04-30-2019
(Queensbury Planning Board 04/30/2019)
QUEENSBURY PLANNING BOARD MEETING
THIRD REGULAR MEETING
APRIL 30, 2019
INDEX
Site Plan No. 22-2019 Robert Spath 1.
Tax Map No. 240.5-1-10
Subdivision No. 13-2018 Clear Brook, LLC 3.
PRELIMINARY STAGE Tax Map No. 316.14-1-6
Freshwater Wetlands 6-2018
Site Plan No. 19-2019 Columbia Development 10.
Tax Map No. 309.14-1-5
Site Plan No. 17-2019 Bernardo DeJesus 16.
Tax Map No. 227.17-1-56
Site Plan No. 18-2019 AREC 10, LLC/UHAUL 18.
Tax Map No. 309.14-1-81
Site Plan No. 15-2019 Kevin Quinn/Northeast Realty Dev. 22.
Tax Map No. 277.4-1-4
Site Plan No. 27-2019 Faden Enterprises, Inc. 29.
Tax Map No. 296.17-1-49
THESE ARE NOT OFFICIALLY ADOPTED MINUTES AND ARE SUBJECT TO BOARD AND
STAFF REVISIONS. REVISIONS WILL APPEAR ON THE FOLLOWING MONTH’S
MINUTES (IF ANY) AND WILL STATE SUCH APPROVAL OF SAID MINUTES.
1
(Queensbury Planning Board 04/30/2019)
QUEENSBURY PLANNING BOARD MEETING
THIRD REGULAR MEETING
APRIL 30, 2019
7:00 P.M.
MEMBERS PRESENT
STEPHEN TRAVER, CHAIRMAN
CHRIS HUNSINGER, VICE CHAIRMAN
DAVID DEEB, SECRETARY
JOHN SHAFER
JAMIE WHITE
BRAD MAGOWAN
MICHAEL DIXON, ALTERNATE
STEVEN JACKOSKI, ALTERNATE (SAT IN FOR M. DIXON ON COLUMBIA DEV.)
LAND USE PLANNER-LAURA MOORE
STENOGRAPHER-MARIA GAGLIARDI
MR. TRAVER-Good evening, ladies and gentlemen. Welcome to the Town of Queensbury
th
Planning Board meeting for Tuesday, April 30, 2019. This is actually our third meeting for
the month of April and the ninth meeting for 2019. There are a number of projects that
have public hearings this evening. At the back of the room there should be some agendas
if you would like one for our meeting tonight, and there’s also information about how we
conduct public hearings. We have one modification to our prior schedule due to a
complication with a previous applicant and one tabled item that we will do first and that is
Robert Spath, Site Plan 22-2019.
TABLED ITEM:
SITE PLAN NO. 22-2019 SEQR TYPE: TYPE II. ROBERT SPATH. OWNER(S): SAME
AS APPLICANT. ZONING: .22 ACRE. LOCATION: CORNER WALKUP RD. & MOON
HILL RD. APPLICANT PROPOSES TWO RESIDENTIAL ADDITIONS TO EITHER SIDE
OF AN EXISTING HOME. ADDITION ONE ON THE SHORELINE SIDE IS TO RAISE
THE EXISTING ROOF OF THE 240 SQ. FT. AREA, STILL TO REMAIN ONE STORY OPEN
CEILING. THE SECOND ADDITION ON THE ROAD SIDE IS TO REMOVE 98 SQ. FT.
AND REBUILD SAME LIVING AREA. PROJECT INCLUDES NEW 33 SQ. FT. ENTRY
WITH COVER ON NORTH SIDE AND A 32 SQ. FT. AWNING ROOF ON THE SHORELINE
SIDE OF THE HOME. PURSUANT TO CHAPTER 19-13-010 OF THE ZONING
ORDINANCE, EXPANSION OF A NONCONFORMING STRUCTURE SHALL BE SUBJECT
TO PLANNING BOARD REVIEW AND APPROVAL. CROSS REFERENCE: AV 57-2008
DORMER; 2006-599 ALT., 2007-232 DOCK & BOATHOUSE REPAIRS, 2011-042 DOCK
REPAIRS. WARREN CO. REFERRAL: APRIL 2019. LOT SIZE: .22 ACRE. TAX MAP
NO. 240.5-1-10. SECTION: 179-13-010.
ROBERT SPATH, PRESENT
MR. TRAVER-Laura?
MRS. MOORE-Okay. So this applicant proposes two residential additions as discussed
previously during the recommendation phase. Addition One on the shoreline side is to raise
the existing roof of the 240 square foot area, still to remain one story open ceiling. The
second addition’s on the road side. It’s approximately 98 square feet and re-build the same
living area in kind. The project also includes a new a new 33 square foot entry with cover
on north side and then a 32 square foot awning roof on the shoreline side. The applicant
2
(Queensbury Planning Board 04/30/2019)
th
was granted variances for these on April 17. This included setbacks for the awning and
setbacks for the addition.
MR. TRAVER-Okay. Thank you. Welcome back.
MR. SPATH-Thank you.
MR. TRAVER-So you received a recommendation with our initial review on the variance and
it went to the ZBA and received approval for your variance. Correct?
MR. SPATH-Correct.
MR. TRAVER-Were there any changes to your project as a result of your conversation with
the ZBA?
MR. SPATH-No.
MR. TRAVER-No. Questions, comments from members of the Planning Board? We do have
a public hearing on this application. Is there anyone in the audience that wanted to discuss
this application with the Planning Board? I’m not seeing any takers. Are there any written
comments?
PUBLIC HEARING OPENED
MRS. MOORE-No written comments.
MR. TRAVER-Okay. Then we’ll go ahead and close the public hearing.
PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED
MR. TRAVER-If there are no questions or comments by members of the Planning Board we
can go ahead, this is a SEQR Type II so no action under SEQR is required and we can
entertain a motion.
RESOLUTION APPROVING SP # 22-2019 ROBERT SPATH
The applicant has submitted an application to the Planning Board for Site Plan approval
pursuant to Article 9 of the Town zoning Ordinance for: The applicant has submitted an
application for the following: Applicant proposes two residential additions to either side of
an existing home. Addition one on the shoreline side is to raise the existing roof of the 240
sq. ft. area, still to remain one story open ceiling. The second addition on the road side is to
remove 98 sq. ft. and rebuild same living area. Project includes new 33 sq. ft. entry with
cover on North side and a 32 sq. ft. awning roof on the shoreline side of home. Pursuant to
Chapter 179-13-010 of the Zoning Ordinance, expansion of a nonconforming structure 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 opened a public hearing on the Site plan application on 04/23/2019 and
continued the public hearing to 04/30/2019, when it was closed,
3
(Queensbury Planning Board 04/30/2019)
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
04/30/2019;
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 22-2019 ROBERT SPATH. Introduced by David Deeb
who moved for its adoption.
Per the draft provided by staff conditioned upon the following conditions:
1) Waivers request granted:
2) Adherence to the items outlined in the follow-up letter sent with this resolution.
th
Motion seconded by Brad Magowan. Duly adopted this 30 day of April, 2019 by the
following vote:
MR. TRAVER-Are there any comments on the resolution?
MS. WHITE-Just that I appreciate that, because of the small lot, you kept the changes and
improvements very minimal and I would just say that that’s much appreciated in this area.
AYES: Mr. Deeb, Ms. White, Mr. Shafer, Mr. Hunsinger, Mr. Magowan, Mr. Dixon,
Mr. Traver
NOES: NONE
MR. TRAVER-You are all set.
MR. SPATH-Thank you very much.
MR. TRAVER-So before we continue with our agenda I’m reminded that I neglected to
mention a couple of items to the audience. One is if you have an electronic device if you
would either turn it off or turn your ringer off so it doesn’t interrupt our meeting, and the
other is if you would take note of the exit signs that are illuminated in the room. If we
have an emergency, that is your way out. So now we can begin with our originally scheduled
agenda for this evening. Under Old Business, the first application is Clear Brook, LLC,
Subdivision Preliminary Stage 13-2018 and Freshwater Wetlands Permit 6-2018.
OLD BUSINESS:
SUBDIVISION PRELIMINARY STAGE 13-2018 FRESHWATER WETLANDS PERMIT 6-
2018 SEQR TYPE: UNLISTED. CLEAR BROOK, LLC. AGENT(S): HUTCHINS
ENGINEERING. OWNER(S): EXCESS LAND, LLC. ZONING: WR. LOCATION: BIG
BOOM ROAD. APPLICANT PROPOSES REVISIONS TO HAVE A 12 LOT RESIDENTIAL
SUBDIVISION (PREVIOUS SUBDIVISION WAS 14 LOTS) OF A 145.30 ACRE PARCEL.
PROJECT IS WITHIN I-87 OVERLAY ZONE. PROJECT INCLUDES ASSOCIATED SITE
WORK FOR LOT CLEARING, INSTALLATION OF SEPTIC, CONNECTION TO MUNICIPAL
WATER AND CONSTRUCTION OF A SINGLE FAMILY HOME. PURSUANT TO CHAPTER
183 AND CHAPTER 94 OF THE ZONING ORDINANCE, SUBDIVISION OF LAND AND
WORK WITHIN 100 FT. OF A WETLAND SHALL BE SUBJECT TO PLANNING BOARD
REVIEW AND APPROVAL CROSS REFERENCE: SUB SKETCH PLAN 4-2018; AV 54-2018.
WARREN CO. REFERRAL: N/A. SITE INFORMATION: I-87 OVERLAY ZONE,
4
(Queensbury Planning Board 04/30/2019)
WETLANDS. LOT SIZE: 145.3 ACRES. TAX MAP NO. 316.14-1-6. SECTION:
CHAPTER 183, CHAPTER 94.
TOM HUTCHINS & DAVID LIPINSKI, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT
MR. TRAVER-Laura?
MRS. MOORE-Okay. So this project has been through some revisions. We are now looking
th
at a 12 lot residential subdivision with one remaining lot which will be the 13 lot to remain
vacant. There has been discussion with the Water and Wastewater Department and they’ve
come to an agreement that this lot is to remain vacant at this time it’s not subject to the
review of the Water Superintendent.
MR. TRAVER-Okay. Well that clarifies things. Thank you. Welcome back. It looks like
you’ve gotten some resolution to a number of the concerns we raised earlier.
MR. HUTCHINS-Well we hope so, yes. After considerable thought and analysis we have
revised the subdivision to 12 new building lots entirely within the Queensbury water district
and we’re hoping that resolves a lot of the concerns that came up as far as the lower area.
It’s down in this area that’s going to be vacant for the time being without any plans. We’re
considering a number of things but it’s nothing concrete at this point. We want to do
something that works for the applicant and something that works for the Town, and it may
take some time to come to that. To re-cant a little bit, we’ve been through a fair number
of regulatory steps here. We’ve been on site with the Army Corps of Engineers. We’ve
had our wetland biologist and the Corps together and they’ve gone over our delineation, their
delineation. They’ve been through our design and they’ve issued a letter that it’s non-
jurisdictional as designed for the Corps of Engineers. We’ve been on site with DEC wetlands
folks and they have, this was just after snow melt actually. They’ve clarified one of the
DEC wetland boundaries and we are wrapping up that process with them with the intention
that it’s non-jurisdictional with DEC. We don’t have that in writing just yet but we’re very
close on that. We had an archeological consultant on site who did an extensive review and
there’s a little area right there. There’s a little area right there, and a little area right
there that contain archeologically sensitive findings, and the applicants have agreed to avoid
those areas and that’ll be a deeded restriction in those areas, not that it can’t be used, but
it can’t be disturbed.
MR. TRAVER-Yes. I remember when you mentioned that before that was interesting to me
because some of the materials found clearly indicated that there had been trade going on
with early Americans I guess. There was somebody from clearly way out of the area because
there was some stone materials for tool making that aren’t found in this area. That’s kind
of interesting. I guess it makes sense on the Hudson River, but still it was kind of neat.
MR. LIPINSKI-They call it pre-contact.
MR. TRAVER-Okay.
MR. LIPINSKI-Is what they say, before they contacted the Europeans, the European
Americans.
MR. HUTCHINS-And we’ve done house sitings on each lot. Again we have two sets of two
lots that utilize a shared driveway. Most, all of the building sites are a considerable
distance from Big Boom Road. I don’t know if you had a chance to go over. Every building
site is staked. There’s a stake at the center of every building site. Every driveway cut is
staked, and they’re all a considerable distance from Big Boom Road, and some of them are
quite a large distance from Big Boom Road. We’ve done wastewater designs. We’ve done
stormwater design. I have recently corresponded back to your engineer with regard to
5
(Queensbury Planning Board 04/30/2019)
some of their comments and I presume their review is in process. I haven’t heard back
from them. So with that, I guess we’d turn it over to the Board for comments, questions.
MR. TRAVER-Tonight you’re here for just Preliminary. Correct?
MR. HUTCHINS-We have submitted Preliminary Subdivision application. Yes.
MR. TRAVER-Questions, comments from members of the Board? I know we have discussed
this project. We have walked the property. We’re aware of some of the issues that seem
to have been resolved by the modifications that they’ve made.
th
MR. HUNSINGER-So I’m just a bit confused by the 13 lot. So if we’re approving a
subdivision.
MRS. MOORE-There’s 13 lots. Correct.
MR. HUNSINGER-We’re approving that as a separate lot which implies that it’s buildable.
MRS. MOORE-The applicant has indicated it’s to remain vacant. If the applicant chooses
to not have that as vacant property, then they are subject to the review process with the
Water Superintendent and if the Board wishes to have Site Plan Review on that lot if it were
ever to be developed I would add that as a condition.
MR. HUNSINGER-So, again, I’m looking for clarification. So in theory if we approved a
th
subdivision as presented, that 13 lot, the only approval they would require, unless we
stipulate a condition, would be from the Water Department.
MRS. MOORE-They could not develop that without your approval. I mean right now it’s
considered vacant.
MR. HUNSINGER-Right. Okay.
MRS. MOORE-But to make it I guess a stronger comment would be to add that as part of
your resolution as a condition.
MR. TRAVER-Site Plan Review?
MRS. MOORE-Yes.
MR. LIPINSKI-So then if we want to make it buildable we have to come back to the Planning
Board.
MR. TRAVER-Pretty much anything that you want to do to it other than you’re saying tonight.
MR. LIPINSKI-Yes, so that’s what we’re saying.
MR. TRAVER-Come back for review.
MS. WHITE-That would change it from vacant status.
MR. LIPINSKI-To buildable status.
MR. HUNSINGER-Well I guess my question is more theoretical, though. I mean can we
approve a separate lot that’s not buildable?
6
(Queensbury Planning Board 04/30/2019)
MRS. MOORE-You’re not saying it’s not buildable. You’re saying it’s to remain vacant as
requested by the applicant.
MR. HUNSINGER-Okay.
MR. TRAVER-Yes. We’re approving what’s being applied for.
MR. HUNSINGER-Okay.
MR. TRAVER-But I understand.
MR. HUNSINGER-I mean if you create a lot the implication is that that’s a buildable lot.
MR. TRAVER-The closest thing I can remember to that is there’ve been times when we’ve
approved subdivisions where we’ve said no further subdivision.
MR. HUNSINGER-Yes, but we’re not saying that.
MR. HUTCHINS-There’s a number of subdivisions in the Town that have leftover lots.
MR. HUNSINGER-Yes.
MR. TRAVER-Right.
MR. HUTCHINS-We’re not intending on building on it, and usually it’s a little funny shaped
triangle on a corner somewhere that becomes a problem someday. If you think about this
piece and you really put your thinking caps on, there’s a whole lot of potential vision somebody
could have for that. Maybe they could explore it a little bit more.
MR. HUNSINGER-And I understand what you’re doing. You’re saying hey, it’s going to take
time to sort that out. We want to move forward with the rest of the project, and I don’t
have a problem with that. I’m just, again, to me the implication is it’s buildable, but if we
put in the resolution that it shall remain vacant.
MR. LIPINSKI-That is succinctly what we’re doing.
MR. HUNSINGER-Okay.
MR. TRAVER-There is a public hearing on this application. Is there anyone that wanted to
address the Planning Board tonight on this application? I’m not seeing any hands.
PUBLIC HEARING OPENED
MR. SHAFER-I have a question. Tom, I saw test pit data for the plans. You mentioned the
wastewater designs had been done, that implies perc test data as well.
MR. HUTCHINS-I have some perc test data. I don’t have all the perc test data.
MR. SHAFER-That’ll be done later?
MR. HUTCHINS-That’ll be done, yes.
MR. TRAVER-They’ll be back for Final.
7
(Queensbury Planning Board 04/30/2019)
MR. HUNSINGER-I actually had a follow up question to that, too. As you look at the soils
data, it’s kind of all over the place. Some you found no mottling at all. Others you found,
you know, groundwater at 36 inches I think was one.
MR. TRAVER-Well it’s all moraine.
MR. HUTCHINS-I can explain that relatively clearly. Right about here on this property
there’s a little drop off in slope, four to five feet, and it goes right across there, and, well
you can see up here everything is very high and dry, deep, well drained sands.
MR. HUNSINGER-Okay.
MR. HUTCHINS-As the soils maps read for the whole parcel, there’s a distinct change right
here.
MR. HUNSINGER-Okay.
MR. HUTCHINS-So out here you’re going to find shallower water tables, and again it’s right,
well it actually goes right across there. So that’s the big difference, and the test pits
aren’t sequential, in other words, they’re by lot number. So where you see groundwater
table is further east.
MR. HUNSINGER-Thank you.
MR. TRAVER-No written comments, right, Laura?
MRS. MOORE-No written comments.
MR. TRAVER-All right. We’ll go ahead and close the public hearing.
PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED
MR. TRAVER-This is an Unlisted action under SEQR. So we do need to conduct a SEQR
review. Do any Board members, based on the application thus far, have any environmental
concerns that we need to recognize under SEQR? Hearing none, I guess we’re ready for a
motion.
RESOLUTION GRANTING A NEGATIVE SEQR DEC SUB # 13-2018 CLEAR BROOK
The applicant proposes revisions to have a 12 lot residential subdivision (previous subdivision
was 14 lots) of a 145.30 acre parcel. Project is within I-87 overlay zone. Project includes
associated site work for lot clearing, installation of septic, connection to municipal water
and construction of a single family home. Pursuant to Chapter 183 and Chapter 94 of the
Zoning Ordinance, subdivision of land and work within 100 ft. of a wetland 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 Long EAF has been completed by the applicant;
8
(Queensbury Planning Board 04/30/2019)
Upon review of the information recorded on this EAF, it is the conclusion of the Town of
Queensbury Planning Board as lead agency that this project will result in no significant
adverse impacts on the environment, and, therefore, an environmental impact statement
need not be prepared. Accordingly, this negative declaration is issued.
MOTION TO GRANT A NEGATIVE DECLARATION FOR SUBDIVISION PRELIMINARY
STAGE 13-2018 & FRESHWATER WETLANDS PERMIT 6-2018 CLEAR BROOK, LLC.
Introduced by David Deeb who moved for its adoption.
As per the resolution prepared by staff.
1. Part II of the Long EAF has been reviewed and completed by the Planning Board.
2. Part III of the Long EAF is not necessary because the Planning Board did not identify
potentially moderate to large impacts.
th
Motion seconded by John Shafer. Duly adopted this 30 day of April, 2019 by the following
vote:
AYES: Ms. White, Mr. Shafer, Mr. Hunsinger, Mr. Magowan, Mr. Dixon, Mr. Deeb,
Mr. Traver
NOES: NONE
MR. TRAVER-Next we have a resolution for the Preliminary Stage and Freshwater Wetlands
Permit. Are folks ready to entertain that motion?
MR. SHAFER-At one time we discussed the Northway zoning line. Has that all been
resolved?
MR. HUTCHINS-Yes. What that was is.
MR. TRAVER-They got a variance.
MR. SHAFER-You did get a variance?
MR. LIPINSKI-Yes.
MR. HUTCHINS-We got a variance for that.
MR. SHAFER-I didn’t see it on the drawings.
MR. TRAVER-Any other questions before we entertain the resolution? I think we did have
one condition.
MR. DEEB-Do you want to do it now or do you want to do it at Final Stage?
MR. TRAVER-We’re approving Preliminary and Freshwater Wetlands. We need to put it in
the motion. Correct, Laura?
MRS. MOORE-I would put it here.
MR. HUNSINGER-You would put it here?
MRS. MOORE-I don’t see why you wouldn’t.
9
(Queensbury Planning Board 04/30/2019)
MR. TRAVER-I mean normally all these issues are in Preliminary. Correct? Yes.
RESOLUTION APPROVING SUB # 13-2018 PRELIM. STG. FWW 6-2018 CLEAR BROOK
A subdivision application has been made to the Queensbury Planning Board for the following:
Applicant proposes revisions to have a 12 lot residential subdivision (previous subdivision was
14 lots) of a 145.30 acre parcel. Project is within I-87 overlay zone. Project includes
associated site work for lot clearing, installation of septic, connection to municipal water
and construction of a single family home. Pursuant to Chapter 183 and Chapter 94 of the
Zoning Ordinance, subdivision of land and work within 100 ft. of a wetland 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;
The requirements of the State Environmental Quality Review Act have been considered and
the Planning Board has adopted a SEQRA Negative Declaration
A public hearing was scheduled and held on 08/28/2018, 10/16/2018, 01/15/2019,
2/19/2019, 3/26/2019, 4/16/2019 & 4/30/2019;
This application is supported with all documentation, public comment, and application
material in the file of record;
MOTION TO APPROVE SUBDIVISION PRELIMINARY STAGE 13-2018 & FRESHWATER
WETLANDS PERMIT 6-2018 CLEAR BROOK, LLC. Introduced by David Deeb who moved for
its adoption.
With the condition that Lot 13 remain vacant but subject to Site Plan Review with any
development.
th
Motion seconded by Brad Magowan. Duly adopted this 30 day of April, 2019 by the
following vote:
MR. DEEB-One, Lot 13 subject to Site Plan Review for future buildout plans.
MS. WHITE-I thought we were saying any change other than the vacant status?
MR. TRAVER-Yes, any change at all.
MR. DEEB-Okay. I’ll amend that. Lot 13 shall be subject to Site Plan Review with any
changes.
MR. LIPINSKI-Can I ask clarification on that? Any changes?
MRS. MOORE-So I’m guessing maybe it would be cleaner if you just said remain vacant. Any
future development would be subject to Site Plan Review.
MR. DEEB-Okay. Then I will amend that.
MR. LIPINSKI-One of the reasons was thinking of making a field in there, like a five acre
field.
MR. TRAVER-Sure. I understand it may not remain vacant forever. Yes.
10
(Queensbury Planning Board 04/30/2019)
MR. LIPINSKI-But to make a field in there you can do that. Can’t you?
MRS. MOORE-No. So if you were to do any sort of development on it, moving earth is
considered development.
MR. LIPINSKI-Okay. That’s why I wanted clarification.
MRS. MOORE-Yes.
MR. DIXON-So greater than one acre of clearing?
MRS. MOORE-That’s a different requirement. If you did more than one acre it would be
subject to stormwater, but we still have a provision in our Zoning Ordinance that starts with
any development, any moving of earth could be reviewable by this Board.
MR. TRAVER-Right. Perfect.
MR. DEEB-All right. I’m going to read it over again. Motion to Approve Subdivision
Preliminary Stage 13-2018 and Freshwater Wetlands Permit 6-2018, Clear Brook, LLC. One,
Lot 13 to remain vacant but subject to Site Plan Review with any changes. Does that work?
MRS. MOORE-I would use the word development.
MR. DEEB-We’re going to be here all night.
MRS. MOORE-No, just change the word changes to development.
MR. DEEB-Okay. To remain vacant but subject to Site Plan Review with any development.
MR. MAGOWAN-I’ll second it.
MRS. MOORE-I would add there’s one more addition. A public hearing was scheduled for
4/16 and also for this evening. So 4/30/19 should be added to this resolution. That was
just a clarification. It’s not on this resolution at this time.
MR. DEEB-So do you want me to add it?
MRS. MOORE-You don’t need to add it. I’m just letting you know.
MR. DEEB-Gotcha.
AYES: Mr. Shafer, Mr. Hunsinger, Mr. Magowan, Mr. Dixon, Mr. Deeb, Ms. White,
Mr. Traver
NOES: NONE
MR. HUTCHINS-Thank you.
MR. TRAVER-All right. Next on our agenda is Columbia Development, this is also under Old
Business. Site Plan No. 19-2019.
SITE PLAN NO. 19-2019 SEQR TYPE: UNLISTED. COLUMBIA DEVELOPMENT.
AGENT(S): GAVIN VUILLAUME. EDP. OWNER(S): SARATOGA HOSPITAL. ZONING:
CI-18. LOCATION: 124 MAIN STREET. APPLICANT PROPOSES TO DEVELOP A 1.04
ACRE PARCEL AND 0.106 ROW AREA BY DEMOLISHING THE EXISTING RESTAURANT
11
(Queensbury Planning Board 04/30/2019)
TO CONSTRUCT A TWO STORY 17,700 SQ. FT. (FAR) MEDICAL OFFICE BUILDING AND
ASSOCIATED SITE WORK. THE NEW BUILDING IS 8,800 SQ. FT. (FOOTPRINT) WITH
THE MAIN ENTRANCE ON BIG BOOM ROAD AND ASSOCIATED PARKING. PURSUANT
TO CHAPTER 179-3-040 AND 179-7-050 OF THE ZONING ORDINANCE NEW
COMMERCIAL CONSTRUCTION SHALL BE SUBJECT TO PLANNING BOARD REVIEW
AND APPROVAL. CROSS REFERENCE: AV 11-1990, SP 18-1990; DISC 4-2018 SEVERAL
BP’S. WARREN CO. REFERRAL: APRIL 2019. LOT SIZE: 1.14 ACRES. TAX MAP NO.
309.14-1-5 & T/O ROW. SECTION: 179-3-040, 179-7-050.
GAVIN VUILLAUME, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT
MR. TRAVER-Laura?
MRS. MOORE-So this applicant proposes to develop a 1.04 acre parcel and a 1.06 right of
way area by demolishing the existing restaurant to construct a two story medical office
building and associated site work. So at the variance meeting, Zoning Board meeting, rather,
they were granted their setback variances and I believe some permeability, and then they
were not granted their Sign Variance at that time. So they’re going back for their Sign
Variance. So as far as this Board in the review of signs, they’re granted two signs. You can
talk about, he has some visual drawings as a representation of the sign, but ultimately the
Sign Variance hasn’t been granted yet.
MR. TRAVER-So at this point it would just be a conditioned on Code compliance. Correct?
Okay. All right. Thank you.
MR. DIXON-Mr. Chairman, I’m going to excuse myself. Actually I’ll recuse but Steve is
here to sit in for me.
MR. TRAVER-Okay. Understood. Mr. Jackoski will sit in. Thank you, Steven. Good
evening. Welcome back.
MR. VUILLAUME-Yes. Gavin Vuillaume with Environmental Design. Kevin Ronayne from
Saratoga Hospital. Glad to be back. Yes, we were very successful with our variances. That
went very well. We’re very happy that we received them. If you remember we really just
needed the Area Variances for the building. There were two front yard setbacks that were
necessary along with the green space or permeability variance. So we received those, and
there are therefore no changes to the Site Plan. Again, with the signage, we’re willing to
speak to the Board and give you more information on the signage. At the meeting there was
some conversations about other projects that recently received variances similar to ours.
So they really weren’t ready to vote on the variances, but I think they were, you know, in
agreement that some variances could be granted. So we can talk about that.
MR. TRAVER-But in regards to signs, we generally require signs to be Code compliant, and if
you submit a new design that would require a variance then we would address that.
MR. VUILLAUME-Okay. So, yes, if you want to approve it or keep us in mind as far as Code
compliant for now. I think especially the monument sign. After looking at some other signs
in Town, I believe Saratoga Hospital’s pretty comfortable with the 45 square feet I think
it is.
MR. TRAVER-Yes. I mean what we would do at this stage is we would add a condition to any
theoretical approval that would indicate that any sign is subject to the Sign Code and you
need a Sign Permit. So you would discuss that with Town Staff and they would handle that
for you.
12
(Queensbury Planning Board 04/30/2019)
MR. VUILLAUME-Great. Perfect. So I guess that’s really pretty much everything up to
date. Right before our last meeting we did receive a letter from Chazen regarding the
stormwater review that they typically do. We have successfully, I think, addressed all their
comments. They have another letter that they just generated today. I believe Laura has
a copy of that.
MRS. MOORE-I have a copy and I gave a copy to the Board.
MR. VUILLAUME-Yes, and those are just more housekeeping items. We’re very comfortable
with those, being able to address those comments.
MR. TRAVER-Okay. Can you talk about, there were some Staff comments about the two
additional lights that you talked about and the landscaping in the Town right of way.
MR. VUILLAUME-So if we want to go to the lighting plan, Laura, or the landscape plan
probably would be the best. So we have two street lights here that are along the sidewalk.
Again we had thought that that was something that the Town might want to have, being that
we’re continuing the sidewalk around this intersection. If the Town doesn’t want those
lights there, certainly we would take them out. It’s really up to you folks.
MRS. MOORE-I can explain. I can clarify it a little bit. So on Main Street the Town
lighting is handled by our Building and Grounds Department.
MR. TRAVER-Right.
MRS. MOORE-I did have a chat with the individual that reviews those or handles
maintenance for that. He would rather avoid that, adding two additional lights, but that’s
his opinion.
MR. TRAVER-Sure. Okay.
MRS. MOORE-So however the Board feels, if that’s necessary to add consistency on Main
Street then they’d be subject to maintaining that. So it’s definitely open for discussion,
and I don’t know if the Board feels strongly about it.
MR. TRAVER-Well, I think you made the point for us that Building and Grounds handles that
and they’re not recommending it at this time. So if they’re responsible for that, then I
would rather this Board not get involved.
MR. DEEB-Well what if they were responsible for the light, instead of the Town?
MRS. MOORE-That would be up to the applicant. Typically they don’t handle stuff in the
right of way of someone else’s property.
MR. VUILLAUME-Yes, that might get a little messy. I would say just stay away from it for
now. If some day you decide you want to put the lights up, we can put them up later.
MR. TRAVER-Exactly. Yes. That was my thought. They may come back and say I know
that we discouraged you from doing it, now we really want them.
MR. VUILLAUME-No problem.
MR. TRAVER-And then what about the landscaping?
13
(Queensbury Planning Board 04/30/2019)
MR. VUILLAUME-Yes. So with the landscaping, the Big Boom right of way you can see it
takes a very drastic bend along that curve, and we just had this one tree that was in the
right of way. We’ve taken that out.
MR. TRAVER-Okay.
MR. VUILLAUME-It’s now no longer being proposed.
MR. TRAVER-Okay. Questions from members of the Planning Board?
MR. HUNSINGER-The color renderings, do they fairly accurately depict the color scheme?
MR. VUILLAUME-With the building? Yes. I believe those are pretty far along now. I
think that everything we’re representing on there will be very close to that.
MR. TRAVER-We do have a public hearing on this application. Is there anyone in the
audience that wanted to address the Planning Board on this application? I’m not seeing any
takers. Laura, no written comments?
PUBLIC HEARING OPENED
MRS. MOORE-There’s no written comments.
MR. TRAVER-Okay. In that case we will close the public hearing.
PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED
MR. TRAVER-This is an Unlisted Action under SEQR. So we do have a SEQR resolution
that needs to be considered. Does anyone have any environmental impacts that they are
concerned about that we should be considering beyond what we’ve already considered? No?
Okay. I guess we’re ready for that motion.
RESOLUTION GRANTING A NEGATIVE SEQR DEC. SP # 19-2019 COLUMBIA DEV.
The applicant proposes to develop a 1.04 acre parcel and 0.106 ROW area by demolishing the
existing restaurant to construct a two story 17,700 sq. ft. (FAR) medical office building and
associated site work. The new building is 8,800 sq. ft. (footprint) with the main entrance on
Big Boom Road and associated parking. Pursuant to Chapter 179-3-040 & 179-7-050 of the
Zoning Ordinance, new commercial construction 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.
14
(Queensbury Planning Board 04/30/2019)
MOTION TO GRANT NEGATIVE DECLARATION FOR SITE PLAN 19-2019 COLUMBIA
DEVELOPMENT. 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 has been reviewed is not necessary because the Planning Board
did not identify potentially moderate to large impacts.
th
Motion seconded by Jamie White. Duly adopted this 30 day of April, 2019 by the following
vote:
AYES: Mr. Deeb, Ms. White, Mr. Shafer, Mr. Hunsinger, Mr. Magowan, Mr. Jackoski,
Mr. Traver
NOES: NONE
MR. TRAVER-All right. Is the Board comfortable moving on to the Site Plan resolution?
Okay.
RESOLUTION APPROVING SP # 19-2019 COLUMBIA DEVELOPMENT
The applicant has submitted an application to the Planning Board: The applicant proposes to
develop a 1.04 acre parcel and 0.106 ROW area by demolishing the existing restaurant to
construct a two story 17,700 sq. ft. (FAR) medical office building and associated site work.
The new building is 8,800 sq. ft. (footprint) with the main entrance on Big Boom Road and
associated parking. Pursuant to Chapter 179-3-040 & 179-7-050 of the Zoning Ordinance,
new commercial construction 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 04/30/2019 and
continued the public hearing to 04/30/2019, 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
04/30/2019;
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 19-2019 COLUMBIA DEVELOPMENT. Introduced by
David Deeb who moved for its adoption.
According to the draft resolution prepared by Staff with the following:
15
(Queensbury Planning Board 04/30/2019)
1) No waivers were requested.
2. Adherence to the items outlined in the follow-up letter sent with this resolution.
a) The limits of clearing will constitute a no-cut buffer zone, orange construction
fencing shall be installed around these areas and field verified by Community
Development staff;
b) If applicable, the Sanitary Sewer connection plan must be submitted to the
Wastewater Department for its review, approval, permitting and inspection;
c) If curb cuts are being added or changed a driveway permit is required. A building
permit will not be issued until the approved driveway permit has been provided to the
Planning Office;
d) If application was referred to engineering then Engineering sign-off required prior
to signature of Zoning Administrator of the approved plans;
e) 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;-
f) If required, the applicant must submit a copy of the following to the Town:
a. The project NOI (Notice of Intent) for coverage under the current "NYSDEC
SPDES General Permit from Construction Activity" prior to the start of any
site work.
b. The project NOT (Notice of Termination) upon completion of the project;
c. The applicant must maintain on their project site, for review by staff:
i. The approved final plans that have been stamped by the Town Zoning
Administrator. These plans must include the project SWPPP (Storm
Water Pollution Prevention Plan) when such a plan was prepared and
approved;
ii. The project NOI and proof of coverage under the current NYSDEC
SPDES General Permit, or an individual SPDES permit issued for the
project if required.
g) 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;
h) The applicant must meet with Staff after approval and prior to issuance of
Building Permit and/or the beginning of any site work;
i) Subsequent issuance of further permits, including building permits is dependent on
compliance with this and all other conditions of this resolution;
j) 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.
k) This resolution is to be placed in its entirety on the final plans.
l) All signage to be Code compliant.
m) The two lights in the Town right of way and the tree to be removed from the plan.
Motion seconded by Jamie White. Duly adopted this 30th day of April, 2019 by the following
vote:
MS. WHITE-The two lights and the tree.
MR. DEEB-Okay. The two lights in the Town right of way and the tree.
MR. VUILLAUME-One tree.
MR. DEEB-In the same right of way to be removed from the site.
AYES: Mr. Hunsinger, Mr. Magowan, Mr. Jackoski, Mr. Deeb, Ms. White, Mr. Shafer,
Mr. Traver
16
(Queensbury Planning Board 04/30/2019)
NOES: NONE
MR. TRAVER-Okay. You’re all set.
MR. VUILLAUME-Thank you very much.
MR. RONAYNE-Thank you very much.
MR. TRAVER-The next area of our agenda is under New Business and the first item under
New Business is Bernardo DeJesus, Site Plan 17-2019.
NEW BUSINESS:
SITE PLAN NO. 17-2019 SEQR TYPE: TYPE II. BERNARDO DE JESUS. AGENT(S):
DENNIS MAC ELROY. OWNER(S): SAME AS APPLICANT. ZONING: WR. LOCATION:
135 SEELYE ROAD. APPLICANT PROPOSES TO REMOVE AN EXISTING SHORE AREA
PATIO TO INSTALL A 350 SQ. FT. PERMEABLE PATIO WITH RETAINING WALLS.
PROJECT INCLUDES PLANTINGS, RAIN GARDENS, AND VEGETATIVE SHORELINE.
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: SP 19-2014 GABLE ROOF, AV 21-2014, P2014-412
DOCK, 2013-581 RES. ALT., DEMO 124-2018, PC 125-2018 SF RES. WARREN CO.
REFERRAL: APRIL 2019. SITE INFORMATION: LAKE GEORGE, APA. LOT SIZE: .50
ACRE. TAX MAP NO. 227.17-1-56. SECTION: 179-6-050.
DENNIS MAC ELROY, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT
MR. TRAVER-Laura?
MRS. MOORE-Okay. So this applicant proposes to remove an existing shoreline area patio
and then to install a 350 square foot permeable patio with retaining walls and re-location of
a fire pit within the area of the permeable patio, and this is considered hard surfacing within
50 feet of the shoreline subject to Site Plan Review. The Planning Board was previously
before this Board in reference to construction of the house, which also included an extensive
landscaping plan. However, as they moved along they got into the extensive landscaping plan
and wanted to do the hard surfacing for the patio so they’re back in for Site Plan Review.
MR. TRAVER-Okay. Thank you. Good evening.
MR. MAC ELROY-Good evening. I’m Dennis MacElroy with Environmental Design
representing the applicant and owner Bernardo DeJesus for this Site Plan application and I
was confused with something Laura said. This was before the Board?
MRS. MOORE-Maybe not. It may not have been.
MR. MAC ELROY-I don’t think it was.
MR. TRAVER-I thought this was part of a, sort of an almost like a modification in a way.
It’s part of a bigger plan for development.
MR. MAC ELROY-I wasn’t involved at that point with the project, but my understanding was
that it met all setbacks and heights and floor area ratios and it was simply a building permit
application.
MRS. MOORE-It could have been.
17
(Queensbury Planning Board 04/30/2019)
MR. TRAVER-Well what we have before us is what we have before us.
MR. MAC ELROY-That’s correct, and as Laura indicated the reason it is involved with the
Board review now is that it’s work within 50 feet of the lake, hard scaping. So that hadn’t
come up in their previous thoughts. If you’ve been by the site you’ll see that the house is
well under construction and this is a last step of cleaning up the shoreline area. There was
quite an extensive planting plan that was developed by Studio A and we included that within
our application package. So the work here really is cleaning up that shoreline area and having
a little bit location of what is an existing patio area that the owner felt it was a little too
close to the neighbors to the north. The house is real close to the property line. It was
felt for both parties’ benefits we’d move that little patio area more central to the lot. So
this resulted in some other site work, grading, retaining wall, patio surface which would be
pervious. They’re going to use pervious block pavers in that area. So relatively simple,
straightforward, but it does require your review.
MR. TRAVER-Understood. Thank you. Questions from members of the Planning Board?
This is SEQR Type II so no action under SEQR is required. We do have a public hearing,
however. Is there anyone in the audience that wanted to address the Planning Board on
this project? I’m not seeing anyone. Laura, are there any written comments?
PUBLIC HEARING OPENED
MRS. MOORE-There’s no written comment.
MR. TRAVER-Okay. Then we’ll go ahead and close the public hearing.
PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED
MR. TRAVER-If there are no, I see the County, they don’t see any significant impacts. If
there are no questions from the Planning Board, I guess we’re ready to entertain a resolution.
RESOLUTION APPROVING SP # 17-2019 BERNARDO DE JESUS
The applicant has submitted an application to the Planning Board for Site Plan approval
pursuant to Article 9 of the Town zoning Ordinance for: Applicant proposes to remove an
existing shore area patio to install a 350 sq. ft. permeable patio with retaining walls. Project
includes site grading, new plantings on site and shoreline area. 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;
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 opened a public hearing on the Site plan application on 04/30/2019 and
continued the public hearing to 04/30/2019, 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
04/30/2019;
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,
18
(Queensbury Planning Board 04/30/2019)
MOTION TO APPROVE SITE PLAN 17-2019 BERNARDO DEJESUS. Introduced by David
Deeb who moved for its adoption;
Per the draft provided by staff conditioned upon the following conditions:
1) Waivers request granted: g. site lighting, h. signage, n traffic, o. commercial
alterations/ construction details, p floor plans, q. soil logs, r. construction/demolition
disposal s. snow removal.
2) Adherence to the items outlined in the follow-up letter sent with this resolution.
a) If application was referred to engineering, then engineering sign-off required prior
to signature of Zoning Administrator of the approved plans;
b) Final approved plans should have dimensions and setbacks noted on the site
plan/survey, floor plans and elevation for the existing rooms and proposed rooms in
the building and site improvements,
c) 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.
th
Motion seconded by Michael Dixon. Duly adopted this 30 day of April, 2019 by the following
vote:
AYES: Ms. White, Mr. Shafer, Mr. Hunsinger, Mr. Magowan, Mr. Dixon, Mr. Deeb,
Mr. Traver
NOES: NONE
MR. TRAVER-You’re all set.
MR. MAC ELROY-Thank you very much.
MR. TRAVER-All right. Let’s see. Next under unapproved development we have AREC 10,
LLC/UHAUL, Site Plan 18-2019.
SITE PLAN NO. 18-2019 SEQR TYPE: UNLISTED. AREC 10, LLC/UHAUL. AGENT(S):
ENVIRONMENTAL DESIGN PARTNERS: OWNER(S): SAME AS APPLICANT. ZONING:
CI-18. LOCATION: 112 MAIN STREET. APPLICANT REQUESTS APPROVAL OF TREE
CLEARING ON SITE AND TO UPDATE CONDITIONS INCLUDING PARKING AND
ACCESS TO BIG BOOM ROAD. PURSUANT TO CHAPTER 179-9-120 OF THE ZONING
ORDINANCE, MODIFICATION TO EXISTING SITE PLAN SHALL BE SUBJECT TO
PLANNING BOARD REVIEW AND APPROVAL. CROSS REFERENCE: SP 4-2015 OPEN
CANOPY STRUCTURE. WARREN CO. REFERRAL: APRIL 2019. LOT SIZE: 2.41 ACRES.
TAX MAP NO. 309.14-1-81. SECTION: 179-9-120.
GAVIN VUILLAUME, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT
MR. TRAVER-Laura?
19
(Queensbury Planning Board 04/30/2019)
MRS. MOORE-Okay. Applicant proposes to maintain a tree clearing area on the site and to
update site conditions including parking and access to Big Boom Road. Additional
modification to the site includes stormwater and additional green space.
MR. TRAVER-Okay. Thank you. Good evening.
MR. VUILLAUME-Good evening. Gavin Vuillaume again with Environmental Design, here this
evening with Ben Mackevorne with U-Haul. So with this project again this is a fully
developed site. Most of you are probably very familiar with the U-Haul. Very close to the
last project that I presented off of Big Boom Road. Currently they’ve been operating with
an area here that’s been re-graveled for many years. Over time they’ve been storing a lot
of their equipment and U-Haul vehicles in that area. It really needs to be a little bit better
defined and that’s what we’re hoping to achieve with this Site Plan is a re-configuration of
those gravel parking areas, make them more permanent. Those would be now paved. Along
the, I guess it would be to the south of that, we’ve also got some additional areas here, 14
spaces, and another 14 spaces that we would like to add as additional parking spaces. Again,
to help organize the site, make it function a little better. There is a rather large gravel
access off to Big Boom. We would like to formalize that entrance as a full access to help
patrons get in and out of the site a little easier, as opposed to coming out onto the Main
Street now they can hopefully utilize the traffic light that’s there, but we’re hoping that
these improvements will help the site function better and appear more attractive.
MR. TRAVER-Okay. Questions from members of the Planning Board?
MR. MAGOWAN-Well I think the access off of Big Boom Road, I like that idea. It’s safer
for really everyone and it will bring more people to the light instead of trying to.
MR. VUILLAUME-Get in and out in front of the light which is difficult.
MS. WHITE-And while it makes sense I do see the statement there are no plans to replace
plantings in the area that has been cleared. Is there any place else that plantings can be
replaced?
MR. VUILLAUME-Yes. Ben just had mentioned to me this evening that they are willing to
do some landscaping.
MR. MACKEVORNE-So our plan was kind of this area, kind of behind the parking within our
fence to add some more community standard like landscaping. What was there was old pine
trees that needed help so add some here as well as up front here we could also add some
shrubbery or something to bring up the community standard.
MS. WHITE-Do we need to be specific in numbers and types or can we just say?
MRS. MOORE-You need some definition. So I know it’s something that you need to update
the site plan with the specifics. I guess it could be somewhat made but I’m comfortable
that you have a representative that understands what our landscaping standards are. So
I’m sure that we could come up with a plan between Staff and the representative that would
work. I’m just trying to think of some language off the top of my head and I can’t.
MR. TRAVER-Additional landscaping as offered by the applicant and in coordination with
Staff.
MRS. MOORE-Yes.
MR. TRAVER-Okay.
20
(Queensbury Planning Board 04/30/2019)
rd
MR. SHAFER-Have the April 23 Chazen comments been addressed?
MR. VUILLAUME-Yes. I talked to Brandon Ferguson from our office who was working on
that. He has addressed those. I don’t know. Do you have the sheet that shows the
utilities, Laura, or not? I think that’s it except it’s a little crooked. Yes, that’s okay.
Actually I have a plan here that kind of shows it maybe even better, because I knew that
question might come up. So if you look at the plan here, what we’re doing for stormwater
management, they do have an area here reserved for a small stormwater management area.
There’ll be a slight depression with a drywell here, and also another drywell in this vicinity
to capture any drainage from any new pavements in that area and I do believe Brandon has
addressed the comments from Chazen. Did you get anything?
MRS. MOORE-I don’t have anything new.
MR. VUILLAUME-Okay.
MRS. MOORE-I’m comfortable with what the applicant has said and the questions that were
asked from Chazen were not.
MR. VUILLAUME-Yes, I don’t think there was a real lot of comments with it.
MR. TRAVER-There is a condition to any approval that requires a signoff by the Town
Engineer.
MR. VUILLAUME-That’s typical. Yes.
MR. TRAVER-Anything else?
MR. DIXON-Were there any adjustments to your lighting at all? Since you’re clearing more
areas, are you planning on putting in anything additional?
MR. RONAYNE-The way we have it now is fine.
MR. TRAVER-This is an Unlisted action under SEQR. So we are required to perform a SEQR
resolution. Does anyone have any environmental concerns after review of the application?
Hearing none I guess we can go ahead with that motion.
RESOLUTION GRANTING A NEGATIVE SEQR DEC. SP # 18-2019 UHAUL
The applicant requests to maintain tree clearing area on site and to update site conditions
including parking and access to Big Boom Road. Pursuant to Chapter 179-9-120 of the Zoning
Ordinance, modification to existing site plan shall be subject to Planning Board review and
approval.
The Planning Board has determined that the proposed project and Planning Board action is
subject to review under the State Environmental Quality Review Act;
The proposed action considered by this Board is Unlisted in the Department of
Environmental Conservation Regulations implementing the State Environmental Quality
Review Act and the regulations of the Town of Queensbury;
No Federal or other agencies are involved;
Part 1 of the Short EAF has been completed by the applicant;
21
(Queensbury Planning Board 04/30/2019)
Upon review of the information recorded on this EAF, it is the conclusion of the Town of
Queensbury Planning Board as lead agency that this project will result in no significant
adverse impacts on the environment, and, therefore, an environmental impact statement
need not be prepared. Accordingly, this negative declaration is issued.
MOTION TO GRANT A NEGATIVE DECLARATION FOR SITE PLAN 18-2019 AREC 10, LLC
/UHAUL. 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.
th
Motion seconded by Brad Magowan. Duly adopted this 30 day of April, 2019 by the
following vote:
AYES: Ms. White, Mr. Shafer, Mr. Hunsinger, Mr. Magowan, Mr. Dixon, Mr. Deeb,
Mr. Traver
NOES: NONE
MRS. MOORE-And just to confirm, you opened and closed the public hearing?
MR. TRAVER-Yes.
PUBLIC HEARING OPENED
PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED
MR. TRAVER-All right. Next we can move on to the Site Plan resolution. Does anyone have
any further questions, concerns for the applicant regarding the Site Plan? Okay. I guess
we’re ready to hear that.
RESOLUTION APPROVING SP # 18-2019 AREC 10, LLC/UHAUL
The applicant has submitted an application to the Planning Board for Site Plan approval
pursuant to Article 9 of the Town zoning Ordinance for: The applicant requests to maintain
tree clearing area on site and to update site conditions including parking and access to Big
Boom Road. Pursuant to Chapter 179-9-120 of the Zoning Ordinance, modification to existing
site plan shall be subject to Planning Board review and approval.
Pursuant to relevant sections of the Town of Queensbury Zoning Code-Chapter 179-9-080,
the Planning Board has determined that this proposal satisfies the requirements as stated
in the Zoning Code;
As required by General Municipal Law Section 239-m the site plan application was referred
to the Warren County Planning Department for its recommendation;
The Planning Board has reviewed the potential environmental impacts of the project,
pursuant to the State Environmental Quality Review Act (SEQRA) and adopted a SEQRA
Negative Declaration – Determination of Non-Significance
The Planning Board opened a public hearing on the Site plan application on 04/30/2019 and
continued the public hearing to 04/30/2019, when it was closed,
22
(Queensbury Planning Board 04/30/2019)
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
04/30/2019;
The Planning Board determines that the application complies with the review considerations
and standards set forth in Article 9 of the Zoning Ordinance for Site Plan approval,
MOTION TO APPROVE SITE PLAN 18-2019 AREC 10. LLC / UHAUL. Introduced by David
Deeb who moved for its adoption;
Per the draft provided by staff conditioned upon the following conditions:
1) Waivers request granted: g. site lighting, h. signage, k. topography, l. landscaping, n
traffic, o. commercial alterations/ construction details, p floor plans, q. soil logs, r.
construction/demolition disposal s. snow removal.
2) Adherence to the items outlined in the follow-up letter sent with this resolution.
a) If application was referred to engineering, then engineering sign-off required prior
to signature of Zoning Administrator of the approved plans;
b) Final approved plans should have dimensions and setbacks noted on the site
plan/survey, floor plans and elevation for the existing rooms and proposed rooms in
the building and site improvements,
c) 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) Additional landscaping to be added to the Site Plan subject to Staff approval.
Motion seconded by Brad Magowan. Duly adopted this 30th day of April, 2019 by the
following vote:
AYES: Mr. Hunsinger, Mr. Magowan, Mr. Dixon, Mr. Deeb, Ms. White, Mr. Shafer,
Mr. Traver
NOES: NONE
MR. TRAVER-You’re all set.
MR. VUILLAUME-Great. Thank you very much.
MR. TRAVER-Next we have Kevin Quinn, Northeast Realty Dev. Site Plan 15-2019.
SITE PLAN NO. 15-2019 SEQR TYPE: UNLISTED. KEVIN QUINN/NORTHEAST
REALTY DEV. AGENT(S): NAOMI POLITO. OWNER(S): SAME AS APPLICANT.
ZONING: CI. LOCATION: 1648 STATE ROUTE 9. APPLICANT PROPOSES TO USE
0.5 ACRES OF AN EXISTING 1.11 ACRE VACANT PARCEL FOR DISPLAY OUTSIDE OF
RETAIL ITEMS ASSOCIATED WITH EXISTING BUSINESSES ON ADJOINING LOTS.
APPLICANT ALSO PROPOSES TO USE PROPERTY AS TRANSIENT MERCHANT SITE
DURING AMERICADE. PURSUANT TO CHAPTER 179-3-040 OF THE ZONING
ORDINANCE, NEW COMMERCIAL DISPLAY AREA SHALL BE SUBJECT TO PLANNING
23
(Queensbury Planning Board 04/30/2019)
BOARD REVIEW AND APPROVAL. CROSS REFERENCE: ADJACENT PARCEL HAS
SIMILAR REVIEW FOR OUTSIDE DISPLAY AND FOR TRANSIENT MERCHANT
MARKET. WARREN CO. REFERRAL: APRIL 2019. LOT SIZE: 1.11 ACRES, TAX MAP
NO. 277.4-1-4. SECTION: 179-3-040.
KEVIN QUINN, PRESENT
MR. TRAVER-Laura?
MRS. MOORE-So the applicant proposes to use a portion of an existing vacant property to
clear the brush, establish an area for outdoor sales and display. I know there’s information
in the packet that identifies Transient Merchant, but it’s not a Transient Merchant market
at this time. If the applicant pursues that they will do that at a future time. However the
properties to the north are an existing Transient Merchant, are in operation, goes through
the Town Board approval on a yearly basis. I think it does. I don’t follow that process too
much anymore because it’s been taken out of some of the aspects of the review for me, but
this particular parcel that we’re going to talk about is only for outdoor sales and display.
MR. TRAVER-Understood. Thank you. Good evening.
MR. QUINN-Hi, how are you doing. My name is Kevin Quinn. I own the Leather Outlet on
Route 9, and basically what we’re looking to do is just add more space. The lot came
available. It’s been sitting for 26 years that I’ve been there. The price was right. We
said we’ll buy it. We’re not looking to add any more entrances or parking or anything for
that nature because we already own over a quarter mile of road frontage. So we have plenty
of parking. We bought the north end last year to alleviate a lot of parking for us for the
Americade, and basically we just want to clean it up. We don’t want to look any more at a
bunch of scraggly trees that are, you know, blocking the view of our property, and we didn’t
want to just take it down and not use it and we didn’t want to buy it and not have a purpose.
There’s two parcels. The one parcel is level to my parcel that I already own. The other
one is set down next to the Colonel Williams monument. So after we our approval, if we get
approval, or if not, whatever way it rolls, I’m pretty sure our family’s going to contact them
to donate that to them. Because we don’t believe that should be filled anymore and they’ve
done a nice job and I think the property, they need the room. If I kept filling that I would
fill very close to that monument, and the people that I bought it from they stopped after a
while just because they didn’t want to fill it anymore. It wasn’t that they couldn’t I don’t
think, and it would look better if it was just left the way it is. The slope is pretty well
there. It’s taken the trees. It’s a natural look now. It doesn’t look like a land filled full
of dirt anymore, and living next to it for 26 years I have to tell you I was tired of looking
at that after the first couple of years I lived there. It was very discouraging to buy that
property and have two people on each side of you just constantly dumping dirt, dumping dirt,
you know, without a purpose. Well I guess in the end the purpose was that I would buy it.
So, you know, that’s it. We’re not looking to park on it. We’re not looking to do any night
sales or anything of that nature. The wood carver that I already have, he’s already approved.
We’re just looking to give him more room to put out some bigger pieces. He does carve
some really big stuff for resorts and stuff like that. Sometimes it takes him a while to
finish a piece. He likes to stage them out and just more room in general. We’re not looking
to sell anything else over there at this time. When it comes to the Americade, next year
we would come back to you and ask you if we can use some of that for vending space next
year, after we’ve cleaned it up, after we think that it’s appropriate for our vendors to use.
Unfortunately the vending business is going down not going up. I don’t get as many vendors
as I used to. So I’m not lacking space like I was 10 years ago, 15 years ago, and besides
that, if you have any questions.
MR. TRAVER-Thank you. Questions from members of the Board?
24
(Queensbury Planning Board 04/30/2019)
MR. MAGOWAN-Yes, I have one. Can you say one of your commercials?
MR. QUINN-That’s okay. You know we are a public, you know, we’re out for the people. I
have so many people come every day and ask us to give them something for their charity.
There’s not a lot of small businesses left, and I ask you this in a nice way. When I guy like
me comes up, I don’t knock the guys back here with all the, we can’t always afford it. We
can’t afford the engineers and everything else. Sometimes we’re just simple people that
came here 25, 30 years ago and started a business to raise our families here. I’ve raised
two sons. They’re both very educated and both of them are almost gone from here. So at
some point I probably won’t be doing my crazy commercials anymore.
MR. MAGOWAN-No, keep it up. The energy that comes off of them.
MR. QUINN-And we’ll do one for the Town Board the next time.
MR. MAGOWAN-I appreciate the motorcycles. I’m in your shop quite a bit. I see that you
had the statute of the Magic Forest guy pull in today.
MR. QUINN-Yes, we bought the Indian. We didn’t want to see that Indian go anywhere
else. That’s why I really want to give that property to the College, I really do. I want to
give that lower piece, I don’t want them to buy it. I just want to give it to them.
MS. WHITE-And that’s what my question is. I apologize, I did not get a chance to do a site
visit, but is there access to the property from that?
MR. QUINN-Well they have access because they punched a paved walkway down in when
they re-built everything. I have only access by, I guess through them, or if I wanted to my
access would be just keep filling and I would access my property as I filled along, but I have
no intention.
MS. WHITE-So there’s no access to it through your property?
MR. QUINN-No, not anymore. To that lower piece. That’s why I want to do it, too. I
mean that’s a great question. I’m glad you asked that because I don’t want to seem like I’m
giving away a million dollars. I mean I’m sure Williams College could afford to buy anything.
They have a billion dollars in their war chest I’m sure like any other great university.
MS. WHITE-My concern is just maintaining that type of historical. I think it’s very
important.
MR. QUINN-I think it’s important. I don’t think they should have ever filled the lot I own,
if you want my honest opinion. I don’t think they should have filled a lot of those lots up on
Route 9 when they did back in the day. They just, you know, moved in.
MR. MAGOWAN-They’ve been filling those for a long, long, long time. Even where you’re
building, wasn’t that?
MR. QUINN-I’m actually, not to say it, but there used to be a big corner there and there
used to always be a bar or something on that corner, back in the 20’s, from what we can
gather, and when they straightened out the road, if you look at my map, part of the right of
way, the State, is through my parking lot because the road used to hook way out, and they
blew that whole, and made it straight like a dead man’s corner I guess back in the 20’s and
nobody every acquired that, who bought my land, and the State has come to me. I went to
the State and asked them to buy the right of way because there’s a little space between my
property and the actual right of way, and I’m actually thinking about going back to them now
and saying, look, if I give this to Williams College will you give me this, and I’m not lying when
25
(Queensbury Planning Board 04/30/2019)
I say that. I don’t want you to think that I don’t have a little bit of a motive to maybe re-
gather some of my property frontage, the right of way.
MR. MAGOWAN-And that’s all scrub stuff anyway.
MR. QUINN-Five or six years ago somebody went in there with a bull dozer and they leveled
it right off. We’re not going to go back that far either. I don’t know if you saw on the
little map we left a 20 foot buffer, 25 foot buffer all the way around it, and no matter what,
whether you approve me or not, I wouldn’t knock that down. I’ll always leave that, because
then it just looks like, and I don’t want that. It makes my property look bad. It always
has. That dirt pit next door to me has not been a pleasure. I just want to make it grass,
I guess, a little better, and that’s it.
MR. TRAVER-We do have a public hearing on this application. Is there anyone in the
audience that wanted to address 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-All right. Then we will close the public hearing.
PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED
MR. TRAVER-This is an Unlisted action under SEQR. So we have a SEQR resolution in our
packet. After reviewing the application, does anyone have any environmental concerns?
MR. DEEB-I don’t have a concern, but I notice Question 14 wasn’t answered, on mine anyway.
MR. QUINN-I don’t even know what it is honestly.
MR. DEEB-Identify the typical habitat types that occur on, or are likely to be found on the
project site. Check all that apply.
MR. TRAVER-Is it multiple guess?
MR. DEEB-You’ve just got to check one. I don’t want to leave it blank.
MRS. MOORE-Right. So I would say forest and Early mid-successional, and you can check
all that apply. So there’s two of them there. I would work on the word forest and Early
mid-successional.
MR. TRAVER-And that just has to do with the evolution.
MR. QUINN-Okay. Sorry about that.
MR. DEEB-That’s okay.
MR. QUINN-I probably didn’t know which one to check.
MR. DEEB-Yes, they can be confusing.
MR. TRAVER-All right. So clarification on the SEQR form. Are there any other concerns
regarding SEQR? We’re ready for a resolution, then.
26
(Queensbury Planning Board 04/30/2019)
RESOLUTION GRANTING A NEGATIVE SEQR DEC. SP # 15-2019 KEVIN QUINN
The applicant proposes to remove some vegetation –small trees on a portion of an existing
1.11 acre vacant parcel for display outside of retail items associated with existing businesses
on adjoining lots such as wood carvings and outdoor furniture (no parking). Project includes
site grading to place topsoil and to seed to install a lawn area. Pursuant to Chapter 179-3-
040 of the Zoning Ordinance, new commercial display area shall be subject to Planning Board
review and approval.
The Planning Board has determined that the proposed project and Planning Board action is
subject to review under the State Environmental Quality Review Act;
The proposed action considered by this Board is Unlisted in the Department of
Environmental Conservation Regulations implementing the State Environmental Quality
Review Act and the regulations of the Town of Queensbury;
No Federal or other agencies are involved;
Part 1 of the Short EAF has been completed by the applicant;
Upon review of the information recorded on this EAF, it is the conclusion of the Town of
Queensbury Planning Board as lead agency that this project will result in no significant
adverse impacts on the environment, and, therefore, an environmental impact statement
need not be prepared. Accordingly, this negative declaration is issued.
MOTION TO GRANT A NEGATIVE DECLARATION FOR SITE PLAN 15-2019 KEVIN
QUINN/NORTHEAST REALTY DEVELOPMENT. 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.
th
Motion seconded by Brad Magowan. Duly adopted this 30 day of April, 2019 by the
following vote:
MR. HUNSINGER-Should we just say for the record that we noticed that the site is
proximate to the Colonel Williams monument? Because that is historically significant. It
doesn’t really have any impact.
MR. QUINN-There’s actually a lot between us, which we own.
MS. WHITE-Which is noted.
MR. TRAVER-But it’s not part of this application.
MR. DEEB-I don’t see where that would have any bearing on this.
MR. HUNSINGER-Okay.
MRS. MOORE-That’s fine.
MR. DEEB-I mean it is there.
27
(Queensbury Planning Board 04/30/2019)
MR. QUINN-We recognize that with the conversation. I’m not saying that but there is
actually a building lot between us, about an acre and a quarter.
MR. DEEB-Are you okay?
MR. HUNSINGER-Yes, I’m okay.
MR. TRAVER-Any other questions or comments on the SEQR? Maria, can we have the vote,
please.
AYES: Mr. Shafer, Mr. Hunsinger, Mr. Magowan, Mr. Dixon, Mr. Deeb, Ms. White,
Mr. Traver
NOES: NONE
MR. QUINN-Okay.
MR. DEEB-We’re not done. We’ve got one more.
MR. TRAVER-So now we actually move to the resolution regarding the Site Plan approval.
Does anyone have any questions, comments, concerns?
MRS. MOORE-So I’m going to interject with this one. So we’ve been in discussion with
Kevin and Naomi in regards to the area that’s supposed to be cleared and re-vegetated or
lawn area. We came up with, as you see this aerial photo has some contours on it, and what
I would suggest is that there be some specificity to it that he can clear up to the level of
Contour 620. That’s really the top of the bank. We don’t recognize it, but that way if Bruce
goes out and needs to look at where this site starts and ends he has something to, has a
concrete point to look at.
MS. WHITE-I appreciate that.
MRS. MOORE-Okay.
MR. TRAVER-So we’re asking for topographic?
MRS. MOORE-No, no. Using the aerial photo, you can use it as part of the condition, saying
using the aerial photograph that was submitted, that the applicant has indicated they
wouldn’t clear past the point, the Contour 620, and that way it gives the applicant adequate
area to clear and to grub. He’s also mentioned he may not even clear that whole area.
MR. QUINN-No, I’m not. I hear what you’re saying.
MS. WHITE-We’re being specific.
MRS. MOORE-Yes.
MS. WHITE-And we have something to go back and look at, what we approved.
MRS. MOORE-Yes.
MR. TRAVER-All right. Thank you, Laura. Any other discussion?
MR. DIXON-I’d just like to make a quick comment. Once that area is cleared, I know
there’s, it looks like you’re using behind the building a little bit of storage area.
28
(Queensbury Planning Board 04/30/2019)
MR. QUINN-It’s gone. It’s all going to be cleaned up.
MR. DIXON-Okay.
MR. QUINN-Everything will be out of there.
MR. DIXON-Beautiful. Thank you.
MR. TRAVER-Anything else? Maria, can we have the vote, please.
MR. DEEB-I haven’t even read the motion yet.
MR. TRAVER-I’m sorry.
MR. MAGOWAN-Who’s rushing who here?
MR. TRAVER-My apologies.
RESOLUTION APPROVING SP # 15-2019 KEVIN QUINN
The applicant has submitted an application to the Planning Board for Site Plan approval
pursuant to Article 9 of the Town zoning Ordinance for: The applicant proposes to remove
some vegetation –small trees on a portion of an existing 1.11 acre vacant parcel for display
outside of retail items associated with existing businesses on adjoining lots such as wood
carvings and outdoor furniture (no parking). Project includes site grading to place topsoil
and to seed to install a lawn area. Pursuant to Chapter 179-3-040 of the Zoning Ordinance,
new commercial display area 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 04/30/2019 and
continued the public hearing to 04/30/2019, 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
04/30/2019;
The Planning Board determines that the application complies with the review considerations
and standards set forth in Article 9 of the Zoning Ordinance for Site Plan approval,
MOTION TO APPROVE SITE PLAN 15-2019 KEVIN QUINN/NORTHEAST REALTY
DEVELOPMENT. Introduced by David Deeb who moved for its adoption;
Per the draft provided by staff conditioned upon the following conditions:
29
(Queensbury Planning Board 04/30/2019)
1) Waivers request granted: g. site lighting, h. signage, j. stormwater, k. topography, l.
landscaping, n traffic, o. commercial alterations/ construction details, p floor plans,
q. soil logs, r. construction/demolition disposal s. snow removal.
2) Adherence to the items outlined in the follow-up letter sent with this resolution.
a) If application was referred to engineering, then engineering sign-off required prior
to signature of Zoning Administrator of the approved plans;
b) Final approved plans should have dimensions and setbacks noted on the site
plan/survey, floor plans and elevation for the existing rooms and proposed rooms in
the building and site improvements,
c) 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) Clearing to stop at Contour Number 620.
Motion seconded by John Shafer. Duly adopted this 30th day of April, 2019 by the following
vote:
AYES: Mr. Hunsinger, Mr. Magowan, Mr. Dixon, Mr. Deeb, Ms. White, Mr. Shafer,
Mr. Traver
NOES: NONE
MR. QUINN-Thank you. I have to say one other thing. Without this young lady over here,
I tell you she makes life very easy. Thank you very much.
MR. TRAVER-All right. Next on the agenda we have Faden Enterprises, Inc., Site Plan 27-
2019.
SITE PLAN NO. 27-2019 SEQR TYPE: UNLISTED. FADEN ENTERPRISES, INC.
AGENT(S): LANSING ENGINEERING. OWNER(S): 894 REALTY, LLC. ZONING: CM.
LOCATION: 894 STATE ROUTE 9. APPLICANT PROPOSES TO MODIFY AN EXISTING
APPROVED SITE PLAN INCLUDING BUILDING AND SITE CHANGES. THE PROPOSED
BUILDING IS TO BE 11,793 SQ. FT. (PREVIOUSLY 11,400 SQ. FT.) AND 75 FOOT
SETBACK (PREVIOUSLY 93 FT.) TO THE BUILDING OVERHANG. PROJECT STILL
INCLUDES SITE WORK ON ADJOINING LOT FOR ACCESS DRIVE AND PARKING
SPACES, ALSO OTHER ON SITE WORK FOR GRADING, STORMWATER, WATER AND
SEWER CONNECTION. PURSUANT TO 179-3-040 OF THE ZONING ORDINANCE,
MODIFICATIONS TO AN APPROVED SITE PLAN SHALL BE SUBJECT TO PLANNING
BOARD REVIEW AND APPROVAL. CROSS REFERENCE: SP 37-2018; AV 34-2018, SP
36-2018; WARREN CO. REFERRAL: APRIL 2019. LOT SIZE: 1.3 ACRE. TAX MAP NO.
296.17-1-49. SECTION: 179-3-040.
SCOTT LANSING, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT; RUSS FADEN, PRESENT
MR. TRAVER-Laura?
MRS. MOORE-Okay. So this application is a modification of the previous project. The
current proposal is for the building to be 11,793 square feet. Previously it was 11,400. The
30
(Queensbury Planning Board 04/30/2019)
setback is at 75 feet. Previously it was 93 feet. Everything else remains the same in
reference to having a retail business operation. He has removed a retaining wall on Montray
Road. The building now, when you actually look at it, it goes with the contour of the property
and that’s it.
MR. TRAVER-Less fill, right?
MRS. MOORE-Less fill.
MR. TRAVER-Okay. Thank you. Good evening.
MR. LANSING-Good evening. My name is Scott Lansing with Lansing Engineering. I’m also
here this evening with Mr. Russ Faden, applicant for the project. I think that was a great
re-cap of the project. Basically the main thrust of the application is to try to reduce the
amount of fill that it brought onto site. Originally the applicant had a possibility of
importing some fill from a site close by on the site. He was not able to get as much fill as
he wanted from that site so we did some adjustments, and also adjustments to the building
that works better with the tenants that he has for the structure. So what I’ll do is just
kind of go through and re-iterate the changes. As far as the structure itself it was changed
from 11,400 square feet to 11,800 square feet roughly. So small change in the structure.
This evening we have, on the left hand side is the original plan that was approved by the
Planning Board and on the right hand side is the amended plan that we are proposing to you
this evening. So the building did get a little bit narrower and a little bit deeper but it’s
roughly the same size as far as square footage. Parking on the site did increase by one
space to accommodate the extra parking with the building size. It increased from 60 spaces
to 61 spaces. As far as revisions to the site to try to reduce the fill, the building was moved
forward a slight bit. The finished floor elevations are stepped. On the bottom you can see
it is basically the front elevation of the building. We show the step up of that building. So
it works with the grade a little bit better. It matches it as opposed to a building going
straight across and needing more fill basically on the right hand side of that front elevation.
With that we were able to eliminate the retaining wall on the south side of the site down by
Montray Road and also in the back of the site I think you can see with the reduced fill we
were able to save more of the trees in the back of the site. On the right hand side you can
see the existing tree line is a little thinner than the one on the right hand side. As far as
parking, as I did mention we did add one space. We did move the parking also down towards
the south. So originally we had the parking directly adjacent to the parking on the Pizzeria
Uno site. As you can see now we have basically a grass strip between those two in that area.
Once again we over stepped the grades and worked with the existing grades a little better.
As far as the overall green space it does remain consistent over all the parcel. On our
particular site we did go down in green space. We went from 52.3% green space on the old
plan to 42.8% green space. Thirty percent’s required so we meet it either way. As far as
impervious area we have the exact same impervious area. By removing some of the parking
from the Pizzeria Uno area, moving it down, we have within 100 square feet the same amount
of impervious area from site to site. For the most part we think it’s a pretty straightforward
adjustment and we’re here tonight for questions and comments from the Board. We would
like to ask for consideration of approval contingent upon addressing the comments both from
Chazen and Planning Staff. We went through those comments. We think they’re all
relatively straightforward and we’re more than happy to address those as a condition of the
approval. Thank you very much.
MR. TRAVER-Okay. Thank you. Questions from members of the Planning Board?
MR. MAGOWAN-Well, I would like to thank Russ. You’re getting really good at this. I was
watching the fill and I know you were hoping more was coming across the street because it
would have been easier just to truck it across, and then it did. It seemed to, it stopped a
little quicker than I would have thought, too. I mean it looked like a lot of fill was coming
31
(Queensbury Planning Board 04/30/2019)
out there, but I like what you did here and conforming it, and I just want to thank you for
really trying to make your projects. Because I know Downtown has really turned out nice
and I hear speculations maybe a bank someday, but that’s great and I just wanted to thank
you and of course your engineer really, with the presentation and the work and I know it’s
not cheap but I do thank you for doing that extra step.
MR. FADEN-You’re welcome.
MR. HUNSINGER-I think it’s a better project.
MR. FADEN-So do I, and hindsight’s 20/20, but I think it’s better having it not so high and
it blends in a little more with the topography and features of Montray Road. You’re not
going to see a huge retaining wall or it’s not going to stand so high. So I think it does blend
in better with what’s currently there.
MR. HUNSINGER-I mean we have pictures of something similar to what you have proposed
there in the Comprehensive Plan on how to build on hill sites and you were kind of creating a
hill, if you will, with fill. This is way more visually appealing. I think it’s a better project.
MS. WHITE-I have to go back to my concern in the original plan which is that there was
landscaping and there was a historical monument and we agreed very specifically that that
not to be removed and it’s gone, and I don’t see anything on the plans to have that replaced.
Am I missing it or?
MR. FADEN-We never had any intentions of removing that.
MS. WHITE-It’s gone. It has been gone, and the three trees that were there are also
gone. Cleared. All the landscaping that was agreed upon that that would stay is gone.
MR. FADEN-The monument itself is gone?
MR. MAGOWAN-There was a sign.
MS. WHITE-But below the sign there were ties and landscape as part of that historical
marker and it’s gone. So I’m curious why that was completely removed and there’s no plan
to replace it.
MR. FADEN-I’m sorry. I’m not even familiar with what you’re referring to. What was
removed?
MR. MAGOWAN-It was right on the corner of Montray and I remember it’s actually it was.
MS. WHITE-Okay there was a sign with a historical, because there’s a, past your property
there’s a historical site. So up near Route 9 on Montray there was a historical marker and
right below it was a fully landscaped area and three pretty major trees. The trees are cut
down and that landscaped area is gone.
MR. TRAVER-What’s there now, just the marker?
MS. WHITE-No, I think the marker is still there just right up by the street. Basically
there’s just bare dirt. Trees, everything is gone.
MR. DEEB-That can be remedied.
MR. FADEN-Yes.
32
(Queensbury Planning Board 04/30/2019)
MS. WHITE-But I didn’t see anything on the plan and so I wanted to note that the original
intention was that that was supposed to stay there.
MR. FADEN-Yes, well when we do the landscaping I just have to see what exactly is missing,
but we can dress that corridor up, put some more, you know, shrubs around it because I know
before it wasn’t really well maintained but we will clean all that up.
MS. WHITE-Okay. I’d just like to note that that was something that was agreed upon and
so when it’s finalized.
MR. TRAVER-We did talk about that.
MR. HUNSINGER-The sign is shown.
MR. MAGOWAN-Well it is on AC D1 it does say existing historical marker to be preserved
and protected, which is on the outside of the dark line on your print.
MR. TRAVER-I think the issue is the marker was not removed but the landscaping was.
MS. WHITE-There was more than just the sign. There was an area that was kind of, you
know, dedicated.
MR. MAGOWAN-Right.
MR. TRAVER-So the applicant is amenable to restoring some specific landscaping to
delineate that sign. Would that be sufficient?
MS. WHITE-Sure.
MR. TRAVER-Okay.
MS. WHITE-Equal to what was taken away.
MR. FADEN-It will most likely be better than what was there.
MR. LANSING-If I could ask, what landscaping was taken away? I’m looking at Google
Earth on the street view and it looks like around the sign there wasn’t anything.
MS. WHITE-I have photographs prior to them being taken away.
MR. LANSING-Okay.
MR. FADEN-We did clear some trees, but we were in our property the entire time.
MS. WHITE-I’d have to go back, historically, and find the pictures. Because it’s been a
while.
MR. TRAVER-Okay. If you have them, would it be possible for you to e-mail them to Staff.
MS. WHITE-I can forward them.
MR. TRAVER-Okay. That would help give them some guidance.
MS. WHITE-And it doesn’t have to be anything specific, but it just feels like it was a
conversation was had and I didn’t see anything noting that that would be put back to its
previous state. That’s all.
33
(Queensbury Planning Board 04/30/2019)
MR. SHAFER-The arrow from the note on the plans goes to, off the right of way, off your
property line.
MR. LANSING-The sign is off, in the right of way. It’s not on the applicant’s property.
MS. WHITE-The sign is in the right of way. The little, I don’t know, dedicated space was
within their property. Yes.
MR. TRAVER-Well it sounds like the applicant is ready to address it and if you can supply
photographs so they can have something that’s very similar.
MS. WHITE-Yes. So the space I’m talking about was, see now where those trees are
cleared? And next to that tree is where it’s all dirt there now. There was an area of.
MRS. MOORE-It was railroad ties.
MS. WHITE-Railroad ties, shrubs, you know, just a little landscaped kind of designated
monument type thing. Not a big deal, but just something. I’ll look back and see what I can
find for photos.
MR. LANSING-And on our landscaping plan we do outline some plantings in that area.
MR. TRAVER-Great. Thank you. We do have a SEQR resolution, although if we don’t feel
that there are environmental impacts that have changed with this modification to the Site
Plan we can re-affirm the pre-existing SEQR resolution. Correct, Laura?
MR. DIXON-Mr. Chairman, just a quick comment. Chazen had a comment that said it appears
that the proposed stormwater collection system at the site entrance along Route 9 has been
removed. The applicant to clarify if the amended site plan has been submitted to New York
State DOT for review and comment. Would that have any impact on the SEQR review?
MR. TRAVER-No because it’s, the engineer’s going to have to sign off on it. So they’re going
to have to resolve that issue to the satisfaction of the Town.
MR. DIXON-All right.
MR. LANSING-And if I could address that comment. This is the existing plan here, we h
had a couple of catch basins in the DOT right of way. Because of the grade of the site there
was some drainage going out towards the roadway and DOT doesn’t like to have water being
shed onto their roadway. So with the revised plan the driveway actually slopes in so
therefore we don’t need catch basins at the high point. So just for the Board’s
understanding and we’ll address that with Chazen.
MR. MAGOWAN-Thank you.
MR. TRAVER-Anything else on the environmental front? Is the Board comfortable moving
forward with a re-affirmation of the SEQR resolution from June? Okay. Go ahead.
MS. GAGLIARDI-Excuse me, Mr. Chairman. You need to open the public hearing.
MR. TRAVER-Thank you. We do have a public hearing on this application. I don’t see
anyone in the audience, but I will invite that would like to address the Planning Board to do
so and ask, Laura, do we have any written comments?
PUBLIC HEARING OPENED
34
(Queensbury Planning Board 04/30/2019)
MRS. MOORE-There are no written comments.
MR. TRAVER-Okay. Then we will close the public hearing.
PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED
MR. TRAVER-And then I guess we’re ready for a SEQR motion.
RESOLUTION RE-AFFIRMING SEQR NEG. DEC. SP # 27-2019 FADEN ENTERPRISES
The applicant proposes to modify an existing approved site plan including building and site
changes. The proposed building is to be 11,793 sq. ft. (previous 11,400 sq. ft.) and 75 ft.
setback (previously 93 ft.) to the building overhang. Project still includes site work on
adjoining lot for access drive and parking spaces, also other on site work for grading,
stormwater, water and sewer connection. Pursuant to Chapter 179-3-040 of the Zoning
Ordinance, modifications to an approved site plan shall be subject to Planning Board review
and approval.
The Planning Board has determined that the proposed project and Planning Board action is
subject to review under the State Environmental Quality Review Act;
The proposed action considered by this Board is Unlisted in the Department of
Environmental Conservation Regulations implementing the State Environmental Quality
Review Act and the regulations of the Town of Queensbury;
No Federal or other agencies are involved;
Part 1 of the Short EAF has been completed by the applicant;
Whereas, the Planning Board adopted Resolution SP 36-2018 on 07/17/2018 adopting
SEQRA determination of non-significance, and
Upon review of the information recorded on the EAF, it is the conclusion of the Town of
Queensbury Planning Board as lead agency reaffirms that this project will result in no
significant adverse impacts on the environment, and, therefore, an environmental impact
statement need not be prepared. Accordingly, this negative declaration is issued.
MOTION TO REAFFIRM NEGATIVE DECLARATION FOR THE PROPOSED SITE PLAN 27-
2019 FADEN ENTERPRISES, INC. Introduced by David Deeb who moved for its adoption,
seconded by Brad Magowan;
th
Duly adopted this 30 day of April, 2019 by the following vote:
AYES: Mr. Magowan, Mr. Dixon, Mr. Deeb, Ms. White, Mr. Shafer, Mr. Hunsinger,
Mr. Traver
NOES: NONE
MR. TRAVER-And next we can move on to the approval resolution for the modified Site Plan.
Does anyone have any further questions or concerns?
MR. HUNSINGER-Color schemes?
MR. FADEN-Still working on that. We’ll probably go with, probably like browns and greens.
35
(Queensbury Planning Board 04/30/2019)
MR. HUNSINGER-Should we specify earth tone in the resolution?
MR. TRAVER-Yes, we can do that. It sounds like their intent is earth tones. Right?
MR. FADEN-Yes.
MR. TRAVER-Good. Anything else before we consider a resolution?
MR. HUNSINGER-I would just further add there are some archeological design guidelines
in the Town Comprehensive Plan that I’m sure Laura could point to. It also does talk about
color schemes. Just for reference.
MR. TRAVER-All right. I guess we’re ready.
RESOLUTION APPROVING SP # 27-2019 FADEN ENTERPRISES, INC.
The applicant has submitted an application to the Planning Board for Site Plan approval
pursuant to Article 9 of the Town zoning Ordinance for: The applicant proposes to modify
an existing approved site plan including building and site changes. The proposed building is
to be 11,793 sq. ft. (previous 11,400 sq. ft.) and 75 ft. setback (previously 93 ft.) to the
building overhang. Project still includes site work on adjoining lot for access drive and
parking spaces, also other on site work for grading, stormwater, water and sewer connection.
Pursuant to Chapter 179-3-040 of the Zoning Ordinance, modifications to an approved site
plan shall be subject to Planning Board review and approval.
Pursuant to relevant sections of the Town of Queensbury Zoning Code-Chapter 179-9-080,
the Planning Board has determined that this proposal satisfies the requirements as stated
in the Zoning Code;
As required by General Municipal Law Section 239-m the site plan application was referred
to the Warren County Planning Department for its recommendation;
The Planning Board has reviewed the potential environmental impacts of the project,
pursuant to the State Environmental Quality Review Act (SEQRA) and adopted a SEQRA
Negative Declaration – Determination of Non-Significance
The Planning Board opened a public hearing on the Site plan application on 04/30/2019 and
continued the public hearing to 04/30/2019, 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
04/30/2019;
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 27-2019 FADEN ENTERPRISES, INC. Introduced by
David Deeb who moved for its adoption;
Per the draft provided by staff conditioned upon the following conditions:
1) No waivers were requested.
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;
36
(Queensbury Planning Board 04/30/2019)
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) Historical marker and sign with landscaping to be replaced in the southwest corner.
i) Color scheme to be earth tones.
Motion seconded by Brad Magowan. Duly adopted this 30th day of April, 2019 by the
following vote:
MR. DEEB-Historical marker and sign with landscaping to be replaced in the southwest
corner, and it’s off, in the right of way or out of the right of way.
MRS. MOORE-The applicant to address the landscaping that has been removed. The
applicant either, I don’t know whether that’s the Town right of way or the State. The
applicant would, I don’t know if the State’s going to get all upset with you putting plantings
in there that weren’t already there, but the applicant needs to work that out.
MR. DEEB-So the landscaping to be replaced in the southwest corner.
AYES: Mr. Dixon, Mr. Deeb, Ms. White, Mr. Shafer, Mr. Hunsinger, Mr. Magowan,
Mr. Traver
NOES: NONE
MR. TRAVER-You’re all set.
MR. LANSING-Thank you very much.
MR. TRAVER-Is there any other business to come before the Planning Board this evening?
MRS. MOORE-Can I remind the Board that next month in May that your meetings are a little
st
off schedule. So you are on the 21, which is a regular scheduled meeting, but the following
th
week you would normally have it on the 28. However, it’s Grievance Day so it’s moved to
th
the 29, which is Wednesday.
MR. HUNSINGER-It happens every year.
MRS. MOORE-It happens every year, but just as a reminder.
MR. DEEB-Can you remind us again at the first meeting next month?
MRS. MOORE-Yes, I will do that.
MR. TRAVER-If there’s nothing else, I’ll entertain a motion to adjourn.
MR. HUNSINGER-So moved.
37
(Queensbury Planning Board 04/30/2019)
MOTION TO ADJOURN THE QUEENSBURY PLANNING BOARD MEETING OF APRIL 30,
2019, Introduced by Chris Hunsinger who moved for its adoption, seconded by John Shafer:
th
Duly adopted this 30 day of April, 2019, by the following vote:
AYES: Mr. Shafer, Mr. Hunsinger, Ms. White, Mr. Magowan, Mr. Dixon, Mr. Deeb,
Mr. Traver
NOES: NONE
MR. TRAVER-We stand adjourned.
On motion meeting was adjourned.
RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED,
Stephen Traver, Chairman
38