2009.09.22
(Queensbury Planning Board 9/22/09)
QUEENSBURY PLANNING BOARD MEETING
SECOND REGULAR MEETING
SEPTEMBER 22, 2009
INDEX
Site Plan No. 7-2009 Greg Canale 1.
Tax Map No. 296.16-1-11
Site Plan No. 18-2008 Jolley Associates 2.
EXTENSION REQUEST Tax Map No. 302.6-1-29
Site Plan No. 53-2007 Provident Batavia, LLC 2.
Tax Map No. 239.7-1-14
Site Plan No. 48-2009 NBT Bank, N.A. 4.
Tax Map No. 302.8-1-44
Site Plan No. 49-2009 D & G Management LLC 12.
Tax Map No. 309.5-1-1.2
Site Plan No. 50-2009 Stewarts Shops Corp. 13.
Tax Map No. 296.13-1-63, 64, 65
Subdivision No. 2-2008 Ray Kraft 27.
PRELIMINARY & FINAL STAGE Tax Map No. 240.9-1-16.1
Special Use Permit No. 52-2009 Ray Kraft 38.
Freshwater Wetlands 8-2009 Tax Map No. 240.9-1-1
Site Plan No. 47-2009 Marvin Stan Dobert 49.
Tax Map No. 309.10-2-26, 27, 28
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 9/22/09)
QUEENSBURY PLANNING BOARD MEETING
SECOND REGULAR MEETING
SEPTEMBER 22, 2009
7:00 P.M.
MEMBERS PRESENT
CHRIS HUNSINGER, CHAIRMAN
STEPHEN TRAVER, ACTING SECRETARY
THOMAS SEGULJIC
DONALD KREBS
THOMAS FORD
DONALD SIPP
STEVEN JACKOSKI, ALTERNATE
LAND USE PLANNER-KEITH OBORNE
STENOGRAPHER-SUE HEMINGWAY
MR. HUNSINGER-I’ll call to order the meeting of the Town of Queensbury Planning
Board on Tuesday September 22, 2009. Our first item on the agenda, there are two
administrative items.
ADMINISTRATIVE ITEMS:
SITE PLAN 7-2009: GREG CANALE FOR FURTHER TABLING CONSIDERATION
MR. HUNSINGER-They have asked to be further tabled. Did they give us a date, Keith?
MR. OBORNE-No, they didn’t request a date.
MR. HUNSINGER-Did they submit the materials yet?
MR. OBORNE-They have submitted materials. However, they need to be vetted by
VISION Engineering, and that’s pretty much where we’re at with that.
MR. HUNSINGER-So would we table them to October or November?
th
MR. OBORNE-I believe we’re tabling to the 20 of October, please.
th
MR. HUNSINGER-The 20 of October.
MOTION TO TABLE SITE PLAN NO. 7-2009 GREG CANALE, Introduced by Thomas
Seguljic 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 to use existing dwelling as a residence and
professional office. Proposal includes new parking configuration, handicap
access deck with lift, grading and landscaping. Professional office in a PO zone is
an allowed use subject to Site Plan Review and approval.
2)This application was tabled to 9/22/09 with a submission deadline of 8/17/09 [see
resolution below];
3)Revised information was received on 9/15/09, THEREFORE LET IT BE
RESOLVED;
4)MOTION TO TABLE SITE PLAN NO. 7-2009 GREG CANALE, Introduced by
Thomas Seguljic who moved for its adoption, seconded by Thomas Ford:
In accordance with the resolution prepared by Staff. We’ll table them to the
October 20, 2009 Planning Board meeting.
nd
Duly adopted this 22 day of September, 2009, by the following vote:
AYES: Mr. Traver, Mr. Krebs, Mr. Jackoski, Mr. Ford, Mr. Sipp, Mr. Seguljic,
Mr. Hunsinger
NOES: NONE
1
(Queensbury Planning Board 9/22/09)
MR. HUNSINGER-And let the record show that the public hearing was left open, and will
be held open again in October.
PUBLIC HEARING OPEN
MR. HUNSINGER-Our second item under Administrative Items is Jolley Associates.
SITE PLAN 18-2008: JOLLEY ASSOCIATES FOR FURTHER TABLING
CONSIDERATION
MR. OBORNE-This isn’t a tabling.
MR. HUNSINGER-Yes, they’ve requested an extension. There’s a copy of the letter in
your package. Any questions from Board members?
MR. SEGULJIC-So, I guess, assuming there’s no objection, we should extend this to the
October 21, 2010?
MR. OBORNE-Sure.
MR. SEGULJIC-That’s one year, right? Okay.
MR. OBORNE-I’m sorry to cut you off, but just to give you an update. They anticipate to
construct the Jolley Store at 777 Upper Glen Street in the Spring. That’s why they want
to keep this active.
MR. SEGULJIC-Okay.
MR. KREBS-The letter said March, I think.
MR. OBORNE-Is that Winter?
MOTION TO GRANT A ONE YEAR EXTENSION FOR SITE PLAN 18-2008 FOR
JOLLEY ASSOCIATES, Introduced by Thomas Seguljic who moved for its adoption,
seconded by Stephen Traver:
5)A site plan application has been made to the Queensbury Planning Board for the
following: Applicant proposes replacement of the existing 944 sq. ft. convenience
store with a 2,288 sq. ft. convenience store. Gas Stations and Convenience
Stores in the HC-Int zone require Site plan review and approval from the
Planning Board; and
6)This application was approved on 10/21/08; and
7)The applicant has requested a one year extension [see attached letter];
THEREFORE LET IT BE RESOLVED;
8)MOTION TO GRANT A ONE YEAR EXTENSION FOR SITE PLAN 18-2008 FOR
JOLLEY ASSOCIATES, Introduced by Thomas Seguljic who moved for its
adoption, seconded by Stephen Traver:
In accordance with the resolution prepared by Staff. The one year extension will
be extended to October 21, 2010.
nd
Duly adopted this 22 day of September, 2009, by the following vote:
AYES: Mr. Sipp, Mr. Krebs, Mr. Jackoski, Mr. Ford, Mr. Traver, Mr. Seguljic,
Mr. Hunsinger
NOES: NONE
SITE PLAN 53-2007 SEQR TYPE UNLISTED PROVIDENT BATAVIA, LLC
OWNER(S) SAME ZONING WR LOCATION 67 KNOX ROAD APPLICANT
PROPOSES CONSTRUCTION OF A 2,711 +/- SQ. FT. SINGLE FAMILY DWELLING
WITH A 414 +/- SQUARE ATTACHED GARAGE. THE PROPOSAL HAS BEEN
CLASSIFIED AS A MAJOR STORMWATER PROJECT; PLANNING BOARD REVIEW
AND APPROVAL IS REQUIRED. CROSS REFERENCE NOA 11-07 WARREN CO.
2
(Queensbury Planning Board 9/22/09)
PLANNING N/A APA, CEA, OTHER APA, L G CEA LOT SIZE 0.43 +/- ACRES TAX
MAP NO. 239.7-1-14 SECTION 179-9-010
MR. HUNSINGER-And we did have a, they’ve requested a tabling as well.
MR. OBORNE-That’s correct.
MR. HUNSINGER-Did they, I didn’t bring a copy of the letter that they submitted. Did
they give us a date?
MR. OBORNE-They did not. Earliest available Planning Board meeting was the
verbiage, I believe.
MR. SEGULJIC-Is this for Provident, then?
MR. OBORNE-This is for Provident, correct, also known as Solomon, but no longer as
Solomon.
MR. HUNSINGER-Yes.
MR. SEGULJIC-And the request for tabling.
MR. OBORNE-Was by the applicant.
MR. HUNSINGER-By the applicant.
MR. SEGULJIC-Any insight as to why?
MR. OBORNE-Yes, because of the amount of VISION Engineering comments on the
project. They want to get that hammered out before they get before you.
MR. SEGULJIC-All right.
MR. HUNSINGER-So have they submitted any new information at this point?
MR. OBORNE-They have not submitted anything of substance.
MR. HUNSINGER-Okay.
MR. OBORNE-But I am going to get a meeting together with both the Town Engineer
and Mr. Esposito, who’s the agent for Provident.
MR. HUNSINGER-So if we table this to November.
MR. OBORNE-That’s what I would.
MR. FORD-I personally would like to applaud the applicant for that tabling request based
upon the number of applicants where we go through an hour or more reviewing engineer
comments, only to have to send them away again.
th
MR. HUNSINGER-Yes. The first meeting in November is November 17. There is a
public hearing scheduled. Is there anyone in the audience that was here for the
Provident Batavia project?
PUBLIC HEARING OPENED
MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. We will open the public hearing and we’ll table the public
hearing with the application. Would anyone like to make a motion?
MOTION TO TABLE SITE PLAN NO. 53-2007 PROVIDENT BATAVIA, LLC, Introduced
by Thomas who moved for its adoption, seconded by Donald Sipp:
9)A site plan application has been made to the Queensbury Planning Board for the
following: Applicant proposes construction of a 2,503 sq. ft. single family dwelling
with a 406 square foot attached garage. This proposal has been classified as a
Major Stormwater project; Planning Board review and approval is required.
10)A public hearing was advertised and held on 10/23/07, 7/28/09 & 9/22/09; and
3
(Queensbury Planning Board 9/22/09)
11)This application is supported with all documentation, public comment and
application material in the file of record;
12)MOTION TO TABLE SITE PLAN NO. 53-2007 PROVIDENT BATAVIA, LLC,
Introduced by Thomas who moved for its adoption, seconded by Donald Sipp:
Tabled to our November 17, 2009 at the request of the applicant.
nd
Duly adopted this 22 day of September, 2009, by the following vote:
AYES: Mr. Traver, Mr. Krebs, Mr. Jackoski, Mr. Ford, Mr. Sipp, Mr. Seguljic,
Mr. Hunsinger
NOES: NONE
MR. HUNSINGER-The first scheduled item is Marvin Stan Dobert. The applicant has
requested that they be heard last, so we’re going to move them to the end of the order,
unless there’s an objection from any Board member.
SITE PLAN 48-2009 SEQR TYPE II NBT BANK, N.A. AGENT(S) ANDREW
KOWALCZYK, JR. OWNER(S) TAMMY CALABRESE ZONING CI LOCATION 242
QUAKER ROAD APPLICANT PROPOSES CONVERSION FROM CURRENT USE
[RESTAURANT] TO BRANCH BANK FACILITY, INCLUDING DRIVE-THROUGH
TELLER AND ATM MACHINE. CHANGE OF USE IN THE CI ZONE REQUIRES SITE
PLAN REVIEW AND APPROVAL. CROSS REFERENCE AV 43-09 WARREN CO.
PLANNING 9/9/09 LOT SIZE 0.56 ACRES TAX MAP NO. 302.8-1-44 SECTION 179-
9-010
ANDREW KOWALCZYK, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT
MR. HUNSINGER-Keith, whenever you’re ready to summarize Staff Notes.
MR. OBORNE-Site Plan 48-2009, NBT Bank. Requested action: Change of use in the
CI zone requires Site Plan Review and approval. Location is at 242 Quaker Road.
Existing Zoning is CI, Commercial Intensive. It’s a Type II SEQRA. Project Description:
Applicant proposes conversion from current use [restaurant] to branch bank facility to
including drive-through teller, ATM machine, façade and internal changes and
associated site work. Change of use in the CI zone requires Site Plan review and
approval. Staff Comments: The applicant has received an area variance on September
16, 2009. The Planning Board had issued a positive recommendation to the Zoning
Board of Appeals concerning Area Variance 43-2009 on September 10, 2009 (see
attached). I do want to note that a reduction of 2,505 square feet or 10.5 % of
impervious area will be removed as part of this proposal. This appears to be
accomplished with the removal of existing macadam used for parking spaces and drive
aisles. Note: This percentage will change as the existing interconnect must remain, and
after that follows Site Plan Review. I do want to state that further delving into the Site
Plan of Denny’s, it is a condition of approval for the Par Family Restaurants, which is
what it was called at the time, to have that interconnect in there, and you do have Fire
Marshal comments associated with that, and with that I’d turn it over to the Board.
MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. Thank you. Good evening.
MR. JACKOSKI-Mr. Chairman, upon advice of Town Counsel and in the intent of full
disclosure, I have used and plan to use some of the applicants professionals in the
future.
MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. Thank you. Good evening.
MR. KOWALCZYK-Good evening.
MR. HUNSINGER-The floor is yours. Did you have anything to add?
MR. KOWALCZYK-No. The only comment that I would add to Mr. Oborne’s comments
regarding the cross through, we’ve talked to the existing franchisee, who has advised us
that he does not benefit from that use at Denny’s, and understanding the Fire Marshal’s
comments, and we’re certainly concerned about the emergency aspect. However, I
would only re-visit with you for a moment that the proposed drive through lanes and the
ATM lane, going in a counterclockwise fashion around the renovated building, will be
heading directly into that cross over. So that, anyone using the cross over from Denny’s
4
(Queensbury Planning Board 9/22/09)
will be facing the cars coming out. So that could be a safety issue. We understand and
we would be more than willing to comply with the recommendations of signage on the
top of our canopy, right turn only at Denny’s, but I still do share with you that there is, we
have a safety concern there, and that we would probably monitor it and if it did have any
issues in the future, come back to you. We’re not resistive of the recommendation of the
Fire Marshal. We’re not resistive of the VISION Engineering, and we’re not resistive of
the Town comments, but we’d point out to you that we believe that has to be monitored
going forward from a safety standpoint.
MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. Anything else?
MR. KREBS-A question. If that’s part of the approval for where Denny’s is, was it also
part of the approval for the wrap shop and the gas station next to it? Because that went
all the way through there, so is that a requirement that all of that will have to stay there?
MR. OBORNE-It is not shown on the Site Plan, the interconnect through the gas station.
MR. KREBS-Okay.
MR. OBORNE-It is on the Denny’s, and I think it was called the Bagel Shack.
MR. KREBS-Yes, it was the bagel, Lox of Bagels, something like that.
MR. OBORNE-Yes. So that question would be no, the one at the gas station is not
required. Right now I believe they have a clothing drop boxes right there.
MR. KREBS-Right. Well, I also agreed, because Staff made the comment about not
having them, because people will then use that passageway to avoid the traffic light, and
I don’t think that make sense at all.
MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. So, just to clarify, the only interconnect that is really up in play
right now is the one between Denny’s and the proposal.
MR. OBORNE-Yes, sir.
MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. Other questions, comments from members of the Board?
MR. SEGULJIC-Did we have a lighting plan, I thought we did? I thought we did, and I
can’t put my fingers on it, though.
MR. OBORNE-There should be an 11 by 17 document.
MR. SEGULJIC-I thought I saw it.
MR. KOWALCZYK-We should call to the Board’s attention that it was called to the
Bank’s attention that there were questions regarding the lighting plan, and we have eight
copies with us of a revised lighting plan, and the revised lighting plan not only complies
with the State of New York banking requirements, but complies with your zoning, your
Code on lighting. We can hand it up to you now if you’d like, or we can follow your
directions on how you’d like to receive the lighting plan.
MR. HUNSINGER-Sure. What’s the feeling of the Board? I mean, we generally don’t
accept new information the night of the meeting, but.
MR. TRAVER-Right. Well, they could submit it to Staff and we could condition it anyway,
as part of the resolution, you know, their statement that they’re now in compliance. I
think that addresses the concern, because that is a residential area to the rear.
MR. HUNSINGER-Sure.
MR. SEGULJIC-I’m of the school that if they have a lighting plan, we can take a quick
look at it.
MR. HUNSINGER-Other comments? I mean, if that’s the only issue, I think I would tend
to agree with Tom.
MR. TRAVER-Yes.
5
(Queensbury Planning Board 9/22/09)
MR. SEGULJIC-My only other question is then you’re proposing to put a tree in that
green space along Aviation? I believe that’s on one of your plans also. A new white oak.
MR. KOWALCZYK-Are you on the landscape plan?
MR. SEGULJIC-Yes.
MR. KOWALCZYK-Correct.
MR. SEGULJIC-Okay. So you’re enhancing the landscaping out there which is good.
All right. So, I mean, to me, the only issue, really, is the lighting, and I’d have no problem
with just looking at the lighting plan right now.
MR. HUNSINGER-Anyone have an objection?
MR. FORD-I would agree to that exception, as long as it’s noted that it is an exception.
MR. HUNSINGER-Okay.
MR. FORD-And it’s the only one.
MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. If you want to pass that out so we could take a look at it. That
would be great. So on the lighting plan that you just provided, the only real change is the
fixtures themselves, you reduced the wattage?
BRAD HALL
MR. HALL-What we did was we reduced the wattage of the light fixtures. We adjusted
the locations of them a little bit so that they would bring the lumens up to the required
amount, and really that’s about it.
MR. OBORNE-If I could have the gentleman identify himself for the record.
MR. HUNSINGER-Sure.
MR. HALL-Yes. I’m Brad Hall, NBT Bank Facilities Manager.
MR. HUNSINGER-Okay.
MR. SEGULJIC-I guess on the lighting plan, my only comment is you have that one
number in the southeast corner I guess it is, 33.96 or is that a?
MR. TRAVER-I see it. Yes, that’s got to be a typo. There’s two dots associated with that
number. That’s got to be an outlier.
MR. HUNSINGER-Yes.
MR. HALL-I’m sorry. Could you repeat where we’re looking?
MR. SEGULJIC-In the southeast corner I believe it is. In that quadrant there, you have a
foot candle, it says 33.98, and I’m not sure if that’s a typo or? It looks like there’s two got
overlaid.
MR. HALL-Yes. What that is is there’s two levels of lighting there. I believe it would be
3.9 and 3.8. With the New York State ATM lighting regulations, at a 30 foot radius, they
measure the light at five feet above grade. So one of those is the level at five feet above
grade, and the other light level is at grade.
MR. SEGULJIC-Okay. So that’s a typo then. Okay. All right. Other than that, I’m all
set.
MR. HUNSINGER-So where we see numbers that are close together, is that the
explanation on some of those other numbers as well?
MR. HALL-Yes.
MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. Any other questions, comments from members of the Board?
We do have a public hearing scheduled this evening. Is there anyone in the audience
that wants to address the Board on this application? I will open the public hearing.
6
(Queensbury Planning Board 9/22/09)
PUBLIC HEARING OPENED
MR. HUNSINGER-Are there any written comments, Keith?
MR. OBORNE-No, sir.
MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. Let the record show that there were no comments. I will close
the public hearing.
PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED
MR. HUNSINGER-Any other issues that we need to discuss or address?
MR. SEGULJIC-There are the engineering comments, which all look like technical
issues that could get addressed outside of this.
MR. TRAVER-And the issue of the grease trap.
MR. KOWALCZYK-Responding from the Bank’s standpoint, we will be happy to comply
with a conditional recommendation that the grease trap will be removed as part of the
construction process. I don’t recall whether that shows on the plan that it’s being
removed, but it will be removed. We intend on removing it.
MR. TRAVER-Sure.
MR. FORD-Don’t anticipate a need for that.
MR. KOWALCZYK-I hope not. That depends on how good the banking business is.
MR. SIPP-My only question is, where are you going to put the snow?
MR. KOWALCZYK-We intend, I understand, on the snow, I don’t recall my directions on
the map, but there is an area where we can gather snow on the southwest corner that
would be behind the Sunoco facility, and the Bank’s intent, literally, is to have the snow
removal contractor take snow off site at probably every storm, or every good snowfall,
because the site as designed, and we accept the question, the site as designed is tight
for keeping snow on site. So the intent is removing it.
MR. HUNSINGER-I think the only other outstanding item is the pass through with
Denny’s, and it was a condition of approval for Denny’s. What’s the feeling of the Board?
MR. SEGULJIC-Expound on it. So if there’s a condition for Denny’s, what options do we
have?
MR. TRAVER-Well, I can understand the concern of the applicant, but I think the Fire
Marshal’s comments are such that I would feel more comfortable leaving that
interconnect intact and handle it with signage, and the applicant has indicated they’d
monitor the situation and if they had evidence that it was a serious safety hazard, they
could let us know that, but hopefully there won’t be, hopefully it just won’t be a problem.
MR. KREBS-Also, what about using a temporary barrier, one that could be moved, you
know, some sort of temporary fencing that you put across it, so the people in the bank
wouldn’t be driving through there, but if an emergency vehicle came, you could
immediately move it.
MR. TRAVER-I don’t think the Fire Marshal would support that.
MR. KREBS-Okay.
MR. TRAVER-It’s a good suggestion, but for emergency services, I don’t think it would
work.
MR. KOWALCZYK-We gave consideration to that, and I didn’t comment on it when my
understanding was that the approval of Denny’s may have been conditioned on it, but
with that in mind, we would consider, and as a recommendation, and I’ve personally
seen it before in Florida, we would not erect curbing here, and we would plant foliage
that is approximately a maximum height of two feet, and the type of foliage being that
any vehicle that would go through the foliage would not be damaged, such that any
7
(Queensbury Planning Board 9/22/09)
emergency vehicle, whether it be police, fire, or ambulance, would be able to go through,
knowing where the area of the cross through is, without being damaged or prevented,
and it’s anticipated that the public, seeing the foliage in place, would not use it as a cross
over.
MR. TRAVER-I think the concern that I would have with that would be in the winter
months it would, in effect, become a barrier, Number One, and Number Two.
MR. KOWALCZYK-Agreed. We would be replacing the foliage or the bushes on
probably an annual basis, but we are still willing to accept a conditional recommendation
that we modify the plans to show the cross over. We’re willing to accept the signage,
and work with it.
MR. HUNSINGER-And that’s why I brought it up again, because it is not on the plan. So
it would have to be a condition.
MR. TRAVER-And I think consideration of some alternative like the foliage that you
recommend at the very least would require our asking again what the Fire Marshal’s
opinion was of that which would further delay the process, and I suspect they probably
would say thanks but no thanks. When we need it, we need it, and leave it open.
MR. KOWALCZYK-We are more than willing to, if you so concur, to accept a conditional
approval, and we will modify the plans immediately.
MR. SEGULJIC-So clarify that for me. The interconnect will remain in place, then?
MR. HUNSINGER-Yes.
MR. SEGULJIC-Okay, which I think is a good idea, because isn’t that what we want?
MR. HUNSINGER-I think so.
MR. SIPP-Yes.
MR. SEGULJIC-So we just have to have the plans revised to show the interconnect.
MR. HUNSINGER-Right.
MR. TRAVER-Would we need a signoff from the Fire Marshal or would the modification
of the plans reflecting existing conditions with the interconnect be sufficient?
MR. OBORNE-That’s fine, the latter.
MR. TRAVER-Okay.
MR. SEGULJIC-And that’s in the southeast corner of the site, then?
MR. OBORNE-Southeast, yes.
MR. SEGULJIC-So I’m going to say existing interconnect in southeast corner.
MR. TRAVER-Right.
MR. HUNSINGER-Does that impact the tree plantings at all?
MR. KOWALCZYK-I don’t believe so. It’s low shrubbery there, I believe.
MR. HUNSINGER-There’s a white oak and a white pine.
MR. HALL-Yes, there’s a white oak through that area. We’ll relocate that.
MR. HUNSINGER-You’ll just have to slide it. Okay.
MR. SEGULJIC-So I should note that, then, in the motion?
MR. OBORNE-I think that we could probably handle that at the final submittal. I do want
to ask if white oak is considered a salt tolerant species, though. Yes? You’re the
resident expert.
8
(Queensbury Planning Board 9/22/09)
MR. SIPP-Yes.
MR. OBORNE-Excellent.
MR. SEGULJIC-Then the only other issue is the lighting plan that was submitted tonight.
Do I have to make some mention of that, since it’s been submitted?
MR. HUNSINGER-Since it’s been submitted.
MR. SEGULJIC-It’s part of the record.
MR. HUNSINGER-It becomes part of the record.
MR. OBORNE-It is part of the record. It is so notated on this submittal. If the Board is
comfortable with the lighting, I do notice that it’s still a little hot, but if you’re comfortable
with the lighting, then we’ll just move forward with the condition that the lighting, as
submitted at the meeting, is okay.
MR. HUNSINGER-Could you clarify your comment, Keith? Where do you think it’s a
little hot?
MR. OBORNE-Well, just looking at the Code, entrances should be five foot candles. I’m
looking at 9.8 in the front, 7.4 in that general area. I see a 10.4 off to the bottom of the
page in the middle. It’s on the end of the world. There is some bleed over coming over,
especially down by where the interconnect is proposed, or exists, I should say. It’s not
smoking, but, you know, it’s a little bright.
MR. KREBS-But aren’t we also looking at the Quaker Road side, so it’s not like that light
is going to go into a residential area, and at the back of the property, you have a fair
distance, then you have that pond before you get to the next property. So you’d have to
have a lot of light to get to the eventual residents that are going to be.
MR. OBORNE-Right. I need to anticipate what the future is going to hold for that
property to the south also, and there seems to be a big enough buffer. I’m not overly
concerned about it, I just want to point out to the Board that it is a little hot.
MR. KREBS-Yes.
MR. HUNSINGER-One of the concerns that I have is, well, we see it often now with the
new lighting plan, is you see a compliant site next door or across the street in this case
from a non-compliant site, you know, one that fell under the old Code, and I think all of us
would admit that, you know, Lowe’s is way over lit, and so.
MR. OBORNE-It is a marked difference. Certainly.
MR. HUNSINGER-Any other members have concerns or comments on the lighting plan?
MR. FORD-I just want to get confirmation that the height of the main ID pole is under 20
feet, 19 feet four and three quarter inches above grade, maximum height, and how do
the lumens of that, because that’s an internally illuminated sign, is that fully compliant
with Code?
MR. OBORNE-An internally illuminated sign?
MR. FORD-How bright will that be?
MR. OBORNE-There’s, it’s so minimal. Give me a second. There is no foot candles for
signs. Typically they are not very bright.
MR. FORD-Well, that’s reassuring.
MR. OBORNE-If you want to give me a second, I could delve into that and figure out
what the Sign Code says.
MR. FORD-Thank you.
MR. OBORNE-In a second. Illumination, as you can see, no bare lamps, bare bulbs, or
fluorescent tubes over 40 watts shall be allowed. No bare lamps or bare bulbs on strings
shall be allowed. That’s pretty much all it says about that. Forty watts is your max.
9
(Queensbury Planning Board 9/22/09)
MR. HUNSINGER-So if it’s in the Code, I don’t know that we need to specify that.
MR. FORD-And your plan calls for?
MR. OBORNE-Denote the bulb wattages.
MR. KOWALCZYK-The plan does not show the wattage, but we are happy, as part of the
conditional approval, to indicate that the illuminated sign will not exceed the wattage of
the Code.
MR. OBORNE-Absolutely.
MR. FORD-Thank you.
MR. SEGULJIC-Should we state that?
MR. OBORNE-Absolutely.
MR. HUNSINGER-So I think we have, it sounds like we have four conditions.
MR. SEGULJIC-Well, we have the sign along Aviation not to exceed 40 watts. Is that
correct? And then address VISION Engineering comments.
MR. HUNSINGER-Yes.
MR. SEGULJIC-Remove existing grease trap.
MR. HUNSINGER-Yes, and then the interconnect.
MR. SEGULJIC-And then the Planning Board accepts the lighting plan as submitted at
tonight’s meeting, and then the interconnect.
MR. HUNSINGER-Yes, and the interconnect. It’s a Type II action so no SEQRA review
is required.
MR. SEGULJIC-Okay.
MR. HUNSINGER-So whenever you’re ready.
MR. SEGULJIC-Were there waiver requests? In the motion prepared by Staff, I think
this is standard, though, it says waiver requests, stormwater management, grading,
landscaping and lighting.
MR. HALL-I think initially there may have been a waiver request, but when we did the
stormwater report, we followed up with topography, and there’s landscaping there. So I
think they’re gone.
MR. OBORNE-They’ve addressed all those.
MR. SEGULJIC-So that does not apply. Okay.
MOTION TO APPROVE SITE PLAN NO. 48-2009 NBT BANK, N.A., Introduced by
Thomas Seguljic who moved for its adoption, seconded by Thomas Ford:
13)A site plan application has been made to the Queensbury Planning Board for the
following: Applicant proposes conversion from current use [restaurant] to branch
bank facility, including drive-through teller and ATM machine. Change of use in
the CI zone requires Site Plan review and approval.
14)A public hearing was advertised and held on 9/22/09; and
15)This application is supported with all documentation, public comment and
application material in the file of record;
16)MOTION TO APPROVE SITE PLAN NO. 48-2009 NBT BANK, N.A., Introduced
by Thomas Seguljic who moved for its adoption, seconded by Thomas Ford:
10
(Queensbury Planning Board 9/22/09)
17)In accordance with the resolution prepared by Staff. Number 4A complies,
Number Four B is not applicable. Number Four G is not applicable:
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, no further SEQRA review is necessary; and
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)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)NOT APPLICABLE. Waiver requests granted / denied
h)The limits of clearing will constitute a no-cut buffer zone, orange
construction fencing shall be installed around these areas and field
verified by Community Development staff
i)All lights to be downcast / cutoff fixtures. All fixtures shall be inspected by
Community Development Staff for compliance prior to installation
j)Engineering sign-off required prior to signature of Zoning Administrator.
k)The applicant shall submit a copy of a NOI [Notice of Intent] SWPPP
[Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan] & NOT [Notice of Termination] -
see staff
l)The applicant shall submit a copy of a NYS SPDES [State Pollution
Discharge Elimination System]
m)If curb cuts are being added or changed a driveway permit is required. A
building permit will not be issued until the approved driveway permit has
been provided to the Planning Office.
n)Approved in accordance with the following conditions:
1.That the illuminated sign along Aviation Road shall not exceed 40
watts.
2.That the applicant shall address VISION Engineering comments.
3.That the existing on site grease trap shall be removed.
4.That the Planning Board accepts the lighting plan as submitted at the
September 22, 2009 meeting.
5.That the plan shall be revised to show the existing interconnect in the
southeast corner of the site.
nd
Duly adopted this 22 day of September, 2009, by the following vote:
AYES: Mr. Sipp, Mr. Traver, Mr. Krebs, Mr. Jackoski, Mr. Seguljic, Mr. Ford,
Mr. Hunsinger
NOES: NONE
MR. HUNSINGER-You’re all set. Good luck.
11
(Queensbury Planning Board 9/22/09)
MR. KOWALCZYK-Thank you very much.
MR. HUNSINGER-You’re welcome.
SITE PLAN 49-2009 SEQR TYPE UNLISTED D & G MANAGEMENT LLC AGENT(S)
VAN DUSEN & STEVES OWNER(S) SAME ZONING CLI LOCATION SOUTH SIDE
SHERMAN AVENUE OPPOSITE LUPINE LANE APPLICANT PROPOSES
CONSTRUCTION OF A 6,000 SQUARE FOOT LIGHT INDUSTRIAL BUILDING. NEW
COMMERCIAL CONSTRUCTION IN THE CLI ZONE REQUIRES SITE PLAN REVIEW
AND APPROVAL. CROSS REFERENCE AV 45-09 WARREN CO. PLANNING 9/9/09
LOT SIZE 4.12 ACRES TAX MAP NO. 309.5-1-1.2 SECTION 179-9-010
MR. HUNSINGER-And as we know they did not receive their variance from the Zoning
Board. So they have requested that they be tabled. Is there anyone in the audience that
is here for that item this evening? Okay. How do we deal with that? Because
technically we can’t review the Site Plan, because they didn’t get their variance.
MR. OBORNE-We have no Site Plan, basically.
MR. HUNSINGER-Yes, exactly.
MR. OBORNE-And so it would have been tabled regardless.
MR. HUNSINGER-Right.
MR. OBORNE-So how you deal with it is pretty much you table it pending Area Variance
approval.
MR. HUNSINGER-Yes. Did you have comments for the Board, sir?
AUDIENCE MEMBER-Yes. Now you’re talking about the 52 Main, right?
MR. OBORNE-No.
AUDIENCE MEMBER-I’m sorry.
MR. OBORNE-No, that’s Dobert.
MR. HUNSINGER-Okay.
MR. OBORNE-That’s fine.
MR. HUNSINGER-So do we need a motion to table it?
MR. OBORNE-Yes.
MR. HUNSINGER-Or is it automatically tabled since they don’t have a?
MR. OBORNE-Well, I think you should go through and make it clean, if you could.
MR. HUNSINGER-Are they going back before the Zoning Board?
MR. OBORNE-They have not decided what they’re going to do at this point. I think that’s
the crux of the problem is they don’t know exactly what they’re going to do and the
Zoning Board was not comfortable with granting them a variance on a plan that was
nebulous.
MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. So we can’t even really table it. Because we don’t know when
we’d be tabling it to.
MR. OBORNE-Pending Area Variance approval, or withdrawal.
MR. HUNSINGER-Yes. Okay.
MR. SEGULJIC-All right.
MOTION TO TABLE SITE PLAN NO. 49-2009 D & G MANAGEMENT LLC, Introduced
by Thomas Seguljic who moved for its adoption, seconded by Donald Sipp:
12
(Queensbury Planning Board 9/22/09)
1)A site plan application has been made to the Queensbury Planning Board for the
following: Applicant proposes construction of a 6,000 square foot light industrial
building. New commercial construction in the CLI zone requires Site Plan review
and approval.
2)A recommendation was made to the Zoning Board of Appeals on 9/10/09;
subsequent to that the Zoning Board tabled this application to their first
November Zoning Board meeting [resolution attached]; and
3)A public hearing was advertised for 9/22/09, the public hearing was opened and
will remain open; and
4)MOTION TO TABLE SITE PLAN NO. 49-2009 D & G MANAGEMENT LLC,
Introduced by Thomas Seguljic who moved for its adoption, seconded by Donald
Sipp:
In accordance with the resolution prepared by Staff. The Site Plan shall be
tabled until the applicant obtains an Area Variance from the Zoning Board.
nd
Duly adopted this 22 day of September, 2009, by the following vote:
AYES: Mr. Ford, Mr. Jackoski, Mr. Krebs, Mr. Traver, Mr. Seguljic, Mr. Sipp,
Mr. Hunsinger
NOES: NONE
MR. HUNSINGER-Okay.
SITE PLAN 50-2009 SEQR TYPE UNLISTED STEWARTS SHOPS CORP.
AGENT(S) JENNIFER HOWARD OWNER(S) LINDA BARBER, ALYSSA BARBER-
DAWKINS ZONING CM LOCATION 1002 ROUTE 9 APPLICANT PROPOSES
CONSTRUCTION OF A 5,022 SQUARE FOOT STORE WITH A BANK RENTAL. NEW
COMMERCIAL CONSTRUCTION IN THE CM ZONE REQUIRES PLANNING BOARD
REVIEW AND APPROVAL. CROSS REFERENCE AV 47-09 WARREN CO.
PLANNING 9/9/09 LOT SIZE 0.51, 0.50, 0.51 ACRES TAX MAP NO. 296.13-1-63, 64,
65 SECTION 179-9-010, 179-7-010
TOM LEWIS, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT
MR. OBORNE-Site Plan 50-2009, Stewarts Shops, new commercial construction in the
HC-Mod zone requires Planning Board review and approval. That’s Highway
Commercial Moderate. Location is 1002 Route 9. Existing zoning is Highway
Commercial Moderate. SEQRA Status is an Unlisted SEQRA. Project Description:
Applicant proposes construction of a 5,022 square foot store with a bank rental. Staff
Comments: The applicant obtained a positive recommendation from the Planning Board
to the Zoning Board of Appeals concerning travel corridor setback relief per §179-4-030
for the gas island canopy associated with this site plan on September 10, 2009. The
applicant has received approval from the ZBA for A.V. 47-2009. You’ve already seen
this plan once before, in a cursory fashion. Plan review follows, and I’d turn it over to the
Board.
MR. HUNSINGER-Thank you. Good evening.
MR. JACKOSKI-Mr. Chairman, upon advice of Town Counsel and with the intent of full
disclosure, I have a contractual relationship with a property that is very close to this
parcel.
MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. Thank you. The floor is yours, Mr. Lewis.
MR. LEWIS-Hi there. I’m Tom Lewis. I’m the Real Estate representative of the Stewarts
Shops. Do you want me to go over the whole Site Plan? I think you guys know it. You
can see on the board right over there that we’re proposing a Stewarts Shop, not a typical
Stewarts Shop. I want to thank the Board. When we were before you for the site at
Quaker and Dix, we had asked to have consideration that we do a mansard roof, that we
love our mansard roof, but in this case, we did not do that. So, I mean, we do remember
that. So we have a nicer design, so I would say that it’s not a typical shop. Our building
size is 3,024 square feet. We have a rental bank of 1998. There’s a drive through.
We’ve got four MPD’s. We’ll go over later, I think, one of the comments was about the
internal circulation, and we’ll certainly go over that after I hear the Board’s comments.
13
(Queensbury Planning Board 9/22/09)
It’s nicely landscaped. It’s a very large site which, in spite of that we needed an Area
Variance. We got the Area Variance. It’s got 300 foot of road frontage, which was
outstanding of us. So, I mean, it’s very easy, you know, access here, and here. We’ve
applied to DOT. We see no difficulty with the cuts. Here is our drainage area. Our
dumpster is back here, and that’s basically it. I wish I could make it more complicated,
but it’s really not.
MR. HUNSINGER-Did you have any comments on any of the Staff comments or
engineering comments?
MR. LEWIS-Sure. Let’s deal with what we consider the major one, which is the internal
circulation, and I’ll hand out a visual which will make more sense than words. Okay.
Now, if you’ll go along with me on this, like you see on Diagram One. Okay. So, the
diagram on, this is what we’re asking for, and you’ll see that there are cars entering from
the south heading north. There are cars entering from the north heading south. You’ll
see up in the upper right hand it says below the canopy and above the canopy, and I’ll
show you what that means. If a car enters in here on the south, they could either go
below the canopy or they could go above the canopy. So that’s what that means. Okay.
Now we’ll go to Diagram Two, and that’ll show a boat in tow for a motor home, and you’ll
see how both of those work, and what we’re asking for. If we go to Diagram Number
Three, this would be if they were all facing the same way. Now, I’d just like to ask the
Board to give some serious thought to, when you have over 300 stores, and you get
sued a lot for accidents that happen in the lot, it is at least as much in our interest to
make it as safe internally as it is the responsibility of this Board to protect the public.
Why would we want to do anything different? So now you go to Three, and you’ll see the
one on the left. There’s someone who goes above, and you’ll see it is a more
complicated way how to get in than going underneath it below, but then you look on the
right, and you’ll see that’s actually what people will do. When all four face the same way,
there are less internal options, in addition to which when a car has its gas either on the
passenger’s side or the driver’s side makes a difference. Most people just wouldn’t think
about this. When you go to get gas in a gas station whatever it is, Mobil, Hess, Stewarts,
you don’t really think about, you know, but you do think, I have to pump on the
passenger’s side, and so there’s, you know, you could only go where there’s a pump
open. So, if all four of them go in parallel, you’re limiting the options. Now let’s go to
Diagram Four, and besides regular cars, now the motor home doesn’t fit and the car in
tow doesn’t fit. Now, we had to ask for a 47% front yard variance, and even though the
lot is 211 feet wide, which is a pretty big lot for us, even if we hadn’t gotten that variance,
we’d have needed an Area Variance in the rear setback, and so my point of this is, that
in order to make Diagram Four work, we’d have to have asked for even more of a
variance, besides the fact which that it makes the internal circulation more confused and
limited. Now if you go to the next page and you’ll see five, that’s an existing shop that we
did, I think, three years ago in the Town of New Scotland, and that’s exactly the same
thing we’re asking for here. Our point of showing you this is it works. If it didn’t work, we
wouldn’t want to do it, and then if you go to Page Six, because one of the Zoning Board
members, no, that would be Page Seven, Page Six, just shows the same entrance
pattern, but there’s only three pumps rather than four, but the same rule applied here. It
is because of where the two entrance ways are. So now, if you go to our last page,
Number Seven, a Zoning Board member asked me, rightfully, well, wait a minute, I’ve
gotten gas at Exit 16, and so how come they’re all facing the same way there? The
same rule applies, but this is on a corner lot, and so you’ll see here, on Page Number
Seven, whether you’re going in from Ballard Road or Traver Road, you’ve got eight
fueling possibilities, or four on the left side, four on the right side, depending where your
gas tank is. So I hope this Board will see our way to accepting what we’ve offered.
There’s also a loose eight and a half by eleven sheet in there. The owners of the land
did a very good job getting each and every contiguous owner to sign a letter that has
been handed in to the Board, in support of our project. So how does the Board feel
about the pumps?
MR. HUNSINGER-Questions, comments from members of the Board?
MR. SIPP-Where is your sign going to be located?
MR. LEWIS-The sign is on the north end, let me show you on the big one. Right there.
MR. SIPP-Okay. Now on one sheet I found the sign to be, I think it’s the front, the sign
was a total of 15 feet high.
MR. LEWIS-Correct.
14
(Queensbury Planning Board 9/22/09)
MR. SIPP-Now, internally, I found another height of a sign that approached 24 feet I
think.
MR. LEWIS-No, it would be 15. No, we wouldn’t do 24.
MR. SIPP-All right. So it will be 15.
MR. LEWIS-Yes. Yes, that would be overkill.
MR. SIPP-How about snow removal?
MR. LEWIS-Huge lot, not a problem. I mean, just looking at here, it would be pushed,
more than likely, on the north and the south. I mean, this is a spacious lot.
MR. SIPP-All right. I think you’ve got to have a little more landscaping in here. You have
none on the back, and though you’ll have about 190 or 200 feet distance between the lot
and the nearest house, almost all those trees are deciduous trees. When the leaves are
off in the wintertime, are the headlights going to be shining in these people’s houses?
MR. LEWIS-It is over 237 feet, or 231 feet to the nearest house. That said, we’ll be
happy to either do landscaping along the back or a fence. It wouldn’t make sense to do
both.
MR. SIPP-I mean, you don’t have very much room there.
MR. LEWIS-Yes. There’s enough room for landscaping or a fence.
MR. SIPP-And you’ve got cars driving around that, and maybe a fence would be your
best idea.
MR. LEWIS-I’ll leave that up to the Board.
MR. SIPP-Now, what color, are we going to have a standard Stewart’s color scheme?
MR. LEWIS-Yes, you know, like the maroon, this, I think it’s on the sign.
MR. SIPP-No, I mean for the building itself.
MR. LEWIS-It’s like the one that’s in Lake George. Have you seen that one?
MR. SIPP-Yes.
MR. LEWIS-So it’s sort of a grayish, and it blends in.
MR. SIPP-That’s very effective, the one in Lake George. I like the color.
MR. LEWIS-We do, too. We’ve gotten a lot of nice comments on it.
MR. SIPP-I would hope that you would do the same thing here.
MR. LEWIS-Yes. No, that’s basically what this is. The roof is shaped a little differently
because of how the lot’s set.
MR. SIPP-Now, what is this structure here, at the end of the gas pump island?
MR. LEWIS-That’s the underground storage tanks.
MR. SIPP-Okay.
MR. LEWIS-Those little two rectangles there.
MR. SIPP-Yes.
MR. LEWIS-Yes, that’s where they’ll drop the gas.
MR. SIPP-Okay, but I would like either on the north, on the south end, a little more
landscaping. You’re pretty tight to the Chinese restaurant there, and maybe not
necessary there, but I think there is very little screen on the north end, between you and
the Sweet Basil’s.
15
(Queensbury Planning Board 9/22/09)
MR. LEWIS-Yes, I mean, that’s where our drainage area is, but we’ll certainly do, you
know, landscaping all around it. I mean, they show.
MR. SIPP-I mean, their dumpster is, three-fourths of the time, is outside the shed. So it
shows rather, would show through what little screening you have there, and the amount
of landscaping.
MR. LEWIS-Those are sugar maples, but we have a dozen of them showing there.
MR. SIPP-Yes, but again, wintertime, you have no screen. Some kind of conifer, I think,
would be good in that area, to break up between you and the restaurant.
MR. LEWIS-Okay.
MR. SIPP-That’s it.
MR. SEGULJIC-Now, I’ll carry on with the landscaping because, and Staff can jump in
and clarify this. They’re required to have a 50 foot buffer along the back.
MR. OBORNE-It is a Type C buffer, that is correct.
MR. SEGULJIC-Right. So the Code says a 50 foot buffer.
MR. OBORNE-Well, the Planning Board has the ability to waive that.
MR. SEGULJIC-Okay, but apparently you don’t have the room for a 50 foot buffer.
MR. LEWIS-You are correct.
MR. SEGULJIC-How much room do you have?
MR. LEWIS-Twenty-four feet from the edge of the blacktop, and then there’s another five
feet. So there’s 29 feet there, but, I mean, the non blacktop area is only about five feet.
MR. SEGULJIC-So can we put some type of evergreens back there or something?
MR. LEWIS-Well, what I asked the Board is, let’s either do landscaping all along it or a
fence all long it.
MR. SEGULJIC-Personally I like trees.
MR. LEWIS-The Board’s option.
MR. SEGULJIC-Okay, well, that’s my opinion on that, and then let’s talk about the front
of the site. I’ll turn to Staff once again. Do they have to have a tree every 35 feet I think
it is?
MR. OBORNE-I believe it is every 35 feet.
MR. SEGULJIC-I don’t have my scale with me. I’m not sure what you have there, but
you had indicated it’s 300 feet along there, and you only have two trees, if I’m correct.
MR. LEWIS-Well, certainly we always want to meet the Code if we can.
MR. SEGULJIC-I think you owe me some trees.
MR. LEWIS-Okay. We’ll do whatever the Code says. We’ll do it with a smile.
MR. SEGULJIC-Okay. I mean, as far as the, I don’t know if anyone’s here to comment
from the public, but to me it makes sense to put some type of evergreen screening back
there, but we’ll see what the public has to say.
MR. HUNSINGER-Any other questions, comments from the members of the Board?
MR. JACKOSKI-Keith, earlier in the meeting, the applicant mentioned that there was a
signoff by all the surrounding land owners regarding the plan. Did we actually get a
copy, have we seen that?
16
(Queensbury Planning Board 9/22/09)
MR. OBORNE-Yes, it’s in the file.
MR. LEWIS-I have copies here if you want one. I have a few of them. It’s kind of rare.
MR. OBORNE-Do you want to see it?
MR. HUNSINGER-No, that’s okay.
MR. JACKOSKI-If you said we got it, that’s okay, but they saw it without the landscaping
buffer or the fence buffer.
MR. LEWIS-What was here.
MR. HUNSINGER-Anything else from the Board? We do have a public hearing
scheduled this evening. Is there anyone in the audience that wants to address the Board
on this project? Any written comments, Keith?
PUBLIC HEARING OPENED
MR. OBORNE-No.
MR. HUNSINGER-Okay.
MR. OBORNE-With the exception of that letter that was handed out to the neighbors.
MR. HUNSINGER-Right.
MR. OBORNE-Would you like me to read that into the record?
MR. HUNSINGER-Yes, because I don’t know if we actually got a copy of that.
MR. OBORNE-You probably did not.
MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. So if we could have that read into the record. So were all the
letters the same?
MR. LEWIS-Yes.
MR. HUNSINGER-Okay.
MR. OBORNE-I do have one from Frank Parillo, Stewarts Shop proposed construction of
a facility in Queensbury on Route 9 between China Town and Sweet Basil, property
currently owned by Linda Barber and Alyssa Barber Dawkins. “To Whom It May
Concern: I support the construction of a facility by Stewarts Shop and the subject
location.” Signed Frank Parillo. Did you just hand out the?
MR. LEWIS-Yes. Just one of each, though, the same one that I gave in the Zoning
Board packet.
MR. OBORNE-And dated September 8, 2009, Town of Queensbury Planning and
Zoning Boards. We have subject Stewarts Shop proposed construction, same form
letter. We have Monty Liu from China Town Restaurant in support. Jay Fazio, and if I’m
butchering anybody’s name, I apologize, Sweet Basil Restaurant, Donna Sutton from
Suttons Marketplace, which is a bit north, Jay Fazio again, Michelle Persons, 171
Montray. There are a few others. I believe there’s two more. Diana Martin, 151
Montray. John Arnold, 147, and Mark Sullivan on 143 Montray.
MR. HUNSINGER-Okay, thank you. So if no one wants to address the Board, I will close
the public hearing. I’m sorry.
PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED
JOHN STROUGH
MR. STROUGH-John Strough, Queensbury. Now I came a little bit late, and I
understand, and it’s great, that Stewarts up in Lake George is really very stylish and very
classy, and I’ve got to congratulate Stewarts for coming up with that, but the gas canopy
is very Adirondack looking, and not, you know, blazing neon and everything else is, and
17
(Queensbury Planning Board 9/22/09)
I’m sorry, again, for coming in late, but is the design that they’re proposing similar to
this? And I will pass this picture up there. Is it? Fantastic. Very good.
MR. LEWIS-Okay. Mr. Strough, thank you very much. I remember you when you were
on the Planning Board.
MR. STROUGH-Thanks.
MR. HUNSINGER-He still has an eye for good design.
MR. LEWIS-I know that. We’re very slow learners, but we usually get there.
MR. HUNSINGER-Anything else from members of the Board? Questions, comments?
MR. SEGULJIC-Let’s look at the lighting plan one more time.
MR. HUNSINGER-I was going to ask if we resolved the landscaping.
MR. LEWIS-Well, no, I didn’t hear, fence or landscaping.
MR. KREBS-I think something like a row of arborvitae that doesn’t grow very big,
diameter wise, but would grow tall and really be opaque, would prevent light, all year
round, from going into the lots in the back.
MR. HUNSINGER-And where would you want those?
MR. KREBS-Center them in that 29, or 22 foot piece that goes all the way across the
back of the lot.
MR. LEWIS-Well, at the very end, in that five foot piece.
MR. KREBS-Or in the five foot piece, yes.
MR. LEWIS-Yes.
MR. FORD-I like that idea.
MR. HUNSINGER-So where the, just where the wall is shown on the plan?
MR. KREBS-I was looking at it across the back of the property, so on the east side of the
property, just all the way across in that open space. There’s a wall here, but all of this,
all the way across would be nice, because then every one of these lots in the back, when
there’s light coming through, people going around the back of the building, you’re not
going to get that into the lots behind it.
MR. HUNSINGER-Right.
MR. FORD-If it’s paved between Route 9 and the neighbors, that’s where they should
go, off the pavement, anywhere there’s pavement.
MR. KREBS-Yes, but this is Montray Road and this is where the residents are.
MR. LEWIS-No problem.
MR. SEGULJIC-So what about, should we consider an interconnect, show one on the
plans?
MR. OBORNE-Tom, you are correct, it is 35 feet.
MR. SEGULJIC-What’s that in the Code, if I may ask?
MR. OBORNE-What the number is?
MR. SEGULJIC-Yes, so then I can cite it.
MR. OBORNE-It’s in 179-8. Let me get you the exact.
MR. SEGULJIC-060?
18
(Queensbury Planning Board 9/22/09)
MR. OBORNE-179-8-060. Correct.
MR. SEGULJIC-Excuse me, Keith 179?
MR. OBORNE-Eight.
MR. SEGULJIC-Eight, 060?
MR. OBORNE-060. Do you have the new Code?
MR. SEGULJIC-I have the new Code.
MR. OBORNE-And is that nine, on the landscaping?
MR. SEGULJIC-179-9-060 in the new Code is fees.
MR. KREBS-What I’m looking at is 179-8-060, is types of buffer zones between uses.
MR. SEGULJIC-I think this is the new one. Where is it 35 feet?
MR. OBORNE-Okay. As you see up here, type of buffers between uses, okay, and what
you do is you go down and exterior landscape parking lots, 35 feet from all (lost words).
MR. SEGULJIC-So 179-9-060. Okay.
MR. OBORNE-Well, I have eight.
MR. SEGULJIC-Eight. Sorry. I’m having trouble.
MR. LEWIS-We will match whatever’s in the Code.
MR. OBORNE-I have no doubt.
MR. SEGULJIC-Okay. So we have the engineering comments, which, there’s 12 of
them. In looking at them, they all seem to be pretty technical in nature that can get
addressed, I think.
MR. LEWIS-We’ll satisfy all twelve of them.
MR. HUNSINGER-Yes, it’s mostly regarding stormwater, and clarifying infiltration rates.
Was there anything in particular that you were concerned about, Tom?
MR. SEGULJIC-In the engineering comments?
MR. HUNSINGER-Yes.
MR. SEGULJIC-The only thing that would, might facilitate some type of design change at
the site would be the comment about, it talks about upgrading stormwater coming on
site, it appears property, on Number Five, it appears properties to the south discharge
runoff to this site which will require mitigation and inclusion in device sizing, which I think
you should be able to handle, and if any of these comments require a design change,
you’d have to come back for a modification I assume, correct?
MR. OBORNE-Yes, a design change, sure, if there’s any to the internal parking.
MR. SEGULJIC-Right. Because it seems like all of these are relatively minor and they
can be handled, and if they require some design change, you’d have to have a Site Plan
modification, then.
MR. OBORNE-Yes, absolutely.
MR. SEGULJIC-Okay.
MR. OBORNE-If there are any site changes concerning parking, building location, and
how that, this proposal affects the land, yes.
MR. SEGULJIC-Okay.
19
(Queensbury Planning Board 9/22/09)
MR. OBORNE-I suspect there’ll be some design changes to the stormwater devices and
the like, maybe not the devices, but at least the controls.
MR. SEGULJIC-The sizing of them.
MR. OBORNE-Right. Winter infiltration.
MR. SEGULJIC-But that won’t affect the Site Plan modification.
MR. OBORNE-One would hope not.
MR. SEGULJIC-Okay. All right.
MR. FORD-We want to assure that the regional traffic engineer from DOT, those
comments get addressed as well.
MR. LEWIS-Of course.
MR. SEGULJIC-I guess what is the will of the Board, then?
MR. HUNSINGER-I think everyone’s comfortable moving forward.
MR. SEGULJIC-Okay.
MR. HUNSINGER-It’s an Unlisted action. So we do have to do SEQRA.
MR. OBORNE-I want to make sure that the Board is comfortable with the attitude and/or
positioning of the gas islands. That is a concern of mine. I think there are vehicular
conflicts, potentially. I was almost won over by Tom’s presentation. However, I still do
have concerns. I think the access, the two cantilevered islands, is minimal, if you look at
it, again. I just want to just bring that to the Board’s attention that Staff does have a
concern about that.
MR. HUNSINGER-Yes. Just in thinking through, even before Tom’s presentation, my
wife’s car and my car has the gas on different sides. So, I frequently have to think about
which side I’m going to, you know, where as you commented, most people don’t think
about it. You just go to the side that your gas tank is on, but if you compare what they’ve
proposed with say just down the street, the Cumberland Farms site, I think having them
straight on causes more problems because you have to turn harder, and I think having
the angles like that would make, you know, makes it easier, because, I mean, we’re lazy
by nature, and we’re not going to turn the steering wheel harder than we have to.
MR. FORD-Better than four in parallel?
MR. HUNSINGER-Well, that’s what I’m saying, down the street, Cumberland Farms,
they have four in parallel, but they’re perpendicular to the road.
MR. OBORNE-Well, my issue is that if you look at the way that they’re positioned, the
distance between the two points, at where they’re positioned, is quite minimal, and the
way they depict the cars, I mean, they’re almost bumper to bumper. To me, it’s intrinsic
that there’s an issue there.
MR. HUNSINGER-You mean the two middle ones?
MR. OBORNE-Yes.
MR. HUNSINGER-So you think they should be spaced further apart?
MR. OBORNE-I do, yes.
MR. HUNSINGER-Okay.
MR. LEWIS-Well, the difficulty there is that when, it’s funny how precise the designer
gets when I’ll say things like that, and there’s more room there than there’s a fudge factor
of some third car. So if there’s one facing this way and there’s one facing this way, and
they’re further apart, then some guy could go, you know, through the middle of it. I
mean, I’m not sure that’s a deal killer for us, if they’re a few feet further apart. We don’t
think that it’s needed, but, you know.
20
(Queensbury Planning Board 9/22/09)
MR. FORD-We can always go from four islands to three, as an option.
MR. LEWIS-Well, I’m sure you could do that, but we don’t want to do that here. What
usually happens in my home office, you know, I’ll get this sheet that says, you know,
change this, this is bad, you know, make this better, and I’ll show it to my designer, and I
always want to take the side of the letter, of the comments of the engineer, not the
Stewarts side, because, you know, in theory, in order to have me do my job, I have to be
able to understand where the nine of you are coming from, and so I’ll show them this,
you know, I’ll show them the letter, and I’ll say, well, look, you know, this car looks like if
it goes forward, and if the car next to it goes forward, the two cars are going to hit each
other, and so he looks at me and he says, Tom, you know, you could say that on Route
9, you know, I mean, two cars could hit each other on Route 9. We do assume that if the
two cars on the inside are facing this way, you know, and they’re both ready to go at the
same time, one guy’s going to let this guy go, and one guy’s going to let that guy. So, if, I
think we could probably move them a couple of feet. I don’t think that it’s really the best
design for the person in the car, the person driving. That would be something that I’d
have to go back to the home office and say, you know, can you live with this, but I would
ask the Board to accept it the way it is.
MR. FORD-And you find that superior to four parallel islands?
MR. LEWIS-In a lot shaped like this. If it was a corner lot, we want them all parallel, like
that seventh sheet that I showed you on there. It all depends how the lot’s configured.
That’s the only determining factor. It’s not more money. It’s not more people are going
to pump gas, you know, there are four MPD’s, there are four MPD’s. If it’s, what deters a
customer is if it’s confusing, if it’s hard to get in, if it’s hard to get out, you know, much
more than inside the lot, but some of our stores are so ridiculously small now, I mean,
we’d never build them anymore like that, and so there’s, we have a lot of locations where
people will not go inside because it’s a madhouse in there, it’s not safe.
MR. OBORNE-If I could quantify, you know, maybe this’ll help the Board. If you look on
Page S-3, the distance between the two pumps that are parallel to each other is 30 feet,
from point to point, and the two that cantilever towards each other are at 26 feet, four
feet, it’s not the end of the world, but it does seem to promote an issue.
MR. LEWIS-Are you going center to center?
MR. OBORNE-I’m going from the smallest point, from the top, it’s 26.
MR. LEWIS-So it’s not center to center?
MR. OBORNE-No, I wouldn’t do it from center to center, because I’m not measuring it
the same way on the other side. I’m doing it from point to point. It’s 30 feet, 30 feet, and
then in the center it’s 26 feet, as drawn. I mean, if you could push it out four feet, I’d be
tickled.
MR. HUNSINGER-You said they’re 26 feet apart?
MR. OBORNE-Yes.
MR. HUNSINGER-What’s the width of a normal road?
MR. OBORNE-Twenty-four, for a two lane.
MR. HUNSINGER-Yes.
MR. LEWIS-And the width of a car is about eight feet.
MR. OBORNE-But there aren’t gas islands in the middle of a road. That’s my issue.
MR. KREBS-How far is it from the island to the parking spaces?
MR. LEWIS-Thirty feet.
MR. JACKOSKI-Is it possible to spread the pumps apart without increasing the length,
the overall length of the canopy? Can you balance it out a little bit more internally?
MR. LEWIS-No, because we have the same relationship we’ve been talking about. I
mean, you could go to, there’s one store we built, doesn’t matter which, where we
21
(Queensbury Planning Board 9/22/09)
tightened them up, and cars were hitting the other car doors. There’s a set distance that
works. If we add an extra four feet, besides that then everything has to move out, you’re
just adding more than we believe is needed. Are we right all the time? No. Do I think
we’re right on this one? Yes, I think we are.
MR. TRAVER-What if you were to reduce the distance between the pumps that are
parallel on the outside, two feet in each direction, and that would give you four feet
between the pumps in the middle that are pointing toward each other.
MR. LEWIS-Yes, but that’s exactly what I just said that then you have car doors hitting
each other, if you bring them in closer together.
MR. TRAVER-But you’d still be 28 feet apart. They’re 30 feet apart now.
MR. LEWIS-Yes, from center to center.
MR. TRAVER-Right. So if you just take two feet off, you’re still 28 feet, right?
MR. LEWIS-Well, if the Board decides what they want, something other than this, let me
know what you want, and then I’ll have to go back and talk it over with the home office,
because we don’t like to hurt ourselves in that way. I’m not really trying to be obstinate
with the Board, you know, it’s got to be my way, but when you’re talking about internal
safety, and cars hitting each other, we get very sensitive to that.
MR. TRAVER-So it’s your belief and your representation to us that the design as
submitted represents a safe and efficient design?
MR. LEWIS-It’s the best we could possibly get, yes, and actually with a lot this big, we
have the flexibility for the optimum internal design. You can’t imagine how many
different, you know, machinations we go through on every single new site. I mean, Bill
Day goes through that thing, you know, any time I think I know what I’m talking about,
eight out of ten times, no, no, this is better, and he’s always right. He’s a very visual guy.
MR. HUNSINGER-Do you know what the distances are on these other ones that you
submitted? Like the New Scotland Road?
MR. LEWIS-I don’t know, but I’d be surprised if they’re not the same.
MR. FORD-There can only be one car on either side of the island at one time?
MR. LEWIS-Yes, you can have a maximum of eight cars, all pumping gas at the same
time.
MR. SEGULJIC-I don’t know if I can understand the issues, but I’m not an expert on
traffic or vehicle movement on sites. I went back and looked at VISION Engineering’s
comment letter. He didn’t comment on it at all. He said he did not perform a review for
that. So I feel like I’m kind of stuck in the middle here.
MR. LEWIS-We’d have no objection whatsoever to having your engineer look at them.
MR. SEGULJIC-Right. I was going to say, the easy way out of this is to punt. Have him
take a look at it and see what he has to say.
MR. LEWIS-Not a problem. If that would make the Board more comfortable, let’s do that.
MR. HUNSINGER-What’s the feeling of the Board?
MR. KREBS-I think they’ve got it with the way it is, but that’s my opinion.
MR. TRAVER-Yes, I mean, I can understand, looking at the numbers and, you know,
there’s different ways to configure it, but it’s my feeling that the applicant has considered
these issues and, after all, is going to be the one that’s dealing with fender benders that
happen on their property. So, I, you know, we could send them back to the drawing
board, but it’s my feeling, based on the representation of the applicant, that they wouldn’t
have designed it this way unless they felt that it would work. So I’m fine with it the way it
is.
MR. KREBS-In the many years that I’ve been getting gas at stations like this, I’ve never
seen all eight cars come in at one time and all eight cars leave at one time. So it’s not
22
(Queensbury Planning Board 9/22/09)
like you’re really looking at eight people. I mean, nobody finishes their gas exactly the
same time. So some go into the store and buy something, leave their car there for 10
minutes. It makes me mad because I’ve got to wait for them to get out.
MR. HUNSINGER-Anyone else have anything else to add?
MR. SIPP-If you increase the length of the island, to get the cars further apart, would this
increase the size of the canopy?
MR. LEWIS-Yes.
MR. SIPP-Well, I’m of the mind that I think that it’s their insurance problem, and I don’t
particularly care for that kind of arrangement, but.
MR. SEGULJIC-One other possibility, is it possible for us to condition this upon the
engineer reviewing it and indicating it’s adequate?
MR. HUNSINGER-Well, I mean, I don’t know what you, I mean, sure, we could do that,
but they’ve presented the drawings. I don’t know what he would look at, other than that.
MR. SEGULJIC-Well, he didn’t review it for that, though.
MR. HUNSINGER-Yes.
MR. FORD-It just came out tonight.
MR. SEGULJIC-As such, we have not performed any technical review including
comments regarding maneuvering, traffic, blah, blah, blah, blah.
MR. HUNSINGER-How come?
MR. OBORNE-Because we can handle it internally, with Staff.
MR. HUNSINGER-Okay.
MR. SEGULJIC-I feel like I’m stuck in the middle here, and as Tom had said earlier, I
believe you had said we have to look at that. Safety’s one of the things we need to look
at.
MR. HUNSINGER-So do you want to table it to have the engineer look at it, or just make
it a condition?
MR. SEGULJIC-I think that would be fine.
MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. Everyone is agreeable with that? Okay.
MR. SEGULJIC-All right. So, as I see it, we have address engineering comments, which
you have engineer review site.
MR. HUNSINGER-Site circulation, internal circulation. Internal traffic circulation.
MR. SEGULJIC-Internal circulation, especially at pump islands, and then we have the
condition about, we have that the landscaping shall be in accordance with applicable
zoning requirements, except for the Type C buffer along the eastern property line, where
an evergreen tree shall be planted every blank, from property line to property line.
MR. LEWIS-It was arborvitaes, right?
MR. HUNSINGER-Yes.
MR. OBORNE-I would denote size and spacing.
MR. HUNSINGER-That’s what he was looking for is spacing.
MR. SEGULJIC-Any comments on spacing?
MR. SIPP-Five feet on center.
MR. FORD-Five on center.
23
(Queensbury Planning Board 9/22/09)
MR. SIPP-And they’re going to grow together.
MR. TRAVER-And the deer will love it, too.
MR. SIPP-Well, to start with, you’ve got two years before it really takes off, it starts to
grow, and in the meantime, you get used to headlights. I would much rather see a fence
there that would cut the headlight problem than a few trees just to dress it up, but it’s not
a biggie.
MR. HUNSINGER-And do we want it property line to property line, or just along the
paved area?
MR. LEWIS-Well, I thought we had it where the blacktop area was. In other words, the
section where the drainage is, you know, there’s no cars allowed there.
MR. KREBS-Right.
MR. FORD-Assuming the cars are going to stay on the paved area, the east side of the
paved area, that’s where we want it, the arborvitae.
MR. LEWIS-From blacktop to blacktop.
MR. SEGULJIC-This is an Unlisted, is this?
MR. HUNSINGER-Yes, we have to do SEQRA, Short Form.
MR. SEGULJIC-Okay. “Does the action exceed any Type I threshold in 6 NYCRR Part
617.4?”
MR. HUNSINGER-No.
MR. FORD-No.
MRS. SEGULJIC-“Will the action receive coordinated review as provided for Unlisted
Actions in 6 NYCRR, Part 617.6?”
MR. HUNSINGER-No.
MR. FORD-No.
MRS. SEGULJIC-“Could the action result in any adverse effects associated with the
following: C1. Existing air quality, surface or ground water quality or quantity, noise
levels, existing traffic patterns, solid waste production or disposal, potential for erosion,
drainage or flooding problems?”
MR. HUNSINGER-No.
MR. KREBS-No.
MR. FORD-Well, I believe that the potential is there, but each of those issues is being
addressed successfully.
MRS. SEGULJIC-“C2. Aesthetic, agricultural, historic, or other natural or cultural
resources; or community or neighborhood character?”
MR. HUNSINGER-No.
MR. FORD-No.
MRS. SEGULJIC-“C3. Vegetation, fauna, fish, shellfish or wildlife species, significant
habitats, or threatened or endangered species?”
MR. HUNSINGER-No.
MR. KREBS-No.
MRS. SEGULJIC-“C4. A community’s existing plans or goals as officially adopted, or a
change in use or intensity of use of land or other natural resources?”
24
(Queensbury Planning Board 9/22/09)
MR. HUNSINGER-No.
MR. FORD-No.
MRS. SEGULJIC-“C5. Growth, subsequent development or related activities likely to be
induced by the proposed action?”
MR. HUNSINGER-No.
MR. FORD-No.
MRS. SEGULJIC-“C6. Long term, short term, cumulative or other effects not identified
above?”
MR. HUNSINGER-No.
MR. FORD-No.
MRS. SEGULJIC-“C7. Other impacts (including changes in use of either quantity or
energy)?”
MR. KREBS-No.
MR. HUNSINGER-No.
MRS. SEGULJIC-“Will the project have an impact on the environmental characteristics
that caused the establishment of a Critical Environmental Area?”
MR. HUNSINGER-No.
MR. FORD-No.
MRS. SEGULJIC-“Is there or is there likely to be controversy related to potential adverse
environmental impacts?”
MR. HUNSINGER-No.
MR. TRAVER-No.
MR. SEGULJIC-I motion for a Negative Declaration.
RESOLUTION WHEN DETERMINATION OF NO SIGNIFICANCE IS MADE
RESOLUTION NO. 50-2009, Introduced by Thomas Seguljic who moved for its adoption,
seconded by Donald Sipp:
WHEREAS, there is presently before the Planning Board an application for:
WHEREAS, this Planning Board has determined that the proposed project and Planning
Board action is subject to review under the State Environmental Quality Review Act,
STEWARTS SHOPS CORP., and
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT
RESOLVED:
1. No Federal agency appears to be involved.
2. The following agencies are involved:
NONE
3. The proposed action considered by this Board is Unlisted in the Department of
Environmental Conservation Regulations implementing the State Environmental
Quality Review Act and the regulations of the Town of Queensbury.
4. An Environmental Assessment Form has been completed by the applicant.
25
(Queensbury Planning Board 9/22/09)
5. Having considered and thoroughly analyzed the relevant areas of environmental
concern and having considered the criteria for determining whether a project has
a significant environmental impact as the same is set forth in Section 617.11 of
the Official Compilation of Codes, Rules and Regulations for the State of New
York, this Board finds that the action about to be undertaken by this Board will
have no significant environmental effect and the Chairman of the Planning Board
is hereby authorized to execute and sign and file as may be necessary a
statement of non-significance or a negative declaration that may be required by
law.
Duly adopted this 22nd day of, September, 2009, by the following vote:
AYES: Mr. Traver, Mr. Krebs, Mr. Jackoski, Mr. Ford, Mr. Seguljic, Mr. Sipp,
Mr. Hunsinger
NOES: NONE
MR. HUNSINGER-So are you ready with a motion?
MOTION TO APPROVE SITE PLAN NO. 50-2009 STEWARTS SHOPS CORP.,
Introduced by Thomas Seguljic 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 5,022 square foot store with a
bank rental. New commercial construction in the CM zone requires Planning
Board review and approval.
2)A public hearing was advertised and held on 9/22/09; 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. 50-2009 STEWARTS SHOPS CORP.,
Introduced by Thomas Seguljic who moved for its adoption, seconded by Thomas
Ford:
In accordance with the resolution prepared by Staff. Four A complies. Four B is
Negative.
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)The requirements of the State Environmental Quality Review Act have
been considered and the Planning Board has adopted a SEQRA Negative
Declaration; and if the application is a modification, the requirements of
the State Environmental Quality Review Act have been considered, and
the proposed modification[s] do not result in any new or significantly
different environmental impacts, and, therefore, no further SEQRA review
is necessary; and
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)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
26
(Queensbury Planning Board 9/22/09)
g)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)All lights to be downcast / cutoff fixtures. All fixtures shall be inspected by
Community Development Staff for compliance prior to installation
j)Engineering sign-off required prior to signature of Zoning Administrator.
k)The applicant shall submit a copy of a NOI [Notice of Intent] SWPPP
[Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan] & NOT [Notice of Termination] -
see staff
l)The applicant shall submit a copy of a NYS SPDES [State Pollution
Discharge Elimination System]
m)If curb cuts are being added or changed a driveway permit is required. A
building permit will not be issued until the approved driveway permit has
been provided to the Planning Office.
n)Approved with the following conditions:
1.Address engineering comments.
2.Landscaping shall be in accordance with applicable zoning
requirements, except for the Type C buffer requirements required
along the eastern property line, wherein arborvitaes shall be planted
five feet on center along the pavement, two inch caliper.
3.We request that the Town Engineer review the site internal circulation,
especially at the pump islands.
nd
Duly adopted this 22 day of September, 2009, by the following vote:
MR. OBORNE-No issues with the other, no issues with the recycling? I just want
to make sure, that’s all.
MR. LEWIS-Well, we haul that stuff back at all the stores.
MR. HUNSINGER-Okay.
AYES: Mr. Sipp, Mr. Traver, Mr. Krebs, Mr. Jackoski, Mr. Seguljic, Mr. Ford,
Mr. Hunsinger
NOES: NONE
MR. LEWIS-Thank you very much.
MR. HUNSINGER-You’re all set. Good luck.
SUBDIVISION NO. 2-2008 PRELIMINARY & FINAL STAGE SEQR TYPE UNLISTED
RAY KRAFT AGENT(S) VAN DUSEN & STEVES OWNER(S) SAME ZONING WR-
1A LOCATION 25 CLEVERDALE ROAD APPLICANT PROPOSES SUBDIVISION OF
A 47.17 +/- ACRE LOT INTO TWO LOTS OF 1.95 +/- ACRES AND 45.22 +/- ACRES.
FURTHER, THE APPLICANT PROPOSES A LOT LINE ADJUSTMENT IN ORDER TO
CONVEY 1.54 +/- ACRES FROM THE 45.22 +/- ACRE LOT TO AN ADJACENT
PARCEL, RESULTING IN A TWO LOT SUBDIVISION OF 1.95 +/- ACRES AND 43.68
+/- ACRES. SUBDIVISION OF LAND REQUIRES PLANNING BOARD REVIEW AND
APPROVAL. CROSS REFERENCE AV 49-09, SUP 52-09, FW 8-09, SKETCH PLAN
4/15/08, SUP 32-07, SUB 8-00, SUB 2-00 WARREN CO. PLANNING N/A APA, CEA,
OTHER APA WETLANDS; L G CEA LOT SIZE 47.17 +/- ACRES TAX MAP NO.
240.9-1-16.1 SECTION A-183
JON LAPPER & STEFANIE BITTER, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT
MR. OBORNE-Subdivision 2-2008 Preliminary review, Ray and Wendy Kraft.
Subdivision of land requires Planning Board review and approval. 25 Cleverdale Road is
27
(Queensbury Planning Board 9/22/09)
the location. Waterfront Residential is the existing zoning. This is an Unlisted SEQRA.
Project Description: Applicant proposes subdivision of a 47.17 +/- acre lot into two lots of
1.95 acres and 45.22 +/- acres. Further, the applicant proposes a boundary line
adjustment in order to merge 1.54 acres from part of lot 2 with other adjoining lands of
Kraft to be utilized as a marina. Subdivision of land requires Planning Board review and
approval. Staff Comments: Sketch plan review was accomplished on April 15, 2008
(see attached minutes). Additional Comments. When the Planning Board is making a
SEQR determination for this project, the proposed lot line adjustment will need to be part
of any determination, and what I’m referring to is the marina aspect of this. Public
Hearing posted signs must be viewed from all right of ways that this land is abutting. The
Planning Board may consider placing, as a condition of approval, a site plan review
requirement for any proposed dwelling on this parcel, and that would be the 1.95 acre
parcel, basically due to slopes in proximity to the lake. With that, I’d turn it over to the
Board.
MR. HUNSINGER-Thank you. Good evening.
MR. LAPPER-Good evening.
MR. KREBS-I would like to make everybody aware that I rent a dock from Ray. So just
that there’s no conflict of interest here, but I just wanted to let everybody know that I rent
a dock from the applicant.
MR. JACKOSKI-And I also need to mention, upon advice of Town Counsel that I have
used and will plan to use some of the professionals that the applicant is using in the
future.
MR. LAPPER-Good evening everybody. For the record, Jon Lapper, Stefanie Bitter, and
Tom Hutchins, and Ray is behind us. Just to put this project in context, the entire 49
acre parcel here has been in Ray’s family since 1916. What he’s proposing to do is to
subdivide one, 1.95 acre parcel so that he can settle his mother’s estate and then add
these two dock structures. So really very minimal in terms of the property. No change in
impervious surfaces. It’s just a matter of utilizing that existing tennis court, and Tom will
explain, because we’re within 100 feet of the lake, there can’t be any infiltration, but he’s
designed a filter system to just improve stormwater, even though it doesn’t even rise to
the level of a minor, so there’s no requirement to do stormwater, but nevertheless, just to
try and do the right thing, he has proposed that. So let me turn it over to Stefanie to get
into the details, and then Tom will go through the plan.
MS. BITTER-Good evening. The way these applications are set up, we’re going to first
review the subdivision aspect of it, and then go into the marina use. Just to give a brief
overview, as Staff mentioned, we’re dealing with approximately 49 acres. The two
parcels we’ve talked about are the dock parcel which I referenced in our letter, it’s about
2.23 acres, and the large land hooked parcel is about 47 acres. The subdivision we’re
going to be requesting to provide or create, if I can direct your attention to this map over
here, to subdivide off the northern portion of this property into a 1.95 acre parcel. It’s
right here, just north of the two homes that are already existing. In addition, we’re also
requesting, as part of the subdivision request, this boundary line adjustment that we
were talking about when we were before you two weeks ago for the marina use. That’s
going to actually transfer from the land hooked lot over to the 2.32 acre parcel, 67 square
feet of land, which is approximately located right here. As we’ve mentioned at the last
meeting, the Sketch Plan was before you in 2008, which makes this over the purview of
the old Code. So this is a 1.95 acre parcel and is considered to be in the WR-1A zone.
It meets all of the bulk requirements from the old zone, and due to the unique shape,
we’re just requesting that a waiver be obtained for the subdivision as to the 49 acre
parcel and its hold for topography and survey requirements. Obviously for the parcel
that exists on the lakeside, we have provided those with the application. As to the Staff
comments, the applicant is willing to provide as a condition Site Plan Review when the
house is actually designed and determined by the new purchaser, and just to clarify, the
shoreline length, which is identified on that Page S-3, on the bottom you can see in
between those two docks it indicates that it’s a 174 in length as it travels the course. I’m
going to just turn it over to Tom Hutchins to just add.
TOM HUTCHINS
MR. HUTCHINS-I think I’ll stand up and add. Tom Hutchins. The layout we’ve shown,
which we’re looking at as a concept layout to prove out that this site can work as a
building lot, there are some constraints there. Cleverdale Road here, Lake George here,
there is a low wet area pretty much directly between those two features. The lot we’re
28
(Queensbury Planning Board 9/22/09)
creating runs across, runs from Lake George to Cleverdale Road. If you take all of our
setbacks for building setbacks, there is a fairly large building envelope over the property.
You start taking wastewater setbacks from Lake George, adjoining wells, wetlands, then
there’s, there is an envelope that’s outlined in a dashed line for a compliant wastewater
system. We’ve shown a wastewater system and a reserve area for a four bedroom
residence within that area and we’ve just shown a block for a house, adjacent to it.
Stormwater, we’ve shown a conceptual stormwater area. We anticipate a disturbance of
10 to 15,000 square feet. I think that what we had shown was 13, as I recall, and we’ve
laid out a conceptual stormwater area. With that, that water supply, we’ve shown a well
on the other side of the road, 100 feet from wastewater systems, adjoining wastewater
systems. So our setback lines are a little constrained, but there is room for a system
reserve area, and a reasonably modest sized building within the building envelope, and
with that, I think I’ll turn it over for questions.
MR. KREBS-Question. You’re going to be using the existing Antler Road to get to that?
MR. HUTCHINS-Correct.
MR. KREBS-So the fact that there’s wetland there, there’s already a road across the
wetland.
MR. HUTCHINS-Yes. There’s no disturbance. There’s a road across here. It’s
accessed by users down here and by users down here. The only real new drive access
will be from here down to here, as I show it, and again, whenever we do this, ultimately
somebody who ends up wanting to build there wants to do it differently. So what we’ve
done here is we’ve shown it can work.
MR. LAPPER-That’s why we’ll agree to Site Plan Review.
MR. KREBS-Right.
MR. HUNSINGER-Questions, comments from the Board?
MR. SEGULJIC-I guess overall I’m just confused, because you came in last year for
Sketch Plan, that was for three or four lots, I believe.
MR. HUTCHINS-No, it was the same, the same boundary.
MR. LAPPER-One lot.
MR. HUTCHINS-The configuration was a little bit different. It was the same boundary.
MR. OBORNE-Yes, the house location and specifically the wastewater location was
different, but now, so it’s the same lot, yes.
MR. SEGULJIC-Okay, it was the same, and then you were here a few weeks ago for the
other lot, for the docks, but that’s not part of this now.
MS. BITTER-That’s the next application.
MR. LAPPER-I was talking about both applications when we started, and it’s subdivision
separate from the Special Use Permit for the marina.
MR. SEGULJIC-Now the docks on this proposed lot, are they there now?
MR. HUTCHINS-Yes.
MR. SEGULJIC-They are there?
MR. HUTCHINS-Yes.
MR. SEGULJIC-Okay, but there’s not, so you’re just looking for subdivision, not site plan.
MR. LAPPER-That’s right.
MR. HUNSINGER-Any other questions, comments from the Board?
29
(Queensbury Planning Board 9/22/09)
MR. KREBS-I would just say that, you know, if you’re worried about the docks that are
there today, I’m sure those docks are going to be gone, because somebody that’s going
to buy this piece of property and build a home is going to have a boathouse there. Okay.
MR. OBORNE-Or they may want a marina.
MR. KREBS-They might, yes. Well, if you go up and down the lake, you’ll see a lot of
them.
MR. OBORNE-Absolutely.
MR. JACKOSKI-The docks that are there now meet the 20 foot setbacks with the
property lines out into the water?
MR. HUTCHINS-Yes, they do.
MR. HUNSINGER-Anything else, questions, comments from the Board?
MR. FORD-I’m anxious to hear what the public has to say.
MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. We do have a public hearing scheduled. Anyone that wishes
to address the Board, I would ask that you state your name for the record. We do tape
the meeting minutes. So I would ask that you speak into the microphone, and we then
do transcribe the audio tape into the handwritten minutes that are approved by the Board
and made available on the Town website. Would anyone like to address the Board on
this application?
PUBLIC HEARING OPENED
ELAINE LEPPERT
MRS. LEPPERT-I would like to. My name is Elaine Leppert. I think it is on the map. I
would be right next to that lot that here is a proposed building, and maybe this isn’t the
time to ask you this, but I’m hearing that the building is a four bedroom proposed house,
and maybe that, the time is when there’s a Site Plan Review.
MR. HUNSINGER-Yes, all they’re doing this evening is subdividing the land so that they
could then sell the lot or someone else could then develop the lot.
MRS. LEPPERT-Yes, so if I had an issue about whether it was a four bedroom or a three
bedroom, in terms of septic, and whether that was permissible, if that would be at the
time of the Site Plan Review?
MR. HUNSINGER-Yes.
MRS. LEPPERT-Okay. All right. Thank you.
MR. HUNSINGER-Sure, you’re welcome. Anyone else? No other takers. Do you have
any written comments, Keith?
MR. OBORNE-Let me check, please. Negative, no.
MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. Well, if there are no other comments, then I will close the
public hearing.
PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED
MR. HUNSINGER-Anything else from the Board? Okay. As a subdivision in a CEA, it is
a Long Form.
MR. SEGULJIC-Just to clarify so, maybe I’m confused here, but I thought, looking at the
Sketch Plan and the minutes provided, it said proposed subdivision into three lots, 1.94,
6.09, and 39.14.
MR. OBORNE-That’s not my understanding. It’s not what’s in the Sketch folder.
MR. SEGULJIC-2-2008, Sketch Plan for Ray and Wendy Kraft.
MR. HUTCHINS-What was the date on that, Tom?
30
(Queensbury Planning Board 9/22/09)
MR. SEGULJIC-4/15/2008.
MR. LAPPER-I think it’s because it’s separated by the street.
MR. SEGULJIC-Because it’s divided by the street?
MR. LAPPER-Yes. Yes, there it is.
MR. HUTCHINS-Okay. 9L, Cleverdale Road, the part X hatched here, which has part on
the east side of Cleverdale Road, part on the west side of Cleverdale Road, and part on
the south side of 9L, presently it’s all one parcel with the lot that we’re proposing to
subdivide off. We’re proposing to subdivide off this lot from this large contiguous 49
acres. So part of it is south of 9L, part of it is west of Cleverdale Road, and part of it is
east of Cleverdale Road.
MR. KREBS-In a sense, they’re separate lots, but they’re all under one tax number. So
they’re really one lot from a tax standpoint.
MR. OBORNE-Hook lots. What does that say on the description? It does say on the
minutes at Sketch Plan that there is a six acre lot involved in that. Why would that be?
And again, this is before my time, not that that’s an excuse. Does it say anything in there
that you did not want that six acre? What was the direction of the Board at the end,
Tom?
MR. SEGULJIC-I’d have to read it further, but I guess when I just looked at it I got
confused because there were so many different things going on.
MR. LAPPER-I guess I would just answer by saying that we’re only looking for two lots
now. So whatever was discussed at Sketch Plan, two is less than three. It’s nothing
material.
MR. HUNSINGER-Yes.
MR. SEGULJIC-But since this was changed, though.
MS. BITTER-Not the new lot. The new lot is still exactly what was proposed.
MR. SEGULJIC-But since the proposal changed, doesn’t this put this under the new
Code, then?
MS. BITTER-No, considering the new lot that’s being proposed is the same new lot that
was being proposed in 2008.
MR. LAPPER-Yes, that said 1.94 and this is 1.95. It’s the same lot.
th
MR. OBORNE-April 15, Tom?
th
MR. OBORNE-It was April 15.
MR. FORD-2008.
MR. OBORNE-What page do you have there?
MR. SEGULJIC-There is no page number.
MS. BITTER-Fifty-three.
MR. OBORNE-It’s probably the exact same thing that you have.
MS. BITTER-Right. It’s attached to the application.
MR. LAPPER-Because they’re separated by the road, and that’s on the Staff Notes, too.
th
MR. HUTCHINS-That’s on the Staff Notes to the Board for the April 15 Sketch Plan
meeting.
31
(Queensbury Planning Board 9/22/09)
MS. BITTER-I mean, they’re going to continue to be land hooked, but yet the APA’s
going to look at it that way, too, as a separate and distinguished lot because it’s across
the street.
MR. HUNSINGER-I’m sorry?
MS. BITTER-Although these are all land hooked, and for the purposes of Warren
County, they’re considered to be one tax map, the APA’s going to look at it as four
separate lots, okay, even though, because they’re separated by a street, even though
they’re under the same ownership. So I think when this was reviewed under Sketch Plan
they were looking at it in the sense that this one, this house that’s already existing,
maintaining its own ownership, or being considered to be a separate lot. No other new
development was proposed, other than carving this off, and transferring the ownership.
MR. HUNSINGER-Yes, and I mean, right at the introduction, it does, Mr. Steves says
that what they’re proposal is, is to create one more building lot on the north end of the lot
that is on the lake frontage side for sale, and have the existing house lot that is on the
west side.
MR. SEGULJIC-Well, I guess I’m just confused, because in the minutes also it says, this
is Mr. Steves speaking, we’d have no problem with calling it a four lot subdivision,
because two lots are on the other side of the road. I mean, does it matter if Sketch was
for three or four and now we have two, does it matter? I’m just seeing an inconsistency.
MR. LAPPER-Staff said it was four lots.
MR. HUNSINGER-Yes. I mean, I don’t know how pertinent it is.
MR. OBORNE-What I’m hung up on is the six acre lot. Is that the one to the east, Tom,
of Cleverdale?
MR. HUTCHINS-It would be like this. The Staff Notes indicate further review seems to
indicate four lot subdivision with lot sizes of 30 acres, 1.94 acres, which is the one we
were discussing, 6.09 acres and 9.1 acres. So they took the one parcel, and because of
the road separation, considered it three parcels for subdivision purposes.
MR. KREBS-Three separate lots.
MR. OBORNE-So that’s where that six acres comes from.
MR. HUTCHINS-That’s where the six comes from.
MR. TRAVER-But you’re only asking to subdivide the one lot.
MR. LAPPER-That’s right.
MR. HUTCHINS-We’re looking for one lot.
MR. LAPPER-One building lot.
MR. FORD-That’s 1.94 acres?
MR. LAPPER-Now 1.95.
MR. FORD-95, as opposed to this reference here on Staff Notes, 1.64 acres, not to
confuse it further.
MR. LAPPER-It said 1.94 somewhere else.
MR. FORD-Under Parcel History.
MR. OBORNE-That was back in 2000.
MR. LAPPER-Yes, that’s right.
MR. HUTCHINS-There was an application in 2000 that was withdrawn.
MR. LAPPER-Right.
32
(Queensbury Planning Board 9/22/09)
MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. Are we all set, then?
MR. SEGULJIC-I think so.
MR. HUNSINGER-Okay.
MR. HUTCHINS-So I guess, if you look at it, depending on how you look at the
remaining parcel, it could be a two lot subdivision or a four lot subdivision, if roadways.
MR. SEGULJIC-Well, just so that we’re clear for the record, whether it’s two, three, or
four. That’s where I’m getting hung up, because I have all these different references.
MR. HUTCHINS-We’re not asking to treat those as separate parcels.
MR. OBORNE-Yes, you can’t. They’re hooked lots.
MR. SEGULJIC-So you’re fine with this, then?
MR. OBORNE-Yes. Absolutely.
MR. SEGULJIC-Okay. All right. So are we ready to go forward then?
MR. HUNSINGER-Yes.
MR. SEGULJIC-All right. This is Long Form, correct?
MR. HUNSINGER-Long Form, yes.
MR. SEGULJIC-Will the proposed action result in a physical change to the project site?
MR. HUNSINGER-No.
MR. TRAVER-No.
MR. SEGULJIC-But just for clarification, don’t we have to look at the site as if it were
developed?
MR. HUNSINGER-Yes, but when you look at the impacts that they offer, you know,
construction on slopes 15% or greater, construction where the depth to the water table is
less than three feet, paved parking for a 1,000 or more cars.
MR. SEGULJIC-All right. Will there be an effect to any unique or unusual land forms
found on the site?
MR. HUNSINGER-No.
MR. SIPP-No.
MRS. SEGULJIC-Will the proposed action affect any water body designated as
protected?
MR. TRAVER-No.
MRS. SEGULJIC-No. Will the proposed action affect any non-protected existing or new
body of water?
MR. HUNSINGER-No.
MR. KREBS-No.
MRS. SEGULJIC-Will the proposed action affect surface or groundwater quality or
quantity?
MR. HUNSINGER-No.
MR. KREBS-No.
MRS. SEGULJIC-Will the proposed action alter drainage flow or patterns, or surface
water runoff?
33
(Queensbury Planning Board 9/22/09)
MR. HUNSINGER-No.
MR. KREBS-No.
MRS. SEGULJIC-Will the proposed action affect air quality?
MR. HUNSINGER-No.
MR. KREBS-No.
MRS. SEGULJIC-Will the proposed action affect any threatened or endangered species?
MR. HUNSINGER-No.
MR. FORD-No.
MRS. SEGULJIC-Will the proposed action substantially affect non-threatened or non-
endangered species?
MR. HUNSINGER-No.
MR. FORD-No.
MRS. SEGULJIC-Will the proposed action affect agricultural land resources?
MR. HUNSINGER-No.
MR. SIPP-No.
MRS. SEGULJIC-Will the proposed action affect aesthetic resources?
MR. HUNSINGER-No.
MR. SIPP-No.
MRS. SEGULJIC-Will the proposed action impact any site or structure of historic, pre-
historic or paleontological importance?
MR. HUNSINGER-No.
MR. FORD-No.
MRS. SEGULJIC-Will the proposed action affect the quantity or quality of existing or
future open spaces or recreational opportunities?
MR. HUNSINGER-No.
MR. SIPP-No.
MRS. SEGULJIC-Will the proposed action impact the exceptional or unique
characteristics of a critical environmental area?
MR. KREBS-No.
MR. FORD-No.
MR. SEGULJIC-Well, I would say yes and small to moderate.
MR. HUNSINGER-Yes, because it is within the CEA.
MR. FORD-Okay.
MR. SEGULJIC-With proper design we can minimize that.
MR. FORD-Right.
MR. OBORNE-Tom, what number is that?
34
(Queensbury Planning Board 9/22/09)
MR. SEGULJIC-Fourteen.
MR. HUNSINGER-Item Fourteen.
MR. OBORNE-You’re saying yes.
MR. HUNSINGER-Small to moderate impact because it’s within the CEA.
MR. OBORNE-Okay.
MRS. SEGULJIC-Will there be an effect to existing transportation systems?
MR. HUNSINGER-No.
MR. FORD-No.
MRS. SEGULJIC-Will proposed action affect the community’s sources of fuel or energy
supply?
MR. HUNSINGER-No.
MR. KREBS-No.
MRS. SEGULJIC-Will there be objectionable odors, noise, or vibration as a result of
the proposed action?
MR. HUNSINGER-No.
MR. FORD-No.
MRS. SEGULJIC-Will the proposed action affect public health and safety?
MR. HUNSINGER-No.
MR. KREBS-No.
MRS. SEGULJIC-Will the proposed action affect the character of the existing
community?
MR. HUNSINGER-No.
MR. KREBS-No.
MRS. SEGULJIC-Is there, or is there likely to be, public controversy related to potential
adverse environmental impacts?
MR. HUNSINGER-No.
MR. KREBS-No.
MRS. SEGULJIC-I motion for a Negative declaration.
RESOLUTION WHEN DETERMINATION OF NO SIGNIFICANCE IS MADE
RESOLUTION NO. 2-2008, Introduced by Thomas Seguljic who moved for its adoption,
seconded by Donald Krebs:
WHEREAS, there is presently before the Planning Board an application for:
WHEREAS, this Planning Board has determined that the proposed project and Planning
Board action is subject to review under the State Environmental Quality Review Act,
RAY KRAFT, and
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT
RESOLVED:
1. No Federal agency appears to be involved.
35
(Queensbury Planning Board 9/22/09)
2. The following agencies are involved:
NONE
3. The proposed action considered by this Board is Unlisted in the Department of
Environmental Conservation Regulations implementing the State Environmental
Quality Review Act and the regulations of the Town of Queensbury.
4. An Environmental Assessment Form has been completed by the applicant.
5. Having considered and thoroughly analyzed the relevant areas of environmental
concern and having considered the criteria for determining whether a project has
a significant environmental impact as the same is set forth in Section 617.11 of
the Official Compilation of Codes, Rules and Regulations for the State of New
York, this Board finds that the action about to be undertaken by this Board will
have no significant environmental effect and the Chairman of the Planning Board
is hereby authorized to execute and sign and file as may be necessary a
statement of non-significance or a negative declaration that may be required by
law.
Duly adopted this 22nd day of, September, 2009, by the following vote:
AYES: Mr. Traver, Mr. Ford, Mr. Sipp, Mr. Krebs, Mr. Jackoski, Mr. Seguljic,
Mr. Hunsinger
NOES: NONE
MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. Would anyone like to put forward a motion for Preliminary
approval.
MR. SEGULJIC-Well, the one condition that we’re going to have is that Site Plan
approval be obtained, correct?
MR. HUNSINGER-Yes, that would go on Final.
MR. SEGULJIC-It would go on Final. I’m sorry. Is there a motion prepared by Staff?
MR. HUNSINGER-There is, but the last several subdivisions that we’ve done, you’ve just
done a simple.
MOTION TO APPROVE PRELIMINARY STAGE SUBDIVISION NO. 2-2008 RAY
KRAFT, Introduced by Thomas Seguljic who moved for its adoption, seconded by
Thomas Ford:
1. A subdivision application has been made to the Queensbury Planning Board for
the following: Applicant proposes subdivision of a 47.17 +/- acre lot into two lots
of 1.95 +/- acres and 45.22 +/- acres. Further, the applicant proposes a lot line
adjustment in order to convey 1.54 +/- acres from the 45.22 +/- acre lot to an
adjacent parcel, resulting in a two lot subdivision of 1.95 +/- acres and 43.68 +/-
acres. Subdivision of land requires Planning Board review and approval.
2. A public hearing was scheduled and held on 9/22/09; and
3. This application is supported with all documentation, public comment and
application material in the file of record; and
4. MOTION TO APPROVE PRELIMINARY STAGE SUBDIVISION NO. 2-2008
RAY KRAFT, Introduced by Thomas Seguljic who moved for its adoption,
seconded by Thomas Ford:
In accordance with the resolution prepared by Staff.
nd
Duly adopted this 22 day of September, 2009, by the following vote:
MR. KREBS-Can I ask a question? The one proposed by Staff was for both
Preliminary and Final.
MR. HUNSINGER-Yes.
MR. KREBS-Are you doing them separately?
36
(Queensbury Planning Board 9/22/09)
MR. HUNSINGER-Yes. No, we do separate motions?
MR. KREBS-Okay.
MR. HUNSINGER-And I was about to say, the last several subdivisions that
we’ve done, we’ve just done a simple resolution for Preliminary and then on Final
we’d go into the details that are in the sample resolution.
MR. KREBS-Okay.
AYES: Mr. Traver, Mr. Krebs, Mr. Jackoski, Mr. Sipp, Mr. Seguljic, Mr. Ford,
Mr. Hunsinger
NOES: NONE
MR. SEGULJIC-So we have the one condition that Site Plan approval.
MR. LAPPER-For the construction of the house.
MR. SEGULJIC-For site development.
MR. LAPPER-On Lot One.
MR. KREBS-You need to say that should be included in the deed.
MR. LAPPER-That’s on the condition of the subdivision map.
MOTION TO APPROVE FINAL STAGE SUBDIVISION NO. 2-2008 RAY KRAFT,
Introduced by Thomas Seguljic who moved for its adoption, seconded by Stephen
Traver:
A subdivision application has been made to the Queensbury Planning Board for
1.
the following: Applicant proposes subdivision of a 47.17 +/- acre lot into two lots
of 1.95 +/- acres and 45.22 +/- acres. Further, the applicant proposes a lot line
adjustment in order to convey 1.54 +/- acres from the 45.22 +/- acre lot to an
adjacent parcel, resulting in a two lot subdivision of 1.95 +/- acres and 43.68 +/-
acres. Subdivision of land requires Planning Board review and approval.
2. A public hearing was scheduled and held on 9/22/09; 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. 2-2008 RAY KRAFT,
Introduced by Thomas Seguljic who moved for its adoption, seconded by Stephen
Traver:
In accordance with the resolution prepared by Staff. Four A complies. Four B is
Negative. Four D is not applicable.
a)Pursuant to relevant sections of the Town of Queensbury Zoning Code [Chapter
A-183], the Planning Board has determined that this proposal complies with the
requirements as stated in the Zoning Code; and
b)The requirements of the State Environmental Quality Review Act have been
considered and the Planning Board has adopted a SEQRA Negative Declaration; and
c)Final approved plans, in compliance with the Subdivision, must be submitted to
the Community Development Department before any further review by the Zoning
Administrator or Building and Codes personnel. The applicant must meet with Staff after
approval and prior to issuance of Building Permit and/or the beginning of any site work.
Subsequent issuance of further permits, including building permits is dependent on
compliance with this and all other conditions of this resolution; and
d)NOT APPLICABLE. Waiver requests.
37
(Queensbury Planning Board 9/22/09)
e)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
f)Engineering sign-off required prior to signature of Planning Board Chairman.
g)As-built plans to certify that the subdivision is developed according to the
approved plans to be provided prior to issuance of the certificate of occupancy; and
h)If applicable, Item h to be combined with a letter of credit; and
i)The applicant shall submit a copy of a NOI [Notice of Intent] SWPPP [Stormwater
Pollution Prevention Plan] & NOT [Notice of Termination] - see staff
j)The applicant shall submit a copy of a NYS SPDES permit
k)Approved In accordance with the following condition:
1. That Site Plan approval be obtained for development of Lot One.
nd
Duly adopted this 22 day of September, 2009, by the following vote:
AYES: Mr. Sipp, Mr. Krebs, Mr. Jackoski, Mr. Ford, Mr. Seguljic, Mr. Traver,
Mr. Hunsinger
NOES: NONE
MR. LAPPER-Thank you.
SPECIAL USE PERMIT 52-2009 FRESHWATER WETLANDS 8-2009 SEQR
UNLISTED RAY KRAFT AGENT(S) BARTLETT PONTIFF STEWART & RHODES
OWNER(S) SAME ZONING WR LOCATION STATE ROUTE 9L APPLICANT
PROPOSES CONSTRUCTION OF A 14 SLIP THREE (3) DOCK CLASS A MARINA.
MARINAS ARE PERMITTED BY SPECIAL USE PERMIT IN THE WR ZONE AND
REQUIRE PLANNING BOARD REVIEW AND APPROVAL. FRESHWATER
WETLANDS PERMIT IS REQUIRED FOR DISTURBANCE WITHIN 100 FEET OF AN
APA WETLAND. CROSS REFERENCE AV 49-09, SUB 2-08, SKETCH PLAN 4/15/08,
SUP 32-07, SUB 8-00, SUB 2-00 WARREN CO. PLANNING 9/9/09 LOT SIZE 2.23 +/-
ACRES TAX MAP NO. 240.9-1-1 SECTION 179-10-070A; CHAPTER 94
JON LAPPER & STEFANIE BITTER, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT
MR. SEGULJIC-Just to clarify, so we’re doing these at the same time, but they’ll require
separate motions?
MR. HUNSINGER-The Special Use Permit and the Freshwater Wetlands permit. I don’t
know. Did you prepare samples, two separate?
MR. OBORNE-I’m sure Pam prepared, it should be party of the body.
MR. HUNSINGER-Yes. I think in the past, yes, it’s just one resolution.
MR. SEGULJIC-Just one resolution?
MR. HUNSINGER-Yes.
MR. OBORNE-Okay. Go ahead and read it in?
MR. HUNSINGER-Yes, whenever you’re ready.
MR. OBORNE-Special Use Permit 52-2009, Freshwater Wetlands Permit 8-2009,
applicant Ray and Wendy Kraft. The requested action is marina in the WR zone.
Location State Route 9L. Existing zoning WR. SEQRA Status is Unlisted. Project
Description: Applicant proposes a 14 slip docking area and is seeking a Class A Marina
permit. Marinas are permitted by special use permit in the WR zone under the category
of commercial boats sales or service and require Planning Board review and approval.
Freshwater wetlands permit for construction in the APA wetland. What follows are Staff
Comments. The applicant received a positive recommendation from the Planning Board
to the ZBA concerning sideline setback on September 10, 2009. The applicant
38
(Queensbury Planning Board 9/22/09)
requested and received relief from the 20 foot side line setback requirement for docks
from the ZBA on September 16-2009. The applicant has stated that the location of pump-
out for all boats will be accomplished at Harris Bay Marina. An incinerator toilet will be
available for boaters in the existing building adjacent to the gravel parking lot. Has the
applicant applied for a Marina Permit from the Lake George Park Commission? With
that, I’d turn it over to the Board.
MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. Thank you.
MS. BITTER-Good evening. As you know, we’re requesting a Class A Marina permit for
the dock parcel. Already existing is an E-Shaped dock that has six boat slips. We’re
proposing to construct two additional U-Shaped docks to the north, which would provide
for eight additional boat slips with a total of 14. The E-Dock currently maintains a Lake
George Park Commission permit. We have had discussions with the Commission and
indicated that obviously approval can’t be issued for the marina until we’ve received the
necessary approvals from the Town, and the marina use would be strictly for mooring
purposes, no sales, no storage, no launching. The parcel currently maintains a building
which is approximately 16 by 20. We’re proposing to convert that into a bathroom facility
with an incinerator toilet to be proposed for the tenant’s uses. There’s a dumpster
already on the parcel. We’re also proposing trash receptacles to be located near the
shed to keep the parcel clean. We’re going to try to limit the disturbance as much as
possible and in doing so convert the existing tennis courts, which are no longer used,
into a ten spot parking area. We’ll have to modify a path just slightly so cars can fit in
there, but again, limit the disturbance as much as possible. We’re also going to use a
gravel area which is located near the shed for four additional spaces, including a
handicap space. All existing vegetation is to remain. We’re seeking waivers from
landscaping and grading, due to the minimal work that we’re proposing. Electricity is
already there. Lights are currently there. We’re going to maintain the lights that we
already have, and as a result, we’re going to request a waiver from lighting as well.
Water, there’s a pump on the site that pumps water up from the lake. We feel that, let
me back up. We’re requesting a permanent Special Use Permit for this use, even
though it’s a seasonal use. We feel that we meet all the criteria as noted in our
application. This is in harmony with the Comprehensive Plan, in the sense that there’s
adequate space for additional docks, and we’re requesting, we’re proposing limited
disturbance. We feel it’s compatible with the adjacent uses due to the surrounding lands
being Harris Bay marina, and a private Class A Marina adjacent to this. Sufficient
access, circulation and parking is provided on the lot. Infrastructure and services,
utilities already exist on the lot. We feel that since this is a (lost word) location, there’ll be
no negative effect to the environment. For long term effects, due to the adjacent lands
having similar uses, we feel that this would be a nice way to preserve the natural
landscaping of that area. There are flagged wetlands on this property, which is why we
have to request a Freshwater Wetlands permit, but we feel, due to the minimal
disturbance, that there’ll be no negative impact on the surrounding lands. I’m going to
pass it over to Tom to comment on any of the Staff comments.
TOM HUTCHINS
MR. HUTCHINS-I’ll just briefly run through what we’re proposing. This is the existing
configuration, with the exception that we’re showing the two proposed new U-docks just
to the north of the existing E-dock. Access is directly off 9L and this exists down to the
existing stone parking area next to, this is the building Stefanie references. Again, this
area has been flagged APA as wetlands. What’s labeled on the survey as asphalt
parking is really the tennis court. That asphalt parking label should only be on the
proposed drawings, but there’s a tennis court here and an existing access way up to the
tennis court that hasn’t been used for some time. It is asphalt and it remains, but what
we came across, in going to this marina use, when we went to 14 slips, Lake George
Park Commission criteria requires 14 parking spaces. Queensbury’s criteria requires
seven. We’d be happy with seven, but the Park Commission criteria of 14, in order to do
that, to create 10 more spaces down in here would have created quite a disturbance, in a
nice open area that’s, well, you’ve got a wetland here and you’ve got the lake here.
Needless to say, the water table’s going to be relatively shallow there. The tennis court
is up here. It’s existing. It hasn’t been used. It lays out nicely for 10 parking spaces.
That’s what we decided to do. In that we’ve got essentially no disturbance in doing that,
with the exception of a little bit of upgrade to the drive to make it a little more accessible
with a passenger vehicle, and I’ve shown a peat filtered trench that’s under drained
around the perimeter of the tennis court area. If you’ve been there, and you’ve been on
that tennis court, it seems funny that it was a tennis court, because the grade changes
two to three feet from this corner to this corner, and it slopes in this direction. The
wetland flagging is pretty much right up to, almost right up to the limit of the asphalt. I’ve
39
(Queensbury Planning Board 9/22/09)
shown a peat filter. It’s 12 to 16 inches of sand mixed with peat that would allow runoff
from the parking area to filter through, and then it would under drain to the wetland, as
opposed to if we do nothing, say there’s no disturbance, it’s going to run directly to the
wetland. This will provide some filtration. It does a reasonably nice job in a tight, small
area with a minimal disturbance, and, with that, I guess I’ll turn it over to the Board for
questions.
MR. HUNSINGER-Questions, comments from the Board?
MR. FORD-How many boats are anticipated to be able to use the new docks?
MR. HUTCHINS-Fourteen total for the facility, including the existing dock.
MR. FORD-How many for the new?
MR. HUTCHINS-For the new docks, eight.
RAY KRAFT
MR. KRAFT-Yes, four and four.
MR. FORD-Thank you.
MR. JACKOSKI-Do the Krafts maintain access through the Leppert and Julian properties
on that right of way to this parcel or to that parking area?
MR. KRAFT-No, we don’t. I still do have a legal right of way through there through the
deeds, but I don’t use it.
MR. JACKOSKI-So that right of way could be used by marina customers?
MR. KRAFT-No. It’s not accessible. Did you go down and look at the site?
MR. JACKOSKI-Yes, I’ve been down there. Yes.
MR. KRAFT-Did you look at the tennis court?
MR. JACKOSKI-Yes.
MR. KRAFT-Did you look at the four foot drop between the right of way and their?
MR. JACKOSKI-Yes, but it doesn’t mean it couldn’t be filled in and accessible.
MR. KRAFT-Yes, but I wouldn’t do that to a neighbor.
MR. LAPPER-So he the legal right, but it’s not proposed, and those improvements that
would be necessary are not proposed. So the only access will be from 9L.
MR. KRAFT-I’ve been there 93 years, our family. I wouldn’t do that to a neighbor. I’ve
gone through quite a bit the last five years to keep this in the family. I plan on being
there until I die. I wouldn’t do it to a neighbor.
MR. SEGULJIC-So you had indicated no sales, no launching, no boat storage, other
than docking, I guess, is the proper terminology? Then as far as limiting access from the
north, if we say no access from the north. Okay. My only question is, should we make
this temporary or permanent, or renewable? To me it would make sense to make it
renewable on like a five year time period.
MR. KREBS-What conditions would you expect to change that would change your
opinion in five years?
MR. SEGULJIC-Five years.
MR. TRAVER-We don’t know, that’s why.
MR. SEGULJIC-I mean, I don’t think we’ve ever given a permanent Special Use Permit,
which in some ways doesn’t make sense. It’s kind of contradictory.
MR. HUNSINGER-Yes.
40
(Queensbury Planning Board 9/22/09)
MR. TRAVER-Yes, I think that’s a good idea.
MR. OBORNE-I will say typically this Board does give a renewable Special Use Permit
for marinas. You have given permanent Special Use Permits in the past, absolutely, but
for marinas typically the Board, it’s a temporary, based on however long you want to do
it. It is up to the applicant to re-submit.
MR. FORD-I like the idea of a five year renewable.
MR. HUNSINGER-Anything else from the Board?
MR. SEGULJIC-I guess, just clarify the wetlands issue again, briefly.
MR. HUTCHINS-There’s a wet area that runs, and the new lot we just created is over
here. There’s one house here. There’s another house right here, and then the new lot
we created this year. This wet area runs across, I mean, it starts up by Cleverdale Road
up here and it runs down through the low area, all the way down, and ultimately
discharges into the lake, or I don’t know that there’s a discharge, but it runs down
through here and ultimately works its way through a series of old drainage structures and
tiles and such to the lake. The wetlands have been flagged by the APA, and that was
within the last year, and they’re shown here. So some of the, well, the big issue is the
parking area. It’s right near the wetland, but it’s an existing paved area.
MR. SEGULJIC-So for arguments sake, all of the site construction has already occurred
there that’s going to have the potential to effect?
MR. HUTCHINS-Yes.
MR. SEGULJIC-So it’s more like a catch up type thing?
MR. HUTCHINS-Yes.
MR. OBORNE-If I may, I requested that of this plan because of them using the parking
lot and the proximity to the wetlands, and I was concerned about NPS, non point source
pollution, from the vehicles, and I wanted some type of filter mechanism, and they have
provided that.
MR. SEGULJIC-And hence the stormwater trench along there.
MR. OBORNE-Right.
MR. SEGULJIC-Okay.
MR. HUNSINGER-Any other questions, comments from the Board? We do have a
public hearing scheduled. Is there anyone in the audience that wants to address the
Board on this application? Yes, ma’am. You know the routine, now.
PUBLIC HEARING OPENED
ELAINE LEPPERT
MRS. LEPPERT-Again, my name is Elaine Leppert. I live at 6 Antler Road, and I didn’t
realize that there was a parking lot on the old tennis court proposed, ten space parking
lot, and notwithstanding Mr. Kraft’s assurances, which I’m sure are sincere, if, in fact, he
conveys his property to somebody else, and that right of way goes with that property,
does that mean that the people, if they want to have access across Antler Road, into that
parking lot, that 10 to 14 cars would be passing in front of my property into that parking
lot? Could that potentially happen?
MR. HUNSINGER-Well, I guess you would have to ask the applicant that. I’m not
familiar enough with what the right of way is.
MR. SEGULJIC-Well, they agreed to put a condition of no access from the north.
MR. HUNSINGER-Yes. We can condition that there be none.
MRS. LEPPERT-And you’re willing to do that? Okay.
41
(Queensbury Planning Board 9/22/09)
MR. SEGULJIC-I believe the applicant agreed to that also.
MRS. LEPPERT-Okay. Thank you.
MR. OBORNE-Yes. You’d also have to change your deed to allow that.
MRS. LEPPERT-Change my deed?
MR. OBORNE-Well, whoever owns the property, which I believe is Julian, right next to?
MRS. LEPPERT-Yes.
MR. OBORNE-Yes. He would have to change, for access onto that property.
MR. KREBS-Right, and she would have to change hers, too, because she’s on the next
piece of property.
MRS. LEPPERT-Yes. Okay. Thank you.
MR. HUNSINGER-Anyone else? Yes, sir. Good evening.
CHRIS NAVITSKY
MR. NAVITSKY-Good evening. Chris Navitsky, Lake George Water Keeper. We have
some comments. We also provided those to the applicant. It’s our understanding the
applicant is proposing to install two docks north of the existing six slip dock, and utilize
the existing access road and provide parking on existing impervious coverage at the site.
Concerns of the Water Keeper focus on the protection of the wetlands, shoreline buffer,
and water quality protection of Lake George and offer the following comments. First,
regarding the extent of clearing along the shoreline. That should be defined. The
shoreline north of the existing dock where they propose the two new docks is mature,
well established and provides an excellent shoreline buffer in a heavily developed
section of the lake. A minimal footpath constructed of permeable material should be
provided, which will not require the removal of existing shoreline vegetation. I think that’s
their intent, but that should be noted. Our second comment was regarding stormwater
treatment facilities should maximize separation to the wetlands. I did not visit the site,
but apparently slopes prohibit that. So our concern was try to maximize that, but if that
cannot be established, we support Staff’s comments to protect the wetlands with the
filter. Third, additional stormwater management should be incorporated for previously
developed areas. We feel that this is in a CEA, and that it can be considered as a
redevelopment project. So we would request the consideration of any areas where
stormwater management can be improved, in close proximity to the lake. Our fourth
comment, request more information on the incinerator toilet. We were wondering if a
management or maintenance plan should be required with it, basically what is the
capacity of the incinerator toilet? Between uses sometimes they have to be fired up after
every use, sometimes it goes for 30 uses. What’s the time of the incineration process?
Who’s responsible for emptying that? Will there be a containment area in case there’s a
power outage and there’s an overflow? And will this require routine inspection by a
technician similar to what an aerobic system would be. So we were just wondering if
there would be a report or something submitted to the Town. That is something, as I
said, is compliant with aerobic systems. Regarding the marina use and Harris Bay, we
do not have a problem with that. Just for the record, it should be noted that Harris Bay is
identified as one of the ten priority zones, in terms of user perceptions and actual
experiences with congestion and crowding on Lake George in 2005, as referenced in the
Lake George Park Commission Lake George Recreation Plan, and I’ve provided a copy
of that which we will submit into record, and those were my comments. Thank you.
MR. HUNSINGER-Great. Thank you. Anyone else? Were there any written comments,
Keith?
MR. OBORNE-No, sir.
MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. Well, if there’s no other comments, I will close the public
hearing.
PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED
MR. HUNSINGER-Any follow up comments from the questions?
42
(Queensbury Planning Board 9/22/09)
MR. LAPPER-Yes. I’ll address the issue with the deed. Just to clarify, there’s a deeded
right of way across those lots, and we’re not proposing to modify the deeds or to
relinquish the deeded rights, because who knows what might change in the future, but in
terms of the Special Use Permit that we’re proposing, we’re not asking for that,
answering Steve’s question, so we’re not asking for that access. So that is not a right
that we want from the Town. We’re waiving that in terms of the Town permit for this
marina use that we’re not asking for the right to go through it, but we don’t want to
change something in the Clerk’s Office with the deed, but for this marina use, we’re
stipulating, as a condition, that the cars will not cross those properties to get to the
marina parking area.
MR. HUNSINGER-Okay.
MR. LAPPER-And then, Tom, in terms of the Water Keeper.
MR. HUTCHINS-Yes. In terms of Chris’ comments, this first, the extent of clearing along
the shoreline should be delineated, and, yes, he’s right. What we’re thinking is like a pea
stone footpath along this area, of minimal cutting. It’ll be a foot path only, and it would
have to run from this area back through here where we can do it with absolutely minimal
cutting.
MR. SIPP-You don’t plan any removal of any plants, trees, otherwise during the
construction?
MR. HUTCHINS-No, we’re not planning removal of large trees. We’re going to need to
remove some brush and smaller vegetation in order to get a path through there.
MR. SIPP-The buffer will be maintained?
MR. HUTCHINS-We’ll stay, yes, we’ll stay away from the lake to leave a vegetative
buffer, except for where we access the docks.
MR. HUNSINGER-How wide would the footpath be?
MR. HUTCHINS-Four feet. Is that reasonable?
MR. KRAFT-Yes, four or five feet. There was a pre-existing path that was stopped
usage in 1973 when the two lots in the middle were sold off which, is pretty much still
there, except for the small growth and stuff that I’ve been racking out. So, I mean, the
disturbance is pretty much next to nothing except for some stones and stuff to make the
path smooth enough to take a small car or something down to the docks.
MR. LAPPER-So four to five feet maximum.
MR. KRAFT-Yes.
MR. SEGULJIC-So can we say that the clearing at the docks will be no more than five
feet, then?
MR. HUTCHINS-Yes, I think so.
MR. SEGULJIC-So no more than five feet for the vegetation will be removed?
MR. JACKOSKI-To each dock, right.
MR. HUTCHINS-Right, the footpath and we need an access to each dock. Yes.
MR. JACKOSKI-It’s not going to be five feet parallel with the shore. It’s going to be five
feet coming down perpendicular to the shore.
MR. HUTCHINS-Right, we’ll have to parallel the shore, but we’ll be back away from the
shoreline.
MR. JACKOSKI-That’s what I want to make sure.
MR. OBORNE-If I could ask a question of the applicant. Do you plan on, I don’t know
how much you’ve gone through the thinking process here of that path. Do you plan on
removing any soil, or you just remove the duff layer and then just put the stone down, is
that what you’re thinking?
43
(Queensbury Planning Board 9/22/09)
MR. HUTCHINS-Yes, that’s what I’m thinking. Ray?
MR. KRAFT-I’m just going to make it smooth. There’s small rocks and stuff that are in
there that have to be adjusted to make it smooth enough to walk across.
MR. OBORNE-Okay. You’re not going to have a Bobcat back there?
MR. HUTCHINS-We’re not going to re-grade it. No.
MR. OBORNE-Okay. That’s music to my ears.
MR. HUTCHINS-Okay. Back to the Water Keeper’s comments. Treatment facility
should maximize separation of wetlands. I really, really did try to do that, and
unfortunately we’ve got an existing hard area that’s sloping directly to the wetland, and I
think what we’ve done, considering the proximity to the wetlands, is the right thing to do.
Stormwater management should be incorporated for previous developed areas, well,
that’s really what we’re doing with this parking area, and the remaining areas we have
not proposed, the use is going unchanged. The building’s there, and there is currently a
parking area there, and we haven’t proposed in there, but I think it’s important that where
we have proposed the filter is an existing impervious area, and we could come here and
debate if we had to do that or not, but it’s a good thing to do, and so I think we are
providing stormwater management for pre-developed areas. More information on the
proposed incinerator toilet. I’m not overly familiar with these. I have been on one project
where one has been used, and there’s a very satisfied owner. We are willing to provide
the manufacturer’s operation and maintenance instructions, and commit to maintaining it
as per their requirements, but as far as how long between service, I can’t, I don’t know.
So I think that was it on his comments.
MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. Anything else from the Board? Is the Board comfortable
moving forward?
MR. FORD-Yes.
MR. SEGULJIC-Yes.
MR. HUNSINGER-It’s a SEQRA Short Form, Unlisted action.
MR. SEGULJIC-Okay. Short Form?
MR. HUNSINGER-Yes.
MRS. SEGULJIC-“Does the action exceed any Type I threshold in 6 NYCRR Part
617.4?”
MR. HUNSINGER-No.
MR. FORD-No.
MRS. SEGULJIC-“Will the action receive coordinated review as provided for Unlisted
Actions in 6 NYCRR, Part 617.6?”
MR. HUNSINGER-No.
MR. FORD-No.
MRS. SEGULJIC-“Could the action result in any adverse effects associated with the
following: C1. Existing air quality, surface or ground water quality or quantity, noise
levels, existing traffic patterns, solid waste production or disposal, potential for erosion,
drainage or flooding problems?”
MR. HUNSINGER-No.
MR. SIPP-No.
MRS. SEGULJIC-“C2. Aesthetic, agricultural, historic, or other natural or cultural
resources; or community or neighborhood character?”
MR. HUNSINGER-No.
44
(Queensbury Planning Board 9/22/09)
MR. FORD-No.
MRS. SEGULJIC-“C3. Vegetation, fauna, fish, shellfish or wildlife species, significant
habitats, or threatened or endangered species?”
MR. HUNSINGER-No.
MR. SIPP-No.
MRS. SEGULJIC-“C4. A community’s existing plans or goals as officially adopted, or a
change in use or intensity of use of land or other natural resources?”
MR. HUNSINGER-No.
MR. SIPP-No.
MRS. SEGULJIC-“C5. Growth, subsequent development or related activities likely to be
induced by the proposed action?”
MR. HUNSINGER-No.
MR. FORD-No.
MRS. SEGULJIC-“C6. Long term, short term, cumulative or other effects not identified
above?”
MR. HUNSINGER-No.
MR. FORD-No.
MRS. SEGULJIC-“C7. Other impacts (including changes in use of either quantity or
energy)?”
MR. SIPP-No.
MR. HUNSINGER-No.
MRS. SEGULJIC-“Will the project have an impact on the environmental characteristics
that caused the establishment of a Critical Environmental Area?”
MR. HUNSINGER-No.
MR. KREBS-No.
MRS. SEGULJIC-“Is there or is there likely to be controversy related to potential adverse
environmental impacts?”
MR. HUNSINGER-No.
MR. KREBS-No.
MR. SEGULJIC-Therefore I propose a Negative Declaration.
RESOLUTION WHEN DETERMINATION OF NO SIGNIFICANCE IS MADE
RESOLUTION NO. SUP 52-2009 & FWW 8-2009, Introduced by Thomas Seguljic who
moved for its adoption, seconded by Donald Sipp:
WHEREAS, there is presently before the Planning Board an application for:
WHEREAS, this Planning Board has determined that the proposed project and Planning
Board action is subject to review under the State Environmental Quality Review Act,
RAY KRAFT, and
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT
RESOLVED:
45
(Queensbury Planning Board 9/22/09)
1. No Federal agency appears to be involved.
2. The following agencies are involved:
NONE
3. The proposed action considered by this Board is Unlisted in the Department of
Environmental Conservation Regulations implementing the State Environmental
Quality Review Act and the regulations of the Town of Queensbury.
4. An Environmental Assessment Form has been completed by the applicant.
5. Having considered and thoroughly analyzed the relevant areas of environmental
concern and having considered the criteria for determining whether a project has
a significant environmental impact as the same is set forth in Section 617.11 of
the Official Compilation of Codes, Rules and Regulations for the State of New
York, this Board finds that the action about to be undertaken by this Board will
have no significant environmental effect and the Chairman of the Planning Board
is hereby authorized to execute and sign and file as may be necessary a
statement of non-significance or a negative declaration that may be required by
law.
Duly adopted this 22nd day of, September, 2009, by the following vote:
AYES: Mr. Traver, Mr. Krebs, Mr. Jackoski, Mr. Ford, Mr. Seguljic, Mr. Sipp,
Mr. Hunsinger
NOES: NONE
MR. HUNSINGER-Okay.
MR. SEGULJIC-All right. So this is what I have. That we grant the renewable Special
Use Permit for five years with the following conditions: No sales, launching, or on site
storage of boats shall be allowed. A maximum five foot path of permeable material shall
be constructed from the parking lot to the new docks. A maximum five foot wide area
perpendicular to the dock shall be cleared to allow access to the docks. No other
vegetation shall be removed from the site other than diseased or damaged vegetation.
Is that everything?
MR. HUNSINGER-Sounds good.
MR. JACKOSKI-Mr. Chairman, I’d like, somehow, that we add that during the
applicability of this Special Use Permit, that access from the north is restricted.
MR. HUNSINGER-Yes, exactly.
MR. SEGULJIC-I have that, and no access to the site from the north shall be allowed.
MR. HUNSINGER-Well, it’s only for the Special Use Permit.
MR. JACKOSKI-Only during the Special Use Permit period. So if there’s a change of
use, from what I understand from the applicant, if there’s a change of use in the future.
MR. HUNSINGER-Yes, they don’t want to give up that right, but they don’t want anyone
using the docks to access the property that way.
MR. SEGULJIC-So what are we saying?
MR. HUNSINGER-That a condition of the Special Use Permit is that there be no access.
MR. SEGULJIC-Right, because renewable permits shall be every five years with the
following conditions.
MR. TRAVER-Right.
MR. SEGULJIC-I guess I’m confused. I know I’m confused.
MR. OBORNE-What is the verbiage you’re trying to use? What are you trying to
accomplish here, to restrict access through the lands of Julian to the parking area?
46
(Queensbury Planning Board 9/22/09)
MR. JACKOSKI-Julian and Leppert and, but yet retain his right in the future if he decides
no longer to have the marina, it’s just for the Special Use Permit only.
MR. HUNSINGER-It’s just for the Special Use Permit.
MR. OBORNE-Okay.
MR. KRAFT-In other words, anybody connected, any customers of the marina, are not
allowed to use it.
MR. HUNSINGER-Right.
MR. KRAFT-But I personally could use it.
MR. HUNSINGER-Right. Yes. I mean, you’re not giving up your deeded right.
MR. KRAFT-Right.
MR. HUNSINGER-But you’re not allowing your.
MR. KRAFT-So what you’re trying to say is any Special Use Permit people are not
allowed to use the access.
MR. HUNSINGER-Right. Yes.
MR. LAPPER-And Marina tenants.
MR. HUNSINGER-Yes.
MR. SEGULJIC-So should I just keep it no access, or no access by marina patrons?
MR. OBORNE-Patrons of.
MR. HUNSINGER-There you go.
MR. FORD-Good verbiage.
MR. SEGULJIC-Okay. Hopefully I can do this. Okay. There was a motion prepared by
Staff.
MR. HUNSINGER-Yes, there is. It does include both the Special Use Permit and the
Freshwater Wetlands Permit.
MOTION TO APPROVE SPECIAL USE PERMIT NO. 52-2009 & FRESHWATER
WETLANDS 8-2009 RAY KRAFT, Introduced by Thomas Seguljic who moved for its
adoption, seconded by Donald Krebs:
1)A special use permit application has been made to the Queensbury Planning
Board for the following: Applicant proposes construction of a 14 slip three (3) dock
Class A Marina. Marinas are permitted by special use permit in the WR zone and
require Planning Board review and approval. Freshwater wetlands permit is required
for disturbance within 100 feet of an APA wetland.
2)A public hearing was advertised and held on 9/22/09 and
3)This application is supported with all documentation, public comment and
application material in the file of record; and
4)MOTION TO APPROVE SPECIAL USE PERMIT NO. 52-2009 & FRESHWATER
WETLANDS 8-2009 RAY KRAFT, Introduced by Thomas Seguljic who moved for its
adoption, seconded by Donald Krebs:
In accordance with the resolution prepared by Staff. Number Four A complies.
Number Four B is Negative
a)Pursuant to relevant sections of the Town of Queensbury Zoning Code, the
Planning Board has determined that this proposal complies with the requirements
as stated in the Zoning Code; and
47
(Queensbury Planning Board 9/22/09)
b)The requirements of the State Environmental Quality Review Act have been
considered and the Planning Board has adopted a SEQRA Negative Declaration;
and
c)Final approved plans, in compliance with the Site Plan / Special Use Permit, must
be submitted to the Community Development Department before any further
review by the Zoning Administrator or Building and Codes personnel. The
applicant must meet with Staff after approval and prior to issuance of Building
Permit and/or the beginning of any site work. Subsequent issuance of further
permits, including building permits is dependent on compliance with this and all
other conditions of this resolution.
d)As-built plans to certify that the site plan is developed according to the approved
plans to be provided prior to issuance of the certificate of occupancy; and
e)If applicable, Item 7 to be combined with a letter of credit; and
f)This special use permit Is approved with the following conditions:
1.The renewable Special Use Permit shall be granted for five years,
extending to December 1, 2014.
2.No sales, launching or on site storage of boats shall be allowed.
3.No access by marina patrons to the site shall be allowed from the north
along Antler Road.
4.A maximum of five foot wide path of permeable material shall be
constructed from the parking lot to the new docks. A maximum five foot
wide area perpendicular to the docks shall be cleared to allow access
to the docks.
5.No other vegetation shall be removed from the site other than diseased
or damaged vegetation.
nd
Duly adopted this 22 day of September, 2009, by the following vote:
MR. SEGULJIC-Should we give a date?
MR. OBORNE-You should, yes. Typically what you’d want to do is, you would do it after
the boating season, which ends, when, December? So then it’ll give you time to turn it
around for the next year. So December 1, 2014.
MR. SEGULJIC-December 1, 2014.
MR. OBORNE-That’s when it will expire, and then you’d come back and re-up it.
MR. KREBS-That’s really only four summer seasons.
MR. OBORNE-Right. It should be 15.
MR. KREBS-It should be 15. Right.
MR. LAPPER-Should be 15, yes.
MR. FORD-2014.
MR. LAPPER-It’s 14.
MR. KREBS-It’s 14.
AYES: Mr. Sipp, Mr. Traver, Mr. Jackoski, Mr. Ford, Mr. Seguljic, Mr. Krebs,
Mr. Hunsinger
NOES: NONE
MR. LAPPER-Thank you.
MR. HUNSINGER-Good luck.
MS. BITTER-Thank you very much.
48
(Queensbury Planning Board 9/22/09)
MR. LAPPER-Before we go, we just have to point out tonight, that we’ve got two Toms,
two Dons, two Steves, and a Chris, which is very interesting.
SITE PLAN 47-2009 SEQR TYPE II MARVIN STAN DOBERT OWNER(S) 52 MAIN
STREET, LLC ZONING MAIN STREET MS LOCATION 50-52 MAIN STREET
APPLICANT PROPOSES RENOVATION AND A 2,180 SQ. FT. EXPANSION OF
EXISTING BUILDINGS AND ASSOCIATED SITE WORK. FURTHER, THE APPLICANT
PROPOSES 900 SQ. FT. CONSTRUCTION OF A NEW BUILDING IN ORDER TO
CONNECT 50 AND 52 MAIN STREET. COMMERCIAL EXPANSION IN THE MS ZONE
REQUIRES SITE PLAN REVIEW AND APPROVAL. CROSS REFERENCE AV 42-09,
SP 11-05,SP 67-04, NOA 3-04, UV 44-04 WARREN CO. PLANNING 9/9/09 LOT SIZE
0.08, 0.16, 0.19 TAX MAP NO. 309.10-2-26, 27, 28 SECTION 179-7-010, 179-9-010
MARVIN DOBERT, PRESENT
MR. HUNSINGER-Keith, whenever you’re ready to summarize Staff Notes, please.
MR. OBORNE-Requested action, commercial expansion in the MS zone, which is Main
Street, requires Site Plan Review and approval. Location: 50 through 52 Main Street.
Existing Zoning: Main Street. SEQRA Status: This is a SEQRA Type II, no further
action necessary. Project Description: Applicant proposes renovation and expansion of
existing buildings, construction of a 900 square foot new building attached to 50 & 52
Main Street and associated site work. The project proposes a mix of residential, office,
and retail space. Commercial expansion in the Main Street zone requires Site Plan
review and approval. Staff Comments: The applicant has received an area variance on
September 16, 2009. The Planning Board had issued a positive recommendation to the
Zoning Board of Appeals concerning Area Variance 42-09 on September 10, 2009.
What follows is pretty much the same thing that we discussed earlier during the
recommendation phase of this project, and I do turn it over to the Board.
MR. HUNSINGER-Thank you. Good evening.
MR. DOBERT-Good evening.
MR. HUNSINGER-If you could identify yourselves for the record.
MR. DOBERT-My name is Marvin Dobert. I’m the father of Stan. He has the same
name as mine, Marvin Stanley Dobert. We refer to the owner as Stan. He’s my son, and
he’s a majority owner now. Stan was called out on a business meeting, and asked me to
cover for him tonight, and I know the building history very well. I’ve operated and owned
it for the last 22 years.
KEVIN WOOD
MR. WOOD-I’m Kevin Wood. I’m the engineer that the Doberts have asked to help them
with their stormwater plan, and any other issues that they need help with.
MR. HUNSINGER-Is there anything that you wanted to add on top of the Staff comments
about your proposal?
MR. WOOD-Well, I was just actually asked a couple of days ago to come to this meeting,
but I did have a chance to look over, well, on the Staff comments, I don’t really have
anything. I mean, I was really more intending to talk about stormwater, which really isn’t
st
really addressed in this, but I do have an August 31 letter from VISION Engineering,
and I wanted to ask, with respect to how the Board views this project, in terms of the
stormwater requirements, is it a minor or a major project pursuant to Chapter 147? I
mean, I kind of view it as being a minor project. It’s four tenths of an acre. The limits of
construction I think would hover around that 15,000 square foot limit, but I’m not sure, not
having been involved with the history of it, really, I don’t know if that determination’s been
made already.
MR. KREBS-Along that line, I was going to ask you, Keith, in the project for Main Street,
is there stormwater sewers included in that project? It would seem logical, if you’re
going to make a Downtown area, that you’re going to have storm sewers.
MR. OBORNE-Certainly there is, but that’s off site. So on site this would be considered
a minor project for 147, which basically tells you to take one and a half gallons of water
per square foot of roof, and find a home for it.
49
(Queensbury Planning Board 9/22/09)
MR. WOOD-Okay. All right. So, having said that, some of the comments in VISION
Engineering’s letter, you know, we can address those easily, but some of them I think,
you know, are geared more toward the major project side of things, particularly, I mean, I
don’t know, maybe a year or so ago, I designed a drywell for this site, and, you know, I
ran a hydroCad model on it, design sized the drywell, but what I didn’t do is a full
evaluation of the pre-existing conditions and the flow paths, and, you know, I didn’t do a
full stormwater evaluation of this project, in terms of the major requirements, you know.
So some of these things that he’s talking about in here I think are geared more toward
that type of evaluation. Certainly these other ones I can address. I mean, Number Two,
yes, we can do a deep test hole. We’ll do that, you know. So I just want to clarify if that’s
going to be okay, if I look at it that way, you know.
MR. OBORNE-I would, not speaking for Dan, I’m sure he’s going to want each and every
one of these addressed. You’re going to want to certainly account for the proposed
impervious areas, and all your drainage areas. I cannot speak for him, though. I mean,
how many different sections do you have, is there three or two?
MR. WOOD-Well, I think that probably, you know, Item One, Item Three, Item Six, well,
Item Six.
MR. OBORNE-Well, how many sub catchments are there? I mean, I think.
MR. WOOD-Well, there’s just, I mean, I had just one in the back, initially, because that
was really where I thought the parking area was going to be, and so some of this ties into
settling this parking issue. So, you know, we still have some work to do on the
stormwater, you know, element of it, but I just wanted to get an idea if it was minor or
major, so I knew what I was heading into, that’s all.
MR. HUNSINGER-Okay.
MR. SEGULJIC-Well, minor or major just deals within the Lake George basin, I believe,
because you just, I’m not an expert on this, but I believe you only have to deal with 147-1
through 147-10, after that, 147-11 and on, supplementary additional requirements for
projects within the Lake George Park.
MR. OBORNE-That is correct.
MR. SEGULJIC-And that’s where minor and major come in.
MR. WOOD-Well, it talks about it in 147-8 also.
MR. SEGULJIC-It does? Okay. Maybe I’m the one that’s.
MR. WOOD-Yes.
MR. OBORNE-Yes, I think once you, and I should just stop there, because I’m not an
engineer.
MR. WOOD-I mean, it used to be a one acre limit, right, if it was, you know, but I think
they ratcheted it down to 15,000 square feet basically, you know, disturbed area.
MR. SEGULJIC-You’re saying that’s in 147-8?
MR. WOOD-Yes. Item A is minor projects. Item B is major.
MR. OBORNE-Well, certainly the Town Engineer will give him guidance on what he’s
looking for.
MR. WOOD-Yes, I can talk to Dan about it.
MR. SEGULJIC-Yes.
MR. WOOD-I just wanted to get the Board’s feeling on it. All right.
MR. HUNSINGER-I mean, we are going to lean on the Town Engineer, you know, and at
the end of the day, you know, he’s going to have to be satisfied that, you know, there’s
no remaining issues.
MR. WOOD-Okay.
50
(Queensbury Planning Board 9/22/09)
MR. DOBERT-I’d like to make a comment.
MR. HUNSINGER-Yes, go ahead.
MR. DOBERT-I’ve dealt with this property for 22 years. I’ve dealt through many zoning
changes, business changes, several different issues have arisen from time to time, and
my son is in business for himself. He runs a corporation that’s involved in mostly
importing, and he deals with fairly sizeable accounts, and his business operates out of
Colorado right now with warehouses in Denver. He was born and raised in this area and
he’d like to move back and set up his office facility here on this facility, and his desire is
to kind of gather up all of the issues that are circulating around this project, solve them,
get in, get established so he can earn some money. It’s a very, and it’s a very simple
approach, from a business standpoint, and the buildings, as they are put together now,
are a collection of several different types of buildings, single family residence, an old
garage that’s been converted, and we’d just like to join it all together into a nice
appearing building that he plans to be there for a while, and he wants to cooperate with
the current Codes.
MR. HUNSINGER-Okay.
MR. WOOD-Can you maybe give me a little bit of the history with the parking issue that
we have here? The Main Street zone pretty basically doesn’t allow parking in the front of
the building, that’s the issue really?
MR. HUNSINGER-Right.
MR. WOOD-Okay, and, well, the Main Street zone does a number of things. One of the
things that it does is it requires a build to line. Most of the zoning in the Town we have
required setbacks where, you know, you can’t be within certain footage of a road. The
Main Street guidelines have a build to line. So if you’re not moving the buildings forward,
you have to build plantings to create the visual impact that you would as if the buildings
were up closer, and that includes no parking in the front, and all of those are spelled out
in the Main Street guidelines, and those are the comments that you see from the Staff
Notes. That’s what they’re related to.
MR. WOOD-Do you envision their being any possibility of getting a variance from that
requirement? I mean, there’s currently parking in front of this building, as well as there
aren’t a lot of other buildings in that area, but, you know, if it was laid out in a manner
that, you know, is there a possibility of getting a variance for it, depending on what the
layout is and that sort of thing, or is it pretty much off the table, as far as you can feel?
MR. HUNSINGER-Well, I’ll open it up for the Board to comment.
MR. OBORNE-It is prohibited. That’s pretty strong.
MR. HUNSINGER-Yes.
MR. TRAVER-Yes, I was going to say, it’s not something, typically, that’s, I mean, the
whole purpose of the design is to not have parking in the front of the building.
MR. SIPP-How many apartments are there going to be in the upstairs arrangement,
three?
MR. DOBERT-One or two.
MR. SIPP-Two?
MR. DOBERT-One or two. What we hope that’ll happen from this, when we were in the
design phase, putting this together for presentation, we really didn’t have an awful lot to
go by as far as allowable usages. There’s no allowable uses other than residential,
single family, single and two family, I guess. So we decided that we’d try to build a
structure that’s flexible, and we were hoping to get professional type tenants, tax
preparers, legal, a low impact, low activity type of activity. Retail. We’re not too excited
about retail, but we, you know, if a little shop comes in, that, again, we don’t anticipate a
disturbance, then we would consider it. We’ve tried to make it a flexible operation. I can
tell you that residential usage on this street is fast diminishing.
51
(Queensbury Planning Board 9/22/09)
MR. SIPP-You’ve got to figure one or two cars per occupant in the living in the area, on
the second floor, then you’d have to figure out how much office space you would have,
and how many cars that would be there. Now, there’s limited space in the rear of this
building, and I don’t know as you could, if you had three apartments and an office and a
retail, whether you’d have enough room out front for.
MR. DOBERT-Well, we’ve kicked this around quite a bit, quite often. We figure that we
can get 20 cars, if we had the space in front. We’d negotiate that. The interesting thing,
I can’t help but bring up at this point, in a previous application, we were criticized and
denied an application for a restaurant, and parking, the parking issue came up, and then
we’ve had a change in the zoning. So now there’s no parking requirement. So
technically we could come in with a restaurant application now, and you’d have to
overturn a judgment that you made three or four years ago. I’d like to add to that that
administering a building, from a business standpoint, is a very real challenge for me.
Twenty-two years, there’s been four zoning changes. I guess another one’s coming up,
Keith, is that true?
MR. OBORNE-No, this is it.
MR. HUNSINGER-No, this is it.
MR. DOBERT-This is the final one?
MR. OBORNE-Yes, sir.
MR. DOBERT-Every four or five years I’ve had to deal with different, you know, different
guidelines. While I was in business it worked out all right, but as soon as I retired, the
activity changed.
MR. SIPP-Are you going to have access from both the Main Street and Richardson?
MR. DOBERT-I’ve worked very closely with Clough Harbor on the new, with the new
highway design. I’ve had several conferences with Lisa at Clough Harbor, and we
compared notes. We decided on a traffic flow that we thought was proper, and designed
the curb cuts accordingly. What was your question? Did I answer your question?
MR. SIPP-Well, are you going to have an entrance and exit on both Richardson and
Main Street?
MR. DOBERT-Yes.
MR. SIPP-Yes.
MR. DOBERT-There’s a curb cut in front of the, there’s kind of a wrap around curb that
comes up Richardson Street from Main, with a curb cut in the front, and then that’s as far
as the construction goes, to the best of my knowledge. So the entrance from the rear
would still be there, and they’ve allowed us an entrance to the, this parcel used to
contain three lots, and they allowed us one curb cut at the east end of the lot, on the new
highway configuration.
MR. KREBS-But if there were no parking in the front, would you still have access by the
front, from Main Street, or would you go into Richardson and then into the property that
way?
MR. DOBERT-Well, we’d have to provide entrances in the rear, yes, and Kevin brought
up a comment, you know, what we thought we’d do is put the required number of
handicap parking spots in front, and we also thought that, instead of having a full string of
parking spaces, we sacrificed, or changed two for sign with landscaping, and then save
four, two on each end, for future unknowns, and I’m thinking of an example like I’m
thinking of the bike path that’s coming through. Maybe we could dress up that corner, or
it may be a Town of Queensbury welcome tablet or a bike rack or a few other unknowns
that might, maybe the bus stop shelter, something of that nature, but the point that I’m
making is that we could be flexible in this. I know Stan wants to put a sign out front. So
that would take up two parking spaces. We’re proposing eight. That would, with two
handicaps, and then basically the remaining parking spaces that would be active for
transients and other people wishing to come in to the front of the building would be four
spaces, two on each end.
52
(Queensbury Planning Board 9/22/09)
MR. WOOD-I think still, though, if you only had parking in the back, you probably would
still have an entrance off Richardson and one out on Main Street, right, around the back
side.
MR. SEGULJIC-I believe that.
MR. HUNSINGER-That’s how it’s drawn, yes.
MR. SEGULJIC-But aren’t ingress and egress off Main Street discouraged?
MR. OBORNE-No, it’s an existing cut. It’s already been incorporated into the plan by
Clough Harbor.
MR. SEGULJIC-Okay. I guess, I mean, overall I like what you’re trying to achieve here,
and we need people like you to step up and do this stuff. We’ve got to work on this
together, but we’re kind of hung up because the Code says no parking in the front. So
my question to you is, how many spaces do you really need? Have you really thought
about that? Because you have, what, 14 in the back here.
MR. DOBERT-Well, you know, this is a fluid situation. If I could predict, five years down
the road, what’s going to happen, as far as business entities there.
MR. SEGULJIC-Well, we can only deal with what we know. You’re going to have two
apartments you said, an office and a retail.
MR. DOBERT-That’s right, that’s exactly right.
MR. SEGULJIC-How big is the office going to be? How many people do you think will be
working in the office?
MR. DOBERT-I wish Stan was here to answer that question. The main office, right now,
it’s a one man operation. It’s probably, a secretary which is his wife. His staff is over in
China. Ninety percent of his staff is in China.
MR. HUNSINGER-So you’re only going to need two or three spaces, I think, is what.
MR. DOBERT-Yes.
MR. WOOD-I think part of it, though, depends on if there’s a retail element to it, you
know.
MR. SEGULJIC-How much retail space would you say you’re going to have?
MR. DOBERT-How many retail spaces?
MR. SEGULJIC-How big a retail space?
MR. DOBERT-I don’t think it’ll be more than two. I guess realistically it will probably be
one retail space, maybe two. We’re hoping, mostly, for professional type tenancy there.
I’ve dealt with this property for 22 years, and I understand the problems associated with
retail and, you know, we’re not ready to jump into a problem situation.
MR. SEGULJIC-I mean, to me, just thinking out loud here, some type of compromise
like, you know, I think if you reconfigured the back, you might be able to get more
parking spaces there.
MR. HUNSINGER-Yes, I think you could, too.
MR. SEGULJIC-But maybe something like, you only have like two or three in the front on
the eastern edge of the building, so that from Richardson in is all landscaped. If you can
maintain that and you could put that hedge row at the, what is it, the 22 foot line, so
maybe they get, so that you could come in off Main Street and you’ve got two or three
spots there, and you could also wrap around into the back. Something like that I can
see. The question is, is that going to be enough spots for you.
MR. SIPP-You’ve also got the landscaping in the rear.
MR. HUNSINGER-Yes.
53
(Queensbury Planning Board 9/22/09)
MR. SIPP-You have to take into account you have a buffer area in the rear, between the
car parking and the neighbor next door.
MR. DOBERT-We’ve done quite a bit of preliminary sketching on parking. There are
different ways to do it.
MR. OBORNE-If I can interject. The whole purpose of Main Street is to make it a
walkable community area. There are public parking spots that will be built to take care of
any overflow traffic. There are no guidelines for traffic with the exception that
interconnects are a must between each property. Let’s say you have a restaurant or bar,
a tavern, sorry, that doesn’t have a lot of usage during the day, but at night it does,
overflow parking would be over onto the Doberts property for that, and vice versa.
During the day, that parking lot that’s adjoining it, you would have overflow parking on
that also.
MR. SEGULJIC-So how is that public parking going to work? I mean, have the spots
been designated yet? I mean, how is that all going to come about?
MR. OBORNE-Well, it’s in preliminary phase, absolutely. There are kiss and rides also
and there’s public parking space.
MR. SEGULJIC-I guess to me, this is a unique, a unique project, in that they’re trying to
work with the existing building, I guess.
MR. DOBERT-Let me make another suggestion. I’m going to guess realistically that that
front yard is going to be tore up for the next two plus years, when you consider the
underground utilities, the lateral utilities that will be going into the buildings, the tearing
out of the utilities lines, all the site work that’s required for highway construction. A two
year interim period I think is very realistic in that, we’ll just be unable to do any
construction, site work on a parking basis. I wonder if there’s some way that we might
segregate these issues and put the parking off for a year or two until the highway gets
finished and we see what happens out there, and look at it and then you folks can take a
drive through. I mean, I don’t like the idea of putting a hedge out there, and I’ve sent,
putting a hedge in between the building and the street. I’d like to see.
MR. OBORNE-Those are the design guidelines. Those are what we’re bound by.
MR. DOBERT-Could I expand on that?
MR. OBORNE-Absolutely.
MR. DOBERT-You many times have noted that parking is prohibited. However,
prohibited guidelines to me is an oxymoron. Are they guidelines or is it prohibited. If it’s
prohibited and it’s law, you wouldn’t need these people here. They’re guidelines, and in
this case here, we have a building that is nonconforming. The only way to get around
the hardship is to move the building, then there’d be plenty of parking in back. So the
question is, do you want us to move the building? And I think that’s unreasonable.
MR. OBORNE-Marvin, we’ve gone around and around on this.
MR. DOBERT-I’m bringing this issue up to the Board, Keith. Okay. I know we’ve gone
around and around.
MR. OBORNE-Okay. Well, you’re looking at me and you’re talking to me. So I’m
responding.
MR. DOBERT-And I hope everybody is listening.
MR. OBORNE-I’m sure they are. Design guidelines are design guidelines. I can’t
disagree with you that something being prohibited and then having a design guideline is
an oxymoron, sure, but it’s meant to be malleable.
MR. DOBERT-I agree. There you have it. We’re willing to work and compromise, but I
think the hardship is a real one in this case.
MR. HUNSINGER-And I think part of the, with all due respect, I think part of difficulty that
we’re having right now is the Site Plan that’s been presented, we can’t determine if you
can obtain enough parking out back, particularly when you’re not really sure how many
spaces you need, and we had that discussion.
54
(Queensbury Planning Board 9/22/09)
MR. DOBERT-According to the Code now, there’s no parking minimum.
MR. HUNSINGER-Right. That’s right.
MR. DOBERT-So what’s the issue?
MR. HUNSINGER-Well, I asked the question, you weren’t here at the last meeting, but I
asked the question, well, how many spaces do you need, and, well, we don’t know, you
know, so it’s like, then if you don’t know how many you need, why don’t you just design
the maximum that you can around the back, and then we could move forward.
MR. SEGULJIC-Because, for example, you could probably put some along the building.
You might be able to put some.
MR. DOBERT-Chris, let me give one more example of the type of management situation
I’ve had to deal with on this property. You refer to guidelines. This refers to guidelines.
Does anybody remember on the first planning cycle that occurred with this, there was an
alleyway that was factored in between Main Street and Garner Street? The point I’m
making is that the guidelines are changing at a very fast rate. Guidelines are changing
almost on an annual basis. I mean, you look at the Queensbury website and there’s still
a median. You look down the Main Street highway, there’s still a median on the
Queensbury web. Right?
MR. OBORNE-Not that I know of.
MR. DOBERT-Look at the Main Street Guidelines that’s on the Queensbury website right
now.
MR. OBORNE-There’s a median for turn lanes, absolutely.
MR. DOBERT-Well, okay, the point I’m making is that the guidelines are changing. From
a long term planning standpoint, from an owner’s standpoint, you know, if I’m looking to
buy a piece of property out in back of 52 Main Street, and I look at the Queensbury
zoning guidelines and I see an alleyway that’s going right down that lot, I’m not going to
buy that lot. I’d lose it because of the planning sequence. So the point I’m making is that
the management of this project has been difficult. It’s been difficult from a planning
standpoint. It’s been difficult from a design standpoint. It’s very difficult from an
ownership standpoint, and I’d like some relief, to be very frank with you. The Board
activity in the past has not been friendly, and I’ve really tried to make an attempt over the
years to be a good citizen on Main Street.
MR. HUNSINGER-And we appreciate that. Yes.
MR. DOBERT-I was born and raised here. I remember when the Corinth Road was a
dirt road. We used to drive on it.
MR. WOOD-Okay. So it’s stormwater and parking, and I saw, there’s also a note
regarding landscaping, which I guess is something else, too. Has there actually been a
landscaping plan submitted?
MR. HUNSINGER-Well, I think the landscaping comments tie into the whole Site Plan,
because right now you have the parking up front. There’s no landscaping in front of the
building. It’s just parking.
MR. WOOD-Yes. Okay. So they kind of go hand and hand, I see. All right.
MR. HUNSINGER-Yes, they kind of go hand in hand, and I mean the first comment that I
made at the last meeting was I really like your building design. I think your building
design is very attractive, and I think the design itself does capture a lot of the goal of the
Main Street plan.
MR. DOBERT-Well, Chris, I have to tell you also, back, 2002, I commissioned an
architect to do a project for me. It cost me several thousand dollars, and he says, well,
what do you want. I gave him the Queensbury guidelines, and I said, I had to scrap that
program and start all over again. Several thousand dollars, all right. So just to let you
know what’s happening from an ownership and a business standpoint on this street.
There’s other issues than the plan, so to speak. A plan has to be malleable, as Keith
says.
55
(Queensbury Planning Board 9/22/09)
MR. HUNSINGER-Yes. Okay.
MR. WOOD-Okay. So we’ll work on addressing these remaining issues, and we’ll come
back.
MR. OBORNE-If the Board could give more specific direction to the applicant, it would
probably be helpful, as to what they’re feeling, and what they’re looking for, just a
suggestion.
MR. DOBERT-I’d like some feedback from the Board, to give us some guidelines.
MR. SIPP-Well, you’ve got parking. You’ve got stormwater. You’ve got landscaping.
There’s three big ones right there. You’ve got to decide, too, if you’re going to use the
upstairs or these buildings for living space. You’ve got to consider that you’re going to
have at least, could have two cars per one space.
MR. DOBERT-That’s right, and there’s enough space for that.
MR. SIPP-Yes. Plus you’re going to have to have areas for snow removal.
MR. DOBERT-Yes. Snow removal is an item that I have a lot of experience in. We’ve
been dealing with that for a long time. You know what most of the problem is with snow
removal?
MR. SIPP-No.
MR. DOBERT-Is the snow coming off the street from the Town and the County roads.
We would like to cooperate on the parking issue. It kind of sounds like it’s the only issue
that really is holding us up.
MR. SEGULJIC-That’s the lynch pin that you have to determine, because that’s going to
solve all the other issues.
MR. DOBERT-Yes. Would the Board be agreeable to a modified plan, you know, like I
suggested, a sign, we were originally proposing eight spaces. We’ll take two spaces for
the sign, with the landscaping, two spaces for handicap, and then that would
accommodate the handicap entrances in the front, and that would leave basically four
spaces for transient.
MR. SIPP-Maybe I’m wrong here, but the sign, there’s no freestanding signs allowed is
there? Signs are on the building.
MR. OBORNE-I believe that is, I’d have to look that up.
MR. DOBERT-Well, if that’s the case, then the sign will go out, then. Then we could
substitute the landscaping, then, for the center of that. That would basically cut it from
eight down to six spaces.
MR. SIPP-Yes. Get a copy of the zoning regulation. You also have to have a, along the
sidewalk, you have to have landscaping along the sidewalk.
MR. DOBERT-Yes, I think we have enough room for that.
MR. SIPP-In the front of the building and the side. I think you can make this work, and
it’s a good idea because you’re recycling something that’s already there, and putting
them together makes it even better, but you’ve got to work at this and you’ve got to come
up with what was asked for by the engineer and by us. We can’t give it to you.
MR. DOBERT-Well, you’ve given us guidelines, and the guidelines have changed, but
we’ll go by the current guidelines. Believe me. We’d like to do a good job on this project.
It’s a long term project for us, and I’d like to get it settled tonight, one way or the other, if
possible, otherwise we’ll miss this construction season.
MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. Anything else from the Board? We do have a public hearing
scheduled this evening. Is there anyone in the audience that wants to comment on this
application? I think you heard the spiel before. You need to identify yourself for the
record and speak into the microphone and make your comments to the Board.
56
(Queensbury Planning Board 9/22/09)
PUBLIC HEARING OPENED
FRED GLEASON
MR. GLEASON-Fred Gleason, 54 Main Street. I’d like a little leeway and give a couple
of random thoughts on my association with Main Street, in reference to Marv’s proposal.
Twenty-six years ago, my wife and I took the property on Main Street, 54 Main Street,
and took a dilapidated house and an unsightly property and I think we converted it into a
real visual asset for the Town of Queensbury. We’ve had all kinds of compliments about
our property over the years, letters. Now, necessity has brought progress, and that is
with a new road. Fine, you know, I have no qualms with that. My wife does, though,
because with the road, we’ll be losing all of our front yard, which includes flowers,
shrubberies, trees, and our side yard on Richardson Street, we have flowers, rock
gardens. I don’t know if you’re familiar with our property. There’s going to be a bike path
there. I don’t quite agree with that. I told my wife, $429,000, I’m retired, I would put a
bike rack on my car, and serve the public from eight until six and drive them down to
Feeder Dam, you know, that doesn’t make sense, that little bit of distance. Well,
anyway, in respect to Marv’s property, he’s always been a great neighbor, and he did a
beautiful job with remodeling the old Richardson property. That was an eyesore for quite
a few years. Now, the business that that generated brought no problem. The only
qualms I have now is there seems to be a lot of increase in the area of that property, and
as you were stating, what’s going to develop there, and my main concern is the traffic
generated, because here we’re going to have a bike path right on Richardson Street, and
the parking, now, last week, a tractor trailer came up to deliver an item. Well, he had to
back over onto my driveway, and when he pulled out, there were just inches between the
front of the cab and my mailbox. So I don’t know. I’m pulling for Marv. I know probably
what he’s going through, because, as I say, he’s always been a decent neighbor, and
he’s probably trying his darndest to accommodate every situation available, but I, as I
say, I’m concerned about safety and traffic on Richardson Street, and what’s it going to
generate, considering what Main Street’s going to do. I mean, that will enhance the flow,
granted, but with a bike trail on Richardson Street, I don’t know, what’s that, what kind of
traffic flow is going to be generated with his back building lot. I don’t know. So those are
my comments, and I wish him all the luck in the world, and a lot of longevity for his son.
So that’s my comment.
MR. HUNSINGER-Thank you. Yes, sir.
RICHARD HILL
MR. HILL-Hi. My name is Richard Hill, property owner at 24 Richardson Street. I’m just
curious, is there a Site Plan Review on file right now with the Town?
MR. OBORNE-Yes.
MR. HILL-Okay. So that’s something that I can access if I call?
MR. OBORNE-Absolutely.
MR. HILL-Okay. I appreciate that. My property faces the rear of this building. Again,
Fred is my father-in-law, and traffic concerns in this area are an issue. This is less than
a half an acre of property here. I’m concerned, you know, about maybe increased traffic,
what’s going on, again, with the corner and stuff, and I agree with Mr. Dobert, as far as
the snow removal. It all comes off the street. I’ve shoveled it for years. So I know what
that’s all about. Again, I think my major concern, I want to look at the Site Plan Review,
see what’s going on with that. This is the first turn that comes off of 87. There’s a lot of
traffic coming into our Town. I don’t know how much of it funnels back down that way,
and again, I don’t know what the complete plan is for, you know, the Main Street project,
but I’m interested to see what’s going on, and I’d like to be a little more informed about
what’s happening on the property on the corner, as far as whether they’re going to be
new buildings, you know, joining something in between them, if it’s renovations, is it
going to be office spaces, is it going to be, whatever, I don’t know if that’s included in the
plan or not.
MR. OBORNE-Just stop on in the office or give me a call and we could hook you up.
MR. HILL-I can appreciate what he’s trying to do there. I know it’s an old piece of
property, and first coming into Town, and being a property owner myself, I want to use
my property as I want to do with it, but again, you know, we’ve got to take into
57
(Queensbury Planning Board 9/22/09)
consideration what other people in the area think, and to make sure that it does fit. So,
thank you.
MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. Thank you. Anyone else? Good evening.
DON DANIELS
MR. DANIELS-Good evening. I’m Don Daniels. These last two fellows and Marv
mentioned about the snow off the road. Now we have a couple of narrow lanes and
we’re putting the third lane in the middle. By the time this road gets done, it’s going to be
twice as wide, twice as much snow. I own six pieces of property across the street from
Marv on the other corner, and I’ve dealt with the snow for 42 years. I’ve been out there
for a long time. The road is a foot higher than my property. You mentioned about taking
care of the rain that comes down on top of my roof. I have to get rid of and take care of
that water, but my property gets flooded from the road, and there’s nobody from the
Town that puts a storm sewer, and then I can’t use the storm sewer to get rid of the water
and they’re putting storm sewers out there and it’s going to go down Richardson Street to
the canal to get rid of it, but I can’t use it because it’s not on my property, and Marv can’t
use it. He’s got to use part of his property for dry wells or something. I’m kind of happy
that the sewer is going to be coming through because I’ve got about a dozen different
septic tanks on all my buildings and dry wells, and I thought, well, when the sewer comes
through I can collapse and fill in all those and have some additional parking. I’ve got
parking for 100 cars probably. Maybe three or four years ago, I was sitting here and I
made some comments to, I don’t know if all you fellows were on the Planning Board, but
somebody told Marv on one of these applications, because I’ve been here several times,
and maybe I didn’t always speak. I listened to what was happening to his property, and
the mention was made to Marv about connecting those buildings. Maybe, Marv, you
should connect those buildings, make one nice building and use the grass area for
parking all the way across the front, and it strikes him, well, maybe I can make a nice
building out of it, better than what’s there, and fix it up and have parking across the front,
and then we changed the zoning again, and now you’re debating whether he can park
across the front. If he does nothing with those buildings, can he park across the front?
Everybody that’s out there, that’s getting stuck with this Main Street thing, I have to
debate your idea of all these parking lots and people are going to be strolling up and
down the sidewalk. If there’s no bars and night clubs at night, there’s nobody going to be
strolling down Main Street like this idyllic community that we envision this one mile of
Main Street’s going to happen. It’s not going to happen. It’s the most stupid thing that
Queensbury’s ever come up with, excuse me, John. Because I’ve listened some of the
things, and I know some of the people at the Board that have come up with this
ridiculous idea of 12 feet and 12 feet high and you want all these apartments above it.
I’ve waited for 25 or 30 years to have something where the Town says, okay, Don
Daniels, you can have apartments above your buildings and we won’t give you any
trouble. Well, I finally got it, but I have to take all the other drudgery that goes along with
it, which I don’t agree with. Some of the stuff is ridiculous. Everybody Downtown Glens
Falls is complaining because if they don’t park in front of the store, they don’t want to go
Downtown. They don’t want to park in a parking lot that’s a block away and walk. The
Mall they’ll park 300 yards away in the parking lot and walk in the Mall, and walk another
300 yards to the other end of the Mall. They don’t mind that, but the not parking in front
of the building, and now we’re trying to make this one strip of Main Street, this Main
Street thing, like Marv said, four, five different changes. I’ve gone through all the
changes. I’ve watched them all, and each time I have a plan to make changes on my
property, then there’s talk about the new zoning. Now there’s new zoning. I better wait
until that happens, and I’m not doing anything, and Marv’s building, as far as I can see, I
don’t know why the man wants to spend all this money to do that. It’s going to cost him a
lot of money, and he’s made a nice building. When I bought my first building out there,
that building that he’s had, they were pumping gas out front. There was gas pumps right
out front. They were pumping gas. The garage was open and operating. He fixed up
the property, you know, and I can see that, you know, you’re all torn about whether you
have to go along. Maybe the answer is, well, Marv, you already have room for, if you
take the grass area, you’ve got room for eight or ten or twelve cars across the front, and
you’re going to make it nice. He’s losing a bunch of it. This man over here is gong to
lose everything in the front of his property, and that was a two family house, and the man
that lived there was kind of an uncle of mine or something and he had died and he was
trying to get some income from it, and the last 20 years he was there it went downhill and
him and Jean bought that property and fixed it up and it’s been very pretty. Makes my
building look nice, but they’re going to lose everything across the front. Everybody’s
going to lose, especially on that side that he’s on.
58
(Queensbury Planning Board 9/22/09)
MR. HUNSINGER-Well, that’s not our job to debate whether we agree with the Main
Street plan. It’s already law. I mean, our job is to implement the plan. So, thank you for
your comments.
MR. DANIELS-If Marv does nothing with his property, it’s not going to look as nice as
what he plans on doing, but if I was going to have, do something like he was talking
about, and then you were asking me, well who’s going to go in there? Well the whole
thing could be an office. There could be 25 people in there. He might need 15 or 20
parking spaces. He’s going to have to turn down all kinds of people and say, well, you
want to put a nice legal office in there, but you can only have three people. Anyway,
that’s my comments.
MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. Thank you. Anyone else? Okay. It looks as though we’re
going to.
MR. DOBERT-The issue about service vehicles. That issue came into play when we
designed the drive around, so it won’t ever be necessary for a service vehicle to have to
turn around, like it did the other day, Fred. I’m sorry about that. So there’s enough room
for a service vehicle to go down. That’s always been an issue, because of the crazy
angle at Richardson Street and Main Street, that oblique or acute angle whatever way
you look at it, but the drive around should address that.
MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. It looks like we’re looking to table this. We have a submission
th
deadline of the 15 of the month for the following month. Do you think you could have
th
new material in by the 15?
th
MR. WOOD-The 15 of October, basically?
MR. HUNSINGER-Yes.
MR. WOOD-Possible. I don’t know. It’s kind of tight, but I’ll try.
th
MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. We’d be looking to table this to November 17.
MR. DOBERT-Chris, could you be specific with the issues that you would like to be dealt
with, again?
MR. HUNSINGER-Well, I think the biggest issue is parking.
MR. DOBERT-Okay. It sounded like a yes or no situation.
MR. HUNSINGER-I think so. It’s very clear that parking, I lost the reference, but parking
is allowed on the side, but not in the front. So the parking will have to be in the back and
on the side.
MR. DOBERT-The guidelines call for that, the current guidelines.
MR. HUNSINGER-Right. Yes, the current guidelines. So I think that’s really the biggest
issue. I think the building design is fine. It’s the rest of the Site Plan that needs work.
MR. DOBERT-Is the Board for it or against it?
MR. SEGULJIC-For or against what?
MR. DOBERT-The parking. I mean, is this your comment, Chris?
MR. HUNSINGER-The Code’s the Code. The Town Code is the Town Code.
MR. DOBERT-We’re asking for a variance.
MR. HUNSINGER-Then you’d have to go to the Zoning Board. That’s a Zoning Board
issue.
MR. DOBERT-Okay. They passed it up here.
MR. HUNSINGER-Well, you got a variance on the setback requirements, but not on
parking. Can they get in?
59
(Queensbury Planning Board 9/22/09)
MR. OBORNE-This is not a dimensional requirement. So it would not go before the
ZBA.
MR. HUNSINGER-Right. Okay.
MR. DOBERT-I’d like the feelings of other people on the Board, Chris.
MR. FORD-Marvin, let me ask a question. Is there any way that the various uses of the
building could be re-addressed to the point where it would minimize the need for parking
in the front?
MR. DOBERT-We’ve done that, Tom.
MR. FORD-Have you?
MR. DOBERT-Yes. I’m a pragmatic person. I’ve been in business all my life and I
understand how it works. Just yesterday or this past week, we had an inquiry. A
gentleman would like to rent a small part of the facility to be a, for his tax accounting
office. He wants a place to hang his slate out, because of the exposure on Main Street.
We expect very little automobile traffic coming from that. We would regulate that issue,
because it would be a problem, more of a problem for us than it would be for the Town to
deal with. We absolutely would regulate that issue, dealing with parking and what not.
MR. FORD-Because who you have in there and the kind of businesses or whatever, that
really is going to determine the number of people you’re going to draw, and therefore the
number of spaces you’re going to need for parking.
MR. DOBERT-Realistically, the way I see it, probably half the facility will be used by Stan
for his office. We see another rental for professional, we hope would be a professional
type office. We see one operation that would be flexible, as the Code calls for,
commercial retail we call it. That’s the way you define it, and that would be a small, that
would be the section in between the two buildings, the new section. We’d like to design
that nice for retail purposes. Then the top, hopefully people that rent the downstairs will
have a need for the upstairs, then that would be, maybe have their office and storage
upstairs. That’s kind of what we’re tending towards.
MR. FORD-If that retail space were more configured toward this professional who called
you a day or two ago, that could impact the need for parking spaces.
MR. DOBERT-Could. I’d have to go to Don and rent some space from him. Walk across
the street. Where are these parking spaces that’s being considered?
MR. OBORNE-Well, there’s some down by 87. I believe there’s also, and I don’t know
specifically, behind, to the north of Main Street and Richardson, you know, I don’t have
the map in front of me, but I know that there are plans for those type of lots.
MR. DOBERT-Okay. So the important thing is that some provision is being made for
parking. That’s good news, because the $15 million that’s being spent without making
any provision for parking was a.
MR. OBORNE-Well, the interconnects are an integral part of all that, too, the shared
parking between sites.
MR. DOBERT-Yes, okay.
MR. HUNSINGER-Anyone else want to comment?
MR. KREBS-Well, I think, I’ll make a comment. My personal feeling, if you remember
when I was on the PORC Committee, I was not in favor of this whole Main Street design
to begin with because you’re going to end up, it’s going to take 40 years to get there, if
you ever get there, okay, and you’re going to discourage a lot of business in the interim
period, because the man who has a very nice home across the street on Richardson,
has a porch that is today probably less than ten or twelve feet from the highway, and
unless he moves in the next 10 years or 15 years, his building is going to remain the
same, as are a lot of other buildings on this Main Street corridor. So I think what we
need to do, somehow, is we need to be flexible in the beginning with the early applicants
and not have them have to be rigid to that absolute Code. I mean, we’ve got somebody
here that’s willing to, you know, work with us, but you’re saying, no, you can’t have any
parking in front. Well, you know, there’s a whole bunch of other buildings that have
60
(Queensbury Planning Board 9/22/09)
parking in front, all right, and I think it’s a joke, this parking at 87 and, you know, people
don’t walk. I’ve been in the retail business and I’ll tell you, people want to pull up as
close to your door as they can possibly get, and all these sidewalks that we want to put
every place in this Town, nobody’s going to use them anyway. Because people get in
their car and drive. I watch my neighbors, you know, less than a third of a mile down the
street, every one of them gets the kids in the car and drives down to the bus. Okay. So
if there was a sidewalk there would it make any difference? Absolutely not, okay. So I
don’t know, but somehow we’re going to have to get flexible along the way here,
because you’re not going to be able to change Main Street in a short period of time, and
so you’re either going to very seriously penalize the first people who make changes, to
start to improve that area, or, you know, you’re not going to have anything happen
because if you really stick to what we’ve proposed, and as I said, when I was on the
Committee, I was against it then. I don’t know what you’re going to do. I mean, you’ve
got housing all along this street, private residences. You’re not going to have any
change in those for some time to come.
MR. FORD-I believe that one of the things we need to be cognizant of, not just tonight,
but we’re setting the stage for the days and the years to come, and I think that there
needs to be some sort of consistency in the way we deal with the applicants. If there’s
gong to be some sense of leniency, if there’s going to be some give and take, or if it’s
going to be regimented, it ought to be duplicated, the process, the procedure, as we go
forward in the years to come. We cannot single one individual out or one family out and
say, this is the way it’s got to be, only to find ourselves, six months from now, more
lenient with another applicant.
MR. TRAVER-Right.
MR. KREBS-And if you really want Main Street to be the Main Street that is envisioned in
the Code, you’re going to have to get rid of a large number of residences that are on
Main Street, because that’s not what the Code envisions. It doesn’t envision private
residences on Main Street, and every time someone comes in that has an existing
building that they want to convert from a residence to a commercial building, we’re going
to have a difficulty because they’re not going to meet the setbacks. They’re not going to
be able to park behind the building. I don’t know what we’re going to do with it, but I
agree with you, Tom, we’ve got to establish what we’re going to do and be fair with
everybody.
MR. OBORNE-I do want to say, I can’t disagree with anything that’s being said here, you
know. Each site is specific. That’s why there is malleability in the Code. Okay, with the
exception of parking in the front.
MR. HUNSINGER-Exactly. That’s about the only thing, yes.
MR. TRAVER-Yes. I would say, my only feeling, and just generally for the applicant, I
would say, if I were in your position, the way I would pursue it would be I would try to
envision a plan that involves some sort of defined need for parking, recognizing the
difficulty that we are in as a Planning Board, in terms of having parking in front
prohibited, I would make every effort to develop the parking in the rear to the maximum
extent possible, so that, if you are coming back with a plan that calls for parking in front,
it’s an absolute minimum, because it’s then going to be easier for us, I guess, to try to
accommodate that. If you have a logical plan that involves, if any parking in front is
proposed, it would be the absolute minimum with a clear reasoning behind the number of
spaces and how many were able to be created in the rear of the building, and if that’s
inadequate, why the need is for parking in front. That’s the general thing I would say.
MR. DOBERT-May I respond?
MR. TRAVER-Yes, please
MR. DOBERT-Keith, there’s a formula for parking based on usage that’s existing now in
Queensbury.
MR. OBORNE-Not for Main Street, but for all other zones.
MR. DOBERT-Okay. It’s been dropped from Main Street.
MR. KREBS-Right.
MR. OBORNE-Right.
61
(Queensbury Planning Board 9/22/09)
MR. DOBERT-Okay. So you’re passing this back to us. The Town of Queensbury is
saying.
MR. TRAVER-Well, you’re the applicant. You’re coming in proposing a design for us to
look at and approve.
MR. DOBERT-Exactly. Right.
MR. TRAVER-So, what I’m just suggesting is, when you, and your engineer has offered
to come back and take a look at some of these issues after our discussion this evening.
So, just in terms of general guidelines, instead of thinking of it in terms of you’re either
going to have all your parking in front or it’s going to be all prohibited, what I would
suggest is that you develop a vision for this property that includes, if possible, all the
parking in the rear of the building. If that’s not possible, then propose the absolute
minimum parking that would be in violation of this Main Street plan, and be prepared to
vigorously defend a specific parking plan, when you re-appear before us with your
revised plan. That’s going to be easiest for you, because you will have, in your mind,
you’ll have a cogent argument to make as for how many spaces and why you weren’t
able to achieve that according to the Code, and that in turn is going to, if it involves a
compromise, or we’re going to have to address the issue of having parking in front of
your building, it’s going to make it a little bit easier for us to accommodate, because
we’re going to have a concrete plan, something that we can fully understand, which you
don’t, I don’t think, have now.
MR. DOBERT-I understand your reasoning, but I’d still like to point out that the Town of
Queensbury has ducked this issue very conveniently by switching Main Street to a no
parking requirement. How did this happen? Who did it? Can you tell me that, Keith?
MR. OBORNE-Who did it?
MR. DOBERT-Yes.
MR. OBORNE-Well, the PORC Committee did it.
MR. KREBS-Well, no, in the final analysis, the Town Board did it, because the Planning
Ordinance Review Committee did no more than make recommendations to the Town
Board on zoning changes.
MR. SEGULJIC-Well, if I can interject here, that’s not the issue. The issue is this Site
Plan.
MR. HUNSINGER-Right. Exactly.
MR. SEGULJIC-We’re spinning around here. My opinion is minimize the parking out
front. Do what you can. We’ll see you in a couple of months. Once you solve the
parking issue, everything will fall into place.
MR. DOBERT-Okay.
MR. SEGULJIC-You don’t have a concrete plan here. The only concrete thing we have
here is the Code, and that’s the problem I’m facing.
MR. DOBERT-Well, that’s the big issue. That’s what’s stopping him, and we could settle
that tonight.
MR. SEGULJIC-Right, but I think what you’re trying to achieve here is a great thing,
recycling these buildings, giving them a new look. I think it’s everything that the Town
wants.
MR. DOBERT-Thank you.
MR. SEGULJIC-We’ve just got to overcome this parking issue. Once you do that,
everything’s going to fall into place.
MR. SIPP-You’ve got a building that has been recycled there, the building next to the
Hess gas station was turned into an ice cream parlor. It was very good business, as far s
I can see. That was a house. I’m very familiar with that house, and it was turned into an
ice cream parlor, which is a going a business, with parking in the rear and on the side.
62
(Queensbury Planning Board 9/22/09)
Not in the front, but on the side and the rear, and there are days when that parking lot is
almost full.
MR. HUNSINGER-Yes.
MR. DOBERT-There is room for parking on the side on his structure.
MR. HUNSINGER-Well, there you go.
MR. DOBERT-So we’ll put the green in front and put the parking on the side.
MR. FORD-It goes back to what I mentioned before, Marv, about your vision for the
building, and maybe if you start with that, and modify that in some way, that it’ll impact
the need for the amount of parking and where it could be.
MR. DOBERT-Yes. Try to better define the usage. Okay.
th
MR. HUNSINGER-Would anyone like to put forward a tabling motion, the 17 of
November?
MR. SEGULJIC-I mean, really the three issues are the parking, landscaping and
stormwater.
MR. HUNSINGER-Right.
MR. SEGULJIC-So would you say for further review of those?
MR. HUNSINGER-Well, they need to put forward a compliant plan.
MR. KREBS-Which I think you understand what we need for the other plan, right?
MR. SEGULJIC-All right. So I’ll say to put forward a plan that meets the requirements of
the Main Street Design Guidelines, in particular with regards to parking.
MR. HUNSINGER-There you go.
MR. SEGULJIC-Okay.
MOTION TO TABLE SITE PLAN NO. 47-2009 MARVIN STAN DOBERT, Introduced by
Thomas Seguljic who moved for its adoption, seconded by Stephen Traver:
1)A site plan application has been made to the Queensbury Planning Board for the
following: Applicant proposes renovation and a 2,180 sq. ft. expansion of existing
buildings and associated sitework. Further, the applicant proposes 900 sq. ft.
construction of a new building in order to connect 50 and 52 Main Street.
Commercial Expansion in the MS zone requires Site Plan review and approval.
2)A public hearing was advertised and held on 9/22/09; 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. 47-2009 MARVIN STAN DOBERT,
Introduced by Thomas Seguljic who moved for its adoption, seconded by
Stephen Traver:
So that the applicant can prepare a plan that is compliant with the Main Street
Design Guidelines, in particular with regards to parking, landscaping, and
stormwater issues. I will table this until our November 17, 2009 meeting.
th
Materials are due October 15.
nd
Duly adopted this 22 day of September, 2009, by the following vote:
AYES: Mr. Sipp, Mr. Jackoski, Mr. Ford, Mr. Seguljic, Mr. Traver, Mr. Hunsinger
NOES: Mr. Krebs
th
MR. SEGULJIC-We should just clarify, materials are due, when, October 15?
63
(Queensbury Planning Board 9/22/09)
th
MR. HUNSINGER-October 15.
MR. SEGULJIC-And any questions, Keith will be available.
MR. HUNSINGER-Talk to Keith.
MR. WOOD-Okay. Thanks a lot, guys.
MR. HUNSINGER-The Code’s pretty clear on parking in particular. I mean, it says front
yard parking is prohibited.
MR. SEGULJIC-And we really like what you’re trying to achieve here, but we just can’t
get over that hurdle.
MR. HUNSINGER-I know.
MR. SEGULJIC-I think you can get more spaces in the back.
MR. WOOD-I’ll take a look at it and see what we can come up with.
MR. OBORNE-You can give me a call. I’m highly approachable.
MR. WOOD-Okay. It sounds good. Thanks a lot.
MR. OBORNE-If that works for you.
MR. HUNSINGER-Thank you. The other item of business we had is the handout from
Mr. Krebs. I’ll let you introduce it. You e-mailed it to us before.
MR. KREBS-I’ve already e-mailed this to you, but I had already printed them and forgot
them at the last meeting I was at. So I brought them in and gave them to you. I think, if
we are really going to try and make the system more efficient, we need to get the Staff
comments and the engineering comments back to the applicant and let them review
them with Staff and the engineering people prior to coming to a Planning Board meeting,
because we spend hours and hours on these little details that could be resolved in a joint
meeting between Staff, engineering and the client, or the applicant, earlier, and so what I
did is I put together what I thought was a flow chart that would work, and I e-mailed it to
all of you and I gave you a copy tonight, but if we’re going to do this, we need to do it at a
time, we need to institute it so that we give the Staff three months or so to go through the
change process because it’s not going to happen overnight.
MR. HUNSINGER-Right.
MR. KREBS-So I didn’t get any comments back from anybody when I.
MR. FORD-We had originally targeted January as the start up.
MR. HUNSINGER-Right. Yes.
MR. KREBS-Right, yes, and that’s what I’m looking at is that if we approve this tonight,
you know, or if we make this a formal request from the Planning Board tonight to Staff to
st
change the procedure, and make it effective January 1. I don’t know, how does
everybody else feel?
MR. HUNSINGER-Well, I think we had already pretty much decided that we would give it
a whirl in January.
MR. KREBS-Okay.
MR. SEGULJIC-But once again, my concern is the engineering comments are for our
review to determine what’s appropriate. It’s not for the applicant and the engineer to go
back and forth on, and then all of a sudden the applicant has a signoff from the engineer.
MR. KREBS-No, but I hear you constantly say you’ve got to satisfy the engineer. So,
when you say that, you’re saying that the comments need to be satisfied.
MR. SEGULJIC-Depending upon the comments.
64
(Queensbury Planning Board 9/22/09)
MR. TRAVER-Yes. I think it can be qualified between the technical comments and the
design elements. That’s where, I think, your suggestion, Don, is a good one. I think if
they are technical issues regarding drawings, regarding specifications, capacities, purely
engineering things that are not subjective, I think those things can be worked out
between our engineer and the applicant’s engineer. The subjective elements I don’t see
how we can short-circuit the process.
MR. KREBS-No, and even on some of the technical, if the engineer and the applicant
can’t resolve their, if they have a difference of opinion, they’re eventually going to bring
that particular thing to the Board and it will be our job to resolve that problem.
MR. TRAVER-Well, we’re not going to be resolving engineering issues, because we’re
not engineers. That’s why we have the Town Engineer, but that’s very, very rare.
MR. KREBS-No, but we do have the right to waive a lot of things.
MR. TRAVER-They can if they ask for a waiver or they ask, yes, a variance.
MR. KREBS-Right. I just look at these lists consistently from the engineer that are
anywhere from 20 to 45 items long, and we get here at a meeting and we’re trying to go
through.
MR. TRAVER-Well, those applications shouldn’t get on the agenda, when there’s that
many.
MR. FORD-Here, here.
MR. SEGULJIC-Well, you notice tonight there were several projects tonight, when we
looked at the engineering comments, and we said, look, these are strictly technical
issues. All they’re going to lead to is possibly an increase in the sizing of the stormwater
basin. So I was comfortable with that, but there’s, but I don’t think, once again, to me, I
don’t want the engineer corresponding with the applicant, or the applicant actually
corresponding with the engineer behind our back, because I can see it now. We got the
signoff letter, and we’d be put in a box. That’s what I want to avoid.
MR. TRAVER-Yes, if it could be broken out, somehow, between the technical issues.
MR. SIPP-My only thought is that, take the ice cream man on Route 9. He didn’t do
anything.
MR. KREBS-Yes, and what did we do? We tabled him and sent him out the door.
MR. SIPP-But what would you do?
MR. KREBS-Well, I would table anybody that doesn’t do that. Absolutely, but there have
been.
MR. SIPP-You’ve got about half of these applications that then would be tabled.
MR. KREBS-Well, I think a lot of them shouldn’t even make it to the Board, because
there are too many outstanding problems that we can’t resolve.
MR. TRAVER-Right.
MR. SIPP-I’m willing to give it a try, but I don’t think, knowing human nature, and the way
people act, that you’re going to get any better results.
MR. FORD-Well, we’re not satisfied with the way things are operating right now. So let’s
give it a try.
MR. SIPP-Yes, I’d agree to that.
MR. HUNSINGER-Yes. I think that’s where we fell.
MR. SEGULJIC-I’m just concerned that, for example, a traffic study is submitted. Our
engineer looks at it and he signs off on it, and we’re put in a box and we can’t even look
at traffic anymore because then they’re going to sit there and say, well, your expert said
there was no issue with traffic, and we have other concerns.
65
(Queensbury Planning Board 9/22/09)
MR. HUNSINGER-Yes. I know you’ve expressed that concern consistently.
MR. SEGULJIC-It’s our job to look at the engineer’s comments and decide what’s valid
or not. We can sit there and say, no, don’t worry about any of that. That’s okay, ignore it
all, or we can say you can work that out.
MR. TRAVER-I think that if we do not, and this is somewhat subjective, but if there are
applications in the job stack that have a substantial number of engineering comments
outstanding, I don’t think they should go on the agenda, and that will self-correct. People
will, these are professionals, and people will make sure that they do their homework, and
we will not get, I can assure you, because of the expense involved, in a relatively short
time, if we’re consistent. If we’re not consistent, then people will say, we’ll let it sneak
through or whatever, but if we’re consistent that if they have more than X number of
outstanding issues, or if they have technical issues that are engineering issues that it’s
their job to resolve before it gets to us for the subjective aspect of the review, it shouldn’t
get on the agenda, and then people will, once they realize that that’s the practice, they’ll
make sure that they address those concerns. On the other end, I think that the Town
Engineer is not going to make Planning Board decisions because he is not going to be
comfortable doing that. So he is also going to restrict himself to making statements like
clarify this element, this design element, because he’s indicating there that he can’t
make a technical evaluation because it’s unclear what the applicant intended, and again,
I think that if we have these outstanding issues, and we say, well, you’re not going to get
on the agenda because our Staff are not able to analyze, or they’re not able to do a
preliminary analysis for us of your application, people will do their homework, and their
behavior will change. I can assure you.
MR. FORD-I believe that, and we had one example of it tonight, where the applicant
asked to be put off for another month because there were so many technical issues
brought to their attention by our engineer that there was no point in sitting here for an
hour and a half to go through those.
MR. TRAVER-That’s right, and I believe that if we institute that practice, and we see, as
I’m confident we would, the applicant’s engineers change the way they treat an agenda
spot, then I think Don’s idea will become much easier to quantify because the issues
remaining will be far fewer.
MR. HUNSINGER-Sure.
MR. TRAVER-So, you know, we can implement it in an incremental kind of a way by
saying, we’re going to control the agenda items. I mean, initially we had, our
fundamental control was the number of items that we had on the agenda, and the
problem was, as we know, that it was numerical, which made sense, and then as the
technical aspects of the review and the applications got more complicated, there came a
sort of secondary issue of, yes, we might only have four items on the agenda, but each
of them is going to take three hours to review. So then, Mr. Chairman, yourself and Staff
work to massage the methodology a little bit to take more into account the time
management aspect of the meeting. It’s been very, very effective. So I think if we
continue to look for ways to manage the agenda, you know, we’ll get closer and closer to
what Don’s talking about, and right now I think he has a great idea, and I think the
complication is that there are too many variables that control the, sort of the lifecycle of
an application, from the time it’s at concept, and the applicant wants to present
something to us, through when it goes through the whole process, whether it involves
zoning and all the rest of it, and we can simplify that to the point where Don’s formulation
probably will be relatively easy to implement, simply by agenda controlling, I think, and
not dealing with applications, and I don’t want to start repeating myself, but not dealing
with applications that have a lot of technical issues that are not subjective issues that are
planning issues.
MR. KREBS-Well, one of my big things was the timing factor where the applicant, the
Board, we do not get the information from the engineer or the Staff comments until the
Friday or Saturday before the Tuesday meeting. So, the applicant has zero, almost,
chance to do any change. That’s why I wanted to change the cycle, so that they would
have the opportunity, if the engineer made some comments, they could go back. They
could come back with a parking plan. They could come back with a, if it was a drainage
problem, they could come back with a correction to the drainage, before they have to
come to the Board, you know, and then we’ve resolved those problems. They’re just
technical problems that need to resolved, which I think the Staff is more than capable of
doing with the Town Engineer and the applicant, and we would look at the real issues
that come in from Site Plan Review or do we want to approve the subdivision from where
66
(Queensbury Planning Board 9/22/09)
it’s located, etc., etc., not is there proper drainage ditches around the subdivision, you
know.
MR. HUNSINGER-Yes. I thought that we had already agreed to implement this in
January, basically what you had put together.
MR. KREBS-Okay.
MR. HUNSINGER-Was my memory correct?
MR. FORD-Yes.
MR. HUNSINGER-Yes, that’s what I thought.
MR. OBORNE-You’d have to change the Planning Board bylaws in order to do that. So
you’re either going to need to have a workshop or set out a resolution.
MR. HUNSINGER-Okay, and we’ll give it a try and see where it goes. I mean, try for a
few months and go from there. Thank you for putting that together, Don, that’s a lot of
work.
MR. TRAVER-Yes. It’s a reasonable and good plan. I just think at this point it’s going to
be awkward because I don’t think we have as much control as we could have over the
process, not that we necessarily should have, or, you know, whatever, but the one
weakness in this plan is that it requires a lot more sort of rigidity in the application
process for it to be effective, because applicants do have the right to be heard, but let’s
give it a try.
MR. KREBS-Yes, but they have a right to be heard when they have completed the
application correctly.
MR. TRAVER-Okay, but we’re not rigidly enforcing that necessarily now because that’s
somewhat subjective.
MR. HUNSINGER-Yes. I think the new applications have really helped a lot.
MR. KREBS-Yes.
MR. OBORNE-Obviously not enough. I mean, come on, give me a break here. I mean
you’re changing my job, basically, with zero input from me. That’s, if you want to do that,
that’s fine. I have to follow your lead. Okay. This will put a burden on me.
MR. HUNSINGER-Well, I don’t think we’re changing your job. We’re just changing the.
MR. SEGULJIC-Because you’re going to have to do a lot more back and forth.
MR. OBORNE-I’ll have to do a lot more back and forth. I’ll have to do a lot more
tracking.
MR. SEGULJIC-Which means a lot more potential for mistakes.
MR. OBORNE-Well, I don’t know about mistakes, but it certainly is a lot more labor
intensive, which I’m not opposed to at all. I think you’ve got four applications that went
through like that tonight, direct result of the new Code, direct result. So what’s the issue?
I don’t see what the issue is. That’s just my two cents.
MR. JACKOSKI-Well, what about if we did hold that workshop, so that we can get your
and other Staff’s input?
MR. TRAVER-Yes.
MR. OBORNE-I serve at the pleasure of this Board.
MR. JACKOSKI-I’d say let’s try to hold that workshop.
MR. KREBS-Okay.
MR. HUNSINGER-Okay.
67
(Queensbury Planning Board 9/22/09)
MR. TRAVER-Yes.
MR. KREBS-And I think we’d like to have some of the Town Board members there, too,
because I’d like to hear their input and see what they think, from a directional standpoint.
MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. Do we want to do that in October or November?
MR. SEGULJIC-October would be better, considering Thanksgiving.
MR. HUNSINGER-October?
MR. FORD-Yes.
MR. HUNSINGER-I’ll touch base with you tomorrow and we’ll pick some dates and send
an e-mail out and get it on the agenda.
MR. TRAVER-And maybe in conjunction with Don’s suggestion, maybe the Planning
Department Staff could take a look at, hypothetically, what they might have some
suggestions for addressing that or similar issues to stream line or process. Whatever. If
any.
MR. OBORNE-Well, I mean, I think everyone here knows my position on this, and I was
speaking to a couple of people about Main Street while you guys were talking. So I did
miss some things. We worked very hard on the Site Plan application. We worked very
hard with the applicants. We are now getting our feet underneath us, and this is
something that I stressed two, three months ago when this came up before, that you
have to give it a chance. I am telling you categorically, because I’m in the trenches, that
it’s working now. One of the best things that you have directed me to do is to foster
meetings between the applicants and the engineer, that’s paying dividends now. So now
you want to change something that’s working? Again, I serve at the pleasure of the
Board. I do not have an issue with any of the direction you’re going to give me, once you
give me direction, but I do take issue with the fact that there doesn’t seem to be a lot of
discussion that this is actually starting to work, that there is traction, there is good things
starting to happen, as a direct result of the zoning change.
MR. KREBS-But I still don’t get my engineering information until Saturday morning, the
night before.
MR. OBORNE-You and I are on the same page with that.
MR. KREBS-Right.
MR. OBORNE-Absolutely.
MR. KREBS-Okay. So even I, when I want to go out and look at a site, which I like to do
most of the time, even if we don’t do it as a group, I usually go and look at every site
before a meeting, I don’t even know what the engineer’s comments were when I take the
time to go look at the site. I would like to have those engineer’s information. I would like
to have the Staff comments, so when I went and looked at the site, I could see, when you
said there’s a gravel trench that needs to be taken care of, or whatever, I can go look at it
and really understand what the problem is, but I can’t do that if I don’t get it until
Saturday’s mail at two o’clock in the afternoon.
MR. OBORNE-And I can appreciate that. I mean, I do want to say the converse is that
you, as Planning Board members, of which I’m a member of a Planning Board also, I
mean, I take hours reviewing what plans I have in front of me.
MR. KREBS-So do we.
MR. OBORNE-I can’t stress the fact that getting out on site with the plan in your hands, I
mean, come on, I mean, how much does that help you to actually do that.
MR. KREBS-Yes.
MR. OBORNE-I mean, it’s immeasurable. Again, I just want to stress that it’s working. It
seems to be working well, and I do want to stress again that one of the best things to do
is to direct me to get the applicant and the engineer on the same page. Because it’s
always the engineer. I’m easy. It’s the engineer that is at issue. If you notice how we’re
68
(Queensbury Planning Board 9/22/09)
dealing with the engineer these days, we’re dealing with the engineer on a technical front
only now.
MR. KREBS-Right.
MR. HUNSINGER-Yes, when did that change?
MR. OBORNE-That changed last month, because of the 35, 40.
MR. HUNSINGER-Well, there should have been a discussion about that, too.
MR. OBORNE-Well, that’s something that Craig decided to do.
MR. HUNSINGER-Yes, well, there should have been some input from the Board.
MR. OBORNE-Okay.
MR. HUNSINGER-I wasn’t going to bring it up in open session, before, but.
MR. OBORNE-Well, we had discussed this before, with the duplicity that was going on
between my department and the engineer, the Town Engineer, doing the zoning aspect
of the Code. He’s not basically charged to do that.
MR. HUNSINGER-Yes. You just got upset because we try to change process without a
discussion. So now I’m going to turn the table and say there should have been a
discussion before process was changed. We shouldn’t have to try to figure it out at
home, you know, reading comments.
MR. OBORNE-Okay. Well, I’m not sure that a process has been changed. I mean,
again, I don’t know if the Planning Board had directed Dan to do zoning issues, as
opposed to technical issues. So we’re trying to streamline it, and that’s why we did that.
MR. HUNSINGER-I’m just making the same point you made. That’s all. Okay.
MR. TRAVER-Well, and we haven’t, you know, no motions have been made to change
the Planning Board by-laws. So why don’t we have our workshop, and we’ll all sit around
and we’ll share ideas and we’ll come up with something that we can hopefully will
continue. I mean, we have to think of it, I believe, as an ongoing process of
improvement.
MR. OBORNE-You have to, and looking at Don’s aspect of it, the one thing I do like
about it is the lead time. Okay, but you’re talking about a six week from Point A to the
finish line. Well, that’s difficult from an agenda point of view. I mean, that’s difficult.
MR. TRAVER-Well, it reminds me of, and I work in psychiatric vocational rehabilitation,
and I occasionally will have somebody that has just recently gotten a job and gone to
work, and they’ll come in and they’ll say, I get three pay checks this month, because I get
paid every two weeks. Well, it’s kind of the same kind of a thing because it’s deceptive,
you know, I’ll say, well, yes, okay, you’re getting three paychecks this month, but the time
span in between them is still going to be the same. So you can move a date up or you
can do.
MR. OBORNE-Again, that does not compute with me, because the dates are set for the
meetings. Your pay checks are not set.
MR. TRAVER-Yes, but what I’m saying is that the process, let’s say we have two
meetings a month, I mean, the process is, you still have to be prepared for those two
meetings, unless we have a Special Meeting or whatever. So if you want to say, well,
we’re going to have three weeks or whatever, you know, after a month, you’re going to
run into the same problem because there’s only so many days in a month.
MR. OBORNE-Exactly.
MR. TRAVER-And there’s only so many meetings in a month. So when you take a
snapshot like that and you look at a calendar, you just say, well, let’s just move it up two
weeks, it’s deceptive, because after it’s gone through a couple of cycles, you’re right
back in the same situation.
MR. OBORNE-But the variable thrown in there are the specific Site Plans.
69
(Queensbury Planning Board 9/22/09)
MR. TRAVER-True.
MR. OBORNE-We can go round and round on this.
MR. TRAVER-And that’s why I was saying if we take the Site Plans off the table that are
incomplete.
MR. OBORNE-And I’ll just boil this down to just one little itty bitty thing here, two things.
Don’t fix it if it’s not broken, because I don’t think it’s broken, okay, and I’m in the
trenches, and I’m telling you that. I see marked improvement, and, Number Two, change
is threatening. Change is threatening, and it’s threatening from the point of view of how
am I going to deal with my work day. It’s the future and all that. That’s just human
nature. That’s all it is. I’m in a comfort zone right now, and to upset that is, not upsetting,
I’m not going to lose any sleep over it, but it does affect my daily work. So just keep that
in mind.
MR. SEGULJIC-I’ll make a motion to adjourn.
MOTION TO ADJOURN THE QUEENSBURY PLANNING BOARD MEETING OF
SEPTEMBER 22, 2009, Introduced by Thomas Seguljic who moved for its adoption,
seconded by Thomas Ford:
nd
Duly adopted this 22 day of September, 2009, by the following vote:
AYES: Mr. Sipp, Mr. Traver, Mr. Krebs, Mr. Jackoski, Mr. Ford, Mr. Seguljic,
Mr. Hunsinger
NOES: NONE
On motion meeting was adjourned.
RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED,
Chris Hunsinger, Chairman
70