2011.02.22
(Queensbury Planning Board 02/22/2011)
QUEENSBURY PLANNING BOARD MEETING
SECOND REGULAR MEETING
FEBRUARY 22, 2011
INDEX
Site Plan No. 72-2010 Stewarts Shops 1.
Tabling request Tax Map No. 301.8-1-33 (Cont’d Pg. 52)
Site Plan No. 8-2011 James & Lillian Conway 1.
ZBA RECOMMENDATION Tax Map No. 289.6-1-32
Site Plan No. 9-2011 Schermerhorn Commercial Holdings 4.
ZBA RECOMMENDATION Tax Map No. 296.12-1-27.2
Site Plan No. 60-2010 Stewarts Shops 8.
Tax Map No. 303.19-1-61
Site Plan No. 10-2011 Stewarts Shops 13.
Tax Map No. 296.16-1-16.3
Subdivision No. 15-2010 A2000/Adirondack Tire 15.
FINAL STAGE Tax Map No. 296.13-1-24
Site Plan No. 12-2011 Yi Nong Liu 17.
Tax Map No. 296.19-1-30
Site Plan No. 13-2011 David Kenny 39.
Tax Map No. 288.12-1-19, 20
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 02/22/2011)
QUEENSBURY PLANNING BOARD MEETING
SECOND REGULAR MEETING
FEBRUARY 22, 2011
7:00 P.M.
MEMBERS PRESENT
STEPHEN TRAVER, ACTING CHAIRMAN
GRETCHEN STEFFAN, SECRETARY
DONALD KREBS
PAUL SCHONEWOLF
DONALD SIPP
THOMAS FORD
BRAD MAGOWAN, ALTERNATE
LAND USE PLANNER-KEITH OBORNE
STENOGRAPHER-MARIA GAGLIARDI
MR. TRAVER-Good evening, everyone. My name is Stephen Traver. I’m filling in tonight for
our Chairman who’s unable to be here. So I’m acting as Chair, as the Vice Chair of the Planning
nd
Board. I’ll call the Planning Board meeting for February 22 to order. We have two
administrative items tonight. The first is a tabling request for Site Plan 72-2010 for Stewarts.
ADMINISTRATIVE ITEM:
SP 72-2010: STEWARTS – FOR FURTHER TABLING CONSIDERATION
MRS. STEFFAN-Is there a reason for that, Keith, or just?
MR. OBORNE-I think it was requested by the applicant, who is here, or was here.
MRS. STEFFAN-That’s fine.
MR. OBORNE-It came in late, I believe, and this is the one up on Aviation Road.
th
MR. TRAVER-They’re asking to be tabled to March 15.
MR. OBORNE-March 15? No, that’s not going to happen.
MR. TRAVER-I was going to say, that agenda’s got to be pretty complete by now.
MR. OBORNE-Yes. We’re going to have to go out until April on this one, to be honest with you.
RESOLUTION TABLING SP 72-2010 Stewarts Shops
MOTION TO TABLE SITE PLAN NO. 72-2010 STEWARTS SHOPS, Introduced by Gretchen
Steffan who moved for its adoption, seconded by Thomas Ford:
347 Aviation Road. According to the resolution prepared by Staff. We’ll table that until the April
th
26 Planning Board meeting.
nd
Duly adopted this 22 day of February, 2011, by the following vote:
AYES: Mr. Krebs, Mrs. Steffan, Mr. Magowan, Mr. Ford, Mr. Schonewolf, Mr. Sipp, Mr. Traver
NOES: NONE
MR. TRAVER-Okay. We have another administrative item that we will hold until later on during
the meeting.
PLANNING BOARD RECOMMENDATION TO ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS:
SITE PLAN NO. 8-2011 SEQR TYPE II JAMES & LILLIAN CONWAY AGENT(S) HUTCHINS
ENGINEERING OWNER(S) SAME AS APPLICANT ZONING WR [WATERFRONT
RESIDENTIAL] LOCATION 32 NACY ROAD SITE PLAN: APPLICANT PROPOSES
DEMOLITION OF EXISTING 1,330 SQ. FT. RESIDENCE AND CONSTRUCTION OF A NEW
2,341 SQ. FT. RESIDENCE. CONSTRUCTION ON A SITE HAVING SLOPES IN EXCESS OF
15% WITHIN 50 FEET OF A PROPOSED STRUCTURE AND CONVERSION OF A
1
(Queensbury Planning Board 02/22/2011)
SEASONAL DWELLING TO A YEAR ROUND DWELLING IN A WR ZONE REQUIRES
PLANNING BOARD REVIEW AND APPROVAL. AREA VARIANCE: RELIEF REQUESTED
FOR SIDE SHORELINE SETBACK AND HEIGHT RELIEF. PLANNING BOARD TO PROVIDE
WRITTEN RECOMMENDATION TO THE ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS. CROSS
REFERENCE AV 9-11; BOH 33,2010 APA, CEA, OTHER GLEN LAKE CEA; 100 YEAR
FLOODPLAIN LOT SIZE 0.25 +/- ACRES TAX MAP NO. 289.6-1-32 SECTION 179-9, 179-6-
060
LUCAS DOBIE, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT
MR. TRAVER-Keith, can you give us the background on this?
MR. OBORNE-Absolutely. Site Plan 8-2011 and Area Variance 9-2011. This is for James and
Lillian Conway. Again, this is a recommendation to the Zoning Board of Appeals. 32 Nacy
Road, Waterfront Residential. This is a Type II SEQRA at this point. Project Description:
Applicant proposes demolition of a 2660 square foot residence and construct a new 2,016
square foot residence. Construction on a site having slopes in excess of 15% within 50 feet of a
proposed structure and a change from a seasonal dwelling to a year round dwelling in the WR
zone requires Planning Board review and approval. Area Variance relief requested for side and
shoreline setback relief as well as height relief. Nature of Area Variances: Area Variances for
this proposal are as follows: Side setback, request for eight feet of west side setback relief,
height request for three feet of height relief, and shoreline setback, request for seven feet of
average shoreline setback. I’d like to explain that quickly. Shoreline setback, the average
shoreline setback is as such, the minimum setback from the mean high water mark from all
buildings and structures shall be a minimum of 50 feet or the average setback of the dwellings
on the two adjoining lots, whichever is greater, in this case it’s 73 feet is the average. The
applicant is proposing a setback of 66 feet. So,, the average is a seven foot setback. I think the
Planning Board is savvy enough to know what’s going on here, and I’ll turn it over to the
Planning Board.
MR. TRAVER-Thank you. Good evening.
MR. DOBIE-Good evening, Mr. Chairman and Board. For the record, Lucas Dobie with
Hutchins Engineering. With me tonight is the applicant, Mr. James Conway and his wife Lillian
in the front row as well. We are here asking for a recommendation to the Zoning Board. We are
on tomorrow night. Hopefully we can convince you that we’ve got a nice project. It’s kind of a
rare opportunity, if you will, where we look at the site first and design a house to fit it instead of
coming in with a house and building the site to fit it and asking for a bunch of excessive
variances. On the board that I’ve prepared, the pink dashed lines is our building envelope, and
we actually designed the structure itself to fit within those setbacks. Granted it’s tight, but due to
the grade change, we’ve got to bring some stairs down the west side and that’s kind of what’s
catching us out where we’re asking for a relief, because they are considered part of the
structure, because they will be attached. So we’re asking for eight feet of relief to those stairs
from the 20 foot sideline setback requirement, and we’re also caught out, like Keith explained,
with the adjoining houses being set back a little further than we typically deal with, we’re
required to meet the average of those two setbacks, which is 73 feet, and in the balancing of the
site, due to grade change, we’re pulling our new house back a little bit further than our existing
house. So we’re going to put the proposed first story deck at 66 feet from mean high water. So
that’s a 10 foot deck, so the house itself will be at 76 feet. Typically on these smaller lots we’re
usually within 50 feet. So it’s pretty nice to have some room out in front of the property, and with
the building height how it’s measured, again we’re caught out a little bit on the easterly side
because we have to measure the most restrictive existing grade to the ridge of our house, and
since we’re bringing our new house up and into the bank a little bit, that equates to 31 feet of
building height. From the lake itself, because we’re going to be doing some grading on the front
side. It will show 28 and a half feet exposed. So it’s right at what the intent of the Code is for
the lakeside view, and again, of note, the existing residence has a 1330 square foot footprint,
and our new house has 1,008 square feet of footprint, and due to the decks and rearranging the
stairs, we’re having a net reduction around, I guess it’s 230 square feet on the site. The existing
garage, up by Nacy Road, we’d like to leave it in place, and also as part of the record, this
project received a variance from the Town Board for a new wastewater system up in the
northeast corner. They received that last month, and with that, I’ll try to keep it brief and turn it
over to the Board for any questions.
MR. TRAVER-There are some Staff comments on the plan review, if you can clarify some of
those. For example, there’s a comment on the water pump.
MR. DOBIE-No, what that is, right now there’s an existing well up on the northerly portion of the
property. That’s going to go away, and that water pump will go away as well because we’re
2
(Queensbury Planning Board 02/22/2011)
drilling a new well down by the lake with a pump that you drop down inside the casing. That will
go away.
MR. TRAVER-I’ll open it up for comments and questions from members of the Board.
MRS. STEFFAN-Keith, I have a, there’s a discrepancy between the presentation, the buildings
that they’re demolishing is 1330 square feet, and then they want to replace it with 973. In your
Staff Notes, it says a 2600?
MR. OBORNE-Right. The footprint is half that, and then you double it for the total square
footage. So in essence they’re actually installing a smaller house farther away from the
shoreline. That is what I gleaned from your project.
MR. DOBIE-That’s correct. Just to, because I can never keep straight the square footage of a
building, how architects calculate it versus footprint. So I just like to present footprint, and
Keith’s numbers are the footprint times two. Because existing now there’s a walk-in basement
and a first floor. That’s what we’re proposing for the new house as well.
MR. KREBS-Traditionally we didn’t count the basement area as square footage of a house, but
now they do.
MRS. STEFFAN-Right. Okay.
MR. TRAVER-And your presentation here tonight with the dotted line and so on, that’s helpful as
well.
MR. DOBIE-Thank you.
MRS. STEFFAN-I think that, you know, based on the plan, certainly the engineering and based
on the engineering comments, I mean, there’s still some work to do, but, you know, you’re not
really asking for a lot of relief. I don’t know how the rest of the Board feels about the three feet
of height relief? That, you know, height is always a big issue for folks. I mean, with the slope of
the land, I mean.
MR. TRAVER-That’s what I viewed it as, a tradeoff of moving further away from the shoreline,
yes.
MR. KREBS-Right.
MR. TRAVER-It’s not huge.
MR. KREBS-Plus the fact, you know, with a slope like that, you don’t see the height, even if
you’re on the water, the background is still going to be the land.
MR. OBORNE-And they’re kind of handcuffed by the slope on the property, too, to a certain
extent.
MR. KREBS-Right.
MR. TRAVER-Right.
MR. FORD-I was concerned about that height, but I was able to rationalize it. So I don’t have
any problems.
MR. TRAVER-Yes, okay.
MRS. STEFFAN-Well, it doesn’t sound like folks have got any issues regarding the relief part.
We obviously will do Site Plan when we get it back.
MR. TRAVER-Right. Yes, tonight we’re just addressing the relief being requested, side and
shoreline setback relief, and height. With regard to those variances, do any members of the
Board have any specific concerns for the three variance reliefs being requested by the applicant
that might color our recommendation?
MR. FORD-No.
MR. KREBS-No.
MRS. STEFFAN-Okay.
3
(Queensbury Planning Board 02/22/2011)
RESOLUTION RE: ZBA RECOMMENDATION FOR AV 9-2011 CONWAY
Whereas, the applicant has submitted the following applications for: Site Plan: Applicant
proposes demolition of existing 1,330 sq. ft. residence and construction of a new 2,341 sq. ft.
residence. Construction on a site having slopes in excess of 15% within 50 feet of a proposed
structure and conversion of a seasonal dwelling to a year round dwelling in a WR zone requires
Planning Board review and approval. Area Variance: Relief requested for side shoreline
setback and height relief. Planning Board to provide written recommendation to the Zoning
Board of Appeals.
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:
MOTION TO MAKE A RECOMMENDATION ON BEHALF OF THE PLANNING BOARD TO
THE ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS FOR AREA VARIANCE NO. 9-2011 FOR JAMES AND
LILLIAN CONWAY, Introduced by Gretchen Steffan who moved for its adoption, seconded by
Donald Krebs:
According to the resolution prepared by Staff. The Planning Board based on a limited review
has not identified any significant adverse impacts that cannot be mitigated with the current
project proposal.
nd
Duly adopted this 22 day of February, 2011, by the following vote:
AYES: Mr. Krebs, Mr. Magowan, Mrs. Steffan, Mr. Ford, Mr. Schonewolf, Mr. Sipp, Mr. Traver
NOES: NONE
MR. TRAVER-Good luck.
MR. DOBIE-Thank you, Board. We hope to see you next month, hopefully depending on how
the agendas work out.
nd
MR. OBORNE-You’re on on the 22.
MR. DOBIE-Beautiful. Thank you.
MR. OBORNE-For now.
MRS. STEFFAN-With a skeleton crew.
MR. TRAVER-Yes, that’s right.
SITE PLAN NO. 9-2011 SEQR TYPE UNLISTED SCHERMERHORN COMMERCIAL
HOLDINGS AGENT(S) JONATHAN LAPPER, B P S R NACE ENGINEERING OWNER(S)
SAME AS APPLICANT ZONING O [OFFICE] LOCATION SOUTH SIDE OF WILLOWBROOK
RD. SITE PLAN: APPLICANT PROPOSES CONSTRUCTION OF A 37 UNIT APARTMENT
BUILDING. APARTMENT COMPLEX PROPOSED IN AN O [OFFICE] ZONE REQUIRES
PLANNING BOARD REVIEW AND APPROVAL. AREA VARIANCE: RELIEF REQUESTED
FROM MINIMUM PARKING SPACE REQUIREMENTS. PLANNING BOARD TO PROVIDE
WRITTEN RECOMMENDATION TO THE ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS. CROSS
REFERENCE AV 10-11; MANY WARREN CO. PLANNING 2/9/2011 APA, CEA, OTHER
NWI & DEC WETLANDS LOT SIZE 9.15 +/- ACRES TAX MAP NO. 296.12-1-27.2 SECTION
179-9
JON LAPPER & TOM NACE, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT
MR. OBORNE-This is your last recommendation for the evening. This is on the south side of
Willowbrook Road. The existing zoning is Office, and this is an Unlisted SEQRA. Site Plan:
Applicant proposes construction of a 16,530 square foot three-story, 35 unit senior apartment
building with associated site work and parking. The location for the proposal is on Lot Nine, a
4
(Queensbury Planning Board 02/22/2011)
9.15 acre parcel within Baybrook Professional Park. Relief requested from minimum parking
requirements is the Area Variance sought, and that is the nature of the Area Variance. Parking
relief, relief requested for reduction of required parking spaces from 79 spaces to 55 spaces as
per 179-4-090. Note: The current Code requires 2.25 spaces per dwelling unit. That is subject
to change in a very short time. What follows is Site Plan Review which you’ll see next month,
and with that I’d turn it over to the Board.
MR. TRAVER-Thank you, Keith. Good evening.
MR. LAPPER-Good evening everyone. For the record, Jon Lapper with Tom Nace, project
engineer. Rich is in Florida with his family and apologizes. He always attends meetings with us.
We’d all rather be in Florida, but here we are. The application that you’re giving a
recommendation on for reducing the parking is something that we’ve asked for on all of Rich’s
project, senior and non-senior, but especially on the projects, and we were just before you on
the Gurney Lane project. What’s changed since then is that, or what’s about to change in the
new Code, in recognizing that seniors have even less of a parking demand, and there’s no
reason for extra pavement. In the new Code I’ve just printed off the Web, and again, this is still
a recommendation because it’s not, it’s supposed to be voted on on Monday night, I understand,
but for senior, multi-family senior living is one per two housing dwelling units. So it’s half a
space per unit. Rich thinks that’s a little low in his experience, but what we’re asking for tonight,
to go from 2.25 to 1.6, is really more than he needs. Not everyone has a car, and you certainly
need something for visitors, but, you know, even on a Sunday, you don’t need 1.6. So,
assuming this gets passed next week, when we’re back before the Board, assuming that the
Town Board passes the change, and that the variance is granted, we’re back before the Board,
and the standard would be half a space per unit instead of 2.25. We actually may be able to
reduce some spaces from what we’ve proposed because we had to already submit the Site
Plan. So when we’re here talking to you, we’ll probably be able to shave off maybe 10 spaces
and make the site even more green, and it’s a nice recognition in the Zoning Code that the
spaces aren’t necessary. So, you know, there’s some site issues that Staff raised that we’ll talk
about when we’re here for Site Plan, but just in terms of this parking, it’s certainly not necessary
to have 2.25 spaces. We don’t even think, Rich doesn’t think, from his experience with all the
senior projects, that 1.6 is needed, but that, we didn’t want to ask for too much relief, so that’s
what we’re here asking for, and it looks like it’ll be, you know, less than a third of that by the next
time we’re before you. He wanted me to mention that the Willows project, which is right behind
Lot Nine, is and has been completely rented for between three to four years now, very
successful, very low traffic generator because the seniors are not peak hour. They’re not up at
nine o’clock when the rest of us are getting to work, and just a lot of single people in two
bedroom apartments, a lot of widows and a lot of people that don’t drive too much. So hopefully
you’ll see that we’re not asking for too much relief here. Tom’s here with the plans, and we can
answer any questions.
MR. TRAVER-One of the things that I, of course, immediately thought about was, well, what if
this goes from senior to young people living, but then when you think about the demographics, I
suppose that’s not likely to happen, because the demand for senior housing is growing.
MR. LAPPER-What we’ve seen is that when he builds a senior project, a lot of the seniors that
are in some of his other projects move out. They like being segregated, just because it’s
quieter. So the senior projects have all been filled with seniors and the non-senior projects are
filled with younger families, and it’s worked out quite well.
MR. TRAVER-There are quite a number of, you know, as you alluded to, there’s a number of
comments regarding the initial plan, and of course we’ll need to address those.
MR. LAPPER-Of course.
MR. TRAVER-In Site Plan you’ll have an opportunity to take a look at those comments and
incorporate them into your Site Plan presentation. So really tonight we’re really just dealing with
parking, exactly right.
MR. LAPPER-Some of those, the Site Plan have gotten taken care of. I mean, Rich is always
very proactive and he made some changes to make the Fire Marshal and the fire chief happy,
and I think there were some recent letters.
MR. TRAVER-Yes. We saw those communications here. That was very informative, and good
to know that there’s good communication here.
MR. LAPPER-And as you know, the way Rich has handled all the projects, when this Board has
asked him to do something different, he always does, and the same thing with the fire guys. So
5
(Queensbury Planning Board 02/22/2011)
we were able to deal with that over the last month and come in with a better letter than when the
Staff Notes were prepared.
MR. TRAVER-The only other thing that caught my eye was some concern about increasing
traffic in the area, not specifically from this project, but just as the corridor is developed. I don’t
know, really, that there’s much that we can do to address that at this point, but it’s certainly
something that we’d need to keep our eye on.
MR. LAPPER-Well, I have a response to that. When we had this subdivision approved, we had
Creighton Manning do a traffic study of full build out, and there wasn’t a warrant at that time for
the traffic light. That was before the project across the street, but I think when you approved
that, you looked at that as well. So, you know, even though Bay Road does get a decent
amount of traffic, I doesn’t seem like there’s any problem at that intersection. It’s just not a lot of
traffic.
MR. SCHONEWOLF-If there’s a place for traffic, it’s on Bay Road.
MR. TRAVER-Yes.
MR. LAPPER-Yes. Good visibility.
MR. SCHONEWOLF-Right, good visibility. Wide open. Because these people aren’t going to
really add to the traffic.
MR. LAPPER-Yes. Right.
MR. SCHONEWOLF-They may slow it down, but.
MR. LAPPER-Certainly not during peak hours, Tom said.
MRS. STEFFAN-It’s just one of those things that’s going to have to be addressed. We’ve got
cumulative impacts of development all along the corridor and everything that’s happening above
it, and it’s just, we’re going to have to deal with it as a Town at some point, but just not now.
MR. OBORNE-Yes, you do want to get it on the record and get folks on notice that, you know,
the Board is looking at that, in that you have Fairfield Office Park across the way. I don’t know
what’s going to come in with that. We’re certainly not at the point where we need it, but certainly
at the point where it should be at least, you know, highlighted.
MR. TRAVER-Right. I think we did that.
MR. KREBS-I just have a clerical thing, but on the drawing here, it says Meadowbrook Drive.
MR. NACE-That’s off the tax maps. So the tax maps are incorrect. We’ll change that.
MR. KREBS-Okay, just a note.
MR. LAPPER-Instead of Willowbrook.
MR. KREBS-Yes. It says Meadowbrook.
MR. TRAVER-Do any Board members have any questions or comments with regards to the
specific item before us tonight, the reduction in parking spaces from, of 24 spaces from the 79
required?
MRS. STEFFAN-I don’t have any.
MR. KREBS-No. In fact, I took a drive down there today, and when I was there, probably two-
thirds of the parking spaces were empty.
MR. LAPPER-Yes, that’s true. At the Willows.
MR. FORD-I would just appreciate it if the next time you come back if you could bring us a
photograph of a .6 car, kind of help with the visualization.
MR. LAPPER-It’s called a Smart Car, I think.
MR. TRAVER-Very well, then I guess we’re waiting for a recommendation.
6
(Queensbury Planning Board 02/22/2011)
MRS. STEFFAN-Okay.
RESOLUTION RE: ZBA RECOMMENDATION FOR AV 10-2011 SCHERMERHORN
Whereas, the applicant has submitted the following: Site Plan: Applicant proposes
construction of a 37 unit apartment building. Apartment Complex proposed in an O [Office] zone
requires Planning Board review and approval. Area Variance: Relief requested from minimum
parking space requirements. Planning Board to provide written recommendation to the Zoning
Board of Appeals.
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:
MOTION TO MAKE A RECOMMENDATION ON BEHALF OF THE PLANNING BOARD TO
THE ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS FOR AREA VARIANCE NO. 10-2011 FOR
SCHERMERHORN COMMERCIAL HOLDINGS, Introduced by Gretchen Steffan who moved for
its adoption, seconded by Donald Krebs:
According to the resolution prepared by Staff. The Planning Board based on a limited review
has not identified any significant adverse impacts that cannot be mitigated with the current
project proposal.
nd
Duly adopted this 22 day of February, 2011, by the following vote:
AYES: Mr. Krebs, Mr. Sipp, Mr. Schonewolf, Mr. Ford, Mrs. Steffan, Mr. Magowan, Mr. Traver
NOES: NONE
MR. LAPPER-Thanks everybody.
MR. TRAVER-Thank you.
MRS. STEFFAN-I just want to mention, before you guys leave, because I know you’ll be back
with this project. One of the things that, you know, is not in the package, I have a concern about
emergency services and the number of senior complexes that we have in the area. So you
might want to gather some data and bring that back, because that’ll be a question I’ll ask, and
just for purposes of discussion.
MR. NACE-Frequency of emergency services?
MRS. STEFFAN-Well, it’s just that it’s the cumulative impact of all of the senior housing
developments that are in the Town of Queensbury, and certainly at this point, you know,
Schermerhorn Commercial Holdings has got a large percentage of the population of these
senior units, and so, you know, things like response time, and the reason that I’m bringing this
up is that I recently had a friend who had a knee replacement, and there was an issue in her
neighborhood with somebody needing assistance. She lived in the Town of Queensbury, and at
the time, there were no emergency services that were available to handle all of the calls that
were happening at that moment in the Town of Queensbury, and they had to do a mutual aid call
to Glens Falls, and so, you know, as a result of that, it heightened my awareness of, we need to
look at that, especially when we keep adding these units in our Town.
MR. LAPPER-Thanks for letting us know in advance, Gretchen, and we’ll get some statistics
before we’re back.
MR. SCHONEWOLF-Well, that happens every day. Okay. There’s six ambulances in
Queensbury. There’s two in the City of Glens Falls, and then the Towns around them, Lake
George and everybody, has them, but you don’t know how the calls are going to fall. So they all
get handled eventually, but sometimes not in the speed that we’d all like, but that’s the nature of
the business, and they, the places that they go, I’m not going to get into the names of them, but t
hey don’t happen to be this type of thing. They happen to be the next stage up.
7
(Queensbury Planning Board 02/22/2011)
MR. LAPPER-Bay Ridge is probably three miles away, but we’ll get some statistics.
MR. TRAVER-Yes, and again, it’s noted that the applicant has had discussions with emergency
services regarding access to the building and that type of thing. So that’s good. That’s a
positive step.
MRS. STEFFAN-And with these units, you know, because we just had a brief discussion about
parking, one of the things that happens is that when folks move into units like this, they usually
have cars and they’re very mobile, and then as they age, other things happen and maybe they
don’t drive and they need public transportation, but as a Planning Board, we’re supposed to
consider the planning impacts of developments like this. So I just wanted to give you fair
warning that I’ll be asking some questions. Okay.
MR. LAPPER-Thank you. Great.
MRS. STEFFAN-Thank you.
MR. LAPPER-Good night everybody.
TABLED ITEM:
SITE PLAN NO. 60-2010 SEQR TYPE UNLISTED STEWARTS SHOPS OWNER(S) SAME
AS APPLICANT ZONING CI [COMMERCIAL INTENSIVE] LOCATION 777 QUAKER ROAD
APPLICANT PROPOSES ADDITIONAL LIGHT FIXTURES ON EACH LIGHT POLE AROUND
THE EXTERIOR OF THE SITE, ENTRANCES AND SOFFITS. MODIFICATIONS TO AN
APPROVED SITE PLAN REQUIRE PLANNING BOARD REVIEW AND APPROVAL. CROSS
REFERENCE SP 8-07, 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. OBORNE-Stewarts Shops. This is a modification to an approved Site Plan. 777 Quaker
Road is the location. It’s CI, Commercial Intensive zoning. The Type is Unlisted. If you are to
approve, please make sure you need to do a Short Form tonight. Applicant proposes additional
light fixtures on each light pole around the exterior of the site, including entrances. Modification,
again, is required to have Planning Board approval. I think the Planning Board is aware of what
the applicant is attempting to do here, or wishes to do here. We have tabled this on at least one
previous occasion. The applicant has come back with LED lighting at this point, which is a good
thing in my view, and I will say that the lighting is not all that excessive, to be honest with you.
It’s only in one area that it’s excessive, and excessive is not really the correct word. It’s just a
tiny bit hot, for lack of a better term, and I will also say that the Hess station, which the Planning
Board asked me to take a look at to see what the lighting plan was with that, there was only,
there was no photometric plan with it. It wasn’t required at that time.
MRS. STEFFAN-Which is why we have what we have, yes.
MR. OBORNE-You have what you have right there. There’s not a lot you can do, unless they
come back, okay, and with that I’d turn it over to the Board.
MR. TRAVER-Thank you. Good evening.
MR. LEWIS-Hi, folks. My name is Tom Lewis, real estate rep., Stewarts. So just to briefly go
over the past on this, on the request to alter lighting, so we got approved and, you know, we met
the lighting, which of course back then, you know, we thought was God awful, but we met it, built
the store, happy with the store, except the District Manager and the Senior VP’s are all saying it
looks like it’s closed, that it’s dark and, you know, whether that’s because of where it is or in
contact to the Hess, so I got tired of them whining to me, so I figured I would whine to you. So I
came here in September with an alternate plan, and I specifically remember Mr. Ford saying to
me that, you know, why don’t you go back to your office and see whether you can’t, you know,
come in halfway between the Code and what you’re offering, so that seemed reasonable. So I
went back. I explained the thing, and we had already been approved at the Route 9 new shop
that we call North Queensbury which is just north, it’s off of, you know the one I mean, off of
Montray Road, and so, okay, why don’t we just do the LED lighting, Tom? Well, that would be a
good idea, that way we could meet the Code, and then this ought to go through. So, you know,
they did their numbers and they had the photometric, and then a couple of days before the
meeting, you know, I go over I make sure that I have some idea what I’m talking about, and I’m
going over the numbers and I have my nice little chart, which was in the packet I believe and
since I postponed it, I’m not sure that you read this, but it kind of looked like this, and it had
about 19 lines, and I’ve got, you know, I went over all the different lighting. One is 20% lower
8
(Queensbury Planning Board 02/22/2011)
than what’s there now. This is 100% lower than September, hoping to meet what Mr. Ford had
asked, and it’s, you know, three and a half times lower here, and 280% lower here, but it doesn’t
meet this, this, and this, and so, you know, I’m not blaming them, I’m blaming me for not asking
my folks earlier this question. I said, how come we can’t meet everything? Well, we used a
different manufacturer because it’s cheaper. Well, you know, that’s just not smart. So I phoned
th
Keith or someone and said, I’d like to postpone the meeting. So we didn’t come December 16
because we, I was able, in my skillful, persuasive powers, to say, you know, just get the same
thing. So what we handed in, as Keith said, meets really almost everything and as my narrative
shows, you know, what might be (lost words) all of the bigger ones, you know, the entrances
that you have to be 5.0, we’re 4.88. The gas pump you’ve got to be under 10, we’re 8.18, and
the driveways and approaches. So in almost every area, except I think a very minor, I’m not
even sure where that minor figures in, I think we meet the Code, and so we’re hoping that this
Board allows us to invest extra money in LED lighting and reach a happy medium, compromise,
whatever.
MR. TRAVER-I think when you were before us the last time we also talked about removing
some LED lighting, did we not?
MR. LEWIS-I remember that.
MR. TRAVER-I haven’t heard your response to that.
MR. LEWIS-Okay, and so I asked, and I said, you know, we’ve got this wonderful relationship,
you know, with the Town and everyone says how difficult you guys are and I said I never found
that, and so it would be really nice if we could not do that, and they said, Tom, I’m sorry, that’s
not going to happen. The approach, when you’re really far away, you can see that light on, and
maybe that’s, you know, what you don’t like about it, and I would just say, you know, even
though I know one person on the Board, I think, kind of questioned me on it, I mean, we really
did follow the rules back then. I don’t think we violated anything. We weren’t out to cheat and,
you know, I could go over that again, and so I’d love to be able to say yes, and some of you
know I love to say yes, and I just can’t say yes on that one, you know, even if it means, you
know, we can’t improve it by doing the LED lighting, which I think 99% meets the Code, so we’re
hoping you would accept that in the gracious way I intend it.
MR. TRAVER-One of the questions that I had, I guess for you, Keith, and this has come up
before. The sign regulations changed with regards to the LED lighting.
MR. OBORNE-They have, yes.
MR. TRAVER-What happens to the existing, I mean, I guess it was never clear to me if the
existing signs had to be retrofitted or if they’re all grandfathered in, or how does that?
MR. OBORNE-My understanding that there’s a five year grace period , but I will look that up
post haste, and get that answer to you real quick.
MR. SCHONEWOLF-You mean the one when the Town Board passed it?
MR. SIPP-Yes.
MR. OBORNE-Yes, it was an amendment.
MR. SCHONEWOLF-They did not say you had to change it, because I know someone who’d
love one (lost words) and then change it the next day.
MR. TRAVER-Yes.
MR. SIPP-Yes, I went, when they were having that hearing, I went and asked that they drop that
at least to two or three, but they hung in at five.
MR. TRAVER-Well, and in any case, I certainly appreciate that you did discuss it, you know,
with your.
MR. LEWIS-Yes, we had a lot of discussions about it. I win a few, I lose a few.
MR. TRAVER-Okay. Questions, comments from other members of the Board?
MR. FORD-Just one comment. Thank you.
MR. LEWIS-My pleasure. It’s easier to say yes.
9
(Queensbury Planning Board 02/22/2011)
MR. SCHONEWOLF-Yes. I like it. I always have trouble with these things because they may all
be Stewarts, but they’re in different locations and different demographics and so forth, and
sometimes that requires a little more lighting in one place than you have in the other place.
MR. TRAVER-Right.
MR. SCHONEWOLF-You’re at a place here where, you know, you’re on the line, you’re on the
County line. It’s not exactly the greatest neighborhood, and you’ve got young people working
there at night, and they want it to be lit up a little bit. They want to be protected, where down on
Route 9 it’s really not that important, and so we try to apply a little judgment, but I appreciate the
fact that you guys applied a little judgment, too.
MR. OBORNE-They are prohibited, at this point. There’s no reference in the new Sign Code as
to a grace period. I do not have the old Sign Code with me at this point. So it would be up to the
Board as to how you want to proceed with this.
MR. TRAVER-Okay. Well, the applicant has indicated that if we require them to change the
sign, it would be at the cost of not moving forward with the LED lighting, if I understand correctly.
We have to weigh that.
MR. LEWIS-There are some towns that, by law, by Code, force, you know, whether it’s a five
year grace period, and I don’t think that’s in your Code, but there are other codes that do that,
and of course we always follow the laws. So in the future, if someone wants to motivate the
Town Board, and they take that action, then everyone will have to comply.
MR. TRAVER-Good point.
MR. LEWIS-That’s what Saratoga Springs says, because they’re terrible there.
MR. TRAVER-There is a public hearing tonight. Do we have anyone in the audience that
wanted to address the Board on this issue?
PUBLIC HEARING OPEN
MR. TRAVER-Do we have any written correspondence, Keith?
MR. OBORNE-I don’t think so. Give me a sec. No, sir.
MR. TRAVER-Okay. Well, in the absence of public comment, I will close the public hearing.
PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED
MRS. STEFFAN-Okay. Then we can do SEQRA?
MR. TRAVER-Yes.
MRS. STEFFAN-Okay. “Does the action exceed any Type I threshold in 6 NYCRR Part 617.4?”
MR. TRAVER-No.
MR. KREBS-No.
MRS. STEFFAN-“Will the action receive coordinated review as provided for Unlisted Actions in 6
NYCRR, Part 617.6?”
MR. TRAVER-No.
MR. FORD-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. TRAVER-No.
MR. FORD-No.
10
(Queensbury Planning Board 02/22/2011)
MRS. STEFFAN-“C2. Aesthetic, agricultural, historic, or other natural or cultural resources; or
community or neighborhood character?”
MR. FORD-No.
MR. KREBS-No.
MRS. STEFFAN-“C3. Vegetation, fauna, fish, shellfish or wildlife species, significant habitats, or
threatened or endangered species?”
MR. TRAVER-No.
MR. KREBS-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. KREBS-No.
MR. FORD-No.
MR. TRAVER-No.
MRS. STEFFAN-“C5. Growth, subsequent development or related activities likely to be
induced by the proposed action?”
MR. FORD-No.
MR. TRAVER-No.
MRS. STEFFAN-“C6. Long term, short term, cumulative or other effects not identified above?”
MR. TRAVER-No.
MR. FORD-No.
MRS. STEFFAN-“C7. Other impacts (including changes in use of either quantity or energy)?”
MR. TRAVER-No.
MR. FORD-No.
MRS. STEFFAN-“Will the project have an impact on the environmental characteristics that
caused the establishment of a Critical Environmental Area?”
MR. FORD-No.
MR. KREBS-No.
MRS. STEFFAN-“Is there or is there likely to be controversy related to potential adverse
environmental impacts?”
MR. FORD-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. 60-2010, Introduced by Gretchen Steffan who moved for its adoption,
seconded by Donald Sipp:
WHEREAS, there is presently before the Planning Board an application for:
STEWARTS SHOPS, 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,
11
(Queensbury Planning Board 02/22/2011)
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.
nd
Duly adopted this 22 day of, February, 2011, by the following vote:
AYES: Mr. Sipp, Mr. Schonewolf, Mr. Ford, Mr. Magowan, Mrs. Steffan, Mr. Krebs, Mr. Traver
NOES: NONE
MR. TRAVER-You’re all set.
MRS. STEFFAN-Okay. Then I’ll make a motion.
RESOLUTION APPROVING SP 60-2010 STEWARTS SHOPS
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,
entrances and soffits. Modifications to an approved site plan require Planning Board review and
approval; and
A public hearing was advertised and held on 9/10, 11/18, 12/19/010 tabled to 2/22/2011; and
This application is supported with all documentation, public comment and application material in
the file of record;
MOTION TO APPROVE SITE PLAN NO. 60-2010 STEWARTS SHOPS, Introduced by
Gretchen Steffan who moved for its adoption, seconded by Donald Krebs:
777 Quaker Road. According to the resolution prepared by Staff.
1)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
2)The requirements of the State Environmental Quality Review Act have been considered and
the Planning Board has adopted a SEQRA Negative Declaration; and
3)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
4)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
12
(Queensbury Planning Board 02/22/2011)
5)The Sanitary Sewer connection plan must be submitted to the Wastewater Department for
its review, approval, permitting and inspection; and
6)Waiver requests granted: stormwater mgmt., grading, landscaping, parking & topography
plans; and
7)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
8)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
9)This is approved with the following condition:
1. That all lighting fixtures are to be directed perpendicular to the ground.
nd
Duly adopted this 22 day of February, 2011, by the following vote:
AYES: Mr. Krebs, Mrs. Steffan, Mr. Magowan, Mr. Ford, Mr. Schonewolf, Mr. Sipp, Mr. Traver
NOES: NONE
MR. LEWIS-Thank you very much.
MRS. STEFFAN-Okay. On to Bay Road.
MR. TRAVER-Right.
NEW BUSINESS:
SITE PLAN NO. 10-2011 SEQR TYPE II STEWARTS SHOPS OWNER(S) SAME AS
APPLICANT ZONING CI [COMMERCIAL INTENSIVE] LOCATION 402 BAY ROAD
APPLICANT PROPOSES A 4’ X 15’ EXTERIOR STORAGE AREA. CHANGES TO AN
APPROVED PLAN REQUIRE PLANNING BOARD REVIEW AND APPROVAL. CROSS
REFERENCE SP 65-98, AV 3-99, SV 9-99 WARREN CO. PLANNING 2/9/2011 LOT SIZE
1.33 +/- ACRES TAX MAP NO. 296.16-1-16.3 SECTION 179-9
TOM LEWIS, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT
MR. OBORNE-This should be a little easier. The location is 402 Bay Road. CI is the existing
zoning. This is a Type II SEQRA at this point. Applicant proposes a four foot by fifteen foot
enclosed exterior storage area. Further, the applicant proposes to install a stamped concrete
ramp with seasonal picnic tables near the front entrance and remove existing planters. Staff
comments. The 60 square footage storage shed is located to the rear facing north. It appears
to have little effect on the drive aisle as a greater than 24 foot width is maintained. Access to the
storage area is from the outside only. The applicant states that the purpose is to enclose the
milk carriers associated with the Stewart’s portion of the property as opposed to storing them
uncovered in the elements. Concerning the front entrance changes, the existing planters are to
be removed as they are difficult to maintain and are unsightly. My only comment is additional
landscaping may need to be considered. Fire Marshal comments are attached, and please
keep in mind the request, applicant is requesting waivers from stormwater, parking, landscaping,
topo and grading as it is an existing site, and with that, I’d turn it over to the Board.
MR. TRAVER-Thank you. Keith. Good evening.
MR. LEWIS-Hi, my name is Tom Lewis. So, if you’ve ever gone to the back of a Stewart’s,
some of them occasionally have these plastic totes and they’re just unsightly. So, as I think I
might have said some time before, we are looking at all of our locations, how can we improve
things. So this is just a way we could improve that, to hide those. So the shed in the back, and
then, the concrete curbs that are out here are breaking all over the place, and we’ve found that
this is substantially more efficient. It makes it easier. I’m not sure where I would put any
landscaping. So we hope that this is okay. We’ve done this a few places, and in theory this
should be easier than the last one, but you never know.
MR. TRAVER-I can understand the planters can be an issue, and you mention that you’re doing
this throughout the area I understand.
MR. LEWIS-Lots of places.
13
(Queensbury Planning Board 02/22/2011)
MR. TRAVER-Are you planning any alternative landscaping at all?
MR. LEWIS-We could always do those barrels of, you know, plants. I think Gretchen asked me
for that once, for something. So we’re happy to do that. I mean, that’s easy. You just take them
out and put them and they’re easy to maintain. So we’re happy to do that.
MR. TRAVER-Okay.
MR. LEWIS-I mean, where there’s room, we like landscaping. It’s just here, you know, you don’t
have any green there.
MRS. STEFFAN-It’s just, you know, in some of the areas of the Town, you know, these whiskey
barrel applications work okay. The other thing is when we’ve got all this blacktop, you know,
and I’m not going to put this as a condition or anything like that, but, you know, hanging plants
on the outside, in some of the under hangs, like in the corner so people won’t knock their head
on them, but, you know, they’re the kinds of things that in the summer make things look pretty,
you know, they add a nice element, you know, because we already have a lot of blacktop in our
Town. So it’s not like we’re going to have folks rip that up and put landscaping in in all cases,
unless they’re going to do a re-build, but you really need to add some, you know, it actually will
just make your building look better. I mean, we can regulate that, but I would think you’d just
want it to look nice.
MR. LEWIS-That’s a good idea.
MR. TRAVER-Okay. Any other questions, comments for the applicant, from members of the
Board?
MRS. STEFFAN-No, it seems pretty straightforward.
MR. TRAVER-All right.
MRS. STEFFAN-Keith, I actually didn’t get the Staff Note on this one, so I printed it off, but I
don’t have a resolution. So I’m just going to use the last one and modify it. It has no SEQRA.
Okay. Then I’ll make a motion to approve.
MR. OBORNE-Did we open the public hearing on this?
MR. TRAVER-You’re right. I’m sorry. There is a public hearing on this application. Is there
anyone in the audience that would like to address the Board on this application?
PUBLIC HEARING OPENED
MR. TRAVER-Any written comments, Keith?
MR. OBORNE-No written comments.
MR. TRAVER-Okay. Hearing none, I’ll close the public hearing.
PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED
MR. TRAVER-Sorry.
MRS. STEFFAN-Okay. Then I’ll try that resolution again.
RESOLUTION APPROVING SP 10-2011 Stewarts Shops
A site plan application has been made to the Queensbury Planning Board for the following:
Applicant proposes a 4’ x 15’ exterior storage area. Changes to an approved plan require
Planning Board review and approval; and
A public hearing was advertised and held on 2/22/2011; and
This application is supported with all documentation, public comment and application material in
the file of record;
MOTION TO APPROVE SITE PLAN NO. 10-2011 STEWARTS SHOPS, Introduced by
Gretchen Steffan who moved for its adoption, seconded by Thomas Ford:
14
(Queensbury Planning Board 02/22/2011)
402 Bay Road. According to the resolution prepared by Staff. No conditions.
1)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
2)Type II-no further SEQRA review is necessary; and
3)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
4)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
5)The Sanitary Sewer connection plan must be submitted to the Wastewater Department for
its review, approval, permitting and inspection; and
6)Waiver requests granted: stormwater, grading, landscaping, parking, and topography; and
7)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
8)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
9)The applicant must submit a copy of the following to the Town:
1.The project NOI (Notice of Intent) for coverage under the current NYSDEC SPDES
General Permit or for coverage under an individual SPDES prior to the start of any
site work.
2.The project NOT (Notice of Termination) upon completion of the project; and
10) The applicant must maintain on their project site, for review by staff:
a)The approved final plans that have been stamped by the Town Zoning Administrator.
These plans must include the project SWPPP (Storm Water Pollution Prevention
Plan) when such a plan was prepared and approved; and
b)The project NOI and proof of coverage under the current NYSDEC SPDES General
Permit, or an individual SPDES permit issued for the project.
nd
Duly adopted this 22 day of February, 2011, by the following vote:
AYES: Mr. Magowan, Mr. Ford, Mr. Schonewolf, Mr. Sipp, Mrs. Steffan, Mr. Krebs, Mr. Traver
NOES: NONE
MR. LEWIS-Thank you very much. Have a good night.
MRS. STEFFAN-Thank you, Mr. Lewis. Always a pleasure.
OLD BUSINESS:
SUBDIVISION NO. 15-2010 FINAL STAGE SEQR TYPE UNLISTED A2000/ADIRONDACK
TIRE AGENT(S) JONATHAN LAPPER B P S R OWNER(S) CRIST REVOCABLE TRUST
ZONING CI [COMMERCIAL INTENSIVE] LOCATION 1025 STATE ROUTE 9 APPLICANT
PROPOSES SUBDIVISION OF 2.82 +/- ACRES INTO TWO LOTS OF 1.0 & 1.82 +/- ACRES.
SUBDIVISION OF LAND REQUIRES PLANNING BOARD REVIEW AND APPROVAL CROSS
REFERENCE SP 83-10, AV 66-10, SP 4-00, SV 3-00, SP 50-02, AV 92-04 LOT SIZE 2.82
+/- ACRES TAX MAP NO. 296.13-1-24 SECTION CHAPTER A-183
STEFANIE BITTER, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT
15
(Queensbury Planning Board 02/22/2011)
MR. OBORNE-Yes. We’re at the Final Stage of this. They’ve gone through all their Area
Variances at this point. You’ll see this application back next month for Site Plan Review, but first
before that you will see this for, no, you will not see this for the Sign Variance. That’s not
required for this, but they’ll be back for Site Plan Review on the two separate parcels that are
now there. So it should be a pretty quick process, just have to go through the protocols, and I’ll
read this into the record. This is Final Stage subdivision review for A2000. Location is 1025
State Route 9. CI is the existing zoning. It’s Commercial Intensive. This is an Unlisted SEQRA
which has already been accomplished back in December of last year. To refresh the Board,
applicant proposes subdivision of the 2.82 acre lot into two lots of 1 and 1.82 acres respectively.
Staff comment: Again, variances have been taken care of. The only thing that is pending is
Final subdivision review, the Sign Variance and the aforementioned Site Plan Review, and with
that I’d turn it over to the Board.
MR. TRAVER-Thank you. Good evening.
MS. BITTER-Good evening. Stefanie Bitter here as project attorney, together with Keith Crist
and Brandon Crist is in the audience for extra credit. We’re here this evening seeking Final
subdivision for A2000 and Adirondack Tire. The parcel as it exists today is 2.82 acres. The
front lot, which is referenced as Lot One, will be the location of Adirondack Tire. That’s one acre
in size. Lot Two, 1.82 acres, will be A2000, which is the existing storage units. As is described,
we needed variances for frontage, relative to Lot Two and setbacks that Lot Two is going to be
accessed to Route 9 through easements, which Lot One will provide. We’re proposing minimal
changes to this site with this subdivision. The businesses are already acting together and
function without difficulty. The storage units are a low traffic generator. We have provided a
letter from Tom Nace indicating that the stormwater controls are working on the site. As a result
of these minimal changes, we’re seeking waivers relative to grading, lighting, erosion and
stormwater, contours, landscaping, and I’d open it up to any questions at this time.
MR. TRAVER-Okay. Thank you. Any questions, comments from members of the Board? I
think we’ve looked at this quite extensively.
MR. FORD-Yes.
MR. TRAVER-Okay.
MRS. STEFFAN-The only thing that I’m just questioning right now is in the waiver requests.
We’ve got stormwater, grading, landscaping and lighting. Stefanie mentioned contours. Should
we add that?
MR. OBORNE-I think that since you’ve gone through the Preliminary subdivision review on that,
I don’t know how necessary that is. If you want to add contours, that’s fine.
MRS. STEFFAN-Okay.
MR. OBORNE-Just dot your I’s and cross your T’s.
MR. TRAVER-We also have a public hearing on this application tonight. Is there anyone in the
audience that wanted to address the Board on this application?
PUBLIC HEARING OPEN
MR. TRAVER-And do we have any written correspondence?
MR. OBORNE-No further comments, no.
MR. TRAVER-Okay. We’re ready to move forward?
MR. FORD-Yes.
MR. TRAVER-I’ll close the public hearing.
PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED
MRS. STEFFAN-And then I’ll make a motion to approve.
RESOLUTION APPROVING SUB 15-2010 A2000/Adirondack Tire
A subdivision application has been made to the Queensbury Planning Board for the following:
16
(Queensbury Planning Board 02/22/2011)
A public hearing/meeting was scheduled and held on 12/16/2010, 12/22/2010, 1/20/2011 &
2/22/2011; and
This application is supported with all documentation, public comment and application material in
the file of record; and
MOTION TO APPROVE SUBDIVISION NO. 15-2010 FINAL STAGE A2000/ADIRONDACK
TIRE, Introduced by Gretchen Steffan who moved for its adoption, seconded by Donald Krebs:
According to the resolution prepared by Staff. Approved without conditions.
a)Pursuant to relevant sections of the Town of Queensbury Zoning Code [Chapter A-183], the
Planning Board has determined that this proposal complies with the requirements as stated
in the Zoning Code; and
b)Final approved plans, in compliance with the Subdivision, must be submitted to the
Community Development Department before any further review by the Zoning Administrator
or Building and Codes personnel. The applicant must meet with Staff after approval and
prior to issuance of Building Permit and/or the beginning of any site work. Subsequent
issuance of further permits, including building permits is dependent on compliance with this
and all other conditions of this resolution; and
c)Waiver requests granted: stormwater mgmt., grading, landscaping, lighting & contours; and
d)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
e)As-built plans to certify that the subdivision is developed according to the approved plans to
be provided prior to issuance of the certificate of occupancy; and
nd
Duly adopted this 22 day of February, 2011, by the following vote:
AYES: Mr. Krebs, Mrs. Steffan, Mr. Magowan, Mr. Ford, Mr. Schonewolf, Mr. Sipp, Mr. Traver
NOES: NONE
MS. BITTER-Thank you very much.
MR. TRAVER-Okay.
MR. FORD-Thank you.
NEW BUSINESS:
SITE PLAN NO. 12-2011 SEQR TYPE II YI NONG LIU AGENT(S) JARRETT ENGINEERS
OWNER(S) SAME AS APPLICANT ZONING CI [COMMERCIAL INTENSIVE] LOCATION
365 BAY ROAD APPLICANT PROPOSES NEW FOOD SERVICE USE. FOOD SERVICE USE
IN A CI ZONE REQUIRES PLANNING BOARD REVIEW AND APPROVAL. CROSS
REFERENCE NONE FOUND WARREN CO. PLANNING 2/9/2011 LOT SIZE 0.34 +/-
ACRES TAX MAP NO. 296.19-1-30 SECTION 179-9
TOM JARRETT & HOWARD DENNISON, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT
MR. OBORNE-If I could, I’ll read this into the record.
MR. TRAVER-Sure.
MR. OBORNE-Food service use in a CI zone requires Planning Board review and approval.
Location is 365 Bay Road. Existing zoning is CI. This is a Type II SEQRA. Parcel History, no
planning or zoning history. Project Description: Applicant proposes food service use. Food
service use in a CI zone requires Planning Board review and approval. Specifically a
delicatessen is proposed next to the existing Chopsticks restaurant. Staff comments: This
application may need to be tabled as there has been an additional application submitted for the
unit to the south. Segmentation of the review process should be avoided. The applicant does
not propose handicap access or parking, nor is it required per the Director of Building Codes.
This site is pre-existing and nonconforming with multiple site issues that should be rectified or at
least looked at. Of particular concern are the following: Drive aisle widths – Access to rear
parking is accomplished by an 18 ft. 7 inch drive aisle. Permeability is at 1.4%. Handicap
parking and access is non-existent. Pedestrian connections, there are none, and vehicular
17
(Queensbury Planning Board 02/22/2011)
access issues – Front parking perpetuates backing onto Bay Road. I will obviously clarify that
these are all existing conditions. They’re not built into the plan. So, just to let you know that.
What, at the very least, I’m looking for is some directional signage, that’s under Page C-1 under
my Site Plan Review. Landscaping should certainly be quantified and qualified. There is some
landscaping proposed in planters in the front. Interconnects with adjoining property owners
should be vigorously pursued, and handicap parking and access should be considered. Loading
zone parking should be properly signed. Soffit lighting mentioned should be quantified and
qualified also, and additional comments. The applicant has requested waivers from lighting,
grading, stormwater and handicap parking, and Fire Marshal comments are attached. Sewer
and water comments are attached, and the Planning Board, may consider as a condition of
approval, that any proposed signage be Code compliant in the future, and with that I’d turn it
over to the Board.
MR. TRAVER-Thank you, Keith. Good evening.
MR. JARRETT-Good evening. For the record, Tom Jarrett of Jarrett Engineers. Howard
Dennison is here representing the applicant, and Aaron Liu is in the audience in case there’s
any questions that the Board has for him. This application is for occupancy of an existing
building, an existing site. It’s been unoccupied for a period of time. So we’re required to come
back for Site Plan Review, but we’re proposing no substantive changes to the site. We’re going
to clean up some issues. We’re going to eventually come back to you with signage. We’re not
sure exactly what that is yet, but we’re going to come back to you with signage.
MR. FORD-But it will be Code compliant, won’t it?
MR. JARRETT-I’m going to stipulate that it’ll be Code compliant or we’ll go to the Zoning Board
for appropriate setback variances, because there’s really nothing we can do on this site without
a variance. So I thought it was an interesting way of phrasing it in Staff comments.
MR. FORD-Yes.
MR. JARRETT-We’re going to add some landscaping or beef up the landscaping along the
front. The planters along the front of the building will be enhanced. Better delineation, you
know, a better barrier against the wall as well as more aesthetic plantings. Essentially, other
than that, we’re really not proposing anything right now. We just want to occupy the building.
Our client needs to get somebody in there, needs to get some revenue, and frankly, in all
deference to Staff’s concerns, we would like to see the Board approve the one use tonight and
we’d come back to you next month or when appropriate for the second use, whenever that
application is finalized and we’re ready for that, but I don’t consider this segmentation. We’re
putting it on the table. You know what the uses are, have been, you know what the space is,
you know what the site is. I don’t think it should be considered segmentation.
MR. OBORNE-Just a point of clarification. We don’t consider it segmentation from a SEQRA
point of view. From a planning review point of view it’s segmentation. That’s all. It’s a Type II
SEQRA.
MR. JARRETT-Howard, do you want to jump in with anything?
MR. DENNISON-Yes. I would just make the comment that the gentleman that’s looking to do
the deli, which is in the middle space, has been under a lease for approximately four months,
knowing that we’d have to go through this process. Hoping that it would be three months, but
timeframes work out, so we’re here on the fourth month, hoping not to get any further delay.
The person that’s looking to take the furthest space to the south is not under lease, has just put
their application in as an individual to see whether they can get through that part or not,
depending on what the Board says at that appropriate time. That’s kind of why I’m advocating
for the deli person to get in and get going. If the Board, in their ultimate wisdom, says there’s
other issues because this other person’s coming in, then maybe they get denied, they’re not,
we’re, as the owner of the building, is not under obligation to do a lease with this particular
person, if the Board says that might be too much traffic and too much parking or it has to, you
know, we’d like an office maybe or whatever. I don’t know what you’ll be looking at really. I
don’t see any problems with it at all, but that’s not my decision, it’s yours, but I’d like to just see
this gentlemen get going, get into business and do what he needs to do.
MR. JARRETT-You’ll notice we’ve assessed parking based on the use that is under lease, and
we don’t see a problem, and frankly, unofficially, even though we don’t have a lease for the third
occupant, we don’t see a problem with that parking, either. So we don’t see it generating a lot of
traffic or parking demand.
18
(Queensbury Planning Board 02/22/2011)
MR. TRAVER-Well, I think that sort of the Catch-22 that we’re in with regards to the
segmentation issue that Mr. Oborne referred to is that, you know, normally we’d be very
concerned about trying to address some of these issues. On the other hand, because of the
nature of the property, I’m not sure what can be done about all of those issues, but that’s a big
part of our concern about the, having two separate reviews.
MR. JARRETT-Acknowledged, understandable, and you’re right. Since this is an existing site,
it’s a little different than if it was a virgin site where we’re trying to leave a space unoccupied and
unnoted. Frankly, as Mr. Liu will attest, we went through pains trying to look at this site and look
at alternatives, and what we might be able to do with parking, interconnects between the two,
sidewalks, landscaping, lighting and signs. Aren’t a whole lot of options with this site. Just,
we’re kind of boxed into a corner literally and figuratively.
MR. OBORNE-I will say Tom and I have had multiple discussions on this site.
MR. JARRETT-We have.
MR. OBORNE-And I think we both understand each other on it. They do understand our
concerns in the Department of Community Development. We don’t want to stymie any job
generation or anything along those lines. The site is probably, in my experience in the Town, is
probably the second most difficult site that we’ve reviewed at this point, and I don’t envy the
Planning Board on this one, to be honest with you.
MR. JARRETT-Well, the good news is this is not the worst site in Queensbury. It’s only the
second worst site
MR. TRAVER-Yes, I hear you. Well, with that, I think the first thing that we need to consider is
the issue of segmentation. How do Board members feel? Can we take a look at this application
in isolation and handle the pending one as it comes our way, or do we want to manage these all
at once?
MR. SCHONEWOLF-I don’t have any problem with taking them one at a time.
MR. TRAVER-Okay.
MRS. STEFFAN-Since they’re different businesses, I say we’ll do them separately.
MR. TRAVER-Okay.
MR. FORD-I concur.
MR. TRAVER-Okay.
MRS. STEFFAN-And this is a difficult site.
MR. FORD-Yes.
MRS. STEFFAN-I mean, I know this site has had so many lives between the retail sales that’s
on the floor. I mean, in my mind I’m just clicking through all the things that have been there over
time.
MR. JARRETT-Been there for years, and years, and years and years. Somehow it survives.
MRS. STEFFAN-It’s on the way to everywhere, that’s why.
MR. JARRETT-That’s true.
MR. DENNISON-It was a deli at one time.
MRS. STEFFAN-Yes.
MR. DENNISON-The Butcher Block, if you remember.
MRS. STEFFAN-Yes. That was a long time ago.
MR. DENNISON-Yes, it was.
MR. OBORNE-The thing that strikes me, though, is that the parking is actually compliant, in
terms of amount.
19
(Queensbury Planning Board 02/22/2011)
MRS. STEFFAN-Just because they have the back.
MR. OBORNE-Well, they’re also not required to have handicap parking.
MR. TRAVER-Yes, well it’s a pre-existing, nonconforming structure.
MR. OBORNE-It’s pre-existing, nonconforming. It’s not a change in the Building Code usage.
So it’s a head scratcher, but I went back and forth with the Director of Building and Codes on it,
and that’s his position, and he’s the one that’s in charge of that Code.
MR. JARRETT-He’s examined the site many, many times while picking up take-out,
MR. TRAVER-Yes, I’m sure we all have.
MR. DENNISON-There’s actually no good, safe way in the front of the building to handle
handicap accessibility.
MR. JARRETT-And we can’t afford to eliminate that parking and leave it all green in the front.
MR. DENNISON-People getting out of their vans would end up on Bay Road.
MR. TRAVER-Well, it’s a testament to the food that people are willing to risk the navigation in
order to obtain it. Okay. Any questions or comments from members of the audience that want
to comment on this application? Yes, sir.
PUBLIC HEARING OPENED
JOHN MATTHEWS
MR. MATTHEWS-My name is John Matthews. I live at 18 Cedar Point on the east side of Lake
George. I am owner of the property that borders two sides of this parcel that you’re trying to
expand. My feeling up front is the parcel is way over built. It has been over used for the last 20
years. I’ve owned the property next to it for almost 26 years. I’ve watched it continually become
over saturated with uses. It started out with an apartment, and then it went to the deli or the fast
food, and there was a shop in the middle and an office and then a ski shop or a used sports
shop on the southern end, and at no time can I remember did they ever have enough parking.
They park in my parking lot. They cut through from Glenwood. They stop in my parking lot.
They get out and they run over to the place and pick up their Chinese food. Whoever’s sitting
waiting in the car leaves their garbage, empties their ash tray, and for the last 20 years I’ve done
nothing but pick up garbage and debris from the site. It’s either the dumpster stuff comes across
the fence that I put up, or it’s the people that pull in and run across and use my parking lot to
access theirs because it’s very, very hazardous pulling in and out off of Bay Road to get into the
few spots that are in the front. They’ve got an owner occupant that lives in the building right
now. So he has vehicles that have to park in the back. Customers don’t know there’s parking in
the back, if there’s any left. By the time they get in the back, they have to turn around and come
out in the front. They pull over and they park in my parking lot. Now, 20 some odd years ago
when I developed my site, there were zoning rules. I tore up blacktop. I reconfigured the whole
piece of property so that it totally accommodated the square footage of the property that I was
going to lease. I had the correct number of parking spaces. I have handicap spots for each
building. I have handicap ramps for each door. I have ample landscaping and green area as
per the zoning rules and regulations. I have my own drainage system that I put in to receive all
the water that comes from my land. Now I get water from the neighbor’s land off of the western
side, and southern side. The water comes off the roof. The property line’s a foot from my line,
and runs right out onto my lawn and down onto my parking lot and into my drainage system, and
the same thing happens in the back. Snow removal. I don’t know if any of you have visited this
site this week and looked at the front of his property. Where are they going to park? He had a
habit of plowing his snow and jamming it through my fence onto my side. There’s so much snow
this year that you can’t. It’s backed up the whole, halfway across the front. The two places are
unoccupied and have been unoccupied for a while because there’s no place to park. One of his
last tenants moved into my place when I had an office become available because of the parking
and because of the situation where his customers would also keep parking in my space and they
would be either told to move and had to towed or one thing or another. Now, I’m not going to
deal with their customers parking on my property anymore. It’s not fair. I pay too much in taxes
to the Town of Queensbury. I have been a builder for 40 some odd years. I have had to obey
your rules. I’ve gone through many, many, many Planning Board meetings, and had to table
meetings, had to go before it again, had certain stipulations that I had to do before I could get
another portion of my project completed, which I comply with. I’ve done everything that they’ve
ever asked me to do, and the only thing I’m asking you tonight is to deny anything that wants to
20
(Queensbury Planning Board 02/22/2011)
go into that building unless they can completely substantiate the questions that you’re going to
ask them as far as the drainage. There isn’t one inch of that property that isn’t covered with
blacktop and roof. Right to my fence, except for maybe the foot of crushed stone that’s between
my fence and their building on the southern side. So I can’t say that they haven’t been good
neighbors. I’ve never had any issues with them, other than the fact that their people park on my
property, and I’m concerned with an issue, somebody claims they slipped and fell or just the
garbage alone.
MR. TRAVER-May I ask you a question?
MR. MATTHEWS-Yes.
MR. TRAVER-Do you have any signage in your parking areas that tell people they cannot park
there?
MR. MATTHEWS-Yes, I do. It says this parking is for 357 Bay Road only. Now, I don’t know
how, what should I do, put a sign there that says you can’t, anybody going to the Chinese
restaurant can’t park here? I’ve tried very hard to be a gracious neighbor and put up with this
stuff.
MR. TRAVER-There are, it sounds as though your signage perhaps has not been as effective as
maybe different language might be. You might want to speak with people in the Planning
Department that are familiar with other no parking signs that might be a little bit more
aggressive, without specifically saying customers of the restaurant cannot park here. That
would be one suggestion. Anything else?
MR. MATTHEWS-I honestly don’t think signage is going to make a difference because in order
for somebody to go into that place, if there isn’t a place to park, they’re not going to go in there.
So they’ll park where they can get a place to park, you know. Unless they park over in Lowe’s
parking lot and walk.
MRS. STEFFAN-So, Mr. Matthews, you own the property that’s on the corner of Glenwood and
Bay?
MR. MATTHEWS-Yes.
MRS. STEFFAN-So it’s the building on the corner and then there’s like a medical building in the
back of that?
MR. MATTHEWS-Correct, both buildings.
MRS. STEFFAN-Okay. All right.
MR. MATTHEWS-The property used to belong to Delongs. It was a dairy bar in the beginning .
That’s why the front parcel there on the corner is at a 45 degree angle, because that’s the way
the original building was built, and then when we upgraded the property 20 years ago I
configured it so that I could get the necessary requirements to comply with the zoning rules.
MR. KREBS-So Wendy Kraft owns the property behind you? Or across the street.
MR. SCHONEWOLF-Yes.
MR. KREBS-Okay.
MR. MATTHEWS-Yes, right, the UPS place. Yes.
MR. TRAVER-Thank you for your comments, sir.
MR. MATTHEWS-Okay.
MR. TRAVER-Anyone else? Do we have any written correspondence?
MR. OBORNE-No.
MR. TRAVER-Okay. Any comments in response to the concerns that were raised?
MR. JARRETT-Well, while we can sympathize with the situation on that corner, as you can see
it’s very congested and it’s all asphalt. Frankly both properties are almost completely paved or
buildings. Perhaps the two owners should have gotten together and formulated some kind of a
21
(Queensbury Planning Board 02/22/2011)
shared parking arrangement, and that’s what the Board really would like is the interconnects and
shared uses, and that still can happen. Actually we might be able to encourage that even
tonight. We’re not proposing new construction. So I can understand that, that the Board would
look for that if we were proposing new construction. We’re not. We’re trying to occupy a
building that’s been there and has been occupied in this fashion for a number of years.
MR. TRAVER-I’m hearing, though, an increased demand for parking, hopefully, based on your
project, and the other concern was, you know, some debris left behind maybe by customers. I
don’t know what.
MR. JARRETT-Hard to regulate that. I mean, people will be people.
MR. TRAVER-It is.
MR. JARRETT-I think Mr. Liu is hearing these concerns, and I think he’s going to have to take
steps to try to make sure parking is directed to the rear and maybe some trash receptacles
outside, and maybe some signage that keeps people from moving to other properties.
MR. TRAVER-Yes. I mean, that’s what I’m alluding to. If you communicate to your customers
that there’s a concern about not parking in certain areas, if you can work something out with the
neighbor.
MR. JARRETT-We’re noting that, and we’ll.
MR. TRAVER-If you can, you know, make an effort to police debris that people may be leaving
behind. I mean, those things can mitigate the issues.
MR. OBORNE-I think also to promote parking to the rear.
MR. FORD-Yes.
MR. OBORNE-I mean, I think that that is one relief valve, because there’s no signage there that
states that, that there’s parking in the back. Nobody knows there’s any parking in the back.
MR. FORD-Yes.
MR. JARRETT-Yes. We agree.
MR. FORD-I think we’ve got a real signage issue. A lot can be addressed through signage.
MR. OBORNE-Among other issues.
MR. JARRETT-Well, I promised a few minutes ago we would come back to you with overall site
signs. We’ll come back to you with a proposal with some internal signage as well at the same
time.
MR. DENNISON-I think that for the owner of the property to try and mitigate anything that
happens in the adjoining properties, he’s obviously willing to do that. I think he can speak to that
right now. The signage in the front of the building or on the side that kind of promotes parking to
the rear with a sign that says parking to the rear. That’s not an issue. That will be done, and I
don’t know what kind of variance we need to have a sign on the building that says parking to the
rear, but I’m sure that we’ll be able to get that.
MR. OBORNE-Directional signages do not require any variances.
MR. DENNISON-So we would stipulate to that tonight, and there is parking in the rear most of
the time. I mean, the people that come there really don’t use the parking to the rear. It’s a kind
of in and out type of deal, but for concerns that have been raised, signage would help people
parking, rather than maybe parking in the neighbor’s thing. I don’t know how many Board
members have ever been there to pick up Chinese food or anything else. I mean, I’ve been
there a number of times. I’ve always parked in the front. I go in, I go out. I’m gone. I’ve
personally never had an issue, but with other places going in there, maybe it becomes an issue,
then the parking in the back helps to alleviate any problems.
MR. TRAVER-Yes. I mean, if you have vacant spaces that’s, you know, now possibly going to
be occupied, obviously there’s going to be a demand.
22
(Queensbury Planning Board 02/22/2011)
MR. DENNISON-Well, we had the insurance company on one side, and the vacant space was
the middle space, so now maybe, you know, we get three spaces occupied, there’ll be a little
more concern for parking.
MR. TRAVER-Right.
MR. DENNISON-And hopefully the signage.
MR. JARRETT-And our numbers do work with what’s required in the Town. So we’re willing to
address whatever we can.
MR. SIPP-Is this the lot that has the used car on the front of it with the for sale sign on it?
MR. DENNISON-Yes, that’s not on his property. That’s on the property next door.
MR. SIPP-That’s the property next door?
MR. DENNISON-Yes. I mean, it’s parked out front so it’s visible to everybody driving down Bay
Road. I guess it hasn’t sold yet, either. It’s been there for a while.
MR. FORD-There’ve been multiple cars parked there with for sale signs, different vehicles.
MRS. STEFFAN-Yes. That’s something that hasn’t been addressed by the Town, the flower
shop always has used cars there, but that’s a whole other enforcement issue. So this is going to
be a deli. So there’ll be the Chinese restaurant and then a deli.
MR. DENNISON-One feeding off the other, we hope.
MRS. STEFFAN-And will the deli have sit down, or is it specifically take-out?
MR. JARRETT-There’s one table proposed. So it’s basically take-out.
MR. DENNISON-The gentleman that’s going to be running the deli is right here.
JIM JULIANO
MR. JULIANO-It’s take-out and delivery.
MR. FORD-May we ask that gentleman how many take-out vehicles he anticipates?
MR. OBORNE-You’re going to have to get him up on the mic.
MR. JARRETT-Can you come to the table? Put your name on the record.
MR. JULIANO-Hi. My name’s Jim Juliano. I’m looking to lease and open up Juliano’s Deli. I’m
only proposing one car for delivery, which is mine. My employees are just going to use mine.
That’s about it. I don’t foresee any other, you know, my employees would park out back.
MR. FORD-And that’s where that vehicle will be parked when it’s not out in the community?
MR. JULIANO-Yes. It wouldn’t be in front, no.
MR. MAGOWAN-How many employees do you have? Do you anticipate?
MR. JULIANO-Myself and two others.
MR. MAGOWAN-So that would be three vehicles, say?
MR. JULIANO-Well, my girlfriend and I would take the same car. So two.
MR. MAGOWAN-Aaron, how many cars do you have?
YI NONG LIU
MR. LIU-First of all, I don’t leave the site. I mean, my wife and I, we both share cars. We try to
save gas, and my tenant, right, we have a garage for my tenant. I mean, most of the time they
park their car inside the garage. I mean, sometimes they may go pick up (lost words) do a quick
run. They leave the car in the parking lot, but most of the time the car is left inside. There’s two
garages for the tenants to park. So basically in the back, after All State moved out, the back
23
(Queensbury Planning Board 02/22/2011)
parking lot is my car and one of my driver’s cars. That is it, and then for all my take-out
customers, 95% is take-out. People come in, they call on the phone, come in for like two or
three minutes. They’re gone. It’s not like they’re going to wait there for a long time.
MR. MAGOWAN-And do any of your employees have them, or do you transport your
employees?
MR. LIU-I give one of my employees a ride home every night, but all my.
MR. FORD-Excuse me. We should have him on the record. Up here on the mic, please.
MR. TRAVER-Yes.
MRS. STEFFAN-We record the meetings. Just state your name for the record.
MR. LIU-Okay. My name’s Yi Nong Liu. I’m owner of the site.
MRS. STEFFAN-Thank you.
MR. LIU-Okay, and my wife and I share the car, and for my two tenants that live upstairs, they
both have a garage to store their car inside a garage, but every once in a while they park their
cars outside because there’s like a lot of parking, very easy access. They’ve been lazy, don’t
want to open the garage door, and then like I have a driver which drives a car, so that’s one car
for my driver, one car for myself, and then two cars for my tenant which they park inside the
garage, and I don’t see there’s any kind of problem with the parking because like a few years
ago when All State and Vicky the Nail Shop was there, we didn’t seem to have any problems. I
mean, customers, of course sometimes they park on the neighbor’s side for convenience. They
don’t want to park in the back, but if there’s a sign up directing them to the back, I’m sure they
will park in the back.
MRS. STEFFAN-Okay.
MR. FORD-Have you and your neighbor communicated about any refuse consideration or
parking issues?
MR. LIU-No, I have not. I don’t know how to. I mean, I would love to. I mean even if I have to
pay a monthly fee for my customer to use the parking space, or take out the garbage once a
week, I’d be more than happy to do that. Just like last year, like my neighbors say I break their
fences, and then I know for sure my plow guy did not break it. Because I saw it happen. It was
the Town of Queensbury when they tried to take out the snow, they happened to hit into one of
their poles, but I fixed it anyway because I don’t want to have an argument with my neighbor. I
mean, I’d be more than happy to compromise, whatever they ask for. I mean, as long as they
don’t give me any problems.
MRS. STEFFAN-How many parking places do you have in the back?
MR. LIU-In the front I would say there’s how many, about eight?
MRS. STEFFAN-Right, there’s eight in the front.
MR. JARRETT-There’s a total of 19 overall. So there’s another 11 in the rear.
MRS. STEFFAN-But folks, even though, I know you’re not supposed to park in front of garages,
but a lot of people do.
MR. JARRETT-Exactly the point I was going to bring up. That is available even though we didn’t
count it.
MR. MAGOWAN-Well, at least, you know, the tenants could park in front of their own garage if
they.
MR. LIU-No. I usually park by the garage, because I know that when my tenant wants to leave,
they can always come to the shop and I can move the car. I mean, I usually park right next to
the garage, so the customer doesn’t park there and block them in, you know.
MR. JARRETT-There’s actually room for three vehicles there, even though there’s officially two
spaces, two doors. There’s plenty of room for an overflow parking on a temporary basis.
MR. SIPP-Where do you put the snow?
24
(Queensbury Planning Board 02/22/2011)
MR. JARRETT-We’ve shown a snow storage area behind the garage. Frankly, in a year like
this, it may require removing some of it.
MR. MAGOWAN-Yes, it’s got to be removed from site.
MR. FORD-Is it currently being removed from the site, the snow?
MR. LIU-I mean, currently it’s not being removed. I mean, I usually put all of it at the end corner
right there. I mean, I see that gives plenty of space for it. That’s why I didn’t remove it. Of
course when there’s like more snow coming I will hire somebody to remove it, but right now I
don’t see that as a problem. I mean, if it is a problem, I will remove it.
MR. JARRETT-Have you been noticing the parking problems that Mr. Matthews is talking about,
customers going to the adjoining site?
MR. LIU-I mean, I don’t see that. I mean, I don’t know why he would say that stuff. I don’t know
how that happens. I mean, a lot of times my customers, like two or three cars or maybe one or
two cars at a time. It’s never like eight cars in the front, never. You can sit there all night, you
will never see eight cars there at a time. I don’t think that will ever happen.
MRS. STEFFAN-Well, people look to do things easy.
MR. LIU-Yes, for convenience. They think next door, fast, you know, people do that.
MRS. STEFFAN-If they’re coming from Glenwood, I can see how they would pull into the
neighbor’s parking lot because then they don’t have to go through the traffic light, get onto Bay,
whip into your lot and then back out.
MR. LIU-No, just not my customers, you know, some people cut through their parking lot just to
access Glenwood because they don’t want to wait at the traffic light.
MR. JARRETT-Even though it may not be happening right now, but I can see the opposite, too,
parking here to pick up food and then stopping next door at an office or whatever. That’s frankly
what we’re trying to promote Town wide is that kind of shared use and diversity and
interconnect, but it may be there’s some friction right now that we have to overcome.
MRS. STEFFAN-Well, and in this particular situation, you know, I’m a fan of drive thru’s and
those kinds of things, but just the nature of that corner of Town and it’s so busy, and it’s so tight
that, you know, I think it would cause problems, from many perspectives, even if someone
pulled into your property through to the neighbor’s property to go out onto Glenwood to cut
through the traffic light, if there were interconnects.
MR. JARRETT-We wouldn’t propose a driving interconnect. We would propose only a walking
interconnect, but that’s the kind of thing we’re promoting Town wide, isn’t it to use parking on
adjoining sites and walk between uses?
MRS. STEFFAN-Yes, absolutely.
MR. JARRETT-Rather than get in your car and drive around 300 feet.
MRS. STEFFAN-Well, it certainly seems that the type of businesses that will go into this
storefront have to be fast turnover, take out kinds of things because, you know, the days when
Villanova, for example, was there, and you had a sit down restaurant just can’t happen.
MR. TRAVER-Right.
MRS. STEFFAN-With the parking demands that you have and the traffic demands that you.
MR. JARRETT-We’d be hard pressed to serve that kind of use.
MR. FORD-Keith, do we have anything in the record relative to the safety issues there, in terms
of calls for emergency vehicles, etc.?
MR. OBORNE-No, I did speak to Dave Hatin about this, and, you know, he is tied in and he has
his ear with the fire departments and all that. One of the comments that he did say, and I don’t
want to put words in his mouth, was that there has yet to be any serious accidents there, and I
have no proof of that.
25
(Queensbury Planning Board 02/22/2011)
MR. SCHONEWOLF-That’s true, because you can’t get going fast enough.
MR. OBORNE-Yes, and so I don’t know if that’s true or not, but it could very well be.
MRS. STEFFAN-Well, the difficulty comes into play when there are parking, the parking spaces
in the front are wholly adequate, but then because folks, if there’s not a parking space for them,
then they’ll park on the shoulder of Bay Road, which makes the backing in and out of those
parking spaces appropriate, but when there’s folks parked on the road, that can be a problem.
MR. OBORNE-Having grown up in a urban area, I grew up in an urban area, this is not atypical.
It’s typical. My concern is, it is a vehicular issue. It’s more of a pedestrian issue, I feel, based
on my experience. I mean, there is a sidewalk that is conjoined with the parking spots. That
said, there’s no pedestrian walkway from the rear. So, I mean, that’s why I kind of hit up on that.
No handicap spaces. No handicap access. Again, not required, the handicap issue, but I think
you’re right when you say they’re backing up slow, you’re right, and it might take you three
cycles of the light to get out of there.
MR. SCHONEWOLF-Yes, there’s a lot more accidents down the road in front of the Community
College where they’re going 50 miles an hour.
MR. OBORNE-But I don’t have any data backing that up.
MR. TRAVER-Well, so where are we at? We have signage.
MR. MATTHEWS-Is the public hearing still open?
MR. TRAVER-Yes.
MR. MATTHEWS-I have another question.
MR. TRAVER-Okay. That’s a little unusual, but come on up by all means.
MR. MATTHEWS-Well, if you’re looking at, John Matthews, Lake George. If you’re looking at
three businesses, two more businesses going in there, where are they all going to put their
garbage? Are they going to use the one dumpster, or is each one going to have their own
dumpster? And if so, where are they going to put it?
MR. FORD-Well, while you’re back here, may I ask you a question?
MR. MATTHEWS-Yes.
MR. FORD-You built quite a strong case for the imposition the existing business has made on
your land, but there was no indication that you have taken this up with your neighbors.
MR. MATTHEWS-Many times.
MR. FORD-You have?
MR. MATTHEWS-Many times. I’ve spoken to him about the people parking over here on my
property. One of the reasons the insurance people left was because several, you know, my
employees would tell the people that park there, hey, you shouldn’t be parking here, and many
times it happened to be the insurance adjusters that would unload their baggage in my parking
lot and wheel it in there to talk to the people. I mean, there’s going to be people pulling in with
bags of stuff or coming in and out with bags of stuff. They’re going to want a place to park
where they can get in and out of their car without having to think about having to back up into
traffic on Bay Road.
MR. FORD-And you say you have communicated with Mr. Liu on numerous occasions of your
concerns?
MR. MATTHEWS-On several occasions. I mean, I’ve talked to him about the parking in my
parking lot. He knows that they park there. That’s one of the reasons I put the fence up.
MR. FORD-But you have directly communicated that with him?
MR. MATTHEWS-I didn’t write down the date, no.
MR. FORD-No, I didn’t ask that. You have communicated with him your concerns?
26
(Queensbury Planning Board 02/22/2011)
MR. MATTHEWS-Yes.
MR. FORD-On numerous occasions.
MR. MATTHEWS-On occasions, yes. I wouldn’t say it was numerous.
MR. FORD-Two, three?
MR. MATTHEWS-Two or three, yes.
MR. FORD-Okay. Thank you.
MR. MATTHEWS-Yes.
MR. TRAVER-Anything else?
MR. MATTHEWS-Nothing I can think of this minute.
MR. TRAVER-Thank you.
MR. JARRETT-Well, we’ve agreed to put signage up to direct parking to the rear. We think we
have enough parking for the site. We certainly meet the Town’s numbers. I cannot speak
personally to the parking issue. I’ve never personally parked on adjoining sites and walked over
to this building. So I don’t know.
MR. KREBS-Is there any kind of fence or something to prevent them from walking from his
property toward?
MR. JARRETT-There’s a fence and a hedge that discourage or prohibit walking interconnect.
MR. DENNISON-I think what happens, I think what this gentleman, the owner next door is
referring to, is a couple of spots that are close to this property.
MR. JARRETT-On Bay Road?
MR. DENNISON-Yes, and they can walk around the fence, where his fence goes to the property
line, but they just walk right around it. I mean, that’s what’s happening.
MRS. STEFFAN-You can see it. The parking space is right on the side, that have left the
building are, you know, there’s a perfect invitation to park there because it’s convenient.
MR. JARRETT-Which is not unusual in many, many locations in many communities. That’s
what people do.
MR. DENNISON-I’ve suggested to the gentleman that maybe in each unit we could put up a
sign that tells people not to park in the parking lot next door. When they come in, they see the
sign there, and they’ll also see the sign that says go around, park in the back. So, I mean, we’ve
tried to alleviate or educate some people, but they’re going to do what they’re going to do, and
there’s nothing we can do about it, but we are willing to try and address it somehow, and those
are the suggestions that I’ve made to the gentleman next door that we were willing to do. It’s not
a big cost factor for us, but it’s certainly trying to be a good neighbor.
MR. TRAVER-Well, I think, I mean, there are people who will read a sign and be considerate,
and there are those that won’t, but in the absence of signage, people haven’t had that
opportunity. So if you put up some appropriate signage, we know that some percentage of them
at least will improve in their parking habits when frequenting this business. So, hopefully that
will.
MRS. STEFFAN-The other thing I’m wondering is if signage along that strip is highly utilized for
this, if there were signs like employee parking only and the employees for Mr. Matthews’
buildings would park there.
MR. JARRETT-You mean right adjoining to our site?
MRS. STEFFAN-Yes. If those spaces were empty, like where the red car is, along that strip.
MR. JARRETT-Make them not as inviting?
27
(Queensbury Planning Board 02/22/2011)
MRS. STEFFAN-Exactly, and if there were signs that said employee only parking, most folks
don’t park in those spots. I mean, even Downtown the City lot that’s next to the police station,
you know, there are parking spaces for the LARAC folks that, you know, have the LARAC
building. There’s police parking, and those spaces are empty, you know, when the rest of
Downtown’s full.
MR. JARRETT-When you’re adjacent to the police station, you might want to abide by the
signage.
MR. OBORNE-You can’t condition that on a property that you’re not looking at this point, and
what is suggest is you ask the property owner next door. I mean, he’s here, obviously. I don’t
know how he.
MRS. STEFFAN-Well, that’s why I brought it up because, you know, it would be a great idea for
this applicant to offer to provide that signage, so that it would be a solution, you know, an
interconnect.
MR. OBORNE-We are in the forum.
MR. FORD-Yes.
MRS. STEFFAN-Is costly and requires some kind of action, and in this situation it might be a
proactive step to get people to not use that lot because it will no longer be convenient. So I
don’t know how everybody else feels about that, but if the signing was provided, that might be a
solution. I don’t know if it’s the solution, but it might be a solution.
MR. TRAVER-Yes. It could very well be a solution.
MR. SCHONEWOLF-At best it’ll improve the situation.
MR. TRAVER-Right.
MRS. STEFFAN-Because there are several, I don’t know exactly how many spots are there,
because that’s not part of this site plan, but.
MR. OBORNE-Twenty at least.
MR. DENNISON-Yes, we would stipulate to three signs on those three lots, those three which I
think would probably be very helpful.
MR. JARRETT-You mean we’re going to offer to provide those to Mr. Matthews.
MR. DENNISON-Right.
MR. JARRETT-If he wishes to utilize them, then we would supply the signs he could put up.
That’s just an offering to us. He can speak for himself.
MR. DENNISON-Right. If he thinks it would help him, then we’ll provide the signs for him.
MR. TRAVER-Good.
MR. FORD-Good offer.
MR. TRAVER-Yes. All right. So where are we at?
MRS. STEFFAN-I was just saying, what other solutions can we come up with that might help?
MR. TRAVER-Well, they’re going to alert customers that they’re not to park on his property.
They’re going to have directional signage, as they indicated. They’re going to offer to the
neighbor to put up signs restricting parking in the most convenient spots that are on his property.
They’re going to increase communication with the neighbor to make sure that when problems
arise they are dealt with in an orderly way, and they’re going to increase surveillance of the lot to
try to make sure there isn’t a lot of garbage around. That’s what I’ve heard so far.
MR. MAGOWAN-Well, that’s on John’s site. Now we also have the flower shop on the other,
correct? Are you able to walk through?
MRS. STEFFAN-There’s a fence there.
28
(Queensbury Planning Board 02/22/2011)
MR. MAGOWAN-When I’ve gone sometimes when it’s been busy, I’ve gone, you know, late at
night, gone around the flower shop and parked in the back. The only reason is my vehicle’s 23
feet long, and I can’t actually get it in front.
MR. DENNISON-I have not experienced people going into the flower shop. I mean, it’s got to be
pretty rare, I guess.
MR. MAGOWAN-Well, another solution, I’m talking if Aaron wants to talk also to the flower shop
and maybe saying, you know, the back parking lot I know is not used a lot, being able,
employees can park back there for X amount of dollars a month or something. Just to free up
some more room.
MR. DENNISON-I don’t think many of us, when we go there, think about going in the back at all,
because there’s never been really a need. The times that I’ve been there, because I’m working
the site, per se, there’s always parking in the back. It’s not like it’s.
MR. FORD-But there’s no encouragement to utilize that, is there?
MR. DENNISON-You’re saying that there’s not, the people that are in the apartments, they’re
not taking up a lot of spaces, there’s not, you know, employees that are taking up a lot of
spaces. There’s always plenty of parking back there, any time that I’ve ever visited the site,
night or day, in the back there, and I’ve been there many times.
MR. JARRETT-We will try and encourage that.
MR. FORD-We just need the encouragement.
MR. KREBS-And normally the flower shop has, on the south end of their parking area, a used
car for sale which kind of prevents people from coming back and forth.
MR. TRAVER-Well, I think the signage will help. I know in my years of being a customer, I was
never even aware there was parking in the back. I just pulled in front. I would typically call in
and order in advance and I would be, I mean.
MR. DENNISON-I think you’re like everybody else. Probably all had the same experiences. But
the signs will help and if parking becomes an issue, we can talk to the other.
MR. SIPP-Do we need a stormwater and a landscaping plan?
MR. TRAVER-I really don’t think there’s much we can do with the pre-existing conditions that
are there. I mean, it’s a good question.
MR. SIPP-I mean, you’ve got, as was said, blacktop and roof, and where is this water going to
go?
MR. SCHONEWOLF-On the road.
MR. SIPP-On the road.
MR. SCHONEWOLF-Where it all goes on that road, and then it goes into a drain and then over
to the dump. It does. That’s where it goes. It eventually winds up there.
MR. DENNISON-Any runoff from the site has not been an issue that anybody has brought to the
attention of the owner or the Town has not brought an issue that, you know, water is running off
onto the highway and freezing up.
MR. TRAVER-But when it’s 100% impermeable, I‘m not sure that there’s, you know, a whole lot
that.
MR. SCHONEWOLF-Plus there’s two feet of salt on the highway.
MR. TRAVER-Yes. It would be nice to be able to address stormwater, but we have to rely, I’m
afraid, on the surrounding area to handle what’s being produced, and we’re not doing anything
with this application that’s changing stormwater.
MR. JARRETT-We’re not proposing to change the site at all.
MR. TRAVER-Right.
29
(Queensbury Planning Board 02/22/2011)
MRS. STEFFAN-So, Keith, in your Staff Notes you identify that handicap parking and access
should be considered, but the Director of Building and Codes states it’s not required.
MR. OBORNE-He states it’s not required, and I’m asking you to consider it for obvious reasons.
MRS. STEFFAN-Right.
MR. OBORNE-And the caveat to that is if you require it they have to get a parking variance. So,
it’s a Catch-22.
MR. JARRETT-The Catch-22 is we were willing to offer it but it does limit the amount of cars we
can put on the site and then, as you say, as Keith says, it requires a variance. So we’re caught
between a rock and a hard place.
MRS. STEFFAN-That limits business.
MR. TRAVER-I think also it’s somewhat mitigated by the fact that the business is primarily take-
out. You’re not having people come in and sit down at a conventional restaurant.
MRS. STEFFAN-What about, the one question that hasn’t been discussed I don’t think is the
loading. What trucks deliver here, you know food and that kind of thing? Big trucks, medium
size trucks? Where do they park?
MR. OBORNE-If they’re going to have Sysco.
MR. LIU-My truck they come from New York City once a week, which is on every Tuesday. I
mean, they’re only there for like 15 minutes to unload, and normally they go to the back parking
lot by the rear entrance. That was it.
MRS. STEFFAN-Okay.
MR. JARRETT-I think we’ve shown on our site plan as a loading zone.
MR. OBORNE-You do show, they do show an area for loading, but it just says loading.
MRS. STEFFAN-Right.
MR. OBORNE-So my notes are to have it painted or something along those lines that states
that, you know, it may be beneficial.
MR. LIU-It’s a small regular truck. They like deliver four or five stores when they come up that
way. So it’s a very small truck.
MRS. STEFFAN-So they’re not the huge ones?
MR. LIU-Not the huge ones, no.
MRS. STEFFAN-Okay, and the deli, will that be getting deliveries through the front of the
building or the back of the building?
MR. JULIANO-They’ll be at the back of the building, too, as well.
MRS. STEFFAN-Okay. So there’s a door in the back of the building.
MR. JULIANO-Right.
MRS. STEFFAN-Okay. So they’ve got two, and Item Seven in the Staff Notes, Mr. Jarrett, soffit
lighting, apparently it’s not quantified.
MR. JARRETT-I don’t think we’ve actually, we’ve gone back and forth on actual wattage. We
will stipulate that as no more than 60 watts at this stage.
MRS. STEFFAN-Okay.
MR. JARRETT-Equivalent 60 watts, I should say.
MR. OBORNE-In case you want to put in fluorescents or something.
30
(Queensbury Planning Board 02/22/2011)
MR. JARRETT-We will be doing that, yes. The soffit fixtures we think are adequate. Some of
the lamps have been, have burned out, so we’re going to replace those with, we’ll say we’ll
stipulate 60 watt equivalent.
MRS. STEFFAN-Okay, Planning Board people, the directional signs that we need to consider.
These are, I’m going by the Staff Notes as our guide here. So, we want to have directional signs
that say what, and where do we want them?
MR. FORD-Parking available in the rear.
MR. TRAVER-Yes. Parking is available in the rear.
MR. FORD-Or additional parking and an arrow, something like that.
MR. KREBS-Right.
MR. MAGOWAN-And that should be on, what, the front?
MR. KREBS-Yes, the front of the building.
MR. MAGOWAN-Front right corner.
MR. FORD-Front right corner as you face it.
MRS. STEFFAN-Okay. What other signs?
MR. TRAVER-The applicant is offering three employee parking only signs to the neighbor.
MR. TRAVER-Yes, ma’am?
DIANE MATTHEWS
MRS. MATTHEWS-This is so out of order. I’m sorry. I just don’t understand.
MR. TRAVER-Come on up and state your name for the record so we can get you on the record.
MRS. MATTHEWS-Diane Matthews, 18 Cedar Point, Lake George. I do not understand the
handicap parking theory that you’ve been talking about. They don’t need handicap parking areas
on this parcel? Why?
MR. TRAVER-Right. It’s not a matter of need. It’s a matter of the fact that it’s a, what is referred
to as a pre-existing nonconforming structure. That’s one issue. The other issue is the use of the
building and having a, adding the facilities to make it handicap accessible would actually reduce
the efficiency of the property and increase the, all the issues, the other issues that we’ve been
discussing, the parking, traffic and so on.
MRS. MATTHEWS-Suppose they rent, they have three renters in there, even if there’s an older
couple or children and you still don’t need handicap then? Suppose they leave, the owners
leave the upper part, and rent it to someone else or another business?
MR. TRAVER-Who is a person who has a disability?
MRS. MATTHEWS-Well, I mean, I would think you’d need handicap for just about anything,
apartments, everything. See, I don’t understand why.
MR. TRAVER-Well, it’s certainly a goal to make businesses and, you know, buildings in the
Town handicap accessible, and this is an exception, because it is a pre-existing, nonconforming
structure.
MRS. MATTHEWS-So then you’re thinking that not a handicap person is going into the deli
either?
MR. TRAVER-Well, it’s certainly, it makes it less accessible.
MRS. STEFFAN-It’s certainly, and I understand your point of view. It seems illogical, but the
difficulty with this is that there’s not going to be a change in structure. If they wanted to take
down the building or re-develop it in some way, then that would trigger some of these mandates,
you know, like the handicap parking and some of those other access management issues.
31
(Queensbury Planning Board 02/22/2011)
MRS. MATTHEWS-Okay.
MRS. STEFFAN-But because they’re not changing the site, it’s just that the building has been
empty for a while, and so that’s the reason why they have to come back for Site Plan Review. So
it’s very confusing.
MRS. MATTHEWS-But it could change completely.
MR. OBORNE-Mrs. Matthews, I asked the very same question of the Director of Building and
Codes.
MRS. MATTHEWS-Okay.
MR. OBORNE-And I was in the same exact position that you’re in. I don’t understand it.
MRS. MATTHEWS-Okay.
MR. OBORNE-However, and I came back to him twice, that he states that there is no change in
use of the building. If there is a change in use of the building, i.e. if it wasn’t, if it went from
commercial to strictly residential, they would be required to have the handicap, but it’s a
commercial structure and that’s what we’re looking at right now.
MRS. MATTHEWS-But it also has renters, that’s residential.
MR. OBORNE-Right, but that’s not what we’re looking at under Site Plan Review right now. It’s
not changing, and I agree. I agree with you, and it’s stated in my Staff Notes, but with that said,
it’s not a requirement, and it’s a head scratcher.
MRS. MATTHEWS-Okay. Thank you very much.
MR. TRAVER-Thank you, and your concern is noted and part of the record.
MR. MAGOWAN-You also mentioned maybe putting signs inside as patrons are walking out,
that they would see that there was additional parking in the rear for maybe the next time they
came in, if they happened to miss the corner sign. Was that brought up or, you know, not a big
sign, but something near the door exiting that they’re, you know.
MR. TRAVER-Well, if they’re exiting and they came by vehicle, they’re already parked.
MR. MAGOWAN-Yes, but if they’re pulling in to the parking lot, and they miss that one sign
down there on the right side saying there’s additional parking in the rear because they’re coming
to the deli in the middle, and, you know, the first three spaces are taken up for Chopsticks, I
mean, I thought I heard someone mention that, you know, a sign inside, too, reminding patrons
that there’s parking outside, or, you know.
MR. OBORNE-That’s something you certainly could do, but that’s not anything that Code
Enforcement can enforce, because it’s not, we’re looking at the property itself and the outside of
the building. We have no jurisdiction inside, but you can’t condition the approval on that.
MR. MAGOWAN-All right. So what was said, it wasn’t on the inside, maybe it was on the
outside near each door.
MR. OBORNE-Sure.
MR. MAGOWAN-That there’s additional parking, and maybe I just misunderstood what was said
up there, yes.
MR. JARRETT-We’ll try to make sure the signage is on there so that everybody.
MR. MAGOWAN-I guess what I’m asking for, I’d like to see one more, you know, more than one
sign, you know, all the way down at the right side, saying that there’s additional parking, you
know, one near each door, you know, entering.
MR. JARRETT-I was thinking the most effective would be between the driveway and the front
parking spaces, somewhere right there on the building façade or a post or something, but we’ll
have to look and see what the most effective location or locations would be. There’s one
additional signage that was mentioned was we would put notes or signs on the site saying no
parking on adjoining lots.
32
(Queensbury Planning Board 02/22/2011)
MR. SCHONEWOLF-Right. That’s the one you did those.
MR. DENNISON-That’s the one we were referring to.
MR. JARRETT-That’s the one that we agreed to that I don’t think has been put in the conditions
yet.
MR. OBORNE-But a customer may not know what an adjoining lot is.
MR. DENNISON-Yes, but what do you do? If there’s a fence in between the two properties ,
and they can’t figure that out, there’s not much I can help them with.
MR. JARRETT-Well, we’ll take suggestions from you on language, but we’ve agreed to put
something up t hat would try to discourage that.
MR. TRAVER-Well, and you have a lot of repeat customers. So a change in the parking
system, you know, will take a while for people to learn what’s convenient.
MR. JARRETT-It may spark some questions, too, as to, yes.
MRS. STEFFAN-So Brad had identified parking signs on the building. Is that, do you want to
include that.
MR. TRAVER-Additional parking in the rear, right? Signs on the building?
MRS. STEFFAN-And we have that. We have parking available in rear or additional parking in
rear at the, you know.
MR. FORD-With an arrow, because you don’t want them going the other way to try to get to the
rear.
MR. TRAVER-Yes, not pointing at the flower shop, right?
MR. JARRETT-That’s one, and then the other, another sign or signs would be no parking on
adjoining lots, and then we offered the three signs to Mr. Matthews to use on his spaces if he
desires. I think those are the three parking conditions, signage conditions that we talked about.
MR. DENNISON-But the parking would be, the parking in the rear with the arrow, it was
suggested three. I don’t know if we’re going to get too cluttered there with a lot of signs up. I
might suggest one maybe two thirds of the way down in between what will be the most southern
unit and the deli, so you’d have two, one on the corner with a sign, and one kind of two thirds of
the way down toward the south side, and then those other signs could be placed so they’re not,
it doesn’t look like you’ve got all signs in the front of the building.
MR. TRAVER-Right. Well, I think the idea is to make it visible to someone.
MRS. STEFFAN-Yes, because right now I’m visualizing visual spaghetti, you know, with the,
you know, you’re over stimulated. There isn’t any place to park, there isn’t any place to go.
There’s cars whipping by on Bay Road
MR. TRAVER-Yes. Well, we have the opportunity to present something to Staff and we’ll be
back in front of you for the next use. So we can have something in front of you to show you
what we’re proposing.
MR. DENNISON-Well, we may not have to come back for that, I’m not sure. It depends on.
MR. JARRETT-Okay. Never mind. I forget that.
MR. DENNISON-Right. Let me just get back to the signage out front. So two signs in those
appropriate spots for parking in the rear with arrows facing that way, and then I’m still getting this
same feeling of too many signs out there with no parking on adjoining properties out front.
MR. KREBS-Can I make a suggestion for a sign? If you just take a red arrow and put the word
parking on it and the arrow is pointed toward the parking, it will direct people to that parking
area, and you could, without having too much signage, you could probably put three of those
across the front of the building, all three pointing in the same direction of course, so that it forces
them to go around to the back of the building.
MR. FORD-I really would prefer that it stipulates in rear, because you’re pointing it to a neighbor.
33
(Queensbury Planning Board 02/22/2011)
MR. MAGOWAN-So you’d have to go over and then return it back, you know.
MR. KREBS-Okay, or maybe you make it a little longer and put parking in rear.
MR. JARRETT-And one thought was to say additional parking in rear.
MR. DENNISON-Additional parking in rear, two or three, I mean, you can tell us what you want.
Adding those other signs that say no parking in somebody else’s lot, and then you’ve got three
of them.
MR. JARRETT-Well, we can do it underneath the first sign, if we still comply with Town
standards.
MR. DENNISON-Well, if that’s what you really want. If you want those other signs for no parking
and parking in additional lot, if we’re going to have.
MRS. STEFFAN-Well, in my mind, the most likely way to get that information to customers is to
put a little sign on the cash register, on the back side of the cash register that just says, you
know, please remember, you know, to park in our lot.
MR. KREBS-Or hang that sign on the fence, because the fence comes out almost to the road,
and if you put anything and hung it on the .
MR. MAGOWAN-If you put it at the end of the parking lot, it’s on the fence, so when they’re
walking back to John’s or the flowerland they see it, no parking. Yes. Then it’s not on the front,
it’s on the sides.
MR. TRAVER-It is unusual, but we have an unusual parking situation.
MR. DENNISON-Whatever the Board would like, it’s just I’d bring it to your attention.
MRS. STEFFAN-As the Secretary of the Planning Board, I need to let the Planning Board know
how impossible my task is here. Everyone’s talking, but I’m having a hard time visualizing it.
MR. TRAVER-Do you want to review where we’re at with what we’ve proposed for signs?
MRS. STEFFAN-There are three, and I don’t know if we have agreement, but we have three.
Two signs that say parking available in rear, or additional parking in rear, located at the front
right of the building with arrows, and then the second one, the applicant is offering three
employee only parking signs to John Matthews of the neighboring property to deter patrons from
parking in his lot if he wishes.
MR. TRAVER-Okay.
MRS. STEFFAN-And then the third option is signage, that denotes no parking on adjoining lots.
MR. TRAVER-And that signage would be?
MR. JARRETT-I’m suggesting we combine the additional parking in rear with a note underneath,
no parking on adjoining lots. So that they’re on the same signs.
MR. TRAVER-Okay.
MR. JARRETT-So that avoids the sign, what’s the word I’m looking for.
MR. TRAVER-Well, and it doesn’t require you to put something on the inside that we can’t
enforce anyway.
MRS. STEFFAN-Sign pollution.
MR. JARRETT-Sign pollution, that’s the word.
MR. TRAVER-How does the Board feel on that?
MR. FORD-Good.
MR. SCHONEWOLF-I’ve forgotten what you’re talking about.
MR. TRAVER-Yes, so those will be combined. So then we just have one and two.
34
(Queensbury Planning Board 02/22/2011)
MR. FORD-Keith has an additional point.
MR. OBORNE-Directional signs cannot be greater than four square feet.
MR. JARRETT-That’s plenty big enough.
MR. KREBS-That’s a two by two sign.
MR. DENNISON-It’s not like the people are going to be very far away from the sign when they’re
there. It’s going to be right in their face.
MR. JARRETT-They’re going to be parking right in front of it.
MR. DENNISON-Yes.
MR. TRAVER-Do we have any idea when we’re going to see the next application?
MR. OBORNE-No. There is a, it sounds like you’re going down the path of approval with
conditions. Is that a safe assumption?
MR. SCHONEWOLF-I think so.
MR. FORD-Yes.
MR. OBORNE-Okay. The Code states that you do not have to have Site Plan Review on
property that has had Site Plan Review in the last seven years. You chose not to combine the
two applications. You chose to segment it. That’s why I was pushing for non-segmentation
because I wanted the site to be planned in conjunction with both plans.
MRS. STEFFAN-See, we didn’t know that when we made the decision.
MR. OBORNE-With that stated, well, I didn’t know which way you were going to go, but with that
stated, the applicant who has a site plan in for review in March will most likely just need a
building permit at this point because you have already seen the site issues. That’s the whole
idea behind the Site Plan Review that hasn’t happened in seven years is to take these tired sites
and try to make them less tired.
MR. JARRETT-Mr. Chairman, can we jump in here?
MR. TRAVER-Sure.
MR. JARRETT-We will offer to come back and present the next use when that application is
ready. Just so that we don’t put you in a bind. We’d like to move forward with the use we have
under lease. We’ll come back, we’ll offer to come back and discuss that with you and present
that application to you.
MR. TRAVER-Okay. We can’t condition that because it’s a separate application.
MR. JARRETT-We didn’t realize that we would be subject to that technicality, either, and we
thought we would be back anyway.
MR. TRAVER-Okay. Well, it is on the record, is represented on the record.
MR. DENNISON-I could add to that that the other applicant is here and has stated to me that
what she would be doing there would be by appointment only. So, there wouldn’t be an influx of
cars coming in and out. So that’s just for your information, and certainly we’d be back with
anything else that you might desire, but I think we’re pretty cut and dried there.
MR. TRAVER-I mean, we could leave it flexible, too, that if you wish to look at the application
with Staff and want us to come back, we’ll come back. If you feel the application doesn’t warrant
coming back to the Board, then so be it.
MR. OBORNE-I wouldn’t be in support of that. I leave it in the capable hands of the Planning
Board at this point.
MR. FORD-Come on back.
MR. JARRETT-Come on back. Okay.
35
(Queensbury Planning Board 02/22/2011)
MR. OBORNE-I’m not sure that there is a mechanism to force, not force, but to have that other
applicant come back. You can’t direct her to come back if you approve this Site Plan.
MR. FORD-That was an invitation to come on back, not a stipulation.
MR. JARRETT-We offered it. That’s a stipulation and a condition of approval.
MR. TRAVER-How would it appear on the agenda? Would it be like a Sketch Plan Review?
MR. OBORNE-No. She’s on for Site Plan Review.
MR. TRAVER-Okay.
MR. OBORNE-And I was going to piggy back both these applications on, and the applicant was
aware of that, for this project, and so was the impending applicant in March. It was all
predicated on the Board making that decision tonight, but I did not want to influence that.
MRS. STEFFAN-And that is on for what meeting in March?
th
MR. OBORNE-The 24, I believe.
MR. DENNISON-I’ll just say again that the, and you’re not reviewing that other application
tonight, but you know what the application is like and what’s going to happen there. So, you
know, you have to feel comfortable that what is being said to you is the truth and nothing but the
truth, and the site is what it is, and that’s what the proposal is.
MR. OBORNE-The application that’s in now for next month does not have any changes to the
site, it would not affect the site. Well, it’s going to affect the site, but based on the numbers of
parking, it’s not going to affect the site. In fact, it’s a less intensive use that they have proposed.
It’s a personal service use. So it’s not another restaurant. It’s not anything along those lines.
MR. TRAVER-You have to remember that we still have one administrative item left this evening.
MRS. STEFFAN-Okay. So Staff Notes talked about signage recommended for truck traffic. Are
we still concerned about that? Based on what we’ve heard?
MR. TRAVER-With regards to the loading area?
MRS. STEFFAN-Or trucks loading and unloading in front. The owner of the building says that
they’re not, they’re driving around the back.
MR. SCHONEWOLF-It only takes them 15 minutes to unload.
MRS. STEFFAN-Landscaping.
MR. KREBS-They’ve offered planters along the front. So that’s better than what’s there now.
MR. JARRETT-Planters along the front continuous across the front.
MRS. STEFFAN-Okay.
MR. OBORNE-I was looking for quantities and qualifications.
MRS. STEFFAN-Right. Does the Planning Board want that, or are we just going to go with it?
Because the plan, we need a landscape plan. You know what that does.
MR. SCHONEWOLF-If you’re going to landscape blacktop, it better be hanging baskets, or
planters.
MR. DENNISON-There are existing planters in the front of the project now. They’re not well
maintained, we might say. We plan on building them up, making them a little taller, which we
certainly will stipulate to, and so that they’d be more visible from the road and be more of a block
for the cars. So right now they’re kind of low. They’re only like a little bit above.
MR. TRAVER-How many planters are there?
MR. DENNISON-There’s three, I believe, in front of each unit.
MR. TRAVER-Okay.
36
(Queensbury Planning Board 02/22/2011)
MR. LIU-There’s two in front of Chopsticks. There’s two small ones by the middle unit and
there’s one small section by the, on the left side of the building, and then there’s a pretty good
sized one right in front of the big window.
MR. OBORNE-They are proposing it on the Site Plan.
MRS. STEFFAN-Right. It’s, yes, but it’s just not detailed.
MR. TRAVER-Right.
MRS. STEFFAN-It certainly sounds good conceptually. You have shrubs and perennials and
seasonal annuals, which will go along nicely with the window baskets on the building across the,
on the other side of Glenwood. Okay. We’re leaving the interconnect. How do we feel about
the interconnect? I mean, obviously Mr. Matthews is here. He’s talked to us about some of his
concern. One of the Staff Notes interconnects with adjoining property owners should be
vigorously pursued.
MR. SCHONEWOLF-That isn’t what we’re here for.
MRS. STEFFAN-Okay. Handicap parking.
MR. KREBS-I mean, that would only, if you made an interconnect on the front side, it would only
encourage people to use the other parking lot.
MR. TRAVER-Yes. I mean, we’ve addressed it by discussing the problem of people going on
the neighboring property. With regard to handicap access, I mean, we’ve reviewed the fact that
it’s a pre-existing, nonconforming structure and that the infrastructure to make the building
handicap accessible would.
MRS. STEFFAN-Well, we don’t have to say anything. I mean, if we’ve looked at it, and we’re
willing to grant waivers for lighting, grading, stormwater and handicap parking,. That’s what it
ends up being.
MR. FORD-Yes.
MR. TRAVER-Right.
MRS. STEFFAN-Keith, regarding signage, the more appropriate language to use was any new
signage will be Code compliant, because there’s already signs on the front of the building and
I’m assuming that they may not be Code compliant at this time, but would have to come into
compliance at some later date.
MR. OBORNE-Yes. I know initially they proposed a monument sign that would have required
that. Anything that’s attached to the building as it stands would be Code compliant. What I was
looking for more was size at this point, but I think if you just state any proposed signage is Code
compliant with this applicant. Because you’re not proposing a monument sign at this point.
MR. JARRETT-Not yet.
MR. OBORNE-Right. If you come back with a monument sign, they have to go before the
Zoning Board of Appeals.
MR. JARRETT-For setback, not size.
MR. TRAVER-Right.
MR. OBORNE-So they are allowed signage on there. It is a business complex.
MRS. STEFFAN-Correct, but I just want to make sure because what I want to say is we’re telling
them that they have to put signs up and they have to be Code compliant.
MR. OBORNE-Right.
MRS. STEFFAN-But I don’t want to put language in here that will make them take down the sign
on the front of the building and make it Code compliant.
MR. OBORNE-Any new.
37
(Queensbury Planning Board 02/22/2011)
MRS. STEFFAN-Any new or proposed signage will be Code compliant.
MR. OBORNE-Right.
MRS. STEFFAN-So what I’m hearing from the Planning Board is you want to go forward with
this and approve it with conditions, and the conditions are signage. Okay, and the public
hearing is closed? Did you close the public hearing yet?
MR. TRAVER-We’ll close the public hearing.
PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED
MRS. STEFFAN-And this is a Type II SEQRA. So we don’t have a SEQRA.
MR. TRAVER-Right.
MRS. STEFFAN-Okay.
RESOLUTION APPROVING SP 12-2011 LIU
A site plan application has been made to the Queensbury Planning Board for the following:
Applicant proposes new Food Service Use. Food Service Use in a CI zone requires Planning
Board review and approval.
A public hearing was advertised and held on 2/22/2011; and
This application is supported with all documentation, public comment and application material in
the file of record;
MOTION TO APPROVE SITE PLAN NO. 12-2011 YI NONG LIU, Introduced by Gretchen
Steffan who moved for its adoption, seconded by Thomas Ford:
According to the resolution prepared by Staff.
1)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
2)Type II-no further SEQRA review is necessary; and
3)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
4)The Sanitary Sewer connection plan must be submitted to the Wastewater Department for
its review, approval, permitting and inspection; and
5)Waiver requests granted: stormwater mgmt., grading, landscaping, lighting plans and
handicap parking; and
6)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
7)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
8)This is approved with the following conditions:
1.That the applicant will install arrowed signs, no greater than four square feet,
denoting no parking on adjoining lots and additional parking in rear.
2.The applicant will offer three professional employee only parking signs to John
Matthews of the neighboring property to deter patrons from parking on his lot if he
wishes.
38
(Queensbury Planning Board 02/22/2011)
3.Soffit lighting should be equivalent to 60 watts.
4.Any new or proposed signage will be Code compliant.
nd
Duly adopted this 22 day of February, 2011, by the following vote:
AYES: Mr. Ford, Mr. Magowan, Mr. Schonewolf, Mr. Sipp, Mrs. Steffan, Mr. Krebs, Mr. Traver
NOES: NONE
MR. JARRETT-Great. Thank you much.
MR. TRAVER-Thank you.
MRS. STEFFAN-And I would just encourage Mr. Liu to communicate with Mr. Matthews and for
Mr. Matthews to communicate with Mr. Liu so that when issues come up that you resolve them
together so that we don’t have a problem. Okay. Thank you for coming.
SITE PLAN NO. 13-2011 SEQR TYPE UNLISTED DAVID KENNY AGENT(S) NACE
ENGINEERING OWNER(S) SAME AS APPLICANT ZONING CI [COMMERCIAL
INTENSIVE] LOCATION 1468 STATE ROUTE 9 APPLICANT PROPOSES DEMOLITION OF
EXISTING MALL [REEBOK OUTLET] AND CONSTRUCTION OF A NEW 55,000 SQ. FT.
SHOPPING CENTER. NEW RETAIL USE IN A CI ZONE REQUIRES PLANNING BOARD
REVIEW AND APPROVAL. CROSS REFERENCE SP 40-94, SUP 60-04, SP 25-05, SP 18-
99, SV 5-90 WARREN CO. PLANNING 2/9/2011 LOT SIZE 3.49 +/- ACRES; 7.90 +/-
ACRES TAX MAP NO. 288.12-1-19, 20 SECTION 179-9
TOM NACE, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT; DAVE KENNY, PRESENT
MR. TRAVER-Next we have Site Plan 13-2011 David Kenny.
MR. OBORNE-Yes. Also known as Adirondack Factory Outlet, new retail use in the CI zone
requires Planning Board review and approval. Location is 1468 State Route 9, also known as
the Reebok outlets. This is an Unlisted SEQRA. A Long Form has been submitted. Project
Description: Applicant proposes demolition of existing 13,460 square foot mall and construction
of a new 55,295 square foot shopping center. Staff comments: The existing structure on site is
in need of repair or replacement and the site is tired in general. The applicant proposes a
modern design for this site with ample parking and interconnects with the property to the south
which is also owned by the applicant. Stormwater in the form of catch basins and drywells are
proposed as well as the extension of a 24 inch storm drain that provides a path for State Route 9
stormwater to the east of the property. There does appear to be grading on the property to the
north as well as grading, stormwater controls and interconnects proposed for installation on the
properties to the south. All three of these properties will need to be added to this application
with appropriate agreements in place for these actions. What follows are the actual issues
associated with the adjoining properties. Predominant soils Oakville fine sandy loam which is
fabulous for infiltration but not filtration, but that is not a concern with this lot. What follows is
site plan review. As you know that there have been quite a bit of engineering notes associated
with this, comments associated with this, and obviously the Planning Board would want to
discuss some of hat. With that, I’d turn it over to the Board.
MR. TRAVER-Thank you. Good evening.
MR. KENNY-Good evening.
MR. TRAVER-One comment I wanted to make to the applicant and also to the Planning Board is
that we had an opportunity to look at this in a conceptual phase not too long ago, and as you
know, we’ve been looking at procedures, and one of the things that we’ve talked about doing,
particularly when there are a lot of engineering concerns, is affording the applicant an
opportunity, in order to expedite the review process, to meet all of the engineering issues ahead
of time. This may be, and this is just a thought I’m putting out there before we begin our
discussions, but this may be an application for which that process may be particularly effective.
We have, I think there are 28 listed engineering issues, and there may very well be some of the
more subjective concerns with regards to planning, but we have looked at this, and what’s been
presented tonight is very much as Mr. Kenny originally proposed to us. So, with that, good
evening.
MR. NACE-Good evening. For the record, Tom Nace, Nace Engineering, and Dave Kenny.
First of all I guess to address your concern about the engineering, I would applaud the
39
(Queensbury Planning Board 02/22/2011)
opportunity on all projects to be able to work things out engineer to engineer and come to your
Board with a clean slate.
MR. FORD-That isn’t what he said. Not all projects, but this was brought to us at the conceptual
stage. That’s the precursor for this whole concept.
MR. NACE-Okay, but I guess what I’m saying is the opportunity to have the engineering
comments addressed before we come before the Board would be, I think, of great value to
everybody.
MRS. STEFFAN-Yes, I do, too.
MR. NACE-In this particular case, there are a lot of engineering comments, but if you’ll look at
them, they all relate, or almost all relate to the new stormwater regs that are just coming into
effect, and I think that a lot of them are misunderstanding with the regs, misunderstanding with
how the regs are interpreted both on my part as the applicant and on your reviewing engineer’s
part. I sat in on two conferences or two seminars with DEC over the past three weeks, and even
they are confused about how the new regs are supposed to, the woman that wrote the regs
couldn’t explain what she meant in several places, but at any rate, I think that the engineering
comments in this case are all stormwater technical issues with those new regs that if I can sit
down with Dan Ryan we can work out fairly simply. So at this point I’d like to concentrate at first
on the Staff comments and on the Board’s concerns about the plan in front of them, and see if
we can address all those issues first here tonight. Dave, did you want to talk a little bit about the
first issue, which was the grading on the adjacent sites and the need for permission to do that?
MR. KENNY-I guess our situation is the site to the north, you know, I spoke to Tom, the one
thing we could do is lower our, behind the building, that overflow parking that would probably
never get used. We could lower that grade about two and a half feet without an issue, which
would put it close to the neighbor’s property to the north roadway. It would still be about, at one
point the same elevation here. We could lower this section two and a half feet, which would tie
us into this, but it would eliminate this, but to tie the parking lots into this, he’d have some work
to do if he wanted to tie into, it would make our whole back lot accessible to him at the same
grade he’s at, but that’s the best we could do with that, and that would be him if he wants to look
at that. We wouldn’t touch his property at all. We’d lower our grade, and, you know, what that
would constitute us doing is doing away with this walkway here and using the end of this
building more as a retaining wall instead of having it up, but again, there would be no handicap.
We would move the handicap over to here, and really with this parking, customers aren’t going
to park back here.
MR. FORD-That’s an interesting concept. Have you explored that with your neighbor?
MR. KENNY-I’ve explored it with the neighbor, yes.
MR. FORD-To the north?
MR. KENNY-To the north, but we talked about it tonight. Tonight’s the first time he’s seen the
plan that I know of. What that would do, we can do that without a problem, but it would eliminate
any of this because we’d be down that much lower, correct? We wouldn’t need the retaining
wall, we wouldn’t touch anything back there.
MR. NACE-We wouldn’t require the retaining wall on the adjacent property, correct.
MR. KENNY-It wouldn’t be required because we’d be that much lower. So it would eliminate
that issue. Now the issue is to connect the parking lots he’d have to do something with this low
spot here which exists on his property now.
MR. NACE-But by lowering that, we would allow that to happen. That would become easier, a
much easier thing to do in the future.
MR. KENNY-His elevation at this point here is 522, and if he made this, instead of 525, 522,
here it’s about 520. You have some slope going down there, but he’d have to, that would be his
issue if he wants to do that in the future. It’s out of my control, but we wouldn’t be on, touching
his property at all. The property to the south, you know, I’ve met with John for a couple of hours,
McCormack, I think, John is here, correct? He didn’t seem to have a major issue. His issue is,
you know, what he’s going to look forward to doing in the future with his property. I’ll let him
speak for himself. There is, I don’t know if you’re aware of this, there is a roadway going in here,
a 30 foot roadway that may or may not go in now.
40
(Queensbury Planning Board 02/22/2011)
MRS. STEFFAN-So that’s between the back of this building and the back of the Log Jam Outlet
Center?
MR. KENNY-No. It’s between the property to the south now we’re talking the other side.
MRS. STEFFAN-Okay.
MR. KENNY-John is here. I don’t know, do you want to get up and say anything, John, or? You
can see that roadway going in to the back.
MRS. STEFFAN-Okay.
MR. KENNY-That’s property we deeded over to him 15 years ago when the first site plan was
approved.
MRS. STEFFAN-Okay.
MR. KENNY-The roadway has never gone in. There wouldn’t be that issue today, at this point in
time, John, if the roadway ever will go in to give him access to Courthouse Estates probably
from a different point of view. The other thing is, you know, at one point in time the County had
talked about putting a new roadway and making that the access point back out. All those things.
I mean, you have 40 acres back there that really could use that. It would become very valuable
property in the Town of Queensbury in sales tax. It could be developed as commercial property,
that whole section there that we’re looking at, if that roadway ever went in, but again, that’s the
future. I just can’t sit still on that property and just wait for that roadway maybe another 20
years. I mean, it’s really out of my control. I mean, right now we’re just going to slope it, and if
the roadway goes in, it’s back before you folks for the roadway and the development of that 40
acres back there. John, you know, I don’t know if he wants to make a comment. Do you want to
make a comment at all on this, John, or?
JOHN MC CORMACK
MR. MC CORMACK-Not at this point.
MR. KENNY-Okay.
MR. TRAVER-Yes. There will be a public hearing on this application. How this property relates
to the other, that one to the north and the one to the south, will impact on many of the
engineering issues, right? On at least some of the engineering issues in terms of stormwater
and so on?
MR. NACE-Not really.
MR. TRAVER-Not really?
MR. NACE-It’s a grading issue that we’re grading on to that property to the south. We figure we
can eliminate the grading onto the property to the north by lowering the parking.
MR. TRAVER-Okay.
MR. NACE-The grading to the south has to be done, but I believe Dave retained rights to work
on that property when he transferred. Is that correct, Dave?
MR. KENNY-Well, we have a right of, when the roadway goes in, I have a right of way over it, I
believe. I owned the property, transferred it over to them figuring that road wasn’t going to go in.
MRS. STEFFAN-Yes. You can see the way it’s configured.
MR. KENNY-So he gave me the section behind the motel where the woods are. So we did a
swap, you know, a section for a section.
MR. TRAVER-My thought was that what you’re talking about possibly doing to the north, I mean,
you might want to finalize your thinking about that before you amend your plans, obviously,
because that’s going to have a change in what you’re doing there.
MR. NACE-It’s just a grading change.
41
(Queensbury Planning Board 02/22/2011)
MR. KENNY-There’d be a slight grading change at the back of the property, correct, to lower it
to match the grade to the north more closely. Other than that, it won’t change anything. The
property to the south we’d still have to grade to.
MR. TRAVER-Right. Yes, you show that on your.
MR. KENNY-Right. So I’m assuming there would have to be some type of agreement between
myself and John with the roadway. I mean, in reality, the way I see this project is it enhances
the property in the back. I mean, the possibility of that roadway ever going in exists now,
because we can (lost word) make it a 50 foot roadway. One of the problems with that roadway
the way it exists today on the map it’s only 30 feet wide. The Town won’t accept a 30 foot road.
That’s what happened. Originally they said they would take it, and then when John went (lost
words) it’s got to be 50 feet.
MR. NACE-Okay. One of the other Staff comments was calling our attention to the fact that
we’re in this Route 9 North Architectural District, and that it requires emphasis on an Adirondack
style. If you can look at the elevations that have been drawn, we think we have achieved that .
We’re using stone, natural stone along the bottom of the building. It’s impractical to, unless
you’re Orvis or some company like that, impractical to do a timber frame commercial building.
It’s just, I don’t know for Code reasons and for cost reasons it’s just not feasible.
MR. TRAVER-Right.
MR. NACE-But if you look at the façade of the building, it does have the brown frame features
that make it imitate a timber frame building. So we think we have tried to approach this in the
spirit of the Adirondack style.
MR. FORD-And the material being used on that façade is what?
MR. NACE-Do you want to talk to that, Dave?
MR. KENNY-On the facade there’ll be some veneer wood. The building itself will be steel, the
super structure, then there’ll be, I believe.
MR. FORD-But the exterior façade, what is that?
MR. KENNY-Well, the exterior wall’s going up, again, they haven’t been totally designed. If we
have a fire code issue we may have to stucco them. I mean, I know on some of the buildings we
weren’t allowed to put wood because of the fire code issue. Now whether or not we can just,
you know, make it look like wood with a concrete base material so it meets the fire code.
MR. FORD-So this attractive building is a concept. You haven’t really selected the material. Is
that correct?
MR. KENNY-Well, we haven’t had the building built to Code, designed, you know, that’s the
concept, that’s what it’s going to look like. Now to meet the Codes, whether we have to have a
concrete board material versus, we’re not going to be able to use like cedar siding and stuff. I
don’t think our Building Department will allow it. I mean, they haven’t in the past with me. I
mean, the size of the building, it will be totally sprinkled. It will meet all the fire codes. The
exterior, now the trim work above the second story could all be, because that’s just the façade .
MR. TRAVER-Right.
MR. KENNY-That will all be trimmed out and if you look at what we did, the color scheme would
be a little different, but, you know, we did the Adirondack Outlet, with the stow and with the trim,
you know, different colors to bring out that look, and the arches, it’s a Frank Lloyd Wright
designed building, designed by New Hampshire, you know, it’s a New England style building
with the arches and, you know, so it will look like wood anyway.
MR. TRAVER-So do you, at this point do you know if the representation that you have with you
here tonight, do you know how that might be impacted by making the building Code compliant,
or you’re not certain yet?
MR. KENNY-I’m not certain on the material, whether it’ll be a wood imitation. I mean, there’s a
million products out there that imitate wood that aren’t actually.
MR. TRAVER-So the representation you think is accurate, it’s just a matter of what materials?
MR. KENNY-Right, of what materials, right.
42
(Queensbury Planning Board 02/22/2011)
MR. FORD-Okay. Thanks.
MR. KENNY-Whether it’s fire rated material or not, whether it has to be fire rated material.
MR. TRAVER-Okay, but you don’t anticipate that it would materially change in any way in terms
of what you’re presenting tonight?
MR. KENNY-No. That’s exactly how we want the building to look.
MR. TRAVER-Okay.
MRS. STEFFAN-Okay. Let’s talk trash. SP-2, access to trash compactor appears problematic,
and are you going to have a recycling center behind the building or that kind of thing?
MR. KENNY-The only thing we’re going to have behind the building is a cardboard compactor.
MR. NACE-And that is.
MR. KENNY-The garbage would go in the garbage cans.
MR. NACE-Cardboard recycling is this container back here.
MRS. STEFFAN-Okay.
MR. NACE-Okay, and that’ll be directly accessed off of the road.
MRS. STEFFAN-The service road behind it?
MR. NACE-Off the service road and then there are two just dumpster locations, currently here
and here, and Staff comment is well taken. We had assumed that they would be picked up after
hours, but we will move those into, we’ll move the trees, there are trees in these two islands,
we’ll move the trees back a little bit and put the trash compactors right in front of the trees so
that they can be accessed any time.
MR. KENNY-They get dumped regularly. The compactor gets dumped. Actually the compactor
only gets dumped when we call, full of cardboard, we’ve got to call them and they come and
unload it.
MR. TRAVER-There was some discussion, and I recall that this was discussed a little bit when
you did your initial presentation to us about the lighting. That’s something that the Board needs
to consider, because we have the requirement of 20 feet or less. On the other hand, you’re
talking about fewer poles but taller poles.
MR. NACE-We’re asking for, yes, a 20 foot pole, but a three foot base. So we’re effectively
asking for a 23 foot height instead of 20 foot, and what that’s allowed us to do is to cover,
effectively cover the parking lot with one row of lights down the center with lower lights even
going down just to 20 foot. We would have had to have had an outer row of lights along the
outside edge of the parking to fill that in. As it is, you can see at the outer edge we’re just down
to about a one foot candle, point eight, point seven, and so we’ve effectively, with double lights
in the center aisle, at that height we’ve been able to get enough light to the outside edge to
serve our purpose. Now Staff did comment that they thought that lighting was a little excessive,
and I guess I would disagree with that. I think going to the 23 foot structures, or heights, we’ve
kept the hot spots under the lights reduced. With 20 foot we’re typically getting 16, 18 foot
candles under the lights. Now we’ve gotten down to somewhere around seven or eight foot
candles under most of them. The other comment was that the lighting under the canopy along
the edge was a little too hot. That’s lighting up the storefronts, and we’re at about anywhere
from four or five to ten, twelve, in those areas, depending on how the spots fall relative to the
lights, and again, I don’t necessarily think that’s excessive for the purpose of the lighting for that
area you want to call attention to, and that’s low, fairly low lighting. It’s all downcast. It’s not
going to spread or glare. So I don’t think that has any bad effects on the surrounding area.
Other Staff comments dealt with landscaping. I’d only point out there the Ash Borer we were
unaware of. We’re looking into, and if necessary we will change to a different species. On the
Crimson Pigmy Barberry, the Barberry that’s a problem, that’s intrusive or invasive, is the
Japanese, the original Japanese Barberry. What we’re using is a hybrid. It’s different. It’s not
invasive, but actually if you look at your own regs, your invasive plant stuff comes under
Waterfront Landscaping, and it applies just to the section on Waterfront Landscaping, and that
kind of makes sense, because if you take an invasive plant and put it in a confined commercial
43
(Queensbury Planning Board 02/22/2011)
landscape area, what does it matter if it’s invasive? It’s not going to get outside that landscape
area that it’s in. It should not be an issue, and I think your regulations are written correctly.
MR. TRAVER-Well, I’m not a botanist, but I can see that an invasive plant in a commercial area
where you have a high volume of traffic in fact could carry seeds out of that area into Critical
Environmental Area, for example.
MR. FORD-Wind borne spores.
MR. SIPP-Animals carrying.
MR. NACE-I’m not an expert.
MR. KENNY-But you claim this isn’t invasive.
MR. TRAVER-Yes, nor are we, which is why we just say no invasive species.
MR. NACE-I talked to Jim Miller who is our landscape architect, and he was firm in the fact that
it’s really not invasive, but if you want to change, we’ll change it.
MR. KENNY-We’ll change it.
MR. NACE-We’ll take care of changing that.
MR. TRAVER-Yes. I think the implication that it’s invasive I think is probably of more concern
both to you and to us than a minor change in what species is planted there, so why don’t we just
do that.
MR. NACE-I think we’ve fairly well covered Staff comments, unless there’s something that you
feel we need to cover more in depth.
MR. TRAVER-And you feel fairly confident that all of the engineering comments from VISION
that you’ve seen can be addressed so that you could come back to us with essentially a sign
off?
MR. NACE-Yes, they can, definitely can be addressed. I mean, this, we’re using a standard
drywell system. We’re putting a pre-treatment settling basin, a deep sump catch basin in front of
it to settle out any sand that collects. We’re not doing anything out of the ordinary with the
drainage here. In fact, when it comes right down to it, the new regulations from DEC are aimed
at capturing and getting rid of runoff before it has a chance to collect and become a problem,
and it seemed infiltration, which is what we’re doing, we’re catching it enclosing it in these small
pockets or small areas that contribute to each catch basin, we’re getting it into the drywells.
We’re getting it back into the ground. Their buzz word is runoff reduction. Well, we’re doing
100% runoff reduction. We’re taking all of the rainfall for all of the design storms and filtering it
back into the ground as close to.
MR. FORD-All of the design storms?
MR. NACE-Up to 100 years.
MR. FORD-Up to 100 years.
MR. NACE-Yes. So, now I’m confident that the drainage system we’ve designed will function
and can be shown to meet the regulations.
MR. KENNY-I would like to say at the Adirondack Outlet Mall you will never see, I mean, we’ve
put drywells, I mean, the soils are there. We didn’t run, that was one of my directions to Tom to
begin with, not to run a lot of, get it back into the ground and have drywells and get it back into
the ground. We have great sand, great soils there. Hopefully it will never be a problem. I know
with us we take the runoff at the Mall next door. We take the water from the road, from every
place else, and it just we have a lot of drywells. I like putting water back into the ground as
quickly as possible. I don’t think these retention ponds at the back of a property or someplace
where they’re impossible to maintain.
MR. OBORNE-You also, you should talk about some of the issues with the Route 9 water runoff
too that your property currently has issues with that.
MR. KENNY-Well, the Adirondack Outlet Mall, we take an awful lot of water, but that’s, I can’t,
you know, well, you know, the State has their, I guess whatever you want to say, right to do as
44
(Queensbury Planning Board 02/22/2011)
they, it was a long time ago when that road was designed, it wasn’t designed to today’s
standards, and they do dump water on our property which I can’t do anything about.
MR. OBORNE-And didn’t mean to put you on the spot, I mean, because you rectified the issue.
MR. KENNY-I’ve got to rectify it. I mean, they claim that, you know, it’s there.
MRS. STEFFAN-And it goes under your property and comes out toward the back, right?
MR. KENNY-Yes, and I can’t do anything about it. It’s a burden I have, and I’ve spoken to the
State. At one time they were going to do something, but, you know, they don’t have any funds,
and they, quite honestly, don’t want to take ownership of it, and there’s no easements, no record
of anything on it, really. It was done back when the Northway went in. We’ve got to put new
piping in, because when we get done with this, I mean, that pipe has been in there for God
knows how long. There could be rust. It could be old galvanized pipe. I mean, I don’t know
what it is, to tell you the truth, but at this point in time, what we’re doing, I’m going to dig once
and correct that problem, do the best I can, but again, it’s not my water.
MR. TRAVER-Right.
MR. KENNY-It’s water from the Northway, and from Route 9, and quite frankly, it’s not being
filtered at all. The salt, the dirt, everything from Route 9 just gets.
MRS. STEFFAN-So how’s the Planning Board feeling about the lighting issue? Are we okay
with the 20 foot poles on the 3 foot bases so they become 23 feet tall and only require one row
across the parking lot, or do we want Code compliant height with extra fixtures?
MR. TRAVER-I like the fewer poles. I’m not as concerned with the parking lot as I am some of
the entrances. Some of those are a little high.
MR. KREBS-But at the same time you want adequate lighting there at night so that when the
customer’s going back and forth between the stores, you don’t want them to slip on the ice
because they can’t see it, you know.
MR. TRAVER-Right. This is also on the side, now, of the building.
MR. KREBS-Yes, and if the light that would be spilling anyplace else, if this was a, close to a
residential area or something, then I’d be more concerned, but this is all commercial businesses.
MR. TRAVER-Yes. I think it’s more energy efficient in this application.
MR. MC CORMACK-The property right now is zoned residential.
MR. TRAVER-Why don’t we open the public hearing, sir, and have you come up and state your
name for the record and make your comments, so that we have them in the minutes.
PUBLIC HEARING OPENED
JOHN MC CORMACK
MR. MC CORMACK-My name is John McCormack.
MR. TRAVER-Good evening.
MR. MC CORMACK-I’m the owner of the parcel to the south of Dave. My only statement with
regards to the lighting is if the second row of lights were put in at my northern border, Dave’s
southern border, then depending upon what happens with that property, that light will spill into
that residential zone. If they’re down the center, it’s less apt to do that. That would be the only
comment I have to make about that.
MR. MAGOWAN-Yes, I don’t have a problem with the one row.
MR. TRAVER-Thank you. Any other comments regarding the lighting issue?
MR. FORD-Any other public participants?
MR. TRAVER-Yes, thank you. Is there anyone else in the audience that wanted to comment on
this application tonight? Okay. I think we’ll be leaving the public hearing open. Any other
comments from members of the Board, any other concerns or questions for the applicant?
45
(Queensbury Planning Board 02/22/2011)
MRS. STEFFAN-Well, I think it’s a very nice design and I certainly think that it will improve that
lot ten times over. It’s very lovely. I would like to see the materials, but you haven’t picked
those yet, but that is one of the conditions, that we’d like to see what some of your materials
options might be, which is normal for us.
MR. TRAVER-I think there was a euphemism and a reference to the structure as tired.
MRS. STEFFAN-Yes. I was kind, I was very kind. Okay. So the Planning Board, from what I’m
hearing from everybody, the engineering comments need to be addressed with the Staff Notes,
but, you know, the applicant and his agent have gone through some of those. So, obviously
they have solutions to some of them and they can address them. We also would like you to
provide building façade samples so that we have a better understanding of, you know, what it
will look like.
MR. TRAVER-Clarification of what materials will be used in construction.
MRS. STEFFAN-What other kinds of things do we want to see?
MR. TRAVER-Well, we need the plantings to be changed to reflect the removal of Ash and the
Barberry.
MRS. STEFFAN-That would be if they address Staff Notes. They’ll take care of those.
MR. TRAVER-Okay. Very good.
MR. OBORNE-Are there any freestanding signs? Are you thinking of a pylon sign?
MR. KENNY-There’ll be one pylon sign out by the road. You didn’t put that on there?
MR. NACE-Yes, it’s on there.
MR. KENNY-It’s on the plan.
MR. OBORNE-It’s on the plan. Okay. I don’t know if you want to see details of that. I don’t
know if you’ve landed on details for that.
MR. KENNY-I know it’s got to meet Code. It’s got to be so many square feet.
MR. TRAVER-Right. Well, we’d still like to take a look at it, I think.
MR. KENNY-Okay. It will be conceptual.
MR. TRAVER-When we don’t pay attention to signs, we end up regretting it. So I’m sure it will
be a good match for the other design features.
MR. KENNY-I’m sure you’re aware, the type of tenants we bring in, and what they, it’s all
important to them all. They all have to have the biggest, you know, they’ll comply to the shape
and size, but they all want to have, and, you know, it’s one of the things, as a smaller developer,
to bring these type of tenants in, and there’s another outlet developer here, it seems like a lot of
towns in a lot of places will bend over backwards to get this. When you’ve got the premium
outlets and you go to Lee, Mass and you see the signage and the package they, and the towns
forgive, allow them that to get the revenue, and some of the tenants, us small developers are
losing our clout every day because we, as small developers, when you talk to Chelsea, these
big guys, they come into a town and the town wants the revenue and they’re proven developers
and they, I mean, the industry has shrunk. There’s only probably two big developers left in the
whole industry. It’s become a monopoly. So it’s very hard to, I mean, they don’t, if you’ve got 30
stores of, some of these tenants are 40 or 50, there’s like a cookie cutter process. They’re all
the same.
MRS. STEFFAN-They’re huge.
MR. KENNY-So for us small guys it’s, we have to give them, I’m sure you’ve been, not before
you folks, but the variances for the outlets have probably been, every tenant wants to have his
name as close to the road as possible, and, you know, for us to sign a lease it’s a necessity. We
need to give them the signage, at least something.
46
(Queensbury Planning Board 02/22/2011)
MR. TRAVER-Yes. Well, based on the design that you’ve projected here, I’m sure that, you
know, we will have the tenants and the income and yet have something that will be a real
compliment to the Town.
MR. KENNY-That’s what we’re hoping. I’m hoping it’s a combination and brings new blood and
revitalizes that.
MR. SCHONEWOLF-What’s your timetable to identify tenants, is it still the same as it was?
thth
MR. KENNY-It’s a little bit of an issue now, only because it’s, the convention is March 4 and 5,
and that’s the one show, and the second show is in, the biggest show is, the big outlet show is in
thth
Florida March 4 and 5. We would like to have been able to present this as a, you know, and
again, you’re dealing with tenants that, they may trust the Chelsea and say, okay, they’re going
to get it approved, but there’s so many projects that have been put on the drawing board, you’ve
got these shows that never had a chance in hell of being done, and the tenants get all excited
and they say, now they won’t even talk to you until you really, are you really going to do this, is
this really going to happen?
MR. TRAVER-Right. Sure.
MR. KENNY-And do you have Site Plan approval?
MR. FORD-Yes, show me the approval. Right.
MR. KENNY-And, you know, we’re limited on what we can do. I mean, we’re talking next year. I
mean my goal was to have the Reebok building down by May. Not to build but at least clean
that lot up and to me it would look better for this summer, just nicely graded and show there’s
some progress going forward, and we’re willing to take that risk if we had the approvals. I’d take
that building down. We’re moving Reebok out of there now, as we speak.
MRS. STEFFAN-Well, sure, if there was a big sign there that said Coming in the Summer of
2012.
MR. KENNY-So if I meet tenants, they come up and they look and they say this is a reality not a,
but now we won’t.
MR. FORD-A rendering of that would.
MR. KENNY-We’ll show that. There’s no question, but it’s a tough industry. I mean, these
tenants know the economy and they know they situation and they really demand more and more
from the developer, and the big players can do it. They can give the tenant allowances. I mean,
some of these stores you actually pay to come. You pay them all, but some you don’t get a
dime back. They’re typical, like a Nike dealer, you give them seven eight hundred thousand
dollars, then they may come and pay you a percentage for the space. A Polo dealer’s probably
a million and a half dollars. You give them, thank you for using your name. Then they pay you
two percent rent. So some of the deals are pretty, and that’s why they send us a four and five
hundred, the big guys get away with that. So it’s not that, you know, I mean, we’re all.
MR. FORD-They’ve learned over the years, haven’t they?
MR. KENNY-Well, the industry’s changed. The industry’s changed, and, you know, it’s a
shame, there’s a lot of towns, really, or cities, or municipalities, or counties, when I go to the
show, probably half the show is municipalities, governments, you know, people from the towns
saying how can we get you, X, Y, Z the developer to come in and do this for us? We’ll give you
the infrastructure you need. We’ll give you this. We want the tax base. We want the revenue.
MR. TRAVER-Right.
MR. KENNY-And, you know, Queensbury is a great location. We have the traffic. We have
certain things there, so they have come, but it is dated. I mean, the strip is, there’s no real, you
know, looking back 20 years, if it was (lost words) now it’s, you know four developers and
nothing really ties together the way it should have. I think this will eventually help a lot because
probably what will happen is it’s all here, it’s all make believe, but I’d like to take down half the
motel and connect the whole front and make everything so it’s all visible as one big site.
MR. TRAVER-Well, this will undoubtedly trigger other development.
MR. KENNY-That’s what we’re hoping, and I think, I would like to sit down with the folks at a
Planning Board meeting in the Town. I personally think, and I’ve talked to John about it,
47
(Queensbury Planning Board 02/22/2011)
McCormack who’s here tonight, is there any real possibility of getting that service road put in
that we’ve talked about for over 15 years now. Where Exit 20 comes off, connect, it would open
up that 40 acres for prime development, and the tax generated and the volume I think it’s a
natural use for his property. You come off the Exit 20 there, put in that service road, have it go
around the existing property and come out on 9 where that road extends. That would be, traffic
wouldn’t get on 9. It would open up a lot of real valuable real estate to future development.
There’s a possibility then of getting a Pro Bass or one of those real big people back there.
MRS. STEFFAN-The Exit 20 corridor study was done and those options are there.
MR. TRAVER-Yes, we talked about that last time.
MRS. STEFFAN-And if Federal funds become available, I mean, the plan is in place, so, you
never know, the Federal highway money.
MR. KENNY-I guess I would mention that to the developer, could we get some Federal funding,
you know, the economic development and everything else, but if you had a signed tenant, let’s
say it was a Pro Bass or one of these big people that would come in and generate another two
or three million dollars in sales tax to the County for the County to say, okay, we’re going to put
two or three hundred thousand dollars of that aside to pay a bond off that did this work.
Meanwhile the County’s getting or the Town’s getting another million and a half in their pocket,
not a bad return on the investment. I mean, that’s how the other communities do it. They
realize they’re bringing in, I mean, right now the outlets up there I’m guessing is bringing in close
to two million dollars into the Town of Queensbury. We do about 60 million dollars in sales.
MRS. STEFFAN-You could take that 40 acres and you could build a new municipal center on
part of it and develop the rest of it, and then get Cabella’s to go in where the Municipal Center is.
MR. KENNY-No, that 40 acres would be developed, because they’d put ponds in. They’d use
that drainage and really do it right, and it would be.
MR. OBORNE-Didn’t they just build a new municipal center there?
MRS. STEFFAN-No, just a human services building, but the roof fell in. I mean, that didn’t work
out so well.
MR. KENNY-I mean, I do think it’s time to really sit down, I think John would love to sit down
with you folks and discuss it. I mean, you ask him, he can speak for himself, it’s his 40 acres
back there, but I know.
MR. TRAVER-Well, let’s get this going first.
MRS. STEFFAN-Let’s get this going forward. Okay. As far as a tabling date, we’re going to
thst
have to table you to the 26, because it is currently February 21, and the application deadline
has passed for this month, and so obviously you’ve got some things to do. So, March, we’ve got
a couple of meetings in March, and so the next dates are April, with application deadline on
th
March 15. So you’ll be back in April.
thth
MR. TRAVER-Is that enough time, even, March 15? Is March 15 time adequate time?
MR. NACE-For submission? Yes.
MRS. STEFFAN-That’s three weeks.
MR. NACE-That puts us on for an April meeting is what you’re talking about.
MR. TRAVER-Right. Exactly.
MR. FORD-You can address Staff concerns and engineering comments, and everything
together.
MRS. STEFFAN-What do the agendas look like for March?
MR. OBORNE-In March? No, there’s no room on the March agendas.
th
MRS. STEFFAN-Okay. Then it’s April 26.
MR. OBORNE-What I would suggest, though, as suggested in our workshop, you pretty much
worked through the planning issues at this point.
48
(Queensbury Planning Board 02/22/2011)
MRS. STEFFAN-Yes.
MR. OBORNE-I don’t think that’s a huge issue. So a blanket address Staff Notes is fine. It’s on
the record what they’re going to do. The big issue are and is the engineering notes, and you
thth
may want to give them an extended deadline of the 15, if you can’t make the 15, I don’t know,
for engineering, because that’s the big issue.
MR. TRAVER-Right.
MR. OBORNE-You’ll want to get that flat before you come back here.
MR. TRAVER-Well, that was my big question. Yes.
MR. KENNY-I’m assuming you can’t address engineering notes until you talk to.
MR. NACE-I need to talk to the engineer, sit down. It’s okay for me to sit down, I won’t feed him
information.
MR. OBORNE-You can definitely talk to him and all that. If you have any changes to the plans,
we require that any of those go through our Department and then we’ll forward them.
MR. NACE-But I can at least discuss with him with how I’m going to react?
MR. OBORNE-You can always discuss it with him, absolutely. If he charges you, I don’t know.
MR. TRAVER-That would really expedite things.
MR. NACE-I’d much rather come here with a letter from the engineer that says you’ve satisfied
all my concerns.
MR. OBORNE-Absolutely.
MR. NACE-Or you can just approve it tonight contingent upon engineering review.
MR. TRAVER-There are a few details that we need to see.
MR. KENNY-My question, with the property to the north, if we lower the grade there, we don’t
have any impact there. It’s going to be up to him to decide what he wants to do in the future,
because we don’t impact his property at all. There’s no reason to get.
MR. OBORNE-Or you get something in writing from him that says it’s fine.
MR. KENNY-Well, if I’m not impacting his property, do I need to get something in writing?
MR. OBORNE-Right, well, if you’re not impacting it, correct, just as presented right now
obviously you would need to get something in writing.
MR. KENNY-Right.
MR. OBORNE-If you’re not going to, sure.
MR. KENNY-If we lower the grade, I think that helps him tie into our property, but then he has to
address his situation. The property to the north, I mean, the property to the south I know I have
to sit down.
MR. FORD-I’m sure I wouldn’t plan on it before you communicated.
MR. TRAVER-Right, don’t make any assumptions.
MR. KENNY-Well, if we don’t affect the property to the south, we can lower than grade, and not
affect it at all, to the north, we can take care of that problem.
MR. TRAVER-Right.
MR. KENNY-It won’t connect the properties, though, it won’t connect the parking lots unless he
builds in a section or does what he wants to do, but it will give him the opportunity to do that in
the future.
49
(Queensbury Planning Board 02/22/2011)
MR. FORD-Communication is the key there.
MR. KENNY-Yes. We’ve spoken to him, we have spoken to him. The property to the south,
that’s, John and I have got to sit down. I think he’s, you know, he’s somewhat concerned with
what’s going to happen, an impact on his property in the future and what he can do with those
40 acres, but I do think this, overall, will help him.
MRS. STEFFAN-I was just trying to check deadlines.
MR. OBORNE-Tom, we’re working on a policy change to the procedures for the Planning Board
for that very reason, for the Tom Center letter that was sent, a lot of those are being
incorporated into it.
MR. NACE-It would be great to interface with the engineer.
MR. OBORNE-You get something before the Planning Board for conceptual review, get those
issues out of the way, and when you come back you’re flat with the engineer.
MR. NACE-That would be great.
MRS. STEFFAN-And if we end up getting our Staff Notes, we get our package and we have
some concerns or we don’t understand something, then we can also have the engineer here at
our meetings, so that he can explain things to us and we can be okay with it.
MR. NACE-That’s going to make the process go smoother.
MRS. STEFFAN-We hope so.
MR. TRAVER-We hope so.
MR. FORD-That’s what we’re trying to do.
MRS. STEFFAN-Okay.
MR. TRAVER-The public hearing is still open. We’ll leave the public hearing, correct?
MR. FORD-Yes.
MRS. STEFFAN-This evening, and there’s no SEQRA. So we’re going to just table it now.
MR. TRAVER-Right.
MRS. STEFFAN-Okay.
RESOLUTION TABLING SP 13-2011 KENNY
A site plan application has been made to the Queensbury Planning Board for the following:
Applicant proposes demolition of existing mall [Reebok Outlet] and construction of a new 55,000
sq. ft. shopping center. New Retail Use in a CI zone requires Planning Board review and
approval; and
A public hearing was advertised and held on 2/22/2011; and
This application is supported with all documentation, public comment and application material in
the file of record;
MOTION TO TABLE SITE PLAN NO. 13-2011 DAVID KENNY, Introduced by Gretchen Steffan
who moved for its adoption, seconded by Thomas Ford:
th
This is tabled to the April 19 Planning Board meeting. The Planning Board extends the
th
submission deadline for this applicant for any new materials to April 4, which is a Monday. This
is tabled for the following issues:
1.That the applicant needs to address VISION Engineering comments of February 18,
2011 and obtain a signoff.
2.That the applicant needs to address Staff Notes.
50
(Queensbury Planning Board 02/22/2011)
3.That the applicant needs to provide building façade samples, colors and materials to
the Planning Board.
4.That the applicant will provide signage details.
nd
Duly adopted this 22 day of February, 2011, by the following vote:
MR. TRAVER-I have one question regarding, in reference to the engineering, were we looking
for addressing the issues or signoff?
MR. OBORNE-That’s up to you. I think that, given that timeframe, signoff should not be an
issue.
MR. TRAVER-You might want to change that.
MRS. STEFFAN-Okay. I’ll amend that to address VISION Engineering comments of February
18, 2011 and obtain a signoff.
MR. OBORNE-Yes.
AYES: Mr. Ford, Mr. Magowan, Mr. Sipp, Mr. Schonewolf, Mr. Krebs, Mrs. Steffan, Mr. Traver
NOES: NONE
MR. TRAVER-Okay. We’ll see you in April.
MR. FORD-Thank you.
MRS. STEFFAN-Thank you.
MR. KENNY-Thank you.
MR. TRAVER-All right. We have one remaining Administrative Item, and this has to do with the
Inwald application that we looked at last week. The applicant came before the, well, Keith,
maybe you could give us an overview of the.
MR. OBORNE-Sure. What we’re looking for is a resolution from the Planning Board to re-
submit the Inwald application in totality to the Warren County Planning Board. What happened
at the meeting last week, you were given not false information, but misinformation, not in a
malicious manner, by the Inwalds agent. There was a deny without prejudice on the house
which was before you and not the ramp. They gave it to you as it was the ramp. So that pretty
makes your resolution of recommendation null and void because you didn’t have that
information in front of you presented correctly. The applicant, and this is at the request of the
applicant, is that we re-submit it to the Warren County Planning Board in totality so they can get
that denial without prejudice removed, and they can explain their project, because obviously
they didn’t explain it right.
MR. SCHONEWOLF-In totality means both the building and the ramp.
MR. OBORNE-And the ramp. So I think it’s just a simple application that says we support the
applicant’s request to, not to put words in your mouth.
MR. TRAVER-To refer it back to the Warren County Planning Board.
MR. FORD-In its totality.
MR. TRAVER-Right.
MR. OBORNE-And I do have one other issue I do want to bring up, not with this.
MR. TRAVER-Okay.
MRS. STEFFAN-Do I have to state all the Area Variances and everything that’s here?
MR. OBORNE-If you could, not all the Area Variances, just the Area Variance that is there for
the house. I’d just say just put the resolution, instead of going forward, Staff can take care of
that, basically stating that the ramp and the house will be re-submitted, and then we can take it
from there.
51
(Queensbury Planning Board 02/22/2011)
MR. TRAVER-Variance request for the house and the ramp?
MR. OBORNE-There’s four variances associated with those.
RESOLUTION RE: Inwald application
MOTION ON BEHALF OF THE QUEENSBURY PLANNING BOARD REGARDING THE
INWALD APPLICATION, AND THE PLANNING BOARD SUPPORTS THE APPLICANT’S
REQUEST TO RE-SUBMIT THE INWALD APPLICATION IN ITS TOTALITY TO THE WARREN
COUNTY PLANNING BOARD FOR REVIEW. JUST TO BE VERY SPECIFIC, OR FOR
FURTHER CLARIFICATION, WE MEAN THE RAMP AND THE HOUSE, Introduced by
Gretchen Steffan who moved for its adoption, seconded by Thomas Ford:
nd
Duly adopted this 22 day of February, 2011, by the following vote:
AYES: Mr. Magowan, Mrs. Steffan, Mr. Ford, Mr. Krebs, Mr. Schonewolf, Mr. Sipp, Mr. Traver
NOES: NONE
MR. TRAVER-Okay.
MR. OBORNE-The one issue we talked about earlier tonight, we talked about the Stewarts
Shop on Aviation Road, or as some people would say Aviation. We put that forward to April, I
th
believe. The resolution was correct that Pam had written. It should be taken to March 15, and
if you could rescind that previous motion and state that Area Variance?
MRS. STEFFAN-72-2011, is that the one, Administrative Item?
MR. OBORNE-Yes.
MRS. STEFFAN-And that should be tabled to March?
th
MR. OBORNE-March 15, and that is, and the reason for that is it’s a very vanilla application.
They truncated it down to where it’s just the freezer, access from one side, very similar to what
we saw on Bay Road. So I apologize for leading the Board astray on that. I should always
follow what Pam writes down.
MR. TRAVER-Do we have an amended motion?
MOTION TO RESCIND THE RESOLUTION REGARDING SITE PLAN NO. 72-2010 FOR
TH
STEWARTS SHOPS ON 347 AVIATION ROAD THAT WAS TABLING IT TO THE APRIL 26
PLANNING BOARD MEETING, Introduced by Gretchen Steffan who moved for its adoption,
seconded by Thomas Ford:
nd
Duly adopted this 22 day of February, 2011, by the following vote:
AYES: Mr. Ford, Mr. Magowan, Mrs. Steffan, Mr. Schonewolf, Mr. Sipp, Mr. Krebs, Mr. Traver
NOES: NONE
MOTION TO TABLE SITE PLAN NO. 72-2010 STEWARTS SHOPS, Introduced by Gretchen
Steffan who moved for its adoption, seconded by Thomas Ford:
347 Aviation Road. According to the resolution prepared by Staff. We’ll table that until the
th
March 15 Planning Board meeting.
nd
Duly adopted this 22 day of February, 2011, by the following vote:
AYES: Mrs. Steffan, Mr. Magowan, Mr. Krebs, Mr. Ford, Mr. Schonewolf, Mr. Sipp, Mr. Traver
NOES: NONE
th
MR. OBORNE-Are there going to be five people here on the 15?
th
MR. TRAVER-March 15?
th
MR. OBORNE-I thought there was going to be five people here on the 15. Don, when are you
leaving?
52
(Queensbury Planning Board 02/22/2011)
th
MR. SIPP-Sunday the 27.
MR. OBORNE-Okay. I thought for some reason you were the fifth person. So there’s four for
those three meetings.
MR. SCHONEWOLF-To overrule the County you’ve got to have five votes.
MR. OBORNE-That’s one of the reasons, yes.
MRS. STEFFAN-And one of my Board meetings just got moved, and so I’m in a jam next week,
and I have to be here, and I know it, but it’s the financials for the accounts, it’s just like, oh well,
we don’t have an alternate.
MR. TRAVER-Any other business before us tonight? We have a motion to adjourn.
MOTION TO ADJOURN THE QUEENSBURY PLANNING BOARD MEETING OF FEBRUARY
22, 2011, Introduced by Paul Schonewolf who moved for its adoption, seconded by Donald
Krebs:
nd
Duly adopted this 22 day of February, 2011, by the following vote:
AYES: Mr. Ford, Mr. Magowan, Mrs. Steffan, Mr. Krebs, Mr. Sipp, Mr. Schonewolf, Mr. Traver
NOES: NONE
On motion meeting was adjourned.
RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED,
Stephen Traver, Acting Chairman
53