2009.05.28
(Queensbury Planning Board OS/28/09)
QUEENSBURY PLANNING BOARD MEETING
SECOND REGULAR MEETING
MAY 28, 2009
INDEX
Site Plan No. 38-2008
Robin Inwald
Tax Map No. 227.17-1-16
Site Plan No. 19-2009
Mohammad Tariq
Tax Map No. 288.-1-56
Site Plan No. 30-2009
Denise Rudenko
Tax Map No. 301.8-1-34
Subdivision No. 3-2009
SKETCH PLAN STAGE
Christian & Eustacia Sander
Tax Map No. 278.-2-29, 30
Subdivision No. 8-2008
PRELIMINARY/FINAL STAGE
Christine Mozal
Tax Map No. 289.14-1-27
Site Plan No. 25-2009
Randy Gross
Tax Map No. 303.16-1-33
Robinson & Son, LLC
Tax Map No. 303.20-2-42
Site Plan No.26-2009
Site Plan No. 27-2009
Mavis Discount Tire
Tax Map No. 302.11-1-3
1.
7.
10.
17.
22.
36.
44.
46.
THESE ARE NOT OFFICIALL YADOPTED 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.
o
(QueensburyPlanning Board OS/28/09)
QUEENSBURY PLANNING BOARD MEETING
SECOND REGULAR MEETING
MAY 28, 2009
7:00 P.M.
MEMBERS PRESENT
CHRIS HUNSINGER, CHAIRMAN
GRETCHEN STEFFAN, SECRETARY
THOMAS FORD
STEPHEN TRAVER
DONALD SIPP
THOMAS SEGULJIC
STEPHEN JACKOWSKI, ALTERNATE
LAND USE PLANNER-KEITH OBORNE
STENOGRAPHER-SUE HEMINGWAY
MR. HUNSINGER.-I'II call to order the meeting of the Town of Queensbury Planning
Board on Thursday, May 28th. For members of the audience, there are agendas on the
back table, as well as information on the public hearings that are being held this evening
for most of the items.
SITE PLAN NO. 38-2008 SEQR TYPE II ROBIN INWAlD AGENT(S) PARADOX
DESIGNS OWNER(S)INWAlD ENTERPRISES, llC ZONING WR-1A lOCATION
38 GUNN lANE APPLICANT PROPOSES AN 863 SQ. FT. RESIDENTIAL ADDITION
WHICH Will CONNECT THE GARAGE TO THE MAIN HOUSE AND A 400 SQ. FT.
SCREENED PORCH ADDITION. EXPANSION OF A NON-CONFORMING
STRUCTURE IN A CEA REQUIRES PLANNING BOARD REVIEW AND APPROVAL.
CROSS REFERENCE AV 68-08; SEASONAL RESIDENCE; [BP 92-378, 89-059, 6987,
6732,6589] WARREN CO. PLANNING 10/8/08 APA/DEC/CEA LG CEA,APA lOT
SIZE 0.66 +/- ACRES TAX MAP NO. 227.17-1-16 SECTION 179-13-010,179-9-020
CHARLIE JOHNSON, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT
MR. HUNSINGER-Keith, whenever you're ready to summarize Staff Notes.
MR. OBORNE-Sure. Site Plan 38-2008, Robin Inwald, Site Plan Review for the
expansion of a nonconforming structure in a Critical Environmental Area, location is 38
Gunn lane. Existing zoning is Waterfront Residential One acre. This is a Type II
SEQRA. The project description. Existing one story house to be connected to existing
garage with a 642 square foot expansion to the east side of the house. Further, a new
221 square foot foyer / porch and a new 400 square foot screened porch proposed in
addition to the expansion. A new septic is also proposed for this project. Staff
comments. The existing home and garage are separated by 25 feet. The existing
detached garage has living quarters in the upper section and a building permit was
approved in 1980 for that project. These living quarters appear to not be associated with
this project. There is a balcony attached to the upper level of the garage but this is not
shown on the plans. Is this balcony to be eliminated or is it to stay? Please clarify.
According to the Soil Survey for Warren County, the soils associated with this project are
Charlton fine sandy loam, 3 to 8 percent slopes. These soils are gently sloping, deep,
well drained soils conducive for dwellings and leachfields. Erosion is not a major concern
on this project; however, staff recommends immediate stabilization of any disturbed soils
to eliminate any possibility of runoff into lake George. Clarify stabilization best
management practice to be used. Clarification of erosion control practices must be forth
coming. The plan states either silt fencing or straw bale dikes to be used. Although not
prohibited, straw bale dikes are not recommended, and with that I'd turn it over to the
Planning Board.
MR HUNSINGER-Okay. Thank you. Good evening.
MR. JOHNSON-Good evening.
MR. HUNSINGER-If you could identify yourself for the record.
MR. JOHNSON-Sure. I'm Charlie Johnson, an architect with Paradox Design Architects,
representing Robin Inwald.
1
(Queensbury Planning Board OS/28/09)
MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. Did you have anything else to add?
MR. JOHNSON-You've seen me before. We were here, I think, a while back, maybe in
the Fall, with some technical issues. The engineer needed to witness a soil boring, soil
hole, soil test, I should say. So he did that in January, and we dug, gosh, in excess of six
feet down. You can see from some of his comments, there appears to be some
discrepancy in where groundwater might be based on that. So I've attempted to contact
Dan, the last couple of days, by phone, haven't had any luck with that. So that seems to
be, other than some miscellaneous note changes and additions of notes and things like
that, the two things here are that groundwater level that affect storm water elements, and
the septic. So, clarifying that, raising or lowering, whatever we need to do, I don't see
that as a hurdle. It might be a difference of opinion of six inches or twelve or eighteen. I
don't know where his opinion is and ours is. So that's a clarification I'd like to get to.
MR. HUNSINGER-Okay.
MR. FORD-So would we.
MR. JOHNSON-Yes. Other than that, I think everything else is pretty much changing
some notes or adding some notes. Some things that I have done he'd noted that weren't
done, but he may not have noted on the drawing. It gets complicated after a while, the
drawings.
MR. SEGULJIC-You had to get, if I recall, you came here for a recommendation, and you
went to the Zoning Board. Is that it?
MR. JOHNSON-Yes. We got our variance.
MR. SEGULJIC-That's why we haven't seen you in a while. Okay.
MR. JOHNSON-Yes, a pre-existing nonc:onformingsets too close to the side yard for the
correct setback. We're joining two existing buildings with our expansion, our addition, to
make one primary structure on the site. The reason we asked for the variance was to
keep all the structure, the new, the bulk of this new addition, hidden between the garage
and the house, so it's not visible, or as visible from the lake.
MR. HUNSINGER-Okay.
MR. SEGULJIC-Okay. Then this is considered a minor stormwater project under 147, I
assume?
MR. JOHNSON-Correct.
MR. SEGULJIC-Okay. Now, did you submit a stormwater plan with this?
MR. JOHNSON-No. We did not do a stormwater plan. With the small nature of this
residence, I worked with the lake George Park Commission's, sort of one and a half
gallon's per building footprint to generate stormwater.
MR. SEGUlJIC-But the Code says you have to submit a stormwater plan, I mean, I think
technically a stormwater control report is their terminology.
MR. JOHNSON-Correct.
MR. SEGUlJIC-So we would need one of those, bec:ause that's what the Code says,
and maybe I'm missing it, but in the area of the drywell do you have a test pit?
MR. JOHNSON-No. The only test pit we did, that Dan asked for, was up where the
septic system was.
MR. SEGULJIC-Well, if you're subject to 147, you have to do a test pit in the area of all
infiltration. I assume a drywell would be considered infiltration.
MR. JOHNSON-We asked if he wanted any others on the site when he was there. He
said no, this is fine.
MR. SEGULJIC-Well, I'm just, this is the Code I'm speaking to. It's the Code.
MR. JOHNSON-Okay.
2
(Queensbury Planning Board OS/28/09)
MR. SEGULJIC-And I'm kind of surprised that, in the leach field I believe you have to do
two test pits, but you only have one.
MR. JOHNSON-Correct. I don't know about the two.
MR. SEGULJIC-I believe you have to have two.
MR. JOHNSON-Okay. Again, Dan, okay.
MR. SEGUlJIC-1 mean, I'm fine with the overall project, but we just want to make sure it
meets the Code.
MR. JOHNSON-Okay.
MR. SEGULJIC-And a lot of what I'm referring to is in 147.
MR. JOHNSON-Correct.
MR. SEGULJIC-You have to have the two foot separation distance between the bottom
of the infiltration and the groundwater or bedrock, whatever it might be, but I have no way
of knowing if you meet that or not.
MR. JOHNSON-Okay.
MR. SEGULJIC-And I guess CIS far as your stormwater calculations, could you just go
through those quickly for me?
MR. JOHNSON-Sure. So this was in lieu of that report. Again, I was thinking that this is
such a minor project, we're going to also take care of all the existing storm water on this
. existing house that now just drains to grade. The way the Lake George Park
Commission works is you take your building footprint, so we've got the house at 1,092,
the garage at 660, our addition and the porch totals 3,015 squar~ feet, times the one. and
a half gallons per square foot, you generate 4523 gallons of stormwater to manage.
lake George Park Commission, their book has a number of stormwater mitigating
factors or structures that you can use. Each of those has been defined as its ability to
take care of the stormwater. So you plug in the different elements and you c:alculate the
amount of .gallons that you can manage with those elements, and that's how the lake
George Park Commission does this, takes care of our stormwater without the report.
MR. SEGULJIC-But with the one and a half gallons, you're supposed to have 4,523
gallons?
MR. JOHNSON-Correct.
MR. SEGULJIC-Okay, and then the.
MR.JOHNSON-And then I've provided down at the bottom, 4,903.
MR. SEGULJIC-Because the infiltration trench gives you 2,898, and then the drywell
gives you 2,005. All right. That's how you came up with that then, all right.
MR. JOHNSON-Yes.
MR. SEGULJIC-So you're going to be collecting the proposed additions, correct, and the
existing structures.
MR. JOHNSON-Correct, and the existing garage and house, correct.
MR. SEGULJIC-Okay, and then as far as the 50% reserve area, so that's located just to
the west of the. proposed?
MR. JOHNSON-Correct.
MR. SEGULJIC-Okay, but you just didn't label that,correct?
MR. JOHNSON-No, it's labeled down at the bottom 140 lineal foot of expansion laterals.
It doesn't say 50% expansion. It probably should have said that.
3
(Queensbury Planning Board OS/28/09)
MR. SEGULJIC-AII right. That's usually what I'm looking for.
MR. JOHNSON-Right.
MR. SEGULJIC-Okay. Those are my comments.
MR. HUNSINGER-Anyone else?
MR. FORD-Just that concern that's already been expressed about the adequate
separation to groundwater, the drywell and infiltration trenches, as mentioned in Number
One of VISION Engineering's report.
MRS. STEFFAN-How about the Staff Note questions. Will the balcony stay, or does that
go?
MR. JOHNSON-The balcony does stay.
MRS. STEFFAN-Okay.
MR. JOHNSON-And I think there was a reference to straw bales. We can strike all
reference to straw bales.
MR. FORD-Could we re-visit that Number One .from VISION Engineering's report and
get your response to that, please? That particularly in the dark print.
MR. JOHNSON-Sure. My response to it?
MR. FORD-Yes.
MR. JOHNSON-Well, like I said, we dug in excess of a six foot deep hole. Dan was
down in the hole in January, studying soil, taking measurements. So he says it does not
appear. That's kind of a vague statement for me. So he's not saying, you know, it does
not comply. It doesn't appear to comply. So I just wanted to get from him.
MR. FORD-But he does specify modifications to the design will be required unless a
variance is granted.
MR. JOHNSON-Correct.
MR FORD-That's pretty specific, but I agree with you when he makes reference to does
not appear.
MR. JOHNSON-So I think what probably would sound best, I mean, I'd love for you guys
to give me a conditional approval, work with the engineer. We're going to ultimately do
that anyway, but I think maybe for a comfort level. for everybody here at the Board, we'll
go back, do a couple of more test holes with Dan in attendance, in locations in
compliance with Chapter 147, we'll come back with everything, all our T's crossed.and I's
dotted.
MR. FORD-Sounds good to me.
MR. JOHNSON-Unless you guys really are generous and want to give me a conditional
tonight.
MR. FORD-Thank you for that opportunity.
MR. SEGUlJIC-1 wouldn't be comfortable with that. To clarify, in the septic system, I'm
nbt the expert. I said two test pitS. I believe it's two perc tests you have to do, and you
only did one.
MR. JOHNSON-We only did one.
MR. SEGULJIC-And then there's a number. Are you familiar with 147?
MR. JOHNSON-I've looked at it, yes.
MR. SEGULJIC-Well, there's a number of requirements in there. You're talking about
your management of open areas to prevent erosion. Covering it at times, you can't leave
it open for more than seven days I believe it is.
4
(Queensbury Planning Board OS/28/09)
MR. JOHNSON-Correct.
MR. SEGULJIC-And as soon as you finish working on it you have to seed it.
MR. JOHNSON-Yes.
MR. SEGULJIC-But I don't see that on the plan anywhere. I may have missed it, but I
don't see that. I mean, that's what we want to see on the plan.
MR. JOHNSON-Okay.
MR. SEGULJIC-The test pits and all your stormwater control areas. To be in compliance
with the Code, we should also have a, I believe it's a stormwater control report, not a
plan, they call it under the Code.
MR. JOHNSON-Right.
MR. SEGULJIC-So what I'm asking for is for it to comply with 147.
MR. JOHNSON-Do you all think that stormwater report, for the scale of this project, is
necessary, I guess?
MR. SEGULJIC-It's what the Code says you have to do.
MR. JOHNSON-Okay.
MR. SEGUlJIC-The Code says as soon as you're subject to 147, you have to do the
report.
MR. JOHNSON-Okay.
MR. SEGULJIC-Maybe I can quickly get that citation for you. If you want to go on while I
look that up.
MR. HUNSINGER-Is there anything else from members of the Board, questions,
comments?
MR. TRAVER-Nothing to add.
MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. We do have a public hearing scheduled this evening. Is there
anyone in the audience that wanted to address the Board on this application?
MR. HUNSINGER-I will open the public hearing.
PUBLIC HEARING OPEN
MR. HUNSINGER-Is there any written comments?
MR. OBORNE-No, sir.
MR. HUNSINGER-Okay.
MR. SEGULJIC-I could be incorrect. Maybe it's only a Major Project you have to do the
stormwater control report, but. .
MR. JOHNSON-I'll go through 147 and make sure we're in compliance with all the
requirements.
MR. SEGULJIC-Okay. I would appreciate that. As well as the septic code, which I think
is 136, because I think that's where they talk about the two perc tests, I believe.
MR. JOHNSON-Yes. Right.
MR. SEGULJIC-For clarification, as far as any exemptions from the section, it is land
disturbance and land clearing. of less than 5,000 square feet is exempt, and new
impervious surfaces of more than 1,000 square feet.
MR. SEGULJIC-Right. So if they disturb more than 5,000, create more than 1,000.
5
(Queensbury Planning Board OS/28/09)
MR. OBORNE-Correct. Now he's obviously not going to need a SWPPP, because he's
not close to an acre of disturbance, and the major that would automatically trigger would
obviously be 15,000 square feet of disturbance, and/or a CEA, and that's a determination
that the Board would make.
MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. Do we have a date that wewant to table this to?
MRS. STEFFAN-July 21st. What do our agendas look like, Keith?
MR. OBORNE-ObviouslyJune is full. July is nearing. There are two or three open spots
on the second meeting in July.
MRS. STEFFAN-You gave me my answer there. Okay.
MR. SEGULJIC- There's just one other thing I'd like to know. There's discussion in the
engineering letter about a grinder, garbage grinder. Are you talking about the garbage
disposal?
MR. JOHNSON-Garbage disposal.
MR. SEGULJIC-I don't know if those are allowed.
MRS. STEFFAN-I don't think they are.
MR. HUNSINGER-Yes, I don'Uhink they are, either.
MR. SEGULJIC-I don't think they're allowed.
MR. JOHNSON-Okay.
MR. OBORNE-I think you have to size your septic larger, I believe.
MR. SEGUlJIC-Yes, 250 gallons of water is probably what it is, some provision in there
about that.
MR. OBORNE-That would be a Building and Codes.
MR. SEGULJIC-Okay.
MR. TRAVER-Probably not a good idea with a septic anyway, just because of the solids
and so on. I mean, if you're on a municipal system, that wOLlld be one thing, but I'll leave
that to the engineer.
MRS. STEFFAN-Okay. So. what I have for a tabling motion is to submit a stormwater
control report to comply with Chapter 147. We need a second test pit at the leach field
for percolation rates. We need to clarify that the balcony stays on the building. We need
to strike the reference to the straw bale dikes. We need to clarify the stabilization best
management practices to be used, and to satisfy some of the VISION Engineering
comments that were not satisfied, and I havethe numbers.
MR. SEGULJIC-I'm not sure. I'd have to further read the regulation, but I don't know if
they have to do a stormwatercontrol report. So, question for Staff, would it be better just
to say to comply with the requirements of 147 minor for this project?
MR. OBORNE-That would probably be a better umbrella to go under, and specifically
say you need that report.
MR. SEGUlJIC-And to comply with the septic requirements under 136.
MR. OBORNE-Sure.
MR. SEGUlJIC-Because there might be something other than the perc tests.
MR. OBORNE-It's my understanding they don't need a control report.
MR. SEGULJIC-Yes, I think with minor you do not.
MR. JOHNSON-I think the gray area with this was just the Critical Environmental Area.
6
(Queensbury Planning Board OS/28/09)
MR..OBORNE-But I don't think it kicked it into a major.
MR. JOHNSON-Right.
MRS. STEFFAN-So Chapter 136 is the septic requirements? All right.
MR. SEGULJIC-I guess, just to clarify, why I wouldn't be comfortable with a conditional
approval is that your test pit data may change things, and we've got one shot at this .to
make it right.
MR. JOHNSON-Correct. Well, we're kind of at the mercy of VISION Engineering. So
regardless of what we talk about, he's sort of the one that's going to clarify all of these
issues and grant his approval. Once that happens, we're sort of going through the
motions. So he's sort of your safety net, if you want to look at him that way. I'm now at
the merc:y of him. If he wants it gold plated, I'd have to do it gold plated, because it's his
approval.
MRS. STEFFAN-Okay. I'll make a motion.
MOTION TO TABLE SITE PLAN NO. 38-2008 ROBIN INWAlD, Introduced by
Gretchen Steffan who moved for its adoption, seconded by Thomas Ford:
1. A site plan application has been made. to the Queensbury Planning Board for the
following: Applicant proposes an 863 sq. ft. residential addition which will
connect the garage to the main house and a 400 sq. ft. screened porch addition.
Expansion of a non-conforming structure in a CEA requires Planning Board
review and approval.
2. A public hearing was advertised and held on 5/28/09; and
3. This application is supported with all documentation, public comment and
application material in the fileof record; and
4. MOTION TO TABLE SITE PLAN NO. 38-2008 ROBIN INWAlD, Introduced by
Gretchen Steffan who moved for its adoption, seconded by Thomas Ford:
Tabled to the July 28th Planning Board meeting, with a submission deadline for
materials of June 15th. This is tabled so that.
1. The applicant can modify the plan to comply with thE;! requirements of Chapter
147.
2. That the applicant can modify plan to comply with the septic requirements of
Chapter 136.
3. So that the applicant can dig a second test pit at the leach field to provide
percolation rates.
4. That the applicant can clarify that the balcony stays on the building.
5. That the applicant .can strike the reference to straw bale dikes.
6. That the applicant can clarify stabilization best management prac:tices to be
used.
7. So that the applicant can address or satisfy VISION Engineering comments
One, Five, Seven, Eight, Nine, Ten, Eleven, Thirteen, Fourteen, Fifte~n,
Sixteen, Seventeen, and Eighteen.
Duly adopted this 28th day of May, 2009, by the following vote:
AYES: Mr. Traver, Mr. Sipp, Mr. Seguljic, Mrs. Steffan, Mr. Ford, Mr. Hunsinger
NOES: NONE
MR. HUNSINGER-All right.
MR. JOHNSON-Thank you.
MR. HUNSINGER-We'll se.e you in a couple of months. Thank you.
SITE PLAN NO.. 19-2009 SEQRA TYPE II MOHAMMAD TARIQ AGENT(S) GARY
HUGHES OWNER(S) SAME ZONING: HC-INT. lOCATION 1449 ST. RT. 9
APPLICANT PROPOSES A 233 SQUARE FOOT EXPANSION TO EXISTING
7
(Queensbury Planning Board OS/28/09)
OFFICE/lOBBY AND 2,062 SQUARE FEET OF DECKS/RAMP TO TWO EXISTING
BUilDINGS AT THE RODEWAY INN. EXPANSION OF A MOTEL IN THE HC ZONE
REQUIRES PLANNING BOARD. REVIEW AND . APPROVAL. CROSS REFERENCE
SP 19-05, AV 22-05; BP 05-855, 05-215 WARREN CO. PLANNING 3/11/09 NO
COUNTY IMPACT lOT SIZE 1.02 ACRES TAX MAP NO. 288.-1-56 SECTION 179-9
GARY HUGHES, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT
MR. OBORNE-Site Plan 19-2009, Mohammad Tariq, Rodeway Inn. Requested action:
Expansion of a motel in an HC zone requires Planning Board review and approval.
location is 1440 State Route 9. Highway Commercial Intensive is the zoning. SEQRA
status is a Type II. Project Description: Applicant proposes construction of a 233
square foot addition to the existing Motel office to include a handicap ramp accessed
from parking lot. Further, the applicant proposestheconstruction of 2,026 square feet of
deck and access ramps to one of the existing motel buildings on site. The existing rooms
in the building associated with the decks are to be reconfigured into suites and the open
areas into storage. Finally, the project includes the removal of an existing concrete
walkway and the construction of a new walkway associated with the new decks. The
applicant received approval for front, rearand travel corridor setback relief as well as
permeability relief from .the ZBA on March 25, 2009. The area beneath the deck is
currently vegetated with grass and will need to be designed to carry the concentrated
stOrmwater to either the existing off site system or in situ. The applicant has requested
relief from landscaping, grading, storm water, and lighting requirements. And additional
comments, Fire Marshal comments are attached. Warren County Planning Board has
issued a No County Impact action on this project, and this revised application has been
forwarded to VISION, and attached comments are attached for the Board.
MR. HUNSINGER-Great. Thankyou. Good evening.
MR. HUGHES-Good evening.
MR. HUNSINGER-If you could identify yourselves for the record.
MOHAMMAD TARIQ
MR. TARIQ-Mohammad Tariq.
MR. HUGHES-And I'm Gary Hughes. I'm the agent for Mohammad Tariq.
MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. Did you have anything else to add, any other information to
present?
MR. HUGHES-No. Keith covered it very well.
MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. Then I'll open it up for questions, comments from members of
the Board.
MRS. STEFFAN-Well, we have our VISION. Engineering comment letter, which identifies
everything was completed. That's great, and the waivers. Is everybody on the Planning
Board okay with granting waivers for landscaping, grading, stormwater and lighting? We
talked about that last time.
MR. TRAVER-Yes. The only issue was the cut sheets, and theY've been provided. So,
yes, I'm fine with it.
MRS. STEFFAN-Okay, and I think, from my point of view, we've got all the things that we
asked for.
MR. HUNSINGER-Yes. No questions or comments?
MR. FORD-No.
MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. We do have a public hearing scheduled this evening. Is there
anybody in the audience who wants to address the Board on this application? I will open
the public hearing.
PUBLIC HEARING OPEN
NO COMMENT
8
(Queensbury Planning Board OS/28/09)
PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED
MR. SEGULJIC-I guess my only comment is, it's more of an administrative one, has to
deal with the stormwater. Are we really granting a waiver because they did submit
stormwater information, and if I recall, you're proposing to put in two drywells. Right?
MR. HUGHES-That's correct.
MR. SEGULJIC-So, I mean, are we really, or am I splitting hairs here?
MR. OBORNE-What's the issue?
MR. SEGUlJIC-Well, are we really granting, they have provided a stormwater plan.
They're installing two new, so should we really grant them a waiver from stormwater?
MR. OBORNE-No. I mean, at this point, if you're satisfied with the stormwater.
MR. SEGULJIC-We're satisfied with that, because VISION Engineering signed off on it.
That's what we were looking for.
MRS. STEFFAN-But I think one of the reasons why they asked for the stormwater waiver
initially was because there were some as built conditions that I think would, I they were
constrained on the site, and so we were satisfied that the stormwater plan that they
provided would handle any new stormwater, but in an ideal world, it probably wouldn't
meet.
MR. OBORNE-Well, also in an ideal world I probably wouldn't have put stormwater on
there for you towaive, either. So, you know, it's an oversight in my notes, because they
satisfy the stormwater requirements.
MR. SEGULJIC-Right. Because we have a stormwater plan. So I don't think we have to
grant a stormwater waiver.
MR. FORD-Right. Exactly.
MR. SEGULJIC-Because they have a stormwater plan.
MR. FORD-Right.
MRS. STEFFAN-Okay.
MR. SEGULJIC- That's all I'm saying.
MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. It's a Type II action. So there's no SEQRA review required
unless it's triggered.
MRS. STEFFAN-Okay. Then I will make a motion.
MOTION TO APPROVE SITE PLAN NO. 19-2009 MOHAMMAD TARIQ, Introduced by
Gretchen Steffan who moved for its adoption, seconded by Stephen Traver: .
1) A site plan application has been made to the Queensbury Planning Board for the
following: Applicant proposes a 233 square foot expansion to existing
office/lobby and 2,062 square feet of decks/ramp to two existing buildings at
the Rodeway Inn. Expansion of a Motel in the HC zone requires Planning Board
review and approval.
2) A public hearing was advertised and held on 4/28/09 tabled to 5//28/09 public
hearing left open; and
3) This application is supported with all documentation, public comment and
application material in the file of record; and
4) MOTION TO APPROVE SITE PLAN NO. 19-2009 MOHAMMAD TARIQ,
Introduced by Gretchen Steffan who moved for its adoption, seconded by
Stephen Traver:
9
(Queensbury Planning Board OS/28/09)
According to the . resolution prepared by Staff. Paragraph Four. A complies.
Paragraph Four B, this is a Type II action. Paragraph Four E does not apply.
Paragraph Four G does not apply, .and Paragraph Four K should read grant
waivers from submission of landscaping, grading, and lighting plans.
a) Pursuant to relevant sections ofthe Town of Queensbury Zoning Code [Chapter
179], the Planning Board has det~rmined that this proposal complies with the
requirements as stated in the Zoning Code; and
b) This is Type II action-no further review required.
c) Final approved plans, in compliance with the Site Plan, must be submitted to the
Community Development Department before any further review by the Zoning
Administrator or Building and Codes personnel. 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.
d) As-built plans to certify that the site plan is developed according to the approved
plans to be provided prior to issuance of the certificate of occupancy; and
e) NOT APPLICABLE If applicable, Item d to be combined with a letter of credit; and
f) The Sanitary Sewer connection plan must be submitted to the Wastewater
Department for its review, approval, permitting and inspection; and
g) Waiver requests granted: landscaping, grading & lighting plans
h) The limits of clearing will constitute a no-cut buffer zone, orange construction
fencing shall be installed around these areas and field verified by Community
Development staff
i) Engineering sign-off required prior to signature of Zoning Administrator.
Duly adopted this 28th day of May, 2009, by. the following vote:
AYES: Mr. Sipp, Mr. Seguljic, Mr. Ford, Mr. Traver, Mrs. Steffan, Mr. Hunsinger
NOES: NONE
ABSENT: Mr. Krebs
MR. HUNSINGER-You're all set.
MR. HUGHES-Thank you very much.
MR. TARIQ-Thank you.
SITE PLAN NO. 30-2009 SEQR TYPE II DENISE RUDENKO AGENT(S) WilLIAM
RUDENKO OWNER(S) QUEENSBURY CHURCH OF CHRIST ZONING NC-10
lOCATION 357 AVIATION ROAD APPLICANT PROPOSES A FARM PRODUCE
STAND W/20' X 20' CANOPY. SEASONAL PRODUCE STANDS IN AN NC-10 ZONE
REQUIRE PLANNING BOARD REVIEW AND APPROVAL. CROSS REFERENCE BP
90-821 lOT SIZE 1.54 ACRES TAX MAP NO. 301.8-1-34 SECTION 179-4-020,179-
9-010
WilLIAM RUDENKO, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT
MR. HUNSINGER-Keith, if you could summarize Staff Notes.
MR. OBORNE-Absolutely. Site Plan 30-2009, Denise Rudenko, d/b/a Bull Hill Farm.
Site Plan Review for a seasonal produce stand. The location is 357 Aviation Road.
Neighborhood Commercial 10,000. I don't think that's supposed to say 10 acres on
there. So it's 10,000. Type II. There's no further review needed. Project Description:
Applicant proposes a Farm Produce Stand with a 20' x 20' canopy. Seasonal Produce
Stands in the NC-10 zone require Planning Board review and approval. Ac:cording to the
applicant's narrative, the stand is proposed to be operational starting the first week of
Jl,me through the end of October. The sign code allows for two signs: one for
10
...----
(Queensbury Planning Board OS/28/09)
identification and one for current products for sale, each sign not to exceed 32 square
feet. The applicant is asking for a waiver to place two temporary signs, each 2 feet by 2
feet on the shoulder of Aviation Road. These types of signs are prohibited under the sign
code. The applicant seeks waiver for lighting, grading, stormwater and landscapil'!g.
Staff Comments. Concerning signs, clarification on the type, size and wording must be
forthcoming. The applicant has given examples of what may be on the signs but a
definitive decision must be made. Vehicular ingress and egress appears to be safe and
efficient. Ample parking is available. The applicant proposes limiting parking at the
produce stand adjacent to Aviation Road by using four orange traffic cones. The
Planning Board, as a c:ondition of approval, may wish to consider the following: The
hours of operation as stated in the narrative should be observe The dates of operation
as stated in the narrative should be observed The granting of waivers for lighting,
grading, stormwater and landscaping.
MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. Thank you.
MR. RUDENKO-Good evening.
MR. HUNSINGER-Could you identify yourself for the record.
MR. RUDENKO-My name is William Rudenko. Denise Rudenko is my wife. She is the
owner of Bull Hill Farm. I work for my wife.
MRS. STEFFAN-Are they hand lettered signs, or are they the plastic letters that you,
what do the signs look like?
. MR. RUDENKO-Staples sprays ink on the plastic. So they're not applied. They're not
stuck on. They're quite nice. They're attractive.
MRS. STEFFAN-Okay, and are you a different farm than the farm stand that's been
operating on the corner of Farr lane and Aviation?
MR. RUDENKO-Yes.
MRS. STEFFAN-Okay. So you're a different operation.
MR. RUDENKO-Yes.
MRS. STEFFAN-Okay.
MR. HUNSINGER-So I'm a little confused on the signs. I'm sorry. So when you had
new product, you would put up a new sign, so there would be more than one?
MR. RUDENKO-Right. We would just pick up our sign, put it in the back of the truck,
take out a new one and put it in the ground. It would be the same size, but the wording
may be a little different.
MR. HUNSINGER-So it would only be one sign up at a time'? You wouldn't be adding
. new signs each time you add new product?
MR. RUDENKO-Well, we're asking for two signs. Each would be double faced.
11
(Queensbury Planning Board OS/28/09)
MR. HUNSINGER-Right.
MR. RUDENKO-So those signs may say different things, and then we may just pull up
one, replace it with another, or pull up both of them and replace it with two new ones, but
they would be in the same location. This is what the folks would look at as they drive by,
hopefully would bring them in.
MR. FORD-So coming from either directions, there are two signs to read?
MR. RUDENKO- They're readable, yes.
MR. SIPP-Would this fall under a temporary sign?
MR. OBORNE-This would fall under a temporary sign, yes.
MR. SIPP-Which is for a period not to exceed 60 days.
MR. OBORNE-Well, specifically those type of two by two signs are prohibited.
MR. SIPP-Now, it says temporary wall signs and freestanding signs of 16 square feet.
MR. OBORNE-Well, it specifically states in the Sign Code that roadside stands in all
zones shall be permitted two signs. One for identification and one for current products
for sale, each sign not to exceed 32 square feet. It's specific to what the applicant has
proposed for a roadside stand, and that's typically what is allowed.
MR. HUNSINGER-Well, we allow up to 32 square feet.
MR. OBORNE-Allowed 32 square feet. Correct, each sign.
MR. SEGULJIC-So he's well within that, then, because he's asking for a two by two.
MR. TRAVER-Is the issue related to the fact that the proposed sign is.on the shoulder of
the road?
MR. OBORNE-No. I think the issue is that it's the type of sign. Those type of signs are
not allowed. It doesn't say it should not be allowed. It says shall be prohibited. That's
not something that we typically approve.
MRS. STEFFAN-Aren't they the same size as the political signs?
MR. OBORNE- They are, but those political signs are exempt, as long as, because of
freedom of speech.
MR. RUDENKO-Of course they are.
MRS. STEFFAN-Beautiful. You've got to love it.
MR. OBORNE-AII others, when you see the signs, like if somebody puts the signs like
Five Guys, when they first started out, they had those type of signs all over the place.
We were pulling them up left and right. We must have had 50 of them in our office.
They're just not allowed. Now the applicant is proposing, I believe, banner signs, also,
are you not?
MR RUDENKO-No.
MR. OBORNE-Just those signs. I thought you had a Bull Hill. We discussed that in our
conference. I thought that you had a sign that you'd be putting on the tent.
MR. RUDENKO-No. No, they're very expensive, and they tend to blow away, or rip.
MR. OBORNE-Okay.
MR. FORD-So please review, to help me out on this. What signs are you going to have
there? If I drive by, what am I going to see, if you're proposal were accepted?
MR. RUDENKO-It's like the political signs. It's a two by two piece of white corrugated
plastic, and the lettering is printed right on there. It's not applied, and we tried to make
the letters big enough so people can, and not say a whole lot, so people can look at it in
12
(Queensbury Planning Board OS/28/09)
passing and recognize it for what it is, and not have to stop and pull over and read it like
a newspaper. It will be very, very simple wording.
MR. FORD-And there are two of those on the shoulder of the road?
MR. RUDENKO-Well, we're hoping, and they will be printed on both sides.
MR. FORD-And that's the only signage that would be there?
MR. RUDENKO- That's the only signs that we plan to use at our stands.
MRS. STEFFAN-And they're stuck in the ground with metal stakes?
MR. RUDENKO-Yes, they are. Yes.
MRS. STEFFAN-Like the Relay for Life signs that are around right now.
MR. SEGULJIC-So, we can allow this, but we have to grant a waiver?
MRS. STEFFAN-Right.
MR. SEGULJIC-Okay.
MR. FORD-No other signs?
MR. RUDENKO-No other signs.
MR. FORD-No banners. No flags.
MR. RUDENKO-No banners, no flags, no balloons, nothing, just those two signs.
MR. FORD-Nothing identifying your stand?
MR. RUDENKO-Well, one sign may say Bull Hill Farm, Fresh Farm Produce.
MR. FORD-One of those two signs you were identifying?
MR. RUDENKO-Right. One could. Probablyatthe outset, yes, it will, because we want
people to, we want to brand the name Bull Hill Farm. This is only our second year in the
business, and name recognition, I think, has worked well for us, only we haven't used it,
outside of business cards that we distribute to our customers. So, it would be a simple
sign, Bull Hill Farm, Fresh Farm Produce.
MR. SEGULJIC-Now, Keith, just to clarify, even if it's prohibited, we can still grant the
waiver?
MR. OBORNE-Well, I mean, you're here for Site Plan Review, okay. Part of Site Plan
Review is to review signs, okay, and you have the authority to grant a waiver for that.
MR. SEGULJIC-Okay. Speaking for myself, I don't have a problem with this. It seems
very reasonable.
MRS. STEFFAN-It's small.
MR. SEGULJIC-It's small. He just wants to advertise he has apples.
MR. HUNSINGER-He's allowed 32 square feet.
MR. SEGULJIC-He's allowed 32 square feet.
MR.HUNSINGER-Two signs 0132 square feet.
MR. SEGULJIC-It seems very reasonable.
MR. FORD-Yes.
MR. SEGULJIC-And I assume each night you're going to take those in with you?
13
(Queensbury Planning Board OS/28/09)
MR. RUDENKO-Yes,they'lI be brought back to the stand, so that nobody picks them up
and runs away with them.
MR. SEGUlJIC-Yes. I don't have a problem with it.
MR. HUNSINGER-Any other issues, traffic circulation, those kinds of questions?
MR. SIPP- Traffic would be the only other one. The afternoon from, you're operating until
6 p.m. So you're going to get the 4:30 to 6 o'clock traffic, which can cause some
problems in that area.
MR. SEGULJIC-But wouldn't they pull into the parking lot?
MR. RUDENKO-Yes.
MR. SEGUlJIC-1 mean, they're not going to be pulling off to the side of the road, in
theory.
MR. SIPP-No, but they're going to have to pull out.
MR. SEGUlJIC-Yes.
MR. SIPP-When they come around, Whatever way they go.
MRS. STEFFAN-Well, that particular church has a nice, circular driveway. So there's an
in and an out, where the farm stand down at the corner of Farr and Aviation, people just
pull on the grass, and they're kind of, it's very haphazard. So this one actually will work
very well, where the other one's increasingly problematic.
MR. RUDENKO-We had a location like that, and it's like an aircraft carrier with planes
landing any time in any direction, and they're both changing directions on a plane without
notifying them. They just come sailing in. It's very interesting, but we still have, the best
thing for us is a big lot, with easy ingress and egress, and plenty of parking, or they won't
stop.
MR. TRAVER-I have a suggestion with regards to the sign issue, just in terms of
conditioning. The applicant has offered that these signs are going to be professionally
generated, I believe you said by Staples.
MR. RUDENKO-Staples.
MR. TRAVER-The one concern I have with allowing this, and I know it's a variance. The
Code still exists, but that the potential for other people requesting similar signs, a~d
having sort of hand drawn, less attractive signs. Perhaps if we makea condition that the
applicant have the signs professionally created, which he's already indicated he's going
to do, that might put less of an impact on waiving the Code.
MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. Anything else? We do have a publiC hearing scheduled this
evening? Is there anyone in the audience who wants to address the Board on this
application?
PUBLIC HEARING OPENED
MR. HUNSINGER-I will open the public hearing. Any written comments, Keith?
MR. OBORNE-No.
MR. HUNSINGER-And since there are no takers, we'll close the public hearing.
PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED
MR. HUNSINGER-It's a Type II action. So SEQRA is not required. unless there's
something that triggers SEQRA. So unless there's any other questions or comments, I'll
welcome a motion.
MRS. STEFFAN-Is it enforceable if we say professionally printed signs? I mean, I added
it.
14
(Queensbury Planning Board OS/28/09)
MR. TRAVER-I was really suggesting it only for precedent, not, the applicant has offered
that they're going to be professionally done. So I wasn't anticipating that it would be an
enforcement issue.
MRS. STEFFAN-Okay.
MR. TRAVER-I was thinking that, instead of leaving it completely open, that we're at
least saying that they, we're making sure they're nicely done.
MR. SEGULJIC-Well, but it's in their interest to do that, and I think we just kind Of,
professionally. Does that mean if he pays me $5 to make it, it's professional then? I
mean, it's in his interest to have a good looking sign. As a matter offact, maybe have
one of his kids make a cute little sign. I mean, is that professionally done? I think just
have the signs and that's it.
MR. FORD-I know what you were getting at.
MRS. STEFFAN-So do I add it or not?
MR. SEGULJIC-I don't think so,
MR. HUNSINGER-I don't think it really would help.
MR. TRAVER-It's only a suggestion.
MR. HUNSINGER-Well, I mean, one of the things aoout our standard resolution is it
does say, you know, one of the first items is that it. includes all of the documents
submitted through this date, and so it already includes, it becomes redundant.
MR. TRAVER-Okay.
MR. HUNSINGER-Sometimes we add that as a condition to make sure, to focus
attention on it, but if the applicant's already offered that up in his submission, I don't
know if we need to.
MR. FORD-I think Steve's point was that it was precedent setting, for future reference.
MR. HUNSINGER-Yes. I mean, for that purpose, I think I absolutely agree with you.
MR. TRAVER-But on the other hand if, you know, you feel that that's addressed by the
documents submitted by the applicant, that's fine.
MR. HUNSINGER-Yes.
MR. OBORNE-I do want to. say that the Code does state, the Sign Code specifically,
again, we're at Site Plan, you still have to abide by what the Sign Code says, is those
temporary signs need to be placed 15 feet from the front property line. Okay.
MR. HUNSINGER-Okay.
MR. OBORNE-And there's just two of them at anyone time, right? But they might be
different types of signs?
MR. RUDENKO-Different wording.
MR. FORD-Different wording.
MR. OBORNE-Right.
MR. FORD-The same type. You did note that reference that Keith made to placement?
MR. RUDENKO-Fifteen feet? Yes.
MRS. STEFFAN-Keith, some of the elements of this motion just don't apply to a farm
stand, and usually the sewer and that kind of thing, but most of them don't here. We can
go with C, final approved plans in compliance with Site Plan. That one could work, but
as built plans, we don't need that.
MR. OBORNE-No.
15
(Queensbury Planning Board OS/28/09)
MRS. STEFFAN-The CO, they don't get one of those. The letter of credit, no. The
Wastewater Department, no. The buffer zones are no. The lighting is no, and the
engineering signoff is no. So a lot of it doesn't apply.
MR. OBORNE- That is true.
MRS. STEFFAN-All right. Okay. I'll make a motion.
MOTION TO APPROVE SITE. PLAN NO. 30-2009 DENISE.RUDENKO, Introduced by
Gretchen Steffan who moved for its adoption, seconded by Thomas Ford:
1. A site plan application has been made to the Queensbury Planning Board for the
following: Applicant proposes a Farm Produce Stand w/20' x 20' canopy.
Seasonal Produce Stands in an NC-10 zone require Planning Board review and
approval
2. A public hearing was advertised and held on 5//28/09; and
3. This application is supported with all documentation, public comment and
application material in the file of record; and
4. MOTION TO APPROVE SITE PLAN NO. 30-2009 DENISE RUDENKO,
Introduced by Gretchen Steffan who moved for its adoption, seconded by
Thomas Ford:
According to the resolution prepared by Staff. Paragraph Four A complies.
Paragraph Four B, it is a Type II action. Paragraph Four D, E, F, and G do not apply
[removed]. Paragraph Four H, waiver requests <;)re wanted for stormwater
management, grading, landscaping, and lighting. plans. Paragraph Four I, J, and K
do not apply [removed]. This is approved with the following conditions.
a) 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
b) This is a Type" - no further review needed.
c) Final approved plans, in compliance with the Site Plan, must be submitted to the
Community Development Department before any further. review by the Zoning
Administrator or Building and Codes personnel. The applic:ant 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.
d) Waiver requests granted: stormwater mgmt., grading, landscaping & lighting
plans]
e) That the hours of operation for this farm stand will be 10 a.m. to 6 p.m. Monday
through Saturday, and from 1 p.m. to 6 p.m. on Sundays.
f) The dates of operation for this farm stand will be June 21st through October 31St,
2009.
NOES: NONE
ABSENT: Mr. Krebs
MR. HUNSINGER-.1 didn't mention this during the discussion, but one of the things that
the new Comprehensive land Use Plan is it encourages farm stands. So I think, you
16
(Queensbury Planning Board OS/28/09)
know, it is kind of something that we like to see in Town. So I really wish you the best of
luck.
MRS. STEFFAN-Yes, thanks.
MR. RUDENKO.Next year I'll be back with a second one, then.
MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. There's a farm stand at the end. of my road that's been there
every year, the end of Tee Hill and Bay, and we go there all the time. It's great.
MRS. STEFFAN-And my mom lives in the area where you're putting your stand, and we
frequent the one that's on the corner of Farr and Aviation, and there's a lot of demand.
So I think between the two stands you'll do a fairly good business there.
MR. RUDENKO..We hope so.
MR. TRAVER-I'm surprised to see corn in the store already, corn on the cob.
MRS. STEFFAN-So, good luck with your project.
MR. RUDENKO-Well, thank you all. Thank you very much.
MR. HUNSINGER-You're welcome.
MRS. STEFFAN-You're welcome.
SUBDIVISION NO. 3.2009 SKETCH PLAN STAGE SEQR N/A AT SKETCH
CHRISTIAN & EUSTACIA SANDER AGENT(S) HUTCHINS ENGINEERING
OWNER(S) EUSTACIA SANDER ZONING RR-3A lOCATION 572 STATE ROUTE
149 APPLICANT PROPOSES SUBDIVISION OF 56 +/- ACRE PARCEL INTO TEN
(10) RESIDENTIAL lOTS RANGING IN SIZE FROM 3.01 ACRES TO 24 ACRES .
SUBDIVISION OF lAND REQUIRES PLANNING BOARD REVIEW AND APPROVAL.
CROSS. REFERENCE BP 91-377, 94-133, 94-134, 94-135,94-185,94-155, 03-949
WARREN CO. PLANNING N/A lOT SIZE 46.36 +/- & 9.76 +/- ACRES lOCATION
572 STATE ROUTE 149 APPLICANT PROPOSES SUBDIVISION OF A 56 +/- ACRE
PARCEL INTO TEN (10) RESIDENTIAL lOTS RANGING IN SIZE FROM 3.01 ACRES
TO 24 ACRES. SUBDIVISION OF LAND REQUIRES PLANNING BOARD REVIEW
AND APPROVAL. CROSS REFERENCE BP 90-821 lOT SIZE 1.54 ACRES TAX
MAP NO. 301.8-1-34 SECTION 179-4-020,179-9-010
TOM HUTCHINS, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT
MR. HUNSINGER-Keith, do you have any Staff Notes?
MR. OBORNE-Yes. Real quick. Subdivision 3-2009, this is Sketch Plan. Christian and
Eustacia Sander. Sketch Plan Subdivision review for a 10 lot subdivision. location is
572 State Route 149. It's in an RC-3A zoning. SEQRA status, obviously, is not
applicable at this point. Project Description: Applicant proposes subdivision of a 56 +/-
acre parcel into ten (10) residential lots ranging in size from 3.01 acres to 24 acres.
Subdivision of land requires Planning Board review and approval. Staff Comments.
Currently, work is being ac:complished on Route 149. Three of the four new driveways
are proposed off of the future realigned road. All lots except lot 1 are accessed by shared
driveways. There is a stream associated with lot one. Any wetlands associated with this
waterc:ourse must be noted at preliminary. All lots have at least 150 feet of minimum
width, meeting the requirements for average lot width. House locations appear
compliant with setbacks and variances for this subdivision, as drawn, appear not to be
necessary.
MR. HUNSINGER-Thank you. Good evening.
MR. HUTCHINS-Good evening. I'm Tom Hutchins. I do business as Hutchins
Engineering, and with me is owner and applicant Stacia Sander. The Sanders propose,
as Keith described, a 10 lot subdivision. This is off 149 to the west of Bay Road, and
they currently reside there and own two contiguous parcels totaling 56 acres. Their
intent is to maintain their residence on lot One of the subdivision as shown, and divide
the portion to the west of their current residence into nine additional lots, as we're
showing.
MRS. STEFFAN-Is this formerly the Taft property?
17
(Queensbury Planning Board OS/28/09)
MR. HUTCHINS-Yes.
MRS. STEFFAN-Okay.
MR. HUTCHINS-We don't propose any Town roads. We'd like to do it with driveways.
We have shown shared drives on all of the newly created lots. We are in an area that
there is work ongoing on 149, and this is an issue that we have to give some further
consideration to, and when we developed the subdivision, we had information on the
taking of property from the Sanders that the State undertook in order to realign 149. You
can see on the drawing I've shown how 149 is being realigned, and we're going to have,
what we didn't have at the time was the grading of the realigned 149. They've raised the
grade considerably in one area. We may have an issue with one of these drive
locations, in terms of how much the State has raised the road for us to access. There's
one spot along the profile they have six meters of fill above existing grade, which is going
to cause us .to re-Iook at at least one of the drives, probably two driveways will be
impacted in one way or another. Our intent is to, as soon as they're grading that portion
of the road, to get up there and get the topography and look at how it impacts us. We
have shot detailed topography of the entire subdivision. It's not shown on your plan.
We've done that in the time since that was Submitted.
MR. HUNSINGER-So do you have any engineering for the final grades that 149 will be?
MR. HUTCHINS-We do now. We didn't at the time. We had the plot plan showing the
boundary, and frankly, with regard to the subdivision, it didn't concern us a whole lot, but
I have since obtained the road profiles, and there's a lot of fill down in this area, and
that's evident. You can see it. It's going in, and it's going to impact us somehow.
MR. SIPP-What will be affected,lot Two or Three?
MR. HUTCHINS-The driveway, as shown, for lots Two and Three, will be impacted in
one way or another. The next one may be impacted. The next one likely will not be
impacted. Until we actually go out there and shoot the elevations at the particular
location, we're not going to know what impact it has to us.
MR. FORD-So it conceivably could impact Two, Three, Four and Five, access?
MR. HUTCHINS-It could impact the access. It's likely that access on Two and Three we
will have to re-work in one form or another. I'm optimistic, I don't know if that's good or
not, that lots Four and Five we won't have to re-work that drive. The grades will be
workable. So, but until we can get up there and shoot it, we're not going to know. It's
something we weren't aware of when we put this together. We were aware that they
were going to realign the road and there was going to be some work.
MR. FORD-Is it conceivable, if you do need to re-work that one for Five and Six, that it
actually could go between, I'm sorry, Four and Five could go between Five and Six,
shared?
MR. HUTCHINS-As we go westerly, the impact to this project is lessened.
MR. FORD-Is lessened.
MR. HUTCHINS-By the grade change, yes.
MR. HUNSINGER-One of the things that I did want to say for the record is a couple of
people had noted that down on the southwest corner there is a lot that my wife and I
used to own. We sold that lot to my brother-in-law about a month ago. So we're not an
affected property owner or adjacent property owner anymore.
MR. HUTCHINS-Okay. Good.
MR. HUNSINGER-My brother-in-law is Pat Mellon, who does own the lot next door. So I
don't think there's any conflict there, but. L did want to say that for the record. Any
questions, additional comments from members of the Board?
MR. SIPP-This whole area is sandy. Soils in this area tend to be pretty sandy, gravelly.
So you don't have any drainage.
18
(Queensbury Planning Board OS/28/09)
MR. HUTCHINS-I don't foresee significant drainage issues. Our next step is to go in and
hit it hard with test pits, specific test pits in locations in order to work out waste water. It
will be a Department of Health jurisdictional subdivision. So they will be involved with
the test holes, and will have to prove out wastewater systems and individual water wells.
STACIA SANDER
MRS. SANDER-Yes.
MR. HUTCHINS-And there's a clearing on the, right, the lot he has highlighted is one of
the ones in the subdivision, and the adjacent one to the east, that one, is also part of it.
So, yes, it's wooded except forthe meadow there.
MR. HUNSINGER-Is there any way to have fewer curb cuts on 149?
MR. SEGULJIC-Well, I was going to go one step further than that. I mean, why not j~st
one curb cut and make it more like a neighborhood?
MR. HUTCHINS-Well, then we step into a Town road.
MR. SEGULJIC-Why not make it a road owned by a Homeowners Association? It just
seems like we're just cutting up this land and just creating these isolated units. with four
driveways onto a busy road that's only going to get busier, and people are going to be
driving faster with this widening of the road. I don't understand why they ever did it, but it
just would make more sense tome, it's, you know, almost like a road into a development.
MR. HUTCHINS-Frankly, we haven't really explored an Association owned road. We've
thought about a Town road, and we didn't want to go there. We haven't really explored
that concept, to answer your question.
MR. SEGULJIC-Sitting here, it would just make more sense to me. I don't know how the
rest of the. Board feels.
MR HUNSINGER-Well, I see the dilemma, though, if they try to do some kind of a, you
know, Association road, you're not going to have road frontage on 149. The Code
requires road frontage on 149, unless you get a variance.
MR. SEGULJIC-Wouldn't that make more sense from a planning perspective?
MR. HUNSINGER-Yes, I think so.
MR. SEGULJIC-I mean, instead of having four curb cuts coming out.
MR. HUNSINGER-Mayoe have two, maybe do like a loop road or something.
MR. SEGULJIC-Yes. Have a loop road with two of them.
MR. HUNSINGER-You could probably get asmany lots.
MR. FORD-We're really talking five curb cuts, are we not?
MR. HUTCHINS-We're talking four new. One existing.
MR. FORD-Four new, but a total of five.
MR. HUNSINGER-Yes.
19
(Queensbury Planning Board OS/28/09)
MR. HUTCHINS-Well, the one's existing.
MR. HUNSINGER-One's existing.
MR. FORD-Yes, that's one of the five I'm referring to.
MRS. STEFFAN-Well, and I know one of the things that they're trying to improve on
Route 149 is the visibility, you know, because it is wide open right now, but, at the same
time, it is, it's an arterial, and we don't want to add more curb cuts.
MR. HUTCHINS-Well, and that'll be, visibility wise, the roadwork is going to be a
significant benefit to us here. Some of the slopes may not be, but the visibility interms of
the road is being straightened, is being flattened, our viSibility is going to be much better.
We have tried to minimize cuts. Obviously we've shared drives. We have three two lot
drives, and one three lot drive. I guess we haven't really explored the concept of an
Association common driveway, and I don't know that, I don't know, I mean, we could
explore it.
MR. SEGULJIC-Yes, because I mean, wouldn't you reduce the amount of asphalt overall
if you did that?
MR. HUTCHINS-Not necessarily. I mean, part of what we're trying to capture here is, we
don't, we're trying to keep the building areas away from 149, as far as reasonably
possible, because that's what people want.
MR. HUNSINGER-Sure.
MR. HUTCHINS-Would it reduce the overall amount of asphalt, I. don't believe so.
Certainly, any neighborhood road or any Association road we would have to build would
certainly be to a higher standard than what the driveways would be, and I don't know that
it would reduce it.
MR. FORD-The same rationale that is being used for placement of the homes further
from 149, that same rationale could be used for fewer curb cuts.
MR. HUTCHINS-I guess, yes.
MRS. SANDER-Privacy for home. I guess I look at the lots, and I look at the common
drives as offering more privacy for homeowner, too, where a common road, I guess I'm
not as big a fan of developments, and I like space and this would kind of give that
privacy, a private feel.
MR. FORD-And I like safety.
MR. SEGULJIC-But from my perspective, we're trying to create neighborhoods, also,
and how wide are these driveways going to be?
MR. HUTCHINS-Twelve, fourteen feet.
MR. SEGULJIC-So there's going to be enough room for a car to sit there, for someone to
pull in also?
MR. HUTCHINS-Yes, at the cut there'll be enough room. Yes.
MR. SEGULJIC-And then down the length of the driveway?
MR. HUTCHINS-Yes. There'll be enough room for two cars to pass, certainly. I mean,
it'.s not going to be a 24 foot travel lane, but, yes.
MR. SEGULJIC-I mean, that's all you need for an Association road, too, I believe, is
enough for two cars to pass. I mean, correct me if I'm wrong, but doesn't part of our
Comprehensive Use Plan is to develop, create neighborhoods, is?
MR. HUNSINGER-Yes.
MR. TRAVER-Well, and I think the point regarding. safety is well taken, that 149,
particularly after these improvements, people are going to be whizzing down that road,
and I think it's worth looking at anyway, just to reduce the. number of, you know, turns
onto the road.
20
(Queensbury Planning Board OS/28/09)
MR. HUTCHINS-And I don't, I think we're willing to take a look at it, and see if we could, I
mean, we'll do that.
MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. I mean, that's what Sketch Plan's all about, is to give you
feedback.
MRS. STEFFAN-It is worth looking at, and I know that there's some psyc:hology involved.
I mean, this is a rural, a residemtial three acres, and so these are fairly good sized lots,
and the people who would want to buy a lot like this, I mean, even if it's on Route 149,
folks want to have some acreage. They're going to build a fairly sizeable home, and
we're prob€ibly looking at an investment of somewhere around $350,000 and up, that's
what the people would be investing in buying these kinds of lots. So what does
somebody want for that kind of money? They usually want privacy, and so, I'm not sure
whether they're going to get that with a development road with a Homeowners
Association.
MR. HUTCHINS-Sometimes they don't want Associations, either.
MRS. STEFFAN-Exactly.
MR. HUTCHINS-They can bea negative.
MRS. STEFFAN-Yes. I know that we approve them all the time, but certainly that would
not be my preference, and when you look at how we're evolving as a society, the last
thing people want to do is join something, and so, you know, I know the Board has
expressed some feelings, and I'm expressing mine. I don't know whether that's the right
way to go, either. So obviously you're going to look at options, but presenting two
scenarios would probably be a good idea. I was, frankly, surprised you could get that
much in that space. I mean, it's very creative as far as the patch work that you put
together, meeting the compliance issues.
MR. HUTCHINS-It's a lot of space. I mean, it's a lot of area.
MR. FORD-One consideration you might want to explore would be a road, a single
access, and then a road, you'd leave these common drives where they are, and just
have an access road that runs parallel to 149. You could then reduce four curb cuts 'to
one, of the new ones. Just for your consideration.
MR. HUTCHINS~We will consider that.
MR. FORD-Thank you. Again, if it serves more than three lots, it would have to be
Association. It would have to be an Association, but that would also, that might help us
with our issue down here, our slope issue as well. We'll look at that.
MR. FORD-Correct. Thank you.
MR. HUNSINGER-Anything else? Any other comments, questions? Anything else you
wanted to add?
MR. HUTCHINS-Question. If we were to do a reconfiguration with an Assoc:iation type
road, be it a loop, or be it a, would we have, I presume we could expect some support for
any necessary variances that that would require in terms of road frontage?
MR. HUNSINGER~Yes.
MR. HUTCHINS-Okay.
MR. HUNSINGER-I mean, you'll have to look to see if it's possible.
MR. HUTCHINS-Yes, it mayor may not be.
MR. HUNSINGER-I mean, you might not be able to get three acre lots. You might have
to consider a cluster. I mean, I don't know if this is the kind of lot that was anticipated for
a cluster. I mean, typically when we talk about cluster development, it's more in an open
field, where you're trying to preserve open space. This is heavily wooded. The trade off
there is clearing limits, instead of a cluster. You'll have to sit down at your. drafting table
and see which way it goes. Just kind of picking up on Gretchen's comments. These
three acre lots with half or three quarters of an acre cleared for your house and lawn, you
21
(Queensbury Planning Board OS/28/09)
know, you're probably not going to see the other. houses, you know, maybe in the
wintertime you'll see a light through the trees.
MR. HUTCHINS-Well, and that's sort of what we're trying to accomplish.
MR. HUNSINGER-Yes, but, yes, if we direct you in that direction, we would certainly
support you in any variance requests.
MR. HUTCHINS-Okay. We'll have to look into that. I don't know.
MRS. STEFFAN-Because it would support safety.
MR. HUNSINGER-Yes, and, you know, that is the big concern, especially on 149. One
of the things, it might be, when you do come back, to see the curb cuts that are on the
other side of the road, also.
MR. HUTCHINS-Okay.
MR. HUNSINGER-So we know where those are and how . many there are. I mean, I
don't know if you need to put them as, well, basically to where this map ends. You
~ouldn't need to put them all theway up to the existing driveway.
MR. HUTCHINS-Yes, depending upon when and timing, we may be showing what's to
the existing road, depending on what's built at the time and when they transition, but,
yes, we'll show what's there.
MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. Anything else? Thank yOu.
MR. HUTCHINS-Thank you.
MRS. STEFFAN-Thanks for c:oming in.
SUBDIVISION NO. 8-2008 PRELIMINARY/FINAL STAGES SEQR UNLISTED
CHRISTINE MOZAl AGENT(S) VAN DUSEN & STEVES; M. O'CONNOR ZONING
WR-1A, WR-3A lOCATION 99 FITZGERALD ROAD APPLICANT PROPOSES
SUBDIVISION OF A 3.42 ACRE PARCEL INTO TWO lOTS OF 1.0 & 2.42 ACRES.
SUBDIVISION OF LAND REQUIRES PLANNING BOARD REVIEW AND APPROVAL.
CROSS REFERENCE AV 77-98, SP 34-91, AV 70-08 WARREN CO. PLANNING N/A
APA/DEC/GEA/NWI GLEN lK. CEA, NWI WETLANDS lOT SIZE 3.42 +/- ACRES
TAX MAP NO. 289.14-1-27 SECTION A-183
MIKE O'CONNOR & TOM HUTCHINS, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT
MR. HUNSINGER-Keith, whenever you're ready to summarize Staff Notes, and I would
just like the record to reflect that Steve Jackowski has joined the members at the table.
MR. OBORNE-Okay. Welcome. Application Subdivision 8-2008, Preliminary and Final .
Stage review. Applicant: Christine Mozal.Requested ac:tion, Preliminary and Final
Stage review for a two .lot subdivision. location: 99 Fitzgerald Road. Existing zoning is
bifurcated, WR-1A and WR-3A. This is an Unlisted SEQRA. You will need to do
SEQRA tonight on this, if it comes to that. Project Description: . Applicant proposes
subdivision of a 3.42 acre parcel into two lots of 1.0 acre and 2.42 acres. The lot is
located adjacent to Glen lake. Staff comments. The Planning Board reviewed the
Sketch Plan subdivision on November 25, 2008. Area Variance 70-2008 was approved
by the ZBA on November 26, 2008, see attached. The survey indicates a compliant
wastewater system is possible for lot 2 and said system is located upslope on the
southeast portion of the lot. The Planning Board may wish to consider, as a condition of
approval, that site plan review is required for any alteration to the existing structure
and/or the building of a single family dwelling on lot 2, and with that I'd turn it over to the
Board.
MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. Thank you. Good evening.
MR. O'CONNOR-Good evening. Mr. Chairman, I'm Michael O'Connor from the law firm
of Little & O'Connor. I represent the applicant, and Christine Mozal is the applicant, and
is here on my right. The project engineer is Tom Hutchins. He is on my left. I think
basically I submitted a letter dated March 16th, along with the application, which p~etty
well spelled out what we're trying to do. We basically had two lots. They were combined
when the Mozals desired to build a garage, which would be considered an accessory
22
(Queensbury Planning Board OS/28/09)
structure, without putting a residential element within the garage, and what we're trying
to do now is un-join the two lots that we joined back then, so that they can seU the two
different parcels separately. That's basically it. We reconfigured them a little bit different
than what they were when they came in, to make the principal structure, the principal
house lot, compliant with the zoning, that is a one acre zone, or was in a one acre zone
at the time of the application, and that is compliant. We did get an Area Variance for the
garage lot, if you will, which would be in a. three acre zone, and this is 2:3, I t~ink, acr~~.
That's basically it. Tom has, we just received a letter from VISION Engmeenng, and It s
got a bunch of elements outstanding on it. I think we can address most of those. We
have not made submittals to address those, but we can tell you what we are going to
submit for those, and I guesswe would start probably with, I've given Tom a copy of the
variance determination, and what we'll do is simply put it on the plan, the decision or
determination in total, so that there's no issue of what is there or not there, just print it on
there, and I think the only other thing that I would, well, I would answer Question Number
Two, location, specifications and legal right of way should be shown on the Site Plan. It
should be clarified if lot Two will require an easement from lands of Marshal, or if this
right of way extends to the lands of Nolan. The right of way does extend to the lands of
Nolan. It already runs through the Marshal lot. The Mozal properties, if you will, form a
U around the Marshal parcel, but when the Marshal lot was sold to them, it had a right of
way of.12 feet through it, and it's still there, it still would be used. All of these lots on this
portion of Glen lake are on a private road. It used to be called Rose lane.. I'm notsure
what it's called now. When they put up the street signs, they put up, I think it was Rose
lane, Fitzgerald Road Extension. Okay. There's probably seven, eight different
residences that all have a 12 foot right of way. It goes through what was the Gore
property, that's now owned by Pat Riley, the Zack property, and then there are two
houses, VanSlooten and Clay Ashworth, and Carter, and then there's another one on top
of the, there's about seven that all are served by the 12 foot right of way. That's a private
road, private right of way. It's maintained by the individuals that live along that road, and
that's, Tom, I think three on, I believe, to you, except for 10, and, let me see, yes, 10 was
the SEQRA question on whether or not there was anx endangered species or habitat on
the premises, and we did get a letter dated May 2t , which we will submit, from DEC,
saying that there are no New York State or Federally listed threatened or endangered
species or their habitats found on or near the parcel, and identifies the parcel by tax map
number.
MR. HUTCHINS-With regard to additional VISION comments, Item Three indicates that
the absorption field appears to be at a low point on the site. Yes. It is in a shallow
depression that's located in the general area. My procedure here was to go up there and
look for what I felt, locate the boundary, and look for what I felt was the most appropriate
place to locate the septic system in the field. I did a test hole there, and there's a subtle
depression there. I've graded to mitigate anything from the system or from surface area
running toward the system. I'm not concerned about it. If there's a big concern, I can re-
locate it a little bit, but there's plenty of room up there to locate a conventional septic
system. Is it ideal, probably not, but there's plenty of area. Item Four, again, on the
slopes greater than 15%, they're in the nature of 15%. They are rolling slopes. It's not a
consistent slope going on forever. It's a rolling slope area, and grading upon installation
of the system, we'll address that. Limits of clearing should be shown for lot Two. Yes.
That's something that can get located on the plans. An absorption field section should
be drawn to scale. It is drawn to scale. I didn't indicate the scale, but that's fine. I can
update that. I did it the way I normally do them. Procedures for well installation. . The
access for well installation is, there is an access road across, right near the lake, that
there is access right of way to get to across Nolan property, and we have walked in the
field and scouted as to the location for the well, and there have been concrete trucks
across there when work was done on the lake. It is accessible by a large vehicle so that
the well rigwould get there via the Nolan parcel. As far as excavating to get from the
well up to the building. It's going to be tough. Much of it can be done from above,
reaching down with an excavator. Some of it may be hand work. It's doable. It won't be
easy. long Form, SEORA long Form question has to do with public utilities. . The only
one I believe is electric, and it's there, and we were confused as to the nature of that
comment. Erosion control measures should be implemented below the well. Yes,
correct, and I don't show silt fence locations on any of these. Our intent was to prove out
that we could get, indeed, a compliant system on this parcel. Vegetation and tree line
should be shown along the Site Plan, along with any proposed landscaping. To my
kno~ledge, do you want to touch on that? To my knowledge, we weren't proposing
additional landscaping. We're not adding new buildings. We're not clearing.
MR. O'CONNOR-The only areas of disturbance would be the areas for the septic and the
line connecting to the septic, and for the line with the well, the areaofthe well. Actually, I
don't even know if the well drilling is considered a disturbance, and we did show, I think
23
(Queensbury Planning Board OS/28/09)
Tom wanted to see the stairs that Would be installed to go from the garage structure
down to the lake, and we have shown those, but that won't require any great deal of
grading. There will be a couple of trees thqt will be cut to do that. We've shown the
stairs. I don't know what else you need to show for that.
MR. SEGUlJIC-So really that's all, at this point, proposed structures then?
MR. O'CONNOR-Yes, and we have no objection to the suggestion by Staff that if there is
to be any additional structure or addition or whatever to the existing structure, that it be
subject to Site Plan, and be a condition of this approval.
MR. TRAVER-Or alteration.
MR. O'CONNOR-Addition, modification, or exterior, let me just say this, though, exterior
alteration or modification. The inside of that building we know is going to have to be
outfitted for residential use. Right now it's not, but I think what was envisioned was if
you're going to put decks on, or patios or something of that, you wanted to see how that
was going to fit. That's my understanding.
MR. FORD-What's the proximity to the lake forthe two trees to be removed?
MR. O'CONNOR-I said a couple of trees for the steps.
MR. FORD-The the steps, the stairs.
MR. HUTCHINS-Well, the intent was to work the steps through the. existing vegetation,
and not remove large scale vegetation. We show the steps, Z shaped step, that mayor
may not be the best way. We haven't located trees to determine which ones would have
to go. It's likely that it could be worked through the larger trees, and some of the smaller
stuff would have to go. It's pretty dense.
MR. FORD-That's what I was wondering about what two trees and where they were.
MR. O'CONNOR-I think we would stipulate that we would follow the lakeshore
requirements. You're entitled to do a little bit, some clearing.
MR. FORD-You know that's where I was going.
MR. O'CONNOR-Yes. Okay. We're not asking for a variance of those regulations.
We'd follow them.
MR. SEGULJIC-I hate to have to ask this question. It's been a while since I've looked at
this, but the lot line going through to (lost word).
MR. O'CONNOR-Mr. Marshal's structure has encroached upon the Mozal property for a
number of years.
MR. SEGULJIC-And that's the way it's going to stay, I guess?
MR. O'CONNOR-Probably we. will have to strike some type of boundary line agreement
with him. The problem, there's a series of problems with that, and I'd just as soon not
get distracted from the subdivision to get into that, but in order to have a legitimate
boundary line agreement, to give up.
MR. SEGULJIC- That's not one of the line's you're creating. That's not the point of this.
MR. O'CONNOR-No. If we give up 13 square feet of land, he has to give us 13 square
feet of land, and that all has to be worked out.
24
(Queensbury Planning Board OS/28/09)
MR. SEGULJIC-Okay.
MR. O'CONNOR-Because you can't make his lot, or you can't make our lot less
conforming than it presently is. So it has to be an even swap, and I think even the new
regulations have a provision in there that kind of condone, in a more straightforward
manner, boundary line adjustments, than what it used to be. Used to do them, hope that
nobody would think it would be significant. Now they say that you can do them, which I
think is an improvement of the Ordinance.
MR. OBORNE-And I think, to add on that, I think that's,. the Zoning Administrator can
handle that administratively.
MR. O'CONNOR-Yes.
MR. HUNSINGER-Yes. So you're going to wait until the new Code's in effect, and you
can take care of it as an administrative item.
MR. O'CONNOR-I think that, except for this application that was filed prior to it, the new
Code is in effect. It's now with the key code people. We took one off the line, earlier part
. of the week. So the Code people have it on their record. So I'm presuming it has been.
MR. HUNSINGER-Okay.
MRS. STEFFAN-Well, it just depends, our understanding is it depends on when yo'ur
application's filed, whether we have to go with the old Code or the new Code.
MR. O'CONNOR-Yes. This one wasfiled prior to the new Code going into effect.
MR. OBORNE-As far as subdivision goes. I mean, this is a subdivision application.
MR. O'CONNOR-Yes.
MR. OBORNE-It's not a Site Plan.
MR. HUNSINGER-Other questions, comments from members of the Board?
MR. SEGULJIC-So, just for my edification, this is just subdivision. So as far as the
septic codes?
MR. OBORNE-You have to show that you can place a compliant septic on there.
MR. SEGULJIC-But the details can be worked out later.
MR. OBORNE-At Site Plan Review.
MR. SEGULJIC-Okay. All right.
MR. OBORNE-Which will possibly be a requirement of this subdivision, if the Board so
chooses.
MR. SEGULJIC-Saying that when that site comes in for development of the septic
system at that point, tabled with that condition that they come back.
MR. O'CONNOR-If can interrupt you. I would just as soon c:ome back, well, it's on for
Preliminary and Final approval tonight, and I am wondering whether or not you can
condition it upon us, give us the Preliminary. Condition the Final upon us getting a
signoff from engineering as to a compliant septic system for Lot Number Two. So that it
makes it much more salable, and we're willing to undertake that expense and go through
that process with the VISION Engineering.
MR. OBORNE-The only issue I see with the are the SEQRA implications. This is an
Unlisted SEQRA, and we have to look at that form, as far as that. If the Board's
comfortable with going ahead with SEQRA, without the septic being vetted, so to speak,
then that would be up to the Board at this point.
MR. O'CONNOR-Well, we've done the perc test. We have a location. I don't know what,
typically, you would have different than that, even if this were a 50 lot subdivision. You
don't have that, in fact, on all 50 lots. Maybe we're looking at it a little closer because it's
a two lot subdivision, but I think we're way ahead of the game as far as typical
25
(Queensbury Planning Board OS/28/09)
subdivision approval for septic, but I'm thinking, as long aswe've got it on the table and
we're on your agendas, I'd just as soon finalize the septic, as opposed to saying that that
would be one. of the. requirements for an additional application for Site Plan. let's do it
now, either by condition that we get the signoff after Final approval, or even before Final
approval.
MR. HUNSINGER-Okay.
MR. SEGULJIC-Just clarify that for me. At this point you'd like to get the approval of the
septic system?
MR. O'CONNOR-No, well, we're here for subdivision approval. So we would like to get
Preliminary approval this evening, and we would like to get Final approval this evening,
conditioned upon us satisfying VISION Engineering as to the septic system on lot
Number Two.
MR. SEGULJIC-Okay.
MR. OBORNE- That's, if the Board's .comfortable with the SEQRA aspect of it at
Preliminary. You're going to be doing your SEQRA at Preliminary.
MRS. STEFFAN-Yes, but VISION Engineering comments are specific about, they're
obviously not signing off on that and saying the septic system's at a low point on the site.
The expansion areas are located in slopes greater than 15%, and the septic replacement
area for the building on lot One should be shown in reserve. So there's a couple of
issues regarding septic that the VISION Engineering needs more information or, you
know, has not given a signoff yet. So I don't think I'm comfortable with going forward
with SEQRA without having VISION okay with those particular issues. I don't know how
anybody else feels.
MR. FORD-I tend to concur with that.
MRS. STEFFAN-I mean, certainly when Mr. Hutchins went through the letter, went
through the VISION Engineering letter point by point, he seems that he can satisfy these
things, but until he actually does and VISION says, and VISION says they're okay, then
we've got some SEQRA related issues.
MR. OBORNE-And test pits would need to be verified, I believe. If you want to signoff on
your septic, that's typically what would happen is you'd have him out there to verify it.
MR. HUTCHINS-Not normally.
MR. OBORNE-Not normally?
MR. HUTCHINS-No. In this particular case, I believe I did it in February, and this was a
case where I contacted him to advise him I was dOing test pits and I didn't get a return
call.
MR. OBORNE-Right.
MR. HUTCHINS-I did them. He did not witness them. I can assure you there's not a
groundwater issue, and that's normally why he's there, to observe the test holes, but.
MR. FORD-And refresh my memory as to when that occurred, Tom?
MR. HUTCHINS-When I, there was a lot of snow.
MR. SEGULJIC-February 24th.
MR. HUTCHINS-February 24th? Okay.
MR. SEGULJIC-And the perc test February 9th.
MR. HUTCHINS-Yes.
MR. FORD-Thank you.
MR. HUNSINGER-So you went down 60 inches and didn't find any groundwater. I would
have been surprised if you found in any, since this is up higher anyway.
26
(Queensbury Planning Board OS/28/09)
MR. O'CONNOR-If they went 60 feet I'd be surprised if they found water. He says that's
in a low area. You have to take a look at the map. The water. shed of what would be the
low area is probably 50 feet in width at most.
MR. HUTCHINS-You get to the top of the slope and there's an area that there's a, kind of
goes like that.
MR. O'CONNOR.,It's not like a whole watershed.
MR. HUTCHINS-It's a tiny little area. It's a small little hole, and I've placed a fie.ld on one
side of that. It looked like the nicest place to put it and cause the .least disturbance, and
accomplish what we want to accomplish.
MR. SEGUlJIC-How would you get up there to do the work on that?
MR. O'CONNOR-Come in through Dr. Rawley's property. There's a whole system of old
log trails through most of that, and they've been there for years and years. It's the
reverse where they bring the well driller in. That used to be a road that ran along that
side of the lake, before all these houses were built. When these houses were built, when
Christine's house was built, when the other house was built, they dug into the bank, and
created a shelf, and when they created the shelf, they filled in the area between the shelf
and the lake, which eradicated that road from going all.the way around the lake. It used
to come in by what is Gardner's property, and you'd run right around, you could run all
the way down to where Hall Road is on that side.
MR. SIPP-When was that?
MR. O'CONNOR-1950's. Dr. Barber lived on the point down at that point down there
and we used to live up by the island, and we'd walk that road back and forth, his kids and
myself. Bob Nolan owned that property. Bob Nolan is the one that created those lots.
MR. HUNSINGER-So how were those trails kept open? People use them enough to
keep the vegetation down, I guess?
MR. O'CONNOR-Yes.
MR. HUTCHINS-There was a nice snowmobile trail up through there.
MR. O'CONNOR-There's a lot of people that walk back in there. A lot of people exercise
back through there, and that's how they brought, they actually brought a machine in to
dig the test hole, right? They came in through Pat Rawley's property.
CHRISTINE MOZAl
MS. MOZAL-Which I have permission from both ends to cross their properties, too.
MR. HUNSINGER-Well, we do have a public hearing scheduled this evening. Is there
anyone in the audience that wants to address the Board on this application? The
purpose of the public hearing is for neighbors to present information to the Board. I
would ask that anyone wishing to address the Board please state their name for the
record. We do tape the minutes. So please state your name for the microphone and I
would ask that you try to keep your comments to three minutes.
PUBLIC HEARING OPENED
DON MARSHAL
MR. MARSHAL-My name is Don Marshal. I own the property that's in the middle there,
and what I understood that I don't object to what Christine is trying to do here, but I do
have a concern about the property line on the east side of our lot. The one that's in,
where the encroachment is, is on the west side, and my property was there, I bought it
40 years ago and the house was there, and then Rich came along and built, assuming
where the line was. So we never, it doesn't, to me, it's much more of a parallelogram,
and it extends, I don't know what it looks like on your map, but it doesn't look like that to
me on the, the main problem that I have, Mr. O'Connor is talking about swapping and
moving the lines back and making the property look more like a rectangle rather than the
parallelogram that it is, and if I swap the, if I move my line on the east side, in conjunction
with the line on the west side, and kind of straighten the lot up, my septic system is going
27
(Queensbury Planning Board OS/28/09)
to be, is very close to that line on the west side. It's a nonconforming septic system. I
didn't put it in. We only use it for a couple of months in the summer, but if that line
moves in, the drainage, the leach area will definitely be encroaching on the next door
neighbor's property, and I'm just concerned that if I do this so called swap that he's
talking about, that it'll jeopardize what we have there as far as septic.
MR. HUNSINGER-Well, if this subdivision is approved, any land swap would only be on
the east side, because they would no longer have site control on the west. So any lot
line adjustment would be on your eastern boundary, not the western boundary, but, I
mean, that's all speculation anyway, but, you know, I mean, your points have been made
to the record.. So, you know, we certainly appreciate your comments.
MR. MARSHAL-I don't know if it made any sense or not. Thank you.
MR. HUNSINGER- Thank you. Anyone else? Any written comments, Keith?
MR. OBORNE-No, sir.
MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. Did I speak out of school, Mr. O'Connor? I should have left
the question for you to answer, instead of trying to take it on.
MR. O'CONNOR-I don't want to get distracted, okay. Unless my understanding is
incorrect, he has to give us what we give him.
MR. HUNSINGER-Right.
MR. O'CONNOR-I didn't say it has to come off his west line or his east. He encroaches
on his west line. His septic system is near his east line, and I did not say that the
property that he gives to us has to come off the east line. It may be able to come off his
back line. I'm not sure. I haven't, apparently, and the only time we've had this
conversation is he had a brief conversation with Christine before the meeting, and she
reported it to me when she came in and sat down next to me. I haven't looked at the
maps and figured out what is or isn't. We might even give an easement that says that he
can continue to occupy the place he occupies. When he reconstructs, he has to
reconstruct it on his own lot. This place has been surveyed, I'm nOt sure what he meant
by it's not what he thinks it is. We've had it surveyed about three times, and each survey
has been consistent with what is shown on your maps, but I mean, there are a lot of
different things, but I really don't want to distract or get distracted. from the task at hand,
trying to approve the subdivision. The subdivision lines that you are approving won't, in
any way, impact that encroachment of his camp on the Mozal property. That's already
there.
MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. What's the will of the Board? Are people comfortable moving
forward with a conditional?
MR. SEGULJIC-So, if we move forward with a c:onditional, and give. Preliminary
approval, and in the meantime, we'd have to go through SEQRA, and then they'd have to
come back with Final with the details worked out on the septic system.
MR. HUNSINGER-Well, I guess, I mean, there's a number of different approaches that
we could take.
MR. SEGULJIC-That's oneofthem.
MR. HUNSINGER-That would be one, yes.
MR. SEGULJIC- The other option is we table it until we get the engineering straightened
out, and then we give Preliminary and Final.
MR. HUNSINGER-I guess the question is, in straightening up the engineering, would it
affect the lot lines that are shown on the map?
~R. SEGULJIC-Right, because this is just subdivision.
MR. HUNSINGER-Right.
MR. SEGULJIC-I guess that's where I get confused,. and I guess, when we do
subdivision, we have to show it's a compliant septic system, correct, or that they can put
one on?
28
(Queensbury Planning Board OS/28/09)
MR. OBORNE-Yes.
MR. HUNSINGER-Right.
MR. SEGULJIC-That they can put one on there.
MR. OBORNE-Yes.
MR. SEGUlJIC-lt doesn't necessarily, it doesn't have to be engineered.
MR. OBORNE-They have to show the location of a compliant, designed by an engineer.
MR. SEGULJIC-Okay.
MR. HUNSINGER-And maybe, you know, as our engineer pointed out, maybe that's not
the perfect spot for the septic, but that's, the specific location of a septic is not usually, as
Mr. O'Connor pointed out, we don't usually get into that level of detail with a simple
subdivision.
MR. SEGULJIC-Right, because that would get sorted out in the Site Plan.
MR. HUNSINGER-Right, or when they go to get their permit.
MRS. STEFFAN-But we're making a decision to approve a subdivision based on the
assumption that they can puta compliant septic in, and what happens if we don't do that,
and then it gets sold, and then someone finds they can't? Then we're in a box.
MR. HUNSINGER-That's true, y~s.
MRS. STEFFAN-I don't know how likely that is, but.
MR. HUNSINGER-Yes. I mean, I don't think the engineer is saying that he doesn't think
a compliant septic can be placed on the lot. He's just raising some questions about
what's been shown on the drawing.
MR. SEGULJIC-So we could put condition that for, when they.do Site Plan, they'd have
to come back. They'd have to do a Site Plan if they wanted to develop that site then.
That would be one of the. final conditions, I guess, we could put on it.
MRS. STEFFAN-They're going to have to come back no matter what. I mean, they're
not going to get all their approvals tonight. So whether they come back in July and get
Preliminary and Final when they've given us all the information that we need, they can
be done in July, or we can start the process, but they still have to come back and we
have to finish in July. So, you know, do you feel comfortable going forward with the
SEQRA now, without all the information, or do we just wait, get all the information we
need, and do it all at once?
MR. TRAVER-Well, it was originally scheduled for both Preliminary and Final tonight.
We now know that they're going to have to come back. Why don't we have them come
back again, for Preliminary and Final, and that way we can have it all tied up in one
package, and still accomplish it with the same number of meetings and the same number
of visits before us, and yet we'll have all the information we need to be 100% on SEQRA.
We'll have a final plan. We'll have. all of that taken care of, and it doesn't impact on the
applicant in terms of the number of times they're going to be here.
"
MR. O'CONNOR-It does. I know you're having your Board discussion, but, see, I don't
think as part of your subdivision you actually approve the septic system, which is where
this letter seems to be going, as opposed to simply saying that a septic system is
possible, and the design usually comes in with the building permit, and actually it's Dave
Hatin that approves the actual septic system, as part of the building permit process.
MR. OBORNE-Sure, but you're asking for the Planning Board to have that on the final
plat, though, that it's a compliant septic system, and I think that's what they're
uncomfortable with.
MR. O'CONNOR-Well, if itwould speed things up, I'll withdraw that request, and if I don't
have to come back, that's fine.
29
(Queensbury Planning Board OS/28/09)
MR. OBORNE-And I do say that, just looking overthe narrative, there's really no mention
of you wanting that on the finaL This is something that c:ame up here, and that's just
what it is. The minimum requirements are to show that there is a septic system that can
be put on the property signed by an engineer. It just needs to be shown at Preliminary.
MR. O'CONNOR-And we've done that.
MR. HUNSINGER-I'm sorry, could you state that again, Keith?
MR. OBORNE-The Subdivision Regulations state, as part of the Preliminary plat, the
requirements are, one of the many requirements are to show a compliant septic system
or, not compliant, a septic system can be located on the property and designed by an
engineer. That's just one of many, along with water and grading and all that. So if he's
withdrawing the, he wanted a condition at Final that the septic was compliant.
MR. O'CONNOR-Okay. Then if you would, if you feel, let's do subdivision approval, and
the septic system we'll come back and, either through the building permit process, or as
part ofa Site Plan.
MR. OBORNE-Site Plan Review.
MRS. STEFFAN-But how can we let that go when VISION Engineering specifically
identifies the septic issues as issues that need to be resolved?
MR. O'CONNOR-I think they're trying to approve the existing, or the septic system,
which is not a necessity for subdivision approval. I think what we've shown on the
mapping by Mr. Hutchins is that a septic system can be built on the property. You may
have to juggle it to get it out. of that low depression a little. bit. You may have to do a
couple of other little things like that. Some of the things that he wants to show on the
final mapping.
MRS. STEFFAN-Well, one of the questions, like item four, or Number Four, the. septic
system and expansion area are located on slopes greater than 15%, and so that's.
MR. O'CONNOR-But that's an observation; It's permitted. You can do septic systems
up to 20%, and the area that we're talking about isn't in excess of 20%. Some of those
things are observations. They're not failures or they're not defects. I'm sorry that, and I
don't mean, Mr. Ryan's not here. I can't speak for him.
MR. SEGULJIC-So in reality what you're looking for is a subdivision with improvements?
MR. O'CONNOR-Except for what's there now.
tv1R. SEGULJIC-Yes, except for what's there now.
MR. O'CONNOR-Yes.
MR. SEGULJIC-So, in my world, we could give them Preliminary and Final with the
subdivision, and put a condition on the Final that when they go to do any improvements,
then they have to come back for Site Plan approval on it. I believe that's what Staff
recommended also. Right?
MR. OBORNE-Yes, absolutely, you know, and if you can get through Preliminary, go to
Final, and conditions at Final would be what you just stated and to satisfy VISION
Engineering notes. Typically, you want to do that at Preliminary. Typically, but he's
raising issues that.
MR. O'CONNOR-I'll simplify life. I accept that you table it, and we'll come back. Give us
a date and we'll come back.
MR. FORD-Thank you.
MR. O'CONNOR-If you give us a date that we canwork with.
MR. HUNSINGER-Well, it'll be July.
30
(Queensbury Planning Board OS/28/09)
MR. OBORNE-Well, June agenda is done. I mean, final agenda was today. It's been
posted. So it would be July. It would be turn-keyed in July. That would be my
presumption.
MR. O'CONNOR-If we were to file a Site Plan application tomorrow for the septic
system, would that be July also?
MR. OBORNE-That would be July,and you're probably pushing August at this point, but.
MR. O'CONNOR-Okay. She wants to be able to sell the garage lot, and what's the
quickest way to get there? I think we accept the fact that you're going to table it, and
you're going to table it subject to us satisfying engineering comments or responding to
engineering comments in a manner that they are not of concern to you when you get to
Preliminary and Final.
MR. SEGULJIC-I'II speak for myself. Correct, but time seems to be an issue, and I think
you had indicated we can get it on in July. It should be pretty straightforward.
MR. OBORNE-Now, you can get it on July. If you want to put it on the first meeting,
. that's fine, too. The July agenda has not been set.
MRS. STEFFAN-But I thought you said that we have enough slots, that the only slots
available were three on the 28th?
MR. OBORNE-That is correct, but if you want to be accommodating, you can direct me
to set the agenda and table this person to the first meeting in July.
MR. HUNSINGER-Yes, we can specify.
MR. OBORNE-Exactly.
MR. HUNSINGER-And it may mean another item gets bumped, you know, but that's the
world we live in.
MR. TRAVER-Yes. Assuming they're able to address all these issues, and it certainly
sounds that way from the presentation of the applicant, this should be a fairly
straightforward process.
MR. HUNSINGER-I would think so.
MR. TRAVER-Yes.
MR. HUNSINGER-I mean, I don't think it's going tobe a, if we have a signoff from the
engineer, it shouldn't be a, you know, more than a 10 or 15 minute discussion.
MR. O'CONNOR-What's your first meeting in July?
MRS. STEFFAN-The 21st.
MR. HUNSINGER-The 21S\ and you'd need to submit everything by June 151h.
MR. O'CONNOR-Will we get our comments back before July 21st? Can you?
MS. MOlAL-I have a comment, you know, being the applicant, this was given to us one
day before this meeting. Now the time is of essence to me, and I'm paying the price for
another month, for two. I think we've been very reasonable. He's shown that septic can
be placed on there. I don't really see why I have to wait two more months, when we're
going to come back with exactly the same thing. Maybe in a little bit of a shift, so, in light
of that, what is your opinion?
MR. HUNSINGER-Well, my opinion is, I mean, personally,. 1 felt comfortable moving
forward, but, you know, I'm just one person on a Board of seven, and there were at least
four or five votes that wanted to have more information, before they would feel
comfortable moving forward.
MS. MOZAl-Where's the four or five votes?
31
(Queensbury Planning Board OS/28/09)
MR. HUNSINGER-Well, we heard from them this evening, that they wanted to see more
details before they could get through SEQRA.
MRS. STEFFAN-If the VISION Engineering comments, you know, in my opinion, if the
VISION Engineering comments didn't bring up some of these issues, if there was more
of a signoff here, I'd be okay to go ahead, but there's too many questions that the
VISION Engineering comments have lead, you know, and I certainly can.empathize with
you, just getting these, and. I just got mine tonight. I didn't see them before tonight, but,
you know, that's a systemic issue.
MS. MOZAL-I can't be ~dded to the June agenda as Old Business?
MRS. STEFFAN-Well, unfortunately the application deadline for June was May 15th.
MS. MOZAl-Well, if I got my notes one day before, can some consideration be given to
that?
MRS. STEFFAN-Are we, we have full agendas for both months.
MR. OBORNE-For June, absolutely.
MR. HUNSINGER-Yes. There's 20 items. We had bumpeci all kinds of items into July.
MS. MOZAl-1 was here in November. Now I'm finally getting on an agenda in May, and
we submitted in March.
MR. HUNSINGER-Yes. I mean, unfortunately, that's the process, because of the number
of items.
MR. O'CONNOR-You need to give us action tonight, guys, as to what you're going to do.
I stand by what I said. We certainly would like to have you approve it, but I understood,
from the voices I heard, that there wasn't a majority that was comfortable approving it
this evening, or at least maybe I made a presumption. If I rnadea presumption wrong,
tell me I'm wrong. If not, let's table it and take the date we can get.
MR. SEGULJIC-I can only speak for myself in that I'd be okay with giving Preliminary
and Final with the condition that they come back for Site Plan.
MR. HUNSINGER-That doesn't speed it up for you.
MR. O'CONNOR-That doesn't speed it up.
MR. HUNSINGER-No, because you want to sell the lot and someone wants to move in,
put in their well and septic and move in. That doesn't speed that process up any further,
any quicker.
MR. FORD-There's nothing that we candoto accommodate them in June, no way?
MR. OBORNE-No. The agenda's closed.
MR. TRAVER-It's certainly, I mean, we can identify with the applicant in that they want to
move ahead with this, but looking at it from our standpoint, every applicant that is here
has gone through this long process and every applicant wants to be able to act
immediately. I mean, the whole reason for putting in the application is because you have
some action, some plan in mind. Believe me, we understand that.
MS. MOZAL-But my point is, we would not be in this position if we got those questions
earlier than a day before this meeting.
MR. FORD-Well, we share your frustration.
MR. TRA VER~On the other side of the issue, the engineer is responding to what's
submitted, to concerns about what is submitted.
MS. MOZAl-1 think we submitted in March, didn't we?
MR. TRAVER-I mean, I don't want to get into an adversarial situation here, but.
32
(Queensbury Planning Board OS/28/09)
MR. O'CONNOR-The problem is that the engineer doesn't give you the comments in
enough time to respond to him, and we've tried to get him, didn't get to him,truthfully.
That's just the position that everybody is in, I guess.
MR. OBORNE-Yes, it is a position that everybody's in, and it is not a perfect world, and
I'll absolutely attest to that. Typically the engineering notes hit on the Friday before the
meeting. They did not this time because of technical issues with our server. I would
usually send them out, e-mail, to the applicant, to the agent. Our servers did not get up
to speed until Tuesday, and that is when I went and got them, and handed them out.
Tom came and got them. Again, you're talking about a four day turnaround. You'd still
have to answer these, regardless, if it was the proper protocol, which would have been
Friday. Okay. The way it's set up is that either, there are different scenarios you can go
through to change the process. One would be to do the engineering on the front end of
the project, before you even move forward. That's one way to do it, and then that brings
up a whole other bunch of issues. This has been thought through and gone through over
time, and whatever way you do it.
MR. HUNSINGER-Yes, in fact, we had a workshop earlier in May, just to talk about t~e
timing and the sequence of engineering comments and everything else.
MR. O'CONNOR-It's become accepted, though, Chris, that if we file by the 15th of this
month, we won't be on next month's agenda. We'll be on the month following that. We
just seem to have that type of business.
MR. HUNSINGER-Well, and that's what Gretchen just mentioned, you know, that maybe
a compromise, if you will, is we have 20 items for June, for two meetings. So that means
that we now have a backlog, even though we had cleaned up the backlog a couple of
months ago, and so maybe the compromise, which would help the applicant and would
help other applicants, is to look for a Special Meeting in earlier July, maybe July tho
MR. TRAVER-Do a third meeting in July?
MR. HUNSINGER-Do a third meeting in July.
MR. FORD-And add this to that.
MR. HUNSINGER-And this would be the, you know, add this to that agenda.
MRS. STEFFAN-And if we added that, then we could go with the June 15th submission
deadline, and that would give Staff and VISION three weeks from the submission
deadline to the meeting, for the materials.
MR. FORD-Preliminary and Final.
MR. OBORNE-I answer to the Planning Board.
MR. HUNSINGER-I mean, it's not a perfect world, but it's, you know, we're going to get
you in two weeks earlier.
MR. O'CONNOR-We'd appreciate that. Whatever you can do, we appreciate. If that's
what you're doing, I'll say thank you and we will leave.
MR. HUNSINGER-Okay.
MR. O'CONNOR-Although I think you've got to do a motion, but my comment was, you
know, the burden is always on the applicant to make deadlines. Why don't we, the Town
may not like it, but why don't we, and then we've all become accustomed to the fact to
. say that if I submit by the 15th of May, I won't be on the June agenda. I kind of know that.
I tell my people that when we are doing things, but why don't we have a reverse burden
that says that we get the Staff and the engineering comments by the 15th of the month
after we submit? And then we're all ready to do business on the day that it hits your
agenda, or the month when it hits your agenda, as opposed to we're all in here
scrambling, because we've gotten comments with either four days before or two. days
before or whatever it is, but there's no, you know, somehow or other you've got to either
get a second engineering firm or somebody thatcan put more people on the thing, and
get it back, say, on the 15th of the month after you submit it, so that the second month
you can expect to take action.
MR. SIPP-Yes, that's your perfect world, Mike.
33
(Queensbury Planning Board OS/28/09)
MR. O'CONNOR-Well, I live in a. perfect world.
MR. SIPP-Well, we did not get the engineer's comments until tonight because of the e-
mail screw up.
MR. FORD-I got them tonight.
MR. O'CONNOR-Well, even if we got them on Friday, we can't have a, we<can't respond
to him and have, we can respond, Tom's donep<3rt of a map. I've seen the map that he's
done in the last day, struggling to get everything together for us, but that doesn't do us
any good to have a one sided response. We've got to submit it and get his, does he
agree with our answers.
MR. SIPP-Is the only hang up here the location of the septic system? Is that the only
thing we're, that's holding up the works?
MR. HUNSINGER-Pretty much.
MR. O'CONNOR-I think so.
MR. HUTCHINS-For what it's worth, the location of the absorption field is one of the
lowest concerns of mine in this, the whole thing.
MR. SIPP-Some place on that (lost words) you're going to have to put it anyway. Right?
MR. HUTCHINS-I mean, there's plenty of room to put a field. The soils are marvelous.
MR. SIPP-It's going to have to go some place, or else that land is not usable.
MR. O'CONNOR-Yes.
MR. SIPP-So, some place, whether it be up in the northwest corner, or the southeast
corner, or some place, it's going to have to go. So, in my way of thinking, I think I agree
with Tom. If that's the only hang up, I can't see why it can't move forward, with that
stipulation, and in Site Plan Review, when somebody comes in there, because this is in a
CEA. Right?
MR. O'CONNOR-Part of it is.
MR. SEGUlJIC-Part of it is, 100 feet from the shore.
MR. O'CONNOR-The first 100 feet is, not where the septic system is going. Glen lake, .
the CEA is only 100 feet deep.
MR. SEGULJIC-But I think we've struck a compromise here. July 7th, I hear.
MR. FORD-I appreciate your comments, though, in regard to engineering, some
modifications.
MR. O'CONNOR-It's totally frustrating.
MR. SEGULJIC-I think the perfect solution is having engineering here.
MR. O'CONNOR-And even you get weaker presentations by, you know, we put this thing
together in March, and two months later we.'re trying to scramble to put together what
we've presented.
MRS. STEFFAN-Well, one of the other outstanding issues, I mean, I've been on the
Planning Board for, I think, five years now, but when we started out, we used to have, we
used to.d012.site plans, as far as limits on every agenda, we used to do 12, but with the
complexity of the projects now.
MR. HUNSINGER-And all the new rules and regulations.
MRS. STEFFAN-Folks, some of the applicants not fulfilling the requirements of their Site
Plan, it takes us a lot longer to evaluate them. So now we're down to seven agenda
items a night, just because of the complexity of some of the projects. So, there's a lot of
34
(Queensbury Planning Board OS/28/09)
variables in the process, and so it takes a long time to get on the agendas. That's why
people keep getting bumped.
MR. OBORNE-If I may add also, the people that do, for the Town, Staff, not only do the
Planning Board, they also do the Zoning Board notes also.
MRS. STEFFAN-And we're down a couple of people from five years ago when I joined
the Board.
MR. OBORNE-Right, and so to say, I'd say we're short staffed. I'm not proposing that
we add more Staff. It's just, this is the result.
MRS. STEFFAN-Things were different.
MR. O'CONNOR-Do you really want me to get on my soap box? How about the
application that we had for a boat lift, 18 copies of, no 15 copies of the survey, .15 copies
of the lake George Park Commission permit to put. the boat lift in, 15 copies. of an
application for Site Plan Review, 15 copies of about four other items. The deed. Now
why anybody needs 15 copies of a deed from an applicant is beyond me, all at
some body's expense, because the boat lift has a canopy on it. A boat lift is actually
beyond mean high water mark.
MR. FORD-But where on here does it say boat lifts?
MR. O'CONNOR-And I should be. happy because I'm making $1,000 for doing the boat
Iift,which is dumb. It's dumb, absolutely dumb, guys. You're creating something, we've
got a bad ordinance.
MR. OBORNE-I disagree.
MR. O'CONNOR-You really think we've got a good ordinance?
MR. OBORNE-Yes, I think we do.
MR. HUNSINGER-All right. Do we have a motion?
MRS. STEFFAN-All right. I will make a motion.
MOTION TO TABLE. PRELIMINARY & FINAL STAGE SUBDIVISION. NO. 8-2008
CHRISTINE MOlAL, Introduced by Gretchen Steffan who moved for its adoption,
seconded by Thomas Ford:
1. A subdivision application has been made to the Queensbury Planning Board for
the following; Applicant proposes subdivision of a 3.42 acre parcel into two lots of
1.0 & 2.42 acres. Subdivision of land requires Planning Board review and
approval.
2. A public hearing was scheduled and held on 5/28/09; and
3. This application is supported with all documentation, public comment and
application material in the file of record; and
4. MOTION TO TABLE PRELIMINARY & FINAL STAGE SUBDIVISION NO. 8-2008
CHRISTINE MOZAl, Introduced by Gretchen Steffan who moved for its adoption,
seconded by Thomas Ford:
We're tabling this to a Special Planning Board meeting to be held on July 7th.
There will be an application deadline for submissions of June 15th. This item is
tabled so that:
1. That the applic:ant can add a plat notation that Site Plan Review will be
required forany exterior alteration to the existing structure and/or the building
of a single family dwelling.
2. That the applicant will provide a compliant septic system design for lot
Number Two, designed by an engineer.
3. That the applicant addresses VISION Engineering comments and obtain a
signoff.
35
(Queensbury Planning Board OS/28/09)
Duly adopted this 28th day of May, 2009. by the following vote:
MR. O'CONNOR-As to Number One, you didn't use the word "exterior".
MRS. STEFFAN-That is correct. I will add exterior alteration. So Item One should be
add a plat notation that Site Plan Review will be required for any exterior alteration to the
existing structure and/or the bUilding of a single family dwelling.
MR. HUNSINGER-Okay.
AYES: Mr. Sipp, Mr. Traver, Mr. Jackowski, Mr. Seguljic, Mr. Ford, Mrs. Steffan,
Mr. Hunsinger
NOES: NONE
MR. O'CONNOR-Thank you very much for your patience.
MR. HUNSINGER-Yes. Thank you.
MS. MOlAL-Thank you.
MRS. STEFFAN-See you in July.
S.lTE PLAN NO. 25-2009 SEQR TYPE UNLISTED RANDY GROSS AGENT(S)
MICHAEL O'CONNOR, G. THOMAS HUTCHINS OWNER(S) SAME ZONING HC-
INT.; SR-1A. lOCATION 487 DIX AVENUE APPLICANT PROPOSES A CHANGE TO
APPROVED. SITE PLAN TO INCLUDE THE DEMOLITION OF EXISTING SINGLE
FAMilY DWELLING, CONSTRUCTION OF A NEW SINGLE FAMilY DWELLING, USE .
OF TEMPORARY STRUCTURE FOR SERVICES WITH ASSOCIATED WASTEWATER
SYSTEM AND SITE DETAilS. CHANGE TO AN APPROVED SITE PLAN REQUIRES
REVIEW AND APPROVAL BY THE PLANNING BOARD. CROSS REFERENCE SP
10-2008 lOT SIZE 15.24 +/- ACRES TAX MAP NO. 303.16-1-33 SECTION 179-9-
010
MICHAEL O'CONNOR & TOM HUTCHINS, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT
MR. HUNSINGER-Keith, whenever you're ready to summarize Staff Notes.
MR. OBORNE-Site Plan 25-2009, Randy. Gross. Requested action. Changes to an
approved Site Plan requires review and approval by the Planning Board. 487 Dix
Avenue is the location. Existing Zoning is SR-1A and HC-lntensive.SEQRA status is
Unlisted. Applicant proposes a c:hange to approved site plan to include the demolition of
existing 3 bedroom single-family dwelling previously proposed for parsonage,
construction of a new 4,175 square foot 4 bedroom single-family dwelling proposed for
parsonage and temporary use of 2,560 square .foot Pole Barn for services with
associated wastewater system. Further, the applicants seek permission to use tents from
April thru October 31, 2009 for related ministries and functions of the church.
Additionally, the applicant seeks to use existing construction entrance for congregation
traffic until existing house is demolished, Finally, an increase to the limits of clearing
adjacent to the east side of the church and religious instruction building is proposed.
Staff Comments. The applicant received approval for Site Plan 10-2008 on July 15,
2008 (see attached). Since approval, the applicant is now seeking to modify the site plan
as described above. Currently, footers for the Sanctuary are being installed, a large
portion of the grading has been accomplished and the in-ground pool has been removed
and filled in. Plan Review, real quick. The Planning Board may wish to direct the
applicant to provide an updated phasing schedule for the new proposal. A gravel base
should be installed on the temporary drive to promote traction and reduce mud and
sediment from leaving site, and with that I'd turn it over to the Board.
MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. Thank you. Good evening.
MR. O'CONNOR-Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I'm Michael O'Connorfrom the law firm of
Little & O'Connor. I represent the applicant, and with me .is Pastor Randy Gross, who is
the applicant, and Tom Hutchins is some place here, who is the new project engineer for
the project. Basically, I think what we're going to accomplish tonight is simply an
updating to you of where we are from where we were when you gave us the Site Plan
approval last year. Basically, we would like, the approval last year allowed us to operate
during the summer months, through October, with tents for services. We would like to
renew that. We've relocated the tents a little bit further away from the highway, but we
36
(Queensbury Planning Board OS/28/09)
would like permission to operate and have services in the tents through the Fall of this
year. I understand one tent was put up this past weekend. There have been no services
on premises in the tent, but it's anticipated and hopeful that you will give the same
approval that you gave the year before. Secondly, there's a little variation on the
easterly side of the property, which was deemed would be beneficial if that was cleared,
as well as what was shown in. the clearing limits before, and that we would like 'to
undertake. The third item is that they have decided not to try and move the house that
was next to a highway, but they have decided to actually demolish that house and
construct a single family home toward the back, which will be used as the PClrsonage, or
the pastor's home, in the future. That's something that probably is not going to take
place until 2010, but it is a change of plan that we wanted you to be aware of. lastly,
what was shown on the earlier plans as a pole barn, we would like to change the use of
and actually have it as a temporary building for services, probably during winter months,
dependent upon how we get along, as far as the construction of the main building, that
has the footings framed but not poured at this point. That's basically it. Wehaven't
changed the use of the property. We really haven't changed the manner in which we're
going to improve the property. Probably, realistically, we are just going a little slower
than we thought we were going to go, and we're accomplishing what we want to
accomplish, maybe not as fastas we wanted to accomplish it, but we will eventually get
there. I think Pastor Gross told me that last summer they had services on Sundays and
Wednesdays for 19 weeks during the summertime, and there were like four and a half
weeks where they had services every night. He has an average of about 75 people in
attendance on Sunday and 40 people on Wednesdays. That's it, if you have any
questions. The one comment that we have, as to the Staff's comments, was they
suggest that we put a gravel base in the temporary drive to promote traction and reduce
mud and sediment from leaving the site. We used that same roadway last.year, and with
the grass surface, we didn't have a problem on site or off site. So, we eventually will i;)e
building a substantial entrance way and driveway there, but we'd like not necessarily to
have a time condition as to when we get to that, and just do it as the need arises for it.
Anything else?
MR. GROSS-Well stated.
MR. FORD-I have a question. If the temporary pole barn is going to be used as a, or the
pole barn is going to be used as a temporary sanctuary, until the permanent sanctuary is
constructed, what is the anticipated use of that? Is it going to revert back to a pole barn,
or is it going to be a, what?
MR. O'CONNOR-As I understand, no. It's the construction on it has changed. So I
wouldn't call it a pole barn any longer. You've got. elevations and you've got better,
you've got construction plans, I think, right in your packets. I think it would be storage, or
it might be used for a youth activity. It will have, it's going to be a more substantial
building. So itwill continue. It won't be removed from the site. It's not temporary in that
nature. It's, probably temporary should be more to the use. It would be temporarily used
for services until a more permanent facility is in place.
MR. HUNSINGER-So it'll be heated, and you're proposing bathrooms in there, I saw.
MR. GROSS-Yes, sir.
MR. HUNSINGER-Yes.
MR: GROSS.,And youth have a very distinctive way about them that they like to have
their own space. So that would be a way to make the church more attractive to the
community. Teens could come and have their own lair.
MR. FORD-I think they'd prefer that to a pole barn.
MR. GROSS-Slightly.
MR. FORD-Some might.
MR. HUNSINGER-Other questions, comments from members of the Board?
MR. FORD-Thank you for that clarification.
MRS. STEFFAN-What is the need for increasing the clearing limits?
37
(Queensbury Planning Board OS/28/09)
MR. PASTOR-Well, that was brought to my attention by two different people that were
professionals in the excavating business. The edge, actually the edge of the building is
so near this; it actually drops off in elevation eight, nine feet, and it's really steep, and at
the crest of it, it's about three feet above the elevation grade of the actual building. So
the objective was is to create a steady grade down to the next point, because it just
basically hollows out and comes back up to the. elevation, I think's 502 or 504. So
basically we're looking at a six foot ramp down to it, and it would make it much easier for
acc:ess around the building, is what we're wanting to achieve, with clearing that
additional area.
MRS. STEFFAN-Okay.
MR. HUNSINGER-Other questions, comments?
MRS. STEFFAN-VISION Engineering's got a couple of comments.
MR. HUNSINGER-Yes. There were some outstanding comments from the engineer. I
think probably the first one is of most concern, where they say that they couldn't really
review the parsonage area part of the plan.
MR. HUTCHINS-Okay. I think I can explain that one. Obviously I came on board after
the original approval. I made an attempt, in a letter, in order to minimize effort and to
resolve one of the outstanding concerns, I made an attempt to address the revised
parsonage activity in a letter form, and part of that letter was a sketch that I put that was
taken from a scan of this drawing that had been modified from the original drawing. The
scan, part of the scan was illegible. Part that was illegible wasn't the part that mattered,
but mattered, but probably the solution is that I can clarify all of the septic issues with
regard to the stormwater, and I may do that on a, or the septic issues with regard to the
parsonage, and I may end up doing that on a separate sheet, because the way I tried to
do it in a simple way, it didn't work out. So, Item Two, I think, has been addressed, and
It~m Three goes back to what I just said, and with the change in use of the, not pole
barn, but the temporary area, there's a septic issue that needs to be addressed on that
as well. So what we have discussed today, that I may do is provide an upgraded plan,
independent from this Site Plan, prepared solely by me, that addresses the septic issues
on these two buildings, because I don't want to get in a position where I'm heavily
modifying somebody else's documents. I think we could accomplish it that way.
MR. FORD-Good strategy.
MR. HUNSINGER-One of the things that always gets difficult, at least for me, when we
look at mOdifications is, well, what exactly did we approve, you know, before, and what
exactly is the change, and, you know, I couldn't remember the pole barn. Was that on
the plan that was approved?
MR. GROSS-Yes. If you look, there's a Page C-2.
MR. HUNSINGER-That's what I'm looking at right now.
MR. GROSS-So the pole barn is on there.
MR. HUNSINGER-Okay.
MR. GROSS-Okay. What we're just changing is the usage of it, the plot plan stays the
same.
MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. So the size doesn't change.
MR. GROSS-No, we kept it the same.
MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. Just the use of it changes. Okay, and then obviously you're
re-Iocating the parsonage. Yes.
MR. O'CONNOR-I think the parsonage was in that same general area.
MR. HUNSINGER-It was in the general area, yes.
MR. O'CONNOR-But it was, they were going to move the building back ther~, ~he
existing house back there, and instead they're going to demolish the existing bUilding
and build a new facility back there.
38
(Queensbury Planning Board OS/28/09)
MR. HUNSINGER-Right, and personally I didn't have a problem with the extended
cutting area, and when I went out there last, well, three weeks ago, whenever it was, it
almost kind of made sense, what it is you're proposing to do, because of the topography,
you know the additional clearing won't be seen by anybody. So it's not like it's going to
be visible' from the road or even visible to a neighbor or something. So I certainly didn't
have a problem with the additional clearing. I think that seemed to make sense.
MR. GROSS-One of the people that recommended the additional clearing Was Bruce
Frank. I asked his opinion when he was out for a site visit, because that's the way I
handle things. I always ask people's opinion. That was one of his comments. Because
for safety, he felt it would be very good to have a sloping grade down, instead of a
steeper hill that's there presently.
MR. TRAVER-And with. regard to the tents, you're asking, basically,for the same
approval that we granted last season, which was the use of the tents for the summer
. through, I think it was October 31S\
MR. GROSS-Yes, sir.
MR. HUNSINGER-I think the only real difficulty with what you're proposing is from the
engineering comments, speaking for myself.
MR. O'CONNOR-Well, why don't we bifurcate it and ask for your approval for
continuation or use of the tents through October 31S\ approval of the additional clearing,
and adjourn it as to the change or modification of the parsonage, and I don't know if you
need to modify.
MR. FORD-Septic design?
MR. HUTCHINS-Yes. That needs.
MR. O'CONNOR-Okay, and the change of use of the, what was called a pole barn, and
we will satisfy VISION Engineering's comments as to the septic, as they affect those two
items, and get it on another agenda.
MR. TRAVER-Can we partially approve an application?
MR. HUNSINGER-Well, we did that for them last year, if you remember, when we
approved the tents.
MR. TRAVER-I. remember the discussion about the tents and the lightning and all that
stuff.
MR. HUNSINGER-Yes, we approved the tents, but that was all, and then we were
continuing the Site Plan review.
MR. TRAVER-Okay. I see, okay.
MR. HUNSINGER-So we kind of set a precedent, at least with this applicant, you know,
on that particular issue.
MR.FORD-Well, we have to review it every time they change the plan.
MR. O'CONNOR-I said that to the pastor. I said this is like a moving target.
MR. HUNSINGER-And we talked about that at our workshop, earlier in the month, and
I've had discussions with Staff. When does a modification necessitate something to
come back to the Planning Board, and unfortunately, you know, in this case it's pretty
. clear that it's going to require a revision. So I don't know what the answer to that one is.
MR. GROSS-Can I offer a comment?
MR. HUNSINGER-Sure.
MR. GROSS-Regarding the house, with the septic, an engineer .satisfied the, as far as
the design for the space as comparable to the hard surface area as previous, and he's
met the requirements for the septic sizing. The only question that VISION had was that
on that, like a little plot plan he had, the language surrounding it, which was my text box
39
(Queensbury Planning Board OS/28/09)
overlaid, were a little blurry. So I don't know as that the VISION was addressing the
engineer's work wasn't adequate. It just wasn't the normal quality that we generate in
this digital age. So that may alleviate one of your concerns, but I don't know if it prohibits
you from passing it.
MR. HUNSINGER-Yes. Well, what's the will of the Board here?
MRS. STEFFAN-I have four things on a tabling motion, to address the three VISION
Engineering comments, and obtain signoff. To provide a phasing schedule. To update
the revised clearing plan, and then for the Planning Board either approves or supports
the applicant's use of tents until October of '09.
MR. O'CONNOR-We have updated the clearing plan. That's on the map. That's in your
packet.
MRS. STEFFAN-Right, but it's in longhand. That has to be.
MR. O'CONNOR-It's hatched out, the area that's going to be.
MRS. STEFFAN-Right, but it has to be formalized and submitted. Right? It's just drawn
in red pen.
MR. GROSS-As per the direction of the Staff, you know, that's how they asked for that to
be done was to be drawn on there, and then presented to the Planning Board. .
MR. OBORNE-And that's true, and it's consistent with what Randy had done with the
update to his plans, too. He had done it on a computer. This was just an addendum after
Bruce was out in the field with him, and r had him come in and get it ready to send to
you. I think that when he provides his final plans, you may want to have him clean it up.
MRS. STEFFAN-I thought that's what I was trying to get out of, how can I do that better?
Update revised clearing plan. What should I?
MRS. STEFFAN-No.
MR. GROSS-Okay.
MR. O'CONNOR-To be perfectly honest with you, we're trying to avoid having an
engineer re-db the whole plan. Because we've got a set of stamped plans that we can
use for permitting and for construction. .1 don't know, you know, that's not a big
modification. The other two, where you're changing the use of this building or a building
one or another, I think our modifications probably require Board action. I don't know.
MRS.. STEFFAN-Well, it's going to have to be changed in your as builts. So, I mean, it
will have to be reflected in your as builts.
MR. O'CONNOR-Well, the as builts are going to be, have to be done by a surveyor. So
that's not.a big task there. .1 don't mind having, my suggestion would be we make that a
condition of being on the as builts, as cleared.
MRS. STEFFAN-Okay. How does that sound?
MR. HUNSINGER-How does that sound? Are people comfortable with that?
MR. SEGULJIC-I have no problems with that.
MR. TRAVER-Yes, that sounds essentially the same thing.
MR. FORD-Proceed.
MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. Before we go any further, though, we do have a public hearing
scheduled this evening. Is there anyone in the audience who wants to address the
Board on this application?
MR. HUNSINGER-Any written comments, Keith?
40
(QueensburyPlanning Board OS/28/09)
MR. OBORNE-No, sir.
MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. We will open the public hearing. I guess we'll leave it open,
because we're moving toward a tabling resolution.
PUBLIC HEARING OPENED
MR. HUNSINGER-Are members comfortable with the use of tents for another season?
MR. FORD-Yes.
MR. SIPP-Yes.
MR. TRAVER-Yes. Nobody got hit by lightning the last summer. So hopefully.
MRS. STEFFAN-And how are we feeling on the driveway issue?
MR. HUNSINGER-People's feeling on the comment on the gravel for the temporary
driveway?
MR. SEGULJIC-That's more of a during construction, to reduce.
MR. OBORNE-He does have a construction entrance, and he has that detail with your
application, and my thoughts were going towards on the property itself. The road's here,
although this isn't too bad. Up there you can see the ruts. It's not bad at all. I
understand that. When you go, and I probably should have been more specific. When
you look at the topography, there's a depression.
MRS. STEFFAN-I think you have the picture of it that's filled with water. If you fast
forward your slideshow. If you fast forward your slideshow, I think you'll see.
MR. OBORNE-Not at the front, I don't think.
MRS. STEFFAN-All right.
MR. OBORNE-Yes, I don't have it. I didn't take a photo of it. Is ita major issue? No, it's
not a major issue. It was just a thought to reduce any dirt moving and getting off site. I
think it's Page C-1.
MR. SEGULJIC-What are your thoughts on that? Do you have any problem with doing
it?
MR. O'CONNOR-We eventually will do it, but we didn't want to, we understand we're
going to have to do it, but we haven't seen a need for it immediately, and we're trying to
put off our expenses. Is that a fair statement?
MR. GROSS-Yes. We had just about all of the necessary pieces of equipment to really
seriously begin to address cutting the topsoil up and cutting into the sand, to start putting
down our base for the parking lot and road. So, you know, that's probably the next six to
eight weeks for that work, scope of work to be completed, but the entrance at the front of
the road, you know, we will, once it's approved, we will go ahead and put that in. The
. stone, where the trucks are supposed to go across that real huge stone, we'll put that in
immediately, and. then, you know, we can work our way back, and for that depressed
area, we could drop a load of (lost word) gravel right in that to raise it up and not have
any low spot there, if that would be acceptable.
MR. SEGULJIC-But isn't that sort of getting into the construction details of it?
MR. HUNSINGER-Yes.
MR. SEGULJIC-Which we really don't, I mean, having the construction entrance is a
great idea to keep dirt off the road, but I don't think we should be getting involved with
that. If they think it's necessary, they'll do it.
MRS. STEFFAN-That becomes a Code Enforcement issue, that you're not allowed to
take dirt off your site.
MR. SEGULJIC-And then it's sort of like, where are they going to put it and then it's.
41
(Queensbury Planning Board OS/28/09)
MR. HUNSINGER-Take dirt off of your site, yes.
MR. OBORNE- The plan is being modified, and the plan. that was approved is obviously
being modified, and the construction entrance is now to be the actUal, temporary ingress
and egress. So it's not a huge issue for me. It's more of a recommendation than
anything. If you're uncomfortable with it.
MR. SEGULJIC-Yes, personally, I think we should stay away from it.
MR. HUNSINGER-Well, it sounds like they're going to be addressing it anyway.
MR. SEGULJIC-Yes.
MRS. STEFFAN-Okay. So we have four issues. Okay. I'll make a motion to.
MOTION TO TABLE SITE PLAN NO. 25-2009 MODIFICATION RANDY GROSS,
Introduced by Gretchen Steffan who moved for its adoption, seconded by Thomas Ford:
1. A site plan application has been made to the Queensbury Planning Board for the
following: Applicant proposes a change to approved site plan to include the
demolition of existing single family dwelling, construction of a new single family
dwelling, use of temporary structure for services with associated wastewater
system and site details. Change to an approved site plan requires review and
approval by the Planning Board.
2. A public hearing was advertised and held on 5/28/09; and
3. This application is supported with all documentation, public comment and
application material in the file of record; and
4. MOTION TO TABLE SITE PLAN NO. 25-2009 MODIFICATION RANDY
GROSS, Introduced by Gretchen Steffan who moved for its adoption, seconded
by Thomas Ford:
Tabled to the July 28th Planning Board meeting with an application deadline of
June 15th. So that the applicant can address:
1. The three VISION Engineering comments and obtain their signoff.
2. The applicant can provide a phasing schedule.
3. The applicant wilLrevise the clearing plan on the as built drawings,
4. The Planning Board does approve the applicant's use of tents until
October 2009.
Duly adopted this 28th day of May, 2009, by the following vote:
MR. O'CONNOR-Are you also approving the additional clearing?
MRS. STEFFAN-It's not explicit, but I think actually it'simpli~d.
MR. HUNSINGER-It's implicit.
MRS. STEFFAN-Because it wants you to put, we want you to revise the as builts at
the end.
MR. O'CONNOR-Okay. I didn't want to clear, we've been very careful not to do, you
know, go beyond where he's supposed to be.
MR. HUNSINGER-Okay.
AYES: Mr. Traver, Mr. Jackowski, Mr. Sipp, Mr. Seguljic, Mrs. Steffan, Mr. Ford,
Mr. Hunsinger
NOES: NONE
MR. HUNSINGER-We'll see you in a couple of months.
MR. GROSS-Just so I'm clear, we're approved for the use of the tents.
42
(Queensbury Planning Board OS/28/09)
MR. HUNSINGER-Yes.
MR. GROSS-For the clearing of that patch of land.
MR. HUNSINGER-Yes.
MR. GROSS-And then the other two items we're tabling?
MR. HUNSINGER-Right.
MR. GROSS-Okay. Great.
MR. HUNSINGER-I mean, we didn't specifically approve the clearing, but it's implied.
MRS. STEFFAN-It's implied.
MR. HUNSINGER-We'll clean it up when you come back in July.
MR. GROSS-Okay.
MR. O'CONNOR-You're putting the burden on him. I should have picked up on this. We
have no objection to you giving us the filing date of July 15th, and whatever the date, next
meeting date after that is.
MR. HUNSINGER-For August?
MR. O'CONNOR-Yes. It would help your agenda. It helps Tom's workload, or I'll. just
write a letter saying that, ask you to table it one further month. Do you want me to do it
that way? .
MR. TRAVER-I guess I would defer that question to Staff.
MRS. STEFFAN-We have plenty of things to put on the agenda. So if you'd like to be in
August, we'll just modify that.
MR. HUNSINGER-Well, I think what we should do is modify the resolution.
MR. OBORNE-Right.
MR. TRAVER-Yes, that would be cleaner.
MR. HUNSINGER-Yes, that would be the cleanest way to do it.
MRS. STEFFAN-Do I have to make a motion to modify it?
MR. HUNSINGER-I think, yes, just make a motion to modify the resolution.
MRS. STEFFAN-Okay.
MOTION TO AMEND THE MOTION FOR SITE PLAN NO. 25-2009 MODIFICATION
RANDY GROSS, Introduced by Gretchen Steffan who moved for its adoption, seconded
by Thomas Ford:
Initially we were tabling that to the July 28th Planning Board meeting. We'd like to table
that to the August 18th Planning Board meeting, which will require the applicant to submit
any new materials by July 15th.
Duly adopted this 28th day of May, 2009, by the following vote:
AYES: Mr. Sipp, Mr. Seguljic:, Mr. Traver, Mr. Jackowski, Mr. Ford, Mrs. Steffan,
Mr. Hunsinger
NOES: NONE
MR. O'CONNOR-Have a good evening.
MR. HUNSINGER-Thank you. You, too.
MR. O'CONNOR-Thank you.
43
(Queensbury Planning Board OS/28/09)
SITE PLAN NO. 26-2009 SEQR TYPE II ROBINSON & SON, llC AGENT(S)
HUTCHINS ENGINEERING OWNER(S) 144 RIVER. ST., llC ZONING MIXED USE
lOCATION 144 RIVER STREET APPLICANT PROPOSES A CHANGE TO
APPROVED I SITE .PLAN TO INClU.DE CHANGES TO .PARKING CONFIGURATION
AND STORMWATER MANAGEMENT PLAN. CHANGE TO AN. APPROVED SITE
PLAN REQUIRES PLANNING BOARD REVIEW AND APPROVAL. CROSS
REFERENCE SP 15-08, FW 5:-08 WARREN CO. PLANNING N/A lOT SIZE 3.62 +/-
ACRES TAX MAP NO. 303.20-2-42 SECTION 179-4-020
TOM HUTCHINS, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT
MR. HUNSINGER-Keith, whenever you're ready to summarize Staff Notes.
MR. OBORNE-Site Plan 26-2009, Robinson and Son, llC. Requested action. Change
to an approved site plan requires Planning Board review and approval. It's 144 River
Street. Existing Zoning is Mixed Use.. It's a Type II. Project Description. Applicant
proposes a change to approved site plan to include changes to parking configuration and
storm water management plan. The proposal saves a 16 inch white cedar that the
applicant wishes to keep. Staff Comments. This application has been forwarded to
Vision Engineering for review and comment. The Planning Board may wish to grant
waivers for grading, landscaping and lighting.
MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. Thank you. Good evening. The floor is yours.
MR. HUTCHlNS-Good evening. Tom Hutchins with James Robinson and we are here
for a modification of an approved plan. This was approved May 20,'08. In your package
you should have our proposed modified plans as well as a set that we approved. I did
that just for you.
MR. HUNSINGER-Yes. Thank you for that. I picked up on that right away. It was so
easy to see what was approved and what you were proposing to change.
MR. HUTCHINS-We have two, what we consider minimal changes. One, we've revised
the parking layout to allow us to save a nice white cedar tree, and it has not impacted the
number of spaces or the way it works, and associated that, we have modified the
drainage a little bit to also work around the area of that tree, . and we have relocated
some stormwater retainage from an area east of the drive to an area behind the parking
lot, and I believe we have VISION Engineering signoff, and, with that, I'll turn it over for
questions.
MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. Questions, comments from the Board?
MR. HUTCHINS-Do you have anything you want to add?
JAMES ROBINSON
MR. ROBINSON-No.
MR. HUNSINGER-I'm sorry. Like I said, it made it. very easy to see the approved plan
versus the proposed changes. It couldn't have been cleaner and simpler. Okay. We do
have a public hearing scheduled this evening. Is there anyone in the audience that
wants to address the Board on this application? We'll open the public hearing.
PUBLIC HEARING OPENED
MR. HUNSINGER-Any written comments, Keith?
MR. OBORNE-No.
MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. I will close the public hearing. It's a Type II SEQRA action.
So, if anyone would like to make a motion.
MOTION TO APPROVE MODIFICATION TO SITE PLAN NO. 26-2009 ROBINSON &
SON. llC, Introduced by Gretchen Steffan who moved for its adoption, seconded by
Stephen Traver:
1. A site plan application has been made to the Queensbury Planning Board for the
following: Applicant proposes a change to approved site plan to include changes
44
(Queensbury Planning Board OS/28/09)
to parking configuration and stormwater management plan. Change to an
approved site plan requires Planning Board review and approval; and
2. A public hearing was advertised and held on 5/28/09; and
3. This application is supported with all documentation, public comment and
application material in the file of record; and
4. MOTION TO APPROVE MODIFICATION TO SITE PLAN NO. 26-2009
ROBINSON & SON. llC, Introduced by Gretchen Steffan who moved for its
adoption, seconded by Stephen Traver:
According to the resolution prepared by Staff. Paragraph Four A complies.
Paragraph Four E & F do not apply. Paragraph Four G, the Planning Board
grants waivers for grading, landscaping, and lighting. Paragraph Four K does not
apply. No conditions.
a) 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
b) This is a Type II SEQRA - no further review is needed.
c) Final approved plans, in compliance with the Site Plan, must be submitted to the
Community Development Department before any further review by the Zoning
Administrator or Building and Codes personnel. 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.
d) As-built plans to certify that the site plan is developed according to the approved
plans to be provided prior to issuance of the certificate of occupancy; and
e) NOT APPLICABLE. If applicable, Item d to be combined with a letter of credit;
and
f) NOT APPLICABLE. The Sanitary Sewer connection plan must be submitted to
the Wastewater Department for its review, approval, permitting and inspection;
and
g) Waiver requests granted: grading, landscaping & lighting plans]
h) The limits of clearing will constitute a no-cut buffer zone, orange construction
fencing shall be installed around these areas and field verified by Community
Development staff
i) All lights to be downcast / cutoff fixtures. All fixtures shall be inspected by
Community Development Staff for compliance prior to installation
j) Engineering sign-off required prior to signature of Zoning Administrator.
k) NOT APPLICABLE. The Sanitary Sewer connection plan must be submitted to
the Wastewater Department for its review, approval, permitting and inspection;
and
Duly adopted this 28th day of May, 2009, by the following vote:
AYES: Mr. Jackowski, Mr. Ford, Mr. Seguljic, Mrs. Steffan, Mr. Traver,
Mr. Hunsinger
NOES: NONE
ABSENT: Mr. Sipp
MR. HUNSINGER-You're all set.
MR. HUTCHINS-Thank you.
45
(Queensbury Planning Board OS/28/09)
MR. ROBINSON-Thank you.
MRS. STEFFAN-Thank you for waiting.
SITE PLAN ,NO. 27-2009 SEQR TYPE II MAVIS DISCOUNT TIRE AGENT(S)
FRANK FAZIO, P.E. OWNER(S) DAVID SORBARO OR COLE REALTY HOLDING,
llCZONIN~ HC-INT. lOCATION 649 GLEN STREET APPLICANT PROPOSES
CHANGE IN TENANT. FROM .COlE MUFFLER TO MAVIS DISCOUNT TIRE, TO
INCLUDE MINOR INTERIOR RENOVATIONS, CHANGE TO WAll & PYLON SIGN
AND PARKING CONFIGURATION. COMMERCIAL ALTERATIONS REQUIRING A
BUilDING PERMIT REQUIRE SITE PLAN REVIEW. CROSS REFERENCE BP 98-
087,09-086,02-806, SUP 66, SP 5-82 WARREN CO.PLANNING 5/13/09 APA, CEA,
DEC, ACOE DEC, NWI WETLANDS lOT SIZE 1.42ACRES TAX MAP NO. 302.11-3
SECTION 179-9-010, 179-7-020
FRANK FAZIO, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT
MR. HUNSINGER-Keith, whenever you're ready.
MR. OBORNE-Site PI.an 27-2009, applicant, Mavis Discount Tire. Requested action.
Commercial alterations requiring a building permit require Site Plan Review. location is
649 Glen Street. EXisting Zoning: Highway Commercial Intensive. This is a Type II
SEQRA. Project Description. Applicant proposes change in tenant from Cole Muffler to
Mavis Discount Tire, to include a fac;ade change, minor interior renovations, change to
wall & pylon sign and parking configuration. Commercial alterations requiring a building
permit require Site Plan Review. Staff Comments. The subject parcel borders Halfway
Brook. on the north boundary and a 33 foot right of way owned by the City of Glens Falls
borders this sideline. The proposed upgrade is over. 300 feet from the nearest stream
bank. There is an existing 1 story metal building on site that is not part of the proposed
upgrade. The parcel surrounds, on 3 sides, the existing Firestone Tire Center. Both
parcels are owned by Cole Realty Holdings llC. I do want to state for the record that I
am under the impression that the sign permits have been released for you. The signs
are considered compliant. I'm pretty sure that they're in the process of being released,
and with that, plan review follows, and I'm sure the Planning Board has reviewed.
MRS. STEFFAN-And shorter than the existing sign.
MR. OBORNE-Yes.
MR. FAZIO-Yes.
MRS. STEFFAN-We like that.
MR. HUNSINGER-Good evening.
MR. FAZIO-Good evening. I'm Frank Fazio, representing Mavis Tire. I'll give you a brief
history. Mavis Tire has entered .into agreements with Cole Muffler to operate all their
facilities and they're just basically changing the namE;! of all the facilities to Mavis Tire.
Cole Muffler, Cole Realty will still own all the properties, and they're doing this across
pretty much across New York State, and what they're doing now is going through and
changing the facades to match the Mavis Tire logo, basically changing the shingled roof
to a metal fac;ade, putting Mavis Tire on the sign there, and, yes, on the pylon sign, we're
using the existing pylon sign and just making it shorter on that.
MR. HUNSINGER-We like that, too.
MR. FAZIO-I figured you would. It's actually the sign .is smaller, also, in addition to being
a.little bit lower. There are no proposed site changes at all on it. There were some
comments about, it was mentioned a change of parking configuration. Basically what I
did was, in talking with Staff, they wanted to make sure we met the parking requirements
for the use of the facility. There's a lot of areas that are, and the back area is all paved.
There are no stripes out there. So I basically just placed stripes on there, on the site. So .
we're not altering any of the pavement. We're not doing any construction on the site.
The only construction will be the minor renovations to the interior of the customer service
area, just make it a little more friendly. Cut counter space, bathrooms, things like that,
and then putting up the fac;ade, then the wall fac;ade signs, and the new pylon sign. So
we're not altering the site at all. No work is proposed for the site. In going through some
of the comments, I got Staff's comments and also VISION Engineering comments, which
are fairly similar, and I think the one comment about the Parking Space 18, I am not
46
(Queensbury Planning Board OS/28/09)
aware if there is a restriction on an easement, whether or not it has to be there, but that's
simply a matter of sliding that down and we can certainly accommodate that so it does
not show on there. So there's no confusion on that part. The dumpster enclosure, Item
Two on Staff's, was, as far as the aisle, the back part of the building is for employee
parking. It's not really for customers to go back there, and I set it up so that we would
have the required 24 feet for the pull in perpendicular parking spaces. The other three
spaces are parallel parking with a curb, and there should be sufficient space for them to
pull in and out of along that aisle. That's why I didn't really, that's why I went to that type
of configuration. Trying to keep the dumpsters close to the building so they just walk out
the door, put the filters wherever they've got to put right in there, and then go back in the
building. So I feel there's adequate space for the cars to maneuver back there for the
employees, basically, and then for the pick up for the dumpsters. The renderings for the
colors. I believe there was a, in the plans provided, it gives you a patch of what the color
is, basically. It's a teal. green kind of color with yellow letters on it. Stormwater controls.
Again, we are proposing no disturbance to the site. So basically any requirements under
DEC for SPDES permits do not apply to this, as we are under an acre of disturbance,
and in fact we are not disturbing anything at all. So we're, under DEC requirements and
regulations, we're not required to do any stormwater management for treatment or
quantity. VISION Engineering comments, like I said, were very similar. We can certainly
provide a lighting plan. The only light we are changing, actually we're changing a light.
There's one in the back corner, and I'm going to say the southwest corner of the building,
which currently is just like an open fixture. We are actually going to put a downcast
fixture that's shielded. So actually it'll be an improvement. It'll probably light the parking
area a little better, but it won't spill as much as it does right now.. So we'll take care of
that. I can provide the photometrics, if that's what Staff would like. Item Two, again,
reflected to Parking Space Number Eighteen, which I addressed. Number Three about
stormwater management. Again, I addressed that comment. Details and dimensions of
dumpster enclosures should be inc:luded in the plans. I can add that to the plans. We're
basically going to put I.ike a wooden fence around it with a gate on it just to screen it, at
this time. The dumpsters are where they are right now. We're not relocating them,and
we'll just screen them, and I can add just a note that it's a wood fence. Consideration
Number Five, consideration about landscaping in the front of the facility. It's an existing
site. I've looked at it. Based on the operation, there's six bays in the front of the
building. There's two bays in the back. There's cars going in and out, and there's
parking along the front curb line, along the right of way. I don't really see much area to
keep traffic flow and number of parking spaces that we need to have to provide any
green space, and Number Six, 24 foot wide clearance. Again, I addressed that, as far as
that being employee parking for in the back there, and I think that's about it, I think.
MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. Questions, comments from members of the Board?
MR. SIPP-Is there not a storm sewer on Route 9?
MR. FAZIO-I believe there may be a storm system out there. Again, because we weren't
doing any construction on this site, I didn't really get into it too much, but I've walked on
the property itself, in front of the building and the back, and I didn't see any catch basins
there. .It appears that most of the water sheet runs off, sheet runoff from the front of the
building towards Route 9. The back of the building goes towards the back, and to the
wooded area, it goes through some swales, in the grass swales area, which actually
technically provides some treatment.
MR. SIPP-(lost words) with the streams being so close there, (lost words) put in
drainage for Route 9 (lost words) Halfway Brook.
MR.FAZIO-It was pointed out to me that we are not, what's the distance, 300 feet? We
are outside the 300 foot criteria for the Brook, for Halfway Brook.
MR. HUNSINGER-Yes. Didn't the Town and/or State do a bunch of stormwater
improvements in this section of Route 9?
MR. OBORNE-Absolutely. As Warren County Soil and Water were totally involved in
that in years past.
MR. HUNSINGER-Yes.
MR. OBORNE-Sure.
MR. HUNSINGER-Okay.
47
(Queensbury Planning Board OS/28/09)
MR. OBORNE-But whenever there's an opportunity to upgrade, you know, one should at
least consider it.
MR. HUNSINGER-Sure. Absolutely.
MR. FAZIO-And I think that's what I mentioned, in the back ofthe site, at least the back
portion, .and I'm sure probably part of the roof,goes toward the wooded area, which that
technically provides treatmentto it. It goes through the grass swales, which take out
nutrients and everything from the, sediments and things before it enters the swale in the
back, which eventually does get to the Halfway Brook at some point.
MR. HUNSINGER-Other questions from the Board?
MRS. STEFFAN-So we're granting, it's the will .of the Board that we're granting that
waiver? Actually I should ask on all of the waivers. The applicant is asking for waivers
on stormwater, grading, landscaping and lighting.
MR. FAZIO-There's also a waiver, I just noticed, I forgot to mention that the existing
building does not meet the side yard setback, but that's an existing condition.
MR. HUNSINGER-Yes. That's a variance issue. Yes. Do you have the cut sheets on
tliat new light that you're proposing?
MR. FAZIO-I have one copy. I sent some in to the.
MR. OBORNE-You did.
MR. FAZIO-I've got one I can give you.
MRS. STEFFAN-So if he satisfies that, then he won't get a waiver.
MR. FAZIO-The one that's there right now is basically going to be (lost words), not much
to it. It's probably a 30 year old fixture.
MRS. STEFFAN-But that's for the one light that's being added, the waiver.
MR. HUNSINGER-No, it's being replaced.
MR. FAZIO-It's not being added. It's replacing an existing one, and this actually will be
more efficient and shed less light to the neighbors than what's there right now.
MR. OBORNE-I do want to bring to the Board's attention that the 24 foot drive aisle is a
dimensional requirement, and the only entity that canwaive that would be the Zoning
Board of Appeals. Both Staff and VISION Engineering have pointed out that there's an
issue with that, and I just want to bring that to the forefront again, that the location of the
dumpster, in relation to the parking, wiUneed a variance from the Zoning Board of
Appeals. So the dumpster should, and for approval tonight, would have to be moved to
satisfy that requirement. It is a dimensional, bulk requirement.
MR. FAZIO-Okay. The fact that it's an employee parking lot doesn't make any
difference?
MR. OBORNE-It doesn't mean anything.
MR. FAZIO-Okay. We'll move it. I'm not goingto go for a variance.
MR. OBORNE-And there seemed to. be plenty of space down, of course I don't have the
survey with me for some reason, but.
MR. HUNSINGER-Well, there's certainly plenty of space to relocate that.
MR. OBORNE-There's plenty of space.
MR. FAZIO-Yes. I'll work with the owner, where he would like to put that, probably put it
in the back where the parking spaces are, somewhere.
MR. OBORN~-Yes, and I think you can condition the approval, again, not to put words in
anybody's mouth, is to place it in a compliant location in regards to drive aisle width, or
something to that effect.
48
(Queensbury Planning Board OS/28/09)
MR. HUNSINGER-I mean, one of the nice things about where it is on your plan is that
it's, you know, in the middle of the back of the building, so that it's not visible.
MR. FAZIO-Right. That's kind of why I left it there. I thought maybe with the employee
parking, that condition didn't apply, but it's still wooded in the back. So I think no matter
where we put it back there, it's not visible from Route 9. You still wouldn't see it from
Route 9. Anybody that goes down that access easement between the two buildings" it
wouldn't be anymore visible than where it is right now against the building, and there are
woods along the back of the parking lot there. This is all wooded area in here. So we
could probably put it over here somewhere, or maybe somewhere in the middle here.
MR. HUNSINGER-What would you propose?
MR. FAZIO-I think we're looking at maybe around Parking Space 11 I'm showing on the
plan, or maybe between 14 and 13 or something like that. I mean, that would be up to
where the owner would like to put it. If he wants to keep it close to the back, the back
door is basically where those two bays are, where the light's going. So if he wants to
keep it close to that, but we may want to put it where 11 is, because it makes it easier to
. maneuver for pick up from the dumpsters from the trucks and everything, but we'll put it
in a compliant loc:ation.
MR. OBORNE-Okay. You're going to have to have access for the truck to come in.
MR. FAZIO-Right.
MR. HUNSINGER-But if you put it where Parking Space 11 is, then you lose that parking
space.
MR. FAZIO-We'll put it at the end of 11, not on it, butadjacent to Parking Space 11.
MR. HUNSINGER-Okay.
MR. FAZIO-And with that I c:ould probably even take Space 13. I may still end up having
24 feet, where 13, it's close, I'd have to look at that, and that will maybe give some more
room. I can shove those other two spaces down, and again, they don't use that much
parking, but I just wanted to show that it does, the areas are right there. I think one gwy
actually parks on the side of the building right now. I don't know if it's compliant or not,
so I didn't paint that as a space.
MR. SIPP- The existing planter on the front of the building stays, and on the south side?
MR. FAZIO-Along the south? He can probably accommodate that. I know he does
something different with the front, but he doesn't really build out. Just the same corner.
So we can keep that. We can either keep it there or it would have to get rebuilt or
reconstructed. I mean, I think if you want to make that a condition that we maintain that
planter on the south side of the building, I'm sure that's fine.
MR. SEGULJIC-Now with regards to landscaping, I don't know what the Board's
thoughts are, but they are in the Route 9 lower corridor that calls for a tree every 35 feet.
I.mean, one could say this is the time when, this is when we get it in.
MRS. STEFFAN-But the front's all blacktopped. Right?
MR. SEGULJIC-Well, you can rip up the blacktop and plant some trees. I mean,
because you look at the Code and it calls for, correct me if I'm wrong, but it calls for, you
know, the shrubbery along there, along the parking area, and the street scape trees. I
mean, if we're trying to get that all along the corridor there, if I understand, this is what
the Code I designed to do, when they come in.
MR. OBORNE-Certainly it's a design element, certainly from a point of view ofa new
building, and you're the Planning Board, but I don't know if that would be something that
would be amenable.
MR. HUNSINGER-The only place he could put it is in the State right of way.
MRS. STEFFAN-Yes, and the other thing is that, from the snow and all the other things
that have to be dealt with on Route 9 and on the applicant's lot, it would, anything that's
49
(Queensbury Planning Board OS/28/09)
planted out there would potentially be destroyed, either by traffic or HighwayDepartment
vehicles on Route 9.
MR. SEGULJIC-You have a sidewalk there before you get to the area to be planted. I'm
just pointing out what the Code says.
MRS. STEFFAN-Right, no, I understand. It's just, it's complicated.
MR. OBORNE-Idon't disagree with you at all, Tom.
MR. SEGULJIC-I'm not getting support on it. Okay.
MRS. STEFFAN-I understand. It would look good with trees there or something, but,
okay.
MR. HUNSINGER-Well, while we're contemplating here, we do have a public hearing
scheduled. I will open the public hearing.
PUBLIC HEARING OPENED
MR. HUNSINGER-There's no one left in the audience, so I will assume that there's no
comments. Were there any written comments?
MR. OBORNE-No.
MR. HUNSINGER-Are people comfortable moving forward?
MR. FORD-Yes.
MRS. STEFFAN-The only thing I'm struggling with.
MR. HUNSINGER-Struggling with is the lighting plan.
MRS. STEFFAN-He said that he would provide a lighting plan, but he's just adding one,
and if we have the cut sheet.
MR. HUNSINGER-We have the cut sheet, but it doesn't have the photometric part of it.
MR. OBORNE-You want a photometric on one light? In the rear?
MR. HUNSINGER-I guess my concern is if it was, if the new light was going to be
brighter than the light it was replacing, that would be the only concern. If it's less intense
than the light it's replacing, I mean, that's just my own opinion.
MR. OBORNE-Right. I know it's downcast.
MR. FAZIO-It's downcast shielded. So it actually, it'll cast less light, it's more of a
forward, it'll cast less light to the sides . That's the purpose of it to keep it from spilling
o~to adjoining properties.
MR. HUNSINGER-Sure, yes, and we always require downcast lights.
MR. FAZIO-And again, as it's pointed out, that it's in the back of the building. It's not in
public view.
MR. HUNSINGER-Yes. It's not in public view anyway.
MR. OBORNE-Is there wattage on the sheet?
MR. FORD-Yes, I was going to ask for wattage.
MR. HUNSINGER-It's just being passed along, around.
MR. FAZIO-I think it's 400 watt. You can put whatever wattage. I think the maximum
goes as far as, I don't have the sheet, but I think it's 400.
MR. FORD-Hundred and fifty watt.
MR. FAZIO-One hundred and fifty. Okay.
50
. (Queensbury Planning Board OS/28/09)
MRS. STEFFAN-What about the stormwater?
MR. HUNSINGER-What's the feeling on stormwater?
MR. SEGULJIC-Well, where does the storm water run to now, to the street or to the
sewer?
MR. TRAVER-It basically goes into Route 9.
MR. FAZIO-It's the front parking lot area, sheet runs off, it goes to Route 9, and I'm not
sure where the first catch basin is, whether it's down the road or not. The survey did not
pick it up in the front. So it may be down a little ways down the road. So it probably hits
the curb line and travels down.
MRS. STEFFAN-They're really not changing anything.
MR. FAZIO-We're not adding any impervious area or anything like that, no.
MR. SIPP-What happens to the rear?
MR. FAZIO-The rear goes to the back, and to a lawn, in a wooded area. So like I
mentioned, that gets some treatment, actually, removes any sediments from the parking
area there. .
MR. SEGULJIC-I mean, are we aware of any stormwater issues in that area?
MR. HUNSINGER-No, that's why I brought up the fact that the County and the State did
a lot of work there.
MR. SIPP- The State did Route 9 last year or the year before. They re-paved it. They did
all new drainage. So in the front there should be a storm sewer, for sure, because that
was all torn up there, and at the rear, I assume they did something to the banks of the
stream there, to drain out extraneous material. They worked long enough down there.
MR. HUNSINGER-I will close the public hearing.
PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED
MR. HUNSINGER-Did you have details and dimensions of the dumpster enclosure?
MR. FAZIO-They're drawn pretty much to scale that's there. I think there.'s a six foot
dumpster, a large one, six foot, and then there's another, I think it's four feet, maybe four
and a half feet, and they'll go inside an enclosure. I just did one for another site that
have similar,1 think it's about 18 feet wide by maybe 20 feet. Now the enclosure's not a
full 20 feet, but it's, there's a concrete pad for the truck and everything. So the fenced in
area is probably about 18 feet wide by, I'm going to say 10 foot, but when I finalize the
drawing, I'll have the dimension on there.
MR. HUNSINGER-Okay.
MR. FAZIO-When I show it being shifted, I'll put the dimension on there for that.
MR. HUNSINGER-Okay, with the detail.
MR. FAZIO-Yes.
MR. HUNSINGER-Okay.
MR. OBORNE-I'm just curious if the dumpster pad needs to have, if you need to have a
dumpster pad, if it's not going to be on the concrete or the hard surface there.
MR. FAZIO-Well, I can put it on the asphalt.
MR. OBORNE-Okay.
MR. FAZIO-I think it'll fit right in that spot there, on the asphalt.
51
(Queensbury Planning Board OS/28/09)
MR. HUNSINGER-And you're going to locate it in the approximate location of Parking
Space Number .13?
MR. FAZIO-Right. Just north of Parking Space Number 11 there, yes. Because right
now, it's on asphalt right now, the two dumpsters. They're not real big, or heavy. So we
could put it in there, and then we can just put a wooden fence enclosure, box it in and put
a gate in the front. I don't know what kind of detail, it's basically a six foot stockade
fence.
MR. HUNSINGER-Yes. You should show it on the plan.
IV!R. FAZIO-Or he may want to put the chain link with the slats in it or something.
MR. HUNSINGER-No, the wooden's fine.
MR. FAZIO-The wooden?
MR. HUNSINGER-Do you have a motion, ready?
MRS. STEFFAN-Yes. Do we need a dumpster pad? That's the only thing.
MR. FAZIO-Now when you say pad, you mean it's just on a hard surface?
MR. HUNSINGER-I don't think it's specified, is it?
MR. FAZIO-Because it's going to be on asphalt.
MR. HUNSINGER-It's going to be on asphalt.
MR. FAZIO-It's going to be on asphalt. It's not going to be in the dirt, no.
MR. OBORNE-So you're going to have to put the posts in the ground in the asphalt?
MR. FAZIO-Yes.
MR. OBORNE-If that's what you have to do, I guess that's what you have to do.
MR. FAZIO-Yes, we'll just, eitherway.
MR. OBORNE-And I apologize for not having this right here.
MR. FAZIO-That's okay.
MR. HUNSINGER-None of us did, Keith.
MRS. STEFFAN-Okay. I'll makea motion.
MOTION TO APPROVE SITE PLAN NO. 27-2009 MAVIS DISCOUNT TIRE, Introduced
by Gretchen Steffan who moved for its adoption, seconded by Stephen Traver:
1. A site plan application has been made to the Queensbury Planning Board for the
following: Applicant proposes change in tenant from Cole Muffler to Mavis
Discount Tire, to include minor interior renovations, change to wall & pylon sign
and parking configuration. Commercial alterations requiring a building permit
require Site Plan Review.
2. A public hearing was advertised and held on 5/28/09; and
3. This application is supported with all documentation, public comment and
application material in the file of record; and
4. MOTION TO APPROVE SITE PLAN NO. 27-2009 MAVIS DISCOUNT TIRE,
Introduced by Gretchen Steffan who moved for its adoption, seconded by
Stephen Traver:
According to the resolution prepared by Staff. Paragraph Four A complies.
Paragraph Four E and F do not apply. Paragraph Four G, Planning Board grants
waivers for stormwater management, grading, landscaping and lighting.
52
(Queensbury Planning Board OS/28/09)
a) 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
b) This is a Type II SEQR - no review is needed.
c) This is approved with the following conditions.
1. That the applicant re-Iocate the dumpster to make the drive aisle width
compliant.
2. That the applicant provide details and dimensions for the dumpster enclosure
on the drawings.
3. That the applicant will realign parking to quote Code Compliance.
4. That the applicant will maintain the planter in the front of the site with live,
healthy plants. .
d) 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.
e) As-built plans to certify that the site plan is developed according to the approved
plans to be provided prior to issuance of the certificate of occupancy; and
f) NOT APPLICABLE. If applicable, Item d to be combined with a letter of credit;
and
g) NOT APPLICABLE. The Sanitary Sewer connection plan must be submitted to
the Wastewater Department for its review, approval, permitting and inspection;
and
h) Waiver requests granted: Stormwater mgmt., grading, landscaping & lighting
plans
i) The limits of clearing will constitute a no-cut buff~r zone, orange construction
fencing shall be installed around these areas and field verified by Community
Development staff
j) All lights to be downcast / cutoff fixtures. All fixtures shall be inspected by
Community Development Staff for compliance prior to installation
k) Engineering sign-off required prior to signature of Zoning Administrator.
Duly adopted this 28th day of May, 2009, by the following vote:
MR. SIPP-I'd like to add into that to maintain that planter with appropriate landscaping.
MR. HUNSINGER-Well, it is shown on the plan, the planter.
MR.SIPP-Yes, well, I don't think there's much growing in there right now, as far as I can
see. I don't think it's been maintained very well.
MR. FAZIO-I think it's going to stay where it is, but if it's, I guess your question is, that if it
has to be removed for construction, that it get replaced, I guess, and put some plants in
it, certainly.
MRS. STEFFAN-But we've given him a waiver for landscaping. So if we do that, we
can't give him a waiver for landscaping.
MR. HUNSINGER-Well, I think we can give him the waiver and say that he needs to put
plantings in the planter, that's shown on the plan.
MR. FAZIO-To me, landscaping is the site. A planter is a planter, I guess.
MR. HUNSINGER-Right.
53
(Queensbury Planning Board OS/28/09)
MR. FAZIO-So I have no issue with that, maintain planter with plants.
MR. SIPP-Yes.
MR. HUNSINGER-Would you like to make that an amendment to the motion?
MRS. STEFFAN-Yes. I'd like to add one condition to the motion, and that would be
Condition Number Four, .that the applicant will maintain the planter in the front of the site
with live, healthy plants.
MR. FORD-Isn't there more than one, doesn't it go beyond just the front?
MR. FAZIO-It wraps around the corner. What's there now we'll maintain as much as we
can. His structure is a little different. It has glass all the way down, but we'll put
something in there.
MR. HUNSINGER-Okay.
AYES: Mr. Sipp, Mr. Seguljic, Mr. Ford, Mr. Jackowski, Mr. Traver, Mrs. Steffan,
Mr. Hunsinger
NOES: NONE
MR. HUNSINGER-You're all set. Good luck.
MR. FAZIO-Thank you very much.
MRS. STEFFAN-Thank you, good luck.
MR. HUNSINGER.You're welcome. Thank you. Before we adjourn, I had a
conversation with Staff today. This is regarding General Timber. Did you pass out that
to everyone tonight?
MR. OBORNE-I did.
MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. Thank you. I did not receive that e-mail from Craig last week,
which is why I didn't respond, and I guess there were a couple of things that came up
since then, or maybe it was referred to in his e-mail, and that is that the Town of Lake
George has forwarded a letter to the DEC Commissioner, sort of laying out their
argument for why they should be lead Agent, and in the e-mail, Craig suggested that we
do the same. I guess I just wanted to get the feeling of the Board, before we go ahead
and do that, to make sure that the Board was still comfortable and still wanted to request
lead. Agent status. Because if the Board no longer wants to be lead, have lead Agency
status, there's no reason to send the letter.
MR. TRAVER-Right.
MR. SIPP-Yes, I do.
MR. HUNSINGER-Okay.
MR. SEGULJIC-I think so.
MR. FORD-I'd prefer that.
MR. HUNSINGER-Okay.
MR. TRAVER-Yes. I think the issues that we discussed the last time, when we proposed
being lead Agent, those have not changed. If anything the reduction in the landing in
Lake George just adds to the proportion of the project within our Town.
MR. HUNSINGER-Yes. No, I think Craig articulated that pretty well in that draft. Yes.
Okay. Good. We will go forward with the letter, and go from there.
MR. TRAVER-The letter is going to take the form of the draft that's in the e-mail that we
received in the handout?
MR. HUNSINGER-Yes, basically.
54
(Queensbury Planning Board OS/28/09)
MR. FORD-I had a couple of suggestions that you mayor may not wish to include.
MR. HUNSINGER-Okay.
MRS. STEFFAN-I thought your suggestions were good, Tom.
. MR. FORD-Thank you.
MR. HUNSINGER-So I wonder if maybe there was a, maybe a typo in my e-mail
address. Because I didn't even get Mr. Ford's response. Did you hit respond to all?
Yes.
MR. SEGULJIC-And Mr. Chairman, just one other thing, sitting through tonight's
meeting, I think it would be beneficial if we had the engineer come, periodically, at least
to a couple of meetings, because I think we could have cleared up two applications
tonight if he was here.
MR. HUNSINGER-I agree.
MRS. STEFFAN-I agree.
MR. SEGULJIC-And, Number Three, there's a comment in the last application in his
letter, if I can find it quickly here, and it says it is recommended that storm water
measures for improved water quality runoff be considered for the project. Well, my
question is, are you saying that just because we should consider it or are you saying it
because you know of some stormwater issue in the area?
MR. HUNSINGER-Yes.
MR. TRAVER-Plus he could have hand delivered his comments.
MRS. STEFFAN-But the other part of that is, one of the things that, one of the reasons
why we contract with a consulting engineering firm is to provide those kinds 'of
recommendations, and so, based on the review and their knowledge of the Code, they
should be making those recommendations.
MR. SEGULJIC-Correct, but it's not clear as to why he's saying that. Is he just saying
that because there's an opportunity because the site plan is open again, or is he knows
of an issue there and we should address it?
MRS. STEFFAN-Well, that's what I mean, Tom. He should have provided specifics.
There shouldn't have been a broad generalization like that.
MR. SEGULJIC-AII right, because I think that if there was an issue that we could address
that tonight, and I think two of the applications tonight, I think it would help clear up our
backlog, having him here. Because then if the engineer is there to talk, we can ask
specific questions.
MR. HUNSINGER-Sure.
MR.OBORNE-I think as far as Mozal was concerned, if that's the other one that you're
talking about, is he brought up something that was not part of his original plan.
MR. HUNSINGER-Right.
MR. OBORNE-And that's what sent that spiral, I totally expected that .to be approved
tonight, but he brought that up. He wanted that to be approved so she can sell her lot.
MR. HUNSINGER-Right.
MR. OBORNE-You can't do that. It wasn't advertised that way.
MR. HUNSINGER-No, yes.
MR. SIPP-There was an attempt to slide one past us.
MR. OBORNE-I don't know if that's it, but I think they dug their own hole, but as far as
the stormwater, my concerns were with stormwater,. also, on the neighbor's site. It's a
55
(Queensbury Planning Board OS/28/09)
brand change is all they're really doing there. Absolutely, but that takes a lot of will for
the Board to go ahead and ask this guy to put in $10,000 worth ofstormwater"controls.
IV!R. SEGULJIC-Right. To me it makes sense at least to have the engineer come to a
couple of our meetings and understand more of what our concerns are and maybe he
can.
MR. HUNSINGER-Maybe we could direct him to attend the meetings in June.
MR. SEGUlJIC-1 think it would be beneficial. I don't know exactly what's on, but I think
he'd get better insight into what we're asking and what we're after.
MR. HUNSINGER-Yes.
MR. SEGULJIC-Because sometimes it feels sort of left out there.
MR. TRAVER-It's also sounding as though perhaps on a quarterly basis we might want
to schedule a third meeting, if not to use it, but to schedule it, just on a quarterly, so that
we have that reserved already.
MR. OBORNE-I would highly suggest that you do coordinate that with Craig, as far as
getting the engineer to the meeting, and not necessarily to get his approval, but to see
how you would want to handle that, and I'm sure, obviously you can have the Town
Engineer at the meeting. I don't know what the contractual obligations are. I don't think
it's going to change anything as far as the process goes, as far as when you get your
notes.
MR. SEGUlJIC-No, and I would agree. It would not change anything like that, but I think
it would help the Board feel more comfortable about, you know, we could turn to the
engineer and say, hey, is that accurate, can you work with that? Are you comfortable
with that, and if he says yes, then we can give them an approval.
MR. OBORNE-Absolutely.
MR. HUNSINGER-Well, and I think your point was well taken, though, about if he was
here at the meeting, and I think he would get a better sense for the general concerns of
the Board, and it might reflect, he might reflect that better in his comments.
MR. SEGULJIC-Yes. I think that would go a good distance in helping us clear up our
backlog.
MR. HUNSINGER-Because our previous Town Engineer used to come to the meetings
every month, and thenit was since, we switched engineers.
MRS. STEFFAN-That's true.
MR. HUNSINGER-So he hasn't even really sat through very many meetings.
MRS. STEFFAN-That's correct.
MR. FORD-If we could, let's focus on why we want him here. Is it to improve his
documentation or his recommendations, or is it to, in some way, is it a backdoor effort to
get him to be more timely in his presentation of his comments? '
MR. SEGULJIC-No,it's not the second comment. It's more the first comment.
MR. HUNSINGER-It's the first.
MR. FORD-That's what I thought. Then it isn't addressing one of the major issues that
we've got with the engineer.
MR. SEGUlJIC-No, but I think it will address an issue of backlog. Because instead of
tabling it, .waiting for two months for his comments to come back, we can say, are you
comfortable with this, is this making sense. If he says yes, then we can give approval
right then.
MR. HUNSINGER-Right, or, you know, conditional approval.
56
(Queensbury Planning Board OS/28/09)
MRS. STEFFAN-I think it would provide an opportunity to educate, because when we,
when I first came on the Board, we had C.T. Male, and I don't know how long we had
had them.
MR. HUNSINGER-A long time.
MRS. STEFFAN-But they knew the Board prettywell. They knew what we were looking
for, and they anticipated some ofthe questions, and so therefore in their responses, they
provided information that you needed, and then, of course, they were at the meetings
and participated. It made our jobs much easier, because we had expert opinion.
MR. OBORNE-Absolutely. It certainly would make mine easier, too, as far as getting,
you know, documents off my desk, you know, applications off my desk.
MR. FORD-Education is good.
MR. HUNSINGER-Yes.
MR OBORNE-The process is the process right now, and obviously, I'll bring the
concerns of the Board to Craig, and then we'll go from there. I guess you guys can
follow up, as far as, well, we can do it right now. I mean, just direct me to go ahead and
ask him to come, towhat meeting. You probably don't want him for certain issues. Do
you want, I can meld the agenda where there's more technical up front, then we can get
him out of here, something along those lines.
MR. FORD-That would make sense.
MR. SEGULJIC-But the agenda is set for June. Correct?
MR. OBORNE-The June agenda is set.
MR. SEGULJIC-So maybe we can schedule it for July.
MRS. STEFFAN-Well, or take a look at what's on the June agendas, and if there are 147
stormwater projects, then he should be here, because that's where we usually get into
the debate is, you know, what's acceptable, what's not.
MR. HUNSINGER-I didn't see the draft agendas from Craig.
MR. TRAVER-One of the things we have to remember, I think, in having the engineer
here, is that, as a scientist, he's going to be, it's going to be awkward for him to deal with
any hypotheticals. So if we say something like, well, can you work with this applicant.
He may be very reluctant. I mean, he might say, well, I didn't need to be here in order to
say I could do that.
MR. SEGULJIC-But at least he'll understand what the Board is looking for.
MR. TRAVER-No, I'm not saying there isn't any benefit. I'm just saying, you know, we
can't have our expectations be too high. The man's a scientist, and he's not going to
deal with hypotheticals or be subjective about things.
MR. OBORNE-And I dowant to put a plug in, but just a thought that, you know, it is on
the onus of the applicant to come in with an application that could get past the engineer.
MR. HUNSINGER-Yes.
MR. TRAVER-Right.
MR. OBORNE-And, you know, if you're retaining an engineer, that engineer should be
doing the job correctly for you.
MR. HUNSINGER-Sure.
MR. TRAVER-And that was an issue with Mozal.
MR. OBORNE-As far as that subdivision goes, the requirements were met. They were.
Those were site plan issues that they wanted approved for a subdivision.
57
(Queensbury Planning Board OS/28/09)
MR. SEGUlJIC-Yes. They wanted to have everything in one, all three things done at
once.
MR. HUNSINGER-Yes. They opened the box themselves.
MRS. STEFFAN-Well, and it was likely to improve salability, and so that's not up to us.
MR. HUNSINGER-Right.
MR. FORD-Yes. That is going to be a selling feature for that lot.
MR. OBORNE-Absolutely.
MR. TRAVER-And every application, every one of them is an emergency, and they need
to be.
MR. HUNSINGER-I've said this before, though, I mean, I can appreciate that. I mean, if
you're looking to start constructing your home or whatever, a two month delay is huge,
and so I'm very sensitive to that, but you're absolutely right. Every one is an emergency.
They're expecting approval tonight. They're disappointed when they don't get it.
MR. TRAVER-Right. It is a long process. I had a question, a more mundane question. I
noticed tonight we have the minutes from our Planning Board workshop in these night,
first of all, they're eight by ten instead of ten by fourteen, and they're in this nice binder.
Is this going to be the pattern from now on? Will our minutes be coming in this nice
format?
MR. OBORNE-I would say probably not, sir.
MR. TRAVER-Probably not.
N!R. OBORNE-But I will say that any very important gatherings of the Planning Board
and Staff would most, in the form of a workshop, would be in that type of format.
MR. TRAVER-I see.
MR. OBORNE-Absolutely.
MR. TRAVER-I see. Very nice.
MR. FORD-Yes.
MR. HUNSINGER-Okay.
MR. OBORNE-Thank you. I'll put in a plug for Maria. Maria helped me with that.
MR. SEGULJIC-Another question. The Wal-Mart site, that subdivision, is that on for next
month?
MR. OBORNE-That is not. They failed to give any revised plans.
MR. HUNSINGER-Submit on time.
MR. SEGULJIC-When and if it is, is it possible to get a copy of that last traffic study they
submitted?
MR. OBORNE-A copy? You certainly can come on in, well, you'd have to direct them to
give you a copy. We only have one copy, I believe.
MR. SEGULJIC-Because I want to look at that, if they're c:oming in for a subdivision. My
biggest issue is going to be the traffic, and they're going to cite that, and they're going to
say what they did in the traffic study.
MR. SIPP-I think they only did one, and that was way back in the beginning.
MR. SEGUlJIC-Correct, but they did it for the bigger site, so then logically they're going
to say that it meets those requirements. I don't even know what they are. So I want to
make myself comfortable.
58
(Queensbury Planning Board OS/28/09)
MR. OBORNE-Again, you can, obviously, have a traffic engineer look at that, also, to
make you comfortable.
MR. SEGULJIC-Right, because I'm just concerned, if they come in, then we're going to
put them on to another meeting.
MR. OBORNE-Yes. I can't promise you a copy, but I certainly can give you access to it.
MR. SEGULJIC-Sure.
MR. OBORNE-Maybe you can sign it out. I'm not sure what the protocol is on that.
MR. SEGULJIC-Yes, just the traffic numbers.
MR. OBORNE-Quick question. As far as that July 7th meeting goes, is that a Special
Meeting for Mozal only, or do you want me to fill it up?
MR. HUNSINGER-No, we'IUill it up,
MR. OBORNE-Fill it up. Thank you.
MR. HUNSINGER-And that was the dual purpose is to catch up some of the backlog.
MR. OBORNE-And that's something that, it's not a problem. I was hoping that that was
actually going to happen. That does put a lot of pressure on Staff, though.
MR. HUNSINGER-To turn it around.
MR. OBORNE-And if for some reason applicants actually read these minutes, that is the
type of burden that we're put under sometimes, because of the amount of applicants we
have.
MR. HUNSINGER-Yes.
MR. TRAVER-I had a follow up question on the Wal-Mart thing. Has there been a third
application made for a differentplan submitted?
MR. OBORNE-I'm sorry, Stephen.
MR. TRAVER-I was just wondering, with regards to Wal-Mart, has there been a third
version of their plan for that structure? .
MR. OBORNE- There hasn't been a second version, to be honest with you. They gave
us something that was.
MR. TRAVER-Right. Well, I asked that because the applicant was quoted in the media
not long ago saying that the reason that they had to change the original approved plan
was that Wal-Mart wanted a smaller building and a greener building, and the
presentation that I got was for the opposite, for a larger building.
MR. OBORNE- That is, yes, there is a third plan. There was a second one where there
was a different larger area, and then it came back that they never submitted that, and
they came back with something else, a proposal that has yet to be submitted.
MR. TRAVER-Interesting, thank you.
MR. FORD-There would be no reason that you'd have the answer to this, but perhaps at
some future point, could this Board be given an update on the current status of The
Golden Corral?
MR. HUNSINGER-I know. It was in The Chronicle.
MR. OBORNE-Yes.
MR. TRAVER-Really?
MR. FORD-Well, I'm sorry, I didn't read the article.
MR. OBORNE-It's my understanding they pulled the permit for it.
59
(Queensbury Planning Board OS/28/09)
MR. HUNSINGER-Yes. It said in the paper they hope to break ground this month, in
June.
MR. OBORNE-Is it this month? I thought itwas August. Okay.
MR. HUNSINGER-Yes. I was asked by support ~taff to make sure that the th, I believe,
is a Tuesday, that's the July 4th weekend. I just want to make sure that everybody's
aware that that is in fact the case.
MR. HUNSINGER-Yes, it's after it, yes.
MRS. STEFFAN-Yes. I believe, I looked at that after we decided, but I think for most
folks the Fourth of July is on a Saturday, I think most companies are giving Friday off.
MR. HUNSINGER-Yes.
MR. TRAVER-Yes.
MR. HUNSINGER-I just had one final item, unless there's anything else, but I got a
mailing for the Association of Towns. I know they did it last year. I don't know if they do
it every year. It's their Planning and Zoning Summer School, they call it. last year it was
here, in this very room. This year the nearest one is in Albany, at the Albany law
School, on July 23rd, but, I don't know, did anyone else get this? Because if not, I'll give
it to Staff.
MR. TRA VER-A mailing? No.
MR. HUNSINGER-I'll give it to Staff to make copies for everybody.
MR. TRAVER-Is that on theweekend, or during the week?
MR. HUNSINGER-No, it's during the week, and it's all day. I mean, that one day would
more than make up for the required four hours of training for the year. It starts at eight
o'clock for registration, and it ends at 3:45. The afternoon, the morning session is a
general session about, you know, things you need to know, and then the afternoon, they
have actual break out ~essions between planning or zoning. It was really worthwhile, the
one that I went to last year.
rvlR. TRAVER-I remember you talking about it last year. Doesthe Planning Office record
the hours that we obtained during the year toward that four hour?
MR. OBORNE-Absolutely. You have to submit them.
MR. TRAVER-Okay. Yes. Including the workshops and things like that that we do,
right? I'm just wondering if it would be handy for anyone, if there is anyone, I don't think
there is, but if there were anyone who was not compliant with that, that they be e-mailed
or alerted somehow.
MR. OBORNE-Well, that certainly should be something, I'll follow up on that with the
Senior Planner on that, that's his duty, in conjunction with Pam.
MRS. STEFFAN-If we register for a seminar,though, is that enough, or do we have to
provide?
MR. TRAVER-There's a certificate, usually, that they sign yes.
MR. OBORNE-Exactly. I do want to put in, and this is a plug for a fabulous conference
that's up in lake Placid in September is the Planning Federation.
MRS. STEFFAN-I'd like to go to that.
MR. HUNSINGER-In September?
MR. OBORNE-Yes. I'm already on there.
MR. HUNSINGER-Can you get us that information when you get us this information?
60
(Queensbury Planning Board OS/28/09)
MR. OBORNE-Yes. I can tell you the information on the Planning Federation is on New
York Planning Federation.com. They have their registration on there.
MR. FORD-You're a presenter, Keith?
MR. OBORNE-No.
MR. SEGULJIC-Doesn't the Board have to direct us as to what courses are adequate?
MR. OBORNE-No.
MR. HUNSINGER-No. That's part of the problem with that law, is that there's no
required curriculum or anything else. They leave it up to the individual Town Boards'to
determine and decide if it's good enough. It's up to the Town Board to decide if it's
worthy or not.
MR. SIPP-The one scheduled for this week in lake George was cancelled.
MR. HUNSINGER-Yes, I saw that.
MR. OBORNE-I just want to go over, first of all, July, we're filling it up, July 7th, we're
filling it up?
MR. HUNSINGER-Yes.
MRS. STEFFAN-It's an extra meeting.
MR. HUNSINGER-An extra meeting.
MR. OBORNE-There would be six each, as they came into the queue.
MR. HUNSINGER-Yes, but, I mean, I'll look at the agenda with you and Craig, and, you
know, maybe we'll put seven on some of those meeting dates, if they're easy items.
MR. OBORNE-Sure. I know that some of the stuff we have on this round are some
expedited reviews for boathouses. Like O'Connor had discussed that with West.
MR. HUNSINGER-Sure, and boathouses, by definition, are expedited review.
MR. OBORNE-Yes, they are.
MR. HUNSINGER-And they should not count towards agenda control.
MR. OBORNE-Right, unless they obviously need a variance or something along those
lines.
MR. HUNSINGER-Right. Yes.
MR. OBORNE-A copy of traffic study for Wal-Mart. Update on Golden Corral. It's
coming, all right. You guys are going to go with the letter, then e-mail with Craig?
MR. HUNSINGER-Yes. I'll work with you guys tomorrow morning.
MR. OBORNE-You'lI follow through with that one?
MR. HUNSINGER-Yes.
MR. OBORNE-Okay. Planning Federation in September information to all you guys. I'll
send you a link.
MR. HUNSINGER-Yes. Okay. Actually, this is probably on the Internet as well. I could
do that. Just send a, I can take care of that one.
MR. OBORNE-Was there anything else?
MR. TRAVER-The requirement for the training hours.
MRS. STEFFAN-Having engineers atthe meeting.
61
(Queensbury Planning Board OS/28/09)
MR. OBORNE-Thank you.
MR. SEGULJIC-Then we can work on getting the agenda.
MR. HUNSINGER-Right. Sure.
MR. OBORNE-Okay. Anything else?
MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. Any other business? Motion to adjourn.
MOTION TO ADJOURN THE QUEENSBURY PLANNING BOARD MEETING OF MAY
28.2009, Introduced by Thomas Ford who moved for its adoption, seconded by Thomas
Seguljic:
Duly adopted this 28th day of May, 2009, by the following vote:
AYES: Mr. Traver, Mr. Jackowski, Mrs. Steffan, Mr. Sipp, Mr. Seguljic, Mr. Ford,
Mr. Hunsinger
NOES: NONE
On motion meeting was adjourned.
RESPECTFUllY SUBMITTED,
Chris Hunsinger, Chairman
62