2002-11-26
(Queensbury Planning Board 11/26/02)
QUEENSBURY PLANNING BOARD MEETING
SECOND REGULAR MEETING
NOVEMBER 26, 2002
7:00 P.M.
MEMBERS PRESENT
CRAIG MAC EWAN, CHAIRMAN
CATHERINE LA BOMBARD,SECRETARY
CHRIS HUNSINGER
JOHN STROUGH
ROBERT VOLLARO
LARRY RINGER
ANTHONY METIVIER
EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR-CHRIS ROUND
SENIOR PLANNER-MARILYN RYBA
PLANNER-GEORGE HILTON
TOWN COUNSEL-MILLER, MANNIX, SCHACHNER & HAFNER-CATHI RADNER
STENOGRAPHER-MARIA GAGLIARDI
OLD BUSINESS:
SUBDIVISION NO. 9-2000 MODIFICATION TYPE: UNLISTED RICHARD
SCHERMERHORN, JR. PROPERTY OWNER: GUIDO PASSARELLI AGENT: NACE
ENGINEERING ZONE: PO LOCATION: BAY ROAD APPLICANT PROPOSES
MODIFICATION TO A PREVIOUSLY APPROVED SUBDIVISION. THE MODIFICATION
REDUCES THE NUMBER OF LOTS FROM 16 TO 10 AND REDUCES THE LENGTH OF
PROPOSED TOWN ROAD. TAX MAP NO. 296.12-1-24/60-2-4
JON LAPPER & TOM NACE, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT; RICH S., PRESENT
STAFF INPUT
Notes from Staff, Subdivision No. 9-2000, Modification, Richard Schermerhorn, Jr., Meeting Date:
November 19, 2002 “Project Description:
Applicant proposes to modify a previously approved subdivision. The modification would decrease the
number of lots from 16 to 10 and would eliminate a town road connection off of Bay Rd. As a result 8 of the
10 lots would front on Willowbrook Drive which is shown as a cul-de-sac.
Study of plat:
Lot arrangement: One lot is proposed to have access off of Bay Rd. Another lot, the farthest to the east, will
front on Meadowbrook Rd. All other lots will be arranged with frontage on Willow brook Rd., which is
currently constructed to a point just west of Old Maids Brook.
Topography: The property is generally level with no areas of excessive slope. A grading plan has been
submitted indicating existing and proposed contours for the western area of the subdivision.
Water supply Sewage Disposal: This property is served by municipal water service. The property is part of a
proposed extension to the municipal sanitary sewer system.
Drainage: Grading, drainage and erosion control plans have been submitted and are being reviewed by CT
Male.
Lot sizes: Lots range in from 1 acre to about 39 acres. The lot sizes as proposed meet the requirements of the
Professional Office zone.
Future development: A few of the lots in this subdivision have been or are being developed. Future uses in the
subdivision will be consistent with the PO zone.
State Environmental Quality Review Act, SEQRA Type is Unlisted. A SEQR has been completed with the
previous application reviewed by the Planning Board. The Planning Board should either reaffirm previous
SEQR findings, or begin a new SEQRA review.
1
(Queensbury Planning Board 11/26/02)
Parcel History (construction/site plan/variance, etc.):
SB 9-2000(previous modification), resolved 12/18/2001
Staff comments:
The subdivision modification as proposed, would reduce the number of lots previously shown to 10. The
new subdivision plat eliminates a road that was previously shown to connect Bay Rd. to Willowbrook Dr.,
and shows Willowbrook Dr. as a cul-de-sac instead of connecting to Meadowbrook Rd. All lots but 2 would
have frontage on Willowbrook Rd., which is currently constructed to a point just west of Old Maids Brook.
One lot will front on Bay Rd., another will front on Meadowbrook Rd. The new cul-de-sac appears to be
under the 1000’ limit for dead end streets contained in the Subdivision Regulations.
The applicant has submitted information concerning NYSDEC and ACOE wetland delineations for wetlands
shown on this subdivision plat. It should be noted, that DEC approval will be required for any fill or
excavation within 100 feet of the NYSDEC wetlands shown, and a stream-crossing permit is required from
NYSDEC when Willowbrook Drive is completely constructed.
Final construction and dedication of Willowbrook Drive will be required before any new lots, with the
exception of proposed lot 1, are issued building permits. Prior to the final construction and dedication of
Willowbrook Drive by the Town of Queensbury, all landscaping shown on the subdivision’s landscape plan
must be put in place.
Prior to this modification, the subdivision indicated that some existing trees on the lots represented as lots 2
and 5 on this modification would remain. This vegetation has been removed from the site. Also, existing
landscaping that was put in place as part of the development of lot 5, and was shown on the prior subdivision
plat, has not survived. All previously existing trees that were to remain must have new trees planted as
replacements, and vegetation that was previously shown but has not survived must also be replanted prior to
the final acceptance and dedication of Willowbrook Dr. as a town road.
The Planning Board should determine if this modification requires a new SEQRA review or not.
Any comments from CT Male, including comments on the stormwater management report that has been
submitted with this application, should be addressed as part of this review.”
MR. MAC EWAN-Staff notes.
MR. HILTON-The subdivision modification as proposed could reduce the number of lots down to 10,
actually, and one lot fronting off of Bay Road and one on Meadowbrook, the other eight fronting from an
interior road. The elimination of a road that was previously shown on the subdivision would take place as a
part of this modification. The applicant has supplied information from New York State DEC and Army
Corps of Engineers concerning wetland delineations. The previous subdivision showed some trees, some
plantings, especially on the lot of the hospital building that’s been constructed, that was proposed to have
been remaining. In speaking with enforcement staff, it’s our understanding that a tree, if not a couple, have
been removed, and should be replaced as they were shown to be remaining on the previous subdivision plan.
It’s a question whether or not some plantings that were put in place with the daycare center have survived or
not, but as a general note, if they haven’t, they should be replaced as they were previously shown, if not on
the subdivision plan, definitely on the site plan. The Planning Board should determine if a new SEQRA is
required with this modification or reaffirm the old one, and any C.T. Male comments should be addressed as
part of this review.
MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. Good evening.
MR. LAPPER-Good evening. For the record, Jon Lapper and Tom Nace on behalf of and with Rich
Schermerhorn. Very simply, when we got our final wetland determination from the Corps, we made some, or
we proposed some changes to the office subdivision. It reduces the number of lots, as the application stated.
The number of curb cuts remains the same, but the northern curb cut will be less used because it would just
be for one office building, which is the second application on the agenda. In general, it’s a fewer number of
slightly larger lots, but not all of the land is being used because of the ultimate wetland delineation. So it’s a
less intense development than what was previously approved. Let me ask Tom to just run you through the
map.
MR. NACE-Just real quick. If you remember the original approved subdivision had a road coming in here,
and that dead ended here with a future extension on through. What has happened is that the final Corps
delineation determined there were some wetlands here that we would impact with that road crossing, and also
some wetlands back in here that made the through road to Meadowbrook impractical or impossible. So we
ended up taking the lots along the front, combining two of them that were up here along the road into one,
2
(Queensbury Planning Board 11/26/02)
accessing it directly off Bay Road, leaving the southerly road coming in ending it in a cul de sac with no
possible future extension. So, as Jon said, it decreased the number of lots to 10, made them a little larger lots,
but because of the wetland, the wetland, the wetland setbacks, that has actually decreased the amount of
development potential.
MR. LAPPER-I just wanted to mention, George had said about the trees. I think Rich has proven himself, at
his Hiland project, that he’ll pretty much put as many trees as the Planning Board wants. So, we’ll talk about
that on the northern lot next, for the office, but in terms of the tree or trees that should have been left, in
front of the hospital building, that will, of course, be planted before that project is done next spring.
MR. MAC EWAN-Is that one of those ones that died in front of the daycare?
MR. SCHERMERHORN-Yes. The ones in front of the daycare, the landscaper that planted them already
gave a year warranty on them, and he said he’d come back. So, they’ll be taken care of.
MR. MAC EWAN-Okay.
MR. NACE-As far as engineering comments, there were a couple of comments that were corrections that
needed to be made to the plans and some clarification. I think you’ve been provided with a copy of C.T.
Male’s letter of November 22, my response of the 26, and C.T. Male’s final letter this afternoon, stating
ndth
that we have addressed the comments to their satisfaction. If there are any of those that you want to go into
in particular, I’d be glad to enumerate on them.
MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. Anything else?
MR. LAPPER-No.
MR. MAC EWAN-John, we’ll start with you.
MR. STROUGH-Okay. All right. Good evening. I kind of like the new plan better, and I think it will
impact the wetlands less, and there’s a lot of good features to it, and it would give us a little bit more of a
buffer area, I think, between what you’re planning for the residential area, on the Meadowbrook side. Okay.
Let’s get on to my notations here. Since that road is less than 1,000 feet, and it’s a dead end street, how are
we going to handle that?
MR. LAPPER-That will be a Town road.
MR. STROUGH-But I thought a Town road had to be in excess of 1,000 feet?
MR. LAPPER-No. It can’t be more than 1,000 feet.
MR. HILTON-Right, a cul de sac can’t be, right.
MR. STROUGH-So that’s going to be copasetic?
MR. LAPPER-Yes.
MR. STROUGH-Okay. Now is the zoning on this grandfathered even after the zoning changed, because I
notice on the coversheet it still had the old kind of zonings and the old setbacks and things like that.
MR. HILTON-It’s my understanding that the PO zone exists now and they’re developing under the PO
zone.
MR. STROUGH-Okay. Then the coversheet’s in error?
MR. HILTON-I assume so, yes.
MR. LAPPER-It is in the Professional Office zone.
MR. STROUGH-So the setbacks are going to be Professional Office zone setbacks, etc, not the setbacks that
were?
MR. LAPPER-Yes.
MR. STROUGH-Okay.
MR. LAPPER-When we started the project, it was MR-5, which allowed office and residential, and it was
changed. So the office component is still the same, in terms of the use, that’s still a permitted use.
3
(Queensbury Planning Board 11/26/02)
MR. STROUGH-Okay. All right. I just wanted to get that clarified. Now you’re going to have a four inch
water main to Lot One office building?
MR. NACE-Yes. That’ll be on the site plan review of that site, but if I recall right, it is four inch.
MR. STROUGH-Well, when I looked at the layout of the utilities, I just, I said, well, that’s got a lot of water.
MR. NACE-Anticipated for sprinkler system.
MR. STROUGH-All right. I just didn’t know if that was, because I see an eight inch DIP water service to the
medical center, but that’s quite a few offices in there.
MR. LAPPER-That’s 34,000 square feet.
MR. STROUGH-Yes, okay. I was just checking as I went through. Now I heard reference to a disturbance
of wetlands and then the creation of wetlands, but I didn’t see it on the plans.
MR. LAPPER-No disturbance, we would have needed a stream crossing permit.
MR. NACE-No. We have permits from the Corps, but what I showed on the plan was the final
configuration of the wetlands after disturbance and after mitigation. Okay. There were separate plans that
were reviewed by DEC and the Corps and approved when they issued their permit for disturbance.
MR. LAPPER-It was a very minor disturbance.
MR. STROUGH-So where are the created wetlands going to be, Mr. Nace?
MR. NACE-Basically, the disturbed wetlands are for this road crossing of the stream, a little bit up along the
edge of the stream here, and some future anticipation of having to get a road in here, a small area out here on
Meadowbrook Road. The creation of wetlands was to enhance the connection between this section of
wetland and this section of wetland. So it was widening of this area in here.
MR. STROUGH-Okay.
MR. LAPPER-And we already have that permit.
MR. STROUGH-Yes. I saw the permit, but I didn’t know where it was. Okay, and C.T. Male’s basically
copasetic there. So I had some notes there. Okay. Now the last thing, and the most important. First of all,
let me preface this by saying, you know, we do have this design plan for the Bay Road area, and it is kind of a
treed street with a possible sidewalk, okay. So this is what I’m going to request on my behalf, and see what
the other Planning Board members feel.
MR. MAC EWAN-John, are you sticking with the modification? We’re talking about the modification.
MR. STROUGH-Yes, well, I’m talking about the landscaping for the modification.
MR. MAC EWAN-Okay.
MR. STROUGH-What I’d like to see is we’ve got some sugar maples already planned for along here. They’re
running about 100 feet apart, and that seems fine. If we could get a nice row of sugar maples, about 100 feet
apart each, so we’re only talking, I don’t know how many extra, but probably seven or eight extra, and going
across here, and I think 100 feet apart wouldn’t block your view of your buildings. I know you want to get
some view of those buildings from the road, and then show the possible future sidewalk that I think the
Town will have to do, but if we could kind of work this into kind of a preliminary plan, because I‘m going to
ask the same thing of the developer on the other side, okay, and any future developers, if we can get a
running process here and a comprehensive process that’s already basically outlined in the zoning, because it
says the building’s alignment, combined with sidewalks and rows of trees to make an open corridor, and
that’s the concept, and I didn’t think it would be much, and I know that you’ve been ready and willing to
work with us in the past. So it’s something to think about, and that’s the last thing I’ve got. Thank you, Mr.
Chairman.
MR. MAC EWAN-Bob?
MR. VOLLARO-Yes. The first thing I just want to ask, concerning this subdivision modification, I’m a little
confused by this secondary delineation of wetlands. I guess when I looked at this, I was wondering how, just
what happened here with respect to the Army Corps, and how did they get into this to begin with?
MR. SCHERMERHORN-A year and a half ago, when I first came in for the subdivision, DEC did the
delineation and stood by the delineation, and they gave me a permit to cross the stream last fall, which is this
4
(Queensbury Planning Board 11/26/02)
permit right here. We’re getting ready as you saw. Well, we started doing the road, and we got up to the
stream, and then I got this letter from Army Corps of Engineers, that DEC had notified them, which they do
on just about all projects, and individual just said, look, I’d like to come up and I’d like to look at the wetlands
that DEC has delineated. To make a long story short, Army Corps comes up, and he had some discrepancies
with DEC, with the delineation. So after waiting almost eight months to get DEC, Al Koechlein and Kevin
Bruce from Army Corps together, they went out in the field, we spent a whole day, myself included, and we
walked every inch of it, and bottom line it came down to Army Corps had a difference of opinion and DEC
had a difference. So I just had to stand back and let them work it out, the final determination, when they got
done, they notified us, Tom mapped out what we had, and that was that, but DEC, all from the start, was set,
and the only reason Army Corps got involved was because that’s, the stream, Old Maids Brook, is, is it
navigable or, it’s some sort of waterway that gives them jurisdiction to come in there.
MR. NACE-No, it notified them, okay, of the project, and they wanted to come see and make their own
determination.
MR. VOLLARO-See I’m just carrying this forward in my mind as to how much of the rest of the Town,
when we get into wetlands, is going to run into situations where developers can’t trust their sense what’s been
delineated already while they’re working. I think it’s a concern.
MR. LAPPER-When you do a Federal wetland determination, delineation, you hire a private consultant, and
there are a number in Town that are very good, to do that, and unless you’re proposing a disturbance of more
than a tenth of an acre, you don’t need a permit. In this case, we had that delineation done. We had already
met with Koechline and DEC, and when the Army Corps came in, they just said they didn’t agree 100% with
the delineation that was done by the consultant, and that’s how it changed. So we just worked with it and
changed the subdivision.
MR. VOLLARO-It sure is a major change.
MR. SCHERMERHORN-Well, it is, and it’s a concern of mine in the future. As a matter of fact, a lot of
these projects going forward now, I’ve gotten to know Kevin Bruce from Army Corps very well. I actually
contact him now on things I’m doing because they supersede DEC. They can come in at any time, if it’s
jurisdictional wetlands, and they can determine what is usable and what isn’t, and this is a classic example of
something that was entirely out of my control. I mean, it actually changed our plan, which we had to modify,
and it held me up for over a year because I couldn’t finish the road. So, I mean, this is how this all came
about, and being that it’s an 82 acre parcel, it’s certainly a large parcel to take a chance on making a mistake
on.
MR. VOLLARO-Okay. I guess that’s a good description for me. I can go on with the other things. I want
to get into some of C.T. Male’s stuff here that I just looked at. I saw where they’ve come up with a letter that
talks about provided that the noted revisions to the plan reports are made, the submittal addresses the
comments made in the November 22 letter. I guess what I’m somewhat concerned about is that we on this
Board will never get to see all those revisions. There’s a good deal of them up there, like, I don’t know
whether or not we can go over each one and each, so that I have in my mind how you’re going to make those
corrections. Because all they said is so long as it’s done, provided the noted revisions to the plans and reports
are made. So they want to convert what they’ve said into a drawing mod.
MR. LAPPER-Do you have Tom’s letter to them?
MR. VOLLARO-Yes.
MR. NACE-Okay. Do you want me to go over those one by one?
MR. VOLLARO-Not one by one. I think I want just to take a look at the stormwater report, because what
I’m looking at is coming up on the next thing on the site plan. There’s some words in the stormwater report
there that talks about the already approved subdivision, and I’m wondering how that locks in. Is that
something that was done before Army Corps got into this?
MR. NACE-For the site plan on Lot One?
MR. VOLLARO-Yes.
MR. NACE-We’ll get into that when we get to that review, but, no, it was done, you know, just recently.
MR. VOLLARO-Just recently.
MR. NACE-Yes.
MR. VOLLARO-Okay.
5
(Queensbury Planning Board 11/26/02)
MR. NACE-I’m not sure which words you’re referring to, but the.
MR. VOLLARO-It’s right up in the front of your report, but we’ll get to that when we get to it.
MR. NACE-Okay. So you want me to address which item now?
MR. VOLLARO-Number Five.
MR. NACE-Number Five. Okay.
MR. VOLLARO-I just want to take a look at what the actual mitigation is.
MR. NACE-Okay. Item Five speaks to the wetland delineation and mitigation areas, disturbance areas.
MR. VOLLARO-Right. Can you just give me a quick idea of what the mitigation is, or did you already do
that?
MR. NACE-I did that, but I will be glad to do it again. Okay. The disturbance, as I discussed, was for the
road crossing a little bit along the west side of the Brook, and for a future road crossing because with the
Corps you have to address the whole site at once. So we also addressed an area over here so we could have
access to this parcel. The mitigation was that they wanted a more better defined connection between the
wetland area up here in the northeast corner, and the wetland area along the southern boundary. So it was to
widen and enhance this area along here.
MR. VOLLARO-Okay. Thank you. On Number Three, with respect to the frontage on the road lot, I guess
I had looked at 179-4-09, and that calls for 40 foot frontage on a public street. It seemed to me that your
plans met that, and it says of course for RO is 80 feet, which you’re well over that, but I thought that 179-4-
09 might have covered it.
MR. NACE-Yes, and my response to him was exactly that, that the frontage required by your Code is 40 feet.
He was interpreting, in fact, I talked to Jim today, and he had been interpreting the lot width to have
something to do with the front of the lot, you know, dimension, where your Code defines it as, lot width as
the average lot width.
MR. VOLLARO-Right.
MR. NACE-Average distance across the lot, and therefore your Code has a separate definition of the
frontage required.
MR. VOLLARO-Okay. So as far as they’re concerned, that has been met.
MR. NACE-That has been met.
MR. VOLLARO-Okay. Now there was something in here on the ownership question that Mr. Lapper was
going to supply a comment to.
MR. LAPPER-The agency form, we had submitted that for the original subdivision. The whole parcel was
owned by Guido Passarelli. Rich has it all under contract to be purchased on a lot by lot basis over a few
years. So when we submitted the modification, it wasn’t submitted with another signature from Mr. Passarelli
that we could modify it. So I subsequently provided that to the Staff.
MR. VOLLARO-Okay. So the ownership now is with Mr. Schermerhorn?
MR. LAPPER-Well, Rich has been buying it on a lot by lot basis. So after we get the building approved, we’ll
close on the next lot.
MR. VOLLARO-Okay.
MR. LAPPER-But in terms of technically for the subdivision modification, we still, we had Rich as the
applicant and Guido Passarelli as the owner. So the application was signed on behalf of Mr. Passarelli.
MR. HILTON-And we have an authorization form that we’ve received from Jon that clears that up.
MR. VOLLARO-Okay. That’s all clear as far as you’re concerned. Okay. Fine. I think that’s about all I’ve
got. I don’t have anything else on this.
MR. MAC EWAN-Cathy?
6
(Queensbury Planning Board 11/26/02)
MRS. LA BOMBARD-I definitely like this plan better, and I think that it would be nice if we could put in
one of our, as a condition, if we approve this, something about the planting trees along Bay Road. I always
feel funny about asking the applicant for extras like that, but if we don’t start here, then the look that, what
we’re looking for, a final, well, I don’t know how to say this. I don’t want to step on anybody’s toes or
anything, but we have nice construction coming in, and the way it’s laid out, and the image that it presents as
you’re going up the Bay Road corridor just means a lot, I think, to me, and to, I hope, a lot of my Board
members and the people in the Town, and I know, Rich, that you are doing your best. So I would like to put
some kind of a condition in that we could do something like John just suggested, but again, like I say, I always
feel funny asking the applicant for these extra things because I know that you’re operating on a budget, and,
you know, and all this does add up financially.
MR. SCHERMERHORN-I certainly don’t have a problem with adding more trees. I never have, but if you
guys recall, we just did the site plan approval for the Glens Falls Hospital site, I think it was maybe three
months ago, and there was a tremendous amount of landscaping, and it had some berms and I actually added
some because of some request. So there is a quite, there’s quite a large landscape plan on that hospital site,
which is most of the frontage on Bay Road. I only have the one lot left, which is coming up after this, but
again, I mean, we can add some more, but I think we’d have to probably pull out the plan that we just
approved for the hospital, because we added additional plantings to that one, per everyone’s request, but I’m
not opposed to putting some more there.
MRS. LA BOMBARD-Well, while we’re on the subject, the preschool, the daycare center, I just feel that the
front of that building is really nice, but when you look at the playground area, as you’re going down Bay
Road, I just thought that maybe things like coniferous trees instead of deciduous trees would be better,
because to me, all those, when the children play back there, they’re really exposed to the whole, all that traffic
that goes up and down the road, and there’s really no buffer there for them at all, and I did go by slowly the
other day, and I noticed that there are trees that have lost their leaves there, but that, and of course kids don’t
play outside that much in the wintertime, but I just felt that that would have been a little bit better if we had
done something like some kind of, more of a, I don’t know, I don’t want to say a hedgerow or anything like
that, but I just thought, even just for the children’s protection.
MR. LAPPER-Cathy, on that one, this is a qualification of my statement about ownership. Rich purchased
that lot. He built the building, but then he sold that to the daycare operator. That was a build and sell
situation.
MRS. LA BOMBARD-Yes. See, I don’t remember. It was a while ago.
MR. LAPPER-Yes. So that’s not something that Rich owns. I mean, he can ask the owner, but it’s not
something, he can’t just go plant trees.
MRS. LA BOMBARD-Yes. I understand that. I didn’t realize that. Thank you.
MR. MAC EWAN-Anything else?
MRS. LA BOMBARD-No. I just think it’s a better plan, and I like the cul de sac streets, Willowbrook.
MR. MAC EWAN-Larry?
MR. RINGER-I have nothing. As far as the landscaping and stuff, we’ll get to that when we do the site plan,
and you have done, we don’t have it on this plan, but I know you did extensive landscaping on the medical
building or the medical center that you put up. So I can’t recall all the landscaping on the site plan, and we’ll
get to it next. So I may have some questions on that, but other than that, I’m kind of disappointed. I was
kind of looking forward to a road eventually going out to Meadowbrook, taking some of that traffic off of
Bay. So I guess I’m the only one disappointed that we won’t have a road going to Meadowbrook down the
road. I don’t have any questions.
MR. MAC EWAN-Chris?
MR. HUNSINGER-I was disappointed, too. In fact, that’s what I wanted to ask about specifically were what
you envision for Lot 10. It’s a very large lot. It does now front Meadowbrook Road. If that is developed.
MR. LAPPER-The way that zone works is that it’s only office for the first 1,000 or 1200 feet from Bay Road,
and then it’s residential. So that would have to be a residential zone.
MR. HUNSINGER-A residential use.
MR. LAPPER-In the future, yes. I mean, and we talked about that and debated, in terms of whether it
should be a connection or shouldn’t be, and it was sort of settled by the Army Corps, out of Rich’s hands,
that that became a more significant wetland. When we were at County Planning, they said they liked it better
that it wasn’t connected, because it would be less traffic on the County Road. I mean, it would probably
7
(Queensbury Planning Board 11/26/02)
make it more of a cut through if it was connected, which would impact the people inside there. It’s hard to
argue. It could go both ways, but now we have a wetland that we didn’t anticipate.
MR. HUNSINGER-So your anticipation for Lot 10 is some sort of residential use in the future?
MR. LAPPER-Yes, in the future.
MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. Because my concern with commercial use, and I did save this picture that you’d
given us, which is still a great picture.
MR. LAPPER-It cannot be commercial after the office lots, under the Town zoning.
MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. Those are really the only questions I have, or was on Lot 10, because it wasn’t
included in the landscaping plan at all. Because, you know, it ended before.
MR. LAPPER-Nothing’s proposed.
MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. Great. Thanks.
MR. MAC EWAN-Tony?
MR. METIVIER-What happens with Lot Eight, because that’s a substantial lot as well. It’s 13 acres.
MR. NACE-Yes. That’s, okay, if you’ll recall, there was a senior project that was anticipated here kind of in
the middle of the project actually back into this wetland area, and that lot up here, Lot Eight, is now
anticipated for that project. It’ll obviously have to be redesigned, but that’s what we anticipate going there.
MR. METIVIER-I kind of remember, two things. I was going to question Staff on the fact this was a
subdivision back in 2000, but I guess Rich just said that two years ago you had this in front of them?
MR. SCHERMERHORN-Yes, almost two years ago.
MR. METIVIER-I just can’t believe that. I really don’t have anything to add. I just, you know, I question, I
guess, the road. I was trying to think of what we had intended for the road to go through, but I guess this
way it makes sense. If it has to be this way, I mean, it has to be. Obviously, there’s nothing you can do about
it, but I, too, was disappointed to see that the road was not going to cut through, but I think you’ve done a
good job with what you’ve had to work with. I really have nothing to add.
MR. MAC EWAN-Anything you guys want to add? Discussion?
MR. STROUGH-Just a couple I think. Now, are you finished with the road yet? You’re not going to be
because you’re going to be putting sewer and everything else in.
MR. SCHERMERHORN-Well, if you look at the date on the Army Corps letter, I didn’t get it that long ago,
maybe two weeks ago. So it really, it killed the timeframe for me, really, to finish the road up.
MR. STROUGH-Well, the reason why I’m asking is, I saw that you’re going to put the sewer laterals in. Why
didn’t you put the water supply laterals in as well? Wouldn’t that be easier to do that before the road gets
completed?
MR. NACE-The water laterals for the new lots, you mean?
MR. STROUGH-Yes.
MR. NACE-The Water Department doesn’t permit it.
MR. STROUGH-Really?
MR. NACE-Well, I think they’re rethinking that issue, but their stance in the past is that you don’t put the
lateral in until you have an actual use under construction on the lot. Okay. There is a good reason for it.
You end up with, occasionally, some of the older subdivisions, it took, five, ten, fifteen years to develop. You
ended up with a lot of water services in the ground without anything connected to them. Then when it came
time to use them, you have trouble finding them, they leak. There was a reason for it.
MR. STROUGH-Well, you won’t have to dig up the road. You’ll be able to punch through to get those in?
MR. NACE-Yes. Yes, they typically mold those through under the road.
MR. STROUGH-Okay. No, that was a question that I had noted, and I didn’t get to it. Thank you.
8
(Queensbury Planning Board 11/26/02)
MR. MAC EWAN-Is that it? Comments about Mr. Strough’s idea.
MR. RINGER-I don’t think it applies so much to the subdivision. When we look at the site plan we’d have
some thoughts on landscaping.
MR. STROUGH-Well, Mr. Chairman, since this is a modification of a subdivision, is it fair game to ask the
developer to maybe put in a few extra trees to make the appearance that we want to make on Bay Road, since
it was kind of an oversight the first time through, and, you know, I kind of plugged it out 100 feet between
trees, sugar maples already planned there. That seems fine to me. That looked nice, and if we could get
something going here, I mean, if it’s all copasetic. Now I don’t know what we’re going to do with the daycare
center, now that that’s under different ownership, and I don’t know, also, does the applicant have to come
back to us in reference to the medical center, if we ask him to alter the landscaping at this point in time?
MR. HILTON-The landscaping plan that’s contained in the subdivision indicates plantings that are associated
with the entire subdivision, not just lot specific. So I believe you could enhance or alter that plan for the
entire subdivision as proposed. That’s my take on it.
MR. STROUGH-Okay, and my idea on the sidewalk is this, Rich.
MR. VOLLARO-John, just, let’s stay with the tree thing for just a minute. Because I have a comment on
that. If we’re setting down some sort of standard here for all developers on the Bay Road, I mean, I want to
make sure that, if we start to establish a standard here for a particular applicant, that that standard applies to
all people who want develop on the Bay Road, some sort of standardization.
MR. MAC EWAN-There is the standards, right in the Zoning Ordinance. It was adopted back in May when
the Town adopted the new Ordinance.
MR. VOLLARO-Well, okay, then, I think, rather than talk about additional plantings, we just say, you know,
fulfill the requirements of the standard already established, and not go over that. If there’s a standard that
defines what John is talking about, I think he’s got a good idea, but I just don’t want to make it applicant
specific. I’d like it to apply to everybody.
MR. STROUGH-Well, it doesn’t say what species of vegetation. It says treed, and it doesn’t say how far
apart the trees were. I tried to work out something that would be reasonable for the developer, as well as
something that would work.
MR. VOLLARO-Is it in keeping with what our standard says? That’s what I’m trying to get at.
MR. STROUGH-I think that sugar maples, spaced along Bay Road, about 100 feet apart, would work.
MR. HILTON-The design guidelines call for shade trees to be planted as street trees up and down Bay Road.
So I think that would be in keeping with the design guidelines.
MR. VOLLARO-We could apply those design guidelines to everybody who comes along the Bay Road, and
try to talk about 100 foot apart. Because once we start establishing that distance, we should probably try and
stay with that for all other developers as well.
MR. HILTON-Well, we have a defined area that makes up the Bay Road design guideline area, and it’s, there
are lots of parcels in that design guideline area, not just Mr. Schermerhorn’s subdivision.
MR. VOLLARO-Exactly right.
MR. STROUGH-And I didn’t want to overdo it, with having the trees any closer, because then all the other
landscaping that’s being done won’t be that viewable, and it just kind of sets a tone, 100 feet apart kind of sets
a tone for Bay Road that I don’t think overburdens anybody. Now on the sidewalk issue, what I’d like to see,
so it’s no burden on you, but just shows a tentative, maybe something happening in the future, a dotted line,
where a sidewalk might go, but as far as my opinion is, it doesn’t have to be straight. I mean, it can weave in
and around the vegetation or whatever obstacles are already there. I mean, I don’t really like straight
sidewalks, but just a dotted line, and you could also make a notation on there that that’s not the developer’s
responsibility. You’re only showing where a potential future sidewalk could go.
MR. LAPPER-I guess one thing I’m thinking, John, is that we could put a note on the subdivision plans
saying that if the Town establishes a corridor plan, or implements it, for Bay Road, that Rich would cooperate
in terms of granting easements for sidewalks, something like that.
MR. STROUGH-Yes, that would be fine. I mean, that’s nice of you to offer that, too.
9
(Queensbury Planning Board 11/26/02)
MR. VOLLARO-I think that makes more sense to me. Because it’s going to be a Town requirement. The
Town’s got to fund it. The Town’s got to approve it. So I don’t know, if Rich puts it on his drawing, is
rather meaningless in some sense, except maybe for a clarification note that the Town, a note much like what
you just had to say, John. That kind of thing. I certainly think it’s a good idea. I think Mr. Strough has a
good idea to do it.
MR. STROUGH-They’ve got to come in, the applicant, for, well, we didn’t really address this before, the
Code’s kind of new. So, you know, us catching up a little bit, and we appreciate your willingness to help us
along here. Okay. Well, Mr. Chairman, if you’re looking at me, it seems to me we have support for the tree
idea, and, you know, some kind of a notation for an easement for a sidewalk in the future.
MR. MAC EWAN-Someone move a resolution.
MR. STROUGH-Well, are you going to open this to the public? You don’t have to. It’s going to take me a
minute to draw up that resolution on the landscaping. I’ve only got one other resolution here, and I’m going
to have to have a minute to word the resolution for the landscaping and the easements for the sidewalk. I
need a couple of minutes, Mr. Chairman.
MR. MAC EWAN-Take five.
MR. VOLLARO-I don’t know whether we want to make.
MR. STROUGH-Well, I just, the noted revisions will be made to final subdivision plans as noted in the C.T.
Male letter dated November 26, and the Nace Engineering letter, just a backup condition to make sure
everything’s on the final plans.
MR. MAC EWAN-Now take three minutes and work it out with Cathy.
MR. STROUGH-Okay.
MR. METIVIER-Can I ask, how is the landscaping plan on this one going to work with the landscaping
plans on the medical building and then the next building they have that’s in front of us?
MR. MAC EWAN-Because George’s comment was that it’s relative to the whole subdivision, with the
exception of the daycare center, which was sold to a private party.
MR. METIVIER-Right, but they have landscaping plans for both subdivisions, or I’m sorry, both lots. So
this is going to be an overlay on top of those two?
MR. HILTON-Right. They submitted a landscaping plan with the subdivision.
MR. METIVIER-Right.
MR. HILTON-They’re on the plan. They’re required to be planted. Each site plan comes in with a separate
landscaping plan.
MR. METIVIER-Right.
MR. HILTON-That are on their specific site plan they’d be required to be planted as well. I guess it’s up to
the applicant to kind work the two together to make sure.
MR. METIVIER-Well, how can you set a landscaping plan out on a subdivision when you don’t know what’s
going to go where, where the buildings are going to be? I mean, does that make sense?
MR. HILTON-Well, I understand your concern that you don’t want to have one tree on top of the other.
MR. METIVIER-Well, no, obviously you wouldn’t, but how are you going to lay it, how are we going to lay it
out?
MR. HILTON-It’s up to the applicant to make sure, as proposed, that the plantings are put in place. If they
have to redesign their site, they could certainly come in for a modification, like they’ve done this evening, but
if they show it on a landscaping plan within a subdivision plan, it’s required to be planted.
MR. METIVIER-So we tell them, on a subdivision plan, they have to put a tree here, and then they come
back and they put a building where that tree is. That tree is going to come down, so now that subdivision
landscaping plan is null and void.
MR. HILTON-Well, they’d have to modify the subdivision, the subdivision plan as they proposed it
originally, with the original landscaping.
10
(Queensbury Planning Board 11/26/02)
MR. METIVIER-So they’d have to come back for a modification on a tree?
MR. HILTON-Yes, potentially.
MR. MAC EWAN-It can happen. It’s happened before when someone’s accidentally cut into a buffer area
or something and come back on a modification, the same effect.
MR. STROUGH-Do we want to do a draft run?
MR. MAC EWAN-We have confidence in you. Go. All right, John, introduce it.
MR. STROUGH-Okay.
MOTION TO APPROVE MODIFICATION TO SUBDIVISION NO. 9-2000 RICHARD
SCHERMERHORN, JR., Introduced by John Strough who moved for its adoption, seconded by
Catherine LaBombard:
WHEREAS, an application has been make to this board for the following:
Subdivision No. 9-2000 Applicant: Richard Schermerhorn
MODIFICATION Property Owner: Guido Passarelli
Type: Unlisted Agent: Nace Engineering
Zone: PO
Location: Bay Road
Applicant proposes modification to a previously approved subdivision. The modification reduces the
number of lots from 16 to 10 and reduces the length of proposed town road.
Tax Map No. 296.12-1-24
Public Hearing: Not required for Modification
WHEREAS, the application was received 10/15/02, and
WHEREAS, the above is supported with the following documentation, and inclusive of all newly received
information, not included is this listing as of 11/22/02; and
11/26 Staff Notes
11/22 CT Male engineering comments received
11/19 Notice of Public Hearing
11/18 Highway Dept comment: No problem with the changes
11/8 GH from T. Nace: DEC Stream Crossing Permit, Wetland Permit ltr. From ACOE
11/5 Meeting Notice
11/4 Nace Eng. from G. Hilton
11/1 Application forwarded to CT Male
WHEREAS, a public hearing is not required for a subdivision modification, and
WHEREAS, the Planning Board has determined that the proposal complies with the Subdivision
requirements of the Code of the Town Queensbury (Zoning); and
WHEREAS, the Planning Board has considered the environmental factors found in the Code of the Town of
Queensbury (Zoning); and
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT
RESOLVED, that
We find the following: The application for MODIFICATION is hereby approved in accordance with the
resolution prepared by Staff, with the deletion of the SEQRA paragraph, and in place of that, the Planning
Board does not feel the need to do an additional SEQRA because we feel that the new proposed impacts are
less than previous, and that the requirements of the SEQRA have been considered, and that the proposed
modifications do not result in any new or significantly different environmental impacts, and therefore no
SEQRA is necessary. See the following conditions:
1. The noted revisions will be made to final subdivision plans as noted in the C.T. Male letter dated
November 26, 2002, and the Nace Engineering letter date November 26, 2002.
2. The applicant will show a row of sugar maples parallel and alongside Bay Road. Trees will be about
100 foot apart and they’ll be 2 ½” to 3” caliper.
11
(Queensbury Planning Board 11/26/02)
3. The applicant will note on the final plans an indication of a possible future sidewalk.
4. The plat must be filed with the County Clerk within 60 days of receipt by Planning Department Staff
of outside agency approvals noted.
Duly adopted this 26th day of November, 2002, by the following vote:
MR. STROUGH-I know you mentioned the easement thing, but we just thought that, just an indicator on
the final plans that there might be a possible future sidewalk along here.
MR. NACE-Would you consider revising the tree planting to allow us to incorporate in that 100 foot spacing
any large deciduous trees, shade trees, that were in the site plans?
MR. MAC EWAN-Mr. Nace, I already have a second on the motion, and we’re going to vote it through, one
way or the other.
MR. STROUGH-Well, I certainly don’t mind it being amended.
MR. MAC EWAN-We have a motion on the table. We have someone who seconded it. We’ve got to put it
through the vote.
MR. RINGER-You can have a discussion on the motion, but the discussion probably should come from the
table.
MR. MAC EWAN-Yes, before you get a second on it.
MR. RINGER-No, after the second you can still have discussion, but the discussion should come from the
table.
MS. RADNER-I think it’s up to the Chair whether he wants to entertain any additional discussion or whether
he wants the motion to go through. Some Boards do seek additional input, usually from the Board
members, as Larry indicated, after the motion is seconded. This one typically does it’s discussions before
deciding the motion and then the motion either carries or fails.
MR. MAC EWAN-We had a great length of discussion prior to putting this thing up.
MR. RINGER-Yes. My comment was, you said there was no discussion. There can be discussion after the
second, but that discussion should come from the table and not from the floor. That was the comment I
made. So, as Bob started to make a comment that perhaps he may want to discuss, you know, Tom’s changes
or not, whether they were formally made by Tom or not. I don’t know.
MR. VOLLARO-I don’t particularly have any problem with the motion as proposed, to tell you the truth. I
think that we discussed it here.
MR. STROUGH-Well, I also think that if you’ve already got trees there, just plug in some few other trees to
make this row. I mean, that’s all we’re trying to create.
MR. VOLLARO-Yes, but with a motion like that, what Mr. Nace is saying, he’s kind of slave to 10 maples, or
7 maples, whatever it is.
MR. STROUGH-Well, I didn’t say seven maples. I just said they’ll be about 100 foot apart, and I said they’ll
be about two and a half to three inch caliper. So if there’s already a tree there, I mean, that’s up to the
Chairman.
MR. MAC EWAN-Run it through. Run your vote.
MR. VOLLARO-Well, you’ve already got a second.
MRS. LA BOMBARD-Yes.
AYES: Mrs. LaBombard, Mr. Vollaro, Mr. Strough, Mr. Hunsinger, Mr. Metivier, Mr. Ringer, Mr. MacEwan
NOES: NONE
MR. LAPPER-Thank you very much.
MR. MAC EWAN-You’re all set.
NEW BUSINESS:
12
(Queensbury Planning Board 11/26/02)
SITE PLAN REVIEW NO. 53-2002 TYPE: UNLISTED RICHARD SCHERMERHORN, JR.
PROPERTY OWNER: GUIDO PASSARELLI AGENT: JONATHAN LAPPER, JAMES
MILLER ZONE: PO LOCATION: EAST SIDE BAY RD., NORTH OF MEDICAL BUILDING
UNDER CONSTRUCTION APPLICANT PROPOSES CONSTRUCTION OF A TWO STORY
10,000 SQ. FT. OFFICE WITH PARKING AND ASSOCIATED SITE WORK. PROFESSIONAL
OFFICE IN A P O ZONE REQUIRES REVIEW BY THE PLANNING BOARD. CROSS
REFERENCE: UV 130-92, SB 5-88, SP 13-01, SP 90-90, SP 33-02, AV 38-01, SP 24-01, SP 19-01, BP
01-400 WARREN CO. PLANNING: 11/13/02 TAX MAP NO. 296.12-1-24/60-2-4 LOT SIZE:
82.22 ACRES SECTION: ART. 4
JON LAPPER & TOM NACE, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT; RICH S., PRESENT
MRS. LA BOMBARD-There is a public hearing this evening.
STAFF INPUT
Notes from Staff, Site Plan No. 53-2002, Richard Schermerhorn, Jr., Meeting Date: November 19, 2002
“Project Description:
The applicant proposes to construct a 10,000 sq. ft. office building with associated parking, landscaping and
site improvements. Office uses of this type require Site Plan Review and approval from the Planning Board.
Criteria for considering a Site Plan according to Section 179-9-080 of the Town of
Queensbury Zoning Ordinance:
1. Does the proposed project comply with the requirements of the Zoning Ordinance?
Office uses of this type require Site Plan Review and approval from the Planning Board. The
proposal will comply with setback and parking requirements of the Zoning Ordinance.
2. Will the proposed use be in harmony with the intent of the ordinance, specifically, could the
location, character and size of the proposed use increase the burden on the supporting
public services and facilities?
The proposal will increase the use of some public services, however no additional burden on public
services and facilities is anticipated.
3. Will the proposed use create public hazards with regards to traffic, traffic congestion or the
parking of vehicles and/or equipment or be otherwise detrimental to the health, safety or
general welfare of the persons residing or working in the neighborhood or the general
welfare of the town?
While it is anticipated that traffic will increase in this area with this use, no adverse impacts are
expected. Parking will be off street and will adequately serve the proposed office building.
4. While considering any benefits that might be derived from the project; Will the project have
any undue adverse impact on the natural, scenic, aesthetic, ecological, wildlife, historic,
recreational or open space resource of the town or Adirondack Park or upon the ability of the
public to provide supporting facilities and services made necessary by the project?
Impacts of this type are not anticipated with this application.
The following general standards were considered in the staff review of this project:
1. The location, arrangement, size, design and general site compatibility of buildings, lighting and signs.
The building as proposed appears to be compatible with the parking to be provided and other site
improvements.
2. The adequacy and arrangement of vehicular traffic access and circulation, including intersections,
road widths, pavement surfaces, dividers and traffic controls.
Traffic accessing this site will use a proposed drive off of Bay Rd. The driveway is of adequate width
to provide vehicular access to this site.
3. The location, arrangement, appearance and sufficiency of off-street parking and loading.
13
(Queensbury Planning Board 11/26/02)
Parking spaces shown are of adequate size and number and would provide for safe parking and
loading at this location.
4. The adequacy and arrangement of pedestrian traffic access and circulation, walkway structures,
control of intersections with vehicular traffic and overall pedestrian convenience.
Pedestrian access is provided toward the rear of the building. Walkways are proposed to connect the
building to the edge of the parking area.
5. The adequacy of stormwater drainage facilities.
The applicant has submitted a stormwater management plan, which will be reviewed by CT Male.
6. The adequacy of water supply and sewage disposal facilities.
Water service through the municipal water system will be provided. Currently this property is not
within a sanitary sewer district. Inclusion in a district and connection to the sanitary sewer system is
required prior to occupancy at this location.
7. The adequacy, type and arrangement of trees, shrubs and other suitable plantings, landscaping and
screening constituting a visual and/or noise buffer between the applicants and adjoining lands,
including the maximum retention of existing vegetation and maintenance, including replacement of
dead or deceased plants.
The applicant has provided a landscaping plan, which provides for trees and planting throughout the
site. The plan could be updated to provide more street trees along Bay Rd. as called for in the Bay
Road design guidelines.
8. The adequacy of fire lanes and other emergency zones and the provision of fire hydrants.
Emergency access appears adequate, however the site plan should be updated to show the location of
the closest fire hydrant in the area. Code requires that the closest hydrant be within 500 ft. of the
new building.
9. The adequacy and impact of structures, roadways and landscaping in areas with susceptibility to
ponding, flooding and/or erosion.
Impacts of this type are not anticipated at this location.
Parcel History (construction/site plan/variance, etc.):
SB 9-2000(previous modification), resolved 12/18/2001
Staff comments:
The building that is proposed would have access from behind the building and the parking would be
shielded from view with the construction of a berm along Bay Rd. This type of site layout is consistent
with the Bay Rd. Design Guidelines. It should be noted that the grading plan should be revised with
correct elevations in the area of the proposed berm.
Street trees, like those planted within this subdivision and along Bay Rd. should be included as called for
in the Bay Rd. Design Guidelines.
Connection to the municipal sewer system will be required for this site prior to any issuance of a
certificate of occupancy at this location.
The site plan should also be revised to indicate the location of the nearest fire hydrant. The distance to
the building from the closest hydrant, which must be 500 ft., must be shown as well.
SEQR Status:
Type: Unlisted, a short form has been submitted.”
MR. MAC EWAN-Staff notes, please.
MR. HILTON-Yes. The building in this site plan that’s proposed would go on the lot, I believe it’s, I’m not
sure the number, it’s the one fronting off of Bay Road, northwest corner of this recently modified
14
(Queensbury Planning Board 11/26/02)
subdivision. The applicant has submitted building elevations that represent, or show a residential building, as
called for in the Bay Road Design Guidelines. The parking would be located towards the rear of the building,
shielded from the street by a berm, which again it’s in keeping with the Bay Road Design Guidelines. A
comment I had, which we’ve already discussed, but certainly could discuss again, regarding street trees, which
would be shown on this, or planted on this lot in keeping with the Bay Road Guidelines. Connection to the
municipal sewer system will be required prior to the issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy on this site, and a
notation should be added to the plan locating the closest fire hydrant and that should be within 500 feet.
That’s a comment made by in reference, or as a result of a conversation with the Fire Marshal. That’s all I
have.
MR. LAPPER-For the record again, Jon Lapper, Tom Nace, and Rich Schermerhorn. The only comment I
have is that since we were here last to talk about the hospital building, we have been approved by the Town
Board. The map plan and report was accepted, and the detailed design drawings submitted to DEC for the
sewer line and Rich will be building that in the spring. He has to hook up both of these buildings, but
certainly the hospital building, which he plans to have open by April. Tom, do you want to walk them
through the site plan.
MR. NACE-Okay. Basically, the site plan is a single building, set back toward the northerly property line,
parking to the south, and one entry. It will be served by sewer down across the hospital lot, water directly off
of Bay Road. We will locate the hydrant, going from memory, but I think it’s right in about this area, so it
would be within 500 feet, but we will show that. The drainage for the building is handled with an eaves
trench around the building. The site is built up above the existing grade a couple of feet. It’ll be on
permeable material, fill material, that’ll allow the runoff from the roof to infiltrate through the eaves trench.
The drainage from the parking lot is handled with underground storage and infiltrators, with an overflow
from those back out into the wetland. We received comments from C.T. Male. I responded to those today,
and received a response back from C.T. Male that they agree with our method. Obviously they haven’t had
time to look at all of the changes on the plan. Most of the changes were simple drafting mistakes that we’ve
corrected. If there are any of those in particular you’d like me to go into detail on, I will.
MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. Bob, we’ll start with you.
MR. VOLLARO-Okay. I’ll get to the question that I asked before, while we were on the subdivision, and
that’s on the stormwater management report, where it says, it’s right up in the introduction, towards the Lot
One office building. It says, “The site of the proposed office building on Lot #1 of the recently approved
Baybrook Professional Park Subdivision…” Now, we did just approve it, a minute ago. That’s what lead me
to ask the question, was this written before.
MR. NACE-Actually, the body of the text was probably written for the daycare center and modified for each
successive project.
MR. VOLLARO-Okay.
MR. NACE-So, when the daycare center was done, it was a recently approved subdivision. I apologize for
the confusion.
MR. VOLLARO-All right. I just wanted to make sure that this was written in light of the fact that we had a
new, you know, the wetlands were modified. Let’s see what my notes have to say here. This will be part of
Sewer District Extension Number Seven, that kind of, I think Mike Shaw intimated that in his letter.
MR. SCHERMERHORN-Yes.
MR. NACE-Yes.
MR. VOLLARO-Okay. I see where, in your response to Mr. Edwards’ letter concerning that eight inch
installation of that pipe, you now talk about putting that at a four percent grade, that’s the eight inch sewer
line?
MR. NACE-Yes. We’ve rerouted that a little bit. He had a good point. There was one area where the cover.
MR. VOLLARO-One and a half foot, I think he said, for cover.
MR. NACE-It was really more like two, but it was shallow enough. So we decided the best thing to do was
to follow the suggestion and we rerouted the sewer so it doesn’t traverse the real low spot there.
MR. VOLLARO-In his comment concerning the eaves trench around the building, I didn’t really understand
his comment, Tom, because it’s only ten feet away from the wetlands as it is. What did he mean by getting it
to flow easier to the wetland?
15
(Queensbury Planning Board 11/26/02)
MR. NACE-I didn’t totally follow it especially because that whole area is built up with fill material, and the fill
material will be sand that’s imported to the site. So it will gradually filter out through that.
MR. VOLLARO-The only thing I could see, in answer to him, was some sort of a day lighting thing, and I
didn’t think that you were going to look at that at all.
MR. NACE-No.
MR. VOLLARO-Okay. You’ll have to give me a minute. We just got this letter tonight ourselves, and I’m
trying to go through your responses to it.
MR. NACE-I fully understand.
MR. VOLLARO-This is Number Eight, as noted at the bottom of the stormwater infiltration, he said
something about your, the stone fill being below grade, and therefore having a hard time essentially draining
off.
MR. NACE-Actually the stone fill was just about at or just a hair below, less than a half a foot below existing
grade, and the upper level of the existing soil is fairly permeable. It’s about an eight minute perc. However,
by the time we strip the topsoil and work that area, his suggestion is well taken. It would be best to dig down
about two or three feet and fill that back in with more permeable material, which we will do.
MR. VOLLARO-Okay. Now I’m going to go from memory here a little bit. On the site plan itself there was
some indication that the lighting in the southern portion of the parking lot was a little less than .05 candles.
Have you, .5 I guess it was. Did you put a new light in there? I think there was mention of it here, about a
new light.
MR. NACE-Yes. Jim Miller designed that, and he did put a new light. Let me see if I can locate it. He put a
new light. I believe it’s right here about in the middle of this southern section.
MR. VOLLARO-Okay. My suggestion to myself when I did this I said, we’ll just change the amount of
wattage on the existing light and that might have done it, to the edge. Because now is there any spillage now
from that off that site because of that light?
MR. NACE-It would only be over onto the hospital site where there’s a parking lot there.
MR. VOLLARO-Anyway. All right. Looking at the plan itself, at the building itself, this is the rendition of it.
Do you have any color scheme on this at all, or are you planning to?
MR. SCHERMERHORN-Well, I think in the original subdivision before the modification we agreed that it
would all be earth tone colors themed throughout the park. So it’s going to be colors in keeping with what’s
there now. Because I think the hospital, when we did that one, we said it would be earth tone again.
MR. VOLLARO-All of this development is kind of going to be sort of homogenous in a way.
MR. SCHERMERHORN-Yes. We tried to keep a theme. To keep them all in the same type of, you know,
the hip roofs with the architectural shingles. We’re having the brick on it to keep with what daycare has and
the hospital building has now.
MR. VOLLARO-Okay. So that ought to transition right up through the property pretty well I guess. I don’t
think I have any other questions right now, that I see here. That’s about it for me, Mr. Chairman.
MR. MAC EWAN-Cathy?
MRS. LA BOMBARD-Well, I think that the landscaping plan is certainly very acceptable, and the fact that
C.T. Male has signed off and everything is engineered with the wetlands in such proximity, and the design
isn’t too bad either, and I think it’s going to be fine. As far as any specific details, I don’t know what to ask
you about.
MR. MAC EWAN-Is that it?
MRS. LA BOMBARD-Yes.
MR. MAC EWAN-Larry?
MR. RINGER-I don’t have anything.
MR. MAC EWAN-Chris?
16
(Queensbury Planning Board 11/26/02)
MR. HUNSINGER-I guess just to maybe reiterate some of the other comments. I really like the layout of
the plan, the way the building is situated on the lot, the way the parking is incorporated on the lot, the
concept elevations, you know, the roof pitches and everything else. The only thing I really picked up on, and
in light of our last resolution, is there were some sugar maples shown on the subdivision landscaping plan
that didn’t show up on the site plan, specifically along Bay Road.
MR. NACE-You’re right. Ten lashes for Jim Miller.
MR. HUNSINGER-Well, I think our resolution that we just passed would cover that anyway, you know,
there were those two shown on this that didn’t make it to that plan. I didn’t know if it was an oversight or,
but it’s covered by the resolution anyway.
MR. RINGER-You show five of them in the description, five sugar maples.
MR. HUNSINGER-That was my only comment, Mr. Chairman.
MR. MAC EWAN-Tony?
MR. METIVIER-I have nothing to add. It looks fine.
MR. MAC EWAN-John?
MR. STROUGH-Well, we’ll just start off where we left off, and when I laid it out on the big subdivision plan,
this, you know, you’re talking runs about, you know, 100 feet apart, and so you’re talking three here, one on
each corner and one in the middle, and then it kind of flowed from there, it just kind of worked out nice at
100 foot per tree. Now I don’t know if we have to condition this one, if we’ve already said they’ll be about
100 feet apart, but I just thought it made sense to put one here, one in the middle, and one on the outside
edge, but, okay, so that’s a follow up. Now the fire hydrant. There was a notation on a fire hydrant had to be
within 500 feet? Did that get addressed?
MR. NACE-We will address that. Okay. It shows on the subdivision plan. It’s just off the edge, and it is
within 500 feet of the entrance to the office building. It’s right here. We’ll make a note of that on the site
plan, the location and the distance.
MR. STROUGH-The building plans are just conceptual? Have you talked to the person who’s going to
develop this or buy this, Rich?
MR. SCHERMERHORN-Well, this building it so happens is going to be, this one I’m going to own, and I
have three tenants actually I’m talking to right now that have interest in it.
MR. STROUGH-So, I mean, it’s going to be pretty close to this?
MR. SCHERMERHORN-Yes, very close.
MR. STROUGH-Okay.
MR. SCHERMERHORN-The only thing that will change is the interior, but I didn’t supply that because
we’re still working with the tenants.
MR. STROUGH-Now I see the lighting fixture on that, but to be honest with you, I didn’t go back to the old
material, even though I’ve got it in my basement. Is that the same fixture we’ve been using all along, the light
fixture?
MR. SCHERMERHORN-The acorn one?
MR. STROUGH-Yes.
MR. SCHERMERHORN-Yes.
MR. STROUGH-Okay. Well this is going to look nice when it’s all said and done, in my opinion. Okay,
lighting fixtures, the only other concern I had was there’s about a three foot retaining wall near that eastern
door. I’m just wondering about the public access and that retaining wall and at nighttime, I’m just a little bit
concerned about public safety near that door area where the retaining wall curves in, and maybe you want to
talk to that.
MR. SCHERMERHORN-Well, certainly Buildings and Codes will direct me in the right direction on that,
but if it’s a three foot retaining wall with a, if it’s more than 18 inches of drop off we have to put a railing up
anyway. So it would be protected regardless.
17
(Queensbury Planning Board 11/26/02)
MR. STROUGH-Well, the part I was just concerned about was the part that curves in near that side door. I
don’t know. Okay. Well, that’s all I had. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, thanks, applicant.
MR. MAC EWAN-Anything to add?
MR. LAPPER-No.
MR. MAC EWAN-Any questions or comments from Board members?
MR. VOLLARO-I have one comment I’d just like to ask, just real quick, on the pre-application conference, it
talks about Bast Hatfield being one of the named applicants on that. I’m familiar with Bast Hatfield.
MR. LAPPER-We were talking to them, and Rich decided that he was going to do this himself. Scratch that.
MR. VOLLARO-Because Bast Hatfield is well noted for design build efforts, and I was going to ask you
about that if they were going to be involved in here. So, okay. That’s it.
MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. I’ll open up the public hearing. Does anyone want to comment on this
application?
PUBLIC HEARING OPENED
JOHN HUGHES
MR. HUGHES-John Hughes, owner of the property on the north side of this building. What I’d like to find
out is what the, I haven’t seen the plan, and how far the setback is off of my property line there.
MR. MAC EWAN-Off your property line.
MR. HUGHES-Right.
MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. I’ll get them to point that out to you when they come back up. Okay.
MR. HUGHES-Okay. Another thing, how about drainage coming over onto our property?
MR. MAC EWAN-No, there wouldn’t be any drainage going on to your property at all.
MR. HUGHES-Any buffer zone? Any plantings?
MR. MAC EWAN-Any plantings? There’s significant plantings on all these.
MR. HUGHES-I’m talking between the back of the building and my property line.
MR. MAC EWAN-Tom, could I get you to pull up the subdivision map so we can see exactly where his
property is.
MR. NACE-Okay. His property is directly north of this part of the (lost word) across the stream. It is, here’s
the subdivision. His is this property here.
MR. MAC EWAN-I think they were all going to be impacted by the senior center, the senior housing that
they wanted to put in.
MRS. LA BOMBARD-John, you can see it on this little location map that just delineates the site, and it also
has your driveway.
MR. MAC EWAN-Okay?
MR. HUGHES-I wanted to know what the distance is from the sideline to the property line.
MR. NACE-Craig, it varies from 11 to 12. something, 12.2 or something like that.
MR. STROUGH-Doesn’t it have to be 20 foot setback for?
MR. MAC EWAN-1100 to 1200 feet?
MR. NACE-Eleven to twelve.
MR. MAC EWAN-Eleven to twelve feet.
18
(Queensbury Planning Board 11/26/02)
MR. VOLLARO-I get roughly 10 feet out of, roughly 11 feet, 11 to 12 feet is what I get out of it, yes. Mr.
Nace is correct on that.
MR. HILTON-The side setback is listed as 20, Professional Office zone.
MR. STROUGH-That’s why I asked in the beginning if this was going to be PO setbacks or what.
MR. MAC EWAN-Did you have any other questions? We’ll get that addressed. Any other questions?
MR. HUGHES-No, just how they’re going to handle that grade coming off the back, that building down to
my property line.
MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. We’ll get an answer for you.
MR. HUGHES-Can I keep this for a minute?
MR. MAC EWAN-Yes. Anyone else? All right. Why don’t you guys come back up. We’ll leave the public
hearing open for the time being. George, what did you come up with over there?
MR. VOLLARO-I get 12 on that.
MRS. LA BOMBARD-I was going to the house, not to the property line.
MR. HILTON-Twelve feet from the building to the property line, as shown.
MR. MAC EWAN-And what’s the setback requirement?
MR. HILTON-The requirement, as I stated, is 20 feet.
MR. SCHERMERHORN-Well, we certainly missed it, then, obviously. I’m willing to do two things. Tom
indicated we do have the room to move the building over 10 feet.
MR. MAC EWAN-What’s that do for your parking?
MR. NACE-We’d have to work with it and massage it.
MR. SCHERMERHORN-Or I certainly have enough square footage in the building. I could just take ten
feet off it.
MR. MAC EWAN-Well, obviously what we’re going to do, we’re going to table this thing, however you guys
want to solve the problem and meet the setback requirements, whether you redesign your parking area or cut
down the size of the building, I don’t see us moving forward on this tonight.
MR. VOLLARO-They could certainly go for a variance.
MR. MAC EWAN-I wouldn’t want them to do that.
MR. RINGER-Well, the options are theirs.
MR. MAC EWAN-The option is there, but I wouldn’t want to see them pursue that.
MR. STROUGH-Well, it would take them the same amount of time going through.
MR. RINGER-Well, I think they should come back with another plan showing how they’re going to handle
the 20, to get the 20 feet.
MR. MAC EWAN-It’s not an easy thing where you can just say that, you know, you’re just going to move the
thing.
MR. RINGER-They just have to come back with another plan.
MRS. LA BOMBARD-Because this is so snug here.
MR. MAC EWAN-Why don’t we do this. We’ll leave the public hearing open. We’ll table this. We’ll set our
motion to say that because of the side lot setback interference here, you’re going to redesign your plans,
however you come about doing it.
19
(Queensbury Planning Board 11/26/02)
MR. LAPPER-I’ve got one question, for the sake of expedience. If we shaved eight feet off the side of the
building, which is two stories, that’s a pretty significant reduction in size. Because he hasn’t leased it yet, Rich
can do that. For the sake of not having to put it on your agenda again, he would be willing to do that.
MR. MAC EWAN-I think it would be my preference to see you come back with another plan. I think that
would be the right thing to do, to make sure that we are going to meet the setbacks and then we can table this
until next month. I mean, how does the rest of the Board feel about it?
MR. VOLLARO-Next month is pretty packed. Everything is in on the 19 next month. We’ve moved
th
everything in to the 19. I think we’ve got eight.
th
MR. STROUGH-What did you want to do, break ground for this this year? Since you’ve got tenants
planning on this? And December 19 is going to really upset that? Because this is, if you move that, shift
th
that thing over, this should be pretty cut and dried, as far as our approvals, as far as what I’m reading, but that
would not be good. I mean, if you’re willing to cut square footage off the building, that’s pretty drastic.
MR. VOLLARO-I’d take a little bit of time, Rich, just to look at this before you slice the building up. I
would agree with Mr. Strough on that, rather than cut the building up.
MR. MAC EWAN-Do you have extra parking? More than enough parking? I mean, not just barely meeting
the requirements. You’ve got more than what you need. Right?
MR. NACE-Yes. We have I think two extra spaces.
MR. MAC EWAN-Two extra spaces. My personal preference, I’d rather see you just slide the building. I
think it would still keep the aesthetics you have and your whole theme going, Rich.
MR. LAPPER-We, of course, missed the 15 for our submittal. Can we resubmit?
th
MR. MAC EWAN-We can be flexible.
MR. LAPPER-Thank you.
MR. MAC EWAN-When’s our meetings in December, what’s the dates? Because we shifted them around.
MR. HILTON-At this point, you have a workshop on December 3, and we have two scheduled meetings,
rd
one for the 17 and one for the 19. It’s been the thinking at this point, because of the amount of
thth
applications, that we may have been able to put it on one meeting.
MR. MAC EWAN-One night.
MR. HILTON-But we still have two scheduled meetings.
MR. HUNSINGER-I thought at our meeting last week we committed ourselves to a meeting on the 19,
th
didn’t we?
MR. HILTON-Yes.
MR. RINGER-And the 17, but when we did our pre-ap meeting, there wasn’t much on the agenda. So we
th
thought we could put it into one meeting, which we put in to the 19. So we wouldn’t have a meeting, even
th
though we’ve scheduled, it was tentatively scheduled.
MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. How long will it take you to do the drawings? A few days?
MR. NACE-Yes.
MR. MAC EWAN-By next Friday?
MR. NACE-By next Monday.
MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. Have them here by the close of business on Monday, so they can be distributed.
MR. LAPPER-Thank you.
MR. MAC EWAN-I’ll leave the public hearing open. I’m going to need to do a motion. Could I hear a
motion to table this application, please.
MR. STROUGH-Do we have to table it?
20
(Queensbury Planning Board 11/26/02)
MRS. LA BOMBARD-Can’t we just leave it to be tabled?
MR. MAC EWAN-No, we’re tabling it.
MOTION TO TABLE SITE PLAN NO. 53-2002, RICHARD SCHERMERHORN, JR.,
Introduced by Larry Ringer who moved for its adoption, seconded by Catherine LaBombard,
Until the December 19 meeting. The reason for tabling is for them to submit a new site plan showing a
th
setback requirement. :
Duly adopted this 26th day of November, 2002, by the following vote:
AYES: Mrs. LaBombard, Mr. Vollaro, Mr. Strough, Mr. Metivier, Mr. Hunsinger, Mr. Ringer, Mr. MacEwan
NOES: NONE
MR. SCHERMERHORN-Thank you.
MR. MAC EWAN-Okay.
SITE PLAN NO. 54-2002 TYPE I GREAT ESCAPE THEME PARK, LLC PROPERTY
OWNER: SAME AGENT: JOHN LEMERY, ESQ. ZONE: RC-15 LOCATION: GREAT
ESCAPE THEME PARK APPLICANT PROPOSES CONSTRUCTION OF A NEW ROLLER
COASTER AS THE “RUNAWAY TRAIN” (GHOST TOWN) WITHIN THE EXISTING
AMUSEMENT PARK. SITE PLAN REVIEW/APPROVAL IS REQUIRED FOR NEW
AMUSEMENTS AS REQUIRED IN SEQRA FINDINGS ADOPTED BY THE PLANNING
BOARD. CROSS REFERENCE: MANY WARREN CO. PLANNING: 11/13/02 TAX MAP
NO. 288.-20-1-20/36-2-3.1 LOT SIZE: 248.96 SECTION: ART. 4
JOHN LEMERY, JOHN COLLINS, & JEFF ANTHONY, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT
MRS. LA BOMBARD-And there is a public hearing tonight.
STAFF INPUT
Notes from Staff, Site Plan No. 54-2002, Great Escape Theme Park, LLC, Meeting Date: November 26,
2002 “Project Description:
The applicant proposes to construct a new ride within the Great Escape amusement park. Previous SEQR
findings state that new rides, such as the new roller coaster to be called the Runaway Train, require site plan
review before the Planning Board.
Criteria for considering a Site Plan according to Section 179-9-080 of the Town of
Queensbury Zoning Ordinance:
1. Does the proposed project comply with the requirements of the Zoning Ordinance?
The proposed ride is allowed in the RC-15 zone and requires site plan review and approval before
the Planning Board.
2. Will the proposed use be in harmony with the intent of the ordinance, specifically, could the
location, character and size of the proposed use increase the burden on the supporting
public services and facilities?
Any increased use of public facilities and impacts have been previously discussed as part of the
SEQR findings statement that was part of the GEIS for the Great Escape.
3. Will the proposed use create public hazards with regards to traffic, traffic congestion or the
parking of vehicles and/or equipment or be otherwise detrimental to the health, safety or
general welfare of the persons residing or working in the neighborhood or the general
welfare of the town?
The applicant has submitted traffic counts, as required in the SEQR findings statement, which
indicate that traffic levels are within established thresholds that would require further traffic analysis
to begin.
4. While considering any benefits that might be derived from the project; Will the project have
any undue adverse impact on the natural, scenic, aesthetic, ecological, wildlife, historic,
21
(Queensbury Planning Board 11/26/02)
recreational or open space resource of the town or Adirondack Park or upon the ability of the
public to provide supporting facilities and services made necessary by the project?
Impacts of this type are not anticipated with this application.
The following general standards were considered in the staff review of this project:
1. The location, arrangement, size, design and general site compatibility of buildings, lighting and signs.
The proposed ride will be constructed in the interior of the park and will replace the existing tornado
ride. The new ride is compatible with the rest of the site, as it currently exists.
2. The adequacy and arrangement of vehicular traffic access and circulation, including intersections,
road widths, pavement surfaces, dividers and traffic controls.
Vehicular access to this site is not a concern with this application. Traffic levels at the Great Escape
are still below levels that would require traffic mitigation.
3. The location, arrangement, appearance and sufficiency of off-street parking and loading.
The existing parking areas at this location will continue to be used for the entire amusement park.
The applicant has not proposed any new parking areas or expansion of existing parking areas.
4. The adequacy and arrangement of pedestrian traffic access and circulation, walkway structures,
control of intersections with vehicular traffic and overall pedestrian convenience.
Pedestrian access will continue to be primarily off of Route 9 from an at grade access point. The
findings statement in the GEIS for the Great Escape discussed the timing and construction of a
pedestrian bridge over Route 9. Given the pending construction of the Route 9 sanitary sewer
project it has not been feasible to construct a bridge at this time. Although pedestrian access will
continue to function with the adequacy it has had in the past, the Planning Board may wish to discuss
a revised schedule for constructing the pedestrian bridge at this location.
5. The adequacy of stormwater drainage facilities.
The applicant has submitted a stormwater management plan for this site plan, which has been
referred to Chazen Engineering for their review.
6. The adequacy of water supply and sewage disposal facilities.
Water service through the municipal water system will be provided. At this time, planning and
design for the extension of sanitary sewer service in this area of Queensbury is currently underway.
7. The adequacy, type and arrangement of trees, shrubs and other suitable plantings, landscaping and
screening constituting a visual and/or noise buffer between the applicants and adjoining lands,
including the maximum retention of existing vegetation and maintenance, including replacement of
dead or deceased plants.
Impacts of this type do not appear to be applicable to the proposed site plan.
8. The adequacy of fire lanes and other emergency zones and the provision of fire hydrants.
Not applicable to this proposal.
9. The adequacy and impact of structures, roadways and landscaping in areas with susceptibility to
ponding, flooding and/or erosion.
Impacts of this type are not anticipated with the proposed site plan,
Staff comments:
The applicant proposes to remove the existing ‘tornado’ ride along with some smaller buildings and some
existing pavement. The new ride and an entry/exit station would be built in this location next to the
existing arcade building.
The sound study that has been supplied by the applicant indicates sound levels that are within the
thresholds established by the findings statement for the GEIS.
22
(Queensbury Planning Board 11/26/02)
The overall height of the ride will be within established criteria contained in the findings statement and
does not appear to be an issue.
Recent traffic count data provided by the applicant indicates that traffic volumes have not risen to a level,
which would require a traffic study or further mitigation.
The previous SEQR findings called for the construction of a pedestrian bridge over Route 9 to provide
better access to the site. This construction has not taken place due to anticipated construction of the
Route 9 sewer project in areas where the bridge could be constructed. The Planning Board may wish to
revise the previously established time frame for constructing the pedestrian bridge to a time that will not
conflict with anticipated construction of the sanitary sewer system along this section of Route 9.
The applicant has submitted a stormwater report, which has been forwarded to Chazen Engineering for
review and comment. All comments from Chazen Engineering should be addressed during the Planning
Board review of this application.
SEQR Status:
Previous GEIS completed for entire amusement park.”
MR. MAC EWAN-Staff notes, please.
MR. HILTON-The application as proposed would remove an existing ride at The Great Escape, building a
new ride called, I guess The Runaway Train. That’s the theme anyway. The sound study that’s been supplied
by the applicant shows sound levels that are within the thresholds established in the Findings Statement with
the previous GEIS. The height level as well as proposed is within the Findings Statement. The recent traffic
data, again, is within any levels that would require any future or further mitigation. The previous SEQRA
called for a pedestrian bridge to be built, and the timing of that has been delayed, understandably, because of
the future construction of sewer service along Route 9. The only thing I guess the Board may wish to revise
the time schedule for building that bridge, as not to conflict with the construction of the sewer district and
infrastructure. A stormwater report has been submitted, forwarded to Chazen Engineering and any
comments from them should be reviewed as part of this review.
MR. MAC EWAN-Is that it?
MR. HILTON-That’s it.
MR. MAC EWAN-Good evening.
MR. LEMERY-Good evening.
MR. COLLINS-Good evening.
MR. MAC EWAN-The floor is yours.
MR. LEMERY-Good evening, Mr. Chairman. My name is John Lemery, Counsel to The Great Escape.
John Collins is with me, he’s a Vice President of Six Flags and General Manager of The Great Escape, and
Jeff Anthony of the landscaping planning firm, The LA Group is here. This application before you is for a
new family roller coaster which will be located up near and adjacent to the Nightmare Ride, which is in sort
of the back of the Park in the Ghost Town area. At the height of the ride, the elevation of the tallest point in
the ride is 53 feet. The zone which was previously permitted by this Board is at 115 feet at that site. So this
is well below the level permitted in this particular height zone. There will be no lighting on the ride itself, and
there would be no requirement, as provided in the Findings Statement, for lighting if it’s anything that falls
within 20 feet of the tree lines. The noise studies for 2002 have been provided to the Board, and we are
pleased to say that the Park has been in compliance. The traffic studies have been provided to the Board, and
the information provided by the traffic studies indicates that there’s no real mitigation need at this point. In
fact, Park attendance was down this past season from what it was historically the year before. There is an
issue concerning the pedestrian bridge which, in accordance with your Findings Statement, was required to be
completed by July of 2003. The problem has been the Queensbury, the extension of the Queensbury Sewer
District, and we’ve been working with Mike Shaw and everybody on the Board for a very significant period of
time, in connection with getting this sewer project moving and going forward. There was a delay occasioned
by an archeological issue, up near the 149 intersection, which took some time. We had a meeting yesterday
morning with Mike Shaw and with everybody from the sewer agency, along with C.T. Male, the engineers for
the Town, and the general plan at this point is to start the project. Some time in the early spring of 2003
they’ll start the sewer project. The Town has asked The Great Escape to accommodate a pumping station
somewhere on the site of the parking lot on the west side, because at that point, the flow is at the lowest
point. So it’s got to be pumped up the hill by Suttons and down to where it will intersection with the existing
23
(Queensbury Planning Board 11/26/02)
line at Weeks Road. So we met yesterday morning and sort of worked out where that could be located in a
way that it wouldn’t affect the Park, wouldn’t affect parking, odor controls and all those kinds of things have
to be dealt with. The problem is that we can’t set the footings for the pedestrian bridge until they really locate
where, on both sides of the road, there could be both an easterly and westerly line at that point, because it’s
both a gravity and force main at that location. So that’s been the problem with trying to get the pedestrian
bridge started, and so we are asking to invoke basically the force (lost word) provision here. It’s been
designed by Ryan Biggs. It’s ready to go, but everybody agrees, the Town’s engineers and our engineers,
think that we need to wait until we know where the sewer line is going to be located exactly before we set the
footings for the pedestrian bridge. We’re pleased to tell you that the electrical system is being designed now,
the upgrade to the electrical system to bring the Park to a point where it can meet the new load requirements.
That’s in the works, and this is the first new attraction of any significance that has been before you since the
planning process started in the spring of 1999. In accordance with the Staff notes, everything has been
designed and built in accordance with the Findings Statements. There is no encroachment on the wetland or
the 100 foot buffer. There is no addition to the decibel levels. The sound studies for this particular ride have
also been provided to your Staff and to Chazen, your engineers, who reviewed the whole, the Park
Environmental Impact Statement. So, with that, I’ll turn it over to John who will tell you a little bit about the
coming attraction and we hope you’ll approve it.
MR. COLLINS-Thank you, John. Good evening. I don’t really have much to add. This attraction is going
in our Ghost Town area. I believe you were up there on Saturday or this past weekend to take a look at the
site. It’s a family attraction, which fits right into our core market, and as John said, it meets all the guidelines
that we set forth in the Findings Statement which was adopted, I believe, in 2001. So if there’s any questions,
we can answer them.
MR. MAC EWAN-Do you want to take a minute and just go over the ride and the siting of it for our
audience, so they’re familiar with exactly where it is?
MR. COLLINS-Sure. This is Jeff Anthony from The LA Group.
MR. ANTHONY-In general, this is where the ride is located. It’s near the Nightmare, which is in the Ghost
Town/Frontier Town section of the Park. Route 9 is out here, and I guess what you would look at is that
there’s, the wetlands are over in this area, which are adjacent to but not part of the project site. The site plan
for this particular ride takes into account essentially this green area right here in here. The yellow line that is
in here is the centerline of the ride itself, the track for the coaster. Queuing area, or entrance area, is right in
this vicinity right here. This is the Nightmare building itself with its queuing area. This area right here is the
queuing area for the proposed Runaway Train ride. If you look at this site plan, you’ll see that this building
right here and this part in particular is the saloon, other buildings in the area of the front of Frontier Town,
this is the flume ride that comes down. This is the shoot that comes down. This is part of the flume ride that
goes all the way around the Nightmare building. Essentially what’s happening in this area is we’re removing
an awfully lot of existing pavement, small buildings, and other portions of attractions that are in the way, and
this new ride is essentially taking the place of those facilities, and overall the impervious area is being greatly
reduced by this project, since all these roofs and paved areas are being eliminated and being replaced with
essentially a lawn type area underneath the centerline of the Runaway Train ride itself. If you have any
questions, we can go over that in particular, but that’s basically the location of the ride and how it’s being fit
into the property.
MS. RADNER-Mr. Chairman, I want to clarify one point for the record before we move on. I think a slight
misstatement might have been made. Mr. Lemery mentioned the 100 foot zoning permitted level. That’s not
permitted by zoning. That’s what was identified as the threshold for SEQRA is the Findings Statement. The
Findings Statement doesn’t create zoning for the area, though. It just lets you know the thresholds at which
you don’t need to do additional SEQRA review.
MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. Thank you. Cathy, we’ll start with you.
MRS. LA BOMBARD-Well, I was going to ask you what buildings were going to be taken down. Because, as
a result of this new ride, we’re supposed to have more permeability. Is that correct?
MR. COLLINS-Yes, that’s correct. The existing Tornado building, all right, if you’re familiar with the Park,
you walk up into Ghost Town, everything on the left starts with the games arcade, and on the other side of
that is the Red Garter Saloon. All of that stays. Everything to the right of that, which is the Tornado ride
and the Ghost Town train ride, there’s a train station with that, that all is taken out, and that’s where the ride
will sit.
MRS. LA BOMBARD-What about all that black top that’s there right now?
MR. COLLINS-The black top itself, as you see it, will probably, it will stay, because everything that the ride
takes up is the buildings. So the footprint of the buildings is where this ride will sit. Okay. There is some
blacktop between the train station and the Tornado ride. There’s actually a wax museum right there. That
would disappear.
24
(Queensbury Planning Board 11/26/02)
MRS. LA BOMBARD-That’s going to go. Okay. Jeff answered most of my questions when he was over
there. I just wanted to get oriented.
MR. COLLINS-The loading station will be just to the right of the entrance to the Nightmare building.
MRS. LA BOMBARD-Yes. Thank you, John.
MR. MAC EWAN-Larry?
MR. RINGER-In the noise study, on the whistles, with the ride, Chazen said that the whistles exceed the
noise level, and they should be taken off, and then in your comments of November 21, you agree that the
st
noise levels do exceed, but you don’t want it in the motion that we not eliminate those whistles. Is that
because you want to reduce the sound of those whistles or, I didn’t understand exactly.
MR. COLLINS-First of all, the whistle that’s currently on the ride that was measured in the ride that we
measured in Texas is a site specific part of that ride. So that wouldn’t be part of our ride. What we’re asking
is that there not be, you know, something so restrictive that says we can’t use whistles if they don’t, you
know, exceed the limits that we’re talking about. That’s the purpose of that statement.
MR. RINGER-I think it’s reasonable.
MR. COLLINS-The ride that we reviewed did have one that we knew was above the limits, and we’re just
saying we don’t want to say you can’t have whistles on a ride if it fits the themeing, as long as it fits within the
sound guidelines.
MR. RINGER-So you would put the ride up and then try different whistles and see what?
MR. COLLINS-Well, no, we’re not saying we’re going to need a whistle, but we don’t want to have in a
statement that we can’t have one. Correct.
MR. RINGER-I didn’t have any other questions, other than that.
MR. MAC EWAN-Chris?
MR. HUNSINGER-I think the only real question I had is in relationship to the walkway. I mean certainly
your position in saying that it’s delayed because of the construction of the sewer is, you know, certainly
defendable and plausible and reasonable. Given the construction of the sewer, what do you think would be a
reasonable expectation for the construction of the walkway?
MR. COLLINS-It will, yes, if the plans proceed like the Town is talking about, we could see something that
said if we didn’t have something in place by 2004, then it would, you know, just like the verbiage says now,
impact any potential future applications.
MR. HUNSINGER-So basically a year from the original Findings?
MR. COLLINS-Yes, unless something were to hold up that sewer line. As John said, we met with them on
Monday. They’re talking about putting the pumping station in the parking lot. We obviously need to meet
with the Town about the look and the design of that, to make sure it meets our guidelines, because we just
don’t want to have some block building in the middle of our parking lot.
MR. HUNSINGER-Right.
MR. COLLINS-And then obviously the situation is to make sure it meets all potential odor control and
things of that nature. So, I would think, based on what they said Monday, they’re looking for, like John said,
spring of next year to have that project underway.
MR. HUNSINGER-What’s the timetable to construct the walkway itself?
MR. COLLINS-As far as what?
MR. HUNSINGER-As far as the length of time that it would take, I mean, because I certainly understand
that things have to be done within a limited construction season.
MR. COLLINS-Right. We don’t anticipate a problem getting it completed within our normal construction
period. It would be similar in nature to what they did with the bike path, I suppose.
25
(Queensbury Planning Board 11/26/02)
MR. HUNSINGER-I mean, in my professional work, you know, we see projects get delayed by a whole year
all the time. You get about a two or three month delay, you miss the construction season. So it’s easy to get
it pushed off for a whole year is what I’m saying.
MR. LEMERY-They don’t expect to be through the Park property until the fall, according to their schedule.
They don’t want to construct in front of the Park during the summer season. So they’ll move it up, right, to
the entrance to the Park, if they get that far, you know, depending on when they let the work and they get
started, and then they think that they’ll be through the Park area in September and October, but once they
determine where it’s going, then, you know, The Great Escape can deal with the engineers to deal with the
footings, get those ready. So, you know, we’re probably looking at the Spring of 2004 for, I would imagine,
the construction.
MR. HUNSINGER-I didn’t have anything else.
MR. MAC EWAN-Tony?
MR. METIVIER-I really have nothing to add. I think this is really the first time you’ve been in front of us
since the Findings Statement period that we went through and obviously it seems to be working so far, and I
applaud that. It’s funny, thinking back to the height and everything and the sound requirements and
everything was right there. So I think you did a great job with that. I appreciate it.
MR. MAC EWAN-John?
MR. STROUGH-Okay. Well, in the stormwater report, I assume that we’re doing it for Ghost Town, not
Frontier Town?
MR. COLLINS-Yes, Ghost Town is the correct location.
MR. STROUGH-Okay, and the queuing area in front of the arcade, where the chickens go, that’s going to be
the queuing area for the new ride? Well, it’s listed on the plans as the queuing area for the Nightmare Ride.
It’s quite a ways a way from the Nightmare Ride. I didn’t think that was.
MR. COLLINS-Yes. That’s the entrance going into the Nightmare.
MR. STROUGH-Yes. All right. Well, here’s the arcade. Here’s the Saloon.
MR. COLLINS-Right.
MR. STROUGH-And they have that listed as the entry and exit of the Nightmare Ride.
MR. COLLINS-Correct.
MR. STROUGH-The Nightmare Ride’s over here.
MR. COLLINS-Yes. That’s correct. You go underneath the tunnel right now.
MR. STROUGH-So that’ll be the new queuing area for the new ride?
MR. COLLINS-We have to work out in and out of that building, correct. I mean, the exact queuing of that
will fluctuate based on traffic flow.
MR. STROUGH-Okay, and is this going to be like the arrow, the steel train in Six Flags Over Texas? Is that
mine, Runaway Train?
MR. COLLINS-It is very similar, yes. It’s generically referred to as a mine train. That’s correct.
MR. STROUGH-Well, that sounds like fun to me.
MR. COLLINS-Yes, it is.
MR. STROUGH-That’s my kind of coaster. Only 53 feet. These 200 foot jobbies, no thanks. Well, this
sounds like fun. Now, I just wanted some clarification on the noise thing. I got a little confused, and
everything may be okay, and I hope you don’t mind answering a couple of questions. Now the train itself has
a decibel reading of 52.5 at 3,200 feet, or that’s our guesstimate, using a doubling concept, that we’re
estimating the decibel range will be around 52.5 decibels at 3,200 feet.
MR. COLLINS-Yes.
26
(Queensbury Planning Board 11/26/02)
MR. STROUGH-Now, that decibel reading, is that a subscript, is that a reading level of subscript 90, or is
there a reading level of an equivalent sound? Because it didn’t identify.
MR. COLLINS-Yes. It looks like it’s equivalent.
MR. STROUGH-Okay. So if that’s 52.5, I’m having trouble. What is the base measurement that we used
for, let’s say Twicwood. What is the base that we established for the decibel level for Twicwood?
MR. COLLINS-That should have been in your packet.
MR. STROUGH-Yes, it was, but we have August 2002. We have 1990. We have 1999. We have the sound
level equivalencies, and we have the sound level (lost words).
MR. LEMERY-Well, you’d have to look at the Impact Statement. I think Chazen reviewed. You might want
to ask Chazen. They review all this.
MR. MAC EWAN-We’ll get them up here just as soon as we’re done with questions. Then we’ll do an
overview.
MR. STROUGH-Okay. Well, then I’ll save those for Stu.
MR. LEMERY-Sure.
MR. STROUGH-Okay. Now you don’t want us to condition this that you have no whistles. How about if
we conditioned it that because your original reading of 25 feet away from the ride is 84 decibels, that no
whistle exceed the level of the noise of the train of 84 decibels at 25 feet.
MR. LEMERY-Our position is that there is no, once again, you don’t have a noise ordinance in the Town of
Queensbury, and there was a year and a half to two years spent in doing an Impact Statement that set these
levels, we’re going to comply with these levels absolutely, and as long as we comply with these levels, it
doesn’t matter what’s done within the Park, so long as the levels are complied with. The problem with the
Chazen comment was that there should be no whistle on the ride, and that’s not what the Impact Statement,
and that’s not what the Findings Statement says. The Findings Statement says there will be no exceeding
these decibels, and we will provide, you’ll provide us two things. You’ll provide us with an annual sound
study of the Park at certain times, which was done, and you will provide us with, if you have a new attraction
going, provide us with the decibel readings of that new attraction which was done. So, given that, we don’t
want to be treated, once again, and this is not meant to be other than treated the same as every other business
in Queensbury, and that is, if you adopt a sound ordinance, then we’ll live with your sound ordinance, but
until such time, we already have an ordinance in effect for this Park, and we’ll live within those confines.
MR. STROUGH-But, John, I think you went off in an entirely.
MR. LEMERY-Well, you have to understand.
MR. STROUGH-Well, I think what I was trying to do is accommodate you by allowing you to have whistles,
but let’s put some kind of parameter on this.
MR. COLLINS-And, John, what we’re saying is we already have the parameters.
MR. MAC EWAN-The parameter’s already there.
MR. COLLINS-Yes.
MR. MAC EWAN-It was done in the Findings Statement.
MR. COLLINS-Yes, and so we’re just saying, don’t get specific about which type of noise can be made if the
parameters are met. That’s our point.
MS. RADNER-Similar to the comment I made about the Findings Statements not creating the ordinance.
The Findings Statements don’t create a right to reach a certain level. They set the thresholds at which you
don’t have to reconsider for environmental purposes, but you can, as part of site plan review, still consider
whether the noises are appropriate for this ride for this site, and set reasonable conditions on that. Again, if
they were to exceed the thresholds set by the Findings Statement, you would need to do additional SEQRA
review, but sound is not completely off limits just because it’s addressed in the Findings Statement.
MR. STROUGH-Well, and the reason why I say that, too, is a whistle is an impulse. It’s an impulse decibel
level that may not really affect the total, what we’re talking about here when we talk about sound levels, we’re
talking about averages, but I’ll have some questions for Stu, and I’m sure we can work out something. I
mean, this sounds like a fun ride, you probably think I give you a hard time, and probably do, but we’ll work
27
(Queensbury Planning Board 11/26/02)
out something so you can maybe get your whistle and make everybody happy. So we’ll work on something
there. Now, this train, when they did the sound study, did they have the neoprene pads on the roll back
plates?
MR. COLLINS-Yes, they did.
MR. STROUGH-When they did the study.
MR. COLLINS-Yes.
MR. STROUGH-And you plan on maintaining those neoprene pads and roll back plates?
MR. COLLINS-Yes.
MR. STROUGH-Okay.
MR. COLLINS-Standard maintenance of a ride.
MR. STROUGH-Okay. This is a brand new ride, is it, Mr. Collins?
MR. COLLINS-John, does that make any difference?
MR. STROUGH-No.
MR. COLLINS-Okay. At the present time, I’ll tell you in January. I’ll give you specifics about the ride.
MR. STROUGH-Well, I was just trying to see, if Six Flags lost theirs.
MR. COLLINS-No, Six Flags still has theirs. That was the one we measured. We’ll make a great ride
announcement and we’ll make sure we give you that info.
MR. STROUGH-Okay. All right. That’s all the questions that I have for now. I do have some questions for
Stu.
MR. MAC EWAN-We’ll have him up here next.
MR. STROUGH-Okay. Thank you.
MR. MAC EWAN-Bob?
MR. VOLLARO-Yes. Just to jump on the whistle thing. I think that a statement that no whistles will be
employed that fall outside the threshold of Section 5G-7 and 8,and I think that’s something that you put in,
and that’s perfectly satisfactory to me.
MR. COLLINS-That’s totally acceptable to us.
MR. VOLLARO-I don’t see where we should be sitting here.
MR. MAC EWAN-That’s why we spent over a year putting that thing together.
MR. COLLINS-That is exactly correct.
MR. VOLLARO-In my opinion, let’s just leave it at that.
MR. STROUGH-Well, if you’ll remember, I had the issue of the impulse effect on, or non-effect, on the
overall sound level.
MR. VOLLARO-Yes, but these thresholds have been set in 5G-7, and 8, John, and I don’t think we ought to
mess with something we spent so much time doing.
MR. STROUGH-Well, let’s see what Stu has to say.
MR. MAC EWAN-That was the whole purpose of doing it, John. That was the whole purpose of doing that
whole Impact Statement, to come up with this plan so that the Park could continue to develop over the next
five to seven years.
MR. STROUGH-Everything might be well and okay. We’ll see. Let’s see what Stu says.
28
(Queensbury Planning Board 11/26/02)
MR. MAC EWAN-It’s just one of those limbs I think you’re out there all by yourself on. Can I ask you guys
to give up the table for a minute?
MR. VOLLARO-I’m sorry, Mr. Chairman, I’m not finished yet. I just wanted to jump in on the whistle thing
before I asked a couple of questions on the bridge itself. I just want to get some things clear in my mind. In,
I guess the revised project narrative, and I suspect that that narrative reflects all of what was contained in
your letter of November 21, Mr. Lemery. Is that correct?
st
MR. LEMERY-I hope so. I’m not sure what you’re referring to.
MR. VOLLARO-That’s okay. We’ll get down to it. It says once New York State gives the Town permission
to proceed with the District’s formation, the Town will set a date for public hearing following which it will
pass a resolution creating the District. Now, Mr. Shaw was here on a previous application a week ago when
we talked about this, and he said that the district is never formed until the final order is written. What he
meant by that was that once it was functioning, then the district is formed and the final order is then written
and approved by the Town Board. I’m just trying to get some terms in my mind here, because when you talk
about putting footings in based on a design, that can be dangerous for you, because a lot of times when these
things called like a map plan and report. The map kind of gives you the outline of where the sewer is going
to be, but as it’s being constructed, that can change, and finally you get to what’s called the as built. If you
start putting footings in based on a map plan and report, and they change it, and then your footings are in
question, that’s your nickel. So I was just trying to give you some guidance as to what happens when Mike
Shaw talks about when things become. The final order is given by the Town Board that says, okay, now the
district is created. So, it’s something you might want to check with Mike on.
MR. COLLINS-Yes, and we have been, and Mike can verify this, we’ve been meeting with them for the past
year and a half on that, and our meeting on Monday was specifically to talk about location for a pumping
station, which would impact footings, which, you know, getting to that and getting back, and, so, yes, I agree
with you, Robert.
MR. VOLLARO-I just wanted to point that out.
MR. LEMERY-It’s also possible that the timing could change from the Town’s perspective. You’re quite
right about that. So the wastewater treatment plant has been designed for the Park, in accordance with the
requirement.
MR. VOLLARO-But that’s a package, though.
MR. LEMERY-Right.
MR. VOLLARO-That fits somewhere.
MR. LEMERY-Right, but, you know, obviously the preference is to tie into the sewer. So the plan, at this
point, is to wait until the sewer line is in, and the comment you made is accurate, that until that’s done, there
is no reason to put the pedestrian bridge in. The traffic this summer didn’t justify, by itself, the requirement
for the pedestrian bridge.
MR. VOLLARO-See, I had a couple of words in that under construction of the pedestrian bridge that could
be very well put in, it says, I would propose, that’s me now, a schedule based on X month’s issuance of the
final order by the Town of Queensbury. In other words, when the final order is issued, you would have that
bridge in by X number of months, weeks, days or whatever after the final order. The final order really
establishes the district. It means everything is running, it’s going and so on. That’s something that you and
Mike ought to sit down and do some scheduling on, because I think it could be important. Now that’s my
only question, Mr. Chairman. I’m finished.
MR. MAC EWAN-Now could I ask you to give up the table for a couple of minutes. Stuart, I’m sorry. I
haven’t forgotten you. Come on up.
STUART MESINGER
MR. MESINGER-Good evening.
MR. MAC EWAN-Good evening.
MR. MESINGER-Planning Staff asked us to review the application for conformance to your Findings, and I
think I will be the fourth person to agree that the application is in accordance with the SEQRA Findings of
the Generic EIS, and that no further environmental review is required. With respect to the force (lost word),
it appeared to us to be a reasonable request, given the circumstances. John, you had some questions about
noise. The noise levels that we’re working with are spelled out in the Findings Statements. The Findings
Statement, if anybody has it, it’s Finding FiveG-8, and FiveG-8 sets forth day and night L-90 averages at the
29
(Queensbury Planning Board 11/26/02)
Glen Lake, Twicwood and Courthouse Estates receptors, specifically for Courthouse Estates, the averages are
43 and 45 decibels measured as an L-90 level. The Finding says that if a ride were to increase the noise level
by more than five decibels over those, then you would do additional review. The calculation on Courthouse
Estates, which is the nearest one at 2300 feet, by one method falls at about 41, which is below the baseline,
and by the other method seems to fall even lower, actually, or actually at 44. So, in both cases, it’s well within
the threshold.
MR. STROUGH-Okay. Well, Stu, the reason why I ask, you have a copy of The LA Group’s sound
measurements for The Great Escape Runaway Train attraction?
MR. MESINGER-I do.
MR. STROUGH-And on the second page, and if you look at the distance, I’m assuming that’s distance, it’s
not labeled as such.
MR. MESINGER-Right.
MR. STROUGH-And if we go down to the 3,200 feet distance, which is the same distance as the receptor
locations for Twicwood and Glen Lake, the same exact distance, what do you get for a decibel reading of the
lift train and runaway mine train?
MR. MESINGER-Well, you get 38 and a half on the runaway mine train. You get 52 and a half on the lift
till. I think what they’ve said to you, though, in the calculations below, see that’s a simple doubling method,
and then what they’ve done is they’ve given you a more complex method which is the math that combines all
the sources, and you get a measurement, I think, of 44.7 is what I’m seeing it say.
MR. STROUGH-All right. What you’re saying is the math at the bottom, the sound attenuation, is 44.7 at
what distance? Is that at the?
MR. MESINGER-At Courthouse Estates. See what they did is they specifically did the math for Courthouse
Estates, in this flow.
MR. STROUGH-So it’s going to be an increase of 3.7 decibels at Courthouse Estates?
MR. MESINGER-No. Courthouse Estates baseline is 43 and 45.
MR. STROUGH-I thought you said 41 per (lost word) house.
MR. MESINGER-No. Forty-three and forty-five.
MR. STROUGH-Okay. What’s the baseline for Twicwood?
MR. MESINGER-Well, Twicwood is 41 and 42, but they haven’t given you the Twicwood calculation. They
just gave you the calculation for the closest one. The doubling method is fairly crude, which I why they’ve
done the more detailed math, and the assumption, John, would be is that if it’s falling within at the closest
one, then it would be logical to assume that it would fall within, at the ones that are farther away. There’d be
no reason why it wouldn’t.
MR. STROUGH-Well, then it would have been in their interest not to even have given us the doubling
calculations.
MR. MESINGER-Well, they’re being fair. It’s like a screening analysis.
MR. STROUGH-Well, if they’d give me something to go by, and I probably shouldn’t see it, I see 52.5 when
I see 41, 42, I see almost a 10 decibel increase.
MR. MAC EWAN-But you’ve got to read on.
MR. MESINGER-You’ve got to read on, right. It’s a screening analysis, I guess. If you’re fine in the first
time, then you don’t have to do anything else, but that’s why they did the math the second time around.
MR. STROUGH-Okay. Now, let’s talk about impulse sounds for a minute, because we’re talking about the
whistle, Stu, and the whistles that were originally on it, and to The Great Escape’s, you know, on their behalf,
they knew that would be too much and they removed them.
MR. MESINGER-Right.
MR. STROUGH-But, you know, that’s an impulse sound. Let’s say that sound, and we’ve had this
conversation I think a year or so ago, this sound may occur, let’s say, 90 decibels, and maybe 100 decibels,
30
(Queensbury Planning Board 11/26/02)
and might only occur once every 15 minutes. Now, if that’s the case, and it only happens for a fraction of a
second, how would that effect, and we’re talking averages here. When we’re talking about equivalent sound
and we’re talking about subscript 90, that’s, again, it’s basically averages. How would an impulse effect the
average if it was infrequent?
MR. MESINGER-Well, that’s why we did L-90’s and not Leq’s. That’s why the Finding is L-90’s and not
Leq’s. Let me just finish so everybody remembers what the difference is. Let me even back up from that.
We agree with Mr. Lemery and Mr. Collins with respect to the whistles. Clearly, and we didn’t mean to imply
that they can’t have whistles. We simply meant to say, don’t have whistles that exceed the sound guidelines,
but clearly they can have any whistle they want that falls within the sound guidelines. The sound guideline is
an L-90 level. It’s the sound level that’s exceeded 90% of the time. It is possible, within these Findings, to
have a short-term impulsive sound that’s louder than that, and, you know, if they come up with something
that’s obnoxious and so forth, then I assume you’ll have to deal with it, but I think, you know, we’ve been
through this process for a long time, and that’s not their intent. The Finding was written in such a way to
recognize that in real life there are impulsive sounds that happen, and it’s very difficult to try and regulate
them, and Leq is not the best way to regulate them, and that’s why we went to the L-90.
MR. STROUGH-Okay. Well, the L-90 it might show up a little bit more than it would under the equivalent,
but still we’re talking about a whistle, and you’re talking about higher octave ranges, and human beings are
more effected by those than lower octave ranges, right, well, with the exception of the Bobsled.
MR. MESINGER-I won’t go there because I’m not enough of a scientist. How’s that?
MR. STROUGH-No, I just threw that in.
MR. MESINGER-John, you know, you made the Finding, and I think you have to live with the Finding you
made.
MR. STROUGH-Well, okay, well, I was just trying to search for a way of allowing them to have whistles, and
assuring the public that the whistles are not going to be an annoyance to them. That’s all.
MR. MESINGER-Well, you have that.
MR. MAC EWAN-That’s what our Findings Statement did.
MR. MESINGER-That’s what your Findings Statement does.
MR. MAC EWAN-That’s what we spent over a year doing.
MR. STROUGH-Okay. All right. Well, and another thing, too, is it’s almost my job to go through all of this,
for their benefit.
MR. MESINGER-It is your job, John.
MR. STROUGH-For their benefit out there, to know that all of this is being hashed out and to a degree of
thoroughness that they’ll be happy with.
MR. MESINGER-Understood.
MR. STROUGH-Okay. That’s it for me.
MR. MAC EWAN-Any other questions for Stuart?
MR. STROUGH-Thank you.
MR. MAC EWAN-Anything you wanted to add?
MR. MESINGER-No. That’s all.
MR. MAC EWAN-Thank you.
MR. MESINGER-Okay. Thanks.
MR. MAC EWAN-Is there anything you guys wanted to add? I’ll open up the public hearing. Does anyone
want to comment on this application?
PUBLIC HEARING OPENED
DON SIPP
31
(Queensbury Planning Board 11/26/02)
MR. SIPP-Don Sipp, Courthouse Drive. I assume that the new ride is there to increase attendance. That
would be the obvious reason of putting in a new ride. With the parking lots being approximately 90% on the
west side of Route 9, that means 90% of the people or so would have to cross Route 9 to get in to The Great
Escape. If we increase attendance, that means the parking lots south of the main parking lots are used, such
as the ones near Martha’s and the ones that were part of Animal Land at one time. There is no light control
at these areas, and if the attendance is greater, these areas will be used more. As somebody who drives
through there practically every day, you have to dodge the people with baby carriages and strollers and kids
running across the road against the light, and if this overhead walkway is not completed this year, is put off
until the next year, if for some unforeseen development that the sewer line does not get in until 2004, or later,
is it possible that this bridge will be delayed that much longer, and therefore create even more problems if
The Great Escape comes back and asks for new rides next year? Is there any provision that says that this is
the only deferment that you will give them? Or could this be carried on for years, if this sewer line does not
reach that completion within the next year or year and a half? This is a question I’d like to have addressed. I
don’t see that the sound coming from this ride will effect Courthouse that much, but I’m glad to hear that at
least we’re being thought of anyways, but I am concerned about safety on Route 9. Having almost run over a
9 or 10 year old girl who ran out in front of me, against the light, it becomes a very severe problem for people
traveling through that area, and I would like to make sure that there is a definite statement here or provision
made that this overhead walkway will be completed before any other rides are allowed to be put into, new
rides are allowed to be put into The Great Escape. Thank you.
MR. MAC EWAN-Thank you. Anyone else?
PAUL DERBY
MR. DERBY-Hello. Paul Derby, 86 Ash Drive, Glen Lake. I guess I’m a little concerned about potential
noise, and I remember the discussions well about the peak or impulse noises that were around, and I think
Mr. Strough and I are the only ones that agreed at that time. Anyway, I’m just a little concerned with that,
and I know that the ride falls within the limits in the Findings Statement, but I wonder what would happen if
a 100 db blast happens every 25 seconds, and if it’s heard up and down, and there’s really, you said that really
the Board, if they don’t address this now, I don’t think has the right to talk about it after the fact. So I’m
asking you to consider, somehow to put a condition about the potential whistle, and I’m not saying that The
Great Escape won’t do what they can about it, but I’d like to see something in there, some condition
somehow community friendly provision. I think that’s it.
MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. Thank you.
MR. DERBY-Thank you.
MR. MAC EWAN-Anyone else?
JOHN SALVADOR
MR. SALVADOR-Good evening. My name is John Salvador. Frankly I don’t see why the pedestrian bridge
and the sewer system can’t run in parallel. The location of the pump station is a function of hydraulics. That
area, if it’s going to be on the west side of Route 9, is fairly flat for a long way, and that, the pump station can
be located probably, I would guess within a 300 foot range there, and not effect the hydraulics whatsoever,
and it should be done toot sweet. You can, on a drawing, pick a spot and live with it. Make it work, and the
pedestrian bridge is long overdue, and there should be no reason to delay putting that in, absolutely none. I
think you have to consider other things, like the DOT, the DEC when it comes to this pedestrian bridge.
There should be no reason to do this project in tandem. All of these things can be run in parallel, and they
could meet their commitment to have the pedestrian bridge in by 2003. It is long overdue. On the subject of
noise, have we addressed the issue of frequency? Or is this simply decibels?
MR. MAC EWAN-The Findings Statement was based on decibels. Decibel readings was the whole basis of
the Findings.
MR. SALVADOR-And no relation, and no combination of frequency? There’s a big difference between a
noise at a high frequency and a low db. It can be very irritating but not exceed your threshold, if it’s a high
frequency. Is this going to be a steam whistle?
MR. VOLLARO-I haven’t got the slightest idea.
MR. SALVADOR-These are things that you should consider. Sound, noise, is not a simple subject. The
other thing I’d like to bring your attention to is that normally when an applicant comes before a Board like
this for a permit to do something, the presumption is that they come here with clean hands, that is they are in
compliance with all of all other laws and regulations, and if they’re not in compliance, they don’t enjoy
standing before this Board, and I’m speaking specifically of the sales tax. This has been a front page issue
and it still has not been resolved.
32
(Queensbury Planning Board 11/26/02)
MR. MAC EWAN-And nowhere does our Zoning Ordinance give us the power to review sales tax for this
company or anybody else, John.
MR. SALVADOR-No.
MR. MAC EWAN-So I’m going to ask you to move on to another topic.
MR. SALVADOR-I’m not asking you.
MR. MAC EWAN-It’s not relative to planning.
MR. SALVADOR-I am not asking you to address that issue. I’m asking you to consider the fact they should
be before you with clean hands. Thank you.
MR. MAC EWAN-One in the same, John. Anyone else?
LORI GRAVES
MRS. GRAVES-Lori Graves, 82 Ash Drive on Glen Lake. I’m not opposed to this ride, but I, too, am
concerned about the noise level that could possibly be created from the whistle. As you know, we have, in
the past, had dealings with living with the Bobsled, and there are times, depending on the atmosphere of the
clouds and whatever, that the Bobsled is just a continuous roll of thunder, and it would be appreciated if the
whistle on the train becomes, even though the decibel is within the guidelines, if it does become an
annoyance, if there is some way that it can be changed or eliminated or the decibel level of it lowered down to
where it would be tolerable by the residents in the area, and also I was wondering if, tearing down the
buildings, if there are any trees that are going to be torn down, cut down, to make way for the ride, because
trees are a buffer, too, for the noise, and nothing was said about clear cutting any trees to make way for the
ride. Thank you.
MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. Thank you.
JOHN WHELAN
MR. WHELAN-My name is John Whelan. I own 40 acres adjacent to The Great Escape. I would like to
know, at my boundary, property line, what decibels I could expect. Is there somebody who could?
MR. MAC EWAN-Where is your property in conjunction with The Great Escape?
MR. WHELAN-It’s east on that. I don’t know if that’s been calculated yet, but I’d like to know that figure.
MR. MAC EWAN-Right now you’d like to know that figure? I don’t think anybody is prepared to give you
that figure right now. When we did the Findings Statement, when we went through this whole exercise and
doing the Impact Statement, there were several locations adjacent to The Great Escape property where sound
levels were taken and will continue to be taken, as part of the review process and maintaining that they’re
going to keep the decibel levels to where the Findings Statement say they were supposed to be. They include
Courthouse Estates. It was two places over in the Glen Lake area. There was Twicwood.
MR. WHELAN-Well, I’m talking about the new ride.
MR. MAC EWAN-It doesn’t require that kind of review because this falls within the parameters of the
Impact Statement’s Findings that we had.
MR. HUNSINGER-Mr. Chairman, the report from the LA Group dated November 4 says that, and I’m
th
just going to read this to you, considering the entire acoustic environment and additive effects in the Park,
sound levels may increase slightly, but at areas outside of the Park including the parking lot no change in
sound levels will be detected. I think that’s probably as close as we will get to your specific question.
MR. WHELAN-So it hasn’t been calculated for individual property owners in the area?
MR. HUNSINGER-No, but the applicant has said that there would be no detectable increase in sound
outside of the Park.
MR. WHELAN-Okay.
MR. HUNSINGER-Okay.
MR. MAC EWAN-Thank you. Anyone else?
33
(Queensbury Planning Board 11/26/02)
DON DANIELS
MR. DANIELS-My name is Don Daniels. I’ve been to The Great Escape many different times, and we’ve
been talking tonight about this average sounds and 2000 feet away and 3000 feet away and 40 decibels and 50
decibels, but Mr. Strough, you were talking about the peaks and how absolutely loud this whistle can be, I
know John Collins here is in that Park all the time, and every time that I’ve been there, I’ve seen him walking
around. He’s accessible to people. If I was standing by a ride, a few feet away, and that whistle was so loud
that it disturbed me, I would just talk to him. I’ve been in the Park every year probably for 40 years, and I’ve
never heard any sound so loud that it disturbed me, but anybody can talk to John, and walk to his office, and
he accepts almost anybody all the time, and he’s always walking through the Park. So if that sound is 25 feet
away from somebody and that whistle goes off, if it’s disturbing hundreds of people, it’ll be a different sound,
I’m sure.
MR. MAC EWAN-Thank you. Anyone else? Okay. I’ll close the public hearing.
PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED
MR. MAC EWAN-Do you gentlemen want to come back up? Questions, comments from Board members?
MR. HUNSINGER-I had a question I think either for Staff or legal staff, regarding the walkway again. In
the Staff notes it recommends that we, well, it says the Board may wish to consider revising the established
timeframe for constructing the pedestrian bridge. What if we were not to do anything with that? I mean,
should we feel compelled to address that issue?
MR. HILTON-The comment was made, just to give the Board some direction. If you chose to update that
portion of the previous review, it would have to take into consideration the construction of the sewer district
or the sewer infrastructure. It’s my understanding, anyway, that you don’t have to act on that portion, but
just to keep in mind that if you do set a date, that it shouldn’t be before the final construction is in place of
the sewer district, the pipes and things like that.
MS. RADNER-From the legal point, there’s nothing that you need to do. It’s really a planning issue more
than a legal issue.
MR. HUNSINGER-Well, I guess the reason why I ask the question is if, I think there’s a recognition by
everybody involved that they’re not going to be able to meet the timeline that was created in the Generic
Environmental Impact Statement because of the sewer line. So, in approving a site plan, or, do we need to
take that into account to make sure that they would remain in compliance with the Impact Statement?
MS. RADNER-Working in there the assumption that the delay has to be excused, and you’re right, if you
don’t do anything and you leave them with their current deadline, they’re not going to be in compliance, and
then the Town’s in the position of either looking the other way or doing something to bring them into
compliance. So definitely it’s something you can consider. If you believe that there’s good cause, being the
sewer development, to postpone that part of it, then by all means address it now.
MR. RINGER-Couldn’t we put something in as simple, Cathy, as to be started or completed by Spring of
2004? Then if they couldn’t do it, then they’d have to come back for an extension or whatever. That way it
would put the timeframe on there.
MS. RADNER-Absolutely, you could do that.
MR. RINGER-Keep it as simple as possible, yet nailing it down to a specific timeframe.
MR. VOLLARO-Well, Larry, I think one of the things we’ve got to consider is that you’ve put a mark on the
wall that says the sewer will be finished by such and such a date, and then they would propose a schedule
based on X number of months following the issuing and serve of final order.
MR. HUNSINGER-Yes. I would prefer not to go that route, personally.
MR. VOLLARO-Which route was that?
MR. HUNSINGER-Tying it in to the construction of the sewer. The applicant said that they would start
construction as soon as the sewer line was past their property. It’s irrelevant as to when the sewer district is
formed.
MR. VOLLARO-I think this is a topic very difficult for this Board to deal with without sitting at a table
where you have the Wastewater Superintendent and the engineers and so on sitting down and making some
determinations. We don’t have sufficient amount of data on this Board to be able to put anything in here
concerning the completion of this.
34
(Queensbury Planning Board 11/26/02)
MR. RINGER-Yes, but, Bob, that’s why if we put down a specific timeframe of Spring 2004, and they can’t
make it, then they’d have to come back for an extension. So we don’t have to be experts at anything, because
we’ve just put a date in there that may or may not be accomplished by the applicant, and if it isn’t, they’d have
to come back for an extension, for whatever reason.
MR. VOLLARO-How do you get to 2004?
MR. RINGER-I’m using the example that Mr. Lemery said that what he expects. If it’s going to happen then
or not happen then, we don’t know, but at least we’ve got a date down to give us a timeframe, and to give
them a timeframe. If that timeframe can’t be met, then it’s a simple matter of coming back to this Board for
an extension if necessary.
MR. HUNSINGER-I guess the other question I had on this whole topic is whether or not the applicant is
expecting us to address the issue. Are you expecting us to address this issue tonight?
MR. COLLINS-As far as timeline on a pedestrian bridge?
MR. HUNSINGER-Yes.
MR. COLLINS-I don’t, I apologize. I don’t have my Findings Statement in front of me, but the way I read it
was that if it wasn’t completed by July 31, 2003, future applications may be, you know, denied. Do you need
to make any sort of movement saying, okay, we’ve said here’s why it’s not going to happen this year, do you
need to change that? Because you’ve already set that guideline that says, you know, here’s the date. Do you
need to add another date? You already have a date. So next year we come back and say, you know, that
engineering’s done and this is when the bridge is getting done.
MR. HUNSINGER-That’s why I asked that question of Staff.
MR. LEMERY-I think you need to move it to the same date in 2004. The problem is that this sewer line is
going to go up past the Park, to take in the Municipal Center, the new County jail up there, and go all the way
to 149. So it’s very important to the Town. We were prepared to move forward with the Wastewater
Treatment plant in order to meet your deadline. It’s been at the onus of the Town that this has been delayed,
because they’ve been saying all along, you have to tie in. This Park represents a significant portion of that
sewer line, in terms of revenue generation, domestic output, all the rest of it, and they don’t have any other
place to put the pumping station except on Park property, and that’s a negotiation that takes place between
the Park and the Town of Queensbury. So, if we could move it to where Larry suggested, that probably saves
the 2003 season and, quite honestly, the plan is to get going on this as soon as the sewer line gets past the
Park.
MR. HUNSINGER-Since I brought this up, can I make one comment?
MR. MAC EWAN-Sure.
MR. HUNSINGER-I guess hearing from the applicant and from Counsel and Staff, I guess my inclination
would be to not deal with it at all, and then if there were another project that the applicant had, then we
would deal with that.
MR. VOLLARO-I would tend to agree with that.
MRS. LA BOMBARD-I agree with that.
MR. RINGER-Yes. I didn’t get that from Counsel.
MR. HUNSINGER-We certainly don’t need to address it to approve this project.
MR. RINGER-Yes, but Counsel said that there wouldn’t be any compliance. I’d hate to have them out of
compliance for a year.
MR. HUNSINGER-It would only be with respect to a future site.
MS. RADNER-They’re not necessarily going to be out of compliance. Again, the date, as I understand it, is
July 31, 2003. Nothing prevents the applicant from coming back on June 1, 2003 to request the extension so
that they remain in compliance.
MR. VOLLARO-I would be in agreement with Mr. Hunsinger’s proposal. I think it’s a correct one to leave it
as it is, and the same with the way John Collins has asked for it to be.
MRS. LA BOMBARD-Ditto.
35
(Queensbury Planning Board 11/26/02)
MR. VOLLARO-So I’d just leave it and not address it.
MRS. LA BOMBARD-I agree with you, Bob. I agree with you, Chris.
MR. MAC EWAN-Did you want to say something, Mr. Brewer?
TIM BREWER, TOWN COUNCILMAN
MR. BREWER-Yes, I did. Tim Brewer, Candleberry Drive. I’m on the Town Board. The reason that this is
even being mentioned is possibly, I called Craig, and I called John Collins and I called John Lemery and I
thought something as simple as we don’t know where the pipe is going to be on Route 9. The obstacle in the
way was they were going to build the bridge, but we don’t know where the pipe is. So my concern was why
build a bridge when we may come back right by where the footings are for the bridge and tear them up and
have to do it all over again. So my contention would be that when the pipe goes past The Great Escape, or
when we know where the pipe is, let them do their thing. It’s just a matter of timing. I mean, you don’t want
to put the pipe down in the middle of their season, but on the same hand, you don’t want to put the bridge
up and then have to tear it down to put the pipe in. It just doesn’t make any sense. So it’s a very simple thing
to do, is just give them an extension until we get the engineering for the pipe.
MR. MAC EWAN-I think we all understand that, that we don’t want to see them go through that exercise or
anybody else for that matter.
MR. BREWER-But what I’m seeing here is you’re going to go to July or whenever the deadline is and then
have to have them come back.
MR. MAC EWAN-Right now, as it’s written in the Findings Statement, July 31, 2003 to complete the bridge.
MRS. LA BOMBARD-It’s not that date yet.
MR. MAC EWAN-It’s in the Findings Statement.
MR. BREWER-It’s in the Findings Statement.
MRS. LA BOMBARD-I know it is, but it’s not July 31 yet.
st
MR. MAC EWAN-Right. We’re not at that date yet, and that’s what we’re wrestling with. Why grant an
extension. Will we know maybe by July 31, 2003? Will we have a plan together that will better delineate
where the sewer district’s going to go through? Where the pipe’s might be laid.
MR. BREWER-We don’t know, because we don’t have all the easements, and we don’t know what side of
the road the pipe’s going to be on. We have no easements at all. We’re starting that process now.
MRS. LA BOMBARD-But we may be further ahead by July 31, or July 1.
stst
MR. MAC EWAN-We’re only talking, what, nine months away.
MRS. LA BOMBARD-Right. I think we should just leave it alone right now.
MR. MAC EWAN-Are you implying the wheels of government are going to move slowly?
MR. BREWER-Not necessarily the wheels of government, but I mean it takes time to get easements.
MR. HUNSINGER-If I’m following Mr. Collins’ comment, the only penalty to The Great Escape is that if
they have a future site plan before us, we may or may not accept it because they didn’t build the bridge, but I
mean, we don’t even know if they will or will not have another site plan before us. So we might not have to
deal with it at all. So, and we certainly don’t need to deal with it to approve this site plan.
MR. MAC EWAN-And if the issue came up that they wanted to come in next fall and submit a new
application for another attraction in the Park, why not, at that time, correlated with that application,
submitting that, request an extension? What’s the problem doing it at that time? Why don’t we just go that
route? Because a lot could happen between now and next July, a lot can happen.
MR. COLLINS-Right.
MR. MAC EWAN-So, I mean, it’s kind of like we’re putting the horse in front of the cart here, so to speak.
MR. COLLINS-Right.
MR. MAC EWAN-Or the cart in front of the horse, whatever it is.
36
(Queensbury Planning Board 11/26/02)
MR. HUNSINGER-It just follows from Bob’s comment that, you know, there’s still a lot of unknown out
there. We don’t really know what the engineering is going to be and where it’s going to go.
MR. BREWER-Well, my concern, Chris, was, that they were going to start construction of the bridge this
spring because they had a deadline to do it. My thought was don’t make, don’t enforce that deadline because
we don’t know where the pipe is going to be. That was the concern.
MR. COLLINS-Right.
MR. MAC EWAN-I think the Planning Board is very comfortable with that, knowing that we’re still really in
the infancy of the planning stages here for that, and I don’t think this Board would pursue that avenue with
them and demand that, that that be done, considering the way things have been going up there, as far as
extending the sewer district.
MR. COLLINS-And just one comment on a comment that was made about, you know, running this parallel
with the sewer line. We also don’t want to disrupt traffic two separate times. I mean, you want to do it as
close as possible. You don’t want to cut across, get to Meadowbrook, whatever that Meadowbrook Run is,
the stream that runs through the parking lot, you’re going to have to cross that with a pedestrian bridge and
also cross it somehow with the sewer lines. So try to coordinate all of that so it all happens, in my mind
makes more sense, because you get less disruption if the disruption is coordinated, it’s less of an impact.
MR. MAC EWAN-All right. On that issue, why don’t we just leave it as it is. If you come in with an
application next year for another attraction, at that time you’ll accompany the application with a request for
an extension at that time. Is that doable?
MR. VOLLARO-That’s doable for me.
MR. MAC EWAN-Does someone want to introduce a motion, please.
MOTION TO APPROVE SITE PLAN NO. 54-2002 GREAT ESCAPE THEME PARK, LLC,
Introduced by Robert Vollaro who moved for its adoption, seconded by Larry Ringer:
WHEREAS, an application has been made to this Board for the following:
Site Plan Review No. 54-2002 Applicant: Great Escape Theme Park, LLC
Type I Property Owner: Same
Agent: John Lemery, Esq.
Zone: RC-15
Location: Great Escape Theme Park
Applicant proposes construction of a new roller coaster as the “Runaway Train” (Ghost Town) within the
existing amusement park. Site Plan review/approval is required for new amusements as required in SEQRA
Findings adopted by the Planning Board.
Cross Reference: Many
Warren Co. Planning: 11/13/02
Tax Map No. 288.20-1-20 / 36-2-3.1
Lot size: 248.96 ac. / Section: Art. 4
Public Hearing: November 26, 2002
WHEREAS, the application was received on 10/15/02; and
WHEREAS, the above is supported with the following documentation and inclusive of all newly received
information, not included in this listing as of 11/22/02, and
11/26 Staff Notes
11/21 CR from J. Lemery: Response to Chazen engineering comments
11/13 Chazen Co. engineering comments
11/13 Warren Co. Planning
11/12 Notice of Public Hearing
11/5 Meeting Notice
11/1 Application sent to Chazen Co. for engineering review
WHEREAS, pursuant to Art. 9 of the Zoning Ordinance of the Code of the Town of Queensbury a public
hearing was advertised and was held on November 26, 2002; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Board has determined that the proposal complies with the Site Plan requirements
of the Code of the Town Queensbury (Zoning); and
37
(Queensbury Planning Board 11/26/02)
WHEREAS, approval of the application means that the applicant can now apply for a Building Permit unless
the lands are Adirondack Park Jurisdictional or other approvals are necessary.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT
RESOLVED, that
We find the following: The application is hereby approved in accordance with the resolution prepared by
Staff and is subject to the following conditions:
1. The no whistle will be employed that falls outside the thresholds of Section 5G-7 and 8 of
the GEIS Findings Statement.
2. All conditions are to be noted on the final approved plans submitted for the Zoning
Administrator’s signature in a form to read as follows:
Plans have been approved under authority of a resolution adopted 11/26/02 by the Planning
Board of the Town of Queensbury, New York with the following conditions:
1.
Duly adopted this 26th day of November, 2002, by the following vote:
AYES: Mr. Ringer, Mrs. LaBombard, Mr. Vollaro, Mr. Strough, Mr. Metivier, Mr. Hunsinger, Mr. MacEwan
NOES: NONE
MR. LEMERY-Thank you.
MR. MAC EWAN-Good luck.
OLD BUSINESS:
SUBDIVISION NO. 18-2002 SKETCH PLAN TYPE: UNLISTED BELL-NAV.
DEVELOPMENT PROPERTY OWNER: SARAH L. MC ECHRON AGENT: BOSWELL
ENGINEERING ZONE: SFR-1A LOCATION: INTERSECTION OF POTTER ROAD AND
WEST MOUNTAIN ROAD (NE CORNER) APPLICANT PROPOSES SUBDIVISION OF A
23.51 ACRE LOT INTO 16 LOTS RANGING FROM 1 ACRE TO 6 +/- ACRES, APPROX., 1,625
L.F. OF PAVED ROADWAY, PRIVATE SEPTIC, PUBLIC WATER AND ELECTRIC. CROSS
REFERENCE: NONE FOUND TAX MAP NO. 301.5-1-28/90-2-8 LOT SIZE: 23.51 ACRES
SECTION: SUBDIVISION REGS
ED HORICK & TONY IANELLO, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT
MRS. LA BOMBARD-And a public hearing is not required for Sketch review.
STAFF INPUT
Notes from Staff, Subdivision No. 18-2002, Sketch Plan, Bell-Nav. Development, Meeting Date: November
26, 2002 “Proposal This is a revised sketch plan proposal from one submitted and reviewed during the
September 13, 2002 Planning Board meeting. Please refer to those staff notes for information on
subdivision requirements.
The proposal shown differs from the previous sketch plan (9/13/02) in the following ways:
??
Instead of 19 lots, 16 lots are proposed
??
The prior lots #8 through 11 are now shown as one lot, #16
??
Lot #16 contains the majority of the wild blue lupine habitat for the federally endangered Karner
Blue Butterfly and State threatened Frosted Elfin Butterfly.
The applicant asks that lot #16 be kept undisturbed until a survey has been conducted to determine the status
of federally endangered species (note that DEC may wish to see a survey for Frosted Elfin as well).
Several waivers from sketch plan requirements have been requested, as with the previous submittal.
SEQRA
Minutes from the previous meeting provided direction to the applicant to perform a biological study to
determine whether or not the species is present. The lack of, or presence of species on site is necessary for
SEQRA review purposes. The Planning Board needs to make a SEQRA determination before any action on
a preliminary or final subdivision (approval or denial) can be taken. Although the subdivision regulations ask
38
(Queensbury Planning Board 11/26/02)
for submission of a short EAF as part of the application for review of a sketch plan, the reason is to assess
the potential for SEQRA. No SEQRA action is required for sketch plan review.
Areas of Concern or Importance
1. Four lots, now #8, 9, 14, and 15, still contain wild blue lupine habitat. If the amount of habitat on
these lots does not meet the threshold for review under federal and/or State requirements, a letter
from the appropriate agencies should be obtained indicating that permit requirements do not apply
for those specific areas.
2. The applicant needs to be noticed that submission of a preliminary subdivision
application based on the revised sketch plan, still requires biological study before any SEQRA
determination could be made.
3. Will lot #16 be further subdivided should it be shown that Karner Blue butterfly and/or Frosted
Elfin does not exist on these lands? What will be the configuration of those lots?
4. Under SEQRA review, the Planning Board has broad authority, and could require the habitat be
preserved, if warranted, even if no endangered/threatened species is found on site.
5. If Lot #16 does contain endangered/threatened species, and it is proposed to be developed, a
Habitat Conservation Plan (HCP) will be required by the U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service in addition to
any conditions that the Town will apply as part of the SEQRA review.”
MR. MAC EWAN-Staff notes.
MR. HILTON-The subdivision as proposed in the Sketch Plan has not changed too dramatically, in terms of
the location of the road that’s proposed to be built and the layout of the lots. The one major change is the
setting aside, I guess you would say, of a six acre lot, due to the fact that there has been blue lupine located on
that site. A SEQRA is not required and is not usually done at Sketch Plan stage, but in the future, if this
application were to come before you for Preliminary subdivision, SEQRA would be a requirement of the
Board, and one of the issues deals with endangered species and the Karner blue butterfly, which its habitat is
blue lupine, and that is the reason why this six acre area has been set aside. You have a letter before you
dated today from Kathy O’Brien, New York State DEC. She speaks to the entire Karner blue issue and that’s
the latest information we have on this, and that’s all the comment we have at this time.
MRS. RYBA-I do have a couple of things. I don’t believe you probably have had the opportunity to read the
letter. So I’ll summarize a couple of things in reference to this particular application, although the letter does
cover some comments for your next application as well as some general comments. The question is, there
are several patches that are grouped together on one lot, and then there are some smaller patches, and the
question has been what happens with these smaller patches, and I believe in Miss O’Brien’s letter that she’s
saying the smaller patches aren’t really as valuable habitat, and she’s providing that as a technical assistance
type of information, and she also notes she doesn’t want to usurp any of your authority, certainly, under
SEQRA, that the Lot 16, the new Lot 16, is set aside as an area that would be protected until further study
could be done, and that it would be more likely that that would be the habitat for Frosted Elfin, and possibly
the Karner blue butterfly, but these other smaller patches on some of the other lots aren’t quite as valuable,
and that’s, in general, what she has to state for that.
MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. Good evening.
MR. HORICK-Good evening. My name is Ed Horick with Boswell Engineering. I’m here with Tony
Ianello, the attorney for the applicant, Bell-Nav. Development. We’re here again before the Board. We’re
seeking Sketch Plan approval for a 16 lot subdivision zoned SFR-1A. The concept is pretty much the same
with the exception of Lot 16 being set aside, with the majority of lupine plants on it. Like I said, we haven’t
revised anything other than that lot. Everything else has stayed the same, pretty much. We can answer any of
your questions regarding the concept. We can do that, and hopefully get concept approval from you guys.
MR. MAC EWAN-Larry, we’ll start with you.
MR. RINGER-I don’t have anything on this right now. I don’t know what we’re going to discuss with them.
So I’ll just move on to Chris.
MR. HUNSINGER-I don’t know if I really have any specific questions. At the prior meeting I had asked a
lot of questions for clarification on some of the smaller areas that were identified on the map, on the
subdivision plan, and I guess the question still remains as to what happens when the survey is done. The
possibility still exists that there could be, you know, evidence of Karner blue on those smaller areas, even
though they may not be as significant. So I’m not really sure how to handle that. I don’t know what else I
had, other than that.
MR. MAC EWAN-Tony?
MR. METIVIER-I think for now this is a pretty good solution. Certainly we talked about this area, and, you
know, I think you did a good job trying to protect it for now. I guess my question would be, if you find that
39
(Queensbury Planning Board 11/26/02)
there’s no existence of the butterfly, what would you do, just come back in for a modification on this one, on
this Lot 16?
MR. HORICK-Yes.
MR. METIVIER-And what would you make that, another, what, two lots or three lots?
MR. HORICK-Whatever the zoning law is. It would not be any request for a change.
MR. METIVIER-That’s all I have. I think this is good solution for now, until we can figure out a better one.
MR. MAC EWAN-John?
MR. STROUGH-My concern was that Kathy O’Brien had said yes, the smaller areas were not necessarily
important to the Karner blue. However, Miss O’Brien did say, in the minutes of September 17, 2002, that the
Frosted Elfin are able to subsist in much smaller sites than Karners have been able to. So we have Frosted
Elfin sites that don’t contain Karner blues. So even the smaller sites have some kind of potential for these
endangered species. So now, if I look at it, and we identify all the habitats that may support the Karner blue
butterfly, and even the Biologist, Miss O’Brien, says that the bigger area was probably more important to that
species. However, even the smaller areas could be important to the Frosted Elfin. So, now we’ve gotten to,
we’ve got Lots 18, 8, 9, 10, 11, and the old schedule even Mr. Horick identified those, and I’ve got the
minutes for that on September 17. So first the applicant would have to guarantee that absolutely no
th
disturbance, in my mind, would occur to the lots currently labeled, and these are the current ones, 8, 9, 14, 15,
and 16, 16 is the lot that’s currently set aside, but what is of concern to me is the proximity of construction
type activities, and as the subdivision progresses, the likelihood of human activity impacts, everything from
hiking to four-wheeling to brush and grass deposition, because people do that, and they don’t know what
blue lupine looks like. So I have some concerns, as far as that. Otherwise, I mean, as far as the way the lot’s
divided, and the road, it seems fine. I just have concern about this. I just wish that, you know, under our
zoning code, we could permit you to go to half acre, three quarter acre lots, and have your number of lots,
and reserve this area for possible future management, and again, I don’t even know if it would be in the
management plan, because we’re working on that, or might be working on that, or something to that effect.
Anyhow, that’s all I have to say, Mr. Chairman.
MR. MAC EWAN-Bob?
MR. VOLLARO-Well, I’ve got some similar thoughts for anybody that’s been on construction sites, take Lot
16 being reserved like it is, if you’re on a construction site, and I notice that Ms. O’Brien, in her letter, talked
about making sure that everybody on the construction site knew what the rules were and that they didn’t go
over, but if you’ve been on construction sites, you know how that goes. People don’t necessarily, workers
don’t necessarily stick to those kind of rules. So I see an impact, for example, putting this road right
alongside of Lot 16. I think we need a little better direction than this Board is getting from either DEC or
having to wait for perhaps for Marilyn Ryba to put together some sort of a management plan that we can go
to to make a determination. Right now I think that until that’s done, I don’t see myself even getting into the
position of having to make a statement or to vote this up or down. This is only a sketch plan, I realize that,
and we don’t have to do that, but my recommendation is that I would certainly like to wait until we get some
better direction to do this.
MR. STROUGH-Well, the problem is, too, is twofold. It’s nobody’s fault. I mean, Queensbury happens to
be one of the very few areas that has the conditions necessary, fortunate or unfortunate for us, has the
conditions necessary to support these almost extinct species. Given that, and we’re one of the few areas, four
or five areas in the Northeast I believe, that we were able to provide a habitat for these species, but given
that, with this application, we’ve, we’re kind of looking at setting a precedent. I think that’s what Mr. Vollaro
was suggesting, that whatever we do here, we’ve got three or four other applications similar to this that have
lupine on it, and whatever we do would have to be consistent. So if we do come up with a resolution here, I
think we’ve got to apply it to everybody.
MR. MAC EWAN-I agree with you. Cathy?
MRS. LA BOMBARD-Well, I did not realize how fragile blue lupine is. I was out jogging a couple of years
ago in my neighborhood and saw some blue lupine on a vacant lot that I knew was going to be built on, and
of course the subdivision had been passed years ago. So, the blue lupine wasn’t an issue. So I went down. I
dug it up, and I brought back to my perennial garden, and I’m telling you, I took care of those plants like they
were my own children, and they never made it. They died. I felt so bad, but what I’m saying is, is that people
could use something like this definitely as a dumping area. That’s just what people do when there’s a vacant
lot, and these are some of the largest lupine sites I’ve ever seen, and another thing is, even if, when Mrs.
O’Brien goes back next summer, and let’s say next summer she doesn’t find any Karner blue eggs or larva or
whatever, that doesn’t mean, I would ask her this, that the potential isn’t there for the Karner blue to habitat
that area some time in the future. So, right now, I don’t think I can entertain this all until next summer’s
research is completed.
40
(Queensbury Planning Board 11/26/02)
MR. VOLLARO-Just to add one more thing, I think one of the things we discussed at the last meeting was
the thing that has to be found on the site is the butterfly. Am I wrong on that, Marilyn, that really the
butterfly has to be the thing that we’ve got to find, not just eggs and lupine and stuff like that.
MRS. LA BOMBARD-But the eggs and the larva would be.
MRS. RYBA-Actually, there are two butterflies. There is the Karner blue, which is a federally endangered
species, and then there’s the Frosted Elfin which is a State threatened species. So DEC would have
jurisdiction over Frosted Elfin. The Federal government would have jurisdiction over the Karner blue. The
Town has jurisdiction, under SEQRA, and can really look at both of those things and should be looking at
both of those areas. That’s one clarification, and maybe I can assist by making a couple of other comments,
because the difficulty, and I know how difficult and oftentimes the Planning Board doesn’t even accept
information at a meeting, and this letter got to you at the meeting, and I know Kathy O’Brien had worked
very hard on putting together a letter, because we did have a meeting with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service,
DEC and Staff, and Larry Ringer was present from the Planning Board. So there are a few things that, in
terms of understanding by the entire Board, but one of the things Kathy said, and I think is somewhat an
answer to John Strough’s concern, and she notes this in her letter, and I can quote it, there have been
questions regarding what to do about the patches of habitat outside of the reserve lots. I have not
concentrated on these patches because they contain so much less lupine than aggregate lupine habitat on Lots
8 through 11, and they are more loosely connected to it. The majority of the population of Frosted Elfins is
more likely to use and be found in a larger habitat area. If I had knowledge that the property was occupied by
Frosted Elfins, I would be unlikely to recommend set aside of these smaller patches as they are. I believe
they are better mitigated by protection and management of a larger contiguous area, where more lupine can
be maintained. However, I do not presume to usurp the Planning Board’s right to decide whether these areas
may be disturbed prior to the spring survey, and she continues to make some suggestions in terms of if there
was a disturbance. I think everyone recognizes that a study needs to be done no matter what for the larger
areas. One of the things we learned in our discussion last week was that unlike certain wetlands where there’s
threshold limits, the lupine really has to be looked at on a case by case basis because there are some areas
where it’s going to be much more valuable to maintaining or promoting the species than others that are much
more isolated, and so I hope that I haven’t confused you and this helps to clarify a few things.
MR. STROUGH-I wonder what Kathy O’Brien would suggest. I mean, I wonder what has worked with
other similar sites, if she’s worked with this, for example, the site that we’re talking about setting aside, if we
put orange construction fence all the way around it, and have the applicant put waterproof signage warning
people that this is a restricted area and there’s an endangered species in this area, and have them post that
every 10 or 15 feet, all around the perimeter, does that work?
MR. MAC EWAN-The reality is, before you even get to that stage, you need to do a study anyway. So, you
couldn’t even get to that stage.
MRS. RYBA-And maybe the applicant can address some of this, of exactly what they’re looking for. To do
preliminary plat approval, you need to have your SEQRA review in place first, or any kind of action, whether
it’s an approval or denial, or approval with conditions.
MR. MAC EWAN-Which is exactly what was our fundamental problem a month and a half ago.
MRS. RYBA-Right, and the Sketch Plan, it’s an informal process, just to let the, or more of an informal
process to let the applicant know what they can expect and maybe it’s an opportunity now for the applicant
to say this is exactly what they want, directly to the Board, what they’re looking for.
MR. HUNSINGER-One of the questions I did have, Marilyn, I’m sorry I didn’t ask earlier, was she suggests
that, well, she comments that the applicant had indicated a willingness to preserve the lot, clear it and plant it,
protect it with a fence and deed it to an appropriate entity. Are there appropriate entities that would accept
the responsibility of maintaining the lot?
MRS. RYBA-I don’t know at this point, and this gets back to this Town wide type of management plan, and
that’s, there’s some questions there, for example, to do it on a Town wide basis, for Karner blue, the Federal
government could give the Town a permit to actually take species and then the Town would go forward
based on this overall plan. Whether that’s feasible, that’s something that we’re still looking at, exactly how
much acreage and how many lots would be affected.
MR. HUNSINGER-Who would fund something like that?
MRS. RYBA-Well, there is some funding available through the Federal government, although they’re waiting
for the next budget to pass, and they’re not exactly sure when that would happen, but there is some money
available to do that, also either on a Town basis or on an individual applicant basis, to do surveys, or to do a
plan. So for both activities.
41
(Queensbury Planning Board 11/26/02)
MR. MAC EWAN-Given all that.
MR. HORICK-What we’re here for is really seeking Sketch Plan approval for the project. As you’ve
indicated, the lots conform to your zoning. But for the issue of the endangered species and how to treat that,
I believe this would be a perfunctory subdivision. We’d be long on our way, beyond Sketch Plan approval
and seeking Preliminary approval. The one area that is set aside, many occasions where this occurs, the
property can clearly be protected so that there would not be incursions. In fact it’s more probably that it
would be protected with the development going on than the way it is, because with an active owner on the
property, the site would be a fence that would be delineated that clearly would present a no trespassing
situation. The way it is now, a 92 year old woman owns the property. She’s at the point where she would like
to dispose of it, and I’m sure that she’s not able to bring people upon the property and control its usage by
third parties who have really no right to be on there, but they’re on there and they could be disturbing it as we
speak. Once the development and guidelines are drawn for the treatment of a protected area, then you have a
more controllable situation, much more than you have now. Obviously, from the map, there are many lots
that are here that are not affected at all. These lots which have minor patches, which need to be explored at
some further time, I think their value is diminimus, and the area around them can be deed restricted, so that
that portion of the lot is not disturbed in a similar fashion that deeds containing restrictions for
nondisturbance of wetlands. Now there are many lots upon which houses are built which contain wetlands,
and the restrictions are set forth in the deed and in a declaration of easements, covenants and restrictions. So
that the area is prohibited from disturbance. In a similar fashion, smaller areas can be delineated on the site
plan map, further delineated on the survey that goes to the individual homeowner at the time of closing, so
that any disturbance can be clearly marked and the homeowner will know what’s involved. Now, those are
only a few of the lots. The large lot, which is being set aside, I mean, it may be that after a study is made, that
it’s of no significance, in terms of constituting a habitat for the endangered species. If that happens, then,
you know, certainly we have done what we all should do, which is to sit back and wait and conduct a study
and see what the facts are for that particular lot. So I think, I understand all your concerns, but when we’re
seeking Sketch Plan approval and intending to go forward, I don’t see that as anything that anyone can lose
by, if we are granted Sketch Plan approval. We have to go through the Preliminary and Final subdivision
approval process where we can narrow down the exact types of protection that would be necessary to impose
on the lot, and I think, once again, it can be structured in such a fashion that that habitat, if it does exist, and
we don’t know if it exists, is going to be protected more with this developer than it is with the present
property owner.
MR. MAC EWAN-Do you plan on doing a survey?
MR. HORICK-Yes.
MR. MAC EWAN-And that’ll take place, what, May, the season’s May to mid-July?
MR. IANELLO-Well, it may be that it would be next year or even the year after, but during pendency of the
construction of the other lots, that area is protected. I mean, we may not get to that point. I mean,
obviously, that’s going to be the last section that we would be interested in developing, because of the
research that needs to be done. So, we have a number of lots that are just straightforward subdivision lots
with no impediments whatsoever. So those would be the ones that we would begin to market and sell and go
forward on the lot which constitutes the potential habitat, that’s off in the future.
MR. MAC EWAN-So what you’re saying is that you want to proceed with this application and not do the
survey prior to seeking Preliminary approval for portions of this subdivision?
MR. IANELLO-Yes.
MR. MAC EWAN-That’s what you want to do? I don’t think that’s the message the Board’s sending here,
up here. I think what we’re looking for is the study to be done, because of the way it ties in with SEQRA. I
mean, if you come back in with a Preliminary application and seek a neg. dec on a SEQRA, I honestly don’t
see as how we could get away from not having a pos. dec. on it, because we don’t know what the resolution is
of the survey done on the lot which is exactly the problem we had a month and a half ago.
MR. IANELLO-Well, here’s why, because we’re not proposing to do anything with that lot. That lot is set
aside. We’re not proposing to further subdivide that lot. That lot’s just going to remain in its present state,
until all the issues on that lot are resolved. I suggest that we view it in terms of a subdivision of 15 lots, not
16 lots. The 16 lot is simply a parcel of land that’s out there, upon which there may or may not be a habitat,
th
and certainly during the pendency of that determination, it would be protected, and protected in such a
fashion that it would be, that it would afford more protection to the endangered species than it would if none
of the property was developed. So if we could think of it in that fashion.
MR. MAC EWAN-And you would still plan on cutting the road all the way through?
MR. IANELLO-I would think that that would be necessary.
42
(Queensbury Planning Board 11/26/02)
MR. MAC EWAN-So then you would be impacting that lot.
MR. IANELLO-No.
MR. MAC EWAN-By cutting a road, construction in the vicinity of it.
MR. IANELLO-There are many occasions where there are actual habitats, but the construction of a road
does not disturb that habitat. The entire area is blocked off so that, and then we can develop that kind of
plan during the process of the Preliminary approval, we can treat that lot separately from the rest, and build in
the protections that Kathy O’Brien might suggest, whatever, so that there would be no disturbance, and if we
could not satisfy the conditions that would be necessary to make sure that that lot, that separate lot, was not
disturbed, then we don’t get the Preliminary approval, but what we’re seeking today is a Sketch Plan approval
indicating that this concept of breaking the parcel into two parcels, and treating one as a subdivision for
housing and the other parcel as a habitat for the endangered species.
MR. MAC EWAN-When were you thinking of making application for Preliminary? January, since you
already missed December.
MR. HORICK-Well, we’ve still got, you know, we have to get approval from the State for the septic, and
before we can even appear for Preliminary, you’d have to have all those approvals in place. Those approvals
require testing of the soils out there and submitting plans to them, and then once we got approvals from
them, then we’d come before the Board again. I would say that we wouldn’t be appearing here much before
probably February, I would think, February or March.
MR. MAC EWAN-Do you plan on doing any test pits in those areas of endangered habitat?
MR. HORICK-No. The areas would have to be determined from the State. You’d have to submit them a
plan. They would come back and tell you where they want the test pits to be conducted, and then we’d meet
out there with the State, and do those, you know, specific areas that they want.
MR. MAC EWAN-The plans that you would be submitting to them, would they denote the areas of
endangered habitat on your plans?
MR. HORICK-Yes, and then we’d actually physically go out there and locate them with survey equipment,
you know these locations where the State wants these tests to be conducted. So we avoid these specific areas.
MR. STROUGH-Could you come up with a plan for protection with that property such as I suggested,
maybe one of those orange construction fences all around the border of that lot, as close to the border as
practicable, and, you know, the waterproof signage, and a maintenance plan?
MR. HORICK-Yes.
MR. STROUGH-If the fence gets broken, it’s going to be your responsibility to fix it. If the kids come
through with four-wheelers, I mean.
MR. MAC EWAN-I think I would take it one step farther, that any protection plan, they can work with
Kathy O’Brien, I’m sure she’d be more than happy to work with them and come up with a protection plan.
MR. STROUGH-Well, that’s what I was thinking of having Kathy review the plans.
MR. MAC EWAN-I’m choosing my words carefully here. That shouldn’t be construed as an approval by this
Board of any plan that may accompany your Preliminary application. I think that this Board and the Town is
still looking very hard at coming up with a Town wide mitigation plan, and where I’m having concerns with is
the issue regarding SEQRA. Now if you have an idea you think that we can put the SEQRA issue and
everyone’s concerns with it at ease with your Preliminary application, great.
MR. IANELLO-I believe we can, and that’s why we’re seeking this format for Sketch Plan approval. We’re a
long way from Preliminary approval, and certainly a long way thereafter from construction. So, with that
time, we’re able to work with your professionals, and with Kathy O’Brien on developing an appropriate
protection plan for that lot, and certainly it will be protected more with this developer, knowing that he can
go forward with a project, at this point, than it will with the present owner not being able to control what
goes on there. I mean, as we speak, there can be trespassers going upon the protected area and disturbing it.
I mean, that has been done. That will cease with this developer’s owning the property, because we certainly
would prosecute anyone that appears on the property. We don’t want anyone on the property after we
acquire it, and when we get a sense from the Board that they will allow this project to go through in a timely
fashion, then it will be off limits. That area will be immediately protected, whether it’s the final type of
protection that everyone agrees upon, that remains to be seen, but as soon as we know we can go forward
with Sketch Plan approval, we’ll begin the process of isolating that area and notifying all others that anything
they do upon that property would be trespassing, and we would indicate that this is a potential habitat for
43
(Queensbury Planning Board 11/26/02)
endangered species. We will take those steps immediately. We won’t wait for Preliminary approval, and then
during the Preliminary approval process, and prior to that we’ll be working with Kathy O’Brien and your
professionals to come up with a plan for that lot, which, again, is a separate lot. It’s not part of our housing
subdivision application. It’s not part of the deal. It’s a separate, set aside lot.
MR. VOLLARO-Mr. Chairman, can I make a recommendation on something here? We’ve approved waivers
to Sketch Plans in the past. We could approve a waiver for, don’t even have a Sketch Plan come before us.
MR. MAC EWAN-They’re here now doing a Sketch Plan, right now.
MR. VOLLARO-I realize that, but I’m in, my own personal, I’m not predisposed to approve this. I can tell
you that right now, based on where I’m coming from on this seat, because I don’t want to give what looks
like even a Preliminary approval to this. I would just as soon see them come in with a Preliminary, sometime
downstream.
MR. MAC EWAN-That’s what they plan on doing.
MR. VOLLARO-Okay.
MR. IANELLO-A Preliminary approval is a Preliminary approval. That’s not what we’re seeking.
MR. MAC EWAN-No, tonight you’re talking, you’ve been talking about approving a Sketch Plan.
MR. IANELLO-Yes.
MR. MAC EWAN-There is no approval for Sketch Plan. Sketch Plan is nothing more than an exchange of
ideas. There’s no approvals. There’s no denials.
MR. IANELLO-I understand. We’re seeking your input and attempting to obtain your approval, whether it’s
informal or not.
MR. MAC EWAN-There isn’t any with Sketch Plan. I mean, you’re coming in and exchanging ideas. We’re
giving you our ideas. What you submit at Preliminary is an application you want to set forth in front of the
Board for review. I don’t know what more to tell you. As far as, if you walk out of here and say, well, I
think, you know, we’ve got their approval to move forward on this thing, nothing’s a given when you come
back for Preliminary.
MR. IANELLO-No, we understand that, but I think there’s an important distinction. If you maintain the
position that we’re not going to entertain anything here until you conduct these studies, and the project will
remain dormant until then, then that’s something that the developer should know. If what I have said makes
sense, and is a better solution to the protection of the endangered species, which I think it is, then we’d like to
know that, and then we can spend our time, energy, and money going forward with preparing an application
for Preliminary approval. If what I’m saying doesn’t make sense to you, if think that it’s better if we walk
away, the project goes nowhere, and until some other developer perhaps picks it up and does a study, and the
in the meantime, if a year or two goes by, that habitat could be destroyed, because this 92 year old woman
that owns it, she can’t sell it, and she can’t protect it.
MRS. LA BOMBARD-I understand where you’re coming from. If the blue lupine wasn’t an issue, I would
say to you, this really looks nice. I like the way it’s laid out, like the size of the lots. It’s pretty, and it would
fit there nicely, but what you’re trying, I think what we’ve given you a message is that we can’t really go
anywhere on this. We can’t even get through the first statement of this SEQRA without saying, yes, there is
an impact, there is something that can be threatened here. So we’ve got to stop. So we can’t go anywhere.
So I think what you’re trying to do is, well, you’re trying to make us think your way, and I know where you’re
coming from.
MR. IANELLO-Well, that’s my job.
MRS. LA BOMBARD-That’s right.
MR. IANELLO-And I’m here trying to present another picture, and I’m hoping that you’ll understand that
we would be seeking Preliminary approval for a 15 lot subdivision, upon which there is no disturbance.
MRS. LA BOMBARD-Yes. I see your picture and I know where you’re coming from, and I go by this, I
have gone by this property in the 32 years that I’ve lived in Queensbury, I’ve probably gone by it at least five
times a week. I used to live in the Pines, in that area. I don’t think, right now, that people are running loose
in there and breaking down whatever plants are in there. I know that there’s a lot of people that live on
Queens Lane, that’s their back yard. I don’t know if those people would put up with that kind of behavior.
So I know your argument, but I don’t agree with your argument about the fact that people are in there, and
poor Mrs. McEchron doesn’t have any control over her property. That could be, but I don’t really think that,
44
(Queensbury Planning Board 11/26/02)
the biggest violation on this property is probably the signs that they put at election time up at the other end,
but that’s all I have to say.
MR. MAC EWAN-I’m going to take this a step farther. With this application, with the application that’s
coming up behind it, we’re entering into kind of a new phase of protectionism here in the Town, and looking
out for endangered species and the critical habitat, and while we recognize the importance for people to be
able to develop their properties and do things within the Zoning Ordinances and such, we also have an
obligation to look out for the best interest of the Town as a whole. Part of that is to look out and come up
with a plan that’s going to preserve these habitats, and if these habitats become disturbed, what kind of a
mitigation measure can the Town set forth to ensure that the habitats will thrive for future years to come, and
that’s part of where Marilyn and some members of the Planning Board, with the cooperation of DEC and the
Federal government, have been trying to get the ball rolling here, so to speak, because we see these projects
now are going to start coming in here, and we need to act on them, and I think that the Board as a whole,
their interest is to have a survey done on these parcels, prior to us lending any kind of Preliminary or Final
approvals, and if I’m wrong on that, I want to hear it from Board members now. This seems to be the
message I’m hearing from them, and we’ve been hearing for a couple of months now, and given the fact that
you can’t take the surveys until May to mid-July, it’ll give us the opportunity to get this management plan
underway, so that when the surveys are complete, we’ll have a plan in effect to respond to the SEQRA
questions when we do these reviews, and I think that’s the fair thing to do. While I appreciate the property
owner is getting on in years, and she’d like to divest herself of the holdings she has now, I don’t think it’s in
the best interest of not only the endangered species or good planning just to go ahead and say, let’s cut a road
in, let’s put up a fence around this one area and hope to God it’s going to be protected. I think in the state
that it’s in now, it’s better off the way it is, in an inactive state, without activity on it, without construction,
without potential homes going on it, until we have a plan in effect that tells us what we can do and what’s the
best route for us to take. I think that’s the way we should go. Do I have consensus up here?
MR. VOLLARO-I’ll agree with that, Mr. Chairman.
MRS. LA BOMBARD-Yes, I agree.
MR. MAC EWAN-So that’s where we’re at, I think.
MR. IANELLO-Case closed.
MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. So hopefully you’ll do your survey.
MR. HORICK-Is there any proposed deadline on the management plan being in place? I know, you know,
say we go forth and do a survey.
MR. MAC EWAN-It’s funny you should ask that. We have a special meeting next Tuesday night, and you
can see the pink, added the fourth item to the agenda. Let’s do this plan. Let’s get it going. So I will push
like heck to get that underway next Tuesday night.
MR. IANELLO-Just a rhetorical question. In effect, what you’re establishing is a moratorium on the 15 lots,
and if a developer is faced with this situation, and he has carved out a portion of his land, and he has offered
to do everything that is necessary to protect that habitat, then, in effect, what you’ve done is to impose a spot
moratorium on this parcel.
MR. MAC EWAN-That’s not what we’re doing. We’re asking you to do a survey before we do Preliminary
application. No one’s implying a moratorium whatsoever.
MS. RADNER-May I comment on that, Mr. Chairman?
MR. MAC EWAN-Sure.
MS. RADNER-By our definitions, it’s not a 15 lot subdivision. It’s a 16 lot subdivision. They haven’t
approved or disapproved of any plat, and you’re still free to come forward with any plan you want to put on,
and they’ll consider any plan. They haven’t placed a moratorium on anything, other than to give you
direction tonight of where they’re looking and where they’re tending to be. You’ve got no guarantee that it
will even be these same seven people sitting here when you come back with your Preliminary plan. They’ve
given you their best indication as to how each of them feels, and which direction they would see this plan
heading, and that’s the extent of what they’ve done tonight.
MR. IANELLO-Well, this is a subdivision where the developer has come in with a plan that conforms exactly
to the zoning code, and what we’re, I think, being told is that we’re not really going to entertain any
applications, and you really can’t go forward with this project until one parcel within the parcel, which is not
the subject of an application for housing, it’s a different use. The use is to do nothing, and we’ll have to look
at that.
45
(Queensbury Planning Board 11/26/02)
MR. MAC EWAN-You’re certainly welcome, Mr. Ianello, to make an application. You’re certainly welcome
to fill out the paperwork and submit an application for subdivision. You’ve asked this Board for an honest
feeling of where we’re going and what we’re thinking, and we’re sharing that with you.
MR. IANELLO-Then let’s just explore that for a moment. Perhaps, if a Preliminary application is made, and
within that application we have further input from Kathy O’Brien, indicating that this proposal and the
protections that are jointly made are adequate to protect this parcel, in the event that endangered species are
found there. I mean, we don’t even know that yet. Then that’s the form of application that I’m suggesting
we do. Doesn’t it, an informed application of that type, with empirical evidence, with information from
professionals, isn’t that something that you could say yes or no to, rather than saying no to this automatically?
MR. MAC EWAN-Without having an application in front of us, without having the information in front of
us to review, I’m surprised you’d even be asking that question of us, how we would tend to vote or think
about or disapprove.
MR. IANELLO-Well, I’m hearing a lot of strong feelings about do nothing until the survey is done.
MR. MAC EWAN-That’s what you’re hearing. So, if you want to make application, Preliminary application,
come back and see us in February, make your application, and if you have all sorts of information to
substantiate your claim as to how you can best protect those lots, we’ll entertain it, we’ll review it, and we’ll
make a decision based on the information you supply on your application. We can’t promise you anymore
than that.
MR. IANELLO-Okay. We’re just asking you to have an open mind.
MR. MAC EWAN-And I think we’re being very open-minded. I think the openness here is we’re sharing
with you our feelings and what we think is the best way to protect the interest of not only the habitat but the
endangered species in the Town as a whole. Okay. Thank you.
NEW BUSINESS:
SUBDIVISION NO. 17-2002 PRELIMINARY STAGE FINAL STAGE TYPE: UNLISTED
WESTERN RESERVE, LLC PROPERTY OWNER: SAME AGENT: VAN DUSEN & STEVES
ZONE: SR-1A, RR-3A LOCATION: WEST SIDE WEST MT. RD., SOUTH OF POTTER RD.
APPLICANT PROPOSES SUBDIVISION OF A 34.8 ACRE LOT FOR 6 SINGLE FAMILY LOTS
AND 26 TOWNHOUSE UNITS. CROSS REFERENCE: AV 52-01, AV 22-02 TAX MAP NO. 300-
1-19/87-1-21 LOT SIZE: 33.53 ACRES SECTION: SUBDIVISION REGS
JON LAPPER, TOM NACE, PAUL & MICKIE HAYES, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT
MRS. LA BOMBARD-There is a public hearing tonight.
STAFF INPUT
Notes from Staff, Subdivision No. 17-2002, Preliminary Stage/Final Stage, Meeting Date: November 26,
2002 “Project Description:
Applicant proposes to subdivide an existing 34.8 acre property to construct six single family homes with the
rear lot to be used in the future for townhouse development. Both single-family homes and multifamily
dwellings as proposed are allowed uses in the SR-1A zone. All proposed future development of this property
shown in this application would occur on the land zoned SR-1A.
Study of plat:
Lot arrangement: Six single family lots would be created with frontage on West Mountain Rd. and one larger
lot would be created behind the proposed single family lots with frontage on West Mountain Rd. just north
of the proposed single family lots.
Topography: Site topography varies throughout the property. The interior areas of the property have areas of
steep slopes, which have not been documented by the applicant. As the site was previously used as a cement
producing facility, there are areas of cut and slope that were created during excavation.
Water supply Sewage Disposal: This property is adjacent to a water line that will provide water service to this
subdivision. All lots propose on site septic systems for wastewater treatment.
Drainage: The applicant has submitted a waiver request from the requirement of providing a grading and
drainage plan.
46
(Queensbury Planning Board 11/26/02)
Lot sizes: Lots range in size from 1 acre for the single-family lots shown fronting on West Mt. Rd. to 25.18
acres for the larger lot located on the interior part of the property.
Future development: The subdivision application indicates future single-family homes to be built. The
application also contains a plan indicating that the larger lot will be used for the development of townhomes.
State Environmental Quality Review Act, SEQRA Type is Unlisted, and a SEQR short form has been provided.
Parcel History (construction/site plan/variance, etc.):
AV22-02, denied by ZBA 4/22/02, relief sought was for lot density.
Staff comments:
The applicant has submitted a waiver request from providing a grading and drainage plans with this
application.
The subdivision as proposed would also include a lot line adjustment with the property to the north. A
consent form from the property owner to the north must be submitted in order for the application to be
acted on by the Planning Board.
The proposed uses (single family homes and multi-family townhomes) are allowed uses in the SR-1A zone in
which future development at this site would take place.
The lot widths for the single-family lots are consistent with the Zoning Ordinance, which requires double the
lot width or shared driveways. These lots propose shared driveways off of West Mountain Rd. The lot width
for the interior lot also conforms to the requirements of the SR-1A zone.
An accurate determination of allowable residential density cannot be calculated by staff at this time.
Information regarding areas of steep slope on the property and areas covered by easements has not been
provided by the applicant. Areas of steep slope that exist because of prior excavation associated with the
previous use of this property will not be counted as areas of steep slope for the purposes of determining
density. However, information concerning areas of slope greater than 25% located on other areas of the site
must be submitted in order to accurately calculate allowable residential density. An accurate area of the pond
on site, as it will exist upon final construction, will be used for density calculations once the information is
provided to Planning Staff.
The proposed lot 1 and lot 7 indicate areas of Wild Blue Lupine, habitat for the federally endangered Karner
Blue Butterfly and State threatened Frosted Elfin Butterfly. A letter from DEC concerning the habitat
delineation, presence of species, and possible impacts on the habitat located on-site has not been received at
this time. Additional information is required to perform an adequate SEQRA analysis.
Potential traffic impacts in this area of Queensbury cannot be addressed at this time. The information
provided by the applicant does not contain any traffic counts or projected trip generation data. The applicant
should discuss the impact this proposal may have on traffic in the area of this proposed subdivision.
While the current cleanup of the site and the proposed future development of this site will provide for a more
attractive site, the debris that is currently on site must be removed from the site.
Any comments from CT Male should be addressed during the review of this application.”
MR. MAC EWAN-Staff notes, please.
MR. HILTON-First of all, I would like to mention that waiver has been requested from the applicant for the
requirements of providing a grading and drainage plan. Also, the subdivision as proposed would include a lot
line adjustment with the property to the north, and I made the comment in the notes that a consent form
would be required from the property owner on the parcel to the north. Today we received that form. So,
we’re ready to go as far as that’s concerned. The proposed uses, single family homes and multifamily town
homes, are allowed uses in the SR-1A zone. The lot widths for the single family lots and for the lot in the
rear are consistent with the Zoning Ordinance. An accurate determination of allowable density cannot be
made at this time. Information regarding steep slopes and on-site easements and water bodies hasn’t been
provided by the applicant. It should be noted that areas on site that have been previously excavated and
contain areas of steep slope, that is slope over 25%, will not be counted, but natural areas of slope would be
counted against the density. An accurate area of the pond that is currently on site, as it will be built, will be
used to determine density. Again, there’s the Karner blue issue, which I think Kathy O’Brien’s letter speaks
to, and Marilyn will provide some comment after I’m done. Just as a point for your review, any impacts on
traffic have not been provided. No data concerning traffic generation, and traffic counts has been provided.
The site currently is being cleaned up as the former cement producing facility, and although I applaud the
47
(Queensbury Planning Board 11/26/02)
effort of the applicant, it should be noted that the debris that’s collected on site should be removed from the
property, and also any C.T. Male comments should be addressed.
MRS. RYBA-I was just going to summarize a bit from Kathy O’Brien’s letter, which is that there was a
concern of showing or identifying some patches that were along the road on the map because she wasn’t sure
whether or not those were, needed to be identified or would impact Lot Number Two, also that there was
some extension from Lot One to Lot Seven where there was habitat. She does believe that the habitat could
provide habitat for Frosted Elfin, and she does note, in the letter, that, to her knowledge, the property has
not been surveyed for either Karner blue or the Frosted Elfin.
MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. Good evening.
MR. LAPPER-Hi. For the record, Jon Lapper, Tom Nace, Engineer, and Mickie and Jaime Hayes. I’d like to
make some preliminary comments and then ask Tom to explain the plan to you. To begin with a little bit of
history. We all appeared before the Zoning Board last year for a density variance to ask for increased density
for an exclusively multifamily project, to help offset the cost of the pretty extensive remediation on this
property. After a lengthy public hearing with a lot of comments from a lot of upset neighbors, the Zoning
Board of Appeals denied that application. We used that denial to go back to the seller to renegotiate the
price, and in June or July we closed on the purchase of the property, even though we didn’t have Town
approvals. That was what was required with the sellers. So the property is now in an LLC that we formed, a
Limited Liability Company, which is just a smart way to develop a piece of property where you have people
that may be trespassing and using it for recreation, just to put it in a Limited Liability Company and that’s
why the application is in Western Reserve, and that’s just a company that’s owned by Mickie and Jaime
Hayes. After we had the experience at the Zoning, well, let me stop a second. During that process, the
Zoning Administrator had asked us to come before this Board for a conceptual review before we went to the
Zoning Board for their decision, and at that point we presented to you what the site previously looked like,
which was all of the material that’s now been stocked piled and aggregated along West Mountain Road so it
can be removed was scattered throughout the property, literally an acre and a half of concrete that had been
poured and left by the concrete trucks when they came with excess, steel, tires, rotting, rusting trucks. So all
sorts of industrial debris, and at that point I know that this Board was supportive of the application moving
forward after, I believe, you walked the site at that point, and I presume, knowing this Board, that you’ve
walked the site now. So in the interim, after hearing the concerns of the neighbors and listening to the
Zoning Board, and being able to negotiate a better deal with the sellers, we’ve now come in with a completely
conforming project, in terms of, well, this subdivision, there will obviously be a future project to do a site
plan for the back, and I’ll talk about density in a few minutes, but what we wanted to do, which is not
required under the Zoning Code, but to be sensitive to the neighborhood was to come in and to have the
single family lots along West Mountain Road, because that is single family character, and to cluster a
townhouse project in the back, so that it would be visually buffered, and also buffered in terms of distance
from the road. At the same time, by placing it where it can be placed in the center of that Lot Seven of the
back lot, it creates extensive buffers to the adjacent property owners, especially the complaining adjacent
property owners. So we’ve tried to be very sensitive to the neighborhood there, and as I said, and as George
Hilton said, everything, in terms of the use, it is a permitted use for the site. Tom will go through the details,
but we’re providing for shared driveways to comply with the West Mountain Road distance between
driveways. I guess the next issue is density. For the sake of this application tonight, we can’t submit a site
plan for the interior lot until we have subdivision, because that’s not a lot. So, first we have to come before
this Board for subdivision, and the subdivision is to create, as I said, six single family lots along West
Mountain Road, and one interior lot which presumably would be for multifamily. That’s approved for
multifamily or for single family. Under the Subdivision Regulations, the density calculation, as George
mentioned, you take off for water bodies. There’s some language about taking off for easements. I’m not
sure that that really refers to subsurface easements, but for the sake of your review of this tonight, the
threshold that you need to know is that the density allows for seven lots, which would be the six lots on the
road and at least one single family lot in the back, and we’re way beyond that, at a 33 acre parcel in a one acre
zone. The issue is going to come up, which we’ll have to work out with the Zoning Administrator, as to
whether you can have 25 or 26 in the interior, whether we count that subsurface utility line, but for the sake
of tonight, all you need to know to be able to make a decision on this issue is that we can have seven lots, and
we’re certainly well beyond seven lots, and George, I’m sure, will confirm that. The density for one house
each on the six single family lots and at least one residence on the back lot, because that’s all we’re here to
talk about, just to subdivide that, so that we can begin to work on getting a plan submitted for the back lot.
We just heard your discussion about the Karner blue, or excuse me, the blue lupine. I’d like to very
significantly distinguish our project and our parcel from the people across the street because we’ve got two
spots of blue lupine. What Marilyn said was that the letter from Kathy O’Brien, and Mickie walked the site
extensively with Kathy O’Brien, but Marilyn mentioned that she said that it’s possible those two patches,
excuse me, and it’s two, because one of them was not mapped. One of them’s on the Town right of way.
That’s why it’s not on the map. It’s on the Town right of way. So the two that are on the property, are on
the property line of Lot One in the back, Kathy’s letter said that they cannot support a Karner blue habitat,
but it’s possible they could support the Frosted Elfin habitat. When Mickie walked the property with her, she
indicated, she walked it and then they spoke. She indicated that when they have small patches, that what they
sometimes do, and I’ve had experience doing this in other municipalities, is that they’d rather money rather
than some sort of a protection plan, because they can then purchase something.
48
(Queensbury Planning Board 11/26/02)
MR. MAC EWAN-Who’s “they”?
MR. LAPPER-DEC, as a mitigation.
MR. MAC EWAN-Are you going to do the survey?
MR. LAPPER-Absolutely. Well, we would be absolutely happy to do the survey. What we’re proposing is
that we won’t build on Lot One, because.
MR. MAC EWAN-This is the same scenario the previous application gave, Jon.
MR. LAPPER-I understand. Let’s, for the sake of discussing this issue, and I realize it’s a threshold issue for
you, let’s say we had a 1,000 acre site, but all we had was Lot One that had the habitat, Kathy’s walked the
whole lot, and we’re talking about two little patches on Lot One. So if we say, as a condition of an approval,
and we are seeking an approval tonight, if we say, as a condition of approval, that Lot One will not be built,
that we’ll put it on the map that Lot One cannot be built, so that we’re not going to go anywhere near it,
unless and until a mitigation plan is worked out, that would be a mitigation plan. If you don’t build on it,
that’s all you have to do is not disturb the plant.
MR. MAC EWAN-My first response would be, we’re not talking about 1,000 acre parcel.
MR. LAPPER-No, I know, but I’m saying we’ve got a 33 acre parcel, and everything that we’re talking about
here is on this one acre piece, and I think that distinguishes us from the last application.
MR. MAC EWAN-And this is frustrating to everyone involved. I think you can appreciate what the Board’s
position is on the previous application. I don’t see it changing on this application.
MR. LAPPER-I would ask you to distinguish this, only because here it’s two little patches that are
concentrated on one lot, and the other project there were extensive, I mean that, and we know this from what
Kathy has said, that that is a significant parcel, in terms of blue lupine, and this is an insignificant parcel.
MR. MAC EWAN-More importantly, I think the Planning Board needs to be consistent, too.
MR. LAPPER-I think you can distinguish it based upon the scope of what’s there. I also want to just bring
to your attention that we dealt with this on the Larry Clute application, a year ago, on Sherman, off of
Sherman, where we did, I think, a 28 lot subdivision, and in that case, we provided an area just like we’re
proposing here, where we just avoided it. So in terms of consistency, I mean we’re sensitive to this. Mickie’s
done his homework. He’s had extensive discussions with Kathy. So we’re just asking you to say one cannot
be built, that Lot One cannot be built, and we can move forward with the application. We’re hopeful that
we’ll work out a monetary payment, as a mitigation, which would have to be approved by everyone
concerned.
MR. MAC EWAN-That goes hand in hand with the whole Town wide plan we’re talking about. What are
the mitigations that the Town would entertain? Is it an exchange of money to develop habitat somewhere
else within the Town or within these special districts? Is it a matter of you preserving those lupines and never
touching them? Is a matter of what, we don’t know, and until that plan comes to fruition, I just don’t
understand you can propose that we move forward on this thing and just ignore everything we just spent the
last 45 minutes talking about with the previous application.
MR. LAPPER-The answer is this, and I think that Tony Ianello said it, but the only thing that we’re
proscribed from doing is disturbing the habitat. It’s different than a wetland where you have to have a buffer
or something. We just can’t disturb the habitat, and that’s what we did with Larry Clute. We agreed, as a
protected area, that it wouldn’t be disturbed, and we’re saying here, for our application, we’ve got it delineated
on the map, and that we will not build a house on Lot One. We just, we will stay away from Lot One. We’ll
come back to the Board and talk to you about mitigation after we work it out with DEC, and we won’t build
on that lot, and that’s how it’s protected.
MR. MAC EWAN-You guys don’t give up, do you?
MR. LAPPER-No, but I’ve also dealt with this in other municipalities. When the Wilton Mall was built at
Exit 15, we did a payment and they bought land at the Scout camp, and that was how we worked it out.
MR. MAC EWAN-And Wilton’s ahead of the curve on this whole Karner blue issue, too. I mean, they’ve
got a Town wide plan already effect, and Guilderland’s the other township that’s got it. Correct?
MRS. RYBA-The Pinebush.
MR. MAC EWAN-The Pinebush, the Pinebush area. We’re just getting to where they are four years ago.
49
(Queensbury Planning Board 11/26/02)
MR. LAPPER-All we’re asking is that you treat us the same way you treated Larry Clute last year, which was
just, it was the same thing. It was a small, one concentrated area, not like the last application, and you just
required us to put on the subdivision map that that was a no cut, no build, and it had to stay there.
MR. MAC EWAN-And the difference with that application over a year ago was that the sentiment has
changed. Issues have come up as to what we’re going to do with these habitats, and I think it’s come to the
point where we, as a Town, really need to put this plan together, really need to know what we want to do to
protect these habitats, and what we’re going to do to mitigate them, and so on and so forth. I mean, we’ve
been talking about this now for a couple of months, and I think we’ll get to the point where the wheels are
really starting to be set in motion here and it’s not fair to the applicant we just sent away to say let’s do a
survey and give you a different set of marching orders. I don’t think that’s appropriate.
MR. LAPPER-You know, Craig, that my style is not to be combative at all, and my job is to work out the
best deal I can for my clients and to make the Board satisfied, but I think that if we are proposing to just take
Lot One, one lot, the end of the, the edge of the project, take it completely out of the picture, that we’re not
going to build on it, that that is a mitigation, and if we, and all we ever would have to say is we’ll never build
on Lot One, and we’re done, and instead we’re saying, okay, that’s the worst case, and hopefully there are
going to be some alternatives which we can work out that are better than that, but the worst case is that we’ll
never build on Lot One and that’s the habitat, and it’s protected.
MR. MAC EWAN-What’s your resistance to wanting to do the survey?
MR. LAPPER-Just timing. I mean, it’s just May and June and July.
MR. MAC EWAN-That’s the time of year, that’s usually when they’re in the habitat.
MR. LAPPER-Yes, we’re saying that we don’t want to wait that long. We would agree to, we’ll agree to not
build on Lot One and to do the survey. We just want to go forward with Lots Two through Seven.
MR. MAC EWAN-I’m pretty sure the consensus of the Board is going to be the same as it was with the
previous application.
MR. LAPPER-Okay, but we do have an application pending, different than the other application, and of
course you’ve heard my point now a number of times, that I’m distinguishing our application because it’s
concentrated on one lot, right at the corner of the property. So I am asking you to move forward and
approve our project, that we feel that we comply with zoning, and that there’s no reason for a simple seven
lot subdivision that you can’t, and we’re doing what we know we need to do, which is to just leave those small
patches alone, to protect those Karner blue. We’ll fence them if you want us to fence them.
MR. MAC EWAN-I’ll poll the Board right now for you.
MR. LAPPER-Okay.
MR. MAC EWAN-Is the consensus still the same as it was with the previous application, we’re looking for a
survey to be done?
MR. VOLLARO-In my mind it’s a question of consistency, more than anything else now, it’s a question of
being consistent in our approach to these, this whole lupine situation, and having a mitigation plan in place
that we can rely on, and use to review these applications. So I would say that I’m in favor of waiting for a
mitigation plan to be put together, a management plan, if that’s what they want to call it, and go from there,
but we would not be consistent, tonight, by going forward with this and having just sent the other applicant
away. It’s a question of consistency and fairness on the part of the Board.
MR. STROUGH-I stand a little bit aside on this, and probably stand alone, but I’m almost, you know, if the
applicant could, I’m almost looking at this as a Sketch, and this is kind of the way I looked at the last
application, too. If the applicant could come before us with the Preliminary, with a plan of saving the lupine
areas, a plan that was convincing, a plan that I was comfortable with, and I might be able to move forward to
a Final. I mean, if they were to come up with a plan I think would be workable, and like I said, I think that
we might have to run this by Kathy O’Brien, we might have to discuss this in a workshop.
MR. MAC EWAN-So you’re asking for a survey or not asking for a survey, because that’s what I’m asking
everybody.
MR. STROUGH-Well, a survey, we have an identified area, and I don’t think that should be touched, and
those identified areas, a plan should come up to assure us that they won’t be touched until a survey is done
for those areas, to determine whether there is a.
50
(Queensbury Planning Board 11/26/02)
MR. VOLLARO-Well, John, he’s already said he wants to put aside Lot Number One and the worst case
analysis that Jon gave us that it would never be built on, and I think that’s his plan. That’s what his mitigation
plan is.
MR. STROUGH-Well, I think if we asked a little bit more of the applicant then I would ask a little bit more
of this applicant that for approval, they’d have to come up with a plan, and we might be able to help them
with this, I don’t know what’s going to come out of the workshop, a plan that we could be convinced is a
workable plan that would save this until we get a mitigation plan together and some kind of a management
plan together, and like I said, will that include, you know, an orange construction fence with signage around it
and maybe some other good ideas? I’m not sure, but it would have to be convincing to me that it would
work.
MR. MAC EWAN-Instead of asking for a survey?
MR. STROUGH-Yes.
MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. We have two surveys. Cathy?
MRS. LA BOMBARD-Well, I’m asking for a survey, but I don’t regard this applicant, this application exactly
the same as the other. First of all, the difference is that the lupine is all concentrated in one corner of this
application, and there is no road that’s going to be cut into the development, per se, as the other, well, the
other application had so many different areas of the lupine, and then the road was being cut right in, and
there was that whole frontage that was so, where the lupine was, that was so exposed to the rest of the
development. In this case, we’ve got the lot, you’re lucky. It’s over here in the corner, the houses are
fronting West Mountain Road, and it could be as if nothing was ever there to begin with. However, I do
believe that there should be some kind of a study, but I think that, like John said, I think that this could, you
know, we could work this out somehow. It’s not, granted, we want to be fair. We want to show consistency,
but, every application should be looked at independently, and this application is different the other one in the
fact that it’s bigger. It’s laid out differently, and these homes that are going to be in the front here are not,
they already have a road to them. It’s been there forever, for a long time. So it’s not as if we’re cutting
through the property, and maybe we wouldn’t have as much of an impact on this lupine parcel as they do on
the other development. That’s the end of it.
MR. MAC EWAN-Larry?
MR. RINGER-I think we have to be consistent. I thought the other application we had enough information
to move on to Preliminary, with the letter from Kathy O’Brien. I think the presentation here is the same.
However, because I think we have to be consistent, I would not go along with this one, because of what we
did to the last one, but I don’t agree with what we did with the last one, and I probably am not going to agree
with what we do here either.
MR. MAC EWAN-Chris?
MR. HUNSINGER-I agree with the rest of the members of the Board. I had some other problems with the
plan as well. Specifically, I would want to see a grading plan, and stormwater management plan, you know,
because of the unique features of this site, I imagine that you’re going to want to be pushing some dirt
around.
MR. NACE-For the houses?
MR. HUNSINGER-Yes.
MR. NACE-The individual houses.
MR. LAPPER-We know that we have to do extensive grading plans for the back lot, but the front is just a six
lot, six individual building lots.
MR. HUNSINGER-There will be no change in the grade in the front lots?
MR. NACE-Not other than what was normal for a development of a house on a fairly flat lot to begin with.
MR. HUNSINGER-Okay.
MR. NACE-No different than any lot up in the Pines or over on Bronk Drive or wherever.
MR. LAPPER-We’re getting ahead, because I realize we have this threshold issue, but C.T. Male’s letter
seemed to be addressed to the lot in the back, and we know we’ve got to come in with extensive site plans.
We’re not ready to do that, and legally we can’t do that until we get subdivision approval.
51
(Queensbury Planning Board 11/26/02)
MR. MAC EWAN-I just want to stick to the survey thing here for a minute. So, Chris, you’re fine.
MR. HUNSINGER-Yes.
MR. MAC EWAN-I have several engineering questions as well.
MR. METIVIER-I certainly would be in favor of entertaining this if we separate Lot One. Yes, I’d like to see
a survey on it, but there aren’t a lot of differences between this and the application that was before us, which
was not an application, it was a Sketch Plan, which has a lot of differences. Those people don’t even own the
property yet, whereas these gentlemen have taken extensive, I’m sure, financial burden on this property, and
my thought on the whole thing, the longer we delay this, the longer it’s going to look like that. I mean, it’s a
mess.
MR. MAC EWAN-Tony, I would wholeheartedly disagree with you on all three things you’ve said.
MR. METIVIER-What’s that?
MR. MAC EWAN-The fact that they’re the owners of the property and not an agent representing the
property has no bearing whether this Board makes a decision or not.
MR. METIVIER-Sure it does.
MR. MAC EWAN-No, it doesn’t. That would be premeditated to show a favor or decline against somebody
whether they owned the property or not, and that’s wrong. The fact that they’ve sunk a bunch of money into
this property to develop it, that’s the buck they’re spending. That shouldn’t be a prerequisite of this Board to
make a determination on whether we have an approval or a denial of it, and thirdly, as far as this lupine goes
and what’s on it, I mean, if we’re sending the message that we’re going to take a very hard look at preserving
these habitats in this community for blue lupine, the Elfin butterfly, and the Karner blue butterfly and I think
we need to be real consistent in the way we’re making our determinations, and if we require these guys to do
a survey, those people over there to do a survey, and the next 10 that come in behind them to do a survey, I
think we need to be consistent and do that. As far as having a mitigation, until the Town adopts a mitigation
plan, what you may propose to us, may not be comfortable enough for us to get through SEQRA.
MR. LAPPER-There’s only one mitigation plan, and that is that you can’t.
MR. MAC EWAN-In your opinion.
MR. LAPPER-No, no.
MR. MAC EWAN-There could be a half a dozen of them that come up.
MR. LAPPER-The same thing we did with Larry Clute is that you can’t disturb the area, but that’s only if it’s
a habitat.
MR. MAC EWAN-That’s not necessarily true, Jon. That’s not necessarily true.
MR. LAPPER-What I’m offering is 100% of what you get, if after we do the survey it turns out that there are
actual Frosted Elfins and/or Karner blue butterflies there, then we’ve got to stay away from it, and we’re
saying we won’t develop Lot One at all unless it turns out that either those species don’t exist there, or they
do exist there and everyone’s comfortable with us paying into a mitigation fund, to the Land Conservancy or
to the Nature Conservancy or what have you. So I’m offering what we would get to at the end of this whole
exercise anyway, which is non-development. They lose a building lot, if that’s what it takes. I’m certainly not
trying to be argumentative. So we will do the survey, but for now, let us go ahead with the rest of the
subdivision. We’ll do a survey on Lot One, but we’ll do that survey in the spring.
MR. MAC EWAN-No. I think what we’re looking for is a survey first.
MR. LAPPER-I don’t want to be combative, but Tony raised the moratorium issue, and if you tell us that we
can’t look at a 33 acre lot because we’ve got two little patches, I don’t think that’s fair.
MR. MAC EWAN-We’re trying to be extremely fair, Jon. We’re trying to be extremely fair.
MR. LAPPER-You’re always extremely fair, and I appreciate that and I know that, and I know that this is an
issue that you haven’t dealt with a lot, but I think what we’re proposing is the same thing that we did with
Larry Clute.
MR. MAC EWAN-Then give us the opportunity to fairly deal with this issue.
MRS. RYBA-Could I make a couple of comments that might be helpful?
52
(Queensbury Planning Board 11/26/02)
MR. MAC EWAN-Sure.
MRS. RYBA-Number One, with Larry Clute’s situation, the parcel is in an area that is a major focus for
Karner blue habitat, and when I mentioned last time about looking at things on a case by case basis,
biologically, DEC is looking at it on a case by case, because we’re looking at items such as, are there barriers
to the species going from patch to patch. Larry Clute’s property happened to be along the Niagara Mohawk
power line, which is kept open as part of NiMo’s easements, to keep the power line open, to keep the growth
from taking over, so there was basically already a management plan in place. Because the lots were along
NiMo that are kept open. So that any preservation of a lot in this case for example really has to look at all of
the lupine areas, and it’s not just Lot One. There’s some on Lot Seven, and there’s also some that is along
the road and actually it’s a County right of way that all comes together when the habitat is looked at. The
second issue is in dealing with SEQRA, and the Board has a lot of latitude. For example, the Board could say
we want to see the DEC permits and we want to see any Federal permits before, as part of our SEQRA
review, we want to see that. I mean, we’re all independent, and the Town’s independent in authorizing it’s
permit. Fish and Wildlife is independent. DEC is independent. Because the Town is lead agent and has so
much latitude under SEQRA, they could really look for all of those things. So, there are some differences,
and part of that latitude is that it may not just be a case of setting aside the lot or areas of other lots, but also
asking the applicant for the management plan or exactly what is the applicant going to do to keep the area
open, because unlike a lot of the thinking which is, let’s have a buffer area, let’s have vegetation, you want the
exact opposite when it comes to maintaining habitat. You want to keep it open and that’s an expense, and to
just say we’re going to set this aside without any kind of consideration for how that’s managed is something
to think about. The other is that there has been discussion of doing this on a Town wide basis, but there’s
still some more analysis that has to take place, and that the Town Board, or excuse me, the Planning Board
could ask for the applicant to do all of the study required, and whatever, in reference to SEQRA, for the
protection of that particular lot, for a plan, without the Town having a Town wide plan. The difference
becomes, if there’s mitigation being asked for, and there’s a Town wide plan that better protects the species,
and I think that’s what Kathy O’Brien said in September at the last meeting, is that both the Potter Road
property and this property isn’t as likely as some other areas in the Town, such as where Larry Clute’s
property was and that’s why it really has to be looked at on a case by case basis, and more of the biology,
which this is, DEC has been very helpful because they have that expertise and assisting the applicants and the
Town with information. So, once again, I don’t know if I’m clarifying things for you, but I just wanted to put
on the record that, what the differences are, and I think Cathy LaBombard made a good point, is that not
every situation is comparing apples to apples exactly. There are some considerations because of the biology
that you have to look at more carefully.
MR. LAPPER-Let me just read you one line from Kathy O’Brien’s letter, and she’s the person at the DEC.
She’s the blue lupine person. I mean, I’ve dealt with her for years, and this is the most important thing to her.
This is on, whatever, Page Four of her letter. If Hayes and Hayes decides to reserve the lots with lupine from
the proposal, until a survey is done, then I recommend that all three patches, one of them’s not on our
property, so it’s two patches, that all three patches should be protected from disturbance from any other part
of construction related to clearing or building houses. This protection would include use of signs and
physical barriers. Now I heard what you said about coming in with a management plan, and we can certainly
do that, but I think that she is acknowledging that it’s perfectly okay for us to leave this alone, and to move
forward with the rest of our project, and that’s what we’re asking you to consider, and I realize that this is
rather new to you, but I think that what we’re asking for is fair and legal. So if you want us to come back, and
you would consider a management plan for this, we could leave this issue and go on and talk about
engineering and talk about the rest of the issues. I would just hope that you wouldn’t tell us that we can’t talk
about a 33 acre site that has two patches of lupine for another six months just because those two patches of
lupine are there.
MR. MAC EWAN-I’ll reiterate it again. We’re looking for a survey.
MR. LAPPER-But the survey is only on the area on the site where this thing exists.
MR. MAC EWAN-Well, there’s other contingency parts that are along this, right? You talked about the
County right of way, right?
MR. LAPPER-That’s not on our property. That’s on West Mountain Road.
MRS. RYBA-It’s not your property, but once again, it goes back to the biology, that it’s along the County
right of way, and actually she thinks it might even go on to Lot Two, she’s not sure, but we’d want to see that,
in terms of the SEQRA review anyway, for the biology review, how all that works together, and I know that
there had been a comment that the County had done some cutting. That shouldn’t destroy it if they cut high
enough to keep, so that it can re-grow next year, and she has indicated that she will be talking with the
County about some signage there to keep it maintained.
MS. RADNER-I think what Marilyn just said was she’s considering the cumulative impacts of the two
properties together.
53
(Queensbury Planning Board 11/26/02)
MRS. RYBA-Right.
MR. MAC EWAN-Do you understand our position?
MR. LAPPER-Yes, but I don’t agree with it.
MR. MAC EWAN-That much I gathered.
MR. LAPPER-Okay. I’m just trying to propose what I think is legally required, and I think you’re going
beyond what’s legally required in terms of precluding the rest of the site from being developed, while we
study this very specific area, but if that’s what you’re telling us, then we’d have to go home and figure out
what to do next. It’s certainly not where I want to go with this.
MR. MAC EWAN-We appreciate the fact that you’re going to go that route for us. In the long run, I think
it’s the best course of action to take for everyone involved. Now you want to talk about engineering a little
bit?
MR. LAPPER-Yes.
MRS. LA BOMBARD-Well, wait a minute, what is, that route, then, is just don’t do anything until June?
MR. LAPPER-We would come back with a management plan which we think is, which is putting into words
what we’re saying here, and ask you to approve that, which we think, and I’ll get you the precedent as to why
I think the law requires that that is sufficient.
MR. MAC EWAN-I thought I just heard you say you guys were going to do the survey?
MR. LAPPER-Well, the survey is either going to say that there are or aren’t butterflies. That’s what the
survey will say.
MRS. LA BOMBARD-We can’t do that until June or July.
MR. LAPPER-We can’t do that until June, and I’m taking the position that for the sake of argument, that
there are butterflies, and if there were butterflies, we’d have to have a management plan. So I’m saying, if we
do a management plan, that again goes back to my worst case, and you can’t expect us to do any more than
that, we’ll do the survey in the spring, but if we do the management plan, and we agree to avoid, you’ve got to
let us go forward with the rest of, the only thing I’m offering is that we’ll come back next month and have
that plan so that it’ll all be laid out.
MR. MAC EWAN-What happens if we don’t accept the management plan?
MR. LAPPER-I think that would be arbitrary, and I know this Board’s not arbitrary.
MR. MAC EWAN-You’re not going to use those words again.
MS. RADNER-If they came back with the management plan, you would consider the management plan.
You would do your SEQRA and determine whether or not the SEQRA was, or the management plan was
good enough to get you past SEQRA (lost word), and you either neg dec it or positive dec it, and then they’d
have to decide where to go next.
MR. LAPPER-I’m okay with that.
MRS. LA BOMBARD-If you want to expedite it, you’re going to end up doing a management plan anyway.
MR. LAPPER-Right.
MR. MAC EWAN-All right. Let’s go over engineering. It’s getting late.
MR. LAPPER-Yes, it is. Sorry for the length and the involvement of that.
MR. NACE-Okay. Real basically and quickly, what we’re talking about, really, is a subdivision which will
have lots fronting an existing road, no infrastructure construction, simply house development on the lots.
Septics. We have been out there and done test pits with the Health Department. The soils are sufficient for
subsurface disposal. There’s a water main right on West Mountain Road. There’s water service to all those
lots. It will have shared driveways, to comply with your double frontage requirement for access control, and
as far as grading and stormwater, there’s simply house development on single family lots, one acre lots, plenty
of space, permeable soils to let the rain fall naturally and filter back into the ground. I don’t know what more
I can add.
54
(Queensbury Planning Board 11/26/02)
MR. MAC EWAN-How about the shared driveways?
MR. NACE-How about them.
MR. LAPPER-Those are to comply with the rules on West Mountain Road.
MRS. LA BOMBARD-The houses, are they set back about 100 feet?
MR. NACE-Are they set back about 100 feet?
MRS. LA BOMBARD-Yes, from West Mountain Road. The way you have them depicted here, will they be,
the driveways are how long? I mean, I’m looking at, the lots are about 300 feet long.
MR. NACE-It’ll depend on where, those are just schematic to show that it is a shared driveway, that each lot
will take access off of that shared driveway, and they’ll meet the minimum setbacks for the building
construction, for the house construction. So the configuration of the driveway itself, once it gets back into
the lot, will depend on the configuration of the house on each lot.
MRS. LA BOMBARD-Are there reasons for drainage, why you have all the leaching fields and the septic
tanks in the front of the house?
MR. NACE-The soils were a little better in the front.
MRS. LA BOMBARD-They were better in the front.
MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. Chris, I’ll start with you.
MR. HUNSINGER-Well, even before I read the Staff notes and C.T. Male’s comments, I had concerns
about the, when I saw the waiver for the grading plan. I guess I could, you know, take into account your
earlier comments, but at this point there’s really no proposal for Lot Seven, but having walked the site and,
you know, knowing the condition of the site, it’s obvious you’re going to have to be doing some earth
moving.
MR. NACE-We’ve done some preliminary plans, and there will be, you know, a lot of grading taking place
there to undo what man has already done.
MR. HUNSINGER-Right, which is really the necessity for a grading plan, and I think tied into that, of
course, would be the stormwater management plan. I guess test pits and perc test results have already been
done, but weren’t made available to C.T. Male.
MR. NACE-They’ve been done. Because of trouble scheduling the Health Department, they were done at a
point where we didn’t have time to get them on the plans for submittal, but they have been done.
MR. HUNSINGER-Okay.
MR. NACE-And will be on the final plans.
MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. Those were the big items that I wanted to see.
MR. MAC EWAN-Tony?
MR. METIVIER-I have nothing to add.
MR. MAC EWAN-John?
MR. STROUGH-Okay. Well, considering the history of this project, what we’re ending up with I think will
have a minimal impact compared to 90 units before and things like that, and even if this scenario, and I know
it’s just a conceptual, I mean, but even the scenario you present, we’re talking about 32 acres. You’ve pretty
well trimmed it down to about 14 buildings. I mean, it could theoretically be 32 buildings, or 31, whatever
the density calculation ends up being after all is said and done, right?
MR. LAPPER-Approximately 14.
MR. STROUGH-And, yes, I mean, conceptually. That’s all it is at this stage.
MR. LAPPER-Hopefully six single family.
55
(Queensbury Planning Board 11/26/02)
MR. STROUGH-And I realize that we’re just looking, basically, at six building lots down below, with the
potential for something else, something, it may not even be this.
MR. LAPPER-Right, that requires site plan review.
MR. STROUGH-Down the road, right. Well, thinking out loud, with 32 acres, I was thinking, you know,
how creative you could be, and I have seen more creative versions of this that weren’t popular, but they were
more creative, in the sense that, you know, you had like a ring road, and you had your housing around that,
and you had one access to West Mountain Road, and you had all your buildings inside, and you had amenities
like jogging trails and things like that included in your plan. Those things go over well with me. That’s just
thinking out loud.
MR. LAPPER-We will add jogging trails when we get to, that is actually something that will be on the plan
for the interior lot, but as I mentioned when we started out, Mickie and Jaime came up with the six single
family lots as a reaction to the neighbors who said, okay, we know that this is a zone that allows for single
family and multifamily. We’d like to retain the residential character, and that’s why they did that, and did it in
a way that conforms with the Town, by having those shared driveways. So those single families are a buffer
to retain the single family character that’s there.
MR. STROUGH-I understand your position, and I’m not finding any great fault with it. My position was
that I thought that having one access to West Mountain Road would eliminate the driveways. Of course I
realize your argument is going to be there’s a lot of other places that have driveways on West Mountain Road.
MR. LAPPER-Well, there’s only three plus the roads, I mean, over the course of this.
MR. STROUGH-I know, you’ve minimized it.
MR. LAPPER-Yes, we’ve minimized it.
MR. STROUGH-And I don’t have a major problem with it, to be honest with you. I was just thinking that if
we could look at the bigger picture, without, I think politics is involved here and some other issues maybe as
well, but if you could look at the big picture of things, I think a lot more creative things could be done here.
MR. LAPPER-Well, because we don’t have a site plan pending before you tonight, it’s hard to talk about it,
because it hasn’t been finalized.
MR. STROUGH-I realize.
MR. LAPPER-But they will make use of the pond, improve the pond as a visual amenity, for jogging, cross
country skiing, with trails around it. I mean, the slopes and grades in the back allow for some imagination,
not for building, but for passive recreation, and that will be part of the plan.
MR. STROUGH-Okay. Well, like I said, I was just thinking out loud, if you didn’t mind. Okay. Well, that’s
about all that’s on the top of my head right now. Thank you.
MR. LAPPER-Thank you.
MR. MAC EWAN-Bob?
MR. VOLLARO-Looking at the plan, the way it is now, and if it wasn’t for this other problem that we’re
facing, that we’re trying to get some definitive guidance and definitive information on, I have absolutely no
problem with the way your plan looks there at all.
MR. LAPPER-Thank you.
MR. VOLLARO-I think it’s well laid out. It’s a good use of that property, and I wouldn’t be able to sit down
and construct anything any better than what you’ve got there. I think it’s a good plan. I don’t have any
further comments, Mr. Chairman, on that, at all.
MR. MAC EWAN-Cathy?
MRS. LA BOMBARD-You heard the way I felt about the lupine, but I’ll be honest with you, when I first
looked at this, I thought that the houses were going to face the inside, and I just looked and looked and
looked, and I was like, where’s the driveway to get in there, and Craig said, Cathy, the driveways are on West
Mountain Road. I said, oh, I’m looking to have them, somebody’s coming in and then these lots are going to
be facing the inside towards the pond, but as it is, the way you have it, these lots really aren’t even going to be
part of your plan at all.
MR. LAPPER-Separate aspects.
56
(Queensbury Planning Board 11/26/02)
MR. NACE-They’re part of the buffer.
MRS. LA BOMBARD-Yes, all they are is a buffer, but they’re not part of it. In other words, these are the
lots, and then the rest will be your community of townhouses.
MR. LAPPER-Right.
MRS. LA BOMBARD-And this is just, these are just single entities.
MR. LAPPER-They’ll be built and sold to individual owners.
MRS. LA BOMBARD-Yes, but, you know, I mean, I think it’s fine, and I understand where you’re coming
from, to keep the character of the neighborhood, but I would have thought, if I wanted to live in here, in a
single family house, I’d like to be part of the whole community. That’s it.
MR. MAC EWAN-Anything else to add?
MR. LAPPER-No.
MR. MAC EWAN-Any other questions from Board members? Staff?
MR. HILTON-Not at this time.
MR. MAC EWAN-I’d ask you to give us the table for a few minutes. We’ll open up the public hearing.
Does anyone want to comment on this application?
PUBLIC HEARING OPENED
MR. MAC EWAN-Did you get a letter?
MR. HILTON-I have many.
MR. MAC EWAN-You have many.
MR. HILTON-I was going to reserve them until after the.
MR. MAC EWAN-That’s fine. Did you want to speak? Come right on up to the microphone, please.
KELLY CARTE
MR. CARTE-For the record, my name is Kelly Carte. I live at 659 West Mountain Road. I am the
landowner to the south and to the west of this parcel. I have about 100 acres. I and many of my neighbors
here have big problems with this. The lupine is just a small portion of this controversy, shall we say. First of
all, let me give you, I have a few more, did you receive the petitions that I gave you today, to the Planning, I
brought them in?
MR. HILTON-Yes. That’s what I was going to read into the record. I was going to read the petition.
MR. MAC EWAN-That’s fine. Do it that way.
MR. CARTE-I have the names here, I gave them petitions from about 15 or 20 people. I have the names of
41 more who signed this. I was hoping that you’d have a chance to read it before this, but maybe he can read
the petition.
MR. MAC EWAN-Go ahead with your comments and that way, what I usually have him do is read the
correspondence in at the end of the public hearing, not during the public hearing.
MR. CARTE-Okay. Since we talked about the lupine, and it is a matter foremost in your mind here I guess,
let me bring this set of pictures up here that I took. These were taken this past summer. I noted there the
two pictures that are of the two areas that are shown on their map. The two pictures on the bottom are of
the area that is along, supposedly, the right of way for the County road. However, if you’ll note the extent of
it, and you note the measurement of where it’s located, it is in front of the driveway area to both lots one and
two. So, there’s no way that you could establish a driveway into this area without going right through the
middle of this patch of lupine here. So I wanted you to take that into consideration, as to where it’s, or what
the extent is of it. Amongst the items that I gave to the Planning Board today was an opinion by an attorney
that I’ve hired as to the legality of considering this subdivision without considering the project that is likely to
go on the back end of the property. It is his opinion, and again, you have a copy. I can give you a copy here,
that it is not possible to consider this subdivision as a standalone six lots with another one in the back
57
(Queensbury Planning Board 11/26/02)
because it is there, contiguous properties, and because the project that is being proposed for the back is a
known entity. I mean, the actual layout of it, the number of buildings and that type of thing is not known,
but it’s well known as to what the Hayes brothers want to do with the property in the back. If you’ll take a
look at that, you would see his opinion, and he has cited several legal cases there, as to the fact that this is not
something that can be done piecemeal like this. Let me, the best I can do here is to summarize here on the
petition that we signed. “We are opposed to any consideration of a partial sub-division proposal for this
property without a full and complete disclosure and discussion on the total project for this land, including the
commercial rental complex slated for the rear parcel. The front lots are not stand alone parcels without
connection to the rear project, to be hurried through in one meeting. Things such as the Karner blue
butterfly habitat on the southern lot (which is not fully detailed), the extent of the pond at Spring runoff, and
access to all the lots from an interior road proposed for the rear parcel, are just three of many questions to be
addressed.” In the Town regulations, I know that the applicant has put these lots in here with shared
driveways and 150 foot frontage on West Mountain Road because it’s an arterial road, but also in the Town
regulations it states that because it’s an arterial road, direct access to an arterial road is to be discouraged in
subdivision proposals, in favor of an access from the interior. Now, if this was a situation where the only had
300 feet of land, 300 feet deep, and the rest of it belonged to somebody else, then putting the roads in there,
putting the lots in there and having driveways out onto West Mountain Road might be acceptable, but it’s
obvious that they’re going to be putting an interior road into the inside of this parcel, to access the rest of the
land. We feel that the Town’s own regulations would call for this to be, these lots to be accessed from the
interior, from this road from the interior of the parcel, further requiring that the interior proposal be made a
part of this, and the whole thing be considered as one large project. Without even getting into it, we have
many problems with the project itself, but the ones that impact even the lots, this maps show the pond size
as, on one map, seventeen hundredths of an acre, and another map there shown as thirty hundredths of an
acre. I have a picture here of the pond from a couple of different angles, taken this past spring, and mind you
we didn’t have a lot of snow this past winter here. So this is considerably reduced from the size that it
normally is, and all the neighbors here that live around there can tell you what the size is of this pond, and I
don’t know where seventeen hundredths of an acre comes from because this is probably two to three acres in
size in the spring. This is just one of the technical aspects, shall we say, to be discussed with the rear parcel,
and obviously the back end of the front parcel. The reason that they’re not shown, the houses are not shown
going the other way is because the front lawns would be the slope going down to the pond, which is cement
at this point in time. It hasn’t been remediated from a continuous cement slope going down to the water
there. The next point that we want to make is that we are opposed to any proposed use of the rear acreage of
this parcel as a rental complex in any form. This form of housing where one entity owns all the buildings, the
roads and the land, is a commercial business, and as such does not belong in an established neighborhood of
single family residences on individual conforming lots. We feel the SR-1A zoning, allowing multifamily
housing, should be interpreted according to the character of already established neighborhoods. Permitting
duplexes and triplexes on conforming lots, one unit per acre, on a Town street with Town utilities and the
Town owning whatever green space or natural unbuildable areas are set aside, such as ponds or streams is
acceptable. This would be in keeping with the appearance of the existing subdivisions and would cause little
concern for surrounding property values, and the third point that we’re making on our petition. We feel
clustering of any housing units, be they individual homes or rental units, should not be allowed where it will
change the appearance and the character of the existing neighborhood. Everything more than a mile in any
direction from this parcel is single family homes on individual lots conforming to zoning at the time. In fact,
a new subdivision being proposed just to the north of the parcel is also single family homes on conforming
lots, Sara McEchron’s property. Allowing rental units to be packed together on this parcel is not justified
from an appearance standpoint or from an economic one. This is a private enterprise with no public expense
for roads or green space maintenance, and is such is not deserving of public assistance to make it a more
profitable venture. It’s no different from allowing someone a front setback variance so they won’t have to
pay for a longer driveway. The idea of putting six lots along the road, to camouflage what’s going to be going
on in the back, is exactly that, camouflage. It doesn’t negate what they intend to do in the back, and the main
thing it allows them to do is to recoup the cost of the land in selling the six building lots, and then they have
all the time that they need to do whatever is necessary to get the project in the back through. This is not
something that we feel that the Town Board should be, or that the Planning Board should be aiding them in.
Let’s put it that way. Do we want to go into specifics of the proposed rental complex in the back, or would
you rather?
MR. MAC EWAN-It’s not part of this application.
MR. CARTE-Okay. Well, shouldn’t it be part of this application? I mean, that’s our contention, that it
should be part of this application, that it can’t be handled as a separate matter. I mean, we’re talking about,
obviously, as I said, the one factor is the road going into it for only one aspect of the thing, the road that
would have to be put in to access these houses in the back, or whatever they are, would seem to be required
to have these houses be serviced by this road. We feel that the proposal as, well, let me just read you one
other little thing here, okay. What is proposed will look like, this is going on from some of the other stuff I
said, what is proposed will look like many other commercial apartment complexes around town with multiple
units packed together to reduce road and site work costs and certainly not like the subdivisions in this
neighborhood. Many of these other rental complexes are located in multifamily residential zones, as they
should be, and those that are located in SR-1A zones, for the most part, have no amount of existing
residential subdivisions around them setting the appearance standards as we do. This proposal should be
58
(Queensbury Planning Board 11/26/02)
required to obtain a Use Variance for a business in a residential zone, at the very least, or a change in zoning
before it is even considered again. I guess that’s all I have to say at this point in time. I’ll yield the floor to
other neighbors here who have something to say on the same matter.
MR. MAC EWAN-Thank you. Anyone else?
JOE BRAYTON
MR. BRAYTON-My name’s Joe Brayton. I live at 231 Fuller Road. No one seems to bring up the issue of
the traffic that’s going to be involved on that West Mountain Road. You can’t hardly travel that road now
and get down any of the side streets. Also, how would you like to live in a nice big house with a whole mess
of these cluster houses standing behind you in a matter of months, if these boys have their way of thinking,
and it’s just not a great deal. The water problem will be severe from that pond. You’re going to have all of
Applehouse Lane, all that area, going to be getting all that water that’s been going into this pond for years,
that was handmade, and there’s just the whole situation is way out of hand. They’re trying to get this
butterfly issue. They don’t give a damn about the butterfly. They want to get these houses in there, and
they’re using that as a face to try to throw everybody else off what they’re actually trying to do. They really
want to build multi complex homes behind, I know they’re talking six houses, they’re talking multi homes,
because I know these boys. They’ve done this over on the Ridge Road. They put in property. Then they get
a variance. Then they put in more, and that’s not the way to go. It’s been a very quiet area. I’ve lived up
there for pretty near 40 years, and I would like to keep it the way it is. Thanks.
MR. MAC EWAN-Thank you. Anyone else?
JESSIE STOCKWELL
MR. STOCKWELL-My name’s Jessie Stockwell. I live on Sawn Road. I was here at your last meeting we
had the same issue coming up. First let’s get back to the protected area. I’m sure that you people must have
children. Unless you plan on having armed patrol around this protected area where these butterflies are, you
might as well forget about that. These kids are going to go where they want to go, especially when they’re
bored. I had boys myself. They had three-wheelers, bicycles, motorcycles, whatever, snowmobiles. They’re
going to go in those areas. You can put up fences. You can put up all kinds of tapes. Unless you’ve got
somebody out there 24 hours a day, you’re not going to protect these areas. So to have these people say, well
we’re going to set this little area aside here, and we aren’t going to touch this area, and of course our
bulldozers and all this are going to stay right away from there. We aren’t going to get any dirt, we aren’t going
to get anything over there. We aren’t going to have any kind of contact with that area, that’s just bull.
Secondly, with the number of townhouses, or whatever you want to call these things, which I’ve seen their
mess over on Ridge Road, you’re going to have a big traffic problem. I agree with this man. There’s a
potential there. Probably maybe 40 or more vehicles just in that one area once it’s all developed, and then if
McEchron’s land goes, it’s going to be a real traffic jam. You’re going to have to have a red light there or
something to control the traffic. It’s bad enough as it is right now. It’s almost like Quaker Road. I don’t
know what else I have to say about this, outside of, the commercial venture here. I thought this was zoned
Single Family Residential. I don’t know how you can stick a commercial venture in the back, no matter what.
I mean, I’m sure that if I wanted to open up a car garage on my land over there, it would not go. So I don’t
know how you can have a commercial venture in a residential area. That’s about all I have to say.
MR. MAC EWAN-Anyone else?
PIERRE CASTONGUAY
MR. CASTONGUAY-Good evening my name is Pierre Castonguay. I live at 24 Applehouse, one of the
properties adjacent. We butt up against Kelly Carte’s property, which is adjacent to this property. I want to
say I do agree with Kelly Carte’s comments, and some of the comments made just prior to now. A couple of
other things I just wanted to bring up. Earlier on, it was proposed to put 100 plus units onto this property.
They quickly cut it down to I think it was like 46 or 47 units. Their argument was, hey, we’re doing the right
thing. We’ve cut it in half. Well, no, they actually are still twice as high as what the property should support.
Just a little background from a year or so ago. The other one is, being a commercial property, let’s say we do
move forward and it does become a commercial property, they have apartments. They continue to rent. One
of the comments that was made a year ago was that they hold their properties to very high standards. That I
don’t doubt, but who’s to say they don’t want to sell it to another interest, so they no longer have ownership.
This interest may not keep it to those same standards. I am against a commercial property. It is single family
residential. Maybe I’m not interpreting the zoning correctly, but it seems to me that is private individuals
owning each property. As far as the cost, there was mention about the cost and trying to recoup some of that
investment. Perhaps it would be suggested that whatever price was paid for the property was too much for
that property. The value of that property should reflect the cost to bring it to par, and if that’s actually a
negative number, so that the prior owners actually had to put money into it and pay somebody to bring it to
par, so be it. Whatever price was paid in excess of that, that’s a business decision. I agree. I think there was
a comment here made that this Board should not be considering how much money they have put into it so
far. I would have to agree with that. That’s just purely a decision on their part and what they want to do with
59
(Queensbury Planning Board 11/26/02)
the property. As far as the pond, the manmade pond that’s on site, currently there’s, it’s a seasonal pond.
There may be some water in it now. I don’t know. I haven’t looked at that pond for quite a while. There are
streams at various times of the year, namely in the spring, that do run into that pond, depending on the
amount of grading that gets done on the property, it’s very conceivable that stream, in the spring, would then
be pushed over further south, in other words flooding the neighboring properties, mine being one of them,
but I do want to go on record as saying I do support the development of this property. I don’t support it in
the form that it’s in, but I think it ought to be developed per zone, with the character of the neighborhood.
The quantity that they’re suggesting I think is higher than it really is allowed. I’m not professionally qualified
to make that decision, but I think it needs to be investigated and not take the numbers for face value of what
they are. That’s all I have. Thank you.
MR. MAC EWAN-Thank you very much. Anyone else?
PAT LANSING
MRS. LANSING-Hello. My name’s Pat Lansing, and I live at 623 West Mountain Road, and I have for over
30 years. So I’m pretty familiar with the old Ashton property, and I feel like this is dejavu and I’ve said it
already, but there isn’t anybody in our neighborhood that has been upset with Ashton property the way it
was. Now they’ve come in and they’ve dug it up and left a lot of stuff out there for us to look at and think
about every time we go by, but I would rather see that stuff right there the way it looks now, than to have that
developed as suggested here. It’s a beautiful piece of property. This is what people are forgetting about.
This is a beautiful piece of property. It’s a beautiful home to the native flora and fauna, which we’ve
discussed tonight. There is blue lupine all over that place. I don’t know where it disappeared this spring, but
it was right out in front, and it’s on the property, and no matter what anybody says about saving a little piece
of property here, a little piece of property there, the best thing for blue lupine and the butterflies is a natural
environment. Now this property right now is being dug up and I don’t know what all, and I mean it’s their
property. I’ll give you that, but if they’re going to develop that property, it should be developed according to
our neighborhood and we do have a neighborhood, and I think a neighborhood means that the area around is
consistent, that you’ve got the same type of homes and the same time of people and so on to make it a
neighborhood. What they’re proposing is not a neighborhood. It’s a commercial venture. It’s got to be. I
mean, isn’t that what you call it when you rent things out, a commercial venture? But more than that, what I
want to say is that that property should have some respect given to it. The people in Queensbury are very,
very fortunate to live in an area where they have the beauty that we have here. I’m talking about Lake
George, Glen Lake, but I’m also talking about these mountains, and if you drive down West Mountain Road
like I do every day, you learn to appreciate the beauty of that, and if you don’t appreciate that beauty, and
you’re just going to be there for some type of, what am I saying, profit, then you shouldn’t be there, because
that, we are very, very fortunate to have that property, and we should take care of it. It’s in our hands to take
care of it, and that’s all I have to say.
MR. MAC EWAN-Thank you.
MRS. LANSING-Thank you.
CHARLES BAKER
MR. BAKER-Good evening. My name is Charles Baker. I live at 749 West Mountain Road. My wife and I
were the previous owner of that property. As far as that pond water is concerned, that pond and the pictures
that were taken was when the concrete was on the ground. Wasn’t disturbed. Since then, the concrete has
been removed, the pond is a quarter of what those pictures show right now, and we’ve had terrific amount of
moisture this fall, as everyone knows. So what was happening with the concrete that was on the property, the
drainage was running into the pond, raising the pond up, making it, you know, expand. Now that the area
has opened up, where the water, the seepage can get in the ground, where it belongs, it isn’t directly running
into the pond and creating that big pond, whatever they want to call it. I dug that pond. My father-in-law
and I had a sand plant there, and that’s what that hole came from. The reason these people are against this
property is it was used as a private playground, and it’s continued to be used as a private playground, unless
someone chases them out, and we’ve posted the property. There’s all kinds of four-wheel trails running off
of Mr. Carte’s property up onto the mountain, which I previously owned. I hold the mortgage on it now. I
don’t own it. I don’t own it. I hold the mortgage on it, and the house next door, and as far as blue butterfly
or whatever it is, I worked down there this summer, and I didn’t see anything, only on that one lot, and the
lady just previous to me said 30 years, my wife was born and brought up on that property. That was the
homestead, and I’ve lived there, after we got married, for 45 years, and since Ashton’s went out, we’ve had
nothing but problems on that property. There’s been all kinds of kids running in there, you know you’re
going to get a lawsuit if they get hurt. They use it for a rifle range. The police come in there and chase them
out. They come back, and as far as, I’d like to say something about the McEchron property, which has got
nothing to do with this. The lady said, that is just as bad as the Ashton property. If you go down the Potter
Road where the City property ends, you’ll see a trail running right across, and it comes out over on the Sawn
Road, and there, right now, there’s been, I would say in the last 24 hours, there’s been probably three or four
or five four-wheelers, a couple of motorcycles, people running in there and out of there all the while. I’ve
gone over there over the years and put out fires. This is both properties. So I don’t know what you’re going
60
(Queensbury Planning Board 11/26/02)
to do to stop this, but I would think that if you put a development in, the people would take care of their
property. The price of the property would be higher. What difference does it make who develops it, and as
far as the lady said that there was no commercial. I believe her husband runs an animal place there on the
West Mountain Road. If that’s not commercial, I don’t know what is. So, that’s about all I have to say.
MR. MAC EWAN-Anyone else?
DIANA STOCKWELL
MRS. STOCKWELL-I’m Diana Stockwell, Sawn Road. I disagree with him totally as far as the playground.
Because I could care less about that. I agree with Mrs. Lansing. I enjoy the mountains. I love West
Mountain Road. My husband and I bought the property in 1963. We walk. We bicycle. We love the view.
These multifamily units, to me, are an eyesore, and if you need to put six houses in the front for a buffer, I
think that says a lot right there in itself. It takes away from the beauty of it, and I like the land the way it was
when we bought it, single family homes, rural, country and that’s the way we want to keep it. That’s it.
MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. Thank you. Anyone else?
DAWN RIVERA
MRS. RIVERA-Hi. My name is Dawn Rivera, and my husband and I reside at 13 Peggy Ann Road. We’re
just right around the block. We’ve come from the city. We love this area. We think it’s beautiful, and I think
that our escape was to go from people living on top of one another to having some elbow room. We found
that on Peggy Ann and West Mountain Road. We feel very lucky to have the neighbors that we have, and to
just think that around the block maybe six, eight, twelve months from now, there would actually be people
living on top of one another, when there’s other places to build in more commercial areas where there are
buses that can take you to places, because those people will actually be on top of one another. As far as the
traffic is concerned, I mean, there’s really no other place for you to go, other than Potter, and down Peggy
Ann and heading over to Sherman. The highway is forward. Where are you going from behind? Thank you.
MR. MAC EWAN-Thank you. Anyone else?
ELIZABETH BAKER
MRS. BAKER-I’m Elizabeth Baker, 749 West Mountain Road. I’ve just got one thing to say. I’ve lived there
69 years. These people who love the beautiful mountains hasn’t come up with any money to us to pay
$10,000 a year in taxes. So these people want a beautiful mountain and no houses and they want it kept the
way it is. Maybe they should come up with some of the $10,000 to pay the taxes, and I don’t think the Town
of Queensbury is thinking, with Sara McEchron, who is not 92, she’s 97. She needs the money to sell the
property because she has round the clock help. She’s gone through her money. You people have stalled her
for two years, this blue butterfly thing. If these people don’t get so that they can build out there, they’re
backing out. They’ll be the fourth bunch that’s backed out. Is the Town of Queensbury going to come
through and pay her for what it’s worth? She needs the money. Do you think that people’s lives are worth
less than the blue butterfly? I don’t know where you people are coming from.
MR. MAC EWAN-It’s State and Federal law, ma’am.
MRS. BAKER-I know, I see that, but what are you going to do?
MR. MAC EWAN-Well, we’re trying to work with them.
MRS. BAKER-Yes, but she’s 97. She’s not going to live that much longer, and she needs help, and these
people are going to back out, and like I said, $10,000 in taxes, and are you giving me fifty cents towards it?
No, and I mean, this has been going on for years, but we’ve got a beautiful mountain.
MR. MAC EWAN-Anyone else?
TOM DELLACOURT
MR. DELLACOURT-My name’s Tom Dellacourt. I live at 25 Applehouse Lane. I agree with most of the
comments that were made by Mr. Kelly and Mr. Castonguay. I’m against this whole proposal. Basically I
think that the Zoning Board, in its wisdom a few years ago, reaffirmed the zoning in that area, with good
reason. The other property that’s going up, that came before this one, as far as a proposal. They’re going to
do their proposal based upon the same zoning. I also think that this proposal is definitely for profit. I can’t
see them doing this for any other reason, with what they’re proposing, with all of the units, and I really don’t
think that this is the area to do this in. So, thank you very much.
MR. MAC EWAN-Thank you. Anyone else?
61
(Queensbury Planning Board 11/26/02)
MR. CARTE-Can I make one more comment?
MR. MAC EWAN-Yes.
MR. CARTE-Mr. Baker made a couple of comments about this being a playground and people wanting to
maintain it for a playground. I don’t think anybody here has said or intends to say that we wanted to stop
development of this property. The only thing that we are saying is that we wanted it to be single family lots,
conforming one acre lots. If you want to duplex, put it on two acres. If you want a duplex put it on two
acres. You want a four unit, put it on four acres. Make it conforming lots and make it to match the rest of
the residential subdivisions and the residences around there. As to the playground issue, Mr. Baker forgets
that I was the one that went to Archie Mesinger who is the trustee for Ashton on this property and requested
that he let me post the property, to try to keep people off of this property and off of my property in the back
of this, and I was doing a fairly good job of it, up until the time that the Hayes brothers made offer on the
thing and then I let it go because obviously it was in contention or, you know, likely to be sold. Let’s put it
that way, so I didn’t do anymore, but there was no one that was trying to keep people off of that property
more than myself. The third thing that I want to point out to you is that Mr. Baker has a financial interest in
this or a potential financial interest. It’s his land that’s to the north of it. It’s his land that they’re going to be
buying a slice of to put the driveway in there, and it’s his land that’s been up for sale for a number of years.
Apparently, it’s my understanding that it hasn’t sold because he wasn’t willing to divide the land up and sell
the one acre and/or three acre portions of it that were more developable and wanted to lump it all together
with the 10 acre land that’s in the back, but there is probably another, I don’t know, seven, eight, ten acres,
something like that, to the right of this project, between the border that they’re planning on adjusting and the
small house that’s off the end of Potter Road that is in this one acre zoning, which could be very easily sold
and developed in the future, and I fairly believe that that’s the reason why the driveway is on the right hand
side, so that once the driveway is in there, all you have to do is make a turn to the right and you’re into the
other piece of property over there. So, that’s all I have to say. Thank you.
MR. MAC EWAN-Thank you. Anybody else? All right. We’ll leave the public hearing open. Do you want
to read those letters in?
MR. HILTON-First of all, we have a letter dated November 25, 2002 from Ted Rawson, West Mountain
Road. “Dear Mr. Chairman: I own parcel no. 87-1-20.1 on West Mountain Road, immediately to the north
of the proposed development and therefore probably the most impacted property owner. I’m strongly in
favor of the development for the following reasons: 1. I have had the misfortune of living next to an
abandoned commercial plant for many years. I have watched with a certain amount of anguish when
potential developers have walked away from the costs of cleaning up this site. The condition of the property
is an embarrassment not only to me as a neighbor, but to the Town of Queensbury as well. Anyone who
loves the Adirondacks like I do knows a site like this one does not have any business being left in the
condition this one is. 2. Without ownership supervision, the property has become an attraction point for
trespassing and unsafe activity. Motorcycles and ATV’s have ruined the quiet enjoyment of my home by
running recklessly at all hours of the night. Teenagers have regularly conducted drinking parties on this site
often discharging firearms in the process. 3. The plans as I have seen it clusters the units in a way that really
preserves the green space and natural beauty of the area. As designed, the project will prevent houses, roads,
telephone poles, driveways, etc. from being spread around and cutting up the natural landscape of the 34+
acres. The idea that someone could put 34 homes all over parcel and on the mountainside does not appeal to
me. 4. Finally, I have made it a point to visit some of the sites the Hayes’ have developed in the past. To
me, it is obvious that something is ultimately going to happen on this site. As long as Town building rules are
being met, it is not realistic to think that a legal owner should be denied his/her right to use the property. I
have read Mr. Carte’s tip sheet and understand his desire to continue to be able to use the plant as a
recreational area for himself and his children, but ultimately I am a lot more comfortable with the idea of the
Hayes’ doing this limited project versus the site continuing as is. The buildings on Ridge Road this board
approved have been very well received and so will these. I feel this project will be a compliment to the
neighborhood and raise my property value versus the site as it is now. As the most impacted property owner
I urge you to allow this property to be improved and accept this proposal. Thank you for your time and
consideration. Sincerely, Ted Rawson West Mountain Road”
MR. MAC EWAN-Have you got a lot of letters?
MR. HILTON-Two more and then a petition.
MR. MAC EWAN-Just note that the petition, when you get to it, what it entails and how many signatures.
That’s all.
MR. HILTON-Okay. This letter I have here is from Kelly Carte, dated November 23, 2002. It says, “Sir: As
my may be aware, the proposed development of the former Ashton Cement property on West Mountain
Road has been a very controversial project since first brought up by the Hayes brothers last year. From the
first ZBA request for a huge density variance scheduled for the evening before Thanksgiving last year,
through subsequent reductions in what the developers ‘had to have to make it profitable’, to the final ZBA
denial in April of this year, myself and a great many of my neighbors have been opposed to this project. Now
62
(Queensbury Planning Board 11/26/02)
the Hayes brothers are back under a new name, Western Reserve LLC, this time with a subdivision proposal
only, trying to bypass the opposition to their commercial rental complex! Is it just a coincidence they again
waited for the Planning Board meeting just before Thanksgiving this year? We have presented a great deal of
information on this project in the ZBA file of same, but apparently with the name change, most of it wasn’t
transferred to the current file. We urge you to obtain those petitions, pictures, and legal filings for
background information on our position. I have enclosed a slightly modified copy of a letter I sent to Chris
Round after the ZBA denial last Spring, detailing my understanding of the considerations to be used to
evaluate any subsequent similar proposals. Enclosed also is a letter from my attorney dealing with the issue
of segmenting this subdivision proposal from the main project, which is the placing of a commercial rental
complex in an established single-family residential neighborhood! He is one of the many unable to attend this
meeting because of the holiday (surprise, surprise). Please also accept these letters in opposition to this
project from many neighbors unable to attend this meeting as well. Most of the land around here, including
this piece, is zoned SR-1A, which allows for single and multi-family homes on one acre lots per dwelling unit
(duplex on 2 ac., 4 unit on 4 ac., etc.). Most of us feel this should be interpreted to mean allowing someone
to build a duplex or multi-unit on a conforming size lot, on a Town street with Town utilities, and with the
Town owning whatever ‘green space’ or natural features like ponds and streams, that may have been set aside.
If this were followed, then there would be little difference in appearance from any other subdivision in this
area and little cause for concern for surrounding property values. Instead, what has been proposed will look
like many other commercial apartment complexes around town, with multiple units packed together to reduce
the road and site work costs, and certainly not like the single-family subdivisions in this neighborhood. Many
of these other rental complexes are located in Multi-family Residential Zones as they should be, and those
that are located in SR-1A Zones, for the most part, had no amount of existing residential subdivisions around
them setting the appearance standards, as we do. Any proposal of this sort should be required to obtain a
use variance for a business in a residential zone at the very least, or a change in zoning before it is even
considered again! Thank you for your consideration. Kelly Carte 659 West Mountain Road Queensbury”
He has, again, submitted a letter from May 21, 2002, as he mentioned, which he submitted to Chris. I don’t
know if you want the entire letter read in.
MR. MAC EWAN-No, that’s fine.
MR. HILTON-It’s up to you. Okay. I have a letter here from Stan Pritzker. It does speak to segmenting
SEQRA review, and considering cumulative effects for not only the subdivision but the site plan, and again,
it’s in the record, signed Stan Pritzker, and there is a petition signed by 59 people, stating opposition, most of
the points, all of the points, I feel, have been covered by previous speakers. That’s all I have.
MR. MAC EWAN-That’s it? Okay. I’m going to leave the public hearing open.
MR. LAPPER-We just want about three minutes to address some of the big comments.
MR. MAC EWAN-I’d like to hear from her first, Cathi.
MS. RADNER-On the segmentation issue?
MR. MAC EWAN-Yes.
MS. RADNER-Yes, it’s true that you can’t consider this in a vacuum. So if there’s not a specific proposal,
you have to consider the worst case scenario, basically, as part of your SEQRA review. This Board’s done
that before, considered maximum build out possible under the proposal, and you do have to consider the
total impacts of the proposed project. You can’t just look at one piece of what you know is a bigger project
coming down the pike. You may also consider the cumulative impacts with the property on the other side of
the road, though it’s not part and parcel of the same thing, if you think that the cumulative impacts on the
habitats come into play. That’s part of your SEQRA review process as well.
MR. MAC EWAN-Okay.
MR. LAPPER-Very briefly, I know it’s late, we’re not permitted to submit the application in the back because
we don’t have a conforming lot. We don’t have a subdivision yet, so that, in terms of that, but we will make a
submission for the worst case analysis, so that the full SEQRA can be done. I think that this is an exception
because it’s the independent utility test, the six lots in front have nothing to do with what ultimately would
get built in the back, but just to avoid the issue we’ll make a submission, along with our Karner, or blue
lupine management plan, just so that you have a full record. Very briefly, on the zoning issue, what we’ve
proposed is permitted in the SR-1A zone, and the Town policy in the Comprehensive Land Use Plan is to
have a mixture of housing types in the Town. Not everyone wants to have, or can have, a single family
house. There are, I see situations with a lot of the townhouse developments where you have people that have
their kids in school in Queensbury and they get divorced, which happens, unfortunately, quite frequently, and
they want to keep their kids in the school district and they need a place to go, and that’s one of the reasons
why you have townhouses. These are not low end subsidized, Section 8. These are expensive units to build,
and expensive units to rent. These are middle class units. These are similar to the houses that are around
there. They’re nice units, and some people here obviously have disrespect for what the Hayes have done on
63
(Queensbury Planning Board 11/26/02)
Ridge Road. They’ve spent a lot of money there. This Board has approved it. I think those are nice units,
but everyone can have their own taste. I can tell you, for example, the Hiland Park mixed used property
that’s right behind us, there are townhouses and there are three and four hundred thousand dollar homes that
are being built today. So it hasn’t hurt property value, and there’s nothing wrong with people living in single
family, in proximity to people that want to rent. Sometimes you have elderly people that sell their house
because they don’t need the space and they want to rent, what have you, but we’re not talking about a welfare
project, if that’s what the neighbors are concerned about. We’re talking about a quality project. The Hayes
live in Town. They have experience, and they do nice work. I think that we’ve already heard from the
Planning Staff that everything that’s been proposed is a permitted use. I don’t understand why we’re hearing
about business, but whatever, and in terms of clustering, obviously, it’s the policy of the Town to promote
clustering. Clustering reduces sprawl, reduces impact on natural features. Reduces impact on mountains.
This is a smart plan to avoid, if you cut the whole thing up into one acre lots, you’d have much more of a
visual impact. Traffic, we’ll submit the worst case numbers, just so you have everything, but compared to the
daily traffic on West Mountain Road, this is a minor project. Anything else that you want to add, Tom?
MR. NACE-No.
MR. LAPPER-And we will make a submission and we will hope that we can work out the Karner blue, or
blue lupine management plan to the Board’s satisfaction.
MR. MAC EWAN-Okay.
MR. LAPPER-Thank you.
MR. MAC EWAN-Very good. Thanks.
OLD BUSINESS:
SITE PLAN NO. 51-2002 TYPE: UNLISTED JOHN H. BERNHARD PROPERTY OWNER:
BAY RIDGE VOLUNTEER FIRE CO. ZONE: PO LOCATION: 483 GLEN LAKE ROAD
APPLICANT PROPOSES THE CONVERSION OF THE FORMER BAY RIDGE VOLUNTEER
FIRE CO. FIREHOUSE ON GLEN LAKE ROAD INTO A PROFESSIONAL OFFICE. CROSS
REFERENCE: PZ 4-2002, TB RES. –2002 TAX MAP NO. 289.06-1-6 LOT SIZE: 1.37 ACRES
SECTION: ART. 4, 179-4-020
JOHN BERNHARD, PRESENT
MRS. LA BOMBARD-The public hearing was back on October 15.
th
MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. Staff notes, please.
MR. HILTON-Well, we had previously submitted Staff notes, or released Staff notes, however you look at it,
when this was before you as part of the zone change referral to the Town Board, and again, our only
comments are towards access management and any landscaping that might be put out there to, you know, as
street landscaping, which is required in the Ordinance, and maybe better defining the drive, the access point
at this site, and that’s all we have.
MR. BERNHARD-As you know, it’s an existing structure, and the plan as I put it in was simply leave it as is.
Keep it as simple as possible, and as far as the access part, I measured off, I think, 25 feet along the westerly
side of, westerly edge of Glen Lake Road that, you know, clearly wouldn’t have any effect on usage of the
property. The amount of volume of traffic that I anticipate in and out of the property is very low, and I,
myself, probably will be there maybe once a day, at the end of the day. Most of the time I’m in comp court
or social security hearings, and most of my appointments are actually at the Compensation Board. So the
traffic volume that the building’s going to produce, as I anticipate it at least, is going to be quite minimal.
Directly in front of the building, where the garage doors are, I do anticipate backing a trailer into there with a
boat on it, at least a couple of times a year, and for that reason would want to have it open. I guess the other
concern would just be that there be adequate site for cars entering and leaving when snow piles are high, but,
you know, basically the proposal is simply to move in.
MR. MAC EWAN-Tony, we’ll start with you.
MR. METIVIER-I have nothing to add. I don’t think, necessarily, the landscape plan, the building itself is an
attractive building, as far as closing off any of the driveways, it’s an old firehouse. I mean, obviously, the
history of that road would be a less intensive use with you using it than there was with the firehouse. I just
wish you good luck with it.
MR. BERNHARD-Thank you.
MR. METIVIER-And I have nothing further.
64
(Queensbury Planning Board 11/26/02)
MR. MAC EWAN-John?
MR. STROUGH-All right. Well, you and I have talked about this before, and I was a big supporter of it
getting rezoned for professional office for you, but I also expressed, at the same time, the need to make that
structure a little bit more compatible with the residential area, and you and I talked about a landscaping plan,
and you expressed concern about limiting your acts, as to your building, and I said, well, you design a plan
that would be suitable for you, but you should have a landscaping plan to make your proposal more
congruent, more compatible with the residential area, and so I was very disappointed, to be honest with you,
that I did not get any landscaping plan whatsoever, and, I mean, you know, this is landscaping that of course
you couldn’t do now. You do down the road, but at least it was a plan that would eventually have to be
followed, and so I was disappointed. I was disappointed there was no landscaping plan.
MR. BERNHARD-I guess exactly what you’d expect. The building’s been there for 15 years. The Town, or
the fire department’s had plenty of time to put in as much landscaping as appropriate. My thought was, you
know, to make it as simple as possible, is leave it the way it is. Certainly I, personally, would like to see it have
less of an institutional look and soften it and put in more greenery, and, you know, the area along the road
where there’s parking that extends way out beyond the building, you know, 25 feet at least could easily be
turned into green area. What would be most appropriate, whether it be grass or flocks or something that’s
low that won’t impair the view of cars leaving the property, you know, that’s an issue that I would be happy
to live with any condition that you’d like to put.
MR. STROUGH-Well, that’s kind of what I thought that you and I had talked about before, and I kind of,
you know, would have liked to have seen some plan, you know, even hand drawn in your case. I mean, we
can sometimes lower our standards for an individual like you that’s just, with a rather small impact enterprise,
but I just didn’t see any plan, and, yes, the things that you just spoke to I’d love to see, but that’s the only
issue that I have. To me it’s a big issue, but.
MR. BERNHARD-I see. Well, certainly, you can be sure I’ll be looking to improve the look of the place.
Obviously, this time of year it wouldn’t be appropriate.
MR. STROUGH-Well, no, you’d only have to come up with a plan. The implementation of the plan would
happen down the road, but I would have liked to have seen something, but, okay.
MR. BERNHARD-What I see immediately, as far as buttoning up right along the road was the 25 feet. It
would still allow a complete “U” around the building. If the “U” wanted to be tightened up, that would be
probably doable. It would be a little bit more than 25 feet.
MR. STROUGH-Well, you know, that is not a big concern to me, but softening the institutional look, it was
a firehouse. Now it’s going to be your office. You’re going to use it for storage of some boats, and that’s all
fine, and I think that’s a minimal impact, but I just thought that, in addition to that, a little landscaping along
the road and like some of the suggestions that you just made would have been perfect. I would have been
very happy.
MR. BERNHARD-I did call and speak with Marilyn, and I was told that it would be too late to submit
anything, since the last meeting that I had with the Town Board, and it was explained to me that you could
just put conditions on it, and so that’s what I anticipated happening
MR. STROUGH-All right. Well, we’ll see what the other Board members have to say, but thank you.
MR. BERNHARD-Okay.
MR. MAC EWAN-Bob?
MR. VOLLARO-I took the time to look over the resolution that the Town Board made to rezone it, and I
didn’t see anything in there that would indicate that they were looking for any sort of landscaping plan. I
guess maybe when I heard landscaping plan, I thought of it as a lot more formal. I think what Mr. Strough is
driving at, and he does make some sense, maybe get some foundation plants, some type of yews, or things of
that nature, across the front of it, where it wouldn’t impact your ingress/egress to the firehouse itself, for
backing in boats and so on, and maybe, much like we did on the previous application, you could say, okay,
we’ll take a look at the distance that you’ve got there and pick out distance between plants or some sort of
evergreen and state right in our approval how many of these trees we’d like to have. As I’m speaking, I’m
seeing that this is about 354 feet long, from end of property to end of property. Is that about right?
MR. BERNHARD-I’m not certain, but I think you’re right. I don’t have the map in front of me.
MR. VOLLARO-There is some blacktop involved here, yes. If you’re going to do this, you’re going to have
to get rid of some of the impervious material.
65
(Queensbury Planning Board 11/26/02)
MR. BERNHARD-Right. I understand that.
MR. VOLLARO-And take that out, and put X number of, I mean, John, if you want, we could figure out just
how many trees would go in there or how many bushes would go in there, much like you did before.
MRS. LA BOMBARD-Could I make a suggestion here? It’s twelve o’clock, and I think that, Mr. Bernhard,
he had his chance to come in with a plan. I’m not going to sit here, at twelve o’clock, and draw up a
landscaping plan. What I think you should do is, when spring comes and you have your office going, get
some nice pots and nice tubs of flowers and put them against the building, and down the line do something
with it, but I’ll tell you right now, I get a little annoyed at midnight coming up with a landscaping plan for that
firehouse.
MR. VOLLARO-No one’s coming up with a landscaping plan, Catherine. All we’re talking about is putting a
couple of trees in front.
MRS. LA BOMBARD-Well, you’ve got to take up blacktop and now you’re talking into a major project at
midnight.
MR. VOLLARO-It’s not a major project.
MRS. LA BOMBARD-I’d say taking up blacktop and coming up with the frontage and the footage and the
spatial arrangement of the yews and everything else, we’ve got a major project going.
MR. MAC EWAN-Before we all get into a major heated debate here, it’s three people’s thought down there.
MRS. LA BOMBARD-That’s right. You’ve got three people’s thoughts.
MR. MAC EWAN-So the two of them may be sharing a limb together out there. Have you got anything else
there, Robert?
MR. VOLLARO-Well, that’s all.
MR. MAC EWAN-Cathy, do you have anything?
MRS. LA BOMBARD-No. Put some pots in in the springtime.
MR. BERNHARD-Okay.
MR. RINGER-It’s a good use for the vacant building.
MR. BERNHARD-Thank you.
MR. MAC EWAN-Chris?
MR. HUNSINGER-I made my comments known when we talked about it.
MR. MAC EWAN-Anything else you wanted to add?
MR. BERNHARD-I’ll certainly put out my best effort.
MR. MAC EWAN-Put some whiskey barrels or something appropriate, minus the whiskey.
MR. BERNHARD-I like the idea, minus the whiskey. I’ll leave that to the people across the street.
MR. MAC EWAN-All right. I’ll open up the public hearing. Does anyone want to comment on this
application?
PUBLIC HEARING OPENED
NO COMMENT
PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED
MR. MAC EWAN-We need to do a SEQRA, please.
RESOLUTION WHEN DETERMINATION OF NO SIGNIFICANCE IS MADE
RESOLUTION NO. 51-2002, Introduced by Catherine LaBombard who moved for its adoption, seconded
by Robert Vollaro:
66
(Queensbury Planning Board 11/26/02)
WHEREAS, there is presently before the Planning Board an application for:
JOHN BERNHARD, and
WHEREAS, this Planning Board has determined that the proposed project and Planning Board action is
subject to review under the State Environmental Quality Review Act,
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT
RESOLVED:
1. No Federal agency appears to be involved.
2. The following agencies are involved:
NONE
3. The proposed action considered by this Board is Unlisted in the Department of Environmental
Conservation Regulations implementing the State Environmental Quality Review Act and the
regulations of the Town of Queensbury.
4. An Environmental Assessment Form has been completed by the applicant.
5. Having considered and thoroughly analyzed the relevant areas of environmental concern and having
considered the criteria for determining whether a project has a significant environmental impact as
the same is set forth in Section 617.11 of the Official Compilation of Codes, Rules and Regulations
for the State of New York, this Board finds that the action about to be undertaken by this Board will
have no significant environmental effect and the Chairman of the Planning Board is hereby
authorized to execute and sign and file as may be necessary a statement of non-significance or a
negative declaration that may be required by law.
Duly adopted this 26 day of November, 2002, by the following vote:
th
AYES: Mr. Vollaro, Mr. Strough, Mr. Metivier, Mr. Hunsinger, Mr. Ringer, Mrs. LaBombard, Mr. MacEwan
NOES: NONE
MR. MAC EWAN-Does someone want to introduce a motion, please.
MOTION TO APPROVE SITE PLAN NO. 51-2002 JOHN H. BERNHARD, Introduced by Larry
Ringer who moved for its adoption, seconded by Robert Vollaro:
WHEREAS, an application has been made to this Board for the following:
Site Plan Review No. 51-2002 Applicant: John H. Bernhard
Type: Unlisted Property Owner: Bay Ridge Volunteer Fire Co.
Zone: PO
Location: 483 Glen Lake Road
Applicant proposes the conversion of the former Bay Ridge Volunteer Fire Co. firehouse on Glen Lake Road
into a professional office.
Cross Reference: PZ 4-2002, TB Res. 440,2002
Warren Co. Planning: 10/9/02
Tax Map No. 289.06-1-6
Lot size: 1.37 acres / Section: Art. 4, 179-4-020
Public Hearing: October 15, 2002
November 26, 2002
WHEREAS, the application was received on 9/02; and
WHEREAS, the above is supported with the following documentation and inclusive of all newly received
information, not included in this listing as of 11/22/02, and
11/22 Staff Notes
11/5 Meeting Notice
11/4 Town Bd. Resolution 440,2002
10/29 PB minutes forwarded to TB
10/15 Planning Board resolution – Recommendation to Town Board
10/15 Staff Notes
10/8 Notice of Public Hearing
10/2 Meeting Notice
67
(Queensbury Planning Board 11/26/02)
WHEREAS, pursuant to Art. 9 of the Zoning Ordinance of the Code of the Town of Queensbury a public
hearing was advertised and was held on October 15 and November 26, 2002; and
th
WHEREAS, the Planning Board has determined that the proposal complies with the Site Plan requirements
of the Code of the Town Queensbury (Zoning); and
WHEREAS, the Planning Board has considered the environmental factors found in the Code of the Town of
Queensbury (Zoning); and
WHEREAS, the requirements of the State Environmental Quality Review Act have been considered and the
Planning Board has adopted a SEQRA Negative Declaration; and/or if application is a modification, the
requirements of the State Environmental Quality Review Act have been considered; and the proposed
modification(s) do not result in any new or significantly different environmental impacts, and, therefore, no
further SEQRA review is necessary; and
WHEREAS, approval of the application means that the applicant can now apply for a Building Permit unless
the lands are Adirondack Park Jurisdictional or other approvals are necessary.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT
RESOLVED, that
We find the following: The application is hereby approved in accordance with the resolution prepared by
Staff with the following note:
1. Waiver requests granted (see staff notes 10/15/02).
Duly adopted this 26th day of November, 2002, by the following vote:
MR. STROUGH-I’m going to take him at his word that in a year or two that place will be looking a little bit
better, okay.
MR. BERNHARD-Okay.
MR. STROUGH-Thank you.
AYES: Mr. Vollaro, Mr. Strough, Mr. Metivier, Mr. Hunsinger, Mr. Ringer, Mrs. LaBombard, Mr. MacEwan
NOES: NONE
MR. MAC EWAN-Question. Why couldn’t this application have been done under expedited review?
MR. HILTON-Well, without looking at the expedited review, let’s assume that it qualified. It was in last
month, for the rezoning anyway.
MR. MAC EWAN-Then my next question is here, looking through this agenda, and this is recently started,
I’m looking at Old Business, New Business, Old Business, New Business, Old Business. Old Business always
used to be in the front of the agenda, and let’s get it back that way so it stays that way.
MR. HILTON-You’ve got it.
MR. MAC EWAN-So someone like him doesn’t have to sit around here until midnight.
MR. HILTON-Question for the Board. For the December meetings.
MRS. LA BOMBARD-All right. Wait a minute. When are they? I’ve been told we’re only having one,
which is on the 19.
th
MR. HILTON-Well, that’s, if we can have one meeting, we will. If we can’t, they’re going to be on the 17
th
and 19.
th
MRS. LA BOMBARD-All right. Now, first of all, we always have meetings on Tuesdays.
MR. HILTON-Well, if you want to come in on Christmas Eve.
68
(Queensbury Planning Board 11/26/02)
MRS. LA BOMBARD-No, no. I mean, the 17. I was told earlier tonight that the 17 has been, we were
thth
not doing it on the 17? Everything was put onto the 19, on a Thursday? Well, I make my plans and I
thth
always save Tuesday nights. Now, we’re moving everything to Thursday.
MR. HILTON-Well, no, nothing has been done officially. We have the two dates that are still open, the 17
th
and 19.
th
MRS. LA BOMBARD-Right, but doesn’t the 17 take preference?
th
MR. HILTON-Well, I don’t know. I think from the beginning those two dates were open as possible, or
regularly scheduled meeting dates because, you know, the 17, obviously a Tuesday, you can’t have the
th
meeting on Christmas Eve, nobody will show. So we picked the 17 and 19. If we have not a lot of items,
thth
we were thinking of putting them on one meeting.
MR. RINGER-If we’re going to have one meeting, we changed it to the 19 over the 17 because at last
thth
week’s meeting, we had to notify, we had some items that were tabled. They were tabled, one to the 17 and
th
one to the 19. It was much easier to change the one on the 17 to the 19.
ththth
MR. HILTON-Right.
MR. RINGER-A lot of sending notices out and stuff and public opinion. We had a lot of public opinion
here on the meeting that we told everybody was going to be the 19. We would have had a difficult time
th
notifying all those people.
MRS. LA BOMBARD-I see.
MR. MAC EWAN-George, what did you have that you wanted to go over tonight?
MR. HILTON-This is it, one of those items being the Valente subdivision, which we had initially said would
be heard on the 17, however we may, may wind up hearing it on the 19. Either way, the applicant has
thth
informed me that the information that he’s going to submit as required by this Board will not be ready until
December 5. My question to you, if the information gets to Planning Staff on the 5, and we get it out, just
thth
turn it around, is that going to give you guys enough time for your review? I know you don’t like getting
things the night of the meeting or getting information on short notice. Obviously the deadline for December
has past, but if this information comes in on the 5, how does the Board feel about keeping them on the
th
agenda for December, etc.?
MR. MAC EWAN-Considering I just granted that extension tonight to Schermerhorn to submit by the 5,
th
I’ll grant him the same one. If it’s not there by 4:30, close of business, he’s off.
MR. HILTON-Okay. No problem. That’s all I had.
MR. MAC EWAN-That’s it.
On motion meeting was adjourned.
RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED,
Craig MacEwan, Chairman
69