01-16-2024 (Queensbury Planning Board O1/16/2024)
QUEENSBURYPTANNINGBOARD MEETING
FIRSTREGUTAR MEETING
jANUARYI6TH 2O24
INDEX
Resolution Amending Planning Board Policies and Procedures 1.
Site Plan 3-2023 ASD Spartan NY2 Solar 2.
Freshwater Wetlands 3-2013 Tax Map No.279.-1-6.1,279.-1-6.2
Special Use Permit 1-2023
EXTENSION REQUEST
Site Plan No.2-2023 Michael Rozell 3.
ONE YEAR EXT. REQUEST Tax Map No.259.7-1-17
Site Plan No. SO-2023 N ick Carlino 3.
Tax Map No. 309.9-2-4
Site Plan No.1-2024 Liberty Restaurants Development 7.
Freshwater Wetlands 1-2024 Tax Map No. 302-6-1-12;302.6-1-13;302.E-1-14
ZBA RECOMMENDATION
Site Plan No.2-2024 Georgianna Bodnar 12.
ZBA RECOMMENDATION Tax Map No.226.15-1-22
Subdivision No.1-2024 David Howard 14.
PRELIMINARY STAGE Tax Map No. 305.7-1-45.1
ZBA RECOMMENDATION
Site Plan No. 3-2024 Kelly Family Trust 16.
Tax Map No.2S9.1S-1-35.5
Site Plan No.4-2024 D.E. Linkens,LLC 22.
Tax Map No. 302.5-2-66.2
THESE ARE NOT OFFICIALLY ADOPTED MINUTES AND ARE SUBJECT TO BOARD AND STAFF
REVISIONS. REVISIONS WILL APPEAR ON THE FOLLOWING MONTH'S MINUTES (IF ANY)
AND WILL STATE SUCH APPROVAL OF SAID MINUTES.
1
(Queensbury Planning Board O1/16/2024)
QUEENSBURY PLANNING BOARD MEETING
FIRST REGULAR MEETING
JANUARY 16TK,2024
7.00 P.M.
MEMBERS PRESENT
STEPHEN TRAVER,CHAIRMAN
ELLEN MC DEVITT,VICE CHAIRMAN
FRITZ STEFANZICK,SECRETARY
BRADY STARK
DAVID DEEB
MEMBERS ABSENT
WARREN LONGACKER
BRAD MAGOWAN
LAND USE PLANNER-LAURA MOORE
STENOGRAPHER-MARIA GAGLIARDI
MR.TRAVER-Good evening,ladies and gentlemen. Welcome to the Town of Queensbury Planning Board
meeting for Tuesday,January 16`h,2024. This is our very first meeting for the year and our first meeting
for January. This first meeting of the year we actually consider our organizational meeting,and there are
a couple of items I wanted to mention. First I wanted to again welcome Ellen and Fritz, our newest full
members of the Planning Board. Thank you very much for serving and welcome aboard. Hopefully it will
be a good year. I should mention,too,we have the illuminated exit signs that you'll notice. In the event of
an emergency, those are the emergency exits. If you have a cell phone or other electronic device, if you
would either turn it off or turn the ringer off, we would appreciate that, so as not to interrupt our
proceedings. We also ask that, during the meeting, aside from the public hearings,if you wish to have a
conversation amongst yourselves in the audience, if you would go to the outer lobby to have that
conversation, we'd appreciate that because we do record the meetings and that can be confusing for the
minutes if there are conversations going on. One of the things that I do as Chair at the beginning of every
year is I review our Policies and Procedures to see if there's any updates or corrections or anything that
need to be made. The only thing that I found this year is that as Planning Board members we're regularly
told about opportunities for training. We usually get a notice from Laura or one of the other Staff, and
there is, in our Policy and Procedures, a notifications requirement for new Planning Board members,but
not ongoing training opportunities,and it seemed as though that should be in there. So we do have a draft
resolution to add a section recognizing that there will be notifications made when there's ongoing training
for Planning Board members. Fritz.You have a draft resolution for that.
RESOLUTION AMENDING PLANNING BOARD POLICIES AND PROCEDURES
RESOLUTION—Amend Planning Board Policies,Procedures&Bylaws
Whereas,an amendment is proposed for the Town of Queensbury Planning Board's Bylaws and Policies
Procedures.
The amendment to Policies and Procedures Section I will include the following addition:
Section 1C.Orientation and Training.
New Planning Board members will receive new member documentation during a formal orientation that
will be scheduled by Community Development Department Staff. All Planning Board members may also
be afforded the opportunity for additional periodic training to meet the 4 hour minimum training as
required by NYS. The Chairman will be notified of the date,time and place of these formal orientations or
training opportunities.
MOTION TO APPROVE THE AMENDMENT TO THE PLANNING BOARD BYLAWS AND
POLICIES&z PROCEDURES. Introduced by Fritz Stefanzick,who moved for its adoption;seconded by
Brady Stark.
Duly adopted this 16`h day of January 2024 by the following vote:
AYES: Mr. Deeb,Mr. Stefanzick,Mrs. McDevitt,Mr. Stark,Mr. Traver
NOES: NONE
2
(Queensbury Planning Board O1/16/2024)
ABSENT: Mr. Longacker, Mr. Magowan
MRS. MOORE-And you'll provide us a copy of that?
MR. TRAVER-Yes, and I was going to say also since this passed I have the updated Polices in draft form
at home in my office, and what I will do is either later this evening or tomorrow morning is I'll distribute
that updated set to everybody so you'll have that as well. Thank you. Next item on our agenda is approval
of minutes. This is for the month of November,November 14`h and November 28`h
APPROVAL OF MINUTES
November 14`h,2023
November 28`h,2023
MOTION TO APPROVE THE QUEENSBURY PLANNING BOARD MEETING MINUTES OF
NO VEMBER 14`h&z NO VEMBER 28`h,2023,Introduced by Fritz Stefanzick who moved for its adoption,
seconded by Ellen McDevitt:
Duly adopted this 16`h day of January,2024,by the following vote:
AYES: Mrs. McDevitt,Mr. Deeb,Mr. Stark,Mr. Stefanzick,Mr. Traver
NOES: NONE
ABSENT: Mr. Longacker, Mr. Magowan
MR. TRAVER-Okay. Thank you, and next we have two administrative items. The first being Site Plan
3-2023 for a Freshwater Wetlands,I'm sorry,and Freshwater Wetlands permit 1-2023,Special Use Permit
1-2023 for Spartan NY2 Solar. A request for an extension.
ADMINISTRATIVE ITEMS:
SITE PLAN 3-2023,FRESHWATER WETLANDS 1-2023,SPECIAL USE PERMIT 1-2023
ASD SPARTAN NY2 SOLAR—EXTENSION REQUEST
MR. TRAVER-Laura?
MRS. MOORE-So they submitted a letter explaining that their review process is taking a little bit longer.
Part of that is the APA permit process. So they've asked for a year extension.
MR.TRAVER-Yes,I saw that. Okay. Any questions or concerns regarding that extension request? Then
we have a draft resolution.
RESOLUTION GRANTING A ONE YEAR EXTENSION SP 3-2023 FWW 1-2023 SUP 1-2023 SPARTAN
Applicant proposed to utilize 38.5 acres of a 100 acre area consisting of two parcels for a 5MW solar farm
on an enclosed industrial landfill. The solar panels will be placed on a fixed ballast on top of the landfill
cap.The existing 3,156 sq.ft.building to remain as a maintenance garage that is leased to others will remain
unchanged. The Planning Board approved this project on January 24,2023. The applicant is requesting a
one year extension,valid until January 24,2025.
MOTION TO APPROVE A ONE YEAR EXTENSION FOR SITE PLAN 3-2023, FRESHWATER
WETLANDS 1-2023 &z SPECIAL USE PERMIT 1-2023 ASD SPARTAN NYS SOLAR, LLC.
Introduced by Fritz Stefanzick who moved for its adoption,seconded by Brady Stark:
Duly adopted this 16`h day of January 2024 by the following vote:
AYES: Mr. Stark,Mr. Stefanzick,Mr. Deeb,Mrs. McDevitt,Mr. Traver
NOES: NONE
ABSENT: Mr. Longacker, Mr. Magowan
MR. TRAVER-The next administrative item is Site Plan 2-2023. This is for Michael Rozell. This is also a
request for a one year extension.
3
(Queensbury Planning Board O1/16/2024)
SITE PLAN NO 2-2023 MICHAEL ROZELL—REQUEST FOR A ONE YEAR EXTENSION
MR. TRAVER-Laura?
MRS. MOORE-So their request is they're going to start construction in the spring of 2024. So they
requested a one year extension as well.
MR. TRAVER-Okay. Questions,concerns regarding that request? Okay. We have a draft resolution.
RESOLUTION GRANTING A ONE YEAR EXTENSION SP#2-2023 MICHAEL ROZELL
Applicant proposed removal of an existing home, buildings & driveway to construct new home of 2,201
sq.ft.with porch areas of 274 sq.ft.and 15S sq.ft..footprints.The new floor area is 3,SI9 sq.ft.. The project
includes a new driveway area, septic, well and shoreline plantings. The Planning Board approved this
project on January 24,2023.Applicant is requesting a one year extension,valid until January 24,2025.
MOTION TO APPROVE A ONE YEAR EXTENSION FOR SITE PLAN 2-2023 MICHAEL ROZELL.
Introduced by Fritz Stefanzick who moved for its adoption,seconded by Ellen McDevitt.
Duly adopted this 16`h day of January 2024 by the following vote:
AYES: Mrs. McDevitt,Mr. Stark,Mr. Stefanzick, Mr. Deeb,Mr. Traver
NOES: NONE
ABSENT: Mr. Longacker, Mr. Magowan
MR. TRAVER-So next we can go to our regular agenda, and before we do so,I wanted to mention to the
applicants present in the audience,you'll note that this evening we have less than a full Board. We have
five Board members as opposed to the normal seven. That doesn't happen very often,but one of the things
that we do offer applicants if they do wish so is since we do not have a full Board,if any applicants wish to
be tabled until there is a Board we will generally look favorably upon that tabling request. So I'm not
asking anyone to do that. I'm just letting you know that you have the ability to do that if you wish. So
with that we'll begin with the first item on our agenda. The first section is tabled items. The first item is
Nick Carlino. This is Site Plan SO-2023.
OLD BUSINESS:
SITE PLAN NO. 80-2023 SEQR TYPE: UNLISTED. NICK CARLINO. AGENT(S): ABD
ENGINEERS. OWNER(S): CARLINO MANAGEMENT LLC. ZONING: CLI. LOCATION: 170
LUZERNE ROAD. (REVISED) APPLICANT PROPOSES TO CONSTRUCT 10 SELF-STORAGE
BUILDINGS OF 4,500 SQ. FT. EACH FOR A TOTAL OF 340 UNITS AND 45,000 SQ. FT. THE
PROJECT INCUDES MAINTAINING THE EXISTING 4,670 SQ.FT.BUILDING TO BE USED FOR
NEW OFFICE AREA AND THE SHOP AREA WILL REMAIN FOR MAINTENANCE. THE SITE
WORK INCLUDES A DISTURBANCE OF 3.65 ACRES, ASSOCIATED STORMWATER
MANAGEMENT AND EROSION CONTROL, BUILDING LIGHTING AND A SECURITY GATE
FOR THE UNITS. ADDITIONAL LANDSCAPING AND NEW FENCING ARE PROPOSED.
PURSUANT TO CHAPTER 179-3-040, SITE PLAN FOR NEW COMMERCIAL USE IN THE CLI
ZONE SHALL BE SUBJECT TO PLANNING BOARD REVIEW AND APPROVAL. WARREN CO.
REFERRAL: N/A. LOT SIZE: 9.11 ACRES. TAX MAP NO. 3099-2-4. SECTION: 179-3-040.
JON ZAPPER, REPRESENTING APPLICANT,PRESENT;NICK CARLINO,PRESENT
MR. TRAVER-Laura?
MRS. MOORE-So this applicant proposes construction of 10 self storage buildings of 4,500 square feet
each,a total of 340 units. The site work includes disturbance of a 3.65 acres of the site. There is an existing
4,670 foot building that is to be used. The Board approved this new use at their last Board meeting and
the Board suggested that the applicant take a look at some of the landscaping features of the site. So the
applicant has revised the landscape plan. They have arborvitaes on the east property line. They have a
new planting plan at the front with new signage and they'll discuss the fencing on the east side.
MR. ZAPPER-On the west side.
MRS. MOORE-On the west side.
MR. TRAVER-Okay. Thank you. Good evening. Welcome back.
4
(Queensbury Planning Board O1/16/2024)
MR. ZAPPER-Thank you. Good evening. For the record,Jon Lapper with Nick Carlino. When we were
here last month Nick was away. He's with me tonight,but we told the engineer not to come because he
was driving down from Schenectady and it didn't seem like we had a lot of engineering to talk about
anyway. When we left last time,you'd asked us, and Laura said, to enhance the site with landscaping.
Nick was happy to do that. This whole project is to clean up what is kind of an ugly site to begin with.
Nick's a Queensbury native who built this business himself and he wants to make this look like something
he's proud of. So I'll hand this out to you. I just showed Laura. The planting plan that we re-submitted
shows a planting area in the front. There'll be a sign which will break up the pavement in the middle of
the parking lot,and then two planting beds in front of the building. Nick had the Northland Gardens on
West Mountain Road do the species and prepare us something to show you. The signs also were done
just to show that they'll be conforming. So there's no sign variance needed. So there's planting in front of
the building. A second in front of the one story area of the building, and that green is what's red now,
what's going to be painted and it'll stay white. So that's the sign on the facade. The other sign is going to
be in the planting bed like that. It'll soften the look. I'll hand these out and Laura can put them in the file,
and we have the species. So on the arborvitae that weren't there last time on the east side where the fence
is is in good shape. On the west side, we would ask if you would, well, first of all the gate is terrible in
front and that's already ordered and that's going to be an electronic gate and it'll be in as soon as spring
hits and can be installed. The arborvitae will go in as soon as the spring hits and all the planting will go in
as soon as the spring hits. On the west side where it's a very old ratty looking fence, Nick is happy to
replace that with a six foot solid wood fence,but he asks that he could do that next year. He's going to be
doing two units at a time. So when he gets to the second section which is on the plan next to the
stormwater basin,that's when he'd replace that whole fence, and the neighbors have a bunch of signs and
he's going to have to go work with them, sheds right butting right against it,but he'll take care of all of
that and replace it with a brand new fence, but he asked to be able to do that just because this is a big
investment. So we'd need a conditional approval. The only other interesting thing, in the engineering
comments they asked for verification from DEC that a SWPPP is not required because there's no
stormwater going off site,and the engineer's already talked to DEC,made a submission. This is lower than
the two neighboring sites. That retention basin is all sand. Nothing's going off site,but that would have
to be a condition. It would take us a week or two to get that verified,but that's pretty much it.
MR. TRAVER-Okay. All right. Questions,comments from members of the Board?
MR. STEFANZIK-I think that's a really nice job that you did with the landscaping and the building,
especially when you're in a Commercial Intensive area. It looks very nice. I did have a question. You
mentioned about the fence here,replacing it. Is the fence being replaced on the east side also?
MR. CARLINO-On the east side the fence is actually in much better shape. It's a wood fence. On the
west side it's a metal fence and it's not as nice as the wood fence,but I'm planning on replacing it,like Jon
said.
MR. STEFANZIK-That's the part that you want to replace,the west side.
MR. CARLINO-Yes.
MR. STEFANZIK-I did notice that there is property beyond like north of the storage facility that's kind of
empty. Any plans for that or?
MR. ZAPPER-No,that's green.
MR. STEFANZIK-You're just going to keep it grass or?
MR. CARLINO-Where's that?
MR. ZAPPER-In the back.
MR.CARLINO-So that,you know,for now that's definitely going to be all green,all trees. That's all trees
right now. I don't have any plans to do anything with that right now.
MR. STEFANZIK-But that's all cleaned out,all the automotive stuff?
MR. CARLINO-Yes.
MR. ZAPPER-We'd have to do that.
MR. CARLINO-Absolutely,yes. It's all clean. Everything's out of there.
MR. STEFANZIK-I did notice that there's two or three trailers that are encroaching your property?
5
(Queensbury Planning Board O1/16/2024)
MR. CARLINO-There is,yes,on the left side.
MR. STEFANZIK-What's the story with that?
MR. CARLINO-That, I talked to Luigi about that. We were trying to figure that out down the road. I
know it is in phase two of the project,if I were to do a phase two down the road,but right now I'm not too
concerned about it. You're talking about the three in the top left?
MR. STEFANZIK-Yes. Those aren't yours.
MR. CARLINO-No.
MR. STEFANZIK-They belong to neighbors.
MR. CARLINO-I think that's something we would have to tackle over the next few years.
MR. ZAPPER-We did get an environmental report before we closed on the purchase.
MR. CARLINO-Right.
MR. STEFANZIK-It looks great.
MRS. MOORS Just so the Board knows,the Fire Marshal's office did review the application again. They
didn't identify any additional concerns with the new submission.
MR. TRAVER-Okay. Good. Thank you, Laura. We do have a public hearing on this application. Is
there anyone in the audience that wants to address the Planning Board on this Site Plan SO-2023? I'm not
seeing any takers. Are there written comments,Laura?
PUBLIC HEARING OPENED
MRS. MOORE-There are no written comments.
MR. TRAVER-Okay. Then I'll open and close the public hearing.
PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED
MR.TRAVER-We talked about the remainder of the property and that you're not going to develop it. Any
further development would be subject to review anyway. We do have to do the review under SEQR for
this application,and the proper forms were filed. Does anyone have any concerns regarding environmental
impacts with this application? One of the things that I noticed is the transition to this business is probably
less impactful to the environment than the old business. If there are no environmental concerns,then we
can do the SEQR resolution.
RESOLUTION GRANTING A NEGATIVE SEQR DECLARATION SP# SO-2023 NICK CARLINO
(Revised)Applicant proposes to construct 10 self-storage buildings of 4,500 sq. ft. each for a total of 340
units and 45,000 sq. ft. The project includes maintaining the existing 4,670 sq. ft. building to be used for
new office area and the shop area will remain for maintenance. The site work includes a disturbance of 3.65
acres,associated stormwater management and erosion control,building lighting and a security gate for the
units.Additional landscaping and new fencing are proposed. Pursuant to chapter 179-3-040, site plan for
new commercial use in the CLI zone shall be subject to Planning Board review and approval.
The proposed action considered by this Board is Unlisted in the Department of Environmental
Conservation Regulations implementing the State Environmental Quality Review Act and the regulations
of the Town of Queensbury;
No Federal or other agencies are involved;
Part 1 of the Short EAF has been completed by the applicant;
Upon review of the information recorded on this EAF, it is the conclusion of the Town of Queensbury
Planning Board as lead agency that this project will result in no significant adverse impacts on the
environment,and,therefore, an environmental impact statement need not be prepared. Accordingly,this
negative declaration is issued.
MOTION TO GRANT A NEGATIVE DECLARATION FOR SITE PLAN 80-2023 NICK CARLINO.
Introduced by Fritz Stefanzick who moved for its adoption.
6
(Queensbury Planning Board O1/16/2024)
As per the resolution prepared by staff.
1. Part II of the Short EAF has been reviewed and completed by the Planning Board.
2. Part III of the Short EAF is not necessary because the Planning Board did not identify potentially
moderate to large impacts.
Motion seconded by Ellen McDevitt. Duly adopted this 16`h day of January 2024 by the following vote:
AYES: Mr. Stark,Mr. Stefanzick,Mr. Deeb, Mrs. McDevitt,Mr. Traver
NOES: NONE
ABSENT: Mr. Longacker, Mr. Magowan
MR.TRAVER-Okay. So next we move to the Site Plan approval. Are Board members comfortable at this
stage approving this plan in its final stage?
MR. STEFANZIK-I just have a question on the extension to complete the west side fence.
MR. TRAVER-That can be a condition.
MR. STEFANZIK-We'll put that in there as a condition.
MR. TRAVER-Yes.
MR. STEFANZIK-And we're looking to complete the west side fence in 2025?
MR. CARLINO-Yes,2025.
MR. STEFANZIK-Okay.
RESOLUTION APPROVING SP#SO-2023 NICK CARLINO
(Revised) Applicant proposes to construct 10 self-storage buildings of 4,500 sq. ft. each for a total of 340
units and 45,000 sq. ft. The project includes maintaining the existing 4,670 sq. ft. building to be used for
new office area and the shop area will remain for maintenance. The site work includes a disturbance of 3.65
acres,associated stormwater management and erosion control,building lighting and a security gate for the
units.Additional landscaping and new fencing are proposed. Pursuant to chapter 179-3-040, site plan for
new commercial use in the CLI zone shall be subject to Planning Board review and approval.
Pursuant to relevant sections of the Town of Queensbury Zoning Code-Chapter 179-9-OSO, the Planning
Board has determined that this proposal satisfies the requirements as stated in the Zoning Code;
The Planning Board has reviewed the potential environmental impacts of the project,pursuant to the State
Environmental Quality Review Act (SEQRA) and adopted a SEQRA Negative Declaration
Determination of Non-Significance;
The Planning Board opened a public hearing on the Site plan application on 12/12/2023 and continued the
public hearing to 1/16/2024 when it was closed,
The Planning Board has reviewed the application materials submitted by the applicant and all comments
made at the public hearing and submitted in writing through and including 1/16/2024;
The Planning Board determines that the application complies with the review considerations and
standards set forth in Article 9 of the Zoning Ordinance for Site Plan approval,
MOTION TO APPROVE SITE PLAN 80-2023 NICK CARLINO; Introduced by Fritz Stefanzick who
moved for its adoption.
According to the draft resolution prepared by Staff with the following:
1) Waivers requested granted;
2) The approval is valid for one (1) year from the date of approval. Applicant is responsible for
requesting an extension of approval before the one (1)year time frame has expired.
3) Adherence to the items outlined in the follow-up letter sent with this resolution.
7
(Queensbury Planning Board O1/16/2024)
a) 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,
b) If applicable, the Sanitary Sewer connection plan must be submitted to the Wastewater
Department for its review, approval,permitting and inspection;
c) 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;
d) If application was referred to engineering then Engineering sign-off required prior to signature of
Zoning Administrator of the approved plans;
e) Final approved plans should have dimensions and setbacks noted on the site plan/survey, floor
plans and elevation for the existing rooms and proposed rooms in the building and site
improvements;-
f) If required,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 from Construction Activity"prior to the start of any site work.
b. The project NOT(Notice of Termination)upon completion of the project;
c. The applicant must maintain on their project site,for review by staff:
i. 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;
ii. The project NOI and proof of coverage under the current NYSDEC SPDES General
Permit,or an individual SPDES permit issued for the project if required.
g) 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;
h) The applicant must meet with Staff after approval and prior to issuance of Building Permit
and/or the beginning of any site work;
i) Subsequent issuance of further permits, including building permits is dependent on compliance
with this and all other conditions of this resolution;
j) 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.
k) This resolution is to be placed in its entirety on the final plans.
1) Completion of the west side fence will be done by December 2025.
Motion seconded by Brady Stark. Duly adopted this 16`h day of January 2024 by the following vote:
MR. TRAVER-Okay. Thank you. Any discussion?
MRS. MOORE-I would just clarify the fence would be completed by 2025. Just say,you're going to say
amend to provide clarification that the fence will be completed by 2025.
MR. DEEB-We should put a month on there. You said the end of 2025?
MR. CARLINO-Yes.
MR. DEEB-I'd put a date.
MR. TRAVER-Probably the end of the year.
AYES: Mrs. McDevitt,Mr. Stark, Mr. Stefanzick,Mr. Deeb,Mr. Traver
NOES: NONE
ABSENT: Mr. Longacker, Mr. Magowan
MR. TRAVER-You are all set.
MR. ZAPPER-Thanks,everybody.
MR. TRAVER-The next section of our agenda this evening is recommendations from the Planning Board
to the Zoning Board of Appeals. This is where we look at applications that are coming into the Town that
have variance requests and we do a preliminary review and then the Zoning Board of Appeals does the
formal review. The first item on our list is Liberty Restaurants Development, Site Plan 1-2024 and
Freshwater Wetlands permit 1-2024.
PLANNING BOARD RECOMMENDATIONS TO THE ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS:
SITE PLAN NO. 1-2024 FRESHWATER WETLANDS 1-2024 SEQR TYPE: TYPE 11. LIBERTY
RESTAURANTS DEVELOPMENT. AGENT(S): BRETT L. STEENBURGH, PE. OWNER(S):
S
(Queensbury Planning Board O1/16/2024)
PARKER HAMMOND DEV., LLC. ZONING: CI. LOCATION: 717-721 GLEN STREET.
APPLICANT PROPOSES DEMOLITION OF ALL 4,260 SQ.FT.EXISTING BUILDINGS IN ORDER
TO CONSTRUCT A NEW 1,993 SQ. FT. POPEYE'S FAST FOOD RESTAURANT. PROJECT
INCLUDES ASSOCIATED SITE WORK FOR STORMWATER,LIGHTING,LANDSCAPING,AND
ONSITE VEHICLE PARKING, DRIVE AISLES AND MERGER OF THREE PARCELS. THE
PROJECT IS SUBJECT TO A FRESHWATER WETLANDS PERMIT FOR WORK WITHIN 100 FT.
OF A DESIGNATED WETLAND. PURSUANT TO CHAPTER 179-3-040,SITE PLAN FOR NEW
FOOD SERVICE USE IN A CI ZONE SHALL BE SUBJECT TO PLANNING BOARD REVIEW AND
APPROVAL. VARIANCE: RELIEF IS SOUGHT FOR SETBACKS. PLANNING BOARD SHALL
PROVIDE A RECOMMENDATION TO THE ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS. CROSS
REFERENCE: AV 1-2024. WARREN CO.REFERRAL: JANUARY 2024. SITE INFORMATION:
WETLANDS. LOT SIZE: 0.3 ACRE,0.34 ACRE,0.27 ACRE. TAX MAP NO. 302.6-1-12,302.6-1-
13,302.6-1-14. SECTION: 179-3-040.
BRETT STEENBURGH, REPRESENTING APPLICANT,PRESENT
MR. TRAVER-Laura?
MRS. MOORE-So the applicant proposes demolition of the two existing buildings for a total of 4,260
square feet in order to construct a new1,993 square foot Popeye's fast food restaurant. The project includes
associated site work for stormwater,light,landscaping,on-site vehicle parking,drive aisles,and merger of
the three parcels. The project is subject to a Freshwater Wetlands permit for work within 100 feet of a
designated wetland. The variance that is being requested is the proposed building is to be located 41 feet
to the edge of the wetland where a 75 foot setback is required, and then the front canopy is to be located
72 feet from the front setback where a 75 foot setback is required.
MR. TRAVER-Okay. Thank you. Good evening.
MR. STEENBURGH-Good evening. My name's Brett Steenburgh. I'm the engineer for the applicant,
Liberty Restaurants Development. The proposed,as Laura kind of took away everything that I was going
to say in her presentation, but it's a 1,990 square foot restaurant with 12 seats, small dining area with a
double drive thru. Everybody in recent years has gone to,you know,the more drive thru than seating and
less seating in the restaurants. There's a, the property is occupied by two buildings. One is, I think, a
vape shop and consignment shop and the other's a multi-family residence, both pretty dilapidated,
relatively large parking area in the back of the commercial building, a little bit of lawn area behind the
existing multi-family residence. We've been working on this for quite some time and the initial
application actually had a much larger building on it that actually extended a little bit further back,was a
24 seat restaurant. One of the reasons that we've gone to a 12 seat restaurant is to reduce that wetland
impact for this wetland that's in the rear of the property. We tried to pull the building as far away as we
could from that wetland boundary. The wetlands,they're fragmite and cattails and wetlands. We will
require an Army Corps Nationwide permit for a very small impact, 0.17 acres of impact,just for the rear
portion of the parking lot and drive area,this area in here. We met with actually DOT, Laura, Mr. Frank
on site almost a year ago now to look at, there were some issues with drainage in the past from this site.
On the existing house there's a stream channel that runs basically out of this wetland area, which drains
the property to the south and west and then there's another actually a culvert pipe that comes in from the
commercial properties to the north and west into a drainage channel and there's a pipe that, there's a
retaining wall and a pipe and the pipe actually makes a 90 degree bend and it ties into the State system.
Atone point in time,at that 90 degree bend,the pipe collapsed. We don't even really know what the pipe
consisted of, collapsed. They cleaned it out, but evidently it collapsed enough that it flooded Route 9
when there was no place for the water to go. So when we met with them, one of the things we talked
about was kind of opening that up so you can see it cutting that end section off. So really this whole
section of pipe that we show here that's existing here is going to be cut off to the mid-section that can be
seen,that can see if there's going to be an impact there isn't that 90 degree bend. We did try to work with
the neighboring property to obtain an easement so that we could do just a little bit of grading on the
property which would have made it a lot simpler. Unfortunately they weren't amenable to what we were
looking to do. So it's requiring us to put in a retaining wall along this side so that we can create that
stream channel and create that safe passage of stormwater through the site, but from a stormwater
standpoint all of the site will drain to an attenuation basin located here, that would overflow into that
storm channel located here. At the end of the day, we are retaining more water on site. The pre-
development rates far exceed what our post-development rates of stormwater off site will be, especially
directly into the Glen Street, but there's a lot of water going there now. We're actually going to be
adjusting a lot of that an attenuating that site, which is a good thing. We do have some comments
regarding the stormwater from LaBella we received last week. I've looked through that and they're very
minor in nature. I don't foresee anything that's going to cause any issues with the design. One of the,the
two variances that we're here for this evening, one would be the shoreline setback being 41 feet from the
building to the existing wetland boundary which is right there, and the other is the front setback on the
building. We currently have the building,and I'm trying to make sure I've got the numbers correct because
they might be slightly off from what you stated. We currently have the building set back 76.5 feet to the
9
(Queensbury Planning Board 01/16/2024)
face of the building. There is a three foot canopy that covers that sidewalk and that entrance that wraps
around the front of the building. So the face of that canopy would actually be set back 73 .5 feet with the
required 75. You can see that canopy located right here that runs along the front of the building, and has
some down lighting underneath it. We did, I misinterpreted the Code. When we were looking at it I
thought the Code states that you can have an overhang 1S inches into the setback. So I moved it back 1S
inches so there's only 1S inches of that canopy protruding into the setback,but Laura explained to me today
that the whole canopy is going to have to be because the canopy's larger than 1S inches. So the whole
canopy's going to have to be behind the setback. We can do that. We can move it back,but in doing so,
we'll have to move this parking. We've got it as tight as we can have it back there. We'll have to move
the parking back,impact a little bit more wetlands. So I'd like the opinion of the Board. I mean from a
Nationwide permit,an Army Corps standpoint,I don't foresee any issues with the wetland impact permit,
but there is a variance with the Town of Queensbury for that shoreline setback and moving closer to those
wetlands. Whatever this Board sees fit we're happy to do that. If I need to move the building back another
1S inches and move everything back 1S inches, or go for that 1S inch,foot and a half,variance on the front
canopy overhang. As far as parking goes on the site, we're more than adequate. We have 1S parking
spaces. Code requires us to have eight,and we have 1S,because typically they're usually pretty well staffed
with eight to ten employees and we want to make sure we have enough for the 12 seats in the restaurant.
We'd rather have one or two more than have people not being able to find a place to park,but there'll be
parking along the front of the building,which will probably be what most of the customers will be taking,
some parking on this side, and then probably most typically the employees tend to park on the drive thru
side because those are the last parking spaces the customers tend to get to. We are showing a couple of
bicycle racks, a trash enclosure,which is a CMU trash enclosure,to match the building. They do a great
job. They tend to match. Popeye's requires that for their design. Single means of ingress and egress onto
Route 9,noting that pretty much everything from here to here is one big,open curb cut. So from a traffic
management standpoint, reducing that down to a single 30 foot wide curb cut would be much more
amenable to New York State DOT and reduce it back. Obviously in the process the applicant will be
required to curb along the roadway and install the sidewalk along that portion of the road. We are
showing a sidewalk connection to the existing sidewalk with a crosswalk here into the building. At this
point I'd open it up to the Board to see if you have any questions. We do know we'll probably need
variances for the signs. We're waiting on the signage package, want to make sure we get the best
information to you so that we know exactly what we need.
MR. TRAVER-Understood. Thank you. Well,from my own view,with regard to the setbacks,I would
rather have more encroachment on Glen Street and less on the wetlands myself. So I kind of go with your
suggestion there. Question on the parking. How do you handle,like in the summer you have people with
boats and campers and things like that. How is your parking lot able to handle vehicles?
MR. STEENBURGH-Yes,that's a very good point. It's the first time this question's been asked. We can
look at that to see if there would be any way to.
MR.TRAVER-I mean it's really more of a site plan issue,which we're not discussing tonight. We're really
looking at the setback variances.
MR.STEENBURGH-But I did see that in the Staff comments,and it's the first time it's been addressed and
I understand,you know,given your proximity to Lake George and the other lakes in the region.
MR. TRAVER-Yes. In the summer you'll find that there's a significant percentage of vehicles that have.
MR. STEENBURGH-I know. We can look at that and see if there's a way to possibly maybe make
something here for oversized parking, at least one space, if a vehicle comes in. There is some room for
flexibility on the site. I had it,it's a great question. It's the first time it's come up and we'll look at it.
MR. TRAVE R-Something to think about when we get to site plan later on. Because this is a referral to
the ZBA and recommendation from the Planning Board,there is no public hearing at this stage. There will
be public hearing when the Zoning Board of Appeals hears this application and also when they return to
us for the actual site plan review,but for tonight,I'll just open it up for members of the Board for questions,
comments of the applicant.
MR. STEFANZIK-I mean I think this is a great project,nice building. They're replacing three rundown
buildings.
MR. TRAVER-Yes.
MR. STEFANZIK-And you're going to have one curb cut. You're reducing the curb cut. Connectivity to
the rest of the Town, landscaping and all that. The canopy, I think the canopy looks very nice from an
aesthetic standpoint. So I agree with the Chairman, you know, encroachment towards Glen Street is
probably more desirable,but I do have a question or two for the site plan,something to think about for the
site plan. In the landscaping plan,you can consider maybe a tree or two. I've noticed like when you look
10
(Queensbury Planning Board 01/16/2024)
across the street you have the Walgreens, you have trees there. Along other storefronts on Glen Street
there's some very nice trees. Maybe just think about in the landscape plan.
MR. STEENBURGH-I thought we did have I think four trees along.
MR. STEFANZIK-They looked like shrubs to me.
MR. STEENBURGH-I think there were some, but I can look at that and we'll make sure that we try to
keep consistency with the other uses on the site.
MR.STEFANZIK-That would look really nice. The other thing is,any idea how many cars,the maximum
amount of cars coming out?
MR. STEENBURGH-I can get you those numbers. We actually, as part of another Popeye's in western
New York, we actually did traffic counts on an existing Popeye's restaurant, and I think those hold best
for what I can give you. I don't have those on hand right now,but I can certainly get those to you,but I
think it might be a project error.
MR. STEFANZIK-And we can talk about that at site plan, but the reason I'm asking is when you're on
Glen Street,like when you're coming from say Glens Falls and you want to enter into,right now when you
want to enter into Dunkin Donuts,they have like an off ramp,like a turn lane to get into Dunkin Donuts.
It's got an arrow,but if you're coming from Aviation Road,it's got an arrow that goes in,that's pointing in
to Walgreens,and they kind of collide almost right in front of where the exit's going to be for Popeye's. So
I'm kind of,you know,maybe discuss in site plan how is that all going to work with traffic, if you've got
two cars coming and they want to turn this way and that way and now Popeye's wants to come right out,
how is that all going to flow.
MR. STEENBURGH-Yes,I will tell you one of the things we tried to do was move the entrance to kind of
align with Walgreens because that's typically how DOT would want it. They don't like large generation
offset because you end of getting some confusion with the drivers. We can certainly take a look at that
and get you some idea, but I do have those numbers in front of me. In the peak hour, which is your
afternoon peak,it would generate 62 trip ends,with 29 entering and 33 exiting the site. So approximately
one every minute either entering or exiting the site,if you look at it from an overall standpoint. The good
news is that their peak is offset from Dunkin Donuts'peak,but more coinciding with Wendy's peak across
the street.
MR. STEFANZIK-That's all been studied by the DOT?
MR. S TEENBURGH-Typically if you're less than 100 trip ends DOT wouldn't be taking a look at the
intersection and the curb cut design. I know when we spoke with DOT on site we actually had a left turn
lane incorporated in our drive thru exit or possibly a right turn lane incorporated in our exit. They did
not want that. They want one lane in and one lane out. That was their only comment regarding the
entrance and exit. To be honest with you we're more focused on the stormwater management and the
issues they've had in the past for that.
MR. STEFANZIK-Yes, I'm just thinking about all the traffic that's there right now. Everything's looking
beautiful and we've got all this traffic here and now we're going to add another 62 cars. So I think it's all
great,just want to avoid any,you know,back up and traffic and accidents and all of that.
MR.STEENBURGH-Understood,and,you know,it's a valid concern. I haven't,I mean,I'll be honest with
you,opening weekend is always a nightmare. You get a lot of traffic. I know in Clifton Park they had a
ton of traffic. We try,one of the things that we try to do is provide as much stacking around the building
as we can. Unfortunately this site with the wetlands we weren't able to provide as much as I would have
wanted around the building,but one of the things,too,that we've run into in the past with DOT and other
traffic agencies, is making sure we have this turn here into the site, because the last thing we want is
people turning into the site, driving right into that drive thru lane. This gives people an out so it's not
backing up that drive thru lane. It gives you that stacking distance,but we can certainly take a look at that
and discuss it a little more at site plan, but I do appreciate this is a great opportunity for me to get my
ducks in a row so that when we're back here for site plan we can move as expeditiously as possible.
MR. TRAVER-Very good.
MR.DEEB-The stacking seems to be the main concern. Traffic is a main concern on that road,and I think
that that really has to be addressed. As far as going in with boats and things of that nature,we didn't seem
too concerned with the rest of the fast food restaurants on that street. So I'm just, I just feel that maybe
that's something that we have to be cautious with. Because if we do that there, are we going to do that
with somebody else,too,with other restaurants? I mean you have a lot of restaurants on that street.
MR. STEENBURGH-I know.
11
(Queensbury Planning Board 01/16/2024)
MR. DEEB-I just thought in all fairness to all parties involved, I thought I would mention that,but traffic
can be a problem,and I think that that has to be addressed.
MR. STEENBURGH-I appreciate your candor on that, but, you know, I will take a look at that, just
because,you know,if they have the ability for somebody that's coming up for the weekend to get their boat
on Lake George and they want to stop and get Popeye's, I'm certain they would happily have another
customer. So if it makes it easier for them to get into Popeye's and out.
MR. DEEB-It enhances your business.
MR. STEENBURGH-I don't know how they would handle that,but I think it's a great comment from the
Board, a great concern, something we really don't take into consideration. We look at it for fire truck
access. We look at it for pedestrian access and vehicle access. One of the nice things that I can tell you
about this one,this design lends itself,it drives me nuts with fast food restaurants,is the accessible parking
spaces are located right in front of the building. What drives me nuts about the traditional drive thru is
the parking is always on the outbound around the building. There's rarely parking up against the building.
So people with accessible issues quite often times have to cross the drive thru lane,which may be bumper
to bumper and they may not be able to get through it to get to the facility,to get to the ramp that they need
to get into the building, and it's something that we've been working with every site that we have to try to
avoid that,that circumstance, and in this site that would allow us to do that.
MR. DEEB-I like that. The other thing,the Clifton Park store is on Route 146.
MR. STEENBURGH-Yes,I did not design that one.
MR. DEEB-That's a heavily traveled road.
MR. STEENBURGH-Yes,that is.
MR. DEEB-Any problems down there?
MR. STEENBURGH-Only on opening weekend. That was it. Opening weekend was crazy,you know,
they were lined up and we had the police there to keep people safe as the people were waiting to get into
the site,but that's really the only time they ever had issues down there.
MR. DEEB-That's very comparable to Route 9.
MR. STEENBURGH-Yes.
MR. TRAVER-All right. Anything else from the Board before we consider the resolution? This evening
we're asked to make a referral to the Zoning Board of Appeals and communicate to them any concerns that
we have regarding this project as proposed. Do we have any specific items that we wish to tell them about?
MR. STEFANZIK-The traffic discussion is something that we would deal with ourselves.
MR. TRAVER-Yes,t hat's not related to the variance.
MR. STEFANZIK-Not related to the variance.
MR. TRAVER-It is a site plan issue. We've begun discussing is this evening. I'm sure it will come up
again. So,our referral to the ZBA is only with regards to the variances.
MRS. MOORE-So I just want to make sure that we clarify that the front canopy is to be located 73 feet
from the front setback.
MR. STEENBURGH-73.5 feet from the front setback.
MR. TRAVER-Make sure we get the right number.
MR. STEFANZIK-Do you want to put that in the resolution?
MR. TRAVER-No,not for the referral. All right,are we ready to go?
MR. DEEB-We're not going to put that in the resolution?
MRS.MOORE-Not typically for a recommendation. I want to make sure that the Board understands,the
Planning Board sees that it's 73 and a half,and then at the Zoning Board tomorrow.
12
(Queensbury Planning Board 01/16/2024)
MR. DEEB-They have that.
MRS. MOORE-They'll have that information,yes.
MR. TRAVER-All right. I guess we're ready.
RESOLUTION RE: ZBA RESOLUTION RE: AV#1-2024 LIBERTY RESTAURANTS DEVELOPMENT
The applicant has submitted an application for the following: Applicant proposes demolition of all 4,260
sq. ft. existing buildings in order to construct a new 1,993 sq. ft. Popeye's Fast Food restaurant. Project
includes associated site work for stormwater,lighting,landscaping,and onsite vehicle parking,drive aisles
and merger of three parcels. The project is subject to a freshwater wetlands permit for work within 100 ft.
of a designated wetland.Pursuant to chapter 179-3-040,site plan for new food service use in a CI zone shall
be subject to Planning Board review and approval.Variance: Relief is sought for setbacks. Planning Board
shall provide a recommendation to the Zoning Board of Appeals.
The Town of Queensbury Zoning Ordinance,per Section 179-9-070 J 2 b. requires the Planning Board to
provide a written recommendation to the Zoning Board of Appeals for projects that require both Zoning
Board of Appeals&Planning Board approval;
The Planning Board has briefly reviewed and discussed this application,the relief request in the variance
application as well as the potential impacts of this project on the neighborhood and surrounding
community,and found that:
MOTION TO MAKE A RECOMMENDATION ON BEHALF OF THE PLANNING BOARD TO THE
ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS FOR AREA VARIANCE 1-2024 LIBERTY RESTAURANTS
DEVELOPMENT.,Introduced by Fritz Stefanzick who moved for its adoption,and
a) The Planning Board,based on a limited review,has not identified any significant adverse impacts
that cannot be mitigated with current project proposal.
Motion seconded by Ellen McDevitt. Duly adopted this 16`h day of January 2024 by the following vote:
AYES: Mr. Stark,Mr. Stefanzick,Mr. Deeb, Mrs. McDevitt,Mr. Traver
NOES: NONE
ABSENT: Mr. Longacker, Mr. Magowan
MR. TRAVER-You are off to the ZBA.
MR. STEENBURGH-Great. Thank you very much. I appreciate your time this evening,look forward to
coming back and hopefully I'll be able to address most of your questions.
MR. TRAVER-Great. Thank you.
MR. DEEB-Good luck.
MR. TRAVER-The next item on our agenda is also under recommendations to the ZBA. This is for
Georgianna Bodnar,Site Plan 2024.
SITE PLAN NO. 2-2024 SEQR TYPE: TYPE 11. GEORGIANNA BODNAR. AGENT(S):
HUTCHINGS ENGINEERING. OWNER(S): SAME AS APPLICANT. ZONING: WR.
LOCATION: 78 BAY PARKWAY. APPLICANT PROPOSES DEMOLITION OF AN EXISTING 3
SEASON PORCH TO REPLACE IT WITH A 315 SQ. FT. MASTER BEDROOM ON THE FIRST
FLOOR. THE BASEMENT AREA WILL ALSO BE ENLARGED BY 315 SQ.FT.,ALSO ADDING AN
ADDITIONAL 62 SQ. FT. OF CRAWLSPACE. THE EXISTING FRONT PORCH WILL BE
DEMOLISHED TO CONSTRUCT A 62 SQ. FT. MUDROOM THAT WILL HAVE A NEW DECK
AREA OF 216 SQ. FT. +/-. THE SECOND FLOOR TO REMAIN UNCHANGED. PURSUANT TO
CHAPTERS 179-3-040&z 179-6-065,SITE PLAN FOR NEW FLOOR AREA IN A CEA AND HARD
SURFACING WITHIN 50 FT. OF THE SHORELINE SHALL BE SUBJECT TO PLANNING BOARD
REVIEW AND APPROVAL. VARIANCE: RELIEF IS SOUGHT FOR HEIGHT AND SETBACKS.
PLANNING BOARD SHALL PROVIDE A RECOMMENDATION TO THE ZONING BOARD OF
APPEALS. CROSS REFERENCE: AV 632-1979, AV 2-2024. WARREN CO. REFERRAL:
JANUARY 2024. SITE INFORMATION: CEA,LGPC,APA. LOT SIZE: 0.43 ACRES. TAX MAP
NO.226.15-1-22. SECTION: 179-3-040,179-6-065.
13
(Queensbury Planning Board 01/16/2024)
LUCAS DOBIE,REPRESENTING APPLICANT,PRESENT
MR. TRAVER-Laura?
MRS. MOORE-So the applicant proposes demolition of the existing three-season porch to replace it with
a 315 square foot master bedroom on the first floor. The basement area will also be enlarged by 315 sq.ft.,
also adding an additional 62 sq.ft.of crawl space. The existing front porch will be demolished to construct
62 square foot mud room that will have a new deck area of 216 square feet. The second floor to remain
unchanged. Relief is sought for setbacks and not height. I explained that height was not required for this
project. The variance for the master bedroom addition is to be 45.5 feet from the shoreline where 50 feet
is required. The deck addition is to be 44.7 feet from the 50 foot setback, and I already noted the height
not being needed.
MR. TRAVER-Okay. Thank you. Good evening.
MR. DOBIE-Good evening,Board. Thank you for having us. For the record,Lucas Dobie with Hutchins
Engineering,representing our client,Georgianna Bodnar at 7S Bay Parkway which is towards the northeast
portion,northeast corner of Assembly Point on the Harris Bay side. It's a 0.43 acre parcel with a 122 feet
of frontage. Very nice parcel, gorgeous neighborhood up there. Albeit our parcel's a little bit tighter so
we're proposing a nice comprehensive re-work of the site as part of the project. Pretty straightforward to
tear off the existing three-season porch on the north side of the building and to construct a slightly larger
master suite for our client so she can have everything right on the first floor,new bedroom,bathroom, all
that stuff, and new porch entrance, a mud room if you will, on the roadside and most significantly for the
site is a new on-site wastewater treatment system. Right now it has an old, tired system that's still
working but probably would not pass the Park Commission inspection. So we're being somewhat
proactive to get a new properly sized septic tank,pump station,and an elevated mound system out by the
road,which is variance free,full sized. So we're very comfortable with that design,and then for the Board
providing a nice amount of shoreline buffering over north of the boathouse shown in green on the plan
where none exists now. There's a few large trees there which will be maintained,but other than that it's
lawn right up to the boathouse. Proposed it's 1765 square feet of new buffering which we feel is a nice
generous concession on our clients'part and certainly meets the intent of the Code. It's not 1000/o as if it
was a virgin, wide open site, but we sized the number of plantings per the Town Code for that area, for
that almost 1500 square feet,and finally we provided our stormwater mitigation per the Town Code for re-
development projects, which don't trigger the full blown stormwater design, it's so small, the additions,
but we do provide the mitigation for the existing areas,and then again our setback relief is for the shoreline
setback, because that's just how the house is positioned. There's a little corner, or a little clip of the
lakeside of the addition that's within the 50 feet, and then a little bit of the deck addition to create us the
new landing area for the stairs, which works out to I think it's IS square feet for the deck and then it's
below 10 square feet for the addition that would be non-conforming, and it's well below the 2S feet
allowable height. So it's a pretty minor variance request we believe and believe it's a nice, positive re-
development for the neighborhood and would meet our clients' needs. So we're here to ask for your
feedback and recommendation to the Zoning Board and we hope to get our variance tomorrow night and
be back with you all next week. Thank you for your time.
MR. TRAVER-Okay. Very good. So, again,we're here for the variance review this evening and not site
plan, and it's noted that there is no variance request for height. Correct? Because that was changed.
MR. DOBIE-That's correct,Mr. Chairman.
MR. TRAVER-So it's just the setback and the bedroom setback is a foot and a half, and the deck setback
is five and a third?
MR. DOBIE-Correct,sir,of relief,yes,sir.
MR. TRAVER-Right. Well, it certainly is nice that you are adding the shoreline buffering. That's
something that we have struggled long and hard to increase around the lake to protect the lake,but I guess
I don't have anything specific on this. I'll open it up for questions,comments from members of the Board.
MR.STEFANZIK-Does the shoreline buffering include replacement of the two trees that are coming down
in front?
MR. DOBIE-It does not,sir. We can discuss that.
MR. STEFANZIK-You probably want to look at that.
MR.DOBIE-I think we've gone above and beyond existing for what we need. We need three per the Code
and then we have four that are there now.
14
(Queensbury Planning Board 01/16/2024)
MR. STEFANZIK-Right.
MR. DOBIE-We'll take that into consideration next week. Thank you.
MR. TRAVER-We usually try to replace a tree with a tree whenever we can. So if a tree needs to be
removed for some purpose we like to have one, and again, that's a site plan issue, but it's something to
consider.
MRS. MC DEVITT-I know this is site plan,but I'm just curious as to why those two back trees are being
removed,the Beech tree and the Spruce.
MR. DOBIE-Sure. They're not in the best of shape right now, Mrs. McDevitt,and also we need that area
for setback. So they're not going to make it for the new fill that's needed in there.
MR. TRAVER-Other questions, comments? IS there anything specific to the variance request that we
wanted to discuss? Okay. I guess we have a draft resolution.
RESOLUTION RE: ZBA RECOMMENDATION RE: AV#2-2024 GEORGIANNA BODNAR
The applicant has submitted an application for the following: Applicant proposes demolition of an
existing 3 season porch to replace it with a 315 sq.ft.master bedroom on the first floor. The basement area
will also be enlarged by 315 sq. ft., also adding an additional 62 sq. ft. of crawlspace. The existing front
porch will be demolished to construct a 62 sq.ft.mudroom that will have a new deck area of 216 sq.ft. +/-
. The second floor to remain unchanged. Pursuant to chapters 179-3-040 & 179-6-065, site plan for new
floor area in a CEA and hard surfacing within 50 ft. of the shoreline shall be subject to Planning Board
review and approval. Variance: Relief is sought for height and setbacks. Planning Board shall provide a
recommendation to the Zoning Board of Appeals.
The Town of Queensbury Zoning Ordinance,per Section 179-9-070 J 2 b. requires the Planning Board to
provide a written recommendation to the Zoning Board of Appeals for projects that require both Zoning
Board of Appeals&Planning Board approval;
The Planning Board has briefly reviewed and discussed this application,the relief request in the variance
application as well as the potential impacts of this project on the neighborhood and surrounding
community,and found that:
MOTION TO MAKE A RECOMMENDATION ON BEHALF OF THE PLANNING BOARD TO THE
ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS FOR AREA VARIANCE 2-2024 GEORGIANNA BODNAR.,
Introduced by Fritz Stefanzick who moved for its adoption,and
a) The Planning Board,based on a limited review,has not identified any significant adverse impacts
that cannot be mitigated with current project proposal.
Motion seconded by Brady Stark. Duly adopted this 16`h day of January 2024 by the following vote:
AYES: Mr. Stefanzick,Mr. Deeb,Mrs. McDevitt,Mr. Stark,Mr. Traver
NOES: NONE
ABSENT: Mr. Longacker, Mr. Magowan
MR. TRAVER-You're off to the ZBA.
MR. DOBIE-Great. Thank you so much.
MR. DEEB-Thank you,Lucas. Good luck.
MR. TRAVER-The next item on our agenda is also a recommendation to the Zoning Board of Appeals.
This is David Howard, Subdivision Preliminary Stage 1-2024.
SUBDIVISION NO. 1-2024 PRELIMINARY STAGE. SEQR TYPE: UNLISTED. DAVID
HO WARD. AGENT(S): HUTCHINS ENGINEERING. O WNER(S): SAME AS APPLICANT.
ZONING: MDR. LOCATION: SHERMAN AVE. APPLICANT PROPOSES A TWO LOT
SUBDIVISION OF A 25.78 ACRE PARCEL. THE PARCEL WOULD BE DIVIDED INTO 24.70
ACRES AND 1.08 ACRES. THE PROJECT IS LOCATED IN THE MDR ZONE WHICH REQUIRES
2 ACRES FOR LOTS WITHOUT SEWER AND WATER TOGETHER. THE PROJECT SITE IS
THE BARRINGER HEIGHTS SUBDIVISION PREVIOUSLY APPROVED FOR SR1A CLUSTER OF
32 LOTS. PER SUBDIVISION 4-2003,LOT NUMBER NOT TO EXCEED 40. UNDER SUB 19-2018,
15
(Queensbury Planning Board 01/16/2024)
THE PROJECT AREA WAS PREVIOUSLY APPROVED FOR A 4 LOT SUBDIVISION. THE
PROPOSED SUBDIVISION WOULD BE 36 LOTS IN TOTAL. LOT lE WOULD BE 24.70 ACRES
AND TO BE DEEDED TO PARCEL 308.6-2-18. LOT 1D WOULD BE 1.08 ACRES AND DEVELOPED
FOR A SINGLE FAMILY HOME. VARIANCE: RELIEF IS SOUGHT FOR PARCEL SIZE.
PLANNING BOARD SHALL PROVIDE A RECOMMENDATION TO THE ZONING BOARD OF
APPEALS. CROSS REFERENCE: SUB 4-2003, SUB 19-2018, AV 3-2024. WARREN CO.
REFERRAL: N/A FOR SUBDIVISION. SITE INFORMATION: WETLANDS. LOT SIZE: 25.78
ACRES. TAX MAP NO. 308.7-1-48.1. SECTION: 179-3-040,183.
TOM CENTER, REPRESENTING APPLICANT,PRESENT
MR. TRAVER-Laura?
MRS. MOORE-The applicant proposes a two lot subdivision of a 25.7 acre parcel. The parcel would be
divided into 24.70 acres and 1.08 acres. The project is located in the MDR zone which requires two acres
for lots without sewer and water together. The project site is part of the Barringer Heights subdivision
previously approved. In this instance the 1.08 acre parcel is to be developed for a single family home. As
noted the nature of the variance is the lot requires a minimum of two acres. Relief is for a proposed lot of
1.08 acres.
MR. TRAVER-Okay. Thank you.
MR. CENTER-Good evening. Tom Center with Hutchins Engineering representing Mr. Howard. As
Laura said, this is a request to subdivision one lot out of the larger parcel on the west side of Richmond
Hill Drive. Mr. Howard did purchase it via tax parcel, but originally there was no Homeowners
Association set up to maintain control of this parcel during the initial subdivision of the property. So it
ended up going through Mr. Ferone and then going up for taxes. What we're proposing tonight is to
subdivide a one acre parcel out of this to build a single family home to be sold and to take the remainder of
that parcel and attach it to Mr.Howard's parcel which is just on Luzerne Road,but write a deed restriction
that if he sells his parcel on Luzerne Road that this parcel is attached to it,that they go together married
hand in hand so that we don't have the continued problem with this conservation piece going up for taxes
because nobody can use it. This way it'll be attached via the deed that if he sells his lot,and he understands
this. He plans on,you know,he lives on Luzerne Road. He has along time family that's lived in Town,
doesn't plan on going anywhere, but he understands if he sells his Luzerne Road parcel that the deed
language is this parcel goes with it,and that way there's always an owner of this parcel that is attached to
another piece of land so it stays on the tax rolls and doesn't keep recycling back and forth. So we're
requesting a recommendation to go to the Zoning Board to ask to have a single family home. The reason
we did make it two lots is we're trying to keep as much of that conservation land in the conservation piece,
everything we need to do on the one acre piece we have right there and still allow for a buffer plus it's going
to be conservation all the way around it so we're trying to keep as much land in that conservation piece as
we can. That's why we only did a single acre and asked for the variance for that,just to try to keep that
conservation piece as much as possible.
MR. TRAVER-Okay. Well it seems fairly straightforward. Questions, comments from members of the
Board? They're here for tonight for a recommendation for us specifically for the variance request for less
than two acres.
MR. DEEB-The lot seems to be in conformity with the rest of the lots. My question was why didn't you
just go two acres? I couldn't understand why you wouldn't go to the two acres.
MR. CENTER-Well,trying to keep as much conservation as possible.
MR. DEEB-That makes sense. The lots conforms with the other lots,too.
MR. CENTER-It's a little bit larger than some of those. Some of those are.8 or smaller.
MR. TRAVER-All right. Well if there's nothing else,we have a draft resolution.
RESOLUTION RE: ZBA RECOMMENDATION RE: AV#3-2024 DAVID HOWARD
The applicant has submitted an application for the following: Applicant proposes a two lot subdivision of
a 25.78 acre parcel. The parcel would be divided into 24.70 acres and 1.08 acres. The project is located in
the MDR zone which requires 2 acres for lots without sewer and water together. The project site is the
Barringer Heights subdivision previously approved for SRIA cluster of 32 lots. Per subdivision 4-2003,lot
number not to exceed 40. Under SUB 19-2018, the project area was previously approved for a 4 lot
subdivision. The proposed subdivision would be 36 lots in total. Lot lE would be 24.70 acres and to be
deeded to parcel 308.6-2-18. Lot 1D would be 1.08 acres and developed for a single family home. Variance:
16
(Queensbury Planning Board 01/16/2024)
Relief is sought for parcel size. Planning Board shall provide a recommendation to the Zoning Board of
Appeals.
The Town of Queensbury Zoning Ordinance,per Section 179-9-070 J 2 b. requires the Planning Board to
provide a written recommendation to the Zoning Board of Appeals for projects that require both Zoning
Board of Appeals&Planning Board approval;
The Planning Board has briefly reviewed and discussed this application,the relief request in the variance
application as well as the potential impacts of this project on the neighborhood and surrounding
community,and found that:
MOTION TO MAKE A RECOMMENDATION ON BEHALF OF THE PLANNING BOARD TO THE
ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS FOR AREA VARIANCE 3-2024 DAVID HOWARD.,Introduced by
Fritz Stefanzick who moved for its adoption, and
a) The Planning Board,based on a limited review,has not identified any significant adverse impacts
that cannot be mitigated with current project proposal.
Motion seconded by Ellen McDevitt. Duly adopted this 16`h day of January 2024 by the following vote:
AYES: Mr. Deeb,Mrs. McDevitt,Mr. Stark,Mr. Stefanzick,Mr. Traver
NOES: NONE
ABSENT: Mr. Longacker, Mr. Magowan
MR. TRAVER-You're off to the ZBA.
MR. CENTER-Thank you.
MR. DEEB-Good luck.
MR. TRAVER-The next item on our agenda,I'm sorry,this is a new section of our agenda, New Business,
and this is also Unapproved Development. This next item is Site Plan 3-2024 for the Kelly Family Trust.
NEW BUSINESS—UNAPPROVED DEVELOPMENT:
SITE PLAN 3-2024 SEQR TYPE: TYPE 11. KELLY FAMILY TRUST. AGENT(S): HUTCHINS
ENGINEERING. OWNER(S): SAME AS APPLICANT. ZONING: RR-3A. LOCATION: 15
BLACKBERRY LANE. APPLICANT PROPOSES TO CONSTRUCT A SINGLE FAMILY HOME
WITH ONSITE SEPTIC AND STORMWATER MANAGEMENT. PROJECT WORK INCLUDES
PREVIOUS UNAPPROVED CLEARING AND FILLING WITH DISTURBANCE OF 66,711 SQ.FT.,
INCLUDING A NO-CUT AREA OF THE LOT PER SUBDIVISION. THE PREVIOUSLY
DISTURBED AREA HAS RE-GROWN SINCE 2020 THROUGH THE PRESENT. THE NEW
HOME WILL HAVE A 4,387 SQ. FT. FOOTPRINT, A WALK OUT BASEMENT AND HAVE A
HEIGHT OF 37.6 FT. PURSUANT TO CHAPTERS 179-3-040&z 179-6-060,SITE PLAN REVIEW
FOR NEW CONSTRUCTION WITHIN SLOPES OF 15% OR GREATER SHALL BE SUBJECT TO
PLANNING BOARD REVIEW AND APPROVAL. CROSS REFERENCE: SUB 20-2003.
WARREN CO.REFERRAL: JANUARY 2024. SITE INFORMATION: SLOPES. LOT SIZE: 3.07
ACRES. TAX MAP NO.289.18-1-35.5. SECTION: 179-3-040,179-6-060.
TOM CENTER, REPRESENTING APPLICANT,PRESENT
MR. TRAVER-Laura?
MRS.MOORE-This application is construction of a single family home with on-site septic and stormwater
management. The project work includes previously unapproved clearing and filling with disturbance of
approximately 66,711 square feet plus or minus, including a no-cut area of the lot per subdivision. The
previously disturbed area has re-grown since 2020 through the present time. The new home will have
approximately 4,3S7 square feet footprint. That includes a walk-out basement and an approximate height
of 37.5 feet. Site Plan Review required for the new construction within slopes of 150/o or greater.
MR. TRAVER-Okay. Thank you. Good evening.
MR. CENTER-Good evening. Tom Center with Hutchins Engineering again representing Kelly Family
Trust. This project came to us after Mr. Kelly had gotten Stop Work Order on bringing in fill. Looking
back in the history of the parcel, it would appear that this parcel was used during the subdivision
construction. There might have been some clearing and filling done prior to Mr. Kelly purchasing it. You
17
(Queensbury Planning Board 01/16/2024)
can see that on the GIS County mapping when you look at it, but the bulk of the, some of the fill was
brought in in this area. Basically the site was cut down at the entrance down to about the same level that
we're proposing, and then this back area was filled over the top. Staff had asked us to prepare two site
plans,one showing the original topography versus what was cut and filled,and then the proposed,and our
proposed cut and fill,we're doing very little re-grading of the existing upper tier grade where the driveway
is, and the lower grade is going to be just re-graded. It's basically 343. It's going to stay at almost that
same height. So we're not doing any other larger cut and fills. We're not getting into any other steeper
slopes. The slope in particular that's discussed over in this area has already re-seeded itself. It was very
brushy, has evergreen trees that are probably four to five feet tall on the slope now, it has, you know,
looking at it, I've been out there this summer, and in the fall. We've had a lot of rain. It's just got brush
and some bare soil. There's no signs of great erosion problems there. It's a well-drained sand. So as far
as getting into, I know there's a comment in the Town Engineer's comments regarding slopes and re-
grading them. They've already re-established themselves. They're not settling. They've been there for
anywhere from 200E to 2020 when they were stopped, and they haven't settled. Anything that could go
wrong has not gone wrong. There's no erosion going off the site.
MR. TRAVER-So the worst thing you could do is dig it up.
MR. CENTER-And I really don't want to,you know, to get into those slopes you would be taking away
the cover that's there,the trees that have already grown up. We're not proposing to discharge into those
steep slopes. We're trying to take this lawn area and grade it so that it kind of drains slowly towards the
back and comes more down in this area. The area that it gets a little steeper is over in here. We have no
issue with modifying the septic system in regards to the Town Engineer's comment to pull them back away
from the slope a little bit more. We've actually over-designed the septic system a little bit. We don't take
any issue with that.
MR. STEFANZIK-So you're going to take his recommendation and set it 35 feet?
MR. CENTER-We can slide it back a little bit farther. I don't think we need to. We're more than 10 feet
away from that here and the soils are deep and well-drained,but we can slide it a little bit further away
from the back of the house, and I'll work with Building and Codes office and see about the separation
distances and everything to make sure we're not going too far away from where it comes out of the house,
because most of the plumbing stuff is more in this corner of the structure. We'll certainly look to see if we
can get closer than that 20 feet away from that slope, but it's good, well-drained sands. I'm not very
concerned about break out or anything. Other than that,it's a pretty straightforward design,very similar
to what we did when we designed Mr. Wild's house that's over in this area that has a walkout basement
and a driveway with an infiltration trench alongside the driveway. Like I said,we're not doing any major
re-grading. That's already happened. That's already occurred with the fill that we brought in there over
the years.
MR. TRAVER-Okay.
MR. STEFANZIK-So the site plan, then,is going to be because you're moving the septic, the site plan is
going to be different than what you have right now.
MR. CENTER-Yes,the septic,I can slide the septic a little bit further in this area.
MR. STEFANZIK-Okay. So then this will be updated.
MR. CENTER-Yes. If that satisfies the Board,we can move that and show it to Staff.
MR. STEFANZIK-I was just kind of curious how you're going to close with the engineering.
MR. CENTER-Well I have to address the engineering.
MR. STEFANZIK-And then this gets updated,and then that becomes part of the file?
MR. TRAVER-That becomes part of the file.
MR.CENTER-I'd like the opportunity maybe to see if we could get Mr.Frank out to the site to look at the
slope and the erosion that they've,geotechnical,this fill has been there for four years and hasn't moved,and
if he can confirm that there's no obvious erosion,the time to do it would be in the spring. There's not any
plans to construct quickly. So prior to issuance of the building permit we would like to request to meet
out there with the, I know actually Bruce is retiring. So it would be the new MS-4 coordinator. We do
have,because this is part of a subdivision. We have a Notice of Intent already. We have MS-4 approvals
on that, and that's already in the process because this is the last lot in that subdivision. So we have that,
we can work with the MS-4 coordinator, and if there's any concerns certainly we can address them at the
18
(Queensbury Planning Board 01/16/2024)
time. I don't think we have any,but getting eyes on the site. I understand the engineer's comment. He's
looking at it,too, and I think working with the Town.
MR. TRAVER-Yes,it's a logical comment,but to your point,if it's established,I mean the worst thing you
could do is go in and start fooling around with what's there. Then you take away what's there. Okay.
We do have a public hearing on this application as well. Is there anyone in the audience that wants to
address the Planning Board on Site Plan 3-2024? Yes, sir.
PUBLIC HEARING OPENED
MIKE WILD
MR. WILD-Thanks so much for the opportunity. My name's Mike Wild. I am one of the neighbors. I
was also the one that helped create the subdivision. So with Mr. Center's comments earlier,he mentioned
that a lot of fill was brought in. I don't recall a lot of fill being brought in. A lot of the fill that was placed
there was actually cuts that were done by the current owner on the northern side of the property. So if I
can pleasure the Board, there's something that I did with the prior owner, and we established some
regulations for the subdivision,and I brought copies for everyone if you'd like,I can share it with the Board.
MR. TRAVER-Sure. While you're passing that out,I guess I would ask,are these?
MR.WILD-They were filed with the Clerk.
MR. TRAVER-You called them regulations. Are they part of the deeds or how are these?
MR.WILD-I can't understand how they wouldn't be part of the deeds if they were filed by an attorney to
be tied with the subdivision for all future lots. The reason we did that.
MR. TRAVER-That was my question.
MR. WILD-Yes. Primarily,the reason we did that was just to ensure that the property was developed in
a way that consistent with what we agreed to with the Planning and Zoning Boards when the subdivision
was first created,and we also did it to make sure that we had buffers in between the individual properties.
All right. So we kind of created the natural environment. My concern isn't with the development and
what they're trying to do with the house. I have no problem with the house,but what I am really concerned
about was the fact that there was additional cutting that,you know, we told him that it wasn't allowed.
They proceeded to do it anyway, and that, again, was on the north side, but my concern is the buffers
between the two lots, and I can't really tell based on the plans here whether they plan on doing any
additional cutting between Lots 5, which is that, and Lot 6 to the north and my Lot 4 to the,I guess east
of where this property is. So if you look at the satellite imagery,you can go back to probably prior to 2010,
or maybe even the early 2010's.there was clearing of this property by Peerless Development who purchased
the property from me, and the lot was cleared in such a way, and fill was done,to allow for a house to be
positioned. That was done in such a way to maintain the buffers between the lots. Since that time, and
by the prior owners,what they did was actually take significant amount of fill off the northern cut. Now
I'm not really concerned so much about the cut as I am the buffer. All right,and there are significant trees
that are on that northern face, and the owners of Lot 6 that I used to own,they are also going to probably
talk about that. My concern is there's some very large trees that are now exposed to the winds that haven't
had to deal with it for the last, who knows, 100 years, 50 years. They survived the original cuts that we
did, but now more cuts, I have no idea. So I'm worried about the trees. I'm not capable of having an
arborist come in and say,yes, the trees are okay,but you can see some of them are pretty tall and pretty
narrow and they're bent over,but that's between their lot and Lot 6. Between my lot,Lot 4,and this there
are a band of arborvitaes that were placed when the cut was done to kind of help establish that buffer
between. As long as they don't go and destroy that buffer, I'm totally fine with what they're doing,but I
couldn't tell,based on the documents that were provided.
MR. TRAVER-Okay. So I want to make sure I fully understand your concern. So the plans that are
submitted,your concern is that is there any cutting being proposed beyond what is depicted here. Is that
what you're saying?
MR. WILD-That is currently there. Okay. So I really couldn't tell because there's a couple of different
lines, and they were seen prior to 2020, but there was some significant work that was done after they
purchased the lot. So I can't tell what line is which, and maybe Tom can help me with that. I couldn't
understand, but again, I'm not really concerned with what is, it is, right? You can't really re-build that
buffer,and I'm not trying to cause any problems with that.
MR. TRAVER-You just don't want an even bigger problem.
19
(Queensbury Planning Board 01/16/2024)
MR. WILD-1 just don't want an additional problem,and actually on the southern side I guess as you look
at this,those arborvitaes are right at the edge of an incline that comes onto my property and it's basically
a pothole. So,you know,we've got to be careful about drainage. I don't think that will be a problem with
doing it, but the more they cut the more opportunity there is for the drainage to come down into our
property and potentially destroy the buffer.
MR. TRAVER-Okay. We will ask.
MR.WILD-And again,in stuff that I've provided you there's,I think it's a few pages back,but there's two
sections, I've stated the fourth and the fifth section, talks about maintaining the buffers and not to cut
down any more trees than is absolutely required for a house to be placed.
MR. TRAVER Just so that you're aware, as far as our role as the Planning Board,we are not in a position
to enforce this document. That becomes,if there is a violation of this agreement or some other agreement
that was made,that becomes a civil matter,which is beyond our purview.
MR.WILD-Again,I'm not looking to create a civil matter. I think there's more than enough room for the
house. I'm just trying to make sure that there's no additional cutting based on the way it is today.
MR. TRAVER-Understood. I just wanted to make sure that you understood what our, the limitations
that we have as a Board.
MR.WILD-Of course. Of course.
MR. TRAVER-Thank you.
MR.WILD-All right. Thank you very much. Thanks for your service.
MR.TRAVER-Is there anyone else that wants to address the Planning Board on this application? Yes,sir.
EPHRAIM BACK
MR. BACK-I'm on the other side. My wife and I just wrote a very short statement. I'll give you a copy.
So thank you for having us. My name's Ephraim Back. My wife and I,Tara,live next door at 11 Blackberry
Lane, and our concerns are very much the same as Mike had mentioned. We want to make sure the
remaining native tree buffer zone between our two properties is preserved and that the excavated slope on
the Kelly side,which is essentially the northern side there,be stabilized with appropriate and permanent
erosion control. As a result of the excavation in 2020 which really re-defined the topography of that native
buffer, we're concerned about the long-term stability and integrity of the remaining large, mature trees,
particularly towards the edge of the excavated slope. I've got some pictures if you're interested. According
to the Hutchins Engineering documents there has been re-vegetation of the cleared areas and although we
can't address the area of the no buffer zone, at the rear of the property there's really been no regeneration
in the area of the native buffer zone which basically at that point multiple large trees were removed, and
obviously you're not going to be able to regenerate those in three years. As Mike mentioned the
Declaration of Restrictions for the subdivision reads existing trees and natural shrubbery shall be
maintained and preserved on the lot by the lot's owner insofar as possible the owner of the lot shall preserve
as far as possible the natural beauty and contour of the lot's land and each lot will be cleared in such a way
to preserve a natural native tree buffer between the adjacent dwellings. So in light, in that light, along
with erosion control measures,we request that there be no further excavation of the native tree buffer zone
or cutting down of healthy, native trees. If there's a need to cut down a tree, we ask that it be replaced
with another tree. We also request that topsoil or other appropriate fill be added to the top of the berm
or buffer zone to even out areas that were created by the previous excavation, disturbance for example
when the tree was taken out and never replaced. That's it. Thank you.
MR. TRAVER-Okay. Thank you. Do you want a copy of this?
MR. TRAVER-You can give it to Laura and she'll make sure it's included in the file.
MR. BACK-Great. Thank you. Is there anyone else that wants to address the Planning Board on this
application? Laura, are there written comments?
MRS. MOORE-There are no comments.
MR. TRAVER-Okay. Well,we'll go ahead and close the public hearing,then.
PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED
MR. TRAVER-So you heard the concerns. Do you want to explain?
20
(Queensbury Planning Board 01/16/2024)
MR. CENTER-Yes. Just to explain,the darker line here is the original disturbance,if you will,out to the
limits of the fill that was placed. The disturbance that we're proposing is within this. So it goes across
on the north side at the toe of that slope. So there's no disturbance into the slope,other than a very small
section of wall at the toe of the slope, and then that slope will be top soiled and graded off. Obviously it's
the front of his property. He's going to want to let that go back to brush,but do some erosion control and
protect that slope. That's the entrance to the front of his house by his driveway. That will be graded, as
it stands now,with topsoil and erosion control matting and allow it to grow grass and go back to natural,
and that's north. This is this area right here,north of the driveway. We have no plans to do any additional
cutting into that slope. At the toe of the slope,right here,we have a small retaining wall. There's about
just a two or three foot elevation change there in order to have that driveway work and be in orientation
with the front road. There'll be just a small boulder natural retaining wall at the toe,just at that point
right there. The rest of it will be slightly re-graded,so that it can get erosion control and topsoil on it and
allow it to grow back into brush,just a brush line slope. As far as back here,there's no disturbance beyond
the top of the slope. We're not getting down into that existing. Other than what trees are there outside
the building that have grown up over time, we're not disturbing any new, mature trees on any of those
edges, and along this edge here,yes, we're going to maintain that original, that existing arborvitae buffer
that's there. Our actual driveway,the gravel drive that just goes down so they can access the back of his
lot and have access there,that does not grade into where those trees are along Mr.Wild's side.
MR.TRAVER-So the arborvitaes will survive and the existing trees that survived the earlier cutting,those
are.
MR. CENTER-Yes, there's no additional expansion of the disturbance area. We're inside the original
disturbance area if you will. So there's no further disturbance. We've kept our grading and cutting and
fills minimal to inside that area.
MR. STEFANZIK-Is the boundary,the edge of the boundary,is it marked?
MR. CENTER-On the property boundaries?
MR. STEFANZIK-Yes,like you can see.
MR. CENTER-Yes,I mean there's still,there's the 30 foot setback and here's the original disturbance line
that was kind of in there
MR. STEFANZIK-Right. But there's no mark on the property,like a survey stake?
MR. CENTER-I believe there's property corners,yes.
MR. STEFANZIK-So whoever's working there knows, do not do any work beyond?
MR. CENTER-No. Mr. Kelly has all intentions to seclude the house. That's why we rotated it and kept
it in that area in the middle of the lot and tried to maintain the buffers to the neighbors.
MR. TRAVER-And were you,or was Mr. Kelly aware of this document?
MR. CENTER-I was not aware of it.
MR. TRAVER-Would you like a copy of it?
MR. CENTER-Mr. Wild gave me a copy.
MR. TRAVER-All right.
MR. CENTER-But as far as this project goes, from what they requested, we don't have any, these plans
don't show any additional cutting into the buffer areas,beyond what was, no additional cutting beyond
that.
MR. TRAVER-Well as I explained earlier, you know, enforcement of this is beyond the purview of the
Planning Board,but I would suggest it would be wise, I think,to explain to Mr. Kelly that he could have
some considerable civil liability should, for any reason, this plan that you're proposing tonight not be
followed precisely,if any damage occurred to those trees,the arborvitae,whatever. It would be important
for him to be aware of that.
MR. CENTER-Understood.
21
(Queensbury Planning Board 01/16/2024)
MR. TRAVER-Anything else from the Board? Okay. Well,let's see,we did the public hearing. This is a
Type II under SEQR. So I guess we're ready for that resolution.
MR. STEFANZIK-Okay.
RESOLUTION APPROVING SP#3-2024 KELLY FAMILY TRUST
Applicant proposes to construct a single family home with onsite septic and stormwater management.
Project work includes previous unapproved clearing and filling with a disturbance of 66,711 sq. ft.,
including a no-cut area of the lot per subdivision. The previously disturbed area has regrown since 2020
through the present. The new home will have a 4,357 sq. ft. footprint, a walk out basement, and have a
height of 37.5 ft.Pursuant to chapters 179-3-040&179-6-060,site plan review for new construction within
slopes of 150/o or greater shall be subject to Planning Board review and approval.
Pursuant to relevant sections of the Town of Queensbury Zoning Code-Chapter 179-9-OSO, the Planning
Board has determined that this proposal satisfies the requirements as stated in the Zoning Code;
As required by General Municipal Law Section 239-m the site plan application was referred to the Warren
County Planning Department for its recommendation;
The Planning Board opened a public hearing on the Site plan application on 1/16/2024 and continued the
public hearing to 1/16/2024 when it was closed,
The Planning Board has reviewed the application materials submitted by the applicant and all comments
made at the public hearing and submitted in writing through and including 1/16/2024;
The Planning Board determines that the application complies with the review considerations and
standards set forth in Article 9 of the Zoning Ordinance for Site Plan approval,
MOTION TO APPROVE SITE PLAN 3-2024 KELLY FAMILY TRUST,Introduced by Fritz Stefanzick
who moved for its adoption.
According to the draft resolution prepared by Staff with the following:
1) Waivers requested granted: g. site lighting, h. signage n traffic, o. commercial alterations/
construction details, p floor plans, r. construction/demolition disposal s. snow removal are
reasonable as these items are typically associated with commercial projects;
2) The approval is valid for one (1) year from the date of approval. Applicant is responsible for
requesting an extension of approval before the expiration date of 1/16/2025-1
3) Adherence to the items outlined in the follow-up letter sent with this resolution.
a) 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,
b) If applicable, the Sanitary Sewer connection plan must be submitted to the Wastewater
Department for its review, approval,permitting and inspection;
c) 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;
d) If application was referred to engineering then Engineering sign-off required prior to signature of
Zoning Administrator of the approved plans;
e) Final approved plans should have dimensions and setbacks noted on the site plan/survey, floor
plans and elevation for the existing rooms and proposed rooms in the building and site
improvements;-
f) If required,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 from Construction Activity"prior to the start of any site work.
b. The project NOT(Notice of Termination)upon completion of the project;
c. The applicant must maintain on their project site,for review by staff:
i. 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;
ii. The project NOI and proof of coverage under the current NYSDEC SPDES General
Permit,or an individual SPDES permit issued for the project if required.
g) 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;
h) The applicant must meet with Staff after approval and prior to issuance of Building Permit
and/or the beginning of any site work;
i) Subsequent issuance of further permits, including building permits is dependent on compliance
with this and all other conditions of this resolution;
22
(Queensbury Planning Board 01/16/2024)
j) 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.
k) This resolution is to be placed in its entirety on the final plans.
Motion seconded by Ellen McDevitt. Duly adopted this 16`h day of January 2024 by the following vote:
AYES: Mr. Stefanzick,Mr. Deeb,Mrs. McDevitt,Mr. Stark,Mr. Traver
NOES: NONE
ABSENT: Mr. Longacker, Mr. Magowan
MR. TRAVER-You're all set.
MR. CENTER-Thank you.
MR. TRAVER-The next item on our agenda is also under Unapproved Development and New Business.
This is D.E. Linkens,LLC, Site Plan 4-2024.
SITE PLAN NO. 4-2024 SEQR TYPE: TYPE II. D.E. LINKENS, LLC. AGENT(S): MICHAEL
BORGOS. OWNER(S): SAME AS APPLICANT. ZONING: CI. LOCATION: 306 QUAKER
ROAD. APPLICANT HAS COMPLETED SITE MODIFICATIONS ON AN EXISTING SITE AND
PROPOSES ADDITIONAL SITE AND USE MODIFICATIONS. PER SP 62-2010,THE EXISTING
4,332 SQ. FT. BUILDING WAS APPROVED TO LEASE 100 SQ. FT. OF SPACE FOR SALES OF 12
VEHICLES. THIS PREVIOUSLY APPROVED SITE PLAN ALSO REQUIRED THE SITE TO
CONFORM TO 30% PERMEABILITY THAT THE APPLICANT PROPOSES AS PART OF THE
MODIFICATION BY REMOVING HARD SURFACING AT THE EAR OF THE PROPERTY. THE
SITE IS TO HAVE 41 PARKING SPACES AND THE ENTIRE BUILDING IS TO BE USED FOR CAR
SALES AND SERVICE. PURSUANT TO CHAPTERS 179-3-040 &z 179-9-120, SITE PLAN
MODIFICATION FOR EXISTING AND CURRENT CONDITIONS AS WELL AS AUTO SALES
AND SERVICE SHALL BE SUBJECT TO PLANNING BOARD REVIEW AND APPROVAL. CROSS
REFERENCE: SUB 3-1999, AV 15-1999, SP 11-1999, SP 56-2005, SP 62-2010. WARREN CO.
REFERRAL: JANUARY 2024. LOT SIZE: 1.00 ACRE. TAX MAP NO. 302.8-2-66.2. SECTION:
179-3-040,179-9-120.
MICHAEL BORGOS, REPRESENTING APPLICANT,PRESENT
MR. TRAVER-Laura?
MRS. MOORE-The applicant proposes to complete site modifications on an existing site and proposes
additional site and use modifications for an auto sales and service business operation. Per Site Plan 2010,
the existing 4,332 square foot building was approved to lease 100 square feet space for sales of 12 vehicles.
They are now proposing to use the entire building for sales and service. The previously approved Site Plan
required conformance of 300/o permeability. The applicant has now proposed compliance with that. if
you looked at your proposed map,the whole portion,approximately 11,000 square feet plus or minus,is to
be converted to green space. The site is to have, part of one of the previous approvals was to have 41
parking spaces for them to be striped,and as noted,the whole building will be used for car sales and service.
MR. TRAVER-Okay. Thank you. Good evening.
MR.BORGOS-Good evening. Michael Borgos here on behalf of the applicant,D.E.Linkens,LLC. Dennis
Linkens apologizes. He's not able to be here tonight. He tested positive this morning. So I'm thankful
he's not sitting right next to me. I'd be happy to answer any questions that you have. I've prepared the
application. I wish we could have found an engineer who had some availability to do it,but we have the
assistance of Matt Steves who was able to have his office generate the map. That was fortunate,because
when I met with him,he gave me a tremendous amount of history. I retained a little bit of it,and I'll try to
communicate that to you. Those of you who've lived in Queensbury a considerable time might remember
this as Queensbury Motors,the Oldsmobile dealership,and this parcel I think went through a bankruptcy,
if I remember right, in the late 90's, and then this parcel was subdivided, and from the indication of the
record that was in'9S,'99,the indication on the Staff Notes indicated there was an area variance and site
plan in '99. The most recent site plan for this pre-existing structure, it had been one of Queensbury
Motors' structures for the auto dealership, was I think for a less intensive use, but it's always been an
automotive for over 40 years. The site conditions have not been altered to the best of my knowledge,you
know,during the last 40 years or so. The 2010 site plan appears to never have been enforced. Mr.Linkens
came on to the scene in 201E and he began use of the property. He says he came up and checked with the
Town who gave him the okay. I didn't represent him at the time. I don't think he did a deep dive into the
requirements,but in 2022 I believe there was a complaint that prompted Mr. Frank to approach him,and
I was contacted, we went through it, we looked at these old site plans, and it was agreed that since the
23
(Queensbury Planning Board 01/16/2024)
object of enforcement is compliance we thought the best course would be to submit a modification of site
plan, and that's what we presented here today,trying to adhere to requirements of the Code and not seek
any variances. We were presenting a proposal that would bring the property into compliance with the
removal of a substantial,over 11,000 square feet,of asphalt. So that hard surfacing goes away. A lot of the
congestion on the site goes away with that. So if approved this will bring us to those 41 striped spots,
parking spaces, and I think a big part of the issue on the site was traffic flow. So with the striping we're
also going to indicate the design that was implemented for one way traffic flow and accommodation of
those car carriers to be offloaded in the rear of the property. Since Quaker Road is a very automotive
intensive corridor, you may have seen car carriers, I think, properly unloading in the middle of Quaker
Road for any number of those dealerships over time. So from a safety standpoint we really want to make
sure that is done on the property itself and to the rear of the building. And the drive aisles were calculated
with the assistance of the surveyor with their CAD software and other materials and drawings. I'm just
going to turn them in. I'm not capable of those exact parameters, but I know all of this was done with
those exact parameters in mind. Since this is a modification, we do have a lot of pre-existing here and
we're seeking not to change or modify much of it. We're just trying to bring it into compliance with what
the 2010 Site Plan required for permeability on the site and the removal in the back. So I can answer any
questions you might have.
MR. TRAVER-Okay. That's quite a history. There's, the signs on the property, there's mention in Staff
Notes that it may not be completely clear that those signs are permitted.
MR.BORGOS-You got right to the heart of it. The only question in Staff Notes I can't answer very well.
I asked Laura when I got here. They're still researching.
MR. TRAVER-Okay.
MR.BORGOS-The story that I have from Mr. Linkens on the signs is that when he acquired the property
he hired someone to replace the copy and using the existing sign from the building, and the monument
sign out front. So those were copy changes, and if we can find any records there we're going to deal with
it that way, with an after the fact application. We'll deal with it one way or another to the Town's
satisfaction.
MR. TRAVER-Okay. All right.
MR. DEEB-This might not have anything to do with the Site Plan,but is it one business that has sales and
service?
MR.BORGOS-Correct.
MR. DEEB-The sales part's not leased to another?
MR.BORGOS-Correct. Mr. Linkens is one entity doing sales and service.
MR. DEEB-I was there and I was just wondering about that, and I do remember Queensbury Motors. I
used to buy cars.
MR.BORGOS-The Parrot family,correct?
MR. DEEB-Yes. He was the second one.
MR.BORGOS-There was an owner before?
MR. DEEB-Yes. A Cadillac dealership.
MR. STEFANZIK-There's going to be 41 cars,41 spots?
MR.BORGOS-Spaces there. Not all of them will be for inventory. The parking upfront is restricted. You
can see that the Code requires a 25 foot front display setback. So we're going to adhere to that. That'll be
for parking for customers,staff.
MR. STEFANZIK-And so you have customers,staff,and then you have inventory.
MR.BORGOS-Right.
MR. DEEB-Where will the inventory for sale go?
MR.BORGOS-Anywhere else on that site that's not in that first 25 feet.
24
(Queensbury Planning Board 01/16/2024)
MR. DEEB-And does he know how many he's going to carry,vehicles?
MR. BORGOS-Well, that brings up an interesting observation. He has another location in Plattsburgh
that he is waiting for the State to process the paperwork on,and he's been waiting almost two years now,
and it's being promised any day,but they are backed up still from the pandemic shutdowns. So he doesn't
quite know when that's going to happen. So he's been,had several promises made to him over the last two
years, and he's trying to rev up the acquisitions to meet the demand. Certainly when the chips were not
available and new vehicles were not available,there was higher demand for used vehicles. So he brought
more inventory on site. I think with this being resolved,he's going to have a reduced number of inventory
cars on the site, and there'll be a greater flow into the Plattsburgh site.
MR. DEEB-You only have so many parking spaces.
MR.BORGOS-Correct.
MR.DEEB-If you end up with excess inventory he's going to have to put it someplace else,and I just don't
know if we should have a maximum number there or not.
MR. BORGOS-I can tell you from the entire design of this plan,in working with the Staff, striped spaces
makes it easy for the enforcement department to do their job because if there's inventory outside the
striped space,it's pretty straightforward. So if this Board were to condition approval upon inventory being
in a striped space,I think that would be the simplest way to set up the enforcement.
MR. DEEB-Makes sense.
MR. STEFANZIK-So nothing will go onto the grass area.
MR.BORGOS-Correct.
MR.STEFANZIK-So when I walked through the back there I saw a bulldozer. I saw two big RV's. I saw
a bunch of rusted out cars that I think were salvage. I'm not sure. What's going to happen with all of
those? I mean is that all going to get cleaned up?
MR. BORGOS-Yes. They're actually in the process of that clean up. It was more congested than what
you observed and he's been making progress on moving some of those extraneous vehicles. He has another
property in the Town down by the Boulevard where he has some space,but primarily a lot of this stuff is
going to be transported to Plattsburgh,or sold directly to somebody else.
MR. TRAVER-Do you have a timeline for when that might happen?
MR. BORGOS-Good question. The plan is that the removal of the asphalt's going to be weather
dependent, once the snow's gone. I think it could be a condition in the approval to say by June I"
everything will be completed.
MR. TRAVER-Okay.
MR.DEEB-And we'll make sure that,I was in the car business for 40 years,you always are going to end up
with vehicles that you can't use or sell,you sell them to junk guys,to scrap dealers. You're always going
to end up with those. In order to do business,you've got to take them. So how do we control that, so it
doesn't happen that that builds up like that? Will he be able to get rid of them as quickly as possible when
he does take them? That's the key to this.
MR. BORGOS-Certainly have a mechanism to deal with the cars that aren't going to sell and dispose of
them essentially.
MR. DEEB-And it could be beyond his circumstances. He might not be able to control that. It depends
on the price of scrap metal,too.
MR.BORGOS-Of course.
MR. DEEB-If it's down, he has to wait until it comes up. Things like that are going to happen. So that
could be a problem. I don't know how you deal with it.
MR. TRAVER-Well they have to be within a striped space. He's going to be motived.
MR. DEEB-The striped spaces are going to be out in front and the side.
MR.BORGOS-As indicated on the drawing.
25
(Queensbury Planning Board 01/16/2024)
MR. DEEB-He doesn't want to take a wrecked car in a striped spot to be seen. I don't think.
MR.BORGOS-I don't pretend to know the business. So I don't understand how long it might take to get
a wrecker to take a vehicle to the junkyard.
MR. DEEB-It's a concern. That's all. That's a busy corridor.
MR. BORGOS-Well I wish he were here to address that concern, but I can certainly talk to him about
ensuring that it doesn't become a problem. If he needs that space for rolling stock vehicle and the
inventory,then he's going to have to make sure he develops a plan for removing anything.
MR. DEEB-Do we condition that?
MRS.MOO RE-I guess you just did. I mean the description that I've heard is that any vehicle that's on the
site needs to be in a space,whether it's usable or not.
MR. TRAVER-Right. So he's going to be motivated, if it's not selling, it's not usable, he's going to be
motivated to get it out of there.
MR. DEEB-I'm okay with that. I'm just throwing out fodder for thought.
MR.TRAVER-Sure. There is a public hearing on this application as well. Is there anyone in the audience
that wants to address the Planning Board on this application? Yes, sir. If you'd come up and get on the
mic,if you would,sir.
MACLANE HADDEN
MR.HADDEN-My name's Maclane Hadden. I'm the next door neighbor. I submitted a letter to Laura to
read. I'm not a very good public speaker. I'll do the best I can. I've been in business for 44 years,25 years
in this location. I bought Queensbury Motors building when they were all purchased. We've all gotten
along good with the neighborhood and everybody seems to work well together and now it's been to the
point where there's been an overall excessive amount of vehicles,out of control,and traffic has been a hard
part, transporters and tool trucks and delivery people and it's been just a maze of congested traffic. It's
hard to keep a flow. I tried to work with the situation to appease, and solve it together, and it's just been
kind of butting heads. There's an excessive amount of vehicles that's overwhelming the property. So I
gated off my backyard because now there's so much traffic going in at all kinds of hours of the day. I want
to protect my customers'vehicles in the backyard. So I gated it off and separated it,and just,it's overrun.
There's too much that's on the property.
MR. TRAVER-Sure. Well one of the things we can offer is that part of the proposal this evening would
be to limit vehicles to only the assigned spaces. So that puts a finite number on the total number of vehicles
that can be on site at anyone time. Whether they're in running condition or not. So that should have
quite an impact,at least on the uncontrolled portion you mentioned.
MR. HADDEN-And I think the number is appropriate for the size of the business and as long as it does
stay in there and not on the green spaces coming in. I just see an awful issue of how to maintain the
volume. There's an overwhelming amount of cars,and they're everywhere. The other day I counted up to
103,104 of them at some point,and as of three or four days ago it was S3 cars,way over what that place can
consume,and there's no room for traffic. They can't get out. They can't snowplow it. They can't manage
the property. So it's been just an ongoing aggravation and if they went down to that number and it was
maintained,that would be great,but the green spaces in back,I would want to make sure that it's agreed
that it's not overflowing with cars and parking equipment and the excess.
MR. TRAVER-Yes, that question came up earlier and we confirmed that it would not be. That the cars
would be restricted to those striped spots,which obviously would not be the green space.
MR.HADDEN-Okay.
MR. TRAVER-And no parking on the grass.
MR.HADDEN-Well I know he's got five,six employees. So that's going to take up the backyard and he's
got to have room for the front because they do warranty on the vehicles. They have car sales. Then they
have general repair off the street. So you've always got four or five people that are in there parking. So by
the time you do that, that knocks out 10, 11 car spaces there. So if he can manage to keep customers
comfortable coming and going,his employees parking, and maintain the number of 41,I'm all about it.
MR. TRAVER-That's what's being proposed.
26
(Queensbury Planning Board 01/16/2024)
MR.HADDEN-Okay.
MR. TRAVER-Anything else?
MR.HADDEN-I don't think so.
MRS. MOORE-Do you want me to still read this into the record?
MR. HADDEN-Yes,just to give an overall thought on this, and I want to get along with everybody and
make sure we have a good understanding and everybody's comfortable with that.
MRS. MOORE-Okay. This is, "Good evening. My name is Maclane Hadden. I own the property and
Mac the Knife Designer Autocrafts,LLC located next to 306 Quaker Rd.owned by D.E.Linkens,LLC. The
property modifications will directly impact my property and business. I would like to address a few
concerns and ask the Board to add the following Conditions of Approval explained below#1-#4.
#1)The 41 VEHICLE limits--Can this be added as a CONDITION OF APPROVAL?The number of vehicles
currently on the lot can get as high as 100 or more.For example,a few days prior to this meeting the vehicle
count on the property was over SO. I am reasonable within a few vehicles,however- can I be assured any
violations will be enforced per this Condition of Approval,given the gross violation of the allowed amount
of vehicles on this property.
#2)TIMEFRAME to comply-I ask the board to set an end date within 6 months to have the modifications
completed.
#3)GREEN SPACE-vehicles are not to be stored or parked in the GREEN SPACE. To be clear,any vehicle
includes-Trailers,box trucks,motorhomes,crashed non drivable vehicles,ATVs,UTV's etc.
#4)FLOW OF TRAFFIC-The flow of traffic around the building must accommodate tractor trailers,large
vehicle transporters and the many delivery trucks and vehicles ,moving around the building that come in
and out on a daily and weekly basis, we would like to avoid the unloading and blocking the driveway
between the two buildings (see photo attached). Require new lot lines and traffic directional symbols
applied to aid in the flow of traffic around the building and designated parking.
Lastly- It has been 17 months since the most recent Notice of Violation and Order to Remedy has been
issued ,the owner was directed by The Town Of Queensbury to cease all activity and usages associated
with the violation by September 23rd,2022. This has created unnecessary conflict for my business and
property due to the violations and lack of remediation by D.E. Linkens, LLC. That being said,if the board
does approve the site and use modifications I would be in support if the Conditions of Approval I have
requested are added and addressed. Thank you for your consideration,Maclane Hadden" Mr.Hadden has
provided seven copies of this with the photo. I don't know if you want me to hand that out,but there are
photos on the back page.
MR. TRAVER-I don't think it's necessary. Do any Board members want a copy of that letter? Okay. As
long as it's included in the file,Laura. Thank you. Is there anyone else that wants to address the Planning
Board on this issue? Are there any other written comments,Laura?
MRS. MOORE-There are no other written comments.
MR. TRAVER-Okay. Well then,thank you very much,sir. Was there anything else?
MR.HADDEN-No,I thank you very much. I appreciate your time.
MR.TRAVER-Okay. Thank you for yours. All right. Then we will go ahead and close the public hearing.
PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED
MR.TRAVER-So to reiterate,I think that we have covered the concerns from the public comment between
discussion about limiting the number of vehicles by the striping and the green space and so on. Do you
have anything you wanted to add?
MR. BORGOS-No. I hadn't seen or heard of that letter before,but I was nodding along with it because
we had talked about it. So it sounded like we had the support of the neighbor next door if we do all those
things,and I think that solves the issue for the Town enforcement department because we're going to make
sure the striping is done. It also makes it very clear for the owner/applicant or anybody else that might
follow suit in a similar business here,to know what the site can support,and that's what this shows.
27
(Queensbury Planning Board 01/16/2024)
MR. STEFANZIK-We've got to come up with a date for removal of any vehicles beyond the 41 spaces.
MR.BORGOS-The neighbor has said within six months and we propose by June IS`
MR. TRAVER-By June 1,2024.
MR. DEEB-There are going to be some concerns. You're saying 41 spaces which includes employees,cars
that are going to be waiting to be worked on in the service business because he has the repair shop, and
the rest would go to the cars for sale,inventory.
MR.BORGOS-Correct.
MR.DEEB-By my calculations he's going to have maybe room for 25 cars for sale,which is a lot fewer than
what's on there now,and any type of sales in the automotive business depends on the number of inventory
that you have on your lot. If he reduces it by that much,and he's got to be aware of this,that his sales are
going to go down, and I'm not sure he's going to be comfortable with that.
MR. BORGOS-I think it's something that we have discussed, and it's my understanding of the business
model here is that the other store in Plattsburgh will allow him to do a lot of virtual inventory between the
two.
MR. DEEB-I mean if he can work it out,Mike,that's great,but this,I've got concerns.
MR.BORGOS-Your observations are correct.
MR. DEEB-I think what's going to happen is.
MR. TRAVER-He can always come in for a modification,if he needs to have something different.
MR. DEEB-It's a nice spot. It's a great spot.
MR. TRAVER-The site itself is limiting.
MR. DEEB-It's a very limited site.
MR. TRAVER-And I don't know that,you know,going from 41 to 20 something,that seems pretty severe,
even with employees and repair vehicles.
MR. DEEB-Let's say you have eight employees. How many does he have?
MR.BORGOS-It fluctuates,but that would probably be the max.
MR. DEEB-All right. So let's say he has five. There's five spaces. I don't know how many bays he has for
repairs. Let's say he has three, four, I think at least that. So you're talking four there, and then the cars
being worked on. Let's say it's five. There's 13. You take 13 out of 41,you're at 2S cars for sale in those 41
spots.
MR.BORGOS-And it's unfortunate that on this side of Quaker we don't have the National Grid ownership
easement that benefits the dealers on the north side. We have that inventory setback of 20 feet from the
property line. The County owns right beyond it. Less room to display.
MR. DEEB-I want to see him be successful,but it's going to be a tough road to hoe.
MR.BORGOS-The lot is what it is,and we're going to try to work with what we've got there.
MR. DEEB-Okay.
MR. TRAVER-Anything else?
MR. STEFANZIK-Loading and unloading area, dumpsters and such. I don't see any provisions on the
map for like when you bring in a big tractor trailer,you know, and you're offloading cars. Where does all
that occur?
MR. BORGOS-It's going to happen in the rear of the building,just after the turn,between those spaces
there.
MR. STEFANZIK-So it's not marked,but you're saying that's what they're going to do?
2S
(Queensbury Planning Board 01/16/2024)
MR.BORGOS-Yes. The drivers aren't going to follow any designated drop zone or anything. They're just
going to pull in wherever there's space. So that's what's been calculated to allow for the turning radius of
those transport vehicles. You'll notice the dumpster is located along the property line. That's the existing
location.
MR. STEFANZIK-And how about handicap parking?
MR.BORGOS-The handicap parking spaces currently exist right by the front door.
MR. TRAVER-With the X on them?
MR.BORGOS-Yes. Adjacent to the X. The Xis the clear zone to allow for.
MR. STEFANZIK-Was that marked? I see is marked on there,but I didn't know if it was marked on the
building.
MR.BORGOS-I don't know offhand. It's been awhile since I've visited the site.
MR. STEFANZIK-Actually I thought that was the little lane to get into the door. I didn't think that that
was a handicap.
MR.BORGOS-It's going to be striped once all the project work is done.
MR. TRAVER-Anything else?
MR. STEFANZIK-I mean, I almost hate to bring this up because I know that this is going to be a tough
road to hoe here. I just look at the Commercial Intensive zone,you know,trying to enhance the aesthetics
of the buildings,the property. We see this allover. We see all of the other auto dealers on Quaker doing
the same thing,landscaping,the way,you brought up the signs,the way the signs look,how the entrance
looks for the customer. I'm trying to be nice,but this building does not look aesthetically pleasing. I hate
to kind of want to ask,can we do something with landscaping in the front along where the cars are? Can
we do something with the building in terms of how it looks,the windows,the entrance? I mean there's a
lot of good details in the Codes on what that part of Quaker Road, the Commercial Intensive buildings,
that property should look like. I'd like to see some sort of proposal on how to enhance this property.
MR.BORGOS-Well we're not seeking any modification of what's already there.
MR. STEFANZIK-I understand that.
MR.BORGOS-Aesthetics are always in the eye of the beholder,but I do hear what you're saying. I think
a lot of the car dealer aesthetics at the larger dealerships are driven by manufacturers. They quire certain
standards.
MR. STEFANZIK-That's true.
MR. BORGOS-As a used car and repair facility there are no such standards being required by the entity
that they're affiliated with. I would certainly talk to Mr. Linkens about seeing what he can do to make
those improvements. Basically making a substantial investment to bring this.
MR. STEFANZIK-I know. That's why I almost hate to bring it up,but I mean there's going to be a lot of
development, an opportunity, I think, between Bay Road and Ridge Road, and, you know, the
opportunities that make that entire corridor look very nice in terms of how the properties look, how the
buildings look. I think, I mean, this whole corridor could look beautiful, and I think it starts project by
project.
MR. TRAVER-This is a big improvement,just getting control.
MR. STEFANZIK-Well,yes,getting control of,getting rid of all the old cars,but I mean now that we have
this in front of the Board here,I'd like to.
MR. DEEB-That's not part of the Site Plan at this point. I can understand some shrubbery or landscaping.
I don't think we can ask for anything on the building. That's not for us to do.
MR. STEFANZIK-Right. I guess I was bringing it up the signage,the signs that are on the building right
now,you know,that all comes under aesthetics.,how the property.
MR. DEEB-If they are compliant.
29
(Queensbury Planning Board 01/16/2024)
MR. STEFANZIK-If they are. I don't know if they are.
MR. TRAVER-We're not handling that right now.
MR. BORGOS-We're not resistant to beautification efforts. So I'll certainly talk to him and see what we
can do, and we're open to suggestions with the limited space that we have. I think plantings are difficult
because of the narrow frontage that we have. We're fortunate to have existing vegetation on that western
edge,but you're right. The front of it is a dated look that could be modernized.
MR. STEFANZIK-It could,yes.
MR. TRAVER-Okay. Anything else? Let's see, we did public hearing. Do we have a draft resolution
ready?
MR.STEFANZIK-How are we going to close it? How are we going to close it about getting some proposal
on the modernization of the property?
MR. TRAVER-Well that's not part of the,the difficulty we have it that that is not part of the application
before us tonight.
MR. DEEB-That's not in the Site Plan.
MR. TRAVER-We would be asking him to propose something that he has not come in to us proposing.
We certainly,I mean he's certainly heard the message that we have concerns about the appearance. I think
that one of the things that we can be thinking about is with the transition of this to a cleaner, more
organized site, he may find, as a businessman, that it's in his interest to dress up the whole site more for
better attracting customer,more of an upscale type of site.
MR. STEFANZIK-I get it. I just think,we're approving this here and,I mean,it sets a precedent for other
businesses to now say,well,the Board didn't make them improve their property,so why do we have to? I
think we're just going to be setting a precedence here if we don't require,as part of this approval,to be able
to go with 41 spaces and do what you want to do,to recommend something to make this place look more
up to date.
MR. TRAVER-Yes, but we have made that recommendation. We have recommended that they look at
improving the appearance of the property, but in terms of requiring it, it's not a component of the
application.
MR. DEEB-It's a slippery slope,too. We start doing that.
MR.BORGOS-If I may,as a for example,if we were to,I think to accomplish what you seek would require
legislative change at the Town Board level during the midst of the Comprehensive Land Use review right
now. Say they put in a standard. That becomes that slippery slope that you're talking about is that you
have to have objective criteria in there. The subjective aesthetic that we're talking about now, we can
certainly agree to do what we can,but our view of what might look good might be different than your view,
and the whole idea of the Planning Board is to rely upon objective standards of the Code, and that's what
we're trying to do.
MR. STEFANZIK-But they're kind of in there. They're kind of in there about,you know, what kind of
desirable customer entrances should look like, landscaping along the corridor should look like. I mean
that's pretty clearly defined for the eastern side of Quaker Road.
MR. BORGOS-The aesthetics of the building may come down to the exterior finish, stucco or some type
of EFS applied to the exterior with color changes and that sort of thing, and there are some communities
that have had some success in being very limited in what development could have before that,but that's
usually new. Modification of an existing is seldom done,and it's hard to balance with the ownership that's
out there. When you're seeing the properties turn over, it's usually when the change of ownership that
you have the additional investment. In this case the investment's coming from an enforcement action,but
to go beyond that to beautification efforts,it may actually require,from a practical matter,that there be a
change in ownership,but from the Planning Board's perspective the object is to bring it up to the standard
that's in the Code for the protection of the community standards. That's what we're trying to do here is
to conform. That's why we propose what we have to the Code,but I can certainly take to Mr. Linkens
your comments and we'll see what we come up with. It probably will be his wife who comes up with the
aesthetics that we'll all enjoy,but we can work on that and see what happens.
MR. DEEB-I just don't feel we have a right to modify your site plan. I think that's what we're trying to do
here.
30
(Queensbury Planning Board 01/16/2024)
MR. TRAVER-Yes, we do have to deal with the limitations of what's in front of us. Okay. Do we have a
draft resolution?
MRS. MOORE-Do you want to just briefly go over the conditions that you're going to propose?
MR.STEFANZIK-Okay. Yes. So total amount of all vehicles,including but not limited to staff,customers
and inventory,to be limited to the 41 assigned spaces with no vehicles permitted on green spaces. Removal
of all vehicles beyond the 41 spaces to be completed by June 1",2024.
MR. TRAVER-The only suggestion I would have is in the first part where you talk about the limit of 41
vehicles,it's not just that they're limited to 41 vehicles,which is the number of spaces,they're also limited
to only be placed in those spaces.
MR. STEFANZIK-I said 41 vehicles. So vehicles to the 41 spaces. Okay.
MRS. MC DEVITT-Within the assigned spaces or the marked spaces.
MR. TRAVER-I know. It becomes kind of a subjective thing. I think that the concern is that we clarify
that part of getting a hold the property and some of the issues that have existed is the consistent disposition
of the vehicles on the property and the way they're suggesting to do that is they're having the area striped
and the parking of the vehicles will only occur in those striped spaces. So that's really,you agree to that,
and that's a condition.
MR. DEEB-I don't know if you want to define vehicles, all types of vehicles,vehicles,cars,trucks.
MR. TRAVER-Well,if it fits in parking spot.
MR. DEEB-What about an RV?
MR. TRAVER-If it fits in a parking spot.
MR. DEEB-I'm talking about one you tow. Is that a vehicle?
MR. TRAVER-You're talking about what?
MR. DEEB-See an RV that you tow.
MR. TRAVER-Well they're not going to have that on there. In fact,they're talking about removing that.
MR. DEEB-How do you know that?
MR. BORGOS-If a vehicle is larger than one spot it is on site obviously then it's going to take up two or
more spots. It's in that zone. I think the focus really is if you have spaces for parking then you have spaces
for being empty. That allows flexibility and traffic flow on site.
MR. TRAVER-Right.
MR. BORGOS-And then that's what the neighbor has suggested has been problematic in the past. There
was no give. There was no flexibility if it was over stuffed.
MR. TRAVER-Right. Exactly.
MR. DEE&Well you've got 41 vehicles. No matter what it is,there's 41. There you go.
MRS. MOORE-So you had vehicles not fitting into the 41 all to be removed. When can the project be
completed,I guess?
MR. TRAVER June 1"
MRS.MOORE-All of it? So there's,to take up the hardtop and put down grass I guess. Are you including
that in your deadline?
MR. TRAVER-Yes,that's my understanding. Right?
MR. DEEB-Yes.
MR. TRAVER-The goal is to have this all completed by June 1"
31
(Queensbury Planning Board 01/16/2024)
MRS. MOORE-Okay.
MR. STEFANZIK-Removal of all vehicles exceeding 41 spaces by June 1",2024.
MRS. MOORE-And to have the green space installed also by then. Yes.
MR.BORGOS-That's correct.
MR.DEEB-All right. So for clarification,he has 41 vehicles there. A couple of trades come in,and so now
he has an overflow of one or two vehicles. He cannot put those vehicles on that property until he has a
space open up. Is that correct?
MR.BORGOS-Yes,I believe he's working out a solution with his other facility to shuttle.
MR. DEEB-All right. So then he's got to have somebody come in that day and get the vehicle out of there.
Okay.
MR. TRAVER-I mean that's really not our issue,but if he had an appointment with somebody coming in
with vehicles,I mean,he would know about that.
MR. DEEB-I'm sure with proper planning he can do it,but it's going to be tough. Okay.
MRS. MOORE-That's fine.
MR.STEFANZIK-Total amount of all vehicles including but not limited to staff,customers and inventory,
to be contained within the 41 assigned spaces.
MR. DEEB-That works.
MR. TRAVER-That works.
MR. DEEB-Green space to be completed by whatever the date is.
MR. TRAVER-Yes,project completion by June IS`
MR. STEFANZIK-Okay. I think I'm ready.
MR. TRAVER-Go ahead.
RESOLUTION APPROVING SP#4-2024 D.E.Linkens,LLC
Applicant proposes completed site modifications on an existing site and proposes additional site and use
modifications for an auto sales and service business operation. Per SP 62-2010, the existing 4,332 sq. ft.
building was approved to lease 100 sq. ft. of space for sales of 12 vehicles. This previously approved site
plan also required the site to conform to 300/o permeability that the applicant proposes as part of the
modification by removing hard surfacing at the ear of the property. The site is to have 41 parking spaces
and the entire building is to be used for car sales and service. Pursuant to chapters 179-3-040&179-9-120,
site plan modification for existing and current conditions as well as auto sales and service shall be subject
to Planning Board review and approval.
Pursuant to relevant sections of the Town of Queensbury Zoning Code-Chapter 179-9-OSO, the Planning
Board has determined that this proposal satisfies the requirements as stated in the Zoning Code;
As required by General Municipal Law Section 239-m the site plan application was referred to the Warren
County Planning Department for its recommendation;
The Planning Board opened a public hearing on the Site plan application on 1/16/2024 and continued the
public hearing to 1/16/2024 when it was closed,
The Planning Board has reviewed the application materials submitted by the applicant and all comments
made at the public hearing and submitted in writing through and including 1/16/2024;
The Planning Board determines that the application complies with the review considerations and
standards set forth in Article 9 of the Zoning Ordinance for Site Plan approval,
MOTION TO APPROVE SITE PLAN 4-2024 D.E.LINKENS,LLC.Introduced by Fritz Stefanzick who
moved for its adoption.
32
(Queensbury Planning Board 01/16/2024)
Per the draft provided by staff conditioned upon the following conditions:
1) Waivers request granted: j. stormwater, k. topography, o. commercial alterations/ construction
details, q. soil logs,r. construction/demolition disposal s. snow removal are reasonable as the site
improvement to 300/o permeable;
2) The approval is valid for one (1) year from the date of approval. Applicant is responsible for
requesting an extension of approval before the expiration date of 1/16/2025;
3) Adherence to the items outlined in the follow-up letter sent with this resolution.
a) If application was referred to engineering,then engineering sign-off required prior to signature of
Zoning Administrator of the approved plans;
b) Final approved plans should have dimensions and setbacks noted on the site plan/survey,floor
plans and elevation for the existing rooms and proposed rooms in the building and site
improvements,
c) Final approved plans, in compliance with the Site Plan, must be submitted to the Community
Development Department before any further review by the Zoning Administrator or Building and
Codes personnel;
d) The applicant must meet with Staff after approval and prior to issuance of Building Permit
and/or the beginning of any site work;
e) Subsequent issuance of further permits,including building permits is dependent on compliance
with this and all other conditions of this resolution;
f) 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;
g) Resolution to be placed on final plans in its entirety and legible.
h) Total amount of all vehicles,including but not limited to,staff,customers and inventory,are
to be contained within the 41 assigned spaces,with no vehicles on green spaces.
i) Removal of all vehicles exceeding 41 spaces to be completed by June 1,2024,as well as green
space to be established by June Is`,2024.
Motion seconded by Brady Stark. Duly adopted this 16`h day of January 2024 by the following vote:
AYES: Mrs. McDevitt,Mr. Stark,Mr. Stefanzick, Mr. Deeb,Mr. Traver
NOES: NONE
ABSENT: Mr. Longacker, Mr. Magowan
MR. TRAVER-You are all set.
MR.BORGOS-Thank you very much. I appreciate your time.
MR. TRAVER-Let's see. The only other business this evening before the Planning Board is just to point
out an announcement. Laura is,I'm sure,going to send this out anyway,but I wanted to mention there's
a required stormwater training scheduled for February 20`h in this room. What we're going to do is come
in early at quarter of six for that training. Is that correct,Laura?
MRS. MOORE-You will also get a reso that you're going to start your meeting early,but it's probably in
next week's packet.
MR. TRAVER-Okay.
MRS. MC DEVITT-You said February 20`h?
MR. TRAVER-February 20,yes.
MR. DEEB-Start early?
MRS. MOORE-So 5:45. That way 5:45 to 6:45 gives you a few minutes before you actually start your
regular meeting.
MR. STARK-What would you like me to do if I cannot attend at that time?
MR. TRAVER-Well,I don't know that it's,it's not required training.
MRS. MOORE-It's not required training as Board members. It's required by the Town to indicate that
we've held a stormwater training.
MR. TRAVER-But it does count against your hourly training requirement if you are able to make it. If
there's nothing else before the Board,I'll entertain a motion to adjourn.
33
(Queensbury Planning Board 01/16/2024)
MOTION TO ADJOURN THE QUEENSBURY PLANNING BOARD MEETING OF JANUARY 16Tx
2024,Introduced by David Deeb who moved for its adoption,seconded by Fritz Stefanzick:
Duly adopted this 16`h day of January,2024,by the following vote:
AYES: Mr. Deeb,Mr. Stefanzick,Mrs. McDevitt,Mr. Stark,Mr. Traver
NOES: NONE
ABSENT: Mr. Longacker, Mr. Magowan
MR. TRAVER-We stand adjourned. Thank you,everyone. See you next week.
On motion meeting was adjourned.
RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED,
Stephen Traver,Chairman
34