1987-05-19
lIý
QUEENSBURY TOWN PLANNING BOARD
i
~
Regular Meeting Held: Tuesday, May 19, 1987 at 7:30 p.m.
Present: Richard Roberts, Chairman
Susan Levandowski
Joseph S. Dybas
Hilda Mann, Acting Secretary
Victor Macri
Frank DeSantis
Mack A. Dean, Building and Codes Enforcement Officer
R. Case Prime, Counsel
Susan E. Davidsen, stenographer/Planning and Zoning Department
The meeting was called to order at 7:30 p.m.
The minutes of the March 5 and April 21 Planning Board meetings were approved
as written without modification by consensus.
OLD BUSINESS
SUBDIVISION NO. 9-86, Final Approval, Phase I (51 lots)
Queensbury Forest
Mr. Roberts stated that this was for final approval of Phase I, 51 lots on the south
side of Peggy Ann Road in a Suburban Residential 20 zone.
Mr. Roberts stated that in the file was the Certificate of Approval of Reality
Subdivision Plans from the Board of Health. Also in the file, a letter from Dennis Dickinson,
project engineer, stating the they had made their final review of the subdivision and found
the road, water and drainage designs to be satisfactory. In regards to the sewer design,
test pits were found to be of insufficient depth. It couldn't be determined whether or
not there was adequate separation distance to ground water for the dry wells chosen.
If there were no plans to dig deeper test pits, it was recommended that either tile fields
or the dry well design for lots DI0 through D21 be used throughout the subdivision.
Mr. Roberts said the file was complete as it also contained reports from the Highway
Superintendent, Water Department, and the Queensbury Central Fire Department.
Mrs. Levandowski MOVED FINAL APPROVAL of Subdivision No. 9-86 for 51 lots
in Phase I. Traffic study results done on Dixon Road intersection will reach level "D",
one step above failure.
Mr. Dybas seconded.
Passed Unanimously.
I Mr. Roberts stated that Site Plan Review No. 13-87, Earltown is off of the agenda
".1
/
1
U5
for this evening. It was erroneously advertised and is an incomplete application.
A meeting on May 28 was set up for the purpose of hearing a complete application
and having it advertised correctly.
Note: On May 28 at 4:25 p.m. a letter from Robert A. Mjaatvedt, Earltown Projects
Manager was filed to the Planning and Zoning Department, stating that Earltown is
withdrawing their application for the proposed revised Phase I and Phase II Site Plan Review
of the Commercial Plaza Industrial Project. The letter also stated that it was their intent
to proceed as scheduled under the originally approved Phase I, Commercial Plaza portion.
At a subsequent date, Earltown would appear for Phase II of the Industrial Reserve portion
of the Plaza Commercial Industrial Project.
SUBDIVISION NO. 4-87, Sketch Plan Approval
S,\~...-(\
Donald Kruger
Jeff Anthony, LA group, represented the applicant Donald Kruger. The project
is for 10 single family lots, south of Bonner Drive. There would be 9 small lots, all over
11,500 square feet and 1 large lot in the corner because of the stream. He stated that
they have a proposed town road and cul-de-sac for the lots.
Mr. Roberts asked how far the road is to the cul-de-sac. Mr. Anthony stated it was
less than 1,000 feet from it.
Buildable area and density were discussed. Mr. Anthony stated that they used the
good land in computing allowable density; good buildable land is around 16 to 18,000 square
feet.
Mr. Roberts said that this plan was a substantial improvement over their previous
proposed plan. An engineer needs to be hired.
Mr. Dybas expressed his concern about buffers. Mr.] said they would have white
pines and evergreens planted for buffers.
Comments from the public (not a public hearing)
A Bonner Drive resident expressed his concern on in fill for the land. Mr. Kruger
would have to bring in a lot of fill for the back lots because of the brook and the land
being uneven. Another resident was concerned about leakage from the septic system.
Also, this would be a double dead end street.
Mrs. Mann MOVED for SKETCH PLAN APPROVAL of Subdivision No. 4-87. The
plan is for single family homes which honors the integrity of the single family character
of the neighborhood. Density has been greatly reduced and an effort has been made to
at least keep within the spirit of the single family residences. More engineering on the
applicants part and from the Planning Board's project engineer is needed for preliminary
approval.
Mrs. Levandowski seconded.
Passed Unanimously.
2
"O
SUBDIVISION NO. 5-87, Preliminary Approval .5
Cedar Court
Mr. Roberts stated that this was for 4 duplex lots and 56 townhouse units on the
west side of Bay Road, approximately 1,000 feet north of Blind Rock Road in a Suburban
30 and Urban Residential 5 zones.
Mr. Roberts stated that the Town has not come to an agreement with the applicant
regarding the Bay Road Water District. No approval can be given without this agreement.
Mr. Roberts stated that since Cedar Court was advertised, a public hearing could
be held.
Public Hearing Opened: no comment
The public hearing would be left opened as Cedar Court needed to have SEQR review
before preliminary approval could be granted. The project would be reviewed on the May
28 meeting.
Mike O'Connor, represented the applicant. He said that most of the information
needed has been submitted to the Board by letters and should be in the file.
Mr. O'Connor talked in detail on the traffic study. Mr. Prime asked him to explain
what the dimensions of the site distances are. Mr. O'Connor explained in detail on what
they had done. They visually stood at a point where the driver would be sitting, where
one would exit the subdivision onto Bay Road, and computed distances from there. He
referred to the Preliminary Generated Traffic Study report on pages 3 and 4. (Pages 3
and 4 of the report are appended to the minutes, see next page). J
Mr. Roberts stated that PREUMINARY APPROVAL CANNOT BE GRANTED without
the water agreement. The application is TABLED. No engineering study has been done
by Charles Scudder, Engineer. A phasing plan is needed.
Passed Unanimously.
On May 28, Mrs. Mann MOVED for SEQR APPROVAL on Subdivision No. 5-87, Cedar
Court. A Negative Declaration is needed. Second by Mrs. Levandowski. Passed 6 yes
(Roberts, Mann, Martin, Dybas, Macri, Levandowski), 1 absent (DeSantis).
Passed Unanimously.
J
3
¿~WfH<" CLkttii
5v.D NO, )-.97
" 117
7. INTERSECTION DESIGN (Non-Signalized)
Intersection should be designed with adequate sight distance
and intersect at 90 degrees, if at all possible and
desirable.
Depending upon the street function, the minimum site distance
for a minor street should be adequate for the speed limit of
the roadways.
The sight distance should be attained and maintained by
restricting the height of embankments, location of buildings,
trees, shrubs and fences.
The return radii should be a minimum of 15 feet radius,
desirable 30 feet radius.
The critical consideration is to provide sufficient sight
distance to permit a passenger vehicle on the minor leg of
the intersection to cross the travelled way without requiring
the approaching traffic to avoid conflict or slow down.
As a general rule, there should be a minimum of 6 to 7
seconds for the driver to cross the through lanes.
Therefore:
Sight Distance
30 mph = 44 feet per sec. x 6 sec. = 264 feet - say 260 feet
35 mph = 51 feet per sec. x 6 sec. = 306 feet - say 300 feet
40 mph = 59 feet per sec. x 6 sec. = 354 feet - say 350 feet
55 mph = 81 feet per sec. x 6 sec. = 484 feet - say 480 feet
NOTE: During a fierd investigation, although the proposed
roadway entrance was not staked or witnessed,
observations revealed that there is sufficient sight
distance in the northerly direction, and the sight
distance in the southerly direction can be improved by
clearing trees and vegetation.
8. SINGLE ROADWAY (Entrance & Exit)
As stated previously the total traffic volume from the
proposed development will enter and exit Bay Road from a
single roadway.
This intersection is classified as a nTn intersection which
has various benefits when compared with intersections with
four approaches. At a nTn intersection, the traffic entering
Bay Road does not have opposing traffic as a conflict.
The total volume of vehicles exiting will dictate the number
of lanes required, since the turning movements are considered
as through movements.
J
3A
Li.::""DA-f¿ (~G(
$£Aß ÄJtI. §"'- 87
!I~
J
The width of the approach rather than the number of lanes
has proven the most significant bearing on the capacity of a
typical approach. (Capacity is the maximum number of
vehicles which can be reasonably handled by a section of lane
or roadway in one direction.>
A significant factor of an unsignalized intersection is
whether a vehicle can enter into the main stream of traffic
on Bay Road without causing delays or presenting a hazard.
As shown in Figure I, the generated traffic was assigned to a
direction of travel. It was assumed 90% of the generated
traffic would travel south and 10% would travel in the
northerly 'direction. The highest volume of traffic entering
Bay Road or returning varies between 40 to 45 vehicles. This
total volume of traffic of 40 to 45 vehicles, which occurs
during either the A.M. or P.M. peak hours, can be described
as arriving at the intersection at a rate of one vehicle per
minute.
Since the predominant movement is the right-hand turn south,
and there is no opposing traffic from the opposite direction,
there should be significant gaps in the Bay Road traffic for
vehicles to enter and exit the proposed development roadway,
and the generated traffic should not adversely affect the
through traffic on Bay Road.
9. CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
The following conclusions and recommendations were assembled
based upon the generated peak hour computations and field
observations to view the amount of sight distance and
conflicts which may exist.
In conclusion, the traffic being generated by the proposed
Cedar Court Subdivision will not cause serious impacts for
traffic using Bay Road.
Sight distance constraints on Bay Road will require the
following:
a. Locate the proposed roadway entrance in the field and
revise accordingly" to attain the maximum sight distance
in the northerly and southerly directions.
b. Clear trees and vegetation to remove sight obstructions.
1
3ß
1t9
SUBDIVISION NO. 10-87, Sketch Plan Approval
Oakwoods, Phase II
Mr. Roberts stated that this application was for 32 single family lots previously
approved in 1973, north of Sherman Avenue in a Suburban Residential 20 zone. He said
that this application was a re-review of what had already been approved.
Attorney Jim Davies, represented the applicant. Mr. Roberts asked how far Phase
I was built out. Mr. Davies stated 12 lots.
Mr. Roberts said that since the time of this approval, the Town of Queensbury has
changed the ordinance and has changed some of the zoning. According to the New York
State and Town Law, it liens that for a 3 year period of time, lots now have to be
conforming to the ordinance and zoning. Mr. Roberts asked if the applicant was still within
the 20,000 square foot zone. Mr. Davies said yes; lots are substantially the same. In March
1985, Phase I was reapproved.
Mr. Dybas MOVED SKETCH PLAN APPROVAL for Subdivision No. 10-87 having
met the initial requirements for sketch plan approval. The original approved map (certified
in 1985) and engineer study is needed before preliminary approval can be granted.
Mr. DeSantis seconded.
Passed Unanimously.
SUBDIVISION NO. 9-87, Preliminary Approval
\l\ /81
~/
Westwood, townhouse condominiums
Mr. Roberts stated that this was for 48 townhouse units, north of Glenwood Avenue,
approximately 1,000 feet north of Blind Rock Road.
Ted Bigelow represented the applicants, Ralph and Michael Woodbury.
Mr. Roberts stated that this was a public hearing but the Board needs to do SEQR
review before preliminary approval can be granted. Mr. Roberts added this project to
the May 28 agenda, special meeting/workshop. The public hearing will be left open at
the May 28 meeting/workshop.
The Board discussed the ElS.
Mr. Roberts pointed out that George Wiswall, adjoining property owner, had indicated
that a portion of the property was located in the wetlands. The issue of wetlands was
discussed at length.
J
Mr. Wiswall stated his concerns on the septic system for the project. He stated,
4
/1-D
"There should be a moratorium on any development like this that's going to be development
within the next year or two within the sewer district."
Mr. Bigelow stated they would only be putting in septic system to handle the first
units this year if approved. It will be an elevated system.
Storm water drainage was discussed at length.
Mr. Roberts stated that NO ACTION would be taken until SEQR review has been
completed.
Note: On May 28, 1987 at the Planning Board meeting/workshop, Mr. Dybas MOVED
a NEGATIVE DECLARATION be issued for SEQR on Subdivision No. 9-87, Westwood.
Second by Mr. Martin. Passed Unanimously.
SITE PLAN REVIEW NO. 1-87
John DeMarco
Attorney John Richards stated he was here on behalf on John DeMarco for
construction of a single family house with less than the required rear setback. Mr. Richards
said he had been here before. He said they were referred back to the Planning Board
by the Zoning Board of Appeals. "By terms of the Zoning Board's resolution, they concluded
that the structure that the is the subject of this hearing, was the principle dwelling on
the property. As I read it, we have a right to rebuild or enlarge it pursuant to the
Ordinance. But because the preexisting structure was nonconforming as to setback lines,
it was referred to the Planning Board for Site Plan Review, merely to evaluate the effect
of the placement of that house on the existing services. The purpose here tonight, in
addition to answering your question, is to demonstrate that, in fact, is really to improve
those services that were a concern of both the Zoning Board and this Board. And the
first item that I would address is one that Attorney Prime had pointed out, and that would
be some evidence that we have the approval of Lena Hall, Mr. DeMarco's mother, the
actual owner of the property." Mr. Richards submitted the letter into the record.
Mr. Richards addressed the issue of sanitary facilities. He stated, "We have located
the proposed permanent facilities over here, on the southern part of the lot. It would
be built this fall and for this summer, we would use the existing facilities in the Casabianca
Restaurant. The Casabianca building, I should say, not the restaurant."
Mr. Richards addressed the parking issue. He said the Board has concerns about
the number and also the lot for parking spaces. We have done a number of things to handle
that situation. First I would submit a lease from an adjacent owner for 12 additional spaces,
bringing the total spaces available, on site or adjacent off site to 50; that complies with
the terms of the existing DEC permit. I would submit though that the permit was issued
back in '81, when the restaurant was being used. Since that time we had the parking plan
reviewed by a traffic engineer, Mr. Lawrence M. Levine, PE, an expert in the field, together
with his expertise and some other studies, we have many indications, I would say, proof
I
..-..-1-
5
JJ-I
that the 50 space requirements are unrealistically high. That space is really the standard,
seems to be more .5 to .7 vehicle for boat range." Mr. Richards submitted a letter dated
April 14, 1987 from Mr. Levine regarding the traffic study done for the boat docking facility
at Warner Bay, Lake George. Mr. Levine's letter read as follows: "We have determined
how many parking spaces are needed and we have reviewed a parking plan prepared by
Nacy and Raymond Associates, PC. The site plan shows 38 parking spaces and we observed
12 additional spaces on Dr. Kirkpatrick's property immediately south of the site. Vehicles
existing from the lot will face out eliminating backing onto the highway. Reserve parking
for one vehicle per boat owner will be enforced. Since the maximum boats at the facility
is limited to 50, the parking ratio of vehicle parking spaces to docks is 1 to 1. Research
by our office and other (including boat dock facilities on Lake George) indicate a seasonal
variation of 1:2 up to 1.4 to 1. We anticipate that 25 spaces will normally be used and
35 spaces will be required during peak hours. In any event, the parking spaces at the facility
exceed those required. In conclusion, we are satisfied that the parking plan by Nacy and
Raymond Associates PC will provide an adequate number of spaces for the boat docking
facility. The parking layout will result in a safe and efficient flow of vehicles and
pedestrians into and out of the site."
Mr. Richards stated that a Rhode Island study recommended (.5). Mr. Prime asked
if there was any comparison between that study and the Lake George area. Mr. Richards
stated, "Mr. Levine, as he indicates in his qualifications, has done studies of the Lake
George area. I don't have anything specific on Lake George projects I can point to, but
he's quit familiar with this area up here." Mr. Roberts stated, "Studies are not - I belong
to a Yacht Club - I don't think 1 slip per boat is excessive. I know all the boats don't usually
get used at once, but when we go - we get a couple of other families going with use, it
generates quit a bit of traffic."
There was much discussion on the parking situation.
Mr. Macri asked Mr. DeMarco if it was his intention to launch boats in addition to
using docking facilities? Mr. DeMarco said he would not be doing that anymore. Mr.
Macri asked how he could assure his neighbors that he wouldn't be doing that anymore.
Mr. Macri felt this was a definite concern of the Board. Mr. DeMarco said he would write
a letter stating he would not do outside launching.
There was a definite problem between Mr. DeMarco and the Planning Board on
depicting a marina verses a boat dockage facility.
Mr. Macri stated, "Knowing the problems that have existed on the site, I can't
understand why you would go ahead and aggravate the situation, or the public, who is
obviously concerned, when they see activities like this. You're trying to display to use
a very low key operation; that's not what has happened." Mr. Richards stated, "I don't
think there's any intention to aggravate anybody and now that there appears to be a problem,
we will stop it."
Mr. Richards addressed the issue of drainage. He said Raymond Buckley had
completed his drainage mapping.
Regarding the variance needed; that would be reviewed tomorrow evening at the
Zoning Board of Appeals meeting.
J
Mrs. Mann stated, "The Board has an obligation to review the whole project under
6
[;)~
the different propositions under the article. This includes all the aspects such as over
use, expected traffic generated. The Board has an obligation to look at the site plan as
if it were a brand new application." Mr. Richards disagreed saying that the Board is taking
away their specific right to rebuild the structure within the setback. Mrs. Mann said they
did not rebuild the structure but instead made a whole big structure, 10 times bigger than
the original one. The Zoning Board addressed the issue of the rebuilding. They did not
address the issue as far as site plan review goes to the whole project. Mrs. Mann stated
"The whole piece of property is so over used that it's ridiculous!" She said, " adequate
facilities have to be there so nobody has to police the property." Mr. Richards asked if
they were imposing present day ordinance requirements on nonconforming uses? Mrs.
Mann said, "Yes, anybody who comes back for site plan review, that's what you're going
to get!"
Mr. Roberts stated, "The question has been raised as to whether the neighbor renting
the parking spaces is legitimate under our Ordinance. So it's not becoming a commercial
venture under a residential zone. Any off site parking is not particularly a good idea,
especially a short term one. People are going to want to use the closest ones."
Mrs. Mann stated, "There's no guarantee that at the end of the year that they will
rent it again."
Mr. Richards stated, " Our on site parking already exceeds all the recommended
norms by traffic engineers and 2 studies. I don't know what more we can do to convince
you we can exceed the norm."
Mr. DeSantis stated, "I have a problem with that. At the last meeting we had Mike
White here. The existing DEC permit which allows you to place 50 boats on this site,
and they are the agency with jurisdiction - which sites as a condition, 50 parking spaces.
I don't care what a book says or any recommendation of a traffic study done by a man;
- that is a condition of the permit. Now, I agree, if there has been a change in conditions,
you no longer use the Casabianca as a restaurant, and at that time it was used that way,
you were certainly able to go back to DEC and get an amendment to that permit, but
Mike White was here in person at that meeting - told us the conditions in that permit.
I think as a Board, we have to take notice of that permit. And I think for us to say, well,
you don't really need to pay attention to that DEC permit, you can still go ahead and have
your 50 boats - - We Can't! The Board made a decision not to at the last meeting, we
asked you to find 50 parking spaces. That's why we came up with that number. That's
not an arbitrary number, that's in the existing permit." Mr. Richards stated, "We have
a copy of that permit, and they say right now, we're complying with that."
Mr. DeSantis referred to Section 9.011 and 9.020 of the Zoning Ordinance. Mr. DeSantis
stated, "If the Board had seen the application "fresh", I don't believe, given the use of
the site (dockage facility or marina), that further development of the site would be an
increase in the further development of the land and we wouldn't approve, subject to our
powers under site plan review." He stated that the tough part of the whole situation is
that the work was done before the Board saw the application. Mr. DeSantis said the building
requires a variance application before the building can be allowed to remain there in any
event. Mr. DeSantis stated that in recent months, in the very same neighborhood on
Cleverdale and Rockhurst, that they had reviewed an application under the same section
of the ordinance; single family dwellings. In each case, a structure that was resulted,
was approximately the same size, certainly not a 7 plus/times increase in square footage
as in this application. And also in these cases, they didn't have any other uses on the sites
other than single family residences. He further stated that in each case they looked at
J
7
lv
exactly the same considerations as for the DeMarco site plan; parking, sewage disposal,
and drainage. He said that since there are other uses on the DeMarco property, the review
would obviously be more intensive in this case because of the docks, the DEC permit
requiring 50 parking spaces, etc. The Planning Board followed the same procedure with
regard to similar applications. Fortunately for the Board, on those applications, the
structures weren't built at the time they saw the application. Mr. DeSantis stated that
the Planning Board has to take into account on whether or not the structure should even
be on the site.
Mr. Macri MOVED DENIAL of Site Plan Review No. 1-87 based on the size of the
house and its location which greatly increases the use of this parcel. If this was brought
to the Board prior to the structure being built; it would have been denied. There is 1,712
square feet of occupied space by the structure on the first story only based on adding
any garages and proposed decks. That's not including the new permanent facilities for
toilets or the new dumpster facilities. Section 5.050, paragraph C: "The Planning Board,
in conjunction with its approval of any site plan review project, may impose such
requirements and conditions as are allowable within the proper exercise of the police
power, including the restriction of land against further development of principle buildings
whether by deed restriction, restrictive covenant or other similar appropriate means,
to insure that guidelines as to intensity or development as provided in this Ordinance shall
be respected, and the imposition of reasonable conditions to insure that the project will
be adequately supported by services and improvements made necessary by the project
and to insure that the project will be completed in accordance with the terms of the
application and any permit and including, without limitation, the requirements and
conditions authorized under Section 5.020 of this Ordinance. In addition, the Planning
Board may require that the Zoning Administrator incorporate any such requirements and
conditions in any permit issued with regard to such site plan review project.
Mrs. Mann seconded.
Passed Unanimously.
SITE PLAN REVIEW NO. 11-87
Noble True Value
As there was nobody present to represent this project, it was TABLED by consensus.
NEW BUSINESS
OFF PREMISES SIGN NO. 33
Fort Ann Campgrounds
,
-l
Mr. Roberts stated that this was an application for an off premises sign for Fort
Ann Campgrounds, Clay Hill Road in Fort Ann. He said this was a sign that was addressed
8
!d-t
awhile ago and was denied. The applicant has come back for an off premises directional
sign that is conforming.
Mr. DeSantis MOVED APPROVAL of Off Premises Sign No. 33 providing it conforms
with all ordinances.
Mr. Dybas seconded.
Passed Unanimously.
PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT NO.3 .!b"
W est Mountain Resort S I \ C\ ./
J. Bryan Harrison, Managing Partner of the proposed West Mountain Resort described
the project in great detail for the 2,785 acres mixed planned unit development off of West
Mountain Road.
A full description of the project is appended to the minutes as this was the
presentation given to the Planning Board. See the next following pages for details.
A letter dated May 19, 1987 from Gordon Blank, Chairman of the Adirondack Regional
Chambers of Commerce is appended to the minutes. The letter expressed the support
and conceptual endorsement of the Adirondack Regional Chambers of Commerce for West
Mountain Villages Resort.
Density was a key issue discussed. Mr. Harrison said that density, to some, means
too many people, to other people it means, you're going to mar the environment. Density
could mean, you're going to have visible housing and too much traffic. A major problem
is how to move people on and off the mountain safely.
Mr. Roberts felt that the area would have to be rezoned for the proposal. Mr.
DeSantis stated that the Zoning Ordinance says that the density for that zone is 1 per
3 acres. He felt that it was too restrictive for recreational development. Based on the
proposal the Planning Board can't decide, conceptually, the Zoning Ordinance is wrong.
Mr. DeSantis said, "This is a sketch plan approval of a rezoning." Mr. Harrison asked if
the Planning Board could, "Approve the sketch concept subject to SEQR review, that in
fact shows how this density meets all ordinances - meets water, sewer, and traffic issues.
Mr. DeSantis stated, "I have severe problems with the development of 80,000 square feet
of commercial space which the Board has not seen how you will get in and out of that,
other that what has been presented prior this meeting and what traffic impact it causes;
two hotels which are larger than anything that exist currently in Queensbury."
Mr. DeSantis stated that the applicant is asking for an increase in the density,
additional commercial space of 80,000 square feet, two 125 room hotels. He asked for
what reasons why the Board should think this is, conceptually a good plan for the Town
of Queensbury.
Density and having the roads to grade was an issue that was discussed at length.
Mr. DeSantis expressed great concern on the impact of traffic in the area.
--
9
PUD NO :5
J J-S
WEST MOUNTAIN VILLAGES, INC.
'--
1. What is the proposed -West Mountain Vi11ages?-
West Mountain Villages, on the surface, appears to be a
housing development. In fact, West Mountain Villages is a new
industry in Oueensbury. It is a true recreational community, with
recreation as the product and housing as the financing vehicle to
support the costs of developing recreational areas and infrastruc-
ture. Where others are talking about cross country trails on golf
courses, we are talking about an internationally sanctioned set
of cross country ski trails. Where others are talking about
tennis courts, we are talking about a tennis center with a
center court, sOliciting tennis tournaments and a major tennis
schoo11 in other words, tennis is a business. This concept is
equally true of golf, etc. The number of people employed to
support this effort is significant.
2. West Mountain will create a new industry. Bow many jobs will
be created?
West Mountain will create 800 full-time jobs and 250
construction jobs yearly over the life of the project. These jobs
will help to reduce Warren County's current unemployment rate of
8.4%. This rate exçeeds both the New York State and national
rates.
3. Density is a key issue. What density are we looking for?
We are asking for approval for 593 homes. Assuming that
our development in Oue~nsbury will take six years, we are re-
questing, on the average, 51 homes per year more that allowed
under existing ordinances.
4. Why is density important to us?
The cost of constructing the infrastructure is
significant. It includes costs to build our own water system
(water towers, pumps, etc.), our own sewer system (sewerage
treatment plants, pumps, etc.), our own road systems where none
exist, recreation facilities, etc. These costs total $79,658,022
for the entire project. The infrastructure cost in Oue~nsbury
alone is $21,796,321. If wè are granted our requested density,
the cost is $36,756 per home for infrastructure. However, if we
are limited to the density for which we currently qualify, the
cost per home for infrastructure is $76,478, an unrealistically
high number.
-..
11 North Pearl Street· Alban1Kew York 12207 . (518) 434-1569
p[)Æ) NO.3
/db
WEST MOUNTAIN VILLAGES, INC.
5. Density means different things to different people. What does
density in its negative connotation mean here?
Our experience in other cities and towns has shown that
to some, density means "too many people." To others, density
means "too much traffic", "visible housing", "marring the en-
vironment", or numerous other concepts. It is important that the
planning board members articulate what is negative about the
increased density request, so that we may jointly address and
work-out those concerns.
6. What are typical densities and usage patterns at other recrea-
tional areas?
Recreational resort communities generally have a
density of 2-8 homes per acre. The reason for this density is
high infrastructure cost for the recreational amenities. In our
case, we are seeking half of the lowest density for a typical
recreational resort community. One home per acre is considered
low density even in non-recreation areas.
High density does not mean high use.
recreation areas do not have high usage of purchased
example, Loon Mountain in New Hampshire has over
constructed. The summer use of those units is 10%,
weekday use is 40%: and weekend winter use is 80%.
Typically
homes. For
2000 units
the winter
7. Luzerne Road is one means to get to the top of the mountain.
How does Luzerne Road affect our development?
It is generally, acknowledged that Luzerne Road needs to
be improved. It does not meet current town standards. In fact,
there is a strong indication that the highway superintendent is
interested in upgrading the road to town standards. We will
cooperate in any possible way to eff~ct such an upgrading. How-
ever, it is our understanding that legally our request for de-
velopment at the top of the mountain is not affected by the road
as it is an existing road currently in use. Any increased traffic
on the road is a subject of the DEIS report and is covered under
the SEQR process.
8. People are concerned about setting a precedent for us. Are you
setting a precedent?
Not at all. We are a recreational community. Other
developments are housing developments with some recreational
amenities. West Mountain is the only proposed development that is
capable of being a true, year-round destination resort and com-
munity. People today travel to West Mountain as a destination for
--
.
11 North Pearl Street· Albany, New York 12207 . (518) 434-1569
qh
'.
pUD Nð.3
1')7
WEST MOUNTAIN VILLAGES, INC.
alpine skiing. The number of people that travel long
approximates 50% of the skiers at West Mountain. West
has already invested between $2 and $3 million in the
with more improvements planned over the next two years.
Operating a ski area is a difficult business at best.
Capital costs are significant and return on investment is poor,
if any at all. According to the New York State Alpine Industry
Report issued in April, skiing in the state is a "non-growth
industry." It is highly unlikely that any other ski area will
open in Queensbury.
Ski areas in the Adirondack area have a particularly
difficult time relative to other New York ski areas. Part of the
problem is the difficulty in developing around the ski areas in
the Adirondack Park. West Mountain is the exception, being out-
side the Park.
Consequently, you would not be setting precedent by
granting additional units. No other place includes a ski area.
And further, a PUD designation is designed to be a non-precedent
setting zoning change. Your new master plan will also set new
criteria which will counteract any future claims of precedent.
distances
Mountain
ski area
9. How will West Mountain effect the current business climate?
It will create an economic spillover which will benefit
local merchants and business people and contribute to increased
tax collection. It is estimated that sales taxes annually from
the total development will be between $1.5 - $2.3 million and
that the economic spillover will be $25- $38.33 million annually.
10. What is the estimated tax contribution for the completed
project?
In Queensbury $2.3 million will be added thro~gh
property and hotel user taxes annually. Lake Luzerne will rece1ve
$1.8 million for property taxes annually. (These figures use 1987
dollars and current tax rates.)
11. How many homes will be built each year in Queensbury?
We estimate that 99 homes will be built yearly over
6 years, depending on market conditions.
12. How does West Mountain curr~ntly benefit the region?
West Mountain Ski Area provides convenient family
skiing for residents and draws skiers from throughout the North-
east region who spend money locally. West Mountain currently
generates an estimated $660,000 in sales taxes, based on a State
formula. West Mountain currently provides 150 jobs during the
winter season when unemployment is highest in the area.
--
11 North Pearl Street· Albany, New York 12207 . (518) 434-1569
~~
put) !\YJ.3
l~t
II
ARCC
ADIRONDACK REGIONAL CHAMBERS OF COMMERCE
May 1 9, 1 98 7
Membe.M 06 the.
Quee.M bUlLY PianYÚYl.g BoaJui
Que.e.n.6 bUlLY 0 IS M.c.e. Bu..U.CÜYtg
Bay Road
Que.e.MbWLY, Nøw Yo~~ 12801
Ve.aJl. LClCÜe..6 and Ge.rr..ttemen:
AUhough 1 am un.abie to be plLe6e.n.t bec.a.u.6e 06 a c.on6Uc;U.ng mee;U.ng
tOMgh:t, 1 have. WIl.U.ten tfú.6 le:t;te/L :to exp~e6.6 :the .6Uppoltt and c.onc.ep:tu.ctt
endolL6emen:t 06 :the AcUJwndac.~ Regional. Chambe.M 06 CommeJLc.e 60~ We..6:t Mou.n;ta.¿n
Vill.age..6 Re..6oJtt. We viøw th,ú, CL6 an exc.l;Ung and de..6-út.a.ble plLOjec.t that would
bJún.g .wc.al.c.ulabie be.n.e6Æ.t.6 :to :the ec.onom.[c. c..Uma.te 06 OWL ~egion. OWL o~ga.n.i-
za:Uon -i..6 .6uppolLtive 06 pIl.ojew that c.on:tJúbu-te :to ec.onomi.c. vJ..:ta.U;ty and job
geneJLat..i.on .w way.6 that aILe. ec.oiogic.all.y .6oun.d and e.n.v..úwnmen.tall.y appeaU.ng.
The We..6:t Moun:áún :>Jl.O j ed -i..6 we..U. c.onc.uved and we..U. planned. It .fA :the :type
o 6 p~o j ed tha.t .fA -impolLtan:t to the 6 u-tUILe 06 :the people .w 0 UIL lLegio 11., and we
enc.oUlta.ge that 6avolLabie c.on6ideJt.a.:ti..on be given to a.pp~oval. 06 the pIl.ojed.
s.wc.e/Lety,
~~~~~
GolLdon &ank.
Cha..Vunan
am~
'--
c
ACCREDITED
CHAM" Of' COM"UC~
t"....." 0' co....t.~t
Q' fM( V..".C "t&'f~
169 Warren Street, Glens FaIls. New York 12801 · (518) 798·1761
9D
HARRISON &. CO.
P.O. Box 229
Fort Edward, New York 12828
(518) 747-4104
'DUG) NO 3
Id.-CJ
May 18, 1987
®~ÜWÆ~
~ MAY 191987 W
Mr. Richard Roberts, Chairman
Queensbury Planning Board
Queensbury Town Hall
Bay and Haviland Roads
Glens Falls, NY 1280~
PLANNING & ZONING
DEPARrMEN·r
Re: West Mountain PUD
Dear Dick:
I am writing you to discuss what I consider to be the key
planning issues relating to the Recreation-Commercial Zone for
West Mountain with a proposed density of 4ne (1) dwelling unit
per acre. Since I will be assisting West Mountain Villages in
financing this project, I obviously have financial interest in
the Planning Board's decision. Having said that, the following
issues appear critical.
1~ Recreation-Commerical Zone: There is obviously both a
recreation (or tourist) connotation and one relating to
commerce (or retail trade). Indeed the zone was formed
with Story town, Top-of-the-World and West Mountain in
mind. Since two of the three clearly have housing
potential, the issue of the character, clientel and
density of the housing is critical. As with all
commerce - particularily tourism the market defines the
, '\
product.
2 .
Density (or dwelling units per acre): What
determinents? Impact on the environment
slopes, water, etc.)'. Impact on public
(water, sewer, roads, etc.). Aesthetic impacts
characteristics, "character" elements).
are its
(soils,
services
(visual
3.
Luzerne Mountain Road: Obviously essential
Mountain, will it be improved or closed?
improve it? What is the impact on the
Luzerne?
to West
Who will
Town of
'--
Item #1 is critical because housing in a recreation oriented
development (whether on or near a golf course, lake, nature
,. trail, ski slope or view) is typically "second" homes. The buyer
is purchasing recreation not a domicile. Ski slopes, golf
courses, lakes, stables, nature trails, hotels, restuarants and
athletic clubs are infrastructure. Density is both an inherant
part of the aesthetic of a recreation development and necessary
to finance the "infrastructure."
qc
PUt) AJO 3
[3)
Item #2, density considerations, embody classic planning criteria.
"~
Slope: Construction on West Mountain will be confined to
15% or less, with rare exceptions. There is more than
sufficient acreage with benign slopes to support up to the
585 units planned for Queensbury.
Soils: West Mountain is blessed with ample deep, well
drained soils, though bed rock is not a bad foundation.
Soils pose no barrier to the density planned in the Town.
Roads can be constructed to Town standards with on-site
indigenous materials. There will be no blasting of bedrock
from mountain sides.
Animal and Plant Life: From the crest of West Mountain
proceeding westerly through the project site you encounter
old farms that are now overgrown with timber. In fact an
old road bed that transverses the site probably was a
Luzerne Town r~ad at one time. The property has been
through several cycles of timber harvesting. The portion of
the site within Queensbury is in proximity to the ski
facility and continually subject to human and vehicular
activity.
Public Services: The proposed density of the West Mountain
PUD enables the construction of public sewage treatment and
water (the Queensbury plant operates at about 1/3 capacity).
Lower densities, if necessitating wells and septic systems,
could conceivably be far more detrimental to the
environment.
For roads, higher densities are far more cost effective
for public works, police and fire. Standard
subdivisions invaribly cost more money to maintain that
the Town collects in taxes.
Visual characteristics: essentially relates to the
appearance of the mountain top development at night. Tree
cover ("filtered views") ~ill protect the visual character
of the mountain. At night, lights will be visual from much
of the Town, particularily the Northway. The visual impact
of 285 detached units will not be discernable from a higher
density development. For tree cover, one need only view
the numerous homes overlooking Lake George that have denuded
their lots to understand how difficult control can be.
'--
Item #3 Luzerne Mountain Road, know as Glens Falls Mountain Road
in Luzerne, is an issue of regional impact. Indeed this road
,connecting Luzerne and Glens Falls predates the incorporation of
the Town. Improvements to this road would benefit the Town
residents that live on West Mountain, residents of the entire
Town of Luzerne, the proposed West Mountain PUD, and all
residents of Warren County. The analysis of the impact of
density is 2,685 units verses 2,985 (10%).
9F
put> lJo :)
{ 31
For the last six years I have packaged financing for real estate
development in New York/New England, the Southeast, the Rocky
Mountains and Southern California. PUD's with densities less
than 3 units/acre are rare indeed. Developments with densities
of 1 unit per acre are normally ultra-high income, exclusive
subdivisions. I recently analyzed 4 PUD's in Mecklenburg County,
a rural area outside Charlotte, N.C. of farms and wooded
foothills. I selected these because all four involved golf
courses, trails and other outside activities (tennis, swimming,
etc.). Acreage varied from 400 to 1240 acres. Densities varied
from 2.2/acre (including 4 million SF of new offices) to
4.9/acre. Build-out was expected to take up to 5 years. Per
capita income for 1984 in this area varies from $35,000 to
$41,000. The Nationål average is $16,000.
The issue of "density" in a PUD is complex dealing with natural
features, visual characteristics, public services, and . the
inherent character of a Recreation-Commercial zone. The resort
character and second home potential of West Mountain are unique
in the Town. No where else is year-round recreational activity
at this scale available or even possible. The second home buyer
purchasing this "recreation" is what makes the West Mountain PUD
possible. When all other planning criteria can be honored and
intergrated in our development, doesn't the aesthetic "feel" for
density deserve more consideration.
Thank you for your consideration.
Very Truly Yours,
Harrison
Partner
JBH:nem
9~
13~
Mr. Roberts stated there has to be concurrent review for rezoning in the area.
Board members were concerned over market changes in the next 10 years.
Mr. Roberts stated, "There was a real problem at this stage of the project; one of
density." Mr. Roberts also said, "I'm not sure that the density should be changed for that
area. I don't see how these thousands of people can be move safely and sanely on and
off the mountain at this stage of the game; it hasn't been proven to us that that can be
done. The Town is certainly not going to want to build that road particularly. It's probably
going to be your job; if it can be done in fact. I would like to see more than two entrances
on and off that mountain; particularly for the forseeable future. You have a single entrance
off of Luzerne Mountain Road where a couple of thousand units, probably, and many
thousands of people going on and off that one road. Generally speaking, we don't allow
more than 50 units on a single entrance as a general policy."
Mr. DeSantis said that an EIS would be required. The road issue would have to be
addressed.
Mr. Roberts stated that the application would be TABLED with the agreement that
the applicant obtain further information and have the time to resolve certain issues.
The motion is in reference in to Section 15.073 B of the Zoning Ordinance.
Passed Unanimously.
SITE PLAN REVIEW NO. 14-87
Scott McLaughlin
Mr. Roberts read the application for farm and construction equipment sales on the
property situated at Dix Avenue, corner of Quarry Crossing in a Highway Commercial
15 Zone.
Mr. Roberts asked Mr. McLaughlin if he would be constructing a building. He said
he would not be building at this time. The site at the present time is an open field.
Public Hearing Opened: A neighbor stated that it was a very bad corner there and
Queensbury always came down and mowed the grass. It's a hard corner to see around.
A neighbor was concerned on the hours of operation.
Public Hearing Closed.
Mr. Dybas asked how many pieces of equipment he would have on the property.
Mr. McLaughlin stated the equipment doesn't stay there very long.
Mr. Roberts asked if it was all used equipment. Mr. McLaughin stated that some
would be new. He said he doesn't want any big operation. He wants something to do to
-,
10
133
keep himself busy in his retired years.
Warren County Planning Board recommended approval.
Mrs. Levandowski MOVED APPROVAL of Site Plan Review No. 14-87. The applicant
must keep the equipment 50 feet from the road and must conform with all commercial
zone requirements.
Mrs. Mann seconded.
Passed Unanimously.
The meeting was adjourned at 1:20 a.m.
~.~ :Lt
\ \t~ ( ~
GdJ4;-
Richard Roberts, Chairman
Minutes prepared by Susan E. Davidsen, Planning and Zoning Department
'-
11