11-21-2013 (Queensbury Planning Board 11/21/2013)
QUEENSBURY PLANNING BOARD MEETING
SECOND REGULAR MEETING
NOVEMBER 21,2013
INDEX
Site Plan No. 78-2012 Jeffrey Schwartz 1.
Tax Map No. 308.20-1-2
Site Plan No. 55-2013 Swordfish Realty, LLC 5.
Tax Map No. 252.-1-75.1
Site Plan No. 50-2013 Cellco Partnership d/b/a Verizon Wireless 8.
Tax Map No. 265.-1-52
Site Plan No. 63-2013 Mark D. Shaw 10.
Tax Map No. 309.18-1-12
Subdivision No 5-2013 Lisa Pushor; Scott Spellburg 12.
PRELIM&FINAL STAGE Tax Map No. 265.-1-2.3, 2.2, 2.1
DISCUSSION 124 Main Street 15.
DISCUSSION Proposed Changes to Main Street zone 21.
Presentation by Stuart Baker, Sr. Planner
THESE ARE NOT OFFICIALLY ADOPTED MINUTES AND ARE SUBJECT TO BOARD AND STAFF
REVISIONS. REVISIONS WILL APPEAR ON THE FOLLOWING MONTHS MINUTES (IF ANY) AND
WILL STATE SUCH APPROVAL OF SAID MINUTES.
0
(Queensbury Planning Board 11/21/2013)
QUEENSBURY PLANNING BOARD MEETING
SECOND REGULAR MEETING
NOVEMBER 21,2013
7:00 P.M.
MEMBERS PRESENT
CHRIS HUNSINGER, CHAIRMAN
STEPHEN TRAVER
PAUL SCHONEWOLF
THOMAS FORD
BRAD MAGOWAN
DAVID DEEB
GEORGE FERONE,ALTERNATE
SENIOR PLANNER-STUART BAKER
LAND USE PLANNER-LAURA MOORE
STENOGRAPHER-MARIA GAGLIARDI
MR. HUNSINGER-I'll call to order the meeting of the Town of Queensbury Planning Board on
Thursday, November 21, 2013. There was a revised agenda that was passed around. Did you put it
out on the table, too, Laura? Yes, there's copies on the back table if anyone would like to follow
along. I've got to be honest, I haven't really looked at it yet. Between Tuesday night and this
evening there was a request from one of the applicants that we tabled Tuesday night, Site Plan 78-
2012 for Jeffrey Schwartz, and this was in an e-mail. The applicant was hoping that we would table
it to a December meeting rather than January, and I did reply back to him saying that it is possible
to move the request. He said that the package was submitted in November for the deadline date,
and they felt that their package was ready to go and they were anxious to get back before the Board.
I know we went through this before, but I'm bringing it to the Board's attention that this request
was received Wednesday morning, I'm sorry,Wednesday afternoon. Let me just read what the e-
mail says. It's actually addressed to Craig and Laura. We handed in the plans and documentation
on November 15th, which was the cutoff date for the December meeting. We have given you all of
the information that you required of us. I know that I still need to give you the stormwater
management agreement. Per our discussion with Laura on November 18th, I was expecting to
appear before the Planning Board on December 17th. I would really appreciate if you could move
me to the December 17th meeting as I really need to begin this project. So I would, that's the two
draft resolutions that are before you on that project that were handed out this evening. The first
one is to rescind the resolution from Tuesday night, and then the second one would be to table the
project to December 17th. I don't know if there's any comments or discussion from the Board.
Laura, I don't know if you have anything else you wanted to add.
MRS. MOORE-Just to clarify,yes, the information was received that the applicant had indicated that
there was information that was to be substituted, and as per their comment they (lost words) in the
application materials.
MR. SCHONEWOLF-There was extensive engineering comments on that,wasn't there?
MR. HUNSINGER-Well, I know there were a couple of comments that the applicant had made where
they were in disagreement with the Town Engineer,but beyond that I'm not sure.
MR. SCHONEWOLF-I'm not,either.
MR. MAGOWAN-That was over the loading dock, wasn't it? Putting it, kind of putting it in but not
putting the door in there in case they need it or something.
MR. HUNSINGER-Yes, I guess there's loading docks that are framed,but not built.
MR. MAGOWAN-Not built,yes.
MR. HUNSINGER-You know,there was a further e-mail saying that Craig had informed the applicant
there was time to have the engineer review the project before the meeting on the 17th.
MR.TRAVER-Is the applicant representing that they believe the issues have been resolved?
1
(Queensbury Planning Board 11/21/2013)
MR. SCHONEWOLF-That's the question.
MR. HUNSINGER-Was there anyone here from, yes, I'm sorry, Peter, I was overlooking. Do you
want to come up to the table for a second if you could and answer that question maybe. That
would be helpful.
If you could identify yourself for the record.
PETER BROWN
MR. BROWN-Yes. My name's Peter Brown, and I represent Morris Products. I'm construction
manager for them, and I didn't get the,if the question could be repeated for my I'd appreciate it. I'll
answer it.
MR. TRAVER-I was wondering, with regards to the request to be placed on the December 17
agenda, we're aware that there were some outstanding issues yet to be satisfied with the Town
Engineer,and is it your understanding that those issues have been resolved?
MR. BROWN-Any questions that they have have been resolved, okay. There are some issues that
we are asking for waivers for, but each one of those are improvements, as far as we're concerned,
for maintenance procedures.
MR.TRAVER-So the answer is,no,you do not have.
MR. BROWN-The answer is,yes,we've answered all those questions,but we're asking waivers from
you guys to do a special filter fabric here there. It's actually an enhancement. It's not a.
MR.TRAVER-You're asking us for engineering waivers,essentially?
MR. BROWN-No,well,because the Code is not clear in some of these things, and it's very simple. If
you want me to get into it now, but I, it's a very simple thing to answer. The engineer has to go by
the Code, okay, and some of these things, the Code was done in 2010. Well, of course, this is
another lobbyist driven,the whole project is.
MR.TRAVER-Thank you. I think you've answered my question. Thank you.
MR. BROWN-Okay.
MR.TRAVER-Mr. Chairman, I think,until these issues are resolved, I don't see any point in putting it
on the agenda. I mean, I don't see any point in getting into an engineering debate when we have
the Town Engineer that needs to sign off on it. That's my feeling.
MR. HUNSINGER-Any other comments from the Board? I mean, I know the applicant's been
anxious to get back to the Board and I know there's a couple of points of contention between them
and the Town Engineer.
MR.TRAVER-And I just don't feel that it's our place to resolve them. I mean,these are engineering
issues,not planning issues.
MR. SCHONEWOLF-Well, we brought them up and we talked about them, and we never got an
answer.
MR.TRAVER-Right,well,that's what we had the engineer for,it seems to me.
MR. SCHONEWOLF-That's right.
MR. FORD-Right.
MR. BROWN-These are enhancements. These are over and above.
MR.TRAVER-Sir, I understand that's your representation.
MR. BROWN-Right.
MR.TRAVER-But you're asking us to do something that,we are not engineers,you understand that.
That's why we have.
2
(Queensbury Planning Board 11/21/2013)
MR. BROWN-I understand,neither am I.
MR. TRAVER-Okay. Very good. So what you need is you need an understanding with the Town
Engineer that they're satisfied with the project that you're putting before us. Once you've done
that, then we feel confident that the engineering issues are set aside, and we can then address the
other issues, planning issues and issues for which we do not need a Town subject matter expert to
advise us on.
MR. BROWN-It's not like,if you want me to explain one of them, I'll explain one of them to you.
MR. TRAVER-There wouldn't be any point in your explaining to me because I would not know
whether or not what you're representing is, from the engineering standpoint, is correct or not. I
understand that you have an issue, and that's fine,but you need to work that out with the engineer,
not with myself or with respect the other members.
MR. BROWN-This is not,this is very simple stuff.
MR.TRAVER-Then you should have no difficulty getting approval from the Town Engineer.
MR. BROWN-No, they are not going to approve this stuff, because then if something goes wrong,
they're holding the bag.
MR.TRAVER-Well,you've answered my question,which is what you were called up for.
MR. BROWN-There's engineers right here right now that wouldn't sign off on anybody's work.
They'd want to do it themselves.
MR.TRAVER-I don't have any further questions, Mr.Chairman.
MR. BROWN-Well, I just think it's grossly unfair to do this.
MR. HUNSINGER-Any other questions or comments from the Board? I guess part of my feeling was,
well, a couple of things, you know, the applicant has indicated in that e-mail that, you know, all of
the required documents had been submitted. Whether or not there are still a couple of outstanding
engineering issues, I mean, we often approve a project with a contingency on engineering,
especially if they're minor. Again, I know the applicant's been eager to get back before the Board,
and, you know, I wanted to honor his request in bringing it back and discussing it with the Board
this evening.
MR. FORD-Laura, can you add anything in the way of clarification relative to the Town's Engineer
and their response to what has been submitted?
MRS. MOORE-The only information I can share is that the applicant submitted two packets of
information. One packet will be forwarded to the Town Engineer. The applicant has indicated that
they've answered all the questions. Whether that satisfies the Town Engineer, I don't know the
answer to that.
MR. SCHONEWOLF-And neither do we.
MR. HUNSINGER-Well,and I guess my comment is how is that different than any other project? We
have an application deadline which the applicant met. If they want to get back before the Board, I
kind of feel like they have a right to. They did meet the condition. They addressed all the
comments. Whether or not they're going to get a clean signoff, no one knows yet. The applicant
has said there's one item that won't be,but.
MR. FORD-And we won't know until we get them back here.
MR. DEEB-Well, I agree with you, Chris. I think that they should be given the right, and if they
aren't met,they aren't met, and at that point,we've always done it contingent upon signoff from the
Town Engineer.
MRS.MOORE-Or you could continue to table the application.
MR. HUNSINGER-Yes.
3
(Queensbury Planning Board 11/21/2013)
MR. DEEB-Well,this resolution says they have to come in next month.
MR. HUNSINGER-Right,yes,instead of January.
MR. DEEB-Right.
MR. FORD-And there's room on a December agenda?
MR. HUNSINGER-Yes,there is. Without bumping anyone else.
MR. DEEB-I don't have a problem with that.
MR. FORD-Well, the best that could happen would be that we would approve it. The second best
we would approve it contingent upon approval,and the other would be.
MR. HUNSINGER-To further table it.
MR. FORD-To further table it. Let's bring them in.
MR. SCHONEWOLF-I'd table it to December.
MR. MAGOWAN-If we have the room and we're not bumping anybody,like you said he's stating that
they're enhancements, but like I said, I agree with Steve that we're not the engineer, and so they
have a month to basically hammer out the differences and hopefully there can be a better
agreement by next month.
MR. BROWN-And we will, we've already been given permission, excuse me for jumping in, but
we've been given permission to go and speak with them which we will, this time around explain
what we're doing different than what the Code says. The only thing I know is that Laura says that's
not a permanent solution, and, you know, the particular catch basin then is not doing its job, but
what we're doing is putting a filter in front of it,you know,we don't want to clean out a catch basin
and have a $1,000 vacuum truck in to clean out our little tiny system over there when we could
prevent it from happening. That's all.
MR. DEEB-You can take that up with the engineers, Pete. I mean,you have to take that up with the
engineers,and they have to work it out.
MR. BROWN-Yes,but our engineer says,you know,fine,but let's.
MR. FORD-It's our engineer that has to say fine. So get it to him and let's see it.
MR. BROWN-Yes,well,we're paying for him.
MR. MAGOWAN-Well,you get the two engineers together and they might be able to hack something
out.
MR. BROWN-Well,that's what's going to happen. We're going to meet, and discuss this, show them
exactly what, the way we want it done. Chances are they're going to just say it looks fine or
whatever. They're not going to sign off on anything. You really don't sign off on things, whether
you like it or not, okay. It's the nature of the business, and I don't know,you know,how they do it,
but it's just like an engineer who receives some kind of a submittal, they're going to take and write
something that says,yes,we've looked at it and it appears to look fine.
MR. HUNSINGER-Okay.
MR. BROWN-I'm not an engineer,but I can tell you I've seen enough of it.
MR. HUNSINGER-It seems as though a majority of the Board is at least willing to bring the applicant
back in in December. So would anyone like to put forward a,there's first a resolution to rescind the
tabling resolution from Tuesday night.
RESOLUTION RESCINDING TABLING MOTION RE: SP# 78-2012 JEFFREY SCHWARTZ
MOTION TO RESCIND TABLING RESOLUTION APPROVED ON 11-19-13 REGARDING SITE
PLAN NO. 78-2012 JEFFREY SCHWARTZ, Introduced by Brad Magowan who moved for its
adoption,seconded by David Deeb:
4
(Queensbury Planning Board 11/21/2013)
As per the resolution prepared by Staff.
Duly adopted this 21St day of November, 2013,by the following vote:
AYES: Mr. Magowan, Mr. Deeb, Mr. Schonewolf, Mr. Ford, Mr. Ferone, Mr. Hunsinger
NOES: Mr.Traver
MR. HUNSINGER-And finally there's another draft resolution to table this to, project to December
17th.
RESOLUTION TABLING SP# 78-2012 JEFFREY SCHWARTZ
MOTION TO TABLE SITE PLAN NO. 78-2012 JEFFREY SCHWARTZ, Introduced by Brad Magowan
who moved for its adoption,seconded by Thomas Ford:
Tabled to December 17, 2013. As per the resolution prepared by Staff.
Duly adopted this 21St day of November, 2013,by the following vote:
AYES: Mr. Deeb, Mr. Schonewolf, Mr. Ford, Mr. Magowan, Mr. Ferone, Mr. Hunsinger
NOES: Mr.Traver
MR. HUNSINGER-And just for the record, the public hearing will be continued to that meeting as
well. Thank you.
MR. BROWN-Okay. Thank you guys.
MR. HUNSINGER-We'll see you in a month.
MR. BROWN-Yes.
OLD BUSINESS REQUIRING PUBLIC HEARING:
SITE PLAN NO. 55-2013 SEQR TYPE N/A SWORDFISH REALTY, LLC AGENT(S) TOM
HUTCHINS, HUTCHINS ENGINEERING, JONATHAN LAPPER, B P S R OWNER(S) SAME AS
APPLICANT ZONING WR-WATERFRONT RESIDENTIAL LOCATION 2999 STATE ROUTE 9L
APPLICANT PROPOSES CONSTRUCTION OF A 40 X 60' TWO STORY BUILDING - 4 BAYS IN
LOWER LEVEL AND OFFICE SPACE ON SECOND LEVEL. SITE IMPROVEMENTS IN A WR ZONE
REQUIRE PLANNING BOARD REVIEW AND APPROVAL. CROSS REFERENCE AV 58-13
WARREN CO. REFERRAL 10/10/2013- NO COUNTY IMPACT APA, CEA, OTHER L G PARK
CEA LOT SIZE 13.54 ACRES TAX MAP NO. 252.4-75.1 SECTION 179-3-040, 179-5-020
JOHN WRIGHT,TOM HUTCHINS&RICHARD GORDON, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT;
MR. HUNSINGER-Laura.
MRS. MOORE-The applicant received their variance last night for the height. This is an application
for a 40 by 60 two story office and storage building. In reference to the traffic (lost words) waiver
request for landscaping. So that should be added.
MR. HUNSINGER-Good evening.
MR. WRIGHT-Good evening. John Wright with Bartlett, Pontiff for the applicant. I'm here with
engineer Tom Hutchins and Richard Gordon who is the facilities manager for Swordfish and
Dunham's Bay Lodge. We were here Tuesday night, as you know, seeking a recommendation on a
height variance to the Zoning Board. This Board granted, or made that recommendation. The ZBA
granted the variance last night, and so we're here tonight for site plan approval, and I described the
project on Tuesday night. Essentially we want to replace this, which is currently there on the
property, with this, which is an updated 40 by 60 building, two stories. It has four bays on the
bottom level and some office space upstairs. It won't be red. It'll be brown. So I know there was
some engineering comments that, Mr. Chairman, you questioned Tom on briefly on Tuesday, and
certainly if you have questions about that, Tom's here to address it, but, with that, whatever
questions the Board may have.
5
(Queensbury Planning Board 11/21/2013)
MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. Thank you. I'll open it up for questions,comments from Board members.
MR. SCHONEWOLF-What's your schedule? I'm primarily interested in the demolition, but what is
your schedule?
MR. GORDON-With your approval, an application for a building permit, and we're ready to start
construction as soon as possible.
MR. FORD-What does that mean?
MR. GORDON-Hopefully with approvals, early December. Mother Nature will make the final
decision for us.
MR. FORD-Some people think as soon as possible means after the snow melts in the spring. So I
just wanted to verify that that's not what we're talking about.
MR. GORDON-That's not the as soon as possible. We're looking for early December.
MR. FORD-Thank you.
MR. HUNSINGER-Other questions, comments? We did ask about the engineering and you had
indicated on Tuesday that you didn't see a problem complying with any of the comments that were
in here.
MR. HUTCHINS-A number of them are housekeeping. A couple of them,there are two that we have
to work on and I'll, I will address them with Sean, I'm confident that we'll certainly get through it.
Things might get adjusted a few feet one way or the other in order to get that,but I wouldn't foresee
any material change,and if you want me to hit a specific one, I'll be glad to give it a shot.
MR. FORD-I'd like to hear an example,if we could.
MR. HUTCHINS-An example of, see application material specifications for the establishment of
permanent vegetation have not been provided on the plan. I'll put a specification for seeding and
seed rates and mulching application rates on the plan. It is unclear if the check dams are intended
to be permanent. They will be permanent, and they're rock check dams. Generally we don't do
temporary rock check dams,but sometimes we do.
MR. HUNSINGER-How about Item three; that seems to be maybe the most significant item.
MR. HUTCHINS-I may have to relocate one of the stormwater (lost words)to the other side.
MR. HUNSINGER-Okay.
MR. HUTCHINS-Generally, to separate wastewater and stormwater completely 100 feet, it takes
your clearing limit, and it makes it expand, okay. Generally, as long as stormwater is down
gradient of wastewater it's not an issue, and we can prove that it's not going to be an issue. You
don't want your wastewater below your stormwater. Stormwater can be down gradient of
wastewater, and function appropriately. I've done it before. I will probably make such statement
and attempt to (lost words). If not,then we'll take Area One and move it over to the other side and
make it a little bigger, and that might expand the clearing limit a little bit, which is not something
we try to do.
MR. MAGOWAN-But like I said, it looks easier on the Code on paper, but, I mean, when you get into
reality sometimes. We don't really want any more trees cut down than we possibly can. So it's
going to be a give and take. You guys have been working with each other a long time.
MR. HUTCHINS-We have all these 100 feet, 100 feet, 100 feet,if it ends up.
MR. SCHONEWOLF-Some of those trees back there are worth losing.
MR. HUTCHINS-But some of those are worth losing.
MR. SCHONEWOLF-Yes. They're scrub.
6
(Queensbury Planning Board 11/21/2013)
MR. HUTCHINS-But, I mean, what we've done, we've concentrated the building in an area that's
previously disturbed. We've gone with a multistory building instead of a large single story
building, and, you know, there was some effort required with that because obviously we had to go
get a variance to do that. So we are doing what we can to minimize the disturbance here. We've
put it in an area that's, I won't say it's invisible,but it's not going to be very visible. So we really are
keeping the impact as low as we can, and we're going to continue to try to do that by keeping the
clearing limit tight.
MR. HUNSINGER-Other comments from the Board?
MR. FORD-Those were good examples. I asked for examples. Thank you.
MR. HUTCHINS-Okay.
MR. HUNSINGER-Yes. Hearing no other comments or questions from the Board, we do have a
public hearing scheduled this evening. Is there anyone in the audience that wants to address the
Board on this project?
PUBLIC HEARING OPENED
MR. HUNSINGER-I don't see any hands. Any written comments? Okay. What's the will of the
Board?
MR. DEEB-Sounds good to me.
MR. FORD-Let's proceed.
MR. HUNSINGER-All right. I will close the public hearing, and let the record show no comments
were received.
PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED
MR. HUNSINGER-This is a Type II SEQR. So unless there are any final questions or comments from
the Board,we will entertain a motion.
RESOLUTION APPROVING SP# 55-2013 SWORDFISH REALTY, LLC
A site plan application has been made to the Queensbury Planning Board for the following:
Applicant proposes construction of a 40' x 60' two-story office/storage building in the footprint of
an existing storage maintenance building including an upgraded parking area for the building. Site
improvements require Planning Board review and approval.
SEQR Type II -no further review needed;
The PB made a recommendation to the ZBA on 11-19-13; the ZBA approved the variance requests
on 11-20-2013;
A public hearing was advertised and held on 11-21-2013;
This application is supported with all documentation, public comment, and application material in
the file of record;
MOTION TO APPROVE SITE PLAN NO. 55-2013 SWORDFISH REALTY, LLC, Introduced by Brad
Magowan who moved for its adoption,seconded by Thomas Ford:
As per the resolution prepared by Staff.
1) Pursuant to relevant sections of the Town of Queensbury Zoning Code-Chapter 179-9-080, the
Planning Board has determined that this proposal satisfies the requirements as stated in the
Zoning Code;
2) Waiver request granted: landscaping;
3) 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,
7
(Queensbury Planning Board 11/21/2013)
4) Engineering sign-off required prior to signature of Zoning Administrator of the approved plans;
5) 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.
6) The applicant must meet with Staff after approval and prior to issuance of Building Permit
and/or the beginning of any site work.
7) Subsequent issuance of further permits,including building permits is dependent on compliance
with this and all other conditions of this resolution
8) 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.
Duly adopted this 21St day of November, 2013,by the following vote:
AYES: Mr. Ford, Mr. Schonewolf, Mr. Deeb, Mr.Traver, Mr. Ferone, Mr. Magowan, Mr. Hunsinger
NOES: NONE
MR. HUNSINGER-You're all set. Good luck.
MR. GORDON-Thank you,folks.
SITE PLAN NO. 50-2013 SEQR TYPE N/A - APA JURISDICTIONAL CELLCO PARTNERSHIP
d/b/a VERIZON WIRELESS AGENT(S) JARED LUSK, NIXON PEABODY OWNER(S) LOST
CHALETS, LLC ZONING TOP OF THE WORLD PUD LOCATION OFF LOCKHART MT. ROAD
APPLICANT PROPOSES A 101 FOOT MONOPOLE WITH 11' 7" X 30' TELECOMMUNICATIONS
SHELTER ON A CONCRETE PAD WITH ASSOCIATED SITE IMPROVEMENTS.
TELECOMMUNICATION TOWERS IN A PUD REQUIRE PLANNING BOARD REVIEW AND
APPROVAL AFTER A USE VARIANCE APPROVAL HAS BEEN RECEIVED. CROSS REFERENCE UV
48-13 WARREN CO. REFERRAL NOVEMBER 2013 APA, CEA, OTHER APA WETLANDS LOT
SIZE 670.88 ACRES TAX MAP NO. 265.4-52 SECTION 179-5-120 F
JARED LUSK&SARA COLEMAN, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT
MR. HUNSINGER-Laura?
MRS. MOORE-The applicant proposes a 101 foot monopole with a telecommunications shelter and
associated site work. They did receive a Use Variance from the Zoning Board of Appeals. There is a
note on the draft resolution that monopole is actually 101 feet.
MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. Good evening.
MR. LUSK-Good evening,gentlemen of the Board. It's nice to be back. As with the prior applicant,
I was here Tuesday night. You recommended to the Zoning Board of Appeals that they grant the
Use Variance requested. They did last night as you just heard. So we're back for site plan approval
this evening, and I did explain the project the other night. Some of the questions were raised at the
Zoning Board of Appeals. I guess I can defer to the Board. Are there any other questions?
MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. Questions,comments from the Board?
MR. SCHONEWOLF-We covered them all the other night.
MR. HUNSINGER-Yes, I felt like we did,too. Yes. Any final questions or comments from the Board?
We do have a public hearing scheduled this evening. Is there anyone in the audience that wants to
address the Board on this project? We do have one person that would like to address the Board.
BERNICE MC PHILLIPS
MRS. MC PHILLIPS-I'm an adjoining neighbor. My name is Bernice McPhillips, and we own
property to the west, I guess, 265.-2-11 guess what my property is. I'm just not sure exactly where
this is going to be,how visible from my land.
8
(Queensbury Planning Board 11/21/2013)
MR. LUSK-This is the map. You can look at that and see where you are. Here's the Top of the
World road.
MRS.MC PHILLIPS-Okay. So you are, I'm over here. Okay,into the woods. So I am.
MR. FORD-Off the map.
MRS.MC PHILLIPS-I'm far away.
MR. SCHONEWOLF-Yes,you are.
MRS.MC PHILLIPS-I just wanted to make sure I was far away.
MR. FORD-You're off the map but not off the grid,right?
MR. MAGOWAN-You can still get great signal,but you're off the map. Right?
MR. LUSK-I've got some simulations if you want to see how it would look as well. In Exhibit W that
the Board has. The photos that were taken after a balloon test.
MRS.MC PHILLIPS-Yes,okay. All right. So my question has been answered.
MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. Thank you. Yes,thank you for coming.
MRS.MC PHILLIPS-That was real quick. Thank you.
MR. HUNSINGER-Would anyone else like to address the Board? Were there any written
comments? Not since Tuesday. Were there any comments at the public hearing last night at the
Zoning Board meeting that we need to consider or be concerned with?
MR. LUSK-There were no comments last night.
MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. This is a, at least in my tenure on the Board, an unusual project in that
there is no Environmental Review because it's covered by the APA. So there is no SEQR
designation for us. Actually, as you had pointed out, it's really technically a Type II for us because
the APA is covering it. I will close the public hearing.
PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED
MR. HUNSINGER-And we can entertain a motion,unless there's any final comments or concerns.
RESOLUTION APPROVING SP# 50-2013 CELLCO PARTNERSHIP d/b/a VERIZON
A site plan application has been made to the Queensbury Planning Board for the following: Site
Plan: Applicant proposes an 86 foot monopole with 117' x 30' telecommunications shelter on a
concrete pad with associated site improvements. Telecommunication Towers in a PUD require
Planning Board review and approval after a Use Variance approval has been received. Use
Variance: Public Utilities; Telecommunication Towers are not an allowed use in a PUD; APA review
due to tower height greater than 40 feet. The Planning Board shall make a recommendation to the
Zoning Board of Appeals.
SEQR- Not applicable-APA jurisdictional;
PB provided a recommendation to the ZBA on 11-19-2013; the ZBA approved the variance requests
on 11-20-2013;
A public hearing was advertised and held on 11-21-2013;
This application is supported with all documentation, public comment, and application material in
the file of record;
MOTION TO APPROVE SITE PLAN NO. 50-2013 CELLCO PARTNERSHIP d/b/a VERIZON
WIRELESS, Introduced by Brad Magowan who moved for its adoption, seconded by Paul
Schonewolf:
As per the resolution prepared by Staff.
9
(Queensbury Planning Board 11/21/2013)
1) Pursuant to relevant sections of the Town of Queensbury Zoning Code-Chapter 179-9-080, the
Planning Board has determined that this proposal satisfies the requirements as stated in the
Zoning Code;
2) Waiver requests granted: stormwater mgmt.,grading,landscaping&lighting plans
3) 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,
4) Engineering sign-off required prior to signature of Zoning Administrator of the approved plans;
5) 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;
6) The applicant must maintain on their project site,for review by staff:
a) The approved final plans that have been stamped by the Town Zoning Administrator. These
plans must include the project SWPPP (Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan) when such
a plan was prepared and approved;
b) The project NOI and proof of coverage under the current NYSDEC SPDES General Permit, or
an individual SPDES permit issued for the project.
7) 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.
8) The applicant must meet with Staff after approval and prior to issuance of Building Permit
and/or the beginning of any site work.
9) Subsequent issuance of further permits,including building permits is dependent on compliance
with this and all other conditions of this resolution
10)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
Duly adopted this 21st day of November, 2013,by the following vote:
AYES: Mr. Magowan, Mr. Ferone, Mr.Traver, Mr. Deeb, Mr. Schonewolf, Mr. Ford, Mr. Hunsinger
NOES: NONE
MR. HUNSINGER-You're all set. Good luck.
MR. LUSK-Thank you very much.
MR. HUNSINGER-You're welcome.
NEW BUSINESS:
SITE PLAN NO. 63-2013 SEQR TYPE II MARK D. SHAW AGENT(S) JEFFREY R. MEYER, ESQ.
OWNER(S) SAME AS APPLICANT ZONING WR-WATERFRONT RESIDENTIAL LOCATION 31
TWIN CHANNELS ROAD APPLICANT PROPOSES A SINGLE FAMILY HOME TO BE
CONSTRUCTED WITHIN 50 FEET OF 15% SLOPES. CONSTRUCTION ON SLOPES REQUIRES
PLANNING BOARD REVIEW AND APPROVAL. CROSS REFERENCE BP 13-434 APA, CEA,
OTHER NWI WETLANDS LOT SIZE 1.73 ACRES TAX MAP NO. 309.18-1-12 SECTION 179-6-
060
JEFF MEYER, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT
MR. HUNSINGER-Laura,whenever you're ready.
MRS. MOORE-The applicant proposes a single family dwelling that is located within 50 feet of 15%
slopes. The board may consider requesting information on site landscaping, clarification on
vegetation to remain and buffer areas.
10
(Queensbury Planning Board 11/21/2013)
MR. HUNSINGER-Thank you. Good evening.
MR. MEYER-Good evening, Board. My name is Jeff Meyer. I'm an attorney up in Lake George. I
represent Mark Shaw who was unfortunately drawn to New Jersey on business. So everybody
abandoned me and I go before you. What we have here is a single family house being built on the
Hudson River. We kept it uphill away from the river. Tried to meet and met all the setbacks and
everything else. After the permits were originally issued, Craig had asked for just a couple of
elevations just to confirm some things, show that it was on or near the 15% slope and the site plan
approval was required. So we're here before you. Some clearing had been done, and, you know,
we're doing everything we can to come up with a good stormwater plan. The comments that we
received back from Chazen were more or less, in my view anyway, administerial. Devon Dickinson
made those changes. He corrected what was noted. The plans were just submitted this evening.
So obviously Chazen hasn't seen them to respond,but it was,you know,relatively simple things like
seeding mixtures, you know, is there Town water. What else was in there, construction entrance,
which is all going to be incorporated,the silt fences that he asked for, up gradient,kind of near Twin
Channels Road, so we're doing everything we can to make it a good project and keep erosion and
sediment(lost words). So we're here to answer any questions you may have.
MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. Questions, comments from the Board? I'm always amazed when I go
down to that part of Town because, you know, you don't really go down there unless there's a
Planning Board project,you know, I mean,what a really nice site that is. Yes.
MR. MEYER-Family property that's finally getting developed. So they're excited.
MR. HUNSINGER-So you feel that you've already addressed the engineering comments?
MR. MEYER-I do. The materials are with Laura, and,you know,if it's contingent on final signoff,you
know, I don't have an objection with that. There is only, his comment number six about the Hydro
CAD is all revised to show the correct size of the infiltration trench. That was done as well. There
isn't, you know, there shouldn't be any issues. There shouldn't be anything to that additional
signoff. So we're confident and comfortable with anything.
MR. FORD-Laura, do you have any reaction to what has been submitted or any concerns relative to
that?
MRS.MOORE-No, I don't.
MR. FORD-Yes,thank you. I'm not asking you to speak for the engineer.
MRS. MOORE-I can say that the applicant talked with me this afternoon and indicated that they will
submit information this evening and that will be forwarded to the Town Engineer the next day.
MR. FORD-Thank you.
MR. HUNSINGER-Well, if there's no other questions or comments from the Board, we do have a
public hearing scheduled this evening. Is there anyone in the audience that wants to address the
Board?
PUBLIC HEARING OPENED
MR. HUNSINGER-Any written comments? Okay. I will close the public hearing.
PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED
MR. HUNSINGER-And let the record show no comments were received. This is a Type II SEQR, and
so no SEQR review is necessary. And unless there's anything else that the Board wants to bring up,
we can entertain a motion.
RESOLUTION APPROVING SP# 63-2013 MARK D. SHAW
A site plan application has been made to the Queensbury Planning Board for the following:
Applicant proposes a single family home to be constructed within 50 feet of 15% slopes.
Construction on slopes requires Planning Board review and approval.
SEQR Type II -no further review required;
11
(Queensbury Planning Board 11/21/2013)
A public hearing was advertised and held on 11-21-2013;
This application is supported with all documentation, public comment, and application material in
the file of record;
MOTION TO APPROVE SITE PLAN NO. 63-2013 MARK D. SHAW, Introduced by Brad Magowan
who moved for its adoption,seconded by Deeb:
As per the resolution prepared by Staff.
1) Pursuant to relevant sections of the Town of Queensbury Zoning Code-Chapter 179-9-080, the
Planning Board has determined that this proposal satisfies the requirements as stated in the
Zoning Code;
2) 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,
3) 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;
4) 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;
5) The applicant must maintain on their project site,for review by staff:
a) The approved final plans that have been stamped by the Town Zoning Administrator. These
plans must include the project SWPPP (Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan) when such
a plan was prepared and approved;
b) The project NOI and proof of coverage under the current NYSDEC SPDES General Permit, or
an individual SPDES permit issued for the project.
6) 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.
7) The applicant must meet with Staff after approval and prior to issuance of Building Permit
and/or the beginning of any site work.
8) Subsequent issuance of further permits, including building permits is dependent on compliance
with this and all other conditions of this resolution.
9) 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.
Duly adopted this 21st day of November, 2013,by the following vote:
AYES: Mr. Deeb, Mr. Schonewolf, Mr. Ford, Mr. Magowan, Mr. Ferone, Mr.Traver, Mr. Hunsinger
NOES: NONE
MR. HUNSINGER-Good luck. You're all set.
MR. SHAW-Thank you very much.
MR. HUNSINGER-Yes,you're welcome.
SUBDIVISION NO. 5-2013 SEQR TYPE UNLISTED LISA PUSHOR, SCOTT SPELLBURG
AGENT(S) HUTCHINS ENGINEERING OWNER(S) STONE POINTE, LLC/SCOTT SPELLBURG
ZONING RR-3A; LC-10A LOCATION 45 ELLSWORTH LANE APPLICANT PROPOSES
SUBDIVISION OF A 92.14 ACRE PARCEL INTO EIGHT PARCELS INTO 8 RESIDENTIAL LOTS
RANGING IN SIZE FROM 3 ACRES TO 44.1 ACRES. SUBDIVISION OF LAND REQUIRES
PLANNING BOARD REVIEW AND APPROVAL. CROSS REFERENCE SB 5-11,AV 62-11, S B 5-06.
APA, CEA, OTHER STREAM OVERLAY LOT SIZE 92.12 ACRES TAX MAP NO. 265.-1-2.3, 2.2, 2.1
SECTION CHAPTER A-183
12
(Queensbury Planning Board 11/21/2013)
TOM HUTCHINS, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT; SCOTT SPELLBURG, PRESENT
MR. HUNSINGER-Laura?
MRS.MOORE-This was an application that has since expired,and the information was (lost words)
The supporting documentation includes the Chazen Engineering signoff letter, NYSDEC Endangered
species letter of no cause, NY OPRHP no impact letter, APA no jurisdiction letter and the
stormwater maintenance agreement.
MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. Good evening.
MR. HUTCHINS-Good evening, Board. I'm Tom Hutchins, here with Scott Spellburg, and we wish
we weren't here but we are here. Obviously an oversight was made in the, Scott's subdivision that
was approved, I believe it was July 2012. It had expired before the maps were filed. What's before
you is exactly, they're the same drawings, same application. We have converted to the new longer
Long Form SEQR and everything else is exactly the same. Nothing's changed, and we respectfully
request your support such that we can move forward and make this subdivision a reality, and with
that we'll answer any questions.
MR. HUNSINGER-Any questions,comments from the Board? I think your letter said it all.
MR. MAGOWAN-Yes.
MR. HUNSINGER-There have been no changes whatsoever to any of the information presented from
that approved on July 18th.
MR.TRAVER-That being the case,is it necessary to re-visit SEQR or can we simply re-affirm?
MRS.MOORE-You can re-affirm.
MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. Good.
MR. MAGOWAN-Good.
MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. Well, before we get ahead of ourselves, we do have a public hearing. Is
there anyone in the audience that wants to address the Board on this project?
PUBLIC HEARING OPENED
MR. HUNSINGER-Were there any written comments?
MRS.MOORE-No.
MR. HUNSINGER-No? Okay. I'll open the public hearing and close the public hearing, and let the
record show no comments were received.
PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED
MR. HUNSINGER-And with that, if anyone would like to move this. I was pointing out there's a
typo on the SEQR resolution. You have November 19th instead of November 21St.
MRS.MOORE-Okay.
RESOLUTION AFFIRMING NEG. DEC. SEQR FOR SUB # 5-2013 PUSH OR/SPELLBURG
MOTION REAFFIRMING THE NEGATIVE DECLARATION FOR SEQR FOR SUBDIVISION NO. 5-
2013 FOR LISA PUSHOR AND SCOTT SPELLBURG, Introduced by Brad Magowan who moved for
its adoption,seconded by Stephen Traver:
Duly adopted this 21St day of November, 2013,by the following vote:
AYES: Mr.Traver, Mr. Ferone, Mr. Magowan, Mr. Ford, Mr. Schonewolf, Mr. Deeb, Mr. Hunsinger
NOES: NONE
13
(Queensbury Planning Board 11/21/2013)
MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. Preliminary approval.
MR. MAGOWAN-Okay.
RESOLUTION APPROVING PRELIM. STG. SUB # 5-2013 PUSHOR/SPELLBURG
A subdivision application has been made to the Queensbury Planning Board for the following:
Applicant proposes subdivision of a 92.14 acre parcel into eight parcels into 8 residential lots
ranging in size from 3 acres to 44.1 acres. Subdivision of land requires Planning Board review and
approval.
A public hearing was scheduled and held on 11-21-2013;
This application is supported with all documentation, public comment, and application material in
the file of record;
MOTION TO APPROVE PRELIMINARY STAGE SUBDIVISION NO. 5-2013 LISA PUSHOR AND
SCOTT SPELLBURG, Introduced by Brad Magowan who moved for its adoption, seconded by
Stephen Traver:
As per the resolution prepared by Staff.
1. Pursuant to relevant sections of the Town of Queensbury Zoning Code-Chapter A-183, the
Planning Board has determined that this proposal satisfies the requirements as stated in the
Zoning Code;
2. The requirements of the State Environmental Quality Review Act have been considered and the
Planning Board has adopted a SEQRA Negative Declaration;
Duly adopted this 21St day of November, 2013,by the following vote:
AYES: Mr. Deeb, Mr. Schonewolf, Mr. Ford, Mr. Magowan, Mr. Ferone, Mr.Traver, Mr. Hunsinger
NOES: NONE
MR. HUNSINGER-Final Stage.
RESOLUTION APPROVING FINAL STG. SUB # 5-2013 PUSHOR/SPELLBURG
A subdivision application has been made to the Queensbury Planning Board for the following:
Applicant proposes subdivision of a 92.14 acre parcel into eight parcels into 8 residential lots
ranging in size from 3 acres to 44.1 acres. Subdivision of land requires Planning Board review and
approval.
A public hearing was scheduled and held on 11-21-2013;
This application is supported with all documentation, public comment, and application material in
the file of record;
MOTION TO APPROVE FINAL STAGE SUBDIVISION NO. 5-2013 LISA PUSHOR AND SCOTT
SPELLBURG, Introduced by Brad Magowan who moved for its adoption, seconded by Stephen
Traver:
As per the resolution prepared by Staff.
1. Pursuant to relevant sections of the Town of Queensbury Zoning Code-Chapter A-183, the
Planning Board has determined that this proposal satisfies the requirements as stated in the
Zoning Code;
2. The requirements of the State Environmental Quality Review Act have been considered and the
Planning Board has adopted a SEQRA Negative Declaration;
3. 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
4. The applicant must submit a copy of the following to the Town:
14
(Queensbury Planning Board 11/21/2013)
a) The project NOI (Notice of Intent) for coverage under the current NYSDEC SPDES General
Permit or for coverage under an individual SPDES prior to the start of any site work.
b) The project NOT (Notice of Termination) upon completion of the project; and
5. The applicant must maintain on their project site,for review by staff:
a) The approved final that have been stamped by the Town Zoning Administrator. These plans
must include the project SWPPP (Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan) when such a plan
was prepared and approved; and
b) The project NOI and proof of coverage under the current NYSDEC SPDES General Permit, or
an individual SPDES permit issued for the project.
6. Final approved plans, in compliance with the Subdivision, must be submitted to the Community
Development Department before any further review by the Zoning Administrator or Building
and Codes personnel.
7. The applicant must meet with Staff after approval and prior to issuance of Building Permit
and/or the beginning of any site work.
8. Subsequent issuance of further permits, including building permits is dependent on compliance
with this and all other conditions of this resolution;
9. As-built plans to certify that the subdivision is developed according to the approved plans to be
provided prior to issuance of the certificate of occupancy;
Duly adopted this 21st day of November, 2013,by the following vote:
AYES: Mr.Traver, Mr. Ferone, Mr. Magowan, Mr. Ford, Mr. Schonewolf, Mr. Deeb, Mr. Hunsinger
NOES: NONE
MR. HUNSINGER-You're all set. Good luck.
MR. HUTCHINS-Thank you.
DISCUSSION ITEM:
PROPOSED CONVENIENCE STORE AND GASOLINE SALES AT 124 MAIN STREET.
DOUG HELLER, PRESENT
MR. HUNSINGER-And there was a package in our,an application in our package. Laura,is there any
introduction or comments you want to make?
MRS.MOORE-This is a discussion item for a convenience store and gas station (lost words).
MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. Good evening.
MR. HELLER-Great. Thanks. My name's Doug Heller from the LA Group and this is Mr. Schwartz,
and basically we're here just kind of in a preliminary phase before we do any submission. Kind of
do a brief little introduction to the project. It's 124 Main Street where Carl R's is right now. We're
basically looking at putting a convenience store and gas station, and over here, basically what we
have on this is here is Main Street right along here, and this is Big Boom Road. What we're looking
for is another little site plan. There's exit ramps, Main Street, Big Boom Road, proposed
convenience store and the gas station. Carl R's sits approximately right here, and I guess what
we're just looking for is a little discussion with the Board, any initial feedback,thoughts that we can
kind of take into account before we kind of go forward and move forward with this project with a
formal submission.
MR.TRAVER-Traffic is going to be an issue.
MR. FORD-Yes,could you address the traffic flow,please.
MR. HELLER-Yes, traffic, basically, one thing that we are looking, we would hope to do is probably
tighten this up a little bit and it's just going to bean enter only coming from the east bound lane. So
coming from the west bound, you would not be able to turn in here. You would have to use Big
Boom Road to enter into the convenience store.
15
(Queensbury Planning Board 11/21/2013)
MR.TRAVER-And exiting?
MR. HELLER-Exiting probably only Big Boom Road. There would be no exit along Main Street.
MR.TRAVER-Okay.
MR. HUNSINGER-Not even a right?
MR. HELLER-Right now we're just looking at an entrance only.
MR. HUNSINGER-Okay.
MR. MAGOWAN-Now you have another, is that another entrance up there on Big Boom? It's an
enter there.
MR. HELLER-Yes. Enter here.
MR. MAGOWAN-All right. Then you'd have an exit or enter on the other way since that opening's
much larger.
MR. HELLER-Yes. One entering,one exiting farther down on Big Boom Road itself.
MR. MAGOWAN-And then you have an exit down at the other end.
MR. HELLER-Yes.
MR. TRAVER-I think when you take a look at the, and this is just a suggestion, I mean, I'm not a
traffic person obviously, but when you look at the entrance on Main Street, at the top of your
drawing,if it's shaped the way it's shown on your diagram currently.
MR. HELLER-Yes,it won't be. It'll have like a big.
MR.TRAVER-Like a pork chop or something.
MR. HELLER-Yes,almost,make it very difficult for someone to turn left.
MR.TRAVER-Thank you. Okay. That's what I was looking for.
MR. FORD-And address that other entrance off Big Boom. How is that going to be configured to
prevent exiting there?
MR. HELLER-That's definitely something we can take into account, trying to, assuming that do not
enters wouldn't suffice.
MR. FORD-So you're looking at signage only?
MR. HELLER-Possibly. It's something that we can definitely look into. Maybe we can shape this so
that it does force.
MR. SCHONEWOLF-You can shape the exits.
MR. FORD-Yes, I would recommend that you go beyond signage.
MR. FERONE-How far is that entrance from the exit ramp? So it's going to be almost immediately
on top of you as you exit the highway,right?
MR. HELLER-Yes,it will be very close. Yes.
MR. MAGOWAN-See, this way they confuse the people getting off to come in and get gas that they
don't really need anyway.
MR. HELLER-That's the trick.
16
(Queensbury Planning Board 11/21/2013)
MR. MAGOWAN-That's, no that actually is a tough one because realizing that it's two lanes, though.
A lot of people don't understand that, and it's kind of confusing, and it blends in pretty quick right
on the other side of Boom. So
MR. FERONE-Well, there's a lot of activity there because you've got a turn lane onto Media Drive at
the same time that almost is right on top of that as well.
MR. MAGOWAN-Right.
MR. FERONE-Is there any concerns,when you talk about traffic,with,you know, if you get any kind
of a backup coming into the pump, it might have an effect on Main, if people are going to have a
hard time getting through there?
MR. HELLER-Yes, no,that's definitely something we can account and try to maybe shift this over so
that we can get people by here. So, yes, you're basically saying if there's cars parked right there
(lost words),yes.
MR. FERONE-Right.
MR. HUNSINGER-Was there any consideration given to having the building closer to the road and
having the pumps in the rear?
MR. HELLER-Yes, we did look at that. The only big thing for a gas station is the gas pumps, that's
basically what you want the people to see. If the gas pumps are in the back, people might drive by,
not see the gas pumps in back, and just go to the next gas station across the street. We did try
looking at fitting this building up closer to the road, but it's just, it's narrow, and with this little
swing in Big Boom Road,it just wasn't,we weren't able to get(lost word) up there.
MR. TRAVER-Again, you know, I'm not a marketing expert by any means, but, I mean, did you do
any kind of market analysis? I mean there's an awful lot of gas pumps in that area.
MR. SCHWARTZ-We have marketing (lost word) working on that.
MR.TRAVER-Okay.
MR. DEEB-So all traffic's going to exit,it's going to that light,all traffic?
MR. HELLER-Yes.
MR. DEEB-All right,and are you in any discussions with the oil companies?
MR. SCHWARTZ-Exxon.
MR. DEEB-Exxon.
MR. HUNSINGER-Any other thoughts or comments from the Board?
MR. MAGOWAN-Well, I kind of like the picnic area there. It gives people a little chance to sit and
relax.
MR. FERONE-What about deliveries to the convenience store? How is that going to be
coordinated? Because it looks kind of tight with the parking spaces and everything.
MR. HELLER-Yes, we still, this is definitely, we're going to be reconfiguring, but the thoughts are
trying to make the delivery,well,oil or just regular?
MR. FERONE-Just regular convenience.
MR. HELLER-Most likely in the back here,yes. We'll be reconfiguring some of this parking,but,yes,
those deliveries will be happening in the back.
MR. TRAVER-There's also a width requirement, it looks like on one section of your driveway there,
right below, yes, where you're finger's pointing, yes, that, I know emergency vehicles require a
certain,what is it, 24 feet?
MR. HELLER-Yes.
17
(Queensbury Planning Board 11/21/2013)
MR. SCHONEWOLF-Twenty.
MR.TRAVER-Twenty? Okay.
MR. HELLER-(Lost words) with deliveries,we'll be running the whole truck traffic and all that.
MR.TRAVE R-Exactly. Okay. Thank you.
MR. DEEB-Can you discuss parking a little bit?
MR. HELLER-Yes. So right now parking, we are going back and forth with the truck and bus
parking,and we are looking for parking up in here,but,and possibly we are looking at parking here,
but the big thing that we wanted was to keep this view with the glass on the convenience store. We
want that to be nice and visible. We thought that that was very aesthetically pleasing. It's also
very (lost words) convenient for the sales of the goods, too. So right now we're proposing to park
here. We are looking at options,possibly in this area.
MR. DEEB-How big is the convenience store?
MR. HELLER-Do we know the square footage? Yes. We're still working out the exact details on
that.
MR. MAGOWAN-Roughly?
MR. HELLER-2700?
MR. HUNSINGER-It is on here. I just can't read it. 3420? Does that sound right? I notice that
you're going to have diesel pumps. Are they going to be for trucks or just for?
MR. HELLER-Yes,basically for buses, maybe trucks, it depends on the height of the canopy.
MR. MAGOWAN-Can you turn it around again?
MR. HELLER-Yes.
MR. MAGOWAN-Thanks.
MR. HUNSINGER-So is this inside the Main Street zone?
MRS.MOORE-Yes.
MR. FORD-Yes.
MR. HUNSINGER-So do they have to meet the build to line and the other requirements of the Main
Street zone? That was part of the reason why I asked if they thought about putting the building up
closer,yes.
MR. DEEB-So that's a representation of a two story?
MR. HUNSINGER-Yes,and they do show offices and an eating area on the second floor.
MR. FERONE-If that's the case, there's not a lot of parking there, then whatever's going on the
second floor,they're going to have onsite parking?
MR. SCHWARTZ-We have more property down the road.
MR. FERONE-Beyond the property that you're showing now?
MR. SCHWARTZ-Yes,the back.
MR. HELLER-We are looking at possibly removing some of this truck and bus parking,depending on
what(lost words)the bus to truck traffic and modifying this to more just regular car parking.
MR. HUNSINGER-So the build to line, I mean, wouldn't that be a deal stopper if it's required in the
zone? Yes.
18
(Queensbury Planning Board 11/21/2013)
MRS.MOORE-They need to work out those details with the Main Street in the plan.
MR. HUNSINGER-Was there any, I mean, I'm sure it wasn't coincidental that this is here this evening
right before we talk about the Main Street zoning.
MRS.MOORE-I didn't have an opportunity to talk to the applicant. So I don't.
MR. HUNSINGER-Okay.
MRS.MOORE-So this is just on as a discussion item.
MR. HUNSINGER-Yes,okay.
MRS.MOORE-When it comes in for site plan I'll review it at that time.
MR. HELLER-And that's, I guess, one of the main reasons we're in here because we are aware of the
build to line, just how critical it is for my client (lost words). If it is a show stopper or if there are
certain things that we can do along this frontage then (lost words).
MR. HUNSINGER-Yes,well, I was the only one on the Board however many years ago it was that we
reviewed the Cumberland Farms project,you know, and they were able, I don't know if they've met
the strictest, because it was actually before the Code was adopted, but it was the feeling of the
Board and of Staff that project met the intent of the zone, even though the zone was not yet
adopted. So I assume they met the build to line. I mean, the front of the store is up close to Main
Street.
MRS.MOORE-I don't know exactly.
MR. HUNSINGER-I mean, I don't know if it's 25 feet away or, you know, but they were able to at
least meet the intent,if not letter of the law.
MR. HELLER-Exactly. That's one of the things that we looked at,too. Knowing Cumberland Farms
did that, and the one thing that they had going for them was the frontage. So it's just getting the
pumps in right and building along this line,there's not enough room.
MR. HUNSINGER-Right,there's not enough room.
MR. HELLER-Yes.
MR. HUNSINGER-And you probably can't consider the gas canopy to be the building frontage for a
build to line.
MR. MAGOWAN-I mean, if you turned the gas pumps, moved them back just a pinch, you know, to
go with the,like the curb line,and then moved the store up, I'd like the store with the glass frontage,
you know, and like you say, if you're going to have people up there it's going to be a busy light and
intersection and I'm sure there'll be a lot of waiting going on there, you know, with, I mean, if we
brought the store up and the gas to the side, you'd still be able to see it. Your eye's going to be
caught,really,by the attractive building. That can get your building up even closer to the corner.
MR. FORD-You refer to discussion with a particular gas company. Correct?
MR. SCHWARTZ-We're dealing with Exxon.
MR. FORD-You are? Okay. So there's already a commitment there?
MR. SCHWARTZ-No,no commitment,but discussion.
MR. FORD-But discussion, okay. Relative to the use of the second story of the building, have there
been any discussions with any potential users of that space?
MR. SCHWARTZ-We're trying to have (lost words) or something like that, gallery, most of the
second floor would be open, the side of the building would be offices or something. Because you
have to fill it up with something.
MR. FORD-Nothing specific,no specific discussions with any individuals or companies?
19
(Queensbury Planning Board 11/21/2013)
MR. SCHWARTZ-No.
MR. FORD-Thank you.
MR. HUNSINGER-I mean,it is the classic location for a gas station,right adjacent to the off ramp.
MR. SCHONEWOLF-Leave the second story vacant,put your sign up there.
MR. HUNSINGER-I mean, if they were to, if they wanted to proceed with the building back from the
build to line,that would be a variance request,right? Okay. That's what I thought. I mean,you can
see obviously the gas station across the street is built to the build to line because it pre-dates the
zoning.
MRS. MOORE-I mean, I'm not sure there's a (lost words) the gas pumps probably along the
Northway and move that building to the front,but that's probably not(lost words).
MR. HUNSINGER-Yes, I guess it also depends on where the, I mean, you know, if you think that the
majority of your customers are going to be people driving north, and, you know, getting off the off
ramp,they're going to see the gas pumps because they're going to drive right alongside of them,but
I'm not a marketing guy.
MR. SCHWARTZ-(lost words) so now they can't see it,too,so it's going to be much more,and second
until they get to make the right, they can't (lost words) they saw gas, they see the live buildings.
They see the SUNOCO across the street.
MR. DEEB-So you need that visual.
MR. HELLER-Yes,especially competition,right across the street.
MR. SCHWARTZ-We want to make the best with like nice grass.
MR. HUNSINGER-I don't know,any other thoughts or comments from the Board? I don't know,was
this helpful?
MR. HELLER-It was, yes. Thank you very much for taking a little bit of time and discussing it. I
really appreciate it.
MR. HUNSINGER-You're welcome. Yes. It is a nice looking building.
MR. HELLER-Yes.
MR. MAGOWAN-See you back soon.
MR. DEEB-Yes,good luck.
MR. HUNSINGER-You may want to stay for the Staff presentation on Main Street, which is our next
item.
MR. DEEB-While he's doing that,do you want to go to 4.4?
MR. HUNSINGER-4.4? Oh, nominations? Did we get, we had meeting date schedules and we also
have nominations of officers for 2014.
RESOLUTION ACCEPTING PLANNING BOARD MEETING DATES FOR 2014
MOTION TO APPROVE THE QUEENSBURY PLANNING BOARD MEETING DATES FOR 2014,
Introduced by Paul Schonewolf who moved for its adoption,seconded by David Deeb:
Duly adopted this 21St day of November, 2013,by the following vote:
AYES: Mr. Ferone, Mr.Traver, Mr. Magowan, Mr. Ford, Mr. Schonewolf, Mr. Deeb, Mr. Hunsinger
NOES: NONE
MR. HUNSINGER-And also we have a resolution to nominate officers for 2014.
20
(Queensbury Planning Board 11/21/2013)
MR.TRAVER-I'd like to make a motion to nominate Chris Hunsinger for Chairman.
MR. SCHONEWOLF-Second.
RESOLUTION TO NOMINATE PLANNING BOARD CHAIRMAN FOR 2014
MOTION TO NOMINATE CHRIS HUNSINGER AS CHAIRMAN OF THE QUEENSBURY PLANNING
BOARD FOR 2014, Introduced by Stephen Traver who moved for its adoption, seconded by
Thomas Ford:
Duly adopted this 21St day of November, 2013,by the following vote:
AYES: Mr. Deeb, Mr. Schonewolf, Mr. Ford, Mr. Magowan, Mr. Ferone, Mr.Traver, Mr. Hunsinger
NOES: NONE
MR. HUNSINGER-And we also have a nomination for Vice Chairman. Would anyone like to make
nomination?
MR. FORD-I would nominate Stephen Traver.
MR. MAGOWAN-Second.
RESOLUTION TO NOMINATE PLANNING BOARD VICE CHAIRMAN FOR 2014
MOTION TO NOMINATE STEPHEN TRAVER AS VICE CHAIRMAN OF THE QUEENSBURY
PLANNING BOARD FOR 2014, Introduced by Thomas Ford who moved for its adoption, seconded
by Brad Magowan:
Duly adopted this 21St day of November, 2013,by the following vote:
AYES: Mr. Ferone, Mr. Magowan, Mr. Ford, Mr. Schonewolf, Mr. Deeb, Mr. Hunsinger
NOES: NONE
ABSTAINED: Mr.Traver
MR. HUNSINGER-And Don's not here,so.
MR. SCHONEWOLF-So let's get him.
MR. DEEB-For not being here,you get him.
RESOLUTION TO NOMINATE PLANNING BOARD SECRETARY FOR 2014
MOTION TO NOMINATE DONALD KREBS AS SECRETARY OF THE QUEENSBURY PLANNING
BOARD FOR 2014, Introduced by Paul Schonewolf who moved for its adoption, seconded by
Thomas Ford:
Duly adopted this 21St day of November, 2013,by the following vote:
AYES: Mr. Ferone, Mr.Traver, Mr. Magowan, Mr. Ford, Mr. Schonewolf, Mr. Deeb, Mr. Hunsinger
NOES: NONE
MR. HUNSINGER-Stu,it looks like you're ready?
MR. BAKER-I'm ready.
MR. HUNSINGER-Good timing.
MR. BAKER-Good evening. I'm Stu Baker, Senior Planner with the Community Development
Department. Thank you very much for the opportunity to speak to you this evening. I'd like to do
a presentation for you, giving you a little bit of the history and re-development efforts on Main
Street, discuss a bit the (lost words) and get into a discussion of this proposed future changes to the
21
(Queensbury Planning Board 11/21/2013)
Main Street zoning. We'll start with a review of some the past studies and projects along Main
Street. The Main Street re-development effort really began with this 1999 study that was
commissioned by the Adirondack Glens Falls Transportation Council that is the regional planning
agency for the Glens Falls area. This study looked at transportation issues from West Mountain
Road down to the Broad Street Hudson Avenue intersection in the City, and the purposes of the
study were to improve the appearance of the corridor heading into the City, reduce traffic
congestion in the corridor, improve traffic circulation, facilitate bike and pedestrian traffic and
improve safety. This lead directly to Warren County's pilot project. They were the sponsor for the
major improvements on Main Street, and (lost words) refers to their State and Federal funding the
project effort. We know the extent of the project and it did result in the three lane road with
intersection improvements, pedestrian and (lost words) that we have today. Total costs of that
construction project were 16.7 million. That was construction only. When you take in the cost of
the engineering and the right of way acquisition, it brought that total actually up to $22 million.
That's a significant investment.
MR. SCHONEWOLF-How many miles was that?
MR. BAKER-I don't know the total length of the project offhand. At the time Warren County was
developing their project through the State and Federal transportation funding cycle, the Town
commissioned the Main Street plan which was done by Saratoga Associates and Barton and
Loguidice. This project was undertaken in recognition of the opportunities and responsibilities
that the Main Street construction project as a benefit to the community, and it was intended to
come up with ideas that would facilitate the transition from what was a residential, and to many
extents still is a residential street to a commercial corridor. The plan included expansion of
municipal water and sewer services,the undergrounding of the utilities,street scape enhancements
and economic growth opportunities throughout the corridor. The water and the wastewater
improvements that were done along Main Street were significant in total costs as well. Water was
over a half a million dollars and wastewater was a $1.5 million project in and of itself. Elements of
the Main Street plan to review the highway designs,plan for the water and sewer improvements. It
also focused on context sensitive solutions. Now context sensitive solutions, or CSS as we call it, is
a Federal and State initiative that strives to balance environmental, scenic, aesthetic, and cultural
concerns with transportation service and safety needs. The corner stone of CSS is public
involvement, which for the Main Street project was undertaken under the direction of a citizen
advisory committee. The basic re-development concept that was embraced by the Main Street plan
should look very familiar because this carried through into the 2007 Comprehensive Land Use Plan
and ultimately into the Zoning Code that we have today, includes a specific build to line,
development of two and three story buildings that scale with the roadway, development of
commercial activities on the first level with offices and residential uses above, accessibility from
sidewalks provided on both sides of the street,highway access management strategies, coordinated
parking and service access and parking to the side and rear of the buildings. This was Main Street
in 1972. What we wouldn't give for these gas prices today. These are more current before
pictures of Main Street, before the total project was undertaken, and these photos were taken last
week of the completed project. We have a three lane highway, one way in each direction, turning
lane in the middle, the pedestrian improvements, the improved intersections, and of course our
lighting sidewalks and street trees. The next plan that I want to discuss is, of course, the
Comprehensive Land Use Plan. This was adopted in 2007, and many of the elements are, in fact I
believe all of the design elements of the Main Street plan from 2002,were carried forward into this.
The Comprehensive Plan process involved the Planning Ordinance Review Committee that was
appointed by the Town Board and it was heavily focused on public participation, and one of the
strengths of the Ordinance Review Committee's effort on public participation was their willingness
and in fact insistence upon accepting public comments in each and every of their public meetings.
The Comprehensive Plan is subtitled Shaping Success, and that was really the core operating
principle at the time of the Plan. The concept recognized Queensbury's existing economic vitality
and quality of life. It also recognized that the form of these achievements needed improvement.
The core goal of the Plan was to move Queensbury closer to what the community desires, economic
health,walkability, environmental protection and quality of life, and those themes are working with
the public participation process and were carried forward in the Plan through the Ordinance
Review Committee's work on that. Goals included a Comprehensive Plan that is directly relevant to
the Main Street re-development, included developing an economic program that reflects the
community's land use goals while keeping up its tax base and increasing job opportunities, creating
design standards for architecture and site layout, and work with Town's realizing the vision,
promoting of pedestrian and bicycle friendly residential and commercial design, for new and re-
development projects, and re-balancing the design in general to concentrate on the pedestrian and
walking rather than cars and parking, and also heavily focused, of course, on creating a mixed use,
Neighborhood Commercial center. Specific recommendations included in the Comprehensive Plan
included recommendations to establish architectural standards that require new buildings to move
22
(Queensbury Planning Board 11/21/2013)
towards the creation of a distinctive community, and this recommendation includes this statement,
that the Town should be clear, from the beginning of the development process, what is expected of
the developer regarding building design. That same recommendation includes this statement,that
Main Street buildings must be a minimum of two stories and a maximum of three stories, and some
of you may recognize this photo as being a portion of Saranac Lake. You'll also find the two story
design in Main Street type areas for national retailers as well. This particular discount retailer is in
Cincinnati, Ohio. Recommendation D.6 in the Comprehensive Plan, implement the design
recommendations of the Main Street plan. The major elements of the design portion included a
pedestrian friendly environment with a continuous sidewalk system, the street trees, the
ornamental plantings and buffer, different pavement textures, properly scaled ornamental lighting.
It also includes this statement, two and three story buildings which evoke the Upstate New York
Main Street style and create a distinctive shopping experience. Recommendation D.8 in the
Comprehensive Plan, allow the commercial mixed use areas of Main Street to host denser and more
variety, more varied housing than is found in other parts of Queensbury. However residential uses
should not be allowed on the first floors of buildings along streets. The intent is to create a live
work environment. People living on the upper floors supporting the businesses on the lower
floors, creating a neighborhood where residents can walk to their home,to the other stores,to,you
know, personal services that they need, to their jobs. Doing so would create another option for
housing in the Town, of course, and these units located closer to the Northway would also be
attractive to technology workers which are increasingly coming to the Malta region and continuing
their way north. It also is attractive to seniors, allowing them to remain in the community and age
in place, especially as walking becomes more important than driving, and I'll come back to further
discussion about those two generation cohorts in a bit. Marketing and demographic trends. We
have the vision, how does that mesh with the evolving market reality and the changing
demographics? Well, let's begin with what the Urban Land Institute looked at in 2002. For those
not familiar, the ULI is a non-profit educational organization, and it's, approximately 80% of its
members come from the real estate and development community. This particular study being
done with America's suburban business districts from 2002 was underwritten by Bank of America,
which actually has a pretty lengthy history of supporting research on mixed use development. The
National Association of Realtors came out with a study in 2011, this was a consumer preference
study, that highlighted the growing market for mixed use communities. If you look on the right
hand column of this web chart as well,you'll see that the NAR website also includes numerous links
to other mixed use and smart growth related topics. The National Association of Realtors also
actually publishes a semi-annual magazine called On Common Ground that focuses solely on views
and trend analysis related to mixed use development and smart growth. In this study, they noted
that when considering a home purchase, 77% of respondents said they would look for
neighborhoods with abundance on lots and other pedestrian friendly features. The Urban Land
Institute also publishes emerging trends in real estate annually, and this is a trended forecast
publication that they've been putting out for 34 years now, and this is one of the most highly
regarded and widely read forecast reports in the real estate industry, and in the 2013 report, they
noted in particular that urban mixed use properties and mixed use town centers were increasingly
attractive as both quote investment prospects and development prospects. This was earlier this
summer that, I'm sorry, earlier this Fall, in October, the Better Citizens Town's website brought to
light a recent study that came out in Planning Theory and Practice by a researcher named Arthur
Nelson, and he was talking about what he sees in demographic changes and trends, and he talks in
particular about the United States adding 100 million people in coming decades and that that
growth will focus on more walkable mixed use environments, and he refers to this migration to
more walkable mixed use environments as the Fifth Wave. In his study, Mr. Nelson noted that
Generation X and Generation Y populations prefer to live closer to town centers and be able to walk
to shops and restaurants and other amenities. They value sociability. They would trade off large
lots for smaller ones and say they would choose attached homes and apartments and condos
certain fit that corridor to accomplish this. It also notes on studies that state aging boomers will
especially want suburban places that allow for growth and learning, providing social opportunities
and offering diverse and affordable housing choices. The March 13th addition of American City and
County included this Op Ed piece which also talked a bit about these demographic changes, noting
that for the past 40 years boomers have been the dominant force for transportation and land use
policy. However, as they begin to age, transportation by car is becoming less attractive, according
to a study by AARP,American Association of Retired Persons. On the opposite spectrum,and we go
back to the Generation X and Y,gas prices continue to linger above $3.00 a gallon, and that's driven
a large percentage of the younger generations to choose alternative forms of transportation.
There's been actually a lot of coverage in the media recently enough, a number of young people,
right out of college, that are choosing to live in environments where they don't require cars at all.
As these represent two of the largest population generations, again,we're talking about the retirees
and the Generation Y, this shift poses a complicated challenge to local officials. Both generations
want to continue to work and recreate, but neither want to travel far in a car. This is why mixed
use development is such an attractive option. This Op Ed also noted that mixed use development is
23
(Queensbury Planning Board 11/21/2013)
a response to these generation's questions and will be a mainstay for, is effectively a mainstay for
decades, and although there's always going to be a demand,they say, for suburban living, municipal
(lost words) must understand that there are significant sociological trends that are driving citizens
to move in this new direction, and the last item under trends I want to note is this one from last
week in CBS Money Watch where they note there's not a lot of interest in developing suburban
areas, but where there is, in surrounding more urban minded projects, located in spots where
amenities and public transportation are easily accessible, and this brings me to the perfect time to
point out that Main Street is actually on Route 7 of the Greater Glens Falls Transit system, and
currently the Route 7 line goes out very close to West Mountain and the routes are actually
amended annually and as demand and interest changes, this Route could go, indeed, all the way to
West Mountain. Let's talk, now, about what's going on regionally. This is Ellsworth Commons in
Malta, a mixed use project, four buildings, 71,000 square feet of retail office space on the ground
floors, and over 330 apartments and lofts built on 10 acres. In 2011,the Albany Times Union wrote
that Ellsworth is atypical for the Capital Region suburbs, an untested product, and yet last week the
leasing agents, both residential and commercial leasing agents for this project, told me that
commercial occupancy is above 90% currently, I'm sorry, residential occupancy is above 90% and
commercial occupancy is at 20% and continuing to grow. Locally,you'll recognize this as Fowler's
Square. Working this project through the design and permitting process certainly represented a
significant investment and shows that developers are interested in mixed use right here in
Queensbury. Let's talk, for a bit, about what some of the fiscal impacts, municipal finance impacts
of mixed use development can be. This is a May 2013 study from Smart Growth America, and it
notes smart growth development generates 10 times more tax revenue per acre than conventional
suburban development. Their survey concluded that on an average per acre basis (lost words).
This gentleman, consultant and researcher Joe Minicozzi, studies the fiscal impacts of different
types of development. In this particular report, one of the examples he pointed out was the
differing impacts between a big box retailer in downtown mixed use in the Nashville, North
Carolina area, and the differences are significant. Take a look at the total property taxes per acre
generated, and the difference right there between one big box retail site and a downtown mixed
use. Also take a look at the (lost words) and the residents per acre, of course with a big box retailer
there are no residents. Much of the August 2013 issue of the Government Finance Review
publication which is put out by the Government Finance Officers Association was devoted to the
idea that per acre tax revenues are substantially higher in mixed use walkable places than drivable
suburbs. With denser development patterns, Peter Katz noted you get a triple win. Citizens enjoy
more vibrant places, combining greater diversities of activities and uses and activities in proximity.
The developers are seeking greater return from a given land asset and municipalities growing their
tax bases with more compact resource efficient settlements that return revenue at a far greater rate
than costs they generate. How do we as a community implement the vision that has been created
for Main Street, and again recall the vision originally with the 1999 transportation study continued
and was expanded in the 2002 Main Street plan, and further continued and adopted in the 2007
Comprehensive Plan. We implement it through the zoning code, and the zoning code contains
many references recording that Comprehensive Land Use Plan. Article One calls out in the purpose
and objective statement for supporting the overall objectives of the Town's Comprehensive Land
Use Plan. Article Three, of course, is the introduction of the zoning district, and Article Three's
discussion of Main Street notes that the development standards shall apply to all uses in the district.
In Article Seven, and again it calls out the importance of the Comprehensive Plan by noting the
Planning Board must implement the design standards with the main goal of achieving creative
character as defined by the Plan. Article Nine in Site Plan Review again notes that one purpose of
Site Plan Review is to ensure that development is of (lost word) to the community, again in
accordance with the Comprehensive Plan. Article Ten under Special Use Permits requires the
applicants to provide a narrative describing how the proposal is consistent with the policies of the
Comprehensive Plan. So the vision is clear, and as I've shown long standing the zoning is in place
but certainly changes are under discussion. Since this past September the Town Board's been
discussing possible changes to the Main Street zoning districts in response to realtor concerns,
developer interests, and of course your Planning Board discussions, and of course it's important to
keep in mind that changes to local zoning codes in New York State, under State law, must be in
accordance with the Comprehensive Plan. The proposed changes under discussion, the intent of
these changes is to continue support for the vision of a revitalized Main Street,clarify the intent and
the meaning of the design guidelines, encourage re-development of the corridor to spur investment
in economic activity. At this point, I'd like to get into a discussion of the specific recommended
changes, and I did hand out a highlighted copy for you that shows the recommended insertions of
code language and recommended revisions are shown in strikeouts. The first recommended
change at this point is in Article Two, the Definitions. To add a definition of the word story. That
term is used often throughout the Main Street language,but is currently undefined, and this change
would address that omission. The next change comes under Article Three, the Main Street district
introduction. With these changes we'd be getting rid of the discussion of density and instead
24
(Queensbury Planning Board 11/21/2013)
focusing on Floor Area Ratio. Current density standards for the Main Street district are at about
13%. The recommended change would increase that to 30%.
MR. HUNSINGER-There was a comment at the Town Board meeting that it was 50, that the
proposed change in Floor Area Ratio was 50%.
MR. BAKER-That's not part of the current code changes the Town Board is reviewing.
MR. HUNSINGER-Okay.
MR. BAKER-And it's not part of what was forwarded to you for comment.
MR. HUNSINGER-Okay.
MR. BAKER-This just reiterates the recommended Floor Area Ratio of 30%. Under Article 7, Design
Standard, purpose and goals and administration, adding language noting that mandatory design
elements may not be waived or altered by the Planning Board. This is to make it clear to applicants
that a mandatory element can't be waived under Site Plan Review or special permit by the Planning
Board.
MR. HUNSINGER-So if a project came in that requested a change in a design element, then it would
require the Zoning Board review?
MR. BAKER-That's correct.
MR. HUNSINGER-Okay.
MR. BAKER-That's correct.
MR. HUNSINGER-Just to be clear that it's not not allowed at all, but it's allowed with Zoning Board
approval.
MR. BAKER-That's correct,yes.
MR. HUNSINGER-Okay.
MR. BAKER-If it's, currently it states that if the term, shall, is used, that design element is
mandatory. The only recommended addition is what's shown in bold here.
MR.TRAVER-Then it would come back to us for a recommendation.
MR. HUNSINGER-Right,yes.
MR. FORD-I'm not sure.
MR. BAKER-Continuing on under design standards in Article 7, use changes would correct an
existing contradiction between this section and Table One in the size of 60 versus 50 foot height
requirement, and it also would include the language that buildings shall have a minimum of two
stories,again,referring back to the proposed definition of story,and a maximum of three stories. It
would also add the language noted in Item C here that upper stories shall consist of usable space,
designed and suitable for occupancy.
MR.TRAVER-So not a facade.
MR. BAKER-That's correct.
MR. HUNSINGER-Storage,would storage be allowed,then,as a second floor?
MR. BAKER-Storage would be allowed.
MR. HUNSINGER-Okay.
MR.TRAVER-Usable space.
MR. HUNSINGER-Yes. Okay.
25
(Queensbury Planning Board 11/21/2013)
MR. BAKER-Table One would be amended to include the changes I've already gone through and the
use requirements would be amended as well. We're proposing adding some additional uses to
increase opportunities for economic (lost word). We're proposing adding banks by Site Plan
Review and fast food establishments by Special Use Permit. Keep in mind the existing language in
the Code does not allow drive thrus, however, in the Main Street district, outside of, I believe, it's
150 foot radius of the Interstate. Additional recommended changes include adding
microbreweries, movie theaters, parking lots, parking structures and produce stands by Site Plan
Review, and also adding taverns by Special Use Permit. Article 13 in the Code,this isn't a proposed
change, it's just put up for your information and the public's information,notes that when the Town
Board refers proposed zoning changes to the Planning Board,you have 30 days from that referral to
make such recommendations. The next steps in the process are certainly the Planning Board will
make some recommendations to the Town Board. The Town Board will review those, and the
Town Board, of course, is required, under law,to have a public hearing prior to the adoption of any
changes to the Zoning Code. Copies of the proposed changes, of course, have been handed out.
The presentation that was made by Craig Brown at last Monday's Town Board meeting is now
posted on the Town website and tonight's presentation will actually be posted on the website
tomorrow,and as always I'd encourage the Planning Board members and the public to contact me if
you've got additional questions and comments, and at this point, we should go to discussion and
recommendations.
MR. HUNSINGER-Yes, I don't know if you had an opportunity to review the Planning Board minutes,
not from our meeting Tuesday night, but from the meeting in October, and, you know, we had a
lengthy discussion about the Main Street zone, and, I don't know if anyone wants to sort of pick up
where we left off.
MR. TRAVER-Well, I think they've addressed a number of the things. One question I had, just for
the record, I mean, I think I know the answer to this, but just to clarify, any of these proposed
changes,would they have any impact on any funding or Federal or State grants for the project itself
that would jeopardize any kind of funding?
MR. BAKER-No,not that I'm aware of.
MR. TRAVER-Okay. Thank you. Yes, I mean, I know that we were, getting back to what you had
said, Chris, I know we had a lot of discussion about the struggle we had because of this definition of
story was not before us and we had a project, or we have a project in the queue that's dealing with
that. I think this certainly addresses that,clearly.
MR. HUNSINGER-Yes. One of the things that, I don't know if you had, maybe it was only my own
bias, when Craig did the presentation Monday night, he seemed to spend a lot of time talking about
the intention,and what the intention was,and I kind of felt some of it was a little revisionist history,
quite frankly. I'm not sure the intention was always that there be two usable, occupied floors,
because there was a lot of discussion within the confines of the Planning Ordinance Review
Committee about form based zoning, and one of the things that we spent a lot of time talking about
at a few meeting, and you may remember this, Stu, was,you know,that use really doesn't matter as
much as the design of the building and its location and its context. So I guess in my mind, if that is
the intent,if you will,then,you know,a two story building with a second floor that's only visible but
not a full use would be something that would have been okay, but we never, at the Ordinance
Review Committee, we never really pushed for formed based zoning because we just didn't think
the community was ready for it and there was also some concern that we didn't think that the
Planning Board would be allowed that kind of flexibility. So I just want to kind of keep that, that
framework, if you will,within the discussion,because I'm not clear that the intent was that there be
two usable floors. It was a design intent.
MR. BAKER-Well, I'll confess, my recollection of the discussion with the Planning Ordinance Review
Committee, and for those who don't know, I did staff that, was that I don't necessarily have the
same recollection that you do about the upper stories.
MR. HUNSINGER-Right.
MR. BAKER-And as I've been preparing these presentations, and especially reviewing the 2002
Main Street plan, it seems fairly clear to me that the intent was to have usable, occupied and active
upper story space, specifically (lost words) population either resident or a combination of resident
and day time occupancy as employees to support economic activity on the street level. You can't do
that with mere facades of upper stories. You need full,active.
26
(Queensbury Planning Board 11/21/2013)
MR. HUNSINGER-The Main Street discussion was not part of the Planning Ordinance Review
discussion. I mean, the Main Street discussion had occurred earlier. The Planning Ordinance
Review Committee discussion was earlier.
MR. BAKER-Right.
MR. HUNSINGER-They didn't necessarily have the same discussion. They were different players,
different committees,different boards.
MR. BAKER-True,but I think if you look at the Comprehensive Plan.
MR. HUNSINGER-So I think you can argue intent from the Main Street plan, and argue that that
intent was different than the intent that came out of the Planning Ordinance Review Committee,
and that could be true.
MR. BAKER-Yes, well, to me, when I read the Comprehensive Land Use Plan today, it seems pretty
clear there that the intent on Main Street was to have economic activity on all floors. In downtown
development scenarios in general, the Main Street, the street level retail, the street level
restaurants,the street level convenience stores,don't succeed without the upper floor activity. One
is really dependent on the other.
MR. SCHONEWOLF-I don't know that I agree with that.
MR. HUNSINGER-Yes, I was going to say, I don't necessarily agree.
MR. SCHONEWOLF-You know, all you have to do is drive through the City and the Town here and
you'll find all sorts of rentals on the second floors. The idea of having retail on the first floor and
residential on the second floor is old hat. That was popular in the 50's and 60's. It's not any more.
People, you've got to work with what you've got, and you look at those 20 blocks or whatever it is
on Main Street, what you have done, not you, I'm not saying you, but what has happened is that
you've taken what was once a nice lower, maybe middle class neighborhood where everybody
blended together, they lived together, they worked together, they shopped together, and a lot of
them were on the other side of the street,you know, the north side of the street, and you've ripped
it apart, of course, when you put the road in, not that that was a bad idea, but once you put a, you
know,high speed road going down the middle,which is principally a corridor from the Northway to
the Hospital,you go,you drive down there today and all you've got is vacant lots, and there's more
all the time, and that, I don't see us being able to control that by changing the Code. That isn't
what's going to do it. You could talk to the real estate people that are in Town here and they'll tell
you how tough it is to rent on a second floor. It doesn't happen. People don't want to live on the
second floor over a restaurant or a beauty salon and get all the odors upstairs, get the people
walking around and having their fire insurance go up. They don't want that. That's not what they
want. They either want to live in a nice, upscale development like across from the Hospital in the
City,if that's,if they live in the City that's where they want to live,but like there was an article in the
paper today,well,we've got people coming in from the chip factory,well,baloney. The people that
come up here from the chip factory are making a good buck and they're going to live in single family
homes on the other side of the Northway or in other parts of Queensbury, that's where they're
going,but you can't drive them into this just by changing the rules.
MR. BAKER-Well, I think we could discuss and debate the vision all night long and for weeks on end,
but the fact remains it's the adopted vision for the Main Street corridor, and the intent of the zoning
is to help bring that vision to reality.
MR. SCHONEWOLF-I would say, yes, I understand that that's the intent, but I think, you've got to
start where you are. You're not starting with a nice, virgin piece of ground then go do what you
want to do. You haven't got that. What you've got is you've got a high speed corridor and you've
got vacant lots,small vacant lots, and very few residences left, and people have started to fill in with
commercial fast food things. That's what you've got.
MR. BAKER-I guess I would take exception to the high speed corridor. That's a 35 mile per hour
road.
MR. SCHONEWOLF-It's a lot faster than it was before. Yes, but it moves, because now you've got a
turn lane. You've got to pay attention when you go down that road now, before you knew it was
bumper to bumper.
27
(Queensbury Planning Board 11/21/2013)
MR. DEEB-My comment would be that you've got,you referenced Saranac Lake, and including Glen
Falls. You've got a downtown where you have streets where you cross pedestrian crossings, and
you have a much slower pace than what Paul was referring to going down the corridor. Okay.
That's destination stop. Saranac Lake, it's a quaint city. It's a quaint little village. It's really nice,
but you've got streets all over, intertwining with each other. You have one straight run on Main
Street and that's it, one straight run with, and, you know, you've said that the vision, you adopted
the Code to the vision, but I don't think, I'm not sure you can accomplish the vision even if you do
adopt the Code.
MR. BAKER-Well, again, keep in mind that the intent of putting the Main Street zoning in place
wasn't to create an overnight revitalization. It wasn't to create a one, two, five, perhaps even ten
year revitalization. It doesn't often work that way. If we were to try to use zoning solely based on
looking for immediate gratification,we would never have any industrially zoned properties here in
Town.
MR. DEEB-Did you have a specific goal, a timeline? Did you have a specific timeline set?
MR. BAKER-From my review of the studies from 1999 to present, I never saw a specific timeline
saying we will have it realized by X date. That standard is not written in any of the adopted plans.
MR. DEEB-So it's open ended.
MR. BAKER-It's open ended. As it is for any zoning district Town wide.
MR. DEEB-Which open ended means it could be a long time.
MR. BAKER-It could be. It's been a long time and will continue to be a long time for many of our
industrials.
MR. SCHONEWOLF-But why put things in that Zoning Code that make it harder to have
development in that area?
MR. BAKER-The intent is not necessarily to make it harder. The intent is to make it clearer. The
idea, again, is the mixed use, the pedestrian activity, to spur the economic activity. It's all one
interrelated and combined.
MR. SCHONEWOLF-But we've got people that come in here and we've already had it, and I'm sure
there will be many more if we allow it,they're going to come in here and want to put,the first thing
they're going to want to put in is a commercial building. Because they see the opportunity,they see
the traffic,they see that they've got some parking. It's not like downtown where you've got to fight
for a parking spot, and it's not like the food market or the car dealer where you just park wherever
you want, but they look at it, the guy that was in here, what was the store that was in here before?
It was the kind of store where people go in and go out.
MR. HUNSINGER-Dollar General.
MR. SCHONEWOLF-Dollar General, yes, okay, that store was perfect for this location, but once they
found out it was two stories,the interest waned, I think.
MR. DEEB-We don't know if they'll be back.
MR. SCHONEWOLF-I don't think they will.
MR. FORD-I'm going to jump in here. First of all, I want to, on behalf of the Board,thank our Town
Board for seeking our input. As a Planning Board, it certainly is a time for us to feel appreciated
when our input is being sought, and I thank them for that. I want to draw attention to the reality of
residential and commercial real estate today. I can't project down the road five or ten years, but I
know what it is today, and this vision really flies in the face of the reality of what is being sought
residentially and commercially, and I think that if we're going to look at immediate gratification,
we're going to have to look at a comparison of, whether you call it higher density or Floor Area
Ratio. If you're comparing empty lots and dilapidated buildings and comparing those with new
buildings, new uses, and buildings actually being used,then it may require re-visiting some of these
definitions.
MR. BAKER-Are there specific definitions that need to be revisited as part of the Main Street code
review?
28
(Queensbury Planning Board 11/21/2013)
MR. FORD-It's very possible that two and three story is something that should be revisited, yes.
Commercial first floor and residential second or above, I'm not sure that going back to the real
estate demands today, and I say I can't predict what five years is going to bring. Maybe that'll be
just the ticket. I think what we really need there probably is a Fowler's Square concept where a
developer would come in there and embrace the Town's vision and build it.
MR. BAKER-Well, certainly the ideal would be to get a developer who,you know, does embrace the
vision and wants to make a,you know, create a pilot example project on Main Street. I'd love to see
that. I think one issue I'd like to raise, especially as it applies to the two and three story standard,
that's specifically called for in the Comprehensive Plan, and at this point in the discussions I've
participated in with the Town Board, they haven't expressed any interest in revisiting the Main
Street vision in the Comprehensive Plan. They've seemed to, at this point, fully support it. So if
you change the two and three story recommendation.
MR. FORD-I read that.
MR. BAKER-Would actually require changing the Comprehensive Plan first.
MR. HUNSINGER-I don't think we disagree on the vision, Stu. I mean,you keep bringing that term
up like we disagree. I don't think we disagree on the vision. The only thing we're disagreeing on is
whether or not the second floor is, second or third floors are usable space or if they're just a design
element, and I guess I go back, you know, this is part of the reason why I brought up the word
intent, if the intent was that there be,you know, real two stories,the Zoning Ordinance,you know, I
think this is what we had talked about a month ago, why was the Zoning Ordinance worded the way
it was? Buildings shall be a minimum height. It doesn't say buildings shall be a minimum of two
usable floors. So that's why we were talking about a different intent. If the intent was different, I
would think that the Ordinance would have been written differently.
MR. BAKER-Right.
MR. HUNSINGER-I think we all have the same vision. I think the vision is okay. I don't think
there's a problem with the vision. We're not talking about going back and re-writing the Main
Street vision. We're talking about, I think that's the only item that we're in disagreement on. The
Floor Area Ratio, I think,was an error from the beginning.
MR. BAKER-I wasn't necessarily suggesting we were arguing on the vision. I was more pointing
out, really, the legal technicality, that if you want to change a zoning standard that's specifically
called for in the Comprehensive Plan,you have to amend the Comprehensive Plan first, and to date
the Town Board hasn't expressed an interest in doing that.
MR. HUNSINGER-Well, neither have we. We're just talking about the clarification of the minimum
height standard, what does that mean, and we thought it was pretty clear that the minimum height
standard was the minimum height standard,not a have to have two usable floors.
MR. TRAVER-And I think there's a philosophical approach, as evidenced by these regulations, that
say, as opposed to, as Tom pointed out, making this corridor real estate friendly so we could sell
these things right away,we're going to sacrifice that for the long term vision of waiting for the right
developers to come in and get this two story or three story or whatever, even if it takes longer and
we have empty property or whatever,and hope that the long term goal will result in this vision.
MR. HUNSINGER-But anyway, what I was trying to point out is I think there's, at least from the
discussion of last month, I think there's far more common ground from the Planning Board to the
recommended changes than there are differences of opinion. Certainly the Floor Area Ratio, you
know, the current standard is, if you're trying to encourage density, you know, 13% does not
encourage density.
MR. BAKER-Right.
MR. HUNSINGER-And, you know, I heard the other night that, you know, maybe 50%, I think
somebody should do the math, and if you want to put up a three story building, you're going to be
looking at variances on a 30% Floor Area Ratio, either that or you're going to have a giant lot that's
empty.
MR. BAKER-Yes,well,the important thing to consider with Floor Area Ratio.
29
(Queensbury Planning Board 11/21/2013)
MR. HUNSINGER-That's not density. So I think we still have an inherent conflict in the Code on that
particular item. If I could just finish for a second, because I don't want to lose the comment
because I want to talk about the items where I think we're all in agreement. That would be one.
Certainly looking at the additional uses is another item that I think we can all agree to, and, you
know, I don't remember the discussion for what was going to be allowed and what was not allowed
on Main Street, but certainly the additional uses are a movement in the right direction, and maybe
that will result in some additional interest in the Main Street area. I'd be curious as to your
comments, though, on the minimum lot size, why that was included and then why it's being taken
out,on Item One.
MR. BAKER-Yes,well.
MR.TRAVER-Is that to accommodate pre-existing lots? That's what I would assume.
MR. BAKER-Yes, part of it is to, is really the recognition that minimum lot size isn't necessarily
relevant. We want a variety of lot sizes. We would like to see development on small lots. We'd
like to see (lost words) on a consolidation of many small lots resulting in a longer lot. We'd like to
see that mix. It actually creates a variety on the street level that makes thing interesting for both
pedestrians and for vehicular traffic. If you're driving through an urban area that has that sort of
variety,it tends to peak your interest,and so that's one of the reasons that that was removed.
MR. HUNSINGER-How do it get in there? I mean,what was the discussion,what was the logic,what
was the reasoning for including that?
MR. BAKER-I haven't delved back into that. I'd have to go back and look at the discussion of the
Ordinance Review Committee,but I'm not certain that there necessarily was any discussion.
MR. HUNSINGER-Okay.
MR. BAKER-We do have a number of elements throughout the zoning, actually, that if you look
through the PORC minutes you'll never find specific discussion on,and that may be one of them.
MR. HUNSINGER-I seem to remember a discussion about that,though,that's why I was curious.
MR. BAKER-I can certainly look for it.
MR. HUNSINGER-Yes. I did pull my box out this evening. I didn't have time to poke through it.
No, I literally have a box from the deliberations of the Planning Ordinance Review Committee.
MR. BAKER-Does the Planning Board have specific comments and recommendations for the Town
Board regarding the building height, multiple stories issue and the changes that they're currently
reviewing?
MR. SCHONEWOLF-I don't know,we haven't discussed it.
MR.TRAVER-Well, I would say that,based on comment from a variety of members, our sense is that
this Code as written will have an impact on real estate development in terms of taking longer,
making it more difficult for projects to meet the need in a short period of time. I mean, that's clear
from the marketing. I mean, Tom's involved in real estate so we know he has some current
knowledge in marketing and so on. So I don't know if that's a positive or negative, but certainly
they should be aware that that's our observation, I think.
MR. BAKER-But,if you think about it,realistically,that holds true with just about every aspect of the
zoning regulations in every district.
MR.TRAVER-Right.
MR. SCHONEWOLF-I wouldn't say that. I mean, there's always problems, that's why you have,you
know,variances.
MR.TRAVER-Well, I think it also points out that if some of those standards are relaxed, like the two
and three stories,then it would have, presumably,the opposite effect, and it would encourage more
development in a shorter period of time, and so that's just an observation. It's not, obviously in my
mind, a criticism or one way or another,but it's something that if they're not thinking about it, and I
would assume it's something that was discussed,but if not it's something that they should be aware
30
(Queensbury Planning Board 11/21/2013)
of and not be surprised, then, that projects are going to come in, and again, we have one in the
queue now that's not going to be able to meet these standards without dramatic change.
MR. BAKER-The Town Board has discussed that in a workshop session,the Main Street zoning.
MR.TRAVER-I would think.
MR. FORD-Is there concern expressed in these planning sessions about the length of time that it is
taking to realize this vision for Main Street?
MR. BAKER-Concerning from what sections? Concern from where I guess is the question?
MR. TRAVER-Well, I think that's getting to what I was saying, that it's, to realize its vision requires
projects coming in that meet these standards, and they are very, obviously very specific, and rightly
so, to result in this vision being created, and I think that Tom is again pointing out that the Board
needs to be aware that one of the impacts of that is going to be a longer period of time before this
vision of Main Street with these structures is realized.
MR. SCHONEWOLF-Well, the question, you could ask in a different way, too. What's the Town's
objective in the growth of Main Street? As vacant lots are going up, what are they looking for?
What do they expect? Because as he just said, we're not doing anything, and I don't think we're
going to be doing anything with these kind of roofs.
MRS. MOORE-I guess, can I just interject? You just had an applicant, you've had two applicants in
the past month, one saying I don't want to do this two story, and then you just had an applicant say,
I don't have a problem with it.
MR. SCHONEWOLF-That's a different business in a different,it's a different business.
MR. TRAVER-Yes, and they also have, as submitted, or not submitted, but as presented, also have
issues with the standards,they might be different issues.
MRS. MOORE-The specific issue is this two story, and you're saying it takes a longer time for this
vision to come into play,but you've had two applicants within.
MR. FORD-But what we heard tonight, however, as he clarified that second story, he envisioned no
use for it basically other than it being open space,of the first story.
MRS.MOORE-And they indicated like a gallery or an office use.
MR. FORD-Maybe.
MR. SCHONEWOLF-That'll never come about.
MR. MAGOWAN-What did you want them to say, I'm going to have my sign up there?
MR. HUNSINGER-Well,that's not the vision,though,that's not,you know what I'm saying? It's not a
separate use. It's just empty space.
MR. SCHONEWOLF-That's not what the Town's looking for.
MR. BAKER-Well, and to be clear, the changes that the Town Board is currently discussing don't
mandate upper story uses. It mandates space available for upper story uses. You can't mandate
use.
MR. SCHONEWOLF-I understand that, but the guy isn't going to put out money to build a two story
building if he isn't going to use the second story or doesn't think he can. That's the point, and if the
Town thinks that guys are going to put up two story buildings because they've got a use for the first
floor, and someday somebody'll rent the second floor, I think they'll want to re-think that.
MR. BAKER-I feel confident in stating that the Town Board understands nobody's going to build
unless they've got a viable return on investment.
MR. SCHONEWOLF-That's right,and that's the question.
31
(Queensbury Planning Board 11/21/2013)
MR. TRAVER-Yes, I mean, I think we're just going to have to see what happens. We'll just have to
wait and see what the response to this challenge is,that,you know,it's certainly an interesting area.
I would think for certain commercial uses it would be very attractive, but it is a challenge to meet
these things. So we'll see who rises to meet that challenge and what type of development, you
know,we get.
MR. MAGOWAN-What I was hoping to pull out of this meeting tonight with the applicant,you know,
like the first application we have in the queue, is basically getting a kick start on this whole project,
you know, by bringing a couple of storefronts in looking as it has a, you know, second story up
above,so forth,you know,the design that they came back,which was nice, if it's a little deeper back,
it gives you that feeling with the windows that there is a storage up above. I can't see a lot of these
stores wanting to go to the added expense of putting a storage or a second floor over one, you
know,security,fire reasons,and all the other good stuff,but making it look like it has a second story
to it,but also it gives a kick start and starts getting more investors or more people wanting to see it
grow, but,you know, we're coming out and saying, no, this is it and that's it, and,you know, take it
or leave it,and I have a funny feeling a lot of people are going to walk away.
MR.TRAVER-Well, except that there is the variance route,and that's one of the things that will have,
perhaps, more impact on this than anything is if the Zoning Board starts granting variances for the
second floor or whatever, then,you know, that's another whole ballgame we're going to be dealing
with.
MR. HUNSINGER-Yes.
MR. FORD-Stu, has there been any outreach on the part of the Town to potential large scale, ala
Fowler's Square,developers?
MR. BAKER-I'm not aware of any to date.
MR. FORD-Wouldn't that be a good idea?
MR. BAKER-Yes, I agree it would certainly make sense, and that's something, certainly, the Town
could work with Warren County EDC on. As you may know,the Town contracts out to the EDC for
many of the functions typically done by municipal economic developers.
MR. SCHONEWOLF-I would guess location has something to do with the ability to attract
developers.
MR. BAKER-It always does.
MR. SCHONEWOLF-You know, you've got to, getting a developer to build across the street is one
thing. Getting them to build down on Main Street is another thing.
MR. FORD-But if we're not reaching out and encouraging them to bring in.
MR. SCHONEWOLF-Well,you've got to give them a shot.
MR. FORD-Sure.
MR. HUNSINGER-This was scheduled as a workshop. So there was, you know, no built in public
hearing or public comment, but I know there's at least a couple of people here, Mr. Borgos and Mr.
Sears, who have been very involved in this discussion with the Town Board. I don't know if we
want to hear any comments that they might have, if the members of the Board would find that
useful.
MR. MAGOWAN-I'd love their input. I mean, it's all in what I'm just saying. I'd like to get this kick
started and get it rolling.
MR. HUNSINGER-I didn't mean to put you on the spot.
MR. DEEB-Before we do that, Stu, could I just address. You were talking about the issue of mixed
use development. You're looking to get apartments. I don't think a developer wants to put an
apartment, I don't think the return on an apartment is going to be as much as commercial space. So
I don't how much mixed use you're going to get up, and you mentioned senior citizens, and they're
not going to want to go upstairs,especially if there's no elevator,and walk up a set of stairs.
32
(Queensbury Planning Board 11/21/2013)
MR. BAKER-Well,certainly, may be looking for (lost words).
MR. DEEB-Which means you're looking for standalone housing, I would guess, like you'd take
Downtown the Colvin Building, or the one on the corner of Maple Street. That went to, okay,
basically a lot of apartments. I know the vision is for mixed use development, but I do have
reservations as to whether it can happen because, you know, long walk down that length of that
Main Street corridor, and that, again, it's not like a downtown where you walk from one building
across the street to another and back, but you're talking about along way. I'm just saying, I know
it's in the vision. I would love to see it happen. I just don't know if it's going to happen.
MR. BAKER-It's actually not that long. I walked it last week, and it's about a half an hour from the
City line to the Northway.
MR. DEEB-I don't know how many shoppers are going to want to walk a half an hour.
MR. MAGOWAN-All right,now did you do it with a couple of grocery bags in your hands?
MR. BAKER-No,sir.
MR. HUNSINGER-Mr. Borgos,the floor is yours.
STEPHEN BORGOS
MR. BORGOS-Just for the record, I'm required by the State regulations of real estate, Stephen
Borgos,licensed associate real estate broker associated with Realty USA. I appreciate your hearing
this and I appreciate Stu and all the work he's done, and it was interesting to listen to Craig Brown
the other night with his presentation because Stu wasn't able to be there, essentially the same
presentation. I think we'll save a bunch of time here if we can just address some things. As I sat
here listening again tonight, I had the pleasure of teaching economics for many years, and one thing
we always said, all other things being equal, and I've heard a couple of people comment,what about
five years from now or ten years from now or twenty years from now, all other things being equal,
assuming that there's no other change from today, well, we think this might happen, but if we go
home tonight, and there's a new storm, a new Hurricane Sandy or whatever, we don't know what's
going to happen. We really don't know what's going to happen. Bob and I sat there this evening
and we've sat there at a couple of other meetings. We don't think, in our lifetimes, and maybe not
in our children's or grandchildren's lifetimes,you will ever see that Main Street from one end to the
other look like the vision is,because it isn't going to happen at one time. Somebody said if you had
to clear land to start with, and an individual developer, fine, let him put his money in, see what
happens, see what the market says. That's the only way to test it. Now I had the pleasure of
teaching marketing at the college level for 31 years, every day in the classroom plus some summers,
and we talked about consumer behavior. We talked about disposable income and discretionary
income, all those interesting theoretical things,but then we tried to apply it to the practical, and we
said what if you lived in New York City or Los Angeles or Chicago or St. Louis, or Miami or Boston,
all these places I've been to, what would happen, good, and what would happen here in
Queensbury? Or Downtown Glens Falls? Queensbury and Downtown Glens Falls are two different
things. I grew up in South Glens Falls, on Main Street in South Glens Falls, and I came through there
again today. There are a couple two or three story buildings, but there are a lot of single story
buildings mixed in. That's Upstate New York and I've been here for now 66 years. Lived in
Queensbury for almost 50 years. So I have an idea what you're talking about. I love Saranac Lake.
It's beautiful. I like Downtown Glens Falls. I grew up going to Glens Falls every week. Things are
different. All other things being equal doesn't happen. When we look at consumer behavior,
where do they go? They like to go where they find good quality, good prices, convenient parking.
That's where they like to go, and why do you think suburbanites develop malls? It used to be strip
centers were people have to walk from one end to the other. They didn't want to keep going in out
of the rain, so we had the mall. So you'd go in one entrance,you stayed there for a few hours,you
go back out to your car. The Corinth Road, from Exit 18 to Downtown Glens Falls, is, in my mind,
the same as Route 50 at Exit 15 in Saratoga. You get off at Exit 15, you want to go into Saratoga,
you go shooting through. You get to Saratoga, you park and you enjoy the stores. In my mind,
Corinth Road connects the Northway with Glens Falls. I want to go to Glens Falls, I'll go there, I'll
park there and I'll spend a few hours. I don't mean to change or to talk about even changing all this
vision, but what Bob and I see, we deal with people every single day. He's been licensed for a
bunch of years. I've been licensed now for 48 years. We talk to big developers. The people who
were in tonight I've known for a few months now. They want to do something at Exit 18. I deal and
Bob deals with people from all over the world, a lot of foreign investors now. I deal with people in
the Albany areas,you talk about Queensbury, we don't want to go to near Queensbury, because it's
going to take us a year to get some approvals, maybe. A lot of times, you know, people come in,
33
(Queensbury Planning Board 11/21/2013)
they make a decision, I want to build this, I want to build that. As of right now I've got cash. I
know where money's coming, I want to do it. I don't want to wait six months from now to find out
if I can. So they come to us and say,what can you build this,where can you build this. We go to the
Zoning Ordinance, and our Zoning Ordinance, as you know, has some inconsistencies, little things
sometimes, and sometimes big things. So we do the best we can to tell them what's going on. We
know that people have to have at least a Floor Area Ratio of at least 30% in order to make things
work. Every other commercial district in Town has 30%. Craig, the other night emphasized the
fact that in order to get more tax revenue,the first time I've heard that discussed as a thing,we have
to build bigger and taller and push people together. Well, that's what the cities do, but then their
expenses go up, too, so there's no benefit from it. Do we want to do that? If you want to increase
density, then you should give us 50%, and there was a mention in one of the early reports, and I've
got the copies here, that one of the recommendations was 50% zone in Main Street. We're just
asking for 30. We know people will come. Bob has a project with the Dollar General store which
sounds like a great project. They're willing to go. They're willing to comply with the height
regulations. Now it's been stopped. Not going to go anywhere, and people, from our experience,
aren't going to come and keep coming back. They can go to Hudson Falls. They can go to South
Glens Falls. They can go to Wilton. They don't have to come here. We'd like a diversity of
opportunity, which we have now. Whatever you can do to help out is good. I served for a time as
Vice Chairman of the Regional Transportation Council you're talking about, and that was
interesting. We talked about a lot of communities, all in Upstate New York. You have reports,
National Association of Realtors, Urban Institute. Most of those, to a large extent, are city urban
related reports. I read every day, and Bob probably does, too, we get bulletins from all kinds of
organizations that we belong to, or others that we read that are trade journals, we know what's
happening. The big cities of Washington, New York, Philadelphia even, Denver,they're all thriving,
because that's where there's concentrations of people, and that's where the big retailers are willing
to put their money. They don't want to come out to second or even third level markets as we are
here. You can leave it and the vision may appear someday, but right now you've got a lot of single
story places that I don't think are going to go away. I don't think Dunkin Donuts is going to move if
they want to expand. They can't, now, under the rules, unless they go to two or three stories. If
Pizza Hut wants to expand, they've got to go two or three stories or they'll never get a building
permit, I believe. Every time you get a building permit you have to follow the Code that's in place.
The cemetery isn't going to go two or three stories. The CVS Plaza isn't going to go two or three
stories. The cat hospital isn't going to go to two or three stories. If they want to grow, where are
they going to go? They can't get a permit to expand one story. So, there's some problems here.
We would hope, and at least I'll speak for myself, but I hope that you would support the proposal
that Stu has come out with, as far as increasing the Floor Area Ratio. We obviously don't like the
definition of, well, the definition of story is okay, but the implementation of a two story minimum
doesn't seem fair, and there's one other factor that I have to throw in, everybody seems to be
missing, that I think you were aware of it, but not only, what we've been talking is what's facing
Main Street. The big difference there is the setback line. Once you go between Main Street and the
Luzerne Road, there are about 50 private individual homes stuck in there. All of those people are
also now in the Main Street zone. No more can somebody put a one story addition on their house.
It has to be two story,and it can only be commercial. How do you like that, and nobody can expand
an existing residential home there and live on the first floor. They've got to get somebody to rent
out the bottom so they can live on the top floor. Unintended consequences. That's my
interpretation of the zone. That's what it says. It says the only place that's different is facing Main
Street and just in the setback, and it's the build to line. So those are some other things to think
about, but mostly tonight if you'd just support Stu's recommendation, except for the second and
third story,we would appreciate that. Any questions?
MR. HUNSINGER-Thank you.
MR. DEEB-Thank you.
MR. MAGOWAN-Thank you, Steve.
BOB SEARS
MR. SEARS-This is an aerial view of Exit 18 down to Western Avenue, okay. Here's Exit 18 here.
Here's Western Avenue down here, okay. There's Main Street. Okay. Do you see that, Stuart?
This is the Main Street corridor, okay. You can get these maps up at Warren County, by the way,
and they cost$12 a piece.
MR. HUNSINGER-Really? That's all.
34
(Queensbury Planning Board 11/21/2013)
MR. SEARS-Yes, so it's a great conceptual tool. Okay, I use it in marketing. Now, Stuart, I've got a
question for you. What is the size of Fowler's Square?
MR. BAKER-Size of what?
MR. SEARS-Fowler's Square,the project that you just alluded to?
MR. BAKER-The size in terms of what,square feet to be developed,acreage wise?
MR. SEARS-Acreage. It's 30 acres. Okay. What is the size of the buildable area that was used to
build? Approximately 20 acres according to Craig Brown. Okay. What's the size of the Global
Foundries? I'm just alluding to what you did on the, what you did with your presentation with
urban growth. What's the size of the Global Foundries area?
MR. BAKER-Are you referring to Ellsworth Commons?
MR. SEARS-Yes.
MR. BAKER-Ellsworth Commons is on about 10 acres.
MR. SEARS-Ten acres. Okay. Can you place, with this current zoning, either one of those projects
on this map and make it work? Based upon the current zoning, Main Street zoning?
MR. BAKER-I think it would be a combination of problems with the zoning and problems with the
total width of the Main Street zone district.
MR. SEARS-Yes,it would be hard to place it,wouldn't it? It would be very hard. The basic premise
of urban growth is to have a box, to have an area where you have the buildings going up two or
three stories, you have parking in the center, you have promenades, you have walkways, you have
shops that people can infiltrate in and out and you're away from vehicle traffic, okay. You're
walking to and from the shops. You're parking in one area, and vehicle traffic is going about five
miles an hour, maybe 10 at most. That's the basic premise of urban growth. If you look at any
urban growth in any area, that's their basic premise. Now, where do they locate urban growth?
Where Fowler's Square is. They go to raw land. They make a destination point where people want
to live. They can't really locate it unless they're in a major city. Then you can go downtown, but
you know what they do downtown? The city fathers get behind it. They just bulldoze a group of
blocks and then they regenerate that,but again,traffic is going 10 miles an hour maybe, and there's
walkways,and there's promenades and there's open shops. Where's the parking on Main Street?
MR. BAKER-The parking on Main Street will all be off street or side street.
MR. SEARS-Right.
MR. BAKER-But not on Main Street itself. So it will be on private properties or side streets.
MR. SEARS-Exactly, exactly. Where it should be, but this is the problem with the vision versus the
reality. You want to have urban growth along the Main Street corridor. You've got 330 feet.
That's the width of any property along that corridor, except for down here, where Western Avenue
is. Down here you might be able to develop a little urban growth. You could block this off here,
but then you would have to take out all these buildings. You'd have to demo the whole thing.
These are all residences up here. They're all small lots. Now, I'm not trying to dissuade you from
your philosophy, but you mention it might take a long time to implement this philosophy. Okay.
I'm just saying it's going to take a long time. Keep that in perspective. A long time's not going to
be five years. It's not going to be 10. I'm going to be dead, and that's not my vision, okay. So,
anyway, getting back to the reality of the situation, you want two or three stories on Main Street,
because you want to promote pedestrian traffic. That was part of your vision plan. You want to
promote smart growth,which is part of the urban plan, okay. I think you can do a lot of things, and
you've done a lot of things right, and you've been very receptive to a lot of the changes that Steve
and I and a number of other people have asked for, but this crutch that you're using, that you're
going to mitigate the potential for urban growth by maintaining three stories, or two story
buildings, it just goes against what the reality of the situation is, and so,you know,there is a project
that, I've brought it to the floor, they, that's Dollar General. Dollar General is just a small store, but
they're doing 500 stores this year. They're solid as a rock. This area, the reason why they picked
this area is because of all the residential homes here. When they came in, we talked to Craig
Brown, and Craig says maybe it will work, but, you know, he gave us some guidelines. They went
with the guidelines, okay. They went before your Board here, you thought it was, you were very
35
(Queensbury Planning Board 11/21/2013)
receptive to it, okay. You don't want to stop that momentum. This is a prototype store that says,
we'll change our prototype to accommodate specific guidelines. So they elevated their roofline to
two stories. They made it appealing, you guys thought it was a good step in the right direction.
Then all of a sudden, because of the ideology of the urban growth, of the backbone philosophical.
Let's just start from the beginning, because of the philosophical concepts of the Main Street
corridor, it was stopped dead in its tracks. So I'll just go back to what I just said. Urban growth is
based upon certain realities that are not here on Main Street, and I won't go through them all again.
I've done it a few times already. Now I'm here tonight, but before the Board, before the Town
Board, and thank you for your time. I really appreciate it. You're welcome to keep one of these. I
need one of them back.
MR. MAGOWAN-Thanks, Bob.
MR. SEARS-Any questions?
MR. HUNSINGER-Thanks, Bob. Did anyone else in the audience want to comment?
MR. DEEB-John,do you have any input?
MR. MAGOWAN-Well,we had a draft resolution.
MR. HUNSINGER-You know, again, I think a lot of the discussion has kind of focused on some of the
things we don't like about the zone, but, you know, I think some of those changes that have been
suggested, were pointed out by Mr. Borgos, certainly, you know, the Floor Area Ratio and the
additional uses I think are, you know, at least in my opinion, are a positive step in the right
direction.
MR. FORD-I agree.
MR. HUNSINGER-May make some significant changes. I guess the only question is if the other
recommendations, then, sort of offset, you know, the others, but I don't know. I don't know if
anyone really knows.
MR. SCHONEWOLF-Well, I think it was a good discussions. I think there's a lot of variables. I don't
think we can take any action on this. I don't think we should.
MR.TRAVER-I think we'll have to wait and see who responds to the challenge.
MR. SCHONEWOLF-That's right.
MR. HUNSINGER-So anyway, the Town Board has requested a recommendation. I mean, it's really
pretty wide open in terms of how we want to word that.
MR. FORD-I recommend that they review the minutes of tonight's meeting, including the last two
presentations.
MR. MAGOWAN-Right.
MR. SCHONEWOLF-So do I. I don't want to go on the record for anything. There's too many
variables out there. We've covered from here to here. I don't want to go on the record for one
particular idea or thought.
MR. TRAVER-Yes, for myself, I would support approving the recommended modifications and note
that they would hopefully benefit from listening to or reviewing our discussion and the public
comment that we received tonight.
MR. HUNSINGER-Was that a motion?
MR.TRAVER-I'm not the secretary.
MR. HUNSINGER-It sounded like a motion to me.
MR. MAGOWAN-Wait, I'll second it.
MR. HUNSINGER-We have a motion and a second. Is there any discussion? Hearing none, call the
vote,please.
36
(Queensbury Planning Board 11/21/2013)
RESOLUTION RE: RECOMMENDATION TO TOWN BOARD RE: RES. 441,2013
The Town Board has requested a recommendation from the Planning Board regarding Town Board
resolution 441,2013 for amendments to the Town ordinance and map to revise certain sections that
address the Main Street District and the applicable, related Design Standards;
MOTION TO THE TOWN BOARD TO SUPPORT APPROVING THE RECOMMENDED
MODIFICATIONS REGARDING TOWN BOARD RESOLUTION 441.2013. Introduced by Stephen
Traver who moved for its adoption,seconded by Brad Magowan:
And note that the Town Board would hopefully benefit from listen to or reviewing our discussion
and the public comment that we received tonight.
Duly adopted this 21st day of November, 2013,by the following vote:
MR. SCHONEWOLF-I'll abstain. I think there's too many variables at the moment.
AYES: Mr. Ford, Mr. Magowan,Mr. Ferone, Mr.Traver, Mr. Deeb, Mr. Hunsinger
NOES: NONE
ABSTAINED: Mr. Schonewolf
MR. HUNSINGER-And I just want to reiterate Mr. Ford's comments that, you know, I really
appreciate the Board asking us for input. I saw Supervisor Montesi about a month ago, and he said
he actually apologized that they didn't think to send it to us as part of the discussion and he said
that he would take care of that and he did and I really appreciate the Board's outreach to the
Planning Board and I just want the record to reflect that, and I also want to thank Staff for all the
work they've done on this.
MR. MAGOWAN-Yes,it was a great presentation.
MR. HUNSINGER-You weren't there, but there were a couple of people at the Town Board meeting,
you know, members of the audience, that made comments about that was one of the best
presentations they had ever seen.
MR. BAKER-Yes, I did listen to the audio.
MR. HUNSINGER-Yes. I don't know if those were on the record or not.
MR. BAKER-Well,they're clearly in the audio.
MR. HUNSINGER-So hopefully we can end it on a real positive note. Is there any other business to
come before the Board this evening? Attached to our Board package, and I don't know if this was
the initial submission or if this was handed out tonight, is the discussion on the new SEQR forms.
That will be held on December 19th at our regular meeting night, but it's six o'clock. Right? I just
want to make sure everyone on the Board caught that,that we're going to start at six o'clock on the
19th, and Mark Schachner's coming,right,to do that presentation?
MRS.MOORE-Yes,he is.
MR. FORD-Great. I'll look forward to it.
MR. HUNSINGER-That actually counts towards our required training, although I think all of us have
met the four hours a year.
MR. SCHONEWOLF-For the January training session combo that we always go to in Saratoga.
MR. HUNSINGER-Right.
MR. SCHONEWOLF-Has anybody got those?
MR. HUNSINGER-I haven't seen anything about that,yet. Have you?
MR. SCHONEWOLF-Well, I've seen it in the Association of Towns bulletin.
37
(Queensbury Planning Board 11/21/2013)
MR. HUNSINGER-Did you? Yes.
MRS.MOORE-I do have,he did send out a recent e-mail. I'll have to review my notes again.
MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. Do you know what the date is?
MRS.MOORE-It's usually like the last Wednesday.
MR. SCHONEWOLF-It's the last week of January,isn't it?
MRS.MOORE-Yes,it's usually Wednesday.
MR. SCHONEWOLF-Yes.
MR. HUNSINGER-I was going to say, maybe you could bring it to the next meeting or just,you know,
e-mail it to everybody.
MR.TRAVER-I have, for some reason, in my January 2014 calendar, I have on the 29th, Planning and
Zoning Conference.
MR. SCHONEWOLF-That's it.
MR. TRAVER-Wednesday, the 29th. I don't have any other details, but I wrote it down at some
point.
MR. FORD-In retrospect, I only wish that people, who in the future, would come before us during
the public comment session could be aware and listen to what went on tonight and use that as an
example of how items should be presented. Very informative.
MR. SCHONEWOLF-Do you want me to make a motion for adjournment, is that what you're waiting
for?
MR. HUNSINGER-Yes. That's what I was waiting for.
MR. SCHONEWOLF-So moved.
MOTION TO ADJOURN THE QUEENSBURY PLANNING BOARD MEETING OF NOVEMBER 21.
2013, Introduced by Paul Schonewolf who moved for its adoption,seconded by David Deeb:
Duly adopted this 21St day of November, 2013,by the following vote:
AYES: Mr. Deeb, Mr. Schonewolf, Mr. Ford, Mr. Magowan, Mr. Ferone, Mr.Traver, Mr. Hunsinger
NOES: NONE
On motion meeting was adjourned.
RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED,
Chris Hunsinger, Chairman
38