2008.05.29
(Queensbury Planning Board 05/29/08)
QUEENSBURY PLANNING BOARD MEETING
SECOND REGULAR MEETING
MAY 29, 2008
INDEX
Subdivision No. 3-2008 Ronald Ball 1.
SKETCH PLAN Tax Map No. 295.10-1-31.1
Subdivision No. 12-2007 Christine Germaine 14.
FINAL STAGE Tax Map No. 296.14-1-52
Subdivision No. 14-2007 Lloyd Jones 16.
FINAL STAGE Tax Map No. 296.14-1-52
Site Plan No. 5-2001 Stewarts Shops 19.
MODIFICATION Tax Map No. 309.13-2-25
Site Plan No. 19-2008 Eric Eckardt 26.
Tax Map No. 309.11-1-46
Site Plan No. 20-2008 Laforte Construction Co. 41.
Tax Map No. 240.5-1-33
Site Plan No. 17-2008 Nat Hill Properties, LLC 47.
Freshwater Wetland 6-2008 Tax Map No. 303.15-1-20, 19
Site Plan No. 21-2008 The Adirondack Trust Co. 56.
Tax Map No. 296.20-1-45
THESE ARE NOT OFFICIALLY ADOPTED MINUTES AND ARE SUBJECT TO BOARD
AND STAFF REVISIONS. REVISIONS WILL APPEAR ON THE FOLLOWING
MONTHS MINUTES (IF ANY) AND WILL STATE SUCH APPROVAL OF SAID
MINUTES.
0
(Queensbury Planning Board 05/29/08)
QUEENSBURY PLANNING BOARD MEETING
SECOND REGULAR MEETING
MAY 29, 2008
7:00 P.M.
MEMBERS PRESENT
CHRIS HUNSINGER, CHAIRMAN
GRETCHEN STEFFAN, SECRETARY
TANYA BRUNO
DONALD SIPP
STEPHEN TRAVER
DONALD KREBS, ALTERNATE
PAUL SCHONEWOLF, ALTERNATE
SENIOR PLANNER-STUART BAKER
LAND USE PLANNER-KEITH OBORNE
STENOGRAPHER-SUE HEMINGWAY
MR. SEGULJIC-Okay. I believe we’re all set to go. With that we’ll open the May 29,
2008 meeting of the Queensbury Planning Board.
SUBDIVISION 3-2008 SKETCH PLAN REVIEW RECOMMENDATION TO ZBA
RONALD BALL AGENT(S) CHARLES SCUDDER OWNER(S) RONALD & LINDA
BALL ZONING SFR-1A/RR-5A LOCATION 1085 WEST MT. ROAD APPLICANT
PROPOSES SUBDIVISION OF AN 8.05 +/- ACRE PARCEL INTO 3 LOTS OF 1.0, 3.33
& 3.72 +/- ACRES. SUBDIVISION OF LAND REQUIRES PLANNING BOARD REVIEW
AND APPROVAL. ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS IS REQUESTING A
RECOMMENDATION FROM THE PLANNING BOARD RELATIVE TO ACCESS TO
THE LOT AND DENSITY. CROSS REFERENCE SUB 5-98; AV 19-08 WARREN CO.
PLANNING N/A LOT SIZE 8.05 +/- ACRES TAX MAP NO. 295.10-1-31.1 SECTION
A-183
CHARLIE SCUDDER, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT
MR. SEGULJIC-Staff, Stu, would you read the Staff Notes for us.
MR. BAKER-Actually, Keith will be doing that.
MR. SEGULJIC-Keith, could you please do that.
MR. OBORNE-I’m just going to read what the agenda says. Okay.
MR. SEGULJIC-Okay.
MR. OBORNE-It’s a quick synopsis of it. Applicant proposes subdivision of an 8.05 +/-
acre parcel into 3 lots of 1.0, 3.33 & 3.72 +/- acres. Subdivision of land requires
Planning Board review and approval. Zoning Board of Appeals is requesting a
recommendation from the Planning Board relative to access to the lot and density.
MR. SEGULJIC-Okay, and if you recall, last week the applicant was here, and the
suggestion was made that all of the Planning Board members visit the site to review it,
and I can’t speak for everybody, but I believe most people did, and I guess with that, do
you have anything to add?
MR. BALL-No.
MR. SEGULJIC-Should we open it up to the Planning Board to ask questions?
MR. BALL-Yes.
MR. SEGULJIC-So does anyone on the Planning Board have questions, comments?
Does everyone understand what we need to achieve? Any questions about that?
MRS. BRUNO-How much of that proposed driveway follows that little logging road that
you’ve got in, when you go in and you go to the right? Does any of that? This looks to
me like it might be a little bit further.
1
(Queensbury Planning Board 05/29/08)
MR. SCUDDER-Yes, as much as we can, as much as we could. I don’t know how to
answer your question in feet.
MRS. BRUNO-Kind of through here?
MR. SCUDDER-Yes, that’s right.
MRS. BRUNO-Okay.
MR. SCUDDER-We made a deliberate effort to utilize that.
MRS. BRUNO-You had mentioned an area that was the blow down. I could see that,
and I’m assuming that it was kind of where you want the second house, the Lot Three
house. Is that the ones that are still messy? Yes.
MR. BALL-That’s near that spot.
MRS. BRUNO-And the area that’s call cleaned up right now, was there a blow down
there as well?
MR. BALL-Yes, and there’s still a number of trees that are still down, if you looked over
the bank, closer to the edge of the property. Most of it I cleared already, but it was all
blow down. It was nothing I wanted to take down, and it was like a domino effect, some
storm went through there. If you walked further into the property, you could see these
huge stumps, and the whole tree’s still attached to it. I did clear that spot out in there,
but, and after I got it cleared out, some more trees blew over, and it’s like over the course
of three years that we had two severe storms.
MRS. BRUNO-Thank you.
MR. SEGULJIC-If I recall correctly, in the Zoning Board minutes, they refer to the lots in
the area, and the vast majority of those are five acres and maintained as five acres, I
believe.
MR. SCUDDER-I don’t think that’s so.
MR. BALL-No. I think that the person that’s north of me, they may be five acres, but it’s
like near the water tower part, I’ll call it north of me, that area there that the guy had
something like 10 acres or 20 acres, and his daughter, I think it’s his daughter, owns a lot
there and then he’s got a road to take him to his lot, up behind. Right across the street,
Lehland Estates, they’re like half acre.
MRS. BRUNO-And West Mountain Road tends to divide those two types of zones.
MR. SEGULJIC-Do we have any information that we can pull up to see what the lots look
like in the surrounding area?
MR. BAKER-In terms of the zone?
MR. SEGULJIC-Right. Well, in terms of if it maintains the five acres or not. Are the lots
within the five acre zone still five acres or are there some smaller than five acres?
MR. BAKER-The zoning district should be shown on the subdivision plat, correct?
MR. SEGULJIC-Correct. So I’m asking you, are there any lots in the immediate vicinity
that are less than five acres.
MR. BAKER-Okay. We can pull up the zoning map and take a look at that.
MR. SEGULJIC-Okay.
MR. SCUDDER-And, Mr. Chairman, I think most of the lots in the immediate vicinity are
less than five acres.
MR. SEGULJIC-Because I believe there was some reference in the minutes of the
Zoning Board meeting.
2
(Queensbury Planning Board 05/29/08)
MRS. BRUNO-From his site north, it looks like, on the side of the five acres, it looks like
it’s just about all five acres. I can’t tell, from the south, where the line ends. It gets a little
blurry on the sides.
MR. SCUDDER-There are no five acre lots south of the property.
MRS. BRUNO-Right, but I’m trying to tell, it’s a little hard to see on this little map, where
the zone delineation is.
MR. SCUDDER-Speaking from memory, I think the lots across the street in Lehland
Estates are half acre lots.
MR. SEGULJIC-Excuse me, but that’s not the five acre zone.
MRS. BRUNO-Right, that’s the one acre.
MR. SCUDDER-No, it isn’t.
MR. SEGULJIC-No, we’re talking about the five acre zone.
MR. SCUDDER-I thought you were talking about lots in the immediate vicinity.
MR. SEGULJIC-No. I am well aware that there are lots that are less than five acres in
the area. My question is, within the five acre zone, are there any lots less than five
acres.
MR. SCUDDER-Okay. I don’t know.
MR. TRAVER-Mr. Chairman, looking in the minutes from the Zoning Board, there’s a
reference to one lot that is just under five acres, at 4.82, which belongs to the Town of
Queensbury, but that’s it, that I can see.
MR. SEGULJIC-Yes, because in the Zoning Board minutes, they say, Mr. Fuller implies
that all of the lots are five acres, other than that one lot for the water tower, which is 4.82.
MR. BALL-Could be. I don’t know. I’ve got this other map if anybody wants to see it.
MRS. BRUNO-That looks like it might be a better print than ours.
MR. SCUDDER-If that’s a question of fact, we can find out.
MR. BALL-Are you able to make that determination?
MR. OBORNE-What was the question?
MR. SCUDDER-Are there any lots in the five acre zone under five acres in area, other
than the lots that the water tank sits on?
MR. OBORNE-Right. I believe that’s one of the smaller lots in the area. However, we’re
trying to pull that up right now.
MR. SCUDDER-Okay.
MR. SEGULJIC-While they’re doing that, are there any other questions?
MR. TRAVER-Just to clarify, with regards to the zone, though there may be some lots in
the area that are smaller than five acres, there’s no question that this area is in a five
acre zone, correct?
MR. SCUDDER-Partly, it’s partly in the five acre zone. It’s a split zone as you
understand.
MR. TRAVER-Okay. That small piece down by the road.
MR. SCUDDER-Well, it’s.
MR. KREBS-Two and a half acres.
MR. SCUDDER-Yes.
3
(Queensbury Planning Board 05/29/08)
MR. KREBS-That small piece is two and a half acres.
MR. SCUDDER-If you look on the big map, you can see the demarcation line between
the two zones. It runs roughly parallel to the road, until you get to the south end, and
then it swings off to the west. The unfortunate part is that much of the land in the one
acre zone is so steeply sloped that it’s, you know, it’s not suitable for use.
MR. TRAVER-Right.
MRS. BRUNO-I think you guys are getting close to what we’re looking for.
MR. BAKER-That parcel that’s currently highlighted on the map, this parcel right here,
that is 1.5 acres in the 5 acre zoning district.
MR. SEGULJIC-So other than those two, that and the Queensbury one, which is further
north?
MRS. BRUNO-The shaded area, that’s the one acre.
MR. OBORNE-That’s one acre, right.
MRS. BRUNO-Okay. It’s a little hard to tell from here.
MR. BAKER-This particular parcel right here, that is a 1.5 acre parcel and that is within
the 5 acre zoning district.
MRS. STEFFAN-But we also don’t know whether that was done before the zoning
change.
MR. BAKER-That’s correct. I mean, we don’t know the date of that parcel creation. So
identifying parcels under the five acres within the five acres won’t tell you if variances
were granted, if that’s really what you’re looking for.
MR. SEGULJIC-Okay. Does the Board have any more questions? What’s the Board’s
thinking? What’s the will?
MR. KREBS-My feeling is that he could put, except for the grading area, he has two
usable lots, one that’s 1.85 acres, the other’s 4.34 acres, but overall it’s 5.5 acres. So he
could put two houses on those two pieces of land. I would much prefer to see the
houses where he’s located them and not right, put something right on the road. That’s
my feeling.
MR. BALL-Thank you.
MR. SCUDDER-That’s also our feeling.
MRS. BRUNO-So you’re saying reconfigure according to the zones, the two lots?
MR. KREBS-Yes, I’m saying he’s got 1.85 acres of usable land where he could put one
house. The other is a 5.5 acre lot, but it only has usable space of 4.34, but it is, you
know, you could end up with two houses there anyway. So why not move the house
away from the road and keep the rural feeling of the street with that, and allow them to
put the two houses where you’re not basically going to see them?
MR. SCUDDER-We’re asking to put our houses back about 300 feet from the road.
MR. SIPP-Did anybody go to 183-22 and do the math? If you go to 183-22, Number
Four, any unusable areas of the lot such as wetlands, rock outcrops, slopes over 25%,
then divide the resulting figure, the remaining acreage, by the lot size allowed in the
zone. If you do that, you’ll come out with 1. something.
MRS. STEFFAN-That’s the part that’s in the one acre zone.
MR. SIPP-Yes. No, that’s the total.
MRS. STEFFAN-I wasn’t following Don’s logic.
4
(Queensbury Planning Board 05/29/08)
MR. SIPP-Go to 183, the total area of the property to be subdivided, subtract, and it
gives you four items there, which you can work with, the area occupied by proposed
streets and right of ways, the area set aside for public use, three, area occupied by other
public easements such as right of ways, major power lines, telephone lines. Number
Four, the one we are concerned with, any unbuildable areas of the lot such as wetlands,
rock outcrops, slopes over 25% and bodies of water, then divide the remaining figure by
the lot size allowed for each one of the lots that are to be located.
MRS. STEFFAN-I meant the other Don.
MR. SEGULJIC-I believe, Don, that they did that. If you look on drawing, sketch, grading
and drainage plan, that’s how they come up with the 1.85 that’s usable in the one acre
zone.
MR. SIPP-Right. All right. Now, in the five acre zone, how much is usable?
MR. SEGULJIC-4.34.
MR. SIPP-And is that five acres?
MR. SEGULJIC-That’s not five acres. I think one is 4.34 and you’re a five acre zone.
MR. OBORNE-Right. The density information on the plat, in the rural residential five
acre zone is 4.34 usable acres, due to the slope.
MR. SCUDDER-That’s exactly why we’re in front of the Zoning Board.
MR. SEGULJIC-Right.
MR. SCUDDER-I mean, we concede that point, the point that this gentleman’s making,
and that information is summarized on the survey map, by the way, up here under
density information.
MR. TRAVER-Well, I think my concern is that the area was zoned five acres for a
reason, to keep the character of the neighborhood, and whereas I can understand that
we might want to recommend a variance in the case of some hardship, and I understand,
further, that the applicant has a financial interest in being able to build two house, as
opposed to one house, I think his financial need is not compelling enough reason for me
to say that we should recommend that the five acre lot size be set aside. That’s my
feeling.
MR. KREBS-Steve, I would agree with you, if this five acres was in the middle of a five
acre zone, but it’s across the street from an area that has half acre lots. It adjoins to the
south area that is less than five acres. It’s the abutting property between non five acre
area and a five acre area. So, if it was in the middle of the five acre area, I could
understand our not granting a variance because it would make sense, but this, you know,
you’ve already allowed subdivision all over the place, right in the neighborhood, again.
MRS. STEFFAN-Well, Don, I don’t know if the half acre lots across the street are
relevant because that’s a different zone.
MR. KREBS-Was the property zoned five acres when you purchased it?
MR. BALL-I believe it was. I didn’t realize it at that time, but I believe it was, but the thing
is, if you folks have been up there, I think, you know, if you go by the book and you go up
there and look at it, you’re going to throw the book out. You’re going to see where
there’s plenty enough room to build two houses up there. The steep part of the slope is
on the back of the property, which I want to keep that, I want to keep it natural looking so
the house would be to the down side of the hill, which is flatter than the slope part in the
back, which is taking away from the property by your evaluation, by your book that you
go by, but if you walked up there and you looked, I’m telling you that’s a beautiful piece
of property. You could probably build, years ago you could probably build four houses
up there, but all I’m asking is, instead of trying to build a house close to West Mountain
Road, on the one acre, I know it’s steep and there’s no, those lots, you know, that have
to be worked to put a house on, and I have excavating equipment and I could clear it and
I could, you know, I could ruin a lot of trees and the beautiful view and put the house
down close to the road. I don’t have to worry about the steepness of the driveway, by
putting close to the road, but that’s my intentions. What my intentions are is to put it
5
(Queensbury Planning Board 05/29/08)
away from the road, keep that border next to the road, of trees, not touch any of those
trees, and I’m willing to sign us into anything if you would accept my application for it.
MRS. STEFFAN-Well, we’re just making a recommendation to the Zoning Board. So
they will make the ultimate decision if it requires a variance.
MR. BALL-I know I’ve got a tough road ahead of me.
MRS. STEFFAN-So the issues that the Zoning Board wants us to talk about is they want
us to make recommendations on access to the lot and density.
MR. SCUDDER-Well, could I ask, are any of you concerned about the slope? Because I
think in the memorandum from the Zoning Board there was emphasis on the slope, and
we, from an engineering standpoint, we don’t see that as a problem, but that’s us. I
wonder what the Planning Board feels.
MR. SIPP-One of my concerns is that anybody who puts a house up there is going to cut
a lot of trees in order to get the view. I imagine the view would be rather spectacular, but
it also then can be, the house then can be seen from the Northway, from Route 9.
MR. BALL-No, it can’t be.
MR. SCUDDER-Well, couldn’t we handle that by a stipulation? Couldn’t we handle that
by covenants in the deed?
MRS. STEFFAN-It’s not enforceable. You can put it in the deed, but unless a neighbor.
MR. SCUDDER-Well, isn’t there some way we could devise an enforceable mechanism?
MR. TRAVER-We’re also, in a way, talking about really two separate issues. You’re
talking more about Site Plan concerns. What we have before us is really a zoning
recommendation issue. There are plenty of places along the lake, for example, where
you could build houses side by side, okay, and have perfect building conditions, but that
doesn’t necessarily mean that that’s in the best interest of the community. Really what
we’re looking at is not how nice a piece of property it is or how many houses conceivably
could be put there, but the fact that we’re faced with a five acre zoning situation, and is
there a compelling reason to overrule that and make a recommendation that that be
waivered? That’s really what we’re concerned about.
MR. SCUDDER-Was that Mr. Underwood’s main concern when he wrote his memo to
this Board?
MR. TRAVER-They’ve asked for a recommendation from us regarding the zoning.
MR. SEGULJIC-With regard to, I think it was density and slope, and also access.
MR. SCUDDER-Did we have that memorandum read last time? I can’t remember.
MR. SEGULJIC-There were, I believe, three issues, access to the site, the slope, and
density, and lot width, but I guess one of my concerns is we’ve really got to look at
everything, and I’m compelled to be against making a recommendation to the Zoning
Board that they should approve it because it’s a five acre zone. It’s a five acre zone.
MR. BALL-Okay.
MR. SEGULJIC-And if we allow this incrementalism constantly nibbling at it, it won’t be
there anymore.
MR. BALL-Okay. If I was to go up there and take some of the slopes away.
MR. SEGULJIC-I don’t think you can do that.
MR. BALL-You don’t think I can do it?
MR. SEGULJIC-Well, I know you can do it, but there’s slopes. You can’t, I don’t believe
you could.
MR. BALL-What do you mean I can’t?
6
(Queensbury Planning Board 05/29/08)
MR. KREBS-Heavy equipment, he can do that.
MR. BALL-Yes, I’ve got excavating equipment.
MR. SEGULJIC-They’re still part of the.
MR. BALL-How about I go up there and I clear it and just put a garden in there for a
couple of years, make a nice big flat area, take away the slopes with my dozers and my
excavator, and make it nice and flat, and then come back to you and we’ll go back and
do a new topo, and maybe the new topo will take a lot of the steep slopes away. Would
that be a recommendation from you I could do?
MR. TRAVER-It still would be zoned five acres.
MRS. STEFFAN-And if you clear cut.
MR. KREBS-Yes, but it’s a 5.5 acre. So if he gets rid of all the slopes, he’s got 5.5 acres.
MR. BALL-Five acres and one acre.
MR. SEGULJIC-And that’s a question for Staff. I don’t think you can go out and take.
MR. BALL-You’re denying me, on the five acre lot because I only have 4.48.
MR. SEGULJIC-Right, I understand, but I don’t, and this is a question for Staff. I don’t
think you can go in and take out the slopes and then they’re just gone, as far as the
Planning Board is concerned.
MRS. STEFFAN-There’s places in the Code where, if you clear cut.
MR. BALL-Okay. So I can’t put a garden up there?
MR. SEGULJIC-No, that’s not what I said. I mean, that’s a question for Staff, if you can
go in and eliminate a steepness criteria to eliminate from the density calculation.
MR. BALL-Right.
MR. SEGULJIC-That’s a question for Staff.
MRS. STEFFAN-And the Code identifies that if you clear cut that property you wouldn’t
be able to build on it, I think it’s between five and seven years.
MR. BAKER-That’s correct.
MR. BALL-If I clear cut it, okay, and if I clear cut it to put a garden in, a vegetable garden,
what Code is that? Is there a Code there for that?
MRS. STEFFAN-Excuse me. The vegetable garden is irrelevant. If you clear cut the
property, there are restrictions on that in the Town.
MR. BALL-Right.
MRS. STEFFAN-So I understand you would like to do what you would like to do, but
clear cutting is out of the.
MR. BALL-I know. Okay, there’s restrictions that I can’t put a garden in you’re saying?
MRS. STEFFAN-No, you can put a garden in, but you’re going to have to wait. If you
want to develop that property, somewhere in the future, if you’re going to change the
topography, you’re not going to be able to build on that for five to seven years.
MR. BALL-Five to seven years that you won’t give me a permit.
MRS. STEFFAN-We won’t. It’s the Town Code.
MR. BALL-That’s the Town Code. Correct. Okay.
MR. SCUDDER-It may be revised in the meantime.
7
(Queensbury Planning Board 05/29/08)
MR. BALL-Yes, I know it could be, but the thing is, I could do that, right?
MR. BAKER-I would suggest that Mr. Ball talk to the Zoning Administrator about that. I’m
not entirely convinced that the Code would allow that, but it’s subject to the Zoning
Administrator’s determination.
MR. BALL-I’ve been trying for three years now to get this developed, another five years,
really, you know, I think it’s going to go by in a flash because the first three years did, but
anyway. The thing is, if I got where I could have five acres up there, and it was flat
enough so it took the steepness of the slopes away. I could come back to you in five
years, and it’s still zoned five acres, one acre. I’d come back to you, then would you
approve it?
MRS. STEFFAN-You’re asking hypothetical questions that we cannot answer.
MR. BALL-I know, but those are things I can do, okay. I don’t want to do them. What I’m
asking you is just to compromise with me. I’m willing to say I won’t take the trees down
in the front. I’m not going to destroy the property. I’m not like building a Wal-Mart or
anything else. You allowed a Mobil station out on Route 9 out here that’s got a bank
there that’s got a bank there that’s 50 foot drop off, but I’m not asking for that. I’m asking
to build a house on a perfectly nice piece of property, and it’s zoned one acre and it’s
zoned five acres.
MR. SEGULJIC-And you don’t meet the five acre zone requirement. That’s the issue
we’re dealing with. Okay. Does anyone have any other questions, or does someone
want to put forward a motion?
MRS. STEFFAN-I’m trying to write something that speaks specifically to the tabling
motion.
MRS. BRUNO-Do you have that in front of you?
MRS. STEFFAN-I’m trying to write it.
MRS. BRUNO-Okay.
MR. SCUDDER-Is the matter of Sketch Plan Review, is that moot now or where are we?
MR. SEGULJIC-Well, we’re just doing, as I understand it, a recommendation to the
Zoning Board.
MR. SCUDDER-But isn’t that part of the Sketch Plan Review process?
MR. SEGULJIC-We’re not doing Sketch Plan Review at this point. We’re just doing a
recommendation.
MR. BAKER-No, you’re not. You’re just making a recommendation to the Zoning Board.
MR. SEGULJIC-The Zoning Board.
MRS. BRUNO-If they come back favorably, then I believe that’s when you can submit for
your Sketch Plan.
MR. SCUDDER-Does the Board have any concern about the slope of the land?
MR. SEGULJIC-Yes. Because you’re exceeding the 25% that has to be subtracted out.
We’re concerned with that.
MR. SCUDDER-Well, I’m talking about the part that isn’t 25%.
MR. SEGULJIC-Well, where I’m getting hung up, the part of the land that’s greater than
25% drops you below five acres. So I’m concerned.
MR. SCUDDER-Yes, we concede that point, but I’m talking about from the standpoint of
developing the flatter slopes. Is there any concern about that?
MR. SEGULJIC-Yes, you’re less than five acres.
MR. SCUDDER-Well, set aside the question of the area.
8
(Queensbury Planning Board 05/29/08)
MR. SEGULJIC-I can’t. I can’t get over that. I don’t know how the rest of the Board
feels.
MR. SCUDDER-Mr. Chairman, could we have Mr. Underwood’s memorandum read into
the record? It’s just a paragraph.
MR. SEGULJIC-The minutes of the meeting are already part of the record.
MR. SCUDDER-The Zoning Board. The Zoning Board asked this Board for a
recommendation in writing, asked in writing. Could we have that read?
MRS. STEFFAN-Yes. “MOTION TO TABLE AND TO RECOMMEND THAT THE
QUEENSBURY ZONING BOARD PASS AREA VARIANCE NO. 19-2008 RONALD
BALL ON TO THE PLANNING BOARD, Introduced by James Underwood who moved
for its adoption, seconded by Joyce Hunt:
1085 West Mountain Road. They’re asking us for relief from the minimum lot width road
frontage and density requirements for this proposed subdivision. We realize that they do
not meet the density requirements for additional lots, after subtracting the required
undevelopable lands where the slopes exceed 25%. As such, relief is going to be
needed for both of the lots that are proposed up the hill. What we would ask from the
Planning Board is, is it reasonable to assume that any building would be reasonable to
build up on those steep slopes up there, and as the proposed project, with its road
frontage being deficient significantly, is that going to have a negative effect on the
neighborhood or is it going to be something that’s going to be reasonable, based upon
the fact that most of the other lots are pretty small along that road there, too. The steep
slope issue, too, should address the concerns about runoff, etc., coming down off the
mountain to the lots lower down, whether that’s going to have any negative effects also.”
Certainly the runoff issue, when it goes through Site Plan Review, that would have to be
mitigated. They would have to have a stormwater plan if the project was developed. So
from a Planning Board point of view, I don’t think that that particular issue is a concern
for the Zoning Board. Yes, from the big picture that there are slopes on the property, but
as far as runoff, that would have to be mitigated through the stormwater design once the
subdivision comes in front of us. Certainly the density is an issue. Is it reasonable to
build on slopes, and they’re asking, since they’re deficient based on minusing out the
slopes, is it reasonable that they would build two houses.
MR. SCUDDER-When we were in front of the Zoning Board, Mr. Underwood spoke, in
fact I think he was the only one who spoke. He stressed his concern about the slopes,
not the unusable slopes, but the usable slopes, and he made a point about that. Now, I
don’t know if this Board’s aware of it, but the Town’s retained engineer has reviewed our
Sketch Plan and has come up with a dozen or so points which he feels need to be
addressed from an engineering standpoint. I don’t know if you’ve seen that letter or not,
but it’s out there, and we know that we have to address those, and those are ordinary
things. We’ve know from the get go that we had to address those, but it seems to me
that the Zoning Board is concerned about the slopes primarily, whether we can build a
road, whether we can handle stormwater and so forth and so forth. We concede right
from the outset that we don’t have enough area to comply with the Zoning Ordinance.
That’s why we’re asking for a variance, and this gentleman over here expressed our
point of view perfectly.
MR. SEGULJIC-So what is the will of the Board?
MRS. BRUNO-Perhaps somehow we can write the memo to them acknowledging the
things that they mentioned but somehow stating that those are perhaps early.
MR. TRAVER-Those are Site Plan issues.
MRS. BRUNO-Yes, they’re Site Plan issues, and we’ve obviously expressed the concern
about the zoning, which is really what they need to be looking at.
MR. TRAVER-Yes. I think the applicants would have an opportunity to address those
issues through Site Plan. The question is, is it two houses or one, and I think the zoning
clearly indicates one.
MR. SEGULJIC-Okay. I guess, why don’t we poll the Board, so everyone sees how we
feel, what we want to do. We’ll start with you, Mr. Traver.
9
(Queensbury Planning Board 05/29/08)
MR. SCUDDER-I just want to say one more time that we do not assert that we have
enough land there, under the zoning, to build two houses. We know we don’t. We’re
asking for a variance from the Zoning Board to do that, and we are prepared to address
all the engineering issues that were set out by the Town’s Engineer, a dozen or so of
them, but we do that with every project anyway. We’re just at the Sketch Plan stage
now.
MR. TRAVER-Correct. Yes. I say one house.
MR. SEGULJIC-So, I don’t want to put words in your mouth, but you’re suggesting a
recommendation to the Zoning Board not to approve it, is that what you’re saying?
MR. TRAVER-Not to grant the variance on the five acres. Correct.
MR. SEGULJIC-Not to grant a variance.
MR. SCUDDER-Your concern is only about the area.
MR. TRAVER-It’s five acre zoned.
MR. SCUDDER-That’s your, if I may, that’s your hang up is the area.
MR. TRAVER-Well, there are obviously Site Plan and engineering issues that you
yourself raised and that Dan Ryan raised. I don’t think it’s necessary to, in my mind, to
address those now because the fundamental issue is, are we looking at, is this a valid
approach to trying to do something with this piece of property, and my feeling is it is not
because the density is too great for that zoned area. It doesn’t mean you can’t build a
house there, but to build two houses there I feel is.
MR. SCUDDER-Well, we’ve understood that right from the beginning. We concede that
point. That’s why we’re asking for the variance from the Zoning Board.
MR. TRAVER-Right. I understand that.
MR. SEGULJIC-Okay. Tanya?
MRS. BRUNO-I’m having a little bit of a difficult time because I can completely see
where the applicant is coming from. I can see their desire to build two houses. The two
places where they want to put the houses, I believe, are well sited. Some of the
driveway might be too steep, but on the other hand, you know, I’m a true believer and
there’s a reason why we’ve set things up in the Town. I personally live in a five acre
zone. We bought our property, it was 3.2 acres, and we actually purchased some to
bring it up to zoning. So it’s really difficult to, for me, at the moment, maybe come back
around, but on another note, where as I respect that the ZBA tends to look to us for some
input, I think this particular project probably could have gone straight through their Board.
It seems pretty cut and dried that it’s really just, at this point, a zoning issue and not the
other stormwater issues.
MR. SEGULJIC-Okay. Gretchen?
MR. SCUDDER-We feel the same way, incidentally.
MRS. STEFFAN-I think that I would support the Staff’s comments, that the applicant put
together an alternate plan to satisfy the density requirements of 183-22 Subdivision of
Lands.
MR. SEGULJIC-Okay. Don?
MR. SIPP-I would recommend to the Zoning Board that we would not grant a variance.
MR. SEGULJIC-Okay.
MR. KREBS-Okay. Well, I don’t think you can say we will not grant a variance. That’s
the wrong terminology, Don, because we don’t have the right to grant any variances or
deny them. What we can only do is recommend whether this is good planning to.
MR. SIPP-No, it’s not planning. There’s no planning here. We’re recommending a
variance or not recommending a variance.
10
(Queensbury Planning Board 05/29/08)
MR. KREBS-What we would ask from the Planning Board is, is it reasonable to assume
that any building would be reasonable to build up on these slopes up there.
MR. SIPP-One house. I’m saying one house could be built.
MR. KREBS-No, I’m very specific about this because if we vote, as a group, to
recommend that they either give a variance or not give a variance. It’s illegal, because
we don’t have that right.
MR. SEGULJIC-No, we’re just making a recommendation.
MR. KREBS-We don’t have the right to recommend a variance or a non variance. We
can recommend whether or not we think it’s reasonable for him to build those or not.
MR. SEGULJIC-That’s fine. So, okay. Paul?
MR. SCHONEWOLF-I agree with Tanya. I think that this is a ZBA issue. They should
be granting the variance and we shouldn’t be telling them to grant it or not to grant it. Let
them deal with it first, and if I was sitting over there on there side, I probably would grant
it, because just on a commonsense, a special thing, this is kind of an usual deal, I
probably, but that’s neither here nor there.
MR. SCUDDER-It’s really not that unusual.
MR. SCHONEWOLF-Let them, well, right, that’s right, because I’ve been on ZBA’s
before, but let them deal with it and then come back to the Planning Board. The
Planning Board has some real Site Plan issues here.
MR. SCUDDER-Yes, we understand that. We have to deal with those, and we can deal
with those, but we cannot make more land.
MR. SCHONEWOLF-Fine, but deal with the variance first. They shouldn’t be coming to
us. It’s not your fault. I understand that.
MR. SCUDDER-When we sat in front of the Zoning Board, it was mentioned that the law
requires that before they grant a variance in a situation like this that they must ask the
Planning Board to speak to it. The law requires it, we were told, but some of you may be
lawyers, and maybe you know this.
MR. SCHONEWOLF-I don’t know about that, but we don’t have to make a decision for
them, I can tell you that.
MR. SCUDDER-We’re not asking you to do their job. We’re not asking you to make their
decision. We really.
MR. TRAVER-And they’re not asking us to do that, either.
MR. SEGULJIC-So do we just want to let the discussion stand on its own?
MRS. BRUNO-I think so. I think all they have to do is really read the minutes and get
everybody’s.
MR. BAKER-Mr. Chairman, if I may, this has been a point of contention with Zoning
Board. They are specifically looking for a recommendation, and there are four areas that
they’re looking at, that they referred this project to the Planning Board for
recommendations on, and that was community character, slopes, density, and I believe it
was vehicular access.
MRS. BRUNO-So we really should almost be voting on each one of those or
recommending on each.
MR. BAKER-Well, I think they’re looking for specific comments from this Board related to
those four areas.
MR. SCUDDER-But isn’t it the case that the Zoning Board wants the opinion of this
Board as to whether this is a reasonable proposal? Isn’t that the lingo in that
memorandum?
11
(Queensbury Planning Board 05/29/08)
MR. KREBS-Yes, it says any building would be reasonable to build on those steep
slopes.
MR. SCUDDER-I presume you’ve all been up there by now, and you’ve seen the site,
maybe you haven’t all been up there, but if you’ve seen it, you certainly ought to be able
to judge whether, in your opinion, it’s reasonable to put two houses up there. Setting
aside the zoning issue.
MRS. BRUNO-Let’s just go through it A, B, C, and D, and hit each one and let them deal
with it when they get it in front of them.
MR. TRAVER-We could also characterize our recommendation by pointing out that,
though there are a number of Site Plan issues that have been identified, both by the
Town Engineer and by the applicant, the question is, can all of those be addressed with
two houses versus one? That would be another way.
MR. KREBS-Well, the problem is, Steve, right now he can build one house without any
variance without asking any permission from anybody.
MR. TRAVER-Correct, all he needs is Site Plan Review.
MR. KREBS-Okay. So you can’t say one house versus two.
MR. TRAVER-But that’s what he’s asking the variance for.
MR. KREBS-Well, he’s asking for a variance for two houses, not one versus two. Okay.
MR. SEGULJIC-Excuse me. A question of Staff. What form should we take?
MR. BAKER-I would recommend putting together a resolution of recommendation to the
Zoning Board.
MR. SEGULJIC-On each individual, community character, slope, density and access.
Individually or all at once?
MR. BAKER-Hitting the four points would be good, yes.
MR. SEGULJIC-All right. So I guess what we’ll do is we’ll go through each point and
we’ll take a vote on each point, and a resolution. Does that make sense?
MR. BAKER-I would suggest you come up with one resolution that addresses the four
points and put that up for discussion and vote by the Board.
MR. SEGULJIC-All right.
MR. SCUDDER-Would you just go over those four points again, please? Could we have
that, Mr. Chairman?
MR. SEGULJIC-As I understand it, it’s community character, slopes, density, and site
access.
MR. SCUDDER-Well, we think we can deal with three of those. We cannot change the
density situation.
MR. SEGULJIC-Okay.
MRS. STEFFAN-I know that they’re looking for a recommendation on community
character, slopes, and density, but the Code covers those particular areas. It also covers
vehicular access, but I think we should take a position on that, that there is only one
access point. That is what the applicant’s proposed, but I think that that’s what we want
for public safety on that road. So, what I just wrote was the majority of the Board feels
that the Zoning Board should use the Code to make their determination regarding
community character, slopes and density. We do recommend that there be one access
point onto West Mountain Road regardless of the outcome.
MR. SCUDDER-We have to do that for other reasons also, having to do with lot width.
We have to have a shared driveway, for example, otherwise we have to have double the
lot width.
12
(Queensbury Planning Board 05/29/08)
MR. SEGULJIC-So you’re saying that they should follow the existing Codes. Okay.
MR. TRAVER-Right. I think that fits quite well.
MR. SEGULJIC-All right.
MRS. STEFFAN-Stu, does that sound reasonable? I’ve covered the three points that are
there. We’re not giving them very much, just the vehicular access.
MR. BAKER-All they’re looking for is a recommendation on those points.
MOTION THAT THE QUEENSBURY PLANNING BOARD MAKES A
RECOMMENDATION TO THE QUEENSBURY ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS FOR
SUBDIVISION NO. 3-2008 RONALD BALL, Introduced by Gretchen Steffan who
moved for its adoption, seconded by Tanya Bruno:
1. WHEREAS, THE ZBA HAS REQUESTED A WRITTEN RECOMMENDATION FROM
THE PLANNING BOARD:
MOTION TO TABLE AND TO RECOMMEND THAT THE QUEENSBURY ZONING
BOARD PASS AREA VARIANCE NO. 19-2008 RONALD BALL ON TO THE PLANNING
BOARD, Introduced by James Underwood who moved for its adoption, seconded by
Joyce Hunt:
1085 West Mountain Road. They’re asking us for relief from the minimum lot width road
frontage and density requirements for this proposed subdivision. We realize that they do
not meet the density requirements for additional lots, after subtracting the required
undevelopable lands where the slopes exceed 25%. As such, relief is going to be
needed for both of the lots that are proposed up the hill. What we would ask from the
Planning Board is, is it reasonable to assume that any building would be reasonable to
build up on those steep slopes up there, and as the proposed project, with its road
frontage being deficient significantly, is that going to have a negative effect on the
neighborhood or is it going to be something that’s going to be reasonable, based upon
the fact that most of the other lots are pretty small along that road there, too. The steep
slope issue, too, should address the concerns about runoff, etc., coming down off the
mountain to the lots lower down, whether that’s going to have any negative effects also.
Tabled to the first meeting in June.
th
Duly adopted this 16 day of April, 2008, by the following vote:
AYES: Mrs. Hunt, Mr. Garrand, Mr. Clements, Mr. Urrico, Mrs. Jenkin, Mr. Drellos, Mr.
Underwood
NOES: NONE
2. THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED THE PLANNING BOARD MAKES THE
FOLLOWING RECOMMENDATIONS IN RESPONSE TO THE ZBA’S REQUEST:
MOTION THAT THE QUEENSBURY PLANNING BOARD MAKES A
RECOMMENDATION TO THE QUEENSBURY ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS FOR
SUBDIVISION NO. 3-2008 RONALD BALL, Introduced by Gretchen Steffan who
moved for its adoption, seconded by Tanya Bruno:
The majority of the Planning Board feels that the Zoning Board of Appeals should use
the Code to make their determination regarding community character, slopes and
density. We do recommend that there be one access point onto West Mountain Road,
regardless of the outcome.
th
Duly adopted this 29 day of May, 2008, by the following vote:
AYES: Mr. Traver, Mr. Sipp, Mr. Krebs, Mr. Schonewolf, Mrs. Bruno, Mrs. Steffan,
Mr. Seguljic
NOES: NONE
MR. SEGULJIC-Good luck.
MR. SCUDDER-Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
13
(Queensbury Planning Board 05/29/08)
MR. KREBS-So basically now you can go back and ask for the same variance you asked
for before.
MR. SCUDDER-Yes.
MR. SEGULJIC-Okay. We have one Administrative Item to clear up, and that is for Brian
McCall’s Site Plan to further table that.
ADMINISTRATIVE ITEMS:
ADMINISTRATIVE ITEM:
SITE PLAN NO. 64-2007 BRIAN MC CALL – RESOLUTION TO CONSIDER FURTHER
TABLING
MR. SEGULJIC-Was there a specific date we should table that to?
MRS. STEFFAN-The next available slot.
MR. BAKER-It’s fill-in the blank. The Board can pick a date.
MRS. STEFFAN-Can we just say next available date so no one gets bumped?
MR. BAKER-You can say next available date upon Zoning Board approval, certainly.
MOTION TO TABLE SITE PLAN NO. 64-2007 BRIAN MC CALL, Introduced by
Gretchen Steffan who moved for its adoption, seconded by Stephen Traver:
Tabled to the next available date after Zoning Board approval.
th
Duly adopted this 29 day of May, 2008, by the following vote:
AYES: Mr. Traver, Mr. Sipp, Mr. Krebs, Mr. Schonewolf, Mrs. Bruno, Mrs. Steffan,
Mr. Seguljic
NOES: NONE
MR. SEGULJIC-Okay.
SUBDIVISION NO. 12-2007 FINAL STAGE SEQR UNLISTED CHRISTINE
GERMAINE AGENT(S) NACE ENGINEERING OWNER(S) C. GERMAINE/D.
BEATRICE ZONING SR-20 LOCATION 709 SHERMAN AVENUE APPLICANT
PROPOSES SUBDIVISION OF A 8.68 ACRE PARCEL INTO 10 RESIDENTIAL LOTS
RANGING IN SIZE FROM 0.46 TO 3.10 ACRES. SUBDIVISION OF LAND REQUIRES
REVIEW AND APPROVAL BY THE PLANNING BOARD. WARREN CO. PLANNING
N/A LOT SIZE 8.68 +/- ACRES TAX MAP NO. 301.18-2-34 SECTION A-183
LARRY CLUTE, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT
MR. SEGULJIC-Good evening. This is Final Stage, I believe. So if you have anything to
add at all. We’ll just let it stand as is.
MR. CLUTE-Works for me.
MR. SEGULJIC-Okay. Does the Board have any comments at all? Seeing none, does
that mean we’re all satisfied?
MR. OBORNE-If I may, I just wanted to make sure that you guys have seen VISION
Engineering’s notes.
MRS. BRUNO-What’s the date on them?
rd
MR. OBORNE-The 23 of May.
MR. TRAVER-I have not seen them.
MRS. STEFFAN-I did not get any VISION Engineering comments, but I have a question
mark because they were tabled to come back so that we would have the updated revised
plans and a VISION Engineering signoff, and I didn’t see that.
14
(Queensbury Planning Board 05/29/08)
MR. BAKER-We do have a letter in the file from Dan Ryan of VISION Engineering dated
rd
May 23 giving his signoff.
MR. SEGULJIC-So, if I’m correct, we’ve also already done SEQRA on this, correct?
MR. BAKER-That’s correct, SEQRA at Preliminary.
MR. SEGULJIC-So this is just Final then, and as far as the public hearing?
MR. BAKER-No public hearing required at Final.
MR. SEGULJIC-Okay. Is everybody all set, then?
MRS. STEFFAN-The public hearing was closed.
MR. BAKER-The public hearing was closed, that’s correct. It was opened and closed on
Preliminary.
MRS. STEFFAN-Correct, before we did our.
MR. SEGULJIC-So I’m sensing everybody’s all set with this?
MR. TRAVER-Yes.
MR. SEGULJIC-Okay. So the only thing we need to do is come up with a motion.
MR. BAKER-I would think just a straightforward resolution of Final approval based on the
materials submitted would suffice.
MRS. BRUNO-I have a note to myself here, and I’m not sure which of the two times I
reviewed I wrote this, and if I found it afterwards, but it’s still a left open note, that only
Sheet S-3 is included, which isn’t the Site Plan. No new Site Plan was included to see if
the junkyard note was written on there.
MR. BAKER-That was added on there, yes.
MRS. BRUNO-Okay. Thank you.
MR. BAKER-You’re welcome.
MOTION TO APPROVE SUDIVISION NO. 17-2007 FINAL STAGE CHRISTINE
GERMAINE, Introduced by Gretchen Steffan who moved for its adoption, seconded by
Stephen Traver:
1. A subdivision application has been made to the Queensbury Planning Board for
the following; Applicant proposes subdivision of an 8.68 acre parcel into 10
residential lots ranging in size from 0.46 to 3.10 acres. Subdivision of land
requires review and approval by the Planning Board.
2. A public hearing was advertised and held on 2/19 & 4/22/08; and
3. This application is supported with all documentation, public comment and
application material in the file of record; and
4. Pursuant to relevant sections of the Town of Queensbury Zoning Code [Chapter
179], the Planning Board has determined that this proposal complies with the
requirements as stated in the Zoning Code; and
5. The requirements of the State Environmental Quality Review Act have been
considered and the Planning Board has adopted a SEQRA Negative Declaration;
and
6. If the application is a modification, the requirements of the State Environmental
Quality Review Act have been considered, and the proposed modification[s] do
not result in any new or significantly different environmental impacts, and,
therefore, no further SEQRA review is necessary; and
15
(Queensbury Planning Board 05/29/08)
7. Final approved plans, in compliance with the Subdivision, must be submitted to
the Community Development Department before any further review by the Zoning
Administrator or Building and Codes personnel. The applicant must meet with
Staff after approval and prior to issuance of Building Permit and/or the beginning
of any site work. Subsequent issuance of further permits, including building
permits is dependent on compliance with this and all other conditions of this
resolution; and
8. The applicant will provide as-built plans to certify that the subdivision is
developed according to the approved plans prior to issuance of the certificate of
occupancy; and
9. NOT APPLICABLE If applicable, Item 8 to be combined with a letter of credit; and
10. The Sanitary Sewer connection plan must be submitted to the Wastewater
Department for its review, approval, permitting and inspection; and
MOTION TO APPROVE SUDIVISION NO. 17-2007 FINAL STAGE CHRISTINE
GERMAINE, Introduced by Gretchen Steffan who moved for its adoption, seconded by
Stephen Traver:
Based on the materials that have been submitted. The only condition is that the VISION
Engineering signoff which the Planning Board has not received as of yet is contained in
the file.
th
Duly adopted this 29 day of May, 2008, by the following vote:
AYES: Mr. Sipp, Mr. Krebs, Mr. Schonewolf, Mrs. Bruno, Mr. Traver, Mrs. Steffan,
Mr. Seguljic
NOES: NONE
MR. SEGULJIC-Okay. You’re all set.
MR. CLUTE-Thank you very much.
MR. SEGULJIC-Good luck.
SUBDIVISION NO. 14-2007 FINAL STAGE SEQR TYPE UNLISTED LLOYD JONES
AGENT(S) VAN DUSEN & STEVES OWNER(S) LLOYD JONES, SYLVIA
KERCHNER ZONING SFR-1A LOCATION 70 COUNTRY CLUB ROAD APPLICANT
PROPOSES SUBDIVISION OF A 4.23 ACRE PARCEL INTO 3 LOTS OF 1.66, 1.21 &
1.36 ACRES. SUBDIVISION OF LAND REQUIRES PLANNING BOARD REVIEW AND
APPROVAL. CROSS REFERENCE AV 71-07 WARREN CO. PLANNING N/A
APA/CEADEC DEC WETLANDS LOT SIZE 4.23 ACRES TAX MAP NO. 296.14-1-52
SECTION A-183
TOM HUTCHINS, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT
MR. SEGULJIC-Good evening. Could you introduce yourself.
MR. HUTCHINS-Tom Hutchins, Hutchins Engineering. I am here on behalf of Lloyd
Jones, and I believe we have addressed the issues we discussed at the last meeting, as
well as Mr. Ryan’s comments, and so I really have nothing else to add.
MR. SEGULJIC-So we have a signoff letter from the engineer. Does anyone have any
questions at all?
MRS. BRUNO-I have just a quick observation, leading to a small statement, that when I
was reviewing, and I just noticed that you didn’t have any details for tree protection, and
that particular piece of property does have some pretty mature trees that I think we’ll
probably end up wanting to keep, is there any way that we could just add a detail to that
so that there’s something for the Department to follow, you know?
MR. HUTCHINS-Yes, I could add a tree protection.
MRS. BRUNO-I’m sure that you’ve got that standard somewhere. Pop it in. Thank you.
MR. HUTCHINS-Sure.
16
(Queensbury Planning Board 05/29/08)
MR. SEGULJIC-Anything else?
MRS. STEFFAN-But how would we designate what that was, you know, over what basal
width?
MRS. BRUNO-Well, I guess they’ve already got clearing limits.
MR. HUTCHINS-Generally a tree protection detail is for a single or a small stand of trees
that are in the generally open area that you’re trying to protect, and I don’t have a
problem with that. There are a number of decent size trees in the open area that when
someone gets down to an ultimate layout that they will likely wish to protect. We have
identified the areas that, between the Zoning Board and this Board, that you have asked
us to protect, and that is along the south property line and along the road in the area of
the stormwater area, in the stormwater basin, but I have no problem with adding an
individual tree protection detail.
MRS. BRUNO-Okay. My thoughts were, along those lines, that I’m sure somebody that
comes in and decides to build, they very well could come in and end up clearing just to
put the house, plop the house in and not site it very well, but if someone were to be
respectful of that and go in and decide, you know, we’re going to protect these trees, it
gives the contractor something to follow. It’s just an added measure.
MRS. STEFFAN-So that would be around the perimeter of the property.
MR. HUTCHINS-No, a tree protection detail doesn’t generally apply to a clearing limit
line. It applies to a tree that’s in an open stand that you are intentionally attempting to
protect or have mandated to protect. We have shown, we have not shown that type of
tree that we wish to maintain because what we’re trying to do is allow a potential lot
owner some flexibility in developing their parcel. There are a number of trees, and most
homeowners are going to be conscious to save some of them because they’re nice
trees, and that detail would.
MRS. STEFFAN-Just help them.
MR. HUTCHINS-Yes, I mean, we don’t want to identify particular trees to mandate that
we save, if it’s going to limit a homeowner in laying out their particular house on the lot,
but the detail, I have no problem with putting that on.
MRS. STEFFAN-And that scenario, I’m just wondering what, and I’m not trying to be
rude, what value it has, because if the homeowner can come in and decide, well, you
know, I don’t like any of these trees and I want to level it, they can do that, too. Right?
MR. HUTCHINS-Correct.
MRS. BRUNO-It just shows, I can see both sides. I think it just adds, that’s just what I
think.
MRS. STEFFAN-I’m not trying to be difficult. It’s just, it’s the same, it’s a similar subject
to what we’re talking about, no fertilizer. It’s a feel good thing that we put on the plan, but
it can’t be enforced. It’s like clearing limits. Even when you have it on a plat, can you
enforce it? Well, are we going to get a Code Officer to go out and do it?
MRS. BRUNO-Well, maybe not, but maybe it’ll bring it to the attention of a sloppy
contractor to look out for something that their client may end up wanting to protect. I
mean, like Mr. Hutchins said, they tend to be in more clear areas, which is usually where
you site a house. Maybe it is a feel good thing. Can it be enforced? It probably isn’t
something that really would need to be enforced. It’s just the right thing to do. It’s just
making a complete set.
MR. SEGULJIC-Okay. So do we want to add that detail, then? You can add a tree
protection detail?
MR. HUTCHINS-I can add a detail. I’m anticipating that could be part of a condition.
MRS. STEFFAN-Any other changes or conditions? Staff, on the Staff Notes it says that
consideration should be given to a condition of Final approval that VISION Engineering
give a signoff prior to the Planning Board Chairman signing it.
17
(Queensbury Planning Board 05/29/08)
MR. BAKER-The Staff Notes were completed prior to the VISION Engineering signoff
being received by our office.
MRS. STEFFAN-Okay. I thought that was an odd condition. That’s why I asked. All
right. Well, the public hearing is closed, and we are ready to go to Final, if no one has
any other additions.
MR. SEGULJIC-Is the public hearing closed? 3/25, right?
MRS. STEFFAN-Yes, it was probably closed before we did SEQRA. Okay.
MOTION TO APPROVE SUBDIVISION NO. 14-2007 FINAL STAGE LLOYD JONES,
Introduced by Gretchen Steffan who moved for its adoption, seconded by Tanya Bruno:
1. A subdivision application has been made to the Queensbury Planning Board for
the following: Applicant proposes subdivision of a 4.23 acre parcel into 3 lots of
1.66, 1.21 & 1.36 acres. Subdivision of land requires Planning Board review and
approval.
2. A public hearing was advertised and held 3/25/08; and
3. This application is supported with all documentation, public comment and
application material in the file of record; and
4. Pursuant to relevant sections of the Town of Queensbury Zoning Code [Chapter
179], the Planning Board has determined that this proposal complies with the
requirements as stated in the Zoning Code; and
5. The requirements of the State Environmental Quality Review Act have been
considered and the Planning Board has adopted a SEQRA Negative Declaration;
and
6. If the application is a modification, the requirements of the State Environmental
Quality Review Act have been considered, and the proposed modification[s] do
not result in any new or significantly different environmental impacts, and,
therefore, no further SEQRA review is necessary; and
7. Final approved plans, in compliance with the Subdivision, must be submitted to
the Community Development Department before any further review by the Zoning
Administrator or Building and Codes personnel. The applicant must meet with
Staff after approval and prior to issuance of Building Permit and/or the beginning
of any site work. Subsequent issuance of further permits, including building
permits is dependent on compliance with this and all other conditions of this
resolution; and
8. The applicant will provide as-built plans to certify that the subdivision is
developed according to the approved plans prior to issuance of the certificate of
occupancy; and
9. NOT APPLICABLE If applicable, Item 8 to be combined with a letter of credit; and
10. NOT APPLICABLE. The Sanitary Sewer connection plan must be submitted to
the Wastewater Department for its review, approval, permitting and inspection;
and
MOTION TO APPROVE SUBDIVISION NO. 14-2007 FINAL STAGE LLOYD JONES,
Introduced by Gretchen Steffan who moved for its adoption, seconded by Tanya Bruno:
According to the resolution prepared by Staff. Paragraph Nine does not apply.
Paragraph Ten does not apply. It is approved with the following condition: That the
applicant will add a tree protection detail to the plan.
th
Duly adopted this 29 day of May, 2008, by the following vote:
AYES: Mr. Sipp, Mr. Traver, Krebs, Mr. Schonewolf, Mrs. Steffan, Mrs. Bruno,
Mr. Seguljic
NOES: NONE
18
(Queensbury Planning Board 05/29/08)
MR. HUTCHINS-Thank you.
MR. SEGULJIC-Thank you.
MRS. BRUNO-Thank you.
SITE PLAN NO. 5-2001 MODIFICATION SEQR TYPE UNLISTED STEWARTS
SHOPS OWNER(S) SAME ZONING HC-MOD LOCATION 221 CORINTH ROAD
APPLICANT PROPOSES ALTERATIONS TO THE GAS ISLAND CANOPY TO
CONSTRUCT AN INTERNALLY ILLUMINATED BLUE STRIPE TO BRAND GAS A
“MOBIL”. ALSO APPLICANT PROPOSES TO CHANGE FREESTANDING PRICE
SIGN FROM MANUAL TO DIGITAL. MODIFICATIONS TO PREVIOUSLY APPROVED
SITE PLANS REQUIRE PLANNING BOARD REVIEW AND APPROVAL. CROSS
REFERENCE PZ 2-01 WARREN CO. PLANNING N/A LOT SIZE 2.7 +/- ACRES
TAX MAP NO. 309.13-2-25 SECTION 179-9-020
CHRIS CANUGIARI & CHAD KEESOE, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT
MR. SEGULJIC-Excuse me, Staff, would you mind reading the Staff Notes.
MR. OBORNE-Okay. This is Site Plan No. 5-2001 Modification, Stewarts Shop. I’m just
going to run down, the SEQRA Status is Unlisted. Previous SEQRA Neg Dec. This
property is zoned Highway Commercial Moderate Project Description: Applicant
proposes to add an internally illuminated blue stripe and sign to gas island canopy, and
changing of a freestanding price sign from manual to digital. Staff Comments would
include, the canopy stripe will be internally lit on all sides of the canopy. Only the “O” in
the Mobile sign on the canopy will be illuminated. No changes are proposed in the size
or location of the free standing sign. Waivers have been requested from the
landscaping, stormwater management, grading and lighting plan requirements for
commercial site plans.
MRS. BRUNO-Thank you.
CHRIS CANUGIARI
MR. CANUGIARI-If I could make a correction. As he read the Staff comments there is a,
I think interpretation, of how the, he’s written on the Site Plan where it says only the “O”
in the Mobile will be illuminated. That is incorrect. The entire Mobil logo would be
illuminated. The “O” is the only thing that would be read.
MRS. BRUNO-I thought that was odd.
MR. CANUGIARI-Yes, exactly. It didn’t make sense, and should we introduce ourselves,
by the way?
MRS. STEFFAN-Yes, please, for the record.
MR. CANUGIARI-My name is Chris Canugiari, and I work in the Real Estate group for
Stewarts, and with me.
CHAD KEESOE
MR. KEESOE-Chad Keesoe with gas marketing.
MR. SEGULJIC-Okay. If you could introduce your project.
MR. CANUGIARI-Sure. There are actually two items that we’re here to discuss tonight.
One would be the Mobil branding, and the second one would actually be an LED light.
That would be a new sign, and to start off, I figure we could cover the Mobil branding,
and so what we want to do at this site is actually alter the canopy, so that there would be
an internally illuminated blue stripe that would go around the canopy, it would wrap
around, and there would be fluorescent lighting underneath, behind the stripe, and we
would use stretch fabric, that would be the material, actually that would be the wrap that
would go around. The canopy behind that, underneath would just be aluminum. So
there’d just be the regular white backing. Now the internal structure, I mean, would not
change. It would still be a 20 by 60 canopy. The MPD signs would not change. That
would still be four by eight. The Mobil sign that we would be on the canopy, on the north
end, would actually replace our existing Stewarts sign. It’s slightly larger. It’s around two
by six, as opposed to the Stewarts sign, which is about one and a half by seven, and
19
(Queensbury Planning Board 05/29/08)
again, that sign would be illuminated as well. Ideally, what we’re focusing on here is just
brand recognition in that market. A lot of Mobils have that look, and it’s especially
important with tourists, you know, being that this site’s right off the exit, off the main
highway, and we think it’s a rather polished look, and so we wanted to get your feedback
on that.
MR. SIPP-Is the old illuminated by a fluorescent light also, or is that a different light?
MR. KEESOE-Yes. Behind the Mobil legend is basically, even though they look like
individual letters, there’s a box behind it lit by fluorescents, yes.
MR. SIPP-It’s all fluorescent, then.
MR. CANUGIARI-And you can’t see any of the bulbs either, even from the underside.
They use plexi-glass so all the bulbs, of course, would be hidden.
MR. SIPP-Now why do you want the digital sign?
MR. CANUGIARI-The LED sign has to do with visibility, first of all, and then also it would
be a lot easier for our staff. I mean, we all know how gas prices are changing constantly.
Chad’s doing his best to keep them down for us, but, you know, rapidly there are always
changes. If you actually look at the distance from the doorway to the sign, that’s about
190 feet. So it’s actually quite far. So it’s actually quite time consuming to go out there
and do that.
MR. KEESOE-A lot of what we (lost word) as you can see in that picture, there’s a lot of
green space. That green space is a snow bank in the wintertime, and we do have
concerns over the clerks going out there as frequently as they do and trying to change
prices manually, as they have to do with that sign. So it is, it’s certainly a marketing
emphasis, but also a safety issue.
MR. SIPP-That’s fine, but I think we were taken in before by Stewarts on Dix Avenue,
and allowing them, not forbidding them from having a digital sign, and I do not like them.
I don’t think they’re healthy for the Town, and I think if you allow them once, you’re going
to have them all over the place, and therefore I would not be in favor of a digital price
sign.
MRS. STEFFAN-And I’m torn myself. We have had discussions about these digital
signs, and we’ve been opposed as a Planning Board to reader boards. One did arrive in
Town, and it went around the Planning Board. They came in for a modification to change
the sign, and then after we approved the Dix Avenue Site Plan, I’m not sure exactly how
it happened, but we ended up with a very different sign, you know, it had the LED digital,
and that was not what was originally approved by the Planning Board. Obviously you
went another step.
MR. CANUGIARI-Totally understand.
MRS. STEFFAN-You know, I agree with Don. We’ve had considerable discussion about
this, but I’m on the fence because you’re using an amber light. We’ve seen white. I
don’t like it, personally. We have a red one in Town that is thoroughly obnoxious and I’m
sorry that it’s there, and I’m not in favor of the LED’s. I know that they project light far
distances and they can be efficient and cost effective, but they glare in your eyes, they’re
piercing, and it’s just not what I believe we want in the Town.
MR. CANUGIARI-And that’s why, at least to alleviate some of that, we tried to keep the
size small in comparison. I’ve got some examples where LED’s are elsewhere, and they
can be obnoxious. I completely understand. I can relate to that.
MRS. STEFFAN-There’s a red one at Exit 19 that is thoroughly obnoxious.
MR. CANUGIARI-19, yes. I did see that. Yes, ours is about one foot by two and a half,
roughly.
MR. KEESOE-I do have a picture, if anyone is interested in seeing it, of an amber
colored sign that we have done at one of our locations, Jones Road in Wilton, I believe, if
you wanted to get a better feel for what the amber looks like, as opposed to the red.
MR. CANUGIARI-And you can see the mix, too, between the maroon and the white
there, if any of the colors, I mean, we’re pretty flexible with that, too, if that helps at all.
20
(Queensbury Planning Board 05/29/08)
MR. KEESOE-It’s certainly something that, as a company, we are out looking to put them
wherever we can put them, really is driven by a lot of what’s going on with the clerk and
the access.
MRS. STEFFAN-And part of the difficulty for us, as a Planning Board, is that we just
approved another gas station on the other side of the Northway and we forbid them to
have LED signs at their location.
MR. CANUGIARI-What did their proposal look like, out of curiosity, for the LED?
MRS. STEFFAN-Well, they didn’t get that far. We told them in the initial planning
process, do not, you know, do not come with that.
MR. SEGULJIC-Well, I do have to say the amber doesn’t, it’s not.
MR. CANUGIARI-It’s better. Yes.
MR. KEESOE-It’s certainly softer than the red, I would say.
MRS. STEFFAN-Or the white.
MR. KREBS-What’s unhealthy about a digital sign?
MR. SIPP-In the fact that if we have them all digital, we’re going to have them flashing,
we’re going to have them changing one sale item to another. I just don’t think that the
Town is, there’s any need for.
MR. KREBS-Well, they’re not asking for a flashing sign. I mean, the flashing sign you
can ban, but the fact that they’re just asking to make the maintenance of it digitally. I
mean, welcome to the digital world. All your t.v.’s will be digital next year.
MR. SIPP-Well, that may be so, but I do not think that the Town of Queensbury needs
digital signs.
MR. SEGULJIC-I can understand your concerns, Don, but I think in this case you’re
talking about a very limited application for it. It’s not like one of those, what do you call
them, creeping boards, scrolling boards.
MRS. STEFFAN-Right. That’s a reader board.
MR. SEGULJIC-I guess just one question of Staff. Isn’t there something in the Code
about you can’t have a digital sign or red sign within so many feet of a?
MR. SIPP-No, a red, amber or green within 100 feet of a traffic signal. That’s the way it
reads in the.
MR. SEGULJIC-Okay. So we’re well 100 feet away from.
MR. SIPP-Well beyond the 100 feet.
MR. SCHONEWOLF-You probably can’t have a flashing sign, too. Most towns have
that, and you probably can’t have a crawl because that takes the driver’s attention off the
road, but the fact that you want to maintain the sign digitally from inside a building
probably makes imminent sense.
MR. KREBS-In a sense this is probably safer because you can read it quickly, where
before when you had three sets of numbers up there, you were looking at the sign a lot
longer trying to figure out what the price was. We all hunt for the price now.
MR. SEGULJIC-All right. So, moving forward, well, any other comments on that
particular sign? I’m sensing you’re okay with it?
MR. TRAVER-I agree with the comments that it’s not a good precedent. I just think that
a digital sign is just not a direction we want to go.
MRS. BRUNO-That’s how I feel as well. I think we need to remain consistent.
21
(Queensbury Planning Board 05/29/08)
MRS. STEFFAN-And we did specifically had the gas station on the other side of the
Northway, we told them absolutely no LED’s.
MR. TRAVER-Right.
MRS. BRUNO-In terms of, I think what, well, I don’t know if this is what Mr. Sipp was
saying or not, but in terms of the healthiness, I look at it more as maybe an aesthetic.
Even if it’s not flashing, it definitely give another level to the community, just kind of
continuing to bring the southern towns up north with, yes, the digital age, but we have to
think about what our vision is.
MRS. STEFFAN-Well, certainly the reader boards are a different application. These are
LED lights, and the example that we have in Town right now happens to be the one on
Exit 19, and unfortunately it’s the worst example possible, and we were, we, the greater
we, we were surprised, after the Dix Avenue sign was changed.
MR. KEESOE-How did it get approved?
MR. SIPP-It didn’t.
MRS. STEFFAN-It went for a modification to the ZBA.
MR. SEGULJIC-Okay. I guess, in the interest of moving along, why don’t we go and
discuss the canopy, and then talk about everything together. Comments on the canopy?
MRS. STEFFAN-Is the canopy illuminated currently? I was there during the day, not at
night?
MR. CANUGIARI-No.
MRS. STEFFAN-It’s not. So the blue strip that will be illuminated is new?
MR. CANUGIARI-Yes.
MRS. STEFFAN-Okay. So that part’s not done. The Stewarts sign that’s there, is that
illuminated?
MR. KEESOE-Yes, it is.
MRS. STEFFAN-Okay. So we’re just replacing a Mobil for a Stewarts.
MR. KEESOE-Yes.
MR. SEGULJIC-What kind of lights are you talking about for the strip, what kind of
wattage?
MR. KEESOE-They are fluorescent lights. I regret I do not have a wattage to be able to
tell you here today. I mean, all I can tell is from, certainly, my experience where we’ve
done it at the, built in a couple of other locations. Certainly it is not a, if I could say a
Hess. It’s not the white, bright illuminated fully white fascia up there. It is definitely more
of a soft, subtle feel. I can certainly get you that wattage, if you guys would like that.
MR. TRAVER-I would think with the intent of making the letters of the MOBIL stand out,
you wouldn’t want it to be extremely bright. You’d want the contrast, so that people can
read the sign.
MR. CANUGIARI-Yes.
MR. KEESOE-Certainly from our standpoint we would like that, just as the maroon says
Stewarts, the blue strip really says MOBIL, and being not only a neighborhood store for
us, it’s also a highway store, with a significant amount of tourists going by West
Mountain, etc.
MR. CANUGIARI-And you have a lot of people there expecting a MOBIL brand in a
location like that.
MR. SEGULJIC-All right. So I guess one of my concerns is how bright is it going to be?
I can see that you would want it pretty bright so that people can see it from the highway,
but we want to soften it.
22
(Queensbury Planning Board 05/29/08)
MR. KEESOE-I certainly could provide you that information. Again, I should have had
that. I’m sorry.
MR. SEGULJIC-All right. What’s the other questions from the Board? What’s the will of
the Board? Do you want to see more information?
MR. TRAVER-Well, I think it makes sense to confirm the level of illumination. So your
point, Mr. Chairman, about wanting some additional information on the specifics of the
wattage I think is a good one. I think, in concept, I don’t have any problem with their
approach.
MRS. STEFFAN-Because they have asked for a waiver for lighting, and I’m assuming
that that’s for the site. So the discussion is just to the illumination around the canopy, not
for the whole site.
MR. SEGULJIC-Yes.
MR. TRAVER-Right.
MR. KEESOE-Correct.
MRS. BRUNO-That’s going to spill. That’s going to affect your overall calculations.
MR. TRAVER-Well, and that gets to the point of how many lumens or how many watts,
because we don’t know to what degree it may impact. It may be very little.
MR. KEESOE-Would you like a photo metric with the bright?
MRS. BRUNO-Yes, I think so. I think that would be responsible.
MR. CANUGIARI-We could do that.
MR. TRAVER-I suspect it’s going to be low, relatively low wattage, again, because
they’re going to want, what they’re trying to do is make the MOBIL visible, not light up the
ground around the sign.
MRS. BRUNO-Yes. That is a pleasant site. You go there in the evening, there’s
definitely enough light, but it’s still low and pleasant.
MR. KEESOE-Yes, and certainly in my experience where we’ve branded other locations,
it is not one that you’re going to see anything striking on the photo metric. Whether it’s
illuminated or not, you’re not going to find a significant foot candle change on the ground.
MRS. BRUNO-Okay. Good.
MR. SEGULJIC-Right. I guess also, just to be clear, I’d just like to know how bright is
that going to be? Is it going to be subtle, or is it going to be sharp in contrast?
MRS. STEFFAN-So we’re asking for a photo metric on the canopy.
MR. TRAVER-Photo metric impact on the site of the canopy.
MRS. BRUNO-And then specifically the bulbs, the wattage of the sign.
MR. TRAVER-Cut sheets or whatever on.
MR. CANUGIARI-We can do that.
MR. SCHONEWOLF-Stu, is there a lumens limit in Town, I mean, on the commercial
sign?
MR. OBORNE-Well, the only thing I can dig up is 40 watts.
MR. BAKER-Yes, under the Sign Code. There are lumen standards under, I believe it’s
Article Eight of 179, but I don’t believe there are any specific signs.
23
(Queensbury Planning Board 05/29/08)
MR. SCHONEWOLF-Of course whatever size fluorescents they put in there, they’re
going to be behind a piece of white plastic, which is almost opaque, and then you’re
going to have a blue banner on top of that, which is, again, going to reduce the light.
MR. SEGULJIC-Right.
MRS. BRUNO-But that would show in the photo metric, because those.
MR. SEGULJIC-Yes. I, in general, don’t have any problems with it, but I just want to
make sure it’s not going to be some.
MR. CANUGIARI-We’re here to work with you guys, obviously.
MRS. STEFFAN-Is being vague enough going to be specific enough, by asking for a
lighting plan for the canopy, then you will provide, or do we have to be more specific,
too?
MR. TRAVER-Well, we can be specific, in that we want cut sheets for the lighting
fixtures, and the.
MRS. STEFFAN-And the canopy.
MR. TRAVER-In the canopy. That will give us the wattage.
MRS. BRUNO-Including its new branding, so that they don’t just give us the ones that
are under the canopy.
MR. TRAVER-Right. Good point.
MR. CANUGIARI-So if this would be an approval, would this be like contingent upon
meeting certain standards, or would it just be, we would come back with, you know, just
some of the details with the lighting plan?
MRS. STEFFAN-You’d have to come back.
MR. CANUGIARI-Okay.
MR. SEGULJIC-Okay. How does everyone feel about the digital signs, so we can give
them some direction? Start with Mr. Traver.
MR. TRAVER-Yes, I’m opposed to it.
MR. SEGULJIC-Okay. Tanya?
MRS. BRUNO-I already said.
MR. SEGULJIC-Okay. Gretchen?
MRS. STEFFAN-Opposed.
MR. SEGULJIC-Don?
MR. SIPP-Opposed.
MR. KREBS-I’d approve it.
MR. SCHONEWOLF-I’d approve it, too. It’s the digital age.
MR. SEGULJIC-I’m okay with the amber color. So, I guess, we’re just going to table it
for now, but I guess keep that in mind.
MR. CANUGIARI-Okay.
MR. SEGULJIC-So anything else you want to ask them to provide?
MR. BAKER-Just a clarification. The lighting and lumen standards are under Article Six,
not Article Eight, and again, there is nothing specific to signage. There are specific
values pertaining to gas station pump islands, service areas, and approaches of
driveways.
24
(Queensbury Planning Board 05/29/08)
MR. SEGULJIC-Okay. Are we ready for a motion?
MRS. STEFFAN-Let’s see here. We are.
MR. SEGULJIC-I can see these guys, it shouldn’t take very long when they come back.
MR. TRAVER-Right.
MR. SEGULJIC-So I would have no problem putting them on next month.
MRS. STEFFAN-I was going to say, I’ll tell you what. How fast can you turn this around
for us?
MR. CANUGIARI-That would be fine. Next month you were talking about?
th
MRS. STEFFAN-Well, the application deadline was on May 15. So we’re two weeks
past that. The submission deadline for June. How quickly were you going to make the
transition to MOBIL?
MR. KEESOE-Well, it really depended upon what we were able to get approved here.
Because quite honestly, if we weren’t able to get approved with some of the imaging that
MOBIL does, it’s still a question of whether there’d be the benefit of going branded
MOBIL. So I am approved up until October. Would I like to do that far before that?
Absolutely.
MR. SEGULJIC-Okay. So if we get you on next month?
MR. CANUGIARI-That would be fine.
MR. KEESOE-That would be fine. We could turn around the information you’re looking
for probably in a week.
MR. SEGULJIC-All right.
MR. KEESOE-So I could have it certainly before, so you could review it.
MR. BAKER-We already have, actually at this point, the tentative agenda, actually final
agenda for June does not include any bumpings. If you add this application to June, we
will be bumping somebody to July, who submitted for the June deadline.
MR. SEGULJIC-Can we put it on as an extra one, if the Board feels it’s okay, put it on as
an extra one?
MR. BAKER-You can, but right now you’re looking at an agenda that has seven
applications each meeting already.
MR. SEGULJIC-All right. So the question is, how does the Board feel about entertaining
an eighth for one of those meetings?
MR. KREBS-If it’s going to be a five minute discussion.
MR. SCHONEWOLF-Yes, if it’s a five minute one.
MRS. BRUNO-The first one this evening should have been five minutes. We never know
what we’re going to get into.
MR. TRAVER-That’s a good point. I think, though, what we’re asking them to bring back
is primarily technical, not a matter of design. So that’s a slightly different situation.
We’re not asking for an alteration, and a Site Plan that requires another evaluation and
interpretation. It’s simply providing us technical material. So I think we have reason to
have more faith that it should be a short discussion when it comes through. So I would
be in favor of adding it to the agenda.
MR. SEGULJIC-I guess the Board feels it’s okay to add it. Is Staff okay with that?
MR. BAKER-We work at the Board’s will.
25
(Queensbury Planning Board 05/29/08)
MRS. BRUNO-I think I’d like to make a comment, too, and I’m a little uncomfortable
making it, but I think it needs to be said. I was responsible for doing the completion
review for this month’s applications. Some of your materials hadn’t been turned in, and it
was allowed that they were turned in after that, which we were not aware that that really
happened. I just want to make the request that since we are, you know, looking to put
you on a little sooner than just following the schedule and adding you to the schedule,
that this stays timely. If it takes a week to turn it around, please get it in as soon as
possible, so that there isn’t any last minute scramble, because it is the busy season.
MR. KEESOE-We appreciate that.
MR. CANUGIARI-I totally understand.
MRS. BRUNO-Thank you.
MR. BAKER-I would ask the Board to give a clearly defined deadline for submitting
materials and specify which agenda in June you’d like the application placed on.
MRS. STEFFAN-Got it. Okay.
MOTION TO TABLE MODIFICATION TO SITE PLAN NO. 5-2001 STEWARTS SHOPS,
Introduced by Gretchen Steffan who moved for its adoption, seconded by Stephen
Traver:
It is tabled so that the applicant can submit photometric information on the canopy and
also cut sheets for the canopy lighting, including the illuminated band. This is tabled to
th
the second Planning Board meeting in June, which is the 24, and they have a
th
submission deadline of no later than Friday June 6. That will give them a week and a
day to submit their materials. They will be put on as a first item on the agenda.
th
Duly adopted this 29 day of May, 2008, by the following vote:
AYES: Mrs. Bruno, Mr. Sipp, Mr. Krebs, Mr. Schonewolf, Mr. Traver, Mr. Steffan,
Mr. Seguljic
NOES: NONE
MR. SEGULJIC-Okay. See you next month.
MR. CANUGIARI-Thank you very much for your time.
SITE PLAN NO. 19-2008 SEQR TYPE II ERIC ECKARDT OWNER(S) ERIC &
ROBERT ECKARDT ZONING MU LOCATION 16 MAIN STREET APPLICANT
PROPOSES CONVERSION OF A 680 SQ. FT. SINGLE FAMILY DWELLING TO A
PROFESSIONAL OFFICE. PROFESSIONAL OFFICE USE IN A MU ZONE REQUIRES
PLANNING BOARD REVIEW AND APPROVAL. CROSS REFERENCE BP 08-89, 08-
90 WARREN CO. PLANNING 5/14/08 LOT SIZE 0.29 +/- ACRES TAX MAP NO.
309.11-1-46 SECTION 179-4-020, 179-9-020
ERIC ECKARDT, PRESENT
MR. SEGULJIC-Good evening. If you could just introduce yourself and tell us about your
application.
MR. ECKARDT-Sure. Good evening. My name is Eric Eckardt and this is my father,
Robert Eckardt. We’re the owners of the property on 16 Main Street in Queensbury. I’m
here this evening to be granted, ultimately, hopefully approval to convert an existing
1680 square foot single family residence into a professional office space, which is
already in a Mixed Use zoning.
MR. SEGULJIC-Do you have anything else to add?
MR. ECKARDT-Not at this stage.
MR. SEGULJIC-Okay. Then I’ll open it up to the Board for questions.
MRS. STEFFAN-Did you get copies of the Staff Notes and the VISION Engineering
comments?
26
(Queensbury Planning Board 05/29/08)
MR. ECKARDT-Yes, I did.
MR. KREBS-Well, I have a comment that I’d like to bring up, and that’s relative to the
Staff’s comments, relative to landscaping and street trees should be considered given
that the timetable for constructing the Main Street improvements is subject to change. I
think what we should do is condition this approval that when Main Street is completed,
that they will, at that point, conform with the requirements for Main Street, because I
don’t think you can ask them to put something in today, and if that gets approved a year
from now, eliminate it, or it may never get approved.
MR. BAKER-Are you proposing giving Staff the discretion to review landscaping plans?
Typically the landscaping is part of the Planning Board approval.
MR. KREBS-Well, no, but I’m saying that we know that the Main Street plan requires
sidewalks and requires certain things, okay. It’s a very defined zone.
MR. BAKER-Right.
MR. KREBS-And as long as they meet those zoning requirements at the time it’s
completed.
MR. BAKER-Those zoning requirements are in place currently.
MR. KREBS-Yes.
MR. BAKER-I’m not sure I understand what you’re suggesting. The Main Street design
criteria are currently in the Code.
MR. KREBS-Well, but Main Street that’s in the Code doesn’t exist today.
MR. BAKER-That’s correct, but the Code exists.
MR. KREBS-Okay, and what I’m saying is they, when Main Street gets re-done, they will
then comply with that Code that we have today.
MR. BAKER-That is implicitly part of what the Planning Board is doing with this Site Plan
Review.
MRS. STEFFAN-We can condition it so that they would have to come back if.
MR. SCHONEWOLF-In case it changes.
MRS. STEFFAN-Right.
MR. SIPP-So that would eliminate all of the, and you’d have to specify landscaping only.
Because the parking requirement is that parking be behind the building. So you can’t
exempt them from all.
MR. SEGULJIC-Does the applicant understand what the discussion is?
MR. ECKARDT-No, not really.
MR. SEGULJIC-There’s a Main Street Design Corridor, which is meant to, for
argument’s sake, spruce it up. There’s landscaping requirements and design
requirements. The problem is Main Street’s been designed, but it hasn’t been built yet.
So the easiest example is, one of our concerns is if you go out and you meet the Main
Street landscaping requirements, it may be in a few months, it may be in a few years, it
may, well, they get ripped up where it’s possible nothing will happen. So we don’t want
to see you put it in and it gets ripped up, but on the other hand, we want to improve it.
So there’s a Section in the Code, I don’t have it in front of me, that talks about the Main
Street Design requirements.
MR. ECKARDT-And that’s fine, whatever’s required.
MR. SEGULJIC-So we’re looking for a way that’s best for everybody here to meet that,
and that’s what this discussion’s about, and it comes up quite a bit. Okay. Our Code got
ahead of the design.
MR. SEGULJIC-So, I guess with that, does the Board have any questions?
27
(Queensbury Planning Board 05/29/08)
MRS. BRUNO-There’s something mentioned by Staff about the lighting. You heard our
concern with the previous applicant that we like to look at that, that we have the
downcast lighting and everything. Can you talk about that a little bit?
MR. ECKARDT-Sure. I mean, right now there’s currently floodlights there, which were
currently there, and that’s something we can easily replace with something that is, that
won’t throw off the projection of light that you guys expect it will. At the same time, I
know this isn’t relevant. It’s a real estate business. Very rarely we’d be in there in the
evening, but regardless, we can obviously address that and change the lighting.
MRS. BRUNO-Thank you. I didn’t actually measure the sign. Does it fit in with our
Code, or is it the right size?
MR. OBORNE-I’m not quite sure if it’s 64 square feet or not, to be honest with you.
MRS. BRUNO-Is it illuminated? I only go through there during the day. Is it internally
illuminated?
ROBERT ECKARDT
MR. R. ECKARDT-It isn’t right now. There’s two fluorescent lamps in there.
MR. ECKARDT-It has the option to be lit. It never has been illuminated.
MR. R. ECKARDT-It never has been.
MRS. BRUNO-Internally, or on the ground? Internally illuminated?
MR. R. ECKARDT-Yes.
MR. ECKARDT-Yes.
MRS. BRUNO-Okay.
MR. ECKARDT-It’s comparable to the exact same sign that’s up the street for All State
Insurance. Just to kind of give you an idea of what it would potentially look like.
MR. BAKER-Just an additional comment on the Main Street Design Guidelines. On the
section immediately prior to those in Article Seven it explicitly states that the Planning
Board does have the authority to modify the Guidelines, where, if, you know,
circumstances warrant it. As long as the modifications are consistent with the purposes
of the Chapter, the locally adopted plans, and four principles, the first being general
design character of the proposal is in harmony with the neighboring properties. The
second, the scale of the proposal in relation to the site and neighboring properties.
Third, the similarity of building materials and the color and texture in relation to those
found in the surrounding district, and, fourth, the visual compatibility of the proposal with
the surrounding properties, including height, setback, roof shape, etc.
MRS. STEFFAN-I’d like to see some kind of compromise with landscaping, because it is
pretty stark, and you do have some landscaping noted, but there’s no further plan. So
I’m not really sure what trees they are. There’s little.
MR. R. ECKARDT-Right now there’s shrubs in front of the house, if that helps you there.
MR. ECKARDT-Proposed.
MR. R. ECKARDT-And you’re saying we have to put trees near the sidewalk or what
kind of trees or how big? We don’t understand that. I don’t.
MR. TRAVER-That’s the area that may be impacted by the Main Street.
MRS. STEFFAN-The Main Street Guidelines.
MR. R. ECKARDT-So we’d have to wait until the road’s in, correct?
MR. BAKER-Yes, you would certainly want to wait until the roadwork is completed before
you put the final landscaping.
28
(Queensbury Planning Board 05/29/08)
MR. SIPP-You’ve also got underground utilities going in probably. They’re going to have
to dig up.
MR. R. ECKARDT-Because we even asked a few people on the Warren County Board
about the road, and they’re not sure where it’s going. One says three feet, one says five
feet. So.
MR. BAKER-Did you talk with the Warren County DPW staff?
MR. R. ECKARDT-We went up to the last meeting. They didn’t say much. They didn’t
really know either.
MR. BAKER-I would recommend you talk directly with the Assistant Superintendent of
the DPW. He can tell you exactly how much, road wise, that will occur at that property.
MR. ECKARDT-They actually said between one and two feet. They acquired their
property from the previous owners, in advance of any changes they make, and two feet
is the maximum.
MR. BAKER-They weren’t able to give you a final definitive figure?
MR. ECKARDT-I don’t have it at this stage, no.
MR. SIPP-Have they contacted you about easements?
MR. ECKARDT-Not me. I guess it was all, this was all done previous to us acquiring the
property. We closed on it, I believe it was in February. It was fairly recent, and
unfortunately I don’t have that.
MR. SIPP-They’ve been working on the easements.
MR. R. ECKARDT-Of course I know that pole is about three feet in. So I guess they’re
going to move all the lines. They have to, to widen the roads.
MR. SIPP-They’re all going underground.
MR. R. ECKARDT-And all the sidewalks are across the street. There is no sidewalks,
right now, on this side. That’s, Keith, I think was up there. I spoke to him.
MR. KREBS-I don’t think we know. The last I heard, Niagara Mohawk had not agreed to
pay or National Grid had not agreed to pay for the underground.
MR. BAKER-It’s still subject of the lawsuit between the utility companies and primarily
National Grid and the Town.
MR. R. ECKARDT-So the road may never get done, or nobody knows?
MR. KREBS-Well, we don’t to, they don’t want to actually do the road if they’re going to
put underground power in, because then you’d have to dig up the road again to put the
power in. So they have to wait until this lawsuit is settled, and then they’ll make a
determination. That’s why I was saying I think we should approve this with the
understanding that you will comply with the Ordinance after the road is put in.
MR. ECKARDT-Sure.
MR. KREBS-Can we do that?
MR. OBORNE-Yes, you can make it a condition, conditional approval. Absolutely.
MRS. STEFFAN-I personally would like to see some additional trees, and whether it’s
around, additional landscaping around the house.
MR. ECKARDT-Yes. I mean, right now it’s not, there’ll be extensive landscaping done
there.
MRS. STEFFAN-Right, and your plan calls for just some shrubs in the front, but I’d like to
see some more landscaping there.
MR. SEGULJIC-Anything in particular, like a tree in the front?
29
(Queensbury Planning Board 05/29/08)
MRS. STEFFAN-Well, I don’t want to dictate his landscaping plan, but we do have
design standards for landscaping.
MR. ECKARDT-Yes, and we purposely held off, just in case you had something specific
or wanted to move something around.
MRS. STEFFAN-Right. I certainly understand not doing anything next to the road, and
you’ve got proposed parking in the front of the house, but, you know, right now, it’s just,
it’s off in the middle of the lot, it’s very stark.
MR. R. ECKARDT-Right. Well, one reason we didn’t do anything, we have to put a
handicap ramp in the front. That’s the main reason nothing has been done. I spoke with
Mr. Hatin, and he already showed us what we have to do.
MRS. STEFFAN-And one of your parking spaces probably has to be handicap.
MR. ECKARDT-Yes.
MR. R. ECKARDT-Right. Yes, we have all that.
MRS. STEFFAN-I’m not concerned with the back of the property, just the front and the
side, that faces the street.
MR. SEGULJIC-So you said this is going to be a real estate office?
MR. ECKARDT-Correct.
MRS. STEFFAN-So what do you want to do, folks? No one seems to have issues with
the Site Plan. We’re just talking about the landscaping it seems.
MR. SEGULJIC-Yes, and just, the problem is that Main Street corridor.
MRS. BRUNO-Let’s definitely beef up the landscaping around the house. I’d agree with
Mrs. Steffan.
MR. R. ECKARDT-If you see across the street there’s not even any lawn. Across the
street, that’s all macadam, and that’s directly across the street, and all their water runs
into ours, almost I think, the way it is.
MRS. STEFFAN-Well, I believe that that’s always been macadam.
MR. SEGULJIC-Well, I guess, why don’t we open this up for public comment. Anyone
wish to? Come forward and state your name.
PUBLIC HEARING OPENED
CLARK WILKINSON
MR.WILKINSON-I only have one comment. For the record, my name is Clark Wilkinson
with Paragon Engineering. The only comment I wanted to make is I know that the plans
for the Main Street corridor are available through Clough Harbor and Associates. The
last project, if you’ll recall, that I did was the Citgo station at Exit 18, and I went through
that step with you guys, got the plans from them and made sure my plantings
coordinated with them, and on that project we also did the same thing. We decided not
to put it in now, and I don’t remember whether it was bonded or not. I think it is, so that it
could be done at a later date. So I just wanted to offer that information up so that you
guys knew that what was available and what you can get to show.
MR. SEGULJIC-Okay. Thank you.
MRS. STEFFAN-Thank you.
MR. WILKINSON-Thank you.
MR. SEGULJIC-All right. So what I’m sensing here is that the Board would like some
more information on landscaping in particular. Is that what I’m getting out of this?
30
(Queensbury Planning Board 05/29/08)
MRS. STEFFAN-Yes, and there’s a couple of VISION Engineering comments that can
be addressed. The gas and electric service should be at least shown on the plan.
MR. ECKARDT-Yes. I can make a note of that. Just to make sure you guys have, this
was updated as recently as yesterday, and we submitted additional copies. I’m not sure
th
if you guys have it in front of you, but it says the most recent one was of May 28.
MRS. STEFFAN-We don’t get that.
MR. ECKARDT-Yes.
MRS. BRUNO-Because really we’re supposed to have, again, like I was saying.
MR. OBORNE-Yes. Mr. Eckardt was supposed to provide us with those copies by the
th
deadline date of the 15. He has, in fact, completed everything that Dan has asked him
to.
MRS. STEFFAN-Okay.
MR. ECKARDT-And we actually received the engineer’s comments like Saturday, it was
Memorial Day weekend, which I got on Monday, and we went full force on Tuesday and
addressed each one of the concerns, but unfortunately you guys don’t have it in front of
you. If you’d like a copy of this, I can hand this over to you.
MR. BAKER-We have the copies.
MR. KREBS-Then why didn’t you give them to us tonight?
MR. BAKER-We don’t distribute materials to the Board received after the application
deadline.
MR. KREBS-Well, then what about getting the engineer to get the information to them
before Friday of Memorial Day?
MR. R. ECKARDT-Well, that’s when we got the letter.
MR. SEGULJIC-It’s an ongoing issue.
MR. R. ECKARDT-And just for the record, I came up Tuesday and I got all these plans,
my surveyor, which is a friend of mine, and I brought them up to the office, and the lady
said they would be distributed, 15 copies I had to make, and now nobody has any.
MR. OBORNE-No, no. She did not say they’d be distributed. We gave you all the
direction that you needed to get everything on there and make it, you know, crystal clear.
MR. R. ECKARDT-But I had 15 copies made. I thought everybody would get them.
MR. OBORNE-It is, well, you need to apply at the proper day.
MR. R. ECKARDT-According to the lady that was there, I thought they were.
MR. SEGULJIC-Please understand, it’s an imperfect process.
MR. OBORNE-It is.
MR. SEGULJIC-And we’re working on it.
MR. R. ECKARDT-It took me like five hours to do this.
MR. SEGULJIC-Okay. All right. So, what do we want to do here? Do we, I’m sensing
people would like to see at least the landscaping information.
MRS. BRUNO-And the lighting if we’re going to do that. They may as well bring the cut
sheets in for the lights.
MR. ECKARDT-For the footlights that are currently there.
MRS. BRUNO-Actually, no, VISION Engineering has said that floodlights are not good
practice and we tend to agree. So you agreed that you would replace them, and you
31
(Queensbury Planning Board 05/29/08)
may as well before you replace them and then them not to be to our liking, you may as
well bring in cut sheets, product information.
MR. ECKARDT-(lost words) lighting or something, something basic.
MR. KREBS-Are floodlights not allowed by Code?
MR. R. ECKARDT-On the Staff comments, they were consistent.
MRS. BRUNO-I don’t believe I said by Code. I think I just said that we tend to steer
away from them.
MR. R. ECKARDT-On the Staff comments it said if they were existing, they were okay.
That’s the information I got, not that it’s a big deal to light. I was a builder. I know it’s a
half hour job, and you can point floodlights anyway you want. I mean, the glare, it just
doesn’t make sense.
MRS. STEFFAN-Well, the idea behind the lighting code is so that you don’t have
floodlights that have light that spills off your property. That’s one of the reasons why
floodlights aren’t a good idea. On our Code their fixtures are downcast, and that’s part of
the Code.
MR. R. ECKARDT-But this is far enough away from the road. This is all new to me.
Because the floodlights in Saratoga, they were good.
MRS. STEFFAN-Well, that’s a different town. This is the Town of Queensbury, and our
Code has other restrictions that they may not.
MR. SIPP-Should we have them thinking about the parking area being moved?
MR. ECKARDT-Well, according to the Code, and correct me if I’m wrong.
MR. SIPP-And your lamp would be in the rear of the building rather than probably on the
front.
MR. ECKARDT-It’s actually going to be on the front, where we have proposed here, and
according to the Code, and again, correct me if I’m wrong, but it’s one parking spot per
square feet of office space. The building is 680 square feet, so as a result you need
three spots. With that, and what’s proposed here is we have a handicap, and two
additional parking. There’s actually room for four cars. So there’s more than enough
parking, according to the current Code.
MR. SIPP-Yes, but the Main Street guidelines call for parking in the rear.
MR. ECKARDT-In the rear.
MR. SEGULJIC-I guess, just to clarify that, I don’t know if you have a copy of the Code
with you. Go to 179-7-030, and that outlines the Main Street Design Corridor. Overlay
that with the fact that we don’t know what’s happening with Main Street. That’s where it
gets complicated, and as far as parking goes.
MR. SIPP-There’s a diagram.
MR. ECKARDT-It’s basically two spots we allocated in front of the garage.
MR. SEGULJIC-Yes. It’s one per 300 square feet of leasable space, I believe.
MR. KREBS-But you may just, you know, I don’t know what’s there now, but if you’re
going to bother to put macadam in, and you want to put, pave the spaces, you may want
to put them to the rear of the building because that is going to be the Code in the future,
and if you want to kind of look like the rest of the Main Street corridor eventually, I mean,
if you’re going to do it, why not do it now, and put your ramp in the back, rather than in
the front.
MR. R. ECKARDT-Because the problem is, then we’ve got to go on the opposite side of
the house for parking. Have to change everything, driveway and everything. Because
there’s a garage on the side, if you’ve seen the plan. That’s why.
32
(Queensbury Planning Board 05/29/08)
MR. SEGULJIC-Well, I guess, can Staff provide the applicant a copy of the Design, the
Main Street Design corridor?
MR. BAKER-Absolutely. In fact, it’s available on line.
MR. SEGULJIC-I’m sorry. The actual, what Clough Harbor has done.
MR. BAKER-That’s available from Warren County.
MR. SEGULJIC-Okay. So you can get a copy of that from Warren County.
MR. BAKER-Warren County DPW should be able to give you complete design details for
the roadwork proposed in front of the property, including showing exactly how much, if
any of this parcel, is going to be taken as part of that project.
MR. R. ECKARDT-Well, we heard between two and three feet.
MR. BAKER-They should be able to give you specifically for your property.
MR. SEGULJIC-Yes. Get that from Warren County, and you can get a copy of the Code
we’re talking about on line at Queensbury.net, and do the best you can.
MR. ECKARDT-All right. So at this stage, just for clarity for myself, given the existing
parking where it is right now, is that an issue how it’s laid out, the three spots, for the 680
square foot building. It’s a satellite office. Is that an issue in a Mixed Use?
MR. SEGULJIC-Well, as I understand it, the Main Street Design corridor requests that
parking be in the back.
MR. ECKARDT-Because we had a meeting with Warren County about two weeks ago,
three weeks ago, and that was the meeting we had, and basically (lost words) this
project had any impact from a County perspective, and they ruled that it didn’t, but I’m
assuming this is different, within Warren County, another group.
MR. BAKER-That was the County Planning Board.
MR. ECKARDT-Okay. Just for clarity.
MR. SEGULJIC-So, once again, I’m sensing that everyone would like to table this. So
let’s come up with some direction for the applicant as to what exactly we’re looking for.
MR. BAKER-An additional consideration for the Board. We’ve discussed it a bit, but you
may want the plans submitted to be certain to reflect what the revised property line may
be after any taking by the County.
MR. R. ECKARDT-But this is an existing building with existing parking, correct? This
has been here.
MR. KREBS-Yes, but it wasn’t there as a commercial property. It was there as a private
residence.
MR. ECKARDT-Yes. That’s actually where I’m having the problem, and agreeing with
you, because before I acquired, just briefly, again, I know this is going to be irrelevant.
Before I acquired this property, a week before closing I spoke with Craig Brown. He
said, quote unquote, these are the type of businesses we want here. They’re compatible
to the area and so forth. With that, we closed on it. He said (lost words) fill out a site
application to get a CO, not site plan application, fill out an application for a CO. I did
that. I submitted it, expecting to open the business up a month ago. Two weeks went
by, I heard nothing, called him up. He said, by the way, was there an existing business
here? I said, no, you knew it was a residential home. He said, well now you have to go
through a formal Site Plan approval process. I wouldn’t be here this evening. I have X
amount of thousands tied up in this property, and, again, I’m learning now I have to get,
you know, additional information you guys need, and now it’s going to be tabled a month.
I just heard the agenda’s filled. So I see where this is going.
MR. R. ECKARDT-And he spoke with Craig Brown, the zoning man, that’s what he told
him, and I was in the office. We do have three spots. Actually we have five spots,
because two would go in the garage.
33
(Queensbury Planning Board 05/29/08)
MR. ECKARDT-And in my opinion this building was an eyesore before I acquired it.
MR. R. ECKARDT-It should have been torn down.
MR. SEGULJIC-Well, I don’t doubt that.
MR. R. ECKARDT-And there’s five houses right up the road that should be torn down.
They’re condemned.
MR. ECKARDT-Everything surrounding is commercial, but again, I know it’s irrelevant.
We’ll go through the formal process.
MR. SIPP-You haven’t moved in there and started operating from this building?
MR.R. ECKARDT-No. We can’t. I spoke to Dave Hatin who was there. He told us what
we had to do.
MR. ECKARDT-And they yesed me, yesed me, yesed me.
MR. R. ECKARDT-He said the parking was good where it was. I walked around the
whole property with him.
MR. ECKARDT-And I spoke with Craig Brown the day of the closing, an hour before
because I was cautious and I was a little nervous, and he still, yes, not a problem.
MR. R. ECKARDT-And the parking is existing, and Dave Hatin was there, for two hours.
The only thing we had to do is put a handicap ramp in and add a handicap bathroom,
and we get the okay. You go next door, I mean, these places are all shabby, and like I
say, across the street, the building there, it’s unbelievable. There’s not a green space
there. I mean, it’s bad.
MR. SEGULJIC-Just thinking out loud here. The other possibility is, is it possible to put a
condition in it that, you know, within a certain amount of time of the completion of Main
Street, they have to come back, well, I guess the problem is that they have to have their
parking in the back. They would have to come back for Site Plan approval. Let’s say, for
example, we approve this, and we say, within six months of completion of the Main
Street corridor you have to come back for Site Plan Review. Is that ill advisable,
advisable? Getting ourselves in trouble?
MR. BAKER-I would say that’s ill advised. The idea is to have the Site Plan design
based on what will be the actual location of the Main Street right of way, with any revised
property lines, just get it reviewed and approved as Main Street will be.
MR. SEGULJIC-I mean, at this time, if we approve it as Main Street will be, it may never
be that way, and that’s where I get hung up.
MR. KREBS-Right.
MRS. BRUNO-Right.
MR. BAKER-It will be. At this point the construction work on the road is proposed to go
ahead during the 2009 season, and that may very well go ahead regardless of the status
of the utilities lawsuit between the Town and National Grid.
MR. ECKARDT-If I can make just one comment. I have no problem paying for trees
now, and I’ll tear them up and cut them down and put new ones there after, I mean, I
have no problem with that. I’m not worried about planting trees and spending X amount
of dollars. At this stage it’s a small percentage.
MR. R. ECKARDT-When I lived in Saratoga, they were fixing Route 50. Do you know
where that is? Because I live in Saratoga. That’s been on the Planning Board for 10
years already, and they still haven’t started it. So we can’t wait 10 years. I mean, once
they get the new road in and we have to put a driveway on the other side, we would do it,
and if worse came to worse, we would take the garage down and park there.
MR. SEGULJIC-I guess, too, if you could clarify for me, are you saying that, Staff, we
should have a plan on record that shows what the proposed conditions are going to be
with where property lines are going to be?
34
(Queensbury Planning Board 05/29/08)
MR. BAKER-Yes. The plan they submit, the plan you approve should show the, you
should show the property lines as adjusted, if any, by any takings by the County, and
from the sound of it, the applicant has stated this evening that the County took one to two
feet, yet the survey lines on the plan you have before you are from 2006.
MR. R. ECKARDT-I have been told three different ones.
MR. BAKER-Sir, if you talk with staff at the County DPW, they should be able to provide
you with a detail sheet showing exactly what the taking would be on that property and
where the revised property line would be.
MR. R. ECKARDT-I think I even asked Dave Hatin, because you have the map in your
office.
MR. SEGULJIC-Well, let’s see how we can work through this and come up with
something reasonable.
MR. ECKARDT-I wish we had this guidance a few months ago.
MR. SEGULJIC-I guess where I’m getting hung up is if they give us a plan, this land may
or may not be taken. Is that an accurate statement?
MR. BAKER-No, the land will be taken.
MR. SEGULJIC-But it hasn’t been taken yet.
MR. BAKER-The County is moving ahead with the taking of the land.
MRS. BRUNO-They’ve been buying property.
MR. SEGULJIC-But they haven’t taken the land yet. So aren’t they going to be
submitting something that is inaccurate?
MR. BAKER-The County has detailed designs showing exactly what the taking would be
on this property, and those are available from the County DPW staff.
MR. SEGULJIC-Okay.
MRS. BRUNO-So we need to see an updated survey with that information on it. It
sounds like the Board would like to see a beefed up landscaping plan, if you’re willing to
put in more along the front that’s more applicable to our current Code.
MR. R. ECKARDT-Well, what do we need in this Town? Excuse me. Right now we’re
showing like eight bushes in front of the house. What else could we need?
MR. SEGULJIC-Well, the Code says that you should have one, well, I guess, look at the
Code, this is just my opinion in looking at it. It says a minimum three inch caliper trees
should be planted every 20 feet in a 25 foot wide strip located between the sidewalk and
the asphalt.
MR. R. ECKARDT-So we’d need three trees, 20 feet apart.
MR. SEGULJIC-Right. So you have to find out where your land’s going to end, figure out
where the sidewalk is.
MR. R. ECKARDT-How can we do anything if we don’t know where the road is?
MRS. STEFFAN-You have to contact the Warren County Department of Public Works.
They are the.
MR. ECKARDT-If you know this, at the Town of Queensbury, did you know this, when I
sat down with Craig Brown, I sat down with other members. They walked me through
the application. We submitted it. Nothing was ever said. We’re finding this a common
thread with you guys. Every time we come back, we do what you guys say, we come
back, and again it’s something new.
MR. BAKER-Sir, this is the first time I’ve met either of you. I can’t speak to what other
Staff have told you.
35
(Queensbury Planning Board 05/29/08)
MR. SEGULJIC-Well, let’s work through this here.
MRS. BRUNO-We understand your frustration. There are times that we run into bumpy
things.
MR. R. ECKARDT-Well, we would like to have an approval, and when the road comes in,
we’ll do what we have to do. Isn’t that fair enough?
MR. SIPP-Mr. Chairman, could they use the parking, the blacktop that’s already there as
their parking spaces, if they’re going to park in the garage. You’ll be there at eight
o’clock in the morning, before anybody else, right?
MR. ECKARDT-Yes. I will be here. It’s a satellite office.
MR. SIPP-That driveway could be used as a parking area until such time as the County
gets around to doing this, which may be never.
MR. ECKARDT-Correct. That’s why I’m saying, how can we do all these trees if we don’t
know?
MR. SIPP-And the trees, the trees you can get in there. You’ve got space in there.
MR. R. ECKARDT-That’s right. The trees aren’t any problem, believe me, or the shrubs,
because we just put siding on the house so we couldn’t do the shrubs yet to begin with.
This house was a wreck outside, if anybody knows.
MRS. BRUNO-So how can we do this most expeditiously?
MR. SIPP-Are you going to use this present sign, the same sign size? The present sign
will remain?
MR. R. ECKARDT-Yes. It will stay the same.
MR. SIPP-It will stay the same.
MR. R. ECKARDT-The only thing we have to put is a handicap ramp in the front, which I
spoke to Dave and he told me where to put it. He was, he’s in charge of the building
permits, right?
MR. KREBS-He’s the Director.
MR. R. ECKARDT-He’s the head man down there, isn’t he?
MRS. BRUNO-No.
MRS. STEFFAN-No, no.
MRS. BRUNO-There are a couple kind of little Departments within the larger
Department.
MR. R. ECKARDT-The shrubs around the house, that’s what we do. I live in a nice
house and so does he, but we have improved the property so much already.
MR. SEGULJIC-All right. Let’s just concentrate on working through this.
MRS. BRUNO-Where is your other office?
MR. ECKARDT-I have an office in Saratoga Springs, our main office, and one out by
Syracuse, in Cazenovia. Again, it’s irrelevant. If I knew this was going to be an issue, I
would never, there’s other properties I was looking at within Queensbury which I knew
were already turn key.
MR. R. ECKARDT-See, when he bought it, for us, we thought it was business. Craig
even thought, until he looked everything up, that’s where the problem.
MR. SEGULJIC-All right. We’re caught in a bureaucratic snafu here. I’m no expert on
this, but I don’t see any way we can give you approval to get you in there and ask for
another plan. We have to have a.
36
(Queensbury Planning Board 05/29/08)
MR. KREBS-Let’s look at it realistically. If we approve this tonight, with their agreement
that they will comply with the Main Street requirements when the road is put in, I don’t
see what we’ve got to lose. They’ve already improved the building already. Okay.
They’ve been given misdirection by two of our Staff people.
MR. SEGULJIC-But that’s irrelevant to us.
MRS. STEFFAN-I’m sorry. No, that’s not relevant at this point. This is hearsay.
MR. SEGULJIC-Right.
MRS. STEFFAN-We are not dealing with fact. We are dealing with lots of people’s
opinions.
MR. SEGULJIC-Right, and, Staff, can we do that, approve this plan with a condition that
they will submit a Main Street corridor compliant plan within whatever?
MR. SCHONEWOLF-Or that will conform to whatever the Main Street compliant plan
when it’s built.
MR. SEGULJIC-Right.
MRS. STEFFAN-This isn’t a Special Use Permit with a timetable. You can’t do that.
This is a Site Plan Review for right now, and you can condition approval with certain
terms and conditions, but you can’t have somebody, you can’t allow somebody to occupy
a dwelling, because you’re going above and beyond your authority. Only the Director of
Building and Codes can issue a building permit.
MR. SEGULJIC-So we can’t approve a plan with the condition that they submit another
one when the Main Street corridor is?
MR. SCHONEWOLF-No, no, that they conform to the Main Street corridor. That’s the
question, is they don’t know what the Main Street corridor is because they haven’t gone
and gotten it. They have to conform to it. They know that. Right?
MR. R. ECKARDT-Yes.
MR. SCHONEWOLF-We know that. They know that. Right?
MR. R. ECKARDT-All I can say is, we’ll do what we have to do when we know what we
have to do, when this street is in.
MRS. BRUNO-That’s right.
MR. R. ECKARDT-It’s like me building a house without a foundation right now. We can’t.
That’s about the bottom line. Am I right?
MR. BAKER-I have a couple of thoughts. Number One, this is a converting of use.
They’re not building a new building. It’s not a vacant lot. So that should certainly be a
consideration of he Board, in your review of the Main Street Design Guidelines and how
they apply to this property. The other thing is that the location of the revised front
property line is known, and available from Warren County DPW, that should be on the
plans that are approved by this Board and should be the basis for any landscaping that’s
proposed. Site Plan Review is required, and Site Plan Review gives the authority, the
sole authority to approve the plans with the Planning Board. Putting a condition that will
review revised plans, review and approve revised plans that are submitted sort of flies in
the face of that purpose.
MR. SEGULJIC-I wouldn’t have the Staff review the plans. They’d have to have submit
them to the Board for approval.
MR. BAKER-So you, in effect, want to condition a Site Plan approval based upon a
future Site Plan to be approved?
MR. SEGULJIC-Correct.
MR. BAKER-I’m not sure that’s the wisest approach.
MR. SEGULJIC-Okay.
37
(Queensbury Planning Board 05/29/08)
MR. R. ECKARDT-Just for the record, when I spoke to Mr. Ryan, the engineer, he told
me when they put the road in, they will probably put the sidewalks in, too, on that side.
Now where does the sidewalk go again, from the road.
MR. KREBS-Five feet from the road, and then depending, I don’t remember, it’s five feet
from the road, and then I think the sidewalk has to be five feet wide.
MR. SEGULJIC-I’m in a box here. Okay. We have a motion upcoming here.
MRS. STEFFAN-How fast can you turn this around?
MR. ECKARDT-I’ll do it as soon as I leave here, whatever I have to do. Whatever you
need.
MRS. STEFFAN-We’re taking a leap here, okay. We’re going to add an item onto on
June agenda again. We’re going to do it for the first date, but what we’re going to need
is you’re going to have to go to the Warren County DPW and you’re going to have to get
the proposed, the adjusted lot line from them. They are the source expert on that issue,
okay, and that’s going to have to be on the plan. You’ve already identified you’ve
satisfied VISION Engineering comments, but that’s going to be a condition of this tabling
motion, to satisfy the VISION Engineering comments.
MR. R. ECKARDT-We did.
MRS. STEFFAN-But that we will have to have that in front of us.
MR. ECKARDT-Yes. They didn’t get a copy.
MRS. STEFFAN-As part of this whole package.
MR. R. ECKARDT-Well, where are those copies?
MR. SEGULJIC-Let us continue.
MRS. STEFFAN-You’re going to have to, they’re going to have to be revised anyway.
Any new lighting proposed on your project will have to be downcast, and so if you’re
going to add lighting to your building, it has to be downcast and you’re going to have to
give us a cut sheet. So if you put a wall pack on the outside of the building, near the
parking area, you just have to give us a cut sheet on that. The place where you buy it
can provide that for you, okay, and the other thing is we do need a landscaping plan.
Now, from my point of view, with the Main Street Guidelines, they are published in our
Code, but we have the authority, the Planning Board has the authority, to modify those if
we want. I don’t know how the rest of the Board feels. I feel that the applicant should
provide a landscaping plan for around the professional office.
MRS. BRUNO-Yes.
MRS. STEFFAN-And I think that that would satisfy the spirit of the Code. How does the
rest of the Board feel about that?
MRS. BRUNO-I agree.
MR. TRAVER-That seems reasonable.
MR. SCHONEWOLF-Well, I’d rather they supplied it than this Board, yes.
MR. R. ECKARDT-Well, what do we need? I’d like to know. The side, the back too?
MR. ECKARDT-I can have a landscape architect do that.
MR. R. ECKARDT-Well, the one side is macadam right to the house, if you look on the
plan.
MRS. STEFFAN-You’ve got a ramp in the front. You’ve got some space in the front
where there’s, there could be landscaping, and on the side of the house, going into
Glens Falls, it’s green space right now. You need some landscaping around that, and I
think that, now, I’m speaking, I think that that would be adequate. What was the rest of
the Board thinking?
38
(Queensbury Planning Board 05/29/08)
MR. SEGULJIC-I think that they should still show the trees required at the 25 foot. Can
we have them still show that but they’ll be planted after the construction?
MR. BAKER-That would work, yes.
MR. SEGULJIC-So that you have to show the trees, if you look at the Code.
MR. R. ECKARDT-What is the Code, every 25 feet?
MR. SEGULJIC-Well, no, I want you to look at the Code. 179-7-030, and if you look at
C-7, in particular, it talks about the street trees, and it says every 25 feet, all right. So
what I’m saying is I’d like to have you show those on the plan, and we won’t have you
plant those now. We’ll just condition it that when the street is completed that you’ll have
the trees. Okay.
MR. R. ECKARDT-The reason those shrubs were around the house, like I just said, we
just finished siding it. We intend to put them.
MRS. STEFFAN-I don’t believe they’ll have enough of a setback to put in the street trees
that are proposed. It says, the first paragraph says applying many of the guidelines will
be difficult considering there is an existing building and garage on the property, and
that’s regarding street trees and building closer. It looks like, according to this scale, it’s
about 30 feet from the current property line to the house.
MR. SEGULJIC-And I can understand that, but I guess it’s up to the applicant to do the
best they can. Like, for example, maybe put one tree in the southeast corner.
MR. R. ECKARDT-We can put six trees, if we have to, if we know where they go.
MRS. STEFFAN-Right across the street, there’s the cat veterinary center that has a
beautiful garden that surrounds the front of the property. It’s aesthetically pleasing and
very nicely done. This applicant could do a very nice garden around the property on the
front that is the front space that’s available and on the side of the house, and you could
put a beautiful garden in, and I think that would satisfy the intent of the Code. It doesn’t
have a lot of property in the front, and there are many unknowns. Does that sound
reasonable?
MR. ECKARDT-Basically, just in summary, and again, I realize it’s getting late in the
evening, and we all want to go home. Contact Warren County DPW, which I learned is
on line, with regard to the adjusted line for the acquired space they’re going to take, put
that on top of the Site Plan, include that. Lighting, you want it in cut sheet with regard to
the proposed lighting we’re going to put in place, and finally have a professional
landscaping architect drawing done of what it’s going to look like visually.
MRS. STEFFAN-In our Town Code, there are recommendations for planting. So there
are recommended tree, shrubs, whatever your landscaper is choosing to do. That will
help you.
MR. ECKARDT-All right. I’m getting an education.
MRS. BRUNO-This’ll be all in the motion, too, which you’ll get a copy of within a couple
of weeks, I think, a week or two?
MR. ECKARDT-Okay.
MRS. BRUNO-When do the motions go out, copies of the motions?
MRS. STEFFAN-Now again, we’re taking a big leap here because we’re putting you on
the agenda for next month. This is usually not done.
MR. ECKARDT-I appreciate that.
MR. R. ECKARDT-So we have to come back for all this?
MRS. STEFFAN-Yes.
MR. ECKARDT-It will be done.
39
(Queensbury Planning Board 05/29/08)
MRS. STEFFAN-And you’re going to have to turn this around in a very big hurry.
MR. R. ECKARDT-So we will be approved or disapproved.
MRS. STEFFAN-No, you’ll be tabled until next month.
MR. ECKARDT-Okay, and one final question. I’m sorry. When we get these items, we
don’t present the items, we wait and present them to you the day of our meeting.
Correct?
MR. KREBS-No.
MRS. STEFFAN-No.
th
MR. KREBS-You would submit them to them by, what June 6?
MR. SEGULJIC-Well, I guess let Mrs. Steffan take the lead on this. Because she’s.
MRS. STEFFAN-I’ll make a motion.
MOTION TO TABLE SITE PLAN NO. 19-2008 ERIC ECKARDT, Introduced by
Gretchen Steffan who moved for its adoption, seconded by Paul Schonewolf:
th
This application is tabled to the June 17 meeting, added as an extra item on that
evening, and it is tabled so that the applicant can satisfy the following conditions:
1.That the applicant will identify the proposed adjusted property line on their
plan. To satisfy that, they can contact the Warren County Department of
Public Works,
2.That the applicant will satisfy VISION Engineering comments in their letter of
rd
May 23,
3.That any new lighting that is added to the plan will be downcast and a cut
sheet will be provided. Any new lighting must satisfy Code requirements, and
4.That the applicant will provide a landscaping plan.
th
5.Now, the application deadline, because this is an extra item on the June 17
th
meeting, your application deadline will be Friday, June 6, and you must
submit your materials to the Community Development and it must be
th
received by 4 p.m. on June 6.
th
Duly adopted this 29 day of May, 2008, by the following vote:
MR. R. ECKARDT-Now our parking and everything is good? These are the only three
items we have?
MR. ECKARDT-Yes.
MRS. BRUNO-Did we close the public hearing? Because we’d want to leave it open.
MR. SEGULJIC-No, we won’t. We’ll leave it open.
MRS. BRUNO-Right. Okay.
MR. SEGULJIC-So is that clear, as to what we’re looking for?
MR. ECKARDT-Yes. Thank you.
MR. SEGULJIC-Okay.
MR. R. ECKARDT-So where would I get this Code from?
MR. ECKARDT-It’s on line.
MR. SEGULJIC-It’s on Queensbury.net.
AYES: Mr. Traver, Mrs. Bruno, Mr. Krebs, Mr. Sipp, Mr. Schonewolf, Mrs. Steffan,
40
(Queensbury Planning Board 05/29/08)
Mr. Seguljic
NOES: NONE
MR. SEGULJIC-Okay. So, good luck.
MR. ECKARDT-Anybody want to buy an office?
MR. SEGULJIC-Sorry about that.
SITE PLAN NO. 20-2008 SEQR TYPE II LAFORTE CONSTRUCTION CO.
AGENT(S) PARAGON CIVIL ENGINEERING OWNER(S) SAME ZONING WR-1A
LOCATION 2609 STATE ROUTE 9L APPLICANT PROPOSES CONSTRUCTION OF
A 2077 SQ. FT. SINGLE FAMILY HOME, IN A CEA, WITH A DISTURBED AREA OF
14,690 +/- SQ. FT. THIS PROJECT HAS BEEN CLASSIFIED AS A MAJOR PROJECT.
MAJOR STORMWATER PROJECTS REQUIRE SITE PLAN REVIEW. CROSS
REFERENCE BP 06-566 WARREN CO. PLANNING 5/14/08 APA/DEC/CEA L G
CEA, APA LOT SIZE 1.44 +/- ACRES TAX MAP NO. 240.5-1-33 SECTION 147-12
CLARK WILKINSON, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT
MR. SEGULJIC-If you could identify yourself and tell us about your application.
MR.WILKINSON-For the record, my name is Clark Wilkinson with Paragon Civil
Engineering, P.C., representing LaForte Construction on this project on Route 9L in the
northern part of the Town of Queensbury. This project lies in a Critical Environmental
Area, which is the main reason why we’re before you tonight. The total disturbed area of
this parcel, excluding the septic area, with the expansion and the stormwater, proposed
stormwater management facilities, under the Code, is under the 15,000 square foot
minimum, but in discussions with Mr. Craig Brown, he had us submit this for Site Plan
because it was so close to those tolerances and those limitations. This is a proposed
four bedroom single family house on an approximately 1.4 acre parcel. The design
before you indicates the stormwater management that will be taking place, or is designed
and hopefully will be installed properly. The project is, again, very simple, a single family
house, and again, I’ll just reiterate the reason we’re here is because it is a Critical
Environmental Area. I reviewed the Staff Notes and engineering comments. My opinion
is there’s nothing there that we can’t meet. Knowing the procedures, I can’t submit a
plan anyway. So I didn’t bother changing anything. I wanted to make sure if there was
anything further, any considerations from the Board or comments from the Board, I could
address those as well. So with that being said, I’ll turn it over to you for questions and
discussions.
MRS. STEFFAN-Actually you just answered one of the questions, because when I
looked at the house design, it’s got garages on each side.
MR. WILKINSON-Correct.
MRS. STEFFAN-So I wondered if it was a duplex.
MR. WILKINSON-No.
MRS. STEFFAN-It had one front door, but.
MR. WILKINSON-No, it is not.
MRS. STEFFAN-Okay. The Staff Notes identify that there were no contours or spot
elevations on the plan.
MR. WILKINSON-That is correct.
MRS. STEFFAN-I think that would be a good idea.
MR. WILKINSON-There are contours there, 10 foot contours as the minimum requires.
MRS. STEFFAN-Okay. The property does slope down in the back.
MR. WILKINSON-In the back behind the septic area, yes, it slopes down toward the
wetland that exists down along this back section, and again, the runoff from this site will
enter into a wetland that just contributes to Lake George around the eastern end of this
41
(Queensbury Planning Board 05/29/08)
property, further down the road. That’s where that wetland runs to, it flows to, and again,
that’s why it’s in the Critical Environmental Area. In general, coming off of 9L you have a
steep slope, and then you have a very flat plateau, and then it generally slopes off,
again, behind where we’re placing the house and the septic. So the area we’re
proposing a house in is relatively flat.
MRS. STEFFAN-I was interested to read the, in the stormwater plan, about the soil, that
it’s well drained. When we were there, and I know it’s spring, but the soil was so
incredibly spongy, and right where the house is proposed to go, it looked like a pond, and
the water was not going anywhere. It looked very, the soil looked very clay based, and it
didn’t look very well drained to me, and as I said, every time we walked on it, and we
walked all the way around the property, it was spongy under our feet.
MR. WILKINSON-Okay. Again, I did the test pits before the area was cleared. That area
was cleared and disturbed, and with that disturbance and stuff, that could be the reason
why it’s different now, but, and actually, as a matter of fact, this site was witnessed by
Dan Ryan as well. So I just wanted to point that out.
MRS. STEFFAN-Perfect. I’m glad you did. I feel better about that.
MR. SIPP-I’d go along with Gretchen. Because I had to scrap quite a bit of clay off of
my, and you show no clay at all to a depth of 60 inches.
MR. WILKINSON-Correct.
MR. SIPP-And I just wondered why we had six inches of water right where the house is
supposed to be.
MR. WILKINSON-What’s happening also on this property, in some sections, and as a
matter of fact the next lot, Lot One, that I don’t know when he’s going to come back with
that. If you look at the test pit on that, I have rock at two feet on that lot. So one of the
things that may be occurring on this lot is that there might be some rock somewhere, and
some tighter soils pocketed in, but once you disturb it and turn it all up and carry it with
machinery and push the roots, that’s why certain areas of the site may look clayier than
others, but where I did the test pits was witnessed, and I’m satisfied.
MR. SIPP-What would be the south side, there is rock protruding up out of a.
MR. WILKINSON-Yes. Over here there is, there definitely is.
MR. SIPP-Yes.
MR. WILKINSON-It’s right on the surface over there, and it’s two feet down over here,
and who knows where it is in between. Where we dug this test pit, it wasn’t there.
MR. SIPP-I mean, you’ve got igneous rock sticking up there. So obviously (lost words).
MR. WILKINSON-I agree, and that was my concern going in, doing the test pits
originally, which is why, and actually it was in the outside of that, the April to July time.
That’s another reason why I coordinated with Dan Ryan, had him look at it to make sure I
had a witness on it, just to be safe.
MR. SIPP-I’d just like to see a little, another test pit done, especially where the house is
proposed.
MR. WILKINSON-That’s fine.
MR. SIPP-In order to make sure we’ve got good drainage in.
MR. WILKINSON-Sure.
MR. SIPP-That’s all.
MR. SEGULJIC-Now, I think I know where the site is, but I’m not sure. That’s Cleverdale
Store just down a little bit further?
MR. SIPP-Yes. This backs up to the fire department’s property.
MR. SEGULJIC-Okay.
42
(Queensbury Planning Board 05/29/08)
MR. WILKINSON-Not quite down that far. It’s a little further up the road. The fire
department is further, on the screen it’s further down is the fire department.
MR. SIPP-See, we’ve got on here, Lot One bounds on the North Queensbury Fire
Department, written on the map, Lot One.
MR. WILKINSON-Yes, but that’s not their parking lot that they have behind their building.
That’s more contiguous land that they have that’s.
MR. SCHONEWOLF-We own five acres back there. That’s what that is.
MR. WILKINSON-They own more than that.
MR. SCHONEWOLF-I know, but that are cleared that you can see.
MR. WILKINSON-This is the new firehouse. This is the parking lot behind. They own all
this land up behind, and then they own all this land up behind here to that point, and
that’s why I had to label it that way, but that’s all wooded and all undisturbed.
MRS. STEFFAN-Was this a two lot subdivision that the Town of Queensbury did?
MR. WILKINSON-Yes.
MRS. STEFFAN-And so we approved a flag lot like that?
MR. WILKINSON-Yes.
MR. WILKINSON-I believe in 1995. That’s what my notes look like.
MR. SCHONEWOLF-Yes, because it goes right around George Pensel’s property.
MR. SEGULJIC-Just a quick question. Why the long driveway coming in? Why not just
straight?
MR. WILKINSON-Steep slope.
MR. SEGULJIC-Steep slope right there? Okay.
MR. WILKINSON-Yes. I would have preferred it, but you can’t do it.
MR. SEGULJIC-Okay. Now this would still be a minor project, I believe. Correct?
MR. WILKINSON-I feel it is because I’m below the threshold of the 15,000 square feet.
However, the feeling from Staff was that it was so close they wanted the Planning Board
to look at it.
MR. SEGULJIC-Right, but I guess what I’m saying is, you still have to do the stormwater
permit, the 147 permit.
MR. WILKINSON-Correct. That application was submitted with this package.
MR. SEGULJIC-Okay. Because you’re over the 5,000 square feet, with 1,000
impervious.
MR. WILKINSON-Correct.
MR. SEGULJIC-So just explain to me, take a minute and explain to me how the
stormwater is going to work, stormwater management.
MR. WILKINSON-The intent for the stormwater is there’s two small depressions on each
side of the house, both with the east and the west side of the house, the east side
towards the septic area, that the roof leaders are going to drain into. I did that purposely
because that water doesn’t run directly to the septic area. It actually runs more this way,
parallel with the contours, and I placed the septic system along a slight drop, so that
when we put the fill in, because it’s a shallow system, it more conforms with the existing
slope and it looks more natural in place. That’s why I placed it there. The front one is
also going to take roof leaders into a depressed area that’s grass also, and along the
front, where I show approximate existing swale, between the property and the driveway
43
(Queensbury Planning Board 05/29/08)
and the house, that is an actual depression and swale that the, where the house sits, it’s
going to be the high point. The front yard’s going to fall into that ditch, and then the
culvert that’s underneath the driveway is going to be the control, so that the water will
back up into that ditch and the ditch will be, the existing ditch will be used as our natural
stormwater management with the controlled outlet back underneath the driveway where
it flows naturally now and then trickles down into the wetland.
MR. SEGULJIC-All right. So the driveway will get caught in that smaller.
MR. WILKINSON-All of the driveway except near the house, and that’s why I have a,
show 85 lineal feet of two by four, two foot by four foot deep stone trench which I actually
have to reduce that depth according to VISION Engineering comments, to a two by two
trench, to make sure I get proper clearance above the rock, but that was to catch that,
just that section of driveway in front of the house, because I can’t pitch the whole
driveway quickly. I’ve got to be able to have maneuverable area. I put that over there as
a safety precaution, but I want as much of the driveway pitched to the front as possible,
but I put that over there to catch the remainder of it.
MR. SEGULJIC-Right. Now talking about the trees, because it’s a well treed site.
MRS. STEFFAN-Not where they’re building it.
MR. SEGULJIC-No, not where they’re building it, but we still.
MR. WILKINSON-Correct, and I show the clearing limits on there, where I want them,
and that, clearing limits is what I used for the calculation of my disturbed area.
MR. SEGULJIC-All right. So those will be no cut zones then?
MR. WILKINSON-We could certainly put that note on there if that’s a request of the
Board.
MR. SEGULJIC-To me it would make sense.
MR. WILKINSON-I won’t dispute it’s a Critical Environmental Area. I agree.
MR. SEGULJIC-Trees are good.
MR. WILKINSON-Trees are good.
MR. SIPP-That is a proposed well. The well hasn’t been drilled?
MR. WILKINSON-It has not, as far as I know of, as of this date, it has not been drilled.
MR. SIPP-Well, engineering has a note here. Infiltration devices should not be installed
within 100 feet of the well, and they’re using that swale as a.
MR. WILKINSON-Correct, but the swale is not necessarily an infiltration device. The
swale exists now because there is spring actually in there as well that flows. So to me
it’s not infiltration if there’s water coming out of it and it’s flowing down the sink, and I
wasn’t intending to use it as infiltration. The only infiltration I have near the well is the
little pocketed area where I want to direct the roof leader, and again, although the
engineer is technically correct, the practicality of that for stormwater is somewhat
irrelevant. The separation requirements of DOH are only to the septic and the well,
between septic and the well, and the Town Code is what refers to for other infiltration
devices, and, can it be changed so we sheet flow it into the swale and it all is maintained
in the swale? Certainly. If that’s what you’d prefer. Rather than having an infiltration
device there, which is, yes, it’s an infiltration device but it’s naturally occurring grass, and
it’s roof leaders only. It’s not contaminated asphalt.
MR. SIPP-What is this circle to denote?
MR. WILKINSON-That’s the one I’m talking about, as like a pocket pond, just a
depression, just to trap water immediately and allow the most contact with the soil as
possible. It’s almost, I hate to say, almost like a bio retention, or, but it’s not planted, so I
can’t call it that. I’m not intending to plant it. I’m intending to leave it grass, but just leave
it depressed so that the water is trapped, and I do have to be involved with construction
for certification of the septic system as well. So I know I’m going to be there at least a
few times during construction to ensure that these are done properly and if I have to
44
(Queensbury Planning Board 05/29/08)
certify completion of construction to the Site Plan, then I definitely will make sure that
those are installed properly.
MR. SEGULJIC-Okay. So we agree that this is a minor project. My only comment with
regard to that is the erosion controls, under 147-10.
MR. WILKINSON-Correct.
MR. SEGULJIC-I didn’t see those acknowledged on here. The way it talks about, you
know, you have 10 days to re-vegetate areas, 24 hours.
MR. WILKINSON-Agreed. I didn’t add those notes. My mistake.
MR. SEGULJIC-You could add those notes?
MR. WILKINSON-I certainly can, and I know exactly what you’re referring to.
MR. SEGULJIC-147-10, Erosion Control Measures.
MR. WILKINSON-Yes. Correct. That’s my oversight. I forgot about those. I had the
controls in there. I just didn’t have the notes to go with them.
MR. SEGULJIC-Okay. Any other comments from the Board? There is a public hearing,
right? Does anyone wish to comment?
PUBLIC HEARING OPENED
DON KRUGER
MR. KRUGER-Hi, I’m Don Kruger, and we did the site work on that lot up there, and
when you drive in the driveway there, the water pond that you see there is really where
the house is going, and the reason it’s there is because most of that is all on ledge rock,
but the proposal is to build the foundation up, and infill it, because there’s no basement
in that house. It’s only just frost wall, that will be infilled and they will be living in a
concrete floor, and then we’re going to fill around it and away from it. We brought the fill
in for the septic area, and very carefully cut the trees down. In all honesty, you live in the
same Town that I do, there’s a definite, a language barrier between those of us that live
in Queensbury and the people that live in Staten Island. They don’t seem to understand,
when we say something, they don’t respond, and certainly when you send them a bill,
they don’t respond in kind with a check. So my suggestion to you is that you have them
put some kind of a performance bond, because I’m sure Mr. Hall and Mr. Wilkinson will
all agree that we’ve had nothing but trouble trying to collect money from these people,
and whatever they say hasn’t proved to be, if I’m wrong, tell me, if I’m out of line, but in
all fairness to all of us that live up here, I think it would be appropriate if you put some
kind of a bonding measure in there.
MR. SCHONEWOLF-You’re talking about the owner of the house?
MR. KRUGER-That’s correct.
MR. WILKINSON-The owner of the lot, the applicant of record.
MR. KRUGER-And then his contractor, I guess.
MR. KREBS-Who is the contractor?
MR. KRUGER-His name is Mike Copelli and he looks like Tony Soprano and he sounds
like him. That being said, do you have any other questions? We’ve tried to do a nice job
up there, but we haven’t gotten five cents out of the people, and I stopped.
MR. SIPP-Did you sell the wood, the trees that you took off of that?
MR. KRUGER-No. We paid to take it to the dump. There was no salvageable trees on
that lot. It was stuff we had to pay to dispose of.
MR. SIPP-There were a couple of good sized stumps there.
MR. KRUGER-Someone took them before we got there.
45
(Queensbury Planning Board 05/29/08)
MR. SIPP-All right.
MRS. BRUNO-Thank you.
MR. SEGULJIC-Anyone else? Okay. So, what is the will of the Board with this?
MRS. STEFFAN-We have to table it so that they can satisfy the Staff Notes and the
VISION Engineering comments, and also to put the notation on the 147-10, Erosion
Control Measures. Certainly those things need to be addressed.
MR. SEGULJIC-Does everyone concur?
MR. WILKINSON-With respect to, if I may, with respect to the contours and things, is it
possible, due to the area of the site that we’re working with, that that requirement could
be waived by this Planning Board, or is it a stringent requirement that we cannot get
around, having the two foot contours versus the ten foot that we show? What’s the
feeling of the Board? I want to ask that now because I need to know.
MR. SEGULJIC-That’s a good question. Well, back to the CEA, heightened awareness,
in my opinion. I mean, you’re designing stormwater control and 10 foot contours.
MR. WILKINSON-Well, the stormwater controls that I’ve designed are regardless of
elevation. They’re having to do with wherever my finished elevation is down, and in all
the places that I have them, I know I’m not going down. If anything I’m coming up a little
bit, maybe a foot, probably less than that. I understand your point, and I just need to
know a decision so I can give specific information.
MR. SEGULJIC-Myself I think I’d like to see the two foot contours given you’re in a CEA.
MR. WILKINSON-Is that the feeling of the entire Board?
MR. SIPP-Yes.
MRS. BRUNO-Yes, I think so. Especially because of the testimony that we’ve had
towards the moisture.
MR. WILKINSON-Thank you.
MR. SEGULJIC-And also, just, I’m a little confused here. Maybe I’m out of line here, but
looking at your Floor Area Ratio sheet, if I’m understanding this correctly, each floor is
2,000. So it’s a total of 4,000.
MR. WILKINSON-Correct.
MR. SEGULJIC-Okay. So it’s 4,000. That’s why. Because I guess under Floor Area
Ratio, area type, you go into C, it says existing floor area, total from above lines. You
only have 2,077. Shouldn’t that be 4,144?
MR. WILKINSON-Where are you again, under?
MR. SEGULJIC-Page Four, Floor Area Ratio of Site Plan Review application. Page
Four, Floor Area Ratio worksheet.
MR. WILKINSON-Okay. I’ll correct it.
MR. SEGULJIC-So you’re still well within the allowed, I believe, but if you could correct
that.
MR. WILKINSON-Yes. I’ll correct that. Thank you.
MRS. STEFFAN-Any other changes?
MRS. BRUNO-I think there was a lighting waiver requested.
MR. SEGULJIC-That we wouldn’t grant at this time, I don’t believe.
MR. WILKINSON-Yes. The only external lighting on this is just the small outside for the
doors. That’s it.
46
(Queensbury Planning Board 05/29/08)
MRS. BRUNO-I may have written that before we had the floor plans. I don’t recall the
time line now.
MRS. STEFFAN-Keith and Stu, our July agenda is set. We’re ready, and we can just
amend it. What about July?
MR. OBORNE-June is.
MRS. STEFFAN-What about July?
MR. BAKER-July we actually didn’t have any applications bumped to July, but we
currently anticipate at least four applications for the July agendas.
MRS. STEFFAN-Okay.
MR. WILKINSON-When are those meetings in July?
thnd
MRS. STEFFAN-The 15 and the 22. I’ll make a motion to table.
MOTION TO TABLE SITE PLAN NO. 20-2008 LAFORTE CONSTRUCTION CO.,
Introduced by Gretchen Steffan who moved for its adoption, seconded by Donald Krebs:
th
Tabled to July 15, that’s the first Planning Board meeting in July, with an application
th
deadline of June 16. We are tabling it so that the applicant can:
1. Satisfy Staff Notes, VISION Engineering comments,
2. So that the applicant can make corrections to the Floor Area Ratio sheet
calculations and can add a notation on the drawings regarding erosion
control measures related to 147-10,
th
3.On the Staff Notes, it does have a date of February 19, and it says that
it’s a modification. That is an error. It is not a modification, and at the
bottom of the document there is a reference that notes 5/29/08. So even
though the date is incorrect, this is the Staff Note that needs to be
satisfied.
th
Duly adopted this 29 day of May, 2008, by the following vote:
AYES: Mr. Traver, Mrs. Bruno, Mr. Schonewolf, Mr. Sipp, Mrs. Steffan, Mr. Krebs,
Mr. Seguljic
NOES: NONE
MRS. STEFFAN-I also just want to make a note, because we’re asking the applicant to
th
satisfy Staff Notes. On the Staff Notes it does have a date of February 19, and it says
that it’s a modification. That is an error. It is not a modification, and at the bottom of the
document there is a reference that notes 5/29/08. So even though the date is incorrect,
this is the Staff Note that needs to be satisfied.
MR. WILKINSON-Thank you.
SITE PLAN NO. 17-2008 FRESHWATER WETLAND 6-2008 SEQR TYPE
UNLISTED NAT HILL PROPERTIES, LLC AGENT(S) NACE ENGINEERING
OWNER(S) SAME ZONING HC-INT. LOCATION 38 EAST QUAKER SERVICE
RD. SITE PLAN: APPLICANT PROPOSES A 8,961 SQ. FT. EXPANSION TO THE
EXISTING SPORTLINE POWER PRODUCTS BUILDING WITH CONSTRUCTION OF
A NEW 6,000 SQ. FT. STORAGE BUILDING; CONNECTION TO MUNICIPAL SEWER,
STORM WATER MANAGEMENT AND RELATED SITE WORK. FRESHWATER
WETLANDS: WETLANDS PERMIT REQUIRED FOR CONSTRUCTION ACTIVITY
WITHIN THE 100 FOOT BUFFER OF FRESHWATER WETLANDS. EXPANSION OF
RETAIL USES IN THE HC-INT. ZONING DISTRICT REQUIRES SITE PLAN
APPROVAL FROM THE PLANNING BOARD. CROSS REFERENCE SP 3-04, AV 2-04
WARREN CO. PLANNING 5/14/08 APA/DEC/CEA DEC LOT SIZE 2.05 & 2.04 +/-
ACRES TAX MAP NO. 303.15-1-20, 19 SECTION 179-14
TOM CENTER & ETHAN HALL, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT
MR. SEGULJIC-If you could tell us about your project and introduce yourself.
MR. CENTER-Tom Center from Nace Engineering.
47
(Queensbury Planning Board 05/29/08)
MR. HALL-Ethan Hall from Rucinski/Hall Architecture.
GLEN KELSEY
MR. KELSEY-And I’m Glen Kelsey from Sportline, which is Nat Hill.
MRS. STEFFAN-All right. Tell us a little bit about your project, please.
MR. CENTER-Yes. We’re proposing to expand an existing commercial use on East
Quaker Service Road for sale of motorcycles, parts and accessories and service. Along
with that a proposed storage building and associated parking, upgrading the stormwater
controls, and connecting the sanitary sewer service to the municipal system in the rear.
MR. HALL-The addition to the building, the existing building is a pre-engineered wood
structure. The front portion of the building is finished as showroom space. The rear
portion is separated by a firewall. The rear portion of the building has parts storage.
There’s some cold storage area for crated and rolling stock material for the ATV’s and
the motorcycles and things of that nature, and then there’s a service bay in the back.
The existing structure is an all wood. It’s a Morton pre-engineered wood structure. The
structure that we’re adding will be an engineered steel structure. There will be a fire
separation between the existing wood structure and the new steel structure. There’ll be
a masonry firewall between the two. The storage building in the back will be a wood pole
barn type material. It’ll have metal siding and metal roofing.
MR. SEGULJIC-So I guess, just clarify for me. You said an existing wooden building?
MR. HALL-Yes.
MR. SEGULJIC-Is that the proposed building addition, or is that the?
MR. HALL-No, that’s the existing building. It says one story metal building. It has a
metal roof and it has a metal siding, but it’s actually a wood structure.
MR. SEGULJIC-Okay. All right.
MR. HALL-The structure itself is wood.
MR. SEGULJIC-Okay.
MR. KELSEY-There’s actually a second building on the site right now. That was erected
about three years ago, and that is a steel, open building, behind the existing building that
you see on the pictures. That site picture right there is not accurate. There’s a 36 by 72
right directly behind the existing building.
MRS. STEFFAN-Will that be closed in?
MR. KELSEY-It is not closed in.
MRS. STEFFAN-Will it be?
MR. KELSEY-No, it will not.
MR. HALL-They have to get at it from both sides for their crated materials.
MRS. STEFFAN-With forklifts? Okay.
MR. HALL-Yes. When the packages come in off the trucks, they’re in big crates, and
they store them in there to keep them out of the weather and they stack them, what do
you stack them, three or four deep?
MR. KELSEY-And three high.
MR. HALL-Three high.
MRS. STEFFAN-Yes. A few of us did go and walked around the building.
MR. HALL-Yes. That has to stay open on both sides so they can get to the product from
both sides.
48
(Queensbury Planning Board 05/29/08)
MRS. STEFFAN-Okay.
MR. SEGULJIC-Anything else? Okay.
MR. HALL-Right now, I think that’s where we’re at.
MRS. STEFFAN-I’m assuming that you asked for a waiver, I’m going to the Staff
comments, now, I’m assuming that you asked for a waiver from the lighting plan because
you have existing lighting on the site.
MR. HALL-The existing lighting that’s on the site for the vehicle movement around the
site is adequate. We’re going to add a little bit of light to the building just for security up
back, the proposed building that’s going to happen up back, but that’s just going to be at
the doors, for security purposes, and we’ll have recessed lights at the entry doors for the
new portion of the building.
MRS. STEFFAN-Okay. What are the hours of operation?
MR. HALL-What are you operating right now?
MR. KELSEY-Tuesday through Saturday. Tuesday through Friday is 9 to 6, except
Thursday, 9 to 8. Saturday’s 9 to 3. Closed Sunday, Monday.
MRS. STEFFAN-Okay. So you don’t have a lot of night hours.
MR. KELSEY-No.
MRS. STEFFAN-Building elevations, that can be handled.
MR. HALL-You actually have those. They’re 11 by 17 sheets of paper. I saw that was a
Staff Note that said there’s no building elevation. The package that you had had 11 by
17 building elevations and a perspective, I believe.
MRS. BRUNO-They should be stapled to the floor plans.
MR. HALL-Yes. I mean, there’s a couple of sheets in there that have the actual, yes. I
was surprised by that Staff Note.
MR. BAKER-We have them in the file. I did not have them in my review session.
MRS. STEFFAN-Is there or will there be an oil separator between any interior floor
drains and the public sewer connection? Is that noted on the plans anywhere.
MR. CENTER-I don’t know if we gave in the internal, are we going to do that internal?
MR. HALL-I’m assuming that that’ll be an internal, because they’ve got a couple of floor
drains and a wash bay.
MR. KELSEY-It exists today, and certainly anything that we would add would also have
the same separation.
MRS. STEFFAN-Wetlands delineation. The Staff Notes say the applicant has not yet
confirmed the wetlands delineation shown on the plans submitted.
MR. CENTER-The wetland has been delineated several times.
MRS. STEFFAN-And by the way, it didn’t look like a wetland when we went to the site.
We were kind of looking for it.
MR. CENTER-Yes. It was flagged. The surveyor did pick up the flags during the Phase
Three process, before buying the parcel, and that information, he did not have enough
information to put exactly who, I know Army Corps was involved. There were a few
entities involved, but we did pick up the existing flags. It’s been several years since it
was flagged, but the flags were all still there. He did pick them up. I guess we would
leave that to the Board, if it’s acceptable to use the flagging that was out there, or do we
need to have this re-flagged? It’s been flagged several times. It’s been delineated. I
don’t believe that it’s changed at all.
49
(Queensbury Planning Board 05/29/08)
MR. HALL-I can point out up here where the wetland flagging is. It’s on your sheet.
Basically it’s just this very small little area right down here on the bottom of the (lost
word) that is delineated wetlands.
MR. KELSEY-It was delineated, actually twice for the Army Corps since 2005.
MRS. STEFFAN-And that area won’t be disturbed?
MR. HALL-No.
MR. CENTER-Correct. We’re staying, you know, we’ve set back the limits. We’re not
proposing anything within.
MR. HALL-And maintaining that vegetation that’s in that wetland as a visual buffer
between what we’re building in the back of the site.
MR. SIPP-Because this area is underlain by rock, have there been any test pits to show
where this building’s going that you’ve got a solid foundation, or you’re not going to be
running into rock at two and a half feet or three feet?
MR. CENTER-We used the existing Phase Three test pits, gave us a good, what we felt
was a good overview of the soils. I know the comments from the Town Engineer
requested some additional test pits, which we didn’t receive the comments until late
Friday. So we will perform additional test pits, just to confirm if there’s going to be any
issues. We don’t, we know there’s rock there. There was about 30 inches to cover at
one of the test pits, but to comply with the engineer’s comments, we can do additional
test pits. It goes up and down and I think it’s fairly, you know, we’ve got a decent handle
on it.
MR. SIPP-Some places it sticks right up out of the ground, and other places it’s four feet
deep.
MR. HALL-Right, and before any building, before we get into the building design portion
of it, the Building Code requires us to do a seismic analysis of that site. So we’ll have to
do some borings in there. I suspect, and, Glen, you can confirm this, that area that we’re
looking at, we’re probably going to be about three or four feet to rock.
MR. KELSEY-Yes. I don’t know the answer to that question. I know when we put the 36
by 72 up, we actually did pin it to the bedrock.
MR. HALL-I’m actually kind of hoping that we find it fairly shallow in the building location,
so that we can pin the building right to the rock.
MR. KELSEY-And I believe that’s where the bedrock is, is where the building addition is
proposed. I don’t believe there’s a lot of bedrock beyond that site and the second parcel
or behind our current building.
MR. SIPP-I wouldn’t bet on that.
MR. KELSEY-Well, we dug some pretty deep test pits on that property.
MR. HALL-Yes.
MR. SIPP-Well, yes, but just down the road it varies so much that, you know, as I say,
one place it’s sticking six inches out of the ground, and in other places it’s probably six
feet deep.
MR. KELSEY-Yes. We were I think mostly eight to ten in the test pits, on the second
parcel, and all we saw is sand and loam.
MR. SIPP-Number Two on his VISION Engineering, top of the berm elevations should be
clarified around the proposed pond, and Number Three, four to nine feet proposed on
the, for a 100 year storm.
MR. CENTER-Yes. Yes, we will comply with the questions. We had the chance to
review them and don’t feel we have any issues that we can’t work out on a re-submission
and handle those comments with the Town Engineer.
50
(Queensbury Planning Board 05/29/08)
MRS. STEFFAN-There’s a couple of landscaping code, a couple of, there were three
landscaping items where you didn’t meet Code requirements. Can you explain why?
There has to be a reason why.
MR. HALL-Honestly, I’ve used honey locusts in this area before, and it responds fairly
well. The alder and the stuff that’s growing on that site I feel is going to be compatible
with the honey locust. The honey locust grows relatively fast, and I think it’s going to be
a nice visual. We’re also using red maple, which is going to be a good contrast to that.
The cotoneaster, that’s a relatively low evergreen shrub that grows, I mean, it’s going to
stay, it’s going to keep its leaves year round. We’re using that along the retaining wall
that we’ve got up along the edge there, and then we’re using evergreen shrubbery along
the front of the building and then we’ve got arborvitae along the edge of the fence line.
So we’ve got a fair amount of evergreen. Granted it’s going to be low evergreen, but
that’s in an area that doesn’t have a lot of evergreen around it anyway. So we’re kind of
trying to match.
MR. SIPP-I think what we’re thinking of is a deciduous trees that come October to next
April you’ve got a clear view of the building, do a little screening with some conifers.
MR. KELSEY-Of which building?
MR. HALL-Of the new addition?
MR. SIPP-Yes.
MR. HALL-The new addition, we kind of want that to be prominent.
MR. SIPP-I’m not saying that you’ve got to completely block it off.
MR. HALL-Sure. What we’re doing is currently the front entry is on this corner, and it
faces almost due west, and what we’re trying to do is we’re trying to create this tower for
this to be our main entry. Currently this is showroom and all of this space is going to be
new showroom. So we’re trying to move the entry point to the center of the building so
that when people come in there, they enter into the center of the showroom space, as
opposed to one end of it. So we’re kind of trying to draw some attention to this new
pylon that we’ve got out there. The main portion of the, this portion of the building sits
back about 30 feet from the front of the existing building, just due to the wetland
delineation and our setback from wetland. So this sits back a little bit from this front
piece, and our wetlands are over here. So from the, if you’re coming at it from the east,
that wetland is relatively, it’s relatively well wooded and fairly thick, and I took some
pictures out there before leaves got on this Spring, and it relatively hides this portion of
the building anyway, and from the west, that’s wide open field, all the way out to Quaker
Road.
MR. SIPP-I just think you get a balance of deciduous and conifers, you get a.
MR. HALL-We can throw a couple of evergreen type trees along that edge to replace a
couple.
MR. SIPP-Right along that service road on either side.
MR. HALL-We did landscape the buffer. We’ve added four trees along East Quaker
Service Road, and we could perhaps take the one that’s closest to the wetlands, and I
think right now we have that as a red maple. We could replace with some kind of an
evergreen of some sort. My fear is getting anything too close in there, as that gets
developed, the traffic is going to be more and more. Right now the traffic’s not too bad.
I’m hesitant to put a tree that somebody has to pull out past to see by. I’d rather keep
those trees more, but we can get some kind of an evergreen out there for sure.
MR. KELSEY-Are you saying evergreens along the front of our property?
MR. HALL-Just over by the wetland there, where we’ve got that one that’s sticking out.
MRS. STEFFAN-I think a deciduous tree would actually be better there myself.
MR. KELSEY-Not much is going to grow in there, first of all. I don’t think, I mean, I’m not
a biologist, but it’s wet in there enough times that, there’s no natural growth in there right
now, and if there was trees that could grow in there, they would, because it’s been
undisturbed for a long period of time.
51
(Queensbury Planning Board 05/29/08)
MRS. STEFFAN-Maybe something in the willow family.
MR. SEGULJIC-Any signage on the building?
MR. HALL-At this point, there is some signage in the peak of the building.
MR. SEGULJIC-Because I just didn’t notice any signage on there.
MR. HALL-Currently there is signage in here. Glen, I don’t know if it’s your intent to
leave that or is it your intent to take that down?
MR. KELSEY-That’ll be gone.
MR. HALL-What’s in here is going to come down. We’ve added a window here and
there will be some, you know, neon type signage within that, but at some point the
applicant’s going to look at additional signage not on the building, not as part of this.
MR. KELSEY-We need to come to you with a different issue for signage.
MR. SEGULJIC-Okay. All right. Anything else?
MR. SCHONEWOLF-Did you remove those three parking spots?
MR. HALL-Yes. The ones that are along the edge of the building.
MR. SEGULJIC-Anything else? Does anyone wish to comment?
MRS. STEFFAN-VISION Engineering comments, unclear where truck deliveries will be
off loaded.
MR. KELSEY-Yes. Okay. The current situation, we receive most of our parts and
accessories by UPS or FedEx, all right, and those trucks currently unload on the east
side of the building. They back in and they exit from that side. Okay. The plan for this
phase will be that our whole product deliveries will come in to the east side of the
building. Generally they come by tractor trailer, usually 40 foot trailers, all right, and
they’ll back in to that area that’s identified as asphalt right now and be directly loaded
into the storage building. By the way, that also eliminates tractor trailers interfering with
our general customer flow, especially during the summertime which is pretty dangerous
with motorcycles, or I feel it’s not appropriate. We’re going to keep our service
customers and just our normal walk-in trade to the west side of the building, and keep
trucks out of that facility completely. There is no intent to have a tractor trailer move all
the way around the facility. So it’ll be a back in and back out. With the Quaker Service
Road, we have the ability for them to have proper radiuses to back right in to that facility.
They do it now and it’s only going to be better in future. Deliveries are not, they’re not an
every day occurrence either in whole goods.
MRS. STEFFAN-Okay. Berm elevations. We talked about bedrock. The other issues
would require a VISION signoff.
MR. SEGULJIC-Okay. Anything else then?
MRS. STEFFAN-It looked like a good plan when we visited the site. Everything looked
reasonable, that they can satisfy the requirements.
MR. SEGULJIC-All right. What do we wish to do then?
MRS. STEFFAN-And then the Fire Marshal comments, I’m sure you got those.
MR. CENTER-That’s not an issue at this time. Just a clarification and a question that we
had when we did meet with Craig. It’s in regards to the parking spaces. The current
Town Code doesn’t address motorcycle spaces as a parking space. Mr. Kelsey has
brought up a very good point in regards to his customers coming in and the safety of
motorcycles, keeping motorcycles and vehicles separate, and one of the things that we
have kind of shown as an alternate, we’d like to keep the motorcycles along this west
side of the building where we’ve shown the dashed parking along the existing side. In
the alternate parking plan. If we could get some thoughts from you folks as far as,
originally, the original building was approved with 36 plus 7 motorcycle spaces, and
those seven motorcycles were kept to that one area. Is that something, we need a way
52
(Queensbury Planning Board 05/29/08)
to address that since it’s not in the Code. They only address full size, nine by eighteen
spaces. We’d like to keep those spaces as motorcycle spaces on that, the existing west
side of the building. Is there any issue with the alternate parking with the, it’ll actually be
56 parking spaces and 17 motorcycle spaces, once we eliminate those three spaces,
which still keeps us above the required.
MR. HALL-It’s more of an issue of safety from the owner’s concern, bikes coming in.
They like to kind of keep that stuff separate on that one side, as opposed to the people
who are coming in to be just general shoppers. A lot of these people that are coming on
their bikes are coming in for service or buying parts or whatever. So, I mean, there’s a
lot of that.
MR. KELSEY-Well, and bear in mind, I think it should be noted, we are a seasonal
business, to some extent. So, in our motorcycle season, which is how our customers, or
a large majority of our customers are visiting us, we literally have twice the traffic that we
do in the wintertime. Wintertime, car parking is never a problem for us. It is summertime
parking, and that’s when we need the motorcycle spaces.
MR. SEGULJIC-It makes sense to me.
MRS. BRUNO-Yes.
MR. HALL-Okay. Thank you.
MR. SEGULJIC-Okay. So where do we want to go from here? How does everyone
feel? Do we want to give them conditional approval or do we want to table it? Is
everybody comfortable moving forward on it?
MR. SCHONEWOLF-Yes, I’d move forward on it.
MR. SEGULJIC-Okay. It is an Unlisted Action.
MR. BAKER-Mr. Chairman, you do have a public hearing on this application.
MR. SEGULJIC-I did open it, and no one came forward.
PUBLIC HEARING OPENED
MR. SEGULJIC-So what I’m guessing here is that we’ll go through SEQRA now.
MRS. STEFFAN-It’s a Short Form.
MR. SEGULJIC-Okay. So then I should close the public hearing, then.
PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED
MR. SEGULJIC-So we’re comfortable with doing SEQRA? All right.
MRS. STEFFAN-Okay. “Does the action exceed any Type I threshold in 6 NYCRR Part
617.4?”
MRS. BRUNO-No.
MR. SEGULJIC-No.
MRS. STEFFAN-“Will the action receive coordinated review as provided for Unlisted
Actions in 6 NYCRR, Part 617.6?”
MRS. BRUNO-No.
MR. SEGULJIC-No.
MRS. STEFFAN-“Could the action result in any adverse effects associated with the
following: C1. Existing air quality, surface or ground water quality or quantity, noise
levels, existing traffic patterns, solid waste production or disposal, potential for erosion,
drainage or flooding problems?”
MR. SIPP-No.
53
(Queensbury Planning Board 05/29/08)
MR. SEGULJIC-No.
MRS. STEFFAN-“C2. Aesthetic, agricultural, historic, or other natural or cultural
resources; or community or neighborhood character?”
MR. SIPP-No.
MR. SEGULJIC-No.
MRS. STEFFAN-“C3. Vegetation, fauna, fish, shellfish or wildlife species, significant
habitats, or threatened or endangered species?”
MR. SIPP-No.
MR. SEGULJIC-No.
MRS. STEFFAN-“C4. A community’s existing plans or goals as officially adopted, or a
change in use or intensity of use of land or other natural resources?”
MR. SIPP-No.
MR. SEGULJIC-No.
MRS. STEFFAN-“C5. Growth, subsequent development or related activities likely to be
induced by the proposed action?”
MR. SEGULJIC-No.
MRS. BRUNO-No.
MR. SIPP-No.
MRS. STEFFAN-“C6. Long term, short term, cumulative or other effects not identified
above?”
MR. SEGULJIC-No.
MRS. BRUNO-No.
MR. SIPP-No.
MRS. STEFFAN-“C7. Other impacts (including changes in use of either quantity or
energy)?”
MR. SEGULJIC-No.
MR. SIPP-No.
MRS. STEFFAN-“Will the project have an impact on the environmental characteristics
that caused the establishment of a Critical Environmental Area?”
MR. SIPP-No.
MR. SEGULJIC-No.
MRS. STEFFAN-“Is there or is there likely to be controversy related to potential adverse
environmental impacts?”
MR. SIPP-No.
MR. SEGULJIC-No.
MRS. STEFFAN-Then I make a motion for a Negative SEQRA Declaration.
RESOLUTION WHEN DETERMINATION OF NO SIGNIFICANCE IS MADE
RESOLUTION NO. SP 17-2008 FWW 6-2008, Introduced by Gretchen Steffan who
moved for its adoption, seconded by Stephen Traver:
54
(Queensbury Planning Board 05/29/08)
WHEREAS, there is presently before the Planning Board an application for:
NAT HILL PROPERTIES, LLC, and
WHEREAS, this Planning Board has determined that the proposed project and Planning
Board action is subject to review under the State Environmental Quality Review Act,
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT
RESOLVED:
1. No Federal agency appears to be involved.
2. The following agencies are involved:
NONE
3. The proposed action considered by this Board is Unlisted in the Department of
Environmental Conservation Regulations implementing the State Environmental
Quality Review Act and the regulations of the Town of Queensbury.
4. An Environmental Assessment Form has been completed by the applicant.
5. Having considered and thoroughly analyzed the relevant areas of environmental
concern and having considered the criteria for determining whether a project has
a significant environmental impact as the same is set forth in Section 617.11 of
the Official Compilation of Codes, Rules and Regulations for the State of New
York, this Board finds that the action about to be undertaken by this Board will
have no significant environmental effect and the Chairman of the Planning Board
is hereby authorized to execute and sign and file as may be necessary a
statement of non-significance or a negative declaration that may be required by
law.
th
Duly adopted this 29 day of May, 2008, by the following vote:
AYES: Mrs. Bruno, Mr. Schonewolf, Mr. Krebs, Mr. Sipp, Mr. Traver, Mrs. Steffan,
Mr. Seguljic
NOES: NONE
MR. SEGULJIC-Okay. Would someone like to put forward a motion, then.
MRS. STEFFAN-So the three things that we’re looking for is that the applicant can
satisfy VISION Engineering comments, Staff comments and Fire Marshal comments, to
obtain a signoff from VISION Engineering, and satisfactorily meeting the Fire Marshal’s
comments.
MOTION TO APPROVE SITE PLAN NO. 17-2008 & FRESHWATER WETLANDS
PERMIT NO. 6-2008 NAT HILL PROPERTIES, LLC, Introduced by Gretchen Steffan
who moved for its adoption, seconded by Stephen Traver:
1)A site plan application has been made to the Queensbury Planning Board for the
following: Site Plan: Applicant proposes a 8,961 sq. ft. expansion to the existing
Sportline Power Products building with construction of a new 6,000 sq. ft. storage
building; connection to municipal sewer, storm water management and related
site work. Freshwater Wetlands: Wetlands permit required for construction
activity within the 100 foot buffer of freshwater wetlands. Expansion of retail uses
in the HC-Int zoning district requires site plan approval from the Planning Board.
2)A public hearing was advertised and held on 5/29/08; and
3)This application is supported with all documentation, public comment and
application material in the file of record;
4)Pursuant to relevant sections of the Town of Queensbury Zoning Code [Chapter
179], the Planning Board has determined that this proposal complies with the
requirements as stated in the Zoning Code; and
5)The requirements of the State Environmental Quality Review Act have been
considered and the Planning Board has adopted a SEQRA Negative Declaration;
OR if the application is a modification, the requirements of the State
55
(Queensbury Planning Board 05/29/08)
Environmental Quality Review Act have been considered, and the proposed
modification[s] do not result in any new or significantly different environmental
impacts, and, therefore, no further SEQRA review is necessary; and
6)Final approved plans, in compliance with the Site Plan, must be submitted to the
Community Development Department before any further review by the Zoning
Administrator or Building and Codes personnel. The applicant must meet with
Staff after approval and prior to issuance of Building Permit and/or the beginning
of any site work. Subsequent issuance of further permits, including building
permits is dependent on compliance with this and all other conditions of this
resolution.
7)The applicant will provide as-built plans to certify that the site plan is developed
according to the approved plans prior to issuance of the certificate of occupancy;
and
8)If applicable, Item 7 to be combined with a letter of credit; and
9)The Sanitary Sewer connection plan must be submitted to the Wastewater
Department for its review, approval, permitting and inspection; and
MOTION TO APPROVE SITE PLAN NO. 17-2008 & FRESHWATER WETLANDS
PERMIT NO. 6-2008 NAT HILL PROPERTIES, LLC, Introduced by Gretchen Steffan
who moved for its adoption, seconded by Stephen Traver:
According to the resolution prepared by Staff. With the following conditions:
1. To obtain VISION Engineering signoff,
2. To address Staff comments regarding landscaping and Fire Marshal’s
comment,
3.The Planning Board is satisfied with the alternate parking plan for
motorcycles.
th
Duly adopted this 29 day of May, 2008, by the following vote:
AYES: Mrs. Bruno, Mr. Schonewolf, Mr. Krebs, Mr. Sipp, Mr. Traver, Mrs. Steffan,
Mr. Seguljic
NOES: NONE
MR. SEGULJIC-Okay. Good luck.
MR. HALL-Thank you very much.
MRS. STEFFAN-Good luck on your project.
MR. KELSEY-Thank you.
SITE PLAN NO. 21-2008 SEQR TYPE UNLISTED THE ADIRONDACK TRUST CO.
AGENT(S) THE LA GROUP OWNER(S) SAME ZONING HC-INT. LOCATION 376
BAY ROAD APPLICANT PROPOSES CONSTRUCTION OF A TWO STORY, 4,200
SQ.FT. BANK. BANKS IN THE HC ZONE REQUIRE PLANNING BOARD REVIEW
AND APPROVAL. CROSS REFERENCE NONE FOUND WARREN CO. PLANNING
5/14/08 LOT SIZE 1.54 +/- ACRES TAX MAP NO. 296.20-1-45 SECTION 179-4-020,
179-9-020
JON LAPPER, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT
MR. SEGULJIC-If you could come forward and tell us about your project and introduce
yourself.
MR. LAPPER-Good evening. For the record, Jon Lapper with Kathy Duncan, the
Regional President for Adirondack Trust, and Mark Tabor, landscape architect from the
LA Group. This, of course, is the site just to the north of Lowe’s on Bay Road. It’s been
long vacant with one dead tree for as long as I can remember. Adirondack Trust was
looking for a site with good visibility in a main commercial corridor for a new branch to
establish a bigger presence in Queensbury, and they were very pleased to be able to
purchase this site. There are a couple of aspects of the Site Plan that I’d like to touch
on, and then I’ll have Mark walk you through the details of the Site Plan. There was a
56
(Queensbury Planning Board 05/29/08)
reference in the Staff Notes to traffic and of course this is a very small traffic generator, a
bank branch. We cited the ITE, Institute of Traffic Engineer’s, in the submission, which
was roughly five cars peak hour for a drive-thru bank branch, which is, we expect that’s
going to be primarily background traffic, pass-by traffic on Bay Road for residents living
in the area anyway, but that’s certainly a very small number. Relating to traffic, the plan
shows a proposed connection to Lowe’s, and I want to just discuss that. What’s on the
plan is what we hope to be able to accomplish, but that may happen long after we’re
done with the Board. Under, of course, the Queensbury Zoning, with the access
management, the Zoning Code encourages a connection, internal connection to
adjacent residential uses. In this case, there is an easement that was granted some 30
years ago in the back title that should be enough for us to leverage the connection, but
that easement doesn’t go all the way to the pavement at the Lowe’s parking lot. So
we’ve made a written request to the Lowe’s developer, site owner, to ask if we can
modify the pavement, remove the fence, move a light pole on their site to allow the
connection, and they can theoretically say yes or no, but I represented the Lowe’s
developer when that was done, some 10 or 12 years ago, and I know them and I’m
hopeful that we’re going to be able to accomplish that, but, if not, at a minimum, we’ll be
able to show the easement to the property line like you require with every other
commercial user and, you know, certainly if Lowe’s comes back in the future with any
Site Plan modifications, at that point you could condition it that they would have to allow
the connection, but the Trust Company is willing to pay for all of these changes. It’s not
because we need it, in terms of traffic, or we need to get to their parking lot, it’s just
because it’s good planning to connect them. So we can’t promise that we can
accomplish that, but we’ve shown it on the plans, and we’re hopeful that we can
accomplish that, and at a minimum we’ll show the easement to the property line, and
leave it to this Board to accomplish it the next time Lowe’s comes in to change
something, and the other aspect that I just wanted to touch on was lighting. We
referenced in the cover letter that New York State Banking Law requires very bright lights
around an ATM for safety reasons. So when we met with Craig Brown, Mark separated
the various areas to show that each of the areas, except for under the canopy where the
ATM is, the uniformity ratio works in each of the areas, in front of the site, behind the site.
This is the only area where there’s light spillage, and the reason is just because in order
to comply with the banking law, we can’t comply with the Queensbury standards, but in
every other aspect it does, and that’s something that is legally required. So, at this point,
let me turn it over to Mark to walk you through the Site Plan, and Kathy’s here to answer
any specific questions about their operations.
MARK TABOR
MR. TABOR-Thanks, Jon. As Jon mentioned, the property fronts on Bay Road here.
Primary circulation we anticipate coming in through the high side, circulating through the
site in a counterclockwise direction. There’s parking available, parking available in the
rear, primarily for employees. A drive-thru located on the north side. Planting plan is
what you see here. It more than meets the requirements for Queensbury. Stormwater
on the site will be treated in the rear of the site. There were some comments in Staff
which we can talk about in a little bit. The Lowe’s access is down here for some of their
truck access. This is our secondary access point, as Jon spoke about briefly. Signage
on the site, we have two proposed. One is a freestanding sign, out in front, setback the
required distance. I think it’s a little over 15 feet setback from the property line. There’s
also wall signage that’s included on the bank façade that’s part of your package as well.
Site lighting in general, throughout the parking area, and generally, or in general, that’s,
it’s a pretty straightforward and simple plan. The building is, the footprint is roughly 4200
square feet. There’s a 500 foot mezzanine level, almost like a loft in the building, which
brings the total up to roughly, I think it’s around 4800 square feet, which that was the,
there was a, I guess a conflict in the cover letter in the way it was worded, but sewer
service and water service both exist within the right of way here, and there was a
previous building on site which has tap connections. We’ve talked with the appropriate
people, the sewer folks and the water folks, to talk with them. We’ve done a flow test for
the water, obviously, there’s adequate water supply there. The load that we put on the
wastewater system is extremely minimal compared to the type of capacity it has, but we
have been in contact with them. They’re aware of what’s going to happen, and we’re
aware of the fact that we will need to get approvals from them as well. Access in
general, we went through a couple of different variations with the plan, a couple of
different concepts, based on where the drive thru should be located, where the entrance
to Bay Road should be located. There was a lot of correspondence we had both with
Craig and also with Lisa Penistan at the County DPW, and this is, what you see here is a
result of that collective effort of all of us kind of knocking our heads together and figuring
out what would work the best. At the end of the day, we feel this is the best circulation,
on the interior site, and the safest circulation as it relates to the exterior of the site and
57
(Queensbury Planning Board 05/29/08)
Bay Road. So those are kind of the overall, general points of the plan, and I’d be happy
to answer any additional questions.
MR. SEGULJIC-With regards to the drive ups, so people are going to drive straight in off
of Quaker and through the drive thru, or go around the building?
MR. TABOR-Go around the building.
MR. LAPPER-You said Quaker, you mean Bay.
MR. SEGULJIC-Bay.
MR. TABOR-So they will move in a clockwise direction. They will come in here, if we
have access to Lowe’s, we envision all of the southbound traffic coming in through the
service entrance here and then circulating around in this fashion, through the drive thru,
and then exiting the building here, or exiting through Lowe’s there. Any of the
northbound traffic, or I guess it’s southbound coming from the north, would enter through
this primary access point here. There’s going to be a Do Not Enter sign here, so that it’s
clearly indicated traffic flows then around in a counterclockwise direction to the rear and
then back out.
MR. SEGULJIC-It looks like a good building to me.
MR. LAPPER-Thank you.
MRS. STEFFAN-Adirondack Trust actually looks Adirondack.
MR. KREBS-Which, by the way, fits the theme that everybody wanted in Queensbury.
MRS. STEFFAN-And without a green roof, yeah.
MR. LAPPER-Most of the Staff comments were very specific, very thorough, but not an
issue in terms of the inch sign was missing. There was a tree that should have been AC
instead of AA. To answer some of the questions, there is no dumpster here. This would
just have janitorial service inside. So there’s no need for a dumpster on this site. It’s just
really like an office building. The arrow needed to have the north symbol put on it. A few
minor typos, and we discussed the lighting issue, and I guess we’re ready for questions.
MR. SEGULJIC-Questions from the Board? What is the banking standard for the lighting
at the ATM?
MR. TABOR-The banking requirement, the banking law?
MR. SEGULJIC-Yes. I guess in your letter it says that the New York Banking Law which
mandates foot candle requirements. You don’t say what it is.
MR. TABOR-At the ATM, within five feet of the ATM location, you’re required to maintain
five foot candles.
MR. SEGULJIC-Just five foot candles?
MR. TABOR-Within five feet, yes.
MR. SEGULJIC-Because isn’t yours like up to 60 or something like that?
MR. TABOR-Underneath the canopy there is, because of the wattage that was used in
those soffit lights, it’s up to, I think it’s roughly on average 55 foot candles. What we
intend to do is reduce the wattage of those soffit lights to 70 watts instead of, I think
they’re speced at 175. When those soffit lights are reduced to 70 watts, then that brings
the average foot candles in that area down to roughly 25 foot candles, which is more
appropriate.
MR. SEGULJIC-But we don’t have that in our plan now.
MR. TABOR-That’s not on that plan right there, no. Right now what’s specified there, the
reason why those light levels are so high is because the wattage spec is 175 foot watt
fixture. That watt should have been a 70 watt fixture.
58
(Queensbury Planning Board 05/29/08)
MR. SEGULJIC-So that, the lighting under the canopy, I think I understand. I just want to
clarify.
MR. TABOR-It will reduce that lighting in half from what you see there.
MR. SEGULJIC-Because you have up to like I see 58, 47. It’s going to drop it down.
MR. TABOR-To roughly, it’ll average roughly 25 directly under the canopy. So it’s going
to be a much better.
MR. SEGULJIC-Okay, but why even 25, when all you have to have is five, you said?
MR. TABOR-I believe it’s primarily security, and it’s, the lights are so focused in that
area, if you look at the photo metrics, that, you’ll see outside of the canopy area that the
light levels die off quite rapidly.
MR. SEGULJIC-Right, because right now you go from like 52 to 6.
MR. TABOR-Right.
MR. LAPPER-So it’s bouncing off, it’s reflecting.
MR. TABOR-So you’re going to get a lot of, I mean, even though it’s high directly
underneath that canopy right there, you know, again, it’s security, but immediately
outside of that canopy, it’s going to die very quickly. The light levels are going to be
reduced very quickly.
MR. SEGULJIC-Okay, and you haven’t submitted that plan yet, that revised lighting
plan?
MR. LAPPER-That’s Mark’s response to the Staff comments, that he looked at that and
said, yes, we can knock that down. So we’re proposing that as a change.
MR. SEGULJIC-Any other comments?
MR. SIPP-I just have an oddball question. L-7, you have a flagpole detail. You have two
flagpoles there, 30 foot, are they 60 foot?
MR. TABOR-No.
MR. SIPP-What’s it say there, then?
MR. TABOR-That’s a standard (lost word) that we have. The 60 foot section there would
not be applicable in this situation. Our pole height is proposed to be a 20 foot pole.
MR. LAPPER-So we’ll cross that line off.
MR. SIPP-All right. I thought maybe you were going to put a cell tower on there.
Monument type sign, how is this lighted?
MR. TABOR-There is a small floodlight with louvers or barn doors, applied to direct
lights. It’s essentially a shield. It’s a small floodlight with shielding on it to direct the light
specific to the sign. Low wattage.
MR. SIPP-Yes. It’s a little high. I’d like to see it cut down to 10 feet, rather than 11,
almost 11 feet you have there in height.
MR. TABOR-The sign?
MR. SIPP-Yes, it’s 130 inches, I think, above ground level.
MR. LAPPER-It is a monument sign rather than a pylon. We know the Board prefers
monuments on the ground.
MR. SIPP-I’d prefer the monument. I’d just like to keep them at 10 feet.
MR. LAPPER-Is that doable? Don is saying that it said 11 feet.
MR. SEGULJIC-It’s 130 inches.
59
(Queensbury Planning Board 05/29/08)
MR. LAPPER-I mean, usually the issue there is in terms of snow in the winter. What’s
the bottom of the sign? The sign letters, where it actually says Adirondack Trust, how
high is that above the ground?
MR. TABOR-That looks like it’s roughly nine feet to the letters.
MR. LAPPER-No, I meant to the bottom of the Adirondack Trust lettering, just in terms of
how much above the ground.
MR. TABOR-So to the bottom of the lettering I would say it is five feet.
MR. LAPPER-Yes. So
MR. TABOR-I’m sorry, seven feet.
MR. LAPPER-Yes. That’s not really high, since you could have a monument, and
certainly in the winter you don’t want to worry about snow.
MR. SCHONEWOLF-You won’t see it.
MR. LAPPER-Yes.
MRS. STEFFAN-In the Staff Notes it talks about the minimum lighting for ATM’s per the
New York State Banking Law is 10.
MR. TABOR-That law has changed in December 2006.
MRS. STEFFAN-And so what is the minimum now?
MR. TABOR-Within five of the ATM it’s required that you have five foot candles, a
minimum of five foot candles within five feet of the ATM machine. I have a copy of that
with me if you want.
MRS. STEFFAN-I know, but I thought you were proposing 25 foot candles?
MR. TABOR-Underneath the canopy, that’s what it ends up being in the drive thru area,
and certainly if you guys would like to see it reduced even more than that, I don’t
necessarily know that that would be a problem. I think that that could probably be
accomplished.
MR. LAPPER-How much could you reduce it?
MR. TABOR-Well, I’d have to take a look at it, to be honest with you, but I don’t, we could
probably get it down around, you know, it depends on the amount of lights you put on
there and how bright we want to have it. I mean, we could probably get it down
anywhere from five to ten foot candles right underneath that canopy there.
MR. SEGULJIC-That sounds good.
MR. SEGULJIC-Anything else?
MR. SIPP-How about a few more evergreens out front, rather than all those deciduous
trees? You’ve got two.
MR. LAPPER-I think we did the deciduous because it’s in keeping with the Bay Road
corridor, in the Professional Office zone. That’s what we were looking at, even though
here we’re in the Highway Commercial zone.
MRS. STEFFAN-I also think that that’s a better idea, because in the area we’ve had a lot
of evergreens that are along corridors get beat up with the salt over the winter, and they
end up with a lot of road spray. So I’m in favor of the deciduous trees along the road
myself.
MR. KREBS-Plus the fact they don’t block the view when you’re going in and out of the
exit as much.
MR. LAPPER-That’s a point.
60
(Queensbury Planning Board 05/29/08)
MRS. STEFFAN-So it seems like the only issues that are coming up are the lighting
under the canopy and satisfying the VISION Engineering comments and Staff Notes.
MR. LAPPER-We’d love it if we could get conditional approval, we have to get the
VISION comments, because they’d love to get this thing under construction. We have no
problem with the VISION comments.
MR. SEGULJIC-Is everybody comfortable with moving forward on this?
MR. KREBS-Just a suggestion that Don had, that probably makes sense, is that you
could put some evergreens on the north side of the perimeter of the property without
obstructing any views at all.
MR. SIPP-It would block the view of that dilapidated building that’s there. Instead of
those red maples that you’ve got along there, let’s put up some evergreens there.
MR. SEGULJIC-So, Don, are you saying replace the maples with evergreens?
MR. KREBS-Or, alternate them.
MR. SIPP-You’ve got quite a space between them, and that building is going to rot there
before anybody does anything with it.
KATHY DUNCAN
MS. DUNCAN-He’s saying add them, not replace.
MR. SEGULJIC-Right. You’re saying add.
MR. SIPP-Add to this.
MR. SEGULJIC-We just have to be very specific. What are you proposing?
MR. LAPPER-You want to have a deciduous and an evergreen.
MR. SIPP-You’re using balsam fir where you could use some spruce in there rather than.
MR. TABOR-The issues that I see with that, I agree with what you’re saying in that it
would screen that building. I mean, obviously we would hope that that building is going
to get developed into something a lot nicer some day. I wouldn’t be opposed to, I guess,
adding or replacing the three trees that are there now with evergreen plant material. I
have a little bit of concern about how wide they would grow in that area. Sometimes the
deciduous are a little bit easier to maintain. I don’t know that I would have a problem
putting evergreens in lieu of deciduous, but, you know, at the same time, I don’t know
that I want to kind of alternate as we go down the line there.
MRS. STEFFAN-It would also inhibit the snow can go along that when they plow and if
there are evergreens there, they’re going to get beat up and they’re going to impede
snow.
MR. TABOR-Right.
MR. SIPP-You’ve got close to 30 feet between some of those trees.
MR. TABOR-Right, and I think, you know, as you’ll see those trees grow out as maples
especially, I think you’ll see those canopies get anywhere, you know, from over a period
of years, anywhere from 15 to 25 feet wide at maturity.
MR. SIPP-Yes, but that’s in the summertime. In the wintertime you look right through
them and you don’t have a screen there. If you start back, I mean, I’m not trying to take
away from the front of the building, but if you could put one, the first two would be red
maples, and then as you get back to the next space there, put a spruce in there, or a fir,
whatever. Spruce grow better than fir. Fir’s are slow growers.
MR. TABOR-Well, like I said, I wouldn’t be opposed to replacing the deciduous trees,
those three that are just north of the drive-thru, with evergreens. I think the points that
have been raised about snow storage is an issue there. I don’t think we have a problem,
either way, with that.
61
(Queensbury Planning Board 05/29/08)
MR. LAPPER-All right. So the first two would still be the maples, closer to the road.
MR. TABOR-I think, again, for sight distance reasons and everything else that we’ve
talked about.
MR. LAPPER-And then the next three would be, what do you want to say, spruce?
MR. TABOR-Well, let’s just say evergreen.
MR. SIPP-You’re going to have somebody prune these up anyway. The low hanging
branches off of those maples are going to have to prune off anyway.
MR. TABOR-I think, if you’ve seen any of the Adirondack Trust Bank facilities, you’ll
know that they take exceptional care of their facilities.
MR. SEGULJIC-All right. So, Don, you’d like to see the first two stay the red maple, and
the next three be changed to evergreens.
MR. SIPP-Right.
MR. SEGULJIC-Okay.
MR. LAPPER-That’s agreed.
MR. OBORNE-Can I have a question answered? On your main floor plan, and it’s cited
in the Staff Notes under SK-1, the stairs to nowhere.
MR. LAPPER-What, you’ve never seen stairs to nowhere before?
MR. OBORNE-I have, but not in a bank, Jon. Mark can explain.
MR. TABOR-What is is it’s a partial basement and it’s to house mechanical equipment.
MR. OBORNE-Okay.
MR. TABOR-Just as small section big enough to house all the mechanical goodies will
go down there.
MR. OBORNE-Now, is that noted on the plan anywhere?
MR. LAPPER-No.
MR. TABOR-I don’t think it is.
MR. SIPP-Have you taken any test samples? There’s a high water table in there.
MR. TABOR-Yes, there is, and we’re well aware of that high water table. We had, as par
of our due diligence, it’s typical, we go out there and we do soil tests, soil investigations,
to determine, you know, the limits with which we have to work within. So we do realize
there’s a high water table out there. We know where it is, what it is, and everything has
been designed accordingly, in accordance with it.
MR. SIPP-If that backs up like it has in the past, it may get continually worse the way
things are going there. Meadowbrook has caused Lowe’s some problems in the back.
MR. SEGULJIC-Okay. So, I’ll open the public hearing and close the public hearing.
PUBLIC HEARING OPENED
NO COMMENT
PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED
MR. SEGULJIC-I guess, is everyone comfortable with going forward with SEQRA?
MRS. BRUNO-Yes.
MR. KREBS-Yes.
62
(Queensbury Planning Board 05/29/08)
MR. SEGULJIC-Okay.
MRS. STEFFAN-“Does the action exceed any Type I threshold in 6 NYCRR Part 617.4?”
MR. SEGULJIC-No.
MRS. BRUNO-No.
MRS. STEFFAN-“Will the action receive coordinated review as provided for Unlisted
Actions in 6 NYCRR, Part 617.6?”
MR. SIPP-No
MR. SEGULJIC-No.
MRS. STEFFAN-“Could the action result in any adverse effects associated with the
following: C1. Existing air quality, surface or ground water quality or quantity, noise
levels, existing traffic patterns, solid waste production or disposal, potential for erosion,
drainage or flooding problems?”
MR. KREBS-No.
MR. SEGULJIC-No.
MRS. STEFFAN-“C2. Aesthetic, agricultural, historic, or other natural or cultural
resources; or community or neighborhood character?”
MR. SIPP-No.
MR. SEGULJIC-No.
MRS. STEFFAN-“C3. Vegetation, fauna, fish, shellfish or wildlife species, significant
habitats, or threatened or endangered species?”
MR. SIPP-No.
MR. SEGULJIC-No.
MRS. STEFFAN-“C4. A community’s existing plans or goals as officially adopted, or a
change in use or intensity of use of land or other natural resources?”
MR. KREBS-No.
MR. SEGULJIC-No.
MRS. STEFFAN-“C5. Growth, subsequent development or related activities likely to be
induced by the proposed action?”
MRS. BRUNO-No.
MR. SEGULJIC-No.
MRS. STEFFAN-“C6. Long term, short term, cumulative or other effects not identified
above?”
MRS. BRUNO-No.
MR. SEGULJIC-No.
MRS. STEFFAN-“C7. Other impacts (including changes in use of either quantity or
energy)?”
MR. SEGULJIC-No.
MR. SIPP-No.
MRS. STEFFAN-“Will the project have an impact on the environmental characteristics
that caused the establishment of a Critical Environmental Area?”
63
(Queensbury Planning Board 05/29/08)
MR. KREBS-No.
MR. SEGULJIC-No.
MRS. STEFFAN-“Is there or is there likely to be controversy related to potential adverse
environmental impacts?”
MR. KREBS-No.
MR. SEGULJIC-No.
MRS. STEFFAN-Then I’ll make a motion for a Negative SEQRA Declaration.
RESOLUTION WHEN DETERMINATION OF NO SIGNIFICANCE IS MADE
RESOLUTION NO. 21-2008, Introduced by Gretchen Steffan who moved for its
adoption, seconded by Stephen Traver:
WHEREAS, there is presently before the Planning Board an application for:
THE ADIRONDACK TRUST CO., and
WHEREAS, this Planning Board has determined that the proposed project and Planning
Board action is subject to review under the State Environmental Quality Review Act,
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT
RESOLVED:
1. No Federal agency appears to be involved.
2. The following agencies are involved:
NONE
3. The proposed action considered by this Board is Unlisted in the Department of
Environmental Conservation Regulations implementing the State Environmental
Quality Review Act and the regulations of the Town of Queensbury.
4. An Environmental Assessment Form has been completed by the applicant.
5. Having considered and thoroughly analyzed the relevant areas of environmental
concern and having considered the criteria for determining whether a project has
a significant environmental impact as the same is set forth in Section 617.11 of
the Official Compilation of Codes, Rules and Regulations for the State of New
York, this Board finds that the action about to be undertaken by this Board will
have no significant environmental effect and the Chairman of the Planning Board
is hereby authorized to execute and sign and file as may be necessary a
statement of non-significance or a negative declaration that may be required by
law.
th
Duly adopted this 29 day of May, 2008, by the following vote:
AYES: Mrs. Bruno, Mr. Schonewolf, Mr. Krebs, Mr. Sipp, Mr. Traver, Mrs. Steffan,
Mr. Seguljic
NOES: NONE
MR. SEGULJIC-Okay. Now for the motion.
MR. SIPP-Just as an aside here, has anybody ever thought about putting bike racks in?
You’ve got an awful lot of bike riders go up there to the College.
MS. DUNCAN-Bike racks in to?
MR. SIPP-Your parking area.
MRS. STEFFAN-I think if they had a customer need they’d do it, personally.
MR. SIPP-There’s a lot of students that ride bikes. There’s also other people that ride
bikes. With the gas prices going up.
64
(Queensbury Planning Board 05/29/08)
MR. DUNCAN-Maybe we should put some motorcycle spaces in.
MRS. STEFFAN-Okay. I will make a motion.
MOTION TO APPROVE SITE PLAN NO. 21-2008 THE ADIRONDACK TRUST CO.,
Introduced by Gretchen Steffan who moved for its adoption, seconded by Donald Krebs:
1)Site plan application has been made to the Queensbury Planning Board for the
following: Applicant proposes construction of a two story, 4,200 sq. ft. bank.
Banks in the HC zone require Planning Board review and approval.
2)A public hearing was advertised and held on 5/29/08; and
3)This application is supported with all documentation, public comment and
application material in the file of record;
4)Pursuant to relevant sections of the Town of Queensbury Zoning Code [Chapter
179], the Planning Board has determined that this proposal complies with the
requirements as stated in the Zoning Code; and
5)The requirements of the State Environmental Quality Review Act have been
considered and the Planning Board has adopted a SEQRA Negative Declaration;
OR if the application is a modification, the requirements of the State
Environmental Quality Review Act have been considered, and the proposed
modification[s] do not result in any new or significantly different environmental
impacts, and, therefore, no further SEQRA review is necessary; and
6)Final approved plans, in compliance with the Site Plan, must be submitted to the
Community Development Department before any further review by the Zoning
Administrator or Building and Codes personnel. The applicant must meet with
Staff after approval and prior to issuance of Building Permit and/or the beginning
of any site work. Subsequent issuance of further permits, including building
permits is dependent on compliance with this and all other conditions of this
resolution.
7)The applicant will provide as-built plans to certify that the site plan is developed
according to the approved plans prior to issuance of the certificate of occupancy;
and
8)NOT APPLICABLE. If applicable, Item 7 to be combined with a letter of credit;
and
9)The Sanitary Sewer connection plan must be submitted to the Wastewater
Department for its review, approval, permitting and inspection; and
MOTION TO APPROVE SITE PLAN NO. 21-2008 THE ADIRONDACK TRUST CO.,
Introduced by Gretchen Steffan who moved for its adoption, seconded by Donald Krebs:
According to the resolution prepared by Staff. Paragraph Four complies. Paragraph
Five, Negative. Paragraph Eight does not apply, and it is approved with the following
conditions.
1.That the applicant will satisfy Staff Notes, and will obtain a VISION
Engineering signoff.
2.That the applicant will adjust the lighting design by reducing soffit lights in the
canopy area to 10 foot candles.
3.That the applicant will also modify the landscaping plan, keeping two red
maples on the north side next to the road, and changing the three remaining
red maples to evergreen on the north side of the building.
th
Duly adopted this 29 day of May, 2008, by the following vote:
AYES: Mr. Schonewolf, Mr. Traver, Mrs. Bruno, Mr. Sipp, Mrs. Steffan, Mr. Krebs,
Mr. Seguljic
NOES: NONE
MR. LAPPER-Thank you.
65
(Queensbury Planning Board 05/29/08)
MR. TABOR-Thank you.
MR. LAPPER-The banks really appreciate it. They were hoping to get this in the ground.
So we really appreciate getting it done in one meeting.
MR. SEGULJIC-Well, I’m looking forward to seeing a good looking building.
MS. DUNCAN-Thank you very much.
MRS. STEFFAN-It was a very nice package, thank you.
MS. DUNCAN-Thank you.
MR. BAKER-Staff has one item. We would like to propose a workshop session
th
beginning at six o’clock on the evening of June 24. That would be right before the
regular meeting, just to discuss some procedural and administrative matters.
MR. SEGULJIC-Can you give us a hint?
th
MRS. STEFFAN-That would be great. Six o’clock on the 24?
th
MR. BAKER-That’s the 24, yes, six o’clock.
MRS. BRUNO-Can we do it sooner?
MR. BAKER-We have some recommendations that we’re working on, on such things as
how to address requests from the Zoning Board for recommendations.
MR. SEGULJIC-Okay. That would be helpful.
MRS. BRUNO-Can we come with recommendations as well?
MR. BAKER-Absolutely.
MRS. BRUNO-Thank you.
MR. BAKER-But we will keep it to an hour, because the regular meeting will need to
start at seven.
MR. SEGULJIC-Okay.
MR. BAKER-And this would be in the craft room here.
MRS. STEFFAN-Okay. You will send out an e-mail, right, Stu?
MR. BAKER-Absolutely.
MRS. STEFFAN-Okay. Well, I will make a motion to adjourn.
MOTION TO ADJOURN THE QUEENSBURY PLANNING BOARD MEETING OF MAY
29, 2008, Introduced by Gretchen Steffan who moved for its adoption, seconded by
Donald Krebs:
th
Duly adopted this 29 day of May, 2008, by the following vote:
AYES: Mr. Krebs, Mr. Schonewolf, Mrs. Bruno, Mrs. Steffan, Mr. Sipp, Mr. Traver,
Mr. Seguljic
NOES: NONE
On motion meeting was adjourned.
RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED,
Thomas Seguljic, Acting Chairman
66