2005-06-21
(Queensbury Planning Board 6/21/05)
QUEENSBURY PLANNING BOARD MEETING
FIRST REGULAR MEETING
JUNE 21, 2005
INDEX
Subdivision No. 11-2004 Diamond Point Realty
1.
PRELIMINARY STAGE Tax Map No. 296.10-1-19
FINAL STAGE
Site Plan No. 18-2005 Richard, Jr. & Beth Schermerhorn 9.
Tax Map No. 289.15-1-1.1
Site Plan No. 13-2004 David Menter 25.
MODIFICATION Tax Map No. 295.8-1-9
Site Plan No. 12-2004 Aftab (Sam) Bhatti 27.
MODIFICATION Tax Map No. 302.5-1-51, 52, 52.13
Subdivision No. 10-2005 Frank & Joanne DeNardo 34.
PRELIMINARY STAGE Tax Map No. 240-1-47
FINAL STAGE
Site Plan No. 26-2005 Laconia Realty 41.
Tax Map No. 309.11-2-22, 23
Site Plan No. 27-2005 Diamond Autos
52.
Tax Map No. 303.15-1-18
THESE ARE NOT OFFICIALLY ADOPTED MINUTES AND ARE SUBJECT TO
BOARD AND STAFF REVISIONS. REVISIONS WILL APPEAR ON THE
FOLLOWING MONTHS MINUTES (IF ANY) AND WILL STATE SUCH
APPROVAL OF SAID MINUTES.
0
(Queensbury Planning Board 6/21/05)
QUEENSBURY PLANNING BOARD MEETING
FIRST REGULAR MEETING
JUNE 21, 2005
7:00 P.M.
MEMBERS PRESENT
CHRIS HUNSINGER, CHAIRMAN
ANTHONY METIVIER
ROBERT VOLLARO
GRETCHEN STEFFAN
GEORGE GOETZ
RICHARD SANFORD
THOMAS FORD, ALTERNATE
LAND USE PLANNER-SUSAN BARDEN
GIS SPECIALIST-GEORGE HILTON
TOWN COUNSEL-MILLER, MANNIX, SCHACHNER, & HAFNER-MICHAEL HILL
MOTION TO APPROVE THE MINUTES OF JANUARY 18, JANUARY 25,
FEBRUARY 15, FEBRUARY 22, MARCH 15 & MARCH 22, 2005, Introduced by
Anthony Metivier who moved for its adoption, seconded by Gretchen Steffan:
Duly adopted this 21 day of June, 2005, by the following vote:
st
AYES: Mrs. Steffan, Mr. Metivier, Mr. Sanford, Mr. Goetz, Mr. Hunsinger
NOES: NONE
ABSTAINED: Mr. Vollaro, Mr. Ford
OLD BUSINESS:
SUBDIVISION NO. 11-2004 FINAL STAGE SEQR TYPE: UNLISTED DIAMOND
POINT REALTY AGENT: JARRETT-MARTIN ENGINEERS ZONE: RR-3A
LOCATION: NORTH OFF OAKWOOD DRIVE APPLICANT PROPOSES TO
SUBDIVIDE A 17.7 ACRE PARCEL INTO THREE RESIDENTIAL LOTS RANGING
IN SIZE FROM 3.02 ACRES TO 11.05 ACRES. TAX MAP NO. 296.10-1-19 LOT SIZE:
17.7 ACRES SECTION: SUBDIVISION REGS
MICHAEL O’CONNOR & RICK MEATH, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT
(TAPE STARTED LATE)
1
(Queensbury Planning Board 6/21/05)
MR. O'CONNOR-I acknowledge that there’s a difference, but these lots are very large
lots. Now, I think if you take a look at the density we provide, 70 basal square feet per
acre, that’s a rather dense area for trees, and obviously the neighbor that is most affected
by this looked at it, had their Greens Committee look at it, had the groundskeeper look
at it, and thought that it would not have an impact on them. If you take a look at the
property that borders the south side of Number Four, which is the hole that runs parallel
to Wincrest Drive, those lots are cleared much more significantly than what we’re
proposing to clear on the lots which would be on the west side of three and the west side
of two. We’ve talked a little bit about it, and I haven’t talked to Rick about it. Probably
the Country Club is going to ask for some of that tree clearing so that it will promote
better growth. One of the problems with Number Two, and they did extensive
trenching a couple of years ago along the base of the trees. On the Country Club side,
they trenched and cut all the root systems of the trees, because they were coming out
into the fairway, and you weren’t getting good fairway growth. So this is a pretty good
partnership between two adjoining neighbors that they think will minimize impact on
each other.
MR. MEATH-It’s also interesting to note that the third neighbor here, Mr. Kelly, who
was the one that raised all these objections, he wants us to maintain a buffer yet he has a
lot that’s virtually cleared. If you look down, going from his property down to the
Country Club, he has an agreement with the Country Club where they clear that entire
hill for him, and his entire lot is virtually cleared, with the exception of a little corner up
near the road, I believe. So he doesn’t want to grow any buffer on his lot, yet he wants
us to keep a buffer on our lot, and I don’t really see the sense of that.
MR. VOLLARO-We’re not reviewing his application.
MR. MEATH-I realize that, but I also think that, would respectfully disagree. I think we
reviewed this extensively last month, and the Sipperly report.
MR. VOLLARO-There was a lot of dialogue in the minutes.
MR. MEATH-Yes, there was.
MR. VOLLARO-And I saw that, but I didn’t see a definitive decision to go.
MR. MEATH-I certainly believe that it was very definitive. The Sipperly report was not
even on the table. That was done and filed as part of the five lot application. When we
went down from five lots to three lots, that Sipperly report’s not even part of the
application anymore.
MR. SANFORD-What’s the fundamental difference between the two proposals?
MR. O'CONNOR-The proposal as we have it says that we will maintain separate areas
in construction, 70 square inches of basal road at chest height of trees on the site. Trees
over three inches in diameter. The Sipperly report said that there would be clearing
only within the areas of construction, and that the balance of the property would be
pretty much left without any tree cutting.
TOM JARRETT
MR. JARRETT-As opposed to 70 square feet.
MR. MEATH-I can’t even remember the exact restriction.
MR. O'CONNOR-It was a significant difference.
MR. SANFORD-Well, I still don’t know what that difference is.
2
(Queensbury Planning Board 6/21/05)
MR. O'CONNOR-We’re entitled to cut up to 70% basal, under our proposal.
MR. MEATH-With the five lot subdivision application, there obviously would have
been a lot more clearing for houses, driveways, road, septic systems, etc., and so it was
appropriate that a more restrictive cutting provision for the balance of the property.
With only three houses, there’s obviously a lot less clearing for the roads and the
driveways and the houses and everything else, and the 70 square feet of basal area per
acre that we agreed to with the County Club is, I mean, more than restrictive enough, as
far as we’re concerned. I didn’t think this was even an issue, at this point, though, and
certainly the most affected neighbor, as Mike O’Connor just said, was and is, the Glens
Falls Country Club, and they were more than satisfied with this 70 square feet of basal
area per acre restriction.
MR. VOLLARO-If I could answer Mr. Sanford’s question. This Sipperly report,
understand Number One, and you have to go back to take a look at that, but the Stand
Number One said the current basal area of 120 to 130 square foot per acre, and on Stand
Two it was to be 110 to 120 square foot, as I read his report. Whereas the Country Club
talks about 70 square foot of basal per acre. So there is a significant difference between
the two. My only position was one was prepared by a forester and the other one was
prepared by the Country Club.
MR. JARRETT-Actually the original basis for that agreement was recommendations
from Dick Sipperly. So it was not a formal report that was presented to you, but the
recommendations for that agreement between Diamond Point Realty and the Country
Club was based on Dick Sipperly’s recommendations.
MR. VOLLARO-So he constructed both of those?
MR. JARRETT-Yes.
MR. O'CONNOR-And I think there are provisions in the agreement with the Country
Club that they will be put on notice as to clearing and trees will be marked in advance to
them actually being cut, so that they can then review those with the forester.
MR. MEATH-And the 70 square feet of basal area per acre is more restrictive than any
other Town that I’ve heard of.
MR. JARRETT-Consistent with some, and more restrictive than most.
MR. O'CONNOR-I had those figures. Bolton was 50, for the same measurement, and I
think Lake George was 60. You could clear down to that.
MR. GOETZ-I don’t recall, at the last meeting, talking about a Sipperly report. I don’t
think it was even mentioned, and I left the meeting thinking it was all cut and dried. So
I’m surprised that it’s suddenly put on the table.
MR. VOLLARO-Well, it’s only put on the table because, having read the, I didn’t recall,
personally, having made a decision at the meeting, and so I reviewed the minutes, and
the minutes are not clear, in terms of which of these reports we were going to accept. I
didn’t think they were clear. Now I might have misread them. If somebody else re-read
the minutes, that’s fine.
MR. O'CONNOR-The statement I remember was by Mr. Meath saying that the Sipperly
report was no longer on the table. That should be some place within those minutes, that
we were asked directly have we modified our cutting plans, and we said, yes, we have,
and then we got into, how were you going to enforce this. We said that we would put a
note on the subdivision plat for purposes of having a guide for enforcement.
3
(Queensbury Planning Board 6/21/05)
MR. VOLLARO-Well, I saw that. That I saw, that we were going to put the information
on the subdivision plat, as opposed to cross referencing with a deed. There was some
discussions of that type.
MR. O'CONNOR-We got into a big, long discussion about that.
MR. HUNSINGER-Any other comments, questions from members of the Board on this
side? Any other outstanding items from the Board that you want to discuss? I didn’t
want to go through the review criteria because there were just a handful of items left.
MR. VOLLARO-I wanted to see at least a 25 foot no cut zone on the south side of Lot
Number One facing Oakwood. I thought that that was something we had discussed at
the first meeting, and I think we had some agreement that we would put a buffer in
there of about 25 feet.
MR. MEATH-There already is 20 feet that we don’t own that’s in between our property
and Kelly to the south. There’s a 20 foot strip that’s owned by the Glens Falls Country
Club, that we have no control over. Obviously, I don’t think they have any intentions of
selling that, but I can’t speak for them.
MR. VOLLARO-That’s heir right of way, I think.
MR. MEATH-They actually own it.
MR. FORD-That’s separate and apart from the easement?
MR. MEATH-Yes, there is a separate easement that goes along the length of the golf
course. This is a 20 foot strip, if you come from Oakwood Drive, it flows in between our
property and the Kelly property and goes down to the Country Club, and the Glens
Falls Country Club owns the title to that 20 feet.
MR. O’CONNOR-I think it has 35 feet of frontage on Oakwood, comes out, squares off,
runs parallel to the Kelly property line, and it’s 20 feet wide.
MR. VOLLARO-Mr. Chairman, I have a comments on the drawing that I’d like to
discuss.
MR. HUNSINGER-Yes, go ahead.
MR. VOLLARO-If I may. So that you folks can get on, I’m looking at C-3, Drawing C-3,
and you might as well get to C-3 and then pick up D-1 as well. It’s got to do with the
notes on the drawing, where it says wastewater design information. Upper right hand
corner of C-3. It says that no garbage grinders or spas, hot tubs connected to the
wastewater disposal system, and then it reiterates that same statement on D-1, and it
says the system is not designed to accommodate garbage grinders, that’s on Number L-
8, on Drawing D-1, and yet there’s an area in there that kind of talks to the fact that we
can fix that, you know, that we can have that if it’s necessary.
MR. JARRETT-I’m confused. Where is the reference that it can be included?
MR. VOLLARO-Hold on a second. This is on the drawing notes at the top. It says extra
capacity and/or multiple compartment tanks to be provided for garbage grinders or
spas. We’re on C-3 at the very top, under drawing notes. So we’ve got a degree of
conflict between those two. So we ought to resolve that.
MR. O'CONNOR-That’s a typical note that your standard system doesn’t have that
unless you have these add-ons to the standard system.
4
(Queensbury Planning Board 6/21/05)
MR. VOLLARO-Yes, but, you know, when you get to D-1, it’s very explicit there. It says
the system is not designed to accommodate garbage grinder.
MR. JARRETT-Correct. It’s not designed in these documents for that. If an alternate
design goes to the Queensbury Wastewater Department, or to Dave Hatin’s office for
garbage grinders, then the system size would have to be increased. Especially the septic
tank.
MR. VOLLARO-Okay. I look at this as, you know, some conflicting information. I don’t
like to see that kind of stuff on the drawing.
MR. JARRETT-If you wish, we can clarify it by removing that portion of C-3-1, that note.
MR. VOLLARO-All right. Now, under wastewater leaching system requirements, I’ll
just go through this, I’d like to see it added in accordance with 136-10, which is your on-
site wastewater spec, that the system be allowed to stabilize naturally for at least 60
days, and that’s on the Town of Queensbury’s spec 136-10 on fill systems. I have it with
me if you want me to break it out.
MR. JARRETT-Well, it’s a variation on the theme. Which note are you referring to?
MR. VOLLARO-I’m on Note Number One for percolation rates of less than one minute
per inch construct a cut and fill system. Now you describe both a cut and fill and a
standard system in your drawings, but if you go to cut and fill, you’re going to have,
allows stabilization for at least 60 days, if you look at 136-10.
MR. O'CONNOR-Isn’t that part of the building permit process, that?
MR. VOLLARO-Well, we have a specification, 136 is our spec for on-site wastewater
systems.
MR. JARRETT-We refer to that here in our design basins, but if you wish us to put that
in there specifically, that’s not a big deal.
MR. VOLLARO-If you read it, it says have a five to ten minute percolation rate verified
in advance and burrow pit and in place in the leaching system, but it doesn’t say
anything allowing for that soil to naturally stabilize in 60 days, and I think it ought to be
added in, but that’s just me.
MR. HUNSINGER-Any other questions, comments from the Board?
MR. JARRETT-I just wanted to respond to one thing. We do call for the percolation rates
to be verified in the field after placement of the fill, and we talk about compaction in
place, but if he wishes to add the note about stabilization for 60 days, that’s fine.
MR. VOLLARO-I would like to see it added, because that’s what 136 says we have to do.
MR. O'CONNOR-Bob, doesn’t compaction in place eliminate the need for the 60 day
wait period?
MR. VOLLARO-It says naturally. The term in 136-10 says naturally for 60 days.
MR. O'CONNOR-But doesn’t the Health Department allow, our standards are you
apply the stricter of the Health Department, Town of Queensbury or DEC, whichever
jurisdiction that you’re working on there. Don’t they allow compaction, as opposed to
the waiting period?
5
(Queensbury Planning Board 6/21/05)
MR. VOLLARO-It doesn’t say that in the spec. I mean, 136-10 is very clear. I have it
here if you want me to get it out and read it.
MR. O'CONNOR-Tom is indicating he’d put a note on there.
MR. HUNSINGER-Other questions, comments from the Board?
MRS. STEFFAN-I just wanted to ask Counsel about the deed language. That’s one of the
issues that came up in Staff notes.
MR. HILL-With regard to the driveway maintenance agreement, is what you’re
speaking of? We’ve reviewed that, and it appears to us that there could be some
clarification made with respect to the agreement. We think that it could be made clearer
as to who the responsible parties are going to be for the maintenance, and there are a
few things in it that we think could be revised to make it more consistent, internally
consistent as well. So we’d like to have an opportunity to have another draft of that,
from the applicant, with the aim of producing a better agreement.
MR. O'CONNOR-We’ve discussed that and have no objection to you conditioning your
approval upon a signoff by Town Counsel as to those issues.
MR. HUNSINGER-I had a similar question on that, not to belabor the point, but in
reading that, the draft agreement, it seems to me as those one of the three property
owners could go ahead and incur costs to either repair or maintain the road, and then
turn around and force the other two property owners to have to repay him. It just didn’t
seem like it was a very collaborative kind of agreement, and so I was wondering about
the Counsel’s comments as well.
MR. HILL-We think that, with some additional revision, that that could be clarified as to
who would have the authority to initiate the repairs, and how the expenses would be
apportioned and so on. We think there needs to be a little more work on that.
MR. O'CONNOR-The intent is to build in a provision that says two-thirds of the three
owners, two out of three owners have to agree.
MR. HUNSINGER-Okay.
MR. O'CONNOR-So it won’t be unilateral.
MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. Go ahead, Tom.
MR. FORD-I may have missed this, but could you review what the plan is for lighting,
exterior lighting?
MR. JARRETT-Actually the original submission to the Board included some minimal
lighting along the common driveway, and we’ve removed that from this proposal, since
it’s only three lots. The homeowners can propose their own lighting on their own lot, as
is normal in residential situations.
MR. VOLLARO-In the prepared motion, I see where they did not include the
stormwater management report dated May 31, 2005. I don’t see it in there. It jumps
from 5/17 to 6/2. That probably ought to be added.
MR. HUNSINGER-What was the date on that report?
MR. VOLLARO-May 31, 2005.
MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. Any other questions, comments from the Board?
6
(Queensbury Planning Board 6/21/05)
MR. VOLLARO-Yes. Do we have a signoff from C.T. Male on this? Has C.T. Male
finally signed off on this do you know?
MR. HILTON-Late, let’s see here, late on Friday, I have an e-mail here, in the file, that
states that we received a C.T. Male signoff for this subdivision.
MR. VOLLARO-Okay, and that’s against their letter of 3/9, I would assume.
MR. HILTON-I believe so. The e-mail states for the subdivision.
MR. O'CONNOR-We have a copy of that if you want.
MR. VOLLARO-Okay. No, I just wanted to make sure there was a C.T. Male signoff in
the file. That’s all. I didn’t see it here. That’s the only comments I have.
MR. HUNSINGER-How does the Board feel about the conflicting clearing reports?
MR. METIVIER-I guess we have to choose what we’re going to do. I mean, what else
can we do? Do we refer to the one that we choose or?
MR. HUNSINGER-Well, if we don’t, if we go along with the plan that’s been proposed
by the applicant, we don’t need to do anything in addition. Which is why I’m asking
how the Board feels. So how does the Board feel about the two clearing reports? If we
simply accept the applicant’s proposal, we don’t really need to do anything different.
It’s already on the plat.
MR. METIVIER-I think I’m all right with that one. Honestly.
MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. Gretchen?
MRS. STEFFAN-I’m satisfied with the current situation.
MR. HUNSINGER-Richard?
MR. SANFORD-I think, if I look at this in relationship to all of the other subdivisions
we’ve dealt with, I think it’s appropriate as presented.
MR. HUNSINGER-George?
MR. GOETZ-I think it’s appropriate. I thought it was last time. I think just clean up the
language that you’re going to do with Counsel. I think that’s fine.
MR. VOLLARO-That’s not what he’s talking about. He’s talking about the maintenance
agreement.
MR. HUNSINGER-I was talking about the clearing study.
MR. GOETZ-Yes, that’s what I was referring to.
MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. Tom?
MR. FORD-I understand the rationale for the change in the cutting dimensions
procedures, based upon the change between the five lot subdivision and the three. I
don’t have a problem with it.
MR. HUNSINGER-How about you, Bob?
7
(Queensbury Planning Board 6/21/05)
MR. VOLLARO-I’ll go along with the Board, yes.
MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. I think the only other outstanding item was a no cut along the
south side, near Oakwood. Is that something that would be acceptable to the applicant?
MR. O'CONNOR-Well, we think that we have a 20 foot strip outside of our own control.
We think it’s a little bit excessive. I understand, in part, what you’re saying, but I also
understand, I think, the applicant has given up a great deal. Typically, they will go in
and just clear the construction area. So I don’t know if, practically, we’re talking about
that much. It’s not a deal breaker one way or another.
MR. MEATH-I just don’t see any reason for any additional restrictions other than what
we’ve already got included on the plan. I think that certainly covers it.
MR. HUNSINGER-I would tend to agree with you. It was an outstanding item that
wasn’t really resolved in the discussion. I don’t know how the rest of the Board feels
about it.
MR. VOLLARO-I just have a question. I’ll ask Tom the question. My scale’s inside. I
don’t want to bring it out. What’s the width of the land formerly of Glens Falls Country
Club?
MR. MEATH-That’s 20 feet wide.
MR. JARRETT-Along the boundary of 20 feet, yes.
MR. HUNSINGER-And we do have the tree cutting plan that you pointed out.
MRS. STEFFAN-Right. I think with the 30 foot setback that’s part of our Regs, and then
the 20 foot Country Club, that’s a 50 foot buffer of some sort. So I’m satisfied.
MR. VOLLARO-Yes, I’ll be content with that. That’s 20 feet. That’s going to be fine. So
long as that’s owned by them. Do they maintain that pretty well, the Country Club
itself?
MR. MEATH-It’s owned by the Country Club. There is some growth in there. No, it’s
not clear.
MR. SANFORD-Is there a public hearing tonight, Chris?
MR. HUNSINGER-There is not. The public hearing was closed when we approved the
Preliminary subdivision.
MR. SANFORD-I just didn’t know.
MR. HUNSINGER-Yes. I guess if there’s no other questions or comments, we can
entertain a motion.
MR. JARRETT-Mr. Chairman, before we start the motion, I’d like to clarify whether I’m
changing anything in regard to the garbage grinders, notes on the drawing. We’re going
to clarify that as well as the stabilization for 60 days?
MR. VOLLARO-That was my understanding at least.
MR. O'CONNOR-Okay. That’s okay.
8
(Queensbury Planning Board 6/21/05)
MOTION TO APPROVE FINAL STAGE SUBDIVISION NO. 11-2004 DIAMOND
POINT REALTY, Introduced by Gretchen Steffan who moved for its adoption,
seconded by Thomas Ford:
WHEREAS, an application has been make to this board for the following:
Subdivision No. 11-2004 Applicant/Property Owner: Diamond Point Realty
Agent: Jarrett-Martin Engineers
FINAL STAGE Zone: RR-3A
SEQR Type: Unlisted Location: North off Oakwood Drive
Applicant proposes to subdivide a 17.7acre property into three residential lots ranging
in size from 3.02 acres to 11.05 acres
Tax Map No. 296.10-1-19
Lot size: 17.7 acres / Section: Subdivision
Regs
Public Hearing: 11/23/04, Tabled; 3/15/05
WHEREAS, the application was received 8/16/04, and
WHEREAS, the above is supported with the following documentation and inclusive of
all newly received information, not included in this listing as of 6/17/05, and
6/17/05 Staff Notes
6/16/05 PB from Caffry & Flower: representing D. & S. Kelly
6/10/05 PB from Jarrett-Martin Engineers: Draft language for common
maintenance agreement
6/2/05 Meeting Notice
5/17/05 Staff Notes
5/11/05 Letter to Bd. From D. & S. Kelly
5/2/05 Meeting notice sent
4/21/05 FOIL Request: Caffry & Flower
4/13/05 Revised Submission
3/16/05 PB resolution: Tabled
3/15/05 PB minutes
3/15/05 Figures presented by D. Auer
3/15/05 Public Petition Presented at PB Meeting
3/15/05 Public Comments: N. Wilder, B. Rabida, M. Mulshine, K.
Angleson, K. Sonnabend
3/15/05 Staff Notes
3/15/05 Fax to Caffry & Flower: info as requested
3/11/05 PB from G. Hilton: Staff notes
3/11/05 PB from Caffry & Flower
3/11/05 Fax to Jarrett-Martin Engineers: Staff notes
3/9/05 CTM engineering comments
3/8/05 Notice of Public Hearing sent
3/7/05 Fax to Caffry & Flower: Pg. Of 3/11/05 Jarrett-Martin Eng. letter
2/28/05 Meeting Notice sent
2/23/05 G. Hilton from K. O’Brien NYS DEC
2/17/05 G. Hilton from Caffry & Flower
2/10/05 Revised Submission
2/7/05 Town Clerk from C. Brown: FOIL request response
1/24/05 Jarrett-Martin Eng. from G. Hilton: Keeping one copy of 1/18/05
submission, returning balance
1/21/05 Jarrett-Martin Engineers from G. Hilton: material incomplete
1/20/05 FOIL request: Caffry & Flower
1/18/05 Submission: Incomplete
9
(Queensbury Planning Board 6/21/05)
11/26/04 Transmittal to D. Dougher: Caffry & Flower FOIL request
11/23/04 PB resolution: Tabled
11/23/04 PB minutes
11/23/04 Application for Public Access to records: Caffry & Flower
11/23/04 PB from Caffry & Flower
11/23/04 PB from G. Hilton: Staff Notes incl. 11/17/04 CTM eng.
comments,
11/2/04 Highway Dept. comments, transmittal to applicant of
comments from S. Smith Qu. Fire Marshal
11/22/04 Fire Marshals from Jarrett-Martin Engineers agent
11/22/04 PB from S. Smith [revised comments]
11/16/04 Notice of public hearing sent
11/16/04 G. Hilton from R. Meath: road, HOA creation
11/4/04 Transmittal to Applicant from M. Ryba: Fire Marshal comments
11/4/04 Fire Marshal comments
11/3/04 Transmittal to CTM Associates: agent response
11/2/04 Highway Dept. comments
11/1/04 Transmittal to H. Brechko re: FOIL request
10/28/04 FOIL request: Caffry & Flower
10/12/04 PB from Dr. & Mrs. Enhorning
10/7/04 PB from D. Lusignan
10/5/04 FOIL request: D. Kelly
9/27/04 PB from D. Kelly
9/23/04 CTM engineering comments
9/22/04 ZBA resolution: Approved
9/21/04 Notice of Public Hearing sent
9/21/04 Letters from public
8/20/04 Transmittal to CTM: application sent for review
8/16/04 Application Materials / Maps
7/20/04 Staff Notes
7/20/04 PB minutes
7/2004 Vicinity Map
5/14/04 Sketch Plan application submission
WHEREAS, pursuant to Chapter A183, Subdivision of Land, Section A183-9J and A183-
10C, D of the Code of the Town of Queensbury a public hearing was advertised and
held on 11/23/04 & 3/15/05, and
WHEREAS, the Planning Board has determined that the proposal complies with the
Subdivision application requirements of the Code of the Town Queensbury (Zoning);
and
WHEREAS, the Planning Board has considered the environmental factors found in the
Code of the Town of Queensbury (Zoning); and
WHEREAS, the requirements of the State Environmental Quality Review Act have been
considered and the Planning Board has adopted a SEQRA Negative Declaration; and/or
if application is a modification, the requirements of the State Environmental Quality
Review Act have been considered; and the proposed modification(s) do not result in any
new or significantly different environmental impacts, and, therefore, no further SEQRA
review is necessary; and
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that
We find the following: The application for Final Stage is hereby approved in accordance
with the resolution prepared by Staff with the following amendments:
10
(Queensbury Planning Board 6/21/05)
1. We would like to add to the list of attachments the 5/31/05 stormwater
management report.
2. We would also like to include final approval of the deed language as it relates to
the maintenance and repair of common facilities by Queensbury Town Counsel.
3. We also would like the applicant to incorporate language as described in Code 136
on Drawing C-3, Item One.
4. Recreation Fees in the amount of $500.00 per lot are applicable to this
subdivision.
5. Applicant shall submit a copy of the required NOI prior to final signature by the
Planning Board Chairman.
6. All necessary outside agency approvals have been received by the applicant, with a
copy sent to and received by Planning Department Staff within 180 days.
7. The plat must be filed with the County Clerk within 60 days of receipt by Planning
Department Staff of outside agency approvals noted.
8. Final, approved plans in compliance with this subdivision must be submitted to
the Community Development Dept. before any further review by the Zoning
Administrator or Building & Codes personnel. Subsequent issuance of further
permits; including building permits are dependent on receipt.
Duly adopted this 21st day of June, 2005, by the following vote:
MR. METIVIER-Can we do the conditions on Preliminary, or does it have to be Final?
MR. HUNSINGER-This is Final. Preliminary was already approved.
MR. METIVIER-My apologies. It shows here Preliminary and Final Stage, on the
agenda.
MR. HUNSINGER-I’m correct on that, right?
MR. VOLLARO-Yes, that’s correct. We did that.
MRS. BARDEN-I have Preliminary and Final. You can go from Preliminary to Final.
MR. SANFORD-Well, did we do a SEQRA?
MR. HUNSINGER-We did SEQRA last meeting when we, we already approved
Preliminary.
MR. VOLLARO-We’re on Final.
MR. SANFORD-So the agenda is incorrect.
MR. HUNSINGER-The agenda is incorrect, I believe.
MRS. BARDEN-Okay.
AYES: Mr. Ford, Mr. Sanford, Mr. Goetz, Mr. Vollaro, Mr. Metivier, Mrs. Steffan, Mr.
Hunsinger
NOES: NONE
11
(Queensbury Planning Board 6/21/05)
MR. HUNSINGER-You’re all set.
MR. JARRETT-Thank you very much.
SITE PLAN NO. 18-2005 SEQR TYPE: UNLISTED RICHARD, JR./BETH
SCHERMERHORN AGENT: TOM HUTCHINS, P.E. & JONATHAN LAPPER
ZONE: SPLIT – RR-3A, PO LOCATION: 21 BLIND ROCK ROAD APPLICANT IS
SEEKING APPROVAL FOR GRADING AND FILLING OF A 20 +/- ACRE
PROPERTY. FILLING OPERATIONS THAT MEET OR EXCEED THE CRITERIA
OUTLINED IN § 179-6-070 (2) ARE SUBJECT TO SITE PLAN REVIEW AND
APPROVAL FROM THE PLANNING BOARD. WARREN CO. PLANNING: 3/9/05
TAX MAP NO. 289.15-1-1.1 LOT SIZE: 20.58 ACRES SECTION: 179-4-020
JON LAPPER & TOM HUTCHINS, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT
MR. HUNSINGER-Staff notes.
MR. HILTON-Okay. Just a brief summary. My understanding is that the Board visited
the site on Saturday, and there was a test balloon that was up for the Board to view. The
applicant is before you again. I know the last time this item was discussed, there were
some comments about possibly varying the heights and the amount of fill that would be
placed on this site, and as I’ve indicated in my Staff notes, the Staff notes were written
before the balloon was put up and obviously I think that will come up as part of the
discussion this evening. My main comment would be, if there’s any variation to what’s
proposed now, that that would have to be reflected on final site plans, and that’s really
all I have at this point, if you have any questions.
MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. Go ahead, gentlemen, the floor is all yours.
MR. LAPPER-For the record, Jon Lapper, Rich Schermerhorn, and Jim Hutchins. When
we were here last time, Jim and I were here, Tom Hutchins, Jim’s his dad, sorry. Tom
and I were here last time, the neighbors had made some comments about the visual
impact, and the Board had made some comments as well. Rich was away that week and
couldn’t join us, but when Rich got back, we got together, and Rich decided to amend
the application to take away a third of the fill that was proposed, and to reduce the
height by 10 feet from what was proposed. So what’s proposed now is only two feet
higher than what’s there, except it would be cleaned up and graded out and it would
include the fill from the dredging of the pond. So we think it’s a much smaller and
simpler project.
MR. FORD-Jon, so what we observed on Saturday is not what?
MR. LAPPER-Is the new plan.
MR. FORD-It is the new plan.
MR. LAPPER-Yes, but that’s a lot different than what we came and talked about last
time.
MR. FORD-Thank you.
MR. HUNSINGER-And the new plan is reflected in the drawings?
MR. LAPPER-Yes.
MR. SANFORD-Is there a public hearing, Mr. Chairman, tonight?
12
(Queensbury Planning Board 6/21/05)
MR. HUNSINGER-There is, yes.
MR. SANFORD-Okay. All right. I just wanted to make sure, because when you read the
agenda, it doesn’t state whether it’s open or closed.
MR. HUNSINGER-Yes. I will have to beg Staff on that one.
MR. SANFORD-I know we had public hearing last time. I don’t know if it was left open.
Is the public hearing open?
MR. HILTON-The public hearing was left open from the last time.
MR. SANFORD-All right. Thank you.
RICH SCHERMERHORN
MR. SCHERMERHORN-Rich Schermerhorn for the record. I wasn’t here at the last
meeting because I was on vacation with my kids, had spring break, but I just want to
clarify that I know a few people in the audience were concerned about the height of the
fill and stuff, and we have changed the plan, which Tom can certainly go over, but I am
willing to condition the whole 20 acres to one building lot, so I won’t be back later to
subdivide it into three or four lots or whatever’s permitted at the time. I know that was
one concern. I’m also willing to limit the amount of hours. We could do Monday to
Friday, eight to five. The other thing is I’m willing to limit it to a time. The shorter we
go, the more of an impact, I guess, as far as traffic goes, it’s greater if we shorten it, but I
thought maybe even 36 months would be reasonable. Just a little history on this
property, I’ve had the property for almost seven years, and the history of the property is
I have been bringing clean fill from other projects that are projects that are within Town
of Queensbury, ones that have been approved in front of this Board over the years. It’s
been a great site to take soils that are basically clay soils that we don’t want to put
against foundations or under parking lots, and that’s what I’ve been putting back there.
My intentions are to have a single family home some day back there. I’m not going to
say it’s immediate within the next year or two because I’ve got another development
that I just got approved I’m actually going to put my house in, but it is for, I will
condition it to one building lot. The ponds, as you probably observed, the one to the
north was done about a year and a half, well, maybe even two years ago. I have permits
for the other ones that are good for about another five years to the south. My intentions
are to clean that pond up. Now 80% of that pond, according to a survey, belongs to me,
and I have offered to the Goslines, and I’ll put it on record, that I’ve offered to clean that
up free of charge, no charge to them, when the time comes for me to clean that pond up,
their side as well. I just wanted to state that for the record. The other thing is that it’s
important for the volume that we’ve indicated, even though I’ve cut it down, there is
going to be some material that comes out of that pond, and basically it comes out it’s
silty mud. It does dry out. It’s nothing that’s harmful, and if you can tell by this site,
from the site visit Saturday, last week was probably our worst storm we’ve had in I can’t
think the last time we’ve had a storm so bad, but the retaining, the runoff and the way
it’s been grading, according to my DEC regulations, I haven’t had any problems, and I
just want to also state that over the last seven years any time Craig Brown or Chris
Round or Town of Queensbury officials, anybody has called me, I’ve always addressed
any situation. I know one of the neighbors is here tonight, and I’m not sure what their
concern is, but I want to be a good neighbor. I don’t want any problems with
Queensbury. I mean, I could have, I guess I could have looked at it another way and
went out and filed a building permit, started a house or a foundation in there, then did
my grading operations, and I probably wouldn’t even be here tonight, because everyone
would assume that it’s part of the building process, but again, it is for a single family, I’ll
condition it for a single family lot, 20 acres, and, you know, other concerns I’ll try and
address tonight, too, but I just want to clean the ponds up and make it a good building
13
(Queensbury Planning Board 6/21/05)
site. That’s all, and I do have the proper permits, and you’re probably aware. So, that’s
all for now.
MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. Thank you. My tendency would be to not go through the
entire list of site plan review criteria, since we hashed this out pretty good before. So I’d
just open it up to the Board for any questions or comments.
MR. SANFORD-All right. I’ve got some questions. I appreciate the tour on Saturday. I
thought it was informative. I think you’re going to need a couple of additional
truckloads of fill, because I think we brought back that much on our shoes. To just cut to
the bottom line, I am interested in public comment, before we make a final decision on
this, but when I was up there and looking at it, here’s what I thought. First of all, I asked
for some itemization, for lack of a better word, of some of the fill numbers, and I would
be interested in knowing, given the current elevation up at the top, which is, I think.
MR. HUTCHINS-417.92.
MR. SANFORD-Okay. Call it 418, and if we leave that constant, but we want to, let’s
say, complete the grade down the slope, and the gradual slope, how many yards or
truckloads or however you want to give it to me, is required to complete that particular
aspect?
MR. HUTCHINS-If we graded the top to 417.
MR. SANFORD-418.
MR. HUTCHINS-I’m sorry, 418, instead of 420?
MR. SANFORD-Right. I’ll get ahead of myself on this. I think you’re very dry at 418. I
don’t think you’ve got a problem with building a beautiful home up there and having
any problems with water. Now I’m not an engineer, but that’s my guess. That’s the
highest part of the property. I think that would be fine. To go up another two feet,
based on what I just eyeballed, is a heck of a lot of acreage, or land, and I thought that if
you go up another two feet, I would be interested in knowing how many yards of fill is
required for that build up and I thought I kind of asked, even though it was kind of
inappropriate, at the time of the site visit, to get into those types of questions, but I kind
of asked for some kind of an itemization, so I have a handle on that, because my knee-
jerk reaction is to certainly see this thing completed so that you have a fine building site,
which would be to grade it on down on a gradual slope, and finish it up, but I have
concerns about the disruption, in terms of the harmony of the neighborhood, with the
noise and the trucks and the traffic and everything, and I think that by adding that
additional two feet, you’re going to be bringing in a hell of a lot of soil to do that, and so
that’s what I wanted to have those numbers. I wanted to know, A, how much, just to get
that slope as you described. I mean, and it’s not easy to articulate it for the minutes, but,
you know, the gradual slope, the grading down, and I think we were all pretty much
aware of what you were going to do with that. How many yards is required to have
that done, A, and then if you were then to go up another couple feet, throughout, how
much additional fill would be required there, and again, without knowing those
numbers, I’ll go a little bit out on a limb and say that I actually think the 418 was
probably fine, but I would like those numbers.
MR. HUTCHINS-Okay, and I did look into that for you, as I said I would when you
were there.
MR. SCHERMERHORN-Just quick, so I don’t forget. The reason for the two feet is at
the highest elevation, which we’re calling it 418, the two feet, basically, the last two feet
is just going to be pure sand. Right now if you walk up there, you talk about tracking
out, that’s all clay. That all comes from Bay Road or Walker Lane or, so I was going to
14
(Queensbury Planning Board 6/21/05)
cap it with two feet of sand, not just to clean it up, but it helps with frost and drainage
and things like that.
MR. SANFORD-Well, yes, Rich, but you know, when I looked at it, and it’s hard,
because, you know, I didn’t have a rule with me, and I’m not all that sophisticated with
these things, that’s a pretty big area out there, and I was thinking two feet going all
around there, that’s a huge amount. So let me here from your engineer, and what did he
come up with?
MR. HUTCHINS-From that high point, I broke it down three ways for you. From that
high point to the east, to bring up the slopes to the east, which is, as you come in, where
the majority will go, that’s about 60% of our total, or at 100,000 yards, that’s about 60,000
yards.
MR. SANFORD-Sixty thousand yards would grade it down to a gradual slope.
MR. HUTCHINS-To the east, without bringing it higher.
MR. SANFORD-Got you.
MR. HUTCHINS-To the west, from that same point to the west, 30,000 yards.
MR. SANFORD-Wait a second, to the west? I didn’t contemplate there being much
being, that was going to be done to the west. Did anybody else who was on the site visit
contemplate further fill being put in to the west?
MR. VOLLARO-I did, because I can see there’s a concentric, the top of the dome has to
be, he’s going to have to fill concentrical, so he effectively has a round dome. So it’s got
to be some on there.
MR. METIVIER-He actually talked about that. Because we were talking, remember
when we looked past and he said it’s going to be more in line with the bluff, if you will,
beyond there. They were going to be more in line there. So the west really isn’t the
affect. It’s the east.
MR. SANFORD-Well, towards the south, they said they weren’t even going to add
additional fill to the south.
MR. METIVIER-Right, or the north, but you’re talking east/west.
MR. SANFORD-Okay. So add to the west how much?
MR. HUTCHINS-Thirty thousand.
MR. SANFORD-Thirty thousand.
MR. METIVIER-I’m assuming that if we were staring at those balloons, from where we
originally start, where the boat trailer was, you’re looking to the west.
MR. HUTCHINS-If you’re standing where the boat trailer was, you’re looking west, yes.
MR. SANFORD-Yes. Okay. I didn’t know there was going to be fill there, but, okay.
MR. HUTCHINS-I’m describing this from up at the high point where the stakes were.
MR. SANFORD-Sure, now you’ve got 90. Now you’ve got 90.
15
(Queensbury Planning Board 6/21/05)
MR. HUTCHINS-Okay, and 10% brings it up to the grade we propose. So 10,000 to
bring, after the slopes are set.
MR. SANFORD-Another 10,000.
MR. HUTCHINS-Yes, and if you think about it, it’s like a pyramid, the majority of the
volume is down low.
MR. SANFORD-Okay.
MR. VOLLARO-What’s the elevation? What elevation do you arrive at?
MR. SANFORD-420.
MR. VOLLARO-Is it 420, approximately 420?
MR. HUTCHINS-420 as the top of grade.
MR. VOLLARO-Okay. I understand.
MR. SANFORD-So once you’re done with grading the slope to the east and to the west,
you’re saying only an additional 10,000 yards is required to bring it up to 420.
MR. HUTCHINS-To bring it from.
MR. SANFORD-418 to 420.
MR. HUTCHINS-From where it is, yes. It’s actually very little material at the top of it.
MR. SCHERMERHORN-If you look at it where the building would go, where the house
go, I should say, we’re concentrating on where that house area would be. So it’s kind of
a, you know, gradual slope.
MR. SANFORD-I’ve got you. It just looked, it didn’t look like it was coming up to a
peak. It looked like it was a pretty good area there.
MR. SCHERMERHORN-Under the old scenario, it was, it would have been.
MR. HUTCHINS-Yes, it would have been 10 feet higher.
MR. FORD-It’s tapered, in other words.
MR. SCHERMERHORN-Yes.
MR. FORD-Two feet at the top and tapers down until you reach the slope.
MR. HUTCHINS-Yes, the majority of the volume is down low. Because the area is down
low.
MR. SANFORD-See, I thought there was a plateau there that was pretty sizeable, at the
top, you know, a flat area on the top. I mean, in terms of acreage it looked to me like it
was multiple acreage, but maybe not.
MR. HUTCHINS-No, it’s less, and it kind of tapers. The area at the high elevation is less
than an acre.
16
(Queensbury Planning Board 6/21/05)
MR. SANFORD-Okay. Well, I didn’t, you don’t know. You’re out there walking
around. It just looked big. All right. Well, that answers some of my questions. I’m
interested in public comment, and then I’ll weigh in later.
MR. HUNSINGER-Okay.
MR. METIVIER-How many yards per truck?
MR. SCHERMERHORN-Legally you can haul 18 yards on a truck, and just if I may on
the trucks, I mean, I know that there’s going to be comments that we can hear the
tailgates and we can hear the trucks roaring down the road. Well, sometimes we’ll work
out there for two weeks, three weeks, four weeks straight, but then the site will site idle
for two months. I mean, it’s not constant. Maybe in this case it would probably be
better if it was constant so we could get it over quicker, but as I do these projects, like the
Bay Road one for example, that’s an 82 acre project I’m doing, and it’s necessary to
remove the clay, and there’s nothing wrong with the clay. It’s clean fill. It’s just it’s
what you don’t use on your parking lots and you don’t backfill your foundations with,
and over time as it settles it’s a very firm and solid material. Again, nothing wrong with
it, but over the years of doing this, I’ve always been very conscientious to the County
and the Town of Queensbury. Days it rains or snows, we don’t run on it. If we start to
see any tracks of mud or dirt, we automatically stop, and that condition will still remain,
not only because, A, I’ll get yelled at by the Town, but it’s a liability. So, I mean, it’s not
like an every day thing. Right now I do have a pile of material at Bay Road where I’m
building the Willows, the senior housing project right now, that’s just idling, waiting to
go down there. Otherwise I’ve got to find another home for it, and so it is a, I mean, it’s
definitely, it would definitely help, that’s all, but I’m willing to, you know, always
compromise and hopefully address the neighbors.
MR. VOLLARO-One of the things that would help a lot, Rich, on the drivers, you know,
most truck drivers have, I know what they do. They empty the bed, take the truck
forward, hit the breaks and slam the tailgate. If they don’t do that, nobody will ever
hear them. At 7:30 in the morning or 8:00, that’s a big boom, whatever it’s going to be.
MR. SCHERMERHORN-And I can even move the hours. I mean, we could do banker
hours, and I don’t mean any disrespect in any way. I’m not saying that to be, I’m just
saying we could go to nine to five if we had to, so that it’s not morning hours. I’ll even
limit it nine to four, but just keep in mind it takes me that much longer to do the project.
MR. VOLLARO-Sure.
MR. SCHERMERHORN-If we restrict it.
MR. VOLLARO-The time that it’s going to take you to do that is directly proportional to
how much fill you get and how fast you get it.
MR. SCHERMERHORN-Correct.
MR. VOLLARO-That’s what it’s all about.
MR. SCHERMERHORN-I mean, this has been a wet spring, and there’s, I mean, as you
know, Saturday, it was just barely starting to dry out and it was still tracking on your
feet.
MR. VOLLARO-The Northway told us what kind of storm we had.
MR. SCHERMERHORN-Yes.
17
(Queensbury Planning Board 6/21/05)
MR. VOLLARO-I just wanted to bring something up. These are photos that I took on
April 30 of this year. I stood up on that dome, when all the foliage was down, and I
th
can pass this to the Board, and took a look at, I guess it’s Mary Lee’s daughter’s home. Is
that correct? Has she got the red house? Okay.
MR. VOLLARO-And I’ve got pictures here showing that, and I can hardly see that from
these photos. So I circled where the house is. Take a look at those. I think there’s
another one underneath there. Now, with the foliage up, I don’t think, at this time of the
year, you’re going to be able to see anything at all. What I did do is I took a level, a
typical level, and I stood up there and leveled it, and looked at how high it was, and I hit
to about the middle of her daughter’s house, on a level. So I don’t think 420’s too high,
personally. I think that’s going to be fine.
MR. SANFORD-Those things you have circled, aren’t they the apartment complexes?
MR. VOLLARO-No. The circles are red. I’ve got one for the apartment complex. Yes.
The other ones in red are Ms. Gosline’s daughter’s home.
MR. SANFORD-Okay.
MR. VOLLARO-So I just wanted to show the Board those, in terms of what it looked like
without foliage.
MR. GOETZ-I just have a question, just to clarify in my own mind, now. The pond that
you’re going to clear is, that would be at the end of the project?
MR. SCHERMERHORN-Well, I’d love to do it sooner than later. It’s just finding the
time. My permit’s good for, the permit’s good for like another five years. When we
renewed it last year, I think it was six years that they gave us to, that the permit’s good
for, not that they wouldn’t renew it. Honestly, I know it won’t get to it this summer. I
would like to set a goal to try and do it by fall. I just can’t promise anybody right now.
Because we are busy, but the pond will be done, but the one thing with the pond, it’ll be
on on-site project. It won’t be an off site project. So the trucks will be on the site
working, other than the inconvenience of the sound of equipment digging the pond out,
but I think it’s an asset to everybody to clean it up. One of the procedures that we have
to go through is we have to drain it down to the lowest level that we can and then, you
know, let it dry out a little bit. You’ve got to build roads into it. It’s quite a project. I
did the one side a year and a half ago, like I said, and it took us a good month and a half,
and it’s an expensive project to do.
MR. SANFORD-How many yards of slop will come out of that pond?
MR. SCHERMERHORN-Well, it varies. I mean, DEC’s given us certain guidelines.
When you stock them with fish, you want to get some depth to them. It doesn’t mean
you just go like a bowl, you just go down and like a pool. You want to get some depth
so you get the colder water, and believe it or not there are some springs down there, and
it’s not just a stream that keeps that full. So, I mean, I could go shallow, but the end
result, you go too shallow with them, you end up with the same situation we’ve got
again.
MR. SANFORD-What I’m suggesting is that if you don’t do it ahead of time, then you
have a potential disposal issue, and so I was thinking that if you could do it, sequence
this in a certain way, then the sludge you’re taking out of that pond could help grade
that slope, and you’d bring in a little bit less fill. I don’t know how much fill we’re
talking about. I did notice a contrasting difference between the two ponds, the one to
the north and the one to the south, and now it makes sense. You’ve already cleaned up
the one to the north.
18
(Queensbury Planning Board 6/21/05)
MR. SCHERMERHORN-That one’s about 14 feet deep in the, out in the pond, and just
so you know, I’m calling it a pond, but when we got the DEC regulations and the history
of that pond, when the old Glen Lake Road used to exist, that used to go through
Gosline’s, through my property, and when they built Blind Rock Road, that pond
actually was dug out as a, from our understanding, was for drainage. As a matter of
fact, when you dig through all that muck, you hit sand and cobble rock. It’s sandy,
cobbly rock soil, but when you dig down deep enough, you starting hitting a, there’s a
few springs, actually there’s quite a few springs, and then the stream that continuously
runs keeps that full all the time, because when we dug that other one out, there was
sand and gravel at the bottom of it. So that was kind of a, it was a manmade wetland is
what it was. It was a spill over for drainage for Blind Rock Road.
MR. SANFORD-Yes, so, I mean, again, do you have any guesstimate as to?
MR. SCHERMERHORN-As to material?
MR. SANFORD-As to how much you’ll be taking out of that northern, or southern
pond?
MR. SCHERMERHORN-Well, it could be anywhere from 10 to 20,000 yards, but what I
certainly, again, what my intentions are to put my own home back there some day, but I
don’t want to fill it up with all my clay and other clean material, and not have room for
the dredge material, because then it would be unaffordable to anybody to get rid of it.
MR. SANFORD-Right.
MR. SCHERMERHORN-So, obviously, I’m going to have to be.
MR. SANFORD-Figure it out.
MR. SCHERMERHORN-Yes. I’m going to have to be conservative with what I bring in
and make sure I’ve got the room to put the dredge material in there, but the beauty of
the way the site is now is there’s pockets where we can contain that, what happens is
you put it in the dump truck. The next thing you know you go up the hill and water’s
running out, but within days it all dries out and it’s actually, it’s great topsoil, but we
end up just burying it because it’s mushy, but when it dries, it’s good soil.
MR. SANFORD-Yes, okay.
MR. METIVIER-During the last public hearing, Mary Lee made mention about not
dredging the pond on her side. What would be the implications if you did not dredge
her side to the pond?
MR. SCHERMERHORN-Well, again, it wouldn’t serve the best interest to that pond. I
wouldn’t think it would serve the best interest to the Goslines, but if they didn’t want
me to clean that pond up, I’d certainly make provisions, however DEC tells me to, to
survey and block out her portion. We’ll leave hers alone, and I’ll clean mine up, but
again, on the record, and I’ve stated this to her and her husband, I paid for all the
permits and engineering to get these permits, and that was several thousands of dollars,
and at one time they did offer to do a portion of cost towards this, and I said, no, I’ll be a
good neighbor. I’ve got the equipment. I’m the one doing all the development and
building in this corridor, and I’m willing to do it. So if anything else is differently said
tonight, I don’t know what to say, but I have offered to clean it up, on the record, no
charge to the Goslines, but if they don’t want that portion cleaned up, I’m happy to just
work around it.
MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. We do have a public hearing scheduled. Is there anyone here
that would like to make comment on this application? The purpose of the public
19
(Queensbury Planning Board 6/21/05)
hearing is to solicit comments from the public. I would ask that you identify yourself
and then keep your comments to the application at hand. Thank you.
PUBLIC HEARING OPEN
MARY LEE GOSLINE
MRS. GOSLINE-Mary Lee Gosline, 25 Blind Rock Road. I’ve been listening to
everything Richard’s been saying, but I don’t really know what he’s going to be doing
out there. You just keep giving me heights and grading, but you’ve really never
described what it’s going to look like after it’s done. I have some pictures here of some
places I believe he’ll be putting some fill, and I’ve taken, and I’m concerned about the
water going towards my daughter’s property, as we go up higher, and I think if he goes
up two foot more he’s going to be higher than the other bluff’s near him, which will
make water come down more. I can understand he’s saying about the sand for
drainage, but couldn’t he put a foot of sand on top and then the debris from the pond, he
said it was topsoil, and spread that around for topsoil, grass, or whatever you’re going
to put there, and the grading in the front, when you grade it down and then you grass it,
and fertilize it and whatever, will that be a detriment to the pond? I’m just wondering
different things like this. I never heard how high the house is going to be, if you decided
how high it was going to be, with the balloons, and I have these pictures we took. This
was before the rainstorm. This seems like an area that might be filled in to the west,
you’re talking about. I think a lot of the area that he’s filled in had springs in them also.
So those springs. So those springs are still bubbling up water but they’re going another
direction now, and the amount of soil he’ll bring in, I think last time we calculated
10,000 truckloads. Now it’s going to be 5,000 something.
MR. SANFORD-They’re saying 5,800 dump truck loads, assuming a 17 to 18 cubic yard
dump truck, for the 100,000 yards, okay. That’s what I have here in front of me.
MRS. GOSLINE-Right. Last time we were looking at 10,000.
MR. SANFORD-Well, as he said, I think he’s scaled it down. I didn’t know that, but
now I know it.
MR. HUNSINGER-He did reduce the elevation by 10 feet, from what was originally
proposed.
MRS. GOSLINE-It seems like that would be a lot more than, if two foot is going to be
5,000 truckloads, or he’s putting so many in the back, too, isn’t he?
MR. SANFORD-No, no. I think, we, at the Planning Board, I think, have a clear
understanding of this now because we did have a very excellent site visit, and before,
the first time you were here, I didn’t have a clue, but we went out and we got a tour and
we spent probably about a half an hour or so, and if you go up there, there’s an area
that’s cleared now, and view that as the point of departure, and then if you look towards
the east, it drops off significantly.
MRS. GOSLINE-Yes.
MR. SANFORD-Okay. What they’re proposing to do is to grade that slope so that it’s
not as abrupt of a drop off, and to round it down and go down a little ways, to an area
that actually makes a whole lot of sense because we looked at where it would be
meeting the other, at the other end, and that plus what grading would be required at the
west, they’re telling us would constitute approximately 90,000 of the 100,000 yards.
MRS. GOSLINE-So at the west end where it hollows out a little bit, they’ll be filling that
right in and making it flush?
20
(Queensbury Planning Board 6/21/05)
MR. SANFORD-Apparently, on the west. Okay. That was news to me, but that makes
some sense. Now, what I’m trying to say is out of this 100,000 we’re talking about, I
think you could legitimately say that a lot of that needs to be done, because, you know,
if it was just stopped now, it doesn’t make a heck of a lot of sense.
MRS. GOSLINE-No, it doesn’t.
MR. SANFORD-But just to finish that off is, according to the engineer here, Tom, is
about 90,000 of the 100,000. That leaves an additional 10,000 which would bring, then,
the side up just the two feet. So we could argue about whether it should go up no more,
a foot, or two feet, and we may very well do it, I don’t want to let them off too easy, but
we’re not talking, we’re talking about 10,000 an aggregate for that elevation difference.
The majority of the 100,000 yards is basically to round it out, smooth it down, from
where it is now and that’s primarily to the east and somewhat to the west, and in my
opinion, certainly when I was up there, the portion to the east has to be done, because
it’s just unacceptable the way it is now. That’s 60,000 right there that has to be done,
without question. Now the area to the west, I wasn’t even too much aware of that, but
I’ll take my fellow Board members at their word, as well as the engineer.
MRS. GOSLINE-Well, the picture of it there, it’s got some stumps and whatever, but it
does go down, and it looks like you’d level that out.
MR. SANFORD-They’re just looking to smooth it out. So really my big issue was, why
go up another two feet, and I thought the other two feet would be much more significant
than what I’ve just been told tonight, which is, what I’ve been told tonight is to go from
418 to 420 on the peak, on the top, is 10,000 yards.
MRS. GOSLINE-So after he puts the two feet, and then he puts, what did he say, 10,000
yards in the pond?
MR. SANFORD-Yes, 10,000 yards to get up two feet above to 420.
MR. VOLLARO-He’s going to have to reserve some of that area, Mary Lee, for the
amount of fill he’s going to take out of the pond. You’ve got to look at that. Even if he
doesn’t do your section of the pond, he’s got to take material out of that pond, and he’s
going to keep it on the site. He’s not going to truck it off. That’s going to be part of the
fill that we’re talking about in this 100,000 yards we’re talking about here.
MR. SANFORD-So if that’s 10,000 yards of fill coming out of the pond, just for purposes
of an example, then that’s going to find itself probably in one of the slopes, which will
mean that he’ll be able to truck in that much less.
MRS. GOSLINE-Now what happens if, in the future, we find that there’s a big
disbursement of water from his property to the back of my daughter’s property?
MR. VOLLARO-Well, the subdivision rules say, and that’s part of the stormwater
management that will have to be, but the subdivision rules say that you’re not allowed
to put anymore water off your site than was coming off it originally. In other words,
you can’t, the impervious surfaces on the site, which incur a lot more drainage than was
there before.
MR. HUNSINGER-You’d be looking at an enforcement action by the Town.
MR. VOLLARO-Sure.
MRS. GOSLINE-So can you put that in the minutes, that that will be observed?
21
(Queensbury Planning Board 6/21/05)
MR. HUNSINGER-Well, it’s implicit in any site plan or subdivision review.
MRS. GOSLINE-And how do you enforce it?
MR. HUNSINGER-The Town Code Enforcement Officer does, and the Town Attorney.
MR. VOLLARO-During the time that the subdivision is being done, if he sees that
there’s something there that doesn’t conform with the stormwater management plan,
he’s going to have to change it. I don’t think Rich is going to deviate from that.
MRS. GOSLINE-But wouldn’t it be easier to address it now to avoid it? To figure out
some way to avoid, maybe, that problem?
MR. VOLLARO-Right now, if you view this from a bird’s eye view, he’s going to have a
piece on top that looks like a pyramid, but just take a look from a bird’s eye view, about
an acre that’s going to, in concentric circles, you’re going to be building a dome, and that
dome’s going to be flush like this, all the way around, and that water should never, that
dome should never get higher than what your daughter’s house is. In other words, if it
came like this, down in here, it should never get to where your daughter’s house is.
MR. HUNSINGER-We have received a stormwater management plan that has been
prepared by their engineer and reviewed by the Town’s Engineer. There are some
outstanding comments on that, but it is being done now. That’s part of the whole site
plan review.
MRS. GOSLINE-I’m not concerned about my daughter’s house getting any water in it.
I’m concerned about the trees in the back dying.
MR. HUNSINGER-Yes. Well, it’s a valid concern. I’m not trying to minimize your
concerns. Those are legitimate concerns.
MRS. GOSLINE-No, I don’t think her house would ever get wet. It was just the
property, you know, the trees around it.
MR. HUNSINGER-Thank you.
MR. SANFORD-Actually, I think, you know, given where it is now.
MRS. GOSLINE-Something has to be done.
MR. SANFORD-I think where we’re going with this makes a lot of sense. Now, if you
go back a number of years ago, it begs the question whether it should have been done in
the first place, but that’s not what we’re dealing with. The set of circumstances that
we’re dealing with now, is, this is what we have to work with. This is what we saw, and
actually I think, and, you know, I’m not anywhere near an expert, but we went up in the
wettest period of time, and there was a little, pools that were formed at the very end of
the slope. They weren’t all that material, and I think with the grading, it would actually
help that problem, and that’s looking towards the east. I think that’ll probably actually
improve a little bit with the extra fill being put in. That would be my guess, based on
just, you know, how water flows, I guess.
MR. GOETZ-The other day when I was up there, I said, gee, that could be a wonderful
looking pond. What am I missing? Why would you not want the whole thing cleaned
out?
MRS. GOSLINE-I didn’t say I didn’t want it cleaned up. I said it wasn’t the ultimate
thing for me. I was more concerned about the property being graded properly and all
that being done, instead of me just getting my pond cleaned. I wasn’t going to have it be
22
(Queensbury Planning Board 6/21/05)
the carrot in front of my nose. The bigger picture was the property, to make sure it was
done properly.
MR. GOETZ-Okay. So if it’s graded nicely and it looks good, then you wouldn’t mind
having the pond cleaned out?
MRS. GOSLINE-I probably would never mind to have the pond cleaned up, no. That’s
never been, you know, I’ve never been greatly against it. I just said I didn’t want it to be
the carrot in front of me nose. Okay. Thank you.
MR. GOETZ-Understood.
MR. HUNSINGER-Is there anyone else that would like to comment on this application?
KATHY SONNABEND
MRS. SONNABEND-Kathy Sonnabend, 55 Cedar Court. The reason you don’t see a
bigger contingent of people here tonight is because Richard Schermerhorn has shown, in
the past, that he is willing to work with neighbors and come to reasonable solutions to
concerns and problems, and he’s been one of the more cooperative developers in Town,
especially with the Bay Road professional office going up, but it doesn’t mean that we
don’t have serious concerns. I live on the far western edge of Cedar Court. So if you
look at the northeast corner of that red outlined property, I’m about right there, and
starting around 1999, we started hearing the trucks coming along Mr. Schermerhorn’s
private road, across the pond, up to the site where he was dumping the fill. It wasn’t
just unloading the trucks that we were hearing. We were hearing the trucks bouncing
along that road, and it’s amazing how much sound reverberates off the back of our
townhouse buildings. In fact, it’s very deceptive. Sometimes you think it’s coming from
north rather than south, but it’s quite loud, and grant it it is intermittent, and that’s
probably the reason why you haven’t heard more from the public before now, because
we would hear it, when we first moved into Cedar Court, I moved in in 1996 when my
unit was built. The whole development wasn’t built out yet. So I understood I was
moving in to an area that hadn’t been fully constructed, I was going to have to live with
some construction noise and dust, etc., for a while. Our development finished, and then
Mr. Schermerhorn built his apartments to the south of us. There were some issues there
that were of concern, and he did work those out with our homeowners association. So
people were relatively satisfied, and then all of a sudden we start hearing the noise
behind us. So we’ve been living with construction for almost a decade now, and so
when we heard that another 100,000 yards or more was coming in here, it was pretty
dismaying that we were going to have to be listening to this noise that much longer. I
am pleased and I’d heard in advanced, based on how his attorney responded last time,
plus a conversation that I had with Mr. Schermerhorn, that he was going to agree to a
deed restriction, which was one of our major concerns, because even though he intends
just to build one house there, we didn’t want to wake up one day and find out that he
changed his mind or he sold to someone who then would build a lot of units because
now density calculations, based on a very flat area, would allow more density. So we’re
very pleased that there will be a deed restriction, permanent deed restriction. As far as
the height is concerned, that’s less of a concern to us because, visually, we’re probably
not impacted, but I have to tell you, when my daughter and I first moved in to Cedar
Court, we took a few hikes back through the woods to Glen Lake. We found that old
road that’s now a hiking and snow mobiling trail, and at one point, we didn’t realize
we’d done this, but we wandered on to Mr. Schermerhorn’s property. I did see that
section before the wetlands to the west, and before you get to most of his area of fill, in
between there where there was very damaged land, they’re then clear cutting. There
was a lot of debris, old stumps, brush, logs, pitted land there. It was not friendly for
hiking and we stayed away from there, but it wasn’t the entire area. There was some
really lovely trees and hills in there that were contiguous with the old growth forests in
Surrey Fields. So I don’t want anybody on the Planning Board to believe that this was
23
(Queensbury Planning Board 6/21/05)
all junk property. Part of what he has done is an improvement. Part of it is damaged,
as far as I’m concerned, but it is his property. He has the right to develop it, and one of
my concerns here tonight is apparently the Town doesn’t have any rules or regulations
that govern what can be brought on to a site. I understand we have rules that limit
mining or restrict mining, but instead what my community has been living with is
basically almost a permanent construction site where fill from other excavation sites has
been allowed to truck in there whenever it’s convenient, and I don’t think it’s right for
neighbors to have to live indefinitely with this kind of thing. So the shorter the time
period, the better for us, and I understand he has some constraints, and I do want to see
him do a good job, and I also agree that he needs to finish the project, because the way it
stands now, obviously, is not good, and when he’s done I’m sure it will be lovely
because he does a nice job and it’s going to be his own home, but it is a concern for us
how many more years we’re going to be dealing with this. It has been intermittent.
There were times when my neighbors got really aggravated and a few of us made phone
calls to the Town trying to figure out what was going on back there. We never got
anywhere. We were told they didn’t know or there wasn’t anything for the Town to do,
and then it would stop, and we’d forget about it, thinking that it was done. Now we
know this is going to go on for a while. So we’re hoping that whatever restrictions are
agreed upon, that there’s a way of monitoring this. As it is now, that level’s a lot higher
than it was when he first started. I know because I had hiked back there, and if he gets
too high, it’s not fair to the surrounding neighbors as far as the visual, as well as the
drainage concerns. I know how it is. There are trees along the back of my property that
are dying because of the filling that had been done buried their roots too deeply. So
we’re constantly having to cut down trees that have died. So it would be a real shame
for these neighbors if his filling caused those trees to be sitting in too much water and
caused them to die. So maybe there won’t be the kind of coverage that you think there is
now, if those trees die. I understand that he needs to put some sand and some topsoil
down, but I don’t know why it has to be in addition. He filled all that clay in there. I
don’t know why it can’t be leveled off so some of that extra two feet that’s on there that’s
clay couldn’t be used as fill for the other sections. The east side I understand because
that is a very large area that needs to be completed. On the west side, where he’s
already filled, is quite close to the wetlands, and I don’t know how much more fill you
can put over there and not get too close. My understanding is there has to be a certain,
you have to stay a certain number of feet away from where the wetlands start. He’s far
enough away now, with some extra room, but it’s not a lot. I don’t understand how you
can put 30,000 yards there if it’s only 60,000 for the other side. So I’m not an engineer,
obviously, but I hope that whoever is responsible takes a close look at that to make sure
that they’re not interfering or getting too close to the wetlands. I think that’s it. I just
want to say that I really appreciate the hard work that all of you do, and I know that
there’s been tension recently. I hope that every single one of you stays on board and
continues to do the work on our behalf. I know the general community doesn’t
understand how difficult this job is, and I know it’s hard. You’re trying to balance our
concerns as well as developers who are doing a lot of good business for the Town. We
know there’s going to be growth. We want it to be good growth. Thank you.
MR. HUNSINGER-Would anyone else like to comment?
BETTY MONAHAN
MRS. MONAHAN-Good evening. Betty Monahan, Sunnyside Road. I’m thinking
there’s something that’s been concerning me for a long time in this Town, and that is the
dirt that I’m seeing taken out of one area and then just trying to put it some place else,
and I think we’re ending up with a lot of boring and aesthetically unpleasing
developments in this Town, because there’s no contours left. Everything is like this, and
I would suggest to Mr. Schermerhorn, though it’s probably too late now, I think the
project that he has off Meadowbrook Road, that he’s just doing now, is very, very boring
when you look at it, and it would have been very nice if some of that fill had been taken
in there and made some contours and making that a little bit more interesting looking
24
(Queensbury Planning Board 6/21/05)
property for the people that are going to live there and us that drive by it. So, as a
Board, and particularly as a PORC Committee, I wish you’d start looking at this problem
of this dirt being taken out, leveling land right down this. It doesn’t look like
Queensbury, and everybody says we want Queensbury to look rural. It’s getting a little
late for that, but the things that we’re doing are making it less and less, and making it
look more like a flat subdivision city. There’s probably more hills in Rochester than
there’s left here in Queensbury now. So I wish this is something that you would think
about, what’s happening to the level of the ground here, and also when you start putting
more dirt in one place, you are making more water pressure some place else that’s going
to pop up maybe in somebody’s cellar or something like that, and we’ve had those
problems occur in this Town, too. So, as a Board, I wish you’d think about that please,
and as a PORC Committee.
MR. HUNSINGER-We will. Thank you very much. Anyone else like to comment?
Okay. I’ll leave the public hearing open for now, if the applicant could come back up.
There were a number of comments. I think some of the things we’ve talked about quite
a bit, but I’m not clear in my own mind, and I’m not sure how the rest of the Board feels,
about the timetable. If we could really begin to pin that down, the timetable for bringing
in the balance of the fill, and then constructing the house. Well, I’d only ask if we could
do 36 months, if it’s reasonable with the Board. I mean, we could go less, but I think, it’s
too intense, and I’m not prepared to bring that much material in that short a time,
because, you know, I do these projects in phases as we go. So in 36 months would be
reasonable. I’ll work with the eight to five, Monday through Fridays. I’ll restrict it no
holidays, and then the other thing is, you know, you can never give assurance about a
dump truck driver dumping a truck and having a tailgate slam. All you can do is, I have
my own dump trucks and I’ll personally meet with each one of my drivers constantly
and consistently to be conscientious not to slam the tailgates.
MR. VOLLARO-You don’t get much out anyway, Rich. It’s just a habit that they have.
MR. SCHERMERHORN-I can tell them to slowly bring the beds up and, you know, not
be in a great rush to get in and get out. That’s all I can certainly promise, but I’m willing
to try.
MR. METIVIER-There’s nothing you could use to pad them, is there? I mean, I’m
thinking in my mind, you know, rubber tires, something like that.
MR. SCHERMERHORN-I think every truck driver and everyone would wish there was
a way, but there isn’t, because they need to close tight, otherwise debris falls on the road
when you truck with them and stuff. The only way to do it is they’ve got to dump and
then pull ahead and slowly bring the truck down. So, a lot of times that slamming you
hear is when they have clay stuck on the, if it’s wet and it’s stuck, they purposely pull
ahead and swing the gates to get it to release, but that doesn’t mean they can’t go back
with some of stuck and then we scrap it out with our machines when they get back to
the site.
MR. METIVIER-I was impressed, Gretchen did a calculation. I wish I could take credit
for it, but I can’t, you know, the 36 months is still pretty intensive. I can’t see it
happening any sooner. I think you’re going to run into problems. I mean, at that point,
you really are pushing the limits of, you know, your drivers, your neighbors, everybody.
MR. SCHERMERHORN-Because winter is definitely a restriction. When it rains, you
know, we’re not hauling in there. There’s a lot of times that it’s just a timing issue.
MR. HUNSINGER-Any other comments from the Board?
MR. SANFORD-Can you go down the, can you keep it at 418, or do you definitely need
a little bit more for that sand?
25
(Queensbury Planning Board 6/21/05)
MR. SCHERMERHORN-Well, I certainly could go to the 418. I mean, there’s no reason
why we couldn’t go to a 415, but with the amount of volume and the time and work I’ve
put into this, if we could, I’d like to leave it where it’s at, because I don’t think I’m
impacting or harming anybody, and I think that everyone’s seen the site. It’s not even
visible from.
MR. SANFORD-Well, Rich, it’s not super material, but if we split the difference and say,
okay, allowing for a foot of sand, and then you’re at 419, and that’s 5,000 less yards
brought on the site. That’s a lot of truckloads, and I think that would be a nice
compromise.
MR. SCHERMERHORN-I guess the feeling of the Board is, I’d like the 420, but if
everyone’s.
MR. SANFORD-I think the 419 is 5,000, you know, I mean, that’s.
MR. SCHERMERHORN-Yes, that’s half the pond, though.
MR. HUNSINGER-You might be by yourself on that one. How does the rest of the
Board feel on that?
MR. VOLLARO-When I looked at my notes, I come up with 420, in my notes. That’s
what I looked at when I looked at your section drawing, you’re at 425 on your section
drawing.
MR. SANFORD-Yes, but when we went on the site visits, he had a stake in the ground.
MR. VOLLARO-It was 418 at the time.
MR. SANFORD-The top of the stake was where they wanted to go, which was 420, but
the 418 level looked find, and if he’s willing to just, you know, cut that in half, I mean,
there’s 5,000 less yards of soil having to be trucked up there. If he’s willing to do it, I
don’t know why we would not want to encourage that.
MR. VOLLARO-What about a foot?
MRS. STEFFAN-Yes, I think in the grand scheme of things, one or two feet, I mean, it’s a
mountain, and it may be a few truckloads, but I think in the grand scheme of things.
MR. SANFORD-It’s not a few truckloads. Just do the division. Take 17 yards and
divide it by 5,000 and then how many truckloads is that?
MRS. STEFFAN-Well, I calculated before, with 100,000 cubic yards they’re going to need
5,555 truckloads, and if you divide that into three years at thirty-six months, it’s 154
loads a month. If you divide that by twenty days in a month, they’re doing a Monday
through Friday operation, it’s about eight loads a day.
MR. LAPPER-You forgot about the pond. Some of it’s on site.
MR. SCHERMERHORN-Yes, a lot of it’s on site.
MR. SANFORD-Rich has always shown, I don’t know about always, but lately at least,
he’s shown an inclination to be accommodating and try to work with us. I throw it out,
he’s willing to do it, but if the Board wants to have him go 420.
MR. HUNSINGER-Well, he also came down 10 feet from the original proposal, and
we’d have to get new drawings.
26
(Queensbury Planning Board 6/21/05)
MR. METIVIER-I actually, I mean, I could not fathom that 10 feet. I mean, there’s just
no, it was, I don’t even know the word, but, you know.
MR. HUNSINGER-Where do we stand on C.T. Male signoff? Do we have a final
signoff?
MR. HILTON-No, we don’t have a signoff and we did receive a packet from the
applicant on June 20. I do have copies in the file if you would like me to hand them
th
out, but it’s a response letter from the applicant responding to prior C.T. Male
comments. No C.T. Male signoff at this time.
MR. VOLLARO-I think we had that in our packet.
MR. HILTON-Did you?
MR. VOLLARO-At least I had it in mine.
MR. HUTCHINS-I’ve addressed the comments of their June 14 letter, and we’ve
discussed them. It’s my opinion that we have those resolved, but w don’t have the
letter. He does have it in front of him.
MR. HUNSINGER-Well, what’s the pleasure of the Board?
MR. METIVIER-Well, I have to say I was pleasantly surprised when we were up there
the other day with the amount and intensity of rain that we actually have received, how
little, not runoff, because I don’t know where the runoff is, but erosion, how stable that
was. I mean, there was only one little area that actually had any ill effects from the rain,
and I just, you know, maybe you should have built the roads in Bolton. I don’t know,
but, you know, I was surprised by that.
MRS. STEFFAN-They have some clay that they can.
MR. SCHERMERHORN-Well, when you’ve been fined before, you make sure that you
manage the sites properly, because, you know, DEC does check.
MR. HUNSINGER-What’s the pleasure of the Board?
MR. METIVIER-Have you contacted anybody to bring fill up to Bolton?
MR. FORD-I have a question. On the visual sections, could you look at that please? I
notice that on Section A, and I may be misinterpreting or misreading this, but it appears
you’re looking at an elevation of 420.
MR. VOLLARO-That’s in all cases, it’s 420.
MR. FORD-No, it comes to 425 on Section B, and reduces back to 420 on Section C.
MR. HUTCHINS-Yes, that’s an error. That’s an error and it’s been corrected in the
resubmission. They’re all 420.
MR. FORD-It wasn’t corrected on my copy.
MR. HUTCHINS-It’s corrected on the one that C.T. Male has.
MR. FORD-Thank you.
27
(Queensbury Planning Board 6/21/05)
MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. I guess if there’s no more questions or comments from the
Board, I will close the public hearing.
PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED
MR. HUNSINGER-Are we ready to move forward on the SEQRA?
MRS. STEFFAN-The only comments that I had were regarding the zoning regulations,
and I know that we’ve talked about these, but, you know, there are some sections within
the Code on vibration and particulates and those kinds of things, that this kind of project
defies, and so I know that it’s a gray area for us, and, for example, on vibration, no use
shall regularly emit vibration that is perceptible at the property line of an adjoining use.
This section shall not apply to temporary construction activities, but temporary is, you
know, even 36 months is a lot more than a temporary condition, and so I’m just
concerned.
MR. SCHERMERHORN-Well you’re certainly regulating the project, Town Code
officers, and DEC’s regulating it because they make routine inspections. So it’s not like
it’s going uninspected.
MRS. STEFFAN-It’s the same with particulates, and the other issue was erosion control,
and I know that there was very heavy vegetation on the south side of the hill, but on the
north side of the hill, there was nothing growing, and so that was something that I think
needs to be attended to.
MR. LAPPER-That’s the DEC permit.
MR. HUTCHINS-And that’s part of the SWPPP is to, that’s the single best thing you can
do to prevent erosion is get things going, and that’s what you do.
MRS. STEFFAN-Well, part of me wondered by there wasn’t anything growing on it at
this point, having been there a while.
MR. SCHERMERHORN-Well, the Town of Queensbury wrote me a letter. It wasn’t a
Stop Work Order, but they asked me to kindly stop until we review, take this to site plan
review or evaluate whether it had to go to site plan review, and I certainly stopped, and
I just left it when I got the letter, but the grading isn’t obviously done, but as soon as we
can get back on the site, I mean, I can concentrate on that particular area and we’ll get it
seeded right away. So I will address that problem area.
MRS. STEFFAN-Okay.
MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. Tony, SEQRA?
MR. METIVIER-Yes, Long or Short?
MRS. STEFFAN-I would think Long Form.
MR. METIVIER-I looked through my stuff, I couldn’t find any record of it.
MR. HUNSINGER-Is this a Long or Short Form?
MR. HILTON-Short Form.
MR. HUNSINGER-Short Form.
RESOLUTION WHEN DETERMINATION OF NO SIGNIFICANCE IS MADE
28
(Queensbury Planning Board 6/21/05)
RESOLUTION NO. 18-2005, Introduced by Anthony Metivier who moved for its
adoption, seconded by Gretchen Steffan:
WHEREAS, there is presently before the Planning Board an application for:
RICHARD, JR. & BETH SCHERMERHORN, and
WHEREAS, this Planning Board has determined that the proposed project and Planning
Board action is subject to review under the State Environmental Quality Review Act,
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT
RESOLVED:
1. No Federal agency appears to be involved.
2. The following agencies are involved:
NONE
3. The proposed action considered by this Board is Unlisted in the Department of
Environmental Conservation Regulations implementing the State Environmental
Quality Review Act and the regulations of the Town of Queensbury.
4. An Environmental Assessment Form has been completed by the applicant.
5. Having considered and thoroughly analyzed the relevant areas of environmental
concern and having considered the criteria for determining whether a project has
a significant environmental impact as the same is set forth in Section 617.11 of the
Official Compilation of Codes, Rules and Regulations for the State of New York,
this Board finds that the action about to be undertaken by this Board will have no
significant environmental effect and the Chairman of the Planning Board is
hereby authorized to execute and sign and file as may be necessary a statement
of non-significance or a negative declaration that may be required by law.
Duly adopted this 21 day of June, 2005, by the following vote:
st
AYES: Mr. Sanford, Mr. Ford, Mr. Goetz, Mrs. Steffan, Mr. Metivier, Mr. Vollaro, Mr.
Hunsinger
NOES: NONE
MR. HUNSINGER-I’ll entertain a motion.
MR. VOLLARO-I’ll make the motion, but first I’d like to make a correction to the Draft
resolution. The Draft resolution says there’s C.T. Male engineering comments on 4/13. I
think theirs is June 14 is the last one, but April 19 was comments from Hutchins
thth
Engineering. I don’t see a 4/13 C.T. Male comment. I see a June 14 is their latest one,
th
and that’s up at the top. Was there? Well, the April 19 response, then, from Hutchins
th
Engineering is not listed in here.
MR. HUNSINGER-Yes, it is, right here.
MR. VOLLARO-4/19, okay, it is, yes. All right. Sorry about that. All right.
MOTION TO APPROVE SITE PLAN NO. 18-2005 RICHARD, JR. & BETH
SCHERMERHORN, Introduced by Robert Vollaro who moved for its adoption,
seconded by Chris Hunsinger:
WHEREAS, an application has been made to this Board for the following:
29
(Queensbury Planning Board 6/21/05)
Site Plan No. 18-2005 Applicant/Property Owner: Richard, Jr./ Beth
Schermerhorn
SEQR Type: Unlisted Agent: Tom Hutchins, P.E. & Jonathan Lapper
Zone: Split – RR-3A, PO
Location: 21 Blind Rock Road
Applicant is seeking approval for grading and filling of a 20 /- acre property. Filling
operations that meet or exceed the criteria outlined in § 179-6-070 (2) are subject to site
plan review and approval from the Planning Board.
Warren Co. Planning: 3/9/05
Tax Map No. 289.15-1-1.1
Lot size: 20.58 acres / Section: 179-4-020
Public Hearing: 4/19/05
WHEREAS, the application was received on 2/15/05; and
WHEREAS, the above is supported with the following documentation and inclusive of
all newly received information, not included in this listing as of 6/17/05, and
6/20 C. Brown from T. Hutchins [agent]: response to C.T. Male
Associates comments of 6/14/05
6/17 Staff Notes
6/14 C.T. Male Associates engineering comments
6/14 G. Hilton from R. Schermerhorn: Walk-thru on 6/18
6/2 Meeting Notice sent
4/19 C. Brown from Hutchins Eng: prel. Response to C.T. Male
Associates comment letter of 4/13/05
4/19 PB resolution: Tabled
4/19 Staff Notes
4/13 CTM engineering comments
4/8 Notice of Public Hearing sent
4/4 Meeting Notice
4/4 Town Board Resolution 189, 2005: Affirming Consistency of
Schermerhorn Residential Subdivision Project with Highland Park
Planned Unit Development
4/1 Meeting notice
3/9 Warren Co. PB recommendation: No Action
2/24 Application bumped to April 2005
2/15 C. MacEwan from Jonathan Lapper
2/8 Fax to C. Brown from R. Schermerhorn: 9/27/04 letter from DEC
2/8 R. Schermerhorn from C. Brown: Discontinue filling/grading
operations until further notice
WHEREAS, pursuant to Art. 9 of the Zoning Ordinance of the Code of the Town of
Queensbury a public hearing was advertised and was held on 4/19/05 and
WHEREAS, the Planning Board has determined that the proposal complies with the Site
Plan application requirements of the Code of the Town Queensbury (Zoning); and
WHEREAS, the Planning Board has considered the environmental factors found in the
Code of the Town of Queensbury (Zoning); and
WHEREAS, the requirements of the State Environmental Quality Review Act have been
considered and the Planning Board has adopted a SEQRA Negative Declaration; and/or
if application is a modification, the requirements of the State Environmental Quality
Review Act have been considered; and the proposed modification(s) do not result in any
new or significantly different environmental impacts, and, therefore, no further SEQRA
review is necessary; and
30
(Queensbury Planning Board 6/21/05)
WHEREAS, this approval does not relieve the applicant from obtaining all necessary
permits whether Federal, State or Local, and
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that
We find the following: The application is hereby approved in accordance with the
resolution prepared by Staff and is subject to the following conditions which shall be
listed on the final plans submitted to the Zoning Administrator:
1. That there be no further subdivision of the 20.14 acres of land.
2. The hours of operation will be from 8:00 am to 5 pm Monday through Friday,
excluding holidays.
3. That the project be completed within 36 months.
4. A C.T. Male sign-off be obtained on C.T. Male’s June 14 letter.
th
5. All of these conditions should be on the plat.
6. A copy of the required NOI to be provided prior to final signature by Zoning
Administrator
7. Final approved plans in compliance with this site plan must be submitted to the
Community Development Dept. before any further review by the Zoning
Administrator or Building & Codes personnel. Subsequent issuance of further
permits; including building permits are dependent on receipt.
Duly adopted this 21st day of June, 2005, by the following vote:
AYES: Mr. Sanford, Mr. Ford, Mr. Goetz, Mrs. Steffan, Mr. Metivier, Mr. Vollaro, Mr.
Hunsinger
NOES: NONE
MR. HUNSINGER-You’re all set.
MR. SCHERMERHORN-Thank you.
MR. HUNSINGER-Thank you.
SITE PLAN NO. 13-2004 PREVIOUS SEQRA MODIFICATION DAVID MENTER
AGENT: DENNIS MAC ELROY ZONE: HC-INTENSIVE LOCATION: 1130
ROUTE 9 APPLICANT PROPOSES TO MODIFY A PREVIOUSLY APPROVED SITE
PLAN FOR AN 85-ROOM HOTEL BY INCREASING THE BUILDING FOOTPRINT
TO 17,250 SQ. FT., AN INCREASE IN 1,750 SQ. FT. OVER WHAT WAS
PREVIOUSLY APPROVED. TAX MAP NO. 295.8-1-9 LOT SIZE: 6.0 ACRES
SECTION: 179-4-020
DENNIS MAC ELROY, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT; DAVE MENTER,
PRESENT
MR. HUNSINGER-Staff notes.
MR. HILTON-Just a quick summary. This is a modification of a previously approved
site plan. The applicant proposes to add some building square footage, a redesign of the
building footprint. They proposed 85 unit hotel. As I’ve indicated, no new visual
31
(Queensbury Planning Board 6/21/05)
impacts above and beyond what were presented previously are expected, and there
appear to be no changes or modifications to previous landscaping or lighting plans. The
applicant has submitted some stormwater calculations which have been submitted to
C.T. Male for their review, and at this time we do not have a final signoff, but we did
receive something from the applicant today, addressing the two outstanding C.T. Male
comments. They seem to be relatively minor. That’s all I have at this time. If you have
any questions.
MR. HUNSINGER-The floor is yours, gentlemen.
MR. MAC ELROY-Thank you. I’m Dennis MacElroy with Environmental Design,
representing Dave Menter, to my right, applicant for this site plan modification. A little
history. We were here in May of ’04 and received site plan approval for this project.
Initially, back in September, when there was a slight modification to grading, the
elevation of the hotel building. This is a three-story franchise type hotel located at the
corner of Route 9 and Blind Rock Road, Round Pond Road, and at that time, we received
a site plan modification in September. Now as the project has progressed, Dave has
actually changed the franchise hotel for this project. There’s a slight change in their
standard footprint. So we’ve come back with a site plan modification which, as
indicated on the plan, is a slight change of that footprint and related to the portico at the
front of the building a slight change in addition to the paved area. All other aspects of
the design, the lighting, the landscaping, stormwater management, what not, are
essentially the same. We submitted the layout plan and the grading plan for your
review and again, it’s a relatively minor change, but one that Staff felt was necessary to
go through site plan modification for. C.T. Male has issued the comments on June 14,
th
two comments, one related to the standard NOI with DEC, which has changed.
Actually the form itself has changed since we last did it in September, and we have
completed that now nine page form, submitted it to Staff, and in addition there was a
request for a one year storm calculations, as per the New York State Stormwater
Management Design Manual and we’ve included that as well with that submittal. So I
guess we feel that all changes are relatively minor, and would request approval on that
basis.
MR. HUNSINGER-I thought it looked pretty straightforward, but I don’t want to
prejudice the Board. Is there any comments or questions from the Board?
MR. FORD-I concur with your observation.
MR. HUNSINGER-Would anyone care to make a resolution then?
MR. VOLLARO-I’ll make the resolution for it.
MOTION TO APPROVE MODIFICATION TO SITE PLAN NO. 13-2004 DAVID
MENTER, Introduced by Robert Vollaro who moved for its adoption, seconded by
Anthony Metivier:
WHEREAS, an application has been made to this Board for the following:
Site Plan No. 13-2004 Applicant/Property Owner: David Menter
Previous SEQRA Agent: Dennis MacElroy
Zone: HC-Intensive
MODIFICATION
Location: 1130 Route 9
Applicant proposes to modify a previously approved site plan for an 85-room hotel by
increasing the building footprint to 17,250 sq. ft., an increase in 1,750 sq. ft. over what
was previously approved.
Tax Map No. 295.8-1-9
Lot size: 6.0 acres / Section: 179-4-020
Public Hearing: Not required for Modification
32
(Queensbury Planning Board 6/21/05)
WHEREAS, the application was received on 5/17/05; and
WHEREAS, the above is supported with the following documentation and inclusive of
all newly received information, not included in this listing as of 6/17/05; and
6/21 Staff Notes
6/14 C.T. Male Associates engineering comments
6/13 PB from Steve Smith Fire Marshal: No fire dept. access issues
6/2 Meeting Notice
10/26/04 PB resolution - modification
5/27/04 PB resolution – original approval
WHEREAS, a public hearing for a modification does not require a public hearing; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Board has determined that the proposal complies with the Site
Plan application requirements of the Code of the Town Queensbury (Zoning); and
WHEREAS, the Planning Board has considered the environmental factors found in the
Code of the Town of Queensbury (Zoning); and
WHEREAS, the requirements of the State Environmental Quality Review Act have been
considered and the Planning Board has adopted a SEQRA Negative Declaration; and/or
if application is a modification, the requirements of the State Environmental Quality
Review Act have been considered; and the proposed modification(s) do not result in any
new or significantly different environmental impacts, and, therefore, no further SEQRA
review is necessary; and
WHEREAS, this approval does not relieve the applicant from obtaining all necessary
permits whether Federal, State or Local, and
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that
We find the following: The application for Modification is hereby approved in
accordance with the resolution prepared by Staff and is subject to the following
conditions which shall be listed on the final plans submitted to the Zoning
Administrator:
1. That a sign-off to C.T. Male’s June 14, 2005 be received.
2. We re-affirm the previous SEQRA.
3. Final approved plans in compliance with this site plan must be submitted to the
Community Development Dept. before any further review by the Zoning
Administrator or Building & Codes personnel. Subsequent issuance of further
permits; including building permits are dependent on receipt.
Duly adopted this 21st day of June, 2005, by the following vote:
AYES: Mr. Sanford, Mr. Ford, Mr. Goetz, Mrs. Steffan, Mr. Metivier, Mr. Vollaro, Mr.
Hunsinger
NOES: NONE
MR. HUNSINGER-You’re all set.
MR. MAC ELROY-Thank you very much.
33
(Queensbury Planning Board 6/21/05)
MR. HUNSINGER-Thank you.
SITE PLAN NO. 12-2004 SEQR TYPE II MODIFICATION AFTAB (SAM) BHATTI
AGENT: JARRETT-MARTIN ENGINEERS ZONE: HC-INT. LOCATION: 543
AVIATION ROAD APPLICANT PROPOSES MODIFICATIONS TO A
PREVIOUSLY APPROVED MOTEL PROJECT, INCLUDING PARKING, GRADING,
LIGHTING AND LANDSCAPING. MODIFICATION TO AN APPROVED SITE
PLAN REQUIRES PLANNING BOARD REVIEW. CROSS REFERENCE: SP 20-03,
AV 19-04 AV 29-05 WARREN CO. PLANNING: 3/10/04 TAX MAP NO. 302.5-1-51, 52,
52.13 LOT SIZE: 0.39 ACRES SECTION: 179-4-030
JON LAPPER & TOM JARRETT, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT
MR. HUNSINGER-Good evening. The floor is yours.
MR. JARRETT-Good evening.
MR. LAPPER-We were here previously in a lame attempt to address the modifications
on this project, and since that time, we’ve been working with the Planning Staff. We
realized that we needed some variances and we’ve been to the Zoning Board, and we
received the principal variances, and we withdrew on some of the others. So now we’re
here to address the site plan issues. There’s been a C.T. Male letter, which Tom has not
responded to yet. So we don’t necessarily think that we’re ready for an approval, but
we want to talk about the issues and get as far as we can. This was our attempt to
address the post construction problems that some of the site didn’t get built the way it
was approved and then Tom and I got involved with the owner, and we’ve been trying
to clean it up and address it, but the new site plan that was submitted was intended to
address all the issues and hopefully it’s acceptable. Would you like to have Tom go
through the site plan and explain the changes?
MR. HUNSINGER-Yes, that might be helpful.
MR. VOLLARO-That would be helpful.
MR. JARRETT-Thanks, Jon. This is a very confusing application. I’m sure I don’t have
to remind you of that, and we’ve tried to simplify it by giving you three levels, three
versions of each drawing. Version A of each drawing is the original approval. Version
B of each drawing is the constructed version, what was actually constructed, what you
see in the field right now, and version C is what we propose for modification to bring it
into compliance, or as close to compliance as is practical. For example Drawing R-1 is
labeled as R-1 A & B. So the original approval and the constructed conditions are
together on the same plan, and the next sheet is R-1 C, which shows you what we
actually propose. What we’ve done is essentially amended many of the site
infrastructure proposals. We’ve amended the stormwater plan. We’ve added a
retention area in the north end of the site. We’ve revised the landscaping plan. As you
know, the original landscaping plan was not left as was proposed, and was not
amended as proposed. So we’ve now modified that further for your review. A number
of improvements were placed on the DOT right of way. We have been in touch with
both the resident engineer and the real estate office in Schenectady for Region I, and we
new proposed to remove all the improvements on the DOT right of way. Jon mentioned
that we sought a number of variances from the Zoning Board of Appeals, including for
number of parking spaces and for aisle widths, and those were granted by the ZBA.
With regard to lighting, we are proposing to change the existing fixtures to compliant
pole heights and fixture types. The locations will remain the same except for the one in
the right of way which will be removed entirely. You will note, in the lighting plan, that
we are not fully in conformance with the uniformity and the intensity, and there is a
slight off site spillage on Route 9, or excuse me, on Aviation Road. It’s .1 foot candles in
34
(Queensbury Planning Board 6/21/05)
the right of way. There is no spillage onto Aviation Road itself. Essentially, that’s the
proposal in a nutshell. I guess I’ll entertain any questions that you might have.
MR. VOLLARO-I just have one. The FAR is up to 42%.
MR. JARRETT-Not any longer. We proposed that to the Zoning Board of Appeals, and
that was rejected.
MR. VOLLARO-That was rejected. All right. That’s what I wanted to know.
MR. LAPPER-We’re back to what was approved.
MR. VOLLARO-You’re back to what was approved. Okay. I said based on my review
of the FAR worksheet, it showed 42.
MR. JARRETT-I should correct that. It wasn’t rejected. We withdrew that application.
MR. VOLLARO-Okay. Fine. That was my only, that’s one of the questions I had. I
wanted to clarify where we were on that.
MRS. STEFFAN-Regarding the parking, the variance that was approved was for less.
MR. JARRETT-Actually, there were two variances sought. One was for aisle width.
There were several substandard aisle widths, based on the way the site was constructed.
The Board approved those substandard aisle widths. They felt that they were not in
areas that were critical to traffic flow.
MR. LAPPER-And we had a review from the fire company saying that that was
acceptable. They referred it.
MR. HUNSINGER-There was an interesting thing when we went on site visits. There
was a fire truck parked in the parking lot, because they were there for the convention.
MR. JARRETT-The other variance was for the number of parking spaces, and that was
based on the conference rooms in the basement. We withdrew that application. There
are no conference rooms at all in the basement now. So we don’t need the additional
parking.
MR. VOLLARO-Okay. That’s been removed. All right. Tom, what I did is I went
through your letter dated April 14, and looked at that, which was, I think, really
th
presented the clearest picture that I got from all of this, including looking at the
drawings, and I think it just highlighted all the things you just talked about, illumination
patterns. I think you’re talking now about the four to one Uniformity Ratio probably.
The system constructed appears not to meet the Town standards and we’re proposing
system amendments that are intended to bring the system into total compliance. It is
unclear yet as to whether the amended system will comply with the New York DEC
requirements. This is your letter.
MR. JARRETT-Stormwater, you mean?
MR. VOLLARO-I’m reading from your letter.
MR. JARRETT-You’re referring to the stormwater now? My letter?
MR. VOLLARO-Of April 14, 2005.
MR. JARRETT-Right. What paragraph are you reading?
35
(Queensbury Planning Board 6/21/05)
MR. VOLLARO-I’m on Page Two of Three pages.
MR. LAPPER-You started talking about lighting, and then you went to stormwater.
MR. VOLLARO-Yes. I’m down, the stormwater system does not match the originally
approved, what was evaluated for compliance with Town standards as well as New
York Department of Environmental Conservation, Phase II SPDES requirements.
MR. JARRETT-Yes. We now know that it can comply with DEC requirements.
MR. VOLLARO-Okay, because in here it says, but it is unclear whether the amended
system, I recognize that this was done in April.
MR. JARRETT-Yes, it was an evolutionary process, and we were still working on it. We
have since brought it into compliance with DEC standards.
MR. VOLLARO-Okay. So you know you can meet that then. That’s okay. All right.
MR. JARRETT-And I don’t believe C.T. Male commented on that, per se. They were
commenting mostly on grading, I thought.
MR. VOLLARO-I’m just looking at your comments, and I recognize they were done in
April and I knew when I read this that something had happened between April and
June.
MR. HUNSINGER-Any other questions or comments from the Board?
MRS. STEFFAN-I was wondering whether the issues that, there’s an April 26 letter that
th
we have to Mr. Sam Bhatti from Dave Hatin, and some of the issues that are addressed
in this letter, have they been taken care of?
MR. LAPPER-I don’t know if we have that. Is that dealing with the canopy?
MRS. STEFFAN-No, it was conference rooms, bathrooms, there was a Stop Work Order.
MR. LAPPER-Yes, that was the lower level, and we withdrew those variance requests.
MRS. STEFFAN-Handrails in the basement. Those kinds of things.
MR. JARRETT-We have only storage in the basement right now. So those issues have
gone away.
MRS. STEFFAN-Okay, and does this project still have a Temporary Certificate of
Occupancy?
MR. JARRETT-We understand it does.
MR. LAPPER-Yes, because until the site plan amendments are approved, yes.
MRS. STEFFAN-Okay.
MR. GOETZ-I noticed that, over the Econo Lodge part of it, it all looks like it’s boarded
up or something, by the office.
MR. LAPPER-That’s under construction.
MR. JARRETT-That’s where the canopy was removed, I believe you’re thinking of.
36
(Queensbury Planning Board 6/21/05)
MR. GOETZ-Yes, I would guess that’s probably where it was.
MR. LAPPER-That’s all going to be reconstructed. That’s the second phase. That whole
entrance area is going to be re-done. That part of the building.
MR. JARRETT-And just to clarify for George, that was part of a site plan review by this
Board a number of months ago, and that will be done in compliance with the site plan
review, site plan approval.
MRS. STEFFAN-I had a question that was raised in the C.T. Male notes, and it was
regarding a conversation. This is, during conversations with the owner and his
representative, October, the western section of the site was to be raised significantly to
improve drainage and to allow a smoother transition as vehicles enter and exit the site.
The office area was also to be raised to alleviate flooding. It appears that this area, in
fact, will not be raised.
MR. JARRETT-We’re not sure what he’s referring to there, the author of this letter,
because the Econo Lodge is proposed to be raised slightly to alleviate that flooding
problem. The grading immediately around that building is not going to be different
than what we proposed in our site plan review, but the entrance area to the site, we’re
going to come back to you with another proposal based on C.T. Male’s comments and
the fact that we’ve now received final, well, we’ve had our final discussion with DOT.
We know what we’re going to do with DOT. So we can come back to you with a
proposal for the entrance.
MR. LAPPER-Because a lot of that’s in the right of way, in the State right of way, that
entranceway.
MRS. STEFFAN-Okay.
MR. JARRETT-So we’ve been waiting on that until we had heard finally from DOT. So
we will present you with a plan that can be reviewed by C.T. Male and this Board, but
Econo Lodge itself is not going to change from the site plan, as I understand it right
now.
MR. HUNSINGER-I guess, you know, the question that always comes up when you get
into a situation like this was how did it get so bad, and how did things?
MR. LAPPER-The simple public answer is that the project manager took things into his
own hands and just disregarded the approval. Tom and I weren’t involved, and the
owner didn’t know enough about the site plan to know that the construction manager
said, gee, I think it would be better if we did this, and it just totally ignored the site plan.
It’s not the way these things are supposed to happen. When Sam realized there was a
problem, he called me and I said, look, you know, we’ve got to get Tom back involved.
He designed this, and we all, the three of us sat down together and realized how out of
whack some of this was, so the changes, now, are Tom’s way of taking what was built
and further changing them to bring them into compliance. It’s just, it’s an expensive
process, and it wouldn’t have been what Sam would have picked.
MR. HUNSINGER-I’m sure.
MR. LAPPER-But that’s where we are.
MR. HUNSINGER-Any other questions, comments from the Board?
MR. FORD-I’m playing catch up on this, so I appreciate those last comments, to bring
me up to date.
37
(Queensbury Planning Board 6/21/05)
MR. LAPPER-Sure.
MR. JARRETT-It’s a convoluted history, no question.
MR. FORD-Obviously we would all be looking for some pretty concrete assurances that
we’re not going through this again at some future time after the second set of
construction has been completed.
MR. LAPPER-The answer is that Tom’s going to stick with the project, this time, that, I
mean, the construction manager convinced the owner that he didn’t need to have the
engineer involved, which was a bad plan, and that’s not going to happen for the second
phase.
MR. FORD-That makes me feel much better.
MR. VOLLARO-I guess my question is, what are we expected, as a Board, to do tonight?
We’re not in any position, I don’t think, to go through a resolution at this time.
MR. JARRETT-No. We didn’t expect a final resolution. We wanted to get your feedback
on what we’ve submitted to you, and especially on the landscaping plan and on the
lighting and those kinds of things. We wanted to get your feedback on that. We know
the grading near the entrance, we need to provide you with details on that, but the other
issues, I think that if you could weigh in on those, we’d appreciate that, so that we can
come back to you with a final plan.
MRS. STEFFAN-Could you address the issue with the parking spaces in front of the
dumpster? That was in C.T. Male’s notes, but it was also on plan.
MR. JARRETT-Yes. They’re noticing that there are two spaces in front of the dumpster
and our answer is that that’s necessary on this site. It has been necessary from Day One,
and we have to time our pick ups to be staggered, you know, away from the peak
periods with check outs, that kind of thing.
MRS. STEFFAN-Okay.
MR. JARRETT-It’s been that way from Day One with this site plan.
MRS. STEFFAN-It’s tight. There’s no doubt about it, and when we did our drive around
on Saturday, it was of great concern, because there was supposed to be, you know, an
access area, and the fire truck, you know, if this was a lane, there’s a fire truck parked
here, and there’s a pick up truck parked next to it. So there’s a parking row here, and a
parking row here, and there was no way.
MR. JARRETT-So you had the critical design period to look at, then.
MRS. STEFFAN-Yes, it was actually hysterical when we looked at it, but at the same
time.
MR. JARRETT-Interestingly, the owner is noting, he’s had this site in this configuration
now for a number of months, and he’s had excellent business, better business than he
even projected, and he knows that there’s less parking conflict than he thought there
would be because a lot of people are showing up, they’re carpooling in groups.
MRS. STEFFAN-In groups.
MR. LAPPER-But if he rented every room to someone driving a fire truck, there would
definitely be a problem.
38
(Queensbury Planning Board 6/21/05)
MR. HUNSINGER-There would be a problem, yes.
MR. JARRETT-We’d have to acknowledge that, yes.
MRS. STEFFAN-Maybe they could rent space from Aviation Mall.
MR. JARRETT-That was discussed way back when.
MR. HUNSINGER-Any other comments from the Board?
MR. VOLLARO-I just have one on Drawing R-3 A B. It’s really lighting statistics, and in
the last column.
MR. HUNSINGER-C is what they’re proposing.
MR. VOLLARO-And B is what’s there now.
MR. HUNSINGER-B is what’s there now.
MR. JARRETT-B is what was constructed.
MR. VOLLARO-Right. Now how different is C going to be from the Uniformity Ratio
that appears on the as constructed?
MR. HUNSINGER-It’s on the next page.
MR. JARRETT-We’ve given you, in the furthest right column, we’ve given you those
ratios.
MR. VOLLARO-Okay. Now the column that’s called Average Over Min is really the
Uniformity Ratio.
MR. JARRETT-Yes.
MR. VOLLARO-And they’re a little bit out of whack.
MR. JARRETT-They’re definitely out of whack, and that’s what we said in the letter, and
that’s what I’ve said tonight. We’ve not found a way, other than redesigning all the
locations of the lights, we’ve not found a way to bring those totally into compliance.
We’re proposing to change the fixture heights to be compliant and the fixture types to be
compliant. We’re hoping that you’ll work with us, since we don’t have any spillage off
site.
MR. VOLLARO-The one that slams me the hardest, three of them is the Econo Lodge
exterior is 24 to 0. The parking lot areas are 20 to 0, and that Quality Inn main entrance
is 24 to 5. They’re way off the four to one mark.
MR. JARRETT-Yes. Those are the south and east faces of the building. I’m drawing a
blank on exactly the reason.
MR. HUNSINGER-Well, the south face of the building, there’s virtually no lighting, and
that’s part of the reason why the Uniformity Ratio’s, right.
MR. JARRETT-There’s a four there. The Quality Inn entrance, there’s a number of lights
underneath the canopy that were installed, and that’s what’s creating the problem with
Quality Inn. I’m not recalling specifically what the problem was with the Econo Lodge,
but I believe it may be the lights over the doors that were creating the problem.
39
(Queensbury Planning Board 6/21/05)
MR. VOLLARO-I don’t know, but one of the things, your minimum foot candle column
is extremely low, and that’s one of the things that’s throwing your average over min out
considerably. That’s one of the things I looked at when I looked at this.
MR. JARRETT-Yes. There are some holes in lighting, and some of it’s the back side of
the building, and the rear areas that there’s some holes there. The parking lots
themselves are not bad, but there are some holes on the site.
MR. VOLLARO-Yes.
MR. LAPPER-But that really is the area that faces the residential area. So it’s really
beneficial to have that very dark.
MR. VOLLARO-Well, yes, I realize that, but the Uniformity Ratio is in for a reason. I’ve
explained that to a lot of people. You know what that’s all about, to get your eyes
accustomed to getting off the site.
MR. JARRETT-We came here, hat in hand, if the Board tells us we have to come back,
we’ll come back, but we’re hoping that.
MR. VOLLARO-Do whatever you can to improve that, if there’s any way to do it at all. I
don’t know.
MR. JARRETT-We worked on it quite extensively. We’ll work on it again to see what
we can do.
MR. LAPPER-You wouldn’t want us to light that area. I mean, that would make it more
compliant, but it would be a worse project, if we lit that area near the residential side.
MR. HUNSINGER-Can you reduce the wattage in the main entrance?
MR. JARRETT-Of the Quality Inn, you mean?
MR. HUNSINGER-Yes.
MR. LAPPER-Of the canopy, you mean?
MR. JARRETT-Those fixtures are.
MR. HUNSINGER-Are they fifty watt, if I’m reading this correctly, it looks like it’s fifty
watt metal halide. Can you go lower than that, or no?
MR. LAPPER-That’s pretty low.
MR. JARRETT-Possibly. We can try. We can try to.
MR. HUNSINGER-Well, you look at the Uniformity Ratio, and that’s one of the ones
that’s 24 and a half to One.
MR. VOLLARO-That’s because the min is so low, that’s what’s throwing the ratio out.
MR. HUNSINGER-Yes.
MR. VOLLARO-We’re going to have to work with this.
MR. JARRETT-All we can promise to do is go back and look at it and see if we can tweak
it a little bit. We did look at it for quite a while, but maybe the lapse in time will give us
the benefit of looking at it fresh.
40
(Queensbury Planning Board 6/21/05)
MR. VOLLARO-You’re between a rock and a hard place, I understand that.
MR. JARRETT-Basically.
MR. HUNSINGER-I guess a tabling motion would be in order.
MR. JARRETT-Are you comfortable with the landscaping plan, the revised landscaping
plan? Have you looked at that?
MR. HUNSINGER-I was. I don’t know about the rest of the Board.
MR. VOLLARO-The landscaping plan looked satisfactory to me. Of course I’m not a
landscaping guru here.
MR. JARRETT-Well, we have had it done by a professional landscape architect.
MR. VOLLARO-It looked good to me, on that.
MR. FORD-I thought it was good.
MR. VOLLARO-You’re looking for a tabling motion, Mr. Chairman?
MR. HUNSINGER-Yes, I think just pending C.T. Male signoff.
MR. METIVIER-Can we ask, though, that, if possible, in the essence of time there, to
bring the final plan with the DOT work? I mean, is that going to be possible, so you’re
not coming back again after the DOT?
MR. JARRETT-I’m sorry, say that again?
MR. METIVIER-The final entrance.
MR. JARRETT-The entrance grading?
MR. METIVIER-Yes, the grading with the DOT. Are you awaiting approval from them?
MR. JARRETT-No, we’re not waiting that. We’ve learned from DOT what their
requirements will be and we’re removing all the encumbrances from the right of way.
MR. LAPPER-And we can provide a new grading plan.
MR. JARRETT-Yes.
MR. METIVIER-At the time that you get it, or the next time you come back, is what I
was asking.
MR. JARRETT-We’ll have it in advance for you and we’ll get it in as soon as possible.
I’m not sure what you’re suggesting.
MR. METIVIER-Well, I’m just saying, we’re going to table this. Can we get everything
wrapped up into one final?
MR. VOLLARO-We’re looking for a tabling motion that sets a date certain that’s
compliant with what he is able to do.
MR. JARRETT-Yes, we’d like to do it all at one time.
41
(Queensbury Planning Board 6/21/05)
MR. METIVIER-That’s exactly what I’m asking.
MR. VOLLARO-I think that makes sense, Tony, to me. So I guess what we need in order
to make a decent tabling motion out of this is some feeling from you as to when you’ll be
done, so that when you come back.
MR. JARRETT-I think, realistically, we have to figure on the normal submission date of
July 15. If we could ask for an August meeting, that would be our request.
th
MR. HUNSINGER-I’m sure we could handle that.
MR. VOLLARO-What does that look like? Have you looked at the board, George, or
Susan?
MR. HILTON-To be honest, I haven’t, at this point. I don’t know, do you know, have
you seen August’s agenda?
MR. VOLLARO-When I passed through there yesterday, the board looked pretty full.
MR. HILTON-Pretty full, yes. I mean, it all depends on whether the Board is going to
have an additional meeting, a third meeting in July, or whenever. Perhaps, to be safe,
you could table it to the next available meeting, and we’ll try to get them on as soon as
possible.
MR. VOLLARO-Well, Mr. Jarrett has a July 15 submission in mind. So that would put
th
us into an August meeting.
MR. HILTON-And f you table them to a specific meeting in August, they’re going to go
on that meeting.
MR. VOLLARO-Well, why don’t we table it to the second meeting in August, to be safe.
MR. HUNSINGER-Is Staff comfortable with that?
MRS. BARDEN-Sure, yes. You’re going to have everything submitted by July 15?
th
MR. LAPPER-Yes.
MR. VOLLARO-Okay. I’ll make a resolution.
MOTION TO TABLE MODIFICATION TO SITE PLAN NO. 12-2004 AFTAB (SAM)
BHATTI, Introduced by Robert Vollaro who moved for its adoption, seconded by
George Goetz:
For the following reasons:
1. This would be tabled for a final submission to Staff by July 15, 2005 for a meeting
scheduled for the second meeting in August of 2005.
2. Also, at that time we would expect a sign-off on C.T. Male’s eight-item letter of
6/15/05.
Duly adopted this 21st day of June, 2005, by the following vote:
AYES: Mr. Vollaro, Mr. Goetz, Mr. Sanford, Mr. Ford, Mrs. Steffan, Mr. Metivier, Mr.
Hunsinger
NOES: NONE
42
(Queensbury Planning Board 6/21/05)
MR. JARRETT-Thanks for your patience.
MR. HUNSINGER-You’re welcome.
MR. LAPPER-Thanks.
MR. HUNSINGER-Thank you.
NEW BUSINESS:
SUBDIVISION NO. 10-2005 PRELIMINARY & FINAL STAGE SEQR TYPE:
UNLISTED FRANK & JOANNE DE NARDO AGENT: JONATHAN LAPPER,
STEPHANIE BITTER ZONE: RR-5A, LC-10 LOCATION: RIDGE ROAD
APPLICANT HAS 31 +/- ACRE PARCEL WITH 14 +/- ACRES IN THE TOWN OF
QUEENSBURY. REQUEST IS TO CREATE A 2 LOT SUBDIVISION OF 6.25 AND
7.80 ACRES. CROSS REFERENCE: AV 07-2005 APA TAX MAP NO. 240.-1-47 LOT
SIZE: 14.83 ACRES SECTION: SUBDIVISION REGULATIONS
JON LAPPER & STEPHANIE BITTER, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT
MR. HUNSINGER-Do we have Staff notes?
MRS. BARDEN-Sure. This a two lot subdivision, 14 acre parcel, of 6.25 acre lot and a 7.8
acre lot on Ridge Road. The applicants have requested waivers from stormwater
management plan, the grading plan, lighting plan, landscaping plan, and Sketch Plan.
The 7.8 acre parcel, Lot B, will remain part of the overall parcel owned by the applicants,
and will remain undeveloped as per condition of Area Variance No. 7-2005 approval,
and this should also be a condition of the subdivision approval, and we did get one
public comment today in the office from the Lake George Water Keeper. That’s it.
MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. The floor is yours.
MS. BITTER-Good evening, Chairman, Stephanie Bitter, together with Jon Lapper and
Frank De Nardo, the applicant. Mr. De Nardo was before the Zoning Board to obtain
the necessary variance required for this proposed subdivision. As you can see on the
proposed plan, he’s essentially requesting a two lot subdivision, but because of the
uniqueness of this parcel, it’s located both in the Town of Queensbury, as well as the
Town of Fort Ann, and as a result the County line actually crosses right down the
middle of it. Lot A is going to be maintaining a 6.25 acre. Lot B, which is actually the
parcel, a part of the parcel that’s in the Town of Queensbury, is 7.80 acres.
MR. VOLLARO-Is that 7.80 acres defined by the Town, is the Town line between the
County of Washington and the County of Warren, that line defines the other leg of the
second lot?
MS. BITTER-It’s a much bigger parcel.
MR. VOLLARO-Okay.
MS. BITTER-Lot A is going to be accessed by Ridge Road, with the Lot B accessing the
existing Barthol Lane, and Mr. De Nardo’s house, as you can see by the map, is located
in the rear of what’s being identified as Lot B.
MR. VOLLARO-That’s the existing home?
43
(Queensbury Planning Board 6/21/05)
MS. BITTER-Right, and he’s going to be maintaining Lot B. During the Area Variance
review, he did indicate that the parcel of Lot B that is in the Town of Queensbury, he’s
agreed to condition as being undevelopable. Lot A he’s planning on marketing for sale.
MR. LAPPER-With the condition that that seven acre lot that he’s talking about will
never be built on.
MR. VOLLARO-Just a quick question. The original size of the lot was 5.96 acres, and
I’m talking about Lot A now, and that got turned into the 6.25. Is that correct? Is that
how?
MS. BITTER-During the review process, the map has been amended.
MR. VOLLARO-Now does that, did that occur because of the zoning line between RR-
5A and LC-10? Because there’s a small triangle of Lot A that looks like it’s in LC-10, and
it turns out that that triangled area is .48 acres?
MS. BITTER-Right.
MR. LAPPER-That’s why it needed the Area Variance.
MR. VOLLARO-Okay. I just wanted to make sure how these two lots were created. I
didn’t quite get it. I thought I did, but I just wanted to ask that question.
MR. HUNSINGER-Other questions from Board members?
MR. METIVIER-What is Moses Harris?
MS. BITTER-Down here.
MR. DE NARDO-That used to be a patent mill, the whole area.
MR. LAPPER-A patent line from England, the original, the land is split up into patents
that were granted to people.
MR. METIVIER-I’ve never seen that.
MR. VOLLARO-I do have a question, I guess, if the Chairman wants to, do you want to
go piece by piece, Mr. Chairman, or do you want us to? Mine has got to do with a
question that I had, and I checked with the Zoning Administrator today on. The house
is set 50 feet from the wetlands that were logged by Mark Rooks.
MS. BITTER-And that’s going to be adjusted to the 75.
MR. VOLLARO-To the 75 feet.
MS. BITTER-You’re absolutely correct.
MR. VOLLARO-So you’ve got that. That’s got to be a 75 foot. Okay. We don’t have any
wetlands certification in here. I see there’s a verification of the Adirondack Park Agency
here on the map, but there’s nothing, we have no document, unless, and I checked with
the Zoning Administrator. There is a letter in to him from Mr. Connelly of the APA, but
this was a 3/25, C. Brown from J. Connelly, is the Deputy Director. That letter does not
discuss, in any way, according to Craig Brown, it doesn’t discuss anything about this
certification. Now there was a memo put out some time ago by Chris Round that talked
about policy for this kind of thing, and that we should not be approving, and I can get
the actual words for you, but that we should not approve subdivisions unless they are
notated by signature. In other words, either that or a letter from the APA saying, yes,
44
(Queensbury Planning Board 6/21/05)
my name is Mark Rooks, and yes I did do this delineation on such and such a date, and
what appears on that chart is correct. We don’t have anything like that. There’s no
document that I have that verifies or certifies that Mark Rooks did this job.
MS. BITTER-It’s my understanding, from the notes of the Zoning Board, that a letter was
submitted, and Mr. De Nardo was representing himself at the time, because that exact
question was referenced during that January review.
MR. VOLLARO-So is there a letter in the file from Mr. Rooks?
MS. BITTER-It might be in the Zoning Board file. I, unfortunately, wasn’t there at that
time, but I noticed that in the minutes.
MR. VOLLARO-It should be in the Planning Board file as well. I mean, we certainly
don’t want these two Boards to be segmented to that degree, hopefully.
MR. LAPPER-Well, we’ll make sure that that letter is.
MS. BITTER-We can supplement it.
MR. LAPPER-But Mark did come out and flag the wetland.
MR. VOLLARO-Well, I don’t doubt that he did, except that there’s nothing in our file to
verify or certify that he, indeed, did this. That’s a question. I know when the policies
were set down for the Planning Board by Chris Round, one of the things he emphasized,
that we shouldn’t be approving these unless we had these certifications. Do you
remember that?
MR. HUNSINGER-Yes, that’s a good point. I do. Yes. It was that simple subdivision on
West Mountain Road where we got into that, yes, we went back and forth for several
meetings.
MR. VOLLARO-I brought Chris’ letter with me, in case I had to read it.
MR. HUNSINGER-That’s okay.
MR. LAPPER-There is verification in the minutes of the Zoning Board meeting.
MRS. BARDEN-I’m looking through them.
MR. FORD-While she’s looking, could you please re-address that issue of the set back of
the structure from the wetlands.
MR. LAPPER-It has to be 75 feet. So that’s going to be amended.
MR. FORD-Okay.
MR. VOLLARO-If you go to 179-4-070, it talks to the subject.
MR. FORD-I knew that it did. I just wanted to verify that this is not accurate as
presented.
MS. BITTER-I apologize. What I was referencing to Susan and George was that in the
minutes it indicates, Mr. De Nardo was questioned about whether or not any APA
delineations were done and he indicated that there were, by a wetland biologist. Do we
have a report in the record? It was questioned, Mr. De Nardo, I believe, so, and Mr.
Abbate responded I’ve got it. It’s on the map, thank you very much. That was the
45
(Queensbury Planning Board 6/21/05)
reference I was making. We’re not sure if it was followed up with a letter, or there
wasn’t a specific clarification.
MR. LAPPER-We do need an APA permit for the project. So that’s something, as an
outside agency approval, it has to have APA approval.
MR. HUNSINGER-Okay.
MR. VOLLARO-That’s true, but I’m getting back to the direction that the Board gets in
the policy statement made by the previous zoning person that was there, Chris Round,
that said, you know, we shouldn’t be approving things without having the actual
verification available, and so far it’s not.
MR. LAPPER-Certainly Mark Rooks was at the site, and we’ll get documentation. It’s a
question of if you’re set with everything else, perhaps that could be a condition so we
don’t have to come back on this, but certainly we’ll provide that for the file.
MR. VOLLARO-Our Staff doesn’t have the file, doesn’t have one. I assume that we
don’t have anything in our Planning Staff to verify that. Is that correct?
MRS. BARDEN-I have the same minutes that Stephanie was just referring to.
MR. VOLLARO-You have the minutes, but you have nothing from the APA?
MRS. BARDEN-I don’t have anything from the APA, other than that it’s, the wetlands
on site are jurisdictional.
MR. VOLLARO-Yes, that was Mr. Connelly’s letter.
MRS. BARDEN-Yes.
MR. HUNSINGER-Yes. Any other questions, comments from the Board? There is a
public hearing scheduled. Is there anyone here that wishes to comment on this
application? If you could just state your name, for the record, and address your
comments to the Board, and please keep your comments to the application that we’re
considering.
PUBLIC HEARING OPENED
CHRIS NAVITSKY
MR. NAVITSKY-Good evening. Chris Navitsky, Lake George Water Keeper. I had
submitted a letter this afternoon. I just had concerns that there was a waiver request for
stormwater management. I was just wondering what the justification for that might be,
and also I see that in the Town Code, that there is a buffer requirement, a non clearing
area along wetlands that are under DEC jurisdiction, but that doesn’t apply here because
these are APA wetlands, and I’m just wondering if that same buffer requirement would
carry over for these wetlands. I think it’s important that the Lake George Park
Commission is carrying through a study protecting stream corridors and wetlands, and I
think that that would be a very good measure to put on that. So that was my other
concern.
MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. Just to answer your questions quickly, there is a 75 foot
setback requirement to any wetland, and the waiver request is something that can be
granted by the discretion of the Board. So it’s up to the Board’s discretion whether or
not that would be granted.
46
(Queensbury Planning Board 6/21/05)
MR. NAVITSKY-I just didn’t, I thought there had to be a justification. That’s the way I
read it. That’s all. Thank you very much.
MR. HUNSINGER-Thank you. Any other comments from the public? Okay.
MRS. BARDEN-There is one letter here submitted June 19, 2005, from Mr. and Mrs.
Robert Dutcher. “Dear Board: We are writing regarding Subdivision No. 10-2005,
application for subdivision, filed by Frank and Joanne De Nardo. This is to state that we
have no problem with the subdivision application and request a favorable decision from
the Board regarding this matter. Thank you, Robert and Carol Dutcher”
MR. LAPPER-The 35 foot no cut along the wetland is fine, and we can add that, that
Chris asked for, and in terms of the stormwater management plan, as Frank said, he’s
going to be marketing the front lot. So he has no idea what kind of house or where
somebody would put it on that six acre lot. So the issue is just that right now, there’s no
basis. It’s just like any other residential subdivision where you’re not building a house.
He’s not proposing any disturbance. If the Board wanted to condition the building
permit on the submission of a stormwater plan at the time of building permit, that’s fine.
It’s just that it’s premature, without knowing where the house is going to be on the lot.
MR. VOLLARO-That would be part of site plan, if we went to a site plan. Or this would
be an individual, there would be no site plan.
MR. HUNSINGER-That’s my concern.
MR. LAPPER-That’s why I suggested maybe to submit it to the building inspector.
MR. SANFORD-I don’t have a problem with the waiver. It’s a single family that will go
there.
MR. VOLLARO-Yes. The only question I had was the setback, the 75 feet from the
wetland.
MR. SANFORD-I agree with that, and I agree with what you were saying earlier. If
we’re going to go with approval, I think it has to be conditioned upon receiving
verification of delineation.
MR. VOLLARO-Yes.
MR. HUNSINGER-Okay.
MR. LAPPER-That’s certainly acceptable.
MR. HUNSINGER-Is the Board comfortable with moving forward?
MR. VOLLARO-We’re going to be going to SEQRA on this, so I wanted to get a question
on the table before that. On Part I of your SEQRA, Part I, Number 8, the fact that the
house is as close to the wetland as it is being purported to be here, we have 76 feet to
depth to ground water, and I don’t know how you got that in Part I. How did you
arrive at 76 feet?
MR. LAPPER-Okay. Dennis Dickinson prepared the SEQRA. So we can’t speak
intelligently about that, but 76 feet depth to groundwater?
MR. VOLLARO-That’s what it says.
MR. LAPPER-That can’t be right.
47
(Queensbury Planning Board 6/21/05)
MR. HUNSINGER-No.
MR. LAPPER-Is there anything on the map? I think he was answering the wrong
question.
MR. HUNSINGER-Yes. I think he was thinking, how far is the house going to be from
the wetlands.
MR. LAPPER-Yes.
MR. SANFORD-Those were test pits not witnessed by our engineers.
MR. VOLLARO-That’s correct.
MR. LAPPER-So it’s 60 inches. Excavated 60 inches.
MR. HUNSINGER-It may be saying less than six feet. Maybe that’s a less than sign.
MRS. BARDEN-Right, yes.
MR. LAPPER-No water.
MR. VOLLARO-It’s not 76, it’s the less than sign. Okay.
MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. Well, if there are no more questions or comments from the
Board, we can go to SEQRA. Unfortunately, Tony, it’s the Long Form.
MR. METIVIER-Yes, I know.
RESOLUTION WHEN DETERMINATION OF NO SIGNIFICANCE IS MADE
RESOLUTION NO. 10-2005, Introduced by Anthony Metivier who moved for its
adoption, seconded by Robert Vollaro:
WHEREAS, there is presently before the Planning Board an application for:
FRANK & JOANNE DE NARDO, and
WHEREAS, this Planning Board has determined that the proposed project and Planning
Board action is subject to review under the State Environmental Quality Review Act,
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT
RESOLVED:
1. No Federal agency appears to be involved.
2. The following agencies are involved:
NONE
3. The proposed action considered by this Board is Unlisted in the Department of
Environmental Conservation Regulations implementing the State Environmental
Quality Review Act and the regulations of the Town of Queensbury.
4. An Environmental Assessment Form has been completed by the applicant.
5. Having considered and thoroughly analyzed the relevant areas of environmental
concern and having considered the criteria for determining whether a project has
a significant environmental impact as the same is set forth in Section 617.11 of the
48
(Queensbury Planning Board 6/21/05)
Official Compilation of Codes, Rules and Regulations for the State of New York,
this Board finds that the action about to be undertaken by this Board will have no
significant environmental effect and the Chairman of the Planning Board is
hereby authorized to execute and sign and file as may be necessary a statement
of non-significance or a negative declaration that may be required by law.
Duly adopted this 21 day of June, 2005, by the following vote:
st
AYES: Mr. Metivier, Mr. Vollaro, Mrs. Steffan, Mr. Sanford, Mr. Goetz, Mr. Ford,
Mr. Hunsinger
NOES: NONE
MR. HUNSINGER-Does anyone want to put forward a motion for approval?
MOTION TO APPROVE PRELIMINARY STAGE SUBDIVISION NO. 10-2005
FRANK & JOANNE DE NARDO, Introduced by Anthony Metivier who moved for its
adoption, seconded by Gretchen Steffan:
WHEREAS, an application has been make to this board for the following:
Subdivision No. 10-2005 Applicant/Property Owner: Frank & Joanne
DeNardo
Preliminary & Final Stage Agent: Jonathan Lapper, Stephanie Bitter
SEQR Type: Unlisted Zone: RR-5A, LC-10
Location: Ridge Road
Applicant has a 31 +/- acre parcel with 14+/- acres in the Town of Queensbury. Request is
to create a 2 lot subdivision of 6.25 and 7.80 acres.
Cross Reference: AV 07-2005
APA
Tax Map No. 240.-1-47
Lot size: 14.83 acres / Section: Subdivision
Regs
Public Hearing: 6/21/05
WHEREAS, the application was received in 5/17/05, and
WHEREAS, the above is supported with the following documentation, and inclusive of
all newly received information, not included is this listing as of 6/17/05, and
6/21 Staff Notes
6/14 Notice of Public Hearing sent
6/2 Meeting Notice
4/21 Application referral to APA
3/25 C. Brown from J. Connolly Deputy Director for Planning, APA
1/26 ZBA minutes
WHEREAS, pursuant to Chapter A183, Subdivision of Land, Section A183-9J and A183-
10C, D of the Code of the Town of Queensbury a public hearing was advertised and was
held on 6/21/05; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Board has determined that the proposal complies with the
Subdivision application requirements of the Code of the Town Queensbury (Zoning);
and
WHEREAS, the Planning Board has considered the environmental factors found in the
Code of the Town of Queensbury (Zoning); and
49
(Queensbury Planning Board 6/21/05)
WHEREAS, the requirements of the State Environmental Quality Review Act have been
considered and the Planning Board has adopted a SEQRA Negative Declaration; and/or
if application is a modification, the requirements of the State Environmental Quality
Review Act have been considered; and the proposed modification(s) do not result in any
new or significantly different environmental impacts, and, therefore, no further SEQRA
review is necessary; and
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that
We find the following: The application for Preliminary Stage is hereby Approved as per
resolution prepared by Staff:
Duly adopted this 21st day of June, 2005, by the following vote:
AYES: Mr. Metivier, Mrs. Steffan, Mr. Sanford, Mr. Goetz, Mr. Ford, Mr. Vollaro, Mr.
Hunsinger
NOES: NONE
MOTION TO APPROVE FINAL STAGE SUBDIVISION NO. 10-2005 FRANK &
JOANNE DE NARDO, Introduced by Anthony Metivier who moved for its adoption,
seconded by Richard Sanford:
WHEREAS, an application has been make to this board for the following:
Subdivision No. 10-2005 Applicant/Property Owner: Frank & Joanne
DeNardo
Preliminary & Final Stage Agent: Jonathan Lapper, Stephanie Bitter
SEQR Type: Unlisted Zone: RR-5A, LC-10
Location: Ridge Road
Applicant has a 31 +/- acre parcel with 14+/- acres in the Town of Queensbury. Request is
to create a 2 lot subdivision of 6.25 and 7.80 acres.
Cross Reference: AV 07-2005
APA
Tax Map No. 240.-1-47
Lot size: 14.83 acres / Section: Subdivision
Regs
Public Hearing: 6/21/05
WHEREAS, the application was received in 5/17/05, and
WHEREAS, the above is supported with the following documentation, and inclusive of
all newly received information, not included is this listing as of 6/17/05, and
6/21 Staff Notes
6/14 Notice of Public Hearing sent
6/2 Meeting Notice
4/21 Application referral to APA
3/25 C. Brown from J. Connolly Deputy Director for Planning, APA
1/26 ZBA minutes
WHEREAS, pursuant to Chapter A183, Subdivision of Land, Section A183-9J and A183-
10C, D of the Code of the Town of Queensbury a public hearing was advertised and was
held on 6/21/05; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Board has determined that the proposal complies with the
Subdivision application requirements of the Code of the Town Queensbury (Zoning);
and
50
(Queensbury Planning Board 6/21/05)
WHEREAS, the Planning Board has considered the environmental factors found in the
Code of the Town of Queensbury (Zoning); and
WHEREAS, the requirements of the State Environmental Quality Review Act have been
considered and the Planning Board has adopted a SEQRA Negative Declaration; and/or
if application is a modification, the requirements of the State Environmental Quality
Review Act have been considered; and the proposed modification(s) do not result in any
new or significantly different environmental impacts, and, therefore, no further SEQRA
review is necessary; and
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that
We find the following: The application for Final Stage is hereby Approved as per the
resolution prepared by Staff and is subject to the following conditions which shall be
listed on the final plat submitted for Planning Board Chairman’s signature and filing:
1. We need a verification of the wetland delineation from the APA.
2. We need to show 75-foot setbacks on the map, the distance from the house to the
wetlands should be changed on the site plans from 50 to 75.
3. Waiver request(s) are granted: Sketch plan, Stormwater, Grading and
Landscaping Plan
4. Recreation Fees in the amount of $500.00 per lot are applicable to this
subdivision.
5. All necessary outside agency approvals have been received by the applicant, with a
copy sent to and received by Planning Department Staff within 180 days.
6. The plat must be filed with the County Clerk within 60 days of receipt by Planning
Department Staff of outside agency approvals noted.
7. Final approved plans in compliance with this subdivision must be submitted to
the Community Development Dept. before any further review by the Zoning
Administrator or Building & Codes personnel. Subsequent issuance of further
permits; including building permits are dependent on receipt.
Duly adopted this 21st day of June, 2005, by the following vote:
AYES: Mr. Metivier, Mr. Sanford, Mrs. Steffan, Mr. Goetz, Mr. Ford, Mr. Vollaro, Mr.
Hunsinger
NOES: NONE
MR. HUNSINGER-You’re all set.
MR. LAPPER-Thank you.
SITE PLAN NO. 26-2005 SEQR TYPE: UNLISTED LACONIA REALTY AGENT:
JARRETT-MARTIN ENGINEERS ZONE: MU LOCATION: 16, 18 LUZERNE RD.
APPLICANT PROPOSES TWO (2) ADDITIONAL 4-UNIT, 730 SQ. FT. MULTI-
FAMILY UNITS WITH CORRESPONDING SITE WORK ON LUZERNE ROAD.
RESIDENTIAL USES IN THE MU ZONE REQUIRE SITE PLAN REVIEW. CROSS
REFERENCE: SP 10-88, SP 4-88 TAX MAP NO. 309.11-2-22, 23 LOT SIZE: 0.57, 1.92
ACRES SECTION: 179-4-020
51
(Queensbury Planning Board 6/21/05)
TOM JARRETT, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT
MR. HUNSINGER-Good evening, gentlemen. The floor is yours.
MR. JARRETT-Good evening. For the record, Tom Jarrett, of Jarrett-Martin Engineers,
and Trent Martin from my office, and Cliff Liptonburger, the applicant. We are
proposing eight new residential apartments in two buildings, two, four-plexes, to
supplement one existing four-plex on the site right now. So it would be a total of 12
units on the property in three buildings. The two new buildings would be proposed to
match the existing building in size and appearance, with one minor change. You plan to
put a gabled roof over the entrance of each door. It’ll add some attractiveness, we think,
to the building, and will prevent some ice problems at the entrance. As part of our site
plan proposal, we are closing off the, two of the three entrances on the property. We’re
going to use one main entrance for all three buildings, with separate parking areas for
each of the buildings, six spaces to serve each building, with handicapped accessible site.
Two dumpsters would serve the three buildings. The dumpster in the front, in the
existing location, would serve the front two buildings, and one new dumpster enclosure
would serve the rear building. Wastewater from the three buildings will be connected
to Town of Queensbury collection sewer system on Luzerne Road, on the far side of
Luzerne Road. We do need to extend the existing sewer district in that area to
accommodate a portion of the parcel, the old building. For those of you who are
familiar with the area, there was an old two family house on the eastern portion of the
property, and that parcel was within the sewer district, we understand, and the
remaining portions of the parcel, which have now been combined, I believe, will be
added to the sewer district. Water will be from the Queensbury Water system.
MR. VOLLARO-Is that an automatic add from wastewater, in other words, or do you
need a map plan and report to?
MR. JARRETT-We do need a map plan and report to do it. That’s correct. I’ve tried to
talk Mike into an out of district contract, but he said no.
MR. VOLLARO-He doesn’t like them.
MR. JARRETT-No, he doesn’t like them, and we may piggyback on another map plan
and report done by another applicant that was done, I think, with George’s, as a matter
of fact, when Ray Supply connected, but that remains to be seen. We will get it done,
one way or the other. Stormwater management is proposed by means of shallow
retention basins on the property, and it is in compliance with Queensbury standards.
Landscaping, we plan to utilize much of the wooded area, in fact virtually all of the
wooded area as buffers in the rear of the site. Toward the front of the site, toward the
Luzerne Road side, there is vegetation on each peripheral boundary, and on the west
side it is adequate as is. The east side we had asked for a waiver. Essentially we were
lacking one tree, and we felt like one additional tree was not necessary in that area, but
Staff, I believe it’s Staff or C.T. Male, has commented that that could be brought into
compliance. So we will open it up to questions, comments from the Board.
MR. HUNSINGER-Since this is a new site plan, why don’t we go through the site plan
review criteria. Any comments on design standards? That would include conformance
with Comprehensive Land Use Plan, conformance with design corridor standards,
building design layout or signage.
MRS. STEFFAN-Is parking included in that?
MR. HUNSINGER-Actually parking is next.
MRS. STEFFAN-Okay.
52
(Queensbury Planning Board 6/21/05)
MR. FORD-Will there be signage?
MR. JARRETT-Cliff can answer that better than me, but there is one existing sign that
will be removed and upgraded.
CLIFF LIPTONBURGER
MR. LIPTONBURGER-It’s just an address sign right now. It says 18 Luzerne, which will
be moved back with the new mailboxes, which we plan to move on to the property,
away from the Town property.
MR. FORD-So there isn’t a name of the complex?
MR. LIPTONBURGER-No. It just says 18 Luzerne.
MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. Any questions with site development design, site conditions,
vehicle access and traffic, pedestrian, parking field design, emergency access?
MR. VOLLARO-Well, I think maybe my question fits into that. There’s, on the setbacks
that are on the site, and zoning requirements, we’re saying that the required is 20 and
the existing is 43 and the proposed is 8.92.
MR. JARRETT-Actually there’s an error in the listing under proposed. We are in
compliance, although the numbers on the site plan are in error, and that was discussed
with Staff.
MR. VOLLARO-All right. Because I can see pretty clearly on the drawing that you’ve
got 20 feet.
MR. JARRETT-It was our error.
MR. VOLLARO-Okay.
MR. HUNSINGER-Any other questions? Gretchen, did you have questions on parking?
MRS. STEFFAN-Yes. The parking spaces, and I know that the Code requires a space
and a half, but in my experience, in some of these rental properties, that’s usually not
enough. Usually there’s two folks, or there’s two cars per building, and then you’ve got
visitors, and if you don’t have adequate parking for two cars per unit or visitors, then
you’ll get into some problems. Parking on the road or parking on the driveway that
goes back to the other units, that’s a concern.
MR. JARRETT-We actually have enough room for guests right now. We don’t have
designated spaces for two per unit. We have designated for one and a half per unit. I
don’t know if the Board suggests we increase that or not. I had felt that the Board was
trying to minimize parking in the past, but that is more realistic in some of these
apartment complexes.
MRS. STEFFAN-And I’m just concerned because Luzerne isn’t as heavily traveled a road
as some of the other arterials and folks might be compelled to park on the road, which
would cause a traffic hazard. So that’s one of the reasons why I brought it up. I don’t
know how the rest of the Board feels about that.
MR. VOLLARO-One and a half is never, I think two is probably more appropriate for an
establishment like this that’s my feeling, too.
MR. FORD-I concur.
53
(Queensbury Planning Board 6/21/05)
MR. HUNSINGER-I guess maybe one of the questions would be, of the applicant, you
know, has that been an issue with the existing building?
MR. LIPTONBURGER-Not right now. There’s actually two in the existing building. I
thought that there was a maximum one and a half. I was under the impression. I
thought that that’s all that you wanted us to have. Frankly, I’d rather have two.
MR. VOLLARO-Okay. So two is.
MRS. STEFFAN-That’s what the Code said. We’re currently looking at some of those
issues, because, realistically.
MR. LIPTONBURGER-I kind of agree with that. There’s two right now, in the existing.
MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. Any other questions on site development?
MR. FORD-What is the proximity between the wood decks on that, for this back unit
and vegetation?
MR. JARRETT-What is it proposed to be? Because right now that’s in an area that’s
entirely wooded.
MR. FORD-Right. So what’s the proposal?
MR. JARRETT-We’ve shown it nominally 15 to 20 feet back from the building, and that’s
what I think you need for construction, and you don’t plan on cutting beyond that?
MR. LIPTONBURGER-No. It’s a minimum amount. We’re going to have to keep as
much of the natural woods as possible. That’s what makes the site a great site. We want
to keep it that way.
MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. Any questions on stormwater, sewage design?
MR. VOLLARO-The sewage, except for providing the map plan and report.
MR. HUNSINGER-Right. Lighting design?
MR. VOLLARO-Again, on the lighting, you keep getting tied up in this Uniformity Ratio
thing, and I’m not sure that even, we haven’t had a chance to really look at whether this
four to one is appropriate or not. It comes out of the National Institute of Lighting
Engineers, says four to one.
MR. JARRETT-Are you referring to the waiver we requested? I didn’t catch what?
MR. VOLLARO-No, we’re on lighting right now.
MR. JARRETT-Yes. We did request a waiver on the lighting on the building faces
because of the lamps around the entrances.
MR. VOLLARO-I’m looking at this average over min column on statistics on C-3, and
that average over min is really the Uniformity Ratio.
MR. JARRETT-Correct.
MR. VOLLARO-And the one you get real close to is the front parking, 3.7, three to .7,
but the rest of them are pretty far out.
54
(Queensbury Planning Board 6/21/05)
MR. JARRETT-Actually, they’re more uniform than your standard. So, the only one
that’s out of compliance is building exterior, and that’s because of the coach lamps
around each entrance door.
MR. VOLLARO-Yes. A lot of those always have to do with the minimum amount of
lighting. I noticed that the min really affects the Uniformity Ratio the most. That’s
probably, when you do your minimum lighting calculations, that ought to be considered
when have to move over to the average over the min.
MR. JARRETT-Correct. Oftentimes we have to add a number of fixtures to try to come
into compliance with the Uniformity. I think the Board would be wise to look at that,
because some of the sites around Town are adequately lit with Uniformity that is worse
that four to one, and they seem to be very functional.
MR. VOLLARO-Yes, that’s why I said we should look at that. We’re not having an
awful lot of luck getting people to come into conformity with four to one. We did it with
Wal-Mart, but we had a lot of strain to get it to that, and I just don’t know, it’s something
probably that the PORC Committee ought to really look at that Uniformity Ratio. It
hasn’t been working well.
MR. HUNSINGER-And it’s different in an apartment complex than it is for a, you know,
a commercial parking lot. I think for something like this you don’t want too much light.
MR. JARRETT-Right, and you’ll note we’ve proposed 11 foot and 8 foot poles here.
We’ve not proposed very high poles. We want to keep it more residential feeling, and
that means to get the Uniformity, you’ve got to add a lot of poles, which is money,
expense.
MR. HUNSINGER-Any other comments from the Board on the lighting? Are people
comfortable with it generally?
MR. VOLLARO-Yes, I can see why he’s where he’s at.
MR. HUNSINGER-Yes. Landscape design, planting schedule, buffering, screening,
setbacks?
MR. VOLLARO-I think this landscaping looks good to me. Actually, he’s only got 170
foot on his eastern boundary that he’s got, and he’s put four trees in there. He’s
proposing four, in addition to the two crabapples that are there now. That looks like,
plus you’ve got some shrubs mixed in with that as well.
MR. JARRETT-That’s correct.
MR. VOLLARO-And I think that that’s perfectly adequate. Because there’s only 170 feet
of that over 290 foot length of property line, 170 of it can be used, the rest of it is
populated. So I’m comfortable with that.
MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. Environmental? Wetlands, noise, air quality, aesthetics,
historic factors, wildlife?
MR. VOLLARO-No, I don’t have anything there at all.
MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. Neighborhood character, neighborhood impacts, health,
safety, and welfare of the community?
MR. VOLLARO-I think it’s an improvement.
55
(Queensbury Planning Board 6/21/05)
MR. HUNSINGER-Involved agencies or any other criteria not reviewed? Okay. There
is a public hearing scheduled for this evening. Is there anyone here that would wish to
speak to this application? If you could just state your name for the record and address
your comments to the Board and keep your comments to the application being
considered.
PUBLIC HEARING OPENED
BRUCE BURKE
MR. BURKE-Hi. I’m Bruce Burke. My concern was the one on the Luzerne Road, I
don’t have a, I think that they’re fine. The one behind it, because we live right there on
that border. We put a new house in there in 2000, and it’s quiet back there. Now if this
comes in, the concern is people all over, walking through, you know, and noise, because
in the wintertime, in the fall and the winter, the trees are bare, you can see right through.
MR. VOLLARO-You live on Allen Lane?
MR. BURKE-We live on Allen Lane. Yes. Like a two story building would be looking
right down at us, and no privacy whatsoever.
DAN HUNT
MR. HUNT-I live on the other side. We’ve owned the house for over 50 years, and it’s
always been a quiet neighborhood. So we have concerns of trespassing. My land
borders the south, the east/west of Allen Lane, which would be behind these people. I
can show it to you.
MR. VOLLARO-Yes, I’ve got it here, but I don’t see it up there. Okay.
MR. HUNT-And this is also my land. This is Bruce’s land.
MR. FORD-Your house is where?
MR. HUNT-My house is right here. This is Allen Lane. This is my house, and I own
land across the road, and this is the land that they own, and so I’m concerned about
trespassing, because we have two people on that street, it’s always been quiet.
Nobody’s been down the street. So that’s my concern.
MRS. BURKE-Also, Dan has handicapped children, and they have to come, the aids
come, and they walk the handicap children, push them in a carriage up Allen Lane, and
it’s always been very quiet, and residential, and with all these units coming in, I mean,
that’ll be twelve families in there, and we already hear a lot of noise from those four
units that are in there. All summer long, dogs barking, kids screaming, and now we’re
going to have eight more on top of that. It’s going to change our life completely.
MR. BURKE-That’s why we built there, because it was quiet. We came there in 1965.
That’s the reason we stayed there. It was peaceful.
MR. HUNSINGER-Okay.
MRS. BURKE-So, although you consider it an improvement, we consider it just the
opposite.
MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. Thank you for your comments.
MRS. BURKE-And we’re also concerned about environmental concerns, because there is
a lot of wildlife in there, and I understand there’s endangered species, the blue Karner
56
(Queensbury Planning Board 6/21/05)
butterfly, been looking into that, and our area is highly agreeable to that, and we haven’t
had time, really, I was going to take a look, but that Kathy O’Brien, I think that they just
did a fly over, but they should send somebody from the Environmental Conservation
office in there and do a field study.
MR. HUNSINGER-Yes, the applicant has provided a letter from Roberts Environmental,
saying that no wild lupine plants were found on the site, and that the vegetation and soil
of the parcel do not provide preferred habitat for wild lupine. Wild lupine is the plant.
MRS. BURKE-I know. I researched it in the library, and that’s the way it is, partly
sandy, and it has all the environment that would support the Karner blue butterfly.
MRS. STEFFAN-Mrs. Burke, are the woods dense back there? We drove in obviously
the first (lost words).
MRS. BURKE-There are parts where it’s opened up.
MR. BURKE-In the summertime, probably.
MRS. BURKE-No, I’m talking about the Karner blue butterfly.
MRS. STEFFAN-No, actually I was talking about the woods, I’m sorry.
MRS. BURKE-Yes, it’s dense in some areas, and in other spots there’s open areas where
it’s sandy. It’s all sandy through there mostly anyway.
MRS. STEFFAN-Okay.
MRS. BURKE-And that’s the type of environment that supports the Karner blue
butterfly.
MR. HUNSINGER-Okay.
MR. HUNT-Also we’ve got like businesses like CVS and Dunkin Donuts. So these
places, when they want to go walk, they’re going to walk right through, trespass
through, our land. So maybe they could put a fence up or something. It won’t get rid of
the noise.
MRS. BURKE-Our building is one story.
MR. BURKE-We have a modular home in there.
MRS. BURKE-And those buildings are two story, and the lights, they kind of look down
on us, you know, like this.
MR. VOLLARO-It looks like that one building is about 100 feet from your house.
MRS. BURKE-No, not that far.
MR. VOLLARO-Well, by calculation on this drawing it looks like that.
MRS. BURKE-It’s 85 feet, I think.
MR. VOLLARO-What side of Allen are you on? You’re on the north side of Allen?
MR. HUNSINGER-On the south side.
MRS. BURKE-We’re south of where they’re building.
57
(Queensbury Planning Board 6/21/05)
MR. VOLLARO-Rough calculation by just taking a look at the 20 foot, just multiplying
the 20, I get about 100 feet to your house, from the back of that house.
MRS. BURKE-It’s 85 feet, I think, we measured it.
MR. BURKE-It’s measured from the fire hydrant, 85 feet, and like I said, there’s no
buffer there from fall until spring. You can see right through there.
MR. HUNSINGER-Well, thank you for your comments. Is there anyone else that would
like to comment on this application? I’ll close the public hearing, if the applicant could
come back to the table. When we were at this site Saturday morning on site visits, I
mean, the woods look pretty built up, but, you know, the neighbors have said in the
wintertime they can see through the woods. I mean, you heard the concern, if there’s
any comments you could make.
MR. LIPTONBURGER-I understand the concern. That’s one of the reasons why I did
not want to have any entering or exiting on Allen. We actually own a piece that fronts
the road on Allen, and there’s also a restaurant back there that’s on Allen that’s on that
road, and I didn’t want to get the noise. There’s a parking lot behind the restaurant
there. So I really wanted to build away from that also, but I would be willing to keep a
buffer zone back there of those natural trees, you know, 20 feet from the, and there
won’t be any cars or anything back there. Don’t forget, the way we’re building, the cars
are going to be in the front towards Luzerne. So there’s just going to be a deck back
there. There’s just going to be maybe a person barbecuing, and the height of the
building isn’t, you know, really any higher than the private homes that are next to it.
Actually a little lower, and there was a two family house there that we knocked down.
So it’s not that we’re adding, there were six families there already. We took two away,
that old house that was falling down anyway.
MR. VOLLARO-Is there a chance of putting a privacy fence that’s, has some height to it
to give these people a little visual protection from that, in other words, a privacy fence
right along that tree line, just south of the building?
MR. LIPTONBURGER-What type of fence would you, you mean like a stockade?
MR. VOLLARO-Like a stockade type of fence that would give them some visual
privacy, blocking, because actually what they’re complaining about, this is a two story
that would look down on them I guess. That’s their complaint that I heard, and so I
don’t know what the fence would do for that, but it might prevent some of the noise
from drifting, some of the ground noise of kids running around in the back, whatever,
some of the ground noise may be attenuated by the fence.
MR. LIPTONBURGER-What height did you have in mind of the fence?
MR. VOLLARO-Ten foot.
MR. LIPTONBURGER-I would think that that would look worse than the natural buffer
of the trees.
MR. VOLLARO-The natural buffer goes away in the wintertime, that’s what they’re
complaining about, where the fence would remain the natural barrier.
MRS. STEFFAN-What about an evergreen hedgerow?
MR. LIPTONBURGER-Yes, I’d rather do something like that.
MR. VOLLARO-A natural fence.
58
(Queensbury Planning Board 6/21/05)
MR. LIPTONBURGER-Yes, I think that would work better for everybody.
MR. VOLLARO-Put a natural fence in, and that would grow to better than 10 feet, when
it gets up there.
MR. LIPTONBURGER-Right. I think it would look a lot better on both sides.
MRS. STEFFAN-And maybe start out with some larger, like six foot trees, to start, and
then they’ll grow into one another and create a barrier.
MR. LIPTONBURGER-Yes, I think that would be better for both parties.
MR. VOLLARO-We’re looking at about roughly 100 feet there, roughly, probably 80 foot
of width, to try to get the number of trees across that 80 foot mark.
MR. LIPTONBURGER-I just want to bring your attention to this little cut out, I’m not
sure who belongs to it, but there’s a, kind of an abandoned half pike that was probably
for a skateboard and a whole bunch of other debris that’s back in that property, back in
that corner back there. If you want to really make it look better back there, it would
probably be better for everybody if, I mean, I would be willing to do my part to clean it
out, because it’s an eyesore from my property looking out at that also.
MR. FORD-Who’s property is that on?
MR. LIPTONBURGER-I would have to say that it’s on, I don’t know their names, one of
these people.
MR. BURKE-That belongs to the bar.
MR. LIPTONBURGER-See, that belongs to the bar. So you see it’s not very quiet back
there after all.
MR. BURKE-That hasn’t been used in probably six years.
MR. LIPTONBURGER-Yes, I can see it’s abandoned and very dangerous for kids to play
on.
MR. VOLLARO-But I think the idea of a natural hedgerow there would be a good idea.
MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. Any other questions, concerns from the Board? Are we ready
to do SEQRA? This would be a Long Form again.
MR. VOLLARO-I think it’s a Long Form.
RESOLUTION WHEN DETERMINATION OF NO SIGNIFICANCE IS MADE
RESOLUTION NO. 26-2005, Introduced by Anthony Metivier who moved for its
adoption, seconded by Robert Vollaro:
WHEREAS, there is presently before the Planning Board an application for:
LACONIA REALTY, and
WHEREAS, this Planning Board has determined that the proposed project and Planning
Board action is subject to review under the State Environmental Quality Review Act,
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT
59
(Queensbury Planning Board 6/21/05)
RESOLVED:
1. No Federal agency appears to be involved.
2. The following agencies are involved:
NONE
3. The proposed action considered by this Board is Unlisted in the Department of
Environmental Conservation Regulations implementing the State Environmental
Quality Review Act and the regulations of the Town of Queensbury.
4. An Environmental Assessment Form has been completed by the applicant.
5. Having considered and thoroughly analyzed the relevant areas of environmental
concern and having considered the criteria for determining whether a project has
a significant environmental impact as the same is set forth in Section 617.11 of the
Official Compilation of Codes, Rules and Regulations for the State of New York,
this Board finds that the action about to be undertaken by this Board will have no
significant environmental effect and the Chairman of the Planning Board is
hereby authorized to execute and sign and file as may be necessary a statement
of non-significance or a negative declaration that may be required by law.
Duly adopted this 21 day of June, 2005, by the following vote:
st
AYES: Mr. Metivier, Mrs. Steffan, Mr. Vollaro, Mr. Sanford, Mr. Goetz, Mr. Ford,
Mr. Hunsinger
NOES: NONE
MR. HUNSINGER-Is there anyone that would like to make a motion?
MRS. STEFFAN-What are we going to do on the lighting plan?
MR. VOLLARO-On the lighting, there isn’t very much you can do with it. I think that
this kind of a site doesn’t lend itself to getting down to four to one, the more you look at
it. So I think we’re going to have to buy their lighting plan as proposed.
MRS. STEFFAN-So they’ve asked for a waiver on the lighting plan. So grant it.
MR. HUNSINGER-We do not have a final C.T. Male signoff.
MR. VOLLARO-No, we don’t. We need that, their letter of 6/15.
MR. JARRETT-We inquired today of Staff whether they’d seen anything, and have not.
Okay. We provided a letter on Friday to C.T. Male. We received their comments on
Wednesday afternoon and provided a letter back to them, agreeing with an agreed upon
solution to each of their comments, but we’ve not seen anything official, I guess, from
them.
MR. VOLLARO-Well, what we’ve been doing lately I guess is we’ve been basing
approval based on receipt of C.T. Male’s signoff, and I didn’t see a lot of objectionable
stuff in the C.T. Male letter.
MR. HUNSINGER-No, I didn’t either.
MR. JARRETT-Did you receive copies of our response to C.T. Male?
60
(Queensbury Planning Board 6/21/05)
MR. VOLLARO-I didn’t see any in my packet. I see their letter of June 15, and I see
th
Roberts Environmental Consulting letter on the Karner blue butterfly.
MR. HUNSINGER-Yes, we did not have a copy of your response. Their letter was dated
June 15.
th
MR. JARRETT-And we responded on the 17.
th
MR. HILTON-That information did come in after the notes had gone out and so it
wasn’t included in your packet.
MR. JARRETT-We can review each of those comments, or if there’s anything in
particular that concerns you we can review what our response was on something
specific.
MR. VOLLARO-I looked at the C.T. Male letter. I didn’t see anything super critical in
that that you wouldn’t be able to answer.
MR. HUNSINGER-How would we handle the parking spaces per unit?
MRS. STEFFAN-Two per unit.
MR. VOLLARO-We’ll just specify there’ll be two spaces per unit. So there’d be 16
spaces.
MR. JARRETT-We’d have to add two additional spaces for the two new buildings. The
existing building has.
MR. HUNSINGER-The existing building has eight, yes.
MR. JARRETT-So we’d add two new spaces to each of the two new buildings.
MR. HUNSINGER-And where would you propose those, in front of the buildings?
MR. JARRETT-The new building in the rear would be very easy to accommodate,
expand that parking.
MR. HUNSINGER-Right.
MR. JARRETT-The new building to the east in the front, I don’t know whether we’d
propose expanding the front parking lot or whether we’d put one in the rear. We might
put one along the side in the rear, and then one in the front. I think it would be, we
could actually add one very easily without expanding the parking footprint very much
in the front, and we can put one along the side in the rear, into the rear of that one unit,
along the east side of the driveway leading to the rear, would be very simple.
MR. HILTON-Mr. Chairman, I don’t have the plan in front of me, so I guess I have a
quick question. Would any of this involve any changes to landscaping or lighting?
MR. JARRETT-It would not involve landscaping, would not involve lighting, minimally
involve stormwater, except we were slightly over designed. So I don’t think it’s going to
materially affect that as well. We may have the plan that you can put up, if you want to
look at it.
MR. HILTON-No.
MR. HUNSINGER-What’s the pleasure of the Board?
61
(Queensbury Planning Board 6/21/05)
MR. VOLLARO-How are we going to access that lot, that parking space in the back?
MR. JARRETT-It would be right along the side of the driveway.
MR. VOLLARO-Okay.
MR. HUNSINGER-Which is probably where overflow parking would naturally go
anyway.
MR. JARRETT-You’re probably right.
MR. VOLLARO-Okay. I see what you’re doing. It makes sense. I would buy into that.
MRS. BARDEN-Does that have to be paved, that overflow parking? Would you have
gravel or grass along the side?
MR. VOLLARO-It still would be an impervious surface.
MR. JARRETT-Yes. We’d design it from a stormwater perspective that way, but.
MRS. STEFFAN-You’re not planning on paving this, right? Just gravel.
MRS. BARDEN-The whole drive surface now is gravel?
MR. LIPTONBURGER-Yes.
MRS. BARDEN-One other comment on that, it should be conditioned on the Fire
Marshal signoff, too. They were interested in the access.
MR. HUNSINGER-Yes, that was in the resolution, wasn’t it, the draft resolution.
MR. VOLLARO-This is the comment from West Glens Falls Fire Chief in response to
Steve Smith’s letter of 6/13?
MRS. BARDEN-Yes.
MR. VOLLARO-Is that in the resolution?
MRS. BARDEN-No.
MR. VOLLARO-I mean, he’s looking for the Chief to respond to his letter. I don’t think
you’ve gotten a response yet, have you? So it wouldn’t be in the resolution. I guess that
would have to be a condition, that we receive a satisfactory, I guess that he’s really
looking for access to this site.
MRS. BARDEN-Drive aisle widths.
MRS. STEFFAN-So we’ve got parking, C.T. Male signoff, granting waivers for lighting,
and buffers as long as it meets the current plan, addition of a hedgerow of evergreen
trees in the back, and Fire Marshal plan review and signoff. Are those the issues?
MR. VOLLARO-I think we want to be specific on the hedgerow. It’s about 100 foot of
natural buffer that he would be putting that hedgerow in front of. I think five trees
across the 100 feet would be about right for their growth. I don’t know, that’s something
that you folks would have to, I looked at it and said we’d space five trees across that 100
feet.
MR. JARRETT-Depending on species, yes, he’s right.
62
(Queensbury Planning Board 6/21/05)
MR. FORD-Do you want it to be evergreen?
MR. VOLLARO-Yes, I want it to be evergreen, yes sure.
MRS. STEFFAN-So 100 feet.
MR. VOLLARO-Across 100 foot we would put five evergreen trees, because that back is
roughly 100 feet.
MRS. STEFFAN-So we have to put five.
MR. VOLLARO-That would be the number of trees of the natural buffer would be five
trees.
MRS. STEFFAN-Okay.
MR. HUNSINGER-Six foot.
MRS. STEFFAN-Yes, I have six foot.
MR. HUNSINGER-Okay.
MRS. STEFFAN-Okay. Are we ready?
MR. VOLLARO-I think that’s it, Gretchen.
MR. LIPTONBURGER-I would also put in their leases that no one is allowed to access
that Allen walking through. I can understand their concern about that. I’ll put in
everyone’s lease that no access to Allen from the back of the apartments would be
allowed.
MR. VOLLARO-I can see people that have been living there a long time, nice and quiet.
MR. LIPTONBURGER-I understand that.
MR. HUNSINGER-It’s a legitimate concern, yes.
MR. VOLLARO-Sure.
MOTION TO APPROVE SITE PLAN NO. 26-2005 LACONIA REALTY, Introduced
by Gretchen Steffan who moved for its adoption, seconded by Thomas Ford:
WHEREAS, an application has been made to this Board for the following:
Site Plan No. 26-2005 Applicant/Property Owner: Laconia Realty
SEQR Type: Unlisted Agent: Jarrett-Martin Engineers
Zone: MU
Location: 16, 18 Luzerne Rd.
Applicant proposes two (2) additional 4-unit, 730 sq. ft. multi –family units with
corresponding site work on Luzerne Road. Residential uses in the MU zone require Site
Plan review.
Cross Reference: SP 10-88, SP 4-88
Tax Map No. 309.11-2-22, 23
Lot size: 0.57, 1.92 acres / Section: 179-4-020
Public Hearing: 6/21/05
WHEREAS, the application was received on 5/ /05; and
63
(Queensbury Planning Board 6/21/05)
WHEREAS, the above is supported with the following documentation and inclusive of
all newly received information, not included in this listing as of 6/17/05; and
6/21 Staff Notes
6/15 C.T. Male Associates engineering comments
6/14 Notice of Public Hearing sent
6/13 PB from S. Smith: Fire Marshal comments
6/13 Planning Staff from Jarrett-Martin Engineers: T. Jarrett from Roberts
Environmental Consulting
6/10 Chief, WGF Fire Co. from S. Smith, Queensbury Fire Marshal
6/2 Meeting Noticed
4/29 C. Brown from B. Ostrander, Deputy Superintendent Water Dept.
4/25 C. Brown from M. Shaw, Deputy Director Wastewater: see condition #1
4/21 Application referrals to: C.T. Male Associates, M. Shaw, Deputy Director
Wastewater, & Water Dept.
4/12 T. Jarrett from K. O’Brien, NYS DEC Endangered Species Unit
WHEREAS, pursuant to Art. 9 of the Zoning Ordinance of the Code of the Town of
Queensbury a public hearing was advertised and was held on 6/21/05; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Board has determined that the proposal complies with the Site
Plan application requirements of the Code of the Town Queensbury (Zoning); and
WHEREAS, the Planning Board has considered the environmental factors found in the
Code of the Town of Queensbury (Zoning); and
WHEREAS, the requirements of the State Environmental Quality Review Act have been
considered and the Planning Board has adopted a SEQRA Negative Declaration; and/or
if application is a modification, the requirements of the State Environmental Quality
Review Act have been considered; and the proposed modification(s) do not result in any
new or significantly different environmental impacts, and, therefore, no further SEQRA
review is necessary; and
WHEREAS, this approval does not relieve the applicant from obtaining all necessary
permits whether Federal, State or Local, and
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that
We find the following: The application is hereby approved in accordance with the
resolution prepared by Staff and is subject to the following conditions which shall be
listed on the final plans submitted to the Zoning Administrator:
1. To provide additional parking, two spaces per unit, just the two new buildings.
2. Obtain a final C.T. Male sign-off.
3. Waivers granted for lighting and buffers, as long as it meets the current plan.
4. Addition of a 100-foot hedgerow of evergreen trees six foot in height, five or
more trees.
5. Fire Marshal plan review approval and sign-off.
6. Lease restrictions regarding No Access to Allen Lane.
7. Per comments from M. Shaw, Deputy Director Wastewater: It must be clearly
stated on the plans and understood that the Wastewater dept. will review,
64
(Queensbury Planning Board 6/21/05)
approved & permit Sanitary sewer connections. Connections may require to install
grease traps, internal backwater valves and main line “U” traps.
8. A copy of the required NOI to be provided prior to issuance of a Building
Permit.
9. Final approved plans in compliance with this site plan must be submitted to the
Community Development Dept. before any further review by the Zoning
Administrator or Building & Codes personnel. Subsequent issuance of further
permits; including building permits are dependent on receipt.
Duly adopted this 21st day of June, 2005, by the following vote:
MR. JARRETT-One clarification. It’s just the two new buildings that require the two
additional spaces.
MRS. STEFFAN-Yes.
AYES: Mrs. Steffan, Mr. Ford, Mr. Sanford, Mr. Goetz, Mr. Vollaro, Mr. Metivier, Mr.
Hunsinger
NOES: NONE
MR. JARRETT-Thank you very much.
MR. HUNSINGER-You’re welcome.
MR. LIPTONBURGER-Thank you very much.
SITE PLAN NO. 27-2005 SEQR TYPE UNLISTED DIAMOND AUTOS PROPERTY
OWNER: ROBERT & GERALDINE TROUTMAN AGENT: JARRETT-MARTIN
ENGINEERS ZONE: HC-INT. LOCATION: NW END OF EAST QUAKER
SERVICE ROAD APPLICANT PROPOSES AN AUTO & BOAT SALES AND
SERVICE USE WITH CORRESPONDING SITE WORK. AUTO SALES AND
SERVICE IN THE HC ZONE REQUIRE SITE PLAN REVIEW. CROSS REFERENCE:
SP 30-94 WARREN CO. PLANNING: 6/8/05 TAX MAP NO. 303.15-1-18 LOT SIZE:
1.58 ACRES SECTION: 179-4-020
TOM JARRETT, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT
MR. HUNSINGER-The floor is yours, gentlemen.
MR. JARRETT-We’re here tonight representing the Dickert family who’s in attendance
in the audience. They’re proposing an auto and boat sales and service facility on, just off
Quaker Road on the East Quaker Service Road, next to Sportline Honda. Our proposal
is for, well, let me state it this way. We have an original proposal that you have in front
of you, which includes two building complexes that were divided into two phases.
We’re proposing two phases. The front two buildings to the lower left were proposed in
the first phase. We showed you what the ultimate build out of the site would be by
showing you the upper two buildings that were not proposed initially, would be built at
some point in the future, but we showed them to you to show you what the ultimate
build out would be. Along with that, there is auto sales and boat sales display area in
the front of the site. We have a total of 63 spaces shown for display, 9 spaces for
customers and employees, just to the rear of that. We proposed also an additional 11
spaces in Phase II, which you’ll see to the rear of the site there, and the total square
footages of buildings proposed were 2300 square feet in the first phase and 3200 square
feet in the second phase. Stormwater is proposed through pocket ponds at the rear of
the site. There were three pocket ponds proposed in the plan you have in front of you,
65
(Queensbury Planning Board 6/21/05)
and stormwater would be collected through a storm sewer system, meaning catch
basins, drywells and storm sewer piping routed to those pocket ponds. Wastewater
would be handled through a connection to the Queensbury Avenue sewer district,
which runs along the NiMo right of way right behind the site, and water supply would
be from the Town. We’ve received comments from C.T. Male suggesting that the
efficiency of our stormwater system is really not going to be something that they would
be comfortable with, and in their opinion would not meet DEC standards. So what
we’re going to come back to you with next month is a reduction in the scope of this
project to be one phase, reducing the building complex to one set of buildings in the
front of the site. In fact, do you have that plan with you in that?
MR. VOLLARO-That would be the buildings on the lower left only?
MR. JARRETT-Yes. It’s a very similar concept, but it’s scaled back, to be a smaller
building area.
MR. FORD-There still would be four buildings?
MR. VOLLARO-Okay. They’ve got it up there now.
MR. JARRETT-The three buildings now, all together in one complex, built as one phase.
You can see there’s more green area in the rear, and we combined the stormwater ponds
into two ponds in the rear of the site. You do not have it in front of you in anything
official. We just wanted to introduce the concept that we’ll come back next month with
an official submission addressing the C.T. Male comments, and I guess tonight really we
just want to get some of the other issues out of the way, like landscaping and the overall
site plan discussion.
MR. VOLLARO-Okay. So we’re going to be into a single phase project?
MR. JARRETT-A single phase project.
MR. FORD-Will this proposal in any way impact the NiMo land or right of way?
MR. JARRETT-No. There’s no discharge, in our opinion right now, there’s no discharge
of stormwater to NiMo within a 100 year storm. There may be beyond a 100 year storm,
but not within a 100 year storm. Our proposal for stormwater management is to retain
all the stormwater on site.
MR. SANFORD-So I guess he answered my question. I was wondering why you’re here
if you’re coming back with a new plan. You just want to get a little feedback?
MR. JARRETT-We’d like to get some feedback on the other issues. The stormwater,
obviously, is an issue that is not resolved, but other issues are outstanding.
MR. SANFORD-Well, if you’re only going to have like a Phase I and not the Phase I and
II, are you not going to do boat sales, or? Because the way I look at this diagram, it
wasn’t totally clear. It looked like, in Phase II was the future parking spaces and the
boat sales and detailing area. Am I wrong on that?
MR. JARRETT-No, I don’t think you’re wrong, and we may need the Dickerts to help
clarify, but essentially their business right now is auto sales. They are entertaining
franchises for boat sales and it is a future possibility. That’s why we’ve listed it on the
site uses, but right now their business is autos. So there’s no boats in the picture right
now.
MR. SANFORD-Well, I guess if there’s not going to be a Phase II, then are you going to
spread out over the whole site, or are you going to have a part of the site undeveloped?
66
(Queensbury Planning Board 6/21/05)
MR. VOLLARO-What’s up on the picture there is the new proposal, where the three
dark spots would be simultaneously built. Those three buildings would be, and the
green space, I guess it’s to the north of that, would be a lot more green space than what
they had before.
MR. JARRETT-And we might park some boats on that rear grass area, just in front of the
stormwater ponds, but essentially boat and/or auto display would be in the front where
we proposed it originally.
MR. SANFORD-I’ve got you. I’ve got it now. This is what you’ll be coming back and
discussing in greater detail next month, or whatever.
MR. JARRETT-Correct.
MR. SANFORD-All right. Okay.
MR. FORD-What is the net change in paved area?
MR. JARRETT-Actually, we don’t have calculations on the new. We had 43% permeable
the first time through, 30% was required, and we’re increasing that green space now.
We don’t have an exact figure.
MR. VOLLARO-It’s going to get better, the permeability.
MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. Well, why don’t we go through our site plan review criteria.
First item is design standards, conformance with Comprehensive Land Use Plan,
conformance with design corridor standards, building design layout and signage.
MR. VOLLARO-Well, the building layout, they have an elevation drawing, I think, on
the last page.
MR. JARRETT-Yes, we do.
MR. VOLLARO-But that’s not, that’s really not representative of what you’re going to be
proposing.
MR. METIVIER-Yes, you know, we’re getting into a situation, we don’t know what
we’re looking at for next month. So I’m wondering how far we should go with it.
MR. JARRETT-We have a handout to show you the color scheme on the building itself.
We had given you color chips and a building design. We’ve combined the two in a
printout right now. I can pass out, and the building design will not change. Just so you
get an idea. If you have any particular concerns, you can mention them.
MR. HUNSINGER-Well, I guess I’d just, then, open it up for any questions or comments
that the Board members might have.
MRS. STEFFAN-There was a question on the Staff comments about parcel history on this
site. Specifically there was a Garden Time project that indicates there may be DEC
jurisdictional wetlands on site.
MR. JARRETT-We did address that. Number One, we designed the sewer system
behind it. We did an extensive wetlands delineation and survey at that time, and there’s
only one DEC wetland. It’s near Quaker Road. It’s more than 100 feet from the site, and
I brought Deb Roberts out to this specific site during this process to confirm that, and
she did confirm that for us. So there are no wetlands on this site, or within 100 feet.
67
(Queensbury Planning Board 6/21/05)
MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. Any other comments?
MR. SANFORD-Well, you know, Chris, it’s hard to say, based on the idea that they’re
going to come back with.
MR. VOLLARO-I guess the big thing on that corner, to me, again, would be the lighting
profile on that corner.
MR. JARRETT-You will note that we have reduced the intensity from what is allowed in
the Town standard. We’ve purposely downplayed that intensity to be lower intensity,
and we don’t have any spillage off site. I believe our Uniformities are good. I’d have to
check that again.
MR. HUNSINGER-They’re actually lower than the standards.
MR. JARRETT-We have a minor amount of spillage on the south side adjacent to
Sportline, and he specifically requested that. He says he’s got a security problem along
that line and he would just as soon have a little bit of light in that area. We told him we
didn’t know how the Board would receive that, but we’d propose it.
MR. VOLLARO-Are you going to make any provisions for a connection between that
particular piece of property and the Honda piece?
MR. JARRETT-No, actually we discussed it with the adjoining owner. We felt the
service road itself was a good interconnection without getting out onto Quaker Road.
MR. HUNSINGER-That was going to be my comment. I mean, that’s really the purpose
of that service road is to do exactly that.
MRS. STEFFAN-And I think the nature of the Honda business, they use their parking lot
for test drives, and I think it would actually cause a traffic problem if there was a
connection between the two locations.
MR. JARRETT-It might very well. We’re worried with security.
MR. HUNSINGER-I mean, I can’t imagine a case other than this where I would say I
don’t think we need the vehicular access between lots, but, yes, I always thought that
was the purpose of the service road.
MRS. STEFFAN-I think, from my point of view, you know, looking at the plan that’s
presented, and having a one phase project with both buildings, it seems to be a better
plan to me than a two phase plan, having the buildings adjoin.
MR. JARRETT-Actually, I think the owners, or the applicants, the Dickerts, like this plan
better now that they’ve had a chance to digest it a little bit. Initially they weren’t sure
what they wanted to do, but we showed you, we wanted to show you the ultimate
potential of the site. In fact, now it’s settled back to something that’s a more realistic, I
think.
MR. HUNSINGER-Just in looking quickly at your building elevation and color scheme, I
like the green roof. It looks like a lot of the building would be, it’s labeled ivory. Could
that be more of an earth tone color, you know, more of a beige?
MR. JARRETT-A little bit darker than the ivory?
MR. HUNSINGER-Yes.
MR. JARRETT-There’s a color chip in the materials we gave you.
68
(Queensbury Planning Board 6/21/05)
MR. VOLLARO-I think the color chip is in the back of this book, I believe.
MR. JARRETT-It’s in the color chart.
MR. HUNSINGER-And the cedar shakes, the southwest elevation, that’s really the front
of the building, but they’re only colored on the one. I assume they would be the same
color?
MR. DICKERT-Well that’s actually the side of the building.
MR. HUNSINGER-Right, but the color would be on the front of the building. They
wouldn’t be white cedar shakes.
MR. DICKERT-Exactly. It’s going to be just like that on the front as well.
MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. Any other questions, comments from the Board?
MR. VOLLARO-I think we want to just, again, we’d be tabling this, I guess, to a specific
date, and depending upon when they could get their stuff in, July 15.
th
MR. HUNSINGER-Have you already submitted your?
MR. JARRETT-No.
MR. HUNSINGER-Okay.
MR. JARRETT-No. We will be finalizing the design of the stormwater system. We
wanted to wait until we got comments from you, to see if there’s any other issues to deal
with.
MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. Did you have some comments, Richard?
MR. SANFORD-You’re going to open up a public hearing, right?
MR. HUNSINGER-Yes.
MR. SANFORD-Okay. No, I’m interested to see if these folks have anything to say.
MR. HUNSINGER-Anything else from the Board?
MR. VOLLARO-No, I don’t have anything.
MR. HUNSINGER-Is there anyone here that wished to make comments on this
application? I will open the public hearing, and we will leave the public hearing open.
PUBLIC HEARING OPENED
MR. HUNSINGER-Is it your intention to be before the Board again in August, then?
MR. JARRETT-Yes.
MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. So we’ll be looking at the normal submission date, July 15.
th
MR. JARRETT-Correct.
MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. Would Staff have a preference for which meeting in August,
first or second?
69
(Queensbury Planning Board 6/21/05)
MR. HILTON-Personally, at this point, I couldn’t say.
MR. HUNSINGER-Why don’t we just leave it open, and it’ll be tabled to an August
meeting, depending upon the workload.
MR. JARRETT-So there were no other technical comments, other than what we’ve
already heard?
MR. VOLLARO-Based on what you’ve got up there, I don’t see anything. The
landscaping that you’ve proposed in the original, if you carry through that theme, that
looks pretty good. I’d be interested to see what you’re going to do with the lighting.
That’s something I would be concerned with.
MR. FORD-I was interested in the wetland issue, and you’ve addressed that.
MRS. BARDEN-Tom, can you get a letter on that from Deb Roberts?
MR. JARRETT-Yes.
MR. VOLLARO-Other than that, I don’t, you know, you’re going to be connecting to an
existing sewer system. You’ve got public water, and the only thing we’d be looking at
maybe is counting spaces. If you’re going to get into the boat business, you know, the
boat rentals, you’re going to have to look at those spaces. Somebody’s going to be
pulling in with a boat trailer.
MR. JARRETT-The amount of vehicles on the site will be reduced, no question. We
won’t fit as many display vehicles on there, if it’s boats versus cars.
MR. VOLLARO-Because people usually, if they’re bringing a boat or if they’re having a
boat repaired or having a boat detailed, it’s going to come in on a trailer.
MR. JARRETT-It’s not really attempt to have it as a repair shop, per say, it’s really a sales
facility with detailing for boats especially. We’re not intending to run a service facility
for boats, per say. We’re intending to run a sales facility with detailing.
MR. VOLLARO-Okay.
MR. JARRETT-So there really won’t be a lot of people, a lot of interchange on the site
and a lot of trailers left there and that kind of thing.
MR. FORD-I would be interested in your final proposal relative to what you’d indicated
before about parking trailered boats or whatever on the green area.
MR. JARRETT-Would you like us to show you how those boats will be configured?
MR. FORD-Yes.
MR. JARRETT-Okay. Now, not that I’m one to bring up issues that haven’t been
brought up, but Staff did bring up a sign issue, I think.
MRS. BARDEN-I didn’t. Was that in a pre-application meeting?
MR. JARRETT-Anyway, we don’t intend to have a freestanding sign. We showed you
an area that would be possible to use in the future, if ever one is needed, but right now
there’s only a building mounted sign proposed. That was a question that was hanging
from somewhere.
70
(Queensbury Planning Board 6/21/05)
MR. VOLLARO-Yes. I think it was a C.T. Male thing.
MR. HUNSINGER-I actually like the sign on the building.
MR. GOETZ-Now getting back to boats. You’re just talking about detailing? Not selling
boats as such.
MR. JARRETT-No. Selling boats, but there would be some detailing as part of that sales
effort. Does that answer your question?
MR. GOETZ-Yes. You answered the question. I would like to see, as Mr. Ford
mentioned, that in your plan what that may look like.
MR. JARRETT-Well, it shows in the boat layout on that.
MR. SANFORD-I think the distinction that you’re making, correct me if I’m wrong, is
that you’re not going to be doing mechanical work on boats on the site, per say.
MR. DICKERT-I think, if we do boats, we will do mechanical work, and the boats is an
afterthought. We’re basically going in there now, the front building is going to be, and
we can make this all one building and partition it off as needed, but the front building is
going to be showroom and offices.
MR. HILTON-I’m sorry. Can we have your name for the record?
MR. DICKERT-Tom Dickert.
MR. HILTON-Thank you.
MR. DICKERT-The building in the middle is going to be an oversized two bay garage,
which you can see on your elevations there, and that’s going to be, we’re going to use
that as a wash bay for detailing. The back building, that’s the new one, we were going
to put up another building in Phase II in the back, but we’re putting a smaller building
up on piggyback here where it was. That we’re proposing to put either a three or four
bay garage to do repair work in, whether it be boats or automobiles. The boats is an
afterthought. What I want to do is I want to put an automobile dealership in there now,
if I can get the right franchise, I just want to get approval and let you know that I’d like
to sell boats there. That’s not going to happen right away. It’s, again, waiting until I get
a franchise for it.
MR. SANFORD-All right. Now just, I’m sure it’s probably in the material, but the auto
dealership that you’re looking for, is that going to be, I mean, are you going to be selling
used cars, new cars?
MR. DICKERT-Correct. It’s all non-franchised.
MR. SANFORD-All right.
MR. DICKERT-Right. That’s why we don’t need another sign up front. We’re putting
our company name on the building. The only other freestanding sign would be is if we
got a franchise, and that would be per Town Code anyway.
MR. SANFORD-Well, I didn’t know, I mean, ignorance on my part, I didn’t know that
there were franchises available on the used car type of thing.
MR. DICKERT-No, I’m not talking about used cars. I’m talking about boats.
MR. SANFORD-I’ve got you, all right. Okay.
71
(Queensbury Planning Board 6/21/05)
MR. DICKERT-I’m looking to get a franchise line of new boats.
MR. SANFORD-Like Sea Ray or something like that.
MR. DICKERT-Exactly.
MRS. STEFFAN-Mr. Dickert, do you own the lot?
MR. DICKERT-It’s under contract.
MRS. STEFFAN-Okay. Question. On that particular piece of property there’s an access
road that comes off of Aviation Road, and there is a strip of land between the access
road and Route 9. What is the status of that? Is that a, is there a right of way? Is there
an easement?
MR. DICKERT-I’m not sure. Tom might know.
MRS. STEFFAN-And the reason I’m asking that question, because I know that Sportline
put some equipment trailers, those kinds of things, in that buffer, and so I’m asking the
question, because I’m not sure what the arrangement is.
MR. JARRETT-The actual arrangement outside of these property limits?
MRS. STEFFAN-Yes, and I just don’t know, because, you know, as we go forward.
MR. JARRETT-Not that we’ve seen. Have you seen any?
MR. DICKERT-No.
MRS. STEFFAN-Okay.
MR. JARRETT-I think they’re just done by matter of history.
MR. HUNSINGER-They’re the only ones there.
MRS. STEFFAN-Because one of the things that’s been brought up on Aviation Road is
some of the car dealerships who have cars displayed in the right of ways, appropriately
or inappropriately, but I’m sure we’ll ask some of those questions as we go forward.
MR. JARRETT-I don’t know of any contractual language in the deed that would allow
that.
MRS. STEFFAN-Okay.
MR. VOLLARO-That’s going to have to be an agreement between neighbors, the way I
see that, once you get in there.
MR. HUNSINGER-Right. Okay. If there’s no further comments or questions from the
Board. I’m sorry, Tom.
MR. FORD-Obviously, when we meet again in August, we will be looking carefully at
the use of water, oil, other issues dealing with your repair service, your washing of
vehicles, whether they be cars or boats.
MR. DICKERT-I think we’ve got oil separators in the plan anyway.
MR. FORD-That will be taken care of.
72
(Queensbury Planning Board 6/21/05)
MR. VOLLARO-Yes. I was going to say, if you’re going to do any kind of maintenance,
you’re going to need oil separators.
MR. JARRETT-That’s one of the reasons we proposed the connection to the sewer, sewer
system.
MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. Well, if there’s no further questions or comments from the
Board, we’ll just table this until the August meeting. We don’t need a formal resolution.
MR. VOLLARO-No, I don’t think so.
MR. JARRETT-Okay.
MR. HUNSINGER-Okay.
MR. JARRETT-Thank you very much.
MR. HUNSINGER-You’re welcome. Thank you.
MR. DICKERT-Thanks.
MR. HUNSINGER-We did have one other business item. Discussion concerning
possible additional meetings if needed. I met with Staff last Friday, and the comment
was, if we had three meetings in July, there would be three items for the third meeting.
I’m not sure if that’s still correct information.
MRS. BARDEN-How many did you table tonight?
MR. HUNSINGER-Two, and they’re both tabled until August.
MRS. BARDEN-August. I think that what we discussed was whether the Board would
like a third meeting in July or August.
MR. HUNSINGER-My feeling is if there’s only three items for a third meeting, that I
don’t think that would be worthwhile, unless there’s strong feelings from the Board or
some other.
MR. FORD-Put them over until August.
MR. HUNSINGER-Yes.
MRS. BARDEN-Okay. Which brings me to Marilyn’s memo. I think that she would like
you to consider a workshop meeting, and there will not be a second Zoning Board
meeting in July. So July 27 is open.
th
MR. SANFORD-What for? Why does she want us to have a workshop?
MR. HILTON-If you look at the memo that was handed to you this evening, what it’s
talking about is some development, I guess West Glens Falls EMS and along the
connector road between Main Street and Luzerne Road, and a park and ride facility, and
just general Main Street enhancement and gateway improvements that we’d like to
present to you, and we thought that the best form for that would be a workshop, and we
were considering, as Susan said, the 27 of July.
th
MR. SANFORD-Well, why couldn’t we have that third meeting with the three agenda
items, and then have the workshop following?
73
(Queensbury Planning Board 6/21/05)
MR. FORD-Three plus the workshop.
MR. SANFORD-And knock it off that way, and that way we clean up backlog, and we
get our little presentation in afterwards.
MR. HUNSINGER-That’s fine with me. He said do the three backlogged items and the
workshop on the same night.
MR. FORD-Could you give us a sense of the potential length of the workshop meeting?
MR. VOLLARO-They can go pretty long.
MR. SANFORD-Well, no, George just explained what this was. I would think this
would take no more than an hour.
MR. HILTON-It’s possible. I can’t commit to a time.
MR. SANFORD-I’ll tell you one thing, if you allow it to take a lot more than an hour, it
will.
MR. HUNSINGER-It will, absolutely.
MRS. BARDEN-It’s a pretty complicated project, and I think that that’s one of the
reasons why Marilyn is suggesting a workshop meeting.
MR. HUNSINGER-Well, let’s schedule an hour, and we’ll have a time keeper.
MR. VOLLARO-There you go.
MR. SANFORD-I like the idea of combining the two.
MR. HUNSINGER-Yes, I think it makes sense, too.
MRS. BARDEN-Okay. Do you want to maximize the actual active items, agenda items,
to three?
MR. VOLLARO-On the night of the 27? She’s asking if we want those three items on
th
the night of the 27. I think the answer to that would be yes.
th
MRS. BARDEN-You want to cap it at three?
MR. VOLLARO-Yes.
MR. HUNSINGER-Well, I wouldn’t.
MR. VOLLARO-Those are the three items that they talked about.
MR. HUNSINGER-Well, we’re already past the deadline. So there can’t be anymore.
MRS. BARDEN-Right, not if you tabled until August. You’re right.
MR. HUNSINGER-So there would be just the three items. Okay.
MR. SANFORD-Okay. Three and then we have the workshop.
MRS. BARDEN-And then a workshop.
MR. VOLLARO-So we’ll have, July would be 19, 20, and 27.
74
(Queensbury Planning Board 6/21/05)
MR. HILTON-19, 26, and 27.
MR. VOLLARO-19, 26, and 27. So there would be back to back meetings, and again, the
reason for the 27 is was a suggestion because there is no second ZBA meeting.
th
MR. VOLLARO-Okay.
MR. HUNSINGER-I had another item, and that is we do not have a standing Secretary
for the Board.
MR. SANFORD-I’d like to nominate Tony Metivier. He’s been learning the vocabulary.
MR. HUNSINGER-He just got done saying he won’t be here next week or any of the
July or August meetings.
MR. METIVIER-Actually, I’m looking at my calendar. I will not be here for any
meetings in July. I’m going to be in Chicago for an extended period of time. August, I
know one of the meetings I’m going to be on vacation, and next week I have to be away
as well, for work. So it’s looking pretty bleak for me for the next few months. So, while
I would love to be Secretary, at the same time it’s a really bad time for me to be
Secretary.
MR. VOLLARO-Well, I would nominate Gretchen Steffan as Secretary for the Board.
MR. METIVIER-I’ll second that.
MR. HUNSINGER-Would Gretchen be willing to do it?
MRS. STEFFAN-What are the responsibilities of that?
MR. HUNSINGER-The basic responsibilities of Secretary is to do the SEQRA review,
sign the SEQRA documents, and then during the course of the meeting to try to take
notes to help with the resolutions.
MR. METIVIER-And she does all that very well.
MR. GOETZ-I think Gretchen is very equipped to do this.
MR. HUNSINGER-It doesn’t require extra work outside of the course of the meeting, if
that’s the question, other than to sign the SEQRA’s. So we have a motion and a second,
and I think an acceptance by the candidate.
MOTION TO NOMINATE GRETCHEN STEFFAN AS SECRETARY FOR THE
QUEENSBURY PLANNING BOARD, Introduced by Robert Vollaro who moved for its
adoption, seconded by Anthony Metivier:
Duly adopted this 21 day of June, 2005, by the following vote:
st
AYES: Mr. Vollaro, Mr. Metivier, Mr. Ford, Mr. Goetz, Mr. Sanford, Mr. Hunsinger
NOES: NONE
ABSTAINED: Mrs. Steffan
MR. HUNSINGER-And I told Staff, but just so the whole Board knows, I will not be at
the meetings next week. It will be my vacation week, and I will be out of town on both
nights.
75
(Queensbury Planning Board 6/21/05)
MRS. STEFFAN-And I will not be at the September meetings, both of them.
MR. HUNSINGER-If there’s no further business, a motion to adjourn is always in order.
MR. VOLLARO-I’ll make a motion to adjourn.
On motion meeting was adjourned.
RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED,
Chris Hunsinger, Chairman
76