2004-07-20
(Queensbury Planning Board 7/20/04)
QUEENSBURY PLANNING BOARD MEETING
FIRST REGULAR MEETING
JULY 20, 2004
7:00 P.M.
MEMBERS PRESENT
LARRY RINGER, ACTING CHAIRMAN
CHRIS HUNSINGER, SECRETARY
ROBERT VOLLARO
RICHARD SANFORD
THOMAS SEGULJIC
GRETCHEN STEFFAN, ALTERNATE
ALBERT ANDERSON, ALTERNATE
PLANNER-GEORGE HILTON
TOWN COUNSEL-MILLER, MANNIX,SCHACHNER, AND HAFNER-CATHI RADNER
TOWN ENGINEER-C.T. MALE-JAMES HOUSTON
STENOGRAPHER-MARIA GAGLIARDI
MR. RINGER-I’ll open up the meeting tonight, and a couple of things first. Hayes & Hayes is
on the agenda. That’s not going to be heard tonight. The reason is the Town and the applicant
received a six page comments, and the applicant is unable to address any of the comments.
They won’t be prepared. So that will be moved until the first meeting in August. That meeting
will be August 17. The public hearing was opened and will continue to be opened, and
th
August 17 that will be heard. So anyone here for the Hayes & Hayes, August 17.
thth
MR. VOLLARO-Mr. Chairman, I’d like to make a comment here. I need the attorney to help me
out with this a little bit. The applicant, Hayes & Hayes, has submitted a request, at their
request, for a tabling of their application for this evening, based on a letter that they received
from a Caffry and Flower, Attorneys at Law. Apparently these people, the people of the
community have hired this attorney.
MS. RADNER-That’s my understanding.
MR. VOLLARO-In their behalf. The by-laws of our Board here doesn’t have a place for the
Chairman to make that decision, unless we do the tabling motion. We have to do a tabling
motion, it appears to me, in order to table this, rather than have a Chairman arbitrarily do that
and then set the agenda for the next meeting, and I wanted to know where the counsel weighs
in on that.
MR. RINGER-The request came prior to the meeting. I feel that the Chairman prior, or the
Acting Chairman in this particular case, prior to the meeting, has the responsibility for the
agenda, and that’s why I.
MR. SANFORD-That’s an assumption. It’s not in the By-laws, Larry. It’s not in there.
MR. RINGER-Well, let’s have Counsel do the answer.
MS. RADNER-If you want to do a tabling motion for the purpose of keeping a clean record, you
certainly may. It’s my understanding that this request came through, and that Staff reviewed
the request, and that an announcement was made in advance that this had been stricken from
the agenda. I believe that this has happened before where things come in at the last minute, and
typically we go ahead and table it if it’s at the applicant’s request, and if the applicant hasn’t
1
(Queensbury Planning Board 7/20/04)
sort of abused the process to that point, so that there’s concern that there’s deliberate stalling or
deliberate agenda shopping or something of that nature.
MR. SANFORD-Well, that may be, and in this case it doesn’t appear that’s the case. However, I
think that when it gets rescheduled, there’s nothing in the By-laws that specifies that the
Chairman or the Acting Chair should specify when the application is rescheduled, and that’s
what I’d like this Board to weigh in on.
MR. RINGER-There again, I feel it’s the Chairman’s responsibility to set the agenda. If a
member of the Board doesn’t like the timeframe that the Chairman has set the agenda, then he
can certainly challenge that timeframe.
MR. SANFORD-I challenge it.
MR. RINGER-Okay. Tell me when you’d like to have that meeting set.
MR. SANFORD-I disagree with this. We have a queue line issue here with our agendas. We’re
backlogged, and there is a waiting list for people to get in front of this Board. I would suggest
that this particular application go to the end of the queue at this particular time, and be
scheduled at that point, rather than go to next month, which would theoretically bump out of
the queue a New Business application.
MR. RINGER-Okay. I’ll answer you this way, Richard. First of all, our By-Laws say that we’re
going to handle Old Business first before any New Business comes before us. Also, we, I talked
to Craig last night, and we are scheduling three meetings for the month of August, to handle
this extra load that we’ve got, and we probably, we may schedule three meetings in September
also, until we can get ourselves to a point where we’re caught up.
MR. SANFORD-Well, I’d like you to show me where it says Old Business comes before New
Business. It does in terms of a meeting, but not necessarily in terms of setting agenda, and
please point that out where it is.
MR. RINGER-Well, Richard, I’m telling you that’s the way I’m interpreting it, and so right now,
Richard, right now I’m telling you that the meeting for Hayes and Hayes is going to be
rescheduled for August 17.
th
MR. SANFORD-And I’m saying you lack the authority to do that.
MR. RINGER-I have the authority, I believe, to set the agenda, and I believe I have the authority
to say this is going to be on for the 17. Now if you want to challenge that, you can make a
th
motion to put another date, if that’s what you would like to do.
MS. RADNER-That’s an acceptable compromise.
MR. SANFORD-All right. George, how far back does the queue line go in terms of
applications?
MR. HILTON-Hard for me to say right now.
MR. RINGER-Richard, for the sake of brevity, would you make your motion, please.
MR. SANFORD-Sure. I would make a motion that this application be scheduled for the first
meeting in October.
MOTION THAT SUBDIVISION NO. 7-2004 PRELIMINARY & FINAL STAGE HAYES &
HAYES BE SCHEDULED FOR THE FIRST MEETING IN OCTOBER, Introduced by Richard
Sanford who moved for its adoption, seconded by Robert Vollaro:
2
(Queensbury Planning Board 7/20/04)
Duly adopted this 20 day of July, 2004, by the following vote:
th
AYES: Mr. Sanford, Mr. Vollaro
NOES: Mr. Seguljic, Mrs. Steffan, Mr. Anderson, Mr. Hunsinger, Mr. Ringer
MR. RINGER-Okay. So that is rescheduled for August 17. Other changes on our agenda
th
tonight, we’re moving some items around. The first two items on the agenda will be heard in
their order, McCormack and Margolis. The next items will be Foss, Site Plan No. 31-2004. The
next will be Mahon, Site Plan No. 37-2004. Then we’ll go back to the order of the agenda.
SITE PLAN NO. 39-2003 & FRESHWATER WETLANDS NO. 6-2003 RICHARD
SCHERMERHORN LOT #4 BAYBROOK PROFESSIONAL PARK
JON LAPPER, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT
Okay. First item on tonight’s agenda is a letter requesting an extension for Site Plan No. 39-
2003, and Freshwater Wetlands Permit No. 6-2003, for Richard Schermerhorn, Lot 4, Baybrook
Professional Park. The reason for the request for the one year extension is that the, I’ll read the
letter. “This letter is to request a one year extension of the Planning Board approvals for the Site
Plan and Freshwater Wetlands Permit for the development of Lot #4 in the Baybrook
Professional Park. Delays in the negotiations with the prospective tenants have precluded the
start of this project within the normal one year approval time. However, Mr. Schermerhorn is
confident that a one year extension, if granted, will be sufficient to allow him to proceed with
this project. Will you please add this item of business to the July 20 Planning Board meeting so
th
that they may take action on this extension prior to the expiration of the existing approval on
July 22”, this year. Jon, you represent him?
nd
MR. LAPPER-Yes. On behalf of Rich Schermerhorn, Jon Lapper and just like Tom’s letter said,
Rich is expecting that this building will be the next one to get in the ground. The lot is right
behind the hospital building, the large building that’s there. So it’s just the next office building
in the complex, but it hasn’t, obviously the building permit hasn’t been applied for yet. So he’d
like an extension.
MR. RINGER-Okay. Any questions from the Board?
MR. HUNSINGER-Just if he knows when construction would start?
MR. LAPPER-I expect later this summer.
MR. HUNSINGER-Okay.
MR. LAPPER-The Planning Board approved the site plan and the building plans have been
drawn.
MR. HUNSINGER-No, I remember the project very well.
MR. RINGER-Any other questions?
MR. VOLLARO-I just want to get a clearer picture in my mind of Lot Number Four. That’s
right behind the medical center that’s currently in operation now?
MR. LAPPER-Yes, and it’s across the street from the Imaging Center that’s under construction
right now.
MR. VOLLARO-Okay. The Imaging Center is the one behind?
MR. LAPPER-The daycare.
3
(Queensbury Planning Board 7/20/04)
MR. VOLLARO-The daycare center. Is that the Imaging?
MR. LAPPER-Yes, that’s under construction now.
MR. VOLLARO-Okay, and it’s right across the way.
MR. LAPPER-So it’s north of that one, and east of the hospital building.
MR. VOLLARO-Okay. Got it.
MR. RINGER-Okay. Does someone want to make a motion?
WHEREAS, an application has been made to this Board for the following:
MOTION TO MAKE A ONE YEAR EXTENSION OF SITE PLAN NO. 39-2003 &
FRESHWATER WETLANDS PERMIT NO. 6-2003 FOR RICHARD SCHERMERHORN ON
LOT NUMBER FOUR OF THE BAYBROOK PROFESSIONAL PARK, Introduced by Robert
Vollaro who moved for its adoption, seconded by Chris Hunsinger:
Site Plan No. 39-2003 Applicant: Schermerhorn Properties, Inc.
SEQR Type: Unlisted Property Owner: Guido Passarelli
Agent: Jonathan Lapper, Tom Nace
Zone: PO
Location: Lot 4, Baybrook Professional Park
Applicant proposes construction of 2 story 10,050 sf professional office with required parking and
site work. Professional Office uses in the PO zone require site plan review and approval from the
Planning Board.
Cross Reference: Many
Warren Co. Planning: 7/9/03
Tax Map No. 296.12-1-27.6
Lot size: 1.00 ac. / Section: 179-4-020
Public Hearing: July 22, 2003
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that
Site Plan No. 39-2003 is hereby granted a one year extension. The extension shall be for one
year from the expiration of the 22 of July.
nd
Duly adopted this 20 day of July, 2004, by the following vote:
th
AYES: Mr. Hunsinger, Mr. Vollaro, Mr. Sanford, Mr. Seguljic, Mrs. Steffan, Mr. Anderson, Mr.
Ringer
NOES: NONE
MR. LAPPER-Was that a site plan and a Freshwater Wetlands?
MR. RINGER-Yes, he did both.
MR. LAPPER-He did both. Okay. Thanks.
SHORT BUSINESS:
SUBDIVISION NO. 7-84 MODIFICATION J. MC CORMACK ZONE: SFR-30 (1982
ZONING ORDINANCE) LOCATION: LOT NO. 9, HOUSE NO. 153 EQUINOX DRIVE
COURTHOUSE ESTATES, SECTION 3 APPLICANT PROPOSES TO MODIFY A
PREVIOUSLY APPROVED SUBDIVISION BY ADJUSTING A PROPERTY LINE.
4
(Queensbury Planning Board 7/20/04)
MODIFICATIONS OF PREVIOUSLY APPROVED SUBDIVISIONS REQUIRE APPROVAL
FROM THE PLANNING BOARD. CROSS REFERENCE: BUILDING PERMIT NO. 2003-367
SFD TAX MAP NO. 288.16-1-25 LOT SIZE: 0.84 ACRES SECTION: SUBDIVISION REGS
JOHN MC CORMACK, PRESENT
MR. RINGER-George, Staff notes?
MR. HILTON-Just a quick comment. It seems to be a simple modification to an approved
subdivision, which result in a conforming setback for a recently constructed home. No other
nonconformities will exist as a result of this adjustment, and that’s really it.
MR. RINGER-The floor is yours, sir.
MR. MC CORMACK-It’s pretty cut and dried. I’m extending one property corner three feet.
MR. RINGER-I understand that, but would you identify yourself?
MR. MC CORMACK-John McCormack is my name, developer of Courthouse Estates, and I’m
looking to adjust one northwestern property corner three feet to bring the rear corner of the
house into conformity of 15 feet, as a side line setback.
MR. RINGER-The way I read it, you already built the house and then you found that you.
MR. MC CORMACK-Well, there’s a letter attached and I explained.
MR. RINGER-Right. I saw that, and it said the house was built, I thought, and then you
realized.
MR. MC CORMACK-Well, I didn’t realize it. I knew it when I was doing it. I didn’t think the
property owner next door would have a problem with it.
MR. RINGER-Any questions from the Board on this?
MR. VOLLARO-No. I think it’s pretty cut and dry, Mr. Chairman. We’ll go forward to make a
motion to approve.
MR. RINGER-Okay. No SEQRA on this?
MR. VOLLARO-No. There was no SEQRA. It’s a Type II, I believe.
MR. RINGER-Okay.
MR. VOLLARO-On the prepared resolution that was supplied, I would like to make a change to
that resolution, however, and see whether the Board agrees with that change. It’s down where
it says “Now Therefore Be It Resolved,” that we find the following, the application for
subdivision modification is hereby granted, per drawing by David Bolster, dated 05/16/04.
That’s what I’m putting in there, to identify what we’re doing here. Mr. Chairman, I might ask
the Board if the Board would go along with that motion.
MR. RINGER-Okay. You make the motion that way, and if you get a second to it, they’ll go
along with it.
MR. VOLLARO-Okay.
MOTION TO APPROVE MODIFICATION TO SUBDIVISION NO. 7-84 JOHN MC
CORMACK, Introduced by Robert Vollaro who moved for its adoption, seconded by Chris
Hunsinger:
5
(Queensbury Planning Board 7/20/04)
WHEREAS, an application has been make to this board for the following:
To modify a previously approved subdivision by adjusting a property line.
WHEREAS, the application was received July 15, 2004, and
WHEREAS, the above is supported with all documentation, public comment, and application
material in file of record.
WHEREAS, pursuant to Chapter A183, Subdivision of Land, Section A183-9J and A183-10C, D
of the Code of the Town of Queensbury a public hearing was advertised and was held on N/A
; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Board has determined that the proposal complies with the Subdivision
application requirements of the Code of the Town Queensbury (Zoning); and
WHEREAS, the Planning Board has considered the environmental factors found in the Code of
the Town of Queensbury (Zoning); and
WHEREAS, the requirements of the State Environmental Quality Review Act have been
considered and the Planning Board has adopted a SEQRA Negative Declaration; and/or if
application is a modification, the requirements of the State Environmental Quality Review Act
have been considered; and the proposed modification(s) do not result in any new or
significantly different environmental impacts, and, therefore, no further SEQRA review is
necessary; and
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that
We find the following: The application for Subdivision Modification is hereby granted per
drawing by David Bolster dated 05/16/04, and is subject to the following conditions which shall be
listed on the final plat submitted for Planning Board Chairman’s signature and filing:
1. All necessary outside agency approvals have been received by the applicant, with a copy
sent to and received by Planning Department Staff within 180 days.
2. 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 20 day of July, 2004, by the following vote:
AYES: Mr. Hunsinger, Mr. Vollaro, Mr. Sanford, Mr. Seguljic, Mrs. Steffan, Mr. Anderson, Mr.
Ringer
NOES: NONE
MR. RINGER-You’re all set.
MR. MC CORMACK-Thank you.
SITE PLAN NO. 36-2004 SEQR TYPE: II DANIEL MARGOLIS ZONE: WR-1A LOCATION:
134 LAKE PARKWAY APPLICANT PROPOSES TO CONSTRUCT A STONE STAIRWAY
WITHIN 50 FT. OF A SHORELINE. APPLICATIONS THAT PROPOSE HARD SURFACING
WITHIN 50 FT. OF A WATERBODY REQUIRE SITE PLAN REVIEW AND APPROVAL
FROM THE PLANNING BOARD. CROSS REFERENCE: AV 16-2003, BLDG. PERMIT 2003-
231 SFD APA, CEA WARREN CO. PLANNING: 7/14/04 TAX MAP NO. 226.15-1-10 LOT
SIZE: 0.38 ACRES SECTION: 179-6-60
6
(Queensbury Planning Board 7/20/04)
DAN MARGOLIS, PRESENT
MR. RINGER-Staff notes?
MR. HILTON-Yes. As mentioned, the applicant proposes to construct stone steps within 50 feet
of a shoreline. The applicant has requested a lighting plan waiver, which seems to be
appropriate. The main issue appears to be stormwater management, and based on a review of
the calculations, it appears that the stone line trench that’s proposed will adequately intercept
the water flowing off the walkway. That’s really all I have at this time.
MR. RINGER-Okay. Gentlemen. Please identify yourselves for the record and tell us about
your project.
MR. MARGOLIS-I’m Daniel Margolis, and I’m the owner of the property.
DAVE LINEHAN
MR. LINEHAN-I’m Dave Linehan. I’m with Jim Girard Landscape Maintenance, and we’ll be
implementing the landscape plan.
MR. RINGER-Okay. Tell us a little bit about it. Not much I’m sure, but.
MR. MARGOLIS-I want to construct stone steps in front of the house, and obviously need a site
plan change or whatever it might be, and that’s why we’re here, and we’re doing everything
that is needed to Code to make sure we can take care of the water coming off the steps. That’s
pretty much the story.
MR. RINGER-Okay. Any questions from the Board? Anyone? No? Okay. We have a public
hearing. I’ll open the public hearing. Anyone from the public?
PUBLIC HEARING OPENED
MAGGIE STEWART
MRS. STEWART-My name is Maggie Stewart. I live at 106 Bay Parkway on Assembly Point.
I’m a neighbor of Mr. Margolis, and he’s proposing a solid stone or concrete structure, 16 feet
long at the bottom, 15 high at the top, which extends 15 feet out towards Lake George in a
Critical Environmental Area, and is within 15 feet of a shoreline. It’s proposed as a stairway
from the deck of a new house being built on Assembly Point. Please think long and hard before
you approve something like this. This will affect the lakefront. It will affect the character of our
neighborhood, a massive stone structure like this. The house is very large, and if there’s a
hardship, it’s self-created, because he knew the rules when he got started. The massive stone
structure will be highly visible from the lake, and it won’t be a pretty sight. An alternative to
the outside stairway is to have an inside stairway, leading to the ground level, with doors
which will allow access to the dock area. I urge you to follow the KISS principal. Keep It
Simple. Other properties on Assembly Point have been turned down for the same request, or
cut way back, and the names are Polonski, Englert, Fariello, and my wonderful next door
neighbor, Anita Ross, among others. I’m terribly concerned with all the trophy houses being
built, being allowed to be built, especially in North Queensbury. We get our drinking water
from the lake, and we don’t have sewers. Tighten up the regs and lets protect what we’ve
always had. Thanks for listening to me.
MR. RINGER-Thank you, Mrs. Stewart. Anyone else? Okay. I’ll close the public hearing.
PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED
MR. RINGER-Gentlemen, if you’d take your places again. Comments from the Board?
7
(Queensbury Planning Board 7/20/04)
MR. VOLLARO-I have some comments, Mr. Chairman, but they have to do with the
calculations on the stormwater, and I don’t want to keep this Board listening to numbers all
night. So I’ll just ask the applicant, what I’m having a problem with is you’ve got 335 gallons to
handle, but that will handle the runoff. That’s essentially retention capability with that amount
of stone you’re going to put, Number Three Stone, but is this for a 50 year storm event? What
storm event would this handle? See, normally we look at these runoff things per storm events,
and I don’t have the input, storm event, for this design. It’s the one thing that seems to be
missing in the calculations. I know that our resident, our engineer has not had an opportunity
to look at that, but I looked at it pretty carefully, and I think the numbers, I follow your math
okay, and your storage capacity comes out to be 335 gallons. It’s pretty easy to follow how
you’ve done that.
MR. LINEHAN-Yes. What I did there was I just used, I considered this a minor project. It’s just
a small amendment to the original site plan. So I just considered it a minor project and used
your, pursuant to your Code, 147-9, the performance standard, where we used the flat rate of
one and a half gallons of stormwater for every square foot that was added here. So that’s all I
did, and I appreciate the Town for doing this, because you’re right. What do you design for, a
50 year storm? An applicant comes in for a 25 year storm or, you know, it becomes very
arbitrary, where in this case it does give an applicant, you know, an opportunity to say, let’s just
use the flat rate, which is a very conservative rate, you know, when you do the calculations.
There’s a fairly substantial storage area that has to be created. So I appreciate the Town having
this particular part in the Code where, you know, you can just address it in a basic flat rate of
one and a half gallons per square foot, and that’s all I did here.
MR. VOLLARO-So that’s how you come out with the 288 gallons? That’s how you got the 288,
by using one and a half?
MR. LINEHAN-Yes. I think it’s probably around a 25 year storm.
MR. VOLLARO-See, normally, our applications, when applicants come before us, we ask them
to meet the requirements of a 50 year storm.
MR. HUNSINGER-Well, that’s what they did on the house.
MR. VOLLARO-Yes, but I’m not sure how the one and a half gallons per square foot relates to a
50 year storm. I’m having a problem with that relationship. I don’t know that. I’ve already
made the decision that I would buy your calculations, but I wanted to ask that question,
because I didn’t have the volume of a 50 year storm in here. I’ve got a volume of one and a half
gallons.
MR. LINEHAN-Yes, I understand your question, but that’s all I did. I took that flat rate.
MR. VOLLARO-Okay. That answers my question.
MR. RINGER-Any other questions from the Board?
MR. SEGULJIC-Just one question. Why do you have to go into the critical use area within the
50 feet?
MR. MARGOLIS-Because the landscape, well, if we tore some things apart, we could probably
start all over again and do something else, but basically that would be the style, the look of the
house. We tried to build a brand new, what we call 100 year old house from all types of details,
using old Adirondack style and at that time there was a lot of stone used, and we’ve used a lot
of stone around the house, and it creates an environment that’s not going to stand out like, yes,
it’s a large house, but everything is to Code with the house, but it creates an environment that’s
relative to 100 years ago on the lake. It’s not a modern looking house. We’ve also brought in
trees to the lakefront where the trees were taken away previously. I’ve brought in four trees to
8
(Queensbury Planning Board 7/20/04)
the lakefront. We’ve done everything to keep this within the environment of Lake George, and
this is a, one of the pieces that would complete that look.
MR. SEGULJIC-Couldn’t you put the stairway parallel with the house instead of perpendicular
and not have to go into the 50 foot?
MR. MARGOLIS-I don’t know where, then we were also, then, involved with the 20 foot
setbacks also, on the side, and as far as the appearance, that would not be a pretty sight.
Because here you’re looking at steps. You’re not looking at walls. You’re looking at steps.
MR. SEGULJIC-I guess I’m just concerned, because there is 50 foot setback for a reason.
MR. MARGOLIS-Yes, I understand that, and like I said, with the house, we’ve done everything
to Code, to setbacks and we’ve taken all consideration of the lake of the stormwater runoff to
make sure that the lake is a safe place and the water is safe.
MR. SEGULJIC-But, this is just a personal opinion. Are you going to be using fertilizer at your
house?
MR. MARGOLIS-I don’t know.
MR. SEGULJIC-Well, if you’re concerned about the lake, don’t use fertilizer.
MR. MARGOLIS-And I’m very concerned about the lake.
MR. SEGULJIC-Don’t use fertilizer.
MR. RINGER-Is that it, Tom?
MR. SEGULJIC-Yes.
MR. RINGER-Any other questions?
MR. VOLLARO-I think that Tom has brought up an interesting issue, at least in my mind. If the
only reason is before us is because they’re violating three feet of our Code, and a little redesign
on that stairs and put it at the 50 foot from the lake, wouldn’t even have to be here, for three
feet.
MR. MARGOLIS-I don’t understand three feet? It’s not three feet.
MR. HUNSINGER-I think it’s more than that.
MR. VOLLARO-Well, how far into 50 foot are you?
MR. MARGOLIS-Probably 10 feet.
MR. VOLLARO-Ten feet, into fifty-two. So I thought maybe.
MR. MARGOLIS-And the other point that was brought out, we’re not 10 feet from the lake. I
think that is, it’s probably 35 feet from the lake.
MR. VOLLARO-You’re inside the 50 foot setback by 10 feet?
MR. MARGOLIS-Yes, we are.
MR. VOLLARO-Roughly, is that what you’re saying?
MR. MARGOLIS-I would say probably, yes. I think that would be a fair assessment.
9
(Queensbury Planning Board 7/20/04)
MR. RINGER-Any other questions?
MR. ANDERSON-I looked at your site on Saturday. The information I had with me on
Saturday indicated it was a three foot variance required, but it’s substantially more than three
feet. This drawing may be accurate. There’s a red line.
MR. MARGOLIS-Yes, that red line is.
MR. ANDERSON-But this may be a 12 foot variance?
MR. VOLLARO-Yes, see that’s where I got three feet from, not from here, but from some words
that I read, that said three feet.
MS. RADNER-Gentlemen, be careful which words you’re using. You’re not granting a variance
tonight. You’re granting a permit for hard surfacing within 50 feet of the lake. You’re right that
the reason is because it goes beyond that 50 foot mark, but they’re not seeking a variance.
They’re seeking a permit for the hard surfacing.
MR. RINGER-Any other questions? This is a Type II. No SEQRA. I need a motion.
MRS. STEFFAN-Can I just ask a question? Those stones that are there, you’re talking about a
hard surface. Is there sand between those big stones, or is it going to be concrete between those
stones?
MR. LINEHAN-They might be tacked, I’m not going to be building the wall myself. Accurate
Stone is going to be doing that. There might be some cement tacking some of the structure
together, but there’ll be a porous stone in between it, like a Number One, 1A Stone, and then
it’ll drain through into this infiltration pit, but they’ll be tacked, but substantially it’ll be an
impermeable surface. The stones will lay flat, and the water will shed down the stairs.
MRS. STEFFAN-Similar to what’s in the front of the house.
MR. LINEHAN-The front, there’s a deck, there’s a wooden deck in front of the house, and then
that’s veneered, underneath the deck is veneered.
MR. RINGER-Anything else? I still need a motion.
MR. VOLLARO-Mr. Chairman, I think I’ve found in the Site Development Data, just before the
motion is made, on setback requirements. If you look at that, on the shoreline, they specify 50
feet of a setback on the shoreline, but they say the existing will be 53. That’s where the three
feet came from. I was wondering how I could miss three from ten, but the 53 feet is stated on
the Site Development Data that was submitted with this application, so I just want to make sure
that the record is clear there, that 50 feet is what’s stated on the site development data, but the
applicant himself says it’s more like 10. So everybody should understand that it’s more like 10
and not like 3.
MR. HUNSINGER-Well, actually, if that number’s accurate, it’s 12. Because the whole length of
the stairs.
MR. VOLLARO-Yes, right. Well, I just was using his approximation for that.
MR. RINGER-Okay. I still need a motion.
MOTION TO APPROVE SITE PLAN NO. 36-2004 DANIEL MARGOLIS, Introduced by
Robert Vollaro who moved for its adoption, seconded by Chris Hunsinger:
WHEREAS, an application has been made to this Board for the following:
10
(Queensbury Planning Board 7/20/04)
Construction of a stone stairway within 50 ft. of a shoreline.
WHEREAS, the application was received on June 8, 2004; and
WHEREAS, the above is supported with all documentation, public comment, and application
material in file of record.
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 July 20, 2004; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Board has determined that the proposal complies with the Site Plan
application 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, this approval does not relieve the applicant from obtaining all necessary permits
whether Federal, State or Local, and
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 which shall be listed on the final plans
submitted to the Zoning Administrator:
Lighting Waiver
Duly adopted this 20th day of July, 2004, by the following vote:
AYES: Mr. Hunsinger, Mr. Vollaro, Mr. Sanford, Mr. Anderson, Mr. Ringer
NOES: Mr. Seguljic, Mrs. Steffan
MR. RINGER-You’re all set, gentlemen.
MR. MARGOLIS-Thank you very much.
NEW BUSINESS:
SITE PLAN NO. 31-2004 SEQR TYPE: II JEFFERY & DEBRA FOSS AGENT: TANYA
BRUNO ZONE: PO LOCATION: 13 BAYWOOD DRIVE APPLICANT PROPOSES TO
CONSTRUCT A 650 SQ. FT. ADDITION TO AN EXISTING 2,325 SQ. FT. OFFICE ON
BAYWOOD DRIVE. OFFICE USES IN THE PO ZONE REQUIRE SITE PLAN REVIEW AND
APPROVAL FROM THE PLANNING BOARD. CROSS REFERENCE: SP [HUGHES]
WARREN CO. PLANNING: 7/14/04 TAX MAP NO. 296.11-1-40 LOT SIZE: 0.75 ACRES
SECTION: 179-4-030
TANYA BRUNO, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT; JEFFREY FOSS, PRESENT
STAFF INPUT
Notes from Staff, Site Plan No. 31-2004, Jeffrey & Debra Foss, Meeting Date: July 20, 2004
“APPLICATION: Site Plan 31-2004
APPLICANT: Jeffrey & Debra Foss are the applicants for this request.
11
(Queensbury Planning Board 7/20/04)
REQUESTED ACTION: The applicants propose to construct a 650 sq. ft. addition to an existing
2,325 sq. ft. office building.
LOCATION: The subject property is located at 13 Baywood Drive, off of Bay Rd.
EXISTING ZONING: The property is zoned PO, Professional Office.
SEQRA STATUS: This application is a SEQRA Type II action. No further Planning Board
action is required.
PROJECT DESCRIPTION: The applicant proposes to construct a 650 sq. ft. building addition at
the rear of an existing office building on Baywood Drive
STAFF COMMENTS:
The applicant has requested the following waivers:
Stormwater Management Plan
-
Lighting Plan
-
The proposed addition is consistent with the MR-5 setbacks, which were in place at the time this
building was originally constructed. The site plan shows enough parking spaces to satisfy
parking requirements in the Zoning Ordinance.”
MR. RINGER-Staff notes?
MR. HILTON-Really simple. What appears to be a simple addition. As I’ve mentioned, the
stormwater management plan, lighting plan waivers have been requested. This addition is
consistent with the MR-5 zoning setbacks, zone setbacks which were in place at the time this
building was originally constructed, so they can continue to maintain those setbacks, and that’s
all I have.
MR. RINGER-Okay. Thank you. The floor is yours.
DR. FOSS-I’m Jeffrey Foss. Basically we’re just proposing to add a small addition off the rear of
the building, trying to maintain sight lines that are acceptable from the front of the building.
The proposal is basically to expand treatment space to accommodate more patients and
different patients than we have in the past.
MR. RINGER-Any questions from the Board?
MR. VOLLARO-It’s pretty straightforward, Larry.
MR. HUNSINGER-The only question I had is when we went and did our site visits on Saturday
morning, it looked as though the space between the existing building and the hedgerow is kind
of tight. Does the proposed addition extend into the hedgerow at all? On your drawing it looks
like it would only go on to the existing lawn. I just wanted to make sure that that was indeed
the case.
MS. BRUNO-Tanya Bruno. Good evening. The setback that we have, we have approximately
13 feet in five inch space in between the proposed addition, and the property line, as shown on
the site plan that we have. The hedgerow probably I would say would only cut into that by a
couple of feet. There will still be, we may need to go in and trim back some of the trees, but the
upper, higher trees, which actually the owners have been doing periodically just for upkeep,
but really it won’t be cutting into the hedgerow. I do believe that the sight lines into that area
behind will be maintained.
MR. HUNSINGER-Okay.
12
(Queensbury Planning Board 7/20/04)
DR. FOSS-Or it’ll still allow room to be able to mow behind it or that type of thing.
MR. HUNSINGER-Okay.
MR. RINGER-Any other questions? Okay. We have a public hearing scheduled. Does anyone
from the public wish to comment on this application?
PUBLIC HEARING OPENED
NO COMMENT
PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED
MR. RINGER-Type II, no SEQRA. Anymore comment from the Board?
MR. VOLLARO-No, it’s pretty straightforward, Larry.
MR. RINGER-Okay. I need a motion.
MOTION TO APPROVE SITE PLAN NO. 31-2004 JEFFREY & DEBRA FOSS, Introduced by
Robert Vollaro who moved for its adoption, seconded by Chris Hunsinger:
WHEREAS, an application has been made to this Board for the following:
Construct a 650 sq. ft. addition to an existing 2,325 sq. ft. office on Baywood Drive.
WHEREAS, the application was received on May 17, 2004; and
WHEREAS, the above is supported with all documentation, public comment, and application
materials in file of record.
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 July 20 , 2004; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Board has determined that the proposal complies with the Site Plan
application 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. 31-2004, Jeffrey & Debra Foss
WHEREAS, this approval does not relieve the applicant from obtaining all necessary permits
whether Federal, State or Local, and
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that
We find the following: The application is hereby approved per drawing by Tanya L. Bruno dated
05/14/04, in accordance with the resolution prepared by Staff and is subject to the following
conditions which shall be listed on the final plans submitted to the Zoning Administrator:
1. That the building will be 650 square feet, plus or minus 10 feet.
13
(Queensbury Planning Board 7/20/04)
Duly adopted this 20 day of July 2004 by the following vote:
MRS. BRUNO-Excuse me, Mr. Vollaro, I’m sorry to interrupt, but I would just like, from past
experience, to add to the application that it’s approximately 650 square feet. We anticipate that,
but since the construction documents haven’t been finalized, just in terms of the wording on the
application, that it be understood it could be give or take 10 feet or so.
MR. VOLLARO-Yes. This is, just say the applicant proposes to construct a 650 square foot
addition.
MS. BRUNO-I’m sorry. I should have mentioned that when I first spoke.
MR. VOLLARO-Yes. I don’t think that needs a plus or minus on there.
MS. BRUNO-Okay.
MR. VOLLARO-We could, but normally, when the building permits are issued, if you’re close,
I’m sure that’s fine. I’ll have to defer to Staff on that.
MR. HUNSINGER-These aren’t construction drawings.
MR. HILTON-They’re not construction plans. I mean, there’s no setback relief required. I think
that’s what’s different from this application from other ones. You could say approximately if
you want in the motion, or you could leave it as is. I don’t think it has too much bearing.
MR. VOLLARO-All right.
MR. RINGER-How does Counsel feel about “approximate”? That’s such a vague term.
MS. RADNER-Approximate is a very vague term. I would prefer the plus or minus 10 feet
language that was proposed.
MR. RINGER-Yes. I think that would be better, too. Would you do it that way, Bob, please.
MR. VOLLARO-Yes. Sure.
AYES: Mr. Hunsinger, Mr. Vollaro, Mr. Sanford, Mr. Seguljic, Mrs. Steffan, Mr. Anderson,
Mr. Ringer
NOES: NONE
MR. RINGER-You’re all set.
MS. BRUNO-Thank you.
SITE PLAN NO. 37-2004 SEQR TYPE: UNLISTED ROBERT MAHON, DBA R.P.M.
ENTERTAINMENT PROPERTY OWNER: GREAT ESCAPE THEME PARK, LLC AGENT:
CYNTHIA SCHROCK, ESQ. ZONE: RC-15 LOCATION: GREAT ESCAPE APPLICANT
PROPOSES TO CONDUCT A ONE-DAY AUTOMOBILE SHOW/OUTDOOR SALES EVENT
IN A PORTION OF THE GREAT ESCAPE PARKING LOT. TRANSIENT MERCHANT USES
REQUIRE SITE PLAN REVIEW AND APPROVAL FROM THE PLANNING BOARD. CROSS
REFERENCE: TOWN BOARD RES. NO. 327.2004 WARREN CO. PLANNING: 7/14/04 TAX
MAP NO. 295.8-1-1, 3 LOT SIZE: 3.74 ACRES & 19.85 ACRES SECTION: 179-4-
CYNTHIA SCHROCK, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT; ROBERT MAHON, PRESENT
STAFF INPUT
14
(Queensbury Planning Board 7/20/04)
Notes from Staff, Site Plan No. 37-2004, Robert Mahon, DBA R.P.M. Entertainment, Meeting Date:
July 20, 2004 “APPLICATION: Site Plan 37-2004
APPLICANT: RPM Entertainment is the applicant for this request.
REQUESTED ACTION: The applicant proposes to operate an automobile show (related to a
transient merchant application) in the parking area of the Great Escape on Route 9.
LOCATION: The automobile show is proposed for the parking area on the west side of Route
9, opposite the main entrance to the Great Escape.
EXISTING ZONING: The property is zoned HC-Int, Highway Commercial Intensive.
SEQRA STATUS: This application is a SEQRA Unlisted action. The applicant has submitted a
Short Form EAF.
PROJECT DESCRIPTION: The applicant proposes to conduct a one-day automobile show in
the parking area on the west side of Route 9, opposite the Great Escape. The automobile show
will also have two main areas for vendors and dealers as well as a stage for live acts and
performances.
STAFF COMMENTS:
The applicant has requested the following waivers:
Stormwater Management Plan
-
Grading Plan
-
Lighting Plan
-
Landscaping Plan
-
The portion of the parking area that will be used for the automobile show will be separated
from Great Escape patron parking. The Great Escape has submitted letters in support of this
event, as well as indicating that they believe there will be adequate parking for Great Escape
operations as well as this event.
According to the site plan, patrons entering the display area will be completely separated from
vehicular traffic entering the Great Escape parking area. The plan proposes that the only
vehicular traffic entering the display area will be cars for display only.”
MR. RINGER-Staff notes.
MR. HILTON-Yes. This is associated with a Transient Merchant application for a one day
outdoor sales event. So it’s being referred to you by the Town Board for an
action/recommendation. As I’ve mentioned, the applicant proposes a one day automobile car
show in The Great Escape parking lot. It will be separate from patron parking, and there will be
no conflict between people coming in to park for The Great Escape and this show, and the cars
that are on display. It appears to be pretty straightforward. Again, it’s a recommendation, and
that’s all I have at this time.
MR. RINGER-Okay. So what we’ve got here is a Planning Board recommendation to the Town
to approve this?
MR. SANFORD-No, a Town Board recommendation to the Planning Board.
MR. HILTON-Yes, correct.
MR. RINGER-So the Town Board has recommended that.
15
(Queensbury Planning Board 7/20/04)
MR. HILTON-Well, as part of any Transient Merchant application, you have to file a site plan
application as well, and then the Town Board, if they accept the Transient Merchant application,
refers the site plan to the Planning Board, which is what’s happened tonight. Your action on the
site plan then goes back to the Town Board, and then they further consider the Transient
Merchant application.
MR. RINGER-Okay. You explained it so I can understand it much better.
MR. VOLLARO-It looks like the Town Board is taking Lead Agency, as far as SEQRA is
concerned on this, as well. The second half of the Town Board resolution says, “Be It Further
Resolved that the Town Board hereby indicates its wish to be Lead Agency for SEQRA, in view
of this project, and directs the Department of Community Development to notify any other
agencies involved of this designation”.
MR. HILTON-It sounds like they’re Lead Agent.
MR. VOLLARO-So they’re Lead Agency. Okay.
MR. RINGER-Okay. Gentlemen, and Ladies. Please identify yourselves and tell us a little bit
about your project.
MS. SCHROCK-Good evening. I’m attorney Cynthia Schrock here, on behalf of R.P.M.
Entertainment and Robert Mahon. I’ll just say a few things very briefly, and then my client
does have a statement he wishes to make on his behalf, if you’d prefer to hear that first. That
way it might alleviate any questions you might have.
MR. RINGER-The floor is yours right now. So you do it whichever way you’d like.
MS. SCHROCK-As you know, we’re here for a Transient Merchant market permit. You do have
a full application, I believe, with some other documentation from R.P.M. As far as the permit
goes, what types of businesses will be there, there is one thing I wanted to point out, just in case
you have a question, and if you have this packet that has the clear cover, it was originally
thought that the show was going to be two days, August 28 and 29. It is only going to be one
thth
day, as per my application to the Planning Board.
MR. RINGER-Our application says one day.
MS. SCHROCK-Okay.
MR. RINGER-Saturday only, seven to seven.
MS. SCHROCK-Right. Basically we are just applying for the Transient Merchant market permit
because there are about 10 or so businesses that have their principal place of business outside
the Town of Queensbury, which have been invited to and which are going to participate per
your approval in the car show. My client does have with him a very, very large stack of letters
that we’ve prepared, and he spent lots of time going around to businesses, both within the
Town of Queensbury and surrounding Warren County, you know, letting the business owners
know what was going on, if they were or were not going to participate, at least getting their
approval. So we have a large stack here. We didn’t bother to make copies of those, just to save
on trees, but we’re happy to leave that with you, if you have any questions. Or have you
perused through that?
MR. RINGER-If you want them to become part of the record, then you’d give them to Staff at
the end of the.
MR. MAHON-Actually, I did submit a folder.
16
(Queensbury Planning Board 7/20/04)
MR. RINGER-Identify yourself for the record.
MR. MAHON-I’m sorry. I’m Robert Mahon. I own R.P.M. Entertainment. I had submitted a
booklet of all the signatures that I got from the Town of Queensbury business owners. I had
submitted it with the application. I went to each business individually and let them know what
I was doing. I started with the people that own cars, or auto related businesses first, and then so
on and so forth throughout the businesses in Queensbury. Minus government, state, school,
and things of that nature I didn’t get signatures for.
MR. RINGER-Tell us a little bit about exactly what it is. When I read your thing, it’s
entertainment, contests. I’m not exactly sure I understand what, you’re going to be selling stuff,
but you’re going to provide some kind of entertainment, I presume. That’s what we’d like to
know.
MS. SCHROCK-Just as a preliminary to what he’s going to say, this is very similar to the
Adirondack Nationals Car Show, which is held up in Lake George, where old cars come and
basically they’re parked, mostly at Fort William Henry. People just come in. They look at them.
They have contests and things like that, but he’ll go ahead and tell you more.
MR. MAHON-What the car show consists of is drivers coming in from all over New York State
and beyond, Connecticut and Massachusetts, Pennsylvania. They come in to the show. They
bring their cars and register their cars. Their cars are then judged by a judging staff of
professionals. At the end of the judging, there’s a trophy ceremony. The guys get their
trophies. All the drivers that come in. There’s various contests that go along with shows like
this, like there’s a high low competition, which whoever has the highest car, whoever has the
lowest car. There’s competitions, a sound off competition where people register their sound.
It’s in a closed environment with their doors shut, on their decibels. There’s trophies awarded
for that. Things of that nature. There’s entertainment there. We’ll have d.j.’s there just playing
music, directing the crowd, stuff like that. These guys are just coming in to show off their cars
that they’ve spent a lot of money on, and just get together a bunch of drivers, go to the park,
stuff of that nature.
MR. RINGER-What kind of numbers of people, patrons, do you look for at one of these?
MR. MAHON-We’re looking for about 200 drivers to attend the event, which, in turn would
bring about 1,000 spectators.
MR. RINGER-1,000 spectators, yes. Anything else you want to tell us?
MR. MAHON-There’s a couple of things that I’ve written down, that I feel are relevant to this
project. All these people are going to come in to the Town of Queensbury for this show.
They’re going to come to my show to have their cars judged. After my show is over, all these
drivers are going to need places to stay, places for entertainment, places to shop, places to eat,
and this will in turn have all the businesses in Queensbury profit from this show. Like I had
mentioned before, there’s drivers from all over New York State coming, which will bring a new
element of tourists to this area. There’s people from Connecticut, Vermont, New Jersey.
Another thing is that the Travers race is held on that day, which brings 60,000 people to
Saratoga. Also, it’s the final weekend of the Washington County Fair, which in turn brings
more people down there. So a lot of the people are actually out of the Town of Queensbury on
this day, and I’m trying to bring them back in to the Town of Queensbury, to spend money for
the businesses and so on and so forth.
MR. RINGER-Questions from the Board?
MR. VOLLARO-Sounds like a worthwhile endeavor to me. I just had one question. I’m
wondering why, dealerships who will not participate in this have decided against participation
due to various reasons. Do you have any feel for that? Garvey Hyundai and Garvey Nemer
17
(Queensbury Planning Board 7/20/04)
Ford, seems like the only two, 2000 Automotive, he does, Mountainside Auto Sales and
Queensbury Auto Mall. They just don’t want to participate, or is there something that they say.
MR. SANFORD-There’s probably a fee to participate.
MR. VOLLARO-I don’t know. Is there a fee?
MR. MAHON-Yes. There’s a sponsorship fee if they want to bring their cars to the event. They
would have to pay money. Some of the people, like Mountainside Auto Sales, and A-2000, just
didn’t have the money to participate. Garvey just didn’t like the idea. Mark Garvey just didn’t
like it.
MR. VOLLARO-Okay. All right. That’s fine. I see you’ve got a lot of good ones, Whiteman
and Toyota and so on. Okay. I just was wondering why the non-participants, if they gave you
any reasoning behind that.
MR. HUNSINGER-I did have a comment on your waiver request. Your comment, you know,
you’re supposed to list the reasons why you’re asking for a waiver, and you say, the lot is
currently used for cars, and the show is for cars. That kind of said it all. It seems pretty
straightforward.
MR. VOLLARO-Okay. Any other comments? Okay. We’ve got a public hearing scheduled.
Anyone from the public wish to address this application?
PUBLIC HEARING OPENED
NO COMMENT
PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED
MR. RINGER-This is an Unlisted. The Town Board has taken Lead Agency. So we don’t have
to do a SEQRA.
MR. HUNSINGER-That’s right.
MR. RINGER-So I’m looking for a motion, then.
MR. SANFORD-What is the motion? Is it already prepared by Staff?
MR. VOLLARO-Yes, it is. It’s for Site Plan 37-2004.
MR. RINGER-Yes.
MOTION TO APPROVE SITE PLAN NO. 37-2004 ROBERT MAHON DBA R.P.M.
ENTERTAINMENT, Introduced by Richard Sanford who moved for its adoption, seconded by
Robert Vollaro:
WHEREAS, an application has been made to this Board for the following:
Conduct a one-day automobile show/outdoor sales event in a portion of the great escape
parking lot. Transient merchant use requires site plan review and approval from the
planning board.
WHEREAS, the application was received on June 18, 2004; and
WHEREAS, the above is supported with all documentation, public comment, and application
materials in file of record.
18
(Queensbury Planning Board 7/20/04)
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 July 20, 2004; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Board has determined that the proposal complies with the Site Plan
application 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, this approval does not relieve the applicant from obtaining all necessary permits
whether Federal, State or Local, and
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 which shall be listed on the final plans
submitted to the Zoning Administrator:
1. Subject to Town Board approval of the SEQRA.
Duly adopted this 20th day of July, 2004, by the following vote:
MS. RADNER-May I interject one thing? I don’t believe it’s clear that the SEQRA’s been
reviewed. So you need to make it contingent upon the SEQRA review, because normally you’re
required to have a SEQRA review before you take official action.
MR. RINGER-Very good, Cathi.
MR. SANFORD-Okay. So subject to Town Board approval of the SEQRA.
AYES: Mr. Vollaro, Mr. Sanford, Mr. Seguljic, Mrs. Steffan, Mr. Anderson, Mr. Hunsinger,
Mr. Ringer
NOES: NONE
MR. MAHON-Thank you.
OLD BUSINESS:
FRESHWATER WETLANDS PERMIT FW 1-2004 SEQR TYPE: UNLISTED
SCHERMERHORN PROPERTIES AGENT: JONATHAN LAPPER ZONE: PO LOCATION:
WALKER LANE APPLICANT PROPOSES CONSTRUCTION/DISTURBANCE WITHIN 100
FT. OF REGULATED WETLANDS ASSOCIATED WITH THE CONSTRUCTION OF 32
MULTI FAMILY RESIDENTIAL UNITS. DEC TAX MAP NO. 296.11-1-28 LOT SIZE: 11.74
ACRES SECTION: 179-4-020
JON LAPPER, TOM NACE, & JIM MILLER, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT
MR. RINGER-Okay. George, Staff notes.
19
(Queensbury Planning Board 7/20/04)
MR. HILTON-Okay. Really quickly, I put in front of you this evening a letter from the Zoning
Administrator issuing a determination today that this application does not require a Freshwater
Wetlands Permit.
MR. RINGER-So the Freshwater Wetlands Permit is off?
MR. HILTON-At this point would be off.
MR. RINGER-Okay. So what we’ll be doing tonight, then, is the site plan for this Site Plan 20-
2004, and you’ve got Staff notes on the site plan.
SITE PLAN NO. 20-2004 SEQR TYPE: UNLISTED SCHERMERHORN PROPERTIES
AGENT: JONATHAN LAPPER ZONE: PO LOCATION: WALKER LANE APPLICANT
PROPOSES THE CONSTRUCTION OF 32-MULTI FAMILY RESIDENTIAL UNITS (15,104
SQ. FT. ) ON THE SIDE OF AN EXISTING 48-UNIT MULTI FAMILY RESIDENTIAL
DEVELOPMENT ON WALKER LANE. MULTI-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENTS
IN THE SR-1A ZONE REQUIRE SITE PLAN REVIEW AND APPROVAL FROM THE
PLANNING BOARD. CROSS REFERENCE: SP 5-98 TAX MAP NO. 296.11-1-28 LOT SIZE:
11.74 ACRES SECTION: 179-4-020
JON LAPPER, TOM NACE, & JIM MILLER, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT
MR. HILTON-Really just a quick summary. Based on the last tabling, Staff, we got together
information that the Board had requested. We got that out to you. The Water Department, I
believe, has issued a comment letter. We did get, today, a Highway Department letter that I
will read to you in a moment. Beyond that, nothing has really changed as far as the plan itself.
From a Planning perspective, there have been some engineering comments, I guess, that the
applicant has been working with C.T. Male, and there is a representative, obviously, of C.T.
Male here to discuss that, and that’s all I have at this point. I will, again, read that Highway
Department letter whenever you want me to.
MR. SANFORD-Yes. I’d like to know why there’s not a permit, a wetland permit required.
MS. RADNER-You’ve got a letter from Craig Brown.
MR. SANFORD-I don’t have it.
MR. RINGER-It came tonight, Rich. Go ahead
MS. RADNER-I need to interject one other thing, too, before you begin your deliberations.
There was a letter from the applicant, in this case, asking that this be tabled for 60 days. The
reason they had asked for the tabling, to my understanding, is because they were waiting for
the wetland determination. They were concerned that they were going to need time to appeal
the determination if it was unfavorable. There was a call approximately four o’clock this
evening from Attorney Wayne Judge, asking about this application. At that point I was advised
by Staff that it was being tabled at the applicant’s request. So attorney Judge was told it was off
the agenda for this evening. So I would recommend that you not make a final determination for
tonight because there may be members of the public who wanted to be here and were told it
was off the agenda.
MR. RINGER-The public hearing’s been closed on this application.
MS. RADNER-No, I have it as public hearing tabled.
MR. RINGER-Well, I’ve got the minutes, and.
MS. RADNER-On the agenda it shows it as open, and know that there were some comments
received from Attorney Judge, and he was told it was off the agenda.
20
(Queensbury Planning Board 7/20/04)
MR. RINGER-I was reading it today, and I’ve got to go through it, I’ll find it, but if we have
closed it, will it make a difference?
MS. RADNER-If you’ve closed it, yes, it makes a difference, but.
MR. RINGER-All right, then I better search through.
MS. RADNER-But I don’t like excluding members of the public who have expressed an interest
in participating in the process.
MR. RINGER-I know it, but if they’re closed, I’m between a rock and a hard place if we’ve
closed them, Cathi.
MS. RADNER-Right.
MR. RINGER-So I just want to go through, I thought I read it today.
MR. SANFORD-So you’re saying that the public hasn’t received appropriate notice? Is that the
idea?
MS. RADNER-One member of the public in particular questioned this application, was told it
was tabled, because we had received a request for tabling from the applicant.
MR. RINGER-Okay. I’m reading from the minutes here, and I’ve got Mr. MacEwan, Page 38,
let’s move forward with SEQRA, then I’ll close the public hearing, so we can go ahead with the
SEQRA, and public hearing closed. Page 38 of the minutes.
MR. HUNSINGER-That’s only on the Freshwater Wetlands Permit, though.
MR. RINGER-That’s only on the Freshwater?
MR. HUNSINGER-That tabling motion.
MR. RINGER-I’d like to think that that was the case, but I want to be absolutely certain.
MS. RADNER-I don’t have the minutes here, so I can’t say.
MR. RINGER-Chris is reading from the same minutes that I’m reading from, and we are
talking, and I don’t have the minutes of the site plan.
MR. LAPPER-I think they were dealt with together.
MR. RINGER-Let me see how the, yes, because it was done after the SEQRA, and we did the
SEQRA together.
MR. HUNSINGER-In your defense, it says further up that we had to consider the permit and
the project, the Freshwater Wetlands Permit and the project at the same time because you can’t
segment SEQRA.
MR. RINGER-So now I’m looking for legal on this. The public hearing is closed, Cathi.
MS. RADNER-If the public hearing is closed, then you can proceed.
MR. RINGER-And that’s a legal opinion?
MS. RADNER-You’re always subject to challenge. I can’t definitely guarantee you won’t be.
21
(Queensbury Planning Board 7/20/04)
MR. RINGER-I hate to exclude the public also, but I also understand the problems that are
involved, if I open a public hearing. I can’t open a public hearing without advertising it, and I
can’t, you know, I’d have to table this right now and re-advertise the public hearing.
MR. SANFORD-It’s not on the agenda. If the Freshwater issue is off the table, is it, are we
suggesting now that we’re going to substitute, what, a site plan?
MR. RINGER-We’ve already got a site plan on it, Rich. The question we’ve got right now is if
the public hearing has been closed.
MR. HILTON-Yes. I’ve got the minutes. I’ll do some research, if you want to begin to at least
discuss it.
MR. SANFORD-Larry, where’s site plan listed on the agenda, though?
MS. RADNER-The next page.
MR. SANFORD-On the next page?
MR. HUNSINGER-Yes, right at the top.
MR. SANFORD-I’m sorry. I see it.
MR. RINGER-Cathi, what you’re saying, though George has suggested we go ahead, but what
you’re saying is if the public hearing isn’t closed, that we don’t even start it, that we table it.
MS. RADNER-No. I’m suggesting that if the public hearing isn’t closed, that you not close it
tonight and make a decision without allowing participation.
MR. RINGER-Okay. All right. Then I’ll let George look that up and we’ll continue on from
here, and, George, you’ve given us your Staff notes, okay.
MR. VOLLARO-Mr. Chairman, I’d just like to make a statement on this July 20, 2004 letter from
Craig Brown, the Zoning Administrator. I think I would like to have somebody, this is fairly
convoluted, in my mind. I’ve read it several times, as to how they got to this, and I just want to
make sure that we haven’t been doing a disservice to some other applicants upstream or
downstream, because this seems to be worded to a point where it says, for example, as the
Town Clerk does not currently maintain official freshwater wetlands map that identifies the
subject property as wetlands, the wetlands on the site, although defined and delineated by the
AOC, are not considered freshwater wetlands. That seems to be a contradictory statement in
my mind, and I’d like to further look into this. I’m not going to make an issue tonight, but I’d
like the Staff to hold on to this, and I think we have to discuss this. I just want to make sure that
applicants that follow this application aren’t able to, if they can, use the same logic to get away
from the Freshwater Permit.
MR. LAPPER-Bob, this is a very narrow set of facts, which I could explain in three minutes, if
you’d like.
MR. VOLLARO-If you can explain it, I’d be glad to hear it, Mr. Lapper.
MR. LAPPER-In this particular case, we were not proposing, the project did not involve the
disturbance of any State jurisdictional wetlands, DEC wetlands, and DEC wetlands have 100
foot buffer around them. So there was no State wetland, and no State wetland buffer
disturbance. There was also no Federal jurisdictional wetland, no Army Corps Wetland that
was being disturbed. There was an interpretation previously, or suggestion by Staff, that we
needed a Freshwater Wetlands Permit because there was within 100 feet of an Army Corps
Wetlands.
22
(Queensbury Planning Board 7/20/04)
MR. VOLLARO-Yes.
MR. LAPPER-But when I sat down and read the Town Code, the way the Town Code defines a
wetland, it defines it as a wetland shown on a map, filed in the Town by a State or Federal
agency, and Army Corps Wetlands are not the type of wetlands that are mapped by the Army
Corps and filed with the Town. DEC does that for State wetlands. So my reading of that, and
most importantly the Army Corps doesn’t impose a 100 foot buffer around its wetland. So the
Town Code was being read to impose a buffer around it, a Federal wetland, which the Federal
government didn’t impose.
MR. VOLLARO-Okay.
MR. LAPPER-And when I read carefully the actual language of the Town Code, I didn’t believe
that that’s what it said. I submitted a letter to the Zoning Administrator, and had suggested in
the letter today that this should be tabled because we didn’t get a determination, but instead,
Craig went through it and said that he agreed with me and issued that letter, which was just
very nice, quick service. So that’s what happened.
MR. VOLLARO-Well, this letter may establish precedence. I’m just looking for future
applicants that are in the ACOE condition, that they also have the same opportunity as this. If
it’s not filed with the Town Clerk, then.
MR. SANFORD-I’m not sure what the intent here is. I hear what Jon’s saying, or Mr. Lapper’s
saying, but is the intent to have a Freshwater Permit if it’s 100 feet from the Army Corps of
Engineers or not.
MR. VOLLARO-Or not is right. What they’re saying is, the Town Clerk does not currently
maintain a Freshwater Wetlands map. Apparently there’s some language that Mr. Lapper has
read that says if it’s not maintained.
MR. LAPPER-In the Definitions Section in the Zoning Code.
MR. SANFORD-What’s relevant is, whether there’s a map or whether there’s a wetland.
MR. RINGER-And it’s something that we could research, but for now, the Freshwater Permit is
off the table for us, and we’re looking at site plan.
MR. MILLER-Mr. Chairman, it’s always been our experience over the years, in working with
the Town, that the Freshwater Wetland mapping that they refer to is DEC mapping, and the
Town, on any project that we’ve ever done, involving wetlands, the Town recognized the DEC
permits, and the Army Corps were a separate issue where we dealt with the Army Corps,
because the Army Corps you don’t have any mapping until you go out and do an actual
delineation, and that’s always been the way. George’s mapping reflects the DEC, and that’s,
and DEC has the buffer and similar, and the Town’s permits are based on similar circumstances
to DEC.
MR. VOLLARO-Then I think we have to examine our own Code here, in terms of its wording
on the 100 foot back from the Army Corps. We have to look at that. So I’m going to let that
pass now.
MR. LAPPER-There’s a policy reason for it.
MR. RINGER-Jon, there’s nothing we can do about the Freshwater tonight, and we can, you
know, so let’s go to the site plan, and you’ve given us your Staff notes, George.
MR. HILTON-Yes. I just have this additional Highway Department comment letter. It says, “In
regards to Mr. Bramley’s concerns, I have not seen the water problems he has mentioned,
coming out of Bay Brook Apartments. What I have noticed is that the recommendation the
23
(Queensbury Planning Board 7/20/04)
Highway Department asked them to do to their property’s to stop the water from running
down the shoulder, has not been done. Most of the lawns and driveways need to be fixed or cut
down to allow water to flow by. We have walked all of Bay Bridge and made several
recommendations on driveways, lawns, catch basins and general landscaping of their
properties to keep the water flowing by their homes. This will stop a lot of water build up on
their land. I hope this answers your concerns. If you should have any further questions, please
do not hesitate to call. Sincerely, Richard A. Missita Town of Queensbury Highway
Superintendent” And that’s in regards to this project, and that’s all we have.
MR. RINGER-Okay, and we’ve got some comments from C.T. Male, but I think, let’s here from
the applicant and then we’ll get back and forth with you, Jim. I think it’ll work better that way
than to do yours right now.
MR. SANFORD-Are we making a determination that we’re going to hear it and, I mean, we had
a discussion just a few minutes ago that we haven’t resolved, Larry.
MR. RINGER-Right.
MR. SANFORD-And the question is, has the public hearing been closed? Is it still open?
MR. RINGER-Okay, and what did you decide, Cathi?
MR. HILTON-The public hearing is closed.
MR. RINGER-The hearing is closed. Okay. Thank you.
MR. HILTON-It’s in the minutes.
MRS. STEFFAN-One question. How was it advertised in the newspaper? I mean, I know that
it’s in the minutes that way, but our agenda is listed in the newspaper?
MS. HILTON-That I can’t answer. I don’t have that newspaper advertisement in front of me.
MR. RINGER-Well, the agenda is, I don’t know if it showed the public hearing or not, but the
agenda is listed, but that doesn’t mean that there’s a public hearing. Our whole agenda is listed,
but not necessarily.
MRS. STEFFAN-It just talks about public hearing, and notice of public hearing.
MR. RINGER-Counsel has said the public hearing is closed. I’m afraid we’re going to have to
say the public hearing is closed. Go ahead.
MR. LAPPER-For the record, Attorney Jon Lapper, Engineer Tom Nace, and Landscape
Architect Jim Miller. Rich Schermerhorn is on vacation in Cape Cod with his family and is not
with us tonight. Wendy Simino from Creighton Manning Traffic Engineering is here as well,
but we have previously made a submittal of the traffic report, and Wendy gave a presentation
at the last meeting. So if there are any questions, she’s available. Since we met with the Board
last time, we met with the Fire Marshal and the Fire Chief from Queensbury Central. They had
raised a safety issue about having fire lines crossing Walker Lane, and in order to address their
concern, we relocated or actually installed new hydrant on site, so that there wouldn’t be fire
lines, water lines blocking Walker Lane, and there was a follow up letter from the Fire Marshal
which said that they concurred with that change. So that eliminated that issue. To take a step
back, in the big picture here, Rich Schermerhorn, in order to support his office project across
Bay Road, which of course this Board has been very much involved in, Rich installed the sewer
line running up Bay Road, which was also for the Baybridge homeowners and for his Walker
Lane apartments, as well as future users up Bay Road, and by installing the $300,000 plus sewer
line, it allowed Rich to remove, decommission the septic fields on this site, which makes this site
able to be developed with the additional 32 units under the Zoning Code, you know, per
24
(Queensbury Planning Board 7/20/04)
zoning. So that’s why we’re here. One of the benefits of having the public utility of the sewer
line is that it makes this project more developable, and of course this is in the main high density
corridor of the Town, the Bay Road corridor, where there is public water and public sewer, the
College office buildings and multifamily developments like this. So this is an opportunity for
Rich to replace the septic fields with buildings, not specifically in that location, but in terms of
the density. The issues that came up last time were mostly concerns of the neighbors, a lot of
traffic, which I think we dispelled with the detailed traffic report. Stormwater, all of the site
specifics have been addressed, reviewed by C.T. Male, and we have a signoff letter. I guess at
this point the three of us are open to any questions that the Board may have.
MR. RINGER-Okay. Jim, you have a signed off? I’ve got your letter here of the 13of July, and
th
that is your signoff?
MR. HOUSTON-Yes, that’s correct, and that was addressed, the letter specifically addressed
comments that were raised at the April 27 Planning Board meeting, and we had three or four
th
different issues that you wanted us to look at, and we looked specifically at those items, and we
feel that the revised plans addressed those concerns.
MR. RINGER-Okay. Comments from the Board, and I’ll start on your end, Rich.
MR. SANFORD-There’s a significant amount of soil that’s proposed to be removed, about
51,000 yards. Is that correct?
MR. NACE-That is correct.
MR. SANFORD-Does that require a permit?
MR. NACE-No, it does not. In fact, we met with Stan Koenig from DEC today, because
someone had, he is the one at DEC who oversees the mining permits that they issue. Their
regulation, if you look at their mining regulations, permits are required for excavation of the
sand and gravel, or mining minerals, etc. There is an exclusion in that which says that if the
excavation is required as part of a site development project, then it’s exempted from the mining
permit regulations. He reviewed the site with me today. I provided him with a set of site plans
and I expect to hear back from him to that conclusion.
MR. SANFORD-Did he get back to you?
MR. NACE-No, I expect to hear back from him within a week to that conclusion.
MR. SANFORD-Okay. So it’s unresolved officially. Although you suspect there’s not a permit
required.
MR. NACE-Well, if you look at their regulations, excavation associated with site work required
as part of the site development are not.
MR. SANFORD-Well, 51,000 yards, how many yards does a dump truck carry?
MR. NACE-It depends on the size of the truck.
MR. VOLLARO-Fifteen to twenty, I would think.
MR. NACE-That’s approximate.
MR. SANFORD-And that would amount to, if you divide that into 50,000 yards, how many
trucks are going to be hauling soil out of there to do this project?
MR. VOLLARO-About 3,000 trucks.
25
(Queensbury Planning Board 7/20/04)
MR. SANFORD-Three thousand trucks?
MR. VOLLARO-Yes.
MR. SANFORD-Okay. Well, I, for one, at least would want to, I think my understanding is that
it’s considered mining if it’s ongoing, and this would not be ongoing, but I would feel more
comfortable having DEC issue, I guess, a ruling on this.
MR. LAPPER-We would certainly agree that any approval could be contingent upon getting the
letter from DEC which we expect within a week.
MR. SANFORD-Now, at the last meeting there were a number of Board members who were
concerned about there being four, eight unit apartments on that site, and suggested that
consideration be given to either two or possibly three, and if that was the case, there would be
greater clearance from the wetland and also provide for perhaps a better traffic pattern. I take it
that the applicant has rejected that suggestion. Is that correct?
MR. LAPPER-I guess just simple answer is that the applicant believes that the site can support
this development, that it complies with the Code, which obviously isn’t the whole story, but
that this was designed to address the potential impact issues, such as stormwater. It’s not
impacting the wetland. So we feel that this is compatible with the site and with the design
guidelines of the Town.
MR. RINGER-Okay. Anything else, Rich?
MR. SANFORD-No. Bob?
MR. RINGER-Bob?
MR. VOLLARO-Yes. I’m just wondering, I think 3,000 trucks going out on Walker Lane, I’m
just wondering whether Walker Lane will take the gaff of 3,00020 yard trucks. It’s going to be
pretty interesting.
MR. NACE-One thing to remember is a great deal of that fill was brought in, with trucks,
probably more than half of it.
MR. VOLLARO-Yes. So a good deal of that has to go out. Whatever is excavated out of that
hill, 51,000 yards, when you look at, after the excavation takes place, back hoeing, all the
aeration of the soil and so on, you might even get more than 51,000 yards out of that. The
51,000 yards is a calculation.
MR. NACE-It’s an in place calculation.
MR. VOLLARO-Yes, right. Okay. If there’s no permit required to get it out of there, then it’s up
to the Highway Department to see what happens with the road or whatever. I don’t think it’s
our consideration. I just wanted to bring it up. Again, on traffic, now I’ve looked at the
Creighton Manning traffic report, and I still have, I guess, some trouble with that, particularly
in the areas where ACC is either coming in in the morning or letting out at noon to change
classes. I’ve tried to come out on Walker Lane when I resided there, and I found that to be a
very difficult left hand turn, and I know that the traffic engineer is here, in the audience, and
there might be other comments on traffic, from other people here. On the emergency access, I
guess the Fire Marshal has cleared that up with his letter of 6/21 .
MR. RINGER-Bob, did you have some specific questions for the traffic engineer right now that
you’d like to ask them?
MR. VOLLARO-The same questions apply that I stated at the last meeting, Mr. Chairman, and
that was that I thought that looking at each of these sites on its own individually, as opposed to
26
(Queensbury Planning Board 7/20/04)
looking at the entire Bay Road, leaves me troubled, because each one of these sites, by
themselves, may not do the job, but when you start to couple them up and look at an integrated
process over the whole road, then I don’t know how they fair up.
MR. RINGER-Well, I just wanted to make sure before we moved on from that. If you wanted to
ask her specific questions, you could ask questions.
MR. NACE-I think if you remember, Bob, I discussed this with the County. The County is
undertaking.
MR. VOLLARO-Yes, they’re re-striping it.
MR. NACE-Well, they’re looking at a whole access management study of the corridor.
MR. VOLLARO-And that’s good. I think that that makes a lot of sense to me, and I know that
you said that at the last meeting, and I think I commented I thought it was a good idea.
Looking at the Creighton Manning study, I can’t really fault it as an individual piece. It’s very
hard to pick apart as an individual piece that something’s wrong here, but if you’ve been there
for six months and you actually go to drive that road and try to get in and try to get out, you
find that it’s not as simple as.
MR. NACE-I think the access management study will do some of what you’re thrusting toward
the entire corridor, and not just one project, but everything.
MR. VOLLARO-The emergency access, again, I think the Fire Marshal has pretty much cleared
that up with his letter of 6/21. So I don’t have any concern about emergency access. I don’t
know, Larry, have you, being that you’re in that business, in a sense, do you have any questions
about emergency access on this site?
MR. RINGER-No. I did talk to Joe, Joe Dupree who is the Chief of Central, about it, and after he
wrote his letter, he was satisfied with the hydrant. He didn’t have a problem with it.
MR. VOLLARO-Okay. Now, on parking, I do have somewhat of a problem there. There’s
existing, 117 existing lots, in Mr. Schermerhorn’s current development. Now, plus, if I allow 48
additional lots, additional parking spaces at one and a half per dwelling unit, I get a net total of
165. Now, that combination of 165, the Code says for a total of 80, 80 units, at one and a half,
would be 120. What I’m driving at here is we’re going to have a total of 165 parking spaces
there.
MR. LAPPER-I think the answer is that when the project was previously approved, the Town
did not have a requirement that parking was a maximum, that that was passed in the last set of
changes.
MR. VOLLARO-Yes, but we’re looking at, this site’s being modified now.
MR. LAPPER-Yes, but I think what’s there now is grandfathered, and we’re only talking about
the new spaces, which is are less than the 20%.
MR. HUNSINGER-I would respectfully disagree.
MR. VOLLARO-Yes, I do, too. I think this is opened up as a new, as a modification to an
existing site. So I think we have to look at it now when it’s all done as a site in total. That’s my
view at least, Mr. Lapper, and that’s the way I viewed the project.
MS. RADNER-That’s a defensible position. Meaning, there’s support for that, your position.
MR. VOLLARO-Yes, and if I have a total of 165, at the present time, with that combination,
you’re now 37 and a half over Code.
27
(Queensbury Planning Board 7/20/04)
MR. LAPPER-I thought that this was discussed at the last meeting that we were at, and the
Board said that they were comfortable with the parking.
MR. VOLLARO-I don’t remember that.
MR. RINGER-There was some discussion about that parking.
MR. VOLLARO-There might have been parking discussion, but I don’t think we ever concluded
anything.
MR. RINGER-I don’t know if it was at the last meeting or the meeting before that.
MR. LAPPER-I mean, the way it was designed is simply what I stated, is that it’s adding the
new spaces for the new buildings, and what’s there is over what you could do now, but it was
permitted at the time it was built, and from Rich’s perspective, owning some 500 units in the
Town, he feels that it’s important to have spaces for visitors so you don’t have people parking
on the grass, and that’s simply why it’s there, or in the street.
MR. VOLLARO-Well, he’s 37 and a half percent over, if we give him 48 on the new application.
He’s got 165 spaces.
MR. MILLER-Well, he’s allowed an additional 20%, correct, above that? According to Code.
MR. RINGER-We can approve an additional. It’s not allowed, but we can approve it.
MR. MILLER-Well, I mean, part of the concern, like Jon said, is Rich is finding that, in most of
his apartments, that one and a half per unit is very tight, and in this particular case, we felt that
if we left the existing ones that were there, and then met the Code for the new ones, there would
be enough spaces to accommodate guests. Some of the problems he’s finding on some of the
other ones is people end up parking in driveways and roadways. They could be parking on
Walker Lane, rather than accommodating them on the site. So that’s why we did it that way.
MR. VOLLARO-Well, if give you the 48, which you’re entitled to, on the 32, I’m willing to do
that, I mean, I said that I would do that, and you couple that to the existing 117, and you’ve got
165.
MR. LAPPER-Okay, but there’s no suggestion that what’s there now has a lot of vacant spaces.
So it’s not, even though the Code’s changed, it’s not that the site has a lot of asphalt that’s just
sitting there vacant.
MR. SANFORD-I was there today and there was a lot of vacant spaces.
MR. NACE-That’s during the day. I mean, most of the residents have two jobs, okay, or both
members have a job. So I’ve been there during the day a lot, too, and, yes, during the day there
are vacant spaces. Not so during the evening.
MR. VOLLARO-I’m done on traffic, as far as traffic is concerned. On stormwater and sewage
design, Mike Shaw’s e-mail has to be included in our motion. I think he’s asked for that. He
has an e-mail of 4/6/04. That before a permit is issued, Wastewater will need to review the
construction details. Now that might have already been done. Has that been done yet? Has he
reviewed those?
MR. NACE-No. He’s probably looking for specific pump selection and that type of thing.
MR. VOLLARO-Right. So he’s asked for, in his e-mail of 4/6/04, he’s asked that we include that
in our motion, in our resolution.
28
(Queensbury Planning Board 7/20/04)
MR. NACE-We definitely will coordinate and get his final approval, yes. That’s fine.
MR. VOLLARO-Now, I guess on the septic tanks, they’re to be filled or removed, and the leach
field will be abandoned per your proposed protocol.
MR. NACE-Correct.
MR. VOLLARO-So they will probably lay fallow for a period of about 10 months.
MR. NACE-Somewhere between a half a year and a year.
MR. VOLLARO-Okay. All right. I had, in your protocol letter, I have a little comment. It says
the letter of, dash, and there’s no date on your protocol letter. I couldn’t find one. Maybe there
is, Tom. I’m not sure.
MR. NACE-My mistake. There is none.
MR. VOLLARO-In order to reference it, I want to try to get, you know, so the record shows.
MR. LAPPER-Jim says it’s timeless.
MR. VOLLARO-You can date it June 15, and I will make that note here.
th
MR. VOLLARO-Okay.
MR. HUNSINGER-Well, it’s attached to your letter of June 15.
th
MR. NACE-Yes, attached to my June 15 letter.
th
MR. VOLLARO-Yes, but that’s liable to get separated under the protocol. The protocol might
become a question. I have nothing on the lighting design. I think it’s fine. Getting into stuff
that’s not on our checklist.
MR. RINGER-Because this has been before us before, I’m not following a checklist. I’m letting
everybody get whatever they want out. By the time we get to the end of the table, I don’t know
if Tom’s going to have very much, but.
MR. VOLLARO-Looking at the overall design and taking a look at all of the drawings which
I’ve taken a lot of time to go over, I feel that the site is probably maxed out right now. It’s as
tight as it’s going to get. I have two thoughts in mind. One, Mr. Lapper you mentioned those a
little bit ago, that this area of the Bay Road is designed for the highest density, probably, in
Queensbury, and that’s the current PO zone, and that’s one side of the issue. The other side of
the issue is that I see that the building to the north, I guess it’s the fourth building, I would like
to see that, if at all possible, removed, I think it’s the fourth building to the north. Is that correct,
or am I not seeing that?
MR. SANFORD-I think they’re A, B, C, and D, Bob.
MR. RINGER-Yes, D is the furthest one, Bob.
MR. VOLLARO-Okay. I’m talking D, yes.
MR. SANFORD-D is awful close to the wetland.
MR. VOLLARO-Yes, but now we have this wetland situation where we’re not even issuing a
wetland permit now. So I’ve kind of abandoned this a little bit in my mind. It’s just that I’m
trying to, overall, reduce the density of this site a little bit, and the way I, in my mind, I look to
reduce it is eliminating Building D. That would be something that I would like to see. It’s not a
29
(Queensbury Planning Board 7/20/04)
showstopper, however, in my mind. So, I guess the applicant would take comfort in that. I
have nothing now. I’d like to give up the rest of my time to other members of the Board.
MR. RINGER-Okay. Chris?
MR. HUNSINGER-I’m not sure if we resolved the discussion on parking. I just kind of wanted
to chime in on that a little bit. We did talk about a little bit last meeting. I agree with my
colleague that certainly, in looking at the entire site plan, it is an item that we can consider, but I
think I would tend to agree with the applicant. I’d rather have a couple of extra spaces than not
enough. When we were out on site visits Saturday, we drove by Dixon Heights, down on
Dixon Road, and there’s a parking lot that just suddenly appeared on Dixon Road, and it’s
basically for overflow parking, for people visiting Dixon Heights, and, you know, that’s really
not the kind of thing you want to see. So I’d rather see a few extra spaces that, you know,
maybe don’t get used too often, but at least they’re there when you need them. So, I think the
parking is okay. I didn’t have anything else to add, other than that.
MR. RINGER-Okay. Al?
MR. ANDERSON-Yes. I live and use Walker Lane daily, and I’m familiar with how I live and
drive, and the traffic patterns that the engineering reports made are not how you feel when
you’re using both Walker Lane and Bay Road. It was mentioned before about excavating
50,000 yards of material, when you consider the bulk (lost words). I think you’re going to have
more like 6,000, 7,000 truckloads of material moving off that site. That intersection now at
Walker Lane is already in distress and failure. It will completely fail with that kind of load,
with the quality of that load. That is a structural item, but it increases the safety factor for the
people using the road. That’s not been considered. Even it’s for a part of the time, it’s not been
considered in your analysis. You need to have somebody, whoever the excavator will be, he
needs a plan to show just how he’s going to control traffic, what he’s going to do when the road
fails, who’s responsible. There’s another consideration that you don’t know. Each morning and
each afternoon during school year, there’s a bus or buses that stop at that corner and discharge
seven, eight, ten, twelve boys and girls. The street, Walker Lane, that narrow road, fills up with
cars on both sides, takes a lane away. What happens when that day comes and you have 50
trucks moving back and forth on the road. It is a disaster waiting to happen. You need to
analyze that whole site condition of Walker Lane when you get into your heart of excavating
and bringing of construction materials on and off that site. You haven’t done that yet, and I’m
familiar with engineering work and that’s a consideration that you can do easily, so that you
know ahead of time what’s going to happen when the trucks move. If the road is already
distressed and failed at the corner, it’ll break up in a week, then who stops who? If we can’t get
out of Walker Lane, and you can’t get a bus in and out, you can’t get a fire truck in and out.
That’s the risk that you fail, right now, when you start that operation, and you haven’t thought
about, I don’t see any consideration for that on your plans.
MR. NACE-First of all, the excavation will occur over a fairly extended period of time. It won’t
be, it’s Rich doing it with his own vehicles, which are limited. So it wouldn’t be like, you know,
a paving job, when you’ve got 20 trucks lined up because you’ve got to deliver the materials
quickly.
MR. ANDERSON-I know, but spell that out on the plans. So that we know. Because I’m
familiar with excavation and if I have five loaders and I’ve got 100 trucks waiting for it, well
let’s put them to work today. So today I have 100 trucks driving on Walker Lane. Now I don’t
have a truck tomorrow. What’s the maximum that you’ll permit to operate one day? You
don’t know that yet.
MR. NACE-We haven’t specified that. We could stipulate that.
MR. ANDERSON-There could be a complete disaster on that little piece of road. The contractor
that has the contract may not even have that language in his contract.
30
(Queensbury Planning Board 7/20/04)
MR. NACE-Well, we could certainly work that out with the Highway Department.
MR. ANDERSON-Well, I think that this Board should see that. It’s having the proof that there’ll
be a control and a safety consideration when you do this.
MR. RINGER-We have done something similar to this, Al, with a project on Glen Lake, with the
Hirschs, in controlling the timeframe that they were going to be moving, and we made that as
part of our resolution. So it can be done.
MR. NACE-Sure. If you wanted to stipulate that during the school bus hours that that, sure.
MR. ANDERSON-I’m not considering that I’m making anything impossible. That you have to
think it out or do it.
MR. RINGER-But it can be done.
MR. ANDERSON-Absolutely.
MR. NACE-That benefits everybody.
MR. ANDERSON-That’s my important concern.
MR. NACE-Okay, but you say the pavement is in distress on part of it? Because it was fairly
recently rebuilt.
MR. ANDERSON-It’s in very, very bad shape in one section. If you happen to haul in the
spring, that road will fail inside of a half a day.
MR. NACE-Well, I don’t think because of the site conditions, we would not be hauling during
spring thaw, certainly.
MR. RINGER-Gretchen?
MRS. STEFFAN-I really don’t have any questions. I guess I just have some perspective.
Looking at, this project is obviously phased over quite a bit of time, considering that the sewer
lines have to go in, and that the septic tanks have to be decommissioned, and so there’s a lot of
things that have to happen over a period of time. So there’s a lot of phasing. Ideally, would I
like less units? Absolutely. I’d also like the septic tanks removed at some point, if there’s an
option to fill or remove, and I think that they should be removed, just because if Rich ever sells
the property to someone else, there would be a liability with someone down the road would
occur, but when I also read the minutes and looked at the plan, you know, there are going to be
sewers to the site. There is an extensive amount of soil that’s going to be removed, but of course
with good planning we can accommodate that, (lost words) can accommodate that. The
stormwater plan meets Code, according to C.T. Male. The area is zoned for this kind of density.
As I went back there, they’re kind of creating their own nest. I mean, those apartment buildings
are just like a nest. They’re totally contained. You can’t see them from Bay Road. You can’t
really see them even from Bay Brook from the other side. I may be calling it the wrong name,
but you can’t really see the new construction from that location. The fire protection folks said
that it was okay, and that whole area around it is professional residential. There’s other multi-
families across the street. So, and then based on the DOT and the County study being done on
the turning lane, I think that we’re addressing the traffic. So, I certainly see more positive
things coming out of this particular proposal than I think the things we need to overcome.
MR. RINGER-Tom?
MR. SEGULJIC-No questions.
31
(Queensbury Planning Board 7/20/04)
MR. RINGER-Okay. We’ve done a SEQRA. I realize there’s many people from the public here.
Obviously, if you wanted to discuss this tonight, unfortunately the public hearing is closed. So
there will be no public discussion on it. We’ve done a SEQRA, and if there’s anymore questions
from the Board or Staff.
MR. SANFORD-Yes. I have a question for you, Larry. We did close the public hearing, but
there’s nothing to preclude us to reopen it if we choose to.
MR. RINGER-There is, Richard. I’d have to, in order to open the public hearing, I’d have to
post it. I can’t just say I’m going to open the public hearing tonight. I’d have to post it.
MR. SANFORD-Because we informed that person that, actually, was it advertised as having a
public hearing? We don’t know how it was advertised.
MS. RADNER-We know that at the public hearing in April, that it was declared the public
hearing was closed, and any members of the public that were here heard that.
MR. SANFORD-Well, not the gentleman who called, I don’t think.
MR. RINGER-It’s perhaps an unfortunate situation, Rich.
MR. SANFORD-Well, do you see this going to a vote tonight, or are there outstanding items?
MR. RINGER-Right now, if there’s no further questions from the Board, we’ve done a SEQRA.
We either go to a motion tonight, or we go to a motion the next month, or the thing
automatically is approved if we take no action.
MR. SANFORD-Well, what I’m trying to say is there are some outstanding items that have been
addressed by members of the Board. Al, I think would like to see some more information on
truck traffic, and so would I.
MR. RINGER-And we can do a couple of things on that. We can make, if a motion is decided
tonight, we can make a motion with instructions how that trucking, removal of that material is
going to occur. Hours or whatever, or number of trucks a day, or whatever the case may be.
We can put that into a motion. If that’s an issue that we have as a Board. The parking thing, we
can discuss that as a Board and either say cut it down to Code, or take what they’ve got or
reduce it by ten or whatever the case may be. It’s a discussion for us as a Board. That’s why I
said, is there any more discussion that we’ve got, before we get into a motion? And that’s what
I’d like to hear from each of you, or any of you.
MR. SANFORD-Well, I think that this determination by Mr. Brown caught me off guard, at
least, and I’m not, at this particular point, 100% comfortable in that determination that there is
not a need for a freshwater permit.
MR. RINGER-That’s no longer part of our application, Richard.
MR. SANFORD-Well, I, for one, would like to have a better sense of understanding on that.
MR. RINGER-But, Richard, it’s no longer part of our application. Our application right now is
the site plan. Okay, and getting an understanding of it, we can talk to Chris at a workshop or
something, but it isn’t going to affect this application, because the freshwater permit is, Cathi,
you can, if I’m saying something wrong here, or.
MS. RADNER-The Zoning Administrator has made a determination, and so that determination
becomes, so to speak, the law of the case here. You don’t have authority to review or re-
determine the Zoning Administrator’s determination. There’s a Zoning Board of Appeals in
place to do that. Just to clarify something that Larry suggested, the language about an
automatic approval, that’s in the Subdivision section. The language that’s in the site plan
32
(Queensbury Planning Board 7/20/04)
review section of the Code says that you folks are going to make your decision within 31 days,
unless these folks agree to extend that by mutual consent.
MR. RINGER-Is that, when does that 31 days start?
MS. RADNER-That 31 days is from the time the hearing is closed. Unless it’s extended, you
know, again by mutual consent, it’s my understanding it’s been continued here by mutual
consent. They’re here. They’re presenting the application, but if you want to go beyond 31
days again, you want to make it clear on the record that the applicant is agreeing to that.
MR. RINGER-And if he doesn’t.
MS. RADNER-Then you make a decision, and they take the risk that (lost words).
MR. RINGER-And if he doesn’t, then 31 days, they’ve got an approval.
MR. LAPPER-We’re hoping that it’s ready for approval, but we certainly would agree to a
reasonable condition about the truck traffic for the excavation, either specifically with this
Board or by agreement with the Highway Department, whatever you’re comfortable with, but
certainly the hours and the number of trucks a day, that type of thing, completely reasonable.
MR. ANDERSON-Since I brought the matter up, I think these statements have come from you,
and I think that they mainly concern safety, but they bring up and they describe things like they
need flagmen, the load limits on the truck. They may, you may be within Town limits, but you
may want to have your own load limits to protect that road.
MR. LAPPER-We wouldn’t need flagmen because there’s no excavation happening on public
property.
MR. ANDERSON-Then you don’t need flagmen. Somebody may need a flagman on Walker
Lane if you decide that you bought that, you want to put 150 trucks a day out on that road, and
it’s possible with equipment, and with that site. If you do that, who controls it? You need
flagmen.
MR. RINGER-I think what we’d do, and I don’t think we’d allow 150 trucks a day, and that
seems like a lot of trucks, and if we, I think what we would do, if we get to a point where we’re
going to set.
MR. ANDERSON-Let me say, that’s not a lot. That’s only 1,000 yards. That’s not a lot of dirt to
move off that site in one day. You will have more than that.
MR. LAPPER-Rich doesn’t have that kind of equipment. I mean, he built the whole office park
across the street, which took incredible cut in fill, and it wasn’t anything like this.
MR. ANDERSON-Okay. Then put it in your report, that you have your maximums.
MR. RINGER-That would be us. That wouldn’t be them. That would be us.
MR. SANFORD-I would like to see a plan, rather than us right now, at this meeting, trying to
give guidelines to the applicant. I think the applicant should come and present a plan for our
review, so that Al and the rest of us feel comfortable about how that soil is going to be removed,
and I think that if we try to set those parameters tonight, we’ll probably end up doing it half-
assed.
MR. ANDERSON-You’re right, because I put a burden upon the contractor that maybe I never
wanted to put, but I want him to tell me what he wants to do, and then we will approve it.
MR. SANFORD-That’s the way I see it.
33
(Queensbury Planning Board 7/20/04)
MR. ANDERSON-Not that I tell him what he can do.
MR. SANFORD-That’s right.
MR. LAPPER-One possibility is just that we can work all this out with the Highway
Department. It’s their road, but we’d certainly agree to a condition of, you know, pick a
number for maximum truck trips a day.
MR. VOLLARO-I think what Al is saying here is we don’t know how to do that in a very short
period of time, right now, sitting at this table, sit down and collectively decide that we want X
amount of trucks. That’s not based on very scientific knowledge. What Al is trying to do I
think, correctly, is to get the applicant to come up with a plan for offloading that amount of fill.
MR. HUNSINGER-I think what the applicant is saying is that they have a logistical limit,
because of the equipment that they have.
MR. VOLLARO-But we don’t know that.
MR. HUNSINGER-Well, maybe they’ll tell us.
MR. NACE-It’s got to be less than 50 trucks a day, when you’re all said and done.
MR. HUNSINGER-It’s got to be less than 50 trucks a day?
MR. NACE-Yes.
MR. SANFORD-Let’s see the plan. I mean, I think that’s reasonable when you’re removing
51,000 yards of soil.
MR. LAPPER-In terms of the plan, we’re not removing them from on other property. All it is is
like any other vehicle, a truck, a bus, a car. It’s going to be a truck driving on the public road
and making a right or a left turn onto Bay Road. I mean, there’s nothing magic about that. It’s
just, I think that there’s an issue about a conflict with buses, with school buses. So there’s, at
that time.
MR. RINGER-I think there’s a time that there has to be. There’s time’s when Walker Lane is not
busy, and there’s times when it’s extremely busy, as many of the people have pointed out in
previous public hearings, and as Al himself has pointed out.
MR. SANFORD-There’s also the issue of seasonal variables. Al mentioned the potential
problems of weight in the springtime. Well, in the plan we’d like to see that perhaps there
won’t be removal in the springtime. I would hate to try to condition all of these.
MR. NACE-That’s really your Highway Department that stipulates that, and we will work with
them.
MR. RINGER-I would think that a good idea would be to perhaps, you know, we may table this
tonight, with a couple of things. One, that the applicant get together with the Highway
Department and formulate a plan for the removal of the fill that’s there, and also that would
include number of trucks a day, the time period that that would be removed, and whatever the
Highway Department recommendation. They would be more the experts, certainly, than our
Board would be, trying to determine that.
MR. SANFORD-Well, we could review that.
MR. RINGER-They would have to come back to us.
34
(Queensbury Planning Board 7/20/04)
MR. SANFORD-That’s right. That’s what I’m saying.
MR. LAPPER-We have no problem with that whatsoever.
MR. RINGER-Okay, but you wouldn’t get an approval on this tonight.
MR. LAPPER-I guess I would suggest that we could go through all the other issues, approve it,
and that would be a contingency that we’d have to come back to you, just for that issue.
MR. RINGER-I’d rather see a plan on that, really. Because there’s so much controversy
involved in this particular subdivision. I’d actually like to see it have all our T’s crossed and
our I’s dotted before we go to the Final, and looking at August, I realize that, but I would prefer
that way. I don’t know how the rest of the Board would feel.
MR. VOLLARO-I agree with that.
MR. HUNSINGER-Well, I don’t disagree with what you’re saying, Larry, but if the applicant is
saying that the maximum that he could possibly do, or the maximum, would have to be less
than 50 trucks a day, I mean, even if you spread that over 10 hours, that’s only five trucks an
hour.
MR. LAPPER-That’s what we’re talking about. That’s maximum.
MR. HUNSINGER-I mean, it seems pretty minor to me.
MR. LAPPER-And we would stipulate to that number right here.
MR. RINGER-You would stipulate to 50 trucks a day?
MR. LAPPER-Yes.
MR. RINGER-How would the Board feel about that?
MR. SANFORD-I’d still like to see the plan.
MR. VOLLARO-I think Al has another point, in terms of truck loading. I mean, he’s brought up
some, I think, good points about the fact that we’d have to determine how much weight a truck
is allowed to put on that road.
MR. HUNSINGER-Well, again, that’s the Highway Department.
MR. VOLLARO-Well, that’s why we want the Highway Department to look at this. That’s
exactly the reason.
MR. RINGER-All right. Well, let’s go with that. The applicant will get together with Highway
Department and come back with a plan. The other thing, the discussion is the parking spaces.
MR. VOLLARO-Yes. I’d like you to poll the Board. Right now I’ve given the Board some
information that says there’ll be a total of 165 spaces on that site, which is 37% over the Code.
So there’s a lot of extra spaces, based on the Code, on that site now. It’s not like we’ve held
them down to. The Code says 120. If we were really holding tight, 80 units, that would be there
now, assuming that Building D doesn’t go away, and I guess it’s not going to go away, 80 units
at one and a half parking spaces per unit is 120 spaces. They’ve got 165 spaces now.
MR. NACE-Bob, how many did you say are permitted by Code?
MR. RINGER-One and a half per unit is Code.
35
(Queensbury Planning Board 7/20/04)
MR. VOLLARO-One and a half per unit.
MR. NACE-Okay.
MR. LAPPER-Plus 20%.
MR. SANFORD-Well, 20% is our call.
MR. RINGER-We can go 20. Over 20 you’d have to go to the ZBA.
MR. VOLLARO-Where we are now with that combination is 37 and a half percent over Code.
We’re allowed to give you 20 if we so choose.
MR. LAPPER-Right.
MR. VOLLARO-So my position on parking is that the 165 spaces on the site is adequate, and I’d
like to see what the rest of the Board has to say on it that.
MR. SANFORD-Well, my position on this is this has been with us for a while, this application,
and the applicant has not been especially cooperative in listening to our concerns about having
three versus four buildings, and, yet they’re looking to us to be generous, in terms of the
parking. So I’m inclined to not want to move in that direction. Quid pro quo, if you will.
MR. RINGER-Yes, but that’s not, you’ve got to look at the best interests of the Town. I mean, if
they need it, you would do that in spite and say, well, let them park out on Walker Lane, to get
even? I mean, it just doesn’t make sense.
MR. SANFORD-I’m saying I think the best interest of the Town, I think, is three buildings, not
four.
MR. RINGER-I just, you know, I’m sorry, Rich, I didn’t mean to go that way.
MR. VOLLARO-They’ve got 45 extra spaces on that. The way they sit now, they’ve got 45 extra
spaces over Code.
MR. HUNSINGER-For 80 units.
MR. VOLLARO-Yes. How do you feel about that?
MR. RINGER-I think they need it, to tell you the honest truth. I would rather have the spaces,
than put them out on, as Chris says.
MR. VOLLARO-Okay, but 165 spaces is Code. I mean, they’re there now.
MR. HUNSINGER-I live in an apartment complex. I have three cars. I have room to put them,
you know, but wouldn’t you rather that people have room to put them than not have room to
put them?
MR. VOLLARO-Yes. I’m saying I’m giving them 45 spaces for room to put extra cars.
MR. HUNSINGER-Yes, exactly. That’s why I don’t have a problem with it.
MR. VOLLARO-Yes. Okay.
MR. RINGER-No problem with the parking?
MR. VOLLARO-165 spaces is fine with me. That’s what the, yes, I’m with that.
36
(Queensbury Planning Board 7/20/04)
MR. RINGER-Chris?
MR. HUNSINGER-Yes.
MR. RINGER-Al?
MR. ANDERSON-Okay with me.
MR. RINGER-Gretchen?
MRS. STEFFAN-I think the more spaces the better. This is an example where the Code, I think,
is inadequate, because most people have two cars per family.
MR. HUNSINGER-Absolutely.
MRS. STEFFAN-And so one and a half cars is an unreasonable expectation. So I applaud more
parking spaces.
MR. RINGER-Okay. Tom?
MR. SEGULJIC-I agree. I don’t have a problem.
MR. RINGER-Okay. So are there any other issues before we send them away?
MR. SANFORD-No, I’ve said it time and again, the density, but that’s behind us, I think.
MR. RINGER-Okay. All right. So we’re going to table this. The reason for the tabling will be
for the applicant to get together with the Town Highway Department and the applicant will
formulate a plan for the removal of the soil. That plan will include the maximum number of
trucks per day, a timeframe in which they will be moved, and that should be coordinated with
the busy time of the traffic there, which I understand is early a.m. and p.m., four to six p.m., but
you may find that different. You’ve got the traffic studies, perhaps, to determine that. So, we’re
looking at the number of trucks, the time that you’re going to do it, and any other Highway
recommendations that may come from that.
MR. LAPPER-From the Highway Department.
MR. LAPPER-Okay.
MR. RINGER-Anybody got anything else for the reasons for tabling?
MR. VOLLARO-I just want to solidify that there will be 165 spaces. I haven’t gotten that nailed
down yet.
MR. RINGER-Okay. 165 parking spaces.
MR. SANFORD-Well, we can only go for up to 20% variance.
MR. VOLLARO-We’re giving them 37 and a half.
MR. SANFORD-Wait. If we give them that, doesn’t that have to go to the ZBA?
MR. LAPPER-It’s pre-existing.
MR. RINGER-I think we can determine that as pre-existing.
MR. HUNSINGER-We’re only giving them one and a half for the new units.
37
(Queensbury Planning Board 7/20/04)
MR. SANFORD-I see. So we’re now taking away your point, which was to look it as one site?
MR. VOLLARO-No, no. We are looking at it as one site. 165 units on that site gives them 37
and a half percent over Code.
MR. SANFORD-Yes. So we’re looking at.
MR. VOLLARO-So they’ve got 45 extra spaces.
MR. SANFORD-Well then we’re not looking at it as one.
MR. VOLLARO-Yes, we are.
MR. SANFORD-We’re looking at this new four apartment thing as a unique site.
MR. VOLLARO-If I was looking at the whole package.
MR. SANFORD-That’s right.
MR. VOLLARO-I would get 120 spaces.
MR. SANFORD-Right.
MR. RINGER-Let George make a comment.
MR. SANFORD-Well, you know, it’s obviously going to be tabled. What I’ll do, and I made a
note, is clarify the discussion about the existing apartments, whether they were held to a
different standard. We’ll clarify that and provide comment when we meet at a later date.
MR. RINGER-Well, yes, but I would like.
MR. SANFORD-Yes, I’d like to know, too.
MR. RINGER-When they come back, I don’t want to delve through a ton of things. I want to
make sure what they come back with is only what we’ve asked for, and not put them, or the
public for that matter, through any more than.
MS. RADNER-What you’re being asked to approve is a modification of a site that’s already
been approved. The site that’s already been approved you can certainly take into consideration
while you’re determining whether the parking that’s now requested is reasonable or
unreasonable, but you’re not being asked to re-approve the entire site. You are only moving on
the modification, but as Bob said, it is still reasonable to consider what’s going on in the rest of
the site when you determine whether the modification is reasonable.
MR. HUNSINGER-And I think the best example of that is when Home Depot came in, and we
made the developer of that property upgrade the entire parking lot to the new Code.
MR. SANFORD-Right, but then aren’t we subject to the 120% constraint?
MR. RINGER-No, we’re not.
MS. RADNER-No, you’re not, because you’re only approving the modification and they’re not
asking for any variance for the modification.
MR. VOLLARO-We’re giving them Code on the mod, 48 units.
MR. SANFORD-Okay.
38
(Queensbury Planning Board 7/20/04)
MR. HUNSINGER-We can require them to bring the entire site up to the current Code, but
we’re not obligated to.
MR. RINGER-And the majority of the Board felt.
MR. HUNSINGER-We’re only obligated to the new project before us.
MR. SANFORD-All right.
MR. SEGULJIC-Larry, and the mining issue, the DEC determination.
MR. LAPPER-The letter from DEC.
MR. RINGER-Right. Letter from DEC on mining. Thank you, Tom.
MR. HUNSINGER-Yes. I figured that could just be a condition.
MR. RINGER-We need a motion to table with the two conditions, then, one that the applicant
meet with the Town Highway Department and one the applicant to formulate a plan, coming
back to us in regards to. Okay. I’ll make a motion.
MOTION TO TABLE SITE PLAN NO. 20-2004 SCHERMERHORN PROPERTIES,
Introduced by Larry Ringer who moved for its adoption, seconded by Chris Hunsinger:
Tabled to the 17 of August meeting. The reason for the tabling is for the applicant to meet
th
with the Town Highway Department to formulate a plan for the removal of the soil from the
property. The plan should include a number of trucks per day, a timeframe, time being hours
that the soil will be removed, and also a letter from DEC regarding the mining operation, and it
will be before the Hayes and Hayes project.
Duly adopted this 20 day of July, 2004, by the following vote:
th
AYES: Mr. Hunsinger, Mr. Vollaro, Mr. Sanford, Mr. Seguljic, Mrs. Steffan, Mr. Anderson, Mr.
Ringer
NOES: NONE
MR. LAPPER-Thank you.
MR. RINGER-You’re all set until next month.
MR. LAPPER-Okay.
SITE PLAN NO. 11-2004 SEQR TYPE: UNLISTED NOEL D’LABONTE, II PROPERTY
OWNER: HAYES CONSTRUCTION GROUP AGENT: DANIEL RYAN ZONE: MR-5
LOCATION: NEW HAMPSHIRE AVENUE APPLICANT PROPOSES THE
CONSTRUCTION OF A 2,116 SQ. FT. 4 FAMILY RESIDENCE. MULTI-FAMILY
RESIDENCES IN THE MR-5 ZONE REQUIRE SITE PLAN REVIEW AND APPROVAL FROM
THE PLANNING BOARD. WARREN CO. PLANNING: 3/10/04 TAX MAP NO. 309.9-3-86
LOT SIZE: 0.28 ACRES SECTION: 179-4-020
JON LAPPER & DANIEL RYAN, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT
MR. RINGER-Staff notes.
MR. HILTON-As I mentioned in my notes, this application is a revised site plan from what was
previously presented to the Board. Previously it was a three unit building. Now it’s proposed
as a four unit building. The applicant has purchased additional property in this area, adjacent
39
(Queensbury Planning Board 7/20/04)
to the original piece that they had. In reviewing this plan, we’ve noticed that, in addition to
other requirements, a 20 foot Type B buffer is required between this property and the adjacent
single family residences. C.T. Male, as I’ve mentioned in my comments, has provided their own
set of comments, and Jim is here to discuss those, and that’s all I have at this time.
MR. RINGER-Okay. I’ll come back to C.T. Male later, and we’ll start with the applicant.
MR. LAPPER-For the record, Jon Lapper with the project engineer, Dan Ryan. I guess I would
ask Dan to just walk you through the changes to the plan at this point.
MR. RYAN-Good evening. Previously this project was submitted as a three plex on an
approximately 15,000 square foot lot. Since then, some lot line adjustments have been made. So
now we have a four plex, are proposing a four plex on a 23,500 square foot lot, which is nearly
over a half acre. The reason for this was, in part, that the combined lot square footage and area
was better suited for septic layout and building layout and parking layout. So that’s what we’re
proposing this time around.
MR. SANFORD-Just one question, please, before we start. Shouldn’t this, Mr. Chairman,
appropriately be classified as New Business because I believe the applicant withdrew the prior
application and has resubmitted, rather than under Old Business?
MR. RINGER-Did the applicant withdraw or just modify?
MR. HILTON-They didn’t withdraw. They asked for a tabling, which was granted. They
added the additional property, modified the plan. We did, as a result, do the proper 500 foot
notification of the new property boundary.
MR. SANFORD-I thought Mr. Lapper, when he came in front of us, said that the applicant was
withdrawing and they were going to resubmit. I don’t know if there’s a material difference, but
that was my understanding.
MR. LAPPER-I’ll see if I can find the letter.
MR. RINGER-Would it make a difference, Cathi?
MS. RADNER-No.
MR. RINGER-Okay. Then let’s move on. That’s all right, Jon. Let’s move on.
MR. SANFORD-That’s all right.
MR. LAPPER-I guess in general in this zone, the MR-5 zone, the only thing that’s allowed on
this site is multi-family, or a trailer with an approval for a trailer. Single-family isn’t allowed.
So what Dan designed is exactly what was called for in this neighborhood, and we think we
have a conforming site. The Board had raised some design issues, and Dan looked into all of
those and modified it to address those issues, since the last time we were here.
MR. RINGER-Okay, before you start, Dan, let’s go to Jim now, with your letter of July 13.
th
MR. HOUSTON-My letter was dated July 13, I guess I’ll just read it into the record. It’s based
th
on “a revised design of this project from the applicant’s consultant consisting of a letter dated
June 15, 2004 and revised Plan Sheets 1-3 of 3. The previous design consisted of a triplex
housing unit. This design has been revised to a four-plex housing unit. Based on our review of
these documents, we off the following comments: Regarding Stormwater 1. The Site Plan
(Drawing 1 of 3) shows proposed drainage flow directions but does not show proposed
grading. Additional grading information should be incorporated into the set of plans. At a
minimum, additional spot elevations should be added along the swale between the road and
the parking area and the contour lines around the drywells should be labeled. 2. Regarding the
40
(Queensbury Planning Board 7/20/04)
drywells, the invert elevation provided appears to be the top of the frame elevation not the
invert elevation.” That’s just clarification on the elevation that’s shown for that structure. I
used the elevation that’s shown, it jives with the elevations of the ground that’s in that area, not
with an invert or a bottom elevation of the structure. “Miscellaneous 3. There should be a
minimum separation of 20’ between the 50% absorption field reserve area and the existing
building south of the site per NYS Department of Health requirements.” Just as an aside to that,
I’m not sure what the nature of that building is, and whether there’s a basement in there.
Whether the applicant can speak to that. “4. Consideration should be given to eliminating
some of the cleanouts on the raw sanitary sewer lines between the building foundation and the
septic tanks.” I think that can be reconfigured to minimize the potential for blockage there.
Basically come up with fewer bends in those lines to get a cleaner system. “5. The Grading,
Erosion & Sediment Control Note #1 on Site Plan (Drawing 1 of 3) states that sediment traps
shall be constructed as indicated on the plan. It is not clear where these measures will be
installed. 6. The Grading, Erosion & Sediment Control Note #2 on Site Plan (Drawing 1 of 3)
states that sediment traps shall consist of hay bales placed to form a pervious barrier in the
swale or ditch. The use of hay bales or silt fence in areas of concentrated flow is not
recommended per the NY State Standards and Specifications for Erosion and Sediment Controls
Manual. 7. The proposed grades in the paved parking lot are less than 1.0%. Consideration
should be given to increasing this grade to provide more positive drainage. 8. Consideration
should be given to reducing the slope of the grassed area between the paved parking area and
the drywells. The slope shown on Drawing 1 of 3 is 2H:1V.” And that was the extent of my
comments.
MR. RINGER-Thanks, Jim. You’ve got these, Dan?
MR. RYAN-Yes. Since receiving these, we have started revising the plans to accommodate most
of these comments. Some are just relative clarifications. I don’t think any of them have
impacted the actual design or layout of the site.
MR. RINGER-Okay. Well, you will have to formally get back to Jim.
MR. RYAN-Absolutely, yes.
MR. RINGER-Okay. Anything else, Jon?
MR. LAPPER-No.
MR. RINGER-Okay. We’ll use our criteria plan here as we go down, okay. So we’ll start with
design standards. Any questions in regards to design standards from anyone on the Board?
MR. HUNSINGER-My only comment is I think it’s a better plan. I really thought the previous
plan was too much for that site, and, you know, I think this is a much better design. There’s
more green space. It doesn’t feel as compacted or as dense as the previous plan. So I think it’s a
better plan.
MR. VOLLARO-From a building design and layout, it seems, Larry, are we still on that one?
MR. RINGER-We’re on design standards, building design and layout, correct, Bob.
MR. VOLLARO-All right. I’ve looked at the drawings pretty carefully, and in order to get the
20 foot buffer in there, I’ll just give you, the red marks are mine, I don’t know if you can see
them or not, but I’ve drawn the 20 foot buffer around there to satisfy the buffer to the east and
to the north and south. In order to satisfy that buffer, this building’s got to come down
somewhat to do that.
MR. LAPPER-Those are patios, right?
MR. RYAN-Yes.
41
(Queensbury Planning Board 7/20/04)
MR. LAPPER-Those little four blocks in the back aren’t subject to that building setback. Those
are patios on grade.
MR. VOLLARO-They don’t get in to the setback requirement?
MR. RYAN-No, a landscape feature I don’t believe would.
MR. VOLLARO-Okay.
MR. SANFORD-George, could you comment on that? Because I think that when we had a
professional office at one time, there was some discussion, and I thought that the decision was
that something like that was considered part of the building for purposes of setbacks.
MR. HILTON-Honestly I don’t recall that. I know that our definition says building setback, and
so therefore we would apply to the building. We do allow, with single family dwellings and
other dwellings, accessory structures to be built within the setback. I think this is an accessory
structure that would be allowed within that setback. Again, it’s a building setback. If we’re
talking flat patios, I think they’re probably allowable in that setback.
MR. VOLLARO-All right. The other comment I had, to satisfy our engineer’s comment on the
20 foot separation between that building and the auxiliary expansion area here, would be to
take and swing this 90 degrees into this section that belongs to you here.
MR. RYAN-Actually we’ve investigated that existing building. It is a garage without a
basement. So I believe we wouldn’t need to comply with the 20 foot.
MR. VOLLARO-Okay. All right. Fine.
MR. RYAN-Certainly there is adequate space to slide the site towards the north, if it was the
case, yes.
MR. VOLLARO-Yes, if it was the case. You’re saying it’s not. So this building is irrelevant.
MR. RYAN-Right.
MR. VOLLARO-I’d like to hear from our support engineer on that one.
MR. HOUSTON-That setback is really intended to try to keep effluent from going into the
basement of the (lost words).
MR. VOLLARO-If it’s a garage?
MR. HOUSTON-If it’s a slab on grade, the key thing is the construction of the building.
MR. VOLLARO-Sure, if it’s a slab on grade, this wouldn’t apply. That’s what you’re saying.
Okay. I understand that. Fine.
MR. RINGER-Anything else on design standards, Bob?
MR. VOLLARO-No, that’s it for me.
MR. RINGER-Site development criteria.
MR. SANFORD-Well, I don’t know, Larry, where this would fall, but the last time you were
here on a three unit, I asked about handicap parking, and you researched it and came back and
said it wasn’t necessary to provide it.
42
(Queensbury Planning Board 7/20/04)
MR. RYAN-Actually, the Town determined that.
MR. SANFORD-Yes. Now it’s four. Same question, maybe same answer, but I would like you
to look into it for me. In other words, it’s no longer three. It’s now four.
MR. RYAN-Yes. I think last time we deferred to have the zoning decide that. So we’ll refer to
them as well this time around.
MR. HILTON-Actually it was the Director of Building and Codes, Dave Hatin, but we can
always go back and get.
MR. SANFORD-Yes. I’d like to know for sure. I mean, obviously at some point, there has to be
handicapped.
MR. HILTON-Yes.
MR. RINGER-Okay. Vehicle access, traffic patterns, any questions on that?
MR. HUNSINGER-I had questions on parking. Sort of a carry over from the last discussion.
Four units. You’re going to own them and manage them, I assume.
MR. LAPPER-Noel will.
MR. HUNSINGER-Yes. How would you assign parking spaces per unit? I mean, would you
tell each tenant that you were only guaranteed one parking spot, and then the other two were
up for grabs for visitors, or, I mean, how would you handle?
MR. RYAN-Basically the parking provided is per the Town Code. No more, no less, but there is
parking availability on that street. There’s minimal amount of traffic that’s on that road. I don’t
know if you’re familiar with the area.
MR. HUNSINGER-Yes.
MR. RYAN-But I guess if necessary the street could be used as alternative parking for guests.
MR. HUNSINGER-Yes. Okay.
MR. RINGER-I always have trouble when someone says they’re going to park on the street. It
always bothers me.
MR. HUNSINGER-Well, I mean, it’s one thing for a visitor to park on the street, that’s going to
be there for a couple of hours maybe. It’s another thing for a tenant to park on the street.
MR. RYAN-It is common in this area. If you drive through the area, you’ll see, you know, lots
of vehicles, I’m assuming guests of neighbors and what not parked on the road.
MR. HUNSINGER-I guess what I don’t want to see is, you know, and I had brought up the
issue, at the last meeting, about paving the parking areas, so that the gravel didn’t encroach
upon the lawn and people didn’t park on the lawn.
MR. RYAN-Exactly, more delineated, yes.
MR. LAPPER-And you added that.
MR. RYAN-Yes. This parking will be asphalt.
MR. HUNSINGER-But there’s quite a bit of space between the delineated parking and the
northern property boundary. You just don’t want to see people parking on the lawn.
43
(Queensbury Planning Board 7/20/04)
MR. RINGER-I think Gretchen brought it up best when she said one and a half really is not
sufficient.
MR. HUNSINGER-Yes, I don’t think it’s enough.
MR. RINGER-It isn’t. I mean, perhaps our Code should be changed.
MR. VOLLARO-Mr. Chairman, there’s a lot of things in our Code that need changing. You
know that.
MR. RINGER-I know it, and we can’t do much about it.
MR. VOLLARO-We could.
MR. HUNSINGER-I guess there would be room behind one of the parking spots to put another
car.
MR. RINGER-Yes. I would have liked to have seen a few more parking spots there, personally.
Okay. Anything, anybody else got anything on the site development criteria?
MR. SEGULJIC-Just one quick question. I believe you mentioned this during your opening
remarks. Where did the extra land come from?
MR. LAPPER-It was acquired from the neighbor.
MR. SEGULJIC-To the north?
MR. LAPPER-To the south.
MR. SEGULJIC-To the south. Where this building is then? Okay.
MR. RINGER-Okay. Stormwater sewage, C.T. Male’s handling that with you, and unless the
Board’s got questions, specifically, on that, we don’t have to go into that, unless someone has
other questions. Okay. Lighting. Anything from the Board?
MR. RYAN-It’s basic carriage style lighting on the front and back of the building, as defined
here on the plan. You can look at it.
MR. RINGER-Landscaping design. Anybody got any questions on landscaping?
MR. VOLLARO-That seemed pretty straightforward, too. Once this site got expanded, I think a
lot of good things happened.
MR. RINGER-Yes. Environmental, noise, air quality, aesthetics, historic, wildlife? Of course
we’ll do a SEQRA on it, but any questions right now for any of that?
MR. SANFORD-The only question that seems to be coming, maybe we’re getting ahead of
ourselves, Larry. I’m just wondering, with the outstanding engineering issues, you know, are
we comfortable in a condition, or should they really be addressed?
MR. RINGER-Well, I don’t necessarily believe we’re going to be approving this thing tonight
with the, but I think we do have to go over all these things to let the applicant know that.
MR. SANFORD-I didn’t know where you were heading with this.
MR. RINGER-No. I’m only using our criteria to make sure we cover all the things that we have
concerns about.
44
(Queensbury Planning Board 7/20/04)
MR. SANFORD-That’s fine.
MR. RINGER-I mean, I’d hate to not do this, and only leave a couple of things, all of a sudden
find that we haven’t covered something.
MR. SANFORD-That’s fine.
MR. RINGER-Neighborhood character. Neighborhood impacts, health, safety, welfare?
MR. VOLLARO-No. I don’t think on any of that, Larry, I don’t think.
MR. RINGER-I don’t either. Involved agencies, I don’t see any of them here either. Okay.
MR. VOLLARO-I just have one quick comment, and this is probably for Staff more than it is for
the applicant. I see that on 2/14, this goes way back, of ’04, there was a pre-ap conference on
this one, and I guess that the applicant should have been notified at that time that there was a
buffer requirement. I don’t see it in here. Of course the burden falls on the applicant to
understand our Code, but during the pre-ap conference, it might have been a good idea to tell
him about those buffers. That might have helped him lay his site out a little better.
MR. LAPPER-I think that got missed because it’s all the same zone. It’s not a zone change, but
the way the buffer reads, it’s either a zone or a single family use. The house next door, that
single-family, is a grandfathered nonconforming use, and it got missed.
MR. VOLLARO-Okay. It would have been nice for you to know that, when you did your
design layout. At least you would have covered it, I suppose. That’s all I really have on it.
MR. RINGER-All right. They haven’t got us for any waivers. I’ve got a public hearing on this.
I’ll open the public hearing.
PUBLIC HEARING OPENED
MS. RADNER-Before you close the public hearing, if you’re not going to make the action
tonight, you might want to leave it open so that if something new or some other (lost words).
MR. RINGER-A very good thought.
MR. SANFORD-Larry, I’ve got another comment. When it was originally before us for a three,
rather than four, there was public comment. Someone did speak. Is that part of this
application?
MR. RINGER-It’s the same application. So it is.
MS. RADNER-Yes. The same application, so that’s still part of the record.
MR. SANFORD-Okay.
MR. RYAN-If I may speak. I believe during the public hearing, at the last time we spoke, one of
the comments did address, you know, wells in the area. Since then we have verified that all of
the surrounding properties are on Town water. So, just in case that does come up, if you read
the minutes, that has been resolved.
MR. SANFORD-Okay.
MR. RINGER-I will not close the public hearing, then. I feel bad about the other one, but I
didn’t close it, but it was done, and what’s done is done. Does anyone feel comfortable with
doing a SEQRA tonight?
45
(Queensbury Planning Board 7/20/04)
MS. RADNER-You’d have to close the public hearing before you do a SEQRA.
MR. RINGER-So I won’t do a SEQRA. So what we’ve got is a tabling resolution for C.T. Male.
MR. SANFORD-Basically. That’s it, Larry.
MR. VOLLARO-Yes, I think so.
MR. RINGER-No other things that we’re looking at?
MR. VOLLARO-I have no other comments.
MR. RINGER-Okay. Then does someone want to make a motion to table this for the applicant
to answer C.T. Male’s comments?
MR. SANFORD-You just did.
MR. VOLLARO-You just did.
MR. RINGER-Okay, C.T. Male’s comments of July 13.
th
MR. HILTON-Do you have a date in mind? I would include that.
MR. RINGER-Let’s do it with the second meeting in August. The second regularly scheduled
meeting in August. Because there’ll be a non-regularly scheduled meeting in August.
MR. VOLLARO-Maybe.
MR. RINGER-Well, the Chairman has already said he’d give his blessing to a third meeting.
MR. VOLLARO-Well, we’ll discuss that at the end of this.
MR. SANFORD-Just a point. Craig Brown, through e-mail, communicated, and gave a whole
laundry list of reasons why he didn’t think there should be an additional meeting. So I think
it’s still open, Larry.
MR. RINGER-Okay. Well, Craig told me last night that he felt that a third meeting, he wanted
to start catching up.
MR. VOLLARO-He discussed that with me as well, last night on the phone, and I said it would
be up to the Board to discuss whether we wanted a third or a fourth.
MR. HILTON-But there is a second regularly scheduled meeting, which this has been tabled to.
MR. RINGER-Yes. I said second regularly scheduled. So that’s not a problem. That’s why I
said regularly scheduled.
MOTION TO TABLE SITE PLAN NO. 11-2004 NOEL D’LABONTE, II, Introduced by Larry
Ringer who moved for its adoption, seconded by Richard Sanford:
For the applicant to answer C.T. Male’s comments of July 13, 2004. Tabled to the second
regularly scheduled meeting in August.
Duly adopted this 20 day of July, 2004, by the following vote:
th
AYES: Mr. Sanford, Mr. Seguljic, Mrs. Steffan, Mr. Anderson, Mr. Hunsinger, Mr. Vollaro, Mr.
Ringer
46
(Queensbury Planning Board 7/20/04)
NOES: NONE
MR. LAPPER-Thank you.
MR. RYAN-Thank you.
SUBDIVISION NO. 2-2004 PRELIMINARY STAGE & FINAL STAGE SEQR TYPE:
UNLISTED DIX AVENUE PROPERTIES AGENT: VAN DUSEN & STEVES ZONE: LI-1A,
HC-INT. LOCATION: DIX AVENUE, ACROSS FROM MC DONALD’S APPLICANT
PROPOSES SUBDIVISION OF A 14.58 ACRE PARCEL INTO 2 LOTS OF 1.23 ACRES AND
13.35 ACRES. CROSS REFERENCE: PZ 3-2000, SUB. 23-1989, SUB. 4-1991 TAX MAP NO.
303.16-1-1 LOT SIZE: 14.58 ACRES SECTION: SUBDIVISION REGULATIONS
JON LAPPER, GARRY ROBINSON, & TOM BURKE, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT
STAFF INPUT
Notes from Staff, Subdivision No. 2-2004, Preliminary (& Final) Stage, Dix Avenue Properties,
Meeting Date: July 20, 2004 “APPLICATION: Subdivision 2-2004 (Preliminary & Final)
APPLICANT: Dix Avenue Properties is the applicant for this request.
REQUESTED ACTION: Applicant proposes to subdivide a 14.58 +/- acre property into two lots
of 1.23 and 13.35 acres.
LOCATION: The subject property is located on Dix Avenue, east of Quaker Rd.
EXISTING ZONING: This property is zoned HC-Int, Highway Commercial Intensive and LI,
Light Industry.
SEQRA STATUS: This application and the related site plan application are SEQRA Unlisted
actions. The applicant has submitted a Full Environmental Assessment form for the site plan
and proposed subdivision.
PARCEL HISTORY: The most recent action involving this property was PZ 3-2000, which
rezoned a large portion of this property to HC-Int.
PROJECT DESCRIPTION: The applicant proposes to subdivide a 14.58 +/- acre property into
two lots of 1.23 and 13.35 acres, related to the construction of a 2300 sq. ft. Dunkin Donuts on
the smaller parcel.
The property is relatively level. A search of Town of Queensbury data indicates no areas of
wetland on this property. The applicant proposes to connect to the municipal water supply.
On site septic systems will be used for sewage treatment.
STAFF COMMENTS:
The applicant has indicated that he is requesting waivers from the following sketch plan
requirements:
Stormwater Management Plan
-
Grading Plan
-
The applicant has submitted two subdivision maps, one that does not indicate any vehicular
access off of Dix Ave, another showing a proposed future access location. During the review of
this subdivision, the Planning Board has expressed concern about vehicular access at this
location, and the desire to have one access point serving the entire subdivision. The Planning
47
(Queensbury Planning Board 7/20/04)
Board could include a condition of any approval that access to all lots in this subdivision shall
be from one common drive. Should the Planning Board include this or a similar situation, Staff
suggests that the location of the access drive be shown on the final plat.”
MR. RINGER-Okay. Staff notes.
MR. HILTON-Okay. I’ve just included the previous comments for this. This was scheduled at a
previous hearing, and the applicant requested a tabling, but as far as the subdivision goes, the
main issue appears to be access, and as I’ve mentioned, the Board could condition any subdivision
approval on requiring one access point for this subdivision. I do have some draft language,
potential conditions for subdivision approval, that our Staff drafted today, that I’m going to hand
out to you and I’ll give a copy to the applicant in a moment. Again, as far as SEQRA goes, we’re
looking at the subdivision and the site plan. So I’m going to give you just my real brief site plan
comments now. Again, access is probably the main issue here. A/GFTC has submitted a comment
on vehicular access. The lighting submitted with the application, I’m going to talk about lighting
here for a minute. Light fixtures are not downcast, as required by the Code, and it’s unclear what
the wattage and type of the light fixtures, what’s being proposed, and it’s difficult to determine
what the averages are for different areas of the site, for example, parking area, building exterior
and driveways, and whether or not they conform to the Zoning Code. As submitted, the
landscaping plan does not provide exterior parking lot landscaping as required by the Zoning
Code. The applicant has submitted building design elevations which show a different building
than was recently approved on Route 9. However, no color renderings have been submitted, and
as far as stormwater management and other engineering issues, there have been some C.T. Male
comments, and Jim is here to discuss those. That’s all I have at this point. If you have any
questions.
MR. RINGER-Okay. Thank you, George. Let’s start with the subdivision.
MR. LAPPER-I guess in both aspects of the project, the subdivision and the site plan, the only real
issue I think that we have to debate is the access issue. The same issue applies to both the
subdivision and the development of the Dunkin Donuts. Everything else is really pretty basic.
We’ve said before that what is offered here, based upon the past meetings with the Planning
Board, is the identical design building that you approved, that you requested, for Route 9. The
only difference is that this building in the back has an additional walkout freezer, but it is, the
drawings that may have been submitted, that were submitted, may not have had the new colors
that were installed on Route 9, but what is on the table here is the building that this Board
designed, which I think everyone will agree is exactly what you wanted, and different from the
prototype, and I guess, in terms of the traffic issue, that really gets us to the heart of what’s going
on here. Even though this has been going on for months since we finished the Glen Street project,
we’re not trying to pick a fight on this. We’re trying to work it out, but the idea, and I think the
Board at various times has been split on how this should go, the idea of having a remote access
onto a vacant parcel next door, without knowing what’s going to happen, really puts this project at
risk in terms of whether or not this is going to make sense for Dunkin Donuts to build a facility
here. So we’ve now done some detailed traffic analysis. Wendy Simino is here from Creighton
Manning Traffic Engineering to address that. She’s corresponded with C.T. Male and in terms of
conditions, what we’re proposing, and we’ll explain in greater detail when we put Wendy on to
testify, but what we’re proposing is that when somebody knows what Rich is proposing for next
door, which could be an industrial facility, a commercial facility, one of each, that would be the
time to determine whether they should have shared access. If it turns out it’s a warehouse or a
factory, the idea of having tractor trailers merging with people trying to get coffee and donuts, we
don’t think that that’s safe. So, in general, the idea of limiting the number of curb cuts is certainly a
good thing, and we’re proposing here, right off the bat, compared to Route 9, which has double the
traffic that this road has, the Route 9 Dunkin Donuts has two curb cuts, an in and an out, and we
came in saying, okay, we’re designing this from scratch, and we can accommodate one entry and
exit point. So we’re only looking for one curb cut on the Dunkin Donuts property, and as a
condition, we’re saying, we agree that this would be reexamined at such time that Rich or some
future owner of the site next door comes in for development, but because it’s a unique case where
you have a split zone of commercial and industrial, it’s not appropriate, at this point, to build a
48
(Queensbury Planning Board 7/20/04)
driveway without knowing who else is going to be using that driveway. At the same time, and
most importantly, C.T. Male, in their review letter from last time, pointed out that what was
proposed, with the entrance and then the turn into our site, could actually be worse for Dix Ave.
because it could create stacking on Dix Ave. because of conflicts between that driveway, the left
turn after you get into that driveway, future uses on the other site, that this may actual, the
alternative of having the one entrance, could create a real traffic problem, a safety problem, rather
than the hypothetical one, and we maintain that the one entrance is going to work better than the
two entrances work on Glen Street, and on the busier Glen Street, there’s not a problem. I mean,
so in terms of the site design, Garry Robinson, the project engineer, has been working with C.T.
Male. He went down. He met with them. They issued a second letter, which takes care of 90% of
the issues. There’s still, the lighting still has to be finalized. There were a couple of small issues,
but the vast majority of the engineering issues have now been settled to C.T. Male’s satisfaction,
and even though the colors aren’t representative of what was done on Glen Street, we’re saying on
the record that we’re building the store that’s going to look the same. It really comes down to
traffic, but I’ll ask Wendy, at this point, to go through her responses to the C.T. Male letter, and
explain why what we’re proposing, which we acknowledge is the initial step, and that we will
come back and look at it when Rich or somebody else proposes something next door.
WENDY SIMINO
MS. SIMINO-For the record, I’m Wendy Simino from Creighton Manning Engineering, and we’ve
responded to two letters, actually, that C.T. Male wrote. One of them was sent today, and I’m not
sure if anyone has seen it or has a copy of that letter. I do have copies here, as well.
MR. RINGER-July 16 is the last one we have, but we’ve got C.T. Male with us tonight.
th
MS. SIMINO-Right, and we actually responded to their, that most recent letter today, and did you
get a copy of that?
MR. HOUSTON-No, I haven’t received that.
MS. SIMINO-Okay, because I did fax it to your office today. I have a copy.
MR. RINGER-What are we getting?
MR. LAPPER-A response to the C.T. Male letter that we got on Friday.
MR. RINGER-This is a response to the letter of July 16.
th
MR. HILTON-Yes. We just got it faxed to us today, but, you know, as per your policy, we’re not
passing it out tonight.
MR. BURKE-See, we didn’t get it until Friday night. This is the earliest we could.
MR. RINGER-Go ahead, Wendy, keep going.
MS. SIMINO-Basically, I guess some of the concerns that were brought up by C.T. Male in the most
recent letter are similar to the concerns before, and a lot of our responses are the same, that we’re
still concerned, mostly with the access, if we move the access to the east, like across from the
McDonalds, in that area, that there would be a cross access with the (lost words) site. It might be
easier if I show you.
MR. SANFORD-Just before you continue, could I ask the Chair a question? I know when Craig’s
here, Larry, he tries to adhere strictly to not receiving things like this at the day of the meeting.
MR. RINGER-Right, and I agree with Craig on that.
MR. SANFORD-I mean, how can we digest this?
49
(Queensbury Planning Board 7/20/04)
MR. LAPPER-If you don’t want to have it in front of you in writing, we can just respond verbally.
MR. RINGER-Jim hasn’t had a chance to review this. Right? This letter of July 20.
th
MR. LAPPER-We only got his letter Friday night. Today’s Tuesday.
MR. RINGER-And so he hasn’t had a, yes.
MR. LAPPER-I mean, the issues are the same issues that were in Wendy’s last letter. She’s just
spelled out in a little more detail. It all comes down to what’s the best entrance design for the site.
Which is what was on the table to begin with.
MR. RINGER-There’s an awful lot in this darn letter.
MS. SIMINO-Well, a lot of it is actually the same as was in the previous letter. There’s a few
additional details that he asked for, like regarding some visibility, sight distance. The bottom line
is the same. Our biggest concern, which is what we had said before, is the potential vehicle
conflicts directly on the site, if the driveway is moved to a shared access. Because of the
configuration, it would, if someone turns in to the site for Dunkin Donuts, they would have to take
an immediate left to move to the Dunkin Donuts site. Now if this other parcel is developed, and
you have vehicles exiting that parcel, when those vehicles are waiting to turn, what could actually
potentially block a vehicle from entering Dunkin Donuts, and that’s where the potential for the
backup on Dix Avenue.
MR. RINGER-Jim, if she goes through this, you know, I don’t think that you’d be able to give us,
you know, back and forth, I just don’t think it’s going to work well to do that. I think it’s just going
to confuse everybody and us.
MR. HOUSTON-Just for a statement of where I stand on this, my area of expertise is stormwater
and grading, and I am familiar with the traffic and maintenance issues to a certain extent. Jim
Edwards in our office is the key person that would respond to this, and has drafted the comments
that were in our most recent letter of July 16, and he’s on vacation.
th
MR. RINGER-I’m concerned, and I really, I think we can move on perhaps with the subdivision,
and then really look at the parking and the entrances and stuff in the site plan. That way we can
get the subdivision. Although we can’t do that without a SEQRA. We’ve got to do a SEQRA on
both, don’t we?
MR. BURKE-Mr. Chairman, let me just clarify for you. With all due respect, this letter is simply an
amplification, clarification, of a previous letter which was written, in response to C.T. Male’s first
letter. So there was a C.T. Male letter. There was a response. There was a second C.T. Male letter,
which came in this past Friday night, at five o’clock. We immediately jumped on it Monday, and
are here Tuesday night. So, out of consideration for all the good people who worked on this
project, on my side of the table, we turned this around in one day. Those comments were not
received until Friday night, and they’re diminimus. They really aren’t anything other than that
which have been discussed previously, at length, before this Board. So, I would respectfully ask
that you consider this application tonight, sir.
MR. RINGER-I don’t feel comfortable, but I will pass it on to the Board and let the Board make a
decision if we want to move forward with this, with the information that we have received tonight,
and I’ll start with you, Rich, and all I need is a yes or a no.
MR. SANFORD-It’s not as simple as that.
MR. RINGER-Well, I’m asking if you want to move on with it.
MR. SANFORD-I would like them to continue tonight, I think.
50
(Queensbury Planning Board 7/20/04)
MR. RINGER-Okay. Bob?
MR. VOLLARO-Can I ask C.T. Male, have you had a chance to look at this before now, or is this
your first shot at it?
MR. HOUSTON-You mean the letter of July 20?
th
MR. RINGER-Yes, the one she just gave us.
MR. HOUSTON-This is my first shot at it. I haven’t seen it.
MR. VOLLARO-Okay.
MR. HOUSTON-It probably got faxed to our office earlier today, but it wasn’t routed to my desk.
MR. VOLLARO-And it’s really written in terms of having, these are C.T. Male type comments.
MR. HOUSTON-Yes.
MR. RINGER-Yes, but they’re traffic related, and he’s not the traffic man, but, Bob, all I want to
know is if you want to go ahead with this now.
MR. SANFORD-Well, you’re suggesting, Larry, we go with the subdivision?
MR. RINGER-No, I don’t think we can, because we’ve got to do a SEQRA on both. So we’re going
to have to table them both.
MR. SANFORD-Now I’ve got you.
MR. RINGER-I mean, we can’t approve the subdivision without a SEQRA. We can’t do the
SEQRA until we complete the site plan. So it’s a Catch-22.
MR. SANFORD-Yes, I’ve got you.
MR. VOLLARO-Let’s for forward with it.
MR. RINGER-All right. Chris?
MR. HUNSINGER-I mean, if what you’re really asking is whether or not I feel comfortable making
a final judgment on this tonight, I think that answer is no, because we just got this new
information, but whether or not we want to hear the applicant and start to flesh out some of the
issues, I think, you know, we’re here. So we might as well, you know, hear the applicant and go as
far as we can.
MR. RINGER-Okay. Gretchen?
MRS. STEFFAN-I think, based on the decisions that we made on our July 1 meeting, our
st
workshop, that we cannot, based on what we decided at that meeting, we cannot consider that
meeting, because it didn’t come on our deadline. So, as far as this information goes, we can’t
consider it, based on the decisions we made as a unit, as a Board. The other things we can talk
about, the access issues.
MR. RINGER-Okay.
MR. SEGULJIC-Yes. Let’s move forward. We’re here.
MR. RINGER-Okay. Go ahead, Wendy. Thank you all.
51
(Queensbury Planning Board 7/20/04)
WENDY SIMINO
MS. SIMINO-Like I was saying, our biggest concern with moving the access to be a shared access
would be the movements that would occur if there was a vehicle that was heading towards
Dunkin Donuts that was going to turn into the site, and now this site is developed and you have
vehicles coming in and out here. There would be a conflict between the vehicles exiting this site
and a vehicle coming in to Dunkin Donuts, that if you had a vehicle or two here, it could
potentially block a vehicle from getting into Dunkin Donuts. That, in turn, could have traffic back
up onto Dix Avenue. Then that is not a condition that would be a good one to have on Dix
Avenue. This connection here there would be, there is no conflict. There would be no chance. It’s
a direct straight access into Dunkin Donuts. There would be no chance for backups onto Dix
Avenue. We were also asked to look at having an access point at a different location. Due to site
constraints, the building, the drive through, the circulation that’s needed, the stacking that’s
needed at a drive through, at the drive through facility, moving the access point away from Dix
Avenue is not feasible for the Dunkin Donuts site. So that is also not an access.
MR. SANFORD-So you’re saying you can’t move the entrance towards the rear of that site because
of the way in which the drive through and other types of things flow?
MS. SIMINO-Correct. If this is moved here, then the stacking for the drive through reduces to six, I
think, seven vehicles. You would really start conflicting with that and have your circulation,
vehicles would not, if they’re coming in here, how are they going to get to all these spots? They’re
going to be going around and around. You’re going to have more vehicles moving on the site, you
know, repeat movements, which is creating more conflict and more pedestrian conflict on the
Dunkin Donuts site.
MR. SANFORD-I have an appreciation for your point, because what you’re saying is if you have
the one entrance, it’s going to be in close proximity to Dix, and therefore, a queuing going from the
subdivision onto Dix may cause jamming problems in terms of exiting and entering the site.
MS. SIMINO-Correct.
MR. SANFORD-But then how could, if that’s the case, and I think there’s some logic to that, how
can you then propose that if there’s compatible development in the rest of the subdivision, that you
would then close that curb cut up and then go to one. I mean, that would be the case at that point,
too. So really that’s not a consideration to ever close the curb cut.
MR. LAPPER-It may be that the best answer is to do access management, like the Code talks about,
where we would keep this entrance here, but we would also put an entrance in the back, so that if
there was a store next door, a supermarket, you know, or even a factory, you can go back and forth
between the two sites to get your donuts and coffee without having to go back out onto the public
road.
MR. SANFORD-Well, I appreciate that, and I guess what I’m saying is you’re not making a
commitment that, down the road, when Rich decides to develop the rest of the subdivision, let’s
say he does it with, you know, retail type of stores, which would be a compatible situation, as
opposed to what you’ve referenced, which would be a warehouse, even at that particular point in
time, if that was to happen, there’s not really a commitment to have one shared.
MR. LAPPER-Well, let me answer that. We, as lay people, and trying to work with the Board, in
an issue the Board made clear was something that we really had to focus on, we sat here for a
number of months and said, okay, we get it. You’re going to want to see this thing with one
driveway, and we can look at that once we know what’s there. Then we got a letter from C.T.
Male, a month ago, and they were the ones that pointed out, you know, you may be creating a
worse situation because of this. So then we brought Creighton Manning in, who are the best traffic
engineers I work with, and Dunkin Donuts has worked with them on other sites as well, and
they’re really giving us the scientific analysis, which says that, you know, it may never work
52
(Queensbury Planning Board 7/20/04)
because you have a drive through where people drive on the right side of the road and how that all
works, that a drive through fast food is different, and you really have to be careful about not
creating conflicts. So we’re not trying to be difficult. We’re certainly trying to work with the Board
in every respect. Tom didn’t want to, you know, he liked the prototype store last time. I liked the
one that you designed, but, you know, he gave you the store that you wanted to, and he’s willing
to do that, too, and we’d be happy to work with you on this, but this is really a design issue for
traffic safety.
MR. HUNSINGER-I guess my feeling is I really feel for the applicant in this case, and I understand
what you’re saying, and my first thought was, Jon, you know, you made some comments about
how, you know, well, you’re going to have traffic conflicts with tractor trailers, and, you know,
other types of uses, and my thought, as you were saying that is, well, what you’re going to do is
move those conflicts off an access road onto Dix Avenue, but, you know, now hearing what
Wendy just explained, I tend to sympathize. The problem that I have is not so much your site, but
the rest of the acreage that’s now remaining, and that’s where the real access management issues
are going to fall, because of the limited sight distance as you come around that curve.
MR. LAPPER-The limited sight distance when you’re coming from Hudson Falls.
MR. HUNSINGER-Yes.
MR. LAPPER-Well, and the way to address that would be to say that the access for the other site
next door should be across from McDonalds, because that’s pretty far, as far west as you can be on
Rich’s site next door, that it would be as far from the curve, as possible.
MR. HUNSINGER-Okay, now take a look at the map right now.
MR. LAPPER-And Rich is willing to live with that. He said that on the record last time.
MR. HUNSINGER-Look at the map. If we do that, aren’t you going to create a piece of property
that’s unusable?
MR. LAPPER-He’s got 11 acres. I think after you it’s still 11 left over, 13, and that can be designed
so that it has one access, and Rich has already said that that’s okay with him. I mean, he’s hoping
that it would be a shopping plaza, but.
MR. HUNSINGER-And he would be okay if we specified that it would be directly across from the
access into McDonalds?
MR. LAPPER-Yes.
MR. HUNSINGER-Okay.
MR. VOLLARO-Okay. So that means that you would ultimately wind up with two access points.
MR. LAPPER-Which, for 800 feet of frontage, is still not a bad situation, in terms of the number of
curb cuts. That’s still reducing the curb cuts. It’s not making it one, but it’s making it two.
MR. VOLLARO-If I go to your alternate design, if I go to the alternate design, what I guess I’m
seeing is superimposing that design on here, I get this curb cut, and I get the one that’s in there
now, eventually. Is that what you’re saying?
MR. LAPPER-No. If we, if this site were allowed, in the future, to keep the curb cut up front, the
connection would be in the back, but that would just be a connection between the two sites for
people to share services.
MR. VOLLARO-Okay.
53
(Queensbury Planning Board 7/20/04)
MR. LAPPER-But they’d have separate access.
MR. VOLLARO-So what you’re saying is the access for Rich’s property is across from McDonalds
now?
MR. LAPPER-Yes. Exactly, and he’s fine with that.
MR. VOLLARO-Okay, and he’s fine with that, and then you have an interconnection between
properties for people who want to walk over and get a cup of coffee.
MR. LAPPER-Yes, which is the same access management that we did on Lowe’s for the site behind
it, and we tried to do on CVS and Hanneford, you know, typical access management, but it also
addresses the issue that Dick raised, that the curb cut on Rich’s property certainly should be as far
from the curb as possible, because in terms of a safety issue, that sight distance is the only real issue
on that road.
MR. VOLLARO-The sight distance looking toward (lost words).
MR. LAPPER-Yes, because we’re talking about 10,000 cars a day, 12,000 cars a day. This is nothing
like on Glen Street, which has about 22, 24,000 cars a day, in terms of.
MR. VOLLARO-That’s today.
MR. LAPPER-Right.
MR. VOLLARO-Okay. I get the picture. So that could be modified, that site could be modified
now to have an interconnect between the two properties, and you can show that?
MR. LAPPER-We can show that, yes. We show that with a proposed future easement.
MR. VOLLARO-Okay. I’d like to hear what C.T. Male, you’ve heard the dialogue taking place
here, and you understand where these folks are coming from. Do you have any off the cuff
comments, or do you still want to?
MR. RINGER-He’s not the traffic man.
MR. VOLLARO-He’s not the traffic man. Okay. All right.
MR. RINGER-That’s why I polled the Board, because now he says that’s not his expertise. He’s
stormwater and.
MR. VOLLARO-I’ve got you. I understand.
MR. HOUSTON-Both access points have their pros and cons, as has been alluded to, and I have no
strong preference, like I say. Jim Edwards is the key guy that’s addressed this, and he should be
the one to respond.
MR. VOLLARO-Okay. I understand.
MR. SANFORD-Just so the Board understands clearly, I think the point that the applicant has
made, and again, I think there’s some question, but here’s how I’m interpreting it. In the alternate
design, what they’re saying is that this isn’t ideal either, because if in the future, when this gets
developed, be it shopping plazas or whatever is here, you’re likely to have a queue getting on to
Dix Avenue. You’re likely to have cars backlogged, backed up, and if you have that, then it’s going
to be problematic for people who want to go to Dunkin Donuts to come off of Dix, go a very short
distance, and have to cross traffic that’s congested with cars in a queue line, and it’s also going to
be difficult to exit Dunkin Donuts, because when you’re leaving the site, there might be cars that
54
(Queensbury Planning Board 7/20/04)
you’ve got to wait for to clear out because you’ve only got a short distance on that exit until you hit
Dix Avenue. Is that correct?
MR. LAPPER-That’s exactly right.
MS. SIMINO-Right.
MR. SANFORD-Okay. So, you know, there is logic to that. There is a logic to that.
MR. VOLLARO-It’s a valid approach. I agree it’s a valid approach. My only question now is what
is the distance between that curb cut that you have there and the potential for Rich’s curb cut to
come off the McDonalds? What’s that distance between curb cuts?
MS. SIMINO-I think it’s around 115 feet, off the top of my head.
MR. VOLLARO-George, do we have a Code on that, separation between curb cuts? If that’s 116
feet.
MR. HILTON-Yes, it’s based on traffic.
MR. VOLLARO-Because I think this approach they’ve given us is pretty logical. I mean, you can’t.
MR. HILTON-It’s based on traffic volumes, and I believe the absolute minimum, on an arterial, it’s
based on peak hour trips, and the smallest it could possible be, the smallest distance would be 330
feet. That’s the closest it could possibly be on this street.
MR. VOLLARO-And we’re looking at 116 here.
MR. LAPPER-The difference here is that you’ve got that sight distance. So here you’d be making
an exception based upon the location of that curb, because you want to get all the driveways away
from that curve.
MR. VOLLARO-Is that within our purview to make the exception on that Code?
MR. LAPPER-Those are only design guidelines. Right?
MR. HILTON-Well, they’re driveway standards, but the Planning Board does have the ability to
approve them as you see fit.
MR. BURKE-Just for the Board’s information, we’ve done a similar type thing in another location.
We have a single access point, to our site, and an internal connection to additional development
that was done on the property owner’s remaining lands. A Hanneford Plaza was built, and there’s
an internal connection at the back, that we put in initially, and then was utilized when that thing
was built, three or four years later, and they, too, have their own curb cut, but there’s an internal
connection for people to migrate so you don’t have to go out onto the main street and back in. I’d
also, for the Board’s information, tell you that since the last meeting, when we appeared here,
another Dunkin Donuts that we own was constructed on Route 50 in Wilton, on one piece of
property. An additional curb cut was granted by both the Town and the State onto Route 50. So
you wouldn’t be alone in your exercise of your discretion in allowing a curb cut on what is not
even a busy road, because it’s consistent with what this Board has done on Upper Glen Street, and
what other boards have done in other municipalities where a similar type situation has arisen. It
would be inconsistent, I think, and unfair, in my view, to do anything but that, and to go back to
the letter which was received by the Board this evening, I apologize, but the first letter was
generated by C.T. Male, I believe, on June 18, and responded to by Creighton Manning June 22.
thnd
A second letter was received Friday night, this past Friday night, from C.T. Male, which was
essentially a rehash of that first letter of June 18, which was responded to June 22. So in
thnd
reference to the July 1 date, all this information had been received. It’s just more information for
st
the Board to consider. It’s not new. It’s not different. It’s simply a documentation of the
55
(Queensbury Planning Board 7/20/04)
information that we’d presented earlier for your consideration and your review. So I wouldn’t
want you to think, for a second, that we were trying to sneak something by you or not give it to
you timely. We can only respond to that which we receive, and having not gotten anything until
Friday night, please understand that we did everything we could to get it to you tonight, and I
apologize for the fact that you didn’t have it prior to coming here tonight.
MR. RINGER-We’re not accusing you of anything. I mean, that’s never been an issue. I don’t
believe.
MRS. STEFFAN-One of the things that we tried to address in our workshop is that we have some
systemic issues, and it’s just timeliness, you know, generating correspondence, getting it via fax or
whatever, and then every organization has their own systems and processes. So I hope.
MR. BURKE-I don’t take umbrage, and I don’t think anybody was casting aspersions, but I just
wanted to make it clear, from where I sit. I don’t want you to think that we intentionally withheld
something.
MR. LAPPER-The Planning Board just has to be a 40 hour a week, full time job, and it’ll be fine.
MR. SANFORD-Let me ask a couple of questions. Have you considered, you know, you have a
unique curb cut just for Dunkin Donuts in your proposal, and that is how many feet from the
McDonalds entrance?
MR. VOLLARO-One hundred and fifteen feet.
MR. HUNSINGER-One hundred and sixteen.
MR. SANFORD-One hundred and sixteen, and so obviously more is better. So if you took your
curb cut and you moved it down to, I’m trying to think what direction we’re talking about. I guess
west, and how many more feet would that buy you?
MR. LAPPER-It could be another case where you couldn’t just go straight in.
MR. SANFORD-I understand, but my thinking was, well, if, just answer the question, how many
feet does it buy, and then I’ll get into where I’m going with it.
MR. HUNSINGER-Well, then you’re creating, the problem you’re trying to avoid, you’re creating
it for the King Fuels entrance.
MR. SANFORD-I know. I’m just trying to say that maybe you could reverse the whole drive
through so t hat it goes the other way.
MR. VOLLARO-I think Chris has another point. There’s a King Fuels exit there that they could.
MR. HUNSINGER-To eliminate the problem there, you create it here, and right now it’s kind of
equidistant.
MR. VOLLARO-What I’m trying to resolve in my mind is 116 feet versus the minimum Code is
approximately 300. You say it’s not Code?
MR. LAPPER-No. It’s a design guideline. So you can waive that.
MR. HILTON-It’s in our Code, but you can, you have discretion.
MR. LAPPER-I mean, if you think about Glen Street, just by example.
MR. VOLLARO-Sometimes applicants don’t like us to use discretion. I’ve got to tell you, they
want to stick to the Code.
56
(Queensbury Planning Board 7/20/04)
MR. SANFORD-No, we don’t know anybody like that.
MR. LAPPER-If you think about Glen Street, and I’m not suggesting that that’s the highest and
best design, but their two entrances are right next to the Advanced Auto, you know, probably
within 50 feet, 60 feet of the next driveway, and the same thing on the other side, probably 60 feet.
The Dunkin Donuts is not like a McDonalds, in terms of, unfortunately, in terms of the amount of
traffic that it generates.
MR. HUNSINGER-Going back to Wendy’s comments about queuing distances, if there was an
access off of, you know, a central road into the site. Her point’s well taken, based on the design
that you have shown, but if you move that access further north, don’t those issues become
mitigated?
MR. LAPPER-The problem is that the farther north is closer to that dangerous curve, because that’s
where you have a blind curve.
MR. HUNSINGER-No, no. Not on Dix Avenue. The access road itself. The alternate plan that you
have provided shows access into the proposed Dunkin Donuts for the site from the access road
into the entire.
MR. LAPPER-You mean where it is on our site?
MR. HUNSINGER-Right.
MR. LAPPER-And the problem with that is because you have a drive through and cars ride on the
right side of the road, and where you have to go clockwise, counterclockwise around the building,
that that would be taking up the stacking on the site.
MR. HUNSINGER-Yes.
MR. LAPPER-So that you have to have enough stacking for people waiting for the drive through,
then you create a conflict there.
MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. Follow my thought process here a little bit. Jon, earlier you mentioned
the Glen Street site, and that made me think about this site, as opposed to the Glen Street site. The
Glen Street site you have an in only and an out only. Right?
MR. LAPPER-Right.
MR. HUNSINGER-What if you were to do the same thing here, and basically turn your design,
you know, 90 degrees? The way this is shown now, you have a lot of green space in front that you
don’t have on the Glen Street site.
MR. BURKE-You can’t do it for a couple of reasons. One, the site is deeper than it is wide.
MR. HUNSINGER-I realize that.
MR. BURKE-And you can’t layout in a proper orientation the stacking for the drive through and
the parking across the site. You can do it going front to back. You can’t do it side to side.
MR. LAPPER-There wouldn’t be enough stacking.
MR. BURKE-No, or parking, because you can’t take that and rotate it 90 degrees and fit everything
on that site.
57
(Queensbury Planning Board 7/20/04)
MR. HUNSINGER-Well, I guess what I’m suggesting is that the site also be widened up to the
point of the access road. I mean, that would be a necessity, in order to have two means of access
onto the access road.
MR. BURKE-The additional issue with that is the orientation of the building on the property. You
now have the back of the building facing the highway, and.
MR. SANFORD-And there’s no guarantee what’s going to go in there. I mean, you’ve got to
appreciate they want to have frontage.
MR. HUNSINGER-No, I appreciate that. Yes, but I mean, you’re showing parking in front of the
building now anyway. So, you know, what’s the difference if it’s parking or, you know.
MR. LAPPER-The building, the front of the building is oriented toward the road because the back
is the kitchen and the cooler. I mean, and admittedly, some of those are constraints of the type of
use, but this is something that works, in terms of a design, where you go around the building, and
you order on one side and you pick up on the other, and you want to have people parking their
cars and walk in the front door rather than, you know, come through the kitchen. We looked at all
these things, in the last two weeks, to try and come up with alternatives, and got Wendy, and
here’s where we are.
MR. RINGER-Wendy’s given us her thoughts on why you’ve done what you’ve done, and we do
have to send this over to Male and have them review it. So I think, you know, before anymore on
traffic, we shouldn’t do it until they’ve had an opportunity to review what Wendy’s put in her
letter here of the 20. We’ve seen it, and we’ve got an idea of what you want to do, and I think
th
you’ve actually got some support from here, but I still think we should wait until we get further
comments from Male.
MR. LAPPER-On the other issues, we are in complete concurrence with what C.T. Male is saying.
We know that we have to change the lights, the down lights, but I guess we’d need Jim to
comment on that, but we’re, all of the stormwater changes were made.
MR. BURKE-Well, as the applicant, I’ll commit to making sure that the light plan is consistent with
that which we’ve done on the other projects, and with standards of the Town. We’re not trying to,
they’re all going to be the shoebox down lights with the shields, the standard thing, not to exceed
400 watts and all of the things you always do.
MR. RINGER-Well, you’re going to be back, and you can, you know, state that in your comments
when you return to Male.
MR. BURKE-Well, Mr. Chairman, could I ask you to please consider this, in view of the fact that
we’ve been here six or seven times. We’ve got all these people here tonight. If, in fact, C.T. Male’s
comments are the only issue that we need to discuss further, would you be amenable to issuing an
approval of the project with the contingency that C.T. Male sign off and let our professionals work
out with C.T. Male’s office any issue, if there is even one, about traffic? I don’t think there’s going
to be, because I think everybody agrees that we’re in a good place now.
MR. RINGER-I agree that you’ve been here several times, but two or three of those times were
discussion items and not actually application items, and I separate those from, at the time you had
the application. However, getting an approval tonight, you know, I hear your request, and I’ll put
this to the Board. In order for them to get an approval, we’ve got to do several things. We’ve got
to approve the subdivision. We’ve got to do a SEQRA. We’ve got to approve the subdivision,
which I don’t see that as a real problem, unless we can’t get through this traffic thing, but then
we’ve got to approve a site plan that we haven’t really gotten in too deeply on. So, you know, I’ll
actually poll the Board. Do you think that we can go further toward an approval tonight and I’ll
start at my right again. Rich?
MR. SANFORD-Can you start at the other end?
58
(Queensbury Planning Board 7/20/04)
MR. RINGER-All right. Tom?
MR. SEGULJIC-I really think we’ve got to have C.T. Male’s input on the traffic.
MR. RINGER-Gretchen?
MRS. STEFFAN-I think we need more traffic, and part of that is, I’m an alternate, and I know that
I’ve read that there’s some, you know, tremendous amount of discussion on this particular project.
You, unfortunately, are purchasing the land from Schermerhorn Properties. There’s been a
tremendous amount of debate. One access point was a key issue for the Planning Board, and it
requires a great deal of discussion. There are a lot of complexities. There’s no doubt about it.
We’re talking about five curb cuts on that particular stretch, and we’re also talking about a
dysfunctional intersection, four way intersection, that feeds this, and then a blind turn that feeds it
the other way, and so I think the traffic is key, and you’re also looking at somebody who’s got a
five inch scar on their back because I got rear-ended at that particular spot. It’s just a very
dangerous intersection, and the paramedics who took me away said we have accidents here all the
time, and so, just from that point of view, I really think that we need to spend more time. I’m sorry
that you’re in this situation, just from a business point of view.
MR. RINGER-Al?
MR. ANDERSON-We should wait until we get C.T. Male’s formal reply.
MR. RINGER-Chris?
MR. HUNSINGER-Well, in reading C.T. Male’s comments from July 16, you know, there might be,
you know, one or two issues to be resolved, but then in seeing a three page response letter,
suggests to me that, you know, there’s more to it than just getting a conditional, you know,
offering a conditional approval. Plus it sounds like I’d be outvoted anyway.
MR. RINGER-Right. Well, I still appreciate your opinion.
MR. VOLLARO-I think, based on having received this document, and I appreciate the conflicts in
time, you know. What’s going on here is a function of the growth in Town and how much paper is
moving around between, I think Gretchen said it. It’s systemic now. We have a systemic problem
within the Town, of just getting paper and replying to it. Whatever, but I think I would have to go
along with the majority of the Board and say that C.T. Male has got to respond to this before we
can go on any further. I know it’s tough on the applicant, and I understand that. I don’t see that I
can do anything else about it. I think C.T. Male has to have the opportunity to respond to this.
MR. SANFORD-I’ll go along with the Board, but I would like to say that I do appreciate, Wendy,
the work you’ve done, and you made the issue a lot clearer, as to the other side of the issue, in
terms of, you know, it’s not a slam dunk if we go with the lining up across from McDonalds.
There’s a downside to that, too, and I have a better appreciation, but I would ask, Mr. Chairman,
that we do try to find a way to fit them in much sooner, rather than later, and I know that we have
very problematic scheduling, but this has been kicking around for a long time, and I would like to,
once we get the C.T. Male response, I’d like to have this scheduled as soon after that as possible.
MR. RINGER-So we can put it into August.
MR. BURKE-Can we get on next week, Mr. Chairman?
MR. RINGER-No.
MR. BURKE-Please?
MR. RINGER-No. We’ll put it into August.
59
(Queensbury Planning Board 7/20/04)
MS. RADNER-Mr. Chairman, just remember there may be members of the public here tonight
who may want to speak on the application.
MR. RINGER-Yes, but I still want to make sure that we go down, to make sure that. I’ll open the
public hearing, but I do want to do our criteria review to make sure, if they’re going to come back,
that they don’t have to come back nine times because something that we didn’t think about. So I
will, the public hearing probably was already opened, I would guess, and does anyone here from
the public wish to?
PUBLIC HEARING OPENED
PAT JAMESON
MRS. JAMESON-I’m Pat Jameson. I live on Ridge Road, but I grew up right in that area, and I
wonder if anybody has considered, I presume Mr. Schermerhorn still owns all the property. Did
anybody ever approach him about maybe putting in a service road? If you think of Quaker Ridge,
the service road there. That would solve the problem, wouldn’t it?
MR. RINGER-Mr. Schermerhorn hasn’t decided what’s going to happen to the rest of that
property, or how it will be subdivided or.
MRS. JAMESON-I know, but if he put a service road in.
MR. RINGER-But he has no plans right now for.
MRS. JAMESON-I said, did anybody ever approach him to do that? I mean, that would be a
thought, wouldn’t it?
MR. VOLLARO-I guess I’m not following you. A service road from where to where?
MRS. JAMESON-From some, the one curb cut that he’s allowed on that property. If you put a curb
cut in and put a service road in behind it.
MR. VOLLARO-All the way up?
MRS. JAMESON-Right, and there’s talk of, in the future, changing the curb, widening it there,
putting a turn lane in, which means they’re going to take property on that side of the street. If
there was a service road there, that would help. If they took the land, they still would have room
for their business, but I would think a service road would solve the whole problem. A service road
with one cut, curb cut, but Mr. Schermerhorn would have to do that.
MR. RINGER-He’d have to have plans for his property, and he doesn’t have that right now.
MR. SANFORD-But the alternative plan actually suggests the service road, but the problems that
the applicant has been discussing tonight with the service road is that the access from the service
road onto the Dunkin Donuts site would be in very close proximity to Dix Avenue and would
present its own set of problems, in terms of turning on and off of the service road into the site, and
so while it would, in a way, eliminate a curb cut, it would also create other problems that are
different. So it’s not like there’s a perfect solution here. It’s sort of a mixed deal.
MR. RINGER-That was our original plan was to go with the service road, if we could, because we
don’t know what the future development is going to be with that property.
MRS. JAMESON-That’s why I think the service road would be the answer.
MR. RINGER-But we don’t know how the property’s going to be subdivided or developed in the
future, but thank you for your comments. Anything else?
60
(Queensbury Planning Board 7/20/04)
MRS. JAMESON-It’s just a thought. No.
MR. RINGER-Okay. Thank you. We appreciate that. Anyone else?
NATIALIE POWERS
MRS. POWERS-My name’s Natalie Powers. I live at 11 Highland Avenue. My driveway is right
on the corner of that curve, on the corner of Highland and Dix. I wondered, when you make these
rules and regulations, why they aren’t enforced. Like when the liquor store put an entrance on
Highland Avenue, that was supposed to be for delivery only. Most cars that go to McDonalds, the
Beverage Center, or the liquor store, use that entrance way on Highland Avenue. They come up
Dix Avenue, cut across to Highland, and enter through driveway, and I just wondered why you
make these rules, but they’re never enforced.
MR. RINGER-I can’t answer your question, but I’ll pass your comments on to Staff who can pass it
on to the appropriate agencies, and if that was a regulation, part of our approval, then they can see
if it’s posted properly or what may be. Okay.
MRS. POWERS-It’s not posted. As a matter of fact the liquor store has a sign out there with an
arrow saying it’s a liquor store.
MR. RINGER-Yes, but I meant posted for the deliveries, or no deliveries, or whatever the case may
be, but I’ll pass that on to the proper agencies and let them look at it.
MRS. POWERS-I also own the property to the east of Schermerhorn’s, behind the green house. I
own the house next door to that green one, and the field adjoins Schermerhorn’s property.
MR. RINGER-Very good. Thank you, ma’am. I’ll pass those questions on to the proper agencies.
MRS. POWERS-Thank you.
MR. RINGER-Thank you. Anyone else? Gentlemen, and ladies.
MR. LAPPER-If that curb were to get taken out, that wouldn’t, there would be, Rich’s property
could accommodate that. You can see it where the orange line is. I mean, that would be a good
solution at some point, and we’re not proposing anything to be built there.
MR. RINGER-You know you’re going to be tabled tonight. I just want to go down these things, to
see if there’s anything else we’ve got questions on, outside of the comments that we’ve got to get
back from Male, the signoffs. Okay. Design standards.
MR. VOLLARO-Yes. I think we’re asking for color renditions of that building, or words that say
that this building will be.
MR. RINGER-Similar to Glens Falls.
MR. VOLLARO-Well, almost identical to the one that’s now on Glen Street.
MR. LAPPER-We’ll stipulate the finishes will be identical.
MR. RINGER-Jon, we’re just going over things that we’re going to be asking for. So next month
we won’t get here and all of a sudden say, wait a minute, we want to see this and we want to see
that. That’s what you’re asking for is to make sure we’ve got everything done that you could
possibly want.
MR. BURKE-The same color scheme as I have on Upper Glen Street.
61
(Queensbury Planning Board 7/20/04)
MR. RINGER-Okay. Anything else?
MR. SEGULJIC-Excuse me, Larry. Before you go through the list of the things we want, one of the
things I don’t think we discussed was landscaping.
MR. RINGER-It’s on this sheet here.
MR. SEGULJIC-You’re working down your sheet. I’m sorry.
MR. RINGER-Okay. Anything else on design standards?
MR. VOLLARO-If they have, in their files, a copy of the Glen Street thing, they could just say.
MR. LAPPER-You know what, though, I’m not being argumentative at all. We’ll never get it right,
in terms of the colors and the scheme and if we just say what you’ve got there is what you’re going
to get, it’s better to just point to the building, because it’ll be the same design and the same colors
and the same awning.
MR. BURKE-Whatever we submitted for Upper Glen. It’ll be the same building over there.
MR. LAPPER-What we submitted.
MR. ROBINSON-The color scheme will be the same. The one difference in the buildings is that
there’s a freezer outside of that.
MR. LAPPER-In the back.
MR. VOLLARO-So if you’ve got that in your file now, you can just give it to us, and that’s it.
MR. LAPPER-I just don’t think the picture looks as good as the building.
MR. RINGER-The next item on our thing is site criteria which is vehicle access, you know, and
traffic patterns and stuff. You know you’re going to have to get stuff from C.T. Male on that.
Stormwater, again, that’s C.T. Male. Lighting design, anything on lighting?
MR. VOLLARO-Yes. They’re going to change, based on this new design, there’s going to have to
be some lighting changes, but the average foot candles that I saw on what you presented looked
greater than the 2.5 that’s our Code, the average foot candles now. That’s on Drawing Four, your
Drawing Four of Seven. If you look at that, you know, you don’t have an average, but if you do
an integration, an eye scan integration, you’ll come up with a number that looks like about maybe
four to five, as an average.
MR. ROBINSON-We’ll go back and revisit that. I don’t think that that’s the case, but we’ll talk to
our lighting guy and we’ll make sure that that’s the case.
MR. VOLLARO-Yes, well, just take. George, you’ve got something?
MR. HILTON-Yes, I just want, again, that’s the basis of our comment, is that we can’t determine
what the averages are in the parking area or at the building face, and, you know, we’re looking at
non downcast lighting, and I guess we’d be looking for a revised plan, really, that shows, or is
consistent with Code, if that’s your direction.
MR. VOLLARO-That’s really what I’m asking for, yes.
MR. RINGER-I might add also, we didn’t talk about Staff notes tonight, but any Staff notes,
questions that were unanswered should be answered, okay.
MR. HUNSINGER-Lighting was one of them.
62
(Queensbury Planning Board 7/20/04)
MR. RINGER-Yes, lighting was. Well, that’s what made me think of it, when George said lighting.
MR. VOLLARO-If you go to the lighting plan, by the way, again, Four of Seven, your Number
Four of Seven, and you take a look at the cut sheets you’ve given us on this Accura 11 1,000 cut
sheet, versus the drawings, I can’t get correlation between that cut sheet and the drawings.
MR. ROBINSON-I notice the one thing on the cut sheet I don’t think we checked the wattage on it.
MR. VOLLARO-Well, I don’t see anything on the cut sheets that show the foot candles generated
from the freestanding lights around, the cut sheets don’t show that at all, at least the cut sheets I
(lost words) unless I’m missing some stuff, and I’ve got them here so we can look at them.
MR. BURKE-It’s a moot point. We’re going to comply with your standards, whatever they are, just
like we have in the past. We’ll comply again, no question. Shoebox down with a shield. No
problem.
MR. VOLLARO-Yes, and try to adhere to two and a half foot candles as an average throughout the
site. George has come up with another one that says, we’ve got to know what the parking area is
and so we can see that you conform to that. Go to our lighting code and take a look at it, but what
you’ve supplied in cut sheets does not correlate with your Number Four drawing.
MR. RINGER-Is that it on lighting? Okay. Landscape design.
MR. SEGULJIC-As far as landscaping goes, the buffer area on the, along Dix Avenue, it seems, all
you have is one plant there, as far as I can tell, on Ace Arubra. I don’t know what that is. It’s a
stormwater retention basin, but there is some area around it.
MR. HILTON-There’s exterior parking and landscaping requirement, that I think you’re talking
about the street landscaping, they’ve supplied one tree. That is what’s listed in the Code.
Certainly the Board has the ability to modify the requirements.
MR. SEGULJIC-I guess, speaking for myself, but I’d like to see that area enhanced a little better.
MR. BURKE-No problem. Consider it done.
MR. SEGULJIC-Okay.
MR. RINGER-We’ll have a plan showing us?
MR. SEGULJIC-Absolutely.
MR. RINGER-Anything else on landscaping?
MR. SEGULJIC-Well, this along the edge, also. I mean, there’s no listing, as to what it is, along the
driveway that comes back along. I realize you have it drawn green on that, but on the plan. It
doesn’t say what it is at all. It could be dirt for all I know. I assume you’re going to have a grass.
MR. BUTLER-No, we sod everything. We put underground sprinkler systems in, sod.
MR. SEGULJIC-I’d just like to see the landscaping enhanced.
MR. RINGER-Show it on the plan. Okay. Anything else on landscaping? Okay. Environmental,
we’ll do that on SEQRA, but is there anything anybody can think of? There’s no wetlands, noise,
air, aesthetics, historical, wildlife, neighborhood character, involved agencies? Okay. I’m going to
turn this over in Subdivision, do it quickly. Design standards, we’re working on that.
Development criteria, no. Stormwater, again, that will be C.T. Male. I’m talking to myself here
because I want to make sure we’ve covered everything. Landscape design, again, we’re going to
63
(Queensbury Planning Board 7/20/04)
cover that on site plan. Neighborhood character. Environmental, again, we’ll do that on SEQRA,
and involved agencies. I think we’ve covered all that.
MR. SANFORD-Well, one other suggestion, Larry, and this isn’t, if at all possible, I think it would
be very helpful if Rich Schermerhorn could be present, because he’s the decision maker in some of
the things that we’ll be talking about, and I know you’re his agent, but I don’t know how informed
you are, Jon.
MR. LAPPER-He had every intention of coming today, and he couldn’t because of the weather.
He was going to fly back for the meeting, but I do have authority, but at the same time, he’ll be
here at the next meeting.
MR. SANFORD-Thanks.
MR. HUNSINGER-Well, either that or a letter from him saying that, you know, it’s his
understanding that the remaining property will only have one curb cut, opposite McDonalds.
MR. LAPPER-Yes, and he said that on the record last time, so, yes, he understands that.
MR. HUNSINGER-Okay.
MR. SANFORD-Well, there were questions, though, Chris, that were brought up about what
happens to that small sliver of land if that happens, and then the applicant here said, well, that
would just be left and so, you know, that presents other potential items to talk about.
MR. LAPPER-No question.
MR. RINGER-Okay. Then I’ll make a motion to table, and it’s going to be for both the Subdivision
No. 2-2004 and Site Plan No. 14-2004, and we’ll table it to the first.
MR. HILTON-I just would ask that you maybe be specific in listing the items you’re looking for.
MR. RINGER-I’m going to try, but if I miss some, please let me know.
MR. HILTON-Okay.
MR. RINGER-First meeting, first regularly scheduled meeting in August, and the tabling is to get
the responses from C.T. Male in regards to the letters of July 20 from Creighton Manning and any
th
other responses or signoffs necessary from C.T. Male regarding stormwater. Also, part of the
tabling is to come up with a, show us the lighting fixture design, landscape design, and anything
else that anyone can think of that I missed.
MR. VOLLARO-Just to make sure that there’s an effort made to have the average foot candles
approach Code of 2.5 foot candles.
MR. RINGER-Okay. Lighting design to match Code, and to answer all Staff notes, which we
didn’t really cover tonight.
MRS. STEFFAN-There is one thing that I would like to see, and that’s cars in queue for both of the
access scenarios.
MR. LAPPER-We actually, Wendy did provide that, which you haven’t read yet.
MRS. STEFFAN-But the numbers that I looked at didn’t seem to jive right. In this area, we have a
lot of pickup trucks. They’re 20 feet long, and so it’s a big difference between a Volkswagen and a
pickup truck.
MR. BURKE-We can provide that to you, no problem.
64
(Queensbury Planning Board 7/20/04)
MRS. STEFFAN-Because every Dunkin Donuts, and I go to Dunkin Donuts all over the Capital
Region, and every morning during commuter time, there’s cars out from Dunkin Donuts onto the
major highways, everywhere, and so it’s just something that’s a hot button for me.
MR. RINGER-Okay. So it would be for the queuing that will occur. Anything else, George, that I
may have missed? Is that specific enough for you?
MR. HILTON-Yes.
MR. RINGER-Okay. Second?
MR. SANFORD-I’ll second it.
MOTION TO TABLE SUBDIVISION NO. 2-2004 PRELIMINARY & FINAL STAGE DIX
AVENUE PROPERTIES & SITE PLAN NO. 14-2004 NORTH STAR DONUT GROUP,
Introduced by Larry Ringer who moved for its adoption, seconded by Richard Sanford:
Tabled to the first regularly scheduled meeting in August, and the tabling is to get the responses
from C.T. Male in regards to the letters of July 20 from Creighton Manning and any other
th
responses or signoffs necessary from C.T. Male regarding stormwater. Also, to show us the
lighting fixture design, landscape design, lighting design to match Code, and to answer all Staff
notes. We’d like to see number of cars in queue for each of the access scenarios.
Duly adopted this 20 day of July, 2004, by the following vote:
th
AYES: Mr. Sanford, Mr. Seguljic, Mrs. Steffan, Mr. Anderson, Mr. Hunsinger, Mr. Vollaro, Mr.
Ringer
NOES: NONE
MR. LAPPER-Thank you.
MR. RINGER-Next month you’ve got it. I realize it’s been six or seven times, but some of those
were discussions, and I don’t count those.
MR. BURKE-Thank you very much.
NEW BUSINESS:
SUBDIVISION NO. 11-2004 SKETCH PLAN DIAMOND POINT REALTY ZONE: RR-3A
LOCATION: OAKWOOD DRIVE APPLICANT PROPOSES TO SUBDIVIDE A 17.7 +/- ACRE
PARCEL INTO FIVE LOTS RANGING IN SIZE FROM 3 +/- ACRES TO 5 +/- ACRES. CROSS
REFERENCE: AREA VARIANCE NEEDED TAX MAP NO. 296.10-1-19 LOT SIZE: 17.7
ACRES SECTION: SUBDIVISION REGULATIONS
MICHAEL O’CONNOR & TOM JARRETT, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT
STAFF INPUT
Notes from Staff, Subdivision No. 11-2004, Sketch Plan, Diamond Point Realty, Meeting Date: July
20, 2004 “APPLICATION: Subdivision 11-2004 (Sketch Plan)
APPLICANT: Diamond Point Realty is the applicant for this request.
REQUESTED ACTION: Applicant proposes to subdivide a 17.7 +/- acre property into five lots
ranging in size from 3 to 5 acres.
65
(Queensbury Planning Board 7/20/04)
LOCATION: The subject property is located off of Oakwood Drive, just west of the Glens Falls
Country Club.
EXISTING ZONING: This property is zoned RR-3A, Rural Residential Three Acre.
SEQRA STATUS: SEQRA review is not required for a sketch plan subdivision review.
CONFORMANCE WITH THE COMP. PLAN: This property is located in neighborhood 7
according to the 1998 Comprehensive Plan.
PARCEL HISTORY: A search of the parcel history found no previous Planning Board or
Zoning Board actions related to this property.
PROJECT DESCRIPTION: The applicant proposes to subdivide a 17.7-acre property into 5 lots
ranging in size from 3 to 5 acres.
STAFF COMMENTS:
The applicant has requested waivers from the following sketch plan requirements:
Grading Plan
-
As indicated in the Subdivision Regulations, slopes greater than 25% must be reduced from the
overall allowable density, unless otherwise granted a waiver from the Planning Board. As
indicated in the application, the applicant is seeking a waiver from considering slopes greater
than 25% as part of the allowable residential density calculation as it relates to this application.
The applicant has provided a density calculation indicating that if slopes greater than 25% were
reduced from the allowable density, a total of 3 residential lots would be allowed based on the
current zoning designation of RR-3A. The Planning Board can, and has allowed waivers from
deducting slopes as part of the overall allowable density. According to § 183-47, waivers from
the subdivision regulations are allowed if such a waiver will not have a negative impact on the
health, safety and general welfare of the public.
As proposed, development of the proposed lots would occur along a relatively level area of
land with steep slopes located to the east and west of the proposed main access drive. The total
length of the proposed access drive is approximately 1400 ‘ +/-. There may be some concerns
from emergency services related to the length of the access drive, as well as the narrowing of
this drive towards the northern end of this property. Staff will forward this proposed
subdivision onto the Fire Marshal for review at the time of any Preliminary Stage review of this
application.
As proposed, this subdivision requires an Area Variance given that four of the lots are
proposed without the required street frontage.”
MR. RINGER-George, you said you had a question?
MR. HILTON-Yes. I just wanted to go back to the previous application here. Now, you’re
putting it on for the first August meeting. The August deadline has passed. Is there a certain
date that you’re going to allow them to get this new information in?
MR. RINGER-What would be convenient, or best for you? Give me a date, and I’ll put it down.
A lot of that is C.T. Male has got to get. We’re looking for a date for you, Jon.
MR. LAPPER-We’ve really submitted to C.T. Male. It’s just landscaping and lighting.
MR. RINGER-Yes, but they’ve got to return it to you, and have some comments.
66
(Queensbury Planning Board 7/20/04)
MR. HILTON-Friday the 6 of August.
th
MR. RINGER-Friday the 6, Jon.
th
MR. LAPPER-Okay.
MR. RINGER-So the information has to be in to Staff by Friday the 6.
th
MR. LAPPER-Thank you.
MR. RINGER-All right. Okay. Staff notes on this, George.
MR. VOLLARO-We’re on Diamond Point now?
MR. RINGER-We’re on Diamond Point.
MR. HILTON-Okay. We’re looking at a Sketch Plan subdivision application here, as I’ve
mentioned, proposing five residential lots. A portion of this property has slopes, as is shown on
your plans, greater than 25%, and as I’ve mentioned, the Planning Board can reduce this from
the density calculation. The Code states that this can be done, essentially if there’s no negative
impact on the healthy, safety and welfare of the surrounding area or to the public. The lots
would be constructed or developed on a relatively flat area with slopes on the west and east
side going down. The applicant is proposing an access drive. I measured a quick, rough
measurement of 1400 feet or possibly more. There could be some concerns, as far as emergency
access, given the length of this driveway and the somewhat narrow, flat area that it would be
constructed on. As part of any Preliminary Stage review, we will review this to emergency
services, the Fire Marshal. As I’ve indicated, an Area Variance will be required for the four lots
that are proposed without street frontage, and that’s really, I think, all I have at this time.
MR. RINGER-If they didn’t get the grades, they would only be looking at three to four lots, you
said?
MR. HILTON-Three.
MR. JARRETT-If I could jump in, Mr. Chairman.
MR. RINGER-Well, the floor is yours now anyway.
MR. JARRETT-We have to correct something with regard to our slopes. Tom Jarrett, of
Jarrett/Martin Engineers. If you look at the, either plan, if you look at the top of the drawing,
near the north end, northwest corner, there’s an area that does not show any topography. Up
until today, I thought that was because the land there was flat, it was a plateau, a lower plateau.
I learned today that that was just not surveyed, and there may be slopes in there that are
exceeding 25%.
MR. VOLLARO-Right up in here?
MR. JARRETT-No, to your left, just to your left of that. That hole right in there. So, to play
Devil’s Advocate, if that was all 25% or greater slopes, we would be at 8.6 acres of buildable
area, which would give us two lots instead of three. I don’t know that’s the case. I’m just
playing Devil’s Advocate.
MR. VOLLARO-Okay.
MR. RINGER-Okay. Go ahead with your presentation.
MR. O'CONNOR-Okay. For the purpose of your record, I’m Mike O’Connor from the firm of
Little & O’Connor. I represent the applicant. With me at the table is one of the principals of the
67
(Queensbury Planning Board 7/20/04)
applicant, Rick Meath. In the back is Gary Scott, one of the other principals, and the other
principal is Tom Meath. Also is Tom Jarrett, who is the project engineer. Basically this is a 17
acre parcel of land that adjoins the second and third hole of the Glens Falls Country Club. It has
access to it off of Oakwood Drive. If you take a look at the overall map, you will see that the
residential development in this area is on an acre or less than an acre lot, and that’s the way it
was developed, along Wincrest Drive, up into Oakwood and that area, and I would have to
presume that it probably was zoned RR-3, because it was presumed that someday or other it
would become part of the Country Club. They, in fact, the Country Club did, in fact, try to
acquire it but never was able to acquire it. You will see from the material that’s presented,
though, they have worked with the developer, and worked out what they think is a very
reasonable basis for continuation of their relationship with the property, so that the proposed
development won’t impact their site at all, and they’re probably the one that is most exposed to
any impact. If you’ve ever played the second or third hole, this immediately adjoins that part of
the golf course, and in fact you can see, if you look on Lot Number One, the edge of the green is
right at the property line. The cart path, in fact, is on an easement area that’s to the, that
encroaches a little bit on to the Lot Number One. It’s a unique piece of property. We don’t
believe it will have any impact, it’s development will have any impact on any of the adjoining
properties except maybe beneficial. It’s going to be developed, kind of in the nature of a gated
community, although it won’t have a gate, with a private driveway, private road system, and
they’ll be very substantial homes that will be built in there. Each of the lots that is offered has
an excess, or approximate excess, most of them far in excess of one acre of flat land. The flat
land, or the developable land of each of the five parcels that’s offered is in excess of any of the
adjoining lots or neighborhood lots, as they have been developed, and that’s basically it. The
run through it, the idea is to do a private road which will be maintained by a Homeowners
Association. It’ll be approximately 850 feet deep to the cul de sac that’s shown on the mapping,
and then there’ll be two private drives. One will serve Lot Five. One will serve Lot Four. It
will be served by Town water and on site septic. There will be a hydrant that will be put in,
someplace near the cul de sac so that there will be water well within the area and well within
the capability of providing water for fire protection. Tom Jarrett, or somebody from Tom
Jarrett’s office, has spoken to someone from the fire department and shown them the plans. Joe
Dupree, who is the Chief of Queensbury Central, which is the Fire Department that serves this
district, that we got from him the necessary turning radiuses and used those in design of what
we’re proposing for a road. He did not see a problem with it. He indicated that he would talk
to the Fire Marshal, and we probably would have a letter from the Fire Marshal. I don’t know if
we have that yet, George, or not.
MR. HILTON-I don’t believe we do.
MR. RINGER-This is only Sketch. So we probably.
MR. O'CONNOR-Okay. I’m just trying to tell you we, one of the most significant things I think
is that the developer has agreed to basically maintain this as a treed parcel of land. They have
an agreement that they will not reduce the trees on any of the lots, on any portions of the lots, so
that there would be an average of a 30 basal square inch per acre, and if you look at our
standards, I think, and the only actual basal standard that we have in Queensbury apparently it
says is that if you’re in the APA area, you cannot clear more than 70%. What they’re talking
about is potentially clearing 30%. So their idea of maintaining these as treed lots is probably
twice what that is. I also took the time to take a look at some of the others. I think Lake George
has 50 inches and Bolton has 60 inches. So they’ve offered, on a voluntary basis, to exceed
those, as far as trees that they will maintain on the site. As I said, the only one that might be
impacted, and I think the only one, the first house would be visible to the adjoining property
that’s owned by Doctor Kelly, or Doctor Kelly and his wife. Other than that, the houses on
Two, Three, Four, and Five, I don’t think are going to be visible to anyone except from the golf
course, and the golf course has looked at that, they’ve looked at the trees and they have an
agreement as to the tree removal and don’t think it will have any impact upon them. That’s
basically what we’re talking about. Each of the lots, themselves, as far as dimensions, are in
excess of three acres, which is what the RR-3 Acre zone calls for, I think the smallest one is 3.02.
The largest one is 5.02.
68
(Queensbury Planning Board 7/20/04)
MR. RINGER-Okay. This is Sketch. So the concept is what we’re looking at, and I’ll just open it
up to any comments.
MR. VOLLARO-I think the concept is pretty good. I just had a question, I guess. That piece of
property, this is currently not owned, you have to purchase this?
MR. O'CONNOR-No, it is owned.
MR. VOLLARO-It is owned?
MR. O'CONNOR-It is owned.
MR. VOLLARO-Okay. So you’ve got the deed to that and all that sort of stuff.
MR. O'CONNOR-Yes. I do.
MR. VOLLARO-Okay. So that gives you your access onto.
MR. O'CONNOR-Yes. In the past, the ownership, or the access would have probably been by
easement underneath the high tension power lines, and again, I think they’ve gone a little bit of
the extra mile and made arrangements to obtain that access, as opposed to going under the
power lines.
MR. VOLLARO-It makes sense to do that. Right.
MR. RINGER-How would they go about maintaining that drive? Who will maintain it? The
Homeowners Association?
MR. O'CONNOR-The Homeowners Association.
MR. RINGER-The Homeowners Association will also be responsible for the hydrant and
maintaining the hydrant and the pressure testings required?
MR. O'CONNOR-I think they’re amenable to doing that, if the Town is not willing to have an
agreement.
MR. RINGER-It’s a private hydrant. I don’t think the Town tests private hydrants.
MR. O'CONNOR-I’ve said it’s kind of like a hydrant on a.
MR. RINGER-Commercial property.
MR. O'CONNOR-Commercial property on a mall, and if that’s our responsibility, that we
would undertake it.
MR. SANFORD-What kind of buffering do you have in mind for the Kelly’s residence? In other
words, you’ve said it’s going to be visible, and I was just wondering, you know, it looks like
you’re planning on putting a high quality development here, but I certainly would appreciate
knowing, you know, how you’re going to alter the view that they’re subjected to.
MR. O'CONNOR-Their main view is toward the golf course. As you went on to their back
yard, you will see that they’ve cleared almost everything behind the fourth tee. In fact, they’ve
cleared a little bit of the slope behind the fourth tee. To the north, which is where our property
is, there is still pretty good trees. Their house is probably, there’s a 20 foot strip in there that’s
still owned by the Country Club, and probably, the 20 foot strip and the other is probably, what,
60 feet to what we propose to show as a potential site.
69
(Queensbury Planning Board 7/20/04)
MR. SANFORD-Your site is to the north of really where their house is, right?
MR. O'CONNOR-Yes.
MR. SANFORD-Okay. So there’s going to be a tree barrier?
MR. O’CONNOR-Yes. There presently is probably 60 feet of trees, and that would remain.
MR. SANFORD-Okay.
MR. O’CONNOR-And on their property they also have some trees on that end of their
property, I think.
MR. RINGER-Anything else?
MR. SEGULJLIC-Clarification on the Consent for Statement in Support of Diamond Point Realty
Corp.
MR. O'CONNOR-Yes.
MR. SEGULJIC-There’s a comment in here, it says just clarify this for me. It says, tree depths
will be maintained at a minimum 70 square foot of basal area per acre. What exactly does that
mean?
MR. O'CONNOR-I will try to explain it, okay. Basal area is the square inches of tree. There’ll
be 70 square inches of tree, 70 square feet of trees, if you measured the diameter of trees, per
acre, trunk area, at breast height.
RICK MEATH
MR. MEATH-Diameter breast height, there will be a minimum of 70 square feet of trees per acre
throughout the property.
MR. SEGULJIC-Just give me a feel, if it’s wooded now, I think it’s all wooded, correct?
MR. MEATH-Yes.
MR. SEGULJIC-What is it going to be in comparison? If it’s wooded now, and you’re saying
you’re going to maintain 70 square foot of basal area. So it’s going to be thinned out then,
essentially?
MR. MEATH-Well, certain areas will be thinned out, but most of it is going to remain fairly
heavy. We will probably clear out a few trees on some of the slopes to open up a couple of
views, and then obviously where the house is going to go will be cleared out. Other than that,
we’re not going to cut much at all.
MR. SEGULJIC-So you’re intention is to more or less keep it as it is?
MR. MEATH-Yes, certainly along the, I guess it would be the westerly boundary, we want to
leave as many trees back there as we can, because that provides a buffer against any kind of
noise, for instance, from Great Escape or anything like that. So we’re going to leave it as treed
as we can.
MR. SEGULJIC-And then a lot of these cart paths, they appear to come on to the property, but
that’s all easements, then?
MR. MEATH-Yes.
70
(Queensbury Planning Board 7/20/04)
MR. RINGER-Anything else?
MR. HUNSINGER-Well, one of the things I’d like to see, if this comes back for subdivision
review, Mike made a comment earlier about the developable area on each lot being in excess of
an acre. I’d like to see what that is, the actual measurement.
MR. JARRETT-I can give it to you orally.
MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. Well, I don’t necessarily need it right this minute. If you could
maybe mark it on the plot. I think that would be helpful.
MR. RINGER-Anyone have a concern with the 25% slopes that we’re allowing the waivers on?
MR. VOLLARO-Well, we’ll be allowing waivers, it looks to me, like on about 49% of the site, 49
to 50, based on whether it’s 8.9 or 9. So we’ve got to decide whether we’re going to do a waiver
on the 50% basis. I think that’s.
MR. RINGER-That’s why I’m asking. This is Sketch, and they’re going to come back with
Preliminary, and if we have a concern, we should tell them.
MR. VOLLARO-Well, looking at the overall site, the quality of their houses, as much trees that
are going to remain, I would be in favor of granting the waiver for 50% of that.
MR. RINGER-Any other comments on that?
MR. SANFORD-Not on that, Larry. I know it’s Sketch Plan and a public hearing is not required.
I guess my question is, is it permissible for you to open a public hearing? I see there’s a couple
of people in the audience. Maybe they have something to say, or, you know, on our agenda it
says it’s not required. I guess my question.
MR. RINGER-Because it’s Sketch. It’s not required because it’s Sketch.
MR. SANFORD-Well, if there is somebody who might comment, it might give us some insight.
MR. RINGER-We can hear from the public. It’s just we’re not required to post it.
MS. RADNER-You have discretion. Obviously, when it’s just in Sketch, the whole thing could
crash and burn or it could come back looking considerably different.
MR. SANFORD-Well, the way I look at Sketch is the purpose of Sketch is for us to get a feel for
us to get a feel for the project in advance.
MR. RINGER-Rich, I don’t see any trouble. If someone in the audience would like to comment
on this particular application, please, you’re welcome to do so.
BERNARD RAYHILL
MR. RAYHILL-My name is Bernard Rayhill. I live on Wincrest Drive, which is right up from
the property, and initially what I’ve seen here is really a fantastic development, which is really
going to be an asset to the community, if it is just as Mr. O’Connor outlined. I do have some
questions, though, because some people called me and asked what’s going on here. These signs
are so small, we don’t know what’s going on, and I would suggest that for the meetings in the
future, even though if it’s a good project like this looks like it’s a good project, that you have
adequate signage, so the residents in the community are aware of developments taking place,
especially when there’s one that might be less desirable.
MR. RINGER-Okay. When they go to Preliminary and Final Stage, sir, they will be sending
notices, 500 feet in the surrounding area. They will post on their property a sign that there’s a
71
(Queensbury Planning Board 7/20/04)
pending application. So there will be notification to that extent, as with all of our applications.
For Sketch, we don’t do that.
MR. HUNSINGER-And the sign is a lot bigger than the notice that was posted.
MR. RINGER-Yes. Right.
MR. HUNSINGER-Yes, it’s like three by four or something.
MR. RAYHILL-The next thing is with regard to, you’ve already covered the letters to the
residents. Mr. Meath and Mr. O’Connor know that there’s a problem with Niagara Mohawk. I
don’t know how Niagara Mohawk impacts the development.
MR. LAPPER-It does not.
MR. O'CONNOR-It would be a neighbor. Niagara Mohawk runs along this property line here.
MR. RAYHILL-So it won’t affect you at all?
MR. O'CONNOR-No.
MR. RAYHILL-Okay. Fine. I don’t have any other questions. It sounds good to me.
MR. RINGER-Okay. Thank you, sir. You’ve got our ideas. I think I’ve got pretty much
consensus from the Board, the 25% slopes. Okay. We want to make sure that we’re not
agreeing to waivers tonight, but we’re not going to give them a real problem with Preliminary.
MR. ANDERSON-At the very beginning, there was a remark about some survey information
being missing, and I didn’t understand it. That may affect the number of lots.
MR. RINGER-Right, the slopes.
MR. JARRETT-Not the number of lots that we’re asking for, no. It’s the theoretical build out of
the subdivision. It slightly alters the numbers, depending on how the survey.
MR. ANDERSON-Right now, the layout of the lots, that’s how you’d like them?
MR. O’CONNOR-Yes. We did speak to a couple of other neighbors, while you were doing your
other business, Connelly’s and the person who’s house is right across from the entrance way,
and based upon what we showed them, we showed them the plans, they didn’t seem to have a
problem with it.
MR. RINGER-You’re a long ways away back there. It fits in to the neighborhood. The private
drive, that’s a long private drive, but if you talked to Joe, and he doesn’t seem to have any
difficulty with that, and the fact that you’re going to have the hydrant there is certainly.
MR. O'CONNOR-We also were asking for two other waivers, the grading plan and Sketch Plan
review, which we have not done.
MR. RINGER-I think we’d probably want to see a grading plan, at Preliminary.
MR. MEATH-You will at Preliminary.
MR. RINGER-Right, and stormwater we’ll want to see on Preliminary.
MR. MEATH-And wastewater.
MR. RINGER-Yes.
72
(Queensbury Planning Board 7/20/04)
MR. HUNSINGER-How about clearing? Maybe this was just for Sketch Plan, but on your
waiver request form, it says, applicant is requesting a waiver from individual standing trees. I
mean, obviously, you’re not going to go out and flag every individual standing tree. You’d be
there forever, but just a general clearing plan itself.
MR. JARRETT-It’s going to be reflected somewhat there, what you see on the board, we will
show that.
MR. HUNSINGER-Okay.
MR. O'CONNOR-I think the representation is that the areas of the drives and the areas of
construction, with some yard around each structure is what will be cleared, in the sense of
being cleared. Everything else will be selectively cut.
MR. JARRETT-Yes, we’ll show that.
MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. Great.
MR. RINGER-You know what you need for Preliminary.
MRS. STEFFAN-Will the cutting affect the view from another direction? I mean, you talk about
the Country Club. Is it Round Pond on the other side or where?
MR. O'CONNOR-We don’t think so because actually all of the development will be far away
from that edge of the ridge. There’s like a plateau at the top, and if this is the side that’s toward
the Niagara Mohawk line, most of the structures will be built on this side, which are toward the
Country Club. They are going to try and take advantage of some of the views of the Country
Club.
MR. JARRETT-There’ll be essentially no cutting on that west side.
MR. O'CONNOR-The fourth hole or the seventh hole, they will get some views off of that.
Okay.
MR. RINGER-You’re set.
MR. RAYHILL-Just for clarification, where is the access road going to be?
MR. O'CONNOR-Just to the east of the Niagara Mohawk intersection with Oakwood.
MR. RAYHILL-So that’s exactly about 100 feet from Lusignan’s house. All right, and with
regards to buffering, for the access area, have you made provisions for the buffering around the
area? I know there are roads there, there are lots of trees all around it. It’s a nice area, but I’m
sure you’ve made provisions for that also, for a buffering so that it’s an attractive access area,
and you know, also, another thing with regards to that, I’d like to address is when you’re
coming down the road on either side, and you want to get in, it’s a curve there. There’s a curve
going around, and I’m not saying that it’s a bad plan, but there is a problem coming around,
and there have been accidents in that area. So there has to be some provision for making it a
safe area to enter, to make a left turn into, from the right side, or a right turn from the right side
and left turn from the left side coming along. So you’re going to have to find out how we can
make that the safest entrance there, because you don’t want to have accident in that area. That
was just something I’d like to suggest.
MR. O'CONNOR-Okay. We can look at that. You’re talking about five houses, though, and
you’re talking about principally a private driveway.
73
(Queensbury Planning Board 7/20/04)
MR. RINGER-Yes, and this is not public hearing. He’s offering his comments, and we
appreciate his comments, and I’m sure you do.
MR. RAYHILL-It’s all positive. Okay. Thank you.
MR. RINGER-Thank you, sir. Okay. Then I’ll adjourn the meeting.
On motion meeting was adjourned.
RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED,
Acting Chairman, Larry Ringer
74