2011.04.19
(Queensbury Planning Board 04/19/2011)
QUEENSBURY PLANNING BOARD MEETING
FIRST REGULAR MEETING
APRIL 19, 2011
INDEX
Site Plan No. 10-2009 New Hope Community Church 1.
EXTENSION REQUEST Tax Map No. 308.15-1-37, 38
Site Plan No. 13-2011 David Kenny 2.
TABLING REQUEST Tax Map No. 288.12-1-19, 20
Site Plan No. 39-2010 Inwald Enterprises 3.
Site Plan No. 6-2011 Tax Map No. 227.17-1-16
TABLING REQUEST
Subdivision No. 4-2011 Patrick Geruso 3.
ZBA RECOMMENDATION Tax Map No. 301.20-1-37.2
Site Plan No. 26-2011 Edward & Philomena Vanputte 12.
ZBA RECOMMENDATION Tax Map No. 289.10-1-18
Site Plan No. 79-2010 Landcrafters, LLC, Carr Development, LLC 19.
Tax Map No. 302.6-1-58.1
Site Plan No. 53-2007 Provident Batavia, LLC 23.
Tax Map No. 239.7-1-14
Site Plan No. 27-2011 Lacey O’Neil 32.
Tax Map No. 303.16-1-62
Site Plan No. 25-2011 Steve Dow 33.
Tax Map No. 309.17-1-21
Subdivision No. 5-2011 Lisa Pushor 34.
SKETCH PLAN Tax Map No. 265.1-2.3, 2.2, 2.1
DISCUSSION ITEM Queensbury Partners 40.
Tax Map Nos. 289.19-1-23 thru 35
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.
1
(Queensbury Planning Board 04/19/2011)
QUEENSBURY PLANNING BOARD MEETING
FIRST REGULAR MEETING
APRIL 19, 2011
7:00 P.M.
MEMBERS PRESENT
CHRIS HUNSINGER, CHAIRMAN
GRETCHEN STEFFAN, SECRETARY
DONALD KREBS
PAUL SCHONEWOLF
DONALD SIPP
STEPHEN TRAVER
BRAD MAGOWAN, ALTERNATE
LAND USE PLANNER-KEITH OBORNE
STENOGRAPHER-MARIA GAGLIARDI
MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. I’ll call to order the meeting of the Town of Queensbury Planning
Board on Tuesday, April 19, 2011. I’d like to welcome everyone here.On the back table there’s
a copy of the agenda that we will be following. There’s also a copy of a handout public hearing
information. Most of the items on the agenda there is a public hearing scheduled, and the
handout outlines how the public hearing is conducted, and it’s there for your information. The
thth
first item on the agenda is the approval of minutes from February 8, February 15, and
nd
February 22, 2011. Would anyone like to move that?
MOTION TO APPROVE THE QUEENSBURY PLANNING BOARD MINUTES OF FEBRUARY
THTHND
8, 15, & 22, 2011, Introduced by Gretchen Steffan who moved for its adoption, seconded
by Donald Krebs:
th
Duly adopted this 19 day of April, 2011, by the following vote:
AYES: Mrs. Steffan, Mr. Traver, Mr. Krebs, Mr. Magowan, Mr. Schonewolf, Mr. Sipp,
Mr. Hunsinger
NOES: NONE
MR. HUNSINGER-We have three administrative items this evening.
ADMINISTRATIVE ITEMS
SP 10-2009 NEW HOPE COMMUNITY CHURCH
REQUESTING A ONE YEAR EXTENSION OF APPROVED SITE PLAN – SEE LETTER DATED
1/20/2011
MR. HUNSINGER-They have requested a one year extension of an approved Site Plan, and
there was a letter attached with the sample resolution. Would anyone like to move this?
RESOLUTION APPROVING ONE YEAR EXTENSION SP 10-2009 NEW HOPE CHURCH
On 5/10/2009 New Hope Community Church was granted approval for construction of a 13,244
square foot church facility including worship area, offices, classrooms, recreation area, and
parking with associated utilities. Place of Worship in a CI zone requires Site Plan review and
approval; and
On 4/20/2010 a one year extension was granted to 5/19/2011; and
The applicant is requesting an additional extension, see letter dated 1/20/2011 attached to this
resolution; and
MOTION TO APPROVE THE ONE YEAR EXTENSION REQUEST FOR SITE PLAN NO. 10-
2009 FOR NEW HOPE COMMUNITY CHURCH, Introduced by Gretchen Steffan who moved
for its adoption, seconded by Stephen Traver:
According to the resolution prepared by Staff.
2
(Queensbury Planning Board 04/19/2011)
th
Duly adopted this 19 day of April, 2011, by the following vote:
AYES: Mr. Traver, Mr. Krebs, Mrs. Steffan, Mr. Magowan, Mr. Schonewolf, Mr. Sipp,
Mr. Hunsinger
NOES: NONE
SP 13-2011 DAVID KENNY
TABLED TO 4/19/11, NO NEW INFORMATION RECEIVED BY THE 3/15/211 DEADLINE
DAVID KENNY, PRESENT
MR. HUNSINGER-Is there anyone here representing the applicant? Mr. Kenny, I didn’t see you.
I guess the only question would be when you would like us to table it until.
MR. KENNY-To the next meeting, the May meeting.
MR. HUNSINGER-The May meeting?
MR. KENNY-Yes. Tom has submitted all the new plans and he’s working with the Town
th
Engineer, and that’s why we couldn’t make the April 19 submission because they wanted to
come out and dig test holes, which they’ve done. They’ve done all that work. So the plans are
in the Town, I believe.
th
MR. OBORNE-Yes. The plan’s arrived on the 15. So they’re good to go.
MRS. STEFFAN-Okay.
MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. Good.
MR. KENNY-So we’re just going to put it off until the May meeting, I guess.
th
MR. OBORNE-Yes, the May meeting, for the 19.
MR. KENNY-Hopefully we’ll have all the information for you by then. Okay.
MRS. STEFFAN-Well, good.
MR. HUNSINGER-Great. Thank you.
MR. KENNY-You’re welcome.
MRS. STEFFAN-Thanks for coming.
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
On 2/22/2011 this application was tabled to 4/19/2011 with a submission deadline of 4/4/2011;
and
No new information was submitted by the 4/4/2011 deadline; and
MOTION TO TABLE SITE PLAN NO. 13-2011 DAVID KENNY, Introduced by Gretchen Steffan
who moved for its adoption, seconded by Stephen Traver:
th
According to the resolution prepared by Staff. This is tabled to the May 19 Planning Board
meeting.
th
Duly adopted this 19 day of April, 2011, by the following vote:
AYES: Mr. Traver, Mr. Krebs, Mrs. Steffan, Mr. Magowan, Mr. Schonewolf, Mr. Sipp,
Mr. Hunsinger
NOES: NONE
3
(Queensbury Planning Board 04/19/2011)
MR. HUNSINGER-And just let the record show that the public hearing will be held open until
May19th as well.
SP 39-2010, SP 6-2011 INWALD ENTERPRISES
TABLED TO 4/19/11, REQUESTING TO BE TABLED TO 4/26/11
MR. HUNSINGER-That was scheduled for this evening. They have asked to be tabled until next
week. Is there anyone here in the audience to address the Board on this project? Okay. Would
anyone like to move that?
MRS. STEFFAN-Yes.
RESOLUTION TABLING SP 39-2010 & SP 6-2011 INWALD ENTERPRISES
On 3/15/2011 this application was tabled to 4/19/2011; and
On 3/17/2011 a letter was received from the applicant’s agent requesting to be tabled to
4/26/2011; and
MOTION TO TABLE SITE PLAN NO. 39-2010 & SITE PLAN NO. 6-2011 INWALD
ENTERPRISES, Introduced by Gretchen Steffan who moved for its adoption, seconded by
Stephen Traver:
According to the resolution prepared by Staff. This is tabled until next week’s Planning Board
th
meeting, April 26.
th
Duly adopted this 19 day of April, 2011, by the following vote:
AYES: Mr. Traver, Mr. Krebs, Mrs. Steffan, Mr. Magowan, Mr. Schonewolf, Mr. Sipp,
Mr. Hunsinger
NOES: NONE
MR. HUNSINGER-And also let the record show that the public hearing will be held open until
next week on this project as well.
MR. HUNSINGER-We have two items for recommendations to the Zoning Board of Appeals.
PLANNING BOARD RECOMMENDATION TO THE ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS
SUBDIVISION NO 4-2011 PRELIMINARY STAGE SEQR TYPE UNLISTED PATRICK
GERUSO OWNER(S) SAME AS APPLICANT ZONING MDR-MODERATE DENSITY
RESIDENTIAL LOCATION 34 HOWARD STREET SUBDIVISION: APPLICANT PROPOSES
SUBDIVISION OF A 0.60 +/- ACRE PARCEL INTO TWO LOTS OF 0.30 +/- ACRES EACH.
SUBDIVISION OF LAND REQUIRES PLANNING BOARD REVIEW AND APPROVAL. AREA
VARIANCE: RELIEF REQUESTED FROM LOT SIZE, LOT WIDTH, ROAD FRONTAGE AND
SETBACK REQUIREMENTS OF THE MDR ZONE. PLANNING BOARD TO PROVIDE
RECOMMENDATION TO THE ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS. CROSS REFERENCE AV 16-
2011 LOT SIZE 0.60 +/- ACRES TAX MAP NO. 301.20-1-37.2 SECTION CHAPTER A-183
TERENCE LORD, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT
MR. HUNSINGER-Keith, if you could summarize Staff Notes, please.
MR. OBORNE-Yes. This is a recommendation to the ZBA concerning the relief requested in the
variance application as well as the potential impacts of this project on the neighborhood and
surrounding community. The location is 34 Howard Street. The existing zoning is MDR or
Moderate Density Residential. This is an Unlisted SEQRA. Project Description: Subdivision:
Applicant proposes subdivision of a .06 +/- acre parcel into two lots of .30 acres each. The
subdivision requires Planning Board review and approval. The Area Variance: Relief is
requested for lot size, lot width, road frontage and setback requirements of the MDR zone. Staff
comments: The parcel currently has a pre-existing, nonconforming one story wood framed
house with a detached garage located to the northwest and a second detached garage located
due south of the dwelling. The applicant proposes to remove the second garage to the south
upon approval of the subdivision in order to create a vacant parcel. Applicant is requesting
waivers from Sketch Plan Review, grading, stormwater, E & S and landscaping. You’ll see what
follows with the nature of the variances. They’re both broken down into Lot One and Lot Two.
There are four variances each with those, and at this point you are here to provide a
4
(Queensbury Planning Board 04/19/2011)
recommendation to the Zoning Board of Appeals. Just for clarity, there is no public hearing
aspect to this, and with that, I’d turn it over to the Board.
MR. HUNSINGER-Is there anyone here representing the applicant? If you could come on up to
the table, please, and if you could identify yourself for the record.
MR. LORD-Good evening, Terence Lord representing Patrick Geruso.
MR. HUNSINGER-Did you have anything else that you wanted to add?
MR. LORD-I just wanted to make one comment based on some things that I’ve heard regarding
this variance is that this is not for a mobile home. Even though that area has an overlay, is in an
overlay district, it’s for a single family home to be listed for that property, this second parcel.
MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. Questions, comments from members of the Board?
MRS. STEFFAN-That was a good clarification, because there are both in that neighborhood. I
don’t have any problems with this particular project.
MR. TRAVER-It looks like the, as subdivided it will roughly conform to the surrounding plots.
MR. LORD-Yes.
MR. HUNSINGER-So, Keith, you said there was no public hearing scheduled on this this
evening?
MR. OBORNE-Not for recommendations, no.
MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. We still need to do SEQRA.
MR. OBORNE-If you wish to open it up, that’s fine.
MR. HUNSINGER-Yes.
MR. OBORNE-That’s at your prerogative.
MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. We still need to do SEQRA, though, before we can do anything.
MR. OBORNE-You do need to do SEQRA. Right.
MR. HUNSINGER-Yes. Okay. It’s a Long Form because it’s a SEQRA. Are people
comfortable moving forward on a SEQRA review?
MR. OBORNE-Mr. Chairman, quite frankly, I mean, you are scheduled for a public hearing on
this, so you may want to open it up.
MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. I apologize.
MR. HUNSINGER-That’s okay. I saw it on the agenda and I was wondering. Yes, okay. Is
there anyone in the audience that wants to address the Board on this project? There is a public
hearing scheduled. We have at least one taker, and if you could identify yourself for the record
and address your comments to the Board.
PUBLIC HEARING OPENED
LARRY CLUTE
MR. CLUTE-Hi. I’m Larry Clute. I’ve been asked by the neighbors to represent them as best I
can concerning this application. They’re not for it. One of the reasons the applicant stated is the
mobile home overlay, but more specifically the neighbors are, I’ve got a letter. I think they
addressed it to the Zoning Board.
MR. OBORNE-Only.
MR. CLUTE-But I can give you a copy of it as well, of their concerns. The density. Even
though, Howard Street’s very dense. They don’t believe it needs to be any further dense. To
actually create another lot, they’re completely against, the neighborhood itself. Let me give you
this letter.
5
(Queensbury Planning Board 04/19/2011)
MR. HUNSINGER-Yes, why don’t you give it to Keith, and then we can read it into the record.
MR. CLUTE-I, myself, have been a resident of that neighborhood, 20 years or so, and typically, I
mean, I also run Clute Enterprises. So the majority of the work done in that neighborhood we’ve
done, and I’m always for any improvements within the neighborhood. I don’t need to perform all
of them, but in this particular case, I tend to agree with them, the density, the two surrounding
properties of it, combined with what he’s going to do, creates a lot of density in that one area,
and if you were over there, you could see that. So the neighborhood is there’s easy 30
signatures on that sheet, and could be more. They’re very much against it.
MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. Thank you.
MRS. STEFFAN-Okay. Thanks.
MR. CLUTE-You bet. No, thank you.
MR. HUNSINGER-Anyone else?
MR. LORD-I would like to re-address if I could.
MR. HUNSINGER-Yes, we’ll let you come back in a second, after we make sure everyone has a
chance to comment.
MRS. STEFFAN-Keith, could you read that letter in, so we can hear it?
MR. OBORNE-I shall. Absolutely. It says, Attention Queensbury Zoning Board, from
Neighborhood homeowners, the residents of Howard Street and Geneva Drive in Queensbury,
reference to 34 Howard Street, two lot subdivision. “We applaud and appreciate the
improvements to and re-development of our neighborhood. During the last few years a number
of things have been accomplished and a new sense of pride has also been established. We
understand that most, if not all, of our lots are nonconforming, some more than others. Lot line
adjustments or boundary line agreements have been filed to enlarge and/or improve the smaller
lots in our neighborhood. We agree with this practice, being that these substandard lots pre-
existed the zoning law. That being said, we don’t agree with the subdivision proposed by the
applicant, Patrick Geruso, and the subsequent creation of a new substandard lot. As for the
proposal in question, we believe the existing structures combined with the new structure will be
extremely clustered. (the lot as it exists makes sense, the new structure would look forced)
Although we understand all of the lots are substandard, the improvements that have taken place
to date have consistency or a certain continuity (the placement or layout of the homes). This
project has a different effect, which we don’t agree with. As we’ve stated previously, the
improvements to date have been a breath of fresh air, including the work done by the applicant
on his property. Unfortunately, we can’t support the subdivision. We respectfully request this
application be denied. Thank you for your consideration.” And there’s 27 signatures on there.
MR. HUNSINGER-Okay.
MR. OBORNE-And that’s the only public comment that I have.
MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. Is there anyone else in the audience that wants to address the Board?
You can come back to the table, sir. Was there a comment that you wanted to make as a result
of that?
MR. LORD-Yes, I do. In regard to the parcel size, I know that Mr. Clute, two parcels down, had
th
divided property, last, it was the Zoning Board meeting last August 25, into the same size
parcels that we’re requesting, .3 acres, and with the same road frontage of 75 feet. So this, in
following what I’ve read from this, and also having talked to some of the neighbors who had
advised me that they had had a bit of misinformation regarding the petition that was sent around
the neighborhood that they were told that a mobile home was being put on that, was going to be
put on that parcel, part and parcel because it can be, which, we personally live at, my wife and
my family and I live at 34 Howard Street. So we’re buying the house with my brother down the
line, so this is part of the discussion with him that that will not happen. It will be a single family
home. Both he and I have been in the building business for over 25 years a piece, and there are
people that, a strong handful just who have either come to me or we’ve run into in the
neighborhood that said they were misinformed in the matter of what the petition represented,
that it wasn’t so much density as it was the structure that would be taking shape on that parcel,
and I just wanted to make record of that, because it was brought to my attention by neighbors
and people who had signed and regretted they had signed that petition accordingly.
6
(Queensbury Planning Board 04/19/2011)
MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. Keith, if someone wanted to put a mobile home on a parcel, is that
subject to Site Plan Review?
MR. OBORNE-Not if it’s, no.
MR. HUNSINGER-Okay.
MR. KREBS-But we could specify that this has to be a single family home and not a mobile
home, could we not?
MR. OBORNE-It would be difficult in a Mobile Home Overlay District.
MR. HUNSINGER-Yes.
MR. OBORNE-That would be very difficult. I don’t think that would hold up.
MR. HUNSINGER-What if the applicant were to stipulate that?
MR. OBORNE-That would give a little more force behind it, but what if they sell the property?
That’s always a possibility.
MR. HUNSINGER-Sure.
MR. TRAVER-Well, we can certainly list that as one of the concerns, you know, revealed in this
discussion this evening, when we talk to the, when we refer this to the Zoning Board, as an area
of concern.
MR. OBORNE-I mean, I will say the biggest lift, obviously, is, you know, the relief that they need.
I mean, if the Zoning Board approves it, I don’t know how this Board would feel about that, but,
you know, that is their biggest lift.
MR. HUNSINGER-Right. Sure.
MR. LORD-I mean, on behalf of my brother-in-law, I don’t think he would object to any
stipulations that would designate or call out any structure being built as a single family residence
barring mobile home or modular home of that type to be constructed, whether it’s, you know, on
the property or the property being sold prior to being built, or having, you know, something along
the lines of a covenant for that.
MR. OBORNE-Yes, that’s consistent with my conversations with them.
MR. HUNSINGER-Okay.
MR. LORD-Yes, I mean, because basically I applaud Mr. Clute for what he’s done in the
neighborhood, and there is, we wouldn’t have even thought of that neighborhood, having been
in and seen what’s gone on, even in the short year that we’ve been there. So it’s just part and
parcel, just to add to what’s already taken shape in the neighborhood and not to detract from
what’s already there. Just to add to the general overall feel of the neighborhood and what’s
been outlaid at this point.
MR. MAGOWAN-When I look at the properties to, let’s go up the screen, you know, it looks like
there’s two properties and the houses are split. Would those properties join together?
MR. OBORNE-These where my hand is?
MR. MAGOWAN-Yes. Is that a property line there in between the houses?
MR. OBORNE-Yes, yes it is.
MR. MAGOWAN-So it looks like they’ve added that, and then the next one up the same way.
MR. OBORNE-Yes, and that’s typical for the area. They come in for an expansion, one of the
things that the Zoning Board will do is require that they combine the parcels, but as it stands
now, those are two parcels that were purchased, houses built, and there was no lot line
adjustment or combination of the lots.
MR. LORD-There was a lot line adjustment on the next one up. That was an odd/even. That
th
was part of August 25 last year, where it was a.
7
(Queensbury Planning Board 04/19/2011)
MR. OBORNE-Well that might have been torn down or there might have been an expansion on
it. I’m not sure.
MR. LORD-It was, yes, it was part and parcel to it. I mean, basically that lot was leveled. That’s
one of Larry’s homes that was put up.
MR. MAGOWAN-Now, Keith, is there another, that’s just south of it, that little small lot, the lower
part of it, is there a house on that?
MR. OBORNE-There is a mobile home on that parcel. I might even have a photo of it. Of
course not. Over here.
MR. MAGOWAN-Or, just, you know, to me it just looks tight for, you know, two homes, and I
look at the other houses that, even on the other side of the street, it looks like, you know, the lots
were all, you know, a decent size.
MR. LORD-If you look to the, what’s not shown on this aerial is the new house that was built,
not, just to the north of the designated area that’s line across the property line, the one further to
the north, with the white roof on that, that has been split into basically what we’re looking to split
into is two .3 acre lots, and there were variances for building side setbacks on that that I’m
aware of. So it’s essentially the same break up of property, the same road frontage, because
they’re both 75 foot road front parcels, but I think they had 16 and 15 plus side setbacks for the
house that was constructed last year by Larry.
MR. MAGOWAN-That’s the white roof there?
MR. LORD-Yes, which is no longer, yes.
MR. MAGOWAN-That whole building was torn down?
MR. LORD-And an ancillary building as well.
MR. HUNSINGER-So we have to do SEQRA before we can make a recommendation to the
Zoning Board. Okay. Is there any issue in SEQRA that the Board has, before moving forward
on the SEQRA?
MR. KREBS-I was just going to point out, across the street there are two lots that are the same,
or less size than what they’re talking about, too.
MR. LORD-Yes, and there are, obviously, as you can see, there’s a trailer on one side, and the
larger lot to the north is Mr. Mosher’s, our neighbor’s mother’s trailer on that lot.
MR. HUNSINGER-Any other questions or comments from the Board before we move on to
SEQRA review?
MRS. STEFFAN-Is that served by sewer?
MR. LORD-No, that’s septic.
MRS. STEFFAN-Septic.
MR. LORD-Yes, the proposed drawings show the setbacks for the septic field in the rear of the
property, the proposed subdivision.
MR. HUNSINGER-Did you have a comment, Mr. Clute?
MR. CLUTE-I can clarify a little bit.
MR. HUNSINGER-We’ll need to get you on the microphone, though. Okay.
MR. CLUTE-Again, I’m not trying to seem like I’m against the project. The neighborhood
actually came to me, but to clarify, no, I’ve never split a lot, what I’ve done is I’ve taken smaller
lots and made them more conforming, but we have never done a subdivision of any lot on
Howard Street. The lots that he’s referring to, on this northerly end here, right here, these two
lots existed. They didn’t have to be subdivided. What we did was trying to mitigate this small
size, and we took a piece of that, and indeed, they are equal to the two 75 foot pieces, but they
didn’t subdivide to create that. We just tried to make the best out of a bad situation. These lots
are way too small. So as Keith said, what we’ve been doing, slowly but surely, is taking the
small lots, combining them with a larger lot, but never increasing the lot count, if that makes
sense, and indeed we did level these buildings. See how the density of this is? We took that
8
(Queensbury Planning Board 04/19/2011)
right out and made it much more conforming, I guess, is the word, but we didn’t subdivide it. We
simply adjusted the lot line.
MR. HUNSINGER-You did lot line adjustments, yes. Okay.
MR. CLUTE-No new lots were created, ever.
MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. Thank you.
MR. CLUTE-Thank you.
MR. HUNSINGER-Sure. Okay. Everyone ready? There is a Long Form, of course.
MRS. STEFFAN-Yes. Will the proposed action result in a physical change to the project site?
MR. TRAVER-No.
MRS. STEFFAN- Will there be an effect to any unique or unusual land forms found
on the site?
MR. HUNSINGER-No.
MR. TRAVER-No.
MRS. STEFFAN-Will the proposed action affect any water body designated as protected?
MR. HUNSINGER-No.
MR. KREBS-No.
MRS. STEFFAN-Will the proposed action affect any non-protected existing or new body of
water?
MR. HUNSINGER-No.
MR. KREBS-No.
MRS. STEFFAN-Will the proposed action affect surface or groundwater quality or quantity?
MR. HUNSINGER-No.
MR. TRAVER-No.
MR. KREBS-No.
MRS. STEFFAN-Will the proposed action alter drainage flow or patterns, or surface water
runoff?
MR. HUNSINGER-No.
MR. TRAVER-No.
MRS. STEFFAN-Will the proposed action affect air quality?
MR. HUNSINGER-No.
MR. TRAVER-No.
MRS. STEFFAN-Will the proposed action affect any threatened or endangered species?
MR. HUNSINGER-No.
MR. TRAVER-No.
MRS. STEFFAN-Will the proposed action substantially affect non-threatened or non-
endangered species?
MR. HUNSINGER-No.
9
(Queensbury Planning Board 04/19/2011)
MR. KREBS-No.
MRS. STEFFAN-Will the proposed action affect agricultural land resources?
MR. HUNSINGER-No.
MR. TRAVER-No.
MRS. STEFFAN-Will the proposed action affect aesthetic resources?
MR. TRAVER-No.
MR. HUNSINGER-No.
MRS. STEFFAN-Will the proposed action impact any site or structure of historic, pre-historic or
paleontological importance?
MR. HUNSINGER-No.
MR. KREBS-No.
MRS. STEFFAN-Will the proposed action affect the quantity or quality of existing or future open
spaces or recreational opportunities?
MR. HUNSINGER-No.
MR. KREBS-No.
MRS. STEFFAN-Will the proposed action impact the exceptional or unique characteristics of a
critical environmental area?
MR. HUNSINGER-No.
MR. KREBS-No.
MRS. STEFFAN-Will there be an effect to existing transportation systems?
MR. HUNSINGER-No.
MR. KREBS-No.
MRS. STEFFAN-Will proposed action affect the community’s sources of fuel or energy supply?
MR. HUNSINGER-No.
MR. TRAVER-No.
MRS. STEFFAN-Will there be objectionable odors, noise, or vibration as a result of
the proposed action?
MR. HUNSINGER-No.
MR. TRAVER-No.
MRS. STEFFAN-Will the proposed action affect public health and safety?
MR. HUNSINGER-No.
MR. TRAVER-No.
MRS. STEFFAN-Will the proposed action affect the character of the existing community?
MR. HUNSINGER-No.
MR. KREBS-No.
MRS. STEFFAN-And is there, or is there likely to be, public controversy related to potential
adverse environmental impacts?
10
(Queensbury Planning Board 04/19/2011)
MR. HUNSINGER-No.
MR. TRAVER-No.
MRS. STEFFAN-Then I’ll make a motion for a Negative SEQRA declaration.
RESOLUTION WHEN DETERMINATION OF NO SIGNIFICANCE IS MADE
RESOLUTION NO. 4-2011, Introduced by Gretchen Steffan who moved for its adoption,
seconded by Donald Sipp:
WHEREAS, there is presently before the Planning Board an application for:
PATRICK GERUSO, and
WHEREAS, this Planning Board has determined that the proposed project and Planning Board
action is subject to review under the State Environmental Quality Review Act,
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT
RESOLVED:
1. No Federal agency appears to be involved.
2. The following agencies are involved:
NONE
3. The proposed action considered by this Board is Unlisted in the Department of
Environmental Conservation Regulations implementing the State Environmental Quality
Review Act and the regulations of the Town of Queensbury.
4. An Environmental Assessment Form has been completed by the applicant.
5. Having considered and thoroughly analyzed the relevant areas of environmental concern
and having considered the criteria for determining whether a project has a significant
environmental impact as the same is set forth in Section 617.11 of the Official
Compilation of Codes, Rules and Regulations for the State of New York, this Board finds
that the action about to be undertaken by this Board will have no significant
environmental effect and the Chairman of the Planning Board is hereby authorized to
execute and sign and file as may be necessary a statement of non-significance or a
negative declaration that may be required by law.
th
Duly adopted this 19 day of, April, 2011, by the following vote:
AYES: Mr. Sipp, Mr. Schonewolf, Mr. Magowan, Mrs. Steffan, Mr. Krebs, Mr. Traver,
Mr. Hunsinger
NOES: NONE
MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. In terms of the recommendation to the Zoning Board, we have a
couple of options. One is we have not identified any significant adverse impacts, and the other
is that we have identified some areas of concern. I guess it would be my opinion that we’re
looking at the latter, that there are some potential areas of concern.
MRS. STEFFAN-So one of the areas of concern is that this particular area is within a Mobile
Home Overlay district, and there is the potential to put a mobile home there.
MR. TRAVER-Right.
MRS. STEFFAN-But, is that a bad thing?
MR. OBORNE-It’s in an Overlay district. It’s zoned for that.
MR. HUNSINGER-Well, I think the bigger issue is the, I guess it’s really not a petition, but the
comments from the neighbors, and, you know, certainly that carries some weight.
MR. SCHONEWOLF-That letter is going to the ZBA?
MR. OBORNE-Absolutely.
11
(Queensbury Planning Board 04/19/2011)
MR. HUNSINGER-And, you know, the real decision on a subdivision like this is with the Zoning
Board.
MR. TRAVER-Right.
MR. KREBS-But at the same time the Zoning Board’s going to look at the character of the area
and many of the lots are the same size as they’ve indicated they’re going to end up with.
MR. HUNSINGER-But I think as was pointed out, you can’t simply look at the tax map because,
you know, when you look at the tax map that was submitted, compared to even this aerial
photograph, you know, there is a difference.
MR. OBORNE-This is not updated also. This is a 2008.
MR. HUNSINGER-Yes.
MR. KREBS-Yes, and the one that we have was not to scale either.
MR. HUNSINGER-Right.
MRS. STEFFAN-Okay. So we’ve got the mobile home issue. What’s another issue? Is there
another issue?
MR. HUNSINGER-Well, it was just the concern of the neighborhood, you know, the concern of
the neighbors, with respect to density, and, you know, the Zoning Board needs to do their
balancing act.
MR. OBORNE-Yes, they do. Are there any other concerns that members of the Board have?
We didn’t identify any environmental concerns.
MR. TRAVER-No.
MRS. STEFFAN-Okay.
MR. HUNSINGER-I’m sorry, ma’am, we stopped taking public comment.
AUDIENCE MEMBER-I’m sorry I was late.
MR. HUNSINGER-That’s okay. There will be a public hearing scheduled tomorrow evening
with the Zoning Board. Is it on tomorrow night, Keith?
MR. OBORNE-Yes.
MR. HUNSINGER-Okay.
RESOLUTION RE: ZBA RECOMMENDATION FOR AV 16-2011 GERUSO
The applicant proposes: Subdivision: Applicant proposes subdivision of a 0.60 +/- acre parcel
into two lots of 0.30 +/- acres each. Subdivision of land requires Planning Board review and
approval. Area Variance: Relief requested from lot size, lot width, road frontage and setback
requirements of the MDR zone. Planning Board to provide recommendation to the Zoning
Board of Appeals.
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
MOTION TO MAKE A RECOMMENDATION ON BEHALF OF THE PLANNING BOARD TO
THE ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS REGARDING AREA VARIANCE NO. 16-2011 AND
SUBDIVISION 4-2011 PATRICK GERUSO, Introduced by Gretchen Steffan who moved for its
adoption, seconded by Stephen Traver:
According to the resolution that is before us. The Planning Board has two options. Option One,
which would be not identifying any significant impacts, or, Number Two, which the Planning
Board has selected, the Planning Board, based on a limited review has identified the following
areas of concern.
12
(Queensbury Planning Board 04/19/2011)
1.That this particular area is within a mobile home overlay district. However, there is a
concern on behalf of the neighbors that a mobile home will negatively affect
neighborhood character. The neighbors also expressed concerns regarding density.
th
Duly adopted this 19 day of April, 2011, by the following vote:
AYES: Mr. Traver, Mr. Krebs, Mrs. Steffan, Mr. Schonewolf, Mr. Sipp, Mr. Hunsinger
NOES: Mr. Magowan
MR. HUNSINGER-And, just for the benefit of the lady that came in late, all the Planning Board
did this evening was make a recommendation to the Zoning Board. It’s really up to the Zoning
Board to decide whether or not the subdivision should be approved, and the Zoning Board
meets tomorrow evening. They will have a public hearing scheduled, so you will have an
opportunity to speak at the Zoning Board. If the Zoning Board does grant the waivers
requested, it will come back to us for final subdivision approval, and at that time there will be an
opportunity for additional public comment.
AUDIENCE MEMBER-Well, I just wanted to say that I’ve lived on that, I was born and raised on
that road up there, and from the time where I was little and all through these years, the
neighborhood has.
MS. GAGLIARDI-Excuse me, you need to get on the microphone if you’re going to speak.
MR. HUNSINGER-If you’re going to make a public comment, we need to get you on the
microphone, but we had already completed the public comment period for this evening, which
was why I was explaining that you have an opportunity to speak tomorrow night, and then if it
comes back, you’ll have another chance as well.
AUDIENCE MEMBER-All right.
MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. Thank you. Our next item on the agenda is also for a
recommendation to the Zoning Board of Appeals.
SITE PLAN NO. 26-2011 SEQR TYPE II EDWARD & PHILOMENA VANPUTTE AGENT(S)
JARRETT ENGINEERS OWNER(S) SAME AS APPLICANT ZONING WR-WATERFRONT
RESIDENTIAL LOCATION 23 JAY ROAD WEST SITE PLAN: APPLICANT PROPOSES
CONSTRUCTION OF A 1,130 SQ. FT. SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENCE. HARD SURFACING
WITHIN 50 FEET OF A SHORELINE AS WELL AS CONSTRUCTION WITHIN 50 FEET OF
SLOPES IN EXCESS OF 15% REQUIRES PLANNING BOARD REVIEW AND APPROVAL.
AREA VARIANCE: RELIEF REQUESTED FROM FRONT, SIDE, SHORELINE SETBACKS AS
WELL AS HEIGHT, PERMEABILITY AND FLOOR AREA RATIO REQUIREMENTS OF THE
WR ZONE. PLANNING BOARD TO PROVIDE RECOMMENDATION TO THE ZONING
BOARD OF APPEALS. CROSS REFERENCE AV 17-11; BOH 24, 10 APA, CEA, OTHER
GLEN LK. CEA, 100 YEAR FLOODPLAIN LOT SIZE 0.1 ACRES TAX MAP NO. 289.10-1-18
SECTION 179-9
TOM JARRETT, REPRESENTING APPLICANTS, PRESENT
MR. HUNSINGER-Whenever you’re ready, Keith.
MR. OBORNE-Sure. Site Plan 26-2011 and Area Variance 17-2011 for Edward and Philomena
Vanputte. This, again, is a recommendation to the Zoning Board of Appeals. 23 Jay Road West
is the location. This is in Waterfront Residential. This is a Type II SEQRA. We do have a
parcel history. There has been a holding tank variance issued for this property back on
9/13/2010. Project Description: Applicant proposes construction of an 1130 square foot single
family residence. Hard surfacing within 50 feet of a shoreline as well as construction within 50
feet of the slopes in excess of 15% requires Planning Board review and approval. The Area
Variance: Relief required from front, shoreline setbacks as well as height, permeability and floor
area ratio requirements of the WR zone. The Planning Board to provide a written
recommendation to the ZBA. Staff comments: The parcel for this project is .10 acres in size
and is one of the smaller parcel with frontage on Glen Lake, and as a result, the applicant is
requesting multiple variances as denoted above. The parcel is currently vacant as the result of
a fire and subsequent demolition. As also previously stated, there are holding tanks on this
parcel. What follows is the nature of the Area Variance. Again, a front setback, shoreline
setback, height and permeability, and floor area ratio, all as denoted. What follows is Site Plan
Review. Additional comments. I do have a comment on perspective, when it comes to the size
of the property, and also we have an issue with test pits that need to be witnessed by the Town
Engineer, and with that I’d turn it over to the Board.
13
(Queensbury Planning Board 04/19/2011)
MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. Thank you. Good evening.
MR. JARRETT-Good evening. Tom Jarrett of Jarrett Engineers and Patrick Vanputte. I assume
the Board has had a chance to look at the application materials and the site, and as you can tell,
it’s a very small property. It’s a tenth of an acre. The properties in that area of Glen Lake are
inherently small. It’s on a peninsula. The Vanputtes have owned the property for a number of
years and the structure that was on the property burned several years ago, and for safety
reasons the old structure was removed following the fire, and we’re back now trying to propose a
compromise to blend zoning with family needs and neighborhood needs that meets everybody’s
desire. Our proposal tones the structure down in size somewhat from what was there before.
We’ve proposed a loft area, basically a second story, to get to more living space, and thus the
reason for the Floor Area Ratio variance that we’re requesting. The size of this site, a tenth of
an acre, dictates very small area for house and floor area. So essentially building any kind of a
reasonable residential structure here dictates floor area and permeability variances. Three
other variances are needed. The front setback, meaning to Jay Road West, and to the lake,
those are two variances, and as you can see from the site, you really can’t build a structure on
this lot, and I think Staff comments agree with that. You really can’t build a structure on this site
without those two variances. We have been able to build a structure, or propose a structure that
meets sideline setbacks, however. The fifth variance is a height variance, and depending on
concerns with the Board, we’d like to discuss that further, because we don’t really feel a height
variance is warranted, although we’ve been asked to apply for it.
MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. Questions, comments from the Board? Yes, I had questions on the
height variance as well, because looking at your plans that it showed 28 feet.
MR. JARRETT-Well, the Code reads that the structure shall be 28 feet from natural grade, and
we’ve estimated natural grade to be at Elevation 405, 405, and we’ve built a structure actually
less than 28 feet above that. However, the Staff has stated that we don’t have proof of that
original natural grade. So they’re using the current grade, which is the excavation for the old
structure. That’s quite a bit lower. So technically we need a variance, although we think we’ve
demonstrated what natural grade is.
MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. So to be safe you might as well ask for it, since you need the others.
Yes, okay. That makes sense.
MR. JARRETT-In this case it’s easier to discuss it with you and ask for the variance than it is to
try to argue it.
MR. HUNSINGER-Sure. Yes.
MR. OBORNE-Do you want to talk about the floodplain?
MR. JARRETT-Yes. The lake elevation, as surveyed, is 398, and the FEMA flood elevation is
404, six feet above that, and building code requires that we build our living space two feet above
that elevation. So our minimum elevation is 406 for living quarters. That’s what we’ve done.
Another reason for the height of the structure. I think that’s why you brought it up.
MR. OBORNE-It is.
MRS. STEFFAN-I was amazed it was in a floodplain. I was just really surprised.
MR. HUNSINGER-Yes, I’m surprised, too, because, I mean, the elevation of the lake is
controlled by the dam at the outlet.
MR. JARRETT-Yes, it is, but actually it shocked us as to the elevation. We knew it was listed as
a floodplain, but when we actually looked at the elevation, it kind of shocked us that it was six
feet above the lake elevation.
MR. HUNSINGER-Yes, right.
MR. JARRETT-But I’ve talked to FEMA a number of times, and frankly that’s fighting city hall, for
sure.
MR. HUNSINGER-Yes. No, you can’t fight them.
MR. JARRETT-Applying for a waiver on this particular site or a re-evaluation of the flood
elevation would have taken six months, minimum, for a three minute consideration.
14
(Queensbury Planning Board 04/19/2011)
MR. SIPP-Where will the new septic tank be put?
MR. JARRETT-We have a variance from the local board of health, the Town Board, to put in
holding tanks on the west side of the house.
MR. SIPP-The west side.
MR. JARRETT-Yes, and their details are in the site plan application.
MR. HUNSINGER-So did the prior house have a septic tank?
MR. JARRETT-Yes, it had a septic system.
MR. HUNSINGER-Wow.
MR. JARRETT-It functioned perfectly.
MR. OBORNE-It’s a little smaller, too, because the house was just a wee bit smaller.
MR. HUNSINGER-It was in the basement?
MR. JARRETT-The record will not show the face I gave the Board.
MR. HUNSINGER-Yes, well, I remember in the past we have had camps before us that had
their septic fields in their basement.
MR. JARRETT-Yes.
MR. HUNSINGER-I mean, it wasn’t a finished basement.
MR. JARRETT-I’m not shocked today to hear some of the stories.
MR. HUNSINGER-Yes, I shouldn’t even really say it was a basement. It was under the house.
It really wasn’t a basement. Questions, comments from the Board?
MR. SIPP-Will there be any disturbance down near the shoreline by removal of trees or shrubs?
MR. JARRETT-I think the photograph you’ll see there aren’t really any trees there. We’re
planning to plant trees and plant some wet swales with shrubbery and perennials. There’s
nothing there now.
MR. OBORNE-A lot of rock.
MRS. STEFFAN-I personally think you’ve done a great job with the site plan. I mean, when we
went to look at it, there’s nothing there, obviously, just a hole, but, you know, it’s an empty
palette for you at this point, and so you did the best that you could.
MR. JARRETT-Empty but small.
MR. HUNSINGER-Empty but small.
MRS. STEFFAN-Exactly, and so you’ve done a really good job of trying to meet the intent of the
Code within reason, and I can’t be critical of it.
MR. JARRETT-I’d like to interject one thing. We’ve addressed technical comments. If the
Board doesn’t have any major concerns, I’ll just hand them to Keith tonight and they can go on
the record for next month’s consideration. If you have concerns, I’ll bring up any of those issues
with those, with my responses.
MR. HUNSINGER-Well, I mean, one of the questions I had is in the house design itself, and that
is the exterior stairs going up to the loft. I just question how realistic that is.
MR. JARRETT-Actually, that was a family suggestion, and they really like the idea. So we’ve
run with it.
MR. HUNSINGER-Even in the wintertime?
MR. JARRETT-Well, it’s really going to be a three season camp. Once in a while there’ll be
winter use, but.
15
(Queensbury Planning Board 04/19/2011)
PATRICK VANPUTTE
MR. VANPUTTE-And it will be the younger crew that would be using the upstairs anyway. So
the elderly would not have to worry about going up and down stairs. It was a way to pick up
more living space.
MR. KREBS-And the younger ones probably don’t want you to hear them come in anyway, so
they can go up the stairs.
MR. JARRETT-And that was brought out during our design meetings, as a matter of fact.
MR. MAGOWAN-I’m sure there’ll be one squeaky step.
MR. HUNSINGER-So it had to do with Floor Area Ratio?
MR. JARRETT-Yes, it did.
MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. Because I was thinking, all I was thinking about was the side setback,
and it doesn’t do anything there.
MR. JARRETT-It does not. The Floor Area Ratio is exactly where we gained a little bit of space.
MR. HUNSINGER-Okay.
MR. OBORNE-For the Board’s clarification, you can’t put a year round home on a holding tank.
It’s not legal, unless your local board of health gives you that blessing, but they’re putting
themselves at risk also.
MR. HUNSINGER-But you’re asking for relief of Floor Area Ratio anyway.
MR. JARRETT-We are.
MR. HUNSINGER-Okay.
MR. JARRETT-We toned it down as much as we could and just the family felt it wouldn’t be
reasonable below that.
MR. VANPUTTE-We started off much bigger at one time.
MR. HUNSINGER-So this is also another way to help ensure that it’s mostly a seasonal use,
because no one’s going to want to go outside to go upstairs in the wintertime.
MR. JARRETT-It’s certainly not designed for winter use, per se.
MR. HUNSINGER-Yes.
MR. JARRETT-I mean, it probably would be a getaway for a ski weekend once in a while.
MR. VANPUTTE-But that’s about it.
MR. HUNSINGER-Yes.
MRS. STEFFAN-Well, when we drove in and had to turn around, we thought, where do you put
snow on this road, and after the winter that we’ve had, I mean, it would be a very difficult place
to live.
MR. JARRETT-Where do you put anything on that road.
MRS. STEFFAN-Yes. Well, and certainly the design, our engineer, Chazen, talked about
having an easement, a construction easement from a neighbor, because where are you going to
stage the materials. We asked that question on the drive around.
MR. HUNSINGER-Yes.
MRS. STEFFAN-So that base is covered.
MR. HUNSINGER-Any other questions, comments?
16
(Queensbury Planning Board 04/19/2011)
MR. JARRETT-One question that will come up next month, if not now, is the drywell in the
driveway. Chazen has commented that it does not meet Code to put a drywell in that driveway.
We put it in to try to meet stormwater requirements, to meet the stormwater requirements of the
Town, and as such it doesn’t meet setback to the drilled well, our well or the neighbor’s well.
MR. HUNSINGER-Right.
MR. JARRETT-We have a detail on our well for protection of that water supply. There’s a
Bentonite seal proposed around the well. I don’t know if you noticed it in our plan, but it’s
specifically intended to protect the well from this tight neighborhood. It’s a very congested
neighborhood period, and frankly if the Board does not want to see that drywell in the driveway
because of Chazen’s comments, then we won’t be able to meet stormwater requirements for the
Town. Right now we do. So, in my responses here I’ve thrown it out to the Board. We can do
one of two things. We can either meet stormwater requirements and leave the drywell in place,
with the well protection detail, which we’re going to leave anyway, by the way, or delete the
drywell, turn it into a catch basin. We eliminate Chazen’s concern, but we can’t meet
stormwater requirements. We’re between a rock and a hard place, and we’re throwing it out to
the Board.
MR. HUNSINGER-But you’re using pervious paving.
MR. JARRETT-We are. Open pavers, really.
MR. HUNSINGER-Yes. Even with that you can’t meet the stormwater requirements?
MR. JARRETT-We really didn’t take advantage of that. Again, if we take advantage of it, due to
infiltration, then we’re going to be too close to that well. One way or the other, we’re caught. It’s
one of those technicalities that boxes us in.
MR. HUNSINGER-Right.
MR. JARRETT-It certainly doesn’t have to be decided for tonight, but that is a consideration for
next month.
MR. HUNSINGER-Interesting.
MR. OBORNE-And that is, after all, a site plan issue at this point.
MR. HUNSINGER-Right. Although it does play into the Area Variances requested, on some
level.
MR. OBORNE-I don’t know how you’re going to get away from that at all, the distances to the
well.
MR. JARRETT-No. We can’t meet separation distances. It’s too tight. Our entire property is
less than 100 feet from the neighbor’s well. So we’re.
MR. OBORNE-Yes, and this is not an infiltration device like it is in the Lake George basin. It’s
totally different from that. This has to deal with 147 and its coverage for the whole Town. So,
and you’ve got to put stormwater somewhere. Preferably not in the lake.
MR. JARRETT-Yes. Right now on the property historically those properties there had no
stormwater management.
MR. HUNSINGER-Right.
MR. JARRETT-Very poor wastewater management. We’re trying to improve it as much as we
can, but we’re boxed in by standards.
MR. HUNSINGER-The agenda says that there’s not a public hearing scheduled, but we did on
the last one?
MR. OBORNE-That’s because of the SEQRA aspect of the last one.
MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. Thank you.
MRS. STEFFAN-So, do we have concerns?
17
(Queensbury Planning Board 04/19/2011)
MR. HUNSINGER-Well, the engineer does. The Zoning Board receives copies of the
engineering comments, right? No? Okay.
MR. KREBS-But if you look at, you know, the existing site, and you look at what’s being
proposed, and all the plants that they’re proposing, you’re going to be much better off with the
absorption from those plants than you are to leave the property the way it is today.
MR. HUNSINGER-I would tend to agree, yes.
MR. SCHONEWOLF-It’s an improvement is what it is.
MR. TRAVER-Yes.
MR. JARRETT-And I can hand out our responses to Chazen’s comments, but I didn’t think you
wanted to look at those tonight.
MR. HUNSINGER-No. No.
MR. OBORNE-And the one thing you can’t get away from is it is a tight lot.
MR. HUNSINGER-It is, yes.
MR. SCHONEWOLF-There’s a lot of them up there. It’s a better managed tight lot than some of
the others up there.
MR. KREBS-Fortunately or unfortunately, if it hadn’t had the fire, you would have still had the old
building there. So you’re probably going to be better off with what we’re going to have in the
future than what you had prior to it.
MR. JARRETT-Except the Vanputtes had to deal with me.
MR. VANPUTTE-And it hasn’t been cheap.
MR. JARRETT-Thanks for putting that on the record.
MR. VANPUTTE-It’s been a long process.
MR. HUNSINGER-I’m sure, yes.
MR. HUNSINGER-Well, what’s the feeling of the Board? Are the concerns all site plan related?
I mean, at some point they do kind of cross over to the variance requests, though, because of
the size of the lot.
MR. TRAVER-Yes. I think the concerns are all related to the lot size and location, but I think
those are outweighed by the improvement to the property by the new design.
MR. SCHONEWOLF-So I would refer it to the ZBA and let them deal with it first.
MR. HUNSINGER-Okay.
MR. SCHONEWOLF-Because I think we all see that it’s an improvement.
MR. HUNSINGER-So which would you select from our standard resolution, either no significant
impacts or do we want to identify some concerns?
MR. TRAVER-I would say no significant impacts, because in the absence of this plan would be
the, either the pre-existing structure or the empty lot with no stormwater and no other mitigation.
MR. SCHONEWOLF-So it’s an improvement.
MR. TRAVER-Yes.
MR. HUNSINGER-Everyone pretty much in agreement with that?
MR. KREBS-Yes.
MR. HUNSINGER-Okay.
18
(Queensbury Planning Board 04/19/2011)
MRS. STEFFAN-Do we want to say that the Planning Board has received several comments
from the engineer that the applicant is addressing those? I mean, I think that the Zoning Board
should know that there were several outstanding issues from Chazen, just so that they’re aware
of that.
MR. SCHONEWOLF-Well, they have a copy of that, don’t they?
MR. HUNSINGER-Well, I asked, and Keith said no.
MRS. STEFFAN-According to Keith, no.
MR. OBORNE-No, typically we don’t send engineering to the ZBA. We want to keep them
focused on the task at hand.
MR. HUNSINGER-Yes.
MRS. STEFFAN-But it might be something that if we identify it, certainly Tom would be able to
address those issues and go on the record, so that the Zoning Board would not feel, you know,
like they did not have enough information or they were being blindsided or those kinds of things.
I think it’s much better to get that information out on the table than not.
MR. JARRETT-I don’t disagree, and I don’t recall any specific comments that are germane to
the variances. They all relate, as you say, but I don’t remember any germane to the variances.
MR. OBORNE-Yes, the engineering comments.
MR. JARRETT-Your comments were, but not engineering.
MR. OBORNE-Right.
MR. HUNSINGER-Well, certainly the comments about the infiltration facilities being at least 100
feet from any water supply, you know, that’s an engineering comment that relates to.
MR. JARRETT-Not the variances we requested. It may relate to a variance we end up having,
or a waiver that’s requested.
MR. HUNSINGER-Right, yes.
MR. JARRETT-I think the waiver will be from this Board, not from that Board.
MRS. STEFFAN-Right.
MR. HUNSINGER-Yes, okay.
MRS. STEFFAN-So do we go with Number One or Number Two?
MR. TRAVER-I would say Number One. I mean, we can’t, I don’t think we can express an
engineering concern. We can, it’s in the minutes that we discussed it.
MR. HUNSINGER-Right.
MRS. STEFFAN-Well, they won’t get the minutes by tomorrow.
MR. TRAVER-Good point. Yes. Keith and I can relate it tomorrow night.
MR. OBORNE-If you care to, I mean, and I’m not putting words in the Board’s mouth, I mean,
you may want to say there are some engineering concerns that can be mitigated at site plan,
well, potentially mitigated at site plan. Obviously they’re not before the Zoning Board of Appeals
for those engineering concerns.
MR. HUNSINGER-Right.
MR. TRAVER-Right.
MR. OBORNE-So, but what I’m hearing is you want to convey to them that there are some
engineering concerns that potentially the Zoning Board of Appeals could reduce the amount of
relief or increase the amount of relief. I’m not sure where you’re going with that, but could also
help with that, with those engineering concerns. I’m not sure how true that is, because we’re
talking about distances between wells and infiltration devices.
19
(Queensbury Planning Board 04/19/2011)
MR. HUNSINGER-Yes. It really has to do with the size of the lot, not the relief requested.
MR. TRAVER-Which gets us right back to the improvement of the situation.
MR. HUNSINGER-Right. Yes.
MR. TRAVER-But I would say Number One.
MR. KREBS-That would be my vote, too.
MR. HUNSINGER-Yes.
MRS. STEFFAN-How do folks feel at the other end of the table, One or Two?
MR. SCHONEWOLF-One.
MR. MAGOWAN-I’ll swing on the One.
MRS. STEFFAN-Okay.
MRS. STEFFAN-Don?
MR. SIPP-One.
MRS. STEFFAN-Okay. I’ll put the motion forth.
RESOLUTION RE: ZBA RECOMMENDATION FOR AV 17-2011 VANPUTTE
The applicant has proposed: Site Plan: Applicant proposes construction of a 1,130 sq. ft. single
family residence. Hard surfacing within 50 feet of a shoreline as well as construction within 50
feet of slopes in excess of 15% requires Planning Board review and approval. Area Variance:
Relief requested from front, side, shoreline setbacks as well as height, permeability and floor
area ratio requirements of the WR zone. Planning Board to provide recommendation to the
Zoning Board of Appeals; and
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
MOTION TO MAKE A RECOMMENDATION ON BEHALF OF THE PLANNING BOARD TO
THE ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS FOR AREA VARIANCE NO. 17-2011 AND SITE PLAN
NO. 26-2011 EDWARD & PHILOMENA VANPUTTE, Introduced by Gretchen Steffan who
moved for its adoption, seconded by Stephen Traver:
According to the resolution prepared by Staff. The Planning Board picks Option One. The
Planning Board, based on limited review, has not identified any significant adverse impacts that
cannot be mitigated with the current project proposal.
th
Duly adopted this 19 day of April, 2011, by the following vote:
AYES: Mr. Traver, Mr. Krebs, Mrs. Steffan, Mr. Magowan, Mr. Schonewolf, Mr. Sipp,
Mr. Hunsinger
NOES: NONE
MR. JARRETT-Thank you. Okay. I’ll see you next month.
MR. HUNSINGER-Yes. Good luck.
SITE PLAN NO. 79-2010 SEQR TYPE II LANDCRAFTERS, LLC, CARR DEVELOPMENT,
LLC OWNER(S) JOHN CARR ZONING CI-COMMERCIAL INTENSIVE LOCATION 704
GLEN STREET APPLICANT PROPOSES A CHANGE TO EXISTING SITE LANDSCAPING
TO INCLUDE THE INSTALLATION OF ON-SITE SIDEWALKS, SEATING AND POTENTIAL
FUTURE BUS STOP. CHANGES IN SITE DESIGN IN THE CI ZONE REQUIRE PLANNING
BOARD REVIEW AND APPROVAL. CROSS REFERENCE SB 7-01, SP 20-02, SB 4-02
WARREN CO. PLANNING 12/8/10 - NO ACTION LOT SIZE 1.07 +/- ACRES TAX MAP NO.
302.6-1-58.1 SECTION 179-9
20
(Queensbury Planning Board 04/19/2011)
JOHN CARR, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT
MR. HUNSINGER-Keith?
MR. OBORNE-As previously stated, Site Plan 79-2010, Landcrafters, LLC/Carr Development,
LLC. This is a change in site design in the CI zone. Location is 704 Glen Street, CI,
Commercial Intensive is the existing zoning. This is a Type II SEQRA. Warren County Planning
Board had a No Action. Project Description: Applicant proposes a change to existing site
landscaping to include the installation of on site sidewalks, seating, and potential future bus
stop. Staff Comments: What follows is a quick synopsis of what the plan is. Following that is
the review that the applicant has diligently taken care of, as far as the concerns that Staff had
with the trees, with right of way issues. That’s all been taken care of. The only outstanding issue
th
is with the permeability. I sat down with Mr. Carr on the 13 of last week. We went through the
issues. I’m satisfied with the calculations that he has and he requested to pass something out,
th
per my instructions to him on the 13, to clarify the permeability issues. He’s going to offer up a
little bit more permeability at this point.
MR. HUNSINGER-Okay.
MR. OBORNE-And he’s done a good job, I feel, and at that point, I’d turn it over to the Board.
MR. HUNSINGER-Okay.
MR. CARR-Would you like me to present?
MR. HUNSINGER-Sure, yes. You have the floor, so however you want to proceed.
MR. CARR-I’ll approach the Board here.
MR. HUNSINGER-Thank you.
MRS. STEFFAN-Thank you.
MR. HUNSINGER-I remember this was an issue when we discussed it back in February, and
also in December.
MR. CARR-Good evening, John Carr, member of Landcrafters, LLC. Just to bring the Board up
to speed a little bit, I’ve been working to address some of the concerns that came up at the
previous meeting. There was some sight line issues with DOT that we’ve met with State DOT
and also the Town Highway Superintendent for the Town of Queensbury on site. We have, you
know, letters in the file from them, you know, signing off that the project was okay. There were
some questions about, you know, trying to help out with some stormwater issues and things like
that . Those plans have all been submitted and reviewed by the Town Engineer, the comments
back I feel in agreement with the plan are in the record also. The question relating to the
methodology of the math, I suppose, we’re talking about 198 square feet, which is four
thousandths of an acre, is what we’re adding in impervious space. We have given up, you
know, other places to kind of get to that number. That four thousandths of an acre still, as a
percentage, keeps us below the 70% of impervious, you know, that would, going over it would
require a variance. So I think we have a pretty good plan at being able to utilize the space that
we have to give up some more impervious and make that work without exceeding any of the
maximums. The documents I just presented to you tonight, just to clarify exactly how those
numbers were derived, just for the convenience of the Board tonight to have that.
MR. OBORNE-John, do you have an extra copy?
MR. CARR-Yes, I’m sorry.
MR. HUNSINGER-Well, I was going to say, he gave one to Maria.
MR. CARR-That’s the one we looked at.
MR. OBORNE-Yes.
MR. CARR-At this point, you know, my hope is to, you know, I guess freshen up that
landscaping that is there. We’ve had four different arborists come out and look at the trees in an
attempt to try to figure out what to do with them, including certified arborists. We’ve presented
documentation from them to the Board, to, you know, show that we’re trying to make an attempt
here at not taking down what’s there. Unfortunately the size of the land in front of the building is
only a little over 15 feet to the property line. There’s not a lot of land there to work with. Our
21
(Queensbury Planning Board 04/19/2011)
proposal is to put in smaller, slower growing trees, more to the side and those trees would be
more easily maintained than what’s currently there, also to plant considerable amount of flowers
and also to add more landscaping throughout the property, including the rear of the property to
help shield, you know, the dumpster and that back area, and also along the front of the, or the
Lafayette front side of the building, where currently there is no landscaping at all against the
building. It’s kind of minimally landscaped on that section of the building, and overgrown on the
front part of the building. So kind of even out the whole look of the landscaping that’s there, add
some stone details, you know, retaining stone wall to kind of help break up the property, a little
bit like when one comes off Exit 19 coming into the Town of Queensbury, the Town of
Queensbury actually did a very similar thing with a small circle with the Town of Queensbury
welcome sign right across from where the Mall is, you know, that kind of idea, just to help, you
know, bring that corner a little more finished look for the landscaping overall. My feeling is it will
freshen it up and give it less of an overgrown look. I did include, you know, in the packet for the
Board to review, photos of other properties, just showing the size of the landscaping that’s in
that neighborhood, the size of the trees and types of trees. Most of the properties in that
neighborhood have the advantage of being a little bit further off the road, but even still, they do
have similar sized trees to what I’m proposing. My feeling here is that it’ll be consistent with the
type of development and landscaping that’s in that corridor, with the addition of more flowers
and more foundation type landscaping, similar to what you see at the Glens Falls National Bank.
They do an excellent job of having flower beds, landscaping beds, and I think that’s a good
example of what we’re looking to hopefully accomplish.
MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. Questions, comments from the Board? So, Keith, you’re satisfied with
the numbers that are presented this evening?
MR. OBORNE-Yes. They said 69.8, which is good. We’ll just need to clean up the final
submittals. That’s really it at this point.
MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. Because I knew we were really close the last time.
MR. TRAVER-Yes.
MR. OBORNE-Yes, and I’ll tell you what it came down to was a math error, and also a lack of
extending the acreage for the parcel. That actually gave him more square footage in acreage.
MR. HUNSINGER-Okay.
MR. CARR-So we used, to actually get the calculation for the square footage, we used the
surveyor’s square footage. So, you know, I’m assuming Matt Steves that did the calculations is
fairly good at what he does. So we decided to use that number, and it just has to weigh the
thousandth of an acre, whether they were rounded up or down, you know, when we’re dealing
with 198 square feet of additional impervious, so, but it should still keep us below that 70%.
MR. HUNSINGER-Now when we were here the last time, there was some comments made by
neighbors about some ponding that occurs on the, I guess it would be the northwest corner,
roughly.
MR. OBORNE-That was Staff.
MR. HUNSINGER-Okay.
MR. CARR-Staff brought that comment up. In review of that, we submitted to the Town
Engineer a French drain type system at the rear of the lot which should alleviate that, and I
believe they were comfortable with that design. I also, when I did meet with the Town Highway
Superintendent, just looking at the way the road is graded in that area, the Lafayette Street, you
know, there is a fair amount, especially when the ground on that side of Lafayette, on my side of
it, when that land gets saturated, it does encourage water to go down into this area. It’s about
six inches lower than Lafayette. What we’ll do at some point is just put a small berm there, just
to keep the water from Lafayette on Lafayette and not in this part of the property. So that should
help, and I think also keeping the snow banks back a little further, you know, off of Lafayette will
help to keep more impervious space available when there are, you know, rain periods when the
ground is frozen, it’ll still have a place to go in that berm that runs between my parking lot and
Lafayette. That’s a several hundred foot long berm, but that area right now kind of gets blocked
off with the snow bank. So I think all of those affects, you know, that should help with all of that,
and again, that design was over built for the volume of water that was there substantially. So it’s
a situation we’re not dealing with a lot of water, but if we’re going to go in and cut out pavement
and bring in stone and backhoes, you know, to bring in one load of stone and only use half of it
doesn’t make sense. So we’re going to do the whole French drain area, and those calculations
were also included in the packet to the Board.
22
(Queensbury Planning Board 04/19/2011)
MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. Anything else?
MR. CARR-No.
MR. HUNSINGER-We do have a public hearing scheduled this evening. Is there anyone in the
audience that wants to address the Board on this project?
PUBLIC HEARING OPEN
MR. HUNSINGER-Any written comments, Keith? If there are no takers, I will close the public
hearing.
PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED
MR. HUNSINGER-This is an Unlisted SEQRA.
MRS. STEFFAN-No, it’s a Type II.
MR. HUNSINGER-I’m sorry. I was looking at the wrong item. Yes, you’re right. This is a Type
II SEQRA. Any final comments from the Board?
MRS. STEFFAN-Okay. I’ll make a motion to approve.
RESOLUTION APPROVING SP 79-2010 LANDCRAFTERS, LLC/CARR DEVELOPMENT, LLC
A site plan application has been made to the Queensbury Planning Board for the following:
Applicant proposes a change to existing site landscaping to include the installation of on-site
sidewalks, seating and potential future bus stop. Changes in site design in the CI zone require
Planning Board review and approval; and
A public hearing was advertised and held on 12/21/2010, tabled to 2/15/2011, tabled to
4/19/2011; and
This application is supported with all documentation, public comment and application material in
the file of record;
MOTION TO APPROVE SITE PLAN NO. 79-2010 LANDCRAFTERS, LLC, CARR
DEVELOPMENT, LLC, Introduced by Gretchen Steffan who moved for its adoption, seconded
by Stephen Traver:
According to the resolution prepared by Staff. The applicant has asked for waivers for
stormwater, grading, and lighting, the Planning Board grants those waivers. This is approved
without 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 action required; 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)Waiver requests granted: stormwater mgmt., grading, and lighting plans; and
5)Engineering sign-off required prior to signature of Zoning Administrator; 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
23
(Queensbury Planning Board 04/19/2011)
th
Duly adopted this 19 day of April, 2011, by the following vote:
AYES: Mr. Traver, Mr. Krebs, Mrs. Steffan, Mr. Magowan, Mr. Schonewolf, Mr. Sipp,
Mr. Hunsinger
NOES: NONE
MR. HUNSINGER-You’re all set. Good luck.
MRS. STEFFAN-Good luck.
MR. CARR-It’ll look good. Thank you.
MR. HUNSINGER-Thank you.
SITE PLAN 53-2007 MODIFICATION SEQR TYPE UNLISTED PROVIDENT BATAVIA, LLC
OWNER(S) JIM QUINN, KEN ROTUNDO ZONING WR -WATERFRONT RESIDENTIAL
LOCATION 67 KNOX ROAD APPLICANT PROPOSES TO MODIFY EXISTING
ND
INCOMPLETE SINGLE FAMILY DWELLING BY REMOVING 2 FLOOR LIVING SPACE AND
MODIFY PREVIOUSLY INSTALLED DRIVEWAY TO ALLOW ACCESS FOR NEIGHBORING
PARCEL TO THE NORTH. THIS PROPOSAL HAS BEEN CLASSIFIED AS A MAJOR
STORMWATER PROJECT; PLANNING BOARD REVIEW AND APPROVAL IS REQUIRED.
CROSS REFERENCE NOA 4-09 & 11-07, BP 06-271 WARREN CO. PLANNING 1/12/11-NO
ACTION APA, CEA, OTHER APA, L G CEA LOT SIZE 0.45 +/- ACRES TAX MAP NO.
239.7-1-14 SECTION 179-9
KARLA BUETTNER, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT
MR. HUNSINGER-Keith, whenever you’re ready.
MR. OBORNE-Site Plan 53-2007 Mod. This is Provident Batavia, LLC. This is Site Plan
Review for a Major Stormwater project, location is 67 Knox Road. This is Waterfront Residential
and this is an Unlisted SEQRA. Warren County, on 1/12/2011, had a No Action. Project
Description: Applicant proposes to modify existing incomplete single family dwelling by
removing top floor living space and modifying previously installed driveway to allow access for
neighboring property to the north. Further site modifications to existing conditions are proposed.
This proposal has been classified as a Major Stormwater project. Staff comments: The
applicant has submitted plans to reduce the height of the house. Town Code states the height
of the house is measured from the lowest portion of the natural grade of the building site
coverage by the building or finished grade of cut required to accommodate the building to the
highest point of the structure. Obviously we just went through with that on Glen Lake previously.
The applicant has revised the plans to now include a house no taller than 28 feet as measured
from natural or cut grade. According to the applicant, further modifications include the removal
of the entire top floor to include the living space over the garage. Additionally, changes to
include the removal of the existing 9 foot wing walls to the north and south as well as proposed
upgraded stormwater control measures. The applicant further proposes to install a retaining
wall along the eastern portion of the proposed driveway in order to better site the proposed
wastewater system. What follows is site plan review. Most of the issues are dealing with
engineering. At this point, we have not received signoff from the Town Engineer, although we
did have correspondence with him last week that assured us that he would have this to us last
week. We have not been able to get a response from the Town Engineer at this point, and that
would be VISION. VISION was the one that started this engineering issue or engineering
review, and obviously has not been able to complete it, and with that I’d turn it over to the Board.
MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. Thank you. Good evening.
MS. BUETTNER-Good evening, Mr. Chairman. Karla Buettner, Bartlett, Pontiff, Stewart &
Rhodes. I’m here on behalf of the applicant. With me is Nicholas LaFountain of Provident
Batavia, and Ed Esposito of Monarch Design, my wingmen, so to speak. First I want to thank
the Planning Board, again, for allowing us to come before you and to work with us over the past
five and a half years on this project. When I was preparing for this project, for this presentation
tonight, I created a timeline, which is three pages long, of what we’ve done here, and realized
that I’ve had two children since the project began, and my hope is that we’re in the home stretch,
th
and I believe that we are. We were here before you back in January, on the 25, and presented
you with the project which was substantially different than the original project. We were met with
positive feedback from you folks, which made us very happy. We have taken the initially non-
compliant building. We have designed it so that it will be compliant. There’s no variances
th
needed. At the January 25 meeting, the Board was understandably unable to give us an
approval of site plan at that point, because we had not received any comments from VISION.
24
(Queensbury Planning Board 04/19/2011)
The Board tabled the application at that point for three things. For the comments for us to
review and address the comments from VISION, to deal with some plantings and landscaping
issues, and to deal with some calculations and supply a page that was missing from the
drawings. We’re here tonight to say that we’ve done all those things, although we don’t have a
th
letter from VISION Engineering. We did receive comments on February 8, and met with Dan
th
Ryan on February 18, and both Mr. Esposito and Mr. LaFountain were at that meeting and can
tell you about what happened at that meeting. Although due diligence has been made, and I’m
sure Keith can attest to my hounding of the Staff the past few weeks, we’ve been unable to get
any more information from VISION Engineering. However, notwithstanding that, we did meet
with them. They gave positive comments during the meeting, and at this point, I believe that
we’re here before you asking for you to approve this because we have met your comments.
We’ll address anything else you need tonight, but this is a project that has been sitting since
2007. There’s still a stop work order on it. For the neighbor’s sake, for the direct neighbor, Mr.
Rosenburg, we want to put his driveway in for him. For Mr. Glandon, we want to make sure his
pine trees stay stable and where they are, and basically for the road itself, we just want this
project to move forward and we’re here before you pleading practicality on that, and at this point,
I would turn it, actually ask the Board, we have a presentation. It’s the same one you saw in
January. I’m not sure you want to see it again, but we’re happy to show it if you’d like.
MR. SCHONEWOLF-How confident are you that VISION’s going to finish this?
MR. OBORNE-I think at some point in the near future comments will be addressed. If they are
not, then, although I don’t sign the referral forms, we’d send it to Chazen at this point.
MR. SCHONEWOLF-Because I think this is unfair to just keep putting these people out because
VISION’s not doing their job just because they have a problem.
st
MR. OBORNE-It’s an issue, and we’ve been dealing with this issue since the 1 of the year.
MR. KREBS-They basically have addressed all of the concerns that we had when they were
here before, I think.
MRS. STEFFAN-Well, we don’t know that. I just went through the last VISION Engineering
submission. There were 37 of the items that were on the list that needed to be dealt with, and I
know you folks have met with VISION, but one of the reasons why we have an engineering firm
is so that they can evaluate it and sign off on it, and so I don’t think that we can approve
anything without an engineering signoff on this project. It’s been in process a long time, I
understand that, but there are significant environmental issues on the site. So we can’t take the
risk of pushing this ahead without having that signoff, whether it’s VISION or whether it’s
Chazen. We can give VISION a deadline, if you don’t have it by this date, we’re going with
someone else. I feel pretty strongly about that. I’m not willing to approve it without an
engineering signoff.
MS. BUETTNER-If I could address your concerns. I appreciate them and I do understand them
and I know that you do, you want to make sure that the project is right, which is your job, and
that’s what we want, too. We want to make sure it’s right, but at this point, we have met with
VISION. We have addressed those issues. Most of those issues, the additional comments
were just they couldn’t read the drawings, and we have re-submitted the drawings to make them
clearer, to make it more easy for them and for the Board to look at. I’m not sure of what other
environmental concerns are out there. VISION was looking solely at stormwater issues, not at
the building itself, but solely at stormwater issues. So I don’t know if that didn’t factor into your
thinking that we have a building here, you know, maybe there’s something we can do that, to get
the building, the top part demolished and move forward, just so that something can be moving
on this project. Our concern is we were here in January without comments, that we were
supposed to get before the meeting. We didn’t get comments until a week after that meeting.
We met with them and then we, almost two months to today, we haven’t gotten comments, and
my concern is we’re going to be here a month, two months, three months down the road, we’re
not going to have comments, then Chazen’s going to have to get in and re-visit a five year
process, and then we’re done with the building season. So that’s the concerns of the applicant.
MRS. STEFFAN-I understand.
MR. HUNSINGER-Yes.
MS. BUETTNER-And I don’t know if either Nick or Ed can address your environmental
concerns. They were at the meeting. I was not.
MRS. STEFFAN-Well, the stormwater issues are the biggest issues on this site. So those are
fairly big in my mind.
25
(Queensbury Planning Board 04/19/2011)
ED ESPOSITO
MR. ESPOSITO-Of course. Nick and myself, I’m Ed from Monarch Design. We did have
several engineers stamp off on our personal set of drawings through the years. When we met
with Dan two months ago, we went over a handful of issues. There’s’ only so much on the site.
We discussed the landscaping comments, the septic comments, the stormwater comments, the
retaining wall comments, and as a rule, you know, he agreed to pretty much everything. He told
us that, regarding each of those issues, the landscaping comments were, in fact, the indigenous
species right off the Town list. We respected that 35 foot buffer. He said of course. I had a
problem with Mike Farrell who, indirectly through Dan’s office, had commented on the stone filter
dikes which I said become a part of the permanent controls after Nick has a guy go in there,
clean out any potential contaminant sediments, they’re planted with grasses. We all know the
positive effects of good planting and landscaping, and these semi-rain gardens that are the only
true stormwater control on this property for the last five years that are working. That site is not
eroding. They’ve got good stabilization, and now, into the stormwater, we’re going to actually
re-build that property and improve that condition with gutter and downspouts into this very
glorified chamber design. He wanted me to demonstrate the, on the newer plans, which by the
way were printed by the printing company in a dot matrix, a half draft scale, so they weren’t
legible. So that was, you know, the big issue with the printing of the, I had no control of that, and
Nick didn’t either, but the printer, regardless, you know, I’m sorry for that waste of time for
everyone, but the chamber design, he just wanted a little bit more stone underneath this
chamber. Now I’ve always said this. I’ve felt this site has been performing for stormwater
management, and with the additional chamber designs that were recommended by David Wick
of Soil and Water Conservation, it’s a very healthy, safe, you know, concern that everyone has,
but Dan basically told me it’s, that system was acceptable for the stormwater chambers,
because there’s no gutter and downspouts. It’s all sheet flowing, but it is protected. So when
the builder, in its final form, connects all the gutter and downspouts into this chamber design, it’s
acceptable. Now, Dan had commented on our rebar, our reinforcement of our retaining wall.
My structural engineers stamped off on that wall. Dave Hatin, he had said, as long as there’s an
engineer design on the retaining wall, he had no right on quibbling, but I told him, if he wanted
last look at the rebar, I’d re-submit. We very quickly added more rebar into the footer as he
commented on, and during that meeting he said that would be acceptable to him. So we re-
issued an addendum on the retaining wall that was really, it took like four or five comments out
of that list, and he said that was unnecessary. That was Mike in his office who had made those
comments, but Dan personally didn’t have a problem with anything we discussed. We were
there an hour, and we left very positive regarding the septic. He knew that those soils were
optimum, that they had perced, been perced and tested, that Crescent Engineering, our
environmental engineer, did a good job in there for both the stormwater and the septic. We’re
very proud of that system. I would only hope that everyone on the lake would have this certain
caliber of a system because it is the best system that DEC and anyone on the lake, the Water
Keeper, could ever hope for for a single family residence. So we have, as I’ve indicated before,
a very large, thick set of drawings that we’ve had, myself, a landscape architect, and three
engineers stamp the sets of drawings, and I think we have addressed everything enough for this
Board to at least recommend a conditional approval. We would follow up. We’re going to do our
inspections, our staging and sequencing that was advertised to the Town. We’ve got
professional staff with the Town to monitor these events. Provident needs, we can’t not lose this
window of opportunity for please this Board to approve the plan set at least on the building, and
get going, and I’ve personally been here at every meeting to see that, you know, this job is
fulfilled, and we’ve got a lot of competent others looking at this. I see no real need in getting
another Town consultant involved.
MR. TRAVER-So, sir, is it your understanding, then, and you feel confident in representing here
to us tonight that basically that VISION, you haven’t got a document, but basically VISION has
approved your design.
MR. ESPOSITO-Of course.
MR. TRAVER-Okay. Would it be possible to get a letter by Tuesday? Just a letter saying we’ve
met and in fact this is fine?
MR. OBORNE-I think there’s a lot of anecdotal information flying around here right now, and
based on, that’s my first point right there, and the second point is, as far as to answer your
question, is based on the past practices or the recent practices of VISION Engineering, I don’t
have a whole high level of confidence.
MR. TRAVER-Right, but, I mean, that’s basically what the applicant is representing is that
they’ve essentially already got a signoff. They just don’t have a piece of paper to hand us.
MR. OBORNE-Again, that’s anecdotal.
26
(Queensbury Planning Board 04/19/2011)
MR. TRAVER-Right.
MR. OBORNE-I don’t know. I was not there. I don’t know how true that is.
MR. TRAVER-No, I understand you don’t know how true it is, but that’s what they’re
representing to us. So what I’m wondering is, could we perhaps request that such a letter be
generated and then we could look at it, if it’s presented to us. We’re meeting again next
Tuesday. It would take two minutes to review that, in fact, such a letter has been generated,
that agrees with what they’ve represented to us tonight and we’re done.
MR. OBORNE-I think that’s certainly an approach worthy of further discussion.
MR. HUNSINGER-Now did you have any correspondence with VISION? Because you said in
your Staff Notes that you expected a comment letter.
MR. OBORNE-Yes. I do have correspondence from VISION directly to Craig, stating, it is, and
let me read this into the record. Let me find it first. I’ll have to get back to you on this.
MR. HUNSINGER-Okay.
MR. SCHONEWOLF-Could I ask you a question? I was going to ask you this in January, but I
wanted to walk up there and take another look at it myself, see if I can figure it out. Where
you’re putting that new driveway in, that comes back up to Knox Road, Knox Road, somewhere I
that area has always been in dispute, and still is, is where does the Town road end and where
does the private road that goes down start? And the reason is because the Town built a cut
through last year, but it’s 30 feet short of the, 30 feet of it is part of that private road, and if you're
coming out on that private road, then we need to get clarification of who can use the private
road. Are you coming out on the private road or are you coming out on the Town road or don’t
you know?
MR. ESPOSITO-Well, the surveyor set pits, Van Dusen & Steves, through the years. It’s a road
of use. There’s no true right of way. There’s a road width, which involved, you know, some
disturbance along that, but we’ve included that, and working with Rosenburg through the years,
you’re saying a private road meeting the private road.
MR. SCHONEWOLF-The private road meets the public road, and it’s tough to tell where the
public road ends. I look at your drawing and thinking that you’re exiting on the public road, but I
want to make sure, because the person that owns the private road has been less than
cooperative with the Town, and I don’t want you to get involved in that.
MS. BUETTNER-The place where the driveway is coming out, my understanding is that it’s a
public road, but just to buffer that a little bit, where it’s coming out is generally in the same area
where the Rosenburg’s driveway was for years.
MR. SCHONEWOLF-And that is the public road, okay.
MS. BUETTNER-So I hope that answers your question.
MR. OBORNE-I do have the correspondence here. On Monday of last week, Craig asked, sent
this note to him, Dan, any status update on your project review for the Provident Development
project. Our records show that we forwarded this to you on 3/14. To date no comments have
been received approximately 20 business days ago. Thank you. Craig Brown. The following is,
Craig, as you recall this project has been somewhat of a disaster in terms of the submitted
documents and lack of information provided by the applicant. When we received these
documents, the applicant was authorized by your office to meet with our office. We have met
with the applicant on two or three occasions to ensure that they are finally on the right path to
get the requirements of the Code satisfied and provide adequate documentation for the Planning
Board to review. You may recall the Board essentially told the applicant to not come back until
the plans were to our satisfaction. Because this applicant just recently re-submitted the project,
after more than a year or so of delay, it has taken considerable time to backtrack through our
initial project comments from 2007, 2008 and 2009 and review a completely modified set of
plans and documents based upon our recent review and recommendations and recent meetings
with the applicant. I expect to have this project finalized this week. That was sent the same,
th
that was sent on Tuesday, April 12, and we’ve been waiting for that document since then.
MR. HUNSINGER-Okay.
27
(Queensbury Planning Board 04/19/2011)
MR. OBORNE-And prior to that there’s an e-mail train between Nick and myself and Dan,
explaining we’ll go through this process and all that, and this is the culmination.
MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. Any other questions, comments from the Board? Yes, go ahead, I’m
sorry.
NICK LA FOUNTAIN
MR. LA FOUNTAIN-I think with the disastrous amount of information, that was all so we had the
meeting with VISION Engineering, me and Ed, and all of our drawings, what you see in front of
you now, there’s been a lot of erroneous information taken out of the set to make the set more
simpler, to be able for you guys to understand the set more, and so basically it’s starting where
everything is right now is an existing site. So there’s nothing from like four years ago, and that’s
what VISION Engineering wanted us to do, and that’s what we did. So, I mean, and that was all
updated as per our meeting with VISION Engineering, which was very positive.
MR. HUNSINGER-Okay.
MR. TRAVER-Well, the correspondence that we heard from Keith seems to indicate that there’s,
you know, a finalization out there. We just need to document it.
MR. HUNSINGER-Yes. Anything else from the Board? We do have a public hearing scheduled
this evening on this project. Is there anyone in the audience that wants to address the Board?
We’ve got at least one, and you certainly know the drill.
PUBLIC HEARING OPEN
CHRIS NAVITSKY
MR. NAVITSKY-Yes, thanks. Good evening, Chris Navitsky, Lake George Water Keeper. It is
our opinion the most recent submission remains incomplete and non-compliant with applicable
regulations to mitigate the excessive disturbance and development on the property, and we
request that the Planning Board apply the Town’s regulations regarding Section 136 of the
Sanitary Code and 147 of the Stormwater Management Code during your deliberations.
Regarding the on-site wastewater treatment, again, the existing natural slope that was on the
site exceeds what is allowable for their absorption bed. The existing grade, according to their
survey, was 34%, and New York State Department of Health regulations states the maximum
allowable slope is eight percent for the absorption bed system that they propose. That’s four
times. The plan fails to indicate the deep test pits that are required. I’ve heard them referenced,
but it doesn’t show them where it was taken. It shows perc tests, but again, these deep test pits
have to be done below the base of what the absorption bed will be. They’re proposing a three
foot cut where the bed is going to be, and with the bed itself. So that deep test pit has to be nine
feet deep where the septic system is proposed. Again, the absorption bed system does not
comply with the depth requirement. The Department of Health regulations require that the
absorption bed be close to the existing grade, 18 to 30 inches deep, and that’s according to their
regulations. They’re proposing the absorption bed be 72 inches deep from original grade. The
pumping station should provide a minimum of one day storage above the alarm and below the
invert into the pump station. They provide only half of the required storage, which is about 250
gallons. Information should be provided on the wastewater conveyance from the basement. It
appears they have two bathrooms and a basement, and the basement is five or six feet below
the elevation of the septic tank. So how is the wastewater going to be conveyed. Again, it
seems that the wastewater system is a fill system, constructing the retaining wall, Town of
Queensbury Code states that built up systems shall be at no more than 10% grade. Again, that
is exceeded by the existing grade, and fill systems should not be located within 200 feet of the
lake, and on stormwater management, it didn’t seem there was a revised stormwater report. We
had raised questions about a couple of different infiltration rates that were submitted, and I didn’t
see a re-submission on that, and also on the planting plan, a couple of the plans there’s been a
lot of work done on that, but they still, there’s references to burning bush, which are invasive,
Yews, which are not native. So again there should be some improvements on that. So, in
closing, we recognize that there’s been improvements to modifications to the building, which
minimally mitigate the excessive disturbance and unpermitted construction. However, the site
plan must be compliant with applicable codes. The wastewater system has been designed as
an absorption bed, which is due to the reduced dimensional requirements of this type of system.
However, the regulations of the absorption bed are more restrictive and have not been met, and
you need to be more protective of that type of system. The applicant also, they state that a Stop
Work Order and the project’s been sitting, but it’s been sitting because it was started without
permits and without approved plans. So again, there’s sympathy on the situation with the review
by the Town Engineer, but again, this was started without an approved plan, without knowing
28
(Queensbury Planning Board 04/19/2011)
what they’re doing with their septic and stormwater. So we think that those Codes should be
met. Thank you.
MR. HUNSINGER-Thank you. Is there anyone else that wants to address the Board on this
project? Okay. We will conclude public hearing for this evening. What’s the will of the Board
here?
MS. BUETTNER-Mr. Chairman, if we could just address the comments from the Water Keeper.
MR. HUNSINGER-Sure.
MR. ESPOSITO-Well, thank you for those comments, but in the past we have addressed the
septic field testing protocol, and I think that the data that was represented is still in error. We
maintain that the septic testing was done not three feet below the existing grade. The grading
plan simply does not reflect that as an issue, that the storm chamber design was tested
correctly, and we stand behind the plans. We’ve got full support. We did discuss those things
with Dan Ryan again, and I respectfully disagree with the Water Keeper’s comments.
MR. LA FOUNTAIN-Also, with our meeting in Dan Ryan’s office, we actually went through the
one day storage, and there’s an increased tank design with that to allow for I think 440 gallons of
extra storage.
MR. ESPOSITO-We did comply with that requirement.
MR. LA FOUNTAIN-And he was satisfied with that. Along with the drawings of the septic field, I
mean, we’ve done updated calculations which maybe he didn’t catch, but in that shows as well
the eight percent grade.
MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. Thank you. Don?
MR. SIPP-You’ve done a better job with the landscaping in the buffer area. You’ve removed
some plants there from the original list and substituted ones that are already approved by the
Town, but I’m not sold on your stormwater plan, and I’m not really sold on the wastewater plan.
You’ve got too much of a slope, and I don’t know how you’re going to get around it, but it just
doesn’t seem that it’s going to work. The slope area that these two things, your stormwater are
going to be controlled by that slope. I don’t see how you’re going to stop it. That’s a 30% slope
in there. Now maybe some engineer will say what you’re doing is correct, but I feel that, it’s my
thinking that it’s going to take more than just a signoff from an engineer to get me to vote for this.
MR. HUNSINGER-Any other comments from the Board? How do we want to proceed?
MR. TRAVER-Well, again, I’m hearing engineering issues. So I think, you know, which we’re
certainly familiar with these issues, but not qualified to judge on them. I still think we’re looking
at needing a conclusion, or a status, if not a conclusion, from VISION, and the sooner the better.
MR. SCHONEWOLF-I’d like to see us table it until next week and demand that VISION be here.
MRS. STEFFAN-Is there a public hearing problem? I’m assuming next week’s meeting’s
already been advertised, and if we hear this again next Tuesday, what’s the requirement?
MR. OBORNE-Quite frankly we don’t have time next Tuesday to hear this application. We’re
way too busy, to be honest with you, but I think what you could do is look at it from the point of
view of any response from VISION. You may want to give them a little bit of time, instead of a
full blown spot on the agenda. So you may want to table it to then, pending a VISION response,
and whatever that response comes back as, proceed from there. I’ve never been hamstrung
like this, and I don’t think the Board has ever been hamstrung like this, to be honest with you.
So, I mean, this is uncharted territory.
MR. HUNSINGER-Well, we have, just in different ways.
MR. OBORNE-Yes.
MR. TRAVER-Well, and it’s additionally complicated by, on the one hand we’re hearing that all
of the engineering issues essentially have been resolved, and on the other hand we’re hearing
public comment that there’s very serious issues that remain.
MR. HUNSINGER-Right.
MR. TRAVER-So that adds, obviously, to the issue. I mean, we need.
29
(Queensbury Planning Board 04/19/2011)
MR. HUNSINGER-Well, certainly your suggestion makes a lot of sense if VISION does come
back and say the engineering’s been satisfied. Then we certainly have the comfort level we
need to move forward, but if VISION comes back and says there’s this, that and the other
concern remain, you know, but I don’t see what harm it would do to give them, you know, five
minutes, or ten minutes next Tuesday evening.
MR. TRAVER-Right, and they seem very confident that they’ve achieved that.
MR. HUNSINGER-We’re either going to have a signoff letter, or we’re going to have further
tabling resolution.
MR. OBORNE-Exactly.
MR. TRAVER-Right.
MR. OBORNE-And I would suggest if you’re going to go down that path, to put them first up,
because it’s going to be a long night.
MR. HUNSINGER-Absolutely, yes.
MS. BUETTNER-If I may inquire, just given the history we’ve had with VISION and I’m really not
trying to place blame or what not, but given the history we’ve had, I’m not real optimistic we’re
going to get a response by next week, and in that respect then we’re back to where we are now,
and we’ll be back here next meeting and the next meeting and not knowing what to do. I wonder,
you know, and I hear that the Board does not, is not comfortable, because we don’t have
engineering comments yeah or nay, and I hear that. Given the fact that the engineering
comments are related to the stormwater, would the Board be willing to give some sort of an
approval so that the building can start being demolished and re-built? Because the, and, you
know, and Keith may correct me if I’m wrong, and that’s entirely possible, but whatever we get
from VISION is not going to affect the plans of the building itself, and if we could walk away from
here tonight saying, okay, well, at least we can do something on the project.
MR. TRAVER-I’m concerned about the precedent.
MR. OBORNE-Unfortunately the Planning Board does not have that authority at all.
MR. HUNSINGER-We’ve wandered down that road in the past, and been advised by counsel as
well as the Zoning Administrator that, you know, we really can’t venture down that road.
MS. BUETTNER-In the event that VISION doesn’t come back, though, I wonder where we’re
going to be? Because for the applicant as well as the neighbors as well as the Board, you guys
don’t want to see us anymore, and I appreciate that. So I’m trying to find a ground that we can
say we can move forward and you can say go away, so to speak.
MR. HUNSINGER-Right.
MRS. STEFFAN-In reality, I think if we don’t have what we need next week to make a decision, I
mean, if we can’t do a conditional approval with the information we have, you’re going to be
tabled to the next month anyway.
MR. TRAVER-Anyway. I mean, the best we can offer, I think, is an opportunity for next week.
MRS. STEFFAN-Right, and so that would give Chazen three weeks to turn around a review of
your project, because if VISION hasn’t come forward with, you know, honoring their
commitment, then I think we have no other recourse but to go to the next engineer.
MR. OBORNE-Yes. I don’t disagree with you on that. Again, I preface that comment on I don’t
sign the referrals. I develop the referrals. Craig would be the one that would deal with that. I’m
not sure what he’s thinking, obviously, if this comes to pass, so to speak. So, yes, I think the
best thing to do would be to try to get a VISION response, and we shall endeavor to keep on
asking for that response.
MR. TRAVER-And, anecdotally, we do have a very recent communication from them indicating
that they expected it to be.
MR. OBORNE-Yes.
MR. HUNSINGER-Yes, we expected something for this evening, yes. Clearly.
30
(Queensbury Planning Board 04/19/2011)
MR. TRAVER-Right.
MR. HUNSINGER-So, I guess in my mind to have something for next week seems pretty
reasonable, if they expected to give us something by last Friday.
MS. BUETTNER-But we’ve heard that, I have e-mails for a month saying we’ll get it next week,
we’ll get it next week. So you can understand the frustration on this side of the table.
MR. HUNSINGER-Yes. I guess the other question, and I don’t want to belabor this any further,
really, but if we were to, well, obviously you’re going to share our concerns with the Zoning
Administrator who does sign the referral, is it reasonable to expect a new engineer to, I mean, I
think it is to review this in three weeks.
MR. OBORNE-I think the sticking point, yes, that’s true. I think that would be difficult. I do have
all the faith in Sean Doty to do that from Chazen, to be honest with you. He’s extremely
talented. With that said, I think there are issues with billing also with this, that is always at the
root of many a thing, and I’m not quite sure how that structure would be affected by that.
MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. Sure. Okay.
MR. TRAVER-Well, I think, you know, it is what it is. There’s a limit to what we can do. I think
the idea of hoping a communication by next week is the best we can do. Unfortunately.
MR. HUNSINGER-How would we handle the public hearing? I mean, certainly we will be tabling
the public hearing until next week, but there certainly is an obligation to re-open a public hearing
if we do that.
MR. OBORNE-Yes. My response to that would be if people were here for the public hearing
tonight, they’re here right now. They’re hearing you speak, and tabling to that, and to handle the
public hearing, I obviously would open it up again next week, pending any response. To be
honest with you.
MR. HUNSINGER-Right.
MR. OBORNE-As far as notice, people have been noticed, and it’s incumbent upon them to
keep track of what’s going on. Within reason.
MR. HUNSINGER-Right. Okay. So I guess what we’re going to do is table this until next
Tuesday, which is pretty unprecedented, for us anyway.
MR. TRAVER-Which is surprising in itself. There’s almost nothing that’s unprecedented.
MR. HUNSINGER-Yes. Exactly.
MR. OBORNE-Well, we just tabled Inwald from.
MR. HUNSINGER-Yes, but.
MR. OBORNE-That was an administrative item.
MS. BUETTNER-I think our case has a lot of unprecedented, and I think this project has a lot of
unprecedented work by the Town.
MR. TRAVER-Indeed.
MS. BUETTNER-Will VISION be required to be at the meeting next week?
MR. HUNSINGER-Well, that was going to be my next question. I mean, we can certainly
request that they attend, but I think if they give us a signoff letter, then there’s really no reason
for them to be here.
MR. TRAVER-Maybe ask them to attend if we get an indication that they won’t be giving us a
signoff letter.
MR. HUNSINGER-Right, either or. Either a comment letter or a personal appearance.
MR. OBORNE-Yes. I’m not quite sure what their availability is, too. We shall ask.
31
(Queensbury Planning Board 04/19/2011)
MR. HUNSINGER-Yes, I mean, we can only ask. We can’t demand. We can only ask.
MR. OBORNE-Yes, so I would put that into your, a tabling resolution.
MR. HUNSINGER-Okay.
MR. TRAVER-On the other hand, if we requested that, we would be better off, rather, making
them a regular agenda item on a following meeting, because it would involve quite a discussion,
I would think. In other words, if we don’t get a letter, having them come is only going to involve a
discussion when they’re not going to be on the agenda, per se. They may be sort of an
administrative item, I guess. So, I think, in my mind, going back to the idea of if we have a letter,
we look at the letter, if we don’t have a letter, then we’ll put them on an agenda, at least.
MRS. STEFFAN-Correct, and they’re tabled or a month, and we see them first thing in May.
MR. HUNSINGER-Sounds reasonable to me.
MRS. STEFFAN-Under the circumstances.
MR. TRAVER-And again, I keep thinking of the e-mail that Keith read from VISION indicating
that they seem to be thinking that they were close to a conclusion.
MR. HUNSINGER-Right.
MR. TRAVER-So there may be such a letter awaiting somewhere in a drawer already.
MR. OBORNE-It could be in my inbox right now.
MR. TRAVER-There you go.
MS. BUETTNER-One could only hope.
MRS. STEFFAN-Okay. I’ll make a motion to table.
RESOLUTION TABLING SP 53-2007 MOD PROVIDENT BATAVIA, LLC
A site plan application has been made to the Queensbury Planning Board for the following:
nd
Applicant proposes to modify existing incomplete single family dwelling by removing 2 floor
living space and modify previously installed driveway to allow access for neighboring parcel to
the north. This proposal has been classified as a Major Stormwater project; Planning Board
review and approval is required; and
A public hearing was advertised and held on 1/25/2011, 3/15/2011, tabled to 4/19/11; and
This application is supported with all documentation, public comment and application material in
the file of record; and
MOTION TO TABLE SITE PLAN NO. 53-2007 PROVIDENT BATAVIA, LLC, Introduced by
Gretchen Steffan who moved for its adoption, seconded by Stephen Traver:
th
This is tabled to next Tuesday, April 26, as the Planning Board is awaiting VISION Engineering
th
comments. This will be scheduled for the first item on the agenda for the 26.
th
Duly adopted this 19 day of April, 2011, by the following vote:
AYES: Mr. Traver, Mr. Krebs, Mrs. Steffan, Mr. Magowan, Mr. Schonewolf, Mr. Hunsinger
NOES: NONE
ABSENT: Mr. Sipp
MR. HUNSINGER-So we’ll see you at seven, next Tuesday.
MS. BUETTNER-Thank you.
MR. HUNSINGER-Thank you.
NEW BUSINESS:
32
(Queensbury Planning Board 04/19/2011)
SITE PLAN NO 27-2011 SEQR TYPE II LACEY O’NEIL OWNER(S) WESLEY VEYSEY
ZONING CM-COMMERCIAL INTENSIVE LOCATION 430 DIX AVENUE APPLICANT
PROPOSES A BEAUTY SALON USE IN EXISTING COMMERCIAL BUILDING. NEW USE IN
THE CM ZONE REQUIRES PLANNING BOARD REVIEW AND APPROVAL. CROSS
REFERENCE SP 23-89 4/25/89, AV 1356 5/18/88 WARREN CO. PLANNING 4/13/2011
LOT SIZE 0.18 +/- ACRES TAX MAP NO. 303.16-1-62 SECTION 179-9
LACEY O’NEIL, PRESENT
MR. HUNSINGER-Keith?
MR. OBORNE-Site Plan 27-2011. Lacey O’Neil is the applicant. This is a new use in the CM
zone. This requires Planning Board review and approval. Location: 430 Dix Avenue This is a
Type II SEQRA. No action required. There’s No County Impact issued by Warren County on
4/13 of this year. Project Description: Applicant proposes a beauty salon use in an existing
commercial building. New uses require Planning Board review and approval. Proposed
location for this proposal is the former Warren Washington County ARC building. The site is
well suited for the proposed commercial venture and includes existing landscaping, parking,
handicap access and lighting, review, no immediate issues, and that would have been, this is
like the perfect review for me, and with that I’ll turn it over to the Board.
MR. HUNSINGER-Why thank you. Good evening.
MS. O’NEIL-Hello. I am Lacey, owner of Looks by Lacey. I am currently at 438 Dix Avenue,
and I would like to move to 430 Dix Avenue. Perfect size, handicap accessible, great parking,
and the roof does not leak. That’s the main reason I’m leaving now. I’m literally losing ceiling
tiles. I have not had heat since November. I’ve used space heaters to stay warm, and I have a
great business and want to keep it that way.
MR. HUNSINGER-It sounds like you need a new building.
MS. O’NEIL-Yes, and fortunately it’s right there.
MRS. STEFFAN-And it looks like a perfect fit for you. When we did the drive around, it looked
great.
MR. HUNSINGER-Any questions, comments from the Board?
MR. KREBS-No.
MRS. STEFFAN-No, I think it’s a perfect fit.
MR. HUNSINGER-This is about as straightforward as we ever see.
MR. TRAVER-Right.
MR. HUNSINGER-Although we do have a public hearing scheduled. Is there anyone in the
audience that wants to address the Board on this project?
PUBLIC HEARING OPENED
MR. HUNSINGER-I assume there were no written comments, and since there are no
commenters, I will open the public hearing and subsequently close the public hearing.
PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED
MR. HUNSINGER-It’s a Type II SEQRA so no SEQRA review is required unless we have
evidence of environmental issue. Barring that, I would entertain a motion.
MRS. STEFFAN-Then I’ll make a motion.
RESOLUTION APPROVING SP 27-2011 O’NEIL
A site plan application has been made to the Queensbury Planning Board for the following:
Applicant proposes a Beauty Salon use in existing commercial building. New Use in the CM
zone requires Planning Board review and approval; and
A public hearing was advertised and held on 4/19/2011; and
33
(Queensbury Planning Board 04/19/2011)
This application is supported with all documentation, public comment and application material in
the file of record;
MOTION TO APPROVE SITE PLAN NO. 27-2011 LACEY O’NEIL, Introduced by Gretchen
Steffan who moved for its adoption, seconded by Stephen Traver:
According to the resolution prepared by Staff. Paragraph One complies. The applicant has
asked for waivers for stormwater management, grading, landscaping and lighting, and those are
granted. Approved without 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 action required; 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
th
Duly adopted this 19 day of April, 2011, by the following vote:
AYES: Mr. Traver, Mr. Krebs, Mrs. Steffan, Mr. Magowan, Mr. Schonewolf, Mr. Sipp,
Mr. Hunsinger
NOES: NONE
MR. HUNSINGER-I told you this is about as straightforward as we ever see.
MS. O’NEIL-Thank you so much.
MR. KREBS-Lacey, I think this is the shortest time we’ve ever spent on an application.
SITE PLAN NO. 25-2011 SEQR TYPE II STEVE DOW AGENT(S) STEVE DOW OWNER(S)
GLENS FALLS READY MIX ZONING CLI-COMMERCIAL LIGHT INDUSTRIAL LOCATION
112 BIG BOOM ROAD APPLICANT PROPOSES YARD SPACE TO BE USED FOR THE
INSTALLATION OF FOUR INTERCONNECTED RETENTION PONDS. PONDS ARE TO
SERVE AS CLOSED LOOP SYSTEM FOR THE CONTAINMENT OF CONCRETE
MANUFACTURING WASHOUT WATER. MODIFICATION TO AN EXISTING USE IN A CLI
ZONE REQUIRES PLANNING BOARD REVIEW AND APPROVAL. CROSS REFERENCE BP
8322, 8839, 88-007, 88-714, 2000-857 WARREN CO. PLANNING 4/13/2011 LOT SIZE 2.47
+/- ACRES TAX MAP NO. 309.17-1-21 SECTION 179-9
MR. HUNSINGER-Is there anyone here representing the applicant?
MRS. STEFFAN-They need to get tabled.
MR. HUNSINGER-Yes. The applicant did submit an e-mail to Keith on 4/14 requesting that we
table this project. I just wanted to look at the e-mail to see if he gave us a date.
MRS. STEFFAN-Yes, he wanted a May date.
MR. HUNSINGER-He wanted a May date.
th
MRS. STEFFAN-So we’ll give him the May 19 date.
MR. HUNSINGER-So, we’ll give him. Keith, we moved on without you to the Glens Falls Ready
Mix. Did they submit any new information?
MR. OBORNE-We’re having a property line issue, a boundary issue.
34
(Queensbury Planning Board 04/19/2011)
MR. HUNSINGER-Yes, I understood that.
MR. OBORNE-They have not. I think what they’re going to do is, through communication
recently, is they’re going to execute on a survey. They have a deed that gives metes and
bounds, but there’s no record of any lot line adjustment or any adjustment whatsoever. When
you have a metes and bounds on a deed, typically that’s from a survey.
MR. HUNSINGER-Right.
MR. OBORNE-So I’m not quite understanding what’s going on. They don’t quite understand
what’s going on, and there seems to be a use, well, from what I see, there seems to be a use on
the southern parcel that was not approved. So, I would like to have that boundary line cleared
up prior to you guys really looking at it at this point.
MRS. STEFFAN-So, since we don’t have any new information.
MR. HUNSINGER-May sounds optimistic.
MRS. STEFFAN-So June, it would be a June meeting.
MR. OBORNE-Yes, I would say a June meeting at this point.
MRS. STEFFAN-Okay.
st
MR. HUNSINGER-The first meeting is the 21.
MR. OBORNE-I assume that you approved the O’Neil application?
MR. HUNSINGER-We did.
MRS. STEFFAN-Record time. All right. Well, I’ll make a motion to table.
RESOLUTION TABLING SP 25-2011 DOW
A site plan application has been made to the Queensbury Planning Board for the following:
Applicant proposes yard space to be used for the installation of four interconnected retention
ponds. Ponds are to serve as a closed loop system for the containment of concrete
manufacturing washout water. Modification to an existing use in a CLI zone requires Planning
Board review and approval.
A public hearing was advertised and held on 4/19/2011; and
This application is supported with all documentation, public comment and application material in
the file of record;
MOTION TO TABLE SITE PLAN NO. 25-2011 STEVE DOW/GLENS FALLS READY MIX,
Introduced by Gretchen Steffan who moved for its adoption, seconded by Paul Schonewolf:
st
This is tabled to the June 21 Planning Board meeting. Submission for any new materials would
th
be on May 16.
th
Duly adopted this 19 day of April, 2011, by the following vote:
AYES: Mr. Schonewolf, Mr. Sipp, Mr. Magowan, Mrs. Steffan, Mr. Krebs, Mr. Traver,
Mr. Hunsinger
NOES: NONE
MR. HUNSINGER-And just let the record show that the public hearing will be tabled until that
date as well.
SUBDIVISION NO. 5-2011 SKETCH PLAN REVIEW SEQR TYPE N/A LISA PUSHOR
AGENT(S) VAN DUSEN & STEVES OWNER(S) STONE POINTE, LLC/SCOTT SPELLBURG
ZONING RR-3A-RURAL RESIDENTIAL LC-10A-LAND CONSERVATION LOCATION 45
ELLSWORTH LANE APPLICANT PROPOSES SUBDIVISION OF THREE (3) PARCELS
TOTALING 92.12 +/- ACRE PARCEL INTO NINE (9) RESIDENTIAL LOTS RANGING IN SIZE
FROM 3.0 ACRES TO 45.30 +/- ACRES. CROSS REFERENCE SUB 5-2006 LOT SIZE
38.52, 1.36, 52.25 +/- ACRES TAX MAP NO. 265.1-2.3, 2.2, 2.1 SECTION CHAPTER A-183
35
(Queensbury Planning Board 04/19/2011)
MATT STEVES, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT
MR. HUNSINGER-Keith?
MR. OBORNE-This is a Sketch Plan Review. Lisa Pushor and Scott Spellburg are the
applicants. Obviously subdivision requires Planning Board review and approval. Ellsworth Lane
is the location. The existing zoning is bifurcated between RR-3A and LC-10A. This is an
Unlisted SEQRA. Project Description: Applicant proposes subdivision of three parcels totaling
92.12 +/- acres into nine residential lots ranging in size from three acres to 45.3 acres. What
follows are the variances associated with this proposal. What follows those variances are
additional considerations. They do include emergency access issues, as per the Fire Marshal,
who’d like to have Bay Ridge Fire Department come on in, at least at Preliminary, and I don’t
think there’s any issues with the applicant on this for site plan review on those lots with 15%
slopes within 50 feet of a proposed single family dwelling. Additional comments are proposed
Lot Five with calculations should be confirmed in order to avoid an Area Variance. I know we
were, just couldn’t quite, I wasn’t too comfortable with the way it’s laid out. In fact it needs a
width variance, and with that I’d turn it over to the Board. This is Sketch Plan.
MR. STEVES-Good evening.
MR. HUNSINGER-Good evening.
MR. STEVES-Matt Steves representing the applicants on this proposed subdivision. Again, as
Staff has stated, this is property on Ellsworth Lane, off upper Bay Road, consisting of two
parcels, actually three parcels now, tax parcels, one very small one, kind of a triangular shape, if
you look at your existing conditions on the, excuse me, the east side of the access entrance to
the Pushor lot, being about 1.38 acres, 52.24 owned by Mr. Spellburg and the Pushor property,
which is 38.52 acres. Using those three tax parcels to do some reconfiguration. That was a
subdivision that was approved a while ago for the Pushor lot and created that road, and then in
looking at some more topography and engineering issues, if you look in the next page, which is
the proposed, to shift that basically on to what the existing driveway is there now, it’s a better
suited, better grade. We have no issues with any of the comments from Staff. We do
understand that we would definitely want it to be completely accessible by any emergency
vehicles, even though it’ll be a private road, it would be, you know, a minimum of a 20 foot drive
lane with two foot of shoulder on either side, again, typical rural road in Queensbury, but it would
definitely pass all the requirements for emergency vehicles. We do have engineers that are
ready to get going on it, but again, bringing it for Sketch Plan, we wanted to get the feel of the
Board before we went through that full engineering gambit. We have USGS topography that we
placed on there. We do have our control ready to go to do full two foot contours on the property.
Basically in the area of the design of the houses, anywhere where the USGS already says it’s
too steep of a slope, we’ll just discount that right out of the calculations. So we won’t even
bother with the field topography it’s kind of crazy. We will be doing topography up way beyond
where the proposed houses and septic are, but we will concede to the fact that that area is too
steep and just take it out of the calculations as has already been done. I know that Staff has
brought up one comment on Lot Five. We look at that it has about 400 some odd feet of road
frontage and then it’s 800 feet along the back. So we’ll look at that with Staff to see, you know,
make sure that it complies with the configuration. We have plenty of room to do so on that lot.
We do realize that there are some variances requested on this property, but if you look at the
unique character of this property and the number of lots you really are asking for, try to come off
that existing drive that exists, you know, improve it, but Ellsworth Road is a dead end road. It’s
not like this is along Bay Road or Ridge Road or 149, and it is kind of a small community up
there, and it would be very much consistent with the lot width and sizes of those lots that are
there along Ellsworth Road, and we would definitely, as we do the topography and soil tests, if
there is any reconfiguration, slightly, of these lots to accommodate the houses in the best
possible location.
MRS. STEFFAN-It is a lot of road.
MR. STEVES-A lot of the driveway exists to the tune of about 700 feet, 800 feet now, and so
you’d be adding like about another, I believe that the total of that, we tried to keep it around that
1200 foot mark, you know, or the 1,000, the beginning of a cul de sac, but in this instance
thought it would be better suited to do some type of a hammerhead and try to minimize it as
much as possible. There were plans, down the road years ago, to look at this to see if we could
put a loop in or whatever would be the most feasible for the subdivision, but try to keep it down
there on the gentler slopes where it’s better suited for stormwater along that road. It just works
better down there. We know it’s a little long for a driveway, but at the same time there’s going to
be a private road. It’ll have maintenance agreements that’ll be in place, and it’ll be like I said,
again, proposes to be a minimum of a 20 foot drive lane with the swales or whatever stormwater
controls that the engineer decides would be best suited here.
36
(Queensbury Planning Board 04/19/2011)
MR. HUNSINGER-Do you have any idea, at this point, what the maximum slope of the road
would be?
MR. STEVES-At this time, with some rough calculations that we have done, you’re looking at
only about a six to seven percent at the worst case.
MR. HUNSINGER-I didn’t think it was too bad. That’s why I asked.
MR. STEVES-No, and that’s in its current configuration. That’s without a lot of any grade work,
which we’re trying to avoid, because of the fact that the location where we’re proposing it lends
itself not to have to do that, and that’s what we’re trying to avoid.
MR. TRAVER-Right.
MRS. STEFFAN-And I’m assuming that when you design this, you just were swapping, since
the three acre lots happen to be in Land Conservation 10 zone, and the Rural Residential Three
Acres have the larger lots.
MR. STEVES-With the re-zoning that kind of took that lot and changed the zone line just slightly,
and if you look at those lots along, when you first come in next to the Ellsworth’s property,
there’s really not much you can do there except get two lots out of that entire property without a
variance, and then you look at, you know, 50 some odd acres for two lots, even though it’s in a
10 acre zone, I just think it lends itself to the character of the neighborhood by asking for the
variance, and I don’t think, if you swap those around, does it really make that much difference as
far as the overall density of the project? No. Or the character of the neighborhood? In our
opinion, no. We always take a careful look at that, and we don’t believe it does. We understand
that it needs a variance, only because of the fact, like you said, if the zone line was swapped the
other way, we’d probably get away with a lot less variances, but it’s still the same piece of
property.
MR. HUNSINGER-Right.
MR. STEVES-And this happens to be divided up by this zone line.
MR. OBORNE-There is another approach that could possibly be taken, and that is the cluster
approach, too, but they’re not offering that.
MR. STEVES-We can look at that at the same time, but the other issue with the cluster
approach, as Keith said, there is that option, but right in the middle of the property is the division
line between the two owners and we’re trying to effectively merge the two owners together to
come up with one application, which is much easier. One could come in with a cluster plan, and
the other one, within five years down the road or two years down the road, you’re saying why
didn’t we look at this before. So we just think it’s a better plan to merge the properties together
and facilitate this all at once.
MR. SCHONEWOLF-So the road stops in front of the driveways for Lots Seven, Eight, and Six,
right?
MR. STEVES-That’s correct.
MR. SCHONEWOLF-You need to make that a pretty good turnaround space in there.
MR. STEVES-Yes. We’re going to.
MR. SCHONEWOLF-From a public safety standpoint so you can turn a couple of trucks around.
MR. STEVES-Correct. We just did one similar one in the Town of Bolton, and we’ve met with
the fire department there and all the emergency services, and the APA just met us up on site
this past week and we had staked out our proposed road and they walked it and they said it was
fine, exactly what they wanted, and it was the same thing. It was a hammerhead, but when you
end up constructing it, we are just showing the actual outline of the pavement. There we
created an area that was cleared and open, but yet at the same time not paved. So you don’t
have the permeability issues, but yet it allowed 100 foot wide turnaround plus another 50 foot on
either end for larger vehicles. So you really, when you come up, you have a 200 foot T to
accommodate not only the turnaround of an emergency vehicle, but the parking of one and the
turning around of another. So we would probably look at the same type of configuration we just
got approved in the Town of Bolton and the APA on that application.
37
(Queensbury Planning Board 04/19/2011)
MR. HUNSINGER-That seems a little excessive to me.
MR. STEVES-But at the same time you’re using it for some of your stormwater area and you’re
not paving the entire thing.
MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. I misunderstood. Okay.
MR. STEVES-Yes. The full turnaround is only about 100 feet of actual pavement, including the
T, but you have 50 feet on either end that was cleared and suitable for driving on, and yet.
MR. HUNSINGER-So you’re proposing this road be paved?
MR. STEVES-Yes.
MR. HUNSINGER-Okay.
MR. STEVES-I would think as far as emergency vehicles, we would look at what the engineer
wants to look at, but, you know, I would suspect it would be paved. It may be some type of a
gravel road, but, you know, I’d want to defer that to the engineer when he gets to that point. I
don’t want to step on his toes.
MR. HUNSINGER-We had a conversation, not here at the Planning Board meeting, but last
month or the month before about the width of driveways and roads, and you’re showing a 20
foot wide road.
MR. STEVES-Yes. It’ll be a 50 foot right of way. We’re just showing it because if it’s private,
you’re going to own to the center of it.
MR. HUNSINGER-Right.
MR. STEVES-But we’re showing a 20 foot actual drive lane is what we’re saying, and then with
the two foot shoulders, but whatever the Board, you know, would prefer, after talking to the
Board and the emergency services, that’s definitely what you’re going to have.
MR. SCHONEWOLF-Yes, 20 foot’s Code.
MR. STEVES-Yes.
MR. SCHONEWOLF-There’s no ponds on this property, is there?
MR. STEVES-No.
MR. HUNSINGER-Well, the tradeoff is between emergency access and, you know, stormwater
runoff.
MR. SCHONEWOLF-Right.
MR. HUNSINGER-And environmental impacts. So that’s the balancing act.
MR. STEVES-You’ve got it.
MR. SCHONEWOLF-I was looking for a pond.
MR. HUNSINGER-Maybe they can build one.
MR. SCHONEWOLF-I don’t know, that looks like a pond. It doesn’t say.
MR. STEVES-I don’t think so. I don’t think we have any ponds. You may have a small one by
the time we’re done, though.
MR. SCHONEWOLF-It’s on somebody else’s yard.
MR. STEVES-But all the soils up in this area, we’ve done some preliminary tests on some other
stuff we’ve done in here, and there’s no issue with the soils.
MR. HUNSINGER-Well, what are the comments from the Board? I mean, one of the things we
typically look at in a subdivision of this type is delineated clearings for each lot.
38
(Queensbury Planning Board 04/19/2011)
MR. STEVES-Which we tried to accomplish even at Sketch, but like I said in my earlier
discussions, once we get into the engineering nuts and bolts of this, that may adjust slightly.
Obviously once you know where the most optimal location for your septic, we tried to show what
would be your typical clearing for your driveway, your house, your septic, your well, and the road
clearing, and obviously that’s going to have to adjust, depending on what stormwater controls
we need to put in place.
MR. HUNSINGER-What’s the Board’s feeling on the requirement for a cluster approach here?
MRS. STEFFAN-I don’t know, I think they’re really restricted with the rest of the, backs of the
property being so steep and pretty much unusable, and, you know, the other thing is the rural
character. Folks move out, in a community like this, because they want to be away from other
folks, and so when you cluster the houses together, that’s why I’m not, you know, I’m not a fan of
the three acres lots really close together, just because you’re going to be able to see the houses
close together. Here it’s not going to be as prevalent, but, you know, we know that that there’s
no, that this is clear. So these houses are going to be right next door to one another looking at
one another. So would a cluster or conservation subdivision on the Spellburg lot be a good
idea? Possibly. The other one? I’m not so sure about it, the Pushor lot.
MR. KREBS-Well, I would agree with the comment about the clustering. I don’t think that’s the
location in Town where we necessarily want to do clustering, and that’s not what the
Comprehensive Plan was looking for us to accomplish either. So, I think that spreading them
out like this is much better.
MR. HUNSINGER-I tend to agree, to, but I wanted to raise the discussion, you know.
MR. STEVES-And I hate to put any words in anybody’s mouth, I’m not, but if you look at the
layout, it’s kind of a cluster without it being, because look at all the unused land in the back.
Because like Gretchen said, the shape of the property and its location and the way to get to both
properties, it kind of lends itself to that open space cluster, even though it’s not truly a cluster.
You basically get both without having to do a cluster provision, like I say, where you’re putting in
one acre lots, and you’re stepping right on each other toes when you’re in a three acre zone.
MR. HUNSINGER-Anything else?
MRS. STEFFAN-No, just, the road construction is obviously going to be something that’s
scrutinized, you know, for everything, for emergency services, for the amount of land that’s got
to be cleared, for stormwater management. It’s certainly, in my mind, based on my experience,
paving is the way to go, but, again, you have to get people to agree, I mean, there’s going to be
a community road access, but it’s not a homeowners association. So it has to be an agreement,
but those things can be tense, especially with a winter like this. Even a rural road that’s 20 feet
wide, I think of the road I live on, you know, we had so much snow this year, and there’s
nowhere to put it, if you’ve got trees right up to the side of the road, so you end up with a lane
and a little bit, not even a lane and a half, and it’s just the nature of having a heavy snow year.
MR. OBORNE-Your road, in the middle of summer, is an issue, to be honest with you, but I
would like to ask, what does the Board, or how does the Board feel about the variances that will
be associated with this, because you’ll see that again in, most likely, a recommendation form,
before it goes to the ZBA, and if there are any concerns, obviously impart it to the applicant,
applicant’s agent.
MR. SCHONEWOLF-Well, Ellsworth lives across the street. He can plow it.
MRS. STEFFAN-When we looked at the Spellburg piece, when it was here a couple of years
ago, the issue that came out back then was the road frontage, and that was a topic of great
debate on the Planning Board, because there was so little road frontage and so much, you
know, potential development that could happen, but I think we kind of diverted that to the future.
We can talk about that when we get there.
MR. HUNSINGER-Well, the future is now.
MRS. STEFFAN-Exactly. So that is an issue. There’s very little road frontage there.
MR. HUNSINGER-Although, I mean, the Pushor lot’s landlocked.
MR. STEVES-Correct. It’s not if you look on Phase I, the existing condition’s plan, that
subdivision that was accomplished or (lost words) a few years ago, granted the Pushor lot
access, and now what we’re saying it’s just a better idea just to pretend they’re one lot, and
come back in, and we wholeheartedly agree with Gretchen. We were here before when the
39
(Queensbury Planning Board 04/19/2011)
road frontage in Ellsworth Road came up, but looking at this you have, you know, basically, you
know, 82 feet of frontage or so, and instead of utilizing just that to try to bring out a subdivision,
now, you’re putting in a private road, which basically comes off the 82 feet, and then all your lots
front off the new private road. So it could be a Town road and then, but I don’t think it’s, you
know, you really want it to be a Town road.
MR. OBORNE-You’re not offering flag lots.
MR. STEVES-That’s correct, and I was going to bring that up, but you did. I mean, there’s ways
to reconfigure this and, like you say, and (lost words) use more of that Spellburg lot and more of
the Pushor lot and create these flag lots to try to get the average 400 feet, but then I don’t think
that does anybody any justice.
MR. HUNSINGER-No.
MR. TRAVER-Right.
MR. STEVES-I really don’t.
MR. SCHONEWOLF-Who’s going to own the road?
MR. STEVES-Well, in this instance it would have to be an HOA, because anything over four lots
that share a road in New York State require an HOA to be in place. So it would be probably a
CPS 7 HOA for maintenance of the road only because there wouldn’t be any other associated
properties with the Homeowners Association. I mean, it would just be the road maintenance,
and we’re very aware of that, and, you know, especially like you said with this winter, and I do
have one distinct advantage is I’ve lived here my whole life and I’ve been designing these things
in subdivisions in this area for 28 years. So I know that this past winter is just typical of what we
can get in this area, and the engineers, as you all know in our office, are the same way. So we
will definitely be looking at that and we appreciate all the comments, but we will definitely make
sure that there’s ample room for the stormwater, emergency vehicles and snow plowing and
such.
MR. SCHONEWOLF-Any price range that you think they’re going to be? What’s the objective
as far as price range?
MR. STEVES-I have no idea. I really don’t. I’ll try to get that information for you for the next
meeting, but I really don’t know. With the market the way it is, I don’t know if anybody knows.
MR. HUNSINGER-Yes.
MR. MAGOWAN-I think you did a nice job laying it out.
MR. STEVES-Thank you.
MR. SCHONEWOLF-I think it’s a nice looking project.
MR. STEVES-We understand it has constraints, but we’d like to come in at Sketch Plan to try to
air that out and come in with the best possible idea.
MR. HUNSINGER-Sure.
MR. STEVES-It’s obviously going to ebb and flow at Preliminary, but, I know it looks like a lot of
variances, but if you look at the map, they’re nice lots.
MRS. STEFFAN-Well, and for people who live there, I mean, certainly some of the bigger lots,
you know, Lot Nine, Lot Eight, Lot Seven, and certainly Lot One, I mean, if we bought a house
here with a family, I mean, there’s so much territory to explore, you know, it would be great.
MR. STEVES-And if you’ve been up in here it’s a beautiful property.
MR. HUNSINGER-I mean, I’m pretty, usually I’m a proponent of cluster, but I think in this
location, what you’ve proposed makes way more sense than a cluster.
MR. STEVES-Thank you, and we took a hard look at that as well.
MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. So we gave you enough feedback for now?
MR. STEVES-Yes. Now I have my basis to move forward, and we’ll be back for Preliminary.
40
(Queensbury Planning Board 04/19/2011)
MR. HUNSINGER-Great.
MR. STEVES-Thank you very much.
MR. HUNSINGER-Thank you.
DISCUSSION ITEM
QUEENSBURY PARTNERS CORNER OF BAY & BLIND ROCK ROADS TAX MAP ID’S
289.19-1-23 THRU 35 APPLICANT IS REQUESTING A FOLLOW-UP DISCUSSION TO
REVIEW REVISIONS
MATT FULLER & DAN GALUSHA, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT
MR. OBORNE-Yes. I basically don’t have any notes for this. I have no notes, I should say, but
obviously what was presented to you and to the Department of Community Development was as
a response to the previous discussion item that we had with the applicant, or with the
developers, and with that, it’s all yours.
MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. Good evening.
MR. FULLER-Good evening. Matt Fuller from Fitzgerald Morris Baker Firth, here for
Queensbury Partners, with Bob Mantz and Dan Galusha. We were last here in September, had
a long discussion. We had put together a plan that met the zoning. We didn’t need any
variances, but I think we had a long and good conversation at that point, got some feedback
from the Board of kind of what you wanted to see over there, and I have used the idea of
somewhat of a blank slate really to get creative. Do you have the CD?
MR. OBORNE-CD?
MR. FULLER-Yes, everything came in on disk. You don’t? I gave Craig the CD with all the
plans on it.
MR. OBORNE-This is the first I’ve heard about.
MR. FULLER-So they could put it up. It should be, it’s not in the file?
MR. OBORNE-No.
MR. FULLER-All right. Well, then I’m going to.
MR. OBORNE-You don’t have an extra one?
MR. FULLER-No, you guys have the only CD.
MR. OBORNE-I’m not aware that there was a CD associated with this. I’ll look in here and see if
it’s in here. Wow.
MR. FULLER-All right. Well, we’ll take a second. You have the plans that we’ll go through.
MR. HUNSINGER-So while we’re waiting for it to pop up, the project in Malta.
MR. FULLER-That’s not the project in Malta.
MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. So where is this?
MR. FULLER-Those are just samples that Dave Bogardis who we’re working with, the engineer,
came up with.
MR. HUNSINGER-Okay.
MR. FULLER-They’re really ideas, as far as what the building.
MR. HUNSINGER-And this picture as well?
MR. FULLER-That’s the boulevard idea, yes.
MR. HUNSINGER-Okay.
41
(Queensbury Planning Board 04/19/2011)
DAN GALUSHA
MR. GALUSHA-That would be consistent with what you’re looking at, as far as the boulevard,
the layout of the boulevard, the roadway, green space in between it.
MR. HUNSINGER-Okay.
MR. GALUSHA-The buildings kind of, the flare of what the buildings, the intention of the
buildings would look like.
MR. FULLER-All right. Can we pop the overall plan? The color one.
MRS. STEFFAN-I have to admit, there’s the plan, when I saw these pictures for the first time I
was so pleased, because a lot of the development we have in our Town is, doesn’t have the
design features, I’m trying to be politically correct, it doesn’t have the nice design features that a
building like this has.
MR. GALUSHA-Yes.
MRS. STEFFAN-This is obviously high quality design, and I think while we’re looking at this
town square concept, it speaks to the kind of quality development that we want as a cornerstone
of the Town, and so I would applaud this kind of development with these kinds of building
details, because I think they add a lot of value to the content.
MR. GALUSHA-Yes, there’s a lot of character there.
MR. SCHONEWOLF-That looks familiar.
MR. FULLER-That is a New England project.
MR. SCHONEWOLF-It’s in New Hampshire, isn’t it?
MR. FULLER-Yes, I think it’s in New England. I’m not sure of the exact location. Dave kind of
put them together.
MRS. STEFFAN-Yes, I would see this in Connecticut or New Hampshire or Maine.
MR. FULLER-I was saying to Dan before we came in, you know, it’s an interesting prospect
when the Planning Board kind of sends you out to get creative on a project, particularly with
something that’s been controversial, which that spot certainly has, but I’m hopeful, and I think
that we have hit the nail on the mark of what you were looking for. This is really a mixed use.
I’m going to start kind of right on the corner of Bay and Blind Rock, and work towards the west
along Blind Rock, back down Bay, and kind of scope out how we got to where we are. Again,
before we had the subdivision lots running right along Bay. The remainder of the property back
towards, to the west, off Blind Rock, all residential, meeting that setback. You guys said, come
back with a plan that incorporates, you know, kind of a downtown village square idea, and I think
that we’ve got that. Coming off, I’ll start back off of Blind Rock. That is the residential
component. We’ve got 12 unit buildings, one 10 unit building, a green space, to the very west
kind of an open lawn square in between the three buildings that are out there. Still right along
Blind Rock a landscaped berm would be proposed there, with a gated fire access, and that was
one of the comments I saw in the e-mail, and certainly that would, you know, there would be
keys provided, a Knox box type of structure, and so certainly EMS and fire rescue would have
access to that. Coming back, all of them are garage units. So they’re, you know, higher end.
The structure that you’re looking at with the window accented details, different colors that break
up the buildings, not just a one pallete color.
MR. GALUSHA-The pictures that you have are consistent with those units.
MR. FULLER-Yes. Those residential units are built down in the Malta area. Those were built,
but the idea is to take that type of structure and then add the accents that you’re talking about,
that you see on the buildings, and we’ve talked about that, around the windows, mixing up the
look of the siding and things like that. So you’d get that basically, I hate to use new urbanism,
but that kind of idea of, you know, different buildings.
MRS. STEFFAN-It gives it like a village effect.
MR. TRAVER-Right. Exactly. It makes it a community.
42
(Queensbury Planning Board 04/19/2011)
MR. FULLER-Again, from the west, looking, all sidewalks, you know, all connected throughout
the development, again, trying to pull pedestrian traffic, here we go, now we’ll go down towards,
really, the village part and work to the south. Coming in off of Blind Rock, we created a
boulevard, one way traffic on each side of that, going south, and then coming off of Bay going to
the north. On street parking, really similar to those photos. That’s the idea, landscape, you
know, in the middle, street lights, things like that. Again, sidewalks accented. Coming in off of
Blind Rock, you’ve got access into what we’ll call the village square part. More residential units
to the back, again, trying to stay within that, at least honor the setback. We’ll get into variances
that we see already, but, you know, trying to keep an eye on what were the controversial parts,
but still meet, you know, what the Planning Board, I think, had in mind. So you’ve got the
residential structures out back. Same with the pool, and those recreational facilities. Right here,
down at the corner, I think of the part that kicks off what Queensbury’s been looking for, as far as
a village project goes, I think starts right there. The building right at the corner of Bay and Blind
Rock, similar to that corner L shape building on there. Obviously not three stories. I don’t think
we would put something that high up there, but that kind of look on a two story basis, you know,
services on the bottom, could be retail, could be café, coffee, offices, that type of look. Second,
we’ve speced it out as residential. Obviously it could be flexible. If some big user came in and
wanted to lease the whole second floor, and I think that’s something that development would
dictate. So we wanted to put it in there to get the residential units number out there, and we can
talk about it, but I think as a general matter, it kind of compliments that use, you know, not high
impact services on the first floor, but still creating the people that you need to sustain those
types of uses. I think this isn’t going to be strictly a nine to five use. You’ve got to create some
sustainability after hours if you’re going to want to support a downtown. So that’s, trying to
create that foot traffic there. Moving south of it, similar building, similar uses. On the one to the
north, we do have the outside seating, café space. The one right along Blind Rock, we can give
you a picture of a pergola. That’s an idea, outside, again, some type of a restaurant or food
service or something like that right there at the corner. Again, try to, you know, when you drive
by something, people are outside sitting down, it kind of draws you in. That kind of idea to get
people to slow down. Again, the building, just to the south, similar type of use. We’ve added a
room for a setup for an update, from the inter webs. We’ll watch that little file thing go back and
forth for a minute, but we have a drive thru, again, it’s flexible, based on the use. Sidewalks
throughout, again, on street parking, people would be able to get in and out. Moving to the
larger buildings.
MR. KREBS-Matt, where was the drive thru?
MR. FULLER-Right there, right behind that little update that was flashing in the window, right
there.
MR. KREBS-Okay.
MR. FULLER-So you’ve got room to come in, have a drive thru for a bank, mainly would be the
idea there. The buildings to the south, this is really the flexible part of what’ll be the proposal
here. If a larger user comes in, larger office user, really would kick off, I think, the village to
create that type of traffic down for foot traffic users. We’ve got the flexibility, space wise, I think
we had 280, 200 square foot, or they’re 8200 square foot each, you know, create that ability to
do that, but at the same time, if the northern part kicks off hugely, we could very well do that, too.
We could carry that boulevard down into that region of the property. So we’re keeping that a bit
flexible. We wanted to show the build out of what we would apply for, with the idea that, you
know, it’s going to be future site plan review kind of dictated, depending on a user that might
need that space. The parking throughout is not an issue. We have plenty of parking. If
anything, we have space for more than the parking that we need. So we’ve banked it, trying to
keep that idea of not using the parking unless you need it, and I think that’s what we would apply
for, to bank it. Getting into some of the, I guess the regulatory hurdles, certainly we’re going to
need some variances. We don’t have a formal, full application in yet. So there’s really, from a
strict variance standpoint, anything to rule on at this point, but, you know, there’s going to be
area variances needed. We’ve talked to Craig. We’ve met with Keith and Craig and talked
about that, but we don’t necessarily see that as a burden or hurdle to the project. We think, you
guys sent us away with an instruction. I think we’ve come pretty close, really, to kicking it off.
We’ve talked that hopefully the Town would kind of follow, because you do have four corners
here, and this is a big investment, from a project change standpoint, and I think we’d probably
like to see the Town step up on that, too, you know, sidewalks running up Bay, probably not a
bad idea. Get some of the developments up the road here, let’s create some walkability.
People are going to need to walk on Bay. The more users you get into a corner like this, you’ve
got a couple of good developments right up the street here that could benefit from this, even
Town Hall property over here, this building, you know, you’ve got a flex space right here that on
non-meeting nights that if you’ve got walkability, you’ve got sidewalks, you’ve got crosswalks, it
could very easily be done. That’s not something that we can take on alone, by any means. The
project’s, you know, a big enough build out as it is. I don’t think that’s really in the cards for us,
43
(Queensbury Planning Board 04/19/2011)
but I think that’s something, from a, if this is really the direction the Planning Board wants to go,
that’s something that has to be taken up at the Town level, you know, just, that corner alone, you
know, we talked about it when we sat down. If you slowed down the traffic along Bay, if you put
a boulevard in there for that final 500 feet or something, you know, get people to slow down,
you’ll, these corners, you’ve got the college property right here, I think there’s enough land, you
could see some of this get re-developed across the street in reaction to what’s going on on that
corner. Slow people down, create a village. Number One, it helps the traffic, and, Number Two,
I think it gets you further to what you wanted to see, and, you know, at the end of the day, we’re
ready to go ahead and get the engineering going, get the traffic going. The limited comments
we got in the e-mail are all doable, nothing that, we knew water, sewer. Sewer is there. They
put the line in. So we know that’s there and the water doesn’t look like it’s going to be an issue
there either. So all the utilities are going to be fine. Traffic, we’ll deal with at that corner right
there. We already know that, but, you know, really, I think tonight, that’s what we’re looking for
is the, yes, we think you guys are there and go ahead and really start formally putting together
the project.
MR. TRAVER-Matt, if we were to all be moving forward on something very similar to what you’re
presenting here, how do you envision the sort of phasing of the project, you know, in terms of
which section would you go with, do you think with more of the residential component first, or the
commercial?
MR. FULLER-You know, that’s a good question. I didn’t hit on that. Yes. I think the residential
is going to drive it. Because that’s going to give you the ability to generate income to build one
of the buildings out front, and it could be the bank, it could be the corner building, you know, it’s
going to be market dictated, but I think when you start building that momentum, and as, you
know, we know how project development works. As the development gets going, users are
going to start to approach to say, this is.
MR. TRAVER-Right. Well that’s kind of what I was getting at. It’s almost like a chicken or the
egg kind of thing.
MR. GALUSHA-Well, (lost word) you only have one spot for a bank, okay. So it’s going to be
really, you know, first come, first serve as it relates to that.
MR. TRAVER-Right.
You go out there and you have a fairly captive audience.
MR. FULLER-And who’s built recently in the region.
MR. GALUSHA-We think that, you know, a bank would be a good fit there.
MR. TRAVER-I’m sure the banks would think they would be a good fit there, too.
MR. GALUSHA-Right. So in doing that, you’d like to get at least some leasing space in one of
those two buildings, probably the building next to the bank, because, you know, that corner, the
corner L Shape building’s really your primary property. That’s the ultimate piece right there. So
you’d want to, if you could at all, leave that until later in the build out.
MR. TRAVER-That gives you more flexibility, too.
MR. GALUSHA-Right. So you go after the bank, go after some lease space. We’d like to get
that part going, but you would definitely get, start in the back and start with some of the
residential, and then you would leave that southern end open, you know, for the future.
MR. TRAVER-When I first looked at it, I was thinking that the southernmost piece might be the
very last section that would be developed.
MR. GALUSHA-Right. You want to leave that open. If someone big came in and said I want the
whole piece and we’re going to put in X, Y, Z as a single building, you’d do it. If not, you know,
as Matt said, if, you know, the front kind of services buildings really started to have a strong
draw, well, you may just add that, go across the street, so to speak, and add it in there.
MR. TRAVER-Yes.
MR. GALUSHA-So that should be left as a flexible space.
MR. SCHONEWOLF-The timing could, the timing of this, the Town center is key to this, to really
making it unique, and Queensbury needs a Town center. This is about the last spot left. One of
44
(Queensbury Planning Board 04/19/2011)
the things that’s going to drive the timing is what’s down the street, and that’s Adirondack
Community College. If they put a dorm up there to start putting in full time students, then you’ll
have to have the sidewalks, Matt, because they have to come down here, and you’ll have to
have a Town center here, where you have a bank.
MR. GALUSHA-Coffee shop, deli.
MR. SCHONEWOLF-Let’s say Starbucks, deli and a UPS store. I just came from living six
weeks on a place where they were all apartments, but they had a Town center. They spelled it
re, but that’s what they had in it were those, just eight buildings, those key eight buildings.
Everybody went there. They’d go to the UPS store to get their ticket to board the airplane and
stuff like that. That would be a smash hit. I really think, you know, you’ve got 75 people in this
building, and I don’t know how many hundred you’d have up there. You may even have some
professors that want to live there.
MR. HUNSINGER-Well, and don’t forget the apartments that are right across the street.
MR. SCHONEWOLF-That’s true, all those people.
BOB MANTZ
MR. MANTZ-Over our space, up on the top, you brought it up that the people from Adirondack
Community College, somebody, you know, the age group that they really are, that that may fit
into that clientele.
MRS. STEFFAN-Well, and they’re thinking about building their own dorm anyway.
MR. TRAVER-Yes. It’s probably going to be a combination.
MRS. STEFFAN-I guess I wouldn’t see this as affordable housing for a college student.
MR. GALUSHA-Well, the apartments, the proposed apartments above the services buildings,
there’s only 12 of them there, they would be much more affordable apartments, okay. Obviously
the apartments in the back, those, you know, are intended to be very nice, higher end
apartments.
MR. TRAVER-Yes, the garage units.
MR. GALUSHA-Yes, you would expect either young professional people in there, or retired
people in there, is really kind of the demographics of what you would see moving into those
types of units.
MR. KREBS-Well, and if you look at a lot of the residents in the area, you’ve got Surrey Fields,
you’ve got Cedar Court, you’ve got Waverly Place. You’ve got Amedores. You’ve got the
Michaels facility, all of those people are going to look for that center where I can go get my hair
cut, get a cup of coffee, go have a lunch.
MR. MANTZ-Exactly.
MR. HUNSINGER-Well, and of course if the price of gas keeps going up, people are going to,
they’re not going to want to drive as far.
MR. MAGOWAN-Be able to come home for lunch.
MR. KREBS-You’re looking for help from the Town, because the road, Blind Rock Road would
have to have some turning lanes put into it.
MR. GALUSHA-Yes, I think Matt makes a very good point, and, you know, we all know what this
intersection’s like here.
MR. SCHONEWOLF-Yes. It’s got good sight distance. It’s not bad, but it needs to be expanded
to meet the volume.
MR. GALUSHA-Coming east/west, it’s a nightmare to turn left or right right now.
MR. OBORNE-It’s a Level of Service D. The Level of Service is a D on there right now.
MR. GALUSHA-And coming north/south, people just want to get the heck through.
45
(Queensbury Planning Board 04/19/2011)
MR. HUNSINGER-Right.
MR. SCHONEWOLF-At 60 miles an hour.
MR. GALUSHA-Yes. What you really want to do is you want to create, in some form or fashion,
whether you put center islands in, with turning lanes, you want to create a situation where it
forces people to slow down. It’s as simple as that.
MR. FULLER-Right now it’s a cut through. I do it. To get from my office to the Warren County
Supreme Court, I come up Meadowbrook and over. It’s the quickest way.
MR. SCHONEWOLF-And you’ve got all the Highway Department back here with all their heavy
equipment coming out here, you know, four times a day.
MR. GALUSHA-So, you know, I think between all of us, we, what we put together as far as the
flavor of it, the feeling of it, is certainly what we believe would be very attractive over there.
MR. TRAVER-Well, I think you’ve very much responded to our discussion last time. I mean, this
is really, I think exactly what we were looking for.
MR. FULLER-Well, you know, you hit it on the head, the beginning of the last meeting after, I got
done, you said, that meets the zoning, but it’s not what we want. The scariest thing to hear on
this side of the table, but it did, we were reacting to comments that were five years old.
MR. SIPP-What killed the last proposal was the traffic, and you’ve got to worry about that and
keep it within bounds, and I don’t know as you can widen Blind Rock Road. I don’t know what
you can do with that.
MR. SCHONEWOLF-It’s a Town road, isn’t it?
MR. FULLER-We’ve got ideas to figure it out.
MR. TRAVER-Yes, there’s going to be some issues, there’s no doubt about it.
MR. SIPP-Now how many units are you eventually planning?
MR. FULLER-The total was just over 100. It was right at 100.
MR. MANTZ-It was 98, I believe, of the apartments in the back, and then proposed 12 over the
services.
MR. SIPP-That leaves you with how many cars total?
MR. FULLER-At total build out for cars, we needed, with spaces for all of the uses we had, was
199. We have 241, and with 41 more banked.
MR. SIPP-Well, the village part they would be moving in and out.
MR. FULLER-Yes. Well, that’s total, at any one time, that’s what we need.
MR. SIPP-I think what killed this project last time was ACC traffic, and you pulling out 100 and
some odd cars out of the apartments in this thing, and obviously people know, drive that road
enough to know what adding more cars at eight and nine o’clock in the morning is going to do
and five, four or five in the afternoon.
MR. OBORNE-Just for clarification, Blind Rock Road is a County road. It’s not a Town road.
MR. HUNSINGER-Yes. They recently put up those County road signs.
MR. SIPP-Is this going to be a management, the company that’s going to be doing all of this?
MR. OBORNE-Haviland’s a local Town road.
MR. FULLER-Don asked a question I didn’t hit on when I was going through it, yes, we would
come back in to modify the subdivision to make it all one lot. So it’ll be managed.
MR. TRAVER-And traffic is a concern, but I think you’ve got enough variety of use here that, you
know, it’s going to be mitigated.
46
(Queensbury Planning Board 04/19/2011)
MR. SIPP-Well, it’s less units than what was proposed before.
MR. FULLER-A lot. It was 174 before.
MR. SIPP-And that’s, when you double that, two cars per unit, or a car and three-quarters,
whatever figures you use.
MR. FULLER-Yes, it’s nowhere near the original number.
MR. SIPP-You’re going to have to come up with a traffic study here.
MRS. STEFFAN-I think, I have a couple of thoughts regarding design standards.
MR. HUNSINGER-Yes, and I’ve got some comments, too.
MRS. STEFFAN-That obviously you’re going to, as you develop, you’re going to have to meet
lighting standards, but some of the pictures that you’ve introduced have very nice lighting that
goes along with some of the other design. I would like to see, when you come back with your
proposal for site plan review, you know, some proposals regarding what kind of colors you’re
going to use, what kind of fixtures you’re going to use, and designing this with not our Code in
mind, because we don’t have design standards in Town. I wish we did, but it’s just something
that our Code, it’s not completed, and so I would like to see some design standards that kind of
go, that go along with your project and the kind of development that you’re looking to do,
because, I mean, we’re going to want those details, but I also think it’s going to help you with
marketability for the project long term. Signage is another issue. We have some of the
cheesiest signage on the plant in Queensbury, and so, you know, you need to, when you look at
design standards, how are you going to make these storefronts and your building such that, you
know, it doesn’t light pollute, it adds value, and it fits some of the things that we’re trying to
accomplish in the Town by this being a town, by being a center. So those are things that I think
are important. The other thing is that, you know, when I was looking at this plan, I thought that
you might be able to get another building in here if you put a parking garage in the back. You’ve
got some banked parking in the back, for some future parking spaces, and if you took out some
of the parking space that you have over on this side here near Building Six, you might be able to
put another building. You might be able to reconfigure this with another building if you put a
parking garage, like a two story, I’m not talking about a four story, but if you put a parking garage
in the back, probably wouldn’t be seen from the road, but it would increase your parking,
decrease some of the permeability in other spots, but give you the potential to put another
building in there.
MR. OBORNE-Keep in mind, there are quite a bit of wetlands on the property.
MR. HUNSINGER-Yes, that does limit some issues.
MRS. STEFFAN-But working within this spot, because that property’s already allocated for
something else, and it’s part of the stormwater management plan that you’re proposing, so, you
know, that’s the first thing I thought about was I love, I absolutely love the sidewalks. I’ve been a
proponent of sidewalks the whole time I’ve been on the Planning Board. So just the fact that
you’ve got them throughout the property and folks who live here or work here can just walk from
one end of the site to the other. It’s a great little, I’m very happy for that. So that’s just the other
things I had to throw out.
MR. SCHONEWOLF-You can steal some ideas from this, too, as far as signage. I mean, the
white header across all the stores and then just the letters there, they’re all the same size.
They’re different color. The lights, okay, I mean, that’s what you see in New England. Just a lot
of little things. I’m sure that those little porches there are just to meet the fire code, and so that
they have one way in, one way out. A lot of little things here that are.
MR. GALUSHA-A lot of really good things, I think.
MR. SCHONEWOLF-The brick’s going across the street, because that’s a crosswalk, you know,
that’s the kind of thing that you see in these centers.
MR. FULLER-Well, and the different architecture in here. That’s who it really popped when
Dave brought us the picture is just, if you look at the difference, just structurally, between these
buildings and these, they’re not very different, but look at the difference, what just siding does.
MR. GALUSHA-Also the little wood, the wood features.
MR. FULLER-Over the windows.
47
(Queensbury Planning Board 04/19/2011)
MR. GALUSHA-If you look on the commercial space where the, in the first floor, where the,
they’re almost kind of like wooden canopies, etc. That just changes the whole character of
those buildings. Okay, and that’s really what you want for these services buildings is you want,
you know, if you don’t have any quality and character in them, and they’re just kind of bland,
people are not, there’s nothing that people are going to be enthused about coming here for. I
mean, you can have a deli that’s kind of plain, and you can have a deli that looks real nice.
People are generally going to be drawn to a deli that looks real nice. Now you hope that it’s got
good food inside, but you’re generally drawn to it, you know, because you think, yes, it’s got
some quality to it, I’ll, you know, hopefully they’ve got good sandwiches. So if you look at the
character of those buildings, the reason why we gave you those is that is our intention is to build
this with some character to it.
MRS. STEFFAN-Yes, you’ll attract professional services firms to second floors.
MR. HUNSINGER-Well, just a couple of comments that I had on, you know, you really took the
challenge that we gave you, and I think in concept you’ve kind of given us what we’re looking
for. When you look at a picture like this, though, and you compare what’s here, and never mind
the number of stories, but then you look at the plan that you have shown, I think the biggest
difference you have between this picture and the plan is you have this continuity at the street
level, and I don’t think your plan quite achieves that.
MR. GALUSHA-Well, the two buildings would be consistent, okay, the two buildings, the two
commercial buildings. Now they’re not nearly as close together as that.
MR. HUNSINGER-Well, that’s what I’m getting at, that’s exactly what I’m getting at.
MR. GALUSHA-Right.
MR. HUNSINGER-Is I think what you want to do, and I don’t know if you can do it or not, I’ve sat
through enough presentations on, you know, developing Main Street and Main Street re-
development to get a flavor for that stuff, but I don’t pretend to be an expert, but one of the
things they talk about is, you know, continuity in critical mass, and what you have are going to
be some, you know, nice buildings, but you’re not going to have a lot of pedestrian traffic
between them. You need to have that pedestrian continuity, like you see in this picture, to
promote heavier pedestrian traffic. So when I saw your plan, I was like, well, you know, if you
can look at this with the boulevard, you know, a building there would help a lot. This kind of
goes to Gretchen’s comment, because then all you have is, you know, you have more buildings
on both sides, and maybe even try to pull this one down, so that you have, you know, street
frontage again, and think about, you know, set two boundaries like on the Main Street zoning,
you know, and maybe even pull this one a curve closer to the road. My big concern is, I mean, I
understand that the residential in the rear is going to create the cash flow for you to develop the
project, but my concern is, if you don’t build the critical mass, if it’s not designed into the Main
Street idea, that at some point you’re going to say, gee, we don’t have enough interest in the
commercial space, so we want to now make it apartments. That’s my concern, and I think
there’s a couple of ways we could do that.
MR. GALUSHA-We could certainly go back and look at trying to pull that building number two
down a little, and the reason why this kind of ended up the way it did is really was driven more
by the parking than anything else, you know, and trying to accommodate parking that is easily
accessible from both buildings rather than if you pull building two down and now you put the
parking behind it, it kind of makes the parking, it kind of makes the walk from the parking to
building one that much more or that much less appealing so to speak.
MR. HUNSINGER-But, you know, you see a big space like this between building one and two,
and, unless there’s a reason to go from building one to building two, people won’t walk that far,
you know. I mean, you think about like Downtown Saratoga, you know, you have a couple of
small parking lot spaces, and people will walk across those because there’s a lot of
development on either side, but if you don’t have, you know, that tremendous critical mass, I
think you need to fill it in more.
MR. FULLER-Just look at Broadway in general.
MR. HUNSINGER-Yes.
MR. FULLER-If you’re not within that tenth of a mile, if that, you’re done, you’re out near the City
Center, people aren’t walking that far.
MR. GALUSHA-We could certainly try to tie building two closer to building one.
48
(Queensbury Planning Board 04/19/2011)
MR. MANTZ-We were trying to take building one and kind of make it an L so when you kind of
looked at it from the intersection it would be, instead of looking at the end of something you’re
kind of looking the corner of it. So we kind of started on that end and trying to figure out how do
we lay these things out that don’t end up a barracks style, you know, there were some of our
thought processes. I understand what you’re saying.
MR. GALUSHA-It’s worth looking at.
MR. MANTZ-Yes, we can talk with Dave. He couldn’t be here tonight, but.
MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. I mean, I don’t know who your designer is and what their experience
is with downtown and retail development, but like I said, I know there’s people that are, you
know, this is what they do, you know, and you hate to say, well, get another consultant to talk to
you about this stuff, but, you know, the information is out there, and I think the whole idea is to
create a critical mass, I mean, you make it a destination place where even if you don’t live a
quarter of a mile away, you’re going to want to drive there, and, you know, spend time there.
MR. TRAVER-I think your concept, too, of needing the Town and various entities to really take
ownership of this project is important, and because you’re literally starting from scratch and
building this from the ground up, I wonder if you might want to have a conversation, for example,
with NYSERTA in Albany to see about some energy savings technology that they might be
interested in helping develop for a project like this. Certainly, you know, you’re going to want to
have, I’m thinking you’re going to want to have buildings that are LEEDS rated and energy
saving, that type of thing.
MR. GALUSHA-Well, we will, there’s a difference, really, in, we just, just for a little background, I
run D. A. Collins Construction. We just finished building 40 plus thousand square feet, and all of
it is highly efficient, both HVAC and lighting. So we will certainly go for that and work with
NYSERTA on that, and we’re actually upgrading our two buildings on our campus right now with
NYSERTA for the latest in technology for lighting, but the difference between going that route
and going the LEEDS certified is a whole heck of a lot of money and paperwork, okay. So, very
much, that comment makes a huge amount of sense certainly in today’s society with the cost of
energy and the increasing cost of energy, and we will be working diligently to make these
extremely energy efficient buildings as well as energy efficient lighting.
MR. TRAVER-Well, I’m just thinking the more partners we have, the more people we have that
have an ownership and investment in this project to be successful, you know, the better off we’re
going to be. NYSERTA is, you know, when I come across information about projects they’re
involved with, this seems like this would be a great project for them to get involved with, to some
degree. I don’t know what grants they may have available or whatever, but, you know, they may
have some resources that they’d be willing to share with you that would be very helpful.
MR. KREBS-And I’m sure you could go down to the Barton Mines building and they would gladly
take you for a tour. That’s quite an efficient building, and you could learn from them. I mean,
they’ve done their whole roof in natural plants, etc., which is saving them a lot of energy, but a
lot of what they saved was just where they place windows in like an office building, so that they
don’t have to have lights for the office, they can use outside light, and it was just a matter of
where they located the desks and where they located the windows, etc. So, that’s another thing
to look at.
MR. GALUSHA-Good comment.
MR. OBORNE-So when can we expect a submittal?
MR. GALUSHA-Tomorrow. No.
th
MR. TRAVER-Probably by the 15.
MR. FULLER-Those are all good substantive comments. Does anybody have anything else
from a macro perspective?
MR. SIPP-Has anybody taken any test pit?
MR. FULLER-Yes.
MR. SIPP-What did you show?
49
(Queensbury Planning Board 04/19/2011)
MR. MANTZ-Most of this is sand here. I mean, we did all the soil analysis and all that for the
storm. All that stuff was designed at one time.
MR. SIPP-I never walked in back there. What’s the relationship in elevation between those
wetlands and say Bay Road?
MR. MANTZ-It is almost 20 feet.
MR. FULLER-Yes, 382, there’s three 362. Yes, so 20 feet.
MR. TRAVER-And one of the things I thought of for in the back, it wouldn’t work out because of
the wetlands and there isn’t enough land. It would be such a great spot for like a chip and put,
like a small golf course.
MR. KREBS-Well, I even thought, too, where your reserved parking is, that would make a good
place to put a couple of tennis courts. So, you know, then you could add that as another feature
for the people that are, and then eventually if you had to, you could, it’s already paved, so you
could have a parking lot, too.
MR. FULLER-We’re looking for that Queensbury recreation facility, the property out back, put
some nice sidewalks.
MR. HUNSINGER-Yes. No, seriously, I think those would be great tie ins.
MR. FULLER-Well, honestly, you guys know this, I’ve been on your side of the fence with you. It
begins with you guys. The pressure for that kind of stuff at a Town Board level can come from a
Planning Board, to get the Town Board, because we’re not going to be able to do it. There’s
things that need to happen on this property and at that intersection, and I think the Town’s got to
get in on it. I think the sidewalks are a big one. You’ve got to, if this is really going to take off
the way you want it to, and they want it to as well, you’ve got to create foot traffic and not just car
traffic.
MR. HUNSINGER-Right, yes.
MR. FULLER-And that’s the key.
MR. TRAVER-Well, part of the key, and I think you’re off to a good beginning, is getting all the
potential players to want to be part of this project, and I think this preliminary design really does
that. It gets people excited. It’s great.
MR. KREBS-And I think with attractive buildings like, and your boulevard, you’re going to be a
site where people are going to come, stop, take a walk down the boulevard, have coffee, have
lunch, have, you know.
MR. HUNSINGER-Yes, that’s the whole idea.
MR. MANTZ-There’s a lot of professional office and office space and that type of stuff within the
Town of Queensbury and Glens Falls, but, you know, I think there’s, you know, some of it’s
empty, but you still see them building new buildings. I think some of the old just square block
isn’t what businesses want, and it’s very hard to dress it up any different.
MRS. STEFFAN-You’re not going to get an architectural firm to move into a plain vanilla
building. They’re going to want to be in a classic structure that has the new design features and
elements. The same thing with any, you know, accountants, lawyers, they want to be in a
building that portrays their brand. So a vanilla building is not going to cut it.
MR. FULLER-Well, a couple of brick facades and a couple of peaks don’t get you interesting
buildings.
MR. HUNSINGER-Right.
MR. FULLER-Especially four of them right next door to one another.
MRS. STEFFAN-The only other design feature, you know we talked a lot about this when we
went to, when we were re-doing the Comp Plan and zoning, and obviously Bay Road is a main
traffic area, and you’ve got parking spaces right out in front, and I know that you’ve got a
stormwater management area and you’ve got landscaping, but toward Bay Road you’ve got a
line of cars and two dumpsters, even though the dumpsters are enclosed, and so what you’re
50
(Queensbury Planning Board 04/19/2011)
trying to accomplish by this, you know, this entrance here, it’s not putting a very good face on
Bay Road. So I just, I’m throwing that out.
MR. HUNSINGER-Yes, we had talked about that last month, too, last meeting.
MR. MANTZ-I helped Dave do a lot of this work here, and we’ve kind of spun this thing a
bazillion different ways before we came to this. What we’re trying, I mean, really, this is the
boulevard, this is the attention. It’s very difficult to try to do it here and here, in the space.
MR. GALUSHA-Yes, you don’t have the space to do it on both.
MR. MANTZ-We don’t have the space because you have, you know, you have such a setback
you have to stay within off from Bay Road. So, you know, if you try to make it out here, the focal
point, you tend to lose it here, because you don’t have enough room to do both, and I agree with
you, but it’s, you know.
MR. FULLER-Your point is I think you don’t want to create a separate village. You want the four
corners to be the village, and I, again, getting back to the Town Board and things, Number One,
it’s going to be the look. I think you’ve got to see the elevation, see what this is going to look
like, but a boulevard on Bay, sidewalks where people can walk, you know, just, if you left that
out there, it is, it’s going to be a great village. It’s going to be its own village, but unless the
Town gets invested on the improvements within Bay itself, to overcome that, you’re right, you
have four corners on a big, a busy area, but if it’s walkable, and if it’s not set aside, if it’s not a,
that you can’t see it from here, then I think you avoid that. I think that’s going to be the critical
point. It can’t stand on its own.
MR. SCHONEWOLF-It’s got to be walkable if you’re going to have kids, college students, living
there 24/7. Just from commonsense, because they’re going to take off and go up the other end
of the block, too, the pizza place or something. You don’t want them walking on the side of the
road.
MRS. STEFFAN-When I made the recommendation about the parking area, if you go by a place
like the Outback Steakhouse up on Route 9, now you’ve got this yellow building in the middle of
a lot, and you’ve got parking area all around it, and when you drive by, you see the top of the
building with the Outback sign, and all you see is the mass of cars. There’s nothing pretty about
it. There’s nothing inviting, it’s just a parking lot.
MR. MAGOWAN-There’s always cars in there, so I never go. Because I think the place must be
packed.
MR. SCHONEWOLF-There’s other buildings like that. The Golden Corral’s like that. All you
see is cars.
MR. HUNSINGER-Just in terms of how this is like phased in and, you know, the flexibility of the
plan, just a couple of thoughts. We’ve done a couple of things with, for example, industrial
parks, and we said, you know, as long as it fits within the framework of the environmental
review, you know, a simple site plan review is all that’s required, and it’s, you know, basically as
long as it’s within the framework that was originally designed, you’re okay, but just in terms of
the different uses, I mean, what do you envision, in terms of the flexibility? Do you think you’ll
have a final design where you say, you know, X number of square feet of commercial space, X
number of square feet of residential, X number of units of each? What’s your thought?
MR. GALUSHA-I think we can say pretty solidly, yes, other than that southern end. That, I think,
you know, for all intents and purposes you could almost just leave that as a question mark with
phase two on it. It’s the wild card. I mean, the rest of this development is going to help to drive
what occurs down there. Now that’s not to say that somebody doesn’t come in tomorrow and
say, we want this corner, it’s going to be this, you know, we want this building and, you know,
this square footage, and it makes sense to put it there, and all of a sudden that drives the rest of
this.
MR. HUNSINGER-Sure.
MR. GALUSHA-Okay. That was almost the case, and, you know, the only thing that we, and we
were working with an entity to do that, and the only thing that we did with that entity is we said,
well, this has to have this kind of character, because it’s going to, I don’t care if it’s a big building
or three small buildings, it’s got to tie in with the character of the rest of the project.
MR. HUNSINGER-Right.
51
(Queensbury Planning Board 04/19/2011)
MR. GALUSHA-It had to look very nice. It had to look high end, very, you know, a lot of
character to it, and they did that. Unfortunately at the last minute they pulled the plug on it. So,
if that happens again, great, but I think, you know, we’re focused on the corner, and we’re
focused on very nice apartments in the back, and that’s where we want to go with those.
MR. HUNSINGER-That’s where you want to start.
MR. GALUSHA-That’s where we want to go as our primary build out, and whatever happens
next door, if it’s driven by this, great. If someone else comes in or some entities come in and
want those buildings, fine.
MR. SCHONEWOLF-It would be nice if we could move the Town offices over there.
DUE TO TECHNICAL PROBLEMS PART OF THE DISCUSSION WAS LOST
MARILYN VAN DYKE – TOWN HISTORIAN – gave a talk on the prior history of this property as
an agrarian use, and a barn previously occupied the property, along with some peacocks.
A DISCUSSION WAS ALSO HAD REGARDING THE HEIGHT OF BUILDINGS, possibly a three
story building
MR. GALUSHA-You kind of feel like you’re playing darts with somebody having blindfolded you,
you know, you’re 100% right in efficiency, you know, of heating, etc., and you’re 100% correct in
it makes a different statement. A two story and a three story building make different statements.
MR. TRAVER-Well, I think when we’re talking about things like setbacks and two story versus
three story, that’s all the more reason to get more people involved.
MR. FULLER-We’ll do. I’ll talk to Keith. We’ll get back to him. That’s not a two month process.
That can be done in the near future, and I think that’s what we need to do is in the next couple of
weeks here, get that thing scheduled (lost word).
MR. TRAVER-The more people invested in this, the clearer path you’re going to have.
MR. KREBS-And he’s got some pretty good coverage in the Chronicle, in the Post Star anyway,
but if you could, if you were going to have a public meeting and you could get back to those
people and have them have something in the paper so that people read about it the week before
the meeting, then you’d get a lot of people here.
MRS. STEFFAN-The idea I had a little earlier about a parking garage, if you’re increasing the
density of this property, you’re going up a level, you’ve got three stories, you’re going to increase
the parking, but, let’s face it, we don’t want, you know, the impermeable parking lots, and so a
parking garage might be a good solution, but for increasing the density, but not the sprawl.
MR. MANTZ-Well, we also use pervious pavement, too.
MR. HUNSINGER-Cool.
MR. MANTZ-So this will be designed with permeable pavement. Basically an open-graded
asphalt that allows water to drain through it.
MR. HUNSINGER-Any final comments from the Board? Direction?
MR. FULLER-One last question, do you want us to look to go closer to Bay? That’s a big
change, but we were just talking about it here.
MR. MANTZ-Because we took this building originally and tried to put it here on the corner, okay,
but what happens when we did that, the distance out here is, it doesn’t give you that village
concept, and when we pulled it away then we figured, we felt that we lost the village/boulevard
feel. It was hard to capture both, and that’s really been a, and we agreed with that. We tried
both ways, and we can’t make it.
MR. HUNSINGER-Unless maybe it’s a bigger building, so that it spans both.
MR. GALUSHA-Yes, but then you start eating up your parking quick.
MR. HUNSINGER-That’s part of the problem, yes.
52
(Queensbury Planning Board 04/19/2011)
MR. KREBS-The other problem with putting it too close to Bay Road, though, is that eventually,
Bay Road is one of the major arteries in this Town, and it may end up having to be a four lane
wide road at some point in the future. So if you have a 75 foot setback, you can take some of
that land eventually and expand the road. I would rather have the three stories and see the
dramatic look of that and keep the setbacks, then with that you have enough vision that you can
have the berm, you can have the plantings around it.
MR. FULLER-See, what I would do is I would take the width of this property down and say that’s
not going to happen here on Bay. Farther down Bay, if we need to go to four, fine, for the school
or whatever, but I would, if I’m the Town and I’m making this call, right now that this is going to
be our village, I want to narrow it down. I want to funnel it in, slow it down, and then let it pick
back up, and create that village, that slow down, stop here.
MR. MANTZ-A four lane is like Quaker Road.
MRS. STEFFAN-Correct.
MR. MANTZ-Zoom, Zoom.
MR. HUNSINGER-I used to work in Quaker Village when they created that section of Quaker
Road and they went from two lane to four lane, and it was also when they were building all the
stores on the south side of Quaker Road, and we used to joke in the office and say, pretty soon
you’ll be able to get anything you want on Quaker Road, but you won’t be able to cross the
street to get it. So your point’s well taken.
MR. GALUSHA-I second that. You need to slow the traffic down. You will never have a village
with fast traffic.
MR. FULLER-Not four lanes.
MR. GALUSHA-Go down to Malta.
MR. MANTZ-But I still come back to that 75, it’s a, you know, it’s difficult to get that feel with that
setback.
MR. HUNSINGER-I think we gave you enough feedback.
MR. GALUSHA-Thank you.
MR. HUNSINGER-Thank you.
MR. TRAVER-Thanks for what you put together. It was great.
MR. KREBS-Great job.
MR. FULLER-Good deal. Thank you.
MR. HUNSINGER-Thank you. Is there anything else to be brought before the Board this
evening? Would anyone like to make a motion to adjourn?
MOTION TO ADJOURN THE QUEENSBURY PLANNING BOARD MEETING OF APRIL 19,
2011, Introduced by Gretchen Steffan who moved for its adoption, seconded by Donald Krebs:
th
Duly adopted this 19 day of April, 2011, by the following vote:
AYES: Mr. Traver, Mr. Krebs, Mrs. Steffan, Mr. Magowan, Mr. Schonewolf, Mr. Sipp,
Mr. Hunsinger
NOES: NONE
On motion meeting was adjourned.
RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED,
Chris Hunsinger, Chairman
53