2011.08.02
(Queensbury Planning Board 08/02/2011)
QUEENSBURY PLANNING BOARD MEETING
SPECIAL MEETING
AUGUST 2, 2011
INDEX
DISCUSSION ITEM Queensbury Partners 1.
Tax Map No.(s) 289.19-1-23 thru 35
Site Plan No. 45-2011 Kelly Carte 7.
Tax Map No. 300.16-1-3
Subdivision No. 4-2008 Gordon & Cynthia Hoyt 17.
MODIFICATION Tax Map No. 290.-1-94
Site Plan No. 49-2011 Nemer Chrysler Jeep Dodge 28.
Tax Map No. 303.15-1-10
Site Plan No. 50-2011 Queensbury Central Volunteer Fire Co. 32.
Tax Map No. 302.7-1-16
Site Plan No. 52-2011 Jonathan LaRock 38.
Tax Map No. 288.-1-58
THESE ARE NOT OFFICIALLY ADOPTED MINUTES AND ARE SUBJECT TO BOARD AND
STAFF REVISIONS. REVISIONS WILL APPEAR ON THE FOLLOWING MONTHS MINUTES
(IF ANY) AND WILL STATE SUCH APPROVAL OF SAID MINUTES.
0
(Queensbury Planning Board 08/02/2011)
QUEENSBURY PLANNING BOARD MEETING
SPECIAL MEETING
AUGUST 2, 2011
7:00 P.M.
MEMBERS PRESENT
CHRIS HUNSINGER, CHAIRMAN
STEPHEN TRAVER
DONALD KREBS
PAUL SCHONEWOLF
THOMAS FORD
BRAD MAGOWAN, ALTERNATE
MEMBERS ABSENT
GRETCHEN STEFFAN
LAND USE PLANNER-KEITH OBORNE
STENOGRAPHER-PAM WHITING
QUEENSBURY PARTNERS:
CORNER OF BAY & BLIND ROCK ROADS
TAX MAP NOS. 289.19-1-23 THRU 35
APPLICANT IS REQUESTING A FOLLOW-UP DISCUSSION TO REVIEW REVISIONS
MATT FULLER, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT
MR. FULLER-I have Dave Bogardis to my left, Dan Galusha to my right. Bob Mantz and Peter
Faith, the traffic engineer, is here as well. I just wanted to get back to the Board, one last time,
on a sketch review. We are in progress with plans and things like that, and studies, but we
made some changes since the last time we were here in the Spring, and we had a meeting with
the public in May on Saturday morning right here. It wasn’t a huge turnout, but we had some
good comment, some good criticisms, and really moving forward now with the last set of
comments that we got from the Planning Board, and we just wanted to get back here, update
you, and really move forward with a more thorough submission into Site Plan and Variances
things like that, but before we did that, that’s going to be a big expense. This certainly isn’t a
small project. We wanted to come back, you know, see, get the Board’s impression one last
time on the changes that we did make, again, in reaction to some of the Planning Board
comments that we had last time, so that we can move forward with that. Really, the main
emphasis tonight, from our standpoint, is just variances and things that we know are going to
have to happen, area seems to be the bulk of them, but if I could, I’ll grab the mike an hit the
map real quick. I did bring the blown up pictures. I think they’ve been in the record for a while,
but the first one is, again, just the street scape. This is a better blow up of what the street scape
is going to look like, just an example, and then another blow up of our impression on the
architecture for, you know, the mixed use buildings and more of the commercial area we’ll call it.
Back to the plan, not a lot of changes out back. That’s stayed pretty much consistent. Looking
back here towards the corner of Bay and Blind Rock, one of the comments we received the last
time we were here was looking towards pulling the buildings a little bit closer to the intersection
of Bay and Blind Rock. Again, trying to move forward on that village feel, so we’ve done that,
split the stormwater area, created a pedestrian bridge through that and moved some of the
stormwater treatment area to the south of the property, again, moved the, we’re calling it a bank
or drive thru, closer to Bay, again trying to create that more village feel right along Bay. As far
as the building’s heights and things like that, when we get back into Site Plan, what we’ll do is
we’ll have some renderings, to give you an idea of what the buildings will look like, but, again,
moving forward on that comment that we got from the Planning Board, creating some space.
Most likely two story out here, moving back into three out back to again create that village feel
of, you know, again, more space. Got the patio area, again, around the northern side of the
property along Blind Rock, still with the landscaping, and we’ll be coming back in with
landscaping plans, you know, as part of the Site Plan Review, but before we get to the Site Plan
Review part of the process, you know, with the zoning and some of the controversy of the past,
and zoning that led up to it, we are going to be in the ballpark for some Area Variances, and not
just a couple. To move forward with this project, I think we’ll obviously take comments and
questions and things, but this has been a planning process, in the true sense that doing that
we’re going to trip some variances, and I’ve met with Keith and Craig, just informally, to try to hit
on them, and I’ll run through some of them here, and again, the hope being we have a
conversation about them so that we can have at least a comfort level to go forward with even the
1
(Queensbury Planning Board 08/02/2011)
variance applications that we’re going to need, that we’re at least moving forward with
something that the Planning Board likes. We’ve got, and I’m just going to run through them in
no order, based on what Keith and Craig and I had met. We’ve got front setbacks from both Bay
and Blind Rock. Obviously this building right here at the corner is going to trip the both of those
setbacks. So we’ll have Area Variances for that. The building right along Bay, and on Bay Road
there’s a no improvements at all exclusion within 75 feet. We’re certainly going to trip that,
again, moving forward with the parking, the buildings. I don’t know if the stormwater
management would be included in the no improvements, but if it is, you know, we’ll deal with
that. We’ve got the Travel Corridor of 75 feet. That is both, and the 75 feet number is
somewhat consistent with the Travel Corridor Bay. So it’ll be, you know, one variance in a
bunch of different names, but that Travel Corridor at 75 feet, a couple of spots we’ve got the
shoreline from the wetland of 75 feet, mainly a couple of spots on the back here with the
stormwater infrastructure and a couple of the buildings, here and here, will be within 75 feet.
Height, 40 feet. We’ll play with that when we get into designing, but a couple of the buildings, to
his that third story, if that’s the type of scale we’re trying to meet, in this region is going to trip
that 40 foot limit no question, and the big one that obviously has been the controversy for going
on a number of years now, residential within 300 feet of Bay Road. We’ve got mixed use
buildings along those lines down there with commercial office cafes, really what the demand of
the market is, right along the first floors here, and then the upper floors, I mean, I think we’re
open to, you know, if they were used for office or things, but a village like this is going to be
people driven, and you’re going to need turnover, and you’re going to need residency. Strictly
within the region that we’ve got here, we do have a good residential base to start from. That’s
kind of what kicked the project off, but even sustainable on site is going to be driven from the
residential component. The uses that we envision are your cafes and things like that. Yes,
there will be some come and go traffic, but a good part of it’s also going to be driven on site. So
we’ll have that, that setback is in there, too. Did I miss anything, Keith? Number of units. When
we come in for the site plan and calculate the density, the 150 density unit, that was a rough
number. We didn’t get a concrete number when I sat down with Keith and Craig, just because
we’ve got some calculations to do on our end, but the potential 150 unit, or just about there,
again, we didn’t get an exact number, but the residential units of 150, we could trip that, and the
reason being, depending on where these buildings here go, you know, if we end up with
significant offices or space on the first floor, and if the upper floors aren’t going to be used for
that and are compatible for a residential use, we’re going to trip that 150 number. So, again, we
can answer questions and talk about it, see what you like, changes, tweaks that we need to
make, but really our focus tonight is, you know, obviously the Board can’t yes or no variances,
but they will be coming back to you, just from the referral process, in addition to the site plan.
Our intent at this point, or our thought is to apply for the variances. That’ll get us back here for a
referral, and then based on that, if the site plan moves forward, because that’s going to be the
engineering, you know, the site plan review will be the bulk of the engineering. We have started
on traffic. You may have seen, I noticed them out there one day doing counts. So we’ve
already gotten some preliminary work there. It looks promising. I think we’re going to be able to
address some things out there. Obviously we’ve got some more concrete planning to do, but
initial impressions are I think we’re going to be in pretty good shape. We know there’s work to
be done, but it’s nothing alarming right out of the gate. So it’s doable at this point. We got
talking about phasing earlier, and a sense of phasing from SEQRA and things like that.
Consistent with what we’ve said all along, the build out plan is to get started with the corner, you
know, I think that’s the kick off, obviously move forward right in close proximity, if not at the
same time, with the residential units, move this way and then, depending on what the demand
creates here, we would call this a second phase, but again, I think it’s going to be the main
driven. If somebody pops up and the use is needed, sooner rather than later, we’ll be ready to
move there, but that’s the overall plan of development at this point.
MR. FORD-Projected timeline, once you’re shovel ready?
MR. FULLER-I think if we could get through the approval process in the Fall here, start moving
dirt in the Spring.
MR. HUNSINGER-I had a couple of initial thoughts as you were going through your
presentation. One of the difficulties that we have is a difficulty kind of understanding the scale,
and there’s a lot of times when, you know, we’ll approve a project, and then years later we’ll go
out and we’ll see it in real life and we’ll say, well, you know, that’s not at all what we thought or
what we expected, and one of the thoughts that came through my mind is you were talking
about the needed variances. If you could show us, for example, right across the street there’s
the old office building that’s now being used temporarily as a church, you know, where that sets
in the distance from Bay Road, or the building right across the street, in terms of trying to get a
handle on the variance and the relief requested. So that was just kind of one thought that might
be helpful to us.
2
(Queensbury Planning Board 08/02/2011)
MR. FULLER-Kind of in the area where the map is, the site map right now, just to show where
that building is.
MR. HUNSINGER-Yes, just to give us a general idea, and then the other thought that I have is I
guess kind of an offer, and I haven’t talked to the rest of the Board about this or staff, but, you
know, certainly one of the things that I would feel very comfortable with on this project is maybe
a joint workshop with the Zoning Board, because, you know, we have challenged you to come
up with a great design and to do something new and innovative, and I think it would be helpful if
maybe we did a workshop with the Zoning Board when you get ready to present the plan, so we
can talk through the variance requests and maybe do it that way. I mean, it would be informal,
obviously. There wouldn’t be any action taken, but I think it would be really helpful for the
Zoning Board and for us.
MR. FORD-I think it would be time well spent. Good suggestion, Chris.
MR. TRAVER-Good idea.
MR. HUNSINGER-And again, I haven’t discussed it with staff or the Zoning Board Chairman,
but I’m just kind of putting it out there for part of the discussion.
MR. FULLER-Just thinking it out logistically, would it be better to do that as part of the actual
variance application process, or even a step before that? Can we do that later this month or
something?
MR. OBORNE-I think you would gain the tenor of the Zoning Board as related to this project. I
think that’s what Chris is getting at in this case. As far as you submitting for Area Variances, you
could get triggered right off the bat for a recommendation from this Board. Right off the bat, but
having that discussion with the Zoning Board may be prudent, because there may be members
on the Board that, you know, we don’t know how they’re going to land on this.
MR. HUNSINGER-We had done that in the past on a couple of other projects, but we have not
done that in several years now.
MR. OBORNE-Not since I’ve been here.
MR. HUNSINGER-Yes, it’s been a while.
MR. OBORNE-I will say, as far as the stormwater structures go, it’s green space is that 75 foot
Travel Corridor Overlay, the TCO. There’s no building, no parking, there’s not supposed to be
anything in there. It’s supposed to be a rural character, and for road widening purposes. With
that, I think you pretty much hit all the salient points on there. Density is an issue, and I would
say one of the bigger ones that the Board may want to focus on obviously is the residential
within the 300 feet, and that has increased with this latest submittal, too.
MR. KREBS-But, you know, in respect to that country setting situation, I’ve had a lot of people,
thanks to the Post Star and their good reporting, come back to me and say we’re excited about
having the village. They really would like to have a center for Queensbury. So maybe the
community in general is rural, but we need a center, and I think this is a perfect center.
MR. OBORNE-I think you’ve been given a unique opportunity here, I really do, from a planning
perspective.
MR. SCHONEWOLF-This is what we started a year ago.
MR. FORD-The feedback that I’m getting is that there’s a wow factor associated with this
project.
MR. TRAVER-This, I think, would be a good project, also, for us to do the, sort of the hybrid
process that we talked about, where we do the engineering in advance. So those issues are,
you know, obviously once we get through the variance stage, so that the engineering issues are
largely at least addressed by the time we get to the.
MR. OBORNE-And I think that that Board meeting, that combined Board meeting would help
that along, because I would be a little trepedatious as to have that with this, because there’s a
lot of planning involved in this.
MR. TRAVER-Right, yes.
MR. OBORNE-There’s a lot of planning, not just engineering, obviously.
3
(Queensbury Planning Board 08/02/2011)
MR. TRAVER-Right.
MR. HUNSINGER-Other questions, comments from the Board?
MR. FORD-Just a comment. I think I’m repeating myself, but as a member of a Planning Board
for a number of years, it certainly is fun to be a part of a planning process.
MR. FULLER-I think we were talking about it earlier. I can remember when we came in here,
having spent hours of addressing six years of contentious Planning Board comments and came
here with a completely compliant plan, and wasn’t what we were looking for. Each one of us
turned as white as this paper and it has been interesting, and even the meeting, that Saturday
meeting, we still got a couple of comments, and they’re always going to be out there, that you
can’t please everybody, but in general I think the response, at least north here, has been good.
I think people are interested in being able to walk somewhere.
MR. HUNSINGER-I mean, I had a conversation just today, and I live just up the street, and, you
know, we have a small farm stand on the corner, and it's amazing how many people stop there,
and, you know, so it makes you kind of think that if you have a year round spot nearby, you
know, what the potential is, you know, for market.
MR. KREBS-Not only that, but with ACC talking about putting dormitories in place, that’s going
to create another demand for services immediately in the area. So I think that’s very good.
MR. SCHONEWOLF-So you’re of the general opinion that NIMBY is not even an issue here?
MR. FULLER-No. The one big comment I got from somebody that had been very concerned in
the past was the trees along the western part of the property. Were we touching the wetland
with the trees, and I said no, and that person’s comment said then I’m fine.
MR. FORD-That’s a very positive feature.
MR. FULLER-Yes, we’re not touching, no invading of the wetland at all. Setbacks, we’re close
to some, but we’re not invading the wetlands.
MR. HUNSINGER-And you’re keeping a lot of the woods.
MR. FULLER-Yes.
MR. OBORNE-And I will say that the building labeled, just to get this out in the open, Building
Number One, Craig and I have an issue with it being two stories there, and if that was taken
down to one story, that would be one of our recommendations. Not the whole building, just that
portion that is on the corner. Maybe 40 feet in to the building, something along those lines.
MR. SCHONEWOLF-For sight?
MR. OBORNE-Exactly.
MR. FULLER-We talked about that earlier tonight, before we met here, and when you see, I’ve
asked to hold on that, because I think when you see what the building’s going to look like, we’ll
come back to that comment.
MR. HUNSINGER-That’s kind of the concern that I was getting at by saying, you know, how
does this setback relate to other buildings here on Bay Road. It goes right to that same issue.
MR. SCHONEWOLF-Have you done any computer models which will show that?
MR. FULLER-Not yet.
DAVE BOGARDIS
MR. BOGARDIS-What we can do to address the proximity of the buildings is take an aerial
photography and superimpose our plan on it, and get you an aerial picture of it.
MR. HUNSINGER-I do want to go back to one of the comments I made at the last meeting,
though, and I’m sure you’ve considered this, but I just want to put it out there one more time, just
in terms of, you know, creating a scale, in terms of getting the retail and the mixed use to take
off, you need to achieve a certain economy of scale, and I still think a building in this empty spot
is worth considering, and/or down here.
4
(Queensbury Planning Board 08/02/2011)
MR. FULLER-The wetland is the issue right there.
MR. HUNSINGER-I realize you’ll impact the wetland a little bit.
MR. FULLER-We can’t, not with the Army Corps letter that we’ve got, that we’ll submit.
MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. You can’t disturb up to a couple of acres under the National permit.
MR. BOGARDIS-The National permit’s gone.
MR. HUNSINGER-It is?
MR. FULLER-We’d need an Army Corps permit.
MR. BOGARDIS-What we have, Chris, is a letter of non-jurisdiction based on no disturbance
whatsoever.
MR. HUNSINGER-Okay.
MR. BOGARDIS-That’s our commitment to the Corps is no disturbance.
MR. FULLER-And we did look at that. We looked at moving the maintenance building, pulling
the other building, the building that’s just west of the maintenance building, pulling that down
closer to the intersection and we really don’t want to touch the wetland, because we looked at
that. I tend to agree that if the space allowed, a building there would look nice.
MR. HUNSINGER-Because, again, when you talk about developing a Main Street concept, you
know, you talk about a pedestrian scale, and it becomes real important that there be a rhythm,
and that there not be gaps between storefronts of office fronts.
MR. BOGARDIS-I think that the scale of what you’re going to see, and I forget who made the
recommendation originally, going from two stories to three stories, what it does is, what the
scale does, going from two stories to three stories, is it brings the appearance of it to be much
closer, because of the size of it, and I think that those are kind of some of the renderings that we
have to get so that you can truly start to get a good sense. I understand what you’re saying, and
I agree 100% with, you know, you don’t want it to look like blotchy spaces, okay. Single story
buildings, or even with this amount of space, even two story, I think you would probably still see
that or feel it, but as you get into a three story building, it becomes, because of its size, you start
to lose the concept of how deep it can be set back or how spread out it can be because it’s that
much bigger. So I think that taking into account that thought that you have, we need to give you
some renderings so that you can see how that’s going to look, make sure that it doesn’t look like
they’re spaced out too much.
MR. HUNSINGER-Yes, because the retail, to be successful, it’s going to have to be a
destination where people can go and park and they’re not, not only don’t mind walking, they
want to.
MR. BOGARDIS-Correct, correct, and I think that another comment that was made, and one that
we’re incorporating in here is in that Phase II, the intention would be to have commercial
downstairs on the first floor, to kind of tie the whole thing in, as, you know, as destination
business space, as opposed to, well, all of that would just be apartments. So I think that that
was another key comment to tie in enough commercial business space to actually have people
wanting to come there.
MR. OBORNE-I could touch on SEQRA real quick.
MR. HUNSINGER-Go ahead, Keith.
MR. OBORNE-Just for the applicant, just make sure that all your I’s are dotted, T’s are crossed,
we’re going to be looking at this. It’s a Type I SEQRA, and we’d want the greatest and most
intensive build out, and make sure that when you get to the Planning Board, that your phases
are really well laid out and understandable, so when you do your approval resolutions, if it gets
to that point, you know, it’s ironclad.
MR. HUNSINGER-Other comments or questions from the Board?
MR. FULLER-You guys get this all the time, time wise. If we wanted to do a joint meeting, when
do you think we could pull that off? Are we out to September?
5
(Queensbury Planning Board 08/02/2011)
MR. OBORNE-We’re out to September. Yes, we’re definitely out to September at this point.
MR. SCHONEWOLF-Are you talking about a special meeting of the joint?
MR. HUNSINGER-Well, I was going to say, if we did a workshop, it would kind of have to be a
special meeting.
MR. OBORNE-Right, it would have to be a special meeting and I would have to coordinate that
with the Zoning Board also, and I can only do that at a meeting.
MR. HUNSINGER-Right.
MR. OBORNE-With all members present.
MR. FULLER-They don’t meet again until the end of August.
MR. OBORNE-The third week in August, yes.
MR. HUNSINGER-Is there a meeting coming up when they don’t have a full agenda?
thth
MR. OBORNE-Yes, the 17 I certainly can bring it up at the 17, and then I can get back to you
August.
MR. HUNSINGER-Okay.
rd
MR. OBORNE-So I can get back to you on the 23 with how they want to go forward with that.
MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. Yes.
MR. OBORNE-You want to have further discussion on that between all the members of this
Board also.
MR. HUNSINGER-Sure. I mean, our agendas are all full. So we’re not going to piggyback a
special meeting on one of our meeting nights, but if they have, you know, a second meeting date
where there’s only a couple of items or something, we could piggyback on there maybe. It’s just
a thought.
MR. OBORNE-They’re busy. They’re pretty full. My suggestion would be potentially maybe
th
Thursday the 25 of August, something along those lines, if they’re amenable to that.
MR. HUNSINGER-Okay.
MR. OBORNE-That would give you enough time to turn around, potentially, and get that in to a
September meeting, but that may be pushing it at this point. Certainly for a submittal date of
th
September 15 I think you’d have your ducks in a row for an October meeting. You’re not
breaking ground until next year anyway.
st
MR. TRAVER-What about the 31? That’s a Wednesday when they normally meet.
stth
MR. OBORNE-The 31 would be fine. Any time after that last Wednesday meeting on the 24.
MR. FULLER-Because I can obviously get seven plans put together and over here as soon as
possible, and again, I completely acknowledge, you get this a lot. People come in and they
want, they’ve got to move, they’ve got to move, and I just don’t want to, just thinking it out real
quick sitting here, with that timeframe into September, we’re filing in October for November at
that point. That puts it close to the Spring. Because you don’t want to lose those months. It’s
going to be a review process, and I don’t want to have to come in here in January or February
saying we need to go, we need to go, give us time to do it right.
MR. OBORNE-We understand that, but obviously there are protocols that have to be followed.
So we’ll see what the Board says.
MR. TRAVER-And it is true that every application is an emergency.
MR. FULLER-I’ve been on that side of the fence, too, so I know.
MR. HUNSINGER-We’re also sensitive to that.
6
(Queensbury Planning Board 08/02/2011)
MR. FULLER-You are. You’ve been, done a lot of work. We fully acknowledge that. I’ll be back
in touch. Did you guys have any questions, traffic wise, preliminarily?
MR. KREBS-Well, part of the problem we have with the traffic is that these are two County
roads.
MR. FULLER-Yes, we’re going to work with the County.
MR. KREBS-Yes, so it’s really up to the County. I mean, I went to see Mike Travis about it and
he said, Don, I really can’t do anything because they’re both County roads.
MR. FULLER-They’re two County roads with Town Hall sitting here on the corner.
MR. KREBS-Right.
MR. FULLER-That’s the Town’s interest in it.
MR. KREBS-Yes, I would actually like to see, you know, four right hand turn, you know, living
down the road here, I come frequently, and you sit and sit and sit and wait, and it’s because of
the.
MR. TRAVER-Yes, we might need some improvements, a green turn arrow or something.
MR. FULLER-Yes, and I fully plan to be going to the Town Board and the County to solicit their
support, because it’s an investment in the planning. The essence of planning is not just the
developer on us, we know we’ve got some work to do, and we’re going to take a look at it and
get it done, but there is some Town, County, I hate to say investment, but they’ve got to buy in.
Everybody’s got to, so that people can walk down from the north, and it’s going to take a little
work.
MR. HUNSINGER-I don’t want to miss this opportunity. I was glad to hear that you’re committed
to putting the building on the corner, as part of the initial part of the project, because, you know,
my big fear about a project like this is, you know, especially if you look at it as a market driven
thing, is we start to build the apartments in the back, people love it, so then, you know, you want
to encroach the apartments into what we want to see as commercial, and, you know, I think that
would be a big lose for everybody, and we’ve already seen that happen on Meadowbrook, and,
you know, I don’t want to re-hash old arguments, but we talked about this before, and, you
know, I think, but the interesting point on that is I think the inability to put some commercial
development on Meadowbrook is helping to create a market for your project, I do, because, you
know, instead of putting in commercial space, they put some additional housing units, and that
creates another market opportunity for you, to get in a convenience type store or coffee shop or
a bakery, you know, that kind of thing. Just go up to Beans Country Store and see how busy
they are. That’s a little neighborhood market now that people use.
MR. FULLER-Yes.
MR. HUNSINGER-Great.
MR. FULLER-Thank you very much.
MR. HUNSINGER-Thank you.
NEW BUSINESS:
SITE PLAN NO. 45-2011 SEQR TYPE II KELLY CARTE OWNER(S) SAME AS APPLIANT
ZONING LC-10A-LAND CONSERVATION 10 ACRES LOCATION 207 FULLER ROAD
APPLICANT PROPOSES TO GRADE APPROXIMATELY THREE (3) ACRES OF CLEARED
LAND. FURTHER PROPOSAL TO CULVERT EXISTING DRAINAGE COURSE AND
EXISTING SPRING REQUESTED. CLEARING/DISTURBANCE ON GREATER THAN ONE (1)
ACRE REQUIRES PLANNING BOARD REVIEW AND APPROVAL. CROSS REFERENCE AV
8-09, AV 19-07, AV 82-93; BP 08-377 WARREN CO. PLANNING 7/13/2011 APA, CEA,
OTHER SPDES LOT SIZE 45.99 +/- ACRES TAX MAP NO. 300.16-1-3 SECTION 179-6-
010, 179-9
KELLY CARTE, PRESENT
MR. HUNSINGER-Keith, whenever you’re ready.
7
(Queensbury Planning Board 08/02/2011)
MR. OBORNE-Site Plan 45-2011, Kelly Carte. This is Site Plan Review. Location is 207 Fuller
Road. Existing zoning is LC-10A, and this is a Type II SEQRA. Engineering review has been
accomplished at this point. Project Description: Applicant proposes to grade approximately
three (3) acres of cleared land. Further proposal to culvert existing drainage course and existing
spring is requested. Clearing/disturbance on greater than one (1) acre requires Planning Board
review and approval. Soils follow. Also what follows is Site Plan Review. I will say most of the
review is dedicated to Chazen comments at this point. This does require a SWPPP because it’s
greater than one acre, and there are some paperwork issues and there also are some design
issues, and with that I’d turn it over to the Board.
MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. Thank you. Good evening.
MR. CARTE-Good evening, Chris and members of the Board. My name is Kelly Carte, 659
West Mountain Road is my address, and you’ll be happy to know that my project is not an
emergency. It’s been going on for four years here now. So it’s a little frustrating but it’s not an
emergency. To give you some background, I don’t know if you got a chance to read the
narrative, I guess, that I put in on this thing.
MR. HUNSINGER-I think it’s safe to assume that everyone has, yes.
MR. CARTE-Okay. Well, I don’t know where to begin other than I can address some of your
questions. There’s two or three points that Keith brought up on his summation, so to speak, of
Chazen’s comments, and I can address all of those quite easily, I guess. I guess I wanted to
start by just something that I hadn’t said on this thing is this project, although it’s been going on
because I haven’t, it hasn’t been an uppermost thing in my mind, you know, I do it as I have
time. I do it as I have money or whatever, but having to comply with these regulations now that
have changed since I started doing it. When I started this about four years or so ago, the
threshold was five acres, and I got the land cleared as far as trees and whatever taken down
there about three, three and a half acres of land, and then it kind of got on the back burner for a
couple of years. The next step was to get somebody in there with a track hoe to dig the stumps
and dig some holes and bury the brush and whatever, and I didn’t have financing and stuff for
that. So it took a couple of years, and then I got around to doing that last summer, and as soon,
it took us about a week to do it, and I thought at the end of that week, someone from the Town, I
forgot who it was at the time here, but apparently somebody wanted to know what I was doing,
and they come up here and a person from the Planning Staff came over and said I had to stop
work because the rules had changed from five acres to one acre, and disturbing the land,
anything more than an acre was going to need a Planning Board approval. Even though they
knew what I was doing, as far as burying the stumps and digging out the, you know, burying the
brush and all this kind of stuff, I don’t see how I was supposed to do that without disturbing the
land. I mean, I certainly am going to disturb it, but we had it, we had everything done and all we
needed to do would be to level out the piles and humps and bumps of land that we left there,
and put the two streams that are crossing the property, I say streams, one of them is a spring
that runs, trickles year round. The other one is a drainage ditch that only really runs in the
spring, or like this when we really have wet weather, it’s still running, but usually
August/September it’s dry until next spring, but that was all that I had to do, and I had to stop
work and could not finish that before winter, before frost. So we’re here now to fill you in on
what I’m doing and answer any questions, but so far it’s cost me well over $1,000 just to try to
take down three acres of trees and level three acres of woods, field, make a field, basically, and
I can’t help but think that on projects obviously like the one we just saw here, and any kind of
commercial projects, you know, the cost of doing these kinds of things is part of the cost of doing
business, but for a homeowner to try to do something like this, it gets to be pretty onerous to
have to spend this kind of money to do what seems to be just a very simple project with your
own land. With that, I’ll answer any questions or I can go and address these several items that
Keith has brought up on his sheet that you might have.
MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. Questions, comments from the Board?
MR. FORD-I’m ready for explanations.
MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. On Staff comments or on engineering?
MR. FORD-Start with Staff.
MR. CARTE-Okay. This is Page Two of the thing that I have here. It says Page C-1, C-2, no
immediate issues. Page C-3, Clarification on the submittal of Standard and Specifications for
Rock Dam may need to be forthcoming. There isn’t a rock dam. I don’t know what that is.
There are two drawings of culvert description that I hired Tom Jarrett to do the water study and
size the culverts and give me a drawing of his recommendation as to how to do it because I’m
figuring that you weren’t going to take my word for the size of the culverts and whatever. So this
8
(Queensbury Planning Board 08/02/2011)
is what he came up with, so between him and the guy from Warren County Soil and Water
District, what we’re doing is just putting rocks on the sloping areas for the entrance and exit of
the culverts. It’s not a dam. It’s just that the ground is going to be sloping on one. One culvert
will be maybe four or five feet down. So the land will be sloping down, and then you have the
two outlets, and I’m going to put rock around the entrance and exit of the thing with some soil,
some silt matting or something like that they call it underneath there. On the other one, the
culvert will be almost at grade level, and then we’ll go downhill, and that one will be probably six
or seven feet down at that point. So what Jim Liberum from the Warren County suggested is to
stockpile the rocks that are in this property, and believe me, there are a lot of rocks on this
property, and use them to stabilize the soil on both exit and entrance to the culverts.
MR. FORD-Excuse me. Could I ask Keith to respond to that.
MR. OBORNE-Yes. Absolutely. In part of your packet, you submitted specifications for a rock
dam.
MR. HUNSINGER-Yes, it’s on Drawing EC-1, too.
MR. OBORNE-Right, and it’s also at the outlet of the culvert, and I just was looking for
clarification.
MR. CARTE-Okay.
MR. OBORNE-I believe it’s protection.
MR. CARTE-Well, it’s protection to keep the soil, because the soil is going to be steeper than
the three and one slope that it says, you know, you’re supposed to be three and one slope, and
you don’t need anything, but if you do steeper than that, again, Jim Liberum had suggested that
you could steepen it up if you stabilized the bank with rock, and that’s what I planned on doing.
Now I didn’t know that that was in there. I don’t even think that’s, let me see what I have there. I
just, no, the one that we’re, well, you have one that says standard of specification for riprap
slope protection?
MR. OBORNE-Yes. I believe there’s one in here, too.
MR. CARTE-Yes. That’s what we’re doing basically. I don’t know what rock dam.
MR. OBORNE-Well, Tom has it on EC-1 as rock dam see blue book, which is basically saying
this is the specification which was submitted. So, that’s the reason why that comment exists.
MR. CARTE-Well, I guess that he’s terming the entrance and exit of the culverts as being,
calling it a rock dam, but it’s really just the slope stabilization from the, by stone.
MR. OBORNE-That would be known as outlet protection.
MR. CARTE-Yes.
MR. OBORNE-That’s what should be cited, if that is the case. I see a rock dam and then the
culvert coming into a rock dam. Obviously you’re going to have a back up of water.
MR. CARTE-Yes. Right. No, that’s what we’re doing, basically stabilizing the soil around the
entrance and exits of the thing.
MR. HUNSINGER-Okay.
MR. CARTE-Let’s see, moveable silt fence. Well, in talking to him, he said you’re going to need
a silt fence along the side of the property along the bottom of where the slope is going to be
between your property and your neighbor’s, and I said, okay, although my neighbor has no
problems with what I’m doing and I’ve told him that the ground that is his, the land that is beyond
where I would have a slope is level and woods, and the soil is heavy, gravelly, rocky, whatever.
There’s no way that anything is going to erode over onto his property, and he knows that and
that’s why he’s not concerned with it, but I said if I’m required to put a silt fence here, then can I
do a couple of hundred feet, like the beginning of the thing, with the silt fence, and then after I
dug this take it up, move it, or do I have to buy, seven, eight, nine hundred feet of silt fence to
put all the way along the side of this project and then turn around and throw it away when I’m
done? And he said I don’t see any reason why you couldn’t just move it as you, you know, put it
in the beginning, start and level that area, do the slope and whatever, and then mulch it, seed it,
mulch it and then move the fence further along and do the next, because it’s, you know, there’s
about, I don’t know, six, seven hundred feet or something like that I guess along one side there
9
(Queensbury Planning Board 08/02/2011)
that’s going to be disturbed, and I’m just trying to make this reason, as I said, in my mind, and in
his, he’s the only one that’s affected by it, and he’s not concerned with this, and I know the soil is
not going to go anywhere, in fact, there’s piles of, if any of you have looked at the site, there’s
piles of dirt. There’s turn up ground, there’s everything left the way we had to leave it in the Fall
and we’ve had as much rain this spring as I’ve ever seen in my lifetime here, and there’s no, you
know, the soil didn’t go anywhere. It’s still where we piled it. So, I’m just trying to make this as
least expensive as possible.
MR. HUNSINGER-Okay.
MR. MAGOWAN-Before we get too far away with it, when you say move it, does that mean after
the grass has taken root and started to grow, or, you know, are you going to grade it and then
seed it and then move it?
MR. CARTE-I was going to grade it, seed it, mulch it, the bank, and then move the fence.
MR. MAGOWAN-All right, but that’s before, you know, the seeding grabs hold, right?
MR. CARTE-Right, yes.
MR. MAGOWAN-The whole purpose of the silt fence, as you know, is in case you have that big
storm there, you know, before the grass roots. I think that’s the whole purpose of putting the silt
fence away.
MR. CARTE-Well, I guess I understand that, but again, if the only person that’s affected by that
doesn’t care, you know, is it a problem? I mean, really, I mean, I’m going to do it because I
guess I have to do it, but I think it’s a waste and again, you know, there’s no one else affected by
this except him, but that’s your call. Let’s see, are any of the Warren County comments
employed on the site? Yes, I mean, I have photocopies by Jim Liberum of the Soil and Water
Conservation who picked out all the ones that were applicable. He’s been on the site twice with
me and we’ve gone over this and picked out all the specifications or the generally accepted
practices or whatever from the blue book I guess you called it, and I’m going to use them
wherever applicable. The riprap stone on the slopes, the mulching and he has, there’s a list of
stuff for mulching and the approximate amount per acre and stuff like that, and wherever else
the things are applicable. He just kind of went along and did, and photocopied everything that
he thought that might come, you know, be needed in the process, and I kept them all here, but I
don’t know that we put a particular note on a space on the site plan as to where they were going
to be used. I mean, I can, I guess.
MR. FORD-Do the rest of the Board members feel they need further clarification on Number
Two, relative to vegetative waterway?
MR. CARTE-I think I skipped over that. I think I skipped that one.
MR. OBORNE-I think Sean has some comments on that, too.
MR. CARTE-Yes. Well, I don’t, there is no vegetative waterway. It’s, the picture shows it, the
picture that I showed shows it because I wanted to show, this is what the runoff, the drainage
ditch looks like now, and that’s what it looked like in the Fall when I left it, and he said you better
put some mulch around there to try to stabilize that for the winter and spring because he knew
that we weren’t going to get to it because of the timing, and so I did, you know, I got 25, 30 bales
of hay, and it took me two days and I went around there and spread hay all along the, you know,
all the banks of this, in order to stabilize this, which had I been allowed to continue, it would have
been all done by the Fall anyway, but I wasn’t, but that’s where the culvert is going to go. So
there isn’t going to be any ditch like that.
MR. FORD-Thank you.
MR. HUNSINGER-What about the engineering comments? I think a lot of them referred to a
SWPPP, if one had been submitted. That’s really what most of them relate to.
MR. CARTE-Well, I mean, I can explain the ones that I understand, but I don’t know what some
of the things are that he’s talking about. I mean, I don’t know what these cross your T’s and dot
your I’s things are on the permits and whatever. I will tell you that I talked to the woman at DEC
that’s in charge of this or whatever, and she indicated to me that, I mean, I explained what
happened and I explained what stage we were at. This was in the Fall, and she said, well, you
should have had this, you probably should have had this permit, or you definitely should have
had this permit or whatever before you did the work. However, it appears that you’re like two-
thirds of the way done on this project, and I said, yes, that’s true. I would estimate that. She
10
(Queensbury Planning Board 08/02/2011)
said we, while you’re supposed to have had it, we wouldn’t pursue the matter or whatever if you
don’t, for the fact that you didn’t get it, you know. I didn’t know about it. Nobody said anything to
me about it. I went ahead and did what I had permission to do from two, three years earlier, and
that’s where we come to that. I said, when I told that to Keith and Craig, they said get it in
writing. The lady said I can’t put it in writing for you. Basically it’s like I can’t tell you, you know,
the law says you’re supposed to do this, I can’t tell you that you don’t have to do this, but we’re
not going to pursue this type of thing, you know, we wouldn’t pursue it any further because of not
having that.
MR. HUNSINGER-So was she saying that you didn’t need to file a SWPPP now or?
MR. CARTE-Basically, yes, but she wouldn’t put it in writing because it’s not, the law says you’re
supposed to do this or do that, or whatever.
MR. HUNSINGER-Right.
MR. CARTE-And I don’t know what portion of this, some of this stuff on here, Tom Jarrett’s
office, after we talked about it, and we had another meeting with the Planning Staff, they
indicated to him to put the information on the site plan map that I had drawn, and he did go
through there. Someone did go through there and put some of that information, but I’m not sure
what it is that they’re looking for. So I can’t say whether it’s there or not there. I mean, as I said,
I can go through the comments, and if they, let’s see here, if it says, one thing, soil and erosion
and sediment control drawing is sealed by New York State licensed professional engineer,
however the seal is missing from the signature. I think that was just obviously an oversight on
Tom’s part when he did, he did it, although he didn’t do the drawing. I notice that he has a
stamp on the site plan that I drew, indicating the items that he put on there, but I don’t think he
signed it because he didn’t do the drawing, you know, it’s not his, the entire thing is not his. The
only part of it that he really did was this water studies here basically to size the culverts and tell
me how to treat them, although if you look, and I did notice that.
MR. HUNSINGER-Keith, can you shed any light on whether or not a SWPPP is required or not
required?
MR. OBORNE-It is absolutely required.
MR. HUNSINGER-Yes. Okay.
MR. OBORNE-Yes, the applicant is proposing to grade approximately three acres of land. One
acre of land, that’s the trigger.
MR. HUNSINGER-Right. Okay.
MR. SCHONEWOLF-It is now. It used to be five when he started the project.
MR. OBORNE-That is correct.
MR. HUNSINGER-The interesting thing about a SWPPP is that it’s more informational, you
know, it’s not like a plan that you submit and people review and give you feedback on. Was it
five day turnaround?
MR. OBORNE-For?
MR. HUNSINGER-A SWPPP?
MR. OBORNE-Well, you get coverage under the general permit after five days, once it’s
submitted.
MR. HUNSINGER-And most of it is kind of boilerplate language. So something Tom Jarrett
could do in a relatively.
MR. CARTE-You said something about that and then Tom said the Planning Staff said just put
the information on my drawing, put the, I’m trying to find where.
MR. OBORNE-Well, it would be under the Jarrett submission, which is right there. He
superimposed on the last page.
MR. CARTE-On the backside. You’re right.
MR. OBORNE-And that’s what he did.
11
(Queensbury Planning Board 08/02/2011)
MR. CARTE-And isn’t that what he was attempting to do?
MR. OBORNE-I think he was attempting to do it but obviously I think that it needs to be fleshed
out a bit more, and certainly Chazen believes it needs to be fleshed out a bit more.
MR. KREBS-I have a comment. Was there, in his original permission, was there any timeline on
the approval? When Kelly came, two years ago, three years ago, to start this project, and got
approval, when five acres had to be disturbed before a requirement, was there any time limit
given to him to complete the project?
MR. OBORNE-It was my understanding that there were no approvals per se, not by this Board.
I believe, and correct me if I’m wrong, Kelly, that he cleared the land, which is legal. He could
take the trees down, that’s fine, but you can grub out the stumps, it’s my understanding, and
when that action is happening, is that when Bruce Frank came along?
MR. CARTE-No, that’s not true. No, that’s mistaken, Keith. I cleared the land, and that’s when
Bruce came over and said neighbors have wondered what you’re doing. They came up to the
Town and blah, blah, blah, and I said I’m clearing this land here, and I want to make pasture out
of woods, and I wanted to bury the stumps and the tree limbs and whatever here on the
property, and level it out and whatever, and he said you better talk to Keith about that. You’re
going to have to have permission, or not Keith, Craig. You’re going to have talk to him about it
because you’re going to need permission to bury the stumps and the tops on the property. So I
went and talked to Craig, and he said, okay, you know, we basically said this land is zoned LC-
10 acres which is a 100 foot setback from the side property lines, if you’re going to ever build on
it. So I said I will keep almost everything that I can of this buried within 100 feet of the side
property line. Therefore nobody can build on it anyway. There’s never going to be any problem
with sunken land or whatever, which we did, but we didn’t do anything at that point in time. We
got permission to do it, but let a year or two pass and I came up with the money and the guy that
had a track hoe and he did some work, and etc., and we did it in a week. My feelings are that
the thing should have been grandfathered because I started it, it’s just a homeowner project. I’m
not building a mall or whatever here, but I was kind of shot down.
MR. OBORNE-Yes, well, one of your arguments was that you wanted to be deemed an
agriculture use, also, which means that the requirements of the SWPPP are waived if you’re an
agricultural use, but that’s not the case, and we all understand that, I believe, but as soon as you
start grading the land, and you have not graded the land yet, okay, that’s the distinction right
there.
MR. CARTE-Right.
MR. OBORNE-The land has not been graded yet. It’s been grubbed. He’s buried stumps and
like he hasn’t, I don’t know if you can see this, he hasn’t touched any of the runoffs or anything
along those lines. The springs are still going, but he’s proposing to grade the land, thus he
needs the SWPPP, and you can’t grandfather that in. Unfortunately.
MR. CARTE-So if I want to leave it the way it is, we could leave it there.
MR. OBORNE-You’ve got it, but, Kelly, I know you don’t want to do that.
MR. HUNSINGER-We didn’t say it had to make sense.
MR. TRAVER-There was some talk about Christmas trees or something I saw in there.
MR. CARTE-Well, I had planted some Christmas trees on part of it. I was going to plant on the
steep, on the back end of this thing here is quite steep. I wanted to take some fill out of there in
order to level some of the other and then when I cleaned it up I was going to plant Christmas
trees on the backside there, and also there’s another little area over here where it was cleared
kind of when I bought the land and I planted some trees in that area, too.
MR. TRAVER-I guess that doesn’t constitute an agricultural.
MR. CARTE-Well, it’s silva culture.
MR. OBORNE-It’s silva culture, yes.
MR. CARTE-I mean, the agricultural thing was that I, one of the possible things was that I
wanted to get a horse, you know, my daughter’s been after me for it, and my niece has a horse
12
(Queensbury Planning Board 08/02/2011)
and borders it at somebody else’s, and I thought I might let her try it for a year or two in my barn
here and whatever, you know, but it’s just low key, you know.
MR. TRAVER-It sounds really as though this is primarily an engineering and a documentation
issue, not a planning issue.
MR. HUNSINGER-Yes. I couldn’t agree more.
MR. OBORNE-That is correct.
MR. TRAVER-So if we just ensure that Mr. Carte, with the help of Tom, Tom Jarrett, gets the
paperwork in that he needs, then he’s ready to go, basically, right?
MR. OBORNE-If that is the wish of the Board. I know that there are quite a few outstanding
issues with that.
MR. TRAVER-Yes, there are some engineering issues.
MR. OBORNE-And that would be a level of comfort you would have to reach at this point.
MR. HUNSINGER-Okay.
MR. SCHONEWOLF-So what you’re talking about is conditional approval, with about three or
four conditions.
MR. TRAVER-Well, that’s what I’m wondering. I mean, I’m not seeing anything in the
engineering that requires a fundamental change to what he’s proposing. It’s just a matter of
making the Town comfortable that it’s been documented and planned appropriately.
MR. OBORNE-Yes, the management practices as proposed are very nebulous at this point, and
those, best management practices could be, again, fleshed out and properly displayed. I think
that would go a long way towards getting Chazen’s signoff.
MR. TRAVER-So if we, hypothetically, were to conditionally approve this, with an engineer’s
signoff and the appropriate SWPPP filed and so on, that should cover those issues, correct?
MR. OBORNE-That would be the hope, yes.
MR. HUNSINGER-Okay, before we go any further, we do have a public hearing scheduled this
evening. Is there anyone in the audience that wants to address the Board on this project? For
this and actually the rest of the items that are on the agenda, we do have public hearings
scheduled, and there are handouts on the back table that talk about the purpose of a public
hearing and the process of the public hearing. So I will open the public hearing, and if there’s
anyone that wants to address the Board, if you could raise your hands.
PUBLIC HEARING OPENED
MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. I’m not seeing any takers. Do you have any written comments, Keith?
MR. OBORNE-Yes, I do. This is dated July 27, 2011. “To Whom It May Concern: We border
Mr. Carte’s property on Fuller Rd. and have no objections to his proposed project regarding
grading approximately 3 acres of cleared land behind our home. Joseph L. and Barbara
Brayton” And this was received on July 29, 2011. Town of Queensbury. “I, Patricia Soresino &
Raymond Soresino residing at 174 Fuller Rd. is opposed to the Kelly Carte project. Notice was
sent to me. I am unable to attend on Tuesday August 2, 2011 at 7 p.m. Site Plan 45-2011” And
that’s really the only thing that’s stated on there.
MR. HUNSINGER-They don’t say what their opposition is?
MR. OBORNE-No.
MR. SCHONEWOLF-So they have no reason for being opposed.
MR. OBORNE-Yes, it was not expanded upon.
MR. CARTE-May I make a comment on that? If I could give you some background. They live
up the road, Fuller Road. They cannot even see this property, my project from their property,
and there’s background with the missus. They rented from us at one point in time and did not
leave on, let’s say good terms, shall we say, for what it’s worth.
13
(Queensbury Planning Board 08/02/2011)
MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. Thank you. So what’s the will of the Board? I mean, I tend to agree
with Steve that this is just a paperwork thing. I don’t really see it as being a big planning issue.
MR. TRAVER-Yes, there’s outstanding, as Mr. Oborne pointed out, there are outstanding
engineering issues, but, I mean, that’s not really for us to judge whether they’re, but anyway,
that should be done by the engineering staff.
MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. So I will close the public hearing. Well, ma’am, if you want to
comment, you’ll need to come up and sit at the table and get on the microphone, and if you
could state your name for the record.
KATHERINE SCONZO
MRS. SCONZO-Sure. My name is Katherine Sconzo, and my husband and my property border
Kelly Carte’s, and I just learned of Kelly’s project through neighbors and I don’t know if this is
true or not, but the reason why I’m here is I understood that his goal was to make some kind of a
landing strip for those small flying vehicles. So anyway, I’m just here because of that, and that’s
a concern because we’re homeowners and they make noise, and that’s all. It may or may not be
true.
MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. Sure. Okay. We’ll ask. Thank you. Is there anyone else that wanted
to comment? Yes, sir, come on up.
BRAD UNDERWOOD
MR. UNDERWOOD-My name is Brad Underwood. I live at 249 Fuller Road, just below the
property mentioned. My concerns and my neighbor, who’s unable to attend due to a family
emergency this evening, is the runoff and the diversion of the stream or the spring that Mr. Carte
plans or intends to run a culvert to. Right now, you know, my neighbor’s land in particular, he
has the ability to go through his backyard, his entire backyard. However, there is a swale in his
backyard. There is a culvert, in the property adjacent to this, which the springs or runoffs will
disturb if, in fact, the waterways are moved, and that’s his major concern. It will affect my
backyard, but the existing stream already runs through my yard. It runs around a home in front
of Lester and it comes directly through my backyard, but as it stands right now, there is no flow
of water through his back portion of his property.
MR. HUNSINGER-So he’s concerned that water may enter his property?
MR. UNDERWOOD-The diversion of the stream. There’s two separate streams that come
down, like Mr. Carte had mentioned. There’s one that runs pretty heavy in the spring, good 12
inches of water easily. I mean, obviously we did have an exceptional year this year for water,
but the other one, it’s just, it’s marshy but it’s not continuous running. Our concern was, or my
neighbor’s particular concern was the diversion of that main stream. Behind my property it’s a
pretty good depth, probably about two feet just from the runoff, and it runs into the wetlands just
below my property. There’s a pond, and his concern was that it’s going to cut out his property
and make his property, make him not be able to get to the back side of his property. Right now
he can do it, but that’s what our concerns were, with the diversion of the stream.
MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. Thank you. Anyone else? Do you want to address those concerns?
MR. CARTE-I can address them very easily. Originally, when I wanted to do this, I was going to
divert the springtime drainage runoff in a different direction so that it would come together with
the spring and come across the pasture at one point instead of two points, so that I only had to
put in one culvert. I went, when I discovered that the runoff, that the stream did not go entirely
on Joe Brayton’s property, my neighbor that wrote the letter, I was under the impression that the
stream went, that the runoff went completely on his property before it went into its original
course down, further down. It actually crosses a portion of this gentleman’s property further on,
and I knew that this young man had just bought the house that he’s talking about, his neighbor, I
went and talked to him about it and asked him if he would have a problem with me diverting the
water into that and having the water run across his back portion of his backyard, and his yard is
like house level for a long ways and then the very back end is kind of a swale, you know, where
the thing would run. He said he would, that, you know, he’d never seen it before. He just
bought the house. He didn’t see how much it would run in the spring, but he wasn’t crazy about
it, so I again, I said, I’m not going to do that. The only water, the water is going to be, both water
courses will be only where they are right now, and they will leave my property in the same place
that they’re leaving my property now. No more no less. Just exactly the way they are, instead
of, except instead of running on the ground, they’ll be running through a culvert. That’s all. The
14
(Queensbury Planning Board 08/02/2011)
original letter that I have here that you would have seen from the guy at DEC, I forgot his name
here, giving, saying that this was not a classified stream.
MR. HUNSINGER-Right, we have that in here, in the package.
MR. CARTE-Yes, that was done when I expected to move the stream. He said it’s not a
classified stream. Basically you can do whatever you want with it. So I could have moved it, but
I’m not.
MR. HUNSINGER-And can you comment about the landing strip comment?
MR. FORD-Yes, please.
MR. CARTE-Well, I don’t know where that came from. I had jokingly said to somebody at one
point in time, maybe I’ll make a runway and fly an ultra light airplane out of here or something
like that, and it’s been, it’s like one of these things where you sit in a circle and whisper, you
know, in somebody’s ear, by the time you get back, I learned from Joe Brayton, I don’t know,
one of the times that I talked to him, he said, well, one of the neighbors said that he heard that
you belonged to a flying club that had 25 members and you were going to have planes flying in
and out of here, and you were making an airport, and I said, I don’t know where that came from.
I said, in the remote eventuality that I have the time and money and whatever to do it, an ultra
light plane is like, they weigh, the maximum weight on them is 254 pounds. It’s like a flying
motorcycle. It’s nothing that anybody should get even remotely concerned with, but in any case,
I have no plans, at this point in time, to do anything like that. I mean, it was just a joke at the
time.
MR. TRAVER-Do you have an ultra light?
MR. CARTE-No, I don’t.
MR. FORD-Do you belong to a club?
MR. CARTE-I do not.
MR. TRAVER-Keith, I had a question regarding the resolution. It talks about waivers for
landscaping and lighting. I didn’t see that in the cover page.
MR. OBORNE-One more time, Steve? I’m sorry.
MR. TRAVER-The prepared resolution talks about waivers for landscaping and lighting, but I
didn’t see that in the cover.
MR. OBORNE-Yes, I think that’s basically something we put in there as boiler, based on what’s
going on with the application.
MR. TRAVER-Okay.
MR. OBORNE-I don’t think that he needs landscaping or lighting with this.
MR. TRAVER-Right. No, I agree.
MR. OBORNE-Yes, specifically did he ask for it? No.
MR. TRAVER-Right. Gotcha. Okay.
MR. HUNSINGER-We need to close the public hearing. Are members comfortable closing the
public hearing?
MR. FORD-Yes.
MR. SCHONEWOLF-Yes.
MR. HUNSINGER-I’ll close the public hearing and entertain a motion.
PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED
RESOLUTION APPROVING SP # 45-2011 KELLY CARTE
15
(Queensbury Planning Board 08/02/2011)
A site plan application has been made to the Queensbury Planning Board for the following:
Applicant proposes to grade approximately three (3) acres of cleared land. Further proposal to
culvert existing drainage course and existing spring requested. Clearing/disturbance on greater
than one (1) acre requires Planning Board review and approval.
A public hearing was advertised and held on 8/2/2011; and
This application is supported with all documentation, public comment, and application material in
the file of record;
MOTION TO APPROVE SITE PLAN NO. 45-2011 KELLY CARTE, Introduced by Stephen
Traver who moved for its adoption, seconded by Donald Krebs:
According to the resolution prepared by staff:
1)Pursuant to relevant sections of the Town of Queensbury Zoning Code [Chapter 179-9-080],
the Planning Board has determined that this proposal satisfies the requirements as stated in
the Zoning Code; and
2)Type II, no further SEQRA review is necessary; and
3)Final approved plans, in compliance with the Site Plan, must be submitted to the Community
Development Department before any further review by the Zoning Administrator or Building
and Codes personnel. The applicant must meet with Staff after approval and prior to
issuance of Building Permit and/or the beginning of any site work. Subsequent issuance of
further permits, including building permits is dependent on compliance with this and all other
conditions of this resolution; and
4)As-built plans to certify that the site plan is developed according to the approved plans to be
provided prior to issuance of the certificate of occupancy; and
5)Waiver requests granted: landscaping & lighting plans; 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)Engineering sign-off required prior to signature of Zoning Administrator; and
8)If curb cuts are being added or changed a driveway permit is required. A building permit will
not be issued until the approved driveway permit has been provided to the Planning Office;
and
9)The applicant must submit a copy of the following to the Town:
a)The project NOI (Notice of Intent) for coverage under the current NYSDEC SPDES
General Permit or for coverage under an individual SPDES prior to the start of any site
work.
b)The project NOT (Notice of Termination) upon completion of the project; and
10) The applicant must maintain on their project site, for review by staff:
a)The approved final plans that have been stamped by the Town Zoning Administrator.
These plans must include the project SWPPP (Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan)
when such a plan was prepared and approved; and
b) The project NOI and proof of coverage under the current NYSDEC SPDES General
Permit, or an individual SPDES permit issued for the project.
11) This application is approved with the following conditions:
1.That the applicant obtain and submit all of the required documentation to the Town,
including the SWPPP.
2.Obtain an engineering signoff.
nd
Duly adopted this 2 day of August, 2011, by the following vote:
AYES: Mr. Magowan, Mr. Schonewolf, Mr. Ford, Mr. Traver, Mr. Krebs, Mr. Hunsinger
16
(Queensbury Planning Board 08/02/2011)
NOES: NONE
ABSENT: Mrs. Steffan
MR. HUNSINGER-You’re all set. Good luck.
MR. CARTE-Thank you, gentlemen.
MR. HUNSINGER-Thank you.
SUBDIVISION NO. 4-2008 MODIFICATION SEQR TYPE UNLISTED GORDON & CYNTHIA
HOYT AGENT(S) BARTLETT PONTIFF STEWART RHODES ZONING MDR – MODERATE
DENSITY RESIDENTIAL LOCATION CHESTNUT RIDGE ROAD APPLICANT PROPOSES A
SUBDIVISION MODIFICATION. THE PROPOSED MODIFICATION TO MOVE EXISTING
STONE WALL TO AN ALTERNATE LOCATION TO FACILITATE POTENTIAL
DEVELOPMENT. A CONDITION OF APPROVAL FOR SUBDIVISION 4-2008 STATES THAT
THERE WILL BE A LIMIT OF DISTURBANCE ON THE ROCK WALLS ON LOT 1A FOR
AESTHETIC PURPOSES [12/16/08]. MODIFICATION TO AN APPROVED SUBDIVISION
REQUIRES PLANNING BOARD REVIEW AND APPROVAL. CROSS REFERENCE SUB 4-
2008 [12/16/08] LOT SIZE 4.7 +/- ACRES TAX MAP NO. 290.-1-94 SECTION CHAPTER
A-183
STEFANIE BITTER, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT
MR. HUNSINGER-Keith?
MR. OBORNE-Yes. This is a subdivision modification. Requested action, not necessarily (lost
word) site plan, it is a subdivision modification. Back in ’08 this was a three lot subdivision off of
Chestnut Ridge. It’s actually my first subdivision while working with this Town, and one of the
conditions of approval was that the rock walls were to remain, and what the applicant wants to
do is they want to remove the rock walls and place them on the property in a different location,
and so we thought it was prudent to bring it before the Board, shouldn’t be any great shakes,
and with that I’d turn it over to you.
MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. Thank you. Good evening.
MS. BITTER-Good evening. Stefanie Bitter. I’m here this evening with Gordon and Cynthia
Hoyt. Just one clarification to Keith’s comment is that the condition was actually to limit the
disturbance on the rock wall for aesthetic purposes. What we’re looking is the rock wall that
runs perpendicular to Chestnut Ridge. We understand that Chestnut Ridge, one of the unique
characteristics of it in this area is the rock walls that run parallel to the road. What we’re looking
to do is to move that stone wall to the northerly property, just to open that property up. We’re not
going to remove it. We’re going to re-locate it, which, as you can imagine, there’s with that, but
we’re willing to take that on.
MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. Questions, comments from the Board?
MR. KREBS-The documentation said on Lot 1A, which is across the street from the properties
that the Hoyts own.
MS. BITTER-That’s correct.
MR. OBORNE-That is correct.
MR. KREBS-Okay. Are they moving the property, moving the rock wall on 1A or are they
moving it on their property?
MS. BITTER-No, no, they own 1A.
MR. KREBS-They own 1A. Okay.
MS. BITTER-They’re the immediately adjacent neighbors across the street to this property.
MR. KREBS-The thing that confused me is the map that I have here says lands of Jane Lowell.
MS. BITTER-Right, because that’s the original subdivision map.
MR. FORD-Would you care to clarify the difference between replacing and relocating?
17
(Queensbury Planning Board 08/02/2011)
MS. BITTER-Well, we’ll actually be utilizing this stone wall and moving it to the northern
location.
MR. FORD-Placing it in a new location.
MS. BITTER-Relocating.
MR. HUNSINGER-Can you just clarify which property line it will go along?
MS. BITTER-We’re looking at the northern property line between 1A and 1.
MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. That’s what I thought. I just wanted to make sure.
GORDON HOYT
MR. HOYT-We’d like the flexibility to move the stone wall in question. It’s a very substantial
stone wall to both the northern boundary and the southern boundary.
MR. OBORNE-And I’m going to piggyback on that comment, too, is the northern boundary
would probably accept the lion’s share of that wall, but the southern boundary certainly already
has a wall on it, but it’s not the full length of the boundary.
MS. BITTER-Right, that’s correct. We understand that when there’s development on this lot it
has to return for Site Plan Review.
MR. HUNSINGER-Well, you know, originally stone walls were placed on the edge of fields.
Typically they were on property lines, and now that the property line has moved, I mean, to me,
it seems like a reasonable request. The discussion, the night of that meeting, was the aesthetic
value of the wall, not the specific location. So, I mean, I certainly don’t have a problem with it
being relocated. That’s just my opinion. Would other members like to comment?
MR. FORD-I’d like to hear the public.
MR. TRAVER-Yes, see if there’s public comment, and we also need to reaffirm SEQRA.
MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. Any other questions or comments from the Board? Okay. I’ll open
the public hearing. Is there anyone in the audience that wants to address the Board? Okay.
We do have a couple, and similar to the last applicant, when you do come up to speak, if you
could speak into the microphone and state your name for the record. Good evening.
PUBLIC HEARING OPENED
HOWARD KRANTZ
MR. KRANTZ-Good evening. Howard Krantz. I’m speaking on behalf of myself and my wife
Marcia. We reside at 130 Chestnut Ridge Road and we own the property immediately adjoining
the subject parcels to the south.
MR. HUNSINGER-Okay.
MR. KRANTZ-We moved to Queensbury 38 years ago, and about 15 years ago, when we were
looking to build a new home, we looked all around Queensbury, and we were attracted to the
Chestnut Ridge area. We liked the open space, but we particularly liked the stone walls. I didn’t
know much about them then, but I’ve learned a lot about them in the last 15 years, and I’d like to
bring some of that, kindly the Board’s attention. The first mention of these stone walls you’ll find
in the wonderful history of Queensbury prepared by Mr. Eddy. He cites these stone walls and
the value it has to the Town and that they were built by Reverend George Brown. This is from
the history of the Town of Queensbury. More about Reverend Brown, which I don’t recommend
that you read this evening, but this is quite an interesting fellow, but he’s recognized as a master
stone mason in this other article about the gentleman who died in 1886. He was buried in the
Quaker Cemetery here in Queensbury. These walls were remarkable. Next there was a
wonderful feature article in the Post Star several years ago about these walls on Chestnut Ridge
Road, and again citing the Reverend Brown as the builder. A few of these walls have survived,
including the one in question, and finally, in the wonderful history of Warren County which was
just produced with contributions from all over the County, again, these stone walls built by
Reverend Brown is again cited. I give these to you just so that you have some understanding of
how unique and how valuable these walls are that were built by Reverend Brown, and the value
of these stone walls was recognized by the Queensbury Planning Department when this first
18
(Queensbury Planning Board 08/02/2011)
came before you for subdivision approval, and the Staff Notes said, and I quote, most
importantly the Planning Board may consider, as a condition of approval, eliminating the
disturbance of rock walls on Lot 1A for aesthetic purposes. Any major removal or total removal
of rock walls would have impact on character of the neighborhood and should be discouraged.
In December of 2008, the Planning Board agreed unanimously, and placed two restrictions, well,
several restrictions, but the two that pertain tonight is number three there will be a limit of
disturbance on rock walls on Lot 1A for aesthetic purposes. Any major removal or total removal
of rock walls will be considered on Site Plan Review. Now we possibly could argue that this
should come up during Site Plan Review. If it’s the development of a lot, it’s going to come
before this Board anyway. We’re all here. So we might as well talk it through and make a
decision. So what is the wall in question? The wall in question will be seen better on this
handout I have for you. Outlined in yellow is the pertinent part of the lot. The blue is the location
of the subject wall. The restriction on this property was not only as a condition of approval, but
was also cited on the subdivision map. The wall in question is 485 feet long, and what
happened more recently is that Mr. and Mrs. Hoyt bought the lot in question, and when they
looked at the property they were aware of the stone wall. When they had council they were
aware of the restriction on the property, it was part of the deal. When they made their offer, they
were aware of the restriction. When they accepted the deed, the accepted the restriction. This
is the diagram of the face wall on Chestnut Ridge Road, which shows the original opening that
goes way back in time. That’s the one to the right. Mr. and Mrs. Hoyt have punched a second
opening through this wall. I don’t know if they got approval. I’m guessing not. When my wife
and I were considering the property in Chestnut Ridge, it wasn’t perfect. It’s a beautiful area, but
it wasn’t perfect. No property’s perfect. We were aware of the airport. The airport has
expanded. Jets go out. Increased traffic flies out. Some of it flies directly over our home. We
don’t complain. We knew that going in. That was part of the deal. We knew Chestnut Ridge
was a popular road. It’s a cross route. That traffic has increased. We’re not complaining about
it. That was part of the deal. When the applicant bought the property, they bought it with the
restriction. That was the deal. When Mrs. Lowell sold the property, she sold it with the
restriction. That was part of the deal. Now you’re being asked to forget the restriction. Forget
the restriction. It’s not the same if you dismantle it and re-build it. Whether it’s here or there, I
do want to clarify and correct the misinformation t hat you were given in your application.
Perhaps, I hope, unintentionally, but inaccurate just the same. The first is that it says that the
wall in question runs down the center of the property. This is important. It doesn’t run down the
center of your property. If you look at your map, you’ll see where the blue line is that actually
depicts the survey map where it is. Second, it says that there is a rock wall on the southerly
boundary of the property. There is not a rock wall there. I live there. When I moved in there,
there wasn’t a single rock on that southerly boundary. What you have, and my wife and I own
400 feet going back from the road. I built up, and I think Danny Lowell also did some as well,
maybe five, six feet in from Chestnut Ridge there’s what you would call a stone wall. Then you
have another 15, 20 feet of one or two stones high. The rest of it, where it exists at all, is one
stone on the property and in some sections there’s no stones at all. So there is no stone wall
running along that southerly boundary. So, to sum up, what do we have here? What this is
really about, the restriction that, the property was purchased with full knowledge does not
prevent the applicant from developing the property for residential purposes. It does not. The
property can still be developed. A profit can still be made. Can the applicant have a greater
profit if the wall is moved? Probably, maybe. Someone might like the historic wall in its original
location. So maybe, or maybe it would be more valuable the way they propose it. So you have
the historic value of the wall. You have this remnant of Queensbury’s heritage, of its history, and
there ain’t much of it left. Thirty-eight years I’ve seen this fabulous growth in Queensbury. Most
of it’s good, but everything has a price. Most of its been commercial. A lot of residential, but
there’s so little of this left. So on the one hand, the applicant can make a profit as is, with the
wall as is. It does not prevent putting a house on the property. There’s no way it prevents a
house. Even with the stone wall where it is, you have up to the stone wall, well over 100 feet.
You could put a mansion in there, my goodness, and meet the zoning setbacks. Does
maximizing profit always have to win? Can’t there be one time where the heritage, when the
applicant still makes a profit, or has the ability to make a profit, and if he can’t make a profit
unless he moves the stone wall, whose fault is that? What complaint does he have? He
bought it with the restriction on it. That was the deal. Not the same if you dismantle it and move
it. It’s just not. That’s the wall that Reverend Brown built. That was the restriction on the
property. It was clearly on the map. It was clearly in the minutes, and they hadn’t even claimed
that they had no lack of knowledge of it, and even if they did, that wouldn’t win the day for them
anyway.
MR. HUNSINGER-Thank you.
MR. KRANTZ-Okay. Thank you very much.
MR. HUNSINGER-You actually gave us a lot more information than we had the evening that we
considered the subdivision. So that was really helpful. Thank you.
19
(Queensbury Planning Board 08/02/2011)
MR. KRANTZ-You’re welcome.
MR. HUNSINGER-Anyone else want to comment? Yes, ma’am, yes, sir.
SHARON LOWELL
MRS. LOWELL-Hi, good evening. I’m Sharon Lowell. This is my husband Dan Lowell. We’re
here to represent ourselves and my mother-in-law who is Jane Lowell. We own Lot One. That
is adjoining to Lot 1A in question. We also own the next northern lot which is where we reside at
164. Jane owns 1B, which is, adjoins the back side of ours. We have the map for reference. In
December of 2008, a minor subdivision of land owned by Jane Lowell, my mother-in-law, had
restrictions placed on Lot Number 1A by the Town that there would be a limit of disturbance on
the rock walls for aesthetic purposes. This dictated what the road frontage would be, causing a
decrease in the value of the lot. Now that the lot has been sold, why would the Town be
entertaining the idea of removing the restriction?
DAN LOWELL
MR. LOWELL-There was a lot leading up to this. We spent multiple trips coming in front of the
Planning Board to divide this property, and I’d like to correct you. I was here for every one of
them. We hired an attorney, and that was not, that decided how this property was going to be
broken up, and to be quite frank I think it’s ludicrous now, after we got what, after we did what
the Town wanted, to decrease the value, now we’re going to move it. We did this same thing on
1B. You determined where the driveway was going to go, what the road frontage was going to
be. Now we sell the property and it’s, let’s move it? That’s all I’ve got to say about it.
MRS. LOWELL-If I might ask, when was the zoning changed from SR-1A to the MDR which it’s
zoned now?
MR. LOWELL-Yes, that’s a good question. This was filed in February of 2009, and it got
changed from SR-1A to MDR, we weren’t notified of that.
MRS. LOWELL-When was this change?
MR. HUNSINGER-That was a Town wide rezoning.
MR. OBORNE-April of 2009.
MR. HUNSINGER-Yes.
MR. LOWELL-April of 2009. They didn’t notify anybody of that change. Did that change for 1B?
Is that restriction removed on 1B now, and I can make two lots out of that?
MR. OBORNE-No, that is not correct, no.
MR. LOWELL-According to your map, it’s 100 foot road frontage.
MR. OBORNE-Hold on. You have an approved subdivision that was approved under the SR-1A
zone. That stands. It is approved under what the existing zoning was at that time. If you were
to come back and try to subdivide this property, it would be under the restrictions of the new
Code, which is two acre lots.
MR. LOWELL-We worked with you and Craig on this, and that’s how those lots were broken up.
MR. OBORNE-I know. I handled that application.
MR. LOWELL-That’s what’s disturbing about it. That’s what’s very disturbing is that you sell it
and then the rules change. We did the same thing across the road. That whole road was
owned by the family. Every time we’ve sold a piece, they change it. Thank you.
MR. HUNSINGER-You’re welcome. Anyone else? Okay. If the applicant wants to come back
to the table. Were there any written comments, Keith?
MR. OBORNE-There are no written comments.
MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. What’s the feeling of the Board? Again, we certainly have a lot more
information than we had three years ago.
20
(Queensbury Planning Board 08/02/2011)
MR. TRAVER-We do, and at least, and I haven’t had the opportunity to read all the documents
that were provided during the public comment phase, but I did notice at least on one of them
there’s discussion of this being the wall that this Reverend Brown is attributed to have
constructed, that it should be placed on the National Register of Historic Places. We’ve heard
some public comment. I guess my feeling is, I’ve always been interested in history, but I’m
certainly not an expert on the history of Queensbury. I would kind of like to hear from someone
who is an expert on the Town of Queensbury, and this background information on this rock wall,
whether or not, perhaps there’s been an application filed to place this wall on the National
Register of Historic Places. I know we’ve recently dealt with issues surrounding historic places.
MS. BITTER-Mr. Traver, I don’t obviously have the documentation that you’re looking at. I just,
I’m curious as to how it’s determined that this particular stone wall that’s marked, you know, 100
feet on 1A is the stone wall. I only bring that to your attention because Mr. Krantz indicated that
the stone wall that is along the boundary of his property is barely a stone wall at all. However,
the survey identifies it as such. So I’m having a hard time distinguishing how there’s historical
value in one and not in the other.
MR. TRAVER-Well, we don’t know the answer to that, and again, I’m only speaking for myself,
not for other members of the Board, but your point is well taken, that we don’t have all the
information I think at this point that I feel that I need to evaluate, you know, what is historical, if
anything, what, you know, to clarify this information, and what, I mean, we have a situation
where we have to reaffirm SEQRA, and yet I’m hearing not only aesthetic but potentially historic
implications, and I, for one, feel as though I don’t have enough information to make a judgment
on that.
MR. SCHONEWOLF-Well, we can do just what we did at Joshua’s Rock. We could find out if it
is on the National Register. I doubt that it is, but if it is, then that’s, that’s a different situation. If
it isn’t, then it’s just a stone wall.
MS. BITTER-Right, and we’re not removing. We’re relocating. We understand that.
MR. TRAVER-Or it’s also possible that an application has been made to place it on a historic
register of some kind.
MR. HUNSINGER-Well, again, going back to Roger’s Rock example, the easy solution was to
get a letter from the State Historic Preservation Office, to say whether or not, first of all, it’s listed
or eligible for listing, and then secondly, you know, their opinion on the historic integrity, if it were
to be re-located.
MR. TRAVER-Yes, we could get that from the Town Historian or something.
MR. HUNSINGER-Well, again, that would come from the State Historic Preservation Office.
MR. SCHONEWOLF-We got that pretty quickly, too, didn’t we?
MR. HUNSINGER-They did, I was shocked.
MR. SCHONEWOLF-I think it had to do with the person that asked for it.
MR. HUNSINGER-Maybe.
MR. FORD-I also would like to see a larger document here pertaining to this map, because on
this particular map it clearly indicates there will be a limit of disturbance on the rock walls of Lot
1A.
MR. HUNSINGER-There was considerable discussion when the subdivision was reviewed
regarding the stone walls themselves.
MR. HOYT-Just a question. Why does the stone wall restriction apply just to this one individual
lot and to no others?
MR. SCHONEWOLF-I don’t know.
MR. HOYT-Does it apply to any others on Chestnut Ridge Road?
MR. SCHONEWOLF-It’s probably because it was approved that way.
MR. OBORNE-It’s prevalent on that specific lot, and as such, it was focused on that subdivision
action, and that specific lot.
21
(Queensbury Planning Board 08/02/2011)
MR. HOYT-But there’s no similar restriction in the Town of Queensbury anywhere.
MR. HUNSINGER-No, that’s not true. I mean, this came before this Board, that’s why the
restriction was placed. If the project did not come before the Board, there was no opportunity to
place that kind of a restriction, but I can tell you that there’s been plenty of other subdivisions
and site plan reviews where we’ve had the same comments. Whether or not there were
restrictions placed on a subdivision map, I can’t tell you for certain, but we’ve certainly had the
same opinions expressed at other projects before this Board.
MR. OBORNE-And I would add to that that it is part of the Zoning Code.
MR. HUNSINGER-That’s right. It’s part of the Master Plan.
MR. OBORNE-That, and it’s certainly part of the subdivision, A-183, which you want to protect
those walls and use them as property boundaries, potentially, when you’re subdividing land. So,
and Chestnut Ridge is unique, to say the least.
MR. HOYT-More unique than Sanford Ridge?
MR. OBORNE-I would say probably not anymore unique than that.
MR. HOYT-Okay.
MR. KREBS-But certainly compared to many, many other areas in the community, there are
very few places that have as many stone walls as you do on Chestnut Ridge.
MR. HOYT-We bought this property in good faith because it was directly across the street from
our house, and I did see a notation in the survey which had an arrow pointing directly to the
stone wall that faces Chestnut Ridge Road, and I assume, I think most people assume, that the
restriction applied to the stone wall on Chestnut Ridge Road.
MR. FORD-That same arrow points directly to where those walls come together, including the
one, and it’s specified a limit of disturbance on the rock walls, plural, and it points to that one that
supposedly is going to be changed in location.
MR. HOYT-Yes.
MR. KREBS-Tom, you were on the Board, I was on the Board. It was my understanding that
both of those walls were included in that restriction.
MR. FORD-Yes.
MR. HUNSINGER-Yes.
MR. HOYT-But there are many stone walls.
MR. FORD-That’s why it says it was plural, walls.
MR. TRAVER-Right.
MR. FORD-And there are three of them that come together.
MR. TRAVER-So in effect what we would be, it’s not worded that way, but in effect we would be
removing the restriction that had been earlier placed on that.
MR. OBORNE-Hence the subdivision modification request.
MR. TRAVER-Well, I point that out only because we’ve had other applications that have been
technically subdivision modifications, but the language was pretty specific that the applicant was
here to remove a restriction, and this does not say that, but it’s essentially what it boils down to.
MR. OBORNE-That’s the intent.
MR. TRAVER-Yes, exactly.
MR. HUNSINGER-Well, and just to make another comment, you know, I think in my mind, re-
locating something in the same form, just moving it, is different than taking it down, and I don’t
recall if there was ever any discussion during subdivision about just moving the rock wall. We
22
(Queensbury Planning Board 08/02/2011)
put the condition on there not to disturb it, but I think that was thinking, we didn’t want to see
holes cut through it, and if I remember right, that was what the discussion was mostly about was
removing rather than relocating.
MR. TRAVER-Right. Well, I agree that basically a wall is a wall, you know, and you can move a
wall. The concern that I have is, you know, first do no harm, and perhaps if we could resurrect
Reverend Brown and have him re-build the wall so that it would last 100 years without falling
apart or whatever, because that is referred to in history is that not only is it a wall, but it’s a wall
that’s has withstood, you know, this, a century of weather and there’s comments about how it
was assembled by him, and I just don’t feel that I have enough information to judge whether I or
someone like me could take that wall apart and rebuild it so that it could be moved.
MR. HUNSINGER-I agree, yes.
MR. TRAVER-In effect we may be, I guess my concern is that in relocating the wall, we’re
potentially destroying a wall that couldn’t be re-produced, even though it may only be moved
feet away, and I just, I don’t feel that I have enough information to make that judgment.
MR. HUNSINGER-Yes, I agree.
MR. HOYT-Yes, just a question. Do we have some evidence that the Reverend Brown did in
fact build this wall?
MR. TRAVER-That’s what I would be interested in finding out, whether or not.
MR. HOYT-I mean, there’s stone walls all over this area.
MR. TRAVER-Right.
MR. HOYT-Yes.
MR. TRAVER-Exactly. My interest is in settling those issues and getting more information.
MR. KREBS-I don’t think it really makes any difference whether Reverend Brown built it or not.
There was a restriction on the drawing, on the deed, that said you could not move that stone
wall. We did that for aesthetic reasons, and you can even read, Mr. Lowell says here, Mr. Ford
said any concern about leaving the stone walls as indicated? Mr. Lowell said no, if we were
ever to sell the lot at some point or do something like that, I think the only time anybody would
touch those would be to put a driveway in. Those are the minutes from the meeting back in
2008.
MS. BITTER-But again, back to the condition language, it said there’ll be a limit of disturbance,
but then it does talk about any major removal or total removal of rock walls would be considered
on site plan review. So obviously it was considered since the site plan review comment was
made.
MR. HUNSINGER-Any other comments from the Board?
MR. SCHONEWOLF-I guess we need some more information.
MR. HUNSINGER-Yes. Brad?
MR. MAGOWAN-I’d like to see more information, yes.
MR. HUNSINGER-Okay.
MR. TRAVER-So basically we have, as I see it, we’ve got three choices. We can approve it. It
doesn’t sound like we want to do that. We can deny it, and sustain the original motion, or we
can table it and try to get more information.
MR. SCHONEWOLF-I’d like to table.
MR. TRAVER-Okay. One of the things I think, well, one of the things that I would be concerned
about is whether or not we can get enough information, but I guess that’s just an assumption.
MR. SCHONEWOLF-We know we can get the National Registry information. We just did it.
23
(Queensbury Planning Board 08/02/2011)
MR. TRAVER-We can, but again, with the dwindling historic sites in Queensbury, the difference
between whether it’s already on or whether it should be on, and technically isn’t listed, may be a
small difference.
MR. OBORNE-Let’s, for a second, remove the potential that this was built by the Reverend, and,
was not built by the Reverend and was not of historical value, which way would the Board be
leaning? It seems to me it’s an aesthetic issue.
MR. TRAVER-Right.
MR. OBORNE-And the chances that this is on the historic register, I believe, is very, very small.
MR. HUNSINGER-It’s pretty slim.
MR. OBORNE-So I’d like to leave the applicant with some direction as to, okay, do you want me
to see if this is on the historic register. If it is not, where are we going from there?
MR. HUNSINGER-No, I think that’s a good comment, and I wanted to follow up with the same
thought process. In the past when we’ve asked an applicant for additional information, that’s
almost encouraged them that that’s tantamount to approval, and just picking up on Don’s
comment, you know, he thinks the restriction should stand.
MR. OBORNE-Prior to site plan review.
MR. HUNSINGER-Right.
MR. OBORNE-Prior to development of that lot.
MR. TRAVER-Well, we could make a motion and see if it flies.
MS. BITTER-Well, I guess let me just say this. If we’re looking at it more from aesthetic
purposes, what aesthetics are you looking at? From the purposes of the Chestnut Ridge Road
and what can be viewed from there? Because if that’s the case, moving it to the northern
boundary would actually give it more visibility. I don’t know if any of you were at the lot and saw
the rock wall in question.
MR. TRAVER-Well, again, I think it’s to some degree a SEQRA issue. We’re talking about
neighborhood character.
MS. BITTER-I agree.
MR. TRAVER-We’re talking about aesthetic value, and, you know, one can say if a rock wall is
in Location A and it’s moved to Location B, does that change the aesthetics of it? You could say
yes, some people could say no. I guess my feeling is we have a subdivision with a restriction on
it, and I’m feeling I need, I can certainly understand the applicant’s desire to, you know,
essentially expand the footprint of the property by moving the wall, but I’m feeling as though I
need a, in my own mind, a compelling reason to override the earlier decision not to disturb that
wall, and I’m not really hearing that. Plus I’m getting a handful of information that granted none
of us have had a full opportunity to flesh out, but it would seem to indicate that this is a valuable
resource, and I’m hearing anecdotal information that it’s related to placement of the original
restriction. So it’s, I know it sounds simple, a wall is a wall, but it really is more complicated than
that, and I.
MS. BITTER-And honestly I don’t have the information that you have before you. All I have is
the minutes of the subdivision meeting, and it didn’t appear that there was a thorough discussion
about these walls, other than Staff says let’s keep this as a restriction.
MR. KREBS-What’s the condition of the wall?
MS. BITTER-What’s the condition of the wall?
MR. OBORNE-I do have some photos of it.
MR. HOYT-It’s probably two or three feet high in some places.
MR. SCHONEWOLF-Let me ask you another question. Is it in such a shape that if it was moved
its value would go down? In other words, would it fall apart, it could not be put back together the
way it is, is that the situation we’re dealing with?
24
(Queensbury Planning Board 08/02/2011)
MR. HOYT-Well, I don’t think you’d want to duplicate it as it is because it’s crumbling in some
places.
MR. SCHONEWOLF-So it’s falling down.
MR. HOYT-Yes.
MR. SCHONEWOLF-And how long is it going to last?
MR. HOYT-I don’t know. Probably forever in its current state, but.
MR. SCHONEWOLF-Because what you’re saying is can you move it from one side of the
property to the other.
MR. HOYT-Yes, it certainly would improve the aesthetics if the wall were moved and laid up in a
straight line.
MR. SCHONEWOLF-In other words, some maintenance was done when they moved it. In other
words, it was put back to the condition it was when it was built.
MR. HOYT-Yes, when the Reverend built it.
MR. TRAVER-I mean, I’m prepared to make a motion.
MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. Go ahead.
RESOLUTION TO DENY MODIFICATION TO SUB. # 4-2008 GORDON & CYNTHIA HOYT
MOTION TO DISAPPROVE MODIFICATION TO SUBDIVISION NO. 4-2008 GORDON &
CYNTHIA HOYT, Introduced by Stephen who moved for its adoption, seconded by Donald
Krebs:
According to the motion prepared by Staff.
nd
Duly adopted this 2 day of August, 2011, by the following vote:
MS. BITTER-Can we actually just table it and then we can actually give you more information?
Since you’re voting on something with information that we don’t have before us to go through,
and also if there’s an aesthetic piece of this, maybe it should be more viewed as to what the
conditions (lost words) at this point.
MR. TRAVER-Well, the application is complete, and we have the information on the restriction.
The question is, again, I’m only speaking for myself. The question is do we have sufficient
reason to override the restriction on the property of 2008, but the application is complete. We’re
not missing information. We’ve got public comment.
MR. OBORNE-And I want to add that there’s also a motion that has been seconded.
MR. HUNSINGER-Right, and I want to ask for clarification because we’ve had differing opinions
from counsel on an applicant’s request to table an item, and we’ve had a prior opinion that they
should be granted, but then we’ve had other opinions that such a request does not always have
to be automatically considered.
MR. OBORNE-I think that’s true. I think if the person who made that motion would want to
withdraw that motion, and then potentially have the applicant petition for a tabling.
MR. MAGOWAN-Yes, that’s how it was stated the last time we had to do this.
MR. OBORNE-That’s pretty much I know the way Cathi’s mind thinks, and again, I’m not a
lawyer.
MR. HUNSINGER-Right. I guess I would ask the motioners if they would like to withdraw the
motion.
MR. TRAVER-I think I’d like to go ahead with the vote. If it’s defeated.
MR. HUNSINGER-Okay.
25
(Queensbury Planning Board 08/02/2011)
MR. KREBS-And there’s another question I have here, too, and that’s under Section B of the
proposed motion. It says that waiver requests granted/denied, stormwater, grading, landscaping
and lighting plans.
MR. HUNSINGER-Well, those would only be appropriate if we’re approving.
MR. KREBS-But if we leave that in there, and we approve this, does that then, that gives them a
waiver for any stormwater in the future.
MR. HUNSINGER-Well, Mr. Traver’s motion was to deny the request.
MR. KREBS-Yes. Okay, but I’m saying.
MR. HUNSINGER-So none of those items come into play.
MR. TRAVER-You’re right. That would be an issue if there were a motion for approval.
MR. HUNSINGER-Well, we do have a motion on the floor, and a second. I guess we are
obligated to call the vote.
MR. FORD-The motion to deny, I would lean in that direction, however, we have so much more
information that I would like to study and digest before coming to that conclusion, personally.
MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. Any other comments?
MR. TRAVER-I would agree with Mr. Ford. The concern that I have were the points that were
made by the Chairman that the information may not change, the information that we have before
us may not change. For example, there’s reference, just glancing at one of the documents
made reference to the Register of Historic Places. It may very well be this is not on the Register
of Historic Places, but the wall itself is still the issue.
MR. FORD-Historically we have not accepted information the night of the meeting. That
generally pertains to applicants, not to people from the public who are, and we got pages tonight
that we have not had an opportunity to study.
MS. BITTER-Nor has the applicant.
MR. FORD-Nor has the applicant.
MR. TRAVER-Point well taken.
MR. HUNSINGER-We’re having a Planning Board discussion. I know you want to speak. We
did conclude the public hearing.
MR. KRANTZ-I didn’t hear that.
MR. HUNSINGER-Yes. We didn’t close it, we concluded it. We need to take a vote here.
Everyone ready to vote? Okay.
AYES: Mr. Krebs, Mr. Traver
NOES: Mr. Schonewolf, Mr. Ford, Mr. Magowan, Mr. Hunsinger
ABSENT: Mrs. Steffan
MR. HUNSINGER-So the motion failed.
MR. TRAVER-So we make, then, I can offer a motion to table.
MR. HUNSINGER-I just want to make one quick comment before we move on to another
motion, and that is to elaborate on Mr. Traver’s comments that, and there’s been other times
when we have not really fully examined the record for why we are considering the removal of a
condition, and I just want to go on record to say that I agree with those comments that, you
know, there needs to be a compelling reason for us to remove a special condition that’s been
placed by the Board at a prior decision, and I think that needs to be on the record for this
evening’s discussion, just to elaborate on Mr. Traver’s comments.
MR. TRAVER-Right.
26
(Queensbury Planning Board 08/02/2011)
MR. FORD-Good point.
MR. TRAVER-Yes, and I think that’s the context within which we should consider any new
application we receive.
MR. HUNSINGER-Absolutely.
MR. OBORNE-And I would say that would be on the shoulders of the applicant, obviously, to
provide that.
MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. You wanted to make a motion to table?
MR. KREBS-Can I make one comment beyond that, though, before we make the motion, and
that is, how do we make sure, if we give permission to relocate the wall, that it’s going to be
done properly and that you’re going to end up with a wall similar to the one you have today? I
don’t know of any mechanism in the Town that has that capability.
MR. OBORNE-Right. You’re the mechanism, as this Board, as you place those conditions in
your approval.
MR. HUNSINGER-Well, I was going to say, you know, certainly there have been instances
where historic buildings have been moved, and, I mean, it’s a very time consuming, labor
intensive operation, but your point’s well taken.
MR. FORD-I believe we still need to concentrate on this restriction there will be a limit of
disturbance on the rock walls, plural, on Lot 1A for aesthetic purposes.
MR. TRAVER-Right.
MR. HOYT-But, Tom, do you realize how many rock walls there are on that lot?
MR. FORD-Lot 1A?
MR. HOYT-Many.
MR. TRAVER-I’m making that point you’re arguing against destroying another one. You realize
that.
MS. BITTER-Not destroying, relocating.
MR. FORD-Can you relocate it without disturbing it? I don’t think so.
MR. TRAVER-I don’t think so. Do we have a date that we would want to?
MR. OBORNE-I would say follow the proper protocols.
MR. TRAVER-Okay.
th
MR. OBORNE-Any revisions, any information by the 15, and you’re looking at a September
meeting.
MR. TRAVER-Okay.
MR. HUNSINGER-Okay.
MR. TRAVER-Do you think you have adequate time to examine this new information that was
submitted from the public hearing tonight and prepare?
MS. BITTER-What was the date that you were talking about for submissions?
th
MR. TRAVER-Well, if you want September, it would be August 15.
th
MS. BITTER-August 15. Okay.
MR. OBORNE-Do you want to give a firm date for this subdivision modification in September,
thth
you have the following dates would be the 20 or the 27.
thth
MR. TRAVER-20 or 27?
27
(Queensbury Planning Board 08/02/2011)
th
MS. BITTER-The 27 is preferred.
th
MR. TRAVER-The 27 is preferred. Okay.
MR. HUNSINGER-Okay.
RESOLUTION TABLING SUBDIVISION MOD. #4-2008 GORDON & CYNTHIA HOYT
MOTION TO TABLE MODIFICATION TO SUBDIVISION NO. 4-2008 GORDON & CYNTHIA
HOYT, Introduced by Stephen Traver who moved for its adoption, seconded by Thomas Ford:
th
Tabled to the September 27 Planning Board meeting. The application is tabled so that the
applicant can study documents related to the public comment that were received by the Town
this evening and provide any additional information the applicant wishes to provide this Board to
help us determine whether the application merits removing the previously installed condition that
the wall not be disturbed.
nd
Duly adopted this 2 day of August, 2011, by the following vote:
AYES: Mr. Krebs, Mr. Traver, Mr. Magowan, Mr. Schonewolf, Mr. Ford, Mr. Hunsinger
NOES: NONE
ABSENT: Mrs. Steffan
MR. HUNSINGER-And for the record, the public hearing was left open. We will take public
th
comment on September 27. There is also an opportunity for anyone to provide written
comments to the Planning Staff either by e-mail or by regular mail. Any public comment would
be considered by the Board.
MR. KRANTZ-A little dollop more information.
MR. HUNSINGER-I’ll allow you 30 seconds.
MR. KRANTZ-To keep our eye on the ball, it’s not whether or not there’s a wall on the common
boundary with our property. There was not a single rock there. That has nothing to do with this
wall. Danny can confirm that. There was not a single stone there. It has nothing to do with the
subject wall, and secondly I understand and appreciate wanting to get more information. I’d be
highly doubtful that anymore’s going to come one way or the other on this. I searched through
everything I could find. What I found was in the history of Queensbury, the history of Warren
County, and other sources. I mean, look and search, but I don’t think you’re going to find any
more than you’ve already got.
MR. HUNSINGER-Well, the burden’s on the applicant, and we appreciate your research, believe
me.
MS. BITTER-And the only reason we talked about his wall is because it’s on the survey map, it’s
on the original subdivision map.
MR. HUNSINGER-Yes.
MR. TRAVER-Question for Mr. Oborne. Is it possible to get a letter or comment from the Town
Historian on this?
MR. OBORNE-I think so, absolutely.
MR. TRAVER-Okay. Could we ask for that to be submitted in our packets and for the applicant?
MR. OBORNE-That would something the applicant would want to pursue, as part of that, talk to
Marilyn VanDyke. She certainly can give you some guidance on that.
MR. TRAVER-Okay. Thank you.
MR. HUNSINGER-And again, I appreciate the comments from the public.
SITE PLAN NO. 49-2011 SEQR TYPE II NEMER CHRYSLER JEEP DODGE AGENT(S)
RICHARD E. JONES ASSOCIATES OWNER(S) R & P QUAKER II REALTY, LLC ZONING
CI-COMMERCIAL INTENSIVE LOCATION 728 QUAKER ROAD APPLICANT PROPOSES
1,040 SQ. FT. ADDITION TO EXISTING BUILDING FOR EXPANSION OF SERVICE AND
28
(Queensbury Planning Board 08/02/2011)
SHOWROOM AREA. COMMERCIAL EXPANSION IN A CI ZONE REQUIRES PLANNING
BOARD REVIEW AND APPROVAL. WARREN CO. PLANNING 7/13/2011 LOT SIZE 3.1 +/-
ACRES TAX MAP NO. 303.15-1-10 SECTION 179-9
RICHARD JONES, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT
MR. HUNSINGER-Keith, whenever you’re ready.
MR. OBORNE-Absolutely. Site Plan 49-2011, Nemer Chrysler Jeep Dodge. This is a site plan
review is the requested action. 728 Quaker Road is the location. It’s in a CI zone. It’s a Type II
th
SEQRA. Warren County Planning, on July 13, issued a No County Impact. Parcel History:
Multiple sign permits. Project Description: Applicant proposes 1,040 sq. ft. addition to existing
building for expansion of service and showroom area. Additionally, the existing 225 square foot
vestibule/entrance canopy will be enclosed increasing the total addition square footage to
approximately 1,265 square feet. The proposed location for the addition is currently utilized as
the service entrance approach with an existing exterior canopy. The expansion is proposed
over existing impermeable surfaces, so permeability is not an issue at this point. My only
concern was the site visit, that there were vehicles parked along the front area there, really
pinching any potential area for emergency access vehicles, and with that I’d turn it over to the
Board.
MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. Thank you. Good evening.
MR. JONES-Good evening, for the record, Richard Jones, the architect for the project, and with
me is Robert Nemer and Matt Gordon from Nemer Chrysler. Basically what we’re proposing is a
small addition renovation to the existing building. There’s an existing open canopy which sits on
the northeast corner of the existing building facing Quaker Road. It would be our intent to do a
small addition in front of that which is approximately a little over 1,000 square feet. The addition
would include the enclosure of the existing canopy area. Basically we’d be developing the area
for two additional interior service bays and a service access for clients that would include a
service write up area on the inside, and as part of that project, we would also be renovating the
existing entrance canopy into the building. Chrysler has come down with new branding
requirements for their dealerships, and as part of that, we would be basically incorporating that
branding, which is a new finished material and an arch on the face of that existing canopy. The
project itself involves no major site work. We’re not increasing any impermeable area on the
building. As I said before, we have the existing canopy area which is paved underneath and the
area where we’re actually proposing our building addition is also a paved area. With regard to
the comments from both the Town Planning and the engineering consultant for the Town,
basically I think one of the issues, on Drawing SP-1, our primary Site Plan, or site layout
drawing, there’s three existing evergreen shrubs that sit in a, like a raised bed planter against
the side of the building, the existing building. Basically, as part of the project, they would be
removed and I know that the Planning Department has indicated that they would like to see
them either relocated or replaced. The three shrubs are basically from the original project that
we were involved in over 20 years ago. Basically we had constructed like a wood frame planter,
elevated above grade. The plants have not done real well. They are basically overgrown, and it
would be our intent to basically replace those three shrubs, and we’d be looking at some area
over to the right hand side of the proposed addition, adjacent to the area where we have the
existing septic tank. There’s a low wood fence that goes around there now and we would
basically be proposing to provide three shrubs, three evergreen shrubs in that area to basically
soften that area. With regard to other comments, the owner was aware and is aware of the fact
that, yes, he was parking in the exit drives, and they were also parking in the green space in the
front of the building. They have taken measures, at this time, to basically remove any vehicles
from the green swale in front of the building, and they’ve also now started utilizing the back area
of the site and got them off of the exit drives and the entry drives around the property. So they
are aware of the problem and they have addressed it and they will continue to address it. With
regard to Chazen Engineering comments, they really didn’t have any. So I don’t know what I
need to address.
MR. TRAVER-That was pretty unusual actually.
MR. JONES-Yes, that was extremely unusual. The Fire Marshall comments, basically his
comment is in reference to the sprinkler connection that exists on the left hand side of the
existing tower, and with the reconstruction that we’re proposing, the construction documents that
we’re preparing will address that as an item, and as part of the building permit application, we
come in and have a sit down meeting with both the Building Department and the Fire Marshall,
and we would discuss that at that point and go through the process with him, but we are aware
of the fact that it’s there. It will be maintained in that general area, and it would be protected
throughout the structure. With that I’d be happy to answer any questions that anybody might
have.
29
(Queensbury Planning Board 08/02/2011)
MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. Questions, comments from the Board?
MR. SCHONEWOLF-Where is that, on the showroom side?
MR. JONES-Yes, it’s on the left hand, as you face the building, the left hand tower, or the left
hand pilaster on the tower.
MR. HUNSINGER-I thought it was pretty straightforward myself.
MR. JONES-Yes. It’s very straightforward.
MR. HUNSINGER-Yes, especially after you addressed the Staff comments.
MR. JONES-And I did bring along some samples of the materials that are going to be used
when we reconstruct the tower. As I had mentioned, Chrysler had come up with new branding
requirements, and part of that is that entry arch with the obscure glass and that type of thing, the
black glass, the basic part of the tower would be the, what’s called a lucka bond and it’s a matte
finish aluminum panel, and these are the actual colors, these are the corporate colors for
Chrysler, and then we would have a bright trim that would actually be like a six inch wide trim
that would go around the arch portion of that entry. The other colors of the building, the light
gray, dark gray colors on the building would remain. We would be patching those where
required, where we were doing reconstruction or addition work, but basically the theme of the
building continues and we’re adding these two materials to that entry tower.
MR. HUNSINGER-So those materials are only used on the entry tower?
MR. JONES-Yes, only on the entry tower. Yes, it’s one of their requirements is that they’ve
come up with this theme of these arched entries at a certain width and a certain height and we
were able to basically integrate that with the existing building on the canopy.
MR. SCHONEWOLF-Now, do you have lights?
MR. JONES-Not unless you want some.
MR. FORD-Height of those towers?
MR. JONES-That’s the existing towers.
MR. FORD-Existing.
MR. JONES-Yes, we’re not increasing them at all.
MR. FORD-Not increasing at all.
MR. JONES-No.
MR. FORD-Thank you.
MR. HUNSINGER-We do have a public hearing scheduled this evening. Is there anyone in the
audience who wants to address the Board on this project.
PUBLIC HEARING OPENED
MR. HUNSINGER-I don’t see any takers. Any written comments, Keith?
MR. OBORNE-No, sir.
MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. Let the record show there were no comments received. It’s a Type II
SEQRA. So unless there are comments or concerns, I will close the public hearing.
PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED
MR. HUNSINGER-And I will entertain a motion.
RESOLUTION APPROVING SP #49-2011 Nemer Chrysler Jeep Dodge
30
(Queensbury Planning Board 08/02/2011)
A site plan application has been made to the Queensbury Planning Board for the following:
Applicant proposes 1,040 sq. ft. addition to existing building for expansion of service and
showroom area. Commercial Expansion in a CI zone requires Planning Board review and
approval; and
A public hearing was advertised and held on 8/2/2011;
This application is supported with all documentation, public comment, and application material in
the file of record;
MOTION TO APPROVE SITE PLAN NO. 49-2011 NEMER CHRYSLER JEEP DODGE,
Introduced by Stephen Traver who moved for its adoption, seconded by Donald Krebs:
According to the resolution prepared by staff:
1)Pursuant to relevant sections of the Town of Queensbury Zoning Code [Chapter 179-9-
080], the Planning Board has determined that this proposal satisfies the requirements as
stated in the Zoning Code; and
2)Type II SEQR; and
3)Final approved plans, in compliance with the Site Plan, must be submitted to the Community
Development Department before any further review by the Zoning Administrator or Building
and Codes personnel. The applicant must meet with Staff after approval and prior to
issuance of Building Permit and/or the beginning of any site work. Subsequent issuance of
further permits, including building permits is dependent on compliance with this and all other
conditions of this resolution; and
4)As-built plans to certify that the site plan is developed according to the approved plans to be
provided prior to issuance of the certificate of occupancy; and
5)The Sanitary Sewer connection plan must be submitted to the Wastewater Department for
its review, approval, permitting and inspection; and
6)Waiver requests granted: stormwater mgmt., grading, landscaping & lighting plans; and
7)The limits of clearing will constitute a no-cut buffer zone, orange construction fencing shall
be installed around these areas and field verified by Community Development staff; and
8)Engineering sign-off required prior to signature of Zoning Administrator; and
9)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
10)This is approved with the following conditions:
1.That information to the fire department will be provided indicating that the sprinkler
system connection will not be obstructed by construction or that the proposed
addition will not impede access to that connection.
2.The Planning Board asks the applicant to replace three evergreen shrubs that will be
destroyed in the project and move them to the area near the septic tank.
nd
Duly adopted this 2 day of August, 2011, by the following vote:
MR. HUNSINGER-Did we want to say anything in the motion about the evergreen shrubs that
the applicant discussed, since they aren’t on the site plan presented.
MR. TRAVER-Well, they asked for a waiver for landscaping, and it is on the record that they
would set up the other.
MR. HUNSINGER-I just want to make sure that it’s on the record that they’re going to re-locate
those three shrubs.
MR. OBORNE-Well, you may want to add that to make it ironclad.
MR. HUNSINGER-That’s why I wonder if we should add it to the motion.
MR. TRAVER-Okay.
31
(Queensbury Planning Board 08/02/2011)
AYES: Mr. Magowan, Mr. Schonewolf, Mr. Ford, Mr. Krebs, Mr. Traver, Mr. Hunsinger
NOES: NONE
ABSENT: Mrs. Steffan
MR. HUNSINGER-Good luck, you’re all set.
MR. JONES-Thank you.
MR. HUNSINGER-Thank you.
SITE PLAN NO. 50-2011 SEQR TYPE II QUEENSBURY CENTRAL VOLUNTEER FIRE CO.
AGENT(S) RICHARD E. JONES ASSOCIATES OWNER(S) SAME AS APPLICANT ZONING
CI-COMMERCIAL INTENSIVE MDR-MODERATE DENSITY RESIDENTIAL LOCATION 17
LAFAYETTE STREET APPLICANT PROPOSES 2,688 SQ. FT. ADDITION TO EXISTING 13,
327 SQ. FT. FIRE STATION AND EXPANSION OF A PUBLIC BUILDING TO INCLUDE
SIDEWALK AND PARKING LOT RECONFIGURATION. EXPANSION OF A PUBLIC
BUILDING IN THE CI & MDR ZONES REQUIRES PLANNING BOARD REVIEW AND
APPROVAL. WARREN CO. PLANNING 7/13/2011 APA, CEA, OTHER NWI & DEC
WETLANDS LOT SIZE 5.24 +/- ACRES TAX MAP NO. 302.7-1-16 SECTION 179-9
RICHARD JONES, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT
MR. HUNSINGER-Keith?
MR. OBORNE-Site Plan Review is the requested action. The location is 17 Lafayette Street.
Existing zoning is Commercial Intensive, and it’s also bifurcated with Moderate Density
Residential. This is a Type II SEQRA. On 7/13/2011, a No County Impact was issued by the
Warren County Planning Board, and obviously engineering review has been accomplished.
Project Description: Applicant proposes 2,688 sq. ft. addition to existing 13,327 sq. ft. fire
station to include sidewalk and parking lot expansion and reconfiguration. Expansion of a public
building in the CI & MDR zones requires Planning Board review and approval. As the Staff
represented, I do have some concerns with on site wetlands and floodplains. They are denoted
on our GIS application, and although what appears to be DEC wetlands denoted on the plans,
an actual delineation is not present at this point. What follows is soils information. As you can
see there’s a bit of a hydric component to it. As far as Site Plan Review, lighting is a minor issue
as far as the luminance goes, and the additional comments, I’m sure that the Planning Board
has reviewed, and may consider as part of any motion that they may put forward, and with that,
I’d turn it over to the Board.
MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. Thank you. Good evening.
MR. JONES-Good evening. For the record, Richard Jones, architect for the project,
representing Queensbury Central Fire Company. With me is Joel Holden and Powell South
from the Fire Company. What I’d like to do is give you a brief overview of the project. What
we’re proposing are basically two additions to the building. There is one addition that will occur
on the, what would be the southeast corner of the front portion of the building. It’s actually the
rear corner of the front. That would be utilized for a service area within the building for
mechanical type restoration of equipment, and we’re proposing another addition which would be
on the rear of the building, on the east side of the property, actually facing the rear of the
property. Between the two additions there’s approximately 2700 square feet, the larger of the
two additions being on the rear portion of the property. With this site plan, we’re looking to
basically increase some parking and try to bring it up to something that’s close to the planning
and zoning requirements for the parking on the site. We’re adding some perimeter parking
along the back side so there’s minimal impacts to the existing paving. As part of the project, we
are taking down two trees or actually three trees on the back side. We’re taking one of those
trees, actually four trees. We’re taking one of the four and re-locating it as part of the project.
So the other three are much too large to try and relocate. Basically the building itself, the
addition will replicate what’s there now. They will have an exterior brick veneer . They will be
flat roofed. We have found a match for the veneers on the building, both the light colored base
of the building and the dark colored band at the top. We’ve actually found a brick manufacturer
that after 20 years still has brick that will match those. So we’re very fortunate in that regard.
With regard to the non-permeable areas on the property, we have a slight increase in non-
permeable space. We’re actually converting, over on the south side behind the property to the
east, which is the Gosline property, there’s a paved gravel area which is actually on the Fire
Company property. It’s our intent to basically remove the gravel and convert that back to
permeable area, green lawn basically. We’ll be placing some landscaped boulders in there to
32
(Queensbury Planning Board 08/02/2011)
keep the adjacent property owner from parking vehicles in that area. So basically with the net
increase of the building and the parking areas, we have a minimal increase in the non-
permeable area on the site. Basically what I’d like to do is address the questions and the
comments from Staff and the consultant for the Town. With regard to the wetlands, we actually
had DEC on site in November of 2009, and I have a letter from Jed Hayden, their biologist,
nd
indicating on November 2 they were on site. They basically flagged the wetlands, and the
wetlands are along the back property line, which is basically the edge of the water. We actually
had Van Dusen and Steves on site after that and they did the location of the flagging which I
have on the plan. We didn’t submit that as part of the thing, but we can certainly do that as a
follow up to the project.
MR. HUNSINGER-Just a quick follow up question on that.
MR. JONES-Sure.
MR. HUNSINGER-What is the distance from the disturbance to the wetlands? That’s really the
most.
MR. JONES-The distances, as we’ve indicated on our drawing, both, I think all the drawings
indicate it, and we basically indicated a dark line of 100 foot setback, and most of our
disturbance is well in excess of 100 feet. Most is at least 150, 140 to 150 feet. So we do not
require any variances for any wetland setback requirements. So that basically addresses the
question in regard to the wetlands.
MR. TRAVER-So to answer that Staff comment, you could submit final plans that have those
wetlands delineated?
MR. JONES-Yes.
MR. TRAVER-Okay. Thank you.
MR. JONES-And we could also submit the survey from Van Dusen and Steves if that was
required. Typically we indicate them on our site plan. We did not because they weren’t an
issue. With regard to the soils, as part of our project, we actually had deep soil borings done on
the site, and it was basically to confirm soil types for building construction with the rear addition
and then proximity to water table and whether there was actually bedrock on the site. What we
found was that we did a series of borings, we actually did five, two which are relatively close to
the area that we’re proposing with the expansion of the parking with our infiltration trench along
the east side, and basically each of the borings was anywhere from 17 to 22 feet for the shallow
ones, which were on the four corners, and then basically we had one deep test pit done, or deep
test boring, I should say, which went down almost to 45 feet, and none of them indicated any
bedrock on the site in that general area. The one boring which was B Number Two, indicated a
depth to groundwater of 13.9 feet, and that actually occurred, if you look at our Drawing SP-1, it
occurs just to the right hand side of that rear tree that’s going to remain on the back side of the
property. It would actually be toward the big parking lot area. So we feel that water is far
enough down that it’s not an issue, and the soils basically were, the first five feet on that area
were actually brought in. They were filled. It was brought in when they did the first construction
project, and the next five to ten feet were basically brown gray sands from moderate to course,
and basically that was true for all five test borings, and again, we’d be more than happy to
provide a copy of this to the Planning Department as well as substantiation for soils and water
depth, or depth to water table. With regard to the one way signs on Drawing SP-2, there’s
actually signs there right now. We did not indicate them on our site plan. Basically it’s a one
way loop around the building, and we can indicate that there’s existing signs there as part of our
re-submission to the Town. The lighting, we did request a waiver on the lighting. As part of this
project what we’re doing is basically upgrading all of the exterior lighting on the site, whether it
be on the building or the existing light poles. What we’re trying to do is get lighting that’s more
energy efficient. So basically every light around the building has been replaced, as indicated on
our lighting submission. I know there was a question in regard to particular Fixture M-2. M-2 is
located along the, what would be the south side of the building at the two entry points where fire
responders come in to the building. This is not a typical building to what you have listed in your
Ordinance. This is a building that’s used 24 hours a day, conceivably. It has responders,
emergency personnel coming in and out of the building. They typically need something that’s a
little more than a typical light level that you allow by your Zoning Ordinance, and basically we
have not changed in any of the wattage of the fixtures. We’ve just made them more energy
efficient. So in essence the lighting levels aren’t changing, but the fixtures are. With that in
mind, we feel that the lighting as proposed complies with what’s there now, but provides us with
the lighting levels that we need, not only around the building for fire responders coming in, but
also for the rear parking lot. The existing poles are being kept. We’re not changing the height.
Basically we’re changing the fixture head, and if anything we’re providing downcast lighting in all
33
(Queensbury Planning Board 08/02/2011)
locations where we can, so that we minimize glare coming off of them. Basically everything on
the poles is a cut off fixture. With regard to additional comments, as part of our project review
we did have a civil engineer look at the project in regard to the stormwater drainage the existing
drainage and what we were proposing, and as part of our waiver request we had asked for a
waiver on the, what would be the site lighting, which I’ve discussed, the landscaping, which
basically we’re going to try and re-locate one of the existing trees that we feel is reasonable in
size to re-locate. We feel the other three are much too large to try and re-locate because of the
caliper of the tree, and we’re not proposing any new landscaping on the rear side of the
property. The front of the property is heavily landscaped currently. With regard to the
stormwater design, basically we had Paragon Civil Engineering look at the site. We had existing
site plans from the original building which had all of the stormwater design information on them,
and based on that, Paragon put together a report for us, which basically talked about the
adequacy of the existing stormwater drainage system. Basically the existing system is designed
to size, or is sized to store a two inch runoff, a two inch rainfall, basically a two inch runoff over
the entire impervious area on the site. Typically the stormwater requires an inch and a half. So
we know we have a safety factor there as well. He also looked at the deep test borings that we
had done in reference to the depth to groundwater, the types of soils that we were dealing with
in the areas where we were doing the infiltration trenches, felt that there was basically soils
which were going to give us a perc of definitely less than five minutes. Basically they are very
permeable soils, and he also talked about the stormwater management that we were doing,
where we were expanding our parking lots for additional parking along the perimeter of the
existing, and basically in looking at that we were proposing a five foot wide by two and a half foot
deep infiltration trench, and based upon the calculations that he had done, we basically have the
ability to store a rainfall of 2.25 inches. Again, adequately sized, actually oversized for the
amount of runoff that we’re dealing with in those areas. So based upon that, he’s basically put
together this report that indicates that the existing drainage system is adequate for what is there
now and has enough adequacy to provide the infiltration and storage that we need for the
additional impervious areas that we’re providing, plus the infiltration trench is adequately sized
to accommodate the additional parking areas that we have along the perimeter, along the east
side of the property, and again, I’d be happy to provide that to the Town as well. Basically, with
regard to the Chazen comments, they were somewhat minor in nature, and if I can find them,
here they are. I’ll run through them as well. Basically, Paragon had reviewed the site for the
peak discharge rates, and they’ve run through all of those, so we have all of that information.
With regard to deep test pits, we feel we have adequate information based upon the
geotechnical information that was done. So we feel we can basically demonstrate that we have
provided what is required and what is reasonable for this site. With regard to his Item Number
Two, he’s talking about existing storm drain lines. We’re proposing, as I said, the addition on
the east side, the rear portion of the property, which would be attached to the rear of the
building. Right now, there’s currently two drain lines. One comes from the three collection
basins which are to be located to the west side or closest to the rear of the building. The other
comes from the three which would be located to the east side of the rear portion of the parking
lot. They both come to a manhole catch basin over in the drive that exists on the north side of
the property. To do the addition, we did not want to leave the existing eight inch storm under the
building. So basically we’re proposing to remove the eight inch storm from the first three
collection. We’re talking about removing the eight inch storm from the other three. We would
then take the first three, connect them to the rear three, and that’s why we were converting to a
12 inch line, and I think he’s misunderstanding. I think from his note in his letter, I think he’s
talking about us removing something between the two runs of three basins, which we’re not
doing.
MR. TRAVER-But with all that, you’re asking for a waiver for stormwater, are you not?
MR. JONES-That’s correct.
MR. TRAVER-Okay.
MR. JONES-Yes, and the last item, he was talking about adding construction specifications, and
when you look at the detail that we had provided for the silt fence, it’s one of our standard details
that we provide, and when you look at the detail that’s typically provided in the manual, it has
five construction notes which we did not have on our drawing. What we had proposed to do, as
part of the final submission, would be to incorporate this in lieu of our silt fence detail. This
would provide the construction specifications as required. Basically that’s it. I’d be happy to
answer any questions that anyone may have.
MR. HUNSINGER-Questions, comments from the Board?
MR. SCHONEWOLF-When you first brought this project up, maybe I’m wrong, but I thought
about six months ago or so you were looking at an addition that was quite a bit larger than 2600
square feet.
34
(Queensbury Planning Board 08/02/2011)
MR. JONES-That’s correct.
MR. SCHONEWOLF-Well, I was just asking. I mean, you spend a lot of money and time on
doing what you’re doing here, and then two years from now you’re going to have to come back
and we have to go through this again because you’re going to need the additional space. Why
not do it all at once?
MR. JONES-Well, the additional space, basically the original proposal included three more
apparatus bays for storage of equipment and maintenance of equipment. Basically, those three
storage bays, apparatus bays have been eliminated from what we’re proposing. That’s why the
addition is down to roughly 2800 square feet or 2600 square feet.
MR. SCHONEWOLF-I’ve seen this happen through the time. My experience with the Town
Board and managing fire companies is they never miss an opportunity to miss an opportunity,
and here’s the same situation again.
MR. JONES-Well, I’m going to turn it over to Joel on this thing.
JOEL HOLDEN
MR. HOLDEN-I’m not quite sure where to go with this, but I agree with you. If I’m pretty sure
what you’re asking, you know, why don’t we do this all at once?
MR. SCHONEWOLF-Well, you just save a lot of money for the taxpayers and a lot of our time
and effort and everything else.
MR. HOLDEN-I agree with you. We did propose a much larger addition with the Town. The
Town, we brought it to a workshop. At this time they didn’t feel that it’s needed for the fire
company or for the taxpayer. We did propose a downsized plan. I’m not quite sure what’s going
to happen in the future. I can’t predict the future, whether we’re going to add on later on or not,
but as to this moment on, we’re just going to be doing this smaller addition.
MR. JONES-And if I could add something to that, too, as I said, the original proposal included
three more apparatus bays. In looking at not putting those three apparatus bays on, we did
another look at the total building program, as far as what they were proposing, what their needs
were, and as part of the program, we were able to say, okay, we have equipment at Station Two
up on Aviation Road that we can re-locate into this building where it should be, which allowed us
to free up a bay when this project is complete at that facility. So in essence we have a net gain
of at least one apparatus bay, which is an existing bay on Aviation Road. So I think at this point
the project as proposed fulfills their need. It may not fulfill their need in the future, and that
future need would be apparatus bays, and where they would be, I’m not sure. They may be at
this building, or they may be on Aviation Road.
MR. HUNSINGER-I was going to say, is there room on this site to add additional bays?
MR. JONES-Yes. We had a fairly large addition off the back side.
MR. HUNSINGER-Okay.
MR. JONES-The problem we have now, Chris, is that the way the addition has been proposed,
it’s very difficult to add bays on the back side. So I think we’ve kind of limited ourselves as far as
what we can add to this site.
MR. FORD-You mentioned regarding parking you were making an effort to come into
compliance with the Code, Town Code. From a realistic standpoint, is there insufficient parking
currently?
MR. JONES-At times there is.
POWELL SOUTH
MR. SOUTH-It depends upon what the function is, Tom. At the Fire Station we have probably
one of the highest use stations there is in the Town. As a matter of fact, it’s being used tonight,
and just sometimes at certain wedding functions or whatever, there might be a few cars that
would have to juggle in some place, but ordinarily with the functions that we have at the fire
house, the way they’re scheduled, the parking is sufficient.
35
(Queensbury Planning Board 08/02/2011)
MR. FORD-I’m just concerned with impervious surfaces and adding pavement and that sort of
thing.
MR. JONES-Yes, and I understand what you’re saying, and that’s one of the reasons that we
added them to the perimeter of the existing lot, so we didn’t have to re-create drive lanes.
Basically we were creating parking spaces only. When we looked at the layout for the parking
itself, we basically re-striped the lot and were able to pick up additional parking as well.
Basically, 82 are required. Existing are 65 on the site, and what we’re proposing is to get it up to
78, which we feel will alleviate the overcrowding conditions that they have when they have major
events in the meeting room. Right now there’s 55 members. Am I correct on that number? And
when they have a company function, it’s not uncommon to have, you know, minimally 55
vehicles plus, just for that type of event, and then you have responders parking on the side,
which is included in the number of 78. So it’s the type of thing where you may have a function
going on, you have responders coming to the site. We’re trying to maneuver equipment so it
becomes a little cumbersome in that regard. That’s why we felt that adding the parking at the
perimeter of the existing lot and not creating new driveways was the way to go about it, and
that’s why we did it that way.
MR. TRAVER-Thank you.
MR. SCHONEWOLF-It probably helps, you also do some drilling up there. I’ve seen when they
have drills out on the parking lot and so forth.
MR. JONES-Yes.
MR. SCHONEWOLF-So if you can move it away out there, and that’s why you’ve got to maintain
your lighting.
MR. SOUTH-Every Thursday night.
MR. HUNSINGER-Other questions, comments from the Board?
MR. FORD-No, sir.
MR. HUNSINGER-Paul mentioned lighting, and that was something I just wanted to bring up for
discussion. I mean, there are some hot spots, you know, over 10, over 11, and then you go
down to, you know, one and two in the parking lot.
MR. JONES-Yes.
MR. HUNSINGER-And, you know, the concern is that differential might be too great.
MR. JONES-And the hot spots are basically around the perimeter of the building. We may have
a hot spot under one of the light poles, but again, that’s the nature of the beast. It’s a tall
existing pole that we’re re-lamping, and we did go, the poles now have true cut off fixtures. So
it’s directing everything down.
MR. HUNSINGER-Right.
MR. JONES-We realize that there may be hot spots. Currently is that parking lot lighting on 24
hours a day?
MR. SOUTH-No.
MR. HOLDEN-No.
MR. JONES-Okay. So it basically is set up to come on when there’s a response?
MR. HOLDEN-Motion detectors.
MR. JONES-Okay.
MR. HOLDEN-That pole turns on when we have drills, training.
MR. JONES-Okay.
MR. FORD-So it’s motion detection, not light sensor? Right. Thank you.
36
(Queensbury Planning Board 08/02/2011)
MR. SOUTH-You’ll find them coming on on the north side of the building pretty quick, where
there’s doors going to the kitchen, we’ve had a problem there, now and then, with vagrants. So
we turned them over into automatic switches. If somebody’s in there, they’re lit up, and the
sheriff knows it, they move them on.
MR. HUNSINGER-Other questions, comments from the Board? We do have a public hearing
scheduled this evening. Is there anyone in the audience that wants to address the Board on this
project?
PUBLIC HEARING OPENED
MR. HUNSINGER-I see one head shaking no. Any written comments, Keith?
MR. OBORNE-There are no written comments.
MR. HUNSINGER-Okay, and let the record show that there were no comments received.
What’s the feeling of the Board?
MR. TRAVER-Well, I think if they can delineate the wetlands and the floodplains on the final
plans, we can conditionally approve it, is my feeling.
MR. HUNSINGER-How do other members feel?
MR. SCHONEWOLF-Yes, I think it’s pretty standard stuff.
MR. FORD-Agreed.
MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. All right. I will close the public hearing.
PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED
MR. HUNSINGER-And will entertain a motion.
RESOLUTION APPROVING SP # 50-2011 QUEENSBURY CENTRAL VOLUNTEER FIRE CO.
A site plan application has been made to the Queensbury Planning Board for the following:
Applicant proposes 2,688 sq. ft. addition to existing 13,327 sq. ft. fire station and expansion of a
public building to include sidewalk and parking lot reconfiguration. Expansion of a public
building in the CI & MDR zones requires Planning Board review and approval.
A public hearing was advertised and held on 8/2/2011; and
This application is supported with all documentation, public comment, and application material in
the file of record;
MOTION TO APPROVE SITE PLAN NO. 50-2011 QUEENSBURY CENTRAL VOLUNTEER
FIRE CO., Introduced by Stephen Traver who moved for its adoption, seconded by Paul
Schonewolf:
According to the resolution prepared by staff:
1)Pursuant to relevant sections of the Town of Queensbury Zoning Code [Chapter 179-9-
080], the Planning Board has determined that this proposal satisfies the requirements as
stated in the Zoning Code; and
2)Type II, no further SEQRA review is necessary; and
3)Final approved plans, in compliance with the Site Plan, must be submitted to the Community
Development Department before any further review by the Zoning Administrator or Building
and Codes personnel. The applicant must meet with Staff after approval and prior to
issuance of Building Permit and/or the beginning of any site work. Subsequent issuance of
further permits, including building permits is dependent on compliance with this and all other
conditions of this resolution; and
4)As-built plans to certify that the site plan is developed according to the approved plans to be
provided prior to issuance of the certificate of occupancy; and
5)The Sanitary Sewer connection plan must be submitted to the Wastewater Department for
its review, approval, permitting and inspection; and
37
(Queensbury Planning Board 08/02/2011)
6)Waiver requests granted: stormwater mgmt., lighting plans & pole lighting maximum height;
and
7)The limits of clearing will constitute a no-cut buffer zone, orange construction fencing shall
be installed around these areas and field verified by Community Development staff; and
8)Engineering sign-off required prior to signature of Zoning Administrator; and
9)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
10)This application is approved with the following condition:
1.That wetlands and floodplains will be delineated on the final submitted plans.
2.To include submissions relative to the modifications to the existing approved
stormwater management system; and soils report.
nd
Duly adopted this 2 day of August, 2011, by the following vote:
MR. HUNSINGER-There were also, the applicant mentioned a soils report and a stormwater
report from Paragon. Have those already been submitted?
MR. JONES-No. We can submit those.
MR. OBORNE-You’re granting a waiver for stormwater, yet they’re putting stormwater controls
in.
MR. TRAVER-That’s why I, yes.
MR. HUNSINGER-Yes, it’s not the first time.
MR. OBORNE-I was hoping it was the last time.
MR. MAGOWAN-Yes, you brought that up before.
MR. FORD-Last meeting.
MR. HUNSINGER-Did you want those submissions as part of the submission?
MR. JONES-We’re not opposed to providing those.
MR. TRAVER-Okay.
AYES: Mr. Krebs, Mr. Magowan, Mr. Schonewolf, Mr. Ford, Mr. Traver, Mr. Hunsinger
NOES: NONE
ABSENT: Mrs. Steffan
MR. HUNSINGER-You’re all set. Good luck.
MR. JONES-Thank you very much.
MR. HUNSINGER-You’re welcome.
SITE PLAN NO. 52-2011 SEQR TYPE II JONATHAN LA ROCK OWNER(S) DR. MITCHELL
COHEN ZONING CI-COMMERCIAL INTENSIVE LOCATION 1471 STATE ROUTE 9
APPLICANT PROPOSES AN ICE CREAM SHOP/FOOD SERVICE. NEW COMMERCIAL
USES IN THE CI ZONE REQUIRE PLANNING BOARD REVIEW AND APPROVAL. CROSS
REFEERENCE SUP 8-06, SP 34-04, SP 43-02 WARREN CO. PLANNING 7/13/2011 LOT
SIZE 1.99 +/- ACRES TAX MAP NO. 288.-1-58 SECTION 179-9
JONATHAN LA ROCK, PRESENT
MR. HUNSINGER-Keith?
38
(Queensbury Planning Board 08/02/2011)
MR. OBORNE-Site Plan 52-2011, Jonathan LaRock is the applicant, and this is Site Plan
Review, 1471 State Route 9 is the location. This is in a CI, Commercial Intensive zone. Type II
SEQRA. 7/13/2011 Warren County issued a No County Impact. Project Description: Applicant
proposes an Ice Cream Shop / Food Service in the defunct Scooters Building across from
French Mountain Commons. New commercial uses in the CI zone require Planning Board
review and approval. Staff comments: The proposal call for two service widows for patrons as
well as indoor and outdoor seating. A portion of the grass area located in the front of the
building will be replaced with concrete near the new service widows. The area currently in front
of the building will be cordoned off for pedestrians with landscape barrels and pavement
markings. The site appears to be readily accessible. If you notice there’s a crosswalk directly
leading to the front door of this location. Also, the applicant proposes the placement of a
dumpster to the rear as well as signage. We did send out a packet to the Queensbury Sewer
Department and we did receive notice back that you may be required to have a grease trap
installed. You’re going to want to talk to Building and Codes about that, but that has been vetted
by Mike Shaw at this point, and what follows is some Site Plan Review issues. Parking appears
to be fine, and Fire Marshall comments appear to have no real issues with the site, and with that
I’d turn it over to the Board.
MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. Thank you. Good evening. I guess we saved the best for last. Right?
MR. LA ROCK-Yes, I guess so. Well, my intentions are just to put a little ice cream place in for
the community. All the places that are around there, hopefully maybe if I can’t do it this year,
maybe next year have a couple of people out there maybe playing the guitar or singing or
whatever to attract some people, more people that are shopping. They don’t want to go to like
the Log Jam or during the daytime when they have their little kids with them. So it would be
great to go there, grab an ice cream cone or hot dog, hamburg, just some fast food stuff, and I
think it would help the rest of the community, as far as, you know, more people to that area,
although there’s enough there already, but we’d like to get as many more as we could.
MR. HUNSINGER-Sure.
MR. LA ROCK-I think it would be good for everybody, really.
MR. HUNSINGER-Well, I certainly, for one, would like to see that site cleaned up and put to
good use, absolutely.
MR. LA ROCK-I would definitely like to see that site cleaned up. I drive by there 100 times a
day, and it’s just an eyesore, and, you know, I would like to really fix it up and make it look really
nice. That’s my plan.
MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. Questions, comments from the Board?
MR. TRAVER-One comment related to landscaping. I don’t know if you saw in Staff comments
there was discussion about the species that you had proposed. Although they are not invasive,
they are not on the approved list. Would you have a problem with using species that are on the
approved list for your landscaping?
MR. LA ROCK-No, no problem at all.
MR. TRAVER-Okay. That’s the only thing I had.
MR. LA ROCK-Like I say, I’m here to pretty much do what you guys want me to do. I’m not the
type of guy to go against anybody. I’m here to make you guys want to come over and have
some ice cream, you know.
MR. HUNSINGER-Any other questions or comments?
MR. OBORNE-Jon, do you want to talk about building colors. When we were on site, we were
discussing some colors.
MR. LA ROCK-Yes, I wanted to get rid of that eyesore yellow and maybe put a tan, like what
there is across the street at the brothers place there, make it the same color as that building,
where that way everything generates the same. They’ve got the same color roof that I have, a
black roof, with the black, you know, around the windows and stuff, and I think a tan color would
look a lot nicer than yellow. Yellow’s kind of a, you don’t see too many yellow buildings. I mean,
one of you guys might have a yellow house. So I don’t want to say too much against yellow, but.
I just want to try to make it look nice, rather than an eyesore.
MR. HUNSINGER-So earth tone colors?
39
(Queensbury Planning Board 08/02/2011)
MR. LA ROCK-Yes.
MR. HUNSINGER-Yes.
MR. LA ROCK-I think you guys all agree that the name is probably a little catchy. Well, I want to
have a place that people are going to talk about, because, you know, if people talk about a
place, then that’s better than putting an ad in the paper.
MR. TRAVER-Sure.
MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. We do have a public hearing scheduled this evening. Let the record
show there are no members of the audience remaining.
PUBLIC HEARING OPENED
MR. HUNSINGER-Were there any written comments, Keith?
MR. OBORNE-There are not.
MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. So we will open the public hearing and we will close the public
hearing.
PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED
MR. HUNSINGER-And no comments received. It’s a Type II SEQRA. So unless there are other
questions or comments from the Board, I will entertain a motion.
RESOLUTION APPROVING SP # 52-2011 JONATHAN LA ROCK
A site plan application has been made to the Queensbury Planning Board for the following:
Applicant proposes an Ice Cream Shop / Food Service. New commercial uses in the CI zone
require Planning Board review and approval.
A public hearing was advertised and held on 8/2/2011; and
This application is supported with all documentation, public comment, and application material in
the file of record;
MOTION TO APPROVE SITE PLAN NO. 52-2011 JONATHAN LAROCK, Introduced by
Stephen Traver who moved for its adoption, seconded by Thomas Ford:
According to the resolution prepared by staff:
1)Pursuant to relevant sections of the Town of Queensbury Zoning Code [Chapter 179-9-
080], the Planning Board has determined that this proposal satisfies the requirements as
stated in the Zoning Code; and
2)Type II, no further SEQRA review is necessary; and
3)Final approved plans, in compliance with the Site Plan, must be submitted to the Community
Development Department before any further review by the Zoning Administrator or Building
and Codes personnel. The applicant must meet with Staff after approval and prior to
issuance of Building Permit and/or the beginning of any site work. Subsequent issuance of
further permits, including building permits is dependent on compliance with this and all other
conditions of this resolution; and
4)As-built plans to certify that the site plan is developed according to the approved plans to be
provided prior to issuance of the certificate of occupancy; and
5)The Sanitary Sewer connection plan must be submitted to the Wastewater Department for
its review, approval, permitting and inspection; and
6)Waiver requests granted: stormwater mgmt., grading, lighting plans; and
7)The limits of clearing will constitute a no-cut buffer zone, orange construction fencing shall
be installed around these areas and field verified by Community Development staff; and
40
(Queensbury Planning Board 08/02/2011)
8)If curb cuts are being added or changed a driveway permit is required. A building permit will
not be issued until the approved driveway permit has been provided to the Planning Office;
and
9)This is approved with the following condition:
1.That species listed in the final landscaping plan be changed to those which are
included in the Town’s approved list.
2.That building coloration be earth tones and browns.
nd
Duly adopted this 2 day of August, 2011, by the following vote:
MR. HUNSINGER-Do we want to say anything about the building coloration? Earth color, tan
and brown.
MR. TRAVER-Okay.
AYES: Mr. Magowan, Mr. Schonewolf, Mr. Ford, Mr. Krebs, Mr. Traver, Mr. Hunsinger
NOES: NONE
ABSENT: Mrs. Steffan
MR. HUNSINGER-Good luck.
MR. LA ROCK-Thank you very much.
MR. HUNSINGER-Yes, I wish you success. Is there anything else to be brought before the
Board?
MR. OBORNE-Yes, a couple of things. One is from the Planning Department and me in
particular, about stormwater waivers, and I don’t want to beat this to a pulp, but it’s very difficult
for Code Compliance to follow up on stormwater devices, or best management practices if they
haven’t been designed properly. In this case, we did not have any soils information. We didn’t
have any boring information. We didn’t have anything from Paragon Engineering. This was
brought up anecdotally. I have no idea what he was looking at, and it is cause for concern. I
mean, if they’re going to ask for a stormwater waiver and they offer stormwater controls, I don’t
see how you can grant that, but that’s me. I’m not a Board member. I don’t want to cajole you
anymore.
MR. HUNSINGER-Yes.
MR. OBORNE-Also the second part would be Queensbury Partners. You and I, the Chair and I
should discuss how we want to go forward with that workshop, and I just want to get that, you
know, as a point of discussion right now. I can contact you, send you an e-mail, however you
want to go about it, contact me, and we’ll set that up.
MR. HUNSINGER-Okay.
MR. OBORNE-Because that obviously is going to have a lot of moving parts to it.
MR. HUNSINGER-Yes.
MR. TRAVER-Yes, the first one being the date when we can all be there.
MR. HUNSINGER-Right.
MR. OBORNE-Right, and that’s all I have.
MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. Anything else?
MR. TRAVER-Just that I survived another Gretchen duty.
MR. HUNSINGER-Yes, you did a good job. Would anyone like to make a motion to adjourn?
MOTION TO ADJOURN THE QUEENSBURY PLANNING BOARD MEETING OF AUGUST 2,
2011, Introduced by Thomas Ford who moved for its adoption, seconded by Paul Schonewolf:
41
(Queensbury Planning Board 08/02/2011)
nd
Duly adopted this 2 day of August, 2011, by the following vote:
AYES: Mr. Magowan, Mr. Schonewolf, Mr. Ford, Mr. Traver, Mr. Krebs, Mr. Hunsinger
NOES: NONE
ABSENT: Mrs. Steffan
MR. HUNSINGER-Thank you, everybody. See you in two weeks.
On motion meeting was adjourned.
RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED,
Chris Hunsinger, Chairman
42