2010.11.18
(Queensbury Planning Board 11/18/2010)
QUEENSBURY PLANNING BOARD MEETING
SECOND REGULAR MEETING
NOVEMBER 18, 2010
INDEX
Site Plan No. 3-2010 Stewarts Shops 1.
Tax Map No. 303.19-1-61
Site Plan No. 68-2010 Adirondack Retirement Specialists 2.
Tax Map No. 296.20-1-55
Special Use Permit No. 64-2010 Matthew Sokol 5.
Tax Map No. 301.8-1-17, 18
Site Plan No. 70-2010 9099 Corporation 8.
Tax Map No. 296.17-1-38
Subdivision No. 13-2010 NYSARC, Inc. 19.
PRELIMINARY STAGE Tax Map No. 303.5-1-20
FINAL STAGE
Site Plan No. 71-2010 R & P Quaker Road I Realty, LLC/ 26.
Robert Nemer
Tax Map No. 309.17-1-17.1
DISCUSSION ITEM David J. Kenny 30.
Tax Map No. 288.12-1-19, 20
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 11/18/2010)
QUEENSBURY PLANNING BOARD MEETING
SECOND REGULAR MEETING
NOVEMBER 18, 2010
7:00 P.M.
MEMBERS PRESENT
CHRIS HUNSINGER, CHAIRMAN
GRETCHEN STEFFAN, SECRETARY
PAUL SCHONEWOLF
DONALD SIPP
THOMAS FORD
DONALD SIPP
STEPHEN TRAVER
LAND USE PLANNER-KEITH OBORNE
STENOGRAPHER-MARIA GAGLIARDI
MR. HUNSINGER-I’ll call to order the meeting of the Town of Queensbury Planning Board,
Thursday, November 18, 2010. The first item on the agenda is an Administrative Item for
consideration for further tabling.
ADMINISTRATIVE ITEMS:
FOR FURTHER TABLING CONSIDERATION
SP 60-2010: STEWART’S SHOPS TABLED TO 11/18/10; APPLICANT REQUESTING TO BE
TABLED TO 12/16/10
MR. HUNSINGER-And this is at the request of the applicant. Did they send a letter?
MR. OBORNE-Yes. It’s at the request of the application because they have an additional
project in. You have the lighting one up on Dixon, or Dix, I should say, and Quaker, and then
you have this one, another one, which is on Aviation. So they wanted to have that done on the
th
same night, which is the 16.
MR. HUNSINGER-Okay.
MR. OBORNE-Both applications are in, and deemed complete.
MR. SCHONEWOLF-Both for the same thing?
MR. OBORNE-No, one’s an expansion. I will say that.
MR. HUNSINGER-They want to expand the site on Aviation Road?
MR. OBORNE-Right. I will say that you directed me to look at the Hess gas station’s lighting
plan, there’s no lighting plan for Hess gas station. So, we’ll talk about that in my notes,
obviously, in December.
MR. HUNSINGER-You mean the one across the street on Quaker?
MR. OBORNE-Right.
MR. HUNSINGER-Yes, they came in before the new Code.
MR. SCHONEWOLF-They came in before, they had to.
MR. OBORNE-Exactly.
MR. HUNSINGER-They came in before the new Code.
MR. SCHONEWOLF-That’s the only reason for the new Code.
MR. HUNSINGER-And that’s why it’s over lit. Yes. Would anyone like to make a motion?
MOTION TO TABLE SITE PLAN NO. 60-2010 STEWART’S SHOPS, Introduced by Gretchen
Steffan who moved for its adoption, seconded by Paul Schonewolf:
1
(Queensbury Planning Board 11/18/2010)
777 Quaker Road [Tax Map ID 303.19-1-61]
A site plan application has been made to the Queensbury Planning Board for the following:
Applicant proposes additional light fixtures on each light pole around the exterior of the site,
including entrances. Modifications to an approved site plan require Planning Board review and
approval; and
A public hearing was advertised and held on 9/21/2010. The application was tabled to 11/16/10.
The applicant has requested to be further tabled to 12/16/10 in order to supply the board with
the requested information; and
Therefore, Let It Be Resolved,
MOTION TO TABLE SITE PLAN NO. 60-2010 STEWART’S SHOPS, Introduced by Gretchen
Steffan who moved for its adoption, seconded by Paul Schonewolf:
th
Tabled to the December 16 Planning Board meeting.
th
Duly adopted this 18 day of November, 2010, by the following vote:
AYES: Mr. Schonewolf, Mr. Sipp, Mr. Ford, Mrs. Steffan, Mr. Krebs, Mr. Traver, Mr. Hunsinger
NOES: NONE
MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. For people in the audience, there is a copy of the agenda on the back
table back there. All of the rest of the items we do have public hearings scheduled this evening.
With the agenda is a public hearing sheet. If you plan to address the Board, it does provide
details on the process and the protocol.
OLD BUSINESS:
SITE PLAN NO. 68-2010 SEQR TYPE II ADIRONDACK RETIREMENT SPECIALISTS
AGENT(S) ETHAN HALL, RUCINSKI HALL ARCHITECTS OWNER(S) JAY K. WASSERMAN
ZONING CI LOCATION 351 BAY ROAD APPLICANT PROPOSES RENOVATIONS TO
FORMER DENTAL OFFICE FOR NEW USE AS PROFESSIONAL OFFICE. SITE PLAN:
EXPANSION OF OFFICE USE IN THE CI ZONE REQUIRES PLANNING BOARD REVIEW
AND APPROVAL. AREA VARIANCE: RELIEF REQUESTED FROM FRONT, REAR AND
TRAVEL CORRIDOR SETBACK REQUIREMENTS. FURTHER, RELIEF REQUESTED FROM
DRIVE AISLE WIDTH REQUIREMENTS. CROSS REFERENCE AV 57-10 WARREN CO.
PLANNING 11/10/2010 LOT SIZE 0.19 +/- ACRES TAX MAP NO. 296.20-1-55 SECTION
179-9
JON LAPPER & ETHAN HALL, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT
MR. HUNSINGER-Keith, whenever you’re ready to summarize Staff Notes.
MR. OBORNE-Yes. Just a quick note to the Board. Disregard the Area Variance language in
this. That was approved last night. That should be before you. I believe it was approved with
no conditions. Because we have two meetings this week, I didn’t think it was prudent to send
you two separate applications or notes. So what we have here is Adirondack Retirement
Specialists, Site Plan 68-2010. This is a Type II SEQR. Location is 351 Bay Road, and the
existing zoning is Commercial Intensive. Quick refreshing the memory here. This is the old
Wasserman building, Glenwood and Bay, and I believe that the Planning Board’s pretty familiar
with what’s going on on this site and what the applicant wants, so I won’t belabor the point and
I’ll turn it over to the Board.
MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. Thank you. Good evening.
MR. LAPPER-Good evening, everyone. For the record, Jon Lapper and Ethan Hall. With your
recommendation, we were unanimously approved by the Zoning Board last night. They liked
what was proposed. We were fresh on your minds because we were only here two nights ago.
Kind of a nice schedule. No problem with that. So, I don’t know that we need much
introduction. I know that Gretchen said that she had a few site issues. I’m sure other people do
as well. We’re here to talk about it.
MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. Questions, comments from the Board?
2
(Queensbury Planning Board 11/18/2010)
MRS. STEFFAN-Three recommendations, the Bay Road exit I think should be a right turn only
going out, and as far as improvements to the building, you know, which is kind of plain. I know
you’re taking the door out in the front. Perhaps a perennial border around the front of the house,
of plantings on the Bay Road side, and window boxes, would improve it. Of course in the winter
it’s not relevant, but in the summertime, it would really spruce up that corner.
MR. LAPPER-Do you want to just look at the façade and just see where we, what we have for
window boxes?
MR. HALL-Sure.
MRS. STEFFAN-We’re running into situations in the Town where we’ve got a lot of impermeable
surfaces of blacktop and things like that, and so window boxes I think, as we look forward, is a
way to add some aesthetically pleasing, you know, elements to the properties.
MR. HALL-Absolutely. You’re talking about a perennial bed somewhere in the front here, and
we can certainly do that. We’ve got plenty of areas in the front where we’ve got some ground
plantings shown, and we can kind of highlight those with some perennial plantings as well.
Window boxes on the first floor. Window boxes on the second floor might be a tough (lost
words).
MRS. STEFFAN-Problematic, but on the first floor.
MR. HALL-But on the first floor certainly. We can put them here. We can put them on this side.
Possibly on these couple of windows. This is a fixed piece of glass here, and these are fixed in
the back as well.
MR. LAPPER-Well, the high windows are harder to maintain.
MR. HALL-Harder to get, we could actually put another planting bed in the back, and put some
perennials in that as well. I like to try and mix in some lilies and things of that nature that come
back and are there all the time, and I think that that, some of that shows up in my planting
schedule, and we also, I also like to mix in stuff that’s low but does flower.
MRS. STEFFAN-Rudbeckia, things like that. Yes.
MR. HALL-Yes. Absolutely.
MRS. STEFFAN-Okay.
MR. HUNSINGER-Any other questions, comments from the Board?
MR. SIPP-On your landscaping, you have a Japanese Red Pine in the front.
MR. HALL-Yes, those are the smaller dwarf.
MR. SIPP-Well, it’s susceptible to salt damage, and I think as they plow the roads there, they
throw that snow pretty far in. So you might switch. The ones in the rear, it won’t bother them,
but there could be salt damage.
MR. HALL-Okay. Yes, we can drop those to the back.
MR. SCHONEWOLF-Yes, the window boxes give a nice Adirondack look.
MR. HUNSINGER-Anything else from the Board? We do have a public hearing scheduled this
evening. Is there anyone in the audience that wants to address the Board on this project? We
will open the public hearing.
PUBLIC HEARING OPENED
MR. HUNSINGER-Is there any written comments, Keith?
MR. OBORNE-No.
MR. HUNSINGER-Any takers? Okay. I will close the public hearing.
PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED
MR. HUNSINGER-Any final questions, comments from members of the Board?
3
(Queensbury Planning Board 11/18/2010)
MR. FORD-I still think it’s a good project.
MR. LAPPER-We wish they were all this simple.
MR. HUNSINGER-Yes.
MR. HALL-Yes, exactly.
MR. HUNSINGER-It’s a Type II SEQR, so no SEQR review is required. If there’s nothing else, I
will entertain a motion. We do have the conditions.
MRS. STEFFAN-Okay. All right. I’ll make a motion.
MOTION TO APPROVE SITE PLAN NO. 68-2010 ADIRONDACK RETIREMENT
SPECIALISTS, Introduced by Gretchen Steffan who moved for its adoption, seconded by
Thomas Ford:
351 Bay Road [Tax Map ID 296.20-1-55]
A site plan application has been made to the Queensbury Planning Board for the following:
Applicant proposes renovations to former dental office for new use as professional office.
Expansion of office use in the CI zone requires Planning Board review and approval.
The Planning Board made a recommendation to the Zoning Board of Appeals on November 16,
2010; and
The Zoning Board of Appeals approved the variance request on November 17, 2010
A public hearing was advertised and held on 11/18/2010; and
This application is supported with all documentation, public comment and application material in
the file of record;
MOTION TO APPROVE SITE PLAN NO. 68-2010 ADIRONDACK RETIREMENT
SPECIALISTS, Introduced by Gretchen Steffan who moved for its adoption, seconded by
Thomas Ford:
According to the resolution prepared by Staff. The Zoning Board of Appeals has approved the
th
variance request of November 17. Element One, the motion complies with the requirements as
stated in the Zoning Code. This is a Type II action.
1)Pursuant to relevant sections of the Town of Queensbury Zoning Code [Chapter 179-9-
080]], the Planning Board has determined that this proposal complies with the
requirements as stated in the Zoning Code; and
2)SEQR Type II, no further SEQRA review is necessary; and
3)Final approved plans, in compliance with the Site Plan, must be submitted to the
Community Development Department before any further review by the Zoning
Administrator or Building and Codes personnel. The applicant must meet with Staff after
approval and prior to issuance of Building Permit and/or the beginning of any site work.
Subsequent issuance of further permits, including building permits is dependent on
compliance with this and all other conditions of this resolution; and
4)As-built plans to certify that the site plan is developed according to the approved plans to
be provided prior to issuance of the certificate of occupancy; and
5)The Sanitary Sewer connection plan must be submitted to the Wastewater Department
for its review, approval, permitting and inspection; and
6)Waiver requests granted: stormwater mgmt., grading, and
7)Engineering sign-off required prior to signature of Zoning Administrator; and
8)If curb cuts are being added or changed a driveway permit is required. A building permit
will not be issued until the approved driveway permit has been provided to the Planning
Office; and
4
(Queensbury Planning Board 11/18/2010)
9)This is approved with the following conditions:
1.That there will be a right turn only exit on the Bay Road arterial access.
2.The applicant will add window boxes for annual plantings on the Bay Road side, or
the front elevation. The applicant will also add perennial plantings on the Bay Road
frontage and also in the building rear.
th
Duly adopted this 18 day of November, 2010, by the following vote:
AYES: Mr. Ford, Mrs. Steffan, Mr. Traver, Mr. Sipp, Mr. Krebs, Mr. Schonewolf, Mr. Hunsinger
NOES: NONE
MR. HUNSINGER-You’re all set. Good luck.
MR. LAPPER-Thank you.
MR. HALL-Thank you very much.
MR. LAPPER-Happy Thanksgiving to everyone.
MR. HUNSINGER-For the reasons stated Tuesday evening, I’m going to recuse myself on the
discussion on the next item. I’ll turn the floor over to Mr. Traver to introduce.
MR. TRAVER-Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
MR. OBORNE-Do you want one of the alternates to sit in, Chris?
MR. HUNSINGER-Yes.
SPECIAL USE PERMIT NO. 64-2010 SEQR TYPE II MATTHEW SOKOL AGENT(S)
MATTHEW F. FULLER, ESQ. OWNER(S) DONALD & LUCYNA SOKOL ZONING NC
LOCATION 340 AVIATION RD., SOKOL’S PLAZA APPLICANT PROPOSES A FOOD
SERVICE USE IN AN EXISTING SHOPPING PLAZA. SITE PLAN: FOOD SERVICE USE IN
THE NC ZONE REQUIRES A SPECIAL USE PERMIT AND PLANNING BOARD REVIEW AND
APPROVAL. AREA VARIANCE: RELIEF REQUESTED FROM MINIMUM PARKING SPACE
AND PERMEABILITY REQUIREMENTS. CROSS REFERENCE BP 2010-460, AV 58-10 LOT
SIZE 1.3 & 0.87 +/- ACRES TAX MAP NO. 301.8-1-17, 18 SECTION 179-9, 179-10
MATT FULLER, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT; MATT SOKOL, PRESENT
MR. OBORNE-Okay. Special Use Permit 64-2010 Matt Sokol, same issues as before with the
Zoning Board. The Zoning Board granted relief to the applicant last night. Again, you don’t
have updated notes. You’re familiar with the project, again, but for the record I’ll state the
project’s Special Use Permit Number which is 64-2010, Matthew Sokol is the applicant. This is
Site Plan Review. Location is 340 Aviation Road. Existing zoning is Neighborhood Commercial
and this is a Type II SEQR, and with that, I’ll turn it over to the Board.
MR. TRAVER-Evening again.
MR. FULLER-Good evening again. It’s hard to believe we were pretty close to leaving this
morning. It was a late one last night.
MRS. STEFFAN-We did see the time they adjourned, which is unusual for the Zoning Board.
That’s usually a Planning Board time.
MR. TRAVER-Yes, looking at a one page summary, and then I looked at the bottom and I said
after midnight, and then of course I read the paper today.
MR. FULLER-It was interesting. For the record, again, Matt Fuller, with Fitzgerald, Morris, and
I’m here with Matt Sokol. As Keith pointed out, the ZBA did grant the variances last night. Not a
lot to update on. One thing, I’m going to approach the map. A comment that kind of tipped us
off on Tuesday night here, septic. We recalled that, actually I think it was your comment,
where’s the septic. Matt went back and checked with the people that they work with on the
septic and the architecture, and there’s one tank. This map’s a little bit smaller scale, but the
World Class Kid’s daycare used to be right here. The proposed restaurant is right here. The
septic that is right behind the building here is going to service this area. There’s another septic
out back along Dixon Road that services the bank, liquor store, and the pizza shop, and then the
5
(Queensbury Planning Board 11/18/2010)
one that we talked about where the parking area potentially could be, and the issues with the
snow, services the hair salon out there, and we did double check and make sure that the parking
area is not going to encroach into that area. As far as a grease trap, that is going to come into
play, and as far as the restaurant, it will be internal. Often you can put them outside or inside,
but there will be, with the Building Code, a grease trap, and it’s already part of their plans. So it
wasn’t a big discussion the other night, but we did pick up on it, and went through and followed
up on exactly where it is and they don’t need any modifications. It doesn’t need to be enlarged.
It was sized for the daycare, which is a comparable use, actually. So, even with, you know,
potential retail or office space in there, we double checked that to make sure it was sized
enough. So as far as tanks, there is one 2,000 gallon tank, and three 1,000 gallon tanks. That’s
just my little sticky note there, but that’s what’s out there. So we did check on that, just making
sure.
MR. TRAVER-Good. Thank you. Any follow up questions from members of the Board?
MRS. STEFFAN-I just have a question for Keith on the waiver. There’s nine waivers requested,
and so do they need all of those?
MR. OBORNE-Yes, that is a little bit ambitious, but knowing Matt, he likes to dot his I’s and
cross his T’s twice, and I think it’s fine if you go ahead and list them, for the satisfaction of the
applicant and the application.
MRS. STEFFAN-Okay. So I need to ask the Planning Board, the applicant has asked for
waivers on lighting, which exists at the location, location of the utility systems, we know where
the septic is, and the utilities are above ground, I mean, the electric certainly.
MR. TRAVER-Right.
MRS. STEFFAN-Stormwater plan, there’s already an existing site. Topography, landscaping,
land use boundaries, perc rates, waste plan, and then snow removal requirements. Are we
willing to grant waivers on those nine items?
MR. TRAVER-I don’t have any problems with any of those waivers.
MR. FORD-I agree.
MR. TRAVER-So I’m hearing that that’s fine.
MRS. STEFFAN-All right. Then the other issue, based on what’s here, is, we explored the
other items the other night, so the Special Use Permit that the applicant’s asking for, they’re
looking for a permanent Special Use Permit.
MR. TRAVER-Right.
MRS. STEFFAN-Now the wording in the Code, on a permanent, you know, Special Use Permit,
is it allows for a specific use to continue indefinitely until this specific use ceases for any reason
for a period of six consecutive months. So as long as this operation is in existence, the Special
Use Permit would be in force if we grant them a permanent. If this tenant turned over, they
could put another restaurant in there, and continue with the use, or, if nothing happened for six
months, then they’d have to come back for something else. So, even though it sounds like it’s
forever, it’s not really forever. It could be forever. I mean, I’m hoping it’s wildly successful, but
we’re supposed to be looking to the future.
MR. FULLER-Yes, I looked that up, too, and that was going to be my closing remark.
MR. TRAVER-Okay. I guess I would ask Staff, is there any downside, I mean, other than this
particular, not necessarily in this particular application, but as a practice, is there a downside to
issuing a Special Use Permit on an indefinite basis?
MR. OBORNE-No, not at all. Especially for this use. If it was a certain other use, you know, like
a livestock zoo or something along those lines, you’d want.
MR. FULLER-A kennel.
MR. OBORNE-A kennel, exactly, if you want to have some oversight over it over time.
MR. FORD-Been there, done that.
6
(Queensbury Planning Board 11/18/2010)
MRS. STEFFAN-And I also think with an existing shopping center like this, I mean, this is a
practical use for that shopping center.
MR. OBORNE-And the reason that it’s a Special Use Permit and not Site Plan Review, it’s in a
Neighborhood Commercial district. That’s why.
MR. FULLER-And if it was standalone, I think maybe the closer neighbor, some of those things
you might look at, but I agree with the plaza.
MR. TRAVER-Okay, and we still have an open public hearing on this, do we not? Is there
anyone in the audience that wanted to comment on this application?
PUBLIC HEARING OPENED
MR. TRAVER-Okay. Well, then I will close the public hearing.
PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED
MR. TRAVER-Any other questions, concerns, comments from members of the Board?
MR. OBORNE-For the record, there’s no written comments.
MR. TRAVER-Thank you. All right. I guess we’re ready, if you are, Gretchen, to move ahead
with it.
MRS. STEFFAN-Okay. I will make a motion.
MOTION TO APPROVE SPECIAL USE PERMIT NO. 64-2010 MATTHEW SOKOL, Introduced
by Gretchen Steffan who moved for its adoption, seconded by Donald Krebs:
340 Aviation Road [Tax Map ID 301.8-1-17, 18]
A site plan application has been made to the Queensbury Planning Board for the following:
Applicant proposes a Food Services Use in an existing shopping plaza. Food Service Use in
the NC zone requires a Special Use Permit and Planning Board review and approval; and
The Planning Board made a recommendation to the Zoning Board of Appeals on 11/16/2010;
and
The Zoning board of Appeals approved the variance request on 11/17/10; and
A public hearing was advertised and held on 11/18/2010; and
This application is supported with all documentation, public comment and application material in
the file of record;
MOTION TO APPROVE SPECIAL USE PERMIT NO. 64-2010 MATTHEW SOKOL, Introduced
by Gretchen Steffan who moved for its adoption, seconded by Donald Krebs:
According to the resolution prepared by Staff. The Zoning Board of Appeals has approved the
variance on 11/17/2010. This application complies with the requirements as stated in the
Zoning Code.
1)Pursuant to relevant sections of the Town of Queensbury Zoning Code [Chapter 179-9-
080]], the Planning Board has determined that this proposal complies with the
requirements as stated in the Zoning Code; and
2)SEQR Type II, no further SEQRA review is necessary; and
3)Final approved plans, in compliance with the Site Plan, must be submitted to the
Community Development Department before any further review by the Zoning
Administrator or Building and Codes personnel. The applicant must meet with Staff after
approval and prior to issuance of Building Permit and/or the beginning of any site work.
Subsequent issuance of further permits, including building permits is dependent on
compliance with this and all other conditions of this resolution; and
4)As-built plans to certify that the site plan is developed according to the approved plans to
be provided prior to issuance of the certificate of occupancy; and
7
(Queensbury Planning Board 11/18/2010)
5)The Sanitary Sewer connection plan must be submitted to the Wastewater Department
for its review, approval, permitting and inspection; and
6)The applicant has requested waiver for lighting, location of utility systems, stormwater
plans, topography, landscaping, land use boundaries, perc rates, waste plan, and snow
removal requirements. The Planning Board has granted those waiver requests; and
7)The limits of clearing will constitute a no-cut buffer zone, orange construction fencing
shall be installed around these areas and field verified by Community Development staff;
and
8)Engineering sign-off required prior to signature of Zoning Administrator; and
9)If curb cuts are being added or changed a driveway permit is required. A building permit
will not be issued until the approved driveway permit has been provided to the Planning
Office; and
10)This application is approved with the stipulation that the applicant asked for a permanent
Special Use Permit and the Planning Board is granting a permanent Special Use Permit,
and we refer to Section 179-10-040K1a in the Zoning Code that says that a permanent
Special Use Permit allows a specific use to continue indefinitely until the specific use
ceases for any reason for a period of six consecutive months.
th
Duly adopted this 18 day of November, 2010, by the following vote:
AYES: Mr. Krebs, Mrs. Steffan, Mr. Ford, Mr. Magowan, Mr. Schonewolf, Mr. Sipp, Mr. Traver
NOES: NONE
MR. FULLER-Thank you.
MR. TRAVER-You’re all set.
MRS. STEFFAN-Good luck.
SITE PLAN NO. 70-2010 SEQR TYPE II 9099 CORPORATION AGENT(S) MELISSA
LESCAULT OWNER(S) HIP YAU LING & OTHERS ZONING CI LOCATION 909 STATE
ROUTE 9 APPLICANT PROPOSES A CHANGE IN USE FROM A RESTAURANT TO A
RETAIL USE. SITE PLAN: RETAIL USE IN A CI ZONE REQUIRES PLANNING BOARD
REVIEW AND APPROVAL. AREA VARIANCE: RELIEF REQUIRED FROM NUMBER OF
PARKING SPACES DRIVE AISLE WIDTH REQUIREMENTS. CROSS REFERENCE AV 59-
10 WARREN CO. PLANNING 11/10/2010 LOT SIZE 1.41 +/- ACRES TAX MAP NO. 296.17-
1-38 SECTION 179-9
MELISSA LESCAULT & LUCAS DOBIE, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT
MR. HUNSINGER-Keith, whenever you’re ready to summarize Staff Notes.
MR. OBORNE-All right. Application Site Plan 70-2010, 9099 Corporation is the applicant.
Location is 909 State Route 9. CI is the zoning. This is a Type II SEQR. Again, this issue, what
I stated before on the previous two applications, the Planning Board has already seen this. The
Zoning Board of Appeals has given this application relief, I believe without conditions, Melissa?
MS. LESCAULT-Yes.
MR. OBORNE-And, again, there’s not additional information associated with it. The plan, Site
Plan Review has already been accomplished. I do want to reiterate, again, that New York State
DOT signoff for proposed right of way work should be submitted prior to the issuance of a
building permit, and a letter from Wal-Mart indicating their intent to complete or allow the
completion of the portion of the interconnect on their land should be submitted prior to
construction, and with that I’d turn it over to the Board.
MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. Thank you. Good evening.
MS. LESCAULT-Good evening. Melissa Lescault with McPhillips, Fitzgerald and Cullum. I’m
here on behalf of Monty Liu who is the interest holder in this property, as well as Lucas Dobie
from Hutchins Engineering. So, as you know, we presented this application project, per se, to
you two nights ago. The property as it stands right now is the Chinese restaurant, and the
applicant would like to change the use of that property to a liquor store. It sits on the corner of
8
(Queensbury Planning Board 11/18/2010)
Weeks Road and Route 9, adjacent to the Wal-Mart parking area. As the property stands right
now, it’s lacking a little curb appeal. It does need some painting and some nice home keeping
by Monty, which we know as a property owner in the area, he does a very good job, has a great
reputation in maintaining his properties that he owns. With that, he is going to obviously keep
that Adirondack look with respect to the building, but he’s going to certainly repair some of the
woodwork. It’s had a little wear and tear over the years, as well as paint it. What I would like to
do is focus on a couple of points, and the Lucas is going to go into the engineering and
stormwater and lighting aspect of the project. The traffic, as we discussed before, we are
closing off the northern curb entrance, and it’s going to be enclosed, and we’re going to just
keep open the southerly curb, I’m going to actually go up there so I can point this out to you. So
what’s going to happen here, right now there is a current exit onto Route 9, and this is going to
be closed off, and a new curbed island, this is obviously the green, is going to be placed and
enclose that area. We’re going to keep the southern exit open, and then we are going to open
up this interconnect to the Wal-Mart parking lot. Now with respect to the interconnect, we
mentioned to you that we do need to get a letter from Wal-Mart. We recognize that. We have
reached out to them. Both Monty and myself have communicated with the managers at the local
store and they’re going to give us some contact information on who we need to reach out, and I
think it’s Arkansas, actually. So we certainly recognize that that will be a condition with respect
to this project. With respect to the southern entrance/exit, we looked at Staff Notes that they
would like this to be a right turn only onto Route 9, which we’re in agreement to do. Currently,
there is a sign across the street that does say that it’s a right turn only exit from that area. What
we would also offer to do is paint this pavement area to also recognize that it’s a right turn only.
What I would like to go to now is the landscaping aspect of this project. We do recognize that
landscaping could be a concern for the Board. We did ask for a waiver with respect to the
landscaping requirements that you have in your Code. The main reason for that is the lack of
distance that we have from the structure itself, which is highlighted in orange, to our property
line, which is here in the pink color. It’s only 40 feet. So we certainly are lacking a place to do
landscaping. With respect to the curbed island here, we have, unfortunately, no legal interest in
the New York State lands property that they own to ask them or make it a condition of today’s
approval to do landscaping on their island. It would be lovely if we could, but unfortunately we
all know that the State’s not going to work with us on that. The other reason why we have asked
for the waiver for the landscaping is this area, as I mentioned to you on Tuesday night, is for
handicap parking. We can’t relocate this and possibly tear it up to do landscaping because this
is the only site on the parking area, on the parking lot that has a slope of two percent or less,
and in order to meet the ADA requirements for the handicap parking, you have to have a slope
of less than two percent. So the handicap ramp, as I pointed out on Tuesday, is right here. It’s
the most logical and unfortunately the only feasible place. If we were to re-locate it here, the
slope is greater than five percent. So it wouldn’t suffice to move that handicap parking. So we
have to keep the parking in that area. With that, though, Monty has come up with some
landscaping that he’s agreed to do, and I’m going to show this. So what we have, we have the
two handicap spots here, but this is still all paved, and here’s those planters. I don’t know if
anyone went on the site, but there are, this planter area here. We’ve agreed to, or Monty has
proposed that he would do some landscaping in here, and actually take up this asphalt and put
some trees and some shrubs in this area, and actually from my opinion when you’re heading
south on Route 9, really the view of this parcel is that corner, right there. So I thought that would
actually be a great proposal on his part with respect to this. Also, along the building, I’m not
sure if you’re aware of that, but there are planters on the base of the property, which I think at
one point probably looked nice. They’ve just deteriorated over the course of years, and he’s
going to landscape and put plants back in those planters. There’s also a planter box here that
he’s going to plant, and put some shrubs in, and this would be a new one, right here in this
corner, to try and spruce that corner up as well, and then there are planter boxes that already
exist on the southern portion of the building that he will also propose to put some shrubs in,
which would also maybe help on some of the stormwater for the cast off of the roof, but I’ll let
Lucas go into that. Lastly I’d like to point out, there are trees that exist on the southern boundary
of the property. We would like to keep them, obviously, they’re mature trees, but I’ll let Lucas
mention what he proposes with respect to our infiltration here, and I think it’ll just be a tradeoff
between what the Board would prefer, whether they want to keep the trees there or infiltration.
Lucas seems to think that we can still maintain those trees, but we’re still asking for the waiver of
the landscaping plan, obviously conditioned upon Monty’s proposal here, and that’s it for
landscaping right now. The other thing that I wanted to mention to you.
MRS. STEFFAN-Melissa, I just want to clarify. That landscaping plan is something you’re
presenting tonight for the first time?
MS. LESCAULT-Yes, yes it is.
MRS. STEFFAN-Okay.
9
(Queensbury Planning Board 11/18/2010)
MS. LESCAULT-And that’s basically in response to the Staff Notes, and your comment to us on
Tuesday.
MRS. STEFFAN-Okay.
MS. LESCAULT-Actually that’s it for me, Lucas. Why don’t you, you can go on and talk about
the stormwater.
MR. DOBIE-Good evening, Board, for the record, Lucas Dobie with Hutchins Engineering. Just
to give you a quick overview of the nuts and bolts of the project, if you will. This maybe shows
our intention for closing off the curb cut a little better, this orange hatch area. How that’ll work is
we’ll continue DOT’s new style, I would say when they re-did this corridor, is the integral
sidewalk/curb where you had like a six or eight inch curb, molded right in there, casted right in
with the sidewalk, and then asphalt around it for low maintenance. So we’ll just continue that
right up. Staff did recognize, in the Staff comments, they made an inquiry, excuse me, where do
we stand with that. We submitted to Warrensburg DOT, approximately two or three weeks ago,
and because of this being the main travel corridor, it’s above their jurisdiction, if you will, so they
sent it to Albany, and we have not heard back from them. They’ve got a fairly substantial
workload as we’ve seen in the past. So we’ll certainly do our best to work it out with them. I
don’t have the yes or no answer from them tonight, unfortunately. With our interconnect, that’s
pretty much the significant portion of the project on our project site, amounts to a whopping, I
think, 310 square feet of new asphalt. Unfortunately we will lose one or two trees in that area,
and it’s pretty easy dealing with the construction phase because it is just a dry laid granite curb.
It’s not cast or have to saw it or anything. You’d be able to take it out, dig it out a little bit, put in
our sub base and our asphalt, and I think that’ll, the Board recognizes, both Boards, that that’s
going to be a real positive for the property, being able to tie into there for egress. Secondly, I
don’t think, by the Code, we’re required to do a tremendous amount of stormwater, more what
we can do to spruce the site up. The drainage pattern now is north to south, approximately two
percent on this northerly portion, and then it increases to five, six percent. So all the water, right
now, is headed towards Route 9 and towards this little parcel of Wal-Mart, which is presently
vacant. There’s only so much we can do. So what we’re proposing is a three by four stone filled
infiltration trench which our experience that’s about the most efficient least intrusive stormwater
management we can do, and it’s effective, gets it right in the ground right there, and after just
visiting the site, re-visiting it, there are two trees which we’d like to maintain, so what we’re going
to propose when we go back to the Town’s engineer, is to put a break in this trench around the
trees, so we’re not digging up the roots, probably a six foot swath or something, and I think it’ll
still be plenty effective of catching a fair amount of the water. It’s a nice balance to maintain our
vegetation where we can. They’re, I think, about 10 inch diameter deciduous trees. I couldn’t
tell the species, I’m not a plant guy, but, and then with also keeping this trench tight to the
asphalt, it’ll allow us to get more vegetation per Monty’s plan, which I think will be a positive. A
couple outstanding of Staff’s comments. The bike rack, we’re willing to incorporate that in this
portion of the building, of the site, where right now there is parking. That’s going to go away. I
think what we’ll do is when Monty’s sprucing up the building he’ll probably sealcoat the asphalt.
It’ll give us a fresh surface to put our new (lost word) to bring it into conformance, and with
regards to the loading area, there is a first floor elevation deck around the back side of the
building, which lends itself real well for a straight truck, delivery truck, like a six-wheeler they call
them, so they’d be able to back right in off of Weeks Road. There’s a little loading dock right
now that’s not in the best of shape. So I think we’re not going to use that. We’re going to use
this deck, and there is a, somewhat of a trash receptacle area right now with some fencing that’ll
just be spruced up and we’ll reutilize that for trash and recycling, and finally for the lighting, what
we have now is we’ve got a couple of pretty obtrusive, they look like halogen fixtures, these old
style that are about 30 feet high. There is a double headed one on this southeasterly corner, a
single in this planter area, and then one where we’re going to put the interconnect, another
single. Obviously they don’t meet any kind of criteria for the Town, but we’re proposing to do,
we’re proposing three new of the Lithonia KAD’s, the pretty typical 20 footers, the cutoffs, along
the southerly property line, 150 watt fixtures, which I think will give us a reasonable luminance
over this southerly parking area. It looks a touch bright from the spots, the luminary spots
underneath them. That’s kind of the nature of how it is. You’re going to be bright right
underneath it, and it still maintains a reasonable light level in this alleyway, which I’d like to
maintain if we could. I’m not real comfortable going any dimmer. We did look at that, and if we
go to 100 watt, we lose about 50% of our luminance on this aisle way, which is the main access
for our southerly parking. So I’d like to maintain, if the Board’s comfortable with that, I’d like to
maintain those 150 watters, and we’re putting some more of the wall packs on the building,
ranging from 100 watters and then 70 watters, just for our loading area and to get the main
entrances bright enough per Code, and I’ll keep it simple at that, and be happy to entertain any
questions from the Board.
MR. HUNSINGER-Questions, comments?
10
(Queensbury Planning Board 11/18/2010)
MR. TRAVER-You mentioned that you were willing to go along with the right turn only on the
exit, and that there is a sign across the street, and you’re going to put some striping or
something on the exit to alert people that it’s right turn only. I think for this application it would
be appropriate also to put some kind of sign on a post, at the entrance, because as we know, it’s
a matter of experience, that the paint on the asphalt kind of goes away, and at night or when
there’s a lot of traffic, people are not going to see a sign that’s across the street. So it might just
be an extra safety measure to just put a sign on a post at the exit of the thing. The other
question I had, I guess, is for Staff. I know they’ve asked for an exemption for landscaping, and
yet we seem to have a landscape plan submitted. How do we address that issue?
MR. OBORNE-I think that that may be a sticky wicket, to be honest with you. I do not want to
have the responsibility of deciding for the Board if the landscape plan is acceptable.
MR. TRAVER-Right.
MR. OBORNE-I would need a schedule, and locations at this point.
MR. TRAVER-Right.
MR. OBORNE-Now, and I’ll leave it at that.
MR. TRAVER-Right. I suppose the alternative would be, as a part of the motion, would be a
highly detailed description of what they presented to us, but then that.
MR. OBORNE-It’s going to be difficult for them to have landscaping that’s going to be compliant
with the Code, because they don’t have the frontage on Route 9. So, I could ruminate on that a
little bit and get back to you, what may be appropriate action.
MR. TRAVER-Okay. Sure. Okay. Thank you. That’s all I had.
MRS. STEFFAN-Well, we can actually, in my mind, we can actually go over that again and look
at the specifics and see whether it’s okay.
MR. OBORNE-I’m sorry. What was that?
MRS. STEFFAN-I think that, you know, if the applicant just went through that landscaping plan
again, and then we evaluated it, because we heard it first blush, but if we go through and we see
exactly what’s there, and if it’s okay with us, we can just identify that the applicant asked for a
landscaping waiver. However, the applicant provided a landscape plan, and if we approve
what’s there, we can just.
MR. OBORNE-I have no issue with that. The only issue is you don’t have a schedule, I don’t
think, with that. All you have is proposed locations, and you don’t actually have species.
MR. TRAVER-It’s really more of a descriptive plan than a.
MR. OBORNE-Yes. You may want to take a little bit and get comfortable with it, I guess, but as
far as the species go, I guess the language you could state would be that the species need to be
Code compliant.
MRS. STEFFAN-Right. I think we’ve done that before.
MS. LESCAULT-And that’s fine. I mean, we would certainly be in agreement with that as well.
MR. HUNSINGER-When we were talking about landscaping Tuesday evening, I was really
hoping we could get some street trees in there. I didn’t realize until your presentation that it’s all
in the DOT right of way.
MS. LESCAULT-Yes, unfortunately it is. It is.
MR. HUNSINGER-Yes, that’s too bad.
MRS. STEFFAN-Well, and, you know, one of the things I was going to recommend, I’ve got a
thing on window boxes right now because we’re in an area, we’re just in a situation where we’ve
got re-development that’s happening, and a lot of it is non-permeable because it’s paved, but,
you know, we can look at examples like what the Silo does every year with their garden boxes.
They are absolutely gorgeous.
MS. LESCAULT-Beautiful.
11
(Queensbury Planning Board 11/18/2010)
MRS. STEFFAN-And so we’ve got pavement right up to the building, but yet we have, in the
summertime we have these beautiful, you know, landscaped boxes. They’re above the cars, so
they actually add value and beauty. So, you know, I think that those are things that we can
explore, versus having to do just plantings. I mean, that’s not our only option in these situations
where we’re looking at re-development.
MS. LESCAULT-Well, and in our case, the planters are not necessarily above, I’d say, what,
they’re not really six feet high. They are along the ground, but odds are those handicap spots
are not going to be utilized as often. So you will see the shrubs and those landscaped boxes
that are, that already exist, they pre-exist.
MRS. STEFFAN-And the other thing is, in your particular situation, with your handicap ramp,
you know, lots of times the railings lend themselves to those, you know, the wrought iron hook
on type, where you can put a hook on window unit right on there and they’re easy to take off in
the winter when you don’t need them anymore.
MS. LESCAULT-Correct.
MRS. STEFFAN-Or sometimes you can put, you know, pine stuff in it and make winter, but there
are options to incorporate those, without a lot of carpentry and cost.
MS. LESCAULT-Yes.
MRS. STEFFAN-So that’s an option on the landscaping. Maybe we can go over the species
that they’ve identified and see whether that meets our needs. Regarding the sign, one of the
things I, Steve, I understand you want the sign, but, you know, one of the things I’ve been
noticing, I drive a car that’s what I call normal level. We have a lot of trucks and SUVs that are
higher, but, for example, come out of the Dunkin Donuts and there’s a sign about, you know,
either thank you for your patronage or right hand turn or anything like that, but it’s right in the
way of looking at the traffic that’s coming towards you. I don’t know if anybody’s ever
experienced that in a car, and so even though we’re trying to increase safety by putting signs
like that in, it’s actually inhibiting your field of view. So I don’t know, does anybody else have
that experience?
MR. SCHONEWOLF-What, a right turn sign?
MRS. STEFFAN-Yes.
MR. SCHONEWOLF-It has to be placed farther to the right. Otherwise you won’t be able to see
where you’re going.
MRS. STEFFAN-It has to be on the right, but in most situations they’re on the left. We put the
sign on the left because we want more people to do a left hand turn, but that’s, it obstructs the
view. So, you know, I don’t know how anybody feels about that, but.
MR. OBORNE-I would think if the sign is a right hand turn only sign, it’s not going to obstruct
their view if it’s on the right hand side. Because they’ll be looking left.
MR. FORD-It should be on the right side.
MR. SCHONEWOLF-It has to be on the right side. I think if you look at DOT code it does. It has
to be where you’re going.
MR. OBORNE-But if you say right hand turn only.
MR. FORD-Height of it is also critical.
MR. SCHONEWOLF-If it’s over here, you can’t see the traffic coming there. You don’t know
when to pull out.
MR. OBORNE-Right. I agree.
MR. HUNSINGER-I had a question, comment on the lighting plan. Underneath the building,
there’s a couple of hot spots where the D fixture are, specifically right on the front, you have
readings of eight and eleven. Is there any way to put in maybe a lower wattage bulb or
something? Or maybe spread them out?
12
(Queensbury Planning Board 11/18/2010)
MR. DOBIE-Yes, sir. I understand why that’s a hot spot, because there are, on the building
there’s a bunch of these compact fluorescent fixtures all the way around it, which I think I labeled
as C or, as, let me look at that.
MR. HUNSINGER-As D, yes.
MR. DOBIE-And we did model those, which, normally we wouldn’t, but because there’s so many
of them there, the C fixtures that are all along there, and I had to stick the D fixture, which is the,
to get some dispersement over the parking area.
MR. HUNSINGER-Okay.
MR. DOBIE-Without having to put in another parking lot light. It would be feasible to remove a
couple of those C fixtures which are just little cheap building mounted things. We could do that,
certainly, to lighten that up, or to un lighten that, if you will, like the one that’s right behind the D
fixture. We’d probably take that right out.
MR. HUNSINGER-Yes, well, that’s the one spot right by the, I mean, I guess you want a light
right by the handicap ramp, but that seems to be the hottest spot is right near that D fixture.
MR. DOBIE-Sure. That’s a pretty straightforward to do, for sure, to take that out.
MR. HUNSINGER-Maybe remove one of those C’s and spread them out. Do you know what
kind of an impact that would have?
MR. DOBIE-Those are, I mean, I think they’re the 32 or 26 watt bulbs. It’ll have some. If we
look at the southerly portion of the building, where we just have the C fixtures, we’ll see that
they’re nominally, say an average of three foot candles at that fixture. So if we come bump that
11 probably down into the eight range by removing it, I would think. It would help quite well, I
believe.
MR. HUNSINGER-Yes. I think that would be good.
MRS. STEFFAN-So we’re taking out the C fixture?
MR. HUNSINGER-Yes.
MRS. STEFFAN-Near the handicap, is it the one right here, next to the D fixture?
MR. HUNSINGER-That one. Any other questions, comments from the Board?
MR. OBORNE-One thing, as far as the painting colors go, is it going to be just a replacement,
freshen up, or are you proposing a different change of color scheme?
MONTY LIU
MR. LIU-I’m probably going to stay with the same color.
MS. LESCAULT-The same color.
MR. OBORNE-So just a fresh coat of paint?
MS. LESCAULT-Basically, yes.
MR. OBORNE-Okay.
MR. HUNSINGER-Nothing else from the Board? We do have a public hearing scheduled this
evening. Does anyone in the audience want to address the Board on this project? I will open
the public hearing.
PUBLIC HEARING OPENED
MR. HUNSINGER-Any written comments, Keith?
MR. OBORNE-I don’t think so. Give me a sec, though. No.
MR. HUNSINGER-No one wants to comment? Okay. Let the record show that there were no
commentors, and we’ll close the public hearing.
13
(Queensbury Planning Board 11/18/2010)
PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED
MR. HUNSINGER-People comfortable moving forward?
MR. FORD-Yes.
MR. HUNSINGER-I think the only.
MR. SIPP-One thing, Chris.
MR. HUNSINGER-Yes, go ahead.
MR. SIPP-If there’s only one door in and out, actually that’s all that’s going to be used, right?
MS. LESCAULT-With respect to the access to the store itself, from a customer perspective?
MR. SIPP-Yes.
MS. LESCAULT-Yes.
MR. SIPP-Yes. Just one. Now if Wal-Mart does not go along with your idea, what will you do?
MS. LESCAULT-I believe it was our understanding that that is a part of this application, and it’s
a condition to it. So if we did not get their approval, we’d obviously have to come back to this
Board.
MR. TRAVER-It’s also part of the Wal-Mart Site Plan.
MS. LESCAULT-It is. I mean, it would be a whole separate issue if Wal-Mart didn’t agree to it.
MR. TRAVER-Yes, we’d all have a problem then.
MS. LESCAULT-Right.
MR. SIPP-And you could run your stormwater out to the back there. I mean, you’ve got a slope,
and you don’t need to put it next to that opening. You could run it down close to that tree line,
but then you can move it towards the rear of the plot and maybe six of one half a dozen of the
other, but I think it would be cheaper to.
MR. DOBIE-The trouble with that, sir, is I’d have to do some kind of collection, because I do
have the pitch coming south. I’d have to have like a wing swale or something with some catch
basins, piping it to get it back there, because I just can’t quite flow it back there on its own
without.
MR. SIPP-I don’t think Wal-Mart is going to be very happy about you dumping the stormwater on
there.
MS. LESCAULT-Well, it’s actually going to be caught, though, in that infiltration trench before it
reaches their property. So we’re actually making an improvement than what exists today by
having that trench on the southern. Right?
MR. DOBIE-That’s correct. I would say half of our site, the northerly half, or easterly half, goes
right there now on that vacant parcel. I think it used to be a restaurant or something, and then
some of it does go to Route 9, no question about that, and the DOT did their upgrades, a couple
of years ago this trench would be pretty efficient to.
MR. FORD-Opening it up, as you’re proposing, is going to increase the infiltration.
MR. DOBIE-Sure. The trenches, in our experience, will take about all the water you can put in
them. I think that would improve the overall neighborhood situation.
MR. SIPP-You’ve got sandy soil there.
MR. KREBS-Plus leaving the trees there is going to get higher absorption because the trees will
absorb a lot of that water.
MRS. STEFFAN-And one of the things we know is that there’s a stormwater project at the base
of the hill, at the Northway Plaza, that is going to catch any of the stormwater that comes off
Route 9, which is (lost word) issue.
14
(Queensbury Planning Board 11/18/2010)
MR. SCHONEWOLF-Maybe, if it doesn’t freeze before.
MRS. STEFFAN-Don’t say maybe. We approved that with all those trees cut down and
everything for this big stormwater project. So that would be a weasel deal if that didn’t happen.
That’s a technical term. What about the engineering comments, folks?
MR. DOBIE-Number One, it’s basically what we addressed, that it is an opportunity to clean up
the site with stormwater, and closing off that curbed island will direct some water that was going
easterly onto Route 9, it will bring it down the site more, no question about that, and it actually
will maybe help direct it to our new storm, our new stone trench. So I think it’ll be a positive
thing, and Number Two, with respect to extending the trench all the way to our interconnect, like
what we talked about, I’d rather work around the trees if we can, because I’ve got three trees
right there that are the most mature. I’d rather not get into digging around their roots, but we’ll
present that to your engineer.
MRS. STEFFAN-And I love that idea, and you’re a very unique human being to be able to
explain that, because usually we want, we have developers who want to yank those trees. So
we appreciate that.
MR. DOBIE-Yes. Number Four, there is a little dry well in the back area, which this building
does have a basement access in the rear, and that kind of creates a load area on the site, and
somebody stuck a dry well in there to keep that area dry so they’re not getting water in their
basement, and it does see some roof runoff back there. That’s all that that’s doing. That’s not
really catching any of the parking. It’s more of the southwesterly corner of the building, then that
little paved area behind it, and with respect to the final comment, the maintenance on the trench,
that is an issue anywhere we put them. It takes, will take several years to get the road sand and
stuff to affect it. We’ll generally put in a decent sized stone and then if it gets covered up with
leaves and some silt on top, we’re just going to have to come in with an industrial vacuum or
something and clean it up and maybe turn the stone over or something, but that’s kind of the
nature of the beast. That’s just a maintenance thing, over time we’ll just have to deal with it.
MRS. STEFFAN-Okay, Planning Board, are you satisfied that the engineering comments have
been satisfied, or do you want to condition to get a signoff from the engineer?
MR. TRAVER-Well, I’d like to see a signoff, yes.
MR. SCHONEWOLF-There’s not much to it, but that’s a tremendous improvement of that site,
period.
MR. OBORNE-Now, in order to get a signoff, I think Number One would be one of the bigger
issues that they would be challenging, be challenged with, and that is obviously to change the
flow coming off from that curb, the extension of the curbed island. So, are you okay with the
design on the site as proposed? Because if you are, then Number One will be moot.
MR. TRAVER-Yes. I mean, that’s a difficult point because, I mean, we can like the design, but
not being engineers, we’re not the ones signing off on it.’
MR. OBORNE-Right. I mean, the issue is, is that there’s some concentration of water that’s
going to be exiting out to Route 9, which was already exiting out to Route 9 to begin with.
MR. TRAVER-Right.
MR. KREBS-There’s also, if I remember right, though, presently, there’s actually water that
comes off Route 9 at the end of where they’re extending, that goes, because that property goes
down in like this, and I have been at the restaurant on a rainy day, and there was water running
from Route 9 into their parking lot.
MR. OBORNE-Onto the site?
MR. TRAVER-Yes.
MR. OBORNE-Really? No, I see what you’re saying.
MR. KREBS-In this area right now, this is significantly lower than the edge, so water runs
sometimes right into the parking lot from the highway. So by putting in, it just prevents a lot of
that water from doing that.
MR. OBORNE-Yes. I’m just trying to get them to get an engineering signoff.
15
(Queensbury Planning Board 11/18/2010)
MR. KREBS-Yes.
MR. OBORNE-I think, yes, an engineering signoff would be fine, and we’ll let them explain their
reasoning as to why.
MR. TRAVER-I think that’s the only way we can do it.
MR. HUNSINGER-And of course on Item Two we don’t want them to extend it because we want
the trees in there.
MR. DOBIE-Right, and I appreciate you putting that on the record, so then we can present that
as an argument and say that we do have the Board’s support for the record, so that’s very
helpful. Thank you.
MR. TRAVER-Yes, for sure.
MR. FORD-Absolutely.
MRS. STEFFAN-Getting this motion right will be a miracle.
MR. HUNSINGER-Well, I think the big issue is the landscaping.
MRS. STEFFAN-It is now, now that we’ve got the other things, yes.
MR. HUNSINGER-And how we describe that.
MRS. STEFFAN-So we’ve looked at Staff Notes. We’ve looked at engineering comments.
Okay. So let’s talk landscaping plan, and if you want to go through the landscaping plan again
and then talk to us about what’s planned for each one of the landscaping elements.
MR. TRAVER-Yes. We’ll need to be able to put it in a narrative, descriptive form so that we can
include it as part of the resolution.
MS. LESCAULT-Perfect. This is Monty Liu, the interest holder in the property. So, basically
what we have proposed here is on the northeastern parking paved area, just south of the
planter, to, Lucas we’ve got to get 10 feet, right, above that handicap parking spot? About five
feet from the handicap, north of the handicap parking spot. So it won’t go all the way (lost word)
here, just north of there. We propose to take up the asphalt and put the green area, it’ll be
grass, with trees that are of, whatever the native.
MR. LIU-What I have in mind is like a red maple, a couple of evergreen and maybe one pear
tree. So every season you’ve always got some green tree, like you’ve (lost word) crabapple tree
right there. So in the Springtime you’ll get the crabapple and then later Spring you’ll get the
pear. So then you’ve always got two evergreens that stay green all the time, and then you’ve
got maple. In the Fall you’ll see the leaves, so the last one to lose the leaves.
MR. HUNSINGER-So how big would the trees be?
MR. LIU-I really don’t know. Probably pretty good size tree.
MR. SIPP-Two inches, three inches?
MR. HUNSINGER-Three inch?
MR. FORD-Three inch diameter.
MS. LESCAULT-Three inch.
MR. HUNSINGER-Okay.
MR. LIU-And as far as right here goes, I’d probably put, I think the maple tree is a native tree.
So I think it will go well. So I would put a maple tree right here, and on the bottom I’m probably
going to have some bushes, a shrub.
MS. LESCAULT-Native, based on your approved list, as well as within the planters will be native
shrubs in the planters as well, and that would be, ion the planter box.
MR. HUNSINGER-One maple tree and the planter box, just south of the handicap parking spot.
16
(Queensbury Planning Board 11/18/2010)
MS. LESCAULT-And then, Gretchen, we’ll also have native plantings in all of the planter boxes
that are on the easterly side of the building, as well as on the southwesterly side of the building.
MR. HUNSINGER-So would those be like flowers? Would they be shrubs?
MR. LIU-On the existing planter box, I think they’ve already got some perennial flowers in it, but I
think I’d like to put some kind of an evergreen, like a shrub that stays green all the time so it
compliments what they’ve already got there, like perennial trees, and actually right here actually
is a four foot wide blacktop that you have to rip them out and then do some planting there.
MR. HUNSINGER-That will be on the south side. So that, those would be more like bushes?
MR. LIU-Yes.
MR. HUNSINGER-Two feet tall?
MR. LIU-About two feet tall.
MS. LESCAULT-And then in the last corner here, the southeast corner, he also proposes to do,
these will probably be lower shrubs.
MR. LIU-Yes, like maybe the tree that won’t grow very tall, some kind of like a, some kind of, I
don’t know, some kind of decorative tree.
MRS. STEFFAN-Crabapples don’t grow. Arborvitaes are ugly.
MR. LIU-How about this, I’ll let you pick.
MRS. STEFFAN-What about a crabapple? It’s protected there. It’ll flower in the Spring.
MR. SIPP-If you put maples, don’t put in sugar maples. If you’re bound and determined to put
maple in, don’t put in sugar maple or hard maple. Red maple will stand the salt, and the sugar
maple will not.
MR. LIU-Yes, red maple.
MR. SIPP-You can put some arborvitae down in that corner. They grow fast.
MR. SCHONEWOLF-The secretary doesn’t like arborvitae.
MRS. STEFFAN-Okay. So there’s a lot going on here. So the southeast corner planter, that
little one, are we putting a crabapple there?
MS. LESCAULT-Yes.
MRS. STEFFAN-Okay. Anything else, perennials?
MR. LIU-Yes, there will be like, probably some kind of a, I don’t know. Some kind of.
MS. LESCAULT-If it allows for the room there in between the two parking spots, you could
probably put two small perennials underneath the crab tree.
MR. HUNSINGER-Well, we’re getting some trees in there. They’re not the street trees, but, yes.
MRS. STEFFAN-Okay. The border already exists along the edge.
MR. HUNSINGER-Anything else? Special conditions?
MRS. STEFFAN-All right.
MR. HUNSINGER-It’s a Type II SEQR. So no SEQR review is required.
MRS. STEFFAN-I’ll give this a try, folks. I’ll make a motion to approve.
MOTION TO APPROVE SITE PLAN NO. 70-2010 9099 CORPORATION, Introduced by
Gretchen Steffan who moved for its adoption, seconded by Stephen Traver:
909 State Route 9 [Tax Map ID 296.14-1-38]
17
(Queensbury Planning Board 11/18/2010)
A site plan application has been made to the Queensbury Planning Board for the following:
Applicant proposes a change in use from a restaurant to a retail use. Retail Use in a CI zone
requires Planning Board review and approval; and
The Planning Board made a recommendation to the Zoning Board of Appeals on 11/16/2010;
and
The Zoning Board of Appeals approved the variance request on 11/17/2010; and
A public hearing was advertised and held on 11/18/2010; and
This application is supported with all documentation, public comment and application material in
the file of record;
MOTION TO APPROVE SITE PLAN NO. 70-2010 9099 CORPORATION, Introduced by
Gretchen Steffan who moved for its adoption, seconded by Stephen Traver:
According to the resolution prepared by Staff. The Zoning Board of Appeals approved their
variance request on 11/17/2010. Paragraph One, the proposal complies with the requirements
as stated in the Zoning Code.
1)Pursuant to relevant sections of the Town of Queensbury Zoning Code [Chapter 179-9-
080]], the Planning Board has determined that this proposal complies with the
requirements as stated in the Zoning Code; and
2)SEQR Type II, no further SEQRA review is necessary; and
3)Final approved plans, in compliance with the Site Plan, must be submitted to the
Community Development Department before any further review by the Zoning
Administrator or Building and Codes personnel. The applicant must meet with Staff after
approval and prior to issuance of Building Permit and/or the beginning of any site work.
Subsequent issuance of further permits, including building permits is dependent on
compliance with this and all other conditions of this resolution; and
4)As-built plans to certify that the site plan is developed according to the approved plans to
be provided prior to issuance of the certificate of occupancy; and
5)The Sanitary Sewer connection plan must be submitted to the Wastewater Department
for its review, approval, permitting and inspection; and
6)The limits of clearing will constitute a no-cut buffer zone, orange construction fencing
shall be installed around these areas and field verified by Community Development staff;
and
7)Engineering sign-off required prior to signature of Zoning Administrator; and
8)If curb cuts are being added or changed a driveway permit is required. A building permit
will not be issued until the approved driveway permit has been provided to the Planning
Office; and
9)This is approved with the following conditions:
1.New York State DOT signoff for the proposed right of way work should be submitted
prior to the issuance of a building permit.
2.Any proposed signage must be Code compliant.
3.A letter from Wal-Mart indicating their intent to complete or allow the completion of
the portion of the interconnect on their land should be submitted prior to construction.
4.That the plan will include bike racks in the site design.
5.That there will be a right turn only from the Route 9 exit to include pavement striping.
There will also be a right turn only sign on the right side of the road at that exit.
6.Regarding lighting, the applicant will eliminate one C fixture at the front of the
building at the 11 foot candle luminance notation, and the applicant will modify the
plan and submit that back to the Community Development Department.
18
(Queensbury Planning Board 11/18/2010)
7.The applicant will obtain an engineering signoff, and we just want to make a note that
on the engineering comments submitted, Number Two, the Planning Board supports
keeping the mature trees.
8.The applicant had initially requested a landscaping waiver, but has since presented a
landscaping plan this evening which the Planning Board approves of, and it will
include. Number One, at the northeast parking paving area, five feet north of
handicap parking, the applicant proposes to take out the asphalt and add grass, and
also add trees, one red maple, two evergreens and one pear tree, which those trees
will be three inches in diameter. Number Two, next to the handicap spot and south
of the spot the applicant will add one maple tree and a planter box. Number Three,
the applicant will add native plants in the planter boxes on the easterly and southwest
portions of the building, with some perennials along with evergreen. Number Four,
on the south side of the building, the applicant will add two foot tall evergreens.
Number Five, on the landscaping plan on the southeast corner planter, the applicant
will plant a crabapple tree with a small perennial border. The selections for the
landscaping plan should be Code compliant.
th
Duly adopted this 18 day of November, 2010, by the following vote:
MRS. STEFFAN-The applicant has asked for waivers for landscaping, and, okay, I need to stop.
They only asked for a waiver for landscaping, correct?
MR. OBORNE-They’re offering landscaping. So it’s really not a waiver from landscaping.
MRS. STEFFAN-Correct.
MR. OBORNE-You’re satisfied with what they’re presenting.
MRS. STEFFAN-Okay. So we don’t have to deal with the waivers.
MR. FORD-They’re withdrawing the waiver, right, because they’ve submitting a plan.
MR. SCHONEWOLF-They’re representing that their landscaping is as follows.
MRS. STEFFAN-Okay.
AYES: Mr. Traver, Mr. Krebs, Mrs. Steffan, Mr. Ford, Mr. Schonewolf, Mr. Sipp, Mr. Hunsinger
NOES: NONE
MS. LESCAULT-Thank you.
MR. HUNSINGER-Good luck. You’re all set.
MRS. STEFFAN-Good luck.
MR. LIU-Thank you.
MR. HUNSINGER-You’re welcome.
NEW BUSINESS:
SUBDIVISION NO. 13-2010 PRELIMINARY & FINAL STAGE NYSARC, INC. AGENT(S)
VAN DUSEN & STEVES OWNER(S) SAME ZONING CLI/MDR LOCATION 436 QUAKER
ROAD APPLICANT PROPOSES SUBDIVISION OF A 29.5 +/- ACRE PARCEL INTO TWO
LOTS OF 6.8 & 22.7 +/- ACRES. SUBDIVISION OF LAND REQUIRES PLANNING BOARD
REVIEW AND APPROVAL. CROSS REFERENCE NONE FOUND APA, CEA, OTHER NWI
WETLANDS LOT SIZE 29.5 +/- ACRES TAX MAP NO. 303.5-1-20 SECTION CHAPTER A-
183
MATT STEVES, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT
MR. TRAVER-Mr. Chairman, I need to disclose that I’m a member of the Board of Directors and
I recuse myself from this application.
MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. Thank you. So Mr. Jackoski’s going to sit in for Mr. Traver.
Whenever you’re ready, Keith.
19
(Queensbury Planning Board 11/18/2010)
MR. OBORNE-Absolutely. Subdivision 13-2010. This is For New York State ARC Incorporated,
Preliminary and Final subdivision. This is located at 436 Quaker Road. This is a bifurcated
zoning, CLI, Commercial Light Industrial, and MDR, Moderate Density Residential. This is an
Unlisted but a Long Form has been submitted as this is a subdivision. Applicant proposes
subdivision of a 29.5 +/- acre parcel into two lots of 6.8 and 22.7 acres respectively, and I think
everybody knows where this is located along Quaker Road. The applicant states that there will
be no exterior change to the site and has requested waivers from the following, Sketch Plan
Review, landscape plan, clearing plan, grading plan and E & S. I really have no issues with this
whatsoever, to be honest with you. I did ask Matt to put a notation on the remaining vacant
parcel that there’s not any plan for development on that parcel at this point in time, and with that,
I’d turn it over to the Board.
MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. Thank you. Good evening.
MR. STEVES-Good evening. Matt Steves with Van Dusen and Steves, representing NYSARC
on this application, and together at the table with me is Sean Casey from the
Warren/Washington County Chapter. As Staff has stated, this is property, as everybody I’m
sure has driven by this a few hundred times in their lives at Queensbury. It used to be Albany
International, then KADENT, and now it’s Thermal Fiber Tech building on Quaker Road, where
the pond is on the south side of Quaker Road, just to the east of Ridge Road. They are
acquiring this property to make that their home for their offices, and this property, at one point in
time when Thermal Fiber Tech bought it, was I believe five or six tax parcels, and they
consolidated them all, which made it easier for them, and we’re asking for a two lot subdivision,
and I know the question would be, why do we need a subdivision, and this is to facilitate the
bonding for the New York State Dormitory Authority for the refurbishing of the building, and if
you attach the bonding to the entire property, even if they wanted to down the road say use the
other one as passive recreation, do anything with the remaining property, they would have to get
permission from the Dormitory Authority and a signoff for everybody that was associated with
the Bonding Act, and this is part of a $43 million bond, so you may be talking about 25 or 30
other projects that would be involved with it. So it really just hamstrings the rest of the property,
not that they have any intentions of doing anything with it, but if you ever do it in the future, no
matter what you wanted to do, this particular Chapter would now be bound by 25 other projects
because it would be all part of the same bond.
MRS. STEFFAN-So the sale of this particular parcel from Thermal Fiber Tech to New York State
ARC means it becomes a tax exempt property?
MR. STEVES-That’s correct.
MRS. STEFFAN-Okay.
MR. STEVES-So whether it’s one lot or two lots doesn’t make any difference. They’re both
going to be tax exempt. That’s exactly correct.
MRS. STEFFAN-Okay
MR. STEVES-So, again. to reiterate, it’s just to facilitate the bonding for them to be able to move
into the building as their offices. There is absolutely no changes going to be made to this site,
and everybody understands and they understand that if anything ever wanted to happen, as far
as any kind of change, they would be back in front of this Board for a Site Plan. It’s been utilized
as office/light manufacturing for the last, I don’t know, 30 years or so that I know of, and it’s
going to be used as their office space. That’s the bottom line.
MR. HUNSINGER-So there’s no other use in the building besides office?
MR. STEVES-There’s not going to be anybody at this time, just their office. That’s correct. No
light manufacturing or anything at this time, no, and what we did is we went through, really
quickly, I won’t belabor it, is just that we wanted to make sure that both lots were compliant with
the Code. The 6.8 acre parcel does comply with all the building setbacks, all the green space
requirements, obviously all the parking requirements, because all the parking is going to be
incorporated into that parcel. The larger parcel, all that’s going to have on it is the remaining
vacant land with the pond, but we did want to make sure that they all complied with the Code, at
the southeasterly corner of the property, the proposed new lot, is that pole barn in the back. You
have a 30 foot side and rear setback, and we made sure we stayed 31 feet on both sides of that.
It does leave kind of like a narrow little gap to get back into the property, but I still believe that’s
48 feet wide, which would be more than adequate for any type of a drive or anything they ever
wanted to do in the future, but, at the same time, they own both parcels, so it really doesn’t
make a lot of difference. If you were to access the other parcel, you would probably access it
20
(Queensbury Planning Board 11/18/2010)
directly off the existing pavement. So I’ll just leave it at that with any questions for the Board, but
like I say, there’s physical change to the site and/or the building.
MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. Questions, comments from the Board?
MRS. STEFFAN-My only question was if they had adequate access, at some point in the future.
MR. STEVES-Yes.
MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. We do have a public hearing scheduled this evening. Is there anyone
in the audience that wants to address the Board on this project? I would ask, when you come up
to make comments, that you speak into the microphone and identify yourself for the record.
PUBLIC HEARING OPENED
CARRIE PIM
MS. PIM-Good evening. I’m Carrie Pim and I’m a resident of Queensbury, and our property
borders the proposed 22.7 acre parcel. As the Planning Board reviews the, and takes action, I
hope you are conscientious of the homeowner and of the wetlands and protecting the area. If
subdivision is approved, I am asking the Planning Board to consider the homeowner and
wetlands in future prospects and increase buffers to protect both, and I do understand, at this
time, that there aren’t any prospects to develop, but I also do understand that that could change
as parcels are divided and other prospects move in to that area. So I’m just being proactive in
coming just to give my point as a taxpayer, property owner and resident of Queensbury. Thank
you.
MR. HUNSINGER-Thank you. Anyone else? No other comments? I guess, just in response to
the public comment, just for the record, if there were to be anything proposed on that site, they
would be required to come back to this Board for Site Plan Review. There would be another
public hearing on any specific use or application. We would accept those public comments
again, but I think it is helpful to have that on the record of, you know, potential neighborhood
issues with respect to buffers and wetlands.
MR. OBORNE-And I would add that you’ll definitely be noticed on that also.
MR. STEVES-And also as the consultant and as the owners of the property, we are aware of the
wetlands and the change in the zoning line there as well, and that any future development by my
client would take into consideration the environmental concerns and the buffer concerns with the
neighboring properties.
MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. I used to drive by that every day. I used to work down Quaker Road,
and almost every morning I would see a blue heron in the pond. I think you still do most days.
MR. STEVES-For over the years, it’s been an extremely well maintained property as far as in a
Commercial Light Industrial zone. I used to spend time in that building 25 years ago. My
brother was an electrical engineer for Albany International, still is, but he worked out of that
office for quite a while.
MRS. STEFFAN-Yes, there’s always landscapers there in the summertime, and geese have
their babies on the pond each year, and the turtles crossing the road. So it’s an important area
there.
MR. HUNSINGER-Any other comments, questions from the Board?
MR. HUNSINGER-This is a Long Form for subdivision.
MRS. STEFFAN-Did you close the public hearing?
MR. HUNSINGER-I did not. Thank you. I will close the public hearing. There weren’t any
written comments, were there, Keith?
MR. OBORNE-No, there were not.
MR. HUNSINGER-I will close the public hearing.
PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED
MR. HUNSINGER-And SEQR Long Form.
21
(Queensbury Planning Board 11/18/2010)
MRS. STEFFAN-Okay. Will the proposed action result in a physical change to the project site?
MR. KREBS-No.
MR. HUNSINGER-No.
MRS. STEFFAN-We can say absolutely no. Will there be an effect to any unique or unusual
land forms found on the site?
MR. HUNSINGER-No.
MR. KREBS-No.
MRS. STEFFAN-Will the proposed action affect any water body designated as protected?
MR. FORD-No.
MR. KREBS-No.
MRS. STEFFAN-Will the proposed action affect any non-protected existing or new body of
water?
MR. HUNSINGER-No.
MR. FORD-No.
MRS. STEFFAN-Will the proposed action affect surface or groundwater quality or quantity?
MR. FORD-No.
MR. HUNSINGER-No.
MRS. STEFFAN-Will the proposed action alter drainage flow or patterns, or surface water
runoff?
MR. HUNSINGER-No.
MR. KREBS-No.
MRS. STEFFAN-Will the proposed action affect air quality?
MR. HUNSINGER-No.
MR. KREBS-No.
MRS. STEFFAN-Will the proposed action affect any threatened or endangered species?
MR. HUNSINGER-No.
MR. KREBS-No.
MRS. STEFFAN-Will the proposed action substantially affect non-threatened or non-
endangered species?
MR. HUNSINGER-No.
MR. FORD-No.
MRS. STEFFAN-Will the proposed action affect agricultural land resources?
MR. HUNSINGER-No.
MR. FORD-No.
MRS. STEFFAN-Will the proposed action affect aesthetic resources?
MR. HUNSINGER-No.
22
(Queensbury Planning Board 11/18/2010)
MR. KREBS-No.
MRS. STEFFAN-Will the proposed action impact any site or structure of historic, pre-historic or
paleontological importance?
MR. HUNSINGER-No.
MR. FORD-No.
MRS. STEFFAN-Will the proposed action affect the quantity or quality of existing or future open
spaces or recreational opportunities?
MR. HUNSINGER-No.
MR. KREBS-No.
MRS. STEFFAN-Will the proposed action impact the exceptional or unique characteristics of a
critical environmental area?
MR. HUNSINGER-No.
MR. FORD-No.
MRS. STEFFAN-Will there be an effect to existing transportation systems?
MR. HUNSINGER-No.
MR. FORD-No.
MRS. STEFFAN-Will proposed action affect the community’s sources of fuel or energy supply?
MR. HUNSINGER-No.
MR. FORD-No.
MRS. STEFFAN-Will there be objectionable odors, noise, or vibration as a result of
the proposed action?
MR. HUNSINGER-No.
MR. FORD-No.
MRS. STEFFAN-Will the proposed action affect public health and safety?
MR. HUNSINGER-No.
MR. FORD-No.
MRS. STEFFAN-Will the proposed action affect the character of the existing community?
MR. HUNSINGER-No.
MR. FORD-No.
MRS. STEFFAN-And is there, or is there likely to be, public controversy related to potential
adverse environmental impacts?
MR. HUNSINGER-No.
MR. FORD-No.
MRS. STEFFAN-Okay. Then I’ll make a motion for a Negative declaration.
RESOLUTION WHEN DETERMINATION OF NO SIGNIFICANCE IS MADE
RESOLUTION NO. 13-2010, Introduced by Gretchen Steffan who moved for its adoption,
seconded by Donald Krebs:
23
(Queensbury Planning Board 11/18/2010)
WHEREAS, there is presently before the Planning Board an application for:
NYSARC, INC., and
WHEREAS, this Planning Board has determined that the proposed project and Planning Board
action is subject to review under the State Environmental Quality Review Act,
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT
RESOLVED:
1. No Federal agency appears to be involved.
2. The following agencies are involved:
NONE
3. The proposed action considered by this Board is Unlisted in the Department of
Environmental Conservation Regulations implementing the State Environmental Quality
Review Act and the regulations of the Town of Queensbury.
4. An Environmental Assessment Form has been completed by the applicant.
5. Having considered and thoroughly analyzed the relevant areas of environmental concern
and having considered the criteria for determining whether a project has a significant
environmental impact as the same is set forth in Section 617.11 of the Official
Compilation of Codes, Rules and Regulations for the State of New York, this Board finds
that the action about to be undertaken by this Board will have no significant
environmental effect and the Chairman of the Planning Board is hereby authorized to
execute and sign and file as may be necessary a statement of non-significance or a
negative declaration that may be required by law.
th
Duly adopted this 18 day of, November, 2010, by the following vote:
AYES: Mr. Krebs, Mr. Jackoski, Mrs. Steffan, Mr. Ford, Mr. Schonewolf, Mr. Sipp,
Mr. Hunsinger
NOES: NONE
MR. HUNSINGER-I just have one question before we consider. How long has the building been
vacant? Do you know?
SEAN CASEY
MR. CASEY-Since 12, the beginning of this month, they vacated.
MR. HUNSINGER-Okay.
MR. STEVES-Not even a month.
MR. CASEY-Not even a month now.
MR. HUNSINGER-Okay.
MR. STEVES-They’ve been in the process since late June, I think, or July.
st
MR. CASEY-Yes, they were out as of the 1 of this month.
MR. HUNSINGER-I knew it was announced a while ago, but I didn’t know when they had
actually vacated the building. Okay.
MRS. STEFFAN-Okay. Then I’ll make a motion.
MOTION TO APPROVE PRELIMINARY STAGE SUBDIVISION NO. 13-2010 NYSARC, INC.,
Introduced by Gretchen Steffan who moved for its adoption, seconded by Donald Krebs:
436 Bay Road [Tax Map ID 303.5-1-20]
24
(Queensbury Planning Board 11/18/2010)
A subdivision application has been made to the Queensbury Planning Board for the following:
Applicant proposes subdivision of a 29.5 +/- acre parcel into two lots of 6.8 & 22.7 +/- acres.
Subdivision of land requires Planning Board review and approval
A public hearing was scheduled and held on 11/18/10; and
This application is supported with all documentation, public comment and application material in
the file of record; and
MOTION TO APPROVE PRELIMINARY STAGE SUBDIVISION NO. 13-2010 NYSARC, INC.,
Introduced by Gretchen Steffan who moved for its adoption, seconded by Donald Krebs:
According to the resolution prepared by Staff.
th
Duly adopted this 18 day of November, 2010, by the following vote:
AYES: Mr. Krebs, Mr. Jackoski, Mrs. Steffan, Mr. Ford, Mr. Schonewolf, Mr. Sipp,
Mr. Hunsinger
NOES: NONE
MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. Would anyone like to put forward a motion for Final Stage
subdivision? Keith, under Staff comments, waivers requested, E & S?
MR. STEVES-Erosion and sediment control.
MR. OBORNE-Yes.
MR. HUNSINGER-Okay.
MRS. STEFFAN-Thank you.
MR. HUNSINGER-Thank you.
MR. STEVES-No problem. I think I spelled it out in my letter. He abbreviated it, not me.
MR. HUNSINGER-Right. I should have just gone with the letter. You’re right.
MRS. STEFFAN-Okay. I’ll make a motion to approve Final Stage.
MOTION TO APPROVE FINAL STAGE SUBDIVISION NO. 13-2010 NYSARC, INC.,
Introduced by Gretchen Steffan who moved for its adoption, seconded by Thomas Ford:
436 Quaker Road [Tax Map ID 303.5-1-20]
A subdivision application has been made to the Queensbury Planning Board for the following:
Applicant proposes subdivision of a 29.5 +/- acre parcel into two lots of 6.8 & 22.7 +/- acres.
Subdivision of land requires Planning Board review and approval
A public hearing was scheduled and held on 11/18/10; and
This application is supported with all documentation, public comment and application material in
the file of record;
MOTION TO APPROVE FINAL STAGE SUBDIVISION NO. 13-2010 NYSARC, INC.,
Introduced by Gretchen Steffan who moved for its adoption, seconded by Thomas Ford:
According to the resolution prepared by Staff. Paragraph A complies. Paragraph B, Negative
Declaration.
a)Pursuant to relevant sections of the Town of Queensbury Zoning Code [Chapter A-183],
the Planning Board has determined that this proposal complies with the requirements as
stated in the Zoning Code; and
b)The requirements of the State Environmental Quality Review Act have been considered
and the Planning Board has adopted a SEQRA Negative Declaration; and
c)Final approved plans, in compliance with the Subdivision, must be submitted to the
25
(Queensbury Planning Board 11/18/2010)
Community Development Department before any further review by the Zoning
Administrator or Building and Codes personnel. The applicant must meet with Staff after
approval and prior to issuance of Building Permit and/or the beginning of any site work.
Subsequent issuance of further permits, including building permits is dependent on
compliance with this and all other conditions of this resolution; and
d)Paragraph D, waiver requests are granted for Sketch Plan Review, landscaping plan,
clearing plan, grading plan and erosion and sediment control plan.
e)The limits of clearing will constitute a no-cut buffer zone, orange construction fencing
shall be installed around these areas and field verified by Community Development staff
f)Engineering sign-off required prior to signature of Planning Board Chairman.
g)As-built plans to certify that the subdivision is developed according to the approved plans
to be provided prior to issuance of the certificate of occupancy; and
h)This is approved without conditions.
th
Duly adopted this 18 day of November, 2010, by the following vote:
AYES: Mr. Sipp, Mr. Schonewolf, Mr. Ford, Mrs. Steffan, Mr. Krebs, Mr. Jackoski,
Mr. Hunsinger
NOES: NONE
MR. HUNSINGER-Good luck. You’re all set.
MR. STEVES-Thank you.
MR. CASEY-Thank you.
SITE PLAN NO. 71-2010 SEQR TYPE II R & P QUAKER I REALTY, LLC/ROBERT NEMER
AGENT(S) TOWN, RYAN & PARTNERS, P.C. OWNER(S) SAME ZONING CLI LOCATION
309.17-1-17.1 APPLICANT PROPOSES TO UTILIZE BUILDING FOR AUTO/TRUCK REPAIR
AS WELL AS NEW/USED VEHICLE PREPARATION FOR SALE. FURTHER, THE
APPLICANT PROPOSES UTILIZING OFFICE SPACE FOR ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICE.
FINALLY, SITE TO BE UTILIZED FOR THE OPERATION OF A TOW TRUCK COMPANY.
CHANGE OF USE IN A CLI ZONE REQUIRES PLANNING BOARD REVIEW AND
APPROVAL. CROSS REFERENCE SUB 11-2002 WARREN CO. PLANNING 11/10/2010
LOT SIZE 1.7 +/- ACRES TAX MAP NO. 309.17-1-17.1 SECTION 179-9
SUSAN BARTKOSKI, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT
MR. OBORNE-Site Plan 72-2010, R & P Quaker Realty, LLC. This is a change of use in the CLI
zone that requires Planning Board review and approval. The location is 415 Big Bay Road, CLI,
Commercial Light Industrial is the zoning. Type II is the SEQR. Project Description: Applicant
proposes to utilize building for auto/truck repair as well as new and used vehicle preparation for
sale. Further, the applicant proposes utilizing office space for administrative office. Finally, the
site to be utilized for the operation of a Tow Truck company as described in the applicant’s
narrative. Staff comments: The previous use of the building was as a pipeline services
company. The proposed use, specifically the vehicle preparation use, will require the
installation of a 5,000 gallon holding tank for wash water and associated slotted floor drain in the
preparation bay leading to the holding tank. The applicant has inquired with DEC on the
regulations for this holding tank and was informed that a permit is not necessary. What follows
is Site Plan Review. There have been some changes to the plot plan. Concerning parking, the
applicant has provided me with copies of this which I have vetted, and with the Planning Board’s
okay I’d like to pass those out. This would be considered additional material. They did give it to
me two days ago. So they gave me a chance to at least look at it. If you’d rather not have it, I
understand.
MR. HUNSINGER-What’s the feeling of the Board?
MR. SIPP-Bring it on.
MR. SCHONEWOLF-Bring it on.
MR. HUNSINGER-Okay.
26
(Queensbury Planning Board 11/18/2010)
MRS. STEFFAN-If the Staff reviewed it, then I’m okay with that.
MR. FORD-Yes.
MR. HUNSINGER-Okay.
MR. OBORNE-I couldn’t get them out with your packets.
MR. FORD-But you’ve had a chance to review it. That’s critical.
MR. OBORNE-Yes. The site’s just large.
MS. BARTKOWSKI-Good evening. I’m Susan Bartkowski with Town, Ryan & Partners on
behalf of the applicant. With me is our engineer, Kevin Hasting. Peter Nemer, Robert Nemer’s
brother who has a co-ownership interest in the property, is here on behalf of the applicant as
well. Robert Nemer wasn’t able to attend with us this evening, and we also have one of the
managers who has an interest in how this property will operate. Essentially they took over the
building at 415 Big Bay Road with two intentions. The first was their Nemer Dealership’s
administrative building was located in a rental property on Dix Avenue. That lease ended at the
end of September, and this building was previously used both as an operational building, where
the Big Bay is, and then as an administrative building. So their administrative staff, which
consists of four full time employees and three part time employees, will occupy a portion of the
building, and the rest of it will be used, as indicated in the commentary by Keith, for vehicle
repair, vehicle prep, and then we are also seeking to use this building to operate a towing
facility, which will be primarily used for customers of the Nemer Dealerships whose cars break
down and they need to be towed in for service and repair, and also to be available for
emergency and accident recovery for vehicles. The vehicle in question will be a flatbed tow
truck and it will be stored at night either behind the building or preferably inside the building
since there is plenty of room. So I guess I would ask at this point if the Board has any questions
about our proposed use? The minor change that we did make, in terms of the parking place, is
because we only had seven total employees who are going to be working there, we initially drew
13 parking places. We’ve added four parking places directly behind the building, to comply with
the zoning requirement. So that was the only change, and I thank Keith for his assistance in
getting that to the Board quickly. We have waivers that we’ve asked for as part of our
application. So I guess I would ask at this point if there are any questions for us.
MR. OBORNE-If I could also add to that. The waivers were asked for in Letter, I believe O of
one of the letters in the Site Plan responses, and I didn’t pick up on that. I had asked the
applicant to put it in a narrative, but it is in the responses to the requirements for Site Plan
Review.
MS. BARTKOWSKI-And it is in Paragraph O, and we’re asking for the waiver of the requirement
for the topography drawings, stormwater system, grading, lighting, and landscaping.
MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. Questions, comments from the Board?
MR. TRAVER-Keith, can you update your review of the plot plan based on the new information
you’ve received from the applicant?
MR. OBORNE-Can I update my review?
MR. TRAVER-With regards to parking and so on.
MR. OBORNE-Yes. Verbally right now I would say that there are no issues on this site. There’s
plenty of room for storage. It’s gravel. So it’s difficult to put lines. You could put lines on a
piece of paper if you want, but what’s the use? Honestly, the site has plenty of room. The
engineer has offered up some green space in the rear, which is an additional bonus, I believe,
and with that, I have very little issue with this site at all, to be honest with you, with the exception
of the dearth of landscaping, but beyond that, it’s a pretty decent plan, it appears to be at least.
MR. HUNSINGER-Yes. I thought it was kind ironic that the issue was parking when the whole
back of the property was gravel. You could put as many cars as you want back there.
MS. BARTKOWSKI-There is plenty of room.
MR. HUNSINGER-Which brings me to a comment. On the site data, as part of the application,
you indicated that there were 10 parking spaces. So we should probably have that updated.
MS. BARTKOWSKI-Yes, and we are up to 17 now on the submitted drawing.
27
(Queensbury Planning Board 11/18/2010)
MR. HUNSINGER-Seventeen, okay. Any other questions or comments from the Board?
MS. BARTKOWSKI-And if I just may mention, Kevin just pointed out that the total green space is
approximately 30%, which is well within the compliance.
MR. HUNSINGER-Okay.
MRS. STEFFAN-And, you know, one of the concerns I had was the holding tank and washing
cars inside, but, you know, you’ve got the letter, you know, from Kevin Hastings regarding Bill
Lupo signing off on it. So, you know, that’s okay.
MS. BARTKOWSKI-We both got the signoff from DEC and they were fine with our proposal, and
the idea is to keep it contained so that we are not dispersing water.
MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. We do have a public hearing scheduled this evening. Is there anyone
in the audience that wants to address the Board on this project? Any written comments, Keith?
PUBLIC HEARING OPENED
MR. OBORNE-Yes. There is some written comments, or one written comment. November 17,
2010. “Dear Planning Board members: In regards to the proposed change in zoning for Robert
Nemer, I do not have any objections. I own and daily use the property immediately adjacent to
Nemer’s on the south side. I am concerned that they have adequate space for winter snow,
without plowing and/or dumping it onto my property. This has been an ongoing problem with
previous owners of that property. My property is not paved and I have enough problems with
Springtime mud as it is. Thank you in advance for addressing this matter.” Obviously, you may
want to condition an approval that no snow goes on the adjoining property. That’s it.
MS. BARTKOWSKI-Well, we will certainly agree not to put snow or dump snow on the
neighboring property, and there’s more than ample room in the back for the snow disposal and
removal.
MR. HUNSINGER-Okay.
MRS. STEFFAN-What about signage? One of the things in the Staff comments initially, when
you had your conference, signage details of signage is anticipated. Are you anticipating on the
front of the building?
MR. OBORNE-Yes. My understanding is that you weren’t anticipating any signs?
MS. BARTKOWSKI-Not freestanding signs. Our package did include this sign which would go
on the outside wall, and then, there’s an existing eight by eight sign, if you look at the front east
photo, the top one, and ours will be approximately four by eight, and you have an example in our
packet.
MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. I was wondering where that sign was going to go.
MS. BARTKOWSKI-And the other sign, yes, it will go in that existing location. The only other
sign that we’ll add will probably be indicating admission where the small doors are for staff to go
in, delivery people. Deliveries are around the rear, but just to label these doors.
MR. OBORNE-That’s a directional sign.
MR. HUNSINGER-Yes. Four by eight’s certainly Code compliant, right?
MR. OBORNE-Yes. If it’s on the building they can have 100 square feet.
MS. BARTKOWSKI-So you have our signage information.
MR. SCHONEWOLF-So it’s pretty much a 24/7 operation. You’re going to be on the rotation
with the Sheriff’s Department for towing?
MS. BARTKOWSKI-We have applied to be put on their list, and we understand from the Sheriff’s
Department that there is a great need in the community to add additional tow truck drivers
because of multiple accidents, and we were willing, certainly more than welcome to provide that
service.
MRS. STEFFAN-What a convenient location.
28
(Queensbury Planning Board 11/18/2010)
MS. BARTKOWSKI-Right off Exit 18.
MRS. STEFFAN-How about the dumpster? There’s a comment there, view from the road must
have an enclosure. Is the dumpster behind the building?
MS. BARTKOWSKI-Yes.
MRS. STEFFAN-Okay.
MS. BARTKOWSKI-And you can see it on the drawing, to the rear of the southern portion.
MRS. STEFFAN-Okay. So we have three conditions. It’s just updating the site data for parking,
snow storage contained on site, and just a notation that any signage must be Code compliant.
MR. OBORNE-What was the second one?
MRS. STEFFAN-Snow storage must be contained on their site. Anything else?
MR. HUNSINGER-No.
MR. FORD-No. That’s good.
MR. HUNSINGER-Well, the waivers requested. If I didn’t already, I will close the public hearing.
PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED
MR. HUNSINGER-And I will entertain a motion.
MRS. STEFFAN-I will make a motion.
MOTION TO APPROVE SITE PLAN NO. 71-2010 R & P QUAKER 1 REALTY, LLC/ROBERT
NEMER, Introduced by Gretchen Steffan who moved for its adoption, seconded by Stephen
Traver:
415 Big Bay Road [Tax Map ID 309. 17-1-17.1]
A site plan application has been made to the Queensbury Planning Board for the following:
Applicant proposes to utilize building for automobile/truck repair and sales for new and used
vehicles/trucks as well as administrative offices and operation of a tow truck company. Change
of use in a CLI zone requires Planning Board review and approval; and
A public hearing was advertised and held on 11/18/2010; and
This application is supported with all documentation, public comment and application material in
the file of record;
MOTION TO APPROVE SITE PLAN NO. 71-2010 R & P QUAKER 1 REALTY, LLC/ROBERT
NEMER, Introduced by Gretchen Steffan who moved for its adoption, seconded by Stephen
Traver:
According to the resolution prepared by Staff. Paragraph 1 complies.
1)Pursuant to relevant sections of the Town of Queensbury Zoning Code [Chapter 179-9-
080]], the Planning Board has determined that this proposal complies with the
requirements as stated in the Zoning Code; and
2)SEQR Type II, no further SEQRA review is necessary; and
3)Final approved plans, in compliance with the Site Plan, must be submitted to the
Community Development Department before any further review by the Zoning
Administrator or Building and Codes personnel. The applicant must meet with Staff after
approval and prior to issuance of Building Permit and/or the beginning of any site work.
Subsequent issuance of further permits, including building permits is dependent on
compliance with this and all other conditions of this resolution; and
4)As-built plans to certify that the site plan is developed according to the approved plans to
be provided prior to issuance of the certificate of occupancy; and
29
(Queensbury Planning Board 11/18/2010)
5)Waivers are requested and granted for topography drawings, stormwater, grading,
landscaping and lighting
6)If curb cuts are being added or changed a driveway permit is required. A building permit
will not be issued until the approved driveway permit has been provided to the Planning
Office; and
7)This is approved with three conditions.
1.That the applicant will update the site data on parking to include total spaces, 17 of
them.
2.That the applicant will contain all snow storage on site.
3.All signage will be Code compliant.
th
Duly adopted this 18 day of November, 2010, by the following vote:
AYES: Mr. Traver, Mr. Krebs, Mrs. Steffan, Mr. Ford, Mr. Schonewolf, Mr. Sipp, Mr. Hunsinger
NOES: NONE
MR. HUNSINGER-You’re all set. Good luck.
MS. BARTKOWSKI-Thank you very much.
MR. HUNSINGER-Thank you.
DISCUSSION ITEM:
DAVID J. KENNY
1464 STATE ROUTE 9 [TAX MAP ID 288.12-1-19, 20]
APPLICANT IS REQUESTING REVIEW OF PREVIOUSLY APPROVED SITE PLAN [SP 40-94]
WITH MINOR MODIFICATIONS CONSISTENT WITH CURRENT ZONING REQUIREMENTS
DAVID KENNY & LAURA KOHLS, PRESENT
MR. HUNSINGER-Keith, did you have anything that you wanted to add to introduce the topic?
MR. OBORNE-No. I think the only, I’ll let the applicant talk, and if there are any issues that are
glaring, certainly I’ll impart that information to them.
MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. Good evening.
MR. KENNY-Good evening. I’m David Kenny. Basically we’re proposing a, we had a Site Plan
approved back in, I think it was ’94.
MS. KOHLS-’94, September 24 ’94.
MR. HUNSINGER-None of us were on the Board at that time. Not even me.
MR. KENNY-So I’m just bringing that Site Plan back to the Board to get it re-approved with
some minor modifications. We’ve changed the building design to be more, an Adirondack type
building. It’s going to be a Frank Lloyd Wright type structure. It will be taking down the existing,
we’re proposing to take down the existing plaza that’s there now, the Reebok building where
Reebok is. If you’re familiar with the location.
MRS. STEFFAN-Where the golf place was?
MR. KENNY-Where the golf place was, that whole building.
MRS. STEFFAN-Okay.
MR. KENNY-The Site Plan was totally done back at that time. We’ll be raising the site to a new
level, which has all been done, but we did have, Matt is in the process now of re-surveying the
whole site. Because we did do some of the improvements. When we got it approved, we did
the clearing, we did the filling. We closed the road cuts off at that time. The existing site now
only has, basically a half a curb cut. We share that curb cut with the Log Jam plaza to the north
30
(Queensbury Planning Board 11/18/2010)
of us. The other curb cut that’s to the south on that site is actually a curb cut that is owned by
John Brock, I mean John McCormack, for the 50 acres of Courthouse Estate property if that was
ever to be developed. So we did close off two other curb sites when DOT was doing the road at
the time back in the mid 90’s I believe that was when they did that whole Route 9 section. So
that’s all been part of, was approved with the last Site Plan. So we went ahead and did that.
MRS. STEFFAN-Okay. Now I understand where that goes. Okay.
MR. KENNY-Yes. I can show you, yes. You can see it on the elevation.
MRS. STEFFAN-Yes.
MR. KENNY-This is the site here. It’s this parcel and this parcel are basically one parcel. So
there’s about approximately 11 acres. This here curb cut here is actually accessed, a secondary
access to Courthouse Estates if that project was ever expanded. We did own it, I did own it
myself. It was actually an access to this site. At the time we were doing this, it was, well, that
was what the Board, you know, at that time, so we turned that property over to John
McCormack, because he was looking at developing Courthouse Estates at that time, which
never went through. So that access point is still there, but we do, according to the, when I
turned it over, we do have a right of way to connect all the driveways that is established now. If
you go up there, you can drive right through. There also is a driveway to connect all the back
parking lots together. Those will be implemented if this Site Plan is approved. It’s on the Site
Plan, the existing one. It will be on this new one also. So all the parking from this site and this
site and this site will all interconnect. There’ll be no in and out, unless customers choose to, but
there’ll be interconnections.
MRS. STEFFAN-Isn’t there a significant elevation change at the back of your property?
MR. KENNY-This site has got to be raised quite a, here?
MRS. STEFFAN-Yes, well, between the corner of your property and where the McCormack
driveway is.
MR. KENNY-That grade gets raised about three feet, four feet. It’s all part of the Site Plan. All
of that, if you look at the existing Site Plan, all the new contours are on it. If you look at the old
Site Plan, it’s never been done because the building never got taken down, but there was a
whole, but Matt Steves is in the process right now of re-surveying the whole site, and he will
come in with a, we will come in with a whole new elevations, but the elevations at this site and
the road behind here, the Log Jam, there’s a road behind that building, we’ll match that
elevation. So the back of this building as you see it’s going to be, this new building’s going this
way, so there’ll be a 40 foot, but the elevations will match. So we’ll be raising the site
approximately three feet, but it will still pitch off the road.
MRS. STEFFAN-So you’re proposing to knock the existing building down.
MR. KENNY-Yes.
MRS. STEFFAN-And then to put in a strip that parallels the Log Jam, that site?
MR. KENNY-Parallels the Log Jam, right here.
MRS. STEFFAN-And the rest is just going to be parking lot, or is there future development to
maybe make an “L” shape at some point?
MR. KENNY-At some point in the back, if something happens, there could be a future
development back there, but at this point in time, we have no proposal for it. If retailers, there’s
a need, right now, what we’re finding is, you know, the outlets are there, and hopefully there’s a
need for, some of the upscale tenants are seriously looking at the area, but they would like to
see a new building. So we’re talking more the higher end retailers, you know, fashion, more
fashion, which would be more moderate than what’s existing there, but you go to some of the
outlet centers, you see your Donna Karan’s and more higher end tenants that are seriously
looking at the area. We’re trying to accommodate them.
MR. HUNSINGER-So you’re looking at potentially, on this drawing, five new storefronts, roughly
12,000 square feet?
MR. KENNY-There’ll be about, that drawing there, that’s the building.
MS. KOHLS-No that’s the five sections, but not five storefronts. That might be 12 to 15,000.
31
(Queensbury Planning Board 11/18/2010)
MR. HUNSINGER-Okay.
MR. KENNY-Each one of those will be built in phases. We’ll build, and to, what we designed, let
me show you over here. Each building block, I put two on the plan, is 120 feet. Then there’ll be
a step out as it goes back, and there’ll be, this will be like what the corner of the buildings will
look like. This is the strip here, and this is the piece facing the road. This is what it will look like
from the road facing in. That would be facing east, I guess, or looking east.
MR. TRAVER-Right.
MR. KENNY-And this here, and you can see the design is really an Adirondack theme, and
that’s what I hired an engineer or designer, and what it is is it’s actually a Frank Lloyd Wright, if
you look up the famous architect Frank Lloyd Wright building with the squares and the
woodwork, to make it more like Adirondack. The color scheme will be here, but at the full
meeting, we will have, I will have him do a full color rendering of the building. This here is like
the first two blocks, but it goes back five. If you have the total, you know, so he just put on a little
bit of repetition. Each one is 120 feet. This one here is 80 feet, and it goes 90, 100, 110, if you
step out 10 feet. We are proposing, if you look at this plan, you have green space around the
whole thing. There’ll be all grass, 10 feet, 15 feet out from the building, and there’s a big green
space in front of the building, it would be all grass with shrubs, and we will match or meet all the.
The only issue that we have, I spoke to the Planning Department about it, is lighting. The
tenants, you know, have a certain requirement. The Town has certain requirements. We would
like to be able to put 30 foot poles in with down lighting, only because they don’t like to have, it
eliminates half the lights. When you have short, low lighting you’ve got to have a ton of lights all
over the place, and the existing plazas that are all there all have the 30 foot poles, because of
the spread, and it’s, you know, an industry standard they’re going even more, even taller to the
greenery and to the green building type to save energy and save electricity. You eliminate an
awful lot of lights by going 30 feet rather than 20 feet. Are they more visual impact? We don’t
believe so, but I know the Town has a Code of 20 feet I believe.
MR. HUNSINGER-Well, I mean, I think we’ve learned from experience. We have Stewarts
coming back to increase their lighting right now. We know from prior experience that if we force
you to stick to the letter of the Code on this, but all around you is brighter than what the local
Code is, that it’s going to create problems. So I think we’ll, you know, I think we have an open
mind and are willing to be flexible.
MR. KENNY-I think the issue isn’t the amount of lights. The issue is the amount of poles, and
when I even drive by The Great Escape, there’s, I mean, you know, in that parking lot there is,
they’re low lights and there’s just a ton of them because to get the required luminance on the
ground in a certain area you need, and it’s very costly, because they pay the (lost words)
charges for the lighting bill. They actually like less light poles and a more even light. They
require, it’s a national code that they have to have so many lumens per foot on the ground for
the parking. That’s, you know, pretty standard. I mean, they do require five cars per thousand
parking for the lease of the national tenants, which matches the Town Code.
MR. KREBS-Probably their liability insurance requires that, probably.
MRS. STEFFAN-But at the same time, you know, I know that a place like Woodbury Commons,
for example, I mean, it’s a destination. All they have are outlets, but if you compare that to, for
example, Freeport, Maine, you know, they have a very strict zoning code and, you know, they
don’t care what the corporate, you know, entities want.
MR. KENNY-No, I’m in agreement with that.
MRS. STEFFAN-But, you know, when I’m looking through this, I’m thinking that, if this is going
to be a rehab of this site, you could actually make this the classiest outlet plaza on the strip.
MR. KENNY-It better be.
MRS. STEFFAN-And change the feel.
MR. KENNY-All we’re talking about is rather than have 10 light poles, we’ll probably have four
light poles, and the difference is instead of being 20 feet, they’ll be 30 feet. I mean, if you look at
the Adirondack Outlet Mall, which we don’t need a ton of lights, and they’re still downcast. You
really can’t see them unless you’re standing under them looking up. They’re just a little taller,
but they give a more even light, which is what, you know, all the green buildings are going to,
trying to save electricity, rather than having, you know.
32
(Queensbury Planning Board 11/18/2010)
MR. HUNSINGER-You know what we’ve done in the past a couple of times is have you submit
both, so that we can review both of them.
MR. KENNY-Right.
MR. HUNSINGER-So that we can begin to understand what those tradeoffs are.
MR. KENNY-Right.
MR. HUNSINGER-I think that would be the best way to handle this right now.
MR. KENNY-I mean, even now with the Adirondack Outlet Mall, we’re taking out all of the
fluorescent lights that are on the outside. We’re putting more LED lights, again, for the green.
MR. HUNSINGER-Yes. I was going to say, what the lighting people are telling us with the LED
lights it’s a lot easier to meet the Town Code and have it be light enough to meet the tenant
needs.
MR. KENNY-Right. It’s a much more even light. It doesn’t have the shadows, and we’re not
looking for brightness. You’re looking for a uniform light.
MR. HUNSINGER-Right.
MR. KENNY-You don’t have shadows, dark spots. So the poles are, when you only go 20 feet, I
mean, when I drive by, I mean, you know, one way or the other, I’m not impressed with The
Great Escape, with their parking lot lighting there. It just seems like there’s a sea of holes out
there when I drive by.
MS. KOHLS-Especially on the Northway coming in.
MR. KENNY-Either way, even going down 9, you look into that parking lot on the left there, it just
looks like, because they’re only 20 feet tall. You’ve got to have three times as many instead of
with 30 feet tall.
MR. TRAVER-Well, they’ve got one light pole that’s 185 feet tall.
MR. KENNY-But in the parking lot, and with the green, America going green and trying to save
energy and save everything, you know, now they will be downcast, they will be, you know,
hooded so you don’t, you know, they don’t show, but if you look at the poles we have at the
Adirondack Outlet Mall, like the Aviation Mall they have those old globe lights which show.
MR. HUNSINGER-Yes, those aren’t compliant.
MR. KENNY-They show, they have too much side light going out of them. So there will be, you
know, it will be engineered by a lighting company to meet certain standards, but it’s just an
issue, when I spoke to him, I think the Town possibly at some point, should look at, you know,
some of the issues with lighting, because there are a lot of different ways of lighting today. We
met with, who did we meet with, Laura, the company out of Texas I think at the last show we
were at. They come up and, again, trying to save energy, save costs and give you a better,
even light.
MR. SCHONEWOLF-Ideally, how many stores would you like to have?
MR. KENNY-Ideally, I’d like to have, well, the stores average, I would say, anywhere from three
to 10,000 square feet. So, you know, depending on the tenant, like right now we’re working with
a major tenant that will be, to put in the Adirondack Outlet Mall, that will be a 10,000 square foot
user, but your average tenant, you know, an Anne Taylor or something like that, is probably a
3500, 4,000 square feet. So you’re talking 50, this is 55,000 square feet. We’re talking probably
anywhere from 10 to 12 tenants, but, you know, again, you don’t have many users under 2,000
or 3,000 square feet. So it if was a, you know, if we got a, the one I’d like to get is, you know,
25,000. That’s LL Bean. We’re talking to them, but will they come? You don’t know unless you,
we can always try.
MRS. STEFFAN-You’ve got the land. Cabella’s is looking.
MR. KENNY-Cabella is one we’d love to get. The problem with Cabella, I mean, I would love to
see Cabella or a Pro Bass. I would like to sit down with the Town and the County to say, you
know, actually I spoke to my agent today, I said, what are the exact numbers, but they’re talking,
like a Pro Bass, he wasn’t sure. He said it’s probably a $15 million investment to bring them into
33
(Queensbury Planning Board 11/18/2010)
the area, but when you look at the sales tax they generate and the employment they generate, is
it worth it for a community to look at? Cities and states are giving them the money to come, and
they do, in the long run.
MRS. STEFFAN-Because they’re a destination. I mean, Cabella’s is a destination. People
drive long distances to get there.
MR. KENNY-The Pro Bass stores now are running 200, 300,000 square feet.
MR. HUNSINGER-They’re that big now? Wow.
MR. KENNY-And they have, the Christmas themes they do, I mean, to me it would be, you
know, a major draw, the employment and the sales tax it would generate would be, you know,
and it is, the issue with one of them is we’ve had to design what you folks want on the Board. I
still have all the plans, how the County was going to come right off Exit 20, and put the road out
behind the back going in, and it would actually be John McCormack’s property. We’ve spoken
to John and some of the Courthouse Estate people, you know, to give them a 300 foot buffer
that probably never would have access from them.
MR. SIPP-You will have a fight if you try that.
MR. KENNY-Well, a lot of the people that we understand were more in favor because they didn’t
want to see John McCormack expand his housing. They didn’t want any more traffic back there,
and if they gave him a 200 foot buffer where nothing could get back there, and there was no
access to it, there was.
MR. SIPP-There will be no access to it.
MR. KENNY-There will be no access from Courthouse Estates at all. There’ll be no access into
Courthouse Estates from this property at all.
MR. SIPP-The only way you can get on there really is through the County.
MR. KENNY-Well, the one access is through the County. What happened is, if you folks, Exit 20
is a Federal highway. Now they own 300 feet of development on either side of the exit. So no
road can go in there, and the only way a road can go in there is to have direct access back onto
9 at another location. It can’t be into a parking lot per se, or into something.
MR. HUNSINGER-Or 149.
MR. KENNY-Well, no that’s why the strip was given to John.
MR. HUNSINGER-Yes.
MR. KENNY-Between the Route 9 Mall and the back of my motel, that 80 foot strip. That road
would come around and come back out there again. I tried to get at the time, and the State just
refused, to extend the turn lane that goes to 149, all the way to this property, and they stopped it
at the Log Jam. I said, you know, I’ll give you the property to bring it down, because to extend
that turn lane is only going to help traffic.
MR. HUNSINGER-Sure.
MR. SCHONEWOLF-You could go through Boats by George.
MR. KENNY-The State’s pretty difficult to deal with some times. There is one other issue on this
site, which will have to be addressed, just so you’re aware of it. You’ll never know, but the State
dumps all their water onto the site.
MR. HUNSINGER-Yes. I remember that from prior applications.
MRS. STEFFAN-We talked about that with the development of Scooters across the street, and
they were talking a stormwater.
MR. KENNY-And we will improve that with this. We will have to put a whole new, it’s a 24 inch
culvert going back there. So we’ll have to relocate that. The only issue I would have with it, you
know, we’ll have a 30 foot, according to the Site Plan, there’s a big, I don’t have the site, do you
have the Site Plan there, Laura, that we’re proposing? This is the exact same Site Plan, if
you’re looking at the old one, it’s the exact same thing, pretty much, but at this section here, on
the road, where this culvert comes in, that’s going to be all grass, 30 foot strip of grass with
34
(Queensbury Planning Board 11/18/2010)
some trees in it naturally. I would like the State, or maybe we could get Soil and Water to come
in there and put in some clean out basins so when that water comes off Route 9, because it’s all
underground, and the Northway all dumps into that, we’ll put a new pipe in, but at least along the
road there I would like to have some clean out basins, so the water that’s being dumped out
back there is treated before it gets dumped out back, but that’s not my purview to do that, but it’s
something I think that the Town, you know, while this project was going (lost word) the State,
they have those, you know, places where they catch some of the sediment before it dumps out
into the open land out back. They won’t admit it’s a State pipe in there, but somebody put the
pipe in.
MRS. STEFFAN-Would that lend itself to bio retention, Keith?
MR. OBORNE-Everything lends itself to bio retention.
MR. KENNY-What’s that?
MR. OBORNE-To clean water, you know, bio retention is.
MR. KENNY-Yes, a bio basin, yes.
MR. OBORNE-A bio basin, wet ponds.
MR. KENNY-Well, you wouldn’t even need the wet ponds in there as long as you had something
to, like they did at Lake George by the high school there, where they catch all that water, then it
(lost words) marine village I own and I have a pipe going out into the lake, but they did clean it.
MR. OBORNE-Right, that’s a sediment basin that they have.
MR. KENNY-It’s a sediment basin, yes.
MR. OBORNE-Yes, that’s not bio retention, but definitely absolutely. You’re right. That is an
issue on the site, and obviously will need to be engineered.
MR. KENNY-I mean, we could put a couple of drywells in there, you know, or catch basins and
catch the water before, but really I think, I mean, the State should take some. I mean, it actually
dumps water all the way from the Northway all the way, I mean, it can be sometimes constant
water running there, and it’s, you know, there’s no record of any, I mean, they have no
easement or anything on the property. Back when the Northway went in, that was the low point,
(lost words). At this time, if this project goes forward, something should be looked at. It has to
be addressed. I mean, there’s plenty of stormwater on the property. It’s all 20 foot sands.
MR. KREBS-There’s a lot of opportunity for stormwater control and I bring this up frequently,
but, you know, in Lake George, Westbrook, Eastbrook, Assembly Point, Pilot Knob Road,
they’re all dumping directly into the lake, and eventually we’re going to spoil the jewel that’s
here.
MR. KENNY-Well, this property happens to dump, it doesn’t dump into it, but this one all runs
into the brook that runs into Glen Lake, at some point. It’s got a lot of soil that it’s going through,
but the end result is all that water at some point ends up in Glen Lake, and it’s quite a ways
away from the bike path. It has to go through a lot of woods to travel, but it should still be
treated at the impact point where it’s by the road, and it’s not. It’s not being treated at all.
MRS. STEFFAN-I certainly think that this site is right for re-development, and what you’re
proposing sounds like a great idea, and I like the way it’s configured. There’s certainly room for
expansion. The light issue, you know, from my point of view, I’m just one Planning Board
member, but the lights seem kind of high. I understand there’ll be less of them, but, you know,
as a designer and developer, you might want to look at, you know, landscaped islands within the
parking areas that incorporate landscape islands and lighting together.
MR. KENNY-We do have them on the Site Plan.
MRS. STEFFAN-And so, you know, if you beef those up a little bit, it might actually offset some
of the tall lighting, or at least maybe getting to some place between 20 and 30 feet. That’s my
opinion. The other thing is that the last time you were in front of the Board, it was a re-
development project.
MR. KENNY-For the Adirondack Outlet Mall.
35
(Queensbury Planning Board 11/18/2010)
MRS. STEFFAN-Right. From my point of view, if you come back and you’re going to develop
this site, and based on the stormwater issues and fill issues on the property behind this that you
own, you know, I would certainly like to see all the drawings done, you know, by licensed
professionals.
MR. KENNY-They will be. This plan here, Tom Nace will be doing the design. He’s the person
with the (lost words), the original ones, and Matt Steves is doing the surveying. He surveyed it
the last three days. He said you have the new drawings done by, hopefully by Monday or
Tuesday, but we’ll see. I mean, he’s busy, but even though we have surveys that were done,
but they were done 15 years ago, 20 years ago. His recommendation was to go in there, mainly
because, according to him, the new equipment they have, he just goes out there and he just
comes back. He said for me to plot it with the old surveys, the way it was done years ago where
we have all the existing maps, I might as well just go in there with all new equipment and get it
all electronically done. So it comes back, he just puts it on a computer and it prints it out, the
way it is. So he’s in the process of doing that.
MR. OBORNE-Yes, this project will require a SPDES permit and a SWPPP, and all that will be
designed. I don’t anticipate any Area Variances associated with this, unless you’re building too
close to the side line.
MR. KENNY-No, we’re keeping all the setbacks.
MR. OBORNE-I think your permeability is fine.
MR. KENNY-I mean, we will, you know, that’s my pet peeve is I don’t believe in ponds and stuff,
I like to put the, we will be putting drywells throughout the parking lot, and all these green spaces
have interconnecting pipes so the water goes into the ground, as quick as possible, rather than
sheet draining it to some retention pond some place because I just, quite frankly, I don’t believe
in them. It’s more expensive to put drywells in, but when you’ve got good soils, and you’ve got
things and you spread the water out between this whole parking lot, have drywells and catch
basins in certain areas. It’s just the right way to do it. As a builder, I’ve done a lot of
construction in New York, I don’t understand why the Town even allows all these darn retention
ponds.
MR. OBORNE-I don’t either. I agree.
MR. KENNY-They don’t work. They’re a maintenance problem. I mean, even doing the catch
basins, they have to be done right, and they have to have equilation pipes, if you’ve ever worked
with them. When you put them in, you have one that catches the water, but then it goes to, once
it raises, the water raises to eight feet, which takes a long time, then it goes into pipe into other
ones, but the one main one is always kept clean. So you’re getting all your, you’re catching
everything and taking it out, but if you just sheet run it for whatever, you’ve got ice, you’ve got
snow plow problems. I mean, you go to the Adirondack Outlet Mall, I don’t know if you’ve been
on site up there in the pouring rain, you’ll never see a drop of water on that property, and we
take a lot of water off Route 9 onto our site, across the street it overflows his little pond out front.
It comes across the road, rushes onto my property. We have, but along that grass, along the
whole road, we have four 18 foot drywells there in that grassed area, then where the big grassed
area is in the back, where the planter is out back, there’s four more there, and you, I could show
anybody there. It’s a little more costly, but I save it on maintenance. I save it on snow plowing.
I save it on, it’s just the right way to do it. Actually in the Adirondack Outlet Mall, I think we’re the
only ones that comply, because we have 12 foot grass in front of, on both sides, and all those
grass areas all have drywells in them. They’re not even hooked up to anything right now. Back
then it was a couple of thousand dollars per drywell. It might be a little more money now, but it’s
not a lot of money really, and we have the soils. I mean, you have to have the soils. The
problem across the street is they don’t have soils. They have clay.
MR. HUNSINGER-Right.
MR. KENNY-Route 9 is a funny road. Once you get to the other side of Route 9, I can dig 25
feet, it’s all sand.
MRS. STEFFAN-They also have the pitch. A lot of the other outlets, they’ve got the pitch of
land, but, you know, from a planning point of view, I mean, part of our role is to look at the future.
I certainly think that, as we’re looking at the outlet strip, you know, your logic is sound, that
you’re trying to attract higher end outlets. They’re going to make it a destination. You know we
do have some, what I’ll call older infrastructure. Some of those outlet plazas, you know, are
aged and dating. We’re losing some of the anchor stores. I mean, Liz Claiborne just left, but,
you know, we’re.
36
(Queensbury Planning Board 11/18/2010)
MR. KENNY-But Liz Claiborne is exiting the market throughout the world. They’re closing their
stores, every store in the country.
MRS. STEFFAN-But I think with this there’s an opportunity, certainly. You’re upgrading the
plaza, you’re providing an opportunity for the community to bring in some higher end retail. We
can realize the sales tax revenue. It’ll be a win/win for everybody. So I think, you know,
certainly the logic is sound and I think it’s a great idea.
MR. KENNY-One of the issues we’re hoping is, you know, the traffic is there. If we can bring in
a better, another mix of tenants.
MRS. STEFFAN-How about a Talbots outlet?
MR. KENNY-We’re talking to Talbots.
MRS. STEFFAN-I would thank you.
MR. KENNY-My leasing agent happens to be the one that does the Talbot stores. If we got the
right tenant, Talbots would be there. They’re a little concerned. Donna Karan was up twice.
Right now we’re talking about Nike going where the Liz Claiborne store is. We’re hoping to
have, and some of these deals today are, and that’s one of the issues. This is just a proposal.
We’re going to bring it to the convention. Some of these tenants right now, you’ve got to just
about give them everything.
MRS. STEFFAN-It would just be nice.
MR. KENNY-They all think they’re Polos. Minimum $50 a square foot, give them the cash up
front before they’ll even talk to you.
MRS. STEFFAN-Well, we have a tourism base, and we are competing with Saratoga, you know,
and they’ve got a lot of full retail, and we’ve got outlets, but if we can certainly enhance some of
our offerings.
MR. KENNY-They’re expensive deals today. Well, you want to know something. In retail, it’s an
interesting figure, people don’t realize.
MS. KOHLS-Well, we (lost words) comes out every year, and it talks about what the
demographics are in retail sales. Warren County, it’s like 137 versus (lost word). We have more
retail sales in Warren County than all of.
MR. KENNY-Than in Saratoga County.
MR. HUNSINGER-Yes, I don’t doubt it.
MR. KENNY-That’s not all retail. Apparel.
MR. HUNSINGER-If you look at sales tax per capita, Warren County is either first or second,
depending on the.
MR. KENNY-Warren County, in apparel, is $57,000 (lost words) and it’s over (lost words). What
surprised me, though, is we do $141 million in apparel sales and accessories. Saratoga County
does $137, and the Berkshires, where Lee, Mass is, does, they were about $4,000 more than
Warren County.
MRS. STEFFAN-Now were those 2009 statistics?
MR. KENNY-Yes. The new book comes out, and it tells you, it gives you throughout the whole
country, you know, and it’s a very, very precise. They give you every detail in the book. The
disposable income in Warren County is about $57,000 per family. They have it listed. I don’t
know if that’s true, and you have to have all this information in order for retailers to even talk to
th
you. Now, we’ve met with, actually I’ll be going to New York next week, December 6 is a big
show in New York, on the retail end, and it is a big part of our sales tax base.
MR. KREBS-But you also have a, because of your location, everybody that goes skiing in the
winter goes by. What’s happening is a lot of those people who are buying places at Killington
and the major mountains are using those homes in the summertime as well as the winter now,
and so you’re getting that New York/New Jersey traffic.
37
(Queensbury Planning Board 11/18/2010)
MR. KENNY-I mean, one of the things, I’ve talked to some people, I would like to see Lake
George, the Village of Lake George, and it wouldn’t take a lot of money. It would take
community support from the Town, but to make that a winter scene. I mean, to bring in
something like Disney does where you have animated lights and really make that beautiful, so
when the shoppers come up, they come up for a day, they shop, and what they say is, we’re not
a winter, we have over a million people within a 60 mile radius that love to come here.
MRS. STEFFAN-People flock to Lake Placid.
MR. KENNY-Well, even just do a lighting theme. At Disney World they have the Christmas
show. I mean, imagine having snow in the park just blowing out, and do something there. So
we do have the shoppers here. They come, the people from Albany come up here now to shop,
and for the outlets. If we can get them to stay for three more hours and go up to the lake and, I
mean, the problem is, if we were five miles south, the tenants, because they look at certain
things and they say, you’ve got population, I say no, but you have to realize that all the
campsites we have, all the boats on the lake. The Albany population practically lives in Lake
George. They’re here every weekend, day trips, let’s go out to dinner. They’re up this way, and
to convince the tenants that, that’s where the upscale tenants have always looked at us as, no,
we’re too low end. Now they’re seriously looking at us.
MRS. STEFFAN-Yes. I ran into a couple, we sold their truck, but they were at the Inn at
Erlowest for their anniversary. They went to the outlet shopping. I met them at Suttons where
they went to breakfast before they headed down.
MR. KENNY-Well, I mean we’re open year round (lost words) and I refuse to close. We don’t
make a lot of money, but I don’t believe in making a lot of money. I believe in keeping people
employed, and I can’t lay my shops off, and I said, you know what, eventually it will happen, and
we do a ton of weddings, and we don’t compete with the other weddings. We try to get
destination type weddings, and we bring people in to the area. We rent over 5,000 room nights
in the Village of Lake George this past year that we sent from weddings at our property down,
and it’s a growing business, and that’s why I fought so hard to keep the Cavalcade of Cars
building, because that would have made a beautiful wedding hall, and it would have been just a
home run for the region, but, I mean, that’s neither here nor there, but I do think, for this
community to survive and going forward, we’ve really got to, we’ve got more natural stuff here.
MR. HUNSINGER-So do you have an idea when you’re going to have your plans ready?
MR. KENNY-I’m hoping.
MS. KOHLS-We originally hoped to have all that stuff by tonight.
thth
MR. KENNY-Well, no, by the 15. The 15 was submission date, but when I spoke to Matt
Steves, they couldn’t generate the old plans. So we just told Matt, go out there and re-survey
the whole property, get current data on it so it’s up to date.
MR. HUNSINGER-Yes.
MR. KENNY-Tom had some family issues you’re aware of. His brother, I think, passed away,
but Tom’s going away for two weeks now, but he said he’d have his other guy start on it next
week. We’re hoping to have the, when’s the submission date for December? We’re hoping to
get on a January Planning Board meeting.
th
MR. OBORNE-The 15 of November was the submission date for December. You’re looking at
th
January. So the 15 of December.
th
MR. KENNY-The 15 of December, but.
MR. OBORNE-And you have to get to me the week before that. I mean, you’re not going to be
building in February anyway.
MR. KENNY-And the other thing is, we do have a problem up there in the outlets. There isn’t
enough parking. I mean, the Log Jam is ridiculous. Some of the waivers that were given in the
past, just (lost words). The Code is the Code, and it’s a national code. So we are going to put in
the parking that is required by the Town. We don’t think, five per thousand.
MR. OBORNE-There definitely are issues on that site for parking, because of the Log Jam,
because it’s open for lunch.
38
(Queensbury Planning Board 11/18/2010)
MR. KENNY-I mean, originally, when that project was approved, the restaurant wasn’t going to
be open when the shops were open. They had the double use of the parking. They don’t have
enough parking for either site. If you look at the Code, they’ve got 200 parking spaces. The
building is 48,000 square feet. They don’t have enough parking without the restaurant there,
and if you look at the restaurant parking, there’s not enough. So it is, and, you know, it was back
a long time ago. We were trying to bring tenants. It happened, but, on this site, what we’re
trying to do is put a trolley system in. I’m hoping to get the parking, you know, sidewalks, and
we’ll interconnect. I’m the only one that has all the parking lots connected. That’s just Code.
Why don’t these other properties have it. I’ve tried.
MRS. STEFFAN-They haven’t come back for re-development.
MR. HUNSINGER-Yes. Exactly.
MR. KENNY-That was Code back then.
MR. HUNSINGER-Yes. I don’t know. I mean, isn’t there supposed to be green around the
whole building? They’re not supposed to have blacktop right up to the building, I thought.
They’re supposed to have green space pretty much around the whole, and plantings and stuff,
which if you look at the Adirondack Outlet Mall, that was the first one built, and you go up there
and look at it. We have green around the whole building for drainage, 12 ,14 feet, and somehow
the other ones didn’t. So other than that, I think this will be the best project up there, it will be
the newest, which will, will it happen, we don’t know yet, but I’m hoping, you know. The other
thing is, I think some concerns from the public will be, well, it’s going to increase traffic, and we
can’t do anything about traffic. I think traffic is healthy in a certain respect.
MRS. STEFFAN-The outlets are the outlets. They were designed that way.
MR. KENNY-Well, the outlets were designed because the traffic was there. These tenants don’t
go where there isn’t traffic.
MRS. STEFFAN-The powers to be made the decision many years ago that they wanted the
traffic to be bottlenecked.
MR. KENNY-Hopefully what will happen here is what we’ll do is we’ll keep the car parked for
three hours, rather than come for an hour, shop, because there’ll be better stores and more
shopping. So people will come, instead of shopping for two hours, they’ll be shopping four
hours. Will it create some more traffic? Yes, but hopefully, you know, I mean, it’s, to me it’s a
good development. I just wanted to bring it before you.
MR. HUNSINGER-We appreciate that. Believe me. I hope we gave you some good feedback,
too.
MR. KENNY-The other question, would I have a scoping session before I submit the plans or
just submit them and get them on the agenda and then?
MRS. STEFFAN-If you have your conference with Keith and he doesn’t come up with any
glaring issues, then, you know, you should probably propose it. If Keith, during your conference,
identifies that there’s some questionable issues, you might want to come before us with a sketch
first.
MS. KOHLS-We’ve already met with him before, as part of coming here.
MR. HUNSINGER-Okay.
MR. KENNY-The only issues I would have is I would like to see the Town look at the lighting
issue and see what national, I mean, no one has really done a study, and educated as to what is
the newer, I mean, we were at the show in New York, and the new technology they have for the
lights, you can’t even see them, they way they’re hooded and they’re.
MRS. STEFFAN-Remember, the developers are developing from a different perspective, and to
even the tenants are coming from a very different perspective than Town planning. I went to a
conference in September, and still, yes, they’re utilizing LED, but they’re still calling for dark sky
lighting, so that, you know, you can still see the stars at night. So, you know, that’s another
issue. So we’re trying to balance the needs of two people, and, I mean, that’s why people come
to the Adirondacks.
MR. KENNY-Yes. I mean, I happen to like, just on a glance, the lighting I have at the
Adirondack Outlet Mall, which I think it, it’s dark in there. I’ll admit it’s not over bright in there,
39
(Queensbury Planning Board 11/18/2010)
but it’s sufficient. I do not like The Great Escape parking lot. I mean, I don’t know if anybody’s
looked at that parking lot. It is.
MRS. STEFFAN-It’s enormous.
MR. HUNSINGER-Well, you know, we’ll take a look at that stuff before we look at your plan
again. It’s a good time of year to look at lighting. It’s dark early.
MR. KENNY-But it’s always a good time to look at stormwater. I think that’s a bigger issue than
lighting. Because it’s not being addressed properly. Okay. Thank you very much.
MR. HUNSINGER-Thank you.
MR. FORD-I’ll make a motion for adjournment.
MRS. STEFFAN-Second.
MOTION TO ADJOURN THE QUEENSBURY PLANNING BOARD MEETING OF NOVEMBER
18, 2010, Introduced by Thomas Ford who moved for its adoption, seconded by Stephen Traver:
th
Duly adopted this 18 day of November, 2010, by the following vote:
AYES: Mr. Ford, Mr. Traver, Mr. Krebs, Mr. Steffan, Mr. Schonewolf, Mr. Sipp, Mr. Hunsinger
NOES: NONE
On motion meeting was adjourned.
RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED,
Chris Hunsinger, Chairman
40