06-21-2016 QUEENSBURY PLANNING BOARD MEETING
FIRST REGULAR MEETING
JUNE 21, 2016
INDEX
Site Plan PZ 57-2016 Ronald & Cynthia Mackowiak 1.
ZBA RECOMMENDATION Tax Map No. 289.11-1-33
Site Plan PZ 147-2016 Chong S. Conway
5.
Freshwater Wetlands PZ 148-2016 Tax Map No. 296.7-1-11
ZBA RECOMMENDATION
Subdivision PZ 154-2016 John M. Hughes Trust
9.
PRELIMINARY STAGE Tax Map No. 289.6-1-7
ZBA RECOMMENDATION
Site Plan PZ 149-2016 RAN Entertainment, LLC
11.
Tax Map No. 309.13-2-28
Site Plan PZ 153-2016 Rasheed Bhatti
29.
Tax Map No. 288.8-1-11.2
Site Plan PZ 157-2016 Tabassum (Toby) Sheikh
35.
Tax Map No. 266.3-1-78
THESE ARE NOT OFFICIALLY ADOPTED MINUTES AND ARE SUBJECT TO BOARD AND
STAFF REVISIONS. REVISIONS WILL APPEAR ON THE FOLLOWING MONTHS MINUTES
(IF ANY) AND WILL STATE SUCH APPROVAL OF SAID MINUTES.
QUEENSBURY PLANNING BOARD MEETING
FIRST REGULAR MEETING
JUNE 21, 2016
7:00 P.M.
MEMBERS PRESENT
STEPHEN TRAVER, ACTING CHAIRMAN
PAUL SCHONEWOLF
THOMAS FORD
GEORGE FERONE
BRAD MAGOWAN
JAMIE WHITE, ALTERNATE
JOHN SHAFER, ALTERNATE
LAND USE PLANNER-LAURA MOORE
STENOGRAPHER-MARIA GAGLIARDI
MR. TRAVER-Good evening everyone. I will call the Queensbury Planning Board meeting to
order for Tuesday, June 21St. There should be some agendas on the table in the back of the
room. The first order of business we have is the approval of minutes for April 26th and April
28th
APPROVAL OF MINUTES
April 26, 2016
April 28, 2016
MOTION TO APPROVE THE QUEENSBURY PLANNING BOARD MEETING MINUTES OF
APRIL 26TH AND APRIL 28TH, 2016, Introduced by Brad Magowan who moved for its adoption,
seconded by George Ferone:
Duly adopted this 21St day of June, 2016, by the following vote:
AYES: Mr. Ford, Mr. Magowan, Mr. Ferone, Ms. White, Mr. Shafer, Mr. Traver
NOES: NONE
ABSTAINED: Mr. Schonewolf
MR. TRAVER-Okay. We have three items on the first part of our agenda tonight which are
Planning Board recommendations to the Zoning Board. There are no public hearings for these
three applications.
PLANNING BOARD RECOMMENDATION TO THE ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS
SITE PLAN PZ 57-2016 SEAR TYPE TYPE II RONALD & CYNTHIA MACKOWIAK
AGENT(S) HUTCHINS ENGINEERING OWNER(S) SAME AS APPLICANT ZONING
WR LOCATION 9 GLEN HALL DRIVE APPLICANT PROPOSES A NEW 440 SQ. FT.
GARAGE TO BE 15.83 FT. HIGH WITH A TWO CAR GARAGE, LOCATED ON AN EXISTING
GRAVEL AREA. PURSUANT TO CHAPTER 179-6-060 OF THE ZONING ORDINANCE,
WORK WITHIN 50 FEET OF 15% SLOPES SHALL BE SUBJECT TO PLANNING BOARD
REVIEW AND APPROVAL. VARIANCE: RELIEF IS REQUESTED FOR A SECOND
GARAGE AND SETBACK. PLANNING BOARD SHALL PROVIDE A RECOMMENDATION
TO THE ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS. CROSS REFERENCE: HOUSE RENOVATIONS
SP 9-14, SP 74-14, AV 8-14, AV 58-15 WARREN CO. REFERRAL N/A SITE
INFORMATION CEA (PORTION) LOT SIZE .81 ACRES TAX MAP NO. 289.11-1-33
SECTION 179-6-060
MICHAEL O'CONNOR & LUCAS DOBIE, REPRESENTING APPLICANTS, PRESENT
MR. TRAVER-Laura?
MRS. MOORE-This applicant is proposing a second garage that needs height and setback
relief, and the size of the proposed structure right now is 440 sq. ft. and it's to be 16 feet 8
inches. The side setbacks are required to be at 20 and they range from 6.6 to 10.1 and the
height max allowed is 16 feet and again this is at 16 feet 8 inches.
MR. TRAVER-Okay. Thank you. Good evening.
MR. O'CONNOR-Thank you, Mr. Chairman, members of the Board. I'm Michael O'Connor
from the law firm of Little & O'Connor. I represent the applicants, and with me is the engineer
for the project. Basically what we're looking for is Area Variances. This is a 440 foot two car
garage. It is 20 feet wide and 22 feet deep. It's a request for a second garage where one is
allowed. If you take a look at the property, though, you'll notice that it's the only, it's within
proximity of the house which is a year round house. The second garage that's on the property
is at the lower end of your survey, and that actually is not used as a garage. It's used as a boat
storage. He puts his pontoon boat in there during the wintertime. It's one of those portable
type garages. It is a second garage because there's a door on it that's wider than six feet. It
has to be wider than six feet to get a pontoon boat in. It's the only thing that he puts in it. The
other one is in the rear of his house. He would be able to get in and out from the house much
easier than walking up a rather steep hill, if you were going to put the garage down where the
boathouse or boat garage is. The alternative might have been that he could build a larger
garage down there and it would try to fit both the boat and the car, but it wouldn't work in the
wintertime. If you walked the property or you went up and looked at the property, I think it's
rather obvious. There is a small canvas shed that's on the back part of the property and that
would come down and would be gone. The second request that he makes is a request for
sideline setbacks. On the north he provides a setback of 6.6 feet and asks for relief of 13.4
feet. That line adjoins property of McKasty and if you've looked at the property again that
house is in real bad shape. It hasn't been lived in in I don't know when, maybe 25 years. We
earlier, probably within the last year sometime or even the year before that, worked out a
boundary line agreement with McKasty where we kind of straightened out some of the survey
problems of that neighborhood. The surveyor is, one group started from the westerly end of
that stretch of property, and another surveyor and another group started from the easterly end
of the property, and when they got to the McKasty property, they got to that property, they didn't
have enough property for both lots. So there had to be a compromise. I mean, we had more
different minds. I think we were here more than once for some of that. We finally ended up
with an agreement. We have asked McKasty for a right of first refusal. He's told us that he will
give us that but he doesn't have time to do it now. So we may end up owning that property that
we are asking for relief from, the side line setback on the north side of the property. On the
south side of the property, we are at 8.1 foot. We're asking for 11.1 foot relief. We're further
away than the existing canvas shed. In fact part of that existing canvas shed encroaches over
the line. That's basically it. The other variance is for height.
MR. FORD-Mike, that currently encroaches?
MR. O'CONNOR-Yes. I think, they don't show.
MR. MAGOWAN-It's not much. Maybe six inches.
MR. O'CONNOR-Maybe six inches, but there's no setback there at all.
MR. TRAVER-And was that a result of the line adjustments, or was that pre-existing?
MR. O'CONNOR-No. Well, the line adjustments weren't made between us and the property to
the south. The lines were to the north. At one time the line to the north went right through that
deck. The dock that you see on our property was on the adjoining property, but we ended up
giving up property in the back. The other adjustment is, or the other area where we need a
variance is height. Because the property line that adjoins McKasty falls away so quickly, we
have to count the height from the natural grade where we start, and although this is a single
story garage, when you go down to the blocks of the foundation, it turns out to be 16 feet 8
inches. So we're looking for an eight inch variation, which really is on that side only. The other
side, the south side is ground height. It's not level with the ground. The other variance I think
that we're asking for is that we're not on a Town road, but that's true with almost every property
on Glen Lake. All the feeder roads are private right of ways, and they're not Town roads. So
that's basically it. We did look at a lot of alternatives. I think the application has been before
you here. At one time it was a two story garage. At one time it was a larger garage. They've
tried to make it as accommodate as they can. In the advertisements for the hearing also it says
that we're going to have a garage with water and electricity. We have not asked for water, and
we do want electricity. We might have a vacuum or something like that out there, but the
garage itself will not have water, and that's basically it. We don't think that we have any great
impact environmentally which is I think what you're here for tonight or what we're here for
tonight to accommodate the stormwater that we have. It's not a large garage. It's not a large
structure.
MR. TRAVER-Yes. It looks as though the width of the lot is such that there's not a lot of, like a
lot of the properties in that area there's not a lot of elbow room.
MR. MAGOWAN-It's skinny and long.
MR. TRAVER-Yes.
MR. O'CONNOR-Average width of lots on Glen Lake, if you went around the whole lake, there's
probably at most 60 feet. My area, my lot, my two sister's lots, are 50 feet, and most of them
are 50 feet lots. Over by the Docksider, they're all 50 foot lots, and this fellow you can see,
when he had to get his septic system ready to replace and build a year round home, he bought
the land behind him and put the septic system, the absorption bed, on that land to keep it away
from the land. He's tried to be a good steward of the lake.
MR. MAGOWAN-Has he got a right of way off of Reardon Road?
MR. O'CONNOR-Yes.
MR. SHAFER-How do you get to the garage? Where is the driveway?
MR. O'CONNOR-Okay. Let me go back here. This is the road over here. Glen Hall Road.
Glen Hall Road Extension. The right of way, if you see the dotted lines on the bottom part
down by where that boat storage building is, okay, that's the road that comes up from the Town
road and it goes up, it goes through two or three properties to get to this property. It does not
go beyond this property.
MR. TRAVER-So that's shown on our survey as a dotted line.
MR. O'CONNOR-Yes.
MR. TRAVER-Now why is that one, Reardon Road is shown to the right.
MR. O'CONNOR-Reardon Road is a Town road.
MR. TRAVER-Okay.
MR. O'CONNOR-There is a paper street to the west, let's see, to the east of the large parcel
that was never constructed. It's on the, if you take a look at your map, it says Town road by
deed unapproved, up in the corner, but the topography dictates that you go around the front of
this lot and come up between the lots, and that's the way that they've done it for years.
MR. MAGOWAN-So is it, it goes to the Hannon's there?
MR. O'CONNOR-Yes, it does.
MR. SHAFER-There's a deeded right to use that?
MR. O'CONNOR-Yes, there is.
MR. TRAVER-Any other questions or concerns from members of the Planning Board?
MR. SHAFER-Just one question. The height on the drawing shows 15, 8. 1 wasn't sure why
you were asking for a height variance.
MR. O'CONNOR-It says accessory garage. Okay. I'll let the engineer explain it.
MR. DOBIE-Yes. Good evening, Board. Lucas Dobie with Hutchins Engineering. I did the
architecturals as best I could so we could quantify our height and that 15, 8 is on our gable ends
to finished grade. Where we're caught out is on the eaves line, the northwesterly corner,
because the grade falls away we have to drop a tape measure from the eaves to existing grade.
That's our 16, 8 that we're caught out. So if you look at the building, it'll look like a 15 foot 8
building on the three sides.
MR. MAGOWAN-Yes, there's not much you can do with that. You gain three sides, you know.
That's a natural curvature without having a flat roof.
MR. FERONE-And you mentioned earlier stormwater management. The items in the Chazen
letter have been taken care of?
MR. DOBIE-We have not responded to them at this point, but that's part of the process, yes, sir.
We will.
MR. O'CONNOR-We'll go to the Zoning Board after this, and we can, I think we've looked at
that. We can comply to that.
MR. FORD-Consideration was given to a smaller garage?
MR. O'CONNOR-Twenty by twenty-two is pretty small. For a two car garage, and it's 20 foot
width. You have a foot on each side. You've got to go in and kind of squeeze out, if you've
got eight foot cars or, it's not a lot of room. So I suppose we could buy smaller cars.
MR. TRAVER-True.
MR. O'CONNOR-1 thought of that, in my garage. I may do that.
MR. TRAVER-This is a Type 11 SEAR. So SEQR is not required. As I said before, there's no
public hearing for Recommendation. Does anyone have any concerns, environmental or
otherwise, that we would want to make included in our referral to the Zoning Board?
MR. MAGOWAN-No. I feel they've done the best job they can, and it is a rather bare minimum
garage, you know, to go up 24, you know, 22 by 24 is a little nicer, but like I said, I think they've
made a lot of accommodations. Worked on getting the height down and keeping it as small as
they can. Like I said, all those lots up there are skinny and long. So I don't have any issues.
MR. FORD-One of the best things I heard was what you were working on as far as the first
refusal with the neighboring property.
MR. O'CONNOR-It took us two years, Mr. Ford, maybe two and a half years to get the boundary
line agreement. They agreed to do it, but getting signatures. I think at that point it might have
been in his mother's name, and he's a busy guy. Never comes to the property, pays the taxes.
So we're hopeful that we will get an agreement from him. That won't necessarily solve all the
problems, though, because the drop off there is substantial.
MR. TRAVER-Yes.
MR. O'CONNOR-We just know that we wouldn't be impacting anybody at all. It would be our
drop off.
MR. FORD-Right.
MR. TRAVER-Okay.
MR. FORD-Thank you.
MR. TRAVER-All right. Well, we're ready, then, for a motion to make a recommendation on
behalf of the Planning Board. Would someone like to put forward that motion?
RESOLUTION RE: ZBA RECOMMENDATION AV PZ 59-2016 MACKOWIAK
The applicant has submitted an application for the following: Applicant proposes a new 440 sq.
ft. garage to be 15.83 ft. high with a two car garage, located on existing gravel area. Pursuant
to Chapter 179-6-060 of the Zoning Ordinance, work within 50 feet of 15% slope shall be
subject to Planning Board review and approval. Variance: Relief is requested for second
garage and setback. Planning Board shall provide recommendation to the Zoning Board of
Appeals.
The Town of Queensbury Zoning Ordinance, per Section 179-9-070 J 2 b. requires the Planning
Board to provide a written recommendation to the Zoning Board of Appeals for projects that
require both Zoning Board of Appeals & Planning Board approval;
The Planning Board has briefly reviewed and discussed this application, the relief request in the
variance application as well as the potential impacts of this project on the neighborhood and
surrounding community, and found that:
MOTION TO MAKE A RECOMMENDATION ON BEHALF OF THE PLANNING BOARD TO
THE ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS FOR AREA VARIANCE NO. PZ 59-2016 RONALD &
CYNTHIA MACKOWIAK. Introduced by George Ferone who moved its adoption, seconded by
Thomas Ford; and
a) The Planning Board, based on a limited review, has not identified any significant adverse
impacts that cannot be mitigated with current project proposal -
Duly adopted this 21stday of June, 2016 by the following vote:
AYES: Mr. Magowan, Mr. Shafer, Ms. White, Mr. Schonewolf, Mr. Ford, Mr. Ferone, Mr. Traver
NOES: NONE
MR. TRAVER-There you go.
MR. O'CONNOR-Thank you.
MR. TRAVER-All right. Next we have another referral to the ZBA for a recommendation.
SITE PLAN PZ 147-2016 & FRESHWATER WETLANDS PERMIT PZ 148-2016 SEAR TYPE
UNLISTED CHONG S. CONWAY AGENT(S) DENNIS MAC ELROY OWNER(S) SAME
AS APPLICANT ZONING O LOCATION 633 BAY ROAD APPLICANT PROPOSES
TO UPDATE AN EXISTING SECOND STRUCTURE OF A 627 SQ. FT. BUILDING FOR AN
OFFICE AND PERSONAL SERVICE WHERE OFFICE IS 358 SQ. FT. AND SERVICES 269
SQ. FT. PROJECT INCLUDES INSTALLATION OF A 139 SQ. FT. ACCESSIBLE CAMP TO
THE FRONT OF THE BUILDING. PURSUANT TO CHAPTER 179-3-040 & CHAPTER 94 OF
THE ZONING ORDINANCE NEW COMMERCIAL USE AND CONSTRUCTION WITHIN 100
FT. OF A WETLANDS SHALL BE SUBJECT TO PLANNING BOARD REVIEW AND
APPROVAL. VARIANCE: RELIEF IS SOUGHT FOR SETBACKS. PLANNING BOARD
SHALL PROVIDE A RECOMMENDATION TO THE ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS.
CROSS REFERENCE SUB 6-1989, SP 32-91, AV 95-90, AV 118-89, AV PZ 160-2016
WARREN CO. REFERRAL JUNE 2016 SITE INFORMATION WETLANDS (PORTION)
LOT SIZE 1.62 ACRES TAX MAP NO. 296.7-1-11 SECTION 179-3-040, CHAPTER 94
DENNIS MAC ELROY, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT
MRS. MOORE-Okay. This applicant proposes to update an existing secondary structure on a
site that currently has an existing home. This is where the office area of this building is to be
358 square feet and the personal service area will be 269 square feet. The project includes
installation of a 169 square foot access ramp. The variance relief requested is setbacks from
that, for the front setback as well as a wetlands boundary line.
MR. TRAVER-Okay. Thank you. Good evening.
MR. MAC ELROY-Good evening. My name is Dennis MacElroy. I'm with Environmental
Design and I'm here on behalf of Mrs. Conway regarding this application for a recommendation
of the Zoning Board. The project itself, I would say Mrs. Conway is here in the audience and is
a relatively new owner of this property. She purchased the land and house last year in hopes
to make some improvements to that. It's a 1.6 acre parcel that is at 633 Bay Road, directly
across from SUNY Adirondack, next to the Howard Insurance building as well. It's an existing,
pre-existing residential use within this office zone, and what Mrs. Conway hopes to do is to
modify existing accessory structure on the property currently used as a garage and storage, and
convert that to office use and personal services use. By Code the office use needs to be of the
greater floor area than the personal services use. so that's what Williams and Williams has
done design work for the conversion of that structure. Where we run into a variance that we're
seeking a recommendation is for the handicap access and as the renderings show there's a
proposed handicap ramp on the front side of the structure. Now because this is a pre-existing
structure it doesn't come close to the 75 foot setback requirements of that zone. So with the
addition of the handicap ramp we're only looking at a 2.4 foot setback to the property line. So
there's a significant amount of relief from what the standard is, but in consideration of the pre-
existing condition there, that's what it requires. Now there's also a wetland corridor that goes
through the property and If you look at it from the setback from the wetland boundary, we are
required to have a 75 foot setback, and again, based on the pre-existing condition that the
structure itself is only 43 feet from that. So that's where the second variance comes in. So
we're hopeful of gaining your recommendation to move forward to the Zoning Board tomorrow
night.
MR. TRAVER-Okay. Thank you. Questions from members of the Board?
MR. SCHONEWOLF-If my memory serves me correctly, and it may not, but on some of these,
we've put sunset provisions in. If you recall, I can recall a couple of them, but I mean the
sunset provision was out 10 years or whatever, but we did do it so that there would be some
reason or justification for, at that time that it's not needed, that they would take it down.
MR. MAGOWAN-So basically the only addition that's going on in the building is the handicap
ramp?
MR. MAC ELROY-Correct. All the improvements and conversion are all interior.
MR. MAGOWAN-Are all on the existing footprint.
MR. MAC ELROY-The footprint isn't changing.
MR. FORD-And consideration was given to other locations of that ramp. Correct?
MR. MAC ELROY-Yes, although the access to the area where you need the grade transition is
in the front, the front entry.
MR. FORD-1 see that.
MR. MAC ELROY-The other entry for the other use within the building is at grade in the rear
section. So a ramp isn't needed and isn't proposed there, obviously, but if it had been in that
location, if it were required, setbacks as well. Again, because of the setback requirement, 75
feet from both the property line and a wetland.
MR. FERONE-There's mention of signage. I know it's not reflected in any of the renderings or
that, but is that going to be a lighted sign?
MR. MAC ELROY-I don't believe that is. We've shown on the site plan a location of that, not to
exceed the square footage that's required.
MR. FERONE-You said you're going to come within the guidelines of what the Town said for
signage.
MR. MAC ELROY-Yes. I'll have a better answer on Thursday when we come back.
MR. FERONE-Okay.
MR. TRAVER-This is also an Unlisted SEAR. So we will need to do SEQR prior to?
MRS. MOORE-No. It doesn't trigger a variance at the Zoning Board level because of the
setback and you'll complete your independent review on Thursday if it gets to Thursday.
MR. TRAVER-Very good.
MR. SHAFER-I have a question, Mr. Chairman.
MR. TRAVER-Sure.
MR. SHAFER-What are the, you have fencing on both sides of the building?
MR. MAC ELROY-Silt fence.
MR. SHAFER-That is silt fence. So when all is said and done, you'll be about 20 feet from the
edge of, I don't have a scale, but it looks like it will be about 20 feet from the edge of pavement?
MR. MAC ELROY-It's 20 scale, so, yes.
MR. SHAFER-That's about an inch.
MR. MAC ELROY-Correct.
MR. MAGOWAN-Now what is the use now?
MR. MAC ELROY-It's a garage and storage. The proposed use?
MR. MAGOWAN-Yes, I mean, there's obviously water and sewer to it.
MR. MAC ELROY-No. There will be.
MR. MAGOWAN-All right. That's why the sewer connections.
MR. TRAVER-That'll be part of the improvements. Correct?
MR. MAC ELROY-Correct. At this point, we would plan to connect to the existing sewer
service to the residence, which is possible if, grade wise, it works out. The Town records
weren't real precise in terms of being able to confirm that, but we will have to do that, and the
water service will be connected to the Town system.
MR. MAGOWAN-1 just want to make sure because we're very, very precise on the use of that
line is getting maxed out, and I just wanted to make sure we had enough room.
MR. SHAFER-The future use of the building will be?
MR. MAC ELROY-The personal services use will be a beauty salon. That's Mrs. Chong's
business, and the other will be something that falls under the category of the office allowable
uses, whether that's an actual office or a gallery. There's several different options, but we had
meetings with Staff to understand what it can be and when it needs to be in place.
MR. MAGOWAN-It won't be a one bedroom apartment?
MR. MAC ELROY-No, correct.
MR. FERONE-And your accessible ramp will only service the front of the structure, not the
back?
MR. MAC ELROY-Correct, because the back entrance is at grade.
MR. FERONE-Okay.
MR. MAC ELROY-So we don't need that transition.
MR. MAGOWAN-Are these the colors she's chosen?
MR. MAC ELROY-Well, I don't know how well that printed. You've driven by it and you haven't
even noticed it, but it's about the color of your shirt, actually.
MR. MAGOWAN-1 kind of like it. I kind of like those colors. I think you've done a good job
pulling it all together and bringing something back to life. It won't be bad to just roll out of bed
and go to work.
MR. MAC ELROY-Her commute, yes.
MR. TRAVER-Are there any concerns that the Planning Board feels we need to forward to the
Zoning Board in consideration of this application?
MR. FERONE-None.
MR. FORD-Could we address just one additional question that I had? With it being that close
to the road, is this, the width of that ramp, can anything be done with that and still have it
serviceable?
MR. MAC ELROY-Well, it's designed to meet certain standards.
MR. FORD-That's what I anticipated.
MR. MAC ELROY-In width, landing, maneuverability. If you have someone in a wheelchair.
So the design and the space that's required is based on those design standards.
MR. TRAVER-It has to be to the ADA.
MR. MAC ELROY-It's very specific.
MR. FORD-1 just wanted to make sure that no one got lenient with those.
MR. MAC ELROY-Right.
MR. TRAVER-Anything else? All right. I guess we're ready for someone to make a motion.
RESOLUTION RE: ZBA RECOMMENDATION RE: AV PZ 160-2016 CHONG S. CONWAY
The applicant has submitted an application for the following: Applicant proposes to update an
existing second structure of a 627 sq. ft. building for an office and personal service where office
is 358 sq. ft. and services 269 sq. ft. Project includes installation of a 139 sq. ft. accessible
ramp to the front of the building. Pursuant to Chapter 179-3-040 & Chapter 94 of the Zoning
Ordinance new commercial use and construction within 100 ft. of a wetlands shall be subject to
Planning Board review and approval. Variance: Relief is sought for setbacks. Planning Board
shall provide a recommendation to the Zoning Board of Appeals.
The Town of Queensbury Zoning Ordinance, per Section 179-9-070 J 2 b. requires the Planning
Board to provide a written recommendation to the Zoning Board of Appeals for projects that
require both Zoning Board of Appeals & Planning Board approval;
The Planning Board has briefly reviewed and discussed this application, the relief request in the
variance application as well as the potential impacts of this project on the neighborhood and
surrounding community, and found that:
MOTION TO MAKE A RECOMMENDATION ON BEHALF OF THE PLANNING BOARD TO
THE ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS FOR AREA VARIANCE NO. PZ 160-2016 CHONG S.
CONWAY, Introduced by George Ferone who moved its adoption, seconded by Thomas Ford;
and
a) The Planning Board, based on a limited review, has not identified any significant adverse
impacts that cannot be mitigated with current project proposal -
Duly adopted this 21St day of June, 2016 by the following vote:
MR. MAGOWAN-George, what number did you give that
MR. FERONE-PZ 160-2016.
MRS. MOORE-That refers to the Area Variance.
MR. MAGOWAN-Sorry.
MR. TRAVER-That's okay.
AYES: Ms. White, Mr. Schonewolf, Mr. Ford, Mr. Shafer, Mr. Magowan, Mr. Ferone, Mr.
Traver
NOES: NONE
MR. MAC ELROY-Thank you very much. Hope to see you Thursday.
MR. TRAVER-All right, and next we have one more recommendation for the Zoning Board.
Also this does not have a public hearing.
SUBDIVISION PZ 154-2016 PRELIMINARY STAGE SEAR TYPE UNLISTED JOHN M.
HUGHES TRUST AGENT(S) HUTCHINS ENGINEERING OWNER(S) SAME AS
APPLICANT ZONING RR-3A LOCATION STATE RT. 149 & OXBOW HILL RD.
APPLICANT PROPOSES A FIVE LOT SUBDIVISION OF A 19.73 ACRE PARCEL WITH
ASSOCIATED SITE WORK INCLUDING PRIVATE ROAD ONTO OXBOW HILL ROAD,
INSTALLATION OF SEPTIC AND WELLS, LOT CLEARING AND STORMWATER
MANAGEMENT. SITE INCLUDES SLOPES GREATER THAN 15%. LOT SIZES ARE: LOT
1 — 3 ACRES; LOT 2 — 3.2 ACRES, LOT 3 — 3.6 ACRES; LOT 4 — 4.1 ACRES AND LOT 5 —
5.5 ACRES. PURSUANT TO CHAPTER 183 OF THE ZONING ORDINANCE,
SUBDIVISIONS SHALL BE SUBJECT TO PLANNING BOARD REVIEW AND APPROVAL.
VARIANCE: RELIEF SOUGHT FOR DENSITY, LOT WIDTH AND ROAD FRONTAGE.
PLANNING BOARD SHALL PROVIDE A RECOMMENDATION TO THE ZONING BOARD OF
APPEALS. CROSS REFERENCE SUB PZ 79-16, SKETCH PLAN SP 14-2001 4.9 ACRES
MINING; AV PZ 155-2016 WARREN CO. REFERRAL N/A LOT SIZE 19.73 ACRES
TAX MAP NO. 289.6-1-7 SECTION 183
LUCAS DOBIE, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT
MRS. MOORE-The Board has previously seen this as a Sketch Plan review. So the applicant
is now proceeding. So I have a five lot subdivision of a 19.73 acre parcel. The project
includes a private road on the Oxbow Hill Road. The project includes installation of new septics
and wells, lot clearing and stormwater management. Some of the project site or parcel will
have slopes greater than 15%. The lot sizes vary. Lot One is at 3 acres. Lot Two is at 3.2.
Lot Three is 3.6. Lot Four is 4.1, and Lot 5 is 5.5 acres. Under the relief requested, it's
density. The parcel contains steep slopes as we discussed. Three of the parcels require lot
width relief, and then relief is also requested from road frontage where the required is 400 feet,
and on a private drive there's two lots that request relief from that.
MR. TRAVER-Thank you. Good evening.
MR. DOBIE-Good evening. Again, Laura, thank you for your time. Lucas Dobie with Hutchins
Engineering, representing Mr. John Hughes who's with us tonight to answer any further
questions. You may recall Mr. Hughes owns the Ledgeview RV Park across 149 from the
project site. He's done a lot of business in the Town and I believe he's the longest running
general contractor in the area. Since the 50's, so still going strong. I'm proud to represent
him, and like Laura said, we were just under 20 acres total acreage in the three acre zone. If
we were a flat site we wouldn't have any issue at all with density. Unfortunately the glacier got
a little extreme through here, along Glen Lake Road, or Glen Lake Road was cut in and then it
had the huge back slope on us once upon a time I don't know, but we've got significant slopes
to the south, which take away a bunch of our usable density. I really feel, once you're up on
the property, over the northerly section, there's adequate space for our five proposed lots with
the, we've got anywhere's from 180 to 300 feet of house facing before you walk in the road it
feels like there's tons of space. We're able to meet our lot size requirements, and all the
setbacks. So we're coming up short on our density a little bit, and our road frontage for Lots
Two and Three, and our lot widths for Lots One, Two, and Three is pretty difficult in the three
acre zone. You've got to change to 2009 1 believe to 400 feet of lot width and 400 feet of road
frontage which, frankly, becomes difficult to do unless you have a ton of acreage. So I'm
seeing a fair amount of these and we're getting down, frankly, everything easy is built out. So
we're trying to do what we can and do nice projects that are economically viable and
environmentally responsible. We modeled the subdivision after a project off of Tee Hill Road
which we worked through two or three years ago called Mark Drive where there's a private road,
a little narrower asphalt width, and it's maintained by a homeowners association. So there's no
onus on the Highway Department for maintenance or anything like that, and we were here in
March. I think we had a favorable discussion back then, and I'd be happy to answer any
questions that the Board may have.
MR. TRAVER-Well, I know, you know, just preliminarily looking at this, I think the first question
you would get would be, why not just reduce the number of lots, so you can make the lots
bigger? I understand there's some economic considerations. That's a question.
MR. DOBIE-Sure that's still the balancing test, if you will. We struggled with, too, where we feel
this number is, we've got good house site locations for it and good acreage over those sites and
we decided to try to pursue it with some relief from the Code.
MR. FORD-So consideration was given to four lots as opposed to five?
MR. DOBIE-It was, and really we'd have almost the same amount of road to get in there,
utilities, and it frankly just becomes almost an unviable project unless we.
MR. TRAVER-And economically.
MR. DOBIE-Right.
MR. FORD-Economically unviable.
MR. DOBIE-Sure, and we've got the nice acreages, great spots for each house, big footprints
shown probably a little bigger than what will be built. We gave considerable thought every
which way, and that's where we decided to head with it.
MR. TRAVER-On Lot Three, near Route 149, there's a spot, I'm assuming it's a turnaround for
plowing or something?
MR. DOBIE-Yes, sir. That's one of the configurations in the New York State Fire Code allows a
50 foot L-Shaped or a dogleg, if you will, as opposed to a cul de sac. So it's considerably less
disturbance, less paving, and it helps to keep things pretty tight.
MR. TRAVER-1 think, did I see a comment from the Fire Marshal, maybe it's not this project.
There was a comment that there needed to be maneuvering room for emergency vehicles. It
may not have been this site. Any other questions from members of the Board?
MR. MAGOWAN-So they're all wells, no water up there?
MR. DOBIE-Correct.
MR. MAGOWAN-John, you'll have your piece of the top of the world up there.
MR. DOBIE-It's really beautiful, to the west especially, Lots Four and Five where you're on the
high ground and 149 drops away considerably. So it helps to, it's actually pretty quiet on the
westerly side.
MR. SHAFER-Somewhere in the paperwork I saw reference to archeological study. Has that
been done or is that pending?
MR. DOBIE-The fieldwork has been done, and I don't believe we have a signoff from SHPO yet.
The dig has been done.
MR. SHAFER-Anything of note?
MR. DOBIE-Not that I'm aware of.
MR. FORD-How long ago was the dig done?
MR. DOBIE-This spring I think it was. If I could address another side issue in our Long Form,
under Section D, I neglected to put in the disturbance, which is Question B, and it's 4.1 acres for
the record. I just went and checked it just before the meeting, and I neglected, when we typed it
up I left it out.
MR. TRAVER-Well, we are preparing a recommendation for the ZBA, is this on the agenda for
tomorrow night?
MR. DOBIE-Yes, sir, it is.
MR. TRAVER-Okay. Do we have any comments that we wish to forward to the ZBA for their
consideration, any concerns? Okay. I'm not hearing any. So I think the one issue that's been
raised by a couple of us with regard to the number of lots is sort of self-evident. I don't know
that we need to make that part of our referral. Would someone like to make a motion?
RESOLUTION RE: ZBA RECOMMENDATION AV PZ 155-2016 JOHN M. HUGHES TRUST
The applicant has submitted an application for the following: Applicant proposes a five lot
subdivision of a 19.73 acre parcel with associated site work including private road onto Oxbow
Hill Road, installation of septic and wells, lot clearing and stormwater management. Site
includes slopes greater than 15%. Lot sizes are: Lot 1 — 3 acres; Lot 2 - 3.2 acres, Lot 3 - 3.6
acres; Lot 4 - 4.1 acres and Lot 5 - 5.5 acres. Pursuant to Chapter 183 of the Zoning
Ordinance, subdivisions shall be subject to Planning Board review and approval. Variance:
Relief sought for density, lot width and road frontage. Planning Board shall provide a
recommendation to the Zoning Board of Appeals.
The Town of Queensbury Zoning Ordinance, per Section 179-9-070 J 2 b. requires the Planning
Board to provide a written recommendation to the Zoning Board of Appeals for projects that
require both Zoning Board of Appeals & Planning Board approval;
The Planning Board has briefly reviewed and discussed this application, the relief request in the
variance application as well as the potential impacts of this project on the neighborhood and
surrounding community, and found that:
MOTION TO MAKE A RECOMMENDATION ON BEHALF OF THE PLANNING BOARD TO
THE ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS FOR AREA VARIANCE NO. PZ 155-2016 JOHN M.
HUGHES TRUST. Introduced by Brad Magowan who moved its adoption, seconded by George
Ferone; and
a) The Planning Board, based on a limited review, has not identified any significant adverse
impacts that cannot be mitigated with current project proposal -
Duly adopted this 21St day of June, 2016 by the following vote:
AYES: Mr. Ferone, Mr. Magowan, Mr. Shafer, Mr. Ford, Mr. Schonewolf, Ms. White, Mr.
Traver
NOES: NONE
MR. TRAVER-All right. Good luck.
MR. DOBIE-Thank you very much.
MR. TRAVER-Okay. Now we move on to New Business.
NEW BUSINESS:
SITE PLAN PZ 149-2016 SEAR TYPE UNLISTED RAN ENTERTAINMENT, LLC
AGENT(S) NACE ENGINEERING OWNER(S) NDC REALTY ZONING CLI LOCATION
235 CORINTH ROAD APPLICANT PROPOSES A NEW RETAIL BUILDING, 22,200 SQ. FT.
RECREATIONAL BUILDING FOR SKY ZONE TRAMPOLINE, INCLUDING A MEZZANINE
AREA IN THE BUILDING. PURSUANT TO CHAPTER 179-3-040 OF THE ZONING
ORDINANCE, NEW COMMERCIAL USE SHALL BE SUBJECT TO PLANNING BOARD
REVIEW AND APPROVAL. WARREN CO. REFERRAL JUNE 2016 LOT SIZE 2.91
ACRES TAX MAP NO. 309.13-2-28 SECTION 179-3-040
TOM CENTER & RUSTY SAUNDERS, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT
MRS. MOORE-The applicant proposes a new commercial building that's 22,200 square feet.
It's located on Corinth Road. There has been lot line adjustments in that area so that the
current reference in the RPS is the lot size has changed basically is what I want to tell you.
The things that are occurring is there's parking in the front. There's two curb cuts and the
interior of the building, there's a mezzanine area so that people can oversee and look out at the
trampoline area, and there is, in the parking lot there is additional lighting and the application
has been referred to the Town Engineer for stormwater measures.
MR. TRAVER-Okay.
MEMBER OF THE AUDIENCE-Excuse me. Can they put that they thing have in the front of
the table, can they put it up where we can see it?
MS. WHITE-It's up here on the screen.
MEMBER OF THE AUDIENCE-That's a little bigger.
MR. TRAVER-The application materials are also available on the Town website.
MRS. MOORE-Yes. We tried to look at it earlier, sorry. I think this might be able to help her if
she can see it.
MR. TRAVER-Okay. Maybe you can move that a little closer, just to make it easier. Okay. Is
that better?
MEMBER OF THE AUDIENCE-Thank you.
MR. TRAVER-And I should have commented at the introduction, too, there is a public hearing
tonight for this application. Sorry for the interruption. Good evening.
MR. CENTER-Good evening. Tom Center with Nace Engineering. This is Rusty Saunders
who's in charge of the project. This is for a commercial use, Sky Zone Trampoline Park
recreational use. it's a 225 by 100 foot building. It's going to be less than 30 feet tall. We've
provided 64 parking spaces and we have area for 14 reserve, but we're asking for a waiver on
the parking. Seventy-eight was required. Based on their experience with similar buildings and
franchises that they have, they feel 64 is an adequate number to accommodate the use. There
is an existing three quarter inch water service that we'll be connecting to the building. There is
a proposal to connect to the future sewer system that's proposed to go up Corinth Road. We're
about 400 feet from the end of the sewer at Stewart's. At this time my client has had
conversations with Mr. Strough and Mr. Harrington regarding connection to the sewer. There's
discussion with regards to whether he will run his own line if the sewer's not there versus the
Town having the line installed and going past up to Carey Road. It's an ongoing situation.
MS. WHITE-It's listing here that it's a requirement to hook up.
MR. CENTER-Yes, it is a requirement that they hook up, but we're in the process of we can't
hook up to something that wasn't there yet. We do realize that we do have to hook up to it.
We haven't proposed a septic system, but obviously if the sewer line never gets constructed,
there's adequate area to build a septic system in the rear of the parcel. We'd have to, you
know, put septic tanks up and pump around. One of the options is to put in, if there's any delay
when we get, if we do get approval and get to construction and get it constructed, we're going to
try to open the facility and the sewer line hasn't been established yet or it's still in the process
there's discussions about possibly putting the building on holding tanks for the period of time
between the system being installed up Corinth Road and the time it takes to hook up to it. If it
never gets constructed then of course we obviously have to put an effluent pump in, pump
around to the back of the facility and put a septic system in.
MR. TRAVER-Have you had conversations with the engineer about that, the Town Engineer?
MR. CENTER-Not at this time because the going theory is that the sewer is something that the
Town is working very diligently on extending out. I would imagine that as we get closer to the
end of completion or if this Board feels the need to put a condition that prior to approval that that
be determined one way or the other, whether we need to go through the Town Board of Health
to get a holding tank variance for that period of time or, we understand it's a fluid process that's
going on right now with the sewer, and the applicant has proposed to the Town that he would
extend the 400 feet to the sewer to connect, but I believe that Mr. Harrington in the Water and
Sewer has some reservations. I think he's thinking more that this process should be moving
along and the sewer should be coming.
MR. FORD-Did you refer to it as a fluid process?
MR. CENTER-Yes, it's fluid, very fluid. It seems to be gaining momentum. Yes, it's a fluid
process. It is what it is. Hopefully it'll be done, you know, the anticipated hope is that if we do
get approval, the building would be constructed and most likely opened in the late, late this year.
So hopefully by then this will be decided one way or the other, but certainly if there's a need to
place a condition that before Mr. Brown signs the final plans that the sewer connection issue is
determined. The stormwater drainage, we have deep, well-drained sands. We've provided
catch basins that go to a couple of drywells in the front portion of the building along the road.
Everything will drain to two catch basins here. The catch basins will filter the sediment, allowed
to settle out and then discharge to two drywells in the front section here. There's a swale
running along this section of the parking lot. All of this parking area will drain to the east and
then be taken out to the grass swale in the rear which also has the drywell, and the building roof
will be in eaves trenches along either side of the road. We've proposed landscaping planters.
As you can see, I believe there was discrepancy in the height of the building. It's actually, it's
not 45 feet tall. It will be just under 30 feet, and there was a question regarding the landscaping
in the front of the building to be more in line with the height of the building, and the trees that are
proposed out there will be eight to ten feet, which will grow to approximately 20 feet or so. So it
will be in scale with the height of the building.
MR. TRAVER-You mentioned the building height to be 30 feet.
MR. CENTER-Just under 30 feet.
MR. TRAVER-Just under 30 feet. So, I mean, this may seem like a silly question, but the Sky
Line Trampoline, is that enough headroom for the?
MR. SAUNDERS-Yes, they need 20 foot clear span on the inside. So the eaves will be 24 for a
20 foot clear, plus anything that would be any part of, would be wrapped in a foam protectant.
MR. TRAVER-So basically you're using, as I understand it, what you've submitted, you're using,
in effect, sort of a pre-existing design model for this type of structure.
MR. SAUNDERS-Yes. Sky Zone franchise, you give them your footprint and they'll design.
You tell them what you'd like in it and they'll design it for you, and that's, you know, they design
it, they install it, and that was the design we went with. I'm not sure if you guys have the latest
design. There's been a couple of them. So, but it's basically all the same. It's just different
trampolines inside. That's all.
MR. TRAVER-Could you talk a little bit further with regard to the number of parking spaces?
MR. FORD-Yes, thank you.
MR. TRAVER-1 know that you're saying that you feel, based on your experience, that the, what
was it, 64?
MR. CENTER-Yes.
MR. TRAVER-Was adequate, but I don't think you have any experience in the Town of
Queensbury, and the number set by the Town is actually based on our experience. So I guess
I need a little bit more before I'm comfortable.
MR. SAUNDERS-Well, it's just the data that you get from Sky Zone about how many people go
through, is what we base that on, on all their franchises.
MS. WHITE-Well, the difference being if you have a Sky Zone in Albany, there's public
transportation. I'm assuming that's kind of where.
MR. CENTER-The one in Albany is out in an industrial park, quite a ways out from the City
center hub. Most of the parking, I've been to the one in Albany, and it's mostly drive up.
MR. SHAFER-But there is public transportation service on Central Avenue.
MS. WHITE-And I guess I'm just saying, Sky Zone, they do their own general thing based on
tendencies towards more urban settings where they might have more public transportation, is
one of my guesses.
MR. SAUNDERS-They're all over the place. Some of them are in industrial parks where
there's no, I mean, it's hard to even find the ones out in California, they're in industrial parks, but
that's California.
MR. FERONE-1 guess my question is, 64 parking spaces. How many employees will be
employed there?
MR. SAUNDERS-That always varies, you know, because a lot of them are going to be part-time
employees like high school kids or something that don't even drive that'll be dropped off, and
you have really a main general manager and assistant managers, and then probably maybe
three or four court monitors. It really depends on how busy you are at birthday parties. It's
going to vary for sure. There's quite a few part-time employees.
MR. FORD-How many can be accommodated there simultaneously?
MR. SAUNDERS-The capacity on the jumping? I believe that's 167 I think is what we were
going to put it at. I think it's capable of 190 something but we were going with 167 so that you
wouldn't have big weights or trying to get too many people in.
MR. FORD-That's how many per car, then?
MR. SAUNDERS-What's that?
MR. FORD-That is how many per car?
MR. SAUNDERS-Well, usually it's a family, you know, it's not just the individual. It's usually a
family, a mother and four kids or three kids or two kids.
MR. TRAVER-So you'd have 167 using the trampoline plus some that came with those
individuals, as you point out, as their family.
MR. SAUNDERS-Right.
MR. CENTER-And if you were to figure four to a car at 167 people, that's 42 spots with four
employees. That's somewhere near 50.
MR. MAGOWAN-Tom, you also said you made accommodations to expand the parking.
MR. CENTER-Yes. There's accommodation to provide 14, the required parking. We could
extend that parking further down and I believe there's room for 10 more there and then the other
4 would be on the back side of the building.
MR. MAGOWAN-1 mean, I'm all for keeping the parking lots reasonable, and if needed with the
chance to expand. I just hate pulling in a parking lot and, you know, there's just so much
parking that it creates so much more maintenance, it's so much more snow removal, you know,
it's just, if it's not needed, you know, I have to go for the numbers that you're projecting and I
understand that we have our codes for parking lots, but, you know, a lot of the parking lots I feel,
in Queensbury, are way oversized, for the one or two times that they may fill up, you know, is it
worth the 363 days of not filling up?
MR. FERONE-But if they don't have the spaces, where are you going to park? They're going
to have cars parking along Corinth Road?
MR. MAGOWAN-Most people that can't find a parking spot will say it's too darn busy. I mean, I
do that if I can't find a spot at a restaurant. If I've got to park out in East Asia I don't go to that
place because I figure it's going to be a coon's age getting in there.
MR. TRAVER-Okay.
MR. FORD-What's the surface of the parking lot?
MR. CENTER-Asphalt pavement. You mean square footage?
MR. FORD-No. I was looking for permeability.
MR. CENTER-1 think we're way under the permeability because we have such a large lot that
goes on to the rear of the parcel.
MR. SHAFER-Tom, how does the size of this facility compare to the one in Albany?
MR. SAUNDERS-1 think it's smaller. Albany's building is bigger because the guy who built that
obviously is trying to rent out another portion of that building.
MR. SHAFER-So in terms of the number of trampolines?
MR. SAUNDERS-His is a little bit bigger.
MR. SHAFER-Bigger?
MR. SAUNDERS-Yes. Albany's definitely a little bigger. I think that's 25,000 feet down there.
MR. FERONE-Would you market to corporate outings where a company might use your facility
as a team building exercise or something?
MR. SAUNDERS-Absolutely. Sky Zone's big on community, I mean like for give back and
such. Last year in the month of October they gave out pink socks, 250,000, based on a
percentage of the sock sales going to cancer, and that was with 119 franchises. This year
they're up to 150.
MR. FERONE-The point I was trying to get at is that if you do have those types of outings, that's
not a family coming now. Those are individuals. If you have a group of 15 or 20, they're all
coming in separate cars. They're not coming together.
MR. SAUNDERS-1 guess that's a possibility, yes.
MR. SCHONEWOLF-Is Sky Zone a franchise?
MR. SAUNDERS-Yes.
MR. SCHONEWOLF-Do they have minimum insurance requirements for this type of
hazardous?
MR. SAUNDERS-They have an insurance program, yes, through a franchise.
MR. SCHONEWOLF-They have minimum requirements?
MR. SAUNDERS-You have to go with their insurance. It's not a minimum. It's a requirement.
It's not a minimum type of thing. It's like a co-op type of thing. They make it an exclusive type
of insurance thing that you have to use.
MR. SHAFER-Do you have any information or feeling on the number of trips generated per day
and what the peak hour might be?
MR. SAUNDERS-The peak hour is probably going to be when the kids are out of school or
afterschool hours, because like I say, it's only going to be six days a week. It'll be closed on
Mondays, and once the kids are out of school it'll be open earlier and, you know, until later in
the evening. It's basically all driven by schools, vacations, things like that. Birthday parties are
a big thing. So weekends would be the peak times for that.
MR. MAGOWAN-What's the average age?
MR. SAUNDERS-Average age. They've got from five to twenty-four.
MR. MAGOWAN-So there you go. They're younger drivers coming in under driving than older
people.
MR. SAUNDERS-Well, it's families coming in.
MR. MAGOWAN-Like I said, if you're willing to extend your parking lot down to gain the
adequate spots, I'd like to see you try to make it with what you feel is correct, and like you said if
everything is prepared to move down, you need it, you go for it.
MR. CENTER-We can show those areas, if the Board would like we can show those areas in
reserve, those 14 spaces, and have that area that's set aside for any other site changes, those
areas are reserved for additional parking. Obviously if it does take off, and we hope it does,
then he'll, you know, he'll need to expand the parking and he'll definitely put them in, if he feels
that he needs those, and you've got the trip generation, you know you need more parking,
you've got the area reserved, you don't have to come back to the Board to install the parking.
Everything's designed. We can accommodate them and revise the stormwater report when we
answer the other engineer's comments and then it's already right there ready to go and then if
it's needed it's already approved, it's already reserved and we can go ahead and build it and
move forward.
MR. FERONE-And I know somebody just talked about traffic, and I know in your EAF you said
that you don't believe traffic is going to be increased, but we just had three projects here right
near there, hotels where traffic became an issue and there was a traffic study, and this is only
about, what, a quarter of a mile down the road from.
MRS. MOORE-Not even.
MR. FERONE-Yes. Does this project fall into the purview of that?
MRS. MOORE-It falls into the study area, but it doesn't fall into mitigation, and I did not, I can
tell you right now I didn't have Chazen look at it for traffic.
MR. SHAFER-Laura, when the ultimate study was done for the 18 corridor, did it go this far to
the west, in terms of full development and assuming what would be on this parcel?
MRS. MOORE-Yes, I'm thinking it did. I just can't remember off the top of my head if it is. I
can see the report. I'm trying to think of the intersections that it evaluated. It's so close to
Stewarts that I'm thinking that it was evaluated at that point.
MR. MAGOWAN-Well it had to go up the State streets because they're so heavily used.
MR. SHAFER-That's where I was going with my next question. The two driveways onto
Corinth Road, they are two way, both of them are two way? Would you consider a single, did
you consider one way in and one way out?
MR. SAUNDERS-I think he did, but because of the size of the lot, I believe that was his best,
the site plan he could do for the size of the lot. I actually, like I say, tried to get him to sell me
more of the frontage, but they would only agree to 25 more feet. So that helped tremendously
to be able to do without parking in the back, versus.
MR. SHAFER-Well, I was getting to the access on Corinth Road. Whether or not it would make
sense to consider those two driveways as one way. One way in, one way out.
MR. SAUNDERS-If you put it that way, I see more people going the wrong way.
MR. MAGOWAN-I think it would create a little confusion, but two it gives the option if people
want to go west, they're probably going to go up to the west end to go out to avoid Connecticut
Avenue, which, you know.
MR. CENTER-It allows you not to have folks queue up in one end of the parking lot and have to
travel through the parking lot to get to the opposite direction versus guys that are going to go
west are going to go out one.
MR. SHAFER-Would you consider a single two way driveway opposite Connecticut Avenue in
the event that, at some point in the future, there has to be a traffic signalization on Corinth as
you go west. That's why I asked Laura that question.
MR. CENTER-Mr. Nace did the design. I would have to defer to him as to whether or not. I
can answer that question, I didn't, but if there's traffic lights then they're looking at which one is
it going to be.
MR. SHAFER-The distance on the turnaround on Connecticut, it's not a bad location for another
traffic signal, if it ever has to be put in.
MR. CENTER-More than likely I think a traffic signal would be looked at closer to Carey Road
than further down, being Carey Road is a larger use. There's going to be more traffic coming in
and out of Carey Road, especially if this sewer goes and full development goes down there.
They're not going to queue up traffic lights at every intersection. That intersection is probably a
lot larger turnover, a lot different age group that's turning in and out of Carey Road going to
Hudson Headwaters, and it's kind of in between Stewarts and, this project's kind of in between
Stewarts and Carey Road. It would probably be more likely, I would think, off the cuff, that it
would be down in that volume, in that area.
MR. FORD-1 appreciate the fact that we're not maxing out the parking. My preference still is
permeable versus impermeable surface. Hudson Headwaters, your neighbor, is a good
example of that.
MR. MAGOWAN-Have you driven in there, though, Tom?
MR. FORD-1 go in there all the time, unfortunately.
MR. CENTER-I'm not 100% sold on some of the permeable asphalt.
MR. MAGOWAN-For straight roads, but for parking lots, every one that I've seen they tear up.
MR. SCHONEWOLF-They're gone.
MR. CENTER-Yes, in the parking area, in the lanes, if you have very, very large areas, it may
make sense to do that, but there's such a cost difference to have to get it and to have to work
with it and lay it down and talking with the different installers, the only way you get it 100% to
look like Beach Road is to be a State project because it's so expensive. I've tried it in
commercial applications. Small residential it's not bad. In a driveway where you've got a lot of
hard surface and you're just doing a short driveway, you know, it doesn't tear up a ton because
it's just a residential application, it works because you're trying to lessen the impact on the land,
but in the parking lots, my fear is, 10 years down the road, you know, permeable asphalt might
not be here and then it goes back to being, you know, paved surfaces and now where's the
stormwater going? Where are things going, and I'm just not sold yet. I've tried it. It's not
good. They're still, you know, working with the different paving companies. It's a work in
progress.
MR. FORD-It is, and I appreciate your explanation, and hopefully you appreciate the fact that I
will continue to raise that.
MR. CENTER-1 understand. You know what, I've taken the recommendation and tried to use it
at different applications.
MR. FORD-Sooner or later you'll get it and that'll be your claim to fame.
MR. MAGOWAN-Like they said, if they could make it so it was like Beach Road, because I drive
down Beach Road and I say, gosh now why can't they do it like this. Well you just explained
why.
MR. CENTER-It's the most expensive asphalt to put down. It costs money. It's in different
layers. It's very specific gradation, very specific mix design, and not all paving companies, you
know, do it and have the materials available to do that DOT mix for that design, and I've kind of
watched it, too, you know, you see the horses and the shoes up in Lake George kind of ripped
up the top and they had to change things around a little bit there, but it appears to be it's
working, you know, for that application right now, but to have a commercial operation that, even
if it's a 60 space parking lot, to triple your costs just to pave it, to put water in the ground, when
you have good well drained sands, and you can get the water, you know, down to the ground.
MR. FORD-Thank you.
MR. MAGOWAN-Plus the roads are straighter. Like I said, and you don't get, it's that turning,
the stop and the turning of the wheels.
MR. TRAVER-What I've read is that parking lots are the worst use because of the low speed
turning of the wheels and so on. It's just really, really, even for regular asphalt it can be difficult.
MR. FERONE-So the last thing on parking. I know you pointed out I think earlier where you
thought those additional spaces were going to go. Staff Notes were asking for it to actually be
identified on the plans.
MR. CENTER-We have no problem if we need to make that a condition. We can show that,
and like I said, we'll also incorporate it into the stormwater management design.
MR. FERONE-It would be good to know where it's going.
MR. CENTER-Okay. Yes, and it would predominantly, just to let you know, it would be 10
spots along here, and then four spots right there.
MRS. MOORE-1 have one additional question. In reference to bus, you mentioned that
afterschool and programs like or potentially corporate outings for bus travel, is there enough
room for a bus to make the turn radius as well as to turn around and come back out? Can we
see if the turning radius can be added to that information? My guess is that you'll get a couple
of buses every so often, and they'll need a place to park and a place to turn around.
MR. MAGOWAN-Tom, I'd like that not to rip up the paving either, please.
MR. FERONE-Another item, signage. There's a sign there that there's no information. That
was a note by Staff also. Is it going to be a lit sign?
MR. SAUNDERS-It won't be a lit sign.
MR. FERONE-It won't be a lit sign.
MR. SAUNDERS-Maybe the one on the road, but the one on the building won't be lit.
MR. FERONE-And that's the one I'm referring to, the freestanding sign that's going to be on the
road.
MR. SAUNDERS-1 haven't even really looked at those signs yet to be honest with you.
MR. FERONE-That's the information we need to know is if it's going to be backlit, if it's going to
be spotlight.
MR. SAUNDERS-1 don't know what they offer as far as that.
MR. TRAVER-Or if there's a condition that it just be Code compliant.
MR. SAUNDERS-Right. It'll definitely be Code compliant.
MR. CENTER-It'll be Code compliant. We have no problem with that condition. A final design,
but we'll meet with Staff, and if it's Code compliant we'll go that direction, if not, we may be back
before you.
MR. TRAVER-This application does have a provision for a public hearing. Are there any
questions from members of the Board prior to opening the public hearing, other than what's
obviously been asked? Okay. Then I will open a public hearing. Is there anyone here who
wishes to address the Board on this issue? Yes.
PUBLIC HEARING OPENED
FLORENCE GOEDERT
MRS. GOEDERT-I feel like I've been here and awful lot with all these hotels and stuff going in
our area.
MR. TRAVER-Could you just state your name for the record.
MRS. GOEDERT-Yes. My name is Florence Goedert and I reside at 469 Big Bay Road. The
woods that are going to be torn down are pretty close to our home. What concerns us is, you
know, and one of you also brought that up, is the addition to traffic in that area. I mean it's bad
already and now we've got hotels going in there and now we've got this ridiculous thing going in
there, and we're wondering, you know, with all these things going in, and another addition here
with this, you know, how it's going to affect our water pressure as well. Of course noise levels
is a concern and, you know, we just are very, very discouraged. It's almost discouraging to
come here because the mind's already been made up to let this building be put here, you know,
and again, another area right in the immediate, this is the third area in the immediate section
where we live where woods are going to be destroyed and torn down and putting animals out of
homes again, especially this time of year. I mean, I know it may not matter to any of you guys
because the Town pretty much just sees dollar signs with buildings going up, you know, but it
matters to us. We move out here to get away from the city and it seems like Queensbury now
is just turning into a city, because everything's being torn down. All the wooded areas are
being torn down to allow hotels, and now a trampoline place. I mean, the residents, my
neighbors didn't even want to come up because they know the mind's already been made up to
allow this building there, and it doesn't matter what we say or what we think or feel because it's
going to happen, but nothing gets done about any of these issues, you know, like the increase
in traffic, you know, what are the hours of operation going to be for this place, you know, and it
just adds more noise to the area, more, it's just discouraging. I mean, again, I don't know what
kind of buffer zone we're going to have between our home and the building there because I
don't know, I mean, we're trying to figure out exactly how far back the woods were going to be
torn down between our homes and this building coming in. It must be pretty close if we got a
letter to come in for the hearing. I mean, I guess that's all I can say. I hope someone really
does something to consider traffic in that area because it is already heavy.
MR. TRAVER-Okay. Thank you.
MRS. GOEDERT-Thank you.
MR. TRAVER-Anyone else want to address the Board on this application? Okay.
MR. MAGOWAN-Excuse me, ma'am, you said you lived on Big Bay Road?
MRS. GOEDERT-469 Big Bay Road, yes.
MR. MAGOWAN-Up there in the corner of that map, or over there. She can zoom in on it.
MRS. MOORE-She's this lot right there.
MR. MAGOWAN-So where that red dot is where they're building it and then. So there's actually
two lots in between, plus, Tom, how big is your buffer zone between that and your property line?
MR. CENTER-1 think they're eight feet off of that property line on the east side, with plantings
going back. SP-4, with plantings along the property line with the adjoiner's house, but then the
disturbance, then the trees, it looks to be maybe 200 feet, 150 feet back from the road, and then
the existing trees remain all along the back portion of the parcel.
MR. TRAVER-So approximately 150 feet of the vegetation will be cleared, starting from.
MR. FORD-Corinth Road back and then plantings all along there.
MR. MAGOWAN-And you're only bringing in three quarter inch water line, right?
MR. CENTER-Yes, one inch.
MR. MAGOWAN-One inch? Yes, you wouldn't even see a fluctuation in water pressure. I
mean, usually an average that comes into a home is three-quarter, one inch.
MR. FORD-Your hours of operation anticipated?
MR. SAUNDERS-Closed Monday.
MR. FORD-Closed all day Monday?
MR. SAUNDERS-Yes, and it varies when school's out and school's in. When school's in it's
probably four in the afternoon, maybe sometimes two like, something like that, until eight, nine
at night, and then when school's off, it would probably be ten in the morning until eight, nine at
night, sometimes ten. It depends, weekends would be a little later.
MR. TRAVER-So you're saying the latest that you would be open would be 10 p.m.?
MR. SAUNDERS-Ten, eleven.
MR. TRAVER-Eleven p.m.?
MR. SAUNDERS-Yes, on weekends probably.
MR. TRAVER-And what would be the earliest in the morning that you'd be open?
MR. SAUNDERS-Probably 10 would be the earliest.
MR. TRAVER-Okay.
MR. SAUNDERS-As far as noise, I mean it's inside really. It's not like music's playing or
anything. It's just people jumping on trampolines. It's insulated. You won't hear much on the
outside.
MR. CENTER-The building's 156 feet off of the front property line, and that tree line buffer on
the adjoiner's property is about another 10 feet, so 140, 150 feet.
MR. TRAVER-And you said the buffer was eight feet?
MR. CENTER-We're approximately eight feet off the edge of the property line.
MR. TRAVER-And then you added there would be some trees.
MR. CENTER-And then there's on SP-4 shows plantings along the buffer with the adjoiner's
house, to the west. We've also provided some plantings on the west side. So the west and
the east side both have plantings on either side, two red maples, and the closer one to the east,
15 trees along that buffer.
MR. TRAVER-Getting back to noise, I know the trampolines themselves don't make much, if
any noise, but you mentioned that you'd have music playing?
MR. SAUNDERS-No, I said there is no music.
MR. TRAVER-There is no music. Okay.
MR. SAUNDERS-No.
MR. TRAVER-So what, if any, background noise will there be in the facility when it's in
operation?
MR. SCHONEWOLF-Kids screaming.
MR. SAUNDERS-Kids making noise, yes.
MRS. GOEDERT-I'm talking about the parking lot noise.
MR. TRAVER-Parking lot noise? Do you have any external noise that you anticipate other than
vehicles?
MR. SAUNDERS-No, just people coming in and out.
MR. MAGOWAN-You're not planning on any tailgate parties?
MR. SAUNDERS-We're not planning that.
MR. MAGOWAN-There won't be enough room.
MR. TRAVER-Okay. Now this is a SEQR Unlisted application. Do members of the Board feel
that we have enough information to proceed with the SEQR review?
MR. SHAFER-Mr. Chairman, I have a question.
MR. TRAVER-Yes.
MR. SHAFER-My highway engineering and traffic engineering background and reading a lot of
highway design manuals, I would like to have the applicants look at two driveway entrances,
and I'm not sure how to do that in this process. One would be one way in and one way out,
and the other way would be a single two way out opposite Connecticut Avenue, and that's just
good highway design. Okay, and I would like them to at least look at that as part of the
process.
MR. TRAVER-Okay. Well, the only way to really do that would be to table the application and
have them go back to the engineers. They said they had not, as of yet, discussed other options
with the engineers, they certainly could do that and then come back and move forth on the
results of their study. We know that traffic is an issue. We've heard that from public comment
as well. I don't know how other members feel about the entrance and exit potential issue? Do
we feel that we want to have that design looked at in a kind of formal way before we move on
this application?
MR. MAGOWAN-Are you looking at it as putting a light in there or?
MR. TRAVER-No, he's talking about anticipating a light.
MR. SHAFER-1 mean, that's a secondary issue. Just normal traffic.
MR. MAGOWAN-Because like I said, at Carey Road, and I agree with that for actual traffic flow
it's always nice to have, get an entrance across from another road. That way you're, because
now you've got to look at from three points, you know, what's across from you, what's up and
what's down.
MR. TRAVER-Yes, well, let me, if I may, let me ask the applicant what consideration, or what
factors were considered when coming up with the current, the design you have in your
application for two driveways?
MR. CENTER-1 think it was ease of having traffic go east or west and giving two options and not
having to have vehicles queue up where you'd have issues with, you know, kids going across
the parking lot things like that, trying to send people obviously if somebody has to come, you
know, everyone's leaving the one side versus coming in, you know, they may be in the front
have to go back around to the side, one way traffic in and out, you know, additional signage. I
can't speak to 100% of Mr. Nace's thoughts, when he was laying the project out, but having, you
know, you have a considerable, you have about 100 feet in between. I think when you start
trying to line that up with Connecticut Avenue, I mean, now you've offset the parking a little bit.
It kind of offsets the balance of laying out that parking area and the lane to come in and out and
changing, you know, the travel lanes, you have to kind of lay out the whole parking lot for that
one exit, and you have to have queue up areas for that one exit coming back into the center of
your parking lot, and our lot doesn't necessarily line up with that, to one side or the other. It's
kind of almost in the middle. So now you're kind of balancing that asymmetrical layout of the
parking lot just to try to line up with that one street that's across, and there's another street down
here and there's another, those streets are all, if it was on one side, you know, if it was all the
way to the east or all the way to the west, it might be, you know, then it definitely would have
lined up, no doubt in my mind you would have lined that intersection up, that exit up with the
street crossing being in the middle.
MR. TRAVER-The other option that was brought up is the idea of having one entrance in only
and one out only exit, which perhaps you could do by modifying your existing design.
MR. CENTER-Certainly, I mean, if the applicant's not opposed to that, we could change that
layout and show it as one in and one out. That would be his decision. It would be some
signage.
MR. SAUNDERS-1 live off of 17 and I watch people going the wrong way at the Mobile station
there on one way going in, one way coming out. I watch them go across that all the time. It
doesn't seem to make a difference.
MR. TRAVER-Yes, there's always some people that won't pay attention to signage. Let me
poll the Board. How do members feel about the traffic issue with the specific question of the
leaving and entering the site? Do we want the applicant to have discussions with the traffic
engineer to do a more formal review of the driveways, or do we feel either that what's been
proposed is adequate, or do we want to say that perhaps modifying what's been proposed to
have one in only and one out only? We need to decide where we're at.
MS. WHITE-So what Mr. Shafer is looking for is some further information, not necessarily that
one is better than the other, but some consideration as to what might be better.
MR. TRAVER-Yes. He wants a formal consultation with, yes.
MR. SHAFER-It would clearly optimism the parking layout and the driveway situation, but
looking at it from the standpoint of traffic on Corinth Road it may make sense to look at a couple
of different alternatives, but again, I don't want to hold up the project, but at the same time.
MR. FERONE-Mr. Chairman, can we poll and see if Staff had any concerns with the traffic
issue?
MR. TRAVER-Well, there weren't any.
MRS. MOORE-Well, again, I didn't refer this application for traffic.
MR. TRAVER-For traffic, right.
MRS. MOORE-But it is potentially in the study area that would, that we would refer similar to
another application we had, where I may have said, hey, could you take a look at this.
MR. TRAVER-Yes, and we also need to bear in mind that it's also part of SEAR. So the
question is, I guess, how strongly the feeling is that it needs to be looked at beyond what's been
submitted. We can certainly do that. The applicant can certainly do that. If there is, I'm just
trying to get a feel for how the Board feels about that.
MR. MAGOWAN-Well, I'll start off with I'm happy with what's been designed for the site. I see
the flow, I see the safety. I like, you know, the different options and I think it would be safer for
the kids in the parking lot. What happens when you condense it down to a one, you get more,
you know, like you said, you get the buildup and the rush and this and that, and this way you
have the option, and I understand trying to get it across from an intersection, but like I said
eventually I think there's got to be a light that's got to go up there at Carey as that builds out,
with what's going to be going on down at the eastern end.
MR. TRAVER-Yes, well I'm certainly not a traffic engineer by any means, but one of the
thoughts that I had when I looked at it is that with the current design, I think you're going to have
less traffic through the parking area, which with pedestrians, particularly, you know, kids running
in and out of the building, you know, if you put one way in or one way out or you condense it to
one entrance, you're going to have more vehicles traversing the parking area, and I just see that
as a potential threat to pedestrians, and by the statement of the applicant there are going to be
a lot of very young pedestrians that don't pay much attention to looking before they cross the
road or in a parking lot. That's why I wasn't concerned with the design.
MR. SCHONEWOLF-That's the danger of the whole project. What you want to eliminate is
people running across the parking lot. Because that's where you're going to have an accident.
It's not big enough to be able to have that accident on a main road. .
MR. TRAVER-You mean because overflow parking would be on the side of the road?
MR. SCHONEWOLF-But when you see these accidents they're always kids running in the
parking lots because their parents aren't paying attention or whatever.
MR. TRAVER-Right.
MR. CENTER-There's pretty good sight distance also down the hill. You have good sight
distance. You have good stopping distance. I mean, if that intersection had less sight
distance and there was a way to line it up with Connecticut Avenue, yes, it might make sense.
MR. SCHONEWOLF-But someday it will change.
MR. CENTER-Yes. There's going to be traffic control down there, especially as this sewer
goes out into the larger projects.
MR. SCHONEWOLF-That area is going to grow.
MR. TRAVER-Yes. Well, maybe we can address that when we're looking at a motion, if we're
going to move on a motion on this project tonight. Maybe we should look at SEQR next and
see how the vote goes on that. Does that make sense to people?
MR. FORD-Yes.
MR. TRAVER-All right. So this is Unlisted action. The applicants, Laura, we have a motion.
MRS. MOORE-You have a draft motion, but it is up to the Board. If they wish to go through
SEAR, they can.
MR. TRAVER-Right, yes, and I had brought up earlier whether or not members feel, in general,
they have enough information and that would include the issue raised regarding traffic to move
forward with SEAR. How do people feel?
MR. FERONE-I'd prefer to get the traffic issue addressed. I think that we've had enough
projects on that road that there's been such discussion about traffic, and this is so close to all of
that activity. I think Mr. Shafer earlier had a suggest about, you know, a driveway lining up with
Connecticut Avenue. I thought that was a very good idea, that in the event, in the future, a
traffic light has to be put in there.
MR. TRAVER-Yes, and it may very well be. As I said, I'm not a traffic engineer. So I'm not
here to judge, and I think that was his point was that it's perhaps something, and Laura's
bringing up the study information.
MRS. MOORE-It just goes from Big Bay to Corinth. It did not go past that.
MR. TRAVER-So you're feeling is, just to clarify, that we should get additional traffic study
information, also with regard to the parking lot, before we move forward on this?
MR. FERONE-Yes.
MR. TRAVER-Mr. Ford, how do you feel?
MR. FORD-1 concur, more traffic information. I appreciate what Florence said earlier about the
traffic and we've dealt with it with other projects, and I think this is a natural continuation of
looking at the totality of the impact of traffic in that neighborhood.
MR. TRAVER-Okay. What do you think? Do you want to look at more traffic data?
MR. MAGOWAN-1 don't know what you're going to do. I mean, you're talking one building.
There's three hotels, a McDonald's and a Northway. You're going to get the traffic anyway, but
I mean, we're cutting down on the parking lot size there because he doesn't think he's going to
have the traffic, and I think there's no way that you're going to be putting a light on Connecticut
Avenue, and even if you did, it's all right to have an off centered, you know, road, where this
traffic would go and then that would go. I mean, there are many lights are off centered. Like I
said, if they put a traffic light anywhere, the next one would be up at Carey Road in my opinion
because that's where your largest amount of traffic's going to be coming in and out.
MS. WHITE-1 wasn't even considering a traffic light. I just kind of would be very interested to
see, you know, from Chazen, if that's something that we do, what's the best layout? Is it two
entrances, is it one, or is it the one exit, one entrance scenario. I guess I'd just like to see a
little more information, not that there's, we can't predict the future. We don't know if there's
going to be a traffic light or where it's going to be.
MR. TRAVER-That's right.
MS. WHITE-But we do need information.
MR. CENTER-Could I just ask a quick question? Was there ever conversations? I know
Hudson Headwaters was recently built there, just down the road at Carey Road. Obviously that
has way more than 64 parking spaces there. With that intersection and that traffic going in and
out of that road, was there any issues there with traffic?
MR. TRAVER-It certainly would have been discussed as part of, yes, that certainly would have
been, I think what I'm sensing is the context of every project that comes along keeps changing
with prior projects, and I think with Hudson Headwaters and, you know, Hotel A and Hotel B,
each of those were, they all had an impact on traffic, obviously, but they were each considered
independently in the sense that other projects that came afterwards did not exist, and as is the
case with this project, I think now you're looking at a context that is different than it was a few
months ago let's say, which is why we're hearing the concern, because we don't know, not
being engineers, whether or not a light would be, I mean, we all have opinions. I mean, you all
heard what I felt about, you know, vehicles traversing the parking lot, but I don't know if that's, I
mean, to me that's commonsense, but a traffic engineer might say that's not true. I don't know,
and I think that's what we fear is if we act on something when we don't have the information,
that makes me a little nervous. So I guess my feeling is I support the idea of having our
engineering look at the traffic issue, and I think that, you know, we're making a long term
investment in this project, as is the applicant, and I think, you know, it's not a huge issue, but if
we don't make sure that we have good information, it could be a huge issue that could have
been avoided, which would really be a nightmare.
MR. MAGOWAN-I'm just curious. I think it's a great idea, but why are we thinking about that as
this applicant is probably looking to get started here and maybe get something in before winter
sets in where he can, you know, make his money? To me that would be a Town thing and that
should have been brought up when the application came in. It's like, well, boy, this place down
here is going to take off so we better start thinking ahead, just not off the main corridor just off
the Northway. There should have been a study all the way down to West Mountain Road.
Because that's where all the available land is left, you know, in Queensbury that's kind of
buildable. There's a lot of trees still out there.
MR. TRAVER-Right. Well, do we have any idea what the time impact would be, Laura, in
having the engineer look at the traffic? I mean, how soon could we get the applicant back?
MRS. MOORE-Right now we're trying to finalize agendas for July. It would move some items
off the July agenda if you tabled it to July. There's definitely openings in August.
MR. TRAVER-Would we be able to get the information that we need by then?
MRS. MOORE-Yes.
MR. CENTER-And could I offer a compromise? Could we, since this issue for this particular
project, could we offer a condition that we, you know, what we have, this layout to the Town
Engineer, and if changes are needed we have to come back to the Board in regards to that? If
they find that there is not an issue with this particular projects, with these two, whether it's one,
we have to go to one way, they feel one way is safer, we can certainly have a discussion
regarding the engineering minutia of traffic development of the parking lot and of Corinth Road,
and then maybe that would spur further conversations with them for future projects regarding
whether things need to line up or?
MR. TRAVER-Well, one issue with that is it may result in a design change, and if we proceed
with SEAR, we've approved, by SEAR, the design that you've submitted for traffic.
MR. CENTER-But we're saying, conditionally, if it works, then that will be the direction that we
will go.
MR. FERONE-We can't approve SEQR conditionally, I don't think.
MR. TRAVER-Yes, I don't think we can do the SEAR, but if we can get you on the agenda for
next month and we can get all of that resolved that's about the shortest delay that we could
possibly.
MR. SAUNDERS-It would just put me into winter, trying to do a project in winter that really
wasn't really planned on being done in winter. So will it impact costs for me? Yes. I mean,
it's a real good viable business for Queensbury. That's what I don't understand. I mean, it's
the best layout we can do with the site plan.
MR. FORD-You mean next month?
MR. SAUNDERS-Well, it just puts me another month back, that's all.
MR. CENTER-We still need to go through the Department of Health approval with not having
everything in line.
MR. TRAVER-But that's already underway you said. Those discussions are already underway
you said..
MR. CENTER-1 did not say there's underway with the Department of Health because we
normally, until a project is through the Planning Board, I submit it to the Department of Health
post that. We may have some preliminary discussions, based on this is a franchise you kind of
know what they're looking for, but most of the time they don't want to look at it until it's
something that's been approved by the Planning Board then you can go forward, as far as their
official review. You might have a conversation with them, but you don't have official review
started until you have a viable project that's approved.
MR. MAGOWAN-Well, being in the building trade as long as I have I personally think this is very
unfair for the applicant, but I understand why we need what we have to do, but this should have
all been pre-thought out because we know this is happening down there and we just went
through it with all the hotels, you know, and like I said, if that puts him off, you know, he opens
up in January, I mean, that's not, if he can open up in November or opens up in January, that
could make or break a new business.
MR. SAUNDERS-Well, it all goes along with planting the landscaping, everything in the
wintertime, you know, the blacktop plant closes mid-December. It just pushes everything back.
MR. FORD-May I ask Laura a question?
MR. TRAVER-Sure.
MR. FORD-Is there a way of conditioning this, Laura, so that in consultation with the Town's
engineer, how would you couch that? How would you approach it is critical. The question
really is is there a better way to manage traffic for this project?
MR. TRAVER-Based on the entrances and exits?
MR. FORD-Exactly.
MR. SHAFER-And following up on Tom's suggestion about a compromise, you know, the trip
generation is not going to change. The same number of people are going to be coming in
either way. Turning movements aren't going to change either. Traffic coming from the east or
west is not going to change. The only thing that really changes is the physical layout on how
you access Corinth Road.
MR. TRAVER-Right.
MR. SHAFER-So I'm wondering if we couldn't somehow conditionally approve this with the
proviso that somebody would at least look at it, a better way of accessing Corinth Road.
MR. TRAVER-Well, that's kind of what the applicant.
MRS. MOORE-Right. So I believe that when you're doing your review of SEAR, you're not
necessarily, you're reviewing that he has enough parking to satisfy the requirements of a
building that size. So the applicant has demonstrated that they have enough parking and
enough banked parking. Whether you're approving it for its specific design and layout as part
of SEAR, that also occurs in site plan review. So I think that's where you can move, you're
doing your condition in site plan review about its actual orientation, but right now as part of
traffic, does he have enough parking spaces to accommodate the use being proposed.
MS. WHITE-So we have enough information for SEAR, and what we're talking about is
something that will be addressed when we do site plan review.
MR. CENTER-And the condition would address the concern.
MS. WHITE-That's what it sounds like.
MR. TRAVER-Yes. The applicant. So what you're proposing is if we were to give you a
conditional, an approval, among other things, on the condition that engineer, that the project be
referred to the engineer for traffic.
MR. CENTER-And for the parking lot layout entrance and exit.
MR. TRAVER-Right.
MR. FORD-Yes.
MR. TRAVER-And if that review, if you were unable to get approval, in effect, for what you
submitted, then you'd be prepared to change.
MR. CENTER-We'd have to make a change and we'd have to re-submit and come back.
MR. TRAVER-Okay.
MR. CENTER-Unless he says, I don't know if he says one in and one out, then that's something
that doesn't necessarily change, if we're changing the entrance completely.
MR. FORD-I'm not saying this is bad, but is there a better.
MR. TRAVER-Yes.
MR. MAGOWAN-1 like that because we can work with it and they can work with it and it keeps
things moving.
MR. TRAVER-So that way we wouldn't have to table it. We could condition it instead.
MR. FORD-Yes.
MR. TRAVER-Okay. How do people feel about that compromise? Is that acceptable?
MS. WHITE-Yes.
MR. TRAVER-All right.
MR. MAGOWAN-1 think I might stay the rest of the night now.
MR. TRAVER-Okay. All right. So let me just write something here for a second.
MR. FERONE-So while the Chairman's writing, on the EAF resolution, your answer was no
regarding archeological sensitivity. It looks like an area that wasn't touched, but that's.
MR. CENTER-1 don't know if he.
MR. SAUNDERS-He checked it and said it's not a. He checked on it.
MR. FERONE-He checked it.
MR. FORD-Who checked on it?
MR. SAUNDERS-Tom Nace.
MR. CENTER-He must have filed it with.
MR. FERONE-SHPO.
MR. SAUNDERS-Yes, he did check on that.
MR. TRAVER-Parking lot design to be reviewed by the Town Engineer for approval. All right.
The last condition I had was the parking lot design to be reviewed by the Town Engineer for
approval, and then sewage design and management to be approved by the Town prior to
Certificate of Occupancy. All right. So we think we have what may result in some conditions
for the motion to approve. So now we need to move on to SEAR.
MRS. MOORE-Mr. Chairman, before you do that, your public hearing is still open.
MR. TRAVER-Thank you. Did anyone else want to address the Board on this project? Then I
will close the public hearing.
MS. WHITE-Is there any written comment?
MR. TRAVER-Thank you. Were there any written comments?
MRS. MOORE-There's no written comments.
MR. TRAVER-No written comments. Thank you for that. Then I will close the public hearing
and move on to SEAR.
PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED
MR. TRAVER-We have a draft resolution, and Part I of the Short EAF has been completed by
the applicant. We have obviously discussed a lot of environmental issues including traffic and
building height and so on. Does anyone have any concerns regarding any environmental or
SEQR issues that would impact this project in a positive way? Hearing none, does anyone want
to make a motion for SEAR?
The applicant proposes a new retail building, 22,200 sq. ft. recreational building for Sky Zone
Trampoline, including a mezzanine area in the building. Pursuant to Chapter 179-3-040 of the
Zoning Ordinance, new commercial use shall be subject to Planning Board review and approval.
The Planning Board has determined that the proposed project and Planning Board action is
subject to review under the State Environmental Quality Review Act;
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;
No Federal or other agencies are involved;
Part 1 of the Short EAF has been completed by the applicant;
Upon review of the information recorded on this EAF, it is the conclusion of the Town of
Queensbury Planning Board as lead agency that this project will result in no significant adverse
impacts on the environment, and, therefore, an environmental impact statement need not be
prepared. Accordingly, this negative declaration is issued.
RESOLUTION GRANTING NEGATIVE SEQR DEC SP PZ 149-2016 RAN
ENTERTAINMENT
MOTION TO GRANT A NEGATIVE DECLARATION FOR SITE PLAN PZ 149-2016 RAN
ENTERTAINMENT, LLC, Introduced by Brad Magowan who moved for its adoption, seconded
by Thomas Ford:
As per the resolution prepared by staff.
1. Part 11 of the Short EAF has been reviewed and completed by the Planning Board.
2. Part III of the Short EAF is not necessary because the Planning Board did not identify
potentially moderate or large impacts.
3. For Number Five on the Short EAF the Planning Board has said there is a no or small
impact
regarding traffic.
Duly adopted this 21St day of June, 2016 by the following vote:
MRS. MOORE-Just to pull out Number Five that you've answered according to the Short EAF
the question is will the proposed action result in an adverse change in the existing level of traffic
or affect existing infrastructure for mass transit, biking or walkway, and you're looking at is it an
adverse and is it significant, and the question to be answered would be no or small may occur.
That's one column. The other column would be moderate to large impact would occur. So my
understanding, and you should say this for the record, is that no or small impact may occur if
that's what you believe.
MR. TRAVER-Does everybody agree with that?
MS. WHITE-Yes.
MR. TRAVER-Okay.
MR. MAGOWAN-So I'd say that for Number Five on the Short Form no or small impact.
AYES: Mr. Ford, Mr. Schonewolf, Ms. White, Mr. Shafer, Mr. Magowan, Mr. Ferone, Mr.
Traver
NOES: NONE
MR. TRAVER-All right. Now we can move on to the question of approval of the project site
plan, and I know that we have a number of conditions in addition to the draft that we've
discussed that would be reviewed at the time the motion is made, but right now I'm asking if
anyone has any additional, if any members of the Board have any additional questions or
concerns that they want raised before we move to a motion? Okay. Then would someone like
to make a motion on this project?
RESOLUTION APPROVING SP PZ 149-2016 RAN ENTERTAINMENT
The applicant has submitted an application to the Planning Board for a new retail building,
22,200 sq. ft. recreational building for Sky Zone Trampoline, including a mezzanine area in the
building. Pursuant to Chapter 179-3-040 of the Zoning Ordinance, new commercial use shall be
subject to Planning Board review and approval.
Pursuant to relevant sections of the Town of Queensbury Zoning Code-Chapter 179-9-080, the
Planning Board has determined that this proposal satisfies the requirements as stated in the
Zoning Code;
As required by General Municipal Law Section 239-m the site plan application was referred to
the Warren County Planning Department for its recommendation;
The Planning Board has reviewed the potential environmental impacts of the project, pursuant
to the State Environmental Quality Review Act (SEQRA) and adopted a SEQRA Negative
Declaration — Determination of Non-Significance
The Planning Board opened a public hearing on the Site plan application on 6/21/2016, and
continued the public hearing to 6/21/2016, when it was closed,
The Planning Board has reviewed the application materials submitted by the applicant and all
comments made at the public hearing and submitted in writing through and including 6/21/2016;
The Planning Board determines that the application complies with the review considerations and
standards set forth in Article 9 of the Zoning Ordinance for Site Plan approval,
MOTION TO APPROVE SITE PLAN PZ 149-2016 RAN ENTERTAINMENT, LLC; Introduced
by George Ferone who moved for its adoption, seconded by Brad Magowan:
According to the draft resolution prepared by Staff with the following:
1) Waivers requested granted;
2. Adherence to the items outlined in the follow-up letter sent with this resolution.
a) 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;
b) If applicable, the Sanitary Sewer connection plan must be submitted to the
Wastewater Department for its review, approval, permitting and inspection;
c) 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;
d) If application was referred to engineering then Engineering sign-off required prior to
signature of Zoning Administrator of the approved plans;
e) If required, the applicant must submit a copy of the following to the Town:
a. The project NOI (Notice of Intent) for coverage under the current "NYSDEC
SPDES General Permit from Construction Activity" prior to the start of any site
work.
b. The project NOT (Notice of Termination) upon completion of the project;
c. The applicant must maintain on their project site, for review by staff:
i. The approved final plans that have been stamped by the Town Zoning
Administrator. These plans must include the project SWPPP (Storm
Water Pollution Prevention Plan) when such a plan was prepared and
approved;
ii. The project NOI and proof of coverage under the current NYSDEC
SPDES General Permit, or an individual SPDES permit issued for the
project if required.
f) 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;
g) The applicant must meet with Staff after approval and prior to issuance of
Building Permit and/or the beginning of any site work;
h) Subsequent issuance of further permits, including building permits is dependent on
compliance with this and all other conditions of this resolution;
i) 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.
j) This resolution is to be placed in its entirety on the final plans
k) 14 additional spaces are to be identified on the plan for parking.
I) That bus parking and turn lanes should be identified on the plan.
m) Signage design to be provided and also to be Code compliant.
n) That a review of the driveway entrance and egress is to be reviewed by the Town
Engineer for design.
o) Sewage design and management to be approved by the Town prior to Certificate of
Occupancy.
Duly adopted this 21St day of June, 2016, by the following vote:
AYES: Ms. White, Mr. Schonewolf, Mr. Ford, Mr. Shafer, Mr. Magowan, Mr. Ferone, Mr.
Traver
NOES: NONE
MR. TRAVER-Good luck.
MR. SAUNDERS-Thank you.
SITE PLAN PZ 153-2016 SEQRA TYPE UNLISTED RASHEED BHATTI OWNER(S)
SAME AS APPLICANT ZONING CI LOCATION 1602 STATE ROUTE 9 APPLICANT
PROPOSES TO INSTALL FOUR NEW CABINS AND A STORAGE SHED. EACH CABIN IS
TO BE 30' X 30' WITH A DECK OF 6' X 30'. IN ADDITION, A 30' X 20' SHED IS
PROPOSED AND SITE WORK FOR INSTALLATION OF BUILDINGS PROPOSED.
APPLICANT HAS ALSO COMPLETED FILLING AND CLEARING PRIOR TO APPROVALS.
PURSUANT TO CHAPTER 179-3-040 OF THE ZONING ORDINANCE, NEW
CONSTRUCTION SHALL BE SUBJECT TO PLANNING BOARD REVIEW AND APPROVAL.
CROSS REFERENCE 2015-446 SEPTIC ALT.; 2013-582 THRU 588 CABIN ALTS.; 2012-545
COMM. ALT. PORCHES/BALCONIES WARREN CO. REFERRAL JUNE 2016 LOT SIZE
3.95 ACRES TAX MAP NO. 288.8-1-11.2 SECTION 179-3-040
HAROLD NICHOLSON, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT; RASHEED BHATTI,
PRESENT
MR. TRAVER-Laura?
MRS. MOORE-This applicant proposes to install four new cabins and a storage shed. Each
cabin is to be 30' x 30' with a deck of 6' by 30'. In addition there is a proposed 30' by 20' shed
that is to be used for equipment and maintenance of the site. Please note that this applicant
has met with Code Enforcement and others on the site. Project activities were occurring with
clearing and things like that, and so the applicant is now in the middle of this process to be
compliant by submitting the site plan review application, providing information to this Board
about what the intent of the clearing is and that was to add four new cabins to the site and this is
why the applicant is before you tonight.
MR. TRAVER-Okay. Thank you.
MR. BHATTI-Good evening.
MR. NICHOLSON-Good evening, members of the Board. Harold Nicholson, attorney for the
applicant, Rasheed Bhatti. As Mrs. Moore eloquently stated, this is a very simple plan. It's a
pre-existing business. Mr. Bhatti took over this business two years ago and has pretty much
brought it back from the brink of disaster. It's now a successful business with very nice looking
cabins and a nicer looking hotel than what was there before. He's upgraded quite a number of
his systems to meet Department of Health standards and Town standards to make sure it's
Code compliant. The applicant is applying to install four Amish made cabins that are, they look
like little log cabins. There's two different bedrooms in each cabin and they'd be serviced by
the existing water line. There'll be an installed with this project a new sewer system which is
clearly marked on the map with, you know, all kinds of different swales and absorption beds. It
well exceeds the necessary usage for the intended use. This will be a scaled project. Mr.
Bhatti intends to, has already cleared the site for preparation. He was unaware of the fact that
he needed a building permit for that use, for removal of trees in that sense, come up with an
engineering plan and all this has gone before the Planning Board to build the site. He has in
there the proposed look of what the sheds will look like, all the measurements. He'll be
beginning the increase of parking, and if you look at the plan you can see that there's pre-
existing cabins that are there now. The new cabins will be similar except larger. They will
accommodate two beds and a bathroom on one side and two beds and a bathroom on the other
side of the cabins and they'll have a shared porch area. It'll continue to have a gravel driveway
to minimize any storm issues. Any wastewater will be taken care of. Everything's permeable.
We like permeable.
MR. FORD-Thank you.
MR. NICHOLSON-And then as you can see the total square footage is, the total area is less
than one acre. So we assume that SEQR is not an issue here as well. Any questions?
MR. TRAVER-Okay. Questions from members of the Planning Board?
MR. MAGOWAN-Well, I do want to say that I drove up there. I don't normally go that way
because of the Million Dollar Mile, but I'm like, just getting rid of the pink alone was just, like,
awesome, but I actually slowed down and looked at the craftsmanship there, and I really like the
new look.
MR. BHATTI-Thank you.
MR. MAGOWAN-1 was a little upset about the clearing without your approvals, but, no, overall
what you've done so far to that property because I'm very familiar with it. It really looks great.
MR. FORD-Were violations issued because of the clearing?
MRS. MOORE-Clearing without approvals.
MR. FORD-Thank you.
MR. NICHOLSON-1 think it was more the fact that it was commercial property. Removing a
number of trees as opposed to a residential just removing a tree here and there.
MR. TRAVER-And you're allowed to clear something like an acre, right, without a permit, I
thought, or is that only for private property?
MRS. MOORE-The idea behind site plan is any land development, whether it's an acre or less
than an acre, the intent was to develop the land, and so that requires site plan review. Whether
there's new buildings put on it or nothing, just the intent of clearing land, even if it's less than an
acre, could potentially be subject to site plan review. In this case you've seen other projects
such as Exit 18 where he came in, he cleared almost an acre if not an acre, and that required
site plan review. So it's no different.
MR. FERONE-Residential and commercial?
MRS. MOORE-The residential clearing of an acre would trigger could potentially trigger the
review.
MR. FERONE-Thank you.
MR. MAGOWAN-If he just wanted to cut down the trees and wasn't planning on doing any
expansion, couldn't he do that on his own property?
MRS. MOORE-It most likely would need some sort of review. That's what I.
MR. SCHONEWOLF-On your own property?
MR. MAGOWAN-Yes, you can't do anything. Be careful, don't you pick any weeds unless you
come to us.
MR. SCHONEWOLF-That's what I'm saying, there's a lot of guys on the lake.
MR. FERONE-One of the questions I had, I drove on your property today, and you kind of had a
couple of the cabins and the bigger building up on top, but this area you've got to come out and
go down a separate driveway. Any plans in the future to connect everything together?
MR. NICHOLSON-If you look at the site plan, this is Sheet 2 of X, where you can see that
there's actually an access road that goes directly up the site and that goes to where the house
and office part is, and then there's also an access road that goes directly to a curb cut that's
pre-existing.'
MR. FERONE-Okay. Yes, I didn't see that today when I was down there.
MRS. MOORE-And you have a parking space in the middle of that. So it's not really a true.
MR. NICHOLSON-Right. It's not a true drive through. Because there's a Number 17 motel
unit is there, but there's a, you can get a, this is the road here. This is where the curb cut is,
where it shows a shed, that's the access road in and out, and then you can drive down to go to
the office.
MR. FERONE-So there's walking access and drive access.
MR. BHATTI-People walk up to the office. It's not a road. The entrance is from Route 9 to go
back, and then access.
MR. FERONE-With a car you have to go down the other.
MR. BHATTI-Yes. A car cannot come from.
MR. NICHOLSON-From there to the office.
MR. FERONE-Okay.
MR. TRAVER-Any other questions for the applicant before we talk about the SEAR?
MR. SHAFER-The crushed stone driveway to the north, and I drove down there today, there are
five gray buildings there. If you drive down that driveway now, there are five gray buildings.
MR. BHATTI-They're old cabins. You're talking about the existing cabins.
MR. SHAFER-That's why I questioned. There are a lot of boxes on here with X's, some with X's
and some without X's.
MR. BHATTI-Yes. They're existing cabins there.
MR. NICHOLSON-1 think it's labeled on Sheet Two it's labeled, I want to say it's seven and it
says cabin on it, one, two, four, five, seven. There's pre-existing buildings.
MR. MAGOWAN-The ones with the X's you're taking out?
MR. NICHOLSON-No, those are parking spots.
MR. MAGOWAN-The one with the X is a parking spot for cabin, all right.
MR. NICHOLSON-Yes, so like the Number One with the X through it is the parking spot, that's
one parking spot for that guy. Number Two with the X is the parking spot for that guy, and
under where it says cabin is the actual cabin.
MR. SHAFER-And there are six boxes that say cabin.
MR. BHATTI-Yes. Those are existing cabins.
MR. NICHOLSON-And then the proposed cabins are actually kind of like bigger squares with
the hash marks around the outside.
MR. TRAVER-And the shed is also listed.
MR. NICHOLSON-And the shed is also listed. Mr. Bhatti would probably prefer to have the
shed on the other side, but the other cabin is making is more central, but being it's a non-
permanent shed.
MR. BHATTI-Actually the engineer just made a mistake at the end. The shed we want in the
center. The old cabin was there. This will be the center of the property, this is the way side,
left side, north side of the property.
MS. WHITE-So where is the shed going?
MRS. MOORE-Where are you flipping the shed to?
MR. NICHOLSON-If you go down a little bit.
MRS. MOORE-This is the proposed shed.
MR. NICHOLSON-Yes, if you go down from where you're viewing, right where it says cabin
underneath the, right where the cursor is. Just kind of right next to the cabin.
MR. BHATTI-Behind, backside.
MRS. MOORE-So you can go through here.
MR. NICHOLSON-Yes, it's just a walkway path for the workers to be able to get to it, to mow the
lawn.
MR. BHATTI-There you go, and it's way behind the big cabin, double cabin, right here.
MR. MAGOWAN-You want to put it near the pump house.
MR. BHATTI-Yes.
MR. NICHOLSON-Well, somewhere in there.
MR. BHATTI-Pretty decent area in there.
MR. MAGOWAN-Between that cabin and the pump house, somewhere in that area.
MR. BHATTI-Yes, sir.
MR. MAGOWAN-That's quite a ways to move that shed.
MS. WHITE-Well, we can't approve that then.
MRS. MOORE-If you're moving that, you can, one of the things the Board could say is your
plans need to be updated to show that location.
MR. NICHOLSON-Right.
MRS. MOORE-So it's not just temporary.
MR. NICHOLSON-No, it's not a temporary shed.
MR. TRAVER-So have you updated your plans to reflect that change?
MR. NICHOLSON-We just realized that it was wrong today.
MR. BHATTI-Today.
MR. NICHOLSON-And we came in. When I was reviewing the plans with Mr. Bhatti and I said
is that where you really want that, and he said no. It doesn't make any sense.
MR. TRAVER-Okay.
MR. FORD-Have you picked up anything else that you want to change on the plan?
MR. BHATTI-No, sir.
MR. NICHOLSON-No, no, that was the only thing.
MS. WHITE-Well, however, it's very inconsistent in the labeling. I mean, that you've got
numbers, you've got letters, parking spaces, you've got a cabin. So to me it's very confusing,
you know, compared to what you see when you're there to what you see on here is a little,
maybe it's just me, but I'm looking at a lot of inconsistent labeling.
MR. TRAVER-No, you're right.
MR. NICHOLSON-Yes, I mean, if you look at the big plan. Have you guys got a big plan? If
you look at the big plan, it's a little bit clearer. It's not so.
MR. TRAVER-It's the same information.
MR. NICHOLSON-The same information but it's a little bit easier, at least for me anyway, to be
able to read it, because it's not all scrunched up.
MR. TRAVER-1 think she's talking not about the difficulty in reading it, but the difficulty in
understanding the labeling.
MS. WHITE-Yes, because we've got a cabin here. We've got C & D, and then we've got two
parking spaces, they're C & D, and then we've got this, and then we've got cabins that are, you
know.
MR. NICHOLSON-That's pre-existing, pre-existing, pre-existing cabins, right, and then the pre-
existing parking structures.
MR. TRAVER-Yes. Generally there's something in the key that shows what's pre-existing.
MR. MAGOWAN-On Sheet Four shows the cabins that are existing without the parking spots.
Am I correct?
MR. NICHOLSON-Yes, no, you're right. Sheet Four shows what's there now, what's currently
there.
MR. MAGOWAN-Without the numbers with the X's.
MR. NICHOLSON-Without the parking spots, yes, and it's all gravel. So it's really more of a
general, you park somewhere in there. It's not like it's a labeled spot. It's gravel. So it's a,
you know, everybody gets a car for their cabin.
MS. WHITE-So you're keeping the gravel. That's not changing.
MR. NICHOLSON-No, that's my point. Right. So that the parking spots are more just the
general to show the Board, because we know that there are parking spot, you know, Code, and
we want to make sure that you realize that there are enough parking spots for each cabin, each
car. Each cabin will be able to have one or two cars per cabin, which is more than enough.
MR. TRAVER-Well, obviously you'll need two cars for the double.
MR. NICHOLSON-You'll need two cars, right, right. So that it will be more than sufficient to
handle the.
MR. TRAVER-So how long will it take you to get the correct plan to the Town?
MR. NICHOLSON-Just to move the shed over? If that's the only recommendation, maybe a
week or so.
MRS. MOORE-And there's still engineering comments that need to be addressed. So it would
be in line with those.
MR. TRAVER-Yes. So we want to, maybe in view of the history, we should also require that
the engineering comments be fully addressed before we examine this application again. How
do members feel about that?
MR. NICHOLSON-We're not aware of any engineering comments.
MR. TRAVER-You should have received them. They were sent on the 14th. There are a
number of them. It was sent on the 14th
MR. NICHOLSON-To Dickinson and Associates or to Mr. Bhatti?
MRS. MOORE-They've been sent to both. Whoever's names are on the application and the e-
mail addresses. If there's no e-mail address, they would have been hard copied.
MR. TRAVER-Okay. So then, Laura, how should we, in terms of scheduling, how do you want
to handle that? Do you want to just return it to the agenda once you have received all the
engineering and the plans are correct?
MRS. MOORE-If you're intending to receive engineering signoff prior to you making your
decision, that's the charge of the applicant. So the potential is that you would place that
applicant back on your potentially August agenda, if the turnaround time occurs prior to July
15th
MR. TRAVER-Okay. So they'd have until July 15th to address the engineering comments?
MRS. MOORE-Engineering comments.
MR. TRAVER-Which are pretty extensive.
MR. FORD-And the map revisions.
MRS. MOORE-That's up to the Board.
MR. TRAVER-Right. Okay. Can you submit the correct plans to the Town by July 15th and
address the engineering comments?
MR. NICHOLSON-We can request that the engineer have it ready by then. I can't speak for
them personally.
MR. TRAVER-Okay. Well, it's just that would get you back on the agenda sooner, obviously.
MR. NICHOLSON-Okay.
MR. TRAVER-So then we will need a motion to that effect. It looks like we'll be tabling this
pending the correct application to be submitted to the Town and the engineering comments be
addressed. If that is completed by July 15th, we'll try to get them on the August agenda.
MRS. MOORE-I'm trying to think of how to word this. If the applicant has until July 15th to
submit information to submit to the engineer for an engineering signoff. That's what you're
looking for. I would say any time between now and July 15th the applicant could submit
information to be forwarded to the engineer, in the hopes that we would receive signoff prior, by
July 15th or by the August meeting. So I don't want to pigeon hole the signoff to be that date.
You'd want signoff by the August meeting.
MR. TRAVER-Right, right.
MS. WHITE-Before we have to make a decision.
MRS. MOORE-Yes.
MR. TRAVER-Does someone want to make that motion?
MR. MAGOWAN-We're going to table it to which day in August?
MR. TRAVER-We have the 16th or the 23d
MR. MAGOWAN-How do we look on the 16th
MRS. MOORE-We're fine.
MR. MAGOWAN-All right.
MR. TRAVER-We did, anyway.
RESOLUTION TABLING SITE PLAN PZ 153-2016 RASHEED BHATTI
The applicant has submitted an application to the Planning Board to install four new cabins and
a storage shed. Each cabin is to be 30' x 30' with a deck of 6' x 30'. In addition, a 30' x 20'
shed is proposed and site work for installation of buildings proposed. Applicant has also
completed filling and clearing prior to approvals. Pursuant to Chapter 179-3-040 of the Zoning
Ordinance, new construction shall be subject to Planning Board review and approval.
MOTION TO TABLE SITE PLAN PZ 153-2016 RASHEED BHATTI, Introduced by Brad
Magowan who moved for its adoption, seconded by Thomas Ford:
Tabled to the August 16, 2016 Planning Board meeting. We will be asking for two conditions:
1) updated plans are to be submitted by July 15th for the August 16th's meeting, and 2)
engineering sign off to be received prior to the August 16th meeting.
Duly adopted this 21St day of June, 2016, by the following vote:
MR. MAGOWAN-The engineering to be done and signed off before the August 16th meeting
date.
MR. TRAVER-Before the July 15th
MR. MAGOWAN-July 15th or before we meet for that meeting?
MR. TRAVER-Well, no, we need it by July 15th
MRS. MOORE-That's what I was trying to say. Your signoff should be prior to the August
meeting.
MR. TRAVER-So they don't need to have the signoff by July 15th. Okay.
MR. MAGOWAN-Right. That's what I thought. So is that all right the way I said it? All right.
AYES: Ms. White, Mr. Schonewolf, Mr. Ford, Mr. Shafer, Mr. Magowan, Mr. Ferone, Mr.
Traver
NOES: NONE
MR. TRAVER-All right. Good luck.
MR. NICHOLSON-Thank you very much.
MRS. MOORE-Prior to you moving on to your next item, your public hearing should be opened
and left open.
MR. TRAVER-For this project?
MRS. MOORE-Correct.
MR. TRAVER-Okay. Then we will open the public hearing and we will leave it open until the
next review anticipated to be in August. Thank you for that reminder, Staff.
MR. NICHOLSON-Thank you for your time.
MR. FERONE-Thank you.
SITE PLAN (MODIFICATION) PZ 157-2016 SEAR TYPE UNLISTED — REAFFIRM SEAR
OF 6/23/15 TABASSUM (TOBY) SHEIKH AGENT(S) ZACH MONROE, WINCHIP
ENGINEERING OWNER(S) ASAD PETROLEUM, INC. ZONING NC LOCATION 985
STATE ROUTE 149 APPLICANT PROPOSES TO AMEND SITE PLAN TO INCLUDE A 144
SQ. FT. STORAGE SHED ADDITION ON ROUTE 9L SIDE ND 12' X 24' STORAGE AREA AT
EAST SIDE OF BUILDING. ACCESS FOR 144 SQ. FT. IS OUTSIDE AND ACCESS FOR
12' X 24' AREA IS INSIDE AND OUTSIDE. ORIGINAL APPROVAL WAS FOR FUEL
SERVICE STATION WITH CANOPIES. PURSUANT TO CHAPTER 179-9-120 OF THE
ZONING ORDINANCE, MODIFICATIONS TO AN APPROVED SITE PLAN SHALL BE
SUBJECT TO PLANNING BOARD REVIEW AND APPROVAL. CROSS REFERENCE AV
29-15, SP 36-2015 WARREN CO. PLANNING JUNE 2016 LOT SIZE 3.63 ACRES TAX
MAP NO. 266.3-1-78 SECTION 179-9-120
TABASSUM SHEIKH, PRESENT
MRS. MOORE-The applicant proposes to amend an existing site plan to include 144 square
foot storage shed on the 9L side of the project site and a 12' by 24' storage area on the east
side of the building. The 144 square foot storage shed is for the actual tenant, potentially
Dunkin Donuts, and the other storage area is for maintaining the business operations, such as
lawnmowers and rakes, things like that.
MR. TRAVER-Okay. Thank you, Laura. Good evening.
MR. SHEIKH-Yes, good evening. My name is Tabassum Sheikh and I'm the owner of the
property, and my site plan was approved last year and part of the reason, a franchise and they
asked me, they didn't have enough storage so that's why I put another addition of the 12' by 12'
storage room outside which triggered me to come back here. It's far away from the boundary
lines and everything.
MR. TRAVER-That's pretty small. Is that going to be enough?
MR. SHEIKH-Yes, it is. Because he has enough inside, 1,000 square feet, but he just needs
some paper cups and stuff.
MR. TRAVER-Okay.
MR. MAGOWAN-Have you ever been in his store?
MR. TRAVER-Not recently.
MR. MAGOWAN-That guy, he knows how to stack.
MR. TRAVER-All right. Well, we have the application itself and then apparently we need to do
a reaffirmation of SEQR which is from almost exactly a year ago, 6/23/15, if people feel
comfortable that the addition of this small storage shed does not alter the environmental impact
from that review.
MRS. MOORE-Mr. Chairman, prior to you going into SEQR you do have a public hearing
scheduled for this evening.
MR. TRAVER-Yes, thank you. Does anyone have any questions for the applicant before we go
to a public hearing? I don't think there's a huge crowd tonight.
MR. MAGOWAN-When is the equipment coming in?
MR. SHEIKH-My site plan is in the office of the Department of Health waiting for the approval.
So as soon as that gets done, I can apply for the permit. So I'm just waiting. It's been two
months. I called them today.
MR. MAGOWAN-1 keep driving by and I keep waiting for the machinery.
MR. SHEIKH-Hopefully soon. Otherwise it will be in winter and I won't be able to build it.
MR. TRAVER-For the record note that we have opened the public hearing on this application.
PUBLIC HEARING OPENED
MR. TRAVER-Does anyone have any questions or concerns about this modification?
MR. FERONE-No.
MR. TRAVER-Does anyone have any questions or concerns regarding a reaffirmation of SEQR
from our review on June 23 d of 2015?
MR. FORD-No.
MR. FERONE-No.
MR. TRAVER-Then can we have a motion to reaffirm, there's a draft by Staff in our packets.
MRS. MOORE-Mr. Chairman, prior to you, in the past I've seen the Chairman close the public
hearing if there's no comments from the public prior to you going into SEAR.
MR. TRAVER-Okay. And I'm, again, reminded, do we have any written comments?
MRS. MOORE-There are no written comments, and I don't know if the gentleman in the
audience, is he here to speak behind you or no?
MR. SHEIKH-No.
MRS. MOORE-He's visiting with you? Okay.
MR. TRAVER-Then we will close the public hearing.
PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED
MR. TRAVER-And move on to discussion of SEAR. Does anyone want to make a motion to
reaffirm our prior SEAR?
RESOLUTION REAFFIRMING NEG DEC SEQR SP MOD. PZ 157-2016 SHEIKH
The applicant proposes to amend site plan to include a 144 sq. ft. storage shed addition on
Route 9L side and 12' x 24' storage area at east side of building. Access for 144 sq. ft. is
outside and access for 12' x 24' area is inside and outside. Original approval was for fuel
service station with canopies. Pursuant to Chapter 179-9-120 of the Zoning Ordinance,
modifications to an approved site plan shall be subject to Planning Board review and approval.
The Planning Board has determined that the proposed project and Planning Board action is
subject to review under the State Environmental Quality Review Act;
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;
No Federal or other agencies are involved;
Part 1 of the Short EAF has been completed by the applicant;
Whereas, the Planning Board adopted Resolution Site Plan 36-2015 on 6/23/2015 adopting
SEQRA determination of non-significance, and;
Upon review of the information recorded on the EAF, it is the conclusion of the Town of
Queensbury Planning Board as lead agency reaffirms that this project will result in no significant
adverse impacts on the environment, and, therefore, an environmental impact statement need
not be prepared. Accordingly, this negative declaration is issued.
MOTION TO REAFFIRM NEGATIVE DECLARATION FOR THE PROPOSED SITE PLAN
MODIFICATION PZ 157-2016 TABASSUM (TOBY) SHEIKH, Introduced by Brad Magowan
who moved for its adoption, seconded by Jamie White:
As per the draft resolution prepared by Staff.
Duly adopted this 21St day of June, 2016 by the following vote:
AYES: Ms. White, Mr. Schonewolf, Mr. Ford, Mr. Shafer, Mr. Magowan, Mr. Ferone, Mr.
Traver
NOES: NONE
MR. TRAVER-All right. Next we move on to approval of the, if the Board concurs, of the
modification to the site plan. Does anyone have any concerns approving the amended site
plan?
MR. FERONE-No.
MR. FORD-No.
MR. TRAVER-Okay. Then I guess we're ready for a motion.
RESOLUTION APPROVING SITE PLAN MOD PZ 157-2016 TABASSUM "TOBY" SHEIKH
The applicant has submitted an application to the Planning Board for Site Plan approval
pursuant to Article 9 of the Town zoning Ordinance to amend site plan to include a 144 sq. ft.
storage shed addition on Route 9L side and 12' x 24' storage area at east side of building.
Access for 144 sq. ft. is outside and access for 12' x 24' area is inside and outside. Original
approval was for fuel service station with canopies. Pursuant to Chapter 179-9-120 of the
Zoning Ordinance, modifications to an approved site plan shall be subject to Planning Board
review and approval.
Pursuant to relevant sections of the Town of Queensbury Zoning Code-Chapter 179-9-080, the
Planning Board has determined that this proposal satisfies the requirements as stated in the
Zoning Code;
As required by General Municipal Law Section 239-m the site plan application was referred to
the Warren County Planning Department for its recommendation;
The Planning Board has reviewed the potential environmental impacts of the project, pursuant
to the State Environmental Quality Review Act (SEQRA) and adopted a SEQRA Negative
Declaration — Determination of Non-Significance
The Planning Board opened a public hearing on the Site plan application on 6/21/2016 and
continued the public hearing to 6/21/2016, when it was closed,
The Planning Board has reviewed the application materials submitted by the applicant and all
comments made at the public hearing and submitted in writing through and including 6/21/2016;
The Planning Board determines that the application complies with the review considerations and
standards set forth in Article 9 of the Zoning Ordinance for Site Plan approval,
MOTION TO APPROVE SITE PLAN MODIFICATION PZ 157-2016 TABASSUM (TOBY)
SHEIKH; Introduced by Jamie White who moved for its adoption, seconded by George Ferone:
Per the draft provided by staff conditioned upon the following conditions:
1) Modification is associated with approvals granted for Site Plan 36-2015.
2) Adherence to the items outlined in the follow-up letter sent with this resolution.
a) 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;
b) The applicant must meet with Staff after approval and prior to issuance of
Building Permit and/or the beginning of any site work;
c) Subsequent issuance of further permits, including building permits is dependent on
compliance with this and all other conditions of this resolution;
d) Resolution to be placed on final plans in its entirety and legible.
Duly adopted this 21St day of June, 2016 by the following vote:
AYES: Ms. White, Mr. Schonewolf, Mr. Ford, Mr. Shafer, Mr. Magowan, Mr. Ferone, Mr. Traver
NOES: NONE
MR. TRAVER-You're all set.
MR. SHEIKH-Thank you very much, everybody.
MR. TRAVER-Do we have any other business to come before the Board this evening?
MRS. MOORE-1 don't have anything else.
MR. FERONE-Could I ask a question, Mr. Chairman?
MR. TRAVER-Yes.
MR. FERONE-Okay. So we went around a bit tonight with this project with the trampoline
relative to traffic. Should we be more attentive to these things as they go in along this corridor
in relation to what we had, the three hotels go through?
MRS. MOORE-Right. So potentially that's possible, but right now just looking at the Exit 18
study, as I did while we were sitting here, it did not identify anything else past that intersection,
but as we, as a Staff, and you as the Board, are seeing, there's going to be projects coming in,
and there's no reason, I mean, if the Board is in favor, those projects that are starting to come
in, that if you feel it necessary to have the Town Engineer review them, I will add that to the
jurisdiction, because right now, or add that as part of the review process. Right now we
typically only send Chazen information about stormwater projects that includes stormwater.
MR. TRAVER-Right, and they say that in their comment. Yes.
MRS. MOORE-Correct.
MR. MAGOWAN-1 feel that should be added, especially for that corridor. So it isn't fair to be
bombarded at the last minute that he has to do this.
MR. FORD-1 concur.
MRS. MOORE-So what I'll suggest is that I'm going to talk with other Staff members, being
Craig, as the Zoning Administrator, and Stu, who's handled most of the Exit 18 corridor study,
and come back to you and say, yes, that's how we would like to proceed and then you'll be
aware of it, so that there's concurrence between Staff and the Board.
MR. FERONE-But should that study be applicable to other projects as they come along?
Because that traffic is going to be there.
MS. WHITE-The engineers will do that. That will be part of their process.
MRS. MOORE-Right. So right now, the Exit 18 corridor study and the new Exit 18 zone
requires those projects in that zone to go for traffic to the Town Engineer. So going outside that
is consistent.
MS. WHITE-Perfect.
MRS. MOORE-All right.
MR. FERONE-Thank you.
MR. TRAVER-It might be worth looking at other zones in the Town, such as the Exit 20 area.
We have not, I mean, we've mainly had.
MR. MAGOWAN-And actually to be honest with you Bay Road.
MR. TRAVER-Yes, well.
MR. MAGOWAN-Below us.
MRS. MOORE-I'll discuss that information with Staff.
MR. MAGOWAN-Between here and Quaker Road at certain times, forget it. You might as well
just go right if you're coming in from the right or go left if you're coming in from the left, because
it gets dangerous to try to cross over, especially when the college is letting out.
MR. TRAVER-Let's see what the recommendation of the Town is.
MR. FORD-1 move we adjourn.
MR. FERONE-Second.
MOTION TO ADJOURN THE QUEENSBURY PLANNING BOARD MEETING OF JUNE 21,
2016, Introduced by Thomas Ford who moved for its adoption, seconded by George Ferone:
Duly adopted this 21St day of June, 2016, by the following vote:
AYES: Mr. Magowan, Mr. Ferone, Mr. Ford, Mr. Shafer, Mr. Schonewolf, Ms. White, Mr. Traver
NOES: NONE
On motion meeting was adjourned.
RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED,
Stephen Traver, Acting Chairman