03-21-2017 (Queensbury Planning Board 03/21/2011)
QUEENSBURY PLANNING BOARD MEETING
FIRST REGULAR MEETING
MARCH 21, 2017
INDEX
Subdivision PZ 206-2016 Joe Leuci 1.
FINAL STAGE Tax Map No. 295.15-1-6
6 MO. EXTENSION REQUEST
Site Plan No. 16-2017 Michael & Erin Gustke
2.
ZBA RECOMMENDATION Tax Map No. 315.8-1-8
Site Plan No. 14-2017 Bernard K. Gansle 5.
ZBA RECOMMENDATION Tax Map No. 289.11-1-28
Site Plan No. 21-2017 Fastrac Markets, LLC (Quaker Rd.) 8.
ZBA RECOMMENDATION Tax Map No. 303.15-1-27
Site Plan No. 22-2017 Fastrac Markets, LLC (Corinth Rd.) 18.
Special Use Permit 5-2017 Tax Map No. 309.13-1-35
ZBA RECOMMENDATION
Site Plan No. 19-2017 Carol Perkins d/b/a Ray's Salvage 22.
ZBA RECOMMENDATION Tax Map No. 301.19-1-10, -5
Site Plan No. 17-2017 Hilliard, Tyrer, Lyon & Cerny 26.
ZBA RECOMMENDATION Tax Map No. 289.17-1-5
Site Plan No. 23-2017 Modification Stan Dobert 29.
Special Use Permit 6-2017 Modification Tax Map No. 309.10-1-10
Site Plan No. 15-2017 Dan Radman (Chipotle)
37.
Tax Map No. 296.18-1-47.1
Site Plan No. 18-2017 Nicky Cutro 47.
Special Use Permit 4-2017 Tax Map No. 227.10-1-1, -2, -3
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.
1
(Queensbury Planning Board 03/21/2011)
QUEENSBURY PLANNING BOARD MEETING
FIRST REGULAR MEETING
MARCH 21, 2017
7:00 P.M.
MEMBERS PRESENT
STEPHEN TRAVER, CHAIRMAN
CHRIS HUNSINGER, VICE CHAIRMAN
GEORGE FERONE, SECRETARY
JAMIE WHITE
BRAD MAGOWAN
DAVID DEEB
JOHN SHAFER, ALTERNATE
LAND USE PLANNER-LAURA MOORE
TOWN ATTORNEY-FITZGERALD, MORRIS, BAKER, FIRTH-MIKE CROWE
STENOGRAPHER-MARIA GAGLIARDI
MR. TRAVER-Good evening, ladies and gentlemen. Welcome to the meeting of the Planning
Board for the Town of Queensbury. This is the first meeting in March and the fifth for 2017.
On the table at the back of the room there should be some agendas for your review. We have
a number of items this evening, some of which are Planning Board recommendations and do
not have public hearings, and some are new agenda items which do have public hearings. We
have a couple of housekeeping items to begin with. First we need to ask for approval of the
minutes of our January 17th and January 24th, 2017 meetings.
APPROVAL OF MINUTES
January 17, 2017
January 24, 2017
MOTION TO APPROVE THE QUEENSBURY PLANNING BOARD MEETING MINUTES OF
JANUARY 17TH AND JANUARY 24TH, 2017, Introduced by George Ferone who moved for its
adoption, seconded by Brad Magowan:
Duly adopted this 21St day of March, 2017, by the following vote:
AYES: Mr. Ferone, Mr. Magowan, Mr. Hunsinger, Mr. Shafer, Ms. White, Mr. Traver
NOES: NONE
ABSTAINED: Mr. Deeb
MR. TRAVER-All right. Thank you, and next we have an Administrative Item. We have a
request regarding the subdivision final stage PZ 206-2016. We have a request for a six month
extension to obtain outside agency approvals.
ADMINISTRATIVE ITEM: JOE LEUCI SUB. 206-2016 REQUEST FOR 6 MONTH EXT.
MR. TRAVER-Laura, did you want to give us some additional comments on that?
MRS. MOORE-What happened was the Town Board accepted the land, and that took a little bit.
So they're asking for an extension in reference to the timing that's required. When it's
approved, you only have so many days to have it filed back in to the Town's offices, but they
also need DOH approval and some other approvals that need to occur. So that's why they've
asked for this extension.
MR. TRAVER-Okay. Very good. Thank you.
RESOLUTION APPROVING A 6 MONTH EXTENSION SUB FINAL STG. 206-2016 JOE
LEUCI
A subdivision application has been made to the Queensbury Planning Board for the following:
Applicant proposes to subdivide 66 acre parcel as a conservation subdivision with 20 lots — 19
single family residential lots ranging from 1.9 +/- acres with one lot of 41.6 acres to be used as
2
(Queensbury Planning Board 03/21/2011)
open space parcel access through easements with Rush Pond. Project includes grading,
clearing, on-site septic, municipal water and stormwater measures. Pursuant to Chapter 183
Article X Conservation Subdivision of the Zoning Ordinance, subdivision of land shall be subject
to Planning Board review and approval.
Town Board approved and accepted the dedication of an approximately 41.6 acre parcel of land
located off of John Clendon Road in the Town of Queensbury designated as a portion of Tax
Map No: 295.15-1-6 to the Town of Queensbury, approved 2/27/2017.
Final approval was granted on 10/18/2016 with an expiration of 4/16/2017 as determined by
Section 183 action on subdivision time frames. Applicant requests a 180 day extension, new
expiration to be 10/13/2017, to obtain necessary review and signatures from other agencies.
MOTION TO GRANT A SIX MONTH EXTENSION FOR SUBDIVISION FINAL STAGE PZ 206-
2016 JOSEPH LEUCI., Introduced by George Ferone who moved for its adoption, seconded by
Chris Hunsinger:
To obtain outside agency approvals.
Duly adopted this 21St day of March, 2017 by the following vote:
AYES: Mr. Deeb, Ms. White, Mr. Shafer, Mr. Hunsinger, Mr. Magowan, Mr. Ferone, Mr. Traver
NOES: NONE
MR. TRAVER-Very good. Okay. Then we can move to our regular agenda. The first item is
a request for a recommendation from the Planning Board for Michael and Erin Gustke., Site
Plan 16-2017.
PLANNING BOARD RECOMMENDATION TO THE ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS
SITE PLAN NO. 16-2017 SEAR TYPE TYPE II MICHAEL & ERIN GUSTKE AGENT(S)
ETHAN HALL OWNER(S) SAME AS APPLICANTS ZONING WR LOCATION 129
EAGAN ROAD APPLICANT PROPOSES TO DEMOLISH A 970 SQ. FT. SEASONAL CAMP
TO CONSTRUCT A 2,008 SQ. FT. YEAR ROUND RESIDENCE. PROJECT INCLUDES NEW
SEPTIC, WELL AND SITE GRADING. PURSUANT TO CHAPTER 179-6-060 OF THE
ZONING ORDINANCE, PROJECTS WITHIN 50 FT. OF 15% SLOPES SHALL BE SUBJECT
TO PLANNING BOARD REVIEW AND APPROVAL. VARIANCE: RELIEF IS SOUGHT
FOR SETBACKS, HEIGHT AND LOT FRONTAGE. PLANNING BOARD SHALL PROVIDE A
RECOMMENDATION TO THE ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS. CROSS REFERENCE AV
19-2017 WARREN CO. REFERRAL N/A LOT SIZE 1.82 ACRES TAX MAP NO. 315.8-1-8
SECTION 179-6-060
ETHAN HALL, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT; MICHAEL GUSTKE, PRESENT
MR. TRAVER-Laura?
MRS. MOORE-The applicant proposes to demolish a 970 square foot seasonal camp and
construct a 2,008 square foot year round residence. The project includes new septic and well
and significant site grading. It's subject to site plan for a project occurring within 50 feet of 15%
slopes. The applicant requires relief for the setbacks, height and lot frontage.
MR. TRAVER-Okay. Thank you. Good evening.
MR. HALL-Good evening. For the record, my name is Ethan Hall. I'm a principle with Rucinski
Hall Architecture. With me tonight is Mike Gustke, owner of the property. This is on the very
tail end of Eagan Road where it actually becomes kind of a private drive and goes down around
to the river itself. If anybody hasn't been down there prior to Tuesday, you probably haven't
been down there yet. I don't know, is it still unplowed?
MR. HUNSINGER-I got down there today.
MR. HALL-Did you?
MR. HUNSINGER-I'm not sure I got all the way down, I walked the last few feet.
MR. HALL-Because where it drops down to where the house is. The house sits down back
from the river. It's 270 some odd feet back from the river itself, and there is an existing
3
(Queensbury Planning Board 03/21/2011)
seasonal cabin down there, and what Mike and Erin would like to do is tear that cabin down and
make it into a year round residence. We're putting the house basically back on the same
footprint with a little wing that kind of works its way back up along the slope. There's about a
70 foot bank behind the house that runs up behind it, and this area down at the bottom of the
slope is where the existing cabin is and where we're going to build the new house. We do need
a couple of Area Variances, one for side yard setback because of the existing setback to the
existing house footprint, and the other one is for height just because we're in the Waterfront
Residential district. We are maintaining a fairly steep pitch to the roof so that we can get the
second floor in that, but by doing that and because we have to raise up the grade to get it so
that we can have it within the bank, taking that from existing grade is the reason for that height
variance.
MR. TRAVER-So the height's taken basically from the front, which is the lowest part of the
grade.
MR. HALL-Lowest part of the existing grade and the highest point on the proposed, and we
have to bring grade up about four, a little over four feet all the way around the house, just to get
it up in the air where it needs to be, so that we can do the grading and the drainage around the
house.
MR. TRAVER-One bit of clarification. Apparently the seasonal camp that's there now is two
bedroom.
MR. HALL-Yes.
MR. TRAVER-And the proposal is for a loft with one bedroom. Is there going to be another
bedroom downstairs or something?
MR. HALL-Yes.
MR. TRAVER-So it'll remain two bedrooms.
MR. HALL-The wing that goes out has like a guest suite in it, and the main bedroom would be
on the upper floor with a loft.
MR. TRAVER-Gotcha. Okay. Very good. Anything else?
MR. HALL-No that's about it. The only other thing is that there currently is, there's a septic
system. We believe it probably to be an old steel tank with maybe a drum that comes off of the
end of it. They will be installing a new septic system with a pump and forcing all the effluent up
onto new, all the way up to the top of the ridge and the land that's up by Eagan Road is a flat
area up there. That's where the new septic system would be.
MR. TRAVER-And no conflict with the well?
MR. HALL-No, there'd be a new well drilled for that, but right now, I mean, it's going to be a
significant distance away from what it is. The separation distance now is the width of the
house.
MR. TRAVER-Yes, exactly, yes.
MR. HALL-So that's the improvements we're looking to make.
MR. TRAVER-Okay. All right. Questions from members of the Board?
MR. MAGOWAN-I have to say, another quietly placed house design.
MR. HALL-We're trying. The good thing about this is, even with the height variance, the only
thing that's behind us is the ridge. So anybody that's up on top looks right over the top of this,
and this house actually sits farther back than the two adjoining properties. So there's no site
view shed.
MR. FERONE-There was a note here about application should clarify typical residential lighting.
I imagine there's nothing out of the way there.
MR. HALL-No. There's going to be a couple of lights at the entry doors, which will be either wall
mounted or perhaps recessed. We have a fairly significant eaves overhang. So we may
recess those up into the eaves overhang, but outside of that nothing.
4
(Queensbury Planning Board 03/21/2011)
MR. SHAFER-The septic system will include laterals up on top?
MR. HALL-Yes.
MR. SHAFER-Is there room for a replacement system up on top?
MR. HALL-Yes.
MR. SHAFER-Any issues with flooding, Hudson River flooding?
MR. HALL-No, no. We're outside the floodplain. The floodplain's actually shown on the map.
Here's a line that's shown where the approximate floodplain is, and we're significantly farther
away from it.
MR. SHAFER-Okay.
MR. HALL-Luckily right there on the bend of the river it widens out quite a bit and it gets fairly
steep fairly quickly. So the floodplain is actually quite low in that one area.
MR. TRAVER-It really is very steep.
MR. HALL-Yes, it is.
MR. TRAVER-It's amazing.
MR. MAGOWAN-1 like this Filtrexx there.
MR. HALL-Yes, the slope stabilization. Yes, for the small amount of area that we're going to
have to disturb back there and the little bit of grading that we're going to have to do, but
because it is on such a steep slope, that works really, really well to hold that and to keep it back.
MR. HUNSINGER-Do you have any concerns with any of the engineering comments?
MR. HALL-No, I looked through everything. There was really nothing in there that was
significant. One clarification on there is our area of total impervious does include that future
pull out turn out area at the top of the drive. That was included in our calculations. So that
was in there. There was one note in there that I think Sean may have misunderstood exactly
what we were doing when he talks about the drainage being diverted towards the neighbor. I
think what he was looking at is the rear elevation, and what it does is it does slope across the
rear elevation, but then when it comes around the corner it then continues out around the front
of the house down towards the river. So we're just picking up the water that's coming from
behind us, funneling it around the house and letting it keep going down the road to the river.
MR. HUNSINGER-Okay.
MR. TRAVER-Any other questions or comments from members of the Board?
MR. DEEB-Two bedrooms or three?
MR. HALL-It's two bedrooms with a loft space.
MR. DEEB-Okay, and the septic will be compliant for the number of bedrooms, obviously.
MR. HALL-Yes. We're designing it for a full three bedrooms.
MR. DEEB-Okay.
MR. TRAVER-Are there any notations that we want to make in our recommendation to the ZBA
to consider when they look at the variances? I'm not hearing any.
MR. DEEB-I didn't see any. I think they did a thorough job.
MR. TRAVER-We're ready for a motion, I believe.
RESOLUTION RE: ZBA RECOMMENDATION RE: Z-AV-19-2017 GUSTKE
5
(Queensbury Planning Board 03/21/2011)
The applicant has submitted an application for the following: Applicant proposes to demolish a
970 sq. ft. seasonal camp to construct a 2,008 sq. ft. year round residence. Project includes
new septic, well and site grading. Pursuant to Chapter 179-6-060 of the Zoning Ordinance,
projects within 50 ft. of 15% slopes shall be subject to Planning Board review and approval.
Variance: Relief is sought for setbacks, height and lot 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. 19-2017 MICHAEL & ERIN
GUSTKE: Introduced by George Ferone who moved its adoption, 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.
Motion seconded by David Deeb. Duly adopted this 21St day of March, 2017 by the following
vote:
AYES: Mr. Deeb, Ms. White, Mr. Shafer, Mr. Hunsinger, Mr. Magowan, Mr. Ferone, Mr. Traver
NOES: NONE
MR. HALL-Thank you very much. We hope to see you next week.
MR. TRAVER-All right. Next on our agenda is another Planning Board recommendation. This
one for Site Plan 14-2017 for Bernard Gansle.
SITE PLAN NO. 14-2017 SEAR TYPE TYPE II BERNARD K. GANSLE OWNER(S) SAME
AS APPLICANT ZONING WR-1A LOCATION 5 GLEN HALL DRIVE APPLICANT
PROPOSES 120 SQ. FT. ADDITION — UPPER/MAIN FLOOR SCREENED-IN PORCH.
PROJECT INCLUDES REMOVAL OF 104 SQ. FT. PATIO. NEW CONSTRUCTION DOES
NOT MEET SHORELINE SETBACK AND EXPANSION OF NONCONFORMING
STRUCTURE IN A CEA. PURSUANT TO CHAPTER 179-13-010 & 179-6-060 OF THE
ZONING ORDINANCE, PROJECTS WITHIN 50 FT. OF 15% SLOPES SHALL BE SUBJECT
TO PLANNING BOARD REVIEW AND APPROVAL. VARIANCE: RELIEF IS SOUGHT FOR
SHORELINE SETBACK. PLANNING BOARD SHALL PROVIDE A RECOMMENDATION TO
THE ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS. CROSS REFERENCE 2002-1041 1,777 SF
ADDITION; AV 86-2003 DEMO/CONST. NEW DWELLING; 2005-590 980 SF ALT.; AV 12-
2017 WARREN CO. REFERRAL N/A SITE INFORMATION CEA LOT SIZE .23 ACRES
TAX MAP NO. 289.11-1-28 SECTION 179-13-010, 179-6-060
BERNARD GANSLE, PRESENT
MRS. MOORE-The applicant proposes 120 square foot addition. This is an upper/main floor
screened in porch. The project also includes removal of a 104 square foot patio. The new
construction doesn't meet the shoreline setback and this is considered expansion of a
nonconforming structure in a CEA, and the project occurs within 50 feet of 15% slopes, but the
relief from the Zoning Board request is a shoreline setback issue.
MR. TRAVER-Okay. Good evening.
MR. GANSLE-Hi. My name's Bernard Gansle. My wife and I purchased a cottage on Glen
Hall Drive last May. The front of the cottage faces the lake. It's a pretty small cottage. The
upper main floor living space is 12 by 45 and it consists of a kitchen in the back of the house,
living room in the middle with a bathroom off that and a stairway to the basement and off the
living room in the front of the cottage is a bedroom that overlooks the lake. This makes for a
long narrow space. There's no place to eat on the main floor, and the bedroom provides the
only good view of the lake. In order to make the cottage more livable we would like to build a
10 foot screened in porch off the bedroom. This would be accessed by a sliding door, and the
10 feet would provide enough space for a good sized patio table. I'm requesting the shoreline
6
(Queensbury Planning Board 03/21/2011)
setback variance from the 17 feet, and as I stated in my cover letter, we are upgrading the
septic system.
MR. TRAVER-Okay, and do I understand there is an existing patio area near the shoreline
that's going to be removed?
MR. GANSLE-Yes, that's correct.
MR. TRAVER-And apparently that is not shown on the survey.
MR. GANSLE-Yes, it is shown. It's right here. It's right next to where the dock comes out.
MR. TRAVER-Okay. Anything else to add?
MR. GANSLE-No.
MR. TRAVER-Questions from members of the Board?
MR. FERONE-Where the patio is coming out, what are you going to do that with? Are you just
going to plant grass there?
MR. GANSLE-I'll just put sod.
MR. FERONE-Sod there.
MR. MAGOWAN-It looks like, what's underneath it? I see three windows.
MR. GANSLE-There's a basement underneath there, with a little bar underneath the steps there
where the door comes out, like a walkout basement. It's actually, the basement is actually four
feet below grade level.
MR. MAGOWAN-But I mean you can walk out it.
MR. GANSLE-Yes, it's got the door right there that walks out on the side.
MR. DEEB-You're going to upgrade the septic?
MR. GANSLE-Yes.
MR. DEEB-Can you tell us a little bit about it, what you're going to do?
MR. GANSLE-There should be a plan in there.
MR. DEEB-Yes, I just wanted to hear it from you.
MR. MAGOWAN-Are you going with a three tank system?
MR. GANSLE-No, they only let us put two in.
MR. MAGOWAN-So you're telling me this isn't correct?
MR. GANSLE-I don't believe so.
MR. MAGOWAN-I worked on a three tank, it's kind of, you know. You have your, you know,
your effluent tanks and then the two liquids and, you know, you pump off the third. You go with
two, you pump off the second one.
MR. GANSLE-Correct.
MR. MAGOWAN-But you'd have to change that.
MR. MAGOWAN-My concern is that you're going from, well, you have 32 feet to the corner of
the building now and you're bringing it out 12?
MR. GANSLE-10 feet.
MR. MAGOWAN-10 feet, 22, and you're starting the walk right on the lake.
7
(Queensbury Planning Board 03/21/2011)
MR. GANSLE-Right. Well, we do have the big concrete wall in front that separates us from
that.
MR. MAGOWAN-And then my next thought that came up is, you know, it's all screened and
everything, a couple of years and then bingo the next thing you know it's closed in, and I'm not
saying that in a mean way, you know, it's just what I saw, you know, I'm looking at being so
close to the lake, having the opportunity to, you know, close it in and whatever, and all the other
projects that we ask people is not to encroach on the lake anymore, and then we also have a
huge planting, you know, Iakeshore planting.
MR. TRAVER-The buffer?
MR. MAGOWAN-Yes, buffer. Thank you. The buffer. I see that, you know, the stone wall
you're carrying out to that.
MR. GANSLE-What was that last thing you said?
MR. MAGOWAN-1 see you, you know, the tall wall there. So what are we going to be doing to
capture some of the stormwater?
MR. GANSLE-Well, right now the stormwater goes into that, behind all the dirt behind that
concrete wall and in the cover letter there's a downspout on each one of the corners there, by
those windows, and the new addition will go back and go down those same downspouts. One
currently goes into the ground, kind of right towards where the umbrella is, and the other one
just flows onto the ground in front of the, behind the concrete wall.
MR. MAGOWAN-Well, that water goes into the ground. I imagine it goes somewhere. You
haven't seen it come up out of the ground anywhere in a rainstorm?
MR. GANSLE-No, I have not seen it.
MR. MAGOWAN-That's all I have to say.
MR. TRAVER-Any other questions from members of the Board? This is in a CEA, and it is with
construction.
MR. DEEB-Well, the site plan's got to be revised because there's only two tanks. He's got to
revise the site plan.
MR. TRAVER-Yes. Your plans will have to be revised to note the change in your septic
system.
MR. GANSLE-Okay.
MR. TRAVER-So they will need to be accurate obviously for what you're proposing.
MR. GANSLE-Okay.
MR. TRAVER-1 don't know, is that going to be a problem for the ZBA? For site plan.
MRS. MOORE-1 don't believe it's a problem for the variance or the upcoming site plan.
MR. TRAVER-Okay.
MR. GANSLE-He was supposed to present that last night, the two tanks. So I assume it was
approved. I didn't hear from him today, my engineer. So I assume it was approved.
MR. TRAVER-Did they give you a reason?
MR. GANSLE-He said it was excessive having 4500 gallons of holding tank.
MR. TRAVER-This is two bedrooms? One bedroom.
MR. GANSLE-One bedroom.
MR. HUNSINGER-Maybe that's why.
MR. MAGOWAN-A bath and a half?
8
(Queensbury Planning Board 03/21/2011)
MR. GANSLE-A bath and then the single toilet downstairs in the utility room.
MR. MAGOWAN-A bath and a half.
MR. GANSLE-Okay.
MR. MAGOWAN-All right, you're just lacking the sink.
MR. TRAVER-All right. Are there specific concerns that Board members want noted on our
referral to the ZBA? If not, we'll entertain the motion. I guess it wouldn't hurt to just note that
on recommendation of the engineer the holding tanks were reduced from three to two. Good
idea.
MR. HUNSINGER-You know, the only comment that I would make about the proposal is that
they give consideration to the shoreline plantings requirements. Just putting sod back is pretty
minimal.
MR. TRAVER-Right.
MR. HUNSINGER-Especially when you have that wall and then you have basically all lawn right
up to the lake.
MR. GANSLE-Yes.
MR. HUNSINGER-So that would be my only comment. That's a site plan issue. It's not
something related to the variance request.
MR. TRAVER-Good point.
RESOLUTION RE: ZBA RECOMMENDATION RE: Z-AV-12-2017 GANSLE
The applicant has submitted an application for the following: Applicant proposes 120 sq. ft.
addition- upper/main floor screened-in porch. Project includes removal of 104 sq. ft. patio. New
construction does not meet shoreline setback and expansion of nonconforming structure in a
CEA. Pursuant to Chapter 179-13-010 & 179-6-060 of the Zoning Ordinance, projects within 50
ft. of 15% slopes shall be subject to Planning Board review and approval. Variance: Relief is
sought for shoreline setback. 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. 12-2017 BERNARD K.
GANSLE: Introduced by George Ferone who moved its adoption, and
b) The Planning Board, based on a limited review, has identified the following areas of
concern:
1) Note the recommendation of the engineer that there will be a reduction in the
holding tanks from three to two and the engineering drawings will be updated.
Motion seconded by Chris Hunsinger. Duly adopted this 21St day of March, 2017 by the
following vote:
AYES: Mr. Hunsinger, Mr. Shafer, Mr. Magowan, Ms. White, Mr. Ferone, Mr. Deeb, Mr. Traver
NOES: NONE
MR. TRAVER-All right. You're off to the ZBA.
MR. GANSLE-Thank you.
9
(Queensbury Planning Board 03/21/2011)
MR. TRAVER-The next item on the agenda is also a recommendation for the Zoning Board.
This is for Fastrac Markets, LLC.
SITE PLAN NO. 21-2017 SEAR TYPE UNLISTED FASTRAC MARKETS, LLC AGENT(S)
NAPIERALA CONSULTING OWNER(S) BINLEY FLORIST, INC. ZONING CI LOCATION
773 QUAKER ROAD APPLICANT PROPOSES 5,800 SQ. FT. CONVENIENCE STORE
WITH 50 X 120, 6,000 SQ. FT. FUEL CANOPY AND A 35 X 58, 1,750 SQ. FT. DIESEL
STATION CANOPY. PROJECT OCCURS ON THE EXISTING BINLEY PROPERTY —
APPLICANT TO UTILIZE TWO FURTHEST CURB CUTS. THE GREENHOUSE UNITS TO
BE REMOVED AND AREA TO BE REGRADED. BINLEY RETAIL BUILDING TO BE
REMOVED, MADE PAD READY. PURSUANT TO CHAPTER 179-3-040 OF THE ZONING
ORDINANCE, NEW COMMERCIAL USE SHALL BE SUBJECT TO PLANNING BOARD
REVIEW AND APPROVAL. VARIANCE: RELIEF IS SOUGHT FOR CANOPY SETBACK
AND SIGNS. PLANNING BOARD SHALL PROVIDE A RECOMMENDATION TO THE
ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS. CROSS REFERENCE 1992 GREENHOUSE, SP 14-2005
COMM. ADDITION, SP 44-2014 PRODUCE STAND, DISC 3-2017, AV 17-2017, SV 2-2017
WARREN CO. REFERRAL MARCH 2017 LOT SIZE 7.23 ACRES TAX MAP NO. 303.15-1-
27 SECTION 179-3-040
MATT NAPIERALA, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT
MRS. MOORE-This applicant proposes a 5,800 square foot convenience store with a 6,000
square foot fuel canopy and a 1750 square foot diesel station canopy. The project currently is,
or was, the past use was the Binley Florist property. There's an existing two curb cuts on the
site. The greenhouse units are to be removed and the area to be re-graded. The applicant
requests relief from the canopy setbacks and the signage program.
MR. TRAVER-Thank you. Good evening.
MR. NAPIERALA-Good evening. My name's Matt Napierala, site engineer working with
Fastrac Markets. I extend my apologies. Mr. Brett Hughes, who you guys met in January, is
unavailable tonight and so I'm representing the whole team so far tonight. With regards to the
ZBA recommendation, as Laura indicated, we're looking for Area Variances with regards to the
front yard setback for the fueling canopy itself. The requirement in the zone is 75 feet. We're
proposing 68 feet. When we look at placing the development on the plan itself, and getting
appropriate circulation, there's always a balance and a balance of trying to get that appropriate
circulation the appropriate distance from the highways, and as well some site considerations. If
we look at, a preference for the development when we have this, we call it a two by four fueling
canopy, is to center that fueling canopy with regards to the side egress door, and once you're
looking at the floor plan of the store, this side entry door really serves the customers that are
going to be at that fueling area. Our typical design preference is to center those four and four
fueling bays centered with that door so that there's an equidistance, essentially, from the inside
fueling to the outside fueling to that center door. It's, when we're looking at the variance
request of just over six feet, it's kind of a dimensional thing that is a preference not only for us
blockheaded engineers that like things perpendicular and square and everything else, but the
ownership as well feels that that is preferable to the layout. So we're seeking that relief for that
Area Variance. What that alignment does is that forces us, and you can see the dash line on
the plans, that's the required 75 feet and we are just encroaching upon that with that distance.
To note here is the existing buildings as they exist today are 51 feet from the property line. So
the existing condition is significantly worse off than what we are proposing when we're talking
about raising a lot of the buildings that exist on the site and starting from scratch. So that's with
regards to those Area Variances. As well, before the ZBA tomorrow night, we're talking about
some Sign Variances. By Code we are allowed two wall signs. We are proposing three wall
signs. One would be in the front of the store. One would be on that profile of that side door
that I was just talking about for the entry of the customers from the fueling to know, it kind of
identifies that side door, and the third sign is a small sign that sits on that canopy itself to
marquee essentially the fueling purpose. So the Code allows two, we're asking for three as
well, and I think in January we talked a little bit about the monument sign. The preference of
Fastrac is what we're pretty sure, in talking to Staff, and we heard the feedback. We are
proposing a non-digital monument sign. I do have some samples of that. It's in the photos but
I can just kind of pass these out.
MR. TRAVER-Yes, it's also in the material that you submitted.
MR. NAPIERALA-Right. So that's what's being proposed now for the monument sign, and
certainly less obtrusive than that one that you saw back in January with that big digital board.
So that'll be a placard type of a fueling sign with magnetic changes that the Staff will have to go
on a daily basis or weekly basis to change prices, but we did listen to the preliminary comments
10
(Queensbury Planning Board 03/21/2011)
and took it back to operations and operations has agreed to eliminate the digital board, but for
the purpose of the Code the traveler has to be able to see that pricing, especially along the
major corridor, so that there is a size variance that is required for that monument sign as well.
So that's our variance request. We've kind of completed a thorough and complete package, at
least in our mind, hopefully you guys agree, and looking forward to continuation of our
permitting process, not only with you guys, but the ZBA tomorrow and hopefully back to full site
plan review in a little bit.
MR. TRAVER-Sure. There were, you also have the parking in the front of the building and you
did cite the area character in the sense that other businesses in the area have parking in the
front, although, getting back to the monument sign, that sign that you're requesting is almost
twice what the Code provides. So I guess I would kind of comment that, using the area
character, if you go not far to the west, northwest of your location, you'll see there's a very large
Wal-Mart facility there that has a compliant sign. So that's a bit of an issue, although it is
appreciated that you did not go, did not try to, again, raise the issue of the visual sign. That's
certainly something. The other thing, with regard to your variance for a third building sign, you
mention the sign for folks that are leaving the fueling area and going into the store. You have a
sign marking the store there. If you eliminate that sign, you eliminate the need for the variance.
I mean, don't people know where they are if they're, I mean, I'd be a little bit nervous if I were
you if somebody didn't know they were at your facility when they were getting gas and walking
into the store. Do you really need another sign? I mean, presumably by that time they know,
they've seen your sign, they've pulled in, they've made a decision to engage in business with
you. Do you really need to have that third sign?
MR. NAPIERALA-Point taken, and we did express to Fastrac operations and their marketing
people with regards to their preferences.
MR. TRAVER-Which is in Texas I think, right?
MR. NAPIERALA-No, they are right in east Syracuse.
MR. TRAVER-Okay.
MR. NAPIERALA-So Fastrac is, the operations is an upstate New York operations. There are
essentially three partners that combined I think about 20 years ago, but the main office is here
in east Syracuse. As of the current, there are 48 stores all in Upstate New York. They are
looking at this program and I think we talked about, and Brett when he was here, talked about
this expansion program, but to my knowledge it's still Upstate New York that they are seeking.
We are as far as Amsterdam but not here in the capital district. So part of the program is to
kind of reach out to the capital district area, inclusive of here in Queensbury, the Glens
Falls/Lake George area.
MR. TRAVER-1 know, too, that you have right in/right out only on your curb cuts which is one of
the things that we were concerned about. So that's good. I was fascinated by the traffic, the
data that came from the traffic study, and kind of an odd, you know, perhaps it makes sense,
but looking at the accidents report, it said that there was one accident from someone backing
up, and I just, I was trying to imagine how that could happen at this particular road junction here.
I guess that you're seeing just about everything.
MR. NAPIERALA-Well, again, when you talk about the accident study, that's pure data that our
traffic consultant gathered from the region, and certainly when we have the traveling public a lot
of things happen and some of those reports are pretty interesting to note to say the least.
MR. TRAVER-Indeed they are.
MR. FERONE-1 was going to dovetail onto some of what Steve was saying in regards to that
sign that you're requesting 76 feet versus 45. We've had a lot of activity on that road. I mean,
there was a Dunkin Donuts put in there a number of years ago and most recently a LIA Nissan
car dealership. Both of those entities have signs that conform to what our zoning is. You
would think an auto dealership would want to have a huge sign, you know, they're selling cars,
and they were able to conform. So I'd just ask you to think about that as you move forward.
MR. NAPIERALA-I will pass that along as well to note, even though it may not be with regards
to the current Code, our competition, the Speedway former Hess station, has a pretty good sign
right at that corner as well. So when we're talking about this dog eat dog world, in the business
we have to be able to compete and again, pricing is everything, and being able to be visible off
of the Dix and Quaker Roads is a key component to the business.
11
(Queensbury Planning Board 03/21/2011)
MR. TRAVER-Indeed it is.
MR. NAPIERALA-And if Brett was here, what he would say is, you know, moving into a new
market is a challenge in any business. Moving into a new market, and with, you know, again,
certainly understand the Board's position and potentially the ZBA's position with regards to this,
but there's a significant investment that the ownership is putting forth here. This development
will be over a three million dollar investment here to this property, and so when the CEO and
operations say we need a little relief so that we can make sure our investment survives and
does what it's supposed to do. So that's what they're asking us to present here to both you
guys and the ZBA tomorrow night.
MR. TRAVER-Understood, and that's why you're going to the ZBA. I think the point we're
trying to make is it's nearly 100%.
MR. NAPIERALA-I certainly understand that.
MR. TRAVER-And I think, you know, to your point about competition and visibility and I'm going
to make my sign bigger than this guy across the street, I think that's one of the reasons that
these ordinances come into being is we don't need a sign cold war, if you will. It gets over the
top, as you see, unfortunately, in some communities, and we had that issue as well with the
issue of the digital signs that we dealt with. So I understand that you're aware of that.
MR. NAPIERALA-And we can, one thing I want to kind of, and maybe we should, after we do
the next one, go to some of the photos, because when you look at the sign package, in the real
life sense, from the tent stores that have been built the last three years, the sign package, albeit
and respectfully understand that we are exceeding Code, when you look at it in real life on a
three acre site, and you say, gee, that's really not obtrusive. It's not as crazy, you know, when
you look at the sign across amassing of 140 foot linear feet, and you say, wow that sign is 12
feet of 140 feet, and the other sign is 8 feet, and again, that's why we have the advantage of
presenting real life construction pictures of this prototype store and that was part of our
justification, I guess.
MR. TRAVER-Sure. Well, to that, I would just submit that the context of a sign of a given sign
today may be quite dramatically different a few years from now, and, you know, again, this is
why we have to have the regulations. You have to have a non-subjective standard by which
signs are judged, and that's why the square footage is used as opposed to, well, I like this sign
and I don't like that one. I mean, our job is difficult as it is. If it was totally subjective or more
subjective than it is, it would be impossible.
MR. NAPIERALA-I understand.
MR. TRAVER-And I know that you do.
MR. DEEB-I agree with Steve. I think that third sign on the side of the building is overkill. It
certainly could bring you into compliance if you have two of the smaller ones, and that would
alleviate one of your problems, and I do believe that the road sign, if we start looking at making
exceptions, the next person that comes in is going to say the same thing, the next person, and
we have to be real careful where we go with this.
MR. TRAVER-Yes, I mean, technically, we're not an adjudicative body so technically it wouldn't
be a precedent to grant a variance, to recommend a variance of this magnitude, but
nevertheless it would be a practice, and you made a point yourself before, you know, that I want
my sign to be competitive with the next gentleman. So, you know, if we start down that road
that well, yes, that's the Code but we're going to give a little more and more and more room it
becomes harder and harder to defend, but that's a discussion for you with the ZBA.
MR. NAPIERALA-Sure.
MR. HUNSINGER-The other thing that's noteworthy is, you know, the gas pumps have your
name on them.
MR. FERONE-Exactly.
MR. HUNSINGER-So, you know, it's not like people aren't going to see, and I mean, one of the
questions, I really don't want to belabor the point, but the, I appreciate the monument sign. I
like the monument sign. It's one of the things that we recommend in our Code. The question I
had specifically was on the size of the numbers under the price because if that section of the
sign is five foot six, those numbers must be two and a half or three feet.
12
(Queensbury Planning Board 03/21/2011)
MR. NAPIERALA-They're about two and a half feet, yes.
MR. HUNSINGER-Yes, and I think that's, you know, significantly larger than probably every
other in Town. So there is one place where you could maybe sort of push down the size a little
bit. I mean, we're here tonight for the variance request. Personally I don't really have any
issues with the variance request. The two big items that I have for your consideration for when
you come back for Site Plan review is the landscaping plan. I really thought that was pretty
minimal, and then the lighting plan was, in my judgment, extremely excessive. I don't know if
we've ever seen lumens of 70 and 80.
MR. TRAVER-Yes.
MR. HUNSINGER-When your partner, when your colleague was here, we had talked to him
about looking at some gas stations that we had approved. I had pointed out the Stewarts down
the street on Bay Road here as being a good model and getting those from Staff, you know,
what their numbers were, as being something to look at, and 70 and 80, 1 mean, personally
there's no way I could justify that.
MR. TRAVER-Yes, you wouldn't even have to take Vitamin D if you worked at that place.
MR. HUNSINGER-I think it would actually be, I appreciate the comments about safety, but I
think it would actually be dangerous because it would be so well lit it would be distracting, and
your eyes can't adjust that quick to go from something that well-lit into something that's not.
MR. NAPIERALA-We'll talk to the lighting guy before we come back, hopefully next week, and
we will try to address those. I really appreciate the advanced comments so we can try to help
you out.
MR. DEEB-Also, if we're talking about site plan, I'm a little nervous about the traffic generated
down there also. When the florist was there, I know the studies show the traffic is okay, but
you're going to generate a lot more traffic in and out of there than, I think, than the florist did.
So, and that corridor is getting really congested down there. I was nervous when LIA Nissan
went in, and I expressed some concerns.
MR. NAPIERALA-Well, and just to briefly talk about that, I don't want to, again, belabor the point
as well, but if you look at the throat, if we can flip back to that site plan, Laura, if you look at this
throat, and that's really the concern, because the movements that we're dealing with to get back
out here onto Quaker, and the timing of that is such that we recognize, and the traffic report
recognizes that the southbound traffic coming to this signal light will be backing up and will be
plugging, essentially, the ability for that left movement out, but once that light opens up, and
once that light turns green, essentially there is enough gaps created and enough spacing before
that light turns red again that the backed up traffic coming out of the gas station has the ability to
flush out. The beauty of it is it's, the level of service is impacting our drive but not impacting
Quaker. So that's, an again, understand your point. We can talk about it more later, but
essentially we did look at that hard after our conversations in January. We specifically talked to
the traffic consultant about those movements and what his thoughts are when he ran the
synchro analysis and took a look at the level of service of that intersection between Quaker and
Dix, and what those queues are and those backups are and is there appropriate gap to allow
the movement coming out, and the conclusion was, at the tail end of that signal timing, that
there'll be gaps created to take the flow of traffic out of the site at that time, but certainly during
those peak hours there'll be some backup but the effect will be on our site not on Quaker. So
we can talk about that, hopefully, in a week, but that's, I just wanted to address it as it was fresh
in our heads.
MR. MAGOWAN-I'm more worried about people coming off of Dix onto Quaker, the way they
come around there on two wheels sometimes. That's my only concern, someone trying to
make that at the correct time and, you know, you're always like this, and then, you know,
someone's coming around. I'm not saying anyone's with a cell phone in their hands on two
wheels, but, no, one of the things I kind of see on the sign, your monument sign, I see your point
of wanting to be the biggest and the best on the corner, but I also need to say across the street
you see the Stewarts sign, which is in compliance, but you're so close to the street and right to
that main corner, you know, you don't want people to have to look out the window to see to the
top. It's having it smaller and right at eye level, because so much traffic stops at that light, with
your colors and the scheme and the different colors and the pumps and that, it's going to be an
attractive corner, and I really feel that having a huge monument sign is not going to deter from
people seeing a small one right there where you have it placed on the corner, and everybody's
going to be able to see it in every light. So the third sign, you know, over the door, it's not a big
13
(Queensbury Planning Board 03/21/2011)
issue for me. I'd rather not see it there, you know, like I said, because the canopy's going to be
covering anything coming up Quaker Road and you won't see much from Dix, but, you know,
that choice is yours. It's not a show-stopper to me. The six feet, you know, I'm looking at your
property there. If it's possible, you have all that land would be over toward the west. Now
what's the area to be left pad ready?
MR. NAPIERALA-Well, and I'll be frank with you. There is no current program, as of today, for
the remaining pad, but essentially this dashed line was what is intended to be left over for future
use. Now, there's some flexibility certainly, and if we're unsuccessful with the ZBA, with
regards to that Area Variance, there is a potential, and frankly the driving force is, as I explained
earlier, was just that geometric symmetry of the side door that that door is set based on men's
room, women's room, and that's kind of like the main corridor that shoots all the way through the
whole spine of the entire store, and so the symmetry continues out to the fuel canopies at an
equidistance from those two dispensers, forces that canopy that extra six feet. Is it in real life a
big deal? It is to square-headed blockheaded engineers like the CEO of Fastrac Markets who
says I want it square.
MR. DEEB-Do you think people are really going to notice the six feet when they come out that
door and says, whoa, this is six feet off from center, I'm not sure I like it here?
MR. MAGOWAN-It would give you more of a path the trucks that are going to come and fuel up,
you know, at your diesel pumps because you have just a narrow pathway on the east side. So
if you, and you're pretty much right up on the property line, not much of a buffer there between
the two, but, I mean, you have so much land there, why can't you shift it a little?
MR. NAPIERALA-There's some flexibility, I will say that. Point taken.
MR. SHAFER-Follow up on a couple of traffic questions.
MR. NAPIERALA-Yes, sir.
MR. SHAFER-If you, I think Steve had mentioned about the access onto Quaker being right turn
in, right turn out, and you didn't.
MR. NAPIERALA-As of now that is not correct. We're looking onto Quaker as a full access.
That is not a right in/right out. We have made this, the traffic report submittal, to both the Town
Highway as well as County Highway. We're hoping to have comments by next week, but we do
not have comments as of today when I came to this meeting. We're try to get those.
MR. TRAVER-I must have been thinking of the Corinth Road site.
MR. NAPIERALA-Corinth Road is right in/right out.
MR. TRAVER-My mistake. I'm sorry.
MR. SHAFER-Well, if you look in the middle of the traffic report where you have the proposed
traffic, the 2018 build traffic volumes, during the a.m. and peak traffic hours, there's only four or
five cars coming out of that roadway turning left toward the intersection. I don't know why you
would not approve or want to have right turn in/right turn out? If there's only four or five cars.
They're coming right out into the middle of the intersection, right through the middle of that left
turn lane, right when there are people coming down Dix, right turn on red, and I do it all the time,
to get onto Quaker. It seems to me a simple, simple solution that would really add to the safety
of that intersection. So I'd ask you to consider that, the right turn in/right turn out.
MR. NAPIERALA-And I'll talk to our traffic consultant. We did, we actually brought in the traffic
consultant who worked on Wal-Mart, Gordon Stansbury, and so I wanted him to be involved,
especially when I found out he did this corridor recently. So I will talk to him and certainly have
some answers for next week, but even for tomorrow I'll chat with him about the critical nature of
that.
MR. SHAFER-I mean, they did a thorough job on the queuing on the gaps, how long a gap it
takes for one car to get out, for two cars to get out and so on. That was all well done, and that
works well on paper, but if you just look at this from the sky, having those cars coming out in the
middle of that intersection just doesn't pass the reasonableness test.
MR. NAPIERALA-Yes, sir.
14
(Queensbury Planning Board 03/21/2017)
MR. SHAFER-The other question had to do with accidents. I mean, the accident report
showed that this intersection had five times as many accidents as an average typical
intersection of this type across New York State, five times the average.
MR. TRAVER-Seventy-nine, I think, seventy-nine accidents in three years.
MR. SHAFER-More than half of them were rear-enders. Traffic engineers have solutions for
those kinds of issues. So I would ask you to talk to, are these both County roads or is one a
State?
MR. NAPIERALA-It is a touring route. So the County has jurisdiction, not the State.
MR. SHAFER-Both are County?
MR. NAPIERALA-Both are, both are touring.
MR. SHAFER-Then I would ask you to talk to the County, the traffic people, and see if they
have, the State has a program for high accident locations. They do a study and they come up
with remedies, whether it's changing the traffic signal, signing, pavement markings, whatever, to
try to reduce the accidents. I would ask you to talk to the County with respect to that.
MR. NAPIERALA-Okay. We will. Thank you, sir.
MR. MAGOWAN-Another thing there, on the side lot there, it says graded gravel to remain, how
are you going to maintain your graded gravel?
MR. NAPIERALA-We're hoping, and frankly it was more intended for our stormwater analysis to
show that as impervious area. If after 12 months there's still no tenant there then more than
likely Fastrac would loam and seed it and have it remain grass area until they get a tenant. The
intention was, and I think we talked about in January even we were trying to work with Binley's
to keep an active nursery at a reduced volume sitting there then in negotiations, again, the real
estate guys dealing with all that stuff, but the intent here, as an engineer, was we need to
determine what can be available and still take credit for the re-development in the stormwater
sense. So maybe it's a bad terminology that we're going to leave it gravel, but we were trying
to show that as an impervious nature, and certainly under the planting if we say we don't want to
leave it gravel, let's grass it now, Fastrac will not have a problem until they find a tenant for that
space. It's kind of a function of.
MR. MAGOWAN-Well, that concerns me that you're actually looking for another tenant, being
on such a tight corner, and entrances and that, you know, we're talking about traffic report and
everything, and creating more traffic for that area.
MR. NAPIERALA-I'll have to review with Mr. Stansbury our traffic consultant, but I believe the
numbers are inclusive of a small retail associated with this, not a high traffic generator but a
small retail, but I'll confirm that. I don't have that off the top of my head, but that was the intent
that there would be another user on the spot.
MR. TRAVER-And that would trigger a return for review.
MRS. MOORE-Correct.
MR. NAPIERALA-Yes, sir.
MR. TRAVER-Anyway. We would be taking another look at that anyway.
MR. MAGOWAN-Well, I mean, one of the things that I would like to see is, you know, that also
included landscaping. I mean, what's a little topsoil and some seed? I mean, what can you do
with gravel? To me, you know, and even presenting that, someone comes up and sees
tumbleweeds and the next year a gorgeous Fastrac station, you know, for future, it kind of looks
like a lot that's been abandoned, you know what I'm saying, and what I would like to see, you
know, see it finished out along with the other landscaping.
MR. NAPIERALA-It is a very good point, sir, and I will say in my now six years of working with
Fastrac across the State, when they leave the sites, they are finished all products, and again,
the denotation of gravel was more a function of engineering rather than a finished product. So
we can clean that up as we move the process forward, and even to the point of putting some
perimeter shrubs that can be permanent and make that look like something. It is a very good
point.
15
(Queensbury Planning Board 03/21/2017)
MR. TRAVER-All right. We've been asked to make a recommendation to the ZBA and we have
extensive notes, obviously, and minutes of our discussion this evening. Are there particular
points that members feel we should note as the ZBA moves forward to look at this application?
I know there are concerns about lighting under the canopy.
MR. MAGOWAN-Under the canopies, yes, that's excessive.
MR. HUNSINGER-Those aren't ZBA issues, though.
MR. DEEB-They're our issues. Those are site plan issues.
MR. FERONE-I would think the only one would be the notation about the monument sign.
MR. TRAVER-Yes.
MR. HUNSINGER-We don't usually comment on Sign Variances, though. Do we, Laura?
MRS. MOORE-Because it was combined with the site itself and the canopy, I include it as a
comment, because you're going to see it come back.
MR. HUNSINGER-Right.
MRS. MOORE-You can provide that feedback to them now.
MR. TRAVER-All right.
MR. DEEB-There's a lot of issues to look at here.
MR. TRAVER-There are. A lot of them, as Chris pointed out, they're site plan issues.
MR. DEEB-I'm just wondering, are we ready for this, to go to the ZBA?
MR. MAGOWAN-Not that I want to sidetrack you, but I just have a question on, you know,
looking at this in the land layout, the back side of that abuts up to the Wal-Mart real estate
business trust, and if you're thinking on future expansion, you know, another business in there,
of maybe looking into being able to get an access deed or something to bring you over to the
Wal-Mart parking lot so you'd be able to use that light. That might be beneficial for both, really
both businesses. Something to look into that, you know, it doesn't seem like that far, and I
know they want to build some more, but they might benefit Fastrac and future businesses
coming in.
MR. FERONE-Good point.
MR. MAGOWAN-Because I know that is a busy corner. You can sit there for a day or two and
look at it, but you live here for many years you learn what time to go there and what time not to.
MR. TRAVER-Yes.
MR. NAPIERALA-That's a good point and I'll make a note of that as well.
MR. MAGOWAN-You have so much that goes back there and the only part you're really going
to put back in that background now I see is just your leach field.
MR. NAPIERALA-Yes, right, and frankly that was a function of everything's disturbed and we're
looking for some area where we can construct without reclaiming gravel and concrete, and we
know we're going to have to mound because we've got shallow to rock.
MR. MAGOWAN-Yes, there is a little ledge back there.
MR. NAPIERALA-We hope it's further down because our mound it's as big, but we're
anticipating that, and we've made submittal to DOH as well with regard to this.
MR. TRAVER-All right. So are members feeling we're ready for a motion for the ZBA?
MR. DEEB-I'm not sure.
16
(Queensbury Planning Board 03/21/2017)
MR. HUNSINGER-Well, there's only two variance requests, a Sign Variance and a setback
variance. So those are the only two things that we'd be commenting on.
MR. DEEB-Well, the setback, that wasn't set in stone he said. The setback wasn't set in stone.
MR. HUNSINGER-Right.
MR. DEEB-From what I heard from you, you said, you know, you have some wiggle room.
MR. NAPIERALA-We're going to go to the ZBA the way it is, sir. That is the direction from
Fastrac corporate is to pursue the layout as it stands, and if the ZBA determines, and your
recommendation certainly, but if the ZBA determines they will not grant that Area Variance, we
do have the ability to conform and we'll cross that bridge when we come to it.
MR. DEEB-I'm just wondering if we should put that in the notes, make a notation of it.
MR. TRAVER-Well, at this point we're specifically speaking to the variances, not the entire site
plan.
MR. DEEB-That is the variance. The setback is the variance.
MR. TRAVER-It is, but they're not planning on modifying their application before it goes.
MRS. MOORE-That's what, I mean, I'm not sure I follow Mr. Deeb's comment, but the idea of
the recommendation is the Board can identify that this Board, as a whole, could see the Zoning
Board maybe taking another look at the setback request and asking the applicant to be
compliant. That's part of your recommendation back to the Zoning Board.
MR. TRAVER-But isn't that their approach to begin with?
MRS. MOORE-I'm sorry, what?
MR. TRAVER-Isn't that what the ZBA would do, that would be the entire purpose of the evening,
would it not?
MR. DEEB-We're making a recommendation.
MRS. MOORE-But you're making an additional recommendation that says.
MR. DEEB-We have a right to make a notation.
MR. MAGOWAN-I've talked to Steve, and Steve has asked for us to sort of recommend if we
see anything, you know, to help them along with their decision it would be more than helpful to
them, because they're awfully busy over there.
MR. TRAVER-Of course. Okay. Well, we can certainly mention that all of the variances are of
concern. We might want to mention that they might want to take a look at our discussion with
the applicant this evening. Between January and this evening there's a lot of information that's
already been presented by us as well as the applicant regarding all those issues. I know that
they do it from time to time.
MR. HUNSINGER-I mean, personally I'm not concerned about the setback because as the
applicant pointed out, it's less intrusive on to Quaker Road than the existing building.
MR. TRAVER-Right.
MR. HUNSINGER-And multiple times, you know, Steve had said we don't make precedence.
We don't, but it's not unusual to have a canopy overhang to the setback line.
MR. DEEB-So you're okay with the setback.
MR. HUNSINGER-Yes, I'm okay with the setback.
MS. WHITE-And I agree with this. I'm okay with it as well.
MR. DEEB-I'm sure six feet doesn't, it's not a lot. I understand that, okay, but you have to start
building that. So it's not going to be a cost object.
17
(Queensbury Planning Board 03/21/2011)
MR. SHAFER-One simple way to achieve the six feet is to eliminate a set of pumps.
MR. TRAVER-Well, there's a huge economic impact.
MR. HUNSINGER-He wouldn't have the symmetry. You'd have two on one side and one on
the other.
MR. MAGOWAN-1 don't have a problem with the canopy. Really the monument sign and the
third sign would be something that I would recommend to the Zoning Board is that's something
that.
MR. TRAVER-Well, I think that the recommendation that the secretary is drafting will include our
focus on all the variances that should be looked at. There's mixed feelings on the Board. I
think there's general agreement regarding the signs.
MR. DEEB-Well, I really don't have a problem with the canopy. I'm just saying it could be
rectified easily. I don't have a real problem with it, but the six feet.
MR. TRAVER-Well, and again, I mean, they will be looking at that. That's their purpose.
MR. HUNSINGER-Yes.
MR. TRAVER-So if you have a draft motion go ahead.
RESOLUTION RE: ZBA RECOMMENDATION RE: Z-AV-17-2017 & Z-SV-2-2017
FASTRAC
The applicant has submitted an application for the following: Applicant proposes 5,800 sq. ft.
convenience store with 50x120, 6,000 sq. ft. fuel canopy and a 35x58, 1,750 sq. ft. diesel
station canopy. Project occurs on the existing Binley property — applicant to utilize two furthest
curb cuts. The greenhouse units to be removed and area to be regraded. Binley retail building
to be removed, made pad ready. Pursuant to Chapter 179-3-040 of the Zoning Ordinance, new
commercial use shall be subject to Planning Board review and approval. Variance: Relief is
sought for canopy setback and signs. 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. 17-2017 & SIGN
VARIANCE NO. 2-2017 FASTRAC MARKETS, LLC:
Introduced by George Ferone who moved its adoption, and
b) The Planning Board, based on a limited review, has identified the following areas of
concern:
1) The size of the monument sign variance and the variance requesting the number of
signs, the three rather than two signs for the project. The Planning Board feels the
number of signs is excessive.
Motion seconded by Jamie White. Duly adopted this 21St day of March, 2017 by the following
vote:
MRS. MOORE-Mr. Chairman, I didn't quite understand. You have concerns about the, I didn't
hear the statement, though.
MS. WHITE-The number and the size.
MR. FERONE-The size of the sign, so that's the monument sign, and the number of signs, the
three signs, where we feel that's excessive where we prefer the two signs.
18
(Queensbury Planning Board 03/21/2011)
MRS. MOORE-All right. I just didn't hear it.
MR. TRAVER-Yes, no, let's get it right.
MR. FERONE-1 thought it. I don't know how you didn't hear it.
MR. TRAVER-All right. May we have the vote, please?
AYES: Mr. Deeb, Ms. White, Mr. Shafer, Mr. Hunsinger, Mr. Magowan, Mr. Ferone, Mr. Traver
NOES: NONE
MR. TRAVER-All right, and we're now looking at the Corinth Road site. Very similar proposal,
in some respects.
SITE PLAN NO. 22-2017 SPECIAL USE PERMIT 5-2017 SEAR TYPE UNLISTED
FASTRAC MARKETS, LLC AGENT(S) NAPIERALA CONSULTING OWNER(S) JERRY
NUDI, SWITCHO, LLC ZONING CI-18 LOCATION 220 CORINTH ROAD APPLICANT
PROPOSES A 5,800 SQ. FT. CONVENIENCE STORE WITH 152 X 517, 752 SQ. FT. FUEL
CANOPY AND 2,008 SQ. FT. DIESEL CANOPY. PROJECT INCLUDES CLEARING 2.15
ACRE PARCEL, INSTALLATION OF NEW CUT ON CORINTH ROAD, 2 NEW CURB CUTS
ON PRIVATE DRIVE AND OTHER SITE DETAILS. APPLICANT PROPOSES WAIVERS
FROM LANDSCAPING REQUIREMENTS. PROJECT SUBJECT TO CI-18 SPECIAL USE
PERMIT. PURSUANT TO CHAPTER 179-3-040 & 179-10 OF THE ZONING ORDINANCE,
NEW COMMERCIAL USE SHALL BE SUBJECT TO PLANNING BOARD REVIEW AND
APPROVAL. VARIANCE: RELIEF IS SOUGHT FOR PERMEABILITY AND POSSIBLE
CURB DISTANCE AND SIGNS. PLANNING BOARD SHALL PROVIDE A
RECOMMENDATION TO THE ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS. CROSS REFERENCE SP
PZ 51-2016 & AV PZ 69-2016 HOTEL, DISC 2-2017, AV 18-2017, SV 3-2017 WARREN CO.
REFERRAL MARCH 2017 LOT SIZE 2.155 ACRES TAX MAP NO. 309.13-1-35
SECTION 179-3-040, 179-10
MATT NAPIERALA, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT
MR. NAPIERALA-So we'll shift gears off of Exit 18 on Corinth Road. So Fastrac is, again,
proposing a similar store with the similar size store, similar architecture, with both domestic fuel
and diesel fuel options. This is adjacent to the McDonalds and in front of the new hotel under
construction for Switchco. This particular site, and our variance request before the ZBA
tomorrow, deals with the required amount of permeable area and the percent of landscape.
Both the required amount is 30% of the lot area. We have provided 20% based on the
available lot that we are acquiring from Switcho. The other item that was identified by Staff is a
commercial driveway spacing where the commercial driveway spacing is required at 220 feet
and we are a short distance, essentially, from the McDonalds to the driveway. So those are the
Area Variances. Similar to the Quaker and Dix site, we also have sign variances, and I would
assume the Board's comments on Quaker and Dix would be similar. In this case because of
the single piece of road frontage the number of signs that is allowed is one, and we are similar
asking for three, one in the front of the store, one on the store facing that fueling and one on the
canopy itself. So we're in excess by two wall signs, and the freestanding sign, very similar to
what the, actually the exact sign that was discussed for Quaker and Dix, a freestanding
monument sign with the stick on pricing. The allowed is 45 square feet and we are requesting
76.5. So in this case when we take a look at, when Laura gets to that Site Plan, we have a
square lot that we are purchasing from Switcho. To get the configuration and to get the
efficiency of that site, we are essentially pretty efficient. Square sites tend to get efficient, but
we do not meet that percent pervious area, albeit when we look at our distances from the
private road, there are significant green spaces surrounding us, but not within the lot dimensions
that are coming from the acquisition from Switchco as far as our, we would call this an
outparcel, part of the overall development, and as an example here, the property line is this
square, we call it in the AutoCad world the phantom. The line dash, dash line is a phantom
line. This is the acquired square lot, and it's to this point. So we have limited green space
inside of our property, but in totality to the private road, just like within a right of way, we have a
lot of green space, and the same here on the north side. We have some green space here up
to the property line, but as well, there is in totality, in the real world, there's lots of green space
surrounding it. The Area Variances deal with that 30% permeable versus approximately 20%
provided on a, again, development square site, and then the sign stuff is very similar to what we
were talking about on Quaker and Dix.
MR. TRAVER-So with regards to the green space, you have a small slice that you would now
own and have control over, and the rest would belong, would be on the hotel property, Switcho?
19
(Queensbury Planning Board 03/21/2011)
MR. NAPIERALA-It is Switchco as the developers. I'm not sure how, when you get up to the
hotel, which is sitting up in here, how he's broken that out, but Switcho certainly owns, and
actually to the west, make sure that's the west, to the west side is a private drive. There's
nothing else that's going to go here either. So this will all remain green, and when you get up
to this corner, this is where the large infiltration stormwater basin will be. So that'll be, once it
becomes established as an infiltration basin, there'll be green area as well coming up to the
hotel.
MR. TRAVER-So will you have some understanding with them regarding the maintenance of
that green space that extends beyond the fuel canopy area?
MR. NAPIERALA-Yes. I mean, following both the Staff review and our discussion in January,
we have had some at length discussions with Jerry Nudi with regards to easement rights and
arrangements and all of that is progressing very, very well. It's just now we've got two lawyers
talking and you know how that can get, but essentially the conversations have gone very well
and there's, I believe, three or four easements that are under conversation. The first of which
certainly is a no-brainer as far as right of access. The others deal with some utility easements
that they were dealing with for some underground utilities here on our east side of our property
and the big one is the stormwater, the right of discharge and utilizing that infiltration basin, and
as well the conveyance along that system, which inherently requires that that green space stay
because it's going to be part of our conveyance system back to that infiltration basin.
MR. TRAVER-And, from my mind, with regard to the signs, I would have the same concern as
you noted with the monument sign and the building signs are the same arrangement as the
Quaker site. Correct?
MR. NAPIERALA-Yes. So we're going to show one in the front, one over the side door and
then one would be sitting on the canopy.
MR. TRAVER-So my position on the signs would be the same. I understand you're only
allowed one. You're asking for three. I think two would be far more reasonable, and delete the
sign that people walk under when they've already done business with you.
MR. NAPIERALA-Understood.
MR. TRAVER-Questions, comments from other members of the Board?
MR. DEEB-Well, once you use the other green space it brings you well over 30% 1 would
assume, even though it's not your property.
MR. NAPIERALA-Yes, sir.
MR. TRAVER-Well, that's the issue, though.
MR. NAPIERALA-The calcs are the calcs. I keep saying I'm a blockhead. The numbers are
the numbers. I can't cheat that.
MR. DEEB-So from a visual point it will look fine.
MR. TRAVER-Yes. Aesthetically, yes.
MR. DEEB-Yes.
MR. TRAVER-And again, just with regard, I noted incorrectly you have the right in/right out on
Quaker. It's actually this site, but that is a nice feature to have. I remember we had quite a
discussion about traffic in January on this site as well.
MR. NAPIERALA-Right, and the signal is now active, and we've provided a TIS report with
regards to our site as compared to what was proposed when that signal came through with
Switcho, and so that is inclusive of our package of the TIS analysis with regards to that
improvement, and actually I stopped by the site on the way in and the signal is active right now.
MR. DEEB-Well, I mean, the problems there, the light problems that Chris mentioned is there.
The sign problem, but I think that the traffic problem is a lot less here than it would be over at
the other site.
MR. TRAVER-Yes.
20
(Queensbury Planning Board 03/21/2017)
MR. DEEB-Because of the intensive study that has been done and the right in/right out. The
signs, we all feel the same on that. The other thing was the interconnect with McDonalds. Did
you look at that, the associated?
MR. NAPIERALA-Laura brought that up and gave us a contact with McDonalds that I turned
over to Fastrac and Brett Hughes. As of the time of our filing, which was the February 15th
timeframe, we had not formalized or finalized an interconnect with McDonalds.
MR. DEEB-Are you working on something?
MR. NAPIERALA-Yes, we've made contact and are trying, you know, I don't know where Brett
is with that, but I know that the conversation was initiated back in February, right after Laura and
myself met, but I don't know where that's gone since then, frankly. I will follow up, though,
tomorrow morning with him and see where we're at.
MR. DEEB-Well, I know they're a competitor of yours as far as food goes.
MR. NAPIERALA-Well, they are and they aren't. I mean, one of the stores out in Rochester,
McDonald's leases from Fastrac. They're on the same piece of property.
MR. DEEB-It's also different types of food also, I would think.
MR. NAPIERALA-Frankly because of that McDonalds doesn't like us because we're beating
them.
MR. DEEB-Well, you have a fresher approach.
MR. NAPIERALA-Well, yes, no, it's all it takes, but again, in the marketplace there's
communication. Everyone tries to work together for the benefit of the customers.
MR. DEEB-It behooves everybody to do that.
MR. NAPIERALA-And I will re-address that with Brett when I chat with him tomorrow and see
where he ended up with that interconnect.
MR. FERONE-And that could work either way, because you could have somebody in your place
getting gas, for whatever reason they don't get food establishment, but they walk across and get
something from McDonalds, but the other way, when we talked to the hotel people, I believe
they're going to have a sidewalk come down, and there is a connection to McDonalds, where if
they want to pass over McDonalds they can then access your facility.
MR. NAPIERALA-Right, and we did talk about that pedestrian interconnect and we don't have
any issue with that. It's just a matter of managing it between that, from the hotel to McDonalds
to us in the rear of the store, making sure that we're careful with regards to the circulation so we
don't get pedestrians in trouble.
MR. HUNSINGER-No, more importantly people staying at the hotel can walk into your store to
buy beer.
MR. NAPIERALA-Yes, sir.
MR. TRAVER-All right. We mentioned similar concerns we have for this referral to the ZBA as
the Quaker Road site. We know that we're concerned with the signs, the number of building
signs, the monument sign. We know although it's technically not a ZBA, they should be aware
that we're alerted by the foot candles under the canopy. We'll be looking at that. It's almost
twice guidance.
MR. HUNSINGER-Yes, I mean, I had the same comments about landscaping and lighting. I
mean, Staff Notes picked up on the landscaping as well.
MR. TRAVER-Yes.
MR. HUNSINGER-That we should request native plantings, and the Board should request
native plantings and compliant plantings. Note should be on landscaping plan. I mean, again,
the lighting is an issue, although this site didn't seem to be as highly lit as the other one.
21
(Queensbury Planning Board 03/21/2011)
MR. NAPIERALA-It's all a function of how many of those luminaries are sitting there underneath
that canopy, and I will apologize. I didn't totally, in my function, analyze that lighting plan, but
I'm assuming, I did see it, that we're talking about the hot spot underneath the fueling canopy
more so than our site lighting. Because I know we got near zeroes near the perimeter.
MR. HUNSINGER-Yes. You're good there. It's just underneath the canopies.
MR. NAPIERALA-And I'll address with the lighting vendor. He might be able to get that down
pretty easily, and I need to compare what we did on some other stores, because I'll tell you, you
know, I've been to the stores at night, and with the LED's, it's appropriate and it isn't
overbearing, but maybe they did something different here when our lighting vendor took a shot
at this.
MR. TRAVER-Yes, and we do have guidance, and we would just ask that you try to be in
compliance with that.
MR. NAPIERALA-And it's noted and I'll take a look at that and we have a good relationship with
the lighting vendor. I mean, we're doing, you know, buying a lot of stuff from him for these
stores all over the State.
MR. TRAVER-Very good.
MR. NAPIERALA-So we'll be able to talk to him about that.
MR. HUNSINGER-You know the other spot where lighting is often too bright is right at the
entrance doors, and I didn't see that at all on your plans.
MR. NAPIERALA-No. If you look at those night time lights, and I've got these pictures, it really
isn't.
MR. HUNSINGER-You have 49 in this one LED light that puts out 142.4 watts.
MR. NAPIERALA-And there's some cans underneath that entry, but it isn't crazy.
MR. HUNSINGER-No.
MR. MAGOWAN-The light's more inside the store.
MR. NAPIERALA-Yes. The store light's coming out more so than the cans that are sitting on
the little canopy, the little awning that sits out in front of the store.
MR. TRAVER-Well, and again, this is why we want the metrics because it can be subjective to
look at a photograph.
MR. NAPIERALA-Noted, and we'll take a look at that before next week.
MR. TRAVER-Very good. All right. Mr. Secretary, how are we doing on our?
MR. FERONE-Good.
MR. TRAVER-Ready for a recommendation?
RESOLUTION RE: ZBA RECOMMENDATION RE: Z-AV-18-2017 & Z-SV-3-2017
FASTRAC
The applicant has submitted an application for the following: Applicant proposes a 5,800 sq. ft.
convenience store with 152 x 517, 752 sq. ft. fuel canopy and 2,008 sq. ft. diesel canopy.
Project includes clearing 2.15 acre parcel, installation of new cut on Corinth Road, 2 new curb
cuts on private drive and other site details. Applicant proposes waivers from landscaping
requirements. Project subject to CI-18 special use permit. Pursuant to Chapter 179-3-040 &
179-10 of the Zoning Ordinance, new commercial use shall be subject to Planning Board review
and approval. Variance: Relief is sought for permeability and possible curb cut distance and
signs. 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;
22
(Queensbury Planning Board 03/21/2011)
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. 18-2017 & SIGN
VARIANCE 3-2017 FASTRAC MARKETS, LLC:
Introduced by George Ferone who moved its adoption, and
b) The Planning Board, based on a limited review, has identified the following areas of
concern:
1) The variance request for the monument sign and the number of signs being three. It
is the preference of the signs to be two.
Motion seconded by David Deeb. Duly adopted this 21St day of March, 2017 by the following
vote:
AYES: Mr. Deeb, Ms. White, Mr. Shafer, Mr. Hunsinger, Mr. Magowan, Mr. Ferone, Mr. Traver
NOES: NONE
MR. TRAVER-All right.
MR. FERONE-Good luck.
MR. DEEB-Good luck.
MR. TRAVER-All right. The next application we're looking at this evening is also a
recommendation for the ZBA. This is Site Plan 19-2017 for Carol Perkins.
SITE PLAN NO. 19-2017 SEAR TYPE UNLISTED CAROL PERKINS d/b/a RAY'S
SALVAGE AGENT(S) JON LAPPER, ESQ., HUTCHINS ENGINEERING OWNER(S)
SAME AS APPLICANT ZONING MDR LOCATION 15 PASCO AVENUE & 685 SHERMAN
AVE. APPLICANT PROPOSES TO PLACE A 40 X 80 METAL BUILDING FOR OFFICE
AND SALVAGE BUILDING. THE BUILDING OFFICE AREA 1,200 SQ. FT. THE REMAINING
TO BE USED FOR AUTO SALVAGE. THE PREVIOUS 1,411 SQ. FT. BUILDING BURNED
IN MAY 2016. PURSUANT TO CHAPTER 179-13-010 OF THE ZONING ORDINANCE,
EXPANSION OF A NON-CONFORMING STRUCTURE SHALL BE SUBJECT TO PLANNING
BOARD REVIEW AND APPROVAL. VARIANCE: RELIEF IS SOUGHT FOR USE OF SITE
AS A SALVAGE YARD. PLANNING BOARD SHALL PROVIDE A RECOMMENDATION TO
THE ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS. CROSS REFERENCE AV 5-1999, 1999 COMM.
BLDG. 1,380 SF, UV 2-2017 WARREN CO. REFERRAL N/A LOT SIZE 7.07 ACRES &
2.84 ACRES TAX MAP NO. 301.19-1-10, -5 SECTION 179-13-010
JON LAPPER & TOM HUTCHINS, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT
MR. TRAVER-Laura?
MRS. MOORE-The applicant proposes to place a 40 by 80 metal building for office and salvage
building. The building office area 1,200 sq. ft. and the remaining to be the auto salvage area.
Their previous building of 1411 square feet was burned in May of 2016. In this case the
applicant proposes an expansion of the current use and it therefore triggers a Use Variance that
comes before this Board for recommendation back to the Zoning Board.
MR. TRAVER-Okay. Thank you. Good evening.
MR. LAPPER-Good evening, everyone. For the record Jon Lapper with Tom Hutchins and
Carol Perkins. Carol's family has owned this site since the 70's, but it's been a salvage yard
since the 1940's, and what happened here, as Laura said, about a year ago there was a fire,
and the building that houses her office was completely destroyed. So she came to Tom and I
looking at this as an opportunity to clean up the front of that site for her to make it more useful
and also to make it more attractive for the neighbors. So we spent a while planning this,
talking to Laura and talking to Craig, and what we are ultimately presenting is a plan that takes a
lot of the work that happens outside of that building, there's storage trailers, there's sheds in the
back behind it, eliminating a whole bunch of those. Tom will go through that with you briefly on
the plan. Building a 3200 square foot building instead, will house her office and allow interior
dismantling, some storage that doesn't have to happen outdoors in the winter, that doesn't have
23
(Queensbury Planning Board 03/21/2011)
to be stored in little shacks and trailers. So in addition to that, we're providing some stormwater
treatment, some landscaping, some better entranceway, better parking and just really clean that
up. It's still going to be a salvage yard, but it's going to be a much more attractive one. It
requires a Use Variance because technically it's an expansion of a nonconforming use, but all of
those activities were happening. It's just they'd be happening more attractively, if you will, in a
metal building rather than the whole area of the site. So that's why we're here and we'll
hopefully come back and see you for a site plan if we get through the variance and I'll ask Tom
to go through the site plan.
MR. TRAVER-Sure.
MR. HUTCHINS-Good evening, Tom Hutchins. What we've done is we've sited this building,
well, we've identified with Carol what size building would be best for her use and enable her to
get some of the outdoor activities inside. We've located that building in an area, it's compliant
as far as setbacks and zoning issues, with the exception of use. The prior building was not in a
compliant location. It was close to the property line. We've located this one in compliant
location. We have some stormwater from this building associated with construction, and of
course the site itself is covered under an industrial, what DEC calls a multi sector stormwater
permit, and I believe they are Sector M as a part of that permit. So that's an annual process
that she goes through and maintains with DEC separately because of the use of the property.
We've shown some landscaping. We tried to clean up the entrance a little bit, and revise the
traffic flow. There is a permanent scale that will remain in the location. Currently she's
operating out of an office trailer which will be removed, and there are a number of smaller
storage vehicles and trailers which will be removed if we can get more indoor space with this
building. So with that, I think I'd turn it over for questions and comments.
MR. TRAVER-I would think that, in addition to the aesthetics, or the appearance of the property
and the, obviously the increase in efficiency, it would have a big impact on the environmental
potential as well by consolidating operations from all these outdoor areas. There's much less
potential for contamination of the soils or that type of thing, which is something that I've found as
an attractive aspect of the updating of this proposal, and in the 1940's I'm curious. Do you
have a stockpile of classic car parts that you put on E-bay or something?
CAROL PERKINS
MS. PERKINS-No.
MR. TRAVER-I would think that you would.
MS. PERKINS-1 do have one memory lane. It's all older vehicles.
MR. TRAVER-Okay. Very good. I didn't mean to distract from the project. Questions or
comments from members of the Planning Board?
MR. DEEB-The storage containers, when I looked at it yesterday, I'm looking at six, and there's
a shed. The ones closest to the building are going to be removed?
MR. HUTCHINS-Yes, the ones that are grayed out, yes. I don't know if you'll be able to see
that. I've numbered them and there's a schedule there, and if, the ones that are grayed out will
be removed. Next sheet, Laura. Yes, you can't see very well.
MR. DEEB-But the closest to the proposed building I'm assuming.
MR. HUTCHINS-Yes, that whole area where her cursor is.
MR. DEEB-Okay.
MR. HUTCHINS-There are a number of buildings, primarily trailers, but.
MR. DEEB-You've got four storage containers, well it says three there.
MR. LAPPER-There are a lot more existing than you can see there.
MR. DEEB-But those front three, can you see the ones I'm talking about?
MR. LAPPER-Yes, those are behind the fence.
MR. TRAVER-You're talking about on the lower left?
24
(Queensbury Planning Board 03/21/2017)
MR. DEEB-Yes.
MR. HUTCHINS-Those are behind the fence, behind the property. Those are intended to stay.
MR. DEEB-Okay. All right.
MR. HUTCHINS-There you go.
MR. TRAVER-That's the existing.
MR. LAPPER-Those are all the ones that are coming out.
MR. HUTCHINS-On the left is the plan as it was pre-fire with the building in front and the
containers.
MR. LAPPER-Eight are coming out.
MR. DEEB-So eight, which is a good number. All right, and then, okay, they are behind the
fence. Is that going to, because that's a lot of storage for you now, isn't it?
MS. PERKINS-Actually some of those that are there, right now I'm just putting a lot of things
that I have for my new building in them, but they've been there so long, once I move them and
put the new building up, they're not going to make it. They're just going to come apart I'm
pretty sure.
MR. DEEB-Okay. You're going to do a lot of your dismantling in the new building?
MS. PERKINS-In the new building, in our new building. Yes, sir.
MR. MAGOWAN-So you'll be recapping all the fuel oils and everything in the new building?
MS. PERKINS-Inside.
MR. MAGOWAN-Because you have that vehicle perforation shed over there, Number Three.
MS. PERKINS-Right in the center, right over as if it was a lean-to. Correct?
MR. MAGOWAN-Well, I'm just looking at Number Three. It's set back kind of on the property
line.
MS. PERKINS-Yes, that's also for dismantling. We put the cars on there or take different parts
off of them.
MR. MAGOWAN-So that's after they've been de-fluidized.
MS. PERKINS-We de-fluidize them there, too.
MR. DEEB-And, Carol, are you taking the trailer down next to the scale?
MS. PERKINS-That's a rental trailer that I had to rent for an office temporary.
MR. HUTCHINS-That's where her office is right now.
MS. PERKINS-That's going to be gone.
MR. TRAVER-Temporary because of the burned building.
MR. DEEB-All right. I remember, I used to do business with you years ago and I was just trying
to remember the old.
MS. PERKINS-Yes, you look a little familiar. Maybe my father years ago.
MR. DEEB-No, it was actually you and your brother.
MR. MAGOWAN-In this new building, what have you done for, since you will be removing the
fluids in that, you know, for still response, and capturing any fluids that might.
25
(Queensbury Planning Board 03/21/2017)
MS. PERKINS-All the contaminants that have to be removed, mercury sensors, fluids, Freon
such as that will be all done inside that new building.
MR. MAGOWAN-So it won't be done in Shed three anymore.
MS. PERKINS-No.
MR. MAGOWAN-Just dismantling of parts once they're dry.
MS. PERKINS-Right.
MR. MAGOWAN-We'll call them your dry vehicles.
MS. PERKINS-Right.
MR. MAGOWAN-And the trailers along the property line that abuts Darren, you have a lot of
storage containers over there, Trailer Two, concrete trailer.
MR. LAPPER-Brad, at the bottom or the top? Which ones are you looking at?
MR. MAGOWAN-Right along the property line there behind Darren Mabb.
MS. PERKINS-Behind DJ. One of them is a fuel shed where I keep my off road fuel. One of
them I've already gotten rid of. The other one's my small scale where I buy non-ferrous metals.
That one will be eliminated, and the one right next to that has got equipment that I plan on
putting in my new garage, if you allow me to put that building up.
MR. TRAVER-So basically all of that you're referring to is going away.
MS. PERKINS-Except for the fuel shed.
MR. TRAVER-Except for the fuel building.
MS. PERKINS-But I can also move it, you know, someplace else, if that would be more
pleasing. That's not a problem.
MR. MAGOWAN-No, I think overall with the new building there, that's really going to dress up
the front of your business.
MS. PERKINS-It's going to be great.
MR. MAGOWAN-Now that you have all this space and hopefully floor to ceiling shelving.
MS. PERKINS-1 think it's going to be much, much better. Not so antiquated. The men can
work inside and you don't have to worry about any kind of contamination into the ground, which
is a beautiful thing.
MR. MAGOWAN-Well, that's really my main concern, and I know you have to go through so
much. Like Shed Five back there, you've got one that's like way back into the field, it's closer
to Mosher's.
MS. PERKINS-Is that the old garage one? That's an old garage with a cement floor that keeps
any kind of, I think right now in there is waste oil, and then there's a van body right next to that
that holds antifreeze, and then there's one over, I can't keep them together, just in case, you
never know, that holds gasoline until it's removed. Fluid storage.
MR. MAGOWAN-How's the metal business been?
MS. PERKINS-Up and down, like a rollercoaster.
MR. MAGOWAN-There was a day when there was phenomenal.
MS. PERKINS-1 think they're gone. I think those days are gone.
MR. MAGOWAN-It's almost like playing the stock market every day.
MS. PERKINS-That's true.
26
(Queensbury Planning Board 03/21/2011)
MR. TRAVER-All right. Any specific comments that we want to make with regards to the
variance as a salvage yard?
MR. DEEB-I just have one more question as far as the site plan goes.
MR. TRAVER-Sure.
MR. DEEB-Would there be any possibility of getting rid of any more of the sheds? Or do you
need every one that's left?
MS. PERKINS-The few right behind where the new building's going, like that building is going to
be, the back of it is going to be inside that fence. All those can go.
MR. LAPPER-They're earmarked to go.
MS. PERKINS-And the ones on the other side, excluding the fluid shed, can go, but I do need
some of those tractor trailer bodies to store a lot of cars and bulk things.
MR. DEEB-That I understand. I was looking at it yesterday.
MS. PERKINS-They're in pretty good shape. The ones that I've got to move, they're going to
fall apart, and I know it.
MR. DEEB-I know you need all the space that you can get. You're building a fairly large
building. You always may expand and you don't know what's going to come up in the future,
but it would clean up the site a little bit more. I'm sorry. That's all.
MR. TRAVER-Okay. Again, are there any specifics that folks want to mention to the ZBA with
regards to the variance for the allowed use as a salvage yard? They will be coming back for
site plan, of course. This is also a SEQR Unlisted. So we'll be dealing with SEQR at some
point later on as well. I guess I'm not hearing any with regard to the variance. So, Mr.
Secretary, we're ready for a motion.
RESOLUTION RE: ZBA RECOMMENDATION RE: Z-UV-2-2017 CAROL PERKINS
The applicant has submitted an application for the following: Applicant proposes to place a 40 x
80 metal building for office and salvage building. The building office area 1,200 sq. ft., the
remaining to be used for auto salvage. The previous 1,411 sq. ft. building burned in May 2016.
Pursuant to Chapter 179-13-010 of the Zoning Ordinance, expansion of a non-conforming
structure shall be subject to Planning Board review and approval. Variance: Relief is sought
for use of site as a salvage yard. 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 USE VARIANCE NO. 2-2017 CAROL PERKINS
d/b/a RAY'S SALVAGE: Introduced by George Ferone who moved its adoption, 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.
Motion seconded by Jamie White. Duly adopted this 21St day of March, 2017 by the following
vote:
AYES: Mr. Ferone, Mr. Magowan, Mr. Hunsinger, Mr. Shafer, Ms. White, Mr. Deeb, Mr.
Traver
NOES: NONE
MR. LAPPER-Thank you.
27
(Queensbury Planning Board 03/21/2011)
MS. PERKINS-Thank you.
MR. TRAVER-And the next application we have before us is also a recommendation to the
ZBA, and this is Site Plan 17-2017 for Hilliard, Tyrer and Lyon and Cerny.
SITE PLAN NO. 17-2017 SPECIAL USE PERMIT 3-2017 SEAR TYPE TYPE II HILLIARD,
TYRER, LYON & CERNY AGENT(S) TRACEY CLOTHIER OWNER(S) DAVID & LISA
DOSTER ZONING WR LOCATION 94 ASH DRIVE APPLICANT PROPOSES TO
INSTALL A 40' X 4' DOCK AND A PATHWAY FROM ASH DRIVE TO DOCK LOCATION.
PROJECT IS CONSIDERED A CLASS A MARINA, AS DOCK IS FOR MORE THAN ONE
OWNER — A TOTAL OF FOUR. PROJECT IS PART OF A COURT ORDER FOR
PROPERTY OWNER TO INSTALL. PURSUANT TO CHAPTER 179-10-040 OF THE
ZONING ORDINANCE, CLASS A MARINAS SHALL BE SUBJECT TO PLANNING BOARD
REVIEW AND APPROVAL. VARIANCE: RELIEF IS SOUGHT FOR SETBACK.
PLANNING BOARD SHALL PROVIDE A RECOMMENDATION TO THE ZONING BOARD OF
APPEALS. CROSS REFERENCE AV 23-2014, SP 21-2014 RS. & SEPTIC ALTERATION,
AV 15-2017 WARREN CO. REFERRAL N/A LOT SIZE 1.1 ACRES TAX MAP NO.
289.17-1-5 SECTION 179-10-040
MICHAEL BORGOS & TRACEY CLOTHIER, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT
NOTE: Town Counsel left during this application.
MRS. MOORE-This applicant proposes to install a 40 foot by 4 foot dock and a pathway from
Ash Drive to the dock location. The project is considered a Class A Marina as the dock is for
more than one owner— a total of four. The project is part of a court order for property owner to
install. The relief that's requested is for the setback of a dock to the property line.
MR. TRAVER-Okay. Thank you. Good evening.
MR. BORGOS-Good evening. Michael Borgos for the applicant here with Tracey Clothier as
well. Tracey has worked on all these drawings, particularly the engineering for this. So if we
have questions about that, she can address it, but this is rather an unusual application before
this Board, I believe. You don't often have a court ordered dock issue.
MR. TRAVER-Fortunately not.
MR. BORGOS-1 can blame the court and I can blame the Staff, not Laura, Craig we'll blame,
because of this interpretation. I want to make sure everybody's on the same page and
understands that this has no commercial aspect to it. A Class A Marina is what you commonly
see for a homeowner who has more than two rental boats on slips associated with their
property. This is a wholly residential project. If it was a single ownership with all the boats you
wouldn't see this, but we're here tonight for just the recommendation to restore the dock within
the 20 foot setback to the property line, but this is all about restoration of what was. The history
of this unfortunate litigation was that in 2012 the property owner started contesting the use of
the existing dock that was there by the non-property owners that lived across the road and up a
ways, the historical users of that dock, pursuant to a deed right. That grew into the actual
removal of the dock by the property owner, and this 18 month period of non-presence of the
dock necessitated the application here tonight, but it wasn't a volitional non-use of the dock.
The applicants before you really wanted to have the docks there, so much that they spent over
four years in litigation. It was resolved by this court ordered stipulation. So we're here to go
through the formalities of the request for the variance to restore it to what it was, and the Zoning
Board will hear that tomorrow and if they grant that variance, we'll be back next week to talk
about site plan particulars. The basics really are very simple. The old access was vaguely
described within the deed. The easement was across the driveway to the water. The
agreement that's been struck is to move the pedestrian access, and it's pedestrian only, no
vehicles are going to be on this property whatsoever. So you'll see that we have waiver
requests for a lot of those typical Class A Marina requirements, but it's a four foot wide
pedestrian slip along the western boundary of the property. There's a privacy screening fence
proposed. There's no disturbance of the soil. Grass right now is going to be maintained that
way. There's going to be some trimming of bushes to make sure the pedestrian access can
occur. Some branches trimmed, that sort of thing, but no heavy equipment will be needed for
that. It's just hand tools, maintenance type stuff. At the terminus, there is going to be a small
beach area allowed, and the use that once was will be restored. The parties hopefully will be
able to abide by the terms of the agreement that the court has set forth, and is now recorded of
record and will be binding upon all the property owners for all time to come. We hope that your
involvement will be limited, but we're here tonight to answer any questions you might have
before making that recommendation.
28
(Queensbury Planning Board 03/21/2011)
MR. TRAVER-All right. So the court order to install the dock is basically restoring the dock in
its pre-existing state before it was removed?
MR. BORGOS-Could be precisely in the same location. There's a concrete abutment or
retaining wall there, and you'll see that's exactly where it's positioned, and it's designed to be
back in the same place. For those of you who might remember Glen Lake and the casino, they
had a massive dock complex, and if you look at Google earth images, you can still see the
cribbing that supported that larger structure that went out probably 100 feet, 120 feet.
MR. TRAVER-When I go kayaking in that area, you can see the steel beams. I have got
underwater pictures of all that stuff. It's amazing. I mean, I was never there when it was in
place, but it must have been incredible.
MR. MAGOWAN-Yes, a lot of lures I've lost on that, but good pike there.
MR. TRAVER-Interesting. Okay.
MR. FERONE-1 have a question, and considering the amount of applications that come in based
on docks, I should go get a boat because I don't know much about that stuff, but there's a
reference to removable dock. Could you explain what that is?
MR. BORGOS-I'm not an expert in docks but I can tell you what I know. You might hear about
a crib dock, and that is one where a wooden structure is filled with rocks. It's a much more
permanent installation. You might hear a stake dock and that is one that pilings are just driven
into the soft sediment to support the platform, and then there's a removable dock which is
similar to a stake dock, but it'll be staked in and can be taken out of the water, conceivably to
prevent ice damage to it in the winter. Some people prefer to have the removable aspect to
preserve that investment rather than risk damage.
MR. TRAVER-And that's really the difference is the strategy in dealing with it.
MR. FERONE-That's not something you put in in the summer and you take out every winter.
MR. TRAVER-Well, actually it is.
MR. MAGOWAN-Yes.
MR. TRAVER-It's easier than repairing the ice damage every year.
MR. FERONE-Thank you.
MR. BORGOS-And there's a fourth, I guess. There's the articulating dock that would tilt up, but
they're very unsightly and not very favored by, certainly the APA. I think they came out with a
statement a few years ago discouraging those.
MR. HUNSINGER-There are a few on Glen Lake.
MR. BORGOS-1 believe there are.
MR. FERONE-Okay. I appreciate it.
MR. TRAVER-All right. Any other questions or comments from members of the Board on this?
MR. SHAFER-1 have a question, Steve. Having read the order, I expected to see in there that
four properties across the road had deeded rights to Glen Lake. I didn't see that in there at all.
So I guess my question is, do those four deeds, which were not in our package, have deeded
rights to Glen Lake and that is what started this whole thing and that's why we have an order as
of tonight?
MR. BORGOS-The answer is, yes, they do have deeded rights. The order does not address
that. I was not a participant at that time. So I can't address why or why not. I believe it would
be fair to comment that it was not necessary to state it because it was in the prior deed record,
and it may have been wiser to leave that untouched and not resolved for their particular
purposes.
MR. SHAFER-It would have made it so simple simply to say in the order that the upland,
because the issue is, I have a neighbor on Lake George who tried to deed lake rights to a piece
29
(Queensbury Planning Board 03/21/2011)
of property he owned remotely from his frontage and he was not allowed to do that. You can
see why and what a precedent that would set. So I was surprised to see in the order that it
didn't include the fact that the deeds of those four property owners included rights to Glen Lake.
It would have been a one pager.
MR. BORGOS-Yes. If you looked at the chain of title for these property owners, they receive
from a common grantor who owned the waterfront many decades ago, and you would see how
that right devolved from that ownership.
MR. SHAFER-Okay. Thank you.
MR. TRAVER-Any other questions from members of the Board before we look at a
recommendation? I'm not hearing any. Mr. Secretary, do you have a recommendation?
RESOLUTION RE: ZBA RECOMMENDATION: RE: Z-AV-15-2017 HILLIARD< TYRER,
LYON
CERNY
The applicant has submitted an application for the following: Applicant proposes to install a 40'
x 4' dock and a pathway from Ash Drive to dock location. Project is considered a Class A
marina, as dock is for more than one owner — a total of four. Project is part of a court order for
property owner to install. Pursuant to Chapter 179-10-040 of the Zoning Ordinance, Class A
marinas 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. 15-2017 HILLIARD,
TYRER, LYON & CERNY: Introduced by George Ferone who moved its adoption, 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.
Motion seconded by David Deeb. Duly adopted this 21St day of March, 2017 by the following
vote:
AYES: Mr. Deeb, Ms. White, Mr. Shafer, Mr. Hunsinger, Mr. Magowan, Mr. Ferone, Mr. Traver
NOES: NONE
MR. BORGOS-Thank you very much.
MR. TRAVER-All right. Now we're moving on to New Business. We have an applicant, Site
Plan Modification 23-2017 and Special Use Permit Modification 6-2017 for Stan Dobert.
NEW BUSINESS:
SITE PLAN (MODIFICATION) 23-2017 SPECIAL USE PERMIT (MODIFICATION) 6-2017
SEAR TYPE UNLISTED STAN DOBERT OWNER(S) SAME AS APPLICANT ZONING
MS LOCATION 64 MAIN STREET APPLICANT REQUESTS APPROVAL OF AS-BUILT
CONDITIONS FOR AN EMPLOYEE PARKING LOT AREA. PROJECT INCLUDES 2,000 SQ.
FT. OF PAVED AREA, RELOCATION OF PLANTINGS AND INSTALLATION OF A BARRIER
TO ADJOINING PROPERTY ON THE EAST. PROJECT IS A SITE PLAN MODIFICATION
TO SP 64-2015/SUP 64-2015. PURSUANT TO CHAPTER 179-3-040 OF THE ZONING
ORDINANCE, EMPLOYEE AND CUSTOMER PARKING LOTS SHALL BE SUBJECT TO
PLANNING BOARD REVIEW AND APPROVAL. CROSS REFERENCE SP 64-2015, SUP
64-2015, SP PZ 81-2016, SUP PZ 99-2016 WARREN CO. REFERRAL MARCH 2017 LOT
SIZE 1.98 ACRES TAX MAP NO. 309.10-1-10 SECTION 179-3-040
STAN DOBERT, PRESENT
MR. TRAVER-Laura?
30
(Queensbury Planning Board 03/21/2017)
MRS. MOORE-The applicant requests for an as built conditions situation. The applicant
originally had proposed a reinforced turf for the front of this employee parking area, and instead
has paved that surface. He also opened up an area to an adjoining property, paved that area.
The applicant has explained the reasoning behind the pavement and the circulation flow is
necessary so that his employees can enter and exit in a circular pattern versus being cut off at
one entry of the property. In reference to the property, the pavement opening up to the
adjoining lot, it was simply because the applicant has potentially got future applications for
property that's adjoining to that, and the applicant has indicated that they're putting up a fenced
in area, or a fence along that side so that it's not usable as a pass through at this time.
MR. TRAVER-Okay. Thank you. Good evening.
MR. DOBERT-Hi. Good evening.
MR. DEEB-Could you identify yourself for the record?
MR. DOBERT-Sorry. Stan Dobert. This is Apex Solar property, formerly Double A Provisions,
and we expanded, we've been expanding and have a need for more parking. So we turned the
empty lot next door into an unapproved parking lot. It was just crushed rock, and we filled
every parking spot, and the stormwater wasn't working too well so we decided to do it right and
apply for a, and apply for a building permit to put a proper parking lot in for our place, and we
overlooked the fact that we were having a lot of accidents, cars running into other cars and
customers and trucks and it was causing issues, so we decided to pave it and put lines in there
so people could park and not get into accidents, and since then it's worked out really well. So
we paved it in June or July, and Jarrett Engineering, when they did the layout, we overlooked
the fact of the circular flow that we needed. There's a lot of cars, and there's 54 parking spots,
and we traditionally use that circular flow, and then when we were paving it we recognized that
the plans didn't include that additional flow. We had some plantings in there, and we realized
that we had to go over it. So we made a game time call and just decided to pave over it, and it
really, really has helped the flow of the parking. That was really the only reason we did that,
and I don't know what you call them, but the green barriers that are around the transformers,
they stick out a little bit further than you think they would. So it prevented us from really putting
in any, it tightened up the space even further. So as a result we paved an additional twenty
feet, and I'm here to request an as built approval.
MR. TRAVER-Okay.
MR. DEEB-Could you show me the flow that you're talking about on the map? Because I was
there the other day. There was no flow for me. I couldn't get around.
MR. TRAVER-Would you take the microphone with you, just so we have the minutes correct?
Thank you.
MR. DOBERT-So this is where we had planned some vegetation.
MR. DEEB-Right.
MR. DOBERT-And when someone comes in here, the only way to get back to park back here,
is to go down and all the way around, and the, when this fills up, or when this fills up and people
are backing in and out, it's very cumbersome. So we paved this stretch right here, and this was
intended to be a future, this is a future building right here. So we had an unimproved grid
system in there, kind of like pavement, but we had some parking spots in there that would be
over this grid system. So this is the circular flow that I'm talking about.
MR. DEEB-I couldn't get around the other day. There was no way I could even get around, the
cars were packed in at that end.
MR. HUNSINGER-1 was going to ask the same question. I had the same problem.
MR. DEEB-There was no flow anyway.
MR. DOBERT-Right, mostly because of the snow. Correct?
MR. DEEB-I guess. There were cars everywhere.
MR. DOBERT-Yes. So the snowstorm, that was kind of unusual, and it came so fast, so heavy,
we were unable to push it to the area that we normally push the snow. It's the first time that's
31
(Queensbury Planning Board 03/21/2011)
happened where we had, the snow is usually, this is the removal, but all the snow got pushed
right into here. So nobody could go around anywhere. That's the first time that happened
actually.
MR. MAGOWAN-Thank God you had that opening so you could get your parking over there.
Otherwise you would have really been limited.
MR. DEEB-Did it ever occur to you to come back for a site plan modification before you did it?
MR. DOBERT-It was a game time call. So we had a window where in construction and so it did
occur to me, yes, but we moved on it quickly. The contractor had another job, and it would
have been a difficult position to stop.
MR. MAGOWAN-Well, the first question on your snow removal. Did you wait until the snow
stopped before you plowed that 18 inches? In the future, all right, every four inches, okay.
Then you can get it all the way to the back, but after reviewing that and seeing the cars there, I
see, you know, why you made the decision you had to make. I mean, you took your chances
coming here and taking the hit from us, but definitely it's a much better flow and it works well for
you now I see. I am just amazed the amount of people that you have working for you and visit
you that you need all those parking spots, and I'm waiting for that beautiful design that we
approved. I keep driving by it. I know you're busy, but, you know.
MR. DOBERT-Yes. I apologize. I should have stopped construction, come in and said, hey I
need to modify the plans. So, my fault. It was a bad judgment call on my part.
MR. DEEB-Will it change the impervious ratio by doing that? Does it have to be re-calculated,
the percentages?
MRS. MOORE-So the percentages were re-calculated by the engineer.
MR. DEEB-They were?
MRS. MOORE-Specifically for the stormwater to make sure that it was compliant. So Tom
Jarrett and I went back and forth a couple of times, and it is compliant for that site.
MR. DEEB-Okay. I just wanted to make sure of that.
MR. DOBERT-Tom Jarrett re-did the engineering. We got with Craig and then Tom and it took
a long time to put it all together and we realized this very quickly, but it took, I was just telling my
dad. We did it in June and July, and by the time we could get the plans and get everything
fixed and get on the schedule it was 10 months later.
MR. DEEB-It would have been some time, but still, we put a lot of hard work into it, and then to
have you do this on your own without coming back, it's a little disappointing for us.
MR. DOBERT-Yes, I apologize. I take full responsibility. I'll make it up to you and put a really
nice building up there.
MR. HUNSINGER-Well, and that was going to be my question. The place where you put in the
connection is where there was the potential future commercial building. We had a fairly
extensive discussion about what that might look like, what it might be, in terms of the overall site
plan development. So I was just kind of wondering where we are, if you're doing it kind of one
step at a time.
MR. DOBERT-We're doing it one step. We're growing, the growth that you see isn't, we're
opening up warehouses around the state and other states. So it requires more headquarters.
More just infrastructure, and then this is that headquarters. So suppliers come in here to visit,
all our locations in New Jersey, Massachusetts, Syracuse, Newburg, Vermont, and so that's the
traffic that you see. That's what it is, and we're taking, so it's growth that we're managing, and
we're taking steps, we finished the handicap ramp in the back. I'm not sure if you saw that
when you attempted to drive around.
MR. HUNSINGER-Yes, you couldn't drive around.
MR. DOBERT-We finished the handicap ramp. Made all the pads compliant, and we're starting
to, so we're taking it step by step. We had some demolition on the inside to do and it's difficult,
because there's people working everywhere.
32
(Queensbury Planning Board 03/21/2011)
MR. HUNSINGER-Right. Well, I mean, managing growth, that's a good problem to have.
MR. TRAVER-Yes. Well, one of the steps to be taken, the Staff pointed out that there's a sign
on the west side that needs to be brought into compliance. Apparently it's out of code.
MR. DOBERT-Yes.
MR. TRAVER-You're aware of that?
MR. DOBERT-1 know, and Laura and I have talked about that and we, when we start the west
side parking, which is full of potholes and very difficult to plow and it's a tough parking lot.
When we start that, we're going to bring the sign into compliance.
MR. TRAVER-Do you have an idea when that might be?
MR. DOBERT-As soon as the spring hits, then we're going to work on the west side.
MR. TRAVER-So this year?
MR. DOBERT-Yes, this year.
MR. MAGOWAN-That was yesterday. Just to let you know, spring is here. Really, you know,
at the rate you're going now, if you put a building there, you'd be really compromising yourself.
So you'd really have to work on the other side, and I'm really, I'm happy to hear that you've got
your growing pains. That's wonderful that things are going that well for you. It's tough trying to
do everything. Thank God you've got dad there to pick up your loose ends.
MR. DEEB-Stan, do you foresee yourself outgrowing that building?
MR. DOBERT-1 don't think so. There's a second floor above the main, the entrance that you
walk in, and we're going to turn that into some usable, some good usable space, which is on the
plans.
MR. MAGOWAN-Yes, I mean, beautiful plans here. I'm so excited.
MR. DEEB-The plans are gorgeous.
MR. MAGOWAN-The nicest thing I'm going to see on the street there. I'm happy for you.
MR. DOBERT-And there's the two big coolers that Double A used. We house all our solar
panels and all our equipment in there, but there's other coolers than Ben Aronson, turkey
coolers, and fish coolers and chicken coolers. There's a lot of spaces in there that we can
convert to more office space. So that's kind of our plan is just the small stuff, but, yes, I don't
think we'll outgrow the building.
MR. DEEB-You're burgeoning now.
MS. WHITE-So, Laura, are you okay with that 2017 kind of date for the sign being in
compliance?
MRS. MOORE-My role is to explain that it's not in compliance and needs to be brought into
compliance.
MR. DEEB-Well, we could put a date on that. I'm sure Stan could comply by then. That's not
a big deal. That's a small part of this.
MR. TRAVER-Yes. Are there any other questions? We do have a public hearing on this. Are
there other questions from members of the Board before we open the public hearing? All right.
We'll open the public hearing then. Are there members in the audience that want to address
the Board on this application? Are there written comments, Laura?
PUBLIC HEARING OPENED
MRS. MOORE-There's no written comments.
MR. TRAVER-All right. Then we'll go ahead and close the public hearing.
PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED
33
(Queensbury Planning Board 03/21/2017)
MR. TRAVER-We also have, this is a SEQR Unlisted application. So we do need a SEQR
resolution on this. Are there environmental concerns related to SEQR that members of the
Board feel would impact the potential SEQR resolution?
MR. MAGOWAN-Hang on. Before we go to that. Something just popped into my mind. I
think for his punishment, the plantings that you didn't end up using, and then I see that you also
had a tree removed to gain some deeper space there, Number Three, where you had some
people that drove motorcycles. Now you're going to let them pull in with their full sized pickups?
MR. DOBERT-That's right.
MR. MAGOWAN-But, I mean, what do you think of those plantings that you removed from the
drive thru as maybe increasing some more plantings around, you know, placing some more
plantings on your property?
MR. DOBERT-Yes. We had Gardentime do the landscaping. I think they did a great job. You
can't really see it now but everything took real well. So we're going to see how the trees.
MR. MAGOWAN-Well, where you did the drive thru, right behind the transformer.
MR. DOBERT-Yes.
MR. MAGOWAN-You took out it looks like a large tree type, and then five shrubs.
MR. DOBERT-Yes.
MR. MAGOWAN-Something to think about, you know, is there another place that you could, if
so, you know, add them to the other side with the other parking lot, you know, make it a little bit
more, you know. What do you think of that as your punishment for making a judgment call on
your own?
MR. DOBERT-1 think it might serve two really good purposes. One, it would help beautify the
street and, Two, it would help cover up the transformer, the telephone, and the utility box there.
So I think that's a great idea. That's a fantastic suggestion. We do have a lot of electric
vehicles that are coming in and parking.
MR. HUNSINGER-1 noticed that, yes, you had power stations for them.
MR. DOBERT-Yes. So we're going to expand that little bit more. We have solar up on the, a
big solar array on the roof that you can't really see from the ground, but it's, we're going to put
some charging stations in there. So we may put them in the island. They'll be very discreet,
and reach both sides. So lots of people, a lot of the people that work there drive electric or
hybrids, and they can go from Gansevoort to Saratoga and get to work, charge up and get
home and not ever fuel up. So it makes a lot of sense.
MR. DEEB-Well how many are you going to put in?
MR. DOBERT-We have three or four now that use that, sharing one or two.
MR. DEEB-How many more do you want to put in?
MR. DOBERT-Yes, we've piped in for more.
MR. DEEB-How many?
MR. DOBERT-1 would say probably three or four more. With dual chargers.
MR. DEEB-Okay.
MR. TRAVER-And those are powered by your solar array?
MR. DOBERT-They're powered by electricity.
MR. TRAVER-Okay.
MR. DOBERT-But the electricity is going into the, you know, during the day the.
34
(Queensbury Planning Board 03/21/2011)
MR. TRAVER-Well, I understand they're powered by electricity, but, I mean, I guess to me, one
of the things, hybrids are one thing, but the total electric cars as an environmental remedy, I
personally always question because essentially they're powered by coal, and it just seemed like
kind of making a situation worse. Now, if you have a way of, you know, with batteries or
something, accumulating solar power and using that, that's a different story. I mean, basically,
who wants a coal powered car? To me, you know, until we get clean nuclear or something
more solar or whatever, but that's just a personal observation.
MR. DOBERT-Yes. So the system we designed here is an 84 kilowatt system. It produces
50% more energy than we use in the building. So during the day the solar covers all of our
load. We're putting out all this extra energy on the grid. So if we're plugging cars in, it's just
going straight to the cars. Charging those batteries.
MR. TRAVER-Very good.
MR. DOBERT-We oversized solar, and that's the concept.
MR. MAGOWAN-You're going to grow right into it.
MR. DOBERT-Yes. Right. So more electric cars we can handle it. We have the capacity
now.
MR. MAGOWAN-So why don't we say four instead of three?
MR. DOBERT-Charging stations.
MR. MAGOWAN-Yes.
MR. DOBERT-Right. It's free.
MR. MAGOWAN-Well, not totally free, but it's a lot easier doing it that way, and that way you
have the option of, you put in three and you decide you need another one, you've got four pipes
in.
MR. DOBERT-Yes, we put the pipes in before we did the pavement.
MR. MAGOWAN-Good thinking. I was just thinking of that, if he's going to go to the islands,
does that mean he's got to cut in his pavement? But good thinking.
MRS. MOORE-1 guess I want to understand that you're commenting on the installation of the
units for charging, and we didn't even discuss that and it's not something I would see as doing
that. We didn't discuss it when Aviation Mall did it. I don't think it's a number, whether he gets
three or four, that's not, it's how he utilizes his parking area. He's here basically for the as built.
MR. DEEB-He doesn't need us to do that.
MRS. MOORE-No.
MR. DEEB-Okay.
MRS. MOORE-That's what I'm trying to say.
MR. DEEB-All right. Well, thank you for sharing that with us. We appreciate it.
MR. TRAVER-All right. Are we ready, then, to consider the SEQR resolution?
MRS. MOORE-So in reference to SEAR, you're just re-affirming the previous one because
nothing has changed, nothing has significantly changed.
MR. TRAVER-Well, they did change the parking, the impervious, even though it's still compliant
with stormwater. So, are there any concerns with regard to SEQR that would cause any
change in their SEQR status? I believe we have a draft resolution?
MR. FERONE-We do.
RESOLUTION RE: NEGATIVE SEQR DEC. SP 23-2017 & SUP 6-2017 MOD. STAN
DOBERT
35
(Queensbury Planning Board 03/21/2011)
The applicant requests approval of as-built conditions for an employee parking lot area. Project
includes 2,000 sq. ft. of paved area, relocation of plantings and installation of a barrier to
adjoining property on the east. Project is a site plan modification to SP 64-2015/SUP 64-2015.
Pursuant to Chapter 179-3-040 of the Zoning Ordinance, employee and customer parking lots
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 SP PZ 64-2015 & SUP 64-2015, on
11/17/2015 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) 23-2017 & SPECIAL USE PERMIT (MODIFICATION) 6-2017 STAN
DOBERT, Introduced by George Ferone who moved for its adoption, seconded by Chris
Hunsinger;
Duly adopted this 21St day of March, 2017 by the following vote:
AYES: Mr. Hunsinger, Mr. Shafer, Ms. White, Mr. Deeb, Mr. Magowan, Mr. Ferone, Mr.
Traver
NOES: NONE
MR. TRAVER-All right. Moving to the Site Plan, we have some conditions, I think.
MR. FERONE-There was one that I had where they wanted to have a condition on the signage
to be compliant by a date. We didn't get a date.
MR. TRAVER-Yes, let's agree on a date on the sign. You mentioned that you would be moving
along shortly to addressing pavement issues and so on on that part of the building.
MR. DOBERT-Yes.
MR. TRAVER-What date would you suggest that we put as a condition of compliance on the
sign?
MR. DOBERT-1 would say by Labor Day.
MR. TRAVER-Labor Day.
MR. DOBERT-To finish, because I plan on finishing the parking lot We can wrap everything
and do the sign, do the parking lot, do the stormwater, do the pavement. I think that would be a
date.
MR. FERONE-Would September 1 be good?
MR. DOBERT-September 1 is fine.
MR. FERONE-Okay.
MR. TRAVER-Is that acceptable to Board members?
MS. WHITE-Yes.
36
(Queensbury Planning Board 03/21/2011)
MR. MAGOWAN-Sure.
MR. TRAVER-All right. Then let's see, there was some discussion about some additional
plantings I think.
MR. FERONE-1 thought there were indications on the plans that there were.
MR. TRAVER-They're already part of the previous approval. Okay. Then really that's just an
enforcement issue. Okay. Are there any other conditions that people feel need to be on the
site plan motion? Currently the one that's on it is addressing the issue of the non-compliant
sign by September 1, 2017. Is there anything else that people feel need to be on the motion as
a condition?
MR. DEEB-Just the plantings. Do you want to put the plantings on there?
MR. TRAVER-Well, it was pointed out the plantings are on the currently approved site plan.
MR. DEEB-But they're going to put them in a different spot, though.
MR. TRAVER-What's that?
MR. DEEB-They're going to be put in a different spot. They're not going to go in the same
spot. He paved that. He's going to put it by the other utility box.
MRS. MOORE-My understanding was that the plantings that were supposed to be there were
actually moved to the front.
MR. DEEB-I didn't hear that.
MRS. MOORE-That's what I understood.
MR. DEEB-The new plantings? You said you were going to put new plantings in?
MR. DOBERT-Yes. We'll put some trees around the transformer.
MR. DEEB-Do you want to use the same ones that were on the original site plan to the other
transformer?
MR. DOBERT-Yes. We'll just move them over around the transformer.
MR. DEEB-Is that agreeable?
MR. TRAVER-Yes. So we'll note then, we'll make it a condition that the trees that were planted
in the original site plan around the transformer are going to be re-located to the transformer
adjacent to the parking lot, and I think we're ready for that motion.
RESOLUTION APPROVING SP #23-2017 SUP # 6-2017 STAN DOBERT
The applicant has submitted an application to the Planning Board for Site Plan approval
pursuant to Article 9 of the Town zoning Ordinance for: Applicant requests approval of as-built
conditions for an employee parking lot area. Project includes 2,000 sq. ft. of paved area,
relocation of plantings and installation of a barrier to adjoining property on the east. Project is a
site plan modification to SP 64-2015/SUP 64-2015. Pursuant to Chapter 179-3-040 of the
Zoning Ordinance, employee and customer parking lots 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
37
(Queensbury Planning Board 03/21/2011)
The Planning Board opened a public hearing on the Site plan application on 03/21/2017 and
continued the public hearing to 03/21/2017, 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
03/21/2017;
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) 23-2017 & SPECIAL USE PERMIT
(MODIFICATION) 6-2017 STAN DOBERT; Introduced by George Ferone who moved for its
adoption;
Per the draft provided by staff conditioned upon the following conditions:
1) Waivers requestrg anted: site lighting, topography, traffic, commercial alterations,
construction details, floor plans, soil logs, construction demolition disposal and snow
removal.
2) Adherence to the items outlined in the follow-up letter sent with this resolution.
a) If application was referred to engineering, then engineering sign-off required prior to
signature
of Zoning Administrator of the approved plans;
b) Final approved plans should have dimensions and setbacks noted on the site
plan/survey, floor
plans and elevation for the existing rooms and proposed rooms in the building and site
c) 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;
d) The applicant must meet with Staff after approval and prior to issuance of
Building
Permit and/or the beginning of any site work;
e) Subsequent issuance of further permits, including building permits is dependent on
compliance with this and all other conditions of this resolution;
f) 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;
g) Resolution to be placed on final plans in its entirety and legible.
h) That the signage is to be compliant by the date of September 1, 2017.
i) That trees, shrubs are to be re-located to the transformer in the parking lot. With
additional plantings between street and transformer.
Motion seconded by David Deeb. Duly adopted this 21St day of March, 2017 by the following
vote:
AYES: Mr. Deeb, Ms. White, Mr. Shafer, Mr. Hunsinger, Mr. Magowan, Mr. Ferone, Mr.
Traver
NOES: NONE
MR. TRAVER-You're all set.
MR. DEEB-Stan, I hear they make solar shingles now.
MR. DOBERT-They haven't come out with them yet, but Elan Musk, as soon as he comes out
with them in Buffalo we're going to drive out there and get some.
MR. HUNSINGER-They're going to cost the same as regular shingles is what he said.
MR. TRAVER-That's pretty cool.
MR. DOBERT-That's amazing.
MR. DEEB-That's going to revolutionize roofing. The same cost?
38
(Queensbury Planning Board 03/21/2011)
MR. TRAVER-Eventually, that's the goal.
MR. DOBERT-It'll be exciting to see. Thank you very much.
MR. DEEB-Good luck.
MR. TRAVER-All right, and next we have Site Plan 15-2017 for Dan Radman.
SITE PLAN NO. 15-2017 SEAR TYPE UNLISTED DAN RADMAN (CHIPOTLE) AGENT(S)
ANTHONY STELLATO OWNER(S) RCG — QUEENSBURY, LLC ZONING CI
LOCATION 820 STATE ROUTE 9 APPLICANT PROPOSES LEASING A 2,504 SQ. FT.
SPACE OF AN EXISTING 192,157 SQ. FT. COMMERCIAL PLAZA. PROJECT INCLUDES
EXTERIOR IMPROVEMENTS, INSTALLING A NEW ENTRY CURB CUT TO ACCESS
SIDEWALK. FACADE IMPROVEMENTS FOR ENTIRE LEASED FRONTAGE. PURSUANT
TO CHAPTER 179-3-040 OF THE ZONING ORDINANCE, NEW COMMERCIAL USE SHALL
BE SUBJECT TO PLANNING BOARD REVIEW AND APPROVAL. CROSS REFERENCE
SUB 1-2015, SP 3-2015, SP 47-2015 TJ MAXX, SU 4-2015 WARREN CO. REFERRAL
MARCH 2017 LOT SIZE 20.71 ACRES TAX MAP NO. 296.18-1-47.1 SECTION 179-3-
040
TONY STELLATO & KATHY MC VANE REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT
MRS. MOORE-This applicant proposes to lease a 2,504 sq. ft. space of an existing 192,157 sq.
ft. commercial plaza. The project includes exterior improvements to the fagade as well as
installing a new entry curb cut to access sidewalk area, and in reference to Site Plan, this
requires Site Plan Review for a new commercial use in the plaza.
MR. TRAVER-All right. Thank you. Good evening.
MR. STELLATO-Good evening. Tony Stellato with CHA. Kathy McVane with Chipotle.
MS. MC VANE-So Dan's our designer and the architect for Chipotle.
MR. TRAVER-Okay.
MR. STELLATO-So we're pleased to be here again, I'm pleased to be here again, with yet
another improvement to Northway Plaza. This time it's Chipotle. Laura the next slide is kind of
the overall aerial of the Plaza which I think we're all, we've been through it enough, but give you
just the overview. That's the Home Depot up here. The TJ Maxx is here. This is the Hobby
Lobby, Texas Roadhouse, and the Chipotle is going right there where the dot is on the corner.
Okay. So the next slide, Laura, is a blow up of that, which is probably where I can do most of
the speaking to the project. There really isn't a lot of change going on with the site to speak of.
The Chipotle occupies this corner right here. The Post Office is here. There really are only
three changes going on on the site. One is a curb ramp being cut in, and the sidewalk right
there, just for ADA access to assist with deliveries. The Second thing is a grease trap, a 1,000
gallon grease trap, which is actually already in. It's right there in the parking lot, to
accommodate the restaurant use, and then the third thing would be a trash enclosure, which
we're locating in that corner of the parking lot right there. Now, if we flip the page again, this is
something we've done for you on past applications. This is just the tenant roster which shows
the current tenants of the plaza. We can probably skip over that and look at the next slide.
This is the floor plan and again the Chipotle is a pretty standard layout. The dining area,
cooking and serving area, kitchen and I'm sorry back here are restrooms. There's a, this is the
front of the building, adjacent to the TJ Maxx. This is the side. The Post Office is here. This
doorway will be added to allow entry to the fagade side, and this is where deliveries will come in.
MR. TRAVER-Okay.
MR. STELLATO-Okay. Laura, if you would, please. Not a great slide here. It's a little
washed out, but again, this is the site plan showing the Chipotle again. The relevance of this is
it actually shows the layout of the dumpster pad up here, and it has the detail here for the curb
cut and the curb and sidewalk repair work that we're going to do, and if we flip to the next slide,
please, I added a slide here, the dumpster enclosure, and you haven't seen this. This is new
tonight. We actually just added this slide today. On the left here it shows the dumpster layout
that is in the application packet that was rectangular shaped that was located here on the site
plan. Just recently we've looked at this and realized that this rectangular layout is actually not
going to work well because of the retaining wall that's here up closer than we expected. So
we've done some re-manipulation of that dumpster layout and changed the shape of it so that
now we have a dumpster here, a dumpster here and then the rest of the features. There's a
39
(Queensbury Planning Board 03/21/2017)
composting container. There's a grease cube or an oil cube, I'm sorry, recycling and I think it's
important to know that Chipotle is very responsible when it comes to recycling. They really do a
good job of recycling and that's why the dumpster enclosure, the trash enclosure, is maybe
larger than you might expect, but there's a lot of separation of waste going on out there. So we
would like to ask for some flexibility in what we've submitted so that it will allow us to change the
configuration of that dumpster area so that it works a little better with the site and those parking
spaces. Laura, next slide, please, and this just shows what that site plan would look like with
that dumpster area added. We can keep going. I mentioned the grease trap. This is a utility
plan that we prepared a while back and actually the owner, not Chipotle, went ahead and got a
building permit or a permit from the Town to install that grease trap. It's in. The kitchen waste
goes out of the restaurant into the grease trap and into the sanitary sewer and there's another
sewer connection here which takes the domestic wastewater, the lavatory wastewater. It's
pretty standard for a restaurant. The water connection for the restaurant is internal. We're just
tapping off an existing water line.
MR. TRAVER-So the owner had anticipated the possibility of a restaurant at that site.
Apparently. Because it's been vacant for quite some time. Right?
MR. STELLATO-Yes, and they knew about this and I believe.
MR. FERONE-1 think that work was only done about a month or so ago because I tried to get to
the Post Office there and it was all shut down.
MR. STELLATO-Yes.
MR. DEEB-Pretty confident weren't you?
MR. STELLATO-Well, no, actually this was submitted. Derrick Leo did the work. He pulled the
permit from the Town and what's the guy's name from utilities, Chris, I can't think of his last
name, but he called me with a question. We did the plan for the owner and I got a call from the
Town with some questions and he approved it. So to tell you the truth, I'm not exactly sure how
the permit was pulled. The contractor pulled the permit, but I think the discussion was, and,
maybe Laura knows, that the owner was only responsible for the grease trap. They weren't
making any site plan related changes. So they let him go ahead and put the grease trap in,
knowing that Chipotle would have to come and get the site plan approved.
MR. TRAVER-So it's not something that was done quite a while ago. It was done in
anticipation of this application.
MR. STELLATO-No, it was done just recently. It was done in anticipation for this user.
MR. TRAVER-All right.
MR. STELLATO-Yes. Laura, if you would, please, the next slide. Not a pretty slide, but we
have done this for every project in the Plaza. It's just the parking summary update. Chipotle
doesn't use any more parking space than is allotted to that space already. We're carrying
those spaces. We just delineated here in the table that they're using part of Space 5A. The
parking surplus is still 36 spaces, the same as it was when we did TJ Maxx. And then we have
here some elevations, and I actually have over here some elevation boards, just showing the
building, the signage, the actual chip samples, and if you want I can pull that down and pass it
down the row if you want to see it closer.
MS. WHITE-Yes, please. But it will be similar to Saratoga, the color, style?
MR. STELLATO-I'm trying to think what Saratoga is. Do you know, Kathy?
MS. MC VANE-Our Wilton? It's similar.
MS. WHITE-Similar.
MR. HUNSINGER-I was going to say it looks like it's more designed to match the Plaza.
MR. TRAVER-Yes.
MS. MC VANE-That's pretty much our typical, well, Wilton we're in line. So you don't quite get
the, we just opened a freestanding building in West Springfield, Mass. Our site is typical box
shaped with those colors.
40
(Queensbury Planning Board 03/21/2017)
MS. WHITE-It looks similar to Wilton.
MR. STELLATO-The color of the fascia behind the sign is a little bit lighter than what's there
now, and then the rest of the colors, but you can see the colors as they come down the line.
We're not here tonight for a sign permit. We show a sign in the elevation. We're actually
showing two in the sample board that you have there, and we're not sure which it is. We think
probably it's Two.
MS. MC VANE-Two. Yes, there's no space for us on the pylon sign that's up on the road, So
we're set back, pretty far back off on the parking lot. So when we come back for signage we
would hope to get two signs for visibility within the center since we can't be on that pylon.
MR. TRAVER-That'll be a variance? Okay.
MR. STELLATO-And we're not asking for that tonight. We know we need to come back and
get that done.
MR. TRAVER-Anything else?
MR. STELLATO-Yes. There's one more slide. Laura had a question in the Staff Notes, or
somebody had a question in the Staff Notes about exterior lighting. No changes to the parking
lot lighting. There are some existing soffit lights and lights on the columns of the building that
will be changed. The only addition to exterior lighting is really just emergency lighting. These
are kind of cool. They don't show on this, but on the next slide we show the location and plan
view. One here, they're at both exits, and one there. They're just emergency lights on the
exterior of the building that are remotely tied to the exit sign. So, you know, in the event of a
power outage the exit sign activates the exit lights. They won't normally be on.
MR. TRAVER-Gotcha. Okay.
MR. MAGOWAN-It illuminates the exiting the building. The one door that's down there for the
service. I'm concerned what you're going to do with the mailbox that's right there.
MR. HUNSINGER-If you go back to the elevation, Laura.
MS. MC VANE-1 believe there's another space between us and the Post Office. Yes, I think it's
further down than. We don't abut the Post Office. There is a space in between.
MR. HUNSINGER-Yes, because I was going to say, the corridor where you're putting in the new
door is handicap parking for the Post Office.
MS. MC VANE-1 think it's further, the Post Office is further down. So that space to the left of us
is a vacant space.
MR. STELLATO-Right.
MS. MC VANE-That's not the Post Office. So there's still vacant space between the two.
MR. STELLATO-So that's the new door. That's the vacant space.
MR. MAGOWAN-1 hadn't even noticed.
MS. MC VANE-And, I mean by Code certainly we need the second door. I would assume by
Code. I don't know the Code for this area, but also trying to get that customer flow to use that
whole parking area rather than everyone seems to jam in front. So kind of open up the side
parking area and then we can get deliveries so they don't have to go through the restaurant.
MR. HUNSINGER-Well, that was my concern when you said that was going to be the delivery
door, that you'd be using the handicap parking spaces to do your deliveries, but if there's space
between your leased space and the Post Office.
MS. MC VANE-There is a space.
MR. STELLATO-And obviously deliveries are timed for the off hours. Chipotle gets, you know,
a small daily delivery. Everything there is fresh. There's no freezer. So there'll be a daily
delivery of fresh goods, and then you get.
41
(Queensbury Planning Board 03/21/2011)
MS. MC VANE-We get a staples order maybe once a month, and kitchen supplies maybe twice
a month, and the food, since we don't have freezers we don't get enormous orders.
MR. HUNSINGER-So what size trucks will be coming in?
MS. MC VANE-The daily trucks would be not tractor trailers. They'd be closer to like 35 feet,
box refrigerator truck.
MR. HUNSINGER-Yes, you won't get a tractor trailer up to that building.
MS. MC VANE-Right.
MR. STELLATO-Actually I think we could, but, you know, the delivery truck is not a tractor
trailer. I think, you know, I've looked at it. We definitely could get it in that back entrance. If
nobody's parked in the spaces I think there's room to pull through there with a tractor trailer, and
you could certainly get out once you're in, but it's moot because we don't need it.
MR. MAGOWAN-Or if not come from behind the building and then around.
MR. STELLATO-If you look at the floor plan, there's very little stocked goods space in the floor
plan at all. Everything comes in in small quantities. It's a quick turnover delivery.
MR. MAGOWAN-I was wondering why they always taste so fresh.
MS. MC VANE-No microwaves. No freezers.
MR. TRAVER-We do have a public hearing on this application this evening. Are there folks in
the audience that wanted to comment on this application? Laura, are there any written
comments?
PUBLIC HEARING OPENED
MRS. MOORE-There are no written comments.
MR. TRAVER-Okay. Then we'll close the public hearing.
PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED
MR. TRAVER-We also have, this is a SEQR Unlisted action. So we need to take a look at
what environmental impacts there might be.
MR. DEEB-Before we do the SEAR, I want to make a couple of comments.
MR. TRAVER-Sure.
MR. DEEB-I'm really concerned about the parking. Truly, truly concerned. I've been in that
mall or that area several times around 4:30, and I watch traffic try to get out of there, and that's
going to be part of your peak time, and I watch traffic trying to get out of there. Sometimes it
takes 15 minutes, a half hour for them at that cross, and where that four way stop sign is to get
out of there, and I was just wondering, I know you've got your traffic in there and you've got your
parking spaces in there. John said it earlier. It looks good on paper, but when it comes to
reality it's a little different story, and I was wondering if there was any way to address this.
Because I have a real grave concern about that, the traffic tie ups and the concern.
MR. FERONE-1 would agree with you, David. I mean, you've got an area there where you've
got the Post Office. There's a lot of folks coming and going, particularly at the end of the day.
TJ Maxx is there. There's a lack of parking just in that general vicinity of the plaza already, and
now you're going to throw a restaurant in there.
MR. DEEB-And the traffic flow.
MR. FERONE-It's not impossible either. There are other spaces in the plaza, but you know
generally people are I want to park and walk in the door. They don't want to go, you know,
three lines down or whatever. I'm sure you're familiar with the area.
MS. MC VANE-Yes, I mean that's, certainly it's a consideration that we have when we're going
into a new location. Because we do want to make sure. We did ask, we usually get specific
parking for Chipotle use, for the call in orders or the catering orders. There are some
42
(Queensbury Planning Board 03/21/2011)
regulations on the center as a whole where they cannot give us our own parking, but we have
asked to have short term parking spaces and I did ask for them to be on the side of the building
rather than the front. Our employees with have an employee parking area towards the back.
So we're really, the front is tight, and nobody uses that whole side parking down to where the
dumpster area goes. There's many, many spaces open there. So putting that side door in,
trying to get some 20 minute parking spaces. We're trying to get the flow further towards the
door and away from the TJ Maxx. So we definitely saw it as something we needed to address
with the landlord, just to make sure our customers come in. Our business really is a lunch
business, and the lunch is the biggest part, and then later in the nights and the weekends, but
the lunch business, you know, it's quick, it's in and out, as opposed to some of the other
retailers where they have Wi-Fi and comfortable chairs and people are staying for a long time,
but it certainly was a consideration for us and we specifically asked the landlord to have an
employee parking area so our employees couldn't park out front, and then give us some short
term parking spaces so that people won't stay there forever and take those prime parking
spaces right at the front. So we have tried to address it. I mean, I know the numbers are
okay. As a business decision we certainly talked through it.
MR. STELLATO-The short term spaces that you're talking about, just so that you're clear about
what that means. So there's six spaces on the side of the building that will be signed.
MS. MC VANE-They're assigned short term by the landlord. Not specific to Chipotle. It's short
term for the Post Office and for whomever the tenant. We just want it to be a flow of traffic, of
parking, not someone, an employee of TJ Maxx or someone sitting there for seven hours.
MR. STELLATO-And what we think is, you know, somebody will be coming in and they'll come
along the front of TJ Maxx, you know, if they don't find a spot there they're going to turn right
around the corner and hopefully they'll find a spot on the side. If they don't find a spot on the
side, at least there's an opportunity for them to exit back by the loading dock and come back
around the long way. So they're not dead ended into that side parking lot with nowhere to go
and then have to turn around and fight their way back out the entrance by the Post Office.
They can get through and then they can go around and they can come in, you know, they could
come down between the Home Depot and the TJ Maxx and come back in and find a space in
the larger lot, and, you know, ultimately that's what they'll do if the lot is full.
MR. FERONE-Would you envision people parking across the road on the Home Depot side?
MS. MC VANE-They have a whole strip of sheds there. So none of those spaces are really
operable.
MR. FERONE-They go all the way down?
MS. MC VANE-Yes, they're all in front of us.
MR. TRAVER-Yes, that would be very inconvenient.
MR. HUNSINGER-I worked in the plaza for five years. I mean, there is plenty of parking, you
know, it's not just on paper. The problem is it's far away from the buildings.
MR. DEEB-I'm worried about the traffic flow going in and out.
MR. HUNSINGER-And what happens at 4:30, that's when there's the medical code, McKesson.
MR. DEEB-Yes, you've seen it, Chris. You've seen the traffic trying to get in and out of there.
MR. HUNSINGER-Yes.
MR. DEEB-And it takes forever.
MR. HUNSINGER-Yes, and if you're familiar with the plaza, you know where the outlets are to
avoid the four corners.
MR. DEEB-Well there's not that many there. That's what bothers me. You've only got that.
MR. HUNSINGER-Well there's the one where you can turn right out onto Route 9 and there's
the one where you can turn onto Quaker Road, and most people don't realize that. They try to
go to the light.
43
(Queensbury Planning Board 03/21/2011)
MR. DEEB-Well, even the one at Quaker Road at that time, traffic's so backed up it takes
forever for them to get out even onto Quaker Road.
MR. HUNSINGER-No, you're absolutely right. At 4:30 it's terrible.
MR. DEEB-And I'm really worried about the traffic flow in that plaza.
MR. HUNSINGER-Yes.
MR. DEEB-Because it's confined. It's burgeoning now, and I just have reservations about it,
and I just don't, I just wanted to express that. I don't know how the rest of the Board feels.
MR. HUNSINGER-No, I'm agreeing with your concerns about 4:30.
MR. DEEB-And I don't know what the answer is, if there is an answer.
MR. HUNSINGER-I don't think there is. There's just too much traffic coming out atone time.
MR. TRAVER-1 think we have to hope that, Number One, that as they're saying, their primary
business is at noon, not at 4:30, and if not, I think, I mean it's been my experience that these
things can be somewhat self-regulating in that if the traffic is that terrible, people will avoid it at
those times.
MS. WHITE-At 4:30.
MR. TRAVER-Yes.
MR. DEEB-That doesn't seem to be a conducive business plan. I mean, at dinner time, well,
not quite.
MS. MC VANE-Well, I think it's the office letting out and similar to lots of office parks traffic
backs up, you know, for a 15 minute interval rate there.
MR. STELLATO-And I think human nature being what it is, you know, the lunch crowd tends to
be a repeat crowd, you know, if I'm working somewhere in the area and I want to run to Chipotle
for lunch, and, you know, I've done it time and time again, and if I've run into a problem in that
lot and have had trouble getting out, you know, I'm going to think about, do I want to park there
or am I just going to park out in the main lot and walk in.
MR. DEEB-Or are you going to go.
MR. MAGOWAN-Or change the time you eat.
MR. DEEB-Or are you going to go there for lunch.
MS. MC VANE-We need to mentality of noon is time for lunch. I wish, if we could just give out
chips at 11 or a drink at 2 just to make the day longer, but it's human nature.
MR. STELLATO-If this was a new build and we, you know, and we had some flexibility on where
we put the buildings and where we put the pavement, then surely we probably could do better
on this site, than where the parking and the buildings are, but, you know, what we're doing here
is we're taking an old site and we're taking old buildings and we're renovating and we're
bringing in uses that are really revitalizing the property, but we are very much confined to using
what's there, and I think we've, you know, we've got a good fit here. I think it's a good use of
that corner. I think it's a visible corner. I think from Chipotle's perspective they like it. It's
going to improve the plaza, and I do think that the customers will acclimate to the parking
situation and learn how to.
MR. DEEB-Well, I don't disagree, but I don't want to run into the same scenario that we ran into
at Queensbury School, and that is just horrendous, that design. You're infrastructure's all laid
out and there's nothing you can do with that at this point. The traffic has to be utilized with
what's there, and I'm saying that there's not much more that can be done that's going to make it
any better only get worse.
MR. TRAVER-Well certainly the traffic controls for the exits onto the main roads are in place.
So the problems, I think, are going to be confined to people that are actually in the plaza. It's
not going to impact.
44
(Queensbury Planning Board 03/21/2017)
MR. DEEB-I agree with that.
MR. TRAVER-It's not, I guess I would say, it's not necessarily a safety issue.
MR. DEEB-No.
MR. TRAVER-There might be more fender benders.
MR. DEEB-Fender benders, you ever see people at that four way stop? I've watched them cut
each other off to get out and people get impatient.
MR. HUNSINGER-Yes.
MR. DEEB-And it's just a really horrendous situation.
MR. STELLATO-Yes, and you can see that we have done, the last time we were in for the TJ
Maxx we made some improvements, some curbing we moved. We made some widening, we
made some improvements out at the signal. So, I think, you know, incrementally it's gotten
better. It's probably as good as it can be right now in terms of how well the site functions.
MR. DEEB-I'm just wondering if you should give some consideration to the future, as to what
can be done to mitigate some of that, if there is anything that can be done. It might be
something you want to look at. Because I don't see a lot more room for growth in there after
this. You've probably maxed out, utilized what you've got as far as what that area can bear for
traffic and traffic flow.
MR. TRAVER-Yes, I agree.
MR. DEEB-And I just wanted to make sure my concern was expressed. I mean, I think
Chipotle's going to be a great addition. I think it's good for the area. I just wish you'd found a
different spot.
MS. MC VANE-The most important thing is the light. It's hard to be on that road and not have
full turn access. So we're really motivated by where the lights are and curb cuts and access.
MR. DEEB-You must be pretty confident as far as location because of not having a sign on the
outside sign.
MS. MC VANE-Well, that's why, you know, we put up the fagade changes. I mean, we really
wanted to, if you can't pop with the pylon sign, you want the building to reflect your brand and
who you are and that's why it's really important to us.
MR. DEEB-It's tough to see that from the road.
MS. MC VANE-Well, there's a good sight line. I mean, when you come off the road before you
come in, trust me, this is what I think about at night. So we've gone through it. I've driven it
and looked, but it's important for us to have those fagade changes.
MR. MAGOWAN-What are you going to do when they, because there's more space to be
utilized there, what are they going to do?
MS. MC VANE-Yes, there's a small space.
MR. STELLATO-Well, you mean the space between the Post Office and?
MR. MAGOWAN-Don't you have more?
MR. STELLATO-There actually is some vacant space out in the strip out front, the building that
actually sinks into the ground as you go in as you go up Route 9. That, and in fact, I don't want
to bog this discussion down, but we're going to be back here soon to talk about that. The
problem with that space is that it's not attractive from the road and it's hard to lease and we
have some ideas of how we can make that prettier and more tenantable and more leasable, but
it's going to take some creative discussion, and we have some ideas to come in and put like the
concept, and I don't want to get too sidetracked here, but the concept we're thinking about right
now is to build some kind of a screen wall with some Adirondack features like maybe some
stone pilasters and some wood walls and broken up with some landscaping so it's not a
continuous screen wall, but sections of walls, sections of trees. Some gooseneck lighting that
would, from Route 9, give it some presence.
45
(Queensbury Planning Board 03/21/2011)
MR. HUNSINGER-You mean so you don't look at a big white roof.
MR. STELLATO-Yes, exactly. What the tradeoff would be is we would need some sign
variances to do it. So we are going to come back and talk to you about that, but not tonight.
MR. DEEB-But no traffic. Can't have traffic.
MR. STELLATO-Well, there is actually parking on that end that's not utilized.
MR. DEEB-That's not my concern. It's the traffic in and out of this plaza. Parking's fine.
MR. STELLATO-Our problem is we can't incent good tenants like Chipotle to take a spot down
there because you can't see it.
MR. DEEB-No exposure. You've got to have exposure.
MR. STELLATO-Yes. So more to come on that.
MR. DEEB-Okay.
MR. MAGOWAN-Bring it on. We love it.
MR. TRAVER-All right. Well, we have a SEQR resolution to consider. Are we ready to move
ahead with that?
MR. FERONE-One question on SEAR. Question Number Two is answered No. Usually when
I look at these things, usually the answer is Yes. It's the Town of Queensbury needs to be a
permitting agency.
MR. DEEB-I felt the same way, George.
MR. TRAVER-I'm sorry, I don't have that memorized. What is the question?
MR. FERONE-Does the proposed action require permit approval or funding from any other
governmental agency. Usually I see that question as answered Yes, and it's usually the Town
of Queensbury is the answer.
MR. STELLATO-Other governmental agencies.
MR. TRAVER-Yes, and they've determined since it was an application to us that other meant
not inclusions.
MR. FERONE-Just going by all the other forms I've seen.
MRS. MOORE-1 wasn't sure what you were talking about. So just to fill you in, it should be
answered Yes, and I did confirm with the guidance from DEC. So it is the Town of Queensbury
if it's not. Maybe I didn't catch it when I looked through it.
MR. TRAVER-So should we make a note to make that change?
MRS. MOORE-Note that that is changed.
MR. TRAVER-Thank you, Mr. Secretary. Let's make that change. Okay. So with that
amendment to the SEQR form as submitted, are we ready to move ahead with a SEQR
resolution? I believe that we are.
RESOLUTION RE: NEGATIVE DECLARATION RE: SP # 15-2017 DAN RADMAN
(CHIPOTLE)
The applicant proposes leasing a 2,504 sq. ft. space of an existing 192,157 sq. ft. commercial
plaza. Project includes exterior improvements, installing a new entry curb cut to access
sidewalk. Fagade improvements for entire leased frontage. 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;
46
(Queensbury Planning Board 03/21/2011)
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.
MOTION TO GRANT A NEGATIVE DECLARATION FOR SITE PLAN 15-2017 DAN RADMAN
(CHIPOTLE), Introduced by George Ferone who moved for its adoption.
As per the resolution prepared by staff.
1. Part II 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 to large impacts.
3. Note that Question Number Two on the SEQR form should be answered as Yes, and the
answer
is Town of Queensbury should be the permitting agency for the approval for SEAR.
Motion seconded by Chris Hunsinger. Duly adopted this 21St day of March, 2017 by the
following vote:
AYES: Mr. Deeb, Ms. White, Mr. Shafer, Mr. Hunsinger, Mr. Magowan, Mr. Ferone, Mr. Traver
NOES: NONE
MR. TRAVER-All right. Next we move on to the approval resolution. They'll need to amend
the site plan to reflect a change as discussed this evening in the dumpster design.
MR. STELLATO-Can we do that in the post approval submission?
MR. TRAVER-1 think as long as we make it part of the resolution. Right? They can submit an
updated? Yes. And actually did they already submit that or are we just finding out about that?
All right.
MR. STELLATO-This morning we changed that.
MR. TRAVER-All right. Not until this morning.
MR. HUNSINGER-If you hand it to Laura now then we don't have to put it in the resolution
because it says all submissions.
MR. STELLATO-Actually I have hard copies of the presentation and it's in here. So, does that
count?
MRS. MOORE-As part of your submission? You can say as part of the dumpster details as
submitted.
MR. TRAVER-All right.
MR. DEEB-Then that takes care of it.
MR. TRAVER-You'll want something for the record anyway, a formal.
MRS. MOORE-Yes, we'll need something for the record.
MR. TRAVER-All right. Then we're ready for that motion.
RESOLUTION APPROVING SP # 15-2017 DAN RADMAN (CHIPOTLE)
47
(Queensbury Planning Board 03/21/2011)
The applicant has submitted an application to the Planning Board for Site Plan approval
pursuant to Article 9 of the Town zoning Ordinance for: Applicant proposes leasing a 2,504 sq.
ft. space of an existing 192,157 sq. ft. commercial plaza. Project includes exterior
improvements, installing a new entry curb cut to access sidewalk. Fagade improvements for
entire leased frontage. 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 3/21/2017 and
continued the public hearing to 3/21/2017, 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 3/21/2017;
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_15-2017 DAN RADMAN (CHIPOTLE); Introduced by
George Ferone who moved for its adoption;
Per the draft provided by staff conditioned upon the following conditions:
1) Waivers request granted: Stormwater, topography, landscaping, traffic, soil logs,
construction demolition disposal
2) Adherence to the items outlined in the follow-up letter sent with this resolution.
a) If application was referred to engineering, then engineering sign-off required prior to
signature
of Zoning Administrator of the approved plans;
b) Final approved plans should have dimensions and setbacks noted on the site
plan/survey, floor
plans and elevation for the existing rooms and proposed rooms in the building and site
improvements,
c) 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;
d) The applicant must meet with Staff after approval and prior to issuance of
Building
Permit and/or the beginning of any site work;
e) Subsequent issuance of further permits, including building permits is dependent on
compliance
with this and all other conditions of this resolution;
f) 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;
g) Resolution to be placed on final plans in its entirety and legible.
f) The Site Plan would be amended to show the dumpster locations as that was submitted
today
to Staff.
Motion seconded by David Deeb. Duly adopted this 21st day of March, 2017 by the following
vote:
AYES: Mr. Magowan, Mr. Ferone, Mr. Hunsinger, Mr. Shafer, Ms. White, Mr. Deeb, Mr. Traver
NOES: NONE
48
(Queensbury Planning Board 03/21/2011)
MR. TRAVER-All right. You're all set.
MR. STELLATO-Thank you very much.
MR. DEEB-When do you anticipate starting up?
MS. MC VANE-We'll be starting soon. We're planning to open before the 4th of July. So we
open sometime in June.
MR. DEEB-So if we come we have to come for lunch.
MS. MC VANE-Exactly, yes.
MR. DEEB-Take care, good luck.
MR. TRAVER-Okay. The next item we have on our agenda is Site Plan 18-2017 and Special
Use Permit 4-2017 for Nicky Cutro.
SITE PLAN NO. 18-2017 SPECIAL USE PERMIT 4-2017 SEAR TYPE UNLISTED NICKY
CUTRO AGENT(S) DEVIN DICKINSON OWNER(S) SAME AS APPLICANT/FISHER'S
MARINA ZONING WR LOCATION 1215 PILOT KNOB ROAD APPLICANT PROPOSES
TO MAINTAIN AN EXISTING CLASS A MARINA WITH SLIGHT CHANGE IN OPERATIONS.
APPLICANT INTENDS TO USE MORE QUICK-LAUNCH AND CLOSE PUBLIC ACCESS
FOR WEEKENDS. QUICK LAUNCH PROPOSES 100 ON-SITE, BUT NO MORE THAN 50
PER DAY — CURRENTLY AT 30. PROJECT SITE OCCURS IN BOTH QUEENSBURY AND
WASHINGTON COUNTY (FORT ANN). PURSUANT TO CHAPTER 179-3-040 AND 179-10
OF THE ZONING ORDINANCE, CLASS A MARINAS AND CHANGE OF USE SHALL BE
SUBJECT TO PLANNING BOARD REVIEW AND APPROVAL. CROSS REFERENCE AV
29-2007, NOA 8-2007, SEVERAL DOCK PERMITS WARREN CO. REFERRAL MARCH
2017/MUNICIPAL BOUNDARY NOTIFICATION LOT SIZE 4.5 ACRES (QBY. ONLY) TAX
MAP NO. 227.10-1-1, -2, -3 SECTION 179-3-040 — MARINA & 179-10— MARINA
DEVIN DICKINSON, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT; NICKY CUTRO, PRESENT
MRS. MOORE-This applicant proposes to maintain an existing Class A Marina with a slight
change in the operations. The applicant intends to do more quick launching and close public
access for weekends. The quick launch proposes 100 on site but no more than 50 per day.
Currently it is at 30, and this addresses the Special Use Permit where they're required to comply
with that requirement for Class A Marinas. I think it was probably 15 years ago that that came
about and this applicant is now coming in now and it has to comply by following the Special Use
Permit procedures.
MR. TRAVER-Okay. Good evening.
MR. DICKINSON-My name is Devin Dickinson. I'm with Dickinson Associates Here with
Nicky Cutro who's the owner/operator. So Nicky actually bought the Marina in 2008. So the
Town reached out, I think Craig said like 2003 and let it be known they're looking for just any
insight on what the Marina does, what the numbers are, that type of thing, and unfortunately the
prior owners didn't send anything in. So that's one of the things we're doing is clarifying what
we're doing, number wise, where that parking is, that type of thing. The second, like Laura
said, we're kind of re-categorizing the operations there, and part of what we're doing is
proposing to close the public launch on the weekends. We want to swap that volume of boats
with an on-site quick launch, and like Laura said, we have 30. We're proposing 50 at any one
give time. We're also proposing a maximum number on site of 100, and the reason we're
proposing that is because there's actually only about a 30% usage of the quick launch for
customers in any one given day. It's different than your typical dock berthing customer. So
one of the things I also want to go over is I don't know if you're familiar with what quick launch is
and the definition of quick launch. Would you like me to kind of describe? Yes, okay. So
quick launch is any boat that is stored on land by the marina and the marina handles it, puts it in
the water. So you call in advance. Say you want to come at 10 o'clock on Saturday or
something like that, we prepare the boat, get it in the water before you take it out for the day,
bring it back, same thing, bring it out and store it. They also at this site have docks and
seasonal, traditional rental as well.
MR. CUTRO-Well, the definition, and to clarify it, and that's why we're here, is because under
the scope of marina operations it's become very vague, and the Park Commission also wants
everybody to have full disclosure on everything that we do there. So along with quick launch,
when we say storage, any boat that's on the property, like a canoe, if somebody wants to come
49
(Queensbury Planning Board 03/21/2011)
and put it in the water, they want to know that that's considered quick launch, even if you're
handling it. We now have to handle it. So now that's become another issue with the Park, not
you guys. So to go through the process we're letting you know so everybody has full clarity
and full scope of what's going on. So we've provided you with the parking and, again, I bought
the place in 2008. A lot of this, you know, the marina's been in operation since the 50's,
probably before that. You would know. This guy has history. He knows. So we're just here
really for full disclosure, so everybody's on the same page. So if anything gets changed, the
Park Commission, you should have been fully aware of that, and none of that's transpired since
I've taken over, which was a good area, and now it's become an issue because the Park
Commission has made it an issue. So that's why we're here, to move on, but it's clarifying the
description of what is considered quick launch.
MR. DICKINSON-So the issue is if you store your boat there, and come and drive your boat, put
it in the public launch, that's considered quick launch. So that's why we're saying it's closed as
a public launch on the weekends. Now we have control over all the boats. They all become
quick launch, which actually streamlines the marina operation, too, because now you don't have
the general public coming. They don't know where to pull in, they don't know to drop off, they
don't know where to load. Cars and trailers backing up on the road. All those sort of things.
We're trying to eliminate all the, you know, the hectic times. The weekdays are completely
different. Weekdays are much quieter. It's easy to handle all of that kind of stuff. It's really
just the weekends.
MR. HUNSINGER-So how do you advertise that? I mean, you know, if I'm a visitor to Lake
George and I drive by and see a marina I say, great, I can launch my boat.
MR. DICKINSON-Well, for one thing not ever marina has a public launch and that's actually a
specific item on your marina permit. So not every marina has a launch. If you have a launch it
has to be permitted. Things have changed also recently with the boat launching. So, you
know, that's really changed a lot of the dynamic as far as where you get washed, may affect
where you launch.
MR. CUTRO-The Village now has a ramp and they have the wash station there. So our
business has been drastically cut from launching on the weekends also. So not to say the
amateur who comes, which is really a vacationer, which we need because that generates all
kinds of tax revenue and you're all familiar with that, but now they go there because they have
to get their boat sealed, inspected and cleaned, which is anything to help with the lake is, you
know, our Number One priority. Me as a businessman, my whole livelihood is the lake. So
that's the last thing you want to see have anything go the wrong way with pollution or anything
like that, or invasive species. So anyway, getting back to that, that's one of the reasons it's
also, we're also, I guess the word would be a slight change in the business plan. It's also
letting the Park Commission know that there's certain dynamics that contribute, like the boat
washing and the ramp down in the Village now, because it's basically free. If you're going to
come to my place, you'll have to pay $50 to launch. Who wants to go there if you can go there
for free?
MR. DICKINSON-Also, to further answer that question, you know, with the digital age, too, I
mean, the websites do a lot of things. There's other marinas on that road. I think they're in
Washington County possibly, plus there's another one around the corner, too.
MR. CUTRO-Dunham's Bay has the ramp, but you have to get underneath the bridge, so that
limits their.
MR. DICKINSON-1 think updating website does a lot of that stuff, too, if you're looking for a
place to launch, you'll see hits, you know, it'll be advertised as closed on the weekends.
MR. TRAVER-1 had a question about quick launch, it just occurred to me actually when you
mentioned the inspection and the tagging of the boats. What do you do for quick launch? Are
you required to put a tag on the boat you pull out of the lake, or is it considered on-site?
MR. CUTRO-The key thing is it's under our care, custody and control. So in other words if that
boat never leaves the site, well there's no invasive species that's going to move in on it, aquatic
species.
MR. TRAVER-Right.
MR. CUTRO-You know, I've found some stuff living in boats that I didn't think could live.
MR. DEEB-But if it comes in, it has to have a tag on it before you can let it in.
50
(Queensbury Planning Board 03/21/2011)
MR. CUTRO-To launch, yes. Anything foreign.
MR. DEEB-The boat launch, the municipal one, is that going to be open during the week?
MR. CUTRO-During the week we're open to the public.
MR. DEEB-And then on weekends you're going to close it and just do?
MR. DICKINSON-The reason we focus, you know, we've poured through other marinas of
similar size and, you know, when they've gone for different permits and applications, and it
muddies the water seeing some of them try and average their numbers over the entire week
because it can sway those numbers. That's why we've really tried to focus, let's focus on the
weekends where all the numbers, primetime.
MR. DEEB-That's your busiest time?
MR. CUTRO-Primetime.
MR. HUNSINGER-So how do you limit, how do you police yourself to only 50 quick launches a
day?
MR. DICKINSON-Right. So the numbers do work.
MR. TRAVER-How can you do more than that?
MR. CUTRO-You can't. Your hands are pretty tied. No matter how much equipment you
have, there's only so many moves you can make handling the boats, if you call it all equipment.
You can't, your hands are pretty tied. It's amazing if you can launch, like I can tell you I've
done 65 boats during the time before we eliminated and make it down, with the public in mind,
and I'll never do that again. I mean, you want to see a freak show, come, bring your cameras.
I mean, I've had neighbors come over and sit, bring a cooler, set up a little lounge chair, and fill
them, and it's like, I'm surprised there's no more divorces, you know, husbands are screaming
at the wives. They lock the kids in the car, like wait a minute, the kids can get out of the car. It
is the most amazing thing because they're just not used to putting their boats on and off the
trailer. So it's great entertainment.
MR. DEEB-With 10 hours at 50 you've got five an hour. That's a lot.
MR. HUNSINGER-You said we're only going to do 50. So are you counting that? I mean, are
you leasing that? Are you recording that?
MR. CUTRO-Yes, and mathematically we've done the numbers and when you go to all the
other marinas even the ones up I Bolton Landing that have 200 boats, the number is 30%. You
can't, you know, so if you took 100, you're really going to do about 30 a day, to tell you the truth,
on a weekend. Because not everybody calls and uses their boats.
MR. TRAVER-And that's on a nice day.
MR. CUTRO-That would be after it rained all summer and there's only two more weekends left
in the summer and they're going to make sure they use their boat. The kids are all going back
to school. That's when you get hit with that.
MR. TRAVER-Yes. You were talking about the freak show, the people, the trailered boats
launching when they haven't done it in a while. There's a great YouTube I suggest you look up
of, I think it was a woman this time who had a boat on a trailer, and she backed down to a nice
concrete ramp, and disconnected her trailer and the boat floated away with the trailer still
attached to the boat. Years ago I was out boating with my wife one afternoon. I think we were
on maybe Diamond Island or something. We just went out for the afternoon, and some people
came by, they were obviously tourists, that had a rental boat, and they wanted to know if we had
some extra ropes or if they could borrow our ropes because they thought, when they left the
marina they untied the boat from the dock and never took the rope. So when they got out to
Diamond Island they had no rope to tie to the dock. Yes, and there are some guidelines
coming out on some training that's going to be done.
MR. CUTRO-Yes, we're aware of that. I rule by an iron fist. I already have such great
clientele. So I don't even want to rent, trust me, that's a whole other business. I've been in that
for 40 years. If everybody doesn't know, I used to own The Boardwalk Restaurant. So I've got
51
(Queensbury Planning Board 03/21/2011)
some stories, like we could sit here and laugh. Boating is a great experience as long as you
just live it for a little while. I'm all invested. I'm all in if this was a poker game because I made
a huge investment in that piece of property out there since I have sold The Boardwalk.
MR. TRAVER-And that location where Fisher's is, I mean, it must be primarily repeat customers
I'm assuming.
MR. CUTRO-Yes.
MR. TRAVER-1 mean, you don't have a lot of walk-in's there I wouldn't think.
MR. CUTRO-No, and I can pick and choose my customers. I mean, actually I've had some
customers, I have quiet hours. I have posted signs that say 8 a.m. to 8 p.m. After that if
you're noisy or loud and my neighbors complain, next year you don't get a renewal contract.
So I'm very sympathetic to my neighbors. When we owned The Boardwalk Chuck Hall, if
anybody remembers Chuck Hall, he was a board member. He was my neighbor. He was the
head of the Park Commission, okay. He was a board member since they started in the early
80's. So my point was, if you had to live next to that guy, you really, really learned how to be
very receptive to what your neighbor's wanted. We went to him for a lot of advice. It was a
win/win situation. I do the same thing with my neighbors now, you know, like I said, it's full
disclosure. This only helps everything on the lake because everybody knows what everybody's
doing, how many boat rentals, how many of this, you know. Again, full disclosure. The Park
Commission didn't even know this when I had brought it up at the meeting. Do you know
there's no tax revenue generated from anybody who handles or launches a boat in Lake
George? So I don't charge sales tax for them to use my ramp and go into Lake George
because it's a State owned lake.
MR. TRAVER-Right.
MR. CUTRO-But, if I handle and provide a service, which is what they were calling quick launch,
wait a minute, we have people who want to leave their boats, don't want to travel from Albany,
they want to just leave their boat on the property like a mini launch or a mini storage building.
You give them a spot, they park their car, trailer and everything and they go and they come
back and they have to abide by the ramp hours, whatever the hours are we set. So my point is,
it's now full disclosure. The Park Commission didn't know that we don't have to charge them
sales tax. They thought everything was taxed. Of course, welcome to New York State.
MR. TRAVER-Of course their revenue doesn't come from sales tax. So that's not part of their.
MR. CUTRO-And this is another revenue generator for them because now they can charge us,
the landowner, for that particular slip, and I think they actually charge a U-Shaped configuration.
So it's not just like a dock where they charge one side a commercial rate. They charge this.
MR. TRAVER-It's the footage, yes.
MR. CUTRO-Every spot.
MR. TRAVER-And the rates just went up.
MR. CUTRO-And the rates just went up. So this is part of also why they're, you know, so,
again, that's why we're here.
MR. HUNSINGER-So in the past when we've had marinas that wanted to do more quick launch,
we've had lots of people in the public show up and basically oppose it because they say you're
putting more boats on the lake. So how would you address that concern? I know there's no
one here tonight.
MR. CUTRO-Was there any written complaints?
MR. HUNSINGER-It doesn't mean the issue goes away. It's still there.
MR. DICKINSON-We've done it a lot and we've talked about it a lot, and of course we've had
meetings with the Park Commission and those things, and of course Nicky, like any business,
keeps track of numbers and we've gone through other, Boats By George is probably the one
you're thinking of . We went through their file.
MR. CUTRO-Yes. We ran everybody else's.
52
(Queensbury Planning Board 03/21/2011)
MR. DICKINSON-And location makes a big difference.
MR. CUTRO-We also have the last ponderosa on the lake. We have eight acres. Where
everybody else is on a postage stamp.
MR. HUNSINGER-Right.
MR. CUTRO-So there is over congestion at their marina. You drive to my place, there's trees,
there's grass. You can park 100 cars and not know they were there. It doesn't look
overwhelmed. Even on the busiest days which, you know, I've got to say, the numbers on Lake
George, which I can say because when I owned The Boardwalk we saw it coming. I mean,
everything has changed because of BWI, mostly all alcohol related, all the air patrols and things
like that, and the police presence and DEC presence. My point is, there is a decrease in boat
traffic. Now the Park Commission will not tell you that.
MR. TRAVER-Well, they give you the numbers in their annual report.
MR. CUTRO-Yes, which is boats that have been on land for like six years that you wouldn't
even put back in the water, and those numbers, they're counting everything.
MR. TRAVER-They count the registrations.
MR. DICKINSON-The LA Group actually also just last year did a study, and it was a study much
more detailed then let's say X number of registrations. They looked at the hot spots and where
the busiest parts of the lake are.
MR. HUNSINGER-Which is what?
MR. CUTRO-Bolton Landing. I was surprised, too.
MR. DICKINSON-Bolton Landing is the busiest, but again, to speak to those numbers, again,
Nicky's kept track of his numbers through the business, and like I said, we've gone through a lot
of the files, and it's interesting. Bolton Landing that has 200 quick launch. They really only
operate about 30% on a normal, busy weekend, and again, I think it's a lot of the type of
customer that does quick launch. Nicky can tell you if you quick launch four days a week to put
the boat in, he's going to say next year you've got to get a boat slip. So you're kind of getting
those customers who aren't the frequent boaters.
MR. CUTRO-We look at people who come from Troy, Albany. When they've got to travel an
hour, if the weather looks a little bit marginal, they're not making that trip. They actually don't
use their boat as much. Now, the advantages of quick launch, which we see a huge, the best
thing for the environment, a win/win, when there's those freak storms, which we had one last
summer which blew boats right off the islands, the camping islands. It was incredible, and it
was just like a three hour wind storm where a front went through, any boat that's on a dock is
subject to waves and heavy rain could sink them because they've got to be, the bilge pumps
have to work and everything. Quick launch, there's zero impact. So like when Hurricane Irene
and Hurricane Sandy, we pulled 100 of our customers out of the lake, just because we knew,
you know, there was going to be turmoil and if there's that many less boats in the water, even in
boathouses, because they just break the lines and the boats sink.
MR. TRAVER-Yes, I've heard of whole boathouses that were wrecked.
MR. CUTRO-Yes. They get knocked over. I mean, the waves are just incredible from those
fast little mini, micro bursts, but Hurricane Irene was the killer of all. Make a long story short,
quick launch is actually the new way to go because the boats aren't in the water. So you talk
about the impact, and then when you take big numbers like 200 boats, 100 boats, and there's
only, at any given time their busiest day is 30%. It's the best business going for me. I'm trying
to scale to the least amount of work, okay, and the most amount of income.
MR. TRAVER-And the least amount of maintenance.
MR. CUTRO-And the least amount of maintenance. It's a win/win for everybody.
MR. DICKINSON-So truthfully that 50 number probably will happen twice a summer. Typically
you're going to be around 20 to 30 boats on the weekend.
53
(Queensbury Planning Board 03/21/2011)
MR. TRAVER-So the 100 figure is basically a capacity of the number of boats you could have
on site for quick launch capability.
MR. DICKINSON-Right.
MR. CUTRO-Right.
MR. DICKINSON-You need a bigger pool of customers because it's such a small percentage of
boats, and obviously that's from a business standpoint.
MR. CUTRO-And we already have eight acres on the lake, not like a postage stamp, and none
of it's underwater on Harris Bay, and we have tons of parking. This isn't an issue. Usually, I
remember we did an expansion at The Boardwalk. The first issue, and you mentioned parking
in this last one with Chipotle. The same thing, parking. It's all about parking. That used to be
the biggest number one thing I've seen, like you brought up, and the traffic flow and everything,
you know.
MR. MAGOWAN-You do have the land across the street, too.
MR. CUTRO-Yes.
MR. DICKINSON-That's not included in the marina, but he does.
MR. CUTRO-Yes, that's a whole different, and it's in Washington County.
MR. DICKINSON-1 think another big aspect, too, and the reason there's an empty room in here,
too, is that Nicky does service a lot of the boats in the neighborhood. People, you know, even
though they don't keep their boat there, maybe they store it there, they winterize it and
summarize it. Because it is a community. So even if they're not docking their boat here, quick
launch, he may be servicing all the neighbor's boats, you know, they're customers. He's talked
to all his neighbors in the neighborhood before we even got to this point.
MR. CUTRO-I'm a sympathetic neighbor. Again, this is more clarity. It's transparency in what
we're doing. That's the basic number one thing to clarify what is considered, everybody's
under the understanding what is quick launch, rack and launch if you pick them up with a forklift.
It's all the same, under the same umbrella.
MR. TRAVER-Yes, understood. All right. Well, let's see, we do have a public hearing on this
application. I don't see anybody in the audience and, Laura, I think you already said there were
no written comments.
PUBLIC HEARING OPENED
MRS. MOORE-There's no written comments.
MR. TRAVER-Okay. So I'll dispense with that and close the public hearing.
PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED
MR. TRAVER-Are there any questions for the applicant before, we do have, this is a SEQR
Unlisted. So we do need to do a SEAR, and this is not a reaffirm. So we probably have not
done SEQR before on this site. Because this is a site that's been around for a while.
MR. SHAFER-I've got a quick question. It just came to me. When somebody brings a boat on
a weekday to launch there, where do they get it washed if they're from Long Island or
something?
MR. CUTRO-They first have to go to a designated wash station, cleaning area to get it sealed,
and once they pass that, which would be in Dunham's Bay or down in the Village. So even my
weekday business, unless you're a local, because then they already know the routine, and
actually, just so everybody knows, since we're having this conversation, I can seal the boat
when it comes out.
MR. TRAVER-But not when it goes in.
MR. CUTRO-Right, not when it goes in. Unless the seal is broken. Then I retrieve the seal.
We write it down. We document everything, but we also document the seal we're putting on
and the boat that was taken away. So they could come back, you know, so I have my, you
54
(Queensbury Planning Board 03/21/2011)
know, of course, the locals are the smartest. They come during the week, and they'd rather
pay me the $50 then go down to the Village because they're in the Narrows the quickest. We
have the best ramp on the east side of Lake George. So it's quick and easy to get in. There's
tons of parking. Again, there isn't an issue. It's like, where do we park. There's no question
where parking is. So this is not, like I said, we're on a postage stamp, like you probably
referenced Boats By George which used to be, Mooring Post. I used to be The Mooring Post.
MR. TRAVER-Boy, that was a long time ago.
MR. TRAVER-Okay. Any other questions or comments before we do the SEQR resolution?
I'm not hearing any. Mr. Secretary?
RESOLUTION RE: NEGATIVE SEQR DECLARATION SP 18-2017 & SUP 4-2017 NICKY
CUTRO
The applicant proposes to maintain an existing Class A Marina with slight change in operations.
Applicant intends to use more quick- launch and close public access for weekends. Quick
launch proposes 100 on-site, but no more than 50 per day— currently at 30. Project site occurs
in both Queensbury and Washington County (Fort Ann). Pursuant to Chapter 179-3-040 and
179-10 of the Zoning Ordinance, Class A marinas and change of 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.
MOTION TO GRANT A NEGATIVE DECLARATION FOR SITE PLAN 18-2017 & SPECIAL
USE PERMIT 4-2017 NICKY CUTRO, Introduced by George Ferone who moved for its
adoption.
As per the resolution prepared by staff.
1. Part II 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 to large impacts.
Motion seconded by Brad Magowan. Duly adopted this 21 st day of March, 2017 by the following
vote:
AYES: Mr. Deeb, Ms. White, Mr. Shafer, Mr. Hunsinger, Mr. Magowan, Mr. Ferone, Mr. Traver
NOES: NONE
MR. TRAVER-All right. Next we move on to the Site Plan resolution. I don't think, in our
discussion, we had any additional conditions added to the draft. Am I correct? Does anyone
have any conditions?
MR. DEEB-I couldn't think of any.
MR. TRAVER-Okay. Good. Then we're ready to go with the draft.
MR. FERONE-Sure.
RESOLUTION APPROVING SP 18-2017 SUP 4-2017 NICKY CUTRO
55
(Queensbury Planning Board 03/21/2011)
The applicant has submitted an application to the Planning Board for Site Plan approval
pursuant to Article 9 of the Town zoning Ordinance for: Applicant proposes to maintain an
existing Class A Marina with slight change in operations. Applicant intends to use more quick-
launch and close public access for weekends. Quick launch proposes 100 on-site, but no more
than 50 per day — currently at 30. Project site occurs in both Queensbury and Washington
County (Fort Ann). Pursuant to Chapter 179-3-040 and 179-10 of the Zoning Ordinance, Class
A marinas and change of 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 3/21/2017 and
continued the public hearing to 3/21/2017, 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 3/21/2017;
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 18-2017 & SPECIAL USE PERMIT 4-2017 NICKY
CUTRO; Introduced by George Ferone who moved for its adoption;
Per the draft provided by staff conditioned upon the following conditions:
1) Waivers requestrg anted: signage, stormwater topography, landscaping, traffic,
commercial alterations, construction details, floor plans, soil logs, construction demolition
disposal and snow removal.
2) Adherence to the items outlined in the follow-up letter sent with this resolution.
a) If application was referred to engineering, then engineering sign-off required prior to
signature
of Zoning Administrator of the approved plans;
b) Final approved plans should have dimensions and setbacks noted on the site
plan/survey, floor
plans and elevation for the existing rooms and proposed rooms in the building and site
improvements,
c) The applicant must meet with Staff after approval and prior to issuance of
Building
Permit and/or the beginning of any site work;
d) Subsequent issuance of further permits, including building permits is dependent on
compliance
with this and all other conditions of this resolution;
e) 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;
f) Resolution to be placed on final plans in its entirety and legible.
Motion seconded by David Deeb. Duly adopted this 21St day of March, 2017 by the following
vote:
AYES: Mr. Ferone, Mr. Magowan, Mr. Hunsinger, Mr. Shafer, Ms. White, Mr. Deeb, Mr. Traver
NOES: NONE
MR. TRAVER-You're all set.
MR. CUTRO-Thanks.
MR. DEEB-So you're going to the APA now?
56
(Queensbury Planning Board 03/21/2011)
MR. CUTRO-No, back to the Lake George Park Commission.
MR. DEEB-That's what I meant.
MR. TRAVER-Is there any other business before the Planning Board this evening? If not, I'll
entertain a motion to adjourn.
MR. FERONE-So moved.
MR. HUNSINGER-Second.
MR. TRAVER-We stand adjourned.
MOTION TO ADJOURN THE QUEENSBURY PLANNING BOARD MEETING OF MARCH 21,
2017, Introduced by George Ferone who moved for its adoption, seconded by Chris Hunsinger:
Duly adopted this 21 s` day of March, 2017, by the following vote:
AYES: Mr. Ferone, Mr. Deeb, Ms. White, Mr. Shafer, Mr. Magowan, Mr. Hunsinger, Mr. Traver
NOES: NONE
On motion meeting was adjourned.
RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED,
Stephen Traver, Chairman
57