2008.09.16
(Queensbury Planning Board 09/16/08)
QUEENSBURY PLANNING BOARD MEETIING
FIRST REGULAR MEETING
SEPTEMBER 16, 2008
INDEX
Site Plan No. 28-08 Schermerhorn Commercial Holdings, L.P. 1.
Tax Map No. 309.13-1-73
Site Plan No. 33-2008 Della Auto Group 3.
Tax Map No. 296.20-1-43, 44
Site Plan No. 39-2008 Cellco Partnership 4.
Tax Map No. 295.18-2-11
Site Plan No.5-2001 Stewarts Shops 6.
MODIFICATION Tax Map No. 309.13-2-25
Site Plan No. 61-2007 & VMJR Companies 9
Freshwater Wetlands No. 1-2008 Tax Map No. 303.15-1-25
Subdivision No. 13-2007 John Fedorowicz 20.
PRELIMINARY STAGE Tax Map No. 265-1-19.11
Site Plan No. 29-2008 Jeff Paulsen 29.
Tax Map No. 266.3-1-38
Site Plan No. 34-2008 Morgan Management, Robert Moser 35.
Tax Map No. 279.12-1-2
Site Plan No. 31-2008 Della Honda/Michael Della Bella, Sr. 43.
Tax Map No. 296.20-1-6
Subdivision No. 11-2007 Larry Clute 53.
FINAL STAGE Tax Map No. 301.20-1-11, 28, 29
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 09/16/08)
QUEENSBURY PLANNING BOARD MEETING
FIRST REGULAR MEETING
SEPTEMBER 16, 2008
7:00 P.M.
MEMBERS PRESENT
CHRIS HUNSINGER
STEPHEN TRAVER
THOMAS SEGULJIC
DONALD SIPP
MEMBERS ABSENT
TANYA BRUNO
GRETCHEN STEFFAN
THOMAS FORD
LAND USE PLANNER-KEITH OBORNE
TOWN COUNSEL-MILLER, MANNIX, SCHACHNER, & HAFNER-MIKE HILL
STENOGRAPHER-SUE HEMINGWAY
MR. HUNSINGER-I’ll call to order the meeting of the Town of Queensbury Planning
Board on Tuesday, September 16, 2008. First item on the agenda is approval of minutes
from July 15 and July 22, 2008.
APPROVAL OF MINUTES
July 15, 2008
July 22, 2008
MOTION TO APPROVE TO APPROVE THE PLANNING BOARD MINUTES FROM
THND
JULY 15 AND JULY 22, 2008, Introduced by Thomas Seguljic who moved for its
adoption, seconded by Stephen Traver:
th
Duly adopted this 16 day of September, 2008, by the following vote:
AYES: Mr. Traver, Mr. Seguljic, Mr. Sipp, Mr. Hunsinger
NOES: NONE
ABSENT: Mrs. Bruno, Mrs. Steffan, Mr. Ford
MR. HUNSINGER-Next item on the agenda, there’s three administrative items.
ADMINISTRATIVE ITEMS:
SITE PLAN NO 28-08 SCHERMERHORN HOLDINGS: PER PLANNING BD.
RESOLUTION DATED 7/22/08 ITEM #5 COLOR SCHEMES WILL BE SUBMITTED TO
TH
THE PLANNING BOARD’S SEPTEMBER 16 MEETING
JON LAPPER & JIM GILLESPIE, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT
MR. HUNSINGER-The only thing we’re looking at tonight are the color schemes for the
building. Whenever you’re ready to present those.
MR. LAPPER-For the record, Jon Lapper and Jim Gillespie from Bohler Engineering.
We’ve got photographs and some samples of the colors.
MR. HUNSINGER-Now that’s a much better picture. I appreciate that.
MR. LAPPER-That’s the building that Rich would like to do, subject to your approval, and
I’ll ask Jim to just go through the color chart with you.
MR. GILLESPIE-Basically the building’s an efface system, drivet type exterior insulated
and finished system. The colors are just earth tone, variations of earth tone textures.
1
(Queensbury Planning Board 09/16/08)
Along the bottom of the building you’ll see a darker color. That’s what they call a copper
tone drivet finish, and then the bulk of the building is kind of a medium type color which
they call manor white, and then some of the tower features are brought out by a little, in
between kind of a, what they call a Victorian lace type finish to bring out the tower. So
the base is a little darker. The towers are brought out, and it’s just basically variations of
earth tones to bring out some of the tower elements and then some lighter finishes to
bring out some of the caps to the towers, and some of the trim and finish surfaces, and
that’s basically it. It’s a soft and warm kind of earth tone and inviting type system.
MR. HUNSINGER-Questions, comments from the Board?
MR. SEGULJIC-It looks great to me.
MR. HUNSINGER-Me, too.
MR. TRAVER-Yes. It’s basically what they presented to us before. This picture does
make it easier to see it, Chris. I think it looks nice.
MR. HUNSINGER-It sure does, yes, and having the samples helps a lot, too, because
the pictures are always a little off.
MR. GILLESPIE-Right.
MR. TRAVER-Actually this looks like the same picture, just enlarged.
MR. LAPPER-It probably is.
MR. SIPP-What is the finish? Is this a wood surface?
MR. GILLESPIE-It’s a, they call it a drivet. It’s actually, it’s similar to a stucco, and it’s
got some energy efficient insulation capabilities.
MR. SIPP-And the roof is a dark?
MR. GILLESPIE-Yes. It’s an asphalt architectural style shingle. It looks similar to slate,
slate type color.
MR. SIPP-Is there roof units on this, and will the units or air conditioning, heating,
exhaust?
MR. LAPPER-These have room units.
MR. GILLESPIE-Yes.
MR. SIPP-These will be a darker color blending in with the roof, or will they not be?
MR. GILLESPIE-Well, the units themselves have their own individual HVAC systems.
MR. LAPPER-I can show you on the elevation drawing. Each of the rooms have their
own unit, under the window with louvers. So they’re not, it’s not roof units.
MR. HUNSINGER-Well, it’s a little unusual for us to bring you back just for color
approval.
MR. LAPPER-No, it was very much appreciated. Rich couldn’t be here tonight, but he
very much appreciated the way the Board handled it.
MR. HUNSINGER-Yes. I guess we should make a formal resolution. Now in terms of
the actual names of the colors, and those samples, were you going to leave that for the
record?
MR. GILLESPIE-Yes. We can certainly leave that with you.
MR. LAPPER-That’s in the record.
MR. HUNSINGER-Would anyone like to put forward a resolution to approve the color
scheme as presented? This is what was approved before.
MR. SEGULJIC-So all we have to do is just approve the colors.
2
(Queensbury Planning Board 09/16/08)
MR. HUNSINGER-Yes. We’re just approving the colors, yes.
MR. SEGULJIC-And we’ll just say in accordance with the.
MR. LAPPER-And this will be made part of the record.
MR. SEGULJIC-What are we going to refer to that as, the color schemes?
MR. HUNSINGER-The color schemes as prepared.
MR. SEGULJIC-Color chart.
MR. HUNSINGER-There you go.
MR. SEGULJIC-Okay.
MOTION TO APPROVE THE COLOR SCHEME FOR SITE PLAN NO. 28-2008
SCHERMERHORN COMMERCIAL HOLDINGS, Introduced by Thomas Seguljic who
moved for its adoption, seconded by Stephen Traver:
In accordance with the color schemes presented at the meeting.
th
Duly adopted this 16 day of September, 2008, by the following vote:
AYES: Mr. Sipp, Mr. Seguljic, Mr. Traver, Mr. Hunsinger
NOES: NONE
ABSENT: Mrs. Bruno, Mrs. Steffan, Mr. Ford
MR. LAPPER-Thank you.
MR. HUNSINGER-You’re all set. Thank you.
MR. GILLESPIE-Thank you.
SITE PLAN NO. 33-08 DELLA AUTO GROUP: PER PLANNING BD. RESOLUTION
DATED 8/19/08 PROPOSED FINAL BUILDING COLORS & SIDING SHALL BE
TH
SUBMITTED TO THE PLANNING BOARD’S SEPTEMBER 16 MEETING
JON LAPPER, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT
MR. HUNSINGER-Same process.
MR. LAPPER-Yes.
MR. HUNSINGER-Whenever you’re ready.
MR. LAPPER-Okay. Jon Lapper with Michael Della Bella.
MICHAEL DELLA BELLA
MR. D"ELLA BELLA-At the last meeting, you wanted to see the material that we were
going to use, and it was different than what was normally used, but that’s it. It looks just
like stow except it’s much more durable, and if someone backs into it, it won’t break and
have to fix it all up. It’s a metal, like the metal building that I have, but it’s going to look
like a stow building, very, very nice design. I have it at one of my other stores up north,
and it looks very nice, much easier to maintain and lasts a lot longer than regular stow.
MR. HUNSINGER-Does that come in a big sheet, then?
MR. D"ELLA BELLA-Twenty-four foot, up to 24 foot pieces.
MR. LAPPER-So it cuts down on the seams.
MR. HUNSINGER-So is it applied vertically or horizontally?
3
(Queensbury Planning Board 09/16/08)
MR. D"ELLA BELLA-Right. I have some examples on what it looks like. I’ll show it to
you.
MR. HUNSINGER-Okay.
MR. D"ELLA BELLA-And then the color, you could, as long as it’s not, whatever earth
tone you want in there, you just let me know what color you would like on that street, and
that’s what we’ll do.
MR. HUNSINGER-Was there a particular color that you would propose?
MR. D"ELLA BELLA-Any earth tone that you requested last time that you wanted an
earth tone. So I’m open to whatever you guys think.
MR. SIPP-You would be re-siding the old section and the new section?
MR. D"ELLA BELLA-And the new one, correct.
MR. HUNSINGER-So would it be a uniform color or multi-colors?
MR. D"ELLA BELLA-It would be uniform, except the trim would be a darker shade of
whatever, like if it’s a beige that you wanted, then it won’t be a darker beige. If it was a
brownish color, the brownish gold color like the browns that you want, then the trim
would be just a little darker.
MR. SEGULJIC-So was that piece you had there, was that the haze, then, the haze
color?
MR. D"ELLA BELLA-Platinum. Maybe the trim will be a little darker shade.
MR. SEGULJIC-Platinum. Okay. Do we have to mention the trim?
MR. D"ELLA BELLA-Can I put down taupe?
MR. SEGULJIC-Taupe. Got it. Taupe sand. Platinum.
MR. HUNSINGER-Okay.
MR. SEGULJIC-Are you guys all set with that?
MR. TRAVER-Yes, that’s fine.
MR. SEGULJIC-We’re going to go with the platinum and taupe trim.
MOTION TO APPROVE THE COLOR SCHEME FOR SITE PLAN NO. 33-08 DELLA
AUTO GROUP, Introduced by Thomas Seguljic who moved for its adoption, seconded
by Donald Sipp:
The building materials will be platinum in color and the trim will be taupe sand, in
accordance with the Nu Core Building Systems presented at the meeting.
th
Duly adopted this 16 day of September, 2008, by the following vote:
AYES: Mr. Traver, Mr. Sipp, Mr. Seguljic, Mr. Hunsinger
NOES: NONE
ABSENT: Mrs. Bruno, Mrs. Steffan, Mr. Ford
MR. HUNSINGER-You’re all set. Thank you.
MR. LAPPER-We’ll see you in about four and a half hours for his next item.
MR. HUNSINGER-It won’t be that long. Thank you very much.
MR. LAPPER-Thank you.
SITE PLAN NO. 39-08 CELLCO PARTNERSHIP: PLANNING BD. TO SEEK LEAD
AGENCY STATUS
4
(Queensbury Planning Board 09/16/08)
MR. HUNSINGER-This is just a Planning Board to seek Lead Agency Status. If you
want to summarize the project, if you could. Now is it scheduled to be before the Zoning
Board tomorrow evening?
MR. OBORNE-It’s scheduled to be before the Zoning Board tomorrow for a Use
Variance and an Area Variance.
MR. HUNSINGER-Okay.
MR. OBORNE-As far as tonight goes, it’s 120 foot cell tower with the volunteer fire
department’s whip antenna on top of that. The first phase they have to go through,
obviously, is a Use Variance. What we recommend as Staff to the Planning Board is to
go ahead and seek Lead Agency Status. You may or may not, and basically you would
table until the Planning Board meeting on.
MR. HUNSINGER-Well, it’s scheduled to come back next Tuesday.
MR. OBORNE-Yes.
MR. TRAVER-I think it’s the third one.
rd
MR. SIPP-The 23.
rd
MR. OBORNE-The 23. Yes.
MR. HUNSINGER-Yes. Okay. Any questions, comments from the Board? Anyone like
to put forward the motion?
MOTION TO SEEK LEAD AGENCY STATUS FOR SITE PLAN NO. 39-2008 USE
VARIANCE NO. 61-2008 & AREA VARIANCE NO. 62-2008 CELLCO PARTNERSHIP,
Introduced by Stephen Traver who moved for its adoption, seconded by Thomas
Seguljic:
WHEREAS, the Town Planning Board is in receipt of a Site Plan, Use and Area Variance
applications for Cellco Partnership: Use Variance: Applicant proposes replacement of a
50 ft. monopole tower with 120 ft. monopole tower capable of supporting Verizon
Wireless equipment, Fire Department equipment and other users. Further, the applicant
proposes a 360 sq. ft. support building. Relief requested from the requirement that
Telecommunication Towers are not allowable in the SFR-1A district. Area Variance:
Applicant proposes replacement of a 50 ft. monopole tower with 120 ft. monopole tower
capable of supporting Verizon Wireless equipment, Fire Department equipment and
other users. Further, the applicant proposes a 360 sq. ft. support building. Relief
requested from property line setback requirements for the SFR-1A zone and height
requirements. Site Plan: Applicant proposes replacement of existing 50 foot monopole
tower with a 120 foot monopole tower to support Verizon Wireless equipment, Fire
Department Equipment and other users. Further the applicant proposes a 360 sq. ft.
support building. Telecommunication Towers require Planning Board review and
approval. The Planning Board may commence SEQR review and provide a
recommendation to the Zoning Board of Appeals.
WHEREAS, the Planning Board of the Town of Queensbury has determined to begin an
environmental review process under the State Environmental Quality Review Act
(SEQRA), and
WHEREAS, the Planning Board of the Town of Queensbury has identified the project to
be an Unlisted action for the purposes of SEQRA review pursuant to 6 NYCRR 617, and
WHEREAS, the Planning Board is the agency most directly responsible for approving the
actions because of its responsibility for approving the land uses for the property, and
NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED, The Planning Board of the Town of Queensbury
hereby indicates its desire to be Lead Agency for SEQRA review of this action and
authorizes and directs the Zoning Administrator to notify any other potentially involved
agencies of such intent. That Part I of the SEQRA will be sent to the following agencies
[as identified in EAF]: Zoning Board of Appeals,
MOTION TO SEEK LEAD AGENCY STATUS FOR SITE PLAN NO. 39-2008 USE
VARIANCE NO. 61-2008 & AREA VARIANCE NO. 62-2008 CELLCO PARTNERSHIP,
5
(Queensbury Planning Board 09/16/08)
Introduced by Stephen Traver who moved for its adoption, seconded by Thomas
Seguljic:
According to the motion prepared by Staff.
th
Duly adopted this 16 day of September, 2008, by the following vote:
AYES: Mr. Traver, Mr. Sipp, Mr. Seguljic, Mr. Hunsinger
NOES: NONE
ABSENT: Mrs. Bruno, Mrs. Steffan, Mr. Ford
MR. OBORNE-There’s no need to table it at this point.
MR. HUNSINGER-Right. Yes. 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 AS
“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, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT
MR. HUNSINGER-If you want to summarize Staff Notes, please.
MR. OBORNE-Applicant proposes alterations to the gas island canopy to construct an
internally illuminated blue stripe to brand gas as “Mobil”. Applicant proposes to change
freestanding price sign from manual to digital. Modifications to previously approved site
plans require Planning Board review and approval.
MR. CANUGIARI-Yes. I’m Chris Canugiari of Stewarts, and this is Chad Keesoe of
Stewarts as well, and I noticed also tonight, I know we don’t have a full Board here
tonight, and we’ve had varying opinions amongst all the members. So we were thinking
tonight maybe we’d just field questions, and then do a vote next month, or what do you
guys think?
MR. HUNSINGER-Well, I guess it just depends on what the will of the Board is. I guess
we can certainly start with questions. Any questions from members of the Board?
MR. SEGULJIC-Going to the neon sign, as I stated before, you know, if it’s amber, I don’t
have a problem with it. I can’t speak for the rest of the Board members. Okay.
MR. SIPP-Everything except the digital sign is, I think we’re in favor of. I will not vote yes
on a digital sign, though.
MR. TRAVER-Yes. I would tend to agree. It appears that the fluorescent, the changes
to the fluorescent lighting that you’re talking about are not significant. The digital sign,
from an analog to digital, is significant, and I’m concerned that that’s going to, not
necessarily with this application, but with the Town in general, that that’s going to send
us down a road that we’re not going to be able to get away from. So that remains my
concern with this application is the digital sign. Everything else seems fine.
MR. CANUGIARI-Okay.
MR. HUNSINGER-I guess my feeling, and as I was reviewing this project, is we don’t
really have a policy on the digital signs, and it’s really difficult, and you start to look at
what the display, what the lumens are and, you know, how bright it’s going to be, and we
don’t really have an understanding of that, and we don’t have a policy, as the Planning
Board, or in the Town Code.
MR. TRAVER-We’ve had a practice I think generally, at least it’s been my experience, of
not approving with one exception, that happened before my time.
6
(Queensbury Planning Board 09/16/08)
MR. HUNSINGER-Right.
MR. TRAVER-But, yes, I’m not aware of a policy, but certainly it appears to me that the
practice has been to not approve or to discourage the digital signs, and for me, it’s not,
and I noted in the applicant’s material that he submitted after we requested some more
information, the brightness and the lumens is not so much the issue as I want to say the
visibility of the digital sign in the context of the character of the Town, if you will. I mean,
I can envision, my concern is that is these signs proliferate, it’s going to fundamentally
change, not in terms of how bright, in terms of the lumen of the Town or the lighting into
the sky, but rather this, having the roads lined with digital signs is just not, I don’t think,
attractive.
CHAD KEESOE
MR. KEESOE-And we recognize that. That’s why the sign we propose is a single grade
price sign versus four five grades, message boards, nothing too, I guess what you
maybe consider gaudy, and really just trying to get the basics out there.
MR. CANUGIARI-Try and limit the size to that one by two and a half.
MR. SIPP-You’re right on the edge of what will be hopefully a new section of Town and
Main Street, and the signs there will be tightly controlled, and I would much rather see
areas around them do the same thing, stay away from digital type signs, because I think
once we allow one, we open the flood gates for all kinds of signs. It should be,
somebody should propose a change to the Sign Ordinance to clear this up.
MR. HUNSINGER-Yes, I agree. Well, it appears as though we’re stalemated this
evening. I know in the past we have always, where we didn’t have a full slate, we’ve
always given the applicant an opportunity to request for a table. We do have a public
hearing scheduled for this evening. So I will open the public hearing. Is there anyone in
the audience that wanted to address the Board on this project?
PUBLIC HEARING OPEN
MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. We will leave the public hearing open. What’s the will of the
Board? When would we like to table this to?
MR. SEGULJIC-I have questions about the canopy, the lighting in the canopy. Just
clarify this for me here. In your cover letter you say this makes sense given the limited
lumen output figures from Exxon Mobil previously supplied, approximately 800 lumens
per linear foot came out of the bottom down light lenses of the strip. What do you mean
by that?
MR. KEESOE-The blue stripe that you’re seeing, and actually if you don’t have pictures
there, Chris has some pictures. They’re basically the blue lens has a little bit of a glow if
you will. What is installed along the bottom edge isn’t necessarily blue, it is a white.
MR. CANUGIARI-See the white versus the blue down.
MR. SEGULJIC-Okay. So that’s the 800 lumens there.
MR. KEESOE-So maybe that word down lighting is maybe misleading, but there is a.
MR. SEGULJIC-All right, because I thought you meant the light under the canopy.
MR. KEESOE-No. It’s just the bottom edge of that stripe which is probably about six.
MR. SEGULJIC-And then it’s going to be 225 lumens through the strip.
MR. KEESOE-Yes.
MR. SEGULJIC-Now, I don’t know. I mean, I’m not very good with lighting, but from
what I see of it, one, maybe you would know, one lumen, no, one foot candle is about 10
lumens?
MR. KEESOE-We haven’t been given that.
MR. SEGULJIC-That’s what I was looking for, so I can get a comparison. As I see it, it’s
going to be about 20 foot candles, if I’m understanding it properly and that’s correct.
7
(Queensbury Planning Board 09/16/08)
MR. CANUGIARI-Well, now they told us there wouldn’t be a foot candle reading from it.
MR. KEESOE-Yes.
MR. CANUGIARI-Because the light’s not strong enough.
MR. KEESOE-Yes, and basically coming into that calculation, why you can’t make that
equation, is really because you have a height, it all depends on how high that’s mounted.
It depends on what’s around it as to what your foot candle is going to be at the surface
level, and this is probably 15 foot above surface level.
MR. SEGULJIC-Okay. Now this station here, do you know what the lighting scheme for
that station is by chance? Because in my opinion this is way over lit.
MR. HUNSINGER-I was going to say, yes.
MR. KEESOE-I do not. That’s off the Mobil website. I would presume to think that those
are 320 watt Scottsdale lights underneath the canopy.
MR. SEGULJIC-Hopefully it’s not because I think we’ve got 10 foot candles under the.
MR. HUNSINGER-I was going to say, we’ve used this in the past as a bad example of
what to do.
MR. CANUGIARI-I understand.
MR. SEGULJIC-Because you have 10 or so under the canopy, and I don’t think that’s
what this is.
MR. CANUGIARI-Yes, this is brighter.
MR. SEGULJIC-All right. From what I see, I don’t think that strip will be over lit. My
concern was just going to be this, you know, glaring. I think we have a responsibility to
people to not over light the sky at night.
MR. CANUGIARI-I understand.
MR. KEESOE-Sure.
MR. CANUGIARI-Absolutely.
MR. SEGULJIC-So I don’t have a problem with the digital sign, but I guess the other
Board members do.
MR. HUNSINGER-Since we don’t have a quorum to vote either way, the only thing we
can do is table it, right?
MR. HILL-I think. Yes, the applicant initially opened up by saying that they thought
perhaps just answering some questions. So I would assume that the applicant would be
requesting, given the apparent inability to achieve the outcome they want, it would be
logical for them to request that it be tabled to a future meeting. So I’m assuming they’re
making that request.
MR. SEGULJIC-All right. So when can we table it to?
MR. HUNSINGER-Do we have any idea what the load will be for October?
MR. OBORNE-Second meeting in October.
MR. SEGULJIC-Which would be?
th
MR. HUNSINGER-The 28.
th
MR. OBORNE-It would be the 28.
th
MR. SEGULJIC-Okay. So I’ll just motion to table it to the 28.
MR. HUNSINGER-Yes.
8
(Queensbury Planning Board 09/16/08)
MR. SEGULJIC-All right.
MOTION TO TABLE SITE PLAN NO. 5-2001 MODIFICATION STEWARTS SHOPS,
Introduced by Thomas Seguljic who moved for its adoption, seconded by Donald Sipp:
To the Planning Board’s October 28, 2008 meeting.
th
Duly adopted this 16 day of September, 2008, by the following vote:
AYES: Mr. Traver, Mr. Seguljic, Mr. Sipp, Mr. Hunsinger
NOES: NONE
ABSENT: Mrs. Bruno, Mrs. Steffan, Mr. Ford
MR. HUNSINGER-And let the record indicate we did keep the public hearing open. It
will be tabled to that date as well.
MR. CANUGIARI-Okay. Thanks for the feedback.
MR. HUNSINGER-Thank you.
MR. SEGULJIC-Sorry about that.
MR. CANUGIARI-That’s okay.
SITE PLAN NO. 61-2007 & FRESHWATER WETLANDS 1-2008 SEQR TYPE I VMJR
COMPANIES AGENT(S) BERGMANN ASSOCIATES OWNER(S) FOREST
ENTERPRISES MGMT. ZONING HC-INTENSIVE LOCATION RT. 254 NW
INTERSECTION AT QUAKER RIDGE BLVD. SITE PLAN: APPLICANT PROPOSES
CONSTRUCTION OF A 150,200 +/- SQ. FT. RETAIL BUILDING WITH ASSOCIATED
PARKING AND UTILITIES. RETAIL USES IN HC ZONES REQUIRE PLANNING
BOARD REVIEW AND APPROVAL. FRESHWATER WETLANDS: FILLING OF
WETLANDS TO PROVIDE PARKING AND STORM WATER MANAGEMENT
FACILITIES. FILLING WITHIN THE 100 FOOT WETLANDS ADJACENT AREA
REQUIRES A FRESHWATER WETLANDS PERMIT FROM THE PLANNING BOARD.
THE PLANNING BOARD MAY CONTINUE SEQR REVIEW. CROSS REFERENCE UV
27-93, AV 34-93 WARREN CO. PLANNING 1/9/08 4/9/08 APA/CEA/DEC/ACOE NWI
WETLAND/ACOE LOT SIZE 37.55 ACRES TAX MAP NO. 303.15-1-25 SECTION
179-4-020
MARK PETROSKI, VIC MACRI & BOB SWEENEY, REP. APPLICANT, PRESENT
MR. HUNSINGER-Keith, whenever you’re ready, if you could summarize Staff Notes.
MR. OBORNE-Site Plan 61-2007 and Freshwater Wetlands 1-2008, applicant is VMJR
Companies. This is Site Plan and Freshwater Wetlands approval is the requested
action. The location is Route 254 northwest intersection of Quaker Ridge Boulevard.
The zoning is Highway Commercial Intensive, SEQR Status is Type I. The project
description, applicant proposes construction of a 150,200 square foot retail building with
associated parking and utilities. Project also includes filling wetlands and parking and
stormwater management facilities. Site Plan Review follows, and is lengthy, and if the
will of the Board is to have me go through them, that would be fine, but I assume they
have.
MR. HUNSINGER-No, that’s okay. Yes. The floor is yours, gentlemen, whenever you’re
ready.
MR. PETROSKI-Good evening. For the record my name is Mark Petroski. I’m with
Bergmann Associates representing VMJR Companies. With me this evening is Vic
Macri, President of VMJR, and also Bob Sweeney from Whitman, Offsman and Hannah.
We received some comments from the Staff a couple of days ago, and we’ve gone
through those comments, and I think we’ve substantially already addressed those
comments in prior submissions. So I just wanted to summarize a few items. At the end
of the letter, they specifically called out that there were some outstanding comments in
the boldface. One of the comments had to do about adding a note to the plans regarding
the timeframes for the seasonal display. We’re basically looking for approximately April
stth
1 to October 30. I’d like to emphasize the word approximately because it’s a function
9
(Queensbury Planning Board 09/16/08)
of the weather, the season, but it’s generally not something that’s set up in the
wintertime, so Spring, Summer, early Fall. So we’ll add that note to the plans. They
pointed out to us that, although the Board did show favor upon Option B of the lighting
plan at our last meeting, the landscaping plan still is showing the lighting positions for
Option A. So, in the final set of plans that we submit to the Town for signature, we would
just turn off the Option A lights and put the Option B lights, but Drawing C-05, it has the
correct Option B lighting in the plan set that you have. So it’s just a matter of
coordinating that with the landscaping plan. We’ve already gone through the exercise,
and we’ve found that there’s five trees that will conflict with the lights. So we’re going to
have to move those trees. We won’t delete the trees. We’ll just adjust their position so
that they don’t interfere with the lights. So that was the boldfaced items at the end of the
letter, but just to catch a few housekeeping items that were talked about talked about in
the front part of the letter, I just wanted to point out to the Board that we did submit the
th
Army Corps of Engineers application for the joint permit. That was submitted on the 5
th
of August. A copy was provided to the Planning Staff on August 8, and in the submittal
th
that you have from us, which I think was, what was the date on that, August 15, there’s
an Attachment A that shows you the proposed plantings and delineates all of the
landscaping areas and the grading that was submitted with that permit application. So
all that information has been provided. One item that is still on the plan set, but is a very
late decision that was made, and I have to say that this particular decision was the result
of a lot of feedback we received from the Planning Board over several meetings, and a
lot of deliberation in house, and we wrestled this thing to the ground, and basically we’re
coming to this Board and we’re telling you that we’re not going to propose any clearing,
any clearing zones or any thinning of the trees in front of the site. So the plans that you
have still show those clearing zones, but we will delete those, and we’re not asking for
them, as either part of the Army Corps application or as part of the Town wetland
application. So no trees will be cut. Other than to provide for the outfall for the storm
drainage ponds, for the sign out front, and I think there’s a couple of incidental areas
where we have to do some minor grading changes, but everything else in the front will be
left as it is, and one other item that I have to bring up is we keep going back and forth on
this question about the sidewalk out front. We talked to the County about it, and
basically the County said that they have no interest in maintaining it. We show it in the
County right of way because putting it on the site would require wetlands impacts, which
we’re trying to avoid. So where it’s shown is about the only place we could put it, along
the edge of the highway, and because the right of way is so wide right there, it ends up
being in the County’s right of way. They don’t want to maintain it, so if the Planning
Board wants the sidewalk, we’ll build it, but the Town would have to be responsible for
maintenance, and that, so if I remember right, the sidewalk that follows along, since Vic
took the time to put the board up. The sidewalk is the sidewalk here. This piece of
sidewalk here there’s no problem with wetlands. It’s on Vic’s property. So it would be
maintained by Vic, but this piece right here that comes around the corner would all be
within the County right of way, that’s where they just don’t want to, they don’t want to
maintain it, and that’s all I had. At the last meeting we started the process of taking a
look at the SEQRA resolution. The Board asked that we withhold that discussion until
we submitted the Army Corps application, which we did, and I think Mr. Sweeney
submitted a very lengthy SEQRA Findings statement for the Board’s consideration and
review. If you’re prepared to go through that with us, or have any questions we’d be
happy to address them. So we’re seeking your SEQRA Findings and Site Plan approval
if the Board is prepared for that this evening.
MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. Thank you. Anything else? I guess I’ll open it up for
questions, comments from members of the Board.
MR. TRAVER-Just a clarification regarding the sidewalk issue, before we move on with
that. Do I understand that you’re, you are planning on constructing a sidewalk that runs
on, what is it, Queensbury, I’m sorry, I forgot the name of the.
MR. PETROSKI-Quaker Ridge Boulevard.
MR. TRAVER-Quaker Ridge Boulevard, thank you. You are planning on putting a
sidewalk there, but just not in front unless the County agrees to maintain it?
MR. PETROSKI-The sidewalk along Quaker Ridge Boulevard would be on the private
property side.
MR. TRAVER-I understand.
MR. PETROSKI-So that would be maintained by the property owner, but the sidewalk
along the County right of way would be in the County’s right of way.
10
(Queensbury Planning Board 09/16/08)
MR. TRAVER-I understand.
MR. PETROSKI-And they only want it there if the Town’s going to maintain it.
MR. TRAVER-My question is, are you, is it your intent to put the sidewalk in along the
Boulevard?
MR. PETROSKI-Yes.
MR. TRAVER-Okay. Thank you.
MR. TRAVER-That’s all I had.
MR. HUNSINGER-Anything else from members of the Board?
MR. SEGULJIC-No, I’m prepared to go ahead with SEQRA.
MR. HUNSINGER-Okay.
MR. SEGULJIC-If I recall, the issue was seeing the mitigation plan.
MR. HUNSINGER-Yes. Well, before we do that, we do have the public hearing. Is there
anyone in the audience that wanted to address the Board on this application? We do
have at least one taker. If you don’t mind giving up the table. The purpose of the public
hearing is for members of the public to provide comments to the Planning Board on the
project. We would ask that you address any of your comments to the Board, and if you
have specific questions, if the applicant is so inclined, they can address those after they
come back to the table. Whenever you’re ready, sir.
PUBLIC HEARING OPEN
JOHN CAFFRY
MR. CAFFRY-Jon Caffry, on behalf of the Big Cedar Swamp Coalition, which includes
the Southern Adirondack Audubon Society and the Glens Falls/Saratoga Chapter of the
Adirondack Mountain Club. I only have a couple of pretty brief comments. We’re
pleased to see that there won’t be any clearing in front of the site. We were going to
recommend that we would prefer the thinning option versus the view channels option,
because in terms of habitat fragmentation and providing a better habitat for wildlife,
especially birds, the thinning option would have been better, but we’re pleased to hear
that the applicant is going to do neither. We’d like to suggest that the Board, when it
eventually approves this application, make that a permanent condition that there be no
thinning in that area. So there’s no question later on with whether it’s, may not be Mr.
Macri, maybe a future owner or future tenant of the property, but that should be made
very clear. I did have a chance to review the Army Corps of Engineers application that
was filed with your Staff, and basically we have no objection to the mitigation option that
they’ve chosen as the preferred one to keep it on site, and expand the wetlands in that
immediate area. My only comment on it really is the planting list of tree and other
species to be planted around the wetlands includes the Austrian Pine, which is obviously
not a native species to this continent, let alone this area, and I’m not sure about some of
the other types of trees in there, and other plants that are on that list, if they’re native
species or not. There’s a lot of species of willows or maples or whatever, you know, and
some may be native and some not, and I’d like to suggest that the Board require that
they only use native species. If we’re going to be trying to replicate a native wetland
habitat and replace it, then we ought to do so with native species and not species from
elsewhere, regardless of whether or not they’re considered to be invasive species.
They’re certainly not native species, and again, I’d like to suggest that that be made a
permit condition, and then the Staff comments seem to say there are some other issues
with the wetlands plans that were not yet finalized. I, frankly, couldn’t quite follow all of
them, but I hope the Board will make sure that all those little details, the T’s are crossed
and the I’s are dotted and that those all get resolved before any approvals are granted
for the project, but otherwise we think under the circumstances that most of our concerns
are being addressed, other than these that I just discussed. Thank you.
MR. HUNSINGER-Thank you. Anyone else? Yes, ma’am. Good evening.
JOAN ROBERTSON
11
(Queensbury Planning Board 09/16/08)
MRS. ROBERTSON-Hello. I’m Joan Robertson. I’m a charter member of Southern
Adirondack Audubon Society, and I would like to address this. Now our preference was
for no thinning of the tree canopy. So we’re quite pleased that you also agree with this.
This is an active bird area with various kinds of owls and raptors and some of them quite
rare, and we feel, of course, that the continuous tree line is much more protective. We
appreciate that your share our concerns for preserving natural habitat as much as
possible, and I think this will probably be a very good project that will meet the needs of
both groups. So, thank you.
MR. HUNSINGER-Thank you. Anyone else? Okay. If there’s no other takers, any other
written comments?
MR. OBORNE-No, there’s no public comment.
MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. I’ll then close the public hearing.
PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED
MR. HUNSINGER-And if you want to come back to the table. Members of the Board
comfortable in moving forward with SEQRA?
MR. SEGULJIC-Yes.
MR. HUNSINGER-Can you help me out? Where was the SEQRA form? Which
submission was that from? Which date? Because I have all the books here. So I just
need to know which date. It’s from the original submission. Okay. I’ll find it.
MR. SEGULJIC-Okay. Is everyone ready? Will the proposed action result in a physical
change to the project site?
MR. TRAVER-Yes.
MR. SEGULJIC-Yes, and that is because of any construction on slopes of 15% or
greater? I’d say no, right?
MR. HUNSINGER-Right.
MR. SEGULJIC-Construction on land where depth to water table is less than three feet?
Yes.
MR. HUNSINGER-Yes.
MR. SEGULJIC-Construction of paved area for more than 1,000 vehicles or more? No.
Construction on land where bedrock is exposed or generally within three feet of existing
ground surface?
MR. TRAVER-Not exposed.
MR. SEGULJIC-Yes, I believe in the back there’s going to be exposed bedrock.
MR. PETROSKI-No, nothing’s exposed, no, and the bedrock is actually less than.
MR. SEGULJIC-Okay.
MR. HILL-Where you are identifying that there is an impact, where you’re answering yes
that something is applicable because there’s an impact, I think you want to determine
whether the impact is either small to moderate or potentially large.
MR. SEGULJIC-Okay.
MR. HILL-That’s an important element.
MR. SEGULJIC-Okay. Thank you.
MR. HUNSINGER-Yes, thank you.
MR. SEGULJIC-Let’s go back to the construction on land where depth to water table is
less than three feet. I would say small to moderate.
12
(Queensbury Planning Board 09/16/08)
MR. TRAVER-Small to moderate.
MR. HUNSINGER-Small to moderate.
MR. SEGULJIC-Okay. Construction that will continue for more than one year or involve
more than one phase or stage?
MR. HUNSINGER-No.
MR. SEGULJIC-No. Excavation for mining purposes that would remove more than
1,000 tons of natural material? No.
MR. SIPP-No.
MR. SEGULJIC-Construction or expansion of a sanitary landfill? No.
MR. SIPP-No.
MR. SEGULJIC-Construction in a designated floodway? No.
MR. SIPP-No.
MR. SEGULJIC-Okay.
MR. HUNSINGER-So we only had the one, when you said yes, there was a small to
moderate impact.
MR. SEGULJIC-Correct. Yes.
MR. HUNSINGER-Okay.
MR. SEGULJIC-Will there be an effect to any unique or unusual land forms found
on the site? No.
MR. HUNSINGER-No.
MR. SEGULJIC-Will the proposed action affect any water body designated as protected?
MR. TRAVER-No.
MR. HUNSINGER-No.
MR. SEGULJIC-No. Will the proposed action affect any non-protected existing or new
body of water?
MR. HUNSINGER-No.
MR. TRAVER-No.
MR. SEGULJIC-Will the proposed action affect surface or groundwater quality or
or quantity?
MR. TRAVER-No.
MR. SIPP-No.
MR. SEGULJIC-Will the proposed action alter drainage flow or patterns, or surface water
runoff?
MR. TRAVER-Yes. Small to moderate and mitigated by the stormwater management
plan.
MR. HUNSINGER-I’m okay with that.
MR. SEGULJIC-Okay. Small to moderate with mitigated through the site plan.
MR. TRAVER-Right, through the stormwater management plan.
13
(Queensbury Planning Board 09/16/08)
MR. SEGULJIC-Will the proposed action affect air quality?
MR. TRAVER-No.
MR. HUNSINGER-No.
MR. SEGULJIC-Will the proposed action affect any threatened or endangered species?
MR. TRAVER-No.
MR. HUNSINGER-No.
MR. SEGULJIC-Will the proposed action substantially affect non-threatened or non-
endangered species?
MR. TRAVER-No.
MR. HUNSINGER-No.
MR. SEGULJIC-Will the proposed action affect agricultural land resources?
MR. HUNSINGER-No.
MR. TRAVER-No.
MR. SEGULJIC-Will the proposed action affect aesthetic resources?
MR. HUNSINGER-No.
MR. TRAVER-No.
MR. SEGULJIC-Will the proposed action impact any site or structure of historic, pre-
historic or paleontological importance?
MR. HUNSINGER-No.
MR. TRAVER-No.
MR. SEGULJIC-Will the proposed action affect the quantity or quality of existing or future
open spaces or recreational opportunities?
MR. HUNSINGER-No.
MR. TRAVER-No.
MR. SEGULJIC-Will the proposed action impact the exceptional or unique
characteristics of a critical environmental area?
MR. TRAVER-No.
MR. HUNSINGER-No.
MR. SEGULJIC-Will there be an effect to existing transportation systems?
MR. TRAVER-No.
MR. SIPP-No.
MR. SEGULJIC-Will proposed action affect the community’s sources of fuel or energy
supply?
MR. HUNSINGER-No.
MR. TRAVER-No.
MR. SEGULJIC-Will there be objectionable odors, noise, or vibration as a result of
the proposed action?
MR. TRAVER-No.
14
(Queensbury Planning Board 09/16/08)
MR. HUNSINGER-No.
MR. SEGULJIC-Will the proposed action affect public health and safety?
MR. TRAVER-No.
MR. HUNSINGER-No.
MR. SEGULJIC-Will the proposed action affect the character of the existing community?
MR. HUNSINGER-No.
MR. TRAVER-No.
MR. SEGULJIC-And is there, or is there likely to be, public controversy related to
potential adverse environmental impacts?
MR. HUNSINGER-No.
MR. TRAVER-No.
MR. SEGULJIC-I motion for a Negative SEQRA declaration.
RESOLUTION WHEN DETERMINATION OF NO SIGNIFICANCE IS MADE
RESOLUTION NO. SP 61-2007 & FWW 1-2008, Introduced by Thomas Seguljic who
moved for its adoption, seconded by Donald Sipp:
WHEREAS, there is presently before the Planning Board an application for:
VMJR COMPANIES, 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 16 day of September, 2008, by the following vote:
AYES: Mr. Traver, Mr. Seguljic, Mr. Sipp, Mr. Hunsinger
NOES: NONE
ABSENT: Mrs. Bruno, Mrs. Steffan, Mr. Ford
15
(Queensbury Planning Board 09/16/08)
MR. HUNSINGER-I guess the next thing to talk about is what changes have been
offered by the applicant since the submission of the materials. I think the only thing I
really heard was the comment that there would be no clearing at all, and we did hear
some comments about the planting list, the non-native species. I don’t know if you had
any comments about that.
MR. SWEENEY-I think the applicant is flexible on the types of plantings. Those are on
the plan because they were recommended by the professionals at Bergmann, and
certainly with all due respect to John Caffry’s observations on plantings, it’s really up to
the Corps. It’s the Corps of Engineers application. If they don’t like Austrian Pines, I’m
sure the applicant is flexible as to what should be placed there. Those were proposed by
the professionals and we’ll respond to whatever the Corps of Engineers wants planted
there.
MR. TRAVER-I guess I would ask if the applicant would be willing to present to the
Corps not the non-native species that are currently on the plans, but rather change those
species to reflect native species, and present those to the Corps and see if they have an
objection to those.
VIC MACRI
MR. MACRI-I would only ask that we be allowed to review that with the landscape
architect to see why he specifically recommended those species? It could be for
hardiness. It could be for resistance to salts or winds or whatever, and, you know,
there’s no sense in planting something that’s going to die, and that’s why we hired the
professionals to make those decisions for us.
MR. SIPP-I don’t think you’d consider Austrian Pine an invasive species.
MR. MACRI-I don’t know. I have no idea.
MR. SIPP-I’ve got a list of trees that are native and will grow in wet soils, dry soils. This
is made for Lake George, but it also includes wet areas. So that you can pick off that, fall
back is white pine. White pine grows any place, not the prettiest looking tree, but you do
need, I think, some conifers in this mix here, because there is a good share, probably
90% of what is in, from the road into the site is deciduous, and come wintertime, all
you’re going to have is sticks sticking up, and I think a little green in there would help.
MR. PETROSKI-Our discussion is that we want to work with the Board, and the
comments that were made by the public, to provide species that are mutually
satisfactory. If there’s a hardiness issue, we could talk about it, because we want them
to survive. We don’t want to keep re-planting them over and over again.
MR. HUNSINGER-Absolutely. I mean, you don’t want to plant a tree that’s not going to
last. That’s just a waste of money.
MR. PETROSKI-So if there’s a way to even work with Mr. Sipp to come up with a final
selection, you know, as a condition, that, the way to wrap this up, that we’d be happy to
do that.
MR. HUNSINGER-Well, and I guess you’re hitting on what I was going to say was my
concern, and my concern is we have a nice landscaping plan here on Sheet C-4 that
has, you know, very specific species identified. So if we, you know, change them or if we
say, well, you know, we’ll just let the Army Corps decide what you use, then, you know,
you’d have to come back to switch them out.
MR. MACRI-But we can do that within the Department, right? We don’t have to come
back to the Board to change anything, as long as the Board agrees that, Don has an
overview of it.
MR. HUNSINGER-Yes. I mean, I guess my own personal feeling and I don’t pretend to
be a landscaping expert. So, I mean, if you tell me you want to plant an evergreen tree
in this spot, I don’t necessarily care if it’s a white pine or an Australian Pine. I don’t know
if I’d know the difference anyway, but, you know, the plan is specific. So I think we do
need to work on a resolution that, you know, will work for everybody. So I guess I would
look to members of the Board for a solution here. I mean, oftentimes you use the word
or equivalent, but I’m not sure you can.
16
(Queensbury Planning Board 09/16/08)
MR. SIPP-Well, you can say native. If you say native conifer, that would cover the
waterfront.
MR. SWEENEY-How about or equivalent native plant? Would that take care of it?
MR. HUNSINGER-Did you have any thoughts, Steve?
MR. TRAVER-Well, again, my thoughts were that I tend to agree, I guess, with the public
comment, that, when possible, if we could use native plants as opposed to foreign
plants. I am not able to really, I guess, recommend a specific ratio of deciduous versus
conifer. I would leave that up to the landscaper, but I do agree with the public comment
that if possible that we utilize native vs. non-native species. So that’s my only concern. I
certainly would defer to the experts.
MR. MACRI-And we would work towards doing that, we just want to modify the plan in
such a way that makes the Board satisfied.
MR. TRAVER-Sure, and my concern was only that initially you had offered to submit the
trees that are on the plan to the Corps and see if they objected, which is a different thing
than changing them to native species and then offering those to the Corps and seeing if
they objected.
MR. MACRI-I don’t think we’re going to have much of a choice. If the Corps doesn’t like
what we have on the planting plan, they’re going to tell us to change it.
MR. HUNSINGER-Yes.
MR. TRAVER-Right.
MR. MACRI-We have no choice.
MR. HUNSINGER-What if we used, you know, made a comment something to the effect
of wherever possible, the landscape plan will utilize equivalent native species.
MR. MACRI-Great. That’s fine.
MR. TRAVER-I can go along with that.
MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. Then the only other issue that I think we need to spend a
minute or two on is the clearing. I know in the past we have had kind of standard
language about trimming and thinning. I don’t know if any Board members have a
thought or comment on that.
MR. TRAVER-Can it be delineated on the final plans as a no cut zone, as it would be for
another type of site plan?
MR. HUNSINGER-Is that acceptable?
MR. MACRI-Yes, that’s fine. There’s only one caveat that I would like to incorporate in
that is necessary maintenance that would be allowed to cut, because I heard tonight,
okay, no cutting at all. I mean, if there’s maintenance required, a tree falls, wind
damage, whatever, snow damage.
MR. HUNSINGER-That was the language that we had, diseased or damaged trees.
MR. MACRI-Yes.
MR. TRAVER-I know I’ve seen boilerplate language for that somewhere that covers that.
MR. HUNSINGER-Diseased or storm damaged trees. Are there any other special
conditions that we need to consider?
MR. TRAVER-Not that I’m aware of. I don’t think so.
MR. HUNSINGER-Do we want to address the sidewalk?
MR. SIPP-No. I mean, excuse the expression, it’s a sidewalk to nowhere.
17
(Queensbury Planning Board 09/16/08)
MR. HUNSINGER-Well, how do members feel about the sidewalk in Quaker Ridge
Boulevard?
MR. SIPP-That might, here again, I don’t know how many people are going to walk in.
MR. MACRI-(lost words) conceptual thing of having sidewalks everywhere. We offered
to incorporate those sidewalks.
MR. SIPP-Maybe it’s a place that the people that work there on the noon hour can take a
walk.
MR. TRAVER-And people waiting for transportation and so on. I think the sidewalk on
the private property is actually a good idea.
MR. HUNSINGER-Okay, and that’s what I was looking for.
MR. MACRI-But as far as the one on Quaker Road, I mean, we offered. If the County
says no we won’t install it.
MR. TRAVER-And that’s a matter of the record, I think.
MR. HUNSINGER-Yes. Well, I was going to say we can eliminate it from the plan if
members are so inclined.
MR. SIPP-Yes.
MR. HUNSINGER-Did you find that reference, Tom?
MR. SEGULJIC-No, I did not.
MR. HUNSINGER-Would anyone like to take a crack at a resolution?
MR. SEGULJIC-I think you’ve done such a good job at taking notes, I think you’ve
earned it.
MR. HUNSINGER-All right. Okay.
MOTION TO APPROVE SITE PLAN NO. 61-2007 & FRESHWATER WETLANDS 1-
2008 VMJR COMPANIES, Introduced by Chris Hunsinger who moved for its adoption,
seconded by Stephen Traver:
A site plan application has been made to the Queensbury Planning Board for the
1.
following: Site Plan: Applicant proposes construction of a 150,200+/- sq. ft. retail
building with associated parking and utilities. Retail uses in HC zones require
Planning Board review and approval. Freshwater Wetlands: Filling of wetlands
to provide parking and storm water management facilities. Filling within the 100
foot wetlands adjacent area requires a Freshwater Wetlands permit from the
Planning Board. The Planning Board may continue SEQR review
2. Public hearings were advertised and scheduled: 1/15, 3/18, 4/29, 6/24, 7/15,
tabled to 9/16/08
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
18
(Queensbury Planning Board 09/16/08)
7. 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.
8. 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
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
MOTION TO APPROVE SITE PLAN NO. 61-2007 & FRESHWATER WETLANDS 1-
2008 VMJR COMPANIES, Introduced by Chris Hunsinger who moved for its adoption,
seconded by Stephen Traver:
Item Four, the project complies. Item Five, Negative Declaration. Item Nine does not
apply. The motion is approved with the following special conditions:
1. That there will be no clearing of any trees outside the developed area, except for
routine maintenance for diseased or damaged trees,
2. On the landscaping plan, C-04, wherever possible, the landscaping plan will
utilize equivalent native species.
3. That the proposed sidewalk on Quaker Road shall be removed from the final
plan.
th
Duly adopted this 16 day of September, 2008, by the following vote:
MR. SIPP-I have a question. I would like to know what we’re approving.
MR. HUNSINGER-The name of the store?
MR. SIPP-Or what we’re voting on. Let’s put it that way.
MR. HUNSINGER-The name of the store? Are you at liberty to say if we approve it?
MR. MACRI-Once we get the approval.
MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. Well, we’ll wait until the approval.
AYES: Mr. Sipp, Mr. Seguljic, Mr. Traver, Mr. Hunsinger
NOES: NONE
ABSENT: Mrs. Bruno, Mrs. Steffan, Mr. Ford
MR. HUNSINGER-You’re all set.
MR. MACRI-Thank you very much.
MR. HUNSINGER-Are you at liberty to say who it is?
MR. PETROSKI-The person or the party that’s interested in occupying this particular site
would like to be able to make a press release, and it’ll be out in the next several days.
MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. I can respect that.
MR. PETROSKI-So I just like to have them make their announcements as they see fit.
MR. HUNSINGER-Sure. Okay.
19
(Queensbury Planning Board 09/16/08)
MR. MACRI-We do appreciate your patience.
MR. HUNSINGER-You’re welcome, and thank you for working with us on developing the
plan. I think we have something that we can all be happy with. I really appreciate it.
MR. SIPP-Yes. I think we’ve come a long way from last January.
MR. PETROSKI-Thank you.
MR. HUNSINGER-Thank you.
SUBDIVISION NO. 13-2007 PRELIMINARY STAGE SEQR TYPE UNLISTED JOHN
FEDOROWICZ AGENT(S) B P S R OWNER(S) JOHN & LAURA A. FEDOROWICZ
ZONING RR-3A LOCATION 1433 BAY ROAD APPLICANT PROPOSES
SUBDIVISION OF A 10.14 ACRE PARCEL INTO 2 RESIDENTIAL LOTS OF 3.7 AND
6.44 ACRES. SUBDIVISION OF LAND REQUIRES REVIEW AND APPROVAL BY THE
PLANNING BOARD. CROSS REFERENCE SUB 1-00 WARREN CO. PLANNING
N/A LOT SIZE 10.14 +/- ACRES TAX MAP NO. 265-1-19.11 SECTION A-183
JON LAPPER, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT
MR. OBORNE-Subdivision 13-2007, Preliminary Stage. John Fedorowicz is the
applicant. Applicant proposes subdivision of a 10.14 acre residential parcel into two
residential lots of 3.7 and 6.44 acres respectively. Subdivision of land requires review
and approval by the Planning Board.
MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. The floor is yours whenever you’re ready.
MR. LAPPER-Good evening. For the record, Jon Lapper with the applicant, John
Fedorowicz, and the project engineer, Kevin Hastings. I guess I’d like to start out in this
way. Throughout this review, some of the members of the Board, and some of the
members that are here tonight have, I guess what I would view as considered this as if
the applicant had made a promise and was going back on their word, just in terms of how
I perceive the Board’s comments have been raised, and I want to just point out a few
things that I think may help. Of course it was a predecessor in title. So it wasn’t this
applicant that was before the Board at the time, but beyond that, I’m looking at the Staff
th
Notes from April 27 of 2000. The applicant was Byron and Judy Rist, and the way this
came up about the condition of no further subdivision is as follows. The
recommendation of the Town Planning Staff read, Staff recommends granting the Sketch
Plan waiver contingent on the applicant noting whether or not the proposed parcel will be
further subdivided in the future. If this parcel is to be further subdivided, clearing,
grading and erosion control plan should be submitted. Staff recommends approval of
Preliminary and Final plats upon receipt of all required information as noted, and then
the, a month later, on 5/5, was the note from Marilyn Ryba, then the Director of Planning,
and she said I spoke with Matt Steves who was at that time, or it was the project
surveyor, this afternoon. The Rists do not have any intent to further subdivide and Mr.
Steves has discouraged them from doing so due to parcel slopes and intermittent
streams. I did not have him provide a cross section since the slopes for the drive do not
exceed 10%. So essentially what happened was that the Staff said, look, if you’re going
to talk about subdivision, then we got, again, into the kind of detail that we’ve gotten into
in this process with the Board, and apparently the applicant didn’t have any intention,
didn’t want to spend the money, didn’t have the time, whatever it was, so they just
conceded and said, you know, we don’t care about subdivision because that wasn’t what
they were interested in at the time. So I don’t think that anybody was saying that this
property couldn’t be subdivided. They were saying, if you’re going to subdivide it, it’s got
to be scrutinized, and the applicant at that time just walked away from that. Another
really interesting thing for the Board to consider is the subdivision that was submitted
and finally approved at that time, sorry, well, this was all on one lot, Lot Two. The
location of the house, what I’m looking at is the map that was signed by the Planning
Board resolution adopted May 16, 2000, and so this is the final approved subdivision.
Everything we’re talking about was Lot Two at the time. The location of the house and
septic is essentially what we’re asking for here. This is the map. I know you’ll recognize
the parcel, and at the top of the hill was the location of the house and the septic. When
the Fedorowiczs bought the property, they decided to build their house, which I know
you’ve seen and I know, you know, it’s a lovely white country style home. They built it in
the less desirable of the two locations because it doesn’t have the views and the
expanse. They’re down sort of at the bottom in the trees. So what’s interesting is that
the Planning Board in 2000, while they didn’t, they said, okay, don’t subdivide, but they
weren’t talking about not putting a house on the top of the hill where we’re proposing
20
(Queensbury Planning Board 09/16/08)
now, because that was what was approved. No, they’re not the exact same plan, but the
location of the house and the septic system are pretty much the same. So at that point
the Planning Board made a determination that it was okay to put the house there. The
Fedorowiczs built their house where they built it. Now they want to sell that house and
build themselves a house in a more prime location, but my point is that the Planning
Board, even when that condition was imposed, didn’t have a problem putting the house
and the septic system where we’re proposing now. With that said, we’ve gone through
an extreme amount of detail, not inappropriate, but we’ve tried to be absolutely thorough
and respond to all of the issues raised by the Board. We have, for the record for tonight
we have a signoff letter from the Town Engineer where he has finally agreed that
everything that he’s asked has been completed. The only thing he’s asking is to add
another note to ensure that all silt fences should be shown and installed parallel to
contours, which of course is agreeable to the project engineer and the applicant, and
then in the Staff Notes, the Staff Notes go through everything that’s happened, and I
talked to Keith today and he said this was kind of a compilation of all of the Staff Notes of
where we are to date, but there’s one inaccuracy in the Staff Notes, because it still talks
about, and this is really the only open item, that we were still looking for four waivers, and
that’s not the case. We’ve documented this in our submissions in June, July and August.
Only one of those waivers we’re still asking for, and the only one that we’re asking for is
to not show the location of the septic fields on the adjacent properties, and there are two
reasons for that. One is because we don’t know the location of the septic systems,
because some of those houses have been there for a while before there were records.
We can’t go to the lots next door and locate them because they’re obviously subsurface,
but more important that that, the well on this site, the issue of the location of those septic
systems would be to make sure that there’s a correct separation distance between our
well and those septic systems, and the proposed well on this site is 150 feet from the
property line at the closest point, and far greater distance from the other adjacent
properties. So we’re taking care of it on the site by moving the well towards the center of
the site, so it complies, and of course, and we’ve discussed this. This came up, I think,
in June or July, and the Board indicated that that wasn’t a problem, that we couldn’t
locate those, but everything else that we were asked for, that the Staff Notes still say that
we were looking for a waiver on contours extending 100 feet off the site, and that has
been provided, and adjacent properties and ownership on the east side of Bay Road are
not shown, and they weren’t, but then we ultimately did locate that. That’s on the map
from the surveyor, and that is Deborah O’Reilly, and areas where slopes exceed 25%,
and there was a slope map that was previously submitted, and I have that. I think it’s this
one. Here it is. This is the slope map that you have in your packet. So I understand that
there’s only a bare quorum tonight, and there may not be four votes, but we’ve been here
for many, many months. The Fedorowiczs would like to move forward with their plan,
and we hope that you view this as a good faith attempt to satisfy the Board in every
respect, in terms of the, we made pretty significant changes, very sophisticated
stormwater plan. We changed it to satisfy the issues raised by the Water Keeper, in
terms of the stormwater treatment at the foot of the hill. We verified emergency services.
We got the permit from DPW for the culvert. So I hope that the Board sees that whether
or not we have enough votes tonight or have to come back, you know, we believe we’ve
been in good faith and we’ve been trying to satisfy the Board. Kevin, would you like to
give any details about the engineering at this point? Okay. Kevin’s available for any
comments, but that’s where we are at this point.
MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. Questions, comments from the Board?
MR. SEGULJIC-Well, I have a couple of questions. It deals with the stormwater
retention basin at the base of the driveway, and the drywells within that. If I understand
this correctly, Test Pit One and Two ran into groundwater at, Test Pit Two had mottling at
30 inches, and Test Pit One the groundwater seeps at four feet.
MR. HASTINGS-Yes, that is correct.
MR. SEGULJIC-And Test Pit Two actually had groundwater seeps at 60 inches, and
when I look at your drywell detail, which I believe is four?
MR. HASTINGS-Yes, that’s Detail Four.
MR. SEGULJIC-It’s showing that, I believe that that drywell’s going to go down six feet?
MR. HASTINGS-The dimensions show a two foot separation to groundwater and
approximately three feet to the rim, three foot six to the rim, so roughly five and a half
feet.
21
(Queensbury Planning Board 09/16/08)
MR. SEGULJIC-So therefore you’re going to be at the groundwater, though.
MR. HASTINGS-The base elevation of the basin is actually going to be in fill. So the rim
of the drywell is not going to be at existing grade. It’s actually going to start out above
grade. So that relationship to the groundwater elevation that’s noted in Test Pits One
and Two will be respected.
MR. SEGULJIC-I’m not understanding that.
MR. LAPPER-The basin will be higher than the existing ground now.
MR. SEGULJIC-So you’re going to bring the rim of the drywell.
MR. HASTINGS-Yes. The bottom of the basin is actually going to be starting out in the
corner at grade, but then it’ll flat. So where those drywells are will be some fill added in,
which will bring that rim out of the ground for the drywell. So the detail is showing what
will be a finished grade for the rim, but if I were to put a dashed line of where the existing
grade would be, it would be somewhere cutting through the stone that’s in that drywell
detail. That’s how I would show that example.
MR. SEGULJIC-Okay. I’ve just got to think about this for a second.
MR. HASTINGS-So what we’re showing is a finished grade of where I propose the
bottom of the basin to be, and the existing grade is actually well below that.
MR. SEGULJIC-So, if you’re having mottling at two and a half feet in Test Pit Two.
MR. HASTINGS-Test Pit Two is not taken directly where the drywells are placed
anyway. Test Pit One is probably more appropriate, but in either case, the groundwater
is shallow.
MR. SEGULJIC-Right. So that means you’re going to have to have, these drywells are
going to have to, out of the existing ground now, they’re going to have to stick up over
four feet.
MR. HASTINGS-Not over four feet, no.
MR. SEGULJIC-Well, if you’re having mottling at 30 inches in Test Pit Two.
MR. HASTINGS-They may be up around two feet out of the ground, if that.
MR. SEGULJIC-So they’re going to stick up in these basins.
MR. HASTINGS-Out of the existing ground, but then the bottom of the basin will be filled
to create a finished grade at that rim elevation.
MR. SEGULJIC-So how much fill are you going to bring in for this whole construction?
MR. HASTINGS-I have not done a section there, but as I said, it’s shown based on the
existing grades and the proposed contours. I’m expecting there’s going to be a fill
section there to allow that rim to be set and respect the groundwater elevation that we’ve
shown.
MR. SEGULJIC-Because you’re going to have to bring in a lot of fill for this entire project.
MR. HASTINGS-A lot of that’s going to be field adjusted, yes, but the contours that we’ve
shown are very close to what I expect it to be.
MR. SEGULJIC-All right. Now within your response letter, if I can put my fingers on it
now, on Page Two of your response letter, under the Lake George Keeper, on the
second paragraph of the first response, you indicate that, in the field there was a visible
evidence of a nearby flowing swale of substantial flow rate that it disappears as it
spreads across the ground.
MR. HASTINGS-Yes.
MR. SEGULJIC-Where is that? It’s not shown on the plan.
22
(Queensbury Planning Board 09/16/08)
MR. HASTINGS-It’s not shown on the plan. It’s not surveyed. When John Fedorowicz
st
and I were out there on May 1, it was probably flowing along what is now the future
swale of the road, the ditch line of the road. So it’s coming down off from the hillside, but
as it came down close to where we were near, I’d say Test Pit Two or One, that was a
little farther down, One. Near Test Pit One, that flow, that visible flow, was gone. The
leaves were dry. The ground was undisturbed. So it virtually disappeared.
MR. SEGULJIC-So, you have an existing flow in the area of the driveway.
MR. HASTINGS-There’s some runoff there, yes.
MR. LAPPER-Because of the slope.
MR. HASTINGS-Because of the slope and.
MR. SEGULJIC-But that swale was never shown on the plans at all.
MR. HASTINGS-I’m saying it was flowing along what might be the future swale. I’m
trying to give you a path of where that would be.
MR. SEGULJIC-Right, but where I’m going with, has that been taken into account? Has
the engineer had a chance to take into account that additional flow? You said
substantial.
MR. HASTINGS-I’m saying substantial. It’s visible. It was visible flow. It was runoff. I’m
trying to recall if there was rain in that timeframe or not, but it was visible runoff. What
it’s source, I don’t know. I don’t know if it was runoff from precipitation. It was not
groundwater.
MR. SEGULJIC-My concern is did the VISION Engineer know of that when they
reviewed these plans? Did they know that there was a swale there?
MR. HASTINGS-Well, the letter, we documented that observation. It’s not surveyed
because if the surveyor went out there it would be gone. There’d be no remnants of
wherever that runoff went.
MR. SEGULJIC-Well, my concern is you used the word substantial.
MR. HASTINGS-Substantial is visible.
MR. LAPPER-But this letter went to the Town Engineer before we got the final signoff
letter.
MR. HASTINGS-Yes.
MR. LAPPER-So the response to the Water Keeper issues was reviewed by the Town
Engineer.
MR. SEGULJIC-He does say that?
th
MR. LAPPER-Well, he reviewed, he’s reviewing our August 14 submission, and this is
in the cover letter, the letter from Kevin in that submission.
MR. SEGULJIC-I’m not getting a lot of comfort level because the word substantial is
used.
MR. HASTINGS-It’s only a term that I use to, it was noticeable. It wasn’t just water or
moisture. It was something that was more than a few gallons a minute. It might have
been a few gallons a minute, but it was enough to be noticeable and then the effect was
down the property, it disappeared.
MR. LAPPER-Meaning that it infiltrated.
MR. HASTINGS-It infiltrated. Yes. That was an illustration of what type of soils we’re
dealing with. It’s a rapid infiltration. The groundwater, if it’s there, it disappears.
MR. SEGULJIC-So we really don’t know how much fill you’re bringing in for the area of
the stormwater basin?
23
(Queensbury Planning Board 09/16/08)
MR. HASTINGS-I’m trying to work with what.
MR. LAPPER-Enough fill to get to the level of elevation that you’ve put on the plans.
MR. HASTINGS-Yes.
MR. SEGULJIC-Because you’re going to have to bring in at least three, four feet in that
area.
MR. HASTINGS-I’m not saying it’s three feet. On the lower end, the north end of it, there
may be two or three feet, because we’re trying to start out at an existing grade.
MR. SEGULJIC-And then.
MR. LAPPER-But there’s also a cut and fill for the driveway, that if you look at the grade
plan there’s a cut and fill. So there may be enough fill on site just from grading the
driveway.
MR. SEGULJIC-All right, and then there was, also I don’t think, and I don’t know how the
rest of the Board feels about this, and I can’t find the comment. When we made our
motion last time, we requested that the Town Engineer specifically look at the driveway
issues related to this application for stormwater management and control, and also
accompanying maintenance plan for the driveway, and (lost word) he responded to that?
And did you submit a maintenance plan?
MR. HASTINGS-Part of those comments are that review would have been part of
original Comment Seven, and, they’re probably not on here now, I believe Number 10
was one of the former comments that had to do with erosion and sediment control
maintenance, and that’s what we provided. On Sheet Two is the full erosion and
sediment control plan with specifications and operation and maintenance detail.
MR. SEGULJIC-That’s all I have for now.
MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. Any other questions or comments from other Board members?
What’s the will of the Board? We do have a public hearing scheduled. Is there anyone
in the audience that wanted to address the Board on this application? Do you mind
giving up the table?
PUBLIC HEARING OPEN
CHRIS NAVITSKY
MR. NAVITSKY-Good evening. Chris Navitsky, Lake George Water Keeper. We had a
chance to review the revised submission and had a couple of comments or questions for
the applicant to respond to. First, there’s an infiltration trench in the upper portions of the
development which may not be effective for stormwater management. The detail
appears to be about a two foot deep trench, proposed in the upper areas where there are
approximately two foot of cut in that upper portion, two to three feet. Deep test pit data
indicates a depth to bedrock of 39 inches. Therefore it appears the infiltration trench
may be installed into bedrock, which will limit infiltration capabilities. Second point, we
recognize the applicant’s revisions to runoff coefficients, which we feel better reflect
actual site conditions and that was the revision of some runoff associated to lawn that
will be disturbed. However, it appears there’s some acreage which has been
underestimated. For example, the total disturbed area will be approximately 56,000
square feet, with approximately 12,000 being impervious coverage. That results in
approximately 44,000 square feet or about an acre, to be grass cover, which is
significantly greater than the 0.13 acre which they applied in the calculations. That could
have an impact on post-development runoff values. Third point, the applicant should
clarify the methods proposed for re-vegetation and stabilization in the area of potential
blasting and/or cut fill sections. They have about a 10 foot cut section. That was
referred to in VISION Engineer’s letter, but I didn’t see a note. They talked about
decreasing the slopes to two to one, but if there’s rock, which appears there is at 40
inches, 48 inches, and they have 10 foot cut, just to prevent any washouts. Fourth item,
there appears to be a potential conflict where the sanitary sewer line to the septic system
may pass through the infiltration trench, up on the upper portion, which could result in
migration of stormwater towards the absorption field. Last point, in general the project
proposes a significant amount of disturbance, with potential environmental impacts,
seven foot fill sections, ten foot cut sections. It appears there could be as much as 350
feet of blasting and construction on steep slopes. The proposed environmental impacts
24
(Queensbury Planning Board 09/16/08)
may outweigh the benefits to the applicant for the proposed development, and we’d just
like to thank you for your consideration of these comments, and perhaps they can be
addressed. Thank you. We’ll submit this.
MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. Thank you. Anyone else? Okay. I will leave the hearing open
for now. If you want to come back to the table. Any questions or comments from the
Board?
MR. LAPPER-I guess our initial response is that the, we do have the Town Engineer
signing off, and a question of, you know, it’s not up, for a subdivision plan to weigh the, to
give a coefficient value to the blasting and site disturbance. I mean, this is just normal
construction activity, and this site far exceeds the minimum lot size and we think that this
has been very carefully designed to deal with stormwater, to deal with grade issues,
septic, etc. So we believe that we have covered everything that the Town requires, and I
guess just for the record, two or three meetings ago, you had asked Mike Hill, the
Board’s attorney, what the standards for review would be, and the standard for review
that he said, I’m paraphrasing, of course, is that you would treat this as any other
application for a subdivision, and just because it’s on a hill, I mean, well, because it’s on
a hill, we think we’ve designed this to so that it works for the site, but certainly this is the
same review that we would go through for any other application like this for this type of
site, nothing remarkable about it. Is there anything that you want to answer at this point?
MR. HUNSINGER-Well, what’s the feeling of the Board?
MR. SEGULJIC-I guess I’m prepared to put forward a motion then.
MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. I guess we should close the public hearing, first, and move the
SEQRA. Although we can consider a resolution at any time, right? We don’t need to.
MR. HILL-Before you render a decision, you’ll need to go through the SEQRA review.
MR. HUNSINGER-Okay.
MR. SIPP-Is this for all five items that need approval here, the modification of the 2000
action by the Planning Board? Does that have to be done first before the SEQRA?
MR. HILL-I’m assuming that whatever resolution is offered is going to address all
aspects of the application, and so there would need to be a SEQRA review prior to the
adoption of resolution.
MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. I will close the public hearing, and we will consider SEQRA
review.
PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED
MR. LAPPER-Before we go through that, Mr. Chairman, if there’s only four of you, if
there’s not going to be a unanimous one way or the other, it would make sense to table
this, you know, for a full Board, but that’s up to you.
MR. SEGULJIC-Well, we’re not going to know if it’s going to be unanimous or not until
we do it.
MR. LAPPER-Okay. I understand.
MR. HILL-In that regard, Mr. Chairman, let me offer that if you want to have a discussion
about a resolution, so as to get a sense of where the Board is going, you can certainly do
that, but prior to the adoption of any resolution, our recommendation would be to go
through the SEQRA review. So if you want to discuss the resolution in draft form, so to
speak, and get a sense of where the Board is going or what you want to include or
exclude from the resolution, you can certainly have that kind of a discussion, but not
adopt a resolution until you do SEQRA review.
MR. HUNSINGER-Okay.
MR. HILL-And that may help in the determination about whether the applicant wants to
seek a tabling of this.
MR. HUNSINGER-Having said that, would you like to either read or summarize the
proposed motion?
25
(Queensbury Planning Board 09/16/08)
MR. SEGULJIC-Well, I have copies. Would you like me to pass out some copies?
MR. HUNSINGER-Sure.
MR. SEGULJIC-Should I read this, or should we just discuss this amongst ourselves?
MR. HILL-Any way you want to proceed on that.
MR. SEGULJIC-What would the Chairman like me to do? I have a couple of
amendments to this.
MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. Well, why don’t you give us a minute to read it first.
MR. SEGULJIC-All right. Well, I’ll tell you right now. The last from the bottom
paragraph, exclude that.
MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. Exclude the bottom paragraph.
MR. SEGULJIC-Well, maybe we should discuss that, but that would be my impression.
MR. TRAVER-I see. Okay. Exclude the last paragraph.
MR. SEGULJIC-The second from the bottom.
MR. HUNSINGER-Second from the bottom, not the bottom. Okay.
MR. TRAVER-Gotcha. Okay.
MR. SEGULJIC-Unless the Board feels otherwise.
MR. SIPP-What’s the reasoning for eliminating, is it the steepness? Is that what
concerns you?
MR. SEGULJIC-Well, it’s kind of tough because our engineer has hemmed us in.
MR. SIPP-Yes, but at nine percent you’re still going to have runoff.
MR. SEGULJIC-Right, but I would like to, there is one other thing I would like to add to
the motion, and that is I attached some pages to it, and that’s under 179-9-080,
requirements for approval. In particular, if you were to read E, the project would not have
an undue adverse impact upon the natural, scenic, aesthetic.
MR. HUNSINGER-Are there specific items in E that you?
MR. SEGULJIC-Well, specifically the aesthetic, scenic, open space, and then if you go
on to, and this is just thoughts for the Board. If you go on to 179-9-100, it looks at
development considerations, it talks about on land erosion, open space resources, under
Two, A2, I’m sorry, and under 7A, aesthetic, it talks about scenic vistas, and these relate
to potential adverse impacts upon the Town. So as I see it there’s a number of
concerns, you know, in light of the no further subdivision placed on the site.
MR. HUNSINGER-I know that one of the issues that we have run into in the past is
where we run into conflicts between some of the comments that were just made, and
how they relate to SEQRA, and I guess one of the things I’d like to just sort of explore for
a second is how we might be able to differentiate the concerns that were mentioned, but
still be able to get through a SEQRA review.
MR. SEGULJIC-Can you go further on that, for example?
MR. HUNSINGER-Well, for example, you mentioned concerns with.
MR. SEGULJIC-Erosion, open space resources, scenic vistas, slopes.
MR. HUNSINGER-Yes, and also the 179-9-080B, which talks about stormwater
management specifically.
MR. SEGULJIC-I’m sorry, no, that’s a mistake. That’s just, not B.
26
(Queensbury Planning Board 09/16/08)
MR. HUNSINGER-Okay.
MR. SEGULJIC-It’s just E I’m looking at.
MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. I’m sorry.
MR. TRAVER-So delete B?
MR. SEGULJIC-Delete B. I’m sorry.
MR. HUNSINGER-Well, I guess even if you look at E, though, because it uses the term
the project would have an undue adverse impact.
MR. SEGULJIC-Would not have an undue adverse impact.
MR. HUNSINGER-Right.
MR. SEGULJIC-On the aesthetics.
MR. HUNSINGER-So, I guess I wanted to explore the ability to get through SEQRA, but
then still.
MR. SEGULJIC-Well, I don’t think we can get through SEQRA. We’re going to need a
lot more information to get us over these hurdles.
MR. HUNSINGER-Okay.
MR. TRAVER-Well, and in our To Do list the SEQRA is still Number Two. Correct?
MR. SEGULJIC-The SEQRA is Number One, if I’m correct. We have to do SEQRA
before we can take an action.
MR. TRAVER-Okay.
MR. SEGULJIC-We have to be able to get through SEQRA, correct, before we can take
an action.
MR. HILL-You would need to do SEQRA review before you can take an action, adopt a
resolution and make a decision on this.
MR. SEGULJIC-All right, and I see issues with C-2 and C-4, because, you know, it talks
about the community’s existing plans or goals, and we have an Open Space Plan that
identifies French Mountain and maintaining slopes and our Community Development
Plan, is that correct, our Community Comprehensive Plan also talks about development
on slopes.
MR. LAPPER-I guess our question is just if this is unanimous or if this is unanimous or if
it’s not unanimous then we’ll just ask for it to be tabled.
MR. HUNSINGER-I’m actually at a loss here, for the same reasons that I just questioned
it.
MR. HILL-About going through a SEQRA process?
MR. HUNSINGER-Well, because, I mean, what’s been drafted is a denial motion.
MR. HILL-Correct.
MR. HUNSINGER-So if there’s a motion to deny?
MR. LAPPER-Well, you don’t have to go through SEQRA if you’re going to deny.
MR. TRAVER-That’s what I was asking before.
MR. SEGULJIC-Okay. Sorry.
MR. HUNSINGER-That was where part of my confusion was coming from.
27
(Queensbury Planning Board 09/16/08)
MR. HILL-As your Counsel, and with due respect to Mr. Lapper, you’re suggesting
there’s no necessity to go through SEQRA review.
MR. LAPPER-Right. That if they’re going to deny it, that there’s case law that they don’t
have to go through SEQRA if they’re going to deny it.
MR. HILL-I’m afraid, Jon, I’m not aware of that authority, and our advice as Counsel is for
you to go through SEQRA review prior to doing a denial.
MR. HUNSINGER-Well, what Mr. Seguljic has already indicated is he’s not comfortable
getting through SEQRA for the same reasons that he has put into his proposed motion
for denial. So with only four members here, we’re not going to get through SEQRA,
which won’t get us to a point to consider the motion for denial either.
MR. TRAVER-Another way of looking at it would be that if the majority agrees with Tom’s
points that he’s making in his motion, we would be able to go through SEQRA, but we
would find that there would be an undue adverse impact. So we could go through, I
mean, I would interpret that to say yes, we could go through SEQRA, but the outcome
might be potentially a Positive Declaration.
MR. HUNSINGER-But that’s not a final decision of the Board, as we know.
MR. LAPPER-Just a, an Environmental Impact Statement on a two lot residential
subdivision would be pretty incredible in New York.
MR. HILL-I think maybe perhaps at this point, because there doesn’t seem to be a
consensus among the Board either with regard to SEQRA or potentially I guess with
respect to the resolution, I’m not really sure, and given the fact that three of your
members are absent and haven’t had the opportunity to hear the presentation made by
the applicant tonight, what you might want to consider is, if the applicant is offering, to
table the matter until a future meeting, have your other members acquaint themselves
with the material presented tonight, and then take this up at a future meeting with regard
to whether to move forward on, how to move forward on SEQRA, and then whether or
not to adopt a resolution. In the meantime, I guess I would, with the Board’s permission,
I’d concur with Mr. Lapper with regard to the authority to proceed with a resolution in the
absence of SEQRA, if the ultimate resolution is going to be deny.
MR. HUNSINGER-Are you comfortable with a motion to table?
MR. LAPPER-Yes, absolutely.
MR. HUNSINGER-And then of course the only question becomes, what date do we table
this to? There won’t be any new information presented, but we do need some advice
from Counsel.
MR. LAPPER-Well, if it’s being tabled, we’ll probably give a written response to the
Water Keeper, just since that was entered, because we didn’t have a chance to react,
because we just got the letter.
MR. HUNSINGER-Okay.
MR. HILL-Mr. Chairman, then you may want to consider, you previously closed the
public hearing. You may want to consider holding the public hearing open, just so
there’s a formal opportunity for anybody to comment on whatever submission may come
in.
MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. I’ll take the advice of Counsel and re-open the public hearing
and leave it open.
PUBLIC HEARING RE-OPENED
th
MR. HUNSINGER-Do we want to table this to an October meeting, the 28?
th
MR. OBORNE-The 28 is fine.
th
MR. SEGULJIC-The 28?
MR. OBORNE-Yes.
28
(Queensbury Planning Board 09/16/08)
MR. SEGULJIC-Okay.
MOTION TO TABLE PRELIMINARY STAGE SUBDIVISION NO. 13-2007 JOHN
FEDOROWICZ, Introduced by Thomas Seguljic who moved for its adoption, seconded
by Stephen Traver:
To the Planning Board’s October 28, 2008 meeting.
th
Duly adopted this 16 day of September, 2008, by the following vote:
AYES: Mr. Sipp, Mr. Traver, Mr. Seguljic, Mr. Hunsinger
NOES: NONE
ABSENT: Mrs. Bruno, Mrs. Steffan, Mr. Ford
MR. HUNSINGER-In fairness to the applicant, do we need to provide him with a copy of
the draft that was distributed among the Board?
MR. OBORNE-Draft resolution?
MR. SEGULJIC-Well, my only comment is that could change.
MR. HUNSINGER-Yes.
MR. LAPPER-We don’t need it tonight. I think that it’s part of the public record.
MR. HUNSINGER-I was going to say, it is on the record.
MR. LAPPER-Yes, we can get it from Staff, that’s fine.
MR. HUNSINGER-Okay.
MR. HILL-You had mentioned, Mr. Chairman, wanting advice from Counsel with respect
to, I guess, you’re talking about both SEQRA and the draft resolution.
MR. HUNSINGER-Right.
MR. HILL-Yes, and we’ll provide that prior to.
MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. Great. Thank you.
MR. SEGULJIC-Thank you.
SITE PLAN NO. 29-2008 SEQR TYPE UNLISTED JEFF PAULSEN AGENT(S)
DENNIS MAC ELROY OWNER(S) LATHAM ROAD, LLC ZONING RR-5A
LOCATION OFF PICKLE HILL RD., 0.5 MILES WEST OF RIDGE RD. APPLICANT
PROPOSES DEVELOPMENT OF A VACANT SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL LOT
WITH ASSOCIATED SITE WORK IN AN EXISTING SUBDIVISION. THIS PROJECT
HAS BEEN CLASSIFIED AS A MAJOR STORMWATER PROJECT; PLANNING
BOARD REVIEW AND APPROVAL IS REQUIRED. CROSS REFERENCE SUB 7-86
WARREN CO. PLANNING 7/9/08 APA/DEC/CEA L G CEA, APA WETLANDS LOT
SIZE 51.21 +/- ACRES TAX MAP NO. 266.3-1-38 SECTION CHAPTER 147
DENNIS MAC ELROY, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT
MR. OBORNE-The applicant is Jeff Paulsen, Site Plan 29-2008. The applicant proposes
development of a vacant single family residential lot with associated site work in an
existing subdivision. This project has been classified as a Major stormwater project.
Planning Board review and approval is required. I have one note that the lot size is
51.21 acres, and it is the final lot in Grant Acres.
MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. Thank you. Good evening.
MR. MAC ELROY-Good evening. I’m Dennis MacElroy with Environmental Design, with
applicants Kimberly and Jeff Paulsen. We were here in July, and presented the project,
the development of a single family residence on a 51 acre lot. The house site, as
indicated on the plans, results in a driveway of approximately 1500 feet. As a result of
that, the Zoning Administrator had determined that this should be a Major Stormwater
29
(Queensbury Planning Board 09/16/08)
Project. We had submitted the information associated with that, and at our July meeting
there were a list of items that the Board was seeking, and were made part of the tabling
resolution. Since that date in July, we submitted, prior to the August deadline,
information that would address the engineering comments. I think you should have in
your file a letter from Dan Ryan, which indicated satisfaction with the responses that we
provided to his numbered comments. We submitted an eight and a half by eleven plot
plan with the Town GIS information for wetlands, and gave some information related to
the house site in relationship to the wetlands that exist on that lot, and that’s
approximately 800 feet from the wetlands up to the house site. There is another area of
wetlands along that easterly boundary of the property that is approximately 200 feet from
the driveway, but between the driveway and those wetlands is another developed lot. I
think that we’ve satisfied that information. Comply with Chapter 147, large stormwater
project requirements. We’ve addressed some of the issues that were related to those, to
the major stormwater plan, comments that were made by this Board and also by Chris
Navitsky, and there’s written response and written information provided in that submittal
we made in August. Provide drywell test data, test pit data, and we’ve provided that on
the revised plan sheet. Provide electrical utility hook up information, and this was
something that was of interest not only of the Board, but of members of the public, last
time, and I just, I want to be very clear about this, that Jeff has been in touch with
National Grid. The plan for power supply is to be a buried supply coming directly from
Pickle Hill Road. There was some reference, at the last meeting, of maybe at some point
historically there may have been an easement or a right of way that was, may or may not
have been available that it is clear that it isn’t. So there’s no issue there in terms of
accessing power from Sunset Trail. I did talk personally with Dick Merrill, who’s the
owner of the property in question, and we understand what the situation is there, and
concurrently Jeff was talking with National Grid and plans to come directly off of Pickle
Hill Road with a buried supply, and the sixth thing mentioned in the tabling resolution
was clearing limits, and again, on the revised plan sheet we’ve provided an indication of
that area around this house site, of what would be intended. So I think that we’ve
addressed the issues that were requested.
MR. HUNSINGER-The transformer that’s approximately 100 feet from the house, is that
underground or does that sit on a concrete pad?
MR. MAC ELROY-I presume it would be typical sitting on a pad, similar to many of the
rest of us, with a buried supply.
MR. HUNSINGER-Okay.
MR. MAC ELROY-And that’s what National Grid has indicated to Jeff to where that
transformer location would be. So, with that, I guess I would turn it back to the Board
with any questions that you might have subsequent to our submittal of that information
that’s requested.
MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. Questions, comments from the Board?
MR. TRAVER-In looking at the Staff comments, one of the recommendations was that
we consider a no further subdivision restriction. Do you have any comment on that?
MR. MAC ELROY-That’s exactly the way the owners have purchased the, or are in the
process of purchasing the property. It is, it should be on the recorded subdivision plan in
the County indicating that it is a single, a lot that’s suitable for a single family dwelling.
That was the approval that was granted by a former generation of this Board. I’m not
sure what the date was when that Grant Acres phase whatever was approved, but that’s
our understanding that that was part of it.
MR. TRAVER-Okay. Is that the equivalent of a notation of no further subdivision?
MR. OBORNE-That would be, but that has not stopped future generations from
subdividing large parcels of land that were in the spirit of an approval of a subdivision
that had less than the acreage of the current zoning. In this case that is why this lot is as
large as it is. It’s because not all lots in Grant Acres are five acres.
MR. MAC ELROY-Right. My understanding is it’s just an early form of clustering. That
was the remaining lands that was left after smaller lots were created in that zone. The
owners indicate to me that they have not a problem with the condition or whatever, re-
affirmation of that condition. It’s, Kimberly tells me it’s also in the deed.
MR. HUNSINGER-It is in the deed?
30
(Queensbury Planning Board 09/16/08)
MR. MAC ELROY-Yes.
MR. HUNSINGER-Anything else, Steve?
MR. TRAVER-No.
MR. HUNSINGER-One of the questions I had is on the driveway, it’s the stone check
dams. You’re proposing to install ten?
MR. MAC ELROY-Right.
MR. HUNSINGER-How do you arrive at the number? I mean, why not 12 or 14 or 8? I
mean, is it a science or is it?
MR. MAC ELROY-Well, there’s some science to it, sure. It relates to an area, and
elevation, and how those are going to retain, and in effect they’re retaining that
stormwater so that you get a mini retention pond that allows for that infiltration within that
area. So the simple answer is, yes, there’s some science behind it, but how exact it is.
MR. HUNSINGER-Because I know one of the concerns from the neighbors, when we
were here in July, was concern about runoff coming down the driveway.
MR. MAC ELROY-Right, and I mean, that’s why you, it’s a Major Stormwater Project,
and why Craig determined that in the first place is that there’s, you know, the length of it,
the size of it, it generates a certain amount of runoff, but in compliance with those
regulations, that should remedy any concern about designed properly, constructed
properly, maintained properly. We have a good plan.
MR. HUNSINGER-What would likely happen if say one of them failed, or even two of
them failed?
MR. MAC ELROY-I’m not sure that there’d be much significance to that. They’re in a
good sandy soil for the most part. The test pits that we did, with the exception of one at
the very end, were good, sandy soils, and I was a little bit surprised, but I don’t think it
would be anything of a long term significance, to give you some kind of answer to that
question. Jeff reminded me, I mean, there’s an existing, he said right of way. It’s not
technically a right of way, but there is an existing path, trail, roadway there now. So,
while there will be more of the hard surface in that area, it will also be designed and
constructed to handle that. So I would say that it’ll be a more positive situation in the
future.
MR. HUNSINGER-Any other comments from the Board?
MR. SEGULJIC-No comments.
MR. HUNSINGER-We do have a public hearing scheduled this evening. Are there
members of the audience that want to address the Board on this application? Okay. We
do have some takers, if you want to give up the table. Good evening.
PUBLIC HEARING OPEN
RICHARD MERRILL
MR. MERRILL-Good evening. My name is Richard Merrill, resident of 6 Sunset Trail. I
also own Lot Number Seven, which is adjacent to the property in question, and it’s right
at the little hook at the top of the hill there, and just by way of background, the question
has been raised, and I think I’ve talked to Mr. MacElroy about this, about easements
across that property, and just by way of background, when Ed Grant first laid out what he
called Section One of Pickle Hill Acres, he did have a 50 foot connector into the property
in question. In 1973, he concluded that that property was not suitable for development.
He did not want to develop that. So he approached me about purchasing that 50 foot
section with the understanding that I would merge it with Lot Number Seven, which we
did. So I purchased that 50 foot strip for a very nominal sum, and that sort of closed off
access from Sunset Trail to the property in question. I have a copy of the deed here, and
it’s very clear, a simple description of the property, and it says intending to convey a strip
of land southerly and contiguous to Lot Seven, and to become a part thereof, and that
was the agreement I had with Mr. Grant to close that off from Sunset Trail, and there is
no easement, no right of way across there, and Mr. MacElroy has acknowledged that,
31
(Queensbury Planning Board 09/16/08)
and for the record, I would like to leave a copy of the deed, so if this question comes up
again, it’s on record. Thank you.
MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. Thank you. You can give that to Staff. Thank you. Anyone
else? Okay. If there are no other takers, why don’t you come on back. What’s the will of
the Board?
MR. SEGULJIC-Move along.
MR. HUNSINGER-Move along. Okay. I will close the public hearing.
PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED
MR. HUNSINGER-It is an Unlisted Action under SEQRA.
MR. SEGULJIC-Short Form.
MR. MAC ELROY-Short Form.
MR. SEGULJIC-Everyone ready?
MR. HUNSINGER-Ready.
MR. SEGULJIC-“Does the action exceed any Type I threshold in 6 NYCRR Part 617.4?”
MR. HUNSINGER-No.
MR. TRAVER-No.
MR. SEGULJIC-“Will the action receive coordinated review as provided for Unlisted
Actions in 6 NYCRR, Part 617.6?”
MR. HUNSINGER-No.
MR. TRAVER-No.
MR. SEGULJIC-“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. HUNSINGER-No.
MR. TRAVER-No.
MR. SEGULJIC-“C2. Aesthetic, agricultural, historic, or other natural or cultural
resources; or community or neighborhood character?”
MR. HUNSINGER-No.
MR. SIPP-No.
MR. SEGULJIC-“C3. Vegetation, fauna, fish, shellfish or wildlife species, significant
habitats, or threatened or endangered species?”
MR. HUNSINGER-No.
MR. SIPP-No.
MR. SEGULJIC-“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. HUNSINGER-No.
MR. SIPP-No.
MR. SEGULJIC-“C5. Growth, subsequent development or related activities likely to be
induced by the proposed action?”
32
(Queensbury Planning Board 09/16/08)
MR. HUNSINGER-No.
MR. SIPP-No.
MR. SEGULJIC-“C6. Long term, short term, cumulative or other effects not identified
above?”
MR. HUNSINGER-No.
MR. SIPP-No.
MR. SEGULJIC-“C7. Other impacts (including changes in use of either quantity or
energy)?”
MR. SIPP-No.
MR. HUNSINGER-No.
MR. SEGULJIC-“Will the project have an impact on the environmental characteristics
that caused the establishment of a Critical Environmental Area?”
MR. HUNSINGER-No.
MR. TRAVER-No.
MR. SEGULJIC-“Is there or is there likely to be controversy related to potential adverse
environmental impacts?”
MR. HUNSINGER-No.
MR. SIPP-No.
MR. SEGULJIC-Therefore I make a motion for a Negative Declaration.
RESOLUTION WHEN DETERMINATION OF NO SIGNIFICANCE IS MADE
RESOLUTION NO. 29-2008, Introduced by Thomas Seguljic who moved for its adoption,
seconded by Donald Sipp:
WHEREAS, there is presently before the Planning Board an application for:
JEFF PAULSEN, 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.
33
(Queensbury Planning Board 09/16/08)
th
Duly adopted this 16 day of September, 2008, by the following vote:
AYES: Mr. Traver, Mr. Seguljic, Mr. Sipp, Mr. Hunsinger
NOES: NONE
ABSENT: Mrs. Bruno, Mrs. Steffan, Mr. Ford
MR. HUNSINGER-Would anyone like to make a motion?
MR. SEGULJIC-Do we have any conditions? I don’t think so. Right?
MR. HUNSINGER-Well, I mean, the only thing we talked about is.
MR. SEGULJIC-Under no further subdivision.
MR. HUNSINGER-No further subdivision, but if it’s already on the deed.
MR. SEGULJIC-Well, why don’t we just put it in there anyway.
MR. HUNSINGER-Yes, maybe we should.
MR. SEGULJIC-And then we should state why. Is that what we have to do now?
Because we just can’t say no further subdivision.
MR. OBORNE-Excuse me. What’s the question? Sorry.
MR. HUNSINGER-Well, we were talking about any conditions of the approval. The only
conditions really come up is that there be no further subdivision. It’s already a deed
restriction.
MR. OBORNE-Correct.
MR. HUNSINGER-But Mr. Seguljic just said, you know, it certainly doesn’t hurt to put it
into the record again, and to say that, I think if we’re going to do that, I think we ought to
explain.
MR. OBORNE-At the end of my Staff Notes, I gave you a little sentence that will give it a
little more strength.
MR. HUNSINGER-Well, I think your explanation earlier was the better explanation,
which was the size of this lot was significantly larger than the zoning because the density
was used up in the previous subdivision.
MR. OBORNE-That’s correct, and we have one later on tonight that would fall under the
same purview of that thought. So basically, it has happened in the past that open space
has been subdivided. You just need to give it some teeth.
MR. SEGULJIC-So we want to say the lot was utilized to meet density requirements of
existing subdivision, of Grant Subdivision, of the existing Grant Subdivision.
MR. HUNSINGER-Grant Acres, yes.
MR. SEGULJIC-Grant Acres subdivision, and then we should also say the existing
wetlands, the existing on site wetlands.
MR. OBORNE-Correct.
MR. SEGULJIC-Okay.
MR. HUNSINGER-Yes, but it’s really more the density issue from the Grant Acres.
MR. SEGULJIC-I’m just trying to make a stronger, I’ve learned a lesson here.
MR. HUNSINGER-I understand, and I don’t think it hurts to clarify that.
MR. SEGULJIC-So that’s the only condition we’re going to have. Correct?
34
(Queensbury Planning Board 09/16/08)
MR. HUNSINGER-Yes.
MOTION TO APPROVE SITE PLAN NO. 29-2008 JEFF PAULSEN, Introduced by
Thomas Seguljic 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: Applicant proposes development of a vacant single family residential
lot in an existing subdivision. This project has been classified as a Major
Stormwater Project and, as such, Planning Board review is required
2)A public hearing was advertised and heard on 7/22/08 tabled to 9/16/08; 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;
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)NOT APPLICABLE: The Sanitary Sewer connection plan must be submitted to
the Wastewater Department for its review, approval, permitting and inspection;
and
10)MOTION TO APPROVE SITE PLAN NO. 29-2008 JEFF PAULSEN, Introduced
by Thomas Seguljic who moved for its adoption, seconded by Stephen Traver:
In accordance with the resolution prepared by Staff. Number Four complies.
Number Five, Negative. Eight and Nine do not apply. With the following
condition:
1.That no further subdivision will occur on the lot due to the fact that the lot was
utilized to meet density requirements of the existing Grant Acres subdivision,
and due to the existence of the on –site wetlands.
th
Duly adopted this 16 day of September, 2008, by the following vote:
AYES: Mr. Sipp, Mr. Seguljic, Mr. Traver, Mr. Hunsinger
NOES: NONE
ABSENT: Mrs. Bruno, Mrs. Steffan, Mr. Ford
MR. MAC ELROY-Thank you very much.
MR. HUNSINGER-You’re all set. Thank you. Good luck.
MR. MAC ELROY-I appreciate it. Thank you.
SITE PLAN NO. 34-2008 SEQR TYPE UNLISTED MORGAN MANAGEMENT,
ROBERT MOSER AGENT(S) RUCINSKI-HALL ARCHITECTURE ZONING LI
LOCATION 509 QUEENSBURY AVENUE APPLICANT PROPOSES A 5,621 SQ. FT.
35
(Queensbury Planning Board 09/16/08)
TWO-STORY EXPANSION OF EXISTING OFFICE SPACE FOR A CALL CENTER.
EXPANSION OF AN ALLOWABLE USE REQUIRES SITE PLAN REVIEW. CROSS
REFERENCE SP 27-98, SP 13-02 WARREN CO. PLANNING 8/13/08 LOT SIZE
2.79 ACRES TAX MAP NO. 279.12-1-2 SECTION 179-9-010
ETHAN HALL & TOM NACE, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT
MR. OBORNE-Site Plan 34-2008, Morgan Management, applicant Robert Moser. The
Site Plan Review for the expansion of allowable use in the Light Industrial zone, location
is 509 Queensbury Avenue. The zoning is Light Industrial. SEQRA Status is Unlisted.
Project Description: The applicant proposes a 5,621 square foot expansion with
associated grading, parking and stormwater controls to an existing 3,539 square foot
office. The total proposed square feet for this office when completed will be 9,160
square feet. I want to just go over the Staff comments briefly. The applicant has
submitted a detailed description of the project. According to this document, the stated
final square footage will be 8139 square feet. According to Staff the resulting square
footage as calculated from the Floor Area Ratio worksheet is 9,160 as stated above.
This may be an oversight, however, it has minimal bearing on parking calculations.
MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. Gentlemen, the floor is yours whenever you’re ready.
MR. HALL-Good evening. My name is Ethan Hall. I’m a partner with Rucinski-Hall
Architecture, and with me tonight is Tom Nace. We represent Morgan Management.
The site is in the Industrial Park up on Queensbury Avenue. It was formally Hilltop
Construction. It’s now owned by Morgan Management. They have their offices there for
their Management Company. They manage some of the local campgrounds, and
they’ve got campgrounds actually throughout the United States. They use the part of the
building for a call center now, and the expansion for the building is to provide corporate
offices for them, and to expand on their call center use. All of the construction for the
building is going to take place behind the existing building, up onto the bank. We’ve
provided some Site Plan information, some new driveway, some new parking areas,
because the parking in there is very limited now. They have a crushed stone parking lot
out back. That will become paved. We’ll use that paving area to capture stormwater.
We’re providing a stormwater basin down near the front of the lot, at the low end. It’s the
intent to make that kind of a wet pond. They’d like to be able to maintain some water in
there, similar to what has been done over at Angio Dynamics, and put kind of a fountain
in there, something along that line. Outside of that, it’s a pretty, relatively straightforward
project. I’d answer any other questions that you have, I guess.
MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. I’ll open it up for questions from the Board.
MR. TRAVER-Have you had an opportunity to look at the VISION Engineering
comments? And if so, do you see any, most of those are primarily technical in nature.
MR. HALL-Most of them are technical in nature. I don’t see anything that we really
couldn’t deal with. Tom and I were reviewing those before the meeting. We can kind of
go through them real quickly, but I don’t think there was anything in there. One of the
first ones is that it appears that the lots are being consolidated. That is, in fact, the case.
They are actually listed on the same deed. It’s just a consolidation of deed notes that will
have to go through Warren County and make sure that they do get consolidated, but we
can take care of that. That’s relatively straightforward. Everything else I think is pretty
straightforward to do. The only ones, well, I don’t know if there are any of them, Tom,
that you want to.
MR. NACE-Well, the only one that we really can’t accommodate, there was a comment
about the drainage at the very tail end of the driveway right down next to Queensbury
Avenue, and we just can’t get water to run uphill, so, short of pumping water up to the
pond.
MR. HALL-And in order to do some of that, I think we’d have to do a significant amount
of grading in the road right of way. The property line is quite a ways back, actually, from
Queensbury Avenue, due to the width of that right of way for that road.
MR. NACE-We’re only talking about a very small area that will continue, and it’s an area
that presently drains out to the existing drainage ditch, in the front of the lot.
MR. HALL-And then ultimately winds up going where we’re putting the water from our
outfall anyway.
36
(Queensbury Planning Board 09/16/08)
MR. TRAVER-With regards to the stormwater management issue, you noted, I’m sure,
on Staff comments, some discussion about the different soils involved and questioning
the placement of the stormwater management.
MR. NACE-Yes. We have not done test pits on the property. I decided to go with a wet
pond. Based on experience, I’ve done most of the site plans along that side of the road,
from there south, and have been into the soils, even where the soils map shows good
Charlton, sandy loam, it’s more of a silty loam than it is a sandy loam, and it’s really not
appropriate for infiltration. What we will do, we have a contractor coming in to do borings
for the structural analysis of the building foundations. If he finds good soil around the
building, we will decide at that point to use an eaves trench around the building to
infiltrate as much roof runoff as we can, but we would still keep the stormwater pond to
treat any access that doesn’t get infiltrated from that, plus the parking lot area.
MR. TRAVER-Thank you.
MR. SIPP-Under VISION comments here, Number Three, designation for a recycle
refuse area.
MR. HALL-Yes. We’re going to have to put a place for a dumpster, and I think probably
right at the back end of the parking lot, all the way at the back of the lot, would probably
be the best spot for that. It’s very high uphill, or not very high, but it is quite a ways
uphill, and it’ll be back away from the road. We can put it back there and we can actually
put a fence around it and kind of keep it enclosed.
MR. SIPP-Fenced off. All right. Number Four, I assume on the landscaping, C-4, this is
the EX trees.
MR. HALL-Yes.
MR. SIPP-Okay. Are they going to stay?
MR. HALL-All of the existing trees are going to stay, with the exception of there’s one
existing scotch pine that’s at the end of the existing driveway out front, and when we
expand that parking lot out front, that one’s going to have to go, but outside of that, all
the existing popal trees are going to.
MR. SIPP-That’s the one on the south side of the of the driveway?
MR. HALL-It would be on the north side of the driveway.
MR. SIPP-The north.
MR. NACE-If you look at C-3, you’ll see it. Right in the middle of the parking lot, there’s
a six inch Scotch pine.
MR. HALL-There’s just a little Scotch pine. The silver maple that’s right next to the
driveway is going to stay.
MR. SIPP-That stays.
MR. HALL-Yes.
MR. SIPP-Okay.
MR. HALL-And then all those big popal trees that are out there are intended to stay as
well.
MR. SIPP-And Number Six, collect the runoff from main entranceway to stormwater
system is that line that you have running down.
MR. NACE-Yes, that’s what we were just talking about that we really can’t, we’ve gotten,
we’ve collected as much as we can. The area that we cannot collect is the lower portion
of the driveway below the parking lot, plus a very small triangle that looks something like
that. So that this area in here is the only thing that would continue to, that’s existing
pavement now, that runs off to the ditch line, and it would continue to do so.
MR. HUNSINGER-So it runs into the ditch and not into the road?
37
(Queensbury Planning Board 09/16/08)
MR. HALL-Right.
MR. NACE-Correct. There’s enough of a crown in the existing driveway, and there’s a
fairly deep ditch line both sides of the driveway.
MR. HUNSINGER-That makes me feel better.
MR. HALL-Yes. It stays in the ditch line, and ultimately because it comes down around
the corner, and there’s a crossing, there’s a culvert crossing right there, coming across
County Line Road. Everything comes down and goes that way out by the bus garage.
Everything runs to that corner of the lot and then runs back, and that’s really where the
outfall from our wet pond is anyway. So it all winds up in the same spot, for all intents
and purposes.
MR. SIPP-Number Ten, the lighting at the site entrance.
MR. HALL-The lighting at the site entrance, the way this facility operates, he’s got two,
it’s really not a public business. I mean, he’s doing a lot of call center. There’s not a lot
of.
MR. SIPP-In and out.
MR. HALL-Yes, there’s not a lot of in and out. It’s people coming to work or leaving from
work. We are providing some lighting within the parking lot. Outside, I mean, they don’t
have public coming there. Anytime that they would be coming would be during daytime
hours, not necessarily at night, and it’s out in the industrial park, so I mean, I don’t.
MR. SIPP-Is there a new sign there? I know when northern, it was a, Hilltop.
MR. HALL-When Hilltop was in there. They have it in the same location that Hilltop sign
was in, but, yes, there is a sign. It’s just a little bit north of the driveway, and that is lit.
That’s got some ground lights that shoot up at it through the landscaping that’s around
the sign.
MR. SIPP-All right.
MR. HALL-And any light that we would want to provide down there, we’d wind up having
to put a light in the County right of way, and I think that would just be counterproductive
at this point.
MR. SIPP-Do you have provision for snow plowing, where you’re going to dump the
snow?
MR. HALL-Yes. We’ve got plenty of room to the south that they can bring everything up
and dump it off that way, and then there’s a fair amount of room to the north of that new
parking lot that they can push snow.
MR. HUNSINGER-Do you have any sense for what the uniformity ratio is for the site
lighting?
MR. HALL-We took a look at it real quick. I think we determined it’s somewhere around
eight or ten.
MR. NACE-Somewhere around eight or ten to one. That’s because the lowest area is .1.
It looks like the average is somewhere around .8.
MR. HALL-The only way to really change that would be to raise the poles, and I don’t
want to have 16, 18 foot poles. We’ve got 12 foot poles on an 18 inch base now. So in
order to make it, in order to change that, we’d have to raise up the poles. Rather than do
that.
MR. HUNSINGER-So where are the darker spots, they’re not in the parking lot, are they?
MR. HALL-No. Most of the darker spots are around the outside of the parking lot. We’ve
got good light. We’ve got some ground lights that are around, some bollard lights that
are around the walkways themselves. There’s a couple of lights that are already
mounted on the building, and then we’ve got some pole lights that we’re mounting
several spots.
38
(Queensbury Planning Board 09/16/08)
MR. NACE-The darkest spot is right up here in this corner, where it gets down to .1. The
rest of it looks like it’s, there is a dark spot in the driveway. The parking areas
themselves look like they’re around .6.
MR. HUNSINGER-I always liked having the smaller plans, but they’re a little harder to
read.
MR. HALL-It is kind of a drawback. Give and take. Yes. They run somewhere around
between eight and ten, which that’s relatively good numbers.
MR. HUNSINGER-Well, it’s not like that area’s very well lit, either.
MR. HALL-Right. Yes. You don’t have a super amount of light pollution spilling in
through anywhere else, but then again it is up in the industrial park.
MR. NACE-And it’s not customer service, you know, it’s not customers coming to the
building. It’s employees coming to the building, and when they’re going.
MR. HUNSINGER-So do they have more than one shift there?
MR. HALL-Yes. Right now he’s running about one and a half shifts. His intent is once
this is done he’ll be running shifts.
MR. HUNSINGER-So it’s not 24 hours.
MR. HALL-No. They don’t have a 24 hour day. They’re a call center. They do have a
couple of people that are there to answer the phones at night, over night, but they’re not,
I mean, they’re not fully staffed 24 hours a day.
MR. HUNSINGER-So when do the night staff tend to leave?
MR. HALL-Eleven. It usually runs until about three, and then three to eleven, seven to
three and three to eleven.
MR. HUNSINGER-What’s the feeling?
MR. SEGULJIC-I don’t have any issues with it. I mean, the engineering comments look
to be pretty minimal.
MR. TRAVER-Yes, if they can respond to the comments.
MR. HALL-Most of the work is being done behind the existing building.
MR. HUNSINGER-Yes. Well, we do have a public hearing scheduled, even though
there’s, most of the public has left. I will open the public hearing.
PUBLIC HEARING OPEN
MR. HUNSINGER-Any written comments, Keith?
MR. OBORNE-No, sir.
MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. All right. We will close the public hearing.
PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED
MR. HUNSINGER-It’s an Unlisted Action. Short Form.
MR. SEGULJIC-“Does the action exceed any Type I threshold in 6 NYCRR Part 617.4?”
MR. HUNSINGER-No.
MR. TRAVER-No.
MR. SEGULJIC-“Will the action receive coordinated review as provided for Unlisted
Actions in 6 NYCRR, Part 617.6?”
MR. HUNSINGER-No.
39
(Queensbury Planning Board 09/16/08)
MR. TRAVER-No.
MR. SEGULJIC-“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. HUNSINGER-No.
MR.TRAVER -No.
MR. SEGULJIC-“C2. Aesthetic, agricultural, historic, or other natural or cultural
resources; or community or neighborhood character?”
MR. HUNSINGER-No.
MR. SIPP-No.
MR. SEGULJIC-“C3. Vegetation, fauna, fish, shellfish or wildlife species, significant
habitats, or threatened or endangered species?”
MR. HUNSINGER-No.
MR. SIPP-No.
MR. SEGULJIC-“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. HUNSINGER-No.
MR. SIPP-No.
MR. SEGULJIC-“C5. Growth, subsequent development or related activities likely to be
induced by the proposed action?”
MR. HUNSINGER-No.
MR. SIPP-No.
MR. SEGULJIC-“C6. Long term, short term, cumulative or other effects not identified
above?”
MR. HUNSINGER-No.
MR. SIPP-No.
MR. SEGULJIC-“C7. Other impacts (including changes in use of either quantity or
energy)?”
MR. SIPP-No.
MR. HUNSINGER-No.
MR. SEGULJIC-“Will the project have an impact on the environmental characteristics
that caused the establishment of a Critical Environmental Area?”
MR. HUNSINGER-No.
MR. SIPP-No.
MR. SEGULJIC-“Is there or is there likely to be controversy related to potential adverse
environmental impacts?”
MR. HUNSINGER-No.
MR. SEGULIJC-No. Therefore I would make a motion for a Negative Declaration.
RESOLUTION WHEN DETERMINATION OF NO SIGNIFICANCE IS MADE
40
(Queensbury Planning Board 09/16/08)
RESOLUTION NO. 34-2008, Introduced by Thomas Seguljic who moved for its adoption,
seconded by Donald Sipp:
WHEREAS, there is presently before the Planning Board an application for:
MORGAN MANAGEMENT, ROBERT MOSER, 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 16 day of September, 2008, by the following vote:
AYES: Mr. Traver, Mr. Sipp, Mr. Seguljic, Mr. Hunsinger
NOES: NONE
ABSENT: Mrs. Bruno, Mrs. Steffan, Mr. Ford
MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. If we’re going to approve this subject to engineering
comments, I think there’s a couple of items that we might have to address ourselves, like
the lighting comments, 10 and 11.
MR. SEGULJIC-Well, can we just say the Board is satisfied with Number 10 and 11?
MR. HUNSINGER-Or that we accept the lighting plan as submitted.
MR. SEGULJIC-Even better.
MR. HALL-I think those were the big ones, the location of the recycle and refuse area I
think was a big one.
MR. HUNSINGER-Yes. It’ll be fenced?
MR. HALL-Yes, absolutely. We’ll put it up at the very back of the lot where that
turnaround is indicated. We’ll put it off the back there. We’ll put a fence around it.
MR. HUNSINGER-Okay.
MR. HALL-That’s the best spot for a truck to come in and make it anyway.
MR. HUNSINGER-It’s a straight shot in, yes.
MR. OBORNE-And if may add, when you do the resolution, specifically state where it’s
going to be placed.
41
(Queensbury Planning Board 09/16/08)
MR. SEGULJIC-Can we further define that? So at the, recycle refuse area to be fenced
and located.
MR. HALL-At the west end of the parking.
MR. SEGULJIC-Western most end of the parking area.
MR. HALL-Western most end of the parking lot.
MR. HUNSINGER-And you could even say in the turnaround area.
MR. OBORNE-Point to where it’s going to be? Is it going to be in the roadway? Not in
the roadway, but extending past the roadway so you can have access for the trucks to
come in and get it out. Fantastic.
MR. HALL-I don’t see this being a big waste maker. Actually, it’s an office. I really don’t
see there being a dumpster. I see there being a couple of rollaways that they have, for
the most part.
MR. HUNSINGER-And recyclables.
MR. HALL-Yes. Absolutely.
MR. SEGULJIC-Okay.
MOTION TO APPROVE SITE PLAN NO. 34-2008 MORGAN MANAGEMENT,
ROBERT MOSER, Introduced by Thomas Seguljic who moved for its adoption,
seconded by Donald Sipp:
A site plan application has been made to the Queensbury Planning Board for the
following: Applicant proposes a 5,621 sq. ft. two-story expansion of existing office
space for a Call Center. Expansion of an allowable use requires Site Plan Review.
A public hearing was advertised and heard on 9/16/08; and
This application is supported with all documentation, public comment and application
material in the file of record;
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
The requirements of the State Environmental Quality Review Act have been
considered and the Planning Board has adopted a SEQRA Negative Declaration;
and
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.
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
NOT APPLICABLE: If applicable, Item 7 to be combined with a letter of credit; and
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 SITE PLAN NO. 34-2008 MORGAN MANAGEMENT,
ROBERT MOSER, Introduced by Thomas Seguljic who moved for its adoption,
seconded by Donald Sipp:
In accordance with the resolution prepared by Staff. No. Four complies, No. Five,
Negative, No. Eight and Nine do not apply. With the following conditions:
42
(Queensbury Planning Board 09/16/08)
1. That a recycle refuse area be fenced and located at the western most edge of the
parking area.
2. To note that the Planning Board accepts the lighting plan as submitted.
3. That the other VISION Engineering comments be addressed. Specifically
VISION Engineering comments 1 through 8 and 12 through 15 be addressed.
th
Duly adopted this 16 day of September, 2008, by the following vote:
MR. HALL-Yes, actually Item Three we took care of. That’s the location of the refuse
recycling area, but that’s okay. Yes. We’re comfortable with that.
AYES: Mr. Traver, Mr. Sipp, Mr. Seguljic, Mr. Hunsinger
NOES: NONE
ABSENT: Mrs. Bruno, Mrs. Steffan, Mr. Ford
MR. HUNSINGER-Yes.
MR. SEGULJIC-Okay.
MR. NACE-Thank you.
MR. HALL-Thank you very much.
MR. HUNSINGER-Thank you. Good luck.
SITE PLAN NO. 31-2008 SEQR TYPE UNLISTED DELLA HONDA/MICHAEL DELLA
BELLA, SR. AGENT(S) B P S R; HUTCHINS ENG. OWNER(S) FAMIGLIA BELLA,
LLC ZONING HC-INT LOCATION 313 QUAKER ROAD APPLICANT PROPOSES
FAÇADE AND ENTRY UPGRADES AND CONSTRUCTION OF A 4,000 SQ. FT. TWO-
STORY ADDITION FOR ADDITIONAL SERVICE BAYS AND OFFICE SPACE.
EXPANSION OF AN ALLOWABLE USE REQUIRES SITE PLAN REVIEW. CROSS
REFERENCE SP 3-03, SV 49-99, BP 03-94 WARREN CO. PLANNING 8/13/08
APA/DEC/CEA DEC WETLANDS LOT SIZE 3.07 ACRES TAX MAP NO. 296.20-1-6
SECTION 179-4-020, 179-9-020
JON LAPPER & TOM HUTCHINS, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT
MR. HUNSINGER-Whenever you’re ready, Keith, summarize Staff Notes.
MR. OBORNE-One moment please. Site Plan No. 31-2008 Della Honda Michael Della
Bella, Sr. Site Plan Review for the expansion of an existing commercial business.
Location is 313 Quaker Road. Existing zoning is Highway Commercial Intensive. This is
SEQRA Unlisted type action. Project Description. Applicant proposes construction of a
4,000 square foot two story addition to include service bays and office space. Further
the applicant proposes façade and entry upgrades. Staff comments. According to the
conditions of approval for Site Plan 3-2003, and that being a two metal bay expansion off
of the east side of the building, dated 1/21/03, the applicant will not further encroach
upon DEC wetlands unless the property owner obtains a Freshwater Wetlands Permit as
stated in DEC letter of January 8, 2003. It appears that after Site Plan 3-2003 was
approved, a gravel overflow area, located in the rear of the property and adjacent to
flagged wetlands was laid down. Clarification of this action is needed. Site Plan Review
follows, and I assume that the Board has read the Site Plan Review.
MR. HUNSINGER-Thank you. Good evening.
MR. LAPPER-For the record, Jon Lapper, Michael Della Bella, Sr., and Tom Hutchins.
Very simply, this is somewhat analogous to the project that we brought before the Board
a few years ago for the General Motors franchises that the Della Bellas own next door
where we had to do a façade improvement to upgrade and modernize the façade in
accordance with the dealer requirements. What’s on the board behind us is what we’re
doing to satisfy the new Honda design standards for the dealership to upgrade the front
façade, which is that bump out and the curved blue line, and in the rear of the building,
as Keith said, a 50 by 80 addition, service bays downstairs, a corporate offices upstairs.
That entire building is being built on existing paved impervious surfaces. So in terms of
the Site Plan, not a significant change, and everything else in the front of the site, the
43
(Queensbury Planning Board 09/16/08)
display area, the outdoor display areas, we’re not proposing any changes. That’s what
has always been there. The only thing in the front that you’d see any different is just
what’s on the board behind us. No variances. So we hope that this’ll be viewed similar
to the project next door, just an upgrade and to create some more space in the back for
offices and for the service uses. The issue that Keith raised in the Staff Notes, the area
behind the building has always been used for storage of vehicles. DEC was out there
with Michael 30 days ago, and he can talk about that, and there’s no permit, nothing that
has to be done. They looked at everything. They flagged the wetlands, and there’s
nothing that has to be done to comply with DEC. We have the Staff Notes, and the
engineering notes, engineering comments, and we’re here to answer any questions.
MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. Questions, comments from the Board? There are quite a few
engineering comments.
MR. SIPP-Parking in the National Grid right of way.
MR. LAPPER-Yes, that has been there since this was a Ford dealership years before
they bought it, that parking that was there when we were, when the last approval that
Michael was here for. Nothing has changed. There’s no issue with National Grid. It’s
just, it’s always been there. Just like next door.
MR. SIPP-Now is this building going to be resided, similar to the one on Bay Road, or is
this going to remain the same type of siding, just the façade, the front part above Della?
MICHAEL DELLA BELLA
MR. D’ELLA BELLA-Just the front we’re going to do. It has to get a new face on the
front. That’s going to be effaced like you saw, but they require the one that damages
and dents. So we’ll have to put that up, but the rest of the building, no. The extension is
going to be metal, as the building is now. It goes right along the same. It’ll just be a little
higher. It’ll be the second story on the back for offices.
MR. SIPP-But that will all match?
MR. D’ELLA BELLA-That will all match what we have now.
MR. SIPP-Yes.
MR. LAPPER-There’s no trash receptacle. They use the trash next door, at the Pontiac
building. So there’s just no need for a trash receptacle. They just, they own both, and
they just moved the trash next door.
MR. HUNSINGER-Interesting.
MR. HUTCHINS-I would comment, I guess, with regard to engineering comments you
mentioned. A number of these comments apply to areas to the south, east and west of
the current building, which are essentially as is and what we did is documented what was
there, and left it to remain. That includes lighting levels. That includes parking layout
and vehicle display layout. So we did not attempt to redesign the site layout that they
have to the front and to the, or to the south, I’m sorry, or on the sides of the building.
He’s correct. The number of the display spaces may not meet corridor requirements for
parking spaces. It’s what it is, and that’s what we documented.
MR. OBORNE-If I can add to that, or just speak to that, typically the size of the access
roads are for emergency vehicles, and that should be taken into consideration. It’s pretty
tight in there, and I understand the business, I mean, totally. However, there doesn’t
seem to be very good access for emergency vehicles, but as I look up, even though this
is an ’04 picture, you’re coming in this way. You might want to note that because that’s a
better access area.
MR. LAPPER-And they are both owned by the same entity.
MR. OBORNE-Yes, I’m aware of that. Absolutely, but typically, you know that, it’s for
emergency vehicles is the main reason. I just wanted to speak to that.
MR. LAPPER-I guess, following up on that, we should point out that, because it was
mentioned in the notes about delivery trucks, and the delivery trucks come in through the
adjacent site as well. So it’s just, these two sites function together, and that would be the
same for emergency vehicles and for delivery trucks.
44
(Queensbury Planning Board 09/16/08)
MR. OBORNE-A comment to that sort would certainly help to clarify any of those issues.
MR. SIPP-Do the car carriers unload on this property or do they unload on the other and
drive over?
MR. D'ELLA BELLA-There’s the same trucking, we have to give the trucking people
directions on where to load and unload, and they come in from the General Motors side,
and leave the General Motors side. They usually unload, if it’s a Honda, they’ll unload in
the Honda lot so they don’t have to walk far, and they just turn around in it, or if it’s a
General Motors car, they go on the other side. To address some of those other things
about the parking, the flow through, the traffic, when we did the project in ’03, they asked
the same question on how do people get in and out, and we put a directional sign when
you come in the front exit of Honda that shows service to the right and sales to the left.
When we put the extension on, that’s the exact way that they follow. So the only thing
that’s missing now, it’s not that it’s missing, it’s wore out, are the arrows, directional
arrows, the ones that we put on the street, on the pavement. So once we complete the
project, then we’ll re-do the asphalt like we usually do when we finish up the building.
MR. SEGULJIC-My only comment deals with the lighting. As I look at the Code, maybe
Staff can enlighten me on this. There really isn’t anything for auto dealerships. It just
has commercial parking lots at two and a half. I see up to 15 and greater on this.
MR. OBORNE-Well, I think there is a dealership.
MR. SEGULJIC-There is?
MR. OBORNE-Yes. Automobile lots.
MR. SEGULJIC-Where is that?
MR. OBORNE-Twenty is the foot candles.
MR. SEGULJIC-Automobile. Right there. Okay. Sorry about that. Okay. So I wasn’t
paying attention. Automotive lots are 20. You guys are at 15 and below. I thought it was
two and a half. Sorry about that.
MR. LAPPER-It’s mostly for the security of vehicles.
MR. SEGULJIC-So really all you’re doing is doing the façade of the building and an
extension on the back. Are you doing anything with the side of the building, then?
MR. LAPPER-No.
MR. SEGULJIC-So it’s just going to match with the side of the building.
MR. D'ELLA BELLA-It’s going to match, I don’t know how far, I think it’s only like 50 feet
it’s going back, enough for three more stalls on each side.
MR. SEGULJIC-Okay.
MR. HUNSINGER-And the proposed colors are what are depicted on the colored
rendering?
MR. D'ELLA BELLA-Those are the colors.
MR. HUNSINGER-What color do you call the off white beige?
MR. LAPPER-We gave you that chart before. There’s like 16 whites.
MR. D'ELLA BELLA-Yes. What do they call it? There’s a color for that. It’s almost like
platinum, but they don’t call it that. It’s an off white. It’ll be the same that’s on there now,
that color, only it’ll be new.
MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. So it’s the existing color.
MR. D'ELLA BELLA-Right, the existing color. It’s just we don’t have the blue on the left,
the cylinder and the wave.
45
(Queensbury Planning Board 09/16/08)
MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. Any other questions or comments from members of the
Board?
MR. SIPP-Yes. I dislike having those cars parked almost on Quaker Road. Your
competition down the road and Saturn. They’ve got them practically in the roadway.
With the Buick end and the Pontiac end, at least you’re back a little ways, but I realize
you’re kind of restricted as to space to display cars, but it would be nice if it weren’t quite
up on the slope there that you have.
MR. D'ELLA BELLA-Typically that’ll come in the Spring or the Summertime. We can’t
put them up there in the winter, and most of the time, if not all, it would be the one that’s
in the ad. So there’s one on each side of that point all the time, whatever the feature car
is in the advertising on the weekend.
MR. SIPP-I dislike that boat display up there on Route 9 next to the Knights of Columbus
where they were 15 feet from the road and they had those monster boats sitting there, or
RV’s.
MR. LAPPER-I think that’s gone now. That site’s empty.
MR. SIPP-That’s gone now. It’s legal, but it doesn’t make it too good looking. Is there
another sign, outside of the Honda that’s on the building? Is there another freestanding
sign?
MR. D'ELLA BELLA-We’re going to leave the existing sign that’s on there now. It’s a
little under with what we’re allowed for the freestanding. When we go for the signage on,
we have Della Honda on the building now, right now. We’re under the square footage
required, because we’re 125 foot or more from the road. So our square footage for
signing will be okay.
MR. SIPP-But there is going to be another sign out closer to Quaker Road?
MR. LAPPER-No, that exists.
MR. D'ELLA BELLA-No, it’s there already, and it’s probably where the end of the blue
line is right now.
MR. SIPP-Okay.
MR. D'ELLA BELLA-It’s closer to where the driveway is between the two dealerships.
It’s right about there. It’s not like the Pontiac one.
MR. LAPPER-That freestanding sign is existing.
MR. D'ELLA BELLA-That’s existing. I’m not doing anything with it.
MR. HUTCHINS-It’s right here, that’s where the sign is now.
MR. SIPP-And that is a monument?
MR. D'ELLA BELLA-It’s a freestanding. I think it’s 25 or 20 feet tall.
MR. SIPP-Twenty-five.
MR. D'ELLA BELLA-Twenty-five.
MR. LAPPER-But in terms of like the aisle widths, we’re just proposing that, there’s not a
lot of room for display right there. So Michael’s not proposing to change anything. He
wishes he had more room. It’s just really the façade and the addition in the back.
MR. D'ELLA BELLA-They want one more handicap spot. I have two there now. They
want another one. So we’ll put another spot in for handicap parking.
MR. LAPPER-The utilities are not changing. It’s all just extending into the back of the
building that’s already there.
MR. D'ELLA BELLA-There was also something in there on the power. It’s not an electric
line. It looks like an electric line. It’s my cable for computer, data between the two
46
(Queensbury Planning Board 09/16/08)
buildings. It’s not electric. They’re talking about somewhere in there that they’re electric
lines. They’re not.
MR. LAPPER-That might have come up, however, at the pre-app meeting with the Staff.
MR. HUNSINGER-So where’s the additional handicap spot going to be located?
MR. D'ELLA BELLA-There’s two in the front of the building now.
MR. HUTCHINS-He’s suggesting one in back by the office addition.
MR. D'ELLA BELLA-Yes, wherever he said, that’s where we’ll put it.
MR. HUNSINGER-Anything else?
MR. TRAVER-No.
MR. HUNSINGER-Are members comfortable moving forward?
MR. SEGULJIC-Yes.
MR. TRAVER-With resolutions we can.
MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. We do have a public hearing scheduled this evening. Is there
anyone that wanted to address the Board?
PUBLIC HEARING OPENED
MR. HUNSINGER-It looks like it’s all family anyway. All right. I will open the public
hearing and I will close the public hearing.
PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED
MR. HUNSINGER-Again, it’s an Unlisted action. Short Form.
MR. SEGULJIC-“Does the action exceed any Type I threshold in 6 NYCRR Part 617.4?”
MR. HUNSINGER-No.
MR. SIPP-No.
MR. SEGULJIC-“Will the action receive coordinated review as provided for Unlisted
Actions in 6 NYCRR, Part 617.6?”
MR. HUNSINGER-No.
MR. TRAVER-No.
MR. SEGULJIC-“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. HUNSINGER-No.
MR. TRAVER-No.
MR. SEGULJIC-“C2. Aesthetic, agricultural, historic, or other natural or cultural
resources; or community or neighborhood character?”
MR. HUNSINGER-No.
MR. SIPP-No.
MR. SEGULJIC-“C3. Vegetation, fauna, fish, shellfish or wildlife species, significant
habitats, or threatened or endangered species?”
MR. HUNSINGER-No.
47
(Queensbury Planning Board 09/16/08)
MR. TRAVER-No.
MR. SEGULJIC-“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. HUNSINGER-No.
MR. SIPP-No.
MR. SEGULJIC-“C5. Growth, subsequent development or related activities likely to be
induced by the proposed action?”
MR. HUNSINGER-No.
MR. TRAVER-No.
MR. SEGULJIC-“C6. Long term, short term, cumulative or other effects not identified
above?”
MR. HUNSINGER-No.
MR. SIPP-No.
MR. SEGULJIC-“C7. Other impacts (including changes in use of either quantity or
energy)?”
MR. TRAVER-No.
MR. HUNSINGER-No.
MRS. STEFFAN-“Will the project have an impact on the environmental characteristics
that caused the establishment of a Critical Environmental Area?”
MR. HUNSINGER-No.
MR. TRAVER-No.
MR. SEGULJIC-“Is there or is there likely to be controversy related to potential adverse
environmental impacts?”
MR. HUNSINGER-No.
MR. TRAVER-No.
RESOLUTION WHEN DETERMINATION OF NO SIGNIFICANCE IS MADE
RESOLUTION NO. 31-2008, Introduced by Thomas Seguljic who moved for its
adoption, seconded by Donald Sipp:
WHEREAS, there is presently before the Planning Board an application for:
DELLA HONDA/MICHAEL DELLA BELLA, SR., 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.
48
(Queensbury Planning Board 09/16/08)
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 16 day of September, 2008, by the following vote:
AYES: Mr. Traver, Mr. Seguljic, Mr. Sipp, Mr. Hunsinger
NOES: NONE
ABSENT: Mrs. Bruno, Mrs. Steffan, Mr. Ford
MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. Would anyone like to put forward a motion?
MR. OBORNE-Mr. Chairman, can I make a comment real quick?
MR. HUNSINGER-Yes.
MR. OBORNE-Mr. Lapper, you had alluded to being out on the site with the DEC and
who is this?
MR. LAPPER-Michael can talk about that.
MR. D'ELLA BELLA-I’ve had two visits from DEC. The first one I requested the flagging,
not only to make sure it was correct, but also to look at the back properties behind.
Okay.
MR. OBORNE-Right.
MR. D'ELLA BELLA-They came in and they told me how they would like to see it for any
future development. It was the supervisor, Mark Migliore.
MR. OBORNE-Migliore, okay.
MR. D'ELLA BELLA-Then, on a subsequent visit, they took, there was one, probably
three people from DEC walked both sides of the property. There was, in 2003, they said
something about, and we have a letter in the file, Queensbury file, that says if I’m going
to do anything to the property within wetlands I have to call them, which is the reason we
called them now to put the building up, but we’re over, I think it’s 125 feet. It’s over 100
feet, or 125 feet from anything that they have jurisdiction with. So they said we have no
problem with it.
MR. OBORNE-Okay.
MR. LAPPER-And that was 30 days ago that they were out?
MR. D'ELLA BELLA-Yes. One was 30 days. The other was two, three weeks ago.
MR. OBORNE-Can we get a letter from Migliore? I mean, it’s stated specifically in the
approval of the addition, in ’93.
MR. D'ELLA BELLA-’03.
MR. OBORNE-’03. Sorry.
MR. D'ELLA BELLA-The letter says, I don’t know what it was, but it was like a block.
There were half a dozen blocks that I don’t know how they got there, but that was the
only thing that was in the wetland.
MR. OBORNE-Okay.
49
(Queensbury Planning Board 09/16/08)
MR. D'ELLA BELLA-We have that on file somewhere that there was no, it was so minor,
the problem they found was so minor, that there was no requirement from DEC. They
had no problem with having it, what do they call it when you have to fix it, remediation or
something, but I think that letter you have, it’s in the file.
MR. LAPPER-What was it, the concrete blocks?
MR. D'ELLA BELLA-Yes. It was some concrete blocks.
MR. OBORNE-I did not run across that letter, sir.
MR. D'ELLA BELLA-Okay.
MR. OBORNE-I think what I’m specifically alluding to is something from DEC that states
that they visited and that you do not need a Freshwater permit for that, wetlands permit
for that.
MR. D'ELLA BELLA-Okay. Yes, no problem.
MR. OBORNE-That would be, that would clean that file up.
MR. D'ELLA BELLA-Because they came, they wanted the map, because it’s delineated
on the survey map where the 100 foot thing is.
MR. OBORNE-Right. Yes. I’m not concerned. You’re well within, you know, you’re fine.
You’re definitely over 100 feet away, and you’re installing it on impervious surface as it
exists. I’m just going by what it says in the approval of the ’03 expansion, or that minimal
expansion that you had.
MR. D'ELLA BELLA-Okay.
MR. OBORNE-And I just want to be able to provide future planners with that
documentation.
MR. D'ELLA BELLA-Understood. Not a problem.
MR. LAPPER-So we’ll agree to that as a condition, to supply a DEC letter that no
permit’s needed for this project.
MR. OBORNE-Thank you.
MR. SEGULJIC-Any other conditions at all, engineering signoff?
MR. HUNSINGER-Engineering signoff, yes.
MR. LAPPER-A lot of the engineering comments we kind of went through and did away
with.
MR. SEGULJIC-Anything else?
MR. HUNSINGER-I don’t think so. Whenever you’re ready.
MOTION TO APPROVE SITE PLAN NO. 31-2008 DELLA HONDA/MICHAEL DELLA
BELLA, SR., Introduced by Thomas Seguljic who moved for its adoption, seconded by
Donald Sipp:
1)A site plan application has been made to the Queensbury Planning Board for the
following: Applicant proposes façade and entry upgrades and construction of a
4000 sq. ft. two-story addition for additional service bays and office space.
Expansion of an allowable use requires Site Plan Review
.
2)A public hearing was advertised and heard on 9/16/08; 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
50
(Queensbury Planning Board 09/16/08)
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)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)NOT APPLICABLE: The Sanitary Sewer connection plan must be submitted to
the Wastewater Department for its review, approval, permitting and inspection;
and
10)MOTION TO APPROVE SITE PLAN NO. 31-2008 DELLA HONDA/MICHAEL
DELLA BELLA, SR., Introduced by Thomas Seguljic who moved for its adoption,
seconded by Donald Sipp:
In accordance with the resolution prepared by Staff. Number Four complies.
Number Five, Negative. Number Eight does not apply. With the following
conditions:
1.That engineering comments 1 through 4, and 6 through 10 be addressed.
2.That the proposed façade and addition match existing building colors.
3.That the applicant submits a letter to Staff from the New York State
Department of Conservation indicating that the DEC visited the site and
determined that no freshwater permit is required.
th
Duly adopted this 16 day of September, 2008, by the following vote:
MR. LAPPER-Can we just talk about that? Because Michael doesn’t have the
ability to do the aisle width and make them larger, and that was one of the
engineering comments. So your motion said a signoff. So we’re going to have to
have some direction to the engineer about that.
MR. HUTCHINS-And also lighting, we didn’t want to re-look at the front lighting.
MR. LAPPER-Yes, we’re going to leave the lighting alone.
MR. HUTCHINS-Much of the lighting analysis is based on existing.
MR. LAPPER-Right.
MR. HUNSINGER-Maybe we specify which engineering comments they need to
address.
MR. LAPPER-Yes, that would be, if you could do that. We’re offering Number
One, the handicap space.
MR. HUNSINGER-Which we talked about. Well, for example, I mean, Item Two,
which is you should show the dimension of the aisle. I mean, there should be no
problem in just putting it on the plot.
MR. D'ELLA BELLA-The 25 foot thing, that’s not a problem, right?
MR. HUTCHINS-No, it’s not a problem, but the follow up may be that it the aisle
width is not.
51
(Queensbury Planning Board 09/16/08)
MR. LAPPER-No, Number Three now.
MR. HUTCHINS-Number Three is fine. That’s a typo in one of my charts.
MR. LAPPER-Okay.
MR. HUTCHINS-I apologize.
MR. D'ELLA BELLA-Existing light poles, they are there.
MR. LAPPER-So we’re just, on Number Four, we’re just going to.
MR. D'ELLA BELLA-No problem. There are light poles in those spots.
MR. HUTCHINS-There are light poles there.
MR. LAPPER-So existing. So we’re just going to say it’s existing. We can’t
conform with the aisle widths under Five.
MR. D'ELLA BELLA-They’re there, though.
MR. LAPPER-Right, but we can’t bring them up to 24 feet. So we would ask not
to conform with Five, because that’s existing, and there’s no room to do that, and
Six doesn’t apply, or Six there is no trash.
MR. D'ELLA BELLA-We don’t have loading, there’s no loading docks. We don’t
have them. We don’t need them.
MR. HUNSINGER-So really the only items that we really satisfied this evening
were Five and Eleven, the aisle widths and the lighting plan.
MR. LAPPER-That we’re not asking to be.
MR. HUNSINGER-Right.
MR. LAPPER-Yes.
MR. HUNSINGER-Is everyone on the Board in agreement with that?
MR. SEGULJIC-Well, if you could summarize all this, then. They have to
address One through Four.
MR. HUNSINGER-Yes.
MR. HUNSINGER-And Six through Ten.
MR. SEGULJIC-And Six through Ten.
MR. HUNSINGER-And that the Board is satisfied with the concerns expressed in
Items Five and Eleven.
MR. LAPPER-That’s fine.
MR. SIPP-The color.
MR. HUNSINGER-Yes, we probably should specify the color of the siding, Honda
white, as they put it.
MR. SEGULJIC-Can we just say as presented?
MR. HUNSINGER-Honda white as presented.
MR. OBORNE-Your existing colors are not changing, are they?
MR. D'ELLA BELLA-No.
MR. SEGULJIC-So the addition to match existing colors.
52
(Queensbury Planning Board 09/16/08)
MR. D'ELLA BELLA-Yes. Do you want me to leave my thing?
MR. LAPPER-Do you want that board? It doesn’t really fold.
MR. HUNSINGER-No, I don’t think so.
MR. SEGULJIC-Well, can I just say proposed façade and addition to match
existing building colors?
MR. LAPPER-Except for the blue bump out.
MR. D'ELLA BELLA-The Della Honda blue.
MR. HUNSINGER-The details are depicted on the plan, just not the colors.
MR. HUTCHINS-And I can provide a (lost word) copy of that.
AYES: Mr. Traver, Mr. Seguljic, Mr. Sipp, Mr. Hunsinger
NOES: NONE
ABSENT: Mrs. Bruno, Mrs. Steffan, Mr. Ford
MR. LAPPER-Thank you.
MR. HUNSINGER-You’re all set. Good luck.
MR. D'ELLA BELLA-Thank you, again.
SUBDIVISION NO. 11-2007 FINAL STAGE SEQR TYPE I LARRY CLUTE
AGENT(S) NACE ENGINEERING OWNER(S) SAME ZONING SR-20 LOCATION
BETWEEN GENEVA DR. & HOWARD ST. APPLICANT PROPOSES SUBDIVISION
OF A 7.81 +/- ACRES INTO 18 RESIDENTIAL LOTS RANGING IN SIZE FROM 0.34 TO
0.54 +/- ACRES. SUBDIVISION OF LAND REQUIRES PLANNING BOARD REVIEW
AND APPROVAL. AREA VARIANCE 52-2007 REFERRED TO PB FOR
RECOMMENDATIONS RELATIVE TO TRAFFIC IMPACT; LOT SIZES; DENSITY VS.
THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN; STORMWATER; DEVELOPMENT OF OPEN SPACE,
WHETHER IT WOULD BE POSITIVE OR NEGATIVE; 175 FEET CENTERLINE VS. 300
FEET CURVE. CROSS REFERENCE AV 52-07 WARREN CO. PLANNING N/A
APA/DEC/CEA/NYS DOH NYS DOH LOT SIZE 7.81 +/- ACRES TAX MAP NO.
301.20-1-11, 28, 29 SECTION A-183
JON LAPPER & TOM CENTER, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT
MR. OBORNE-Application Subdivision 11-2007, Final Stage. Applicant is Larry Clute.
Requested action, Final Stage subdivision review. The applicant proposes the
subdivision of 7.81 acres into 18 residential lots. Planning Board review and approval
required for the subdivision of land. I do want to note that the applicant’s agent has
informed Staff that blue lupine is present on the property as the result of a recent
Department of Environmental Conservation visit. The Planning Board may consider re-
opening SEQRA in order to determine the extent of Karner blue habitat on the property.
I think we’re all familiar with the description. I’ll go over it real quickly. The applicant
proposes subdivision of 7.81 acres into 18 residential lots, ranging in size from 0.34
acres to 0.56 acres. Staff Notes also reflect the conditions of the Preliminary subdivision
approval, and I’d turn it over to the applicant and the Board.
MR. HUNSINGER-Thank you. Good evening.
MR. LAPPER-Good evening. For the record, Jon Lapper, Larry Clute and Tom Center.
Let me just explain what the issue is with DEC. We were here for the recommendation
for the variance for the lot size, which you approved and also reviewed SEQRA and
granted a Neg Dec. Then we went to the Zoning Board and got the variance. Then we
came back and got Preliminary subdivision approval, and we had expected to quietly get
Final subdivision approval, and we were contacted last week by DEC that one of the
neighbors had contacted DEC and asked them to come out and look for butterflies, and
essentially this is the type of land, because of the whole problem here with having
unauthorized people riding motorcycles and dirt bikes and ATV’s, that’s, when you have
sandy soil, that’s the kind of site disturbance that encourages emergent growth, which is
what blue lupine is. So we had DEC come out last week, Kathy O’Brien. She located a
53
(Queensbury Planning Board 09/16/08)
few plants. Her correspondence, which we’ll go through with you, essentially says that
there’s not enough for a Karner blue habitat which is an endangered species. It’s
possible that there’s enough for Frosted Elfin, which is a threatened species, but not an
endangered species, and knowing how this has been treated by Kathy in the past, we
suggested that the mitigation area that was done by Rich Schermerhorn when we had a
subdivision approved on Sherman Avenue, with the theory that it would be a larger
concentrated area that would be protected, that we could dedicate, and that could be, the
trees could be cleared and it could be planted with blue lupine so it would be a significant
permanent Karner blue habitat, rather than having isolated pockets that aren’t protected,
that don’t help. You either have the problem that the emerging species are overcome by
trees, as, that just develop, because you have to keep mowing them and maintaining
them to keep the blue lupine, or you just have people come in and destroy it because it’s
not protected. So what we did in the last few days after the site visit was to propose,
Larry, coincidentally and fortunately, owns land immediately adjacent to the land that
was conveyed by Rich Schermerhorn. So we offered DEC that we would provide them
with a half acre to make that area even bigger, and on the phone, Kathy said, what else
can you do for us in terms of helping us develop it. So we agreed on Larry’s behalf that
he would be responsible for clearing, grubbing, stumping the area that DEC would
determine exactly what they wanted as a treed buffer on this half acre to extend the area,
and that Larry would be responsible for doing the clearing, not planting, because that’s
something that’s specialized. DEC would do the planting, but that we would convey the
property and do the clearing, and grant them access, grant an easement for DEC. So
we came to this agreement. We’ve provided this to them in writing. They came back in
writing and said that they accept it, but that they wanted it to be a condition of any
approval, which, of course we’re in agreement with. So we’ve got that correspondence,
of course, we just received it today. So we’re just happy to have it. It’s the first time
you’ve seen it, but it basically acknowledges that it’s not helpful to have a few plants in
an area where they’re not protected, but that this would be helpful, and because it’s
contiguous to the existing blue lupine area in Town, it’s, you know, probably something
helpful, and in the future, you know, very likely. Instead of donating land, other people
that had to mitigate might be able to donate money for maintaining it. I mean, there are
all sorts of things you can do to preserve it, but the area is the kind of sandy soil that
promotes lupine growth in that area of Town. So we came to that. We didn’t expect any
of this, but came to that agreement with DEC, knowing what’s happened in recent history
in Queensbury, and they’re happy and we’re happy, and we hope that it’s satisfactory to
the Board.
MR. HUNSINGER-So DEC would actually come out and do the plantings?
MR. LAPPER-Yes.
MR. HUNSINGER-Wow.
MR. LAPPER-They have people that do that.
MR. CENTER-I don’t believe you can buy the lupine like that. There’s some issues
about planting and establishing the lupine that they do it.
MR. LAPPER-It’s very, it’s difficult. You need seeds and.
MR. HUNSINGER-So how do you protect the site, then?
MR. CENTER-What she, speaking with her on the phone, protecting, if it was adjacent to
the existing parcel, one of the conditions that she asked was that DEC set the clearing
limits, so that there is a treed buffer to the power lines that tries to stop the ATV’s from
having access onto the area that’s cleared, similar to what they’ve done for Burnt Hills
and the other subdivisions over there with plantings and notices in the areas about trails,
but, you know, I think the biggest thing that she’s looking for is, and that the literature
pretty much says is continuation, they need the patches, large amount of lupine will draw
the butterfly, and it’s better to have larger areas of habitat for them. So, her thought is to
provide some kind of buffer from the power lines when they do clear it.
MR. LAPPER-By keeping the existing trees.
MR. CENTER-By keeping the existing tree line on the back side of it and then planting in
there, and in the future, the other area that Schermerhorn had is a lupine bank which
they plan on doing additional lupine in the future. That’s what Jon was talking about.
MR. HUNSINGER-How big is the Schermerhorn area that was set aside?
54
(Queensbury Planning Board 09/16/08)
MR. LAPPER-Four acres I think.
MR. CENTER-Four or fourteen. I thought it was 14. It’s either four or fourteen, but it’s
contiguous to, you know, right adjacent, and do you have the initial letter dated
th
September 15 from Jeb Hadden?
MR. SEGULJIC-Yes.
MR. HUNSINGER-Yes, we do.
MR. LAPPER-We have now a letter from Nace Engineering, from Tom Center, and the
reply letter from Kathy to give you.
MR. HUNSINGER-Do you have copies for everyone?
MR. LAPPER-Yes.
MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. We were debriefing before the meeting, and it really was my
intention to table this, not knowing you had been able to go this far.
MR. LAPPER-Yes. Usually with an agency you can’t get something done this fast, but
there’s a protocol here, in Queensbury. So somehow it all happened quickly.
MR. HUNSINGER-So the parcel being offered is actually in the neighborhood. Am I
reading this right?
MR. LAPPER-No. It’s not in this neighborhood. It’s on the other side.
MR. CENTER-It’s on the other side of Sherman Avenue.
MR. HUNSINGER-Okay.
MR. LAPPER-Actually, what’s the one that Rich did?
MR. CENTER-Well, it’s now Farone’s parcel. I believe Farone bought it. It’s not
Sherman Pines.
MR. CENTER-Westberry Way.
MR. LAPPER-I can’t think of the name of the subdivision.
MR. TRAVER-What about the issue regarding the half acre of property being given to the
Town?
MR. LAPPER-Yes. We will dedicate it. The Town owns, the 14 acres that we were
talking about, the Town owns that.
MR. TRAVER-Okay.
MR. LAPPER-So we’ll dedicate it to the Town.
MR. TRAVER-So it’ll just be an expansion of property the Town already has.
MR. LAPPER-Exactly, that was dedicated to the Town just for that purpose, for a Karner
blue habitat, or a blue lupine habitat.
MR. HUNSINGER-It says here what DEC proposes if the Town doesn’t accept it, but in
terms of our approval.
MR. LAPPER-Well, you could condition it because we, the Town Board has been very
serious about the Karner blue because they realize that that area, the sandy soils are
good habitat. So I think because DEC wants it, I don’t anticipate a problem. I think the
Town would encourage it.
MR. HUNSINGER-Everyone had a chance to look at it?
MR. SEGULJIC-Yes. So what do we do about SEQRA then? Do we re-open that?
55
(Queensbury Planning Board 09/16/08)
MR. HUNSINGER-Well, yes, the discussion that we had with Counsel before the
meeting was that we should re-open SEQRA because there’s new information.
MR. CENTER-She does say that the Karner blue, it is unlikely that the Karner blue was
on that lot. It becomes more in the Geneva area is what becomes more of an issue with
the Frosted Elfin.
MR. LAPPER-Which is not endangered.
MR. CENTER-Which is not endangered, than the Karner blue. So I’m not sure.
MR. LAPPER-Keith, can you find this on the Tax Map Number?
MR. OBORNE-I don’t have Wi Fi.
MR. LAPPER-Okay.
MR. OBORNE-Believe it or not (lost word).
MR. TRAVER-Well, Mr. Chairman, if this new information has been, since we did the
SEQRA review, has both been brought to our attention and mitigated before tonight, do
we still need to re-open SEQRA?
MR. OBORNE-I’ll choose my words carefully. I would suggest that you do open, re-open
SEQRA again because of the information. I wish Mike was here right now. He was
aware that there was this letter or fax from Kathy. I found it at 6:15 tonight. We haven’t
had a chance to vet it in any way, shape. Staff has not really looked at it at all. That
would be my recommendation. However, there is a fine line here, absolutely, since it
seems to have been mitigated, and I would have to bounce it back to you to make a
decision, but as a recommendation from me, I would re-open SEQRA.
MR. SIPP-If we said this was mitigated by actions of DEC and the property owner and
the Town, is that enough to say mitigation has taken place so that this would not be
impacted?
MR. OBORNE-If you’re comfortable with that, I can’t tell you not to do it. I can just
recommend that you shouldn’t, just for the reason that Staff and the Department of
Community Development has not even seen this at this point, but at the same token, if
you feel comfortable with it, I can’t say no if you want to approve this.
MR. HUNSINGER-Well, I’m just thinking in terms of, for example, Site Plan modifications
where, as part of the resolution for the modification we have the standard language in
there about the Planning Board reconsidering SEQRA and either affirming the previous
finding or not, or sending it back for further information. I mean, obviously we can’t
ignore the information that was just presented before us, and certainly, I mean, even by
this discussion we’ve revisited the SEQRA findings.
MR. LAPPER-I think it would be helpful to have something on the record that you’ve
reviewed this, but I do think that there’s nothing significant here, in terms of this site,
based upon, you know, what Larry is doing is more positive than losing a few isolated
plants that are going to get trashed by ATV’s anyway. So, I mean, however you want to
handle it is fine with us. It doesn’t, it would probably be a good thing to mention it in any
resolution that you’ve considered it, but I just, I can’t see that there’s anything significant
about, I think, you know, this is similar to the resolution that we’ve made on other
properties in Town that have been acceptable to the Board and DEC.
MR. HUNSINGER-Yes, and I guess just to conclude my thought, in terms of re-visiting
SEQRA, I think there’s different ways to re-visit SEQRA. One is to take out the Short or
Long Form and go through the whole SEQRA process again, but I think that requires a
public hearing, if I’m not mistaken. Right? So we would have to table the application,
and warn a public hearing.
MR. OBORNE-Yes, but I also believe that in order to re-open SEQRA, you will need to
have, I believe, the approval or the blessing of the applicant. If you don’t do that, you’ll
never get a Final approval. That is my understanding. Again, I’m not the Counsel.
MR. HUNSINGER-Since we already closed SEQRA.
MR. OBORNE-Since you already closed SEQRA and closed the public hearing.
56
(Queensbury Planning Board 09/16/08)
MR. HUNSINGER-We have to come to a resolution within 60 days. Yes.
MR. LAPPER-My thought would be this, that if, in a resolution, in a conditioned
resolution of approval, which would certainly be conditioned upon us conveying this to
the Town, that you could state that you’ve reviewed this and based upon the dedication
that there’s nothing significant in terms of SEQRA, so that it’s not necessary to open it up
after you’ve reviewed all this correspondence, but, you know, certainly I don’t want you
to do anything you’re not comfortable doing. I just don’t see how you get to significant
based upon the DEC letter.
MR. HUNSINGER-Well, we also don’t want to do anything that’s not correct, because we
don’t want to have to re-visit this again.
MR. LAPPER-Yes. I don’t see that there’s anything either way that, you know, I think it
can be handled in a number of ways without a big fuss.
MR. HUNSINGER-Well, what’s the feeling of the Board? I mean, is the Board
comfortable enough with the documentation submitted this evening that we could go
forward?
MR. SEGULJIC-Well, I guess if we could just re-visit the, if the Town doesn’t take it, then
what happens?
MR. LAPPER-Then we have to come back. Then we’d have to come back, but I don’t
see that as an issue. I’m not concerned about that. So that’s why we’d agree to that as
a condition.
MR. SEGULJIC-So that would mean that’s part of the Board accepting a SEQRA, that is
part of the mitigation plan. So if that does not occur.
MR. LAPPER-Then we’d have to come back. Yes.
MR. SEGULJIC-Then you’d definitely have to come back and probably have to definitely
re-open SEQRA because your mitigation plan didn’t work.
MR. LAPPER-Yes, and that’s okay. That’s agreeable. I don’t mind that risk because I
think the Board will be happy, do what DEC wants. It’s a good solution.
MR. TRAVER-Well, my sense, with regard to, my feeling with regards to SEQRA, since
this is, the issue has come into question as far as whether we should re-open SEQRA
with this new information, I’m more comfortable with going with a recommendation by
Staff that we do re-open SEQRA and consider this new information, having re-opened
SEQRA.
MR. HUNSINGER-Can you clarify what you mean by that? You mean warning another
public hearing?
MR. TRAVER-We have to have another public hearing in order to open SEQRA?
MR. HUNSINGER-Right.
MR. SEGULJIC-Well, if we re-open it we have to have another public hearing.
MR. TRAVER-Right. Well, that’s unfortunate, but I think that the, it’s my feeling that this
is going to be, we’re more properly going to be addressing this application and this new
information from DEC by following that process. I just feel more comfortable, if we are
going to be making a decision with regards to SEQRA with the new information but then
some very, very new information regarding mitigation that’s already been negotiated, I
would rather err on the side of doing the formal SEQRA process than just saying, well,
this looks fine and not doing that. That’s just my.
MR. LAPPER-Let me offer that perhaps it should just be tabled tonight because when
you talked to Counsel, they didn’t get to see this, and we understand. I mean, we’re
really happy that we got this done, but we apologize that we just got it done today. So if
we table it and you get this information to Counsel, they can look at it and see whether
they still suggest, whether they need SEQRA, yes.
MR. HUNSINGER-Whether or not we need to warn another public hearing.
57
(Queensbury Planning Board 09/16/08)
MR. TRAVER-That would be acceptable to me.
MR. LAPPER-I mean, because it’s not fair that you asked the question without having
the documentation in front of you with Counsel, and so we would be fine with that.
MR. TRAVER-It would also give Staff an opportunity to look.
MR. LAPPER-Yes, and whatever the decision is is fine with us, just, you know, as long
as everybody’s comfortable with it, but perhaps after they see it, it won’t be necessary to
open SEQRA.
MR. TRAVER-That works for me.
MR. HUNSINGER-So, Keith, I guess we would have Staff get advice from Counsel as to
whether or not we should warn a new public hearing for SEQRA, or if, based on the
information.
MR. TRAVER-Well, review the information and then decide what action is appropriate.
MR. HUNSINGER-I’m happy to contact Counsel.
MR. SIPP-I think that’s the safest way out.
MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. I mean, we’re going to go with Counsel’s recommendation.
MR. LAPPER-Either way, yes, we understand that.
MR. TRAVER-And that alleviates my concern, certainly. That way we’re erring on the
side of let’s make sure we’re doing things.
MR. HUNSINGER-Okay.
MR. SEGULJIC-So what exactly are we requesting Counsel to do?
MR. HUNSINGER-We’re going to table it so that we can seek the advice of Counsel to
determine whether or not we need to warn a new hearing for SEQRA.
MR. LAPPER-After they review the documentation from DEC.
MR. HUNSINGER-Yes, based on the information submitted by DEC this evening.
MR. TRAVER-New information.
MR. LAPPER-Make sure Counsel gets our recent letter, not just the last one.
MR. HUNSINGER-So we’re not putting any burden on Staff. We’re asking Counsel’s
advice.
MR. OBORNE-That’s fine. The only burden on Staff would be 10 minutes of our time to
read it and to vet the numbers that are down, as far as what the properties are and
looking at what the histories are of the properties, and basically to vet the letter, and
having spoke to Counsel before, I think it would be wise, absolutely, to have him do that.
MR. HUNSINGER-Because that was their recommendation at the beginning of the
meeting, is that we table this, warn a new hearing, and re-open SEQRA.
MR. OBORNE-Right. If we have to re-open SEQRA, there will be public comment, but it
would seems to me that it would be wrapped up by then.
MR. LAPPER-Right. We understand that.
MR. OBORNE-But I don’t know.
MR. LAPPER-Okay. I mean, I think they’re going to be happy when they see the
documentation. Let’s see what happens.
MR. HUNSINGER-Do you think there would be a need for any new submission?
58
(Queensbury Planning Board 09/16/08)
MR. LAPPER-No.
MR. HUNSINGER-There’s no new information that you feel you need to submit.
MR. LAPPER-No. I think this closes the issue.
MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. So, I mean, we can table this easily to an October meeting.
MR. OBORNE-Absolutely.
st
MR. HUNSINGER-I don’t see why we don’t do it at the first October meeting, the 21.
MR. SEGULJIC-So we’ll request that Counsel review the information submitted by the
applicant regarding the blue Karner butterfly to determine if it warrants re-opening of
SEQRA? Is that what we want, then?
MR. HUNSINGER-Yes.
MR. SEGULJIC-Okay.
MR. LAPPER-It’s really blue lupine, because there’s no Karner butterfly.
MR. SEGULJIC-Blue Karner butterfly habitat. How’s that?
MR. OBORNE-Karner blue.
MR. CENTER-Actually the habitat that she’s looking at is the Frosted Elfin for this lot.
MR. OBORNE-I would just, per the letter, reference the letter by DEC and Kathy O’Brien.
MR. LAPPER-Dated today.
th
MR. SEGULJIC-Regarding DEC’s September 16 letter.
MR. HUNSINGER-My guess is we’re going to warn a new public hearing.
MR. LAPPER-It’s possible, but I mean, whatever way it goes is fine.
MR. HUNSINGER-Yes, okay. That would be the most conservative approach.
MR. SEGULJIC-So are we set to make a motion?
MR. HUNSINGER-Yes, whenever you’re ready, Tom.
MOTION TO TABLE SUBDIVISION NO. 11-2007 FINAL STAGE LARRY CLUTE,
Introduced by Thomas Seguljic who moved for its adoption, seconded by Donald Sipp:
And request that Council review the information submitted by the applicant regarding the
th
NYS DEC’s September 16 letter, to determine if it warrants re-opening of SEQRA.
st
Tabled to the October 21 Planning Board meeting.
th
Duly adopted this 16 day of September, 2008, by the following vote:
AYES: Mr. Traver, Mr. Seguljic, Mr. Sipp, Mr. Hunsinger
NOES: NONE
ABSENT: Mrs. Bruno, Mrs. Steffan, Mr. Ford
MR. HUNSINGER-Thank you.
MR. LAPPER-One more comment under any other business before Town. I would just,
on the Fedorowicz application, I would just appeal to Tom. I know you feel really
strongly about that. I would ask you to reconsider. I think we were really upset about the
fact that it was a condition and I really feel like we’ve done everything we have to, and I
just have no taste for arguing with the Board. I mean, we tried to settle everything, and
we really have tried to satisfy you. I understand it hasn’t happened yet, but I’d just ask
you to reconsider that. I know you feel strongly, but our goal is to.
59
(Queensbury Planning Board 09/16/08)
MR. SEGULJIC-Okay. Well, I shall reconsider it.
MR. LAPPER-Okay. Thank you.
MR. SEGULJIC-Thank you.
MR. HUNSINGER-Thank you. Any other business before the Board? I had a question
for Board members, and I don’t know if I would have done this if the press was here. Did
everybody get a copy of the memo from Counsel on Schermerhorn?
MR. SEGULJIC-Yes.
MR. TRAVER-Yes.
MR. HUNSINGER-Also the Article 78 proceedings?
MR. TRAVER-Yes.
MR. SEGULJIC-Yes.
MR. HUNSINGER-Okay.
MR. SIPP-Why hasn’t it been in the newspaper?
MR. HUNSINGER-That was what I was wondering. It was like I knew I got it.
MR. TRAVER-If it had gone the other way you can bet it would have.
MR. HUNSINGER-Yes.
MR. SIPP-I showed it to Tanya because she hadn’t gotten it yet, and I said this will
probably be in the paper tomorrow, and nothing.
MR. OBORNE-I don’t even understand why they brought it to trial. I mean, they’re going
to have to do an EIS regardless. I don’t understand, but I’m not Counsel. Concerning
the SEQRA forms that need to be signed. It was for VMJR specifically, and any SEQRA
form in the future, with your approval, I don’t want to take you out of the loop, but as
you’re doing your SEQRA forms, I’m going to follow behind you and then hand you a
form to sign.
MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. That’s typically what’s been done.
MR. OBORNE-Okay.
MR. HUNSINGER-I don’t remember signing one in a long time.
MR. OBORNE-Yes. No, we see SEQRA forms in any of the files. It hasn’t been done in
ages from what I understand.
MR. HUNSINGER-Yes, I remember doing it in the past, but I haven’t done it in a long
time.
MR. OBORNE-And I know Staff has been burdened, prior to my arrival, and I don’t want
to sound flip, but they’ve been burdened with not having a Land Use Planner, and as
such, you usually don’t get the pictures. You don’t get, you know, the aerial photos, and
at the same time you don’t get the attention to detail that you typically would get. So I
really would like to tighten up on the EAF’s, and EIS’s, if it comes to that, on any Pos
Dec’s, which we haven’t had.
MR. HUNSINGER-I just want to make sort of a comment to the Board, too. I appreciate
the Board’s indulgence this evening, as well as the other meetings this month. When we
set the agenda, I did have some back and forth with the Zoning Administrator. I was
concerned about loading the meetings up too much, but, you know, we did have a pretty
big backlog. So I’m really challenging the Board this month to get through a lot of
material and a lot of information on the three meetings. I mean, all three meetings are
over full, compared to our normal, but I felt it was necessary to get the backlog done so
that we could avoid additional meetings next month as well. So I just want to make that
comment to those members of the Board. Hopefully I’ll get an e-mail out before next
week, and hopefully we can get through them as quickly as we did this evening.
60
(Queensbury Planning Board 09/16/08)
MR. SEGULJIC-Well, that’s what we’re here for.
MR. SIPP-Maybe we should only have four. If we only have four people here there’s
less talk, less questions.
MR. HUNSINGER-Yes, it goes quicker.
MR. TRAVER-And I would just say, again, that my preference has always been, and I
appreciate having a third meeting, instead of going until the wee hours with the same
agenda. So I think occasionally scheduling a third catch up meeting is, I think, a very
appropriate and effective way of managing.
MR. OBORNE-Watch out for next month, too.
MR. TRAVER-We’re going to have to go to four meetings next month?
MR. OBORNE-No, but, I mean, we’re getting full again. Again, a lot of commercial.
MR. TRAVER-And three tonight we tabled?
MR. OBORNE-Yes, three you tabled tonight. We still haven’t even touched on the Mall,
and the cell tower. We’re going to have another cell tower coming in also.
MR. TRAVER-Right, the same thing, basically.
MR. HUNSINGER-Any reason for why we’re seeing cell towers again? Do you know?
MR. OBORNE-No.
MR. HUNSINGER-Because we had a flood of them, you know, five, six years ago, and
then we didn’t hear anything for four or five years.
MR. TRAVER-I assumed it was related to the desire to expand the service area.
Because if you go from 50 to 120 feet, that’s a geometric increase in the, because it’s
line of sight.
MR. HUNSINGER-Yes, it’s propagation. I haven’t looked at the maps yet.
MR. TRAVER-Yes. So it’s a huge increase in coverage area.
MR. SIPP-That’s not the place for it if they want to, you know, right up on West Mountain,
to me, would be a better solution than down there, and on the fire department’s roof.
MR. OBORNE-There are different.
MR. SIPP-I suppose there’s different wavelengths.
MR. OBORNE-It’s a different, well, as far as that, I’m not sure, but it is a different process
that they go through to get approval. It’s not your normal process. It’s Rosenburg’s
statutes that you have to follow. So, it’s a little easier for them actually, maybe.
MR. HUNSINGER-Yes. I’m not sure how many members of the Board have gone
through one. Like I said, it’s been quite a while.
MR. TRAVER-I never have, not a cell tower.
MR. SIPP-I was in the audience for one on the motel on Exit 19.
MR. HUNSINGER-Yes.
MR. SIPP-And the put it on the flagpole. I remember that. That was a simple one.
MR. HUNSINGER-Yes. Still wish they put them on the tops of the water towers.
MR. SEGULJIC-So, Keith, as far as VMJR goes, I sign it as the preparer?
MR. OBORNE-Yes. There should be a line for.
61
(Queensbury Planning Board 09/16/08)
MR. SEGULJIC-There’s a signature for the preparer, and Chris signs all the other ones.
MR. OBORNE-Okay. You have two. You are the preparer, because you’re the one that
goes down on the line, and that man sitting next to you, he is the signature of the
responsible officer, the lead agency.
MR. SEGULJIC-What’s the name of the action?
MR. OBORNE-The action is a SEQRA Type I, for Planning Board, Town of Queensbury,
and it’s Type I for VMJR Companies, or something along those lines. You use Site Plan
No. 31. When I hand that to you in the future, that’ll all be filled out
MR. SEGULJIC-That would be appreciated.
MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. Do we have any other business for discussion this evening?
I’ll make a motion to adjourn.
MOTION TO ADJOURN THE QUEENSBURY PLANNING BOARD MEETING OF
SEPTEMBER 16,2008, Introduced by Chris Hunsinger who moved for its adoption,
seconded by Thomas Seguljic:
th
Duly adopted this 16 day of September, 2008, by the following vote:
AYES: Mr. Traver, Mr. Sipp, Mr. Seguljic, Mr. Hunsinger
NOES: NONE
ABSENT: Mrs. Bruno, Mrs. Steffan, Mr. Ford
On motion meeting was adjourned.
RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED,
Chris Hunsinger, Chairman
62