2010.05.20
(Queensbury Planning Board 05/20/2010)
QUEENSBURY PLANNING BOARD MEETING
SECOND REGULAR MEETING
MAY 20, 2010
INDEX
Site Plan No. 3-2010 Irene Marshall 1.
Tax Map No. 289.14-1-28
Site Plan No. 14-2010 Steven & Christine Johnson 2.
Tax Map No. 289.11-1-23
Site Plan No. 19-2010 Sally Strasser 5.
Tax Map No. 289.11-1-7
Site Plan No. 20-2010 M & W Foods 12.
Tax Map No. 302.6-1-43
Site Plan No. 29-2010 Denise Rudenko 21.
Tax Map No. 301.8-1-34
Subdivision No. 6-2010 Brandon Donato 24.
PRELIMINARY STAGE Tax Map No. 308.13-1-4.2
FINAL STAGE
Site Plan No. 30-2010 Michael Melucci 33.
Tax Map No. 296.16-1-2.1
THESE AR NOT OFFICIALLY ADOPTED MINUTES AND ARE SUBJECT TO BOARD AND
STAFF REVISIONS. REVISIONS WILL APPEAR ON THE FOLLOWING MONTHS MINUTES
(IF ANY) AND WILL STATE SUCH APPROVAL OF SAID MINUTES.
0
(Queensbury Planning Board 05/20/2010)
QUEENSBURY PLANNING BOARD MEETING
SECOND REGULAR MEETING
MAY 20, 2010
7:00 P.M.
MEMBERS PRESENT
CHRIS HUNSINGER, CHAIRMAN
GRETCHEN STEFFAN, SECRETARY
DONALD SIPP
PAUL SCHONEWOLF
DONALD KREBS
STEPHEN TRAVER
MEMBERS ABSENT
THOMAS FORD
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
Thursday, May 20, 2010. There are several items on the agenda this evening that are going to
be tabled. All of the other items, we do have public hearings scheduled. For members of the
audience, there is a sheet on the back table that does have information on the procedures and
purpose of the public hearing.
ADMINISTRATIVE ITEM:
SITE PLAN NO. 3-2010 SEQR TYPE II IRENE MARSHALL AGENT(S) STEVE ALHEIM;
ERIC & ERIC OWNER(S) DONALD MARSHALL ZONING WR LOCATION 101
FITZGERALD ROAD EXT. APPLICANT PROPOSES REMOVAL AND REPLACEMENT OF
STAIRS/DECK. FURTHER, APPLICANT PROPOSES A NEW 216 SQ. FT. DECK ADJACENT
TO SHORELINE. HARD SURFACING WITHIN 50 FEET OF A SHORELINE, REMOVAL OF
VEGETATION WITHIN 35 FEET OF A SHORELINE AND EXPANSION OF A NON-
CONFORMING STRUCTURE IN A CEA REQUIRES SITE PLAN REVIEW AND APPROVAL.
CROSS REFERENCE AV 4-2010; BP 06-572 WARREN CO. PLANNING N/A APA, CEA,
OTHER GLEN LAKE CEA, NWI WETLANDS LOT SIZE 0.14 +/- ACRES TAX MAP NO.
289.14-1-28 SECTION 179-9
th
MR. HUNSINGER-They have asked to be tabled until a meeting in June, June 15.
MRS. STEFFAN-Okay.
MOTION TO TABLE SITE PLAN NO. 3-2010 IRENE MARSHALL, Introduced by Gretchen
Steffan who moved for its adoption, seconded by Stephen Traver:
th
This is tabled to the June 15, Planning Board meeting.
th
Duly adopted this 20 day of May, 2010, by the following vote:
AYES: Mr. Sipp, Mr. Schonewolf, Mr. Krebs, Mr. Traver, Mrs. Steffan, Mr. Hunsinger
NOES: NONE
ABSENT: Mr. Ford
MR. HUNSINGER-The other two projects to be tabled.
SITE PLAN 14-2010 SEQR TYPE II STEVEN & CHRISTINE JOHNSON OWNER(S) SAME
ZONING WR-3A LOCATION 96 HALL ROAD APPLICANT PROPOSES DEMOLITION OF
EXISTING 1,198 +/- SQ. FT. SUMMER HOME AND REBUILD TO A YEAR ROUND 2,110 +/-
SQ. FT. RESIDENCE AND 576 +/- SQ. FT. DETACHED GARAGE. HARD SURFACING
WITHIN 50 FEET OF A SHORELINE REQUIRES PLANNING BOARD REVIEW AND
APPROVAL. CROSS REFERENCE AV 9-10; BP 07-275 SEPTIC ALTERATION WARREN
CO. PLANNING N/A APA, CEA OTHER GLEN LK. CEA, 100 YEAR FLOODPLAIN LOT SIZE
0.25 +/- ACRES TAX MAP NO. 289.11-1-23 SECTION 179-9-010
1
(Queensbury Planning Board 05/20/2010)
MR. HUNSINGER-They have also asked to be tabled to a meeting in July. Would anyone like to
make that motion?
MOTION TO TABLE SITE PLAN NO. 14-2010 STEVEN & CHRISTINE JOHNSON, Introduced
by Gretchen Steffan who moved for its adoption, seconded by Stephen Traver:
th
That’ll be tabled to the July 20 Planning Board meeting. Submission deadline for any new
th
materials would be June 15.
th
Duly adopted this 20 day of May, 2010, by the following vote:
AYES: Mr. Sipp, Mr. Schonewolf, Mr. Krebs, Mr. Traver, Mrs. Steffan, Mr. Hunsinger
NOES: NONE
ABSENT: Mr. Ford
MR. HUNSINGER-Is there anyone in the audience that was here for that project, the Johnson
th
project? Okay. We will leave the re-open the public hearing on July 20.
SUBDIVISION 13-2008/FWW 1-2010 PRELIMINARY STAGE SEQR TYPE TYPE I REALTY
SUBDIVISION MARY C. SICARD AGENT(S) JARRETT ENGINEERING OWNER(S) MARY
SICARD, MATTHEW SICARD, GEORGE SICARD, CHARLES SICARD, LINDA SICARD,
MARY L. SICARD ZONING WR, RR LOCATION GLEN ALKE RD. & NACY/JAY RDS.
APPLICANT PROPOSES A 16 LOT SUBDIVSION ON MULTIPLE PARCELS TOTALING 42.38
ACRES ON BOTH THE EAST SIDE AND WEST SIDE OF GLEN LAKE ROAD ADJACENT TO
GLEN LAKE. FRESHWATER WETLANDS FOR PROPOSED REGULATED ACTIVITY WITHIN
100 FEET OF A WETLAND. SUBDIVISION OF LAND REQUIRES PLANNING BOARD
REVIEW AND APPROVAL. PLANNING BOARD TO ACKNOWLEDGE LEAD AGENCY
STATUS, CONDUCT SEQR REVIEW AND PROVIDE A RECOMMENDATION TO THE
ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS. CROSS REFERENCE AV 20-09 WARREN CO. PLANNING
N/A APA, CEA, OTHER GLEN LAKE CEA LOT SIZE 16 PARCELS TOTALING 42.38 +/-
ACRES TAX MAP NO. 289.6-1-1, 2, 3, 5; 289.6-1-16, 17, 36-40 SECTION CHAPTER A-183
MR. HUNSINGER-They have asked to be tabled as well.
MOTION TO TABLE PRELIMINARY STAGE SUBDIVISION NO. 13-2008 & FRESHWATER
WETLANDS PERMIT 1-2010 MARY C. SICARD, Introduced by Gretchen Steffan who moved
for its adoption, seconded by Stephen Traver:
th
This is tabled to the July 27 Planning Board meeting. Submission deadline for any new
th
materials would be June 15.
th
Duly adopted this 20 day of May, 2010, by the following vote:
AYES: Mr. Sipp, Mr. Schonewolf, Mr. Krebs, Mr. Traver, Mrs. Steffan, Mr. Hunsinger
NOES: NONE
ABSENT: Mr. Ford
th
MR. HUNSINGER-And again, that public hearing will be re-opened on July 27 as well.
MRS. STEFFAN-Okay, and the resolutions for the third Planning Board meeting.
MR. HUNSINGER-Yes, we can do that at the end. Do you want to do it now?
MRS. STEFFAN-Yes. Let’s just get it over with.
MR. HUNSINGER-The other Administrative Item is a resolution for a third meeting in June. The
meeting date that we thought we could have, the room wasn’t available. My only concern about
that is there were a number of people from the public that’ll want to comment on the project.
MR. OBORNE-We discussed that and bounced it around this morning, and what we’re going to
do is we’re going to make a list of the people who spoke. We’re going to also, obviously you
have the 500 foot list that people need to be notified by.
MR. HUNSINGER-Yes.
2
(Queensbury Planning Board 05/20/2010)
MR. OBORNE-We’re going to add those people to the list of people to be notified.
MR. HUNSINGER-Okay.
MR. KREBS-Okay.
MR. HUNSINGER-That would be fine.
MRS. STEFFAN-Okay.
MOTION TO AUTHORIZE A THIRD JUNE PLANNING BOARD MEETING, Introduced by
Gretchen Steffan who moved for its adoption, seconded by Donald Krebs:
And that meeting will be held on Thursday, June 24, 2010.
th
Duly adopted this 20 day of May, 2010, by the following vote:
th
MR. HUNSINGER-I know, Mr. Schonewolf, you said you couldn’t be there on the 24.
MR. TRAVER-Yes, and, Mr. Chairman, also be advised, I will be out of town and unable to
attend.
MR. HUNSINGER-That’s right. You had said that Tuesday night.
MR. TRAVER-Yes.
MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. So we would need the alternates, both alternates for that meeting,
June 24th.
AYES: Mr. Traver, Mr. Sipp, Mr. Schonewolf, Mr. Krebs, Mrs. Steffan, Mr. Hunsinger
NOES: NONE
MR. HUNSINGER-And then there’s two associated resolutions for the two projects that we
thth
tabled to the 17, that need to be tabled to the 24 of June.
MRS. STEFFAN-Okay.
MR. OBORNE-I would first rescind the first tabling for Schermerhorn, and then go ahead and
th
make the resolution to do it on the 24.
MRS. STEFFAN-Okay.
TH
ON MAY 18 THE PLANNING BOARD MADE A RESOLUTION THAT WAS CARRIED FOR
SITE PLAN NO. 11-2010 FOR SCHERMERHORN RESIDENTIAL HOLDINGS. WE WOULD
LIKE TO RESCIND THAT MOTION AND AMEND IT WITH THE FOLLOWING MOTION,
WHICH ALLOWS FOR A CHANGE IN DATE FOR A NEW PLANNING BOARD MEETING.
MOTION TO TABLE SITE PLAN NO. 11-2010 SCHERMERHORN RESIDENTIAL HOLDINGS,
L.P., Introduced by Gretchen Steffan who moved for its adoption, seconded by Stephen Traver:
1)A site plan application has been made to the Queensbury Planning Board for the
following: Applicant proposes construction of a three-story 88,608+/- sq. ft. 60 unit
Senior Apartment building with associated site work. Residential uses in the Office
District require Planning Board review and approval; and
2)A public hearing was advertised and held on 3/25/10 & 5/18/10; and
TH
3) ON MAY 18 THE PLANNING BOARD MADE A RESOLUTION THAT WAS CARRIED
FOR SITE PLAN NO. 11-2010 FOR SCHERMERHORN RESIDENTIAL HOLDINGS.
WE WOULD LIKE TO RESCIND THAT MOTION AND AMEND IT WITH THE
FOLLOWING MOTION, WHICH ALLOWS FOR A CHANGE IN DATE FOR A NEW
PLANNING BOARD MEETING. MOTION TO TABLE SITE PLAN NO. 11-2010
SCHERMERHORN RESIDENTIAL HOLDINGS, L.P., Introduced by Gretchen Steffan
who moved for its adoption, seconded by Stephen Traver:
th
According to the resolution prepared by Staff. This is tabled to the June 24 Special
th
Planning Board meeting. Submission deadline for new materials would be May 28, so
that the applicant can provide the following documents:
3
(Queensbury Planning Board 05/20/2010)
1. That the applicant will provide a turning radius plan that is designed and submitted to
meet Fire Marshal comments.
2.That the applicant will identify snow storage locations located on the plan, which he’s
identified will be the grassed area for future parking.
3.The applicant will provide sign dimensions, and those should be submitted so that
they can be part of the record. He has submitted sign details, but not dimensions.
4.The applicant has also committed to add some landscaping along the West Mountain
corridor and so we would like to see an enhanced landscaping plan to include
perennial borders and we would also like to receive a copy of the proposed bike trail
that Councilman Strough and George Hilton have put together with Tom Nace and
Rich Schermerhorn.
th
Duly adopted this 20 day of May, 2010, by the following vote:
AYES: Mr. Sipp, Mr. Traver, Mrs. Steffan, Mr. Hunsinger
NOES: Mr. Schonewolf, Mr. Krebs
ABSENT: Mr. Ford
MR. HUNSINGER-Okay, and then there’s a similar resolution for Subdivision No. 3-2009 for
Christian and Eustacia Sander.
TH
ON MAY 18 THE PLANNING BOARD PASSED A RESOLUTION TO TABLE SUBDIVISION
NO. 3-2009 FOR CHRISTIAN & EUSTACIA SANDER. IT WAS TO BE TABLED TO A
TH
SPECIAL PLANNING BOARD MEETING WHICH WAS JUNE 17. I WOULD LIKE TO
RESCIND THAT MOTION AND PRESENT A NEW TABLING RESOLUTION TO TABLE
PRELIMINARY STAGE SUBDIVISION NO. 3-2009 FOR CHRISTIAN AND EUSTACIA
SANDER. THIS WILL BE TABLED TO THE SPECIAL PLANNING BOARD MEETING ON
THURSDAY, JUNE 24, 2010, WITH A SUBMISSION DEADLINE FOR MATERIALS OF MAY
TH
28., Introduced by Gretchen Steffan who moved for its adoption, seconded by Stephen Traver:
This is according to the resolution prepared by Staff. This will be tabled to a special Planning
thth
Board meeting to be held on Thursday, June 24. The applicant will have until May 28 for a
submission deadline of any new materials.
th
Duly adopted this 20 day of May, 2010, by the following vote:
AYES: Mr. Sipp, Mr. Schonewolf, Mr. Krebs, Mr. Traver, Mrs. Steffan, Mr. Hunsinger
NOES: NONE
ABSENT: Mr. Ford
MR. OBORNE-If I may interject, now that we’re done with that housekeeping aspect, there is a
request from the Water Keeper for a half hour presentation, and they would like to do that on the
front end of a meeting in the future. My suggestion is to potentially have them on one of the July
meetings, as the June agenda has three meetings and they’re all full. I think that would be
difficult and a lot to ask the Board to deal with.
MR. HUNSINGER-Okay.
MR. OBORNE-You may want to talk amongst yourselves about it, if you’re interested in doing
that. It does go towards credit towards your four hours of required training.
MR. HUNSINGER-My only thought on that, I actually received an e-mail from Stu Baker about it,
and I forwarded it to everyone on the Board, but that was just today, and I looked at the
presentation that’s on their website, and it’s a, you know, it’s a pretty standard PowerPoint
presentation. There were 61 screens, and usually when I make a presentation, I figure two to
three minutes per screen. So I don’t know how we’re going to get through all that in a half an
hour, if he wants to show all 61 screens.
MR. SCHONEWOLF-Let me ask you this. Has he made that presentation to any of the other
towns?
4
(Queensbury Planning Board 05/20/2010)
MR. HUNSINGER-He has, yes.
MR. OBORNE-Yes. I believe he has made a presentation to Lake George, and he’s got it on
some other agendas.
MR. HUNSINGER-I thought it was Fort Ann.
MR. OBORNE-Maybe it was Fort Ann. I think you’re right.
MR. HUNSINGER-So that was my only thought. It looked like it was more of an hour discussion
than a half hour.
MR. TRAVER-Maybe we could find out from the other presentations that have been made about
how long it takes, and then start the meeting at that hour, before the public event at seven.
MR. HUNSINGER-Sure. Is everyone interested, though?
MR. OBORNE-That’s the main thing.
MR. KREBS-Yes, I’m definitely interested because not only would I like to hear what he has to
say, but I’d like to give him some feedback.
MR. HUNSINGER-Yes.
MR. KREBS-Tell him where he should go and where he should work on.
MR. TRAVER-Yes, I also would be interested.
MR. SCHONEWOLF-Yes, that would be fun. I could go for that.
MR. HUNSINGER-Why don’t we plan an hour, then.
MR. OBORNE-Okay, and do you want to set a meeting, do you want to set a July date for that?
thth
And that would be either the 20 or the 27.
MR. KREBS-Do you have any idea which one is the heaviest load?
MR. OBORNE-No, that’s two cycles away at this point.
th
MRS. STEFFAN-Let’s just set it for the 20, and do it the hour before and get it done.
MR. HUNSINGER-Yes, sounds good.
MR. OBORNE-I don’t need that in resolution form or anything.
th
MR. TRAVER-So we’re going to bump the meeting on the 20 up to 6:00 p.m.
MR. OBORNE-Six p.m.
MR. HUNSINGER-And would that be in this room, then?
MR. OBORNE-Yes, I’d have to set all this up.
MR. HUNSINGER-Yes. Okay. Now we can get into our regular business.
SITE PLAN NO. 19-2010 SEQR TYPE II SALLY STRASSER AGENT(S) MELISSA
LESCAULT, MC PHILLIPS FITZGERALD & CULLUM OWNER(S) STEVEN & LILLIAN
DOBERT ZONING WR LOCATION 64 BARBER ROAD APPLICANT PROPOSES
RENOVATION OF EXISTING 5,407 +/- SQ. FT. SINGLE FAMILY HOME TO INCLUDE NEW
36 +/- SQ FT. ENTRY PORCH. EXPANSION OF A NON-CONFORMING STRUCTURE IN A
CEA AND REMOVAL OF VEGETATION WITHIN 35 FEET OF A SHORELINE REQUIRES
PLANNING BOARD REVIEW AND APPROVAL. RELIEF REQUESTED FROM FLOOR AREA
RATIO REQUIREMENTS, SHORELINE SETBACK REQUIREMENTS AND SIDE SETBACK
REQUIREMENTS. PLANNING BOARD TO PROVIDE WRITTEN RECOMMENDATION TO
ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS AS REQUIRED. CROSS REFERENCE AV 12-10 WARREN
CO. PLANNING N/A APA, CEA OTHER NWI WETLANDS, 100 YEAR FLOODPLAIN, GLEN
LAKE CEA LOT SIZE 0.31 +/- ACRES TAX MAP NO. 289.11-1-7 SECTION 179-9-010, 179-
6-050
5
(Queensbury Planning Board 05/20/2010)
MELISSA LESCAULT, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT
MR. HUNSINGER-Whenever you’re ready to summarize Staff Notes, Keith. Since they were
just here Tuesday, I don’t know if we even need, maybe you could just summarize what
happened last night at the Zoning Board.
MR. OBORNE-Yes, the applicant received their Area Variance for Floor Area Ratio, shoreline
setback, and expansion of a nonconforming structure from the Zoning Board of Appeals. That
resolution is before the Board members right now. The applicant is now before you for Site Plan
Review for cutting within 35 feet of a shoreline. They have presented a landscaping plan to you,
and I believe that there were some concerns about larger trees wanting to be planted, a desire
for that. I did speak to the applicant’s landscape person today, and I told him we’re just basically
on hold waiting for what the Planning Board’s direction is going to be, and that’s where we’re at.
MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. Thank you. Good evening.
MS. LESCAULT-Good evening. Melissa Lescault on behalf of the applicant, as well as, I’m
sorry, Steve Dobert and Sally Strasser is also here as well on behalf, as the contractor for this
project.
MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. One of the things that we wanted to mention with respect to the
landscaping on this particular project is that there were two trees that were going to be removed
at one point, prior to my client pursuing this project. The reason those two trees were removed,
I just want to make sure that it’s clarified to the Board, is that one was potentially diseased,
according to my client, and the second one was literally three feet from my client’s house, and
there’s a possibility that some of the roots that were growing on that tree actually were causing
structural damage to the house, and some water leakage. So that’s the purpose, or the reason
why those two trees were removed. Keith did go there today and took some pictures to show
the current trees that are located. As you can see, there are still some large trees present.
They, I know that some of the Board was concerned about the trees that we have in this plan for
our 15 foot buffer, but we wanted to make sure that those are still shown and presented to the
Board.
MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. Is there anything else?
MS. LESCAULT-No, that’s it for now. If you have any questions for us.
MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. I’ll open it up for questions, comments from members of the Board. I
think one of the issues on the planting scheme here is the, I don’t believe that the existing trees
are labeled.
MRS. LESCAULT-That’s correct.
MR. HUNSINGER-Yes.
MR. SCHONEWOLF-Well, there was a question. I haven’t checked it. If all these trees that
were from our list, from our approved list. I don’t know. I haven’t had a chance to check.
MR. SIPP-No, they aren’t.
MR. SCHONEWOLF-I didn’t think the Japanese, was the Japanese Maple on there?
STEVEN DOBERT
MR. DOBERT-The Japanese Maple was the one exception, and that was added, that’s above
and beyond the required number of trees. So that can be, we can take that out.
MR. SCHONEWOLF-Okay. I just wondered. I’m not an arborist.
MRS. STEFFAN-It’s a nice tree. I don’t think he needs to take it out. It’s in there, but it’s an
attractive ornamental.
MR. OBORNE-I will say it’s not on the list.
MR. SCHONEWOLF-That’s all I asked. I don’t, you know.
MR. HUNSINGER-But it’s not an invasive species.
MRS. STEFFAN-Right.
6
(Queensbury Planning Board 05/20/2010)
MR. HUNSINGER-It’s not on the invasive species list.
MRS. LESCAULT-No. It’s not.
MR. HUNSINGER-Yes, okay. Because I was looking through the invasive species list to make
sure there wasn’t any, and I didn’t see that there were.
MRS. LESCAULT-No, I’ve cross referenced the invasive species plants as well.
MR. HUNSINGER-Yes, okay.
MR. SIPP-There are species in here which are not on the list. Red Trillium, Pagoda Dogwood,
Bluebeard Lilly. There are not enough small trees or shrubs, and the ground cover which is
supposed to be a Joe-Pye weed or Christmas Fern is all right, but you need some more different
kinds of small trees or bushes and some different kind of ground cover. Christmas Fern is all
right, but not, you know that this has to be 15 feet wide.
MS. LESCAULT-Yes, and actually, if you look, the buffer, it is 15 feet if you measure it out. It’s
15 feet. I’m sorry, this map doesn’t actually show the 15. One of our preliminary ones did show
15 on there so that you could see that it did meet the buffer requirement.
MR. HUNSINGER-So how many existing large trees are on the site, do you know?
MR. DOBERT-There’s those two, a maple, and I’m not sure if the other one, I don’t know the
species of the other one. Where that stump was, that was covering, well, killing three Cherry
Trees, which I’m hoping are going to come back. On the other side of the house, there are three
mature magnolias, and then various shrubs around the water’s edge.
MR. HUNSINGER-Could you go back to that other picture, Keith. That one. What’s that bush to
the left of the picture there? Is that a tree or a bush?
MR. DOBERT-It’s a bush.
MR. HUNSINGER-Do you know what that is?
MR. DOBERT-Unfortunately, my thumb is not green. I couldn’t identify it for you.
MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. Is that going to stay or be removed?
MR. DOBERT-They do show some buffer plantings in place of that, with the Christmas Fern and
the Red Trillium. So I believe that will be removed and replaced.
MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. Don, on some of the bushes that you mentioned, like the Red Trillium,
is there a concern with using those?
MR. SIPP-I don’t think they’re, well, I think the root system is what you’re looking at, it’s not deep
enough, even though it’s a shrub. It doesn’t give you the filtering qualities that you get. It’s nice
looking, but not necessarily, I’m interested in what this thing is right here. Is that a dock?
MR. DOBERT-That is a removable dock.
MR. SIPP-Removable dock. Now, in this area here, there’s nothing. Right?
MS. LESCAULT-That is the existing beach area.
MR. DOBERT-That is a sand beach.
MR. SIPP-A sand beach. Imported sand?
MR. DOBERT-I assume so. That beach is.
MS. LESCAULT-Pre-existing.
MR. DOBERT-Pre-existing, yes.
MR. HUNSINGER-Other members have comments on the planting scheme?
7
(Queensbury Planning Board 05/20/2010)
MRS. STEFFAN-I thought it looks very nice. It certainly fortifies the land, you know, it fortifies
the property so that, you know, there’s not much grass. It’s going to be substantially landscaped
around the water’s edge, which is what we’ve been looking for in other plans.
MR. TRAVER-Yes, it’s nice to see the buffer again.
MRS. STEFFAN-Yes.
MR. SIPP-I think if you go to, you can probably get a copy of this, 179-8-040? Do you have that
copy?
MS. LESCAULT-Yes, I have that.
MR. SIPP-Your list is there, the larger trees, the smaller trees, the brush and the ground cover.
MS. LESCAULT-Is there something specific that you could recommend, that you’d prefer we
remove and replace? I think that’s really what we were trying to find out from the Board tonight.
MR. SIPP-Well, if it’s not on this list, it’s not acceptable.
MS. LESCAULT-So anything that we have on here.
MR. SIPP-Yes. You’ve got some things on there that are acceptable, but there are whole areas
here of, now where did I find one? Buffer area, about in the middle there, a buffer area where
you just have Red Trillium, and there’s nothing else there. Below that, Planting Number Four,
100% Red Trillium.
MS. LESCAULT-Well, we certainly can replace the Red Trillium.
MR. OBORNE-If I could clarify, just the Code itself, the standards are, they are required. The
minimum widths are required. Obviously the Planning Board can do what they wish as far as
plantings. I would say that there’s language in here, especially for invasive plants that are not
acceptable.
MR. HUNSINGER-Right.
MR. OBORNE-And that’s the real key there.
MR. HUNSINGER-Right.
MR. OBORNE-This is a short list, and again, I’m not advocating either way. I just want to make
sure that the Planning Board knows that they can manipulate this as they wish.
MR. HUNSINGER-Well, I was going to make the same comment. I mean, the list has the list of
acceptable plants that it says will grow in or adjacent to water and are suitable for shoreline, and
then the unacceptable list, but if it’s not on either of those two lists, does that mean it can’t be
used? And I don’t think it’s even implicit.
MR. TRAVER-Well, that’s the thing. I think we need to be mainly concerned with the
unacceptable list. They couldn’t possibly list every species that would be acceptable. So if it’s
not on either list, at least we know that it’s not invasive and at least at the current time it’s not
judged invasive. If there were aesthetic reasons or something for changing, then that would be
one thing, but with a professional landscaper.
MR. HUNSINGER-That’s why I asked if there was a specific concern about the couple
mentioned.
MRS. STEFFAN-And it’s certainly appropriate for an individual to be able to landscape their
property to their liking, but we can certainly condition it that, you know, the landscaping plan can
contain no invasive species, as listed in Town Code.
MR. OBORNE-And currently the landscaping plan doesn’t have any invasive species, that I
know. Is it perfect? I don’t know, I’m not an arborist.
MRS. STEFFAN-Well, and there are obviously things that are going to phase out. I mean,
Trillium only come up in the Spring. They don’t last all year. The leaves die off and then there’s
nothing. It’s the same thing with Iris. I mean, they’re going to be there for a while. You’ll have
the foliage, but the flowers will be gone. So, you know, it’s a phasing garden.
8
(Queensbury Planning Board 05/20/2010)
MR. HUNSINGER-Anything else from the Board?
MRS. STEFFAN-So the things I’ve heard so far is that the Planning Board wants the applicant to
denote existing trees on the plan itself.
MR. HUNSINGER-Well, I think they’re shown. They’re just not labeled.
MR. OBORNE-Right.
MR. HUNSINGER-Yes. Okay.
MRS. STEFFAN-Well, denote would cover, explain, or did you want them marked? Is denoting
okay? Is that the right, appropriate?
MR. OBORNE-Is that my language?
MRS. STEFFAN-That’s my language.
MR. OBORNE-Okay. Denoting’s fine. I can run with that.
MRS. STEFFAN-And then the other thing that I’ve heard is denote the removable dock on the
plan. I mean, it’s shown, but we don’t know what it is. So, that should be identified, and if,
Keith, you’ve gone through the list and there are no invasive species, is there anything else we
want from the landscaping plan?
MR. OBORNE-Don, is there any particular understory you’d like to see?
MR. SIPP-Well, you’ve got red treed dogwood, which is a very good tree. It would meet the
requirement for a shrub. You’ve got, on the ground cover you’ve got the Joe-Pye weed is very
good.
MR. SCHONEWOLF-He’s got that in there. It’s little Joe that he’s got in there.
MR. SIPP-I don’t think you have any conditions which are shady.
MRS. STEFFAN-Well, but the back of the house will be shady just because of the nature of the
way the sun rises and sets. So the back side of the house, it won’t be bright, direct sunlight.
MR. SIPP-I mean, you can go for some striped maple, which is a good grower in that area.
MR. HUNSINGER-What’s that, Don?
MR. SIPP-Well, it’s got three names. It’s called Moosewood and striped maple, or a
Pennsylvania Maple. It grows a maple leaf that looks like a red maple leaf, twice as big. It
grows like three feet a year. It’ll grow in shady conditions.
MR. OBORNE-Is it a large tree?
MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. Well, they have some red maples shown on the plan, too.
MR. SIPP-I mean, if you get a four inch one, you’re lucky because it doesn’t live that long. It has
no use.
MR. OBORNE-Do you want to offer maybe a certain quantity or location?
MR. SIPP-Well, it tells you, 15 foot.
MR. OBORNE-Right.
MR. SIPP-Fifty linear feet along the edge of the road. You have one large tree minimum, every
50 feet. Every lot will have, for every 100 square feet of ground cover you need 10 herbaceous
plants, and that’s basically it. You’ll have one small tree or shrub every 50 linear feet.
MR. HUNSINGER-How much shoreline do you have?
MR. DOBERT-According to this, or another map, it’s 270 feet.
MS. LESCAULT-Yes, it’s about 270.
9
(Queensbury Planning Board 05/20/2010)
MR. HUNSINGER-So you need five trees.
MS. LESCAULT-You need five large trees.
MR. HUNSINGER-And how many are there now, four?
MS. LESCAULT-Well, if you count what’s there now, were there about four, I think, four?
MR. OBORNE-I think so. This is not the right one.
MS. LESCAULT-I don’t know if they are within each 50 feet, though, of the shoreline, which is
obviously the requirement.
MR. HUNSINGER-Well, it doesn’t say that they have to be spread out like that.
MS. LESCAULT-Okay.
MR. HUNSINGER-It says that’s how you arrive at the number.
MS. LESCAULT-Okay. So we have at least four there, and then you have the Pagoda
Dogwood. You have the magnolia. You have the river birch.
MR. SIPP-Birch, White Birch?
MS. LESCAULT-It is a.
MR. DOBERT-A heritage river birch.
MR. HUNSINGER-Ten to twelve feet tall.
MS. LESCAULT-Yes, a heritage river birch, and then we also have the Canadian Serviceberry.
MR. HUNSINGER-And the red maple.
MRS. STEFFAN-And two red maple and the Japanese Maple.
MS. LESCAULT-Yes, and two red maples. They’re going to start out at two and a half feet.
MR. HUNSINGER-It seems to me like they have enough.
MRS. STEFFAN-I think that they’ve met the criteria, and it certainly looks like it’ll be very, very
nice.
MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. We do have a public hearing scheduled this evening. Is there
anyone that wants to address the Board on this project? The public hearing was held open from
Tuesday.
PUBLIC HEARING OPEN
MR. HUNSINGER-If there are no takers, is there any written comments, Keith?
MR. OBORNE-No, sir.
MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. I will close the public hearing.
PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED
MR. HUNSINGER-This is a Type II action. So if anyone would like to put forward a resolution.
MRS. STEFFAN-So we’ve only got the two issues, to denote the existing trees on the plan, and
to denote the removable dock on the plan. Those are the two outstanding items.
MR. HUNSINGER-Unless there was something else.
MRS. STEFFAN-I just want to mention on the record, I mentioned this the other night when this
application came before us for a recommendation, that my brother-in-law and sister live two
doors away from this particular site. I just wanted that to be on the record, and I actually think
that these plans, the landscaping plan will bring this particular site back to some of the splendor
10
(Queensbury Planning Board 05/20/2010)
that it had many, many years ago when the Barbers owned it, when Doctor and Mrs. Barber
owned the property. So I think it’ll be very nice, and I’m sure she would love it.
MOTION TO APPROVE SITE PLAN NO. 19-2010 SALLY STRASSER FOR STEVEN &
LILLIAN DOBERT, Introduced by Gretchen Steffan who moved for its adoption, seconded by
Stephen Traver:
1)A site plan application has been made to the Queensbury Planning Board for the
following: Applicant proposes renovation of existing 5,407 +/- sq. ft. single family home
to include new 36 +/-sq. ft. entry porch. Expansion of a non-conforming structure in a
CEA and removal of vegetation within 35 feet of a shoreline requires Planning Board
review and approval; and
2)The Planning Board provided a written recommendation to the ZBA as required on
5/18/2010; and
3)The Zoning Board of Appeals approved the variance request on 5/19/2010; and
4)A public hearing was advertised and held on 3/23/2010 & 5/20/2010; and
5)This application is supported with all documentation, public comment and application
material in the file of record;
6)MOTION TO APPROVE SITE PLAN NO. 19-2010 SALLY STRASSER FOR STEVEN &
LILLIAN DOBERT, Introduced by Gretchen Steffan who moved for its adoption,
seconded by Stephen Traver:
According to the resolution prepared by Staff. Paragraph Six A complies. This is a Type
II action.
a)Pursuant to relevant sections of the Town of Queensbury Zoning Code [Chapter
179-9-080]], the Planning Board has determined that this proposal complies with
the requirements as stated in the Zoning Code; and
b)SEQR 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)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, and
h)The limits of clearing will constitute a no-cut buffer zone, orange construction
i)fencing shall be installed around these areas and field verified by Community
Development staff, and
j)Engineering sign-off required prior to signature of Zoning Administrator, and
k)This is approved with the following two conditions:
1.That the applicant will denote the existing large trees on the plan
2.That the applicant will denote the removable dock on the plan
11
(Queensbury Planning Board 05/20/2010)
th
Duly adopted this 20 day of May, 2010, by the following vote:
AYES: Mr. Sipp, Mr. Schonewolf, Mr. Krebs, Mr. Traver, Mrs. Steffan, Mr. Hunsinger
NOES: NONE
ABSENT: Mr. Ford
MR. HUNSINGER-You’re all set. Good luck.
MRS. STEFFAN-Good luck with your project.
MS. LESCAULT-Thank you very much.
SITE PLAN NO. 20-2010 SEQR TYPE II M & W FOODS AGENT(S) B P S R; HUTCHINS
ENG. OWNER(S) NORTHGATE ENTERPRISES, INC. ZONING CI LOCATION 797
ROUTE 9 APPLICANT PROPOSES DEMOLITION OF EXISTING 3,730 SQ. FT. KFC / A & W
RESTAURANT AND CONSTRUCTION OF A NEW 3,276 SQ. FT. KFC ONLY BUILDING.
RESTAURANT IN A CI ZONE REQUIRES PLANNING BOARD REVIEW AND APPROVAL.
CROSS REFERENCE AV 13-10 WARREN CO. PLANNING 4/14/2010 LOT SIZE 2.73 +/-
ACRES TAX MAP NO. 302.6-1-43 SECTION 179-9-010
JON LAPPER & TOM HUTCHINS, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT
MR. HUNSINGER-Keith, whenever you’re ready to summarize Staff Notes.
MR. OBORNE-Yes. As stated, Site Plan 20-2010, M & W Foods. Requested action is Planning
Board review and approval for a restaurant in the Commercial Intensive zone. Location is 797
State Route 9, also known as Northgate Plaza. This is a Type II SEQR. Project Description:
Applicant proposes the demolition of existing KFC/A&W Restaurant and construction of a new
3,276 +/- sq. ft. building to house KFC only. Staff comments: The existing 3,730 square foot
combined KFC/A&W restaurant will be replaced with a 3,276 square foot stand alone KFC. The
applicant proposes to rebuild in a more compliant location approximately 67 feet from Old
Aviation Road. The proposal includes a reduction in impermeable area of 665 feet, new vehicle
parking and circulation scheme, new landscaping and a change in signage. The Zoning Board
of Appeals has approved front setback relief from Old Aviation Road on March 24, 2010. What
follows is Site Plan Review. I would like to just go to new comments, on Page Three. I
recommend that the loading area be denoted on plan. We also need to have some clarification
on the south entrance issues. Additional signage as per Page S-6 #2 above was not addressed,
and lighting appears to be excessive at this point, and with that I’d turn it over to the Board.
MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. Thank you. Good evening.
MR. LAPPER-Good evening. For the record, Jon Lapper with Tom Hutchins, project engineer,
and Ray Aley, on behalf of the applicant. When we were here last time we had a pretty
thorough discussion about the site, and we went back, because we had to respond to the Staff
comments and engineering. So we have the engineering signoff, and for the most part Keith’s
comments are all complete, with the exception of just the four that he mentioned. So, would you
like us to address those four, or would you like us to go through the whole list?
MR. HUNSINGER-I don’t think we need to go through the whole list. I think just the outstanding
items would be great.
MR. LAPPER-And I’ll address the issue of the south entrance onto Route 9. I know everyone’s
very familiar with the site, and we don’t have the ability here to change that, to make it a right in
and right out on the south entrance. I think we all understand that at various times of the day,
it’s pretty tough to make a left turn, and at those times of the day, certainly anyone local is going
to go to the northern entrance to make a left, and we think that the improvements that Tom has
done for the northern entrance will make it easier with the designated left turn lane, so that if
people need to make a right, they don’t have to wait, but in terms of the, on the south entrance I
have a couple of arguments for you. The DOT just re-did that whole intersection within the last
two years and they did not do a taking of that left turn. They did not require it. We have tenants
that have nothing to do with this project, and we don’t have the authority, on their behalf, to
change that, but more than that, if you just think of the configuration, if you put a pork chop in, it
would restrict you so you’d be able to go right out, which is the one lane that takes you right onto
Aviation Road to go up the hill to the Northway, and at some points of the day, you may want to
go straight. So it’s just, I think the pork chop is too restrictive for that, even for people that are
making right turns. We’d be messing with that, and it does work now, and it’s a smaller
restaurant than what’s there now. So, for all those reasons, and that we don’t have the
12
(Queensbury Planning Board 05/20/2010)
authority, because of the other tenants, to agree to that, we don’t think that it’s necessary and it
hasn’t been something that DOT has asked for. So we hope that you’ll let that go the way it is.
All in all, I think this is a pretty significant improvement to that Plaza, and, Tom, do you want to
address the other?
MR. HUTCHINS-Sure. Good evening. Tom Hutchins. With regard to the loading area, I
dropped that ball. I didn’t get the note on there. The loading and unloading is done on off hours,
usually very early. Correct?
RAY ALEY
MR. ALEY-Correct.
MR. HUTCHINS-And it would be done right in this area. (Lost words) So, loading could either
come in like this, or through this way (lost words).
MR. LAPPER-Ray, you said you get two trucks a week?
MR. ALEY-Two trucks a week. Ray Aley. Most of my business is done between four o’clock
and closing at night, and the trucks never come past two o’clock typically. Two trucks a week,
typically early morning.
MR. HUNSINGER-Early morning?
MR. ALEY-Yes, 18 wheelers. Other than that, they’re just normal, small trucks that come in.
MR. HUTCHINS-The other issue with regard to additional signage ties in with the south
entrance that John was discussing, and with regard to the lighting, my office didn’t prepare the
lighting plan. The architects did. I went back and looked at it. First off, I don’t think it’s
excessive. We did have a spill, or a little bit of spillage in the previous plan over a property line.
We’ve corrected that. As I see it, the Code sets a target of two and a half horizontal foot candles
for a typical commercial parking lot. It doesn’t really mention this use, and with five for building
entrances, and I see that as a target, and it certainly can’t be a maximum, and unfortunately the
lighting, we can’t have it absolutely uniform everywhere because we’d need too many lights and
they’d have to be too high. So, I don’t know, I didn’t see it as excessive.
MR. LAPPER-We don’t have spillage.
MR. HUTCHINS-And the spillage has been eliminated.
MR. OBORNE-I would say it is excessive when juxtaposed against the Code. I mean, reality
and Code sometimes don’t mesh, for lack of a better term.
MR. HUTCHINS-Keith, are you looking at that two and a half as a maximum?
MR. OBORNE-Let me see where I am here.
MR. HUNSINGER-Well, the other question that I have, lighting plan, while we’re talking about it,
is when you look at it, on SP-3.0, with the area to the southeast, you’re showing zeros, and
that’s into the parking lot of, you know, the mall area. There is lighting in there. So your lighting
plan is only showing the lights that are a part of your project, and it’s not showing the other lights
that are available, and certainly will impact, because there’s spillage from the street lights and
the other lights in the parking lot.
MR. HUTCHINS-Yes. They didn’t inventory everything that’s there through the whole Plaza.
MR. HUNSINGER-I don’t know how you can. So we get into that a lot, but that would impact
your ratio, because if you’re showing zero, and, you know, your maximum is eight, you know.
I’m sorry, did you find your citation, Keith?
MR. OBORNE-I’m looking at photometric plan and details from 12 February. Is that correct,
Tom? Because I’m reasonably certain there’s a different lighting plan than what I have before
me.
MR. HUTCHINS-Yes, it’s 28 April.
MR. OBORNE-Yes, I don’t have that, for some reason, in my box, which is not boding well for
me right now.
13
(Queensbury Planning Board 05/20/2010)
MR. HUTCHINS-But you want them high near the building, because you’ve got pedestrian.
MR. HUNSINGER-So was there a, I mean, the plan that was presented in February, it looks like
a different plan than what was presented 28 April.
MR. HUTCHINS-Yes. It was revised in accordance with comments that were received after the
first submission.
MR. HUNSINGER-Okay.
MR. HUTCHINS-One of the comments was show the points, show the grid points.
MR. HUNSINGER-Okay.
MR. HUTCHINS-And the other comment, the concern was there was, in the area of the
dumpster on the original plan there was more spill to the west, which we have corrected.
MR. HUNSINGER-I see. The first one didn’t show the building lights.
MR. OBORNE-Right.
MR. HUNSINGER-Okay.
MR. OBORNE-And again, I mean, you’re in a Commercial Intensive area. I mean, I get that,
and again, it’s just, as opposed to what the Code is stating, is why it’s in my notes. That’s all.
MRS. STEFFAN-Well, and one of the lessons that we learned with another project is that we
have to be careful about those. I mean, we have uniformity ratios and requirements for a
reason. There was a project that we passed that ended up having more lights than we thought,
and it looked like Warren County Airport in the front of the building. I mean, you could read a
newspaper outside next to the road from it. It was that bright. So these are things you really do
need to be careful of.
MR. OBORNE-I do want to bring to the Board’s attention that the uniformity ratio is no longer in
the Code. It used to be four to one.
MRS. STEFFAN-Right, correct, but the requirements are, the foot candle requirements are
listed.
MR. OBORNE-The foot candles are there. Right. Because we had such a hard time trying to
get four to ones.
MRS. STEFFAN-Bob Vollaro, I remember what a stickler he was. Do you have any color
renderings of the front of the building and what it will look like?
MR. HUTCHINS-Yes. They’re attached to the application.
MRS. STEFFAN-The initial one?
MR. HUTCHINS-Yes.
MRS. STEFFAN-Okay.
MR. HUNSINGER-One of the questions I had were on these, quote unquote drive through
expression panels.
MR. HUTCHINS-Yes, I’ll do my best.
MR. HUNSINGER-They were really too small to really, I saw the website at the bottom, and so I
went to go to it and of course I couldn’t get in. I mean, you know, it’s for clients only to view this
stuff.
MR. HUTCHINS-Okay.
MR. HUNSINGER-But, I mean, how big are those panels?
MR. HUTCHINS-Those panels are sized on.
MR. HUNSINGER-And do you have a larger one so you can like tell what it looks like?
14
(Queensbury Planning Board 05/20/2010)
MR. HUTCHINS-I do not have a larger color example.
MR. HUNSINGER-Okay.
MR. HUTCHINS-The panels are shown on the architectural elevations, and this came from the
architect. There are sizes on there, and this indicates what.
MR. HUNSINGER-Well, there really wasn’t sizes. It just shows a rectangle. I’m looking at A4.1.
MR. HUTCHINS-Yes, A4.1.
MR. HUNSINGER-It’s 10 feet to the top of it, but the panel’s maybe three by four, three by five,
something like that.
MR. HUTCHINS-Yes. There are those three that are along the drive through, and there is one.
MR. HUNSINGER-It’s on the front side.
MR. HUTCHINS-There’s one by the door along the north side, shown on A4, that’s roughly six
feet by six feet.
MR. HUNSINGER-Yes, that’s the biggest one.
MR. HUTCHINS-And then the one, the three at the drive through are roughly three by six.
MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. They gave us a color scheme, but we don’t have color pictures.
MRS. STEFFAN-Right.
MR. HUTCHINS-Was there a rendering in the?
MRS. STEFFAN-Not a color one.
MR. HUNSINGER-Not a color one, yes, I mean, you have the color descriptions, but not the
color picture.
MR. LAPPER-Would you like Ray to run out to his truck and?
MR. HUNSINGER-Yes, if you have it with you.
MR. ALEY-I may.
MR. HUNSINGER-Yes, that would be great.
MRS. STEFFAN-That would be helpful if you did because I looked at my old package and I don’t
have them.
MR. HUNSINGER-Anyone have questions on the landscaping?
MRS. STEFFAN-No. There’s less impervious surface than there used to be. I’m still concerned
about the lighting and the photometrics, because in my experience with a prior project, you
know, you have got floor to ceiling windows, in addition to having lights on the outside of the
building, and the flood that comes from the inside of the building out, and then the overhang
lights, make these things very, very bright. Unusually bright. Any luck?
MR. ALEY-I think I left them in the hotel room.
MR. OBORNE-Well, is there any change to the branding on the building that exists right now,
the colors? There is a brand color.
MR. ALEY-Yes, it’s red. It’s a red color.
MR. OBORNE-Okay.
MR. HUNSINGER-Yes, it’s heritage red and classic burgundy and black.
MR. TRAVER-Yes, that’s a pattern that’s been around for, well, since Colonel Sanders was
alive.
15
(Queensbury Planning Board 05/20/2010)
MR. HUNSINGER-Yes, the main wall is heritage red. Anything else from members of the
Board? We do have a public hearing scheduled this evening. Is there anyone that wants to
address the Board on this project?
PUBLIC HEARNING OPEN
MR. HUNSINGER-Any written comments, Keith?
MR. OBORNE-No.
MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. What’s the feeling of the Board?
MR. TRAVER-Well, with regards to the lighting, as I understand it, the spike is really in the
immediate entranceway around the building.
MR. HUNSINGER-Yes, that’s right.
MR. TRAVER-Would there be a way to maybe just drop the wattage a little bit?
MR. HUNSINGER-That’s what I was going to ask.
MR. TRAVER-Keep the lighting adequate, but not at the level that’s reflected, at the spike level
that’s reflected, to kind of mellow it a little bit? And again, I say that as, Gretchen reminded me.
We’ve had projects with, and as I recall being in this and similar stores, there is a lot of window
structure, and when you have the interior lighting which obviously does need to be very well
illuminated, you do get quite a bit of spillage outside. So it would seem that the lighting probably
would be okay if we could just reduce the amount that we’re adding in the immediate area of the
building.
MR. HUTCHINS-Yes, I think we could speak with the architect and have him back off the
wattage.
MR. LAPPER-It’s just that around the building.
MR. ALEY-YES. Just to address that one point, the ceiling in the building is black, so you don’t
have, it’s not as bright, per se, and as I mentioned earlier, the majority of the business is done at
night.
MR. TRAVER-Right.
MR. ALEY-Obviously it’s of utmost concern to keep it bright and safe. Especially for, my target
is target mom.
MR. TRAVER-Yes.
MR. ALEY-And we want her to feel comfortable coming in and out.
MR. TRAVER-But again, the figures from your own study indicate that it is higher than average,
and so, you know, we certainly want a safe, I mean, we’re not trying to promote an unsafe
condition, but we’re thinking that a compromise might be to just, even the same fixtures, but
maybe just dropping the power a little bit. That’s the back entrance. So this is the service
entrance where you’re concerned with, that what we call the back door, where I would receive
the delivery or where the employees would go in and out to take out the rubbish at the end of the
night.
MR. KREBS-But even if you look up and down the sides, you’re at nine and ten.
MR. TRAVER-Yes, I mean, just the immediate area around the building it just seems like it’s a
big hot spot, which to some degree is to be expected, but we have some control over it now, and
I’m wondering if we could take advantage of that.
MR. HUTCHINS-That is the, the tens are underneath the drive through window.
MR. TRAVER-Okay.
MR. HUNSINGER-What do we allow underneath gas canopies?
MR. OBORNE-I believe it’s five.
16
(Queensbury Planning Board 05/20/2010)
MR. HUTCHINS-Ten.
MR. HUNSINGER-Ten?
MR. OBORNE-Ten, yes.
MR. HUTCHINS-Gas station, pump station islands, ten; loading, unloading areas, twenty, (lost
words, twenty-five.
MR. HUNSINGER-So it certainly seems reasonable to have.
MR. OBORNE-Building exterior is 1.0. Building entrance is five.
MR. HUNSINGER-So it certainly seems reasonable to have a drive through window to be
approximately the same as a gas canopy.
MR. TRAVER-Well, and we’ve dealt with that with banks and so on, too.
MR. SCHONEWOLF-But you want the light in the back of the building, because if somebody’s
going to get knocked off, that’s where it’s going to happen.
MR. ALEY-Well, we’re concerned with the back door entrance, also, yes, because that’s where
a perpetrator would try to come through.
MR. SCHONEWOLF-I’d like to keep it bright back there.
MR. TRAVER-Okay. Thank you.
MRS. STEFFAN-But the back of that building ends up being, ends up facing the shopping
center.
MR. HUNSINGER-Yes.
MR. SCHONEWOLF-Yes, the residences are over here, right?
MR. HUNSINGER-Yes.
MR. SCHONEWOLF-So, if you’re going to knock it down, you don’t want too much over there,
but right at this door is the only danger spot.
MR. ALEY-That’s McDonald’s right here.
MR. SCHONEWOLF-Where’s the dumpster? So they’re going to walk from here to there.
MR. HUNSINGER-And there’s a light right there and right there.
MRS. STEFFAN-We can condition this to amend the lighting plan to be compliant with Section
Six in the Town Code and then it’s just, it’s got to be compliant.
MR. OBORNE-Put the pressure on Keith.
MRS. STEFFAN-When you look at a gas canopy and the number is 10, but the gas canopies
are 20 feet tall.
MR. OBORNE-Well, all those photometrics are at ground level. Those numbers are based on
ground level.
MR. SCHONEWOLF-Then if you don’t like it, you can have it reduced, because that’s your
ultimate.
MRS. STEFFAN-It just seems too bright to me.
MR. OBORNE-Well, be specific as to what you want to see reduced, and to what level. There
certainly is some malleability as to, if it’s a little lower than what you’re looking for or a little
higher. There is judgment that can be used, but there are points on the plan that are hot.
MR. LAPPER-It looks like we’re only talking about a few spots that are hot, at the drive through
and that rear door, and Ray feels that he can compromise. He needs it bright, but he could
probably change them.
17
(Queensbury Planning Board 05/20/2010)
MR. ALEY-I’m just unsure of the exact fixture type and the lamps that they take. So I believe
most of those are goose neck that you could probably put an incandescent or an LED that would
be lower wattage.
MR. HUNSINGER-So I think it’s just the M-2’s and the M-5’s that we’re concerned about.
MR. ALEY-Yes. I feel fairly confident that if these are just the goosenecks, I think they’re
purpose is, you know, on the M-2 side next to the drive through, the purpose is to accentuate
those panels. That’s minimal. I’m sure I could probably put another lamp in there that’s much
lower wattage.
MR. HUNSINGER-For the M-2’s.
MR. ALEY-Yes.
MR. HUNSINGER-Okay.
MR. ALEY-It will probably save me money in the long run, also, on the utility bill.
MR. HUNSINGER-It sure would.
MR. OBORNE-What wattage is on there now?
MR. LAPPER-6.5, 6.3.
MR. ALEY-That’s foot candles.
MR. HUNSINGER-Yes. It shows lumens. It doesn’t show wattages, which is part of the
confusion for me. Wattages we could say, you know, reduce it from 175 or whatever, but that
would be too easy.
MR. ALEY-Yes, 1750 lumens.
MRS. STEFFAN-Right, M-2’s are 1750 lumens, and M-5’s are 750. I know that in gas canopies
they have the opportunity to put different bulbs within.
MR. HUNSINGER-But it’s not unlimited. There’s a range.
MRS. STEFFAN-There’s a range.
MR. HUNSINGER-Like a certain fixture will have two or three different bulbs that you can install
in it, typically.
MR. ALEY-So if I’m reading the plan right, it was pointed out here on the pole light schedule, at
the very bottom of SP-3, that M-5 has 750 lumens compared to M-2 at 1750. So that’s telling
me, and it would be a simple change to take those down to 750.
MR. LAPPER-Change the M-2’s to the M-5’s.
MR. ALEY-To the same lumens, if that’s one of the conditions.
MR. TRAVER-Just to give you an idea, sitting here on the desk, at the Planning Board, this says
152.45 lumens, this light level, I’m sorry, 159. It just went up when I moved away from it.
MR. HUNSINGER-Wow.
MR. ALEY-And we’re talking about 10 lumens. Can we dim the lights to see what that would
look like?
MR. HUNSINGER-How accurate is that, Steve?
MR. TRAVER-I don’t know. It says brightness normal. Take a look.
MR. ALEY-Is that an I-Phone App?
MR. LAPPER-So Ray’s offering to change out the M-2’s to meet the M-5’s.
18
(Queensbury Planning Board 05/20/2010)
MR. HUNSINGER-I mean, logically, looking at that table, I would think that that was a good
move, but then when you look at the plan over here, you have three M-5’s together, you have
10.2, 10.3, and where you have the M-2’s together it’s only 8.1 and 6.9.
MR. ALEY-It could be the fixture the way it’s focused, and I’m guessing, if by dispersion ratio
here where the number four is.
MR. HUTCHINS-Right, with the contour, on the M-2’s it goes further away from the building.
Look at the second row of (lost words).
MR. HUNSINGER-Yes.
MR. ALEY-It would either be that or the height of the fixture, and once again, are they shown on
the exterior elevation?
MRS. STEFFAN-Right, because the M-5’s are at eight feet and the M-2’s are at ten feet.
MR. ALEY-Because the height was also added to the dispersion.
MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. Understood. Yes, Gretchen just pointed out the M-5’s are lower than
the M-2’s also. It’s in the drive through. How does everyone feel about that?
MRS. STEFFAN-Well, light pollution is a big problem. That’s one of the reasons why we spend
a lot of time (lost words). We’ve recently had a couple of situations where we have too much
light on a site, on a commercial site. So when you go by an establishment and you’re squinting
from the road, you know that it’s too bright. So, and we’ve had a couple of situations like that.
We didn’t plan it, but.
MR. HUNSINGER-As a Board we haven’t talked about the south entrance. It was in Staff
Notes, and the applicant addressed it. What’s the feeling of the Board?
MR. KREBS-Well, I think if DOT just reviewed it recently, and personally I would like to have that
extra space, because going in and out of that shopping center sometimes it’s better to have the
space. I would not put an island in the middle of that.
MR. TRAVER-Yes, I think that the DOT, the relatively recent DOT review is a good point. I think
more compelling in a lot of ways is the other tenants, the fact that they’re not represented,
unfortunately. I mean, we have, traffic just seems like it’s getting worse and worse. So there’s
no question that it’s an issue, but, you know, I don’t see, I think Mr. Lapper makes a good point
in terms of not having the other tenants here to be able to represent the offsetting concerns that
they may have and restricting the traffic flow.
MR. OBORNE-My reply to that would be ask the tenants. That would be my reply, and this is
something that was the very first thing I brought up in our pre-application meeting is I’d be
looking very closely at that, and I did ask the applicant to pursue that. I just want to state for the
record I do have concerns about that entrance, and I’ll just leave it at that.
MR. TRAVER-Yes, good point.
MR. HUNSINGER-Anything else? Any other issues, unresolved issues we need to talk about?
MRS. STEFFAN-Do we have to take action on the additional signage that you’ve got here,
additional signage as per S-6 Number Two not addressed.
MR. TRAVER-That’s the, again, addressing the south entrance, as I recall.
MR. LAPPER-Yes, that’s right.
MRS. STEFFAN-Okay, and the Zoning Administrator ruled on the artwork, or the expression
panels. I didn’t know they had names.
MR. LAPPER-Yes.
MR. OBORNE-Yes. As long as the Colonel’s face isn’t there, and KFC isn’t there, it’s really not
considered a brand, and again, Craig and I discussed that at length, and that was really how we
approached it. If the Colonel’s mug was there, then that would be an issue.
MR. OBORNE-And the signage is specific to, obviously, right turn only, and that’s actually from
the north entrance also, and the south entrance. It actually has to deal with both entrances. We
19
(Queensbury Planning Board 05/20/2010)
like to see the details there, if they’re going to be there, but being that it seems the Board is
leaning towards not looking at the south entrance too closely, and if that’s the case, then that’s a
moot point.
MR. HUNSINGER-Okay.
MR. HUTCHINS-And I would add this application, as it stands, we have met with DOT and it is
presently before DOT and it’s in the queue at Schenectady to review it for the right of way work
permit and give their comments, and they will likely, our preliminary review with them, they were
not in favor at all of obstructing, further obstructing that southerly entrance, but the person I got
that opinion from wasn’t the guy in Albany who’s looking at it either. So we could get some
different feedback from them.
MR. HUNSINGER-So if they come back and ask you to do something different.
MR. LAPPER-It’s their road. We have to do what they say.
MR. HUNSINGER-Would it come back here?
MR. OBORNE-No. I mean, if there is a change to the Site Plan as a result of what DOT is
asking them, or forcing them to do, then, yes, they’d come back to Site Plan Review for that one
aspect of it, but right now.
MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. So is the Board comfortable moving forward?
MR. KREBS-Yes.
MR. SCHONEWOLF-Yes.
MR. TRAVER-Yes.
MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. Then I’ll close the public hearing.
PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED
MR. HUNSINGER-And Gretchen is preparing a resolution.
MR. SCHONEWOLF-What’s M & W stand for?
MR. ALEY-The “W” is for White. I can’t recall the “M”. The corporation was founded in 1967,
and it was a partner that Dave White bought out back then, shortly thereafter.
MR. SIPP-You’re YUM Brands?
MR. ALEY-YUM Brands is the franchisor.
MRS. STEFFAN-Okay. I will make a motion.
MOTION TO APPROVE SITE PLAN NO. 20-2010 M & W FOODS, Introduced by Gretchen
Steffan who moved for its adoption, seconded by Stephen Traver:
1)A site plan application has been made to the Queensbury Planning Board for the
following: Applicant proposes demolition of existing 3,730 sq. ft. KFC / A & W restaurant
and construction of a new 3,276 sq. ft. KFC only building. Restaurant in a CI zone
requires Planning Board review and approval.
2)The Planning Board provided a written recommendation to the ZBA on 3/23/10; and
3)The Zoning Board of Appeals approved the variance request on 3/24/10; and
4)A public hearing was advertised and held on 4/20/10 tabled to 5/20/10; and
5)This application is supported with all documentation, public comment and application
material in the file of record;
6)MOTION TO APPROVE SITE PLAN NO. 20-2010 M & W FOODS, Introduced by
Gretchen Steffan who moved for its adoption, seconded by Stephen Traver:
20
(Queensbury Planning Board 05/20/2010)
According to the resolution prepared by Staff. Paragraph Six A complies. This is a Type
II action.
a)Pursuant to relevant sections of the Town of Queensbury Zoning Code [Chapter
179-9-080]], the Planning Board has determined that this proposal complies with
the requirements as stated in the Zoning Code; and
b)SEQR 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)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
h)Engineering sign-off required prior to signature of Zoning Administrator.
i)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.
j)
k)This is approved with the following three conditions:
1.That the applicant will denote the loading area on the plans.
2.That the applicant will add striping details on Page S-6.
3.That the applicant will amend the lighting plan to decrease foot candles on
building exterior, specifically change M-2 fixtures with 1750 lumens with M-5
fixtures that have 750 lumens and submit revised plans to Staff.
th
Duly adopted this 20 day of May, 2010, by the following vote:
AYES: Mr. Krebs, Mr. Sipp, Mr. Schonewolf, Mr. Traver, Mrs. Steffan, Mr. Hunsinger
NOES: NONE
ABSENT: Mr. Ford
MR. HUNSINGER-Good luck.
MRS. STEFFAN-Good luck.
MR. HUNSINGER-Thank you.
MR. LAPPER-Thank you.
NEW BUSINESS:
SITE PLAN NO. 29-2010 SEQR TYPE II DENISE RUDENKO AGENT(S) WILLIAM
RUDENKO OWNER(S) QUEENSBURY CHURCH OF CHRIST ZONING NC LOCATION
357 AVIATION ROAD APPLICANT PROPOSES A FARM PRODUCE STAND WITH A 20’ X
20’ CANOPY. SEASONAL PRODUCE STANDS IN AN NC ZONE REQUIRE PLANNING
21
(Queensbury Planning Board 05/20/2010)
BOARD REVIEW AND APPROVAL. CROSS REFERENCE SP 30-09 WARREN CO.
PLANNING 5/12/2010 LOT SIZE 1.54 +/- ACRES SECTION 179-9-010
WILLIAM RUDENKO, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT
MR. HUNSINGER-Keith?
MR. OBORNE-This Site Plan was before you last year. This is up at Christ Church. You
approved it, but it was only approved for one year. The applicant is coming back with the same
Site Plan, but is requesting five years, as per the agreement with the church elders or with the
church management, so to speak. I’ll quickly go through some of the particulars, and then I
won’t belabor the point. It’s Site Plan Review for a seasonal produce stand. This is Site Plan
29-2010, location is 357 Aviation Road. Zoning is NC or Neighborhood Commercial. This is a
Type II SEQR. Quickly, applicant proposes a farm produce stand with a 20 by 20 canopy. The
stand was approved last year for a one year term and the applicant wishes to gain approval
through Year 2015, as per an agreement with Logan Robertson, President of the Queensbury
Christ Church, and with that, I’ll pass it on to the Board at this point.
MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. Thank you. Good evening. If you could identify yourself for the
record.
MR. RUDENKO-Good evening. Yes. My name is William Rudenko. My wife, Denise Rudenko,
is the owner of the Bull Hill Farm and Orchard and the operator of the produce stand.
MR. HUNSINGER-Did you have anything else to add?
MR. RUDENKO-The sign permit, last year when I appeared before the Board, I didn’t bring a
sign because they weren’t done yet, but we’d like to put up two signs similar to this, same size
with red lettering on a white background. They may show blueberries. They may show
strawberries, but the signs are up when the produce is fresh, local produce. Blueberries, when
the season is over, the blueberry sign comes down. When the strawberries are over, the
strawberry sign comes down, and when apples are available, the apple sign goes up. So I’d like
to be able to put up two signs like this, double faced, yard signs, obtained from Staples, with
your permission.
MR. HUNSINGER-Anything else?
MR. RUDENKO-No.
MR. HUNSINGER-Questions, comments from the Board? I think I probably said this last year. I
love seasonal farm stands. I have one at the end of my road, and, you know, when we did the
Comprehensive Plan, we did write language in there to encourage them and make, you know,
Site Plan Review simple. Were there any issues last year?
MR. RUDENKO-No, none whatsoever.
MR. HUNSINGER-And I’m certainly not aware of any.
MR. RUDENKO-It’s an excellent site, with safe and efficient ingress and egress, ample parking.
We open at noon time on Sunday so as not to interfere with the church services. So the rest of
the time we pretty much have the whole location to ourselves, and the produce stand.
MR. OBORNE-I wish all the sites were as clean as this one. We have quite a few coming up
that have some problems with it. I mean, this is a poster child for what it should be.
MRS. STEFFAN-Yes. I frequented the farm stand and I thought it worked our perfectly, and I
would go to Stewarts and get milk and things like that and then just walk over to the farm stand.
A lot of people did that. So it’s not only are you getting parking from there, but you’re getting
people from other, the other location, too.
MR. RUDENKO-Yes, and Stewarts is a fine neighbor for us, fine neighbor. We’re familiar with
them from Hartford, and we also lease a lot from them in Glens Falls. They’re excellent people,
all of their managers and their staff. So we’re very pleased to have this location.
MRS. STEFFAN-I thought it worked out really well, and so how does the Board feel about
approving it through the 2015 season?
MR. HUNSINGER-I was just going to ask the same question.
22
(Queensbury Planning Board 05/20/2010)
MRS. STEFFAN-So they don’t have to come back every year.
MR. TRAVER-Well, you know, in terms of the farm stand, that’s fine. I guess I would ask Staff,
is there any exposure to us in laying this out so many years in advance?
MR. OBORNE-I don’t think so, to be honest with you. The safety on the site is excellent. There
are signs on the road that they’re not supposed to park on the shoulder, and it’s, I don’t see
anything that would come back to haunt you.
MR. TRAVER-That’s good enough for me, then. Thank you.
MRS. STEFFAN-Okay.
MR. HUNSINGER-We do have a public hearing scheduled. Is there anyone that wants to
address the Board on this project? I will open the public hearing.
PUBLIC HEARING OPENED
MR. HUNSINGER-Any written comments, Keith?
MR. OBORNE-No, sir.
MR. HUNSINGER-Okay.
MRS. STEFFAN-And so we were willing to grant the additional waiver for two temporary two by
two signs?
MR. HUNSINGER-Yes, I don’t have a problem with it.
MRS. STEFFAN-Okay.
MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. I will close the public hearing.
PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED
MR. HUNSINGER-And it’s a Type II action. So if anyone would like to.
MRS. STEFFAN-Okay.
MOTION TO APPROVE SITE PLAN NO. 29-2010 DENISE RUDENKO, Introduced by
Gretchen Steffan who moved for its adoption, seconded by Stephen Traver:
1)A site plan application has been made to the Queensbury Planning Board for the
following: Applicant proposes a Farm Produce Stand with a 20’ x 20’ canopy. Seasonal
Produce Stands in an NC zone require Planning Board review and approval.
2)A public hearing was advertised and held on 5/20//2010; 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. 29-2010 DENISE RUDENKO, Introduced by
Gretchen Steffan who moved for its adoption, seconded by Stephen Traver:
According to the resolution prepared by Staff. Paragraph Six A complies. This is a Type
II action. The applicant has made waiver requests for stormwater management, grading,
landscaping and lighting. We have granted those. The applicant has also requested an
additional waiver for signage, specifically asking for two temporary signs, two feet by two
feet professionally printed signs, and the Planning Board will grant the waiver for those
signs.
a)Pursuant to relevant sections of the Town of Queensbury Zoning Code [Chapter
179-9-080]], the Planning Board has determined that this proposal complies with
the requirements as stated in the Zoning Code;
b)Type II, no further SEQRA review is necessary; and
c)Final approved plans, in compliance with the Site Plan, must be submitted to
23
(Queensbury Planning Board 05/20/2010)
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)Waiver requests granted: stormwater mgmt., grading, landscaping & lighting
plans and an additional waiver for signage for two temporary signs, two feet by
two feet professionally printed signs; and
e)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; and
f)This is approved with three conditions:
1.The hours of operation for this particular site will be from 10 a.m. to 6 p.m.
thst
2.The dates of operation will be from June 15 to October 31.
3.The approval of this Site Plan through the 2015 season.
th
Duly adopted this 20 day of May, 2010, by the following vote:
AYES: Mr. Sipp, Mr. Schonewolf, Mr. Krebs, Mr. Traver, Mrs. Steffan, Mr. Hunsinger
NOES: NONE
ABSENT: Mr. Ford
MR. HUNSINGER-You’re all set. Good luck.
MR. RUDENKO-Thank you very much.
MR. HUNSINGER-You’re welcome.
MR. RUDENKO-I’ll be back in five years.
SUBDIVISION 6-2010 PRELIMINARY & FINAL STAGES SEQR TYPE UNLISTED
BRANDON DONATO OWNER(S) SAME ZONING MDR LOCATION PITCHER ROAD
APPLICANT PROPOSES SUBDIVISION OF A 4.12 +/- ACRE PARCEL INTO TWO LOTS OF
2.06 +/- ACRES EACH. SUBDIVISION OF LAND REQUIRES PLANNING BOARD REVIEW
AND APPROVAL. CROSS REFERENCE ADMINISTRATIVE SUBDIVISION 1-2009 LOT
SIZE 4.12 +/- ACRES TAX MAP NO. 308.13-1-4.2 SECTION CHAPTER A-183
BRANDON DONATO, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT
MR. HUNSINGER-Keith, whenever you’re ready to summarize your Staff Notes.
MR. OBORNE-Yes. Typically this would be an Administrative Subdivision. The only reason that
it wasn’t is because it had been previously subdivided, not this particular lot, but it was from a
mother lot, so to speak, and that would be this lot right here, but I shall go through the Staff
Notes. Subdivision 6-2010, Preliminary and Final Stage review. The applicant is requesting a
waiver from Sketch Plan. Applicant’s name is Brandon Donato. Subdivision of land requires
Planning Board review and approval. The location is Pitcher Road. It’s in the MDR zone. This
is an Unlisted SEQRA, Short Form. Two lot administrative residential subdivision was
previously done on this lot. The applicant proposes to subdivide a 4.12 +/- acre parcel into two
lots of 2.06 acres respectively. The soils are the ubiquitous Oakville loamy fine sand. I could
not find any issues with this site. They have stormwater controls all ready to go. You have an
engineering signoff, and with that, just make sure that we grant the waiver, if you are to approve
this, for Sketch Plan.
MRS. STEFFAN-The only thing that I had, Keith, as I read the Staff Notes and read the
description of the soils, soils are generally not conducive for absorption fields, and possible
groundwater contamination, and so, in my mind, because of that, we have to address it. When I
looked at their SEQRA submission, under, you know, Number Five, will the proposed action
affect surface or groundwater quality or quantity, and then one of the qualifiers is the proposed
action will adversely affect groundwater. Well, we can’t know whether it’s small to moderate,
potentially large. It could be mitigated by a project change, but if we don’t, if somebody wants to
develop that lot and it doesn’t come back here for Site Plan Review.
24
(Queensbury Planning Board 05/20/2010)
MR. OBORNE-What happens is those are the descriptions of the soils on the site. If they were
to install a wastewater system into those soils, it’s not conducive for that. They will have to
amend the soils, because the soils are so fast. So they’ll have to amend the soils.
MRS. STEFFAN-Okay. So the Building and Codes will make sure that they do that, through the
building permit process. Okay. That’s what I needed to know.
MR. OBORNE-Yes.
MR. TRAVER-That was my concern also.
MRS. STEFFAN-Okay.
MR. HUNSINGER-And of course the Department of Health has to give them a permit on the
septic.
MR. OBORNE-That is correct.
MR. HUNSINGER-Yes. Okay. So that’s the other check.
MRS. STEFFAN-Okay.
MR. OBORNE-Does that answer?
MRS. STEFFAN-That answers my question. Then I don’t have any issues with it.
MR. KREBS-Plus the fact that you have a two acre site for house also gives you plenty of room
to put in a septic system, but the groundwater contamination is the big issue there, especially
when it comes to SEQRA. So as long as that part’s taken care of, I’m good.
MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. Good evening.
MR. DONATO-Good evening. How are you doing.
MR. HUNSINGER-If you could identify yourself for the record.
MR. DONATO-I’m Brandon Donato. I guess I’m going to need a little bit of clarification on the
soil thing. I don’t understand the language that’s in it. When I spoke with the soil scientist that
came out, as well as the, I don’t remember the individual’s name from the Town, I was under the
impression that the soils were fine.
MR. TRAVER-They probably are indicating that they’re fine in terms of their being buildable lots,
but the discussion that we were having regarding the nature of the native soils found on site
means that, as opposed to simply doing a standard straight installation of a septic system,
there’s going to have to be a little bit more engineering involved in terms of studying how the
septic is going to respond to the environment of this particular type of soil, and most likely will
require, just in the immediate area of that system, some modification of the soil to make the
system work in a way that’s going to be acceptable to the Health Department. It’s not a, it’s just
another step that needs to be taken. It doesn’t mean that there’s a fundamental problem with
the site. It’s just something that’s going to need to be taken into account by the engineer when
they design that system, and that’s not uncommon.
MR. OBORNE-And to take that a step further, Brandon, is it is a general description of the soil.
It’s going to depend on how it percs. If it’s percing fast, under a minute, you have to amend the
soils anyway, with clay based soils and the like. If not, there is nothing that will preclude you
from putting in a wastewater system, if your perc works.
MR. DONATO-Okay.
MRS. STEFFAN-The idea is when you put your septic in, and then it goes, what comes out, the
liquid that comes out of your septic and goes out into your infiltrators, your leach field infiltrators,
you know, that when the fluid, when the liquid goes out there, it can’t just go into the ground.
That’s where you’re going to get groundwater contamination. There has to be some soils that
will actually hold the moisture so that it can either evaporate, or, you know, work in, leach in
slowly into the soil. That’s why it’s called a leach field, but, you know, if it goes too fast, then it’s
not good. You can contaminate the groundwater and that’s why you have to modify the soil to
slow it down.
MR. DONATO-Okay. So the soil testing that was done will have to be duplicated again?
25
(Queensbury Planning Board 05/20/2010)
MR. OBORNE-No, not at all. On all my applications, when you’re dealing with construction or
anything along those lines, I give a general soil description to the Planning Board. These soils
are not conducive to wastewater filtering, and I can go into the science behind that, but I don’t
think we want to do that because we eventually want to get out of here. If your perc is fine,
you’re fine, you’re good to go, regardless of what the soils are.
MR. HUNSINGER-They do have the perc test results.
MR. OBORNE-Yes, and I’m not disputing that, at all. So if your perc test is fine, you’re good to
go.
MR. DONATO-Okay.
MR. OBORNE-It’s for informational purposes only.
MR. DONATO-Okay. So these perc tests are fine?
MR. OBORNE-They’re good.
MR. DONATO-Okay.
MRS. STEFFAN-Isn’t that dependent on where, like for example, if it’s a two acre spot and the
perc test was done in the front of the lot, whoever builds there decides that they want to build it
in the back of the lot, will they have to do another perc test?
MR. OBORNE-Yes. You have to have your perc test in the location that you’re having your
wastewater system put, because there are quite, there could be differences, major differences in
short distances.
MR. DONATO-It was actually perc tested in four locations, or six, four different locations.
MR. OBORNE-Yes, a couple of them were for the stormwater basins, though, I believe. I would
not be overly concerned with it, to be honest with you.
MR. DONATO-Okay.
MR. HUNSINGER-Did you have anything else to add?
MR. DONATO-No. That kind of caught me by surprise, the wording in that letter that I read. I
guess, like I said, I don’t fully understand the language, but.
MR. TRAVER-Well, it caught my attention, too, and Gretchen’s.
MR. DONATO-From my understanding, I thought that everything was okay. It met all the
setbacks, it met the minimum road frontage.
MR. OBORNE-Absolutely.
MR. DONATO-I thought that everything was fine.
MR. HUNSINGER-Your plan also shows the proposed approximate clearing limits.
MR. DONATO-Yes.
MR. HUNSINGER-Are you comfortable with what’s shown on the plan?
MR. DONATO-Yes.
MR. HUNSINGER-Okay.
MR. DONATO-Yes, and this is a, these are proposed. So I guess this question would be for
you. If the lot is sold and they decide they’re going to move, somebody wants to put a house,
they would go through the process over again?
MR. OBORNE-No, that’s just showing that the house is buildable in that area. You’re here just
for a subdivision. You’re not planning on building the house right away. Okay. You’re showing
a basic generalized area that a house could fit on there. That’s really what it is.
26
(Queensbury Planning Board 05/20/2010)
MR. DONATO-Okay.
MR. OBORNE-So it’s up to you where you want to place the house.
MR. KREBS-And even if the house was moved back, as long as it meets the setback, and the
front setbacks, you’re all right.
MR. HUNSINGER-Well, the reason I brought that up is because typically when we see
proposed approximate clearing limits, you know, then it becomes part of the record.
MR. OBORNE-That is true.
MR. HUNSINGER-And sometimes we will condition approval that the clearing limits be as
shown. So that was part of the reason why I brought it up. Well, it is a heavily wooded site, and
for purposes of, you know, the neighborhood, it would be a good idea to keep as much of the
native vegetation as we can.
MR. DONATO-Yes. I don’t know why anybody would want to take the trees out of there.
MR. HUNSINGER-Yes.
MR. OBORNE-You’d be surprised.
MRS. STEFFAN-You took the words right out of my mouth.
MR. HUNSINGER-Well, and especially since on the SEQRA form, and this is where I first
caught it is on the SEQRA form, it says, you know, four acres forested prior to the development.
After development three and a half acres are forested. So that means there’s only a half acre of
clearing between the two lots, which is, if you do the math, about what you’re showing, you
know, 1100 square feet on each lot is about a half an acre.
MR. DONATO-I guess my question is, are you asking me if that is, once you approve this
tonight, that would have to be exactly it, no, right?
MR. HUNSINGER-Well, not exactly, but if you came back and you sell the lot and they come
back and they say, well, we want to clear cut an acre and a half on, you know, Lot One, then I
think we might have an issue with it.
MR. TRAVER-That would be a substantive change from what you’re showing us tonight.
MR. KREBS-Yes, but we’re not doing a Site Plan. We’re doing a subdivision.
MR. OBORNE-Right. There’s nothing in the Code that precludes an applicant or a citizen of the
Town of Queensbury from not clear cutting their land. If somebody wanted to buy that property
at 2.06 acres and they wanted to take out every stick, they can do that.
MR. HUNSINGER-Don’t you need a permit if you’re clear cutting more than an acre?
MR. OBORNE-That would be the key there, correct, and you would have to come back for Site
Plan Review, but nothing can preclude you from taking trees down on your property.
MR. HUNSINGER-Right.
MR. OBORNE-Clear cutting is a different story, and I should actually stand on that. You’re right.
Clear cutting does have some limitations on it. Absolutely, but there’s nothing that precludes
anybody to go back to the back 40 and take down, you know, half the trees and the like.
MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. So we might want to condition this, then, if we want to maintain some
buffers.
MR. OBORNE-That’s the will of the Board.
MR. HUNSINGER-For example, maintain a tree line within the setbacks, something like that.
MR. OBORNE-That’s fine.
MR. HUNSINGER-You certainly wouldn’t have a problem with that.
MR. DONATO-No.
27
(Queensbury Planning Board 05/20/2010)
MR. SIPP-Percentage wise.
MR. HUNSINGER-That’s why I brought it up for discussion, to make sure everyone’s on the
same page.
MR. OBORNE-I don’t know how you can, Don is asking a question on percentage of trees, and
that’s difficult to ascertain and to enforce.
MR. HUNSINGER-Well, then maybe we just leave it alone.
MR. SCHONEWOLF-I would leave it alone. Wait until he comes in with somebody with a Site
Plan, and then we’ll take care of it.
MR. HUNSINGER-Well, it wouldn’t come before us for a Site Plan.
MRS. STEFFAN-Lots of times when we have subdivisions like this, we see the extremes of
things, like for example, this has, actually it has a good percolation rate, but if it had a 30 second
perc rate, that’s extreme. The water’s going to go through and the possibility of groundwater
contamination would be high, and so we might condition it. On the other extreme, if you had
wetlands on this property, you’d also have restrictions, and we might grant the subdivision, but
we would grant it with a condition that whoever bought it and wanted to build on it would have to
come back for Site Plan Review. That way we would be assured that, you know, the wetlands
wouldn’t be affected and those kinds of things. So, on the extremes of these subdivisions, which
we see a lot of, many of times we condition them. If something falls within those two extremes,
then normally we don’t condition it, but.
MR. DONATO-Well, it’s certainly not a, you know, 30 lot subdivision or anything. So I don’t think
there would be any major issues.
MR. OBORNE-Let me read the passage real quick. It’s under environmental and performance
standards, extensive clearing of vegetation and grading, it’s under B, application within a 10
year time period, all extensive clearing of vegetation and/or grading over an area of land greater
than one quarter of an acre that is not associated with site development for an approved
subdivision or site plan development is prohibited without first obtaining site plan approval. So,
if you’re clearing more than a quarter acre, clearing and grading activity of smaller lands, areas
may be subject to the.
MR. KREBS-A quarter acre plus the site is what it says.
MR. OBORNE-Plus the site, correct. It’s subject to the requirements of Chapter 147, which is
the stormwater code, and just real quick, just to get it on the record, for the purpose of this
section, extensive clearing of vegetation shall mean the removal of more than 50% of trees over
six inches in diameter, at the height of four and a half feet, or the removal of more than 75% of
all vegetation.
MR. HUNSINGER-So you can’t remove more than 75% of vegetation?
MR. OBORNE-Correct.
MR. KREBS-Yes.
MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. Well there’s your limit. That’s enough for me.
MR. OBORNE-That’s in the Code.
MR. HUNSINGER-Yes, I feel comfortable with that.
MR. DONATO-So the final ruling is can’t remove more than 75%? I don’t think that would be a
problem.
MR. OBORNE-Yes, I don’t think it is, either.
MR. HUNSINGER-Well, that’s interesting, because my neighbor’s doing logging, and they’ve
taken out a lot of trees.
MR. OBORNE-Really?
28
(Queensbury Planning Board 05/20/2010)
MR. HUNSINGER-Yes. Okay. We have a public hearing scheduled this evening. Does anyone
in the audience want to address the Board on this project? Okay. I will open the public hearing.
PUBLIC HEARING OPENED
MR. HUNSINGER-Any written comments, Keith?
MR. OBORNE-No.
MR. HUNSINGER-I will close the public hearing.
PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED
MR. HUNSINGER-It is an Unlisted action, which is the Long Form, and I did notice that,
presumably the applicant, did our part for us. Anyone else notice that? We start on Page 11.
That’s what we do, as our review on the SEQRA form, Part II.
MR. DONATO-I don’t think I’ve seen that.
MR. HUNSINGER-It’s part of your application. It was probably done by Dickinson?
MR. DONATO-Dickenson filled that out for me, yes, took care of that.
MR. HUNSINGER-Yes.
MRS. STEFFAN-Okay. Well, that’s why I jumped on Question Five because it said, no, and
then based on the groundwater thing, I was like, hmm, I don’t know if I agree with that.
MR. OBORNE-Okay.
MRS. STEFFAN-Okay. So, Will the proposed action result in a physical change to the project
site?
MR. TRAVER-No.
MR. HUNSINGER-No.
MRS. STEFFAN- Will there be an effect to any unique or unusual land forms found
on the site?
MR. TRAVER-No.
MR. HUNSINGER-No.
MRS. STEFFAN-Will the proposed action affect any water body designated as protected?
MR. TRAVER-No.
MR. HUNSINGER-No.
MRS. STEFFAN-Will the proposed action affect any non-protected existing or new body of
water?
MR. HUNSINGER-No.
MRS. STEFFAN-Will the proposed action affect surface or groundwater quality or quantity?
MR. HUNSINGER-No.
MR. TRAVER-No.
MRS. STEFFAN-Will the proposed action alter drainage flow or patterns, or surface water
runoff?
MR. HUNSINGER-No.
MR. TRAVER-No.
MRS. STEFFAN-Will the proposed action affect air quality?
29
(Queensbury Planning Board 05/20/2010)
MR. HUNSINGER-No.
MR. TRAVER-No.
MRS. STEFFAN-Will the proposed action affect any threatened or endangered species?
MR. HUNSINGER-No.
MR. TRAVER-No.
MRS. STEFFAN-Will the proposed action substantially affect non-threatened or non-
endangered species?
MR. TRAVER-No.
MR. HUNSINGER-No.
MRS. STEFFAN-Will the proposed action affect agricultural land resources?
MR. HUNSINGER-No.
MR. TRAVER-No.
MRS. STEFFAN-Will the proposed action affect aesthetic resources?
MR. HUNSINGER-No.
MR. TRAVER-No.
MRS. STEFFAN-Will the proposed action impact any site or structure of historic, pre-historic or
paleontological importance?
MR. HUNSINGER-No.
MR. TRAVER-No.
MRS. STEFFAN-Will the proposed action affect the quantity or quality of existing or future open
spaces or recreational opportunities?
MR. HUNSINGER-No.
MR. TRAVER-No.
MRS. STEFFAN-Will the proposed action impact the exceptional or unique characteristics of a
critical environmental area established pursuant to Subdivision 6NYCRR 617.14?
MR. HUNSINGER-No.
MRS. STEFFAN-Will there be an effect to existing transportation systems?
MR. HUNSINGER-No.
MR. KREBS-No.
MRS. STEFFAN-Will proposed action affect the community’s sources of fuel or energy supply?
MR. HUNSINGER-No.
MR. TRAVER-No.
MRS. STEFFAN-Will there be objectionable odors, noise, or vibration as a result of
the proposed action?
MR. HUNSINGER-No.
MR. TRAVER-No.
MRS. STEFFAN-Will the proposed action affect public health and safety?
30
(Queensbury Planning Board 05/20/2010)
MR. HUNSINGER-No.
MR. KREBS-No.
MRS. STEFFAN-Will the proposed action affect the character of the existing community?
MR. HUNSINGER-No.
MR. KREBS-No.
MRS. STEFFAN-And is there, or is there likely to be, public controversy related to potential
adverse environmental impacts?
MR. HUNSINGER-No.
MR. KREBS-No.
MRS. STEFFAN-Then I’ll make a motion for a Negative SEQRA declaration.
RESOLUTION WHEN DETERMINATION OF NO SIGNIFICANCE IS MADE
RESOLUTION NO. 6-2010, Introduced by Gretchen Steffan who moved for its adoption,
seconded by Stephen Traver:
WHEREAS, there is presently before the Planning Board an application for:
BRANDON DONATO, and
WHEREAS, this Planning Board has determined that the proposed project and Planning Board
action is subject to review under the State Environmental Quality Review Act,
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT
RESOLVED:
1. No Federal agency appears to be involved.
2. The following agencies are involved:
NONE
3. The proposed action considered by this Board is Unlisted in the Department of
Environmental Conservation Regulations implementing the State Environmental Quality
Review Act and the regulations of the Town of Queensbury.
4. An Environmental Assessment Form has been completed by the applicant.
5.Having considered and thoroughly analyzed the relevant areas of environmental concern
and having considered the criteria for determining whether a project has a significant
environmental impact as the same is set forth in Section 617.11 of the Official
Compilation of Codes, Rules and Regulations for the State of New York, this Board finds
that the action about to be undertaken by this Board will have no significant
environmental effect and the Chairman of the Planning Board is hereby authorized to
execute and sign and file as may be necessary a statement of non-significance or a
negative declaration that may be required by law.
th
Duly adopted this 20 day of, May, 2010, by the following vote:
AYES: Mr. Sipp, Mr. Schonewolf, Mr. Krebs, Mr. Traver, Mrs. Steffan, Mr. Hunsinger
NOES: NONE
ABSENT: Mr. Ford
MRS. STEFFAN-So do we want to do anything about the setbacks, or just go with it?
MR. HUNSINGER-We’re just going with it, yes, we’re all set.
MRS. STEFFAN-All right.
31
(Queensbury Planning Board 05/20/2010)
MOTION TO APPROVE PRELIMINARY STAGE SUBDIVISION NO. 6-2010 BRANDON
DONATO, Introduced by Gretchen Steffan who moved for its adoption, seconded by Donald
Sipp:
1)A subdivision application has been made to the Queensbury Planning Board for the
following: Applicant proposes subdivision of a 4.12 +/- acre parcel into two lots of 2.06
+/- acres each. Subdivision of land requires Planning Board review and approval.
2)A public hearing was scheduled and held on 5/20/2010; 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. 6-2010
BRANDON DONATO, Introduced by Gretchen Steffan who moved for its adoption,
seconded by Donald Sipp:
According to the resolution prepared by Staff.
th
Duly adopted this 20 day of May, 2010, by the following vote:
AYES: Mr. Traver, Mr. Schonewolf, Mr. Krebs, Mr. Sipp, Mrs. Steffan, Mr. Hunsinger
NOES: NONE
ABSENT: Mr. Ford
MRS. STEFFAN-Okay.
MOTION TO APPROVE FINAL STAGE SUBDIVISION NO. 6-2010 BRANDON DONATO,
Introduced by Gretchen Steffan who moved for its adoption, seconded by Donald Krebs:
1)A subdivision application has been made to the Queensbury Planning Board for the
following: Applicant proposes subdivision of a 4.12 +/- acre parcel into two lots of 2.06
+/- acres each. Subdivision of land requires Planning Board review and approval.
2)A public hearing was scheduled and held on 5/20/2010; 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. 6-2010 BRANDON
DONATO, Introduced by Gretchen Steffan who moved for its adoption, seconded by
Donald Krebs:
According to the resolution prepared by Staff. Paragraph Four A complies. Paragraph
Four B, we have made a Negative Declaration on the Unlisted action. Four D, we have
granted waivers from Sketch Plan Review. It is approved without conditions.
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)Waiver requests granted: from Sketch Plan Review
e)The limits of clearing will constitute a no-cut buffer zone, orange construction
32
(Queensbury Planning Board 05/20/2010)
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 g to be combined with a letter of credit; and
th
Duly adopted this 20 day of May, 2010, by the following vote:
AYES: Mr. Sipp, Mr. Traver, Mr. Schonewolf, Mr. Krebs, Mrs. Steffan, Mr. Hunsinger
NOES: NONE
ABSENT: Mr. Ford
MR. HUNSINGER-You’re all set.
MR. DONATO-Thank you.
MR. HUNSINGER-Thank you. Good luck.
MR. DONATO-And can I get a copy of that? Do I get a copy of that?
MR. OBORNE-You’ll receive a letter in the mail with directions on what your next steps are.
You’re going to need to make sure that this gets to the County. The Chairman has to sign the
mylars, but Devon should be able to walk you through that, because he’s going to need to
execute on the mylar. You’ll receive something in the mail.
MR. DONATO-Okay, and will I get a copy of the paperwork that Devon filled out? I can get that
from him?
MR. OBORNE-You can get that from him. If you want an extra copy, submit five, or something
along those lines.
MR. HUNSINGER-Thank you.
SITE PLAN 30-2010 SEQR TYPE II MICHAEL MELUCCI OWNER(S) PETER SHABAT
ZONING PUD LOCATION 31 CRONIN ROAD APPLICANT PROPOSES A 3,384 +/- SQ. FT.
ADDITION TO EXISTING CLUB HOUSE/PRO SHOP STRUCTURE IN ORDER TO
ACCOMMODATE 5 GOLF SIMULATOR UNITS. EXPANSION OF A COMMERCIAL
STRUCTURE REQUIRES PLANNING BOARD REVIEW AND APPROVAL. CROSS
REFERENCE FW 6-05, SB 26-05, FW 5-03, PUD SP 8-2000, S B WARREN CO. PLANNING
5/12/2010 LOT SIZE 6.88 +/- ACRES TAX MAP NO. 296.16-1-2.1 SECTION 179-9-010
MICHAEL MELUCCI, PRESENT
MR. HUNSINGER-Whenever you’re ready to summarize Staff Notes, Keith.
MR. OBORNE-Yes. Site Plan 30-2010, Michael Melucci. This is an expansion of a commercial
structure. The location is 31 Cronin Road, Bay Meadows Golf Course. The zoning is PUD.
This is a Type II SEQRA. Applicant proposes a 3,384 square foot addition to existing clubhouse
pro shop structure in order to accommodate five golf simulator units. The clubhouse is situated
on a 6.88 acre parcel that is part of the overall five parcel, 96.55 acre golf course. The applicant
currently owns the Evergreen Indoor Golf Center located at 1454 State Route 9 in Queensbury
and proposes to relocate to Bay Meadows Golf Course on Cronin Road. Soils are Rondac silt
loam. The soils are difficult, but not the end of the world. I will go to quick additional comments.
Paragon Engineering comments are attached. Fire Marshal has reviewed this. Water and
Sewer Department has reviewed this and any signage associated with the project must be
submitted for review. There was no signage with it submitted.
MR. MELUCCI-No, I’m going to just change the sign that’s there.
MR. OBORNE-Change in copy, that’s fine, and with that, I’ll turn it over to the Board.
MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. Thank you. Good evening.
33
(Queensbury Planning Board 05/20/2010)
MR. MELUCCI-Hi. Mike Melucci, 31 Cronin Road, Queensbury. First of all I want to make one,
I do not own Evergreen Indoor Golf. Mr. Reynolds owns it.
MR. OBORNE-Okay.
MR. MELUCCI-And I’m in the process of taking it over.
MR. HUNSINGER-Okay.
MR. MELUCCI-So that all depends on what happens here. Basically what I want to do is,
there’s already bathrooms existing. I’m trying to make it a year round facility. I don’t know if
anybody has been over there, but we’ve had it three years. I think we’ve improved it 3,000
percent and we want to keep improving it, and I think the addition of the simulators, because of
the facility, make it a year round facility, and utilize, you know, on bad days like we had
yesterday, they could use it, where right now they’re only open six months a year. So, we could
keep our golf course open a little longer because people would be there running the other
operation. Other than that, that’s about it.
MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. Any questions, comments from the Board?
MRS. STEFFAN-There was a comment from the Water and Sewer people that the sewer
building lateral on the northwest corner of the building.
MR. MELUCCI-That’s a clean out drain. That won’t be affected at all, because it’s before where
I’m going to build.
MRS. STEFFAN-Okay.
MR. MELUCCI-Let’s say the existing building, that’s here. I’m building it over there. So it goes
underneath the ground, and cleans out the pipe that goes out.
MR. OBORNE-It’ll be part of your building plans when you submit them to Building and Codes.
MR. MELUCCI-Right, but it is, it won’t be affected at all, because we’re not putting any water in
that facility at all.
MRS. STEFFAN-Okay. Now that building, I mean, that whole area is part of a flood plain.
MR. MELUCCI-Not there.
MRS. STEFFAN-I thought that whole area was part of a flood plain.
MR. MELUCCI-Yes, that’s been built up. At one point in time, I’m sure that was under water.
Absolutely.
MR. SCHONEWOLF-Well, it’s higher than the golf course.
MR. OBORNE-Absolutely.
MR. MELUCCI-Yes, and whenever we have a problem, and our problem for the water is near
the creek. We don’t have any other problems, other than other projects that have been passed
that have run into our golf course. The cardiology department has a drain and two collection
ponds in the front. We couldn’t figure out why we were getting water on the Two fairway.
They’re drained right over to us. Okay. I mean, we try to control our water. We do the best we
can, but last year they had, the County had a guy come and trap beaver. Well he decided to
take the beaver dam down. Well it’s flooded our second hole. Do we come and complain? No,
we didn’t do a thing. So, if anybody comes over and takes a look at that course, we spent
thousands of dollars, we don’t even own it. We lease it. We spent thousands of dollars on that
place, and we had a problem last year because of that water coming from another location.
They sort of took care of it, but we still have the problem.
MR. HUNSINGER-Yes, you shouldn’t be getting water from your neighbor.
MR. MELUCCI-Exactly. I mean, that was an engineering thing. I mean, it wasn’t like it just
happened to overflow. There’s two ponds in the front of the cardiology department, with a
drywell in the corner, okay, with the drain going underneath the road, and out onto our golf
course.
34
(Queensbury Planning Board 05/20/2010)
MR. SCHONEWOLF-His parking lot’s a lot higher than your property.
MR. MELUCCI-But, sir, this is in the front.
MR. SCHONEWOLF-I know that, but it comes out the back, doesn’t it?
MR. MELUCCI-No.
MR. SCHONEWOLF-It comes out the front?
MR. MELUCCI-Those two retention ponds, if you had gone there last year, there was never any
water in them.
MR. SCHONEWOLF-I noticed that, yes.
MR. MELUCCI-Because what it was doing is that drywell that was there, that’s supposed to
have the overflow, they cut a hole in the bottom and drained it out the bottom and underneath
the road onto our golf course, underneath the driveway, that little circle.
MR. SIPP-That cardiac circle.
MR. MELUCCI-I mean, I went with the County guy, the Town people, we tried to figure out, we
went all the way over to Country Club Road trying to figure out where this water is coming from.
MR. HUNSINGER-So you’ve talked to people at the Town and they’re aware of this issue?
MR. MELUCCI-Yes.
MR. HUNSINGER-And it’s getting resolved then?
MR. SIPP-I don’t think you’ll ever drain that.
MR. MELUCCI-Yes, I mean, that’s not why I’m here.
MRS. STEFFAN-Well, we approved that subdivision. That was a five lot subdivision. The
cardiology practice bought a couple of the lots, but somebody else.
MR. MELUCCI-I mean, all you’ve got to do, it’s very simple, it’s on the plans.
MR. HUNSINGER-You’re required to maintain all your stormwater on your own site.
MR. MELUCCI-Yes, you’re not supposed to put it on somebody else’s.
MR. HUNSINGER-Exactly.
MR. MELUCCI-On top of us being as bad as it is.
MR. HUNSINGER-Exactly.
MR. MELUCCI-I mean, the creek, we can’t touch the creek. We were told we can’t touch the
creek. We can’t clean it. You get all the runoff from the road, and it all goes in there. So we
can’t touch that. When it rains hard, that creek overflows and then we close up. Okay, but we
shouldn’t have to close up because of water from somebody else.
MR. KREBS-Well, this building, though, is going to be.
MR. MELUCCI-It has nothing to even do with this. That’s at the parking lot level. Do you have
that picture up there?
MR. KREBS-So that’ll be a year round, heated facility?
MR. MELUCCI-Yes.
MR. KREBS-So they can come up there in January.
MR. MELUCCI-In January, in February. As long as you can get in. We might be too busy.
MR. OBORNE-There you go.
35
(Queensbury Planning Board 05/20/2010)
MR. MELUCCI-But what it’s going to do, it’s going to come out. It’s going to be almost even to
the back side, or to the left of that doorway, come out 72 feet.
MR. OBORNE-I have a straight on shot that really gets it good. At least I thought I did.
MR. MELUCCI-All right. So basically you’re going to stay even with that back side. Come out
72 feet, go out 48 feet. The only doorway that’s going to be there is in the back for the people to
come in to go play golf, and in the wintertime, on the plans you’ll see that we’ve, there’s a
storage room there now. We’re going to put a doorway in there, into the existing building. So
when you walk in, you’ll be able to go into the office, which is there. Each one of these
simulators take 300 square feet, 15 by 20. So what I’ve done is, just for the future, if for some
reason it’s going as well as we expect, we made the office 15 by 30. So if we need to, we could
put another simulator into that spot.
MR. SCHONEWOLF-How many are there, four?
MR. MELUCCI-There’s five going in now, and possibly where that office is on the plans may be
a sixth facility. See where it says snack bar? That won’t be a snack bar. That’s going to be,
you walk in that door, you go to the left. It’s going to be wide open, where the pro shop is now,
that’ll all be incorporated.
MR. SCHONEWOLF-Is the restaurant open all winter?
MR. MELUCCI-The restaurant is leased, subleased by me to somebody else. Yes. She’s going
to be open year round. She was open year round last year.
MR. KREBS-She makes a great breakfast.
MR. MELUCCI-She does a great job.
MR. HUNSINGER-That’s what I’ve heard, too.
MR. MELUCCI-She gives you a lot.
MR. HUNSINGER-Any other questions? Comments?
MR. KREBS-I had one comment. I think Michael will be very, very happy if he has to worry
about snow storage location because of the lack of space available in the middle of the winter. If
he has 15 people there.
MR. OBORNE-Mr. Krebs, I would be remiss if I didn’t mention at least.
MR. KREBS-I know.
MR. MELUCCI-I’ve got 97 acres. We’ll get rid of it.
MRS. STEFFAN-But we do need to have it on the plan.
MR. OBORNE-Please.
MRS. STEFFAN-Now the current parking pattern on site is different than what’s on the plot plan.
MR. MELUCCI-I’ll be honest with you, whatever’s going to work.
MR. HUNSINGER-Well, it’s gravel. People kind of park where they want.
MR. MELUCCI-I’m not being sarcastic. What happened was, again, we had an original sign.
The people that own the restaurant took it upon themselves to go to the owner of the property
and got a permit for a sign, while this was being here. They were given my plans. They put the
sign in the middle of the, in the middle of these plans. So we’re going to have to reconfigure it,
somehow. It’s more than enough parking. That’s not the problem. It’s just, it may go this way
and it may stay the way it’s been. I can’t tell you that.
MRS. STEFFAN-How do we handle that, Keith? Because we have to have it as part of our Site
Plan.
MR. MELUCCI-Well, I mean, right now it could work the way it is, other than two spots, because
where he put the sign, you can’t back out of those two spots, but those are more than enough
spots to handle what we need anyway.
36
(Queensbury Planning Board 05/20/2010)
MR. OBORNE-I think the issue is, is that, as drawn on the plans, it’s different from what is
currently there. If we can get what’s currently there onto your final plans, I have no issue with
that whatsoever. What you have on your plans, Code Compliance will go out there. They’ll see
that it’s not to the plans, and you’ll be back here before this Board. Devon’s going to need to re-
do that.
MR. HUNSINGER-There’s certainly enough room there. That’s not the problem.
MR. OBORNE-Absolutely.
MR. HUNSINGER-It’s just this needs to be what it really is.
MR. OBORNE-I think it’s a great project, you know, for what it’s worth, but obviously you need to
have the plans that the Board is satisfied with.
MR. MELUCCI-So I’ve got to have these plans re-done again. Because of that one sign.
MR. OBORNE-Well, no, not because of the sign, because the parking is not correct.
MR. MELUCCI-That’s my point. If we leave the parking just the way it is, basically it takes up
two parking spots. You can’t back out of these two parking spots where they put that.
MR. OBORNE-I understand.
MR. MELUCCI-So I’ve got enough parking spots there, over and above what I need. I mean, I’m
not being sarcastic, I’m just asking a question. If I have more than I need.
MR. OBORNE-Well, if you have more than you need, that needs to be approved by the Planning
Board.
MR. MELUCCI-That’s what I’m asking.
MR. OBORNE-But what you have on the plan is not what is currently on site, and what is
currently on site is what is going to be kept.
MR. MELUCCI-My point is is that the Town approved that and gave them my plan.
MR. OBORNE-The Town approved what?
MR. MELUCCI-The Town approved the sign.
MR. OBORNE-The sign’s not the issue. The configuration of the parking spaces is the issue.
That’s all. As drawn on the plans, they’re different from what’s on the site, as a pedestrian and
vehicular safety issue.
MR. MELUCCI-So how fast can I be able to get back on there?
MR. OBORNE-I don’t think you need.
MR. KREBS-We can do it with a condition.
MR. OBORNE-Yes. Just make a conditional approval.
MR. KREBS-We’ll do it with a condition. We’ll just say conditioned that your drawing shows.
MR. MELUCCI-Yes, because, I mean, this has been a heck of a process. I mean, the cost of
the project has gone up substantially.
MR. TRAVER-What needs to happen is the Town needs to get a plan which reflects what the
actual situation is going to be. You don’t need to make copies for all of us. You don’t need to
wait to get on our agenda again. You just need to make sure that what they have on file is what
is intended.
MR. MELUCCI-Is what’s there.
MR. KREBS-Is what’s going to be.
MR. OBORNE-Is what’s proposed, right. Yes, you don’t have to come back.
37
(Queensbury Planning Board 05/20/2010)
MR. HUNSINGER-He does have the existing sign shown on this plan.
MR. MELUCCI-Yes, well, that’s the existing sign. That’s what I’m saying.
MR. KREBS-So where are you going to put the sign?
MR. MELUCCI-What happened was there was a confliction between the tenant and me, okay,
which has nothing to do with you people, but what I’m saying is is that the owner of the property
was told by that person that he was putting a sign on the wall and then proceeded to put a 10 by
3 foot by 4 foot by 22 feet high sign, which was approved by the Town.
MR. HUNSINGER-And that’s the existing signage shown on this plan?
MR. MELUCCI-No.
MR. HUNSINGER-It’s not?
MR. MELUCCI-That’s what I’m saying is, sir, we spent all this money on this project. This came
about within the last three weeks.
MR. HUNSINGER-Do you have a picture of the sign?
MR. OBORNE-Of course I don’t have a picture of it. Sorry.
MR. MELUCCI-Go back to that picture, I’ll show you exactly. See where the line is? That’s our
expensive parking lot. At the end of that line, to the right, say where that last car is, is where he
put the sign.
MR. HUNSINGER-Okay.
MR. MELUCCI-Okay. Where the sign was originally, where you see it there, it’s close to the
road, away from all the parking. If he had put a sign at the end of the parking lot or the other end
of the parking lot, it would have been conducive.
MR. OBORNE-Did he get a permit for that?
MR. MELUCCI-That’s exactly what I’m saying.
MR. OBORNE-I’ll investigate that.
MR. MELUCCI-That’s what I’m saying, I mean, because I came up, because I’m saying, well,
wait a minute, you know, I didn’t realize Mr. Shabat signed the thing.
MR. OBORNE-Right. Well, I’m curious if Craig Brown, the Zoning Administrator, signed off on
that, and I’ll ask tomorrow.
MR. MELUCCI-Well, I’ve got all the permits right here.
MR. OBORNE-You have all the permits for that sign?
MR. TRAVER-For the sign?
MR. SCHONEWOLF-The way the cars park there is north and south.
MR. MELUCCI-Right.
MR. SCHONEWOLF-The parking lot is east and west.
MR. MELUCCI-Exactly, and that’s what we had planned on doing, so we could get more cars
and make it a little bit more conducive.
MR. SCHONEWOLF-It makes more sense.
MR. MELUCCI-Exactly, but not when the (lost words).
MR. SCHONEWOLF-It doesn’t make sense to have a sign in the middle of it, however.
38
(Queensbury Planning Board 05/20/2010)
MR. MELUCCI-This guy, he put it four foot deep, with rod and everything else, but his design, I
mean, you could maybe wind up making him take it down. Here’s what his design was, okay.
He took my sign, when I wasn’t there, and put it on top. Mine looked like a postage stamp on
top of his. So, with my temperament, I’ve stayed away. So, it’s a joke, I mean, it really is. I’m
serious. My sign looks like a postage stamp on top.
MR. SCHONEWOLF-It does. I looked at it yesterday.
MR. MELUCCI-I mean, on top of that you’ve got to go like this to see who’s golf course it is. You
can’t see it either way. That’s what my whole point was. If you put it close to the road, if you got
approval for a 22 foot, I can’t believe that they approved a 22 foot sign. I mean, my God, it isn’t,
it’s 22 feet.
MR. HUNSINGER-It wouldn’t get past us.
MR. OBORNE-What I suggest, as a condition of approval, I recommend that maybe you need to
direct me to ascertain why the sign is where it is, to be honest with you. It should not be in the
middle of a parking lot, and that’s a safety issue, I mean, period.
MR. MELUCCI-It is. I mean, what I was going to do was, because it’s all flat. You could drive in
anywhere. We own, before it was just take off. We made, we blacktopped the front, you know,
so it could come in, and we put the big boulders in so they couldn’t go up. So what my thought
was, instead of having a big argument, take the boulders, bring them down that end, and open
up the other side.
MR. OBORNE-Right.
MR. MELUCCI-But then it’s more cost. I mean, but right now, it’s a lot easier for my heart.
MR. OBORNE-I will say, and will put your heart at ease, and I’m not speaking for the Board at
this point, is that we’ll look into that, okay, at this point.
MR. MELUCCI-I’d appreciate that.
MR. OBORNE-There seems to be some inconsistencies here.
MRS. STEFFAN-Keith, are we looking at that sign for compliance, is that what we’re looking for?
MR. TRAVER-I don’t think he’s sure until he finds out what.
MR. OBORNE-Yes. I’m not sure. I don’t understand, what I don’t understand is the placement
of the sign, why it is where it is.
MR. MELUCCI-Well, what I was told is that, as long as you meet the setbacks, you can put your
sign anywhere you want. I’m just telling you because I was frustrated when I saw that they gave
a permit, and they gave them all my plans to go by, okay. This hasn’t been approved yet.
Those are the things that I was concerned about, and how it got passed, I really don’t know.
MR. OBORNE-I’m concerned about it, too, to be honest with you, and that’s not just lip service.
We do want to make sure that pedestrian safety and vehicular safety is followed.
MR. OBORNE-Yes, I have great overhead maps. These are copies?
MR. MELUCCI-Yes, because I asked for copies of everything.
MR. OBORNE-Wow.
MR. MELUCCI-See where the existing sign, see where he put it?
MR. OBORNE-Okay. Thank you.
MR. MELUCCI-Thank you.
MRS. STEFFAN-Okay.
MR. OBORNE-I can make no promises, but I’ll look at it.
MR. MELUCCI-Well, like I said, it’s just a, it’s an easy fix if I have to. I put the boulders on the
other side and blacktop the (lost word).
39
(Queensbury Planning Board 05/20/2010)
MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. We do have a public hearing scheduled this evening for this project.
Is there anyone in the audience that wants to address the Board?
PUBLIC HEARING OPENED
MR. HUNSINGER-Any written comments, Keith?
MR. OBORNE-No.
MR. HUNSINGER-Seeing as there were no takers, I will open the public hearing, and, the
Board’s ready to move forward, right?
MR. TRAVER-Yes.
MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. I’ll close the public hearing.
PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED
MR. HUNSINGER-This is a Type II SEQRA. So no SEQRA review is required, unless there’s
something that jumps out at us. Would anyone like to put forward a motion?
MRS. STEFFAN-Okay.
MOTION TO APPROVE SITE PLAN NO. 30-2010 MICHAEL MELUCCI, Introduced by
Gretchen Steffan who moved for its adoption, seconded by Donald Krebs:
1)A site plan application has been made to the Queensbury Planning Board for the
following: Applicant proposes a 3,384 +/- sq. ft. addition to existing Club House/Pro shop
structure in order to accommodate 5 golf simulator units. Expansion of a commercial
structure requires Planning Board review and approval
2)A public hearing was advertised and held on 5/20//2010; 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. 30-2010 MICHAEL MELUCCI, Introduced by
Gretchen Steffan who moved for its adoption, seconded by Donald Krebs:
According to the resolution prepared by Staff. Paragraph Four A complies. This is a
Type II action.
a)Pursuant to relevant sections of the Town of Queensbury Zoning Code [Chapter
179-9-080]], the Planning Board has determined that this proposal complies with
the requirements as stated in the Zoning Code; and
b)This is a Type II action, 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
g)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
40
(Queensbury Planning Board 05/20/2010)
h)Engineering sign-off required prior to signature of Zoning Administrator.
i)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.
j) This is approved with the following conditions:
1.Please revise the plan to denote the location of the required unloading areas.
2.The current parking pattern on site is different than what is on the plot plan.
Please provide an accurate parking plan that reflects as built conditions that
meet Town Code.
3.Snow storage location should be denoted on the plan.
4.The rear or north elevation drawing should be submitted with final plans.
5.Any signage associated with the project must be submitted for review.
6.The Planning Board directs Staff to investigate recent sign installation and
placement within the parking lot.
th
Duly adopted this 20 day of May, 2010, by the following vote:
MR. HUNSINGER-I did have a question on the one. Signage should be submitted for
review by whom? Would that just be part of the sign?
MRS. STEFFAN-It would be, Staff would have to do that.
MR. HUNSINGER-Okay.
AYES: Mr. Traver, Mr. Sipp, Mr. Schonewolf, Mr. Krebs, Mrs. Steffan, Mr. Hunsinger
NOES: NONE
ABSENT: Mr. Ford
MR. HUNSINGER-You’re all set. Good luck.
MR. MELUCCI-Thank you very much. I appreciate it.
MR. HUNSINGER-You’re welcome. We set all the meetings. Do we have any other business
this evening?
MR. OBORNE-With the exception of the Water Keeper, I think we’ve taken care of that. So
there is no exception. Never mind.
MOTION TO ADJOURN THE QUEENSBURY PLANNING BOARD MEETING OF MAY 20,
2010, Introduced by Gretchen Steffan who moved for its adoption, seconded by Stephen Traver:
th
Duly adopted this 20 day of May, 2010, by the following vote:
AYES: Mr. Sipp, Mr. Schonewolf, Mr. Traver, Mr. Krebs, Mrs. Steffan, Mr. Hunsinger
NOES: NONE
ABSENT: Mr. Ford
On motion meeting was adjourned.
RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED,
Chris Hunsinger, Chairman
41
(Queensbury Planning Board 05/20/2010)
42