2008.07.22
(Queensbury Planning Board 07/22/08)
QUEENSBURY PLANNING BOARD MEETING
SECOND REGULAR MEETING
JULY 22, 2008
INDEX
Subdivision No. 13-2007 John Fedorowicz 1.
PRELIMINARY STAGE Tax Map No. 265-1-19.11
Site Plan No. 27-2008 Tom & Dusty Putnam 9.
Tax Map No. 239.15-1-7
Subdivision No. 11-2007 Larry Clute 15.
PRELIMINARY STAGE Tax Map No. 301.20-1-11, 28, 29
Site Plan No. 20-2008 Jeff Paulsen 32.
Tax Map No. 266.3-1-38
Site Plan No. 28-2008 Schermerhorn Commercial Holdings, L.P. 45.
Tax Map No. 309.13-1-73
THESE ARE NOT OFFICIALLY ADOPTED MINUTES AND ARE SUBJECT TO BOARD
AND STAFF REVISIONS. REVISIONS WILL APPEAR ON THE FOLLOWING
MONTHS MINUTES (IF ANY) AND WILL STATE SUCH APPROVAL OF SAID
MINUTES.
0
(Queensbury Planning Board 07/22/08)
QUEENSBURY PLANNING BOARD MEETING
SECOND REGULAR MEETING
JULY 22, 2008
7:00 P.M.
MEMBERS PRESENT
CHRIS HUNSINGER, CHAIRMAN
THOMAS SEGULJIC
THOMAS FORD
STEPHEN TRAVER
PAUL SCHONEWOLF, ALTERNATE
MEMBERS ABSENT
GRETCHEN STEFFAN
DONALD SIPP
LAND USE PLANNER-KEITH OBORNE
TOWN COUNSEL-MILLER, MANNIX, SCHACHNER, & HAFNER-MIKE HILL
STENOGRAPHER-MARIA GAGLIARDI
nd
MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. I’ll call to order the Tuesday, July 22 meeting of the Town of
Queensbury Planning Board.
OLD BUSINESS:
SUBDIVISION NO. 13-2007 PRELIMINARY STAGE SEQR TYPE UNLISTED JOHN
FEDOROWICZ AGENT(S) B P S R OWNER(S) JOHN & LAURA A. FEDOROWICZ
ZONING RR-3A LOCATION 1433 BAY ROAD APPLICANT PROPOSES
SUBDIVISION OF A 10.14 ACRE PARCEL INTO 2 RESIDENTIAL LOTS OF 3.7 AND
6.44 ACRES. SUBDIVISION OF LAND REQUIRES REVIEW AND APPROVAL BY THE
PLANNING BOARD. CROSS REFERENCE SUB 1-00 WARREN CO. PLANNING
N/A LOT SIZE 10.14 +/- ACRES TAX MAP NO. 265-1-19.11 SECTION A-183
JON LAPPER & KEVIN HASTINGS, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT
MR. HUNSINGER-Summarize Staff Notes, please.
MR. OBORNE-Absolutely. The applicant is John Fedorowicz. The requested action is
Preliminary plan review of a proposed two lot subdivision. The project description is
applicant proposes subdividing a 10.14 acre parcel into two lots of 3.7 and 6.44 acres.
Prior subdivision that created this parcel, Sub 1-2000, included the condition of no further
subdivision, and a quick additional comment is that approval of this proposal would
require the following five actions of the Board. Modification of the Sub 1-2000 approval
to remove the “no further subdivision” condition, approval of a SEQR negative
declaration, approval of the Stormwater Management application as per Chapter 147 of
Town Code, and approval of the preliminary subdivision application, and approval of the
final subdivision application.
MR. HUNSINGER-Thank you. Good evening. The floor is yours.
MR. LAPPER-Good evening. Thank you. For the record, Jon Lapper with John
Fedorowicz and project engineer Kevin Hastings. We had a pretty lengthy discussion
last time with Mike Hill and the Board about the standards for this, and I think where we
left it was that obviously we need to meet the standards for a new subdivision,
regardless of what the condition was, and our request for that condition can only be
granted if we meet the standards that would justify approving this two lot subdivision.
That’s been our goal all along, and with that in mind we made a submission of additional
information that the Board was looking for. There’s one thing I want to point out. In Staff
Notes there’s just one discrepancy. Item Three says the applicant, to address Staff
comments, waivers have been requested from the following submittal requirements, and
a couple of meetings back, you instructed us to withdraw those waiver requests, and we
made the submission of each of these items, changed the scale, extended the contours
100 feet off the site, added the adjacent property owner across Bay Road, showed where
the 25% or greater slopes are and the detailed measures to protect remaining trees. The
only thing that we weren’t able to submit was the location of septic fields on all adjacent
1
(Queensbury Planning Board 07/22/08)
properties because they were old and they were put in before the Town had plans for
that. So we weren’t able to get that information. It’s not available, but we pointed out in
our submission letter that we had a 200 foot separation distance from our property line.
So there wasn’t an issue in terms of being concerned about that, in terms of our well, and
on the Staff Notes, you have the APA non-jurisdiction letter, density calculation done,
correction to drawings done, the letters from Bay Ridge Rescue Squad and Volunteer
Fire you have, and so the only thing left then were the new engineering comments, most
of which were an acknowledgement that they were completed. There were a couple of
things that we were still talking about, and I’ll let Kevin address that.
MR. HASTINGS-Kevin Hastings, for the record. The three items that we see still
outstanding are Items Number One, Number Seven, Number Eleven. All three of them
are suggesting a note being added to the Site Plan or some further verbal clarification of
what the technical details should show. There’s nothing new that we see in this line of
comments for, you know, additional information or additional detail or any other
clarification other than a note. So as far as I can tell those will be addressed on the final
plat.
MR. LAPPER-Thanks, Kevin, and there’s one other thing that I want to put in the record.
John and Laura Fedorowicz recently found a copy of the original approval from their
th
predecessor from May 16 of 2000, and what we weren’t aware of, what’s interesting is
that in that subdivision, I’m sorry, in that lot where it was all the whole ten acre site with
one lot, the actual location of the house that was approved by the Planning Board at that
time is the same location of what we’re proposing now, rather than the house that they
built on the lower part, because we’ve been talking about accessibility. This is a flat area
that’s on top of the hill and we talked about the grading and the slope of the driveway to
make this a better project to get up to there, but what’s interesting, and I’ll just pass this
around, just because I wasn’t aware of this, that what was approved originally was
actually using this house site.
MR. FORD-Jon, what was the date of that approval?
MR. LAPPER-May of 2000. That was the approval that had that original condition about
no further subdivision.
MR. HUNSINGER-So why did they end up building the house in a different location?
JOHN FEDOROWICZ
MR. FEDOROWICZ-At the time I liked the spot at the bottom of the hill better, and we
totally believed we could subdivide the lot, because that’s what we were told by the
person we bought the.
MR. LAPPER-Meaning you weren’t aware of that condition.
MR. FEDOROWICZ-I wasn’t aware of the condition, and we were told we could
subdivide that lot when we bought it.
MR. LAPPER-Because there was enough acreage.
MR. FEDOROWICZ-Right. Because of the acreage and what we decided to put the
house down on the bottom, and it worked out.
MR. HUNSINGER-Anything else to add?
MR. LAPPER-Not at this time.
MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. I’ll open it up for questions, comments from members of the
Board.
MR. TRAVER-Well, my concern remains that we would be, in order to approve this, we
would be required to overrule the previous position taken by the Board and the applicant.
The illustration of the house being in the same position as it’s currently proposed I think
only strengthens the argument that we’re, we would be overriding a plan that has, or
subdivision request that’s previously been denied, and I have a bit of discomfort with
overruling a previous, essentially the same application.
2
(Queensbury Planning Board 07/22/08)
MR. LAPPER-Well, it’s our position that it’s a different application because we dealt with
all of these. We relocated the driveway and made the grade of the driveway less than
10%, close to 9%.
MR. HUNSINGER-Other comments, questions?
MR. SEGULJIC-Well, as you know, I, too, am very uncomfortable with lifting a no further
subdivision provision, and I realize you can engineer around anything, but there was an
agreement of a no further subdivision. I believe the applicant bought it knowing that, and
if he didn’t know that, he should have known that.
MR. LAPPER-He didn’t. It was on the record that he didn’t know it. He wasn’t, it was his
predecessor.
MR. SEGULJIC-Did you have an attorney involved in the purchase?
MR. FEDOROWICZ-I was told the person who sold me the lot, he told me it could be
taken off because he did not want to pursue it any further. If we wanted to pursue it, we
could. He had no problem with it.
MR. SEGULJIC-All right, but still, we have no further subdivision, which is one of the
tools this Board has used to protect open land, and when you look at our Open Space
Plan which was approved by the Town Board in 2003, it indicates that French Mountain
is recognized as an area of unique, it’s a unique scenic resource, and that care should
be taken in that area and should remain as such, and then when you look at the
Comprehensive Plan, it indicates we should limit growth and development on slopes. So
when I look at those three things all together, I am lead to believe that when people
looked at the plans, they thought that no further subdivisions were in place, and to have
someone come back in and get it overridden, I just am very uncomfortable.
MR. LAPPER-Well, the simple answer to that, Tom, is that the Zoning Code overrides
the Comp Plan, and the Comp Plan are just generalized goals, and the Zoning Code
says, in this zone, that you have to be three acres, and we’ve designed this lot so that
there are no variances whatsoever. This is completely a conforming lot. In fact, these
two lots far exceed the minimum lot size. This conforms in every respect. So it’s our
legal position, which I thought we went into great detail with Mike Hill at the last meeting,
that this lot completely conforms. I hate to do this because this has been going on for
the better part of a year, but I guess with only five members tonight, and I’m hearing that
two members just don’t like the idea of changing a condition, even though your lawyer
has advised you that you can’t just look at it, a changing condition, you have to look at
whether this complies, I’m going to ask that we table it tonight again so that there’s a full
Board for a vote because I’d rather not, you know, have no choice but to seek a judicial
remedy here. I’m hoping that we don’t have to do that. We believe that legally we
completely comply and that this, we’ve proven that this deserves to be granted. So at
this point I would ask to be tabled until next month.
MR. SEGULJIC-Counselor, could you chime in on that?
MR. HUNSINGER-Did you have a comment, Tom?
MR. SEGULJIC-Well, Number One, can they request a tabling tonight?
MR. HILL-Yes, they can do that.
MR. SEGULJIC-And, Number Two, I mean, the Comp Plan is the Comp Plan. The
Comp Plan has value in the Town.
MR. HILL-The Comp Plan is certainly important. The Comp Plan is realized, if you will,
through the enactment of the Zoning Regulations, which are to a greater level of
specificity. Those are what put the Comp Plan into effect if you will. That’s how the
Comp Plan is carried out, through the enactment of the Zoning Regulations.
MR. SEGULJIC-But the Comp Plan outlines the goals of the community.
MR. HILL-It does, and it’s important for the Zoning Regulations to be consistent with that.
The Zoning Regulations are how the Comp Plan is effectuated, how it actually goes into
effect in the form of rules and regulations that have to be complied with.
MR. SEGULJIC-Okay.
3
(Queensbury Planning Board 07/22/08)
MR. LAPPER-And we comply with those rules and regulations. That’s our legal point,
but I will ask for a tabling under the circumstances.
MR. HUNSINGER-Can I ask Counsel a question? It’s only happened maybe three
occasions that I’m aware of where, at the night of a meeting, the applicant has requested
to table an application, and I’m not clear in my own mind what our requirements are, in
recognizing that request.
MR. HILL-Generally speaking, where an applicant requests that a matter be tabled, our
recommendation as Counsel is that the applicant’s request be granted, and that the
Board table the matter for consideration at a future meeting.
MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. Any other final questions, comments from members of the
Board?
MR. SCHONEWOLF-Is there something for sale on that property right now?
MR. LAPPER-They would like to keep the lot that we’re subdividing and sell their existing
house. So there’s a For Sale sign on their existing house, but they don’t want to sign a
contract until the subdivision approval is granted so that they can retain this lot to build
on.
MR. SEGULJIC-So it sounds like we’re going to table the application.
MR. HUNSINGER-Yes.
MR. SEGULJIC-To when?
MR. TRAVER-And just one comment. The applicant has talked about the length of the
process that, you know, we’ve been discussing this, which certainly is true, and I have no
problem, I can certainly understand if the applicant feels they’d get, you know, they
would prefer to have this considered with a full Board present, but there was a comment
that this has been going on for so long, and I would just point out that at each stage, at
each time that this has been tabled, this Board has pointed out that submitting additional
information, tabling it, discussing it later, is no guarantee that this modification to remove
this no further subdivision would be granted. So, this is moving forward meeting after
meeting at the applicant’s request, at the insistence.
MR. LAPPER-I have no problem tabling it. We’d just like to, we’d rather take more time
and get it approved than have a quick denial. So we’re certainly happy. We’ve been
supplying all the information that the Board has wanted and the engineer’s wanted, and
that’s our goal.
MR. HUNSINGER-Okay.
MR. SEGULJIC-Any thoughts on when we’ll table it to?
MR. HUNSINGER-Well, that was what I was going to bring up next. I mean, I have seen
the draft agendas for August, and it is full, and typically when we table a project we table
it until, you know, for two months. That’s generally where there’s new information
required. There’s no new information required here. I think the other thought that I might
just put out there is the members that aren’t comfortable moving forward with the
proposal, if maybe they want to draft a resolution to pass along to Counsel, for Counsel
to review, so that we don’t, you know, end up in the same situation maybe at the next
month.
MR. SEGULJIC-Okay.
MR. HUNSINGER-That there be something concrete.
MR. SEGULJIC-Okay.
MR. HUNSINGER-If you want to put your thoughts and comments down on paper, Tom.
MR. TRAVER-Wouldn’t the resolution that we would need to review, we don’t need a
resolution to do nothing. We need a resolution to override what’s already been decided.
So wouldn’t that be the draft that we’d rather examine? I mean, do we need to make a
resolution not to do something that we’re not required to do? If somebody wants to
4
(Queensbury Planning Board 07/22/08)
propose that we should override the previous no subdivision conditions, I think I’d rather
have that point of view made available.
MR. HUNSINGER-I mean, typically the draft resolution that’s prepared by Staff is really
an approval resolution, and it’s geared as such. In order to not approve a project, and I’ll
allow Counsel to chime in if I go astray here, you need to provide reasons why. I mean,
just lacking the votes to approve something is not the same thing as denial.
MR. TRAVER-Right, but before we discuss whether or not we’re approving the particular
project, we have to discuss the no further subdivision removal. So I guess I would say
again, if that’s the first item to address, rather than the particular design of the project, if
we elect not to do that, then it would seem to me that the argument should be made why
we should overturn a decision that’s already been made, rather than why should an
argument be made that the decision that’s already been made should stand? I mean, we
have the minutes of those original decisions for review. So, if an argument is being
made that we should consider this, after having made this change, it seems to me that
that’s the argument that needs to be made, as to why we should overrule a decision.
MR. FORD-An interesting point that’s being made, and could we get Counsel to weigh in
on this, in terms of the protocol and the sequence?
MR. HILL-Well, you have a subdivision application pending before you, and you’ll be
making a decision one way or the other with regard to the application, and as part of your
determination, as part of your decision, you’ll be making a decision about whether or not
to lift the existing prohibition on further subdivision of the property, but as the Chairman
pointed out, a resolution here, the failure of a resolution to approve does not constitute a
denial and does not constitute a decision by the Board. The Board will be making a
decision one way or the other, either a decision to approve or a decision to deny. So,
with that in mind, I think the Chairman has suggested that Board members who are
interested in advancing or proposing a resolution I guess one way or the other may wish
to provide a draft for review by Counsel and for review by fellow Board members, I think.
Is that your suggestion?
MR. HUNSINGER-Yes, and I only picked on Tom and Steve because they already
provided comment.
MR. HILL-Tom, does that answer your, is that helpful, does that answer your question?
MR. FORD-It was helpful, but I’m trying to get more directly at Steve’s comment that we
really need to have a motion in effect to withdraw that previous condition.
MR. HILL-Well, the previous condition would have to be addressed, certainly, in a
resolution of approval, because if you approve the subdivision, the proposed subdivision,
then of course that condition would have to be lifted. So it would definitely have to be
addressed there, and a decision has to be made one way or the other, with regard to the
application in general, either a resolution to approve or a resolution to deny.
MR. TRAVER-I guess what I was seeking clarification on is that since this issue of no
further subdivision has been discussed at length, several times over the years of this
particular piece of property, and each time the decision has been made to maintain the
no further subdivision, and since that is the first action that this Board would take in order
to consider this amendment as to whether or not to lift that subdivision, then if there is a
position paper or a draft resolution to be examined by Counsel and by members of this
Board, wouldn’t it be more appropriate that the argument for review be the reasons why
such, no further subdivision should be lifted, rather than have someone have to say, well,
here’s the reason that I think the decision stands. I don’t know if I’m making myself clear.
MR. HILL-I think that you’re suggesting that it would be more appropriate to draft a
resolution of approval.
MR. TRAVER-Reasons why we should overrule the prior decision.
MR. HILL-Lift the prohibition against further subdivision.
MR. TRAVER-Correct. Right. I mean, certainly as someone, to elaborate further, as
someone, and I’ve heard other, at least one other member of the Board who has some
concern about that. I think it might be more helpful to have us review that argument,
rather than simply re-state the argument that’s successfully been made in the past and is
already on the record.
5
(Queensbury Planning Board 07/22/08)
MR. HILL-And I think I understand your position, and I guess I’ll leave it up to the
Chairman to provide whatever guidance you think is appropriate. If there are Board
members that feel, that have different opinions, it may be helpful to have drafts from
Board members reflecting those positions, but I certainly understand your point, yes.
MR. HUNSINGER-I guess my only thought on that, if I may chime in, is that I think the
applicant has put forward the argument for why the restriction should be lifted, and so I
think it’s incumbent upon us to say what parts of the argument that we don’t either agree
with or don’t support, and I think maybe if we look at it that way, that then it’ll kind of fall
out, you know, the comments that you’re addressing. That’s just my opinion, but maybe
that’s one way to think about it.
MR. HILL-That seems to be a very practical observation, yes.
MR. HUNSINGER-So I guess we’re left with.
MR. SEGULJIC-Excuse me. Don’t we have a public hearing?
MR. HUNSINGER-We do have a public hearing, yes.
MR. SEGULJIC-Okay.
MR. HUNSINGER-I will open the public hearing. Is there anyone in the audience that
wanted to address the Board on this application? We have prepared, and I think they’re
on the table, some comments for the public on the general conduct of public hearings.
The purpose of the public hearing is for members of the public to provide comment to the
Board. If you have a question or a specific comment, it should be addressed to the
Board. If it is a question of the applicant, we will see if we can get the answers for you
for the question, but the purpose of the public hearing is not to open a dialogue between
either the members of the public and the Board or members of the public and the
applicant. I do ask that when you come up that you state your name for the record. We
do tape the meetings. That’s really the main reason for the microphone is so that Staff
can complete the minutes of the meetings, and with that, sir, if you want to come up, and
if you could limit your comments to five minutes.
PUBLIC HEARING OPENED
PAUL DAVIDSON
MR. DAVIDSON-I only have one brief comment. My name is Paul Davidson. I live on
Pickle Hill Road. My comment is that the statement was made that the lot sizes would
be within the Zoning Regulations, and that if that’s true, that’s true, but when we do
PUD’s, when PUD’s are done, some lot sizes are allowed to be less than the Zoning
Regulations, and others are required to be larger. So, by changing these PUD’s, you’re
changing the rules all the time. So I just wanted to make that comment. Thank you.
MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. Thank you. Sir? Good evening.
CHRIS NAVITSKY
MR. NAVITSKY-Good evening. Chris Navitsky, Lake George Water Keeper.
MR. SCHONEWOLF-Sir, can we have your name and your address?
MR. NAVITSKY-Yes. I work for the Lake George Water Keeper and our office is in.
MR. SCHONEWOLF-I want your personal address.
MR. NAVITSKY-My personal address?
MR. SCHONEWOLF-Exactly.
MR. NAVITSKY-Where I reside?
MR. SCHONEWOLF-That’s right.
MR. NAVITSKY-7763 Lake Shore Drive, Silver Bay.
6
(Queensbury Planning Board 07/22/08)
MR. SCHONEWOLF-Thank you.
MR. NAVITSKY-And my office is located in Lake George.
MR. SCHONEWOLF-I know where your office is.
MR. NAVITSKY-Okay. We have concerns about the depth of the proposed stormwater
management facility which will be used for infiltration. The way we read the plans, that is
nine feet deep, and we were just wondering if soil investigations have been performed at
adequate depths regarding the infiltration capabilities. The second comment is
regarding the location of the stormwater management basin. It said up the road about
150 feet. We were just wondering if it could be located right near the entrance. There is
a level area down there that could be used and would not be a grading issue. We did
agree with some of the previous comments raised by VISION Engineering regarding the
clearing limits and cut and fill sections of the road. Our fourth comment is regarding the
construction equipment activity and their impacts on the soils. We feel that this activity
will result in eliminating the soil pores, reducing the infiltration rate and that the runoff
rates used may not be accurate to field conditions, and our last comment would be
regarding some of the delineation for the clearing limits, if possibly construction fence
could be put on as a condition, if approved, so that you know the limits of clearing, and
that the steep slopes and vegetation are protected. Thank you very much, and I’ve got
copies we can submit to the.
MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. Great. Thank you. Anyone else? Yes, sir. Good evening.
MICHAEL DE MARIO
MR. DE MARIO-Good evening. My name is Michael DeMario. I reside at 141
Boulderwood Drive. First of all, the audio here leaves a lot to be desired. The
gentlemen sitting here, I had no idea what they were talking about. I couldn’t hear it.
The letter that I received doesn’t mention anything here about subdivision of that
particular property. It says applicant proposes the development of vacant single family
residential lot in an existing subdivision. This project has been classified a Major
Stormwater project and, as such, Planning Board review is required. Now, from what I
hear here, they propose to subdivide that property. Is that correct?
MR. HUNSINGER-That’s correct.
MR. DE MARIO-How many parcels are they proposing?
MR. SEGULJIC-Excuse me. Just a clarification. Are you, this is Fedorowicz. There’s
another application you might be referring to.
MR. DE MARIO-Excuse me?
MR. SEGULJIC-Are you referring to Paulsen off of Pickle Hill Road?
MR. DE MARIO-Yes.
MR. SEGULJIC-All right. That’s coming up in who knows how long. We’re talking about
Fedorowicz, which is a.
nd
MR. DE MARIO-On Tuesday, July 22.
MR. FORD-Right.
MR. SEGULJIC-Yes.
MR. FORD-What is the name of the applicant in that letter?
MR. DE MARIO-Paulsen.
MR. HUNSINGER-Yes.
MR. FORD-This is Fedorowicz.
MR. HUNSINGER-This is Fedorowicz that we’re talking about right now. Paulsen will be
addressed later in the agenda.
7
(Queensbury Planning Board 07/22/08)
MR. DE MARIO-This evening?
MR. HUNSINGER-Yes.
MR. SEGULJIC-Fourth on the docket.
MR. HUNSINGER-It’s the fourth item on the agenda, sir.
MR. DE MARIO-All right. It said seven o’clock.
MR. HUNSINGER-Well, that’s when the meeting starts, yes.
MR. DE MARIO-Well, it would be kind of you to indicate that there was, you know, an A
and a B, so people could.
MR. HUNSINGER-There are agendas on the back table by the door.
MR. DE MARIO-Well, I’m going by the postal notice that I received.
MR. HUNSINGER-I understand.
MR. DE MARIO-And there are people here that are under the same impression.
MR. HUNSINGER-Okay.
MR. DE MARIO-So maybe you could re-vamp your.
MR. SEGULJIC-Excuse me, sir. Just a comment. Do we want to hear the comment,
since he’s here now?
MR. HUNSINGER-Well, I mean, his comment’s really about another application. Thank
you. Is there anyone else that wanted to address the Board on this application? Okay.
We will leave the public hearing open if you want to come back to the table. What’s the
will of the Board, in terms of a tabling resolution?
MR. SCHONEWOLF-I have no problem tabling it.
MR. SEGULJIC-Yes, the only question is until when?
MR. HUNSINGER-That’s the question.
MR. FORD-The meeting in September, perhaps?
MR. SCHONEWOLF-That sounds about right.
MR. TRAVER-Yes, that agenda is probably not full yet.
MR. HUNSINGER-No, it’s not.
MR. TRAVER-And they could certainly maybe be heard at the first meeting, the first
item.
MR. OBORNE-That’s not a problem whatsoever.
MR. SEGULJIC-And the date is, of that first meeting?
MR. HUNSINGER-Sixteenth.
MR. SEGULJIC-Sixteenth. So just a simple tabling.
MOTION TO TABLE SUBDIVISION NO. 13-2007 PRELIMINARY STAGE JOHN
FEDOROWICZ, Introduced by Thomas Seguljic who moved for its adoption, seconded
by Paul Schonewolf:
At the request of the applicant. We will table this application to our September 16, 2008
meeting.
8
(Queensbury Planning Board 07/22/08)
nd
Duly adopted this 22 day of July, 2008, by the following vote:
AYES: Mr. Schonewolf, Mr. Seguljic, Mr. Ford, Mr. Traver, Mr. Hunsinger
NOES: NONE
ABSENT: Mrs. Steffan, Mr. Sipp
MR. HUNSINGER-Thank you.
MR. LAPPER-We’ll be back.
SITE PLAN 27-2008 SEQR TYPE UNLISTED TOM & DUSTY PUTNAM AGENT(S)
DENNIS MAC ELROY OWNER(S) SAME ZONING WR-3A LOCATION 21 WILD
TURKEY LANE APPLICANT PROPOSES ADDITION OF 450 SQ. FT. OF LIVING
SPACE, NEW 2 CAR GARAGE & NEW WASTEWATER SYSTEM. PLANNING BOARD
REVIEW IS REQUIRED FOR ANY HARD SURFACING WITHIN 50 FEET OF A
SHORELINE AND FOR THE EXPANSION OF A NON-CONFORMING STRUCTURE IN
A CEA. ALSO, REVIEW IS REQUIRED AS THE PROJECT HAS BEEN CLASSIFIED
AS A MAJOR STORMWATER PROJECT. CROSS REFERENCE AV 36-08 WARREN
CO. PLANNING 6/11/08 APA/DEC/CEA APA, LAKE GEORGE CEA LOT SIZE 1.01
ACRES TAX MAP NO. 239.15-1-7 SECTION 179-9-030; CHAPTER 147B
DENNIS MAC ELROY, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT
MR. HUNSINGER-Whenever you’re ready.
MR. MAC ELROY-Thank you. I’m Dennis MacElroy.
MR. OBORNE-Hang on a second.
MR. HUNSINGER-I was going to hear Staff Notes first, I’m sorry.
MR. MAC ELROY-All right.
MR. OBORNE-Okay. Project Description, the applicant proposes to remove a 220
square foot screened porch and 450 square feet of asphalt. The applicant also proposes
to construct a 620 square foot garage, a 440 square foot addition and a 180 square foot
foyer/covered porch. Furthermore, a new wastewater system is proposed to be installed.
This project has been classified a Major Project per 147-8 by the Zoning Administrator.
Stormwater management and erosion controls are part of this project. The location is 21
Wild Turkey Wild Turkey Lane, and the requested action is the Planning Board is to do
Site Plan Review for a Major Stormwater Project and the expansion of a nonconforming
structure per 179-13-010 F.
MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. Thank you. Good evening.
MR. MAC ELROY-Thank you. I am Dennis MacElroy with Environmental Design
representing Tom and Dusty Putnam, the owners and applicants of this property. With
me, tonight, to my right, is Tom Putnam and Don Schermerhorn who is the project
manager for the Putnams. We were here briefly last month, looking and gaining a
recommendation for a variance for this parcel. We did receive that variance at the June
th
25 meeting of the ZBA. So tonight we’re proceeding with the Site Plan Review. As
Keith had indicated, it is subject to a Major Stormwater permit, and I guess that’s one of
the triggers that puts us here for Site Plan Review. It’s an existing lot. Along the Route
9L, there’s frontage along 9L. The property is served off of a private road referred to as
Wild Turkey Lane. It’s an existing Single Family Residence. The Putnams hope to make
some modifications to that property. Obviously, it’s not a tear down and re-build
situation. It’s the simple addition of some living space, and along with that comes a new
wastewater system, and stormwater management system. The addition involves, as
Keith had read, 440 feet of living space and about 180 feet of entry foyers, and a 620
foot garage. What we’ve provided here are just from the architect, some of the elevation
or dimensional portrayals of the addition to that property. The site work isn’t necessarily
totally accurate, but the depiction of the house certainly is, in terms of that. The structure
is a pre-existing, nonconforming lot based on setback. We’re in a WR-3A zone, requiring
a 75 foot setback. The existing setback of this house, which existed before zoning came
into place, is not 75 feet. So that automatically triggered this, the variance request,
which I had indicated we did receive. There is an addition to the westerly side of the
house and the addition of the garage. The wastewater systems that exist there are
9
(Queensbury Planning Board 07/22/08)
probably the original systems of this house. We didn’t ever find specific written
information about the systems, but we did get information from the owners where they
suspected disposal areas where septic tanks, there supposedly is one on either side, the
east side and the west side of the house. We will have those removed, abandoned, and
construct a new wastewater system, which goes a step beyond the normal requirements
by employing advanced treatment technology for that. We’ll be using a pure flow bio
filtration system which just increases the quality of the effluent that is being placed back
into the soils. So I think the Putnams decided that that was certainly the proper thing to
do, and it’ll cost them a few more dollars, but it’s certainly a way that can be done. It’s
technology that’s available on a residential level. So I think that they are leading the
way. There is one other system in Queensbury that uses that. I happened to be
involved with that a couple of years ago for an approval of this bio filtration. We’ve had
other systems in Fort Ann and Lake George approved using that as well, and then along
with that is stormwater management. We’ve provided a Major Stormwater Report as part
of the application materials, previously, there was a poorly defined stormwater
management. There’s an infiltration trench or a drip edge infiltration off the lakeside of
the house. That was about the extent of formal infiltration. Now we have done the
calculations, done the design that provides the management that meets the regulations,
satisfies the Town of Queensbury regulations, satisfy the Town of Queensbury
regulations. I’d make a point about that, that Tom had commented on at the last
meeting. There was a question in the stormwater report that you saw, something that
mentioned 40% of the.
MR. SEGULJIC-Correct.
MR. MAC ELROY-Or that 60% was being.
MR. SEGULJIC-Collected from the house if I recall.
MR. MAC ELROY-Right, and the reason that says that is I went back and re-read that.
That drip edge infiltration trench was a certain percentage of stormwater management
system, along with that system, means that there’s 100% coverage of the stormwater
management from all of the impervious areas, not just that new area that we’re creating.
MR. SEGULJIC-And in the existing areas.
MR. MAC ELROY-Correct.
MR. SEGULJIC-Because the Code says you have to go back and I think it’s the first half
inch I think it is.
MR. MAC ELROY-Correct. So we have certainly complied with that. I understand the
confusion of that sentence, but when I re-read it and checked with our stormwater fellow
in my office, that was, you know, the obvious explanation. So we have also received
comments from Dan Ryan. We’ve responded to those comments. I’m not sure that he
had the opportunity to get back to the Board or to Staff, but we did respond to those, and
my understanding is that he’s satisfied with the responses, but obviously he’ll have to
verify that.
MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. Anything else?
MR. MAC ELROY-I think that covers.
MR. HUNSINGER-My compliments to your architect. No, those are nice drawings. He
did a nice job.
MR. MAC ELROY-Dan Williams.
MR. HUNSINGER-When you said you responded to engineering comments, do you
thth
mean the comments from the June 20 letter or the July 18 letter?
th
MR. MAC ELROY-June 20 was Staff comments.
th
MR. HUNSINGER-No, we had engineering comments from June 20, and then the most
th
recent were July 18.
th
MR. MAC ELROY-July 18 regarding Putnam?
MR. HUNSINGER-No, I’m sorry.
10
(Queensbury Planning Board 07/22/08)
MR. MAC ELROY-That’s regarding Paulsen.
MR. HUNSINGER-Actually it was even a different one.
th
MR. MAC ELROY-Right. There’s a July 18 on Paulsen which also I’m involved in, but,
th
right it was Dan’s original comment letter. Yes, June 20.
MR. HUNSINGER-Okay.
MR. MAC ELROY-So I responded to that obviously in the timeframe. We didn’t hit a
submittal date, but I provided copies to Craig and to Dan.
MR. HUNSINGER-Well, I mean, because we do have a letter from yourself, dated July
thth
17. That’s really what I wanted to get to. We do have your July 17 letter.
MR. MAC ELROY-Good. Thank you.
MR. SEGULJIC-Excuse me, and this could be a problem on my end, but did you submit
new plans?
MR. MAC ELROY-No.
MR. SEGULJIC-You did not. Okay.
MR. MAC ELROY-When we were.
MR. SEGULJIC-Just a clarification, because in my disorganization, I thought you did,
and I lost them and I wasn’t quite sure, got here. Okay. So you haven’t been able to
incorporate some of the changes, then, on the plans?
MR. MAC ELROY-Well, they’re on this set of plans, but you don’t have them, just
because of the timing of submittals, but Dan has them. Craig has them. I understand
the order of things with your submittal dates.
MR. SEGULJIC-All right.
MR. MAC ELROY-So they have been incorporated into the plans. You haven’t had an
opportunity to see them.
MR. SEGULJIC-All right.
MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. Questions, comments from the Board?
MR. FORD-We’re going to re-open the public hearing?
MR. HUNSINGER-We will.
MR. FORD-I’d like to hear from the public before, I’ve got some issues I want to discuss,
but I’d like to hear what the public has to say.
MR. SEGULJIC-I think overall what you’re trying to do is good. We’ve just got to see the
plans.
MR. HUNSINGER-Anything else? Okay. We do have a public hearing scheduled. Is
there anyone in the audience that wanted to address the Board on this application? We
do have one taker.
PUBLIC HEARING OPEN
PAUL DAVIDSON
MR. DAVIDSON-Paul Davidson again. Just a quick question. This says it’s a previously
existing nonconforming use. Is that correct?
MR. HUNSINGER-That’s correct.
MR. DAVIDSON-So does that require Zoning Board approval also?
11
(Queensbury Planning Board 07/22/08)
MR. HUNSINGER-They already went to the Zoning Board.
MR. DAVIDSON-Okay. So this is the next step?
MR. HUNSINGER-Right. This is the next step.
MR. DAVIDSON-Okay. Thank you.
MR. HUNSINGER-You’re welcome. Anyone else?
CHRIS NAVITSKY
MR. NAVITSKY-Chris Navitsky, Lake George Water Keeper. We have one general
comment, and we would actually like to support the applicant for their use of the
advanced treatment system. We feel that that is a way that a lot of new applications
should come across, especially within the shoreline district. So they’re going above and
beyond what they would need to do, and we just think that that’s a good example. So
we’d like to voice support for that. Thanks.
MR. HUNSINGER-Thank you. Anyone else?
MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. If you want to come back to the table, we will leave the public
hearing open, but we will stop taking comments this evening. I just had a quick question
on the bio filtration system. How does that, does that work during the winter months as
well?
MR. MAC ELROY-Yes. In fact, you know, I have data, case study data and what not,
from Minnesota, Duluth area actually. The manufacturers of the system have had them
in place there and tested, so that that demonstrates that it works effectively through not
only all seasons, but even seasonally in intermittent use. That’s a big issue when it
comes to lakeside properties that aren’t used continuously, whether it’s weekend use or
even periods of time, long periods of time, months that the microbes that go to sleep,
basically. It’s a function of how quickly do they respond to new feeding. So that’s an
important issue with the design of that, and not to criticize any other technology, but
aerobic treatment units are a system that are often used. That’s one that doesn’t
respond as well to a shut down and start up operation. So that’s one of the reasons I’ve
used and designed the systems for this type of use around Lake George is because they
do respond better to intermittent, seasonal type use.
MR. HUNSINGER-Other questions or comments from members of the Board?
MR. FORD-Yes. With safety being a major concern, and as a hot air balloon pilot, when
I see the word propane, liquid propane gas, it always causes me to focus my attention.
Can you point out where the tank is on the east side, and approximate how close there
might be any equipment that might be backing into that or what provisions are being
made to provide safe access around that without coming in contact with it.
MR. MAC ELROY-Okay. Well, first of all, the tank is on the neighboring property. It’s not
the Putnam’s tank.
DON SCHERMERHORN
MR. SCHERMERHORN-It’s Mr. Kasselman’s tank, and he’s actually moving it, and the
people were there today to move the tank 25 feet from the lot line. I don’t know exactly
where on his property he’s moving it.
MR. FORD-But it’ll be 25 feet further removed from the current location and the
construction site.
MR. SCHERMERHORN-Right.
MR. FORD-Thank you.
MR. SCHONEWOLF-Is it underground? Is that an underground tank?
MR. MAC ELROY-Is it an underground?
MR. SCHERMERHORN-Surface.
12
(Queensbury Planning Board 07/22/08)
MR. SCHONEWOLF-Surface.
MR. SEGULJIC-So it looks like we’re going to table this?
MR. HUNSINGER-Well, I really haven’t heard what the wishes of the Board are yet.
MR. SEGULJIC-Well, we haven’t seen the plans. You’ve revised the plans, correct?
MR. MAC ELROY-I’ve responded to Dan’s comments, and again, I can’t speak for him,
but to his satisfaction, and we would be hopeful that if everything else was in order that
we could move forward with a possible approval, but obviously it’s to the comfort of the
Board.
MR. SEGULJIC-And I can understand that, but my concern is we’re approving
something we haven’t seen.
MR. MAC ELROY-Yes, there’ve been slight revisions to it in response to Dan’s
comments. I won’t characterize them as being overly significant, but yes. They have
been revised slightly.
MR. SEGULJIC-And that’s where I get hung up. I don’t see how we can.
MR. FORD-We really usually like to approve something that we’ve looked at.
MR. MAC ELROY-Again, based on your submittal deadlines, and what not, is it possible
to be back before the Board in August? I’ve heard what you said on the first agenda
item. So I don’t know if that’s possible, but I think that Dan is comfortable with the
revisions. I can’t speak for Dan, but I’m trying to. It would be our hopes to be able to
move forward as quick as possible, to be able to.
MR. SEGULJIC-Excuse me, have you submitted those plans to Staff?
MR. MAC ELROY-Craig has a copy of them.
MR. OBORNE-I have done Site Plan Review on them, yes.
MR. SEGULJIC-Okay.
MR. OBORNE-Site Plan Review is on the Staff Notes.
MR. HUNSINGER-Yes. Okay.
MR. TRAVER-And VISION Engineering has seen the updated plans and their responses
to his original?
MR. OBORNE-VISION Engineering has seen the original plans that had to do with the
ZBA and the infiltration device, and it was an inclusive comment on the proposed
development or action.
MR. SEGULJIC-I mean, if it’s as is portrayed, and I have no reason to think otherwise, it
should be pretty quick. I think we can put them on in August.
MR. HUNSINGER-Yes. Well.
MR. SEGULJIC-I mean, they’ve already submitted the plan. Right.
MR. HUNSINGER-So it’s not a new submittal, but they didn’t submit the required copies
th
by the 15. That’s the issue. I guess my read of the VISION Engineering comments,
most of the changes, and please correct me if I’m going astray, are just labels on the Site
Plan. Has the Site Plan itself changed?
MR. MAC ELROY-No.
MR. HUNSINGER-I mean, certainly the proposal itself has not changed. The addition
and the garage.
MR. SEGULJIC-Excuse me. The Site Plan should have changed, because I remember
on the, it would be the east side of the house, you had just indicated, you know, a swale,
13
(Queensbury Planning Board 07/22/08)
and I had asked for more details on what that was going to be. Then also we had talked
about.
MR. MAC ELROY-Yes, and there’s more details on there. So, I guess it depends on
what you characterize as being.
MR. SEGULJIC-And then there was the issue of the sidewalk, because as the Code
states, everything existing has to have a half inch first flush half inch.
MR. MAC ELROY-Correct, yes, and we’ve added some infiltration area for that.
MR. SEGULJIC-Right. So, I mean, we haven’t seen this at all.
MR. HUNSINGER-Okay.
MR. SEGULJIC-I mean, I feel your pain.
MR. TRAVER-Yes, and that puts us in a bit of a, sort of a Catch 22, because the plans
effectively have not been changed, but rather the comments that have been added to the
plan, we need to see them, which should be a relatively quick process, but on the other
hand, if the revision raises question and there needs to be more discussion, then that’s
going to affect where they are in terms of the agenda.
MR. HUNSINGER-Sure, yes. How quickly can you submit the?
MR. MAC ELROY-Tomorrow.
MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. I’d give you more time than that, but, yes.
MR. MAC ELROY-I mean, the changes have been made. It’s just that, yes, it’s a matter
of providing the 15 copies to your office.
MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. Well, what’s the will of the Board? Do you want to do it in
August?
MR. FORD-Let’s add it to August.
MR. HUNSINGER-Okay.
MR. SEGULJIC-I would just clarify, based on the fact that they’ve already submitted a
copy of the plan.
MR. MAC ELROY-We appreciate that.
MR. HUNSINGER-Sure. Well, we need a tabling resolution.
MR. SEGULJIC-Well, what’s the date?
MR. OBORNE-The first meeting would be fine, in August.
MR. SEGULJIC-And that would be?
th
MR. HUNSINGER-It is August 19.
MOTION TO TABLE SITE PLAN NO. 27-2008 TOM & DUSTY PUTNAM, Introduced by
Thomas Seguljic who moved for its adoption, seconded by Thomas Ford:
To the Planning Board for its August 19, 2008 meeting, so the applicant can submit the
required number of copies to the Planning Department of the revisions, by July 24th.
nd
Duly adopted this 22 day of July, 2008, by the following vote:
AYES: Mr. Ford, Mr. Seguljic, Mr. Traver, Mr. Hunsinger
NOES: Mr. Schonewolf
ABSENT: Mrs. Steffan, Mr. Sipp
MR. MAC ELROY-Thank you very much.
14
(Queensbury Planning Board 07/22/08)
MR. SCHERMERHORN-Thank you very much.
th
MR. HUNSINGER-If the required copies aren’t in by the close of business on the 24,
though, you will get put back in the queue.
MR. MAC ELROY-Understood.
MR. HUNSINGER-That’s the day that we set the Final agenda.
MR. MAC ELROY-Thank you.
MR. HUNSINGER-You’re welcome.
NEW BUSINESS:
SUBDIVISION NO. 11-2007 PRELIMINARY STAGE SEQR TYPE I LARRY CLUTE
AGENT(S) NACE ENGINEERING OWNER(S) SAME ZONING SR-20 LOCATION
BETWEEN GENEVA DR. & HOWARD ST. APPLICANT PROPOSES SUBDIVISION
OF A 7.81 +/- ACRES INTO 18 RESIDENTIAL LOTS RANGING IN SIZE FROM 0.34 TO
0.54 +/- ACRES. SUBDIVISION OF LAND REQUIRES PLANNING BOARD REVIEW
AND APPROVAL. AREA VARIANCE 52-2007 REFERRED TO P B FOR
RECOMMENDATIONS RELATIVE TO TRAFFIC IMPACT; LOT SIZES; DENSITY VS.
THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN; STORMWATER; DEVELOPMENT OF OPEN SPACE,
WHETHER IT WOULD BE POSITIVE OR NEGATIVE; 175 FEET CENTERLINE VS. 300
FEET CURVE. PLANNING BOARD WILL ACKNOWLEDGE LEAD AGENCY STATUS;
COMMENCE SEQR REVIEW AND UPON COMPLETION FORWARD THEIR
RECOMMENDATIONS TO ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS. CROSS REFERENCE:
AV 52-07 WARREN CO. PLANNING N/A APA/DEC/CEA/NYS DOH NYS DOH LOT
SIZE 7.81 +/- ACRES TAX MAP NO. 301.20-1-11, 28, 29 SECTION A-183
JON LAPPER & TOM CENTER, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT
MR. HUNSINGER-Whenever you’re ready, Keith, summarize Staff Notes.
MR. OBORNE-One second, please. Application 13-2007, Preliminary Subdivision,
applicant’s Larry Clute, requested action, the applicant proposes the subdivision of 7.81
acres into 18 residential lots. Planning Board review and approval required for the
subdivision of land. Note: The Planning Board may acknowledge Lead Agency Status,
commence SEQR review and forward their recommendations to the Zoning Board of
Appeals.
MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. Thank you. The floor is yours, gentlemen. Whenever you’re
ready.
MR. LAPPER-Hi. For the record, Jon Lapper with the applicant, Larry Clute, and Tom
Center the project engineer. Procedurally, it’s a Type I action because it’s a DOH
subdivision. So you have to make a SEQRA determination before it can go to the Zoning
Board. We’re seeking a subdivision and an Area Variance to increase density, as was
stated, from 14 to 18 lots, and we want to discuss the justification for that variance, for
why Larry feels he needs those four additional lots and why he wants to have smaller
lots, and we’ve been to the Zoning Board. They asked this Board to comment, make
recommendation before the variance is heard. So if we get through SEQRA tonight and
have a recommendation, we would be at the Zoning Board tomorrow night and if there
are issues that require this to be tabled then we’ll postpone tomorrow night and we’ll
come back to the Zoning Board after we’re at that stage with the Planning Board. In
general, as was stated when we were here previously and at the Zoning Board, and a lot
of the neighbors have previously shown up to support this. This is an area, it’s
somewhat of a no man’s land in the back, in between Queen Victoria’s Grant and the
Geneva Estates subdivision that Larry previously did and the existing grid streets in this
area, and unfortunately, because this is an accessible area with the streets and vacant,
it’s been the scene of teenage parties with bonfires and beer parties, four wheel vehicles,
and the neighbors have been very unhappy with it staying the way it is. So Larry is
proposing to connect the two roads. The Staff Notes that we just got asked what does
the Town Highway Department say about this, and Tom spoke with the Highway
Department today, and they were very supportive, but of course, you know, we just got
those notes. There’s nothing in the record that says that, and if you want us to get
something in the record, we can certainly do that. We don’t have anything in writing, yet,
but we did go run it by the Highway Department in response to that note. So that’s
15
(Queensbury Planning Board 07/22/08)
generally what we’re doing. In terms of the lot size, the lot size was changed. When
Geneva Estates was proposed, was approved, it was 15,000 square feet. What Larry
wants to do is just continue, in terms of the character of the neighborhood, the same size
lots that are there, although it doesn’t meet the zoning because the zoning changed, but
in order to build the houses, you know, what is appropriate for this neighborhood, it’s a
very mixed neighborhood. There are some very nice houses and there are some
properties that need to be upgraded. Larry feels the market is about 150 to 175,000
house, and that’s why he needs the 15,000 square foot lot to justify the cost of the road
and the improvements, and also to price the houses so that they’ll be similar to what’s in
the neighborhood. At this point, we should probably go through the Staff Notes and the
engineering notes and then take questions from the Board. The VISION letter from July
th
18.
th
MR. CENTER-To go through the VISION Engineering letter of July 18, the first four
comments from Sketch Plan were all completed or referred to the new comments. So I’ll
just start with Comment Number Five, in regards to the additional site testing for the
septic systems. What we’ve done is added a note to the septic system detail sheet to
require percolation tests be performed in the final location of the absorption systems
prior to installation of the systems. A lot of times we show what we feel is the most
appropriate location. When the homeowner gets there, moves the house, sometimes the
septic system does move. This way we’ll be doing the percolation test, and it says the
engineer will perform the installation test prior to installation of the septic system. We’ve
done perc tests out there. They’ve all been just over a minute. It is well drained sands.
I’ve also added a detail for modified soil. So in this case if we do get into a more well
drained sand that’s less than a minute, we have details on there to have the system
designed as a modified soil. So that’s what we’ve done to meet Comment Number Five.
In regards to Comment Number Six, addresses some questions about pre-treatment for
the infiltration systems. In the Town of Queensbury, and I’ve talked to Dan about both of
these, or Mr. Nace has talked to Dan Ryan about both of these comments, this one and
Number Seven. Town of Queensbury has a maintenance procedure. They prefer
having the drywells in the roadway so there’s not an additional structure. So pre-
treatment isn’t a requirement. DEC has accepted the Town’s maintenance of drywells,
some standard procedures that we do in here, in the Town of Queensbury. So both of
those comments will be addressed with the engineer. We’ve talked to him about both of
them. Number Seven, to go a little further, we also talked to Dan about how we
calculated. We actually use the side of the drywell for infiltration and ignore the bottom,
in case of future clogging. So that way there’s an additional conservative factor of safety
by not using the bottom in the calculations, and Number Eight, I will add additional notes
for the maintenance procedures. Again, the drywells will be turned over to the Town,
maintained by the Town Highway Department, and they all meet Town standards on
previously approved subdivisions. So the four comments that we do have are relatively
minor. We feel that we can address all those with Dan without any issue.
MR. HUNSINGER-Anything else?
MR. LAPPER-Not at this point.
MR. HUNSINGER-Questions, comments from the Board?
MR. FORD-I would like further elaboration, because I’m very concerned about the
density being proposed, and if you could go into a little greater detail of the rationale for
that, please.
LARRY CLUTE.
MR. CLUTE-This neighborhood has been essentially an ongoing project of mine. I live in
that neighborhood, and I’ve been at it for about 15 years, and so it’s been an ongoing
process to take this neighborhood and bring it to the modest condition it’s in, but still for
Queensbury it is modest. I can only get a certain level of retail dollars and cents for that
neighborhood, but progressively over the 15 years I’ve brought the neighborhood to the
condition it’s in. The balance that we’re here in front of the Board for is really the last
piece of the puzzle, and in order to maintain that $150 to $175,000 range, I need the best
density that I can get in order to do that. Queensbury has been very helpful with me
throughout this 15 years, because I have had help. I mean, I‘ve needed the assistance
and the understanding, and again, this is really no different. The neighborhood is what it
is, and it’s very difficult to market that neighborhood. It’s getting easier because of the
development that I’ve done over the timeframes, but again, in order to meet those price
scales in today’s market, density is everything. I mean, just the footage of the road, it’s
extremely expensive, and then the retail being as low as it is, it comes down to budgeting
16
(Queensbury Planning Board 07/22/08)
essentially, to be able to pull off the project and the numbers that I need to bring it in at
and actually being able to sell these homes, that’s pretty much the gist of it I guess.
MR. FORD-And how many homes in that immediate area have been selling in that price
range?
MR. CLUTE-I’ve done very well. I started, like I said, going 15 years back, we started
down in $69,000. I sold, initially, for $69,900. Those basic homes have already turned
over for $189,000, and so we’re progressively moving into more average retail pricing of
Queensbury, rather than being held to the lower numbers. Hence it’s been bringing the
neighborhood’s value up.
MR. FORD-So since January of ’08, can you approximate the number of homes that
have sold?
MR. CLUTE-January of ’08 to today there’s been no sales. We’ve had no re-sales. This
neighborhood is terrific. I mean, it’s come a long way. It’s a family neighborhood.
People are buying in, and there’s actually very little resale in there, but Eisenhower
Avenue was a split level. It sold for $189,000 and I want to say that was the end of ’07.
Actually, no. Cathy Mahar’s unit just sold on Eisenhower Avenue, and hers was
$179,000. That would have been last month. So that’s where they are, but you’re very
restricted, because some of the homes are not of the best condition. So obviously trying
to sell a new home right in the general area it makes it more difficult. So you have a lot
of things to overcome, as a builder, as a real estate agent, to try and create these sales.
MR. FORD-What was the size of the lot that sold last month for $179,000?
MR. CLUTE-I don’t know, off the top of my head. I apologize. I mean, they range. I
mean, the neighborhood.
MR. FORD-How would it compare with the size that you’re proposing?
MR. CLUTE-They’re all fairly comparable, yes, about 15,000. They’re all fairly
comparable. Some of them are actually smaller than that. As a matter of fact, I’ve been
in front of the Board to be able to split these or to go for a variance again, which we have
to do here in order to accommodate it, but again, I’ve had terrific understanding for that
particular neighborhood for the intent, and the history of the neighborhood really speaks
for itself, as we’ve progressed.
MR. LAPPER-We have the tax map. We could specifically show, you know, what the
size of the lots are. Tom could go through that, if you want.
MR. CLUTE-Yes, but Geneva Estates would have been my most recent, I mean, there’s,
I progressively, I might get a lot, and I bring, I just did it on Howard Street actually. On
Howard Street, we sold the last two units on Howard Street at the end of last year, and
they are 15,000 square foot. They would have been 43 Howard Street and 39 Howard
Street. Thirty-nine Howard Street sold for $169,900. Forty-three sold, I want to say
$144,900. So I mean, I’ve got the, and I still have two new units that are there. I’ve got
two units speculation that are sitting there empty now, and the sales have kind of
stagnated but it’s not really just the neighborhood. It’s the nature of real estate right now
in general, but I think the benefit, the proof of the pudding is showing that you’re
continuing to improve the neighborhood, will increase the interest and Queensbury
affordable, it’s just a need. There’s not a lot of Queensbury affordable, and in order to do
that it does come really down to straight mathematics. The more lots, the lesser I can
produce on the price tag. We did decrease it. When we first came on in, I want to say
that we were at 21 or 22, and so we took this same comment that we’re having, the
discussion that we’re having now came into play, so we went back and compromised
yet, you know, decreased the intensity at that point, and so that’s how we came down to
the 18.
MR. LAPPER-It was 20. It started at 20. I’ve got the Staff Notes from August of ’07.
MR. SEGULJIC-So the lots to the south of this proposed project are in the 15,000 square
foot range?
MR. LAPPER-The lots to the west, the cul de sac, are 15,000. The lots to the east are a
lot smaller, right over there, smaller than 15,000, and the ones just to the south, some of
them are 15 and some look a little bit larger. Coming down Howard they’re pretty small.
If you look at the cover sheet, you can get a pretty good sense.
17
(Queensbury Planning Board 07/22/08)
MR. CENTER-S-1 on the cover sheet.
MR. SEGULJIC-You’re saying this cover sheet?
MR. CENTER-Yes. That shows.
MR. SEGULJIC-Right, but I can’t see the size of the lots.
MR. CENTER-If you turn to the one on the corner, where Geneva Drive, right above the
Lot Number 10.
MR. CLUTE-I can tell now what the dimensions are by seeing the map. Cathy Mahar’s
unit was right here, and I want to say that she was roughly 100 and a half by 200 deep.
So she’s a little larger than the 20,000 square foot. This no longer exists. This was a
trailer that I split into two. The lines are accurate but the overview isn’t. That building
isn’t there. So there’s two new houses here. The tri-level that I told you just sold
recently is right there. The area that we’re talking about, that we’re trying to conform to,
you come from Geneva Estates, and these are definitely 15,000 square foot, but our
issue is coming on over to here, and these range dramatically. You can see the small
lots. I took these three lots and have already split that, but even these lots are added
together and split are smaller than the 15,000. So you’ve got a wide range here. Some
of them are one acre. This is a one acre lot. That’s a one acre lot, but the majority, I
mean, the average is going to be that 15,000 square because you start extremely small.
You do have some larger parcels moving down into Dawn Road. There’s some one acre
parcels there as well, but on the whole, they’re about 15,000 square.
MR. FORD-Larry, when you refer to three lots that you split, how did you split them?
MR. CLUTE-I didn’t split them. I did that administratively.
MR. FORD-I’m sorry. Maybe I misunderstood.
MR. CLUTE-I added the three. Instead of having three individual lots, I took the three
and reduced them down to two, and I did that via, Craig Brown was able to do that with a
lot line adjustment.
MR. FORD-I just needed that clarification. Thank you.
MR. CLUTE-Yes. I’m sorry, and I’ve done that, the map doesn’t show it, but I’ve done, I
want to say I’ve done a total of about nine on Howard Street, all of them took some
creativity, either lot line adjustment, particular design of house to meet setbacks. So I’d
kind of work with what I’m given. These lots, obviously, are already created. I can’t go in
and do subdivision. These ones we’re trying to create, and I know what I can do on
15,000. These ones here I just kind of do what I’ve got to do in order to continue to
develop that particular neighborhood.
MR. FORD-What would be the price point, instead of $150 to $175,000, if we were to
approve 14 lots instead of 18?
MR. CLUTE-You’ll end up jump into the $200,000, and there’s no way that these will
retail out at $200,000. You’re going to range, your average value, when I first started this
15 years ago, your average neighborhood value, and that starts all the way here to over
here, was roughly $45,000. Right now your average retail value is somewhere between
$160 and $170,000 assessed. I mean, that’s how much we’ve changed this particular
neighborhood, but we still have units that are $40,000 in value. There’s no way I can ask
somebody to drive through this, with a $40,000 unit, and ask them to pick up a $200,000
unit here, but I can ask them to stay with these modest priced homes which are
$150,000 to $175,000, because now I’m asking them to just carry through with the
overall game plan of the neighborhood. It would be too much of a dramatic jump, my
opinion, for whatever that might be worth.
MR. LAPPER-And I guess our argument is that there’s a community benefit to continuing
that road and cleaning up that neighborhood, and if we need to get documentation from
the Highway Department, we’re happy to do that, that they agree with that.
MR. CLUTE-During the last meeting, John had stated that there was favorable comment
for this subdivision. In reality it was negative comment. Most of the neighborhoods, you
have Heresford and Lancestire on one side. You have Queen Victoria’s Grant on the
18
(Queensbury Planning Board 07/22/08)
back side, and then you have Geneva Estates. All three clusters were against it, but
their negative comments were for it. So everything they found against it was actually in
favor of it.
MR. FORD-I’m confused.
MR. CLUTE-It’s rather odd. They were misinformed. Two neighbors, the
Lancestire/Heresford area, and the Geneva Estates were under the impression that we
were doing low income housing, essentially Henry Hudson type of density. That’s not
the case at all. We just we’re doing affordable housing, which is in line with what
Geneva is.
MR. LAPPER-But we had somebody from Queen Victoria’s Grant.
MR. CLUTE-Yes. Queen Victoria’s Grant is unhappy with the usage of the property as it
is which is, there’s some old trails that have been here forever. Queensbury, as a whole,
with snowmobile trailers, motorcycle trails. As you can see, there’s a racetrack that’s still
in existence. It’s been there for years, and part of the trail system literally goes through
the forever green of Queen Victoria’s Grant. They’re negative is the ongoing use that is
now in place. That negative could be overcome, new housing. Otherwise it just sits
there and it gets used, but not necessarily in the way that people would like to see it
used. So Geneva Estates, after that meeting last time, they’re very much for it, because
they’re very family oriented over there. It’s young couples, kids, and so with the privacy
it’s not a huge subdivision with a lot of traffic. It would be just simply a continuation of
that with the younger families nowadays, again, it comes down to that price constraint. A
lot of these younger families can’t get into that two area. The $150,000 to $175,000 is a
strong, affordable market for the Queensbury area, but it’s very hard to produce in the
Queensbury area. There’s not a lot of property that’s affordable in Queensbury. This
happens to be a little piece of it.
MR. HUNSINGER-Other questions or comments from the Board?
MR. FORD-Will you have both two and three bedroom homes?
MR. CLUTE-Yes, that’s it, two and three bedrooms. I mean, we do the simple side hall
Colonial which is a three bedroom bath and a half. That’s an affordable product. I have
numerous two bedroom plans which are definitely affordable, and then, you know, your
standard ranchers, three bedroom, one baths. Essentially Lupine, Arbutus, Wintergreen,
the old Northern Home designs, those are the designs that I continue to use. They’re the
most affordable, most efficient designs.
MR. FORD-Thank you.
MR. HUNSINGER-Anyone else?
MR. TRAVER-I had a question. Getting back to the engineering comments, the new
comments from Dan Ryan, Number Seven, with regards to, it says it should be clarified,
and I know you explained this. I perhaps didn’t hear you completely, but I wondered if
you could review that comment, your response to that comment again, where he talks
about the floor of the proposed drywell should be used and not the sides.
MR. CENTER-Yes, we spoke with Dan about that, and in the calculation, we actually do
not use the floor of the drywell. When you have the stone of the drywell, and the bottom
of the base, and then you have the sides that go up, which is essentially the bottom of
the stone along the vertical as it goes up, we use the surface area around that cone of
just those sides, which is actually, if you were to lay it out, it’s part of the bottom, in
essence, and we neglect the ring at the very bottom, because that’s where the sediment
does collect at the bottom of them, even if they do clean it over time, so, in our
calculations, we act like that’s not even there, like it’s a concrete surface.
MR. TRAVER-So you don’t consider it an affected part of the drywell, and therefore you
don’t include it in your calculations.
MR. CENTER-Correct. So we just use the side walls, and it gives a better, a more
conservative estimate for infiltration.
MR. TRAVER-Thank you for that clarification.
19
(Queensbury Planning Board 07/22/08)
MR. HUNSINGER-Anyone else? Well, if there’s no further comments or questions from
the Board, we do have a public hearing scheduled. Is there anyone in the audience that
wanted to address the Board on this application? We do have a couple of people. Sir?
If you could identify yourself for the record when you get up to the table, please.
PUBLIC HEARING OPENED
BILL HAMELIN
MR. HAMELIN-I’m Bill HAMELIN from Queen Victoria Grant, and I was wondering. He’s
got 15,000 square he says as an average. Could he tell me what size the houses are
along our perimeter, roughly?
MR. HUNSINGER-The size of the lots?
MR. HAMELIN-The size of the houses.
MR. HUNSINGER-The size of the houses.
MR. HAMELIN-The square footage of the houses.
MR. FORD-The 15,000, that square footage is referring to the lot size.
MR. HAMELIN-Right. How about the square footage of the houses?
MR. HUNSINGER-We can ask him when he comes back up.
MR. HAMELIN-Okay. I don’t understand the rules, and I don’t have Mr. Lapper with me.
Could you tell me what the buffer zone is, the setback?
MR. HUNSINGER-Well, there’s, as shown on the plans, there’s, you can’t build within 30
feet of the rear of the property, and that’s really all that that represents.
MR. HAMELIN-Okay.
MR. HUNSINGER-It’s a setback requirement.
MR. HAMELIN-I only had one other question.
MR. HUNSINGER-Yes, go ahead.
MR. HAMELIN-He’s right about Queen Victoria’s Grant being upset about the three
wheelers and four wheelers and two wheelers. I’m not sure of the parties or not, but I am
sure of the four wheelers and three wheelers, because I was out chatting with the police
several times, chatting with his son, who I believe must have gotten old enough to get
away from that, but then again the families in that arena seem to stay in that arena, and
we’re kind of worried that even if they put in houses in this area, they’re still going to be
roaming by on our property with their three wheelers and four wheelers, with actually
easier access. I didn’t know for sure if there could be a fenced in boundary, which might
be an unusual request. Thank you. Thank you for your time.
MR. HUNSINGER-Thank you. Anyone else have questions or comments for the Board?
Okay. Well, sir?
FRED FREDENBURG
MR. FREDENBURG-My name is Fred Fredenburg. I live at Queen Victoria’s Grant, too,
right beside Ed, and, Number One, I’ve never seen, I’ve lived there for 16 years. I’ve
never seen a bonfire, Number One. I have seen the four wheelers, three wheelers, as
Bill said. We have a ton of wildlife. It’s beautiful back there. We have turkeys come
through. We have deer. I know you don’t want to hear this, but it’s really fulfilling. It’s
gratifying to see Mother Nature at work, and this is all going to stop. Right now we have
two foxes, and, no, they won’t attack you. I’ve been out there, and I’ve been from here to
where you are, sir, and they got the other way.
MR. HUNSINGER-They will get your cat, though, if you’re not careful.
MR. FREDENBURG-I can’t say anything about the cats, but I’m just saying, it’s been a
very, very, really, 16 years it’s been a very peaceful environment, and I just, I don’t want
20
(Queensbury Planning Board 07/22/08)
to see it depart in any way. I really don’t, but a boundary, fence, I guess that would help,
but I don’t know, I like Mother Nature. Can you imagine going out in the morning and
you see wild turkeys, you know, just taking their time, not running, just, and deer. I’ve
seen deer closer from me to you. It’s just, it’s a toughie. It really is, but it’s a nice
neighborhood.
MR. HUNSINGER-Thank you.
MR. FREDENBURG-Thank you.
MR. HUNSINGER-Anyone else? Okay. If there are no other commentors, we will leave
the public hearing open for now, but we will stop taking comments for this evening. If
you want to come back to the table. One of the questions that was asked was what
would be the size of the proposed houses?
MR. CLUTE-They’re going to range anywhere from 900 to 1300 square. I can actually
tell you the actual square footage of every one of those that border Queen Victoria’s
Grant. I did them all, but anywhere from 900 to 1300 square foot. Again, it comes down
to just straight up affordability, very modest homes. So there’s not any real size. I do
have one in Geneva Estates that’s 1500 square foot. You will come across, as an
average, you’re going to have an average of $150,000 to $175,000, but there will come a
client that’ll come along and they do like the neighborhood and they can afford to
upgrade, which is the case. One of the houses in Geneva Estates is a little bit larger of a
colonial, but on average 900 to a 1300 square foot.
MR. HUNSINGER-We haven’t talked about any buffer areas at all, and I don’t know if
you want to comment on that.
MR. CLUTE-Can I go back up there again?
MR. HUNSINGER-Yes, sure, take the mic with you.
MR. CLUTE-One of the gentlemen is quite accurate with the wildlife here. This property
actually feeds back almost over into the Glens Falls, the watershed property, and there is
a lot of deer and a lot of turkey, and stuff like that. This particular area, if they are there,
they’re in there and then they’re back out of there. I’m one of the people that ride the trail
myself. I just grew up here so I know all these trails. You can’t see where the trail
actually comes, but you can see where this one heads, and this one here actually goes
on up through here, but Queen Victoria’s Grant, as well as myself, I started getting phone
calls from the previous President of the, which I’m associated with. She is a real estate
agent. So some of the residents I’m not really sure, but as well as myself I told my sons
we’re going to stop going up through here. So there’s been logs cut, brush, that’s
actually stopped, I believe, the majority of the usage of these trails, but this here is still
heavy four wheelers, heavy snowmobiles, and the reason they not seeing the bonfires is
this is very concave. I don’t know if anybody’s gone actually in there, but this is a big
hole, and there’s a fire pit here and there’s a fire pit here on the backside, but the wildlife,
there is, there’s definitely a lot of deer back in there, and it is quite nice, but I don’t think
the subdivision is actually going to stop that. This forever green area, which you can see
is a great asset to the Queen Victoria’s Grant, which obviously these guys are going to
share, but the green space is not really going to change. The majority of the woods and
the majority of the wildlife are in those woods. There here is, there’s a lot of activity that
kind of prevents that. As far as the square footage, just to get into it, I mean, that’s
1,008. That one’s 832. That one’s 1232. That one’s 1500, 930 something, 836. I did all
these. That’s 1,008. So roughly, again, back to that 900 to 1300 area.
MR. HUNSINGER-How about a buffer area, the rear (lost words) lots?
MR. CLUTE-To continue on with the woods, you had made the statement of the 30 foot
setback, and obviously it’s a huge benefit to a future homeowner as well, not only to
Queen Victoria’s Grant. Nobody wants their lot clear cut. So all this natural woods here,
we can easily say 10 foot no cut zone. So all these, this is very mature, too. It’s nice
forest, a minimal 10 foot, but some of that area you do still have to accommodate
septics, but, you know, there’s no way we’ll encroach the 10 foot. So, and really that
would just give an average line. You can see the full woods carried over. This one
encroaches a little bit, and this encroaches, but it would be easy to maintain an absolute
10 foot no cut zone, which would simply stay forever as this does.
MR. HUNSINGER-Yes. You’re actually showing on the S-3 most of the septic systems
in the front yards of those lots.
21
(Queensbury Planning Board 07/22/08)
MR. CLUTE-Right, yes, but again, it’s just the usage of your home. Everybody’s going to
want a little back yard. We try to accommodate, on the smaller lots, usability. Try and
imagine somebody down the line, what are they going to want? They’re going to want
some backyard. Some people are going to want some pools. So you do have backyard
usage. You can get into these smaller lots. You can see how they have backyard. This
particular individual has obviously cleared right to the line, but some people have better, I
mean, their desires, as far as backyard, might be more than some others. Some of them
kept the green space, but if we just did a deeded 10 foot no cut zone, then that wouldn’t
become an option, and with septics to the front yard, that would still allow them the full
use of the backyard area as well.
MR. HUNSINGER-Okay.
MR. TRAVER-You mentioned snowmobiles in the wintertime.
MR. CLUTE-Yes, sir.
MR. TRAVER-Do these trails have any connection with maintained trails like the South
Warren Snowmobile club or anything like that?
MR. CLUTE-I can get from my home to Speculator, but I won’t tell you that that’s
completely legal, but I can get there.
MR. TRAVER-Okay. I guess I’m more interested in the maintained trails.
MR. CLUTE-Your maintained trails, your actually legal, Warren County trails, are on
West Mountain only. There’s none, really, that I’m aware of, in Queensbury. The only
trails, technically, in Queensbury are the walking trails or the bike trails, but as far as
motorized use, there’s absolutely none in Queensbury, other than the watershed
property. I mean, that’s obviously the Town of Queensbury, but along the Queensbury, I
mean, the Glens Falls property, up around the reservoirs, that’s definitely Warren County
trails.
MR. TRAVER-Thank you.
MR. SEGULJIC-If I could just get a clarification from Staff. In looking at your notes,
you’re talking about the Geneva Estates was established in 1993.
MR. OBORNE-Yes.
MR. SEGULJIC-As a cluster, if I’m reading this correctly?
MR. OBORNE-Yes.
MR. SEGULJIC-And then this.
MR. OBORNE-The remaining open land is in the spirit of the cluster subdivision was to
remain open, and I believe, Larry, you bought that ’96, was it, or?
MR. CLUTE-I’m not really sure. I know it’s roughly 15 years ago. I bought it from Charlie
Diehl, and at the time I think there was an oversight on not only Charlie’s part but the
Town of Queensbury’s. They did want it forever green, but it was never designated,
nobody took responsibility, so to speak.
MR. LAPPER-What I recall was that it was offered to the Town for parkland and the
Town didn’t want it. So instead he paid the rec fee, so it didn’t become parkland.
MR. SEGULJIC-So, for argument’s sake, it kind of slipped through the cracks?
MR. LAPPER-No, no. He would have saved the $500 per building lot and given it to the
Town, and then it would have been, you know, forever wild, but the Town didn’t want it.
So instead it didn’t become rec land and he kept it and he paid.
MR. SEGULJIC-Who’s he?
MR. CLUTE-Charlie Diehl did as well, and then I inherited it, and when I found out about
this, I said, and when I bought into this, my kids were small. So it really would have
made for a terrific pocket park or neighborhood park, and I also offered it to the Town of
22
(Queensbury Planning Board 07/22/08)
Queensbury. Denied. They wanted no part of the pocket park. So hence, here we are
today, with the parcel as it’s been used for, I couldn’t tell you how long.
MR. OBORNE-And he is correct on that. The cluster subdivision, back when the zoning
was one acre for the lots in that area, in order to fit that many lots in that 11 acre parcel,
they had to do a cluster zone and then leave it, the rest would then qualify for one acre.
So that’s the reason behind that, and it is correct. The Town did not want the pocket
park. That is correct. Everything that Jon has said is correct.
MR. SEGULJIC-Okay. So, Mr. Chairman, what are we doing? We’re doing a
recommendation to the Zoning Board?
MR. HUNSINGER-The Zoning Board is looking for a recommendation.
MR. SEGULJIC-On those five issues?
MR. LAPPER-But unless you can do SEQRA first, they can’t act, because you’re Lead
Agency.
MR. SEGULJIC-Right. So we need to do SEQRA, then we need to do a
recommendation then it goes back to the Zoning Board, then it comes back to us,
assuming everything goes positively for the applicant.
MR. HUNSINGER-Yes.
MR. SEGULJIC-All right. So, I guess one of the other issues we haven’t talked about is
the traffic impacts that the Zoning Board asked us to look at.
MR. HUNSINGER-Right.
MR. SEGULJIC-Could you comment on that?
MR. CLUTE-I’m not sure about the actual traffic pattern, but as far as a neighborhood
resident, the introduction of this, there’s no in and out in these neighborhoods. This is all
dead ended traffic. So, when and if you get a fire call or an emergency or an ambulance
call, we’ve had ambulance calls. We haven’t had a lot of fire calls. You have no way out
of this neighborhood. So this actually, as far as traveling in and out, your ingress and
egress, it’s a terrific advantage, I mean, it’s a benefit to the neighborhood. As far as
traffic count, I’m not really sure, but again, this isn’t really.
MR. LAPPER-And that’s why the Highway Department supports it.
MR. CLUTE-Right. They definitely do. It’s, there’s too many dead ends, and so
obviously it works for the municipality, but the neighbors definitely want it. It’s just, as far
as traffic pattern, it’s very complicated. So there’s not, the only traffic generated is
neighborhood. There’s no other reason to actually go in and out of there.
MR. SEGULJIC-Because right now, only, if I understand this map correctly, only Howard
and Leo Street are in and out of the neighborhood, and you’re going to connect Howard
to Geneva.
MR. CLUTE-To Geneva, yes, sir.
MR. SEGULJIC-So in theory you would think that people in the new neighborhood would
split between those two ways in and out.
MR. CLUTE-Exactly. Instead of all having to go down Leo Street.
MR. CENTER-Instead of all having to go down Leo Street to get to Geneva Drive.
MR. CLUTE-Some may go to Howard.
MR. SEGULJIC-I don’t know if I agree with that comment, but I could see how they’d
probably split in the new neighborhood and come out either way, and we’re talking 18
new homes?
MR. LAPPER-Yes.
MR. CLUTE-Yes, sir.
23
(Queensbury Planning Board 07/22/08)
MR. SEGULJIC-Potentially. How are you going to build this? Is it going to be spec, is it
going to be one at a time, is it all at once?
MR. CLUTE-I’ll be honest with you, I’m a straight up speculation builder for the last eight
years. This is the first year in quite a long time that I’ve actually done contract housing.
It’s just the nature of real estate right now. I will spec in there. I already have. I’ve got
two lots that I’ve already, I own a good portion of some of the units on Howard Street.
I’ve already leveled four of those, put up four brand new houses in the last year. They
were all done speculation. Two of them have already sold. Two of them are still sitting
there speculation. If I open up Geneva Estates, I will probably do a one in one, one
contract, at the same time a spec. Because in this neighborhood you’ve really got to
show the development. You’ve got to convince people that they want to be part of this
neighborhood, and so you’ve got to show confidence and the builder has to show
confidence as well.
MR. HUNSINGER-So for SEQRA this is a Type I action?
MR. LAPPER-Yes, because it’s a realty subdivision.
MR. OBORNE-Yes, it’s a realty subdivision. Exactly.
MR. HUNSINGER-Okay.
MR. FORD-When we’ve exhausted the rest of these concerns by the ZBA, I want to go
back to that density again.
MR. HUNSINGER-Go ahead, Tom.
MR. FORD-Larry, instead of 14, what would happen to your calculations if we went 16
instead of the 18?
MR. CLUTE-I’m not really sure. What’s killing us right now is, it’s not only the market.
The market for this neighborhood is $150,000 to $175,000, but the expense of road is
just right through the roof, and so it comes down to straight square footage, I mean
length of road that’s actually affecting it.
MR. FORD-Yes, but the road is not going to be impacted by the number of homes that
you build in there.
MR. CLUTE-Will probably push away from the $150,000. Obviously, the more lots, the
lesser per lot the road cost is, and so that’s where we’re coming from. I’m not really sure
of the impact. We’d creep away from the $150,000. So, to use, I did do the calculations
on the initial 20, and I was better off, obviously, and then reduced down to the 18. I
really want to hold to that $150,000 to $175,000, because it’s a proven number that I can
turn. I’ve already done that. It’s not to say that I can’t sell the two’s. I’m going to guess
you’re going to be, instead of two, maybe $190,000, but I’m pushing that outside of that
envelope, and the idea, I really need to draw people, and the affordable Queensbury, the
more I stay down to the $150,000, the better I am, and the better the chance, the
percentages are better that I’m going to turn this neighborhood over without having to
force sales. So I’d really like to stay closer to that $150,000 number. I mean, the people
are always going to go higher. Nowadays people want their amenities. They want their
landscaping. They want a paved driveway, which is also terrific as far as the benefits of
the neighborhood, but just your basic number, as close to $150,000, the better off I am,
and the odds are much better that I’m going to turn these.
MR. SEGULJIC-Did you submit any information on the blue Karner butterfly? I assume
that it’s potentially a concern in this area.
MR. CLUTE-They’re actually not. I’m going to go back to my Burnt Hills subdivision
which is on the other side of Sherman Avenue. There was no Karner blue in this
particular area at all, I mean the whole neighborhood, not just the area that we’re looking
to develop. The only Karner blue was on the other side of Sherman Avenue and they
mainly hug the Niagara Mohawk power lines, and they need, the Karner blue actually
needs the open space, and so the only open space that’s available in that particular is
that race track. Karner blue can’t live in forest. That’s why they like Niagara Mohawk.
MR. LAPPER-Let Tom answer based upon what we did for the Long Form.
24
(Queensbury Planning Board 07/22/08)
MR. CENTER-Going through the DEC fact sheets and based on what previous
experience with the open space areas, we didn’t find any habitat for the Karner blue
based on going off the DEC fact sheets, and the U.S. Forest Service online information
for Warren County in that area. There’s a small open space area, but it’s not long and
continuous like the power lines where we found Karner blue up and down. It’s a very
small pocket area, a small parcel.
MR. SEGULJIC-So if I read this correctly you went to the U.S. Forest Service and the
DEC?
MR. CENTER-Yes, fact sheets on both the species and plant animal life.
MR. SEGULJIC-And they indicated no concern potential?
MR. CENTER-It’s generic for the area. They give you the wildlife to look for that are the
plant life, the type of open spaces?
MR. SEGULJIC-And there were no endangered species listed then?
MR. CENTER-They’re listed for the Town of Queensbury, but not in that area, based on
habitat.
MR. SEGULJIC-Okay.
MR. FORD-Is that also based upon actual inspection?
MR. CENTER-It’s based on habitat and the lay of the land. Did we have someone go out
and look for Karner blue? No.
MR. FORD-That’s my question. Thank you.
MR. HUNSINGER-Are there anymore questions on that, or are people satisfied with the
answer?
MR. SEGULJIC-I think at this point I’d be satisfied with that.
MR. HUNSINGER-Let me ask Staff a question, and I’ve posed this question before, in
terms of, typically we close the public hearing before we do SEQRA. However, there
may be a reason to take additional public comment when we do the actual subdivision
review.
MR. OBORNE-That would be correct. I mean, typically you close SEQRA.
MR. HUNSINGER-So we’d only close the public hearing for SEQRA.
MR. OBORNE-Correct.
MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. I just want to make sure we do it right.
MR. OBORNE-I think that’s the proper protocol.
MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. All right. So I will close the public hearing for SEQRA.
MR. SEGULJIC-So you want to do SEQRA?
MR. HUNSINGER-Yes, if everyone’s ready.
MR. SEGULJIC-Okay.
MR. HUNSINGER-And again, it is a Long Form.
MR. SEGULJIC-Okay. Will the proposed action result in a physical change to the project
site?
MR. FORD-Yes.
MR. TRAVER-Yes.
MR. OBORNE-Everybody needs to have an answer.
25
(Queensbury Planning Board 07/22/08)
MR. SCHONEWOLF-Yes.
MR. SEGULJIC-Should I read each of them?
MR. HUNSINGER-I don’t know if we need to read each of them. People who
commented yes, what is the impact that you’re thinking?
MR. FORD-Well, we’re going from forested area to paved area, and structures where
there are none. That’s a change.
MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. Would you consider the impact to be small to moderate?
MR. FORD-Very possibly.
MR. OBORNE-Mr. Chairman, I believe the first thing that you need to do is to
Acknowledge your Lead Agency Status. Once that is acknowledged, you go ahead and
go through the review, and then once you’re through with that, go ahead and make a
resolution for your recommendations.
MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. I guess I didn’t see a sample. We do have a sample
resolution. Thank you.
MOTION THAT THE PLANNING BOARD ACCEPT LEAD AGENCY STATUS
REGARDING SUBDIVISION NO. 11-2007 PRELIMINARY STAGE LARRY CLUTE,
Introduced by Thomas Seguljic who moved for its adoption, seconded by Thomas Ford:
WHEREAS, in connection with the Larry Clute project, the Town of Queensbury Planning
Board, by resolution, previously authorized the Community Development office to notify
other involved agencies of the desire of the Planning Board to conduct a coordinated
SEQRA review, and
WHEREAS, the Zoning Administrator has advised that other involved agencies have
been notified and have consented to the Town of Queensbury Planning Board being lead
agent, and
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, the Town of Queensbury Planning Board
hereby recognizes itself as lead agent for purposes of SEQRA review according to the
resolution prepared by Staff.
MOTION THAT THE PLANNING BOARD ACCEPT LEAD AGENCY STATUS
REGARDING SUBDIVISION NO. 11-2007 PRELIMINARY STAGE LARRY CLUTE,
Introduced by Thomas Seguljic who moved for its adoption, seconded by Thomas Ford:
As noted in the resolution prepared by Staff.
nd
Duly adopted this 22 day of July, 2008, by the following vote:
AYES: Mr. Ford, Mr. Seguljic, Mr. Schonewolf, Mr. Traver, Mr. Hunsinger
NOES: NONE
MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. Now we can commence our SEQRA review. Thank you. Will
the proposed action result in a physical change to the project site? We heard two yeses
because you’re removing forest and adding.
MR. FORD-Pavement and structures.
MR. HUNSINGER-Impervious surfaces, yes, pavement and structures, and the question
I asked was would you consider the impact to be small to moderate?
MR. FORD-Yes.
MR. HUNSINGER-Okay.
MR. SEGULJIC-Okay. Will there be an effect to any unique or unusual land forms found
on the site?
MR. HUNSINGER-No.
26
(Queensbury Planning Board 07/22/08)
MR. FORD-No.
MR. SEGULJIC-Will the proposed action affect any water body designated as protected?
MR. FORD-No.
MR. HUNSINGER-No.
MR. SEGULJIC-Will the proposed action affect any non-protected existing or new body
of water?
MR. FORD-No.
MR. TRAVER-No.
MR. SEGULJIC-Will the proposed action affect surface or groundwater quality or
or quantity?
MR. HUNSINGER-No.
MR. TRAVER-No.
MR. SEGULJIC-Will the proposed action alter drainage flow or patterns, or surface water
runoff?
MR. HUNSINGER-No.
MR. SEGULJIC-No. Will the proposed action affect air quality? No.
MR. HUNSINGER-No.
MR. SEGULJIC-Will the proposed action affect any threatened or endangered species?
MR. HUNSINGER-No.
MR. TRAVER-No.
MR. SEGULJIC-Will the proposed action substantially affect non-threatened or non-
endangered species?
MR. TRAVER-No.
MR. HUNSINGER-No.
MR. SEGULJIC-Will the proposed action affect agricultural land resources?
MR. HUNSINGER-No.
MR. FORD-No.
MR. SEGULJIC-Will the proposed action affect aesthetic resources?
MR. TRAVER-No.
MR. FORD-Ford.
MR. SEGULJIC-Will the proposed action impact any site or structure of historic, pre-
historic or paleontological importance?
MR. FORD-No.
MR. HUNSINGER-No.
MR. SEGULJIC-Will the proposed action affect the quantity or quality of existing or future
open spaces or recreational opportunities?
MR. TRAVER-No.
27
(Queensbury Planning Board 07/22/08)
MR. HUNSINGER-No.
MR. SEGULJIC-Will the proposed action impact the exceptional or unique
characteristics of a critical environmental area?
MR. HUNSINGER-No.
MR. FORD-No.
MR. SEGULJIC-Will there be an effect to existing transportation systems?
MR. HUNSINGER-No.
MR. FORD-No.
MR. SEGULJIC-Will proposed action affect the community’s sources of fuel or energy
supply?
MR. FORD-No.
MR. TRAVER-No.
MR. SEGULJIC-Will there be objectionable odors, noise, or vibration as a result of
the proposed action?
MR. FORD-No.
MR. HUNSINGER-No.
MR. SEGULJIC-Will the proposed action affect public health and safety?
MR. HUNSINGER-No.
MR. FORD-No.
MR. SEGULJIC-Will the proposed action affect the character of the existing community?
MR. TRAVER-No.
MR. HUNSINGER-No.
MR. SEGULJIC-And is there, or is there likely to be, public controversy related to
potential adverse environmental impacts?
MR. HUNSINGER-No.
MR. FORD-No.
MR. SEGULJIC-Then I’ll make a motion for a Negative SEQRA declaration.
RESOLUTION WHEN DETERMINATION OF NO SIGNIFICANCE IS MADE
RESOLUTION NO. 11-2007, Introduced by Thomas Seguljic who moved for its
adoption, seconded by Stephen Traver:
WHEREAS, there is presently before the Planning Board an application for:
LARRY CLUTE, 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
28
(Queensbury Planning Board 07/22/08)
3. The proposed action considered by this Board is Unlisted in the Department of
Environmental Conservation Regulations implementing the State Environmental
Quality Review Act and the regulations of the Town of Queensbury.
4. An Environmental Assessment Form has been completed by the applicant.
5. Having considered and thoroughly analyzed the relevant areas of environmental
concern and having considered the criteria for determining whether a project has
a significant environmental impact as the same is set forth in Section 617.11 of
the Official Compilation of Codes, Rules and Regulations for the State of New
York, this Board finds that the action about to be undertaken by this Board will
have no significant environmental effect and the Chairman of the Planning Board
is hereby authorized to execute and sign and file as may be necessary a
statement of non-significance or a negative declaration that may be required by
law.
nd
Duly adopted this 22 day of July, 2008, by the following vote:
AYES: Mr. Traver, Mr. Ford, Mr. Seguljic, Mr. Schonewolf, Mr. Hunsinger
NOES: NONE
ABSENT: Mrs. Steffan, Mr. Sipp
MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. Recommendation to the Zoning Board. There were five items
they wanted us to address.
MR. TRAVER-Six it looks like.
MR. HUNSINGER-Six, I’m sorry. I was looking at Staff Notes. What’s the sixth?
MR. FORD-What’s the sixth one?
MR. TRAVER-On the.
MR. HUNSINGER-The number of lots. Okay. The center line curve, thank you, which
we didn’t talk about really.
MR. LAPPER-What’s the issue?
MR. HUNSINGER-The 175 foot center line versus the 300 foot curve. I think that would
be on the end of Howard Street.
MR. LAPPER-I think Tom should explain what the plan is.
MR. CENTER-Initially when this, prior to Sketch or at Sketch, Larry and Matt Steves
went out to the site with Mike Travis and he requested to have, instead of a “T”
intersection, to have a sweeping curve that we could lay in there. Going out there today
and looking over it with Mr. VanNess, they didn’t have any issue with the sweeping
curve, and we discussed how to terminate Howard Street, whether it would continue to
be a dead end or some kind of abandoned road, and after looking at the site, if the plan
were to go forward, he, Mr. VanNess, for plowing purposes, would rather keep Howard
Street where it dead ends currently so he had somewhere to put the snow down that
section of road. So there wasn’t an issue, again, we don’t have anything in writing. We
just went out and looked at that potential intersection together, and there wasn’t an
issue.
MR. LAPPER-If you look on S-2, it’s pretty good. It shows Howard Street staying where
it is and the new road sweeping curve, and basically the applicant would do whatever the
Highway Department wanted and the Planning Board wanted and this is, and the
Highway Department said what’s shown here is what they want.
MR. CENTER-And we’d be looking to do some re-grading within the Town right of way,
capturing some additional runoff that currently doesn’t get captured and infiltrated,
captured and treated, and reconfigure along that road, to bring it, you know, closer to
Town standards.
29
(Queensbury Planning Board 07/22/08)
MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. Staff did prepare a draft resolution, as Steve pointed out, that
has the six items on it, and it’s probably the easiest thing to work off, in terms of a
resolution.
MR. SEGULJIC-So are we going to comment on each of those things individually?
MR. HUNSINGER-Well, that’s what they’ve, well, I mean, we could make some general
comments if you want. I don’t know if it really matters.
MR. SEGULJIC-What’s the first one? Traffic.
MR. FORD-Traffic impacts.
MR. HUNSINGER-Traffic impacts.
MR. SEGULJIC-Traffic impacts. We don’t really have any studies, but commonsense
says maximum of 18 new homes, and by looking at the plan it looks like the traffic should
split down the middle. I wouldn’t say it’s positive.
MR. FORD-It’s not negative enough to be a concern.
MR. SEGULJIC-Right. I see any impacts being pretty low.
MR. HUNSINGER-Yes. Well, I mean, we’ve talked about the Comprehensive Plan a
little bit this evening, you know, one of the very specific recommendations in the
Comprehensive Plan is to connect the existing dead end roads. I think the applicant’s
kind of referred to that a couple of times, and that’s exactly what the proposal is, is to
connect Howard with Geneva.
MR. SEGULJIC-So what do we want to say, then?
MR. HUNSINGER-I mean, that could be a potential benefit to the residents of those
streets by connecting them.
MR. SEGULJIC-So it’s a traffic impact.
MR. HUNSINGER-They’ve asked specifically about traffic impact.
MR. SEGULJIC-I don’t see how, I mean, that’s a design that you’re speaking of.
MR. HUNSINGER-That’s a design issue, yes.
MR. SEGULJIC-That you’re talking about. This is traffic. So I’d say we don’t expect any
adverse.
MR. HUNSINGER-Yes, we don’t see any potential adverse impacts.
MR. SEGULJIC-Then regarding lot sizes.
MR. HUNSINGER-I mean, I think one of the risks that we’re kind of taking in being this
specific in the recommendation to the Zoning Board is we’re almost conducting
subdivision review, and I’m a little reluctant to maybe be as specific as they’re
requesting.
MR. TRAVER-I can see why they would request it.
MR. HUNSINGER-Yes. It makes their job easier.
MR. SCHONEWOLF-Why don’t you just say you don’t have any issues with the six
items.
MR. HUNSINGER-That might be the easiest thing to do is to just say we don’t see any
negative impacts on any of the six items.
MR. TRAVER-Yes.
MR. SCHONEWOLF-Right.
MR. SEGULJIC-And they could be addressed at Site Plan.
30
(Queensbury Planning Board 07/22/08)
MR. HUNSINGER-Yes.
MR. LAPPER-Subdivision.
MR. HUNSINGER-Subdivision.
MR. SEGULJIC-Correct.
MR. HUNSINGER-I appreciate what the Zoning Board’s asking us to do, because we
often complain that they tie our hands. If they approve the variances requested, then,
you know.
MR. TRAVER-Yes. I think, for example, they’re talking about stormwater and so on. I
mean, you know, these are issues that haven’t fully been addressed yet to some degree.
MR. SEGULJIC-So if I say something along the lines of do not expect any adverse
impacts which cannot be addressed during subdivision review?
MR. LAPPER-That sounds good.
MR. SEGULJIC-So is this, so this is a recommendation.
MR. HUNSINGER-Yes.
MOTION THAT THE PLANNING BOARD RECOMMENDS TO THE ZONING BOARD
OF APPEALS, IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE RESOLUTION PREPARED BY STAFF,
FOR PB 11-07R, LARRY CLUTE, THAT THE PLANNING BOARD DOES NOT EXPECT
ANY ADVERSE IMPACTS WHICH CANNOT BE ADDRESSED DURING SUBDIVISION
REVIEW WITH REGARDS TO TRAFFIC IMPACTS, LOT SIZES, DENSITY,
STORMWATER, DEVELOPMENT OF OPEN SPACE, AND THE CENTER LINE
CURVE RADIUS, Introduced by Thomas Seguljic who moved for its adoption, seconded
by Stephen Traver:
WHEREAS, THE ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS HAS REQUESTED A WRITTEN
RECOMMENDATION FROM THE PLANNING BOARD [SEE ATTACHED
RESOLUTION]:
THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED THE PLANNING BOARD MAKES THE FOLLOWING
RECOMMENDATIONS IN RESPONSE TO THE ZBA REQUEST:
MOTION THAT THE PLANNING BOARD RECOMMENDS TO THE ZONING BOARD
OF APPEALS, IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE RESOLUTION PREPARED BY STAFF,
FOR PB 11-07R, LARRY CLUTE, THAT THE PLANNING BOARD DOES NOT EXPECT
ANY ADVERSE IMPACTS WHICH CANNOT BE ADDRESSED DURING SUBDIVISION
REVIEW WITH REGARDS TO TRAFFIC IMPACTS, LOT SIZES, DENSITY,
STORMWATER, DEVELOPMENT OF OPEN SPACE, AND THE CENTER LINE
CURVE RADIUS, Introduced by Thomas Seguljic who moved for its adoption, seconded
by Stephen Traver:
nd
Duly adopted this 22 day of July, 2008, by the following vote:
AYES: Mr. Traver, Mr. Ford, Mr. Seguljic, Mr. Schonewolf, Mr. Hunsinger
NOES: NONE
ABSENT: Mrs. Steffan, Mr. Sipp
MR. LAPPER-Thank you. I think that the full discussion tonight was really helpful to get
the stuff out and we’ll go to the Zoning Board and we’ll be back to talk about Preliminary
after we go there.
MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. Great.
MR. LAPPER-Thank you.
MR. HUNSINGER-Thank you.
31
(Queensbury Planning Board 07/22/08)
SITE PLAN NO. 29-2008 SEQR TYPE UNLISTED JEFF PAULSEN AGENT(S)
DENNIS MAC ELROY OWNER(S) LATHAM ROAD, LLC ZONING RR-5A
LOCATION OFF PICKLE HILL RD., 0.5 MILES WEST OF RIDGE RD. APPLICANT
PROPOSES DEVELOPMENT OF A VACANT SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL LOT IN
AN EXISTING SUBDIVISION. THIS PROJECT HAS BEEN CLASSIFIED AS A MAJOR
STORMWATER PROJECT AND, AS SUCH, PLANNING BOARD REVIEW IS
REQUIRED. CROSS REFERENCE SUB 7-86 WARREN CO. PLANNING 7/9/08
APA/DEC/CEA L G CEA, APA WETLANDS LOT SIZE 51.21 +/- ACRES TAX MAP
NO. 266.3-1-38 SECTION CHAPTER 147
DENNIS MAC ELROY, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT
MR. HUNSINGER-Keith, whenever you’re ready.
MR. OBORNE-Absolutely. The applicant is Jeff Paulsen. The requested action,
applicant requests Site Plan Review of a Major Stormwater Project of a proposed
construction of a single family dwelling on Lot 46 in Grant Acres. The applicant requests
a waiver from the floor plan and elevation requirements per the Site Plan review
application. The location is Pickle Hill Road, Grant Acres Lot 46. The zoning is Rural
Residential Five acres. SEQRA Status is II. The project description, this lot is 51 acres
in size with the house site accessed by a 1600 foot driveway. Quick Staff comments.
This site for the proposed single family home is situated on 51 plus acres on the south
side of Pickle Hill Road. The proposed home is accessed by a 1,600 foot long, 12 foot
wide gravel driveway. Due to the length of the driveway, this project is classified as a
Major Stormwater Project per 147-8B by the Zoning Administrator. This lot is part of an
existing subdivision. Site visit confirms an old access road is present and it is believed
this road will be graded and improved. Clarification would be helpful. There is a gate
restricting vehicular access at the present time. The building site appears to be situated
up slope on the property. It is assumed the reason for situating the house as such is for
the view. If this is not the intent, then a site located east and on more level land may be
more appropriate with regards to EMS controls.
MR. HUNSINGER-Thank you. Good evening.
MR. MAC ELROY-Good evening. Thank you. I’m Dennis MacElroy with Environmental
Design representing Kimberly and Jeff Paulsen, seated to my sides, owners, or excuse
me, applicants for this property, this project. The property is under contract, but they’ve
yet to close on this. As Keith described, this is a 51 acre lot, accessed off of Pickle Hill,
which is perhaps, I don’t know if it’s the last lot remaining of the Grant Acres subdivision,
but the reason for its unusual size, as I understand, is that it was maybe an earlier, when
Grant Acres was approved, it was an earlier version of clustering, that left one large lot,
with the conditions that there’d be no further subdivision. The applicant, at the time, the
subdivider at the time, used up the density, through the Boulderwood subdivision, and
that left this one large lot, but that’s effectively what it is, one large lot for a single family
residence, which is what the intent of the applicants are. The Paulsen’s are intending to
purchase the lot and build one single family residence. It is a bit unusual, obviously 51
acre lot, 1600 feet in off the road, about a 1500 foot driveway, but that is the intent, that
is the plan, that’s what the conditions of that lot are. So I didn’t want to leave any, it’s
almost ironic, we came here tonight and the first item on the agenda was someone trying
to undo something of no further subdivision, but that certainly isn’t the case here. It is
one remaining lot, and we have provided the application materials. The primary concern
here is stormwater. We’ve provided a Major Stormwater Report and design for this. We
have received, just recently, comments from Dan Ryan. We haven’t had an opportunity
to address those, but those are pretty specific with, you know, stormwater solely, but
one’s that I think that we can properly address. The house site is in an area that is
served off of a road that was created, or a drive or a trail that was created some time in
the past. Not too much significant clearing would have to be done any further to create
the road or the house site. We’ve done soils work in the area of the wastewater system
at the proper times of the year for seasonal high groundwater determination. We’ve
provided a wastewater system design for the four bedroom proposed house. The
stormwater design is provided. We’ve, again, submitted the Major Stormwater report.
There may be some comments and questions regarding that which we will address, back
to Dan or to the Staff regarding that, but I think that we’re moving along the process as
would be normally required, and obviously there’s a certain amount of interest here by
the neighbors, but I think that, you know, I’ll repeat it. It’s a single family lot. There’s not
a plan to be subdividers or the proposed subdivision on that. That’s not the intent.
That’s, the Paulsens can indicate that, certainly, for themselves, but that’s how this is
being designed. Because there’s such a large, or long driveway, they’re hopeful of being
able to get the approvals, to be able to get in there and see the house site better and to
32
(Queensbury Planning Board 07/22/08)
envision what specific house. We’ve provided a stormwater design based on certain of a
generic footprint of that, and that’s based on conversations I’ve had with Craig Brown
about this. It’s certainly of adequate size and dimensions. The driveway is always going
to be the same. That’s the primary generator of impervious area. So, we’ve made a
submittal, made an application, and be glad to respond to any questions or comments
about that.
MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. Thank you.
MR. OBORNE-Excuse me, Mr. Chairman, the SEQRA status is not Type II. It’s Unlisted.
I’m sorry about the error there.
MR. HUNSINGER-Questions, comments from the Board?
MR. SEGULJIC-Why such a long driveway.
MR. MAC ELROY-To get to the house site.
MR. SEGULJIC-But why are you going to have the house site so far back?
MR. MAC ELROY-That’s the desired location. It’s somewhat, I don’t know what effected
the Paulsens particularly, and they can answer to that, but I think the house site.
MR. FORD-The view.
MR. MAC ELROY-Well, there is a certain view of the ridgeline off of Ridge Road. I don’t
know the proper name of the mountainside there, but you can see that. It’s not a house
site that would be visible from other locations. It’s not like maybe some of the, you can
see off of Bay Road, for instance. It’s just not that type of exposure. There’s not that
much of a differential in that area. So, having been on the property, I actually live just
above this property, within 600, 700 feet of the property perhaps is where I live, on
Sunset Trail. So I’m pretty familiar with the area, and I don’t see that as a visual issue
even. There will be some views out, but unless, I guess, you’re on top of that ridgeline
and Ridge Road you wouldn’t necessarily be able to see in to that.
MR. TRAVER-What about clearing of, is this land currently forested, and therefore it
would be some clearing involved, or can you describe the vegetation and the nature of
the property as it currently exists?
MR. MAC ELROY-It’s, I think the indication that you get off the site plan, the overall site
configuration, gives you some indication, and then along the road there is a trail or a
road that goes back to that house site, and then there’s about a half an acre or so that’s
been thinned. There are trees still standing within it, but, and some of those may be
removed for when the actual house is sited, but were based on where we have shown it.
There may be several trees, a couple of trees that are removed, but for the most part it’s
cleared and thinned to the point that would be necessary to develop that.
MR. TRAVER-Are we looking at some pictures here?
MR. MAC ELROY-Yes. That’s the entryway in, actually. That’s right off Pickle Hill Road.
There’s a chain with a piece of PVC pipe on it to keep people from driving in, and it’s
opened a little more so in that initial area. There’s a house immediately to the east that
fronts on Pickle Hill Road, relatively new house, that was developed there, nice house.
MR. SCHONEWOLF-Is that driveway west of the pond?
MR. MAC ELROY-It is west of the pond, correct. Because the house immediately to the
east borders that pond.
MR. SCHONEWOLF-Borders the property.
MR. MAC ELROY-Correct. Yes. That’s looking east on Pickle Hill Road, and that truck
probably is parked in a little turnoff to go into this lot. So the vegetation is primarily
deciduous, but there’s some evergreens within that, but it’s primarily deciduous.
MR. MAC ELROY-And it’s your representation that, though the building site, or the
house, when constructed, may have a view or hopes to have a view of perhaps the
surrounding hillsides, and the house itself will not be part of the visual landscape when
constructed from other residences?
33
(Queensbury Planning Board 07/22/08)
MR. MAC ELROY-I would say that, yes. I’d be fairly confident about that.
MR. TRAVER-Thank you.
MR. SEGULJIC-Are there any streams on site?
MR. MAC ELROY-There is. It borders the easterly boundary of this property. There’s a
stream that becomes that beaver pond or whatever, however you want to refer to it.
Over the years that I’ve lived there, that level in that pond has fluctuated I think probably
related to beaver activity and what not.
MR. SEGULJIC-And you’re building on the western side of the property, if I’m correct?
MR. MAC ELROY-Correct, yes.
MR. SEGULJIC-So you won’t even be, you shouldn’t even be impacted.
MR. MAC ELROY-Correct, hundreds of feet from, 600 feet or so from that easterly
boundary.
MR. SEGULJIC-Okay, and how does the applicant feel about no further subdivision?
KIMBERLY PAULSEN
MRS. PAULSEN-We understand that there is no further subdivision, and we attempted
to purchase it with that understanding.
MR. SEGULJIC-There is no further subdivision already?
MRS. PAULSEN-Well, it’s an existing lot within a subdivision, and that the land, other
than the one family house, cannot be build on, re-subdivided or re-sold or anything like
that, that it’s one parcel of land for one home.
MR. SEGULJIC-It’s one parcel, one home.
MRS. PAULSEN-One parcel, one home.
MR. SEGULJIC-So it can’t be subdivided.
MRS. PAULSEN-Right.
MR. SEGULJIC-Okay. So you are in a CEA. You’re subject to a Major Stormwater
Project. My only comment would be is I don’t think, it should easily be addressed. I
don’t think you’re meeting all the requirements of 147. For example, how are you going
to control the runoff from the roofs here?
MR. MAC ELROY-It’s shown on the plans, we’d have roof leaders to drywell. As shown
on the plan, there.
MR. SEGULJIC-Okay. I just see a roof leader drain.
MR. MAC ELROY-Right. Any runoff from the roofs would be captured in a gutter to roof
leader system down to the first drywell.
MR. SEGULJIC-To the first drywell. Okay. I guess after reading it, maybe I can attribute
it that way, but it’s not that clear. I guess.
MR. MAC ELROY-Okay. Well, we can certainly clarify that.
MR. HUNSINGER-Well, you do have the comment on Sheet One, down in the left hand
corner, Tom.
MR. SEGULJIC-Right. That’s what I was getting at. You’re talking about these
comments here?
MR. HUNSINGER-Yes. That box in particular.
MR. SEGULJIC-Yes.
34
(Queensbury Planning Board 07/22/08)
MR. HUNSINGER-Is that what you were referring to, in terms of your design?
MR. MAC ELROY-No.
MR. SEGULJIC-No. He was referring to the fact that it says down here.
MR. MAC ELROY-There are roof drains per architect to collect building runoff and it
shows two A six inch PVC SDR 35 roof drain leader, leader drain that goes to the
drywell.
MR. SEGULJIC-Okay. All right.
MR. MAC ELROY-Certainly if there’s clarification we can add that, but I think the intent is
certainly there, and that other box is specific to wastewater.
MR. SEGULJIC-Right. My only real concern then would be, you know, clearing limits,
you know, minimizing the amount of clearing.
MR. MAC ELROY-Sure. We could add more information or show limitations. Oftentimes
or sometimes we have placed on plans a delineation of clearing limits with an orange
snow fence type thing, and I would suggest, though, that that was really limited to the
house site. Sixteen hundred feet of driveway might be a little.
MR. SEGULJIC-Right. I mean, something around the house site.
MR. MAC ELROY-It might be a lot of orange, of snow fence, but, yes, if we, you know,
can certainly show that and indicate that, you know, the limits related to the development
of the house is contained within that certain area.
MR. SEGULJIC-Right, and then there would only be selective cutting on the rest of the
site, no clearing of the rest of the site.
MR. MAC ELROY-Right.
MR. HUNSINGER-I mean, you’ve already depicted on, again, on Sheet One, a 30 foot
wide, well, it says 30 foot plus or minus, existing field row clearing.
MR. MAC ELROY-Yes. I mean, obviously there has to be enough width to provide for
the road section and the drainage components, but.
MR. SEGULJIC-My concern would be around the house mainly.
MR. MAC ELROY-I think if you walked to the site or saw the site, you could see that
there’s sufficient down gradient vegetation. I’m not sure that they could clear enough to
create something being able to view to the house.
MR. SEGULJIC-Right, and looking at where it is, I don’t think it’s going to be seen.
MR. MAC ELROY-It’s a 51 acre lot.
MR. SEGULJIC-My bigger concern is you’re in a CEA, and, you know, trees are
important. I just don’t want to see a lot of clearing of trees on the site.
MR. MAC ELROY-Right.
MR. SEGULJIC-Does the applicant understand what I’m trying to get at? You do
understand you’re in a CEA?
MR. MAC ELROY-Critical Environmental Area.
MR. SEGULJIC-That feeds into Lake George. We’re trying to protect Lake George.
MR. MAC ELROY-Right.
MR. HUNSINGER-I had a question for you on the size of the house. I mean, when I saw
a 51 acre lot for a single family house, I thought it would be, you know, 15,000 square
feet home.
35
(Queensbury Planning Board 07/22/08)
MR. MAC ELROY-You’d like it bigger?
MR. HUNSINGER-And what you’ve depicted in the application is roughly, and it wasn’t
explicit, but it did say 2300 square feet.
MR. MAC ELROY-Of a footprint.
MR. HUNSINGER-Right, footprint.
MR. MAC ELROY-I mean, which means the house effectively, could be 4500 or so.
MR. FORD-Two or three times that.
MR. MAC ELROY-But I think that’s, you know, it’s going to be a four bedroom home. If
this was anything but a 51 acre lot, maybe there wouldn’t be some skepticism, but it is,
and we’re trying to address that. It’s a four bedroom home for the Paulsen family.
MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. Any other questions or comments?
MR. SEGULJIC-I’m all set.
MR. FORD-Public.
MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. We do have a public hearing scheduled. I think everyone has
heard the dissertation. If you could identify yourself for the record when you come up
and try to limit your comments to five minutes. We do have a timer. So when you hear
the beep, that means that your five minutes is up. I would ask that you, if you have
questions or comments that you address them to the Board. If there’s a specific question
that you have, we will try to get the answer from the applicant. Having said that, who
would like to be first? Yes, sir. Good evening.
PUBLIC HEARING OPENED
DENNIS PREVOST
MR. PREVOST-Good evening. My name is Dennis Prevost. I’m a resident on Sunset
Trail, and a neighbor of Mr. MacElroy’s. The question on the development of this
property has always been the issue of access to power. When Ed Grant developed the
property, and it became part of the basically forever wild area because of the density of
the properties on the lower development, there was always a concern as to how power
would be brought into that property. A 1600 foot driveway ostensibly with vertical power
bays, on poles, would necessitate further clearing, otherwise buried power would be
much more expensive. The point I would like to register with the Board is that the power
lines on Sunset Trail are all currently buried. Would the developer intend to continue that
with this adjacent parcel, or would they propose to put above ground power lines, which
would necessitate additional clearing within a critical habitat area? That’s my question.
Thank you.
MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. We’ll find out. Thank you. Anyone else. Sir? Good evening.
JOE MALI
MR. MALI-Good evening. Joe Mali. I live at the old lower end at Boulderwood Drive.
I’m the proud owner of Beaver Pond, I think. My concern is I don’t have a problem with
where the Paulsen’s are building a home. It’s the 1600 foot driveway. Now below us,
below that driveway are environmentally sensitive wetlands, which are a major feeder
into Dunham’s Bay and also into Pilot Knob, okay. Now, I also, when I reviewed the
plans, you know, we do have some major storms in this area here, and there’s going to
be some major runoff, and what is the flow of water that’s going to come down there
when you clear cut a 1600 foot driveway all the way in? Now originally when we looked
at Grant Acres, the original house was supposed to be two or three hundred foot in from
Pickle Hill. Sixteen hundred feet in is going to open up the whole slope of the hill, whole
slope of the mountain to runoff. That’ll be, everybody will be rowing a boat on
Boulderwood, and also Wildwood where a great deal, we have a lot of wetlands there,
and we’ve spent a lot of time and put a lot of expense in our homes to make sure that the
water table doesn’t rise and the wetlands stay in the condition that they’re in. They’re not
damaged. Okay. We’ve experienced, and I think you’re aware of it probably, the runoff
on Bay Road, the problems we’ve had up there, the problems we’ve had coming down
Pickle Hill. With clear cutting this 1600 feet, what kind of problems are we going to
36
(Queensbury Planning Board 07/22/08)
experience as homeowners on Wildwood and as well as Boulderwood Drive, and how
high is the 1600 foot road from the base of where Boulderwood is? I think it’s about 60
or 70 feet. That’s a lot of runoff and a lot of height coming down, and when this driveway
is plowed, the snow is going to be plowed on the slope side, which in the Spring is going
to give us more of a runoff or melting, the conditions may change. Our water table on
our property may change, may also create some flooding. There has been in the area,
not in our area, I don’t know anybody that has a wet basement, but in that area there,
there are, I know the Fire Department goes out and pumps out a lot of these basements
at times, and this is changing the whole landscape. I have no problem with them where
they want to build or what they want to do, but I have a problem with them changing the
landscape, and it could affect us, and there are several homeowners down there that,
you know, are very, very, very concerned about the wildlife in there as well as the
wetlands. It’s an important part of the Adirondack Park. That’s all I had to comment right
now, but I think it’s something we should look into.
MR. HUNSINGER-Thank you.
MR. MALI-One more thing. How is the road going to be maintained, this driveway?
MR. HUNSINGER-Well, it will be up to the owner to maintain it.
MR. MALI-Well, that’s a private road, but if it’s not maintained properly we can have
more of a severe problem with the runoff, and I think there should be some type of
oversight built into the variance that maybe the Town of Queensbury should be
inspecting this road periodically maybe once a year or once every two years to make
sure it’s maintained properly and the drywells are properly cleaned and taken care of.
Otherwise if they fill up the water is just going to come straight down. Okay?
MR. HUNSINGER-Thank you.
MR. MALI-Thank you.
MR. HUNSINGER-Anyone else? Yes, Chris.
CHRIS NAVITSKY
MR. NAVITSKY-Hello. Chris Navitsky, Lake George Water Keeper. I think the previous
speaker spoke regarding some important items to be considered, and that’s where our
comments are coming from. They’re more technical. We’re not against what the
applicant is proposing, a single home on 51 acres, but we feel that stormwater could be a
problem. There’s some soil investigations on the site which indicate some seasonal high
groundwater. So we think there should be, and that was between 38 and 52 inches.
Granted that was up in the area of the proposed home, but that could be similar
throughout the roadway. So there should be some investigations where the drywells will
be, because they will be approximately six feet deep. So they could be into
groundwater. So there should be some investigation. We would like to recommend the
use of bio retention swales or gardens which would provide some amended soils with the
swales along the driveway, possibly around the home site, that could eliminate the
inability to provide the separation, and provide treatment closer to the surface. We have
a comment regarding the amount of clearing. Again, it appears there’s been clearing
done previously, and that was done without any consideration of stormwater
management. So maybe to maximize stormwater management treatment on the site,
this should be considered as an undisturbed forest site and then we could maximize the
treatment and pick up what has not been managed for through the previous clearing.
Also, there’s a bit of evidence on the existing logging road or whatever is there, and
some consideration for stabilization on the roadway.
MR. HUNSINGER-Thank you.
MR. NAVITSKY-Thanks.
MR. HUNSINGER-Anyone else? Good evening.
SUSAN BALFOUR
MRS. BALFOUR-Susan Balfour, and just, I have a couple of questions. I am concerned.
I’m a realtor, you know that, and I’ve been through this process a lot of times with a lot of
developers, and I want to say, we want to be good neighbors, and I’m certainly in favor of
37
(Queensbury Planning Board 07/22/08)
one house on the 50 acres, but I become a little suspect when I see that a 30 foot wide
road, is that what I understood that that’s what it’s going to be?
MR. HUNSINGER-Well, it’s just the cutting area. The pavement itself is I think 12 foot.
MRS. BALFOUR-Okay. So it will be paved.
MR. TRAVER-Actually it’s gravel.
MR. HUNSINGER-It’s gravel.
MRS. BALFOUR-Okay.
MR. TRAVER-Twelve feet wide gravel.
MR. HUNSINGER-Twelve foot wide gravel.
MRS. BALFOUR-That’s what’s proposed at this point in time? Okay.
MR. HUNSINGER-Yes.
MRS. BALFOUR-How much of that, the 51 acres, is flagged wetland? I back right up to
it and I know behind my house it’s all wetland. It’s really just all swamp.
MR. HUNSINGER-I think they’re going to show the wetland map in a minute.
MRS. BALFOUR-I can’t see it without my glasses.
MR. OBORNE-It’s going to take a while.
MRS. BALFOUR-All right.
MR. HUNSINGER-Yes, maybe you could continue with your comments.
MRS. BALFOUR-Because of the placement of my house, I can really tell you, they’re not
going to get any views, because I don’t get any views from my house and it’s really
almost directly by mine. Is this going to be their permanent residence? And that’s
something that they can answer, and I guess my biggest concern is how do we protect
the area up there from, it is one lot, and it was put that way when Grant Acres was put
together, and how are we protected that that won’t be re-subdivided five years from now
when you guys are all gone and somebody else has taken your place, and they come
back and go, it’s 51 acres. It’s only one lot, why can’t we have a subdivision here. So I
guess that would be my final question. Thank you.
MR. HUNSINGER-Thank you.
MR. OBORNE-I can’t access it.
MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. Anyone else? Yes, sir. Sorry for the wait.
MICHAEL DE MARIO
MR. DE MARIO-Well, at least the audio has improved. My question is.
MR. HUNSINGER-If you could identify yourself for the record, again.
MR. DE MARIO-Again, okay. Michael DeMario. I’m at 141 Boulderwood Drive. My
property actually doesn’t border. It just, the corner of my property ends on the corner of
their proposed property. If they build their house on the proposed site that was on the
original plan, would we be sitting here tonight?
MR. HUNSINGER-We would, yes.
MR. DE MARIO-Still?
MR. HUNSINGER-Yes, because it’s within a CEA.
38
(Queensbury Planning Board 07/22/08)
MR. DE MARIO-Well, I didn’t have any meeting or, you know, any proposal when I built
my property, and I built it on, in Grant Acres, and, you know, what’s the difference
between my situation and this situation?
MR. HUNSINGER-I guess Staff’s going to correct me.
MR. OBORNE-Well, the situation, the difference is that this has been made a Major
Stormwater issue, based on the fact that more than 15,000 square feet of land is going to
be disturbed, and on top of that, it is within a CEA. It being in a CEA is not all inclusive.
It’s the Major Stormwater issue is why they’re before the Board right now.
MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. So it’s not the driveway per se, but it’s the totality of the
disruption.
MR. DE MARIO-Now, from what I understand, you can’t predict the future, but
sometimes the past gives you an indication of what’s going to happen, and Sunset Trail
originally was a landing strip for a plane, and Grant built a house at the end of it. Now, it
appears to me that putting in a 1600 foot driveway, which is in excess of a quarter of a
mile, seems to be opening that situation for a future subdivision, and that’s my concern. I
really don’t see any logic to put in that driveway 1600 feet. Why can’t they go 200 feet or
300 feet because if they did that, then it would be difficult to subdivide, but putting a 1600
foot driveway in, that would open that property for subdivision, and that’s my concern,
because I don’t think that property, the structure of it, could sustain anymore housing
than it is originally set for. That’s it.
MR. HUNSINGER-Thank you. Anyone else? Good evening.
MARSHA PURDUE
MRS. PURDUE-Hi. Good evening. My name’s Marsha Purdue, and I live at 129
Wildwood Place, and I just have one question. I’m looking at the engineer report that I
obtained from the Town, and it says that the construction is of an approximately 2200
square foot house. When I looked at that, I was thinking just like you did, that perhaps
that the house was only 2300 square feet, and now what we’re being told is that the
footprint is actually going to be the 2300 square feet. My first question is, does that
include the garage as well, and then my second question is, based on the information
that’s in this report, considering that it seems that the footprint is going to be significantly
larger, does the proposal that they have still work to control the water runoff?
MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. Thank you. Anyone else? Okay, I will leave the public hearing
open for now, but we will stop taking comments this evening. If you want to come back
up. I guess there were at least a couple of questions that neighbors raised that, at least
I’m curious about as well. The first one was on power and whether you’re planning on an
above ground or below ground power entrance.
MR. MAC ELROY-Right. Let me just add a couple of things first, about that.
MR. HUNSINGER-Yes, sure. Go ahead.
MR. MAC ELROY-Jeff will respond to what research he may have done or position he
has on that. There is overhead power on Sunset Trail, first of all, up to the first corner,
first phase of Sunset Trail overhead. There is a utility easement off of that, at that
section of the road that goes down to that lot. Now I haven’t researched that. I don’t
know the implications of that, but that’s, if it’s there, if it’s valid, this owner has the
opportunity to exercise that easement for perhaps utility, whether it’s overhead or
underground, but power is overhead, the first four, five hundred feet on Sunset Trail. Jeff
could maybe respond to whether, what he’s looked into.
JEFF PAULSEN
MR. PAULSEN-Our hopes are to put it underground, depending on how much it’s going
to cost us, but that’s what we had planned on doing.
MR. HUNSINGER-Okay.
MR. SEGULJIC-When you say put it underground from where, though?
MR. MAC ELROY-It’ll depend on, you know, where the, National Grid will have
something to say about that, but perhaps it would be from either Pickle Hill Road
39
(Queensbury Planning Board 07/22/08)
frontage or from that utility easement that exists off of Sunset Trail. Again, I don’t want to
get ahead of myself on that, because I haven’t researched that, what rights there might
be, but I know that there is some form of utility easement there, and, Jeff, I think you’ve
looked into that somewhat.
MR. HUNSINGER-Any other responses to some of the concerns of the public?
MR. MAC ELROY-Well, I think, in general, about the stormwater issue, and the second
speaker’s comments, you know, I’m not sure that there’s much validity. It sounds good
and whatever concerns, and I certainly appreciate people’s concerns that are in the
neighborhood. The water that falls is the water that falls is the water that falls. We’re not
increasing the quantity of runoff that’s here. What does get affected is the rate of runoff,
and that’s what stormwater management is for, and we’ve provide a legitimate, compliant
design, to an extent. Chris Navitsky had made some comments about verifying some
groundwater levels, and that we will pursue, but the design is intended, you know
enough, certainly, about that. The design is intended to control that runoff, to control the
rate of runoff, and the whole idea of stormwater management is to get that water back
into the ground. So the water that falls is the water that falls. The snow that falls and
melts is the snow that melts and runs off. This project, any project, any of the other
neighbor’s properties that have impervious surfaces are the same, you know, you’re not
increasing the quantity of water that falls from the sky or snow that falls from the sky and
melts. So Chris, I’ve received Chris Navitsky’s letter. We’ll look into those suggestions,
in some cases, and we will respond to the Board in the appropriate fashion for certain
parts of those. The area of the wetland, unfortunately we couldn’t bring that up, but I
don’t have the specific, where this road is being proposed, driveway is being proposed,
is, in effect, it’s been cleared to an extent. I’m not saying that there wouldn’t be further
clearing, but we’ve shown a 30 foot wide corridor that would be necessary to comply, to
be able to construct the road bed, gravel surface. I wouldn’t be surprised, and I don’t
want to rule that out, that right around the house area there might be pavement, but the
effective difference between runoff from paved area versus a packed gravel road is
minimal. So, that may be in the future. It would be significant, obviously, to pave that
length of, so it’s certainly reasonable to think that that would be a gravel road, that
maybe right up in the area of the house would be paved. The Paulsens can speak to the
permanency of their residence, but I believe that it’s the house they’re going to live in
year round.
MRS. PAULSEN-We are planning to build our retirement home. My husband and his
family have owned property up here for, since 1963. We vacation up here quite a bit,
and we have decided that this is where we would like to make our permanent residence
and retire, and so we have been searching for a parcel of land, a larger parcel of land,
strange as that may seem to some people. The home we have now borders the woods,
a lot of woods, and we like it. We enjoy being in that kind of an area, and we do love the
Adirondacks. So this will, if that answers the question, be our permanent home. By the
time we get through all the approvals and building, it will probably be about two to two
and a half years from now, and it’s our hope that we will be able to do this.
MR. HUNSINGER-Okay.
MR. MAC ELROY-And the last comment regarding the footprint area, there’s no
deception intended here, not that it was thought, necessarily, but when you were talking
about impervious area, you’re really talking about the footprint of a house. You’re not
worrying whether there’s two floors or, one floor or two floors. That’s the area of
impervious area. So, you know, we used a generic box with an attached garage, and
that did include the area of the garage, for that matter. So everything counts. The area
of the house is fairly minimal in consideration of the rest of the driveway in terms of the
stormwater management, but it’s all contained within the report and accommodated
within that report.
MR. HUNSINGER-Tom?
MR. FORD-If you were here earlier on, you realized that guarantees of permanence of
no further subdivision are, it can be issues that are addressed and re-addressed and
year after year after year.
MR. MAC ELROY-I don’t know the nature of that first project. I just, I heard some parts
of that presentation. This is a filed subdivision in the Warren County Clerk’s Office, and
within that filed map, there’s, and within the body of approvals, there is some stipulation,
some condition that said this was one lot. So, to undo that may be different than what
40
(Queensbury Planning Board 07/22/08)
that first agenda item was dealing with. I don’t know exactly what the conditions were,
but this is, it’s a filed subdivision. It was the lot size that was done at that time.
MR. FORD-It’s a part of the deed. Is it deeded that way?
MR. MAC ELROY-I haven’t, I’m not familiar with the specific language of this deed. So I
don’t know that for certain, but.
MR. OBORNE-The deed states that acreage.
MR. SEGULJIC-But that can’t be subdivided.
MR. OBORNE-Well, according to the subdivision from whence this lot came, that is the
size of lot. It’s one lot. It cannot be subdivided.
MR. SEGULJIC-Okay. Looking at your plans, above the proposed driveway and house
lot, you have these two culverts coming under the road, on Sheet One, the bottom.
MR. MAC ELROY-Right, culverts that cross the driveway?
MR. SEGULJIC-Yes.
MR. MAC ELROY-Those accommodate the existing drainage, that come from the slope.
Those were two, as we surveyed the road corridor, we picked up spots where.
MR. SEGULJIC-Right, but I believe 147 says you have to infiltrate it.
MR. MAC ELROY-Not up gradient pre-existing runoff. That’s just the natural drainage
course. We’re not required to accommodate that.
MR. SEGULJIC-Are you saying there’s a stream there?
MR. MAC ELROY-Not a stream. It’s a drainage way. When it rains, water, it’s
everywhere from, you know, everything upstream, uphill of where you live, you know,
water runs downhill and that’s where that crosses in its natural fashion. We’re just
putting it in the culvert under the driveway. There’s nothing unusual or non-compliant
with doing that. We don’t have to treat up gradient runoff that is from the natural terrain.
147 doesn’t say that.
MR. SEGULJIC-I’d have to look at that. I understand what you’re saying. I don’t know,
but, see, you’ve created.
MR. MAC ELROY-That’s from impervious surface.
MR. SEGULJIC-But you’ve created a discharge point, you’ve created a point source.
MR. MAC ELROY-We’re allowing that, well, we’re allowing that water that naturally
flows, I could walk you out on that site and show you two low points where that water
happens to cross in those two areas. So we put a culvert in. Just like, I’ll give you a
better example. Out at the beginning of the road, when anybody puts their simple
driveway in, they oftentimes have to.
MR. SEGULJIC-So what you’re saying is it’s a natural swale.
MR. MAC ELROY-Yes, it’s a natural way where that water passes.
MR. SEGULJIC-All right.
MR. MAC ELROY-Just like if you had, again, a culvert at the beginning of the road,
driveway.
MR. SEGULJIC-I don’t know how the rest of the Board feels about this, but with regards
to wetlands, because the issue was raised, I think one of the things we should ask for is
just a GIS rendering of it.
MR. TRAVER-I’m sorry, repeat that, Tom, I didn’t hear that.
MR. SEGULJIC-Just get from, the Town can provide that, right, on GIS, the map what
the wetlands are? Just to give a feel how big they are.
41
(Queensbury Planning Board 07/22/08)
MR. MAC ELROY-That’s reasonable.
MR. SEGULJIC-I think also the drywells, to get some information, because it was
pointed out they’re probably six feet deep, and make sure there’s enough soil there for
them.
MR. MAC ELROY-Correct.
MR. SEGULJIC-The other thing I think is, you know, how are the utility lines going to be
coming in? Is that something you can clarify?
MR. MAC ELROY-Well, to the best we can at this point. I’m not sure.
MR. SEGULJIC-Show us the two different options, I guess, that you’re looking at now.
MR. MAC ELROY-Okay. Underground or overhead, and I could show lines on the
drawing.
MR. SEGULJIC-Well, and actually you’re looking from.
MR. MAC ELROY-Coming off of Sunset Trail.
MR. SEGULJIC-Sunset, or you’re looking at coming down Pickle Hill.
MR. MAC ELROY-Yes, we could get further information about that, certainly.
MR. SEGULJIC-Right, is there an easement there, and if there was, what would that
consist of?
MR. MAC ELROY-We’ll clarify that, yes. Good.
MR. SEGULJIC-And then the other thing is, with regards to the construction of the drive,
I’m a little unclear on this. Is this road existing? Because it’s referred to as a trail or
something. Existing farm road and clearing.
MR. MAC ELROY-Yes. I mean, there’s, whether it’s an old logging road or what the
history of that is, I’ve driven my car, I couldn’t do it today. I wouldn’t have done it today,
but I have driven my car to the site when I did soils pits and what not.
MR. SEGULJIC-So you’re looking to improve an existing?
MR. MAC ELROY-It’s an area that’s been previously cleared. Additional clearing would
be required. I’m not trying to say that all we’d have to do is slap six inches of gravel on
there. No, there needs to be grading and stabilization of that area, but it’s a driveway.
MR. SEGULJIC-So there’s going to be some site work there?
MR. MAC ELROY-Yes, certainly.
MR. SEGULJIC-Okay. Now, along with that, then, I didn’t see any, stormwater controls
for the areas you’re going to work on the road, then.
MR. MAC ELROY-Stormwater controls? Yes.
MR. SEGULJIC-Well, during construction, erosion and sedimentation controls.
MR. MAC ELROY-Well, again, the general language is in there about erosion control
and grading notes. It’s not the specific Section out of 147. I know we ran into this with
the Putnam project. You like to see 147-10C on there.
MR. SEGULJIC-Just keep in mind, that’s the regulations, stormwater regulations for that
area.
MR. MAC ELROY-Understood, but we don’t often, we don’t always put all the regulations
on the design plan.
MR. SEGULJIC-Then how is the contractor going to know?
42
(Queensbury Planning Board 07/22/08)
MR. MAC ELROY-Well, we don’t take your Zoning Ordinance and put it all on their.
There are certain elements on that. We have erosion control and grading notes on here.
It’s certainly, I mean, just to end that, you know, any confusion, we’ll put 147-10C on the
plan, certainly, to clarify that.
MR. SEGULJIC-Okay.
MR. MAC ELROY-We did that on Putnam’s also.
MR. SEGULJIC-Okay.
MR. MAC ELROY-And we have certain details about silt fence and catch basin sediment
barriers and, you know, that, there are certain details on there. If more are required,
certainly we will add that.
MR. SEGULJIC-Okay.
MR. MAC ELROY-It’s not really changing the intent of the project.
MR. SEGULJIC-All right, and the last issue would be clearing limits. Something, they
have, for argument’s sake, clearing limits drawn on the figures, but are those
enforceable? They’re not listed as clearing limits.
MR. MAC ELROY-Yes. That’s sort of a depiction of the surveyed area. It’s not intended
to be exact by any means. It’s an indication that there’s a cleared, existing cleared
corridor through there, but we can provide further detail about.
MR. SEGULJIC-Right, if you could.
MR. HUNSINGER-I feel the same way, I mean, they have shown a depiction, but it’s not
really defined.
MR. SEGULJIC-And do you understand what I’m trying to achieve here? I mean, pick as
much as you think you have to clear. We’re just trying to.
MR. MAC ELROY-Define it, sure.
MR. SEGULJIC-Define it.
MR. HUNSINGER-Yes.
MR. SEGULJIC-And not have clear cutting an area. Because, once again, you are in a
Critical Environmental Area. So think about what you want to clear.
MR. MAC ELROY-Right.
MR. FORD-I want to follow up on something that Tom brought up, because I don’t want
to close the door with that. You referred to GIS mapping of the designated wetland on
the property, and that may lead to additional concerns. So I don’t want to close out the
possibility of, in the future, needing to go beyond that to get an actual determination
beyond the GIS configuration.
MR. MAC ELROY-Okay.
MR. FORD-For what wetlands actually exist there and where they are, the acreage and
so forth.
MR. MAC ELROY-Right. I guess I would just say, throw in there that knowing the, where
that roadway is, or the proposed driveway is, and where wetlands are apt to be, we
certainly are 100 feet up gradient of those in all cases, which is typically a buffer that’s
required. I think in Queensbury it might actually be 75, but typically a 100 foot buffer is
generally looked at.
MR. HUNSINGER-Anything else from the Board? Do you have enough notes there to
offer up a tabling resolution?
MR. SEGULJIC-Well, I guess just with the wetlands map, how should we word that?
Wetlands map, depicted by the wetlands map?
43
(Queensbury Planning Board 07/22/08)
MR. HUNSINGER-Yes.
MR. SEGULJIC-Just say provide a wetlands map?
MR. HUNSINGER-Yes. We’re not looking for a specific delineation.
MR. SEGULJIC-From my perspective, it’s such a big site. What I want to make sure is
that the road’s not going through the wetland and everything. It’s such a big site that I
don’t think it makes sense for them to have to survey the wetlands.
MR. MAC ELROY-I mean, we can take.
MR. SEGULJIC-Just give me a level of comfort that there’s.
MR. FORD-That’s what I’m getting at.
MR. MAC ELROY-We can take the GIS information that the Town has and overlay it
onto the Site Plan.
MR. HUNSINGER-Okay, perfect.
MR. MAC ELROY-So that would.
MR. SEGULJIC-I’m just worried about how to word that.
MR. HUNSINGER-Well, I guess you could be that specific to, you know.
MR. TRAVER-Utilize GIS information to depict wetlands on the Site Plan.
MR. HUNSINGER-Utilize GIS information to depict wetlands.
MR. FORD-Good wording.
MR. TRAVER-We also want to add, Tom, while you’re writing it down, the VISION
Engineering comments, too.
MR. HUNSINGER-Yes, address VISION Engineering. Do you have a sense for how
much time you might need to pull this together? Would you be ready for submission in
th
August, August 15?
MR. MAC ELROY-Yes.
MR. HUNSINGER-And that would get you in for September.
MR. MAC ELROY-Correct.
MR. HUNSINGER-Okay.
MR. MAC ELROY-Yes.
MR. SEGULJIC-And with regard to utility information, we’ll just say provide utility
information, electrical utility information?
MR. MAC ELROY-Yes. I’m not sure that we would have the exact final determination of
what choice the Paulsens may make as far as utilities, but we’ll be able to represent what
options there are.
MR. SEGULJIC-Right. Because where I’m coming from, we approve this plan and then
all of a sudden we drive by there one day and there’s this huge swath, because we never
addressed it.
MR. MAC ELROY-Right.
MR. SEGULJIC-Okay. So what I have is address engineering comments, provide GIS
map, utilize GIS mapping to depict on site wetlands, comply with Chapter 147, Major
Stormwater Project requirements, provide drywell test pit data, provide electrical utility
information, and provide clearing limits.
44
(Queensbury Planning Board 07/22/08)
MR. HUNSINGER-Yes. I had a question. I don’t know if it needs to be supplied with
additional information. At any point do the slopes of the driveway exceed 10%? It didn’t
appear to.
MR. MAC ELROY-No. There is a section, as you go up the final area up to the house
site, it happens to be the most steep of that, but, no, I’m going to say, no, that it doesn’t
exceed 10%.
MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. Clearing limits, Tom, have you got that?
MR. SEGULJIC-Clearing limits.
MR. HUNSINGER-Yes.
MR. SEGULJIC-So I think we’re all set.
th
MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. September 16.
MOTION TO TABLE SITE PLAN NO. 29-2008 JEFF PAULSEN, Introduced by Thomas
Seguljic who moved for its adoption, seconded by Thomas Ford:
th
Tabled to the September 16 meeting, requesting the following additional information:
1.Address engineering comments.
2.Utilize Town GIS map to depict on site wetlands.
3.Comply with Chapter 147, large stormwater project requirements.
4.Provide drywell test pit data.
5.Provide electrical utility hook up information.
6.Provide clearing limits.
nd
Duly adopted this 22 day of July, 2008, by the following vote:
AYES: Mr. Ford, Mr. Seguljic, Mr. Traver, Mr. Schonewolf, Mr. Hunsinger
NOES: NONE
ABSENT: Mrs. Steffan, Mr. Sipp
th
MR. HUNSINGER-Obviously you need to submit by August 15.
th
MR. MAC ELROY-August 15.
MR. HUNSINGER-Just as comment to the public, we did keep the public hearing open,
th
so we will take additional comments from the public on September 16 when the
applicant comes back before the Board. They will probably be second on the agenda
because the earlier item will be first, and we will see you then.
MR. MAC ELROY-Thank you very much. Thank you.
SITE PLAN NO. 28-2008 SEQR TYPE UNLISTED SCHERMERHORN COMMERCIAL
HOLDINGS, LP AGENT(S) BARTLETT, PONTIFF, STEWART & RHODES; BOHLER
ENGINEERING OWNER(S) JULIA BRUNO, JUDITH AINIS, JOSEPH FAZIO, HUGO
STORAGE ZONING HC-MOD LOCATION NW CORNER CORINTH RD. & I-87
APPLICANT PROPOSES CONSTRUCTION OF A 53,700 +/- SQ. FT. THREE-STORY
106+ ROOM HOTEL WITH ASSOCIATED ACCESS ROAD AD PARKING LOCATED
ON AN EXISTING 16+ ACRE VACANT LOT. HOTELS IN THE HC ZONE REQUIRE
PLANNING BOARD REVIEW AND APPROVAL. CROSS REFERENCE AV WARREN
CO. PLANNING 7/9/08 LOT SIZE 16.66 +/- ACRES TAX MAP NO. 309.13-1-73
SECTION 179-9-020
JON LAPPER & CHRIS BOYEA, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT
MR. HUNSINGER-Keith, whenever you’re ready, if you could summarize Staff Notes.
45
(Queensbury Planning Board 07/22/08)
MR. OBORNE-Applicant is Schermerhorn Commercial Holdings. The requested action is
a proposed 53,700 square foot, three story, 106 room hotel behind the McDonalds on
Corinth Mountain Road. Existing zoning is Highway Commercial Moderate. The
SEQRA Status is Unlisted. The parcel history, it’s vacant land. The Project Description
was mentioned before. Staff comments, the project is an allowable use for this zone.
There are no setback issues to date and the Zoning Board of Appeals approved the
height variance on July 16, 2008. An issue that might come to light is the impact that the
project might have on the residential neighborhood to the North. Staff believes it would
be advantageous for the applicant to increase the north buffer or at the very least
increase the planting of evergreens to reduce the visual impact of the hotel on the
residential neighborhood. Site Plan Review follows.
MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. Thank you. Good evening.
MR. LAPPER-For the record, Jon Lapper with Rich Schermerhorn, Chris Boyea and Jim
Gillespie, from Bohler Engineering. Rich has the 17 acre site under contract and we’re
ready to close as soon as we get through the planning process. Obviously this project is
for a hotel, and there’s room on the site for additional uses, but that could potentially be
office or a commercial bank. There’s all sorts of things that are permitted, but Rich isn’t
going to build anything on spec. He’ll put up a sign and build the hotel and see what
happens in terms of future uses in the future if somebody comes along, but we’ve done
all the planning for this site in terms of the hotel use, except that the traffic, one of the
questions that came up in the Staff Notes, in terms of coordinating with the Exit 18
improvement plan, the most important thing about this site design was to put the traffic at
a four way intersection with where the State is putting a traffic light by Stewarts. That
creates great stacking distance from the Northway. It’s not the most advantageous site
for Rich and this hotel because it’s all the way at the far western end of the site, but it’s
the right place to put it for any future development and for traffic impact on that road. So
that’s why it’s the unusual site design, but Rich can go through the comments. There’s
nothing that the engineer’s said or the Staff’s said that we have any problem with, and
there’s just a couple of minor buffer things that we want to go through that didn’t get
caught when we had our initial pre-application conference with the Town, and we’re
going to deal with that now, but perhaps we should start off with have the engineer walk
through the plan and show them what’s there.
MR. BOYEA-Good evening. My name is Chris Boyea with Bohler Engineering, and just
a brief overview of what we do propose to build. I just want orient you. This is the
Northway here. This is the off ramp. This is Corinth Road and McDonalds sits right
here. Currently the property is 100% wooded. We’re proposing to build this access road
right across from Big Bay Road. Stewarts is right here at the corner. This access road
would come back through the site and then enter into the proposed three story hotel.
There’s been ample parking that’s been provided. There’s 106 rooms. We’ve provided
over 106 spaces. There’s two way traffic flow around the facility with a portico in the
front. Trash enclosure is back here. Stormwater basins are up front here. The lighting,
throughout the facility, has been adjusted to meet Town Code. We’ve reviewed the
engineering comments that have been provided and spoke with Dan Ryan today. We
have no problem doing all of the minor things that he’s suggested. There’s nothing on
there that is of really any substance or would require any additional engineering effort,
and we’ve proposed a future access here, and that would be to McDonalds Corporation
here, right to their parking lot. That access would allow McDonalds customers then to
use this service road as well. So at such time that McDonalds would like to connect,
they’re more than welcome to. Overall, there is a large green space here, but we just
don’t know what would be built here. So this access road could service that, but as Jon
had mentioned, this is definitely the right spot to connect, where it makes a nice four way
intersection here.
MR. LAPPER-Did you want to add anything at this point, Rich?
MR. SCHERMERHORN-Yes. I might as well add that I’ve spoken to quite a few of the
public that are here tonight. Mr. and Mrs. Gregory, which live directly behind the project,
I had met with them this morning and we discussed keeping a 50 foot buffer behind their
home. I also told them, verbally, and I said on the record that they were comfortable with
the 50 foot buffer, but I also wanted to make it clear to them that if, when the hotel starts
it goes up, if they’re dissatisfied with any of the visual back there, I’m more than happy to
put a fence in for them, additional landscaping for their property. That also goes for, I
just met Mr. Springer, Mr. Smith. They’re concerns were having a 50 foot buffer, which
that is the Town Code, I will comply with that 50 foot buffer, plus a fence was a concern,
just to stop people trafficking through their properties and my property. So again, I have
absolutely no issues with that. I just wanted to state that on the record. There may be
46
(Queensbury Planning Board 07/22/08)
other public here that have concerns. I did get a letter, that I’m sure the Town got, that
was from Today’s Modern Homes. He owns a few of the homes over there, and his
name was Wayne Bemis. I did personally speak to him. I told him his concerns were
valid. He just wanted to make sure that the setback was the maximum setback, which is
50. He’d like to see a chain link fence installed, and make sure that the lighting isn’t
disrupting his homes, and plantings of, it says privacy tree planting to buffer the
residential areas. I spoke to him, sent an e-mail back, I assured him that none of that
would be an issue. I also sent him a copy of the Site Plan. We scanned it and e-mailed
it to him because he wasn’t, he thought that the hotel was possibly behind him, but he’s
actually each side of Vermont Avenue. So I clarified it with him that at this time we’re not
there. So, I don’t know if Chris mentioned, we do have sewers for the project. Mike
Shaw, Town Board has discussed that, we brought it up to where Arrowhead Equipment
is, just shy of the bridge, when the BBL project, Tribune went in. They’ll allow me a force
main, but Mike Shaw called me two weeks ago and said with any luck, they believe that
May they’re going to have the sewer line out in front of, on the Main Street there so that I
have an option either way. If, for any reason, Queensbury got stalled with the project, I
already have the okay to do the sewer on the other side, and again, I can announce,
several weeks back, at one of the meetings I was at, I couldn’t say who the franchise
was until I had the official letter in my hands. It is a Marriot Fairfield Hotel, 106 rooms,
and if there’s questions on that, I can certainly answer that as well.
MR. LAPPER-Let me just, two more comments. We understand the Board’s policy that
we can’t make a re-submission at the meeting, but we did just get the engineering
comments and the Town comments. When this was originally submitted, there was a 28
foot buffer in the back, and the differences, the way the Town Code reads, it’s a, the
buffer, whether it’s to the zone or the use, because the zone is a multifamily zone in the
back, but the use is single family, and there’s a bigger buffer for single family than for
multifamily. So the plan that Chris just showed you has been changed from what was
submitted to you, and that now does respect the 50 foot buffer behind the Hotel, and the
other thing that’s different is that the buffer is also added, the drainage basin that was
previously on the west side of the entrance drive has been eliminated, and that
stormwater is now piped to the two basins, and so we understand that, the engineers
have talked to the Town Engineer, and we understand that that would be subject to his
review, but we’ve made those changes already and are here agreeing to make those
changes for the Board because the Town comments were correct that those things
needed to get changed. So those were changed.
MR. HUNSINGER-So just to clarify, the Site Plan that we reviewed shows less than a 50
foot buffer?
MR. LAPPER-Yes.
MR. HUNSINGER-It’s 28 foot shown on the plans that we reviewed?
MR. LAPPER-Right.
MR. HUNSINGER-Okay.
MR. LAPPER-And we’ve already acknowledged that it should be 50, after we talked to
Craig Brown at the end of last week, and we’re making that change that, what Rich
discussed with the neighbors, and Rich didn’t mention that he also met with
representatives of McDonalds and needless to say they’re real happy, not just for the
access, you know, for their traffic to use a traffic light, but also for Rich’s customers to go
to McDonalds. So that’s going to probably happen pretty quick after this project is in.
MR. HUNSINGER-So do you think McDonalds would be inclined to build the extension?
MR. LAPPER-Yes, they want that.
MR. HUNSINGER-That would be great.
MR. SCHERMERHORN-I was actually with Renee Reardon and the timing couldn’t have
been more perfect, because she called me last week. I have the cards, just as proof I
met with them. I have their area construction manager. I have their real estate manager,
and their finance. I met with all of them personally, shook their hands, and we had a
meeting at the McDonalds and they were, I mean, naturally they were happy to see it,
because anyone that comes out of McDonalds, you know it’s very hard to take a left. So
now their people, which will traffic onto my road, will be able to go to a traffic light to get
out, but that has been addressed as well.
47
(Queensbury Planning Board 07/22/08)
MR. TRAVER-There won’t be any food service at the Hotel?
MR. SCHERMERHORN-A Marriot Fairfield is a limited service. It’s coffee, danishes,
donuts and things like that.
MR. TRAVER-Like a business breakfast type of thing?
MR. SCHERMERHORN-A business breakfast, yes, not a full service restaurant, and
again, McDonalds was very happy to see the Hotel because they know the brand and of
course this is added business for them.
MR. SCHONEWOLF-So it’s a Hotel with those two names on it, or is it a Marriot Suites
and a Fairfield Hotel?
MR. SCHERMERHORN-They call it a Fairfield Inn and Suites by Marriot, and Marriot is
posted, you can see the way they do it.
MR. SCHONEWOLF-That’s a new one. I’ve stayed at both Hotels, but I never saw
anything like that before.
MR. LAPPER-It’s one of the Marriot brands.
MR. SCHERMERHORN-Yes. Warren County asked me that and someone at the ZBA. I
actually had Hampton as the original brand I was approved for. They took my franchise
money and all this good stuff, and then there was a problem with the Lake George
owner. He didn’t, we were out of their distance, but he argued a little bit about it, and I
said no problem, Marriot was my other choice. So Marriot, though, it took months, and
months of review, because not only do they, well the first thing they consider is location.
Hands down, when I applied to them, they said, no, we know the location, they knew it
immediately when I called them. That was approved. Then I had to go through all the
other process of being able to prove to them I can build it and run it and all that other
stuff. So, to answer your question, it was very difficult to get Marriot because they are
very good, and the one thing I want to point out, they’re about the only Hotel I know of
that they make you take a certain percentage of your room rates and it has to go into a
reserve account. Every six to seven years they update these rooms, and what I mean by
that is it might mean new wallpaper, new curtains, new bedspreads. That way there you
don’t end up with Hotels that end up dated or tired looking. I think that’s why Marriot has
kept a good name in the industry.
MR. HUNSINGER-Anything else you wanted to add?
MR. SCHERMERHORN-No.
MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. Questions, comments from the Board?
MR. TRAVER-When I first looked at the layout I thought, gee, you know, you’d want to, I
mean, my first instinct would be to put the place more in the middle of the property
because it’s going to be noisy by the Northway, but now you’re mentioning possibly
developing some other structure or some other use for the remainder of the property. So
that’s understandable how you have it placed there. Do you have any idea what might
be co-located at some point down the road?
MR. SCHERMERHORN-I don’t have a clue at this time. I would only hope that with most
developments, when I start something, hopefully I’ll get some phone calls, but it has, you
know, several uses, but right now there’s nobody that’s contacted me, just the Hotel.
MR. SCHONEWOLF-How dependent are you on what progress the Town makes with
the development of the road going the other way?
MR. LAPPER-This project isn’t, because what Rich is saying, he’s bringing the sewer in
from the back. If the Main Street project happens first, he’ll connect to the front.
MR. SCHONEWOLF-It doesn’t matter.
MR. LAPPER-And the traffic generated by this is very minor. So it’s not an issue. We
don’t need the traffic light for this project. We’ll need it for the next one.
48
(Queensbury Planning Board 07/22/08)
MR. FORD-Just going back to the previous question, the extent to which Marriot was
concerned about the Hotel on the property as opposed to further west.
MR. LAPPER-They had no problem with that.
MR. SCHERMERHORN-No. Actually, they, I gave them alternative locations. Usually
with hotels what they do is, you would think that maybe the best spot would be to focus it
the other way.
MR. FORD-Not quite as noisy.
MR. SCHERMERHORN-Right, but they’re very specific.
MR. FORD-The visibility.
MR. SCHERMERHORN-Right, the glass that we use. The hotels are all soundproof to
begin with between floors and walls. So, yes, you’re going to get some noise, but it’s,
the gable end of the building typically is where the fire escapes are down the side. So
there is some buffering there, but they were very pleased with the location. It also offers
visibility where McDonalds is, and with the roadway and the stormwater and the way the
position of the building, it’s very visible from McDonalds. So McDonalds likes it. The
Marriot likes it. They do like the location. It would be less money if I put it over in the
other corner, but it’s not the most feasible.
MR. HUNSINGER-That was really my main concern when I looked at this plan was the
buffer to the neighborhood to the north, but it sounds like you’ve already addressed it. In
fact, I even put an arrow showing, well, why didn’t you shift the building to the south a
little further to get it further away from the neighbors, but you did.
MR. LAPPER-It just took us a little while to figure that out.
MR. HUNSINGER-Yes.
MR. SCHERMERHORN-Well, the other, I guess again it just seemed to be with the
topography and everything, it just seemed to be a good fit.
MR. HUNSINGER-And it’s interesting, because I was going to convey this, you know, I
don’t pretend to say I travel a lot of work, but maybe once a month or so, and I stayed at
a, ironically it was a Marriot. It was outside of Rochester, out near Rochester, and the
Hotel was kind of set back in the woods, had very low lighting, you know, similar to the
Town Code, and it was next to TGIF Fridays or something, you know, and it was kind of
hard to find the Hotel, but once you got there, it was a very interesting setting, and when
I saw this plan, it reminded me immediately of that other hotel. So it’s kind of ironic that
it’s the same brand of this other one that I stayed at.
MR. LAPPER-Chris, you just reminded me. One, third change that we made after we got
the Staff Notes is to add street lights along that entrance road because they had
mentioned about looking at the lighting section, in terms of the uniformity ratio for that
driveway, so we did add, on this plan, pole lights along that, to comply with those
comments from Staff.
MR. HUNSINGER-I thought there were pole lights along the driveway.
MR. BOYEA-There were, but there were some hot spots, so we’ve leveled it out.
MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. So did you change the uniformity ratios at all by doing that?
MR. BOYEA-The uniformity ratio now complies with the Town standard, which is the
lower levels. Originally we had a few hot spots, and there were some dark spots along
that long road, and overall we just reviewed the whole lighting plan, and made sure that it
complies with the Town Code as requested.
MR. HUNSINGER-Yes. I’ve got to be honest, I didn’t study the second page as much as
I studied the first page. The second page is the driveway.
MR. FORD-With 106 rooms, you said there was going to be more than 106 parking
spaces. Could we define that a little better?
MR. BOYEA-One hundred and eleven spaces are provided.
49
(Queensbury Planning Board 07/22/08)
MR. SCHERMERHORN-There’s 111, and Warren County asked me these questions,
too, that I know what you’re thinking. You have your employee parking, okay, which
could be five or six people depending on how staffed you are. In a perfect world, you
hope that your hotel is 100%, but your hotels are never 100%. We may have, maybe
Travers week in Saratoga overflow. We may be 100%, or maybe the Elvis festival in
Lake George 100%, but typically you’re never 100%, which means that if you’re thinking,
do I have enough parking. The one thing, certainly I don’t have a problem adding more
parking, but with Marriot, with all the studies they do, market studies they do, with the
comings and goings of these things, it’s adequate of what we have. The only time you
could ever, ever be at maximum is if that hotel is 100% full, and it also came up about
buses. Buses, how it works in the industry, they just don’t show up and say we need 30
rooms, because that’s taking a gamble that there’s going to be 30 rooms. They call
ahead, well, 30 rooms, if there’s 50 people on the bus and they need 30 rooms, for
example, well, that means that 30 parking spots are going to be vacant. So what we do
is there’s a designated spot, you have some cones handy, and you bring the cones out
and you say this is designated for the bus. So, this stuff, the nice thing about working
with Marriot is all this is thought out for me. So I have a lot of the answers that come
forward.
MR. FORD-Thank you.
MR. SCHERMERHORN-Other questions, comments from the Board?
MR. SEGULJIC-My only issue is how’s it going to look from the highway and the
buffering strip along the ramp there?
MR. SCHERMERHORN-Okay. The one thing that, it’s kind of hard to see, but there is a
dark shading here, and I’ve walked the whole line, and if you carefully pull off to the side
of the ramp, the State has several trees that are on that property line that won’t be
touched. Directly behind me actually, and I just walked all that where the Town of
Queensbury’s putting their recreation. If you notice where they just cleared for the new
park, there’s no buffer whatsoever. There’s no trees, and it’s totally wide open. So out
of fairness, this site has more buffering than the park and directly across the street,
Tribune and the firehouse just went, because when you’re heading northbound, you can
look right to the right and Tribune is as clear as day and so is the firehouse. So I am
fortunate, I do have buffering, and they are nice trees, actually. I was in there today,
because I was with Mr. Gregory. There’s some oaks and there are some maples, and
there is some scrub pine in there, but we’ll certainly work to keep, you know, certainly
keep what’s there.
MR. SEGULJIC-Just to clarify, those trees you refer to are not on your property. They’re
on the DOT’s?
MR. SCHERMERHORN-They’re right on the State line, and over the State line, where
the fence is.
MR. SEGULJIC-So they’re not on your plan then.
MR. LAPPER-No.
MR. SCHERMERHORN-So I can’t touch them. No, because we’re acknowledging our
plan, but I’m showing in that picture, that dark shaded area, that is all existing vegetation
that’s there.
MR. SEGULJIC-So how wide is that strip about?
MR. LAPPER-Between the travel lane and the property line?
MR. SEGULJIC-Yes.
MR. LAPPER-Chris can tell us that.
MR. SCHERMERHORN-Well, I was out there. Some of it’s 10, 15 feet. It’s not
exorbitant, but it is buffer.
MR. SEGULJIC-Okay. All right, and then it looks like on your plan you’re going to have
some trees in your stormwater retention basin?
50
(Queensbury Planning Board 07/22/08)
MR. BOYEA-They’re on the edge of the basin.
MR. SEGULJIC-They’re on the edge of the basin, they’re not in it.
MR. BOYEA-No.
MR. SEGULJIC-Okay, and then one other last comment is, the issues with the
neighbors, would it make sense to have a good neighbor plan which is in our Code. We
never really, it just spells out, because you had indicated that if certain things happen.
MR. SCHERMERHORN-Yes. I just said, on the record that, right now, the neighbors are
not asking me right now to put a fence up. They’re concerned with the future, beyond
the Hotel.
MR. SEGULJIC-Right. So, you know how it is. We all look out on a plan and think what
it’s going to look like, and then in reality it’s there. You had indicated that you might be
willing to do additional things in the future, is what I understood.
MR. SCHERMERHORN-Yes, absolutely.
MR. SEGULJIC-So I guess the good neighbor plan would.
MR. LAPPER-If I understand, we’d designate someone on staff that’ll meet with them,
someone to call if they have an issue in terms of the good neighbor plan.
MR. SEGULJIC-Yes, because I was looking for that. In our Code there’s something
about a good neighbor plan.
MR. LAPPER-Yes. We can do that.
MR. SEGULJIC-And it just captures that kind of stuff.
MR. SCHERMERHORN-I told Mr. Gregory, and I’ve done this on other projects. If I get
a phone call, just because something’s stamped and it’s cast, it’s not cast in stone. I
always work with the residents. I mean, if they need, they want a fence, they want
additional landscaping, because it’s something that they couldn’t tell at one of these
meetings, I consider that very reasonable. I don’t consider that to be a, it goes a long
way to work with people, and I can agree to whatever condition you’d like.
MR. HUNSINGER-Do you have an idea for how high the peak of the building will be
compared to the Northway?
MR. SCHERMERHORN-Eighteen feet.
MR. HUNSINGER-And the building’s 50.
MR. SCHERMERHORN-Fifty.
MR. HUNSINGER-So you’d be looking at second floor, basically, third floor.
MR. SCHERMERHORN-Third floor, yes, which, again, we felt was a good idea to do the
peaked roof, because I could have done a flat roof. That’s why I asked for the variance,
but I don’t think this Board would have wanted it, and I think most people.
MR. HUNSINGER-I think you have a great building design. My only comment on the
building design is what are the proposed colors? We’d need to see the color samples.
MR. SCHERMERHORN-And again, Marriot, a lot of the new Marriots that are going up,
and I visited quite a few of them in Maine and over in New Hampshire, I was just over
seeing these. A lot of them have an ivory color, cream color, which is kind of similar to
the accent color, I noticed, on the Tribune building, but it doesn’t mean that you couldn’t
choose a different color. Like I have a picture of the one, same building at Exit 12 at
Malta, and theirs is gray vinyl siding, with some brick on it. This, the new buildings that
they’re doing all have stucco on them, and maintenance wise, aesthetic wise, I’ve seen
them. It’s very attractive. It’s less money for me to do a vinyl sided building, but I’ve
looked at the buildings personally and I find them to be attractive, but again, we’ve
always worked with colors.
MR. FORD-Brick is out?
51
(Queensbury Planning Board 07/22/08)
MR. SCHERMERHORN-I wouldn’t say it’s out. I’m happy to do accent bricks on the
building. One thing that I have found at the nicer Marriot’s I’ve visited, that Chris was
saying, when you have tree buffers around them and you do nice landscaping,
landscaping goes a long way with everything, and I mean, if you can tell by my
apartment projects and office buildings on Bay Road, we really put a lot of pride into the
landscaping because we feel it goes a long way. So I want this to be a winner. I
certainly don’t want this to be a, you know, but again, I’m always open, but I will tell you,
aesthetically, I’ve visited the building, and they are attractive, as you can see it in the
picture.
MR. FORD-I’m familiar with them.
MR. HUNSINGER-So do you have a proposed color scheme?
MR. SCHERMERHORN-Yes. This color, it’s actually, I think it’s ivory. They have a
specific. It’s a cream ivory color, and then it has like the weather wood shingles on the
roof which is like a, I guess an earth tone color is what it is. That’s what I would propose
to keep it in, consistent with the other, well there’s not many buildings around it, but
consistent with Tribune and Pine and Luzerne Road what I’m building.
MR. HUNSINGER-In terms of submission of that, I mean.
MR. SCHERMERHORN-Yes, I could give this to you.
MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. I guess I was thinking of something a little more significant
than a little brochure.
MR. SCHERMERHORN-No, I agree.
MR. HUNSINGER-I mean, oftentimes we get like, you know, siding samples and specific
colors.
MR. SCHERMERHORN-Well, I can certainly get a color to you. It won’t vary much from
that.
MR. HUNSINGER-Okay.
MR. SCHERMERHORN-And it is stucco. So I guess it would more or less, if I brought a
paint chip in, it would match that.
MR. HUNSINGER-Or, you know, just a color rendering.
MR. SCHERMERHORN-Yes, I mean, that is what I’m building.
MR. HUNSINGER-Okay.
MR. SEGULJIC-There’s no subdivision with this then?
MR. SCHERMERHORN-No, it’s just 16.59 acres.
MR. SEGULJIC-That’s in the future you come back for subdivision if you had something
else, but you don’t know what it’s going to be.
MR. SCHERMERHORN-Yes.
MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. Any other questions, comments from the Board? We do have
a public hearing scheduled this evening. I would ask that members of the public that
want to address the Board to state their name for the record and to keep their comments
within five minutes. Ma’am, do you want to come up?
PUBLIC HEARING OPENED
DEBRA WOOD
MRS. WOOD-This has always been a pretty closed off community, and the people that
have lived there have lived there forever, and I’m just wondering what all this progress is
going to do to the ones who’ve always lived there?
52
(Queensbury Planning Board 07/22/08)
MR. HUNSINGER-Could you state your name for the record, please, ma’am.
MRS. WOOD-My name is Debra Wood. I’m basically from Corinth Road, but right now I
live in Northwinds on Luzerne Road, but what is this going to do? Like my mother is 72
years old, and now what, they’re going to come in with all kinds of taxes that she’s got to
now pay because of his dreams? I don’t understand. Is she going to still be able to live
in her home that she’s been in forever, or now it’s going to go out from under us and then
they can keep building and putting us out. Is that the idea?
MR. HUNSINGER-I guess I’m not sure I understand your question or comment.
MRS. WOOD-Well, I wanted to know what is all his progress going to cause the people
that have always been there? We’ve always lived in this closed knit neighborhood, and
so now what, our taxes are going to go so high that we can’t even afford to live where
we’ve always been just because of his big dreams going on.
MR. HUNSINGER-Well, I think that, statistically, it’s well known that commercial
properties generate more taxes than services that they require.
MRS. WOOD-So what do we do to stop this progress, if we want to remain where we’ve
been for years forever? What do we do to stop his progress?
MR. HUNSINGER-Well, I mean, I really can’t advise you of that. I mean, if there’s
specific issue or concerns that you have, we’re certainly, you know, we will accept those
concerns and questions and comments.
MRS. WOOD-I just told you a few of my concerns. Like we’re going to end up with no
home because he wants to build his dream?
MR. HUNSINGER-I guess I’m not sure how I understand how you would lose your house
because he’s building a hotel nearby.
MRS. WOOD-Because we can’t afford to pay the taxes on our property anymore
because of all this progress. You don’t understand at all what I’m saying?
MR. HUNSINGER-Well, like I said, statistically commercial property generate more taxes
than services that they use.
MRS. WOOD-It should be the ones that are building it pay their own taxes. It shouldn’t
go out for everybody else. Then what if we want to stop his dreams, you know, go
somewhere else where they want it?
MR. HUNSINGER-If you’re opposed to the project.
MRS. WOOD-I am opposed.
MR. HUNSINGER-Okay.
MRS. WOOD-And I can bring in about everybody else, too, to stop him, and we’re going
to stand firm on our own grounds where we’ve been.
MR. HUNSINGER-Okay.
MRS. WOOD-I will do that. When do you have another hearing on this?
MR. HUNSINGER-You’ll know before the evening’s over, yes.
MRS. WOOD-All right.
MR. HUNSINGER-Thank you.
MRS. WOOD-Thank you.
MR. HUNSINGER-Yes, sir.
BILL VAN NESS
MR. VAN NESS-Good evening.
53
(Queensbury Planning Board 07/22/08)
MR. HUNSINGER-Good evening.
MR. VAN NESS-I’m Bill VanNess. I do own property and I do live and I was born and
raised in this area. I own property at the corner of Corinth Road and Ohio Avenue, which
is actually two streets down from where this project is taking place. I think it’s a
phenomenal project. I think it’s going to bring employment to the kids of that area, that
haven’t been able to get employment or haven’t had cars to drive to employment. It’s
going to give them the opportunity to work. It’s going to be, definitely going to be an
improvement to our neighborhood. I’ve seen Mr. Schermerhorn’s projects around the
area. I talked with Mr. Schermerhorn. I’ve talked with my neighbors that are back there,
that are willing to come up tell you they’re supporting this project 100%, and I was at the
Zoning Board meeting the other day and I did send a letter, I hope you got it. I apologize
for not mailing it, but I brought it with me to zoning, and I did support the peak instead of
the flat. We all know the flat roofs in the North Country don’t last very long, and I think
the peaks are, the aesthetics of the peaks for the Fairfield Marriot are beautiful, and I just
think it’s a great project and I’d really like to see it move forward. Thank you.
MR. HUNSINGER-Thank you. Anyone else?
GLEN GREGORY
MR. GREGORY-Glenn Gregory. I live on East Avenue, directly behind this project. My
property abuts his property where the motel is going to be. I think it’s going to enhance
the whole area. I feel quite sure that it will enhance my property, make it more valuable.
We did talk, there’s going to be a 50 foot buffer, a fence if I want it. Right now I don’t
care one way or the other. If I want a fence two years from now, he’ll put one in two
years from now. The buffer zone will contain oak, maple, trees that have been there for
numerous years, and I know it’ll be landscaped. I’m going to do my share of landscaping
into it, and I know he will do his share of landscaping into it, to improve the whole area. I
look forward to it coming. It’ll give me something to do to pass my time when I watch him
build it. I hope this project passes, and I wish him a lot of good luck with it. Again, I want
to see it there. Thank you.
MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. Anyone else?
PETE SMITH
MR. SMITH-Yes. My name is Pete Smith, and my family owns on the corner, that sharp
corner there, they own that property, and Richie, I had concerns that Richie went over
with me, like the fence, and a 50 foot buffer, and like I told him, if he doesn’t build it,
somebody else is going to, some day, because that property is up for sale and it doesn’t
make a difference who buys it. Somebody is eventually going to put something there.
So I know Richie does a good job. I see his houses and units that he builds, so I think it
would be good for the community.
MR. HUNSINGER-Thank you. Anyone else? Okay. I will leave the public hearing open,
but we will conclude comments this evening. If you want to come back up. Where are
we at?
MR. SEGULJIC-Where are we at? Well, we said they had the plan with the 50 foot
buffer. The only confusion I have is I guess you’ve talked to the neighbors and you’ve
had some agreements. I mean, do we want to get involved with that as a Board or have
them submit a good neighbor plan or?
MR. HUNSINGER-Are you familiar with that? Have you looked at that, Jon?
MR. SCHERMERHORN-I’m not, but I’m willing to condition at any time that a fence can
be put down the property line. I have no problem with that. I would think it would
probably serve well for both sides. Mr. Gregory’s being very generous by not asking for
it when most people would, but again, I’m more than willing to do that for them, plus
some buffering of trees for his yard or whatever. So I think what the neighbors are
asking for is very minimal for me, to be honest with you, but for the record, I’m willing to
put the fence in at any time, put it in now, because I don’t know what the future will be,
and I would certainly think, in the future, if something was to go in, someone would
probably want it anyway.
MR. HUNSINGER-What kind of a fence would you propose?
54
(Queensbury Planning Board 07/22/08)
MR. SCHERMERHORN-Well, I mean, chain link is nice. We don’t want it to, I guess like
Bill VanNess said, we don’t want it to look like a prison. We’re not trying to box anybody
out. It’s just to be able to stop the people cutting through there. There’s been debris
deposited through there over the years. It’s been cleaned up, but I mean a chain link
always looks nice because there is a 50 foot buffer that’s going to remain. So the fence
is just more or less to stop people from trafficking through there. A stockade fence or a
wood fence is nice, even a cedar fence is nice, but it’s wood and they do deteriorate over
time.
MR. HUNSINGER-Where would the fence be?
MR. SCHERMERHORN-Well, typically Town of Queensbury requires, correct me if I’m
wrong, you have to leave one foot off your property line for a maintenance line, I guess,
when you put it, but usually I set mine two feet off, and then I’ve assured the neighbors
that if the fence is on, two feet off the property line, I still have to adhere to that 50 foot
buffer line. That won’t be touched. The only way it would ever touched if there was a
storm and a tree went down. That would be it.
MR. HUNSINGER-Actually, one of the other questions I had is on the utility plan, if you
bring the utilities in off Main Avenue, you didn’t really show the impact that that would
have on the trees and the buffer.
MR. SCHERMERHORN-Right.
MR. HUNSINGER-So how would that be restored?
MR. SCHERMERHORN-Well, we’re very confident and, after talking with Mike Shaw, it’s
going to be on Broad Street.
MR. HUNSINGER-Okay.
MR. SCHERMERHORN-But if we did have to come down Main Avenue where it’s
proposed, if we have to go that route, we were going to directional bore it so we wouldn’t
have any disturbance whatsoever because it’s all sand and directional boring. It’s so
convenient now and it’s only a force main. So there’d be literally no disturbance.
MR. HUNSINGER-So you wouldn’t disturb the bushes at all?
MR. SCHERMERHORN-No.
MR. HUNSINGER-Yes, okay.
MR. SCHERMERHORN-We’d go right under the 50 foot buffer to pop right up and you’d
never know you went through it.
MR. HUNSINGER-So, going back to the fence, where would it begin and end? Would it
just be on the north boundary line?
MR. SCHERMERHORN-I would go property line to property line, and I would even run it
up as far as, you know, halfway up or if not all the way up. I’m not opposed to running it
anywhere. I haven’t heard from the other neighbor, Lebowitz. I don’t know what their
objection would be to it, but again, I’m not afraid to run the fence anywhere. In the
scheme of things, it’s a reasonable request that they want.
MR. HUNSINGER-How does the Board feel about that?
MR. FORD-Sounds like a pretty convenient plan, and a cooperative plan.
MR. SCHERMERHORN-Or at least to address the neighbors tonight, can we condition it
that it will be the north side of the property? Maybe the other neighbors may not want a
fence. I don’t know maybe they want buffering. I don’t know.
MR. FORD-Let me ask this. Is there any advantage, would there be any advantage to
having it interior to the 50 foot buffer zone?
MR. SCHERMERHORN-What happens there is then I lose control, and I’m not saying
these neighbors would do it, but then people will take it upon themselves, they’ll think
that that’s a new property line, and then people will start trying to maintain that, which,
there’s nothing wrong with that, but then I lose that control. They might start doing
55
(Queensbury Planning Board 07/22/08)
clearing or dumping stuff in there. That happens all the time. I’m not saying these
people here would do that.
MR. SEGULJIC-On that western property line, though, that’s all going to remain treed
until you decide that next lot.
MR. LAPPER-Right. Yes. So we’d like to leave the western property line alone right
now, and we’ll see what happens when we come back sometime in the future.
MR. HUNSINGER-I was going to say, I don’t even know if I see a need to, well, the
whole length of the northern property line.
MR. LAPPER-Basically Rich is just trying to be agreeable.
MR. HUNSINGER-Yes. Understood. How tall would the fence be, four foot?
MR. FORD-And it shows.
MR. SCHERMERHORN-No. Usually typical they’re like six foot. You make them just
high enough so people, I mean, if they’re going to climb them, they’re going to climb
them, but six foot should at least deter them. Four foot they’ll be able to jump and ride
their bike over it, and they do ride through there. As a matter of fact, the McDonalds
people constantly take their dogs in there to go to the bathroom.
MR. LAPPER-The customers.
MR. SCHERMERHORN-But certainly it would be much appreciated if we could work
through this tonight. I know you guys are always booked up. So if we’re tabled for
engineering comments, like I said, Chris Boyea did talk to Dan Ryan and his comments
are just simply dotting I’s and crossing T’s, and we certainly could condition that he just,
you know.
MR. LAPPER-Condition on an engineering signoff.
MR. SCHERMERHORN-Signoff.
MR. LAPPER-With the 50 foot buffer and these changes that we’ve mentioned.
MR. SCHERMERHORN-Again, I know you hear this all the time, but it would be nice to
be in the ground by the fall, because it’s going to take a year or so to build it.
MR. HUNSINGER-Well, what’s the feeling of the Board?
MR. SCHONEWOLF-I could approve it based on those conditions.
MR. HUNSINGER-Tom, Tom or Steve?
MR. FORD-It seems very positive for everybody concerned, good for the neighborhood,
good for our community, a spirit of cooperation that should serve as an example for
others.
MR. SEGULJIC-Run through it again for me where the fence would be.
MR. SCHERMERHORN-Right now we’ve proposed to go from the east end all the way
to the west end, and then we could certainly, unless Mr. Smith wanted it to come up
further, I don’t know.
MR. SEGULJIC-And where would the fence be, on the property line, five feet from the
property line?
MR. SCHERMERHORN-I’d probably hold at two feet. I think the Town Code is one foot,
but usually do two feet because you have to do maintenance and if someone doesn’t
want you on their property, at least you have two feet.
MR. SEGULJIC-So you’re saying a six foot fence.
MR. SCHERMERHORN-Chain link, yes.
MR. SEGULJIC-Chain link fence.
56
(Queensbury Planning Board 07/22/08)
MR. FORD-Two feet in off the property line.
MR. LAPPER-Right.
MR. SEGULJIC-Would you have to clear trees for that?
MR. SCHERMERHORN-No. Generally, well, if there’s brush, if there’s big trees, we’re
going to go around them, but if there’s brush and we can get a fairly clean, straight line,
we don’t touch them, but AFSCO Fence goes in there and they work right around the
trees the best that they can. These are cemented in the ground, and it’s a chain link
fence.
MR. SEGULJIC-Okay. I thought they wanted more of a visual barrier.
MR. BOYEA-It’s all full of trails and motorcycle trails and stuff like that. It’s to stop the
people from crossing through them. If it’s desired. As it stands right now, nobody’s
asked for the fence, but this is what he’s going to do if we are asked for it.
MR. OBORNE-Mr. Chairman, I do want to bring something to light, and that is the
revisions to the plans are quite, not massive or severe, but they are moderate. I am
certainly going to want to do another Site Plan Review, a revised Site Plan Review on
this. I don’t mean to put a damper on your plans. I mean, you have some pretty major
changes going on here.
MR. LAPPER-Well, Keith, I guess what Rich is suggesting is that we would make all of
this subject to the engineering review, that everything we’ve said tonight would be
conditioned, the 50 foot buffer in the back, the fence in the back, the change in the
lighting, and the moving of that drainage basin away from the west side that would have
to be subject to Dan Ryan’s review and approval. So it would just be conditioned,
although we wouldn’t have to come back since the Board’s booked next month, but we’d
have to get a signoff from the Town Engineer on those changes.
MR. OBORNE-And that’s certainly your do if you wish to do that.
MR. SEGULJIC-What were the lighting changes?
MR. LAPPER-Just to make sure the uniformity ratio conformed on the driveway.
MR. HUNSINGER-There’s no changes in the lighting around the Hotel.
MR. LAPPER-Right. It’s just on the driveway.
MR. HUNSINGER-Just on the driveway.
MR. SCHERMERHORN-And no fault of Craig or anybody at Staff. It was just, when we
sat down for the pre-application, the buffer zones that we all agreed upon was the correct
buffer zone, what they thought was, too, and it was just a mistake on, I guess all of our
parts. Not just one blame, but it was an honest mistake. So we’re just, all we’re doing is
moving it to the 50 foot instead of the.
MR. HUNSINGER-And then you’re changing the stormwater detention basin.
MR. LAPPER-We’re removing the one that was on the west side so we can keep the 50
foot buffer.
MR. HUNSINGER-Which makes, in my mind makes the plan better, but we still need to
make sure the engineering’s okay.
MR. LAPPER-And that’s why we’re saying, of course Dan will have to sign off.
MR. HUNSINGER-Yes, and then the color scheme. So, I hate to go back to the color
scheme again. So the color of the building would be uniform, because the black and
white rendition suggests that there’s more than one color.
MR. SCHERMERHORN-I can leave you this rendering, and this is an ivory color.
MR. HUNSINGER-But even from here that looks like more than one color, or is it just the
shadows?
57
(Queensbury Planning Board 07/22/08)
MR. SCHERMERHORN-Yes, it is. It has white trim with an ivory color stucco, and then
the roof shingles is a weather wood roof shingle, which we use all the time. It’s like a
brown, earth tone color. The colors, I believe, would compliment the Tribune building
directly across the Northway.
MR. HUNSINGER-See, again, from here, it looks like the, towards the right, the portion
of the building that sticks forward a little bit, it looks like a darker color than the wings
behind it, or is that just the shadow?
MR. SCHERMERHORN-It’s sort of the shadowing of it. I have visited quite a few of
these, and they, I hate to use the word, they have their standards that Marriot likes to
represent, but I know that Home Depots and Lowe’s could be a different color if the
Planning Board wishes, but there is a color that they like to keep as their theme, and it is,
I’ve visited it, it’s like an ivory color.
MR. HUNSINGER-Yes. My only fear with that color is that it might be too bright.
MR. SCHERMERHORN-Yes, and again, I guess the only way we, we’d have to have
another meeting and choose colors, right? I’m not opposed to it.
MR. TRAVER-At night it certainly looks bright, when there’s light on the building.
MR. HUNSINGER-It looks different at night, but I’m thinking more of the daytime, when
you have the sun on it, it might look brighter.
MR. TRAVER-Yes.
MR. SCHERMERHORN-I mean, there is a good amount of, like I said, tall trees around
it. I think the color is also, it’s a warm color as well. I’m trying to, I almost want to say it’s
kind of the color of the Comfort Inn and Suites that Starks did, although theirs is vinyl
siding, it is that, as a matter of fact, I think it’s a very comparable color, but they have
dark brown trim around theirs instead of the white trim.
MR. HUNSINGER-Just, there’s been times when the depiction we see here isn’t what
the real world is.
MR. SCHONEWOLF-Look at the one in Latham, when you go down (lost words). Look
at the Suites, it’s the same, just past the car dealer, the Mercedes dealer.
MR. SCHERMERHORN-At Exit 15?
MR. LAPPER-In Latham he said.
MR. SCHERMERHORN-Latham.
MR. SCHONEWOLF-That’s been there for quite a while, and it’s really nice.
MR. SCHERMERHORN-It’s certainly not a builder/developer/owner chosen color. It’s a
color that’s been established by Marriot, but that doesn’t mean it’s right for every
community. I understand that.
MR. HUNSINGER-Right. Well, I mean, if no one else has concerns.
MR. FORD-I know where you’re going, and I’m trying to be consistent as well. Now
we’ve had very presentations of different colorations and actual samples and gotten to
choose.
MR. SCHERMERHORN-And samples, I agree. I do this for a living. Samples are tough.
I could bring in pieces of siding and it could look one way tonight and you put it on the
building and it looks different.
MR. FORD-I understand that, but we’ve asked others to do exactly that, where we’ve
selected something from other than a brochure. That’s for sure.
MR. LAPPER-Well, let me suggest this. Would it be possible, we do this in other
communities, not so much in Queensbury, where you grant Rich a conditional approval,
so that the Site Plan is approved, but we would still say, as a condition, that we would
come back because obviously it’s not going to be, need to do the outside color next
58
(Queensbury Planning Board 07/22/08)
month, that we would come back in a couple of months when there’s room on your Board
to have you decide the color, and we could bring samples, and we’d have the Site Plan
signed, but that would be condition that we’d have to be back in the Fall with samples for
colors.
MR. SCHERMERHORN-I suppose it could be a workshop that I could come back at,
anything to get.
MR. FORD-Something like that.
MR. SCHERMERHORN-Yes, that we’re all in agreement with. I’m happy to do that as
well, but this allows me to at least go forward.
MR. FORD-Exactly. We want to do that, but by the same token, we don’t want to give a
free pass on something where we’re going to be asking other people to come in with
samples and give us the full presentation.
MR. SCHERMERHORN-I totally respect that.
MR. LAPPER-We could come back in September at one of the meetings when there’s
room on the agenda with samples.
MR. SCHERMERHORN-As a matter of fact, maybe I can even get some pictures from
some Marriots, some digital pictures that may even show better. That’s another idea,
too.
MR. HUNSINGER-Yes, that would be helpful.
MR. FORD-Thank you. Good suggestion Jon had.
MR. SEGULJIC-All right. So is that what we want to do? As far as I see it we had the
following issues. Installation of a chain link fence two feet from the northern property
line, and I’ll make a note, no clearing shall be conducted during fence installation. Can I
say that?
MR. SCHERMERHORN-Just minimal for brush. We won’t take anything larger than let’s
say four inches. If it’s anything bigger than that, you know, we’ll have to go around it.
MR. LAPPER-So we’ll say approximately two feet.
MR. SEGULJIC-That four inch caliper, is that what you’re saying?
MR. LAPPER-Yes.
MR. SEGULJIC-Then the signoff, the engineering signoff.
MR. HUNSINGER-Signoff from the engineers.
MR. SEGULJIC-And then the.
MR. HUNSINGER-The final plan has a 50 foot buffer to the north.
MR. SEGULJIC-Fifty foot buffer on the northern property line.
MR. FORD-The lighting will be Code compliant.
MR. LAPPER-Yes.
MR. SEGULJIC-We’re going to have Staff approve that, being Code compliant?
MR. LAPPER-Would that be Staff rather than the engineer, usually?
MR. SEGULJIC-Good question, because I mean, the parking lot has to be two foot
candles, and you’re coming in with something, I’m sure, that’s going to be two and a half
somewhere.
MR. BOYEA-Two and a half for commercial, average.
59
(Queensbury Planning Board 07/22/08)
MR. SEGULJIC-Okay. So the parking lot’s two and a half and you’re going to come in
with a spot at three, and we’re going to argue it’s not compliant. How do we work around
that?
MR. BOYEA-An average, though. We won’t be above 2.5 average.
MR. SCHERMERHORN-We’re talking about the drive lane going in?
MR. BOYEA-Uniformity Ratio is what drives the.
MR. SEGULJIC-I think it says shall not exceed.
MR. BOYEA-It’s a 2.5 average with a max min, or average min or uniformity ratio not to
exceed four.
MR. SCHERMERHORN-I think it was a Staff comment. So we’ll work with Staff.
MR. BOYEA-Yes, we can.
MR. LAPPER-However you guys want to handle it is okay.
MR. BOYEA-Our average won’t exceed 2.5.
MR. SEGULJIC-It says shall be observed. Is that going to work for Staff?
MR. OBORNE-The lighting issue, that’s not an issue. I mean, it is an issue, but we can
take care of that.
MR. SEGULJIC-You can take care of that. Okay.
MR. HUNSINGER-Well, and again, the only lighting that changes is the driveway.
MR. SEGULJIC-So lighting to be Code compliant. Those are the issues we have there,
and the color scheme. So how are we going to, so just thinking this forward, we grant an
approval with one condition, for submission of color schemes?
MR. HUNSINGER-Yes.
MR. FORD-In September.
rd
MR. HUNSINGER-In September. Bring them back on the 23.
MR. SEGULJIC-Well, first we’ve got to do SEQRA, right?
MR. HUNSINGER-Yes, we do have to do SEQRA, and before we do SEQRA, we need
to close the public hearing. So I will close the public hearing.
PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED
MR. HUNSINGER-And we’ll move forward with SEQRA. They submitted a Short Form.
MR. SEGULJIC-Okay. “Does the action exceed any Type I threshold in 6 NYCRR Part
617.4?”
MR. HUNSINGER-No.
MR. FORD-No.
MR. SEGULJIC-“Will the action receive coordinated review as provided for Unlisted
Actions in 6 NYCRR, Part 617.6?”
MR. HUNSINGER-No.
MR. FORD-No.
MR. SEGULJIC-“Could the action result in any adverse effects associated with the
following: C1. Existing air quality, surface or ground water quality or quantity, noise
levels, existing traffic patterns, solid waste production or disposal, potential for erosion,
drainage or flooding problems?”
60
(Queensbury Planning Board 07/22/08)
MR. HUNSINGER-No.
MR. FORD-No.
MR. SEGULJIC-“C2. Aesthetic, agricultural, historic, or other natural or cultural
resources; or community or neighborhood character?”
MR. HUNSINGER-No.
MR. FORD-No.
MR. SEGULJIC-“C3. Vegetation, fauna, fish, shellfish or wildlife species, significant
habitats, or threatened or endangered species?”
MR. HUNSINGER-No.
MR. FORD-No.
MR. SEGULJIC-“C4. A community’s existing plans or goals as officially adopted, or a
change in use or intensity of use of land or other natural resources?”
MR. HUNSINGER-No.
MR. FORD-No.
MR. SEGULJIC-“C5. Growth, subsequent development or related activities likely to be
induced by the proposed action?”
MR. HUNSINGER-No.
MR. FORD-No.
MR. SEGULJIC-“C6. Long term, short term, cumulative or other effects not identified
above?”
MR. HUNSINGER-No.
MR. FORD-No.
MR. SEGULJIC-“C7. Other impacts (including changes in use of either quantity or
energy)?”
MR. FORD-No.
MR. HUNSINGER-No.
MR. SEGULJIC-“Will the project have an impact on the environmental characteristics
that caused the establishment of a Critical Environmental Area?”
MR. HUNSINGER-No.
MR. FORD-No.
MR. SEGULJIC-“Is there or is there likely to be controversy related to potential adverse
environmental impacts?”
MR. HUNSINGER-No.
MR. FORD-No.
MR. SEGULJIC-Therefore I motion for a negative declaration.
MR. FORD-Second.
RESOLUTION WHEN DETERMINATION OF NO SIGNIFICANCE IS MADE
RESOLUTION NO. 28-2008, Introduced by Thomas Seguljic who moved for its adoption,
seconded by Thomas Ford:
61
(Queensbury Planning Board 07/22/08)
WHEREAS, there is presently before the Planning Board an application for:
SCHERMERHORN COMMERCIAL HOLDINGS, LP, and
WHEREAS, this Planning Board has determined that the proposed project and Planning
Board action is subject to review under the State Environmental Quality Review Act,
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT
RESOLVED:
1. No Federal agency appears to be involved.
2. The following agencies are involved:
NONE
3. The proposed action considered by this Board is Unlisted in the Department of
Environmental Conservation Regulations implementing the State Environmental
Quality Review Act and the regulations of the Town of Queensbury.
4. An Environmental Assessment Form has been completed by the applicant.
5. Having considered and thoroughly analyzed the relevant areas of environmental
concern and having considered the criteria for determining whether a project has
a significant environmental impact as the same is set forth in Section 617.11 of
the Official Compilation of Codes, Rules and Regulations for the State of New
York, this Board finds that the action about to be undertaken by this Board will
have no significant environmental effect and the Chairman of the Planning Board
is hereby authorized to execute and sign and file as may be necessary a
statement of non-significance or a negative declaration that may be required by
law.
nd
Duly adopted this 22 day of July, 2008, by the following vote:
AYES: Mr. Ford, Mr. Traver, Mr. Seguljic, Mr. Schonewolf, Mr. Hunsinger
NOES: NONE
ABSENT: Mrs. Steffan, Mr. Sipp
MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. Are you ready with a motion?
MR. SEGULJIC-Okay. So what we’re going to do is a motion to approve with these
conditions we’ve listed.
MR. HUNSINGER-And then final condition will be that they have to come back at a
September Board meeting to present color schemes for approval.
MR. FORD-Twenty-third was it?
th
MR. SEGULJIC-The 16.
MR. HUNSINGER-Yes. We might as well keep them on the same night.
MR. LAPPER-But we’ll be able to get the mylar signed with that, as a condition that we’ll
put on the mylar.
MOTION TO APPROVE SITE PLAN NO. 28-2008 SCHERMERHORN COMMERCIAL
HOLDINGS, LP, Introduced by Thomas Seguljic who moved for its adoption, seconded
by Stephen Traver:
1)A site plan application has been made to the Queensbury Planning Board for the
following: Applicant proposes construction of a 53,700 +/- sq. ft. three-story 106+
room hotel with associated access road and parking located on an existing 16+
acre vacant lot. Hotels in the HC zone require Planning Board review and
approval.
2)A public hearing was advertised and heard on 7/22/08; and
62
(Queensbury Planning Board 07/22/08)
3)This application is supported with all documentation, public comment and
application material in the file of record; and
4)Pursuant to relevant sections of the Town of Queensbury Zoning Code [Chapter
179], the Planning Board has determined that this proposal complies with the
requirements as stated in the Zoning Code; and
5)The requirements of the State Environmental Quality Review Act have been
considered and the Planning Board has adopted a SEQRA Negative Declaration;
and
6)Final approved plans, in compliance with the Site Plan, must be submitted to the
Community Development Department before any further review by the Zoning
Administrator or Building and Codes personnel. The applicant must meet with
Staff after approval and prior to issuance of Building Permit and/or the beginning
of any site work. Subsequent issuance of further permits, including building
permits is dependent on compliance with this and all other conditions of this
resolution.
7)The applicant will provide as-built plans to certify that the site plan is developed
according to the approved plans prior to issuance of the certificate of occupancy;
and
8)NOT APPLICABLE If applicable, Item 7 to be combined with a letter of credit;
and
9)The Sanitary Sewer connection plan must be submitted to the Wastewater
Department for its review, approval, permitting and inspection; and
MOTION TO APPROVE SITE PLAN NO. 28-2008 SCHERMERHORN COMMERCIAL
HOLDINGS, LP, Introduced by Thomas Seguljic who moved for its adoption, seconded
by Stephen Traver:
In accordance with the resolution prepared by Staff. Number Four complies. Number
Five, Negative. Number Eight does not apply. We’ll approve the Site Plan with the
following conditions:
1.A six foot high chain link fence will be installed two feet from the northern
property line. During the installation, no trees greater than four inch caliper
will be cleared.
2.Engineering signoff will be obtained.
3.That a 50 foot buffer will be established along the northern property line.
4.That a new lighting plan will be submitted to Staff that will be compliant with
Town Code.
th
5.That color schemes will be submitted to the Planning Board’s September 16
meeting.
nd
Duly adopted this 22 day of July, 2008, by the following vote:
MR. FORD-I just thought of something, it jogged my memory. We’ve not discussed
signage.
MR. LAPPER-We can tell you that. It’s on the plan.
MR. HUNSINGER-It’s on the plan.
MR. LAPPER-There’s a façade sign on the front and a monument sign at the road.
MR. FORD-We still didn’t discuss it. Thanks. I’m sorry for the interruption.
MR. SEGULJIC-That’s okay.
AYES: Mr. Traver, Mr. Ford, Mr. Seguljic, Mr. Schonewolf, Mr. Hunsinger
NOES: NONE
63
(Queensbury Planning Board 07/22/08)
ABSENT: Mrs. Steffan, Mr. Sipp
MR. LAPPER-Thank you very much.
MR. SCHERMERHORN-Thank you everyone.
MR. HUNSINGER-You’re sort of all set.
MR. LAPPER-Thanks for working with us.
MR. HUNSINGER-You’re welcome. Good luck.
MR. SCHERMERHORN-Thanks.
MR. HUNSINGER-Is there any other business? I had a handout. It was timely, based
on the last motion. You were asking about, I came across this at work, from the Town of
Canandaigua, and I brought it in for Items One and Two, the soil erosion bond and the
landscaping bond. I just thought it was interesting.
MR. SCHONEWOLF-Don’t you guys do that? You don’t have a landscaping bond? I’ve
never seen a soil erosion bond, but.
MR. TRAVER-I mean, I suppose if we just had a general bond that could be used for.
MR. SCHONEWOLF-Well, the reason we did it for the landscaping is so we can grant
the CO, but hold the builder responsible for finishing the landscaping and he only had so
many months to do it.
MR. TRAVER-Right.
MR. SCHONEWOLF-If he didn’t do it, he paid us and we did it.
MR. TRAVER-That would be a good idea for some of the buffering we’ve put in on the
lake.
MR. SCHONEWOLF-Yes.
MR. HUNSINGER-Yes.
MR. SCHONEWOLF-It’s much easier to do it than to sit here and try and.
MR. OBORNE-Who’s JC?
MR. HUNSINGER-Who’s JC? I don’t know. I don’t know if it was the applicant or what,
but, it was an environmental review I came across at work, during the course of the
week.
MR. SEGULJIC-That looks good. I guess the only question is, how do we decide what
the bond should be?
MR. HUNSINGER-I don’t know. That’s a good question.
MR. SCHONEWOLF-You can make it anything you want.
MR. HUNSINGER-Five thousand dollars buys a lot of landscaping.
MR. SCHONEWOLF-It depends on the size of the house, too. Sometimes with a bigger
house you increase it.
MR. HUNSINGER-Yes.
MR. SCHONEWOLF-But it’s up to the Planning Board.
MR. HUNSINGER-Yes. This was a huge project. It was an expansion of a
manufacturing facility.
MR. SCHONEWOLF-Yes, $5,000 wouldn’t be enough for that.
64
(Queensbury Planning Board 07/22/08)
MR. HUNSINGER-No, but they also weren’t doing a lot of building.
MR. OBORNE-Is this an FYI?
MR. HUNSINGER-Yes. It was an FYI I came across at work. I just passed it out for the
Board’s edification. Any other business to be brought before the Board? If not, a motion
to adjourn is always in order.
MOTION TO ADJOURN THE QUEENSBURY PLANNING BOARD MEETING OF JULY
ND
22, 2008, Introduced by Thomas Seguljic who moved for its adoption, seconded by
Thomas Ford:
nd
Duly adopted this 22 day of July, 2008, by the following vote:
AYES: Mr. Ford, Mr. Traver, Mr. Seguljic, Mr. Schonewolf, Mr. Hunsinger
NOES: NONE
ABSENT: Mrs. Steffan, Mr. Sipp
On motion meeting was adjourned.
RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED,
Chris Hunsinger, Chairman
65