2010.06.24
(Queensbury Planning Board 06/24/2010)
QUEENSBURY PLANNING BOARD MEETING
SPECIAL MEETING
JUNE 24, 2010
INDEX
Subdivision No. 3-2009 Christian & Eustacia Sander 1.
PRELIMINARY STAGE Tax Map No. 278.-2-29, 30
Site Plan No. 41-2010 Robert Wing 1.
Tax Map No. 279.17-1-60
Site Plan No. 11-2010 Schermerhorn Residential Holdings, L.P. 2.
Tax Map No. 288.-1-64
Site Plan No. 39-2010 Inwald Enterprises 35.
Tax Map No. 227.17-1-16
Site Plan No. 12-2010 William Crowell 40.
Tax Map No. 239.12-2-59
Site Plan No. 38-2010 Ray Talmadge 56.
Tax Map No. 296.19-1-1
Site Plan No. 40-2010 Larry Tracy 60.
Tax Map No. 277.4-1-3
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 06/24/2010)
QUEENSBURY PLANNING BOARD MEETING
SPECIAL MEETING
JUNE 24, 2010
7:00 P.M.
MEMBERS PRESENT
CHRIS HUNSINGER, CHAIRMAN
GRETCHEN STEFFAN, SECRETARY
THOMAS FORD
DONALD SIPP
DONALD KREBS
STEVEN JACKOSKI, ALTERNATE
BRAD MAGOWAN, ALTERNATE
SENIOR PLANNER-STUART BAKER
TOWN COUNSEL-MILLER, MANNIX, SCHACHNER, & HAFNER-MIKE HILL
STENOGRAPHER-SUE HEMINGWAY
MR. HUNSINGER-I’ll call to order the meeting of the Town of Queensbury Planning Board on
Thursday, June 24, 2010, as a Special Meeting. Our first item on the agenda is an
Administrative Item.
ADMINISTRATIVE ITEM:
SUBDIVISION 3-2009: CHRISTIAN & EUSTACIA SANDER FOR FURTHER TABLING
CONSIDERATION
MR. HUNSINGER-And there was a sample resolution for further tabling. Would anyone like to
put forward that resolution?
MOTION TO TABLE PRELIMINARY STAGE SUBDIVISION NO. 3-2009 CHRISTIAN &
EUSTACIA SANDER, Introduced by Gretchen Steffan who moved for its adoption, seconded by
Thomas Ford:
th
According to the resolution prepared by Staff. We will table this to the August 24 Planning
th
Board meeting with a submission deadline of July 15.
th
Duly adopted this 24 day of June, 2010, by the following vote:
AYES: Mr. Sipp, Mr. Magowan, Mr. Krebs, Mr. Jackoski, Mrs. Steffan, Mr. Ford, Mr. Hunsinger
NOES: NONE
MR. HUNSINGER-And what we were just talking about, on Tuesday when we tabled
Subdivision for Robert Wing, the subdivision on Sunnyside Road, we should have had a
separate resolution to table the Site Plan Modification. So I’d be looking for a resolution from
the Board to table Site Plan No. 41-2010 Robert Wing to the same date as Subdivision 4-2010.
MRS. STEFFAN-Do we know what date? Do we have to specify?
MR. HUNSINGER-No. Counsel seemed comfortable in saying that we could say the same as
the subdivision.
MR. HILL-I think if you adopted a resolution on Tuesday evening for purposes of tabling the
subdivision review, I think your resolution tonight can be to table it to the same date.
MR. HUNSINGER-Okay.
MOTION TO TABLE MODIFICATION SITE PLAN NO. 41-2010 ROBERT WING, Introduced
by Gretchen Steffan who moved for its adoption, seconded by Donald Sipp:
1)A site plan application has been made to the Queensbury Planning Board for the
following: Applicant proposes subdivision of a 19.9 +/- acre parcel into three lots of 0.66,
1.86 & 17.38 +/- acres. Subdivision of land requires Planning Board review and
approval. Modification to an approved site plan [reduction of acreage associated with
1
(Queensbury Planning Board 06/24/2010)
approved nursery] also requires Planning Board review and approval. Planning Board to
conduct SEQR review and provide a recommendation to the Zoning Board of Appeals.
2)A public hearing was advertised and held on 6/15 & 6/22/2010; and
3)This application is supported with all documentation, public comment and application
material in the file of record;
4)MOTION TO TABLE MODIFICATION SITE PLAN NO. 41-2010 ROBERT WING,
Introduced by Gretchen Steffan who moved for its adoption, seconded by Donald Sipp:
Tabled to the same date as the subdivision final stage application.
th
Duly adopted this 24 day of June, 2010, by the following vote:
AYES: Mr. Krebs, Mr. Ford, Mr. Jackoski, Mr. Magowan, Mrs. Steffan, Mr. Sipp,
Mr. Hunsinger
NOES: NONE
SITE PLAN NO. 11-2010 SEQR TYPE UNLISTED SCHERMERHORN RESIDENTIAL
HOLDINGS, L.P. AGENT(S) TOM NACE NACE ENGINEERING JON LAPPER, B P S R
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. CROSS REFERENCE SP 48-07, PZ 6-03 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, 179-7-060
JON LAPPER & TOM NACE, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT
MR. HUNSINGER-On the back table there is a sign in sheet. If anyone intends to make a public
comment during the public hearing, I would appreciate it if you would put your name on the list
so that we can call people by name to make comments. Also on the back table is a handout of
public hearing information which summarizes the purpose of the public hearing, and the
procedure for the public hearing. With that, Stu, if you want to summarize the Staff Notes for
me.
MR. BAKER-Certainly. With the Board’s permission, I’d just like to summarize the Staff Notes
by pointing out any outstanding items that were noted by Keith.
MR. HUNSINGER-That would be fine.
MR. BAKER-On Page SP-3 of the Site Plan, the Land Use Planner had previously noted that
bio retention basins might be an alternative to consider for stormwater management approach,
and he raises that point again. Notes that the applicant has now proposed walking trails to
include benches and a gazebo on the east end of the trail system. Any possible impacts dealing
with airborne pollutants from the Northway were addressed by subsequent submittals by the
applicant and should be addressed by the Planning Board during SEQRA, as should a traffic
study as well, and also to be considered during SEQRA is the potential impact on the remaining
property on which the applicant has suggested a 43,000 square foot office may be constructed
on. Staff Notes also note that the proposal to utilize the Town sanitary sewer infrastructure as
an out of district user will also need to be approved by the Town Board.
MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. Thank you, Stu. Before I turn it over to the applicant, we did have a
Planning Board member that wanted to make a comment. Brad?
MR. MAGOWAN-I would like to recuse myself from the proceedings. Is that all right?
MR. HUNSINGER-Yes, that’s fine. Okay. With that, I’ll turn the floor over to the applicant. If
you could identify yourselves for the record.
RICH SCHERMERHORN
MR. SCHERMERHORN-Yes. Rich Schermerhorn. My lawyer, Jon Lapper, and Tom Nace, my
th
engineer. We return tonight from our May 18 meeting. We were asked to address five items at
the last meeting, the turning radius of the fire trucks be put on the plan, identify the snow storage
locations, put the sign dimensions on the plan, as well as a request for landscaping on the West
2
(Queensbury Planning Board 06/24/2010)
Mountain corridor, and to put the proposed bike trail on the plan, which we have completed
those items, and previous outstanding items we’ve completed, but as always I’ve said we’re
always open for discussion. So that’s all I have at this time.
MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. Thank you. We’ll open it up for questions, comments from members
of the Board. Any questions or comments from Board members?
MRS. STEFFAN-I have a question about landscaping. I talked about white pine trees along the
border to fortify the existing trees that will remain between the disturbed area and the Northway
ramp, and so I’m not seeing that there. I know we talked about it. It wasn’t a condition of
approval.
MR. NACE-Gretchen, I believe that was before we moved the parking in back where remember
originally we had a road that went all the way around the facility, and with the parking in back,
the clearing for that road and parking got very close to the property line adjoining the Northway
ramp. When we rearranged the parking, all of a sudden that we were able to increase that
buffer to many times what it had been before, negating the need for the additional white pine
planting back there.
MRS. STEFFAN-My thought process, and I evaluated, you know, the buffer there, and my
thought process was, is the pine trees which, you know, the existing greenery that’s there is
predominantly white pine, and you know, as they grow up, there’s a lot of open space on the
bottom. The limbs die out, and my thought process was that if we fortify that with a white pine
hedge, I mean, you can put it pretty close together, anywhere from, the recommendations from
the forest service are like between eight and fifteen feet. The white pines grow together and it
becomes like a hedge. So there wouldn’t be, there would be undergrowth cover between the
parking lot and the Northway, and it would probably be over the next 40 years. I mean, that
would be a protector.
MR. SCHERMERHORN-Yes. I’m certainly be agreeable to that, and it’s coming back to me
now. When I got permission to remove the road that went around, the purpose for doing that is
because when I walked out there, I’m like, wow, this is really heavily vegetated and I certainly
want it for the privacy for the people that live in the building, and to shelter the building. So it is
really thickly wooded as it is, but I have no problem adding additional white pines, because I
hear what you’re saying, but it is pretty heavily vegetated now, but absolutely no problem adding
more.
MR. HUNSINGER-Other comments. Tom?
MR. FORD-I just have a question about the use of the white pine, if they will be, if they’re
planted close enough together, will they truly grow together and provide additional buffer, as
opposed to growing tall like the others that are there?
MRS. STEFFAN-It would take probably 40 to 60 years for them to grow tall enough so that, you
know, you’d have the same problem that you’re having within the existing buffer, and based on
the information that I looked up from the forest service, that if you’re planting them between eight
and ten feet apart, they will grow together and they will become like a hedge. It takes a long
time for a white pine to grow of any size.
MR. FORD-Because spruces obviously do that with regularity, and uniformity.
MRS. STEFFAN-And it’s just, on that particular spot, the soil is so sandy, and the white pines
are thriving there now, that I didn’t think there’d be any problem with them taking root and doing
what they need to be doing.
MR. SIPP-Well, that’s true, but if you walk out there and you walk along the edge of the
property. There’s a lot of undergrowth and scrub oak, and various other (lost words). So you’d
have to remove some of them in order to get the white pine in there, which I think is a good idea,
but I’m not so sure we’re gaining a heck of a lot.
MRS. STEFFAN-If the oak aren’t getting enough light, you know, my belief on that, Don, is that
the scrub oak underneath, if it’s not getting enough light, it’ll die out, I mean, it’ll stay brushy, but
the white pine will certainly.
MR. NACE-Gretchen, excuse me. Are you asking for a buffer along the Northway property line
or the planting at the edge of our clearing for the parking?
MRS. STEFFAN-At the edge of your clearing, so that it provides.
MR. NACE-Okay. In that case, I understand now.
3
(Queensbury Planning Board 06/24/2010)
MRS. STEFFAN-This green line, you know, and ending like right where the future parking
spaces might be, because that’s, obviously it’s overflow parking, but that would certainly protect
the development for seeing the Northway entrance, and then the Northway entrance, you know,
when you’re at car level looking through the trees into the backyard of that.
MR. SCHERMERHORN-Gretchen, that’s fine. If you want to pick a number, I mean, we
certainly can space them out four feet, six feet, and I think if we plant them on the clearing line,
like you suggest, you know, but I’m certainly, you know, whatever any of the Board members
want for that is fine.
MRS. STEFFAN-Okay.
MR. HUNSINGER-Any other comments, questions from members of the Board?
MRS. STEFFAN-The bio retention basins, the Staff made a comment about them, and I actually
went through and read, we had gotten a handout last June on stormwater management facts
and bio retention, and based on the information that I read, it certainly seemed like bio retention
was a good idea in the parking areas. Tom, I guess maybe you could refresh my memory on
why you don’t think it’s a good idea.
MR. NACE-Well, it’s not that it’s not a good idea. It’s just unnecessary. This is directly out of
the New York State Stormwater Manual. The bio retention, this is a selection table they have in
there, telling how different facilities are used, and bio retention is a filtering practice, and it’s
used as a shallow depression that treats stormwater as it flows through a soil matrix and is
returned to the storm drain system. So it’s just a filter. We are already filtering all of our
stormwater through 20 feet of good, well graded sand, where it gets more treatment, probably,
than it would through a bio retention filter.
MRS. STEFFAN-Okay.
MR. NACE-So typically the bio retention is used along parking lots where you’re going back into
a storm drain system that outlets to a stream or some other water course.
MR. SCHERMERHORN-And this did, because it did come up on Staff Notes the second time,
we had to get a signoff from the Town Engineer. That was part of the Staff Notes that went to
the Town Engineer. So he did review that as well. So it’s not something that got overlooked on,
I think anyone’s part, but.
MRS. STEFFAN-Right, you know, and it certainly identified, it was identified in the Staff Notes,
but based on the discussion the last time, the Land Use Planner recommended that we go and
read the bio retention information that we had received, and once I read it, it was like, why
wouldn’t we use it.
MR. NACE-We would if we were going to discharge stormwater course or somewhere where we
needed that additional treatment.
MRS. STEFFAN-That’s good. Thanks for the clarification.
MR. HUNSINGER-Other questions, comments from members of the Board?
MR. SIPP-I would like to question the part of this area that’s going to be in the future, and in the
size of the building and the amount of parking lot is I think at the maximum right now.
MR. LAPPER-Don, I want to explain that. For the sake of the SEQRA review, we wanted to just
show the maximum building that would be allowed under zoning, so that we would ask that the
traffic report address that, and the Board would have that number, but Rich has had a sign up to
lease or sell the property for the last few years, with nobody calling you. Right? No interest. So
there is no project planned. There is no tenant. There’s been no interest. That is not part of this
project, but just for the sake of your SEQRA review, we wanted to show under current zoning
what the maximum size building you could have if there was ever demand for it. More likely, as
we’ve discussed, there would be a series of smaller buildings. That’s probably a more realistic
development on that side of Town, maybe a few medical offices, what have you, but for the sake
of SEQRA, we’re just explaining what the maximum could be, but there’s absolutely no plan.
MR. SCHERMERHORN-And then again, as I stated for the record, it definitely would be, as you
know, subject to Site Plan Review again, to come back here. So it’s not like once this project is
approved, I can go forward with something else. I definitely would have to be back in front of
this Board again.
4
(Queensbury Planning Board 06/24/2010)
MR. SIPP-I just wanted that understanding that if that was the maximum, that has to be the
maximum.
MR. LAPPER-Yes.
MR. SCHERMERHORN-Right, and I certainly discussed this at length last meeting, and the first
one, and I honestly don’t think that a large office building at this time, with the past, with the
neighbors and where the traffic issues are out there, I think that would be way off, and again, like
I said, I’d be subject to Site Plan Review and so we just showed the maximum because if we
didn’t show it, then we’d be questioned why we didn’t show the maximum build out.
MR. SIPP-And that would standardize or leave you with how many cars you could possibly have
going in there and not get into the traffic problem we got into last time.
MR. LAPPER-That was all in the traffic letter that we submitted.
MRS. STEFFAN-And certainly the maximum build out that was provided for us is substantially
less than the last proposal that was before us. So between this square footage, the proposed
professional office square footage, and the senior development, it would be far less than the
traffic report identified in the road usage for the prior use, and the Exit 20 corridor study that was
presented, several folks on the Planning Board attended that, you know, there are deficiencies
of that exit ramp. There’s no doubt about it. I mean, it doesn’t look like there’ll be any money in
the near future to expand the bridge over the Northway. It will remain two lanes, and so the
carrying capacity that’s there is the carrying capacity that’s going to be there for a long time.
MR. LAPPER-That’s why a senior project is a great idea because of the low traffic generation.
MRS. STEFFAN-Right.
MR. FORD-Good.
MRS. STEFFAN-That’s one of the reasons I’m in favor of it. It certainly meets the needs based
on the last development.
MR. KREBS-When we were talking about the original office project, you were talking about
sizing the pipes that you were going to put under the Northway, so that, if, in fact, West Mount
wanted to connect to that. Is that still your intention?
MR. SCHERMERHORN-Yes. Well, we have to go back to Town Board to get approvals.
Should I get approvals for this project, I have to go back to the Town Board. They’re more than
likely going to dictate what they’re going to want me to do as far as sizing.
MR. KREBS-Okay. I just thought that was a significant advantage to add that project that today
doesn’t have sewage.
MR. SCHERMERHORN-Right. Yes. Normally the Town Board and the, they’ll consult with the
sewer department anyway and they’ll advise what they want us to do. So that certainly is never
up to the developer or the applicant.
MR. HUNSINGER-Mr. Ford, did you have a comment?
MR. FORD-Yes. I would like counsel, if you’d be good enough to review the guidelines for us for
segmentation, because this is a large parcel that’s only going to be partially addressed through
this project. Could you give us the guidelines that we are to follow, please.
MR. HILL-Sure. I understand your concern is with regard to whether, for SEQRA review
purposes, the project is being segmented here?
MR. FORD-Correct.
MR. HILL-I think the answer to that is no, because the applicant is asking you to consider the
maximum possible build out on the remainder of the property, in addition to the project that’s
being proposed now. Now the applicant has said that there’s no specific plan for the
development of the remainder of the property, but nonetheless, for your SEQRA review
purposes, the applicant is saying, please treat it as if the remainder of the property were to be
developed to the maximum extent possible, and so, for purposes of your SEQRA analysis, that’s
the right approach, to assume maximum build out on the remainder of the property, in addition to
what’s actually being proposed. That means that you’re evaluating what the maximum potential
environmental impacts on the property would be. So that’s the right approach, and that avoids
5
(Queensbury Planning Board 06/24/2010)
any concern about segmentation. If they were to say, for example, we’ve got a plan for an office
building on the remainder of the property, but we’ll be back in a month with the plans for that,
and don’t worry about that now. Then you would be in a situation where you would potentially
have segmentation issues, but that’s not what’s going on here. In fact the opposite approach is
being taken. They’re saying assume the maximum build out on the remainder.
MR. FORD-Thank you for that clarification for all of us.
MR. HILL-You’re welcome.
MR. HUNSINGER-One of the comments that we received, I think it was in a written comment,
there was concern raised by one of the neighbors about inducing additional development
because of the sewer extension, and we had asked, at the last meeting, you know, the size and
capacity, and I think the answer was a little different than what you just gave this evening,
because I think at that point you were only proposing that the pipe would only be sized
specifically just for this project.
MR. NACE-That is correct. However, the physical facts are that sewer main has to be sized to
meet DEC standards, to a minimum size. At that minimum size, there is additional capacity. Mr.
Schermerhorn’s not building the sewer, or the pump station for that additional capacity. It just
happens to be there because we’re less than the minimum, we require less than the minimum
size standards the DEC allows. So it’s up to the Town, in the future.
MR. LAPPER-What are you talking about, a four inch pipe?
MR. NACE-We’re talking about a four inch pipe, four inch force main, which is the minimum size
that they allow from a regular pump station.
MR. HUNSINGER-Well, if I recall, the other part of the answer that you also gave was that you
were only seeking a single user extension.
MR. SCHERMERHORN-A contract user.
MR. HUNSINGER-Contract user, I’m sorry.
MR. SCHERMERHORN-Right. I’m not turning this over to the Town because we would be
considered a private contract user.
MR. HUNSINGER-Okay.
MR. LAPPER-Rich was just saying that the Town Board.
MR. SCHERMERHORN-I just said what I said to answer Mr. Krebs. I mean, the Town Board
pretty much will dictate, they haven’t indicated or talked to me about it, but if they said, Rich, we
want it to be this, well, I’m going to shake my head and say yes, for West Mount.
MR. LAPPER-But it’s not your plan.
MR. SCHERMERHORN-No.
MR. HUNSINGER-So, I mean, I just wanted to make sure that the record was clear, though, that
there was no other users anticipated, other than the possibility of West Mount.
MR. SCHERMERHORN-No, and at this time the Town has not approached me. I’m just
applying for myself for my project.
MR. HUNSINGER-Okay.
MRS. STEFFAN-I have a question for counsel, then. Does the Planning Board have the ability
to limit the connectivity of the sewer that goes under the Northway? Like where we are
approving it as part of this project, but.
MR. HILL-To put a limitation on the size of the line you mean the diameter of the pipe or?
MRS. STEFFAN-What it could be connected to. What I’m getting at, there’s a piece of property
next to Rich Schermerhorn’s property at the end of the road. Say a convenience store wanted
to go in there, and they wanted to be connected to the excess sewer capacity that the Town
Board might appropriate for that line, and if that’s not what the Planning Board wants with
approving this application, do we have the ability to limit the connectivity. As the applicant just
6
(Queensbury Planning Board 06/24/2010)
described, the Town Board may want to size this so that they can connect to West Mount
Infirmary. Well, what happens if some day the Town sells that property off to a commercial user
and they want to put a hotel there? That’s part of planning. That’s part of the what if’s I think we
have to ask ourselves.
MR. HILL-I think that I’m probably going to have to get back to the Board on that question. I
don’t know the answer with certainty. My sense is that I believe that it would probably be
beyond your jurisdiction to impose a restriction on the size of the line or limit the use of the line
in the future, but we would need to research that question and get back to you on that. I don’t
want to say so definitively.
MR. SCHERMERHORN-I think I can address it adequately. I mean, I’m happy to say, for the
record, that it’s conditioned for my parcel of land only. Town Board could look at it differently. I
know you can make the recommendation that it stays a contract user, but, if, for example,
Warren County decided to sell Health and Human Service building and the property up in back,
again, remember nothing would prevent a developer from doing just what I’m doing, is to go
from Route 9, directional bore under the Northway, under a separate application. So, yes, we
could restrict mine, but they could come in and do the same thing, grant the approvals and be
back in front of.
MRS. STEFFAN-I was going to say, they’d have to be in front of us to do that.
MR. SCHERMERHORN-Right.
MR. HUNSINGER-But it would certainly be more expensive to bore underneath the highway
again than to just tap into yours.
MR. SCHERMERHORN-Yes. I mean, I’m happy to share costs with you. I already have a cost
to bore under the Northway. It’s $125,000 to go from Route 9 over. That’s a cost within the last
30 days I’ve received. So that’s what it would probably cost another developer to do the same
thing. Now granted they’d have to get approval from everyone, just like I’ve received, the State,
DEC and all that. So, I’m happy to condition it, Gretchen, to say my property only, but when we
go in front of the Town Board, they may have a different thought process.
MRS. STEFFAN-Right.
MR. SCHERMERHORN-Honestly, I know the concern here is people are thinking, geez, is it
going to run rampant, where development, it could go up Gurney Lane, and if you remember, in
the very beginning, I really wanted to, because the soils are so good, I wanted to keep the
project on a septic system, but it was highly recommended by some of the Planning Board
members, they wanted me to tie it into the sewer, but if there was a way we could condition it,
I’m agreeable with you, but then one would think that I’m not agreeable with the Town if they
want, but again, like I said, they can run their own sewer underneath the Northway just like I did.
MRS. STEFFAN-Right. Okay. It’s just, based on all of the public hearings that we’ve had over
the three presentations you’ve had for the project, I mean, I think we know the sentiments of the
folks in the area, and with that extra lot at the end, which is zoned so that a convenience store
gas station could go in there.
MR. SCHERMERHORN-Right, and I’ve said for the record, I mean, probably most people
wouldn’t say this, but I would encourage the neighbors that have had the concerns to get out,
get to the Town Board, and when we do our next rezone maybe, you know, I don’t want to shoot
myself in the foot, but I wouldn’t even try to come in here with a convenience store but it is
zoned right now for convenience store with gas pumps. I made that clear last time.
MRS. STEFFAN-And I heard you.
MR. SCHERMERHORN-So I would encourage the neighbors to at least zone it to, you know,
office or whatever we are now, but it is currently zoned for a convenience store on that corner.
MR. HUNSINGER-Any other questions, comments from the Board?
MR. FORD-Not at the moment.
MR. HUNSINGER-Did everyone have an opportunity to sign the sheet, that wants to speak at
th
the public hearing? We did leave the public hearing open from the May 18 meeting. And
again, in the back of the room there is a handout for the public hearing process and procedure.
Stu, after they’re done, could you grab the sign-in sheet for me, please, and since people did
sign in, I’ll call people in the order that they signed up and you can come and speak. I would
7
(Queensbury Planning Board 06/24/2010)
ask, as we did at the last public hearing, that people keep their comments to no more than three
minutes, and we will have a timer going. When you hear the beep you’ll know that your time is
up, and there was extensive written comments that were received that were distributed to the
Board members and included in the official record that the Board has reviewed. So there is
already quite a bit of public comment that’s been received, and I would ask if you could state
your name for the record after you sit down.
PUBLIC HEARING OPEN
MR. HUNSINGER-Having said that, the first name on the list is Mr. Linke.
RICHARD LINKE
MR. LINKE-I’m Richard Linke up on Gurney Lane Road. I have a question for the Town
Attorney who just seemed to be comfortable with segmentation, and I would like to ask how in
the world does he think that the Board would be able to assess the visual impact of these office
buildings that may be there in the future when there are no elevations and it’s part of the SEQRA
process to evaluate the visual environment. So how is that possible.
MR. HILL-Well, first of all, I want to make it clear, I’m not at all comfortable with segmentation,
and that’s exactly why I pointed out in the example that I gave to the Board that if the applicant
was saying that we have a plan for an office building but we don’t want to bother you with that
now, we’ll be back in a month or two months, that would give rise to segmentation concerns.
MR. LINKE-Would you answer the question about the visual buffer and the ability for the Board
to assess that condition, please.
MR. HILL-I certainly will try to do that for you. In circumstances like that, the Board can assume
what the reasonable maximum environmental impacts will be from development of the
remainder of the parcel, without there being a specific proposal, without there being specific
elevation. It’s a commonly accepted practice in SEQRA review.
MR. LINKE-Okay. So I think the Board could assume, under worst case scenario, that it would
be horrendous, if you’d like to use your imagination as he suggests. I sent a letter to the Town
Board, or the Planning Staff about what I thought was a problem with getting information about
known health risks to the public and on the public record, and I have a note here that says that
my concerns will be read into the record the night of the project meeting during the public
hearing. Is that going to happen?
MR. HUNSINGER-Yes, absolutely.
MR. LINKE-Okay. When is that going to happen, after people have talked?
MR. HUNSINGER-After, the normal procedure is after members of the audience get up and
speak during the public hearing, then we can read any written correspondence.
MR. LINKE-Don’t you think it would be a good idea if members of the audience heard about
health effects and negative health effects of building so close to the Northway, before they had a
chance to talk. Then maybe they could make some comments on that, but let me continue. I
would like to just forward the last 14 signatures from the petition that area residents turned in.
So I’m going to give you the last 14. This brings the number up to 150, and I assume that some
of my time was taken up by the attorney so I’m going to keep talking just a little bit longer, but
not very long. We have 150 people who signed the petition with specific comments, and cover
the comments that I had already given them about the health concerns of building so close to
the Northway and the other visual effects, but I would like to just remind the Board that this is
150 of the closest neighbors to the project, 150 property owners, residents. I did not stand out in
front of Sokols and just ask anybody who came along to sign the petition. These people took it
on their own initiative to mail these back to you, basically, through me to you, to indicate, 150,
and by the way, that 150 represents just about a 90% return, 90% of the residents within a four
square mile, 90% say we do not think that this is a good idea, and I’ll just close by saying I sure
wish that someone would start talking about the health effects, and I would like to ask the
attorney right now if, if there are known negative health effects that are universally accepted,
that are published by the APA, and that are in fact in the Town saying that we shouldn’t be
building residences close to the Interstate highway, it’s in your own Code. It’s nationally
recognized, universally recognized. So I’m asking the attorney please how could the Board
approve building so close to the Northway, building residences so close to the Northway, given
the known health effects.
8
(Queensbury Planning Board 06/24/2010)
MR. HUNSINGER-The attorney doesn’t need to answer that. The purpose of the public hearing
is for you to present information to the Board and to ask questions of the Board. It’s not for
every individual citizen to have all of their questions or comments answered. I’m sorry, Mr.
Linke, I think that would be out of order. Just to satisfy your comment, though, we do have a
dissertation that was provided by the applicant that is on record that the Planning Board
members have all reviewed, and we will certainly be discussing at the conclusion of the public
hearing.
MR. LINKE-And you, the Board members, feel comfortable that you have all the information that
you need from your Staff about negative health effects of building so close to the Northway.
You’re about to maybe approve this. I certainly hope that you have the proper information.
MR. HUNSINGER-Thank you. The next person on the list is Jane Macintosh.
JANE MACINTOSH
MS. MACINTOSH-Thank you very much. I’m Jane Macintosh. I also live on Gurney Lane, and I
was going to read one of the letters that I think you’re referring to when you say that you have
th
already received comments. I sent a letter, dated May 20, which I think you have.
MR. HUNSINGER-Yes. It was distributed to everyone on the Board.
MS. MACINTOSH-Okay. Thank you.
MR. HUNSINGER-And a copy is in the record.
MS. MACINTOSH-Thank you very much, and then I also assume that you got a letter from Mr.
Linke about what some of your, sort of reminding the Board what some of your options are in
terms of the requests and the restrictions you can put on this project. Did you receive that
letter?
MR. HUNSINGER-What’s the date of that letter?
th
MS. MACINTOSH-Dated June 18.
MR. HUNSINGER-That must be, will be read into the record this evening.
MR. LINKE-No, that’s a different letter. There were two letters.
MS. MACINTOSH-Okay. Well, can you, are you able to identify what you received?
th
MR. HUNSINGER-If you’re referring to an e-mail that was forwarded by Mr. Linke on June 18.
MS. MACINTOSH-Is that the same thing as the letter?
MR. LINKE-No.
MS. MACINTOSH-No. The letter was sent to Staff. Is that right?
MR. LINKE-I sent it to Mr. Hunsinger and the Queensbury Town Planning Board. You were
supposed to have gotten this from Staff, and if you haven’t received this from Staff, it’s criminal.
MR. BAKER-I do have copies of that for the Board.
MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. Thank you, Stu.
MS. MACINTOSH-Is that something that will go into the record, or should I read that?
MR. HUNSINGER-It’s already in the record.
MS. MACINTOSH-Okay. I do have a question about some of the material that gets submitted,
and if something goes into the record, does it actually become part of the minutes of the
Planning Board meeting? Can anybody answer that?
MR. HUNSINGER-Is that question, any written correspondence that is submitted to Staff is put
in the file, and is part of the official record, whether it’s read into the minutes or not, it’s still part
of the official record.
MS. MACINTOSH-Okay.
9
(Queensbury Planning Board 06/24/2010)
MR. HUNSINGER-Because we’re not going to read into the record, you know, a 10 page letter.
MS. MACINTOSH-Right.
MR. HUNSINGER-That we’ve all reviewed, but it is on file. Planning Board members have
received copies of it.
MS. MACINTOSH-Okay.
MR. HUNSINGER-When we get a one page letter such as this, the standard practice is to read
the letter into the record the night of the meeting.
MS. MACINTOSH-Okay.
th
MR. HUNSINGER-Now I actually wanted to thank you, because in your letter dated May 20,
you identified a weakness in our policies and procedures where we don’t have it posted on the
Internet.
MS. MACINTOSH-Right.
MR. HUNSINGER-We do have a formal policy and procedure, but in there it is not clear, I mean,
we have practices that we follow.
MS. MACINTOSH-Right.
MR. HUNSINGER-And Staff understands those practices, but it’s not written anywhere what the
practice is for written comment that’s greater than one page that’s read into the record, and we
will address that.
MS. MACINTOSH-Right. Okay. Well, that’s much appreciated. It’s a real mystery to the public.
MR. HUNSINGER-So that was one of the problems that happened with Mr. Linke’s letter.
MS. MACINTOSH-Right.
MR. HUNSINGER-And quite frankly it is the primary reason why I wanted to table this
application last month was so that the Board would have an opportunity to read Mr. Linke’s letter
and to take into consideration everything that was said.
MS. MACINTOSH-Well, thank you very much for explaining that, and as far as anything else,
other comments tonight, I would like to comment on a couple of things that have been said, and
one is about the sewer line. First of all, the Town doesn’t own West Mount. The Town really
doesn’t have a say about what West Mount will or will not do, and if I understand things
correctly, the Town has the ability to put some technical requirements on the sewer line.
Evidently from what we’ve heard they could require a minimum four inch line, but it really is not
up to the Town, as far as I understand, to make recommendations or any kind of decisions or
any kind of proclamations about how that line is to be used. Can the attorney address that?
Because it really is the question of induced growth that you do have to look at here.
MR. HILL-I think, as I said before, I’m not going to attempt to answer that question definitively
this evening. If the Board wishes, we can research the extent of your authority to impose
conditions on sewer lines that are parts of projects and get back to you with an answer on that
question, if that’s what the Board wishes.
MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. Thank you.
MS. MACINTOSH-My other question that I’d like clarified, I was under the impression that the
actual tip of the property, which is not under consideration tonight, is mostly owned by Mr.
Schermerhorn, and someone made the comment that the County owns it. The County owns a
tiny piece of that tip. Is that correct? Can anybody clarify?
MR. HUNSINGER-We can have that clarified by Mr. Schermerhorn.
MS. MACINTOSH-Okay, and then the other part of that question is, it’s my understanding that
that tip is also zoned office, the office zoning, that there is no difference in the zoning between
that tip and the remainder of the parcel, the larger parcel that he owns, and sure he has,
whether a convenience store gas station is a good idea for that corner or not is a separate
debate, but there’s also an option for professional office for that corner, and from my reading of
10
(Queensbury Planning Board 06/24/2010)
the zoning, he could build a 28,000 foot office building on that corner, plus two, I believe, 23,000
foot office buildings on the site that he’s talking about now. As far as the segmentation question
goes, and assessing, yes, they have provided information on traffic, they’ve provided traffic
figures and traffic information as if the parcel was built out to the maximum, in other words,
including those two 23,000 square foot buildings, they’ve provided traffic figures and I believe
they’ve provided, I believe they’ve planned their water runoff and their water handling systems
for those two additional office buildings, but there’s no information being presented in terms of
visual impact, and the question of buffering, and the way things stand, they’re telling you that
there’s a 300 foot buffer between West Mountain Road and the apartment buildings, and if I
understand the segmentation issue, you really can’t consider that a 300 foot buffer because
within that 300 foot buffer, if you consider full build out, there will be two 23,000 square foot
office buildings. So, in other words, there is no 300 foot buffer between West Mountain Road
and the project. That’s my point.
MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. Did you have anything else?
MS. MACINTOSH-That’s it. I just want to emphasize that you do, I know this has been said
before, or it’s at least been said in the letter, you do have the option to request changes to this
project. You do have the option, you do not have to accept it as it stands. You do have the
authority to require larger setbacks. You have the authority to require a smaller building. You
have a tremendous amount of authority to alter the impacts of this project. You can require that
the building be dark color, so that it’s not so obvious from both sides, both roads that it sits
between. You have a tremendous amount of opportunity to modify this project, and I urge you to
take some of that authority and, for the sake of the neighborhood, modify this project.
MR. HUNSINGER-Thank you. Next on the list is Mr. Franklin. Good evening.
DENNIS FRANKLIN
MR. FRANKLIN-Good evening. Dennis Franklin, West Mountain Road. The last time we met
and I said that this was a waste of time, Mr. Schermerhorn took issue with that, and I’ve got to
clarify that. The reason we’re all wasting our time here is because the Town Board spot re-
zoned this piece of property, and the reason they used was it was not fit for residential
habitation, and that’s the trick they used to spot re-zone it, and then Mr. Stec further said that it
would be a transition zone of small professional offices to serve the neighborhood. It’s not Mr.
Schermerhorn’s fault that Mr. Stec has never completely defined what he meant. Consequently
we go round and round and round on this. This is a Town Board problem. So, that I clarify.
Things I wish you’d look at specifically. I’m very concerned about the traffic. We had a different
traffic study that said vehicles coming out of the entrance to this property, and the sight distance
from someone going south on West Mountain Road, I look at it all the time. I think it would be
very easily solved, it would solve a lot of things, if it were a right turn only exit. Since we can
assume most people are going to go shopping, go to a doctor, go somewhere, not necessarily
down West Mountain Road, or Mountain Road by the Prospect School. This would solve a lot of
problems with too much traffic on West Mountain Road as it is now. There’s plenty of
opportunity for people that make a U-turn, safely, once they are away from that entrance. I wish
you would consider that. As far as the stormwater drainage, the percolation on that soil is so
fast you can’t even count it. It’s course, concrete sand. It filters nothing. There are other areas
of that property that are solid sandstone, that are impermeable. Bio treatment of the stormwater
is viable. I wish you would reconsider it. You need borings where these things are to be placed,
because you don’t know what you’re getting into, but if you put it in that concrete sand, it’s going
to end up in Rush Pond, just as quick as you can wink your eye. It’s a good idea there are no
septic systems there, but the stormwater should be treated the same way. It shouldn’t be
running untreated into Rush Pond. Anyway, thank you all very much.
MR. HUNSINGER-You’re welcome. Thank you.
MRS. STEFFAN-Thank you.
MR. HUNSINGER-Mrs. Franklin.
KATHY FRANKLIN
MRS. FRANKLIIN-I’m Kathy Franklin. I live next door to the proposed whatever this is we’re
proposing. I sort of wish I could have spoken after the health effects of living next to a thruway
had been read into the record. When this all started, I don’t remember how long ago, there were
the 14 houses that were proposed for this site. I thought that was a good idea. It sounded
reasonable to me, and the Town said that they wanted to rezone this because they thought that
residential use was dangerous. That’s what the Town said. I was very skeptical about that. I
thought, I live here, I don’t seem to have very many problems. That was 14 houses in the cul de
11
(Queensbury Planning Board 06/24/2010)
sac basically protected by the old quarry. This is 60 old folks. I’m sorry, I don’t mean to be
ageist, but 60 people whose systems are already potentially stressed by being older living over
a traffic ramp, and when I received the letter that Richard Linke sent with some of the
stipulations about what happens to people living in those situations, I called my father to talk
about it, and he said, you know, I turned blue when I was a baby, and we had to move from
Hoboken to Parks Look in Brooklyn because just the traffic at the base of the street where lived,
he lived on a third floor apartment as a baby, he began to suffocate. There was not enough
oxygen in the room, because of what was generated. Now that’s Hoboken many years ago, but
his point I think is pretty good. What are we going to do when, five years down the line, people
who live in this building get sick, really sick, and can’t live in the building. What are we going to
do with the building then, and what’s the Town’s liability, the Planning Board’s liability, not to say
their, you know not to say everybody’s moral, I’m sorry, I can’t think of t he word, but basically
what’s our responsibility if these people get sick and we knew, and we know, from what he
researched and what he’s found, that it’s a very dangerous place to live right above an interstate
highway. I’ve got a lot of other things that I’m not wild about. I don’t understand why we have to
have a three story building. There’s no other three story building on this side of the highway for
100 miles, and a two story building would show a lot less. There’s a lot of heavy pines in that
area that’ll protect a building of two stories. Not much would protect a three story silhouette.
You’re going to see it from everywhere, that’s one of my other problems, but the thing that really
gets me at this point is that the Town said we wanted to protect people. That’s why it’s not
residential, and now we have, you know, 60 old folks. Thanks.
MR. HUNSINGER-Thank you.
MRS. STEFFAN-Thank you.
MR. HUNSINGER-Is there anyone else that wanted to address the Board on this project?
Because there were no other names on the list. Okay. If there are no other takers, we will
terminate the public comments for this evening. Stu, I know there were at least a few
th
correspondence, including the e-mail from Mr. Linke of June 18.
MR. LINKE-Excuse me. There’s a paper here that Jane left I’d like to get.
th
MR. BAKER-Yes. In terms of public comment received, we do have the e-mail of June 18 from
Mr. Linke addressed to Chairman Hunsinger. It was also addressed to myself and to Keith
Oborne. I don’t know if you want that entire e-mail read. It does include his e-mail of, I’m sorry,
th
his letter of May 14 in this e-mail. It’s about four pages total.
MR. HUNSINGER-Well, I was thinking if you could just read the e-mail itself and not the
th
information from the May 14 letter.
MR. BAKER-Yes. “In regards to the current Schermerhorn/Planning Board considerations. In
th
my letter to the planning board, hand delivered to staff on May 14 2010, I presented clear and
documented scientific evidence that building residences close to interstate highways poses
certain health risks to occupants. I requested that the Planning Board, and/or staff, present
documentation to illuminate this issue and to demonstrate that the known health risks are not of
sufficient concern to require more adequate set back from the Northway. I also made it know in
my letter, that the interstate ramp because of speed change and acceleration, is considered to
be even more of a pollution generator than a straight high speed run of highway. In his opening
remarks to the Planning Board members at the May 18 meeting, Mr. Oborne, made only a short
one sentence comment that “there was some concern about respiratory health”, but did not
qualify, quantify or elaborate on how significant the issue really is. Nor did Mr. Oborne mention
or remind the board members that Queensbury’s own code states that it is unsafe and unhealthy
to be building residence so close to the Northway! Significantly Mr. Oborne did not forward my
letter or any of its information regarding health risks, to the board prior to the beginning of the
meeting. In my view this was intentional and unethical. He was sitting at his desk at the
meeting with twelve copies of my ten page document…it is highly unlikely that he “forgot” to
th
deliver. If at the next meeting on this June 25, Staff does not present a well-prepared,
thorough report to the board, on the adverse health risks of building so close to the interstate,
and present studies and documentation that is it indeed considered safe, I believe that very lack
of proper study and documentation would be considered negligence. Richard J. Linke June 18,
th
2010” And he attached his original correspondence of May 14 which was distributed to the
Board that evening.
MR. HUNSINGER-Right. Were there any other written comments?
th
MR. BAKER-Yes. There is the letter of June 18 from Mr. Linke, which was distributed to the
Board this evening. This is one page. I’ll read it in its entirety. Letter to Chairman Hunsinger
and the Queensbury Town Planning Board. The number of Queensbury tax-paying
12
(Queensbury Planning Board 06/24/2010)
homeowners live near the proposed Schermerhorn apartment complex who have returned their
petition forms in opposition to the project is now 150 citizens. This represents a very significant
90% return in opposition. Ninety percent of the neighbors are in clear opposition! As I have
already expressed – and 150 people have agreed – as proposed, this apartment complex will be
situated too close to the Northway for the health of future residents. As proposed, this
apartment complex will be too large to blend in with the character of the neighborhood. As
proposed, the project’s inadequate building set-backs and vegetative buffering will cause
adverse visual and aesthetic impacts to three of Queensbury’s acclaimed scenic roads. Please
remember that, as the Town Planning Board, you DO have the authority to require changes to
the applicant’s plans. You do not have to accept the plans as they stand. You have the
authority to require the apartments be set back significantly further from the Northway entrance
ramp – I would ask for 300 feet at least, planted with thick and mixed vegetation – for health and
visual buffering reasons. You DO have the authority to ask the applicant to scale the building
down to one story, so it has less visual impact and its non-conforming character is less obvious.
And you DO have the authority to require more information, including drawings, of the two future
office buildings. If the applicant cannot provide plans for those two buildings, you DO have the
authority to require he subdivide the property and create a separate parcel for future
development. If he does not want to show complete plans, and does not want to subdivide, you
can also condition approval of the apartment project on the requirement that he not put any
more buildings on the existing lot. Finally, you can REQUIRE that the applicant bond his
landscaping plan to ensure the long-range survival of all new trees, shrubs, and other vegetation
– and the buffering it is supposed to supply. Please do not forget: the Northway’s southbound
entrance ramp at this site, because of proximity to high numbers of accelerating, speed-
changing trucks and cars, is scientifically proven to be even more polluting than a normal
straight-run section of constant-speed highway. The apartment building, as proposed, should
be set back a minimum of 300 ft. from the Northway for health reasons, and for aesthetic
reasons, to preserve existing vegetation. Given the required 300 ft. setback from West Mtn.
Road, and for other reasons mentioned above, the building needs to be downsized significantly.
You DO have the authority to require this change. You DO have the authority to require an
Environmental Impact Study. Richard J. Linke June 18, 2010” The Board also received a
letter dated May 20, 2010 from Jane Macintosh, and this is the lengthy letter that was referred to
earlier, and that is in the file and part of the record. There is also an additional two page letter
th
from Jane Macintosh dated May 18 to the Planning Board. I don’t know if you’d like this read in
full.
MR. HUNSINGER-Was that, do you know if that was read into the record at the last meeting? I
believe it was, Stu.
MR. BAKER-Okay, and I believe that covers the new correspondence.
MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. Thank you. Okay. I didn’t mean to put you on the spot, but you did
provide us with a summary of the information that you had obtained on the health effects of
interstates on residences.
MR. LAPPER-Yes. After the last hearing, we had these allegations from Mr. Linke, so we
actually downloaded the reports, and read them and provided them, and as you’ve seen from
what we’ve submitted, these were in Los Angeles County and industrialized Germany, and not
in any way applicable to Warren County, New York. We also went and checked the counties in
New York State and in the country where there are airborne pollutant concerns, and Warren
County is not one of those. So we just think it is really misleading to try and take studies from
Los Angeles, California where we know there’s serious issues with smog and airborne pollutants
and try and make an analogy to Warren County. Beyond that Tom Nace as shown that we’re
now something like 360 feet from the travel lane, the building is 360 feet from the travel lane,
and we’ve moved it back significantly from the entrance ramp after we were able to eliminate
those parking spaces and that drive aisle. So, I think that what we’ve submitted addresses it.
MR. SCHERMERHORN-And I just want to address what Chris said. I’m certainly here to
answer any questions, again, but we’ve all spent, like I said at the last meeting, we’ve all spent a
lot of time over the last couple of years on this particular property. I do appreciate what Mr.
Franklin said. I don’t know if it’s unfortunate or fortunate for me, I’m not sure which, but I’m just
following, again, the zoning rules, laws, regulations. I didn’t write them, I just follow them, and I
certainly always respect public input, and the four individuals that spoke tonight, the information
that was provided tonight is not any new information that was provided. It’s stuff that we’ve been
addressing, not just this application but my previous one, but I guess, again, I’m at this point
where I have addressed what’s been put in front of the Board. We’ve had the signoffs from
Health Department, DEC, the Town of Queensbury engineer, and I’ve addressed, at each of the
few meetings we’ve had now, the concerns of the Board, and as always, I always am willing to
add things, but I certainly think we’re at a point where I have complied, and I hope we can get to
a point where it may not be satisfactory for everyone, but again, I think we’re at that point where
13
(Queensbury Planning Board 06/24/2010)
I certainly, I don’t know if I could really do anymore, other than not do anything at all, to satisfy
some of the concerns.
MR. HUNSINGER-Additional questions, comments from members of the Board?
MR. KREBS-Well, I would just comment that I think that they’ve answered the questions that
we’ve asked them to, and tonight Rich agreed that he will add those additional trees to the land
so that you’re going to screen it even more than it is today. I don’t know what else you can ask
him to do, and by the way, I did an independent study myself, and basically the information that I
got concurs with the applicant’s lawyer’s comment, and that is that the reports were done in
heavily metropolitan areas, and if you’ve ever driven south from San Francisco, there are
hundreds of thousands of apartments that are right along the highways. The same thing is true
in San Francisco, I mean, LA, and that’s where they did the studies.
MR. HUNSINGER-Any other questions, comments from the Board members?
MRS. STEFFAN-One of the comments that Mr. Franklin made was perhaps to have a right turn
only out of the site, and I’ve looked at the plan and I’ve evaluated that, and based on the
population that is going to be living at this, you know, potential site, I actually think that, yes, they
could take a right out and go on the Northway, and they may do that, but I think it’s more likely
that folks would want to go on the West Mountain corridor and use the back roads, like the
Mountain View Lane to go to Sokols and, you know, there’s a bank there and those kinds of
things, or, I just, I guess I would hate to put in a structure that would lead people to the Northway
versus the back roads. I mean, this is a 60 unit development, and 60 cars, you know, will that
effect traffic? Of course it will, but will it affect it to a remarkable extent? I’m not so sure about
that, based upon the population that’s going to be living there and the patterns of usage I believe
that they’ll have, I’m not as concerned. The sight distances.
MR. LAPPER-We’ve provided the sight distances.
MR. HUNSINGER-Yes. In fact, I just pulled the letter up. I’m sorry to interrupt, but what the
engineer’s say is recommended is 555 feet, and you have 560 feet available, and there’s only a
little bit of wiggle room, you know. I’m sorry, Gretchen.
MRS. STEFFAN-No, but also on that particular road, I mean, it’s a fast road, West Mountain.
There’s no doubt about it. The speed limit’s too high, but we don’t have control over that in the
Town of Queensbury, but the other thing is that folks who are from the area know that they’re
coming to an intersection and they usually start to slow down by the time they get to that space,
at least a reasonable person does, and so I think that, I don’t know if I support the right turn only
concept. I think it’s worth considering, but I don’t think I support that. I wondered if Tom Nace
could talk about the sand and the sandstone issue that Mr. Franklin brought up. He obviously
lives in the area. He’s donated some property.
MR. KREBS-Gretchen, before we leave that, can I just say that I agree with you. I think you
would actually, with a right turn only, be causing more traffic problems, because now you’re
going to be sending these people down to the intersection of the Exit 20 north ramp, where you
already have high traffic. I’d much prefer to have the ability to go both ways.
MRS. STEFFAN-Yes. So, Tom, could you address that sandstone and the quality of the sand?
MR. NACE-I don’t know where he’s getting the sandstone, where he’s finding it. We did borings
for the building. We did test pits for the land in general for the stormwater, and originally we had
done test pits for septic. We did not run into any sandstone or rock of any kind.
MRS. STEFFAN-At the location of this building.
MR. NACE-At the location. There are test pits where the stormwater basin is designed. They
did not run into any sandstone. The borings for the building did not run into any sandstone.
That went down 50 feet.
MRS. STEFFAN-Okay.
MR. NACE-So I’m not sure where he is referring to the sandstone. Certainly not on the site that
I’m aware of.
MRS. STEFFAN-Is this building indeed tan?
MR. LAPPER-Yes.
14
(Queensbury Planning Board 06/24/2010)
MRS. STEFFAN-I just want to make sure it’s not like off white. It’s tan.
MR. LAPPER-Yes.
MRS. STEFFAN-Tan siding.
MR. SCHERMERHORN-Yes. I’ve been subject to a lot of these requests for earth tone colors.
That is an architectural green shingle, and that is an architectural, or a sand, earth tone sand
tone theme on that building, with cultured stone, which is an Adirondack River Rock they call it.
MRS. STEFFAN-Okay. What color are the shutters? They look maroon.
MR. SCHERMERHORN-They’re green.
MRS. STEFFAN-They’re green?
MR. SCHERMERHORN-Yes.
MR. HUNSINGER-And then the tan highlight color on the vertical siding, is that a different color?
MR. SCHERMERHORN-Yes. The cedar shakes that you’re referring to. What we do is we just
shade them a darker brown, just to contrast the building. It’s very similar to the Willows that I
did, but it’s much darker colors, and the roof change, but as far as architectural, it’s very, very
similar to that building.
MR. HUNSINGER-Okay.
MR. FORD-How closely would it approximate the color, the normal color, of a white pine bark?
MR. SCHERMERHORN-A white pine? Well the siding that I’m proposing is this earth, it’s an
earth tone. It’s as earthy as you can get for a natural.
MR. FORD-I’m looking for blend rather than contrast. In other words, there are a lot of white
pine that we’re looking at there.
MR. NACE-I think the white pine bark is more of a slate color, versus the siding which is a little
bit more of a tan color.
MR. FORD-Thank you.
MR. HUNSINGER-Anything else from the Board?
MRS. STEFFAN-Tom Nace, maybe you can answer this question for me. The existing canopy
in the buffer zone, those pine trees, how tall are they?
MR. NACE-You’re taxing my memory. We did, if you’ll remember, we put balloons up to look at
the height when we were doing the office building. Speaking off the top of my head, but if my
memory serves me right, they’re somewhere between 50 and 70 feet.
MRS. STEFFAN-Okay. I’m thinking 60. That’s the number that I had in my head. So that’s why
I was asking.
MR. NACE-I think you’re about right.
MRS. STEFFAN-Okay. Because I’m also validating that, you know, the height of the building is
40 feet, and my belief was that the existing tree canopy between this development and the
Northway exit is 60 feet tall, and that you will not see the top of these buildings from the
Northway.
MR. SCHERMERHORN-No.
MR. FORD-Roof peak 40 feet?
MRS. STEFFAN-Yes.
MR. NACE-Correct.
MR. FORD-Above ground level.
15
(Queensbury Planning Board 06/24/2010)
MRS. STEFFAN-According to the dimensions provided.
MR. FORD-Above ground level.
MR. NACE-Correct.
MR. FORD-Thank you.
MR. HUNSINGER-Any other questions? Any additional information that the Board would like to
see?
MRS. STEFFAN-No. My issues are the extra tree plantings to just fortify the buffer zone, and
the other issue that I’m concerned about is the private contract user, but the applicant has
identified that he doesn’t have control over that, the Town Board does. I have a note that I’d like
to put as a condition in the application. It’s really a recommendation to the Town Board, but that
the applicant would not be bound by it. It would just be to put it on the record, how the Planning
Board feels about limiting the sewer capacity, limiting the extension of sewer capacity across the
road. That’s an issue for me.
MR. HUNSINGER-Yes. I mean, from a planning perspective, I have seen communities that
were under growth pressure and they tried to use the lack of extending public facilities to slow
down the growth. It didn’t work, but I feel strongly about that issue as well. I think, I mean, if
that’s the concern that we’re hearing from the neighbors, that’s a concern that the Board has
expressed, I think we need to express our concern to the Town Board.
MRS. STEFFAN-Right.
MR. HUNSINGER-But as Mr. Schermerhorn commented, you know, someone could just do
their own end user and, you know, tie their own line in, but at a greater cost than what it would
cost to, you know, just hook into what you’re installing.
MRS. STEFFAN-And we already know that the sewer system has limited capacity, and that’s
why you have to get a permit, out of.
MR. SCHERMERHORN-Right, and if I may, if I look at the surrounding parcels, there’s one
directly across the street from me that has a stream that runs through it, doesn’t look like it really
could be developed, and the zoning further up Gurney Lane I think is five acre zoning. So
nobody’s going to try and run sewers for a five acre lot.
MR. HUNSINGER-Right.
MR. SCHERMERHORN-It just wouldn’t make any sense, and Mr. Franklin, I believe, donated
the piece next to me. There’s a large ravine down there, some wetlands. So I don’t know,
really, where it would serve other than maybe the County, if they ever did something with the
project across the street
MRS. STEFFAN-Right, and with our Town Supervisor being on the County Board of
Supervisors, certainly they would have some influence. Positively or negatively, they would
have influence.
MR. SCHERMERHORN-Right, and certainly, because it’s a contract user, it means that I own
the pump station, and they can’t even really, I have to maintain it, and they can’t just ask me to, I
don’t believe they can ask me to donate it because it would have to be subject to prevailing
wage. There’d be a whole process involved. So it’s not as easy as just even allowing them to
use it.
MR. LAPPER-And they’d have to ask the Town Board to be a contract user as well, on adjacent
parcel. So they have control.
MR. HUNSINGER-Okay.
MRS. STEFFAN-That makes me feel a little better, you know, because one of the things we
know, on the Planning Board, development follows infrastructure, and so if we put infrastructure.
MR. SCHERMERHORN-And on the record, if I could condition it where I said I wouldn’t allow
someone to use it, but I’d do it, but as we know, I can’t.
MRS. STEFFAN-Right.
16
(Queensbury Planning Board 06/24/2010)
MRS. STEFFAN-Okay.
MR. HUNSINGER-Are members ready to move forward? I’m not hearing any other comments.
MR. LINKE-Is there a public comment after the lawyer spoke, and after Schermerhorn spoke,
another round of public comment, please.
MRS. STEFFAN-No.
MR. HUNSINGER-For what purpose, sir?
MR. LINKE-For public comment, please. You’ve had new information given by the applicants,
and this is supposed to be a public hearing.
MRS. STEFFAN-Just for the record, that’s Richard Linke, for the transcriptionist.
MR. LINKE-The way it’s always been. Why are you changing it now?
MR. HUNSINGER-We’re not changing anything, Mr. Linke. This is standard procedure.
MR. LINKE-There has always been public comment after the second round of the applicant’s
speaking.
MR. HUNSINGER-No, there hasn’t, Mr. Linke. Ninety-nine point nine percent of the projects
that we review, there’s one public hearing. I asked if there were anyone else that wanted to
make any other comments. There weren’t any. I said, well, we’ll terminate the public hearing for
this evening.
MR. LINKE-We have new information, and this is a public hearing. Please allow a public
hearing.
MR. SCHERMERHORN-We haven’t submitted any new information that I’m aware of, just
addressing things on the plan.
MR. LINKE-You did my data and I have an opportunity to speak about that.
MR. HUNSINGER-What’s the feeling of the Board?
MR. KREBS-Well, my feeling is we have that information, and it’s our Board’s decision to make.
MR. HUNSINGER-Right.
MR. FORD-I don’t have a problem.
MR. KREBS-No.
MR. HUNSINGER-I’m sorry, ma’am, but we concluded the public hearing.
MS. MACINTOSH-No, you didn’t.
MR. HUNSINGER-Yes, we didn’t.
MR. KREBS-Yes, we did.
MS. MACINTOSH-No, you never said that the public hearing was closed.
MR. HUNSINGER-I didn’t close it. I said it was concluded. We concluded the public hearing for
this evening. I haven’t closed the public hearing, in case the Board wishes to table the
application.
MR. LINKE-The last four meeting you had, after the applicant spoke, you had it open for public
comment again, and how you can say.
MR. HUNSINGER-That was an exception, Mr. Linke, that I had no obligation to extend, and in
fact, quite frankly, for the record, I regretted doing it at the last meeting because it got out of
hand, just as this is getting out of hand. I’ve tried to be courteous and I’ve tried to comply with
the wishes and the concerns of the neighbors by giving you more than adequate opportunity to
comment. We even exceeded our normal policies and procedures to make sure that we took
into consideration the comments that were going to be made by yourself. We’ve gone above
17
(Queensbury Planning Board 06/24/2010)
and beyond in this instance, more than we have for any other project, and I’m sure the rest of
the Board would agree with me. So, you know, I’m sorry, if the Board’s ready to move forward,
we’re going to move forward. It’s for us to determine, it’s for us to weigh the applicant’s
information with the information that’s presented by the public. We are the ones that make the
determination if it’s adequate or not.
MR. LINKE-It’s arbitrary and capricious.
MR. HUNSINGER-Our role is not to satisfy every question that you have. Our role is to satisfy
our own questions and our own concerns, and what I’m sensing from the Board is that we have
done that, and I’m sorry if you’re upset about that, but, you know, at some point we need to
move forward, and act on this application, and what I’m sensing from the Board is that they’re
ready to move forward.
MR. FORD-Proceed.
MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. I will then formally close the public hearing, and we will proceed with
SEQRA.
PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED
MR. HUNSINGER-Which was a Long Form.
MRS. STEFFAN-Okay. Will the proposed action result in a physical change to the project site?
MR. HUNSINGER-Yes.
MR. KREBS-Yes.
MRS. STEFFAN-Small to moderate, potentially large, or can the impact be mitigated by project
change?
MR. KREBS-Can be mitigated.
MRS. STEFFAN-Okay. Will there be an effect to any unique or unusual land forms found
on the site?
MR. HUNSINGER-No.
MR. FORD-No.
MRS. STEFFAN-Will the proposed action affect any water body designated as protected?
MR. SIPP-No.
MR. HUNSINGER-No.
MR. FORD-No.
MRS. STEFFAN-Will the proposed action affect any non-protected existing or new body of
water?
MR. KREBS-No.
MR. FORD-No.
MR. SIPP-No.
MRS. STEFFAN-Will the proposed action affect surface or groundwater quality or quantity?
MR. HUNSINGER-No.
MR. SIPP-No.
MR. KREBS-No.
MRS. STEFFAN-Will the proposed action alter drainage flow or patterns, or surface water
runoff?
18
(Queensbury Planning Board 06/24/2010)
MR. HUNSINGER-No.
MR. SIPP-No.
MRS. STEFFAN-Will the proposed action affect air quality?
MR. KREBS-No.
MR. HUNSINGER-No.
MRS. STEFFAN-Will the proposed action affect any threatened or endangered species?
MR. HUNSINGER-No.
MR. FORD-No.
MR. SIPP-No.
MRS. STEFFAN-Will the proposed action substantially affect non-threatened or non-
endangered species?
MR. KREBS-No.
MR. HUNSINGER-No.
MRS. STEFFAN-Will the proposed action affect agricultural land resources?
MR. HUNSINGER-No.
MR. FORD-No.
MRS. STEFFAN-Will the proposed action affect aesthetic resources?
MR. HUNSINGER-No.
MR. KREBS-No.
MRS. STEFFAN-Will the proposed action impact any site or structure of historic, pre-historic or
paleontological importance?
MR. HUNSINGER-No.
MR. FORD-Before we make a definite no on that, I recall Mr. Strough, at a previous meeting,
describing artifacts found on the site, when they were making plans for the bike trail, and they
went around it. So if they were found, then that has been addressed and mitigated.
MR. SCHERMERHORN-Mr. Ford, Mr. Strough did find, on other lands, but I did an
archeological, when we did the Travelers project, and there’s nothing on my project.
MR. HUNSINGER-I was going to say, we had a letter on file.
MR. SCHERMERHORN-But it was on another property, Rush Pond.
MR. FORD-Okay. Then I misunderstood. I thought it continued on, it was going to be on your
site.
MR. HUNSINGER-It was an adjacent property. So it’s important for clarification.
MR. FORD-Thank you.
MRS. STEFFAN-Okay. So the answer to will the proposed action impact any site or structure of
historic, pre-historic or paleontological importance?
MR. HUNSINGER-No.
MR. FORD-No.
MRS. STEFFAN-Okay. Will the proposed action affect the quantity or quality of existing or
future open spaces or recreational opportunities?
19
(Queensbury Planning Board 06/24/2010)
MR. HUNSINGER-No.
MR. FORD-No.
MRS. STEFFAN-Will the proposed action impact the exceptional or unique characteristics of a
critical environmental area established pursuant to Subdivision 6NYCRR 617.14?
MR. HUNSINGER-No.
MR. KREBS-No.
MRS. STEFFAN-Will there be an effect to existing transportation systems?
MR. HUNSINGER-No.
MR. KREBS-No.
MRS. STEFFAN-Will proposed action affect the community’s sources of fuel or energy supply?
MR. HUNSINGER-No.
MR. FORD-No.
MR. SIPP-No.
MRS. STEFFAN-Will there be objectionable odors, noise, or vibration as a result of
the proposed action?
MR. HUNSINGER-No.
MR. FORD-No.
MR. SIPP-No.
MRS. STEFFAN-Will the proposed action affect public health and safety?
MR. HUNSINGER-No.
MR. KREBS-No.
MRS. STEFFAN-Will the proposed action affect the character of the existing community?
MR. KREBS-No.
MR. FORD-No.
MRS. STEFFAN-And is there, or is there likely to be, public controversy related to potential
adverse environmental impacts?
MR. HUNSINGER-No.
MR. KREBS-No.
MRS. STEFFAN-Okay. Then based on your responses, and the only one that we had a yes to
was Number One, will the proposed action result in a physical change to the project site, you
identified, yes, it will, but the impact can be mitigated by project change. So I’ll make a motion
for a Negative declaration.
MR. LAPPER-And that’s the trees that you want, the project change.
MR. FORD-Right.
MR. HILL-Mr. Chairman, before you vote on this, I’d like to first of all suggest that we go back to
Question One, the very first question where there was the mitigation notation. You do need to
identify whether it will be a small to moderate or potentially large impact. So I would suggest
that you consider that, and then in general, I know that you’ve gone through all the questions. I t
think it would help, for purposes of establishing the record, if there were a bit of discussion with
regard to some of the questions, and I’d be happy to go back through that with you and have a
20
(Queensbury Planning Board 06/24/2010)
little bit further discussion, so that the record is expanded a little bit with regard to the answers to
the particular questions, would be my recommendation.
MRS. STEFFAN-Okay. Do you want me to go back through each one?
MR. HILL-I think that would be worthwhile, if you wouldn’t mind doing that.
MRS. STEFFAN-Okay. Question Number One, Will the proposed action result in a physical
change to the project site? Examples would be, any construction on slopes of 15% or greater,
(15 foot rise per 100 foot of length), or where the general slopes in the project area exceed 10%.
Construction on land where the depth to the water table is less than 3 feet. Construction of
paved parking area for 1,000 or more vehicles. Construction on land where bedrock is exposed
or generally within 3 feet of existing ground surface. Construction that will continue for more
than 1 year or involve more than one phase or stage. Excavation for mining purposes that
would remove more than 1,000 tons of natural material (i.e., rock or soil) per year, and based on
those definitions, will the proposed action result in a physical change to the project site?
MR. HILL-I think on the next page there are a couple of others, but, based on the items that you
read, I’m not sure, and I’d leave this up to your judgment and your familiarity with the application
and so forth, I’m not sure whether any of those that you identified would be applicable, but there
seemed to be unanimity that the answer would be yes, and so perhaps there’s some other
impact that you’re thinking of. If that’s the case, there is a box that’s blank that allows you to
identify what the other impact is that you may have in mind, so that you can identify it, check the
yes box, and then identify whether or not the impact that you’re thinking of is either small to
moderate or potentially large.
MRS. STEFFAN-Thank you. There were two other elements, Construction or expansion of a
sanitary landfill or Construction in a designated floodway.
MR. HUNSINGER-No, I think we’re looking at other impacts.
MRS. STEFFAN-Okay.
MR. HUNSINGER-And it’s small to moderate.
MRS. STEFFAN-Well, so will the proposed action result in a physical change to the project site
based on the definitions that I just read?
MR. KREBS-Not based on those definitions.
MR. SIPP-Small to moderate.
MRS. STEFFAN-Well, to which one?
MR. HUNSINGER-Other.
MR. HILL-This is where you might, if it’s not one of those, then you might want to consider
writing in what the other impact would be, whether it’s simply that, a portion of the site is going to
be cleared and developed.
MR. HUNSINGER-Exactly.
MR. HILL-So you could identify that in the box as one of the other impacts, and then determine
whether it’s small to moderate or potentially large.
MR. HUNSINGER-Small to moderate.
MRS. STEFFAN-Okay. Two, will there be an effect to any unique or unusual land forms found
on the site?
MR. HUNSINGER-No.
MR. HILL-Are there any unusual landforms on the site?
MR. HUNSINGER-No.
MRS. STEFFAN-Cliffs, dunes, geological formations, etc.
MR. HILL-Okay. So the record can reflect no unusual landforms, then. Thank you.
21
(Queensbury Planning Board 06/24/2010)
MRS. STEFFAN-Will the proposed action affect any water body designated as protected?
Examples, Developable area of site contains a protected water body. Dredging more than 100
cubic yards of material from a channel of a protected stream. Extension of utility distribution
facilities through a protected water body. Construction in a designated freshwater or tidal
wetland. Or other impacts.
MR. HUNSINGER-No.
MR. KREBS-No.
MR. HILL-None of those are applicable, and are there any others that any Board members, any
other potential effects that you identify or think of?
MR. HUNSINGER-No.
MR. FORD-No.
MRS. STEFFAN-Number Four, will the proposed action affect any non-protected existing or new
body of water? Examples, A 10% increase or decrease in the surface area of any body of water
or more than a 10 acre increase or decrease. Construction of a body of water that exceeds 10
acres of surface area. Or other impacts that we might identify. So will the proposed action
affect any non-protected existing or new body of water?
MR. HUNSINGER-No.
MR. FORD-No.
MR. HILL-And that’s true for both the identified impacts, and I’m assuming that nobody is
thinking of any other impacts that weren’t listed there. Would that be right?
MR. HUNSINGER-Yes.
MR. FORD-Yes.
MRS. STEFFAN-Number Five. This is a longer one. Will Proposed Action affect surface or
groundwater quality or quantity? Examples, Proposed Action will require a discharge permit.
Proposed Action requires use of a source of water that does not have approval to serve
proposed (project) action. Proposed Action requires water supply from wells with greater than 45
gallons per minute pumping capacity. Construction or operation causing any contamination of a
water supply system. Proposed Action will adversely affect groundwater. Liquid effluent will be
conveyed off the site to facilities which presently do not exist or have inadequate capacity.
Proposed Action would use water in excess of 20,000 gallons per day Proposed Action will
likely cause siltation or other discharge into an existing body of water to the extent that there will
be an obvious visual contrast to natural conditions. Proposed Action will require the storage of
petroleum or chemical products greater than 1,100 gallons. Proposed Action will allow
residential uses in areas without water and/or sewer services. Proposed Action locates
commercial and/or industrial uses which may require new or expansion of existing waste
treatment and/or storage facilities. Or other impacts.
MR. HUNSINGER-No.
MRS. STEFFAN-But the proposed action will allow residential uses in areas without water or
sewer services. You’re putting that in.
MR. HILL-I’m sorry, before you move on on that question, the was some discussion, and again,
my first exposure to this project is the discussion this evening. So, I’m not certainly familiar with
all the materials that have been submitted. There was discussion tonight about how the
stormwater is going to be treated, and are you all satisfied that the proposed stormwater is
adequate and that it will sufficiently protect the groundwater? I’m assuming that you, or you
would have answered otherwise, but I think it’s worthwhile to mention that on the record.
MR. FORD-I was going to bring that up because obviously it is going to impact stormwater, but I
feel that the procedures that have been designed will address that to mitigate that and make it a
small impact.
MR. HUNSINGER-And we’ve also received a signoff from the Town Engineer.
MRS. STEFFAN-From the Town Engineer.
22
(Queensbury Planning Board 06/24/2010)
MR. HILL-Okay. So you’re satisfied there’s not going to be any adverse effect on groundwater.
MR. HUNSINGER-And it doesn’t require a discharge permit or anything else.
MR. HILL-Right, and it’s going to be municipal water and sewer for this project. is that right?
MR. HUNSINGER-Right.
MR. HILL-Okay, and I guess a question for the applicant. The question regarding water usage,
is it anticipated that the project will use in excess of 20,000 gallons of water per day?
MR. NACE-No, it will not.
MR. HILL-Okay, and is the Board satisfied with that?
MR. HUNSINGER-Yes.
MR. FORD-Yes.
MR. HILL-All right.
MRS. STEFFAN-So is our answer to that no or yes?
MR. HUNSINGER-The answer is no.
MRS. STEFFAN-The answer is no.
MRS. STEFFAN-Six. Will the proposed action alter drainage flow or patterns or surface water
runoff? Examples. Proposed action would change flood water flows. Proposed Action may
cause substantial erosion. Proposed Action is incompatible with existing drainage patterns.
Proposed Action will allow development in a designated floodway, or other impacts not
identified. So will the proposed action alter drainage flow or patterns or surface water runoff?
MR. HUNSINGER-No.
MR. FORD-Not according to those examples given, no.
MRS. STEFFAN-Okay. Seven, will the proposed action affect air quality? Examples.
Proposed Action will induce 1,000 or more vehicle trips in any given hour. Proposed Action will
result in the incineration of more than 1 ton of refuse per hour. Emission rate of total
contaminants will exceed 5 lbs. Per hour or a heat source producing more than 10 million BTU’s
per hour. Proposed action will allow an increase in the amount of land committed to industrial
use. Proposed action will allow an increase in the density of industrial development within
existing industrial areas, or other impacts. So will the proposed action affect air quality?
MR. HUNSINGER-No.
MR. FORD-No.
MR. HILL-Before you leave that question, I think it’s important to consider obviously air quality is
something that has been the subject of some significant public comment with regard to the
project. You’ve received quite a bit of information on it. You have reviewed the information, and
I think it’s worthwhile to have some discussion and to address the issue of whether or not you
think that the proposed development is going to have an adverse impact on air quality in the
area of the proposed development, because that seems to be a subject of significant concern.
MR. KREBS-I don’t think it’s the development having an adverse effect. It’s the Northway
having an adverse effect on the project, and from what I’ve read, I do not believe that any of the
studies that I was able to look at, all of them were in metropolitan city environmental areas
where you had high concentrations of traffic, right next to a highway, and I mean, you know, 10
feet from the highway. So I think this is a totally different situation.
Mr. Chairman, I apologize, I know that there’s no public hearing, but in Mr. Schermerhorn’s
application project in 2007, he actually submitted information on the number of cars and trucks
using the southbound entrance ramp on the Northway, and I’m wondering if you ever actually
done that figure out to know how many cars travel that southbound ramp.
MR. HUNSINGER-I’m sorry. We concluded the public hearing, ma’am.
23
(Queensbury Planning Board 06/24/2010)
Well, if you don’t know that number, and you could know that number, that would seem to be an
important omission.
MR. HUNSINGER-Thank you.
MR. HILL-So I think then, I’m sorry. To go back to the question with regard to the impact on air
quality. As you properly pointed out, I think the nature, the focus of the question is the impact of
the project on air quality.
MR. HUNSINGER-Right.
MR. HILL-Nonetheless, there was a lot of material submitted. You’ve addressed your view on
that. First of all, does the board think the answer to that question is no?
MR. FORD-I believe the impact of the project on the air quality is no, but our concern about the
impact of living there from the air quality of the surrounding area, from the research which I have
read, I would concur with what Don said, adding also that, in addition to high smog areas where
a lot of the research was done, there also was a lot of research in industrial areas. None of
those descriptors describe that corridor near the project.
MR. KREBS-Plus the fact when we were talking about the previous project, if you’re talking
about the traffic from the previous project, we were looking at 512 people coming to work and
leaving every day. Here we’re talking about 60 residential apartments. Some of those people
don’t even leave their apartment during the day.
MRS. STEFFAN-So based on what I’ve heard, Question Seven, will the proposed action affect
air quality, the Planning Board’s considered the information provided by the public and the
applicant regarding air quality and has decided that the proposed action will not affect air quality
or be affected by air quality.
MR. HUNSINGER-Yes.
MR. FORD-Correct.
MR. KREBS-I agree.
MR. HUNSINGER-And I did just want to elaborate for the record that the studies that were
mentioned were provided by the applicant as well as the public. Because the applicant did
provide information on that. It wasn’t individual members reaching their own conclusion.
MRS. STEFFAN-Right. Okay. Number Eight. Will the proposed action affect any threatened or
endangered species?
MR. HUNSINGER-No.
MR. KREBS-No.
MRS. STEFFAN-Okay. Number Nine. Will the proposed action substantially affect non-
threatened or non-endangered species?
MR. HUNSINGER-No.
MR. KREBS-No.
MR. FORD-No.
MRS. STEFFAN-Will the proposed action affect agricultural land resources?
MR. FORD-No.
MR. HUNSINGER-No.
MRS. STEFFAN-Okay. Question Eleven, Will proposed action affect aesthetic resources? And
the examples of this, Proposed land uses, or project components obviously different from
or in sharp contrast to current surrounding land use patterns, whether man-made or natural.
Proposed land uses, or project components visible to users of aesthetic resources which will
eliminate or significantly reduce their enjoyment of the aesthetic qualities of that resource.
Project components that will result in the elimination or significant screening of scenic views
24
(Queensbury Planning Board 06/24/2010)
known to be important to the area, or other impacts. So I ask the Question Eleven again. Will
the proposed action affect aesthetic resources?
MR. KREBS-No.
MR. FORD-I believe that the potential is there. However, it has been addressed in the plan with
plantings and so forth, and coloration.
MR. KREBS-But also, if you stand on the property and look today, all of the buildings that you
can see from any point on that property are commercial properties of one sort or another,
whether you call a nursing home, an infirmary, a commercial property, but there’s nothing I could
see when I stood, and I stood on all three corners, that were on roads and I could not see a
residential house from that point.
MR. HILL-Before you leave this question, in light of Mr. Ford’s comment, is there consideration,
then, to indicate a small to moderate impact and indicate that there’s been mitigation of that with
the proposed screening on landscaping?
MR. FORD-That was my intent, to recommend that. Is there agreement?
MR. HUNSINGER-Yes.
MR. HILL-So then the yes box would be checked. It would be a small to moderate impact, and a
notation about screening and landscaping to mitigate any aesthetic effect.
MR. FORD-And coloration of the structure itself.
MR. HILL-That is also something that could be noted in that regard, that’s right.
MR. FORD-Yes.
MR. HILL-To make it blend in.
MR. FORD-Right.
MRS. STEFFAN-Okay. So the answer to Question Eleven is, will the proposed action affect
aesthetic resources? The Planning Board says yes, small to moderate. Land will be cleared for
development. However, impacts have been considered, and the landscaping plan will mitigate
the effects as well as the earth tone color scheme of the building. Question Twelve, Will the
proposed action impact any site or structure of historic, pre-historic or paleontological
importance?
MR. HUNSINGER-No.
MR. FORD-Apparently not.
MRS. STEFFAN-Thirteen. Will the proposed action affect the quantity or quality of existing or
future open spaces or recreational opportunities? There are two examples. The permanent
foreclosure of a future recreational opportunity. A major reduction of an open space important to
the community. Or other impacts.
MR. KREBS-No. In fact, I think it’s going to improve the recreation because of the trail we’re
going to have for people to use.
MRS. STEFFAN-I agree. Does the rest of the Board agree, this is a no?
MR. FORD-Yes.
MRS. STEFFAN-Okay. Question Fourteen. Will the proposed impact the exceptional or unique
characteristics of a critical environmental area? Examples of this. Proposed action to locate
within a CEA. Proposed Action will result in a reduction in the quantity of the resource?
Proposed Action will result in a reduction in the quality of the resource?
Proposed Action will impact the use, function or enjoyment of the resource? Other Impacts.
So based on that, will the proposed action impact the exceptional or unique characteristics of a
critical environmental area?
MR. FORD-No.
MR. KREBS-No.
25
(Queensbury Planning Board 06/24/2010)
MR. HILL-And just for the record. Is this project location in a designated Critical Environmental
Area?
MR. HUNSINGER-It’s near one.
MR. FORD-It’s near one, but not in one.
MR. HILL-It’s near one but not in one.
MR. FORD-Yes.
MR. HILL-Okay. So that’s important for the record to reflect that.
MR. KREBS-And not only that, but, you know, in the previous Travelers building, we looked at
that, and one of the reasons that he decided to put sewers in was that there would be no
possibility, even though the percolation tests were good, this way there was no possibility of any
of the sewage getting to the Critical Environmental Area.
MRS. STEFFAN-Okay. Question Fifteen. Will there be an effect to any existing transportation
systems? The example. Alteration of present patterns of movement of people and/or goods.
Proposed action will result in major traffic problems. Other impacts. So will there be an effect to
existing transportation systems?
MR. FORD-There’s a possibility. If we envision the possibility of Greater Glens Falls Transit
would send buses out there for transport. That’s a potential.
MRS. STEFFAN-Okay. So possibility is not an answer. It has to be yes or no. So it’s a yes,
and is it a small to moderate impact?
MR. FORD-Yes.
MR. HUNSINGER-Yes.
MR. FORD-Yes, and yes.
MR. KREBS-And in fact that might be an advantage, because the bus that goes all the way up
to Lake George could stop there on the way back and transport people into Glens Falls, or vice
versa. So they wouldn’t even have to use their cars.
MRS. STEFFAN-Okay. So the answer to Question Fifteen, will there be an effect to existing
transportation systems. We said yes, small to moderate, public transportation may serve this
site in the future.
MR. HUNSINGER-Yes.
MR. FORD-Yes.
MRS. STEFFAN-Sixteen. Will the proposed action affect the community’s sources of fuel or
energy supply?
MR. HUNSINGER-No.
MR. FORD-No.
MRS. STEFFAN-Seventeen. Will there be objectionable odors, noise or vibration as a result of
the proposed action? Let me read you the examples. Blasting within 1,500 feet of a hospital,
school or other sensitive facility. Odors will occur routinely (more than one hour per day).
Proposed Action will produce operating noise exceeding the local ambient noise levels for noise
outside of structures. Proposed Action will remove natural barriers that would act as a noise
screen. Or Other Impacts. So will there be objectionable odors, noise or vibration as a result
of the proposed action?
MR. KREBS-No.
MR. HUNSINGER-No.
MRS. STEFFAN-We’ve certainly debated the removal of vegetation that would act as a barrier
to a noise.
26
(Queensbury Planning Board 06/24/2010)
MR. FORD-We should note, I think for that part of SEQRA, that we are within, the project is
within 1500 feet of a health facility. Correct? But that there isn’t anything that we could foresee
that would impact it.
MR. HILL-I’m sorry, Mr. Ford. I didn’t mean to interrupt you. Were you done?
MR. FORD-Yes.
MR. HILL-I just wanted to ask if we can clarify with the applicant, is there going to be any
blasting involved during the construction phase of this at all?
MR. SCHERMERHORN-No blasting.
MR. HILL-There’ll be no blasting?
MR. SCHERMERHORN-No blasting.
MR. HILL-No blasting. Okay, and I think you were noting, Mr. Chairman, I think you were noting
there a moment ago that although there will be some removal of vegetation from the site, there’s
going to be some additional plantings going in, trees, and other landscaping.
MR. HUNSINGER-Well, the construction of the building, the building will act more as a noise
buffer than the trees would. We know that from prior environmental studies that were done.
MR. HILL-I see. Okay.
MRS. STEFFAN-Okay. So our answer to Question Seventeen, Will there be objectionable
odors, noise or vibrations as a result of the proposed action, we said yes, small to moderate.
However, adding landscaping will compensate for land clearing as well as the building itself
serving as a noise buffer. Eighteen. Will the proposed action affect public health and safety?
Proposed action may cause a risk of explosion or release of hazardous
substances (i.e. oil, pesticides, chemicals, radiation, etc.) in the event of accident or upset
conditions, or there may be a chronic low level discharge or emission. Proposed Action may
result in the burial of “hazardous wastes” in any form (i.e. toxic, poisonous, highly reactive,
radioactive, irritating, infectious, etc.) Storage facilities for one million or more gallons of
liquefied natural gas or other flammable liquids. Proposed action may result in the excavation or
other disturbance within 2,000 feet of a site used for the disposal of solid or hazardous waste.
Other impacts not identified. So will the proposed action affect public health and safety?
MR. KREBS-No.
MR. FORD-No.
MR. HILL-Before, I’m sorry to interrupt you, but before you move on from this question, I think
this is another appropriate point to note that you’ve received a lot of information on potential air
impacts. Certainly the folks who would be living at this proposed complex would be members of
the public. So I think it’s an appropriate point to consider whether or not there is going to be an
adverse impact or potential adverse impact, whether you reasonably foresee any such impact
on the health of the people that would be living there, and I think you had previously addressed
this, but I would just encourage you to address this again at this juncture, because it seems to
be an appropriate point, appropriate time to again address that potential impact. So I would just
encourage you to have some discussion and basically reiterate what you put on the record.
MR. HUNSINGER-So we should then say yes and say the impact is small to moderate.
MR. HILL-I’m not suggesting that you should say yes. You’ve received information. You’ve
reviewed information, and you just need to, I think, decide whether or not you think that there is
going to be any potential adverse impact on the health of the people living at the facility by virtue
of the proximity to the Northway. I think that was essentially the.
MR. KREBS-Well, and I think you could say, if you want to take this to the Nth degree, that, you
know, I live on Masters Common North and people go by in their cars every day. Gee, I’m
getting some particulate from those people’s cars. So maybe it’s going to have an adverse
effect on my life, but we can’t get away from that completely, and I think we’ve mitigated that to,
with the distance from the road, as much as you could expect it to be.
27
(Queensbury Planning Board 06/24/2010)
MR. FORD-Through both public opinion, what has been provided to us by the applicant and the
public, we’ve addressed the various issues, and I believe it will have little to no impact on the
health and safety of the people living there.
MR. HILL-So I think what I’m hearing from Mr. Ford, then, is that, the way he’s answered the
question, I think he would be suggesting, I don’t want to put words in your mouth, but it sounds
like that perhaps there might be some small to moderate impact, and if that’s the way that the
Board believes, based on your evaluation of the information that you’ve received, then I’d
suggest you check the yes box and check the small to moderate impact box.
MRS. STEFFAN-See, I wasn’t hearing that. I was hearing that the answer was no, and that we
considered the public health and safety issue by considering the information provided on air
quality and decided that public health and safety would not be affected.
MR. FORD-That’s correct. That’s what I was trying to say.
MR. HILL-Okay. I didn’t mischaracterize your remarks. So then is there a consensus on the
Board, then, that based on the information you’ve reviewed, that there’s not any reasonably
foreseeable adverse impact on public health?
MR. KREBS-Yes.
MRS. STEFFAN-Yes.
MR. HUNSINGER-I see nodding heads.
MRS. STEFFAN-Okay. Number Nineteen. Will the proposed action affect the character of the
existing community? The examples of this. The permanent population of the city, town or
village in which the project is located is likely to grow by more than 5%. The municipality budget
for capital expenditures or operating services will increase by more than 5% per year as a result
of this project. Proposed action will conflict with officially adopted plans or goals.
Proposed action will cause a change in the density of land use.
Proposed Action will replace or eliminate existing facilities, structures or areas of historic
importance to the community. Development will create a demand for additional community
services (e.g. schools, police and fire, etc.) Proposed Action will set an important precedent for
future projects. Proposed Action will create or eliminate employment. Or any other that we
have not considered.
MR. HUNSINGER-Well, the project obviously changes the density of the land use on the site.
MR. FORD-Yes.
MR. HUNSINGER-But it is within the scope of the officially adopted plans and goals of the
community.
MRS. STEFFAN-So therefore it’s no.
MR. HUNSINGER-So do we say then no or do we say small to moderate impact?
MR. HILL-I think that given that you’ve identified that there would be an impact on the density of
land use, I think your answer then to the overall question would be yes, and then the question
becomes, would the impact be small to moderate or would it be a potentially large impact, the
effect on density, and I guess I also want to ask you whether, the question with respect to
community services, schools, police, fire and so on, whether you have any opinion on that, but
back to your first question, Mr. Chairman, the question becomes whether it’s a small to
moderate impact or a potentially large impact, in terms of the density of land use.
MRS. STEFFAN-Well, small because it’s only a 60 unit facility and we know what was.
MR. HUNSINGER-Small to moderate.
MR. HILL-So you would check the small to moderate box if that’s the consensus of the Board.
MR. HUNSINGER-And it may create an increased demand on police and fire.
MR. HILL-Okay.
MR. HUNSINGER-Just by nature of its use, but again, I think it would be small to moderate.
28
(Queensbury Planning Board 06/24/2010)
MR. HILL-So a small to moderate impact there.
MR. HUNSINGER-The potential is there.
MR. JACKOSKI-May I ask, then, with the spirit of that question, with any vacant land, as it gets
developed and changes the density, you’re telling us we should be answering yes to that
question, and the do small to moderate?
MR. HILL-Well, as to the first part, I think if you’ve got development, then certainly it seems like
there’s going to be a change to the density of the land use. As to whether it would be small to
moderate or potentially large, that of course is going to depend on the particular development
what’s being proposed.
MRS. STEFFAN-So the answer, based on what I’ve heard, the answer to Question Nineteen,
will the proposed action affect the character of the existing community, the consensus is yes, it
would be a small to moderate impact because the use changes will affect the density of the land
and may create an additional demand for additional community services.
MR. HILL-Small to moderate as to both of those effects. That’s what the Board said. Okay.
MR. FORD-And very little impact on the schools.
MRS. STEFFAN-Yes.
MR. KREBS-In fact, if I remember right, that’s in the Lake George school district. So, it won’t
affect the Town.
MR. SCHERMERHORN-And it’s 55 and older. There’s no children. So there’s no impact as far
as schools.
MR. KREBS-You’re going to be paying school taxes to Lake George and not sending any
students.
MRS. STEFFAN-Okay. Question Twenty. Is there or is there likely to be public controversy
related to potential adverse environmental impacts? And it’s a yes or no answer.
MR. HILL-As your counsel, I would suggest that you answer that question yes, based on the
public comment that you’ve received.
MR. HUNSINGER-During the public hearing.
MR. HILL-Yes.
MR. HUNSINGER-Yes.
MR. HILL-If I’ve been correct in my following of your answers to these questions during this
discussion, I think that you have identified some questions where there may be an impact, but I
think for all of those questions, the impacts were identified as small to moderate, and I guess I
would ask Mrs. Steffan, I know she’s been keeping careful track of this, if she can confirm that
for you.
MRS. STEFFAN-Yes.
MR. HILL-Okay.
MRS. STEFFAN-I just want to construct a response to that Number Twenty, so that the record is
clear. Okay. So Question Twenty, is there or is there likely to be public controversy related to
potential adverse environmental impacts, based on what I’ve heard, the answer is yes. Based
on public comment received during several public hearings, the Planning Board weighed and
considered the information provided and closed the public hearing so that we could proceed with
SEQRA. Okay. So, based on the input that we have received, question, yes, we had identified
yes, that there will be some land cleared for development. So there will be a physical change to
the project site. We identified in Question Eleven that there would be a small to moderate
impact because the land will be cleared for development. However, the impacts have been
considered, and with the landscaping plan and the effects of mitigation, as well as the earth tone
color scheme of the building, that it will be a small to moderate impact. Question Fifteen, we
answered yes to that, small to moderate impact because public transportation may serve the
site at some point in the future. Question Seventeen, we did answer yes and identify a small to
moderate impact. However, the addition of landscaping will compensate for the land clearing,
29
(Queensbury Planning Board 06/24/2010)
as well as the building itself will serve as a noise buffer. We did answer yes to Question
Nineteen, but a small to moderate impact because the use changes on the site will affect the
density of land and may create an additional demand for additional community services, and
then the last Question Twenty we answered yes to that. Based on public comment received
during several public hearings, the Planning Board weighed and considered the information
provided and closed the public hearing to complete the SEQRA process. And so, based on that
information, I would make a motion for a Negative declaration.
MR. HILL-I think I would suggest just one minor change there at the end, where you’re talking
about closing the public hearing, I’d strike that last part there. Just, I think I would limit your
statement there to the fact that the answer to the question is yes, based on information received
from the public during the public comment period, or something to that effect, during the.
MRS. STEFFAN-The reason I put the comment in about closing the public hearing is just usually
that’s protocol done before we go into SEQRA, so that’s why I put it in, but I will take it out. I just
wanted to go on record and say why I put that in, because there was no malicious intent.
MR. HILL-Yes.
MRS. STEFFAN-Okay. So the answer to Question Twenty was Based on public comment
received during several public hearings, the Planning Board weighed and considered the
information and proceeded to complete the SEQRA form, and so I’ll make a motion for a
Negative Declaration.
MR. FORD-Second.
RESOLUTION WHEN DETERMINATION OF NO SIGNIFICANCE IS MADE
RESOLUTION NO. 11-2010, Introduced by Gretchen Steffan who moved for its adoption,
seconded by Thomas Ford:
WHEREAS, there is presently before the Planning Board an application for:
SCHERMERHORN RESIDENTIAL HOLDINGS, L.P., and
WHEREAS, this Planning Board has determined that the proposed project and Planning Board
action is subject to review under the State Environmental Quality Review Act,
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT
RESOLVED:
1. No Federal agency appears to be involved.
2. The following agencies are involved:
NONE
3. The proposed action considered by this Board is Unlisted in the Department of
Environmental Conservation Regulations implementing the State Environmental Quality
Review Act and the regulations of the Town of Queensbury.
4. An Environmental Assessment Form has been completed by the applicant.
5. Having considered and thoroughly analyzed the relevant areas of environmental concern
and having considered the criteria for determining whether a project has a significant
environmental impact as the same is set forth in Section 617.11 of the Official
Compilation of Codes, Rules and Regulations for the State of New York, this Board finds
that the action about to be undertaken by this Board will have no significant
environmental effect and the Chairman of the Planning Board is hereby authorized to
execute and sign and file as may be necessary a statement of non-significance or a
negative declaration that may be required by law.
th
Duly adopted this 24 day of, June, 2010, by the following vote:
AYES: Mr. Sipp, Mr. Jackoski, Mr. Krebs, Mrs. Steffan, Mr. Ford, Mr. Hunsinger
NOES: NONE
ABSENT: Mr. Magowan
30
(Queensbury Planning Board 06/24/2010)
MR. HUNSINGER-We have not talked about any conditions.
MR. KREBS-I think they’ve met most of the conditions that we had requested.
MR. HUNSINGER-I think, well, did you list any, Gretchen?
MRS. STEFFAN-I do. I have two conditions. I just want to check the motion that’s prepared for
us to see what’s here. The two conditions I had were to add the landscaping that I had talked
about earlier and also the desire of the Planning Board, this is what I constructed. Let me know
what you think. It’s the desire of the Planning Board that Schermerhorn Residential Holdings,
L.P. be a singular private contract user, and the carrying capacity of the sewer, as determined
by the Town Board be limited to adequately or sufficiently meet the needs of this property only
as proposed.
MR. HUNSINGER-I think that captures the intent.
MR. JACKOSKI-As long as it’s, and (lost words) not just specifically them, because if they turn
around and sell it, does it go with the property itself or the owner, Schermerhorn Holdings?
MRS. STEFFAN-That’s a good question, but I would imagine the contract, Mr. Schermerhorn, is
the contract with you and the Town, or?
MR. LAPPER-I think Steve’s comment is really good. Rich has the history. He hasn’t sold
anything. I mean, he’s building more apartments, but, you know, someday who knows, but we
wouldn’t want to limit it. It would run with the land, if that’s what you’re thinking, rather than limit
it to the applicant, not that there’s any intention to sell it. I mean, he could do a build to suit for a
doctor’s office, and they may want to subdivide and build and office building. So who knows. I
think what you’re really saying is that you want the sewer to just affect Rich, on Rich’s property.
MRS. STEFFAN-Right.
MR. LAPPER-And on the property owned by Schermerhorn Holdings at this time.
MRS. STEFFAN-Right. Because we have evaluated the property based on a proposed office
complex next to you.
MR. LAPPER-Right.
MRS. STEFFAN-And you identified that it would be maximum build out. So based on that,
you’ve sized, you know, the capacity of the sewer line based on the development of the
property.
MR. LAPPER-For his property. Yes.
MRS. STEFFAN-His property, is that a more reasonable term, Counsel?
MR. HILL-That seems reasonable.
MRS. STEFFAN-Okay.
MR. LAPPER-Maybe if you said all the parcels owned by the applicant at this time, or something
like that.
MR. SCHERMERHORN-I mean, it certainly sounds good to me. The only way someone could
look at it is, is we’re controlling the sewer by doing that, where I’m not allowing anybody else to
develop. I mean, it certainly helps the developer, but I’m certainly open to whatever you
suggest.
MR. KREBS-But all of this is going to have to be approved by the Town Board anyway, because
they’re acting as the Department of Health.
MR. SCHERMERHORN-Yes.
MRS. STEFFAN-They’ll get this motion.
MR. LAPPER-So is that a recommendation or a condition?
MR. HUNSINGER-It’s a recommendation.
31
(Queensbury Planning Board 06/24/2010)
MRS. STEFFAN-Yes. We’re putting it as a condition, but it’s really a recommendation to the
Town Board. It carries no weight as far as you’re concerned, but it’s one way that we can get a
message to the Town Board, without putting a formal resolution forth.
MR. HILL-I think just to clarify, it’s a, I guess a proposed condition that’s going to be subject to
confirmation by the Town Board, so that if the Town Board is in agreement, then it would
become a condition on the property, and is that acceptable from the? The applicant
understands, obviously, what the Board’s talking about, and is that agreeable?
MR. SCHERMERHORN-Yes. As long as it’s understood that, 10 years from now, if someone
wants to develop something, it’s not me that is holding back from providing services to an
additional applicant, because they could think that it’s the developer not wanting competition.
So I’m certainly agreeable with the conditions that you’re asking for.
MRS. STEFFAN-So the language you used, Mr. Hill, was that this is a proposed condition based
on Town Board approval. Is that the right language?
MR. HILL-I think you’re imposing it as a condition, and it will be subject to confirmation by the
Town Board, I think would be the, as a practical matter, the way to view it. You’re putting it on
as a condition, but you, as a Board, understand that it will be subject to confirmation by the
Town Board.
MR. SCHERMERHORN-The only thing I want to bring up, and again, I understand what you’re
saying. The only thing I could see where the Town might object in some way or condition it is I
know there’s been talk about expanding the recreation park that they have, Gurney Lane. So
that’s the only thing I could see if they ever wanted to run sewers up there for their own needs,
but.
MR. LAPPER-That’s a good point.
MR. SCHERMERHORN-So that’s the only reason they may object to it or condition it. So I just
want to bring that to your attention.
MR. HUNSINGER-That’s okay. Again, that’s their decision as the Board of Health.
MR. FORD-Right.
MRS. STEFFAN-They selectively listen to us anyway. All right.
MR. HUNSINGER-Did you want to read the other?
MR. HILL-Mr. Chairman, before, because I’m anticipating I think, based on what Mrs. Steffan is
doing, that there’s going to be a motion offered here in just a moment. I think technically
speaking your public hearing is still open.
MR. HUNSINGER-No, I closed it. I did.
MR. HILL-I didn’t hear a motion to close it. I guess I would suggest, from a procedural
standpoint, just to make sure I would suggest that you do a motion. Well, first of all, I guess I
would ask you, do you see any reason to re-open, or to take any further public comment at this
time, or are you satisfied that the public’s been offered an ample opportunity to comment?
MR. HUNSINGER-Yes, we felt the public was offered more than an ample opportunity a while
ago, yes.
MR. HILL-Okay. I think procedurally what I would suggest is that if you don’t see a need for any
further public comment, and I don’t disagree with you in that regard, that you ask for a motion to
close the public hearing and do just a voice vote to close the public hearing.
MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. We’ve never done that in the past. So that would be, you know, a
change in procedure. Should we be doing that, I mean, taking a formal vote to close a public
hearing?
MR. HILL-I think it’s a good idea to do that, as a regular practice, when you’re going to close a
public hearing.
MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. Would anyone like to offer that resolution?
32
(Queensbury Planning Board 06/24/2010)
MOTION TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING FOR SITE PLAN NO. 11-2010
SCHERMERHORN RESIDENTIAL HOLDINGS, L.P., Introduced by Donald Krebs who moved
for its adoption, seconded by Donald Sipp:
th
Duly adopted this 24 day of June, 2010, by the following vote:
AYES: Mr. Ford, Mr. Jackoski, Mrs. Steffan, Mr. Krebs, Mr. Sipp, Mr. Hunsinger
NOES: NONE
ABSENT: Mr. Magowan
MR. HILL-Thank you.
MR. HUNSINGER-Sure. Thank you.
MR. HILL-You’re welcome.
MR. LAPPER-We just want to make sure that the two parcels that Rich owns he can use the
sewer for his own use. He’s certainly not planning on using it for anybody, any of the neighbors,
but just for his use, just to make sure that the language is clear on the land.
MRS. STEFFAN-I changed Schermerhorn Residential Holdings to this property
MR. LAPPER-That would include the parcel that’s not, the separate one acre subdivided piece
that he has no intention of using at this point, but that’s where the pump station actually sits,
because of the grade. That would be, you know, something that Rich is bringing the sewer over.
He could use that, if he wanted to do an office building there, for example.
MRS. STEFFAN-So should it be the property identified in this application?
MR. LAPPER-Well, that’s not even in the application. I would just say the property, the parcels
owned by the applicant, currently owned by the applicant.
MR. FORD-On this site.
MR. LAPPER-Well, the other piece is not part of this application because it’s a separate
subdivided parcel, a separate deed.
MR. JACKOSKI-Can we refer to the two tax map numbers?
MR. LAPPER-Yes.
MR. BAKER-The Tax Map No. is 288.-1-64.
MR. LAPPER-We need the other parcel, the adjacent parcel.
MR. BAKER-I don’t have tax map numbers on those parcels.
MR. HILL-Is it in the SEQRA form by any chance?
MR. LAPPER-No, because it’s not part of this.
MR. HUNSINGER-It’s on the location map. It’s really small. Sixty-Three?
MR. LAPPER-Yes. So it’s 288.-1-64 and 63.
MRS. STEFFAN-So 63 and 64?
MR. LAPPER-Yes.
MRS. STEFFAN-I will make a motion to approve.
MOTION TO APPROVE SITE PLAN NO. 11-2010 SCHERMERHORN RESIDENTIAL
HOLDINGS, L.P., Introduced by Gretchen Steffan who moved for its adoption, seconded by
Thomas Ford:
1)A site plan application has been made to the Queensbury Planning Board for the
following: Applicant proposes construction of a three-story 88,608+/- sq. ft. 60 unit
33
(Queensbury Planning Board 06/24/2010)
Senior Apartment building with associated site work. Residential uses in the Office
District require Planning Board review and approval; and
2)A public hearing was advertised and held on 3/25/10, 5/18/10 & 6/24/2010; and
3)This application is supported with all documentation, public comment and application
material in the file of record;
4)MOTION TO APPROVE SITE PLAN NO. 11-2010 SCHERMERHORN RESIDENTIAL
HOLDINGS, L.P., Introduced by Gretchen Steffan who moved for its adoption, seconded
by Thomas Ford:
According to the resolution prepared by Staff. Paragraph Four A complies. Paragraph
Four B, Negative Declaration.
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
considered and the Planning Board has adopted a SEQRA 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)The Sanitary Sewer connection plan must be submitted to the Wastewater
Department for its review, approval, permitting and inspection; and
g)The limits of clearing will constitute a no-cut buffer zone, orange construction
fencing shall be installed around these areas and field verified by Community
Development staff.
h)Engineering sign-off required prior to signature of Zoning Administrator.
i)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.
j)The applicant must submit a copy of the following to the Town:
1.The project NOI (Notice of Intent) for coverage under the current NYSDEC
SPDES General Permit or for coverage under an individual SPDES permit
prior to the start of any site work.
2.The project NOT (Notice of Termination) upon completion of the project; and
l) The applicant must maintain on their project site, for review by staff:
1.The approved final that have been stamped by the Town Zoning
Administrator. These plans must include the project SWPPP (Storm Water
Pollution Prevention Plan) when such a plan was prepared and approved;
and
2.The project NOI and proof of coverage under the current NYSDEC SPDES
General Permit, or an individual SPDES permit issued for the project.
m) This application is approved with the following conditions:
1.The applicant will fortify landscaping on the northern side of the development,
specifically adding Pinus strobes or white pines, five to six feet in height to
form a hedge along the existing tree line and disturbed development area.
Trees will be planted every 10 to 12 feet starting at the northernmost
34
(Queensbury Planning Board 06/24/2010)
development area, continuing around the gazebo area, and ending at the
future parking 31 spaces notation on Drawing SP-5, Landscaping Plan. The
purpose of this landscaping fortification is to enhance the buffer, ensuring a
green buffer between this development and the northwest ramp.
2.It is the desire of the Planning Board that the Parcels 288.-1-64 and Parcel
288.-1-63 be deemed a singular private contract user and the carrying
capacity of the sewer, as determined by the Town Board, be limited to
adequately or sufficiently meeting the needs of this property only, as
proposed. This condition will be subject to confirmation by the Town Board.
th
Duly adopted this 24 day of June, 2010, by the following vote:
AYES: Mr. Krebs, Mr. Sipp, Mr. Jackoski, Mrs. Steffan, Mr. Ford, Mr. Hunsinger
NOES: NONE
ABSENT: Mr. Magowan
MR. HUNSINGER-Good luck.
MR. LAPPER-Thank you.
MR. SCHERMERHORN-I want to thank everyone, again, for the time that it took to complete
this. Thank you.
MR. HUNSINGER-You’re all set, Mr. Hill.
MR. FORD-Thank you so much.
MR. HILL-Okay. Great. Thank you. Nice to be with you all.
MRS. STEFFAN-Planning Board members might want to hold on to the Rush Pond trail linkage
handouts that are part of this application for future reference.
OLD BUSINESS:
SITE PLAN NO. 39-2010 SEQR TYPE II INWALD ENTERPRISES AGENT(S) JONATHAN
LAPPER OWNER(S) SAME AS APPLICANT ZONING WR LOCATION 38 GUNN LANE
APPLICANT PROPOSES TO CONSTRUCT A BOATHOUSE WITH SUNDECK ACCESSED BY
HANDICAP ACCESS RAMP ABOVE TWO EXISTING DOCKS. BOATHOUSE IN A WR ZONE
REQUIRES PLANNING BOARD REVIEW AND APPROVAL. CROSS REFERENCE AV 26-
2010, AV 68-08, SP 38-08, BP 09-384 WARREN CO. PLANNING 6/9/2010 APA, CEA,
OTHER L G PARK CEA LOT SIZE 0.66 +/- ACRES TAX MAP NO. 227.17-1-16 SECTION §
179-5-060
JON LAPPER, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT
MR. HUNSINGER-Stu, if you’d like to summarize the Staff Notes, please.
MR. BAKER-Absolutely. This application is not eligible for expedited review per the Town of
Queensbury Planning Board Bylaws and Policies & Procedures due to the non-conforming
nature of the project. Both existing docks do not meet the 20 foot north side setback
requirement and the proposed sundeck construction will require side setback relief from the
Zoning Board of Appeals as a result, and you should have the result of the ZBA review amongst
your handouts that you received this evening. The boathouse as proposed is to be 14 feet 0
inches above the mean high water mark, and as such does not exceed the maximum 16 foot
height requirement per the Code. The boathouse, as designed, appears to show no facilities for
sleeping, cooking or sanitary facilities as per the Code. The Planning Board may wish to direct
the applicant to enhance shoreline plantings as per §179-8-040, Landscaping and Buffering
standards. Additional Comments: The access ramp has been discussed with the Department
of Building and Codes Staff and appears to be compliant with ADA Standards, and you do have
the Area Variance 26-2010 resolution that was handed out this evening. County Planning Board
review had No County Impact with Stipulations, and the County Planning Board recommended
the conditions that the applicant put in a stormwater infiltration system, and do some type of
screening, landscaping around the ramp.
MR. HUNSINGER-Thank you. Good evening.
35
(Queensbury Planning Board 06/24/2010)
MR. LAPPER-Good evening. Sorry it’s me again. I know this was just before you. Stephanie
was here last week, and then she went to the Zoning Board and the variance was granted. It’s
very simply putting a covered roof deck on an existing dock complex and adding a handicap
ramp. I have authority to agree to plantings along the ramp and shoreline plantings, whatever
the Board would like to see, within reason, and what the County Planning Board asked for was if
the roof, the sundeck could have a gutter system that would go into an infiltration facility on
obviously the land side, and that’s fine, if that’s something that this Board wants.
MRS. STEFFAN-Have you ever had that request before, for a gutter system? I’ve never heard
one.
MR. LAPPER-I mean, it kind of goes into the lake anyway, off the roof, but whatever the Board
wants is fine.
MR. HUNSINGER-I’m also reading the comments from the Zoning Board, their concerns with
the handicap ramp.
MR. LAPPER-They were talking about alternatives to the ramp, and I think, I know that the
Chairman is here. I just saw him, but I think they were suggesting that when that got to the Park
Commission that the Park Commission might have some other alternatives.
MR. HUNSINGER-Okay.
MR. LAPPER-To the ramp, but it’s a situation where a couple that both have handicap issues.
So that’s why they’re asking for it.
MR. HUNSINGER-Yes, and you weren’t here last week when we were talking about it a little bit.
I mean, we’ve certainly had applicants that want to put in land bridges, which are generally
frowned upon, but this is the first time, to my recollection, that we’ve ever had one that wanted a
handicap ramp, and I mean, that’s a whole different animal altogether. So, you know, we really
weren’t quite sure how we wanted to view that and address that. So it’s certainly worth some
discussion.
MR. FORD-Are both of these people under the care of an orthopedic surgeon?
MR. LAPPER-Yes. I believe that I have some medical records.
MR. FORD-Physician.
MR. LAPPER-Here we go. Steph told me that she had obtained medical records.
MRS. STEFFAN-Stu, would you do us a favor, just because we received this tonight, and we
haven’t had a chance to digest it. Could you just read the motion into the minutes for us so that?
MR. BAKER-The Zoning Board minutes?
MRS. STEFFAN-Yes, please.
MR. BAKER-Yes. Certainly. This was a motion from the Zoning Board meeting of last night,
June 23, 2010. ”MOTION TO APPROVE AREA VARIANCE NO. 26-2010 INWALD
ENTERPRISES (ROBIN INWALD), Introduced by James Underwood who moved for its
adoption, seconded by Brian Clements:
38 Gunn Lane, Cleverdale. The applicant is proposing a boathouse with a 697 square foot
sundeck addition between two existing docks. Relief is requested from the minimum side
setback requirements. Under the relief required, there’s 20 feet of north side setback relief for
the portion of the sundeck totally within the 20 foot setback requirement, and 6 feet of additional
relief above and beyond the 20 feet of relief sought for that portion of the sundeck that extends
beyond or negatively into the side setback perpendicular to the shoreline, per Section 179-5-
060(7). In making a determination, the Board recognizes that the relief is necessary because of
having to measure at right angles from the shoreline as it exists up there, and it’s an oddball
shaped shoreline, and I think we all understand that that’s why. The attitude of the shoreline
appears to preclude any feasible request for any kind of dockage on that property there, and we
recognize that the docks currently existing are the ones that will be covered with a sundeck up
above. That’s 100% relief from the 20 foot north side line setback, which is severe, but we
recognize why it’s severe, and the application for six feet of additional relief beyond that is,
again, because of that projection of that imaginary line from the shoreline as we do that. We
don’t really consider that there will be any impacts on the physical or environmental conditions in
the neighborhood, and there’s plenty of other decks that have been built up there along that
36
(Queensbury Planning Board 06/24/2010)
shoreline that we would never have allowed. They’re there. In any case, we do have concerns
about the proposed ramp that will access this deck for the applicant’s parents who are impaired
physically. We have severe issues with us because we’re not providing the permission for this
ramp, but the Park Commission needs to make sure that they’re very careful with any permitting
for such a structure going forward. We recognize that the Town does not permit land bridges
under new construction, even though there are a few that exist along the lakeshore there, and
so as a feasible alternative, we would consider that probably the next best thing to do there
would be some kind of an automated lift that could lift a wheelchair from the ground up to the
level of the deck, and that would be a feasible alternative as opposed to this long 60 foot
proposed ramp. “
MR. HUNSINGER-Thank you..
MR. BAKER-And again, Chairman Underwood of the ZBA is here and could possibly address
any questions you have on the wording of that resolution.
MR. LAPPER-Did you see the photographs? Did Steph show you this last time, that pretty
much everybody but Inwalds has.
MR. HUNSINGER-Yes, and the one to the north has the room on it.
MR. LAPPER-Yes.
MR. FORD-Jon, did you find an answer to my question?
MR. LAPPER-Yes. I have X-rays which won’t probably help any of us, not being physicians, of
degenerated disks and vertebra.
MR. FORD-Are all other structures which they currently own ramped?
MR. LAPPER-I think that the house is a ranch, but I’m not that familiar, I think that the house is a
ranch, that they’re in the process of renovating it to make it handicap compliant. I know there’s
construction going on. I’m not that familiar with the applicants.
MR. KREBS-It is. It is a ranch. You and I went up there one time, remember? And it’s one
floor, except for there’s a second story on that little barn behind it, but that’s storage, and they’re
doing a beautiful job on the renovation, by the way.
MR. LAPPER-That’s good.
MR. JACKOSKI-Jon, is there a reason they’ve not decided to do a lift?
MR. LAPPER-I don’t know that. You know, this was drawn up and submitted to me saying, you
know, it’s a client of one of my partners, and she called me and said this is what we’ve got
planned to address this issue. Part of the issue with why they needed, that doesn’t address the
ramp, why they needed the sundeck was because they can’t physically cover up their boat. So
they’re not, you know, completely incapacitated, but they’re partially incapacitated, and I think
the ramp was just viewed as a way to get there in a wheel chair if you need to be. She was in a
wheelchair last year. Isn’t at the moment. If you’re asking me to look into whether or not a lift is
a possibility, you know, perhaps we should go talk to the Park Commission first and then come
back to the Planning Board. I’m open to handling this however you’d like.
MR. JACKOSKI-I’m kind of just struggling because they still can use the first level of the dock.
They still have access to the water. They still have access to the cribs, and I am struggling with
a 60 foot long ramp, and the safety of it and the way it looks, a land bridge. I’m just wondering
why they chose not to do a lift.
MR. LAPPER-Would you like me to table it at this point and look into whether there’s an
alternative that doesn’t include a 60 foot ramp that would accomplish this?
MR. FORD-I personally would. Because I concur with the observation about the ramp and the
precedent setting nature of it.
MR. HUNSINGER-Yes.
MR. KREBS-The only thing I will say, and I don’t know if you remember, but I was just up there a
couple of weeks ago. It is quite shielded on both sides by trees.
MR. LAPPER-That’s true.
37
(Queensbury Planning Board 06/24/2010)
MR. KREBS-So if you have a ramp on that property, it’s also kind of a funny, bumpy walk down
to the water. So, you know, if you had a problem, it might be difficult to walk on that surface.
MR. JACKOSKI-But there’s lots of property, Don. I just see, I mean, Shore Colony is a great
example. There’s 38 steps I think that my father-in-law takes down with his cane, he’s got MS,
he gets to the shore. A land bridge, a ramp like this is just troubling.
MRS. STEFFAN-Right, and it certainly would be policy setting, and based on past practice and
our belief system, you know, and what we want for the lake, I think we should explore
alternatives.
MR. JACKOSKI-Can I ask one more question? Is there anything from, in the record, did we
receive any public comment from any of the neighbors about adding height to this particular
dock?
MR. BAKER-We do have two pieces of public comment, yes, that we received in writing.
MR. HUNSINGER-Okay.
MR. JACKOSKI-I’m not necessarily opposed to the deck. I just, I’m struggling with the ramp.
MR. FORD-And, Jon, if you could, going back to that, the issue of the orthopedic issue, I’m not
interested in looking at the X-rays, but I am interested in what the individual diagnoses are.
MR. LAPPER-Okay. I will, then, request a tabling and I will look, I will come back with medical
records and look into alternatives to the ramp that would accomplish the same purpose, perhaps
a mechanical lift that’s not unattractive.
MR. FORD-Thank you.
MR. HUNSINGER-The other thing that we can accomplish, if we’re going to table this, is they
can come back with better plantings.
MR. LAPPER-Okay, and add plantings. Absolutely.
MR. HUNSINGER-I would like to have those letters read into the record and since Mr.
Underwood is here, if you had any comments of the Board that you wanted to make on this, you
know, we’ll open the public hearing and have that discussion, too.
PUBLIC HEARING OPEN
JIM UNDERWOOD
MR. UNDERWOOD-I don’t think our Board was absolutely opposed to this, but I think the
question that came up in my mind was the following, and I think Stephanie, you know, agreed
with us at the time, too.
MR. HUNSINGER-For the record, it’s Jim Underwood.
MR. UNDERWOOD-Yes. I didn’t know if it was going to be appropriate for me, but I came just
to see what your guys take was on it, too, but I think you’re seeing the same thing I was, and
that was, having dealt with the land bridge issue before, you know, and I know that’s been a hot
topic previously, all of us get old, and I think that we recognize that when people are unable to
get up and down stairs that it’s necessary sometimes to provide access to the waterfront, but
with this bridge, and because of the ADA accessibility, because it has that low pitch to it, you
know, I think it’s a one to six or something like that, is what it works out to be. Potentially I saw
that, you know, if we put this one in as the first one, every one of us could find a relative that was
incapacitated, and then you might be looking at ramps on the whole lake up there, and if you
open up that Pandora’s Box there, I think we’d be kind of shooting ourselves in the foot in that
regard. Certainly there are circumstances where I think it would be allowable, you know, in
consideration of individual people, but I don’t know if we can go there or not, based upon it, and
the other thing was, I asked Stephanie whether or not the Park Commission had given any kind
of commentary as to their take on it, whether they would agree that this is something that they
would allow up on the lake. There hadn’t been anything from the Park Commission, and I think
that would be appropriate also to obtain that advice from them, because, you know, it’s not
something that we should, you know, do lightly in any respect, but I would leave it up to you
guys. It’s your decision ultimately.
38
(Queensbury Planning Board 06/24/2010)
MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. Thank you.
MRS. STEFFAN-I certainly agree. The ramifications of this decision could be very far reaching.
MR. FORD-Very. Well beyond this Board.
MRS. STEFFAN-Yes.
MR. HUNSINGER-Was there anyone else in the audience that wanted to address the Board on
this project? Stu, I would like you to read those two letters. So we know what the concerns
were.
MR. BAKER-Yes. The first is correspondence between Rosemary Faulkner and Craig Brown
the Zoning Administrator, and Craig did ask that this be included in the public comment for the
th
application. This was dated Wednesday, June 16. “Dear Mr. Brown: Thank you for taking the
time to meet with us on Monday regarding our concerns about the use of 38 Gunn Lane,
Cleverdale. As we explained, my husband and I are extremely concerned about the
environmental impact on Cleverdale and our precious Lake George by how Ms. Inwald chooses
to use her property. From what we have seen, since the barn was renovated, she has been
renting the ranch-style house and the barn. At times there are at least a dozen cars there for
days at a time. She is currently renovating and adding to another building on the property which
she also claims to be her residence. We acknowledge she has received a variance for each
project, however, they were all presented to the board of Zoning Appeals as being her
residence. Ms. Inwald’s use of her property seems to be more of a commercial venture than
residential. When she is in Queensbury, I believe she lives in her house on the mountain behind
Warner Bay. My husband and I have written letters to the Board of Zoning appeals opposing
her changes to the barn and house-garage to no avail. Ms. Inwald is now before the Board of
Zoning Appeals again regarding a boathouse. To the best of our knowledge, she owns only a
C.C. sailboat which could not be accommodated in a boathouse. For whom is this boathouse
with the handicap ramp being built? Your attention to our concerns is greatly appreciated. Very
truly yours, Rosemary Faulkner (Mrs. Roland L.) 1562 Baker Avenue Niskayuna, New York
th
12309” The second is a letter addressed to Whom It May Concern, dated June 16. “To Whom
It May Concern: We own 112-124 Shore acres; this proposed 697 sq. ft. sundeck addition
between two existing docks is the only view we have of the lake from our beach. We have
enjoyed this view for years and do not want our view taken away, therefore we do not agree with
this proposal. Sincerely, Estate of Amelia Lupe Owen” Those are the only two correspondence.
MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. Thank you. Any other questions, comments from the Board before we
entertain a tabling motion? We will leave the public hearing open. Table this to?
MRS. STEFFAN-August.
thth
MR. HUNSINGER-Yes. Either the 17 or the 24.
MR. SIPP-I would include a buffer zone to be put in there, as to 179-8-040, whether it complies
with, there are a couple of small trees out there, but it needs more buffering.
MR. HUNSINGER-Yes, I agree. You’ve got the buffer in there, right?
MRS. STEFFAN-So it’s just those two conditions. A letter from the Lake George Park
Commission on the land bridge, and that the applicant provide plans for shoreline buffering and
ramp landscaping.
MR. LAPPER-And alternatives to the lift.
MR. FORD-Alternatives to the ramp.
MR. LAPPER-The ramp.
MR. FORD-And the orthopedic diagnosis or the diagnosis by the physician.
MRS. STEFFAN-Diagnosis and limitations? Diagnosis by a physician and limitations? I mean,
what are we looking for? I mean, they have degenerative disks. I’ve got those.
MR. FORD-Yes. Go beyond the diagnosis and get some sort of official physician
recommendation relative to the limitations.
MR. LAPPER-He’s going to say he recommends a 55 foot long ramp.
39
(Queensbury Planning Board 06/24/2010)
MR. HUNSINGER-Ramp for their boathouse, yes.
MR. FORD-We’ll see.
MRS. STEFFAN-All right. I’ll make a motion.
MOTION TO TABLE SITE PLAN NO. 39-2010 INWALD ENTERPRISES, Introduced by
Gretchen Steffan who moved for its adoption, seconded by Steven Jackoski:
1. A site plan application has been made to the Queensbury Planning Board for the following:
Applicant proposes to construct a boathouse with sundeck accessed by handicap access
ramp above two existing docks. Boathouse in a WR zone requires Planning Board review
and approval
2. A public hearing was advertised and held on 6/24/2010; and
3. This application is supported with all documentation, public comment and application
material in the file of record;
4. MOTION TO TABLE SITE PLAN NO. 39-2010 INWALD ENTERPRISES, Introduced by
Gretchen Steffan who moved for its adoption, seconded by Steven Jackoski:
th
This is tabled to the August 17 Planning Board meeting, application deadline for new
th
materials is July 15. This is tabled so that the applicant:
1.So that the applicant can provide a letter from the Lake George Park Commission on
land bridge usage.
2.The applicant can provide a plan for shoreline buffering and ramp landscaping.
3.So that the applicant can provide ramp alternatives.
4.So that the applicant can provide documentation of the described diagnosis by a
licensed physical, and also a description of the medical conditions and the limitations
of the condition.
th
Duly adopted this 24 day of June, 2010, by the following vote:
AYES: Mr. Magowan, Mr. Krebs, Mr. Ford, Mr. Sipp, Mr. Jackoski, Mrs. Steffan, Mr. Hunsinger
NOES: NONE
MR. LAPPER-Thanks everybody. Good night.
MR. HUNSINGER-Thank you.
SITE PLAN NO. 12-2010 SEQR TYPE II WILLIAM CROWELL AGENT(S) BRIAN HOGAN
OWNER(S) SAME APPLICANT PROPOSES EXPANSION OF AN EXISTING 1.5 STORY
YEAR ROUND HOME TO INCLUDE EXPANSION TO THE EXISTING KITCHEN,
OFFICE/DEN, SECOND STORY, AND THE ADDITION OF A WRAP AROUND PORCH ON
THE NORTH WEST SIDE OF HOME. FURTHER, APPLICANT PROPOSES TO REPLACE
EXISTING WOODED DECK WITH A PERMEABLE PATIO AND THE CONSTRUCTION OF
TWO RETAINING WALLS ADJACENT TO THE SHORELINE. EXPANSION OF A NON-
CONFORMING STRUCTURE IN A CEA AND HARD SURFACING WITHIN 50 FEET OF A
SHORELINE OF A SHORELINE REQUIRES PLANNING BOARD REVIEW AND APPROVAL.
CROSS REFERENCE AV 25-2010 WARREN CO. PLANNING 6/9/2010 APA, CEA, OTHER
LG PARK CEA LOT SIZE 0.37 ACRES TAX MAP NO. 239.12-2-59 SECTION § 179-9-010
BRIAN HOGAN, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT
MR. HUNSINGER-Stu, whenever you’re ready to summarize Staff Notes, please.
MR. BAKER-Okay. The applicant is proposing 550 square feet of total expansion to an existing
3,061 square foot pre-existing non-conforming single family home. Shoreline buffering is
proposed as well as stormwater controls in the form of eave trenches on the west side and
infiltration trenches to the north and under the proposed patio. As this has been determined to
be a Minor Project under Chapter 147, relief for infiltration devices within 100 feet of a shoreline
is not necessary. Then skipping forward to concerns, the Planning Board may wish to direct the
40
(Queensbury Planning Board 06/24/2010)
applicant to provide the correct application when submitting final plans if approval is
forthcoming. I gather the form used was an outdated form. Page Three, possible relocation of
the 48 square foot basement Bilco door should be ascertained by the Board at this time.
Further, how will said relocation affect the FAR calculation if a Bilco door already exists? Please
clarify Note One on this page. Note FAR relief request is anticipating the additional square
footage of relocated Bilco door requested by the applicant. Page Four, location of plantings
illegible. Please see planting attachment sent with Staff Notes. There appears to be no
invasive species proposed for the landscaping plan. Page Ten, again, a note about the possible
relocation of the 48 square foot Bilco door. Additional Comments: The Board may wish to direct
the applicant to provide the correct application noted already, and you have Area Variance 25-
2010 resolution handed out to you this evening.
MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. Thank you. Good evening.
MR. HOGAN-Good evening.
MR. HUNSINGER-If you could identify yourselves for the record.
MR. HOGAN-Sure. My name is Brian Hogan. I’m helping out the applicant. I’m his neighbor,
and unfortunately Mr. Crowell couldn’t be with us this evening. He was actually halfway up the
Northway and he had an emergency and called back to Albany. So I’m here, but his significant
other’s kind of stepping in for him a little bit. I hope that’s all right with you folks.
MR. HUNSINGER-Sure.
MR. HOGAN-Her name’s Eileen Considine, by the way.
MR. HUNSINGER-Did you have anything else you wanted to add? Did you go to the Zoning
Board meeting last week?
MR. HOGAN-Yes, we did. We went to the Zoning Board meeting last night.
MR. HUNSINGER-I’m sorry, last night.
MR. HOGAN-They incorporated a couple of suggestions for us. One of which is they wanted to
suggest that we add some mature trees, some trees that would grow up over time. They also,
they suggested that we would look to get rid of some more of the lawn space in front of the
property facing the lake, to try to kind of increase the buffer a little bit. We looked at some of
that, and we can definitely look at decreasing the amount of, yes, that’s not the house.
MR. HUNSINGER-Right.
MR. HOGAN-You guys have the documents in front of you. I can kind of show you a little bit
about what we talked about what we talked about, if that would be helpful to you, and on Page
One we’ve got some photographs of the existing structure, and mostly what we’re talking about
here is the defacing of the lake, and what the Zoning Board suggested was is that we, what, we
try to mitigate the second photograph, try to get rid of some of this, and what we’re proposing is
to take away almost all of that lawn that extends outside the drip line of the tree. What we do not
want to do is to disturb any of the ground underneath the drip line of the tree. So we’re going to
try to leave that in place if we can, and then go all the way back up to where we’re proposing the
stormwater controls, and get rid of all that lawn section going over to the walkway and put some
plantings in there.
MR. HUNSINGER-So would it be more additional plantings than what’s shown on Page Two?
MR. HOGAN-Exactly.
MR. HUNSINGER-Okay.
MR. HOGAN-Exactly. Yes. Basically what we’d be doing is taking on Page Two you see the
photograph, the bottom one right there, basically we’d take that whole section and we’d be
getting rid of that and putting additional plantings in there, making it try to look at little bit more
natural. The original intent was is that we had the two level wall. The first level obviously is the
patio as part of the stormwater system. The second one, lower down, was kind of just to make it
look like not so big a wall, with a lower wall in front of it, and the plantings in the in between were
going to grow up so it would hide the top part of the wall as well as, you know, if you have chairs
on the deck and that kind of stuff, it kind of provides a little bit of screening for you. Now we’re
going to increase that a little bit and put in some additional low plantings. That would be very
consistent with what the neighbor to the south has in place now.
41
(Queensbury Planning Board 06/24/2010)
MR. SIPP-Where would these additional plantings be, between the wall and the patio area?
MR. HOGAN-Yes. If you’re looking at the, if you look at the seawall, they’d be between the
seawall and then that lower wall, the first wall going, as you move up the property.
MR. SIPP-In that area. Now, have you looked at the zoning requirements for that buffer zone?
MR. HOGAN-No. I believe it’s, how many feet is it supposed to be?
MR. SIPP-Fifteen.
MR. HOGAN-Yes, 15. This is actually going to be greater than 15 feet. There’s only about 20
or so feet between there, so it would be totally gone. There’d be no lawn at all.
MR. SIPP-There is one tree, two trees, I guess, on the.
MR. HOGAN-Yes, there’s actually a very, very large tree, very large oak to the south side of the
property.
EILEEN CONSIDINE
MS. CONSIDINE-There actually is a whole line of trees on the north side that are not shown in
any of the pictures but are significant. So basically from the walkway to the dock to the property
line is full of mature trees, and those are on that property.
MR. SIPP-Yes, there is in the middle.
MR. HOGAN-Yes, on the north side, what she’s talking about is the north side, that there’s a
fence there that’s now, that’s actually, that fence and the trees associated with it is actually on
this piece of property. So most of those, it doesn’t actually follow the property line closely. So
most of those trees are on this applicant’s property, and you’re right, there’s additional trees. I
believe one of them’s a cherry tree, and there’s a couple of other trees on the property.
MR. SIPP-The Lake George Association has a complete listing of plants that are needed to be
used here, native growing.
MS. CONSIDINE-We have that.
MR. HOGAN-Yes. Actually I got that. That was a brand new list. It’s not even published yet by
the Fund by Lake George. We’ve actually got a copy of that. We’re going to be incorporating
some of those in there.
MR. SIPP-Yes. Now, you have a walkway which we, or which goes, went from the old house
down to the lake, which was concrete with flagstone?
MR. HOGAN-Yes, that’s a concrete with flagstone inserts.
MR. SIPP-(Lost words) more permeable in that area.
MR. HOGAN-Those, that existing walkway is not permeable, no. It actually, it represents a very,
very small portion of the property.
MR. SIPP-It shouldn’t go through to the lake, it’s a solid piece of concrete.
MS. CONSIDINE-The porch is going to cut, is going to take away a lot of the walkway. So it’s
going to be a very small walkway left.
MR. HOGAN-Yes. If you take a look at the stormwater plan, basically the amount of walkway is
probably about 18 feet by three feet wide. So we’re talking about about 50 feet of nonpermeable
existing walkway that would remain.
MR. SIPP-I’d like to see that changed, make that permeable.
MR. HOGAN-Remove the cement walkway? That would be a tough one. That’s a pretty nice
walkway.
42
(Queensbury Planning Board 06/24/2010)
MR. SIPP-Yes, but you, when it rains, what comes off the roof is going into your stormwater, but
when the area that it’s not taking care of, on the down slope, you’re going to have water running
down those steps right into the lake.
MR. HOGAN-I wouldn’t disagree with that, but, I mean, in the overall context of the project,
which is, we’ve significantly mitigated, the water, we’re treating 100% of the water that’s coming
off the roof, where none of it’s getting treated right now. It seems like a fair compromise for 18
by 3 feet of walkway that’s existing to the lake, to not have to force them to rip that out and make
it.
MR. SIPP-You can have the walkway, just make it permeable.
MR. HOGAN-We could. Again, it’s a tough decision, just because it’s an expense, and, you
know, these folks are getting older. Having stuff like that put in there, it’s just, it’s an additional
expense to remove it. The stairs would have to remain. I couldn’t see any way of removing
those.
MS. CONSIDINE-It’s another disturbance to the land.
MR. HOGAN-Yes, we’d have additional disturbance, and, you know, it’s pretty minor in terms of
what we have in place.
MR. SIPP-It’s not minor.
MR. KREBS-Well, Don, I don’t agree with you. I think it is pretty minor compared to the amount
of water that the Town of Queensbury allows to go in off Assembly Point into Lake George every
time it rains, and the Town of Queensbury and the State of New York and Warren County have
not done their responsibility to protect the lake.
MR. SIPP-I agree, but.
MR. KREBS-So why aren’t, these people are making a major improvement in their property.
MR. SIPP-Yes, but they’re leaving out one thing.
MR. KREBS-Well, so they’re leaving out one thing. The State has been dumping their
stormwater in Westbrook for 25 years.
MS. CONSIDINE-I’ll tell you what we’re leaving out. We’re leaving out a brand new house. We
made the decision that, we’re now living in a green world, to rehab an old house, and there was
a reason for that. We were supporting a rehab on the lake, rather than a tear down.
MR. SIPP-I think what the Town, what the County or the State does not do is not our concern.
Our concern is what can we do to protect this lake.
MR. KREBS-But you have to weigh the protection.
MR. SIPP-No, I’m not weighing. I’m doing what.
MR. KREBS-Well, you vote you way, I’ll vote my way. I’ll tell you, you know, I’ve already talked
to Dan Stec about removing that 15 foot requirement from the Ordinance, and I will continue to
push the Town to do so.
MR. HOGAN-Yes, I will say, right now, you know, we’re only adding 500 square feet of
impervious to this property, which is well under the limitation that we have for the property. In
addition, I mean, if you look at the way the, when you consider some of the impervious, I mean,
we’re actually, the patio that’s put in front of this thing, which has to be considered impervious
under the rules, is actually totally pervious. It’s actually a stormwater retention device. So, I
mean, if you look at this property, the amount of impervious stuff is so far less than any of the
properties around it or any of the new properties that have actually gone into the lake recently,
gone around the lake recently, it’s incredible. I mean, if you subtract the area of that patio, we’re
at less than 40% permeable, which is.
MR. SIPP-But the next applicant comes in and says, well, we’re already at 45% and you let him
do it at 40, you should do it the same thing for me. Do we set a precedent in saying, well, we’ll
just turn our backs and ignore a three foot wide impermeable set of steps going to the lake?
MR. HOGAN-It’s possible, but, I mean, even if I were to remove that, the amount of, what would
we replace it with? We’d replace it with what, flagstone with grass in between it or?
43
(Queensbury Planning Board 06/24/2010)
MR. SIPP-Just don’t set them in concrete.
MR. HOGAN-So what you’re asking for the, you’re asking us to reduce, so in other words what
you’re asking us to reduce by, we’re only reducing like the amount of mortar that goes in
between them, because those, the rocks themselves would be impermeable, and I’m going to
stack them next to each other, but I’m going to have grass in between them instead of cement.
So, I mean, we’re talking about, if I took that whole walkway out, we’d be removing, what, three,
four square feet of impermeable.
MS. CONSIDINE-And steps are a significant part of that section.
MR. HOGAN-Yes, it’s a relatively small.
MR. SIPP-What’s the thickness of that cement?
MR. HUNSINGER-Yes, what about the house itself, Board members have concerns or
comments on the house itself? Because that’s really why it’s here.
MR. KREBS-Well, when I went and looked at the house that exists there today, one of the things
that I thought was a major improvement is that deck, because right now, underneath the deck
that’s there, you have your down spouts coming from the gutters and it’s going directly onto the
lawn which goes directly down into the lake.
MR. HOGAN-Exactly.
MR. KREBS-What you have shown here is a significant increase in the amount of absorption
that you’re going to have off the house.
MR. HOGAN-That’s exactly right. If you look underneath that deck, you see all the ruts and
everything from when the rain flows and everything else, and there’s no grass or anything under
there. It just runs right down the hill currently.
MR. HUNSINGER-Any other questions, comments from Board members?
MRS. STEFFAN-The Bilco question here.
MR. HUNSINGER-Yes, the Bilco door question.
MR. HOGAN-The Bilco door question, yes, they decided to relocate that Bilco door, and it’s
going to get relocated to the southwest corner of the building.
MR. HUNSINGER-Okay.
MR. HOGAN-And that the square footage associated with that was included in the FAR.
MRS. STEFFAN-Now, have you submitted the correct application identifying, the Staff Notes
identified that the correct application wasn’t on file.
MR. HOGAN-Yes. What we did is we did two copies of the zoning one instead of one of the Site
Plan, because they’re almost identical.
MRS. STEFFAN-Okay.
MR. HUNSINGER-They are, yes.
MR. HOGAN-Except for like one little, I think actually for the name on the top they’re almost
identical. That’s where we made a mistake. I apologize for that. If I ever have to do another
one of these I’ll know.
MR. HUNSINGER-Do it right, yes. Anything else? We do have a public hearing scheduled this
evening. Is there anyone that wanted to address the Board on this project? Did you have any
questions, comments, Mr. Underwood? I will open the public hearing.
PUBLIC HEARING OPENED
JAMES UNDERWOOD
44
(Queensbury Planning Board 06/24/2010)
MR. UNDERWOOD-I know that we had tried to stagger ourselves between the Zoning Board
and the Planning Board so we could both compliment each other when we do our review of
these projects, and I know it oftentimes doesn’t end up, like last night. I didn’t know if you guys
had an opportunity to read the minutes of what we did last night or even our resolution.
MR. HUNSINGER-Well, we just got it tonight.
MR. UNDERWOOD-Yes. I would think it would be important in these instances that you do read
that into the record because we always read yours in and we take your comments very
seriously, especially when we review the SEQRA review to you guys, and we often defer to you
as the Lead Agency because of your formal review of all the projects completeness. A lot of
times ours is just a minor aspect of the project, but one of the things that we were interested in
last evening was I think you’ve all seen the photographs of the property on the foreshore down
by the lake there, and with the adoption of the new Code this year, I think we all recognize the
importance of the vegetative buffers and things like that and trying to deal with stormwater
protection plans and make sure that they’re done properly, and we recognize that that’s your
purview not our purview to do that, but nonetheless I think there was the general feeling of the
Board that, with the general lack of vegetation down on the foreshore there, that our
recommendation was that they add six trees, and I know the Water Keeper was there last night.
He gave some pertinent commentary also about the importance of that, and, you know, it’s not
every property on the waterfront that we deal with that we have to think more about what we
might do to improve the situation, but this one here I think it does require your thorough review
to make sure that we leave something better than what we started with, and I think that, you
know, the old model of the suburbanization up on the lake there has sort of gone by the way at
this point in time, and I think we recognize the importance of trying to do a little bit of restoration,
based upon the fact that, you know, we’re dealing with algae blooms and things like that in
various parts of the Town on Waterfront properties, but I don’t think we were looking to go
overboard on this, but our suggestion was that we have more of a naturalization of the
waterfront, you know, with plantings and removal of these lawns because they’re no longer
necessary or, you know, need to be a part of a waterfront property up on Lake George or any
other waterfront property. I think we recognize the danger of allowing this to continue, but that’s
ultimately your purview, but I think that, you know, you should read our comments into the
record because we read yours and I think that, you know, we try to compliment your Board and
we know you try to compliment our Board, and that way we end up with a good outcome in the
end, but thank you very much.
MR. HUNSINGER-Great. Thank you.
MRS. STEFFAN-Thanks.
MR. HUNSINGER-Anyone else want to comment on this project? Stu, did you have any written
comments?
MR. BAKER-We do have written comments. I do also have the ZBA motion if you’d like me to
read that into the record as well.
MR. HUNSINGER-Sure. That would be great.
MR. BAKER-Okay. This is a motion from last evening, June 23, 2010. “MOTION TO APPROVE
AREA VARIANCE NO. 25-2010 WILLIAM CROWELL, Introduced by James Underwood who
moved for its adoption, seconded by Ronald Kuhl:
20 Holly Lane, Assembly Point. The applicant is proposing the expansion of an existing 1.5
story year round home to include expansion to the existing kitchen, office, den, second story,
and the addition of a wraparound porch on the north and west side of the home. Further, the
applicant is proposing to replace the existing wooded deck with a permeable patio and the
construction of two retaining walls adjacent to the shoreline. Relief is requested from the
minimum Floor Area Ratio and shoreline setback requirements for the expansion of a
nonconforming structure. The applicant specifically is seeking 353 square feet of additional
Floor Area Ratio relief from the maximum allowable Floor Area Ratio of 3,258 square feet for
this parcel as per Section 179-3-040, and the total proposed Floor Area Ratio is to be 3,611
square feet. We are asking for relief for the expansion of a nonconforming structure in a Critical
Environmental Area for that portion of the house to be expanded within the 50 foot shoreline
setback relief per Section 179-13-010 A. The expansion of the structure begins 15 feet into the
50 foot shoreline setback requirement, and we recognize that. Primarily this structure’s going to
be extended with that second story up there, and I think that’s going to be built at 25 feet. That
was the height that was agreed upon. We recognize that the structure is a two by four
structure. It’s going to be built with two by six construction to Code, to bring it up to year round
usage, and as far as whether the request is substantial, although it is over the top as far as the
45
(Queensbury Planning Board 06/24/2010)
Floor Area Ratio relief goes, we don’t feel that this structure is out of synch with what’s been
done in the neighborhood, or will probably be done in the future up there in the neighborhood,
and it will effectively make the neighborhood a better place. The only stipulations that we will
put in here is we would like to see substantial vegetative plantings completed on the foreshore
area, including six trees, and that’ll be two oak trees, two birch trees, and two pine trees. We
would like to see those remain and not be trimmed or cut because we’re trying to achieve
something. Along with those trees, we would like to see the primary elimination of most of that
lawn area leading down and a regular berm with native plantings done there to better reflect
what the shoreline should be on Lake George, because this is going to have a positive effect for
the neighborhood. In agreeing to do this, we would be more than happy to grant you the relief
as requested.” In terms of written comments, the Planning Board did receive a letter today,
which I believe was distributed to you, from the Lake George Water Keeper.
MR. HUNSINGER-No, we didn’t see that. If you could just read it, please.
MR. BAKER-Okay. This is addressed to Chris Hunsinger, Chairman of the Planning Board.
“Dear Mr. Hunsinger: The above referenced site plan application was personally reviewed in my
capacity as a licensed professional engineer and the Lake George Water Keeper. The Lake
George Water Keeper has concerns about the site plan in relation to buffering and shoreline
setback on this shoreline property. The Lake George Water Keeper requests the Planning
Board to apply the Town’s regulations, including §179-8-040 Shoreline Buffers and disturbance
within 50 feet of the lake, during your deliberations regarding the above referenced site plan
application. I am unable to attend this evening’s meeting due to a conflict and would like to offer
the following comments for the Board: The applicant should be required to install a shoreline
buffer as required by §179-8-020 and 179-8-040. Currently, there is no buffer provided on the
shoreline. The property is located in southern portion of Harris Bay where substantial algae
growth was observed in the Summer 2009 that can be greatly attributed to a lack of shoreline
buffers along the densely developed shoreline. At the June 23, 2010 Zoning Board of Appeals
meeting, the Board conditioned the project variances on the installation of a four-tiered shoreline
buffer that was to include six trees. The Lake George Water Keeper supports this condition. The
requirement for the installation of a shoreline buffer is a necessity for stewardship of the lake
and for the improvement of water quality in Lake George. The proposed patio is within the
shoreline setback as defined by the Adirondack Park Agency and requires a variance.
According to §575.4.b of the Adirondack Park Agency Rules and Regulations, “Porches, decks
and other structures attached to single family dwellings or to other structures subject to building
setback restrictions shall be considered part of the structure for applying the setback restriction.”
Since the patio is supported by retaining walls and is not flush with existing grade, it appears the
shoreline setback dimension should be applied to the patio since it is attached to the principle
structure. It should be determined if a variance is required from the APA for the patio was well
as the expansion to the structure. It should also be determined if the project is jurisdictional by
the APA. The amount of hard surfacing for the patio is excessive within close proximity to the
lake. The Lake George Water Keeper supports the use of permeable pavement for the
reduction of runoff at the site. However, the increased disturbance and width for the patio
construction, removal of soils and construction of retaining walls necessary for grading within the
shoreline setback increase the impacts to the lake. There are alternatives available for the patio
construction. The existing –on-site wastewater treatment system (OWTS) should be certified for
three bedrooms. The OWTS, that we understand has been recently installed, should be
certified that it is sized for a three bedroom house (two bedrooms and the den that could be
converted in the future as per New York State Department of Health Regulations). The Lake
George Water Keeper is not opposed to the upgrade and expansion of the existing residence.
However, it is my opinion the extent and impact of the disturbance should be minimized and
recommends the following to the Town of Queensbury Planning Board: 1) Require the
submission of a plan for the installation of a four-tiered shoreline buffer as conditioned by the
Zoning Board of Appeals; 2) Require the submission and response of Jurisdictional Inquiry
Form to the Adirondack Park Agency regarding the shoreline setback for the patio and
jurisdiction of the project under the APA rules for shoreline properties in a Moderate Intensity
Use Area; 3) Reduce the disturbance of the patio; and 4) Require the certification of the
existing OWTS for a three bedroom residence. The Lake George Water Keeper looks forward
to working with the Town of Queensbury Planning Board to defend the natural resources of Lake
George and its watershed. Thank you for your consideration. Sincerely, Christopher Navitsky,
PE Lake George Water Keeper”
MR. HUNSINGER-Anything else?
MR. BAKER-No.
MR. HUNSINGER-Thank you. Questions, comments?
MR. SIPP-Where is the septic?
46
(Queensbury Planning Board 06/24/2010)
MR. HOGAN-The septic is located behind the property. Do you have the site plan there?
MR. SIPP-Yes.
MR. HOGAN-If you look on Sheet Three. You see the existing leach field to the rear of the
property? And the existing septic and pump tanks are to the north of the building.
MS. CONSIDINE-And it has been certified for three bedrooms because the house is three
bedrooms now, and it was also certified when it was put in several years back for two
bathrooms.
MR. HUNSINGER-I think we had asked that question when you were here before.
MS. CONSIDINE-No, I don’t think so, but it is a three bedroom house, and it will be a three
bedroom house.
MR. HUNSINGER-Maybe it was in the notes.
MS. CONSIDINE-There’ll be two bedrooms and a den, we’re calling a den, but.
MR. HOGAN-It is, it’s three bedrooms. It’s a three bedroom septic. It’s modern, and it was
approved with a previous variance, and that’s about the only spot on the property where that
could be located, and I will make a comment about the jurisdictional and the setback
requirements. The Staff reviewed this, and additionally we had requested the setback of 21.5
feet from the lake, and it was determined that was not required because of the fact that this was
a, the patio, actually part of the patio is at grade, the south part of the patio is at grade. The
retaining walls were considered minor, and we are not going to be required to have any, it’s not
required as part of the, if it’s not a wooden deck or any other structure that requires a variance.
MR. HUNSINGER-Okay.
MR. SIPP-Is there a well, do you draw water from the lake?
MR. HOGAN-Yes, we draw water, the house draws water from the lake.
MR. SIPP-There’s no well?
MR. HOGAN-No well. There’s, the neighbor has a well to the northeast of the property. That’s
one of the reasons why the leach field and everything is positioned the way it is. That was the
only way it would fit on the property.
MR. HUNSINGER-What’s the will of the Board? I think the only issue is the shoreline plantings.
MR. KREBS-Which they’ve agreed to do.
MR. HOGAN-Yes.
MS. CONSIDINE-No, we have not. We’ve agreed to the decrease of the lawn, and many, many
additional plantings in the foreshore. Last night, words like foreshore and berm were not used in
the resolution, but that’s what’s being read in as the resolution today. We had a lot of work done
today, including an arborist on the property, that has taken care of the large oak. Really what’s
left is the big area where the oak is which is huge, with roots. What’s left is about 30 or 40 feet
and 20 feet to the shore, and that’s where you’re supposed to fit six trees, two oaks, two birches,
and two pine. The number and type were chosen last night, and it’s not going to work in that
area with the seawall.
MR. HOGAN-There’s actually a concern about that, trying to get that, trying to get the,
particularly the oaks, trying to put them that close to the shore. After about five or ten years we
were told that the root structure would start to impact that seawall. It’s not a natural seawall. It’s
not like stacked rocks or anything. It’s a cement and stone seawall. Anybody knows, you start
planting trees within four feet of a, in front of a seawall it’s going to cause problems later down
the road.
MS. CONSIDINE-So, you know, we checked that with the arborist today.
MR. HOGAN-Yes. Now we did agree we would include trees on the property and would
increase the number of trees, but we’d probably have to locate those in such a manner where
they’re not going to impact any of the structures on the property.
47
(Queensbury Planning Board 06/24/2010)
MS. CONSIDINE-And the large oak that presently exists.
MR. HUNSINGER-Right. You weren’t going to do anything with that anyway.
MS. CONSIDINE-No.
MR. HUNSINGER-Yes.
MR. HOGAN-And actually as part of this, if you look at the plantings we already have, there’s
already three or four pine trees. I believe there’s two spruce and two hemlocks already included
in the foreshore area.
MR. FORD-So what are you planning to add?
MR. HOGAN-What are we planning on adding? Most of the stuff that’s going to get added is
going to be off the natural listing we received from the Fund For Lake George, and that’s going
to be, most of that is probably going to be shallow root type of things that are not going to be in a
position where they’re going to impact that seawall.
MR. FORD-So they have not yet been identified.
MR. HOGAN-They have not been identified.
MS. CONSIDINE-We are definitely adding trees to the property, but it cannot be in that small
foreshore area that you can add six trees.
MR. FORD-Where do you anticipate placing them?
MR. HOGAN-There’s definitely going to be some, there’s going to be some screening trees
added to the south side of the property. Right now there’s nothing between there and the
neighbors. So there’s going to be some definitely added in that location. I don’t know if there’s
a picture of that. Yes, along the south side of the property there’s actually, there’s a chain link
fence right there right now. We’re going o be adding trees in that area to try to separate the
properties a little bit and make it look a little bit nicer, and if you look at the property to the
immediate south, they’ve got a similar thing where they’ve, they have a shoreline buffer in place,
and it’s got some, you know, low plantings and bushes and things like that that actually it looks
very nice, and there’s no lawn there as well. So it would be very much in keeping with what’s
existing.
MR. SIPP-I find the list of plantings, but I don’t find where they’re going to be put.
MR. HUNSINGER-Yes. It doesn’t really show where they’re going to be located.
MR. HOGAN-There should be a, Staff should have given you a copy of a document. It didn’t
print on one of the copies, but you guys should have it. It’s on an eight and a half by eleven
sheet of paper, and it indicates what the plantings are, where they’re located.
MR. HUNSINGER-Yes, we do have that.
MR. HOGAN-Do you guys have it?
MR. HUNSINGER-Yes.
MR. HOGAN-Okay.
MR. HUNSINGER-It’s labeled as Page Four. It’s 11 by 17, it was attached with the Staff Notes
from last week.
MR. FORD-You say you’re planting trees, but in essence you’re planting shrubs, isn’t that
accurate?
MR. HOGAN-Well, I’m no expert at this, but my understanding is most shrubs are trees when
they out in life. A couple of these, if you look at them.
MR. FORD-Most shrubs are trees when they start out in life?
MR. HOGAN-Well, yes, I mean, we have two of these that are, we have a hemlock. I mean, a
hemlock’s a tree, and there’s a couple of spruce in there, which tend to grow very large as well.
48
(Queensbury Planning Board 06/24/2010)
So, I mean, those are, when you plant them initially, yes, they look like shrubs, but I mean, they
do tend to grow, and I think initially at least four of them I’m looking at are starting at, they’re
planned to be at least five feet tall initially. So, no, we’re not, they’re not shrubs to start out with.
Yes. There’s at least five or six of those in there that are within five or six feet.
MRS. STEFFAN-Are all of the plants that are on this plan, are they part of our, did they come
from our list, the Town’s list of approved plants?
MR. HOGAN-All of them were determined to be non-invasive. I would not call them all, they’re
not all natural plants, no. I mean, if you look, there’s a winterberry in there which is a variation of
a burning bush, and then if you look at Hostas, I mean, I think that’s on the list.
MRS. STEFFAN-Right.
MR. HOGAN-I think there’s even a couple of roses in there, which I know are not in the, which I
know are not on the list.
MR. SIPP-They’re not all on that list.
MR. HOGAN-This plan was done for us. It was approved by Toad Flax Nursery. I mean, there’s
some concerns, I guess, about which plants work on the point anyway because you can plant
certain ones, but then the deer tend to eat them after the first year anyway. So they tried to work
a little bit within that.
MRS. STEFFAN-Hostas, it’s like deer salad, trust me.
MR. HOGAN-They don’t eat the Hostas. No, because we Hostas. I actually live two doors
down, and they don’t eat the Hostas.
MRS. STEFFAN-I have a lot of Hostas. When the flowers come, they come and eat the flowers
first, and then I have these little stubs, they look like alien plants.
MR. HOGAN-So I mean in terms of our landscape plan, if you look at that, if you look outside the
tree line basically we’re proposing that we would get rid of the lawn in that area, and put
plantings in there.
MS. CONSIDINE-Additional.
MRS. STEFFAN-Well, unfortunately I believe that we’re going to need a revised planting plan,
which is a very big part of your application, and I know you just got your Zoning Board variance,
but I believe you’re going to need to come back, because I don’t know how the rest of the Board
feels, but I’m sensing a lot of ambiguity on where the landscaping plan is.
MR. KREBS-There’s a landscaping plan right here.
MRS. STEFFAN-Is it sufficient?
MR. KREBS-It’s significantly greater than what is there today, and the patio is a significant
improvement over the downspouts coming down onto the ground and directly into the lake. So,
you know.
MR. HOGAN-Yes, I mean, in terms of what we’re proposing, I mean, that 30 foot area, you
know, we’d certainly be willing to work with you guys in terms of what you’d require as far as that
goes, and if there’s any way we can avoid coming back again, tonight was quite the experience
for me.
MR. HUNSINGER-It’s not usually that bad, but you also have to look at it this way. If we didn’t
have the project, the first project before you, we would not have had a meeting this evening. So
you wouldn’t be here until July.
MR. HOGAN-All right.
MR. HUNSINGER-So you have to look at the positive side. It enabled us to get five more
projects in before the Board by having a special meeting.
MR. HOGAN-Okay.
MR. HUNSINGER-Well, I can just say from past experience, when we’ve sent the applicant
home and approved the project saying, you know, the plantings have to be consistent with the
49
(Queensbury Planning Board 06/24/2010)
Code, down the road it’s caused problems for us. So that’s my, you know, my reluctance, and
we had one just recently where we had done that, and it ended up coming back anyway.
MR. FORD-We tend to approve with specificity.
MS. CONSIDINE-Isn’t specificity enough to say that they’re going to native plants and removal
of the lawn in front of?
MR. HOGAN-And if we were to specify the fact that all the plants that we would add in that area
that we’re changing there were going to be off of the list that’s been approved by the, whoever,
the Water Keeper
MS. CONSIDINE-Lake George Association.
MR. HOGAN-The LGA and the Fund For Lake George. Would that be sufficient?
MR. SIPP-Yes, we’d like the, if you want to put them in there with a generic name. It’s better
than the Latin name.
MR. HOGAN-Sure. I agree with that. If you’re a landscaper, you know what they all mean, but.
MR. SIPP-This list you have here has very few of those on there.
MR. HOGAN-Well, these are the ornamental ones around the house. So what we’re planning
on doing with the vegetative buffer is to use the natural ones. Exactly.
MR. SIPP-At the shoreline they should be.
MR. HOGAN-Yes.
MR. JACKOSKI-Would you be able to show us on the photograph that’s up there where the ZBA
was suggesting the six trees go?
MS. CONSIDINE-There was no finding on that.
MR. HOGAN-They didn’t. They just, you know, when Mr. Underwood suggested, you know, he
said I’d like you to put six trees, and, you know, when you’re in the meeting and they kind of read
the whole thing, you say, well, I guess, but then when you go back and look at it to put six trees
in that space is really, I originally thought when we talked about it it was going to be six trees on
the property, and I said we could probably site six trees on this property without any issue, but
when it changed to the foreshore, I either have to plant the trees underneath the canopy of the
existing oak tree, or I’ve got to plant them in a relatively small area between the retaining wall
and the seawall, which is problematic when they start to grow.
MS. CONSIDINE-And the stairs which is another area.
MR. HOGAN-And the stairs that are there. It’s not a large area. I mean, you know, I could sit
here and lie to you and say, yes, we’re going to stick them in there, and, you know, go out and
buy foot high trees and then 40 years from now maybe they would grow, but I don’t think that’s
the intent here. You want to have a real tree, and to put a real tree in there is probably, it’s not
practical based on the width you’re dealing with. You only have about 30 or 40 feet to work with.
MS. CONSIDINE-But there will be real trees added to the property.
MR. HUNSINGER-Well, and what the Code talks about is various level of canopy, you know,
some high canopy and then some moderate, you know, medium height bushes or smaller trees
and then ground cover, and, you know, the plan that we’re looking at before us doesn’t have all
three elements. That’s really the difficulty, and we like to see that mix. We’d like to see that mix.
Because we could say, you know, you have to submit a final drawings with plantings in
accordance with the Code, but we like to review that mix to make sure it’s, you know, consistent.
MR. HOGAN-Okay.
MR. HUNSINGER-I don’t know, what are other people thinking? We only heard from a couple
of members. When did you want to start the project?
st
MR. HOGAN-Well, actually we’re supposed to start the project September 1. We’ve actually
been working on this for quite a few months now. It’s been in the Town’s hands for quite some
time.
50
(Queensbury Planning Board 06/24/2010)
MR. HUNSINGER-I mean, I’m not hearing any concerns with the building, you know, I think the
only issues we have left are with the landscaping.
MS. CONSIDINE-Right.
MR. HOGAN-Yes. Can you guys do some kind of conditional approval based upon the
landscaping or something like that?
MRS. STEFFAN-The other thing is that the Bilco door, I mean, we don’t have any plan that
changes that, I mean, do we? We don’t.
MR. HOGAN-If you look on Page, there’s a basement plan, I believe. Sheet Ten. If you look at,
there’s a, the existing Bilco door shown to the north, and then there’s a dotted line, it shows the
outline of the Bilco door when it’s moved to the south.
MR. HUNSINGER-So the dotted lines that are shown there would be the Bilco door?
MR. HOGAN-The dotted lines, that’s the Bilco door, where it’s being relocated to, with the
southwest corner.
MR. FORD-Possible relocation.
MR. HOGAN-They’ve decided to do that. The other option was to put a hatch into the.
MR. FORD-You’re taking out the word possible.
MR. HOGAN-We took out the word possible.
MR. FORD-So it will not be there.
MR. HOGAN-It will not be there.
MR. FORD-But we need to imagine where it’s going to be on the plan.
MR. HOGAN-No. It’s on the southwest corner. If you look at the southwest corner, it’s just on
the lower left hand side of the drawing you see some dotted lines there.
MRS. STEFFAN-But then that’ll change the application on the Floor Area Ratio when this
drawing is changed, then that’ll change..
MR. HUNSINGER-Does it change the Floor Area Ratio?
MR. HOGAN-No. When we did all the calculations, we included the fact that the door would
move and would increase by 48 square feet. So all the calculations you’re looking at included
that, and that’s what was approved as part of the variance.
MR. JACKOSKI-I don’t want to create difficulties for Staff. So my thought is that, if it’s possible
to structure this so that they follow the letter of the law, the Code regarding the 15 feet, and we
get the three levels of the vegetation, and that’s really what we’re stuck on. Just tried to talk to
Don about, you know, ten trees grow out front, and he said yes, and he’s our plants guy.
MS. CONSIDINE-I’m sorry, I didn’t hear what you said. The what grove?
MR. JACKOSKI-That he’s suggested that the trees could grow out front.
MR. BAKER-Meaning along the shoreline?
MR. JACKOSKI-He’s our resident expert, yes. I just, I don’t want to send them back, but I mean.
MR. SIPP-If you plant trees that are on that list, they’ll grow.
MS. CONSIDINE-That’s what the arborist told us today, and that’s why some of the trees that
were suggested last night are not workable.
MR. SIPP-Well, that could be, but if you take that list, except for dead shade, they’ll grow.
51
(Queensbury Planning Board 06/24/2010)
MR. HOGAN-Yes. I don’t doubt that they’ll grow. One of the concerns we just have to be
careful about is the fact that we have that seawall in place. I’m sure there’s some that have
shallow roots and stuff that probably wouldn’t be effective.
MR. FORD-What and where.
MR. JACKOSKI-Was that resolution specific about how many of each tree species? I can’t
remember.
MR. FORD-Yes. Two, two, and two, wasn’t it?
MR. HUNSINGER-Yes.
MRS. STEFFAN-Yes, six trees.
MR. JACKOSKI-They said six, but did they say two of this tree?
MR. FORD-Two, two and two.
MR. HOGAN-Two, two and two.
MR. FORD-Right.
MR. BAKER-It says substantial vegetative plantings completed on the foreshore area, including
six trees, and that’ll be two oak trees, two birch trees, and two pine trees. We would like to see
those remain and not be trimmed or cut because we’re trying to achieve something. So that was
the level of specificity provided by the Zoning Board.
MS. CONSIDINE-May I ask you if that’s an exact writing from the tape?
MR. BAKER-I’m sorry?
MS. CONSIDINE-Is that an exact transcription of the tape?
MR. BAKER-Yes, it is. Yes, the resolution was written verbatim.
MR. HOGAN-We could try. I mean, if you guys decide to table this, when would we have to
come back again?
MR. HUNSINGER-It would be August.
MR. HOGAN-It would be August.
th
MR. HUNSINGER-We can get you in on the 17.
MS. CONSIDINE-We’re really trying to be good neighbors here.
MR. HUNSINGER-We appreciate that, yes. No, it’s obvious, yes.
MS. CONSIDINE-And we have made representations that we’re going to decrease the grass
area and increase the plantings, consistent with the list referred to, and I think the suggestion
that we will conform to the statutory requirements would be a sufficient condition.
MR. HOGAN-You need to be careful about that because they might have some stuff in there
about how many trees.
MR. HUNSINGER-The problem is, again, it doesn’t specify the, you know, in some respects the
Code’s pretty specific, but in other respects it’s not.
MR. JACKOSKI-Gretchen, regarding consistency and how we’ve done this before, can you kind
of refresh my memory?
MRS. STEFFAN-It varies as far as consistency goes. We’ve got a Zoning Board
recommendation in this particular situation which is very specific, and the other thing is that, you
know, I’m a little frustrated with this particular application because we had it for a
recommendation, but I just don’t feel like the notes are recommending, you know, that we do a
couple of specific things, and we have the public comment from the Water Keeper which
provided some direction and we’re kind of all over the page. There are a couple of issues that
are outstanding in my mind based on all the public comment that I’ve heard, that we just need to
52
(Queensbury Planning Board 06/24/2010)
get a corrected application, but that the applicant has to provide a substantial buffering plan
that’s Code compliant and naturalizes the waterfront using native plants from the Town’s list,
and decreasing some grass area. We need certification that their wastewater treatment system
is appropriate for three bedrooms, and we also just need a slight drawing amendment that
indicates the Bilco door change, you know, and the language on that chart. So those are four
things that I see, and they’re not huge, in my mind. I don’t know how the rest of the Board feels,
and I don’t know if we could add this as an additional item, on a late July meeting, and give them
two weeks to amend their plan. I don’t know what the Board feels about that.
MS. CONSIDINE-We have information here on the sewage.
MR. HOGAN-Well, this is the sewage treatment plan that’s approved, and it says three
bedrooms on it.
MRS. STEFFAN-What is it dated? When did you?
MR. HOGAN-It is dated 1/23/01.
MRS. STEFFAN-Okay.
MR. FORD-Nine years ago.
MR. HOGAN-Yes, that’s when this was approved, when it was actually constructed was about a
year later it was built.
MRS. STEFFAN-That was a new compliant septic.
MR. HOGAN-Yes, has a dual pump system and everything else.
MR. HUNSINGER-Would the Town have a copy of that on file, Stu, do you know?
MR. BAKER-The 2001 plan?
MR. HUNSINGER-Yes.
MR. BAKER-We should.
MR. HUNSINGER-Yes.
MRS. STEFFAN-You likely had to get a variance for it, right?
MS. CONSIDINE-Yes.
MR. HOGAN-Yes. There was a variance on it. The variance was approved.
MRS. STEFFAN-So the public record has to indicate that it exists.
st
MR. JACKOSKI-You wanted to start construction September 1?
MR. HOGAN-Yes.
MR. JACKOSKI-I mean, the only thing that would be affecting on your construction plans is the
shoreline buffer.
MR. HUNSINGER-Which you probably won’t do until Spring of next year anyway.
MR. HOGAN-No, that’s correct.
MR. JACKOSKI-You can go get your permit. You go get, sorry, not your permit. You can go
get your estimates. You can line everybody up.
MR. HOGAN-Yes.
MR. JACKOSKI-I mean, it sounds to me like this Board is leaning towards serious re-vegetation
of that shoreline.
MR. HUNSINGER-Well, I mean, it’s what the Code requires.
53
(Queensbury Planning Board 06/24/2010)
MRS. STEFFAN-Well, and the reason I worded it that way, the substantial buffering plan that’s
Code compliant, I mean, I think that that meets the intent of what the Zoning Board
recommended, they were being very specific with what they wanted you to do. If you had a
certified arborist who’s been at the property and said that’s not going to work based on what’s
there, then, you know, I believe you have to provide a reasonable alternative. We’re trying to
protect the lake. That’s the intent of the Code, and, you know, it certainly sounds like your intent
as well.
MR. HOGAN-Yes. We all drink that water, so, I mean.
MRS. STEFFAN-So if we can come to some happy medium, we just have to determine how we
can do that.
MR. HOGAN-Okay.
MR. FORD-I go back to my previous recommendation and request. What and where.
MR. HUNSINGER-Yes.
MR. HOGAN-I mean, from my perspective, what you guys are leaning towards right now is you
th
want us to come back on August 17 with a, what we’re planned for the vegetation.
MR. FORD-With a plan that we can say, okay, we know what’s going where, and, prove it and
that’ll be good. Or make other minor modifications and changes.
MR. HOGAN-Yes.
MRS. STEFFAN-The Zoning Board recommendation was very specific, you know, that they
wanted, they used words like substantial vegetative plantings, they asked for some trees that
were going to grow tall, that wouldn’t be trimmed, and so, as a Planning Board member, I’m
telling you, you know, that if that’s not going to work, based on what the arborist told you, you
just have to come up with a reasonable alternative.
MR. HOGAN-Yes. I think that’s what we need to do is just come up with an alternative that
meets it. It’s, basically a 15 minute phone call or half an hour, whatever they spent with the
arborist today is not going to be sufficient to make that determination.
MR. FORD-Your arborist says this won’t work, okay.
MR. HOGAN-So what will work, and we need to come back and do that.
MS. CONSIDINE-To be clear, it’s six trees in that area where two of them are oak. That’s the
big problem.
MR. KREBS-How much frontage do you have?
MR. HOGAN-There’s 100 feet total.
MS. CONSIDINE-But the area, you have to take out the area to the south where the big oak
already is, with a very extensive root system, which is third wider than the branches.
MR. KREBS-Yes, but that tree, that existing oak tree will count as a tree, okay, and the
requirement for every 50 feet is one large tree, three inch diameter, breast height, smaller tree or
large shrub. This is on page, if you want to go in and look, it’s on Page 146. It’s Article 179-8-
040, Shoreline Buffer.
MR. HOGAN-Okay.
MR. KREBS-And then if you go to Section B, it’s Buffer Requirements, it’ll tell you very
specifically what you need to put in there, and then following that is a list of approved plants.
MR. HUNSINGER-But for example, you know, the Zoning Board said two pine trees. I mean,
there’s a huge variety of pine trees.
MS. CONSIDINE-Right. That’s the issue is six of them with two oaks.
MR. HOGAN-Yes. I think what we’d like to do at this point, is to review the Town requirement
for the shoreline buffer. I’d like to come up with a reasonable plan that attempts to implement
54
(Queensbury Planning Board 06/24/2010)
the intent of what the Zoning Board wanted us to do, and also meets with what will work and will
not work on the site in conjunction with what the arborist says.
MR. FORD-Great plan.
th
MR. HOGAN-And we’ll come back and see you on August 17.
MR. HUNSINGER-Yes.
MR. SIPP-If you follow the Code there, there are conditions which trees will grow that are not
listed in the first bunch, and if you’re looking for something that grows under a tree that’s already
there, there are seven of them listed right here, one of which is a white pine.
MR. HOGAN-That grows under a tree that’s already, I hate doing that. I mean, you have to
understand, I sat before the Zoning Board and Planning Board about six years ago when I built
my house, and there’s a gorgeous oak tree on my property, and I had it designed in such a
manner that the house was sufficiently far enough away from the oak tree so as not to impede it,
but it was five feet closer to the lake. In order to get approval, I said, well, we’ll move, we had to
move the house back five feet, and I’m in the position now where I spent over $7,000 trying to
preserve that tree, and now I’m going to have to take down a 150 year old oak because it’s
dead. I mean, I’m sick over it, but it’s something I’ve got to do. So we just need to be a little bit
careful about how we, you know, try to do stuff. I mean, like digging up underneath an existing
tree to plant a new one. I’m never going to do that. I can’t.
MRS. STEFFAN-No, that’s not a good idea.
MR. HOGAN-The one tree will be shaded. It’ll die and it’ll kill the one that’s next to it.
MS. CONSIDINE-Well, they specifically say, in all the literature I read today about oak trees is to
not dig up the soil around the oak tree. Absolutely not.
MR. FORD-Well, you’ve got the Code, and youv’e got an arborist. You should be able to come
up with a plan.
MR. HOGAN-Yes. All right.
th
MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. Would you like to put forward your tabling resolution. August 17.
MRS. STEFFAN-I’ll make a motion.
MOTION TO TABLE SITE PLAN NO. 12-2010 WILLIAM CROWELL, Introduced by Gretchen
Steffan who moved for its adoption, seconded by Thomas Ford:
1)A site plan application has been made to the Queensbury Planning Board for the
following: Applicant proposes expansion of an existing 1.5 story year round home to
include expansion to the existing kitchen, office/den, second story, and the addition of a
wraparound porch on the north and west side of home. Further, applicant proposes to
replace existing wooded deck with a permeable patio and the construction of two
retaining walls adjacent to the shoreline. Expansion of a non-conforming structure in a
CEA and hard surfacing within 50 feet of a shoreline requires Planning Board review and
approval.
2)A public hearing was advertised and held on 6/24/10; and
3)This application is supported with all documentation, public comment and application
material in the file of record;
4)MOTION TO TABLE SITE PLAN NO. 12-2010 WILLIAM CROWELL, Introduced by
Gretchen Steffan who moved for its adoption, seconded by Thomas Ford:
th
This is tabled to the August 17 Planning Board meeting. Submission deadline for new
th
materials will be Thursday, July 15. This is tabled so that the applicant can meet the
following conditions:
1.The applicant will provide Staff with the correct application.
2.That the applicant will provide a substantial buffering plan that is Code compliant and
naturalizes the waterfront, i.e. using native plants from the Town’s approved list. The
intent of this is that this plan will also decrease the grass area.
55
(Queensbury Planning Board 06/24/2010)
3.That the applicant will provide documentation that the wastewater treatment system
is certified for three bedrooms. That may be the prior zoning approval, if it’s on
record, but the applicant needs to provide that to the Town.
4.That the applicant will amend the drawings to indicate the change in the bilco door
location.
th
Duly adopted this 24 day of June, 2010, by the following vote:
MR. JACKOSKI-Gretchen, do we want to bring anything in concerning the ZBA’s
recommendations? Because I think they’re a little bit different from what’s in the Code. They
were looking to require more.
MRS. STEFFAN-They wanted to see substantial vegetative planting. They wanted the berm
out, and I believe that the applicant has the direction of the Zoning Board resolution, and based
on our discussion, they know that if they come back with a plan that doesn’t meet the intent of
this resolution and some of the discussion we had tonight, we won’t approve it. So I think that
they’re going to work with their people.
MR. HOGAN-Yes. We’re going to come up with a reasonable plan and put it in front of you
guys. I mean, I don’t want, I’m so glad Bill isn’t here, because if he was here, we’d be not doing
anything, and he’d be re-doing the inside and putting in fresh sod out front. So I’m actually
thankful he got called away.
MS. CONSIDINE-That’s actually, he’s exaggerating. It was pretty much a shock to be told two,
two and two last night, out of the blue with no factual basis for them working in the space.
MR. HOGAN-Yes.
MR. HUNSINGER-Any more discussion?
MR. FORD-No.
AYES: Mr. Magowan, Mr. Sipp, Mr. Ford, Mrs. Steffan, Mr. Hunsinger
NOES: Mr. Krebs, Mr. Jackoski
MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. Thank you.
MR. HOGAN-All right, guys. Thank you. See you in a couple of months.
MRS. STEFFAN-See you in August.
MR. HUNSINGER-Did you specify the submission deadline?
th
MRS. STEFFAN-July 15.
MR. HUNSINGER-Thank you, and we did leave the public hearing open.
NEW BUSINESS:
SITE PLAN 38-2010 SEQR TYPE II RAY TALMADGE AGENT(S) ELAINE LANT
OWNER(S) SUSIE TYRER-GLENWOOD ASSOCIATES ZONING CI LOCATION 60
GLENWOOD AVENUE APPLICANT PROPOSES SEASONAL PRODUCE STAND ACROSS
FROM GLENWOOD MANOR. SEASONAL PRODUCE STAND IN THE CI ZOE REQUIRES
PLANNING BOARD REVIEW AND APPROVAL. CROSS REFERENCE SP 43-05 WARREN
CO. PLANNING 6/9/2010 APA, CEA, OTHER NWI WETLANDS LOT SIZE 2.60 +/- ACRES
TAX MAP NO. 296.19-1-1 SECTION §179-9-010
RAY TALMADGE, PRESENT
MR. HUNSINGER-If it’s okay with the Board, I think we’ll dispense of reading Staff Notes, for the
sake of brevity.
MR. TALMADGE-Good evening.
MR. HUNSINGER-Good evening. If you could identify yourself for the record.
56
(Queensbury Planning Board 06/24/2010)
MR. TALMADGE-Okay. Raymond Talmadge. They call me Ray. Okay, and I’m from 40
Church Street, Scarlettville, NY 12871.
MR. FORD-And the lovely lady to your right?
ELAINE LANT
MS. LANT-I’m his significant other, Elaine Lant. I’m not his agent.
MR. TALMADGE-We’re domestic partners.
MR. HUNSINGER-Would you like to tell us a little bit about your project, or do you want us to
start asking questions?
MR. TALMADGE-Well, I want to open a vegetable stand at the Manor across in the parking lot,
and it’s between a 10 by 10 and a 10 by 12 tent, and the sign, there’s a picture in here some
place. Right here.
MR. HUNSINGER-Yes, we have it. Yes, Black Lab Fruit and Vegetables.
MR. TALMADGE-Yes, and that’s a tent like that’ll be set up there. It’ll be put up in the morning
and taken down at night.
MR. HUNSINGER-So you take it up and down every day?
MR. TALMADGE-Every day.
MR. HUNSINGER-Okay.
MR. TALMADGE-Okay, and that was the sign I had, so I used that, and that sign there is about
two and a half foot by eight foot, which comes out to 20 square feet. I sell fruits and vegetables
and produce mostly.
MR. HUNSINGER-So would that be the only sign that you would use?
MR. TALMADGE-Well, I’d like to have a little sign out by the road there, you know, the politician
type sign that says Fresh Vegetables or something on it. I guess one of the concerns was, or
maybe I better let you ask the questions.
MRS. STEFFAN-What are your anticipated hours of operation?
MR. TALMADGE-Well, I wanted to operate from ten to six, but there was some concern about
that, so in the Fall of the year, I only want to operate during the daylight hours. Okay, because
come September, you know, the days wind and, you know, and I’d be out of there probably a
half hour before sunset.
MR. HUNSINGER-Well, that’s the next question, which is the dates of operation.
st
MR. TALMADGE-Okay. I’d like to operate from July 1 through September, to the first of
September, seven days a week, okay, and then after September I think it would be just
weekends, Friday, Saturday and Sunday. During daylight hours only.
MR. HUNSINGER-So it would be all weekends in September?
MR. TALMADGE-All weekends in September, and probably October would be the weekend
before Halloween I would be gone. Because that would be the last, I don’t have a calendar
here, but.
st
MRS. STEFFAN-That would be October 31 is a Sunday.
MR. TALMADGE-Well, I’d be gone the week before that.
rd
MRS. STEFFAN-The 23.
rd
MR. HUNSINGER-So the 23.
rd
MR. TALMADGE-23, yes.
57
(Queensbury Planning Board 06/24/2010)
MRS. STEFFAN-Okay. Now the applicant is requesting approval in perpetuity, as agreed to by
the property owner. I think most of you saw the letter, that handwritten letter that was in there.
MR. HUNSINGER-Yes.
MRS. STEFFAN-How do you feel about that? We just granted one for five years.
MR. HUNSINGER-I was going to say, the last one we did was for five years. Personally, I love
fruit stands. I think they’re great. I have one on the corner of my street. They’re encouraged in
our new Town Code. So, you know, they’re generally encouraged . We just have to make sure
that, you know, you comply with all the Town requirements.
MR. TALMADGE-Right.
MR. HUNSINGER-And one of them is, you know, it’s a, requires special approval, and the
longest that we’ve ever approved one is for five years. So, in five years, if you want to continue,
you’d have to come back to this Board for Site Plan Review.
MR. TALMADGE-For recertification. Right?
MR. HUNSINGER-Yes.
MR. TALMADGE-That would be fine by me.
MR. HUNSINGER-Are Board members comfortable with the five year?
MR. KREBS-Yes.
MR. JACKOSKI-Yes.
MR. FORD-Yes.
MR. HUNSINGER-And I guess it would be, in future years would you want to start earlier than
st
July 1, though?
MR. TALMADGE-This year my strawberry crop just froze. I picked 10 cords where I should
st
have been picking up around 1500 to 2,000. I’d like to start maybe next year the 1 of June.
MR. HUNSINGER-Okay.
MR. TALMADGE-Okay. That’s about the time strawberry season starts, and before that, you
know, I’m not into selling potted plants or anything. Okay, or, you know, annuals or pre-annuals
or anything like that. No, if that came up in a year or two down the road, I would come back
before you and run it by you about selling, you know, plants. Okay.
MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. Any additional Staff concerns that we didn’t address, Stu?
MR. KREBS-Well, there’s one question there about the eight by eight sign, but I think he pointed
out that’s not true.
MR. HUNSINGER-Yes. He said it’s about 28 square feet. Code allows 32.
MR. TALMADGE-What I would do, you said 32 square feet I think in the letter total, two signs,
32 square feet.
MR. HUNSINGER-Yes.
MR. TALMADGE-If it came up that it was over, I’d get a new sign made for one or the other, you
know, for the tent probably.
MR. HUNSINGER-Okay.
MR. TALMADGE-And keep it within the Code.
MR. HUNSINGER-Yes.
MR. TALMADGE-If you go by the book, you can’t go wrong . Right?
MR. HUNSINGER-Exactly.
58
(Queensbury Planning Board 06/24/2010)
MR. BAKER-Yes. Really the size and number of signs is the only real outstanding concern.
MS. LANT-How many signs is it limited to, two signs or one sign? We’re allowed how many?
MR. BAKER-Two signs.
MR. HUNSINGER-Two signs, each sign not to exceed 32 square feet.
MS. LANT-Okay.
MR. BAKER-One sign can identify the business and one can be used to list the current produce
for sale.
MS. LANT-Is a flag allowed, like an American flag that’s printed up with something on it, that
says fruits and vegetables or not? At the Manor we have a sign out front that says open. Or is
that not in accordance with something like this?
MR. BAKER-I would have to look specifically at the Code. I don’t know offhand.
MS. LANT-Okay. Well, then we’ll forget that. Just threw that in there.
MR. HUNSINGER-What was that term that we discovered in the Kentucky Fried Chicken
review? What was the term that they called it, the posters on the side.
MRS. STEFFAN-They’re like banners or something like that.
MR. HUNSINGER-Yes.
MRS. STEFFAN-Some bizarre name. As long as they don’t have a name, a business name
associated with it, they’re okay. Is all.
MR. TALMADGE-We’ll just go with a couple of signs.
MR. HUNSINGER-Right, you’d be safe that way.
MS. LANT-We’ll keep it simple.
MR. HUNSINGER-We do have a public hearing scheduled. Let the record show that there’s
only one member left in the audience, and he’s waiting for his turn. Was there any written
comments, Stu?
PUBLIC HEARING OPENED
MR. BAKER-No.
MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. I will open the public hearing. I mean, you’re welcome to comment,
sir, if you want. Okay. Let the record show there were no comments made. I will close the
public hearing.
PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED
MR. HUNSINGER-It’s a Type II SEQRA. So we can move right to a resolution.
MRS. STEFFAN-I’ll make a motion.
MOTION TO APPROVE SITE PLAN NO. 38-2010 RAY TALMADGE, Introduced by Gretchen
Steffan who moved for its adoption, seconded by Donald Krebs:
1)A site plan application has been made to the Queensbury Planning Board for the
following: Applicant proposes seasonal produce stand across from Glenwood Manor.
Seasonal Produce stand in the CI zone requires Planning Board review and approval
2)A public hearing was advertised and held on 6/24/10; and
3)This application is supported with all documentation, public comment and application
material in the file of record;
59
(Queensbury Planning Board 06/24/2010)
4)MOTION TO APPROVE SITE PLAN NO. 38-2010 RAY TALMADGE, Introduced by
Gretchen Steffan who moved for its adoption, seconded by Donald Krebs:
According to the resolution prepared by Staff. Paragraph Four A complies. The
Planning Board grants waivers for stormwater, grading, landscaping and lighting.
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)This is a Type II, no further SEQRA review is necessary; 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)Waiver requests granted: stormwater mgmt., grading, landscaping & lighting
plans
g)This is approved with the following conditions:
1.The applicant is approved to run this fruit stand from June through October.
The hours of operation will be anywhere from 10 a.m. to 6 p.m.
2.The applicant has a five year approval on this Site Plan approval.
3.That the applicant’s signage must be Code compliant.
th
Duly adopted this 24 day of June, 2010, by the following vote:
MR. FORD-Do we want to go with a specific date, as opposed to from June until October?
MRS. STEFFAN-I just figured it would be easier. Who’s going to regulate it? Because the
st
applicant did say June 1 to October, but who’s going to regulate it, and it’s for five years.
That’s why I put that.
MR. FORD-I figured you had a reason.
AYES: Mr. Sipp, Mr. Jackoski, Mr. Ford, Mr. Krebs, Mrs. Steffan, Mr. Magowan, Mr. Hunsinger
NOES: NONE
MR. HUNSINGER-Good luck. You’re all set.
MRS. STEFFAN-Good luck.
MR. TALMADGE-I’d like to thank the Board for their time and special consideration.
MR. FORD-Look forward to seeing you out there.
MR. TALMADGE-I look forward to serving it.
SITE PLAN NO. 40-2010 SEQR TYPE II LARRY TRACY OWNER(S) NORTHEAST REALTY
DEV. ZONING CI LOCATION STATE ROUTE 9 APPLICANT PROPOSES OUTDOOR
RETAIL SALES OF WOOD CARVINGS. NEW USES IN THE CI ZONE REQUIRE SITE PLAN
REVIEW AND APPROVAL. CROSS REFERENCE BP 10-233 WARREN CO. PLANNING
6/9/2010 LOT SIZE 0.73 +/- ACRES TAX MAP NO. 277.4-1-3 SECTION § 179-9-010
LARRY TRACY, PRESENT
MR. HUNSINGER-Again, if it meets with the Board’s approval, I will dispense with the reading of
Staff Notes. It’s fairly straightforward, and I’ll turn the floor over to the applicant, if you could
identify yourself for the record, please.
60
(Queensbury Planning Board 06/24/2010)
MR. TRACY-My name is Larry Tracy. I’m (Lost word) Craft Wood Carving. I’m proposing to set
up a tent and carve and sell my sculptures in front of the parcel that’s marked on your Site Plan.
MR. HUNSINGER-Did you have an opportunity to review the Staff comments?
MR. TRACY-I did.
MR. HUNSINGER-Because there were some questions. Well, more than questions, there was
a concern about the location of the sign I think was probably the biggest issue.
MR. TRACY-That’s not necessary, the sign, I just kind of put that on there. The location of the
sign is not a problem. We can move that, or not have a sign at all. That’s not a major concern
of mine.
MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. You understand what the issue is?
MR. TRACY-Yes, it’s the State. I guess it’s on State right of way.
MR. HUNSINGER-Yes, you showed it on the State right of way. Which would require a special
permit from the State.
MR. TRACY-That sound like more hassle than I want to go through. I could re-locate the sign,
or have no sign at all.
MR. HUNSINGER-Similar of questions from you as the last applicant. Hours of operation and
dates of operation?
MR. TRACY-The hours I’d like to operate are nine to five, usually seven days a week. My
st
season runs usually around April 1 and it goes through, usually until Christmas Eve, or a day or
two before Christmas Eve.
MR. HUNSINGER-Wow. Outside?
MR. TRACY-Yes, outside. It gets cold. I don’t work, I try not to work out there January,
February, March. It’s just too cold.
MR. HUNSINGER-Anything else?
MR. TRACY-That’s about it.
MR. HUNSINGER-Questions, comments from the Board?
MRS. STEFFAN-Do you plan on doing this year after year, or is this just one year?
MR. TRACY-Year after year, as long as I can.
MR. MAGOWAN-Are you doing it now on that other site or?
MR. TRACY-Yes, sir. I’m doing it at a different place, yes. I’m making them right now and I’m
putting them on shelves. I sell them wholesale and consignment, but what I want to do is I want
to sell them myself, as well as wholesale and consignment.
MR. HUNSINGER-So you don’t have a retail space now?
MR. TRACY-No, I don’t have a retail space now.
MR. HUNSINGER-Okay.
MR. TRACY-In the past, I was at Super Stop on 149, the past couple of years I’ve been there,
but business has been slow in the summer, so I wanted to move some place a little bit more
marketable. This location is perfect. It’s a perfect location for this for me.
MR. HUNSINGER-Now there is one that’s up in the Outlet Mall.
MR. KREBS-French Mountain Commons. .
MR. TRACY-French Mountain Commons, that’s Tim O’Brien. That’s his name. There’s another
carver that’s directly across from Wal-Mart.
61
(Queensbury Planning Board 06/24/2010)
MRS. STEFFAN-Wal-Mart.
MR. TRACY-That’s set up, Glen Sculptures.
MR. HUNSINGER-Because I remember when we did the Site Plan for the one at the Outlet.
MRS. STEFFAN-That must have been before me.
MR. HUNSINGER-Yes, that was a long time ago.
MR. TRACY-I worked with them a couple of years ago, actually.
MRS. STEFFAN-Okay. Are we concerned about the parking plan has seven, you know, seven
parking spaces. So that’s okay. The tent’s okay. We know the hours of operation. Site access.
It is what it is.
MR. HUNSINGER-Yes, I mean, the interesting part about the site is that it straddles both Towns,
Lake George and Queensbury.
MRS. STEFFAN-Okay.
MR. HUNSINGER-We do have a public hearing scheduled this evening. There’s no one in the
audience. Is there any written comments, Stu?
PUBLIC HEARING OPENED
MR. BAKER-No.
MR. HUNSINGER-I will open the public hearing and let the record show there were no
comments. I will close the public hearing.
PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED
MR. HUNSINGER-This, too, is a Type II action. I think the only issue, other than the hours and
times of operation, is the sign.
MRS. STEFFAN-Yes, how about approval. Do you want to grant this for multiple years?
MR. HUNSINGER-I wish I had thought to ask Staff about the other one up in the Outlets. It must
have been permanent, because he’s been there every year.
MR. TRACY-He’s been there over 10 years.
MR. HUNSINGER-Yes. Do you have any suggestions, Stu?
MR. BAKER-I’m sorry, suggestions regarding?
MRS. STEFFAN-Duration of the approval.
MR. BAKER-Whatever you think is appropriate. I mean, you went five years on a food stand.
That might be fine, or go with perpetuity. I mean, it’s at your discretion.
MR. BAKER-If you’re concerned that there might be some problems, you know, go five years
and re-evaluate then.
MR. HUNSINGER-I think the only concern that I would have is the future use of the building
that’s there. Do you know what the plan is?
MR. TRACY-Right now he’s been using it for storage.
MR. HUNSINGER-I was going to say, I mean, it looks empty.
MR. TRACY-Well, it’s not empty. It’s full of boxes. They do some kind of embroidering inside
there, but mostly it’s just storage. I have future ideas of what I could do with that building for
myself. They’re not plans yet. They’re just ideas. I haven’t even spoken with the owner yet.
Maybe building my shop next to there and using that as a retail shop on the inside for furniture
and other stuff that I make.
62
(Queensbury Planning Board 06/24/2010)
MR. FORD-Well, let’s ask you. How long do you anticipate what you’re applying for, using it that
way for how long?
MR. TRACY-I’d like to stay there as long as I can. This is my hometown. I’m from Glens Falls.
MR. FORD-For the time being, does a five year approval sound good?
MR. TRACY-If I’ve got come back here again, five years, every five years.
MR. HUNSINGER-I mean, my only concern is if your landlord decides to do something with the
building. There could be some conflict there.
MR. TRACY-That would be fine. Five year would be fine.
MR. HUNSINGER-I mean, we don’t know. That’s the only issue.
MR. TRACY-Okay.
MR. HUNSINGER-Unless other members have other issues. It sounds like if you can advance
your business you’re going to want to come back before then anyway for a new Site Plan.
MR. TRACY-Right.
MRS. STEFFAN-Okay. You closed the public hearing, correct?
MR. HUNSINGER-I did.
MRS. STEFFAN-Okay. Then I’ll make a motion.
MOTION TO APPROVE SITE PLAN NO. 40-2010 LARRY TRACY, Introduced by Gretchen
Steffan who moved for its adoption, seconded by Thomas Ford:
1)A site plan application has been made to the Queensbury Planning Board for the
following: Applicant proposes outdoor retail sales of wood carvings. New uses in the CI
zone require Site Plan review and approval.
2)A public hearing was advertised and held on 6/24/2010; and
3)This application is supported with all documentation, public comment and application
material in the file of record;
4)MOTION TO APPROVE SITE PLAN NO. 40-2010 LARRY TRACY, Introduced by
Gretchen Steffan who moved for its adoption, seconded by Thomas Ford:
According to the resolution prepared by Staff. Paragraph Four A complies. Paragraph
Four F, we have granted waivers for stormwater management, grading, landscaping and
lighting.
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)This is a Type II, no further SEQRA review is necessary; 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)Waiver requests granted: stormwater mgmt., grading, landscaping & lighting
63
(Queensbury Planning Board 06/24/2010)
plans;and
g)This is approved with the following four conditions:
1.Signage must be Code compliant for both size and location.
2.The hours of operation will be nine to five, seven days a week.
st
3.The season that this business will be approved for is April 1 to December
24th.
4.The approval is granted for five years.
th
Duly adopted this 24 day of June, 2010, by the following vote:
th
MR. KREBS-I just have one question. Is there any reason for just the 24?
MR. TRACY-It’s too cold after that.
MR. KREBS-Okay. As long as you’re satisfied with that.
MR. TRACY-Nobody buys after Christmas.
AYES: Mr. Magowan, Mr. Krebs, Mr. Sipp, Mr. Jackoski, Mrs. Steffan, Mr. Ford, Mr. Hunsinger
NOES: NONE
MR. HUNSINGER-You’re all set. Good luck.
MR. TRACY-Thank you.
MR. HUNSINGER-You’re welcome. Good luck. Stu, we got a package on Sicard, the
subdivision on Glen Lake.
MRS. STEFFAN-Right, it was sent to James Underwood.
MR. BAKER-I’m sorry?
MR. HUNSINGER-In our package of information there was a package regarding the Sicard
subdivision on Glen Lake that was included to all the members.
MR. BAKER-That was in the packet distributed out?
MR. HUNSINGER-Yes. It wasn’t on the agenda.
MR. BAKER-Yes. I don’t know why you received that.
MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. Tuesday night, I think Paul had actually asked about the Association
of Town Planning and Zoning Summer Schools. I did send an e-mail around to everybody today
th
with that information. It’s July 14 at the Albany Law School, and I included, you know, the
registration form. So you have that e-mail. We need to update our Policies and Procedures
manual. The one thing that I think is weak, came out during the public hearing.
MR. KREBS-Before you get into that, everybody got one of these, too.
MR. HUNSINGER-Yes, we did.
MR. KREBS-Okay. I just wanted to make sure. Because that’s where I want to go. I want to
learn about stormwater.
MR. HUNSINGER-Yes. The Policies and Procedures are weak on public participation, and I’ll
just read it to you very quickly, if I can find it quickly. Public Participation. It is the intent of
public hearings and public information meetings to allow public participation. Such participation
shall be directed to the Planning Board, and that’s all it says, and we did have a couple of issues
with the dissemination of written comments. I mean Staff, in my opinion, and I would defend you
guys to the end, you followed the procedure. Unfortunately, you know, the procedure doesn’t
really take into consideration a 10 page document and how that should be distributed and
disseminated to the Board and read into the public record. So I think, you know, if nothing else
we need to update that. Would anyone like to volunteer to take a look at it and provide some
input and comments?
MRS. STEFFAN-Didn’t we have a committee that drafted up the (lost words)?
64
(Queensbury Planning Board 06/24/2010)
MR. FORD-Yes.
MR. HUNSINGER-Yes, we did, which is why I was looking for volunteers. I think Mr. Ford.
MR. FORD-Steve and Don and Don.
MR. HUNSINGER-Yes, it sounds like a motion.
MRS. STEFFAN-I think that’s a good idea based on what we did with the guidelines for public
hearings.
MR. HUNSINGER-And we might want to take a look at that again, too, and just see if there’s
any changes we might want to make to it. The Policy and Procedures manual is also on line,
which is, Ms. Macintosh made a comment that it’s not available on line how the public can make
comments on projects, and that got me thinking about it, so I checked our manual and it’s like,
because I know our manual’s on line, but it’s not really in the manual.
MRS. STEFFAN-Well, and it’s very individual. The Town Board a method that they use. The
Zoning Board has a method that they use, and it’s really reflective of what the Chairman wants
to do.
MR. JACKOSKI-Chris, is it reasonable, also, to apply the three minute rule to 10 page
correspondence? You can’t read it.
MR. HUNSINGER-Exactly. You can’t. So is the Board better served by having that distributed,
you know, with our, either Staff Notes or the monthly package?
MRS. STEFFAN-I’ve cautioned the Board against this before, but we had decided as a Board,
and we’ve done this year after year, that we will not accept written comment or documentation
the night of the meeting, but we repeatedly do, and we’re shooting ourselves in the foot,
because there’s no way that you can digest, and I’m sitting here with my highlighter, you know,
going through documents that we received, trying to make sure I’m getting the point, but I’m not
listening to the commentary that’s going on when I’m doing that.
MR. FORD-And yet we can’t turn it back to them and say, okay, go ahead and read the 10
pages either.
MRS. STEFFAN-And on Tuesday night we had a situation where we got documentation. We
accepted it, we all read it and we interpreted it three different ways, and then we debated it, and
it took forever to get through that application. So I think that we need to stick with our agreed
upon policy of not accepting new documents the night of the meeting.
MR. HUNSINGER-I see a lot of nodding heads.
MR. FORD-I agree.
MR. HUNSINGER-Okay.
MRS. STEFFAN-Okay.
MR. FORD-And we’ve got to enforce it, because as soon as you let one do it, then others are
sitting there also.
MR. HUNSINGER-Okay.
MR. JACKOSKI-But I also think it’s important to get that out.
MR. HUNSINGER-Yes.
MR. JACKOSKI-To the regulars. Let them know it’s not going to happen.
MRS. STEFFAN-Well, and it is difficult for folks, I believe, to make their point in three minutes,
and I know at the same time a public comment could go on all night long, but there have been
times when you have amended that guideline, you know, I think we used to be five minutes, but
when we’ve got a big crowd and there’s a lot of people who want to speak, in order for us to not
be here all night, you have to pear it down, and you ask people to make their comments specific
and new, you know, new comments. So you’ve tried to cut the time down, and that’s what it
really comes down to. I think that it’s important for the public to have their opportunity to speak.
I mean, I think that’s part of an American, but it’s just what’s reasonable and appropriate.
65
(Queensbury Planning Board 06/24/2010)
MR. HUNSINGER-Well, I mean, even this evening, we only had four commenters.
MR. KREBS-Right.
MR. HUNSINGER-I mean, theoretically we could have given each one of them almost as much
time as they needed.
MR. KREBS-Yes, but I think the other problem you have to have, and you handled it nicely
tonight, is this is not a debate. Public comment is not a debate with the Board.
MR. HUNSINGER-Exactly.
MR. JACKOSKI-That’s correct, but maybe there is, because I know we talked about this in
another board. Maybe there is an opportunity to read stuff into the record first, so that those
who are and actually came here have the luxury, I guess, of hearing that, so that they don’t
repeat themselves or they don’t make that same point over again that’s going to get read into
the record anyway. Why not let them hear what we’ve got in writing and then speak. What
would be wrong with doing that?
MR. HUNSINGER-It would just be a change in the process.
MR. JACKOSKI-Yes, just a slight change, but give them the benefit of hearing and not repeating
it all, they say then it’s going to get read again.
MR. HUNSINGER-Right.
MR. FORD-Well, that’s one of the admonitions that we have on the public participation, don’t
repeat, we hope you have new information.
MR. JACKOSKI-This way that might help foster that new.
MR. HUNSINGER-And of course none of you were on the Board when we did the
Environmental Impact Statement for The Great Escape. We held the Planning Board meeting in
the Queensbury High School auditorium, and all we did was that public hearing, and we were
there until after eleven o’clock. There were like 200 people. You were there, yes. There were
like 200 people signed up to speak.
MRS. STEFFAN-I’m so glad I wasn’t the secretary then.
MR. HUNSINGER-And we just sat there and listened, for over four hours, and we thought we
were going to have to extend it into the next night, and there were some people that said, that’s
okay, you know, my point’s already been made, you know, and that kind of thing.
MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. Anything else?
MR. FORD-Yes. I just want to mention that it’s to our individual credit as a Board, I believe, that
we have been too lenient in accepting information the night of the meeting, and our sense of fair
play and wanting to be fair to everybody and make a good informed decision, but I still think
we’ve got to cut it off.
MRS. STEFFAN-And I also believe that we need to, I don’t know how you guys do your prep for
the meeting, but we need to scrutinize the application, because one of the things I believe that
we’re missing is on the Land Use Planner’s sheet that identifies what the applicant was
supposed to provide with the application, and what they did and what they failed to do, so there
are areas where the Land Use Planner has recommended and counseled them that they need
to provide a stormwater plan, for example, and the applicant has opted not to provide it, but yet
they want to have their application heard, and in reviewing that you can identify that they were
given the opportunity to present the information, and if as a Planning Board we don’t think that
we want to hear it because it’s in a situation where maybe it’s close to a Critical Environmental
Area and the stormwater plan is vital, we’ve sent them away, and that information is provided
within the application itself, and that should be one of the first flags, as you review an
application, that the applicant has not provided us with all the information that we need to make
the best decision possible, and that was their choice. The Land Use Planner advised them to
provide that information, the Planning Board, but they wanted to be heard anyway.
MR. FORD-And I think if we could cut to the chase and do that early on, make that
determination, and ship them.
66
(Queensbury Planning Board 06/24/2010)
MRS. STEFFAN-Yes.
MR. FORD-Rather than hear the whole thing, knowing full well that we’re going to table it
anyway.
MR. HUNSINGER-And I think if we do that once or twice, the message will be heard.
MR. BAKER-Do that a couple of times with some frequent attendees, and the word would get
out.
MR. HUNSINGER-Recently we did that and we sat here and we let the applicant put the
pressure on us because they were under a time crunch.
MRS. STEFFAN-Yes, and we were here for two and a half hours.
MR. HUNSINGER-And we sat here and we did everything within our means to accommodate
the applicant and after the meeting, Staff said, gee, you know, we told them, you know, you guys
would need X, Y, and Z, and I said, you know, I wish I’d known that before the meeting, I would
have sent them home. We wouldn’t have wasted that much time.
MRS. STEFFAN-We should not be working harder than the applicant.
MR. HUNSINGER-Yes. I agree.
MR. FORD-Or doing their application for them.
MR. KREBS-Another thing. I don’t know how the rest of the Board feels, but I would like to have
a copy of the minutes supplied to me again.
MRS. STEFFAN-Instead of on line?
MR. KREBS-Instead of on line. For me it’s easier to go back and read the document than it is to
go on and try and find that particular thing in the document on my screen.
MR. HUNSINGER-We talked about this a couple of months ago, and I thought we were going to
start getting them again.
MR. KREBS-Well, we haven’t gotten them yet.
MR. HUNSINGER-Okay.
MR. KREBS-I just wondered if, I’m going to, personally, ask Craig to supply me with one now.
That’s why I wanted to find out if there’s anyone.
MR. FORD-I concur. That’s my preference.
MR. KREBS-And not only from the standpoint, because I go back, now Staff has been very good
recently on some things of giving us copies of that portion of the minutes, but I have a stack of
them like this at home, and I often, if it’s something that comes up that happened six months or
so ago, I go back to that document and read that document so I can get the flavor for the
comments that were made, etc. I find that difficult to do on line, but maybe other people don’t.
MR. SIPP-Print it out.
MR. KREBS-On my printer, if I want to do double sided things, I have to print, 1, 3, 5, 7, 9. Then
I have to re-collate the paper so when it comes back it prints 2, 4, 6. I get paid a lot of money to
do this job, but not quite that much money.
MR. HUNSINGER-I was going to say, the ink alone is, yes, unless you have a high speed laser
printer.
MR. MAGOWAN-No, I agree, to me, to sit there on the computer, I’d rather have the option to
carry it with me.
MR. KREBS-Yes.
MR. MAGOWAN-Because I don’t have that much time in the office.
MR. FORD-I move that we adjourn.
67
(Queensbury Planning Board 06/24/2010)
MR. HUNSINGER-We have a motion to adjourn, is there a second?
MRS. STEFFAN-Second.
MOTION TO ADJOURN THE QUEENSBURY PLANNING BOARD MEETING OF JUNE 24,
2010, Introduced by Thomas Ford who moved for its adoption, seconded by Gretchen Steffan:
th
Duly adopted this 24 day of June, 2010, by the following vote:
AYES: Mr. Sipp, Mr. Magowan, Mr. Krebs, Mr. Ford, Mrs. Steffan, Mr. Jackoski,
Mr. Hunsinger
NOES: NONE
MR. HUNSINGER-Thank you everybody.
MRS. STEFFAN-Yes, thank you.
On motion meeting was adjourned.
RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED,
Chris Hunsinger, Chairman
68