly strong position on that.
MR. RINGER-Did you see the letter, Jon?
MR. LAPPER-Yes, I did. I think the letter says that it would be nice for the Town to own it, but it
would be nice for the Town to get the $50,000. I presume there probably will be a compromise at
the Town Board of some money and some land, but that’s not for this Board.
MR. VOLLARO-Well, it’s not for this Board, but it’s something, because that letter was cc’d to this
Board.
MR. LAPPER-I just mean that the decision will be made by the Town Board, as to whether they
want the land or not, and I can’t predict which way it’s going to go, at this point.
MR. VOLLARO-What’s the status of the deed restriction preventing future development in the golf
course? Do we have that?
MR. LAPPER-That can just be a condition of the site plan approval.
MR. VOLLARO-How about the status of the PUD agreement with the Town?
MR. LAPPER-After we have a site plan approved, we would then go back to the Town Board for
the PUD agreement.
MR. VOLLARO-Okay. So is our, do we have to make that a condition? I would like to ask our
Board.
MR. SCHACHNER-I could answer that, if you’d like.
MR. VOLLARO-Yes.
MR. SCHACHNER-You can make that a condition, but whether you make that a condition or not,
the PUD rezoning is not finally valid until and unless there’s an executed Planned Unit Development
agreement between the applicant and the Town Board.
MR. VOLLARO-Okay. So that’s a given. So we don’t have to really worry about that.
MR. SCHACHNER-That’s true, but if you want to add it as a condition, you certainly could. It
makes no difference.
14
(Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 12/19/00)
MR. VOLLARO-Okay. Concerning the lighting, and I want to get back into that, but the minutes,
the 10/24 meeting minutes require that we get cut sheets for the lighting fixtures, and I looked for
them and I didn’t see them. Were they delivered with the Nace memorandum? I didn’t see them in
there. I looked.
MR. MAC EWAN-Well, we’ve got a summary here by the lighting consultant.
MR. LAPPER-That was part of the submittal for, the end of November, that Laura was commenting
on.
MR. VOLLARO-Well, a cut sheet, to me, is a description of the whole lighting fixture.
MR. LAPPER-Yes, there is, because that’s how she said that it was 20 feet and she recommended 18
feet.
MR. MAC EWAN-And Nace’s letter he’s agreeing that they will go the 18 feet.
MR. VOLLARO-And they’ll change to the other bulbs?
MR. LAPPER-Yes.
MR. MAC EWAN-“Enclosed is a response from Freeman Engineering to the staff comments
regarding site lighting. I believe that the proposed change to 18 foot poles and 100 watt High
Pressure Sodium fixtures adequately addresses staff comments. These changes will be made on the
final site plan”.
MR. VOLLARO-183-36 and 179-58 talk to phasing. Those two things talk about phasing the
project. I just have a question for Staff. Does Staff agree that completion in 24 months eliminates
the phasing requirement, and the way those two, the way 183-36 and 179-58 G reads?
MR. MAC EWAN-The phasing requirement for PUD’s is the 35 units. If it’s over the 35 units that
you phase it, the first 35, and then go beyond that.
MR. VOLLARO-No, that’s not what it says.
MR. LAPPER-Craig, that’s the subdivision phasing.
MR. MAC EWAN-Yes, I realize that, but that’s what we did in Hudson Pointe.
MR. LAPPER-But this isn’t a subdivision of those lots.
MR. MAC EWAN-Nor was Hudson Pointe. I mean, it was a PUD, but we phased it, and it was
done in three phases down there.
MR. LAPPER-I think the distinction is that here it’s not going to be owned separately, like individual
lots. This is just going to be built out all at once by the developer.
MR. MAC EWAN-Where are you looking, Bob?
MR. VOLLARO-179-58 G. It says, “Staging. If the applicant wishes to stage his development he
has so indicated as per § 179-57C(2)(b), then he may submit only those stages he wishes to develop
for site plan approval in accordance with his staging plan. Any plan which requires more than
twenty-four (24) months to be completed shall be required to be staged, and a staging plan must be
developed.” I think that at our last meeting I had asked you whether this would take more than 24
months, and you said no.
MR. LAPPER-That’s right.
MR. VOLLARO-And I think, on the basis of that no, we agreed that there was no phasing required
here, at least that’s what I got out of the last meeting.
MR. LAPPER-I agree.
MR. VOLLARO-Are we in agreement with that? Up at Staff level?
MR. SCHACHNER-There’s no reason to disagree with that.
MR. ROUND-I think this offers the opportunity, if they want to stage it. They’ve said they don’t
want to stage it. It’s not necessary to require staging.
15
(Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 12/19/00)
MR. VOLLARO-Yes, but the pivotal thing is that they’ll finish in 24 months.
MR. ROUND-Right, and this is talking about maybe a larger scale type of development that we
might be more appropriate to have limited disturbance areas, referred to a SEQRA Findings within a
Final EIS, so to limit the amount of disturbed areas at one point, and then 57C(2)(b) refers to sketch
plan staging. So it’s not proposed and it’s not necessary.
MR. VOLLARO-Okay. I just wanted to get confirmed that that was true. On DEC and Army
Corps, that’s been addressed, I guess, by Mr. Nace’s letter, the wetland permits, but are those wetland
permits, do they also address the mitigation of the 7/10’s of an acre?
th
MR. LAPPER-The Corps permit would address that. The DEC would not. Those would be
conditions of an approval, because that will take a number of months to work out with those two
agencies, but we’re in the process, and everything’s moving along. It’s a fairly minor disturbance.
This started out as about a three acre disturbance before the project was redesigned.
MR. VOLLARO-Okay. Two other questions. The trip generation. I read that pretty carefully, and
I’ll tell you, the analysis doesn’t take several things into consideration, my view anyway. What that
talks about is the driving habits of people my age. That’s what that talks about.
MR. LAPPER-Older and not as mobile.
MR. VOLLARO-Yes. I understand that. It doesn’t include family visits. It doesn’t include things
like meals on wheels. It doesn’t include home health aide visits back and forth. It doesn’t include
visiting nurses. I think you’ve got to take a look at a community like that that gets a lot more than
just the driving back and forth from the resident. There’s going to be, I know, I visit my mother in a
nursing home, and none of them drive.
MR. LAPPER-This is an independent living facility. This is not any kind of services. These are
people that are still.
MR. VOLLARO-They’ll get services. I’ll guarantee you that there’ll be visiting nurses and stuff like
that coming in there. Absolutely. At that age, yes, sir.
MR. LAPPER-Usually you move to a health facility.
MR. VOLLARO-Well, they’re talking 65.
MR. MAC EWAN-Is a prerequisite that if they start getting meals on wheels, or nurses, they’re out?
MRS. LA BOMBARD-When it gets to that point, you would move from here.
MR. VOLLARO-Not necessarily.
MR. MAC EWAN-I don’t think that’s necessarily a fair statement.
MR. LAPPER-But I think, Bob, in general, the analysis is that this is a fairly low traffic generator, in
the big picture.
MR. VOLLARO-Well, it very well may be, but I would like to see a traffic analysis consider the other
inputs that this facility would have.
MR. LAPPER-I guess all I would do, again, is point to C.T. Male, seeing that they’re satisfied, but I
understand that you do a more detailed analysis than they do, and I have always understood that, but
if you need something else, I will have to bring Tom back.
MR. VOLLARO-Well, it’s just, I think it ought to be considered. Somebody in the traffic business
may say, no, no, no, no, not necessary. We’ve considered it, and it’s like .01% impact, don’t bother.
MR. LAPPER-I guess I would say that C.T. Male did consider, they reviewed what Tom submitted,
and they said that it will not generate significant volume of trips, especially during traditional peak
hours.
MR. VOLLARO-Yes. Well, he may have been taking the traffic study at its face value when he said
that.
MR. LAPPER-I’m sure that he was.
16
(Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 12/19/00)
MR. ROUND-I don’t know if this helps, Bob, but the IT manuals provide land use codes, okay, if
it’s retail or fast-food, etc., and it bases those, those IT estimates are based on surveys of existing
facilities. This, they have a land use code for elderly housing, Land Use No. 253. They make actual
site observations of facilities that would include site visits, relatives visiting. It would include those
components, health related visits, health, nursing. So the ITE numbers, it would seem to me, would
include vehicle trips associated with those activities that you talk about.
MR. VOLLARO-Yes, well, in the charts, it certainly didn’t show that, and I didn’t have access to
anything else.
MR. ROUND-But I mean when you talk about ITE rate for fast-food service, let’s say. It’s talking
about customers. It’s talking about employees. It’s talking about garbage trucks. It’s talking about
deliveries, but it doesn’t articulate those in the particular table that you have, that you do, but that’s
implied. That’s the land use. The land use includes those activities associated with the land use.
MR. VOLLARO-So you’re saying that those numbers.
MR. ROUND-I think they’d be inclusive of that, but there’s always, they’re averages. Like, again, the
other thing, the other qualifier is it’s an average of observations made, and it may not be applicable to
our particular region or particular land use.
MR. VOLLARO-If it’s a valid observation, then it’s valid. I mean, I just want to make sure that
that’s been included in this stuff.
MR. ROUND-No, that’s a good point on your part, but I just hope that helped clarify that issue.
MR. VOLLARO-One last question. What’s the status of the Quaker Road sewer extension for the
Meadows? Where are we on that?
MR. LAPPER-We will apply for that after we have satisfied the Planning Board. That’s another
component.
MR. VOLLARO-So you haven’t gone into map plan and report or any of those, the increments of
getting a sewer district established?
MR. LAPPER-Right, that’s right, but I did that for the adjacent social security office, and it was
pretty straightforward.
MR. MAC EWAN-Social security hooked up on it?
MR. LAPPER-Yes.
MR. MAC EWAN-Please don’t use that phrase “pretty straightforward”.
MR. LAPPER-I withdraw that. You’re right.
MR. MAC EWAN-Anything else?
MR. VOLLARO-That’s all I have right now.
MR. MAC EWAN-Larry?
MR. RINGER-No, I have nothing.
MR. MAC EWAN-Tony?
MR. METIVIER-My major concern is water, storm runoff, and unfortunately Tom isn’t here
tonight. My question is, they use the 50 year storm, and that’s a 100 year flood plain in this area.
MR. LAPPER-We’re outside of the flood plain, though, the construction.
MR. METIVIER-But, our homes aren’t on Meadowbrook, and if Saturday’s storm wasn’t a 50 year
storm, we’re in big trouble, because the water, I mean, our neighbor’s called, you know, what are we
going to do, our deck is floating away.
MR. LAPPER-I saw.
17
(Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 12/19/00)
MR. METIVIER-So my concern, and obviously you probably can’t answer it, is what happens if we
do get that 50 year storm? Because with all of the black top, these swales are supposed to absorb the
water.
MR. LAPPER-Well, I think the answer, Tony, is that this project is outside of that flood zone, so
that the capacity is not being diminished for the 50 year storm or the 100 year storm by this project,
because that would occur between the eastern end of this project and the stream corridor, and that’s
not being impacted by this. We did not need any kind of a floodway permit. We did with Lowe’s,
but we didn’t on this one. This is completely outside of the flood zone.
MR. METIVIER-But, as far as runoff, do you feel as though the stormwater management will
sufficiently, you know, address the situation?
MR. LAPPER-I can only say I’ve read the report and C.T. Male has signed off on it. So, and Tom
did it, stamped it. So I believe from that that it will.
MR. METIVIER-Maybe Bob can answer. Is a 50 year storm more severe than a 100 year, or vice
versa?
MR. LAPPER-Less.
MR. VOLLARO-It’s less.
MR. MAC EWAN-One hundred years is more severe than a fifty year.
MR. HUNSINGER-Some of the flood plain maps will show 500 year flood plains.
MR. VOLLARO-One hundred is more severe than a fifty year.
MR. MAC EWAN-I think what you’re asking because the impact of all the impermeable surface on
this project is then going to take away from the ability of that flood plain to absorb the water that this
undeveloped area would normally compensate for.
MR. LAPPER-Right.
MR. MAC EWAN-That’s the question that he’s asking.
MR. METIVIER-And the gentleman that was before us when we had our public hearing, who lives
in the little white house there, he, too, the other day was experiencing terrible problems. The water
was right up to his door, and this, you know, in my eyes, was a major storm that we had, but it’s not,
in the three years that I’ve been there, this is the third time that we’ve really surpassed or exceeded
our water limits.
MR. LAPPER-It was horrible. This project, I don’t have the map, because I don’t have the most
recent one with me because Tom’s not here, but this is hundreds and hundreds of feet from the
stream.
MR. METIVIER-Right.
MR. LAPPER-So my point is just that there is sufficient capacity, in between the stream and this
project, because of all that undisturbed area, and that’s what the report says, and it was designed to
accommodate the 50 year storm, which is what’s required in the Town.
MR. METIVIER-With the sewer lines that will grab wastewater and hopefully.
MR. LAPPER-That’s an enclosed system. That goes right into their line.
MR. METIVIER-Right into the sewer line.
MR. LAPPER-Yes.
MR. METIVIER-So really in this area here we’re taking water away, as opposed to?
MR. LAPPER-That’s right. If there was a septic system, that would be a different story.
MR. VOLLARO-What happened to the bus line?
MR. LAPPER-Tom talked to the Greater Glens Falls Transit, and they said that they would come
right into the complex, because that’s what they do with other complexes.
18
(Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 12/19/00)
MR. VOLLARO-Essentially you don’t need the bus line?
MR. LAPPER-Because it would be right at the community center building in the complex.
MR. MAC EWAN-Along those lines, because that was the only question I was going to have. I’ll go
out of turn here. If the bus, if Glens Falls Transit is going to go in there and pick people up at the
community building, how is the bus going to turn around in there?
MR. LAPPER-They may have to back up.
MR. MAC EWAN-That’s not a good idea, is it?
MR. LAPPER-Let me take another look. That’s the only thing that would be possible here, because
we did eliminate the loop road to eliminate the wetland disturbance, so the bus could pull in to, you
know these are not, I don’t know what size they’d use, but the bus would pull into a space and then
back out, and that would be the only option.
MR. MAC EWAN-It would be one of the City buses we see riding around. If it’s the same bus that’s
going to Regency, or if it’s going to.
MR. LAPPER-No, you’re right, but the only thing that this would permit would be a pull in to a
space and then back out.
MR. MAC EWAN-And this road in here, just to refresh my memory, is not a Town road. It’s not
going to be a dedicated road?
MR. LAPPER-Correct. That’s right. It will be maintained by the owners, the developer.
MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. Do you have anything else, Bob?
MR. VOLLARO-No, that’s all I have.
MR. MAC EWAN-Larry had nothing. Tony, are you all finished?
MR. METIVIER-I’m all set.
MR. MAC EWAN-John?
MR. STROUGH-I’ll go through my checklist here, Jon.
MR. LAPPER-I’ll take a deep breath.
MR. STROUGH-We still don’t know the status of the four acres to be dedicated to the Town. We
still don’t know the status of potential access and parking. That’s all a big question mark right now.
MR. LAPPER-I’m sorry. Well, let me, my response to that is that we’ve offered the four acres, and
the Town will either decide to have it or not have it. It is possible that if this is used as fishing
access, that the stream corridor is used for recreational fishing, if that’s the use for it, that the best
place to put vehicle access may not be off of Cronin Road, may not be on this property. I am aware
that the Recreation Committee was talking about doing some sort of access up closer to Hiland on
the east side of Meadowbrook Road. So this still could be used recreationally, and it may or may not
have vehicle access.
MR. STROUGH-But it’s still a question mark right now.
MR. LAPPER-Right, but those are questions that will not be answered by the applicant. We would
just give it to the Town, if they want it, and the Town would decide what to do with it.
MR. STROUGH-Well, if the Town wants to access this from the applicant’s property, I think that’s
got to be addressed at some point in this process.
MR. LAPPER-Well, I mean, that’s certainly possible that the Town might want to do that, but it’s
just, the only, we’re not seeking permission to do that. So the Town would have to seek permission
to do that.
MR. STROUGH-That’s all I’m saying. It’s still a question. I asked last time, and I got assurances,
but I didn’t see it in any of the new literature, but there will be a deed restriction written in to the
other 66.2 acres?
19
(Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 12/19/00)
MR. LAPPER-Yes.
MR. STROUGH-That would restrict development of those acres?
MR. LAPPER-Yes, and that would be in the PUD agreement, and that certainly can be done as a
deed restriction also, and that could be a condition of an approval, that that be put in the deed.
MR. STROUGH-And the lighting plan, some of the concerns have been addressed, but the SP 8,
Site Plan Eight is going to need to be revised and updated, right? Which is the site lighting plan.
MR. LAPPER-With Tom, just to show the 18 foot poles.
MR. STROUGH-So that we can see that.
MR. LAPPER-Certainly.
MR. STROUGH-And what I needed, since this is a preliminary and final subdivision approval
process, I didn’t have a plat that shows the delineation of all three lots.
MR. VOLLARO-Yes, I think I asked that question.
MR. STROUGH-Yes, and I’m seconding that.
MR. VOLLARO-Yes, and I think that’s important, since this is a, well, even though the third lot is
up in the air.
MR. MAC EWAN-I don’t see this going to final tonight. I just see preliminary being approved,
because there’s some things that have to be put on the site plan that are not on here that I would like
to see on before final is considered.
MR. LAPPER-Certainly. Is it possible that we could come back next week?
MR. MAC EWAN-Let’s get through tonight.
MR. LAPPER-Okay.
MR. STROUGH-Well, if you get through me first.
MR. LAPPER-I understand.
MR. MAC EWAN-Yes, it’s possible, Jon.
MR. STROUGH-All right. Now, all these buildings are going to be built on slabs?
MR. LAPPER-Yes.
MR. STROUGH-Primarily because the water table is so high.
MR. LAPPER-Absolutely.
MR. STROUGH-Okay. One thing I thought was good was when this project’s under construction, I
like that travel entrance. Can we make that standard? Because a lot of the roads, you know, you see
various construction projects done, you know, you see the mud being carried out in the road, and it
gets to be a mess, but I like this little plan that they’ve submitted for this project, to try and prevent
that from happening. Okay. Now, the pink line is the 100 year flood plain, okay. I just highlighted
what was already on SP 4.
MR. MAC EWAN-Is that it?
MR. STROUGH-No.
MR. LAPPER-That’s correct, John, and I misspoke. It is outside of the floodway boundary.
MR. STROUGH-So that one building, I wish you had numbered these buildings. It would have
been easier, because there’s a couple of references that I wanted to make, and I had trouble
identifying the area. If the buildings were numbered, it would have been nice, but you can see that
one building is entirely within the 100 year flood plain.
20
(Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 12/19/00)
MR. LAPPER-But the finished floor elevation of that building would be raised.
MR. STROUGH-Right, because they’re going to bring in fill.
MR. LAPPER-You’re right.
MR. STROUGH-Type B fill.
MR. LAPPER-Right.
MR. STROUGH-All these buildings are going to have to be raised up about on the average of four
feet, okay, and the roadway’s going to have to be brought up approximately the same.
MR. LAPPER-Okay.
MR. STROUGH-So there is going to be considerable amount of fill here, but I’ll get to that.
MR. LAPPER-But the only fill in the 100 year flood plain is that building right there.
MR. STROUGH-Right. Okay. Just going back on my checklist, I’m going to come back to this SP
4. We have not gotten the Army Corps response to the wetland mitigation plan.
MR. LAPPER-Well, there is no response because we are just in the process with them, and that
could take a number of months. There’s a point, a 7/10ths of an acre disturbance that is proposed,
which is shown on the plan, and what we’re in discussions with the Corps as to whether or not,
instead of doing some creation or enhancement of wetlands somewhere on the site, there’s already a
project proposed by the County to do enhancements elsewhere in the Halfway Brook corridor,
which would be a payment of money to the County for that project, rather than to do it on site, and
the Corps is considering that. So the application is dual. It is either to do that or to do
enhancements on this site. So we’re working our way through. The Corps has come to the site.
MR. STROUGH-I remember that discussion.
MR. LAPPER-Yes, but that would just be a condition of an approval.
MR. STROUGH-But those details haven’t been worked out yet, either.
MR. LAPPER-No, but that will happen during the spring, but it’s going to take time, because the
Corps doesn’t work quickly.
MR. STROUGH-Okay. Now, I also noticed on SP 4, and I compared it to the old SP 4 that I had,
the one that was dated originally September 25, 2000. This is revised November 13?
th
MR. LAPPER-Yes.
MR. STROUGH-And the revised didn’t include the mitigation area that was talked about previously.
MR. LAPPER-Because for just the reason that I said, that we were planning not to do the mitigation.
MR. STROUGH-So we don’t, that’s still up in the air then?
MR. LAPPER-Yes.
MR. STROUGH-Right, okay.
MR. VOLLARO-Are you referring to the seven tenths again, John?
MR. STROUGH-Yes, that was located in here.
MR. VOLLARO-Right, I’ve got it.
MR. STROUGH-Okay. So that’s still up in the air, and the funding and what Warren County Soil
and Water Conservation Service is going to do with the restoration project. That’s still a question
mark. The lighting project we already talked about. It needs to be updated. The receipt of the New
York State DEC permit relating to wetland buffer disturbance. We haven’t got that yet, have we?
MR. LAPPER-No, and we won’t for some time.
21
(Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 12/19/00)
MR. STROUGH-And the details of the wetland mitigation acres, the .7 acres that was just referred
to, that’s up in the air. The access to the driving range has been answered.
MR. LAPPER-Yes. If I could just stop you for a second, John. It’s not unusual that, I mean, it
would be a condition that, as a permit condition here, that we have to have the permit from the
Corps and DEC, but that doesn’t have to happen before we can get approval from this Board.
MR. STROUGH-Well, yes, but you also probably aren’t going to build this until the spring, right?
MR. LAPPER-Well, the problem is, it certainly won’t be built until the spring, but in terms of getting
this approval from New York State for the funding, we have to give them a site plan approval. So it
is important, even a conditioned site plan approval, that of course says that you have to have your
Army Corps and DEC permits, but we do need to get to site plan approval.
MR. STROUGH-Well, the only reason, Jon, I think you’ll think this, I hope you’ll think this is a fair
concern, is it is near Halfway Brook. The sheet flow tends to be toward Halfway Brook. Halfway
Brook is something we’ve been trying to preserve. Now, I’ll admit that this is some distance from it,
which is good. Part of it is in the 100 year flood plain. It is a wet area. I mean, that’s why we’re
going with slabs for cellars. We’ll have slabs for foundations, as opposed to cellars.
MR. LAPPER-Nothing that you’re saying is factually incorrect, but I just want to point out that it is
only a seven tenths disturbance, which is a pretty minor disturbance. The whole plan has been
designed to stay away from the wetlands as much as possible. There’s no requirement that you don’t
build within a 100 year flood plain. You just can’t build within the floodway.
MR. STROUGH-Well, and I’d just like to see that the Army Corps of Engineers and the New York
State DEC also says they don’t see any problems with this plan as it’s being proposed, as the final
product comes to be.
MR. LAPPER-Well, I guess what I would say is that we would be happy to come back and tell you,
show you what those permits are, but in terms of holding up the approval, that’s not what’s typically
done, because those are other agency concurrent jurisdiction, and if you did that, I mean, it could
take months to work that out, and we wouldn’t have a site plan approval.
MR. STROUGH-Well, I’d just feel better if I saw that, just based on the sensitivity of this area. The
project looks good, Jon.
MR. MAC EWAN-But, John, if we did consider making any approvals, they certainly can be
conditional upon that from the Army Corps.
MR. STROUGH-Well, we get so many conditions we start getting lost in conditions. I’m just
suggesting that possibly you need to work out a few odds and ends, and then on the next step, maybe
we’ll be at the point of close to finality so that we can make conditions, rather than make 10
conditions. We’ll make three conditions.
MR. MAC EWAN-I wasn’t thinking of ten conditions.
MR. STROUGH-Well, we’ve still got the Rec Department’s concerns.
MR. STROUGH-But those also won’t be worked out now. I mean, the Town Board will decide
what it wants to do. It’s either money or land, or both.
MR. STROUGH-Okay. Jon, I’m sorry. Stormwater management, I’ve got a bunch of questions,
but.
MR. LAPPER-What I would propose, since I wasn’t able to bring Tom tonight, is if it were possible
to table this. Maybe we could get preliminary, if the Board’s comfortable, and table it for next week,
if you could accommodate that, and I could hope that I could wheel Tom in to answer your
questions.
MR. STROUGH-Okay.
MR. VOLLARO-I think by that time the Town should be able to tell us whether they’re going to
accept or not accept the four acres, and we can either get a three lot or a two lot subdivision out of
this. I think that’s what’s required here, one way or another.
MR. LAPPER-Well, I guess I think that that may have to be a condition also, because I don’t know
the answer, and I don’t know if it’s going to take a number of months for that, between the Rec
22
(Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 12/19/00)
Committee and the Town Board going back and forth about how that should work. I just have no
sense as to how quick that decision’s going to be made.
MR. MAC EWAN-Do we have any idea from Staff where this thing falls in the scheduling to be
entertained by the Town Board for acceptance of this acreage?
MR. ROUND-Typically, as Mr. Lapper indicated, once the site plan is approved, the Town would
entertain that dedication.
MR. MAC EWAN-Then give us some guidance. If we were to approve this thing, say tonight for a
two lot subdivision. They go and see the Town. The Town says, okay, we’ll take that land. Now it
becomes a three lot subdivision. So we nullify it, come back in and do a three lot?
MR. SCHACHNER-Yes. Why wouldn’t the applicant just seek an approval for a three lot
subdivision?
MR. LAPPER-We did.
MR. SCHACHNER-But I thought you sought some kind of alternative, either two or three?
MR. LAPPER-We asked for three, but we were saying that we don’t know how that’s all going to
work out.
MR. SCHACHNER-That’s fine, but I guess what we’re saying, Chris and I talked about this a few
minutes ago is, from the standpoint, I mean, the Chairman’s right. Obviously, if the Planning Board
approved a two lot subdivision that turns out to be a three lot subdivision, you’ve got to come back.
Well, it seemed to us to be more logical, but we’re not putting words in the applicant’s mouth, but
for the applicant to be seeking approval on a three lot subdivision. The third lot, the quote unquote
“third” lot, ownership of that lot may or may not remain with the applicant, but it would seem neater
and cleaner for the application before you to be a three lot subdivision.
MR. LAPPER-I would say, stronger than that, that there could be a condition that in the event that
the Town does not accept that third lot, that that subdivision parcel would not be part of this. So
when we’d submit a final mylar for signature, it would not be included. We don’t want to have a
separate lot unless the Town wants to take it. So if the Town doesn’t want the four acres, then it
would only be a two lot subdivision, but it can be approved as three.
MR. SCHACHNER-The key is you don’t want to go in the wrong direction with the numbers.
MR. MAC EWAN-Right.
MR. SCHACHNER-In other words, you don’t want to approve a two lot, if it turns out to be a three
lot.
MR. MAC EWAN-Well, if we do a preliminary approval of the three lot subdivision, and the Town
doesn’t take it, are we modifying that original subdivision or are we just reversing our approval and
doing a new approval for a two lot?
MR. SCHACHNER-I think we need to be careful with the language of the preliminary approval, if
that’s how we’re going to do it, and say, indicate it’s preliminary, if this is where you’re headed,
whether tonight or at some other time, indicate it’s preliminary approval of a subdivision to include a
maximum of three lots, as proposed, with the understanding, it doesn’t have to be a condition of
preliminary approval, because it would happen later, but an understanding that if the third lot that’s
proposed for dedication to the Town is not accepted by the Town, that that lot merges, that
proposed lot, merges into the proposed second lot and so only two lots are created instead of three.
MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. Do you have anything else, John?
MR. STROUGH-Okay. Stormwater, I’m going to have to (lost words). I’ve got questions about the
outlets and the check dams and things like that.
MR. LAPPER-I’m not the right guy to ask.
MR. STROUGH-Okay. I’ve got hydrological questions about the fill, and it is discussed that the fill
that will be brought in will be of Group E soils, that the soils that are there, Windoms or fine soil,
and are situated in low areas, but they have fair drainage in the upper areas. So there will be fill
brought in. So I’ve got questions about that and the hydrological effects that might have. So, I’ll
wait for Tom. The landscaping, there’s a tree in the road in some of the plans, and I can’t tell you
what buildings. If I had the tree in the middle of the road, I just didn’t see it, and most of the trees,
23
(Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 12/19/00)
too, I was just wondering, they’re summate ashes and I was just wondering why almost all of these
tend to be, what’s the advantage of that, the landscaping plan?
MR. LAPPER-Well, often I’m involved in that, but in this application I wasn’t. So I don’t know why
those trees were chosen, but I can tell you that there won’t be any trees in the road.
MR. STROUGH-Okay. More questions on wetland areas, saturation. Okay. Parking spaces. How
many parking spaces do we have?
MR. LAPPER-Less than what would be required if it wasn’t a senior project.
MR. STROUGH-My concern about that, Jon, was that, and I think there was ninety something
parking, ninety-four.
MR. LAPPER-Around 96, around one per resident.
MR. STROUGH-Yes, it was around 94, 96, I’ll agree with that, but is that going to be enough for the
tenants and the guests, the community building and the management and maintenance and
everything else?
MR. LAPPER-The developer is an experienced developer of senior housing. They’re not trying to
cheap out and save asphalt. I mean, they’re saying that this is sufficient because not everybody is
going to have a car.
MR. STROUGH-So there’s less than one car per unit, though.
MR. LAPPER-I think it’s just about one.
MR. STROUGH-And I agree with you, elderly people may be, they might or might not have a car,
but they’ll certainly have guests. I’m just concerned that the parking may not be sufficient.
MR. LAPPER-We believe that this is sufficient, and the Town Planning Board has had a policy for a
number of years to build less rather than more, in terms of parking.
MR. MAC EWAN-In the interest of where we seem to be going with this thing, I can’t help but
wonder, because a lot of questions we’re starting is something that’s going to be directed toward
Nace, is that maybe we should just table this thing until next Tuesday night.
MR. LAPPER-Okay.
MR. STROUGH-Well, let me make a few other points, so he knows some things about what I’m.
MR. MAC EWAN-Well, whatever we do, you know, if we’re going to make a motion to table this
thing, was define.
MR. STROUGH-Well, I think that’s appropriate, but I also was wondering, Jon, too, is that it’s a site
for elderly people. I don’t see any interconnecting walkways.
MR. LAPPER-That was addressed on, interconnecting between?
MR. STROUGH-I don’t see any amenities at all here. I don’t see even a shuffle board court.
There’s nothing. That bothers me. There’s not a single amenity here. There’s not even an
interconnecting walkway. There’s no hiking trail, no pedestrian trail, no tennis courts. I mean, it’s
just.
MR. LAPPER-You’re right. It’s just not part of the project.
MR. STROUGH-Okay. That was a concern.
MR. LAPPER-This is a senior, low income. This is for seniors.
MR. STROUGH-Bocci ball or something.
MR. LAPPER-Well, they can play that. There’s room for bocci ball.
MR. STROUGH-That was a concern of mine, Jon.
MR. MAC EWAN-There’s a proposed new driving range for somebody that can hit the ball really
straight.
24
(Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 12/19/00)
MR. VOLLARO-John, just let me interrupt you for just a second there, and I have a thought about
why some of these amenities may not be in there, in terms of how the IRS might look at it. This is
an IRS project. It’s tax credits, so they’re not going to give tax credits for lots of amenities. They’re
going to give tax credits for very basic things like housing. When I looked at this, that was my
thought. This kind of a project’s not a HUD project, and Chris is probably more familiar with this
than I am, but, and maybe you can elaborate a little bit on that, Chris, on my thought. This gets to
be a pretty bear bones system.
MR. HUNSINGER-I think you’re probably correct, but I don’t know for sure.
MR. STROUGH-Well, anyway, and if the Town doesn’t take that Halfway Brook area, then you’re
going to have to pay the $500 per unit fee.
MR. LAPPER-Yes. The developer would rather avoid all or part of that, because it would increase
the rents, and this is for seniors on fixed income, social security primarily, but that choice is out of
our hands. It’s up to the Town.
MR. VOLLARO-I have a basic question. The gentleman that was here the night with the little
house, and I think you touched on it, Tony, pretty well, but in the event all these calculations, like
many engineering calculations, I hate to say this, but a lot of engineering calculations don’t really
reflect the final outcome and the way, what recourse does this gentleman have, for example, if we’re
going to raise the elevation of a couple of these houses in the 100 year flood plain, one house, even,
in the 100 year flood plain, what recourse does he have if he literally gets flooded out after this
project goes in? Does he have any recourse at all, by being able to state before the fact that he’s
concerned?
MR. LAPPER-When you say that he gets flooded out, if you’re talking about the 100 year flood
plain, the amount of fill would disperse that like amount of water. So that water has to go
somewhere.
MR. VOLLARO-No, I’m not saying that. I’m saying that in the event that all of our suppositions
are incorrect, and he literally is underwater, after this project is finished, what recourse does he have
then to either this Town or a higher authority than this Town, for a remedy? Does he have any
remedy at all? That’s just a question that I have. What happens to him, if this doesn’t work out?
MR. LAPPER-I guess we’ll bring Tom back next week to address the impacts of the building of that
one home, or the one building in the flood plain.
MR. STROUGH-And one of the questions, too, I’m going to have for Tom is after we bring in this
fill and we bring all these buildings up four feet above the 100 year flood plain, and we have to bring
in fill for the roadways, possibly some amenities, if you come up with any, how is that going to affect
the hydrology of the water table, just so Tom knows ahead of time. I’d like some kind of an answer
to that.
MR. LAPPER-Okay, but again, only the one building is built in the flood plain.
MR. STROUGH-Well, still, the other areas may impact the water table. The water table doesn’t
know where the flood plain is.
MR. LAPPER-Yes, but they’re not wetlands, with the exception of that seven tenths.
MR. STROUGH-The water table.
MR. LAPPER-But if the water table is underground, we’re building above the water table.
MR. STROUGH-Yes, but some of the water table is at zero, okay. In the lower areas it’s at zero, and
that’s in the literature.
MR. LAPPER-Then I’d have to respectfully defer to Tom on that.
MR. STROUGH-Okay.
MR. MAC EWAN-Chris?
MR. HUNSINGER-I already went.
MR. MAC EWAN-I’m just giving you another shot. Does anything else come to mind?
25
(Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 12/19/00)
MR. HUNSINGER-No.
MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. Everybody else is set? The public hearing is open. Is there anyone that
wants to come up and comment on this application? You’re welcome to do so.
PUBLIC HEARING OPEN
MR. MAC EWAN-We’ll leave the public hearing open. Now we need a list of why we’re going to
table this thing. I came up with three, Cathy and I did, while we were listening here. You’re going to
supply us with a copy, just for this approval process, even though it’s going to go to your PUD
agreement, the deed restrictions, proposed deed restrictions.
MR. LAPPER-I’m not sure that that’s necessary. Only because all that would say is that the balance
of the land cannot be developed, other than for a golf course. That was right in the PUD
application. I’m not saying that I can’t. It’s just, there’s not any magic to that.
MR. MAC EWAN-It’s in the PUD application now?
MR. LAPPER-What we’ve said is that all of the development rights would be used for.
MR. MAC EWAN-Are you comfortable with that?
MR. LAPPER-It would be in the PUD agreement.
MR. SCHACHNER-Yes, I don’t have a problem with it.
MR. MAC EWAN-Okay.
MR. SCHACHNER-And you can also make that a condition of your approval, if you want, but
again, from sitting here as Counsel, I don’t know that I see a need, at this time, to require something
separate documentary from the applicant.
MR. MAC EWAN-That’s fine. Your subdivision map delineated for a three lot subdivision.
MR. LAPPER-Yes.
MR. MAC EWAN-Your site plan indicate the cart path location on the site plan. What else?
MR. LAPPER-Put the lighting.
MR. MAC EWAN-The lighting plan to be revised per Staff comments.
MR. STROUGH-I’d like to know about any headway that’s made on clarification of relationship
between the Recreation Department and the County.
MR. MAC EWAN-What do you mean the Recreation and the County?
MR. STROUGH-Is the Recreation Department interested in this property?
MR. MAC EWAN-Well, that’s kind of out of our scheme of things at this point, because the Rec
Commission’s already made their indication, through the form of a memo to the Town Board. Now
it’s up to the Town Board to act.
MR. RINGER-The chances are they wouldn’t have it by next week or next month anyway.
MR. MAC EWAN-No.
MR. LAPPER-No.
MR. MAC EWAN-They’re not going to meet again until the 8.
th
MR. VOLLARO-Do we want to hinge this on waiting for DEC and Army Corps wetland permits on
the mitigation of that seven tenths of an acre?
MR. MAC EWAN-I don’t think it’s necessary because the Army Corps’ review process is lengthy at
best.
MR. VOLLARO-Okay. So what do we do to cover that? Do we just forget about it?
26
(Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 12/19/00)
MR. MAC EWAN-No. I mean, if we get to the point where we’ve passed some sort of approval on
this, then it’s contingent upon that.
MR. VOLLARO-Okay. I’ve got you.
MR. MAC EWAN-Which I think is already in our draft resolution, too.
MR. STROUGH-Do we want them to consider including some amenities, do I have any support?
MR. LAPPER-What do you have in mind, John?
MR. STROUGH-Well, you know, you’d think, bare minimum, would be an interconnecting walkway
to enable them, without going on a road or a parking area, to access one building to the other. I
mean, if they wanted to go see a friend, they’re going to have to walk on the road. I don’t know if
that’s the best thing for elderly people.
MR. LAPPER-Or on the lawn.
MR. STROUGH-In the winter that’s not going to do much good.
MR. MAC EWAN-I mean, even if it is, you know, it’s meant to be a development for even low
income senior housing, the objectivity behind your low income rationale behind it is to, for lack of a
better way to put it, to get the funding available to build the project. Correct?
MR. LAPPER-But it’s also to meet a need of, that there are, we’ve submitted a market study that
there’s some 750, mostly single, widowed women in Town, that’s 75 years old, that fall within this,
because they’re only on social security. So there is a need, a public need being filled here, and you
saw, I didn’t bring with me tonight, although I have at every other meeting, the drawings of the, the
color renderings of the units, and these are pretty nice looking, compared to, you know, this is
certainly not a basic unit. So money is being spent here.
MR. MAC EWAN-No, but I think I kind of share John’s idea that, you know, some sort of passive
recreation might make the complex that much more attractive.
MR. LAPPER-I agree, and I think we could provide that. I’m concerned about sidewalks, just
because that would be a big number to put sidewalks all over, and I don’t think there’s anything
wrong with walking on the roadway, because that’s not going to be a high traffic area, but I think that
passive, or active light recreation.
MR. MAC EWAN-How about we leave it at this. When you come back next Tuesday, come back
with some ideas or some plans for some passive recreation, suitable to the age group that’s going to
occupy the complex.
MR. LAPPER-That’s fine.
MR. VOLLARO-I think what you’re going to find is that whoever’s giving the tax credits on this,
Craig, won’t give them out for certain things.
MR. MAC EWAN-And that may be true.
MR. LAPPER-But that doesn’t mean the developer can’t put something in.
MR. VOLLARO-That’s also true.
MR. MAC EWAN-Anything else? Okay.
MRS. MOORE-In regards to when this applicant can provide this information. You may want to,
because we have, Monday is a day off. You’re going to get, it sounds like you’re going to get
information Tuesday.
MR. LAPPER-Well, we’ve already submitted the cart path. We just have to put it on the plan.
That’s pretty basic. The lighting we’ve already submitted. It’s just a matter of showing that on the
plan. Recreation, I’ll just come up with an idea, and the third lot has been delineated on the
application. It’s just a matter of drawing that line. So I don’t think that we’re talking about anything
significant.
MR. MAC EWAN-Yes. I mean, considering that we’re creeping up onto a holiday here, and the fact
that the revisions that are going to have to be made to the site plan map, it wouldn’t upset anybody
27
(Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 12/19/00)
on this Board if you didn’t get that map until the next time we met, right? Because the changes that
are going to be put on the map really is going to be the delineation of the lots and the cart path.
MRS. LA BOMBARD-That’s fine. We just want to see it, have it delineated.
MR. MAC EWAN-We’re basically asking him to just come back in next Tuesday to answer some of
these more technical questions we have regarding the site development.
MRS. LA BOMBARD-Fine.
MR. MAC EWAN-Is that agreeable with everyone? Is that agreeable with Staff? It’s kind of unusual
we’re going this route.
MRS. MOORE-Yes, it is. I’d just ask if we could have that during the day on Tuesday.
MR. LAPPER-Of course.
MRS. MOORE-Or prior to Tuesday would be helpful.
MR. LAPPER-Probably Tuesday, just because I’ve got to get Tom out of bed to do this, but Tuesday
morning.
MRS. MOORE-What it does is it allows Staff to take a look at it, and if there’s any other concerns,
we can address them with the applicant, and hopefully prior to the meeting.
MR. LAPPER-Thank you, and again, I’m sorry that Tom couldn’t be here tonight.
MR. VOLLARO-What is the status of the Quaker Road sewer district extension? How does that
impact this application? Or does it not? Is it contingent upon in any way?
MR. ROUND-It’s implied, and I think you can make it a condition of the approval, that the project
is conditioned upon extension of the sewer district.
MR. MAC EWAN-They have shown no indication that they’re going to have on site septic systems
of any kind. So anything we’re going to approve is based on the fact you’re going to tie into the
sewer district there.
MR. LAPPER-Absolutely, but I think that the capacity, and Bob will know more than me, but I
think that that capacity is already reserved for the Quaker Road Sewer District.
MR. VOLLARO-No. There’s sufficient capacity. We in Queensbury have sufficient capacity left on
what we original draw down from the plant. So there is some left. I don’t know how much, but it’s
got to be paid for by you at so much a gallon.
MR. LAPPER-Right. Certainly.
MR. VOLLARO-But I think Mike Shaw has, I talked to him a little bit about that, and Mike feels
that there’s enough, that they have enough capacity to service you at a price. That’s so much a
gallon, whatever that’s going to be.
MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. All set.
MRS. MOORE-Are you going to make a formal resolution?
MR. MAC EWAN-Yes.
MRS. MOORE-Thank you.
MOTION TO TABLE PUD SITE PLAN NO. 8-2000 QUEENSBURY PARTNERS, L.P.,
Introduced by Craig MacEwan, who moved for its adoption, seconded by Catherine LaBombard:
So that the applicant can delineate all three proposed lots on the map, that the cart path be indicated
on the site plan map, that the lighting plan be revised and amended as per Staff comments, that the
applicant supply the Planning Board with recommendation for alternative passive recreation
amenities for this project, and that the applicant will supply Staff with a revised map, and any
additional information, no later than Tuesday, December 26 by noon.
th
Duly adopted this 19 day of December 2000 by the following vote:
th
28
(Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 12/19/00)
AYES: Mrs. LaBombard, Mr. Vollaro, Mr. Ringer, Mr. Metivier, Mr. Strough, Mr. Hunsinger,
Mr. MacEwan
NOES: NONE
MR. LAPPER-Thanks very much.
MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. See you next week.
SITE PLAN NO. 32-99 DETERMINATION OF SIGNIFICANCE EVEREST
ENTERPRISES, LLC OWNER: SAME AGENT: P. LOYOLA, CONTINENTAL
ARCHITECTS ZONE: HC-1A LOCATION: UPPER GLEN STREET, QUEENSBURY.
SLEEP INN APPLICANT PROPOSES MODIFICATION TO AN APPROVED SITE
PLAN. MODIFICATION REQUEST REFLECTS AS-BUILT CHANGES REGARDING
PARKING LOT AND SPACES, LIGHTING, SAFETY MEASURES, DRAINAGE,
PLANTING AND VEGETATION CROSS REFERENCE: AV 57-1999, SB 10-1999, SP 32-99
TAX MAP NO. 71-2-2.2 (296.17-1-46.2) LOT SIZE: 2.90 ACRES/SECTION 179-23
PETER LOYOLA, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT; DAVE KAPOOR, PRESENT
MRS. LA BOMBARD-There’s no public hearing.
MR. MAC EWAN-Staff Notes, please.
STAFF INPUT
Notes from Staff, Site Plan No. 32-99, Everest Enterprises, LLC, Meeting Date: December 19, 2000
“Project Description
The applicant has provided a letter requesting approval of modifications to the Queensbury Sleep
Inn. The modifications include parking lot configuration, lighting, guard-rails, drainage, and
landscaping. Our Code Enforcement Officer informed the applicant that the site was not in
compliance with the approved plan.
Project Analysis
The plans submitted represent the existing site conditions. The reduction of parking and an
additional interconnection appears to provide better traffic circulation. The lighting plan shows the
location of the light poles and the wall mounted lights. The installation of the guard-rails provides a
barrier between the parking area and an embankment to an adjoining parcel. The pool courtyard area
was originally to be a paved parking area. Therefore, the additional drainage features do not change
the management plan.
Areas of Concern or Importance
The original proposed landscaping plan has not changed except for the removal of some existing
evergreens along Route 9. Staff would suggest 9 additional shade trees be added into the area labeled
as “existing evergreens.” This number is based on landscape standards from the proposed zoning
ordinance.
Suggestions
Staff would request 9 additional shade trees be added to the “existing evergreens” area.”
MR. MAC EWAN-Is that it?
MRS. MOORE-Yes.
MR. MAC EWAN-Good evening.
MR. LOYOLA-Good evening.
MR. KAPOOR-Good evening.
MR. MAC EWAN-Would you identify yourselves for the record, please.
MR. LOYOLA-My name’s Peter Loyola, with Continental Landscape Architecture, and to my left is
Dave Kapoor, owner of Everest Enterprises.
29
(Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 12/19/00)
MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. Can you tell us a little bit about your reasoning for being here tonight?
MR. LOYOLA-Yes. There were several changes that we made to the site plan, in particular with
regard to parking, and I’ll start, there was a letter that I think everyone has from November 29, and
th
I’m basically just going to be reading from parking lot and spaces. Because the finished floor
elevation of our building was pretty low and to save as many trees as we could, the existing
evergreens, we decided that we needed to push the parking in the front back, or toward the building
about six feet. I don’t know if anyone has been out there to see the level of grade change. We did
add some retaining wall that was not in the site plan. We felt that that aided the grading, but in doing
so, we left a little bit less space, green space in the front of the building. That didn’t impact any
parking. To the right or to the south side of the building, to accommodate an electrical transformer,
we had to bump out the sidewalk and thus we eliminated three parking spaces on the side and into
the rear, we felt that a full courtyard would add to the amenity of the pool area. So we eliminated
seven parking spaces to the rear of the building. We were in excess of parking spaces at the previous
approval. So we made sure that we’d stay in compliance with the parking codes. We do have, right
now, 79 spaces, including four handicap. There are 78 units in the building, in the hotel. So 78
spaces are required, by Code. In addition to the parking configuration, we put a rear access to the
rear, to connect the Ponderosa with the hotel at the rear, and this was just to accommodate
snowplowing and provide better circulation. We felt it would be better for a rear access as well. So
that’s the reasoning for the rear access. It was just an added connection there. Also, lighting, Craig
Brown had mentioned to us that he wanted to see the lighting on the site plan. We had basically
deferred the lighting to the building plans, and those parking lot lightings were on the building plan
as approved by the inspector, and we just showed them on the parking, on the site plan. There were
10 parking lot lights, and we did provide Laura with a lighting distribution plan. Some added safety
measures. To the rear we added a two foot guardrail. It was fairly steep at the rear of the parking
area, so we decided it would be best to put some kind of a safety fence, guardrail there as an added
precaution, and that’s located also at the rear entrance road, on the north side of the building, a small
guardrail there. With regard to drainage, we show an added drywell. This is at north side of the
building, just to ensure proper drainage. It looked like, the run was going to make it as it was, but we
decided we’d put in an extra drywell just to be sure that there was proper and adequate drainage to
the north end. Now, with regard to the planting, because of the grading in the front of the building,
we were coming close to a lot of the evergreens, and we had to take down a couple of extra
evergreens and the ones that were remaining on that slope were really pretty ratty. There’s a lot of
dead branches, once we took out a couple of them. So we did, and it’s not shown on the plan, but
we did add a number of other evergreens that aren’t shown on the planting plan.
MR. MAC EWAN-Where did you add them?
MR. LOYOLA-Where we took down the evergreens.
MR. VOLLARO-Is that where it says on the plan existing evergreens?
MR. LOYOLA-There are existing evergreens, but this is the grading and drainage plan that I showed
the modification, just to the north of those existing evergreens we replaced with additional
evergreens.
MR. VOLLARO-There’s about three of them.
MR. LOYOLA-Yes. I believe there were three.
MR. VOLLARO-I think there’s three out there, three small ones.
MR. LOYOLA-Right.
MR. MAC EWAN-In that corner right here.
MR. LOYOLA-Correct, right in the corner where we took those down, and that pretty much is it for
the number of changes.
MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. Cathy?
MRS. LA BOMBARD-I just want to tell you that I think the hotel fits really nice on that lot, and the
elevation is really nice, except I was a little chagrined when we went to the back and we looked over
the embankment where the guardrail is and saw a couple of old shopping carts thrown down there
and some debris and some kind of like.
MR. KAPOOR-As soon as the weather improves, you know, it is also very important for our
business as well. We will take care of them, and put grass there, and it should look nice, the retention
tank. We have been, when the landscaper was picking up the pebbles and rubbish from the site to
30
(Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 12/19/00)
put his mulch and all that, he did not do the right job. He started dropping it there. It’s a matter of
getting a bulldozer over there and clean it nicely so that it becomes complimentary to the building.
MRS. LA BOMBARD-Good. Because, you know, there were boxes, old cardboard boxes.
MR. KAPOOR-No, no. They’re all gone.
MRS. LA BOMBARD-As of Saturday?
MR. KAPOOR-Boxes, where?
MRS. LA BOMBARD-Well, there was a little cat living in them.
MR. MAC EWAN-That was over behind Ponderosa.
MR. VOLLARO-That was over behind Ponderosa.
MRS. LA BOMBARD-It was? I thought it was right over there by the guardrail? It was over there?
Okay. Then we’re all set. Sorry about that, but it looks really nice on the lot, the way the elevation is
and the way the road goes and it sits a little bit down, you know, where it’s not so obtrusive. It really
looks nice.
MR. KAPOOR-Thank you. We were expecting (lost words) comments. I think we’ve brought a
nice building to the area, and we are very proud of it, that we are part of Queensbury.
MRS. LA BOMBARD-Okay. Well, that’s good that you’re going to get a bulldozer in there.
MR. KAPOOR-Absolutely. That’s no problem.
MRS. LA BOMBARD-Thanks.
MR. KAPOOR-We will dress it up nicely.
MR. MAC EWAN-Bob?
MR. VOLLARO-No, I don’t have anything, except, taking a page out of the staff recommendation
that in that area that’s called existing evergreens we try to get nine additional shade trees in there.
We’ll have to specify what their caliper is, and identify their, you know, whether they’re indigenous
trees, or what type of trees they are. That’ll come in the motion. That’s all I have there.
MR. MAC EWAN-Larry?
MR. RINGER-No. I also like Staff notes about putting additional trees. The lighting, there’s no
additional lighting, then, from your original plan, no more lighting that’s going out there?
MR. LOYOLA-No.
MR. RINGER-Nothing else, Craig.
MR. MAC EWAN-Tony?
MR. METIVIER-No, I have nothing further.
MR. MAC EWAN-John?
MR. STROUGH-Mr. Kapoor, Dave, thank you, is that 78 units?
MR. KAPOOR-Yes, sir.
MR. STROUGH-And I agree, it does look like a nice place.
MR. KAPOOR-Thank you, sir.
MR. STROUGH-And I hope you do well there, and I, personally, don’t see anything, I think the
guardrail is a good idea.
MR. KAPOOR-Yes. This was our (lost word). We made sure, even without thinking we did this,
and this was done professionally, also, not just four by fours.
31
(Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 12/19/00)
MR. STROUGH-And for public safety and everything. The traffic circulation seems to be good.
Now, in this recent storm that we just had, did you have any flooding problems, everything work out
good?
MR. KAPOOR-Absolutely.
MR. STROUGH-Well, that was a good test of the system, then.
MR. KAPOOR-Before that, we had a lot of rain, and I was making sure that, you know, Adirondack
Paving is there watching, every inch of water, and there was a little problem at the north end. This is
where we put another drywell, on the spot, without even thinking. They came to me and said, Dave,
it’s going to be a longer run for this one. I said, another $5,000, put it there, so that we don’t have
any problem with the water. I don’t want any problem with driving, slipping or icing. Not a single
drop sits there when there’s rain.
MR. STROUGH-That’s good. Now the pole height. The pole heights, the ones that you put in
were 25 feet?
MR. KAPOOR-Yes, sir.
MR. STROUGH-And that was per the original agreement, even the new poles, it’s all 25? It wasn’t
20.
MR. KAPOOR-It is all 25 as per the drawing, yes.
MR. STROUGH-Okay. Now what kind of evergreens? You said there was three planted there. Do
you know what kind they are?
MR. LOYOLA-I’m not sure what the landscaper put in, but I believe they were pine, I think they
were White Pine.
MR. STROUGH-White Pine.
MR. VOLLARO-That’s what they look like, White Pine, to me.
MR. STROUGH-Okay. So they’ll grow in pretty good height, things like that.
MR. KAPOOR-Grass is already in place. It’s already green. The front is clean now. It will be kept
clean right up to the Route 9, so that it looks like a hotel.
MR. STROUGH-It looks nice. It looks great, and you did a great job. It took longer than I thought
it would.
MR. KAPOOR-Believe you me, it was underestimated. I was the builder also, but I didn’t let
anything drop through the cracks. Plus, you see, our inspection, boy, Dave and John O’Brien,
they’re becoming my family members. We were there every day, and they did such a nice job, and
they put us right all the time. They helped me quite a bit, and I think they really worked hard with
me, and this building is going to be fireproof. You can bet on it.
MR. STROUGH-And I also see that somebody’s gone to the effort of making sure Blind Rock is
cleared out, and I see a chainsaw in there, and they’ve cleared it out. Was that you?
MR. KAPOOR-Yes, sir.
MR. STROUGH-Well, thank you. Thank you very much. Okay. I’m done.
MR. MAC EWAN-Wow, Blind Rock’s cleared. He’s happy.
MRS. LA BOMBARD-Now we can find it. We’re going to go in the spring.
MR. MAC EWAN-Chris?
MR. HUNSINGER-I didn’t have anything that hasn’t already been said. I thought it looked great. I
think it fits the neighborhood real well.
MR. KAPOOR-Thank you, sir. I think that was my first thing, I wanted to hear something like that.
Remember what it was before, an eyesore, an old house and old this and that, sitting there for such a
long time. Everybody wished that we had something. I’m glad I did it, and I’m glad I’m part of
Queensbury, and testing, and I think we’re going to have a good business, and we are going to have a
32
(Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 12/19/00)
good relationship with the Town. We’re going to change Ponderosa to Pizzeria Uno. So we’ll bring
a little more to it, complimentary to the Hotel. That’s why those rear entrance and all those
entrances, they’ll be still our property.
MR. STROUGH-Yes, and it seems to work out well.
MR. KAPOOR-Yes. It’s a long time ago when I bought the land from Mr. Hicks. He said, why do
you want the land, and I said, well, my father said, when you can grab the land, grab it. So I wanted
to buy it, and I took a chance and I bought it. Ten years later, it turned out to be a nice place for a
Hotel.
MR. STROUGH-Yes.
MR. KAPOOR-Thank you, sir.
MR. MAC EWAN-The only outstanding issues, it seems to be the consensus of everyone up here on
the Board, per Staff, we’d like to see nine additional shade trees planted in the area where you’ve
removed the mature evergreens. You might have to pick the trees. Do you have something in mind?
MRS. MOORE-In the proposed Ordinance, there’s a list of deciduous shade trees or evergreen
shade trees. He said the current trees out there are pine. So you may want to go additional.
MR. MAC EWAN-You’re looking for shade trees. You’re thinking somewhere along the lines of a
maple or something like that? Is that what you’re thinking?
MRS. MOORE-There’s two types of shade trees identified in the proposed Ordinance. There’s
deciduous, which would be your maple or an evergreen, which would be your pine. So either one’s
acceptable to me.
MR. VOLLARO-I would go with the pine.
MR. LOYOLA-Right now there’s some, I think there’s also some spruce there, too, and I think we
did, in the planting plan, so I would recommend just a mix of evergreen and I’ll take a look at the
planting plan, and we do have some maple that we have specked out in the planting plan, and I
would probably continue with that. So I’ll make sure that the number is there, but I think a mix of
evergreen and deciduous, you know, may be, I don’t know if there’s a preference to evergreen or not,
but, you know, maybe we’ll go with.
MR. MAC EWAN-The only thing, for any kind of approvals we would do tonight, would have to be
somewhat specific about what we’re going to ask for, just to make it part of the official record.
MRS. LA BOMBARD-Well, spruce aren’t considered shade trees, but I think the ones you have
planted there are really nice, and in about five or six years, they’re going to be nice and tall.
MR. LOYOLA-Right.
MRS. LA BOMBARD-I mean, I would prefer spruce trees, but like I say, they’re not shade.
MR. MAC EWAN-We could spend three years on this.
MRS. MOORE-Chris suggested you could make it consistent with the proposed Ordinance, and that
includes, the evergreen shade tree does include spruce varieties.
MRS. LA BOMBARD-It does? Colorado.
MRS. MOORE-There’s a variety of them listed.
MR. MAC EWAN-All right. I’ll go out on a limb here. Nine additional trees be planted in that area.
Let’s say that five of them are to be two and a half inch caliper maple trees. Four of them are to be
three to five foot tall spruce.
MR. VOLLARO-Perfect.
MR. MAC EWAN-How’s that?
MRS. LA BOMBARD-All right. It sounds good.
MR. MAC EWAN-All right. Would someone like to introduce a motion? This is a modification.
33
(Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 12/19/00)
MOTION TO APPROVE MODIFICATION TO SITE PLAN NO. 32-99 EVEREST
ENTERPRISES, LLC, Introduced by Catherine LaBombard who moved for its adoption,
seconded by Chris Hunsinger:
WHEREAS, the Town Planning Board is in receipt of Site Plan No. 32-99, Everest Enterprises,
Sleep Inn for modifications. Request reflects as-built changes regarding Parking Lot and Spaces,
Lighting, Safety Measures, Drainage, Planting & Vegetation. Tax Map 72-2-2.2, and;
WHEREAS, the application received 11/28/00 consists of the following:
1. Application materials as outlined in the Official File
WHEREAS, the above is supported with the following documentation:
1. 12/19/00 Staff Notes
12/13/00 New Info - Lighting
12/8/00 Meeting Notice
WHEREAS, public hearing was not held concerning the above project; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Board has determined that the proposal complies with the Site Plan
requirements of the Code of the Town Queensbury (Zoning); and
WHEREAS, the Planning Board has considered the environmental factors found in the Code of the
Town of Queensbury (Zoning); and
WHEREAS, the requirements of the State Environmental Quality Review Act have been considered
and the Planning Board has adopted a SEQRA Negative Declaration; and/or if application is a
modification, the requirements of the State Environmental Quality Review Act have been
considered; and the proposed modification(s) do not result in any new or significantly different
environmental impacts, and, therefore, no further SEQRA review is necessary; and
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT
RESOLVED, that
The application is approved and is subject to the following conditions: Approved as per
Staff’s resolution that they drew up, with this stipulation for the plantings: That there will be
planted five (5), two and a half inch caliper maples, and four (4), three to five foot high
spruce trees, in the front, in the northwest corner, where the other trees had been removed,
by May 30.
th
Duly adopted this 19th day of December 2000 by the following vote:
AYES: Mr. Hunsinger, Mrs. LaBombard, Mr. Vollaro, Mr. Ringer, Mr. Metivier, Mr. Strough,
Mr. MacEwan
NOES: NONE
MR. MAC EWAN-You’re all set, gentlemen.
MR. LOYOLA-Thank you.
MR. KAPOOR-Thanks very much.
MR. MAC EWAN-Good luck.
SITE PLAN NO. 78-2000 TYPE: UNLISTED YMCA OWNER: SLACK PROPERTY
MANAGEMENT LLC AGENT: DANIEL HOGAN ZONE: LI-1A LOCATION: 37
HOMER AVENUE APPLICANT PROPOSES TO CONVERT EXISTING VACANT
STORAGE TO A GYMNASTICS, DANCE AND YOUTH CENTER. ALL USES IN LI
ZONES REQUIRE PLANNING BOARD REVIEW AND APPROVAL. CROSS
REFERENCE: UV 1335, UV 40-1989, SP 36-89, 68-1993, SB 18-1993, UV 40-1989, SP 36-89
WARREN CO. PLANNING: 12/13/00 TAX MAP NO. 107-1-4.1 LOT SIZE: 0.65 ACRES
DAN HOGAN & CHUCK MAZE, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT
MR. MAC EWAN-Staff notes.
34
(Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 12/19/00)
STAFF INPUT
Notes from Staff, Site Plan No. 78-2000, YMCA, Meeting Date: December 19, 2000 “Project
Description
The applicant proposes to utilize an 8,040 square foot building to operate an indoor recreational
facility. The proposed use is an allowed use in the Light Industrial zone by approval of Use Variance
1043 in 1985 and Use Variance 40-1989. The Zoning Board granted the use variances for a
gymnastic facility. A use variance runs with the property that it is associated with.
Project Analysis
The Planning Board should review the following to determine if the application is complete (179-38):
1. Is the use is compliant with the Chapter 179
2. Is the use would be in harmony with the purpose and intent of Chapter 179.
3. Does the establishment, maintenance, or operation of the proposed use would not create
public hazards from traffic, traffic congestion or the parking of vehicles and/or equipment
or be otherwise detrimental to the health, safety, or general welfare of persons residing or
working in the neighborhood or to the industrial development where internal roadways are
not provided.
Site Overview
The main entrance to the building is on Homer Avenue. The plan does not show existing
or proposed lighting for the building or parcel. The plans do not show a sign location or
design. The project will most likely utilize existing lighting to be used for evening hours. A
wall sign is more possible than a free-standing because much of their frontage is
parking/drive area. The use is described as being gymnastic/dance activities, where a
majority of the vehicles on the site are not staying for long periods of time. This does not
account for the sudden intense use of the facility for recitals, matches/meets.
Traffic, Circulation, Parking
The site has access by an open curb cut of 160 feet. The site currently has 14 spaces, this
will increase to 21 spaces. The Town ordinance does not specify a number of spaces
required for the use described. The American Planning Association’s “ Off Street Parking
Requirement” report #432 provides several examples for different uses. A gymnasium most
closely represents the proposed use at: 1 space per 100 gross floor area; one space for each
three persons allowed within the maximum occupancy load, plus one per employee. A
Dance Hall may also represent the proposed use at: one space for every three persons
allowed with the maximum occupancy.
The Building Department has indicated maximum occupancy at 99 persons. The Planning
Board may need to limit the amount of occupancy allowed on site based on the amount of
parking available. The applicant may need to apply for a variance to allow for additional
occupancy.
There is a sidewalk associated with the front parking spaces to facilitate pedestrian traffic to
the front door.
Utility, Stormwater, Landscaping, Emergency Services
The applicant does not intend to change the existing drainage pattern, sewer or water
connections. The existing site has minimal landscaping with a lawn area to the rear of the
building. The site also has wild hedgerow that runs on the Everts Avenue and at the rear
property line.
Areas of Concern or Importance
Is the site able to handle the amount of traffic associated with the use? Will there be a free standing
or wall sign? What will the sign look like? What type of site lighting exists now? Will there be new
site lighting and what type will it be? What new landscaping will be added to the site?
Suggestions
Staff would suggest all meets and recitals be held at the YMCA location on Firehouse Road.”
MRS. MOORE-I’m just picking areas to highlight. I’ll go back to the “Areas of Concern or
Importance”, the applicant has submitted a letter from a nearby property owner that indicated that
they would be able to utilize some of their parking area. However, the current property is only
subject to 21 spaces, and their occupancy load would require more than that. So they are subject to
an Area Variance if they would like to have more than 63 occupants on the property. That’s just one
highlight. In addition, the applicant did provide a sign, what it would look like, and that it would be a
35
(Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 12/19/00)
wall sign attached to the front of the building, and again, there’s no new proposed landscaping for
the site. That’s all I have for highlights.
MR. MAC EWAN-Is that it?
MRS. MOORE-Yes.
MR. MAC EWAN-Good evening.
MR. HOGAN-Good evening.
MR. MAC EWAN-Would you identify yourselves for the record, please.
MR. HOGAN-Sure. Dan Hogan. I’m a member of the Board of Trustees at the Y.
MR. MAZE-And I’m Chuck Maze, Executive Director of the YMCA.
MR. MAC EWAN-The floor is yours, gentlemen.
MR. HOGAN-I guess, just to address some of the Staff comments, I think, initially, the issue of the
wall sign, we belatedly supplied that information. So I don’t think that that is a particular issue
tonight. The other was lighting, and I suspect that the Planning Board made a visit and saw that
there is, I believe, as shown on the map prepared by VanDusen and Steves, there is at least a pole out
on Homer Avenue, and I believe, maybe you can shed some light on the lighting issue, I think that
there are two illuminating lights on the building. That probably raises an issue on the side, and I’m
talking the eastern side where we’re proposing seven more parking spaces, as to whether or not
there’s an additional lighting issue that may be required there, and I think the YMCA would be
willing to put a light in there to at least illuminate that new parking space. In terms of traffic, I know
that the Staff did, in fact, at least raise the issue of traffic. I don’t think that we propose any
particular overload with our use. We estimate anywhere from 47 to possibly, if we have a meet
proposed there, up to 99 occupants in the building. You’ve got western access from Homer Avenue.
You’ve got south and north exit/entrance onto Homer Avenue from Everts, and I don’t think that
that’s going to be a heavy overload in that area. So I don’t think that traffic is a particular problem.
That brings us down, I guess, to the parking issue. We have at least solicited the Petrosky’s, but
haven’t heard from them yet, as to whether or not we could use the adjoining parcel on off evening
or off weekend hours for any overflow parking. We don’t see that as a particular problem. At least
historically, with the gymnastics program and the dance programs, they’re predominantly drop off
programs. We don’t think that we’re going to use 21 spaces, but there are those issues on perhaps a
dance recital or a gymnastics event, where we, if we house 99 people in the facility, how do we get
them on those 21 spaces. Buses are frequently used for some of the regional gymnastic meetings.
It’s not uncommon for our gymnastics and those meets to start at the YMCA on 600 Upper Glen,
and then get bussed over to that facility as well. So we don’t really think that we’re going to have a
problem, even exceeding 63 people inside the facility, having need for more than 21 spaces, but in
the event that there’s overflow, we’re trying to solicit the Petrosky’s, Silverstein, Loftus, and we’ve
already talked to the Chiropractor, who’s willing to give us his 60 spaces if needed, on off hours.
MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. Anything else?
MR. MAZE-I was just going to say, the Chiropractor, to correct him, was just 30 spaces that he
offered, and I was say that just reiterate with Dan that for recreational use, for classes, parents do
drop their kids off and pick them up, so that we don’t anticipate any traffic problems or backups, and
we only typically have three or four home gymnastics meets a year where we would have to bus kids
over from the YMCA, you know, to avoid any kind of a traffic congestion. So I think this could be a
very workable situation.
MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. Bob, we’ll start with you. Any questions?
MR. VOLLARO-Yes. I’m just going to take a look at the Staff, trying to follow up on what you just
said. Staff would suggest that all meets and recitals be held at the YMCA location on Firehouse
Road. Is that out of the question? So that would eliminate the probability or possibility of.
MR. HOGAN-Robert, I’m sorry, I didn’t hear the beginning part of that question.
MRS. LA BOMBARD-I didn’t either.
MR. VOLLARO-This is a Staff suggestion in the Staff notes, the last thing that Staff suggested here
is that Staff would suggest that all meets and recitals be held at the YMCA location on Firehouse
Road.
36
(Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 12/19/00)
MR. HOGAN-On Fire Road.
MR. SCHACHNER-It’s Fire Road.
MR. VOLLARO-Firehouse Road.
MR. SCHACHNER-No, what we’re telling you is that there’s a mistake. The name of the road is
Fire Road.
MR. VOLLARO-Well, it says Firehouse here. Okay.
MR. HOGAN-The only problem that that certainly would pose is the reason that we want to go to
Homer Avenue, as opposed to the existing facility at the Glens Falls Y is, we have to house all that
equipment in a storage room, drag it out each time. It’s thousands of pounds of equipment that has
to go in and out, and one of the real issues that we have, as a Board, is the liability issue, with workers
compensation. Now to move that all the way across Town to the City, each time we have a regional
meet, I think would be problematic to us. That’s why we’re at least trying to accommodate a
reasonable solution. Bussing, we think, is an issue that certainly could mitigate that traffic problem.
We don’t anticipate, at this point, exceeding the 63 to 65. If we found that to be a routine problem,
we certainly wouldn’t have a problem gauging our use over there, to figure out whether we needed to
make some kind of variance request, after the fact.
MR. MAC EWAN-Anything else?
MR. VOLLARO-No. I’m just interested in the idea of bussing. That didn’t occur to me before, but
you say what you could do, if you had to, was bus people from one facility to the other.
MR. HOGAN-Part of the regional gymnastics meets where they draw from different parts of the
State, that’s how they traditionally get here is by bus. So if we have 100 people in there, and 20 of
the participants are from out of the area, they’re probably going to come in one vehicle. Some of
their parents might come independently of them, and generally our gymnasts will start over at the
YMCA at 600 and move over by bus.
MR. VOLLARO-Because I’m just try to make sure that we don’t generate, inadvertently generate, a
whole bunch of cars in that location that can’t find places to park. That’s my concern.
MR. HOGAN-Right, and that was really the same kind of dialogue that transpired in the Use
Variance application, which was in 1988. It was Use Variance 1335, and that same type of dialogue
about parking and meets, really the same scenario. At that time, they talked about going to
Queensbury Motors and the Chiropractor and the Petrosky’s, the same things that we would ask for
in overload circumstances.
MR. VOLLARO-Okay.
MR. MAC EWAN-Just for some background information, when Petrosky had that as a gymnastics
facility over there, they had meets over there as well.
MR. HOGAN-That’s correct, as I understand it.
MR. MAC EWAN-There was never an issue with the Town regarding complaints regarding parking,
because they used to have quite a few people over there. Do you know of anything on file?
MRS. MOORE-That was all one lot at one time, the two buildings. Now they are separate lots,
because the Day Care center used to be part of, those two buildings used to be on one parcel, I’m
sorry.
MR. ROUND-It was all owned by Petrosky. They could use the common facilities. The physical
conditions are the same. I think the ownership issue has changed, and I think they talk they could
probably accommodate it with cooperative agreements with your adjoining property owners.
MR. HOGAN-But I think in Phase I, where they went for that Use Variance, at that time, it was just
the Homer Avenue facility that we intend to use. Thereafter, they acquired the neighboring parcel,
opened up, had a different, separate request for a Use Variance. So I don’t think that there’s
anything in the notes that I’ve seen, with the initial application, which is similar to ours, that indicated
that there was any problem with parking.
MR. MAC EWAN-No. Yes, the comparison I’m just trying to make, I mean, ultimately, the use that
you’re hoping to have over here is the same use that was done by Petrosky some 10 years ago.
37
(Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 12/19/00)
MR. HOGAN-That’s correct.
MR. MAC EWAN-And I guess what I’m driving at is there never was a problem with parking over
there.
MR. ROUND-We haven’t searched the file. We don’t have a database of complaints against, I think
if there was it would have been heard with the Sheriff’s Department, and I don’t think it is. It’s just
part of the planning process. We raise the issue and make sure the site does accommodate the
parking needs for the proposed use.
MR. MAC EWAN-Anything else, Bob?
MR. VOLLARO-No. He apparently brings up the fact that the Use Variance considered this before.
I mean, this is a rehash of what was going on when the Use Variance was applied for. So, essentially,
it’s a status quo, if that’s, I don’t see a problem with it, then.
MR. MAC EWAN-Larry?
MR. RINGER-No. Three meets a year, Chuck, is all you figure they would have there, about?
MR. MAZE-They have one in December, and then they have, usually one dual meet a month, and
this year they’re planning to host a league championship in March.
MR. RINGER-And outside of the meets, with normal activity, you would have enough parking with
the 21, you feel?
MR.. HOGAN-Yes.
MR. RINGER-And the additional 30. I noticed in your schedule that all your activities that you list
are all at the same times and the same days. I imagine you’ll be changing. So it won’t be Tuesdays,
you’ll probably use it five days a week, instead of just Tuesdays and Thursdays? I think it shows on
Tuesday, Thursday and Saturdays, the schedule you gave me. You’ll be using the buildings all week,
probably.
MR. MAZE-That’s a good observation. Presently, in the main building of the YMCA, we try to
consolidate all of our gymnastics activities to I think Tuesday, Thursday and Saturday, because we
want to allow as much space as possible for our members. So now we’d be able to spread the activity
out over six days a week, and not have as many kids participating on any given day.
MR. RINGER-So it could possibly be less parking than what you’re saying, by spreading it out?
MR. MAZE-Yes, it would even it out more, yes.
MR. RINGER-The time factor, the 4:15 to 6:30 p.m., that seems to be now when you’re using that,
according to your schedule. That’ll probably change somewhat, too? Because these are the peak
traffic times for Bay Road and Quaker, from five to six p.m.
MR. MAZE-I think that activities could continue, like for the preschool kid, for instance, a lot of
those activities are early afternoon. Then we have after school activities that begin in the three to
three thirty range, and then, typically, the team practices in the early evening, late afternoon, early
evening.
MR. RINGER-I don’t have anything else. Thank you.
MR. MAC EWAN-Tony?
MR. METIVIER-No, I have nothing.
MR. MAC EWAN-John?
MR. STROUGH-This appears to be a good use, and the only thing that concerns me is, the event
that you’re having there is, we’re finding ourselves with people parking up and down Homer. I
wonder, if we come to that situation, what are we going to do?
MR. MAZE-Well, I’d like to say that, typically, when we have the events, and we’re inviting other
teams, what we do is we have to send them instructions, directions on how to get there. So we have
control over where we ask those people to park. We can ask, if it’s a large group, then we can ask
them to park over at the main building, and then, as Dan was saying, we would have vans, or if they
came in a bus, come over that way.
38
(Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 12/19/00)
MR. STROUGH-And from what I understand, these kind of events that might present itself so that
kind of situation only happens two or three times a year?
MR. MAZE-Well, there’s December, January,. February, March. So I’d say there’s be four meets.
MR. HOGAN-And traditionally weekend, and that’s why, if Lockhart Chiropractic is closed down,
and I think we can secure the Petrosky’s as well, we’d be able to accommodate them off Homer
Avenue.
MR. STROUGH-You could get the Petroskys, and you’re going to make every effort to keep the
traffic from parking on Homer?
MR. MAZE-Yes. I mean, we can make explicit instructions when we send out the meet packets to
the teams that would be visiting, instructing them not to park on the street, and in cases where we
have a large group, they would park over at the YMCA on Fire Road.
MR. STROUGH-Okay. Well, let me ask Chris one question. Chris, do you know, off hand, is it
against the law to park on the side of Homer, or is that okay?
MR. ROUND-I don’t know. I think Homer’s a local street, and I don’t know that. I don’t know the
answer to that.
MR. RINGER-It’s not posted. So parking is allowed.
MR. SCHACHNER-I think that’s right. I think it’s a local road, Town road, not posted, parking’s
probably allowed.
MR. STROUGH-Okay.
MR. HOGAN-But I don’t believe there are any curb cuts in front of our building, which would make
it difficult to pull in and pull out.
MR. STROUGH-Okay. Well, thank you.
MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. Chris?
MR. HUNSINGER-When I first looked at the project, I had the same concerns, you know, traffic
and parking, but, you know, after thinking about it, I’m not at all concerned about traffic. I mean,
even in the busiest times, as the existing YMCA, traffic just isn’t an issue, and I think this location
would have the same results, and as far as parking, I think it’s very easy to control those single events.
I think this letter really solidified that for me. Because there are other options that are available to
you, so that I just don’t see it as being a problem. Really, the only question I have, it’s really outside
of the discussion, and that is, I guess, the long range plans of the Y. I don’t know if this is a short
term kind of fix or not. Again, it’s not relevant to, you know, our decision tonight. It’s just curiosity.
MR. HOGAN-We’ve been discussing with the Slacks for years possibly acquiring it. It just hasn’t
been in our operating budget and our long term objective to purchase yet, but we do have an option
to buy.
MR. MAC EWAN-Cathy?
MRS. LA BOMBARD-I’ve been dying to make a couple of comments here. Because I am so excited
that building is going back to the original use that it was built for, and I was part of that. I want this
on the record, way back in the early 80’s I can remember when Debbie Petrosky had her gymnastics
academy behind the Inside Edge Ski Shop. Then we left there and she took this big undertaking and
bought this property and built this building which was the ideal gymnastics academy. I mean, we
were the envy of areas within a 50, 60 mile radius, maybe 100 mile radius, and for 10 years that my
daughter competed there, we never had any complaints with parking on Homer Avenue, and I know
that, in the early days, Debbie did not own the, or she didn’t have the day care center built yet, and so
we didn’t use that for parking, and there was never any complaints, but we would have meets that
would, we would have meets probably every other weekend, and they would draw people from all
over, but they were very, their parents, their families, they’re a very quiet crowd, and they were always
very well behaved, and the parking was never an issue, and then when I saw the building, when
Debbie ended up leaving the business, it was much to my chagrin, and my daughter had to, you
probably don’t care about this, but I just have to say it. We had to go down the pike, down the
Northway, and she ended up competing Division One in college and then somebody else took over
the business and moved it, and then it became a factory, and it’s so great to have that factory back to,
39
(Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 12/19/00)
hopefully, back to the gymnastics facility that it was originally constructed for, and I don’t think
you’re going to have any problems at all with parking. So there you go. I’m so excited about that.
MR. HOGAN-We’re looking for volunteers for the program as well.
MR. MAC EWAN-With that being said, we need to do a SEQRA for this.
MR. VOLLARO-Before we get into the SEQRA, Craig, do we want to talk about a light in that
proposed parking area with the new seven spaces? Because in the motion, I’d just like to put that we
put one 20 foot high pressure sodium light, 250 watts, in here.
MR. MAC EWAN-You mean 20 foot.
MR. VOLLARO-Twenty foot high.
MRS. LA BOMBARD-You mean to light that new area, the new parking area, on the east side of the
building?
MR. VOLLARO-Yes.
MRS. LA BOMBARD-Okay.
MR. HOGAN-On the northeast side of the building, well, on the east side. I guess they’d have to
figure out where the best portion of it to go.
MR. MAC EWAN-All right. Is that fine with you?
MR. HOGAN-That’s fine with me.
MR. MAC EWAN-All right. Let’s do a SEQRA, please.
MRS. MOORE-You need to open your public hearing.
MR. MAC EWAN-You’re right. We have a public hearing scheduled tonight. Does anyone want to
comment on this application? I apologize. I got lost in Cathy’s discussion.
MRS. LA BOMBARD-I was just so excited when I heard about this.
PUBLIC HEARING OPENED
NO COMMENT
PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED
MR. MAC EWAN-Now let’s do the SEQRA, please.
RESOLUTION WHEN DETERMINATION OF NO SIGNIFICANCE IS MADE
RESOLUTION NO. 78-2000, Introduced by Catherine LaBombard who moved for its adoption,
seconded by Robert Vollaro:
WHEREAS, there is presently before the Planning Board an application for:
YMCA, and
WHEREAS, this Planning Board has determined that the proposed project and Planning Board
action is subject to review under the State Environmental Quality Review Act,
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT
RESOLVED:
1. No Federal agency appears to be involved.
2. The following agencies are involved:
NONE
3. The proposed action considered by this Board is Unlisted in the Department of
Environmental Conservation Regulations implementing the State Environmental Quality
Review Act and the regulations of the Town of Queensbury.
40
(Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 12/19/00)
4. An Environmental Assessment Form has been completed by the applicant.
5. Having considered and thoroughly analyzed the relevant areas of environmental concern and
having considered the criteria for determining whether a project has a significant
environmental impact as the same is set forth in Section 617.11 of the Official Compilation
of Codes, Rules and Regulations for the State of New York, this Board finds that the action
about to be undertaken by this Board will have no significant environmental effect and the
Chairman of the Planning Board is hereby authorized to execute and sign and file as may be
necessary a statement of non-significance or a negative declaration that may be required by
law.
Duly adopted this 19 day of December, 2000, by the following vote:
th
AYES: Mr. Vollaro, Mr. Ringer, Mr. Metivier, Mr. Strough, Mr. Hunsinger, Mrs. LaBombard,
Mr. MacEwan
NOES: NONE
MR. MAC EWAN-Would someone like to introduce a motion, please.
MOTION TO APPROVE SITE PLAN NO. 78-2000 YMCA, Introduced by Robert Vollaro
who moved for its adoption, seconded by Chris Hunsinger:
WHEREAS, the Town Planning Board is in receipt of Site Plan No. 78-2000 to convert existing
vacant storage to a Gymnastics, Dance and Youth Center. All uses in LI zones require Planning
Board review and approval. Tax Map No. 107-1-4.1, and;
WHEREAS, the application received 12/6/00 consists of the following:
1. Application materials as outlined in the Official File
WHEREAS, the above is supported with the following documentation:
1. 12/19/00 Staff Notes
12/18/00 C. Maze from R. Lockhart
12/18/00 Fax staff notes to agent, Daniel Hogan
12/15/00 C. Maze, YMCA from D. Hatin, Qu. Bldg. & Codes Director
12/12/00 Notice of Public Hearing
12/8/00 Meeting Notice
WHEREAS, public hearing was held on 12/19/00 concerning the above project; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Board has determined that the proposal complies with the Site Plan
requirements of the Code of the Town Queensbury (Zoning); and
WHEREAS, the Planning Board has considered the environmental factors found in the Code of the
Town of Queensbury (Zoning); and
WHEREAS, the requirements of the State Environmental Quality Review Act have been considered
and the Planning Board has adopted a SEQRA Negative Declaration; and/or if application is a
modification, the requirements of the State Environmental Quality Review Act have been
considered; and the proposed modification(s) do not result in any new or significantly different
environmental impacts, and, therefore, no further SEQRA review is necessary; and
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT
RESOLVED, that
The application is approved and is subject to the following conditions: approved in accordance
with the resolution prepared by Staff, with the following statements:
1. That building mounted light be installed to adequately illuminate the east
parking lot where the new seven parking spaces are being installed.
2. In addition, entering into the record, the letter of 12/18/00 to Mr. Chuck
Maze from Mr. Randall L. Lockhart, offering the fact that he would make
available spaces for approximately 30 cars.
Duly adopted this 19th day of December, 2000 by the following vote:
41
(Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 12/19/00)
AYES: Mr. Hunsinger, Mrs. LaBombard, Mr. Vollaro, Mr. Ringer, Mr. Metivier, Mr. Strough,
Mr. MacEwan
NOES: NONE
MR. MAC EWAN-You’re all set, gentlemen.
MR. HOGAN-Thank you very much.
MR. MAZE-Thank you very much.
MR. MAC EWAN-Two other items. This copy I got, I’m assuming I’m the only one who got it,
from The Michaels Group, referencing their dedication of 12 acres on Meadowbrook Road.
MRS. MOORE-It’s a dated letter, yes. You requested that information.
MR. MAC EWAN-Yes, that went to the Town Board. It had something to do with the Town
Board, that they thought that they had already received, the approval of their residential project
incorporated the commercial project, or something? I’m confused as to what this is all about.
MR. VOLLARO-So am I, now.
MRS. MOORE-I don’t, either.
MR. SCHACHNER-And you’ve stymied us as well.
MR. MAC EWAN-Don’t worry about it. Moving right along. Mr. Salvador, you promised 50 words
or less.
JOHN SALVADOR
MR. SALVADOR-Promises were made to be broken. Thank you. About a year and a half ago, you
may recall some members of this Board that we obtained an approval to site a handicapped and
emergency access facility at our waterfront. The site plan that was approved was conditioned on the
fact that we had to get all other agency approvals, which we’ve proceeded to do. Before we
accomplish that task, two of our neighbors filed an action in State Supreme Court to stop this
project. We were successful in Supreme Court. Around the end of the year, Judge Viscardi
dismissed their complaint. They filed a notice of appeal and let the appeal period run until the end of
October, at which time their privilege of filing an appeal had expired. We filed a motion with the
court to dismiss their appeal, and rather than answer that motion, they filed a notice with the court to
withdraw their appeal, and we’ve been notified of that in recent days. So, that’s where it stands.
They’re withdrawing their appeal, and we’re proceeding with trying to get the project finalized.
MR. VOLLARO-So our motion to approve is, your project still stands, without interruptions?
MR. SALVADOR-Yes. I just wanted to let you know.
MR. MAC EWAN-Thank you very much.
MRS. LA BOMBARD-Thank you, John.
MR. MAC EWAN-Have a nice holiday.
MR. SALVADOR-Thank you. Fifty words or less.
MR. MAC EWAN-Forty-eight, I counted.
MRS. LA BOMBARD-You were better than me tonight, John.
MR. MAC EWAN-This, did you want to discuss this?
MR. STROUGH-Yes. I thought you wanted to.
MR. MAC EWAN-When we did the subdivision for the Beaverkill Conservancy, John sent a copy of
this to everyone.
MR. VOLLARO-I have it.
42
(Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 12/19/00)
MRS. LA BOMBARD-Yes, talk to me about this.
MR. MAC EWAN-May I be blunt and to the point? It’s a lot more involved than I thought it would
be. I don’t think we need to go into that minute detail.
MR. STROUGH-Well, you told me that, and I’ve gotten opinions contrary to that. So we’ll just
share opinions and we’ll go from there.
MR. MAC EWAN-Okay.
MR. RINGER-Did Mark look it over?
MR. STROUGH-No, not yet. I just wanted to get a feel that that’s the direction that you guys
wanted to go in. Remember, I volunteered to do that. Remind me not to volunteer for these things.
You give me the general direction that you want to go in and I’ll give a copy to Mark, and he’ll, I’m
sure.
MR. RINGER-Well, I saw all the whereas’ and wherefore’s, and that’s why I thought Mark must
have looked at it.
MR. STROUGH-No, no. I didn’t know how to word the darn thing.
MR. SCHACHNER-I haven’t the faintest idea what we’re talking about, yet.
MRS. MOORE-At the Beaverkill Subdivision, the Board, instead of putting a condition in the
resolution, about these two items, John Strough volunteered to write a letter to the Board making
those conditions.
MR. MAC EWAN-If we did follow through on this, how do we put a resolution number on it?
MR. STROUGH-I don’t know. I just want to give this a start. I’ll draw up a draft.
MR. MAC EWAN-Looking it over again, I guess we’re okay with it. I was just thinking that, what
I’m thinking about is the entire paragraph referencing the concerns over the neighbors of a road by
use versus a public right of way, and a dedicated road.
MR. ROUND-Well, rather than try to use a resolution format, then if you want to pass a resolution
to forward a memo, you could do it in that.
MR. SCHACHNER-Or a letter.
MR. STROUGH-Well, in the memo, how would I?
MR. ROUND-Well, what are you trying to say?
MR. STROUGH-What I said.
MR. ROUND-That’s why I’m asking the question. What are you trying to say.
MR. SCHACHNER-Help me out here. What is this document? Who wrote this document?
MR. VOLLARO-John did.
MR. STROUGH-Guilty.
MR. SCHACHNER-Okay. Not an accusation, and this document, without me knowing its origin,
the way it reads is it’s a proposed resolution for the Queensbury Town Board.
MR. STROUGH-Right.
MR. SCHACHNER-Okay. So you want to submit this to the Town Board as a proposed resolution
for it to adopt?
MR. STROUGH-Kind of.
MR. SCHACHNER-Okay, and you want to do that as the Planning Board?
MR. STROUGH-Yes.
43
(Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 12/19/00)
MRS. LA BOMBARD-Can he do that?
MR. SCHACHNER-Not exactly. I mean, what would have to happen is you would have to get a
Town Board member to ask for the introduction of the resolution.
MR. STROUGH-Well, our first step is, is this the direction we wanted to go in. See, what I tried to
do is combine some thoughts, what the people were saying, and would echo what were their
concerns, what was Planning’s concern, Marilyn VanDyke’s concern, try and put everyone’s concern.
We’ve got the Highway Department in here and a turnaround concern. We’ve got several
departments that probably should work together on this in some kind of a format. I don’t know
what kind of format.
MR. SCHACHNER-So, is your goal to try to share those concerns with the Town Board as it
contemplates acceptance of the property.
MR. STROUGH-My goal is for the Town Board to say, yes, we agree with this concept. You three
departments should work together on this. Chris, you take it from here.
MR. SCHACHNER-When you say “we agree with this concept”, what’s the concept you’re referring
to?
MR. STROUGH-The concept is that the three Boards have to work together on some of the issues
that were presented in the whereas’.
MR. SCHACHNER-What three Boards?
MR. STROUGH-It’s identified in here, the Highway Department.
MR. SCHACHNER-Three Departments.
MR. STROUGH-Yes.
MR. SCHACHNER-Okay. You said three Boards. You threw me off there. There’s a difference.
MR. STROUGH-Okay. The Highway Department, the Planning Board, and the Rec Department.
MRS. LA BOMBARD-Okay.
MR. SCHACHNER-So I guess I would I guess echo Chris’ comments. If the Planning Board, first
we have to decide, does the Planning Board wish to encourage the Town Board to do this, or does
John want to do this on his own?
MR. MAC EWAN-Well, how this evolved, Mark, was that after we had done that, we, as a Board,
thought it would be important that the Town Board understand our thoughts behind the
preservation of this open space, inclusive of the historical aspects of that, and what kind of passive
recreation we thought would be most encouraged for that property.
MR. SCHACHNER-Okay. So I’m understanding you to say that you wanted the Town Board to
understand where you were coming from, both from the standpoint of what your motivation was
and what your goals were in your recommendation. Is that a fair statement?
MR. MAC EWAN-Yes.
MR. SCHACHNER-If that’s a fair statement, A., of course, the Town Board does receive your
minutes, but I assume you want to do something a little more direct then that, and I’m going to echo
Chris’ comment that it would seem to me the most appropriate thing to do is have somebody, it
doesn’t matter who, John or whomever, prepare either a letter or memorandum summarizing the
Planning Board recommendations, and then if you wish, as a group, by resolution, you can resolve
that the memorandum or letter, with your recommendations, be forwarded to the Town Board for
it’s consideration, as it contemplates acceptance of this property. Does that make any sense?
MR. MAC EWAN-Yes.
MR. ROUND-Yes, and our office could do that, as Staff, as a Planning Board, we can do that for
you for your signature.
MR. RINGER-Why can’t we just say take the word, where John says, a resolution, just say a
recommendation, and give it to the Town?
44
(Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 12/19/00)
MR. SCHACHNER-And then what do you do with the end of it, the last, the second page, all the
resolves?
MR. STROUGH-I’ll take out the resolves. I’ll take out the whereas’. I’ll just list the paragraphs, and
I’ll put memo on top.
MR. SCHACHNER-In other words, it’s a form over substance thing, right.
MR. RINGER-Just a recommendation and eliminate the therefores and Be It’s at the bottom.
MR. SCHACHNER-That’s fine. Then it would become exactly what we’re talking about.
MR. RINGER-Assuming John wants to do that.
MR. VOLLARO-I think Chris just volunteered to do that, take this and.
MR. ROUND-The Board can ask us, please draft a memo, outlining these particular points of fact,
and give it back to you guys, and you can say this meets our expectations.
MR. MAC EWAN-Let him take your thing and then draft a memo out of it.
MR. STROUGH-You want to do it. Do you want me to send you?
MR. MAC EWAN-He’s got it right there. He’s got a copy of it.
MR. STROUGH-Chris, do you want me to send you the file?
MR. ROUND-I can just mark this up.
MR. STROUGH-Okay.
MR. RINGER-Since John’s spent all this time, are you comfortable with that?
MR. VOLLARO-Sure.
MR. STROUGH-That sounds good to me. This was just to get things started anyway.
MR. MAC EWAN-Okay.
MR. VOLLARO-Next week is a pretty light, the next one that we do, and I was wondering if we
might be able to tack a workshop onto the tail of that, on the 26, which is our next meeting. It’s
th
very light. Would anybody have objections if we tacked a workshop onto that?
MR. MAC EWAN-Yes, I would, because I said I was going to set up a workshop in January,
specifically for what we’re going to discuss.
MR. VOLLARO-Okay.
MR. MAC EWAN-I’ll call you tomorrow and set up a date in January, the beginning of.
MR. VOLLARO-So you want to just leave that short?
MR. MAC EWAN-Yes. Okay. Is that it? I move we adjourn.
On motion meeting was adjourned.
RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED,
Craig MacEwan, Chairman
45