2009.06.16
(Queensbury Planning Board 06/16/09)
QUEENSBURY PLANNING BOARD MEETING
FIRST REGULAR MEETING
JUNE 16, 2009
INDEX
Subdivision No. 6-2009 Linda Dator 1.
Tax Map No. 240.5-1-30
Site Plan No. 32-2009 W.W. Allerdice 5.
Tax Map No. 226.12-1-47
Subdivision No. 3-2008 Ronald & Linda Ball 7.
FINAL STAGE Tax Map No. 295.10-1-31.1
Site Plan No. 28-2009 Eugene Timpano 9.
Tax Map No. 296.13-1-14
Site Plan No. 33-2009 NCE Building Corp. 20.
Tax Map No. 288.8-1-6
Site Plan No. 48-2008 NPA II, LLC 24.
Tax Map No. 296.18-1-47
Site Plan No. 29-2009 Pyramid Co. of G F/NEWCO 29.
Tax Map No. 302.5-1-92.4, 92.11, 93.1
Site Plan No. 31-2009 CES Holdings 34.
Tax Map No. 290-1-21.3, 21.4
THESE ARE NOT OFFICIALLY ADOPTED MINUTES AND ARE SUBJECT TO BOARD
AND STAFF REVISIONS. REVISIONS WILL APPEAR ON THE FOLLOWING
MONTHS MINUTES (IF ANY) AND WILL STATE SUCH APPROVAL OF SAID
MINUTES.
0
(Queensbury Planning Board 06/16/09)
QUEENSBURY PLANNING BOARD MEETING
FIRST REGULAR MEETING
JUNE 16, 2009
7:00 P.M.
MEMBERS PRESENT
CHRIS HUNSINGER, CHAIRMAN
GRETCHEN STEFFAN, SECRETARY
DONALD SIPP
THOMAS SEGULJIC
THOMAS FORD
DONALD KREBS
STEPHEN TRAVER
LAND USE PLANNER-KEITH OBORNE
TOWN ENGINEER-VISION ENGINEERING-DAN RYAN
STENOGRAPHER-SUE HEMINGWAY
MR. HUNSINGER-I’ll call to order the Town of Queensbury Planning Board meeting for
thstth
June 16. Our item on the agenda is approval of minutes from April 21 and April 28,
2009.
APPROVAL OF MINUTES
April 21, 2009
April 21, 2009
MOTION TO APPROVE THE QUEENSBURY PLANNING BOARD MINUTES OF APRIL
21 & APRIL 28, 2009, Introduced by Thomas Ford who moved for its adoption, seconded
by Donald Krebs:
th
Duly adopted this 16 day of June, 2009, by the following vote:
AYES: Mr. Sipp, Mr. Seguljic, Mrs. Steffan, Mr. Traver, Mr. Krebs, Mr. Ford,
Mr. Hunsinger
NOES: NONE
RECOMMENDATION TO ZBA
LINDA DATOR: REQUESTING AN AREA VARIANCE FOR ROAD FRONTAGE FOR A
SUBDIVISION
TOM JARRETT, REPRESENTING THE APPLICANT, PRESENT
MR. HUNSINGER-Keith, if you want to summarize the Staff Notes, please.
MR. OBORNE-This is, I’ll just summarize the Area Variance Staff Notes, because that’s
what you’re going to be making your recommendation on. It’s Area Variance 30-2009,
Linda Dator. The project location is 2583 State Route 9L. The description of proposed
project. Just a note, this application must be tabled pending a recommendation from the
Planning Board concerning this Area Variance associated with Subdivision 6-2009. This
application to be reviewed under the new Zoning Code, and as such will require an
additional variance associated with lot size. With this knowledge, the Zoning Board of
th
Appeals may consider tabling this application to July 15. Of course you’re the Planning
Board. Applicant proposes to subdivide a 3.66 acre parcel into two parcels of 1.99 and
1.67 acres on Route 9L near Warner Bay. Lot Two is proposing access to a public
highway through Lot One. The relief required is for frontage on a public or private street,
specifically the requirement that frontage for one principal building shall be at least 50
feet and such frontage shall provide actual physical access to and from the lot to be
upon. Further, the applicant is requesting relief from the minimum lot size requirement of
2 acres per §179-4-030 of the new zoning ordinance enacted on May 12, 2009. The
following five questions that follow are the balancing test. I will not go through them. At
this point, this application was received on May 14, 2009, and must be reviewed under
the new zoning code adopted on May 12, 2009. As stated above, the applicant is
1
(Queensbury Planning Board 06/16/09)
proposing accessing Lot 2 through Lot 1. This aspect of the proposal appears logical
given the potential safety concerns due to sight line issues associated with Route 9L in
the vicinity. With that, I’d turn it over to the Board.
MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. Thank you.
MR. JARRETT-Good evening. Tom Jarrett of Jarrett Engineers. I’m here representing
the Dators, Bill and Linda Dator, who have a residence on Route 9L, just opposite
Castaway Marina. They have, for a long time, owned a parcel containing the residence,
and that parcel size was about one and a third acres. Several years ago, they bought a
little over two acres from the adjoining property owner, and it was merged with their
existing lot. Their ultimate intention was to subdivide the properties into two lots. One
for themselves, the existing residence, and a second one for their son to construct a
home. This application has been in the works for some time, and it was initiated under
the old Code, and now that we’re being reviewed under the new Code, unfortunately one
of the variances I need is relief from the two acre lot size, .01 acres. We inadvertently
created a 1.99 acre lot. It could have been two acres, had we realized it was going to be
under the new Code, and what the ramifications were. So we will defer that, defer to this
Board on the recommendation on whether we make it a two acre lot or leave it at 1.99,
but more importantly, the access to both lots, I recommended be via the existing
driveway and shared between the two lots. As Keith read, there is a sight distance issue.
I don’t feel it’s safe to provide a driveway, along the frontage of the new lot, and as well,
there is a rock ridge there. It would be quite expensive, but certainly feasible. I just feel
it’s a safety issue not to provide the driveway, a new driveway and a separate driveway.
We plan to, or propose to use the existing driveway and share it via easement, and that
is, in my opinion, the best, or one of the best spots along that frontage, total frontage, to
provide a driveway. That summarizes where I stand, and I’ll open it up to questions.
MR. HUNSINGER-Questions from the Board?
MR. FORD-Has that shared drive been agreed upon by the parties?
MR. JARRETT-Well, right now they own both lots, and they’re planning on giving the one
lot to their son. So it certainly would be agreed upon by both owners and it would be
built into the deeds.
MR. HUNSINGER-What year did they combine the lots?
MR. JARRETT-The lots were purchased, I think, three years ago, and at the time I
believe, I was told the Town required them to merge them. It may have been for ease of
purchase, just to do a lot line adjustment between the two lots. I don’t know the exact
reasoning. I’m surmising it may have been ease for the attorneys, but I don’t know that,
but it was about three years ago. I may have the date in the file.
MR. KREBS-Well, certainly viewing that site and knowing that part of the road where
you’re going around a curve up a hill, to come out between two stone cuts is a very
unsafe situation. I personally think it makes a lot of sense to limit the number of cuts into
that road at that particular area. So I would agree with them 100% that having one
driveway makes much more sense than two.
MR. JARRETT-I stand corrected on the date. It was two years ago June.
MR. HUNSINGER-So is the subdivision, or is the subdivision line the same as what
was?
MR. JARRETT-No. Actually the subdivision, the original parcel was 1.33 acres, and they
bought approximately 2.33 acres and we’re switching it around. The parent lot is now
going to have roughly two acres, and the new lot will have about 1.7.
MR. HUNSINGER-So if they hadn’t combined the lots, we’d just be looking at a lot line
adjustment.
MR. JARRETT-Yes. Possibly that, yes. There would have been, under the new Code,
there would be one non compliant lot either way. It’s just a matter of which one.
MR. FORD-And now there are two.
MR. JARRETT-Now there technically are two, you’re right. If this Board wishes and
recommends to the ZBA, we will change that, but we meet the intent of the Code, if not
2
(Queensbury Planning Board 06/16/09)
the language of the Code, we meet the spirit but not the language, the exact language or
exact configuration.
MR. SEGULJIC-Is it going to be easy enough for you to make it two acres as opposed to
1.99?
MR. JARRETT-I’ve got to come back to this Board for subdivision anyway. So as part of
those changes, I could do it. It’s just a matter of going back to the surveyor and getting a
new plat developed.
MR. SEGULJIC-It makes sense. It would neaten it up.
MR. HUNSINGER-I was going to say, somehow it makes it feel better. Doesn’t it?
MR. FORD-Yes, it would.
MR. JARRETT-I expected this Board to ask for that. It’s not a big leap. It’s not a
problem.
MR. SEGULJIC-So what you’re essentially proposing is the existing driveway is going to
extend into Lot 2, then?
MR. JARRETT-If you look at SK-1, which is our Sketch Plan and variance plan, you’ll
see the existing driveway is being extended, and it would go into Lot Two, if that’s your
question to me.
MR. SEGULJIC-Yes, that was the question. Just so I also understand, you come here
for a recommendation, back to the Zoning Board, hopefully to get their approval.
MR. JARRETT-And then back to you. That’s correct.
MR. SEGULJIC-For subdivision?
MR. JARRETT-Two lot subdivision.
MR. SEGULJIC-It makes sense, given the circumstances.
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?
PUBLIC HEARING OPENED
MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. Since this is just a recommendation, if they’re approved, they’ll
come back, they’ll be re-warned for a public hearing. So if I close the public hearing,
okay. I’ll close the public hearing, then.
PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED
MR. HUNSINGER-Any other questions, comments from Board members?
MRS. STEFFAN-I guess, I just looked at the notes that are here, and on the issues
regarding making a determination, you know, you’ve got minor, minor, one was severe,
then the other was a moderate impact, and so it just didn’t seem like this was, even
though it’s being evaluated under the new Code, it just didn’t seem like it was a big deal.
So I certainly think that we could work with you to get a compliant lot.
MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. Would anyone like to put forward a resolution? Again, it’s a
recommendation to the Zoning Board, and there is a sample, at least the body of a
resolution in the package. Anybody?
MR. KREBS-Move that we recommend to the Zoning Board of Appeals that they allow
the applicant to have two lots with one driveway.
MR. TRAVER-Second.
MR. HUNSINGER-We have a motion and a second, any discussion?
3
(Queensbury Planning Board 06/16/09)
MR. SIPP-I think we should nail that down a little tighter with one lot being two acres. I
think there needs to be some change in the language there, to make sure that we’re
waiving the right thing here.
MR. HUNSINGER-Did you want to make an amendment to the resolution, then, that they
make one of the lots compliant?
MR. SIPP-Yes. I would move that we amend the motion to read at least one lot will be of
two acre size.
MR. HUNSINGER-Okay.
MRS. STEFFAN-Isn’t what the Zoning Board asking us for a recommendation? I mean,
our project description is relief requested from the minimum public road frontage
requirement for principle buildings. So that’s what the ZBA is looking for a
recommendation on.
MR. OBORNE-They’re looking for a recommendation on the cumulative Area Variances.
So, the one is obviously the road frontage issue, and the other is the lot size issue.
MR. JARRETT-I think the misunderstanding is that the application for the lot size was not
in at the same time as the first variance, and then we discussed it, and the application
was amended. It didn’t get listed clearly, both variances, though, that I seek.
MR. KREBS-All right.
MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. Would you like to re-state your motion, perhaps, Mr. Krebs?
Start over.
MR. KREBS-Move that we approve the applicant’s request for two variances from the
Zoning Board of Appeals, that we recommend that they give these variances to the
applicant for multiple lot entrance at one roadway, and that one of the lots be at least two
acres.
MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. We have a new motion. Is there a second?
MR. FORD-Yes. Second.
MR. HUNSINGER-We have a motion and a second, any discussion on this motion?
MRS. STEFFAN-So we’re recommending that they have two driveways?
MR. FORD-No, one.
MR. OBORNE-For multiple lots.
MR. KREBS-Access through one.
MRS. STEFFAN-Okay. It sounded to me like there was two. I might have
misunderstood.
MR. KREBS-Did I say that?
MR. JARRETT-As long as the ZBA understands, that’s all I care.
MR. HUNSINGER-Any further discussion? Everyone understand what we’re voting on?
MRS. STEFFAN-No, I’m not clear. I’m sorry. It just sounded like we were
recommending.
MR. OBORNE-Well, I would suggest that you do it again, and make sure that it’s to
everybody’s liking. If there’s any ambiguity, then I suggest you make it non ambiguous.
MR. KREBS-Move that we recommend to the Zoning Board of Appeals that the applicant
be allowed to use one driveway to access the two lots, and that one lot be a minimum of
two acres.
MR. FORD-That I will second.
4
(Queensbury Planning Board 06/16/09)
MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. We have a motion and a second. Any discussion? Hearing
none, call the vote, please.
MOTION THAT THE QUEENSBURY PLANNING BOARD RECOMMENDS TO THE
QUEENSBURY ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS THAT THE APPLICANT, LINDA
DATOR, BE ALLOWED TO USE ONE DRIVEWAY TO ACCESS THE TWO LOTS, AND
THAT ONE LOT BE A MINIMUM OF TWO ACRES., Introduced by Donald Krebs who
moved for its adoption, seconded by Thomas Ford:
THE FOLLOWING VARIANCE HAS BEEN REQUESTED:
Applicant(s): Linda Dator Area Variance No.: 30-2009
Owner(s): Linda Dator SEQRA Type: II
Agent(s): Jarrett-Martin Engineers Lot size: 3.66 acres
Location: 2583 State Route 9L Zoning: WR-1A
Tax Id No.: 240.5-1-30 Section: §179-4-090
Warren County June 10,
Cross Ref.: Subdivision No. 6 - 2009
Planning: 2009
Public Adirondack Park
June 17, 2009 Yes
Hearing: Agency:
Project Description: Applicant proposes subdivision of 3.66 acres into two lots of 1.67
acres and 1.99 acres. Relief requested from the minimum public road frontage
requirement for principle buildings.
MOTION THAT THE QUEENSBURY PLANNING BOARD RECOMMENDS TO THE
QUEENSBURY ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS THAT THE APPLICANT, LINDA
DATOR, BE ALLOWED TO USE ONE DRIVEWAY TO ACCESS THE TWO LOTS, AND
THAT ONE LOT BE A MINIMUM OF TWO ACRES., Introduced by Donald Krebs who
moved for its adoption, seconded by Thomas Ford:
th
Duly adopted this 16 day of June, 2009, by the following vote:
AYES: Mr. Sipp, Mr. Seguljic, Mr. Traver, Mrs. Steffan, Mr. Ford, Mr. Krebs,
Mr. Hunsinger
NOES: NONE
MR. JARRETT-Thank you.
MR. HUNSINGER-You’re all set. Thank you.
MR. JARRETT-We’ll get through it. See you again.
MRS. STEFFAN-Okay. See you soon.
EXPEDITED REVIEW:
SITE PLAN NO. 32-2009 SEQR TYPE TYPE II W.W. ALLERDICE OWNER(S) SAME
ZONING WR-1A LOCATION 345 CLEVERDALE ROAD APPLICANT PROPOSES
CONSTRUCTION OF A 338 SQUARE FOOT BOATHOUSE/DECK.
BOATHOUSE/SUNDECK IN A WR ZONE IS AN ALLOWED USE SUBJECT TO SITE
PLAN REVIEW AND APPROVAL. CROSS REFERENCE AV 25-06 4/26/06; BP 06-
194 1/23/96 WARREN CO. PLANNING 6/10/09 APA, CEA, DEC, ACOE L G CEA,
APA WETLANDS LOT SIZE 0.37 +/- ACRES TAX MAP NO. 226.12-1-47 SECTION
179-5-050
VIC CINQUINO, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT
MR. HUNSINGER-And as the Board knows, the purpose of Expedited Review is typically
we don’t read the Staff Notes or go into any lengthy discussion on the item. If there’s
anyone that feels uncomfortable reviewing this as Expedited Review, then we would then
take a vote and kick it into a full review, but, having said that, I’ll just ask the Board if
there’s any questions or comments on the application.
MRS. STEFFAN-It seemed very straightforward, based on the Staff. It’s in compliance
and the Zoning Administrator obviously looked at it, and qualified it for Expedited
Review. So I don’t have any issues.
5
(Queensbury Planning Board 06/16/09)
MR. KREBS-And the Lake George Park Commission gave them a permit.
MRS. STEFFAN-Signed off.
MR. SEGULJIC-I have one question. With regards to the ramp, there’s no indication as
to what that’s attached to.
MR. CINQUINO-Okay. First of, I’m Vic Cinquino. I’m the architect for the project, and
this is Mr. Allerdice. The ramp basically goes from the sundeck basically into the hill as
you go up the hill to the house, adjacent to a patio.
MR. SEGULJIC-So there’s going to be some excavation where the ramp goes into that?
MR. CINQUINO-Only to the extent that we would need to put in a small footing to
support the (lost word).
MR. SEGULJIC-But it’s going to go onto a patio that’s there?
MR. CINQUINO-Yes, sir.
MR. SEGULJIC-You’re just going to put a little footing to have the lam next to the patio?
MR. CINQUINO-Yes, sir. The ramp is four foot wide. The footing, I believe, is called
(lost words) 12 inches deep. So it’s about a four foot by twelve inches by one foot pier
sunk into the ground.
MR. SEGULJIC-Okay.
MR. HUNSINGER-Any other questions, comments? We do have a public hearing
scheduled this evening. Is there anyone in the audience who wanted to address the
Board on this application? I will open the public hearing.
PUBLIC HEARING OPENED
MR. HUNSINGER-And since there are no takers, I will close the public hearing.
PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED
MRS. STEFFAN-And I’ll make a motion to approve.
MOTION TO APPROVE SITE PLAN NO. 32-2009 W.W. ALLERDICE, Introduced by
Gretchen Steffan who moved for its adoption, seconded by Donald Krebs:
1)A site plan application has been made to the Queensbury Planning Board for the
following: Applicant proposes construction of a 338 square foot boathouse / deck.
Boathouse / Sundeck in a WR zone is an allowed use subject to Site Plan Review
and approval.
2)A public hearing was advertised and held on 6/16/2009; and
3)This application is supported with all documentation, public comment and application
material in the file of record;
4)MOTION TO APPROVE SITE PLAN NO. 32-2009 W.W. ALLERDICE, Introduced by
Gretchen Steffan who moved for its adoption, seconded by Donald Krebs:
According to the resolution prepared by Staff. Paragraph Four A complies. This is a
Type II action, and Paragraph Four B, E, F, G, J and K do not apply, and it is
approved without condition.
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.Not applicable. This is a Type II action, therefore, no further SEQRA review
is necessary; and
6
(Queensbury Planning Board 06/16/09)
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; and
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.Not applicable. Waiver requests granted / denied: stormwater mgmt.,
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.Engineering sign-off required prior to signature of Zoning Administrator.
j.Not applicable. The applicant shall submit a copy of a NOI [Notice of Intent]
SWPPP [Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan] & NOT [Notice of
Termination] - see staff
k.Not applicable. The applicant shall submit a copy of a NYS SPDES [State
Pollution Discharge Elimination System]
th
Duly adopted this 16 day of June, 2009, by the following vote:
AYES: Mr. Traver, Mr. Sipp, Mr. Seguljic, Mr. Ford, Mr. Krebs, Mrs. Steffan,
Mr. Hunsinger
NOES: NONE
MR. HUNSINGER-You’re all set. Good luck.
MR. CINQUINO-Thank you.
SUBDIVISION NO. 3-2008 FINAL STAGE SEQR TYPE UNLISTED RONALD &
LINDA BALL AGENT(S) CHARLES SCUDDER OWNER(S) SAME ZONING SFR-
1A/RR-5A LOCATION WEST MT. RD. OPPOSITE LEHLAND ESTATES APPLICANT
PROPOSES SUBDIVISION OF AN 8.05 ACRE PARCEL INTO TWO LOTS OF 1 ACRE
& 7.05 ACRES. SUBDIVISION OF LAND REQUIRES PLANNNG BOARD REVIEW
AND APPROVAL. CROSS REFERENCE AV 19-08 WARREN CO. PLANNING N/A
LOT SIZE 8.05 ACRES TAX MAP NO. 295.10-1-31.1 SECTION A-183
CHARLIE SCUDDER, REPRESENTING APPLICANTS, PRESENT
MR. HUNSINGER-And whenever you’re ready to summarize the Staff Notes, Keith.
MR. OBORNE-Yes, sir. Subdivision 3-2008. Final Stage, Ronald and Linda Ball. It’s a
two lot residential subdivision, West Mountain Road opposite Lehland Estates. Existing
zoning, although it’s not existing, but at the time it was existing, is SFR-1A and RR-5A.
It’s a Unlisted. SEQRA Neg Dec was already accomplished on May 19, 2009. Project
Description: Applicant proposes the subdivision of an 8.05 acre parcel into two lots of 1
and 7.05 acres. Staff Comments. There is an existing house on lot one (1) with a paved
driveway. I believe I’ll skip over this because I believe everybody’s pretty familiar with
the project, and I shall, at this point, turn it over to the Board.
MR. HUNSINGER-Thank you. Good evening.
7
(Queensbury Planning Board 06/16/09)
MR. SCUDDER-Good evening, Mr. Chairman, Charlie Scudder, Scudder Engineering,
for Ron Ball, the applicant, and last time the Board laid down three stipulations which we
have provided and met.
MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. Any questions, comments from the Board?
MRS. STEFFAN-It looks like we’re ready for Final Stage approval.
MR. KREBS-Yes.
MR. TRAVER-Yes, it’s been a long journey.
MR. FORD-Thank you.
MR. TRAVER-I was most impressed when you brought the paver stone in. I think that’s
what really sold us on it.
MR. HUNSINGER-Yes.
MRS. STEFFAN-Okay.
MR. HUNSINGER-No public hearing is required because we closed it.
MRS. STEFFAN-No, but it’s posted on the agenda. Keith, it says on the agenda that the
public hearing is open. Is it?
MR. OBORNE-It should not.
MR. HUNSINGER-Well, except, do you know if it was noticed in the paper?
MR. OBORNE-Well, I’ll tell you, if it’s on there, then I’m sure it was noticed.
MR. HUNSINGER-Let’s be safe.
MR. OBORNE-Yes.
MR. HUNSINGER-I’ll open the public hearing. Is there anyone in the audience who
wanted to address the application before us? Hearing none, I’ll close the public hearing.
PUBLIC HEARING OPENED
NO COMMENT
PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED
MRS. STEFFAN-Okay. Then I’ll make a motion to approve.
MOTION TO APPROVE FINAL STAGE SUBDIVISION NO. 3-2008 RONALD & LINDA
BALL, Introduced by Gretchen Steffan who moved for its adoption, seconded by Stephen
Traver:
1. A subdivision application has been made to the Queensbury Planning Board for
the following; Applicant proposes subdivision of an 8.05 acre parcel into two lots
of 1 acre & 7.05 acres. Subdivision of land requires Planning Board review and
approval.
2. A public hearing was scheduled and held on 11/18/08, 1/20/09, 3/17/09 &
5/19/09; and
3. This application is supported with all documentation, public comment and
application material in the file of record; and
4. MOTION TO APPROVE FINAL STAGE SUBDIVISION NO. 3-2008 RONALD &
LINDA BALL, Introduced by Gretchen Steffan who moved for its adoption,
seconded by Stephen Traver:
According to the resolution prepared by Staff.
8
(Queensbury Planning Board 06/16/09)
th
Duly adopted this 16 day of June, 2009, by the following vote:
AYES: Mr. Krebs, Mr. Ford, Mr. Seguljic, Mr. Sipp, Mr. Traver, Mrs. Steffan,
Mr. Hunsinger
NOES: NONE
MR. HUNSINGER-You’re all set.
MR. SCUDDER-Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
MR. FORD-Good luck. Thank you for your patience and your response.
MR. HUNSINGER-I was remiss in not recognizing our engineer. Mr. Ryan is with us this
evening.
SITE PLAN NO. 28-2009 SEQR TYPE II EUGENE TIMPANO OWNER(S) SAME
ZONING HC-MOD LOCATION 928 STATE ROUTE 9 APPLICANT PROPOSES
CONVERSION OF A RESIDENTIAL RENTAL TO USE AS AN ICE CREAM SHOP.
PROPOSAL INCLUDES NEW PARKING CONFIGURATION AND NEW ACCESS DECK
WITH HANDICAP LIFT. NEW RESTAURANTS IN AN HC-MOD ZONE AREA AN
ALLOWED USE SUBJECT TO PLANNIG BOARD REVIEW AND APPROVAL. CROSS
REFERENCE SP 30-05, AV 18-09 WARREN CO. PLANNING 5/13/09 LOT SIZE
0.33 ACRES TAX MAP NO. 296.13-1-14 SECTION 179-9-010, 179-7-050
EUGENE TIMPANO, PRESENT
MR. HUNSINGER-Whenever you’re ready, Keith, to summarize Staff Notes.
MR. OBORNE-Site Plan 28-2009, applicant Eugene Timpano. Site Plan Review for a
restaurant in the HC-MOD zone. 928 State Route 9. Highway Commercial Moderate is
the zoning. A project description. Applicant proposes conversion of a residential rental
to use as an Ice Cream Shop. Proposal includes new parking configuration and new
access deck with handicap lift. The total retail space proposed for the ice cream shop is
580 square feet. Seating for 12 is planned inside with no provisions for outside seating.
There is a handicap accessible unisex bathroom available. New Restaurants in an HC-
MOD zone are an allowed use subject to Planning Board review and approval. I’ll just
quickly go through the Staff Notes. The applicant has stated that no business will be
conducted through the take out window mentioned in narrative. The Planning Board may
wish to make this a condition of approval as site parking does not support this type of
retail activity. All parking spaces must be drawn to scale to ensure compatibility with
existing conditions. All parking and loading zones must be 18 feet by 9 feet. There are
traffic issues associated with the corner of Sweet Road and State Route 9, and I go on to
explain why those issues are present. Two wall signs are proposed for the business.
One 5’x 4’ wall sign is proposed for the business. You may wish to ascertain the
materials, colors and mode of attachment to be used for these signs. A landscaping
plan should be considered for this site as existing landscaping will either be eliminated
by the proposed lift and deck or is generally lacking in nature. Concerning stormwater,
the Planning Board may wish to direct the applicant to denote off site drainage on the
plan. All lighting to be downcast, cutoff fixtures. Snow storage location will need to be
explored. The applicant has requested waivers for stormwater, grading, and
landscaping, however, there appears to be a few outstanding issues in these areas. I’d
turn it over to the Board.
MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. Thank you. Good evening.
MR. TIMPANO-Good evening.
MR. HUNSINGER-If you could identify yourself for the record.
MR. TIMPANO-My name’s Eugene Timpano.
MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. Did you have anything else that you wanted to add about your
project?
MR. TIMPANO-No, there’s nothing else I wanted to add.
9
(Queensbury Planning Board 06/16/09)
MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. Then I will open it up for questions, comments from the Board.
Before I do that, did you have an opportunity to review the comments that were just
summarized into the record?
MR. TIMPANO-I received this letter last night.
MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. Did you have any comments on either the letter or the, did you
get the engineering comments as well?
MR. TIMPANO-I got the engineering comments, also.
MR. HUNSINGER-Okay, and did you have anything else that you wanted to add, based
on that?
MR. TIMPANO-I had nothing I wanted to add, but if you have questions regarding those
statements, I’m here to answer them.
MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. I’ll open it up for questions, comments from the Board
members, then.
MR. FORD-Just for clarification. You received the Staff Notes last evening?
MR. TIMPANO-They came in the mail yesterday.
MR. FORD-And VISION Engineering accompanied those? That’s when you received
those?
MR. TIMPANO-That letter also came in the mail yesterday.
MR. FORD-Thank you.
MRS. STEFFAN-And just to clarify, it was in the Staff Notes, that there is no take out
proposed?
MR. TIMPANO-There is not going to be any take out.
MRS. STEFFAN-It’s a sit down ice cream parlor kind of thing. That’s what you’re looking
for?
MR. TIMPANO-Yes, but that isn’t to stop people from coming inside purchasing and then
leaving with the ice cream.
MRS. STEFFAN-Sure.
MR. SIPP-Is the Laundromat going to continue operation?
MR. TIMPANO-The Laundromat will stay in operation as it is today.
MR. SIPP-So that has a separate parking lot?
MR. TIMPANO-It has its own parking lot and it faces Route 9.
MR. SIPP-Now, on this handicapped elevator, this is a standard type approval for such
an application?
MR. TIMPANO-I have considered a number of manufacturers, but I haven’t decided on a
particular manufacturer. I expect to review this with the Building Department so that I’m
compliant with whatever demands that they make.
MR. SIPP-Have you considered a ramp rather than?
MR. TIMPANO-The rise from the ground level to the door sill is 32 inches. The ADA has
recommended that there be one foot of ramp for every inch. That would be 32 foot of
ramp, which would have to wrap around twice. It would be three separate ramps, and it
would extend in front of the building 12 feet.
MR. HUNSINGER-So that’s not going to work. Yes.
10
(Queensbury Planning Board 06/16/09)
MR. TIMPANO-And chances are the cost would be equal to and possibly more than an
elevator.
MRS. STEFFAN-What kind of market research have you done? I guess, where did the
idea come from to have an ice cream stand and what kind of market research did you
do?
MR. TIMPANO-I have the Laundromat. I have no room in the Laundromat for any
additional vending machines. I often get requests for various snacks and different items.
Official marketing, I’ll admit, I have done none, but the intention is to run the ice cream
store for the neighborhood year round during the periods of time that school is out of
session, which means that when school’s out of session, I plan to open up the ice cream
store at three o’clock in the afternoon, and run it until eight o’clock in the evening during
the winter, and then extend the hours during the summer. I have no intent, and I have no
belief that I could ever compete with the other ice cream businesses in the area, and I
thoroughly believe that 95% of my patronage will be from the residential areas
surrounding the store.
MR. SEGULJIC-So the store that you’re going to put in is going to be in the two story
wood framed house, then?
MR. TIMPANO-It’s going to be the main floor of the main portion of the house.
MR. SEGULJIC-Okay. Then what are you going to do with the garage?
MR. TIMPANO-I have cars in the garage.
MR. SEGULJIC-That’s going to stay the garage. So, if I’m hearing you also, you expect
a lot of people to walk to your store, this ice cream store?
MR. TIMPANO-I would imagine so. I’m on the corner of Sweet Road. I’ve been
approached by my neighbors, the neighbors of 928 State Route 9, and they’re asking
when is the ice cream store going to open, because I’ve spoken to them about it. I’ve
spoken, I’ve asked them what they think of the idea and whether they would have any
objections, and they’re just waiting.
MR. FORD-They’re waiting?
MR. TIMPANO-They’re waiting for me to open, to go into business. They’re interested in
buying ice cream.
MR. FORD-Okay.
MR. SEGULJIC-So really it’s just going to be alterations inside the building is what you’re
going to be doing?
MR. TIMPANO-Yes.
MR. SEGULJIC-Outside is going to be pretty limited.
MR. TIMPANO-There’s nothing going on outside. I’ll have two park benches in front of
the Laundromat, which I have available for the present patrons of the Laundromat. So
I’m not going to be able to prevent them, people who are buying ice cream, from sitting
out in front of the Laundromat.
MR. FORD-How frequently do your four parking spaces get occupied simultaneously?
MR. TIMPANO-Excuse me?
MR. FORD-How frequently do all four parking spaces get used simultaneously?
MR. TIMPANO-Well, there’s 68 foot of frontage, presently. A macadam slab in front of
the house. That slab has been there since the 70’s. Since the requirements state that
each parking spot should be nine foot wide, that gives me the possibility of six parking
spots, plus ample space for a handicap easement for unloading and loading. Do I
believe that all eight spots will be occupied full time? I could only hope. I really don’t
think that there’s going to be that tremendous amount of activity from drive up. Of course
probably some more during the cold days, but during the summer, I would imagine that
11
(Queensbury Planning Board 06/16/09)
75% of the business will be walk up, and a portion of that business would be people who
are in the Laundromat, who are already parked in the Laundromat.
MR. KREBS-And I would imagine some will be from the motel next door and from the
motel across the street and behind the motel across the street there’s a relatively large
apartment complex, and behind Wal-Mart there’s another relatively large apartment
complex, all of which are easily walkable to your store. I had a question, Keith. The
engineer, as his third comment here, he’s looking for a more recent survey with
topographic. I didn’t understand that request.
MR. OBORNE-Well, the engineer’s here. So maybe.
MR. KREBS-Okay.
MR. RYAN-The purpose of that comment was basically to verify the existing conditions.
Without a survey that’s been accurate, I didn’t know if there were additions on the
property, if asphalt had changed in the last 10 years. That’s basically the idea was to
verify what was on site now.
MR. KREBS-Okay. Well, it’s really only four years since March of 2005, then basically
the property hasn’t changed in years. I’ve lived near by, and I know that it hasn’t
changed at all.
MR. TIMPANO-Nothing’s changed on the property, which is why I asked for the waiver
for sewage and drainage, because none of the commercial properties in that area have
any sewage, drainage, and that asphalt has been there since the 70’s. So I’m not adding
any asphalt. I’m not changing the slab that is there. The water that has drained from
that, from that lot, has drained that way for 30 years now, and as far as snow removal’s
concerned, again, for the last 30 years, the residents have moved the snow off of that
property, and the majority of the snow that I move I move towards Route 9 onto the plot
of grass, and then the balance of it I try and move to the west, the east side of the
building. So I don’t see an issue. I’ve been moving that snow for six years now, without
a problem.
MR. SEGULJIC-If I could ask Mr. Ryan a question. Are there any issues with stormwater
in that area that you’re aware of?
MR. RYAN-I’m not aware of any, because I don’t live there. Perhaps the applicant could
verify the drainage. Again, with the survey being requested with topography we could
certainly depict the existing drainage more accurately. Nothing’s been presented, in
terms of existing conditions related to stormwater.
MR. SEGULJIC-Okay. One of my issues would be with regard to landscaping, because
they are in the, is this under the New regs?
MR. OBORNE-No, this is under the old Code.
MR. SEGULJIC-Old Code, okay. Because they are in the Upper Route 9 Travel
Corridor, and that requires a tree every, what, 35 feet or something?
MR. OBORNE-Or as proposed by the Planning Board.
MR. SEGULJIC-I mean, because you really don’t have any street scape there, do you?
You don’t have any trees along.
MR. TIMPANO-The entire front of the building has got asphalt on it.
MR. SEGULJIC-Okay.
MR. TIMPANO-Directly in front of the building, behind those steps, are two badly in need
of removal rhododendrons. That is where the access is going to be for the handicap
ramp. The only plan I have to provide more, there is a small tree that I had planted years
ago, right there behind the fence. The only additional landscaping I can foresee is, I’ve
been looking at purchasing those half wooden barrels and dotting the driveway with them
in order to provide some more greenery in front of the building, but there’s, to use that
wrap around the Laundromat, and then there’s a backyard, because it was a residence.
MR. SEGULJIC-I mean, I have no problem with the project overall, but I think one of the
things, you know, the Code does direct us towards some type of street scape in this
12
(Queensbury Planning Board 06/16/09)
area. So I would ask the applicant to propose some type of landscaping, enhanced
landscaping for this site.
MR. TIMPANO-Excuse me?
MR. SEGULJIC-Enhanced landscaping for the site, some type of street trees, something
to break up all the asphalt in front of the building. Imagine if everyone had all asphalt?
MR. KREBS-The problem is, the only place that isn’t asphalt, if you put trees on that
corner, you’re going to decrease the visibility of people coming south on Route 9 making
a left hand turn into Sweet Road. So I think that would be a dangerous addition, if you
were to put any trees in that particular area.
MR. SIPP-There’s a light there.
MR. SEGULJIC-If I said trees, I said, or some other type of landscaping.
MR. KREBS-Other type of landscaping, I agree. Fine.
MR. SEGULJIC-Something. I would leave it to the applicant to come back to us with
something.
MR. HUNSINGER-Is there room to put a tree in the backyard on Route 9?
MR. TIMPANO-There are trees in the backyard.
MR. HUNSINGER-But on Route 9?
MR. TIMPANO-There’s a tree, there’s a pear tree, that isn’t on that. I don’t think it’s on
that picture, but it’s visible from Route 9.
MRS. STEFFAN-Unfortunately, there’s a tremendous amount of blacktop there, not just
on this site, but you’ve got Route 9 and you’ve got Sweet Road, and there’s really no
place, when the plows are going through, there’s no place to put snow, so if we ask them
to put trees near the.
MR. TIMPANO-This is the side of Gambles. This is Winchip, which is all blacktop. This
is, used to be the satellite company, I think this is the kitchen. It is all blacktop. This is
the building that does (lost words) repairs. That is all blacktop. No one has any trees.
No one has any drainage.
MR. SEGULJIC-But those applications are not before us.
MR. TIMPANO-Yes, right.
MR. SEGULJIC-And also that doesn’t mean that we can’t request landscaping on this
site. Once again, I didn’t say trees, I said some type of landscaping, just to improve the
look of the area. You had mention whiskey barrels with plantings.
MR. TIMPANO-Yes.
MR. SEGULJIC-Maybe that’s a possibility, but you’d have to put them on the plan.
MR. TIMPANO-Okay.
MR. SEGULJIC-I mean, that’s just my opinion. I mean, the Code says for landscaping.
MRS. STEFFAN-Well, yes, and I would like to see annual plantings and probably the
nicest thing for that house would be window boxes in the front, you know, because then
you’re not adding to the footprint, but you’re sprucing up the building, but the trees are
enhanced landscaping. I just don’t know whether that’s practical for this site, and you
are hooked up to sewer on this site.
MR. TIMPANO-Yes.
MR. HUNSINGER-My only thought with the tree was on the Route 9 corridor, on the
Route 9 side of the back. Is there room there for a tree, or no?
MR. TIMPANO-Excuse me?
13
(Queensbury Planning Board 06/16/09)
MR. HUNSINGER-Is there room between your, on the?
MR. TIMPANO-I have a pear tree on the north side of the Laundromat that is visible from
Route 9.
MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. Any other questions or comments from members of the
Board? We do have a public hearing scheduled this evening. Is there anyone in the
audience who wanted to address the Board on this application? I will open the public
hearing.
PUBLIC HEARING OPENED
MR. HUNSINGER-Did you get any written comments, Keith?
MR. OBORNE-No.
MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. What’s the feeling of the Board? This is one of those where,
and I’m sure you can appreciate the Town Code is fairly extensive. We understand that
most of what you’re proposing to do will not change the site itself, you know, the outside
of your facility, but there are issues with the Code, and I’ve always been an advocate
where, you know, we shouldn’t require every applicant, no offense to our engineers, to
have to have full engineering plans and specifications drawn up, or, you know, should we
have to have an architect sign off on every Site Plan, but there is some tradeoff between,
you know, what’s required of the Code and then what has been proposed by the
applicant, and I think that’s the balance we’re trying to strike here. What are the issues
that the Board has? I mean, we do have a number of engineering comments as well as
Staff comments to consider.
MR. TRAVER-Well, I agree with the issue of landscaping, and it is a difficult site, but I
think that something could be done and perhaps what the applicant is proposing, in the
form of large planters or something, but really anything would be helpful to improve the
appearance of the neighborhood now.
MR. HUNSINGER-How about the comments in engineering about concerns over
pedestrian and vehicle safety? Where’s the Board fall on that one?
MR. SIPP-Well, there’s a traffic signal right there, that works pretty well.
MR. TRAVER-Yes.
MR. HUNSINGER-Yes.
MR. SIPP-And I don’t think that there’s been any big problems since they put that signal
in, with the Outback across the street, and the bakery across the street from there, and
so forth. There’s a lot of traffic, but I think that light controls pretty much everything.
MR. KREBS-And I went in there. I have a Toyota Sequoia, which is a relatively large
car, and I pulled in and stopped a foot and a half from the building, and I was able to
back and turn on the property, because I was going out onto the road. So, depending on
how tightly people put themselves in, I might have had to back out a little farther, but I
was able to do the turn on his property.
MR. TIMPANO-And that is not the case with the people who park on the side of
Gambles.
MR. HUNSINGER-They just park anywhere.
MR. TIMPANO-When they’re busy over there, they’re parking perpendicular to the
building, and they’re backing directly onto Sweet Road, and to date there has been no
collisions that I know of.
MR. SEGULJIC-As far as lighting, are you proposing any new lights?
MR. TIMPANO-It was suggested by Mr. Oborne that I put the lighting, include lighting in
the plan, but I certainly will comply with whatever lighting requirements there are, but I’m
still up in the air whether I’m going to go forward with that, but I just assumed that those
requirements would have to be passed on through the Building Department.
14
(Queensbury Planning Board 06/16/09)
MR. SEGULJIC-I guess, I mean, so you haven’t decided if you’re going to put any new
lighting on yet?
MR. TIMPANO-Any new? No, I haven’t. I’m leaning not to do it.
MR. SEGULJIC-I guess where I’m coming from, if you’re proposing not to put any new
lighting, I’m fine with granting the waiver, but if you’re proposing new lighting, I’d like to at
least discuss what you’re proposing, before I grant the waiver.
MR. TIMPANO-Well, it is my belief that I will just enhance the light that is under the front
door. I really don’t think that I’ll be putting any lighting under the eaves of the building.
MR. FORD-How do you intend to enhance the light?
MR. TIMPANO-I’m going to replace the bulb probably with a sodium bulb that’ll throw
more light, because right now it’s a fixture that was put in 1948, and it’s fogged over and
it produces very little light. I’d like to replace the fixture.
MR. FORD-Higher wattage, in other words. Higher wattage.
MR. TIMPANO-No, I’ll replace the fixture, yes with higher wattage.
MR. HUNSINGER-Where is the light now? Is it a ceiling light over that?
MR. TIMPANO-It’s a ceiling light, yes, underneath that little overhang.
MR. HUNSINGER-Yes. Okay.
MR. TRAVER-From the way you project your business profile, it doesn’t sound like you
would be conducting much business after dark?
MR. TIMPANO-I don’t expect to be conducting much business, no. I expect to be closing
this thing up by eight o’clock at night during the winter, and we’ll see what the summer’s
demand, but, again, I really don’t even think I’m going to be doing that much business
during the summer because of the competition.
MR. SEGULJIC-Just clarify for me. You have the lighting plan. You have three lights
depicted on it. Are those lights existing now?
MR. TIMPANO-No.
MR. SEGULJIC-All right. Those are lights you want to put on. Okay. Now, I’m okay with
the lighting, but I think we should look for some type of landscaping plan. I’m going to
leave it up to the applicant to see what he can come up with. Just something.
MR. TIMPANO-Okay.
MR. SEGULJIC-Ideally some bushes, but see what you can come up with.
MR. FORD-We really need more detail then we have been provided today.
MR. TIMPANO-In regards to the landscaping.
MR. FORD-In regards to several of the items that have been brought up. I may have
missed it in here, but when you start talking about stockade fencing and gating and that
sort of enclosure, and additional cement for the dumpster, these are issues that, and
details that we need to have specified.
MR. HUNSINGER-Other questions, comments from members of the Board?
MR. SEGULJIC-A couple of questions with regard to the engineering letter. You bring
up a couple of things like the detail specifications for proposed water service line. Are
you proposing a water service line?
MR. TIMPANO-The water service is existing. It was put in for the Laundromat.
MR. RYAN-Does he have plans submitted that show the water line to clarify if it’s
existing or proposed?
15
(Queensbury Planning Board 06/16/09)
MR. SEGULJIC-What you would like to see is where that line is, it would be helpful to
have that water line.
MR. RYAN-Yes. Basically he submitted a plan that had water, sewer, gas lines all
shown, but didn’t indicate whether they were existing or proposed. So clarify they’re
existing and that satisfies that issue.
MR. TIMPANO-They’re all existing.
MR. SEGULJIC-All right.
MRS. STEFFAN-Is the garage, are the garages going to be used for storage?
MR. TIMPANO-There are two cars in there. There will be two cars in there. They’re my
cars.
MRS. STEFFAN-Okay, and so how will deliveries to the ice cream shop be made, just
through the front door?
MR. TIMPANO-Just through the front door.
MRS. STEFFAN-And is there a rear exit to the house?
MR. TIMPANO-There’s a sliding door off of a, off the den in the rear of the house, and
there is a door from the kitchen area into the garage.
MRS. STEFFAN-That becomes a building permit issue, right?
MR. HUNSINGER-Building Code, yes.
MRS. STEFFAN-Yes. I’m just saying, it becomes a Building Code issue, I think it goes
over the line, because you have to have ingress, you have to have an entrance and exit.
You have to have a fire exit. You have to have lighting, but those are Building Code
issues, right?
MR. OBORNE-Yes, and I think it’s based on a certain square footage also, where that
actually kicks in, but I could not vet that, to be honest with you. I know that the Fire
Marshal has reviewed this and made no mention of that.
MR. HUNSINGER-So is it the inclination of the Board to table this?
MR. SEGULJIC-Yes.
MR. TRAVER-Well, we need to see the landscaping.
MR. FORD-That’s the way I feel.
MR. HUNSINGER-Yes. Okay. Is there anything else that we absolutely want to see,
other than the landscaping?
MR. SEGULJIC-I’m just trying to look at the engineering letter. I just see some details
that have got to be ironed out. I guess a lot of these things, I mean, I struggle, like you
do, Mr. Chairman, you know, we have this Code, but, no disrespect intended, but it’s a
minor project.
MR. HUNSINGER-Yes.
MR. SEGULJIC-And so we have to integrate all of this. I really, I just think some details
on the engineering letter have to get ironed out. The lift, you know, just stating that those
are existing lines and not proposed, for future reference.
MRS. STEFFAN-Mr. Timpano, how long were you estimating that it would take you to,
you know, turn this site around to get it open?
MR. TIMPANO-Three months.
MRS. STEFFAN-Okay. So under ideal conditions it wouldn’t be opening until August.
MR. TIMPANO-I have no intentions of opening before the end of September.
16
(Queensbury Planning Board 06/16/09)
MR. HUNSINGER-Okay.
MR. SEGULJIC-Could I just ask the engineer a question? With regards to the lift and the
ADA compliance, is that really a Building Department issue?
MR. RYAN-I was more concerned with the grades, not knowing what the grades were,
how he was going to approach the ADA compliant. I think you’re putting in an elevator or
a lift, sidewalk widths to that. I mean, he’s basically showing nothing.
MR. SEGULJIC-Okay, in a lot of ways it almost favors the applicant to say you’ve got to
do this to make sure it works.
MR. RYAN-I would rather make sure it works now while you’re approving it and have the
Building Department whether it works or not after the fact. I mean, it seems to me
appropriate to layout what he’s doing on the site, dimension it. It doesn’t take much to do
that, and show to us that it’s compliant with Code.
MR. SEGULJIC-Yes. So really, as I see it, out of the engineering letter, it’s really 17 and
22 we need to address.
MR. FORD-And 10. I would like more on 10.
MR. RYAN-Which one, 10?
MR. FORD-Yes.
MR. HUNSINGER-Yes, the dumpster.
MR. RYAN-And what about setbacks? There’s a 75 foot setback that he could be
constructing an entrance in, off the Route 9 corridor. There’s also a front setback off
Sweet Road. Do we know where those fall?
MR. OBORNE-Those have been approved by the Zoning Board of Appeals. So those
issues have been taken care of.
MR. TRAVER-May 20.
MR. RYAN-The only other concern was the lighting that you discussed briefly, but he is
going to be open until 8 p.m. In the winter it’s dark out at 4 p.m.
MR. SEGULJIC-It’s all downcast, though.
MR. RYAN-I’m more concerned about having adequate lighting for pedestrian safety
provided in accordance with the Code, rather than worrying about what the entrance has.
I’m more concerned about the parking lot, people pulling in and out of this area, with no
lighting other than at the front door.
MR. TIMPANO-But down lighting does not answer that.
MR. KREBS-Are there any lights on the corner? I mean, you know, Route 9 lighting?
MR. HUNSINGER-There’s street lights on Route 9. Are there street lights on Sweet
Road, too?
MR. TIMPANO-Yes.
MR. SIPP-No.
MR. TIMPANO-There’s one at the, this picture I took here. There’s one on the Route 9.
Here’s the street light. It’s on Sweet Road. It’s on the corner.
MR. SEGULJIC-Someone made a comment, I think it was about Number 20 in the
engineering letter, I think it was. Number 22 has been taken care of.
MR. KREBS-I think if you do 10, 17 and 22, you’ve got it covered.
MR. HUNSINGER-Don’t we need Item 11 addressed, too, the lift from the sidewalk and
the location?
17
(Queensbury Planning Board 06/16/09)
MR. SEGULJIC-Yes.
MR. HUNSINGER-Which also kind of relates to 7, which is the dimensions for the
handicap parking space. What other items, are there anything from Staff Notes that we
want to make sure he addresses? So the runoff that comes off your current driveway,
where does it go?
MR. TIMPANO-Right there on Sweet Road.
MR. HUNSINGER-Is there a drainage ditch or anything on Sweet Road?
MR. TIMPANO-No, there’s no, there’s drainage, but it’s further down Sweet Road. It’s
not in front of my house, and it’s not front of any of the buildings for the first couple of
blocks. I think it’s down, with the residential areas, past Montray.
MR. FORD-The location of the lift.
MR. TIMPANO-The lift will be on the left side of the front door.
MR. FORD-Okay, and what type of covering will you have over that?
MR. TIMPANO-There’ll be no covering over the lift.
MR. FORD-So it will be fully exposed to the elements?
MR. TIMPANO-Yes.
MR. FORD-Do you not have concerns about that?
MR. TIMPANO-I don’t have concerns about that.
MR. FORD-And would it, how will that operate?
MR. TIMPANO-There’ll be a single button with a bell inside so that someone will go out
and help them get into the lift and operate the lift.
MR. FORD-Operate the lift manually or electrically?
MR. TIMPANO-Electrically.
MR. FORD-Okay, and the manufacturer does not specify any type of coverage, this is an
approved external lift mechanism, electrically operated without any coverage?
MR. TIMPANO-Without, there is no covering for it, no. You get out of your car. You’re in
the parking lot. Is there a cover there until you get into the building? When you go to
Hannaford, is there a covering until you went to the building?
MR. FORD-Is there something electrical that you’re, that is going to be rained upon or
snowed upon when you’re at Hannaford?
MR. TIMPANO-It is compliant with all electrical requirement for outside electricals.
MR. SEGULJIC-Yes. Mr. Ford, I would think that’s more of like a, I’m trying to think of
the electrical codes. That’s not, I mean.
MR. HUNSINGER-Well, I mean, he wants to make sure the lift’s going to work if it’s
exposed to the elements. That’s all.
MR. TIMPANO-It’s built for use outdoors.
MR. HUNSINGER-Okay.
MR. TIMPANO-It’s not an indoor elevator. It’s an elevator that is built for use outdoors.
MR. HUNSINGER-Okay.
MRS. STEFFAN-Okay. Mr. Timpano, we’ve got, obviously, some things that we need to
table you for, and so I’m just going to go through and identify the items that were in the
18
(Queensbury Planning Board 06/16/09)
VISION Engineering comments that you’ll need to address, and also some of the Staff
comments, but I think it’s kind of all lumped together. So what I’d like to do is make a
motion.
MOTION TO TABLE SITE PLAN NO. 28-2009 EUGENE TIMPANO, 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 conversion of a residential rental to use as an Ice
Cream Shop. Proposal includes new parking configuration and new access deck
with handicap lift. New Restaurants in an HC-MOD zone are an allowed use
subject to Planning Board review and approval.
2)A public hearing was advertised and held on 6/16/2009; and
3)This application is supported with all documentation, public comment and
application material in the file of record;
4)MOTION TO TABLE SITE PLAN NO. 28-2009 EUGENE TIMPANO, Introduced
by Gretchen Steffan who moved for its adoption, seconded by Thomas Ford:
th
Tabled to the August 18 Planning Board meeting. The application for
th
submission of materials will be July 15. This is tabled so that the applicant can
satisfy VISION Engineering comments, specifically Number 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 10,
11, 12, and 15, a more detailed lighting plan should be provided. The lighting
plan should contain downcast and Code compliant lighting. Also in VISION
Engineering comments you need to address Item 16, 17, 19, 20, 21, 22, and 23.
The Planning Board will grant waivers for stormwater management and grading.
However, it will not grant a waiver for landscaping. The applicant will need to
propose an enhanced landscaping plan.
th
Duly adopted this 16 day of June, 2009, by the following vote:
MR. OBORNE-If I could break in. I know, just to remind the Board in the past, that there
were issues with signage after the fact. So I just wanted to.
MRS. STEFFAN-Actually, one of the VISION Engineering comments asked for.
MR. HUNSINGER-And he shows the dimensions.
MR. OBORNE-And I apologize for breaking in.
MRS. STEFFAN-That’s okay. We considered that.
MR. HUNSINGER-That’s okay.
MR. KREBS-I still don’t understand. You said three. I don’t understand why, since
there’s a survey map from March 2005, there hasn’t been a physical change in the
landscape in 25 years, why we’re requiring this man to get another survey done.
MR. HUNSINGER-Well, I think, I can’t speak for the Board, but I guess my thought was
just to make a note that it hasn’t changed since then.
MR. KREBS-Okay.
MR. TIMPANO-But by virtue of the Zoning Board, Van Dusen signed off that there has
been no change.
MR. HUNSINGER-That’s addressing the comment. Okay. Yes, just label that on the
plan, then. Everyone else comfortable with that? I think that was my thinking.
MR. FORD-Yes.
MR. TRAVER-Yes.
MR. KREBS-I’m comfortable with that.
MR. HUNSINGER-I mean, we’re asking him to address the comment, not to specifically
say, you know.
19
(Queensbury Planning Board 06/16/09)
MR. FORD-Have a new survey done.
MR. HUNSINGER-I think even Mr. Ryan had said a lot of this is just, you know, putting a
label here and giving us the information and knowing what we’re looking at.
MRS. STEFFAN-And giving us the information, and knowing that it’s 2009 versus 2005.
So that’s why I included three.
MR. HUNSINGER-Okay.
AYES: Mr. Sipp, Mr. Traver, Mr. Seguljic, Mrs. Steffan, Mr. Ford, Mr. Hunsinger
NOES: Mr. Krebs
MR. HUNSINGER-Good luck. We’ll see you in a couple of months.
MRS. STEFFAN-We’ll see you in August.
SITE PLAN NO. 33-2009 SEQR TYPE NCE BUILDING CORP. AGENT(S) NORTH
COUNTRY ENGINEERING OWNER(S) SAME ZONING HC-INT. LOCATION 1557
STATE ROUTE 9 APPLICANT PROPOSES CONSTRUCTION OF A 1,600 SQUARE
FOOT SECOND FLOOR OVER A PORTION OF AN EXISTING OFFICE BUILDING.
COMMERCIAL ALTERATIONS REQUIRING A BUILDING PERMIT REQUIRE
PLANNING BOARD REVIEW AND APPROVAL. CROSS REFERENCE SP 6-07, SV
64-07, BP 07-536, BP 08-020, 021, 022; BP 07-133 WARREN CO. PLANNING 6/10/09
LOT SIZE 1.16 +/- ACRES TAX MAP NO. 288.8-1-6 SECTION 179-9-010
DAVE KLEIN, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT
MR. HUNSINGER-Keith, if you could summarize Staff Notes, please.
MR. OBORNE-Site Plan 33-2009, NCE Building Corp. Site Plan review for commercial
alterations requiring a building permit. Location is 1557 State Route 9. Existing zoning
is HC-Intensive. It’s a Type II SEQRA. Project Description: Applicant proposes
construction of a 1,600 square foot, second floor office over a portion of an existing office
building. Commercial alterations requiring a building permit require Planning Board
review and approval. Staff comments. The current building is situated on a 1.16 acre
lot. The building has an ‘H’ shaped configuration to the north and the proposed second
story is to be centered on the northern portion of the building. The applicant states that
there will be no change to the impervious courtyard as the area below the proposed
addition has existing impermeable pavers. Parking appears to be adequate as the
proposal will increase parking by 6 spaces to a total of 21 spaces required. There
currently exist 24 parking spaces on site. Concerning handicap accessibility, the
Director of Building and Codes has stated that the expansion is less than 3,000 square
feet and is not a requirement. Plan Review. The Planning Board may wish to verify the
existing capacity of the wastewater system for this proposed expansion. The proposed
light associated with the garage may need clarification. Is this light a wall pack or
freestanding light? Additional comments. The Planning Board may consider granting
waivers for stormwater, landscaping, lighting and grading as requested by the applicant.
MR. HUNSINGER-Thank you. Good evening.
MR. KLEIN-Good evening.
MR. HUNSINGER-If you could identify yourselves for the record.
MR. KLEIN-Yes. I’m Dave Klein with North Country Engineering, and my partner John
Goldy, also with North Country Engineering, and we’re both owners of this property.
NCE Building Corp. owns the property. Thank you for getting us on the agenda so
quickly. It’s a fairly simple project. We have an “H” shape building. The insulation is at
the ceiling level, and we have six HVAC units that are up in the attic space above the
insulation, and the attic heats up a little bit in the wintertime, due to the HVAC system
and the heat loss through that. It melts the snow up on the roof, and it comes down and
collects in the valleys, the four valleys that form the “H” shape section, and gets to the
eaves. It’s colder at the eaves, and then at the roof surface, and it freezes up. We end
up with, over the winter we were raking the snow off the roof at the courtyards all winter
long. Then we have a problem of getting the snow out of the courtyards, and we weren’t
quick enough through the winter. We had a hard winter this year, and we got back up
20
(Queensbury Planning Board 06/16/09)
inside the building, and we had damage inside the building and we’ve got a significant
insurance claim. So, in any event, we had roofing contractors on the roof this winter
trying to get the ice off and hitting it with heavy tools and done some damage to the roof,
and so one thought was to eliminate those valleys by putting a second floor over the
north courtyard, and we’d have a single sloped roof front and back. It would be a little bit
higher than the existing building, and it would provide another 1600 square feet of office
space for us. In this market, we’d have second thoughts of building it on spec. So, we’re
going through the approval process now so we have it. We’ll probably just put a new
roof on with this market. We’ve got it listed, you know, with a realtor to rent it out. We
have had no interest whatsoever, and so. We’ll probably get a new roof instead of this
project.
MRS. STEFFAN-But it’s still a good idea.
MR. KLEIN-It was a good idea, yes. In a better market, it would be a great idea. I saw
there were a couple of Staff comments. The septic system was put in the 80’s. It’s got,
there was a Site Plan submitted, and I believe it’s got three 50 foot absorption trenches,
and the soil in the area is a sandy, bouldery material with a fairly quick perc rate. Before
we purchased the property, it was occupied by Barton Mines. They had 36 people in the
building, you know, long hours, and there’s been never any problem with the septic
system. Right now we’ve got a dozen people in the building, and don’t anticipate that the
septic system’s going to be an issue. There was another comment about lighting. We
have, we inherited a light.
JOHN GOLDY
MR. GOLDY-It’s a light mast. It’s sort of a floodlight on a mast.
MR. KLEIN-Hydrogen or sodium halogen.
MR. GOLDY-I think it’s a metal halide.
MR. KLEIN-Maybe it’s metal halide, and it sticks up on top of the building in one corner
of the parking lot. I think it’s got a short-circuit in it.
MR. GOLDY-It’s hard to access. It’s in the back of the lot. We feel that if we took that
light, or a light, took that off and put a light on the garage, a wall pack, for example, that
we’d do a good job of just lighting the parking lot, the back of the building, that would be
a better application for a lot.
MR. KLEIN-And again it would be motion activated. It’s not going to be on all the time.
MR. HUNSINGER-So do you know what the wattage would be? Have you selected a
fixture yet?
MR. GOLDY-No, we have not. I would say 150 watt.
MR. KLEIN-We have a stair going up the side of the garage, to enter the attic space.
The garage was in front of this Board a couple, few years ago, and, you know, having a
light right next to the door going into the attic space is easily accessible, and we can
maintain it, and it’s located in the center of the property, facing the office building. So,
you know, light should stay on the property.
MR. HUNSINGER-Anything else? I’ll open it up for questions, comments from the
Board.
MR. SIPP-On C-1, you have trees on the Route 9 side of the building. Are these existing
trees or are these new trees you’re going to put in?
MR. KLEIN-Yes. They’re existing.
MR. SIPP-They’re existing.
MR. KLEIN-It’s a fairly well landscaped property. You’ve got a sign out front that’s all
landscaped around.
MR. SIPP-And the sign is going to be the same sign?
21
(Queensbury Planning Board 06/16/09)
MR. KLEIN-The same sign. There is an application to put a tenants name on that sign in
front of the, submitted to the Building Department right now. We have our engineering
company sign, and the tenant wants to put his sign underneath, on the same structure.
That’s a separate application. That’s his application.
MR. SEGULJIC-So we’ll see you again.
MR. KLEIN-No.
MR. OBORNE-Just a sign permit.
MR. SEGULJIC-Just a sign permit. It all seems straightforward. Just one question, and
this is a question for Staff. In your notes, you say, the parking appears to be adequate
as the proposal will increase parking by six spaces, a total of 21 spaces required. There
currently exists 24 parking spaces on site. And then plans says there are existing 24,
proposed 24.
MR. OBORNE-That’s because he’s not changing the existing amount. What I’m stating
there is that what is currently existing meets the needs for the expansion. Twenty-one is
total.
MR. SEGULJIC-Okay. Expansion will increase the requirement by six. They already
have enough for it.
MR. OBORNE-Right.
MR. SEGULJIC-Okay. Gotcha. Okay.
MR. KLEIN-With the expansion we’ll need 21 parking spots. We have 24. No
impervious area.
MR. SEGULJIC-Okay. I’m all set with it.
MR. HUNSINGER-Any other questions, comments from the Board?
MR. FORD-It sounds like a good way of accommodating an ongoing problem.
MR. HUNSINGER-We do have a public hearing scheduled this evening. Is there anyone
in the audience that wanted to address the Board on this application?
PUBLIC HEARING OPENED
MR. HUNSINGER-Any written comments?
MR. OBORNE-No, sir.
MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. I will open the public hearing, and let the record show there
were no takers. I will close the public hearing.
PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED
MR. HUNSINGER-Type II SEQRA.
MRS. STEFFAN-And we’re ready to go.
MR. HUNSINGER-I think the only issue is to make sure that the proposed new light
fixture is Code compliant.
MOTION TO APPROVE SITE PLAN NO. 33-2009 NCE BUILDING CORP., Introduced
by Gretchen Steffan who moved for its adoption, seconded by Thomas Seguljic:
1)A site plan application has been made to the Queensbury Planning Board for the
following: Applicant proposes construction of a 1,600 square foot second floor
over a portion of an existing office building. Commercial alterations requiring a
building permit require Planning Board review and approval.
2)A public hearing was advertised and held on 6/16/2009; and
22
(Queensbury Planning Board 06/16/09)
3)This application is supported with all documentation, public comment and
application material in the file of record;
4)MOTION TO APPROVE SITE PLAN NO. 33-2009 NCE BUILDING CORP.,
Introduced by Gretchen Steffan who moved for its adoption, seconded by
Thomas Seguljic:
According to the resolution prepared by Staff. Paragraph Four A complies.
Paragraph Four B, it’s a Type II action. Paragraph Four E, J, and K do not apply.
This is approved with the following condition: That the proposed wall pack light
on the garage must be downcast and Code compliant. Please revise and submit
to Staff.
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.Type II Action-no further review is necessary.
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; and
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: stormwater mgmt., 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.Not applicable. Engineering sign-off required prior to signature of Zoning
Administrator.
j.Not applicable. The applicant shall submit a copy of a NOI [Notice of
Intent] SWPPP [Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan] & NOT [Notice of
Termination] - see staff
k.Not applicable. The applicant shall submit a copy of a NYS SPDES [State
Pollution Discharge Elimination System]
th
Duly adopted this 16 day of June, 2009, by the following vote:
AYES: Mr. Traver, Mr. Krebs, Mr. Ford, Mr. Sipp, Mr. Seguljic, Mrs. Steffan,
Mr. Hunsinger
NOES: NONE
MRS. STEFFAN-Thank you.
MR. HUNSINGER-You’re all set. Good luck.
MR. KLEIN-Thank you.
23
(Queensbury Planning Board 06/16/09)
SITE PLAN NO. 48-2008 SEQR TYPE UNLISTED NPA II, LLC AGENT(S)
BARTLETT, PONTIFF, STEWART & RHODES OWNER(S) SAME ZONING HC-INT.
LOCATION 820 STATE ROUTE 9 APPLICANT PROPOSES CONSTRUCTION OF A
14,500 SQUARE FOOT WALGREENS PHARMACY AND A 4,642 SQUARE FOOT
CHILI’S RESTAURANT WITH ASSOCIATED SITE WORK. NEW COMMERCIAL
BUILDINGS REQUIRE PLANNING BOARD SITE PLAN REVIEW AND APPROVAL.
CROSS REFERENCE AV 21-09, AV 77-08; SV 74, 75, 76-08 WARREN CO.
PLANNING 11/12/08 LOT SIZE 22.87 +/- ACRES TAX MAP NO. 296.18-1-47
SECTION 179-4-020
JON LAPPER, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT
MR. HUNSINGER-Keith, whenever you’re ready.
MR. OBORNE-Site Plan 48-2008, Northway Plaza Associates, site plan for construction
of a 14,820 square foot Walgreens Pharmacy, 4,642 square foot Chili’s restaurant,
reconfiguration of existing office space to retail space and associated site work. Location
Northway Plaza, 802 State Route 9, Highway Commercial Intensive. This is an Unlisted.
The Planning Board is required to make a SEQRA determination on this. Project
Description: Applicant proposes construction of a 14,820 square foot Walgreens
Pharmacy, a 4,642 square foot Chili’s Restaurant, reconfiguration of existing office space
to retail use, parking reconfiguration and associated site work. New commercial
buildings require Planning Board Site Plan Review and approval. Staff comments: The
proposal will require the removal of the existing vacant Monroe Muffler building prior to
the commencement of construction. Stormwater treatment units will be installed as part
of the stormwater management for the project. The locations of the stormwater treatment
units appear to be below the Walgreens parking lot facing Route 9 and to the rear of the
Retail ‘A’ building (see figure 4 of SWPPP). The soils associated with this site are
classified as Udorthents. These soils are comprised of gravel and sand with little loam
and as such are very well drained. Any vegetative establishment, including shrubs and
trees, will require amendments to the soil. What follows is Site Plan Review, and I do
want to state that the applicant has received Area Variances for permeability, has
received an Area Variance for parking lot aisle width, and at this point, we are now
before the Planning Board for Site Plan Review.
MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. Thank you. Good evening.
MR. LAPPER-Good evening everyone. For the record, Jon Lapper with Amy Franco
from Clough Harbor and Associates, Project Engineers, and Jim Hagen is behind us,
who’s been the Project Architect for many years. Bill Dutch, who’s the managing
principle, couldn’t be here because of a back problem, but he’ll certainly make it when
we’re back here next time. We’ve been working on this project for months now. It’s
extremely urgent for the owners of the Plaza to re-tenant it after they lost their major
tenant last year, Travelers, and this project has been in the works for a number of years
to replace the old Monroe Muffler building, which has been vacant since they left. That
was the old tire battery for the Montgomery Wards which was here many years ago, and
when we did the Home Depot project, which was probably four or five years ago at this
point, the north side of the Plaza was re-developed. The old Department store, I think
90,000 square feet of buildings were removed, replaced with Home Depot, and then they
were able to re-tenant the area on the west side of the Plaza where Panera Bread is, and
this was supposed to be, the southern part was supposed to be the end of the
development and then they lost Travelers and now they’re in a position where they have
to find a new retail tenant for that space in a difficult retail climate. So, it’s very important
for the viability of the center that this project moves forward. That they clean up what’s
there now, get rid of the Monroe building, and re-develop it with two attractive and well
landscaped buildings at the southern end. At the same time, they have an office tenant
in the rear of the site, up behind where the Post Office is, and that tenant required more
parking in the back for their employees, and that’s what required us to go to the Zoning
Board to deal with that green space buffer issue along the cemetery and ultimately to
add the parking spaces. We were here, probably in February, and this Board made a
recommendation to the Zoning Board to grant the variance that was requested for the
cemetery buffer area. At that time, we were talking about a small buffer of just five feet.
The justification for that was that it was not near the area where there was the grave
sites where the public was going to be. It was near primarily the administration buildings.
We went to the Zoning Board and we were able to work a compromise, to change the
parking configuration in the back to diagonal parking with one way, so that it wouldn’t
require as much width, and then we were able to go to approximately 32 feet from the
cemetery, and also extensively plant that, and to install a fence. So that was all the
compromise that was worked out with the Zoning Board. That also required us to go
24
(Queensbury Planning Board 06/16/09)
back twice because we had the two single lane aisles at 18 feet wide, but under the Fire
Code, one has to be 20, for fire apparatus, a minimum of 20. So we had to go back and
work that out, and that’s all set, and we also had to get Sign Variances, we started out
with for the tenants. When we were at the Zoning Board last month, the Director of
Development for Chili’s was there, and he put on the record for the Zoning Board that
Chili’s corporate had planned on building 150 restaurants this year, and now this is the
only one that’s going on. This is a franchise deal rather than corporate, but he’s from
corporate and they were overseeing this for the franchisee, but just an indication of how
difficult restaurant deals are in this current climate, but Chili’s is ready to get in the
ground as soon as we get through the planning process, which is a good thing.
MR. HUNSINGER-I guess before we go much further, this evening, you know, there
were extensive engineering comments and Staff comments and, I mean, it really seems
like there’s a lot of homework, still, that has to be done before we can really go much
further.
MR. LAPPER-That’s exactly right.
MR. HUNSINGER-And I guess I was just thinking in the effort of moving this a little
forward this evening if we could kind of just open it up for any other items that the Board
might have that aren’t either in the engineering comments or Staff Notes, again, which
are very extensive, because obviously we’re going to table this tonight, and bring you
back.
MR. LAPPER-Right, and of course we would be asking this tonight, so we can make a
submittal with all those answers. There were just a couple of conceptual level issues
that I want to raise, in those Staff and engineering comments for the Board to consider.
MR. HUNSINGER-Okay.
MR. LAPPER-One is the buffer along Route 9. We had to address this when we came in
with Home Depot because there wasn’t 10 feet available because of the taking by DOT
when the road was widened, also just the issue of all the snow that gets piled up on
Route 9. So at that point the Board had approved what’s there. We’re seeking to
continue that, because the land doesn’t exist, but at the same time, as a compromise,
the applicant understands that they can add landscaped islands that don’t exist now in
front of that vacant area. So we can, you know, we’ll come back with a proposal that’ll
address it in that way. Part of it is because we have a pre-existing center that’s being re-
developed. Some stuff is already there, but other stuff can be improved. So that’s one
issue, just in terms of, we don’t have that strip available along Route 9, but it’s really not
a great place to do a lot of major planting because of the snow and salt from the parking.
One of the major issues that I think you’re aware of is that there’s a component of this
project where the owner is purchasing property from DOT and from Warren County at
the corner to do this underground stormwater project. There’s a, and I know that I’ve
discussed this with the Board before. This has been a few years in the design, but
there’s the issue of all of the stormwater coming down Route 9, untreated, and going
directly into Halfway Brook. This is the Number One project of importance on the Warren
County Soil and Water Conservation District agenda, and they’ve reviewed and
approved the plan and DOT has reviewed and approved the plan. That facility is going
to be constructed on DOT lands at the corner of Route 9 and Quaker Road, but it’s
because of that that the trees that are there now are going to have to be removed,
because we can’t have, mostly physically because this is a very large structure. It was,
at one point, proposed to be a surface basin, which would have been less expensive, but
it was viewed that, because of all the traffic, that it would be better not to have a pond at
that location, if there was accident. It would just be safer to have a subsurface facility,
and so the applicant agreed to that, but as a result of that, the trees that are there have
to be removed, both because of the roots and because it’s going to take this whole area
to construct this basin, but obviously the applicant understands that that’s an important
visual issue. So what’s proposed is plantings that are shrubs, but nice shrubs in front of
that, and then the commercial sites will be well landscaped, and obviously that’s stuff
that will add to what’s been proposed and we’ll come back and talk about that in
response to the notes, so we know that that’s an issue.
MRS. STEFFAN-And I, you know, while you’re on that subject, Jon, I just want to bring
up, those trees, I’ve looked at them several times since I’ve gone through the
intersection. It’s the only green thing there, and, yes the Olive Garden put some trees in,
but it’s taken forever for those to grow to even, what I’ll call a medium sized tree. So I’m
still not thrilled with taking those trees down. I would like it if there was another plan, but
the other thing is if the rest of the Planning Board agrees that those trees have to go, the
25
(Queensbury Planning Board 06/16/09)
landscaping that needs to replace that needs to be substantial, and I think there needs to
be some large trees put in their place or something that can, you’re certainly never going
to be able to keep even with what was taken out, but there has to be something
substantial there to add green to that intersection, and aesthetic beauty, because there’s
nothing beautiful about that four way intersection.
MR. LAPPER-We certainly understand that that’s an important issue ad that we’re not
going to get through this process without that looking green and looking nice. There are
some constraints because of the stormwater project, but obviously it’ll have to be
something that looks good, that you’re satisfied with, and so we’ll come back with that.
MR. SIPP-I definitely agree with that statement.
MR. FORD-So do, I.
MR. SIPP-That those trees were originally planted there, I assume, when this mall went
in. Now you’ve got seven nice looking locust trees that make that corner, and they’re
going to tear them out and put in six foot high pear trees.
MR. LAPPER-They can’t remain because the area where they are now, the grade’s
going to be changed. That’s going to be part of the parking lot, but we will do some
quality landscaping that will satisfy you. It’s the only answer.
MR. SIPP-Well, I would more like to have you change your stormwater plan.
MR. SEGULJIC-I guess, if I could just get back to, correct me I’m wrong, but you said
Warren County would approve the stormwater plan?
MR. LAPPER-Yes, because that’s on the State property.
th
MR. SEGULJIC-Okay. I guess I’m just, because we got this letter from June 15,
yesterday.
MR. HUNSINGER-Well, it was here. We got it this evening, yes.
MR. SEGULJIC-I sense from this letter they’re not satisfied.
MR. HUNSINGER-From Dave Wick?
MR. SEGULJIC-Yes. Did you see this letter?
MR. HUNSINGER-I haven’t read it yet.
MR. LAPPER-I didn’t. I have a letter from Dave Wick to DOT.
th
MR. SEGULJIC-We’ve got a letter dated June 15. Do you want to see it?
MRS. STEFFAN-That was yesterday. It’s here, but I haven’t even read it.
MR. HUNSINGER-I haven’t read it. We just got it today.
MR. TRAVER-It’s basically concerned with consolidating the plans.
MR. HUNSINGER-So it sounds like there’s still some issues on the stormwater. So are
those the two issues, Jon, that you wanted to?
MR. LAPPER-There’s a third one, but let me just take a second.
MR. HUNSINGER-Okay.
MR. LAPPER-I think that the answer is that there has to be a small retaining wall to deal
with that grade issue, but that was designed not by Clough Harbor, but by Bohler. So I
will have them at the next meeting, and this doesn’t look like a major issue.
AMY FRANCO
MS. FRANCO-There’s just a discrepancy in the grading, but the structure and elements
of the stormwater retention itself will be, I guess, in the same location and the same
design as it’s shown on the plan.
26
(Queensbury Planning Board 06/16/09)
MR. LAPPER-The third issue is the intersection that exists now when you come down to
go to Panera and you make a left. That’s the same place where the interior ring road
that goes in front of the retail space on the south side of the Plaza, it’s a four way
intersection, and the problem with that, from the owner’s perspective, is that there’s not
enough parking in front of the retail. So they’re trying to re-route that to create, to make
this, there’s a lot of vacant space there that has to be re-rented. They’re having a
problem re-renting it, and they believe that it’s because there’s not enough parking in
front of those retailers. So what’s proposed is to relocate that internal driveway
connection to the main driveway, and the engineering notes raise the question about
stacking distance. We have a traffic report that hasn’t been submitted, and what that
called for as a solution to address the engineering comment is to make it a double left
turn out, which could handle the stacking, and we’ve submitted that to DOT. It’s their
traffic light. It’s their road. So we’d have to get a pass from them before we can come
back and talk to you about that to see if that’s going to work for them, but that’s what
we’re talking about at this point, to address it.
MR. HUNSINGER-I’m sorry. I’m confused. What’s the proposal?
MS. FRANCO-I’ll go over here and use the colored plan. Basically, what we have here is
this road access here is a full access onto Route 9, and the way the traffic turning is now
is we’re doing a left turn out, and a right turn and a straight through. So what we would
like to do, because this is a new proposed curb cut, to create more of a parking area field
to differentiate this building from this parking field and this building. Currently the way
the parking field goes, with the drive aisle, is this way, with the curb cut down here, and
there’s no curb cut at this point. So the concern is, as people are making this left turn,
they’re not going to be able to do it because of the amount of cars that’ll be backing up.
Our proposal is to do two left turns out of here, to utilize both of these southbound lanes
on Route 9, to accommodate any traffic that potentially could back up here. So that’s,
basically we sent that to the DOT preliminary, and then we’ll follow up after our meeting
tonight.
MR. HUNSINGER-Yes. I think that’s a good idea. I mean, I don’t go in there that often,
but if you, I don’t know, I shouldn’t say that. I probably go in there once a month or more.
Traffic does back up at the light, though.
MR. KREBS-So now then the right lane is going to be for going straight across and going
right?
MS. FRANCO-And right.
MR. KREBS-Okay.
MR. LAPPER-So those are the conceptual issues. We know that we have to get back to
you with a detailed response to the Staff and Engineering comments. I just wanted to
discuss those three, just to put them on the table, and we plan on making the submission
th
before the July 15 deadline, and hopefully being back here in August to work these
things out.
MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. Is there anything else that the Board wants to raise that wasn’t
either in Staff Notes or in engineering comments?
MR. FORD-No.
MR. SEGULJIC-Just reiterate landscaping.
MR. LAPPER-We know we have to make you happy on that.
MR. HUNSINGER-Okay.
MR. SIPP-The color of these buildings, is this a representation of the color?
MR. LAPPER-Yes.
MR. SIPP-That doesn’t match what’s in the rest of the mall.
MR. LAPPER-No.
MR. SIPP-So it’s going to be different?
27
(Queensbury Planning Board 06/16/09)
MR. LAPPER-Yes.
MR. SIPP-Is Chili’s going to look like this, too?
MR. LAPPER-No. I don’t know if I brought, Chili’s is very interesting.
MR. OBORNE-Well, you’ve received a sign variance for those both buildings.
MR. LAPPER-Yes.
MR. OBORNE-And they should be the ones that were submitted.
MR. LAPPER-I did bring the whole, voluminous file. So I just don’t know if I have Chili’s.
Keith, do you have?
MR. OBORNE-I should.
MR. HUNSINGER-It hasn’t changed.
MR. LAPPER-I don’t know what the old Traveler’s space is ultimately going to look like,
because, that’s it, that’s exactly, that’s right. Keith, Chris has it. Don wanted to see it.
MR. SIPP-Yes, colorful. How about a little toning down.
MRS. STEFFAN-And the trees will be gone, so you’ll really be able to see that.
MR. HUNSINGER-We do have a public hearing scheduled this evening. Is there anyone
in the audience that wanted to address the Board on this application?
PUBLIC HEARING OPEN
MR. HUNSINGER-We will leave the public hearing open, and there will be additional
opportunity to comment in August.
MRS. STEFFAN-All right. Then I will make a motion.
MOTION TO TABLE SITE PLAN NO. 48-2008 NPA II, LLC, Introduced by Gretchen
Steffan who moved for its adoption, seconded by Donald Krebs:
1)A site plan application has been made to the Queensbury Planning Board for the
following: Applicant proposes construction of a 14,500 square foot Walgreens
Pharmacy and a 4,642 square foot Chili’s Restaurant with associated site work.
New commercial buildings require Planning Board Site Plan review and approval
2)A public hearing was advertised and held on 11/25/08, 1/27/09, 3/3/09, 3/24/09,
5/19/09, 6/16/2009; and
3)This application is supported with all documentation, public comment and
application material in the file of record;
4)MOTION TO TABLE SITE PLAN NO. 48-2008 NPA II, LLC, Introduced by
Gretchen Steffan who moved for its adoption, seconded by Donald Krebs:
th
This is tabled to the August 18 Planning Board meeting with a submission
th
deadline of July 15. So that the applicant can address the approximately 38
items listed in Staff Notes, and approximately 23 items listed in the VISION
Engineering comments, as well as to address some of the issues discussed
tonight with the Planning Board.
th
Duly adopted this 16 day of June, 2009, by the following vote:
AYES: Mr. Sipp, Mr. Traver, Mr. Seguljic, Mr. Ford, Mr. Krebs, Mrs. Steffan,
Mr. Hunsinger
NOES: NONE
MR. HUNSINGER-We’ll see you in a couple of months. Thank you.
28
(Queensbury Planning Board 06/16/09)
MR. LAPPER-Thank you.
MR. FORD-I’d like to make a comment. I’d like to compliment our Chairman and the
applicants representatives for the way this was handled this evening. I think it was very
appropriate under the conditions. Thank you.
MR. HUNSINGER-Thanks, Tom.
SITE PLAN NO. 29-2009 SEQR TYPE I – PREVIOUS EIS ADOPTED BY TB 8/6/01,
ADOPTED BY PB 9/4/01 THE PYRAMID CO. OF GLENS FALLS, NEWCO, LLC
AGENT(S) PETER ROMANO, CHAZEN CO.; JONATHAN LAPPER, B P S R
OWNER(S) SAME ZONING ESC-25A LOCATION 578 AVIATION ROAD AND OUT
PARCELS APPLICANT PROPOSES CONSTRUCTION OF A 10,950 SQ. FT. MIXED
USE BUILDING. NEW COMMERCIAL CONSTRUCTION IN THE ESC ZONE
REQUIRE PLANNING BOARD REVIEW AND APPROVAL. CROSS REFERENCE SP
40-08, 400 PERMITS SINCE 1979 WARREN CO. PLANNING 5/13/09 LOT SIZE
3.14 AC., 37.49 AC., 1.74 AC. TAX MAP NO. 302.5-1-92.4, 92.11, 93.1 SECTION
179-9-010
JON LAPPER, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT
MR. HUNSINGER-Keith, whenever you’re ready.
MR. OBORNE-Application, Site Plan 29-2009 Pyramid Company of Glens Falls,
NEWCO. New commercial construction in the Enclosed Shopping Center zone is the
requested action. Aviation Mall and outparcels are the location, and Enclosed Shopping
Center 25 Acres is the existing zoning. SEQRA Status is the previous EIS. Project
Description: Applicant proposes construction of a 10,950 sq. ft. mixed use building.
New Commercial construction in the ESC zone requires Planning Board review and
approval. Staff comments. The applicant was before this board last year with a more
aggressive plan to develop the outparcels and expand the movie theater in the mall. The
applicant has modified this plan to now include the mixed use portion only. The building
proposed is approximately 550 square feet smaller and is now in a different location,
eliminating the need for the approved area variance (A.V. 63-2008) associated with the
previous proposal. A condition of approval for A.V. 63-2008 was the removal of the
derelict buildings to the west. As this proposal appears to incorporate a portion of these
western outparcels to facilitate water and sewer relocation, the Planning Board may wish
to consider the removal of vacant building as a condition of approval. Further, Dave
Hatin, Director of Building and Codes has issued a letter referencing this issue (see
attached). The project includes potential additional parking to the west for the proposed
restaurant component of the project. The parking currently proposed is for the retail use
only. The applicant is seeking approval for both scenarios in order to avoid appearing
before this board for a parking modification in the future. The Planning Board may wish
to consider this potential parking modification as a condition of approval. I do want to
add some additional comments. Pedestrian crosswalk from north side of Aviation Road
to Pyramid property should be explored. Bio retention parking islands and swales should
be explored, as should the interconnect between the overflow parking and Burger King.
That should also be explored, and what follows is Site Plan Review.
MR. HUNSINGER-Thank you. Good evening.
MR. LAPPER-For the record, Jon Lapper with Jim Soose, the Director of Development
for Pyramid, and Pete Romano from Chazen Companies, the project engineer. Before
we get started, this is essentially the same as the last application where we have Staff
comments and engineering comments that’ll require a written submission. So we
wanted to just introduce you to the project, have Pete walk you through what we’re
proposing, talk about the conceptual issues, and then resubmit. We hope this is not as
complex or involved as the last one, and we’re hoping to get back here as soon as
possible, but we recognize that we’re going to have to address these and get back. The
Staff comments started out talking about the previous project, and we were here last
Fall, before the economy changed. We had a much more ambitious project to finally
finish this northwest side of the property, and of course that involved replacing the old
Howard Johnson’s restaurant and the motel. There was a really nice restaurant, that’s a
really good location for a restaurant in front and retail in the back, and a small
component, which was the 11,000, approximately, square foot building near the
Friendly’s entrance. At this point, tenant leases are different than they were in
November. Pyramid expects to come back and finish the project as soon as market
conditions permit that. We’re here just to do this small component. So, everybody
recognizes that the motel building has to come down at some point, as part of the other
29
(Queensbury Planning Board 06/16/09)
project. We had stated on the record that before the building permit was issued for the
first component of it, that that would come down. Unfortunately right now, for an 11,000
square foot project, it’s not possible to spend close to half a million dollars to do the
demolition of what’s there. I mean, we realize that that’s an important issue. We have
the letter from Dave Hatin. That’s just unfortunately reality, and Jim can talk about that
more than me, but to that end, we’ve designed this so that the connector road is shown,
so that this project is not precluding the future development. This is just a component of
something that we’ll come back for later. Let me just have Pete walk you through the
plan to start with, and then we can talk more about those issues.
PETE ROMANO
MR. ROMANO-Good evening. As Jon said, my name is Pete Romano with the Chazen
Companies, and we’ve been working with Aviation Mall for quite some time now, and the
project did reduce substantially in scale to a 10,000 square foot, a little over 10,000
square foot building, located on the, we’ll call it the west side of the main Aviation Mall
entrance. They’re still going to maintain the entrance as it is, with a slight modification
that we propose with respect to an existing hatched island in this area, right at the “T”,
when you come to Aviation. That was proposed to be now curbed with a center
crosswalk for pedestrians across from one side of Aviation to the other side where
Friendly’s is. The reason why it’s curbed, and I know there’s Staff Notes that quote the
20 foot minimum aisle, is it was curbed with a (lost words) curb for emergency vehicles,
and it is a little bit less than the 20 foot as required, or as preferred by the Fire Marshal.
We feel that, by curbing this, if pedestrians were coming across and do get caught in this
area, the curbing would provide a little bit more protection from cars, and give the cars a
little bit more of an understanding of where to travel. So we feel that it’s a very safe thing
to do, to actually have that curb in this area. So that’s the only modification that’s being
done to the Mall entrance road. Off the Aviation Mall loop road, inner loop road, we
actually have our connection for the proposed development. This connection is a little bit
further south than what their current, there’s an existing curb cut on the Mall loop road, a
little bit further south, and the reason why we pushed it further south was due to the
grade change from down here at Aviation to the grading where the final floor elevation
will be for the building, there’s a substantial change, as you all know. So we had to
lengthen that road as much as possible, in order to get the grade of the road, so that it
wasn’t too extreme. We tried to maintain 10% maximum, which is pretty, you know, it’s
not too bad, but we felt it’s pretty safe. So we kept this at 10%. We actually did level out
towards the bottom with a low point to actually kind of help that transition back into the
loop road. We also have a, start to level out towards the top once we get over, get up
around the corner, and it kind of helps with some sight distance coming around the
corner and once you get into this area. You can see that there’s three tenants currently
proposed. There’s a total of 76 spaces currently proposed as is planned. In your
packets, you’ll also notice that we provided an alternative site layout for a restaurant use
if that goes in. The restaurant layout was primarily to show the use, if there’s more of a
demand for cars. We showed an expansion of a parking lot out this way behind the gas
station, proving that it can be graded out with this current Site Plan we have. So there
wouldn’t be any modifications for Site Plan. We could come, if you approved it, and that
does happen and they do find a tenant that’s a restaurant, that can be done very easily
without any disruption to the adjacent properties or even any modification to the
engineering that’s been done. That being said, the other thing that you’ll in your Site
Plans is that we made a future connection feasible from the proposed access drive up to
the top parcel here. That’s in your Site Plans also, and it’s also profiled and it’s graded
out. So that we know that it is feasible, if they ever did do a connection in the future, that
that can be done also. Both those additional pavements that would be put in place, if it
did get put in place in the future, have been accommodated in the stormwater
management design, as part of this plan that’s in the stormwater management report and
the SWPPP that you have in front of you. Accommodation’s already been made for that.
The other significant issue with this is relocation of the water line. There’s a 20 inch
main, water main, primary source for the City, or, excuse me, for the Town, which
traverses the site, currently, pretty much at the top of the hill that currently exists out
there. It runs pretty much in a north/south direction on the top of the hill, like I said, and
then eventually by J.C. Penneys it actually cuts down a slope and gets into the parking
lot further beyond the Mall. Due to the cut arrangement that we have up here, we
actually have to lower this site a little bit, which would impact the water line, and also,
too, this cut of this road being cut into the hillside would actually expose that water line.
So what we did was our initial thought was to relocate the line, pretty much in an area
behind the gas station, and also in an area of the pavement of the existing hotel, which
would then put it out of the way. We had some discussion with VISION Engineering and
the Water Superintendent. They felt this is a very workable alignment for the water main,
no problems with it. Actually it was almost a better alignment than what currently exists,
30
(Queensbury Planning Board 06/16/09)
because from a maintenance standpoint, we got it off the slope of the hill. So that could
help them facilitate it, if it was necessary, and also it was in more of a flat area. In talking
with the Superintendent and VISION Engineering, we came up with another solution that
is also very workable, and that is to keep the main, relocate it into the main entrance of
the Mall and into the loop road. That is an alignment that is, from what I was just talking
with VISION is a little bit more preferable, but it’s something that certainly we can work
out with the Superintendent, and either way, it’s very feasible. So that was another big
component to this. That’s, as far as the engineering in a nutshell, that’s pretty much it
with the Site Plan, and I guess I’ll turn it back over to Jon or Jim.
MR. HUNSINGER-Questions, comments from members of the Board? I’m sorry.
JIM SOOSE
MR. SOOSE-My name is Jim Soose. I’m the Director of Development for Pyramid, and
what we have prepared are some elevations of the building showing some renderings.
So this would be a front on. This would be kind of in southeast direction here, showing
the front of the building with the two smaller retail spaces, the storefronts, and then this
one being the larger space which is 5,250 square feet. It could end up being a
restaurant, as Pete pointed out, and it shows the grading change from the road down
below up to the parking lot up above. This elevation here would show the main entrance
to the Mall. The Mall is not rendered into the artists piece here, but it does show the
north and then the east elevation of the building, and you can barely see it in the photo
here, but the pedestrian access that’s being added would come up on the east side of
the drive over here, closest to Friendly’s, and then lastly this would be the south
elevation, and what we did here is we rendered in a potential patio, in the event that this
ended up being a restaurant, to show how it would be designed with a railing, and then
access from the front parking area.
MR. ROMANO-Real quick, I just want to also note one thing that the Planning Board
probably noticed, is that we did end up putting a sidewalk from Aviation Road, right on
the road. We connected the sidewalk that currently exists. There’s a sidewalk that we
actually have coming through the property to the front of the buildings. So you would not
have to walk all the way around and up the access road. So if you were on Aviation
Road, you can easily come in the sidewalk here, and access this building, too, and then
go back out. So I just wanted to point that out to the Planning Board, too.
MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. Thank you. Anything else?
MR. LAPPER-At this point, we’ll answer your questions.
MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. Questions, comments from the Board?
MR. TRAVER-I know you’ve expressed some concern about the demolition of the
derelict buildings. I think, and again, I’m only speaking for myself, and not the entire
Board, obviously, but I think at this point with the amount of time that’s gone by, waiting
for development of that area, it really becomes more than a development issue. It
becomes almost a maintenance issue for the community. The buildings have really
become a problem for the Town, and I would say that it appears that the applicant
recognizes that it’s something that needs to be addressed, sooner or later. I guess my
feeling is why not address is sooner rather than later? It may be, it could be significantly
more expensive to do it later. We know there’s asbestos in those buildings, for example.
Again, I realize the financial obligation that’s involved in removing those structures. I
would just like the applicant to reevaluate the timing of doing that.
MR. LAPPER-Jim, do you want to address that?
MR. FORD-He is speaking for himself, but let me echo that concern. It is very genuine,
and speaking not only as a citizen, but representing a lot of citizens in Queensbury, that
eyesore needs to be removed.
MR. TRAVER-Yes. I think there was a time window when, during the, if you will, the life
cycle of those abandoned buildings, where, you know, they could kind of await site
renewal and redevelopment and so on. I think, quite honestly, it appears to many that
that time has now past, and it really becomes more of almost a maintenance clean up
issue for the Town, than it does a kind of wait until there’s a further development of the
site, and I would just ask that you consider that, because we certainly will have to, as this
moves forward.
31
(Queensbury Planning Board 06/16/09)
MR. FORD-I believe it’s hazardous.
MR. SOOSE-I understand the concern, and it is something that we certainly want to see
happen. It is something that I’ll bring back to the ownership for them to revisit again. We
fully intended to take it down with the first application that was made last Fall. However,
due to circumstances of not moving that application forward, and just focusing on the
smaller piece right now, it was our intention to hold off on that, but I can’t sit here and
disagree with any of the comments related to those structures, just because of the time
that they’ve been sitting vacant. So I will bring that back to the ownership.
MR. SIPP-We’ve been waiting since 2001, which I read the minutes of the meeting in
which you were restructuring a plan to demolish these buildings in 2001. Now we’re in
2009 and nothing much has happened except the fire department has burned it down
three or four times, and everybody else has smashed windows and doors and the roof is
caving in. I also would like to see some action take place on the hook up or the joining of
Burger King onto the property with an access road, which was promised back when Bed,
Bath, and Beyond went in to existence.
MR. SOOSE-I am aware of that. I recently saw the minutes from that Planning Board
meeting some years back, and most recently I sent a letter to the Town that stated the
position of the owners based on the issues that are in front of them with respect to
covenants with the anchor stores and with the permanent lender on the project, that
prohibit items like that from taking place. Now, I don’t have the documents with me, but it
is something that I can demonstrate to the Board, that those concerns and those issues
that are raised in my letter are real, and we are certainly able to show proof of evidence
of that.
MR. FORD-We would like to see that documentation.
MRS. STEFFAN-And I know that when I was reviewing this application, and you don’t
have a specified tenant for this particular development, but it’s a mixed use, which is
desirable for the Town, but you’re also proposing some professional office, which we do
have a lot of excess capacity in Town at this point, and that also doesn’t add sales tax
revenue. So that’s a consideration for the Planning Board, but, you know, you’ll have
three buildings here, and you’re looking for a parking waiver for it, and we don’t know
what it’s going to be developed for, and so as I was looking at the plan, I thought, okay,
well Pyramid Corp is really asking the Planning Board for a leap of faith, and, you know,
for all of us here, I mean, we live here. It’s our Town, and from my point of view, the
Pyramid Corp is a for profit organization, and you can understand that you’ve allowed an
eyesore to be maintained at Exit 19, which is our premier entrance to our Town. When
folks come into our Town for any reason, to visit here, for economic development
purposes, they get off at Exit 19 and it’s not a pretty entrance to our Town, as a result of
that building being there, and I guess, as a resident, it’s not okay with me. It’s hard for
me to support further development without the Pyramid Corp remedying the problems
that exist at that site. Again, you’re asking us to take a leap of faith, and I would like
Pyramid Corp to live up to what I believe is your social responsibility to make sure that
that eyesore is remedied, and, you know, sometimes businesses need to do the right
thing, and sometimes it costs them money, but I think that it’s important for Pyramid Corp
to invest in removing that Howard Johnson’s appearance and improve the appearance of
that particular site, and as a result of that, improve the appearance of the Town. Then I
think that that kind of activity will demonstrate to us that you have the best interests of
our Town in mind, and that’s important to me, as one Planning Board member.
MR. HUNSINGER-Any other comments from the Board?
MR. KREBS-Well, just to, I would say the same thing. I’ve had many, many residents
come to me and say you’re on the Planning Board. You should be able to do something
about that mess, and, so this is our opportunity to do something about that mess.
MR. HUNSINGER-Anything else? We do have a public hearing scheduled this evening.
Is there anyone in the audience that wants to address the Board on this application?
Well, we do have one taker, if you could give up the table, please. On the back table,
there is an information sheet that talks about the process of the public hearings on items
that are scheduled to have public hearings. The purpose of the public hearing is for
members of the public to give information to the Planning Board, and so any comments
should be addressed to the Planning Board. If you do have a question, you can ask the
questions of the Planning Board and then we will give the applicant the opportunity, later,
to respond to your question. If you could come on up, sir. We do tape the minutes and
we do make a literal transcription of the minutes available for the public information. So I
32
(Queensbury Planning Board 06/16/09)
would ask that anyone who wants to address the Board to speak their name for the
record and to make sure they use the microphone.
PUBLIC HEARING OPENED
PAUL LENOWITZ
MR. LENOWITZ-Okay. My name is Paul Lenowitz. I’m construction manager for
Carrolls Corporation and Burger King, and I just want to say that myself and Tom
Brunschmidt, he’s our District Supervisor of Operations, we’re just here in support of the
connection from our Burger King property onto Aviation Mall. We know it’s been going
on for some time. I believe since 1995 this originally started, and it’s been just an
ongoing question or situation that we’ve always been in favor of and always been, I
believe, lead to believe was going to happen, someday, one of these days, and we’re
here to support that connection. I can’t speak on what, on behalf on what they just said,
that it has to do with covenants and restrictions of their tenants. I don’t know if that’s true
or not, but it would seem to me that if somebody is in the Mall and they, they’re hungry,
they’re going to eat, they would eat in the Mall. If they’re going to go to Burger King, then
they’re going to go to Burger King. I don’t think we’re taking anything away from them
now, or we would by, take additional revenues away from them if we did make this
connection. So, that’s all.
MR. HUNSINGER-Thank you.
MR. LENOWITZ-You’re welcome.
MR. HUNSINGER-Anyone else? Okay. If you could come back to the table. We will
leave the public hearing open, and we will take additional public comment when we
reconvene on this project. Are there any items, other than what’s on Staff comments and
engineering comments, that we need to make sure they address?
MR. SEGULJIC-I think they cover everything.
MR. FORD-That plus the ones we have addressed.
MR. HUNSINGER-Right, already.
MR. LAPPER-Is there any possibility that your agenda would allow us to make a
submission to address all these items quickly and to get back in July, or is July booked?
MR. HUNSINGER-July is booked.
MR. LAPPER-Okay.
MR. HUNSINGER-Yes.
MRS. STEFFAN-Actually with three meetings already.
MR. HUNSINGER-Yes. We already scheduled three meetings in July.
MR. LAPPER-But that should help, going forward, having three meetings.
MR. HUNSINGER-So that will mean we’ll be able to hear you in August, because if we
didn’t have three meetings in July, you’d be looking at September. Do you have a
thth
preference on either the 18 or the 25?
th
MR. LAPPER-The 18 probably.
th
MR. HUNSINGER-The 18 it is.
MRS. STEFFAN-Okay. Then I’ll make a motion.
MOTION TO TABLE SITE PLAN NO. 29-2009 PYRAMID CO. OF G F/NEWCO,
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 construction of a 10,950 sq. ft. mixed use building.
New Commercial construction in the ESC zone require Planning Board review
and approval; and
33
(Queensbury Planning Board 06/16/09)
2)A public hearing was advertised and held on 6/16/2009; and
3)This application is supported with all documentation, public comment and
application material in the file of record;
4)MOTION TO TABLE SITE PLAN NO. 29-2009 PYRAMID CO. OF G F/NEWCO,
Introduced by Gretchen Steffan who moved for its adoption, seconded by
Thomas Ford:
th
This is tabled to the August 18 Planning Board meeting with a submission
th
deadline for materials of July 15. This is tabled so that the applicant can
address the substantial VISION Engineering comments as well as Staff Notes,
and so that the applicant can come back and give us an update on the demolition
status of the Howard Johnson’s project, and the Burger King interconnection.
th
Duly adopted this 16 day of June, 2009, by the following vote:
MR. FORD-I just want to make sure that VISION Engineering, Staff Notes, and
those items that have been raised in addition by Planning Board members. Or
was there anything that wasn’t covered, by the Staff Notes or the?
MRS. STEFFAN-I guess I could amend the motion so that it would include Staff
Notes, VISION Engineering comments, and so that the applicant could come
back and give us an update on the demolition status of the Howard Johnson’s
project, and the Burger King interconnection.
AYES: Mr. Sipp, Mr. Seguljic, Mr. Traver, Mr. Krebs, Mrs. Steffan, Mr. Ford,
Mr. Hunsinger
NOES: NONE
MR. HUNSINGER-We’ll see you in a couple of months.
MR. SOOSE-Thank you.
MR. HUNSINGER-Thank you.
SITE PLAN NO. 31-2009 FRESHWATER WETLANDS 3-2009 SEQR TYPE
UNLISTED CES HOLDINGS AGENT(S) J. LAPPER BARTLETT PONTIFF
STEWART & RHODES; VISION ENG. OWNER(S) SAME ZONING SR-1A
LOCATION RIDGE ROAD APPLICANT PROPOSES A FOUR UNIT APARTMENT
BUILDING, PAVED PARKING AREA, PRIVATE ROADWAY EXTENSION AND
ASSOCIATED STORMWATER EVICES AND LANDSCAPING. MULTIFAMILY IN AN
SR-1A ZONE IS AN ALLOWED USE SUBJECT TO SITE PLAN REVIEW AND
APPROVAL. FRESHWATER WETLANDS PERMIT NEEDED FOR CONSTRUCTION
WITHIN 100 FEET OF A WETLAND BOUNDARY. CROSS REFERENCE SB 4-01
WARREN CO. PLANNING 5/13/09 APA, CEA, DEC, ACOE ACOE WETLANDS LOT
SIZE 18.05 & 13.39 +/- ACRES TAX MAP NO. 290-1-21.3, 21.4 SECTION 179-0-010
JON LAPPER, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT
MR. HUNSINGER-Keith, whenever you’re ready.
MR. OBORNE-Site Plan 31-2009, Freshwater Wetlands 3-2009 CES Holdings
multifamily dwellings in the SR zone require review and approval. That is the requested
action. Freshwater Wetlands for construction within 100 feet of a wetland boundary.
Location is Ridge Road. Existing zoning is SR-1A. SEQRA Status is Unlisted. Project
Description: Applicant proposes one multifamily town house unit, paved parking area,
private roadway extension and associated stormwater devices and landscaping.
Multifamily in a SR-1A zone requires Planning Board review and approval. Freshwater
wetlands permit needed for construction within 100 feet of a wetland boundary. Staff
comments. The proposed project is what appears to be the final phase for the complex.
Site limitations appear to preclude further development. The 4 unit structure (4-plex) is to
be built on fill material already on site. Additional grading and site work will be required.
Additional comments. Concerning SEQR, the Planning Board must review this proposal
and its potential environmental impacts. Options include re-affirmation of previous SEQR
findings if applicable. See attached minutes, SEQR resolution and approval resolution
for S.P. 20-2001M.
34
(Queensbury Planning Board 06/16/09)
MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. Thank you. Good evening.
MR. LAPPER-Good evening. For the record, Jon Lapper with Mickey Hayes, on behalf
of the applicant, and Mike Farrell, project engineer. Very simply, this project was
approved as it exists now, and the land was available for this additional four units, but
because there was not Town water available when it was constructed, there was an
issue of separation distance between wells and septic which precluded the development.
The Town water now runs this far up Ridge Road, and the project is now serviced by
Town water, which provided the land for the additional four plex. So it’s obviously an
existing complex, and they would like to just add this final building. There’s nothing else
that would be able to be put on this site because of the wetlands, but the only interesting
thing about this is that there’s a slight encroachment into the wetland buffer, nothing into
the wetlands themselves. So we’re here for a freshwater wetlands permit and a Site
Plan. Not to repeat myself, for the third time tonight, but we just got these engineering
comments, which we’ll have to respond to. Mike, do you want to go through anything at
this point to discuss any of the engineering issues, or do you feel?
MIKE FARRELL
MR. FARRELL-We’ve reviewed the engineering comments, and minimal in nature
associated with what needs to be done on the site. We’ve anticipated this. This is a
preliminary set of plans for the Planning Board to review for the project. The project is a
four plex unit that will be established at the end of Moose Hollow Way. We’re planning
on building a turnaround at the end of the road that doesn’t presently exist for emergency
vehicles, and the encroachment into the buffer for the wetland would be a small piece of
pavement for the road itself, and the stormwater pond that would be a wet pond
controlling runoff from the site.
MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. Anything else? I guess I’ll open it up for questions, comments
from members of the Board.
MR. FORD-Can we open a public hearing and then hear the concerns of the Board?
MR. HUNSINGER-Any objections?
MR. KREBS-I don’t have any.
MRS. STEFFAN-No, that’s fine.
MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. I’ll open the public hearing, then. I know we have at least one
person that wants to comment. So if you could give up the table, please. I think you
were present a few minutes ago when I referenced the information sheet and the
purpose of the public hearing. I guess I would just ask that you make sure you state your
name for the record and address your comments to the Board. Good evening.
PUBLIC HEARING OPENED
RICHARD TRAZSKA
MR. TRAZSKA-Good evening. My name is Richard Trazska, and my property is
adjacent to the Hayes development, and what I’d like to do is present some information
that the Board may not be aware of, as far as past precedent that was applied to one
side of the wetlands and Halfway Brook, that seems not to be applied in the case of the
project that’s on the other side of Halfway Brook, and so what I did is, out of the Town
files and maps, I’ve made a copy for the Board, and I’d like to walk you through it, just so
that you have all the information. The Hayes property is clearly marked. That’s the west
side of Halfway Brook. The Brook is highlighted in blue. My property is on the east side
of the Brook, and my property was developed prior to this development by the Hayes
Group, and when I approached the Board at that time, there was great concern about
any type of development along Halfway Brook and the wetlands that are surrounding the
Brook. So when I came to the Board, I was asked to return to the Board several times
with updated plans. I was asked to contact the Department of Environmental
Conservation so they could flag the wetlands that were on the east side of the Brook,
which adjoin my property. So that was done, and then we came back to the Board
again, and the Board finally did give approval for construction of my single family
residence and an adjoining lot that was to be left vacant, but in approving my single
family residence, and the adjoining lot, the stipulations were made that are listed on the
map, which I’d like to highlight. Stipulation Number One would be that we would
35
(Queensbury Planning Board 06/16/09)
maintain the 100 foot, you know, normal buffer away from the wetlands, which is marked,
but in addition to that, the Board was very clear that because this was such a critical area
in the Town of Queensbury, you know, with the Brook going through and runoff and
everything else, they stipulated that there should be no clearing near Halfway Brook. So
as you can see, per the Town, that we had to maintain a no clear zone of 400 feet from
the boundary of the wetland. So not only is there a 100 foot buffer, but there’s also a 400
foot no clear zone. Now, again, this project happened before the Hayes development.
Now my question to the Board, and something the Board should consider, if it’s good
enough for the east side of the Brook and the east side of the wetlands, why isn’t it good
enough for the west side of the Brook and the west side of the wetlands. When you
stand on Ridge, where you look at the new bridge that was constructed, and you look at
the development that’s been done, the two duplexes, you know, the joke in the
neighborhood is that, you know, one of the duplexes should be reclassified as Waterfront
property because it’s that close, and there’s been complete, you know, cutting of the
trees, duplexes were put in, and nobody says anything, and it’s not fair, and it’s like very
arbitrary that I jump through hoops, that I had to do all this, you know, I respected the
wetlands and no clear cutting, and then I turn around a couple years later, and, you
know, there’s 20, there’s 20 families living next to that Brook, and now we’re looking at
adding 24, I mean, four more to make that 24 families. Now, on top of that, you know,
there are no provisions made for those 24 families to respect the wetlands, to respect the
Brook. When the weather gets warm, the people that are in Chestnut Ridge that
maintain the buffers, all we hear is dirt bikes that come from the 20 families that live
there, ripping through the wetlands, ripping through the Brook area, no supervision, no
monitoring on the part of the owners of the property. We don’t think it’s fair to sit there
and hear dirt bikes going through the wetland areas, when we’re looking at our property
saying, hey, we couldn’t cut a tree within 400 feet of that wetland. Now, you know,
you’re the Town. You approved it. What’s fair is fair. It’s got to be fair on both sides of
the Brook. So, you know, what I’m looking at is, this proposal this evening is just a
further pushing of the envelope, a further encroachment on the area that I think has been
abused beyond all intent of the original Board when that property and that area was to be
developed. I was the first person that came before the Board, with a single family
residence, and this is what I was asked to do, and it’s right there in front of you. It’s right
in, it’s in the Town Hall, it’s in your files, but nobody’s ever talked about it. So it’s the
type of thing where, again, I think you should take a real long, hard look when, you know,
if you look at the area that’s already been cleared, take a drive over there. Now this
project pushes that road and that whole development further and further east, further
toward the Brook, and I think it’s not right, because there’s way more than 400 feet of
clearing already been done in that area. So it’s the type of thing where you can drive
over there yourself. Go to the end of the road, take a look, and then I would love to see
DEC flag where that wetland area is on their side because I know it’s being pushed and
it’s being pushed hard. That’s not even to mention the no clear zone. So why do I have
a no clear zone? Why wasn’t there one that was requested on the other side?
Something to think about.
MR. HUNSINGER-Thank you. Anyone else? You can come back up. I will leave the
public hearing open. Any written comments?
MR. OBORNE-No.
MR. LAPPER-Mickey doesn’t know what he’s talking about in terms of motor vehicles.
They don’t allow any of their tenants to ride motor bikes on the property. I mean, it could
be anywhere that that’s coming from, but certainly not something that’s permitted on the
property, and they’re not allowed to store them on the grounds or to have them, and I
don’t know what he’s talking about in terms of the 400 foot. That might have been
something, there might have been some reason on his property, but that’s certainly not
the rule. The Town requires a variety of housing, and it’s not all single family lots for rich
people. Multifamily is important, and that’s a nice complex. That’s why the zoning was
done that way to permit nice townhouse apartments. Those have been fully leased since
you built them, I believe. So it’s a desirable location.
MR. SEGULJIC-Does Halfway Brook run through your property?
MR. FARRELL-Halfway Brook does not run through the property. No. The floodplain
does, from Halfway Brook. It’s to the east of the property line, Halfway Brook.
MR. SEGULJIC-And then on the site we have the Federal wetlands and we have the
DEC wetlands, right, is what I’m saying?
36
(Queensbury Planning Board 06/16/09)
MR. FARRELL-Correct. There are Federal wetlands and there is DEC wetlands.
There’s a large wetland toward the back end of the parcel, the undeveloped that will be
forever wild, north of the site. That’s DEC wetlands.
MR. SEGULJIC-Yes, because you’re potentially impacting the Federal wetlands, correct,
the edge of the hammerhead on the road there?
MR. FARRELL-No, we’re not disturbing any wetlands on site.
MR. SEGULJIC-So you’re in the buffer?
MR. FARRELL-We’re in the buffer, yes, for the Federal wetland, and we’ve submitted an
application for the wetlands disturbance permit with the stormwater retention facility for
water quality from the new development and roadway.
MR. FORD-The current structures, where are they relative to the buffer zone or the
wetland designated area?
MR. FARRELL-The current structures are in the buffer zone of the Federal wetland along
the northern side of the parcel, and there’s a small finger of wetland on the southern side
of the parcel that encompasses the first unit on the left side of the road. So, three of the
four units that are on the ground today are inside the buffer.
MR. LAPPER-But the proposed unit is not.
MR. FARRELL-But the new proposed unit is not. Correct.
MR. FORD-And could you address, please, the current structures relative to the impact
of water on those structures?
MR. FARRELL-I would ask my client in regards to any previous.
MICKIE HAYES
MR. HAYES-What was that, Mr. Ford?
MR. FORD-How has the water and the high water table there impacted the current
structures?
MR. HAYES-It has had no impact. Probably if you, because the structures weren’t really
built into the ground, they were built basically on the surface, they’re walkout basements,
so the basements really are not sunk into, as you know, the water table is only a couple
of feet below, two three below the ground in some spots. So mainly the buildings are
constructed upwardly instead of inwardly. So really the water’s been a non issue at all.
Because all the basements in the units are all finished, because they’re walkouts.
They’re sliders out into their backyards. They all can walk into their backyards.
MR. FORD-It’s interesting that I’ve had reports from individuals who have lived there that
water has definitely been an issue with the structures.
MR. HAYES-Well, I don’t know what water issues they would be.
MR. LAPPER-Are you talking about drinking water issues before they were hooked up?
MR. HAYES-That’s why we hooked onto the Town water, because there was issues with
turbidity, because they were actually, there were wells, actually artesian wells, 200
gallons a minutes, we had to tree it and have a disaster plan, filtration, which was, and
what happened is then we had to do turbidity tests, metals tests, you have to treat it just
like almost a level like the Town, to be honest with you. It was a nightmare, and then if
you had any turbidity, you had to have boil water orders. You have to, so basically that’s
when the Town ran the water to create the loop for the airport. We were very excited to
hook up to Town water because it was a nightmare.
MR. HUNSINGER-I guess in the spirit of full disclosure, I should disclose that I did live in
one of the units for a little over a year. I moved out. I can’t remember if it was 2004 or
2005.
MR. HAYES-I think 2005.
37
(Queensbury Planning Board 06/16/09)
MR. HUNSINGER-Yes. So it was at least four years ago, and the unit that I leased is on
the same side of the road as the proposed units. I mean, we certainly didn’t have any
problems with water in our unit. There were periods of time during the year when, you
know, it’s a little, I don’t want to use the word swampy, but it was, you know, you could
tell the water table was high in the area, but, you know, the backyard was always
mowed, you know, so you could always get a mower in there and mow the lawn, but in
the Spring, you know, it was a little wet, but that was about it, and I’m certainly not aware
of any neighbors complaining when I was there.
MR. HAYES-It is a clay area. So there are areas that are damp for, you know, there
really is dense soils.
MR. HUNSINGER-But because of the clay, that’s why you were able to build the pond.
MR. HAYES-Yes, exactly, and, you know, we’ve had a, we’ve had the place for seven
years, I believe, at this point, and we’ve had, we’ve missed four months of rent in those
years. So as far as satisfaction of the tenants, there’s still, as you probably know, there’s
still, 40% of the original people are still there from the original move in.
MR. HUNSINGER-I guess just to finish my train of thought, though, in terms of
disclosure, I did speak with Counsel about a potential conflict of interest, and they said,
you know, it’s not a conflict because you did business with somebody years ago, and I’m
not a tenant there now. If I was a tenant there now, it would certainly be a conflict, but I
didn’t feel that my knowledge or information on the project site would put me in any
conflict of interest.
MR. LAPPER-I just wanted to point out that the primary construction within the buffer is
the pond, which is a water quality treatment pond. I mean, so that, obviously, the water’s
going to ultimately end up in the wetland, and that’s not a bad thing in terms of typical
design, and again, that’s a buffer, not within the wetland.
MR. SEGULJIC-Some had said something about an existing pond. Is that the one that’s?
MR. LAPPER-That’s on the north side.
MR. SEGULJIC-On the north side.
MR. HAYES-The land actually runs up to the back of Stonehurst.
MR. LAPPER-You can see it’s just an odd shaped parcel.
MR. SEGULJIC-It would seem to me, though, I mean, because you’re going to, if I’m
reading this C-3 drawing correctly, you have those two bushes, two bushes, trees,
whatever, labeled CR, and they’re out in back of the new construction. Correct? After,
I’m working down the left side of the road. After the third unit, you have the, I’m sorry,
after the second unit, you have the tree labeled CR.
MR. FARRELL-Yes, right above that it has tie in to existing pavement. That’s the tie in
point of where the existing pavement is now.
MR. SEGULJIC-Okay. So all of that to the east is the new construction?
MR. FARRELL-Yes.
MR. SEGULJIC-Okay. I mean, it would seem to me, couldn’t you just take that small, I’ll
refer to it as a hammerhead, and get that out of the wetland buffer?
MR. FARRELL-We could get that out of the wetland buffer, but that would not allow
turnarounds for emergency vehicles at the end of the road, which we feel is good design
for this project. It does allow us to bend that pavement towards that stormwater
management device so all of the pavement will be treated in that stormwater wet pond.
It’s going to be to the north of the hammerhead.
MR. SEGULJIC-So how deep is this pond going to be, then?
MR. FARRELL-Four feet.
MR. SEGULJIC-So it’ll have standing water in it, and then it’ll rain?
38
(Queensbury Planning Board 06/16/09)
MR. FARRELL-Yes. Approximately 16 inches below the ground surface in that area is
mottling, which would be the groundwater. We do have to conduct test pits out there, at
the location, to determine the exact location of the groundwater at that point, and it’ll be
designed as a wet pond.
MR. SEGULJIC-So it’s a wet pond. So it’s going to have standing water in it?
MR. FARRELL-Yes.
MR. LAPPER-Which is preferable, right?
MR. FARRELL-It’s a wet pond that’ll meet DEC’s requirements, yes.
MR. FORD-And there is designated wetlands, correct, between the western boundary of
the project site and Ridge Road?
MR. LAPPER-Ridge Road?
MR. FARRELL-The westerly boundary of the property line and Ridge Road?
MR. KREBS-There’s two raised septic systems right there.
MR. LAPPER-The wetland is along the north side. Is that what you’re looking at, Tom?
MR. FORD-Let’s look at Lot 290.1-83.
MR. LAPPER-290.1. This is us. That’s not part of the project. That’s up north on Ridge
Road. 1-83?
MR. FORD-Yes. They’re not flagged wetlands on that property?
MR. HAYES-That’s not our property.
MR. FORD-I understand that. That’s not the question.
MR. FARRELL-The wetlands would logically continue for some distance onto that
property. The wetlands that are shown on C-2 are wetlands within the parcel that we’re
working on. So that the wetlands do move through that area, so that there may be
wetlands up there. We don’t put wetland maps.
MR. FORD-This Board has prevented, in the past, some construction along Ridge Road,
north of this project, because of designated wetlands.
MR. LAPPER-We’re not disturbing any wetlands.
MR. FORD-Pardon?
MR. LAPPER-We’re not proposing to disturb any wetlands.
MR. FORD-Just the buffer?
MR. LAPPER-Just a slight amount into the buffer.
MR. HUNSINGER-Any other questions from the Board?
MRS. STEFFAN-Well, I think, you know, in my mind, there were so many Paragon
Engineering comments that we really need to see how this works. Like, you know,
certainly a property like this, it has so much wetland in it, that as proposed, to have a
septic and those kinds of things raises some questions, and then Paragon Engineering
does have some questions about perc rates for the septic and whether it will work or not,
and I certainly think that the applicant needs to go back and address those. I know you
just got the letters.
MR. LAPPER-Yes.
MRS. STEFFAN-And so you need to come back and identify or satisfy those questions,
and I think as a result, then we’ll have our questions satisfied.
39
(Queensbury Planning Board 06/16/09)
MR. LAPPER-We certainly came here tonight recognizing we just got the letter. There’s
a lot of additional items we have to address. So no issue. It’s just, we feel that it just has
to be designed right to the satisfaction of the Board and the engineer.
MRS. STEFFAN-And we’ve always had lots of questions when you’ve got a site like this
where there’s wetlands and obviously the water table’s fairly high, and then, you know,
now you’ve brought in public water, and you’ve got a septic that is supposed to work, and
you have a lot of flushing homes there. It just needs to, we just need to be satisfied that
it can work and it won’t fail.
MR. FARRELL-There are four existing septic systems out there today that operate the
four units that are there now, and the septic system will be built as a fill system that will
require Town Board approval for a fill system. There is not two feet of usable natural soil
in this area. So that will require a variance from the, or waiver from the Board of Health.
MR. LAPPER-Because soil will have to be imported.
MR. FARRELL-Because soil will have to be imported. The imported soil will be sand,
and the design of the system is an Eljen system, which is a three form treatment system.
That system has biological treatment. It has a sand filter, and then it treats through the
soil. So that type of system is better than a standard trench system which would have
two forms of treatment, which would be your biological in the stone, and then just the soil
itself. So placing a system like this close to wetlands and close to environmentally
sensitive areas is a three form treatment system, and we are fully confident that the
system will design and operate just fine.
MR. KREBS-Is there any requirement to maintain that if you’re filtering through the sand
and the thing. Do you eventually have to, does it ever get clogged?
MR. FARRELL-There are effluent filters that are put on the septic tanks themselves to
make sure that the mats stay clean and the system operates properly. So there are a
couple of things that the Department of Health requires for this specific system. It is an
approved system by the New York State Department of Health, and it’s an
environmentally sensitive design.
MR. HUNSINGER-Are they existing septic systems out there, Eljen systems, too?
MR. FARRELL-No. None of the existing systems are Eljen systems. They are standard
absorption trench systems.
MR. FORD-Are they functioning the way they are designed to function?
MR. FARRELL-They do function the way they’re designed to function.
MR. FORD-No problems?
MR. FARRELL-And they have two forms of treatment. At this point, no, I don’t believe
there’s any problems with those systems.
MRS. STEFFAN-And were those systems, was the clay replaced with?
MR. FORD-No problems?
MR. HAYES-We’ve had no problems and they have alarms on them in case the pumps,
because they’re a loaded system for the size, to create the proper the pressure, and
there’s alarms that go off if that doesn’t work, and so we have had no problems
whatsoever. With the newer, a lot of these are designed to have with these newer units
with the toilets and the faucets and stuff like that, actually our water bills are actually, we
use half of the water that they’re designed to take. So because there’s no, when they
take the whole (lost words) with all the new fixtures and such, we really don’t use that
much water. So the septic systems are really only giving half of what they’re designed to
get. So they’re really no problem.
MRS. STEFFAN-Mickey, do you know that when the other septic tanks were put in, were
they, or the septic systems, did you have to take out some of the clay and put in fill?
MR. HAYES-No. I think they’re raised up pretty good. If you go up there, you can see
that there’s quite a bit of sand. They’re up in the air pretty good. You can tell that
they’ve been lifted.
40
(Queensbury Planning Board 06/16/09)
MR. HAYES-Yes. The ground’s been picked up about five to six feet throughout, from
Ridge Road into this complex.
MRS. STEFFAN-Right, and it is kind of, it’s obviously not flat.
MR. KREBS-You can see that when you look at the back of the buildings, they’re
significantly lower than the front.
MR. HAYES-That’s where the natural ground (lost words).
MR. OBORNE-Can I get a clarification? Are you stating that you need a Board of Health
variance for your septic system?
MR. FARRELL-Variance or waiver, because the fill systems are required to have two
feet of natural soil, and two feet of natural soil does not exist out here. So that would e
an application to the Board of Health.
MR. OBORNE-Which would be the Town Board.
MR. FARRELL-Which would be the Town Board, for a waiver from that requirement.
MR. OBORNE-Well, I personally think that should be, not personally think. It needs to
be ascertained if that is in fact that case, and if that is the case, you have to get through
your variance before you even go to Site Plan Review, and I was not apprised of that.
So you have to get all your variances before you can go before the Planning Board.
MR. FARRELL-Well, the Code specifically states that natural soil, but natural soil from
the Department of Health’s perspective is soil that has sat on a site for a year. If you
come in and you put the soil in, and then you come back in a year, you have two feet of
natural soil under the Department of Health regulations, New York State, but there’s no
definition that we can find in the Code. So a Code clarification associated with what
natural soil is, if it’s the existing ground that has to perc, a fill system is specifically
designed for sites that don’t have usable soil. So we’re not sure whether it’s a, that it has
to sit through a freeze/thaw cycle and then become natural, because that’s the way DEC
and the Department of Health clarify, or classify natural soil when you’re building a
system such as this, or the Department of Health.
MR. OBORNE-And that’s well and fine. My only issue is that it needs to be ascertained if
you need a BOH variance. That’s all I’m saying.
MR. FARRELL-Right. I mean, with that statement, natural soil, if it’s the natural soil
that’s the ground that has mottling at 16 inches, then there’s of course not two feet of
usable soil. So who would we get a clarification on the Zoning Code?
MR. OBORNE-Well, that would be Dave Hatin.
MR. FARRELL-Dave Hatin, okay.
MR. LAPPER-With that said, we’re expecting to be tabled and come back to you with
answers.
MR. FORD-I’ve got to tell you, personally, my initial reaction is this is pushing the
envelope.
MR. SEGULJIC-I think I’d ask Keith, what (lost words)?
MR. OBORNE-That’s just fill that’s been brought in. That’s from, it’s this area, looking
this way, shooting it away from the houses. This is early in the season. The leaves
aren’t on the trees. It’s been pretty wet, but the location is obviously to the left of that
building there. Is it in between, is it where the Eljen system’s going?
MR. HAYES-No, that’s in between the current septic systems. That’s to the left and right
of the septic system there was a valley in between, and that’s been filled in.
MR. OBORNE-That’s right.
MR. LAPPER-Just to address Tom’s comment, there’s really a sliver of pavement that’s
being proposed within the buffer, and all of that, as Mike said, is being treated in this wet
41
(Queensbury Planning Board 06/16/09)
basin. So, I mean, in terms of, this won’t impact the buffer of the wetland, and it’s being
constructed above the water table, the way, what Mickey said about not having
subsurface basements, having surface basements, and the septic system is built up, too.
So we’re confident that, at the end of the review, you’ll see that this can be done on this
site, even though it’s in proximity to wetlands, but that’s our job to convince you.
MR. FORD-The process isn’t over. I just felt obligated to tip my hand at this juncture, but
I’m open to whatever you present.
MR. LAPPER-Thank you.
MR. HUNSINGER-So if we table this to a date specific, and they have to go to the Board
of Health.
MR. OBORNE-It would be an Admin item on the agenda.
MR. HUNSINGER-How long is the Board of Health review typically, and how quickly do
they get on the?
MR. OBORNE-Well, first they have to go through the process, fill out the application, and
then they have to go to a Board of Health meeting, which is a Town Board meeting, and
then they set the agenda for that meeting. So usually it can be as quick as three weeks,
and it can be as long as six weeks, depending on how the cycle hits.
MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. So if we were to table this to an August meeting and they do
require a Board of Health review, is it logical to assume that that could occur?
MR. OBORNE-I think that that would depend on the applicant, how quickly they can get
an answer.
MR. HUNSINGER-Yes. Okay, well, and if they don’t, and we have it on the agenda for
that evening, we’ll just have it, as you mentioned, have an administrative item.
MR. OBORNE-Right. If you were to table them until August, my perception that they
would be able to ascertain it in time.
MR. HUNSINGER-Okay.
MR. OBORNE-And potentially get their variance.
MR. KREBS-I have one other question. Is this the end of the building for this site?
MR. LAPPER-Yes.
MR. FARRELL-Yes. The density allowed on the site is 22 units.
MR. KREBS-Because directly across from the site there’s room for another building. I
just wanted to make sure we weren’t.
MR. HUNSINGER-Okay.
MRS. STEFFAN-I’ll make a motion.
MOTION TO TABLE SITE PLAN NO. 31-2009 FRESHWATER WETLAND 3-2009 CES
HOLDINGS, 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 four unit apartment building, paved parking area,
private roadway extension and associated stormwater devices and landscaping.
Multifamily in a SR-1A zone is an allowed use subject to Site Plan Review and
approval. Freshwater wetlands permit needed for construction within 100 feet of
a wetland boundary.
2)A public hearing was advertised and held on 6/16/2009; and
3)This application is supported with all documentation, public comment and
application material in the file of record;
42
(Queensbury Planning Board 06/16/09)
4)MOTION TO TABLE SITE PLAN NO. 31-2009 FRESHWATER WETLAND 3-
2009 CES HOLDINGS, Introduced by Gretchen Steffan who moved for its
adoption, seconded by Stephen Traver:
th
This is tabled to the August 25 Planning Board meeting with a submission
th
deadline for materials of July 15. This is tabled so that the applicant can
address the 13 comments within Staff Notes and also to address the
approximately 42 items outstanding in the Paragon Engineering notes. The
applicant should also come back and provide clarification on septic system status
and Board of Health approval.
th
Duly adopted this 16 day of June, 2009, by the following vote:
AYES: Mr. Krebs, Mr. Ford, Mr. Seguljic, Mr. Sipp, Mr. Traver, Mrs. Steffan,
Mr. Hunsinger
NOES: NONE
MR. HUNSINGER-And just let the record show that we did leave the public hearing
open.
MR. LAPPER-Thank you.
MR. HUNSINGER-Thank you.
MRS. STEFFAN-Thank you, sir.
MR. HUNSINGER-Did you have a question, sir?
AUDIENCE MEMBER
AUDIENCE MEMBER-I live on Haviland Road, and the picture you had up here shows a
plot plan, but I couldn’t tell where the Brook was.
MR. HUNSINGER-I don’t think our maps show.
AUDIENCE MEMBER-The location.
MR. HUNSINGER-No, because it’s off site. It’s not on this site.
MR. OBORNE-What’s you’re question?
MRS. STEFFAN-The plot plan didn’t show Halfway Brook.
MR. OBORNE-It looks like it’s on the site.
AUDIENCE MEMBER-I’d like to know where the Brook is located according to the
development plans.
MR. HUNSINGER-He can show you on this overhead.
MR. OBORNE-This Brook, it looks like the Brook is going through the northern reaches
of the property. It shows where it crosses the road.
MR. LAPPER-Halfway Brook crosses the road where the new bridge is.
MR. KREBS-Right.
MR. HUNSINGER-Yes, which is south of your.
MR. FORD-South of the project.
MR. OBORNE-South of Haviland.
MR. HUNSINGER-Does it touch your property on the north, or don’t you know?
MR. HAYES-Stonehurst?
MR. HUNSINGER-Yes.
43
(Queensbury Planning Board 06/16/09)
MR. HAYES-I’ve never even been back there. It could be.
MR. HUNSINGER-Okay.
AUDIENCE MEMBER-Thank you.
MR. HUNSINGER-You’re welcome. Thank you. Do we have any other business before
the Board this evening?
MR. OBORNE-Not from the Department of Community Development, no.
MR. HUNSINGER-Does anyone have anything to bring up?
MR. KREBS-Well, while we still have our engineer here.
MR. HUNSINGER-Dan left.
MR. OBORNE-He’s gone.
MR. KREBS-I’d still like to know if we can’t somehow expedite getting the engineering
comments to us and to the client, as the applicant, earlier than the Friday or Monday
before the meeting.
MR. HUNSINGER-Do you typically get them in digital format?
MR. OBORNE-Yes, and we typically e-mail them to each Board member.
MR. HUNSINGER-That would save a few days, a couple of days.
th
MR. KREBS-Yes, but the date is the 12, on the report.
MR. OBORNE-That’s the Friday before the meeting.
MR. KREBS-That’s the Friday before the meeting. Why can’t we do it so that they have
it the Friday before that Friday?
MR. OBORNE-We’ve already gone through this in our workshop.
MR. HUNSINGER-Yes, we did look at it at the workshop.
MR. OBORNE-And previously before. The reason is, is that there’s a certain amount of
time that you have to take to review these, and I’m not just looking at one or two or three.
I’m looking at 17 to 20 to 25 Site Plans a month, and I think that’s the only issue. If you
look at it myopically, with the ones that we send or I refer to Dan, he reviews probably
about a third of what I review, but his review is much more technical, so, with that said, I
can get, and I can’t really commit to this, but I get my Staff Notes, depending on my
workload, to you a few days early, even that Monday, possibly, but my Staff Notes are
not really what the issue is, for the most part, it’s the engineering notes.
MR. KREBS-Right, and when I was down at the training in Fort Edward, I talked to Dan,
and Dan said, if you get me the information soon enough, we can get it there earlier.
MR. OBORNE-The e-mail that I appreciate and the reply and everything. I mean, that’s
something that has to come from the Board. Direct me and I will satisfy it to the best of
my ability. I mean, the protocol states what it is now, is that they get it by Friday and it
gets out to you.
MR. KREBS-Because it really doesn’t save anybody any time.
MR. OBORNE-It doesn’t.
MR. KREBS-Because even if we didn’t schedule them for another 30 days, 99% of these
people who have long lists of engineering questions end up getting tabled anyway.
MR. OBORNE-Well, part of the problem is that they request waivers, which is allowed,
and many times they shouldn’t have waivers, or those waivers the Planning Board is not
willing to grant. Thus they’d have to go back through their engineering. It is their right to
ask for those waivers. So sometimes they hurt themselves.
44
(Queensbury Planning Board 06/16/09)
MR. KREBS-I agree with you, and I think that a waiver is a judgment factor that is exactly
why we have a Planning Board, because we need to make that decision.
MR. OBORNE-Absolutely.
MR. KREBS-Okay, but what I’m talking about is the long list of things about, you know.
MR. HUNSINGER-Well, we had three good examples tonight. We had to table all three
projects. We had, you know, 20 plus comments.
MR. KREBS-And, I just think if we could somehow get that to them earlier, that the
applicant wants to satisfy those questions.
MR. HUNSINGER-Sure.
MR. KREBS-They would like to come, and only have those where maybe they have a
disagreement with the engineer, so they’re not willing to accept that, but so many times
it’s the electrical is not on the drawing. It doesn’t say whether it’s existing or proposed.
Little things like that that could be changed and could speed up our meeting.
MR. OBORNE-That certainly shouldn’t preclude you from giving them a conditional
approval based on something as minor as that.
MR. KREBS-No, no, no, but when there’s 13 or 15 of those minors, I don’t think the
Board generally feels good giving approval with all of that long list of requirements.
Because that then throws that entire decision on the Staff. It’s up to you to make sure
they comply with those 15.
MR. OBORNE-Absolutely.
MR. TRAVER-Even if we had a threshold, somehow, of, you know, beyond an X number
of comments they would some how automatically be tabled, we still wouldn’t know until
the last minute.
MR. OBORNE-Yes, because you can’t quantify it. You have to qualify it. You have to. I
mean, understand that. This a battle I have with applicants all the time is to even get
them to submit information after they’ve, like this past deadline day, I’m going through
the applications now. I have three phone calls in to people that owe me stuff. I’m giving
them a break because it’s so minor. It’s a signature or it’s something that’s just minor,
get it to me. If they don’t get it to me, they’re either going to go before the Board and
have those comments on my notes, and/or Dan’s notes, or they’re going to get bumped
off the agenda. So that’s not helping them either.
MR. TRAVER-Well, if it’s incomplete, they probably should be bumped off the agenda.
MR. OBORNE-Absolutely, well, that’s what I’m saying, they will get bumped off the
agenda. I give them usually 12 hours. If you don’t give it to me, you’re gone. They know
that.
MR. TRAVER-That’s generous. There is a deadline.
MR. HUNSINGER-Yes.
MR. OBORNE-I mean, I could be real hard on them and say, that’s it, but I mean you
have to have some form of, you’ve got to give them a chance if it’s something that’s
minor. If it’s something that’s major, they’re gone.
MR. HUNSINGER-Yes.
MR. OBORNE-I hear you. As a representative for the Department of Community
Development, and I don’t mean this tongue and cheek at all, I like to see permits being
issued. I want to see permits being issued. That’s, you know, part of my job. It’s part of
my job satisfaction.
MR. HUNSINGER-I guess, part of my thought when I saw your e-mail, Don, and other
comments about it, is, you know, this is an issue that we’ve struggled with for a long
time, and with the new Code coming out, I don’t know if that’s going to make it easier or
45
(Queensbury Planning Board 06/16/09)
worse. I guess my thought was that hopefully the new Code is, there’s a lot of things that
we made clearer. So I’m hoping that we’ll start getting better applications, if you will.
MR. TRAVER-Yes. There’ll be a transition, though, where it’ll be a real.
MR. HUNSINGER-It’s going to be a mess.
MR. OBORNE-You’ll start seeing those, this cycle coming around. Because of,
especially Site Plan Review. Site Plan Review applications are very tight now because
of the new application.
MR. HUNSINGER-Now is it still, all of the projects that we’re going to be reviewing in
July, they’re all under the new Code, right?
MR. OBORNE-They’re all under the new, and the ones, there’s a few next week, I
believe there are a couple next week that are going to be under the new Code.
MR. HUNSINGER-Okay.
MR. KREBS-Will we be getting a formal copy of the new Ordinance?
MR. OBORNE-You should have, you did, we sent it out to you.
MR. HUNSINGER-I just got it. It was Saturday I think it came in the mail, or Friday.
MR. KREBS-Yes, but it doesn’t have a table of contents.
MR. OBORNE-The formal, I see what you mean. That has not come back from Code
Publishers yet.
MR. KREBS-Okay.
MR. OBORNE-So that was our working draft, our final draft, albeit, our working draft.
MR. HUNSINGER-The other thing is there is one on line that you can download as a
PDF file, and if you do that, then you can do search, so if there’s something you’re
looking for you can search.
MR. KREBS-How big is that file?
MR. HUNSINGER-I don’t know. Do you know, Keith?
MR. OBORNE-How big is the file?
MR. HUNSINGER-It’s not that big. I didn’t think it was that bad.
MR. KREBS-The reason I ask the question, very simply, was that I was thinking about, if
I could, if I could put it on a four gig stick.
MR. HUNSINGER-I bet you could, yes.
MR. KREBS-Which would then allow me to take it from my desktop computer to my
laptop computer, and always have it available.
MRS. STEFFAN-I would like to request, I’m trying to remember what we got. We got
147, but there was another thing that we just got last week that was quite thick.
MR. OBORNE-179. You should have gotten the Zoning Ordinance.
MR. KREBS-Right.
MRS. STEFFAN-It’s just when you guys, when the Community Development Department
sends us something that big, I would appreciate it in a binder.
MR. FORD-Please.
MRS. STEFFAN-Because it’s unruly to just have it that way. I mean, I have so much
paper on my workstation for Planning Board. So it would just be helpful, anything that
thick, please put it in a binder.
46
(Queensbury Planning Board 06/16/09)
MR. OBORNE-Well, I will say that when you do get the Code, the intent was to give you
a document by which you could use, and then discard in the next couple of weeks. I
debated that, to be honest with you, and decided not to do that because it wouldn’t fit in
the envelope.
MRS. STEFFAN-Okay.
MR. OBORNE-And with that said, when the new one does come in, obviously.
MR. FORD-It will be bound.
MR. OBORNE-It’ll be bound, table of contents, and then, you know, what I do with mine
is I have, I break it out per Chapter, and put the dividers in there, with tabs on them, and
it’s just easy access that way.
MR. STEFFAN-Don’t plant those seeds in our mind, Keith.
MR. OBORNE-You’re going to have to do that. I would be more than happy to supply
the dividers for you.
MR. KREBS-Okay.
MR. FORD-Thank you.
MR. KREBS-No, that really makes it easier.
MR. OBORNE-Sixty-nine cents.
MR. KREBS-The reason I was aware of that is I went to the new Code today because
you had mentioned something in one of your Staff Notes, and when I went to the
paragraph, it was different, it was talking about shoreline, and when I went to the old
thing, then I was in the right location.
MR. OBORNE-Okay. I see what you mean.
MR. KREBS-So we’re going to have to make sure we say old or new Code.
MR. OBORNE-Right now you’re all under old.
MR. KREBS-Okay.
MR. OBORNE-And then when the Staff Notes come out, it’ll specifically say new or old.
MRS. STEFFAN-Keith, I’m sorry, because I left, I went out. When an applicant has to
th
have their materials in by the 15 of the month, prior to their Planning Board
appointment, how long does it take before you submit the materials to the engineering
firm.
MR. OBORNE-I have to go through, the Final agenda meeting is the Thursday after our
last meeting for the month. That’s when we have our Final agenda meeting. Right there,
right after that Final agenda meeting, they go out on Friday, typically, that Friday,
everything goes out, to you, to the applicant, well, not the applicant because, but to you,
you get your packages, that’s when you get yours.
MRS. STEFFAN-Okay. Maybe I wasn’t clear. We just tabled a couple of items for
th
August, and they have a submission deadline of July 15. When will that information be
forwarded to VISION Engineering or Paragon Engineering or whatever?
MR. OBORNE-First thing I do is I check, and to answer, I’m not going to be circuitous
here, is I check for completeness on, against the resolution, and make sure that it’s a full,
it’s been addressed fully. Once it’s been addressed fully, I send it out. Usually that
Friday, or that day or the next day.
MRS. STEFFAN-Okay. So roughly VISION Engineering has three weeks to review and
turn that around.
MR. OBORNE-Yes, and that I usually fast track. Things that are tabled to a specific date
and we get that application in, I always say to the applicant, get it in as soon as possible,
47
(Queensbury Planning Board 06/16/09)
th
because then we can send it out to VISION Engineering, but invariably it’s the 15 that
they submit.
MRS. STEFFAN-Okay. I have my answer.
MR. FORD-A suggestion, and if it’s unworkable, I know you’ll let me know. What if we
th
were to transition from this 15 deadline for submission, over a six month period,
th
dropping it back a day, each month, like next month it would be the 14, and the month
th
after that would be the 13. The whole thrust of this being to try to give, get the material
to VISION Engineering earlier so that we can not have this 35 items on a list going to an
applicant and coming to us. Could something like that, that kind of a transition, work?
MR. OBORNE-I don’t think that’s going to help in regards to the time it takes to do
reviews. That’s the issue, is there’s not enough days in the month to.
MR. KREBS-Yes, but what he’s saying is move it back 15 days eventually, which gives
you an additional window of 15 days.
MR. OBORNE-But the Planning Board meetings are on the same dates. That doesn’t
change the fact that we still have to do the review in the same amount of time.
MRS. STEFFAN-Right, and at some point it would make it impossible for us to table
something, two months out, it would end up being.
MR. KREBS-I think what Tom was saying is that you’d eventually end up with a deadline
stth
being the 1 of the month rather than the 15. Right?
MRS. STEFFAN-But it may only give an applicant.
MR. SEGULJIC-The applicants are submitting poor plans.
MRS. STEFFAN-That’s part of it, but I think that there’s many issues here, and I certainly
things that were covered in our workshop about having a more complete intake process
is going to help. I think the new form is excellent, and that will make some changes.
MR. TRAVER-And making the resolutions clearer.
MRS. STEFFAN-But if we make some changes to the engineering scenario, maybe we
can improve process, because we’ve obviously got a systemic problem.
MR. OBORNE-There are other Town Boards, Town Planning Boards, and I sit on one.
The way they do it is they’ll get the application and they’ll review the application and then
they’ll make a resolution to open, not open a public hearing, but set a date for a public
hearing, because they feel that they have enough information, but those are usually,
that’s a Board that doesn’t have Staff either.
MR. HUNSINGER-Or a lot of work.
MR. OBORNE-Or a lot of work. Exactly, but that’s one thing, a lot of Boards have
completion reviews at the meetings. They look over and they say to the applicant, or
amongst yourselves, is this application complete. Well that onus is on Staff in this Town.
So just to tell you that a lot of applicants go through the same thing everywhere else. It’s
not a perfect process, I mean, there’s no, ifs, ands or buts about that. I can’t catch every
little thing in every application, either.
MRS. STEFFAN-Absolutely.
MR. FORD-So because there are a certain number of days in a month, starting to move
it back at a transition wouldn’t help, Keith?
MR. OBORNE-I think you’re going to find that it’s going to, well, I know I’m going to find
that it’s going to put a lot of pressure on me, you know, after a few days have been put
back, to getting my notes out on time. Because now you’re starting to get an overlap
from the month before. I mean, not only do I deal with the Planning Board, I deal with
the Zoning Board also.
MR. TRAVER-Yes, bottom line is, no matter what day the applicant submits, there’s still
only X number of days in a month and Y number of applications to be reviewed.
48
(Queensbury Planning Board 06/16/09)
MR. OBORNE-You’ve got to add two weeks to the month.
MR. FORD-One of the things that we’re not addressing is we can’t change the number of
days in the month, but we can address the issue of personnel, and if we have insufficient
personnel to address these issues, then it’s a personnel issue. If we need more than
one VISION Engineering engineer, addressing these issues, so that we get a quicker
turnaround, then that’s another personnel issue.
MR. OBORNE-VISION Engineering does have Staff. I mean, Mike Farrell is a principal
of VISION Engineering.
MR. TRAVER-But that’s not going to be budgeted until applicants start getting pushed
out further on the agenda and they have to wait longer to get on the agenda. If we
limited how many reviews we did, it would become an issue for development for the
Town, and the only way to answer it would be to increase the support to enable us to
process more applications per month, let’s say, and that would then compel the powers
that be to say we need to bring more resources to bear, so that applicants don’t have to
wait as long.
MR. OBORNE-I have a saying that I say around the office is that Staff needs Staff, and
it’s very true, Staff does need Staff, but I’m telling you, Staff is not going to get Staff.
MR. SIPP-Yes, but you’re understaffed now.
MR. OBORNE-Yes. I think we are. We’re understaffed by a Senior Planner.
MR. SIPP-You have been understaffed for two or three years, and why doesn’t the Town
Board bring the Staff up to where it should be?
MR. OBORNE-That would be a question for the Town Board.
MRS. STEFFAN-Because they don’t want the overhead, which I don’t agree with, but.
MR. HUNSINGER-Yes, they don’t ant to spend the money.
MR. TRAVER-And also because we are, bottom line is because we’re handling the
applications that we’re getting.
MR. OBORNE-And you are.
MR. TRAVER-If that didn’t happen, then you watch and see how many more Staff we
would get.
MR. SIPP-There’s got to be more people in here.
MR. KREBS-Well, you know, in Dan’s e-mail back to me, he said it’s up to the Board to
tell us what you need.
MR. SIPP-Then they should hire more people. Tell them they should hire more people
in the Planning Department.
MR. KREBS-Well, if we had a resolution from the Planning Board.
MR. SIPP-I’ll make a resolution.
MOTION THAT WE ASK THE TOWN BOARD AND THE TOWN SUPERVISOR TO
ADD MORE EMPLOYEES TO THE COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT,
Introduced by Donald Sipp who moved for its adoption, seconded by Donald Krebs:
th
Duly adopted this 16 day of June, 2009, by the following vote:
MR. SEGULJIC-That’s a pretty broad motion.
AYES: Mr. Traver, Mr. Krebs, Mr. Ford, Mr. Sipp, Mr. Hunsinger
NOES: Mrs. Steffan
ABSTAINED: Mr. Seguljic
49
(Queensbury Planning Board 06/16/09)
MR. SIPP-I mean, this, to me, is the same as what happened with the alternates. We
were two years, or almost two years, without any alternates. Why? Because the Town
Board wouldn’t do it. Then all of a sudden they sprung for all kinds of alternates? Why
was there a drought in between?
MRS. STEFFAN-Well, I think certainly we’re dealing with issues that are actually bigger
than the Planning Board, and the reason why I just voted no on that is that I’m a Human
Resource professional, and I certainly wouldn’t make a recommendation like that without
an assessment. We used to have an Executive Director of Community Development.
We no longer have that. So certainly I believe that there needs to be some kind of a
systemic review of the Community Development Department to see where their
performance shortfalls lie, and what the needs really are. So I just wanted to put that on
the record. Do I believe that the Community Development Department needs more
horsepower, yes, but I also believe that they need an infrastructure review.
MR. KREBS-But I also think that you could sit down with Craig, Stu, and Keith and find
out where the holes are and as Town Supervisor, he’s the boss, okay.
MR. TRAVER-I think we’re a victim of our own success. I think we’re able to have the
occasional third meeting. We’re able, the applicants are getting their needs met. The
Town is getting its needs met. If that stops happening and things start backing up, then it
will become a squeaky wheel, but as it is right now, thanks to the effort of our Staff and
our having an occasional third meeting, there isn’t really a problem, or at least it’s not a
problem that people outside this community are really aware of. When I say community,
I mean the Planning Staff and the Planning Board. Because it works. We’re making it
work, as best we can, and if the system starts breaking down, then all of a sudden
people are going to so, we’ve got to do something about this.
MR. OBORNE-It’s not broken. Is it perfect? No, but it’s not broken. I think that there’s
room for improvement. There’s always room for improvement, absolutely.
MR. FORD-We’ve moaned enough about this, so it’s time that something needs to get
done about it. This whole issue of the engineering comments, you know. How many
times do we address this without addressing it?
MR. OBORNE-I mean, you certainly could, and, for the record, I’m stopping that thought.
MRS. STEFFAN-Then I guess I’ll make a motion to adjourn.
MOTION TO ADJOURN THE QUEENSBURY PLANNING BOARD MEETING OF JUNE
16, 2009, Introduced by Gretchen Steffan who moved for its adoption, seconded by
Thomas Ford:
th
Duly adopted this 16 day of June, 2009, by the following vote:
AYES: Mr. Sipp, Mr. Seguljic, Mr. Traver, Mr. Krebs, Mrs. Steffan, Mr. Ford,
Mr. Hunsinger
NOES: NONE
On motion meeting was adjourned.
RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED,
Chris Hunsinger, Chairman
50