1994-06-28
-~._-_._- --~._--_._------
,
-
QUEENSBURY PLANNING BOARD MEETING
SECOND REGULAR MEETING
JUNE 28TH. 1994
INDEX
DISCUSSION ITEM Maloolm & Betty Batohelder 1.
RESOLUTION OF LEAD AGENT Harold & Eleanore Smith 4.
Site Plan No. 21-94 Harold & Eleanore Smith 5.
Site Plan No. 23-94 James E. Valenti 8.
Site Plan No. 24-94 TCT Federal Credit Union 24.
Site Plan No. 22-94 Columbia Development Group 29.
Subdivision No. 4-83 Robert E. MaoDonald 52.
FINAL STAGE MODIFICATION
Site Plan No. 25-94 Hudson Polnte. Ino. 56.
Site Plan No. 2Ø-94 Stewart's loe Cream Co.. Ino./ 71.
Dake Bros. Ino.
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.
., .
QUEENSBURY :),~At1~t~~G i.B.QARD
SECOND REGULAR ME~TI~G,
JUNE 28TH. 1994 '.' '
7:00 P.M.
MEE;T.,ING
" "
';.)
'~. 4
MEMBERS PRESENT
TIMOTHY BR'EWER, CH'A IRMAN
GEORGE STARK~ $ECRErARY
ROBERT PAL I NG .. .',
JAMES OBERMA'yER
, , . :,"f",
ROGER RUEL
CRAIG MACEWAN
CATHERINE LABOMBARD
; ", ",.' ;
EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR-JAMES MARTIN
PLANNER-SCOTT HARLICKER
PLANNING BOARD ATTORMEY-MARK SCHACHNER
f f
TOWN ENGINEER-BILS MAC~AMARA, RIßT-FROST '.
STENOGRA~HER7MARI~ GAG~IARDL
CORRECTION OF MINUTÉŠ
" '\
A~.~ i I 2,9t,h" 19:94 :!', ,NONE:
:"I'~ I ').
",·--0 '
M ~ y' 3 r d '. 1 9 9 4 :,,'j <
MOTION TO APPROVE THE ABOVE SET OF MINUTES AS WRITTEN,
by Robert Pa ling who moved for its adopt ion, seconded
Stark:
NONE
Introduced
by George
Duly adopted this 28th day of June, 1994, by the following vote:
AYES: Mr. Stark, Mr. Obermayer, Mrs. LaBombard, Mr. MacEwan,
Mr. Ruel, Mr. Paling, Mr. Brewer
NOES: NONE
MR. BREWER-Okay. We're going to
order, here. We're going to do a
have here, and t hen we' I I move to
balance of the agenda.
do a couple of things out of
couple of quick items that we
Native Texti les, and then the
DISCUSSION ITEM:
A PROPOSAL BY MALCOLM & BETTY BATCHELDER
MR. BREWER-Have you got that letter, George?
MR. STARK-I've got it right here.
MR. BREWER-Why don't you just read it in.
MR. STARK-Okay. To the Attention of the Queensbury Planning
Board, "Dear Sirs: This is a letter requesting review of a
parcel of property on Clements Road, owned by Malcolm and Betty
Batchelder, Town of Queensbury, Warren County, New York.
Enclosed is a copy of a deed plot plan drawn up by the firm of
Van Dusen and Steves of Chester Street, Glens Falls, showing the
parce lout lined in ye II ow. The Tax Map Number is 523400, Number
27-311. I have been in contact with the firm just recently, and
if the Board finds that it meets the necessary requirements, then
we wi I I proceed with having it surveyed. We hesitate to proceed
with the expense unti I then, as feel you would understand. A
party has approached us showing interest in purchasing this
parcel for a home, but, again, we are waiting until we know how
- 1 -
"
---
.we stanq.
parce I lo
Tban~ you. Malcolm A. & Betty S. Batchelder The
questlon contains approximately one and a half acres."
, ,
MR. BREWER-Okay. Mr. and Mrs. Batchelder. Come on right up to
the m i c r 0 p h 0 n e . guess. I' m a lit tie bl t confused as to why. i s
th i ssomewha-t,of a Sket,chP I an type of th I ng?
MR. HARLICKER-Yes. They just wanted to come In . and get the
Board's feedback on this proposal. before they went out and spent
the money on a full blown survey and prel Iminar.y "subdivision
approval.
MR. BREWER-As recal I. did we talk. or discuss last time you
were here. that you subdivided .with the. thl<slot here. that
there was going to be no more subdivision of this land?
"
MR. BATCHELDER-We didn't say wewon't~ We. said we have had no
prospects. and this person came along. and I'm not using it. and
they would Ilk.e to build.. house on it., this IQt.
MR. MACEWAN- remember th i s discuss i on the last tdme you fo I ks
were here. for your last subdivision. I did a I ittle research on
It. and according ta th&~last minute~!tha~fw. ~ave for the last
meeting that. you were here. there was some questions regarding
the APA ont b is. ,regard Lng· wet lands ,.Gn t hat, 'aid j8cent parcel . if
you were ever to subdivide that one. They felt. and 1'1 I quote
it in here. it says. "Please be aware_that, In reviewing the
history of the subd i v I s I on of the larger parce I. it appears that
potel:l,t i a I v i,o.l at iOJ:'IS ex ¡,st concern.1 ng"the p'r I· or c'onv,eya'nces made
by Archangela Bannon. due to the ,presence of wetlands on those
parcels oonveyed". .. nt·ey go o,n in here to say that If any
consideration was to be given to subdividing that parcel further.
that they would want to research that and look and see what. as
far as what more I nformat i on they, wou I d need to 'make 'sure that
you met al I the criteria for subdividing it according to APA
rules. Am I right on that. Jim?
MR. MARTIN-Yes.
i¡
MR. BATCHELDER-The APA has been down there once.
.,
MR. MACEWAN-But that was regarding the paroel that you did the
last time. but they said If this other parcel was to be
s ubd I,v i ded ,more.t he ,one you I re speak I: ng ,of !now.t hey wou I d want
to look at it;again..
MRS. BATCHELDER-They approved this pie<oe that we're talking
about. too., <
MR. BA TCHELDER- They looked at t hi,s one.
MR. MACEWAN-Do you have something from them< in writing that says
that they looked at It? When did they look at It last?
¡~ ¡ ~
, . ~
MRS., BATCHELDER-The same time they I·ooked at"the other one. The
lady went down and took the .sa i d. I can't· see. if you ever
wanted to s~ll this. why you caQ.'t. '!
MR. MACEWAN-They're raising questions in this letter that could
be a problem if you wanted to do that.
MR. BATCHELDE'R--Who ra I sed· Ute ,quest¡j on?
. .
MR. MACEWAN-Someone from the APA. whoever wrote the letter.
MR. BREWER-That's not to do with this Board. though.
'j ;
MR. MACEWAN-No.
- 2 -
'--
--
MR. BREWER-So I guess they'd have to do that" anyway.' So I guess
what the question is. do we have a problem with that.
MR. MACEWAN-We I I. we would if the APA had a problem with it.
MR. BREWER-Well~. then. that's true. but as far as
now. they're just dividing off another acre off
I ike maybe two and a half. three acre piece.
parcel right now. without that subdivIded?
I can see right
of this. looks
How big is the
MR. BATCHELDER-That they want?
MR. BREWER-No. the entire parcel.
MR. BATCHELDER~The whole total?
MR. BREWER-You told us how big the piece was you wanted to
subdivide. but you didn't tel I us how big the other plede was.
MR. BATCHELDER-It's ,an acre and a hatf.what they want.
MR. BREWER-Right.
MR. BATCHELDER-And the o~her piece would be the difference
between the otÞerpiece and the acre and a ha~f. and 1 can't tel I
you r<1 ght off thand. The who I e bus Iness was a I most seven acres.
MR. BREWER-Seven acres.
MR.HARL I CKER- Yes,. <, ..Accord I ng tot he A,PA ,I etter. theent i re
parce1.,the remaining parceJ. is 4.2 acres~ and Mr. Batchelder is
say I n g. you wan t to d i v i de s n a ere a nid a h a I f of f t hat 4.2 sc res.
Correot?
MR. BREWER-So he'd have somewhere around three ac"es. three plus
acres.
MR. HARLICKER-Yes.
MR. MACEWAN-Where does the APA get that. in that I etter that
they're referring to in th,e last minutes. f'rom the last meeting
that these folks were at? What are they getting at? What is
their bone of contention?
MR. BREWER-I thi;n.k it's on the Bannons. because there's a pond
here. and they may have done something to,the pond.
MR. OBERMAYER-As far as the wat~r. what is that?
wetlands. or is that a stream that runs through there?
Is that
MR. BREWER- It's a I I tt Ie pond.'
MR. OBERMAYER-It's a 1 Ittle pond~ Okay.
MR. BREWER-I think it's just a farm pond. I guess what we have
to answer to them. is there going'to be a 'problem with us if they
go through the ,APA. and' get strai9htened out with them. they
solve the problems with them. and there's going to be a problem
with Y.§... That's the question. I guess.
MR. STARK- 1. don't see anyprob I em. '
MR. MACEWAN-It wouldn't be a problem for me. but ~ha~'~ a hurdle
they have to get over with the APA first.
MR. BREWER-That's a given. No problem with me.
i ~
MR. MACEWAN-No. none with me. either.
MR. BREWER-Roger?
- 3 -
-,--..---.-
--
MR. RUEL-No problem.
MR. BREWER-Go to It.
MR. HARLICKER-Yes. I'd just suggest you might want to contact
the APA as soon as you can.
MR. OBERMAYER-That does not guarantee approval.
MR. BREWER-No, that's not a guaranteed approval, by no means.
You' I I stl I I have to go to the APA, and then come back here, and
the engineering has to be done.
MR. BATCHELDER-We'd have to get It surveyed and everything, and
then if we come back here and It's no. It's not worth It.
MR. BREWER-We I I,
to tel I you.
I mean, we can't tel I you what the APA's going
MR. BATCHELDER-I' I I settle with the APA.
MR. BREWER-AI I right, and then when you come back to us, If
everything Is In order, then we don't foresee a problem.
MR. MACEWAN-Mr. Batchelder, would you I ike these minutes, to take
with you? I've highlighted the spots In there where their
concerns were.
MR. BREWER-Thank you. Okay. We have to acknowledge Lead Agency
Status, first, for Smith.
NEW BUSINESS,
RESOLUTION ACKNOWLEDGING LEAD AGENCY STATUS IN THE REVIEW OF SITE
PLAN NO. 21-94 - HAROLD & ELEANORE SUITH
MR. HARLICKER-There's a Long Form EAF that was submitted with
this application.
MR. BREWER-Yes, but can't we do the acknowledgement of Lead
Agency Status first? Then we' I I do that?
MR. HARLICKER-Yes.
MR. BREWER-Okay.
written?
Would somebody care to Introduce that. as
RESOLUTION ACKNOWLEDGING LEAD AGENCY STATUS
IN CONNECTION WITH Site Plan Review for
HAROLD & ELEANORE SUITH
RESOLUTION NO.; 14-1994
INTRODUCED BY: Georae Stark
WHO MOVED ITS ADOPTION
SECONDED BY:
Rocer Ruel
WHEREAS. In connection with the site Dlan review aDDllcatlon
for Harold & Eleanore S.lth, the Town of Queensbury Planning
Board, by resolution. previously authorized the Executive
Director to conduct a coordinated SEQRA review. and
WHEREAS. the Executive Director has advised that other
Involved agencies have been notified and have consented to the
Town of Queensbury Planning Board being lead agent,
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT
- 4 -
'~--
RESOLVED. that the Town of Queensbuf¡':V P I ann irg ,Board hereby
recognizes itself as lead agent for purposes of SEQRA review, and
, .
.BE I T FURTHER,
J ,. ~ >' ',,' , ': ¡ . : . ,. ,
.(
RESOLVED, that the Town of Queensbüry Pla~ning Board hereby
determines that it, '~i~'s sufficien~ inforlpati9~ a,nd,Ø,et~ermin,~s the
significance of the project in accordance with SEQRA as follows;
1 )
¡. ' " " . , .~' i " : ,,~',' . ' . ";, :
An; En.yj,ro~.'r~ntal Impact Statement w.i II nqt I:;I~ re,~uired
for the action as ti1e Pljapnin!j; "Boa¡rd l,1,a~ qete.rmined
that there will be no significant effect or that
I dent if i ed env i ronmen,ta I, ,effe,c.ts w,i I I not be
,~.rgn.irica~t for the tol)owi.ng reasonE;:
~~ .
and
BE IT FURTHER,
, " r J
RESOLVED, that the Executive Director is ~ereby authorized
to giye ~UCt'l,: no~ificflt,ions andlpake .suçh .fi I i"gs as ",~y be
requi,r::,ed. und;er Secti.o.1\ 917, of the O,f,fic,ial, Compi lation of Codes.
Rules and Regulations of the State of New York.
Duly åd~pte'd th'i,S 28th ,qay ,Q'f"June.~ 1~94, by the fo! lowing vote:
AYES: Mr. Obermayer, Mrs. LaBombard, Mr. MacEwan,Mr.
Mr¡ "Pal ing, Mr. S,tark, Mr. Brewer
,
Rüe I ,
NOES: NONE
MR. BREWER-Okay. Now we can do the Site Plan.
si'n~~:í~l:A:N;;:NO. 21'::'9J'~~ rfP'( , Þ U~Rot<~\~~:jirf~)(NIºR.~E <sMìt:fi'-,/iQWNER:
(' ¡ . ,,,,<,:I ~,",.. _.' ~: \ -,' .. 1'1tJ,T -. ,...... _~)~ '. -,.ù .
SAME AS ABOVE ZONE: WR-1A. C.E.A. LOCATION: 11TH HOUSE ON
LEFT Q.N HANNEFORD, ,ROAD (GREEN) PROPOSAL,tS FOR A ,12' X ,22'7"
ADD I T "ON TO THE '-ÈAST ' S I DE' OF EX I ST I NG HOME;.· SEQRÀ:6L28/94
, :, ¡ .-'
CROSS REFERENCE: AV 27-1994 ADIRONDACK PARK AGENCY' WARREN CO.
PLANNING: 6/8194 TAX MAP NO. 19-1-p. LOT SI,2:E: .4 ACRES
SECTION: 179-16
! ¡; J:.'_;",~ ,.:;
,~I
HAROLD SMITH, PRESENT
STA,FF INPUT
Notes from Staff. Site Plan No. 21-94, Harold & Eleanore Smith,
Meeting" q~te:.y.unie ,28th, 1,994, "~!RO"'E.CT ANALYSIS: Staff
rev i ewed,the ,..pr~j,ec1: for pomp Ii ance.. w i.t~:j. Sept ions 179-38A, 179-
38C and Ùî'è r'élèý:~~i.'cfap,1::~;rs.,9¡utl ¡,n,e..d, In'179-39. The project was
compared to the fol lowing standards found in Section 179-38 E. of
the Zoning Code: 1. The location. arrar.H~.,ment" size. d~si.:¡;¡n and
general site compatibility of bui Idings. I ighting and signs; The
proposed addition's location is on the east face of the existing
structure, and it would serve as adde~: I LVeable spac~ to~ the
applicants. It is compatible In architecture, design and it's
functions would enhance the alreadY,exis,ting structure.., The size
of the addition is approximately 25.6% of the existing residence.
2. The adequacy and arrangement of vehicular traffic access and
ci,r.çulatJon~. < 'ncl,uc.1i~g il1t$rsections~ ..road widt,hs. pavement
s'~~t'~ëes.; øividers· ~rad trafficd·cqntç.qf;~; {Not ~ppqHabli~': 3.
T,h,e I oc~t ion. ar,ra"gellent.,. ,..,pe,arance aR,d s,uff I Q ,)en~v< of off-
street park i ng and., 19ad i ng; . ¡ ~C)t app I i ?ab Ie. , 4.! The adequacy
and arrangement of pedestrian traffic access and circulation
walkwaystructur$s.control of .intersections wi~~ vehicular
,t rarf i C~"d .ó·v~ra I I ..,edest r i a~ c~nven' iel)çe; No ef,f ep't. 5. The
adequacy ofstormw,ater,dr,a,¡i nage,faci, I,i,t ies;, ,Around th .isproposed
addition the percentage of permeable area is sti I I high. 6. The
adequacy of water supply and sewagedisp~sal faci.i~ies; Not
effected. 7. The adequacy. type and arrangement of trees.
- 5 -
shrubs and other suitable plantings. landscaping and screening
constituting a visual and/or noise buffer between the applicant's
and adjoining lands. including the .axl.u. retention of existing
vegetation and .alntenance Including replace.ent of dead plants;
The proposed addition wi I I require the cutting a pine tree and
some smaller vegetation being eliminated. The southern property
I ine could be landscaped with vegetation to cutdown any visual
impact of this construction. 8. The adequacy of fire lanes and
other e.ergency zones and the provision of fire hydrants; Not
appl icable. 9. The adequacy and I.pact of structures. roadways.
and landscaping in areas with susceptibility to ponding. flooding
and/or erosion. No evident Impact from this construction."
MR. BREWER-Okay, and we have Warren County, approved, and there
was a variance granted.
MR. HARlICKER-For side yard setback, on the south side.
MR. BREWER-No restrictions. Okay. Are there any questions from
anybody on the Board?
MR. MACEWAN-The only comment, Staff asked you
considering landscaping that southern edge of the
to help with the view from the neighbors, with the
Is that a problem for you?
If you'd be
property line
construction.
MR. SMITH-No problem.
MR. MACEWAN-Could you come up with, maybe the best way to do this
is, prior to a bui Iding permit, come up with a landscaping plan,
and juS t s u bm I tit tot he P I ann I n g s t a f f , and I fit was
acceptable to them, It would be acceptable to us? Is that
agreeable with everybody?
MR. BREWER-Yes, with Jim, that's fine.
MR. MACEWAN-That's the only comment L had.
MR. RUEl-You're removing the existing chimney?
MR. SMITH-Yes.
It's not being used.
MR. RUEl-That's the only question 1 had.
MR. MARTIN-Were you proposing any gutters or anything like that,
stormwater management, around the new addition, or Is this just
going to be runoff?
MR. SMITH-Just on the side that you see the entrance. There wi I I
be a porchway there, and 1'1 I have gutters on there.
MR. MARTIN-Do gutters exist on the existing residence at al I?
MR. SMITH-No.
MR. BREWER-Okay.
there anyone here
project?
With that, I'll open the public hearing. Is
from the publ Ie who I ike to comment on this
PUBLIC HEARING OPENED
NO CO"'ENT
PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED
MR. BREWER-Okay.
I guess we can do a SEQRA.
RESOLUTION WHEN DETERMINATION OF NO SIGNIFICANCE IS MADE
RESOLUTION NO. 21-94, Introduced by Craig MacEwan who moved for
- 6 -
! U .,;> i,t,s< ,ß~o.~t i ~n 'J?e,<?<;?!)ged bY: Rq~~rt. Pª I JnQ ~ ,,~
..J ".
i ~ ~ " ì",'
.' .' < . _ _ ' ; c_:.. .' _ /¡ t ,<~ ; ~ ':" \-," .~
, ; :~"_~~ÈÀ~)~:S., .' ~~.~ re, ,i.1~ in Pr:'~,Š ~?,t, I y ¡, ,; ,'r.~,f. ~:r ~ t l¡I.~i P I.~n r\Ï ~,q ;_ßÇ)aJ~d an
... 'I." étP,P I J qat H';n ~ f>9.f.¡t >,"'{\I:I,QL9.}~ }i~E.~~OQ.E, ,S", 1.~11 ~ ,~nd, I. ¡ ¡ h
.WHER~'~S,' :.th i sF¡> I anni,n~ f3,Qard has det~rm i ned that the
,project anq,Plal"\nin:g Board action is subje,ct to review
h ",~t,Ijl~ e ,.,E I')\( i r¡~/i'U~p,t ~)\b2 u a ,t i t y Rev i ew Act,
..' J:Jcj~::f3rq~~~l;Q~~E,:<,~E\ ¡1~,:¡p;' ';,:" ',.;}:,<tH",' - ih<.
proposed
under the
',j'
R'ËSQ~ÇÊD:' '-
· t (i' , J' ~,~.r ¿
fI:' !
~-:.:
, ~ ,i'.
1. No federal agency appears to be involved.
2. The following agencies are involved:
NONE
"
3. Th,~,pro,posed ,act iO,n cons i de red I;¡y th is B,oar,d is unl í st,ed in
the Department of Environmental Conservation Regulations
implementing the State Environmental Quality Review Act and
the regulations of the To~n,of Queensbury.
4. An<Env<ironmenta I¡ Assessment Form t'lqs be,en comp leted by the
appl icant.
5. Having considered and thoroughly an,ly~ed,th~ ~elevant areas
of environmental concern and having considered the criteria
,for determini~,g whe:t¡her .,a ,projec;:t has a significant
environm~ntal impact as the, sal1' e is set forth i.n Section
617.1'1 of' the 'Official CQmpi lation of Codes, Rules and
Reg~l~tions fqrthe State of New Yo~k, this Board finds that
the act ion abôut to be undertaken by th i s Board wi I I have no
significant environmental effect and the Chairman of the
Planning Board is h~reby av~horized< ~o execute and sign and
file as may be necessary a statement of non-significance or
a n e gat i ve de c I a rat i 0 t:1 <t ~ at may be r; e qui. red by I a w .
Duly adopted t~is 28th day of June. 1994."þy the follqwing vote:
AYES: Mrs. LaBombard, Mr. MacEwan, Mr. Ruel, Mr. Pal i;t;!g,
Mr. Stark, Mr. Obermayer, Mr. Brewer
I ,
NOES: NONE
MR. BREWER-Okay.,
Woul d some,body care to offer a moti on't
j't'__;
MOTION TO APPROVE SITE PLAN NO. 21-94 HAROLD & ELEANORE SMITH,
I..ntr.oduced. b¡y Roger Rue I o/homoved for i.ts adopt ion, s,e.conded by
James Obermay¡er:
For a 12' by 22'7" addition to east sidejQf their,exi,sting home,
with the condition that you submit a landscaping plan for the
southern exposure, and submit it to the Planning staff, prior to
obtaining a building permit.
" ,
Duly adopted this 28th day of June. 1994, by the following\(ote:
AYES: Mr. MacEwan, Mr.
Obermayer,
Mrs. LaBombard, Mr. Brewer
Rue I ,
Mr.
Paling,
Mr.
Stark,
Mr.
. ,,'. .',
"
. ~/Î ~
: r.' ~ :,,~{, #.~
NOES: NONE
.'
"¡;
"
STEVE LYNN
" ' " f', , .
MR. LYNN-My name is Steve Lynn. On the landscaping, are you
say i '1~~~.o I, an~~~caJ?~. ~ he, ,.ar~ja of,:t ~,¥".apd i 1; ~,~,n~, l~;r. are,. ,)W~ ,',ay i ng
landscape the whole7
- 7 -
MR. BREWER-No. the area. I guess you're taking down a tree or
two?
MR. LYNN-Well. It's one that's right In the middle of. It would
be in the middle of the house.
MR. BREWER-Right.
I think Staff asked for. on the southern.
MR. MACEWAN-On the southern property line to be landscaped with
vegetation to cut down on any visual impact from construction.
MR. LYNN-Okay. So.
the whole southern
addition would be.
If I understand you correctly. you're saying
side? You're not just saying where the
MR. BREWER-Around the addition.
MR. SMITH-Okay. because the rest of the house Is covered by one
tree. almost.
MR. MACEWAN-Right. just where the addition Is.
MR. BREWER-A minimal amount. but not seedlings this big either.
MR. LYNN-No. We understand that.
just wanted to make sure.
MR. BREWER-Right.
work with you.
I think if you get with Jim. I'm sure he can
MR. MARTIN-If you want to submit just a penci I sketch or
something before you put a lot of effort into it. or a lot of
money. I'd be happy to look at it.
MR. LYNN-Thank you.
MR. BREWER-Thank you. Okay.
SITE PLAN NO. 23-94 TYPE: UNLISTED JAMES E. VALENTI OWNER:
JAMES E. & MICHAEL VALENTI ZONE: HC-1A LOCATION: AGWAY. WEST
SIDE OF RT. 9 ACROSS FROM SUTTON'S MARKET PLACE PROPOSAL IS FOR
CONSTRUCTION OF A 52' X 68' WOOD FRAME ADDITION TO THE REAR OF
THE EXISTING AGWAY STORE. CROSS REFERENCE: AV 31-1994 WARREN
CO. PLANNING: 6/8/94 TAX MAP NO. 73-1-6 LOT SIZE: 2.38 ACRES
SECTION: 179-23
BEN PRATT. REPRESENTING APPLICANT. PRESENT
STAFF INPUT
Notes from Staff. Site Plan No. 23-94. James E. Valenti. Meeting
Date: June 28th. 1994 "PROJECT ANALYSIS: Staff reviewed the
project for compl lance with 179-38A. 179-38B. 179-38C and the
relevant factors outl ined in Section 179-39. The project was
compared to the fol lowing standards found in Section 179-38 E. of
the Zoning Code: 1. The location. arrange.ent. size. design and
general site co.patiblllty of buildings. lighting and signs; The
proposed addition is compatible with the existing structure and
its location is compatible within the context of the site. 2.
The adequacy and arrange.ent of vehicular traffic access and
circulation. Including Intersections. road widths. pavement
surfaces. dividers and traffic controls; Circulation on this
site seems to be a potential problem. The south side of the
bui Idlng has a paved access to the back of the parcel that is
14'8" wide and could provide automobile access to the additional
parking If It Is designated one way. The north side of the
bui Idlng has traffic access along side It that varies in width.
starting at 37' in the front. and tapering to 22' In the back.
Where the access area decreases in width to 22'. the pavement
should be extended to give a desired width of 25'. This width
wi I I be more easi Iy able to accommodate service and emergency
vehicles. The designated handicapped parking would have to be
- 8 -
relocated to, ,another ar~a of the parking lot to provide the 25'
width of an access to the rear of the building. 3. LO,cation.
a~ranqellent, ¡appearance a,nd ,suff i c i ency of ~ff-stree1; park ~ ng and
loading: Off-street parking is another potential source of
problems. The appl icant has approximately '25 unmarked spaces in
the f,ro,nt porti,on of their lot. They need a total of 86 spaces.
or 1 space for evéry 1ØØ s.f. of retai I space. Striping the
¡ ¡, par ~ i n g .I Q t would g ,i Y e better definition !: 9 tho s ~ spa c e si n the
"fron't of' the, building as wel,1 as a better idea 'of traffic flow
'through this ¡,ot. ' "Section 1789-66 A calls for a primary
~o~si~eration.of pedestrian safety. and with tbe stGtping ,01 the
p.arkLng lot comes that ,added Pedestrian safety." Wi,th the
addifional parking to be provided in the back. the'r'ight-of-way
needed to get customers to the back wi I I a I so e Ii m i nate a few
spots in the front. The number qf, handicapped p¡ark.ingspaces
that needed to be supplied in accordance with the ÀDA. is four.
At I ~,ast one 9f<t hos,e four has to be van access i þJe W; i th a
m i n I mum 0 f a 6 ø i n c hac c e s s a i s Ie.' The res h Q, U I d a I, sob e
sufficient amounts of space for service vehicles as we I I. 4.
The adequacy and arrangement of pe<iestr i an tr,af,f. ic .,ccess and
circulation walkway structures. control of intersections with
veh,icular 1;rafr;,c ,and overal,1 pedestrian conveni,~nc¡e: ,,' The
striping of thè parking lot would give pedestrians a better sense
of envi,ronment for "!;he fact th~t they w.Quld,kn0V( what was
reserved for automobiles and could tell the circulation' patterns
of the automobiles. This would enhance the pedestrian fJow as
wellas the ~ùtomôbile traffic on the site. 5. nië adequa'cy of
stormwater drainage faci I ities: Current drainage flows are not
effected. and t~e ~it.e wi II not lose s,r;ty of its permeability. 6.
T~e adequac~,of w~~er supply and sewage ~isp~sal faci I ities:
Water supply and sewage disposal should not be affeéted. ,7~,; The
adequacy. type and arrangement of trees. shrubs and other
suitable plantings. landscaping and screeni.ng c()O~tituting a
" '.. , ~ j .
visual and/or noise buffer between the appl icant's and adjoining
lands. include the maximum retent.on of ,existing veg.,tation and
maintenance including replacement of dead plants: There seems to
:f!id1ee ~,lac:,~1 of" ;1{~nçjsc~P\l)g;~n the ,fron1 pO,rt,ion "Iofi/th,e: site.
,.,¡~; e,~If>.'/ri!i.;ally, near, the r:Q~c¡i,. I;~Y1dscaRing, ¡¡;1,~a~J-1~,~;e.;,rpa.d ~o~~~;Qive a
:'¡ ¿~m~J.I,;:,-, nc;>;i;se , ~uf/~"t.~7a!1d > þ,e,qome a,n" aest~~'" i C ~rnen 4!=,y~, de Th is
~:land~s!GaPbl1g .9Q4 }:j.b~¡: ~J mix of yegetafiqn ;s,o!<~~\.r;~g\h,t ¡to"., the
, p,remi.~t:~..: A, T~;s"p,~p:e,d lands9apin~ pt~nter, adjqin¡~~t>Q the
, "eJS i; ~t i ngj~, il~n 1~,oU I d ",nqt ,on I y.\pr:8~,;i de, ,v i sua I} bea4"~,Y~~ ,!\~ ;~ou Ld< a I so
give more definition to the parking area,> \ns1;e~d-,of the
automobile access that there is now between the curb 'àrid sign.
a. The adequacy of. fire lanes ,and other emergency 2:;ones and the
provision of fire hydrants:" I have no comment here. I didn't
get a chance to talk to Kip on that. "9. The .ade~~a,çy and
impact of structures. roadways. and landscaping in areas with
s\j,sceptibi I ity, topon4ing. floo,ding al1d/or ero~Jon. Erosion
con,trol. 'meas4res.st¡ou~9,\'gefoILo,~ed on this site."
,/<
, , . , . . , ~
M~~ BREWER-Okay. andiwet¡~ve comments from Rist-Frost;
. . . ~' ' . . . i .. ,
¡ . ' . ':, : , ' .. ' . . " ¡ ~, , '
,_' ~'jI¡4~t,}!ß,ACNAMARA~,~oRg.¡-,~ye,n.¡ng~"., ,I ',(11. BbLl MaqNamara wHh Rist-Frost.
~,,)bqt of ,o~,r, Ic<tI}1.n¡Efn~~, are, iR i.ck~c::J, u8, i, '1 /t;h,e .t"i rst ¡rev i,ew a~~ we I I.
The~i.deyárd r~quirements ,weren't ,met. We knew th.~r~ w.as a
v,ariance'i being ,requested. We were.n't sure if the area of the
,},,,< ~r~~n~ous~~, were,:,~r.c~\.Id,ed ,in th.e;...b,u:ilqi:~g ~rea..,~n~J~at:,,~Cfes to
> .y;)~?e, gr7efl\j~pace~).<There,!,:,a~ aç.~~trt-9f-~~,Y indic~!t~qd~.:t,;~e site
plan. not7.8. but, it ,'Y~sn,¡·~\s.ho\yq,on"the,;~ra.Wi~q. ,~nd_Vf~,~1q~",~ that
was just another way,o them referr ing to, the ir ~etback.¡ ¡ was a
right-of-way.. Proposed I o.cat i on of sheds and lights. we" suggest.
, . .. . ",' ~ .. " . ¡ '. \, \. . . ~.; ,
are show", on the, site plan. The propane"tanK,¡;which is out in
,front of the struóture is suggested to be protected from the
vehicles,. Fr.òm 1;.he sounds of it. it's ,a pretty busy place.
Certa i n I y <seasona I at I east. We had a comment about wh&t' kind of
¡ vegétation was s,hOWI)' out front of the ~aS:king area. ,if, <a,L} that
was there was what was proposed. We also,;sug,gesteçl striping the
park i ng lof. I f not ,,$t r,i,p i ng it permanen'{iy'. at i easts"!; rip i ng
it on the sitepl,an. so that the number of parking spaces could
- 9 -
be oonflrmed. as far as fitting the numbers In that are required.
and keeping access lanes and things of that nature avai lable. It
wasn't olear where the ingress and the egress points onto Route 9
were. From the looks of it. It looks like there could be at
least two entranoes that are somewhat uncontrol led on either side
of what's shown as a curb. There was no off-street loading areas
shown. which I believe. I think it's a 5.ØØØ square foot cut off.
and I think above that a loading area Is required. Handicapped
parking spaces require the access aisle. which was mentioned
early. There were no grade lines shown on the site plan. as far
as figuring out where the stormwater Is going to run and the
overa I I I ay of the site. We suggest ed add I ng notes regard I ng the
sediment control during the oonstructlon phase. and regarding the
additional stormwater. It wasn't clear how the additional
stormwater was going to be handled. It looks like they're trying
to shed It off towards the back of the site. Typically. some
types of caloulations are shown. as far as the estimated quantity
that is going to be generated. versus the avai lable area that's
there to handle It. and lastly. it wasn't clear if there was
going to be any Increased load on the septic system. and If there
were. there really weren't any detal Is on It for us to make a
judgement on it. but If there's not an increase. then that's not
an issue. Those are al lour comments.
MR. BREWER-There are also. this went to Warren County. approved.
"With the conditions that they be current on all regulatory
concerns. preferably keep the bulk materials (ferti I izers. etc.)
on the other side of the lot. the application must also be
approved by the Town Fire Marshal I and the governing fire
company. Must also have 25 parking spaoes available out front."
And they did receive a varianoe. Area Variance?
MR. HARLICKER-Yes.
MR. BREWER-Okay. We also have a letter from MI I ler. Mannix. &
Pratt. George. would you care to read that. or is It necessary
to read It?
MR. STARK-Mr. Pratt is here.
MR. PRATT-Yes. My name is Ben Pratt. and we represent the Agway.
The purpose of the letter which was submitted today in response
to both Staff and Mr. MacNamara Is to address those Issues
raised. both in correspondence by those folks. as wel I as tonight
here at the meeting. In sum. for those of you that have had a
chance to look at the letter. I be I i eve we have addressed a I I of
the Issues to the satisfaction of Staff and Mr. MacNamara. exoept
the striping Issue and the planting issue with respect to the
front of the premises. Those two Issues. we would I ike the
opportunity to address the Board on it. if the Board has
questions or oomments on the Staff comments or questions. as wel I
as on Mr. MaoNamara. but other than that. I bel ieve we have
addressed al I of the Issues. and I went over them this afternoon
with Scott. and I think that the Issues remaining. where there is
a slight disagreement between the applicant and the Staff and Mr.
MacNamara are only with respect to striping and with respect to
the aesthetics of the planting in front.
MR. BREWER-Okay.
Is that so. Scott. the only outstanding?
MR. HARLICKER-I can't speak to the engineering comments. but the
staff comments. yes. It seems like just the striping and the
landscaping out front. I'd just like to mention. spoke with
Dave Hatin today. since Kip was on vacation. regarding emergency
aooess. and depending on the construction of the bui Idlng. a 5Ø
foot clear zone Is required on three sides of the bui Idlng.
Depending on fire separation of the new wal I. It oan be reduced
down to just a 2Ø foot wide aisle back and forth. but it hinges
on what sort of construction they're using Internally. to
separate the storage area from the rest of the building.
- 18 -
--
'w_""
MR. MACEWAN-What happe~s if .they qan't meet that qriteria?
1,-' -, /_. I , -t
MR.. HARLLCKER-Well, if you Iqok at the" he dr:'QPped off, the
reyis~d pJ~ns. in~front of y~u s.how.th.re appears. to be RI~nty of
r09m on,t,hr,E;:!e oftt;l.e .s.ides. t.o provide :the 50 foot acces.s.~, .acros.s.
the 'fro~t,~the nor~h, and then-the.back side.
fv!R't ßREWER'7'SO
si,çle. What',s.
corner of the
, .
the. only side'they couldn't get in is the<south
the separati,on bet~~en"ft,.wOUld be the northwest
bl,l: i, I d i,ng~nd ~hat I i oe, wh~<re it tapers b~ck.7
, () -r . _ ,
rv1R~ PRATT-Thàt 'shows the ex(st.ing maca,dam, that I ine, and that is
Q~o¡ng' to b,e sright'ly ,E1x~er\ded.,There. will be p,lenlty of. space
there to meet eit~er the. ~5 or 2Ø foo~ requiremeQt" if that's
~haf It is, pr the 50 foot,~eqUiremen~~ if t,hat's. what'~ required
àt thàt corner.
~ II b L' !
,¡P.4R! BREWER-So,what you'll do js yo¡u,~,11 shift your gre~nhouses to
,a,cc8mmQda t e t hat space?
, . ' "'>'1
MR. PRATT-If we n~,dto, correct.
; ¡
MR. BREWER-Okay.
a bu i I ding perm it
~ : , . '; : i
That wi II, be shown on the final drawing, before
is issued?
MR. PRATT-Yes.
.
MR. MARTIN-Ye~,
i:1' that'.~ a requirement.
~R. ,BREWER-Okay.
~:
This is going to be just s.tora¡e area?
,I I ¡. '. "
MR. PRATT-It's a combination. It's approximately a 3,0Ø0 foot
addition, and it's going to be a combination 140Ø feet warehouse
and 17ØØ feet retail. So it's a mixed expansion use.
MR. BREWER-You're ~qing to separate them, l,;presuiJ1e, with a wall?
MR. PRATT-Right, and that's the issue with respect to the fire
department.
MR. RUEL-There's ,a 75 foot .setback In the front, and Is that shed
aod ,the propane tanks within that area? It seemed to be, on the
pial).
'MR. PRATT-;The propane tanks are the on I y th i ng ,that
little sh~~ that h~~ the scale on it, in the front,yes.,
on, the, r, i g h t 0 ':'I t h~ t I i n e .
MR. RUEL-'On the I i,ne?
is, the
they are
¡ -.'
MR. PRATT-The propane ,tank
. ,','I.·
partly on the I ine and part
i's r i,ght o~ the line. The shed is
i.s over thelin~ on both sides.
MR. RUEL-Yes, I see that.
t', j.-; "
v!hicles w¡th p!pe~, etc.?
W i I I t hi s
area be
) ¡ ~ - ~ ,
protected from
MR. PRATT-It
submission.
ìs pre'sent I y.
il '
That was just not shown on the first
MR. RUEL-I see.
,.
MR. P¡;tATT-There are bo I I ards ~urround i ng that.
. ¡ ~ ; - ~ ) \ ,j . --
."MF\,. RUF~-Yes.. Wi_I,1 the,l,oading ar~as be showr?
i'
¡ '! ¡
NR. PRATT-Yes., What, we propose to do I,s to stripe the I,oading
'zQneas shown on the revised site plan t,hat\\(as. subrpi,tteçl ,' :oday,
alqn'g with 'm.V letter, and to stripe th~ areas, with réspect to
~; ''o' .' I':. '. '. :'. ) _ ',.," '. - . ..
ha~dicapped parking, both on the nortt;least corner ot th~ parking
lot, and in th'e rear of ' the parking lot.
- 11 -
MR. RUEL-And you wi I I show the traffic flow?
MR. PRATT-Yes.
MR. RUEL-Shed Number Three wi I I remain where It is on this plan?
MR. PRATT-Shed Number Three Is the new location of Shed Number
Two.
MR. RUEL-I don't know. I have two plans here.
looking at the one dated 6/27?
I should be
MR. MARTIN-Yes.
MR. PRATT-Correct.
MR. RUEL-Okay. That one shows Storage Bui Idlng Three In the
corner of the additional parking spaces?
MR. PRATT-Correct.
MR. RUEL-Doesn't that seem to be an awkward position, as far as
traffic flow Is concerned?
MR. PRATT-I guess, If I may address the traffic with respect to
this site.
MR. RUEL-Yes. See,
really don't know.
I don't see the traffic flow here.
So I
MR. PRATT-Well, let me, in the month of May, this Is a very busy
site. There are a lot of people who come in and buy plants, buy
ferti Ilzer, buy sol I, buy garden supplies, that kind of thing.
The other eleven months of the year, there are rarely more than
five to ten oars In the parking lot at any time. So It's really
an issue of how you balance that one busy month versus the rest
of the year, in terms of the use of park I ng. Certa I n I y the shed
where we propose to put it, because It does store some materials
that we need to bring to the main buIlding, Is proposed In the
location where you see it on the map. If that Is a problem, I'm
oertaln that that can be moved.
MR. RUEL-I see. Okay. It certainly would be nice to see
striping and arrangement for parking, beoause the few times I've
been there, It's quite haphazard. People park any way and
anywhere, and also, wi I I we be seeing a landscaping plan?
MR. PRATT-If I may address those two issues, I think those are
the nub of.
MR. RUEL-You should have no difficulty In getting shrubbery and
flowers.
MR. PRATT-As was suggested by the Planners, we might even be able
to use what's on site.
MR. RUEL-Yes, right, just move it up front.
MR. PRATT-With respect to striping, for those of you that are
fami lIar with the site, we propose to stripe the handioapped
areas and the loading zone, as I've indicated.
MR. BREWER-Okay. Can we stop right there for one second.
Handicapped, to me, doesn't make sense to have it there, only for
the simple reason that If, hopefully, you're going to fl I I this
parking lot, and If the traffic flow's going to go baok out here
to these additional parking spaces, I would prefer to see the
handloapped parking over in front of the building, where it's
somewhat more proteoted.
- 12 -
'-
---
MR. PRATT- guess "the i ssu~ is, When somebody, ,comes in, and ,wants
to use a handicapped parking spot, do they want to go look at al I
of the garden supplies and materials that are in t h eo u t s i9 e , or
do they want to go in the store, and think we're just gue~sing
where they want to go, so w<e put it<,where theV, cou,ld:go~,ither
way fairly easily. You're right in 'the sense that there's
certainly (Ios~,word) traffic going throug~ there.
MR. BREWER-Okay. Well, you can look at it both ways. If they
want, to go in, the store, they're close to the store, bU,t if, they
want to go to the garden, then they hav" to QO acrosst~e parking
lot. On the same hand, if they park over here and want to go in
the store, they've got to go across the park i ng lot." I wou Id
jus t fee I bet t e r i f the y we r e pro t e c t e d by the b u i I din 'g .
MR. OBERMAYER-I think you're going to limit the access going in
and,put or the building if you're parking cars , right in fr-ont of
the bui Iding, though, I ike that. I mean, if put ha~~i,capped
right where, this is the front entrance right here. You're'going
to I imit people, you know, when you go buy ferti.! izer iQsid,e, and
things I ike that, bird seed. or whatever, you usually have your
,,~rms full, and you d9n't want tq, be maneuver-,ing ar;£I,~nd cars to
get out of the store. I mean, this, is not that fa.r away, really,
from the entrance of the store.
MR. BREWER- don';t think the distance is a big deal..
that you've got handicapped parking right in a traffic
I do~'t think t,hat make, sense.
I think
lane. and
MR. RUEL-Where would you I ike to have it, near the propane tanks?
MR,BREW~R-No, o\Ì;ér in front ;'ot' th~building,
MR. RÙEL~Over there7
í j
MR. BREWE.R- me,an, it doesn't ,have tO,be right up to. the door.
..
MR~ ,,F~U~L,-Ye'S, but that area
customer standpoint.
~~. BREWéR-Yes, people ~aiking, You'd rather ~ave them walk into
somebody that's handicapped, or hit them with a car?
I
is really a high traffic area, from a
.
MR. RUE L - T h ,e 0 n I y P I ace I, CO u I d
tanks.
t.'
see would be next to the propane
. ~ .
MR. STARK-Tim~that area is used
Ijk~, t~ey bring their mowers out.
I
as a display
area.
I mean,
~.-t f r ;
MR. BREWER-I'm just tell ing you how 1. feel about it.
MR. MACEWAN-I agree with you. You want to keep that driving lane
tota I I Y open. I wou I d not take a chance to have hand i capped
parking over there in ~he middle of that driving lane, bot~ for
crossing, pedestrian wise, and for moving vehicles in and 'iiut of
there.
MR. PRATT-While Jim is looking at the map; this is Jim Vaienti,
fOlks. He¡~s her.e as; wel ¡tonight. Whi Ie he's looking at the
map, let mejust continue with where was going. which will also
addr~ss some of your questions,wiih ~~spe6t to ,triping.
Generally speaking, what happens in that lot, for those of you
that are fami liar with it, .there ~re pallet:s Qf, materia:1 out
fro n t'" "v is J a I d i s P I ~ Y . W hen s om e b q d y wan t s fer t i I i z e r, .0 r the y
want soLI. or they want anothe~ p~6ductthat comes in'a20. 30,
40, or .50 pound bag, what the practice has always been is a
natural traffic flow where people ,who want,that partiyu~,är supply
go to tl:1.a,~ ,part i cu I ar area and park, $0 that the, cár can be
loaded, eithèr by the people who do it, .or by the Valenti's
themselves, and their help. As a result, we think that striping,
- 13 -
If we stripe the rest of the lot. it would Interfere with that
natural flow of traffic. and I guess our issue is that. and this
is not something we feel absolutely totally committed to. that
we're going to say we need it this way or else. but we bel ieve
that the way that it's done now. based on the general year round
traffic flow. is satisfactory. and it really does assist the way
that they conduct their business. and the stripe wi I I interfere.
to a certain extent. with how they conduct their business.
because cars wi I I be parking in striped areas In front of these
other materials that other people may have to get to.
MR. RUEL-I'm lost.
MR. BREWER-Yes. I am. too.
MR. PRATT-Okay.
MR. BREWER-If they park in an orderly fashion. then you can
display your materials so that It doesn't affect that. can't you.
or not?
MR. PRATT-Correct. We can dlsplav the materials. but we can't
get another vehicle to where we're displaying materials to load.
and that's the Issue.
MR. BREWER-Okay.
I see what you're saying.
MR. RUEL-I n most cases. the mater I a lis moved by your emp I oyees.
especially the heavy bags. The employees move it to the vehicle.
So what difference does it make where It's parked?
MR. PRATT-In
a difference
move it. it
here.
that sense. if the employees move It. it only makes
of economics in steps and time. If the customers
makes a difference in how they feel about coming
MR. RUEL-Yes. but most customers don't move It.
observation.
It's been!IDL
MR. PRATT-I guess it depends on how much of a workout you want on
that particular day. but you're probably right.
MR. RUEL-Are you saying you don't want to stripe?
MR. PRATT-We would prefer not to stripe.
MR. RUEL-I would prefer you would.
MR. STARK-Tim. pol I the Board. then.
MR. OBERMAYER-I. myself. have never had a problem parking.
MR. BREWER-No. I don't think you have a problem parking. either.
but the handicapped parking place would have to be. I don't know.
you're In a Catch 22. here. I mean. if you leave them there.
then they're out of the way. but they're not out of the way. If
you put them over here. then they're in the way for people going
in and out of the store.
MR. PRATT-I don't think there's any
people can get both to the greenhouses
going across that passageway.
place to put them where
and to the store without
MR. BREWER-Exactly.
MR. OBERMAYER-The traffic speed. though. I mean. if people Just
kind of go very slowly. as they pul lout of that parking lot
anyway. because of the situation.
MR. BREWER-There is going to be entrances In the back of this
- 14 -
--
......,.
bui Iding, n,at for retai I.,
ju<st for yourse I ves1
MR. PRATT-That'~ correct.
back of t,he bu i Id i ng.
MR. ß~EWE·R-Okay.
,
There are n,o. c,onsu.mer entranc~s i.n the
. ,
MRS. LABOMBARD-May I make a cQmment1
two·handicapped parking spots? '
I'd I ike to ask. are these
, ;.
MR. PRATT-And there are going to be.
MR. BREWER-Three.
, j j' ¡
MR. PRATT-No, there's two. There's going to be an additional two
in the rear.
MRS. LABOMBARD-Okay. Well, here's the thing. If yautìakea laok
at the way the scale is on this. they are.th~ same length on this
map, which is very deceiving. as 32 feét is on the bui'l.ding. So.
by loaking at this map, you don't get a real clear per~pective of
how sma, I I the ha,nc;licapped spots actually are, in rel,.ations.h,ip to
setting thelt) next t.a the building. In other words, we'r;'e.<;t~aling
with 32 feet, 32 feet, and another 32 feet, wher~ w~ hav~ the.
you could call it I ike the I ittle chair, the way it's, the front
of the building is. but wt¡e;n you I,aok. at the;h~odicapped parking
spots, they look like they're the 'same length as the 32 feet of
the bui Iding, becayse the map isn~t to. scale aver t~ere,. 8,0 it's
deceiving when we're Io.o~i.ng at it. Personally, I dQn't see why
there would be thàt much of a problem '1,0 bring themclase'r ,to the
building, because, how actually big, how big is a parking spot.
putting it next to the bui Idin,~. They're not,,22 ,feat I;ong¡! Are
they 2Ø1 i '
MR. MACNAMARA-They're r<equired to be 180 squaPe feet. TY.PipaIIY.
they're nine feet by. what's that. twenty foot. nine by twenty.
MRS. LABOMBARD-They are that big?
MR. BREWER-They ~,to be.
MRS. LABOMBARD~AI I right.
MR. MARTIN-the access aisle is ihe thing:
,
It has to be. what?
MR. MACNAMARA-Five foot across. The new '88 rules are actually
a n €I i g h t f 00 t a c c €I S S a i s I €I . I, t h, ink .
MR. PRATT-And there are three sp~ces shown there,
space being not used for parking,"but being used for
unlaading. Okay.
The middle
loading and
MR. MACNAMAR~~When
those spots come
de ce ¡vi n g , but i f
20 fee.t.
yau scale that lot,
out to about 22
you actyal Iy scale
it act ua I I y does .come out,
f €I €I t . I <. k n p.w i t I 00 k s
t h at, it's a lot cl 0, s €I r t 0
;
M R S . LAB 0 M BAR D - The nit is. A I I rig h 1:' . S Q, co u I d S' €I €I W her €I
they would be in the way in the front, but I also'go along with
Tim. They ~re in a pretty preçarious spot wh,~re theY,a.re.
I ' ,
MR. MACEWAN-Haw many spots. J il'!1, are they requ i.r~d fq have,
handicapped parking spots?
MR. MARTIN-Three.
MR. MACE~AN-Three.
MR. MACNAMARA-Eighty-eight daes it based on the number af parking
provided, not the amount of parking required by yo.urCode. the
- 15 -
amount of parking provided. So that's another issue where how
much parking is actually being provided here. it's really hard to
say without. and I'm not advocating for or against. but it's hard
to say. without striping. how many spots are actually provided.
It's basically one up to twenty-five. two up to fifty. three to
seventy-five.
MR. MACEWAN-Okay. So you're primarily looking at two spaces out
front and three spaces out back.
MR. PRATT-Prlmari Iy speaking. we've heard various numbers. okay.
as you've just heard. We were originally operating under the
assumption we were going to have three spaces. and then Rist-
Frost suggested four in their comments. So what we decided to do
was to put two in the front. We're going to actually move those
a little farther east. so that there's no involvement with the
access along the side of the bui Iding. and we're going to put two
additional spaces in the rear. so the folks could use that If
they wanted to go toward the greenhouses or In that area. okay.
to meet that requirement.
MR. BREWER-Nine times three Is twenty-seven. They could do it
right In the front. Twenty-seven feet. they've got twenty-eight.
right from where that jets in.
MR. MARTIN-I don't know what would be gained by putting two in
the rear.
MR. MACEWAN-I don't either.
there's no access out back.
mean. that's a long.
mean.
MR. MARTIN-Because I know. even in the seasonal time of the year.
the cash registers are In the front. out In the display area
toward the road. It would be ~ position to have al I four up
front.
MR. BREWER-A I I right. Does I t make sense to put
handicapped parking spaces In the front of the building?
~ feeling. I don't know how everybody else feels.
three
That's
MR. MACEWAN-That's my feel ing. I'd prefer to see three right in
front of the main entrance of the building.
MR. BREWER-Yes. but would you want two out in front and one out
in back?
MR. MACEWAN-None out in back.
MR. BREWER-AI I right. Whatever they have to have.
problem.
That's not a
MR. MACEWAN-Three in front and nothing out back.
MR. BREWER-I
they're st I I I
here. George.
their display
mean. they don't have to be right up tight. so that
gaining. I don't know. whatever this dimension is.
If you draw that line across here. they sti I I have
area.
MR. STARK-If you put them right there. a lot of times. I back up
there with a truck to load up stuff. and If the handicap is
there. It's going to be right In the way. because you can't park
in the handicapped.
MR. BREWER-Okay. A lot of times.
over here to get peat moss. too.
the way.
If I park over here. I back up
If they're over here they're in
MR. MACEWAN-Okay. We satisfied that one. Lets move on.
MR. PRATT-Mr. Brewer. if I may Interject just one other thing. to
- 16 -
"",-"...c
-
so I ve t.he prob I em of peop I e. go i ng. some peop I!e want i n,Q,tq go to
the g~eenhouse and other peopl, wanting to go to t~e s~or,. how
abo~t if we put two i/1 t~e .general vicinity of . ;V¡lhenE! thQse are
right now and p~t another one in front? So ~e'q put two in the
general vicinity of where those are. and put another one right in
front.
MR. BREWER-How about ~quputone
side?
there and tw~ oyer on the other
MR. PRATT-Either way.
~ :
¡
MR. STARK-We I I. that way there. by this. Mr. Pratt's!suggestion.
I dqubt if you're ever goinQ to have three handicapped at once.
M~S. LABOMBARD-Right.
MR. STARK-And i~ you're going into the store. park in the one to
, . <;' ~}
the left. If you're going intothegreenhouse."park in the one
to the right.
MR. ,BREWER-Okay ~., I,f we. ()ne more Ii tt I e quest ion. How about if
you" put the one over. here. I ike that? So that the vehicle
doesn't stick 6ut? T~at's not a problem?
MR. PRATT-Not a problem.
MR. OBERMAYER-Where is that?
MR. BREWER-Instead of 'having it like this~ here. Jim".horizontal.
have it vertical. and parallel.
" ,
MR, PALING-Tim. lets see wh'at you're saying.
. . ,'" '
MR. BREWER-I guess they're "going to put two here. two han~icapped
parking. and one parallel. here. rather than horizontal. Okay.
Lets. ta~e a,quick poll as to where we want the hal1,dicappe,d. and
then 'we can move on. Bob. _where do you wa,nt it? "
MR. PALING-I'd rather see them where they're proposing to put
them. because I think yo~'re putting them in an areEi of high
traffic. not only for people. but for cars. too.
MR. BREWER-Okay., Roger?
MR. RUEL-I don't care where you put them.
with the 80 parking spaces. and the s~riping.
I'm more concerned
MR. BREWER- I'd ,I i ke to get some kind of an answer. "sp we can. te II
these people ~~at we ~ant from them.
MR. RUEL-It's fin,e th,e way it is.
MR. MACEWAN-Three in front of the building.
MR. BREWER-In front of the building.
, .
MRS. LABOMBARD-I'd like to have one in the front and two where
they are. as long as you have one in the front.
MR., OBERMAYER-Yes. I th i nk one para lie, 1 to the property line. as
Tim described it. and one In front. I bel ieve is adequate.
MR. STARK-That's fine.
MR. BREWER-I guess it's two in front. one parallel.
MR. OBERMAYER-Two in front?
thought it wa~ ~ in front.
MR. PRATT-That wasn't what I heard.
- 17 -
MR. BREWER-I thought you said what ~ said.
MRS. LABOMBARD-I said one in front. and. at least one in front.
That's what 1 said.
MR. OBERMAYER-I want one in front and one paral lei.
MR. MARTIN-I'm not sure if a paral lei space meets ADA
requirements.
MR. MACNAMARA-There's certain access issues with that.
MR. MARTIN-I think you have to have ful I accesslbl I ity.
MR. OBERMAYER-Parallel to what. though? I mean. what's the
description. we're just referencing it's paral lei to the grass.
MR. MARTIN-In that regard It might be al I right.
MR. MACEWAN-The appl icant was wi I I ing to provide three parking
spots directly In front of the entrance to the store. no
questions asked. He's wi I I ing to do it. Lets go with it and
move on.
MR. BREWER-I agree.
MR. MACEWAN-Are you sti I I wi I ling to do that?
MR. PRATT-We're sti I I wi I I ing to do with the handicapped parking
whatever you folks would like us to do with it. Although. as I
listen to the discuss ion aga in. I thought it made more sense to
sp lit it up.
MRS. LABOMBARD-Yes. because then whoever wanted to go park and go
into the store could park there. and whoever wanted to go into
the greenhouse part could park over at the other spot.
MR. BREWER-Okay. Cathy. let them spl it it up and lets move on to
the next Issue.
MRS. LABOMBARD-Okay.
It sounds good to me.
MR. BREWER-Striping.
MR. PALING-Let me just ask one more thing. Could you just quick
sketch here where you're going to put those three. because it
sti I I doesn't seem to be logical to put It in with the propane
tank. the septic system. the shed. and al I the vehicular and
people traffic that we're going to have. and let us see what you
mean by that.
MR. PRATT-Let me describe It verbally. We' I I put It paral lei to
the existing proposed handicapped spaces. and put it right in
front of the bui Iding where the water line Is denoted on the map.
MR. OBERMAYER-And that' I I be paral lei to the thirty-two feet. or
perpendicular to that?
MR. PRATT-We I I there are two. thirty-two feet there.
MR. RUEL-There are two of them.
MR. PRATT-It' I I be perpendicular to the water line.
MR. OBERMAYER-Okay.
It'l I be butt i ng up aga i nst the sept i c tank.
MR. RUEL-Paral lei to the loading zone.
MR. OBERMAYER-No.
- 18 -
.-
-
MRS. LABOMBARD-Perpendicular to the load!ng zone.
MR, PALING-Perpendicular to the loading ~one.
MR. BREWER-Lets go on to striping. striping and landscaping. You
pr opose what for., I ,a ndscap i ng?
MR. "PRATT-With r,espect to I&ndscaping. the Staff, has proposed
that<there be. we I i. let me back up. What we have proposed to do
is on theex¡stingc~rb. and .here it's marked on ,the plan where
you see the seasonal planter circled. put tubs and perennials on
those locations. What the Staff has proposed is that we tie in
an increased green'space running behind that curb area. and
includin!:;) th,e area o,f the sign. Now. Mr. Valentife,els th,at. to
dp that does two th<ings. Depending pn hOW it's done. it may
interfere with one or more parking spaces in terms of quantity.
Also. it makes th:e car that is, parked next to the sign. instead
of being able to pul I through to turn out onto Route 9. it would
have to back uP. eith\,!r way. into a traffic line. ,if there's no
one parked in front of,: them. there. I s, that c I,ear? '
MR. BREWER-I can't tell where you're talking about. because
there's no stripes on here to tell me where the parking is.
MR. PRATT-Right. If you look. see the curb. the word "curb". out
by Route 9. and slee the Word ",sign"., cars p,ark nose, to, nose.
right in there. okay. Generally speaking. if there's only one
car there. the car wi II pu II through to go out. ra~her than back
up. ' , We fin d b a c; kin g Ù pin t hat are a i, s po te n t i a I I y m 0 r e
h a z a r d 0 u s t h a n p u I I ¡ n g t h r 0 ugh. , A g a in. t, h e a p p Ii' can t tee I ~ t hat
he would prefer to do it this wa~. If you folk~ are going to
insist on planting in that area. we certainly can 'work som'ething
out with Staff.
MR. BREWE~-Why can'~ you el iminate that spot ,riQht there for
parking. ~nd put the planting there?
MR. HARL I CKER-Yes. That seems like a pretty cbad sPÇlt to put
parking spaces. right next to the entrance to the propérty.
'1'
MR. BREWER-If you el iminated that. and put some green space
there. then you won't have that problem. qecause nobody wi II be
able to park there.
, '"
MR,. PRA TT,-And the n we red u ce the n urn be r of par~, ing spaces w,e have
i nfron{ of the bu i Id i ng.
,
MR. BREWER-By on, or two.
1 ~
MR. PRATT-One or two. right.
MR~ BREWER-I 'don't think it's, a great sacr¡ifi,ce to los~ tl;1,6 two
p~rk'ing places. If for only one month of' the year the p,arking
lot i s t' u I I. the n the res t 0 f the m 0 n t hs . it; s n ò t . I t g i ve s a
better appearance of what is there. I think.
MR. RUEL-If there',s no striping, how wi 1,1 a,nyoneknow?
MR. BREWER-Agreed?
MR. OBERMAYER-I agree with that one.
MR. PRATT-Well. we can ,simplify this by saying. Mr. Valenti has
just said that he wi I I do that. okay.
MR. BREWER-Okay.
MR. MARTIN-Be advised. though. that that represents a property
I ine there. Anything between the property line anc;t" the word
"curb" there. that's really State property. State rig'h-t-'of-way.
- 19 -
Any planting in there is really on State property. I just want
to point that out to you. I would suggest that the green area
extend off the end of the curb. past the sign. around the sign.
and back to the other end of the. I ike a U-shaped type of a
thing.
MR. OBERMAYER-Yes.
really.
That's just what we were talking about.
MR. PRATT-We I I. Staff was talking about T-shaped.
okay?
Is T-shaped
MR. BREWER-Ves. then that wraps around the sign. Correct?
MR. OBERMAYER-T-shaped is fine. just as long as
the sign.
it goes around
MR. MACEWAN-What is Staff
landscaping?
looking for to be put
into the
MR. MARTIN-Wel I. I just want to look for a couple of things.
here. Over time. as we see site plans very simi lar to this.
we're seeing a beautification of the routes along. in Queensbury.
I mean. Quaker Road is becoming fairly beautiful now. with the
number of plantlngs that have come about with the various site
plans that come up and down that route. So If we accompl ish this
In an Incremental fashion I ike this. we'll beautify the routes
through the commercial areas of Town. The other thing is. and
1'1 I reference the site plan for Glen View Square that we just
did. if you remember. t he Board had them pu I I a coup I e of spaces
out of the Empire Video parking lot that were so close to Route
9. and they're tearing that up and making that green area. and
that accomplishes two things. beautification and It's a safety
issue over parking spaces that close to the road.
MR. MACEWAN-But what are you
perennials. evergreens. what?
looking for them to supply.
MR. BREWER-Let them come in with what thev want to put there. to
their taste.
MR. RUEL-There should be a height I Imitation. because of traffic.
MR. MARTIN-Yes. I look for a height I Imitation. something that's
hearty to this cl imate. those type of things.
MR. MACEWAN-If we make something contingent on our approval.
we did the last appl icant. that if it meets your approval
okay?
like
it's
MR. MARTIN-I could even
Beautification Committee.
and review this plan also.
consult
She'd be
with the Chairman of the
more than happy to come in
MR. BREWER-That would be fine.
MR. PRATT-We have no difficulty with a height limit either.
because we want people to see what we have there.
MR. BREWER-Exactly.
MR. OBERMAVER-Plus. you don't want to obstruct their view as they
enter Route 9.
MR. STARK-Fine.
MR. BREWER-Okay. Striping. What do we want to do about
striping?
MR. OBERMAYER-I don't care about striping.
- 2Ø -
-
MR. BREWER-It ;doesn't bother you?, George?
MR. STAR.K-The
convenience for
way i tis now i s fin e . Y 0< U
loading up is what you do now~
par~
i.n
your
MR. BREWER-Okay.
MRS. LABOMBARD-It sounds good. what George said.
MR. MACEWAN-I'd prefer striping.
MR. BREWER-Roger. do you prefer striped or unstriped?
MR. RUEL-Striped.
MR. BREWER-Bob?
MR. PALING-They haveq't got room
the right kind of traffic flow.
we should by-pass the striping.
to stripe it exactly an~ have
As a practical matter. I think
MR. ~REWER-I guess it doesn't
go in 9 to t e 1,1 yo u . I g ue s s
publ ic hearin'g.
: f
matter what I th i nk. so, I'm not
we're i~ ,a position to open the
MR. MÁCNÁMARA- I'd I ¡ ke' ,to make,' one, qu i ck com'ment bE!fore you do
that. I twas ment i oned ,that a I I of the comments address~d are
comments. I think ,there's one that hasn't be,en 100ke9 ,at~ I'd
just I ike to call it,tq your attention. It has to dowi~h the
ingress and egress issues. which certainly gets attention in
- . '..¡ ¡ , . " , ~ . .! ' .. ~ .', ,
every site plan. wh~ther or not 'it's on a major road or not. and
this.ObViousl'y· is. but anyway if yòu look at how much r9,om is
being a I lowed a ~ both ,the entries a n dE! x its. i ~ ' s a boy t ; 45. 4 ø
feet. if I'm scal ing it properly. which. right now. Iqon't see
that there's any control. in or out. either one of those
accesses. which basically means that you could have up to fcur or
m 0 r e car s . act u a I I y.' , I i n e d up at 0 n c e.' try i n g , 't 0 g é't,' ci u ton to
R 0 ute 9 . I t h ink t hat the r e ' s c e r t a i n I y s 0 me ¡, 'a rea' for
improvement. at least to consider. as far as access,¡management
for Route 9. which is certainly getting a lot of attention ,up and
down the whole road.
MR. RUEL-You'd like to see one entrance 'for in and anòthé'r one
for <out?,
MR. MACNAMARA-Whether it's o~e entrance roped in. or whether it's
the ingress and egress points better defined so ,that you can't
have. essentially. a free; ,for,a, í I. ¡ f you will . with a ¡ bunch of
cars exiting and 'entering all a't once. which what happeris.'~y the
way. is they pay more attention to the cars that are exiting to
the right/left than they dO"the cars that are coming out ot .Route
9. That's rea,ll.y their coné'ern. '
.
MR. BREWER-We I I. this seasonal planter somewhat defines
here and the planting that they're going to do in the
where the sign is. Maybe if there was another seasonal
over on, this si;de. it wouLd more define that ,bo~ndarY
that and that center island where they're going to plant.
between
center.
planter
between
MR. RUEL-Yes. but that doesn't tell you which one is
one is out.
in. and wh i ch
, '
MR. BREWER-It doesn't make any difference.
MR. MACNAMARA-Yes. The other thing to consider is j~st
said. and that is to basically identify one side for in
side out.
what he
and one
MR. BREWER-Yes. but we don't have. right tp con~rol tbem as to
whether one side is in and one side is out. I guess maybe we do.
- 21 -
but.
MR. MACNAMARA-I'm just bringing up the issue as far as what's
being looked at on al I the other site plans. In fact, what's
being used as a consideration for approval or disapproval, I've
seen, with some other site plans, and it certainly, as far as
access management goes, this Is what's going to control the
intersection.
MR. BREWER-Yes, but I think that
entrance or two entrances, and I
here.
was whether It would be one
think that would be the case
MR. MACNAMARA-I'm leaving up to the Board to consider, that's
all. I'm just bringing it up.
MR. BREWER-Okay. Thank you.
MR. STARK-Tim, sometimes you go up there and it's kind of a hodge
podge, but 99.9 percent of the time it's not.
MR. BREWER-What's bad with that idea if they put another planter
over here, so It more defines it, rather than cut through across
here, or cut through across here? I mean, it's just, they've got
the planters there anyway.
MR. PALING-But what about using painted arrows and signs to
designate entrance and exit?
MR. BREWER-Whatever the Board pleases.
MR. OBERMAYER-I don't know.
through either one.
think you could go in and out
MR. STARK- could see an arrow.
MR. RUEL-It's quite wide.
I'd leave it the way it is.
MR. OBERMAYER-Yes.
MR. BREWER-Would It be a problem if we asked you to put a planter
over here, then It would be more defining?
MR. PRATT-Are you talking about the southern corner there?
MR. OBERMAYER-Yes.
MR. PRATT-The only issue there is, as you can see, from the
loading zone, that's where our tractor trailers back In, okay.
If it can be put there, if we can put a tub there without
interfering with our tractor trai lers, we'd certainly be wi I ling
to do it, but I'm afraid, I mean, if we recess it to a certain
extent, we certainly can.
MR. BREWER-Yes, recess it, but I mean, It's 45 feet w I de. That's
as long as a tractor trai ler.
MR. RUEL-Do they have a habit of knocking things over?
MR. PRATT-We have no objection.
MR. BREWER-Okay. I guess we' I I open the public hearing. Is
there anyone here to comment on this project?
PUBLIC HEARING OPENED
NO COMMENT
PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED
MR. BREWER-We've got a Short Form.
- 22 -
-
-"
RESOLUTION WHEN DETERMINATION OF NO SIGNIFICANCE IS MADE
RESOLUTION NO. 23-94 , I ntrodu<;:ed by Cra i g MacEwan who moved for
its adoption, seconded by Roger Ruel:
ViHEREAS,. the.re
application for:
is, ~resently before
JA~ES E. VALENTI, and
the
Planning
Board
an
WHEREAS, this Planring Board has determined that the proposed
projest ,a~d Planning ßo~rd action is subject to review under the
State Ënvironmental Qual Îty Review Act,
NOW, THEREFORE, BE ,IT
RESOLVED:
1. No federal agency appears to be involved.
2. The following agencie~ are ,invqlved:
NONE
~.' ,the proposed acti,on considered by thi~ Board is un I ia~ed in
the ,Depar1;ment ,of Env i,r9nmenta I Conser.vat ion Regu I at ions
impl~menting the State Environme.ntal Quality Review Act and
the regulations of the Town of Queensbury.
4. An Environmental Assessment Fqrm has been compl~ted by the
app I i cant.
5. Having considered and thoroughly analyzed the relevant areas
of en vir 0 n men t a I con c ern and h a v i n g con sid ere d the c r .i t e ria
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 ,act i on about to be Lln<;1ertaken by th is Boar:d wi I I haye no
significant environmental effect and the Chairman of the
Planning Board is hereby authorized toexe.cut~ an~ sign and
f i I e as may be necessary a statement of no'n-s i gn if i cance or
a n,egat i ve declarat i on tl:l,l:\t, may be requ i ~ed by law.
-:, '"'.', '-' ';:'" ,I
Duly adopted this 28th day of June, 1994, by the following vote:
, ,
AYES: Mr. Ruel, Mr. Paling, Mr. Stark, Mr. Obermayer,
Mrs. LaBombard, Mr. MacEwan, Mr. Brewer
,NOES: NONE
, I'
MR. BRE<WËR-Ok'ay. Would somebody care to offer this7
MO,T ION ITOÁPPROVE SITE
fntroduced by Roger Ruel
George Stark:
PLAN¡ NO. 23-94 JAMES IE. VALENTI,
who moved for its a~option, s~çonded by
, ,
For construction of a 52' by 60' wood frame addition to the rear
of the store, with the following conditions:' Three handicapped
parking areasw! I I be ,Ioaated in the front parking Brea, one
directly in fr'ont of the building, and two parallel <to the edge
of the macadam line. Two, additional landscaping in the form of
a T-shaped planting from the curb to the sign, around the sign.
Three,plSAement o!, an .dditional planter at the southerQt end,
southern most border. and we'q like the I andscap i ng to be
documented fu II y.
Duly adopted this 28th day of June, 1994",QY th~ fql,lowi:ng,.V,ote:
J ;1
MR. MA R TIN - Jus t sow e ' r eel ear 0 nth i s I and s cap i n g n,ow,.
know what we're envisioning here for this landsca~¡n~:
both under the same understanding. We're talking about
tearing up asphalt and putting in a planti~g ~;oundth~
want to make sure everybody's clear on that.
I want to
so we're
¡actua I I Y
sign. I
- 23 -
MR. PRATT-That's what we understand.
MR. BREWER-Yes.
AYES: Mr. Paling. Mr. Stark. Mr. Obermayer. Mrs. LaBombard.
Mr. Ruel. Mr. Brewer
NOES: Mr. MaoEwan
SITE PLAN NO. 24-94 TYPE: UNLISTED TCT FEDERAL CREDIT UNION
OWNER: BAY ASSOCIATES. % FRANK DESANTIS. ESQ. ZONE: MR-5
LOCATION: CROSS ROAD PARK AT THE CORNER OF BAY & BLIND ROCK
ROADS. PARCEL,4 ON NEW ROAD -BLIND ROCK LANE- DIAGONALLY ACROSS
THE LANE FROM THE PRUDENTIAL OFFICE. PROPOSAL IS FOR
CONSTRUCTION OF A 1.275 SQ. FT. SINGLE STORY OFFICE BUILDING TO
HOUSE A NEW CREDIT UNION OFFICE. BEAUTIFICATION COMM.: 6/6/94
WARREN CO. PLANNING. 6/8/94 TAX MAP NO. 48-5-4 LOT SIZE. .58
ACRES SECTION: 179-18
DAVID OWEN. REPRESENTING APPLICANT. PRESENT
STAFF INPUT
Notes from Staff. Site Plan No. 24-94. TCT Federal Credit Union.
Meeting Date: June 28th. 1994 "PR~ECT DESCRIPTION. The
applloant Is proposing to oonstruot a 1.275 square foot offioe on
Hunter Brook Lane I n Cross Roads Park. The paroe lis .58 aores
in size and Is zoned MR-5. PROJECT ANALYSIS: Staff reviewed the
projeot for oompl lanoe with Seotlons 179-38A. 179-380. 179-38C
and the relevant faotors out I ined in Seotion 179-39. The projeot
was oompared to the fol lowing standards found in Seotion 179-38
E. of the Zoning Code: 1. The location. arrangement. size.
design and general site compatibility of buildings. lighting and
signs; The projeot Is oompatible with the site; lighting
inoludes 4 wal I mounted lights; a freestanding sign Is proposed
In front of the bui Iding. 2. The adequacy and arrange.ent of
vehicular traffic access and circulation. Including
intersections. road widths. pave.ent surfaces. dividers and
traffic controls; One way traffio aooess Is proposed. Aooess
meets the requirements. 3. The location. arrangement.
appearance and sufficiency of off-street parking and loading;
Eleven parking spaoes are proposed Inoludlng 1 handloapped spaoe;
9 spaoes are required. 4. The adequacy and arrange.ent of
pedestrian traffic access and circulation walkway structures.
control of intersections with vehicular traffic and overall
pedestrian convenience; Aooess to the main entranoe wi I I be via
a 6 foot wide sidewalk. 5. The adequacy of stormwater drainage
facilities; Drainage is being reviewed by Rlst-Frost. 6. The
adequacy of water supply and sewage disposal facilities; Sewage
disposal is being reviewed by Rlst-Frost and the projeot wi I I be
servioed by muniolpal water. 7. The adequacy. type and
arrange.ent of trees. shrubs and other suitable plantlngs.
landscaping and screening constituting a visual and/or noise
buffer between applicant's and adjoining lands. including the
maxl.u. retention of existing vegetation and .aintenance.
including replace.ent of dead plants; Three sugar maple trees
are proposed for along the street and bushes and yews along the
front of the bui Idlng. 8. The adequacy of fire lanes and other
emergency zones and the provision of fire hydrants; A fire
hydrant is looated aoross the street. 9. The adequacy and
i.pact of structures. roadways. and landscaping in areas with
susceptibility to ponding. flooding and/or erosion. Erosion
oontrol measures need to be in plaoe during oonstruotlon and
unti I the site has been stabi I ized."
MR. BREWER-Okay. Rist-Frost oomments.
MR. MACNAMARA-Yes. We had. basioally. some oomments. Initially.
that have been sinoe addressed in oorrespondenoe between myself
and the engineering group. whioh Jim has been oopled on. The
site's rea I f I at over there. if anybody' s been over t here before.
- 24 -
-
-
We had the benefit of having the subdivi¡sion approved drawings
for some drainage and some work that had been done over there.
We compared the site plan that was proposed to what was already
over there, and saw that some of the things weren't quite
f i tt i,ng, so we moved s,ome of t,he structures around, the retent ion
basin, and w6rked out some grading issuesL ~ndwe don't have any
further comments. We had some small comments on their septic
system clean outs, depth of cover, specific~ti9nB fpr ston.. We
cleared al I those up, so we have no further comments.
\;;'~ . ~",^ì(f ~. '," ..,"~, _~, J..;q J... ,~ ., ( . ~jiL; J '.' !t! t ;,~ ¡'f~ -. ':;.
,,¡r, MR ·.ì.,~REWER-akay. ( VI :.,We, h~V~ .War re,n GQu.nty ,åppro;ved ~'9.omment s
.: "ç;~~'C?:~J'~,. w ~ ih - . (09l~L'~j6 nd i:i~; i¡ 0 n s . " .,' And.B:ea\.it if i ca t !;o.'1 . Ç.omm i t t ee
.;;'-4 ,app~o!v.~,.I,;9,f ,jP I a,r,d?rese.ot~p¡, J' _'.1 !' :1
;"'1 ''',) "j'
i \... . ^;. ,. .;,.; ¡';; .-",: ..], ' ;, H "j . ~_,\,
,MR~.~M~,RTIJN!-:Yel~¡' ,'1 I justw,an,t to,¡ MLS!¡;,Go~,1 L~ìe:9/~.me, .!~C¡>\f,$.ee me
~bout ¿his. and ~~~. I w~nt t~ make hig~riQh~~~f,~~e~ej~e~Ha two
ye,ar I',imit,for ,t.a ,~~,iv~,<>thr::o~ghwinçlow !9.,.¡Þ.~ i.nstaq.;~,d.; \.,and I
tti'i'nk that somehow impacted their land~caping .plan. <V'{e.r;:e you
there at the Beautification meeting that night? ' '
MR. OWEN-No. My name'i David Owen. Susan Van Cook with there,
and she discussed that with them, and they were"qol1cerned that
there be some planting on that side of the building'to obscure
parking, but, there is not rea!l~ going to be .ny parking there.
It' ra dr i v~.\th~ou~t\.¡
MR. MA~TfN':¡'s the ,drive through coming righ1:away. then?
. ~ . t ..;. ; ~ ,
MR. OWE~-They arenit sur~ whether the~'re going to go ahead with
that right'away pr not.
" -'
. . , . r
MR ~ RUEL-What does a two yeAr I i m i t on the dr i ve through window
. ~ ' . ." :--.," '<;:1 ~.,' ". ' '¡ , 111,"" t) ....
.)rnean'l ~ ;~!. ~t,_~ 1 \: r !. ~j Ji~
, ; . ,t, i, " I
,MR,. MARTI N- I t,~,i,nk i!f.._ i,t' ~ not i nsta I I,ed w,i th i n two y~ars, they
"Y!êl,D¡t7~ ,t.P r;r.~ s~m~....,,,I?J.~ntil)gsalong that side of the bui Iding, in
_,,¡thel"event that It'~ not, i,~stall~d. ,<
, "', .;;.t,. ~ ' i :. ' .~~ _;) r.," ~ ;...: _.; "_~ ~ <, r' f- I' :.¡ ,'\ , '1',~
MR. BÅE~ER-Would you have a problem w,i.th fh~~',,~;Ít we a~k¡.ed you to
J1g,9,.th,(~1, ;~¡ _, ."" ", \.
t t}~~\ 1 (}W,ÉN - No. '.. '.. -' -j
'."
'" '
~ ~" (,.,
-, r f>'
. . ~\ ,,: \). ~ '+ I>,} . r t I ,.; í; i , ' . ~
, MR ;, ~~Á EWE R -Ok a ¥. A ~ ¡, ~ i.g,~t.. LAn y 0!.11. e,r q ~¡~ s t i.o,l1s f,r;:.q01; a,n ~Þ()1d y?
~ v-M R. $ TAR K - I d b~' t t h ~ ~~' ~ n y b ~ 0 g I e ~ ~ i WI t h, t h ~ b u i d 'i' P g s ~ as such,
-<_, :1 ; 9Ut, t;Q,~ ,,'?Jua,n t l_n ~ '.' ~t :9..'\t,'¥ t h.ri~e t r_ee S i s a, .~ i g pr 06 I e'm ." , f mean,
we: r e r. e qui r i n g a not ~ e f a p p ¡can t top I ant " I i k e 1, ~ ~ . up 0, ~ R 0 ute
9. IJ.,t~E:y:could 'p,La,llt 20,:qr 25 t.~ees,} nopç09l,enî: '
MR. ,BRE\y~R-,?ka¥~
~};1 ¿
. ,
MR¡~~,',Š;TA/iK~! ',nÏeàn, 'l1,J:st t~sewithat núñlber out. T¡m'.
:: _"') , '_C,' , " ,,~ " .. . , : . .. ~ . ~!,,: , " , , .'. .. ",'
,t,-,M,R~. ~~~;WERi) r St~ .I" ~ I f ,_~n açr:~ s i t~: r i Qhtf¡ <~'Î;m~
"iê,'
't;
, t ~~
: t ¡ '" ' . ~ ;¡ . i ; i , " i: ,~ " .,' ~ j' ~1
MR. OBERMAYÉR-Yes. ,1:concl,Jr with George. ,would
.¡",('i~,~t ~2,11]~!m~r.1 ~re~s.' ¡"m not saying 20 or 25, but
I, i k e < i. t ~ 1 S ~; ~t m ~,I) Y. ; t r Eì e s . \ " ,. n
¡.",-, J~';.:',' .,.,.~,~-., ,~, .'~ ~ -' ,'I
:i.I MR;~,~~.E~EI~¡'-~S?P¡eciaJIV in ~n open ppace like iti$.
¡.' :1 ~ " ) ,: _ ., ~ ~:' t' '~ ~ '" ) ft
M~~ sTARK~There's nothIng over there now.
MRS. LABOMBARD- feel the samew~y.
'. .
i ike to see
3 ju st seems
,; . i,
,.,'
: ,~~
..
MR. ,MA C E VIlA N - I a g r e e wit h the m .
'~R. RUEL-No questio?s.
It's a good idea..
- 25 -
MR. PALING-I agree with George. I think the consideration should
be given to shrubs I ike the example picture that they're show on
this here. in addition to the trees.
MR. OWEN-There are shrubs that are planned for the front of the
bui Idlng. and that is the same planting plan that's going to be
done.
MR. BREWER-Okay. I guess the question would be then. how many
trees do we want to ask him to plant. and where do we want them?
Along the front? Along both sides? Along the back?
MR. STARK-Tim. I would just I ike to see them scattered throughout
the site. It's a point. say. six acre site. and to have ten or
fifteen is not adverse. don't think. It's .58 acres.
MR. BREWER-Does It show the size of
you're planting? I guess we've got
people.
the trees
to come up
on here. that
with a number.
MR. OWEN-The trees. cal iper. five inches.
MR. BREWER-Five inch in the front?
MR. STARK-Tim. I'd like to see
mean. you look at Prudential.
like heck.
MR. BREWER-How about eight. three Inch caliper?
a minimum of fifteen trees. I
They don't have any. It looks
MRS. LABOMBARD-Are we talking about coniferous trees. deciduous?
Do you want to keep their leaves al I winter? I mean. really.
it' I I look stark.
MR. OWEN-When you look at the site plan. one thing you should be
aware of. graphically. these trees are shown as having a crown of
only twelve feet and a maple tree has a crown of about thirty
feet. thirty-five feet. So what looks I ike a smal I amount of
planting here really. once these are fl I led out. give the
impression of a whole row of trees along the front of this lot.
. MR. BREWER-Okay. but I guess what we're talking about is possibly
in the back.
MR. OWEN-Yes. No. I agree that there could be other trees. but
I'm Just saying. when you're thinking about the quantity. real ize
that you're trying to place more than Just a little circle that's
indicated on the print.
MR. BREWER-I think eight. eight
many do you think?
Is sufficient for me. Bob. how
MR. PALING-Eight Is fine with me.
MR. RUEL-How many?
MR. BREWER-I said eight. You can say any number you want.
MR. RUEL-Eight sounds good.
MRS. LABOMBARD-Yes. Eight is good. just show where they have
been located. They look nice there.
MR. OBERMAYER-Is eight okay with you. George?
MR. STARK-Not really.
I'd I ike to see more.
MR. OBERMAYER-I'd I ike to see a couple of more myself.
MR. MACEWAN-Lets go eight and be done with it and move on.
- 26 -
MR. BREWER-Qkay. I think eight is suffici~nt.
som~ kinC ofli."1!t that he's going to gLJarantee
gòingto live. too:
~;e s h 0 u I d put
the trees are
MR. STARK-Well. any of th,em that di.e within two ye~rs. to be
rep I aced.
MR. BREWER-Eight trees. a two year guarantee.
<I . I
MR r ; MAC~WAN-A I I Mapl, es?
MR. BREWER-No.
,_ ;, ., ; 'I
MR. ~AtEWAN-Deci~ubus tre~s?
MR. BREWER-But he wants to keep the three Maples in the front.
MR. MACEWAN~That's f~ne.
MR. RUEL-The light i ng. you have four lights around the per i meter
of the building.
MR. OWEN-Correct.
MR. RUEL-And no I i g ht i ng in the parking lot?
MR. OWEN-The one light facing the parking lot area is 250 .watt.
MR. RUEL-The one attached to the bu i I ding?
MR. OWEN-Yes.
MR. RUEL-That wou I dill urn i nate the park i ng lot?
MR. OWE,N-Yes.
~w. RUE L - Ok a y. and the. n you h a vet w 0 f I 00 d s f Q r the s i. g n?
MR. OWEN-Yes.
MR. RUEL-Does the s i,gn requ ire a separate perm i t?
MR. OWEN-Yes.
MR. RUE~-A separate p~rm i t for that. ,Okay. Now you have a
d r ywe I I i nth e mid die 0 f the park i n gar e a, I 1st h at s u r/ l,c i en t
for the driveway as wel I?
MR. OWEN-Yes. I,t you look at the. well. it<'s not on your print.
but this is somëthing that Rist-Frost. Bill ,MacNamara<. reviewed,
the sub-catchment areas. and the drywell that's in the parking
lot is sub-catchment area two~ and that takes care of the
drainage from the parking and ma~be the su~rounding<t~n feet.
MR. RUEL-Okay.
suff i c i ent?
So from an engineering standpoint, this
is
MR. MACNAMARA-Yes. In
subm i tta I, because like I
t h i ng sin the r e, t he r e 's a n
the previous subdivision.
without knowing it. So now
fact, it's improveq fr,om the first
said, the first submittal had placed
ex i st i,ng trench that Wfis put j,n for
They ~ad ,actually gotten into that
they're going to use it.
MR. RUEL-AII right, and your
indicating entrance and exit.
signed?
traffic flow, you have arrows
Wi I I these be pa i nted down or
MR. OWEN-We'~~ g~irig to use pavement marker~.
MR. RUEL-Mar'kers. Okay. That's it.
- 27 -
MR. BREWER-Okay. 1'1 I open the publ Ie hearing
anybody here to comment on this Issue?
Is there
PUBLIC HEARING OPENED
NO COMMENT
PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED
MR. BREWER-Okay. We've got to do a Short Form.
RESOLUTION WHEN DETERMINATION OF NO SIGNIFICANCE IS MADE
RESOLUTION NO. 24-94. Introduced by Craig MacEwan who moved for
Its adoption. seconded by Roger Ruel:
WHEREAS. there
application for:
is presently before the Planning
TCT FEDERAL CREDIT UNION. and
Board
an
WHEREAS. this Planning Board has determined that the proposed
project and Planning Board action is subject to review under the
State Environmental Qual ity Review Act.
NOW. THEREFORE. BE IT
RESOLVED:
1. No federal agency appears to be Involved.
2. The fol lowing agencies are involved:
NONE
3. The proposed action considered by this Board is unl isted 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
app I I cant.
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
env i ronmenta I impact as t he same I s set fort h I n Sect ion
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 wi I I have no
significant environmental effect and the Chairman of the
Planning Board Is hereby authorized to execute and sign and
fi Ie as may be necessary a statement of non-significance or
a negative declaration that may be required by law.
Duly adopted this 28th day of June. 1994. by the fol lowing vote:
AYES: Mr. Stark. Mr. Obermayer. Mrs. LaBombard. Mr. MacEwan.
Mr. Ruel. Mr. Paling. Mr. Brewer
NOES: NONE
MR. BREWER-Okay. Would somebody care to introduce that?
MOTION TO APPROVE SITE PLAN NO. 24-94 TCT FEDERAL CREDIT UNION.
Introduced by Roger Ruel who moved for its adoption. seconded by
Robert Pa ling:
For construction of a 1.275 square foot single story office
building to house a new credit union office. with the condition
that. In the landscaping plan. there be a minimum of eight trees,
with a two year guarantee. The front three trees are maples. and
the others would be deciduous, three inch. planted in the rear.
- 28 -
along the baQk portion of that driveway ,parking~r~~.
Duly adopted this 28th day of June, 1994, by the following vote:
~^ ~ .. ~- ',. l· ¡.
AYES: Mrs. LaBombard, Mr. MacEwan, Mr. Ruel, Mr.
Mr. Obermayer, Mr. Brewer
Pa ling,
., ".:. ),
NOES: NONE
.,
:th¡
ABSTAINED: Mr. Stark
S I TEPL~N ~,No.22-:~i\ Ii 1YP~, litC~)ljlJ~~I':~r,9.:~\(~~O~M<~,~T. <GRO~,P: OWNER:
TOWN OF QUEENSBURY ZONE: LI-1A LOCATION: CAREY RD. OFF
COR I NTH RD. CONSTRUCT I ON OF A NEW M~~UIf~CTlJ~ I N~,F¡AÇ,~,;btT:"" FOR
'NATIVE TEXTILES. BUI'LDING TO<BE A pRE-ENGINEERED SINGLE STORY
: ,,' , I , _" . I ^ ~
BEING 116.4ØØ SQ. FT. IN SIZE. SEQRA: 6/21/94 BEAUTIFICATION
COMM.: 6/6/94 TAX MAP NO. 146-1-6 LOT SIZE: +1- 34 ACRES
SECTION: 179-26
.. .:~. .
) '.,
JOE NICOLA
MR. ~REWER-Okay.
Engineering?
" '.
Staff
¡
Notes, or
we
do?
We
have
no new
MR. HARLICKER-I don't know. We might have outstanding
engineering comments. I think that's what the project was
initially tabled for, was to address the engineering comments.
MR. BREWER-Do we have a copy of your comments, Bi I I?
MR. MACNAMARA-Yes. I've actually sent them to Jim, a,s af the
23rd, was my last submittal for comments.
MR. BREWER-Okay.
, I, :_.! .
Ma,Yb~ .yo~, ,ca,1') go, t~rough them,
,i
MR.MÄCNAMARA-Our i~it¡al round of comments, a,gain, centered,
e sse n t i a I I Y , a r 0 u n d s't 0 r m w ate r d' i s p 0 s a I and s e p tic d i s P 0 s a I .
Since the comments were sent ou<t, we'd h~d n,umerous :~discussians
with both Columbia and their engineering group~ lHershberg &
Hershberg, and most all of the starmwater items have been agreed
to be taken car,~ of viare,sponse,s, and they just need to show up
on a site plan~ whichessenti.ally leave~ the outstanding issue of
the septic syst,em, which if you r,emember at the last meeting, it
was stated th~t th~y iubmitt~dfor a §ÞD~S Permit application.
.. ., . . - . . ',.. ,'. I. ',';
Sin c e t ti a't t i me, we. . f 0 u n d ci u t, t hat for w hat eve r re a son, the
actual i'nformation hasnlt"r:eachÈH::Ittie DEC ,yet. So they actually
haven't started their;- revie,w, Number One, 9-ndNumber Two, we just
simply submitted our comments t~at we had pr;~'viousIY,'had on the
septic sys~em over to the ~EC. So when. they g~taround to
reviewing it, they'll haye the benefit" of having o\Jr comments as
wèll, bÙt as. we know of, therie has/Î',t been an,y revi.ew by the
agency of their septic system. SPDES Permit application.
MR. NICOLA-My name's Joe Nicola, and I'm with Columbia
Development. I spoke with DEC after our conversati,on today, and
what ended up happening, I guess jt's i~the "administrative
portion of DEC who have 15 days fram the receipt to have a
camp I ete app I ¡cat i on or to determ i ne whether the app Ii ca,t i an is
complete before it gets down to the review stage, and we've
c h e c ked, a n,d th at' sac t u a I I y w h er e it' sat.
..¡;}~R. ~R¡I;,WER,::-.Qk,aY. Just,one other itt;m. ,I h1ave;~ fax ~,fo~,~ature
<Conserva~cy that I'd like George to re,açl, i n~o the record, we
r e c e Iv e d t 0 day. Pie a s ere a d t hat, . G e 0 r g e . Co u I d I' a, sky 0 u t 0
just hang up a site plan.
MR. STARK-"Dear Mr.
~i II be reviewing
proposed Native
meet; i ng. Fro.m the
,Brewer: understand that the Planning Board
an application for site plan a,pprova!f,or a
Textiles development project at tonight's
information I have ~eceived regarding this
- 29 -
project. I would encourage the Board to refrain from action on
this appl icatlon unti I a survey for Karner blue butterfl ies has
been completed. The Karner blue butterfly is officially listed
as an endangered species by both the federal and state
governments. As such. the butterfly and it's habitat are
afforded protection by law. The butterfly's survival is
dependent upon the preservation of wi Id blue lupine. the
exclusive source of food for the butterfly during its larval
stage. If the Native Textiles site includes wild blue lupine. it
may also harbor Karner blue butterfl ies. The butterfly matures
twice per year. with the next brood likely to hatch in mid-July.
Please consider having this site surveyed by the New York State
Endangered Species Unit or The Nature Conservancy prior to site
plan approval so that the loss of potential or occupied habitat
may be mitigated as part of the approval process. The Glens
Fal Is area is one of the last remaining places in the state where
these butterflies are found. The U.S. Fish and Wi Idl ife Service
is currently producing a recovery plan for the species. The
recovery planning team has recognized the Glens Fal Is as an area
in need of comprehensive planing for butterfly preservation. The
Nature Conservancy's mission Is to protect rare and endangered
species. We have developed a Karner Blue Butterfly Protection
Program which involves identification and monitoring of habitat.
land protection strategies ranging from voluntary landowner
agreements through acquisition of land at fair market value. and
ecological management to restore habitat. We would be happy to
work with you regarding Karner blue butterfly preservation of
this and other sites in Queensbury. Thank you for your
consideration. Sincerely. Alane Bal I Assistant Director"
MR. N I COLA-Before we start. I'd like to apo I og i ze for what's gone
on over there In the past few weeks. There's really no good
answer. other than to say that it was human error. We made a
mistake. and we're sorry for that mistake. We believe that we've
reached. in theory. an agreement wit h t he Town Board to pay for
that mistake. So we hope that that does not effect how this
Board looks upon this project. In reviewing It. To answer the
Nature Conservancy's question. back on June 9th. I believe was
the date. I hired the LA Group. one Richard Fatima. who is a
doctorate. to go out and walk this site. and he did so for about
three and a half hours. and he identified areas on this site that
you have blue lupine. and when I say the site. the 34 acre
parcel. not the parcel of land that Native Textiles wi I I go upon.
Mr. Fatima Is here tonight. and we have this letter. when this
issue. We were told about. it was suggested to us by someone in
the Town that potentially there was blue lupine. and as soon as
we heard that we immediately hired the LA Group to go survey the
site. If I could. I'd like to bring Mr. Fatima up and let him
discuss what he found when he walked the site on June 9th. and
(lost word) a lot of what's been told in the news and has been
talked about recently. and so I think what we're talking about.
again. is the Native Texti Ie site. and properly the plan that is
before you. If you would. what I'd I ike to do is put it up here.
so I could show you. because I think what Mr. Fatima is going to
talk about is where he's located it. and we actually have
sketches of where it's been located on the site. Those are the
areas that he's identified. and I'm circl ing larger areas than
he's actually Ident if ied.
RICHARD FATIMA
MR. FATIMA-As Mr. Nicola said. I was on the site on the ninth of
this month. and I did spend three and a half hours there looking
over the entire site. basically checking over the entire area for
Its vegetation and any presence of the wi Id blue lupine. and if
you know the site. and It's difficult to see on this map. but
most of the site is flat. but it does have a ravine that
stretches north/south through the middle of the site. The plan.
the factory bui Iding would be on the extreme eastern most of the
site. North is on this part of this map. and the places where I
- 3Ø -
found the IU,Pi,nes growing .were in the,rayinemainly. There were
several pa~che,s toward the south which Were $et rather sparse.
and one in the ,more nort,hern part of the site ¡'n the ,ravine which
was more abundant. There were a ~ plants gr9~ing on the edge
of the"flat area. just next to the ravine. but only within about
50 i~et of the e~ge of the ravine.
MR. 'BREWER-Wh'en:you say. in the ravine. do yoy
þqttom of, the ravine?
¡:
mean down at the
MR.. FATIMA-No. on ti:le edaes of the ravine. The lupine ,I i,kes to
haye relatively disturbed sandy soi Is. and the ravine, sides are
sandy, ,and gravelly. anq,the soi I tends, to erode eas,i Iy. ,and so
there, ar,e plac,es w~~re it ;~eeds in, quite easi Iy. and that~s why
it's growing there. The ot,her pl~ces where i<t's growing. I, ike I
sa i d . jus t 0 f f the ,'e d'g e 9 r the I" a v i n e . a I" e p I ace s. w her e d i I" t
bikes have made alot of1;rai Is and disturbed the soil,s. and
that's where; the I u pi n e s have been able to seed i n to. on the
edges up there.
MR. BREWER-So what"vou're saying is there's none up on t,he flat
land?
H
MR. FATIMA-No. sea~~hed throughout this area and as best I
cou I d 1;e 11. everyth i ng was a re I at i ve I y dense pine forest. and
the I up i n e s nee d, I" e la t i, vel y 0 pen sun n y a I" e a s be c au set hat's the i I"
habitat. basically. They can't survive very well in shade. If
..; .:.". j ,; "", : . .. . " . "
you find them in shade,.it:s usually in a place that had been
open, within the p~st ten y~ars or so. and has ~i"ce closed over.
and -they don't grow in the shade. They can't reach enough
density to pr<ovide, enough of a ,resource for the Karner Blue
Butt~rfly tq eiist.'
, ,
MR. N I COLA-There's one, 0 t her, t h i n g t hat I w a, n t to s h 0 wy 0 u ~ T his
afternoon. we had Matt Steves. ~ho',s qoingthe surveyi~g for us
on the project. ~o out an~ walk the site to look atw~at's been
çleared. versus what was proposed to þe cleared.~nçl ,tþe map
showing wher,e th_e, Blue Lup i ne are. So if I ,can sh,ow th~,t to you
for a second. because )t's pretty much in scaie. and I th)Ok Matt
Steves is here ton i ght. that i,f you want to', vel" i fy any 'of the
things that I sa~. that I'm SUre he'I'1 be mo~ethan.h~PP~ io come
up and t a I k . T his, bum pin the c I e a I" i n g I" i g h t h,e rei s t his, w her e
the truck turn~round'would ha'v~ been, and this i~ approximately
where the, bui Iding I ine iS~'''i, This I ine is to approximat,~ the
bU,i Iding slearing, I,imi,t I ine~ as s,hown on the s,ite plfln, these
lines, here. These "hatched I i lies are t.o shq.w what ha,s been
clea~ed outside of those clearing limit lines.) In this, area,
there's scattered trees that remain. and according to Matt. what
was taken out of there was "junk" trees. or not the good trees.
The I a'r get r e e s, the 0 a k s à n d the la r get I" e e s. s t i I Ire ma in, and
w hat, , h, e did 'was he b I" U she d t his 0 u t 0 f her e . He to Q k 0 u t the
sma " I e r t I" e e sin t his are a , t hat t his i s not Þ e en, tot a I I Y
cleared. This area <is what<'s called the header, and that;,s',where
they're ~tocking the logs. but what, and I'll read his letter to
you. It says~ ,..Per your request. we went to the site togay to
verify the I imits cleared to date on the Native Texti les, ,p,roject
ve r s u s the c I e a I" i n g I i m its s how non the d raw i n g fro m Her sh be r g
and Hers~berg. dated 5/13. and revised 5/16/94. We revi~w~~ what
was been cleared versus the proposed site plan before the
Planning Board. It is our conclusion that the clearing ç,ompleted
to date has been substantially within the limits shown on the
site plan and, those ~Iagged by us on June 2>~d, 1994, exce,p,t for
two small a~e~s as shown on the enclosed worksheet. Please let
me know if ýou requ ire any add i t i,ana I i n.form~tJi on". but I th ink
it's clear from this that we have not yet come close to what is
trye dense population of lUpine and, as the, original site plan
entai,led. we're coming close to this, but we're not coming up
against any of these lupine in either of these locations, and
¡we,'re rather far aw.ay from this. " '
- 31 -
MR. BREWER-Okay. I'll just tell you what I saw there this
weekend. because I was there Saturday. and I was there Sunday. I
went there with Betty Monahan. I went there with several other
people. and Betty fi Imed it. There's places on that land in
excess of 12Ø. 13Ø feet. where you've gone beyond the I imit of
clearing. in certain spots. In other words. if there was an oak
here that they wanted to log. they cut a path right to that oak.
and pul led it out of there with a skidder. I hate to contradict
anybody. but I'm not a fool. and I can measure. 1Ø. 12 feet from
the top of the ravine. and I can take you there tomorrow and show
you where there were trees cut. So I want to get off on the
right foot. and don't tel I me you haven't been outside of the
I imits. because I think it's blatantly a lie.
MR. NICOLA-No. and I don't disagree with you. and I'm not here to
argue with you. Again. we did something that I can't defend. and
I won't try to defend it. I mean. we are wrong. and we had an
agreement with the Town. and to be frank about it. we made a
mistake.
MR. BREWER-Okay.
do with that.
That's a Town Board issue. We have nothing to
MR. NICOLA-And. Mr. Chairman. 1'1 I tel I you. yesterday was a very
difficult day in my I ife. and I don't think that 1'1 I soon forget
it. So I understand the severity of what we did. and I'm not
trying to make I ight of it.
MR. BREWER-Okay. I guess what I'm trying to convey to you. that
I would I ike to see a map. to this Board. an overlay map of where
the I imit of cutting is on the map that you've presented to us.
and showing us exactly where you've cut and where you have made
these trai Is into cut logs.
MR. NICOLA-I have no problem with that. What we did today was.
MR. BREWER-Understandably. you had no time.
something.
You had to do
MR. NICOLA-That's exactly right. I mean. and you have to
understand where ~ coming from. was in Florida last week.
and that's no excuse. I found out Friday at five o'clock. and
what I did was. it's been a roller coaster since Friday at five.
and If I can ask Matt to talk what you saw.
MATT STEVES
MR. STEVES-Matt Steves from Van Dusen and Steves. I went out
there today with my field crew. who actually staked the project
limits and clearing I imit lines. and the only places that we saw
where there was any additional clearing was around what was
proposed to be the loading dock facl I ity on the bui Iding. and it
was around a 5Ø foot extra. width of about 5Ø feet. and it was
basically selective. There was quite a few trees remaining. It
wasn't clear cut. The path. I think. that Mr. Brewer is
referring to. there's quite a few other paths in there. which is
correct. Some of the paths wh I ch go into what w III be the
retention area. and some of the paths that wi I I go into what wi I I
be the septic area. When I say that the clearing is
substantially within the clearing limits. it's. just like you
say. there might be an occasional tree outside of that. I was
there basically to find out if it was a blatant overrun beyond
the clearing I imits. and there was not. There are a few paths in
there. Correct. Most of t hose were. I guess. ok ayed somewhere
in the Town. or by the Town. to al low for soi I tests. There were
deep tests dug al I through the property. and the only way you
could get a machine in there to perform these deep tests was to
clear a path.
MR. BREWER- I guess what L.:.m. say i ng. Matt. is on the map. you show
- 32 -
a I,in~.okay. limjt of cl~~rlng?
MR. STEVES-Yes.
MR. B'REWE;R-That's, not aproble<m, That's easilY identif'iEtd. but
if you put a scale' tD thàt. it shows, that. frdm'that 1 Ine 'to the
tDp of tha,t rav.ine '(s some"140 fee~.
MR. STEVES-Here~
I
MR. BREWER-ND. Come over to t,he right.
MR. STEVES-Over here?
around 90 feet.
.I
,yes. and nDW yòu'r~ ,probably talking
MR,. BREWER-No. Now ¥Du'r,~,talk.ing. we l11'7asured. some sp.ots.58
feet. where ,they've gone nthere and cut trees and skimmed the
tDps of the<'trees so that. those. they're not going, to I!ve. I
mean. there's skins on them that long where the skidders <hit them
or whatever.
, 1
MR. STEVES- can't argUe with that. Ökay. but it wasn't a total
clearing of the area. It was maybe a tree or two.
MR. BREWER-No, not just a tree or two.
MR. STEVES":'Okay.
MR. PALING-That's more than a tre~ or
speci,fication on distance from the ravine7
two. Is there
Is tha,t 50 feet?
a
~R. BREWER-No.
line right here
th ¡'nk if< yOU look at t~e "map.
is the limit of clearing.
it "shows. this
MR. STEVES-Yes.
MR. BREWER -Ok ay. So anywhere you
distance. minimum. is 140 feet.
people. and I'm sure they're going
cut way up i n to her e. and i, t ' ~ not
mea ~.I,J r. e. a I ? ng t his, "I i n e. t his
I was out there.\I{ ,i t h severa I
to attest to it. that they've
just one or two tre~s.
M,R. 'STEVES-:Okay~,
didn't. go .out into that
, 'O)j:
area.
/; ¡
MR. BREWER-Then how can you say that they cut within the J imits.
MR. STEVES-No. I didn't say that they didn't cut within limits.
I said that the substantial amount of clearing was within the
I i m its.
MR. BR~WER-Ok~y.
MR. STEV~S-Óka~.
~R.pAL,ING-There ~as a sta~e out th~ne. we mea~~red t.o 41 feet
frDm,the "edge of the ravine. ~nd t~e spa6~ left unc~t narrowed
down from there. pr.0bably t.o 120r 15 feet in differ.nf areas.
Sot hat see m s I i, k, e mD r e t h a n jus tan 0 c cas i.o n a I, t r e e .
MR. RUEL- think the're'sa d i'ffer'ence' ' between cfea'r c~!ttin'g and
cutting of trees at a different height. "Are you talkiµg about
clear. cutting?
MR. P'ALING-Yes. They cut eyeryt<hi,ng~
MR. NICOLA-And unfortunately. and I'm at a,l.oss fOf,words. which
is verY,ra~e.
MR. BREWER-Okay.
guess what.
It's unfortunate that
it's happen~d. but I
- 33 -
MR. N I COLA-And a I I loan say. rea I I y. is I'm sorry and I don't
know what to do. and where do we go and what would you I ike me to
do. beoause 1'1 I be more than happy to do anything that you
require.
MR. BREWER- would like to see that map with an overlay map.
exaotly what has been out. exaotly the whole site. and then some
sort of mitigation as to how you're going to reotlfy the
situation. I mean. you've got. olearly. you put it there. I
didn't put it there. Limit of olearlng. So that means to me
that. beyond that I ine. you're not going to out any more trees.
It's pretty simple.
MR. NICOLA-Right. That's diffioult to disagree.
MR. BREWER-I guess that's what ~ looking for.
MR. RUEL-The Chairman,
oross hatoh seotion.
think. is looking for a seotion, I ike a
MR. BREWER-Exaotly.
MR. RUEL-To go beyond what's on that plan. to indioate to us the
area that now is olear out.
MR. NICOLA-I have no problem doing that.
MR. RUEL-Okay. That's what he's looking for.
MR. NICOLA-I have no problem doing that.
MR. BREWER-And
I thought that
slopes. It is
f i I m of it.
seoondly. the lupine. maybe ~ exaggerating. but
there was a lot more of. not just only on the
up on the flat ground. Again. Betty Monahan has a
MR. NICOLA-Wel I. and. aotually I was spoke to by Betty yesterday
at length. and what Betty said to me was this. that the area that
she saw. she was very speolflo where she saw it. was right down
In here. and she said that. she admits that it was one or two
plants that a tire traok had oome very. very olose to. and was
virtually next to. but I think she admitted that that was not
where the lupine were. where the majority of the lupine were.
She also Identified the areas where they were, and I think that
they were relatively oonsistent with the desoription of Mr.
Fatima.
MR. BREWER-Okay. but they were not just alone on the slopes.
There were signifioant amount of plants.
MR. NICOLA-More this way.
MR. BREWER-Yes. more that way.
MR. NICOLA-Up in here.
MR. BREWER-I don't know whether you had any oonversatlons
Nature Conservanoy, but I would I ike to see some kind of a
as to how you're going to proteot that plant. and maybe let
go out there and do a survey. I'm not suggesting that they
the prooess unti I then. That's what thev're suggesting.
wi th
plan
them
stop
MR. N I COLA-We I I. I have no prob I em feno i ng off the I up i ne areas.
and mak I ng sure that those areas are proteoted. I mean. and
that's a first step, and I have no problem doing the map for you.
What I have to ask is. depending on where we al I end up. just as
timely as we oan possibly go forward. If we are going in that
direotion. that we oan go forward. in whatever time frame that's
on.
..
- 34 -
MR. BREWER-Okay.
MR:., RU<Ë(-Does anyon,e have<
plant'?
, 1
ap,icture or can describe this ~acred
MR.NI,COLA-Yes. we do. We have a, series of pict~~e~. as a matter
of fact.
MR. RUEL-Okay. Thank you.
, ,
MR. MACEWAN-Wh,en wer~ these Ipict~res taken'?
MR. NICOLA-June 9th.
, I
MR. BREWER-That's right about
that's what Nature Conservancy
May. the beginning of June.
when the butterfly was in brood.
;;ays in the i r letter. the end of
MR. NICOLA-And then there's another one at t,he end of, Jufy. but
there was nothing apparent at that point.
MR. STARK-Tim. what do you want to do to move it up'?
MR. BREWER-I would I ike to gather the s~uff befo~e we giv~ them
approval. George.
. , ~ . .
MR. STARK-When you say. gather the stuff. you're talking of the
Conservancy. here'?
MR. BREWER-Yes. I'm not talking1.!1..ä1.. I, m~q.n,.we.'re looking at
a plan that doesn't exist. We need 'a whole new plan for it.
M~'. OBE;,RMAYÊR-I would agree with that. (lost with) ,~,ith g~tting
t n, e ,< ~ a, r n e \ fly P e 0 p, let 0 'e val u ate i; he butt. e r fly.
MR. STARK-Yes. but according to them.
anything in th~re.
they don't even want
; !
MR'., BREWER-No. I don't think they ~ay
the y ,b 0 t h can bet t) ere. but the y just
and they're wi II in'g tò do t,~at."
that. I think one
have to protect the
can be.
lupine.
, \.,' J
MR. NICOLA-Yes. I mean."tl'1ere a,re documented cases. ,and I'm not
a Karner Blue expert,by any str~tc~ oJ the imagiQati~~.
MR. OBERMAYER-Are you wi I ling
deforested the area'?
to replant trees where you
MR. NICOLA-You mean sapl ings'? Syrê'.,
MR. STARK-Tim. so what do you want to do?
MR. BREWER-If that's all you've goi; 1.0 say. we' 1,1, ,hear fro¡m the
Board. and then we'll open it back up to publ ic comment. and then
we'll decide what we want to do. but I don't knpw hpw. honestly.
we can do a SEQRA tonight. because we don'i have al I the
information.
MR. S,tARK-Ok a y.
MR.BRË,VYER-That's. my opinion. and I think that's true.
MR. S:rARK-q~ay. F,ine. but. now. to put it off unti.l next 111;0nth.
do, you want to h,ave a spec i a I meet i ng the first wee,k t, the tenth
or the twelf~h?
MR. BREWER-I'm on vacatiQn.
. ,
MR. MACEWAN-Lets go right down the Board.
to do.
Lets see what w6' want
- 35 -
MR. BREWER-Okay.
I guess. are you done?
MR. NICOLA-Yes.
MR. MARTIN-Tim. we've got the test pit map here. too. a map of
the test pits that were dug.
MR. BREWER-Okay. Maybe that' I I be helpful to them.
MR. MARTIN-Yes. because Test Pit Number Ten is about a halfway
point. Here's the edge of the ravine. and the proposed
bui Iding's about half way in on that.
MR. BREWER-Okay. 1'1 I open it up for pub lie comment. if anybody
would like to comment.
PUBLIC HEARING OPEN
MIKE BRANDT
MR. BRANDT-I'm Mike Brandt. a private citizen. I really am lost.
I came here tonight. at the Invitation of the Board. to speak on
the Hudson Pointe project. scheduled for seven o'clock. In fact.
I wrote a letter to you. and 1'1 I present it to you. for that.
but I came here to address. specifically. the work that you did.
and this Town has done for the last three years for the Hudson
Polnte project which Is along the river. and certain issues came
to bear. That project had been three years In approvals. and
you're at the point where you're finally going to make a decision
to approve it or not approve it. A lot of work went into it.
There were a lot of controversies about that project. including
the Karner Blue Butterfly. the erosion of the banks of these
steep. erodible banks. These gentlemen were just tel I ing us. out
of their own words. that these are very sandy banks that tend to
erode. We al I know that. and we've been addressing this for
three years. How in hel I do these guys come to Town. They don't
own the land. They have never done a SEQRA review. Nobody has
ever addressed any of the issues. and they're bui Iding it. They
don't own the land. What is going on? SEQRA says you must
addressed State Environment Qual ity Review Act. Am I wrong?
They have to address these issues. The publ ic has a right to
give input. If we made a mistake on Hudson Polnte. and I was
Involved In it. we made a mistake that this Town told the
developer that we thought the issues could be addressed without a
ful I blown environmental assessment. and we caused them an extra
year of work. We shou I d have. and It wasn't. I t was a dec i s i on
of our Town Planner. at the time. that was the previous planner.
that they honestly thought the issues could be addressed through
the normal process. but had we done the right thing. we would
have said. this has environmental impact. and you should do a
ful I impact statement. before you start work. It would have
saved them a year. but here. we haven't even addressed that the
publ ic Is even knowledgeable. and no less the Town parks a truck
across the driveway. ~ access to ~ property. so that we can't
go and look at it. I'm offended. I'm offended that the Town is
involved in preventing Its citizens from giving input on this.
Who's in a hurry? Who's getting paid off? I'm sorry. I am
insulted by this.
MR. BREWER-I don't think anybody is getting put off.
publ Ie hearing last week.
We had a
MR. BRANDT-I said ~ off.
MR. BREWER-I understand that.
I'm saying.
I know exact Iv what you said. but
MR. BRANDT-Who the hell is getting paid out of this thing?
MR. BREWER-I don't know.
~ not getting paid. but
I'm just
- 36 -
telling you.
MR. BRANDT-I don't. either. but I
circuited. as a public. and under the
can we be ignored?
know we're getting short
law. we have standing. How
MR. BREWER-You're not getting ignored.
MR. BRA N D T - Yes we are. The la n d i s c r e à red. Ire a din t 0 day's
pap~r¡th~t the Town Board said 1;hey want to get P9.. i df.Pt the logs
that cam,e off that. Under State Law. i fyou log' somebody else's
land. you pay tri~le damagas. You ~on't get paid for, the logs.
You pay times three. That's to discourage you from doing it. but
this is worse yet. They're going in and raping a delicate piece
of I and be for e the pub I i c has a rig h t toe v en. a dd res s t h. e < i s sue s .
even ask for input. We asked another person to stay. what. 150
feet back from the? It's already done. I, ,p,et:\S,onal LY &a.wa... tree
that's pushed over right within 20 feet 01 th~edg~. a~d 'another
one that's right on the edge. that's been destroyed. a~~ another
that's been pushed into the ravine. I mean. that's not within
the law. and in <the old days. thatwq.s called "outl,aws". and what
on ear t h are wed e a I i n g wit h 0 uti a w s for 7 Ire a I I Y h q. vet 0 ask.
There's something wrong ~!re.
I
MR. BREWER-I think'sQme'of the iss.uès you broug.ht;~p. Mik,e. are
Tri~n Board issues. and'tri~~ don't belong here.
, .,~
MR:BRANDT-They'~e publ ic ,i~!ues.
our iaw.
---.
It's our Government. ~EO~A is
~~. BREWER-W~I I. we ~q.ve no.
yet.
I I
'Agreed. ',àndwEi haven't done that
" ¡,
MR. BRANDT-It's not anyone else's law.
MR. BREWER-And I ~gree with you. th~t they should address al I the
issu~s. 'al)d we, haven't done the SEORA; yet. and; I; don't t~..ink we
shou I d do a SEORA unt i I a II the issues are taken care of.
. \ .' .. "". 7 . \.. -, -., f-
MR. ~RANDT-W! asked the last people to'~ddr~ss Lndian rei ic.
(nçlian encampme.nts along that area. I've seen test hol.e9 along
that embankmen~ that are 20 feet by 20 feet. Was there any
I ndi an,re Ii cs? We'll neverknQw. How many of them are there?
,'t's just rough sho'd. I can't bel i~ve ,what I see. a.nd a double
set of standards. th'is Town. did a lot' of work 'onH~dson Pointe.
,/ - ,'.. .. ".... ".; ,'.. .. .. ,- . " .. '... .. ,.
an,d i'm.proud of 1=he work t,?,e Town diçl. They"setgreat s,~andards
and they asked' that the 'people of Niagara Mohaw.k a,nd their
<development,team I ive by those standards. a'nd,they have:' Not a
tre~ has been ~ut Qver there. Three years they've been waLting.
Lorik at the mo~ei ii c~st them. Now you~set a new st~ndard where
you can go in. on,Town property with,out aven addressi'lg the
iSS4es. How çan we do that?
M~p BREWER-We didn't do it. Mike.
B,óard:
Ýou'rè yelling at the wrong
MR. BRANDT-I know. but we've g~t tos~op it., I can't bel ieve.
the corridor of that river is a beautiful piece of prope~ty.
MR.. BREWER-I agree with you.
MR. BRANDT-And this Town set out to preserve
property. you're setting a new standard that
kind of thing to happen. We can't do that.
it. and now. on Town
we're a I I,Qw i n¡g t his
MR. RUEL-You're addressing the wrong Board.
MR. , ßR~WER-Okay.
comment?
1st her e any 0 nee I set hat w 0 u Id. I i k e to
- 37 -
STERLING AKINS
MR. AKINS-Sterling Akins. on the Corinth Road. and I'm an
interested citizen. I just want to verify things that have been
said here tonight. that they've gone wel I beyond their boundary
that showed on the drawings. that they were to clear cut.
They've gone in and cut trees up to 4Ø Inches of diameter on the
stump. I don't see any logs left there that are that size. I've
found many trees that are over two foot. and I feel that there's
been logs removed from the area. I don't know when. I haven't
seen any log trucks go out of there. I'm almost sure that
there's been logs removed from the area. The cutting to get in
and do these test holes. Hudson Polnte did their cutting without
disturbing anything. You could hardly find a tree that was any
larger than three or four inches that they disturbed to get in.
These people have disturbed trees that. as I said. are 4Ø inches
in diameter. and they've gone back in the woods. it looks like.
just to pick particular trees that they wanted. and they've
exceeded their area to cut. even after they get approval. At
this point in time. they had no approval to cut anything other
than a road. and what they absolutely needed for test holes and
for engineering purposes. They've gone In there and they've
clear cut over four acres. and up to 1ØØ feet. and maybe more
than that. beyond their line that they were ever to clear cut.
It's just a terrific problem now. I agree with Mike. that I feel
that this should have an impact statement done. the same as
Hudson Polnte did. It's the same type of country. We've got a
brook In the bottom of that val ley that could be contaminated.
If they ever go in there and put a drainage pit where they're
talking about putting it. I'm sure that you' I I get seepage and
runoff from it. Into the brook. and eventually Into the river.
which the river is only a few hundred yards away. Also. there's
erosion there already from the last rains we had since they've
cut. and these things are just things that shouldn't have
happened. and I feel that the developer should pay for what
they've done. Thank you.
MR. BREWER-Thank you. Anyone else?
JOHN SALVADOR
MR. SALVADOR-My name is John Salvador. You have an appl ication
before you for reviewing this site plan?
MR. BREWER-Yes.
MR. SALVADOR-Does the application ask the owner of the property?
MR. BREWER-Yes.
MR. SALVADOR-And who's I isted as the owner?
MR. BREWER-We al I know who the owner Is. John.
Queensbury.
It's the Town of
MR. SALVADOR-The appl ication. what does the application say?
MR. BREWER-Name of Appl icant/Sponsor. Columbia Development Group.
MR. SALVADOR-To the best of my knowledge and bel ief. from what
read in the newspaper. they are not the owner of this property.
MR. BREWER-Correct.
MR. SALVADOR-You have no basis to hear this application.
MR. BREWER-You're wrong.
MR. SALVADOR-Okay.
- 38 -
MR. BREWER-Okay.
NICK NICHOLSON
'.
.MR.. NICHOLSON-My nam.e is Nick Ni,cholson. from Queensbury. I
thi,nk you people are doing a g90d job. but I.think ,what has
ha~peQ.~ her. is wit~,these side deals that are 9ccurrinq in our
Town. In my opinion. not in favor of the taxpayers. .~hen you
b.ring outside groÙps i!n. and tl;1ey're lead to bel ieve that they
can 90 t~e;se things. wh,ich is the realwrong~ and they 99 in and
do, it. and the.n we tak,e them to task because yie,'re selling them
t,he barn. the horses, and everything, else. and giving them
eye~ythingthat they want. I thi~k that we should ~eyiew the
t h i n 9 s prop e r I y . and the Q we. w 0, u I d n ' t h a vet h e s e p r ob I ems. and
c e r t a i n I y t h. e Tow n 11 a s n ' t d 0 r;¡ e i t wit h t his. 0 u t 0 f tow n ç 0 m pan y
at a,ll. an.d they'r~ not., helping us any. They're co.min,g in with
their people. and I don't "see whe,re we're going to gain anything
wit h the m . r e, ~ I I Y '; , W e ~ re ' g ¡vi ng t ~ em eve r y t h i n g. f 0 u r mil I ion
dol lara. fiv~ hu~dred dollar grant. and they bri~g in their own
people to dO,the work. We don't have anybody hired here. People
f.rom our own Town .are not employed. All we get is. in th,e end.
we get to pay when they pu lout. I ike all the ,other things that
puII,.,out in thi,s a,rea. on these gran,ts, I think it's ridiculous.
I t~inkyou shouldputa stop to ,it.
~R. BREWER-Thañk you,
speak?
Is there anyone else that would. care to
PL INEY TUCKER
M,R. TUCKER-PI iney Tucker. Queensbury, M'~Yi
MR. ÈHt,~WER-Sure.
, ,
address the Planner?
MR,. TUCKER-I asked Scott la~t ~eek
property was zoned.
if he could tell me when this
MR. H A R L I C K E R - I t I 00 k s I i k e i t was eve n z 0 n ed' n dust ria I b a c kin
1982. On the 1982 Zoning map it àppears that the Ifne probably
goes down a ravine. The west half of the ravine is UR-5. The
east half was Light Industrial.
.. . ,
MR. TUCKER-To give you a I ittle ,history. that I gave you last
week. this property was purchased in the late 60's for a
landfill. to move the City landfill off of LuzerneRçad. We took
it on. and I was part of that action. I hate to admit it. but I
was. that <many years al;lo. and we ~efeated the; landfi II goi ng
there. and I do believe there was other restrictions put on the
use of th i s I and by the Town Board at that time."a;od I wou Id
request that the Planning Board have the Pianning Department
check back through the record$ and see what they ca~~ind. as far
as this chunk of land was concerned. Can we get that done?
MR. BREWER-Sure can.
MR. TUCKER-:And I' v~ got just one other comment. guess I've
been on this land in the last three weeks more than I've been on
my own. and. bas)cally. I'm ,a I ittle developer. an,d land ,can be
dev~l~ped withl00e and care and you can really make something
out of, it. At the,prese,nt moment. this cf:¡unk ,of land right here
has b~en raped. ~nd it's ~ land. and it~s the taxpayer's land.
There's a deed in the Attorney's Office. and as of 2:30 yesterday
afternoon. it was st i II there. and the I and st ill beto.l"\¡gs to the
Town of Queensbury. I can't understand how the syitem c~n sit
here and spend mon~y rev i ew ing a proj ect ,I ,for a cQmpany that
doesn't even own the land. I'm a tax payer. and .L haven't asked
for a site plan review of this piece of land. and it's still
partly mine.
MR. BREWER-I can tell you why that is.
You don't have to own the
.;'G
- 39 -
--..-.--...-.----.-..-.------.---'.-.--
land to put an application in to be a developer. If you have the
owner sign a release form for them to act as your agent, they can
do that.
MR. TUCKER-Has this been done?
MR. BREWER- Yes, I t has.
MR. TUCKER-Has the Town Board signed a release?
MR. BREWER-Yes.
MR. TUCKER-Thank you.
MR. SALVADOR-What is the date of that release, please?
MR. BREWER-I don't know, John. I don't have it with me. It's
been done. We're not trying to do anything i I legal, and we're
not trying to circumvent anything. If anything, I think we're
going to slow them down.
MR. SALVADOR-I would I ike to see that, a copy of it.
MR. MACEWAN-It's right here.
MR. HARLICKER-It was done by Town Board resolution.
MR. BREWER-Okay.
Is there anyone else who would I ike to comment?
MR. AK INS-I just wanted to ment i on one more th I ng. I be I I eve
that the Adirondack Mountain Club approached the Town, I don't
know how many years ago, but it was quite a whi Ie ago, with the
idea that they wanted to put a park in that area, and on
reviewing the area, the Adirondack Mountain Club, I think
themselves, said that the area was too fragi Ie to put a park in.
So I just think that, in order to do this project, I'm in favor
of bringing business to Glens Fal Is. I've been in favor of this
project, up to the point of maintaining the property in a good
condition. If it's too fragi Ie to put a park in, It's certainly
too fragl Ie to be cut open the way It has been cut open and
damaged the way it has been damaged.
MR. MACEWAN-Approximately how long ago did the Mountain Club ask
that?
MR. AKINS-I'm not sure, but I know that my brother has a record
of that, of them turning that down, or something I ike that.
MR. MACEWAN-Two years ago, or two months ago?
MR. AKINS-No, probably 1Ø years ago.
MR. MACEWAN-Ten years ago.
MR. AKINS-I can get you a copy of that, if you'd like it.
MR. MACEWAN-Yes, I would. Thank you.
MR. STARK-AI I Carey Road Is Light Industrial. Why has it got to
be here?
MR. BREWER-Right, but just because it's zoned Light Industrial
doesn't necessarily mean it can support the project.
MR. STARK-Well, it's not a bad project, I mean, as far as the
Industrial. I mean, this is fairly clean Industrial.
MR. BREWER-Yes. Anyone else who hasn't spoken yet?
ELAINE BALL
- 48 -
-
MS. BALL-Hi. My name is Elaine Ball. I'm with the Nature
Conservancy, and ,I ~rote the leite~ that wai<read into th~ record
tonight.' I'm not going to speak on the merits of this project.
I'm just here to provide scientific information about the Karner
B I u e But t e r fly and its h a bit at ,re qui r em e n t s . Th e r ea son, a s I
understand it. that the lupine is only existing now in the ravine
is that it has been crowded out by the pine areas. and I
understand the developer has done some clearing that was not
a I lowed. but the t h i n g is, i f you wan t t 0 i ,m p 0 sea new I 0 cat ion
on this project. 'that would at some time satisfy this violation
that has occurred and would also benefit the Butterfly, Jt may
involve some clearing of the site. and not restoration of forest.
I just wanted to make that point. Also, as the engineer for the
developer explained. the Butterfly and the lupine does reoccur
after a disturbance. It's I ikely that this entire site is a
potential habitat for the Karner Blue Butterfly. It's also
I ikely that that extended onto the neighboring Hudson Pointe
proj'ect. ,Whi'chW.~ ~I;~o'went thro,ugh a simi¡I<ªr kind of, review.
Bas ic a I I y. w hat you' v ego the rei, s the cum u I at i ve ,d est r u c t ,i 0 n 0 f
håbttat for' ane~dangered"species. " This~,te' Òught to r~ceive
federal and state agency review of the site. and it should be
considered, especially as Town owned property. I would think
that the Town. in th i s case. has a greater respons i b i I i ty to do
the right thing than you might ~skof a private land owner. to
look at the cumulative impacts of the loss of Butterfly habitats
in the Tow~. So I would encourage you to get eXPertise beyond
that of which the developer provides. Thank you.
,
'~R. BREWER-Thank you.
Is there anyone else?
MR. SALVADOR-That ap,p,l i cat i on you
'Deve lopm?nt < Corporat ion?
have. you read CoLumbia
, ,
,MR. BREWER-I 'just readw'hat was here, John.
right paper. I'don't know~
If
didn't read the
MR. SALVADOR-Preise look at it, again. <
M~. BREWËR-I'm sorry.
pr:epared ,by th,e prqject
is what I read it 'from.
you're reading from.
I J:' e ~ d fro m the pro j e c tin f 0.rm a t ion
sponsor. It's part of t,he jr:- ,assessment.
I didn't ,read it from the letter that
MR. SALVADOR-Does not the app I i cat i on have to list the owner of
the property?
MR. BREWER-I don't have the"application
know. I guess, yes. It probably does.
in front of me.
I don't
MR. MA R TIN - Yes, . ¡ t doe s .
MR. BREWER-What's the point of
guess I want to ask you that.
it?
What's the relevance?
MR. SALVADOR-I'm questioning your basis tO,hear theappl ication.
If it's not complete, if it's not accurate. It doesn't state the
facts. That's all I'm asking.
MR. MARTIN-Yes. It's on.the cover sheet. John. ProPerty Owner.
Tow n 0 f Que ens bur y , Pro j e c tAp P I i can t . Co I u m b i a De ve I o.p men t
Group. Appl icant/Agent was Richard Rosen and Joseph Nicola.
I
MR. SALVADOR-We II, these, papers you just, handed me, ar.e an
agreement between the Town of Queensbùry and the Queensbury
EconpmicDevelopment Corporation. The resolution passed by the
Town' Board, mentions' 'the Queensþury, EC,onom i c Peve,lqpment
Corporati6n. '
MR. MARTIN-Who then submitted a letter authorizing Joe Nic~la to
act as their Agent.
- 41 -
MR. SALVADOR-As their Agent. Does this permit their Agent to go
In and cut trees.
MR. MARTIN-No. that's a separate issue.
MR. BREWER-No. By no means does it mean that.
MR. SALVADOR-There's no agreement. then. between the Town Board
and the Agent?
MR. BREWER-No.
MR. SALVADOR-Thank you.
MR. BREWER-Okay. Mike.
MR. BRANDT-It's a shame. We looked at this project in the back.
you're looking at it as a project. that particular site. but when
Hudson Pointe came to us. Niagara Mohawk brought that forth. and
they said. we. Niagara Mohawk. would like to get use out of some
of our lands along the river. and the Hudson Pointe site was a
place were the soi Is were such that they could put quite a bit of
development there. having In mind. as they put it. I think. to
turn over the rest of their thousands of acres along that river
to a conservation effort. which wasn't define. but they were
looking for an answer. and they asked. and I know they asked.
because I was involved in it. the State of New York to get
involved. and they asked the Open Space Institute. out of New
York City. to get Involved. and I've been prlvi leged to have the
Open Space Institute come to ~ property. where they could see a
lot of this and photograph this property of Niagara Mohawk's
along the river. for purposes of making presentations to their
own Board. What I'm tel I ing you is that there is an effort to
try and save the corridor of the river from somewhere around
Corinth to somewhere around Glens Fal Is. and the efforts that
went into the Niagara Mohawk project were contemplating the
larger project. and now. did we lose track of that? I've heard.
privately. that the State of New York is looking very hard at
picking up the south side of the river. in acquisitions. to
expand the Moreau Park. I've heard that there's discussions
along. where it lies. and It may take years to happen. but there
Is an effort to find a means to put this land Into a preservation
mode of some kind. and to pay the private land owner a reasonable
market price for It. I know that the Open Space Institute was
wrestl ing with the same thing. They had to look at how they were
going to fund to pick up some of the land on ~ side of the
river. the north side. and I know the Open Space Institute's
working with the Town of Queensbury on the Hudson Pointe parcel
that jutted out Into the river. that was concluded shouldn't be
developed. and needs to be preserved. How. then. can we as a
Town. not look beyond that property line? Why don't we look
beyond. and look at the corridor of the river to Its full length.
This area Is becoming urbanized. and even suburbanized. People
are leaving other cities to come here and live. and In the thirty
some years that I've been here. there's an enormous -i nf I ux of
population. In the next hundred years. you can be sure there's
going to be quite a bit more. and In the next two hundred years.
what are you going to have? You have a corridor of that river
that's as pretty as Lake George. It's not been used by the
publ ic. and very few people have seen it. because It was private
property. and people weren't encouraged to see It. It was
posted. Keep Out. Most of us that saw it were there i I legally.
but the Power Company has changed Its Ideas. It now wants to
bring that to the public. and while it's all under one ownership.
when I was I n Government. I fe I tit was a un i que opportun I ty to
try and capture It for It's best use. and from a conservation
view point. and certainly. when you see the efforts that are
going on. on the Canal. the Feeder Canal. to preserve that. and
it's a beautiful faci I ity. and in time it wi II be a very
Important (lost word) park. Why aren't we looking at the whole
- 42 -
~,_._--
river? Why, as a. Town. aren't we lop~ing at this river corridor,
from one end of the Town to the other. andadqressing a plan. and
when we own the land, why should we be destroying the land that
we own from the best use and a conservatio,n view point. This
land is del icate. We all know that, arid if it's del icate. then
we 0 ugh t tom a k e a, p <I Çi n. sowed 0 n " t des t r 0 y it. It', s be aut i f u I
and it's del icate, and I wrote you a letter on the other project.
I ,had no. idea this wa~..going, t9CÇlme up. I re,ally didn't, and I
c~rtainlY didn't'think it was going to come up early. It's time
to look at the corridor of the river and make a plan and \'nclude
the Open Space Institute, include all the citizens of the
community, include the input of the land owners. find ways of
working with them, so that you don't steal their value, buy their
value, find ways of funding them. It's not easy. It's a very
d iff i cui t que s t ion . The Sup rem e Co u r t ,w re s t Le d wit hit and ¡ s aid
it isn't easy at all, to the folks in Oregon, who say it's a
lit tie m 0 red if f i cui t, t h any 0 u tho ugh t 0' , i n a de c is j pn I i k e, t his.
It;s a very difficult problem forsoc¡ety, but¡-:th~r~'s an answer,
and if we involve eVE;!rybody that 'owns,land alon~ that river, and
we, ~nvolv~ our public. we'pan find that ans<wer, apd I think we
can find, good answers. and we c,al), deve I op an,d we c~n have
industryanq WE;! can have housing and we·can have the things we
need, but we:çan sti II preserve the corridor, and that's why I am
¿o offended that the Town 'would ~aste its own land. and be
. i n v 0 I v e d' in' an, i I ,I e 9 a, I e f for,t, a n i I. leg a I e f for t t 0 c i r cum v e n t
the 'law and move something forw~rd. That's pr~tty chjnt~y.
MR. ~REWER-Is there a~~one else?
DEAN BECKOS
, .
MR. BECKOS-,My name's Dean Bec'kos~ .,I'm Preside,nt, o\, the
QUElensbury ,Êco'nom i'qqeve lopment Ç¡orporat ion . We' ve been i nvo I ved
in t,hisproject since the. incaPti.,o<'1l,' ' I'm in no waY9peaki,ng in
ref~rence tq pro or against the project. as far as the Planning
Soard ,a,nd 'the i r dec i s ¡ qn. but I rea I I Y fee I I ,must make a coup I e
,', ... .. . ! ' , " '..;. . . ,
6f st~tements. I hate to refute Mr. Brandt's Last stat~ment. I
have a tremendou's amount of respe,ct for him. I w,orked , very
c,.los~ly with him< in,his Administration, with the QEDÇ., ,He was
involved i,n the , incep~i,on of the,:p,roject, ~n,ew,abC;:J,Ut the
inc,eption,,9r the PC,ojept and whel~e ,i:t was being located,' We, as
me,mbers of the QEDC. .whe,nwe were as"k~d and approach.ed, by Nat ive
and their Agents. inbejng proacti~e in economic devel6pment in
the are,a. searched. the Towt;l, foravai labl.e Light IndL4$,try zoned
I and that , we co u ,1 d 1 Çl9 ate t his pi, ant on ',. T his , land, h a, s been
zoned Lig<~f Ind~'9,try for a ver:,y long period of ' time. We never
que s t i 0 º e d the rea son i n 9 for t hat L i 9 h t I, 11 d u s try. ' . I. tis
contigupusto_~,~larQe industri,al p,ark that has, n9t been d,e,ve' oped
Y,rt,. but allthie. infrastructure is in., It made, a lot of sense to
all the parties i,nvolved. This property was the right property
for t h i. spa r tic u I a r sit u at ion. I, rea I I Y . feel t hat i t m !-' $ t be
said that the c,~rrent,;Town Boardnas aqteci extremely r~spõnsible
in the way th~y've hançll,ed this sit4ati,on, anq they, have,nothing
to be a shamed of. becaus,e of the consequences I that ex i sted.
They. in being pro-e60nomic development, went ahe~d, and at this
point, in tim:e unfortunately authorized C.olumbia to go onto the
sit e and do s om e pre I. i m i n a r y t est i n 9 . 0 b v i 0 u sly, the ir w ish e s
were not followed by Columbia. and that's why the problem exists.
" ,'·".l r-. . .j,.,: .' ; /" . :,
However, we al,l, ..the Town Board and the Queensbury Economic
D<evelopment Corporàti.on'i entered into this situation with a piece
of property that :was?onedproperl~, for the proper uSe. and that
that was the' onlYini,nt that ~ver exJsted in this situation.
It's unfortunate that this happened. and that you gUYs are going
t 0 h a vet 0 m a ~ e . the c:I e cis ion 'a s tow h ~ t ' ~ a:'p pen sin t his pro j e c t ,
and, ,( ,a,m. my s e. f and 0 u r Board. i sin no means try i n 9 to
circumver;¡t your wi,9dom.<a~,dyour decision maktng process. I guess
that's all ..1 have t.asay.
MR. BREWER-Okay.
- 43 -
MR. BRANDT-The last Town Board never talked to this Group about
this site. never. The Town Board did talk to this Group about a
site on the Kingsbury border. along County Line Road. and was
involved in looking at a re-zoning of that area. and (lost word)
re~ord. we never have looked at this site with this Group. with
this In mind. and I'm not saying that this use is incompatible
with this site. but there are lots of environmental
considerations here that have to be addressed. and they aren't.
and for the work to have commenced without even starting publ ic
input or any discussion whatsoever is wrong.
MR. BREWER-Okay.
MR. BECKOS-That statement Is untrue.
several meetings.
In November. there were
MR. BREWER-Dean. It's Irrelevant. I think. to this Issue.
MR. BRANDT-There's a record of any of those meetings.
MR. BREWER-AI I right. If there's a record. then you guys hash it
out. I don't want to get in the middle of that. I don't mean to
be rude to you. but I just don't want to hear about you guys
fighting back and forth.
MR. NICHOLSON-I'm going to get back again. now that I heard what
this gentleman just said. I bel ieve Columbia Development
corporation almost had a signed deal with Hudson Fal Is. and
whether or not they bring 1ØØ jobs here is immaterial. whether
they hire some from Hudson Fal Is. Argyle. Hartford. Fort Ann.
I'm sure they're not only going to be hiring in the Town of
Queensbury. and this thing was almost signed in Hudson Fal Is.
which makes me wonder, really makes me wonder, what made them
change their mind at the very last minute to come up here and
develop in the location that they're at now.
MR. BREWER-Okay.
Is there anyone else?
MR. NICOLA-What I'd I ike to discuss is, after I istening and
hearing what everyone has said, I'd I ike to try to look at where,
potentially, we go from here, and emphasize and focus on the next
process that Is determined here, and that's SEQRA, and how to
address that. I bel ieve, from what I've heard, not withstanding
the cutting of trees, that the only potential significant issue
is the blue lupine and Karner Blue Butterfly.
MR. BREWER-Archeological stuff was mentioned.
MR. NICOLA-Erosion we're going to handle tomorrow. We'l I go out
and put in a sl It fence. I want to (lost word) the Town Board to
make sure that's appropriate.
MR. BREWER-I said archeoloaical was mentioned. I don't know If
that's a site. I don't know if there's a quick way to do a
survey as to whether it could contain or I ikely to contain.
MR. MARTIN-The State Historic Preservation Office does have a map
of sites that are classified as being highly sensitive for
archeological concerns. I don't know that this is in that or
not. We could contact that Office and find out.
MR. BREWER-Lets have the appl icant contact them, Jim.
MR. NICOLA-Yes.
1'1 I do that.
MR. MARTIN-The other thing that can be done, as was done with the
Hudson Pointe project. is if you recal I, there was, essentially,
a two phase archeological review that was done. The first phase
was a.
- 44 -
'-
MR., BREWER-Yes., I thinkt e first phase kicked it
second. because they found th ngs.
t" . I,. .: '
into the
¡ ¡!
MR ~ MART I,~<-Exact ¡'y.,
MR. BREWER-Maybe that'ss,omething th<at should b~ done. I mean.
if' we go through SEQRA tonight. I don',t know that we're going to
make it.
~ ¥ .
MR. NICo'LA-1 don't-disàgre'e with that.' and, i guess that's where
I'm coming from. 'I 'think one of the things that :ii.§. hav'e to do
is. and the archeological aspects of it. I think, ,we've cheqked a
I ittle bit into it. We don't bel ieve there's a problem. We wi II
back that up wit;h some information. ,We're quite a distance from
the river. and' typically right along the river. because the
Indians travelled by boat along the river. that's where.
typiç,a,lly. alon,~ the tlat lanc,ts,. along the river. is where you
find archeological deposits.
, ,
MR. BREWE~~And (" think that was the case wi'th 'Hudson Pointe.
1 ,¡ ~
MR. NICOLA-And I'm 'not saving th,at that;s:absoLut~ly the case on
this sit e .J us t. in general. that's the c,~;s e along r i v ~ r s ~.,,¡
MR. BREWER-There were some spots that were inland and up on top
Qf the bluffs.
; :1
MR. MACEWAN- Th at st at eme nt may not n~cessa r i I Y be truer..
MR. N I CO LA - And 1 don:, t, ! di sag r ~ e wit h t hat. T hat's why I was n ' t
say'i ng. I,' m' not mak)ng that" statement u,p. Doctor Fat i ma is a
Ph.D. He's. a publ ished.qual ified Wildlife BiOl09ist.',and ,i<n his
expert opinion."thatthe Native building Vi,ill not have a
significant impa.èton, the environment. and I'd jU$t poil)t' that
out. and one of th~ t~ings that we vdll go andwewi II do is we
wi II have an area map and we wi II have a (lost word) map. we wi II
have the lupine map.a.nd the<t~st,pit map. and all .of the trails
that were cut. and potent i a I I Y why they were cut. tó show the
test,. pit s . the I u pi, n e . L t s c I ear i n g I i m i t and what was supposed
to bec,l eare,d a,nd what, <wa$ c 1 eared. but if we go out an'd we ,fence
'. .. . ' -¡ ,: !,' . ,- ',.' . :'. '; !
a ,map. the I,up,ine that eX,i,st,$. an,d put tt)at On th~t måp and'we' II
fence. it off. I don ':t ,have a pròb I em with do i ng )~hat.
,
MR. E} R EWE R - I w 0 u I d I i k e ,t 0, see. you. and lor may bet he Tow n. w 0 r k
with Nature Conservancy t,O"<;1,evelop some kind of, 'a plan that maybe
they could expand where that stuff is. . I don't know.
MR. NICOLA-And j don't havé- an issue with that. t'hin'k< the
problem that I have. and I have nO Jssue with Nature Conse~vancy.
i,t's, just from 'a. ti;~.i,ng'standRqint of getting 'tt}rough ,how<,Nature
Conservancy typically works. I don't knov.;if th~t's g()¡'ng 'to fit
the time table of what we need.
MR. MACEWAN-Well. I don't think we're in a situation to want to
r u s h any t h i n g t h r 0 ugh. at t his . poi nt .
MR. ~ICOLA-Anq I',m not a$king you to rUSh anything through. and I
wasl\'t go'ing to suggest t~at. It's just,¡that. if we tak,~ six
months to go do this. ,I think that we may have to withdraw the
appl ication. That'~ al ¡'. .
MR. MACEWAN-You're.putting us under the gun. basically. is what
you're d()'i ng.
MR. BREWER-No. I don't think that has to happen. but if that's
wha,t has t9 happen. that's what hasta happen.
,
MR. NICOLA-Tha~"s fine. and I don't disagree with that. and I'm
not trying to. and I'm not saying that you have to approve it
tonight. I don't think I said that.
- 45 -
MR. BREWER-Our first meeting in July is the 19th.
MR. OBERMAYER-Can we make one the week before?
MR. BREWER-I'm on vacation that week.
MR. NICOLA-How about next week?
I mean. any time.
MR. OBERMAYER-I'm on vacation.
MR. MACEWAN-We need to determine. what do we need to do?
MR. BREWER-He's on
meeting. the 19th.
completely done.
vacation.
then that
Why can't
way you can
we do it the normal
get everything done.
MR. MARTIN-Tim. you have some correspondence. too. that came in.
you should read into the record as part of the publ ic hearing.
MR. BREWER-Sure. Is there anyone else. before we end the comment
period. that would I ike to speak?
PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED
MR. BREWER-Go ahead. Jim.
MR. MARTIN-I just. you sure you want to do that?
MR. BREWER-I can re-open it again.
MR. MARTIN-AI I right. We' I I just have to re-advertise it again.
MR. BREWER-We'll I'll re-open it and we'll leave it open. then.
PUBLIC HEARING RE-OPENED
MR. MARTIN-AI I right. Okay. This is from Jim Weller to Tim
Brewer, Regarding Native Textl Ie Plant, "If for some reason
Columbia Development Corporation cannot surmount their current
problems with the property owner. I would be interested in
designing, bui Iding. and leasing the faci Ilty to Native Texti les
and there's a good chance I could save them some time and money
in the process. James M. Weller" That's al I we had.
MR. BREWER-AI I right. Craig, you had something else?
MR. MACEWAN-Yes. As far as the determination of any significant
habitat down there for the lupine. or any archeological digs, I
would recommend that the Board appoint an independent agency to
go out down there and do a field survey.
MR. BREWER-That's a good point. So. a third party?
MR. MACEWAN-A third party.
MR. BREWER-I don't have a problem with that.
MR. MACEWAN-Does everybody agree with that?
MR. STARK-Wel I, who would you recommend?
MR. MACEWAN-There's certainly a number of outfits that would do
it. I'm sure Staff has some ideas of maybe some people who are
avai lable to do that.
MR. OBERMAYER-What are they going to be doing?
MR. MACEWAN-An independent field survey to determine any
archeological or endangered species that are down there that may
exist beyond what their.
- 46 -
--_.~--_._._._--_.._.-
--
MR. BREWER-Or, even,I ikel ihood.
Let s p, uti t as, ,l.i k e I i h 0 0 d .
MR. MACEWAN-Yes.
MR. NICOLA-If I could speak ..to that. The ar<cheological. we've
done a number of them. What's typically done. independent is a
"term". but, thearchaeo I og i sts that. work, f,or ,SHPO are all
i n d e pen den t con t r' act 0 r š' ' and the y are a p pro v e d by S H POt 0 I i ve by
a set of standards that they subm it to the ,state. and). ba,s;,ed on
their reports. the State comes up with a plan and recommendation.
along with th,at archeologis~. wheth,er they'rie, hire,d by the
developer. or ~hether they're hired by the Town. and the same
thi~g with the LA Group. I mean. they put .their~rofeaaional
cred<ent i à I s on the line.. and they do th i s for ,the D,EC and an
awful lot 'of other pèople. and it's really.their pr,ofessional
license that they're living with. and their integrity and
reputat i on.
MR. BREWER-So then it shouldn't
somebqdy t~at was independent of.
now then. right7
be a problem
not that works
1 "
if "we picked
for you .r i ght
MR. N I COLA- I'm not disagree i ng wit h t hatpi _,< A~.I ,! '.1'1): .,t.ry ~ I1g: ¡t;Q, say
is. I'm pointing out.
MR. BREWER-They put their credentials on the I ¡ne.
MR. NICOLA-They're ill < independent.
. ,
MR. MARTIN-That much is true. about the archeologicar.
tog eta sur v e y 0 r who's a p pro v e d by, the S tat e i nor q e r
to consider any information they come up with.
,1
You have
for them
MR. MACEWAN-And there's
ourselves.
no reason why
we can't appoint
someone
~. f
, .,
MR., pBERMAYER-Weren't we gGing tQ find out. though. whether this
might be an area7 Didn't 'you mention tl:\at earlier7
MR. BREWER-Yes.
f,' "
,MF.L MARTIN-'I thiO.k ,two steps,are apprpprl,ate. One is fq fi:l}d out
if it's I iated on. the ,State map. the SHPO. and then. to dq'a .Phase
1 I iterature search.
MR. BREWER-Okay.
MR. OBERMAYER-We,' I. sho,u I d V:le go through Ptla,se I. first. .þefore we
proceed w it,h Ph~se I 17 , If we. don' t n,f?e,dtq go to Phase, n . then
that's it.
MR. BREWER-Yes.
I I.
PhaS,e I wi I I te.I.1 ,you if you need to ,go to Phase
MR. MACEWAN-That's what we're settfng up now to do.
MR. OBERMAYER-But that's an independent thing.
hire someone. neces~arily.
You don't have to
j !:"
MR. BREWER-No. We don't ,hire anybody" The appl ¡can,t wilL hire
a n arc h e 0 log i s t t hat w i I I put his c red e n t i a Iso nth e 'I i n e ¡~ n d go
out to that site.
MR. MART I N'-We I I. ¡'f I cou I d suggest that it be a ,f i, rm t.,hat' s
mutually acceptable to this Board.
MR. BREWER-That's fine. mutual Iy acceptable.
. , .
MR. NICOLA-There's a couple of archaeologists t~it co~e off the
to'p of my head. Jeannette Col imer. and Karen Hardigan.
- 47 -
MR. BREWER-What about the archeologist that did Hudson Polnte?
MR. NICOLA-That's okay with me.
MR. BREWER-Ed Curtin?
MR. NICOLA-I have no Idea who that is.
MR. BREWER-That's not a problem with you?
MR. MACEWAN-He's very good and he knows the area.
MR. NICOLA-The only other thing that I would ask is that you.
MR. BREWER-He could do it in a timely manner.
MR. NICOLA-If he could do it in a timely manner.
would be cost effective.
think that
MR. BREWER-We understand that.
MR. NICOLA-I mean. I think that there's one thing that's going to
happen. and that's that I think if we go to SHPO. they're going
to find out that this is an Indian area.
MR. BREWER-Well. If that's the case. then Phase I will be real
easy for them. Right? It'll be real easy for them.
MR. NICOLA-The only thing that I can suggest and stress is that
if you could help us get on any quicker. it would really help.
MR. BREWER-Wel I. Jim's going on vacation.
,'m going on vacation.
MR. OBERMAYER-Wel I. we could do It that Thursday. the fourth of
July week.
MR. STARK-The guy's got three days to get it done?
MR. BREWER-Yes.
I mean. lets be realistic. here.
MR. MACEWAN-It's Just not going to be possible. Jim.
MR. BREWER-Lets Just settle with the 19th. and be happy about it.
MR. MARTIN-I think there's going to be a number of issues that
are going to come up. Just beyond archeological surveys. You're
asking for a map on the clearing. You've got an SPDES Permit
that has to be looked into.
MR. BREWER-I don't know how they can do it all in two or three
days.
MR. NICOLA-Well. a SPDES Permit. I think is. and again. I don't
want to speak for this Board. but typically a SPDES Permit is a
conditional permit.
MR. BREWER-I want to get this out of my mind for a couple of days
and let my head clear so I can think about it. That's what I
want to do. I don't want to be back here in a week.
MR. MARTIN-AI I right. I think what's always best to do is get a
list developed for him to go away with that you. and it's on the
record that way.
MR. NICOLA-That's great.
Phase I.
What I've heard is an archeological
MR. BREWER-I want you to somehow get together. or should we get
the Town involved with Nature Conservancy. as to. we can gather
some kind of a plan to protect that? What would be better. us or
- 48 -
-..-
the Town. or. I think it would be best if.the Town did< it. "
MR. MARTIN- can't speak to
prefer the Nature Conservancy.
habitats for
I:; ,
t~~ Butt<erfly.
I'd
MR. BREWER- guess it would be best.
I see Ms. Ba I Ishak i ng her ~ead yes.
get off vacation. you could cal I her.
think. if the Tow'n did it.
S~ maybe you can. wh~n you
, ,> "
¡ ',.~
MR. MARTIN-Tomorrow morning.
l,' !
MR. OBERMAYER-Is that something that the Town is going to have to
pay for'?
MR. MARTIN-No. Th,t's th~ thing. .want to make s~re of. here.
that this is not done at the Town's expense.
MR. BREWER-No.
MR. NICOLA-But beyond that. I think ,my problem with getting
Nature Conservancy involved is just what th<e lady saCd.if you
cut all the trees down in G!ens Falls. there's a lot iin the
Qu~ensb4ry area. ~
MR. BREWER-I guess what we're asking for is a sUQQested plan.
r-,¡ecessari I'll. we're not going to .do exactly what they say.
MR. MA R TIN - W e I I. I t h ink we
mean. that's tech"ical I'll
reasonable. here. .that meets
, '! ,
could get something reasonab(e. I
true. but we c,ould have..sol11¡ething
her r e qui rem en t s. but. yet i s not.
MR. NICOLA-Because it's the
is that it's a great idea
i, nv 0 I v e d. and d,o . a I I tho s e
happen. in all due respect.
year.
same tt:Ung post word)I;:)Ut the point
to get Stäi~ and Fed~~al agencies
th i Og5. but for wh,at W,e want~d to
it's just never goi~g to .~app~n this
"
MS. BALL-I said in the letter. you can look for the Butterfly in
mid-July. near the 19th.
MR. NICOLA-I mean. butterfl íes are ~.Iready IQoked for
July. but'~hat's okay.
in early
MR. MARTIN-Wel I . they have two broods.
,
MR. BREWER-I mE7an. í t' s a prob I em. It's a. Federa I I'll prQtected
Butterfly. and whether you I ike it or you don't Ii,ke Lt., that's
just the way it is. and there's people r. t hat are real s e r i 0 u s
about it.
,
M R'S . LAB 0 M BAR D- A I I rig h t .
some closure?
So where do we stand'?
Can Vie have
MR. ,BREWER-Yes. I 'd.1 ike to ,see i<f we can get Adirondack' Mo'úntain
Club's 'letter out. about 'being toò sensitive an,ar:ea fqr.a park.
We can do that. and also if there's restrictions on that land. a
map. you're ~9ing to do that. the overlay map for that.,
MRS. LABOMBARD-Yes.
That'~ a good i~,a.
MR, MARTIN~Do you want steps far remedLation in the areas that
were cut, that shou Id.n' t have been?
MR. BREWER-Yes.
MRS. LABOMBARD-Yes.
MR. N!COLA-;I don't think so. ancl I don't mean .to cut you ofJ,. but
I I)stened to what th~ I ad'll sa ¡d.
- 49 -
MR. BREWER-Wel I, we can put the two together. Maybe If she says
you leave part of it open, then that's what you do.
MRS. LABOMBARD-Right, whereas the restoration of the
doesn't necessari Iy make the habitat we're looking for.
right.
forest
You're
MR. NICOLA-I mean, I think one of her recommendations may be to
cut more trees down.
MR. BREWER-It mav be.
MR. MARTIN-I'd like to
immediately from the Town
si It fencing.
see the developer get permission
Board and go on the site and Instal I
MR. OBERMAYER-For erosion control.
MR. NICOLA-Are the Offices open in the morning, unless I can have
permission from someone here, and 1'1 I go do It tomorrow.
MR. MARTIN-I can't give you that permission.
MR. BREWER-The Town Board.
that.
We don't have a right to give you
MR. MARTIN-There
and that should
accordance with
contro I.
is serious erosion going on with every storm,
be dealt with immediately. It's done in
State guidel ines, State guidelines for erosion
MR. BREWER-Does anybody have anything else?
MR. RUEL-I've got a comment. It's another classic example, the
discussion heard this evening. Many of the comments Indicate to
me that there possibly are many areas In Queensbury that are
improperly zoned. Now, we have a master plan, and I think it
behooves the Town Board and Interested citizens to look at this
master plan and to review it periodically and make your comments
about these various areas, instead of waiting unti I an appl icant
has a bonafide appl ication for a properly zoned area and he wants
to bui Id something.
MR. MARTIN-I can't say enough to back up that comment. The Town
Planning Staff is going to being formal updates to the
Comprehensive Plan starting in August. Publ Ie meetings wi I I be
scheduled. I encourage everybody to come to those meetings,
because this Is what happens when people don't come and comment
prior to. We've seen a couple of cases already. The Round
Pond/Route 9 Corridor Is zoned Highway Commercial. Maybe that
should have never been zoned that way with those types of slopes
on that property.
MR. RUEL-Possibly a problem I ike we have this evening would not
be a problem.
MR. MARTIN-Right.
MR. BREWER-Is that It from everybody?
MR. MARTIN-Can we go through an enumerated list, so we make sure
we have it on the record?
MR. BREWER-I thought we just did.
MR. MARTIN-Has it been read into the record?
MR. BREWER-Yes, we've been sitting here going through al I the
things.
- 58 -
-
MR. RUEL-As,& motion. or?
,
, \.;
MR. BREWER-Not as a motion. no.
l'n1 not,saying a moti\JfI. b~t 1 j~st, want t9 make
I want to make sure that everybody's clear.
MR. MARTIN-No.
sure that it's.
MR. MACEWAN-;-Have you got them writte,n,down. ,Bob?
MR. PALING-Okay. First of al I. there's going to be
cover i ng what has been cut. and that' I I b~. assoc i ated
program to re-do the area that shouldn't have been cut.
a map.
w.ith a
,',
M~. MARTIN-Re-plant~ you mean.
; - I ~
MR. BREWER-No. that has to be done in conjunction with ~ature
Conservancy. because they may have a plan to take ~ore Oyt of
there.
',). _ r
MR. PA,L,ING-Item Number Two I've got. there may have t,o be.
something m~ght have't¿ be done to protect or isolate the lupine
on the property. but t~at ~i I I have tq be ~eported ,Qn. and Item
Number Three. that'the comment we had' earl ier about this is to
frq,g i I e to be a park w i,1 I b,e I ook,~d into w,i th the Ad i r,ondack
Mountain èlub.
MR. BREWER-There's a letter from the Adirondack
~ack. we don't know exactly the date.
Mountain Club.
" . '.
¡ .:", f
MR. MARTIN-Mr. Akins indicated he had a copy of that. fr~m the
Adirondack Mountain Club?
MR. AKINS-I know where there 'is a copy.
; ,/ : ~
MR. MARTIN-Would you get me, that.? Thank you.
! - ,','j
M,R. PAL I NG-Then there'll be a dete.rm i nq,t ion
r:esponsibility of the applicant a :)out'the
conditions of 'the site. at least Phase I.
, , ,
made¡;¡,t the
archeological
. "
MR. BREWER-And if we could possibly. do you want contact Ed
C ~ r tin ~ ¿ r :d 0 you wan t !!i t 0 con t act him?'
MR. NICOLA-Why don't ~ c~ntact him.
MR. MARTIN-:No.
I t h ink, i t sh 0 u I d be don e ' 0 n the i r, pa ':',t. ;'
) , .. '.
MR. BBEWER-Yes. <:V,ou go ahea.d,and,cont~ct ,him.
MR. _NICOLA-And,«ould 'I{,ougive me his nam<~?
,
MR. BREWER-Ed Curtin.
MR. NIÇpLA-And where is he at?
'1
MR. MARTIN-I have his address and all that.
MR. PALING-And the last
jump on the problem of
tomorrow morning. and
Th,a." :' s ~ I I 1 have.
point I have is that you'll immediately
possible:¡ erosion. workingyvi¡th the Town
getting protection out there for that.
MR. BREWER-Is that it from everything?
, ,
MR. MACEWAN-That's five things.
MR. BREWER-Okay.
:,' - -I
MR. NICÒLA-And we wi II be on the July 19th meeting?
- 51 -
MRS. LABOMBARD-Yes.
MR. BREWER-AI I we need now is a motion to table.
MR. MARTIN-I've got eiaht enumerated. I've got research records
relating to Native Textiles site. that's ~ responsibl I Ity here
in the Planning Office. Two. Adirondack Mountain Club letter.
get a copy of that. a plan for site remediation of the clear cut
areas. coordinated with the Nature Conservancy plan. map of the
clearing. overlayed over the map showing the limit of clearing.
coordinated with Nature Conservancy for a plan. That's five.
Six. Isolate and protect the lupine areas. Seven. Phase I
archeological survey. and Eight. erosion control measures be
Instal led immediately.
MR. BREWER-Okay. Now we need a motion to table.
consent to table.
We need your
MR. NICOLA-Okay.
MR. BREWER-Okay. Do we have a motion.
MOTION TO TABLE SITE PLAN NO. 22-94 COLUMBIA DEVELOPMENT GROUP.
Introduced by George Stark who moved for Its adoption. seconded
by Robert Paling:
Untl I the first July meeting. July 19th.
Duly adopted this 28th day of June. 1994. by the fol lowing vote:
AYES: Mr. Obermayer. Mrs. LaBombard. Mr. MacEwan. Mr. Ruel.
Mr. Pal ing. Mr. Stark. Mr. Brewer
NOES: NONE
MR. MARTIN-Tim. you might note for the public that since this
publ ic hearing was left open. this wi I I not be re-noticed and
wi I I not be re-advertlsed.
MR. BREWER-But It wi I I be open to the publ ic the 19th of July.
MR. MARTIN-July 19th.
SUBDIVISION NO. 4-83 FINAL STAGE MODIFICATION TYPE: ROBERT E.
MACDONALD SOUTHERN EXPOSURE SUBDIVISION OWNER: SAME AS ABOVE
ZONE: SR-1A LOCATION: CORINTH RD. MODIFICATION OF AN EXISTING
APPROVED SUBDIVISION TO PROVIDE ACCESS TO THE HUDSON POINTE
P.U.D. LOSS OF 6 LOTS FROM THE ORIGINAL MAP. TAX MAP NO. 158 -
1-9 THROUGH 16 (ORIGINAL TAX MAP NO. 158-1-6.1) LOT SIZE: +/-
18 ACRES SECTION: SUBDIVISION REGULATIONS
MICHAEL O'CONNOR. REPRESENTING APPLICANT. PRESENT
MR. BREWER-I'm going to excuse myself.
STAFF INPUT
Notes from Staff. Subdivision No. 4-83 Southern Exposure. Robert
MacDonald. Meeting Date: June 28. 1994 "The appl icant is
proposing to modify an approved subdivision to accommodate the
entrance boulevard to a proposed PUD. The modification involves
taking 16 lots and reducing the number to 1Ø lots. The smal lest
lot in the original design was approximately 18.ØØØ square feet:
in the revised plan the smal lest lot is 2Ø.ØØØ square feet. The
revised engineering plans are to be reviewed with the Hudson
Pointe PUD. The revised plan would al low for direct access to
Southern Exposure from Corinth Road where with the original plan
the only access was from Sherman Island Road. The revision wi I I
also al low for a second point of access for the residences along
and off of Sherman Island Road and eliminate direct access to six
- 52 -
lots on Corinth Road."
I"
MR. MACEWAN-B i I I ~ do ,you want to go ahe~d?
MR. MACNAMARA-Thesewer~ submitted today to Jim Martin. I ~I I be
brief. "As part of 't~~proposed Hudson Pointe 'P.,U.D. sEaBA EIS
Tin din g s. a mod .i. f i c a t,i 0 n 0 f the a b 0 v e sub d i vis ¡or was« r, e qui red.
The i nformat i.on sl,lbm it ted, by the app I i c~nt was" rev i ~wed in
conjunction,with,the informatiÇ>n submitted, for the Hudson Pointe
P . U . D. . s i t'1 c e the, two pro j ec t s are , . ,<;I. ire, c t I Y rei ate d and
connec"ted. 'Our eng in'eer i ngcomments for the So~thern EXJ:~osure
Subd j vis i on Mod i'¡' icat i on at;',~ as fo I lows (some may be rep~~ted in
the P.U.D. reviewf:· Because. again. they're looke~ at wlt~ some
of the same information. The cul-de-sac at the ~acDona'd cul-
de-sac should have a 50 foot minimum pavement radius. and drain
all water to the outside. that's per ~he Subdivision Reg's. and
again. there's a bunch of different reg's here that were used.
SEQRA findings. subdivision. There's a left turn onto MacDonald
Drive onto the south side boulevard. It looks, I ike it would be
difficult. based on the angle and the position of the boulevard
divider. and at closer inspection. it looks like the angle may
not meet the requirement that w~s in the Huds6n Pointe EIS
fir¡çl.in.g~. lot'~ n,o,t ,c,lear.wQere:.tl1e. \i;xi,sting w,a~er m~)n's,.going
" . '1~' ~ ...+.., ". J , . > . . . ,.' . ~ _.;;1 . .,' I, .. J ... " . ' ,. ..' '.
to be ßisl?onnected. under MacDona:lçI Drive,. how it's going. to be
secured. 6nce it's disconnected. Are those ~wo ~hing~ going to
happen at the same time. the disconnection and the subsequent re-
connection? Who wi II perform the, wate.r mai,n qisconn~ction. and a
note to that is that we understand the' To'wn Water Department's
reviewing the project. Gr~di,og for t~o of the lots. noted A and
B . s h 0 u I din d i cat e t hat t ti est r e e t d r a i nag e w 0' n ' ten t e r the lot s .
They're low lots. Throughout this subdlyi~ionportion of their
project. as we I I as the Hudson Points proje¿t.,Urban Erosion and
¡". , ,','
Sediment control measures should be fol lowed according to the New
York State Guidelines. I had a question about whether street
:p
trees should be indicated or not. That's part of the Subdivision
Reg's. As, ment iO,ned ear I i er,. the Wa,t,er Departme..nt' s revi ew i ng
it. . A Iso. the Tow n H i g h way De par t men t.' and the DOH was note d as
. : ", . "" . ,'" >. .
a I so hav i ng some kind of an approva I., and ~ecauseo,ur, rSubd iv is i on
check list says that a I I other approvals must be granted before we
can recommend ,final, ,approval. tho~e,approvals ne~d to be granted
prior to final appr~val. Another note in the ~ubdivision Reg's
is that monuments at angles and corner points ,sh9ulçl be,provided.
and lastly. there was a question as to wheth~r or n6t the
SQ;ut,hern <E~pos<ure lots", ,ar.:~1 i np I ud.ed _1-'1 t~,e, Hl,Idso~: ,Po i nte
HQ~eown,~cs ~ssP9,i at ,i,~,q., q~Q,a,llse ,t,h,ere', s, .,~p,~,qes,. t h~t¡ }¡po,k."r,to be
par...t ;.,ot . the H0}11e,oVII,n~rs As~,c~ci ~,t ion ,¡,I ~ ,.tQ,e: SO,4t~i~rn ,S,x~osure
,}Jl,odifi.ca:i:i()¡I'J.< t~~t was, jUs~.> a .q4es!~ iol). ~s t.o¡whetJler ,or not
,the,y'r,e incl,uded ,or .'!9,1;.. T.ho:9.¡Ei <r-Fl~, ou~,.o}nl,.y coml1)ents. ,"
MR. MACEWAN-Okay.
Tom?
~ ~ ~.
"
'.i' ~'l:
; ,d
TOM NACE
MR. NACE-Okay. For the record. my name i.s Tom, Nace. with Haanen
Engineering. representing Hudson Pointe. Let me .start 6ff, I
guess. with engineering comments. There are a coupla o~cqmments
here where. in fact. the Subdivision Reg's. ás à matter of
cour,se. sort of <di,sagrE?e with what P~u<I¡ßaylqr wi 1.1 approve. on
the street trees. and the ,en~rance ra,d,ius¡,ç¡n the. two cµI,;-de-sacs.
and ~þatwe havE? in essence ~hown is a standard that we ~~ow that
Pa,ul ,Naylqr wi 1,1 approve whèn it'.comes :ti.me for h,fm" "to. siç¡n' off.
Th.¡e .street tree.s wi,thin tt)e' n.ermal right-oflway. a~,d this
,perta,ins both to fV!acDona,ld and for, Huqson Po.inte.when we ~et to
that. are generally not permitted by tl)e Highway Department.
They want to see the right-of-way. the 50 foot rJght-of-way.
cleared o.f. all trees. and. in es.sence. a large pa,rt of that i.s
n ~ c E? ? s a r y fo r the u t il i t Y i n st a I la ti 0 n ~.. ' As. ~ i I I poi n t e¡ q 9. u t. we
do have an issue¡ here with the angle of< this intersection and the
Ibcation Òf this.' We¡ìve been'çloing sOI~emor~detail drayJings for
thi.s particular intersection. this one and thjsone. when,we get
- 53 -
into Hudson Polnte, and In fact we are pul I ing that bul I nose on
the boulevard back a I ittle ways. The angle here, we wi I I
correct, It's about four or five degrees off of what It shou I d
be, and we wi I I fit that in so that it's a I ittle more at a right
angle. That's something that could be cleared up with very minor
adjustments within the right-of-way, and maybe a foot or two
within the property I ines. The water lines, In all fairness to
Bill, I doubt that he received the letter that was Issued with
the submittal package, but in essence what you're looking at with
the MacDonald Subdivision is the configuration of lots that wi I I
be in here, as opposed to the initial configuration. The
infrastructure for this, al I of this, MacDonald Subdivision and
Hudson Pointe, is addressed in one package and that's the Hudson
Pointe submission. The construction wi I I al I take place at one
time, with the construction of the Hudson Pointe, first phase of
Hudson Polnte. So the water I ine that's Indicated to be removed
here, on the old subdivision plans, this water I ine wi I I be cut
off, back to the I imit of road construction, and carried out
Immediately, brought back in with the water line as shown on the
Hudson Pointe plans, where it connects. So that's al I covered in
the plans that you' I I be reviewing for Hudson Pointe. The others
that Bi II has noted here are some fairly minor detal Is, i.e.
monumentatlon that, again, wi I I be submitted with Hudson, the
final for Hudson Polnte, for center line monumentation of road,
and I guess the last issue there is that the Southern Exposure
lots are not included in the Hudson Pointe Homeowners
Association. There ~ Hudson Pointe Homeowners green space up in
here, to create buffers along the boulevard, but these lots are
not participants in the Homeowners Association.
MR. MACEWAN-Why not?
MR. O'CONNOR-I'm Michael O'Connor for your record. We've always
treated the Southern Exposure Subdivision as being a stand alone
type subdivision, from Hudson Pointe, except for the entrance and
the boulevard that we would create through it, and that's why
they've been left outside the Homeowners Association. The
modification that you're looking at is that we've taken an area
of 16 lots of the Southern Exposure Subdivision and re-created
ten lots in that area with roadway. Basically the rest of the
Subdivision stands as it was.
MR. MACEWAN-I don't recal I conversation about that, but what
would be the reason why you wouldn't want to include that as part
of the Hudson Pointe project, as far as the Homeowners
Association goes?
MR. O'CONNOR-By choice of the party that wi I I own those ten lots.
That ~ part of the MacDonald Subdivision. It's owned by the
MacDona Ids. It wi I I be not owned by the deve I oper.
MR. MACEWAN-Okay. Anything else?
MR. O'CONNOR-No. I think Tom and BI I I can work out the detai Is
without any problem.
MR. MACNAMARA-Right. These comments, as wel I as the Hudson
Pointe comments, are very mechanical in nature. They're not show
stoppers by any stretch of the Imagination. They're a typical
subdivision review, and this happens to be a fairly decent sized
one, with some extra appurtenances, baggage if you wi I I, being
that you have to do the SEQRA findings, and you have to make sure
that it appl ies to that as wel I.
MR. O'CONNOR-One other thing we ought to layout on the table is
that we are asking for your approval of the modification, but we
would like, at the same time that you approve it, an
understanding that it wi I I not be uti I ized if the Hudson Pointe
project behind it is not approved. So probably, I think, as a
modification, we're supposed to fi Ie this at the County Clerk's
- 54 -
-..
Offioe within 60 days of the signature of <the final map by the
Chairman. We.woulq ask that, we antioipatlp probably four to six
,months ,on getting the final approval forJ¡ludson Pointe. So we
would ask for .an e~tension q~ a waiver. which yqu are authorized
to .do. to allow uS,up to twc;> m~Dths ti,me"approva! of the Hudson
Poi n t e. for f i ! i n g . ( I 0 s t Vf 0 r d) set a t i m, e I i n e. s J< x m 0 nth s . i f
the,y're not done then., then:t;hey ca.11 comeback and get that
extended. but; I don't want to'getthe approval this evening. like
hopefully we'l I be able to get.,'ånc;l then have it expire I?Jð, days
from"now. or 6Ødays from wh'en the map is f'i led. because these
are car ta n d , ho r s e. a';' don e . go e $ with' the 0 the r . <
MRS. ~ABÖMBÀRÖ-I have a question. regards. maybe Tom oan answer
it. to. you said that t,h,is MacDon91dSubdiVisiot;l ,wqul,d be
de vel, 0 p e d a 1,0 n g wit h t ~ e H u d ~ 0 n ,P 0 ~ n t e 7 ,D 0 e s < t hat mea n , the y , r e
going, to use the ,same general contrqctors,? If they'r~.not part
of H~ds9n Poi~te. are they go)ng to be in b~mpetitioriwith Hudson
Pointe7' In otherwords.v~ouÎd people rather buy those lots
first. before,they ~p into Hudson 'Pointe lo'ts,. or wh.at7. .
MR. NACE-Okay. Lets differentiate.. The infrastructure of ,roads.
.' .- L' "-." .. - , ; :', .. , .., .." " . . '. ., \
water I ine.any construction 1:hat'sta,king place on the rig,~t-of-
way that wi I I be ded i cated to the Town w II I . be work d'one by
",.. J.. .. ._. .. '.." ", . . .. _. J. .., II:'
< H u d s 0 1,"1, po j n t e. 9, k ¡¡ Y , ' The, , Ii 0 t 5 the m s e Lv E;! s. t. hi e ',. d, e vet 0 p men t. the
b,ui Iding of houses. ,etc.. on those lots. are totally sy,parate
fro~ HUdson Pointe. The lots wi I Isti I I be own¿d by Mac~qnald.
They'll 'be develop~d þy MacOon'ald. .and tha.t is separate 'and part
frqm HudsQn Point'e. ' ',;
MRS. LABOMBARD-I understand. Thanks.
< .
MR. MACEWAN-Does anybody else have any questions7
MR. STARK-We went over t~is pretty thorou~hly at our little
meeting over there. I think.
MR. MACEWAN-A whi Ie back,.
MR. STARK-Yes. that was a wt)i.le back. Now. do we hav:ea right to
grant that extension7
MR. MACEWAN-Yes. we have
extension. We do it with a
front of us..
that right. We can grant him an
lot of other appl ica,nts that come in
\ ,,',
MR. STARK-No. I meant. Mr. O'Connor asked
with fi I ing with the County.
I
about an extension
. . '
MR. O'CONNOR-Probably a good yxample. I think I've seen you <do it
for people, t.hat had to go to the,APA a~tE7r 'they ,camy h:ére. and
that's an elongated process. You al lowed them an extension of
time.
j!
MR. MACEWAN-Yes. Okay. I'll open up the p¡~bl iq,hearin<g,. A
reminder for the public. anyone who wishes to speq~on this.
there are two app I i cat ions in front of us to'n i ght. ' Th i s one
particularly is jus,t dealing with t,he Southern Ex,posure
ap p I i cat ion. and af t e r t ti i son e w i I I be f 0 I I q wed by the H u d son
Po~nte. So if~ou wish to speak on ~9th of the~. we're
separating \t here so that we're ~eal inq 'withtwo,~ifferent
appl i,qations. I would just ~sk you,tha,t you menti.on your name
w~en you come up to speak. and 1'1 I ent~rta in anyone who wants to
come up and speak.
PUBLIC HEARING OPENED
NO COMMENT
PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED
- 55 -
MR. MACEWAN-Engineering concerns have been met to your approval?
MR. MACNAMARA-They've been met. or they're in the process of
being met.
MR. MACEWAN-Does somebody want to make a motion?
MOTION TO APPROVE FINAL STAGE MODIFICATION SUBDIVISION NO. 4-83
ROBERT E. MACDONALD. Introduced by Roger Ruel who moved for its
adoption. seconded by George Stark:
For Southern Exposure subdivision, for modification of an
existing approved subdivision, to provide access to the Hudson
Pointe P.U.D. with a six month extension for fl ling.
Duly adopted this 28th day of June, 1994, by the fol lowing vote:
MR. MACEWAN-He wants a contingency on that.
MR. OBERMAYER-How much time do you think you guys wi I I need to?
MR. O'CONNOR-Why don't we go six months from this evening. and
1'1 I keep track. I hope that that wi I I be more than ample.
MR. MACEWAN-Six months.
AYES: Mr. Stark. Mr. Obermayer, Mr. Ruel. Mr. Pal ing, Mr.
MacEwan
NOES: NONE
ABSTAINED: Mrs. LaBombard
ABSENT: Mr. Brewer
MR. O'CONNOR-Mr. MacEwan. we note for the record that the SEQRA
was done as part of the Hudson Pointe project.
MR. MACEWAN- think it was noted back at Prel iminary, it was
noted.
SITE PLAN NO. 25-94 TYPE I HUDSON POINTE, INC. OWNER: NIAGARA
MOHAWK POWER CORP. ZONE: PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT LOCATION:
SHERMAN ISLAND ROAD. EAST OF CORINTH ROAD PROPOSAL IS FOR A
PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT WITH 96 RESIDENTIAL LOTS AND 2
COMMERCIAL AREAS. BEAUTIFICATION COMM.: 6/6/94 WARREN COUNTY
PLANNING: 6/8/94 TAX MAP NO. 148-1-2.1 LOT SIZE: SECTION:
179-58
MICHAEL O'CONNOR, REPRESENTING APPLICANT
STAFF INPUT
Notes f rom Staff, Site P I an No. 25-94, Hudson Po i nte, I nc. .
Meeting Date: June 28. 1994 "PROJECT ANALYSIS: Staff has the
fol lowing comments regarding this project: 1. The number of
res i dent i a I lots is to be 96 and broken down into 1 three acre
lot, no more than 16 one acre lots. no more than 32 one half acre
lots and no more than 6Ø one third acre lots. The site plan
shows 34 one half acre lots. exceeding the maximum number al lowed
by two. 2. Site compatlbl I ity and the character Is determined
by the design of the buildings and placement of the structures on
the lots. In order to get an Idea of what the character of the
PUD wi I I be, the appl icant should provide some designs. Signage
includes an entry sign on Corinth Road and internal street signs.
Lighting includes boulevard I ights. internal street I ights and
individual lot lights. 3. Access to the project wi I I be via a
boulevard from Corinth Road that connects with an internal loop
road and several cui de sacs. 4. Each lot wi I I have Its own off
street parking. 5. No indication of trai Is is shown on the
plans. pedestrian access to the green space appears to be
- 56 -
'-"
adequate. 6. Stormwater drainage,will be review,ed by Rist-
Frost. 7. Sewage disposal will be reviewed by Rist-Frost. The
proje,ct wi II be serViced by municipal water. 8. Bouleva.rd and
cui de sac landscaping is provided. No internal street trees are
shown. 9. Fire hydrants are shown and emergency access appears
to be adequate~ 10. Update the status of the conservation area
and the archeoI6g¡~~1 s¡i~s. 11. A'150 foot buffer betwe~n the
ba,.91k¡ o,f the .I.ots ;~nd the toP 9f the }?,Iuff"i s,r,equ i reç;l,~; IEþ,i s is
not shown on anv maps. 12. The stat;u,~ :p1¡ ...9t hera,p,p-I,icab Ie
approvals. such as Dept. of Healtp. 13. R~f~rence to ~ rSA map
which does not appear to be included in the site plan
app I i cat ion. "
MR. MACEWAN~Okay.
I
B i I I.
,s-':
MR.MACNAMARA-:-Okay. Again. this is basicall.y ,a fql.l:ow"up 1:,0 what
we started in the Southern Exposure review. Essentially. we used
a hierarchy of review mater i a I. F i r$t we, us~d ,t;he,SEQRA
findings. which was developed after much work. apparently. over
the last numþer of years. and along side that was the proposed
PUD Developme~t Agreement that the T~wn Board put together. as
we I I as the Town's Subdivision Regulations. an4 ag~iO. many of
these note~ are very mechanical"and very'specific,but again.
this 1s a site' plan review. and' it just 'happens to be a large
one. The first one. basically. Scott mentior¡ed is t,he de,~d for
the open space area and conservat ion hasn't been offered 'as part
of the Site ,Plan Review. That'<s per ,t,he SEQRA findings. ,o.ne of
the site plans happens to be. I bel ieve. a three acre lo<t, on the
site plan itself shows an incorrect setback. which is spelled out
i n t he S E Q R A fin din g s . A g a in. that' s on I y one of ,t he 96 10,1:,s. A
couple of drawings were without north arrows. which is part of
the Subdivision Reg's. Construction detai,ls. a couple of grade
I ines may have been mislabeled. and we'd specific which one it
was. There was a quest i on about hav i ng , an add i t i ona I , drywe I I
around the Road E cui de sac and I mentioned that. Tom. because
if y,ou look at the pr:of i I e you, can se,a that i t som~what tends to
slope back. and ir I; I ived there, I'm, not sure I'e;:! w?n.t to have
the water sloping toward me without a drywel I anyhow. There's
a I so a note about the drywe I I cover. I~, I,Ooked like i you ça II ed
for six inches over al I of them. and we're used to see~~g more
th,an $i.~, inches ,of,c.qver, on j:o,p q-F a dry~~11 cov.~r,but you can
; ( 19jst'~'(ÒJ,d) a,bo u,t' t Ii 'a t if' Y ou, ~ß I i k~ The r:- e>'.~ ~¡qu;aí.; iz a¡t: i 9!l "I i n e s
"p'ropos~çI tor '3, lot_. 9,f ,the ,,drywells.. U~les$ .,1 w.,~ r~f1.,~~¡pg the
)~,et~i,'; wron:,~,., !.tdoe~p't lo'f.~ .!,ik~"X5)~'v¡e, ~o,t the, j,nver:j1,$ sp\elled
',<:1,ut~\:¡~,~;f8Ih ¡,,'f0~Ic.t be ~jce to. hav,e~ont:~e siJe.,.,plan"bt¡»,p,mebody
were to, ~~q,di.g, ;them up., T~e c,atc{~, b~slin 9f7Sl;tes for",t,hr.¡",<;irjYlwells
that were specified aren't safe for bicycle traffic ~because of
the grading pattern. at least that's what the vendo~s manual
specifies. and you may want to look to a different type of, catch
basin grate. and the stormwater design. you used h~lf of the
are a s 0 f the roo f s for des i g n, and I was juS t c. ~ r iou, s, ,w h y you
didn't use the entire area for the roofs for the runoff. and this
maYor may not apply here. þut the SEQRA find¡,~gs document
i n d i cat est hat t h,e 0 E G ,m a y. <,.n; e e d t 9, i s sue a p pro val 0 f a S tor mw ate r
_'.' . .., ,',- . ..~. _' .' .'.J. , ' " .' , '. , ,
Man age men t P I an. and I'm cur ¡ 0 u S, to k now j f t hat, w Çi S ¡ so me how
waived or nO,t. or if. you're ,going to h.ave to submit that to them.
There's some drain~~B sontours alon~ Ro~d E that may have been
reversed... There,' s a <numbe,r of cçHnmen,ts here tç¡warçj, thE! w.~ter and
hydrÇl.nt,issu~s. ~hich we'll, let the Town's review handlE! a.s well.
Landscaping plan. th'ere's a thr~e ,fo,ot .berm. apparently, going to
be put onto the Sherman Island Road to. essentfal Iy.make ita
'. . . ~ . \. . , .'. .. , .
dead end. I didn't see. any ~ndications as to whether any
planti,:\gs. trees. \Çindsç;aping wi II be done 9<n that be¡rm. Again.
j f I owned t h< e p r 9 per t y rig h t next t ot hat t ~ r e e foot b e,rm . I' d
I ik.e sooje cover oyer ,it myself. Aga<i,n" I me~t,io~.ed stree.t ,trees
e a. r lie r. and a p p a' r e ri t I Y s t r e e t t r e e s per the s u b'C i v j s ion a. r en' t
generally accepted i,n the Town. here. which i,sa note toward the
Subd~vision Reg's, b~t anyway. in areas with deep sand and loamy
sand, which is Rrominent on the.site. typically six i.nc;hes~of top
soi I is recom,mended for lawn cover. I bel i,eve he talkE!d,about
- 57 -
four. Again. that just goes to the long term durabi I ity of the
grass cover work you're going to have to do to maintain it.
Grading and erosion control. that's a standard comment about
showing some si It fence and straw bale dikes. Another comment
about disturbed areas not being disturbed without some kind of
temporary or permanent cover. There's one area on the site where
there are slopes that are approaching three horizontal to one
vertical. Those ought to be stabi I ized within two days of
disturbance. The pavement radius for the cul-de-sacs is brought
up again. which. apparently. there's another standards the Town
looks at for that. One section of the site looks to be possibly
applicable for some guardrai Is and. Tom. you can look at that
yourself. I threw the subdivision reg out there. but they talk
about a drop over a length. and there looked to be a pretty good
drop right there. Minimum lot grades of one percent per the
Subdivision Reg's for the lot grades themselves. and it looked
I ike there was a few spots where the grading may not al Iowa one
percent grade on lots. driveway drainage again. Okay. The
sewage disposal system. note about a building sewer to the septic
tank. On the detai I they show a detai I for it. They just don't
specify the size. four inches is what the Subdivision Reg is. In
fact. I think it's a DOH Reg. They make a note about garbage
grinders. and how to size. additionally. for a garbage disposal.
and they ta I k about it be i ng a one bedroom add it ion. The DOH
Guidelines talks about It being an additional 250 gal Ions per
day. and that goes to the trench length sizing. They ought to
use the DOH's standard for that. They should instal I the septic
systems under al I the driveways. or just put a note there. The
next three comments are based on a raised fi I I system. which at
this point. It's not exactly known how many lots. if any. are
going to have a raised fi I I system. but there was a note on there
that talked about. There's also notes that show possible
modified fi I I systems. which essentially means you take out the
earth and start over with some new dirt. to make up the perc
rates. The sizing chart that's shown should indicate that the
perc rate used for modified fi I I systems is the perc rate for the
fl I I that is brought in. That really wasn't clear on that chart.
There's a note about dosing. possibly. if you use a modified fi I I
system. you should add that. and lastly. there's been two waivers
that have been requested from the DOH. as we understand it. One
has to do with a subdivision greater than 49 lots. The DOH has
some kind of a standard that says it's supposed to have a common
wastewater collection system. They're looking for a variance
from that. and the second one is a variance from the one minute
per inch per rate. which the DOH uses as their cut off rate for
conventional systems. and the comment I really have toward that
is that If In fact that does not get granted then there needs to
be some way of figuring out. of the 96 lots that are proposed.
how many of them have a one minute per rate or less. so that that
can be known ahead of time. when somebody gets into buying one of
those lots. So they'll know what they have to do. or if not. it
needs to be spel led out that it's the responslbi I ity of the next
lot. and lastly. we understand that DOH Is reviewing the water
a nd sewage d i sposa I systems a I so. and aga in. I ment loned the
Water Department Is handl ing some of the water issues. as wel I as
the smal I notes we've brought uP. and the Highway Department's
looking at it as wel I. Those are our only notes. Thank you.
MR. MACEWAN-We I I. Tom. you've got your work cut out for you.
Start with Staff Notes first.
MR. O'CONNOR-I'd make two comments first. at the beginning. The
first comments by Staff says that we exceed the number of half
acre lots by two. If you look at way the Regulations are
written. the intent there was to step uP. and what we did is step
up. We had less one third acre lots. and we created a couple of
extra one half acre lots. I think that's the intent.
MR. HARL I CKER-Yes. I don't have a
thought they should be aware of it.
problem with that.
That's a I I.
I just
- 58 -
..----
MR. O'CONNOR-Okay. We wi II sUbm,it"some design. and we wi II
submit an idea of the signage that's proposed., I don't, think
t hat's fin a I i zed yet. but be t wee n Pre I i m i n a r y and Fin a, I.. we w i I I
submii that for ~þe Stafi~ to cQmm~nt on; as to the character.
,The o~IY other commen1 ,I would make on Staff Comments is ~~wn at
five. With ,th~ p~ckage that we, have, slJbmitted. we ha,ye also
subm i t,ted a proposed offer i ng p I an" for, the HO,l11eowners
Assoc,iªtion. which wi II allowpeople aqcess tO,the common areas.
We' dó~'t have final iZ,ed plans. in the ,sense of ,itemized
I construction for access to those ar~ai. It ,wo~ld be something
that we thi.nk that people wi II develop maybe later,on.¡ íf they
actually formal ize i:h.e areas of access to the, areas. They are
set up so that people wi Ilbul Id in a walking path.
MR. M~CEWAN-I recollect. on,that particular
meeting that Alan was invol0ed in. myself. and
, ' ¡ t- ,'¡, -, >
Town Board. with th,e Open Space ,Institute. that a
tOþ,e put into effect fO,r a pass i ve recrea,t i ona (
moderate trails in there. something a!on,g those
talked aþout?
item. that ,in a
members of the
plan was ,going
area. w i,t h some
I i n e s ',t ha t was
MR.
that
'i '.
O'CONNOR-If t~at's ~he area of the conservation easement.
is being worked on by Open Space. wi,th the Town Boar~.,
MR. MACEWAN-I thin~ that's what he's referring to. ': I,sn't that
what y?U' re referr i ng 'to' in that?
¡ t, I
MR. HARLICKER-ActuaIIV. .I wastalking ,aþout. even
Association thing~. tòo. They show'the space~. but
i f the y , r e p r o.P 0,5 i n 9 any so r t 0 fin t ern a I, t r a i, I
¡ , " . , I. ~ '" > . -
wa Ik ing paths ,or, <anyth i ng ,I i ke that.
Homeowners
<I don~,t know
network or
,.MR. O'CONNOR-None are
construction.
proposed
in
the forma!
sens,e of
.,. ¡
MR. HARLICKER-Okay.
~ ..J
MR. O'C9NNo'R-~sto ~he Open Space. the Tow'n. I think. is working
on that. That's the Qnly other comments I have.
'J' .',' . i", -. - ,
,
TOM NACE
.\ .
MR. NACE-Okay., As Bill pointed
. '
comn~ents are nitty gr iJty deta il
bei:weenus. '
out. a lot 0 f the , e ng i I) e e r i n 9
styff that he and I,can wqrk out
MR. 'MACEWAN-There's
Bill.,s,qomments. on
12. " and 13. update
ar¿~eifogiCal sit~s.
,some
PÇige
the
" ....
quest ions. thQugh. bef,ore YOl,l go on to
Two of Scott~s comments. Items 10. 11.
status of the cOt;1<servat i on ,area and the
,¡ . , .
M.R. O'CONNOf1:-,As I , understand it. there has been meetings þetween
,the Town.B~a~d and Open Space Institute representatIves. a~d they
a.c,~¡ wqr,k ing on. a management p I a~ and a deve I opment pLan f,or the
conservation area. The arch~ological sites that arewit~in that
conservation area have been surveyed. and they wi I I be shown on a
'I, . ". , ," ' , ,,' '. ...., ,
tJ1~p. as ,indicated by the findings here. prior to. I th,i:nk.,~ctual
construction or final approval. and they wi I I be noted in the
deed to the Town of that area.
t¡ ,
MR. MACEWAN-And I think
befor,e bu ¡I d i ngperm it was
was goi ng ,to t¡e f i na I i zed?
it was agreed. something to do with
issued. Isn't tbat correct. the plan
!, 'i
Mf1. O'CONNO~-:-We've looked at what therequjr,ement i<s.: We have no
problemwqh following through with that.
MR. MACEWAN-What about the 150 buffer1
MR.
Ö'¿ON~ÖR-Ithink that's a
"
mechanical
1:ype thing.
The lots
" ,
- 59 -
are designed so that they are better than 15Ø feet back. We just
don't have the dimensional showing on the top.
MR. HARLICKER-Yes. They keep referring to a TSA map that wasn't
included with the Site Plan appl ication. for the open space and
separation from the bluffs and stuff.
MR. O'CONNOR-Okay. When we did the final resolution by the Town
Board. a map that was dated December. I ast updated in February.
was the guide. We can refer to that. The status of other
app I i cab Ie approva Is. such as Department of Hea I th. I' I I I et Tom
answer that.
MR. NACE-Okay. I'd point out that that 15Ø foot buffer can be
shown on the map that wi I I be a part of the deed for that
conservation area. In essence. al I of the lots shown on the
subdivision map are outside of that 15Ø buffer. the 15Ø (lost
word) conservat ion area. Okay. As I started to say. the
engineering comments. a lot of them are things that Bi I I and I
wi I I work out between us. A lot of them are things that wi I I or
already have taken care of. in review of the plans. Let me hit
on a couple of them which the Board may have some interest in.
The catch basin grates. he noted. are not bicycle safe. Those
are grates that are mandated by the Town's Highway Department.
and we are presently working with the Town to try to get that
modified. so that the grates fit the Town swale a I ittle better.
and we're trying to get. they're casted locally. We're trying to
get that casting revised. and when we do. we' I I see if we can't
get it in a bicycle safe configuration. The roof area used in
the stormwater runoff design. we. in essence. used. in our
calculations. the front half of the roofs. thinking that in most
of the lots. that wi II drain toward the road. and it's the
drainage in the road that we're addressing in the runoff
calculations. With the sandy sol Is up there. anything that goes
off the back sides of the roofs ends up i nf i I trat i ng I nto the
ground very quickly. In fact. even a lot of the front of the
roof is going to end up fi Itering into the ground. So. we feel
we've been fairly conservation. There is a DEC stormwater permit
required as part of the new regulations that it compl ies with an
EPA mandate. and it's just a formal ity. When we're al I done
working out the detai Is. I take a copy of the stormwater plan.
and I submit It to DEC. and it ends up In a warehouse somewhere
in Virginia. We're working. we've gotten comments from the Water
Department regarding hydrant spacing. some of the other issues on
water. and we wi I I take care of al I of those. We wi I I add some
landscaping to the three foot berm at the end of Sherman Island
Road.
MR. MACEWAN-Whi Ie we're on that
Sherman Island Road is abandoned
done with that road?
topic. what wi I I happen when
there? What's intended to be
MR. NACE-If you look at our phasing plan. we are proposing to cut
the road off. put the cul-de-sac in. well. let me address that
with the plan in front of us. With the very first phase of
construction. which includes the entrance boulevard to the end of
the boulevard. this little cul-de-sac here. the MacDonald
reconfiguratlon. and down the loop road and this cul-de-sac here.
With that very first phase. as soon as the entrance boulevard is
cut in. we're going to construct the cul-de-sac here. at the end
of Sherman Island. and block this off. okay. We're going to
leave the rest of this intact. temporari Iy. as use for a
temporary loop when we go to Phase I I. Phase I I would be
construction of this portion of the loop road. this cUl-de-sac.
and the loop road over to here wi I I make a temporary right angle
intersection configuration here. and bring traffic back up
Sherman Island Road. and back out to loop this for traffic safety
issues. fire safety issues. So during the phasing portion of
this. we're going to leave the center portion of Sherman Island
Road intact. and then once the loop road Is completed. in our
last phase. then the entire road wi I I be abandoned.
- 68 -
''--~ --
MR. MACEWAN-Is t,here any plans to fi I I and, sod the road7
ALAN OPPENHEIM
MR. OPPENHEIM- think
system. it's going to
purposes of a bicycle
There's not an intent to
the intent with that ,portion of road
be b I'ocked off. and we' I I have it for
path or something along those lines.
bui Id (lost wot'd).
MR. NÁCE-Cont i nu i ng. the on (yother issues are the Department of
Health., We've been i,n contact wi1:,h the.m~ in fact. tqday. The
variance on the 49 lots wi II be issued. We don't have a
permanent tim~ table on it yet. There's no question that that
wi,11 ~.e issued. The one minute perc rate is sti II in discussion.
That))1ÇlY or may "'at be issued.
MR. MAPEWAN-Okay.
1st hat it 7,
MR. t\iACE-Th.at's all. _
MR. MACEW~~-Doe~ 'anybody on the Bo~rd have any questJons?
:¡
, ,
MR. R.UEL-I would ,like
qÇlmpletely removed.
'M'R. MAC,EWAN-So noted. Okay. 1'1,1 op,en up the pUbl ie h,e,aring.
and as I asked before. if anyone wishes to speak. now's t;he time
to, do it. P I,ease give, us your name when' you come u'p' ':to the
"microphone. just, forqur record purposes,' Does anybody "want to
$peak toth ì.s i ssue7
to see
Sher,man
Road., afte,r
Ph a s,e I I I .
. -;
"
PUB~ICHEARI~G OPENED
,",OHN MORVIDO
MR. Mq'R'JIDO-John Morvido. and I ,jive, in Brookshire Trace in
Bedford Clo~e. I have a question about the two commercial parts
of this development. ,,What do they entai 17 ' '
MR. MAcEWAN-At this point. they're proposed sites
de~elopment¡n mind right at this point. Would
commept on it a lit~le bit more. Mike. for him7
with no set
you like to
, -' f, ¡- , '
MR. 0' CON NOR - No. Bas i c ~ I, ! y . i t was are - z 0 n i n 9 . I t was I i k e a
pape~, subdivisÍ;0n which would allow,uti I ization. for;' commercial
pur~oses. of one site. which is out by Corinth Road. There are
no proposed plans for one site. internal to the subdivision. that
we t,erm commercial. but it probably w,ill b,e part o,f the
Home'o'wners Assoc'iation., and utilized by th~m as common area.
maybe taken care of within the su~divis¡on. We've termed it and
classified it as a commercial site that the. everything that
we've shown he:~et and the i~te,ntions that ar,e.<that it would be
re I ated to 'tt¡e HOmeowners Assoc iat ion. owned, and operatec( by the
HO,'P,eow.ners AS,SOC i at i,on.
MR. fVlORVIÒO-ls that a guarantee7 In other, words. coy. d the.se two
commercial. at least the one on Corinth ~oad. be sqfd,tq someone
~Ise. and they put 4P a7
:;'
MR. O'CONNOR-Tne one on Corin,th Road ,could be sold to ~ third
party. and' don't ~ean. the one on the inside cquld be sold to a
tt)i rd ,party. but in the zon i ng that the Town Board appr,oved. they
al lowed onlY spe.~ific uSeS relat,d to each parcel. They differ a
I ittle bit from parcel to parcel. "'d have 'to, read1;hroygh to
you what ¿om~ercial Area One can do and what Commercial ,Area Two
can dQ: '
MR~ Mt\C.È,WÀN-And, anything that would be propoS,ed ,for e,ither one of
those site~ would be back in front of this Board for ~Pproval.
- 61 -
MR. O'CONNOR-For site plan review.
MR. MACEWAN-Right. Anything that they would want to do outside
of what was designated to be done in that zone would have to be a
zoning change. I bel ieve. that would have to be approved by the
Town Board.
MR. MORVIDO-So within
primari Iy considered
Homeowners Association.
the permit process. it's designated as.
to go with the Homeowners. and the
I mean. what does it exactly say?
MR. MACEWAN-I think the intent is to eventually to al low some
sort of Neighborhood Commercial business in there. of one form or
another.
MR. O'CONNOR-For the record. Commercial Area One. which Is the
area that's along Corinth Road. the al lowed uses are recreational
faci I ities. community center. day care center. with 75 chi Id
maximum capacity. convenient store with gasol ine pump and no
automobile sales or repairs. grocery stores. banks. hardware
stores. professional office. including beauty shop. AI I of the
above uses in designated commercial areas are al lowed upon site
plan review and approval by the Planning Board. Commercial Area
Two. which Is the area within the subdivision. the al lowed uses
are recreational faci I ity. common faci I ity. day care center with
75 chi Id maximum capacity. professional offices and beauty shops.
AI I of the above uses in a designated commercial area are al lowed
upon site plan review and approval by the Planning Board.
MR. MORVIDO-So for al I those cases. they'd have to come back here
to have it approved.
MR. MACEWAN-Absolutely.
MR. MORVIDO-Okay. My other concern is traffic on Corinth Road.
You're looking at maybe a couple hundred more cars. as a result
of the subdivision. We should have learned. and I mentioned this
before. at the last meeting on this. we should have learned a
lesson from Aviation Road. and I'd hate to see Corinth. having to
use It every day. become another Aviation Road. I don't know
what. specifically. developers. The Michaels Group. can do.
probably nothing. but I think that it's the obi igation of the
Town. since it's going to be one of the main corridors. or is one
of the main corridors. to address the traffic problem. whether or
not it's a development. whether or not they put a gas station
here. whether or not they put a convenient store. We don't want
Corinth Road to become another Aviation Road. Aviation Road's
problems aren't going to be solved. probably. in this century.
MR. MACEWAN-We I I. there's some things you have to remember with
Corinth Road. is that It's a major corridor that services the
Town. It's ca II ed an arter i a I co II ector road. I s that correct?
Is that the termination for it?
MR. HARLICKER-I think it probably is. yes.
MR. MACEWAN-It has al I sorts of zoning along that road which
al lows many different variety of uses along that road. When
Hudson Polnte Development first started. about a year and a half
ago. I guess it was. maybe two years ago. there was a traffic
study done for that corridor of the road where their development
was proposed. and they've been able to mitigate that and not have
any problems with it by reconstructing the entrance into the
development. and the unfortunate part about It. the Corinth Road
is a very. very busy road. I I ive off the Corinth Road myself.
and It's very busy up there.
MR. MORVIDO-I don't know if it's the domain of the Planning
Board.
- 62 -
.....-
MR. MACEWAN-It's not. It's a zon/,ng_ issue. If you want to try
to curtai I the amount of development that goes along Corinth
.Road. t.hat's an is'sue you would ~ave to take ,up with the Town
Board because tþey're, the ones,who designat~ zo,pes.
~: j ; ,1-
MR. MORVIDO-I'd I ike to express. right now. my concernS
Board. and you can do whatever YQQ can to pass it on.
live, off,of Corinth Road. it's obviously a concern to you.
to this
If you
I
tAR: MACEWAN- It is a big con,cern. t,o me.
MR. MORVIDO-You see it7
... . ~,
MR. MACEWAN-Every day.
MR. M 0 R V I 00- Eve r y day. and wit.h the con s t rue t ion. it's eve n
worse.
MR.,MACEWAN;I d,on't know if I cansuqstantiqte it. bu~ I heard
t hat t h, ~ .C 0 r i nth R 0 a d i s., so mew her e a Ion g the I i net hat the
Cor i nt h R 0< ~d i s t h ~ m 0 s t 1 Y h e a v i I Y t r a vel e d road i n, the Tow n 0 f
Quey,nsbury,"< ! ';,
MR. MQRVIDO-Yes. Right. ,~d whatever you guys ca~ do to face or
to come4P with some type cif a system, We don't want to ~a¡t and
app I.~/ to the De,P.~rtment qf' Transportat i on and ¡have them te I I us.
in 28 years from now. we' 11< have Aviation Road. We'll solve the
problem ,of Áviation Road and the bridge and thE¡! traffic., because
. ,. ;, ".'. ",-'
that's obviously already a nightmare. and I'd hate to see Corinth
Road become a nightmare. and then we're going to have to deal
with that.
MR. MACEWAN-Well. I think there's some pr,eli,minary plans tl1;a,t are
on the boards to revamp Corinth Road significantly. to help the
burden90me ,of traff i,c on that road. but that's pre I iminary. and
it's pro~ably many years down the roa~.
MR. '~OR:V¡'oO-I.' d like to express my çoncern ~
MR.M~CEWAN-O~aY.
TOM MC~RAW
T h a n k you~, ,A !1 yon eel s e 7 '
MR. MCGI=fAW-':My na,me is Tom McGraw, and I live
Subdivision. and I wondered ~f this was the
, ,
Hudson Pointe. I wondered if that',s afl
Sherman I s I and de v él 0 pm e n t 7 I s that i t 7 s
in the
last
you
that
Clencl0'1. Brook
dev:eloRment of
can do' i n the
the f!nal7
rv1R'. MACEWAN- Y es.
I '
MR. MÔGRA\1V-There',1> no more 'by i Id i ng ,af~'er th i s7
MR. MAC'EWAN- No.
obtain Phase V.
They would be maxed out
in there. when they
MR. MCGRAW-And the other thing on the t~aff'ic. coming down
Corinth Roq.d. is that I work in Town. and I have to come, back
that ~ay. I don't ~o thr9ugh t~e ¿o~inth Roa~~ ¡ go through
I,.uzerne' Road. So those people (Iqst word) coming down from
Luze'r'ne,.Road. , I 'dgo ,over the back," ' .
MR. MACEWAN- think ~, lot ,of us have gone that wq.y.
MR:. ,MC,GRAW-Beca,use you can't ge~ through the bridge.
MR. MACEWAN-Right.
MR. M C G R AW - I'd 1 i k e t 0 s ay . I t h i n ~: you cI i d a g 9 0 d )0 b . I saw
the first plan. I haven't been involved until probably now. I
don't think (lost word) 60 homes on there.
- 63 -
MR. MACEWAN-Thank you. Anyone else?
JACK FRIEDLAND
MR. FRIEDLAND-Jack Friedland. represent Tim and Robin Brewer
and Roland and Emi Iy Aikens who are neighbors of the proposed
project. We had two concerns I'd like to bring to your
attention. some of which were mentioned and touched on before. I
think. as you know. the Hudson Pointe project is a sensitive
environmental area. including the lots in the shorel ine and the
wetlands. and during the PUD approval process. it was agreed that
this area would be put into what's now cal led conservation area.
and that the conservation area would be deeded to a third party.
who would protect It and preserve it as it is. The PUD approval
documents say that this deed must be approved by the Town Board.
and It's also indicated that þefore site plan approval by the
Planning Board. the deed has to be submitted. So before this
Board can approve the site plan appl ication. If It's going to do
so. the deed to the third party. whoever It is. must be approved
by the Town Board. There's several things that the PUD documents
indicate have to be in there. Some of the most Important ones
are that. archeological sites. Number One. have to be surveyed
and included In the deed prior to site plan approval. I think
that was touched on before. Secondly. it was agreed during the
PUD approval process that this conservation area would be used
just for passive recreation. and (lost word) documents indicate
that passive recreation must be defined In the deed. and thirdly.
the common boundary between the PUD proper and the conservation
area has to be surveyed and marked prior to Planning Board
approval of the site plan appl icatlon. AI I those things have to
be done. put In the deed. submitted to the Town Board. before
this Board can vote on the site plan appl ication. The next item
is something that was mentioned before. Apparently the site plan
submitted to this Board includes 34 half acre lots. The original
PUD resolution. the resolution of the Town Board approving the
PUD. In the findings statement. says that it would contain no
more than 32 half acre lots. I don't know why the change was.
but It's pretty clear in the approval documents that the limit
for half acre lots is 32. The next thing I ~ going to mention
was the MacDonald Subdivision. that that should be approved
before any approval of the site plan appl ication. and It appears
that's been taken care of. although. I didn't quite catch what
happened before. I missed some of that. If this Board did. in
fact. approve the modification to the MacDonald Subdivision. then
that's been taken care of. The Town Attorney wrote a letter
which Indicates that before a site plan application can be
approved the declaration of covenants and restrictions must be
fl led in the County Clerk's Office. Nobody's mentioned that. I
want to make sure that that's not missed. and that that happens
before there's any approval for site plan application. The Town
Attorney also indicated In his letter that the development
agreement between the developer and the Town must be signed by
the parties. He indicated that that has to be signed at least by
the developer. and not necessari Iy by the Town. before site plan
approval. and I guess that would differ a bit with his opinion on
that. it seems to me that you don't have an agreement unti I it's
signed by both parties. and It seems to me that the Town should
sign the development agreement. Maybe It has. I'm not sure. but
if it hasn't. the Town should review and sign the development
agreement before any site plan approval. The PUD resolution
expressly says that the resolution approving the PUD is not even
effective unti I it's been signed. the development agreement has
been signed. That clearly has to happen first. If the Board
does approve the site plan application at the current residence
In the current existing subdivision. we would ask that there be
some restrictions on construction hours. and that there be no
work at al I. no construction work done on Sundays or hol idays.
That on Saturdays there be no use of heavy equipment for the
obvious reason of noise. and that during the week. that some
reasonable restriction for time construction. such as seven in
- 64 -
;,.-
the morning unti I six at night. PUD approval documents also
indicate that any construction traffic must, 6ahnot use Sherman
Island Road, but must be restricted to the Niagara ,Mohawk <access
road further south along Corinth Road. I want to make sure
,that.:;s not misse<:l, that that's included in any site plan
approva I..
MR. R,UEL,-Excuse me. What ,PUD document are you referritl!¡1 to?'
MR. PRIEDLAND:~~en I s~y pub doçu~ent~~ I'm talki~g ~bo~t ~everal
9ocuments. I'm t,alking about themcolleclively.Th,ere:s the
f.indings stat~mentt~at th~ Town Board approved. There is the
r,eso Il;It ion, t hê act ual PUD reso I ut i on by wh i ch, the Towr;¡ , ,Board
~pproyed the 'PUD, and there's the development agreement þêtween
the Town and the developer, whi.ch, as far aS,I, kl)ow, has ,not been
signed yet.
MR. RUEL":'Yes. My point is" instead of item,izing all of these
,còndltions, could we ref~r to these documen~s?
MR. FRIEDLÀND-.Ýou could.,
simpler if the Important
p I an approval.
MR. RUEL~Å lot of documents?
I think it
,yond it ions
wou,1 d be ,much clearer and
wer~ put right in th~ site
¡¡:'
MR. FRIEDLAND-There's
d~cum~nt§, I' ~lean there
Town Board approved ~he
three of , them. A,g,áJ,n, when I sáy PUD
~~s three approval d~~uments by which the
H,ud~on Po i l;tt,~ PUD. i;:
. \'" ...
MR. RUEL-Okay.
_' Ii' \ .'
MR. FRIEDLAND-T~eis:e same PUD appro,yal, documel)ts. for example, in
the P U D res 0 I uti, ó n à n d the f, i n d ,i n g S, s tat em e nt, i n d i cat è t hat
Niagara Mohawk hßS to stop use of Sherma~ Island Road for access
'~o I<the'~xist¡:ng s'üb'station, and 'we would req\-\est that that happen
immeç¡ately, d,ue to the traffic corning down Sherman Island Road.
The storn¡watèr managel11~nt ,p.l,anthat was submitted to the P.lanning
Board, t,tlat was acq,ui,red by the PUD documents" ,in th i s case by
,the fJndings stat~ment (lost word) submitted, to the Plqnning
Board and to the ~o~n ~ngineerfor the TownEngin~er's approval.
I'm not qui t e sur e, 'f r 001 t hat R i s t - Fro s t í e t t er, w he the r . the Tow n
'. . , - ,. . . , '. .. . ,
Eng i neer, actua 1< I y signed off and approved the ,stormwater
management" plan. If it hasn't happened yet~ it should, before
there's éÙ1Y si,teplan approval. One. thing ,somt?pne said before
about a SPDES permit and the stormwater management, plan, $omeone
said b,efore that 'the SPDES permit is kindor"pro'for~er "'thing
t hat's f i led ins 0 m e de p 0 sit 0 r y in Vir gin i a . 'T hat's 0 n I y cor r e c t
. if the'post deve i op'me'nt,,, rU,~off in a project, is' no ~reate~ than
the pre developm~nt runoff. If it ~ greater, the post
de vel op men t 'r uno f f' ism 0 r e t h ant h e ~ d eve lop men t ru nO f f, the n
you may very well need an individual SPDES permit and ,,'a full
appl icatio,n. 'I don't know!f that's t~e case" ,~n,d that's
something that the Town Engineer would haVe to review. Iwq more
things, one. of ,which was touched on befor'e, 'tha,t's th'e ,15,Ø foot
quffer that was agreed upon during the ~~D approval process isn't
on the map,s, arid I ¡¡bel ieve someone §aid )~ha,t would be put C?n the
maps. If ,not, that should happen, a,nd lastly, we bel ieve that
Sherman l,sland Rpád should be blocked" off early in the
con s t, r u c t ion pro c e s s: sot hat noon ~ use s t h á t for a c c €I. s s d 0 w n t 0
the; pro'j;ect s.it'r. and I thank you for your ,t.irrie.
. " \', ; .. '
MR. MACEWA~-Thank you. Would you I ike to address those before we
move on? . ,
.j ~.., '
JAR: O:¡GONNOR-Sl,Jrç. ,Basically, what I thin~ Mr. Friedl,and has
C on,~ is read through .the PUD.reso I ut ion, wh i ch wê have a I so read
tthroy~h, I wh,ich we thi:nk that.~e are in line with. I think,we're
her e t 0 ni g h t 1,00 kin g J 0 r pre I i 111 i n a r y sit e p I an a pp r 0 val . k, now i n g
that we need to come back with a lot of detai Is, as has been
- 65 -
requested by the engineer and by staff. as far as getting final
site plan approval. The one issue. a couple of issues that I'd
raise. for the record. We did a complete. two year study of this
project. for SEQRA purposes. and part of that was that we did
study the traffic impact. and we satisfied the Town Board and
their findings under SEQRA. that we satisfied them as to
mitigation of traffic by approving. if you wi I I. the actual
access to Sherman Island Road homes. by al lowing them to come
through what is the reconfigured MacDonald Subdivision. The Town
Board has cut back greatly the amount of density that we had
proposed on the project to handle. if you wi II. the impact or
volume that we would create. There's a whole traffic study. and
a document probably about four Inches thick that was fi led with
this thing. In fact. I think there are. in fact. two traffic
studies. because there was a traffic study that was fi led when
the initial. primary acreage was Sherman Island Road. and then
the traffic study was updated when we changed it to the boulevard
entrance to the MacDonald Subdivision. As to the question of the
deed needing to be approved before your final approval. I
understand that we're here looking for prel iminarv approval. not
final approval. If you actually look at the regulation or the
outl ine that was given to you.
MR. MACEWAN-Site plan is a one step process.
MR. O'CONNOR-I think under the PUD they look at it in a two step
process. It's a I ittle different than your typical site plan
approval because you're basically doing subdivision through. we
understand that we're not going to get final approval this
evening. at this point. If you look at Page 204. where the talk
about the deed of the conservation area. they say. no bui Iding
permits and no lots shal I be sold in connection with the Hudson
Pointe Planned Unit Development unti I the conservation area is
deeded to a third party. which third party and deed shal I be
subject to Town Board approval. We understand that.
MR. MACEWAN-It does make reference to the bui Idlng permits
though?
MR. O'CONNOR-Yes.
MR. MACEWAN-Okay.
MR. O'CONNOR-And we understand that that may take a I ittle bit of
time. and that the Town Board is presently working on that with
the Open Space Institute. to come up with a management plan. to
come up with a deve I opment p I an. wh I ch wi I I incorporate a lot of
what was just indicated are other conditions. As to the cutting
off of the Sherman Island Road in the early phase of
construction. as I understand it. that is part of Phase I. and
once t hat road is cut off. it is bermed at t he end of what wi I I
be the end of Sherman Island Road. The existing traffic that
goes to the Niagara Mohawk Substation or Dam won't be able to use
it any longer. They're going to have to go up and either come
through this subdivision. unti I we start. get construction under
way. or the temporary road. or the actual roads that they're
going to establ ish for themselves. I bel ieve that once we get
this under way. they wi II immediately establ ish that road. They
have a way presently. and there's a road that they've been using.
It's not as handy as coming down Sherman Island Road. but that's
a mechanical type thing. That can be handled very easi Iy. We
are aware of the obi igation to have a developer's agreement and
we intend to have that handled very quickly. We have the
declaration that is fi led. or wi I I be fl led. The timing of that
doesn't necessari Iy say when. it wi I I be within the restrictions.
We understand it's an obi igation. We're not arguing that. The
declaration that we're speaking of here is a I ittle different
than the typical Homeowners Association or residential
subdivision restrictive covenants. There were findings. or there
were requi.rements put on by the Town Board. enumerated in
- 66 -
,-
Paragraphs, One through, Fifteen, I bel ieve it was, one through
fifteen of their resolution, anq what we've done is simply copy
. \ .' . . , , .
those and a dec I ar,t ion ,nd sa i d, that the I and of Hudson Po i nte
wi I I be subject to t~ose fifteen conditions, as part of our
agreement., We're no~ "cont'roverting,much of' ¡ what was sai'd. I
think it's a question of how we're presenting it to you, if you
hav_e quest ions on it. I f you tak.e a loak at the actua I plans
that were submitted, they incorpQI~a..te those, fifteen condi~ions.
I don't think we're.i n var i an,ce to those fifteen cO,nd,it ions,
except I think one lot was fQund, the'three acre lot to ,have, on
the< map. a I ine set up for setback differ,ent than what we, should
hà'v.e, and it's a m,tter, simply, of.movin9,.'t.þe setback li,ne back
further, and'maybe.a couple o.f other m.echan,i c,a I type things that
we s,hould be'able to acc,ommodate very eªs¡ Iy." Alan asked whether
or not you, t~e Board has a concern of the issue. or Staff has a
concern of the issue, of' the fact that we 'h.ave.' in fact. decreased
the on~ thirdacr~,.iots that we' werè showing. and increas'ed the
on e. h a I f a c rei 0 t s t hat we are sh. 0 w j n g . 0 u r un d e r s t a.. n, q i n g 0 f the
¡'ntent of the Board was that thèy didn't want' us to come .in with
96 h~lf acre lots.
MR. MACEWAN-I think the question. I don't thi~k. is so much of a
concern that you decreased and increased. is that clarification
of what was stipulated by the ,Town.Board when theygran~ed the
zoning for the PUD. If they granted zoning for 34 half acre
lots. or 32 half acre lots. and 34 ,have been esta,bl ish,ed. iiS that
~oing against what the zoning approv~I' was for t~e PUP? That I'd
.\1ant. you to c I.ar !fy for. me.
M,R.¡ O;;èONNOR~WhYdan't we ask for the..Town Àttorney:,s opi,nion.
f9.rY~Uf¡le. j
MR. MACEWAN-Mr. Dusek's~yes.
MR. O'CONNOR-I think we're fOllowi,ng the intent.
language has to be cleaned up.
Maybe the
, ,
MR. MACEWAN-Okay. It should also be noted. too. tha~ on the
agenda tonight. it's just listed as a site plan. It's not
lis t e d a sap rei i m i n a r y 0 r fin a I. but we' II tr eat th is. ton í g h t .
as preliminary site plan approval.
MR. O'CONNOR-Also. I would address the question of Mr. Ruel, the
c,omment of MI~.. Ruel,. if I might: We. when we wen,t throu,gh ;SEQRA.
went through"some lengthy discu~sion about what we would do with
the interveni'~g p~rtof Sh~rman Island Road that; w~s abandoned.
¡,f, yoy wi II. or; is to . be ªbandoned by the Town. and after
discùssion. we all, agreed that it would be left in place. and we
did,n't want to get into a hassle of having to all kinds of
',' -,"., :" I
studies as to what we would do with the road.
I ' .' ,. : .
MR. ,RUEL-Who wi II maintain. this road?
"
MR. OjCONNOR~~o ~ne wi I I.
MR. RUE L - I t w i I I ,j u s t d e t e r i 0 rat e7
, ,
MR! O'CONNÔR-It wi, II d;eteriorate. It may be,used by the people
that 'a~ein the~ubdivision. for walking purpose,. or wh.tever.
It wi II ,no~ be avai làbl'ewhen the final I~op< road is put in. for
vehicle traffic. ,if that's you,r concern. I,t won't be a drag
strlp through the'~iddle of, the development.
MR. ,RUEL-No. My conc.ern ~as thai~
,event'ual,ly it Vii II be unsightl.y. fall
III a j' n t a j n e d . and I tho ugh tit, ,Vi 0 u I d be
taken but. and the area re-seeded.
if it~s abandone~
ap~rt. and won't
a I. 0 t bet t e r i fit
and
be
was
·MR. OPPENHEIM-Well. it's going to be on lan.d als90wnedby the
Homeowners Association.
- 67 -
MR. O'CONNOR-It's going
Association.
to be
owned by
the Homeowners
MR. OPPENHEIM-And we see
within the project. as I
biking and things like
ma I ntenance. it's go i ng
and the homeowners.
that. actually a recreational amenity
said earl ier. to be used for purposes of
that. So the point is. if it requires
to be up to the Homeowners Association
MR. RUEL-But they won't do it.
MR. OPPENHEIM-I don't know if that's necessar I I Y the case.
MR. RUEL-How long a road is it?
MR. MACEWAN-Fifteen hundred feet.
MR. RUEL-Why should the homeowners spend money to repair the road
when only a few people wi I I be using it?
MR. MACEWAN-MY preference would be to see you. as you go through
your Phase I. Phase I I. is that, with the amount of construction
that's going to be going on in there. is to take truck loads and
just dump fi I lover the top of it. a foot or so. and let it seed
and go natural of it.
MR. OPPENHEIM-Wel I. there are portions of it. and actually.
particularly the portions of it where there are proposed
crossings in the immediate areas. both to the north and south.
That is the intent. but we did feel there was some benefit to
leaving a portion of It open.
MR. RUEL-Is it a big deal to cover it?
MR. OPPENHEIM-I don't think it's a big deal. but at
we felt it was in the project's interest to leave
the road open.
this point.
a portion of
MR. O'CONNOR-We purposely talked about not excavating it.
MR. OPPENHEIM-Right. and think what vou're saying is. don't
excavate. but cover it up.
MR. MACEWAN-Yes. just cover it. Yes. I'm not asking you to tear
it up and haul it away. We're getting kind of away. is there
anyone else from the publ ic who wants to speak on this topic?
MATT BISIGIANO. PLANNING INTERN
MR. BISIGIANO-It's a letter from Michel Brandt, dated June 28th.
1994. to be read into the record. addressed to the Town of
Queensbury Planning Board members. "Dear Board Members:
Congratulations! You have set a fine standard for environmental
analysis and protection with the Hudson Pointe Development. It
took three years to complete. and I bel ieve in hindsight that
could have been shortened by a ful I year knowing what we know
now. but it is never t he I ess a great accomp I i shment. The
standard of environmental protection derived from this project
must now be adopted for al I Hudson River frontage property in
Queensbury. Late Saturday. June 25th. 1994. I had the
opportunity. with others. to inspect the Town owned parcel of
land which lies along the shores of the Hudson River and is
adjacent to Northern Distributing. To my dismay. I found that
someone has logged off this beautiful and heavi Iy wooded parcel
of land. There appears to be about four to five acres clear cut
that is totally stripped of trees. In addition. most of the
commercial timber on the adjacent land seems to have been
removed. How can this be al lowed? There was no SEQRA Review. I
saw the imprints of heavy equipment right next to live lupine
plants. Are not these the protected habitat for the endangered
- 68 -
-"
K"a r n e r B I u e But t e r f I y? T r e e s we r e de s t r 0 y e d at the ve rye d g e 0 f
the fragi Ie sand bluffs. Do not allow a lesser st!'indard of
environmental protection to develop."
. .
MR. MACEWAN-Can I interrupt you for just one second?
ha~e anything to do mor.e with Hudson Poi"te.
Ooes
, . '
this
MR. BISIGIANO-Yes. I'm getting to that right. now. It's .Just a
letter submitted by Mike Brandt. "Do not allow a lesser standard
of environmental protection to develop, .iin the" future. f"or i~, wi II
nullify all the fine accomplishments of the Hudson Pointe
projeç;t. Keep up the "good work. The shores "of our. River are as
de Ii cate as they are beaut i fu I. Future generat ions wi I I
certainly benefit from your work. Sincerely. Mich~1 ~. Brandt"
MR. MACEWAN-Okay. Does anyone else w.ish to speak? I think what
I'll do. seeing this is a prel iminary approval or prel iminary
sit e p I ant 0 n i g ht . I ' I I I e a v e , the pu b I i. c ,h ear i n g 0 pen . u n t i I
final. Okay.
MR. O'CONNOR-Maybe Staff would want t,o look. I think in the
Statement of Findings. I think they are dated Februar~ ,11th. when
we spoke ,abou;t the different sized (lost word). we sa i d no more
than 60 'third acre lots. and then ~~. said 15.50~' square feet.
\ ~' . , i . " :~ ' . :: '., ' " .,
minimum size. They are. I think they'd still ,bet. nobody said
that they can't be larger than that and siill be third acre lots.
MR. HARLICKER-Fou~tein thousand fivehundred,and five squaçe foot
minimum. It doesn't say maximum.
MR. dpPENHEIM-That ~as definitelyth~ 1In~ent.
MR. O'CONNOR-I'll follow up on that. as to the intent.
MR. MACEWAN-Okay. ,,' I'll ask Staff to contac~~he Town At,tor'ney
and get his input.
MR. MACEWAN-Betty?
BETTY MONAHAN. TOWN BOARD MEMBER
MRS. MONAHAN-I ]us~ have a question. Did t~Et Planning Board get
a copy of the letter that Paul Dusek did before he went on
vacation. da~ed June 24th. 1994. a copy of Resolution Numb~r 118.
a copy of Resolution 117. and a copy of Resol~tion 1'16? Because
I think within thoseyou',wil.1 find the answertQ some of the
questions that have been asked'tonight.
MR. MACEWAN-Some members are saying. yes. theyha~e. ánd some
!nember s are say i ng. , no. "t hey don' t.
"
M,~S, MONAHAN-I{ anybody doesn't have iit. will you
$~aff know so copi,es S~n be made? Be6ause this Is
bible you need for ",this project.
ple~~e let
r!~allythe
MR. MACEWAN- wi II r:-equest that right now. Could y,ou get copies
for eve~yone of the Board memþers. please.
MR. O',CONNOR~That's the one through fifteen conditions.
MR. MACEWAN-Yes. I ,dol')'t have that. The only thlng"l. have from
Pau I Dusek is the I,etter done, yesterday.
MR. O'CONNOR-That's the one through fifteen condition~
think the Town Engineer said that he used as f~r
reference. to see if our plans campi i~¡d.
that I
as .!:Li2.
MR. MACEWAN-Okay. Scott. cou I d you see ,to, it t hat cop ie,s of a I I
thosè get in everybody's packets for I\ext montt). please?
- 69 -
MR. HARLICKER-Yes.
MR. MACEWAN-Thank you. Anything else? The only question I've
got at this point is in reference to the. getting back to the
topic of cutting off Sherman Island Road and making a cul-de-sac
at the end of it. Staff asked that some sort of screening be put
up there. vegetation of some kind. shrubs. smal I evergreens. or
whatever. What's the intent?
MR. NACE-Yes.
do that.
I think I addressed that. but we would definitely
MR. MACEWAN-Okay.
issues for both
everything's met on
what we need?
Could you. before final. address all the
Staff and Engineering and make sure that
the drawings. and everything's up to snuff.
MR. NACE-We'l I go back through al I of the documents and make sure
that a II of the issues are addressed.
MR. MACEWAN-Anything else? Does anybody want to introduce the
motion?
MR. OBERMAYER-Thls Is just prel iminary. right?
MR. MACEWAN-Preliminary. yes. but they've got a whole lot to do
before final.
MOTION TO APPROVE SITE PLAN NO. 25-94 HUDSON POINTE. INC..
Introduced by Roger Ruel who moved for its adoption. seconded by
George Stark:
For a Planned Un it Deve I opment of 96 res i dent i a 1 lots and 2
commercial areas. They have to address al I the engineering
comments and staff comments. the Rist-Frost letter of June 28th.
Staff Comments. June 28th.
Duly adopted this 28th day of June. 1994. by the fol lowing vote:
MR. OBERMAYER-Are we going to leave the publ ic hearing open?
MR. MACEWAN-Yes.
consideration.
We
didn't touch
on Warren
County's
MR. NACE-It was approved. Staff has a copy of Warren County.
MR. HARLICKER-Yes. it's in your packet. It was approved. "With
the conditions that there be public access and it be open to the
publ ic. that the fencing along the Niagara Mohawk property be
replaced and maintained to insure safety and that this Board
review the management plan if and when submitted by the Open
Space Institute. Also that the land be used for passive
recreation and not active recreation."
MR. O'CONNOR-What did they say would be open to the public?
MR. HARLICKER-They didn't.
MR. O'CONNOR-I think you're going to find that the Town Board
wi I I object to that being an accepted condition. They have taken
jurisdiction of the operation and management and development of
what is the conservation area. and the neighbors specifically
have said that they want us to condition It to be passive
recreation only.
MR. MACEWAN-That's why I brought It up.
MR. O'CONNOR-And it's something that the developer would not want
either.
- 78 -
-'
MR. MACEWAN-Is there some way, Scott, that we "ca~
clarification from Warren County Planning what their intent
what theY were Look i ng, for?
get
was,
'^:J:
MR. ,HARLICKER- ' II give them a 9all.
MR. MACEWAN-Okay.
MR. RUEL-Stillmake it part of the motion, though?
" ,
MR. MACEWAN-No.
That doesn't have to be part of the motion. No.
MR. O'CONNOR-I would t,hink you would consider ¡~,a~d ov~rrule
it.
MR. MACEWAN-Yes.
from, that's all.
I'd just
like to know where they're coming
AYE S : Mr. S tar k, Mr. 0 be r may e r, !vi r s. LaB 0 m bar, d, Mr. Rue I. ,
Mr. Paling, Mr. MacEwan
NOES: NONE
ABSENT: Mr. Brewer
SITE Pt.,AN NO. 2Ø-94 TYPE:, UNll STED STEWAR-r:' S
INC./DAKE BROS. INC. OWNER: SAME AS ABOVE
lOCATION: 123-125 AVIATION ROAD PROPOSAL IS TO
" AN~ i :"I."ANDSCAP I,NG. ~EAlJT IF IÇ.I\T 'Q,~,ßO~M~~, o~(J?.I9,4
1-8.62 lOT SIZI¡:,: 1 ~Ø37 AÇRES" SECTIO": '79-25
I CE ,CREAM CO..
ZONE: ,NC-1 ø
INCREASE PARKING
T.~X ~P; ,~9· 78-
GRAHAM FRANKS, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT
STAFF INPUT
¡I
Notes from Staff, Site Plan No. 20-94, Stewart's IDe Cream Co.,
I nC./Dake Bros., Meet i ng Date: JUne' 28, 1994 "PROJECT
DESCRIPTION: The applicant is seeking approval of ¡an a~ bui It
project consisting of a Stewart's convenient store, a dry
cleaning business and an ,office ar,ea uti,1 iz.ed by Stewart's,. The
pro j e c t was not con s t r u c t e d as 0 rig i n a I I yap pro v e d . P R OJ E C T
ANALYSIS: Staff reviewed the project for compl iance with
Sections 179-38A, 179-38B, 179-38C and the re~evantfactors
outlined in 179-39. The project was compared to the following
standards fqund in Sec1:ior¡ 179-38 E. of the, Zoning, Code: 1., The
location. arrangement. size. design and general site
compatibi I ity of bui I,dings. I,ighting and signs¡ ,The exi.,sting
structure is èompatibl,e wit,h the site,; lighting is proposed for
the bui Idingand th~canopy and there is an,existi¡ng sililn. 2.
The, ad~quacyand ,arrangement of veh~cylar, traffic access and
circulation. including intersections.roa,d, widths., p,fivement
.~rfaces. dividers and traffiQ,cQntrols¡The site is accessed
¡ . .. - .-.' "
f ro m two cur b cut s.' The we s t c U ,~ b W. i I I, be m 9. d !,fi ed's Q. '!: h, a tit i s
not on the adjacent property. The access to the parking on the
east s,ide .of the lot wi II have to be changed so tha,t ,it, is 20
feet from the handicapped space at the end of the buflding to the
edge of the pavement. 3. The location. arrangement. app~arance
and sufficiency of off-street parking and loading¡ Forty spaces
are r e q u ,i red. T hi, r t y -:- s eve (\ are, S, h ow n a s~ i s a r. ear e s e r.v e Of 0 r 3
more. Handic~ppedspaces ,have to be indicated. 4. ~~e adequacy
and arrangement of pedestrian traf,f iç ,access c i rcu I,at i onw~ I kway
struct,~res. ,contro I()f i nters~ct i o~~ ,w i t,h, veh i cu I.ar traff i,c and
overal.1 pedestrian c()nve~Lence¡ A sidewalk i~ PGOvided around
the bui Iding for pedestrian' access. 5. The' 'adequ~cy of
stormwater water drainage faci lities¡ Stormwater drainage wi I 1
be reviewed by Rist-Frost., 6;~ TtI,e ad~quacy of Waler supply and
sewage disposal facil ities¡ The site is serviced by municipal
water and the sewage disposal wi II be reviewed by, Rist-FrosJ. 7.
The ~dequacy. type and arrangement of trees. shrubs and' other
suitable plantings. landscaping and screening constituting a
- 71 -
visual and/or noise buffer between the appl icant's and adjoining
lands, including the maximum retention of existing vegetation and
maintenance including replacement of dead plants; Li lac bushes
are proposed for the west property line. The adjacent property
owner has requested that the easement required for the bushes be
reduced from 15 feet to 5 feet. A I ine of white pine are
proposed for the rear property line and 2 maples for the island
in front. Two red pines wi I I be planted on the east side of the
property. 8. The adequacy of fire lanes and other emergency
zones and the provision of fire hydrants; The bui Idlng is
accessible to emergency vehicles. 9. The adequacy and impact of
structures. roadways. and landscaping in areas with
susceptibil ity to ponding. flooding and/or erosion. Erosion
control measures wi I I have to be In place during construction and
unti I the site has been stabi I ized."
MR. MACEWAN-Okay. Bi I I.
MR. MACNAMARA-After a couple of go arounds with some different
grading options and some stormwater revisions, this again is a
site that's very flat, as everyone knows. So we took some pretty
great pains to make sure that what was shown is actually going to
drain to where they want it to drain, and not onto adjoining
properties. We got hung up on some proposed grading that was
proposed to be off of the property I ines, and as good of a
grading plan as that was, unfortunately, we can't approve you to
go on somebody else's land and do grading. We'd like to, because
it would have made it a better plan, to be honest with you, but
as it turns out, we've got an agreement as to what looks like
it's going to work, with one smal I note that I faxed over today.
I'm not sure if anybody got it or not, but I just added one note
that says, when you're all done with all the grading, all the
work, to just definitely check, right now the boundary on the
east side, do a final spot check to make sure that that's higher
than your back edge of your turf block paving, to make sure that
the water's going to go back, to the back of the site, because
without that 98.5 proposed I ine, it was good in theory, but it
was off your property, it's not clear that it's not going to run
over to that other fel low's site, but it wi I I be if you ensure
that by your spot grades at the end. Other than that, we're al I
set.
MR. BREWER-Okay, and we have a letter from Jones Associates.
Would you care to read that in, George?
MR. STARK-Yes. "Dear Mr. Franks: We have had an opportunity to
review the revised site plan as presently proposed. We offer two
comments: 1. We wi I I not provide Stewart's with a 15' easement
for planting as requested. In I ieu of the easement, we wi I I
permit Stewart's to plant and maintain bushes in the 5' wide
strip along the east property I ine so long as the property is not
required for our own purposes. 2. We would I ike to have
Stewart's extend to the asphalt curb proposed for the edge of the
pavement to the turf block area at the north west corner at the
rear of the bui Iding. This would el iminate any potential for
runoff onto our property and would direct flow Into the turf
block spi Ilway and then into the retention area at the rear of
the site. AI I other aspects of the plan, as proposed, appear to
be reasonable and wi I I not impact our adjacent property. We
would have no problem with a Town approval of the referenced site
plan as long as our comments are addressed and Town approval be
contingent upon inclusion of these items. Sincerely, Barbara H.
Jones 339 Aviation Road Queensbury, NY 12804"
MR. BREWER-The Town of Queensbury Beautification, approval of
plan as presented. Sir, would you I ike to address the comments?
MR. FRANKS-Yes. Good evening. My name is Graham Franks. This
plan for improvement goes back a few months, to October of 1993,
when, in the context of another project, an expansion of this
- 72 -
-
~-'
store. s j te. it was discovered. or l,Inco<vered. if yqu p I ease.
that. ï'n fact. it was not ,bui,lt ~sq.pproYrq. ,t,iow.1 don:t know.
Why. I don' t k, now. but the, long and the s h 0 ri; 0 fit i ~~, :vv e ' r e
here,ton,ight to rectify the 'situat,ion (lost word).' I want to
emphasize a couple.of .thing~. There wi II b,e nOc;:hang,e in the
~ize or shape of 'the builqings, or what is going on at the
I,ocat ion. Th i s P I an for ! "1provement i s !~ uS,t ,to set the matter at
,rest. and to demonstrate,thai; this sit~ c,!;it'\. it l..§. f1Pprovable,
and can be a p pro v e d . I'd' I i k, e top 0 ) nt t 9. ; the . i t ems 0 nth e p I a n
. . ::It _ - " '; '-<'''. '. " "." -,' t·,' ",,,!., _1 ,~ , . <. ,
that are i nc I ude~ '.Ii n, t,he ~.I,~q f9r "i)~~~0v-e;f!1¡ent.:~ ~y~, ha'i~,,,:shown.
for, t~e firstiter:n. ,tha~ the,., require,d,Par,ki,ng for our n,umber of
squaf.e feetJs 4Ø.,,!;i.~d, I )¡ybmit that if.,ç~~,y r.ead aCX,o~s,~:the,;èplan.
we's how i t e Ifl son e ~!1 r 0 p 9 ~ ':'? ~ q . . H iî f 0, rt 11< n a 1; e I y', it's, 'HL o. v 'r. r s i 9 h t
on the part of oyr draft.sperson. s I, ot numb~r', s~vente,e,n was not
numbered, but it is over here.
MR. BREWER-There is a 17.
MR. FRANKS-T,here is, a ,17.
Your E:yes ar~ bi~~ter than, 01 i ne.
! ~ !
MR.~REWE~-There is a 17.
. .~.1' ,
MR. MACEWAN-Seven teen's right next to thew,o-rd "new pavement".
MR. FRANKS~Okay.
It didn't ,come through on the blueprint,
rVlR. MACNAMARA-Well.. initially. that,was going to be, left out. to
be honest withyol.!. for parking and turni<ng, radiuses for that
back corner. ,.
MR. FRANKS-And then on oyer her;e. we h<ave ,19 th,r,ough 38, across
here. We sugge~t this~ members of the Planning Board. that this
site. as you may k.now. has b,een in ex i st,ence fo,r; some t,ime in
it's present configuration~ Once per week. wfP have in our Q,ffice
situation. we h.ave a training and reportir,¡g sequence, wi.th our
S tor e Man age r s. and 't hey com e in" 9 r 0 ups 0 f, . i nth e i row n car s .
Sometimes they double up, and this is what has caused, in time
. ; ",," , . , .
past. an, inappropriate parking on ther ight-of-way. ar:¡dthose
kinds of things. Nor~!;il operation of the store. and the normal
occupancy of the office, ,and the 40 spac7s which a~e required far
exceed the need. I submit this. that Items One through
Seventeen, Eighteen through Twenty-five, will. in fact. be
con s t r u c t ed, and s t rip e d . and t hat I tern s T wen t ,y - n ~n.e t h r 0 1,1 9 h
Thirty-seven wi II be çonstructed uti I izing a turf blpck. wh,ich is
a relatively new item in our lexicon. It's a hard surface. It's
q~~igned for occasional parking. ,It',s not cheap.We'r,e not
,~rying to save bl~c~top by any stretch of the imagination. It
has a certain percolation rate of about. if my memory<.~e..rves me
c ò r r e c t I Y . i tis 60 per c en t sol i 9 ' so it's per 01 e a b Ie, 38. to 40
percent. ( lost word) it's proper I y i nsta I I ed on th~ ç;ompacted
grav,el and stone. and then it is ,f i led with topsoi I., It is.
typica,lly, almost four inches thick. So if you have a, four inch
thick piece of top sol I, which eventually must settle ,down. then
you seed it. ~hat you have, a h.rd surface which s~ow~ Qreen. So
th~t ,k í nd of assuages wtJat we need, as far as some pi ace \0 park ,
occasionally. It assuages some of the thing .Y..2..J! I ike. which is
an absence of a sea of blaçk top, anq it shows green. which is
kind of nice.
MR. RUEL-Excuse me. ,.Wh,at¡,happened t,o park i,n,g space$. twenty-six.
twenty-seven. twenty-eig~t? "
MR. BREWER-They're in the back of the building.
MR. RUEL-They're in the back?
MR. HARLICKER-Yes.
MR. FRANKS-They're in the back.
- 73 -
MR. RUEL-Okay. Thank you.
MR. PALING-Why are you. you said it's not to save money. Why are
you doing it. then?
MR. FRANKS-Because I t so I ves a coup I e of tems. First of a I I. it
is permeable. It is more permeable than black top. Number Two.
it shows green. Number Three. it is a hard surface which can be
parked on and plowed. okay.
MR. PALING-Okay. AI I right.
MR. FRANKS-And 1 submit to the Board that spaces 38 through 4Ø.
at this present time. are in the midst of mature trees. and it is
our. In as much as the parking is vastly in excess of what we
actually need. that we be permitted not. I want to show the Board
that we ~ put them In. but that we. with your permission. elect
not to instal I them. and I think that's a pretty good trade off.
MR. OBERMAYER-I'm sorry. what don't you want to instal11
MR. BREWER-Thirty-eight. thirty-nine. and forty. parking spaces.
There's trees there.
MR. FRANKS-Item Number Two. we will install a six by six curb
over here. on our property 1 ine. It wi I I serve to prohibit sheet
drain onto our neighbor. In return for his granting a five foot
strip on which to plant I i lac trees. I i lac bushes.
MR. RUEL-Which is not shown on the map, right?
MR. BREWER-Sure It Is.
MR. FRANKS-Yes. It Is, sir.
MR. MACEWAN-But what you're showing right now, though, is
probably about a 15 foot width. right?
MR. BREWER-Yes.
It does show 15 feet.
MR. FRANKS-I have a map that is dated 6/23.
MR. MACNAMARA-That's what we used for
reviewed your most recent submittal of
have, and they took the easement away.
comments before. is they repeatedly showed
didn't have any documentation for it.
our last review. We
6/23. That's what we
That was one of our
an easement. but they
MR. FRANKS-Okay. Please al low. the difference is. subsequent to
the Jones' letter where they said they weren't going to give us
an easement of 15 feet. they would give us permission for five
feet. we amended the plan. It is five feet. It wi I I be planted
and maintained by Stewarts.
MR. RUEL-On the ~ plan.
MR. FRANKS-On the p I an for approva I, yes, sir. I ment i oned the
16 I i lac bushes. They'l I be hard surface. whatever's there,
black top or gravel. wi I I be removed. excavated. some soi I put in
there, trees planted by professionals. and mulched on top. We're
going to create a couple of drainage sheds. to improve the on
site drainage. One up here in the front. one in the back. The
eng i neer has addressed that. and the eros I on contro 1 I s back
here, whi Ie the sit is In transition, to growth. The dumpster
area is re-Iocated here. One of the Issues that was raised in
our nonconforming site plan was that we Invaded the 5Ø foot
setback requirement to the UR-1Ø zone with some of our
development, and we have not (lost word) that. We are preserving
the 5Ø foot setback requirement. We wi I 1 replace the dry wal I
- 74 -
-
-...
cover with one which is a traffic approved .Eiight,i.nch.,as QPposed
to six. and realign the highway access with new curbs. and with
some additional planting. This ba,ck area that has <l;:Jee,n, over the
years. graveled and black topped. wi II be el iminated.; and it wi II
show top soi I and seed.
MR. F,WEL-I have a question for you. Under Site Data.vou have
the b u i I din gar ea. con ere t e wa I k. asp h a I ,t P a v em e n t . g r e, ~ n spa c e .
Where does the turf block fit in?
MR. OBERMAYER-Is that included
he's asking.
in the green space area., is what
MR. BREWER-Yes.
It has to.
MR. FRANKS-Yes.
MR. ,~UE L- Th at '5, U nde r green space?
MR. FRANKS-Yes.
MR. OBERMAYER-What happens if the grass dies every winter after
you plow it? I mean. if I snow blow my. walkway in the back yard.
my grass has a tendency to freeze and brown.
MR. FRANKS-I would. presumably. r'e-plant .it. I can't answer the
question. because we h~ven't bqen through'a winter ~I~hour turf
block. Wq have it i~:.three locations. I'm verysurpriged. not
on I y does it park we I, I . I ad i es don't get the i,r: hee.1 s qaught in
it. because it has soil in it. and it does. in fact. show green
space. \'
MR. RUEL-What's the size of the block?
MR. OBERMAYER-It's in your drawing. Roger.
MR. FRANKS-The drawing is 24 by 16. 4 Inches thick.
MR. RUEL-And they're replaceable. right?
them. you could replace them.
If anything happens to
MR. FRANKS-They are not cemented in the ground.
MR. RUEL-Yes.
MR. BREWER-Th~y're I ike p~v~ment blocks.,
Planning Office the Qther day.
saw ,t heÆ dow,n in the
MR. MACNAMARA-To add one note to the turf blo6k/gr~en space
cpmment. that wa~ one of our comments. way bacK in~ay. and this
th i ng has been1;hrough a number,of r,ev i ews,. becaus,~ d if.ferent
i,tems pòp up eVery t i.me. Anyway. we asked 1;hat they actually
i~clude that is 'a runoff coefficient 1..0. whi9h Is ¡asphalt.
because ten years down the road, ~op~fLllly his busin~s~ is so
popular. he's going to want to pave it. So the drainage
fun c t ion s are set ups u c h t hat . w hen i t l.§. P a v e d . i fit. ' spa v e d .
the drainage can handle it.
MR. FRANKS-So th9-t. in
es s e nee 0 f 0 U r pro j e c t.
of them.
"',.
esse~ce. la~ies and gentlemen. Is the
Sometimes ~hings go awry. This was one
MR. B R EWE R - I g u e s s. ,0 n e que s t ion l,. w 0 u I! d a, s k . w hat kin d, 0 f, a t i me
table are we looking at?
MR. FRANKS-Well. except fC)t'tht? deciduous trees.
d¿~'tget planted too wel I in the middle of s~mmer.
to surv i ve. we wi!.1 start ASAP. "
which ,really
have a chance
MFt. BREWER-This fall?
mean. you wi I I be done by?
- 75 -
MR. FRANKS-Yes. We wi I I be done. except for the trees that
should be planted dormant. that's really up to our landscaper. we
wi I I proceed within. six weeks. We wi I I be finished by the end
of the summer.
MR. OBERMAYER-November 1st you' I I have everything done?
MR. FRANKS-Yes. sir.
MR. MACEWAN-Would you be in agreement to a contingency put into
this plan that if. for whatever reason. that the seeded area
where the paper blocks are. would you agree to re-seed if it. for
whatever reason. fai led during the winter?
MR. FRANKS-Yes. sir. These are. and I have no problem with that.
These are new with us. They've been around for a little whi Ie.
but we don't have enough experience to know whether the grass is
going to I ive through the winter or not. to tel I you the truth.
MR. MACEWAN-And with all the new plantings. I think we've been
kind of. as a Board. in agreement. here. the last few meetings.
is trying to get stipulations going with any new trees and
shrubbery that's planted. that the appl icant make sure and
guarantee for the first three years.
MR. STARK-Two years.
MR. MACEWAN-Two years. that they are healthy and be replaced if
they should die off.
MR. FRANKS-I wi I I certainly stipulate that.
MR. BREWER-Okay. I guess would ask that Number Two comment from
the Jones would be answered.
MR. OBERMAYER-Yes. Can you address those two? Do you have a
copy of that?
MR. FRANKS-Yes.
I have a copy of the letter. yes.
MR. RUEL-He answered the first one.
MR. PALING-He answered the second one. too.
MR. BREWER-He did answer the second one.
MR. RUEL-Yes. they're both answered.
MR. FRANKS-That 15 feet. we amended this plan to show 5. and that
the asphalt curb would extend around. and that's in this area
here.
MR. RUEL-The 16 I I lac trees wi II be in the five foot area. right?
MR. FRANKS-That's correct.
MR. RUEL-Okay. So there's no need for beautification.
MR. BREWER-Is that it from everybody on the Board?
public hearing. Would you I ike to comment?
I'll open the
PUBLIC HEARING OPENED
RICHARD JONES
MR. JONES-Yes. My name is Richard Jones. and my wife owns the
property adjacent to the Stewarts parcel on the west side. We
have a professional office in that location. Basically. I think
what Stewarts is proposing is going to be a great help in the
runoff that we've been experiencing on the west side of their
- 76 -
"-
property. Bas i ca I IV. the, ent i re park i n,g lot was sh.ee,t i ng into
ours ide ya I'd . 0 n' Ii:! of: t h è t h i 11 g s t h at t P, e y h a v e not e don the i t~
s,ite p,lq.n is ,a black top curb. In my i'nit,ial c9t)versations with
the Board back. I think it was in 1983, at on~ of t,t)e public
hearings. had indicated that if possible I would prefer to have
a concrete curb there. I undel's~andthe< cO,st impact,~. or the
cost impact of putt i ng in a concrete curb. My concern is that
with plowing in that general area, if the curb shol,Jld breakup. I
want to have some indication that they are going to repair that.
I understand that,You have, a st,ipulationtor, replacern,ent of, trees
w,ithi,n a two ¡¥'ear period, t¡hat type of thing. but ,I really, would
like tç¡ see someth ing in regard to,s9metype of ar,¡ as.suC,B;nc,e that
if the curb is damageç:lduring,plo~i)ng. tQat ,it wi'I,lb,erepaired.
My concern is that the property ¡ s st ill sneet i ng to the curb,
an,d ,i t is runn ing a long, t,he curbc [¡qse to the nor,th ßnd south.
int,ò' a dra inage swa ie' àt the, rear:. 'and "then into the'det~nt ion
ar.~a. On the front sLoe. it is baf?ically hea.di,ng in;to the
dt~ywell that e~ists I;ight now"at the f,rQnt< entry drive. but I
would really have some concerns if that black top curb' goes.
we're going to be back in1;Q"the sal~e positior:'l ,1:hat we pre,sently
have. '
I ;¡
MR.. BREWER-Okay.
I,s the,re al~yone e I,se?
PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED
MR. F RAN K S - Mr. C h a i I'm an. i n I' e gar d toM r. Jon e s' com men·t, we h a v e
her4p<, ,a de,tai<1 e>;f, < ,the curb. It's, six by six. but rather than
being perpendicular. it's a forty-five, degree ar:'lgle. which
assists in its preservation through the plowing sequence. and
s t i I I has the six. i, n c h rev e; a led for d I' a in age p u rp,ose s . Wit h
I'espect to his comment. is it going to last. we will certainly
sti~4late that., within the conte~t of mainteQance.he has given
us permission to do something that needs to be done. to move our.
MR ~ OBERMAYER-I, on IV see a two i,ncb cL;lrb.
MR. FRANKS-We I I .
the Board did not
this is not to
Instead of being
this way.
if you' I I please excuse me. For some reason.
get the latest plan. and:I'm pOint!,ng out. that
scale. This is a 45 degree angle. 6 by 6.
this way., a~ a tr,aditional curb. i<t would go
MR. OBERMAYER-So the detai I 'sbeen changed?
, ,
MR. FRANKS-That's cor'rect. sir. and. Mr. Jones. in permitting us
to put our curb on our property I ¡,ne an9 plant some,) i I,acs in
there. has permitted us to run this fine of parking. with
~ufficient back up 1'9001. and i~ return for that. ,as part o~ your
~pproval proQes¡s.' we will cert'ai/1i'y maintain'that curb to your
satisfaction. " "
MR. RUEL~M.y I have th~ da;te of that plan?
MR. FRANKS-6/23.
MR. BREWER-Okay.
MR. JONES-Th,is is ,the f,irst,time that!'ve r'eally seen the
detailed plan. and,l, t,hink, one of our original concerns was the
people driving tht~ough there. They were actually driving off of
the Stewar'ts pavement. thl'ough our side ,y,ard. ove,r ,o~r $eptic
.. .' -' ,. ,."\- ,...~ ... ,. ," .'
system. With the type of curb that you'~eproposing. even' if you
p I ant t r e e s be h i n d it. j f you ' t' e pia n tin g 3 ø t r. e e s do w nth ere.
they're going to be 5 to 6 feet on center. nothing is going to
stop.those peÇ)ple f,rom driying thr9ugh ,ont~, our property. That's
been a major,t'nncer~,t,h,at, w,e'.vehad.becausli:! they just drive. We
act u ~ I I y put i n fen c e po s t s. a p pro x i mat e I, y f 0 U I' fee t 9 n c e n tel' .
MR. MACEWAN-W~ereabouts~
exactly.
are they driving through?
- 77 -
Could you point It out on the map, please.
MR. RUEL-How far apart are the I i lac trees?
MR. BREWER-You can only go so far.
MR. JONES-At the present time, there's about three groupings of
I i lacs that exist. There's one back in here. There's one about
in center, and there's another one up here toward the front.
What's happening right now is that people are pul ling through the
parking lot, and they're actually driving across our side yard,
into our driveway, and out our driveway onto Aviation Road. To
stop that, we had actually put up fence posts about four feet on
center, but over the last winter, I think al I but two or three
have been broken and knocked down.
MR. MACEWAN-We I I the I i lacs, the intent of the planting of the
I i lacs is going to alleviate that problem.
MR. JONES-If they're big, mature trees and they're on center in a
reasonable fashion, but if they're spread out.
MR. RUEL-How far apart are they?
MR. OBERMAYER-Yes. How big are the I I lacs?
MR. PALING-Yes. LI lacs aren't very big, to start with.
MR. BREWER-Four to five feet.
MR. MACEWAN-They're four to five foot trees. We're not talking
something in a gal Ion pot.
MR. OBERMAYER-That would be good size.
MR. BREWER-That's a good tree.
that's sufficient.
Six feet on center,
I think
MR. MACEWAN-But with a four to five foot tree, It's got a spread
to it.
MR. FRANKS-What we' I I do, and one of the things, Mr. Chairman, we
don't I ike to do is use the entire buffer, because they get swept
by the plow. too, but we'll try it.
MR. BREWER-Well, I think if you plant the trees close enough, and
they're big enough, I think you can accommodate the same thing
without having to use them.
MR. MACEWAN-I' I I offer a
wants to go along with
planting 16, lets do 2Ø.
spaces them a I ittle bit
suggestion. I don't know if anybody
it not, how about we ask, instead of
That's adding four more to it, and that
closer together.
MR. RUEL-Yes.
MR. OBERMAYER-Sure.
MR. MACEWAN-Minimal cost.
MR. FRANKS-The issue. we have no problem with that. The issue is
preservation of the property I ine to prevent people from crossing
from our lot onto the Jones'. It's taken us a long time to get
here with this project.
MR. BREWER-I know.
MR. FRANKS-Let me editorial ize if I may. We're not going to back
away from this. This is important to us. It's important to mY
company, that we stand responsible for what we do. We put 2Ø
- 78 -
'-
I i I a c bus h e sin the r e, and they, we g u ~ r an tee the m for two ,yea r s ,
and a couple get knocked out, they're going to go back in ~gain.
I have st i pu I ated tha,t. ,The at. her i ssu~ i.s that peop Ie, don't
drive across Mr. and Mrs. Jones' pr'operty, and that, I think is
addressed. If it doesn't wO,rk that way. we'll do something else.
and that's a matter of record.
,
MR. BREWER-Okay. ,Mrs. Jones.
B,ARBARA' JONES
'MRS. JO~E;S- ij ust want~d to make, one comment t that I'm not g i v i ng
an e<;isement to him. He can <plant the tre~s wi.th permissión~ If
we choose to use, that property. that's my property' st ill.
T~ere)s no easement.' ,
, ~
M R ~ ' F ~ A ~ K S - I tot a I I y understand that.¡ ., I have no pro b I em wit h
th~t, rf this Board does not have a prob)em with that.
MRS., JONES-Ok ay.< ,
just wanted. that,clear.
; ! ~
¡' :)
MR. B R EWE R - 0 k a y . 1st hat eve ry t h i n 9 '1 A I I t 11 e i s sue s are 0 u t 7
We've got a November 1 complete. I guess we've go~ tQ,do a
SEQRA. Wait a minute.
MR. MACEWAN-Mr. Jones wants to make a comment.
rvlR. JONES-If yóu're looki~g at a 'November l' completion,
wan t to b a c kit up a lit tie bit., sot hat he. can get
down and actually get it grown.
you might
grass seed
, . <
MR. BREWE~-Ithln~ November
work to do. I don't want
have it done, and force him
; ,
1 is fair.
to give him
to çome back
I mean, he' ~ g()t a lot of
September. and then not
in,here.
MR. OBERMAYER-Wel I, that doesn't mean that ~e can't get
in September.
it done
MR. BREWER-I thin¡k th~y're anxious to get it done.
MR. JONES-Yes. He'll have time to put the grass down. after
September 15th. ,but pr<eferably be~ore Nqv;ember 1,st.
MR. MACEWAN-He has unti I November 1s,t to comply with everything
that's stipulated in the approval.
MR. BREWER-And ,))' he dges(l't, thet).
quick
~ e' I I <b~,
back here.
Real
;,'
fvlRS. LABOMBARD-Mr. Jones. I think,lik,e YOl!,do. when I hear a
November 1 comp I ~t ion. I wQu I d I expect t.o go up t here and see
gr(¡'1en on ~ovember 1. and that wçJl.¡ld be par~()'f the completion.
w hen the g r ass g e r m in ate s a, n d ita c t 4 a I I Y has t a ken. roo tan d has
a cover'. So, you're right, you'd have to plant it September 1st.
MR. BREWER-Well, I'm sure they know that.
MRS. LABOMBARD- Yes. We I I .
somebody up here. okay.
just wanted them to think that
,MR. MAÇEWAN-8eady?
. .
MR. B.REWER-Ye9.
"I)
RESOLUTION WHEN DETERMINATION OF NO SIGNIFICANCE IS MADE
RESOLUTION NO. 2Ø-94. Introduced by Craig MacEwan who moved for
its,adoption. seconded b,y Roger Ruel:
WHEF\EAS.
there
¡.s present I y
before the Planning Board an
- 79 -
___v ...,__....___ .__
appl ication for:
and
STEWART'S ICE CREAM CO.. INC./DAKE BROS.
INC. .
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 fol lowing agencies are involved:
NONE
3. The proposed action considered by this Board is unl isted in
the Department of Environmental Conservation Regulations
implementing the State Environmental Qual ity Review Act and
the regulations of the Town of Queensbury.
4. An Environmental Assessment Form has been completed by the
appl icant.
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
env I ronment a I impact as t he same is set fort h inSect ion
617.11 of the Official Compi lation of Codes. Rules and
Regulations for the State of New York. this Board finds that
the action about to be undertaken by this Board wi I I have no
significant environmental effect and the Chairman of the
Planning Board is hereby authorized to execute and sign and
fi Ie as may be necessary a statement of non-significance or
a negative declaration that may be required by law.
Duly adopted this 28th day of June. 1994. by the fol lowing vote:
AYES: Mr. Stark. Mr. Obermayer. Mrs. LaBombard. Mr. MacEwan.
Mr. Ruel. Mr. Paling. Mr. Brewer
NOES: NONE
MR. BREWER-Okay. Do we have someone who wants to make a motion?
MOTION TO APPROVE SITE PLAN NO. 28-94 STEWART'S ICE CREAM CO..
INC./DAKE BROS.. INC.. Introduced by Craig MacEwan who moved for
its adoption. seconded by James Obermayer:
With the fol lowing conditions. adhering to site plan map. as
submitted. for June 23rd. That Instead of the planting of 16
I i lacs. 2Ø be planted in the five foot buffer area. Two year
guarantee on al I trees and shrubs. to be administered by the
owner. A November 1st deadl ine to be met for al I criteria for
site plan approval.
Duly adopted this 28th day of June. 1994. by the fol lowing vote:
AYES: Mrs. LaBombard. Mr. MacEwan. Mr. Ruel. Mr. Pal ing.
Mr. Stark. Mr. Obermayer. Mr. Brewer
NOES: NONE
MR. BREWER-One last item. our site visits. and we have a Special
Meeting on the 7th of July. at seven o'clock. downstairs in the
Conference Room. It's going to be a workshop. It's not going to
be a meeting.
MRS. LABOMBARD-When are site visits?
- 88 -
MR. MAÇ.EWAN-,Si~.~ visi.ts ar'e, th~,13.tt] at/9ur'.
On motion meeting was adjourned.
RE~PECTFULLY SUBMITTED,
Timothy Brewer, Chairman
~
. }. ~ \
..1.
- 81 -
;,.
, .
;.
t!
, ~ ~,
"j J
Ii
~ :rj
'. \
I ,