2010.03.25
(Queensbury Planning Board 03/25/10)
QUEENSBURY PLANNING BOARD MEETING
SPECIAL MEETING
MARCH 25, 2010
INDEX
Subdivision No. 3-2009 Christian and Eustacia Sander 1.
SEEK LEAD AGENCY Tax Map No. 278.-2-29 and 30
Site Plan No. 21-2010 Randy Gross 1.
Tax Map No. 303.16-1-33
Site Plan No. 11-2010 Schermerhorn Residential Holdings, L.P. 5.
Tax Map No. 288.-1-64
THESE ARE NOT OFFICIALLY ADOPTED MINUTES AND ARE SUBJECT TO BOARD
AND STAFF REVISIONS. REVISIONS WILL APPEAR ON THE FOLLOWING
MONTHS MINUTES (IF ANY) AND WILL STATE SUCH APPROVAL OF SAID
MINUTES.
0
(Queensbury Planning Board 03/25/10)
QUEENSBURY PLANNING BOARD MEETING
SPECIAL MEETING
MARCH 25, 2010
7:00 P.M.
MEMBERS PRESENT
CHRIS HUNSINGER, CHAIRMAN
GRETCHEN STEFFAN, SECRETARY
DONALD SIPP
STEPHEN TRAVER
THOMAS FORD
STEVEN JACKOSKI, ALTERNATE
MEMBERS ABSENT
DONALD KREBS
LAND USE PLANNER-KEITH OBORNE
MR. HUNSINGER-I’ll call to order the meeting of the Town of Queensbury Planning
Board, Thursday, March 25, 2010. The first item on the agenda is an Administrative
Item that actually isn’t on the agenda on the back table.
ADMINISTRATIVE ITEMS:
SUBDIVISION NO. 3-2009 CHRISTIAN AND EUSTACIA SANDER
MR. HUNSINGER-It’s a Lead Agency request for Subdivision 3-2009 for Christian and
Eustacia Sander. Apparently we should have taken care of that on Tuesday night and
we didn’t. So if someone would like to move the resolution.
MOTION TO SEEK LEAD AGENCY STATUS FOR SUBDIVISION 3-2009 CHRISTIAN
& EUSTACIA SANDER, Introduced by Gretchen Steffan who moved for its adoption,
seconded by Thomas Ford:
WHEREAS, the Town Planning Board is in receipt of a subdivision application for:
Applicant proposes to subdivide 55.25 +/- acres into 10 residential lots ranging in size
from 3.07 acres to 23.5 acres off of State Route 149 outside of the Adirondack State
Park, and
WHEREAS, the Planning Board of the Town of Queensbury has identified the project to
be a Type I action for the purposes of SEQRA review pursuant to 6 NYCRR 617, and
WHEREAS, the Planning Board is the agency most directly responsible for approving the
actions because of its responsibility for approving the land uses for the property, and
NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED,
The Planning Board of the Town of Queensbury hereby indicates its desire to be Lead
Agency for SEQRA review of this action and authorizes and directs the Zoning
Administrator to notify any other potentially involved agencies of such intent. That Part I
of the SEQRA will be sent to the following agencies [as identified in EAF]: Town of
Queensbury Zoning Board of Appeals, NYSDOH, NYS DOT.
MOTION TO SEEK LEAD AGENCY STATUS FOR SUBDIVISION 3-2009 CHRISTIAN
& EUSTACIA SANDER, Introduced by Gretchen Steffan who moved for its adoption,
seconded by Thomas Ford:
th
Duly adopted this 25 day of March, 2010, by the following vote:
AYES: Mr. Sipp, Mr. Ford, Mrs. Steffan, Mr. Traver, Mr. Jackoski, Mr. Hunsinger
NOES: NONE
ABSENT: Mr. Krebs
SITE PLAN NO. 21-2010 SEQR TYPE UNLISTED RANDY GROSS AGENT(S)
HUTCHINS ENGINEERING OWNER(S) SEE APPLICANT ZONING MAIN STREET
1
(Queensbury Planning Board 03/25/10)
[DIX AVENUE] LOCATION 487 DIX AVENUE APPLICANT PROPOSES
RELOCATION OF TEMPORARY ACCESS DRIVE. MODIFICATIONS TO AN
APPROVED SITE PLAN REQUIRE PLANNING BOARD REVIEW AND APPROVAL.
CROSS REFERENCE SP 25-09, SP 18-09 WARREN CO. PLANNING 3/10/2010 LOT
SIZE 15.29 +/- ACRES TAX MAP NO. 303.16-1-33 SECTION 179-9-010
TOM HUTCHINS, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT
MR. HUNSINGER-Keith, whenever you’re ready to summarize the Staff Notes.
MR. OBORNE-Site Plan 21-2010, Randy Gross for New Beginnings Church. Requested
Action is a modification to an approved Site Plan. The location is 487 Dix Avenue.
Existing zoning is Main Street. SEQRA Status is Unlisted. You may wish to just re-
affirm previous SEQRA if you wish. Project Description: Applicant proposes relocation
of temporary access drive for the purpose of site access. The applicant’s narrative
states the drive will be utilized for a potential time period of 1 to 3 years while the project
is between Phases I and Phase II. Staff Comments: The proposal appears reasonable
when considering current site conditions. The proposed temporary alignment would
make site access easier than existing conditions although there is concern with the lack
of alignment with Belle Avenue to the south. This lack of alignment could promote
potential vehicular conflicts. Additional Comments: The Planning Board may wish to
direct the applicant to provide any additional anticipated modifications to the site plan at
this time. The temporary drive to be asphalt as denoted on plan. With that, I’d turn it
over to the Board.
MR. HUNSINGER-Thank you.
MR. HUTCHINS-Good evening. My name is Tom Hutchins, Hutchins Engineering,
Queensbury. With me is Pastor Randy Gross from the New Beginnings Community
Church, and the way I submitted this, I submitted our proposed modification to the
temporary drive as well as the approved version as the two sheets, and I think it’s pretty
self-explanatory. The logic is, as you know, the existing house is phased to be removed
as part of this project. However, it is tied in with the financing of the property, and we
can’t remove it within the sequence that we have presented in the previously approved
plan. So what we wish to do is construct a temporary access, approximately 50 feet to
the west of that permanent access which will be in the location of the house, and use the
temporary access while we are in use, in operation, for one to two years, until we get to
the point where we’re in position to remove the house and construct the final access.
MR. HUNSINGER-So are you changing the sequence of the construction, too, then?
MR. HUTCHINS-No. The sequencing is largely the same with the exception that that
house will have to remain until such time we have.
MR. HUNSINGER-The new house finished.
MR. HUTCHINS-The new house, correct.
MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. Questions, comments from members of the Board? Do you
anticipate any future modifications to the Site Plan?
MR. HUTCHINS-At this time we do not anticipate any future modifications.
MR. HUNSINGER-I had to ask.
MR. FORD-Didn’t know what kind of connections you had.
MR. HUNSINGER-Well, if there’s no further questions or comments from members of
the Board, I will entertain a motion for approval.
MRS. STEFFAN-This is a public hearing.
MR. HUNSINGER-I’m sorry. Yes. Thank you. We do have a public hearing scheduled.
Is there anyone in the audience that wants to address the Board on this project? We’ll
need to get you on the mic, though, please.
PUBLIC HEARING OPEN
SUSAN BALFOUR
2
(Queensbury Planning Board 03/25/10)
MS. BALFOUR-I just have a question. Susan Balfour, the real estate lady. I own the
house next door. I just have a question. Are they using, because we have a shared
driveway, is that my driveway that they’re going to be using as the?
MR. HUTCHINS-No. That’s the purpose of the temporary.
MS. BALFOUR-Where is the temporary one? Because there wasn’t any picture. I
mean, bring me up to speed here.
MR. HUNSINGER-Yes, that’s okay. Basically the purpose is to eliminate the shared
driveway and to build their own.
MS. BALFOUR-That’s a good thing.
MR. HUTCHINS-This is the shared right now. This is the permanent that we want to
construct, perpendicular to the road.
MS. BALFOUR-Okay. So that you don’t have to use my driveway anymore.
MR. HUTCHINS-Yes, correct.
MS. BALFOUR-I’m all over that. Okay.
MR. HUNSINGER-Anyone else? Any written comments, Keith?
MR. OBORNE-No, sir.
MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. I will then close the public hearing.
PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED
MR. HUNSINGER-And if there are no further questions or comments from the Board, I
will entertain a motion.
MRS. STEFFAN-Now this change certainly won’t do anything to our SEQRA declaration,
but.
MR. FORD-Should we reaffirm it?
MR. OBORNE-Yes, reaffirm it in the resolution.
MRS. STEFFAN-Right. I’m just asking him a question. Does anybody have any
problems with it?
MR. HUNSINGER-Does anybody have any concerns with SEQRA?
MRS. STEFFAN-Access management seems to be fine.
MR. TRAVER-There’s some traffic impacts, but I think they’re minimal, and it’s the best
solution.
MR. HUNSINGER-It’s temporary.
MR. TRAVER-Yes.
MRS. STEFFAN-Right. Okay. Then I will make a motion to approve.
MOTION TO APPROVE TO APPROVE MODIFICATION FOR SITE PLAN 21-2010
RANDY GROSS, Introduced by Gretchen Steffan who moved for its adoption, seconded
by Stephen Traver:
1)A site plan application has been made to the Queensbury Planning Board for the
following: Applicant proposes relocation of temporary access drive.
Modifications to an approved site plan require Planning Board review and
approval; and
2)A public hearing was advertised and held on 3/25/2010; and
3
(Queensbury Planning Board 03/25/10)
3)This application is supported with all documentation, public comment and
application material in the file of record; and
4)MOTION TO APPROVE TO APPROVE MODIFICATION FOR SITE PLAN 21-
2010 RANDY GROSS, Introduced by Gretchen Steffan who moved for its
adoption, seconded by Stephen Traver:
5)According to the resolution prepared by Staff. Paragraph Four A complies.
a)Pursuant to relevant sections of the Town of Queensbury Zoning Code
[Chapter 179-9-080], the Planning Board has determined that this
proposal complies with the requirements as stated in the Zoning Code;
and
b)The requirements of the State Environmental Quality Review Act have
been re-considered and the Planning Board has reaffirmed a Negative
Declaration; and
c)Final approved plans, in compliance with the Site Plan, must be submitted
to the Community Development Department before any further review by
the Zoning Administrator or Building and Codes personnel. The applicant
must meet with Staff after approval and prior to issuance of Building
Permit and/or the beginning of any site work. Subsequent issuance of
further permits, including building permits is dependent on compliance
with this and all other conditions of this resolution; and
d)As-built plans to certify that the site plan is developed according to the
approved plans to be provided prior to issuance of the certificate of
occupancy; and
e)If applicable, Item d to be combined with a letter of credit; and
f)If curb cuts are being added or changed a driveway permit is required. A
building permit will not be issued until the approved driveway permit has
been provided to the Planning Office.
g)This is approved with the following condition:
1.That the temporary drive will be asphalt, as denoted on the plan.
2.That the period of time that this modification will be in existence
will be one to three years between project phases one and two.
th
Duly adopted this 25 day of March, 2010, by the following vote:
MR. TRAVER-Just one point of discussion. In the motion, did we discuss, and I
apologize if I missed it, did we mention a time limit for the temporary?
MRS. STEFFAN-That was part of the submission.
MR. TRAVER-Okay. So we’re covered there.
MRS. STEFFAN-I think we’re covered.
MR. HUNSINGER-Three years.
MR. OBORNE-You may want to put it in the resolution. I mean, they have offered up a
time period. So one to three years, during the, between the phases of one and two, is it?
If you could.
MR. HUNSINGER-Would you like to make a modification?
MRS. STEFFAN-Yes. I’ll modify that motion, so that there is a Condition Two. That the
period of time that this modification will be in existence will be one to three years
between project phases one and two.
MR. TRAVER-I’ll second the motion as amended.
AYES: Mr. Jackoski, Mr. Sipp, Mr. Ford, Mrs. Steffan, Mr. Traver, Mr. Hunsinger
4
(Queensbury Planning Board 03/25/10)
NOES: NONE
ABSENT: Mr. Krebs
MR. HUTCHINS-Thank you.
MR. HUNSINGER-You’re all set. Good luck.
MRS. STEFFAN-Good luck.
SITE PLAN NO. 11-2010 SEQR TYPE UNLISTED SCHERMERHORN RESIDENTIAL
HOLDINGS, L.P. AGENT(S) TOM NACE NACE ENGINEERING OWNER(S) SAME
ZONING O [OFFICE] LOCATION EAST SIDE OF WEST MT. RD., SOUTH OF
GURNEY LANE APPLICANT PROPOSES CONSTRUCTION OF A THREE-STORY
88,608 +/- SQ. FT. 60 UNIT SENIOR APARTMENT BUILDING WITH ASSOCIATED
SITE WORK. RESIDENTIAL USES IN THE OFFICE DISTRICT REQUIRE PLANNING
BOARD REVIEW AND APPROVAL. WARREN CO. PLANNING 3/10/2010 APA, CEA,
OTHER RUSH POND CEA, NWI WETLANDS LOT SIZE 16.12 +/- ACRES TAX MAP
NO. 288.-1-64 SECTION 179-9-010, 179-7-090
JON LAPPER & TOM NACE, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT
MR. HUNSINGER-Keith, whenever you’re ready to summarize your Staff Notes.
MR. OBORNE-Site Plan 11-2010, Schermerhorn Residential Holdings is the applicant.
Requested Action: Residential uses in the Office District require Planning Board review
and approval. Location is east side of West Mountain Road and south of Gurney Lane.
Existing zoning: Office. SEQRA Status is Unlisted at this point. Project Description:
Applicant proposes construction of a three-story 88,608 +/- sq. ft. 55 and older Senior
Apartment Building with associated parking, landscaping, lighting, and stormwater
infrastructure. Staff Comments: The proposed senior apartment project to be situated
on a 16.54 acre parcel off of West Mountain Road. The site is accessed by a 340 foot
access drive with Boulevard style entrance. The project meets the intent of the Zoning
Code with the placement of the residential use 300 feet from the front property line.
There is some concern with the proposal in relation to it’s proximity to the Northway as
residential land use adjacent to Interstates may impact respiratory health due to airborne
particulates as per EPA’s Air Quality Center studies suggest. What follows are soils.
For the most part, these soils are excessively well drained. I do want to note for the
record that vegetative control is difficult to establish on these soils without the proper
liming and top soils. Site Plan Review. I just want to hit on a couple of issues quick. On
Page SP-2, Handicap parking should be placed near main entrance to building or placed
in parking areas adjacent to buildings. Handicap spaces located to south appear to have
undersized loading area and are not adjacent to building. Snow storage locations must
be considered. Any potential signage should be discussed and denoted Page SP-2. I’ll
jump down to additional comments. As discussed at the Pre-application meeting, has
Universal Design been utilized in the design process? Has the applicant consulted with
the Town of Queensbury Parks and Recreation Department concerning the Rush Pond
Bike Trail project? Walking Trails, outside recreation, communal gardens and covered
gathering areas might be considered for quality of life purposes. With the southbound
lane of the Adirondack Northway approximately 300 feet from the nearest dwelling unit
and the southbound access ramp immediately adjacent to the project, has health
impacts associated with airborne pollutants been considered for this project as per §179-
9-100? Archeological and Endangered species documentation submitted. Traffic study
designed for previous 85,340 square foot office proposed for this parcel has been utilized
and amended for current proposal. When performing SEQR, the Planning Board to
consider the greatest impact potential on the remaining property. The Applicant has
offered a 43,300 square foot office for the remaining properties and staff considers this
reasonable concerning any potential SEQR determination. Applicant has planned to
utilize the Town of Queensbury’s sanitary sewer infrastructure as an Out Of District User.
This will require approval by the Town Board. I do want to mention one thing. I did get a
note from the Fire Marshal today concerning the access. The one that is in your packet
is superseded by this note, and I’ll pass it out in a little bit.
MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. Thank you. Good evening.
RICH SCHERMERHORN
5
(Queensbury Planning Board 03/25/10)
MR. SCHERMERHORN-Evening. Rich Schermerhorn. I have my engineer, Tom Nace,
and Jon Lapper with me. I’ll make an introduction. Tom and Jon have been with this
project for quite some time with the previous applications I’ve submitted. I’m back in
front of you tonight with a proposal for a senior housing project. It was quite obvious
from my last proposal a year and a half ago that it was a controversial one, and we’ve
certainly moved on, and I feel that the senior aspect of this would fit well with the
neighborhood over there, because I did hear the people loud and clear about traffic.
Traffic was a real big concern. I can speak from experience with owning a senior
apartment development, because I have 88 units on Bay Road called the Willows and
I’ve owned and operated it for three years, and it’s 55 and older, and that’s not old, but
that’s what’s considered a senior citizen today. So it doesn’t, children won’t be living
there. They’ll be visiting, of course, but what this attracts is independent seniors, 55 and
older, and I know the question will come up, you know, what ages, and I truthfully have to
tell you, I get them as young as 55, and we get a lot of people that are 90 years old, 80’s,
all different age categories. This is a project that is, there’s no public assistance to it or
anything like that. It’s done just like any other of my developments where it’s financed by
a local bank or something, but it’s a use that I feel, it’s a quiet use. The traffic is one
which, I don’t honestly think you’ll really notice. The seniors, not all have cars, but even
if each person had a car, if there was one per unit, let’s say 60 for example, I find that a
lot of them, especially the older folks, they don’t drive them. The Willows has garages,
and they like the idea of the independence, that they can just have the cars. It doesn’t
mean they’re driving them. It’s a situation where they want to feel like they’re still
independent. This facility, for example, has a recreation room in it, has a library in it, has
an exercise room in it, and then there’s a gathering room in it. I’m not sure if anybody
has visited the Willows on Bay Road or knows anybody that lives there, but it’s worked
out very well. The nature of the property, again, we do have, we have the approvals for
the sewer to the project. I know that was a great concern to the neighbors in the past.
Again, we’ll have to go to the Town Board after, should we proceed forward, I’ll have to
go to the Town Board and, you know, ask to become a contract user. I did, this time,
make sure that everything, parking lot, building, everything was out of the CEA. You can
see the dotted line on there. I did make sure that everything was out of that. Right now
there’s a great deal of screening, and again, I say right now because I just want to be
upfront and honest with everyone. It’s zoned for office in the front, and some day that
could happen, but there will be an opportunity for this Board, and the neighbors, again, to
comment when we come back for Site Plan for an office. So right now the building pretty
much, from West Mountain Road, other than the entrance, where it’ll be a, you know,
probably a 50 or 60 foot area to clear to go into the project, that’s where you can visibly
see probably back to the project. As far as the Northway, it’s quite a distance from the
Northway, but it is, like Keith said, probably 300, 350 feet to the ramp that would head
down to the, you know, heading on the southbound part of the Northway. I do have more
parking than I need, but I wanted to make sure that I came in Code compliant and follow
exactly the way the rules and regs are written, but as I’ve stated before on other projects,
I’m always willing to change, to listen to whatever the desires of the public or the Town
Board may have. Truthfully, this project works well with 1.5 as a ratio per unit. The
Code calls for 2.5, and I show the 2.5. I’m not a big fan of spending more money on
blacktop, because you’ve got to maintain it, and truthfully I won’t use 2.5. The only
advantage that we will have is we get the people that live in the buildings in the habit,
when we have snowstorms, a lot of them will park in a certain position, like all in the back
row or all in the front row. We get them in the habit, and we’ll clean one area, then move
them forward. It also works very well to put the excess capacity of snow, and the snow
at least controlled in the corner of a parking lot where it does go into our storm drain
systems, and is properly, I guess when it thaws or melts, it goes into our basins. Other
than that, it will be serviced by Town water. The whole building has fire suppression
system. All agencies have looked at this. Again, a traffic report was done, and I can’t,
I’m trying to think if there’s anything else. At this time, I can’t think of anything else, but
I’m sure there’ll be plenty of questions here shortly that I can address.
MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. Did you have anything else to add?
MR. SCHERMERHORN-Not at this time. I’m sorry. I should add one thing. The
engineering comments that came up, last week, Tom, my engineer, did address them.
Handed them in to Staff, and he did receive a verbal call from the engineer, because of
course they have to coordinate back and forth to make sure we address them. The
engineer did give Tom a verbal, everything was okay. He would, you know, get a signoff
letter off, eventually, and I know policy, that we’ll just have to wait until that comes in, but
he did tell us we were fine, but we did receive a letter from the Fire Marshal that said that
our access to the property was okay. So that’s all.
MR. HUNSINGER-Is there anything in Staff comments that you want to address?
6
(Queensbury Planning Board 03/25/10)
MR. SCHERMERHORN-The Staff comments, the only one that, I think we’ve address
the Staff comments. Again, like I said, the snow, the placement of the snow is one of
them, but I’m willing to either take spaces off or we have adequate capacity to put the
snow in certain areas. The one about the, I believe we call it the air quality, I believe we
went through this a couple of years ago when I had a prior project, the Travelers
Insurance one, but I can let Tom or Jon address it. I don’t think it complies, applies to
this project or the use that I’m doing, but I’ll certainly let Tom or Jon speak to that.
MRS. STEFFAN-What about the bio retention basins, did you entertain that, Tom?
MR. NACE-Yes. We did consider those. Typically they’re used in smaller commercial
sites and residential sites. They’re a little tough to use in the North Country because of
the frozen conditions (lost words), and they’re typically used only to treat up to a 10 year
storm event. With ours, with the good soils we’ve got, we get the same filtration you do
because of the depth of the soil, we get about the same filtration you do in a bio retention
system, but we’re able to treat the full 100 year storm. So we felt that what we proposed
was superior, actually.
MRS. STEFFAN-I did just want to point out on the Rucinski/Hall drawing on the third
floor plan, right on the bottom of it it says overall second floor plan. It was just picked up
and put down. So it’s just a typo that needs to be fixed.
MR. NACE-Thank you.
MRS. STEFFAN-But I just wanted to point that out. I can certainly relate to how the
senior, how your senior center is set up and how it works. My mother’s lived in Solomon
Heights for 18 years, and so, you know, I understand the parking scenario and how it’s
laid out, and you need some additional parking because in these situations usually you
have kids who visit, and may come and visit mom or dad, whoever it happens to be. So
you need some excess parking, but usually there’s a lot of extra parking that’s available,
because not everybody will have a car.
MR. TRAVER-I had a comment with regards to the traffic. A dramatic decrease in traffic,
clearly, this project versus the prior one, although, Jon, I noticed in your letter to the
Chairman, you referenced emergency services, relative to the prior application, and I
know you and I disagreed on the letters that were obtained, as to whether or not they
specifically addressed the issue of a hazard, and again, it’s not clear that that’s an issue
with this project, because of the big reduction in the traffic volume that’s being
generated.
MR. LAPPER-Exactly.
MR. TRAVER-But, since you took the opportunity to make that comment in your letter, I
feel I should make the comment that I still disagree with your assessment of the
emergency services in the prior application.
MR. LAPPER-Certainly our goal here was to sort of smooth over all the issues that were
raised last time, and this, Rich picked the project that he thought would be, you know,
much better accepted by the Board and by the neighborhood, just a quieter project. So
in terms of that traffic issue, you saw the Creighton update. They said this is 60% less
traffic generated, and in terms of the 40,000 square feet of office, that would be the most
you could have under the zoning, to 20,000 square foot maximum buildings in the front,
two buildings. That would be if at some point someone comes along with a lease. I
mean, the whole thing with Travelers was that Rich had a lease, and when you have a
lease like that, you try and find a place to put them. This is certainly not a central
location for office at this point. It may never be, more likely doctors, some kind of service
use. It may never be anywhere near 20,000 square feet in a building, but for SEQRA
purposes, just to analyze it for traffic and certainly safety and emergency services, we
threw that in. It’s likely that it would be less than that, but that’s the most you could have.
So in terms of your analysis, in terms of emergency services, you know, we’re looking at
60 units right now. The seniors are off peak in terms of, you know, they don’t get up at
nine o’clock and they’re not driving at five, usually, just in terms of what the traffic studies
show. So we just think this is a lot quieter, and, you know, and that effects the
emergency services, too, but we could certainly respectfully disagree, but this is a
smaller, simpler, quieter project.
MR. TRAVER-With regard to environmental issues, I noted the letter from Kathy O’Brien
regarding the lupine issue, and again, this relates really I think to the last discussion we
7
(Queensbury Planning Board 03/25/10)
had about this property and the prior project, that she talks in there about the fact that,
you know, she says since only one year has past since my visit to the site, it’s not had
time for such an increase in habitat. I wonder if we need to re-visit that, because since
her letter, it has been a significant number of years. She talked about five years as being
a threshold for a change in habitat.
MR. LAPPER-The way we worked that out with Kathy was that Rich donated land and
also improved that property. So now there’s this whole habitat which has been
expanded on in the area of Town where it has the soils that are conducive, and I know
that Kathy has visited that site and has been very satisfied and has communicated with
the Town Board. So we really feel, in terms of the lupine, that Rich created a whole
enriched area for the Karner blue and the Elfin, Frosted Elfin, and I know DEC is satisfied
because we just had to go with another adjacent property owner that donated more land
to the Town Board and made that even bigger. So I think that issue is satisfied as far as
DEC is concerned. Yes.
MR. TRAVER-Thank you.
MR. LAPPER-Thank you.
MR. HUNSINGER-Other questions, comments from the Board?
MR. SIPP-If you go for office buildings, whether it would be one story or two story, you’re
putting in another 83 cars.
MR. SCHERMERHORN-Max.
MR. SIPP-Max, maybe.
MR. SCHERMERHORN-Well, right now there’s no plans for anything in the future, but I
would hope that with the senior it will bring future offices, whether it’s physicians or
dentists or whatever.
MR. SIPP-You’re almost where you were before in the number of cars going in and out,
particularly at one time, with an office building.
MR. SCHERMERHORN-Well, the seniors certainly are spread out. It’s not one time, but
certainly like I said when we come back, I’ll be subject to Site Plan Review for whatever.
So it’ll be a whole new traffic report. I mean, obviously, even if it was six months from
now, I’d probably be subject to another traffic report and updates. So I don’t think
anything as far as, you know, the concerns are valid now, but I think because this
corridor is so sensitive to traffic that I definitely think it would be really looked at hard,
and I realize that if we came in with something for the future on the front of this.
MR. LAPPER-That might be years from now.
MR. SCHERMERHORN-And it could be a year from now, two years, I mean, I would like
to think hopefully it would be shorter, but in this economy right now, honestly office hasn’t
moved too quick for what I’ve been doing.
MRS. STEFFAN-Well, you know, that’s one of the things I had in my notes. When I
reviewed the traffic report, I felt satisfied, certainly, with the reduction. It’s a lot less
utilization of the roadways and based on the population that you’re going to market this
to, they would probably take Mountain View and West Mountain Road and go the other
direction, versus going over the Northway, especially during peak season.
MR. SCHERMERHORN-What I just quickly want to mention, too, is the Willows, which is
88 units, it’ll be similar to this. This is 60, but when you pull into Willowbrook Drive,
where the Willows is, there’s a daycare center that’s on the corner, very active daycare
center all the time, and then you have the Glens Falls Rehabilitation Center, and you
have North Country Sports Medicine Orthopedics, very large practice. The parking lot
has 160 cars in it, and then you have my Willows out in the back. Then you have Gina
Canale’s dental practice. Now medical really, that’s where all the traffic is generated is
these medical buildings and the daycare, and then there’s the Glens Falls Imaging
behind the daycare, and my office looks out at that corridor, or that entrance going out to
Bay Road where the stop sign is, and at any one time the max I’ve ever seen is five or
six cars stacked, and that’s probably because of, or that’s when the school bus will stop
to pick kids up. So there’s a lot of activity on that Willowbrook, and you can watch that
and, you know, yes, at times you’ll see two or three cars and they’ll have to wait a little
8
(Queensbury Planning Board 03/25/10)
bit, but it’s, this, with the seniors, I don’t think you’d see more than two cars ever, right
now as it stands as seniors.
MRS. STEFFAN-Yes. Usually it’s meal times you see people exit, and also church,
that’s another big thing, you know, right before mass usually.
MR. SCHERMERHORN-While we’re on the subject, we might as well talk about, a Town
Board member, John Strough, had visited me about a week ago and wanted to talk to
me about the Rush Pond that we call bike trail or walking trail, and wanted to know if I’d
have any problems allowing that through the front of my property and wanted to know if
would benefit me to where I’d want to run a trail down to it, and I absolutely would love
to. So if that ever materializes, again, on the record I’ve said before I’m all for whatever
he wants to do to go through the property, and I’d love to put a trail to it, you know, if the
Town goes forward with it.
MR. HUNSINGER-That was one of the questions I was going to ask you in Staff Notes
as well. Where would you envision the trail being on your property?
MR. LAPPER-We would leave it up to the Town. The Town’s going to plan it, so let them
come to Rich with a proposal.
MR. SCHERMERHORN-Yes. Jon kind of gave me a layout of how he could see it. It
entailed being in the CEA, and, you know, if it materializes, I could see that we could
come back and, you know, the Town Board could point me in the right direction. I have
no problem where it goes as long as the Board was happy with it.
MRS. STEFFAN-I had that on my list. I was actually looking at the back of the property,
because usually when you disturb for a parking lot, you disturb for a parking lot you’re
going to be cutting the root systems of some of those trees, and although we would all
like to ideally believe that those trees will be there forever, they won’t be, and so if we
looked at a bike trail there, and then fortifying the landscaping with new plantings that will
grow up and take over where some of the trees will die in five years, that might be a
reasonable solution. It’s so close to Gurney Lane recreation, I think we’d be crazy not to
do it, not to jump on the opportunity.
MR. LAPPER-Rich is agreeing as a condition.
MRS. STEFFAN-Okay. One of the things that I would like to see is, you know, that the
landscaping, I thought, was actually very nice, but one of the things that I would like to
else is in front of, on the face of West Mountain Road, I’d just like to see some additional
planting, you know, and in my mind, as I was trying to visualize what’s there now and
what could be, just some trees along West Mountain Road with maybe some perennial
plants there, some fencing, so that it had that country feel. Right now with the property
being undeveloped, it is kind of unsightly. I mean, there’s just, the ground doesn’t really
support, you know, anything. It’s very acidic.
MR. LAPPER-Because of the sand.
MRS. STEFFAN-Yes, because of the sand, and so you’re going to have to add a lot of
topsoil on top of it, in order to get grass to grow, and so it would be nice if you could
landscape that corridor so that it would be, you know, just a lovely view when you’re
driving by.
MR. SCHERMERHORN-Right. I’ll condition that the entranceway coming in and the
complex itself will be sprinklered. I did that over at the Willows, and I even, before the
paved the road, I put a water sprinkler line underneath the road so the cul de sac, when
you drive in, we landscaped the cul de sac. So I’ll have to do the same thing here. Like
the divider in the middle of the entranceway coming in, I’ll sprinkler that, too, as well. A
lot of it’s the opening clearing that you see. We’ll certainly survey the front of it. I know
the County has a great deal of property. They dump their snow over actually in the
corner. They actually called me in the Fall and they asked, they said, Rich, can we
continue to dump our snow there, and I said sure you can, it’s your land, and they
thought it was mine, but it’s actually, there’s a big area that’s the Towns.
MRS. STEFFAN-Yes, and they do dump a lot of snow.
MR. SCHERMERHORN-But I’m totally agreeable to landscape the front. I don’t,
honestly I think it is treed to my property line, but we can do additional plantings if we see
fit.
9
(Queensbury Planning Board 03/25/10)
MRS. STEFFAN-Yes. It just drops off, and I’m assuming with all the excavation that’s
going to happen over here, there would be a good opportunity to just.
MR. SCHERMERHORN-Yes, okay, down by the basin, okay.
MRS. STEFFAN-Yes. Between the road and the development, because obviously
you’ve got a lot going on here with the stormwater retention and stuff, that you could add
some plantings in here, you know, and I’m thinking some trees, you know, whether it’s
crabapples, perennials, so that when you drive by in the nice weather it has a very nice
exterior.
MR. OBORNE-If I may. It is a requirement of the Code that that actually does get
landscaped, unless waived by the Planning Board.
MRS. STEFFAN-Okay.
MR. TRAVER-There was a comment also regarding the entrance way, Keith, from the
Fire Marshal about the 20 foot?
MRS. STEFFAN-Right, and what changed.
MR. OBORNE-Yes. I think if Tom Nace could speak to that.
MR. TRAVER-You mentioned a later communication.
MR. OBORNE-There was a later communication I got about three o’clock today. So I
don’t have it in there for some reason, but I did read it, and he gave the signoff on that
entrance, and Tom, Tom could definitely explain what’s planned there.
MR. NACE-There were two issues he was concerned about. The entryway, he thought
that we had a curb around the island and around the edge of the road. We don’t. It’s a
mountable surface. On the inside it’s flush with the island, and on the outside it’s just a
wing curb. So those are mountable, and if the fire truck tires run over onto the grass, it’s
no big deal. What we are going to do is to pull that bull nose of the island back into the
property a little ways to accommodate the turning radius of the ladder truck, and we
agreed to how far that would be. The other thing we agreed is that we would provide fire
hydrants on, we have two now. I think it’s probably going to take a third to provide fire
hydrants around the building, to the point where the maximum distance between a fire
hydrant and, well, between the fire hydrants, would be 600 feet. So that anything from a
fire hydrant is reachable at 300 feet of hose.
MR. FORD-I have a concern I’d like to have you address. It seems that we’re within a
fraction of a foot of the setback from the Critical Environmental Area, and with snow
removal and so forth, I wonder if you could address that and allay my fears relative to
that.
MR. LAPPER-There are two aspects of that. There’s a 10 foot building setback from the
CEA, and that’s maintained, but everything that’s on the paved surface goes into
underground drainage, so it drains into the basin. It drains away from the CEA
underground, under the parking lot. So it’s not draining backwards into the CEA.
MR. FORD-Even with snow removal, Jon?
MR. LAPPER-Yes, because as Rich had said, he’s got room for snow removal on the
pavement because he’s got so many extra spaces there, and that would go into the
basin as well.
MR. NACE-Jon, the actual pavement setback from the CEA, I’m guessing, just looking at
the drawing, is somewhere around nine or ten feet.
MR. FORD-From the CEA?
MR. NACE-From the CEA, the pavement.
MR. FORD-I read in some of the documentation it appeared to be less than a foot at
some point.
10
(Queensbury Planning Board 03/25/10)
MR. NACE-That’s the building setback. There’s an additional setback of 100 feet from
the CEA, which the building has to be back, and it’s the building setback that we’re a
fraction of a foot more than we need.
MR. FORD-In terms of additional facilities from the Willows, how many can you
accommodate at the Willows?
MR. SCHERMERHORN-Eighty-eight. It’s an 88 unit project.
MR. FORD-Okay.
MR. SCHERMERHORN-And this is 60.
MR. FORD-Could you tell us what you have there in the way of additional facilities like
libraries and rec rooms and that sort of thing?
MR. SCHERMERHORN-Yes. When you walk in the entrance, everything is handicap
accessible, of course. So when you walk in there’s a little foyer, and then there’s, you
have to push a security code on the wall. Everyone has a security code so nobody from
the general public can just walk in the building. So they punch in their code. Door
opens, you walk into this lobby area, and then to the right is a really large gathering
room, with seating, and I have a kitchen, with a kitchen sink, and there’s a big large
fireplace, and a big television above the fireplace. That particular room we call our
gathering room, and at any one time you could walk in there. Like you could probably go
in right now and you’ll see a few folks sitting around tables. They’re usually doing
puzzles and things like that. They use that room. They’re very well organized, the
people that live in the building, and I believe they’ll be the same in this one. They’ll
organize dinners. They’ve had singers come in, piano players come in and do different
events. A lot of them they plan on their own. They have coordinated with the seniors
group, I think, Queensbury Seniors. Then you go back a little further, you pass that
room, when you first go in, the gathering room on the right, there’s what we call the
library, and it’s a library. It has a bunch of book shelves, and it also has another large t.v.
with a really big fireplace, and these are all gas fireplaces that they have access to, that
they can control, because they tend to want to keep it very warm in there, so they can sit
around the fireplace, read books and there’s seating everywhere, and a lot of times at
night you’ll see someone walk down with a glass of wine in their hand, and their slippers
on and they all hang out. It’s really, I would encourage anybody that would like to see to
go in. I brought a Town Councilman in last week and he was just shocked. He had no
idea that it was as nice as it was, but you’ve got the other library area. Then you go up a
set of stairs and of course there’s an elevator as well, very centrally located. You go up
the stairs, then I have the billiard room. I have a pool table, and then we have a card
table/poker table, and they use it, and I have televisions in there, and they have World
Series parties, football Super Bowl parties, and they use it. They play Bingo, rummy
cub, all these games, and we have games. You’ll see a shelf of games set up. Then we
have another large room that has treadmills, exercise bicycles, and it’s set up with
televisions, and they look out the window, so that you can either, you can watch the
news and you can also see outdoors, and it’s actually large enough where they’ve had,
in the past someone’s come in and they’ve given yoga, I don’t know if you call them yoga
lessons or yoga sessions, but they’ve done things like that, but it is open to all the
residents that live in the building, and it’s worked very well. They have Christmas
parties, birthday parties. They use the room, if someone’s having a birthday party,
sometimes they’ll reserve that room and have family and friends in, and they use the
room, but it’s constantly used over there, and I have bathrooms that are centrally located
downstairs by the library gathering room. You go upstairs by the exercise room and we
call it the billiard room where the game room is. We have bathrooms right there, too. So
they don’t have to go back to their units. Everything’s centrally located right there.
MR. FORD-Rich, based upon what you’ve learned from that experience with the Willows,
have you modified the plan for the new structure in any way in terms of enlargement or
broadening or different types of offerings?
MR. SCHERMERHORN-What I found out, out of the 88 units over the last year and a
half, I’ve only had one vacancy, on average, and it’s always been a one bedroom unit. I
won’t do one bedrooms anymore because the people don’t want the people don’t want
the one bedrooms, they want the twos. The other thing that they want is larger storage
closets. One of the bedrooms they wanted larger, and they wanted walk-in showers
instead of tub shower units, and the other thing they all request is they want the taller
toilets. That’s our biggest request. Everything else they’ve been happy with. We have
storage right outside their door, where it’s a little cabinet a Formica top where they put
11
(Queensbury Planning Board 03/25/10)
their shoes, umbrellas, and they put flowers and candy dishes. I really, if anybody ever
gets a chance, wants to see it, I’m happy to take someone, a group through or whatever,
but those are the changes that they’ve requested. Now they’d all like a swimming pool,
but that’s tough.
MR. LAPPER-And you’ve made those changes on these plans, Rich, right?
MR. SCHERMERHORN-Yes.
MR. FORD-That’s what I wanted to get to, yes. Thank you.
MR. SCHERMERHORN-The modifications here, these units, and this is also good for
me as well because I don’t compete against myself, although I know I will because I have
probably 50% of the people will want to go with my, the units over there will be a few
dollars more than the units I’m offering at the Willows, because they are going to be
larger units. Everything has a different price point, and these, I know, will be a price
point that’s a little above where the Willows was.
MR. FORD-Compare the facilities, now. In terms of size, are the meeting rooms going to
be of similar size, game rooms, rec rooms?
MR. SCHERMERHORN-The only room that I’m going to propose to make a little bigger
is the gathering room as you go in. I only need about maybe 100 more square feet, and
it’s only that one time a year, usually, or two times a year, when they’ll have like a large
Christmas party. I have tables all over and seating, and we’ll bring in additional. We
have storage rooms throughout the building and we’ll keep spare chairs. That’s the one
thing I’ll modify inside the building, just make a larger gathering room.
MR. FORD-And there’ll be gas fireplaces?
MR. SCHERMERHORN-Yes, and if you go through the facility, all the corridors are wall
papered. There’s crown moldings, there’s recessed wall panels, halfway up all around
the building. I mean, I don’t know, it’s quite fancy if you go inside. It’s like I said, I took a
Town Councilman in last week and he was, he had no idea that it was as nice as it was.
It’s nothing, I like to say that all my properties are very nice, but this is a level beyond
what you’d see on the norm out there, and the beautiful thing about the facility I have
there is they’re extremely conscientious, and what I mean by that is they call you for
everything, which you don’t mind. I mean, if there’s a hairline crack from just settling,
they call you on the phone, and they want it fixed because they spend a lot of time there,
but they enjoy their places, and when they move out, you’d never even know someone
lived there, and they’re safe, too, because it’s all monitored. The building’s monitored.
There’s a central alarm system in the building. There’s carbon monoxide detectors. It’s
a great concept for the fact that everyone is very friendly. They all watch out for one
another. At one time I had it staffed with an office gal up front, and it got to the point that
it, I don’t want to say it self-manages itself, but we’re there on a daily basis, because we
go in every day and clean all the hallways, all the gathering rooms. I have a girl there
every day, and we even take the rubbish out for them. At the end of every hall, there’s a
corridor with a storage closet with containers where they can put the stuff they want to
recycle and then their garbage. Every day we’re in that building, and then of course
we’re always there doing the landscaping and the snow removal, and that’s one thing,
again, if anybody gets the opportunity to drive through there, you’ll see the landscaping
is, I didn’t do it myself. I hired it done, but our people manage it and maintain it. I
maintain it personally, the people that work for me, and that same level of that building
will be the same as what we’ll get over on Gurney Lane.
MR. FORD-Thank you.
MR. HUNSINGER-Other questions for the applicant?
MR. SIPP-Yes, I’ve got a couple.
MR. HUNSINGER-Go ahead, Don.
MR. SIPP-Are you going to put a sign out front?
MR. SCHERMERHORN-I would like to, whatever is allowable, permittable by the Board.
It would probably be a wood carved sign by Wheeler Signs, like I’ve done on the other
places.
12
(Queensbury Planning Board 03/25/10)
MR. SIPP-Landscaped around the sign?
MR. SCHERMERHORN-Yes.
MR. SIPP-What is the size of the unit, square footage?
MR. SCHERMERHORN-The units, I increased them. The other ones used to be about
850 square feet, and I think I have these up to about, I wrote it down. These are going to
be 1,024 square feet. Two bedrooms, large living room, kitchen, large storage area, and
a large bathroom, and every one of the units are handicap accessible and adaptable,
and they all have washer and dryers in their own units as well.
MR. FORD-All two bedrooms, no three bedroom?
MR. SCHERMERHORN-All two, no threes.
MR. FORD-No ones.
MR. SCHERMERHORN-Right. Because what happens is, and it’s not that we get two
individuals. It’s usually, you do get couples, but a lot of times I get the single woman or
the single elderly man, and they want that extra room, whether it’s for a guest or they use
it as a den, even though they have a living room, and occupancy wise, I’ll be honest, I
don’t think we’ve ever had more than two people in one of the units.
MR. SIPP-Is this, do you have pull cords for emergencies?
MR. SCHERMERHORN-We don’t have the pull cords, because it is, it’s not a
requirement, but what we have is, if anybody needs assistance, they have those lifelines
that they sign up for with the Glens Falls Hospital. Essentially it’s the same thing but I
think better because I think you wear it.
MR. SIPP-I install them.
MR. SCHERMERHORN-Okay.
MR. SIPP-That’s why I wanted to know whether you have pull cords. Pull cords are nice,
but if you fall in the bathroom and can’t get up, you know, they don’t work too well.
MR. SCHERMERHORN-Right.
MRS. STEFFAN-Well, the other thing that applies is that it is an independent living, and
so you have a different market.
MR. SCHERMERHORN-Right.
MR. SIPP-You have a sprinkler system?
MR. SCHERMERHORN-Yes. The whole building is sprinklered. It’s monitored. The
alarms go off if they burn toast, and I happens a lot.
MR. SIPP-Yes.
MR. TRAVER-Is there good cellular coverage in that area? I’m trying to remember when
we did that.
MR. SCHERMERHORN-I can only speak for myself when I’m over on the site my cell
phone works, and I have, not Verizon, I have Nextel, which is now Sprint, I think.
MR. NACE-I have Verizon. I’ve never had any trouble in that area.
MRS. STEFFAN-I have Verizon where I live, and get it, I have broadband.
MR. SCHERMERHORN-I will tell you this, though, most of the individuals don’t have cell
phones. They still like the old.
MRS. STEFFAN-Landline.
MR. SCHERMERHORN-I asked my grandmother, and she’s lived there for three years.
She just moved out because she needed assisted living, and I was kidding her, I said do
13
(Queensbury Planning Board 03/25/10)
you want me to get you a laptop, and they don’t even know what e-mail is. I’m not saying
they don’t do it, but they’re old-fashioned. They do puzzles. They play games, but they
occupy themselves.
MR. FORD-Do you have any rotary dial phones, Rich?
MR. SIPP-It is true. I know somebody who lives in the Willows. Their only complaint is
noise.
MR. SCHERMERHORN-Is noise?
MR. SIPP-Yes.
MR. SCHERMERHORN-Noise from neighbors or noise from?
MR. SIPP-Noisy neighbors, whether they’re extra noisy or there’s no soundproofing or
no.
MR. SCHERMERHORN-Well, I mean, if we had a young person pull up with one of
those car stereos outside here, we’d hear it. Apartments, the way the floor separations
are, it’s quite deep with the floor trusses that are used in this building, and there’s
insulation. There’s sound boarding. The problem is if you get people slamming doors,
or if a person’s hard of hearing, and we get that, they can be very loud, and they turn
their televisions up. That’s the hardest thing we get. We do get those complaints, I don’t
want to say often, but you do get them. Because they can’t hear.
MR. SIPP-I took a walk today and walked the boundaries of the property, and I had with
me a measurement for decibel sound. I walked in from the back fence that you have a
fence between you and the access road to the Northway, walked in about 50 feet, took
some readings, and walked in 100 feet and took some more, and what it showed was
that decibel readings were about 65 on the low side and 75 on the high side, and there
were 76’s and 72’s and so forth, and that’s pretty good, because that’s conversation
volume, but when you got a tractor trailer, there were 85’s and 87’s, and some of those
tractor trailers shift gears going down that ramp, up shift, and that is noisy. Are you air
conditioning these units?
MR. SCHERMERHORN-Yes. All of them have central air conditioning, and I will,
another thing I want to point out, even in the summertime I go in this building, and it’s
warm. I’m not going to say they don’t open their windows, they do, but the majority of the
time the building’s very warm because they keep it, they don’t use a lot of air, either, and
I go in and the girls that go in and clean, they’ll tell you, they come out in t-shirts and
they’re sweating because they just, they’re.
MR. SIPP-Yes, well, you’d have to have the windows closed, I think, because I live in
that area, and you can hear those trucks coming down Route 9 off of 149, turning on
Gurney Lane and then heading down to the Northway, and I’m half a mile from there,
and you can still hear them.
MR. SCHERMERHORN-I would never sit here and say that I wouldn’t believe that you
couldn’t hear trucks. I’m sure we can hear trucks going down there, and it certainly
would be, there may be individuals that would choose not to be on the back side of the
building, would want to be on the front side, and then there’s others that probably are
accustomed to it or can’t hear it anyway.
MR. SIPP-If you keep the windows closed, you’re going to block out a good share of it.
MR. SCHERMERHORN-Right.
MRS. STEFFAN-And if someone moves from downstate, they don’t even think twice
about it.
MR. FORD-You reinforced the nice facilities you have for socialization and so forth
inside. What plans do you have for outside?
MR. SCHERMERHORN-For outside, the biggest thing that they do, that they absolutely
love, and this is going to have it, is the front of the building has a large porch just like the
Willows, and we have probably about 20 chairs out there, and as long as the weather’s
warm, they love to sit outside and just watch people come and go, which is very few, but
they love to sit outside. Now, I don’t have a barbecue area out at the Willows. That was
14
(Queensbury Planning Board 03/25/10)
a request of mine was to build, either put a gazebo out there with a grill out there with a
few picnic tables. I’m going to do that this summer.
MR. FORD-How about this site?
MR. SCHERMERHORN-Yes. This one here I knew that would probably come up, but I’d
probably propose doing a large gazebo. I buy them from Garden Time. I can put a
cooker in there for them, because we don’t allow people to have their own cookers, and
put picnic tables around, and I have plenty of green space, especially on the north, south
corner of the building. So I can put a gazebo in and some picnic tables out there, but
what they do enjoy doing is they do enjoy walking on the sidewalks. I find them, they’ll
walk around the building, because I mean, the building, the Willows which is set up the
same as this, you will see them out there walking, and I do allow the back part of the
building and the reason I say the back part is we have wings set up where people can
have their cats and dogs. We tried to not allow animals, but people love their animals,
absolutely love their animals, and they’re extremely respectful. We require that they
have to pick up after the animals and bag everything. So it’s, we have it down to a
science. I don’t want to say we’re overly strict, but we’re extremely fair, and, you know,
the people that are pet owners are appreciative that we allow them, because a lot of
places don’t, but I can certainly, you know, add a gazebo, picnic tables if you want.
MR. FORD-Good.
MRS. STEFFAN-Well, I also think that if the bike trail goes through, I mean, there’s a
certain, that’s an absolute perfect walking scenario. So folks will have that to utilize.
MR. HUNSINGER-One of the questions that I had about the project, and the design and
the layout, you know, you have really good site utilization, you know, 85% of the site is
undeveloped. You have, you know, good setbacks and you meet all Code on all the
setbacks and building height requirements. Is there any way to have the building further
away from the property line on the east?
MR. SCHERMERHORN-From the ramp, where the ramp is?
MR. HUNSINGER-Yes. Because, you know, previous experience with forested sites like
this, is, you know, once you get down to 10 or 15 or 20 feet of vegetation, you know, you
can see right through it.
MR. SCHERMERHORN-Yes, and that’s a concern of mine. Although I do know from
walking the property, where the property line, there’s quite a bit on the State side.
MR. HUNSINGER-On the State side.
MR. SCHERMERHORN-It doesn’t mean that the State couldn’t take it down some day,
but I mean, the way the contour of the land, everything slopes down to the ramp. The
problem with moving the building over, and again, I’m not opposed to it, but it puts us in
that critical area. It doesn’t say we can’t build in the CEA, but that was a sensitive area
that the Board and the public were very concerned about, and I’d need a variance
because of the new 100 foot buffer from the CEA.
MR. LAPPER-But in terms of that, Rich is only up against the ramp, and then there’s a
whole bunch of trees between the ramp and the main thoroughfare of the Northway.
MR. SCHERMERHORN-The one thing that’s in my favor is there is an elevation
difference. We kind of, if you stand on the edge of the property, we’re looking down at
the ramp, and it rapidly, it’s a pretty good pitch going down, but I agree with you. I’m not
going to say that, and we’ll be very careful, because it’s only going to hurt me if we’re
overly aggressive. I mean, if I can save more than what we’re showing as a clearing
limit, I’m going to try and save it or put my own buffer up.
MR. HUNSINGER-Well, and then, you know, one of my thoughts in this regard is, you
know, you are required to have the fire lane all the way around the building, but if all you
had on that eastern boundary was the fire lane, and there was no parking, for example, I
mean, I think the parking is overbuilt, and I wonder if, you know, those parking spots, you
know, if those were to be removed and maybe some trees put in between the access
drive and the building or something like that.
15
(Queensbury Planning Board 03/25/10)
MR. SCHERMERHORN-Well, the parking spots there are on the inside. It would only
gain us a little bit by contouring the road in a little bit, but those are kind of important,
especially because the people do try and park as close to the building as they can.
MR. HUNSINGER-Right.
MR. SCHERMERHORN-I’m not saying I wouldn’t take them out for you, but I don’t think
we gain a whole lot from, because the curvature of that road, I don’t know if it would
really pick up that much because we’d have to angle it. I wouldn’t be opposed to. I
mean, there’s no reason why it couldn’t be, if we find that it’s very thin in there, that we
couldn’t put more plantings and put a decorative fence through there.
MRS. STEFFAN-I mentioned that a little earlier when I talked about the bike path,
because you can see through there. I mean, when you drive down the exit ramp, you
know, because they’re mature trees, obviously there’s high canopy and there’s not much
low, but depending on what’s going to happen with the bike path, and with the
excavation that you’re going to have to do to put in the parking, you’re going to damage
those tree roots, and you’re going to lose those trees at some point in time, and so if up
front, we do some landscaping along there and fortify that boundary, even with white
pines, as an example, because that’s obviously their predominant tree in that particular
area. It’s going to take a while for those to grow up, and it will provide the cover, you
know, so that there’s a nice boundary between the units and the Northway entrance.
MR. SCHERMERHORN-Well, I’m certainly not opposed to planting, especially the
Eastern White pines would probably be, I would think would be good because that’s what
is there, and they get, they keep their color year round, versus a maple or an oak tree
that loses.
MRS. STEFFAN-Right, they love the sandy soil there.
MR. SCHERMERHORN-Right.
MR. HUNSINGER-Just to talk about the parking a little more. You said earlier that the
project works with one and a half spaces per unit, but, you know, you show two and a
half per Code. I’m sorry, 2.25 per Code.
MR. SCHERMERHORN-Two point two five.
MR. HUNSINGER-What about your, you talked a lot about the Willows project. Do you
have two and a quarter spaces per unit there?
MR. SCHERMERHORN-No, 1.5. See the Code changed.
MRS. STEFFAN-The Code changed.
MR. HUNSINGER-Yes, and I remember I was one of the advocates, actually, for
additional parking for apartments.
MR. SCHERMERHORN-Right. I would have been in front of you with a variance, I would
have had to get a variance to be here tonight, for the parking, but I think you have the
discretion, don’t you, to, if I agree to take off a certain amount, can’t we condition it where
I, because I could see this row where it’s a double back row. I mean, really I only need
90, let’s say 100. So I could take off 35 parking spots, which would be that whole back
row, and I’d still have room for snow storage around the property. Because all the
people, again.
MR. HUNSINGER-You mean the back row on the whole southeastern?
MR. SCHERMERHORN-We call it the south, yes.
MR. HUNSINGER-The south side. Okay.
MR. SCHERMERHORN-And that would get the parking lot even further away from the
CEA line.
MR. FORD-That’s where my concern was, in there.
MR. TRAVER-It would be less impermeable, too.
16
(Queensbury Planning Board 03/25/10)
MR. SCHERMERHORN-So I certainly can do that, and again, even on 100 spaces or 90,
if we do the 1.5, I know I’ll still have adequate space to put snow on the parking lot, pile it
up, because not all of these people have automobiles.
MR. HUNSINGER-Right.
MR. SCHERMERHORN-But let’s say that three-quarters of them did, I still have extra.
MR. HUNSINGER-And most units certainly aren’t going to have two cars a unit.
MR. SCHERMERHORN-Very rare do I get anybody that has two cars. I’m finding that,
you’ll get a married couple, but I’m finding we get a lot of singles, and there’s no rhyme
or reason. It’s male, female.
MR. LAPPER-I just counted 31 spaces up to, there’s seven spaces in the front on that
side, and then maybe that 31 could come out.
MR. SCHERMERHORN-That would be the best, if I could take those out.
MR. FORD-That south row, exterior south row?
MR. LAPPER-You’d probably need the front seven.
MR. SCHERMERHORN-Yes, the front seven where the end of the building is would be
nice, because people like to park in the end. The other 31 I could eliminate, and it
wouldn’t affect the drive lane for fire trucks or anything, and it would get us that much
further away from the CEA line.
MR. OBORNE-If I can offer something. What you’ll have to do, if you’re going to, in
quotations, eliminate parking, is you’re going to have to set those parking spaces you’re
eliminating in reserve.
MR. HUNSINGER-Right.
MR. OBORNE-You can’t reduce it. The Code is 2.25. We discussed this earlier. Jon
knows where we’re coming from with this. I think, and this is my opinion as your planner,
is the parking spaces along the 500 foot CEA area, I don’t see much reason for them to
be there.
MR. HUNSINGER-That’s what we’re talking about.
MR. OBORNE-That’s what you’re talking about.
MR. FORD-That south side.
MR. OBORNE-You would have to approve it at 135, per the Code, and 45 in reserve, but
then you’re going to have to have some type of mechanism like some type of tracking, if
you need it, you would be able to install them, and if you don’t need them, you could
keep them in reserve.
MR. HUNSINGER-Right.
MR. SCHERMERHORN-I’m fine with that.
MR. HUNSINGER-You said earlier you weren’t going to build curbs.
MR. SCHERMERHORN-No. There’s curbing around all the sidewalks, but on the
outside.
MR. NACE-There’s curbing adjacent to the sidewalk, (lost word) curb. On the outside
there’s not. I was specifically talking before about the island, entry island division there.
MR. HUNSINGER-Right.
MR. NACE-That there’s no curb with it, just this wing curb along the outside of the road.
MR. HUNSINGER-Yes, and, well, really I guess what I was asking is there’s no curb
between the outside of the drive aisle and the parking lot in.
17
(Queensbury Planning Board 03/25/10)
MR. NACE-That’s correct.
MR. HUNSINGER-So you could show that parking as being in reserve and not pave it.
MR. NACE-That’s right.
MR. HUNSINGER-And then down the road if you needed to install it, you could.
MR. NACE-Correct.
MR. OBORNE-You would still need to show it on the plan.
MR. LAPPER-Yes.
MR. NACE-We’d show it dashed and with a note to be constructed if and when
necessary.
MR. HUNSINGER-Yes, in reserve, yes.
MR. NACE-I presume that could be triggered either by the applicant or the Board.
MR. HUNSINGER-Anything else from the Board?
MR. JACKOSKI-I have a few things. First off, thanks for getting this plan to us. This is a
great starting point for all of us. So we can see a lot of work has actually been put into it.
Some of my other work in Town, we’ve been looking at senior needs for transportation,
public transportation. Has there been any discussion or any thought, because I think the
Willows is serviced by.
MR. SCHERMERHORN-Yes.
MR. JACKOSKI-But what about here being it’s so remotely, and I have heard several
times tonight that a lot of folks don’t have cars. So they’re all here. That’s great, but how
are we going to connect them to our Town?
MR. SCHERMERHORN-Scott Sopczyk, this is designed the same design as we had at
the Willows, which will accommodate their, what are they buses?
MR. LAPPER-Sort of van buses.
MRS. STEFFAN-Glens Falls Transportation buses.
MR. SCHERMERHORN-What I was told is if the need is there and the demand is there,
that they would make accommodations for this. Again, they do go into the Willows, not
very often, though, but that doesn’t mean that this project wouldn’t warrant more, but.
MR. LAPPER-But they would have to decide.
MR. SCHERMERHORN-Right. Again, it wouldn’t be up to me. It would be up to, I
guess, the Transit.
MR. TRAVER-Based on demand.
MR. SCHERMERHORN-Right.
MR. JACKOSKI-But you would be willing, if they needed to have some kind of a small
shelter or something to accommodate that kind of, would you be willing to?
MR. SCHERMERHORN-Yes. What’s nice is the front of this project, like the Willows,
there’s a very large covered porch area, and it’s no more than 10 feet, the walkway that
goes out from the covered porch. So those stand under the covered porch, or they sit,
because I have seating all across the front of it. So when the bus does pull up, it’s all flat
surface, very limited pitch. Everything is, and the walkways are very wide, too, and we’re
very careful of how we, one thing we’ve learned, too, is how you score the concrete for,
you know, control joints and stuff, just because sometimes they’re wobbly on their feet.
So a lot of stuff is taken into consideration, but this was designed so that the bus could
come in here, but again, it’ll be demand driven.
18
(Queensbury Planning Board 03/25/10)
MR. HUNSINGER-Anything else, Steve? Okay. We do have a public hearing
scheduled this evening. I see a number of people in the audience that probably want to
address the Board. The purpose of the public hearing is for members of the
neighborhood and the audience to provide information to the Board. I would ask that if
you would address your comments to the Board, and I would ask that you keep your
comments to the project that is before us, and I would also ask that you try to limit your
comments to three minutes. There is, on the back table, a handout that does talk about
the purpose of the public hearing and some do’s and don’ts, and some items to be
cautious of. So, with that, I’ll open the public hearing, and who would like to be first?
Yes, ma’am, and I would ask you to state your name for the record.
PUBLIC HEARING OPENED
JANE MACINTOSH
MS. MACINTOSH-Thank you. My name is Jane Macintosh. I live on Gurney Lane. I
own the former Gurney Lane schoolhouse which is opposite the cemetery. Before I
begin, I apologize in advance. I do have a number of things to say. I don’t know that I
can keep it within three minutes, but I will try.
MR. HUNSINGER-We also welcome written comments, if you want to submit written
comments to the Planning Staff you can do that, too.
MS. MACINTOSH-Okay. I haven’t had time, so far, to get things typed up. Also, before I
begin, I want to let you know, I have a significant part of my life savings tied up, invested
in my property on Gurney Lane, and I do take what happens in this neighborhood very
seriously. That’s why I’m here tonight, and that’s why I hope you will take my comments
to heart. I believe strongly that this project has the potential to change the character of
that portion of Queensbury forever. It will never be the same, once this project goes in,
and so I wish you would also take that to heart, as you review the project. I understand
the apartment building is an allowed use in the Office zone, and I understand the
applicant has been very careful to keep his dimensions within the maximum limits.
That’s much appreciated. My comments do fall into two areas of concern. One is
environmental impact, and the other is a special condition of the Office district zone itself.
Environmental impacts include aesthetic impacts and impacts on the character of the
neighborhood. To say, and to this I say that the building is simply too large for the site,
or for the neighborhood. It’s not too large for the site, technically, because it is within the
maximum limits, but I’m concerned. I have looked at the plans and I think that we’re
being lead to believe, on the plans, that because the building is within that 300 foot right
of way setback from West Mountain Road, that there will be a 300 foot buffer along West
Mountain Road, but we don’t have a fully developed Site Plan. The applicant has
referred, in three different places, to potential 43,000 plus square feet of office building,
and in front of the apartment building and within the 300 foot right of way. So there is no,
without a fully developed site plan, there is no way to really know what the project will
look like from West Mountain Road. I think it would be lovely to think that there was a
300 foot buffer of vegetation between West Mountain Road and the building, the
apartment building, but it seems pretty clear that that’s not going to be the case. I do
wonder about approving this project without knowing what’s going to happen within that
300 foot buffer for the office buildings. If that is a separate project, I wonder whether this
piece of property needs to be subdivided and treated as a subdivision. I wonder how the
Planning Board can approve, can assess the impacts of the apartment building without
knowing what’s going to be in that front space. Just as a point of information, the now
empty Social Services building at Westmount, which is, it’s been referred in the past, it’s
been mentioned in the past, I should say, that an office building or a building of this size
on this site is compatible because there are already large size office buildings in the
neighborhood. What was the former Social Services building, which sits high up on the
hill, and is very obvious from the road, that building is approximately 19,500 square feet.
It’s two stories high. It actually sits back 600 feet from the roadway, which of course
makes it appear smaller in the distance. The proposed building, apartment building, is, if
I’m doing the math right, it’s more than four times that size. Environmental, visual
impacts are truly unknown from the West Mountain side. Impacts from the Northway
access ramp, visual impacts again, which is, without question, part of the view shed, part
of that neighborhood, are really tremendous. I did look at the plans, and I noticed that
there is, the building is very carefully placed so that two points of two of the wings of the
building are right at the 25 foot setback mark from the side or the back lot line, and so the
building is 25 feet from the lot line. There is, as you can see and have been talking
about, there is a perimeter road. Where those buildings come to 25 feet from the lot line,
there is not going to be vegetation. I don’t see how there could be. So what you’re really
talking about, in terms of any kind of blocking of the building from the Northway access
19
(Queensbury Planning Board 03/25/10)
arterial road side, you’re counting on whatever the State has for vegetation, and that’s an
unknown, and I don’t think you can count on that as part of what, you know, anything that
the applicant is doing to mitigate visual impact. The applicant has noted on his SEQRA
summary form, Page Four, Item 14, he says that there are no scenic views known to be
important to the community. Again, I repeat this is clearly inaccurate. This is a very
important corridor and the vegetation is very much a part of the community. This site is
important from both sides. That’s all I can say. I can’t stress that enough. Staff, I would
also mention, as Staff has mentioned, the problem with establishing plants, in Staff’s own
comments, within this kind of sandy soil and Mrs. Steffan has mentioned that also. I just
hope that, I don’t know that the Town has any way of enforcing plantings. We’ve seen,
and we continue to see a problem, with the Six Flags Lodge, with what they’ve done with
their plantings along their access road. They immediately died, and they continue to be
dead, and they have that same kind of sandy soil. It’s difficult soil to grow anything in.
So I would, I know that in some communities the Planning Board or the Town asks the
builder to put up a bond to ensure the quality of the vegetation, to ensure that the
vegetation matches the plan that has been proposed, and I don’t know if the Town would
consider that, or if that’s a Planning Board option.
MR. HUNSINGER-We can consider that, yes.
MS. MACINTOSH-Okay. My second point, and my last point, is about the special
condition that goes along with the office zone, and that is, it says no residential uses
shall be allowed within 300 feet of arterial roads, and I’ve noticed on the Town’s own
adopted zoning plan, I have a tiny piece of it here, the project site is actually, it’s the only
site in the entire Town that has this 300 foot right of way setback marked on the Town’s
own zoning map, and I’m curious about that, and I’m also curious why there is not an
equivalent right of way setback from the access road that goes to the Northway, and I’m
wondering if there’s anyone here that knows anything about the origin of this
demarcation.
MR. HUNSINGER-We could be here the rest of the night.
MS. MACINTOSH-I know. I’m sure. I do recall that when the discussion, or when I
found out that this parcel had been re-zoned to Office, it was explained that that
occurred, it had been residential, and then it was zoned Office, and it was explained that
that had occurred because of the health impact concern, having to do with people living
to close to main highways. So I am confused about this, why there is no comparable
setback, and I know Mr. Schermerhorn just referred to the fact, he mentioned that he
thinks the building is set back 350 feet from the Northway, and frankly I dispute that,
because he’s literally 25 feet from his lot line, and I don’t believe there is 250 feet in that
embankment between his lot line and the Northway arterial. So I would, unless someone
can explain how, you know, what this omission is all about or how this came to be or not
to be, I respectfully request that this application be tabled until we can come to an
understanding of this situation.
MR. HUNSINGER-Yes. Again, we could be here the rest of the night talking about the
intent and the deliberations that were held. The Code is the Code. The Town Board
sets the Code.
MS. MACINTOSH-Right, and the Code says that no residential structure shall be allowed
300 feet from arterial roads, and where does, how is this not an arterial road?
MR. HUNSINGER-It’s not defined as an arterial road in the Town Code.
MS. MACINTOSH-Can somebody show that to me?
MR. OBORNE-Yes, the access drive to the Northway is not an arterial road. It’s not
defined or codified as an arterial.
MS. MACINTOSH-And what’s that definition based on?
MR. OBORNE-The definition is based on the Code. In the Code, we have every road
that is defined what is an arterial.
MS. MACINTOSH-What is this defined as?
MR. OBORNE-The entrance?
MS. MACINTOSH-Yes.
20
(Queensbury Planning Board 03/25/10)
MR. OBORNE-That would be defined as the Northway.
MS. MACINTOSH-And the Northway is not an arterial? I don’t understand that.
MR. OBORNE-No, it’s not classified as an arterial. I understand where you’re coming
from, but the Code does not designate that as an arterial road.
MS. MACINTOSH-And why is this the only parcel in the entire Town that has this kind of
designation?
MR. OBORNE-I think there are other areas in the Town that have that designation in
Office. Bay Road.
MS. MACINTOSH-No, well, it’s not on the map.
MR. OBORNE-Well, I’m not sure which map you’re looking at.
MS. MACINTOSH-I’m looking at the official color Queensbury Town zoning map which is
on table in the Conference Room in the Planning Department.
MR. OBORNE-Right. I’m relatively certain that there is an overlay district on that map. If
not, I’ll take a look at it and see why it’s not on there.
MS. MACINTOSH-Okay. Well, I am concerned about that discrepancy. I think it’s a
major discrepancy. I think that this project does, this building does need to be setback.
There are, I would like to see a plot plan that actually shows, if we’re not considering this
access road to be the arterial, I’d like to see a plot plan that shows where the Northway
itself is and the distance from the building to the Northway itself.
MR. HUNSINGER-Okay.
MS. MACINTOSH-That’s it.
MR. HUNSINGER-Thank you. Anyone else? Yes, sir.
RICHARD LINKE
MR. LINKE-Hello. My name is Richard Linke, and you look all familiar. You look a little
older than last time, and I think you can sign up right away for one of these apartments. I
still think that the project is way too large in scale. I think that it has some fatal flaws to it
that need to be addressed. I don’t see how the problems that I want to talk about here
can be addressed unless this gets scaled down. One of the first things that I would like
to comment, and my major concern, is the visual destruction of Queensbury’s three
scenic highways, three scenic highways, converge to a point right at this project. So in
one swoop here, you’re destroying the visual impact, and Queensbury has all this lip
service about how we’re going to minimize negative impacts, and how Queensbury is
going to celebrate and promote scenic roadways. You can’t do both. You can’t have this
project at this scale and maintain these scenic byways. Now the State, and I think it’s
really quite an omission that this was not in the Staff report. The State has acquired land
just to the south of the Schermerhorn property, at taxpayer’s expense, specifically calling
it a scenic enhancement, and if you don’t know about it, you should, and if you don’t
know about it, I wonder what other things that are missing, but this is a very important
document. The State of New York trying to preserve the scenic byway along the
Northway adjacent to Mr. Schermerhorn’s property. How can you possibly approve his
huge project, 40 feet high in the sky, three stories. There’s no way that he’s going to be
able to mask this from either West Mountain, what you call the ramp, a byway, or
whatever you want to call it, there are a million cars going down that ramp, a million, over
time, and they’re going to be looking up there. It’s nowhere near 300 feet away. You’re
lucky if it’s 25 feet away from that ramp. Whatever you want to call it. There’s visual
destruction and impact for millions of people in the future, as the destruction of this view
scape from the northbound Northway where you look down into the valley, and if you
destroy that view scape, when you know that it’s going to be destroyed, when you know
that the State is trying to preserve and the rest of the neighborhood is trying to preserve,
and Queensbury is doing lip service to green space and the wooded edge of the
Northway, don’t believe that he’s going to be able to mask this size of a project. It’s too
tall. It’s too big. There’s not enough way that he can have that setback. So it’s the
visual impact, call it a secret case, call it whatever you want, if you destroy Queensbury’s
three scenic highways, as well as the Northway going in direct contradiction to the
21
(Queensbury Planning Board 03/25/10)
State’s desire to preserve, I think you’re open for some kind of a Class Action lawsuit,
and I would be delighted to begin it. I’m retired, and I am mad as hell.
MR. HUNSINGER-I don’t appreciate threats, Mr. Linke.
MR. LINKE-It’s not a threat. I’m saying you’re leaving yourself open to knowing that
you’re going to have visual destruction.
MR. HUNSINGER-It came across as a threat.
MR. LINKE-Well, pardon me. I think to deal with this other Office situation piecemeal is
a big mistake. I don’t think that that should happen. One last thing, I insist, I don’t threat,
but I insist, that the Town do some kind of bonding, some kind of guarantee, because
probably something’s going to happen here on the property, and we’re going to be
seeing it in a way that you have been fooled so many times before, the sports center,
The Great Escape and whatever, we’re going to see it as a real wound to our green
space. I insist that you put in some kind of stipulation that there be enforceable, bonded,
triple row of conifer trees of different ages, offset, maximum protection, maximum
protection and enforceable, because five or ten years down the line, when this place
starts falling apart, and he’s sold it and long gone, somebody else, they’re not going to
water the trees. They’re not going to be responsible, and we’re going to be having what
was supposed to be a transition to the neighborhood. This is not. This doesn’t protect
the neighborhood. It’s not in keeping with the rest of the neighborhood, and, lastly, if you
look at anywhere on any study, any study, experts agree best management practices
cannot prevent salt from entering the groundwater. Let your Staff research this, and
also, in terms of people wanting to live right next to the Northway, with the decibel range,
with the truck noises and whatever, and the pollution, and the noise, these old folks are
going to have to be heavily sedated to be able to go to sleep. I’m positive, it’s a noisy,
horrible area. It’s not good for your health. Have your Staff look up some studies. You
can Google, adverse health effects with residences next to an interstate highway, and up
come 195 sites, and I’ll guarantee that not one of them says that it’s a good idea. In fact,
they’re all saying it’s a really bad idea, and, ironically for this old person’s home, one of
the biggest problems with residences next to the Northway or next to the interstate is it
aggravates osteoporosis. So, good luck. If you pass this, knowing that you are
destroying the nexus of three, and we don’t have very many in Queensbury, how dare
you. I don’t understand. Let’s have a full SEQRA review. This is an environmental
impact problem, and the applicants candy colored wonderful, hunky dory description is, I
think, highly suspect.
MR. HUNSINGER-Any one else? Yes, sir.
DENNIS FRANKLIN
MR. FRANKLIN-Hi. Dennis Franklin. I live adjacent to the property. I have some big
engineering issues with the program, and some aesthetic ones which I’ll address in
writing. What I’m trying to figure out is, the Town, in its wisdom, re-zoned this property.
Now I purchased the property next to it and a lot of the rest of the property on West
Mountain Road, and I looked at the zoning, and it was zoned Single Family Residential,
and that’s been reinforced by making lots larger, etc. So now I have my investment. The
Town says that we’re going to re-zone this, after the applicant wanted 14 homes. That’s
all that was going to be on that property, because they did not want to expose 14 families
to the negative respiratory impacts of living next to an interstate, and that was the basis
for re-zoning, and, they said, they wanted to cut down on trips in the area and on West
Mountain Road by providing Professional Offices that the people in the neighborhood
would use to limit trips to other parts of the Town. So now I’m sitting here once again,
after having looked at apartment houses. Now I think it’s a good project, setting aside
the fact that it was re-zoned to prevent residential occupancy on that site. So why are
we all sitting here discussing this? And what my legal options are when you re-zone my
back yard from Single Family Residential 14 homes to 160 people living in an apartment.
The other thing I have a problem with is, we did a separate traffic study, and the
Creighton Manning never addresses the problem with the entrance road, which you
already have on record. I’ll provide more copies of it. A very respected engineer that
said that you’re looking at a problem with that road, with the entrance where it’s located,
and all you have to do is go stand there, and when you first see the headlights of a car
coming toward you, down West Mountain Road, count how long it is before they get to
that entrance, and anyone going 45 miles an hour is not going to make it. I don’t have to
be an engineer to do that. I watched him do it, and asked him what he was doing, and I
watched him film for days, and we paid for that, and we presented it to you. The next
time when, if this goes through, and that road is put there, and there’s an accident, you
22
(Queensbury Planning Board 03/25/10)
can bet that this engineer, and an insurance company is going to say you guys allowed
this to happen, when you were warned otherwise by an expert in the business who works
for the State of New York, the State of Connecticut, the State of Massachusetts, and the
Travelers, among others, doing exactly that, forensic work on road design. So I urge you
to look at that again, because Creighton Manning tends to ignore it. I think it could be
fixed by moving that road, that entrance road, so there’s a better sight distance.
MR. HUNSINGER-Okay.
MR. FRANKLIN-So those are my two issues. Why are we considering residential at all?
It was re-zoned to prevent that. Does anybody have an answer? I’m asking a question.
MR. HUNSINGER-Well, we don’t set the zoning. This Board does not set the zoning.
MRS. STEFFAN-That was a Town Board issue.
MR. HUNSINGER-That was a Town Board issue.
MR. FRANKLIN-Yes, I know that.
MR. HUNSINGER-You really need to bring that up with the Town Board.
MRS. STEFFAN-Yes, and I have no idea why. I know there was controversy about it.
MR. HUNSINGER-I mean, there’s been multiple controversies about zoning on this
particular site, but, I mean, it is what it is.
MR. FRANKLIN-I realize that. That doesn’t change anything in my mind.
MRS. STEFFAN-That’s the hard part of us as Planning Board members, because, you
know, we have to evaluate projects based on the current zoning.
MR. FRANKLIN-I understand that. I agree with you.
MRS. STEFFAN-And so it definitely puts us in a tough spot because we didn’t put the
zoning in place. I mean, actually some of us were on the committee for the Comp Plan
and then the zoning plan, but it was the Town Board that made the decisions on what
would be included and what was changed and what wasn’t.
MR. FRANKLIN-Okay. Well, thank you. Good to see you all again in good health. I
don’t think you look older, myself.
MR. HUNSINGER-Anyone else? Yes, ma‘am.
KATHLEEN SONNABEND
MS. SONNABEND-Kathleen Sonnabend. I live on Cedar Court. I realize that you don’t
set the zoning, but it is a Professional Office zone. Correct? Is that what it’s called now?
MR. HUNSINGER-Well, it’s called Office now.
MS. SONNABEND-It’s called Office, okay. So are you saying that if people are raising
legitimate concerns about the apartments, that you can’t say, well, this is Office zoning,
we know that it allows apartments, but it doesn’t mean that we have to approve
apartments there? And I share a lot of the same concerns. The buffer along the
Northway. At this rate, we’re going to end up looking like Clifton Park. The Northway
along Clifton Park isn’t so attractive anymore. You’re seeing a lot of parking lots and
buildings. I’m concerned about the fact that too many times, land that’s been zoned for
something else is being converted to apartments or homes. The average age in the
population around here has been rising, because a lot of our educated people are going
elsewhere to get good jobs, and my daughter’s at RPI in mechanical engineering right
now. The odds of her finding a good job in Queensbury when she graduates are very
low. She’s very unlikely to come back here to live. Now that’s fine for her, but it’s just an
example of one of the reasons why our population keeps rising. So it’s very frustrating. I
know the Town Board is involved in the zoning, but if there’s any way that, as a Planning
Board, you can try to encourage or discourage more of this apartment building, because
we need to preserve the land we have left to be developed, I know it can’t be developed
as quickly because there’s more demand for housing and apartments, but we need to
have the land available when that nanotech park really starts going. There could be
23
(Queensbury Planning Board 03/25/10)
great engineering jobs, consulting jobs, all kinds of jobs up here that would be good jobs,
that would improve our tax base. I know that senior housing doesn’t put a burden on the
schools, but it is meaning that there’s going to be more senior people that can live here
and eventually a certain percentage of those people are going to end up on Medicaid,
because most people that end up in a nursing home for any length of time go through the
resources and they end up on Medicaid. Medicaid means a tax burden for the County
and for the taxpayers. So every time we build another apartment, whether it’s for senior
housing or families, we’re putting a burden on our tax base, and if the land is supposed
to be for offices, why aren’t we telling the developers they’ve got to put offices there?
And if they have to wait a few years before the demand is there for it, so be it, but it’s for
the good of the overall community.
MR. HUNSINGER-Thank you.
MS. SONNABEND-Tell me, is there nothing the Planning Board can do? Because every
time anybody brings up zoning, all I hear is, well, the Town Board sets the zoning. Well,
this zoning is called Office zoning. So why can’t the Planning Board say, we want to see
offices in this location, not apartments?
MR. HUNSINGER-Well, I mean, what they have proposed is allowed through Site Plan
Review. It’s allowed in the Code.
MS. SONNABEND-But it doesn’t mean it has to be approved.
MR. HUNSINGER-Well, I mean, we haven’t approved it.
MS. SONNABEND-I know, but I see the reaction that people are getting when they raise
their concerns, because these are real concerns, but the impression is that the Planning
Board thinks that it’s not a concern that they need to address because it’s zoning.
MRS. STEFFAN-The difficulty, and, you know, I’ve said this before, and actually I think it
was the three times ago when a project was proposed for this site. I spent three years
on the Planning Ordinance Review Committee, and so did Mr. Hunsinger, and there
weren’t a lot of people from the audience that were part of those meetings, and we know
it’s situations like that when the zoning is changed or the Town Board is entertaining
some of these changes, and redefining our Zoning Code, that the people have to get
involved and make sure their voice is heard, and the difficulty is that, when I was
attending those meetings, there was a handful of us there, in a Town with several
thousand people.
MS. SONNABEND-I attended a number of meetings during the Saratoga process, and
all of these things that people in the audience have been saying were expressed then,
too, and what I saw coming out of the Saratoga process appeared to be a balanced
process where developers were getting some of the things that they needed. The
community was being listened to, but somehow that doesn’t seem to be what’s being
implemented.
MRS. STEFFAN-And that’s where the final details were worked out, with the Town Board
is the government body that is responsible for making the final decisions on what is in
the Zoning Code, and they’re elected representatives of the people within the Town of
Queensbury, and so there was a public hearing process that they went to, and that was
the time to discuss and decide on exactly what the definitions were, and, so, you know,
as a Planning Board, we can’t lobby the Town Board to change the zoning or the
definitions every time some use doesn’t fit the greater need. I’m as frustrated as you are,
but at the same time.
MS. SONNABEND-But what about the buffer (lost words) in question? If it’s true that the
property, the back of the building, is within 25 feet of their property line, and they have
some kind of an access road going back there, then it’s obvious you can’t have a real
buffer zone on the site. There’s not enough room to have any kind of real trees, and so
now you’re dependent upon whatever land is between them and the Northway staying
green? I wasn’t aware of the State land purchase, and maybe that’s what that buffer,
was the State land south of Schermerhorn, or was it east? South? So that eastern
buffer, which is very, very narrow, is basically the Northway, and if the Northway needs
to expand, or if they decide they’ve got to move the trees back, I remember several years
ago they cut down trees along the edge of the Northway because they determined that
people driving off the road could get killed if they hit a tree. So they moved out a bunch
of the trees and made more of a shoulder. Well, if the State does anything like that, how
much of a buffer is left?
24
(Queensbury Planning Board 03/25/10)
MR. HUNSINGER-We don’t know yet. I mean, you heard us raise these questions, too.
I mean, we have the same concerns.
MS. SONNABEND-Yes. So that’s not a zoning issue. That’s something that is in the
Planning Board’s purview.
MR. HUNSINGER-No, we have the same concern.
MS. SONNABEND-Yes, all right. Thank you.
MR. HUNSINGER-Thank you.
MS. SONNABEND-By the way, I do understand that you guys go through a lot of effort
and a lot of work and I do definitely appreciate that.
MR. HUNSINGER-Thank you.
MS. SONNABEND-It’s just frustrating for us out here in the public to feel like we’re
wasting our time even showing up to comment because it doesn’t seem like it really
makes much of a difference.
MRS. STEFFAN-Trust me, I can’t speak for anybody else, but I understand.
MR. HUNSINGER-Yes. Thank you. Anyone else? Yes, sir.
SAM BUTTO
MR. BUTTO-My name is Sam Butto and I live on Gurney Lane. I was here on the prior
project to oppose what was being proposed as sort of a behemoth to our surrounding
area, and today I’m here, and with all due respect to the people who spoke before me
and detailed their concerns, I think that Mr. Schermerhorn, this time, has at least listened
to the people who had commented before and has tried to structure a development that’s
going to work for both he and the community. So I’d like to say that I support what’s
going on and I realize that the details that have been brought to your attention right now
need some addressing and I think that that should be your job to address them with Mr.
Schermerhorn and his people, but I want to say that I think that the impact, not the
environmental impact, but the impact to the school system and our taxes are going to be
enhanced with this program, not depleted. The school system is not going to be tapped
for additional educational purposes. There’s not going to be any need for the expansion
of our school systems, Lake George School System, because of children having to go
there. So that means no personal services won’t be affected, and I think that’s a big
concern, or should be a big concern of our neighborhood. So I want to say that I do
support the intention that Mr. Schermerhorn has and hope that we can all work together
to enhance the opportunity that is presenting itself here. Thank you.
MR. HUNSINGER-Thank you. Anyone else? Yes, Mr. Strough.
JOHN STROUGH
MR. STROUGH-I’m John Strough, Queensbury. I just wanted to share with you, I don’t
know what had preceded me, but I did want to share with you that I had e-mailed Richard
Schermerhorn and asked him if he still was interested in working with me on the bike
trail, and he was, very much so, which surprised me because I didn’t know if he still was
in a good mood, but he was, he was, and bygones be bygones at least. So we kind of
worked out a draft of where the trail might go, not fixed there, but he seemed to think that
might work. He certainly wants to be connected in everything else, and, you know, if he
needs an access road in back, I don’t know, we might work out something in the
direction, too, but in any event, George Hilton and I are going out Tuesday or
Wednesday of this week and doing a GPS, and then I’ll go back and see if that’s work
with Richard’s plans, but I just want you to know, he is working with me on that, because
I think, you know, you probably thought that would be a good amenity for this kind of a
project, or at least I hope you would, and he does, too. Not only that, but I have to say,
admit that he took me for a tour of his place, it’s in back of the daycare center, in back of
his offices, which I had never been, and I have to admit, I guess I shouldn’t say it was
unexpected, but I have to admit, it was very pleasant, very professional building, very
quiet. The amenities that he offers these people, I was really astounded with the
operation there. So I think he does promote a first class operation, and I think this would
be one, too, and I certainly have to agree that the project would be better than a 550 lot
25
(Queensbury Planning Board 03/25/10)
insurance building type of building. So, you know, I just wanted to share that with you,
that, two things, one, he is going to work with me on the bike trail, and, two, I am aware
of this other project and was pretty impressed by the professional nature of it. Thank
you.
MR. HUNSINGER-Thank you. Anyone else? Any written comments, Keith?
MR. OBORNE-No, sir.
MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. I will leave the public hearing open for the time being, but
unless there’s anybody else that wants to speak, we will cease taking comments this
evening. Okay. Did you have any responses to any of the specific comments that might
have been raised this evening?
MR. SCHERMERHORN-Well, the concerns that I heard from Mrs. Macintosh and Mr.
Linke and Mr. Franklin and Kathleen, you know, I respect their concerns. I do feel that I
truly tried to address all the concerns that were put in front of me. I’m not saying there
couldn’t be an improvement put in place here, but I would like to state that as far as the
buffering, the Town, and I sometimes want to think that maybe I’m singled out, but I don’t
think so anymore, they do enforce the rules and regs in these site plans, plantings and
right down to the stormwater. I can’t tell you how many times Craig Brown’s called me or
Bruce Frank, we call them the tree policemen. He does go out an he actually does
inspect, and if you were supposed to have a five inch, six inch, three inch caliper tree,
and if it’s not, he lets you know, and if there’s trees that have died, he lets you know, but
now what we try and do is head him off at the pass, because we honestly do keep up
with the conditions of our properties. The success of the properties come from two
things. It comes from the people that work for me that enjoy what they do, and it comes
from me standing behind them and listening to the Town. All these properties are very
well maintained, and if a buffer, additional buffers need to be established that we’re
talking about tonight with additional plantings or fencings and stuff, I can assure you that
I’ll make sure that they are maintained, but again, for the record, I just want to state that
the Town does do a very thorough job, I feel, at least on my projects. They’re constantly
watching the projects, not just trees, but they’re watching the stormwater. There’s
maintenance and repairs that do pop up over time. So it’s not like just these projects go
up, you get your CO and that’s the end of it. I have constant communication with the
Town, and it’s in my best interest to keep constant, in the good graces of everybody
because I do, I don’t plan or intend on slowing down anytime soon. I enjoy what I do,
and I enjoy Queensbury. My roots are deep here. So it would be foolish of me to do
anything wrong that would be, that would, you know, count against me. So all I’m saying
is whatever we want to stress tonight about buffer zones, I’m absolutely agreeable to do
whatever.
MR. HUNSINGER-One of the comments that was made was regarding the line of sight
for the driveway. I didn’t mean to cut you off.
MR. SCHERMERHORN-Well, let me, this came up last time, several times, and I know
that a gentleman, I think it was Mr. Franklin, talked about an engineer, didn’t state his
name, and that’s not important, but I do know that it wasn’t up to our discretion where to
put that driveway entrance into the project. We were specifically told by Warren County
and the Town Engineers where best placement of that driveway is. If we all recall that a
traffic study was just done. Now I know some of the neighbors thought that the traffic
study that I had done for the Travelers project, Creighton Manning, they thought that it
was basically null and void. They doubted the numbers and everything else, and that’s
okay. They had an independent study be done, but Warren County went right back out
and used those very individuals that I hired to do the traffic study for Travelers, they just
did a whole Route 9, West Mountain Road, Gurney Lane, they just used the same
consultant, so, you know, everyone’s entitled to their opinion, but I believe the traffic
consultant that I hired is very well respected because, I mean, they just did the study
again, on that whole corridor, so I didn’t just pick that spot to put that entranceway. So
that was dictated by the professionals in the County.
MR. HUNSINGER-Do you know what the line of sight is, as far as distance?
MR. SCHERMERHORN-As far as the distance? Tom would probably know.
MR. HUNSINGER-Do you know, Tom?
MR. NACE-I don’t have it off the top of my head. Creighton Manning measured that and
worked that through with the County.
26
(Queensbury Planning Board 03/25/10)
MR. SCHERMERHORN-And I can certainly recall, because everything’s really fresh in
my mind, now that we talk about it. At one time we had the entranceway even closer, if
you remember, to the West Mountain Gurney Lane intersection, and we were asked to
move it back, and that was after we already had it approved, signed off by the engineers
and everything, and then they asked us to move it back because certain members of the
public were concerned about that access. So this has already been moved after the
original concern came up.
MR. HUNSINGER-So you should have the information, then.
MR. LAPPER-Well, I also want to add that this is off peak, and that’s the whole
difference here with the senior project is it’s off peak.
MR. HUNSINGER-Well, but line of sight’s line of sight. So, I mean, if you have the
information, just submit it again for the record so that we’re all protected and covered.
It’s a health and safety question.
MR. SCHERMERHORN-Yes, I understand.
MR. HUNSINGER-I’m not saying move it, I’m just saying, just, you know.
MR. SCHERMERHORN-Right, yes.
MR. HUNSINGER-Questions raised, let’s make sure we cover it.
MR. TRAVER-I had a question with regards to the proximity to the proximity to the
Northway. We’ve heard some comments, and it’s, you know, it’s in the record of concern
about the proximity for residential in terms of particulates in the air and so on, and I’m
wondering, and it’s perhaps more of an engineering question perhaps for Tom. What I’m
wondering is if there’s something that can be done maybe with the air handling system or
something that would handle an environment where there would be a higher than normal
level of particulates to perhaps help address that for the residents that are in the building.
I’m assuming you’d have probably centralized air handling equipment and maybe it could
be filtered or something.
MR. SCHERMERHORN-Yes. They certainly all have, you know, they’re all filtered, of
course, as far as like an extra filtering or something. I mean, it certainly can be looked
into. I don’t honestly know if the best approach, but, I mean, it certainly could be
researched.
MR. TRAVER-Yes. I’m not sure, either, but I’m just thinking that in as much as it is one
large building, and with the modern systems, they tend to be centralized and controlled
very efficiently. I’m wondering if it’s, and, you know, as you say, I don’t know the answer
to it, either, but it could be something that could be looked into.
MR. SCHERMERHORN-Right. Actually how these work, the individual units, every unit
has its own furnace with its own air conditioning unit. So they all work independently.
The only thing that’s a common system would be the hallways, the common areas. So
each person controls their own heating, cooling.
MR. TRAVER-They all have their own air intake?
MR. SCHERMERHORN-Yes, they do.
MR. TRAVER-They do.
MR. SCHERMERHORN-Yes, they all have their own.
MR. HUNSINGER-I’m just surprised, that’s all.
MR. SCHERMERHORN-Yes. It’s, technology’s come such a long way, now, as a matter
of fact, one brand is called Magic Packs. They use them in big, huge condo high rises
now. You put them on an outside wall, the way I have the building designed it’s on an
outside wall. It looks like if you open a closet door, there it is, a small compact little unit
with a compressor built into it, and it vents right out the, it’s got a little vent, very small.
MR. HUNSINGER-So they’re actually in the unit?
27
(Queensbury Planning Board 03/25/10)
MR. SCHERMERHORN-Yes.
MR. HUNSINGER-Wow.
MR. SIPP-That’s what that little door is in the corner on the?
MR. SCHERMERHORN-The little door in the, yes, as a matter of fact, my plan, you’d
walk in and in the living room it would look like a coat closet but it’s on an outside wall.
MR. SIPP-And that’s what I was wondering.
MR. SCHERMERHORN-Right.
MR. SIPP-Each unit has it, and it’s a small closet area.
MR. SCHERMERHORN-Yes, and they’re very quiet. They don’t require any venting
because, you know, high efficiency units now, they’re direct vent.
MR. HUNSINGER-Yes.
MR. SIPP-One thing the public seemed to be concerned about was the distance from the
property line on the east side, the Northway side, it was less than the 25 feet, and you
show on your map that it is not.
MR. SCHERMERHORN-Yes. Tom can scale it, but we’ve got the ramp and we’ve got
the Northway. The Northway is considerably further away, but the ramp.
MR. SIPP-Yes, it’s the entrance way, the entrance ramp, and you’ve downsized these
maps so much I can’t figure out the scale to it.
MR. NACE-I guess I can’t either. So let me go get the big one.
MR. SCHERMERHORN-I mean, I can certainly see where you come from with the
concern of the, but I guess it would.
MR. FORD-Well, let’s look at it from a slightly different angle. I listened to the public, and
I shared the concern about the placement of the facility on the lot, and its proximity for
health reasons, visual impact, etc. If we were to, as we must, consider only the impact of
this structure on this site, and we’re not concerned right now with any office space for the
future, then this facility could be moved further away from the Northway, closer to West
Mountain Road.
MR. LAPPER-It can’t be, because of zoning.
MR. SCHERMERHORN-Yes. The zoning dictated it. There’s a 300 foot line. I didn’t
choose the placement of it. It’s the zoning, I mean, if you said I could move it forward
100 feet, I’d do it, but the zoning is that 300 foot line, and if we all keep in mind, this was
just done a year ago, this re-zoning, and I’ve been through, this is my third application.
I’ve complied with every Zoning Code change, rules, regs, and again, I’m trying to, I’m
not writing the rules, or, I’m just following them, and this one, I don’t think there’s
anything that I need.
MR. HUNSINGER-I mean, looking at the plan, though, it shows the building, and it looks
like it says 347 feet.
MR. NACE-Well, the way your Code’s written, the new Code, the use, which includes the
parking, subservient to the building, has to be 300 feet from the arterial, and in actuality,
the building’s not.
MR. HUNSINGER-Yes, your parking line is exactly, well, maybe not exactly, but it looks
like 302 maybe.
MR. NACE-In actuality, the building is not 25 feet from the Northway property line. It’s 50
feet, 49.7 feet.
MR. HUNSINGER-Yes, right.
MR. SCHERMERHORN-I mean, you know, I’ve been through a lot of changes and
different things with this particular parcel. I mean, we certainly could move the building
28
(Queensbury Planning Board 03/25/10)
to the south, but then that put us, again, then we’ve got a Code issue again, because
they just added, that last go around they added the 100 foot where last year that wasn’t
there.
MR. FORD-Rich, how are you going to address the 300 foot setback, in the future, as
you look at potential office space?
MR. SCHERMERHORN-Well, I think, now again, I know we’ve said a lot tonight, but my
initial response is we took all numbers with traffic and account for a maximum build out
because that’s what you have to do, okay. I don’t know what will go on the front portion.
I mean, hopefully I’ll have that opportunity once I put this up, and I’ll have physicians that
will come forward, but right now I don’t know, but one thing to address the public’s
concern is, this is not the end once this goes up. We still have this front portion that will
be extremely sensitive to the neighbors, and I’ll be back in front of a Planning Board
again. Right now they do get the benefit of, it’s heavily wooded in front of this. Now,
when I come back with an office building, will it be the maximum 20,000? I think the
largest you can do now is 20,000. Will it be the maximum? I honestly don’t know until
the demand dictates what I’d be approached with.
MR. FORD-Yes, but wouldn’t that have to comply with the 300 foot setback?
MR. SCHERMERHORN-No, because Office has to be within 300, and I would be
required to have a buffer between the two uses anyway, which I think is 50 and 50, I
think it’s 50 actually.
MR. SIPP-On the north side it’s owned by the County, that piece of wooded property
between you and Gurney Lane is owned by the County?
MR. SCHERMERHORN-Yes. My understanding, when I met with Mr. Strough, we were
going over the bike path, all the property behind me to the south was just given to them.
I don’t want to make a mistake here, but I thought he said the Franklins gave him the
land.
MR. HUNSINGER-He’s nodding his head, yes.
MR. SCHERMERHORN-Okay. So I don’t know if, the State doesn’t own it, or the Town,
I believe, owns it, the Town of Queensbury it was given to, not the State. So it was Mr.
Linke that said the State. So it’s the Town.
MR. SIPP-What about to the north, now, between you and Gurney Lane, where your sign
is?
MR. SCHERMERHORN-Yes, that is a separate and distinct tax map, which is owned by
me, another corporation, but that is a lot. It’s an acre, I think it’s an acre and three
quarters, acre and a quarter, and that’s within 300. So again, that would be a Site Plan
issue, whatever comes along with that.
MR. OBORNE-Not quite an acre.
MR. SIPP-Is that where the County was dumping the snow?
MR. SCHERMERHORN-I believe it was their property. Where it’s all cleared in that
sand? That is the County’s property.
MRS. STEFFAN-There’s always cars parked there.
MR. HUNSINGER-Yes, I was going to say that, too. Yes.
MR. SCHERMERHORN-Yes.
MR. LAPPER-That’s not Rich’s.
MR. SCHERMERHORN-Right. I very much, as you can tell, would like to see the project
work, and I truly understand we have to all do our due diligence to satisfy not only the
Board but the public, and I think I’m close. I just don’t know how much more I can do,
because I’ve been through a lot with this property. Just one other thing, you know, living
by the Northway, you know, the concern came up with the air or whatever, but, and
again, it’s certainly a choice. I mean, it’s not like this would be, if someone felt that it was
going to be harmful to them, and I can appreciate everyone’s concerns with the air
29
(Queensbury Planning Board 03/25/10)
quality. It’s not a requirement that I, it doesn’t say that I can’t do it, but at least an
individual would have a choice, if they felt that it was harmful they wouldn’t move there,
but I’m very comfortable and confident that I know that, I mean, certainly there’s
developments all up and down. I’m not saying it’s right or wrong.
MR. FORD-What is the actual setback measurement from West Mountain Road to the
edge of the pavement in front of the facility?
MR. SCHERMERHORN-Three hundred feet.
MR. FORD-Three hundred.
MR. HUNSINGER-Any other questions, comments from the Board? What’s the feeling
of the Board?
MR. SIPP-Have you addressed all of Paragon’s?
MR. NACE-Yes, we have. We re-submitted both to the Town and to Paragon. I talked to
Clark Wilkinson today, and he indicated that everything in our response was adequate,
and eventually he will sign off with the Town.
MR. SIPP-The sewer district, are you going to go over or under the Northway?
MR. SCHERMERHORN-No, it was approved by the State and the Department of Health,
and it’s going to be directional bored underneath the Northway.
MR. SIPP-Underneath the Northway.
MR. SCHERMERHORN-Yes, and again, we, when and if we should receive approval on
this project, then I have to request from Town Board to be a contract user, and there is
adequate capacity. There’s a letter to that effect from Mike Shaw and Mr. Gerzler from
Glens Falls, that we satisfy the, they have the capacity for it.
MRS. STEFFAN-Yes, we got a letter in our packets on that.
MR. HUNSINGER-Yes.
MRS. STEFFAN-This will have underground utilities, right? I saw the poles.
MR. SCHERMERHORN-Yes.
MR. JACKOSKI-Right, have you had any discussions with the Town Board regarding the
north parcel at all, if they had an interest in it for use as a bike path, a walking path,
parking, any of that kind of stuff?
MR. SCHERMERHORN-No, no. The Town hasn’t, I have been reached by the State a
couple of different times, with inquiries about it. No mention to what it is. All I can
imagine is if it’s going to be work eventually on the bridge maybe.
MR. JACKOSKI-So if the Town had an interest, you might be willing to talk to them about
protecting that tip, so to speak, that intersection of those byways?
MR. SCHERMERHORN-Yes. Absolutely.
MR. JACKOSKI-John, are you listening?
MR. SCHERMERHORN-And, you know, let me just bring something up. I’m probably
setting myself up for a zone change again, but that particular corner, just so everyone
knows, that acre and a quarter, that is zoned right now for a convenience store with gas
pumps. That could be a Stewarts or a Jolley, right across the road. Now, I wouldn’t
even think of coming in here and saying I want to do a gas station, but I just, that’s,
again, this is what I, that’s the zoning right now on that corner piece. You could have a
gas station. Now I certainly wouldn’t support it, but that’s the zoning that was just done.
Whether it was intentional, a mistake. So I won’t be surprised if that gets changed next
year.
MR. JACKOSKI-But at least there’s an opportunity that if the Town expresses an interest
in securing.
30
(Queensbury Planning Board 03/25/10)
MR. SCHERMERHORN-I always will listen.
MR. JACKOSKI-Okay.
MRS. STEFFAN-Well, Stewarts was successful in Warrensburg.
MR. HUNSINGER-In Warrensburg.
MRS. STEFFAN-It’s about the size of their footprint.
MR. LAPPER-That was me. That was another fun night.
MRS. STEFFAN-Really?
MR. LAPPER-Yes.
MR. HUNSINGER-So I assume we’re looking at a tabling?
MRS. STEFFAN-A tabling.
MR. HUNSINGER-To address comments.
MRS. STEFFAN-Were we okay on the lighting plan? The only hot spots I saw were just
right around the entrances, which you would expect, and then the lighting has to be
downcast. So, you know, when I was considering glare, I thought it was fine. The
uniformity ratio is not on here.
MR. OBORNE-I didn’t have any issues with my review.
MR. HUNSINGER-Yes. I thought they had it for the parking areas? It’s not the whole
site, but.
MR. FORD-I know we’ve got the 300 feet to deal with, but I still go back to, for visual
reasons and for health reasons, I think that it’s far better placed closer to West Mountain
than its current location.
MR. SCHERMERHORN-The question is, how would I ever deal with the health, though?
We can all have our, you know, it’s not a regulation. That’s the problem. So how would I
contend with that?
MRS. STEFFAN-Yes, and, you know, that issue has been debated. There’ve been a
couple of projects that were right next to the Northway. They were way below grade of
the Northway, and so spray coming off tractor trailers as a result would be falling onto
people’s homes. If they had their windows open, it would be going right in. In this
particular situation, there is a natural buffer. Yes, there’s the Northway entrance ramp,
but there’s some buffer between this development and the ramp. At the ramp, yes,
there’s traffic there, and it’s not high speed traffic because people are, you know, they’re
turning and it’s slow traffic. Then you’ve got a buffer between the entrance ramp and the
Northway. So there is some added buffering in that particular location that doesn’t exist
in other locations in the Town, you know, where we’ve had a real problem with the
particulate matter that would be, you know, coming up and over the Northway, or down
from the Northway. So I’m not as concerned about it on this particular project as I have
been on other projects. That’s from my point of view.
MR. SCHERMERHORN-One thing, if I might just add, you know, this could be a situation
where at least we could potentially somewhat control and protect what’s there now. Just
for example, what if, I’m just saying what if, we know that that bridge needs work
because we’ve got some real traffic issues with that, the bridge, but what if they decided,
the State came along and wanted to purchase that property, the next thing you know
they do a roundabout or something there? Then we’ve lost all our screening, any type of
control. If they come in they’re just going to do what they have to do for traffic and
they’re not going to be concerned with the aesthetics. So, I mean, this is an opportunity,
I think, to at least, because I mean, as you know Boards change, things change, I don’t
know where this, ten years from now, five years from now, we could all be in different
places, including myself, and someone may come in and a new Board could come in and
all of a sudden they say, gee, you know, this could be a truck stop. I mean, you don’t
know, but at least here, if we can find a happy medium, we’ve got something to, I’m
working with you.
31
(Queensbury Planning Board 03/25/10)
MR. LAPPER-Well, what we’re not talking about is that the CEA is completely protected
here, and that’s a large chunk of acreage.
MR. FORD-That’s appreciated.
MR. HUNSINGER-That did not go unnoticed.
MR. FORD-Right.
MRS. STEFFAN-And that’s one of the reasons why, I wouldn’t be in favor of moving it.
Because the Critical Environmental Area is protected, and in the last few applications
that came through, I mean, everybody was very concerned about, you know, the
impingement on the Critical Environmental Area.
MR. LAPPER-Rich heard them, and that’s why we’re here, because we stayed 300 feet
away in front. We completely stayed out of the CEA with everything, even the parking
lot, you know, we didn’t ask for any relief, and that’s the point, so that even though the
closest we are is to the ramp, as Gretchen said, it’s the ramp, and it’s not the Northway.
I mean, there was only so much room on the site, but that’s because we stayed away
from the more critical resources.
MR. TRAVER-The stormwater is better, too.
MR. HUNSINGER-Yes. The one concern that we did hear from almost every one of the
members of the neighborhood that spoke is about the visual impacts, and on the prior
application, you did give us a visual analysis that had some, you know, renderings and
stuff. How difficult would it be to do that?
MR. LAPPER-Let me answer that. There might be just a simpler thing, because what I
heard, I mean, again, the location of the building is just because of the zoning and the
CEA. So that’s why it is where it is, but Gretchen also was talking about doing under
plantings along that buffer, and there also could be a fence. Rich said, quietly on the
record, that he could do that, too. I mean, so in that 100 feet or so right there along the
ramp, and it could be something, you know, very nice with plantings on both sides, and
that’s how we could address, because I think the only real visual issue is right there.
MR. FORD-But can that not be presented in a visual format that we could take a look at?
MR. HUNSINGER-Which is really what I was asking is how do we begin to address this
issue.
MR. SCHERMERHORN-Right, and again, these visual studies, and again, they’re very
important to provide this stuff to the Board and to the public, and I did a visual study for
Travelers and it was quite extensive, quite expensive, but when it was presented, it was
basically, I was shredded. It wasn’t believable, and this is not the way it is. So it’s just
like the traffic. You hire these people, I hire these people, I could keep hiring and hiring
and hiring. Because I’m certainly not a professional at these things, and I’m just afraid I
come back, I do that, it’ll be the same thing that will arise again.
MRS. STEFFAN-Well, and I also think that if you compare it to the last project, in the
Travelers proposal, there was 543 parking spaces, and so in order to accommodate that,
there was a lot of green that was taken out.
MR. SCHERMERHORN-That last building was 120 feet wide by almost 400 feet. It was,
I mean, it was large. Zoning permitted it, the visual impact and some other things
obviously we didn’t move forward with it, but it’s a much smaller scale, and one thing that
is important, this is elevated quite a ways up from that, the ramp. So vegetation,
everything, when you get on, it goes down. Because that hill is very heavily vegetated,
the State land and mine, with white pines and things like that, and if I add to that, they
will hold up, because salt and whatever, stuff splashes off cars is way, way away from
that, and it’s way downhill from this area.
MR. HUNSINGER-Well, you heard the concern. I’m not trying to tell you how to address
it. I’m just asking you to address it.
MR. SCHERMERHORN-I’m just trying to figure out how to work, to make it.
32
(Queensbury Planning Board 03/25/10)
MR. TRAVER-The idea of a fence was mentioned, and it occurs to me that that not only
would have an impact on the visual, but it could mitigate the sound, too, from the
Northway.
MR. NACE-It would certainly help, especially with the traffic being below the site
elevation.
MRS. STEFFAN-Nothing will help with the Jake brakes. Nothing.
MR. NACE-Chris, to answer your question, as far as the visual impact from the
Northway, I think the most concern had been from the visual impact coming north,
northbound, as you come down into The Great Escape.
MRS. STEFFAN-Right, coming down the hill.
MR. HUNSINGER-Yes.
MR. NACE-As far as that, the building, this building is in approximately the same
location. We’re maintaining more tree buffer to the south than we previously had, and
the building height, the base elevation of the building is the same. The building height is
the same. The visual impact from the south should be less than was presented with the
Travelers building.
MR. HUNSINGER-I did save that file. So I’ll pull it out and take a look at it, but I think it
might be beneficial for you to, you know, maybe resubmit that one page, then, or
something.
MR. NACE-Try to re-do it for the little bit of difference in the actual site development
would be a great expense, but I think it’s still applicable.
MR. SCHERMERHORN-I can see the concerns with the Jake brakes, but it would be
traffic coming from the north slowing down, they apply the brake that has that noise, that
really loud. When they’re accelerating, going downhill, you’re not going to get the noise
going downhill. You’ll hear the truck shifting probably, but the noise you’re referring to is
definitely when they’re coming off the Northway to slow down.
MR. SIPP-I don’t think, I wouldn’t agree with that. When I took those sound
measurements, I was getting more from the ramp and much less out of, and there was
nothing on the ramp, when they line up from the light on Route 9 down Gurney Lane, and
then they’ve got to wait there, sometimes, they usually get three or four cars or a truck
and a couple of cars coming all at once, when they make that left hand turn they’re
coming out of that ramp. Without that noise, you’re down in the 50’s, decibel wise, from
the Northway, which is low, actually not even conversation.
MR. LAPPER-Most of these people are indoor. This isn’t a real outdoor use, you know,
maybe once in a while.
MR. SCHERMERHORN-I’m just throwing it out. The only other way I guess we could
get even more of a buffer is if I eliminated being able to go around the building, because
being a (lost word) a circular building is due to the fire department.
MR. HUNSINGER-Right.
MR. SCHERMERHORN-They wanted.
MR. HUNSINGER-No, we understand that.
MR. SCHERMERHORN-If I thought there was a way they could go out, turn around. I
mean, the building’s sprinklered, there’s three hydrants in every corner. That’s the only
other way I could see without having, but then we have the issue of the fire department.
MR. HUNSINGER-Right. What other items do we need them to address? The
landscaping on West Mountain Road.
MR. TRAVER-The sign.
MRS. STEFFAN-These are things that I’ve been writing down.
33
(Queensbury Planning Board 03/25/10)
MR. SIPP-If you’re going to leave the, just as you put on your plot plan here, and leave
the cutting of the trees to this point, you’re not going to get a great amount of stuff
growing in there. Those pine trees are 40, 50 feet high. They’re going to block out an
awful lot of light for anything three foot tall, and then your planting is not going to grow
that well.
MR. SCHERMERHORN-Well, if anything, we’d be planting, I would think, in front of
them, and in the sunlight from the south and the west is what would, it would get the
sunlight in there. So I think we would be okay, in that case.
MRS. STEFFAN-And that ground’s going to be disrupted anyway, Don, because when
they put the parking lot in, they’re going to have to excavate, and so there’s an area that
to just enhance the buffer, which will buffer the complex from the ramp, because when
you’re driving down the ramp, you can see through the, you know, see under the canopy
that exists.
MR. SIPP-Yes, I wasn’t talking about the ramp, out front or anything like that.
MRS. STEFFAN-The front part.
MR. SIPP-Yes.
MRS. STEFFAN-All right.
MR. SIPP-You’ve got too much tree there.
MR. SCHERMERHORN-Yes, well, out front, yes, out by West Mountain Road you’re
talking about?
MR. SIPP-Yes.
MR. SCHERMERHORN-Yes. Well, that’s all open anyway. So I think they’d get
adequate sunlight.
MR. SIPP-Yes, but coming in on your egress road there, if you start chopping back the
landscape, you’re not going to end up with anything, on the south side of that entrance
road. I mean, you’ve got dead oak in there (lost word) 10 years old, that tree is dead
because it doesn’t get enough sunlight. Oaks require a lot of sunlight. I mean, now if
you put maples in there, the maples would.
MRS. STEFFAN-No, but they’re going to get, those Pin Oaks are going to get a lot of
sunlight because (lost words) the whole stormwater management system in there with
lawn. They’re going to get a light.
MR. NACE-That’ll be all opened up there on the south side of the entrance road.
MR. SIPP-Yes, you’re not, those pine trees are too tall.
MRS. STEFFAN-I don’t think so, Don, that’s a big area.
MR. SIPP-I don’t think we’re talking about the same.
MRS. STEFFAN-In here? Are you talking about in here? These are the Pin Oaks.
MR. SIPP-Yes, that’s what, I’m talking about the entrance road.
MRS. STEFFAN-Right. That’s this, but this whole area is a stormwater retention area.
MR. SIPP-Right.
MRS. STEFFAN-And so that’s going to be lawn.
MR. SIPP-That’s why I say we’re talking about two different areas. I was talking about
the stormwater area.
MRS. STEFFAN-Yes, but the stormwater area is between the existing trees that are
going to remain and the Critical Environmental Area, and the entrance. I’m not getting it.
The things that I had in the motion were to address and satisfy Staff Notes. See, these
are the Pin Oaks right here.
34
(Queensbury Planning Board 03/25/10)
MR. SIPP-Yes, but there’s no sense putting them in there. They’re six foot or ten foot.
They’re too shaded.
MRS. STEFFAN-But this is all going to be open. There’s a stormwater retention area
here. They’re going to leave this little thing of trees, but this is all going to be lawn.
MR. SIPP-You walk in there and you’ve got branches up to 10 feet, coming out a good
10 feet, and especially when you get a little opening in there and get more sunlight.
They’re going to grow that much better. Pines will all grow, any of this stuff that you put
in there.
MRS. STEFFAN-Well, these are pines.
MR. SIPP-Yes, but that.
MRS. STEFFAN-I think, and these are all going to be short.
MR. SIPP-I’m talking about down in here.
MRS. STEFFAN-This is where I was talking about adding the fortification of the white
pines, at a low level, so that you’ve got the high canopy and then it can shield the
entrance to the Northway.
MR. SIPP-It’s such poor soil to begin with, that you walk through there, and you’ve got
dead pines at 12 feet in height, now pines would normally grow on that type of soil, but
they just don’t get enough light because of the spread of what’s above them. Of course
a lot of them are dying, too, because they’re too big for what, the support that they’re not
getting from.
MRS. STEFFAN-But I believe that, if you plant here, this is all going to be excavated and
open.
MR. SIPP-Yes. No, they get east sun.
MRS. STEFFAN-They’re not going to get much through the canopy that already exists,
but as the sun goes over this location, they’re going to catch it from the west in the
afternoon.
MR. SIPP-So you’re putting them on this side?
MRS. STEFFAN-Yes, putting them on this side.
MR. SIPP-All right. That’s better than putting them on the other side.
MRS. STEFFAN-Because this is the part that’s going to be excavated for the driveway.
MR. FORD-That’s going to be very open.
MRS. STEFFAN-These may end up dying anyway, at some point in the future, because
you’re going to be hurting their root system. Probably within five years you’ll start to lose
some of them. So if you add another row of white pine, they will take over when these,
you know, upon their demise. I think it’s just kind of a segmented planting schedule.
MR. SIPP-The pines will survive through the soil.
MRS. STEFFAN-It’s perfect soil for white pine.
MR. SIPP-I wasn’t talking about this. I was talking about over here.
MRS. STEFFAN-Okay. Well, I’m not a fan of those locust trees, but that’s a whole other
deal. Well, I have, as far as things and notes that I’ve been taking during our discussion,
to address and satisfy Staff Notes, obviously to address engineering comments, to
provide line of sight data on access from West Mountain Road, to provide information on
possible public transportation service, to provide an enhanced landscaping plan for the
West Mountain Road front, and for the east buffer to the Northway entrance ramp, to
provide a fence application for the eastern buffer, to provide a parking plan denoting the
31 spaces in reserve for future need, to ensure that there’s sufficient topsoil to support
the landscaping plan and lawn. A Rush Pond bike trail is desirable. The Planning Board
35
(Queensbury Planning Board 03/25/10)
would like to see a trail path recommendation and sign details. Those are the things I
wrote down.
MR. OBORNE-Yes. I think it would be very difficult for the applicant to satisfy my Staff
Notes. I think they need to respond to it and the Board needs to satisfy. They’re not
proposing universal design. So that wouldn’t satisfy my notes.
MRS. STEFFAN-Okay.
MR. OBORNE-They’re not proposing bio retention basins.
MRS. STEFFAN-Right.
MR. OBORNE-That certainly would not satisfy my notes. So you may want to re-word
that.
MRS. STEFFAN-Okay. Respond to Staff Notes, but they do have to address
engineering comments.
MR. OBORNE-Absolutely.
MR. LAPPER-I want to just make one qualification about the bike path. That is going to
go in the CEA, and we don’t want that to be Rich’s project, because we don’t want to be
in the CEA. So we’re going to grant an easement to the Town, but the Town’s going to
be responsible for that design. I mean, we’ll make it a condition that Rich will grant an
easement to the Town for the bike path. He’s already agreed to that, but it’s not his
project to do it, because we just don’t want to take that on, and John is so far ahead of
this thing anyway. So we’d like to handle it that way, that we’re not going to show, we’ll
make it as a condition of approval, but we’re not going to show a bike path. That’ll be, the
Town will decide where it’s going to go.
MR. FORD-Makes sense.
MRS. STEFFAN-So maybe a notation on the plan that you’ll cooperate with the Town of
Queensbury.
MR. LAPPER-Absolutely, and grant an easement.
MR. JACKOSKI-And the bike path will not be allowed outside of the CEA on any of the
property.
MR. LAPPER-We weren’t saying that.
MR. JACKOSKI-I just heard you say it was contained within the CEA, so I wanted to
make sure.
MR. LAPPER-No, primarily it’s going to be in the CEA, because it’s going to connect to
Rush Pond. I wasn’t conditioning that.
MR. JACKOSKI-Okay. I just wanted to make sure.
MR. LAPPER-That’s just why we don’t want to make it our project.
MR. JACKOSKI-Right, but it’ll work out with the Town.
MR. LAPPER-Wherever the Town wants it. You don’t care.
MR. SCHERMERHORN-Right.
MR. JACKOSKI-Okay. I need to ask one more question. The first public speaker, I don’t
remember her name, mentioned something about subdivisions.
MR. LAPPER-We’re not subdividing.
MR. JACKOSKI-I understand. Has there been any discussion about boundary line
adjustments with that little tip parcel to the north and this parcel?
MR. LAPPER-We just heard we could sell it to the Town, make some money.
36
(Queensbury Planning Board 03/25/10)
MR. JACKOSKI-Yes. I heard you were going to give it to the Town. I didn’t know you
were going to sell it to the Town.
MR. LAPPER-We’re not touching that piece. So that boundary, it’s all exactly the way it
is when Rich bought it.
MR. JACKOSKI-So you’re intent is to hopefully keep it intact.
MR. LAPPER-Separate, yes.
MR. JACKOSKI-I think it was just important to make sure we addressed that, because
she did bring it up and you really didn’t touch on it.
MR. LAPPER-Okay.
MR. HUNSINGER-Anything else? Okay. Whenever you’re ready to offer the resolution.
We didn’t really talk about a tabling date.
th
MRS. STEFFAN-Based on how many things we tabled for May 20 the other night, I
th
think May 18 is the better date.
th
MR. HUNSINGER-May 18, yes.
th
MRS. STEFFAN-I think we tabled five things for the 20.
MR. HUNSINGER-Do you think you’ll have any difficulty submitting the requested
th
information by April 15, that’s two and a half weeks, three weeks.
th
MR. FORD-For May 18 .
MR. LAPPER-Do you think we should have a Special Meeting, or not necessary?
MR. HUNSINGER-Would anyone care to comment on that?
MR. JACKOSKI-I don’t think it’s necessary.
th
MR. FORD-Let’s go with 18.
MR. HUNSINGER-Yes, I’m not feeling it’s necessary.
MR. SCHERMERHORN-We can have everything in two and a half weeks. We need to
th
submit by May 15.
th
MR. LAPPER-April 15.
th
MR. HUNSINGER-You have three weeks until April 15.
MR. SCHERMERHORN-I spoke to Tom. He said he can do it. So what would be the
meeting date?
th
MR. LAPPER-May 18.
th
MR. OBORNE-May 18 is difficult.
MR. HUNSINGER-ZBA recommendations?
MR. OBORNE-I’d have to probably bump somebody. You may want to consider a
Special Meeting, and I’m not advocating that because, you know, I haven’t seen my
family in two weeks at this point, but you may want to consider that. I would throw out a
thth
date of the 27. Or you have a heavy meeting on the 20.
th
MR. HUNSINGER-Well, I think we already know we have a heavy meeting on the 20.
MR. OBORNE-And based on what’s been bumped from this cycle, May, that’s why
thth
everything, I was having everything go to the 20, because the 18 is basically full.
MR. HUNSINGER-Because of ZBA recommendations.
37
(Queensbury Planning Board 03/25/10)
MR. OBORNE-Because of submissions that we have in-house that were bumped from
April.
th
MRS. STEFFAN-Well, and the things that just got bumped to the 20 are all complicated
lakefront, you know, three of the things are complicated lakefront issues. So you know
they’re going to take a while.
MR. TRAVER-Yes.
th
MR. FORD-Let’s consider Thursday the 27.
MR. TRAVER-Yes, we may still have to accommodate some public comment as well. I
mean, we’ve certainly listened to a lot tonight, but you never know what additional
comments people may have.
th
MR. JACKOSKI-And you can’t set a meeting before the 18?
MR. OBORNE-You could, sure.
MR. LAPPER-We’ve already been to County Planning.
MRS. STEFFAN-Yes, they have No County Impact.
th
MR. HUNSINGER-Do we know if the room is available the 13?
MR. OBORNE-I do not, but I can certainly find out.
MR. HUNSINGER-I’d hate to table it to a specific date and then find out that we can’t do
th
it that night. Which is why I felt safe staying with the 18.
MR. OBORNE-Yes. It’s going to be a heavy meeting. It’s going to be a full meeting. It’s
going to be your six. I don’t know how I have to work the recommendations in. Monday,
th
if you want to keep it the 18, I mean, we’ll work our magic.
MR. HUNSINGER-Well, I guess my thought is, if we’re bumping projects that have not
yet been scheduled for a specific date, it would be easier to move them, than it would be
to, you know, upset the public and say, gee, we couldn’t hear it on the date we said we
would when we tabled it. That’s just my own opinion.
MR. OBORNE-Again, the cycle for May hasn’t been set.
MR. HUNSINGER-Right.
MR. OBORNE-The cycle for April has.
MR. HUNSINGER-Right.
MR. OBORNE-So I understand your logic.
th
MR. HUNSINGER-Yes. I mean, you know, why don’t we table it until the 18, and then,
in April we can decide if we want to have a third meeting in May.
MR. OBORNE-Okay.
MR. HUNSINGER-Does that make sense?
MR. JACKOSKI-Yes.
MR. FORD-Okay.
th
MR. HUNSINGER-At the April 20 meeting, we’ll talk about the agenda, because by then
th
you’ll have submissions for April 15 so we’ll know what’s in.
MR. OBORNE-Correct. Yes.
MR. HUNSINGER-Is everyone okay with that?
MR. TRAVER-Yes.
38
(Queensbury Planning Board 03/25/10)
MR. FORD-Okay.
MRS. STEFFAN-Okay. I’ll make a motion to table.
MOTION TO TABLE SITE PLAN NO. 11-2010 SCHERMERHORN RESIDENTIAL
,
HOLDINGS, L.P.Introduced by Gretchen Steffan who moved for its adoption, seconded
by Thomas Ford:
th
This is tabled to the May 18 Planning Board meeting, so that the applicant can address
the following conditions:
1.The applicant can respond to Staff Notes.
2.Applicant can address engineering comments.
3.Provide line of sight data on access from West Mountain Road.
4.Provide information on possible public transportation service to site.
5.To provide an enhanced landscaping plan for the West Mountain Road front,
and for the east buffer to the Northway entrance ramp.
6.To provide a fence application for the eastern buffer.
7.To provide a parking plan denoting 31 spaces in reserve for future need.
8.To ensure that there’s sufficient topsoil to support the landscaping and new
lawn.
9.Because a Rush Pond bike trail is desirable, the Planning Board would like to
see a plat notation regarding a future easement for the bike path.
10.The Planning Board would like to see sign details.
th
Duly adopted this 25 day of March, 2010, by the following vote:
AYES: Mr. Jackoski, Mr. Sipp, Mr. Ford, Mr. Traver, Mrs. Steffan, Mr. Hunsinger
NOES: NONE
ABSENT: Mr. Krebs
MR. HUNSINGER-For the record, for members of the audience, we did leave the public
th
hearing open. We will take public comment again on May 18. You’re also welcome to
submit written comments to the Town, you can put them in the mail and address them to
the Town, or you can send it to the Town’s e-mail address as well.
MRS. STEFFAN-And although I didn’t put it in the motion, we did discuss a short while
ago, the visual impacts. You were just going to resurrect that.
MR. SCHERMERHORN-I was just going to say you missed it, I’d rather bring it up, and
we’ll make that a condition as well.
MR. HUNSINGER-Well, yes, you know we want you to address it.
MRS. STEFFAN-Right.
MR. LAPPER-Can you tell me what Number Six was?
MRS. STEFFAN-To provide a fence application for the eastern buffer, which is the same,
actually Number Five talked about the enhanced landscaping plan for the West Mountain
Road front and for the east buffer to the Northway entrance, and then we had talked
about the fence application. So I just made that the next condition.
MR. HUNSINGER-Any other questions?
MR. LAPPER-Thank you.
MR. HUNSINGER-You’re welcome.
MR. SCHERMERHORN-Thank you.
MR. JACKOSKI-Thank you for trails. Let’s hope that’ll work out great.
MR. SCHERMERHORN-Yes.
MR. LAPPER-Thanks everyone.
39
(Queensbury Planning Board 03/25/10)
MR. HUNSINGER-Any other business this evening? If there’s nothing else from anyone
on the Board, I will entertain a motion to adjourn.
MOTION TO ADJOURN THE QUEENSBURY PLANNING BOARD MEETING OF
MARCH 25, 2010, Introduced by Gretchen Steffan who moved for its adoption,
seconded by Thomas Ford:
th
Duly adopted this 25 day of March, 2010, by the following vote:
AYES: Mr. Jackoski, Mr. Sipp, Mr. Ford, Mrs. Steffan, Mr. Traver, Mr. Hunsinger
NOES: NONE
ABSENT: Mr. Krebs
On motion meeting was adjourned.
RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED,
Chris Hunsinger
40