2004-11-23
(Queensbury Planning Board 11/23/04)
QUEENSBURY PLANNING BOARD MEETING
SECOND REGULAR MEETING
NOVEMBER 23, 2004
7:00 P.M.
MEMBERS PRESENT
CRAIG MAC EWAN, CHAIRMAN
CHRIS HUNSINGER, SECRETARY
ROBERT VOLLARO
RICHARD SANFORD
THOMAS SEGULJIC
ANTHONY METIVIER
LARRY RINGER
PLANNER-GEORGE HILTON
TOWN COUNSEL-MILLER, MANNIX,SCHACHNER, AND HAFNER-MARK SCHACHNER
STENOGRAPHER-MARIA GAGLIARDI
OLD BUSINESS:
SPECIAL USE PERMIT SUP 5-2003 SEQR TYPE: UNLISTED DUNHAM’S RESORT
CORP. PROPERTY OWNER: JOHN, JR. & KATHLEEN SALVADOR ZONE: WR-1A, RR-
3A, LC-42A LOCATION: NYS RT. 9L, DUNHAM BAY APPLICANT SEEKS
RECOGNITION AS A PRE-EXISTING CLASS A MARINA PER SECTION 179-10-035 OF
THE ZONING ORDINANCE. LGPC, APA, CEA WARREN CO. PLANNING: 9/10/03 TAX
MAP NO. 252-1-75.3, 239.20-1-1, 252-1-89, 90, 91 LOT SIZE: 10 ACRES SECTION: 179-10
JOHN SALVADOR, JR., PRESENT
MR. MAC EWAN-John, do you want to come up. John, the reason why I had this put on the
agenda tonight was since we last met with you, it was back in the Spring, I believe, sometime,
and the condition of tabling was to provide the Town Planning Department, the Planning
Board, with information that was requested in the tabling motion. We haven’t received
anything, and it’s a matter of housekeeping that I’ve got on the agenda so that we can deny it
without prejudice, in case you want to re-file and pursue some other avenues or whatever. I
mean, that’s what we’re going to do. This is not something that we’re picking on you about. I
mean, we’ve done it with other applications where there’s been such a long time line from the
time we’ve tabled something until the time we haven’t received additional information. It’s a
matter of housekeeping. There’s a legal clock that’s been ticking for some time, and it’s a matter
of tidying up loose ends.
MR. SALVADOR-Well, contrary to popular belief, a lot has been happening, and a lot of
submissions have been made. A lot of information has been furnished. Now that it hasn’t been
passed on to the Planning Board is quite another matter, but we have, and I have taken the
liberty to copy you folks on certain of the information, but a lot of these things that you’ve been
informed about go to site plan. They go to our site plan, and depending on the outcome, they
will require modifications or.
MR. MAC EWAN-What do you mean, depending upon the outcome?
MR. SALVADOR-Well, there’ve been a lot of challenges made.
MR. MAC EWAN-By who?
MR. SALVADOR-Our neighbors.
1
(Queensbury Planning Board 11/23/04)
MR. MAC EWAN-Whatever is going on with your neighbors is not relevant to our review, is it?
MR. SALVADOR-Well, it has been the reason why we have tabled, and I have been required to
furnish the information that they say has been necessary.
MR. MAC EWAN-Why haven’t you been able to provide that information, some of it?
MR. SALVADOR-I have. I have.
MR. MAC EWAN-Has that case been settled?
MR. SALVADOR-No. As a result of the previous hearings we’ve had, you folks have
demanded, specifically, certain information, and we’ve responded, and we keep responding.
Now, we reached a point here where we’ve got some serious problems with the DOT who has
re-mapped the highway and is going to affect property boundaries. These property boundaries
are on our site plan. I have a statement I was prepared to read tonight. I’ve submitted it for the
record, but all of these issues are in here, and if you’re willing to tell me what all of this means
with regard to denying without prejudice, what does this mean with regard, then, to a new
submission not being timely.
MR. MAC EWAN-Well, it means, for all practical purposes, that this application would be null
and void. I mean, you would have to submit a new application with a new application number,
with the information for a Special Use Permit.
MR. SALVADOR-And that application would not be timely, according to the regulations.
MR. MAC EWAN-What would you suggest we do?
MR. SALVADOR-I would suggest we keep it open.
MR. MAC EWAN-For how long?
MR. SALVADOR-Until I can supply the information.
MR. MAC EWAN-I want a date.
MR. SALVADOR-I can’t speak for State agencies that I’m relying on for information. Okay.
MR. MAC EWAN-A month, two months, another year and a half?
MR. SALVADOR-Well, the DOT has been a year and a half. Let me just, let’s take the DOT for
an example.
MR. MAC EWAN-I don’t want to get bogged down in a long dissertation about what hasn’t
been accomplished to date, John. I mean, you were fully aware of what the tabling motion was
back in the Spring, the information, the additional information that the Board requested of you
to provide to us, to validate whether or not your existing marina is in conformance with the
Town Code. It was that simple.
MR. SALVADOR-Yes, and as to whether or not it’s in conformance with the Town Code was
challenged by Mr. Sweeney, Mr. Parillo’s attorney, in a long dissertation, a long letter of
comments and points that we are at work addressing.
MR. MAC EWAN-When was the last court date on that?
2
(Queensbury Planning Board 11/23/04)
MR. SALVADOR-It’s not a, they’re not a subject of a court date. It’s this Board, and my
application before this Board. Now he’s mentioned a lot of things that are not correct in what
he’s brought forth. We’ve settled a lot of issues that he claims are open, and not correct.
MR. MAC EWAN-How much longer do you think it will take to provide the information this
Board had requested back in the Spring tabling? I need a timeline.
MR. SALVADOR-Well, my big problem at the present time is the DEC and the DOT, and I’m
telling you we are at the court of appeals trying to get the record open. They have sealed the
record, a real estate transaction that we entered into with them. They have sealed the record.
Now, we’re doing the best we can.
MR. MAC EWAN-When is your court date with the Court of Appeals?
MR. SALVADOR-We’ve, we’re not sure of that yet. We’ve filed an application for appeal.
MR. MAC EWAN-And when did you file that?
MR. SALVADOR-In the last week.
MR. MAC EWAN-In the last week.
MR. SALVADOR-We got an Appellate Division decision that allowed us to have a few records,
that we’ve since gotten, and we’re commenting on those. We’ve got a few records at Supreme
Court level, and we’re commenting on those. Little by little we’re trying to put the story
together.
MR. MAC EWAN-It sounds to me like it’s going to be a long, dragged out deal.
MR. SALVADOR-Indeed it is, and we would not have submitted this application for Special
Use Permit, had we not been faced with the recently enacted time limit, January 1, 2004 was the
required submission date, and we submitted. Now if you want to table this, you want to deny
without prejudice, just tell me what it means with regard to what does without prejudice mean?
The County has already denied without prejudice.
MR. SANFORD-Mr. Salvador, I think what I understand your concern is that if this is denied
without prejudice, then theoretically you’re in violation of not being timely in seeking a Special
Use Permit.
MR. SALVADOR-Yes, sir, and what does it mean with regard to our future operations?
MR. SANFORD-Right.
MR. SALVADOR-Are we going to be allowed to continue to operate in the absence of a Special
Use Permit?
MR. SANFORD-I would like to have Staff respond to that, because as far as I know, there’s been
no enforcement activity regarding any marina that has not filed on a timely notice, to my
knowledge. Now, maybe there has been. George, Mark, anybody want to chime in on this
one?
MR. HILTON-My understanding that as this date, January 1, 2004, approached, that all marina
owners in the Town were sent letters and informed of this date. Some did come in and supply
applications, some may not have. What is going on right now as far as following up with that, I
guess I don’t know. That’s something our Zoning Administrator has been concentrating on.
MR. SCHACHNER-I’d just like to add to that, for the benefit of the Board. Please keep in mind
that, you, as a Planning Board, are not the police or enforcing entity of the Town of Queensbury,
3
(Queensbury Planning Board 11/23/04)
in regards to zoning violations or anything else. So you can’t, I mean, I have to advise you as
your counsel that you don’t have the legal authority to make any promises to this applicant or
any other applicant, as to what course enforcement may or may not take. You have to discharge
your authority under the various laws, in this case site plan review, special use permit laws and
what not, when applications are before you. You have, in the past, and you certainly can, make
advisory recommendations to the Code Enforcement Staff to the Town Board and the others
that have the enforcement authority, but this Board is not the zoning police and doesn’t have
the legal authority to make any binding determinations about enforcement.
MR. SANFORD-Okay. Well, then I have just a more general question, regarding, not this
application, but any applicant who doesn’t comply with the letters that were sent. What is the
Town’s position on action on this?
MR. SCHACHNER-I’m not sure there is a, there doesn’t need to be, and neither of us is aware
of a Town position. Town’s have the right to enforce zoning laws, just as the New York State
Police have the right to enforce the speed limit. I’m not aware of a situation where each and
every one of us, and I’ll plead that I am one of the “us” that occasionally or frequently even
exceed the speed limit. Some get speeding tickets and some don’t. I understand your question,
but I don’t know that there’s an official Town position, other than the Town of Queensbury,
generally speaking, rigorously and diligently enforces the provisions of the Zoning Law.
MR. SANFORD-Right. Well, I’m not asking these questions to be argumentative.
MR. SCHACHNER-I know.
MR. SANFORD-What I really wanted to find out is, I think the Chairman has stated a very
compelling reason to basically deny this application, because of the timeline. The applicant’s
come in and basically stated my concern is that if you deny it, now I’m in some kind of, I’m not
in compliance.
MR. SCHACHNER-Correct.
MR. SANFORD-And so we’re caught, it’s a Catch 22 here.
MR. SCHACHNER-That I don’t agree with, but that’s your opinion and you’re entitled to it.
The reason I don’t agree, as your Counsel, that there’s a Catch 22 is because it’s not your
province to decide or even necessary to take into account in your Special Use Permit criteria,
your Site Plan criteria, and your Subdivision criteria, what the impact of your decision may be
in terms of enforcement by the Town enforcers.
MR. SANFORD-Well, all right, and I appreciate you gave a good analogy with the speeding
thing, but I think it would be pretty interesting if cops only busted every tenth murderer.
Again, what I’m trying to say here is we haven’t done anything, to my knowledge as a Town, to
basically go to a person who is operating some form of a marina but hasn’t made application
and said, look it, you’re not authorized to operate this marina. To my knowledge, nothing has
been done. I’m just curious if, for the applicant’s benefit, if anything will be done, and the
answer is no one knows.
MR. SCHACHNER-No, the answer is we can’t answer that question.
MR. SANFORD-All right. That’s all.
MR. MAC EWAN-Any other comments from Board members?
MR. SALVADOR-I have one more comment. As I’ve been in this process, the Zoning
Ordinance has changed on a couple of occasions, and it looks like it might change again. We
are at liberty, any time, to withdraw our application. Some people have done that, and wait for
4
(Queensbury Planning Board 11/23/04)
the Zoning Ordinance to change, and then they come in under the new regulation. That might
be beneficial to us, and would we be allowed to do it?
MR. MAC EWAN-Do you want to withdraw your application?
MR. SALVADOR-I’m not saying that. I’m saying, would we be allowed to re-submit if you
deny without prejudice, we come in under the new regulations, if and when they’re?
MR. MAC EWAN-In my mind a new application’s a new application. It depends on what the
calendar date is and what Zoning Ordinances are being utilized.
MR. VOLLARO-Mr. Salvador, one thing I don’t understand. About a year ago, I think it’s a
year ago, this Board was ready to give you a Special Use Permit for your marina. I made that
motion, and you stopped us.
MR. SALVADOR-For good reason. I repeat.
MR. VOLLARO-It’s because of the charges that were being brought against you by Mr. Parillo, I
believe.
MR. SALVADOR-I repeat, I do not want a permit for the wrong reason. We want a permit for
the right reason. Any permit that you give that could be challenged in court, your act
challenged in court, I will be forced to defend, or if you lose, I lose my Special Use Permit, right?
MR. SCHACHNER-Mr. Chairman, again, and this advice would be generic. It has nothing to
do with any particular applicant. The applicant has the right to make an application to the
Board. This applicant has done so. The applicant certainly, and I agree with the applicant, has
the right to withdraw the application, should he wish to do so. I think you should be wary of,
and not be really subject to, manipulation as to why somebody is seeking your permission or
approval or not, and what the impacts of withdrawing applications are or not. You have an
application before you. I’ve heard tell of how, you know, there are processes that have been
taken already, and you may be ready to decide that application or not. If the applicant wants to
withdraw that application, they clearly have that opportunity.
MR. MAC EWAN-Well, he did state that he didn’t want to withdraw it.
MR. SALVADOR-No, I’m not prepared to withdraw it.
MR. MAC EWAN-Does somebody want to move it?
MR. SCHACHNER-That’s fine.
MR. VOLLARO-What are we moving to do?
MR. MAC EWAN-Just to deny the Special Use Permit 5-2003 without prejudice, since he has not
provided the additional information that was requested in our Spring tabling.
MR. SCHACHNER-Right. I would just urge you to include the reason, that’s all.
MR. VOLLARO-I think you’ve just made the motion yourself, Mr. Chairman.
MR. MAC EWAN-Make it. You go ahead and make it.
MOTION TO DENY WITHOUT PREJUDICE SPECIAL USE PERMIT, SUP 5-2003
DUNHAM’S RESORT CORP., Introduced by Robert Vollaro who moved its adoption,
seconded by Anthony Metivier:
5
(Queensbury Planning Board 11/23/04)
Based on the fact that he [the applicant] hasn’t submitted the information that’s been requested
from a prior meeting.
Duly adopted this 23rd day of November, 2004, by the following vote:
MR. RINGER-Let’s have just a little discussion before we vote on it, if we can.
MR. MAC EWAN-We’re already into a vote, Larry.
MR. RINGER-Well.
MR. MAC EWAN-I asked if anybody had any additional comments.
MR. RINGER-Not after the motion was made, you didn’t. You asked for the vote right away.
MR. MAC EWAN-We’re in the middle of a vote.
MR. RINGER-I really feel we’re not being fair to John. I’m going to say no.
AYES: Mr. Metivier, Mr. Hunsinger, Mr. Seguljic, Mr. Vollaro
NOES: Mr. Ringer, Mr. Sanford
ABSTAINED: Mr. MacEwan
MR. MAC EWAN-Carried. John, when you get all your ducks in a row, come on back. When
all the dust settles from all the things going on with the DEC, State, your neighbor, the Lake
George Park Commission and everybody else under the umbrella, come on back.
MR. SALVADOR-Thank you.
SITE PLAN NO. 50-2001 PREVIOUS SEQR MODIFICATION JEAN HOFFMAN ZONE:
WR-1A LOCATION: 159 CLEVERDALE ROAD WARREN CO. PLANNING: 11/10/04
APPLICANT IS SEEKING APPROVAL FOR A CONSTRUCTED BOATHOUSE
MODIFICATION, WHICH IS DIFFERENT FROM WHAT WAS PREVIOUSLY APPROVED
BY THE PLANNING BOARD. BOATHOUSES IN THE WR-1A ZONE REQUIRE SITE
PLAN REVIEW AND APPROVAL FROM THE PLANNING BOARD. LGPC, APA, CEA
CROSS REFERENCE: AV 90-2004, SB 15-03, AV 91-01, SP 15-01, AV 30-01, SB 14-99, AV 60-
99, BP 2002-142 TAX MAP NO. 227.17-1-9.11 2-3-27.1 LOT SIZE: 3.43 ACRES SECTION:
179-4-030
BILL KENIRY, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT; JEAN HOFFMAN, PRESENT
MR. MAC EWAN-Staff notes.
MR. HILTON-Just a quick summary. The applicant proposes to modify a previously approved
site plan for a boathouse. Based on the Zoning Board of Appeals approval of an Area Variance
on November 17, the allowed height, or the approved height of the boathouse is to be 15 feet,
th
and the Zoning Board specifically required the applicant to remove railings on the roof of a
boathouse. As a result of that action, the sundeck is now simply a roof on a boathouse.
Consideration, as I’ve indicated, should be given to removing the land bridge to access this roof,
now that the sundeck will be removed, based on the fact that it’s a roof, and I believe there
could be some safety issues, along with having a land bridge to the roof of a boathouse. Should
the Planning Board approve this modification, revised drawings should be submitted to the
Zoning Administrator to make this site plan file complete, and that’s all I have at this point.
MR. MAC EWAN-Evening.
6
(Queensbury Planning Board 11/23/04)
MR. KENIRY-Good evening. I’m Bill Keniry, on behalf of the applicant, and Mrs. Hoffman is
with me this evening.
MR. MAC EWAN-Anything that you wanted to tell us?
MR. KENIRY-No. I think that it’s fairly stated by your Staff. We certainly would have liked to
have been here tonight before you as winners coming from the Zoning Board of Appeals.
Unfortunately, we’re losers, in terms of the relief that we sought to obtain last week, but in fact
the statements made this evening are accurate and what we seek to do is make your site plan
approval conform to the modification, if you will, that we obtained from the Zoning Board of
Appeals last week.
MR. MAC EWAN-Any questions, comments from Board members?
MR. HUNSINGER-The only question I have, and I say this about every one of these that comes
before us. I hate all of them. If it were up to me, I wouldn’t approve any of them, but, you
know, I understand that, you know, most of the property owners do have large docks with
sundecks and everything else, and every time one comes before our Board, usually it’s Bob that
brings it up and says, you know, we just have to make sure that it’s not going to be more than,
you know, 17 feet above the high mean water mark. So when someone comes back, and it
wasn’t built properly, I’ve got to ask why. Did the builder make an error?
MR. KENIRY-Absolutely, and Jean can give you the tortured history if you’d like.
MR. HUNSINGER-And there’s no way to correct it?
MR. KENIRY-No. I mean, the problem in this instance was if we cut from the bottom, if you
will, the result would be that the wings of the side roofs would compact to such an extent that
instead of having a six foot difference, or distance from the top of the dock to the base of the
roof, you’d end up with a three foot difference. So it makes it completely impractical on the
sides to be able to walk along the dock areas, and that was the practical problem. We couldn’t
cut at the bottom. We don’t really have a definitive answer in terms of why the contractor made
the error. The plans were, in fact, correct, and were submitted here, in the correct manner with
sufficient detail that anyone could make that out. Our belief, and incidentally, the contractor
was actually terminated on this project, but our belief is that the contractor has some issue with
where the mean high water mark is measured from, and with that, I would leave it to him to try
to explain exactly how he does his measurement, because it defies application of the Code.
MR. SANFORD-The laws of physics?
MR. KENIRY-The short answer is, yes.
MR. SANFORD-I’ve got a follow-up, I guess, along the same lines, the same kind of question as
Chris jus asked. When you realized there was a problem, how come you didn’t stop everything
and come and see us then?
MR. KENIRY-Unfortunately we realized there was a problem when there was an inspection
that was done by the Town, and the Town indicated to us that the measurements were not
consistent with the plans. So within perhaps less than 30 days after the Town brought it to
Jean’s attention, we filed the dual applications, the first for the variance, that was our immediate
reaction, and then of course the second was to file the application and make sure that the site
plan was consistent, but it was detected by way of an inspection from the Town.
MR. SANFORD-Okay. We get a few of these, and maybe we have a bunch of culprits who are
building docks not to specs, but maybe there’s only one or two. Could I please request that you
give me the name of the builder who didn’t build the dock correctly?
7
(Queensbury Planning Board 11/23/04)
MR. KENIRY-Sure. It’s John Creed, and the name of the, I’m not sure if it’s a corporation, but
it’s Pro Built Docks.
MR. SANFORD-Okay. Thank you.
MR. KENIRY-And, I don’t know, I mean, the Zoning Board findings are not, obviously, binding
on you all, but it was fairly well aired out at the Zoning Board of Appeals of how the
circumstance came about, and there were findings, even for the people who voted against our
application to modify the variance, I think everyone found that it was not some, you know,
veiled attempt to avoid compliance with the rules by the applicant, but instead it was entirely a
matter involving the contractor.
MR. SANFORD-Well, I mean, I guess what I’m going to ask, and it’s probably more the total
Board’s opinion that’s important here, or the Chairman’s, but I think in the future, when we get
these, we’re going to probably want to know who the contractor or builder is, because this isn’t
the first time that we’ve had this problem, and if it turns out that there’s one particular builder
that seems to get an approval and then modify it, I think we would like to know. That’s all.
MR. MAC EWAN-Any other questions, comments?
MR. VOLLARO-I just have one. I think that the relief that was given was 15 feet, instead of this
standard, the Zoning Board of Appeals gave a relief of 15 feet against the normal 14 foot
requirement from the mean high water mark, and incidentally, the mean high water mark is not
rocket science, believe me. It’s rather simple to do, but what I would prefer to see here is that a
new drawing comes back, showing where the top of that deck, after the railings have been
removed, is actually at 15 feet, but there’s no way to know exactly where that is right now.
MRS. HOFFMAN-Excuse me. Craig Brown said it was somewhere between 14 and 15. We
really don’t know, but it’s basically about 15’4”, or 14’4”. That’s why they gave me 15 feet.
MR. VOLLARO-Okay. From the drawings that I have here, from sitting in this seat, I can’t
detect that. Craig Brown might have come up with a quick measurement.
MRS. HOFFMAN-Excuse me. They spent about an hour out there. They measured everything.
MR. VOLLARO-Okay. Ask Mr. Hilton, do you have any record of that, George, that we’ve
actually measured that height at something less than 15?
MR. HILTON-I may not have it in this file. Let me check.
MR. MAC EWAN-Is that the original application you have there?
MR. HILTON-It’s the modification. It’s not the original.
MR. MAC EWAN-Do you have the original application with you as well?
MR. HILTON-I don’t believe I do. I have the modification folder, and I’m not finding a letter, or
some statistics from our Staff.
MR. VOLLARO-I would believe if the applicant said that Mr. Brown was there and measured it,
I believe that’s true. The problem is, in looking at this drawing that I have here, I have no way
of knowing that the top of the deck, after the railing is removed, fits the 15 feet from the mean
high water mark. There’s no way for me to calculate that, from what I have in front of me.
MRS. HOFFMAN-Right.
MR. MAC EWAN-What is it that you’re looking for? Are you looking for a drawing that
reflects the ZBA variance?
8
(Queensbury Planning Board 11/23/04)
MR. VOLLARO-Yes. I’m looking for a drawing that reflects the 15 foot to the top of what is
now the roof.
MRS. HOFFMAN-I don’t think there is a drawing. The only thing I have is a letter that Craig
had put out that said the top of it was 17’5”, and it was 3 feet. So if we take the 3 feet off the
17’5”, we’re down to 14’5”, but there is no drawing.
MR. VOLLARO-Okay. That’s my problem. I mean, doing it mathematically is fine, and I
understand that. It’s just that I would like to see something measured from what the mean high
water mark is on the day that you called the Lake George Roger’s Rock number, get those
figures, put that mark on your current dock and then measure up to see whether the top of that
deck is at 15 feet, which is your variance from the ZBA.
MRS. HOFFMAN-Okay.
MR. VOLLARO-That’s what I would prefer to do, but I’m only one member of the Board, now,
understand. I didn’t make a decision here. I’m just telling you what I think.
MR. MAC EWAN-Okay.
MR. VOLLARO-That’s it for me, Mr. Chairman. I’m done. You heard my recommendation
what I’d like to do.
MR. MAC EWAN-Anybody else?
MR. METIVIER-I mean, mathematically, if she’s taking a three foot railing off a seventeen and a
half foot dock, it’s going to come down to fourteen and a half feet, and if we approve it, can’t we
approve it and then have the drawing come in after the fact to show that, or are you asking to
have them come back with that?
MR. VOLLARO-I’d like to see a drawing, but that’s just me. If the Board chooses, they can have
the drawing come in as an after the fact. I would prefer to see a drawing in front of us that is
clean, clean for the record, and goes in that direction.
MR. MAC EWAN-We’ve never touched on this before, that I recall. Do you need to have a CO
for a boathouse?
MR. HILTON-I honestly don’t know. You obviously need a building permit. I don’t know if
you need a CO.
MR. MAC EWAN-That’s already water under the bridge, so to speak. Is there some sort of final
signoff or some form the Town gives on these things, to say it’s okay, it’s in compliance or close
out the files on it or whatever?
MR. METIVIER-I would imagine it’s just the same thing as like a pool or anything else like that,
where you have them come back after you’re done, and they check to make sure everything’s in
compliance.
MR. HILTON-I believe there is an inspection.
MR. VOLLARO-Well, that’s exactly what happened here. Bruce Frank, it’s my understanding,
went out by himself, before Craig Brown got there, correct me if I’m wrong, because you were
there.
MRS. HOFFMAN-Bruce and Craig were together.
9
(Queensbury Planning Board 11/23/04)
MR. VOLLARO-Were together, but that was an inspection, essentially, to see whether it was in
compliance with the drawings as they were written, and drawn.
MRS. HOFFMAN-That’s correct.
MR. VOLLARO-Does anybody believe it would be a hardship to come back with a drawing that
shows exactly what the story is? I mean, I think that would clear this thing up. You’ve got your
variance. You’re going to be at 15 feet. I just want to make sure that the, right now my
understanding is the top of the boathouse now is basically a roof.
MRS. HOFFMAN-When the railing comes off, that’s correct.
MR. VOLLARO-And that is where the 15 foot relief was given to.
MR. RINGER-You’ve got a drawing, though, Bob, that shows the height with the railing, and,
you know, commonsense says if you take that railing out, you’re going to reduce it by three
feet.
MR. VOLLARO-That’s a mathematical, that’s a very simple way to do it, Larry.
MR. SANFORD-Well, Bob, if they come back and they do what you said and it’s not in
compliance, what are we going to do, tell them to shorten the dock?
MR. VOLLARO-Well, they’ve got a 15 foot variance, and that’s what this paper says in front of
me, and the top of that.
MR. SANFORD-This is a situation, we’ve run into them all the time. The dock’s built, at this
point, it’s unfortunate in that it wasn’t built according to the diagrams that were a part of the
original submission, and I don’t believe that this Board has it in it to tear down the dock, once
it’s built.
MR. VOLLARO-We’re not going to tear anything down. We’re just going to get a drawing that
reflects where it is today and that the top of it is 15 feet.
MR. SEGULJIC-I think it’s enough to get the plans after. I mean, limit it to 15 feet.
MR. VOLLARO-That’s fine.
MR. SEGULJIC-I don’t think we need to review the plans again.
MR. VOLLARO-If it’s the sense of the Board that they’ll accept the plans after we approve this,
that’s fine, fine with me.
MR. MAC EWAN-Is the land bridge coming down?
MRS. HOFFMAN-I’d like to keep it.
MR. MAC EWAN-What do you need it for if you’re not going to have railings up there?
MRS. HOFFMAN-Because I bring the snow blowers up there. When Johnny built this thing,
you can’t, it’s a roof that has to be snow blown because it’s so flat. Most of you, I think, have
been there and see it. We had an initial pitch on it that was quite up, and Johnny flattened it to
try and keep it down, so I’ve been told, but you have to snow blow that. We even bought 24
inch cedar shingles instead of the regular 16 or 18 inch, just so that we had that extra six inches
of cover. So, I mean, you only see the same amount that you would, but they go way, way back
in, and we put ice and shield on it, again, to try and prevent it, because the two big guys going
this way are so flat. So it has to be snow blown. I mean, we did it probably five, six times last
year.
10
(Queensbury Planning Board 11/23/04)
MR. METIVIER-How much lake frontage do you have?
MRS. HOFFMAN-252 or 254.
MR. MAC EWAN-I’ll be honest with you. The only way I’d support it is if the land bridge came
out. In my mind, it would ensure that railings wouldn’t go back up in the future and that the
top portion of the boathouse be utilized as a sundeck.
MRS. HOFFMAN-Railings won’t go up.
MR. MAC EWAN-I’d feel more comfortable knowing that a land bridge wasn’t there. That’s
my position.
MR. VOLLARO-Are you concerned about snow load?
MRS. HOFFMAN-Tremendously.
MR. VOLLARO-This is not braced properly to handle the snow load?
MRS. HOFFMAN-Yes. As far as I know it is. I’m just, I’m a mom, I guess. I don’t want
anything to happen to it. We snow blow it all the time.
MR. VOLLARO-Well, without the bridge, you can’t get the snow blower up there. That’s for
sure.
MR. SANFORD-You can get it up, but you can’t get it off again.
MR. VOLLARO-If it’s properly braced and it’s got a good snow load capability, I don’t know
why you, I can understand why you might want to do that, but it’s probably not going to
collapse. I don’t think. I mean, I don’t know what the design structure is on it.
MR. SEGULJIC-There’s other means to get the snow off the roof. I think the land bridge should
go.
MR. MAC EWAN-Any other comments? Thoughts? Chris, Tony?
MR. METIVIER-Are there stairs going down from your? There must be stairs going down.
MRS. HOFFMAN-Yes, there’s stairs going down.
MR. METIVIER-Are they attached to the land bridge, or are they on the land?
MRS. HOFFMAN-They’re kind of coordinated in. Two of them are together.
MR. MAC EWAN-Is that it? No more discussion? Anything you wanted to add? Does
somebody have a motion they want to throw up? I’ll take a stab at it. I don’t know if I’m going
to get support.
MOTION TO APPROVE MODIFICATION TO SITE PLAN NO. 50-2001 JEAN HOFFMAN,
Introduced by Craig MacEwan who moved for its adoption, seconded by Richard Sanford:
WHEREAS, an application has been made to this Board for the following:
Seeking approval for a constructed boathouse modification, which is different from
what was previously approved by the Planning Board.
WHEREAS, the application was received on 10/15/04; and
11
(Queensbury Planning Board 11/23/04)
WHEREAS, the above is supported with all documentation, public comment, and application
materials in file of record; and
WHEREAS, pursuant to Art. 9 of the Zoning Ordinance of the Code of the Town of Queensbury
a public hearing is not required for a modification, 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. The land bridge be removed, and
2. No railings will be reinstalled on the top portion of the boathouse roof, and
3. Revised plans to be submitted to Town Planning Office no later than December
31, 2004 which correctly illustrate the removal of the railings, the land bridges,
and show the corrected height given by the ZBA variance to the top of the roof
line.
Duly adopted this 23rd day of November, 2004, by the following vote:
MR. KENIRY-Mr. Chairman, on behalf of the applicant, could we ask that you table your vote
at this point? She has some questions, I think, that she needs to resolve about the motion that
you’ve made.
MR. MAC EWAN-Procedurally, that’s rather unorthodox, considering we have a second and
we’ve already started the vote.
MR. SCHACHNER-Unless those who made the motion and seconded it want to withdraw,
you’re supposed to proceed with the vote. You can withdraw the motion and the second if you
wish.
MR. MAC EWAN-I’m not willing to withdraw it at this point. Procedurally, I think it’s the
right thing to do.
AYES: Mr. Sanford, Mr. Hunsinger, Mr. Ringer, Mr. Seguljic, Mr. Vollaro, Mr. MacEwan
NOES: Mr. Metivier
MR. KENIRY-Thank you.
MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. Thank you.
12
(Queensbury Planning Board 11/23/04)
NEW BUSINESS:
SUBDIVISION NO. 11-2004 PRELIMINARY & FINAL STAGES SEQR TYPE: UNLISTED
DIAMOND POINT REALTY AGENT: JARRETT-MARTIN ENGINEERS ZONE: RR-3A
LOCATION: NORTH OFF OAKWOOD DRIVE APPLICANT PROPOSES SUBDIVISION
OF A 17.7 +/- ACRE PARCEL INTO FIVE (5) RESIDENTIAL LOTS RANGING IN SIZE
FROM 3.152 ACRES TO 5.024 ACRES. TAX MAP NO. 296.10-1-19 LOT SIZE: 17.7 ACRES
SECTION: SUBDIVISION REGS
MICHAEL O’CONNOR, TOM JARRETT, & RICK MEATH, REPRESENTING APPLICANT,
PRESENT
MR. MAC EWAN-Staff notes.
MR. HILTON-Just a quick summary of my comments here. The applicant proposes to
subdivide this 17.7 acre property into five residential lots, ranging in size from approximately
three to five acres. The ZBA approved an Area Variance on September 22, allowing the
nd
proposed lots to be created without frontage on a public street. The main access, or the only
access to these lots, will be from a private road with the rear two lots being accessed from a
private drive. Additionally, the water lines, hydrants, the infrastructure will all be private
systems. The applicant proposes that an HOA will be created to maintain the road and the
water line and I guess in order to ensure that the private drive and water line are maintained,
proof that the HOA has been created and the language stating that the road and infrastructure
will be maintained should be provided prior to any final signature by the Planning Board
Chairman. The applicant has requested a waiver from deducting slopes greater than 25%, as
part of the density calculation. The applicant has submitted traffic analysis, acoustical analysis
as well as a tree clearing plan addressing the activities proposed as part of the subdivision. As
far as the tree clearing goes, with the information provided, it’s difficult to comment on any
visual impacts, if any, the proposed clearing would have, and I guess the question would be,
how will visibility of this area from surrounding properties be impacted or changed. The Fire
Marshal and Queensbury Central have been working with the applicant reviewing the plan.
We have received some comment today that I’ve passed on to you, as a result of that review.
Just a design item, the applicant proposes a series of decorative lights along the private drive.
Fixtures are shown at 70 watt high pressure sodium, decorative fixtures, however it is not clear
if these fixtures are downcast cut off fixtures. As this application requires a Stormwater
Pollution Prevention Plan and Notice of Intent to be submitted, a copy of the required NOI
should be submitted prior to any signature by the Planning Board Chairman. There are C.T.
Male comments included. I referenced the Fire Marshal comment, and there is public comment
as well to be read into the record, and at this point, that’s all I have.
MR. MAC EWAN-Good evening.
MR. O'CONNOR-Good evening. Mr. Chairman, I’m Michael O’Connor from the law firm of
Little & O’Connor. I appear here on behalf of the applicant. With me at the table is Rick Meath,
who is one of the principals of the applicant. Also here in the audience is Gary Scott, one of the
principals of North East Development, and with me also is Tom Jarrett, who is the engineering
consultant for the project. We also have with us tonight somebody from Creighton Manning,
with regard to the traffic study that we submitted to you, Ken Worsterd, and we have
somebody from Bagan Environmental as to the acoustical information or study that we
submitted to you, and we have the forester, Richard Clifferly, as to his report as to the tree
cutting that will be done on this site. If you take a look at this site, this is a five lot subdivision.
It’s on a 17 acre parcel. It’s on a parcel that basically adjoins the second and third hole of the
Glens Falls Country Club, and probably was never thought to be a site that was going to be
developed for single family homes, and was presumed that it was going to be part of the
Country Club. In preparing this development plan, the developers, I think, have gone to a great
extent along the lines that was suggested the other morning at the Open Space meeting, where
they have actually taken a look at what is sensitive on the site and taken it out of the
13
(Queensbury Planning Board 11/23/04)
development plan, and utilized only the areas on the site that are not sensitive. They also
consulted, at length, with the Glens Falls Country Club, which is probably the adjoining owner
that is most impacted, and obtained from them a written consent, and I’m not sure if you have
that in your file.
MR. VOLLARO-We have that.
MR. O'CONNOR-You have that.
MR. VOLLARO-At least I do.
MR. O'CONNOR-The members of the Board of the Country Club that were involved in this
were concerned with being able to maintain their status quo, and also being able to have some
input into tree cutting on the remainder of the site, and the developers were very generous, in
that they extended to them some rights to control tree cutting, not only on the portion of the site
that is immediately adjacent to the Country Club fairway, but also the entire site, and that is
why we have the tree forestry report that was filed by Mr. Clifferly. I think the developer has
listened to the comments that were made by the Board and tried to respond to them in a
positive manner, particularly the comments that were made by the adjoining neighborhood, if
you will, as to their issue of safety, traffic safety, as to the intersection of the road that will
service these five homes. They, in fact, have changed the location of that home, and far exceed
all sight distances that would be required by this design. They have submitted that to C.T. Male
as well as submitting the acoustical study to C.T. Male. They have also responded to all of the
engineering comments of C.T. Male, and I think C.T. Male signed off on those and actually
indicated that they approve of the sound study. They also approve of the safety and sight
distances.
MR. VOLLARO-Excuse me, Mr. O’Connor, are we all working from the same drawing,
11/01/04?
MR. O'CONNOR-I believe that there have been some modifications made to the drawing.
MR. VOLLARO-I didn’t spend half the day looking at the wrong drawing? Please don’t tell me
that.
MR. JARRETT-The last submittal to the Town was a date of revision 11/1, revised per Town
Engineer comments.
MR. VOLLARO-Yes, I got that.
MR. JARRETT-Subsequent to that, the Fire Marshal and the Fire Chief of Queensbury Central
commented, and we have negotiated some changes that you don’t have an official submission
of. We have a presentation, we can show you what those comments have been and what we
negotiated with the Fire Marshal, but the official submission you have is 11/1.
MR. VOLLARO-Okay. All right. I understand that. As long as we don’t have another set of
drawings floating around somewhere.
MR. O'CONNOR-Is the only difference the circle drives?
MR. JARRETT-Yes.
MR. MAC EWAN-Before we get too deep into this, what are the requested waivers they’re
looking for, because I’ve just been going up and down the Board and no one seems to have a
copy of the letter, or request. The request, one of them was density calculations, right?
MR. O'CONNOR-Yes.
14
(Queensbury Planning Board 11/23/04)
MR. JARRETT-That’s correct. Another was a survey of trees six inch and larger, and that’s all
we asked for.
MR. MAC EWAN-Just those two.
MR. JARRETT-I believe that’s all we asked for.
MR. RINGER-That was in your application, Tom, you asked for that?
MR. JARRETT-Yes, in the Preliminary and Final applications. They’re the standard waiver
request form is supplemented by an attachment.
MR. VOLLARO-I don’t have that.
MR. JARRETT-You don’t have the attachment?
MR. VOLLARO-No.
MR. RINGER-Bob, it’s under your Preliminary, the last two pages of your Preliminary
application, request of waivers. Have you got your Preliminary application there?
MR. VOLLARO-Yes, I do.
MR. RINGER-The last two pages.
MR. MAC EWAN-Let’s talk about the request for the density calculations.
MR. O'CONNOR-Okay. The request for the density calculation is that we have requested that
we, a waiver for the exclusion of the area of each lot that is in excess of 25% sloping. We’ve
given you an actual calculation on the maps that we have submitted as to the amount of that
area.
MR. MAC EWAN-Why would you ask for that?
MR. O'CONNOR-We do not believe that we impact that sloped area in any significant way by
the development. I think if you take a look at your standards for waivers, it indicates that it
would be appropriate, unless we do something that would impact the welfare or safety of the
Town. This property, I think, if you take a look at it, is probably the only that will be accessed
from that south end that will be three acre lots. Everything else down in that area is half acre to
three quarter acre, with maybe one or two lots that are an acre lot. There is no access to this
property from the north end. In fact, the developer tried to obtain some access from the north
end and was not able to do so. Mr. Russo owns the property that adjoins this on the north. If
you take a look at the overview of the area, and I think also if you take a look at the location
map for this subdivision, which is in the upper.
MR. VOLLARO-Is this Figure One we’re talking at? Are you talking at this Figure One now?
Where are we?
MR. O'CONNOR-Okay. You can make the same determination by either looking at the
overhead, the topographical map, or by looking at the location map for this subdivision. If you
look at Sheet One of the submittal by the applicant, in the center.
MR. HUNSINGER-I think on your submission, Subdivison plat C-1, under, you have this C in
the triangle where you show percent of lot with slopes 25% or greater.
MR. O'CONNOR-Yes.
MR. HUNSINGER-I think on Lots Four and Five you have the numbers backwards.
15
(Queensbury Planning Board 11/23/04)
MR. O'CONNOR-Okay. They were reversed, and they have been corrected.
MR. HUNSINGER-Okay.
MR. O'CONNOR-We understood that, and in our submittal to C.T. Male, we corrected that.
MR. HUNSINGER-Okay.
MR. O'CONNOR-The basic size of each of the lots, Lot One has 2.55 of an area that is not subject
to the sloping. Lot Two has an area of .06. Lot Three has 1.55, and Lot Four has 1.41 and Lot
Five has I believe approximately one acre. I have a difference with my calculation than what
Mr. Caffry has, but all five of those lots have in excess of flat developable area, without
consideration of the sloping, greater than any of the adjoining neighborhood lots. An
alternative probably could be that we could come back, we could go to the Town Board and ask
for rezoning for a one acre zone, and then go in with a cluster type development. When we
began this process with Staff, apparently you have done this waiver in other circumstances
where the particular property was unique, in the sense that it would not create any detriment to
adjoining properties by granting the waiver, and basically that’s the basis for our request.
We’ve done a stormwater management plan that shows that we take care of all the stormwater,
all the erosion, the potential for erosion on the flat area, and if you actually look at, even if you
had a three acre lot, you probably wouldn’t disturb a lot more than one acre. Say you had a
three acre lot that was fully treed, and we came in here. You would ask us how much we’re
going to clear, and why are we going to clear much more than what we need for actual
construction of the house, the drive and the septic systems. So basically that’s what we’re
doing.
MR. MAC EWAN-Under Subdivision Regulations A183-22, under Density, figuring your
density, I mean, all the criteria in there, there’s four items of criteria that you need to meet in
order to do an accurate density calculation, and you’re asking us to pull out that 25%.
MR. O'CONNOR-And we did at Preliminary, and the Board was polled and didn’t seem to
have any problems with it.
MR. MAC EWAN-That was Sketch Plan, wasn’t it?
MR. O'CONNOR-Or Sketch Plan. We also talked about this.
MR. MAC EWAN-Sketch Plan is, just so that the audience knows, is nothing more than
exchange of ideas with no bearing or legal basis on it.
MR. O'CONNOR-All right, but we had that discussion.
MR. SANFORD-Did we?
MR. O'CONNOR-Yes, we did.
MR. SANFORD-I don’t recall talking about density calculations at Sketch Plan.
MR. O'CONNOR-We talked about the waiver of the 25% sloping, and I think.
MR. MAC EWAN-So, if you calculated out your buildable lots, based on what 183-22 says, how
many building lots do you think you would end up with?
MR. O'CONNOR-Three.
MR. VOLLARO-Three.
16
(Queensbury Planning Board 11/23/04)
MR. MAC EWAN-Then why don’t you go that route?
MR. O'CONNOR-We don’t think that we have any impact by going to five. We think that we
have a better development by going to five.
MR. MAC EWAN-Well, one of the greater impacts that I guess I can see right from the get go is
the fact that you’re servicing five building lots by a private road.
MR. O'CONNOR-Which allows us also to do that by private road. It allows us to spread the
operating cost of having a homeowners association over five units as opposed to three units.
Much of a homeowners operation and expense is fixed. The actual length of the road, probably,
is fixed, too, that if we were going to have three acre lots, we would still come in, 800, 900 feet
with the road to the point that it is, before we get to the private drives, and what we’ve done
here has been able to spread that.
MR. MAC EWAN-Well, I guess I look at it from a different point of view. I look at it as a
planner sitting up here, and it’s something I know that this Board has echoed for a couple of
years now is that we’re getting to the point where we’re starting to see applications for property
that’s left in Town and trying to put five pounds of do do in a two pound bag, and it just
doesn’t work. I just think that’s the situation you’ve got here now. I think you’re trying to
make too much for a return on your investment out of the land that it’s willing and able to
accommodate, safely.
MR. O’CONNOR-We still have approximately a one acre site in the neighborhood where the
total gross size of most of the lots is one acre. I think the only reason that this property was
zoned RR-3 was that it was next to the Country Club. This Country Club, as well, was zoned
RR-3, and a good part of that Country Club, particularly when you go all the way over to
Country Club Road, is flat, rolling land. It’s not zoned that way simply because of.
MR. MAC EWAN-Didn’t this used to be the Country Club property?
MR. O'CONNOR-No.
MR. MAC EWAN-No?
MR. O'CONNOR-It was owned by the same family that owned a good portion of the Country
Club, Cheesborough family, and they sold this piece off in the late, I don’t have the date, 1980’s,
I believe, to the Glicken family, at about the same time that they sold the remainder land to the
Country Club. Glicken and Oliver Laakso were actually the developers of Old Orchard, and I
think at that time their thought was that they, and I don’t know, I wouldn’t say, but my
presumption is, at that time, they were going to fold it into part of Old Orchard subdivision and
have one acre lots in there. They ended up splitting up their operations. The Glicken family
took this parcel. Oliver went and did his own thing on the balance of the land.
MR. VOLLARO-One of the things that I’ve, Mr. Chairman, what I’ve done is to go through your
Subdivision checklist, and I don’t want to make any comments until you get to that. So I’ll just,
I’ll withdraw whatever comments.
MR. SANFORD-I think what the Chairman’s trying to get at is there’s a lot of work that would
have to be done, but there might not be that much work if we can’t get over the density
calculation. So, why, you know, if we’re not comfortable with the density, why do we want to
go through all the other multitude of issues that would need to be addressed? Perhaps Mr.
O’Connor’s point is well taken. Maybe he needs to petition for a zone change, but, in the
absence of that, I think it’s very difficult for me to move in that direction and to feel comfortable
with a five lot subdivision on a piece of land that clearly can, according to the calculation, only
support three. So at least I’m weighing in on that position, Mr. Chairman.
17
(Queensbury Planning Board 11/23/04)
MR. VOLLARO-I just go and tail on to that for a minute. In the Design Standards Section, out
of the 17.7 acres, we’ve got about 25%, or 8.7 acres that we’re basically trying to get relief on.
It’s about 8.7 acres, and there’s nine acres left for development, roughly. That’s how the
calculations run out. What I’m concerned about is much of the land that’s left in Queensbury
now, whatever is left, some of it has got slopes in excess of 25%. The build out analysis, which
is maybe not germane to this, but something that I’ve been looking at, speaks about slopes in
excess of 15%. I don’t know where we’re going with that, but what I’m trying to get at is I don’t
want to establish a precedent for a waiver like this, against lands that are, against whatever
future development we may get into that has 25% slopes. That’s the thing I’m concerned about,
is that if we did this waiver, we’re sort of bound, now, by this action to give it to anybody else
that comes in with 25% slopes. That’s what I’m concerned about, mostly.
MR. O'CONNOR-I wouldn’t take that position now or in the future, and I think in the past, and
I’m not claiming, this Board has granted the waivers on at least one or two other applications,
and one that I know that I was involved with that had sloping in excess of 25%, but I think what
you have to do is look at each property and see if the property is unique or is such that you
could think that there are special circumstances. If we didn’t have good, flat areas, that could be
developed, with the size lots that we’re talking about, then I don’t think we would qualify. I
think that we have sufficient areas that are developable that have no impact upon the fact that
part of that lot is sloped and is going to remain sloped. We’re not talking about developing on
those slopes of any nature. We’re not talking about filling that sloping, and those are the type
of concerns, when you take a look at what is your impact, what are the special circumstances of
this particular parcel.
MR. VOLLARO-In the past, if we did make waivers in the past for 25%, I don’t think we ever
got close to waiving 49% of the total acreage. Right now, 49% of 17.7 acres, we’re really talking,
that’s how you get to your 8.7 acres. So we’ve got a waiver here of 49% to deal with. That’s
another concern.
MR. SANFORD-Plus the logic isn’t totally sound here. I mean, one of the reasons why you
have these types of density calculations, and you have a calculation on what you can put on the
land, is so that you can make sure that the plot can support appropriate infrastructure, such as
roads, and in this particular case, unless it’s been changed according to this meeting that I just
found out about today, on November 19, you’re looking to put in a very long, narrow, private
road that presents a multitude of safety issues. Certainly if it was all flat and you didn’t have
the slopes to deal with, you could probably put a wider road in.
MR. O'CONNOR-The area would permit us to put in a wider road right now, and if you’d look
at the latest comments by the Fire Marshal and by the Fire Department, my understanding is
that they are satisfied as to the issues that they raised in their earlier memorandum.
MR. SANFORD-That’s what the memo states. However, in the initial memo, it gives a laundry
list of reasons of concern, and this second letter, following a meeting held at Town Hall on the
19, it merely states that they’re satisfied, but doesn’t give particulars as to especially why
th
they’re satisfied. So I can’t really speak much to this meeting having, of course, I wasn’t there.
I’m not 100% sure who was there.
MR. O'CONNOR-If that’s something that caused a reservation, then I have no problem trying to
bring somebody here from there.
MR. SANFORD-Who attended that meeting in its entirety? It says who intended, not that it
was inclusive of everybody. Okay.
MR. JARRETT-I don’t think I’m privy to that memo. So I’m not even sure what we’re referring
to.
MR. O'CONNOR-Who was at the meeting?
18
(Queensbury Planning Board 11/23/04)
MR. JARRETT-The meeting was on the 19.
th
MR. SANFORD-Right.
MR. JARRETT-Then it was Joe Duprey, the Fire Chief of Queensbury Central, and Steve Smith,
and myself.
MR. SANFORD-That’s contradictory.
MR. JARRETT-Actually, I met with Steve on Thursday and met with Mike on Friday, with Joe
there on Friday.
MR. SANFORD-No one else attended that meeting?
MR. JARRETT-No.
MR. SANFORD-Just the three of you?
MR. JARRETT-Three of us on Friday. That’s correct.
MR. MAC EWAN-Let me ask you a question. Why wouldn’t you want to pursue getting it
rezoned to one acre, considering that most of the acreage surrounding it is SR-1A?
MR. O'CONNOR-When we came in, this is what Staff suggested to us in the very beginning is
that we apply for a waiver and go forward with it. We went through an Area Variance for the
road frontage, and at that time they said the only variance that was required would be the
frontage for the road. Proceed with that and then come to this Board who would have
jurisdiction over granting a waiver under the Subdivision Regulations.
MR. HILTON-Mr. Chairman, if I may. I guess I don’t recall encouraging anyone to apply and
submit for waivers, and I don’t think that that’s the intent or what we do when we have our
pre-application conferences. I think we simply explain the process to people, explain to
applicants what’s required, and merely state that if it is their intent to request something other
than what’s required, that a waiver can be requested. I don’t think we’ve ever encouraged
anyone or said you should submit a waiver request.
MR. JARRETT-Yes, I think, in support of what George is saying, that’s in keeping with my
recollection of the original situation. We looked at the parcel, felt that five lots was supportable
on this property. We felt it was in keeping with the underlying three acre zoning. We did not
feel, and I’m speaking for Diamond Point, and I’ll let Rick jump in where he needs to, but
Diamond Point did not feel that they, they didn’t feel it was appropriate to go after the one acre
zoning. They felt that five lots was appropriate for this parcel and technically I felt it was
supportable. George, I think Craig was sitting in on that meeting as well, and they said that a
waiver could be requested and waivers had been granted in the past, but they didn’t encourage
us one way or the other, as I recall.
MR. HUNSINGER-Hearing some of the comments from my fellow Board members, and the
comment that you made, Mr. O’Connor, about the presentation Saturday, I wonder if maybe
this would be a good site to look at some sort of small cluster, and try to cluster five houses in
what you have as Lots One through Three, and it would eliminate half of the infrastructure that
you’re proposing.
MR. JARRETT-Clustering was discussed internally, and I don’t recall exactly why it was felt it
wasn’t as attractive as the proposal we have right now.
MR. O'CONNOR-I don’t know if clustering is allowed in that zone.
19
(Queensbury Planning Board 11/23/04)
MR. HUNSINGER-Well, I’m just looking at the cluster in the zoning code, and it says that the
minimum acreage to which this article may be applicable shall be five times the minimum lot
area. You have more than enough acreage, and then further on it says that, under procedures,
request by Planning Board, a cluster design alternative shall be required for characteristics of
the site, including the following, slopes greater than 25%, occupy over 25% of the site, and you
have 49%.
MR. MAC EWAN-Good research, Chris.
MR. JARRETT-We were presented that automatically. If we did not have the flat area top the
entire ridge, and we felt this was in keeping with the underlying intent of the zone, and we did
not impact slopes, we felt it was an appropriate proposal.
MR. HUNSINGER-Yes. I don’t disagree with you. I’m just, you know, hearing both sides of the
discussion here and, you know, just maybe trying to offer something that might be a little more
acceptable to the rest of the Board and acceptable to the developer.
MR. O'CONNOR-Is there concern? I think what you’re saying is that you think that the concern
is for Lots Four and Five, which are at the north end.
MR. HUNSINGER-If I look at C-1, and I think this is really the best visual, I mean, I agree with
you. You get out to Lot Five, you’ve got an acre of buildable land. When you show the house
sitting on the lot, I mean, the house is really insignificant, the size of the house, you know, on an
acre of developable, level area, but when you look at C-1 and you see that gray area, on each of
the lots, you have a dotted line that is then labeled as Building Envelope, and, you know, when
I first looked at this I said, well, really the building envelope should follow inside of the gray
area, because you’re not going to build out on those slopes that are 25% or greater, and then
when you start to look at that, it just kind of, to me it just kind of fell out that maybe that’s really
the best solution. I’m not saying that I’m personally opposed to what you’ve presented, but I’m
just, again, you know, just offering some suggestions. My sense from the very opening of the
meeting is that we’re going to end up tabling this anyway, you know, based on the fact that
you’ve made revised drawings that we haven’t seen.
MR. VOLLARO-If I could just jump on the back of what Chris is saying there for a minute, and
I’ll go to my written documents here that I prepare when I review these, and I have, the last
thing I put on here, under other, I said, I would propose, this is just something for me, propose
three lots for this subdivision, leave 100 foot buffer from the southern property line, create three
lots from there, and then leave three to five acres in a conservation easement for trust or
common land owned by the HOA as a woodland recreational area. This would be in keeping
with what we’ve been thinking of now, and are thinking of, on sub committees and Mr.
O’Connor was there, and I think you were also there at the meetings, you’ve got some idea
about trying to put, particularly with the golf course here. It would be a little neat idea to do
something like that. The first time we approached that, but I had this in my notes. I thought I’d
throw it out.
MR. HUNSINGER-I think my thought was similar, Bob. They talked about forming a
homeowners association anyway. So I don’t think you would even need to set up a trust. The
homeowners association would just manage the wood lots.
MR. VOLLARO-Right, but, you know, I was president of a homeowners association, specifically
the Baybridge Homeowners Association, for 30 months. I have a fair idea of how homeowners
associations work. One of the things I looked at in here was the fire hydrant, for example, that
has to be maintained by law. There isn’t any homeowners association that I know of, at least
the ones that I ran, that have that consistent capability to stay on top of stuff like this. People
come, people go.
MR. HUNSINGER-I agree. Again, a reason to limit the infrastructure.
20
(Queensbury Planning Board 11/23/04)
MR. VOLLARO-So it’s something like, because I do have a safety issue with this, based on, not
so much the road maintenance. I think that might be able to be handled on a sub contractor
basis, but handling that fire hydrant, against a set of legal requirements, that’s where I think the
homeowners association would fall short.
MR. JARRETT-How is that different than the fire hydrants that are handled in the Mall?
They’re all privately held. I have a subdivision in Bolton that has almost a mile and a quarter
road that is probably on a 15% slope that has a terrible stormwater issue, and that’s maintained.
I wouldn’t judge all homeowners associations by other homeowners associations.
MR. VOLLARO-They have systemic problems.
MR. MAC EWAN-Did I hear you right? You said it has a terrible stormwater situation, and you
got that subdivision approved?
MR. O'CONNOR-It has a terrible stormwater situation. I’ve been living with it. We have semi-
annual reports, in the spring and in the fall every year to the town planning board.
MR. MAC EWAN-Before we get going too much farther here, I want an informal poll from the
Board where we stand on these density calculations. Are you in support of issuing a waiver, or
not?
MR. VOLLARO-I do not support issuing a waiver, no.
MR. SANFORD-I do not support issuing a waiver.
MR. SEGULJIC-I think, I’m in support of doing the waiver, because there’s ample room.
MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. Larry?
MR. RINGER-Well, I, perhaps, would like to see some alternate plans. So I haven’t made up my
mind on the waiver.
MR. HUNSINGER-I’m okay with the waiver.
MR. MAC EWAN-Tony?
MR. METIVIER-I’m all right with it, too. Actually, I would truly like to see some type of
clustering, too, an alternate plan of some kind, if it’s possible to do. I think Chris is right on the
money here, that you could do something really creative here.
MR. MAC EWAN-I mean, we could probably spend the next two hours on this application.
That’s what I’m concerned about is going too much farther on this thing if we’re starting to lead
to some other ideas here, and try to persuade the applicant.
MR. METIVIER-You know we would never suggest, to an extent, that we would promote
anything, but I think from what Chris stated, he might be on to something, if you could
encourage a clustering type, and the first three lots, even, leave the back two alone, or at least
encroach on the fourth lot, leave the fifth one alone, you might have something really nice here.
MR. O'CONNOR-You still would need the waiver, I think, under clustering.
MR. SANFORD-You would. You would need to request the density, but you know there’s also
the private road issue, which we haven’t yet addressed, but I know we’ve recently had an
application that we all felt extremely uncomfortable with because it had a very long road
serving homes, and we were concerned about bottleneck situations in the case of emergencies
and what have you, and I still have ever bit of those same concerns with this application.
21
(Queensbury Planning Board 11/23/04)
MR. O'CONNOR-The idea of, this is an 800 to 900 foot road. The idea of making it narrower
than what you might normally have in a subdivision was to try to accommodate people’s
concerns about tree cutting and what not, make it more like a private drive. We’ve met, since
the initial submission, and we have changed that submission. You don’t have that in front of
you, I don’t believe, to some degree, to satisfy the Fire Marshal and the emergency services.
MR. SANFORD-Well, just go back a second to your concerns on tree cutting. I have those same
kind of concerns, and so I’m a little confused why you’re not providing an inventory of large
caliper trees, why you’re requesting a waiver for that, which, incidentally, I would like to see
that inventory.
MR. MAC EWAN-And if we want to jump back to the Fire Marshal thing for a minute. No
disrespect to anybody’s professionalism, there’s a lot to be said, or not said, when we have a
memo that clearly indicates real issues that they have, from a public safety standpoint, and a
week later, we have a total 180 on their position on this thing, the fact that Staff wasn’t involved
in this meeting whatsoever causes me some concern.
MR. O'CONNOR-Staff arranged for it, I think.
MR. MAC EWAN-The fact of the matter was, that the meeting was held over two different
days, with two different people, not all the parties were sitting at the table at the same time, and
I just have an issue with that. I think it’s this Board’s ultimate decision, though, and its
responsibility to ensure that whatever we do approve as a subdivision, or a site plan for that
matter in this Town, is going to have an adverse effect on the safety and the welfare of the
people in this community, and if we can persuade you to come to the idea of maybe pulling
those lots and those home sites up closer to the main road and shorten up your private drive
and do a cluster type layout, I think you’d be probably more apt to be embraced by this Board.
MR. VOLLARO-And, Mr. Chairman, if they did that it would ease my feelings of having set a
precedent for just a plain old flat waiver of 50% of a piece of property.
MR. MAC EWAN-I adamantly will not support a waiver from density for relief of the density
calculations. I don’t recall doing it for any other application. I certainly wouldn’t want to start
doing a dangerous precedent with this, because this is what we’re starting to run into with what
lands are left in the Town, where they’re not able to be maximum developed to their potential,
that we’re going to start seeing applications like this, where they’re looking for the waivers,
they’re looking to be able to put as much as they can on it and try to overcome what the Town
Code says that they have to do.
MR. VOLLARO-I couldn’t agree with you more, but I think in the polling of the Board, I didn’t
get the Board’s sense that they were not going to reject the waiver. I get the sense of the Board
that perhaps they’re going to go for the waiver.
MR. MAC EWAN-Well, the sense I did get, when we polled the Board, was that there seemed to
be support for granting the waiver, although I believe all of us, even you, said that they would
want to look at a clustering type subdivision layout.
MR. VOLLARO-Well, that’s a whole other thing. If we get into an agreement that we go to a
cluster type or move this development closer to Oakwood Drive, for example, and use maybe
50 or 60% of this acreage as a cluster.
MR. SANFORD-Actually, Bob, I disagree with the way you interpreted that. There were three
people on the Board who were definitely against granting the waiver on the density calculation.
One yes, others would have preferred a cluster, and one who said that they didn’t know. So it
really wasn’t, I didn’t pick up that sense that there was a strong inclination towards granting
the waiver.
22
(Queensbury Planning Board 11/23/04)
MR. VOLLARO-You know what, I’d like the Chairman to poll the Board on a yes or no, as
opposed to.
MR. MAC EWAN-I already did. Three nos, two yeses, and one teetering right here.
MR. SANFORD-All right.
MR. VOLLARO-So we’ve got, essentially, one Board member who has to make up his mind.
JOHN CAFFRY
MR. CAFFRY-And public to be heard from.
MR. VOLLARO-And public to be heard from.
MR. CAFFRY-Maybe we can sway someone.
MR. MAC EWAN-When the time comes. Is it the sense I’m getting that you’d prefer to see a
cluster layout?
MR. RINGER-No. I don’t think we’ve seen all the information. There is another plan that
they’re going to submit out there that the fire department has looked at, that we haven’t seen.
MR. MAC EWAN-I don’t want to spend a lot of time on this.
MR. RINGER-I know it, but I’m saying that that may change my mind.
MR. HILTON-As far as that plan goes, I believe it’s right up there, and my understanding is
that the only changes have been based on vehicular access.
MR. RINGER-Similar driveways coming around, circulars and stuff for emergency vehicles. I
happened to talk to Joe Duprey yesterday about this, and so I just have some information on
that, but I’d rather it come directly from the Chief.
MR. JARRETT-We won’t get into this in detail, but when we sat down with the Fire Marshal,
George was present, and then we had follow up discussions as to the best way to handle the
details of the revisions, and that’s when I met with Mike and Steve individually, and we came
up with this plan that they embraced, I believe wholeheartedly they have embraced this plan.
MR. SANFORD-If George was present, how come just twenty minutes ago, when I specifically
attended the meeting.
MR. HILTON-I wasn’t at that meeting.
MR. SANFORD-You just said you were.
MR. HILTON-I was not at that meeting that is referenced in that memo.
MR. JARRETT-I said the initial meeting we had regarding this issue with the Fire Marshal
George attended.
MR. SANFORD-Okay.
MR. MAC EWAN-It really doesn’t matter at this point.
MR. VOLLARO-May I ask a question? The map that’s up on the board, does that show the
water connection to the south side of Oakwood now?
23
(Queensbury Planning Board 11/23/04)
MR. JARRETT-Yes. In fact, that was on the plans all along, but the layering CAD was turned off
accidentally and it’s now been turned back on.
MR. VOLLARO-Okay. All right.
MR. MAC EWAN-Anything else you wanted to add?
MR. O'CONNOR-I didn’t know if you had any other questions as to the balance of the tree
cutting?
MR. VOLLARO-I’ve got a lot of questions on a lot of this. If it goes forward on this basis, I still,
I’m going to have questions. So I’ve got questions on emergency access and services. I’ve got,
even though, you know, the Fire Marshals can say what they want, I would like to express my
views on a lot of these things, but I don’t know where we are on this.
MR. MAC EWAN-Well, there’s a number of things, and one of them, we’re not looking at the
right set of plans. We don’t know how much they’ve been revised. Number Two, it seems like
we might be teetering, as a Board, on the concept of wanting to see an alternate plan showing a
clustering position, clustering layout, that pulls everything toward the front of the site, right,
and Number Three is the density issues were three, three, and one hanging. From my personal
position, I just don’t feel like I want to venture forward on this thing until we get a revised
drawing. My position on the density calculation is I want an application that reflects what
they’re truly able to develop, because I don’t want to give a waiver to the density calculations. I
just think it’s bad planning.
MR. HILTON-Mr. Chairman, if I could. I sense there’s some frustration about the Fire Marshal
emergency services meeting, and I guess I want to try to clarify. This applicant, this application,
received an Area Variance from the Zoning Board of Appeals. As a part of that resolution, it
was specifically stated that the applicant was to meet with emergency services and have them
look at it as far as emergency access concerns, etc. I think, in good faith, the applicant
coordinated that meeting in order to follow up on what was required by the Zoning Board, and
nothing more. I don’t think there’s any intent to get an approval before they come to this Board.
I simply think that the applicant was trying to, again, satisfy what was required by the Zoning
Board of Appeals.
MR. O'CONNOR-Rather than have you in a position where you’re not comfortable because you
don’t have the final plan in front of you, and our presentation, I can make a presentation with
regard to the plan that’s up there, but I don’t think you’re going to want me to. So I’m thinking
that probably the safest, or the best thing here to do is to table the application, with our consent.
MR. MAC EWAN-Would you be willing to put together an alternate plan showing a clustering
provision, pulling the lots closer and smaller toward the front of the parcel?
MR. O'CONNOR-We can take a look at it and see whether that’s a possibility or not.
MR. MAC EWAN-I hate hearing those words, not from you specifically, in general.
MR. O'CONNOR-Okay. I mean, you typically, we can take a look at it is the best I can.
MR. MAC EWAN-The sense I’m getting up here, from what I’m hearing is that we’re more apt
to embrace.
MR. O'CONNOR-Okay. I’d like to present it and maybe it’ll be an argument in favor of going
this way, if we show you why it would not give you as attractive a setting. One of the unique
things here is the petition that circulated in opposition to this says that one of their reasons for
opposition is that they’re fearful that this will increase the value of their properties, and
therefore increase their taxes, which I think says a lot as to the quality of what’s being presented
to you. That’s the commonsense, layman’s presentation as to what we’re trying to do here.
24
(Queensbury Planning Board 11/23/04)
This is going to be a unique subdivision that is probably going to be an upscale type valuation,
and it is going to have a positive impact upon the people that signed this petition in opposition.
MR. MEATH-And at Sketch Plan, when the Board informally indicated a waiver would be
authorized, there was no one from the public that spoke against this. A few people actually got
up and spoke in favor of it.
MR. MAC EWAN-And I’ll tell you why no one from the public spoke against it, because it
wasn’t advertised. Sketch Plan discussions are not advertised, legally advertised. There isn’t a
500 foot notice that’s sent out.
MR. MEATH-I realize that, but the public was aware of it and there were a lot of them that were
here that evening.
MR. MAC EWAN-And just bear in mind that Sketch Plan is just that, it is a discussion. There’s
nothing binding.
MR. MEATH-I realize that.
MR. O'CONNOR-Okay. My suggestion, in order to be positive, is that we table.
MR. MAC EWAN-I am going to open up the public hearing, though, and take some comment,
even though we’re going to table this thing. Because it is advertised for tonight.
MR. METIVIER-Can I just ask a really trivial question? You have it listed as Overlook Drive.
Where did that come from?
MR. MEATH-That’ll have to change.
MR. METIVIER-Yes, it will have to change. There is an Overlook Drive in Queensbury.
MR. MEATH-Right.
MR. METIVIER-Okay.
MR. SCHACHNER-Mr. Chairman, I have a procedural question. Just in terms of, I gather, I
don’t know if I’m right, but I have a sense that a number of the public are here to comment on
this application, and I’ve heard discussion about that the Board does not have the current plan
before it. Is that true or not true? Or am I confused about that?
MR. MAC EWAN-There is evidently a revised subdivision plat that was based on your
outcome of your meeting with the Fire Marshal, and the Fire Chief. Do I understand that
correctly? And we do not have that plan in our possession.
MR. SCHACHNER-All right. So, I’m not sure how you want to do this, but if we’re about to
open the public hearing, which is fine, it’s certainly for the purpose of continuation, if for no
other reason, but it seems like we should make clear to the public, if I’m understanding this
correctly, that whatever plan has been reviewed by the public and the Board thus far is not, in
fact, what the applicant is currently proposing. Is that correct?
MR. O'CONNOR-Yes.
MR. SCHACHNER-Okay. So from my standpoint, as your Counsel, that sort of calls into
question the purpose of having a public hearing, beyond opening it for the sake of continuation,
I mean, and I’m not trying to cause trouble. I’m trying to see what the most efficient approach
here is, and as your Counsel, just to make sure, if I understand, and it sounds like I do, the
applicant is affirming, is stating on the record, that there’s been a modified plan prepared, but
25
(Queensbury Planning Board 11/23/04)
not yet presented, and prepared at least in part as a result of the meeting with the emergency
access personnel.
MR. O'CONNOR-It was presented to C.T. Male, partially in response to some of their
comments. It was presented also to the Fire Marshal, and we presume to the Fire Department,
in response to their comments.
MR. SANFORD-Okay, but clarifying, it’s my understanding, or impression, I should say, and
perhaps you could confirm this or deny it, is that it’s not a material deviation from the plan
we’re looking at.
MR. JARRETT-That’s a matter of opinion, but I don’t feel it is.
MR. SANFORD-Okay, and that’s what I picked up.
MR. SCHACHNER-Then my comment is of less concern. My concern, in part, was that,
procedurally, you were about to open a public hearing and have lengthy public comment on a
plan that’s materially different, and what I’m understanding, based on what Mr. Sanford and
Mr. O’Connor just said, is that it’s not materially different, in which case my concern is no
longer valid.
MR. JARRETT-In five seconds, the changes we’ve added driveway circles on each lot to allow
access for fire vehicles. That’s the sole change that was negotiated with the Fire Marshal. You
can decide whether you feel it’s a material change or not.
MR. SCHACHNER-All right. My concern is satisfied.
MR. JARRETT-Yes. That was negotiated prior, and I think they have that in their submission.
MR. MAC EWAN-All right. I’ll ask you to give up the table and we’ll open the public hearing.
Four minutes per speaker. Any takers?
PUBLIC HEARING OPENED
DAVE KELLY
MR. KELLY-My name is Dave Kelly. I reside at 30 Oakwood Drive. That happens to be a 2.1
acre lot, by the way. I’ve retained John Caffry over here, who is going to help me express my
concerns. Our property is adjacent to the southern border of this proposed subdivision. I’m not
here to deny the developers their right to subdivide or build homes on this piece of property,
but I do believe there are serious issues that need to be discussed and resolved in regards to this
plan as presently proposed. I have previously submitted a letter to the Planning Board, which
should have been distributed to the members for review. In that letter I’ve outlined the
neighbor’s concerns regarding the safety of the entry way as well as concerns regarding the
maintenance of optimal tree density, to minimize negative visual impact and increased noise
which could occur with poor planning. However, as I can also sense from your discussion, an
issue of perhaps greater importance is that of the determination of the number of home sites
which should be allowed on this parcel of land. This land forms a very narrow ridge with very
steep slopes, particularly in the northern half of the parcel. Unfortunately, these poster boards
and pictures don’t clearly depict that today. This property separates a long established
neighborhood, the Twicwood to the southwest, Old Orchard to the southeast, Round Pond to
the north, and the historic Glens Falls Country Club to the east. It also serves as a natural sound
and visual buffer to the Glens Falls Country Club and neighbors to the south and east from
development on Route 9 and The Great Escape. Now, this 17.7 acre of land has long been zoned
Residential Three Acres. According to Queensbury’s Subdivision Code A183-22, the area
occupied by slopes of greater than 25% must be subtracted from the total acreage before
determining the number of allowable lots. In addition, any easements granted to the Country
Club or others, as well as streets, right of ways, must be subtracted from the calculations. The
26
(Queensbury Planning Board 11/23/04)
developers are requesting a waiver from the restrictions of this Code. Now if you look at their
plat, C-1, and do the math, it’s actually over 50% of this property has grades of greater than
25%. You can also note on that same plat that there’s about .4 acres of land, which does not
appear to have been surveyed. On personal visual inspection, these areas are also of very steep
grade. Utilizing the developer’s own calculations, noted on that same C-1 plat, 9.137 acres of
land should be subtracted for grade issues alone. Additional acreage should be subtracted for
the rights of way. This leaves significantly less than nine acres of allowable land, which in turn
should allow only two building lots. In addition, each lot, if it were to be evaluated separately,
you would see that all five lots have less than three acres necessary for development. Allowable
acreage calculations vary from 0.98 acres to a maximum of 2.57 acres. Furthermore, Lots
Number Four and Five, looking on the same topography maps, are situated on the top of a very
narrow ridge, barely allowing enough room for the proposed roadway, driveways, building
footprints, septic and drainage fields. In summary, 72% of Lot Number Four and 70% of Lot
Number Five occupy slopes of greater than 25%. Queensbury’s rapidly running out of green
space. What remains are often valleys, ridges, and wetlands. These green spaces are valuable
buffers between our neighborhoods, commercial development and recreational areas.
Preservation of these lands should be strongly supported by our Town Planners, particularly
where the Zoning Subdivision Codes are already in place. I, and many of my neighbors, as well
as other Queensbury citizens, strongly believe that a waiver of the Subdivision Code should not
be granted by this Planning Board, cluster or no cluster. Lastly, I would respectfully request
that the Planning Board keep the public comment period open, so that we could respond
publicly to comments that may be made by the developers addressing their questions. Thank
you.
MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. Thank you.
MR. HILTON-Mr. Chairman, just to let you know, we do have a letter from Mr. Kelly in the file
dated September 27, which many of the concerns he just addressed are also noted in this letter.
th
MR. MAC EWAN-Okay.
JOHN CAFFRY
MR. CAFFRY-I’m John Caffry. As Mr. Kelly stated, I’m an attorney. I’ve been hired by him and
by his wife, Sally Kelly. Mrs. Kelly doesn’t plan to speak, so I was wondering if I might have
her four minutes, too.
MR. MAC EWAN-Four minutes per speaker, nice try.
MR. CAFFRY-Per speaker. All right. I won’t repeat what Mr. Kelly said. I submitted a letter,
about 10 pages with exhibits. I hope you all got copies. If you don’t, Mr. Hilton has them and
he can give them to you so you can read it before the next meeting, but it’s got all the
calculations that support what he said. If you count the road, which you have to, based on your
definitions, and you make them go out and survey the rest of the land that they didn’t survey
yet, it’s not 9.0 acres. It’s about seven or eight acres that is countable as buildable. Therefore
they’re only allowed two. So it’s not a waiver from three to five. It’s a waiver from two to five,
two hundred and fifty percent, and I ask you, what’s the point of having these rules and giving
waivers of 250% if you’re just going to grant a waiver to everybody who hires a lawyer, who
comes in and makes some interesting arguments as to why you ought to allow this one. You
might as well just throw out the rules. The waiver standard requires a showing of special
circumstances. I didn’t hear Mr. O’Connor say anything that convinced me that there was
special circumstances, and even if there’s no impact, you can’t have the waiver if you don’t
prove special circumstances. If you look at this map up here, you look at the Passarelli property
that stretches out, all the way out to Route 9, it’s all zoned RR-3A. It has the same topography
as this. This isn’t an isolated three acre parcel. The whole area is three acres. If you look at the
map, it stretches all the way out to Route 9. It goes all the way up the whole east side of Glen
Lake. I drove out there today. It’s all the same kind of up and down hilly topography. It’s got
flat spots. It’s got ridges. It’s all the same stuff. There’s nothing unique about this. In my
27
(Queensbury Planning Board 11/23/04)
letter, I won’t repeat it all, but we went through the 1982 zoning map, the 1988 zoning map, the
1988 EIS for the new zoning, the 1998 Consolidated Land Use Plan and the 2002 zoning that you
have now. Everything in there, including the intent and purpose of the three acre zoning, talks
about protecting slopes. It talks about this area being a buffer. It talks about the Glen
Lake/Round Pond area and the topography there. That’s why this is zoned three acres. There’s
nothing unique about this site. It’s pretty much all the same stuff. We’d also like to point out
that you had a similar application before you recently for the Cormus property up on the
Queensbury Lake Luzerne, and there you said to that applicant, it’s in your minutes, come back
to us with an application that conforms to the zoning. Why is this one being treated any
differently than the Cormus application? They ought to come back with an application for two
lots, maybe three at the very most, something that conforms much more closely and is not 250%
times what’s allowed. I’m also concerned, I believe one of you pointed out the build out study
is based on the existing zoning. If you start granting this waiver, and then Mr. Passarelli comes
in for a waiver, and then somebody else comes in for a waiver, and everywhere around Town
you grant these waivers to everybody who hires Mr. O’Connor and comes in and asks for one,
the next thing you know you’re going to have 15,000 instead of 7600 new units, and I don’t
mean that as an attack on Mr. O’Connor because he’s doing a good job here. He’s doing what
he’s paid to, but you can’t just hand these things out every time somebody comes in and asks
for it, just because they would like to have more lots. There’s no reason this development can’t
be done at two, three at the most. It’s a very attractive site. It can be done that way without,
they’ll make money. We don’t have to worry about that, but without gutting your zoning,
basically, and I’d point out, too, this area has been zoned and rezoned and studied in the master
plan. The Town Board didn’t make any changes. If there was a good reason to make a change,
you’d like to think they would have been smart enough to do it. Nobody did it, and it should
be left the way it is. SEQRA. This property is in part, as far as I can tell, in a Critical
Environmental Area, under SEQRA. The 500 foot Critical Environmental Area around Round
Pond, it needs special treatment under SEQRA. There’s also the potential that there’s Karner
blue butterfly habitat adjoining it. That needs to be studied. We also have, in my letter, a list of
additional permit conditions that we think ought to be added, in order to make this project
better, in order to improve it, since everything is going to be tabled, apparently. I don’t think
we need to go through that, but I think the point is, this was zoned three acres for a purpose.
Nothing we’ve heard tonight tells me that that should be changed. The rules are there for a
reason, and I hope the Board will adhere to them. Thank you.
MR. MAC EWAN-Thank you. Anyone else?
TALLA HALLABEE
MS. HALLABEE-Hi. I’m Talla Hallabee, a resident at 8 Oakwood Drive. One of our residents,
Nancy Wilder, of 21 Oakwood Drive, prepared this which will be submitted to the Board. She
just basically stated that, based on, was there a meeting on Saturday by the Planning Ordinance
Review Committee?
MR. MAC EWAN-Yes.
MS. HALLABEE-Okay. She said that a video was clearly shown that the ineffectiveness of
depending upon existing zoning when trying to retain the rural character of our Town, as stated
the Town’s Comprehensive Land Use Plan, and she itemizes it. At the end, in boldface, she asks
that I read this. In the 7/20/04 preliminary site plan review before the Planning Board, Mr.
O’Connor made the statement, this is quote, 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 up Wincrest Drive, up into Oakwood, and that area, and I would have to
presume that it was probably zoned RR-3, the land was zoned RR-3, because it was presumed
that it would some day become part of the Country Club, end quote. This, the above history of
zoning, shows to be a false assumption. In fact the parcel is clearly tied to the contiguous
Round Pond/Glen Lake zoning on a much larger scale than that of the Country Club, and this,
Ms. Wilder, had emergency oral surgery today. So she will have that sent to the Board, and
copied, but I just wanted to read those two things that she asked me to.
28
(Queensbury Planning Board 11/23/04)
MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. Very good. Thank you.
MS. HALLABEE-Yes, thanks.
MR. MAC EWAN-Anyone else?
KATHY SONNABEND
MRS. SONNABEND-Kathy Sonnabend, 55 Cedar Court. I was there for most of the meeting on
Saturday morning, too, and, as was described in the conservation planning video that we saw,
as well as what I believe you say our own zoning rules require, that when you’re figuring out
the allowable density, you have to first subtract all the land that cannot be developed or built
upon, and in this case, as has been pointed out about 50% of the land is greater than a 25%
grade. So I would strongly urge the Board not to give a waiver in this case. I’ve been to Town
Board meetings where the idea of a precedent being set is very important, to allow everybody to
have the same opportunity. I would hate to see a precedent set here. I’ve looked at that build
out study which still apparently has not been released to the public, and that build out study
assumes that only land with a grade of not greater than 15% is developed with a density similar
to the way the Town is currently developed, and in that study it’s indicating that we’re going to
have another 19,500 residents in this Town if all of that land is developed. If we start giving
waivers for 25% grades, whether it’s leveling or allowing it to be excluded from these, or
included in these density calculations, we’re looking at a number that is significantly greater
than 19,500, and that’s not what the public wants, and it certainly jeopardizes many of the open
spaces or beautiful parts of this Town if we allow them all to be developed. It’s really part of
the petition that I distributed that we never ended up needing to give to the Planning Board,
but there’s a great deal of concern out there in the public about these very issues.
MR. MAC EWAN-Thank you.
MRS. SONNABEND-That’s it. Thank you.
MR. MAC EWAN-Anyone else?
KAREN ANGLESON
MS. ANGLESON-Karen Angleson, 1 Greenwood Lane, Twicwood. I’ve lived there for close to
40 years, and I’ve seen a lot of things destroyed in the area, and I’d hate to see the trees, the
slope, everything about the area, destroyed. I think it would be a bad precedent to set to
approve a waiver, and I agree with you folks that have mentioned your build out study and
where you’re at with the approving of destroying slopes, and that anything that is above 15%
should not be built upon, and I think this is a perfect opportunity for this conservation
development idea of clustering or some such thing to preserve the natural environment.
MR. MAC EWAN-Thank you. Anyone else?
DOUG AUER
MR. AUER-Doug Auer, 16 Oakwood Drive. I don’t want to go over what these folks have just
stated, but I do have a little graphic here. This is a graph of over the past 16 years of student
enrollment population for the entire Queensbury School District. Now, this takes into account
years, periods where there hasn’t been a lot of building taking place in Queensbury, but
nevertheless, this slope of this curve is almost a straight line and it continues going up, contrary
to what best information available was told to the School, four or five years ago, when they
embarked on their capital improvement project. It was a $38 million project. They got bum
information then. They built out based on that, and as we sit here today, the School is
overcrowded again. So there’s a major issue here, for folks to consider, relative to what’s
happening in Town and how it’s impacting the School. This is a fact. This is not speculation,
29
(Queensbury Planning Board 11/23/04)
conjecture, somebody’s wishful thinking. The reality is there is a clear and present threat to the
existing campus, in terms of what that campus can sustain in terms of number of students, and
the School is also working very diligently to figure out how much more student population that
footprint can take, and there are certain considerations that I don’t even want to talk about, but
things like, well, what do we do with the Little League fields. Maybe we have to move those at
some point in time. They don’t want to talk about that, but if it comes to be a choice between
education and Little League fields, Little League fields lose. Now where are you going to put
that asset in the Town? My point is that, and you guys did an excellent job two weeks ago,
three weeks ago, whenever it was that you, you really did your homework on the Bay Road
issue, but there’s a bigger, bigger issue out there that you guys really need to look at, and what
you’re doing with this Committee, I don’t want to use the acronym for it because it’s an awful
acronym, but that Committee is started in the right direction. You had a great presentation
Saturday, but there’s a bigger concern here. Queensbury is not the Chicago Mercantile
Exchange. We’re not speculating on pork bellies here. This is land, and the well being of the
Town of Queensbury, for the next 50 years. Most of us probably won’t be here in 50 years. I’m
sure I won’t be, I’d be 107 by then. I don’t think I’m going to make it that long, but that’s the
kind of thing you’ve got to do, because the folks that did what they did 50 years ago were
thinking to today. They really did. If you look at some of the documentation, and the thought
process that took place in 1950, those folks saw a vision of what we have today. So it can be
done. Thank you, gentlemen.
MR. MAC EWAN-Thank you.
MR. HUNSINGER-I would just add, your point’s well taken. I have a ninth grader in school,
and his older brother, between, in the six years between my oldest son and my youngest son,
the class size increased 50%. It went from 240 to 356.
MR. MAC EWAN-Anyone else? All right. I’ll leave the public hearing open.
MR. HILTON-Mr. Chairman, we do have some written correspondence that I should probably
read in. The first one is a petition. It appears to be signed by 42 individuals in the
neighborhood. It says, “We, the undersigned, are residents and neighboring property owners,
residents of Oakwood Drive in Queensbury. We wish to express our concerns regarding the
proposed development to be accessed from Oakwood Drive. Aside from the potential loss of
aesthetic beauty that our street now possesses, and the potential increase of property values,
including our taxes, the issues of concern are safety and traffic. The latter, traffic, would
increase with the residential population, of course, but Oakwood Drive already has a traffic
issue at present. It has been and continues to be used by vehicles like it is a short cut or
unofficial thruway to major roads such as Country Club and Route 9. The existing traffic
already supercedes the amount of traffic this streets total houses could ever possibly output,
even if all 35 residences housed more than three vehicles. Additionally, the speeds of the
majority of vehicles here is way too fast for such a small neighborhood and one with an
extremely dangerous, sharp curve, exactly where the wooded lands now exist and where the
proposed site for development is located, which leads to the safety issue. With the increased
traffic which is already excessive, not only in the amount, but also in speed, the potential for
accidents is also increased. Even in optimal, fair weather, as on a sunny summer day,
negotiating around that sharp curve where the proposed development would be is already
dangerous. In the winter it can be most hazardous, especially when ice and snow are present.
The snow banks alone make the limited visibility of this location even more treacherous.
Additionally, the street now is borderline unsafe for the pedestrians, joggers, bicyclists and
neighborhood children who, for safety concerns, really cannot play on their own front yards.
The street already has too much traffic and much of it at speeds that are too excessive for the
road’s design as well as its existing population. Thank you in advance for allowing our
concerns to be voiced with this petition.” Next thing here is a quick letter from Denis Lusignan.
“Dear Sirs: As a neighbor of the proposed subdivision enumerated above, I would like to
support the reasoning and conclusions in the letter you have received from Dr. David Kelly as
regards this development. I believe that his concerns regarding safety, tree density and number
of allowable sites on this property are cogent and I would hope that the planning board would
30
(Queensbury Planning Board 11/23/04)
take note of his arguments. In a broader sense, of course, this development continues a trend in
the Town of Queensbury that is resulting in much of the Town’s open space and, in this case,
forested space undergoing development. Over the years, this has resulted in a marked
diminution of the open space in town. I would hope that this latest example of ongoing
development might goad the planning board into a review of this entire issue with an eye
towards formulating a development plan for the town that might set aside, for the benefit of the
town’s citizens, as much of the open land now existing as is possible. It is generally conceded
that when open land is developed, something is lost that can never be regained. That is true of
this development, however, in this particular case, I would like to suggest that the loss could be
mitigated were the developers to agree to an easement along side their private road to run
between Oakwood Drive and Round Pond Road. The Queensbury bike trail is a truly
wonderful and heavily used pathway in the Town of Queensbury, but the portion of it that lies
alongside the most northern aspect of Country Club Road and a portion of the middle of Round
Pond Road at what, if I’m allowed, I will call the “Country Club corner” is potentially
dangerous as it tracks bicyclists along the edge of two very heavily traveled roads. If an
easement through this development property as described was granted, an alternative route for
the Queensbury bike path could be tracked up Wincrest Avenue, a neighborhood street, and
down this parcel of property onto Round Pond Road avoiding most of that dangerous angle.
Having this property tied into the Queensbury bike trail as an added loop would give those
bikers who wish to experience a different type of terrain or who did not wish, for safety reasons,
to ride next to a heavily traveled road an option. Such an easement could be placed as a 12’
wide bike lane along the 16’ private road on the west side of the road in such a position that it
would not in any way infringe upon the privacy of the houses to be built or upon the neighbors
to the west. The maximum width, 28’, of the bike path and private road combined would then
be no more than the width of an average town road. In short, I support the right of the
developers to develop this piece of property, but I also support Dr. Kelly’s arguments directed
towards modifying the original development plan. In addition, I would hope that the loss of
this wild habitat could be mitigated somewhat for the community by including this property as
a new loop in the Queensbury bike path. Sincerely, Denis N. Lusignan” And lastly a quick
card from Dr. and Mrs. Norman Enhorning. It says, ‘We are very concerned about the
development of the parcel on the bend on Oakwood Drive affecting traffic. Additionally, we
are concerned about trees getting cut which now help with buffering noise from the Northway,
Great Escape, sirens, etc. Mary & Norm Enhorning”, and that’s all we have.
MR. O'CONNOR-I’d like to reserve the right to respond to some of the statements that were
made, as far as whether or not they are factually correct or not correct. I don’t want to prolong
it this evening. I think the idea is that you’re probably, at this point, going to table it, and we
have no objection to that. We will take a look at the suggestions that you’ve made. We will get
a set of plans to you, so you have the same plans. Everybody’s on the same page, as far as what
you’re looking at, so that you can fully understand the impacts of what we’re talking about.
MR. MAC EWAN-I only have one question for you, relative to a comment that was made by
one of the speakers, relative to an accurate survey map. Has the entire parcel been surveyed?
MR. O'CONNOR-The entire parcel has been surveyed. I think there’s one small portion of one
of the, o one of the lots, that we do not have accurate topographical.
MR. JARRETT-There’s one small piece that I originally thought was surveyed, and was flat
slopes, then I learned later from the surveyor it was not surveyed because of snow cover, and
the slopes are, in fact, probably marginal at best.
MR. O'CONNOR-We talked about that at Sketch, and nobody seemed to, if that’s something
that you want us to calculate, we will calculate it.
MR. MAC EWAN-Well, I think that, obviously, the parcel should reflect every piece of the
property. I mean, the survey map should.
MR. O'CONNOR-The perimeter survey does. The only thing it doesn’t is this.
31
(Queensbury Planning Board 11/23/04)
MR. SEGULJIC-Is that the area between Lots Four and Five?
MR. JARRETT-Yes.
MR. SEGULJIC-On the western edge?
MR. JARRETT-The western edge between Lots Four and Five. T hat corner was not surveyed
topographically because of snow cover.
MR. O'CONNOR-Okay. We can do that.
MR. MAC EWAN-Where was the area, again, you just mentioned, Tom?
MR. JARRETT-It’s the western end of the boundary between Lots Four and Five.
MR. SANFORD-The place where there’s no contours?
MR. JARRETT-Right, exactly. That was left off, and I learned later on why.
MR. O'CONNOR-We can complete that.
MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. Discussion amongst Board members?
MR. SANFORD-Well, Mr. Chairman, I know you’ve polled the Board, but in an effort of
providing some guidance to the applicant, in terms of their next steps, I think it would probably
be appropriate to making resolution not addressing the entirety of this application, but a
specific resolution to provide guidance on Site Plan 11-2004 to basically read that it is the
determination of this Board that in any future plans for this particular division, that we are not
interested in granting a density waiver, and if that could get seconded and voted on and
passed, I think it would greatly assist the applicant, in terms of planning their next steps. If it
doesn’t pass, it merely puts us in the same position we’re in now, and I think that it only could
be beneficial. So that’s my resolution.
MR. MAC EWAN-Did you just put one up?
MR. SANFORD-Yes, I just did it.
MR. MAC EWAN-Do we have a second on that?
MR. VOLLARO-I’ll second that motion.
MR. HUNSINGER-Discussion first?
MR. VOLLARO-We should have discussion first, I think.
MR. SCHACHNER-My only concern as counsel, obviously, I don’t, it’s not my opinion which
way you go, but I’m a little concerned about the potential pre-maturity of the motion. You
don’t typically make substantive decisions about waivers or not, at least in my experience here,
during review. I guess my concern, I mean, I don’t disagree with Rich that it might give the
applicant some guidance.
MR. MAC EWAN-In this case I understand where he’s coming from on that.
MR. SCHACHNER-Right, I do, too, but I think the applicant’s already indicated that you don’t
have the current plans in front of you, although the change is not significant, and that the
applicant is at least going to take a look at, if I understood correctly, the notion of the cluster. I
don’t know, I just throw out, my only legal concern is as to possible pre-maturity.
32
(Queensbury Planning Board 11/23/04)
MR. SANFORD-I understand that. That’s why I phrased it as not a resolution really addressing
the entirety of the project, but as sort of an attempt to put some clarity to a rather material point,
and if the Board was to agree with me that the density is a concern and we want to adhere to
the density calculations as prescribed by the Code, then they’ll have a much better sense of
direction as to where to go with this. In the absence of such direction, this could be a much
more prolonged application process.
MR. SCHACHNER-I think that’s true. I’m still concerned about the pre-maturity.
MR. O'CONNOR-Mr. Chairman, I’d like to be heard, if I might, on that, because I think that
we’ve said that we, in good faith, will take a look at the suggestions as to clustering. We’ve also
indicated that we’ll take a look at that one area that was not surveyed. I don’t know, truthfully,
whether or not our continuing application will be for a waiver from three to five, three to four,
or what it might be, and for you to make a blanket determination that for some reason you’re
not going to give a waiver of any nature to this applicant would be very premature.
MR. SCHACHNER-Well, I’ll weigh in on that. I will strongly advise against. I don’t believe
Mr. Sanford was suggesting a blanket denial resolution on any potential waiver, and if he was, I
don’t think that’s legally appropriate. I thought he was suggesting that the specific waiver of
density currently being sought by the applicant be denied.
MR. SANFORD-That’s correct.
MR. SCHACHNER-And that’s the only thing I express my concern about.
MR. O'CONNOR-He said all waivers, Mark.
MR. HUNSINGER-I was actually going to make a similar comment to what Counsel said that I
don’t know if I could vote in favor of the resolution because we’re not really sure what we’re
going to be presented with at the next meeting when we.
MR. SANFORD-I think Mark just clarified it, though, to a point where you should feel more
comfortable, and basically, go ahead, if you would repeat.
MR. HUNSINGER-No, I understand what he’s saying, Richard. I just, going along with his
prior comment, if the whole plan is going to change, I may feel very differently about granting a
waiver or not granting a waiver. That’s all I wanted to say. So I’m not sure I can support your
resolution.
MR. SCHACHNER-And that’s where I’m coming from in mentioning the potential pre-
maturity.
MR. O'CONNOR-You asked us to consider your comments, and we’ve indicated a willingness
to do it. I don’t know what your rush to judgment is.
MR. SANFORD-Well, as a point of order here, I think I made a motion, it was seconded. We’re
in discussion. Is it appropriate for the applicant to be part of the discussion?
MR. O'CONNOR-I asked the Chairman if I may speak.
MR. SANFORD-All right. I’m just trying to learn the process. Okay.
MR. O'CONNOR-That’s why I asked him if I may speak.
MR. MAC EWAN-Who seconded that?
MR. VOLLARO-I did.
33
(Queensbury Planning Board 11/23/04)
MR. SANFORD-Well, I mean, again, I’m not doing this to try to do anything prematurely,
Craig.
MR. MAC EWAN-No, I see your point and I’m on your side on that point. I see the applicant’s
point. I see Counsel’s point on this, and I’m just betwixt as to what to do here.
MR. HUNSINGER-Well, that’s why I made the comment I made. I understand what you’re
saying. Unfortunately I don’t feel comfortable going along with your resolution.
MR. SANFORD-Right. I can appreciate that.
MR. HUNSINGER-That’s why I wanted to make the comment before.
MR. RINGER-Without having all the information.
MR. SANFORD-I’ll withdraw the resolution.
MR. MAC EWAN-I want to be sure what we’re going to do for a tabling motion here, so, you
know, as far as what we’re going to request them to provide to us.
MR. HUNSINGER-I have three items, so far. Complete the topographical survey. Submission
of revised drawings, submission of an alternate plan based on a cluster concept. I don’t know
what else we had.
MR. METIVIER-I guess the biggest question that we’re going to have and that we really
shouldn’t let them walk away without knowing, at least getting an idea if we’re going to do
anything with the slopes or not, as far as how many lots they should come back with, and I
understand what you’re going to say.
MR. MAC EWAN-That goes back to Rich’s thing.
MR. METIVIER-Right, you know, but we have to give them guidance to come back, and again,
I’m not saying direct them. Just give them some kind of guidance as to which way we want to
go with this, three lots, five lots, clustered three, clustered five. I mean, just so we’re not back
and forth, back and forth, and, you know, there’s a lot of public here.
MR. MAC EWAN-I’ll reiterate my position from the beginning. I won’t support granting on the
slopes, from the density calculations. I think it’s wrong. From a planning standpoint, it’s just
flat out wrong. I’d be more open to embracing a concept of a cluster division that brought
smaller lots closer to Oakwood, shorter driveway. I still have reservations about a shared
driveway feeding three or five lots, though.
MR. METIVIER-I mean, we all seem, at least this side seems to be in favor of clustering, but
again, what are we looking at as far as the number of lots? If you grant the waiver, then it’s
going to be five or six or whatever. If you don’t, you’re looking at two or three, and are we
looking for them to come back with something, or are we going to send them away with an idea
of what we want?
MR. MAC EWAN-Well, like Chris stated before when he read the provision in the Subdivision
Regs on clustering. If they were to come back with a clustering plan, they could meet, what did
you come up with, three lots? Three to five lots, you thought you could come up with, based on
the clustering provision, which keeps them away from the slopes, and uses the density
calculations the way the Ordinance means it to be used. It’s just, to me, that’s a good plan. I
mean it, to me, is a win/win for everybody, for them, for the infrastructure, for the slopes.
MR. SANFORD-Actually, I believe, it’s my understanding that, and I may be wrong, it’s not the
first time, that if we go with a cluster, that doesn’t necessarily eliminate the density calculations.
34
(Queensbury Planning Board 11/23/04)
In fact, assuming their calculations are correct and not one of the speakers during the public
comment who suggested that it may actually be greater slopes, and so therefore only two
homes could be built, under the assumption that three homes fit into the density calculation,
we’d have to be granting a waiver even in a cluster situation, for anything more than three
homes to be built. That’s my understanding. Okay.
MR. VOLLARO-I think one of the things I would like to see is Mr. Caffry’s letter.
MR. MAC EWAN-We’ll get all that. There’s a couple of letters from the public. Mr. Caffry’s,
there’s like three or four letters we’ll get. Hopefully, a new set of revised plans.
MR. SANFORD-Before we take our recess, again.
MR. MAC EWAN-We’re not going to take one.
MR. SANFORD-We’re not going to take one. Okay. Well, I just thought that providing some
clarify to this issue, I have no problems with coming back with a cluster with the three home
cluster, but I think it would still be a good idea to definitively give them the heads up that we’re
not necessarily contemplating a density waiver here, as planned with the five lots. I think that
would be helpful for everybody.
MR. MAC EWAN-You’re just not going to get the commitment, Rich.
MR. VOLLARO-No, that’s the problem I see with that. I think this Board is floundering on that
issue, and we’re not going to get a commitment from this Board on denying the waiver, it’s not
going to happen, from what I’ve been able to hear up and down the line here. We’re just not
going to get from here to there, and it’s a shame that we’re not, but we’re not.
MR. SANFORD-We have three anyway.
MR. VOLLARO-Three doesn’t make a vote.
MR. O'CONNOR-Okay. One suggestion I would have for the resolution. Can we orchestrate a
meeting with Staff and with the Fire Marshal and Fire Chief that Staff is present at, so that
they’re in a position to report to you whether or not what was concluded or not concluded at
that meeting.
MR. MAC EWAN-Immaterial at this point. You’ve got plans you revised, based on your Fire
Marshal’s Fire Chief’s input. You’ve got a memo from them, and I see no reason for it.
MR. O'CONNOR-I offer it. That’s all. Because a question was raised as to it.
MR. HUNSINGER-Just those three issues? Complete the topographical survey and show the
topography on the map. Submit the revised drawings and provide an alternate plan based on a
cluster concept.
MR. MAC EWAN-Your item number two was what, now, revised plans?
MR. HUNSINGER-Submission of revised drawings.
MR. MAC EWAN-Based on this five lot one, right?
MR. HUNSINGER-Yes, well, there’s an updated plan that we haven’t seen yet.
MR. MAC EWAN-Right.
MR. METIVIER-However, if they withdraw that plan all together.
35
(Queensbury Planning Board 11/23/04)
MR. HUNSINGER-Right. There may be some future modifications that, you know, from that
one.
MR. MAC EWAN-Right.
MR. HUNSINGER-So I left it a little vague on purpose.
MR. METIVIER-I mean, they’re going to come to the next meeting. We’re going to have plans
in front of us that we’re going to be looking at, I would assume, at this point. I mean, they’re
not going to show up with new plans that night because the same thing’s going to happen
again. I would assume.
MR. MAC EWAN-Do we have a second on that?
MR. METIVIER-I’ll second that.
MOTION TO TABLE SUBDIVISION NO. 11-2004 DIAMOND POINT REALTY, Introduced
by Chris Hunsinger who moved its adoption, seconded by Anthony Metivier
For the following:
1. Complete the topographical survey and show the topography on the map, and
2. Submit the revised drawings, and
3. Provide an alternate plan based on a cluster concept.
Duly adopted this 23rd day of November 2004 by the following vote:
AYES: Mr. Metivier, Mr. Hunsinger, Mr. Ringer, Mr. Seguljic, Mr. Vollaro, Mr. Sanford, Mr.
MacEwan
NOES: NONE
MR. O'CONNOR-Thank you.
MR. MAC EWAN-Okay.
SITE PLAN NO. 64-2004 SEQR TYPE: UNLISTED MOUNTAIN VIEW OUTLETS, LLC
PROPERTY OWNER: MALTA TOWNHOMES AGENT: JARRETT-MARTIN ENGINEERS;
BARTLETT, PONTIFF ET AL ZONE: HC-INTENSIVE LOCATION: 1476 STATE ROUTE 9
APPLICANT PROPOSES TO CONSTRUCT A FAÇADE, LIGHTING AND LANDSCAPE
IMPROVEMENTS TO AN EXISTING RETAIL BUILDING ON ROUTE 9. RETAIL USES IN
THE HC-INTENSIVE ZONE REQUIRE SITE PLAN REVIEW AND APPROVAL FROM THE
PLANNING BOARD. CROSS REFERENCE: AV 85-2004 WARREN CO. PLANNING:
11/10/04 TAX MAP NO. 288.12-1-17 LOT SIZE: 4.5 ACRES SECTION: 179-4-030
JON LAPPER & TOM JARRETT, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT
MR. MAC EWAN-Anytime, George.
MR. HILTON-Okay. As I’ve indicated in my notes, the applicant proposes some building
exterior changes, new building accent lighting and additional landscaping at the Mountain
View Outlets on Route 9. The applicant has submitted drawings showing what the new
building exterior will look like. However, no color elevations or listing of what materials will
be used have been submitted. The building elevations indicate a proposed tower, which has
received an Area Variance from the Zoning Board from front yard and Travel Corridor setback
relief. The tower shows a lighted ball to be suspended from the interior of the tower, and I
guess no information has been provided, the wattage and type of light to be used and there
could be some light spillage and negative impacts, depending on what type of light wattage,
36
(Queensbury Planning Board 11/23/04)
and what type of light fixture is being used. As I’ve indicated, more information is necessary in
order to completely comment or assess the potential impacts. Additionally, the building
mounted lighting cut sheets and information on the fixtures to be included with this
development should also be included. The landscaping in front of the building appears to meet
zoning requirements, and it will be a nice enhancement of this area. I guess the one question is,
does this proposed landscaping conflict with the placement of the new sewer line up and down
this section of Route 9. I believe there are some C.T. Male comments, yes. This was referred to
C.T. Male. They have provided some comments.
MR. LAPPER-We did get a signoff letter from them, at the end of the day today.
MR. HILTON-With that, that’s all I have at this time.
MR. LAPPER-Good evening. For the record, Jon Lapper and project engineer Tom Jarrett.
Gordon Development out of Albany purchased this, what you all know it as Log Jam Factory
Outlet, what it was originally called. I don’t think anyone’s spent any money on this in about
15 years, and it shows, and it’s mostly vacant. So they purchased it with the intention of
upgrading it and bringing in a better caliber of tenants than have been there. The plaza has a
disadvantage of being faced towards the Log Jam restaurant but not very visible from the road
when you’re coming south on Route 9, you can see the front of it. When you’re going north you
only see the back of it. That is what it is, but in an effort to upgrade it and update it, they’ve
proposed a very significant façade treatment. As part of that, what George mentioned, in terms
of the tower at the road, when they went to their architect to come up with some concepts, the
architect suggested that it needed something visually as a focus because it’s also flat and dull
looking, and that’s why they truly suggested the tower as a visual enhancement, but because
there’ve been some takings along Route 9 by the State, and the zoning has changed, we had to
go, we’re not going any closer to the road than the existing building, but we had to go to the
Zoning Board last week for an Area Variance, just because adding that tower, even though it’s
no closer to the road, it’s still within the setback. I’m going to hand up some photographs. I’m
sure you’re all familiar with what it looks like, but just the existing façade. These skinny little
poles, the fencing, you can hardly even see the store fronts it’s so dark. Not optimum.
MR. MAC EWAN-Jon, not to be difficult, but being consistent, we’ll accept no handouts the
night of a meeting. Okay.
MR. LAPPER-Okay.
MR. MAC EWAN-Just being consistent.
MR. LAPPER-I do have colored renderings. You already have the renderings. We had this
colored up for the Zoning Board. This is not anything new because you have it. It’s just a
question of what it looks like colored. This shows the tower by the road and the whole long
façade. Is it okay if I hand this up?
MR. MAC EWAN-Put it on the easel if you want.
MR. LAPPER-Okay, and as part of the site plan improvement, they got a variance originally for
a new sign, and they’re proposing a landscaped area with pavers and seeding and a lot of plant
material, compared to what’s there now, which is also pretty minimal. So this boards shows the
new sign, the new front area and the rear of the façade. So it’s just an upgrade to the façade that
requires site plan. So here we are.
MR. SANFORD-Jon, what are you hoping to accomplish tonight? Is this, I’m looking at the
agenda, and I don’t see where this is listed as a final or preliminary or anything.
MR. MAC EWAN-It’s site plan.
37
(Queensbury Planning Board 11/23/04)
MR. LAPPER-It’s site plan. So we would love to accomplish getting it approved so that we can,
they’d like to get this in the ground immediately before winter to get started, if that’s possible,
and C.T. Male had raised some issues, which Tom responded to, and as I mentioned, we did get
a signoff from them today. So at this point if you’d like I’ll hand it over to Tom to go through
the site plan and go through the C.T. Male comments.
MR. VOLLARO-Tom, before you do that, I’d like to ask Staff. I have a blank pre-application
conference sheet. Is that, am I off base on that again?
MR. HILTON-I believe a pre-application conference was.
MR. LAPPER-We had a couple of pre-application conferences on this.
MR. HILTON-Yes.
MR. VOLLARO-The sheet I got had this typed on it. It had this application name called
Mountain View Outlets typed on the pre-application, but what’s in my packet was totally blank.
I don’t know why that is.
MR. LAPPER-I have one attached to the ZBA application.
MR. VOLLARO-But if it was done, it was done. I just don’t know why the packets show, if I’m
the only one that got a blank in their packet.
MR. JARRETT-I think they all got blanks.
MR. LAPPER-You know what happened? Tom submitted the site plan application and I
submitted the variance application, and we had one pre-ap because it’s one project, and we had
one pre-ap on the whole thing, and it went in on my variance application and not on his site
plan application.
MR. VOLLARO-Okay.
MR. HILTON-Yes. There was one, correct, one pre-ap for both applications.
MR. VOLLARO-All right. Fine. I just wanted to make sure one was held. That’s it. Go ahead.
I’m sorry to interrupt you, Tom.
MR. JARRETT-Okay. Essentially, the comments that C.T. Male raised were two-fold, lighting
and stormwater. To get into stormwater first, and I was not at the pre-application meeting, but
apparently Staff brought up an issue, a routine issue that they wanted stormwater looked at to
see if there were any existing problems on the site with stormwater management. So my office
visited the site and we reviewed the stormwater system. We found two stormwater collection
systems, one on the north side and one on the south side of the building, the discharge to the
east, over the existing embankment, and we found several, I’ll say at least two, spillways,
detention ponds, that then outlet into a natural retention area. We did not find any evidence of
any flooding or any problems. I interviewed one of the tenants on the site who said there have
been no problems with stormwater management on the property, and it looked to me, during
our review, that the stormwater from this property enters a natural retention area, natural
depression, that infiltrates into sandy soils, and there’s no discharge to any surface waters. I
concluded that in a letter to our client and relayed to the Town. C.T. Male wondered if there
was a problem because the issue was discussed at all. I clarified that there was no problem that
we found, and there was only a routine request originally. That issue was put to bed.
MR. VOLLARO-Is that in response to his words where he said it would seem prudent to review
the design of the original system to confirm that it meets the Town requirements?
MR. JARRETT-That’s what he came back with after our initial letter.
38
(Queensbury Planning Board 11/23/04)
MR. VOLLARO-Okay, but now he understands it?
MR. JARRETT-Now he understands that it was only a routine perfunctory review, and not
based on any specific concerns or not specific to current Codes. With regard to lighting, C.T.
Male asked why the, or they stated that no uniformity coefficient was present, and the lighting
in the northern parking lot where most of the customers park is essentially zero, based on our
lighting plan, and the reason for that is most of the lighting, except for one structure toward the
rear, the easterly portion of the property, all the lighting is off site. We have no control over it.
It’s on the Log Jam property, and on the plan that you have on the board we’ve shown three
fixtures that illuminate our building. One of them is on our lot toward the east end. The other
two are on Log Jam property, and we have no control over those. We don’t know what the
fixtures are exactly, but in our letter we stated that, you know, I visited the site during evening
hours, and I believe there is sufficient lighting to allow safe access to the vehicles. Those are the
two issues that C.T. Male raised, and in their comment response today, they are stating now
they’re comfortable with our responses.
MR. MAC EWAN-Do you have a signoff for the files?
MR. HILTON-We have an e-mail that I have from today that says, I have received a response to
our review comments of November 16 from Tom Jarrett. We have reviewed the response
th
letter and feel that the lighting and drainage items have been adequately covered. It appears
that the northern parking area is lit by fixtures, not located by the plaza owner and do
illuminate it, despite the level shown as zero on the plan. Let me know if you have any
questions on this project. James Edwards.
MR. JARRETT-If I could add one more thing, Mr. Chairman. The reason we showed a lighting
plan at all is that we’re providing new building lighting on the façade itself to wash the building
wall, and we wanted to show that that lighting itself would not spill off site. Interestingly
enough, we plugged in 200 watt fixtures into that lighting plan at the original direction from the
architect. We’ve learned today that they wish to limit those to 100 watt fixtures, half of what we
have in our plan. So there won’t be any spillage off site.
MR. VOLLARO-Having gone up there at night a few times myself, I don’t even think that the
four to one uniformity ratio plays a role here. It seems that it, from my eyes, I don’t see any
great differential in there, when you go out onto the street, you haven’t been very, very light,
lightly lit parking lot and going out onto Route 9 into a rather dark environment, that’s not
what I see there. So I think it’s probably well within four to one. Pretty hard to calculate.
MR. JARRETT-Impossible to calculate, you may be right.
MR. VOLLARO-Yes.
MR. MAC EWAN-Is that it?
MR. JARRETT-Yes.
MR. MAC EWAN-We’ll go down our criteria sheet. Did you go over, just before we begin, go
over the architecture a little bit, the color styles, coverings.
MR. LAPPER-Architecturally, they picked some colors that they thought would be Adirondack
style with the green and the taupe, and in terms of the design, what they really did, apparently
they, without the assistance of mere Tom, they went around for a number of months at the
Zoning Board on the sign, and what they finally came up with with the sign was these thick,
round columns, and pretty large molding, crown molding at the top. So they wanted to follow
the style of the sign that the Zoning Board was happy with, and that’s really what happened.
So they took away these little four by four pressure treated columns out of there now and
replaced them with attractive architectural columns and added molding at the top so there’s
39
(Queensbury Planning Board 11/23/04)
room for the signs, but there was also some detail, just some architectural treatment, and that
was really how they arrived at the design and tried to pick colors that would blend in.
MR. HUNSINGER-Where are they using dark green?
MR. JARRETT-On the panel.
MR. LAPPER-Where the signs are going to be. That’s bigger than what the signs would be. See
those panels.
MR. SEGULJIC-Those brown panels?
MR. HUNSINGER-Yes, I was going to say, they look brown.
MR. JARRETT-They’re green. There’s a brown trim and then they’re green on the interior.
MR. SANFORD-It’s a brown/green.
MR. LAPPER-It’s a brown/green.
MR. HUNSINGER-I have to say the color renderings look a lot better than the black and white,
because when I looked at the black and white, I said, this looks like, you know, some Sante Fe,
southwestern style, than Adirondack style.
MR. VOLLARO-I had a different take on it.
MR. HUNSINGER-From a distance, it really looks uniform brown.
MR. MAC EWAN-Actually, I can see where you could come up with the concept of being
mission style or something.
MR. VOLLARO-What I said it looked like from the drawings, Chris, was a little bit like
Medieval England. I mean, you know, backing away from it there.
MR. HUNSINGER-Because of the tower? Yes. I actually like the tower. I think that creates an
interesting architecture.
MR. VOLLARO-It looks a lot better than the rendition.
MR. JARRETT-What you have in the packet.
MR. VOLLARO-What we have in the packet. Yes. The line drawing doesn’t do justice to it.
MR. MAC EWAN-All right. We’ll go down our criteria, all right. Design standards. Does
anybody have comments, questions, relative to conformance with the Comp Plan, design
corridor standards, which doesn’t apply to this one, building design, layout or signage?
MR. VOLLARO-It all looks pretty good, Craig, up and down. I have some minor comments,
but.
MR. MAC EWAN-Site development criteria? Conditions, vehicle access, traffic patterns,
pedestrian access?
MR. VOLLARO-It’s what it is now.
MR. HUNSINGER-It’s all existing.
40
(Queensbury Planning Board 11/23/04)
MR. MAC EWAN-Stormwater, sewage design? No issues there. Lighting design? I think
we’re comfortable with that. Landscaping. Comfortable with that?
MR. VOLLARO-Yes.
MR. HUNSINGER-Big improvement.
MR. MAC EWAN-Environmental issues of any kind?
MR. VOLLARO-I don’t think so.
MR. MAC EWAN-Neighborhood character, which doesn’t seem to be involved. Involved
agencies. What did the County do with this? I’m assuming they approved it. I didn’t get a
County listing this month.
MR. LAPPER-I don’t recall if it was approved or No County Impact.
MR. JARRETT-No County Impact.
MR. HILTON-I think it was No County Impact, yes.
MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. Anything I missed? I’ll open up the public hearing. Does anyone
want to comment on this application?
PUBLIC HEARING OPENED
NO COMMENT
PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED
MR. MAC EWAN-We need to do a SEQRA, Chris.
RESOLUTION WHEN DETERMINATION OF NO SIGNIFICANCE IS MADE
RESOLUTION NO. 64-2004, Introduced by Chris Hunsinger who moved for its adoption,
seconded by Richard Sanford:
WHEREAS, there is presently before the Planning Board an application for:
MOUNTAIN VIEW OUTLETS, LLC, and
WHEREAS, this Planning Board has determined that the proposed project and Planning Board
action is subject to review under the State Environmental Quality Review Act,
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT
RESOLVED:
1. No Federal agency appears to be involved.
2. The following agencies are involved:
NONE
3. The proposed action considered by this Board is Unlisted in the Department of
Environmental Conservation Regulations implementing the State Environmental
Quality Review Act and the regulations of the Town of Queensbury.
4. An Environmental Assessment Form has been completed by the applicant.
41
(Queensbury Planning Board 11/23/04)
5. Having considered and thoroughly analyzed the relevant areas of environmental
concern and having considered the criteria for determining whether a project has a
significant environmental impact as the same is set forth in Section 617.11 of the Official
Compilation of Codes, Rules and Regulations for the State of New York, this Board finds
that the action about to be undertaken by this Board will have no significant
environmental effect and the Chairman of the Planning Board is hereby authorized to
execute and sign and file as may be necessary a statement of non-significance or a
negative declaration that may be required by law.
Duly adopted this 23 day of November, 2004, by the following vote:
rd
AYES: Mr. Sanford, Mr. Metivier, Mr. Hunsinger, Mr. Ringer, Mr. Seguljic, Mr. Vollaro, Mr.
MacEwan
NOES: NONE
MR. HILTON-Mr. Chairman, I just want to double check. I’m not sure if I missed something.
Did the applicant clarify the wattages on the bulb?
MR. JARRETT-Actually, we addressed the wattages on the lights on the building façade itself.
The light within the tower I think we did not discuss, and that, we’re proposing is a maximum
of 100 watt.
MR. HUNSINGER-I was going to say, I thought you said it would be no more than 100 watt.
MR. JARRETT-Those would be lights on the wall.
MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. You’re talking about the hanging down light in the tower?
MR. JARRETT-Staff brought up a comment about what was the wattage in the tower, and we
didn’t get to that point. I think that’s what you’re referring to.
MR. HILTON-Yes, exactly.
MR. VOLLARO-That wouldn’t change your on the ground foot candles.
MR. JARRETT-No. That’s a globe fixture. It’s not a flood light or a spotlight. So it’s a globe.
MR. VOLLARO-At 100 watts, you won’t move your own numbers.
MR. JARRETT-And frankly, if you told us to go lighter, we’d go lighter, but I don’t think 100 is
going to do anything.
MR. MAC EWAN-No more than a post light.
MR. SANFORD-Okay. Are you ready for a motion?
MR. MAC EWAN-What have you got?
MR. SANFORD-The only condition I have is that the applicant provide color renderings to the
Planning Department for the file. That’s it.
MR. MAC EWAN-To verify that the color shown is what’s going to be used, and the material
shown.
MR. HUNSINGER-I was going to say, do you want to say based on what was displayed to us
this evening.
42
(Queensbury Planning Board 11/23/04)
MR. MAC EWAN-Do we need to have, I mean, you got an e-mail from C.T. Male saying that
they’ve signed off on it. Do you need a formal letter from them, or is that good enough?
MR. HILTON-I guess we probably should have one, to make the file complete.
MR. MAC EWAN-A formal signoff letter, formal C.T. Male signoff. Anything else?
MR. HUNSINGER-Did you hear Tony? He said the wattage for the lights.
MR. MAC EWAN-Maximum 100 watt bulb for the tower light and the, what do you want to
call them, wall sconces? Is that what they are?
MR. JARRETT-That works.
MR. MAC EWAN-Decorative wall sconces.
MR. SANFORD-Okay.
MOTION TO APPROVE SITE PLAN NO. 64-2004 MOUNTAIN VIEW OUTLETS, LLC,
Introduced by Richard Sanford who moved for its adoption, seconded by Anthony Metivier:
WHEREAS, an application has been made to this Board for the following:
To construct façade, lighting and landscape improvements to an existing retail building
on Route 9.
WHEREAS, the application was received on 10/15/04; and
WHEREAS, the above is supported with all documentation, public comment, and application
materials in file of record; and
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 11/23/04; 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. The applicant provide color renderings which would reflect their drawings that
they presented at this particular planning meeting to the Town Planning
Department, and
43
(Queensbury Planning Board 11/23/04)
2. That we receive a formal C.T. Male sign-off, and
3. That a maximum 100-watt light bulb be utilized in the tower and in the wall
sconces.
Duly adopted this 23rd day of November, 2004, by the following vote:
AYES: Mr. Metivier, Mr. Hunsinger, Mr. Ringer, Mr. Seguljic, Mr. Vollaro, Mr. Sanford, Mr.
MacEwan
NOES: NONE
MR. JARRETT-Thank you very much.
MR. LAPPER-Thank you.
MR. MAC EWAN-Good application, guys.
SITE PLAN NO. 65-2004 SEQR TYPE: UNLISTED PETER ROZELLE & PHIL
WHITTEMORE PROPERTY OWNER: HELEN SLEIGHT AGENT: JONATHAN LAPPER,
ETHAN HALL ZONE: NC-10 LOCATION: 333 AVIATION ROAD APPLICANT
PROPOSES TO DEMOLISH EXISTING GARAGE/SERVICE BUILDINGS AND
CONSTRUCT TWO (2) 9,000 SQ. FT. OFFICE BUILDINGS. OFFICE USES IN THE NC-10
ZONE REQUIRE SITE PLAN REVIEW AND APPROVAL FROM THE PLANNING BOARD.
CROSS REFERENCE: WARREN CO. PLANNING: 11/10/04 TAX MAP NO. 301.8-1-31 LOT
SIZE: 1.69 ACRES SECTION: 179-4-030
JON LAPPER & ETHAN HALL, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT
MR. MAC EWAN-Staff notes?
MR. HILTON-As I’ve indicated, the applicant proposes to construct two office buildings
totaling 9,000 square feet on Aviation Road. The site plan also proposes landscaping, lighting,
and stormwater management infrastructure as well. The vehicular access, site plan shows
vehicular access off Aviation Road, and from Manor Drive as well. The site plan shows an area
for a future access connection to the property to the east. However, in comparing the location of
the two interconnects, they don’t seem to line up, and Staff recommends that the interconnect,
proposed interconnect area be revised on this plan to line up with the connection show as part
of Site Plan 53-21. In addition, the proposed Aviation Road access appears to be 10 feet, maybe
less than 10 feet, from the access drive on Aviation Road, on the site to the east, which could
present some access management difficulties. One suggestion would be to actually physically
construct the interconnect, eliminate the Aviation Road access in favor of having access on
Manor Drive, which is consistent with our access management requirements of having
vehicular access on the lower functioning classification road. Proposed landscaping plan does
not contain street trees along the western property line and interior parking lot as required.
Staff recommends replacement of the proposed street trees, or trees shown along the Aviation
Road and Manor Drive frontages, with street trees from the species listed in the Zoning Code.
Proposed lighting plan appears to be consistent with the intent of the Town Code, and I’ve
offered a potential condition that, of any approval, that the light fixtures be downcast cutoff,
and that Staff inspect the fixtures for compliance prior to installation. As far as building design,
it shows residential looking building with three peaks. The roof appears to be quite broad, and
I guess consideration should be given to some redesigning of the two, the peaks on either end,
making them bigger. That would break up the face of the building and that larger roof
somewhat, again, this should be considered as part of the redesign of this site. C.T. Male has
included comments, and at this time that’s all I have.
MR. MAC EWAN-Just a point of order. I know we had talked about this a couple of months
back, and I’m just looking at our draft resolution that’s prepared. We were going to start
having that basically as a boilerplate in there about inspecting lights before they’re erected.
44
(Queensbury Planning Board 11/23/04)
MR. HILTON-Yes. Absolutely.
MR. MAC EWAN-Just a note, maybe you want to remind whomever to put that in.
MR. HILTON-Yes.
MR. MAC EWAN-Good evening, again.
MR. LAPPER-For the record, Jon Lapper with the project architect, Ethan Hall. I can tell you
that, over the years, I’ve had a number of clients who were attempting to purchase this property
from Mr. Maille. This is one of those pre-existing nonconforming uses and buildings that, in a
residential side of Town, that’s totally inappropriate, pretty unattractive, and Pete Rozelle and
Phil Whittemore, who are here tonight to answer any questions as well, were able to wrestle Mr.
Maille into a contract, and closed on it and purchased the property. So this is a real opportunity
to make a big change in that area. In terms of traffic, which we’ll certainly talk about in a few
minutes, eliminating the heavy truck traffic that’s on that site, right now there’s no curb cut.
The whole frontage of the property is essentially a curb cut. Besides being unattractive, it’s just
not the safest design. That area has multiple intersections, and it’s just not a good design for
any reason, what’s there now. So what Ethan has designed is two 9,000 square foot professional
office buildings. Of course I represented Dick Jones, who’s here tonight, the neighbor to the
east. We did the Hudson Headwaters Clinic, the drive thru bank, and his architectural office,
which was a big improvement on his property, and that combined with this should really
change the whole character of that part of Aviation Road. I know Dick’s going to talk about the
interconnect, and that’s something that, on most sites, is a really good idea, but we have a pretty
unique situation there because you’ve got the Clinic, which is pretty busy, in the back, and
that’s a one way in, one way out, because of the drive thru bank, and when you have a situation
with a drive thru, adding more traffic to their site is probably not a good thing. We’ve talked to
Dick about traffic and what, he’ll come up and talk to you, and we anticipated comments from
Staff, and what we talked about with Dick is the possibility of changing our driveway on
Aviation Road to a one way in, and the driveway on Manor Drive in the back would be a one
way out. That would probably just reduce the amount of traffic and any possible conflicts with
his drive, the bank drive thru, because you wouldn’t have an out next to an out, and if we did
that, we’d also be able to move the, to make the driveway 12 feet wide instead of 24 feet wide.
So it would move the separation distance from the bank drive thru, but, all things considered,
we think this is a major improvement to what’s there. I’m going to hand the mike to Ethan and
let him walk you through the site plan and talk about some more of the technical issues.
MR. HALL-Good evening. I think everybody’s pretty familiar with the site. I just thought I’d
show a picture of what’s there now. It’s basically a one and a half story concrete block building
that Mr. Maille uses for his construction business. On this plan indicates the overall layout of
the site. The building outlined in red is the existing building on the site. As Jon pointed out,
everything from property line to property line is a curb cut. It’s either crushed stone or actually
poured concrete for the driveway to get into the front of the building. The intent for us would
be to bring the driveway in here, and to also have an ingress/egress out onto Manor Drive, one
off from Aviation Road as well, two 9,000 square foot buildings, with the parking in the center.
The grassed area along the front would obviously be a big improvement to what’s there, and
we’d maintain a grassed area along the back, along Manor Drive. We’ve also indicated the
areas for the layout for the trees, the buffering between the use that’s back here, which is the
Laundromat, and the buffering along this western edge here that we would provide the
landscape buffer for that. The front elevation for the building, the front of these buildings
actually face the parking lot. The two buildings will face each other. The back of the buildings
will face the roads. A little bit unique in the fact that typically you have the front of the building
facing the road, but in this case the front and back of the buildings, as you can see, don’t look a
whole lot different from each other, other than the fact that the entry doors to the building
actually face the area where you’d be parking. That’s about the only difference in the buildings.
They do have a couple of big gables to break up the long expanse of the roof. The ends of the
buildings have hipped roofs to kind of break that up to leave this flying end to get rid of that, to
45
(Queensbury Planning Board 11/23/04)
drop that down. We’re looking at using very earth tone colors, kind of similar to what’s been
done at Mr. Jones’ property next door. We do intend to provide, along the bottom of the
building, a band that completely wraps the building. That would be a cultured stone look,
something a little bit different. The peaks would be in-filled with some type of an architectural
shingle, a shake type material, and on either a hardy board or a vinyl siding on the sides of the
building. All the windows would be double hung style windows, and the main entry doors
would be either aluminum or hollow metal entry doors. I’d take any questions that you have at
this point.
MR. MAC EWAN-Talk about the landscaping plan for a little bit.
MR. HALL-Sure. The landscaping, there’s nothing on the site now. There is actually one tree
that is actually on the site to the west, and there’s some existing trees in the back of that site as
well. On this site, as it stays right now, there’s no landscaping. There’s very little grass.
There’s some weeds that are growing up in the back area back here. There are currently five
trees, five maple trees that are along Mr. Jones’ property on that side, and then we would be
providing four trees across the front of the building, on the Aviation Road side, and four trees
across the front of the building on the Manor Road side. We had proposed for those to be
crabapple trees at this point. The reason that we’re proposing those is they don’t have a really
big root ball, and that’s where our sewage disposal systems are going to be. Anything that we
would put out there of an evergreen type would have a fairly big root ball, and we’re concerned
about the roots growing into that sewage disposal system. These trees, by the way, are set 30
feet back from the street, which, according to your landscaping guidelines, is where they’re
supposed to be on that type of a road. So we’re back 30 feet on both sides. There would be
foundation plantings around the entire building, which would be a mix of evergreen and some
deciduous landscaping. We have beds planted throughout the area which will have a mixture
of Hosta and Lilies, and then we have some shade trees that are inside the area of the parking
lot, and then up along the sides we have a mixture of Lilac and Forsythia and things of that
nature. Some that are evergreens, some that are like burning bush, that do lose their leaves but
change color during the season, become fairly good landscape buffer material.
MR. MAC EWAN-Why did you, just a curious question for me, is the parking field. The center
parking portion of the field, where you can park nose to nose, so to speak, why didn’t you
separate that parking area with like a planted landscaping island or something, just to break it
up and give a little bit of green and maybe some trees in there.
MR. HALL-What we’ve got is an elevation difference, and to make all the grading and drainage
work, we’re set by our distance from the building with the edge of the pavement, to maintain
both handicapped access and to provide positive drainage away from the buildings. That left
us the depth of the parking, the travel aisle, the depth of the parking spaces another travel aisle,
and then another depth of parking. So to get the required number of spaces, we needed to have
that width. We can’t push them out any farther because we’re at the limits of the building lines.
Our setbacks in the front and in the back are at 40 feet and our building overhangs are right at
those.
MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. Are you in receipt of C.T. Male’s letter of November 17?
th
MR. HALL-Yes.
MR. MAC EWAN-Two pages of comments.
MR. HALL-Yes.
MR. MAC EWAN-Do you want to go through them. We haven’t gotten a C.T. Male signoff,
have we?
MR. HALL-You should be in receipt of an e-mail that was provided by Jim Houston this
afternoon.
46
(Queensbury Planning Board 11/23/04)
MR. MAC EWAN-I hate this last minute e-mail stuff.
MR. HILTON-I have an e-mail from today, yes. If you want I can read it. It says I received a
letter via fax from Rucinski/Hall Architecture dated November 22, responding to the
nd
comments contained in my letter of November 17.
th
MR. MAC EWAN-When did he receive that? When did he receive Hall’s comments?
MR. HILTON-It sounds like he’s saying that he received a letter, via fax, on November 22.
nd
MR. HALL-That is correct.
MR. HILTON-Responding to comments.
MR. MAC EWAN-You sent him comments yesterday.
MR. LAPPER-Responding to his comments.
MR. HALL-Responding to his comments. We received his comments on the 18 of November.
th
MR. LAPPER-Last Thursday.
MR. MAC EWAN-Last Thursday.
MR. LAPPER-And we got him comments on Monday.
MR. HALL-We got comments back to him. He had some questions for Carl Schoeder, who
provided the stormwater management.
MR. MAC EWAN-And he’s turning around and responding to it.
MR. LAPPER-We responded on Monday to his Thursday comments, and he responded today.
MR. HALL-Today, to our Monday.
MR. LAPPER-I mean, that’s pretty typical of how it works with all these projects.
MR. MAC EWAN-No, that’s not how, typically, it’s supposed to be, Jon, because we’ve been
trying to work out this problem with stuff bouncing back and forth, and basically what it does
is it cuts Staff right out of the loop. We have instructed the Town Engineer not to take phone
calls, faxes, letters, anything after noon on Friday preceding the Tuesday meeting. All
communication is.
MR. HUNSINGER-The other thing that happens, as a real practical matter, as a Board member,
I sit here and I see a C.T. Male letter and I get to the point and it’s like, well, why would I even
bother to read it anymore, because I know there’s going to be a new one that came out that I’m
not going to see until the night of the meeting.
MR. VOLLARO-Absolutely.
MR. SCHACHNER-Or worse yet there might be, and you don’t know whether there will or
won’t be.
MR. HUNSINGER-Right. Exactly. I mean, it’s not your fault, Jon.
MR. LAPPER-If we had an extra, if we had a week, if we got their comments on Monday or
something, we could get back responses.
47
(Queensbury Planning Board 11/23/04)
MR. MAC EWAN-We’ve tried doing a lot of things to make the system work better, and what
we’ve done is changing the deadline submission date to the middle of the month, which pushes
things back a little bit, which a lot of applicants and their agents were not receptive to, in an
effort to move things along, but what we still find happening is applicants and their agents are
still submitting stuff 24 hours before a meeting, hoping to get all the T’s crossed and the I’s
dotted to gain an approval.
MR. LAPPER-But the problem is that C.T. Male gets us their comments too late.
MR. MAC EWAN-No, no, no. They’re not doing anything too late. They’re doing things in
accordance with the time they have to review projects and review things thoroughly. There’s
no set time limit that they’re supposed to get comments back to you. It’s not a matter of too
late. It’s a matter of their taking a thorough review and doing what they have to do to get
everybody’s information back.
MR. LAPPER-Just on the procedural issue, Mr. Chairman, we get our application in on the 15
th
of the month before. So we get their comment back on the 18 of this month, and that’s why we
th
had two days to turn it around. I mean, if they could spend three weeks reviewing it, give us an
extra week, we could get comments back to them.
MR. MAC EWAN-We’re trying to iron it out. Trust me, Jon, we’re trying to iron it out.
MR. LAPPER-I know.
MR. HALL-Actually Planning Staff’s comments are dated today.
MR. HILTON-They’re dated today. They were released on Friday. Anyway, I’ll continue the
letter. It says I had a discussion with Carl Schoeder last week regarding his anticipated
comment responses. The responses contained in the November 22 letter are consistent with
nd
what I discussed with Carl. Several responses indicate minor changes to the plans which will
be made on the final set of plans. I have not yet received the revised plans. The only items that
I care to elaborate on are the responses to Comments Number Four, Seven, and Nine.
Regarding Four, it seems appropriate that the pavement remain where it is. This may be an
appropriate time for the owners of the project site to prepare a permanent access easement with
the adjoining property owner. Regarding Seven, although this aspect of the design is not in
strict compliance with the design manual, this variation, coupled with the deep sump catch
basins, seems reasonable based on the on site soil conditions. Regarding Nine, the issue of
drainage on the south side of Aviation Road still needs to be resolved. Please call or e-mail me
with any questions or comments. Jim Houston.
MR. MAC EWAN-So you don’t have a signoff from him.
MR. LAPPER-We have a couple of open issues.
MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. All right. We’ll go down our criteria list. Design standards. Has
anybody got any comments or questions relative to design standards, conformance with the
Comprehensive Land Use Plan, building design layout?
MR. HUNSINGER-Yes, I had questions on the building design. Could you flip back to the
elevation. What I was looking for were the color schemes. Again, ours was black and white. So
I didn’t know what the proposed color scheme was. Could you just go over that quickly.
MR. HALL-Yes. We’re staying with an earth tone color, kind of similar. We’re kind of trying to
take from the Mountain View commons way next door. We’re looking at a weathered wood
roof pattern, which is a tannish gray. It’s got some flakes and specks in it. The upper areas
would be a complimentary tan color to the light tan siding, and then the colors around the
windows would be a little bit darker, complimentary tan. That would be the same at the
48
(Queensbury Planning Board 11/23/04)
corners of the buildings, and then the stonework along the bottom would be also a natural buff
type stone.
MR. HUNSINGER-So it would be a color scheme very similar to the property next door?
MR. HALL-Certainly.
MR. HUNSINGER-Yes. The front elevations, do you have those colored as well? In first blush
looking at that, I was just wondering if it would be beneficial for the road front elevations to
match more the actual fronts of the building that face the sidewalk. I’m wondering if there’s a
reason why you don’t have a center door on the road front elevations.
MR. HALL-There’s no sidewalk to that.
MR. HUNSINGER-Okay.
MR. HALL-I mean, we don’t want to encourage.
MR. HUNSINGER-Is there a sidewalk to the other door that’s shown?
MR. HALL-On the side here?
MR. HUNSINGER-Yes, on that elevation.
MR. HALL-This current, this actual elevation is the one that faces Manor Drive, and we have a
potential layout for the interior of that building which requires an exit door in that location. If
you look at the site plan on the Manor Drive side there’s a sidewalk that comes along the front
of the building, parallel with Manor Drive, it comes out to our driveway there.
MR. HUNSINGER-Well, what I’m looking at is, on A-1, it says concept rear elevation, and it
looks very similar to that.
MR. HALL-It is. It’s that one right there.
MR. HUNSINGER-Yes, is that what fronts Aviation Road?
MR. HALL-The one that you’re looking at actually is the one that fronts on Manor.
MR. HUNSINGER-What fronts Aviation Road, then?
MR. HALL-It’s one exactly like this, but without a door on that location.
MR. HUNSINGER-There’s no door at all on the Aviation Road side?
MR. HALL-No, no, there will not be. The ones on Aviation Road would have just windows
across the back. Those building, that building at Aviation Road has exit doors going out the
ends of the building.
MR. HUNSINGER-Am I the only one that has a problem with no door on the?
MR. HALL-Because that’s where the sidewalk is.
MR. MAC EWAN-Well, I mean, if they’re not going to use the Aviation Road side as the
entrance to the building.
MR. HALL-Then there’s really no reason to put a door in.
49
(Queensbury Planning Board 11/23/04)
MR. MAC EWAN-There’s no sidewalk. There’s no drop off for pedestrians to go there. Why
would you want one?
MR. HUNSINGER-I’m just thinking of the presentation of the building as it fronts the main,
you know, a main corridor in the Town.
MR. SANFORD-Yes. This was brought up at the Citizens for Queensbury, Dr. Hoffman
thought that it would be a good idea to have more office buildings having a phony front
entrance for aesthetic reasons.
MR. HALL-But it just creates confusion with people coming to your, I mean, that just creates
confusion with people coming to your site. I mean, you want them to be directed to the parking
lot, and then directed to the main entry. The door that you’re looking at, that’s on the front of
that building that’s on Manor Drive, that fronts Manor Drive, is purely an escape. It’s purely
the secondary means of egress from the building in the event of a fire.
MR. HUNSINGER-Well, I’m not so concerned about the functionality of the door, as much as I
am the aesthetics of the road frontage and what the, you know, 15,000 vehicles a day are going
to look at.
MR. LAPPER-It doesn’t look like the rear of a building. It just doesn’t have a door, because it’s
finished on all four sides, the same stone treatment, the same siding. It’s just that it has
windows instead of, I mean, it’s not going to look like the butt end of a building. It’s just not
going to have a door.
MR. HALL-Right.
MR. METIVIER-Chris, picture Schermerhorn’s.
MR. MAC EWAN-Schermerhorn’s on Bay Road doesn’t have any doors fronting Bay Road.
MR. METIVIER-And they did a great job.
MR. SANFORD-Right, and that was the point that was made at that meeting that he wished
they did.
MR. MAC EWAN-I don’t necessarily agree with that, but.
MR. METIVIER-I think that those buildings look great. I think they did a great job on the back
of those buildings.
MR. LAPPER-For the record, Ethan designed Rich’s office building.
MR. METIVIER-There you go.
MR. HUNSINGER-I’m raising the issue. If I’m out here all by myself. The other question I had
was I didn’t see a sidewalk along Aviation Road.
MR. HALL-There is currently a paved swale along the edge of Aviation Road, and that would
be maintained. That’s a drainage swale.
MR. MAC EWAN-What do you mean a paved swale?
MR. HALL-It’s a paved drainage swale that runs along the front of that property. There is no
actual sidewalk there. There’s no sidewalks really anywhere along that area, other than an
overgrown sidewalk that’s right in front of the residential property on the other side.
MR. HUNSINGER-I guess that was kind of the point. Maybe there should be one.
50
(Queensbury Planning Board 11/23/04)
MR. VOLLARO-To put a sidewalk in there pretty close to his beds, his drainage beds are right
up front.
MR. HUNSINGER-Well I realized that when I looked at the drawing, yes.
MR. METIVIER-I mean, it’s going to be the only place on all of Aviation that has a sidewalk.
MR. HALL-It would be a dead sidewalk. It wouldn’t go anywhere, except across the front of
this property, but, I mean, if that’s the Board’s wishes, we could certainly.
MR. VOLLARO-That’s more of a Town issue I think, in terms of putting things together.
MR. MAC EWAN-Anybody else have any have any questions on design standards?
MR. VOLLARO-Yes, I do. That drawing faces really Manor Drive or Aviation Road, either one,
right?
MR. HALL-This one actually.
MR. HUNSINGER-That faces the parking lot.
MR. HALL-Yes. This elevation that you’re looking at, on both buildings, faces the parking lot.
MR. VOLLARO-And that’s where the little peaks would be. See, they’re kind of hidden in that
rendition. You really don’t see.
MR. HALL-Here and here. I think if they get any bigger than this, and I’m not sure if this is
what Staff, I think Staff’s comments were regarding the ends of the building, correct me if I’m
wrong, George.
MR. HILTON-I guess, yes, I’m looking, if you look at the cross section where it shows the three
peaks, the peaks on the two ends appear to be somewhat small in expose of a very large roof,
and perhaps enhancing those, making them slightly a bit bigger, might break up that roof line.
MR. HALL-My fear with doing that is if I make them much bigger, I start getting into an area
where I’m trapping snow. If I make them much bigger than this, I’m shedding them together
and I’m creating a valley that I’m trying to avoid. We put those in there with the intent to break
up the roof. The only other thing that I might suggest would be that we could maybe move
them up on the roof a little bit and separate them with some, you know, separate them with
some distance and just give them kind of similar to what was done on the fire house over on
Bay Road. They move them on the roof a little bit higher. That would be a suggestion.
MR. VOLLARO-I don’t know whether that would materially affect the visual impact of that or
not. I don’t think that’s going to do much for it. I, personally, don’t see anything wrong with
that. That’s my own view. Right now that rendition sort of shows them blending in to that roof
almost.
MR. HALL-I think that’s my hand in coloring.
MR. VOLLARO-Okay.
MR. HALL-Once you see them out there with the different colors on them, they will stand out
quite significantly, and in retrospect, you are looking at this in two dimensions. When you
actually see it in three dimensions, it’s going to, it pushes out off of the building. So you get
that extra feel as well.
51
(Queensbury Planning Board 11/23/04)
MR. VOLLARO-I wasn’t really hard over on that anyway. I appreciated George’s input on that,
but I think that the way they look is reasonable. I don’t think you can do much with those two
ends. You’re going to play on margins with that, but that’s about it.
MR. HALL-Exactly. Yes.
MR. MAC EWAN-Any other questions on design standards? Building design layout,
whatever?
MR. VOLLARO-Yes. I think that in keeping with what you did on the last application, these
color schemes that are being shown to us here should be probably submitted through Staff so
that they’re part of the record, because right now all we’re seeing is a rendition of that, and
usually we like to see that as part of the application, so we can, while we’re sitting in our little, I
like to call them knotholes, when we review these things, we’ve got something to look at, but
that’s all I have on design.
MR. MAC EWAN-Any questions on site development criteria?
MR. VOLLARO-One thing that’s missing from here is a site location map. I didn’t see one.
MR. HALL-It has been added. It’s been added. That was one of the notes that came from C.T.
Male as well. That has been added to the plan and we will submit that.
MR. VOLLARO-Okay.
MR. MAC EWAN-Site development criteria? Site conditions? Vehicle access? Traffic patterns?
MR. VOLLARO-Well, vehicle access, I guess we’re going to hear from Mr. Jones on that to begin
with, but I have in my, until I hear him, I might have to withdraw this. I thought about
eliminating that curb cut on Aviation, but now that I hear some of the other comments that are
going to be coming down the pike here, I’ll reserve that, my comments on, but I do think that
the interconnects, there should be an interconnect, but it should be the main, probably what
we’re going to hear is that’s not the, that shouldn’t be the main way for people to get out of this
site and out onto Aviation Road.
MR. LAPPER-Well, they really have a site next door that’s pretty maxed out for traffic, because
you’ve got people coming out of the Clinic and going to Aviation, and you’ve got people
driving through the bank. So it works, but I don’t think they want to see any of our traffic on
their site.
MR. VOLLARO-In other words, we don’t want a connection at all.
MR. LAPPER-I think we’ll let Dick talk about that, but I know that that’s what he and the bank
feel.
MR. VOLLARO-Okay. All right. That was going to be my only comment on the vehicle access
and traffic patterns, Mr. Chairman. So you can continue along, if somebody else has comments.
MR. MAC EWAN-Anybody else got questions on vehicle access, traffic? Stormwater/sewage
design? Everybody okay on that?
MR. VOLLARO-What I see here is that there’s nine C.T. Male comments that haven’t been fully
responded to.
MR. RINGER-He’s got a signoff to all but Four, Seven, and Nine.
MR. MAC EWAN-He doesn’t have a signoff on anything.
52
(Queensbury Planning Board 11/23/04)
MR. RINGER-Well, we’ve got a fax from C.T. Male that says he’s in agreement with his return,
except on Items Four, Seven, and Nine.
MR. VOLLARO-Well, except is a big thing, Larry. It’s not complete.
MR. RINGER-In effect he’s got an agreement from Male on most of the items.
MR. VOLLARO-Yes, but there’s several still outstanding. Am I wrong on that?
MR. RINGER-Four, Seven, and Nine.
MR. MAC EWAN-Any questions on lighting?
MR. VOLLARO-Yes. I have some questions on the lighting. What I like to do is be able to
calculate out the uniformity ratio on any site, and the only way to do that is to segment the site
a little bit, in terms of lighting. Otherwise you can’t do a uniformity ratio, and the segmentation
should usually be probably the parking lot itself versus the ingress/egress areas. That’s what I
like to see the uniformity ratio get played, because that’s where you come out of a parking lot, if
it’s very well lit, onto a dark road, and these two things can’t adjust that quickly.
MR. HALL-Yes. We looked at that with our lighting calculation as well.
MR. VOLLARO-But I didn’t see the, what I would look for is the average over the min, and I
didn’t see that anywhere.
MR. HALL-The lighting plan shows the range of lighting in foot candles on the lighting plan
itself.
MR. VOLLARO-Yes, but usually there’s a little block on there that shows the max, the average
and the min, so that I can use those numbers that have been integrated from the whole site plan,
and use those numbers to calculate out a uniformity ratio. Do you follow what I’m saying?
MR. HALL-I follow what you’re saying. I think that’s something that I’ll have to discuss with
the electrical engineer.
MR. VOLLARO-Okay.
MR. HALL-That’s electrical wizardry that I don’t pretend to even understand.
MR. VOLLARO-It’s not that difficult.
MR. SEGULJIC-Is there going to be any lighting on, I guess I would refer to it as the front of the
building, but it’s actually the back of the building along Aviation Road.
MR. HALL-No.
MR. SEGULJIC-None whatsoever?
MR. HALL-No. No need for it. Aviation Road is very well lit. There are four street lights along
that side that light Sokol’s Market. We’re going to get more spill from the Sokol’s Market side
of the street than anything we would ever need, especially with no ingress/egress off of that
back side onto Aviation Road. Off the two ends of the buildings where we do have doors
coming out, there will be lights at those egress points from our building, and along the fronts of
our building that face into the parking lot, there will be wall mounted lights there as well.
MR. SEGULJIC-Those are those decorative aluminum down lights.
MR. HALL-Little gooseneck lights.
53
(Queensbury Planning Board 11/23/04)
MR. VOLLARO-Do you have any cut sheets on those at all?
MR. HALL-I do not have them with me.
MR. VOLLARO-I think they should be submitted, so we can get a look at them. I like to look at
those. I don’t know if anybody else does, but the cut sheets tell you a lot about what you’re
going to do, in terms of wattage.
MR. HALL-Right. I wouldn’t want to try and give them to you tonight.
MR. MAC EWAN-Any other questions on lighting? Landscaping?
MR. SEGULJIC-Is there any way to break up that parking lot somewhat? Landscaping at the
edge of the rows or anything?
MR. VOLLARO-Well, he’s going to lose spaces.
MR. SANFORD-I think he explained earlier exactly why he needed that. It was a pretty good
explanation to me.
MR. HALL-It ultimately becomes a drainage issue and a maintenance issue.
MR. VOLLARO-Not only that, but you have to be in conformance with the parking regulations,
and whatever you do in there, it looks to me like you’re going to take away parking spaces.
MR. LAPPER-We’re also surrounding the parking lot with trees and shrubs.
MR. HALL-Right. We have the entire parking lot ringed with.
MR. MAC EWAN-I know in Staff notes, George, you suggested that they use the planting
criteria that’s outlined the Ordinances, but given the fact that they wanted to go with a smaller
root ball with the trees, because of their excess septic areas they need to use, it seems like it
makes good sense.
MR. HILTON-Yes. Certainly it does. There are also, there’s the Manor Drive frontage. You
potentially could include street trees there.
MR. MAC EWAN-There’s septic field reserves there as well.
MR. HILTON-Okay, on the western property line. I mean, there’s, actually that seems just like
planting beds on that entire western property line, without any trees that are required by Code.
MR. LAPPER-We could add trees.
MR. HALL-We can certainly add trees. The intent there is that that is a landscape buffer along
there. Planting street trees along that landscape buffer, I don’t know what that.
MR. HILTON-I’m just saying you can include species. You can include evergreen species. You
can include something that would be more substantial.
MR. HALL-Well, we can certainly do that. What we have indicated there now is Lilac tree,
Forsythia, and I believe the other one is a winterberry holly, which runs up along there, and all
of those grow up to, you know, well, obviously Lilacs can grow 15, 16, 20 feet high, if not
pruned properly. The rest of them can grow up six or eight feet high. I mean, it makes for a
very nice landscaping buffer.
MR. MAC EWAN-I think Staff’s point is some coniferous type trees.
54
(Queensbury Planning Board 11/23/04)
MR. HALL-Yes.
MR. MAC EWAN-Any other questions on landscaping? Environmental issues? Neighborhood
character?
MR. VOLLARO-I think from a neighborhood character point of view, this is a great
improvement. Super. The whole concept would be a great addition.
MR. MAC EWAN-It’s probably one of those rare times where we can say this will add to the
character of the neighborhood.
MR. VOLLARO-Yes.
MR. MAC EWAN-Anything to add?
MR. LAPPER-No.
MR. MAC EWAN-I’d ask you to give up the table for a couple of minutes. First dibs, Mr. Jones?
PUBLIC HEARING OPENED
RICHARD JONES
MR. JONES-Good evening. For the record, Richard Jones. I’m representing Mountain View
Commons who is the landowner directly to the east of the proposed development on this
property. Basically I just want to come right out and say we’re in full support of what you’re
seeing here tonight. We are thrilled to see something finally happening on that site.
Approximately two and a half years ago we started the re-development of the east property, on
the east side of this, and it’s been a long time coming. We’ve seen people attempt to renovate
and alter this property and something is finally coming to fruition. In looking at the layout as
they have proposed, there are several issues that we do have. One is the site access point onto
Aviation Road. The way they have it designed right now with the ingress/egress, for two way
traffic, it is less than 10 feet from the egress point that we have currently for Glens Falls
National Bank at their drive thru tellers. We have an abundance of traffic on a daily basis at
that drive thru, and it’s not uncommon for the traffic toward the end of the week, especially
Thursdays and Fridays, for it to back up and actually start to back around into the parking lot.
As Mr. Lapper had indicated, the site layout and design for our property was very site specific.
We had three tenants that we knew were going in the building, in the three buildings. We had
Hudson Headwaters in the back. We knew what their vehicle trips per hour were going to be.
We designed the site accordingly so that they would have access from Aviation Road, knowing
full well that 50% of their traffic would come in that way, and approximately 50% would exit on
Manor Drive and currently that’s what’s happening. With the bank, we knew that we had to
get their one way traffic in. We had to get it around, and it had to be one way egress for it to
work with the drive up tellers. When we had gone for our site plan review, we had gotten
variances for our driveway separations to Stewart’s. We felt that we had come up with the best
solution in that regard, in making it a one way in and a one way out on Aviation. In looking at
what they’re proposing, I think that we need to try and separate our egress from their ingress
point. If it’s their intent to make it one way in, we have to push it as far away as possible from
the exit from the bank. Right now, we have, as I said we have an abundance of traffic coming
out of there. We have traffic that’s not only exiting our parking lot on the back side, but the
drive thru lanes for the bank, and some traffic from the Hudson Headwaters Clinic on the back
side. So there’s a lot of traffic that exits there on a daily basis, on an hourly basis. With the open
curb cut that currently exists across the street at Sokol’s, there are times when it’s difficult to
pull out of the one way exit from the Glens Falls National right now. So it’s something I think
that needs to be addressed. The design criteria for the Town requires or recommends
separations, minimally 220 feet, and I know that that’s an impossibility based upon the size of
their site. It was an impossibility with the size of our site, but I would really like to see it
55
(Queensbury Planning Board 11/23/04)
addressed and maximized, and I think minimally 20 feet more, if we can do it, is advisable. The
more separation that we can get between the traffic patterns, I think, the better off we’re going
to be.
MR. VOLLARO-That would kind of mean that that building facing Aviation Road would have
to get smaller. There’s not much room. Looking at my drawing here, there isn’t much room to
move it at all.
MR. JONES-The drive lane that they have there right now, Bob, is 24 feet. If we had it one way
in, I believe it could be reduced to 12 feet.
MR. HUNSINGER-I’m just sitting here wondering if the applicant could show a mirror image.
MR. SEGULJIC-We were just saying the same thing down here.
MR. JONES-And I’ll address part of that, too. We had talked about that, and one of the
problems with flipping it in a mirror image, you’re getting, you would then have the
ingress/egress point closer to the intersection at Dixon Road, and that’s a skewed intersection
with an offset from the other side of the property that’s still vacant.
MR. MAC EWAN-It wouldn’t be that much closer because you’ve got that house that’s right
there next to Maille’s.
MR. JONES-Well, there’s property.
MR. MAC EWAN-The distance between the edge of that Maille’s property line and that house
that sits back there, I think it’s red shake shingle type house that sits back in off the road a little
bit.
MR. SANFORD-Are we limiting public comment to four minutes?
MR. MAC EWAN-Yes, why?
MR. SANFORD-Okay. I just wanted to make sure we were, because I think he’s public
comment. He’s not representing the applicant.
MR. MAC EWAN-That’s true, but I haven’t heard a bell go off yet, or somebody didn’t say
anything.
MR. HUNSINGER-I guess Richard just rang the bell for you.
MR. SANFORD-Well, it’s on the agenda that public comment is limited to four minutes. I just
wanted to point it out.
MR. MAC EWAN-Can you just summarize, please.
MR. JONES-Yes. The last point that I wanted to make, and I don’t think they realized it when
they had laid out their storm drainage for their drive coming in. Basically, we have a dry well
system, seepage pits in our exit drive that comes around the back side of the bank for our septic
system, and their infiltration system would be approximately 20 feet from our septic system. So
that needs to be addressed. I don’t think that’s something that we can let go. DEC regulations,
depending upon the type, it could be 35 to 50 feet. So we need to come up with something that
will allow us to maintain our septic system and not basically flood out something on this, but as
I said, summing it up, we’re in support of what they’re proposing. Our biggest concern is the
access point onto Aviation Road and traffic control at that point. We do have a concern because
of the volumes of traffic, and plus the volumes of traffic that there are on Aviation Road itself.
Thank you.
56
(Queensbury Planning Board 11/23/04)
MR. MAC EWAN-Thank you. Anyone else?
KATHLEEN ROWE
MRS. ROWE-My name is Kathleen Rowe, and I live at 4 Cardinale Court in Queensbury. I am
curious to know if I am the only one here this evening at this meeting who can’t see the
Emperor’s new clothes. What I’m seeing is a site plan that does not work, that you’re all trying
to justify, and I’m trying to understand why we need to have two separate buildings instead of
one building, the same way that was done with the bank, that would eliminate all of this stuff,
and looking at the back of a building on Aviation Road, to me, is no improvement over looking
at Maille’s. Also, because of this, this is beginning to look a lot like the Exit 18 corridor on the
west side, and I’m wondering when is this development going to stop encroaching on the
residential areas over there. I also see no way that the Town of Queensbury can make this an
even wider road which is going to need to happen if this development continues to occur, and
I’m wondering how they’re going to get 60 cars in and out of this place. Mention was made of
Maille’s having so much traffic going through, but in reality he owns only about 12 or 18
vehicles that do not exit and enter all day long. I built my home eight years ago in order to get
away from the development of Wal-Mart and to get away from the Red Lobster issues, and here
I am sitting and looking again at the potential impacts on my property. I do not know why this
wasn’t more publicly known, but I would say to you tonight, as I looked at this today, and the
Planning Board, in the Planning Department meeting and minutes, I wondered where the trash
receptacles were going to go in this building. The building backs up, it backs up. It has 15 feet
on the sides. What are people going to be looking at and where are the dumpsters going to go?
Because I have to say, two 9,000 square foot buildings are going to generate quite a bit of trash.
The impact assessment claims that there will be no change on the existing traffic patterns. Well,
it’s obvious that once the bank went in, Glens Falls National has created quite an influx of
traffic, and it has made it even more difficult to get down Aviation Road. I have to say that at
times the traffic is backed up from the School, way past Stewart’s in the morning when the
traffic guard stops the traffic, and this is only going to add additional traffic if these offices open
earlier than eight o’clock, which at some cases employees enter the building earlier than eight
o’clock. I’m curious to know if this is truly going to change the character of Aviation Road for
the better. Maille’s is not a great looking thing, but at least I can say that it doesn’t interfere
with my right to travel up and down the road and my enjoyment of my property. I also have to
ask about the fact that when was the last traffic study done on this road? Because I’m curious
about the numbers that have newly been generated by the addition of the bank, the cleaners,
and the health center, and what the Town is doing to look at that before they continue to
approve this parcel. I have to honestly say to you that, back about eight years ago when I think
it’s Indian Ridge went in back there, they talked about changing Dixon Road. They talked
about putting in a light. They talked about making improvements to that intersection. It never
happened, and it needs to happen, or something needs to happen before this building goes in.
I’m just curious to know about how this came about with this two separations of buildings
instead of the thought process of having the parking more centrally located around the outside
perimeter and having a nicer landscaped area than what I’m looking at here, and I don’t think
looking at the back of a building is an improvement over Maille’s. As he already said, he has no
real landscaping out there. He has no real decorative entrance or something to look at, even a
Palladian window would be an improvement over looking at the back of a building and making
something an improvement there, and I have to honestly say that as an architect, I would be
embarrassed to make a presentation like this without my samples and things to show what my
color schemes would be, and as a student of mine, he would not get a passing grade on this
project. I thank you all for your time.
MR. MAC EWAN-Thank you. Jon?
MR. HUNSINGER-I just want to make a comment. I was glad that she mentioned the traffic
problems at the School, because that is a real bad situation, as a result of the internal traffic
pattern changes that the School District made. Every morning it’s a nightmare. I only see it in
the morning. I don’t see it in the afternoon. I’m sure it’s just as bad then.
57
(Queensbury Planning Board 11/23/04)
JOHN STROUGH
MR. STROUGH-John Strough, Queensbury. Yes. Well, I like the project. I mean, the concept of
the project and the mixed use in an area that’s already a mixed use is fine, but I have to concur
with some of the concerns that were shared previous to me, and I had them written down
previous to those comments. So I think they’re legitimate comments. The curb cut confusion.
You’ve got Stewart’s with two curb cuts, and then you have Dick Jones’ two curb cuts. It’s
working, but it’s minimal, and it does cause confusion, and I think Larry can attest to that.
Having an additional curb cut so close, I have to agree with Dick Jones, is begging for some
trouble there. I was just wondering if the building closest to Aviation could be turned 90
degrees, and get a curb cut that has a little bit more distance from Glens Falls National, if that’s
possible. The other thing is, adjacent to Aviation Road, we don’t want an undramatic
appearance. We don’t want it to look like the back of a building. Possibly turning that building
90 degrees might alleviate some of that concern of looking at a broad expanse rear of a building.
In other words, you’d only see the side, and you are being addressed by the front of the other
building. If you turned that 90 degrees, you would see that that’s appearance that you would
get is the front of a building and the side of a building from Aviation Road. So, the way they
have it now, I think, is rather undramatic. I mean, if they were to keep it like they had it now,
maybe extending the dormer out would give a little bit more architectural variation to what
otherwise is the back of a building and might even appear as the front of a building. As far as
the landscaping, Aviation Road is the main artery going into, you know, my Ward, Ward Three.
So if I was on the Planning Board, I might ask for some mounded flower beds adjacent to
Aviation Road, some color, some variation. I thought what was presented was nice, but a touch
bland. The light fixtures, I haven’t had the chance to look at them, and I know Bob pays
attention to this, are they residential in appearance as opposed to commercial in appearance?
MR. VOLLARO-You need cut sheets on those, John, to know. We don’t have cut sheets yet.
MR. STROUGH-Okay. Well, my preference would be to have them residential appearing. I
think Dick Jones, and you people on the Planning Board, did a nice job with that project, and
this could be a nice project. I’m not in opposition to it. I just think it needs some fine tuning.
The curb cut and the appearance of the landscaping and the building on Aviation Road are my
two biggest concerns. Okay. Thank you.
MR. MAC EWAN-Thanks. I’m going to leave the public hearing open.
MR. LAPPER-Our proposal, after talking to Dick earlier tonight, that I mentioned when we first
came up, to make the Aviation Road curb cut an ingress only would allow us to reduce the
width of that curb cut from 24 feet to 12 feet, which would move it another 12 feet away from
his exit and it would reduce any kind of conflict because he would have an exit only and this
would be an ingress only.
MR. MAC EWAN-What’s the reason why you can’t mirror the buildings?
MR. LAPPER-Here’s the issue. The Dixon Road intersection, because of the geometry, is a real
serious traffic problem in Town with a lot of traffic. Traffic that far exceeds the traffic coming
out of the bank. So we would be moving it closer to a real problem rather than something here
that’s more of an inconvenience.
MR. MAC EWAN-Could you put that Maille photograph back up, please.
MR. HUNSINGER-What about the suggestion to turn the front building 90 degrees.
MR. LAPPER-The problem with that is that in order to make that work, and to keep parking,
you’d have people backing out onto the drive aisle coming in onto the entrance drive which is
not really a good design because there’s just not that much width of the lot to work with. It’s a
pretty narrow lot. So Ethan took everything that was there and came up with what he thought
would be the safest and most attractive.
58
(Queensbury Planning Board 11/23/04)
MR. MAC EWAN-Is the issue maybe making the building smaller?
MR. LAPPER-Well, we’re not asking for any variances. I mean, we’re not, you know, they’ve
got to make.
MR. MAC EWAN-No, but obviously you have some restrictions as to what you can do with the
property. I mean, we’re seeing some signs that, you know, we’ve got a traffic issue, a curb cut
issue, and how do we resolve it.
MR. LAPPER-I guess, in terms of traffic, the School is busy up until 9, and, you know, in
between 2:30 and 3:30 when everyone’s leaving, and the typical hours for an office, and half of
the site is going to be Phil’s accounting firm which is right here on Bay, which is, you know, we
know what that is, and that’s a low traffic generator. They’re nine o’clock and five o’clock. So
there’s not a conflict. I mean, if you drive up Aviation Road during the middle of the day, it is
absolutely quiet because everyone’s in School. It’s really only when the kids and the busses and
the cars are coming in, and that’s from 7:30 until 9. So it’s not a conflict. It’s off peak. The peak
for the School and the peak for this office building are different, and this is a really small traffic
generator.
MR. MAC EWAN-It would seem to me that the win/win here would be just to mirror the
buildings, mirror the site.
MR. VOLLARO-There’d be one more option besides mirroring it. How high is your present
building now, the height of the present building, roughly?
MR. HALL-I believe it’s in the neighborhood of 30 feet.
MR. VOLLARO-Thirty feet. We have a forty foot limitation. I was just wondering if we could
make one building.
MR. HALL-One building two stories?
MR. VOLLARO-Two stories.
MR. HALL-Yes, we looked at that. It requires the building in of elevating systems and things
like that for professional offices which requires a height distance.
MR. VOLLARO-Well, you did that in the Schermerhorn design, and the one that Dr. Saunders
is in right now.
MR. HALL-Yes.
MR. VOLLARO-That’s a two story. That works fine, it seems like.
MR. HUNSINGER-So it’s cheaper to build another whole foundation than it would be to build
an elevator?
MR. HALL-Ultimately that comes down to the developer’s costs.
MR. HUNSINGER-Yes. Interesting.
MR. RINGER-If you put all that traffic one way going in, they’re all going to have to come out
onto Manor. Where are they going to go after they get out on Manor? Fox Farm?
MR. HALL-They can split and go either direction on Manor. They can come out and go down
to Farr Road, which Farr Road comes directly across from the Dixon Road entryway, which is
59
(Queensbury Planning Board 11/23/04)
an easier four way, almost four way intersection. The other direction they come all the way
down to the end of Manor Drive and come out down close to the School.
MR. MAC EWAN-I don’t mean to be hanging on to an issue, but I’m not totally convinced that,
if I’m hearing the things, you’re not going to solve all of the problems.
MR. HALL-The biggest problem, on the back, is that, and we looked at that. We honestly
looked at that the first time we looked at this whole set up. This back property line is skewed,
and the site gets narrower as you get to this side of the site. So if we flip this over, it pushes
over everything closer together on the interior of the site.
MR. METIVIER-Do you have to flip it over, though? Can’t you just have your entrance off of
Aviation on the same side and then keep it going out in the back, or did you already address
that?
MR. HALL-Then it’s a straight shot through, and traffic is going to use that as a bypass.
MR. METIVIER-Speed bumps.
MR. HALL-The intent here is if they have to come in and zig zag through the lot, the intent is to
slow them down that way, without having a straight shot through. I mean, we’re basically,
we’d be basically putting a straight shot through 250 feet from Farr Lane.
MR. HILTON-I guess our concern with mirroring the drive is the applicants, I guess, putting a
drive closer to that intersection, that funky intersection.
MR. MAC EWAN-See, that’s the whole point. I don’t buy into that argument because if you
look at the Maille’s place right now, that entire frontage on Aviation Road is a curb cut. They
come in at the west end. They come in at the east end, they come in in the middle, and if you’re
taking that site and utilizing that site and flipping it over, you’re pulling that curb cut away
from the interference that you’re going to have with the bank’s drive thru. You’re giving the
separation distance, which is a hell of a lot better than what’s being proposed right now, and in
my mind you’re not bringing any curb cuts closer to the Dixon Road intersection than what’s
already on the existing site.
MR. RINGER-At Maille’s now there’s no traffic to speak of.
MR. HALL-But they don’t have to slow down for a curb cut, either. I mean, they can make, as
you say, it’s a wide open curb cut. They can make the shot anywhere they want to make it.
MR. RINGER-Putting it closer would create some problems with Farr Lane and Dixon.
MR. HALL-It certainly does.
MR. RINGER-Because I live right there, I live up the road, in The Pines.
MR. HILTON-But in looking at the Code, and again, the access management section says
driveways should be limited to one per property. More than one may be permitted if the
additional driveway does not degrade traffic operations and safety on state or local roads, and
the additional driveway will improve the safe and efficient movement of traffic between the
property and the road. Driveways to properties with frontage on two or more roads shall be
provided to the road with the lowest functional classification serving the proposed use of the
property. I guess, again, I’m going to restate our comment that with access on Manor Drive,
you’re complying with that section of the Code. Understanding that these are offices, and I
believe you’d have a regular clientele that would know how to get to the office building, which
is a little different than a retail store which may not have as frequent and regular a customer
base, you know, seriously consideration should be given to accessing this property, perhaps
from Manor Drive.
60
(Queensbury Planning Board 11/23/04)
MR. LAPPER-The simple answer for the applicant, and for Phil who’s going to have his office
there, is that he can live with an in only, and that justifies the other curb cut on Manor Drive,
because it splits up the traffic, in on one side, out on the other side, but if you tell him that
someone’s got to drive around the back, which isn’t that easy to find, go around to Manor Drive
which is residential, and that’s his only entrance, that’s really not fair. I mean, you have
Aviation Road frontage so that people can find you, and that’s really inconvenient.
MR. MAC EWAN-Well, what do you propose to get your curb cut drawn away from the bank’s
drive thru?
MR. LAPPER-By making it in only, will make it half the width.
MR. MAC EWAN-But you still have an issue, as Mr. Jones mentioned, relative to proximity to
their septic system. Is that what it was?
MR. LAPPER-Yes, we can move it. We can redesign our drywell so it’s 15 feet away, so it sets at
35 foot separation.
MR. MAC EWAN-Can that front facing building on Aviation Road be made shorter, to give you
more room? Can the building lose 10 feet off the building, to pull you even farther back off the
property line?
MR. HALL-Yes, we certainly can make the building smaller. It becomes a function of square
footage of the building and leasable space for the development.
MR. LAPPER-But if we did that, if we took off 10 feet, if we took 12 feet from the driveway and
let’s say 10 feet from the building, we’d be moving it 22 feet away. That’s something that.
MR. HALL-I think that would get us our separation between the sewage disposal system at the
adjoining property as well.
MR. VOLLARO-Because we’re pretty tight now. Actually the Code talks about 230 feet, I think,
between adjacent drives and.
MR. HALL-Our entire property is only 194.
MR. VOLLARO-Yes. So we’ve got some.
MR. MAC EWAN-A question that Mrs. Rowe asked is where’s your trash receptacles going to
be located?
MR. HALL-These are professional offices. They would have a cleaning staff, a janitorial service
that takes trash off site on a daily basis.
MR. MAC EWAN-And the comments from both Mrs. Rowe and Mr. Strough, and even
comments from Board members up here, especially Chris, what can we do to dress up that
building that fronts Aviation Road, to make it look like you’re not looking at the back of a
building but you’re looking at the front of a building?
MR. HALL-We could certainly look at putting some different roof peaks on it. We could
certainly look at changing the window layout to make it.
MR. MAC EWAN-Are you, where you’ve got the front line of that building that faces Aviation,
are you right at the setback line?
MR. HALL-Yes.
61
(Queensbury Planning Board 11/23/04)
MR. MAC EWAN-That you couldn’t bump out that portion of it five feet to give it a little break?
MR. HALL-It is bumped out. The front line of that building breaks.
MR. MAC EWAN-It doesn’t look like much of a break, two foot.
MR. HALL-No. There’s a two foot jog in that building, which is all we’ve used on a lot of the
buildings along Bay Road. All you really need to do is to change the roof, the roofline, and that
gives you a visual break in that building.
MR. MAC EWAN-Maybe some bigger windows in there to make it look like an entrance or
something like that.
MR. HALL-We can certainly look at grouping the windows differently to make them look at
way. The suggestion about turning the building 90 degrees. These buildings pretty much,
because they have hipped roofs, look the same, whether you’re looking at the front, the back,
the side, any of them. It’s just, they have door openings instead of window openings. It’s just
the functional layout of a professional office.
MR. SANFORD-One of the questions was, why not one bigger building versus the two 9,000.
Obviously there’s probably reasons for it, but I haven’t heard them yet. So could you please
explain why you’re going with the two buildings rather than a bigger one building.
MR. LAPPER-The simple answer is that Phil wants to have his accounting office in their own
building that they own their building, and that they control everyone who comes in and out,
that it’s just their own space, and that’s why they designed it this way.
MR. VOLLARO-They’d have their own space with a two story building, though. You can
control that space whether you’ve got two stories are one. I think the differential is the elevator,
the cost of putting in an elevator in versus the foundation. I think Chris mentioned that, and
that elevator is probably pretty expensive.
MR. HALL-They’re in the neighborhood of $65,000 to $70,000.
MR. VOLLARO-That’s the reason.
MR. HALL-You also run up against, by doing that you also run up against some building code
issues with perhaps having to sprinkler the building and things of that nature, where as with a
9,000 square foot building, we can get by without having to do that.
MR. SANFORD-Yes, but you’re going to have to have duplicate engineering systems like
heating and what have you, be able to use one.
MR. HALL-These are relatively small systems, as far as that goes.
MR. LAPPER-I guess I could argue also that with an attractive building next door, that if we did
this as two stories, it might look a little out of character with what’s there and also block some
of the residential in the back.
MR. MAC EWAN-I would agree with that.
MR. RINGER-I agree with that. It would not fit in with the neighborhood, two stories, with the
houses.
MR. MAC EWAN-Both speakers also commented on enhancing of the landscaping along
Aviation Road with some perennial flower beds, annual flower beds.
62
(Queensbury Planning Board 11/23/04)
MR. HALL-We can certainly look at putting flower beds, planting beds along the front. There
will be the signage out front which will have ground plantings and bed plantings all around it.
We can certainly do that.
MR. MAC EWAN-Show us something.
MR. HALL-Again, we do have flowering trees along the front of the buildings.
MR. MAC EWAN-Yes, but they only flower for a couple of weeks in the year, and I think we’re
looking for something that’s year round, or, you know, three season anyway, change of season
goes along.
MR. LAPPER-There’s nothing that you’re suggesting that we can’t do here. The narrower
driveway, narrower building, so we’d move the driveway 22 feet away from where it is now.
Changing the windows, larger windows, flower beds in front, moving the detention drywell,
and in terms of the lighting, one thing we didn’t mention, the lighting plan, the lights are
exactly identical to what Dick did with his, those gooseneck lamps. We just figured we’d better
do the same thing so it doesn’t look too different to have the two different styles.
MR. MAC EWAN-Cut sheets on them. We’ll need cut sheets on them.
MR. HILTON-Mr. Chairman, just to jump back to screen here, landscaping. I guess the
question is, any external units, such as central air or electricity or pads or anything, where will
they be located, and will they be screened?
MR. HALL-There will be some condensing units for air conditioners. They will be on the
inside, nearer the parking lot. They will not be on the outside of the building.
MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. Anything else, folks?
MR. RINGER-There was a question from the public about the last traffic study, and I think that
was Indian Ridge, the last one they did. The last one was Indian Ridge, as far as I know.
MR. MAC EWAN-Didn’t the Town do one for the School?
MR. HALL-They did one when they looked at expanding the School. Didn’t they?
MR. MAC EWAN-I believe so.
MR. RINGER-Well, we weren’t involved in that. So I don’t know.
MR. MAC EWAN-Yes, I think the Town did one.
MR. HUNSINGER-If they did, we weren’t aware of it.
MR. RINGER-Yes, well, we’re not involved in the School.
MR. MAC EWAN-I may be wrong on that, I thought they did.
MR. HUNSINGER-Do you know, George?
MR. HILTON-I don’t.
MR. HUNSINGER-Did the Town do a traffic study for the School?
MR. HILTON-I honestly don’t know.
63
(Queensbury Planning Board 11/23/04)
MR. RINGER-With the addition that the School put on and the changes, it made that traffic
unbelievable up there.
MR. HUNSINGER-The traffic’s terrible.
MR. RINGER-The School’s going to have to do something, because they’re creating most of the
problems with the traffic. It hasn’t been, necessarily, the bank.
MR. METIVIER-Well, it’s not the bank. I mean, the bank was put there for a reason, is to
capture the market over on that end of Town.
MR. LAPPER-Right, so they don’t have to drive across Town.
MR. METIVIER-So they don’t have to drive to Bay Road or, I mean, you don’t find somebody
over on the other side of the tracks, which is the east side, going over to Aviation Road to go to
the bank. I mean, it’s a beautiful bank, beautiful building, but I wouldn’t go over there.
MR. LAPPER-It’s existing trips that are already there.
MR. METIVIER-And that’s what, the bank, that’s exactly what they’re trying to do is to
consolidate in areas.
MR. HUNSINGER-The same thing with Stewart’s. You only stop there if you’re driving by.
MR. MAC EWAN-All right. I’ve got six items. I may have missed a couple here. So I’ve got,
we’re going to need a C.T. Male signoff. They’re going to enhance the west property line
landscaping with conifer plantings. Number Three is provide color renderings with material
specs. Number Four, revise the lighting plans, for what Bob was looking for for uniformity.
MR. HUNSINGER-And provide cut sheets.
MR. MAC EWAN-Right, and Number Five is lighting cut sheets, residential style. Number Six
is move the front building along Aviation Road 22 feet west, and reduce building length by 10
feet, if I’ve got that right, which will relocate the access away from the neighboring property.
MR. VOLLARO-By 22 feet.
MR. MAC EWAN-By 22 feet. Right.
MR. METIVIER-You better rephrase that. That’s not right.
MR. MAC EWAN-Yes, I know. I’m not doing a condition for approval. I’m doing a condition
for tabling here.
MR. HUNSINGER-You’re moving the driveway.
MR. MAC EWAN-The driveway.
MR. HUNSINGER-We talked about a better building presentation on Aviation Road. I don’t
know how else to say that.
MR. MAC EWAN-Enhance building façade.
MR. HUNSINGER-Yes. Drawing to show in only off Aviation.
MR. VOLLARO-Yes. I think he’s got that in only off Aviation Road.
MR. RINGER-He didn’t have it yet.
64
(Queensbury Planning Board 11/23/04)
MR. MAC EWAN-And we were going to enhance the landscaping, too, with like, you’re talking
like perennial, annual flower beds.
MR. RINGER-On Aviation Road.
MR. MAC EWAN-Is that it?
MR. RINGER-Ingress only on Aviation Road.
MR. MAC EWAN-In only from Aviation Road. Right, ingress only. Anything else?
MR. VOLLARO-With that, we’re going to be eliminating those.
MR. LAPPER-The interconnection.
MR. HALL-The interconnection.
MR. VOLLARO-The interconnection. You’re going to eliminate those, or are you going to leave
them?
MR. LAPPER-Dick doesn’t want them, and we understand that.
MR. VOLLARO-So the drawing would eliminate those.
MR. MAC EWAN-The interconnect between this parcel and.
MR. VOLLARO-Yes, and the bank.
MR. LAPPER-East.
MR. MAC EWAN-I don’t have an issue with it one way or the other, I guess.
MR. RINGER-Well, I’d like to see it.
MR. HUNSINGER-Well, I’d like to see it, too. It’s like we require it, and every time an applicant
says, well, you know, it’s not going to work, and we say, okay, we just scrap it.
MR. LAPPER-Here it’s the neighbors saying it won’t work.
MR. HUNSINGER-Well, either way. You know what I’m saying.
MR. RINGER-When he submitted a plan, he submitted a plan to connect it with you. You’ve
got to try to work it so you’ll be able to connect it with what he showed, or come up with a plan
between the two of you to connect it.
MR. LAPPER-If you want it, of course we’ll show it, but I think it’s a unique situation when you
have a bank drive thru, that you want to reduce.
MR. SANFORD-I’m with the applicant on this one.
MR. HUNSINGER-Well, see, the plan that was presented to us, you can’t tell.
MR. HALL-It shows an ingress/egress, and there’s a shaded area on there that says future
ingress/egress.
MR. SANFORD-He’s showing it for a future, yes.
65
(Queensbury Planning Board 11/23/04)
MR. RINGER-But it won’t connect with his.
MR. HUNSINGER-Right, but it doesn’t connect with his, and, I mean, looking at that, seeing
that language on the site plan, we don’t know that it doesn’t, we can’t surmise that it doesn’t
work.
MR. LAPPER-We’ll keep it on the west side. We’re just saying on Dick Jones’ side, that’s where
we’re concerned about it because of the drive thru.
MR. VOLLARO-That would definitely be an interface there that wouldn’t be healthy, a drive
thru right in.
MR. MAC EWAN-The only practical purpose I could see for having it there is for emergency
access, if you needed it.
MR. RINGER-Well, people going from the bank to the offices or the offices to the bank.
MR. VOLLARO-Yes, but that would require them to break through that line. That’s not good,
running traffic.
MR. RINGER-Unless they got it in the back, behind the bank, further in the back. I don’t know.
That’s something that the engineer would have to figure out a way to do it.
MR. VOLLARO-On this particular site plan, I hate to say this because Chris is right, we always
capitulate here, but I think that on this particular site plan, I’d be in favor of eliminating that, as
not being a useful addition to the site plan.
MR. HUNSINGER-I mean, I’m looking at C-2, and I see what I presume to be the corner of the
bank building, and I don’t see any reason why that doesn’t line up with the proposed parking
lot. I can’t tell from these plans.
MR. LAPPER-It’s not that it can’t physically be done. It’s that you’re interfering with the drive
aisle, the people lining up to get into the bank, and it’s just not safe.
MR. HUNSINGER-But again, I can’t tell that from these plans. I mean, we can’t conclude that.
MR. LAPPER-Well, I’m just saying that because that’s the use next door, because you’ve got a
one way, people going into a bank teller.
MR. HUNSINGER-Yes, I understand what you’re saying.
MR. VOLLARO-Yes. I think Chris’ point’s well taken. When I looked at this, I didn’t bring this
into focus when I’m sitting down doing this because the drawing to the east wasn’t clear
enough to do that. By the way, there’s a drive aisle there. It just doesn’t work well.
MR. SANFORD-Yes, but you’ve got the explanation now. I think it’s a logical one.
MR. VOLLARO-Yes. I do, too. Based on what I know now, I would say that the interconnect is
not necessary.
MR. HILTON-Again, just to give my two cents on this, as I mentioned in my notes, the
interconnect that’s shown on this application does not line up with the interconnect that’s
shown on the previously approved plan. I’m looking at the previously approved plan. It
shows a 24 foot connector behind the one way drive behind the building. The more northerly,
on the site to the east. If this site plan were modified to align their interconnect with the other
interconnect, it doesn’t appear that it would interfere with the drive thru, and it would allow
the interconnect that Larry mentioned.
66
(Queensbury Planning Board 11/23/04)
MR. LAPPER-George, it has to be a drive aisle.
MR. MAC EWAN-Wait a minute. Say that again. If the bank revised their site plan.
MR. HILTON-No, if this site plan were revised.
MR. MAC EWAN-Revised theirs to match the bank’s interconnect, it wouldn’t?
MR. HILTON-Yes.
MR. LAPPER-But it can’t go next to our building, it has to go where the drive aisle.
MR. HILTON-It wouldn’t go next to your building. It would go in the parking area.
MR. MAC EWAN-I’ll tell you what we’re going to do. We’re going to give you a homework
assignment. You’re going to show it, and we’ll debate it next time.
MR. LAPPER-That’s fair.
MR. RINGER-Once you get it, go over with Mr. Jones and, you know, see if it’ll work for him.
MR. HUNSINGER-You hit all the issues.
MR. MAC EWAN-All right.
MOTION TO TABLE SITE PLAN NO. 65-2004 PETER ROZELLE & PHIL WHITTEMORE,
Introduced by Craig MacEwan who moved its adoption, seconded by Robert Vollaro:
So that the applicant can revise their application for the following items:
1. For the C.T. Male sign-off, and
2. Enhance the west property line landscaping with coniferous plantings, and
3. Provide color renderings with material specs, and
4. Revise the lighting plan to show the lumination, and
5. Lighting cut sheets in residential style matching to the adjacent property’s
approved site plan, and
6. Relocate the Aviation Road driveway 22 feet westward and reduce the building
length by 10 feet, and
7. Enhance the building façade along Aviation Road, and
8. Ingress only from Aviation Road drive, and
9. Add annual and perennial flower beds along Aviation Road Building, and
10. Revise interconnect to match the adjacent property owner’s interconnect.
Duly adopted this 23rd day of November, 2004, by the following vote:
AYES: Mr. Vollaro, Mr. Sanford, Mr. Metivier, Mr. Hunsinger, Mr. Ringer, Mr. Seguljic, Mr.
MacEwan
NOES: NONE
67
(Queensbury Planning Board 11/23/04)
MR. LAPPER-Thank you.
MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. Have a nice Thanksgiving.
On motion meeting was adjourned.
RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED,
Craig MacEwan, Chairman
68