Three 08-27-2013 neg dec vonfirm (Queensbury Planning Board 08/27/2013)
MR.KREBS-Only if they're$50 bills.
MR.HUNSINGER-Well,we also have a public hearing scheduled with this project. Is there anyone in
the audience that wants to address the Board?
PUBLIC HEARING OPENED
MR.HUNSINGER-Any written comments?
MRS.MOORE-No.
MR.HUNSINGER-Okay. I will open the public hearing,and,again,let the record show no comments
were received. We will close the public hearing.
PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED
MR.HUNSINGER-This,too,is a Type II SEAR. So no additional SEQR review is necessary,and,with
that,I will entertain a motion.
RESOLUTION APPROVING SP#45-2013 TRUSTCO BANK
A site plan application has been made to the Queensbury Planning Board for the following:
Applicant proposes an ATM addition by redesigning existing drive-thru lanes. Site & building
improvements in a CI zone requires Planning Board review and approval.
SEQR Type II-no further review needed;
A public hearing was advertised and held on 8/27/2013;
This application is supported with all documentation,public comment,and application material in
the file of record;
MOTION TO APPROVE SITE PLAN NO. 46-2013 TRUSTCO BANK, Introduced by Donald Krebs
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 179-9-080,the
Planning Board has determined that this proposal satisfies the requirements as stated in the
Zoning Code;
2) 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;
3) The applicant must meet with Staff after approval and prior to issuance of Building Permit
and/or the beginning of any site work;
4) Subsequent issuance of further permits,including building permits is dependent on compliance
with this and all other conditions of this resolution.
Duly adopted this 27th day of August,2013,by the following vote:
AYES: Mr.Traver,Mr.Krebs,Mr.Magowan,Mr.Ford,Mr.Schonewolf,Mr.Deeb,Mr.Hunsinger
NOES: NONE
MR.HUNSINGER-You're all set. Good luck.
MR.SLEECEMAN-All right. Thank you.
TABLEDITEM:
SITE PLAN NO. 62-2011 FRESHWATER WETLANDS 6-2011 SEQR TYPE I QUEENSBURY
PARTNERS AGENT(S) MATTHEW FULLER,ESQ. OWNER(S) SAME AS APPLICANT ZONING 0-
OFFICE LOCATION SOUTHEAST CORNER OF BAY & BLIND ROCK ROADS APPLICANT
16
(Queensbury Planning Board 08/27/2013)
PROPOSES CONSTRUCTION OF 11 BUILDINGS TOTALING 132,000 SQ. FT. ON A 34.05 ACRE
PARCEL. THE INTENDED USES FOR THE SITE INCLUDE OFFICE, BUSINESS RETAIL, AND
MULTI-FAMILY. ACTIVITIES ALSO INCLUDE LAND DISTURBANCE FOR INSTALLATION OF
PARKING AREA AND OTHER INFRASTRUCTURE AND OTHER INFRASTRUCTURE AND
UTILITIES ASSOCIATED WITH THE PROJECT. SITE PLAN REVIEW AND APPROVAL IS
REQUIRED FOR MULTI-FAMILY COMPLEX,OFFICE AND BUSINESS RETAIL IN AN OFFICE ZONE.
CROSS REFERENCE AV 61-11; SUB 13-99 WARREN COUNTY REFERRAL APRIL 2013
WARREN CO. DPW REFERRAL MARCH 2013 APA, CEA,OTHER NWI WETLANDS, STREAM
OVERLAY LOT SIZE 34.050 ACRES TAX MAP NO.289.19-1-23 THROUGH 35 SECTION 179-
3-040,179-9,CHAPTER 94
MATT FULLER&DAN GALUSHA,REPRESENTING APPLICANT,PRESENT
MR.HUNSINGER-Laura?
MRS.MOORE-Sure. Under Summary,the applicant has completed the site plan application and the
freshwater wetlands permit application for project on the corner of Bay and Blind Rock Road that
involves the construction of 11 buildings -9 of which are residential, 1 mixed commercial
residential building, and 1 commercial with associated site work. The Planning Board has
completed the SEQR review for this project as a negative declaration and has provided a
recommendation to the Zoning Board that there are no adverse impacts related to the variance
request for the project. The Planning Board may consider during the reviewing opportunities to
incorporate public transportation, tourist traffic, residential storage of recreational vehicles i.e.
boats and recreational vehicles. The Planning Board may discuss as part of site plan review how
the buildings and other site features work together and interact with the surrounding area.
MR.HUNSINGER-Thank you,and I would just add for the benefit of the Board,we are joined by the
Town Engineer,Sean. Thank you for coming. Good evening and we will soon be joined by the Town
Counsel. Good evening.
MR. FULLER-Good evening. For the record, Matt Fuller with Meyer & Fuller, for the applicant,
Queensbury Partners. I'm joined with Dan Galusha tonight,one of the project owners. I think I'll
just start, recap where we've been. I think Staff had updated the Board. When we last appeared
before the Board,it was for a recommendation to the ZBA on what amounted to four variances,one
from the 300 foot setback along Bay,two for the 75 foot setbacks along Blind Rock,the third was
the height setback above 40 feet. We were just under 47 feet, and the other was for the
accoutrements along the intersection of Bay and Blind Rock, some pergolas and outside awnings,
things like that. We went to the ZBA and I thought those things might have been acceptable to
them,but it came out that the height and the improvements along the corner there,Bay and Blind
Rock,again,the outside seating and things like that,seem to have been a concern,and one of the
variances down along Blind Rock,one of the buildings,we were asked to take a harder look at that
to see if we can move some of those around,and we did end up cutting one back entirely. I mean,it
moved,the net effect of what it did was it moved the road a little bit closer to the wetland but not
within the setbacks. So we don't have any issues there. We still needed one for the, I'll call it the
eastern most residential building along Blind Rock. We did cut the height down from 45 to 40,
which basically just removed the elevation to hide the mechanicals,and I will say,you know,just as
part of the final approval from the ZBA, that I think in hindsight that probably was regrettable
decision,and 1 think some of the members on that Board felt that way,but it is what it is. I mean,a
concern was expressed with regard to height. There were other height,despite arguments that no
variances have been granted along Bay for the height,there were variances along Bay,and we were
right in that ballpark. There was one at about 45 feet. So we were in that ballpark. Again,that last
variance, too, was to hide the mechanicals. So we thought we were in that ballpark, but
nonetheless,the ZBA,a few members made it clear that that wasn't acceptable to them. So we cut
the buildings down, and resulted in two setbacks, one, again, for that first residential structure
heading down Blind Rock Road,and the other for the setback from Bay Road of 300 feet. So those
are from upwards of into the 20's of variances that we were at. We finally ended up with two. The
brief memo that I gave you tonight just goes through the site plan criteria,it's in the site plan review
law,and again,we've been,again dawned on me when I heard the number on the application,2011,
where we are and where we've come on this project,and so I was thinking about it,and I took the
site plan criteria and really went through it,because,you know,you get a lot of projects before you,
and what you're doing and the questions that you guys ask as you're going through that criteria.
It's not like a ZBA where you have to answer specific questions,but,you know,even on the last one,
asking about lighting,things like that,that's the criteria you guys are dealing with,and you do that,
and you do it diligently. So I wanted to just kind of recap where we've been,the various arguments
that have come up in the context of the site plan review law that we have to deal with,and if I could,
I'll try not to take a lot of time,but I wanted to go through just the comments that I've prepared for
17
(Queensbury Planning Board 08/27/2013)
MR.SCHONEWOLF-So does 1.
MR.TRAVER-That's my feeling.
MR.SCHONEWOLF-Don's got a lot of things he's got to include in it.
MR.SCHACHNER-Chris,I mean,if you entertain a motion,you know you've got to close the public
hearing first.
MR. HUNSINGER-Yes, and I was about to ask the Board if anyone would like to make a motion,
would anyone on the Board like to make a motion. I'm sorry?
MR.SALVADOR-Are you going to allow rebuttal?
MR.HUNSINGER-No.
MR.SALVADOR-1 thought you said she.
MR.HUNSINGER-No,we have no obligation to provide a rebuttal.
MR.TRAVER-I'll make a motion that we close the public hearing.
RESOLUTION CLOSING PUBLIC HEARING SP 62-2011&FWW 6-2011 QUEENSBURY PARTNERS
MR.HUNSINGER-We have a motion.
MOTION TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING FOR SITE PLAN NO. 62-2011 & FWW 6-2011
QUEENSBURY PARTNERS,Introduced by Stephen Traver who moved for its adoption,seconded by
Donald Krebs:
Duly adopted this 27th day of August,2013,by the following vote:
AYES: Mr.Schonewolf,Mr.Magowan,Mr.Krebs,Mr.Traver,Mr.Hunsinger
NOES: Mr.Deeb,Mr.Ford
MR.HUNSINGER-Okay. The public hearing is closed.
PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED
MR.HUNSINGER-Would anyone like to put forward a motion?
MR.KREBS-Yes. I'd like to put forward a motion to Approve Site Plan No.62-2011 &Freshwater
Wetlands 6-2011 for Queensbury Partners. Waivers were not asked for, so we're not denying or
granting them,per this particular copy I have,okay,and I was just going to point out this is per the
draft which was for 4/23,okay,and of course engineering signoff will be required prior to signature
of Zoning Administrator for the approved plans.
MR.TRAVER-Second.
MR.HUNSINGER-We have a motion and a second. Did you have a comment,Sean?
MR.DOTY-I thought perhaps you might want to make one of the conditions that turn lanes be done.
So we're all on the same page,because that was brought up.
MR.HUNSINGER-I was just going to ask the Board if there were any special conditions.
MR.KREBS-Well,you know,personally,I feel that these engineering things should have been taken
care of a long time ago. Okay,but we don't do,we don't have a process,and I remember a couple of
years ago I made a big thing out of this. We need to change the procedure so that you resolve those
engineering things before they ever come to the Board,and only those that can't be resolved should
come before the Board. We get these papers,23,34 engineering comments,you know,it's kind of
ludicrous. So,but in any case,this particular draft does require engineering signoff prior to. So it
will be resolved.
MR.FULLER-We don't have a problem with that.
34
(Queensbury Planning Board 08/27/2013)
MR.DEEB-Are we going to include it in the motion?
MR.SCHONEWOLF-It is included.
MR.HUNSINGER-Laura?
MRS. MOORE-Yes. As he stated before, Chazen reviews stormwater and provides comments on
that. In regards to traffic,that is something that the applicant has agreed to,and I would encourage
you to add that as a condition.
MR.HUNSINGER-Would you like to make an amendment to your motion,Mr.Krebs?
MR.KREBS-Yes,I'd like to make an amendment that a traffic study provided by the applicant will be
reviewed by the Town Engineering department for proper use.
MR.HUNSINGER-Do you want to specify the turning lane?
MR.DEEB-I want to specify the turning lane.
MR.KREBS-Okay. New amendment. We will require the applicant,when constructing the project,
to make available a right turn lane,which will give us a left turn lane also,at the corner of Bay Road
and Blind Rock Road.
MR.DEEB-At the inception of the project.
MR.KREBS-Yes,but you have to understand,we're saying this,you have to understand,they can't
make that decision. That is a Warren County road and Warren County is the only person who can
make the decision.
MR.HUNSINGER-Well,they have to grant the approval.
MR. FULLER-We'll apply. 1 can concede that we're going to include it on our application for the
permit.
MR.KREBS-Okay.
MR.TRAVER-And they've already discussed it with them.
MR.FULLER-We did.
MR.HUNSINGER-Do we have a second to the amendment?
MRS.MOORE-And as approved by the County DPW.
MR.FULLER-Correct.
MR.KREBS-Okay.
MR.HUNSINGER-We have an amendment that was.
MS. GAGLIARDI-Can I just ask you, so were you actually going to say at the inception of or, I just
want to make sure I get the wording right.
MR. SCHACHNER-Right Mr. Deeb suggested, I think, that the condition regarding the turn lane
include that it be provided at the inception of the project, and Maria's asking is that part of the
motion?
MR. KREBS-I don't believe that we can require that because you have to have Warren County's
approval to change their road.
MR. SCHACHNER-Right. All due respect, Mr. Krebs, you can require it. Warren County may not
agree, and in which case the applicant will not be able to fulfill your approval, but legally you do
have the authority to require a right turn lane, but the question that's on the table from our
secretary is is Mr.Deeb's editorial comment suggesting that the condition include the phrase at the
inception of the project,is that part of your motion?
3S
(Queensbury Planning Board 08/27/2013)
MR.KREBS-Yes,because they've already agreed to do it.
MR.SCHACHNER-All right. So it's part of the motion and part of the second.
MR.KREBS-Yes.
MR.SCHACHNER-Yes and yes.
MR. HUNSINGER-And we did have a second from Mr. Schonewolf. Is everyone clear on the
amendment and the resolution?
MR.TRAVER-Thank you for that clarification.
MR.HUNSINGER-Is there any further discussion?
MS.GAGLIARDI-I hate to bother you again,but could,I hate to ask you,but could you just start the
motion over again,just so I'm sure 100%what you want in the motion,because I want to make sure
I get it right. I'm sorry,but there was a lot of discussion.
MR.KREBS-Well,we weren't provided with a proper motion tonight. So this one is from a May 23rd,
but I'll read it again.
RESOLUTION APPROVING SP 4 62-2011&FWW 6-2011 QUEENSBURY PARTNERS
A site plan application has been made to the Queensbury Planning Board for the following:
Applicant proposes construction of 11 buildings totaling 132,000 sq.ft.on a 34.05 acre parcel. The
intended uses for the site include office, business retail, and multi-family. Activities also include
land disturbance for installation of parking area and other infrastructure and utilities associated
with the project. Site Plan review and approval is required for a multi-family complex,office and
business retail in an Office zone.
SEQR Negative Declaration on 4/23/2013 and reaffirmed on 8/27/2013;
ZBA approved variance requests on 7/24/2013;
A public hearing was advertised and held on 4/23,5/23,7/23&8/27/2013;
This application is supported with all documentation,public comment,and application material in
the file of record;
MOTION TO APPROVE SITE PLAN NO. 61-2011 FRESHWATER WETLANDS 6-2011
QUEENSBURY PARTNERS,Introduced by Donald Krebs who moved for its adoption,seconded by
Stephen Traver:
Per the draft resolution.
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) The Sanitary Sewer connection plan must be submitted to the Wastewater Department for its
review,approval,permitting and inspection;
4) 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;
5) Engineering sign-off required prior to signature of Zoning Administrator of the approved plans;
6) We are adding a requirement to this motion that we will require them to provide a right turn
lane at the inception of the project,at the corner of Bay Road and Blind Rock Road.
7) If required,the applicant must submit a copy of the following to the Town:
36
(Queensbury Planning Board 08/27/2013)
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;
8) 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(Stormwater 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.
9) 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.
10)The applicant must meet with Staff after approval and prior to issuance of Building Permit
and/or the beginning of any site work.
11)Subsequent issuance of further permits,including building permits is dependent on compliance
with this and all other conditions of this resolution;
12)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 27th day of August,2013,by the following vote:
AYES: Mr.Deeb,Mr.Schonewolf, Mr.Ford,Mr.Magowan,Mr.Krebs,Mr.Traver,Mr.Hunsinger
NOES: NONE
MR.FULLER-Thank you.
MR. HUNSINGER-You're all set. Good luck. Is there any other business to be brought before the
Board this evening? If not,would anyone like to make a motion?
MR.FORD-So moved.
MOTION TO ADIOURN THE QUEENSBURY PLANNING BOARD MEETING OF AUGUST 27.2013.
Introduced by Thomas Ford who moved for its adoption,seconded by Donald Krebs:
Duly adopted this 27th day of August,2013,by the following vote:
AYES: Mr.Deeb,Mr.Schonewolf,Mr.Ford,Mr.Magowan,Mr.Krebs,Mr.Traver,Mr.Hunsinger
NOES: NONE
On motion meeting was adjourned.
RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED,
Chris Hunsinger,Chairman
37