2010.09.21
(Queensbury Planning Board 9/21/10)
QUEENSBURY PLANNING BOARD MEETING
FIRST REGULAR MEETING
SEPTEMBER 21, 2010
INDEX
Site Plan No. 48-2008 NPA II 1.
EXTENSION REQUEST Tax Map No.
Site Plan No. 14-2010 Steven & Christine Johnson 2.
TABLING REQUEST Tax Map No. 289.11-1-23
Subdivision No. 13-2007 John Fedorowicz 2.
TABLING REQUEST Tax Map No. 265-1-19.11
Site Plan No. 39-2010 Inwald Enterprises 3.
Tax Map No. 227.17-1-16
Site Plan No. 61-2010 David & Tanya Bruno 4.
ZBA RECOMMENDATION Tax Map No. 228.-1-85
Subdivision No. 11-2010 William J. VanGuilder 6.
ZBA RECOMMENDATION Tax Map No. 308.11-1-53
Subdivision No. 10-2010 Maureen Ireland 18.
ZBA RECOMMENDATION Tax Map No. 308.16-2-4
Site Plan No. 59-2010 Tom Wessling & Roger Brown 22.
ZBA RECOMMENDATION Tax Map No. 296.17-1-50
Site Plan No. 60-2010 Stewarts Shops 31.
MODIFICATION TO SP 8-07 Tax Map No. 303.19-1-61
Site Plan No. 54-2010 Elizabeth Miller 38.
Tax Map No. 290.5-1-48
Site Plan No. 53-2010 Bob Pilarinos; Dennis Pilarinos 43.
Tax Map No. 302.5-1-97
THESE ARE NOT OFFICIALLY ADOPTED MINUTES AND ARE SUBJECT TO BOARD AND
STAFF REVISIONS. REVISIONS WILL APPEAR ON THE FOLLOWING MONTHS MINUTES
(IF ANY) AND WILL STATE SUCH APPROVAL OF SAID MINUTES.
0
(Queensbury Planning Board 9/21/10)
QUEENSBURY PLANNING BOARD MEETING
FIRST REGULAR MEETING
SEPTEMBER 21, 2010
7:00 P.M.
MEMBERS PRESENT
CHRIS HUNSINGER, CHAIRMAN
GRETCHEN STEFFAN, SECRETARY
DONALD SIPP
STEPHEN TRAVER
THOMAS FORD
DONALD KREBS
PAUL SCHONEWOLF
LAND USE PLANNER-KEITH OBORNE
TOWN COUNSEL-MILLER, MANNIX, SCHACHNER, & HAFNER-MIKE HILL
STENOGRAPHER-MARIA GAGLIARDI
MR. HUNSINGER-I’ll call to order the meeting of the Town of Queensbury Planning Board on
Tuesday, September 21, 2010. The first item on the agenda is approval of minutes from July
thth
20 and July 27, 2010.
APPROVAL OF MINUTES
July 20, 2010
July 27, 2010
TH
MOTION TO APPROVE THE QUEENSBURY PLANNING BOARD MINUTES OF JULY 20
TH
AND JULY 27, 2010, Introduced by Gretchen Steffan who moved for its adoption, seconded
by Stephen Traver:
st
Duly adopted this 21 day of September, 2010, by the following vote:
AYES: Mr. Traver, Mr. Krebs, Mrs. Steffan, Mr. Sipp, Mr. Hunsinger
NOES: NONE
ABSTAINED: Mr. Ford, Mr. Schonewolf
ADMINISTRATIVE ITEMS:
SP 48-2008: NPA II: REQUESTING A ONE YEAR EXTENSION TO 10/20/2011 [APPROVED
10/20/09]
MR. HUNSINGER-Keith, did you have anything to add to that request?
MR. OBORNE-No, I don’t, but counsel is here for NPA if he has anything to add.
MR. HUNSINGER-Okay.
JON LAPPER
MR. LAPPER-I’ll answer any questions.
MRS. STEFFAN-I think the documentation’s pretty straightforward.
MR. TRAVER-I agree.
MRS. STEFFAN-And we spent a lot of time on that Site Plan. So I think we should grant the
extension.
MR. TRAVER-Yes.
MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. Would someone like to move it?
1
(Queensbury Planning Board 9/21/10)
MOTION TO APPROVE THE EXTENSION REQUEST FOR SITE PLAN NO. 48-2008 NPA, II,
Introduced by Gretchen Steffan who moved for its adoption, seconded by Stephen Traver:
Site Plan 48-2008 NPA II received approved on October 20, 2009; and
The approval is good for one year to October 20, 2010; and
The applicant’s agent is requesting a one year extension to October 20, 2011; and
MOTION TO APPROVE THE EXTENSION REQUEST FOR SITE PLAN NO. 48-2008 NPA, II,
Introduced by Gretchen Steffan who moved for its adoption, seconded by Stephen Traver:
According to the resolution prepared by Staff.
st
Duly adopted this 21 day of September, 2010, by the following vote:
AYES: Mr. Traver, Mr. Krebs, Mrs. Steffan, Mr. Sipp, Mr. Ford, Mr. Schonewolf, Mr. Hunsinger
NOES: NONE
SP 14-2010: STEVEN & CHRISTINE JOHNSON: FOR FURTHER TABLING
CONSIDERATION
MR. HUNSINGER-Keith, have they been before the ZBA yet?
MR. OBORNE-They have been before the ZBA. They were tabled pending revisions. So at this
point we need to table them until December.
MR. HUNSINGER-So they need to go back to the ZBA?
MR. OBORNE-Correct.
MR. HUNSINGER-Yes, okay.
st
MRS. STEFFAN-All right. Then we’ll do the 21.
MOTION TO TABLE SITE PLAN NO. 14-2010 STEVEN & CHRISTINE JOHNSON, Introduced
by Gretchen Steffan who moved for its adoption, seconded by Thomas Ford:
Site Plan 14-2010 was tabled to 9/21/2010; and
th
The ZBA has tabled Area Variance 9-2010 to their October 27 meeting; and
MOTION TO TABLE SITE PLAN NO. 14-2010 STEVEN & CHRISTINE JOHNSON, Introduced
by Gretchen Steffan who moved for its adoption, seconded by Thomas Ford:
st
According to the resolution prepared by Staff. We’re going to table this to the December 21
Planning Board meeting.
st
Duly adopted this 21 day of September, 2010, by the following vote:
AYES: Mr. Ford, Mr. Traver, Mrs. Steffan, Mr. Krebs, Mr. Schonewolf, Mr. Sipp, Mr. Hunsinger
NOES: NONE
SUB 13-2007: JOHN FEDOROWICZ: FOR FURTHER TABLING CONSIDERATION
MR. HUNSINGER-They have requested a table until October.
MR. OBORNE-No. They should be on at the end of the month.
th
MR. HUNSINGER-I’m sorry. September 30.
th
MR. HUNSINGER-September 30. Sorry. They’re on the agenda.
MRS. STEFFAN-I thought so.
MR. HUNSINGER-I was jumping ahead to the next one.
2
(Queensbury Planning Board 9/21/10)
MRS. STEFFAN-That’s okay.
MOTION TO TABLE SUBDIVISION NO. 13-2007 JOHN FEDOROWICZ, Introduced by
Gretchen Steffan who moved for its adoption, seconded by Stephen Traver:
A subdivision application has been made to the Queensbury Planning Board for the following:
Applicant proposes subdivision of a 10.14 acre parcel into 2 residential lots of 3.7 and 6.44
acres. Subdivision of land requires review and approval by the Planning Board. See Return
on Appeal dated 10/9/09.
A public hearing was scheduled and held on 2/19/08, 4/22/08, 6/17/08, 7/22/08, 9/16/08,
12/16/08, 2/19/09, 3/24/09, 5/18/10; and
The application was tabled to 9/21/10 pending a court decision; and
A decision was made by Judge Krogmann on 8/17/10; and
MOTION TO TABLE SUBDIVISION NO. 13-2007 JOHN FEDOROWICZ, 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 September 30 Planning
Board meeting.
st
Duly adopted this 21 day of September, 2010, by the following vote:
AYES: Mr. Traver, Mr. Sipp, Mrs. Steffan, Mr. Schonewolf, Mr. Ford, Mr. Krebs, Mr. Hunsinger
NOES: NONE
PLANNING BOARD RECOMMENDATION TO THE ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS:
SITE PLAN NO. 39-2010 SEQR TYPE II INWALD ENTERPRISES AGENT(S) JONATHAN
LAPPER OWNER(S) SAME AS APPLICANT ZONING WR LOCATION 38 GUNN LANE
SITE PLAN: APPLICANT PROPOSES TO CONSTRUCT A BOATHOUSE WITH SUNDECK
ACCESSED BY HANDICAP ACCESS RAMP ABOVE TWO EXISTING DOCKS. AREA
VARIANCE: ACCESSORY STRUCTURE > 100 SQUARE FEET WITHIN SHORELINE AND
SIDELINE SETBACKS. PLANNING BOARD TO PROVIDE WRITTEN RECOMMENDATION
TO THE ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS. CROSS REFERENCE AV 45-2010, AV 26-10, AV
68-08, SP 38-08, BP 09-384 WARREN CO. PLANNING 6/9/2010 APA, CEA, OTHER L G
PARK CEA LOT SIZE 0.66 +/- ACRES TAX MAP NO. 227.17-1-16 SECTION § 179-5-060
MR. HUNSINGER-For all of the next items there are public hearings scheduled. In the back of
the room there is an information sheet on how the public hearings are conducted. Anyone
wishing to address the Board, I would suggest that you take a look at that if you’re not familiar
with the process. Our first item, Inwald Enterprises, has also requested to be tabled until
th
October 19.
MR. OBORNE-Did you want an explanation, ma’am?
MRS. STEFFAN-Just exploring alternatives, I’m assuming.
MR. OBORNE-That’s the explanation.
MRS. STEFFAN-They want to look at other options. So I guess I’ll make a resolution.
MOTION TO TABLE SITE PLAN NO. 39-2010 INWALD ENTERPRISES, Introduced by
Gretchen Steffan who moved for its adoption, seconded by Donald Krebs:
A site plan application has been made to the Queensbury Planning Board for the following:
Applicant proposes to construct a boathouse with sundeck accessed by handicap access ramp
above two existing docks. Boathouse in a WR zone requires Planning Board review and
approval.
MOTION TO TABLE SITE PLAN NO. 39-2010 INWALD ENTERPRISES, Introduced by
Gretchen Steffan who moved for its adoption, seconded by Donald Krebs:
th
At their request. Tabled to the October 19 Planning Board meeting.
3
(Queensbury Planning Board 9/21/10)
st
Duly adopted this 21 day of September, 2010, by the following vote:
AYES: Mr. Krebs, Mr. Traver, Mrs. Steffan, Mr. Ford, Mr. Schonewolf, Mr. Sipp, Mr. Hunsinger
NOES: NONE
SITE PLAN NO. 61-2010 SEQR TYPE II DAVID & TANYA BRUNO OWNER(S) SAME
ZONING RR-5 LOCATION 119 GURNEY LANE PROJECT DESCRIPTION: APPLICANT IS
CONDUCTING AN UNAPPROVED AGRICULTURAL USE. SITE PLAN: AGRICULTURAL
USE IN THE RR ZONE REQUIRES PLANNING BOARD REVIEW AND APPROVAL. AREA
VARIANCE: LOT SIZE & FRONT SETBACK RELIEF. FURTHER RELIEF REQUESTED
FROM MINIMUM PARKING REQUIREMENTS A WELL AS MINIMUM PARKING SPACE SIZE
AND DRIVE AISLE WIDTHS. PLANNING BOARD TO PROVIDE WRITTEN
RECOMMENDATION TO THE ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS. CROSS REFERENCE AV 51-
10, AV 82-03, SB 8-01 WARREN CO. PLANNING 9/8/2010 LOT SIZE 2.89 +/- ACRES TAX
MAP NO. 228.-1-85 SECTION 179-9
DAVID & TANYA BRUNO, PRESENT
MR. HUNSINGER-Keith, whenever you’re ready to summarize Staff Notes, please.
MR. OBORNE-Yes. Site Plan 61-2010 and Area Variance No. 51-2010 for David and Tanya
Bruno. Requested action is recommendation to the Zoning Board of Appeals concerning the
relief requested in the variance application as well as the potential impacts of this project on the
neighborhood and surrounding community. Location is 119 Gurney Lane. Existing zoning is
RR-5, Rural Residential. What follows is parcel history. Project Description: Applicant is
conducting an agricultural use, the raising of poultry on a 2.95 acre parcel adjacent to Gurney
Lane. Agricultural use in the RR zone requires Planning Board review and approval. Staff
Comments: Relief requested from minimum lot size and property line setback requirements for
the raising of poultry. The Planning Board to provide a written recommendation to the Zoning
Board of Appeals. The nature of the variance is and are as follows: Lot Size: Applicant
requests 2.05 acres of relief from the 5 acres minimum as per § 179-5-040. Property line
setback: Applicant requests 15.3 feet of relief from the 50 foot minimum setback requirement as
per § 179-5-040. The applicant, you may want to consider this at Site Plan Review, has
requested waivers from landscaping, grading, lighting, stormwater and scale requirements. with
that, I’d turn it over to the Board.
MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. Thank you.
MRS. BRUNO-Good evening.
MR. HUNSINGER-Did you have anything else to add?
MRS. BRUNO-Not really. I mean, as you, I think, all know, we had turned in a challenge to the
Zoning Administrator a few months back. The day that I had turned in the letter refuting, thinking
that we were in compliance because of a phone call back when we first moved into the house,
when I turned that paperwork in to, let me back up a little bit. I turned in a letter to Craig stating
that we had already been told that things were in compliance. The day that I brought that down,
Bruce Frank showed me the, I think it was 1980 zoning, and we had actually been mislead, but
we still went through the process with the Zoning Board a few months back or so. So that’s one
thing that I just wanted to add. Also, initially the project came up because it was reported or the
question was asked of the Community Development office if we were in compliance. We were
told that it had been a phone call, an anonymous phone call from a neighbor. We have since
talked to everyone in our area. Most people approached us, and I do have to ask, if we can just
have it on the record, since Gretchen is the only person that I didn’t speak with, if you can just
offer to the record that you were or were not, because if you were the person who had called, I
think we need to be recused. Just for formality.
MRS. STEFFAN-Sure. No, I did not make any phone calls.
MRS. BRUNO-Okay. That was my suspicion, but I had to do it out of, like I said, out of formality.
MRS. STEFFAN-No problem.
MR. TRAVER-Hi, Tanya. From your application, it does not appear that this is, in any way,
commercial operation, that these are essentially pets that you’ve had for a number of years. I’m
sorry, how many chickens are involved?
4
(Queensbury Planning Board 9/21/10)
MRS. BRUNO-How many do we have, around 20 now? Fifteen. Yes. The winter sometimes
takes them out. We had one fox come around, that type of thing.
MR. TRAVER-Okay, but you’re not selling the eggs. I read in your material that you donate
them and obviously eat them yourself.
MRS. BRUNO-Yes. As a matter of fact, we’ve had some people offer us money, and we said,
no, just take them.
MR. TRAVER-Right.
MRS. BRUNO-It’s the same with our apples.
MR. TRAVER-So it’s essentially as a pet that happens to lay eggs that you can take advantage
of. It’s really an extension of your home, your household. Correct?
MRS. BRUNO-But you don’t want to hug them.
MR. TRAVER-Yes. Okay. Thanks. That’s all I had.
MR. HUNSINGER-Anything else?
MR. SIPP-Is there a rooster amongst this?
MR. SCHONEWOLF-That’s what I was going to ask.
MRS. BRUNO-We have one rooster. He was part of that, when you buy two dozen you get a
free chicken, and then there are a couple of the smaller chickens that cannot be sexed when
they’re that small. So we have a couple of smaller ones.
MR. SIPP-Nobody has complained about being awakened early?
MRS. BRUNO-No. As a matter of fact, our neighbors next door, who are the only ones within
hearing distance, have two young girls, and the letter from them is in the packet, but they
actually said, Kate actually said that there was one afternoon they were outside playing, and the
rooster stopped crowing, and the little girl asked, you know, she was imitating why did it, you
know, where’s the cock-a-doodle-do. So they’re enjoying, people stop from the park and sit and
watch.
MR. HUNSINGER-If there’s no other questions, I will entertain a recommendation to the Zoning
Board.
MRS. STEFFAN-Okay. Well, I’ll put forward the resolution.
MOTION TO MAKE A RECOMMENDATION TO THE ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS FOR
AREA VARIANCE NO. 51-2010 DAVID AND TANYA BRUNO, Introduced by Gretchen Steffan
who moved for its adoption, seconded by Thomas Ford:
Whereas, an application has been submitted for: Applicant is conducting an unapproved
agricultural use. Site Plan: Agricultural use in the RR zone requires Planning Board review and
approval. Area Variance: Relief requested from minimum lot size and property line setback
requirements for the raising of poultry. Planning Board to provide written recommendation to the
Zoning Board of Appeals; and
Whereas, the Town of Queensbury Zoning Ordinance, per Section 179-9-070 J 2 b. requires the
Planning Board to provide a written recommendation to the Zoning Board of Appeals for projects
that require both Zoning Board of Appeals & Planning Board approval; and
Whereas, this project does require both Zoning Board of Appeals & Planning Board approval,
the following recommendation is hereby provided to the Zoning Board of Appeals; and
Whereas, the Planning Board has briefly reviewed and discussed this application, the relief
request in the variance application as well as the potential impacts of this project on the
neighborhood and surrounding community, and found that:
1.The Planning Board, based on a limited review, has not identified any significant
adverse impacts that cannot be mitigated with current project proposal.
Duly adopted this 21st day of September 2010 by the following vote:
5
(Queensbury Planning Board 9/21/10)
AYES: Mr. Ford, Mrs. Steffan, Mr. Krebs, Mr. Traver, Mr. Schonewolf, Mr. Sipp, Mr. Hunsinger
NOES: NONE
MR. HUNSINGER-You’re all set. Good luck.
MRS. BRUNO-Okay. Thanks. See you Thursday.
MRS. STEFFAN-Okay.
MRS. BRUNO-Thursday, right?
th
MRS. STEFFAN-The 30.
th
MR. KREBS-The 30.
MRS. BRUNO-That’s next week. I’m ahead of myself.
SUBDIVISION NO. 11-2010 PRELIMINARY & FINAL STAGE SEQR TYPE UNLISTED
WILLIAM J. VAN GUILDER OWNER(S) SAME AS APPLICANT ZONING MDR LOCATION
397 LUZERNE ROAD PROJECT DESCRIPTION: APPLICANT PROPOSES SUBDIVISION
OF A 3.529 +/- ACRE LOT INTO 2 LOTS OF +/- 2.0 ACRES & 1.529 ACRES. SUBDIVISION:
SUBDIVISION OF LAND REQUIRES PLANNING BOARD REVIEW AND APPROVAL. AREA
VARIANCE: SITE SETBACK, LOT SIZE & ROAD FRONTAGE RELIEF. PLANNING BOARD
MAY CONDUCT SEQR REVIEW AND PROVIDE WRITTEN RECOMMENDATION TO THE
ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS. CROSS REFERENCE AV 50-10 LOT SIZE 3.5 +/- ACRES
TAX MAP NO. 308.11-1-53 SECTION CHAPTER A-183
WILLIAM VAN GUILDER, PRESENT
MR. HUNSINGER-Keith, whenever you’re ready to summarize Staff Notes.
MR. OBORNE-Yes. Subdivision 11-2010 and Area Variance 50-2010 for William Van Guilder.
Recommendation to the Zoning Board of Appeals concerning the relief requested in the
variance application as well as the potential impacts of this project on the neighborhood and
surrounding communities. Location is 397 Luzerne Road. This is in the MDR, or Moderate
Density Residential district. This is an Unlisted SEQRA status. A Long Form has been
submitted. Parcel History follows. Project Description: Applicant proposes subdivision of a
3.529 +/- acre lot into 2 lots of +/- 2.0 acres & 1.53 acres. Staff Comments: Planning Board
may conduct SEQR review and provide written recommendation to the Zoning Board of
Appeals. Shared access off of Luzerne Road is proposed. Nature of the Area Variance: Both
lots will require Area Variances as follows: Lot size: Request for 0.47 acres of relief from the
2.0 acre minimum lot size requirement per § 179-3-040 for Lot 2. Road frontage: Request for
50 feet of relief from the 100 foot minimum road frontage requirement per § 179-3-040 for Lot 2.
Note: This proposal calls for a shared access drive. Side setback: Request for 18 feet 4 inches
west sideline setback relief for existing frame garage on Lot 1. Relief from the flag lot
configuration for both lots as per § 179-4-010B(1)(b). Additional comments were basically
stated before. For SEQR purposes, we have a Long Form for this, if you’re ready to do that.
With that I’d turn it over to the Board.
MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. Thank you. Good evening.
MR. VAN GUILDER-Good evening.
MR. HUNSINGER-Is there anything else that you’d like to add?
MR. VAN GUILDER-I believe the map that you have, I can see several of you looking at it, is
quite detailed. I don’t think that there’s an awful lot that I need to add on there.
MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. I should have asked you to identify yourself for the record first. I’m
sorry.
MR. VAN GUILDER-Okay. William VanGuilder.
MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. Questions, comments from the Board? We didn’t see this for Sketch
Plan Review did we?
MR. VAN GUILDER-Yes, you did.
6
(Queensbury Planning Board 9/21/10)
MRS. STEFFAN-Yes, we’ve seen it before.
MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. It was the meeting I wasn’t here, then. My apologies.
MR. VAN GUILDER-Correct. Yes.
MRS. STEFFAN-Yes.
MR. KREBS-Well, my only comment is that I think having only one access to the road is very
good, and the lot sizes, even though they may be smaller, are very much the same as what else
is in the area.
MRS. STEFFAN-Yes, that’s what I looked at. The two lots, two acre lot in the front of course
meets the criteria for the zone. The lot in the back, at an acre and a half, looks a little small
proportionately, but it does fit with the existing character.
MR. TRAVER-And the shared drive mitigates the flag lot issue to some degree.
MR. KREBS-Yes.
MRS. STEFFAN-Right.
MR. VAN GUILDER-The two acres in the front was intentional so that we didn’t run into a
problem. It is two acre zoning now, so this way, and later on in time, if anyone, or myself, want
to build on that, then there’s no hang up, or hopefully none.
MRS. STEFFAN-I didn’t have any other questions.
MR. HUNSINGER-Any other questions from the Board?
MR. FORD-I have none.
MR. TRAVER-No.
MR. KREBS-No.
MR. HUNSINGER-We do have a public hearing scheduled on this. Is there anyone in the
audience that wants to address the Board on this project? We do have a couple of people who
want to comment. Yes, sir. Why don’t you come on up. I would ask that anyone wishing to
address the Board identify themselves for the record. We do tape the meeting, and then that
tape is used to transcribe the minutes. So I would ask that you speak clearly into the
microphone. If you have questions of the applicant, direct them to the Board, please.
PUBLIC HEARING OPENED
SCOTT ROWLAND
MR. ROWLAND-My name is Scott Rowland. I’m the brother of the gentleman that owns
American Way. I’m kind of concerned about the driveway coming up the west side of the
property there. We just put a lot of money into that property on American Way there. We’re
concerned with putting a driveway up that side, if it would be right to the back of our property
that we have there now, and, you know, like I said, we’ve put a lot of money into that, figuring he
couldn’t subdivide that because it is a two acre subdivision, and of course we’re against it. If you
have any questions for me. That’s pretty much all I’ve got to say.
MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. Thank you.
MR. KREBS-I have a question. Is it your intention, though, to keep the tree buffer along the side
of the road? I’m saying on your property. There’s a tree buffer that would be right next to that
roadway.
MR. ROWLAND-No, he owns all the trees.
MR. KREBS-He owns all? Okay. I guess I’ve got to look at the drawing again, then.
MR. ROWLAND-We own the four properties right there, three properties, one, two, three. This
is my brother Dan.
7
(Queensbury Planning Board 9/21/10)
DANIEL HUNT
MR. HUNT-Good evening. I’m Daniel Hunt. I live adjacent to the property that we’re discussing.
Where are we at?
MR. ROWLAND-I told them we were concerned with the roadway going up the west side of this
property?
MR. HUNT-Yes. I’m very concerned with the driveway being in that position, based on the fact
that my property, and this really isn’t a good picture because there’s another house out back
farther.
MR. HUNSINGER-Right.
MR. ROWLAND-Yes, there is another house, that’s not on that map.
MR. HUNT-But where they propose to put the driveway is 20 feet off the property line, and my
properties basically are now, prior to me buying the property, were cleared back to the property
line from the previous owner. So if they’ve cleared the lot that they want to clear, that 20 feet all
the way in, it’s going to basically take away any type of privacy I had whatsoever, period.
MRS. STEFFAN-So you’re on the parcel that has the indicator on it on the screen, that parcel?
MR. HUNT-Yes. That’s correct.
MRS. STEFFAN-And that’s all clear now.
MR. ROWLAND-And there’s another house there, yes.
MR. HUNT-No, it’s not all clear, but there is a house, if you move the hand up just a little bit,
that’s a house, right there, and then the woods have been cleared a little bit further, and then
south of there, there is another new house which I live in right now.
MR. OBORNE-On this parcel right here?
MR. HUNT-That’s correct.
MR. OBORNE-These two houses on one parcel?
MR. HUNT-No, no, that’s three separate deeds there.
MR. OBORNE-Okay.
MR. HUNT-Yes, that’s all separate deeds. Like I said, that map doesn’t, that doesn’t depict the
current.
MR. OBORNE-It’s an older photo.
MR. HUNT-That’s correct, yes.
MRS. STEFFAN-So that lot must have been subdivided into a couple of.
MR. HUNT-No. It was never subdivided. Way back, that’s how it was always, it was always that
way. There was three separate deeds, as far back as I know. That’s how I purchased the
property 11 years ago. Yes. I’ve never subdivided the property. It was just like that, is how I
bought it.
MR. HUNSINGER-Okay.
MR. HUNT-Which is how I was able to put three houses in there, because they were already
divided. I didn’t really have to do anything. So, again, my biggest concern is the location of the
driveway coming in on the west side of Mr. Van Guilder’s property because it’s just going to take
all those woods out of there, and, right next to the 20 feet, the 20 foot strip which he proposes to
put the driveway, just east of that, there’s also another probably 15 foot strip of woods that’s
missing where they’ve always had a path down through there. So that’s going to open it up
even further to like 40 feet, 35 to 40 feet. So that’s really going to take away from any type of
privacy that I have now, and my biggest concern on the whole project is, I don’t know if any of
you have driven by here, but it’s a very nice property. It’s all blacktop driveways. Sprinkler
systems, green grass, beautiful from one end to the other, from Luzerne Road all the way out it’s
8
(Queensbury Planning Board 9/21/10)
gorgeous, and right now I’m in the process of trying to sell one of the homes, the second one in,
and my thoughts are, if he goes in there and starts cutting a road in there and taking the woods
down, that’s going to dramatically reduce the salability of that home, and maybe even the
farthest one out as well, and any of them, in fact, all of them.
MR. FORD-What is your setback from your line, the property line, to your house?
MR. HUNT-Which homes, sir, which ones?
MR. FORD-Any of them, all of them.
MR. HUNT-The minimum would be like 60 feet.
MR. FORD-So you’ve got 60 feet from the back of the house to the property line.
MR. HUNT-Correct.
MR. FORD-And then an additional 20 feet to the driveway?
MR. HUNT-No. No, sir. From my driveway?
MR. FORD-No, to the driveway you’re concerned about.
MR. ROWLAND-He’s going to put the driveway right on the property line.
MR. HUNT-Yes. They want to put the driveway right on the red, the left side of that marking or
that spot, they want to put it right on that left side, which is the west side, 20 feet. They want to
take a 20 foot swath.
MR. FORD-And that would be within 60 feet of the back of at least one of the houses?
MR. HUNT-Correct. Absolutely, and closer, probably.
MR. ROWLAND-It would be right on top of (lost words).
MR. HUNT-Yes, definitely.
MR. FORD-Thank you.
MR. HUNT-You’re welcome.
MR. HUNSINGER-Thank you. Any other questions from the Board? Okay. Thank you.
MR. HUNT-You’re welcome. Thank you.
MR. HUNSINGER-Is there anyone else that wants to address the Board? Yes, ma’am. Good
evening.
AMY BRADWAY
MRS. BRADWAY-Hello. My name’s Amy Bradway. I live off Sanders Road, where he’s
proposed, I’m directly behind that, and my husband and I were just concerned about like the
privacy and taking down all those trees and there’s a lot of wildlife out there, and that’s going to
be completely cleared away if they take down. It’s really quiet and private right now, and that
was our primary concern.
MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. Thank you.
MRS. BRADWAY-We live on Sanders Road. My husband owns the property, Jason Bradway,
but he’s currently deployed.
MR. HUNSINGER-Thank you.
MRS. BRADWAY-Thank you.
MR. HUNSINGER-Anyone else? Yes, ma’am.
MELISSA ST. JOHN
9
(Queensbury Planning Board 9/21/10)
MS. ST. JOHN-I’m Melissa St. John. I live at 405 Luzerne Road. It’s actually right there next to,
right there. I’m actually concerned, I’m in the process of selling the property, and I’m concerned
that it will put the value, effect the value of the house, having a driveway right next to my
driveway. It would come up right along the side of my fencing, and everything.
MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. Anything else?
MS. ST. JOHN-No.
MR. HUNSINGER-Thank you.
NANCY NICHOLSON
MS. NICHOLSON-I live there. My name is Nancy Nicholson, and I live on the house on the
other side, and I’ve been a neighbor of Bill’s father for years, since I bought mine, and, to tell you
the truth, I can already see lights from American Way. So, you know, as far as keeping it private
and stuff, there’s been already some clearings and stuff, and I don’t see what’s wrong with him
coming up with a driveway, and if American Way was created just only the past few years, and
they were able to build those houses and clear cut all those trees, so why doesn’t Bill have a
right to go out and build one house on the back of his property? That’s the point I want to make.
As far as the house that’s been up for sale, that’s already pretty close to the driveway that there
is right now. There’s not that many trees there and so it’s not, you know, having the driveway go
back from there or around there isn’t going to make much of a difference, all right, as far as the
person selling the house, the small house next door. I guess my biggest opinion, again, is if
American Way can clear out all those trees there and build all those houses, then why can’t Bill
put one house on the back of his property for his son?
MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. Thank you.
NICK NICHOLSON
MR. NICHOLSON-I’m Nick Nicholson. I live across the street. They’re both good neighbors, but
Billy never complained when he was doing all of his work, and so I just don’t understand it.
Billy’s just applying for his son to have a place there. He’s got the land for it. The driveway’s
going to be on his property. So it’s just like the big driveway that Danny put in. It’s a nice
driveway, like he says, but, you know, he put that in on his property, and nobody up my way that
I know of objects. None of us, we all live all around him, objected to it. Do you know what I
mean?
MS. NICHOLSON-I mean, when I go out back, I can already see the lights on one of those
houses on American Way. So it’s not like a ton of trees there that are going to be cleared.
Some of them have already been cleared and I can already see the lights on . So it’s, you know,
I mean, it’s not that it’s going to be that much private if he doesn’t build it.
MR. NICHOLSON-Actually one house behind her house, there’s no trees at all.
MS. NICHOLSON-Right.
MR. NICHOLSON-None.
MS. NICHOLSON-Because more of those trees have been cut down since that photo.
MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. Thank you. Anyone else?
MR. HUNT-Can I come back up?
MR. HUNSINGER-Sure, if it’s quick.
MR. HUNT-Dan Hunt again, 31 American Way. I just want to make it clear. I’m not opposed to
Bill building a home out in, on his property. I’m opposed to the location of the driveway.
MR. HUNSINGER-Okay.
MR. HUNT-So my suggestion is if Mrs. Nicholson is not opposed to Bill building a home out
there, then it would make more sense to put the driveway over on the east side of the driveway.
So it would be on her side. Because that makes more sense anyway, because if you look at the
way the land is configured, the driveway would make more sense on the east side, coming
straight in, because he had indicated to me that he wanted to keep the whole home on the east
side of this property anyway. So that’s my biggest concern is the driveway.
10
(Queensbury Planning Board 9/21/10)
MR. HUNSINGER-Okay.
MR. KREBS-Can I ask you a question? How long ago did you build the houses on American
Way?
MR. HUNT-I built the one I currently live in now, I got a CO about a year ago, and the second
one in about five years ago, and the first one in was built back in the 70’s, and I want to add to
all that, what I did on American Way, again, there was three separate deeds from Day One. I
didn’t get a subdivision. I didn’t have to apply for any variances, nothing, and, Number Two, my
driveway affects nobody. If you look at it, it runs parallel with the National Grid power lines. It
doesn’t reduce anybody’s property values, nothing. It has no effect on anything.
MR. KREBS-No. My reason for asking that question is that we would, today, require, on every
one of those lots, that you keep a portion of the back of that lot forested so that you would have
that privacy. The fact that you’ve completely cleared those lots makes it.
MR. HUNT-I need to clarify that as well, then.
MR. KREBS-Yes.
MR. HUNT-They’re not completely cleared in any way, shape or form. If you were to look at a
current survey map you would see exactly the way they are. In fact, I have the plot plans at
home. I should have brought them.
MR. KREBS-Okay.
MR. HUNT-Yes. Okay. Thanks again.
MS. NICHOLSON-Nancy Nicholson again, and which side he puts the driveway really is, you
know, it’s up to Bill and how much, financially, he can afford it and where he wants to put the
house. I still think he has the right to put the house on his property, as he was able to put all
those houses on those separate properties, that’s fine, and as far as the sprinkler systems go,
they just went in a few months ago. So it’s not like he’s had them there the whole time. I just
saw the sprinkler system go in this summer with the flowers and things like that, but a lot of
those trees, I mean, it’s pretty much, you’d have to see an updated map, but a lot of those trees
are already gone, especially near the American Way. So, in some ways that would be a better
place for the driveway since it would be better to keep the trees consolidated together,
especially if the person on Saunders Road wants the trees for the animals and for the natural
beauty of it. It would be better to keep the driveway where Bill has it proposed, so that you have
all the clearing on one side.
MR. HUNSINGER-Thank you. Anyone else? Any follow up questions or comments from the
Board?
MR. VAN GUILDER-I’d like to offer a little bit of clarification if I could, first.
MR. HUNSINGER-I’m sorry.
MR. VAN GUILDER-To the first one that’s bordering the property on Saunders Road, if you
could bring it up, to the very back, they’re concerned about privacy. I intend to completely leave
that wooded back there. I’m clearing as little as possible. I want the buffer as much as anyone.
This is the main reason. I mean, we have a house now. We choose to come here now because
we want the privacy and we want the buffer. So the one on the property on the back shouldn’t
matter at all. In fact, one of the owners in the back clear cut, and you’ll see it on the map, clear
cut a good 30 feet of our property, and took care of the, and there’s also no stake in the ground
any longer. So, if somebody was concerned about privacy, they would have left the trees that
were there, which was on our property. The other, with the driveway, we proposed it on this side
the way that it is now. The other side was considered, but it’s not really an option. That has
very nice oak trees down to the side. There’s also a septic in the back from the first property.
So that would really take some navigating, as far as around the septic. The other thing is we
have the line with Nancy. She bought the house as is like that. The current, the previous owner
had built over the line. So that’s something that we’ll correct later on, and we’ve talked and
discussed about that. So I don’t want to put a driveway there and then have to shift lines later
on. The other, and the main reason why we want to put the driveway on the side, is because the
trees, they’re just not good. They’re very scrubby pine trees. They look horrible. They kill the
grass. They’re very acidic. They offer no value. It’s just a dirty side of the property. By getting
rid of all those pine trees and putting an access road there, and, I mean, we can put buffer trees
up later on, but that takes care of the front. Now as it gets in back, there’s a garage, and then it
11
(Queensbury Planning Board 9/21/10)
starts getting closer to Mr. Hunt’s property. Everything in there is very bad, too. There’s a lot of
popals that are just very, very tall and they’re weak. We’ve seen some of them break off in half.
Now it could come back onto our garage or it could come down into one of his properties,
leaving me liable for that. So I’d rather clean that up and get rid of it as we can. We’re putting a
single family home in. It’s not a ridiculous amount of traffic. You’re talking about two cars that’ll
be coming in there twice a day, you know, mine and hers. As far as having a buffer in the
backyard for them, I didn’t clear cut their property, you know. He talks about having trees there
and not wanting to see the driveway. I didn’t remove all of those trees out of his backyard. That
wasn’t me. So I don’t feel as where I’m obligated to put the buffer in for him. If you want the
privacy, you should have put the house the other way, instead of the backyard using my lot as
your privacy. I just, I don’t know how I’m responsible for that. There was one other thing I
wanted to address, and now I’ve lost my thought. No, I think that’s about it. I don’t know how
much else I can dispute.
MR. HUNSINGER-You mentioned, a minute ago, that you’re willing to put in a buffer. Did you
have something specific in mind, or what was your proposal?
MR. VAN GUILDER-Thank you for that moment. I was able to remember what I was going to
address. There’s also a large warehouse style shed that he uses as a garage, and I believe it
was there from the previous owner, which he now occupies. He’s got a lot of stuff stocked out
back. We talked about this last night, and, you know, he said now you’re going to see all my
junk right there. Clean it up, you know. Now, do I want trees in there? Yes. I would like, I
talked about it, like a small evergreen type that’ll grow up and maybe create a hedge, maybe
make a nice row of them right down through the driveway. So I don’t have to see their property,
and because it’s, you know, I’m more concerned about what I’m seeing than someone else,
actually, but I can understand coming down through at night you don’t want to see the headlights
coming through the back of your house. So, yes, I would fully intend on looking into putting
some type of buffer in there, but I also don’t expect to get rid of every single tree to the property
line. That’s just not feasible for me. There are some white birches on the line that I’d like to
leave. Anything that’s a nice tree I would like to leave in the middle. So, I think there’s, it’ll be
aesthetic enough. As far as his property value, I mean, to each their own on that. If they don’t
want to buy it because there’s another property next door, I can’t affect anything like that.
MR. HUNSINGER-Questions, comments from the Board? We have to do SEQRA before we
make a recommendation?
MR. OBORNE-Yes, sir, and there were no written comments, for the record.
MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. What’s the feeling of the Board?
MRS. STEFFAN-Mr. VanGuilder, you’ve owned this property for how long? Is it your property or
your father’s property?
MR. VAN GUILDER-It was my father’s property. Several years ago we did a life estate, which
will just transfer it over. My father still lives on the front property, and as much as I’ve tried to
entertain the idea of him moving in with us, he says no way. He says for as long as he can he
wants to live independently and how do you not respect that? And he’s owned it for, I want to
say, almost 40 years.
MRS. STEFFAN-Forty years.
MR. SCHONEWOLF-I would think with a little cooperation between the two parties, you could
make it work.
MR. VAN GUILDER-I fully agree, and I was a little bit disheartened to know that, you know, he
approached me last night and asked the questions about this stuff, and when I originally started
all this, it was early in the Spring, and I fully talked to him and explained what I was doing, and
he said he would be more than happy to offer a recommendation. Until yesterday he
approached me and said, you know, had some concerns about it. At this point, I’m a little bit
knee deep into this, and if I wanted to do some changing, I would have done it back then.
Again, I don’t see a need to do some changing. I think the way it is is fine. I don’t really have
too many options as to where to move my driveway.
MRS. STEFFAN-Okay.
MR. HUNSINGER-Is everyone comfortable? We’ve got to do SEQRA, the Long Form.
12
(Queensbury Planning Board 9/21/10)
MR. FORD-I just want to point out that according to the neighbor who indicates that he’s got a
60 foot buffer, that seems to provide ample space for the provision of trees, shrubs, whatever
else they would like to have in there to block view.
MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. This is an Unlisted Long Form.
MRS. STEFFAN-Okay. Will the proposed action result in a physical change to the project site?
MR. TRAVER-Yes.
MRS. STEFFAN-Small to moderate, potentially large or can it be?
MR. TRAVER-Small to moderate.
MRS. STEFFAN-Okay. Small to moderate. Can it be mitigated by project change?
MR. HUNSINGER-Yes, through Site Plan Review.
MR. TRAVER-Yes.
MRS. STEFFAN-Okay. Will there be an effect to any unique or unusual land forms found
on the site?
MR. TRAVER-No.
MR. FORD-No.
MRS. STEFFAN-Will the proposed action affect any water body designated as protected?
MR. HUNSINGER-No.
MR. KREBS-No.
MRS. STEFFAN-Will the proposed action affect any non-protected existing or new body of
water?
MR. KREBS-No.
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. KREBS-No.
MR. HUNSINGER-No.
MRS. STEFFAN-Will the proposed action affect air quality?
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. HUNSINGER-No.
13
(Queensbury Planning Board 9/21/10)
MR. KREBS-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. FORD-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. KREBS-No.
MR. HUNSINGER-No.
MRS. STEFFAN-Will the proposed action impact the exceptional or unique characteristics of a
critical environmental area?
MR. FORD-No.
MR. TRAVER-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. KREBS-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. KREBS-No.
MRS. STEFFAN-Will the proposed action affect public health and safety?
MR. HUNSINGER-No.
MR. KREBS-No.
MRS. STEFFAN-Will the proposed action affect the character of the existing community?
MR. HUNSINGER-No.
MR. TRAVER-No.
MRS. STEFFAN-And is there, or is there likely to be, public controversy related to potential
adverse environmental impacts?
14
(Queensbury Planning Board 9/21/10)
MR. HUNSINGER-No.
MR. TRAVER-No.
MRS. STEFFAN-Okay. Then based on the responses I’ll make a motion for a Negative
declaration.
RESOLUTION WHEN DETERMINATION OF NO SIGNIFICANCE IS MADE
RESOLUTION NO. 11-2010, Introduced by Gretchen Steffan who moved for its adoption,
seconded by Thomas Ford:
WHEREAS, there is presently before the Planning Board an application for:
WILLIAM J. VAN GUILDER, 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.
st
Duly adopted this 21 day of, September, 2010, by the following vote:
AYES: Mr. Ford, Mr. Schonewolf, Mr. Sipp, Mr. Traver, Mr. Krebs, Mrs. Steffan, Mr. Hunsinger
NOES: NONE
MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. Would anyone like to make a recommendation to the ZBA?
MRS. STEFFAN-Well, we’ve got, based on the discussion, you know, I think that, I’m assuming
that this is on for tomorrow night, is it, Keith?
MR. OBORNE-Yes. Yes, ma’am.
MRS. STEFFAN-Okay. So they wouldn’t be able to get our minutes and hear the dialogue that
came up, and the neighbors might show up at the Zoning Board meeting, but, you know, I think
we should mention that a few of the neighbors expressed concerns regarding the driveway, and
then how we feel about it. Obviously we’re going to have Site Plan Review, so we’d be able to
deal with those issues, but I think the Zoning Board should have a heads up.
MR. OBORNE-Well, it’s not going to be Site Plan Review. It’s going to be subdivision.
MR. HUNSINGER-Subdivision.
MRS. STEFFAN-I’m sorry, yes, but we’ll do a subdivision review. So we’ll have the opportunity
to talk about, you know, some of those related issues that have come up tonight.
15
(Queensbury Planning Board 9/21/10)
MR. KREBS-I’m having a problem looking at this drawing. From the edge of your driveway on
the west hand side, how much property is there, how many feet is there to the property line?
MR. VAN GUILDER-I’m sorry, from the property line to?
MR. KREBS-To the edge of the driveway on the west, the side of the driveway on the west side?
Closest to the American Way properties, between the driveway and the edge of your property,
what’s the dimension?
MR. VAN GUILDER-The front is the 50 feet, going across, the very beginning of the driveway.
It’ll go from 50, to the property line.
MR. KREBS-No, I’m looking at along the edge.
MRS. STEFFAN-Yes, it looks like about five feet.
MR. FORD-The edge of the driveway to the property line.
MRS. STEFFAN-It looks about five feet, but.
MR. KREBS-That’s what I was thinking.
MRS. STEFFAN-Because the scale on that drawing is one inch equals 50 feet, and it looks to be
like an eighth of an inch, so I was assuming there’s like a five foot buffer, which is.
MR. FORD-Is that accurate?
MR. VAN GUILDER-You know you’re kind of catching me off guard on that one.
MR. SCHONEWOLF-Well, you said you were going to plant, you could plant a tree in there, so
you must have at least five or six feet.
MR. VAN GUILDER-What my proposal on the driveway is, is to make this.
MR. KREBS-I just wanted to point out that this is the dimension we’re interested in.
MR. VAN GUILDER-Right.
MR. KREBS-Between here, I’m assuming this is the driveway, that’s the property line. What’s
the difference between the two?
MR. VAN GUILDER-I don’t know if there is a difference there.
MR. KREBS-It shows some difference, but I’m not, that’s why I’m asking.
MR. VAN GUILDER-Our intention on this, with my surveyor that did the work, was to put
everything within the limits that are allowed. Because we are asking for a variance. There’s a
garage there. So it had to come in, and it is a narrow spot in between the driveway and the
garage. Like I said here, I am looking at creating a buffer, down the line. There is nothing on
this map that’s going to tell me that it’s five feet or ten feet. That was something that I kind of
wanted to do by feel, but knowing that we do have the 20 feet all the way back allotted for the
driveway. Do I need 20 feet cleared for the driveway? No. But that is what’s attached to the
back property. My intention is to leave a buffer on the side, whether it be five feet, three feet,
four feet, whatever’s necessary to allow the trees. Maybe even more.
MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. Does that answer your question?
MR. KREBS-Well, there’s really no answer to it.
MR. HUNSINGER-Right. Any other questions from members of the Board? One of the things
we might ask you about, assuming you get through the Zoning Board, is clearing limits as well.
Clearing limits, so you might want to be thinking about that.
MR. VAN GUILDER-Okay, and would that be specifically to the driveway or the actual parcel?
MR. HUNSINGER-The actual parcel. I mean, there’s certainly plenty of woods between the
back of the house and the neighbors to the south, but to just think about, you know, how much of
the lawn you plan to cut. Okay.
16
(Queensbury Planning Board 9/21/10)
MRS. STEFFAN-So the nature of the variance that we’re supposed to be making a
recommendation on is the request for .47 acres of relief from the 2 acre minimum lot size. So
based on what I’ve heard, it doesn’t seem that the Planning Board has an issue with that.
MR. TRAVER-Correct.
MR. HUNSINGER-No.
MRS. STEFFAN-Okay. The second is the road frontage, request for 50 feet of relief from the
100 foot minimum road frontage requirement for the second lot. The proposal calls for a shared
access driveway which is the tradeoff for that. So I’m also, based on the discussion or lack
thereof, I think we’re okay with that.
MR. HUNSINGER-Yes.
MRS. STEFFAN-Okay, and then the side setback request for 18 feet 4 inches of west side line
setback relief for the existing frame garage on Lot One. I don’t think that’s an issue either. The
last item appears to be an issue, relief from the flag lot configuration for both lots. Now, in the
Zoning Code, flag lots are prohibited. We’ve had discussions about this before.
MR. HUNSINGER-Yes.
MRS. STEFFAN-So are we okay with making a recommendation that, you know, we don’t have
any significant impacts with that, or do we want to make a statement?
MR. KREBS-Part of the problem is the historic situation is that a lot of these lots were created
long before this regulation on flag lots was put in place. So it’s very difficult to reconfigure those
lots, all right, and certainly there’s adequate property relative to the size of the lots in the area.
MR. HUNSINGER-I haven’t heard any Planning Board members express any concerns with the
four variance requests before us.
MR. TRAVER-Right.
MR. KREBS-Yes.
MRS. STEFFAN-All right. I’ll make a resolution.
MOTION TO MAKE A RECOMMENDATION TO THE ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS FOR
AREA VARIANCE NO. 50-2010 WILLIAM J. VAN GUILDER, Introduced by Gretchen Steffan
who moved for its adoption, seconded by Stephen Traver:
Whereas, an application has been received for: Applicant proposes subdivision of a 3.529 +/-
acre lot into 2 lots of +/- 2.0 acres & 1.529 acres. Subdivision: Subdivision of land requires
Planning Board review and approval. Area Variance: Site setback, lot size & road frontage
relief. Planning Board may conduct SEQR review and provide written recommendation to the
Zoning Board of Appeals; and
Whereas, the Town of Queensbury Zoning Ordinance, per Section 179-9-070 J 2 b. requires the
Planning Board to provide a written recommendation to the Zoning Board of Appeals for projects
that require both Zoning Board of Appeals & Planning Board approval; and
Whereas, this project does require both Zoning Board of Appeals & Planning Board approval,
the following recommendation is hereby provided to the Zoning Board of Appeals; and
Whereas, the Planning Board has briefly reviewed and discussed this application, the relief
request in the variance application as well as the potential impacts of this project on the
neighborhood and surrounding community, and found that:
The Planning Board, based on a limited review, has not identified any significant adverse
impacts that cannot be mitigated with current project proposal, however, for the Zoning Board’s
information, during the public hearing portion of the Planning Board meeting, a few neighbors
expressed concerns regarding the driveway and the exposure that will come with clearing for the
proposed driveway and the resulting small buffer between the driveway and the lot line.
Duly adopted this 21st day of September 2010 by the following vote:
AYES: Mr. Traver, Mr. Krebs, Mrs. Steffan, Mr. Ford, Mr. Schonewolf, Mr. Sipp, Mr. Hunsinger
17
(Queensbury Planning Board 9/21/10)
NOES: NONE
MR. HUNSINGER-And just for members of the public that made comments, there will be a
public hearing tomorrow evening at the Zoning Board, and then assuming, if the project clears
the Zoning Board and comes back here, the public hearing will be held open for the actual
subdivision review.
MR. VAN GUILDER-I appreciate your time. Thank you very much.
MR. HUNSINGER-You’re welcome. Thank you. Good luck.
SUBDIVISION NO. 10-2010 PRELIMINARY & FINAL STAGE SEQR TYPE UNLISTED
MAUREEN IRELAND AGENT(S) JON KELLEY COLDWELL BANKER OWNER(S) NDC
REALTY, INC. ZONING CLI LOCATION 319 CORINTH ROAD PROJECT DESCRIPTION:
APPLICANT PROPOSES SUBDIVISION OF A 12.95 +/- ACRE LOT INTO 4 LIGHT
INDUSTRIAL LOTS OF +/- 4.16 AC., 3.94 AC., 2.62 AC. & 2.23 ACRES. SUBDIVISION:
SUBDIVISION OF LAND REQUIRES PLANNING BOARD REVIEW AND APPROVAL. AREA
VARIANCE: FRONT AND SIDE SETBACK & TRAVEL CORRIDOR RELIEF. PLANNING
BOARD MAY CONDUCT SEQR REVIEW AND PROVIDE WRITTEN RECOMMENDATION TO
THE ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS. CROSS REFERENCE AV 49-10, SUB 6-87, SP 56-10
LOT SIZE 12.95 +/- ACRES TAX MAP NO. 308.16-2-4 SECTION CHAPTER A-183
JACK KELLEY, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT
MR. HUNSINGER-Keith, whenever you’re ready to summarize Staff Notes.
MR. OBORNE-One moment please. Subdivision 10-2010, Area Variance 49-2010 for Maureen
Ireland. Requested action: Recommendation to the Zoning Board of Appeals concerning the
relief requested in the variance application as well as the potential impacts of this project on the
neighborhood and surrounding communities. 319 Corinth Road is the location. This is
Commercial Light Industrial property. This is an Unlisted SEQRA. The Long Form has been
submitted. What follows is Parcel History. Project Description: Applicant proposes subdivision
of a 12.95 acre lot into 4 light industrial lots of 4.16, 3.94, 2.62 & 2.23 acres respectively in the
Carey Industrial Park. Nature of the Area Variance: Lot 1: Applicant requests 5 feet of relief
from the 30 foot north side setback requirement for the existing warehouse. Also, applicant
requests 7 feet 8 inches of relief from the 30 foot south side setback requirement for the existing
warehouse. Lot 2: Applicant requests 11 feet 11 inches of relief from the 30 foot south side
setback requirement for the existing warehouse. Additional Comments: The applicant has
submitted an Assessment of Site Stormwater Conditions accomplished by C.T. Male Associates
dated June 28, 2010. According to this report there appear to be no issues in regard to
stormwater and erosion and sedimentation control. At the proper time, the applicant is
requesting waivers from Landscaping, clearing, grading and E&S plans. Just another note. If
subdivision approval is forth coming, the Planning Board will review a submitted site plan on
September 30, 2010 for a proposed wholesale electric business to be located in the existing
warehouse on proposed Lot 2. I do want to note to the Planning Board that there is a 900
square foot footprint, wooden, single family structure to the north and west. That does not
require any setback relief as it is an existing nonconforming structure, and with that I’d turn it
over to the Board.
MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. Thank you. Good evening.
MR. KELLEY-Mr. Chairman, members of the Board, my name is Jack Kelley. I’m with Coldwell
Banker Commercial, and I’m here representing NDC Realty, LLC, more locally known as the
former Northern Distributing beer warehouses. We had the property on the market for about a
year and a half and did not have many people interested in 70,000 square feet of warehouse
and three separate buildings, but we’ve received numerous that people could buy the buildings
individually. That’s when we approached C.T. Male and conferred with your Staff about the
possibility of subdividing this property and we’ve come up with a plan and a proposal that was
somewhat challenging, in light of the fact that you’re using existing facilities, but I think one of
the nice things is, as we were going through the process, we did have a company that is
interested in purchasing the lot furthest to the west. They plan on bringing, or continuing about
eight jobs in the community. They’re currently located on another section of the Town, adding
two additional employees and will be the initial kick start have other people interested in
purchasing the property. I’d be happy to answer any questions that you may have. Thank you.
MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. Questions, comments?
MRS. STEFFAN-Part of this parcel, the Hudson Headwaters, is interested in part of it, isn’t it?
18
(Queensbury Planning Board 9/21/10)
MR. KELLEY-No. Actually this is part of Section One of the original Carey Industrial Park. On
the other side of the road, a couple of years ago, Hudson Headwaters purchased and built their
corporate headquarters, and probably a couple of months ago they purchased an additional
section of property for additional medical care.
MRS. STEFFAN-Which probably abuts your property, the property that you’re speaking of.
MR. KELLEY-It doesn’t bump up to it, but it is part of that whole Carey Industrial Park area.
MRS. STEFFAN-Okay. If you, yes, it’s where the hand is is where they came in for recent Site
Plan.
MR. HUNSINGER-So were you able to split out all the utilities and services for the three
buildings?
MR. KELLEY-Well, this is something kind of unique that Niagara Mohawk/National Grid only
provides a single electrical drop per tax map parcel. This particular building that we have the
contract on, there’s two electric services to the property, three natural gas services. I think we
have four water meters. So the only major challenge is going to be when we take the existing
10,000 square foot building, which is furthest to the east, and the large 40,000 square foot
warehouse building which is in the middle. However, they are sub deeds that come off. So it
will be a little bit of a challenge because some of the electrical codes have changed since then.
So we’re going to have to change the transformer pad, but probably be able to use most of the
underground conduit for that particular item. Actually, just as a, I mean, being a good salesman,
I can’t help but giving you a pitch that Jack Carey really kept those buildings in very good shape,
and we’re very fortunate to have that kind of facilities that we can put people back to work in that
area.
MR. HUNSINGER-Any other questions or comments? We do have a public hearing scheduled
this evening. Is there anyone in the audience that wants to address the Board on this project?
PUBLIC HEARING OPENED
MR. HUNSINGER-I don’t see any takers. Any written comments, Keith?
MR. OBORNE-No, sir.
MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. I will open the public hearing and will leave it open.
MR. KELLEY-Mr. Chairman, I just want, for the record, to also recognize that I do practice
before numerous Planning Boards in the area, and I do have to take and say your Staff is
topnotch and provided a lot of help and assistance, and I thank you very much for the courtesies
extended by them.
MR. HUNSINGER-That’s always good to hear. Yes.
MRS. STEFFAN-Nice job, Keith.
MR. HUNSINGER-This is an Unlisted action. They submitted a Long Form.
MRS. STEFFAN-Okay. Will the proposed action result in a physical change to the project site?
MR. HUNSINGER-I think this time we can say no.
MRS. STEFFAN-We can say no. Will there be an effect to any unique or unusual land forms
found on the site?
MR. TRAVER-No.
MR. FORD-No.
MRS. STEFFAN-Will the proposed action affect any water body designated as protected?
MR. HUNSINGER-No.
MR. TRAVER-No.
MRS. STEFFAN-Will the proposed action affect any non-protected existing or new body of
water?
19
(Queensbury Planning Board 9/21/10)
MR. HUNSINGER-No.
MR. TRAVER-No.
MRS. STEFFAN-Will the proposed action affect surface or groundwater quality or quantity?
MR. FORD-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?
MR. HUNSINGER-No.
MR. TRAVER-No.
MRS. STEFFAN-Will the proposed action affect any threatened or endangered species?
MR. TRAVER-No.
MR. HUNSINGER-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.
MRS. STEFFAN-Will the proposed action affect aesthetic resources?
MR. HUNSINGER-No.
MR. FORD-No.
MRS. STEFFAN-Will the proposed action impact any site or structure of historic, pre-historic or
paleontological importance?
MR. HUNSINGER-No.
MR. FORD-No.
MRS. STEFFAN-Will the proposed action affect the quantity or quality of existing or future open
spaces or recreational opportunities?
MR. TRAVER-No.
MR. FORD-No.
MRS. STEFFAN-Will the proposed action impact the exceptional or unique characteristics of a
critical environmental area?
MR. HUNSINGER-No.
MR. TRAVER-No.
MRS. STEFFAN-Will there be an effect to existing transportation systems?
20
(Queensbury Planning Board 9/21/10)
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?
MR. HUNSINGER-No.
MR. FORD-No.
MRS. STEFFAN-Will the proposed action affect the character of the existing community?
MR. HUNSINGER-No.
MRS. STEFFAN-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 declaration.
RESOLUTION WHEN DETERMINATION OF NO SIGNIFICANCE IS MADE
RESOLUTION NO. 10-2010, Introduced by Gretchen Steffan who moved for its adoption,
seconded by Thomas Ford:
WHEREAS, there is presently before the Planning Board an application for:
MAUREEN IRELAND, 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
21
(Queensbury Planning Board 9/21/10)
execute and sign and file as may be necessary a statement of non-significance or a
negative declaration that may be required by law.
st
Duly adopted this 21 day of, September, 2010, by the following vote:
AYES: Mr. Ford, Mrs. Steffan, Mr. Krebs, Mr. Traver, Mr. Schonewolf, Mr. Sipp, Mr. Hunsinger
NOES: NONE
MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. Would anyone like to make a recommendation?
MRS. STEFFAN-Yes. The only comment that I wanted to make, I have a note here that once
we get this application back for subdivision review, the only thing that I can see is that, you
know, we need to put some restrictions on, you know, Site Plan Review, once the parcels are
sold off, we do Site Plan Review and look at some of the development that’s there.
MR. OBORNE-Yes. That’s going to be a requirement. There hasn’t been a Site Plan Review on
this parcel, or any of those parcels, in the last seven years. So it’s automatic.
MRS. STEFFAN-So it’s automatic. Perfect. All right. Okay. Then I’ll make the resolution.
MOTION TO MAKE A RECOMMENDATION TO THE ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS FOR
AREA VARIANCE NO. 49-2010 MAUREEN IRELAND, Introduced by Gretchen Steffan who
moved for its adoption, seconded by Donald Krebs:
Whereas, an application has been submitted for: Applicant proposes subdivision of a 12.95 +/-
acre lot into 4 light industrial lots of +/- 4.16 ac., 3.94 ac., 2.62 ac. & 2.23 acres. Subdivision:
Subdivision of land requires Planning Board review and approval. Area Variance: Front and
side setback & travel corridor relief. Planning Board may conduct SEQR review and provide
written recommendation to the Zoning Board of Appeals; and
Whereas, the Town of Queensbury Zoning Ordinance, per Section 179-9-070 J 2 b. requires the
Planning Board to provide a written recommendation to the Zoning Board of Appeals for projects
that require both Zoning Board of Appeals & Planning Board approval; and
Whereas, this project does require both Zoning Board of Appeals & Planning Board approval,
the following recommendation is hereby provided to the Zoning Board of Appeals; and
Whereas, the Planning Board has briefly reviewed and discussed this application, the relief
request in the variance application as well as the potential impacts of this project on the
neighborhood and surrounding community, and found that:
1.The Planning Board, based on a limited review, has not identified any significant adverse
impacts that cannot be mitigated with current project proposal.
Duly adopted this 21st day of September 2010 by the following vote:
AYES: Mr. Krebs, Mr. Traver, Mrs. Steffan, Mr. Ford, Mr. Schonewolf, Mr. Sipp, Mr. Hunsinger
NOES: NONE
MR. HUNSINGER-Good luck. You’re all set.
MR. KELLEY-Thank you very much.
MR. HUNSINGER-Thank you.
SITE PLAN NO. 59-2010 SEQR TYPE UNLISTED TOM WESSLING & ROGER BROWN
AGENT(S) JEFFREY R. MEYER, ESQ. FITZGERALD, MORRIS BAKER FIRTH OWNER(S)
ESTATE OF CHARLES MOORE ZONING CI LOCATION 10 MONTRAY ROAD PROJECT
DESCRIPTION: APPLICANT PROPOSES REMOVAL OF TWO EXISTING RESIDENTIAL
STRUCTURES AND CONSTRUCTION OF A 6,000 +/- SQUARE FOOT BUILDING FOR
RETAIL BUSINESS, KARATE STUDIO, PROFESSIONAL OFFICES AND/OR OTHER
PERMITTED USES. SITE PLAN: NEW COMMERCIAL BUILDING IN THE CI ZONE
REQUIRES PLANNING BOARD REVIEW AND APPROVAL. AREA VARIANCE: FRONT,
REAR & TRAVEL CORRIDOR SETBACK RELIEF. FURTHER, RELIEF REQUESTED FOR
PARKING SPACE MINIMUM AMOUNTS, SIZE AND ACCESS AISLE WIDTHS. PLANNING
BOARD MAY CONDUCT SEQR REVIEW AND PROVIDE WRITTEN RECOMMENDATION TO
THE ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS. CROSS REFERENCE AV 52-10; SV 53-10 WARREN
22
(Queensbury Planning Board 9/21/10)
CO. PLANNING 9/8/2010 LOT SIZE 0.52 +/- ACRES TAX MAP NO. 296.17-1-50 SECTION
179-9
JEFF MEYER & TOM HUTCHINS, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT
MR. FORD-Mr. Hunsinger and members of the Board, on this next application, I will recuse
myself because I am the realtor who has brought this transaction to contract.
MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. Thank you. Keith, whenever you’re ready.
MR. OBORNE-Site Plan 59-2010 and Area Variance 52-2010, Sign Variance 53-2010.
Applicant is Tom Wessling and Roger Brown. Requested action: Recommendation to the
Zoning Board of Appeals concerning the relief requested in the variance application as well as
the potential impacts of this project on the neighborhood and surrounding community. Location:
10 Montray Road. Existing zoning is CI, Commercial Intensive. This is an Unlisted SEQRA.
Parcel History follows. Project Description: Applicant proposes removal of two existing
residential structures and construction of a 6,000 square foot building for retail business and
karate studio, actually taekwondo studio. Staff Comments: New commercial building in the CI
zone requires Planning Board review and approval. The applicant is not within a sewer district
and as such will have an on-site wastewater system installed. Nature of Variance: Parcel will
require area variances as follows: Travel Corridor: Applicant requests 42 feet of Travel Corridor
overlay relief per §179-4-030. Front setback: Applicant requests 48.16 feet of West front
setback relief and 26.17 feet of North front setback relief. Both setback requests as per §179-3-
040. Rear setback: Applicant requests 9 feet of South rear setback relief per §179-3-040.
Parking space Requirement: Applicant requests a reduction of 11 spaces from the 29 space
requirement for retail. Parking space size: Applicant requests 2 feet of length relief for all 18
proposed parking spaces. I would like to just go on to the Sign Setback. Sign Setback:
Applicant requests 13.35 feet of lot line setback relief per Chapter 140. I did go back and review
the parking space size relief, and the one foot of relief, as I’m stating in Number Five of my
notes, width relief for 15 of the 18 proposed spaces, is erroneous. The Code does call for a nine
foot width, and they are all nine or greater. So, please strike that.
MR. HUNSINGER-Okay.
MR. OBORNE-Soils follows. Site Plan Review follows, which, if we get to that point you will
obviously do, and just quickly additional comments: This is for both the Board and for the
applicant. Building colors should be presented and/or discussed. Please note that Fire Marshal
comments are attached. Water Department comments are attached, and we’d like to see some
test pit information and signage appears compliant in regards to size. The Area Variance is for
setback relief only for the sign, and with that I’d turn it over to the Board.
MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. Thank you. Good evening.
MR. MEYER-Good evening. My name is Jeff Meyer. I’m here on behalf of the applicants, Mr.
Wessling and Mr. Brown. With me is Tom Hutchins of Hutchins Engineering.
MR. HUNSINGER-Did you have anything else to add?
MR. MEYER-Keith summarized it fairly well. We have a lot that has a permissible building
envelope of about a foot that extends just about the length of the property. So essentially any
improvement on the property is going to require Planning and Zoning Board approvals. We
have what we think is a modest approval that fits the intention of the Code and it’ll fit the
property, from both a planning and an economic standpoint. So welcome any and all
comments.
MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. Questions, comments from the Board?
MRS. STEFFAN-I’m not familiar with the use, so requesting a reduction of 11 spaces from the
29 space requirement, I’m not really sure, you know, with like the Karate, like the taekwondo
studio. Do people drop their kids off for lessons? I’m just not really sure whether that’s a great
idea. I don’t know how anybody else feels about it, but with a double use in one building.
MR. MEYER-The parking numbers are actually based on the whole building being used as
retail, I believe. There isn’t really a parking definition for a taekwondo studio. Generally
speaking it is a classroom scenario where there’ll be a number of students that’ll get dropped
off. Their parents will stay and watch, and it’ll occur, you know, when the business is closed. So
it’s, the businesses aren’t going to be operating at the same time, which is why we’re
comfortable in asking for the variances that we are, you know, knowing that it’s not going to be
23
(Queensbury Planning Board 9/21/10)
two large retail facilities that’ll be competing for parking and competing for business and things
of that nature.
MRS. STEFFAN-Okay. Because my only concern, Montray Road is very small, very narrow,
and so if they didn’t have enough parking and folks had to park on the road, that would be ugly,
and so that’s why I asked the question.
MR. HUNSINGER-Yes. In fact, I drove down there today and there were two cars on the, they
were parked on the side of the road, and it is a narrow road.
MR. MEYER-As just another point of reference, R & T currently has about four parking spots, in
their current location which is right next door, and it works. It’s not ideal, but it works.
MR. HUNSINGER-Okay.
MR. KREBS-And I was in the furniture business, and when I built my building, they required way
too many parking spaces, relative, because you have a large ticket price, and you don’t have
volumes of people. So you don’t really need that many parking spaces.
MRS. STEFFAN-Okay.
MR. SCHONEWOLF-What color is the building? I know it’s painted, but.
TOM WESSLING
MR. WESSLING-I don’t think we’ve fully designed it. It’s going to be according to the
Queensbury Design Standards as we work with building codes on a final architectural design,
but any input on colors is more than welcome.
MR. HUNSINGER-Yes. Could we get your name for the record?
MR. WESSLING-Yes. It’s Tom Wessling. I apologize.
MR. SCHONEWOLF-We like to say we like the Adirondack style, but that’s not in our Zoning
Code, so I don’t say that anymore.
MR. WESSLING-It’s just outside of the district for Adirondack, which is the north side of Montray
Road and up towards Stewarts, and that is the Adirondack design.
MR. OBORNE-That’s the Upper Route 9 Design Guidelines is the Adirondack style.
MR. WESSLING-Tom Wessling, R & T Antiques. Like I said from over there, we don’t have like
the final plan on colors and architectural design according to the design standard, but it will meet
the design standards of that zone, which is not the Adirondack zone, which is north of Montray.
This is the zone south of Montray, which I believe has another title, which I forget, but we more
than welcome any input on colors or designs. I know the design standards are pretty thorough,
and of course we’ll adhere to those.
MR. HUNSINGER-Well, I mean, you have a very attractive looking building design. The
sketches are really nice.
MR. WESSLING-Yes, the sketch, so far, is looking rather nice.
MR. SCHONEWOLF-It’s going to be some contrast to what’s behind it.
MR. WESSLING-Yes, to what’s existing it definitely will be a huge improvement.
MR. SCHONEWOLF-And even when you’re looking back over toward, you know, the shopping
plaza.
MR. WESSLING-The Home Depot, yes.
MR. SCHONEWOLF-The warehouse, yes.
MR. WESSLING-So that’ll actually be more shielded with the building and trees and shrubs in
place and all that.
24
(Queensbury Planning Board 9/21/10)
MR. KREBS-And I wouldn’t worry about the traffic. Having lived in Twicwood, most people
going onto Montray, for the other end of Montray, do not access it at this point. They go up to
the bakery and take a right hand turn.
MR. WESSLING-Yes. Part of our thought would be to direct traffic to take a right turn out of our
parking lot and then access that traffic light when re-entering Route 9, and we could do that
through signage, directing a right turn signs on the exit door kind of showing a little map sketch
of the best way to get back to Route 9.
MR. KREBS-Right. Having been there today and sat at Montray trying to get onto Route 9, I can
tell you that if you say easy way out, it’ll definitely be the easy way out because waiting at that
point is very difficult to get back onto Route 9.
MR. WESSLING-So we’re certainly willing to accept a condition of helping that traffic flow. I’d
point out the cars that were parked were not for our business. They were for the outdoor wood
carving, which is on the other side of Montray Road, and like Jeff said, we’ve existed with four
parking places for eight years on busy Route 9 without any issue, no accidents, no problems for
the past eight years. So now we’re looking at a large increase in a number of parking places
and we’ve proved it worked. I mean, the taekwondo studios is an idea, nothing firm, but
certainly a use with not heavy parking would go well with our proposed use there.
MR. HUNSINGER-The car that was parked there when I drove by, it actually looked like the car
had broken down. Somebody was working on it.
MR. WESSLING-I did see that. The guy carves stuff outside there, and sometimes they park
and walk up that grassy hill to see that stuff.
MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. Other questions, comments from the Board?
MR. SIPP-I’m a little concerned about the slope that you’ve got here and the stormwater
management. Do you have enough, do you think?
MR. HUTCHINS-We have this, the site is topographically challenging. There’s a pretty good
drop from the Route 9 side to the rear of the site. We have, yes, I believe we have, we’ve done
a decent job with stormwater, and the engineer had a few comments, and I was looking at them
today and we’re going to probably adjust some things a little bit in response to his comments,
and, no, I’m comfortable with we have. What you’ve got, Montray Road is, in that area, it’s
roughly at a 10% slope, and we’re building a parking area that is across slope. We’ve got the
parking area to just under five percent cross slope, and the way we do that is by retaining wall
on the low side, and we put a fair amount of consideration into the best way of doing that, and
just what slope we wanted to target at, and that slope, five percent is going to work. It’s not an
unreasonable cross slope for a parking area. Ten percent would be. You’d have doors opening
up and banging into adjoining cars. Five percent is workable. Yes, you’ve got to be a little
careful, but it is workable, and stormwater, the soils are, I was there with the Town’s engineer,
and we did, we didn’t do all the test pits we’re going to have to do because obviously some of
the lower areas there’s a residence there at the time. The soils are very sandy in nature.
They’re very uniform, and we will be able to infiltrate the stormwater.
MR. SIPP-Well, I’m concerned between Route 9 and the first building here, you’ve got a five foot
drop there and 40 feet.
MR. HUTCHINS-Between the sidewalk and the current building there’s, yes, there’s about a five
foot drop, and we’re generally working with that. We can’t bring the building, ideally, to resolve
that you’d bring the building up more, but that just exacerbates the problem in the back.
MR. SIPP-You will have test pit figures, when you get around to it.
MR. HUTCHINS-Yes. It’s not going to be feasible to do a test pit within the confines of the rear
stormwater area. We have one that’s reasonably close, and we intend to get one that’s
immediately adjacent. There’s also a fair amount of underground utility action in that area, and
we were hesitate because there’s some underground telephone that we need to get located, and
we did not have it located. We got there to do the pit and we decided not to.
MR. SIPP-If you can handle the stormwater, because you’re going to have roof area that’s quite
large and you’re going to have a lot of water, and one, all I can see is one drywell and a sump
area. Right?
MR. HUTCHINS-Well, we’ve got, there’s a drywell in the, within the parking area, north of the
building, and there’s a drywell back in the, within the stormwater basin.
25
(Queensbury Planning Board 9/21/10)
MR. SIPP-Yes, down here.
MR. HUTCHINS-And as I said, we are looking at your engineer’s comments on that, yes.
MRS. STEFFAN-I guess I just want to survey the Planning Board. The applicant is requesting a
13.35 foot lot line setback relief for the signs. How’s everybody with that? It seems a little close
to the highway to me, but I wanted to know how the rest of the Planning Board felt about it.
MR. TRAVER-Well, it’s not ideal, but it’s a difficult situation as far as accommodating all of the.
MRS. STEFFAN-Everything that’s going on.
MR. TRAVER-Yes.
MR. KREBS-And if you look at the house across the street from it, you know, where the wood
carver is, it’s almost on the highway.
MRS. STEFFAN-Keith, do you know, they were going to be doing some roadwork on Route 9
there.
MR. TRAVER-I think it’s done.
MRS. STEFFAN-Is that all done? All the projects, the sidewalks on the other side of the street
have been done, so all that’s completed?
MR. HUNSINGER-Yes.
MRS. STEFFAN-So nothing will change in the foreseeable future?
MR. OBORNE-No. They got the granite curbing in. They’re not going anywhere.
MRS. STEFFAN-Okay.
MR. WESSLING-Would you like me to respond to the sign comment?
MRS. STEFFAN-Yes.
MR. WESSLING-Okay. We have shown on here just kind of roughly the location of the sign
which has this pink kind of flyer on it, and then it goes in this direction to that pink that kind of fell
in the wind, but that was to get an idea. When you look at the map, you’ll notice there’s, the
State land cuts in, the State right of way cuts in so the distance from the road is something that
maybe Tom can tell us, but there’s distance from the road relative to the setback is kind of
confusing in this example.
MR. HUTCHINS-The right of way, the other parcel line takes the 45 off toward (lost words) and
that’s the reason for the Sign Variance, and were the line continuous a little further, or if it was a
bend to Montray Road as opposed to that 45, we wouldn’t be asking for the Sign Variance. It’s
that, it’s where the right of way line takes off away from Route 9 that blocks the, or that’s the
logical place for a sign, or that’s the place we’d like to have a sign, but it’s where that property
line makes that bend that’s kind of causing it.
MR. MEYER-And sure the bend, the variance is less than two feet.
MR. HUNSINGER-Any other questions, comments from the Board? We do have a public
hearing scheduled. Is there anyone in the audience that wants to address the Board on this
project? I guess we do have one commenter. I would just ask that you state your name for the
record, ma’am, when you come on up. Good evening.
PUBLIC HEARING OPENED
MARILYN POTENZA
MRS. POTENZA-Good evening. My name is Marilyn Potenza. I’m the owner of Miller Hill Mall
that is just south of the proposed development. I am concerned about the number of variances
they’re requesting, particularly the parking variance. I know the comment has just been made
that they have four parking spaces allotted to their building, but the fact is that they have, we
have a very large spot, or parking area behind the building that probably parks, my guesstimate
would be 50 cars, and they have access to the building through a stairway up to their present
26
(Queensbury Planning Board 9/21/10)
building. So we just did a, and I say just, with tongue and check, probably eight years ago, a
rehab on our mall, and it was, for nice ways of saying, the tortures of the dam to get it done. We
walked the right line. We did the right things. I will preface this by saying that both Tom and
Roger are very, very good business people, and I would enjoy them to be my neighbors,
business neighbors, but I am concerned about the number of variances, particular the parking
variance, the sign setback, and the water runoff.
MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. Thank you.
MRS. POTENZA-Okay. You’re welcome.
MR. HUNSINGER-Anyone else? Yes, sir.
ROGER BROWN
MR. BROWN-I’m Roger Brown, and I’d just like to make a comment to what she said with the
parking. Tom and I have been at the location now for eight years, and we do have access to the
back parking lot, but nobody uses that. Nobody’s going to walk up those stairs, and if you could
see, I don’t know if you can see it, there’s two flights of stairs (lost words). It’s something that’s
inconvenient. Nobody does it, and it’s, you know, we’re working off the four parking spots that
we have been, and if our parking is full, people go by and they come back when it’s not, but, you
know, the added parking in the back is for us, you know, partial of it, but we don’t use any of
them because it’s just inconvenient. Nobody’s going to walk from the whole back of the building,
come up two flights of stairs and around the side of our building to enter, and the business that
we’re running is not really retail because we’re in and out, people are in and out. It’s not like a,
they’re going to be in there for an hour shopping. So they don’t need that extended parking, and
to go back to the taekwondo studio, which she had commented before, it would be more of an
evening classes, and it would be minimal parking with that. Most of the parents do drop their
children off, and if it does even go to the fact that we do open up that, it would be more attended
to adult classes is what I’m planning on doing, not so much the children schedule. So it would
be more of an adult schedule that I am planning on doing, if it goes through with our plans, and
that’s all I really wanted to say.
MR. HUNSINGER-Thank you.
MR. BROWN-Thank you.
MR. HUNSINGER-Anyone else? Okay. I mean, come on back to the table. Any written
comments, Keith?
MR. OBORNE-No, sir.
MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. A question of Staff. They’re going to have a building with two retail
spaces. Only one use has really been identified. Would there be Site Plan Review required for
another tenant to go in there?
MR. OBORNE-Not at this point. I think we’re looking at it as a taekwondo. If retail comes in,
retail comes in. I mean, that’s what they’re getting relief from. They’re not getting relief from
parking spaces because of taekwondo, and to add to that, I would be lying to you if I didn’t say it
wasn’t a concern because what if that retail spaces changes, you know, that’s what you’re
tasked to look at. You’re tasked to plan, and what they’re proposing works, I feel, as your
planner, very well, because I do know what taekwondo does. I do know how that operates, and
with that it works well at this point.
MR. HUNSINGER-Any other comments, questions from the Board?
MRS. STEFFAN-Well, I guess the ownership, was it Roger? Are you going to run the
taekwondo?
MR. ROGER-Yes.
MRS. STEFFAN-Okay. So it’s going to be two businesses in one, owner occupied kind of thing.
Okay.
MR. HUNSINGER-What if you did make the parking spaces a little narrower?
MR. HUTCHINS-They’re nines now. The ones on the side are nines, the ones in the rear are
tens. I’m not going to gain a space.
27
(Queensbury Planning Board 9/21/10)
MR. WESSLING-Just a point of clarification, and no hard feelings or ill will, but just to make this
clear, Mrs. Potenza is our current landlord, okay, and we rent the current space from her.
MR. HUNSINGER-Sure. Okay. People comfortable moving forward? Okay. It is an Unlisted
action. They submitted a Long Form, right?
MRS. STEFFAN-Yes. Will the proposed action result in a physical change to the project site?
MR. KREBS-Yes.
MR. TRAVER-Yes. Mitigated by, small to moderate, mitigated by Site Plan Review.
MRS. STEFFAN-Okay. Will there be an effect to any unique or unusual land forms found
on the site?
MR. HUNSINGER-No.
MR. KREBS-No.
MRS. STEFFAN-Will the proposed action affect any water body designated as protected?
MR. HUNSINGER-No.
MR. KREBS-No.
MRS. STEFFAN-Will the proposed action affect any non-protected existing or new body of
water?
MR. TRAVER-No.
MR. KREBS-No.
MRS. STEFFAN-Will the proposed action affect surface or groundwater quality or quantity?
MR. KREBS-No.
MR. TRAVER-No.
MR. HUNSINGER-Excuse me. They had actually submitted a Short Form. Sorry.
MRS. STEFFAN-They did? I thought it was a Long Form.
MR. OBORNE-There’s an Unlisted Short Form.
MR. HUNSINGER-Yes. I’m sorry.
MRS. STEFFAN-Then, Maria, strike that part from the record. Okay. We’ll try the Short Form,
then. “Does the action exceed any Type I threshold in 6 NYCRR Part 617.4?”
MR. HUNSINGER-No.
MR. TRAVER-No.
MRS. STEFFAN-“Will the action receive coordinated review as provided for Unlisted Actions in 6
NYCRR, Part 617.6?”
MR. HUNSINGER-No.
MR. TRAVER-No.
MRS. STEFFAN-“Could the action result in any adverse effects associated with the following:
C1. Existing air quality, surface or ground water quality or quantity, noise levels, existing traffic
patterns, solid waste production or disposal, potential for erosion, drainage or flooding
problems?”
MR. HUNSINGER-No.
MR. TRAVER-No.
28
(Queensbury Planning Board 9/21/10)
MRS. STEFFAN-I just want to clarify because we talked about groundwater quality. So we did
have an engineering report that said that there were some stormwater issues, but based on our
discussion we felt that they could be mitigated.
MR. KREBS-Right.
MRS. STEFFAN-All right. I just wanted to challenge that answer. So, okay. “C2. Aesthetic,
agricultural, historic, or other natural or cultural resources; or community or neighborhood
character?”
MR. HUNSINGER-No.
MR. TRAVER-No.
MRS. STEFFAN-“C3. Vegetation, fauna, fish, shellfish or wildlife species, significant habitats, or
threatened or endangered species?”
MR. HUNSINGER-No.
MR. TRAVER-No.
MRS. STEFFAN-“C4. A community’s existing plans or goals as officially adopted, or a change
in use or intensity of use of land or other natural resources?”
MR. HUNSINGER-No.
MR. KREBS-No.
MRS. STEFFAN-“C5. Growth, subsequent development or related activities likely to be
induced by the proposed action?”
MR. HUNSINGER-No.
MR. KREBS-No.
MRS. STEFFAN-“C6. Long term, short term, cumulative or other effects not identified above?”
MR. HUNSINGER-No.
MR. KREBS-No.
MRS. STEFFAN-“C7. Other impacts (including changes in use of either quantity or energy)?”
MR. KREBS-No.
MR. HUNSINGER-No.
MRS. STEFFAN-“Will the project have an impact on the environmental characteristics that
caused the establishment of a Critical Environmental Area?”
MR. TRAVER-No.
MR. KREBS-No.
MRS. STEFFAN-“Is there or is there likely to be controversy related to potential adverse
environmental impacts?”
MR. HUNSINGER-No.
MR. KREBS-No.
MRS. STEFFAN-Okay. Then I’ll make a motion for a negative declaration.
RESOLUTION WHEN DETERMINATION OF NO SIGNIFICANCE IS MADE
RESOLUTION NO. 59-2010, Introduced by Gretchen Steffan who moved for its adoption,
seconded by Donald Krebs:
WHEREAS, there is presently before the Planning Board an application for:
29
(Queensbury Planning Board 9/21/10)
TOM WESSLING & ROGER BROWN, 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.
st
Duly adopted this 21 day of, September, 2010, by the following vote:
AYES: Mr. Krebs, Mrs. Steffan, Mr. Traver, Mr. Jackoski, Mr. Schonewolf, Mr. Sipp,
Mr. Hunsinger
NOES: NONE
MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. Would anyone like to put forward a recommendation to the Zoning
Board?
MRS. STEFFAN-So it appears, based upon what I’m hearing from the rest of the Planning
Board, that we don’t have any significant impacts that cannot be mitigated with the current
project proposal?
MR. TRAVER-Right.
MR. KREBS-Right.
MRS. STEFFAN-Right. All right.
MOTION TO MAKE A RECOMMENDATION TO THE ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS FOR
AREA VARIANCE NO. 52-2010 TOM WESSLING & ROGER BROWN, Introduced by Gretchen
Steffan who moved for its adoption, seconded by Stephen Traver:
Whereas an application has been submitted for: Applicant proposes removal of two existing
residential structures and construction of a 6,000 +/- square foot building for retail business,
karate studio, professional offices and/or other permitted uses. Site Plan: New commercial
building in the CI zone requires Planning Board review and approval. Area Variance: Front,
rear & travel corridor setback relief. Further, relief requested for parking space minimum
amounts, size and access aisle widths. Planning Board may conduct SEQR review and provide
written recommendation to the Zoning Board of Appeals; and
Whereas, the Town of Queensbury Zoning Ordinance, per Section 179-9-070 J 2 b. requires the
Planning Board to provide a written recommendation to the Zoning Board of Appeals for projects
that require both Zoning Board of Appeals & Planning Board approval; and
Whereas, this project does require both Zoning Board of Appeals & Planning Board approval,
the following recommendation is hereby provided to the Zoning Board of Appeals; and
30
(Queensbury Planning Board 9/21/10)
Whereas, the Planning Board has briefly reviewed and discussed this application, the relief
request in the variance application as well as the potential impacts of this project on the
neighborhood and surrounding community, and found that:
1.The Planning Board, based on a limited review, has not identified any significant adverse
impacts that cannot be mitigated with current project proposal.
Duly adopted this 21st day of September 2010 by the following vote:
AYES: Mr. Traver, Mr. Krebs, Mrs. Steffan, Mr. Jackoski, Mr. Schonewolf, Mr. Sipp,
Mr. Hunsinger
NOES: NONE
MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. You’re all set.
MR. WESSLING-Okay. Thank you.
MR. HUNSINGER-Just think about colors for a Site Plan Review.
MR. WESSLING-When we come back?
MR. HUNSINGER-Yes.
MR. WESSLING-Sure.
MR. JACKOSKI-And because I’m sitting in this chair, thank you for growing your business in
Queensbury.
MR. WESSLING-Thank you.
SITE PLAN NO. 60-2010 MODIFICATION TO SP 8-2007 SEQR TYPE UNLISTED
STEWARTS SHOPS OWNER(S) SAME AS APPLICANT ZONING CI LOCATION 777
QUAKER ROAD APPLICANT PROPOSES ADDITIONAL LIGHT FIXTURES ON EACH LIGHT
POLE AROUND THE EXTERIOR OF THE SITE, INCLUDING ENTRANCES.
MODIFICATIONS TO AN APPROVED SITE PLAN REQUIRE PLANNING BOARD REVIEW
AND APPROVAL. CROSS REFERENCE OPS 27-07, SP 59-04 WARREN CO. PLANNING
9/8/10 LOT SIZE 1.51 +/- ACRES TAX MAP NO. 303.19-1-61 SECTION 179-9, 179-6-020
TOM LEWIS, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT
MR. HUNSINGER-Keith, whenever you’re ready.
MR. OBORNE-Site Plan 60-2010. This is a modification to Site Plan 8-2007. Stewarts Shops is
the applicant. This is a modification to an approved Site Plan. This obviously requires Planning
Board review and approval. 777 Quaker Road is the location. Commercial Intensive is the
existing zoning. The type is Unlisted for SEQRA. This would be a Short Form also. Parcel
History follows. Project Description: Applicant proposes additional light fixtures on each light
pole around the exterior of the site, including entrances. Modifications to an approved site plan
require Planning Board approval. Staff Comments: The applicant states that the site lighting is
low and the location appears to be closed. Staff has visited the site and noticed that the light
poles are relatively short in height and may contribute to the lack of discernable lighting.
Existing approved, SP 8-07, lighting has canopy lighting at approximately 10.2 footcandles and
soffit lighting at 7.2 footcandles. What follows is review. Proposed site lighting appears
excessive relative to the Code. Illuminence exceeding 31 foot candles for locations under soffit
and 19 foot candles for pole mounted fixtures; code requirements are 1.0 and 2.5 foot candles
respectively. Please see Section 179-6-020C, Standards. Also, per Section 179-6-020D, all
lighting fixtures to be directed horizontal to the ground, which they all currently are at this point,
for your information. With that I’d turn it over to the Board.
MR. HUNSINGER-Thank you. Good evening.
MR. LEWIS-Hi, folks. My name is Tom Lewis. I’m a real estate representative of the Stewarts
Shops. We love Adirondack designs. As I get older, I find myself saying what I’m about to say
more and more and more. We accept no very gracefully. That having been said, we’re hoping
that the Board would consider that if you’ve gone to the site at night, it’s really dark. Now, if
you’ll recall when this got approved years ago, we had made the case that these are almost
exactly the same lumens and foot candles as the shop that we have at 9L and 149. They’re
almost exactly the same numbers. The vast difference is that here, at Quaker and Dix, there’s a
31
(Queensbury Planning Board 9/21/10)
Hess opposite, which is just lit city, and just next to the whole intersection it just looks dark, and,
I mean, when the shop got built, you know, our Senior V.P. went out there and the President
went out there, and the District Manager went out there, and they’re whining at Tom Lewis, you
know, what a terrible job you did, you know, you can’t see it, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, and I
said, live with it for a while, and at some point we could go back and ask. Never hurts to ask.
So there are three things here that are being proposed. The sheet that I handed out is exactly
what you’ve got on the Site Plan. There’s nothing different. It just makes it really easy to
compare, and so you’ll see one side has, you know, all the new so you can match, you know,
foot candles and see how horrendous what we’re asking for is, and then on the other side you’ll
see the actual individual numbers, and so the three things we’re suggesting are under the
canopy go from a 175 bulb up to a 250, and that causes that larger difference. The second thing
is, under the soffit lights, we’re going to a metal halide, which makes that much of a difference in
the foot candles, and the third thing is that on the perimeter poles, we thought the way to fix it,
rather than ask for a lot of new poles, is to double up on the fixtures, so that on the sheet that
has all the numbers on it, that you’ll see the poles around the outside are doubles, and then on
the one with all the numbers on it, you know, I color coded them so you could see the new green
versus the old green, and under the canopy the old yellow versus the new yellow, and so I
should listen to what the Board or the public may have to say.
MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. Questions, comments from the Board?
MR. SCHONEWOLF-Does it really look dark under the gas pump canopy or at the entrance?
MR. LEWIS-All three of them do, and they handed me these things and say, go sell this, Tom.
I’m hoping there’s some compromise that might be able to be reached here. So yours is a very
good question. I have an opinion, but I should first listen to yours.
MR. FORD-The purpose of greater illumination at those pumps is what?
MR. LEWIS-Just safety, just to see, I mean, if you’ve ever gone there.
MR. FORD-Safety in what regard?
MR. LEWIS-Well, just to, you know, see things, you know see the, don’t get hit by other people,
other cars. What we’re asking for, if it were to be granted, I’ll bet you is like 90% of all the other
sites are like that or more. I mean, what we’re asking for is a lot less than the Mobils and the
Hesses outside of Queensbury, which has a more stringent set of rules, but I care less about
that than the other two locations, but, so, I mean, have you ever gone there at night?
MR. FORD-The other two locations being?
MR. LEWIS-The soffit lights or the entrances. I mean, there are three separate areas we’re
asking for here. Have you ever gone to the site at night yourself?
MR. FORD-Yes.
MR. LEWIS-All right. Thank you for the business.
MR. SCHONEWOLF-So you think it’s more important to have the lighting, increased lighting at
the pumps than it is at the entrance?
MR. LEWIS-I didn’t say that.
MR. SCHONEWOLF-I’m asking you that.
MR. LEWIS-No. I think that it’s more important at the entrance way, but.
MR. SCHONEWOLF-It’s the other way around.
MR. LEWIS-But I’ve only heard from two of you. The other five may disagree with me.
MR. FORD-Well, the reason I raised that is to try to get some handle on why the increase at the
pump, and I think I got your answer, but let’s move on.
MR. LEWIS-And it’s mostly, you know, just to make it look open. The first time I heard that, I
thought, well, that’s, you know, they’ve got to be kind of exaggerating, but then I went out there
at night sometimes. Relative to everything else around, it is very dark.
32
(Queensbury Planning Board 9/21/10)
MR. HUNSINGER-How about your new store on Upper Glen? Have you had comments about
that?
MR. LEWIS-The Adirondack store?
MR. HUNSINGER-Yes, because I assume.
MR. LEWIS-That’s LED lighting. That’s the key to.
MR. HUNSINGER-It’s different lighting.
MR. LEWIS-I don’t have any lighting problems anymore, as long as we do LED, and I asked the
question this morning, how much money is it to turn everything over.
MR. KREBS-I also think there’s another thing that’s different here, and that’s the configuration of
the lot. You’re on a point, and there’s, across the street, yes, there’s Livingston’s Furniture, but
there’s no lighting on the end of that building. Binley’s is across the street. There’s no lighting
there at night. McDonald’s is behind it, so it’s not affected, but this is relatively a dark corner,
except across the street where you have Hess, which has lots of lights.
MRS. STEFFAN-I also think if the pumps were sideways.
MR. KREBS-It might make a difference.
MRS. STEFFAN-The same direction as the signage with the LED lighting in it.
MR. LEWIS-I love LED lighting.
MRS. STEFFAN-We do not.
MR. LEWIS-Really?
MR. TRAVER-I was going to say, since we’re looking at modifying the Site Plan, and you
brought up LED, are you planning on bringing the sign into compliance?
MR. FORD-Aren’t you glad you came tonight?
MR. LEWIS-That’s legal nonconforming what’s there now. That wasn’t our plan, no, and, I
mean, we beg for LED lighting at all the new stores, you know, and now your Code says you
can’t have it. Then it did not say that.
MR. SIPP-We were not informed that you were going to put up a sign there.
MRS. STEFFAN-Yes. That happened after the Site Plan.
MR. SIPP-That happened after we.
MR. LEWIS-Do you want me to re-visit that from my point of view? Is that needed? I mean, I
can.
MR. SIPP-I don’t think it’s needed.
MR. LEWIS-I mean, I don’t think we did anything wrong. Because we try very hard to be honest
with Boards.
MR. TRAVER-The question is, I mean, I don’t know that we need to debate whether, and I think
there are perhaps points on both sides. There usually are. My question really is, we’re now
looking at modifying this Site Plan. Will you consider bringing the sign into compliance,
regardless of the history?
MR. LEWIS-But just, because I care more about relationships than I do this, was there anything
from that that anyone thinks I did anything not 100% above board? Because I can answer that,
if there’s any thoughts to that.
MRS. STEFFAN-Well, you know, there was some concern that after the approval occurred, and
then all of a sudden that sign appeared and it wasn’t part of our Site Plan Review, I think all of
us were surprised because normally if somebody’s going to, you know, that was a rehab of an
existing location, but, you know, usually signage is a very important part of our Site Plan
Review. We were all surprised by that.
33
(Queensbury Planning Board 9/21/10)
MR. LEWIS-All right. So from, you know, my memory, which I think is very clear on this, was
that was when those signs first began to pop up everywhere.
MR. SIPP-Yes.
MR. LEWIS-And so we phoned up your Zoning Officer, like we would anytime, and say, are we
allowed to do this kind of a sign, and he said sure, and then I found out subsequently, when I
talked to him months later, he said I got chastised for telling you that. So, I mean, we, you know,
it certainly wasn’t anything we hid. We don’t do that. So
MR. TRAVER-Well, you also have an existing lighting plan, and that got approved, and now
you’re in here saying, well, might you consider modifying.
MR. LEWIS-Yours is a fair question, and so my, I think a reasonable answer would be that this
Board has the option to say no to everything, or to say, yes, you know, this may be okay, but this
might not be, but if you’re willing to not have that sign, then as a tradeoff we would do so and so.
Now I don’t think that’ll fly at the home office, because they love those LED signs. I mean, they
drive me crazy, but that’s what I’m paid for. So I’m not whining. I’m just emoting. So if, I don’t
think they would do that. If the Board said, sure, Tom, you can have all of this stuff, and then
eliminate that, I don’t think she’ll do that. I’d like to do it, but that’s because I appear before you
and she doesn’t.
MR. TRAVER-And my suggestion would likely not be eliminating the sign. It would be modifying
the sign to bring it into compliance.
MR. LEWIS-You just want to not have the LED.
MR. TRAVER-Correct.
MR. LEWIS-I understand the aesthetics of it, and a site like that, if that’s not there, then in the
snow, you know, someone’s got to walk out there, you know, with one of those, you know, 15
foot poles, and they’ve got to change the price, you know, once a day or five times a day or once
a week, whatever it is, and it really is a physical hardship on the people. So my hope would be
that this Board would consider some compromise as to the three things we’re asking for, and
then if they want to go a second step and say, you know, and it doesn’t have to be any decision
tonight. It’s not that far away from, you know, from home to here, and you could tell me what
you’d like and I’ll go back and then we could come back another time.
MR. HUNSINGER-I mean, personally I’m willing to concede that the site looks a little dark. My
fear is that the new proposal is going to be then too bright. So is there a, is there something in
between the two?
MR. LEWIS-Yes. My suggestion is let us do the outside lights, the perimeter lights,. Is there a
concern that that’ll be too bright? Because I think the outside lights is the least of the three.
MR. TRAVER-Well, you’re going from eight to sixteen. You’re doubling.
MR. LEWIS-Yes, but it’s only in that one area, and if you look around there and it’s really not
very light by the entrances, and, I mean, I don’t think we’ve had any accidents there. So what I
hope the Board would do is allow those lights, and then say we’d think about the other two
without any promises, which I don’t think she’ll do, but she may surprise them.
MR. FORD-I didn’t get that last part of the LED.
MR. LEWIS-Yes. My hope is the Board would allow the light poles around the entrances, and
then I think that’ll give the whole site more of a sense of it’s open. Then you might say we’ll
consider, without any guarantees, any of the other two things you’re asking for, under the
canopy and the soffit lights, but you’ve got to bring the site into compliance with the freestanding
sign, as a tradeoff. Does that seem reasonable?
MR. FORD-And another tradeoff would be to give you the perimeter lighting, bring the sign into
conformance and leave the other two lighting systems alone.
MR. LEWIS-Yes. That’s, I don’t have a vote.
MR. FORD-How does that fly with you?
MR. LEWIS-And then I shall accept no very graciously. I’m sure she won’t do that, but.
34
(Queensbury Planning Board 9/21/10)
MR. FORD-As much as we appreciate you and Stewarts, we’re going to seize every opportunity
to correct the LED situation, any opportunity we have.
MR. LEWIS-I understand, and I never take these things personally.
MR. HUNSINGER-I guess my concern with that approach is our old lighting code used to have a
max over min ratio of four to one. Our new code doesn’t have it. We just have thresholds and
you have to be within those thresholds, but the old code used to have, you know, there’s a
balance, and if the entrance ways are a lot brighter than the internal site, your eyes may not be
able to adjust quickly enough. You’ll end up getting blinded when you go to enter or leave. If it’s
too far out of balance. Now I’m not an expert in, you know, optics and lumination. So I don’t
know what that number is or where that balance sets.
MR. FORD-Maybe the balance would be best kept if they went to halfway in between the current
and what they’re asking for.
MR. LEWIS-Well, that’s a reasonable thing to say.
MRS. STEFFAN-What about changing the fixtures in the current canopy?
MR. LEWIS-That’s what we’re suggesting. Just thinking about all the things the Board might
say, I did ask our Senior V.P., who is the one that I answer to, what if we offered to, that, I was
thinking about the LED sign, I’m just anticipating, when I asked her the question, what if we
offered that if we could have the outside lights, and we change the lights under the canopy,
leave the soffit lights the way they are. I don’t know why they’re asking for the soffits except
they’re just upgrading the whole thing, and I said, what if we offered to the Board that if they’re
unhappy with the lights under the canopy we’ll go back to the old bulb? I think that’s about a
$5,000 hit, and we can handle that. She said okay to that. So what I’d suggest, if, well, and if
the Board wants me to come back with what I heard Mr. Ford say, which is something in
between what we’re asking and something between what’s there, and you’re talking around the
perimeter, or just everywhere? Everywhere you’re talking? How about if we do that? What if
we table this? Although I’d like to hear from, I think every Board member spoke up. Anymore
feedback you could give me as to where you are or aren’t, just so that we could draw this to a
conclusion?
MRS. STEFFAN-I think when I came in today I was certainly looking for a compromise,
somewhere between where we are and what you propose. Because what you proposed was
really excessive. When you look at the foot candle comparisons, you know, certainly in the
soffits, you’re looking at a, you know, six times the increase that currently exists, and so, and the
site is kind of low key. There’s no doubt about it, with all of the other, like the Dunkin Donuts
that’s across the way. That’s very bright compared to your site. So I understand, you know,
where you are, but I’m just looking for some kind of compromise in the middle.
MR. LEWIS-All right. How about if we table this. Does that work?
MRS. STEFFAN-Yes.
MR. HUNSINGER-Okay.
MRS. STEFFAN-We could do that.
MR. LEWIS-Well, unless you’d rather not.
MR. HUNSINGER-Before we do that, though, we do have a public hearing scheduled. Is there
anyone in the audience that wants to address the Board on this project? Yes, we do have one
person. So we will take the public comment. Yes, sir.
PUBLIC HEARING OPENED
RICHARD EDWARDS
MR. EDWARDS-Richard Edwards. I was just curious, in terms of listening to the presentation.
Has he got a resolution already drawn up? I mean, you know, what do you want to do? The
question I had is, would the increase in lighting to the extent that he’s requested be equal to,
greater than, or less than Hess?
MR. HUNSINGER-I don’t know if any of us know that.
35
(Queensbury Planning Board 9/21/10)
MRS. STEFFAN-Yes. We don’t have the actual numbers.
MR. EDWARDS-For Hess?
MRS. STEFFAN-Right. Right now, we could get them, but based on the foot candle levels as
presented, it would be extremely bright.
MR. EDWARDS-Brighter you think?
MRS. STEFFAN-Very bright.
MR. HUNSINGER-It would be brighter than what’s there. We don’t know if it would be brighter
than Hess.
MR. EDWARDS-Well, yes, of course it would be brighter than what’s there, but my concern is
with Hess because I think that’s their concern, more so than safety. I want to be seen more than
Hess wants to be. Stewarts doesn’t have to sell themselves. They’re good anyway. So I’m just
curious. Thank you very much.
MR. HUNSINGER-Thank you.
MRS. STEFFAN-No problem.
MR. HUNSINGER-Is there anyone else.
MR. LEWIS-I apologize for getting along with you guys.
MR. HUNSINGER-So we’re going to table this. Are you going to present new information?
MR. LEWIS-Yes, that’s what the Board’s asked for.
MR. HUNSINGER-Okay.
MR. LEWIS-I’m going to go back and just give them my assessment of, you know, where I think
the Board is, that making the LED light conform was a major issue, and that there’s no way that I
could guarantee them that anything will happen unless that was done. There’s some possibility
that something might get done on a smaller scale, even if we don’t give up the LED. That’s my
assessment of what I think I heard. Thank you.
MR. KREBS-And I would like to ask Staff if you could look up and provide us with the
information on the Hess.
MR. LEWIS-Yes, I’d like to know that, too.
MR. OBORNE-Put that in your resolution so it will remind me to do that.
MR. HUNSINGER-I was going to say, the other thought was to have our engineer take a look at
the lighting plan, but if you’re going to present a new one.
MR. OBORNE-What concern would you have as far as the engineer’s review?
MR. HUNSINGER-You had stepped out for a second. One of the options that was discussed
was only upgrading the lights just at the entrance.
MR. OBORNE-Yes, I heard that.
MR. HUNSINGER-And not throughout the site, so whether or not that would create a, you know,
out of balance, you know illumination that would be difficult for the eye to.
MR. OBORNE-They’d probably want a lighting engineer to do that.
MR. HUNSINGER-Yes, but, I mean, if they’re going to submit new information anyway, we’d be
silly to have the engineer review the old stuff.
MR. OBORNE-If I could take this time to just clarify LED lighting. Site lighting is actually
something we want to encourage LED lighting, not signage.
36
(Queensbury Planning Board 9/21/10)
MRS. STEFFAN-Right. I realize that. Yes, the LED lighting on signage was particularly
offensive. We have an example of red LED lighting, and I know yours is amber, but that started
the debate.
MR. LEWIS-We could change the color, if that matters.
MRS. STEFFAN-That started the debate on the Planning Board that the red was awful, and it
was so bright. It wasn’t your gas station. It was a different gas station in Town.
MR. LEWIS-Yes, the one off Exit 19.
MR. HUNSINGER-Yes.
MRS. STEFFAN-Yes.
MR. LEWIS-That huge one.
MR. HUNSINGER-Yes.
MRS. STEFFAN-Yes, and that was obviously a mistake at a prior approval point, but that’s the
kind of thing we certainly want to extinguish in the Town.
MR. LEWIS-However, you weren’t saying earlier that you don’t like the LED lighting under the
canopy?
MRS. STEFFAN-No, that, yes, that’s correct. That’s fine. LED lighting in the canopies is
appropriate, but it’s the sign LED.
MR. LEWIS-Because that eliminates all my lighting issues. Every time I do a new site now, that
LED lighting is the best, just, we can meet the Code, and it looks like it’s lit.
MR. FORD-But not in signage.
MR. LEWIS-Signage, there are way more towns allowing LED than don’t. Okay. Thank you.
MR. HUNSINGER-Thank you.
MRS. STEFFAN-I want to make sure the conditions. Did you want a lighting engineer to look at
the plan, or did you want comparisons of other plans? Did you want the Hess plan? Did you
want the Jolley station because we just approved three of those in the last year and a half.
MR. FORD-Let’s get the Hess.
MR. LEWIS-Yes, I’d love to see the Hess plan.
MR. SIPP-That’s their competition.
MR. LEWIS-I mean, just.
MR. FORD-And you will be submitting that light plan prior to the evening of the meeting, right?
MR. OBORNE-Give them a deadline date.
MR. LEWIS-Yes, we’ll file a week from now and then we’ll be on two months from now.
MR. FORD-As opposed to tonight, when it was handed out.
MR. LEWIS-Well, but I mean, that was exactly the same thing that you had. There wasn’t any
new information. It was just easier to read, I thought. So you’re saying next time I do that I
should think ahead and file that.
MR. TRAVER-There’s a concern about accepting materials the night of the meeting. That’s
really the issue. I understand what you’re saying about, it’s the same information presented in a
different format.
MR. LEWIS-It makes it easier to read.
MRS. STEFFAN-Mr. Lewis, we’re going to table you to November, and so the meetings are the
thth
16 and the 18. That’s a Tuesday or a Thursday. Is one night better for you than the other?
37
(Queensbury Planning Board 9/21/10)
MR. LEWIS-That’s very nice of you to ask. No. Thursday is good. My wife goes to knitting.
MRS. STEFFAN-Thursday it is. Okay. I’ll make a motion.
MOTION TO TABLE SITE PLAN NO. 60-2010 STEWARTS SHOPS, Introduced by Gretchen
Steffan who moved for its adoption, seconded by Stephen Traver:
A site plan application has been made to the Queensbury Planning Board for the following:
Applicant proposes additional light fixtures on each light pole around the exterior of the site,
including entrances. Modifications to an approved site plan require Planning Board review and
approval; and
A public hearing was advertised and held on 9/21/2010; and
MOTION TO TABLE SITE PLAN NO. 60-2010 STEWARTS SHOPS, Introduced by Gretchen
Steffan who moved for its adoption, seconded by Stephen Traver:
th
This is tabled to the November 18 Planning Board meeting, so that the Staff can provide the
Planning Board with the Hess gas station, which is on the corner of Quaker and Dix, so that the
Staff can provide the Planning Board with the Hess Station’s lighting plan. This is also tabled at
the applicant’s request so that they can revise their lighting plan and provide new information.
st
Duly adopted this 21 day of September, 2010, by the following vote:
AYES: Mr. Traver, Mr. Krebs, Mrs. Steffan, Mr. Ford, Mr. Schonewolf, Mr. Sipp, Mr. Hunsinger
NOES: NONE
MR. HUNSINGER-Okay.
MR. LEWIS-Thank you.
SITE PLAN NO. 54-2010 SEQR TYPE II ELIZABETH MILLER OWNER(S) SAME AS
APPLICANT ZONING MDR LOCATION 1099 RIDGE ROAD APPLICANT PROPOSES
PRODUCED STAND. SEASONAL PRODUCE STAND IN AN MDR ZONE REQUIRES
PLANNING BOARD REVIEW AND APPROVAL. CROSS REFERENCE BP 09-404, 09-257,
09-256 WARREN CO. PLANNING 9/8/2010 LOT SIZE 9.47 +/- ACRES TAX MAP NO.
290.5-1-48 SECTION 179-9
ELIZABETH MILLER, PRESENT
MR. HUNSINGER-Keith, whenever you’re ready to summarize Staff Notes.
MR. OBORNE-Site Plan 54-2010, Elizabeth Miller is the applicant. Requested action: Seasonal
produce stand requires Planning Board review and approval. Location: 1099 Ridge Road.
Existing zoning is MDR or Moderate Density Residential. This is a Type II SEQRA. No further
review needed. Project Description: Applicant proposes produce stand. Seasonal produce
stand in an MDR zone requires Planning Board review and approval. Staff Comments: The
parcel proposed for this use is 9.47 acres in size and has 225 linear feet of road frontage on
Ridge Road. There is an existing structure previously used as a seasonal produce stand as well
as for the sale of nursery plants. Ingress, egress and sight distances appear adequate. Ample
parking is available. The applicant seeks waivers for lighting, grading, stormwater and
landscaping. The sign code allows for two signs: one for identification and one for current
products for sale, each sign not to exceed 32 square feet. The applicant proposes to utilize
existing signage. Review: Grading may need to be accomplished at entry and exit points as
the transition is a bit rough. Consideration may be given to on-site parking signage/locations for
the purposes of pedestrian safety. The Planning Board, as a condition of approval, may wish to
consider the following: The hours of operation as stated in the narrative should be observed.
The dates of operation as stated in the narrative should be observed. The granting of waivers
for lighting, grading, stormwater and landscaping. The Planning Board may wish to consider a
multi year approval, as opposed to every year, with a date agreed to with the applicant. With
that I’d turn it over to the Board.
MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. Thank you. Good evening.
MS. MILLER-Hello. Good evening. Elizabeth Miller.
MR. HUNSINGER-Did you have anything else you wanted to add?
38
(Queensbury Planning Board 9/21/10)
MS. MILLER-Not really.
MR. HUNSINGER-Okay.
MR. KREBS-What are the dates of operation?
MS. MILLER-I’m just thinking it’ll be operated when produce comes available, May or June, and
go until September/October.
MR. SCHONEWOLF-Daytime?
MS. MILLER-Yes.
MR. HUNSINGER-Is there electricity in the building?
MS. MILLER-I believe there was at one time. I don’t believe there is anything. There currently
is a rather large refrigerator unit in there that I guess was previously used but is no longer
hooked up.
MR. HUNSINGER-Because one of the requests was a waiver for lighting. So I was curious if
you were going to put any lighting in.
MS. MILLER-Not at this time.
MR. HUNSINGER-Okay.
MRS. STEFFAN-I remembered, when I first moved to the area, that was a long time ago, that
that used to be a produce stand.
MR. TRAVER-Yes.
MRS. STEFFAN-It was very popular. Everybody went to it, and it’s kind of unusual from other of
the recent applications that we’ve looked at, which are having tents kind of canopies, but this is
a fixed building, in my mind, and I’ve been here since 1979, that’s always been a produce stand.
MS. MILLER-I’ve had a couple of farmers, organic farmers, approach me and want to rent it, and
hopefully I can.
MRS. STEFFAN-It’s a great location and it’s a great spot.
MS. MILLER-Sure, I think so.
MR. HUNSINGER-Yes. The Comprehensive Land Use Plan actually encourages farm stands,
and I made a comment before you came up, it was just mentioned, most of the seasonal stands
that we’ve approved earlier in the year were for tents, but this is a building, and, I mean, my
personal feeling is, since you have a building, I don’t even feel a need to limit the season,
because since it’s a building, and I don’t know if that would make a difference in how it’s
reviewed by the Code Enforcement people, Keith. Because it’s really not a seasonal stand if it’s
a permanent structure.
MR. OBORNE-Yes, but it is an accessory structure.
MR. HUNSINGER-Okay.
MR. OBORNE-I would feel more comfortable if you did state in the resolution what the timing
was, and I would ask you, you’re going to sell pumpkins. So you’d probably want to run that
through the end of October, and mums, something along those lines.
MS. MILLER-Could be, yes.
MR. HUNSINGER-Well, if there’s no electricity in the building, there’s no heat in the building.
They’re not going to stay open too late in the season.
MR. FORD-Let’s consider multi-year approval.
MR. TRAVER-Yes.
39
(Queensbury Planning Board 9/21/10)
MRS. STEFFAN-I guess I see what Keith means, because then they could sell Christmas Trees.
If we didn’t put a time limit on, they could sell Christmas Trees. They could be open all year
long.
MR. HUNSINGER-Yes.
MR. OBORNE-You’d definitely want to promote that, being the stickler that the Zoning
Administrator is, and myself. It would be encouraged to have time limits.
MR. HUNSINGER-Okay.
stst
MR. KREBS-So the 1 of May to October 31?
MR. HUNSINGER-That’s what they’ve requested, yes. They could always get a special permit,
right?
MR. OBORNE-Special Use Permit? Yes.
MR. HUNSINGER-Yes, to do that.
MR. OBORNE-That’s true.
MS. MILLER-So I wouldn’t have to go through this procedure again?
MR. OBORNE-You may have to for that, but actually I’m not quite sure if you can classify
Christmas Trees as produce.
MRS. STEFFAN-No, it’s an agricultural use.
MR. SIPP-Agricultural sales covers a multitude of sins.
MR. OBORNE-Yes, I haven’t even thought of that, to be honest with you.
MRS. STEFFAN-Well, let’s just go with what we have. Hours of operation. Do you have any in
mind?
MS. MILLER-I’m just thinking nine to six, something like that.
MRS. STEFFAN-Okay, and what about duration? How long? Five years?
MR. FORD-Five years.
MRS. STEFFAN-Okay. So that would be to 2015.
MR. FORD-Sound good?
MS. MILLER-Yes.
MR. KREBS-I’m going to suggest nine to seven.
MS. MILLER-Okay.
MR. KREBS-Only because you have a lot of people coming back on Ridge Road from the lake,
and you may want to stay open until seven o’clock just to catch those people.
MS. MILLER-That’s a good idea. Okay.
MRS. STEFFAN-Okay.
MR. HUNSINGER-We do have a public hearing scheduled. Is there anyone in the audience that
wants to address the Board on this project? We do have one commenter.
PUBLIC HEARING OPENED
RICHARD EDWARDS
MR. EDWARDS-This is the real reason why I’m here. I, Number One, wasn’t sure exactly
where 1099 was, but I had a good idea, since I used to hit the stand occasionally, way back in
the 50’s. My concern, primarily, dealt with lighting. We have enough lighting going over into
40
(Queensbury Planning Board 9/21/10)
Stonehurst where I reside from the emergency squad building that many of you know, if you’ve
ever been up in the evening, that light just ruins my sleep in the summer, because I sleep on the
screened in porch. In any event, lighting was a concern, and, you know, the building has been
there forever, since I can remember as a child growing up in the area, and I’ve been inside of
the building. It seems to me it could use a little renovating and a little color, other than what
we’re looking at there, simply because it’s not as eye appealing right now the way it sits, and
certainly it’s been vacant for years and hasn’t been eye appealing at all. I certainly am happy to
have a stand next door where I can walk and pick up my corn, which I dearly love. The other,
those are my concerns, lighting and the looks of the building, etc., and I had one other concern.
It sounded, from the presentation, that the facility was going to be rented and not owner run. Is
that incorrect?
MRS. STEFFAN-We’ll clarify that.
MR. EDWARDS-Okay. Because if it’s not owner run, I may be a little bit concerned about the
character of the individuals operating the facility for some reason or another. In any event, thank
you for your time, too.
MRS. STEFFAN-Could you just say your name for the record?
MR. EDWARDS-I did, before, Richard Edwards.
MRS. STEFFAN-Thank you.
MR. HUNSINGER-Anyone else want to address the Board? Any written comments, Keith?
MR. OBORNE-Let me check. No.
MR. HUNSINGER-Okay.
MS. MILLER-Just for the record, after I bought that piece of property, I think it was about a year
and a half ago, the barns came down, the house came down, and I had a gentleman go in and
paint that building and they put a new door on it, on the side, and that last year when I started
renovating it, more or less, I had flowers underneath that side area. So hopefully in the Spring,
that would also be done. So there has been some renovations to the building since I bought it
MR. HUNSINGER-Okay.
MR. SCHONEWOLF-There’s no electricity there, so lighting’s not an issue. Right?
MS. MILLER-Correct.
MR. FORD-And the person operating it will be?
MS. MILLER-Well, I’ve had two, the people that I guess rent the tent, that have the tent areas
produce have both approached me, as far as renting. I have pursued the Farmer’s Market
personnel to see if they possibly could come and sell their produce there. I’ve also approached,
there’s a garden place on Bay Road, upper Bay past 149, down the hill. I’ve already
approached him if he was interested in it as well. So it’ll be something along those lines. I’d just
as soon not have the two gentlemen that approached me, and have another farmer, maybe a
Farmer’s Market organic would be preferable.
MRS. STEFFAN-Okay. So you’re going to just sublet it out.
MS. MILLER-Well, I’d like to grow some pumpkins, too, but that’s down the road. You never
know.
MR. FORD-You’re obviously exercising care in who’s going to be in there.
MS. MILLER-Yes.
MRS. STEFFAN-Okay.
MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. Is everyone comfortable closing the public hearing?
MR. FORD-Yes.
MR. TRAVER-Yes.
41
(Queensbury Planning Board 9/21/10)
MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. We’ll close the public hearing.
PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED
MR. HUNSINGER-It’s a Type II action.
MRS. STEFFAN-All right. I’ll make a motion to approve.
MOTION TO APPROVE SITE PLAN NO. 54-2010 ELIZABETH MILLER, Introduced by
Gretchen Steffan who moved for its adoption, seconded by Stephen Traver:
A site plan application has been made to the Queensbury Planning Board for the following:
Applicant proposes produce stand. Seasonal produce stand in an MDR zone requires Planning
Board review and approval.
A public hearing was advertised and held on 9/21/2010; and
This application is supported with all documentation, public comment and application material in
the file of record;
MOTION TO APPROVE SITE PLAN NO. 54-2010 ELIZABETH MILLER, Introduced by
Gretchen Steffan who moved for its adoption, seconded by Stephen Traver:
According to the resolution prepared by Staff. Paragraph Four A complies.
1) Approved with the following statements and conditions:
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)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)Waiver requests granted: stormwater mgmt., grading, landscaping & lighting
plans; 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; and
h)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
i)This is approved with the following conditions:
1. That the sign as presented, which is compliant, will be the sign that will be
used.
2. The days of operation will be seven days a week.
3. The hours of operation will be nine a.m. to seven p.m.
stst
4. The stand will operate from May 1 until October 31.
5. This approval is granted for five years, through 2015.
st
Duly adopted this 21 day of September, 2010, by the following vote:
42
(Queensbury Planning Board 9/21/10)
MR. HUNSINGER-So when we say it’s through 2015, that would be through October 31, 2015.
Is that the intention?
MRS. STEFFAN-Correct.
MR. HUNSINGER-Okay.
AYES: Mr. Traver, Mr. Krebs, Mrs. Steffan, Mr. Ford, Mr. Schonewolf, Mr. Sipp, Mr. Hunsinger
NOES: NONE
MR. HUNSINGER-You’re all set. Good luck.
MS. MILLER-Thank you.
MR. OBORNE-Ms. Miller, you may want to grab at least four copies of your applications as you’ll
need to present that to the Codes Department. So you don’t have to do a bunch of copying.
SITE PLAN 53-2010 SEQR TYPE PREVIOUS EIS BOB PILARINOS; DENNIS PILARINOS
AGENT(S) JONATHAN LAPPER, B P S R TOM HUTCHINS, HUTCHINS ENG. OWNER(S)
PYRAMID MALL OF GF NEW CO. ZONING ESC LOCATION 518 AVIATION ROAD
APPLICANT PROPOSES DEMOLITION OF THE 8,800 SQ. FT. FORMER HOWARD
JOHNSON’S RESTAURANT AND CONSTRUCTION OF A 5,400 SQ. FT. DINER WITH
ASSOCIATED SITE WORK. FOOD SERVICE IN THE ESC ZONE REQUIRES PLANNING
BOARD REVIEW AND APPROVAL. CROSS REFERENCE SP 35-10, AV 63-08, SP 21-01
WARREN CO. PLANNING 9/8/2010 LOT SIZE 2 +/- ACRES TAX MAP NO. 302.5-1-97
SECTION § 179-9
JON LAPPER & TOM HUTCHINS, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT
MR. HUNSINGER-Keith, whenever you’re ready to summarize Staff Notes.
MR. OBORNE-Site Plan 53-2010, Bob and Dennis Pilarinos. Requested action: Food service
in the Enclosed Shopping Center zone requires Planning Board review and approval. Location
is 518 Aviation Road. As mentioned before, the existing zoning is ESC. SEQRA Status,
Previous EIS dated July 2001, SEQRA Long Form requested Planning Board for previous
proposal has been submitted. Parcel History follows. Project Description: Applicant proposes
demolition of an 8,800 sq. ft. former Howard Johnson’s restaurant and construction of a 5,400
sq. ft., 210 seat retro diner. The proposal calls for stormwater and Erosion and Sedimentation
controls as well as landscaping, lighting and associated site work. Staff Comments: The parcel
for this proposal is currently owned by The Pyramid Corporation, the owner of the Aviation Mall.
The 2.06 acre parcel is bordered on the west by the I-87 northbound exit ramp, to the north by
Aviation Road, to the south and east by an existing out-parcel and is considered one of the four
existing northwest outparcels of Aviation Mall as denoted n the FEIS associated with this
project. The location for the proposal is in the Enclosed Shopping Center (ESC) zoning district
and as such is required to follow the development standards in Chapter 4 and 7 as per Section
179-3-040B(1)(c). The applicant has submitted elevation drawings depicting stone detail on the
proposed structure. Further, the applicant has agreed to the cessation of a left turn egress
action from the property as well as potential language concerning the connection to the mall ring
road. Further, a Trip Generation Estimate by Creighton Manning engineering for the proposed
use has been submitted. The Planning Board may wish to acknowledge the signoff of Paragon
Engineering in regards to Stormwater and Erosion and Sedimentation with the inclusion of the
requested stockpile and staging area denoted on Page S-4 of the site plan. Please see previous
Paragon Engineering comments. Concerning any potential issue with the architectural
compatibility, the code specifically states under Section 179-7-040C, Elements of design
guidelines….These standards address issues of new building construction or modification of
existing buildings to increase potential for compatibility with neighborhoods, surrounding
buildings or traditional patterns, styles and textures. Architectural guidelines address general
building features such as proportion (mass and height), roof styles, fenestration (window and
door openings), awnings and canopies, specialty equipment, materials and broad categories of
color. Staff would like to remove any confusion and impart to all involved that the term
“Adirondack” style is not cited for this particular commercial district; only compatibility with
neighborhoods as stated above. What follows is Site Plan Review. I do assume that the
Planning Board has read through these notes. I will say the additional comments, previous Fire
Marshal comments are attached, same with DOT, Water Department, Department of
Wastewater, and concerning SEQR Town Counsel comments in handout form should have
been either previously or given to you this time around, and previous Paragon Engineering
comments attached. With that, I’d turn it over to the Board.
43
(Queensbury Planning Board 9/21/10)
MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. Thank you. Good evening.
MR. LAPPER-Good evening, everyone. For the record, Jon Lapper with Bob Pilarinos and Tom
Hutchins. As I stated last time, our goal is to extend an olive branch on behalf of the Greek
diner. We have attempted to compromise and to address all of the issues that we are aware of
from the Board. The new architectural is a way to be able to keep it as a classic retro diner in
some respects, but to make it a little bit more regional by adding the stone, which removes some
of the reflective material and just to kind of tone the whole thing down. The accent color, as you
know, previously was red, and now it’s the Queensbury High School colors of blue and gold, and
the stone is intended to be compatible, both with some grays in it, showing gray mortar, some
gray stone, to compliment the diner color and as well as the gold color in the trim, but certainly
the applicant’s goal is to try and compromise. As I’ve stated many times, we think that there’s a
big community interest here in re-developing this site, this entrance to the Town, and by
complying with stormwater, landscaping, completely rebuilding this site, moving everything back
from Aviation Road, and adding that grass buffer in the front that doesn’t exist. It’s going to be
much softer than the old-fashioned Howard Johnson’s look that’s there now, a substantially
smaller building from approximately 8,000 square feet to 5400 square feet, and we think it’s
going to be popular and a success in that location near the School complex, near the Northway,
and we certainly attempted to address the traffic issue by removing that left turn out as Mr.
Traver had originally asked for and we ran that by DOT and we have positive comments in the
record from DOT. So, with that, Tom, do you want to go through any site issues?
MR. HUTCHINS-I don’t really have anything, site wise, site engineering wise. We haven’t done
a whole lot of additional work. We have, I would add on the lighting, we did tone that back from
an original submission, and we removed two poles and we decreased the wattage in all of the
pole mounted fixtures from 250 to 150, and it did reduce the lighting intensity, and it’s really as
low as I’m really comfortable with at this point, but that’s something that we can talk about.
Other than that, site work, location, grading, stormwater, parking, we haven’t modified that from
what (lost word), and we have the signoff letter from the engineer.
MRS. STEFFAN-Tom, have those changes been made since these Staff Notes were put
together? Because I’m just looking at Page S-7, that the lighting is excessive.
MR. HUTCHINS-Yes.
MRS. STEFFAN-So you’ve changed it since you got the Staff Notes?
MR. HUTCHINS-No.
MRS. STEFFAN-No, okay. So.
MR. HUTCHINS-That’s subsequent, what happens with lighting, and if you want to look at the
lighting plan, it’s a big grid, and the grid calculates an average, and the Code states two and a
half foot candles for commercial lighting. Where we’re at is 2.6, and the Code doesn’t say how
you apply that 2.5, 2.5 is not very much. The Code doesn’t say how you apply that. You don’t,
particularly with keeping fixture heights low, you don’t get a uniform grid. You get, it’s brighter
underneath the fixture, the downcast fixture than it is between the fixtures. I guess we’ve done
what we feel is a good job in reducing them. I’m uncomfortable going, I’m uncomfortable
reducing more. If there are certain fixtures you’d like to see removed, we can talk about taking
them out. It’s really pretty low level lighting. We have models, and if you look on the lower
corner of the lighting plan, there’s a little isometric there, and the isometric of the building is
shown. We modeled those surfaces as reflective surfaces. So reflection from anything on this
building is taken into account, and again I said we reduced the fixtures. We moved fixtures from
outbound along the Northway right of way to inbound from the original submission.
MR. HUNSINGER-So is that why you had the hot spots underneath the building?
MR. HUTCHINS-Yes, well, there’s canopy lighting, there’s concealed, compact fluorescents
underneath the walkway to light the walkway. So that’s part of the reason.
MR. HUNSINGER-Because those were the highest readings. There were some 12’s and 13’s.
MR. HUTCHINS-On the walkway, yes. Keep in mind, almost everyone is walking around those
walkways to get in to the facility. It’s not like they’re parking in front and walking straight in the
front door. It’s really going to be, that needs to be well lit.
MR. TRAVER-I was, in thinking about the application, it seems that our work in moving forward,
at least in my mind, is generally divided into, you know, the issues of Site Plan, in terms of
lighting and all that kind of thing, and then the issues of traffic, and I’d like to talk a little bit about
44
(Queensbury Planning Board 9/21/10)
the traffic, if I might, for a minute, and we have the, we’ve eliminated the left turn out. I think that
that’s commonsense, and we certainly appreciate the applicant understanding that and
complying with that. Then we have the issue, the other sort of issue in the room is the whole
connector road situation. Recognizing that fortunately it appears that with the sale of this
property we hopefully can anticipate some development, and at some point along the road, the
connector road is really going to be necessary, and I think, John, you reflected some of that
thinking in your comments, and on the one hand I can certainly understand, as I was thinking
about this situation in my mind, I can understand how, to the applicant, it’s really not fair to think
of them taking on the entire burden of creating this connector road. I know that you had given a
figure of $800,000. There’s some dispute about that, but in any case, it’s expensive. On the
other hand, I think it’s also unfair to the applicant to not have a connector road, because
certainly if I was having a restaurant there, I mean, I would anticipate and really hope for a lot of
business from shoppers from the Mall and so on, and right now I picture myself in my mind, you
know, if go to, you know, Dick’s Sports or something, and then I come out and I want to go to
that Diner to turn up the hill, I really can’t do it, not in a way that is going to be very convenient.
So it certainly is going to have, I think, an impact on their business if the connector road is there
or not there, and what I was kind of wondering and thinking about, and maybe this is a question
for Counsel, because I think that it, again, seems inevitable that at some point this connector
road is going to come to be. It’s going to become a requirement, and I’m just wondering if
there’s a way that we could have the Pyramid, the landowner, somehow, have something as
part of this package, of this property being transferred, because there’s seems to be an
understanding, even on their part, that this is necessary, along with all of the other items, that
there could be some kind of bonding or something with a time period that, if things go as we all
hope, and there is, we don’t necessarily create the connector road right at this point. It’s
certainly an option for the Diner project, and hope that there’s going to be a development rapidly
following, which would then prompt us to create the connector road, but on the other hand, if
these other things don’t happen, and to ensure, as a, literally, I suppose, as a kind of insurance,
would it be feasible to have, create some kind of bonding situation where after a period of time,
regardless of whether there’s development or not, that connector road is paid for and
constructed? Not at the cost of the applicant, but at the cost of the landowner?
MR. LAPPER-Let me respond to a number of different points that you raised. What Pyramid is
saying is that there’s already an EIS that, as a mitigation, requires that future connection, and
that was promised on what was proposed at the time as a large scale commercial development.
th
What I’ve put in writing, which should be in the record for this new application, with the July 28
letter on behalf of Pyramid, is a statement which I’ll submit it if it’s not in this packet, future
driveway connection between motel property and the Aviation Mall ring road. I’ll re-read it and
then I’ll discuss it. “Pyramid hereby acknowledges that pursuant to the FEIS Findings statement
a large commercial development on that site will require the construction of the connector road.
In the future, when a new project is proposed for that parcel, an updated traffic report will need
to be prepared and submitted to the Town Planning Board and the New York State Department
of Transportation for review. The Planning Board and the DOT will then have the authority to
determine what traffic mitigation will be necessary depending upon the size and type of the
project. Allowing the diner project to proceed without the construction of the connector road will
not affect the ability of the Planning Board and the DOT to require such connection upon future
development on the motel parcel, if warranted.” And the only reason that I’m saying if warranted
is that in the present economy, it’s unlikely that Pyramid, anytime soon, would propose a project
of the magnitude that would require a connection. When we required it, when we proposed it,
there was an up and down project that had retail, that was accessible to Penney’s and also at
the top. So it was absolutely necessary that you let cars go back and forth without having to go
back and forth onto Aviation Road. A more likely scenario, and that still is something that could
happen. It could happen five years from now, it could happen ten years from now, but what I
think is a more likely scenario is that hopefully the diner gets approved, the restaurant building
gets demolished immediately and they start building the diner. Pyramid comes in and
demolishes the hotel. The hotel parcel will be for sale, and I think a reasonable expectation of a
use for that site would be another hotel, and a 100 room hotel that would be off peak for the road
may not require that connector. So, in terms of the issue of bonding, Steve, what I want to put in
the record is that Pyramid has committed that whatever they propose, you have the right, under
the EIS, to require that, but it may or may not be warranted, depending upon the scale and
magnitude of what’s proposed.
MR. TRAVER-Right.
MR. LAPPER-If things turn around in retail, hopefully, you know, they’ll come back with
something exciting and there’ll be no problem building that road, but if it’s something like in my
example, a 100 room hotel, it may not be required. So I’m leaving you all the leverage you need
to require the traffic study, you already have the EIS, but in terms of Bob’s project and this diner,
it’s not necessary only because the traffic that’s being generated, and that’s why we submitted
the Creighton Manning letter, doesn’t warrant it, that by giving up that left, which was the
45
(Queensbury Planning Board 9/21/10)
trickiest movement, we’re talking about 62 cars, without even taking any pass by credits, the
A.M. Peak hour, 62 cars; P.M. Peak hour, 60 cars, and what Wendy calculated, from Creighton
Manning, that it’s one and a half percent of the total traffic against 26,430 vehicles per day. So,
you know, it’s an exciting project in terms of cleaning up that site, but in terms of traffic
generation, the diner really isn’t. So we’re asking you to keep all the leverage that you need for
the future when either Pyramid or a successor owner proposes a project on the back site, but in
terms of the front site, we hope you’ll decide that giving up that left turn out covers it, at this
point.
MR. TRAVER-I understand your position. I think, in terms of leverage, I mean, we have an
existing EIS, and we talked a little bit about the idea of updating that, to reflect not what was
proposed and what exists in terms of the plan, which would call for the connector road, but I
thought we wanted to avoid that if we could, instead of updating the EIS. So what I’m talking
about I think is a bit of a compromise.
MR. LAPPER-But we’d do it in the future, because we don’t know what’s going to be proposed.
There’s nothing on the table now for that back project. It’s not segmentation. There’s nothing
that Pyramid is proposing now. It’s just the idea of getting, I mean, we’ve got an applicant here
who’s ready to go, who has their financing in place, with the diner that’s designed, that will
accomplish Pyramid knocking down the building in the back, them knocking down the building in
the front, and cleaning up the site with you, in my view, having the leverage to require that
connector road if it’s warranted, the next time somebody comes along with a project, and I hope
that you’ll accept that.
MR. FORD-Jon, you have addressed the larger issue, the total site, not just the site for the diner.
Can you refresh our memory as to when that current motel is to be demolished?
MR. LAPPER-The Town asked Pyramid to submit an agreement that it would be down by the
th
30 of September. Pyramid signed that agreement and delivered it to the Town, but the Town
did not sign it and send it back because the agreement that was proposed by the Town had a
provision that said that Pyramid had to agree that it was a dangerous facility, and they wouldn’t
do that. So they agree it’s an eyesore. So they had, they submitted an agreement to the Town
this Spring. They got the demolition permit. They did the drawings, the engineering, they got a
demolition permit from the Town. They went out and bid the project. They submitted an
th
agreement to the Town that committed to getting it down by September 30, but the Town didn’t
sign that agreement.
MR. FORD-Because it lacked the wording of, that it was a dangerous?
MR. LAPPER-Yes. Right.
MR. TRAVER-So at this point there’s no agreement between the Town?
MR. LAPPER-Well, there’s no signed agreement, but there’s a commitment from Pyramid that it
has to come down. What I envision is that if we can get this thing approved tonight, which is my
hope and request, that Pyramid will immediately get going and marshal its forces and the thing
will be down in the next month. That’s what I expect.
MR. FORD-Why would that occur?
MR. LAPPER-Because Pyramid told the Town they’ll take it down.
MR. FORD-Pyramid told the Town to take it down?
MR. LAPPER-Pyramid told the Town that Pyramid would take down the motel.
MR. SIPP-But now they’re not going to.
MR. FORD-But they refuse to do that because of some wording in the contract?
MR. LAPPER-No, no, no. The Town didn’t countersign the contract and send it back because
the Town wasn’t satisfied with the language in the contract. The issue with Pyramid is that
they’re waiting for the closing of this diner sale of this property to accomplish this.
MR. FORD-I thought you said that there was wording that couldn’t be agreed upon between the
Town and Pyramid Corporation, that was the reason that it didn’t, they didn’t comply with the
th
September 30 teardown.
46
(Queensbury Planning Board 9/21/10)
MR. LAPPER-No. That’s the reason, somebody asked if there was an agreement, a written
agreement, and there’s an agreement that Pyramid has signed and has submitted to the Town
that has been signed and has not been countersigned. It is not a contract until both parties sign
th
it. So there’s not a contract for September 30, although Pyramid offered one, but the Town
didn’t sign it, the Town Board didn’t choose to sign it and send it back.
MR. FORD-So the ball is in the court of the Town Board right now, is that what you’re saying?
MR. LAPPER-Yes, but at the same time, Pyramid has committed, on the record, that they’re
going to take it down. We had a meeting on the site. They submitted the agreement saying that
they’re going to take it down. The scenario is the diner parcel gets approved, they have their
bank financing, we have a closing, and Pyramid takes down the motel in the back.
MR. SCHONEWOLF-The Town hasn’t signed the agreement. I know that, okay, but I can tell
you, as one of the persons that used that motel back there for fire training three years ago we
were told it was going to be torn down, and that’s what the owner said, and I’m not talking about
the Town. I’m talking about the owner, okay. The fact of the matter is, it should be down. It
should have been down a long time ago, and the guy has not been playing it honest with the
Town, and we all know it. We have employees here in the Town that will tell you that, that are in
the enforcement end of the business, and we also know that what he really wants to do is sell off
the front land to this gentleman so he can use that money to tear the motel down, and he’s got
Sandy Jackson ready to do it. That’s well known. So it’s a charade, and I don’t know how you
can expect us to trust somebody to put in a connector road when the person you’re talking about
doesn’t have any trust.
MR. LAPPER-The answer is because you’re not going to approve a project in the back without a
connector road. I’m just asking you to approve a project in the front.
MR. SCHONEWOLF-I don’t think there should be a project in the front without a connector road
because it sets up a very dangerous scenario.
MR. LAPPER-But it’s not needed for the diner. It’s just not needed.
MR. SCHONEWOLF-That’s your opinion. I have a different opinion. Okay. You have people
come into that diner. At least a third of them don’t live here. They’re going up the Northway. If
they can get into that diner and then look out and there’s a way that, there’s an exit road, even
though they’re supposed to go right, they look across the street and they see the entrance to the
Northway and that’s where they’re going, and it’s 10 o’clock at night and there’s nobody around
so a guy takes his 18-wheeler, shoots across the road, a student’s coming up from Queensbury
High School, and what have you got? And that’s what’ll happen.
MR. LAPPER-It’s not going to get built. I mean, the connector road, this project will die. This
project, these guys cannot build a connector road. It requires.
MR. SCHONEWOLF-No, the owner, the guy that owns the Mall should build it.
MR. LAPPER-They’re not going to do it either.
MR. SCHONEWOLF-He’s going to put a hotel there.
MR. LAPPER-No. They’re going to put it up for sale and hopefully somebody will offer to buy it
for either retail or hotel or whatever a permitted use is, but building that road requires relocation
of the major Town water main that runs through the property, that’s at the wrong elevation.
That’s why I threw out the $800,000 figure. It is just not financially feasible. I think that, based
upon the Creighton Manning letter and DOT’s correspondence in the file for this project, it’s not
necessary for the traffic generation of this motel, but it is not financially feasible. They will have
to say no to their bank commitment, say no to this project and walk away. They can’t build a
connector road, and Pyramid’s not going to build a connector road for a little 5400 square foot
diner project. They just can’t. So it could sit there for another 10 years with nothing on it, as it
has been, because there isn’t the economic justification for doing that kind of a mitigation.
MR. SCHONEWOLF-It may or it may not. If he builds the hotel, it’ll probably have to be built.
MR. LAPPER-Well, I’m not telling you that anyone’s building a hotel. I’m saying that in my mind
I could envision that as a realistic possibility.
MR. SCHONEWOLF-He’s telling other people he’s going to build a hotel.
MR. LAPPER-Who he?
47
(Queensbury Planning Board 9/21/10)
MR. SCHONEWOLF-The owner, Congel, Bob Congel, the owner of the Mall.
MR. LAPPER-Okay. I don’t know that. I just know that that’s a use that seems reasonable.
MR. TRAVER-In any case, that was the reason behind my thinking of saying rather than try to
deal with it, the whole package right now, can we have some kind of back up that let’s the
applicant, in a sense, off the hook for the obligation of getting involved with building a connector
road, and it gives us some confidence that at some point it’s being acknowledged it’s going to be
a bonding or some type of device that would call, that would make a commitment that this road
be built at some future date with a interim period to allow development on the rear part of this
site which may call for it anyway.
MR. LAPPER-But, Steve, in terms of that date, if nothing gets built in the back for 20 years, it
wouldn’t need to get built for 20 years. If that motel gets knocked down and it’s a grass lawn,
you know, I mean, so what you’re asking for is that somebody would have to finance, in order to
put up a bond, they’d have to put up security for an $800,000 obligation for something that may
or may not ever have to be built, depending upon what’s there, and what I’m saying to you is
that, when somebody comes in to you, be it Pyramid or their successor on that parcel, with a
project, whether it’s a motel or a Kosko or whatever you could do on that site, I don’t think a
Kosko would fit, but at that point you would say, in order to build X, Y Z project, you need to do a
connector road because you’re going to be generating, you know, 250 cars an hour, but this
diner is not nearly at that level, and what I’m offering you is the solution to most of our problems,
with a real applicant with a real bank commitment and a real project.
MR. TRAVER-I understand, but in my thinking about the disparate opinions about your position
that you just stated, not everyone is in agreement that the connector road isn’t needed right now.
We just have to accept that. There’s a lot of feeling that we should build the connector road
now, even though we’re just going with the front parcel with this diner project. I mean, that’s
simply the reality. So my thought was we can come up with a compromise that’s going to
perhaps mitigate some concern out there that, on the one hand, let’s see the project go through
without immediately building the connector road, and that large commitment of funding, and yet
have some reassurance that the issue itself is being addressed, if you will, in the background.
MR. LAPPER-Well, first of all, I appreciate you trying to be, to compromise and trying to come
up with a solution, because that’s certainly the right direction. In terms of this project, I just know
that it’s not going to happen, and that in 2010, in this mediocre economy, we’ve got parcels
sitting there, not collecting a lot of property tax. Certainly not generating any sales tax, and this
is a real project with what I hope you’ll agree is a real nice compromise in terms of the
architecture, and I think that there’s a lot of people in the community that are looking for us to
work this out, and this Board to approve it so that we can clean up an eyesore at the entrance to
the Town. You’ve got Hess across the street. You’ve got gas stations next door. I mean, this
is, this’ll be really positive with landscaping and what’s proposed, and I’m asking you to approve
it.
MR. HUNSINGER-Just following along Mr. Traver’s thought process, is there any vehicle at our
disposal where we could, you know, commit any future development without hamstringing the
current applicant, with respect to a connector road and/or potential traffic mitigation?
MR. HILL-You’re asking me as far as what you can require of this applicant?
MR. HUNSINGER-Yes. I mean, just following the comments that Mr. Traver started to lay out
for us. If a bond isn’t the right vehicle, is there some other vehicle that you might be aware of
that we could impose on future development without hamstringing the current applicant?
MR. HILL-I think generally speaking, what you’re looking to do is to impose a condition on the
applicant with regard to the adjacent parcel and the development of the connector road.
MR. HUNSINGER-Right.
MR. HILL-In general, case law with respect to conditions requires that the condition be
reasonably related to the application that you have in front of you, and that the condition be
intended to address some type of a deleterious or negative condition that is going to result from
the proposed project, and so I think that, in terms of where the case law would come down on
this, that it looks like it would be a tenuous relationship between the proposed project, that is to
say the diner, and this connector road, although I have to say, I’m speaking without benefit of
examining any traffic reports or anything else.
MR. TRAVER-And we have an existing EIS.
48
(Queensbury Planning Board 9/21/10)
MR. HILL-Right, and there is an existing EIS, and the existing EIS, as I understand it, was
premised on a proposed retail development of approximately 150,000 square feet or so. So it
was a project of significant magnitude.
MR. HUNSINGER-Right.
MR. HILL-And the project that you have before you seems as though it’s on a different scale
with respect to the potential traffic impacts, and it seems like it would be of lesser impact from a
traffic impact. So, I mean, you may want to get advice from a traffic engineer, you know, looking
over what’s being proposed as compared to the traffic impacts that were considered for the
proposed EIS, but with regard to the proposed condition, on the face of it, I think you would,
before imposing a condition for construction of the road or a bond or something else related to
the construction of the new road, I think you would want to establish a greater relationship
between the project that’s being proposed, that is to say the diner, and the need for the road.
MR. TRAVER-Unless, of course, it was something that was offered by the, by Pyramid.
MR. HILL-Absolutely. If Pyramid offers, that’s a completely different thing, and, it should be
noted, that I believe, if my understanding’s correct, Mr. Lapper represents Pyramid. So you can
certainly take this opportunity, if the project moves forward, to ask Mr. Lapper to formally inform
Pyramid that, in the event that the adjacent parcel is developed at some point in the future, with
a substantial development that’s going to have substantial traffic impacts, that this Board will be
looking, in the future, to have the road constructed, as a condition of any approval for, you know,
such a future development.
MR. HUNSINGER-I think you’ve heard that message, right, Jon?
th
MR. LAPPER-Yes, and I’ve committed to that in a letter dated July 28 on behalf of Pyramid.
MR. HUNSINGER-I don’t, I mean, personally I didn’t see a copy of that letter. Is that in the file?
MR. OBORNE-It should have been with your application.
MR. TRAVER-Yes, I saw it.
MR. HUNSINGER-There were two other letters, I’m sorry, I had two copies of the same letter,
th
dated July 28.
th
MR. LAPPER-July 28, addressed to you, Chris.
MR. SCHONEWOLF-So the condition of the approval, the condition of this approval, safety isn’t
enough to require them to build the road, unless we have a traffic engineer come in and tell us.
MR. HILL-I think if there’s a safety concern, that very definitely would be, but I think that our
recommendation as Counsel to the Board would be, if you believe there’s a safety concern that
would warrant the construction of the road at this time, and such a condition be placed on this
applicant for this application, that you engage the appropriate experts to factually establish that
there’s a safety concern.
MR. SCHONEWOLF-Yes, I think when we started this, that was one of the recommendations of
several people on this Board that we do that. Because what I’m really saying is, although there
are other businesses further up the road, that let people come out and make a right turn, this
business is right on the corner where people come off the Northway. Some of them don’t even
stop. They just make the right turn, and I don’t think, personally, to me, there is a safety issue
with, especially with the type of people that go to a diner. They go in, they go out at all hours of
the night, a lot of them with big trucks. You only need one mistake, and you’ve got a problem on
your hands, and I think that that’s a huge issue. Now I understand we can’t attach the
demolition of the building behind it to this application, even though they’re tied together. I mean,
that wouldn’t probably hold up, would it?
MR. HILL-I think that you’re, I believe that you’re right, that at least on the face of it, it doesn’t
seem that requiring the demolition of the building in back could be, or would be a condition that,
under the law, would be supportable.
MR. SCHONEWOLF-Right, even though we know that that’s why he’s selling the lot.
49
(Queensbury Planning Board 9/21/10)
MR. HILL-Okay, but to go back to your initial point, if safety is a concern, then engaging the
appropriate experts to establish that would be, I think your, the course of action that we, as
Counsel, would recommend that you pursue.
MR. SCHONEWOLF-I’m not a traffic engineer, but I certainly know an unsafe situation when I
see it, and that’s one. I think that would become one, and I think there’d be accidents there and
the people that are in the accidents are probably going to be kids.
MR. LAPPER-That’s called anecdotal evidence, and that’s ridiculous.
MR. SCHONEWOLF-It’s not evidence, it’s my opinion, Jon.
MR. LAPPER-Well, with all due respect, a right turn in and a right turn out are not any kind of
dangerous movements.
MR. SCHONEWOLF-Right turn in, I’m not arguing about, if DOT builds the lane and says okay.
MR. LAPPER-DOT closed off the curb cuts on this site that were closest to the Northway, and
placed the curb cut in the location where it is now. This is DOT’s location for a curb cut. We
have DOT, this is DOT’s road, and they’ve reviewed this and they’ve said that this is acceptable.
So it’s a right in, a right out.
MR. SCHONEWOLF-They said right in is acceptable. They didn’t go right out.
MR. LAPPER-No, right in, right out. They have approved this three way movement, and the left
in, you’re sitting there in front of the Hess station, on the median, waiting until there’s a gap to
make a left in. I mean, it’s not a safety issue. So if you want to engage an engineer, I have
Creighton Manning. If you want to engage another engineer to review this, they’re not going to
say that this is a safety issue for a diner. You’ve got gas stations. The Silo has full movement.
Everyone has full movement.
MR. SCHONEWOLF-I just explained that. That’s a different situation. You’ve got people going
into a diner, going to come out at all hours of the night and somebody’s going to cut across that
road because they want to continue their journey up the Northway.
MR. LAPPER-You could say that to any of these, you could say that to the gas stations that are
there.
MR. SCHONEWOLF-I could, but they’re down the road a little, they’re down the road a ways
and there’s a little time for people to stop.
MR. LAPPER-But the result of what you’re saying is that you’re going to make this go away, and
nothing’s going to be there.
MR. SCHONEWOLF-No, I’m not saying that. Stop saying that, because you’re just trying to
scare us into doing the development because it’s going to be only one.
MR. LAPPER-No, I’m not. I don’t have a client, well then you’re going to wait. It’s been 12
years that it’s been sitting there vacant.
MR. SCHONEWOLF-(Lost words) been waiting for the building to be knocked down.
MR. FORD-May I?
MR. HUNSINGER-Yes, go ahead.
MR. FORD-Jon, you’re in a unique position because you are the attorney representing the
current clients, the applicants, which also are the attorney for Pyramid Corporation. If we can
move forward with the Queensbury Diner, can you authoritatively speak on behalf of Pyramid
Corporation, giving us a date specific when the demolition will be started and completed on that
motel in the back?
MR. LAPPER-The demolition project, as I understand it, is only about a three week project, and
what I can commit, from what I’ve been told, is that it will happen before winter. If we get this
approved, it will happen before winter. It will happen in this building season.
MR. FORD-You cannot authoritatively speak?
50
(Queensbury Planning Board 9/21/10)
MR. LAPPER-I don’t have the authority to give you a date. Everyone’s been waiting to see if
this project would get approved, Pyramid.
MR. FORD-We’ve been waiting for a long time for a lot of things.
MR. LAPPER-And I know that, and we all have, but it’s still a good result. If the diner gets
approved, the buildings get knocked down, we have a new project and a clean site in the back.
MR. FORD-But we have no assurance that the latter will occur?
MR. LAPPER-Well, the Town Board has said they’re going to sue them if it doesn’t get done
very quickly. Nobody wants a fight. They want to work this out.
MR. HUNSINGER-Just to go back to my earlier comment, where I was trying to lead us, I wasn’t
here at the last meeting, so I wasn’t part of the discussion and the debate, and I guess I have
some different feelings than some of my colleagues, with respect to the right in/right out, and
also with respect to traffic mitigation required for the diner specifically, and I was thinking that if
we could separate, find some kind of an assurance for a connector road, that we could then
move forward with this project, because this project seems to be kind of hamstrung because of
the connector road discussion and debate. If you go down to Exit 15 off the Northway, most of
the property to the east of Exit 15, left hand turns aren’t allowed coming out. I mean, it’s unusual
in Queensbury. There’s only a few pieces of property where we don’t allow a left hand turn
coming out, but it’s not an unusual situation, and I think, you know, DOT’s looked at it. The
Town Engineer has looked at it, not specific traffic engineer, but has looked at it, and then the
other thing that I’m going back to is, there was a restaurant there, and if that restaurant had
been allowed to continue, and I might be sounding like the applicant a little bit, you know, we
wouldn’t be having a debate as to whether or not a connector road was needed for that
restaurant to continue. So you have similar kinds of uses, even though that use has been
discontinued. So personally I feel comfortable with the traffic mitigation that’s been proposed.
So, in my mind, if we could have separated the need for the connector road from this project and
found some assurance that that connector road would be built later if it’s needed, then I was
hoping we could move forward, but I know at least a couple of the Board members aren’t
comfortable with just the diner project without a connector road.
MR. SIPP-Right. I feel that the diner project could go forward if there were some assurances,
and we’ve been taken by Pyramid Mall more times than they’ve done anything, and I don’t think
they’re conduct is going to change. Not when it comes to dollars.
MR. HUNSINGER-Well, you know, I think the ultimate, you know, solution for this Board and for
this Town is, as Jon suggested, not approve another Site Plan, you know, I mean, I think we’ve
gone on record as saying, you know, any future use is going to require some traffic mitigation.
Maybe at that point it’s not a connector road. Maybe it’s something different. I don’t know.
MR. SIPP-I think they’d sign anything and say, yes, we’ll do that, we’ll do that next year, year
after, maybe two years, maybe 10.
MR. FORD-If there is a real motivation, as Jon has indicated, for the Pyramid Corporation to, if
they’re waiting on this approval, but perhaps Jon needs to come back with the assurance that I
was requesting before, with a date specific for demolition.
MRS. STEFFAN-Well, you know, I think that there are a lot of issues, you know, regarding the
project, and it comes down to three things for me, design standards, traffic, and then that
connector road. Now the design standards are an issue I talked about the last time, and I’ll get
back to that. The traffic issue, it is of concern for me, and since the first time the applicant came
in front of us, I was in favor of a traffic study. I, personally, don’t believe that the applicant
should have to do the traffic study. I think the Pyramid Corporation should do the traffic study,
because it is to update the EIS, and I do believe that a Supplemental EIS is necessary. There
are several conditions that have changed since that 2001 SEQRA and Findings Statement were
issued by the Town Board and by the Planning Board. The bridge over the Northway has
expanded. The Queensbury School has expanded, and you know that some of the students will
be walking across if this diner is approved. You know they’ll be walking across to that area. So
we’ve got the bridge expansion. We’ve got the Queensbury School expansion. The traffic
patterns have increased significantly since 2001. The Town ‘s grown significantly since 2001,
and so those, I think those are all very key issues. The other thing is that the applicant has
provided Creighton Manning’s trip numbers, which I have some questions about, but the other
thing that I don’t think that takes into consideration is the seasonal variations that occur in our
Town during the summer and during the holidays because we have Aviation Mall right there,
and, so, you know, when it comes to traffic, I still don’t believe we have enough current
information in order to make the best decision, and I think that our responsibility, as Planning
51
(Queensbury Planning Board 9/21/10)
Board members, is to make sure that the impact of this particular development does not create a
hazard, and that can be a driving hazard. It can be a safety hazard, but it can also be an
inconvenience, you know, hazard or standard. We know that that’s a dysfunctional intersection
in our Town. Anybody who’s driven up that road anywhere between 3:30 in the afternoon and
6:00 o’clock knows what it’s like to be stuck in bumper to bumper traffic, and I understand that
there’s been a traffic mitigation suggestion that there’s no left hand turns. Folks will try to
deviate from the standard. I get that, but we also live in a tourist area. A lot of our business
base is tourism, and so folks getting off the Northway to come to the diner are going to go and
have a nice meal, and then they’re going to go out and they’re going to have to make a right
hand turn. Where do they go if they’ve never been here before?
MR. LAPPER-They go to the traffic light at the Friendly’s and they can go into the Mall and turn
around.
MRS. STEFFAN-But, Jon, do they know that? If they’ve never been here before.
MR. LAPPER-People know how to drive, Gretchen. They make a right at the traffic light.
MRS. STEFFAN-I understand that, but what we’ve done to entrance to the Aviation Mall is we’ve
got turns and is it reasonable to expect that someone will go into the Aviation Mall in Friendly’s,
take a right in, and then do a U turn to come back out?
MR. LAPPER-Yes.
MRS. STEFFAN-That’s reasonable to expect? I’m not, as a Planning Board member, I’m not so
sure of that.
MR. LAPPER-Gretchen, I appeal to you. I always view you as very reasonable. I look at my
project very seriously when you’re opposed to it, and I’ve had a hard time understanding why
you’ve been so opposed to this, because there are so many positives for the Town in cleaning
up this site, but in terms of traffic, some of what you just said, the fact that the five lane bridge is
there is a traffic mitigation measure. That’s a positive in terms of being able to handle the
volume of traffic that’s here. The Queensbury School enrollment has gone down since 2000.
It’s gone down one percent a year for at least the last five years that I’m aware of. In terms of
the traffic on that road, it’s a DOT road, and they’re saying that it’s fine. So, I mean, again, these
are anecdotal, but making a right turn in, a right turn out with no left turn with a pork chop, I
mean, we’ve really done what we need to do, and we can do all sorts of studies. These guys
can go away and hopefully somebody else will come back and do something else, but I think
that, in the interest of the community, getting this done and cleaning up the entrance to our
Town, what I’m offering on the table is all good, and I wish you were looking at it differently.
MRS. STEFFAN-But I’m trying to look at it from my point of view, from my experience on the
Board, and also after spending time with the Comprehensive Land Use Plan, and what we’re
trying to accomplish. So I’m just, you know, I’ve looked at this a lot of ways, and I still feel pretty
strongly that the 2001 Environmental Impact Statement that was put together was based on
information that was presented in 2001. 2010, we have a much different Town than we did back
then, and so the whole issue with the ring road, you know, maybe it’s not necessary for this,
these applicants to make sure that there’s a ring road, but some of the things that you said a
little bit earlier in your introduction was that, what happens if the parcel behind is a smaller hotel,
and it is the Pyramid’s intention that they will never put a ring road in, according to the original
EIS? I don’t know that, and that may not even be relevant, but what is relevant is what’s
happening with that traffic pattern at Exit 19, and, you know, for me, I don’t want to approve a
project that’s going to cause a lot of problems, and we’re going to look back in 10 years and say,
what were we thinking.
MR. LAPPER-Exit 19 functions fine right now, with the new bridge. Sure there’s congestion a
couple of times a day, but it functions fine. People go slowly when there’s congestion.
MR. KREBS-Can I ask Counsel a question?
MR. HUNSINGER-Yes. Go ahead.
MR. KREBS-I’m looking at this e-mail from the DOT that says they agree that actually you could
have access going out both ways, but their preference was the left hand turn exiting, I mean, no
left hand turn exiting, which you have agreed to, but if we were to reject this, based on this traffic
concern, and DOT has said they agree that it’s an acceptable pattern, are we not backed into
the same thing that we did with the other restaurant that’s now being built, after it went through?
MR. TRAVER-Well, the applicant has already stipulated to those conditions.
52
(Queensbury Planning Board 9/21/10)
MR. KREBS-Yes, I know, that’s what I’m saying, but if you’re rejecting this application based on
traffic, and DOT has said they feel that the traffic pattern is acceptable.
MR. TRAVER-They were only addressing the issue of the curb cut.
MR. SCHONEWOLF-That’s all that we asked.
MR. TRAVER-And we have an EIS in place for the issue of the connector road. That’s the
problem. The curb cut the applicant has graciously said, fine, we will, you know, no left turn.
That issue really is, at least in my mind, and maybe I’m alone on that, but that, the issue of the
curb cut I think is resolved. They’ve also offered to accept the concept that at some point there
might need to be a connection with the exit ramp on the Northway. So that chunk of that whole
traffic issue is, you know, we’ve already sort of dealt with that. What’s left is the existing plan
that calls for the connector road with development on this property that belongs to Pyramid,
which includes the property that the applicant wants to purchase from Pyramid. So we either,
and this is the same discussion we had the first time we looked at the application, you know, we
either don’t require the connector road. We require the connector road, or we update the EIS
information, which is what Gretchen is talking about, to find out that, you know, maybe the, as
the applicant has stated, the connector road isn’t needed, but that’s not really based on an EIS.
It’s based on, you know, their proposal. So that’s kind of where we’re at. I was hoping that we
could, I and I think Chris had mentioned the idea that perhaps a compromise might be to
stipulate that the connector road is part of some future development, and because of concerns
about agreements and, you know, sort of holding Pyramid to the fire, that there be some kind of
bonding or some mechanism, not that we would do as a condition, as advised by Counsel, but
perhaps in an effort to try to move this forward, that it would be offered by Pyramid, which is
really just sort of adding, I think, a paragraph to what Jon has already said, that at some point
this is going to be, but it doesn’t sound like that’s going to work either. So, you know, we’re kind
of caught in a (lost words) loop, I guess.
MR. FORD-Jon, you’re good at reading us and looking for solutions. Don’t you see a way to
proceed with this, at a future meeting, after you have made some additional contacts and so
forth with your clients?
th
MR. LAPPER-What I gave you on the 28 was I sent this to Syracuse and Pyramid reviewed it
and authorized me to provide this which says they would submit the traffic supplement when a
project is proposed in the back, and that if the DOT and the Town decided that the connection
was warranted by that project, that they understand they have to do it. So that is something that
didn’t just come from me. Pyramid reviewed it and they agreed to it, because I felt that you
needed that commitment in the record to try and get the diner project through. So they’re aware
of it, and they’ve agreed to that. So I feel that you have all the leverage that you need. It was
said on the record that the next time a project comes in, you know, the only qualification is if the
project is a small traffic generator. Then, you know, because it’s not the 150,000 square feet
that was originally proposed, because life has changed unfortunately since the early part of the
last decade. Hopefully retail comes back. Hopefully it’s a big project and it does require the
connector road and there’s jobs and sales tax, but if it doesn’t, so it’s a qualification only
because I can’t tell what the future’s going to be, and I only gave the example of the hotel as an
example of something that would be, you know, a sizeable project but a low traffic generator. If
it’s retail, it is most likely going to require the connector road, and I’m not saying that it won’t be,
and Pyramid’s saying that it will be, but I can’t say absolutely that they’re going to do it on a
date, because I don’t know what that project’s going to be, because nobody expected, when
they bought this property, in 1997 or 1998, that we were going to be sitting here, 12 or 13 years
later, and it was going to be sitting there abandoned. That’s not a good thing, and I can’t read
the future, but everyone understands that if there’s a sizeable retail project, that connection’s
going to be required, and you have all the leverage because you’re not going to approve that
project. It just happens that we’re coming to you now with a 5400 square foot diner that’s a
small traffic generator, but it accomplishes knocking down all the buildings, cleaning up the site,
and making the entrance to the Town look better. So I’m hoping you’ll take this as a
compromise with that commitment in the record. That’s all I can offer you because we don’t
know what the next project is going to be, or when it’s going to be, and I’d certainly like to work
this out.
MR. FORD-I think the ball’s in your court.
MR. LAPPER-If that’s the case, then I’ll, you have two meetings next week. I’ll ask that, I’ll go
back to Pyramid and see if I can get any more definitive. I don’t know how much more definitive
it’s going to be than that, but I’ll try to come back in a week, if you table it, with a, with some
statement from Pyramid and hope that it’s sufficient. Again, I’ve got Bob with his lender ready to
go on this project, and we’d really like to accomplish this.
53
(Queensbury Planning Board 9/21/10)
MR. FORD-So would I.
MR. LAPPER-Thank you.
MR. TRAVER-Yes. I think we’re all in agreement this is definitely a positive for everyone
concerned, but I think we need to, and again, not just in terms of, you know, I was looking at
numbers of traffic. I think for the applicant, in trying to make a success of this business, I think
it’s hard to imagine that in your discussions with the applicant about the issue of the connector
road, at some point, wouldn’t you have said, boy, wouldn’t it be great if that connector road was
there and all those people that are going shopping could just zip right up to the diner? I mean,
it’s got to have a huge impact on the potential business of the diner.
MRS. STEFFAN-Well, certainly the DOT in their, in the correspondence that’s here, identify in
th
their Tuesday, July 27 correspondence, they have several points, actually they have eight of
them, but one of the points, we suggest that the Planning Board consider including a condition
as part of the Site Plan approval that ensures that if and when future development warrants, the
envisioned connection to the Aviation Mall ring road, that at that road the current proposed direct
connection to Route 254 be re-evaluated and any necessary additional turn restrictions that may
be deemed appropriate are implemented by the applicant. So, you know, the DOT did give us
some direction. I mean, they’re not giving it a thumbs up and anything goes. They provided
direction.
MR. LAPPER-And they’ll agree to that. They can’t build it, if Pyramid builds it, they’ll agree to
look at that, look at those movements. I don’t think we’d ever give up a right in or right out, but
we’d look at it at the time, and DOT would require that anyway.
MRS. STEFFAN-Well, before we leave this, I think that we need to talk about design standards,
and I know that the applicant has added some stone facade on the front, but it’s still, the design
does not meet the intent or the description of the Zoning Code. Now, you know, I hope I’m not
the only voice on the Planning Board that has issues with this. I mentioned during the last
meeting, we spent many years putting together the Comp Plan and the Zoning Code, and this
design does not meet the standards, and there are times when the Zoning Code can be a little
bit gray, but in this particular situation, the Zoning Code is very specific on what’s acceptable
and what is not, and so if we approve the design as it has been presented, we will be in defiance
of the Zoning Code, on many counts. Has anybody looked at that and evaluated it?
MR. SCHONEWOLF-Yes. We discussed that last meeting. I think you brought it up, and
nothing’s change.
MRS. STEFFAN-I did, but folk have talked about traffic tonight, not about design.
MR. TRAVER-Yes, I mean, it’s definitely an issue, and we have discussed it, and I think in view
of, you know, I mean, the 800 pound gorilla in the room is this whole issue of traffic. I think if we
could get through that, these other issues can be addressed, and the applicant, I think that they
have already, in their submission of the new architecture, I think have made a significant
progress toward where they were at. I mean, I know that not everyone agrees with that, but it
certainly is movement, and I really think that those issues, though significant, are much easier to
deal with in the context of not having to deal with the traffic. I mean, if we can just get past the
darn traffic issue. I think all of this other stuff, I mean, we have landscaping that can address
some of this and so on. I think that we can vary, because we’re all on the same page and we
want to see this move forward, and I think that those issues can be dealt with. The real problem
is the issue of this big piece of property, a chunk of which is now going to have this diner and
how we deal with, you know, the connector road, not only in terms of safety that’s been
discussed here, but again, my concern remains with the applicant who’s coming in to Town and
trying to make a go of a business, and I’m thinking of, you know, my own personal, if I want to go
to a diner, am I going to want to deal with getting in and out of there, as opposed to, you know,
maybe J.D. says, well, let’s go to the Mall and go shopping and I can say, hey, great, we can go
to that new diner. We won’t have to deal with, you know, battling on Aviation Road. It’s just
going to have a huge impact, economically, on their chances of being successful in the
restaurant business, which, from what I understand, is one of the toughest that there is. So if we
could do it somehow, and yet, on the other hand, it’s not really fair for them to be burdened. It’s
not feasible for this project, for them to be burdened with the entire expense of building this
connector road. So, I mean, I just remain hopeful that somehow we can come up with
something that will make us all feel comfortable that, you know, maybe we don’t need it right
now, but when the time comes, we’ve got a plan in place that’s already been prior approved and
agreed to, that it will happen.
54
(Queensbury Planning Board 9/21/10)
MRS. STEFFAN-And traffic is an issue, and that’s been brought up, but what I don’t want to do
is send the applicant away with false expectations that once we get through the traffic that, you
know, we’re okay on the design standards. Every time they come back here the cash register
rings, and so, you know, if we’ve got issues, they better be out on the table so that the applicant
can try to deal with them. Otherwise.
MR. SIPP-I have one. Let’s have a color put into the sign. What color are these letters in
Queensbury?
MR. HUTCHINS-Blue.
MR. SIPP-Blue? All right. What color is the neon border on it?
MR. LAPPER-On the sign, on the freestanding? Would be blue or gold.
MR. HUTCHINS-I’m sorry, are you referring to the letters on the building?
MR. LAPPER-No, the freestanding sign. It’s not neon. I have that somewhere, if you don’t
have it.
MR. SIPP-Well, let’s not worry about it tonight, but I would definitely need the.
MRS. STEFFAN-You know, Don, you’re talking about tubing, but the Zoning Code specifically
talks about the exterior of the buildings, and façade colors shall be low reflectant, subtle, neutral
or earth tone colors. B. The use of high intensity colors, metallic colors, black or fluorescent
colors is prohibited. C. Building trim and accent areas may feature brighter colors, including
primary colors, but neon tubing shall not be an acceptable feature for building trim or accent
areas, and, I mean, that’s printed right in the Zoning Code.
MR. LAPPER-There’s no neon tubing. It’s LED. It’s not neon.
MRS. STEFFAN-LED and neon, are they synonymous?
MR. LAPPER-No. They’re totally different technologies.
MRS. STEFFAN-It is the same application. It’s just a different, it’s a different word.
MR. LAPPER-They chose LED to comply with the Code. This is only supposed to look like a
diner.
MRS. STEFFAN-But, in my mind, the Zoning Code, when I’m reading it, is telling us that they
didn’t want, the intent of the Zoning Code is that we didn’t want a metallic building in the area.
Now, if I’m misinterpreting this, if I’m totally off base, you’ve got to let me know. I spent three
years on this process. Some of you were involved with it, too. So I’m not trying to be difficult.
I’m just trying to apply my responsibility as a Planning Board member to support the Zoning
Code, and you guys are here, too.
MR. LAPPER-I could go through the general design guidelines and tell you that, in terms of
complimenting what’s there, and again, four gas stations, one on the other side of the Northway,
the rooftops, to avoid attention to the mechanicals, upgrade street scapes, unified site,
pedestrian activity, street trees, pedestrian scale lighting, I mean, I can go through the list, too,
and tell you everything that complies.
MRS. STEFFAN-Right, and the landscape, you know, I don’t have any issues with the
landscaping. The lighting has to be tweaked. We talked about that before, and, you know, as
far as ingress, egress, we’ve been talking about that, but for example, if this was proposed on
Exit 18 on Main Street, it would be an absolute no, because the design standards are very
specific. Here, at Exit 19, they’re talking about, there are specific things, Townwide, that are
acceptable and are not.
MR. LAPPER-The design standards don’t really apply to the Enclosed Shopping Center district
because in the Commercial districts, the following list includes all commercial districts within the
Town of Queensbury, Commercial Intensive, Commercial Moderate, Office and Neighborhood
Commercial. It doesn’t say Enclosed Shopping Center. I’m looking on Page 116. It’s not on the
list, but again, we’re still trying to compromise to come up with something.
MRS. STEFFAN-Are you talking about design standards?
55
(Queensbury Planning Board 9/21/10)
MR. LAPPER-Yes. I mean, the Design Standards section, Article Seven, Specific Design
Standards, Districts, and there’s nothing in the Commercial district that is for an Enclosed
Shopping Center. Regardless, we heard you last time and came back with the stone as a way
to soften the look. The colors have been changed. These guys, they want to build a Greek
diner so when you get off the Northway you don’t think it’s another Adirondack restaurant,
because that’s what they do, and they’re successful with it, but at the same time, they’re, you
know, everything that you’ve asked us we’ve come back with to soften this and to make it look
more acceptable.
MRS. STEFFAN-And based on what I’m reading from the Zoning Code, I mean, I know the
restaurant will be great, but it’s just, according to the design standards in the Zoning Code, I’m
not seeing that that’s an acceptable design.
MR. KREBS-And it says architectural elements, this is Section C-1 Districts, South Route 9,
West Route 254, East 254. Couldn’t be more specific.
MR. LAPPER-But if you look at the beginning, where it says Specific Design Standards,
Districts, Commercial District, and it doesn’t say ESC, on Page 116.
MR. KREBS-Yes, but if you go on to Page 119, Section C.
MR. TRAVER-I don’t know if it would be instructive perhaps to even poll the Board with regards
to the very general design of the building, but we are talking about a diner. I mean, with all due
respect to the Zoning and everything that’s intended, I think we all understand, the reason for
that, and I think we understand the reason that they have this particular design in mind. My
feeling with regard to the architecture, with the modifications that they’ve made with the
exception of relatively minor things like landscaping, possibly some lighting issues, I’m not
uncomfortable with what they’re proposing generally.
MRS. STEFFAN-Even though it doesn’t fit the Zoning Code?
MR. TRAVER-Even though it doesn’t fit the Zoning Code. Yes. My concern is I think that this
can, with relatively, relatively small adjustments, not a total re-design of the building, but
relatively small adjustments, that can be easily worked out, can be a workable project. It can be,
again, landscaping can help, screen it a little bit, and yet make it enough visible to be clear what
it is to the traveling public and that kind of thing. I really think that, even though it’s an issue and
even though it’s in, you know, it contradicts the Code and what we would perhaps have
preferred to be at this particular location, I think that that pales in comparison to the issues of the
connector road and the traffic. I think if we can just get through that, they’ve clearly indicated
that they will work with us on lighting and these various other things, and we can work, I’m
confident we can work all that out, but maybe polling the other Board members, maybe other
Board members disagree.
MR. SIPP-Steve, we don’t even know what the lighting is, what color it is, how much of it there
is.
MRS. STEFFAN-Well, and we’d be holding this applicant to a different standard than others,
and I understand that there’s gas stations there. We know they’re ugly. That’s why some of the
Sign Code has been changed in our Town, because of the red LED lighting in that one gas
station, but we’ve got, you know, the Silo on a diagonal. We’ve got the motel that’s next to that,
that just went through a whole Site Plan Review over a two year period, and their colors were
selected based on the Code, and so here, right on the same corridor, we’ve got people we’re
holding to the standard, and then we have a new application, and you don’t want to hold them to
the standard. So what goes? I mean, we can’t go back and change the ugly stuff that’s there.
We know that. That’s the reason why we went through this process for three years to change
the Zoning Code and the Comp Plan. So if we did that for nothing than, we’ve wasted a lot of
time and a lot of money.
MR. TRAVER-I understand. I understand you have a valid point. My position is not that I don’t
want to hold them to the standards. I would love to have it be, you know, this big log cabin thing
would be great. I think that would be fine, but on the other hand, I think that this is something
that is worthy of our effort to try to move it forward in some fashion, and it’s my, and I’m certainly
no artist, I mean, my wife J.D. can tell you that in terms of colors and all that stuff I don’t have a
clue, but the new rendering that’s been submitted, to me, is a big improvement over what they
initially came with, and it might be tweaked a little better without giving them the message that
they’ve got to completely come up with a totally new design. That’s all I’m saying. I’m not
disagreeing with anything that you’re saying, Gretchen, I agree that the zoning is what the
zoning is, but I think that this is a special circumstance, in a variety of ways, and I’m open to
trying to be open-minded and trying to try to extend a hand to try to accept the elements here,
56
(Queensbury Planning Board 9/21/10)
and I’m hoping that Pyramid will do likewise by understanding our deep concern about the long-
term commitment of this connector road, and just hope that we can move forward in that context,
but again, that’s just.
MR. LAPPER-Well, we really appreciate hearing that, and we just want to work it out, and we’re
willing to compromise. I just want to point out, and again, the architecture, we’re willing to
continue to compromise, but 7.4, 179-7-040, 7.4, that Page 119 that I was being referred to, is
Subsection C, Architectural Elements that design district Route 9 South, but the heading that
that’s under is Commercial Intensive and Commercial Moderate zones, and we’re not in either of
those zones. We’re in the ESC zone here. So I don’t believe that those guidelines apply, but
nevertheless, we’re still willing to do what we’ve proposed and to keep talking about it.
MRS. STEFFAN-But under Design Standards Architectural Elements, there are very specific
design standards, and that starts the Chapter.
MR. LAPPER-No, but it doesn’t. It starts, if you look, the page before, 7.4, that is under, that’s a
C. Architectural Elements is C. B is design objectives, and A is design districts, but those are
all under 7.4 Commercial Intensive and Commercial Moderate zones, and we’re not in one of
those zones.
MR. HUNSINGER-And I’m not trying to make your argument, but if you go to Page 115, it says
the following general design standards shall be integrated to all Commercial districts.
MR. LAPPER-Yes, that’s what I read before.
MR. HUNSINGER-We even go on to define what all Commercial districts are defined as, and it
doesn’t include yours.
MR. LAPPER-Right, and it doesn’t include, right. So I don’t believe they apply.
MRS. STEFFAN-Are you talking the Route 9 North district?
MR. LAPPER-Yes, because it’s Commercial. It’s CI and CM zones. It’s not ESC.
MR. HUNSINGER-See, I guess in my mind, and I sat on the Comp Plan with Gretchen when we
talked about design standards, and, you know, we spent a lot of time talking about design
standards, and I’m struggling with this one, partly because my personal feeling is I like the
design, I really do, and I think I said that at the very first meeting. There’s a lot of things about
your site plan that I really like that I think are very well done. I think the landscaping is well
done. The green space that’s out in front of the property, you’re removing some paving, you’re
putting the parking on the side and out back. I mean, those are all great things that, you know,
we do have in the Comp Plan that, you know, we try to strive for. In my mind, design standards,
we do have the preamble for design standards, and the preamble talks about, you know,
supermarkets, fast food franchises and gas stations, with their, you know, monotone designs,
where, you know, the corporate design walks in and says, boom, here’s our standard corporate
design, we’re not going to deviate from it, and in my mind, that’s why we had the design
standards was to move away from that. We talk about community character. To me, community
character is providing something that’s unique, and that’s why I like this because I think, to me,
this is unique. Now, you know, we can debate whether or not it fits into that neighborhood, you
know, for hours, but to me why this meets the design standards is because it is unique. It’s not a
standard corporate identity. It’s different. It certainly is more than, it’s more attractive than the
gas stations that are right adjacent to it, and I’m not picking on gas stations, you know, we work
hard to try to make those attractive, too, but I am still struggling with some of the elements along
the lines of what Steve was saying. I think there are some things that we could do to tweak the
design.
MR. LAPPER-We’re here to tweak. We just need to get this thing approved.
MR. HUNSINGER-But, personally, I don’t think we need to throw the design out.
MR. LAPPER-Okay. Thank you.
MR. HUNSINGER-But I think, you know, that’s the kind of analysis and thought process that we
all need to go through, and, you know, we all come from different perspectives, and that’s what
makes this Board good is because we don’t think the same, you know, we can think differently,
we start from different prepositions, and that’s what makes this Board good is that we do have
differences of opinion.
MR. OBORNE-Can I make a comment?
57
(Queensbury Planning Board 9/21/10)
MR. HUNSINGER-Keith.
MR. OBORNE-If I could. One thing I would suggest is, Jon is right, there is an inconsistency in
the Code, but there is no inconsistency with the use table. It does state that Commercial
allowed uses in Commercial districts, and it breaks down the zones, and Enclosed Shopping
Center is in that zone, and it does not state Enclosed Shopping Centers are in the Commercial
Intensive or Commercial Moderate zones. I totally want to agree, and, you know, there’s an
inconsistency there. One person can make that clear, and that can go away, and that would be
Craig, Craig Brown, the Zoning Administrator, but regardless of that, the Board still has to be
comfortable with the design, regardless.
MR. HUNSINGER-Right.
MRS. STEFFAN-Well, and even the Route 9 North district, timber frame structures, unique, and
by the way, I wasn’t the one who said the Adirondack theme. I never said that, and I think that
things can be unique, but even a silver diner, that can be, you know, silver diner option six that
you can buy, and it’s great in a metro area, but it doesn’t fit with our, you know, the intro to our
Comp Plan and what we were trying to create. So that’s why I’m focusing on the Zoning Code.
MR. LAPPER-That’s Montray, that’s north of Montray, Route 9 North, under 7.4A. I’m sorry,
Montray Road, it’s Route 9 starting at Montray and going north. So that’s north of this site.
MRS. STEFFAN-Okay. So you said 115. Is it 116?
MR. OBORNE-What you want to do is you want to go to 179-7-050, which is Page 111, because
it distinctly states Route 254 Quaker Road West District located between Northway Exit 19 and
Ridge Road. That’s all of Quaker Road to Ridge Road, are subject to these design guidelines.
It does not state, as Jon succinctly stated, MDR, Enclosed Shopping Center, and he’s got a valid
point there.
MR. LAPPER-But we’re still willing to work this out and make this better and satisfy you.
MRS. STEFFAN-Even at the back of the Zoning Code, it’s still talking about natural expressions,
you know, meticulous craftsmanship, natural finishes, large windows, you’ve got that, natural
exterior elements.
MR. LAPPER-I’ve got some of that.
MRS. STEFFAN-You’ve got some of it, but it’s just, it’s very metro, and I understand that that’s
the purpose of a diner, of a silver diner, but it’s not congruent, in my mind, with what the Zoning
Code requires. I didn’t write the Zoning Code. I was just, I was one little person in part of a very
big process, but part of my role is to assure that applications adhere to the Zoning Code. So I’m
only one member of seven, but I also, I think that that’s a big issue, that and the traffic issue are
the two big issues to overcome.
MR. OBORNE-I do want to remind the Board that there is a public hearing.
MR. HUNSINGER-Yes, thank you.
MR. FORD-Jon, do you have a sense of what it’s going to take to get the required yeses? You
do, don’t you?
MR. LAPPER-I certainly study this and try hard, as you’ve said, to get the Board what it needs
so I can get an approval, and I’m a little bit, I will go back to Pyramid. I don’t know, I mean, I’ve
heard what you heard, I know, in some ways it’ll be easier to get a date certain on the
demolition, because that’s going to happen immediately, and the issue about the back really is
related to what’s going to be proposed there, but I hope I can at least come back and say that if
X is built there, we know we have to do the connector road, you know, just something, tell me.
Tell me what I’m missing.
MR. FORD-Either date specific or make it contingent upon the approval of this project.
MR. LAPPER-But what if nothing’s built back there for 20 years? You can’t expect them to build
the road without a project.
MR. SCHONEWOLF-Well, he controls that. We don’t.
MR. LAPPER-But it’s the economy.
58
(Queensbury Planning Board 9/21/10)
MR. SCHONEWOLF-Well, he’s told people he’s going to build the hotel, Jon.
MR. LAPPER-But then again, if there’s a hotel project that’s right in front of you for site plan and
you can decide whether it needs a connector road.
MR. SCHONEWOLF-I think we need the connector road for this project more than we do for the
hotel.
MR. LAPPER-I think that if you got a traffic engineer, they wouldn’t agree with that.
MR. SCHONEWOLF-Well, get a traffic engineer.
MR. LAPPER-I will if I have to, if there’s time.
MRS. STEFFAN-Well, if the Planning Board is feeling that traffic is an issue, then they’re going
to have to specifically tell the applicant what they’re looking for regarding traffic. Cathi Radner
had advised us last time that if there are any new or different potential environmental concerns
or impact not identified, then we have to identify what they are, and anything that may have
been known or wasn’t contemplated back then, that we can identify now, and that would be the
trigger for a newer, revised Environmental Impact Statement, but if we can’t identify those, then
we don’t go there. She did recommend that we pass a resolution determining that a
Supplemental EIS is needed or not needed, and suggested that we look at the Findings
Statements from the Town Board and the Planning Board and modify them. That’s what was
specifically in her recommendations.
MR. SCHONEWOLF-Yes, I read that letter. It’s what we’ve got to do.
MR. LAPPER-This is a tiny project compared to what we were talking about. I mean, an
Environmental Impact Statement is a 12 month process. It’s certainly not something that this
applicant can do.
MRS. STEFFAN-We have direction. We just have to decide what to do.
MR. HUNSINGER-Right. Yes.
MR. TRAVER-I’m recalling, Jon, that when we first talked about the no right turn, as I recall the
original proposal with the curb cut was that we would allow a left hand turn for two years, I
believe, and then we would take another look at it. Right?
MR. LAPPER-That’s right.
MR. TRAVER-And we ended up, rather than going through all that, we ended up saying, well,
okay, we’ll, the applicant I should say, said, fine, we won’t deal with the left hand turns, we’ll be
right only. Can we do something similar, and I know I’m stuck on this bonding or whatever it is
issue again, but could we do something similar with the bonding of the connector road? Could
we say that, you know, we will set up a mechanism where such a road is, well, not paid for, and
I’d leave it up to you and Counsel to come up with the language, but could we have something in
there that says, you know, we’re going to set aside some capital or some assets that will cover
the construction of that connector road, if in two years after this project is completed, there’s no
development, no sales, I don’t believe that’s going to happen, but if that were to happen, then
that commitment would go away, pending some new project coming along? Am I making any
sense with that?
MR. LAPPER-Sure.
MR. TRAVER-That way we have something, some commitment, some bonding to cover that
connector road, should it be needed, and at least I would see some comfort in seeing that out
there. On the other hand, it’s not an open-ended commitment on Pyramid’s part.
MR. LAPPER-So a two year bond for something like $800,000.
MR. TRAVER-Correct.
MR. LAPPER-And if there was no project proposed in two years, the bond.
MR. TRAVER-It goes away.
MR. LAPPER-That’s possible.
59
(Queensbury Planning Board 9/21/10)
MR. TRAVER-I guess I would ask Counsel and other Board members what they think of yet
proposal number twenty-seven.
MRS. STEFFAN-Well, that would certainly motivate Pyramid not to do anything for two years.
MR. FORD-Exactly. It puts them on the back burner.
MR. TRAVER-I think it would be the opposite. I think that once, I can envision that when this
diner goes up, they’re going to be in a big hurry to sell that and get something moving.
MR. LAPPER-Pyramid hasn’t sat there for 12 years because they wanted to leave it vacant. I
mean, we’ve been back here three times with projects, and the economy’s stalled, and they paid
whatever the County Clerk records show, five and a half million for those parcels.
MR. TRAVER-Right.
MR. LAPPER-They’re paying interest on the financing. It’s not that they want to leave it vacant.
They saw it as valuable property. They’d like to do a project if there’s a project to be done.
MR. TRAVER-Right, and if in two years this goes away and in three years they come back with
a big project, we haven’t given up anything. We can still evaluate the connector road. This is
just a stop gap.
MR. LAPPER-That’s constructive.
MR. TRAVER-This is a stop gap. I’m just trying to come up with some way that we can move
this damn thing forward, you know, and I know the sign issues and so on, but this connector
road just seems to be a big issue, and if we can just somehow set that aside with some comfort
that it’s being addressed in some fashion, without making unreasonable demands on either the
applicant or perhaps Pyramid, maybe this is yet another way that we could do that, that we’ll
take a look at it for a two year window. They put some assets aside and say, okay, we
acknowledge, we hope we build it because we want development there, I’m sure they’re going to
want to do that. If they say, well, you know, we’re going to, you know, not utilize that money for
two years just to try to get something by the Planning Board, I don’t think so. In two years and
one month, we’re right back where we started. They bring in a project, we still can take a look at
that impact, but this gives us some, a two year insurance policy. I hope. I mean, I’m sorry, does
that make any sense at all? Is that something that is feasible?
MR. HILL-Well, it seems like you’re offering a potential way for the project to move forward, and
certainly if Pyramid wants to agree to that and wants to offer that, in connection with its
application, that certainly would be appropriate for Pyramid to offer that. If, on the other hand,
you’re asking me whether or not, as a Board, you can require it as a condition?
MR. TRAVER-No, I’m not asking that. No.
MR. HILL-That would be a different question, but Pyramid can certainly offer it, and there’s
absolutely no problem with that at all.
MR. LAPPER-So I think a letter of credit would be what we would be talking about, $800,000
letter of credit, and I will quickly discuss that and see if I can get authorization for that. I think it’s
intended as a constructive way to move this along, and I appreciate it.
MR. TRAVER-I hope.
MR. FORD-And?
MR. LAPPER-And you still have all the other stuff that you’re going to.
MR. FORD-The demolition.
MR. HUNSINGER-Well, the demolition, that’s the other question.
MR. FORD-Must be addressed.
MR. LAPPER-Yes.
MR. FORD-Specifically.
60
(Queensbury Planning Board 9/21/10)
MR. LAPPER-I was waiting to have that discussion tomorrow. In any event, so.
MR. TRAVER-I mean, this has been such an issue, I can see us all with hard hats watching
some of these buildings come down the day that this starts.
MR. LAPPER-Yes, all of us.
MR. SCHONEWOLF-They’ve already talked to Sandy Jackson about taking it down, they just
haven’t done it.
MR. LAPPER-Okay.
MR. HUNSINGER-One of the things we haven’t done is there is a public hearing this evening.
Is there anyone in the audience who wanted to address the Board on this project? We have at
least one member. Good evening.
PUBLIC HEARING OPENED
FRED TROELSTRA
MR. TROELSTRA-Good evening. Fred Troelstra, partner at The Silo, and thanks for the great
dialogue. I want to state that it definitely is very informative, and I won’t take a lot of time. I
know it’s getting, the hours are waning here. I just want to share my opinion about the emphasis
on cleaning up this site. There’s a lot of discussion. I know Mr. Lapper has expressed this
vividly, that this is an opportunity for the Town to go forward and clean up an eyesore. My
opinion, I’m just going on record, is that building that is the former Seven Steers really doesn’t
appear to be that big of an eyesore, as a neighboring property owner. Now if it’s going to go to a
silver diner, I have mixed emotions about that. So, again, I mean, with all due respect, Mr.
Lapper, the big part is the motel. I didn’t hear much from the Board members whether they
found that Seven Steers building to be an eyesore. Separately, I find it difficult to wrap my mind
around the fact that this diner can go in. There’s big dollars being considered here, I think. I
don’t know the full amounts, but Desantis’ sold that for two mil. I think it’s on the books for a
million and a half, it’s assessed that. I don’t know what it’s getting sold for, but to raze a
building, put a new one up, 5400 square feet of restaurant, or diner, there’s some pretty
significant numbers there. I can also share with the Board, if they want, as there’s some
discussion about the traffic. From our experience, I am a licensed engineer, not traffic, but I can
tell you as a neighboring property owner, I feel, now I’m open for any discussion on this. We’ve
all been in this situation. If you’re forced to make a right hand turn out, the first thing you’re
going to do it, as a newbie to the area, you’re going to say, how quick can I get myself turned
back around? My feeling is if they’re like me, my wife would be in the right hand seat kind of
expressing her concern, I’m going to get to the left hand lane as soon as I’m out of that parking
lot. Now I’ve got to get myself to turn left, into The Silo. Someday I might have Jon on my team,
because we’ve had some discussions about The Silo, and I’m all for, I want to go on the record,
I’m all for healthy competition. I stated that at one of the previous meetings. I think this is a
good opportunity to do something with that property. I honestly do. Mr. Hunsinger brought up a
good point. If it was still the Desantis Enterprises, what would we be talking about tonight?
Traffic wouldn’t be considered, necessarily. Desantis would continue to operate the way they
were doing, with left hand turns out. So, it’s a difficult situation, the discussion. I can see where
all the sides are concerned here, but that person, again, coming back to my scenario, is either
going to dip into The Silo, or they’re going to dip into The Econolodge. They’re not going to
know enough to go into the Mall and make a U turn to come out of there. That’s my opinion.
Thank you.
MR. HUNSINGER-Thank you. Anyone else? Mr. Strough?
JOHN STROUGH
MR. STROUGH-John Strough, Queensbury. Well, I like Steve’s idea. I had an idea, too, that,
you know, if nothing else, this is the minimum of what we should do, having you put together a
letter clearly expressing the determination of this Board that any further development on this
parcel will necessitate the development of a connector road from this parcel to their ring road,
and the condition would be that the appropriate officials of the Pyramid Company have received
and acknowledged this letter. So that, you know, you sent them a message with an expectation
that the connect road is expected to occur with further development, and you get a receipt that
the officials of Pyramid have received this, so the message clearly got to the appropriate people
and it was sent, but I like Steve’s idea better. If, you know, we can do that route. As far as
demolishing the buildings, and in discussions with other Town Board members, if it’s not done
soon, we are going to be considering pursuing more aggressive options. The other item that
was of concern to me, and it deals with traffic flow as well, was the right hand turning lane, and I
61
(Queensbury Planning Board 9/21/10)
did read a memorandum from Mr. Lapper that says, and this was good news, that the applicants
are willing to accommodate an eastward bound right hand turning lane, should traffic
necessitate, because our concern was that once this property is sold, and no longer is
Pyramid’s, that the plans that we’ve had all along for this right hand turning lane would be very
difficult to pursue, and so, you know, I felt better knowing that the applicant is willing to
accommodate, and if we could put that in a condition, that, you know, the applicant’s willing to
accommodate this right hand turning lane, should traffic conditions in the future necessitate that,
that would be good. So, those are the three things. I wanted to tell you that the Town Board has
discussed demolition and appreciate the support from the Planning Board on that matter, and
the other one was, as an option for this connector road, I make my offer, not as good as Steve’s,
and the other part was to condition the approval, if you’re inclined to do so, acknowledging the
applicant’s willingness to accommodate this right hand turning lane. Thank you.
MR. TRAVER-Jon, I’m just going to say, with regard to your letter suggestion, with the
representatives of Pyramid, I think Mr. Lapper is going to be returning to meet with us, and he
will be talking about his conversations with them on the record. So, I think we’ll have on the
record that they’re informed of our position.
MR. STROUGH-Yes. Well, my idea was back there before you came up with your idea, Steve,
and I’m trying to, you know, reach a consensus, so we can move forward.
MR. TRAVER-Exactly.
MR. KREBS-John, one of my concerns was that right hand, and I thought, in the documentation
that I got, that they’ve already agreed that they will comply.
MR. STROUGH-Yes, I thought that that was a big plus.
MR. HUNSINGER-Yes.
MR. STROUGH-Thank you.
MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. Thanks. Anyone else? No one else? Okay. We will leave the public
hearing open.
MR. LAPPER-Just like 30 seconds of response. First of all, I’m a big fan of The Silo, and I can’t
even tell you how much my wife spent at Gardentime this summer, but they run a great
business, and I think that they’re going to continue to do great, and the diner should do great,
but when Fred was talking, it made me think that I believe that you could still, you know, not a
bus or a truck, but if you’re in a car, I think you could still make a U turn at Greenway North when
you’ve got the traffic light instead of making a left to Greenway, as the quickest way to turn
around and you wouldn’t have to go through the Mall. Obviously if you’re a motor home that’s
not going to work, but I think that that is permissible. That’s not a sign that says no U turns. So I
just want to through that out there. People will have to turn around at some point.
MR. HUNSINGER-Well, I mean, the other thing that I wanted to add about that, and I’m sorry to
cut you off, Jon, but I mean, the applicant can put direction signs up. I mean, there used to be
some down at Exit 15, you know, to make a left hand turn, you know, use whatever road. I don’t
know the name of it, and there used to be direction signs down there to direct you to do that.
So, I mean, you could put up a direction sign at the exit saying, you know, to make a left, you
know, go use the red light at the Mall or whatever.
MR. LAPPER-Yes, go to the Mall, left turns at Mall traffic light, and, you know, just, John, too,
trying to find a constructive way. I mean, I really appreciated the, we don’t have a major
corporate applicant here. So the time and the expense and the engineering and the lawyering,
they’ve got a bank commitment and they really want to get this in the ground. I’m not holding
that out as a threat. It’s as an opportunity to just try and work this out. So, you know, if it’s
possible to be as quick as possible and perhaps throw me on at the end of the meeting on
Tuesday and we’ll come back with an answer from Pyramid and hopefully we can work this out.
MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. Anything from the Board? I don’t have the agendas right in front of
me. Which night is heavier, Tuesday or Thursday?
MR. TRAVER-Mr. Chairman, I believe I may have a copy of the agenda.
MR. HUNSINGER-For both evenings?
MR. TRAVER-Yes.
62
(Queensbury Planning Board 9/21/10)
MR. OBORNE-I would say Tuesday would be the lighter one, and if I could, you’re definitely
working towards the traffic issues. I’m seeing that. What about the aesthetic issues? They
could put all the money into the traffic, get it all mitigated, but if you folks don’t like the way it
looks at this point, you may want to give them direction as to what you’re looking for to get you
over that hump.
MR. SIPP-I think I’m concerned about the colors. When we get the colors, we can match them
up and see how they look, and the types of lighting that you’re going to be using. There may be
other considerations, if it doesn’t meet design standards, or if it does.
MR. KREBS-Wasn’t the horizontal lighting in a yellow tone?
MR. LAPPER-Gold and blue.
MR. KREBS-Gold and blue. Okay.
MR. LAPPER-Queensbury colors. We also have the actual stone, which is more interesting and
more detailed than what’s on the plan. We can show you.
MR. KREBS-Well, as a Board member, my major concern was the traffic. So if we can resolve
the traffic situation, which we have mitigated part of it already, with the right hand turn lane, I can
live with the design, even though it doesn’t necessarily meet our Code.
MR. SIPP-I think everybody should read that traffic report of 2001 and 2005, it’s available in the
office, and I just copied down the latest one which is in June 2005. There are 21,560 vehicles
per day that go Route 9 up 254, and that was the highest figure done in June of ’05. It also gave
a list of the types of accidents, and property damage, which did not refer to anything on the way
of fatalities or injuries, just the number of crashes, which averaged somewhere in the
neighborhood of three to four a day. Now, this is before 254 was widened, and we have no
further traffic reports since then, and I’m sure that the number 21,560 has gone up in that time,
five years.
MR. LAPPER-Yes, but DOT is okay.
MR. HUNSINGER-Anything else from the Board? Any other comments? I guess what we’re
going to do is table this until next Tuesday.
th
MR. TRAVER-The 28.
MR. HUNSINGER-Yes.
MR. OBORNE-Mr. Chairman, are you thinking of tabling this in anticipation of a response from
Pyramid or are you tabling this to be heard again as a full application?
MR. HUNSINGER-That’s a good clarification. I think the intention is to gain a response from
Pyramid.
MR. FORD-Yes.
MR. OBORNE-Okay, and at that point if a further tabling is anticipated, then we can do.
MR. FORD-My sense when I said the ball’s in your court, Jon, was he’s got it, and we will react
to whatever he comes back with on Tuesday.
MR. OBORNE-Okay. So we’re not looking for anything to be given to Staff? You want it given
to you at the point of the meeting? Because there’s no turnaround time, to be honest with you.
MR. HUNSINGER-Right, exactly.
MR. LAPPER-What I’m looking for is a demolition date, and whether they will agree to a letter of
credit of $800,000 for the next two years to cover.
MR. HUNSINGER-Right.
MR. SCHONEWOLF-Just tell them to demolish it.
MR. LAPPER-I understand.
MR. FORD-No, no, no.
63
(Queensbury Planning Board 9/21/10)
MR. LAPPER-No, no, no what?
MR. FORD-I want date specific.
MR. LAPPER-You’re saying no to him, not to me.
MR. FORD-Yes. Twelve years from now demolished? No.
MR. HUNSINGER-No, if they brought in the wrecking ball tomorrow and took it down but never
gave you a date, you’d be okay.
MR. TRAVER-So a tabling resolution for this evening does not have to deal with the
architectural issues, just those two issues, the Pyramid response issues?
MR. HUNSINGER-Well, I mean, we still have some concerns and comments about.
MR. TRAVER-Well, all right, because I, when Gretchen suggested that I work on some draft
language, I had, let me read the three conditions that I had on there, too. The applicant to re-
evaluate lighting in the context of color and intensity. Applicant’s representative to discuss with
Pyramid the offering of a letter of credit to fund the estimated construction cost of the quote
connector road unquote, letter of credit to be held for two years after the diner opens. Number
Three, applicant’s representative to discuss with Pyramid the establishment of a date certain for
the commencement of the demolition of the abandoned structures on the property. Those were
the conditions for tabling.
MR. FORD-The completion date of demolition, not a start date. They could start tomorrow, and
eight years from now it’s still going.
MR. TRAVER-Okay. I can amend that. My thought was that, you know, they’re not going to
start it and stop because that’s going to be, I mean, the sooner they get it done, the less, but a
completion date is fine. Let me change that, for the completion. Okay. Does that sound
generally, those three items good for tabling for this evening? Okay.
MRS. STEFFAN-Can you have this item on next week without a public hearing? Without
notice?
MR. OBORNE-The public hearing would stay open.
MR. HUNSINGER-Yes, the public hearing would stay open.
MRS. STEFFAN-Does it have to be noticed?
MR. HUNSINGER-Well, it was noticed for this evening.
MR. TRAVER-And Mr. Lapper will let us know if there’s no response, or the response is
negative, then I guess we’ll have a different issue.
MR. OBORNE-If I could, with that terminology, instead of conditioning it, how about will Pyramid
offer it? Because you’re asking them to demo something that has.
MR. TRAVER-No, no. I’m just asking the applicant’s representative to discuss with Pyramid
these issues. I haven’t said.
MR. OBORNE-Okay. Not a condition?
MR. TRAVER-No. Well, a condition is that he discuss it with them. That’s the condition.
MR. OBORNE-Okay.
MR. TRAVER-And then if they have something to offer, fine. If they don’t.
MR. FORD-We’ll react to what is presented.
MR. TRAVER-Yes. I mean, all, we’re asking him to do, and he’s already agreed to do it, is to
discuss these concerns that we’ve raised this evening. So I don’t know how we can condition
anything else, really. I mean, we can’t, if we could, I would have done it already.
MR. LAPPER-Thank you.
64
(Queensbury Planning Board 9/21/10)
MR. TRAVER-All right.
MR. HUNSINGER-Still confused?
MR. OBORNE-No, no, I’m not confused. I’m crystal clear on that. You still have one issue out
there that really has not been discussed in this tabling resolution, and that is the design
guidelines.
MR. TRAVER-Right.
MR. OBORNE-Because that is another 800 pound gorilla in the room, and I just want to just
bring that up again.
MR. SCHONEWOLF-We’ll address that after we get rid of the other.
MR. OBORNE-Well, if that’s the process you want to go through, absolutely. I mean, that’s fine.
MRS. STEFFAN-But the applicant’s expecting that if they answer this information, that they’ll
potentially get an approval quickly, and so they need to have your feedback on what you think
about the design guidelines so they have something to go on.
MR. LAPPER-Let me throw on the table the Virginia Ledgestone color that they picked, so that
you can just see the stone.
MRS. STEFFAN-Yes, we’ve got copies of that. You provided copies for us.
MR. LAPPER-It’s the top right, and I don’t think that was ever specified.
MR. FORD-Do you have actual samples of that?
MR. LAPPER-No. Just that.
MR. TRAVER-The only draft condition for this evening that I had proposed is applicant to re-
evaluate lighting in the context of color and intensity. Those were specifically raised, the
intensity of the lighting, and there’s some concern about the, I know Don raised the question of
the color, I guess, blue or whatever. So, you know, if you want to take a look and see if there’s
anything there. The intensity we discussed with Tom already the concern about intensity,
whether or not they want to come back with something different there. That’s all I had
specifically on those items.
MR. SCHONEWOLF-We talked about whether it’s the silver shiny building or not.
MR. LAPPER-It’s partially silver shiny building.
MR. TRAVER-Yes. Okay. Would you like another condition that they re-evaluate the siding?
MR. SCHONEWOLF-Well, you can’t see much from that.
MR. LAPPER-Well, that’s not something that’s on the table because it has to be a diner, but
they’ve done what they could do.
MR. TRAVER-Yes, I mean, that was kind of my.
MR. SCHONEWOLF-Well, it’s on my table. It’s something that’s in our (lost word).
MR. FORD-Is there an actual photograph of a?
MR. LAPPER-We submitted last time a whole bunch of photos of a bunch of different diners that
this company had done, that designs this. You should have that.
MR. OBORNE-You probably threw them out.
MR. LAPPER-Okay.
MR. TRAVER-Right, yes, that evening. The other thing I think is, with regards to conditions for
the tabling this evening, I mean, I think we’ve been talking with the applicant enough, and the
applicant’s, I should say the applicant’s representatives, to know that simply because we don’t
have a condition here, they know what our concerns are and hopefully they’ll come back and
65
(Queensbury Planning Board 9/21/10)
perhaps be prepared to discuss them, but I think that the issues, the discussions with Pyramid
are the main things, at this point, I think that we’re looking for, to move forward, but if you want
to pass this down, if anyone has additional specific conditions they would like added to the list.
MR. FORD-Jon, what I was trying to get at, when I asked about the photographs, with this
stonework, how close can you come to showing us a photograph of what it is that we’re
describing?
MR. LAPPER-Well, that is a computer generated artist rendering, what you have there, and that,
the only difference is that, you know, the stone is not as, it’s not photographic like it is here, but
this is the actual stone, which has some gray in it to match the stainless steel, or to compliment
it.
MR. KREBS-You’re saying it’s the Virginia Ledgestone?
MR. LAPPER-Yes.
MR. KREBS-Yes.
MR. LAPPER-And that was a real attempt to soften it.
MRS. STEFFAN-Make sure you envision that LED lighting up on that stainless steel.
MR. SCHONEWOLF-I already know what I think about all that.
MR. LAPPER-We may be able to come back with less LED lighting. It still has to look like a
diner, but we may be able to remove some of it. So we hear you and we’ll come back with some
compromise.
MR. TRAVER-All right. Are we ready for me to give this a shot?
MR. HUNSINGER-We’re ready.
MR. TRAVER-Okay.
MOTION TO TABLE SITE PLAN NO. 53-2010 BOB PILARINOS; DENNIS PILARINOS,
Introduced by Stephen Traver who moved for its adoption, seconded by Thomas Ford:
A site plan application has been made to the Queensbury Planning Board for the following:
Applicant proposes demolition of the 8,800 sq. ft. former Howard Johnson’s restaurant and
construction of a 5,400 sq. ft. diner with associated site work. Food Service in the ESC zone
requires Planning Board review and approval.
A public hearing was advertised and held on 9/21/2010; and
MOTION TO TABLE SITE PLAN NO. 53-2010 BOB PILARINOS; DENNIS PILARINOS,
Introduced by Stephen Traver who moved for its adoption, seconded by Thomas Ford:
th
The application is tabled to the evening of September 28. Tabling is with the following
conditions:
1.The applicant to re-evaluate lighting in the context of color and intensity.
2.The applicant’s representative to discuss with Pyramid the offering of a letter of credit
to fund the estimated construction cost of the connector road. Letter of credit to be
held for two years after the diner opens.
3.Applicant’s representative to discuss with Pyramid the establishment of a date
certain for the completion of the demolition of the abandoned structures on the
adjoining property.
st
Duly adopted this 21 day of September, 2010, by the following vote:
AYES: Mr. Ford, Mr. Krebs, Mr. Traver, Mr. Schonewolf, Mr. Sipp, Mr. Hunsinger
NOES: Mrs. Steffan
MR. LAPPER-Thanks everybody.
66
(Queensbury Planning Board 9/21/10)
MR. HUNSINGER-We’ll see you next week.
MR. LAPPER-We really, really appreciate you helping us.
MR. HUNSINGER-Yes. Before we adjourn, we had one additional item to discuss. The final
item I had, unless other members have items as well, is there was some e-mail discussion about
whether or not we wanted to have Counsel have a workshop with us before our next Thursday
meeting to discuss the Fedorowicz lawsuit, because they’re back before the Board for Site Plan
Review. I mean, my personal preference would be to do that, have a short workshop at 6:30,
right before the meeting, but I did want to pose it to the rest of the Board.
MR. HILL-I think that Cathi Radner will probably be attending that. She has more familiarity with
that. I think that if you want to discuss the matter ahead of time, prior to the regular start time for
the meeting, then what you would be looking to have would be an attorney/client privilege
session.
MR. HUNSINGER-Yes, exactly.
MR. HILL-And so are you all wanting to do that at 6:30, prior to a seven o’clock meeting?
MR. HUNSINGER-Yes. Yes, we’d do it in the Supervisor’s Conference Room.
MR. HILL-Okay. All right. I can certainly let Cathi know that that’s.
MR. HUNSINGER-Well, I’m posing the question to the Board.
MR. FORD-Yes.
MR. TRAVER-I think that’s an excellent idea.
MR. HUNSINGER-Okay.
MRS. STEFFAN-I will not be here next week. Steve Jackoski’s going to take my place both
nights, Tuesday and Thursday.
MR. SCHONEWOLF-You also changed the dates for the November meetings, right?
MR. HUNSINGER-We did. It’s the Tuesday/Thursday. Yes. Okay. Anything else?
MR. FORD-Is it Tuesday or Thursday at 6:30?
MR. HUNSINGER-For this workshop it would be the Thursday at 6:30.
MR. FORD-Thursday.
MR. OBORNE-I would like to state that there are updated Zoning Code maps in the back over
by the cafeteria window there. Please pick them up and study them judiciously. There have
been quite a few changes on it.
MR. HUNSINGER-Yes, there’s some recent changes. Are those on the map as well?
MR. OBORNE-Yes, it’s been updated. I’ll get you another one in a couple of weeks, to make
sure that nothing else will change.
MRS. STEFFAN-Do you guys think that a half an hour is enough time to go over Fedorowicz? I
mean, the last time we talked about it, it went an hour. So I just thought that I’d bring that up.
MR. OBORNE-Are you familiar with it, to a certain extent? Because it has been since May.
MRS. STEFFAN-Right, but I thought I would just throw that out.
MR. TRAVER-Good point.
MRS. STEFFAN-There was a lot more conversation the last time, and clarification, and I just
don’t want them to be cut short. I want to be sure that there’s enough time.
MR. HUNSINGER-Good point. Maybe we should do it at six o’clock.
MR. TRAVER-Yes.
67
(Queensbury Planning Board 9/21/10)
MR. FORD-How about 6:15?
MR. KREBS-I’ll be here whatever time.
MR. HUNSINGER-Six o’clock.
MR. KREBS-Yes, six is fine.
MR. TRAVER-That’s a good suggestion.
MR. HUNSINGER-Okay.
MR. HILL-So 6 p.m. for your start time, and just not to put too fine a point on it, but, again, I think
you want to characterize this as an attorney/client privileged session. It’s not a workshop
meeting. It’s an attorney/client privileged session.
MR. HUNSINGER-I’m sorry. I said workshop, didn’t I?
MR. HILL-Well, I’m not sure that it was you, Chris, but I know that workshop is kind of the
generic term, but in this particular circumstance I think you do want to be on your record as
characterizing it as an attorney/client privileged session with Counsel.
MR. HUNSINGER-Would someone like to make that motion so that it’s on the record? All right.
I’ll make the motion.
TH
MOTION THAT THE BOARD CONVENE AT 6 P.M. ON THURSDAY, SEPTEMBER 30 FOR
THE PURPOSES OF DISCUSSING THE FEDOROWICZ PROJECT IN ATTORNEY CLIENT
PRIVILEGE, Introduced by Chris Hunsinger who moved for its adoption, seconded by Paul
Schonewolf:
st
Duly adopted this 21 day of September, 2010, by the following vote:
AYES: Mrs. Steffan, Mr. Krebs, Mr. Traver, Mr. Ford, Mr. Schonewolf, Mr. Sipp, Mr. Hunsinger
NOES: NONE
MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. Would anyone like to make a motion to adjourn?
MOTION TO ADJOURN THE QUEENSBURY PLANNING BOARD MEETING OF SEPTEMBER
21, 2010, Introduced by Paul Schonewolf who moved for its adoption, seconded by Thomas
Ford:
st
Duly adopted this 21 day of September, 2010, by the following vote:
AYES: Mrs. Steffan, Mr. Krebs, Mr. Traver, Mr. Ford, Mr. Schonewolf, Mr. Sipp, Mr. Hunsinger
NOES: NONE
On motion meeting was adjourned.
RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED,
Chris Hunsinger, Chairman
68