03-20-2018 03/20/2018)
QUEENSBURY PLANNING BOARD MEETING
FIRST REGULAR MEETING
MARCH 20, 2018
INDEX
Site Plan No. 23-2018 Mark Reynolds 1.
Tax Map No. 289.10-1-9
Subdivision No. 1-2018 Tyler Lingel 10.
PRELIMINARY STAGE Tax Map No. 290.9-1-4
Subdivision No. 2-2018
FINAL STAGE
Site Plan No. 22-2018 Tabassum Sheikh 14.
MODIFICATION Tax Map No. 266.3-1-78
Site Plan No. 19-2018 Laura Feathers 28.
Tax Map No. 288.12-1-15
Discussion 1-2018 Russ Faden 31.
DISCUSSION ITEM Tax Map No. 296.17-1-51
THESE ARE NOT OFFICIALLY ADOPTED MINUTES AND ARE SUBJECT TO BOARD AND
STAFF REVISIONS. REVISIONS WILL APPEAR ON THE FOLLOWING MONTHS MINUTES
(IF ANY) AND WILL STATE SUCH APPROVAL OF SAID MINUTES.
QUEENSBURY PLANNING BOARD MEETING
FIRST REGULAR MEETING
03/20/2018)
MARCH 20, 2018
7:00 P.M.
MEMBERS PRESENT
STEPHEN TRAVER, CHAIRMAN
CHRIS HUNSINGER, VICE CHAIRMAN
DAVID DEEB, SECRETARY
BRAD MAGOWAN
JAMIE WHITE
JOHN SHAFER
MICHAEL VALENTINE
LAND USE PLANNER-LAURA MOORE
STENOGRAPHER-MARIA GAGLIARDI
MR. TRAVER-Good evening, ladies and gentlemen. Welcome to the Town of Queensbury
Planning Board meeting for Tuesday, March 20, 2018. This is the second meeting for the
month of March and the seventh meeting so far for 2018. There should be some additional
copies of the agenda on the table at the rear of the room if you don't have one and you want
one. If you have a cellular phone or other electronic device, if you would either turn it off or turn
the ringer off, so that we don't get interrupted by that, and with that we have no administrative
items this evening. So we can go right to our agenda and we have some items of New
Business and then a discussion item at the end. All but one of our applications do have public
hearing this evening. So you'll have an opportunity for that if you wish. The first item is Mark
Reynolds. Site Plan 23-2018.
SITE PLAN NO. 23-2018 SEAR TYPE: TYPE II. MARK REYNOLDS. OWNER(S):
SAME AS APPLICANT. ZONING: WR. LOCATION: 4 JAY ROAD EAST. APPLICANT
PROPOSES REMOVAL OF 182 +/- SQ. FT. CONCRETE PATIO TO INSTALL A 377 +/- SQ.
FT. PATIO INCLUDING STEPS IN SIMILAR LOCATION. PURSUANT TO CHAPTER 179-6-
050 OF THE ZONING ORDINANCE, HARD SURFACING WITHIN 50 FT. OF SHORELINE
SHALL BE SUBJECT TO PLANNING BOARD REVIEW AND APPROVAL. CROSS
REFERENCE: AV 58-2004 924 SF DECK; SP 29-2005 DECK; AV 39-2005 260 SF DECK;
2005-585 380 SF DECK. WARREN CO. REFERRAL: N/A. SITE INFORMATION: CEA.
LOT SIZE: .74 ACRE. TAX MAP NO. 289.10-1-9. SECTION: 179-6-050.
MARK REYNOLDS, PRESENT
MR. TRAVER-Laura?
MRS. MOORE-Okay. This applicant proposes removal of a 182 square foot concrete patio to
install a 377 square foot concrete patio. This would include steps in a similar location that's
near the boathouse and this is hard surfacing within 50 feet of the shoreline.
MR. TRAVER-Okay. Thank you. Good evening.
MR. REYNOLDS-I'm Mark Reynolds. I live at 4 Jay Road East and what I'm proposing is we
have a patio landing off our existing boathouse, and what we'd like to extend that out. I believe
it's about 16 feet or so from the existing structure and secondly what we'd like to do is lower it to
the dock level. The reason for that is we'd like to put a seasonal cover, like a canvas cover,
over the top of it, you know, to keep us out of the sun and rain, and also it lowers the height so
our neighbors aren't going to be affected by us being there or the roof itself because the canvas
roof will be at the height of the existing top of the boathouse.
MR. TRAVER-Okay, and how tall is that?
MR. REYNOLDS-How tall is that?
MR. TRAVER-Yes, the canvas.
MR. REYNOLDS-The canvas will be, at the ground level now it will be about four feet. When
it's excavated down it'll be about eight feet. Okay.
MR. TRAVER-Eight feet above ground level.
MR. REYNOLDS-Eight feet above the ground level after we excavate it.
03/20/2018)
MR. TRAVER-Gotcha. Okay. All right, and then you indicated I believe you're also going to
add some vegetation for buffering and so on?
MR. REYNOLDS-Yes, sir. One thing we're concerned with, living on a lake, is runoff, you know,
most of the properties there's a downward slope. When the rain comes it heads towards the
lake. Well one of the things that we have to do when we excavate down is we're putting a wall
as a barrier to keep the soil from coming in on the excavation part, and also that'll be a raised
couple of inches, probably four and five inches above the ground level now to prevent any of the
rain water coming down off the top of the property off the road into the lake itself. In the front,
you know, we plan on putting between six, eight, twelve inches of pea stone in front of the edge
of the concrete on the lakeside and then put some vegetation in front of that. So any rain water
that may escape, come off the canopy, and head toward the lake or if there's spring thaw, you
know when we take the canvas off and snow and ice build up there and it thaws out, that water
has a place to go before it goes in the lake. As far as the canvas cover on top, to mitigate any
stormwater coming off the canvas into the lake itself, we plan on using either a rain gutter or a
device like that to capture the water and pitch the roof, the canvas cover, so that it pitches on
way into that rain barrel and we can take that water, use it for gardening, etc. Keep that excess
water out of the lake itself.
MR. TRAVER-Okay, and then for the support for the canvas structure. Is that going to be some
kind of a metal framework type of thing?
MR. REYNOLDS-Yes, sir.
MR. TRAVER-And is that going to remain up year round or is that also going to be taken down?
MR. REYNOLDS-We'll most likely take that down in the wintertime.
MR. TRAVER-Okay.
MR. REYNOLDS-We had planned on going to a professional company that makes that
aluminum framing like a truss system and then the canvas cover would be on top of it.
MR. TRAVER-All right. So before we go to public hearing I'll open it up for members of the
Planning Board for any questions for the applicant.
MR. MAGOWAN-Yes. How high do you plan on being off the lake with your new depth?
MR. REYNOLDS-1 believe that height would be somewhere in the neighborhood of two and a
half feet.
MR. MAGOWAN-And you're going to pour concrete there?
MR. REYNOLDS-Yes. Our plan is to install fabric, you know, to capture, you know, the area
where we're going to pour the concrete, that's a good question. We're going to have a frame to
hold the concrete in, but most construction requirements near water ways you're required to put
some sort of silt fencing in where you bury it in the ground and you put posts in to prevent any
spillage that might go into the lake. We're going to be a good distance from the lake. I think
it's three to four feet at the edge of the concrete. So, you know, and the concrete is only going
to be four inches thick on the base of the patio.
MR. MAGOWAN-Remember you're going to be lowering it down and getting closer to the water,
the frost line goes down pretty deep.
MR. REYNOLDS-Yes, sir.
MR. MAGOWAN-And four inches thick on your concrete for you. I mean right now your
structure's up high enough and I don't know what kind of condition your concrete. Have you
looked into some form of permeable pavers?
MR. REYNOLDS-You know I haven't, but that's something that we could certainly consider.
MR. MAGOWAN-Because for the new regulations and everything and being three feet off the
water, I'm not too comfortable, you know, you have a pre-existing condition right now. And
since you're going to be moving it, it's like everybody else they try to do things we make them
upgrade their septic if they're doing something to the house or try to, this and that. So doing an
upgrade. So I would, you know, and the only other thing I'm thinking of, the four inches, I see
3
03/20/2018)
you've got a, it looks like a monolithic pour there out on the lakeside. You're going to get that
freeze and re-freeze and it's just going to work its way up and I just foresee the water going
back toward your retaining wall and I'd actually recommend looking into a form of permeable
pavers with the right amount of absorption and then underneath just for your purposes so you
don't do all this work and then, you know, five years from now say why didn't I listen to that guy
on the Planning Board.
MR. REYNOLDS-1 mean if you go out there now you'll see what's happened to the patio that's
there. It's all broken and cracked from the frost.
MR. MAGOWAN-Okay. So I rest my case. You're awfully close, and like I said I just foresee
having a problem, being in the construction field my whole life. And being that close to the
water, you don't see how much, but these frost heaves in the road you'll notice, you know, that's
the ground coming up and in the summertime it's not as noticeable.
MR. REYNOLDS-And Glen Lake isn't really noted for any rocks or anything, you know, that
would come up through there.
MR. MAGOWAN-That's not rocks underneath the road. That's just the frost heaving.
MR. REYNOLDS-No, the frost heaves pushes the rocks up. If you've ever dug a hole on Glen
Lake, you don't dig holes, you dig rocks.
MR. MAGOWAN-But like I said if you're going to go through all this effort and get it down that
low, and like I said, if you really want to be conscious, I like the idea of the stone. I would
recommend probably two foot six inches is really not enough, but if Patrick Mitchell feels that. I
haven't seen any comments from our engineer if they've reviewed it. Laura, have they
reviewed this?
MRS. MOORE-No, this wouldn't go to the engineer.
MR. MAGOWAN-It wouldn't go? I mean I'm just saying from what I've seen over the years.
MR. REYNOLDS-That's not an issue. I mean, if that's something that the Board would like to
see, this is a very small project. So I wouldn't be opposed to digging it down deeper if we're
able to and putting stone in. I'll tell you a quick little story. We moved to Glen Lake back in
1997, back when you could buy a piece of property and not go into hock the rest of your life.
And we got a boat and you know the wife, we're going around the lake, we've got little kids and
she said watch out for those rocks, and I just kept saying I know about the rocks, just be quiet
and sit there. The next thing we go around the bend and don't you know I take out the out drive
because I was too close to the edge. I learned about the rocks on Glen Lake.
MR. TRAVER-The suggestion of the permeable pavers as opposed to the more fragile for frost
heave concrete, is that something that you would accept as a condition?
MR. REYNOLDS-1 need to look into, to see if, and I don't know enough about those pavers, but
certainly we want a nice smooth surface, and if it prevents us from having that, I'd rather try to
do something to mitigate the frost heaving issue. You know what I mean?
MR. TRAVER-Sure, and we have seen a number of projects where that has been an issue. So
Mr. Magowan's point is well taken. And it also lessens the environmental impact, because with
the permeable pavers you have the stormwater is managed better, although your other
suggestions are fine, and certainly the shoreline buffering is something that we require now in
any case, but that would be extremely helpful if you were to, not only to you but to us and to the
lake as well if you were to consider shifting your construction materials from the concrete to the
permeable. Other members of the Planning Board?
MR. VALENTINE-1 have one. This plan here is 13 years old without a revision date. I don't
know, do we need something? Because I looked, when we first started to this and the
description of the work, I couldn't find it on the plan. It doesn't say on the plan what the work is.
MR. REYNOLDS-You mean the survey?
MR. VALENTINE-So I was looking for the area that would show, you know, that this was the
area that was being talked about. I didn't know if it was at the boathouse or if it was up at the
house itself.
MR. TRAVER-It's right by the.
4
03/20/2018)
MR. VALENTINE-1 got it after I read through here, but I'm wondering, do we take, is this the
plan that we are going to approve, a plan that's 13 years old and doesn't describe, that doesn't
show, depict what the work is, the area?
MR. TRAVER-Well, and the applicant is going to be considering an alternative construction
material as well.
MR. VALENTINE-Well, in the same regard you had started the conversation out talking about
landscaping, and this doesn't show anything as far as any landscaping on it at all.
MR. TRAVER-Yes. So that's something that would need to be added.
MR. REYNOLDS-Keep in mind this is a very minor project, and, you know, one of the
complaints that most folks have going before a Planning Board is that you go before a Planning
Board and your ten cent project turns into a ten thousand dollar project, and it's a very minor
project here. It's an existing slab that we're tearing out, you know, we're willing to go with some
permeable pavers if it warrants it, if we can get the same kind of effect, and we're just
expanding it a little more, and, you know, we're mitigating, by putting that wall in, rising it up.
We're mitigating any water runoff that normally right now would go right in the lake if we did
nothing. It rains, it comes down that hill, goes on that concrete pad and goes right in the lake.
So we're making a major improvement there. I just don't want, you know, this project to get to
the point where I go back, you want me to go back before an engineer. They're going to
require another survey. I'll come back to the Planning Board and may six months from now we
might get an approval. It's a very small project.
MR. TRAVER-Well we haven't discussed tabling, but what we are concerned about is that the
Town does need plans showing what your, the specifics of your project because they will be
doing follow up inspections and you need to have an as built, as planned and as built
description of what you do. You shouldn't need a new survey I wouldn't think. Laura, do you
have any clarification?
MRS. MOORE-1 don't believe it's a new survey. I believe it's potentially possible to take the
survey that's currently here and to copy some information over to a site plan drawing and use
that as the base to map out the new section of patio.
MR. TRAVER-Yes.
MR. REYNOLDS-So basically you need that drawing put on the survey. Is that what you're
saying?
MRS. MOORE-Not necessarily a survey, but taking the survey making a new, just a site plan
yourself with the data information and just showing the new expansion of the patio. So it's a
plain view of it. because right now we have the construction drawings that show us an
elevation view, but then the site plan drawing shows us the existing conditions and the survey,
the new site plan which would show us the conditions that would be proposed.
MR. REYNOLDS-1 think, you know, to do that we would probably need a surveyor to go out and
do elevations then. Right?
MRS. MOORE-I'm not thinking that.
MR. TRAVER-You have a surveyed map of your property now. We're talking about adding.
MR. REYNOLDS-Adding the drawing to that map. Adding the drawing to that survey.
MR. TRAVER-Adding your plan, in other words, taking what, you have a plan now that shows
what's there. You're talking about changing what's there. So what we need for Town
purposes and normally actually for our purposes for considering, is here's what I plan on doing.
Do you know what I'm saying? Very often we will get existing conditions, which is what you've
provided. Then we will get a plan, here's what my plan is, this is what I would look like when
I'm done, assuming that I get, that we agree that everything I'm planning makes sense, and
then the Town has that so that they can compare when they're doing their onsite inspections.
MR. REYNOLDS-1 took it as a new survey and all I thought it $2,000 and then engineering to
put it on there.
03/20/2018)
MR. TRAVER-No the property lines aren't going to change. I mean, if you were talking about a
subdivision or if you bought a neighbor's property and you were, you know, changing a tax map
or something, you know, that would be a different story. Perhaps even that may not require a
new survey, but it would require a new map, but you have a map of your boundaries. What
you're talking about is changing what's happening within that boundary. Not changing the
boundary.
MR. REYNOLDS-That wouldn't be a problem. I'll bring the survey to Patrick and have him put
the plans on there as they exist now and then show that 16 foot expansion to the left. I don't
have an issue with that.
MR. TRAVER-Okay. Would that suffice, Laura?
MRS. MOORE-Yes.
MR. TRAVER-Okay.
MR. DEEB-Then we have the issue of permeable pavers.
MRS. MOORE-So with permeable pavers, the applicant would supply, once he's done the
research that he's looking for, and Staff can also provide some guidance of what permeable
paver options are out there. Once you sort of select one, after working with either some
companies, you would bring us that detail along with your Site Plan. So what you're asking for
in the resolution would be a detail of the permeable paver, and it could be permeable concrete,
a permeable structure, there's a bunch of options out there.
MR. TRAVER-Now as far as the frost issue that we know is existing area, the permeable
concrete, would that be one slab or would that be like pavers, individual blocks? Because I'm
not familiar with the permeable concrete.
MRS. MOORE-There's permeable concrete.
MR. TRAVER-Yes, I mean I know about the permeable pavement.
MS. WHITE-We looked ata sample of that permeable concrete atone time. Right?
MRS. MOORE-Right.
MR. TRAVER-Yes, but I just don't remember if it was, I mean it was a small piece, but I don't
remember. It might be a poured product is what I'm, and then he's going to have the same
problem with it breaking up.
MRS. MOORE-Who knows. That's the research, but if this Board wants a permeable item
patio, that gives the option to the applicant to find a type of permeable patio.
MR. TRAVER-And that detail would be provided later when he provides the final submission to
you.
MRS. MOORE-Yes.
MR. TRAVER-So all we need to worry about is that it's not a solid slab, but rather some
permeable of the applicant's choosing based on recommendations that he gets and so on.
Okay.
MR. REYNOLDS-Would it be an option if, you know, we went to Patrick and Patrick went to his
engineer and they came back, you know, say we didn't like the particular paver, didn't give us
the look that we wanted, and I'm just being the devil's advocate just in case, a Plan B, that we
go to an engineer, that an engineer comes and brings us the design that we need to mitigate
that frost, whether it be dig down even deeper, because we've got some height there already to
put more stone in to mitigate any frost movement. Maybe frost is created by water. Maybe we
might need to put some under drainage in there, Bill, or something. Just thinking out loud of
Plan B so that I can be prepared when we come back with these two options.
MR. TRAVER-My understanding is, and Laura and her staff would know more about it than I,
but my understanding is that these permeable pavers come in a variety, they look like whatever
you want them to look like. Because it's a mechanical device with a color and a surface that
matches your.
6
03/20/2018)
MR. REYNOLDS-1 mean as long as I get that flat surface I'm okay. I think of pavers as being
like in the old days.
MR. MAGOWAN-Little bricks.
MR. REYNOLDS-But in my mind I was thinking of the, they used to put cement blocks on the
side and fill them full of dirt. Pavers would be cheaper than having Hoffman come in and pour
that textured concrete.
MR. TRAVER-It probably would, and I can tell you that as they have become more and more
prevalent and more popular, we've had some design elements before us that are really quite
attractive, and you're going to get a lot more, I think it's going to be something that's more
attractive than a slab of concrete and it's going to be something that's going to last.
MR. VALENTINE-Laura, you may still have the catalogue that Dave Linehan gave us.
MRS. MOORE-That's what I was just thinking of.
MR. TRAVER-Yes, that was, but I would say, to answer your question directly, if you go, if you
look at that and you really can't find, whatever you're looking for cannot be done with this kind of
permeable paver and you come back with a new design that is going to be frost proof or
significantly deeper, then that's something that you're probably going to want to chat with Laura
about, and I don't know if.
MRS. MOORE-1 mean it's fine to talk about. It's whether it comes back before this Board is the
ultimate question. If the Board says a permeable product and at last resort using concrete
again, I'm not exactly sure that's the best way to word, to do that.
MS. WHITE-Well I don't know how the rest of the Board feels, but I would vote yes for a
permeable paver project. I would vote no if this is a concrete project. So if that's any help.
MR. MAGOWAN-I'm with you on that one. I mean it's too close for concrete right up there.
MS. WHITE-And I know it's a small project but it's still doubling the size of a nonconforming
existing.
MR. REYNOLDS-One of the things I want to mention, too, and Ms. White, you know, right next
to this was a non-permeable surface that we took out. There was a boat landing there, and we
took it out.
MR. TRAVER-You mean like a ramp?
MR. REYNOLDS-Yes, it was a concrete ramp. We took it out and we brought in fill.
MR. TRAVER-And again it's been our experience that the people that live around the lake, that
love the lake, they're doing that, because they see. You started your remarks by pointing out
that you're concerned about the lake, and Glen Lake is undergoing this eutrophication that
unfortunately we're seeing around, particularly in the north with the acid rain and so on. So,
you know, that's not something, I appreciate it. That's not something unique to you. I think if
you look around the lake you'll see that a lot of those, a lot of that work is being done and it's
really to everybody's benefit obviously, and it really is my confident belief that you will be much
happier with the permeable, that not only will you find something that you will like more than the
concrete at perhaps a lesser inconvenience and cost, but also something that I think you will
find will work better for you and will be more attractive in this application.
MR. REYNOLDS-I'm kind of thinking out loud that with that, you know, they've got those, the
companies that make those kind of things also make walls. So maybe instead of a poured wall
I could have a nice decorative wall.
MR. TRAVER-Perhaps.
MR. REYNOLDS-There's only one little catch. Because it's going down we need a set of stairs
on one side, and that part unfortunately, you know, we want it poured. We don't want to mess
around with dirt moving, etc., with pavers, but it would only be halfway down, you know, and it
would be one continuous pour with the steps going down. Yes, sir?
MR. MAGOWAN-1 just, you know, the things that I have seen, but you can get slabs of blue
stone. You can get slabs of rock, you know, that goes the whole step and the way they tie it in
7
03/20/2018)
and everything else, you know, I've seen it all over the lake on the projects that I work on up
there. Really it's just amazing what you can do, and if you're trying to get that look, you know,
just concrete breaks down after a while, especially if it sits out there in the middle of nowhere
and gets cold and wet and the water sits in it it will just work on it, but this you have the chance.
One of the advantages of permeable pavers, too, if you do it like, say the ice comes in and lifts it
up, you're able to fix it a little bit more easily. I think in the long run they're not like this
anymore. I mean you can get, it's amazing what's out there.
MR. REYNOLDS-I'm not construction savvy so that's why I.
MR. TRAVER-Well, and the people that you consult with on the permeable pavers, if you talk to
them about your staircase that you want, they can probably come up with a better solution there
and at lesser cost than a poured concrete as well. Which would also be better for you and for
the lake and of course for us. You can probably do that, the patio, the stairs, the wall, all in one
discussion.
MR REYNOLDS-It's probably a similar cost. It might be even a lower cost.
MR. TRAVER-Yes, I mean that's not my area of expertise.
MR. REYNOLDS-1 can buy into that, folks.
MR. TRAVER-Okay, and then I think if you are coming back with a, if for whatever reason you
don't like that or you can't make that work or, you know, it is too expensive and you want to go
back to a solid concrete with maybe a changed, the environmental piece of it underneath, the
gravel and so on is different, then that is something that you'd want the Town to review and us
to look at.
MR. REYNOLDS-Yes, I mean if we could agree, I'll do my homework and I'm going to trust the
fact that you folks see this all the time, that I'll find what I'm looking for. If we could go to a
public hearing so that at the next meeting I'll be prepared, you know, with those designs. I'll be
prepared with the existing on my survey, the existing patio and the new, okay, with the distance
to the lake and it's kind of a jagged to show you exactly what it is. That'll certainly speed up the
process.
MR. TRAVER-Very much so.
MR. REYNOLDS-I've got a senior at Lake George High who's graduating this year and they're
having a party, we're having the party the end of May because he leaves to go in the Army July
3d . So the pressure's on from the boss at home.
MR. TRAVER-And this is no reflection on you, perhaps more on us, but I can tell you, and all
the Board members will agree, that every application we have before us is an emergency. So I
sympathize, and this is the time of year when people go, wait a minute, the snow is melting it's
time to do that project that we talked about. So certainly we understand that you want to get
started on this and we're anxious to get it off our agenda and move on to other projects. So we
appreciate your understanding and your flexibility.
MR. MAGOWAN-One of the things I would do, if you have a chance, is to go to Home Depot
and just drive around the back of that, and that whole wall that's built there is stackable block
walls.
MR. REYNOLDS-Is it really?
MR. MAGOWAN-Yes. That wasn't a poured wall. I mean it costs quite a bit of money to do,
but I mean, just drive around there and see how that earth was shifted around there. It always
amazes me.
MR. TRAVER-Are there other comments, questions from members of the Planning Board
before we go to the public hearing? No? Okay. Well then let's open the public hearing. Are
there members of the audience that are here to discuss this project with the Planning Board?
I'm not seeing anyone. Laura, are there any written comments?
PUBLIC HEARING OPENED
MRS. MOORE-There are no written comments.
MR. TRAVER-Okay. Well we can close the public hearing, then.
8
03/20/2018)
PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED
MR. TRAVER-This is a SEQR Type 11. So there's no SEQR review required on our part. How
do members of the Board feel about moving forward on this application? Are we comfortable
with the conditions of the, so we discussed the permeable pavers. We talked about the height,
but it didn't sound like height was going to be a problem and it's a seasonal use. So aside with
the permeable pavers for the patio and the staircase or something.
MR. MAGOWAN-Yes, the retaining wall and the staircase. He's going to go and do his
homework and come back. Is that correct?
MR. TRAVER-Do you think we need to table this and have him come back or do you think we
can give a conditioned approval?
MS. WHITE-1 mean I look to Laura for that. Can we do that?
MRS. MOORE-You can do that. You can, if you wish to put conditions on it, identifying that
there's a permeable product for the patio, the stairs and the wall.
MR. REYNOLDS-The retaining wall.
MR. MAGOWAN-The retaining wall.
MRS. MOORE-1 don't know if that's permeable.
MS. WHITE-Permeable surface.
MRS. MOORE-Permeable surface of some sort, or you can have that, table the application and
have the applicant come back with those details. I mean you're aware of them. The applicant
is not aware of that product yet.
MR. MAGOWAN-I would like to, no offense, is to table it because we do want to see some of
the planting. Like I said, to approve something with something he's not familiar with.
MR. REYNOLDS-Not to interrupt. If I were to have, if I bring back to Laura or the Building
Department stamped engineering drawings using pavers, would that suffice?
MR. TRAVER-Well this is what I'm, and if you'll excuse me, this is what I'm sort of polling the
Board about now because my feeling is I would be comfortable, just speaking for myself, giving
a conditioned approval of the permeable system and having the plan submitted to Laura for her
review listing the landscaping, which he's already discussed on the record, and the permeable
pavers. If the applicant is unable to provide a permeable product we know that's going to have
to be professionally installed. Then he would have to come back for a subsequent revision and
our re-review. How do other Board members feel?
MR. SHAFER-I'm okay with that.
MR. DEEB-I'm comfortable with that.
MR. MAGOWAN-Can you handle that?
MR. DEEB-If he does everything that way he doesn't have to come back. If you don't like
what's happened, then you're going to have to come back. That's going to delay it longer,
though.
MR. HUNSINGER-I was going to say, that's the downside.
MR. DEEB-That's the downside because you won't get back quickly.
MR. REYNOLDS-No, that's okay.
MR. MAGOWAN-So the stamped engineered permeable paver plans and the landscaping and
give it to Laura. I'm happy with that.
MR. TRAVER-All right.
MR. MAGOWAN-And that keeps you happy and the wife happy.
9
03/20/2018)
MR. TRAVER-So then if you would give us a minute we're just working on a resolution here.
MR. REYNOLDS-1 have a suggestion for a sign right up there, your failure to plan does not
constitute an emergency on our part. Right up there.
MR. TRAVER-Yes, right. All right. So we have a resolution to propose. If you want to go
ahead and read that.
RESOLUTION APPROVING SP #23-2018 MARK REYNOLDS
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 removal of 182 +/-
sq. ft. concrete patio to install a 377 +/- sq. ft. patio including steps in similar location. Pursuant
to Chapter 179-6-050 of the Zoning Ordinance, hard surfacing within 50 ft. of shoreline 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;
The Planning Board opened a public hearing on the Site plan application on 03/20/2018 and
continued the public hearing to 03/20/2018, 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
03/20/2018;
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 23-2018 MARK REYNOLDS. Introduced by David Deeb
who moved for its adoption;
Per the draft provided by staff conditioned upon the following conditions:
1) Waivers requestrg anted:
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.
h) Site Plan to be submitted by a licensed engineer with proposed new conditions shown,
including
landscaping.
i) Permeable surface to be used in lieu of concrete for patio, stairs and retaining wall.
Motion seconded by Jamie White. Duly adopted this 20th day of March, 2018 by the following
vote:
°10
03/20/2018)
MR. DEEB-Conditioned on the following, Item H, Site Plan to be submitted by a licensed
engineer with proposed new conditions shown, including landscaping, and Item I, Permeable
pavers to be used in lieu of concrete for patio, stairs, and retaining wall.
MS. WHITE-Can I just amend that to permeable surface and not necessarily permeable pavers.
MR. DEEB-Sure. That's better.
MS. WHITE-Because there's a lot of options.
MR. TRAVER-Yes, good point. That gives them even more flexibility.
MR. DEEB-Amended to be I, permeable surface to be used in lieu of concrete for stairs, patio
and retaining wall.
AYES: Mr. Deeb, Ms. White, Mr. Shafer, Mr. Hunsinger, Mr. Magowan, Mr. Valentine, Mr.
Traver
NOES: NONE
MR. TRAVER-All right. Hopefully you're all set.
MR. REYNOLDS-Thank you.
MR. DEEB-Good luck.
MR. REYNOLDS-Thank you.
MR. TRAVER-All right. Next on our agenda is Tyler Lingel, Subdivision Preliminary Stage 1-
2018 and Subdivision Final Stage 2-2018.
SUBDIVISION PRELIMINARY STAGE 1-2018 SUBDIVISION FINAL STAGE 2-2018 SEAR
TYPE: TYPE II. TYLER LINGEL. AGENT(S): VANDUSEN & STEVES LAND
SURVEYORS. OWNER(S): TIMOTHY & SHARON MONAHAN. ZONING: HILAND PUD.
LOCATION: ROCKWELL ROAD. APPLICANT PROPOSES A TWO LOT SUBDIVISION
OF A 62.9 ACRE PARCEL — LOT A TO BE 5.0 ACRES AND LOT B TO BE 57.9 ACRES.
CONSTRUCTION OF A SINGLE FAMILY HOME ON LOT A TO TIE INTO EXISTING
UTILITIES AND HAVE ACCESS ON OVERLOOK DRIVE. PURSUANT TO CHAPTER 183
OF THE ZONING ORDINANCE, SUBDIVISION OF LAND SHALL BE SUBJECT TO
PLANNING BOARD REVIEW AND APPROVAL. CROSS REFERENCE: TOWN BOARD
RES. 224,2017; PUD 1-87; SUB 3-2014; BP 2015-139. WARREN CO. REFERRAL: N/A.
LOT SIZE: 62.9 ACRES. TAX MAP NO. 290.9-1-4. SECTION: CHAPTER 183.
ANDREW STEVES, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT
MR. TRAVER-Good evening.
MR. STEVES-Good evening.
MR. TRAVER-Laura?
MRS. MOORE-This application is for a two lot subdivision of a 62.9 acre parcel. Lot A is to be
5 acres and Lot B is the remaining 57.9 acres. For construction of a single family home on the
five acre lot, utilities and the access will be tied into Overlook Drive. This was part of the Hiland
Park PUD and the Town Board looked at it for consistency and approved it for consistency to
add a residential use. The applicant is before the Board for Preliminary and Final and they've
requested a waiver from Sketch Plan.
MR. TRAVER-Okay. Thank you. State your name for the record and tell us about your
project.
MR. STEVES-Andrew Steves with VanDusen and Steves representing Tyler Lingel. We're
here for a two lot subdivision in the Hiland Park PUD. The new proposed house meets all the
proposed setbacks and the drive will face Overlook Drive. It was deemed consistent with the
PUD by the Town Board and we're asking the Board for Preliminary and Final subdivision
approval.
03/20/2018)
MR. TRAVER-Okay. My first reaction when I looked at it is it looked like something that we
haven't seen too much of lately, that's a flagged lot. Laura, isn't that something, am I
misreading the?
MRS. MOORE-To me it's an existing flagged lot.
MR. TRAVER-Okay. So it's not creating one.
MRS. MOORE-It's not creating one.
MR. TRAVER-Okay. That was my first reaction. Otherwise it seems pretty straightforward.
MR. STEVES-You can see at the bottom, too, there's a 50 foot easement for ingress and
egress as well.
MR. TRAVER-Okay. Very good. Questions, comments from members of the Planning Board
before we go to public hearing on this application?
MR. MAGOWAN-Haven't we worked on this before?
MR. VALENTINE-Yes, that's what I was wondering, too.
MR. MAGOWAN-We had another one on Rockwell.
MR. STEVES-1 don't believe so.
MR. HUNSINGER-It was across the street.
MR. MAGOWAN-That's what I thought it was across the street.
MR. VALENTINE-But there's a difference in acreage here that didn't make it, that's what I was
wondering, because the area map of the tax map showing in the upper right corner says 67.6
acres. Yet the application's coming in with 62.9 acres. So I'm just wondering what's the
reflection? There's a difference, obviously in their five acres. It doesn't include the five acres
being taken out now. So is this a tax map you grabbed that is recent?
MR. STEVES-Yes, this is a recent tax map.
MR. VALENTINE-So is the parcel 67 acres or is it 62?
MRS. MOORE-I'm just looking. So Matt has it as 62.9, and our GIS system has it as 67.61.
So the survey is more accurate than our GIS. We always take the survey.
MR. TRAVER-Okay. So the 62 is what we should be considering.
MR. VALENTINE-That's what it is?
MR. STEVES-Yes.
MR. TRAVER-Interesting. And on the front of your Staff Notes it says Unlisted but it's actually
Type 11 SEAR.
MRS. MOORE-Well, what it is is there's no further SEQR review necessary. The resolutions
have addressed that in both the Preliminary and the Final Stage.
MR. TRAVER-Okay.
MR. VALENTINE-When you were talking about flag lots before, what is the definition in the
Town for a flagged lot?
MR. TRAVER-I'm not sure, to be honest with you. Chris might know.
MR. HUNSINGER-1 don't know if there is a definition.
MR. TRAVER-It's more of a descriptor than a, you know what I mean?
MR. VALENTINE-Some municipalities say 40 feet, and then.
03/20/2018)
MR. TRAVER-Okay. There may be such a regulation but in this case we're dealing with a, if it
is such, a pre-existing, nonconforming lot. So this application is not, therefore, creating a
flagged lot.
MR. VALENTINE-And if it was a flagged lot it would still have frontage, enough frontage on the
other road, even if this was the, if this was the stem, 78 feet width. Okay.
MR. TRAVER-Any other questions from the members of the Planning Board before we go to
public hearing?
MR. MAGOWAN-Lot B goes all the way back over to Sunnyside Road. Correct?
MR. VALENTINE-That's what I was saying with the frontage, yes.
MR. HUNSINGER-Yes.
MR. MAGOWAN-So it has frontage on one side, and we've got plenty of frontage for Lot A.
Correct?
MR. TRAVER-Yes.
MR. HUNSINGER-So is there any particular reason why you're leaving the frontage on
Rockwell Road for the larger lot?
MR. VALENTINE-Future access to something over here.
MR. HUNSINGER-Well, wouldn't you go this way? Wouldn't you go off Overlook Drive?
MR. STEVES-That I'm not sure of. I would have to check on that but I would assume that's just
to explore options for driveways in the future.
MR. HUNSINGER-Okay.
MR. STEVES-Because it does front on two different roads.
MR. HUNSINGER-Yes.
MR. TRAVER-Yes, I guess there'd be.
MR. MAGOWAN-Wouldn't you rather have your address Overlook Drive instead of Rockwell
Road?
MR. TRAVER-From the marketing perspective. Anything else before we go to public hearing?
Okay. Then we'll go ahead and open the public hearing on this application. Is there anyone in
the audience that wants to address the Planning Board on this application? Seeing none,
Laura, are there any written comments?
PUBLIC HEARING OPENED
MRS. MOORE-There's no written comments.
MR. TRAVER-Okay. Then we'll go ahead and close the public hearing.
PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED
MR. TRAVER-We don't have to take any additional SEQR action on this. Do you have
anything else to add?
MR. STEVES-No.
MR. TRAVER-Okay.
MR. HUNSINGER-1 do have a question. So on your Site Plan you show a clearing plan.
MR. STEVES-Yes.
MR. HUNSINGER-How accurate is that?
03/20/2018)
MR. STEVES-We're leaving that for the future site plan when we're building the house.
MR. HUNSINGER-Well the house wouldn't come back for Site Plan.
MRS. MOORE-So the clearing limits wouldn't extend beyond that.
MR. STEVES-They wouldn't extend beyond that, no.
MR. HUNSINGER-Okay.
MR. TRAVER-All right. Are we ready to move forward or do we have additional questions?
Okay. I guess we're ready.
RESOLUTION APPROVING PRELIM. STAGE SUB # 1-2018 TYLER LINGEL
A subdivision application has been made to the Queensbury Planning Board for the following:
Applicant proposes a two lot subdivision of a 62.9 acre parcel — Lot A to be 5.0 acres and Lot B
to be 57.9 acres. Construction of a single family home on Lot A to tie into existing utilities and
have access on Overlook Drive. Pursuant to Chapter 183 of the Zoning Ordinance, subdivision
of land shall be subject to Planning Board review and approval.
Pursuant to relevant sections of the Town of Queensbury Zoning Code-Chapter A-183, the
Planning Board has determined that this proposal satisfies the requirements as stated in the
Zoning Code;
Whereas, the final environmental impact statement on the Hiland Park Planned Development
Zone ("PUD") zoning change was accepted by Town Board Resolution No. 212-87 on
07/02/1987, pursuant to the requirements of the State Environmental Quality Review Act
(SEQRA), and the Town Board affirmed this proposed project on 08/7/2017, finding it to be
consistent with the Hiland PUD;
A public hearing was scheduled and held on 03/20/2018;
This application is supported with all documentation, public comment, and application material
in the file of record;
MOTION TO APPROVE SUBDIVISION PRELIMINARY STAGE 1-2018 TYLER LINGEL.
Introduced by David Deeb who moved for its adoption.
Motion seconded by Brad Magowan. Duly adopted this 20th day of March, 2018 by the following
vote:
AYES: Ms. White, Mr. Shafer, Mr. Hunsinger, Mr. Magowan, Mr. Valentine, Mr. Deeb, Mr.
Traver
NOES: NONE
MR. TRAVER-All right. Now we move to Final if we're ready.
RESOLUTION APPROVING FINAL STAGE SUB #2-2018 TYLER LINGEL
A subdivision application has been made to the Queensbury Planning Board for the following:
Applicant proposes a two lot subdivision of a 62.9 acre parcel — Lot A to be 5.0 acres and Lot B
to be 57.9 acres. Construction of a single family home on Lot A to tie into existing utilities and
have access on Overlook Drive. Pursuant to Chapter 183 of the Zoning Ordinance, subdivision
of land shall be subject to Planning Board review and approval.
Pursuant to relevant sections of the Town of Queensbury Zoning Code-Chapter A-183, the
Planning Board has determined that this proposal satisfies the requirements as stated in the
Zoning Code;
A public hearing was scheduled and held on 03/20/2018;
This application is supported with all documentation, public comment, and application material
in the file of record;
MOTION TO APPROVE SUBDIVISION FINAL STAGE 2-2018 TYLER LINGEL. Introduced by
David Deeb who moved for its adoption.
03/20/2018)
1. The requirements of the State Environmental Quality Review AGt have been Gensid
and the Planning Beard has adopted a SEQR4 Negative Declaration• and if the
�crvP-c "yc�rrv-�v�..vrurazrvr� cr-rr
application is a modification, the requirements of the State Environmental Quality
Review Act have been considered, and the proposed modification[s] do not result
in any new or significantly different environmental impacts, and, therefore, no
further SEQRA review is necessary;
2. Waiver requestsrg anted: stormwater mgmt., grading, landscaping & lighting plans;
3. The limits of clearing will constitute a no-cut buffer zone, orange construction fencing
shall be installed around these areas and field verified by Community Development staff
4. Engineering sign-off required prior to signature of Planning Board Chairman.
5. The applicant must submit a copy of the following to the Town:
a) The project NOI (Notice of Intent) for coverage under the current NYSDEC
SPDES General Permit or for coverage under an individual SPDES prior to
the start of any site work.
b) The project NOT (Notice of Termination) upon completion of the project; and
6. The applicant must maintain on their project site, for review by staff:
a) The approved final that have been stamped by the Town Zoning
Administrator. These plans must include the project SWPPP (Storm
Water Pollution Prevention Plan) when such a plan was prepared and
approved; and
b) The project NOI and proof of coverage under the current NYSDEC
SPDES General Permit, or an individual SPDES permit issued for the
project.
7. Final approved plans, in compliance with the Subdivision, must be submitted to the
Community Development Department before any further review by the Zoning
Administrator or Building and Codes personnel.
8. The applicant must meet with Staff after approval and prior to issuance of Building
Permit and/or the beginning of any site work.
9. Subsequent issuance of further permits, including building permits is dependent on
compliance with this and all other conditions of this resolution;
10.As-built plans to certify that the subdivision is developed according to the approved
plans to be provided prior to issuance of the certificate of occupancy;
Motion seconded by John Shafer. Duly adopted this 20th day of March, 2018 by the following
vote:
AYES: Mr. Shafer, Mr. Hunsinger, Mr. Magowan, Mr. Valentine, Mr. Deeb, Ms. White, Mr.
Traver
NOES: NONE
MR. TRAVER-All right. You're all set. Good luck.
MR. STEVES-Thank you.
MR. TRAVER-All right. Next on our agenda is Tabassum Sheikh, Site Plan Modification 22-
2018. This is a modification to an existing approved Site Plan.
SITE PLAN MODIFICATION 22-2018 SEAR TYPE: UNLISTED. TABASSUM SHEIK.
OWNER(S): ASAD PETROLEUM INC. ZONING: NC. LOCATION: 985 STATE ROUTE
149. APPLICANT PROPOSES MODIFICATION TO FUEL CANOPIES AND BUILDING
LIGHTING. LIGHTING CHANGES INCLUDE NUMBER OF LIGHTS, FIXTURES AND
BRIGHTNESS. PURSUANT TO CHAPTER 179-9-120 OF THE ZONING ORDINANCE,
MODIFICATIONS TO AN EXISTING SITE PLAN SHALL BE SUBJECT TO PLANNING
BOARD REVIEW AND APPROVAL. CROSS REFERENCE: SP 36-2015, SP PZ 157-2016,
SV 2-2018, MULTIPLE SP, BP, SP. WARREN CO. REFERRAL: MARCH 2018. SITE
INFORMATION: APA. LOT SIZE: 3.63 ACRES. TAX MAP NO. 266.3-1-78. SECTION:
179-9-120.
'115
03/20/2018)
TOBY SHEIKH, PRESENT
MR. TRAVER-Laura?
MRS. MOORE-Okay. So I'm just going to highlight the Site Lighting section of the Staff Notes.
The revised lighting plan shows the following: Gas canopy was approved for 3 fixtures with
less than 10 foot candles and installed was 8 fixtures with an average foot candle of 29 Diesel
canopy was approved for 4 fixtures with less than 10 foot candles and installed was 6 fixtures
with an average of 23. Wall lights were approved with a down cast fixture for 4 fixtures and
installed non cutoff/semi cutoff type fixtures and 7 of them. The applicant has indicated the
lighting additions are for visibility for the customer at the drive-thru, fuel canopy area, and the
building front access.
MR. TRAVER-Okay. Thank you. Good evening.
MR. SHEIKH-Good evening. My name is Toby "Tabassum" Sheikh. I own the Queensbury
Truck Stop and originally I started this paperwork in 2015 and Hill Electric, the supplier, they
designed a lighting diagram and at that time they didn't have the Dunkin Donuts drive-thru
window and the gas storage and the gas station lighting, the canopy lighting was, they designed
it just for a regular gas station. Now it's really a big gas station and it needed, each canopy has
like four dispensers with eight pumping positions and each pumping positions needs the one
light. So that's, because they didn't design it right to start with and the same thing with the
diesel canopy. There's six pumping positions. Each pumping position needs its own light.
And the building lights, when we added the drive-thru window and the storage room, so it
needed more lights. So in the Planning Board I submitted the diagram has more lights, but in
order to, they installed less lights. So I gave them a copy of what I submitted for the building
lights. So the building lights are less lights and still actually the front of the building doesn't
have enough sufficient light actually, and also my canopies are, they have a longer walking
distance from the pumps to the building. So we needed more lights. So that's why we have
these lights in there. So there's a big walking distance from the pump to the building. So for
customer safety we need more light.
MR. TRAVER-A couple of questions. Did you say that the lights on the building, that are the
non-downcast, we had approved four and this says seven. Did you say there are not, there are
less than seven or there are seven?
MR. SHEIKH-My architect designed the building drawing. I gave a copy to Laura which has a
lot more than seven actually.
MR. TRAVER-More than seven. So what was submitted to us when we did the original Site
Plan Review back in 2015, did that show seven or four?
MR. SHEIKH-That showed four.
MR. TRAVER-That showed four. Okay. The next question I have is you mentioned the
distance between the canopy and the building. Has that distance been increased since we
looked at this application in 2015?
MR. SHEIKH-The distance is the same. Like it was in the design by Hill Electric, the supplier.
MR. TRAVER-Sure. Okay. So I'm sure there'll be comments from other members of the
Planning Board. For me there's basically three, I see three issues, well there's actually four.
One would be the increase in the number of fixtures. Second would be the moving from the cut
off fixtures to the non cut off fixtures, and the third, so I guess it is only three. The third would
be the 300% increase in the amount of lighting. I could see potentially, having some
understanding or appreciating the need for a greater number of fixtures, even though you didn't
request those in your original application, but I don't think I can live with a 300% increase above
what we approved in the lighting, and I think that the downcast fixtures are a matter of Town
Code. So those two issues, you're going to have a hard time moving me off those two issues,
but let's hear what other members of the Planning Board feel, and we also have a public
hearing on this application later. I'll open it up to other comments from members of the
Planning Board.
MR. HUNSINGER-So the issue that I have is when we you were here we talked about the
Stewart's across the street as being a good example and a good model, and I think I even said
as long as you can keep it within that you'll be fine. So, I mean, I don't personally have a
problem that you went above the 10, but what's there is significantly brighter than what
Stewart's has across the street, and that was something that we specifically wanted to avoid.
'16
03/20/2018)
Because we don't want to get into a, you know, this side of the street's brighter than the other
side so it draws your attention there. We don't want to get into a lighting war you're fighting
over for customers', you know, attention. So one of the things that I did, in looking at this, is I
had actually saved the lighting plan from Stewart's. Their average foot candles under their gas
canopy is 19.99 and yours is at 29. So there's a significant difference which is, you know,
visual as well as in numbers.
MR. SHEIKH-On that point it is, we have the same number of pumps. They have eight pumps.
I have the same, but their canopy size is lesser length than mine. So that's why I need more
light actually. And then also my canopies are a little bit wider than theirs, more distance.
MR. TRAVER-Actually that makes it worse, because you have not only 300% increase in
lighting, but you have it over a bigger area.
MR. SHEIKH-But it has to cover, the number of lights are the same. Actually they have eight
lights, I have eight lights for the gas canopy, but my canopy is a little bit longer, actually, wider
because it has to cover more area. That's why.
MR. TRAVER-So when we looked at this and approved it we talked about covering that bigger
area with 10 foot candles, acknowledging, we looked at the area, the size of your canopy. You
said it hadn't changed, the distance from the building hadn't changed. We discussed at length,
at length the lighting, because of the rural nature of the area, the example across the street, and
what was approved was a third of what's installed. So again, at least for me personally, it's not
so much the sheer number of lights, it's the candle power. So if you turn that candle power
down to what we approved, you would still have the distribution of light. It just wouldn't be
300% more than we approved.
MR. SHEIKH-Yes, that can be done, but I mean the distance from the gas pump to the building
is a very long distance.
MR. TRAVER-But it's the same as the distance we discussed when you were here and we
granted approval for your plan. Right? Other members of the Planning Board have questions,
comments?
MR. SHAFER-1 just have a question, how it would compare to the Adirondack Bar & Grill across
the road, which is way too bright.
MR. SHEIKH-Way too bright.
MR. SHAFER-Way too bright. It's almost blinding to motorists.
MR. TRAVER-Yes, I don't know that we have data on that, and their site plan hasn't been
updated in quite a while.
MR. MAGOWAN-Also, too, you're talking two different identities here. You need some visuals
underneath the pump from where the cash registers are located for safety of the people and the
safety between the pumps and the building.
MR. TRAVER-Right.
MR. MAGOWAN-1 didn't find it overly intrusive, you know, checking it out at night. It's a little bit
brighter than the 10 candle watts, but I look more at safety and it is quite a rural area and it's
pretty dark out there without the lights.
MR. TRAVER-Well, again, we looked at that. The layout of the distances, the size of the
canopy has not changed from the discussion that we had with this project when we approved
one third the amount of light.
MR. MAGOWAN-Well that's true, but as it was stated, you know, it was understated for the
amount of light and then they found out afterwards they had to add more.
MR. TRAVER-Well, I can understand possibly adding additional numbers of fixtures, but that
doesn't mean that you need to turn up the actual brightness. You can add more fixtures and
have more uniform coverage, but at the approved level. Adding more fixtures, and I'm sure
you're aware of this. Adding more fixtures doesn't necessarily that you're increasing the
brightness by 300%. 1 mean, you can keep it at the same lighting level and just add better
coverage so you have more uniform and what might be perceived as safer and more consistent
lighting, but still at the approved level. Am I wrong?
,1.7
03/20/2018)
MR. MAGOWAN-No. I see what you're saying, but I mean also, too, is, you know, if I'm looking
at this chart right here, I mean the spill off from the canopy is just past his doorway going into
the building. So he's got the outside wall lights, and I look at the spill off, you know, you've got
the truck coming in around here, I mean you've got the spill off that goes to zero, and then
you've got out to the road and you're a .0 out on the road and you're pushing some soft
numbers on the back side of the lot, but I mean, you know, overall he's got his concentrated
light right in the middle.
MR. SHEIKH-And in front of the building lights, the wall lights, they put that recessed light under
the corridor. So that won't, any lights at all.
MR. TRAVER-So that's downcast.
MR. SHEIKH-Downcast.
MR. TRAVER-Okay.
MR. SHEIKH-So the building.
MR. TRAVER-Well we're not concerned about that. We're concerned about the ones that were
approved to be downcast and evidently what was installed was not what was approved. It was
not the cut off fixture. That's the concern.
MR. VALENTINE-And that's the case on the side of the building, and I was going through the
other night with the drive-thru lights and I can see the purpose of, you know, they aren't
downcast, and they do come out towards where that driver's going to be because that's where
the sign is for ordering, and you can look and see, okay, I don't know if you moved the location
of the lighting or whatever, because it is pointed out at an angle where that driver is. Coming
around the back, the only concern I looked at in the back was if there should ever be somebody
on the back side, on the north side of that building at some point for those lights back there.
Because you're right, the lights underneath the walkway going into the building, they don't pose
any kind of a problem. As you said, they're not the issue here.
MR. TRAVER-Right.
MR. VALENTINE-So they weren't bad, but on the one side, just on the drive-thru side as you're
going on the side and around the corner, they're bright and they shine out.
MR. TRAVER-Yes.
MR. VALENTINE-And I don't know what that looks like from across the street, but I think the
point is, too, as far as the restaurant across the street, there's a big difference in the brightness
between the two.
MR. TRAVER-Yes. Well they're not in front of us this evening, and I would suspect that when
they are, and they will be at some point, we will need to address that.
MR. SHEIKH-Over on that street, if you look at the Stewart's in the nighttime and my building,
mine looks a little darker because it's the lighting, the way they designed it, it's not, Stewart's
looks brighter with all the lights and a smaller place. So they look a lot brighter than mine.
Again, if you guys can walk over there in the nighttime you'll see in front of the building there's
not enough light. In front of the building is the downcast. They don't spread out at all.
MR. TRAVER-We do have a public hearing on this application. Are there any other questions
before the applicant before we go to the public hearing? I'm not hearing any. We'll open the
public hearing and ask if there's anyone in the audience that's here to discuss this application
with the Planning Board this evening? I'm not seeing anyone. Laura, are there any written
comments?
PUBLIC HEARING OPENED
MRS. MOORE-Yes, there's one written comment. This is from Brian Farrell "Planning Board, I
am opposed to any additional lighting, fixtures, especially brightness on the location
modification. I am in Florida and unable to attend the meeting. My property is 1041 Rt. 149.
Thank you, Brian Farrell"
MR. TRAVER-So they must be the neighbors to the north I would assume.
'18
03/20/2018)
MR. SHEIKH-No, it's on the east side and between myself and him is the Diner on the Fort Ann
side. Actually I can use my whole property.
MR. TRAVER-They may be concerned not with direct lighting but with what we call light
pollution, sort of indirect, how it makes the sky, you know, not as dark. If you go out and you
like to see the stars. If you have something like this, an increase of 300% in light it tends to
brighten the whole sky in that area.
MR. SHEIKH-The building fixture is only three lights on this side, towards the east side, and
actually the one is facing towards east and the other two are facing towards south on the east
side of the building actually. So they're not adding together the lumens, because there's a
storage room in front of it and that faces the diesel canopy. The other one faces at the corner,
it doesn't add up anyway, and they're not really up there. They're just for the customers.
MR. TRAVER-All right. So your position is that your application as it stands before us now,
you're not offering any modifications to what you're proposing in this request.
MR. SHEIKH-The only suggestion I can make, it's going to increase the lighting for customer
safety. That's why.
MR. TRAVER-Again, understood, and I know I'm sounding like a broken record, but we
discussed this at length with the exact same application, other than the change in lighting.
MR. HUNSINGER-Well, the issue that I have is every gas station application that comes before
us says the same thing. I mean I hear what you're saying, but you have one right across the
street that's lighting is two-thirds what yours is. So does that make Stewart's unsafe and yours
safer?
MR. SHEIKH-No, because their property is smaller and mine is three times bigger and my
walking distance between the canopy is at least three times longer than their walking distance.
They're walk is about 20 feet and mine is almost 200, 300 feet from the gas pumps to the
building. Theirs is only the front of the building 30 feet maybe, and mine is almost 300 feet.
MR. TRAVER-Most of that 300 feet is under direct lighting.
MR. HUNSINGER-I didn't get out of my car and walk around. I just drove under the lights, but I
guess I kind of thought we would get some sort of compromise.
MR. TRAVER-Yes, I'm not hearing any suggestions.
MR. MAGOWAN-Toby, what are the lights that are underneath the canopies now? Do you
know the wattage of those?
MRS. MOORE-I mean the average of the canopies is in the 20's.
MR. MAGOWAN-Well, no, I want to know what the wattage is.
MR. TRAVER-I think if we're talking about trying to offer some kind of a compromise I think we
don't want to use apples and oranges here. So I think if we're talking about numbers and
talking about a compromise, I think we need to talk about foot candles. We're at basically 30
now. We approved 10. So if we want to talk about a compromise, we know that Stewart's
across the road, thanks to Chris' work, is 19. The other thing I would offer to the applicant is I
understand where you're coming from in terms of the numbers and the candle power. I think
it's been a matter of my experience, and I've spent a lot of time in the outdoors camping and all
of that kind of thing. And I think you will find that even if you were to drop your plan level down
to 10 foot candles, you wouldn't notice it that much dimmer than what you have now. I think it's
a false premise that going to 300% of a given setting is going to appear, for function, that much
brighter. That's not my experience, but I'm not a lighting engineer. So that's just a matter of
my experience.
MR. SHEIKH-If you want to see if it makes a big difference, if I drop the lights, no lights between
the diesel canopy and the gas canopy, and then you will see it more darker, more unsafe.
Otherwise I'm okay if it makes this workable. I'm okay with that, but I think you guys can check
it out, see the differences. It's not the ones for traffic. It's the facing down ones. Just enough
lights between the diesel and the gas canopy so the people can see. There's not much light. I
can increase the candles, but it's going to be darker. There's not enough right now as it is.
'19
03/20/2018)
MR. DEEB-Well, light pollution is a very sensitive subject. You walk a fine line herewith that. I
understand you need to have more light, but I think if we can get to a compromise, we can
probably go with more lights and lessen some of the foot candles and the lumens come down
so that you can get pretty much what you need without increasing the light pollution that much.
So I really think we.
MR. SHEIKH-The number of lights might not work that much because there's a gas canopy,
there's a diesel canopy, and the building is away. So there's no place where you can add more
lights. It's just the canopy as itself and the gas canopy itself and the building is away.
Increasing the lights is enough between the two canopies.
MR. TRAVER-Well let me throw this out there, just let me offer this as a compromise for
everyone to consider. I would say we approve 10. We know that across the street is 19 and
in our initial conversation we sort of held that up as an example as something that people had
commented on as being an appropriate amount of light, and we did say that at least one
comment was that it should not be any brighter than that. So what I would be willing to go
along with is almost doubling what our initial approval was and allow you to go from 10 to 19
foot candles. That's almost double what we approved. I would accept the increase in the
number of fixtures. However, I would want the wall lights changed to the approved cut off
fixtures and not be non cut off fixtures. So that would be, I'll just throw that out there for people
to digest. That would be a compromise that I would be, I don't want to say comfortable with,
but it's one that I would approve.
MR. MAGOWAN-All right. So let me get this straight. The only place where we've got like 29
is right underneath the canopy, because right outside the canopy it drops. Correct?
MRS. MOORE-Yes.
MR. HUNSINGER-Well, the maximum is 47.
MRS. MOORE-Right. So with Stewart's I did bring the Stewart's plans and correct it's 19 at its
highest, at its max, but the average under the canopy is 14.
MR. HUNSINGER-Okay.
MR. TRAVER-The average is 14. Okay.
MR. MAGOWAN-That's what it says on the plans. Right?
MR. TRAVER-Yes, the average is 14.
MR. TRAVER-All right. So that would be, again, I would be, it would be acceptable to me if the
average on those two were the same, or this was no larger than an average of 14. That would
go back to our original discussion and what we approved is actually less than that.
MR. MAGOWAN-All right. So what do we do about the walkway from there to the building
now?
MS. WHITE-Well he's got more numbers. He's got more lights.
MR. TRAVER-Yes, what we did about that is we increased the number of fixtures.
MR. MAGOWAN-Well he's got them now.
MS. WHITE-Right.
MS. WHITE-And we're going to say, okay, we'll accept that.
MR. MAGOWAN-But if we're cutting 15 candle lights out.
MR. TRAVER-We're almost doubling what we approved. We're going from 10 to 19.
MS. WHITE-19 or 14?
MR. TRAVER-14.
MR. MAGOWAN-So I guess my concern is the walkway going from here to the building. If
there's not enough out there, how do we correct that problem?
03/20/2018)
MR. TRAVER-Has that changed since the original application, that walkway?
MR. SHEIKH-We had a condition to have the lights outside and my building in the front is facing
down now. So it doesn't have any lights in the parking lot. Then you have to allow me to put
more lights on the building.
MR. TRAVER-Okay. So it sounds like we're moving toward a new plan then. I mean I was
thinking we could just adjust the wattage or the bulbs and the fixtures, but it sounds like we're
going to need a whole new.
MR. MAGOWAN-Yes, see if you lower that down your spill offs going to be a little bit less going
through the building which he's already saying it's dark now, which I concur on that, it is dark.
So you know what do you do?
MR. TRAVER-So we're going to need a new lighting plan.
MRS. MOORE-So the wall lights.
MR. HUNSINGER-Yes, we were just looking at the plan you passed out this evening that shows
lights that go all the way at the end of the building, but your plan.
MRS. MOORE-Those are recessed lights, the ones that are under the canopy. Those aren't
the wall lights.
MR. HUNSINGER-But the lighting plan doesn't show any lighting.
MR. SHEIKH-This one has, in front of the building there's two facing up, and now these are all
facing down, these very dim lights. So now from here to there it's dark. It's not very light, and
these are the candles also covering these lights, and this is one that's only in front of the
storage room and it shoots out here and this shoots out here, and these are the, we installed
only three lights instead of three, four, five, six. So there's only three lights over here right now,
and over here like I said there's a big distance here, and these lights also cover this area, all off
of that. These lights are facing down right now.
MR. HUNSINGER-So that plan in your left hand is not what.
MR. SHEIKH-This was submitted to the Planning Board, the Building Department and they all
looked at it.
MR. HUNSINGER-So that wasn't what you built.
MR. SHEIKH-As built is lesser than this.
MR. HUNSINGER-Yes. Okay.
MR. SHEIKH-It's more than this and lesser than this.
MR. HUNSINGER-Right. Okay.
MR. TRAVER-All right. So it sounds like we need a new lighting plan then I guess. We need
to, he's going to need to re-consider the fixtures. I mean I'm not a lighting engineer. So I
can't, I mean I understand what he's saying, but I can't, I don't know if that's valid or not. All I
know is the numbers that I have in front of me from Staff Notes telling me that it's 300% over
what's approved. And I'm trying to come up with a solution here but it sounds like it's not going
to be easy. I was thinking that we could just lower the numbers but it sounds like it's more
complicated than that. So we're going to need another plan. If the original plan wasn't
adequate for the lighting to begin with, then just, that's, I guess kind of what proves the problem
with this is just increasing the wattage doesn't solve a problem if the original design was not
adequate to address the dark areas. So that's what we need to address.
MR. SHAFER-Mr. Chairman, could we set a foot candle minimum and maximum on the site and
let a lighting engineering designer.
MR. HUNSINGER-The Code does that. There's a min/max.
MR. TRAVER-Yes, that and our original approval did that.
03/20/2018)
MR. SHAFER-But it sounds like we want to increase the numbers a little bit.
MR. TRAVER-The applicant does, we don't.
MR. MAGOWAN-Sometimes I don't always agree with the Code because we've got to also take
into consideration the safety measure here.
MR. TRAVER-Well that's where the lighting engineer comes in, because they're going to say
okay it's fine over here but over here it's too dark so we need to put another fixture there which
they can certainly do as long as it's not, you know, 300% of what's approved. I mean, they can
keep it what's approved and just add another fixture to cover that.
MR. MAGOWAN-So where do these numbers of 29 and that come from?
MR. TRAVER-From the submitted, the proposed modification to the Site Plan that we're looking
at tonight.
MR. MAGOWAN-And who drew up these?
MR. SHEIKH-That was in 2015 when I was submitting. The first time building so I didn't have
all my numbers together, things together. So I went the way, so I got the lighting fixture
diagram from Hill Electric which is a supplier. They didn't know anything about the gas station
so they just drew one and then after that we added the Dunkin Donut and storage room. So
our architect drew more lights on it.
MR. TRAVER-Didn't Sunoco give you guidance on how they wanted the lighting? No?
MR. SHEIKH-No. On the canopy side and the gas side is the gas installer, pump installer,
which they did Stewart's also they did mine. So they're the one. They came towards the end
of the project when I selected these people. That's when they put their input in. So that's why
it's changed.
MR. TRAVER-Okay. So you're saying even with what you have requested, this 300%
increase, there's still unsafe dark areas.
MR. SHEIKH-There's enough, but it's not very bright. That's what I'm saying. It's enough to
cover it. It's a lot less bright than the Stewart's in between the pumps and the building, and the
Stewart's is a shorter distance so the canopy lights and the buildings are covering making it a lot
brighter. My distance is a long ways so that's why it makes it lighter. It's safe, it's good, but it's
not as bright as the Stewart's is.
MR. HUNSINGER-In some ways, though, you've exacerbated the situation by making it brighter
underneath the canopy. So you're stepping out from a canopy that's brighter and then you're
stepping into an area that's darker.
MR. VALENTINE-The brightness of the canopy is what that neighboring area sees.
MR. TRAVER-Well I'm thinking that John's suggestion might be the best way to go. If we talk
in terms of, which is typically when we have these situations we deal with the foot candle
number and we kind of give some parameters for that, and then the applicant would go back to
the lighting people, whether it be Hill Electric or whatever, and say all right here's what I've got
to work with, make sure that areas are safe and I don't have any, you know, that type of thing.
Because to sit here and just look at these numbers, it's.
MR. SHAFER-I'm lost here.
MR. TRAVER-Yes.
MR. DEEB-Yes, I think we need a lighting engineer to look at it.
MR. TRAVER-I'm not comfortable with this extreme increase in, so that's going to solve your
problem because that would get rid of these dark areas and yet it will lower the volume that's
being.
MR. SHEIKH-The way the design is, the canopy and the building they are so much away from
you can't add, without making a mess, I don't think that we can add more lighting. It looks so
awkward.
03/20/2018)
MR. DEEB-We need an opinion on that.
MR. SHEIKH-I'm just saying adding the canopy lighting means more lighting all facing down
anyway. And then there's only one light here covering this area.
MR. TRAVER-So that may need to change, it sound like. I mean again, I'm not a lighting
engineer, but I'm sure, believe me, we have seen some incredibly huge and small projects, all of
which have been able to be appropriately lighted. So the only thing I can tell you is I'm sure
there's a solution, but a 300% increase over what's approved is not, I don't believe that's a
solution. It's certainly not one that I'm comfortable with.
MR. SHEIKH-Well I can make it 19 on the canopy lights, candles and then leave it as.
MR. VALENTINE-What about the possibility of on the canopy, on the back side of it, if you're out
on 149 looking, on the back side of the canopy.
MR. TRAVER-Toward the building.
MR. VALENTINE-A lighting that faces down towards that dark area between the building and
the canopy and then decrease the lighting from the canopy itself?
MR. MAGOWAN-That's a great idea, but what you're doing is you're adding more lighting.
We're just yelling at him now because he put too many lights in.
MR. VALENTINE-I'm saying it's recognizing the dark spot.
MR. TRAVER-I'm not having a problem necessarily with an increased number.
MR. MAGOWAN-1 like that idea. I mean the simple solution would be to lower the wattage in
the canopy and then putting a, you know, kind of like a parking lot directing light that goes back
toward the building that lights up that walkway. That would be a simple solution. I'd get Scott
right over there and get them right on.
MR. HUNSINGER-Or even a pole on the end of the first parking spot.
MR. SHEIKH-Yes, I think that would work, and I would go with 19. Stewart's has 19 candle
lights or whatever.
MR. TRAVER-Well their average is 14.
MR. SHEIKH-It will do the same thing because the 19 average on the bottom, 14, they have
eight pumps and I have eight pumps. It's the same thing, and actually I wish I knew all that
because I employed the same company who installed theirs and installed mine. Hill Electric
who did their building and their lighting did my lighting, too. The same company would install
the same thing.
MR. TRAVER-The same company was doing the install. Didn't you give them the approved
numbers?
MR. SHEIKH-No. They just installed theirs and I said you're going to put the same thing. I said
okay. It's the same company. They did the construction there and mine, too, and even Hill
Electric which is the building designer they said well we did the lighting over there would you
accept this and I said yes. So it's the same construction company that did both.
MR. TRAVER-Well the numbers do matter.
MR. SHEIKH-So I will do 19. So I will go with that and if it's not enough then I can apply for
more lighting.
MR. TRAVER-Yes, and then the wall lights also need to be the cut off.
MR. SHEIKH-Yes, I'll ask them.
MR. TRAVER-Okay. All right. Well let's throw that out there for members of the Planning
Board. So the applicant is suggesting.
MR. DEEB-I'd like to see a lighting plan.
03/20/2018)
MR. TRAVER-You want to see a formal lighting plan.
MR. DEEB-Yes, I'm just very uncomfortable with throwing numbers out there.
MR. TRAVER-Okay. All right. Well, I mean we're really throwing them back because the
applicant kind of threw the numbers at us. So, you know, like I say, I would be comfortable
with the number of fixtures if we dropped the lighting down to the 14 average or the maximum of
19 and the cut off fixtures were complied with, but I can understand how members of the
Planning Board would feel, would want to see, particularly with the history, would want to see a
lighting plan done before those changes are made. So I'd throw it out to members of the
Board. How do you want to go forward on this?
MS. WHITE-You want to poll?
MR. TRAVER-Yes, I guess I'm going to poll. Do you think, a conditioned approval or do you
want to table and see a lighting plan with new numbers?
MS. WHITE-Start at the end.
MR. MAGOWAN-Well, you know, like I said, I'd like to see a, you know, a simple solution for all
this because I know the expense Toby's gone and put on this. I think that, personally I think
he'd make all the adjustments that are needed to satisfy us. So I don't really need a new
lighting plan.
MR. TRAVER-Okay. So the conditioned approval would be.
MR. MAGOWAN-A conditioned approval would be good with me.
MR. TRAVER-John?
MR. SHAFER-The same with me. We're just, I don't know what the term is here, but we're into
a level of technical sophistication, and a lighting plan will get us the same place.
MR. TRAVER-Yes, I agree, and the expense is unfortunate but if the original plan had been
followed, that would have been the least expensive way to go in my opinion. Jamie, how do you
feel?
MS. WHITE-I'm okay with the conditioned.
MR. TRAVER-The conditioned approval. Okay. How about you guys?
MR. DEEB-I'd like to see a lighting plan.
MR. HUNSINGER-So, you know, I'm always the first to admit when we make mistakes, and
there's two commercial properties that are too dim.
MR. TRAVER-Too dim?
MR. HUNSINGER-Too dim.
MR. TRAVER-Okay.
MR. HUNSINGER-Absolutely. The Stewart's down here on Bay Road.
MS. WHITE-Stewart's.
MR. HUNSINGER-I mean it's really hard to see the driveway when you're driving down Bay
Road at night, at least for me. So I'm the first to say when it's too dim, but, you know, this one's
too bright, and I was really hoping we could find a compromise. The concern that I have with
the conditional approval, and I just would throw out a hypothetical to the Board. What if the
solution, and I'd be okay with this if we review it. What if the solution is to add a lighting pole?
You have a site plan right now that doesn't have any lighting poles. The lighting is on the
building or on the canopies, and maybe the solution is a couple of poles in the parking area.
MR. TRAVER-Yes.
MS. WHITE-So that would come out in a lighting plan?
1:,4
03/20/2018)
MR. TRAVER-Right, in other words he would go back and say look, they want me to lower the
lighting, but then that's going to make this dark area where we've got to fix that, and they would
say we can deal with that by doing X.
MR. HUNSINGER-Yes.
MR. TRAVER-And then we would need to see that.
MR. HUNSINGER-So that would be my concern with a conditional approval. Otherwise I said
before, I don't care that he put in more fixtures. It's the area is going to be so much brighter.
MR. TRAVER-Right. I feel the same way.
MR. VALENTINE-I'd concur with Chris. Because as we were talking, I looked and said what
about lighting on the canopy itself hitting that dark spot between the building.
MR. TRAVER-Yes.
MR. VALENTINE-We're looking at the plan here and a pole light could direct light in that same
area without making the area from out on the road or from across the street in another business
being like you've got a light shed there that's just too bright.
MR. TRAVER-Yes, okay. Well and we've heard the applicant over and over express concern
about certain areas being too dark which does indicate that the original plan may have been
inadequate and just by turning up the volume on the lighting they were hoping that it would be
addressed and apparently it wasn't. So now he's got to tone it down, so a more elaborate plan
may be required beyond what just dimming the existing features. So it's kind of three to three.
MR. HUNSINGER-Yes, I was going to say, I think you're the tie breaker.
MR. TRAVER-So in a three to three, I'm going to. Yes
MR. SHAFER-The three on the other end were in favor of a new lighting plan?
MR. TRAVER-Yes, a more thoughtful opinion.
MS. WHITE-An expert opinion.
MR. TRAVER-Yes.
MR. DEEB-An engineer, a lighting engineer.
MR. TRAVER-Simply because the concern is that simply turning down the brightness is going to
exacerbate one of the main concerns that the applicant came before us tonight concerned with
and thought could be addressed by turning up the lights and it's not, and so now to come into
doubling what was approved is still going to make some areas dark on the one hand. On the
other hand we're pretty confident there's a solution but it's going to require really a professional.
I mean we've gone back and forth with the numbers and well you can do this.
MS. WHITE-But we're not experts.
MR. TRAVER-No. I mean we have some experience but I certainly wouldn't suggest a specific
solution.
MR. SHAFER-If we prescribed a minimum and a maximum and a uniformity.
MR. TRAVER-We wouldn't normally describe a minimum, although I think Code lists a
minimum. Our concern would be a maximum. So I think all we need to worry about is.
MR. SHAFER-But the issue here is uniformity. You've got a dark area and a bright area. I'm
wondering if, in highway lighting, for example, you know the luminaire strengths on both sides.
You know the distance in between, but the importance is not to give the motorists a lot of
brightness and a lot of darkness. It's a uniformity question, and I'm wondering if a solution here
might not be a uniformity of candle powers on the pavement, whether it's under the canopy,
between the canopy and the building, by the building, whatever.
MR. TRAVER-Yes, I understand what you're saying, and that's an admirable goal but again
that's something that a lighting expert.
03/20/2018)
MR. SHAFER-Why not go back to the people that suggested.
MR. MAGOWAN-Excuse me. Toby, what do you feel? Could you go back and get a more
engineered lighting and review it all, get the company that installed them, get Hill Electric over
there and see what you can, if we table it to see what you have so you can come back with a
lighting plan that would make both sides come together with a big smile?
MR. SHEIKH-Yes, I can try, but we can turn the lighting down a little bit and see if it works, and
if it doesn't work, otherwise, as is I am towards the bottom of my money so it's just takes a lot
more expense to get this done.
MR. TRAVER-Yes, and I ironically it would have been less expensive had you just followed the
original.
MR. SHEIKH-This was my first big project so I didn't have all these things.
MR. TRAVER-1 understand. Sure.
MR. SHEIKH-And that's why it created this thing. I can lower the wattage on the canopy and if
it doesn't work, I will go to the lighting engineer and get that.
MR. TRAVER-Yes, because I think, it sounds as though what I'm hearing and thinking, after sort
of trying to take it all in is that ironically you're going to need to add fixtures to what you're
proposing as amended here. Not a matter of brightness but a matter of where, the location not
the brightness. So you can tone down the brightness but have better coverage, as John was
saying. That will give you a solution that will provide you the comfort with how your customers
are going to be in a safe environment when they're at your business, and we will be comfortable
that you're not going to be, and that will save money on energy.
MR. SHEIKH-Actually, yes, it is, like I said I submitted the building fixtures to the Planning
Board. They have more lighting fixtures anyway. Instead of six or seven they put only, Hill
Electric only put three. So that's already approved by you. On the building side. On the
canopy side I'll keep the same fixtures and drop down the lights.
MR. TRAVER-Well, we would be open, or at least again I'm just speaking for myself at this
point, but I would certainly be open, if necessary, for you to even add fixtures as long as the
brightness were to come down to no more than the 19.
MR. SHEIKH-Yes, I will go that way, and then I'll put the building lights, on the east side only
three as in the diagram it's seven of them.
MR. VALENTINE-But it's the use of the cut off lights themselves.
MR. SHEIKH-Yes, the cut off lights.
MR. TRAVER-Okay. Let's see if I understand where we're at. So it sounds as though we're
talking about tabling the application, asking the applicant to go back and discuss the lighting
situation with the designer, coming back with an amended plan that addresses their safety
concerns and reduces the, increases the approved foot candles from the 10 originally approved
to no more than 19. Is that what, are people comfortable with that? Is that where we're at?
MR. VALENTINE-1 believe so.
MR. TRAVER-Okay.
MR. MAGOWAN-You have a binder coat down now and I know you're going to be looking at
some time down the road, and this might be the time, just in case you have to add on, you
know, say a pole light, you know, to spread out to the area.
MR. TRAVER-It could be. You may end up ironically adding beyond what.
MR. MAGOWAN-That's what I'm trying to say by lowering that and trying to keep people safer
you might have to put up a pole light to get what you want, and that's not on your Site Plan. So
you'd have to come back and get approval. So if we table it and you do a little bit of homework
and you come off with a little bit of light meters and make everybody happy, I think it might be
something that I think we all could work with.
1:'6
03/20/2018)
MR. TRAVER-Yes. It sounds like it's going to be the best solution. So we're working on a
motion to that effect.
MR. DEEB-When?
MRS. MOORE-When. So our April agenda is already full. So it would be in May.
MR. TRAVER-Okay. May.
MR. DEEB-Do you know which meeting?
MRS. MOORE-It does not matter which meeting.
MR. TRAVER-It doesn't matter which meeting. So let's make it the first one, and I can tell you
when. May 15th. So May 15tH
RESOLUTION TABLING SP MOD #22-2018 TABASSUM SHEIKH
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 modification to fuel
canopies and building lighting. Lighting changes include number of lights, fixtures and
brightness. Pursuant to Chapter 179-9-120 of the Zoning Ordinance, modifications to an existing
site plan shall be subject to Planning Board review and approval.
MOTION TO TABLE SITE PLAN MODIFICATION 29-2018 TABASSUM (TOBY) SHEIKH,
Introduced by David Deeb who moved for its adoption,
Tabled to May 15, 2018. Including a revised lighting design to be submitted for the building
canopy and lot, entire site, and a maximum of 19 foot candles, and the wall fixtures to be
changed to cut off fixtures.
Motion seconded by Chris Hunsinger. Duly adopted this 20th day of March, 2018, by the
following vote:
MR. DEEB-Tabled to the May 15th, 2018 meeting. With a revised lighting design plan to be
submitted which will include a maximum of 19 foot candles with an average of 14. Possibly
adding fixtures, I can't put that in there.
MR. HUNSINGER-I was going to say what if he can't do that, though? You might be able to do
the average of 19 but not.
MR. TRAVER-Well he did it across the street.
MR. SHEIKH-Right across the street is 19.
MR. TRAVER-You think an average of 19? That's higher than they have across the street.
According to the records.
MR. HUNSINGER-I'd just leave it at that.
MR. TRAVER-An average of 19 or 19.
MR. HUNSINGER-Well it's under the canopy the average.
MR. TRAVER-Okay. So leave it at 19.
MR. DEEB-Without the average?
MR. TRAVER-The building, the wall fixtures to be changed to cut off.
MR. VALENTINE-On the east side.
MR. DEEB-And wall fixtures to be changed to cut off. On what side?
MR. VALENTINE-On the east side, but, Toby, on the back left corner, is that also, is that a cut
off or is that one that's coming out?
03/20/2018)
MR. SHEIKH-The way it looks like if you go over there, it doesn't go beyond my property.
Nothing goes beyond my property. It still slopes towards the ground. So it doesn't go out. It
doesn't go to the neighbors' or outside of my property. If it does help to use the cutoff, they
have a different fixture, I will use it.
MR. VALENTINE-So just say cut off.
MR. SHEIKH-It doesn't go off my property.
MR. DEEB-And wall fixtures be changed to cut off.
MR. TRAVER-All right. Sounds good.
MR. MAGOWAN-Now he also had a Site Plan approved for 10 lights put around his property.
He only put on 3.
MR. SHEIKH-Three, yes.
MR. TRAVER-Well we're asking him to come back with a new plan. So he might have 20, you
know, we don't know. We're concerned with the candle power, not the number of fixtures,
particularly in view of the concern for the size of the site. I don't think the number of fixtures
matters as much as the, I mean, to me, and I'm not hearing other people terribly concerned
about the number. It's really just the volume. So we'll see what they come up with. It'll be
done by the people that know what they're doing.
MR. HUNSINGER-I'll second the motion.
MR. TRAVER-Okay. We have a motion made and seconded. Any comments?
MRS. MOORE-I have just clarification. A lighting plan to be submitted that includes.
MR. TRAVER-A maximum of 19 foot candles.
MRS. MOORE-I guess a revised lighting plan that shows the foot candles of the building, the
canopy and the lot.
MR. TRAVER-Well, isn't that the definition of a lighting plan, though? I mean it's the whole Site
Plan.
MRS. MOORE-Right now I have a lighting plan that shows the canopy and a separate lighting
plan that shows the building, and Stewart's plans it's a lighting plan that shows the entire site.
MR. TRAVER-Okay. So we want to specify we want the entire site.
MRS. MOORE-It would benefit the applicant and the Board to see the entire site because then
we're looking at, we can identify, or the applicant and the lighting individual, can identify areas of
concern, express that information to the Board.
MR. TRAVER-That makes sense. I thought that's what we were asking for.
MR. HUNSINGER-I thought that's what we were asking for, too. No, I'm glad you asked for
that clarification.
MRS. MOORE-You don't have to change your resolution. I just wanted to make sure that the
applicant understands that this is.
MR. TRAVER-Well, let's just amend that one condition.
MR. DEEB-All right. I'm going to read the whole thing again.
MRS. MOORE-Okay.
MR. DEEB-So we get it right. Motion to Table Site Plan Modification 22-2018 for Tabassum
Sheikh, to May 15th, 2018. Including a revised lighting design to be submitted for the building,
canopy, and lot, entire property.
MRS. MOORE-Entire site.
�:"gig
03/20/2018)
MR. DEEB-Entire site, and a maximum of 19 foot candles and the wall fixtures to be changed to
cut off fixtures.
MR. TRAVER-All right. We have an amended motion. Do we have a second?
MR. HUNSINGER-I'll still second it.
MR. TRAVER-All right. We have a motion that's been seconded. Any comments, questions
on the motion? Maria, can we have the vote please.
AYES: Mr. Hunsinger, Mr. Magowan, Mr. Valentine, Mr. Deeb, Ms. White, Mr. Shafer, Mr.
Traver
NOES: NONE
MR. TRAVER-All right. Good luck and thank you for your help in resolving this.
MR. SHEIKH-Thank you.
MR. TRAVER-All right. Next under New Business we have Laura Feathers, Site Plan 19-2018.
SITE PLAN NO. 19-2018 SEAR TYPE: UNLISTED. LAURA FEATHERS. OWNER(S)
GORDON DEVELOPMENT. ZONING: CI. LOCATION: 1500 STATE ROUTE 9.
APPLICANT PROPOSES A 20 FT. X 20 FT. TENT SALE FOR AUGUST 2018, 2019 & 2020.
PURSUANT TO CHAPTER 179-3-040 & 179-9-020 OF THE ZONING ORDINANCE, TENT
SALES IN EXCESS OF A MAXIMUM SEVEN CONSECUTIVE DAYS AND MORE THAN
TWICE A YEAR SHALL BE SUBJECT TO PLANNING BOARD REVIEW AND APPROVAL.
CROSS REFERENCE: SP 9-2015 RENOVATIONS; 2005 TO PRESENT MULTI SSE, SP PZ
102-2016. WARREN COUNTY REFERRAL: MARCH 2018. LOT SIZE: 1.61 ACRES.
TAX MAP NO. 288.12-1-15. SECTION: 179-3-040, 179-9-020.
LAURIE BURNETT, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT
MR. TRAVER-Laura?
MRS. MOORE-so the application is for Family Footwear. The applicant is proposing a tent sale
again for August 2018, 2019, & 2020. The same area of the parking lot that was described in
previous applications. The same size for the tent, and again waivers requested for the typical
grading, lighting, stormwater management.
MR. TRAVER-Okay. Thank you. Good evening.
MS. BURNETT-Good evening. I'm Laurie Burnett, the store manager at Family Footwear.
Laura Feathers is unable to attend. She's out in the Grand Canyon exploring the wilderness.
MR. TRAVER-Well this is like a deja vu. It's that strange feeling that we've been here before.
MR. MAGOWAN-She's off trying out those new shoes.
MS. BURNETT-Yes.
MR. TRAVER-That's good. Now in the past, it doesn't look as though your proposal has
changed from what you've done traditionally pretty much year after year after year, and I think
we generally grant two year approvals, right? So that you could come back every other year
rather than every year.
MS. BURNETT-Yes. Laura was hoping that you could make it three years?
MR. TRAVER-No, I understand, but I'm just saying this is what we've done in the past has been
two.
MS. BURNETT-Yes.
MR. TRAVER-All right. Questions, comments from members of the Planning Board?
MR. DEEB-Time flies.
MR. TRAVER-Time flies. It's amazing. I wouldn't have guessed that it had been two years.
03/20/2018)
MS. BURNETT-Laura and Scott has run the same sales since 2005.
MR. HUNSINGER-1 was going to say, I remember when you were coming every year. Well not
every year.
MR. TRAVER-Yes, I do, too.
MS. BURNETT-Scott and Laura have used the 20 by 20 tent, no electricity. It's quite a
business. It creates enthusiasm for our store sales.
MR. TRAVER-Yes. We do have a public hearing on this application. Do the members of the
Planning Board have any questions before we open it up for a public hearing?
MR. HUNSINGER-No.
MR. VALENTINE-No.
MR. TRAVER-All right. We'll open a public hearing and ask if there's anyone here that wanted
to address the Planning Board regarding this application? I suspect not. Are there any written
comments, Laura?
PUBLIC HEARING OPENED
MRS. MOORE-There are no written comments.
MR. TRAVER-Okay. Then we can close the public hearing.
PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED
MR. TRAVER-This is a SEQR Unlisted. So we have to consider this project under SEQR and
also the request to consider a three year approval rather than a two year approval, and we have
a draft SEQR resolution in our packet. Does anyone feel, in as much as this project hasn't
changed from previous years, that there's any reason to be concerned about environmental
impacts?
MR. MAGOWAN-No.
MR. DEEB-No.
MR. TRAVER-Okay. Then we can do the SEAR.
MR. DEEB-Okay.
RESOLUTION GRANTING A NEGATIVE SEQR DEC. SP # 19-2018 LAURA FEATHERS
The applicant proposes a 20 ft. x 20 ft. tent sale for August 2018, 2019 & 2020. Pursuant to
Chapter 179-3-040 & 179-9-020 of the Zoning Ordinance, tent sales in excess of a maximum
seven consecutive days and more than twice a year 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.
1 Y 0
03/20/2018)
MOTION TO GRANT A NEGATIVE DECLARATION FOR SITE PLAN 19-2018 LAURA
FEATHERS. Introduced by David Deeb 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 20th day of March, 2018 by the following
vote:
AYES: Mr. Magowan, Mr. Valentine, Mr. Deeb, Ms. White, Mr. Shafer, Mr. Hunsinger, Mr.
Traver
NOES: NONE
MR. TRAVER-All right. Then unless anyone has any further questions, I think we're ready to
move forward on another approval resolution. Is there anything specific, Laura, that we need
to, with regard to the three years?
MR. DEEB-It's in the resolution.
MR. TRAVER-Is it in the resolution? I looked for it but I didn't see it. Maybe I'm.
MR. DEEB-It's up top.
MR. TRAVER-Thank you very much. All right. So I guess we're ready to hear that resolution.
RESOLUTION APPROVING SP # 19-2018 LAURA FEATHERS
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 a 20 ft. x 20 ft. tent
sale for August 2018, 2019 & 2020. Pursuant to Chapter 179-3-040 & 179-9-020 of the Zoning
Ordinance, tent sales in excess of a maximum seven consecutive days and more than twice a
year 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 03/20/2018 and
continued the public hearing to 03/20/2018, 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
03/20/2018;
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 19-2018 LAURA FEATHERS. Introduced by David Deeb
who moved for its adoption.
Per the draft provided by staff conditioned upon the following conditions:
1) Waivers requestrg anted:
2) Adherence to the items outlined in the follow-up letter sent with this resolution.
31 °�
03/20/2018)
Motion seconded by Brad Magowan. Duly adopted this 20th day of March, 2018 by the following
vote:
AYES: Mr. Valentine, Mr. Deeb, Ms. White, Mr. Shafer, Mr. Hunsinger, Mr. Magowan, Mr.
Traver
NOES: NONE
MR. TRAVER-You are all set. Good luck.
MS. BURNETT-Thanks.
MR. MAGOWAN-See you in three years.
MR. TRAVER-All right, and the last item we have on our agenda this evening is a Discussion
Item. Discussion Item 1-2018 for Russ Faden.
DISCUSSION ITEM:
DISCUSSION 1-2018 SEAR TYPE II. RUSS FADEN. AGENT(S): LANSING
ENGINEERING. OWNER(S): APERIO PROPERTIES, LLC. ZONING: CI. LOCATION:
870 STATE ROUTE 9. APPLICANT PROPOSES TO TEAR DOWN EXISTING MULTI-SHOP
RETAIL BUILDING AND CONSTRUCT A NEW MULTI-SHOP RETAIL. PROJECT WOULD
INCLUDE A PROPOSED SUBDIVISION OF THE 1.56 ACRE LOT TO TWO LOTS. THE
EXISTING TANNING BUILDING OF 0.14 ACRE WOULD REMAIN AND THE 1.42 ACRE
PARCEL WOULD BE FOR THE NEW MULTI-TENANT BUILDING. PURSUANT TO
CHAPTER 179-9-040 OF THE ZONING ORDINANCE, DISCUSSION WITH THE PLANNING
BOAR MAY BE REQUESTED BY THE APPLICANT. CROSS REFERENCE: SUB 12-2002,
SP 29-2003; SP 55-2011, AV 54-2002; MANY MORE COMM. ALTERATION & SIGN
PERMITS. WARREN CO. REFERRAL: N/A. LOT SIZE: 1.56 ACRES. TAX MAP NO.
296.17-1-51. SECTION: 179-9-040.
SCOTT LANSING, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT; RUSS FADEN, PRESENT
MR. TRAVER-Laura?
MRS. MOORE-The applicant is in for discussion for a couple of items. One item just to
subdivide a 1.56 acre lot into two parcels. One lot would be 0.14 acres and the other lot would
be a 1.42 acre parcel. The project includes a 1.42 acre parcel teardown, re-build of the retail
store there. Constructing an 11,061 square foot multi-use retail building.
MR. TRAVER-Great. Okay. Thank you. Good evening.
MR. FADEN-Good evening.
MR. TRAVER-And I understand you're hoping to coordinate your efforts with the new project
across the street. Correct? Yes, for some fill and so on. Very good.
MR. LANSING-Good evening. My name is Scott Lansing with Lansing Engineering. As was
mentioned we are here tonight for a discussion item. This is the first time we've been before
this Board. I'd like to introduce the project. Also as was mentioned we are in somewhat of a bit
of a hurry in that there is a project across the street that has some fill that might be available for
our project and our project does require some fill. So we're going to work as diligently as we
possibly can to work with this Board to advance the project. We do have some variances, Area
Variances, associated with this project. We would have to go in front of the Zoning Board of
Appeals obviously for consideration of those variances but we wanted to get in front of this
Board to obtain feedback and go to the ZBA and hopefully return back. The project is located
at 870 State Route 9, approximately 1.56 acres. It is zoned Commercial Intensive. There are
two existing buildings on the parcel. I think there is a map right underneath that shows that.
There's one building that's approximately 11,000 square feet. It's a single story commercial
retail building and there are 56 parking stalls associated with that and it's an important number
that I'll get into a little bit later. There's also a 2,111 single story commercial retail building that
is currently a tanning salon in that particular building and there's six parking spaces associated
with that. Aerial photo does a great job of showing the surrounding uses. It's obviously a
commercial retail type of zone. There are no wetlands on the parcel. Slopes, basically
everything slopes from the upper right hand corner where the tanning salon is down towards the
lower left hand corner. That's the lowest spot of our site now. I would like to note also Home
Depot is don on the bottom of the drawing. There's a retaining wall along that lower edge that
03/20/2018)
is something that we need to consider as a part of our project. Existing conditions as far as
access, there is an existing curb cut for the tanning salon and then the existing retail building on
the parcel. There are currently two curb cuts going to that existing building. What we're
proposing is a two lot subdivision. It might be kind of hard to see but the lot lines are on there,
the overall parcel obviously and then Lot Number One is the bigger lot off towards the left, and
that includes the bigger proposed building that we have. In that area we would be proposing to
demolish the existing structure that is there. We'd be proposing a new structure located behind
where that structure is. The existing tanning salon is approximately 2,000 square feet that is
proposed to stay, and that would be on its own lot. So Lot Number One where there would be
the demolition and the construction of the new building is approximately 1.42 acres. The
proposed building would be about 11,954 square feet. So similar in size to the building that is
on there now. It's proposed as a multi-tenant structure. The applicant would be working to
obtain tenants for that building. Right now the only tenant is a Subway restaurant that is
proposed for a portion of that building. As far as access to the site, we would reduce the curb
cuts. Instead having two curb cuts for that existing building we'd be reducing it to one, and that
would be at the southern end of the side of the left edge. As far as parking, we're proposing
parking for the restaurant and the retail in accordance with the Town Code and there are 62
parking spaces required and as shown we are showing 68 spaces. So we're slightly over par
for the site but it is above what is there now which is 56. In our estimate what we have right
now might be slightly under par, and the reason I bring that into consideration is that one of the
variances that we would be requesting is a green space variance. So instead of having a 30%
green space requirement, what we show on the site right now is about 23 or 24%. So we'd be
looking for relief in the six to seven percent range on the green space. Lot Two is the lot in the
upper right hand corner. It goes immediately around the tanning salon, is would be about .14
acres. We would obviously retain the existing structure. Access would be the existing access
which would be the curb cut that is currently on Route 9, and on that parcel we have 25% green
space. So again we're a little shy on green space on that particular parcel. We don't quite
meet the 30%, and also as far as parking, the Code for personal services outlines one space
per three hundred. So we'd need seven spaces. As shown we can delineate six spaces on
there. As you can even see in the aerial it looks like they have the cars double stacked on the
one side. So we could easily achieve seven spaces on there, but whether stacking would be
an improved configuration for parking we're not quite sure. So we will be applying for a
variance for that one parking space on that particular lot. As far as proposed variances, I did
mention the green space variances. Also on Lot Number Two where we would be seeking a
variance for the lot size. The minimum lot size is one acre in the zone. We're .14 acres for
that tanning salon. So we'd be asking for a variance there, and then also on Lot Two as far as
the setbacks. We have some setbacks that are pre-existing, nonconforming, obviously the
front yard setback and the side yard setback, but with our carving out of that parcel we would
also need some variances for the side yard and rear yard setbacks proposed for that, and then
the parking for Lot Number Two which I had already mentioned. As far as the infrastructure for
the site, water, storm, sewer, public water, public sewer is available to the parcel and
stormwater we would have to put together a full Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan for the
site. We're prepared to do that. This is somewhat of a re-development in that as far as
impervious area we're very close, but we'll follow the rules and regulations for the project.
That's essentially it for what we have this evening. Again, we just wanted to bring this in front of
the Board, get some feedback from the Board so we can bring it to the ZBA, incorporate the
Planning Board's comments.
MR. TRAVER-Well with regard to the green space, it's got to be better than what's there now.
Right? I mean, my first impression when I saw this is it seems like, I mean, just looking at it
from sort of the street viewpoint it's a big improvement over what's there now.
MS. WHITE-1 guess that was going to be one of my questions is, what will this look like from the
street? Will you see the top of the building?
MR. FADEN-One of the reasons we hinged off the curb cut to the south is that that curb cut, the
road slopes down towards the south, so by hinging off the curb cut to the south we can have the
site come in at a lower elevation. We're not trying to fight from a higher elevation and sloping
down. We thought that was, not only would DOT, I think, appreciate us going from two curb
cuts down to one curb cut, from an access standpoint, I just thought from an aesthetic
standpoint it was a better position. So as far as coming in off that southern access we could
keep our site as high as we can The only other problem we're dealing with is that, in the back
of the site we have the Home Depot where there's a wall back there that slopes down. So it is
something that we're trying to balance between high and low.
MR. TRAVER-So what about employee parking?
31Y
03/20/2018)
MR. LANSING-Employee parking, we have spaces located around the back. They would
actually be more or less under the building because our building would be a one story building
as it faces Route 9, but as the grade slopes it would be almost like a walkout basement. So
there'd be some parking for employees in the back.
MR. TRAVER-And what about deliveries?
MR. LANSING-Deliveries. We do have an area where they could access around back, but
mostly likely they'd be smaller.
MR. TRAVER-Box trucks.
MR. LANSING-Yes. Box trucks, front load type of deliveries.
MS. WHITE-Is that what they do now?
MR. LANSING-They come right in the front for stuff like that.
MS. WHITE-What about the slope of the parking lot?
MR. LANSING-The slope of the parking lot we'd have to make sure that we were within ADA
standards, five percent for the main parking areas. A couple of drive aisles that kind of come
around the back. I can see us going to eight or ten percent on those drive aisles. It's still a
reasonable slope
MS. WHITE-But not the majority.
MR. LANSING-No, everywhere there's parking we would not see five percent. The handicap
stalls would be within one percent.
MR. VALENTINE-One way circulation?
MR. LANSING-That's what we have around the back, but in the main parking lot obviously
there's two way.
MR. VALENTINE-Right, but it's shown, okay, so from your north side around the back. No
plans for a drive thru tenant at all?
MR. LANSING-Not at this time. No.
MR. FADEN-And that's mainly for employees that are around the back.
MR. VALENTINE-Are you going to light the back?
MR. FADEN-Yes.
MR. VALENTINE-Like right now it's not lit for employees back there.
MR. TRAVER-Well, I know your first concern is the variances. I have no problem with what
you're asking for. I don't know with regard to the variances and how other members of the
Planning Board feel.
MS. WHITE-It's such an improvement.
MR. TRAVER-Yes.
MR. VALENTINE-1 think stormwater is going to be something to look at myself.
MR. HUNSINGER-Yes, stormwater would be an issue. I know you can't count the green space
that's in the public right of way, but if you could, by eliminating that big curb cut you're creating a
lot of green space on that second curb cut. You can make the argument.
MS. WHITE-That it's actually improving the existing conditions.
MR. LANSING-Yes, stormwater wise we have looked at that conceptually. We feel we can
address that. Obviously the site is pretty impervious now. So there are some drainage
structures in the back of the parcel on the lower portion of the parcel. We plan on taking the
majority of our storm drainage and putting it up towards the front, the upper parking lot, the
31,11
03/20/2018)
Aviation end of the parking lot in that area. So we'll have a small area going to the back and
we suspect that that area will be smaller than what it going in that area now. So it will be a
positive.
MR. TRAVER-It would almost have to be, yes.
MR. MAGOWAN-Now having that building that close, the Home Depot wall, you don't have an
issue with that?
MR. LANSING-We may. That's something we're looking into right now. We have a geo
technical engineer. We're actually printing up the plans for that specific wall tomorrow morning.
We'll find out exactly what the wall construction is, how far it goes back, but you're absolutely
right. That is a concern of ours. It is something that we're looking at.
MR. VALENTINE-Scott, what's your grade, what is the grade difference between say the back
of this lot and the other, the existing buildings back there?
MR. LANSING-From the Home Depot to?
MR. VALENTINE-Yes.
MR. LANSING-I'd have to double check, but I think we're in the 20 foot range. It's fairly
significant. The wall itself is probably 12 or 14 feet high I would estimate.
MR. MAGOWAN-Up near the road?
MR. LANSING-Down to the south.
MR. MAGOWAN-It's got to be more than 12 feet.
MR. LANSING-Yes.
MR. MAGOWAN-I mean on the lowest side, that's one heck of a wall I have to say, and I had
the same concern for R & T Antiques. Because they were a little bit further away from the wall,
but I'm sure, I have to say, Russ, you guys really have done a great job of coming in with a
proposed project for that lot. That's an eyesore.
MR. TRAVER-That's a tough lot.
MR. MAGOWAN-And I like that, and I wouldn't have a problem sending you on for variances on
this. It just makes sense. It just looks so much nicer.
MS. WHITE-And I apologize. I know I don't feel good, but I asked a question, what would you
see as you're driving by. Would you see storefront or would you see rooftop?
MR. FADEN-Where the main entrance is you would definitely see storefront.
MS. WHITE-So let's say, you know, you're just driving past here on Route 9 and you look over,
what are you going to see as far as frontage?
MR. TRAVER-She's talking about the elevation.
MS. WHITE-1 mean, you know, as you're going down the hill and you look at the plaza and you
see the top of what used to be the employment and training building, you know, you see the
roof. I'm wondering are you going to see the roof of this building or are you going to see like
part of a storefront?
MR. MAGOWAN-It's at the same height as the road, isn't it?
MR. LANSING-This area right here is where our entrance is, and we hinged off that because it
would come in more or less flat. It might come down a little bit but then it'll come back up
before the building. Looking from this vantage point, I would estimate that you're going to see,
the road elevation is going to be roughly close to the elevation of the finished floor of the
structure. As you go up the roadway, believe it or not from this point to this point right here, the
road goes up 10 feet. So that's fairly significant. So in this area, I know the other site that
you're talking about. I don't remember the exact, where you can look out and you can see the
rooftop units and everything like that. That would not be the case here, in that while the road is
10 feet up, this will gradually slope down. This finished floor is roughly, conceptually we have a
3115
03/20/2018)
pitched roof out here and usually on a retail space your first floor is about 14 feet or so. So
even if you were at this elevation there would still be four feet of fagade, if you will, not counting
the roof or whatever they might have for a roof type structure. So we can give you a better idea
of that as we get closer, the grading and drainage, but that's conceptually what we have based
on elevations that we have from the existing building.
MS. WHITE-I'm just trying to picture it a little bit because it is so sloped right now. That's a lot
of fill, though. Right?
MR. FADEN-I had a conversation with Derek Leo today who's doing the site work across the
street. They have like 24,000 yards of fill.
MR. HUNSINGER-I'll bet they're loving you right now.
MR. FADEN-That's kind of why we're working with him and we can definitely use, so that was
kind of our consideration before was to not have to bring in so much fill to make it go up. I'd
rather have it as high as possible to have more visibility.
MS. WHITE-1 just couldn't picture it with that.
MR. DEEB-Well, Jamie I hope nobody's looking at that building while they're driving by or they'll
get into an accident.
MS. WHITE-1 look at that building every day when I drive by. And then I make a right onto
Montray and I think about that slope going down to Home Depot, which is a lot more than 20
feet on that side.
MR. MAGOWAN-It's going to look a lot better than looking over at the roof on Northgate there,
or Northway.
MR. HUNSINGER-Well, you know, on the map that they submitted, the bottom left corner is at
419 and you're at 436.
MR. TRAVER-Yes, well that's what he was saying. That's like one story.
MR. VALENTINE-So I should tell my brother-in-law in advance he's not going to be able to get a
haircut there anymore?
MR. FADEN-They probably would move into the new building.
MR. TRAVER-So I think, I'm assuming your primary concern this evening, because there may
be subtle changes to the actual final Site Plan, I think your main concern is the variances and a
general impression of the project. And I'm hearing and sensing that you're okay on the
variances. There's a concern about stormwater that you're already aware of, and I think it's a
tremendous improvement to what's there.
MR. DEEB-We all do, but as far as the variances, that's going to be up to the Zoning Board.
We can send them along.
MS. WHITE-And we can talk about the improvement just to safety.
MR. DEEB-I think it's a very nice project. I like the project.
MR. FADEN-And we looked at it from a development standpoint, by subdividing, the financial
impact to bring this site to where it needs to be, and, you know, knocking the building down and
trying to get more parking up front. So to keep the building there just makes more sense. It
kind of conforms with what's already there, you know, I know the owners of it and they're
actually pretty excited about us being able to own that.
MR. TRAVER-And if they were to leave, how would you ever get anybody back in there?
MR. FADEN-Yes, they've been there for six years Two more years on the lease.
MR. VALENTINE-Will this be two separate site plan applications after the subdivision?
MR. LANSING-No, I would anticipate just one application for the whole entire thing.
MS. WHITE-They won't make any changes.
36
03/20/2018)
MR. SHAFER-Why do you actually have to do a two lot subdivision? I'm seeing a single
project.
MR. FADEN-Well that's kind of what I was talking about. For this project in particular it's going
to help financially to do it and the owners that are currently in the tanning salon have shown
interest in possibly purchasing that, and it's going to help this site move forward because it's
going to cost a lot of money to get this site where it needs to be. Even with the fill across the
street, it's still going to cost a lot of money, and I've been there five years and trying to work on
buying this for two years now and we finally came to a resolution. So this will help us kind of
get over the top to push the project through.
MR. TRAVER-Good.
MR. MAGOWAN-Sounds like the same story that happened over there in Glens Falls. Money,
money, money.
MR. TRAVER-Well it looks like a wonderful project.
MR. LANSING-Thank you.
MR. MAGOWAN-1 like it.
MR. TRAVER-Anything else that you're looking for from us?
MR. LANSING-No, we appreciate your time. Thank you.
MR. FADEN-Thank you.
MR. TRAVER-Is there any other business to come before the Planning Board this evening?
Not hearing any. So I'll entertain a motion to adjourn.
MR. HUNSINGER-So moved.
MOTION TO ADJOURN THE QUEENSBURY PLANNING BOARD MEETING OF MARCH
20th, 2018, Introduced by Chris Hunsinger who moved for its adoption, seconded by Brad
Magowan:
Duly adopted this 20th day of March, 2018, by the following vote:
AYES: Mr. Hunsinger, Mr. Magowan, Mr. Shafer, Mr. Valentine, Mr. Deeb, Ms. White, Mr.
Traver
NOES: NONE
MR. TRAVER-We stand adjourned. Thanks everybody, and we have another go around next
week.
On motion meeting was adjourned.
RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED,
Stephen Traver, Chairman
3.7