12-21-2017 aa.,�uuuuIlii. Ih.uuull`r II III:,,IIiiIIiiIIIr""iip.0 II � I II`�:u n:.„�`„ n�`."a� p �
QUEENSBURY PLANNING BOARD MEETING
SECOND REGULAR MEETING
DECEMBER 21, 2017
INDEX
Site Plan No. 65-2017 Mary Lou & Robert Dunton 1.
Tax Map No. 239.16-1-25
Site Plan No. 71-2017 Maureen Valenti 8.
Tax Map No. 289.17-1-40
Site Plan No. 76-2017 Queensbury Square, LLC 11.
Tax Map No. 296.17-1-38
Site Plan No. 73-2017 John Ellis 22.
Tax Map No. 290.5-1-12
Site Plan No. 75-2017 Mike Barry 31.
Tax Map No. 289.17-1-47
Site Plan No. 77-2017 MAC Industries 36.
Tax Map No. 308.16-2-12
DISCUSSION 9-2017 Cumberland Farms, Inc. 42.
DISCUSSION ITEM Tax Map No. 288-12-1-6; 288.12-1-8; 288.8.1-17
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.
QUEENSBURY PLANNING BOARD MEETING
SECOND REGULAR MEETING
aa.,�uuuuIlii. Ih.uuull`r II III:,,IIiiIIiiIIIr""iip.0 II � I II`�:u n:.„�`„ n�`."a� p �
DECEMBER 21, 2017
7:00 P.M.
MEMBERS PRESENT
STEPHEN TRAVER, CHAIRMAN
CHRIS HUNSINGER, VICE CHAIRMAN
DAVID DEEB, SECRETARY
JAMIE WHITE
BRAD MAGOWAN
THOMAS FORD
JOHN SHAFER, ALTERNATE
ZONING ADMINISTRATOR-CRAIG BROWN
STENOGRAPHER-MARIA GAGLIARDI
MR. TRAVER-Once again, good evening, everyone. Welcome to the Town of Queensbury
Planning Board meeting for Thursday December 21, 2017. This is an unusual Thursday night
meeting because of the holidays that are upon us. This is the second meeting for the month of
December and the 25th and hopefully final meeting for 2017, and I'd like to begin the meeting by
thanking all of the members of the Board and the Planning Staff for all the efforts that they've
done to help us go through the year with such success. So we have no Administrative Items
tonight, and also I apologize in advance for my voice. I sound worse than I feel, believe me. If
anyone has a cellphone please turn the ringer off. There are some agendas on the table at the
rear of the room should you need them. There are no Administrative Items this evening. The
first item on our regular agenda is a tabled item, Marylou and Robert Dunton, Site Plan 65-2017.
SITE PLAN 65-2017 SEAR TYPE: TYPE II. MARY LOU & ROBERT DUNTON.
AGENT(S): DENNIS MAC ELROY. OWNER(S): SAME AS APPLICANT ZONING: WR.
LOCATION: 18 TALL TIMBER ROAD. APPLICANT PROPOSES A 3,860 SQ. FT.
ADDITION TO AN EXISTING 3,213 SQ. FT. HOME AND PROPOSED IS 6,581 SQ. FT. AND
ASSOCIATED SITE WORK. PROJECT INCLUDES REMOVAL OF A 634 SQ. FT.
DETACHED GARAGE. PURSUANT TO CHAPTER 179-4-010, 179-13-010 & 179-5-020 OF
THE ZONING ORDINANCE, EXPANSION OF A NON-CONFORMING STRUCTURE SHALL
BE SUBJECT TO PLANNING BOARD REVIEW AND APPROVAL. CROSS REFERENCE:
9/22/93 DEMO GARAGE/SHED, 8/16/95 TWO CAR GARAGE; 2004-907 SEPTIC ALT.; 2015-
320 SEPTIC ALT., AV 69-2017. WARREN CO. REFERRAL: OCTOBER 2017 SITE
INFORMATION: LAKE GEORGE, CEA. LOT SIZE: 1.29 ACRE. SECTION: 179-4-010,
179-13-010, 179-5-020
DENNIS MAC ELROY & DOUG MC CALL, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT
MR. TRAVER-And, Craig, do you have a summary of that for us?
MR. BROWN-Yes. I have a brief summary. This is an item you guys have seen once or twice
before. It's a residential addition to a home up on Lake George. Since you've seen it last, the
major changes to the site, and these guys will expand on that, the major changes are removal of
the freestanding garage that's on the site as part of the project, a minor change to the proposed
addition. It's a site improvement. So basically it's an addition to the home.
MR. TRAVER-Okay. Good evening.
MR. MAC ELROY-Good evening. Thank you. I'm Dennis MacElroy with Environmental
Design, here with Doug McCall who is the designer and builder for this project and Marylou
Dunton is in the audience with us tonight. As Craig briefly summarized we were here actually
at the recommendation stage for this project back in October. Because the Zoning Board
tabled us the following night, we weren't back for review. We've made some revisions to the
plan. An issue that had come up in your recommendation meeting as well, and that was the
continued use of a separate garage, existing garage that had living space above it. There was
some question about the long term use of that and the independence of that moving forward of
possibly being a second living unit that could stand on its own. It took us a little by surprise
because that never has been the owner's intent. That really wasn't a thought they had. They
wanted to continue the use of it, but not as a living space that would be rented out or whatever,
but that point was brought up and we understood that.
aa.,�uuuuIlii. Ih.uuull`r II III:,,IIiiIIiiIIIr""iip.0 II ��I II`�:u n:.„�`„ n�`."a� p �
MR. TRAVER-And you should know as well that that issue is not in isolation with this project.
It's come up more frequently around the Town and is something that probably the Town Board
will be dealing with at some level, because it is a bit of an issue.
MR. MAC ELROY-And we understand, and in discussions we had with.
MR. FORD-And ownership is not forever.
MR. MAC ELROY-Correct.
MR. FORD-Or intent of use.
MR. MAC ELROY-Well I guess the reason I said that is because that never really was the
direction that owner was ever thinking. So it took us by a little bit of a surprise but nonetheless
the owners, the applicants heard the Boards loud and clear. So what step did they take?
They decided to eliminate that structure as a second garage and avoided that variance. It
avoids that other issue that was brought up about the potential of an independent living unit.
So that's gone away. So that was a significant decision on the applicant's part certainly to give
up that nice relatively modern and well-constructed 1250 square feet plus or minus garage level
and living space structure and eliminate it from the project. So that's done. That's reflected in
the plans that you have now before you. It has changed floor area ratio issues. It would
change the permeability issues as well. So that's really the starting point of getting back into
your review is that that's eliminated from the project and it actually, there's some benefits to it
from a site standpoint. It gave us a little bit more area to work with for the wastewater system
which was always part of this project. Now we've got a little more breathing room in terms of
the location of that because it basically is within the footprint of where that garage structure
currently exists. They still will use that garage structure as a temporary housing during the
construction phase, but as has been done in other cases and it's been proposed, we talked to
Staff, it would be demolished and removed prior to any CO of the approved house. The
addition that's being added to the existing residence. Now back to the basics of the project.
It's an addition to an existing structure. I may have explained previously that the owners felt
very strongly about maintaining the character of the structure, not just tearing it down and re-
building but adding on to do that. So that's what's proposed. Doug has come up with a good
design that compliments the existing structure and works with that and adds the necessary
space and the attached garage that the owner desires. Along with that is the new wastewater
system as I had mentioned and that wastewater system will employ enhanced treatment
technology, using a clare system for further treatment or additional treatment of wastewater.
The disposal area is beyond the 100 foot setback anyway so that's a win/win sort of moving
from an existing location that's closer than 100 feet for the dispersal area to one that's further
than 100 feet plus there's better treatment. Stormwater management is another addition to the
site. There's no formal stormwater management really on the site now but this is a minor
qualifies as a minor project. We've implemented stormwater management devices which would
be part of the new construction which will be obviously a benefit to the site and to the lake.
Water supply will continue to take from the lake. The driveway that does exist along the
northern edge of the property, it will be improved, provide that access down to the house
addition which includes an attached garage which is important for access to the property, safety
and just convenience of being able to park a car in the house itself within the residence
structure, and with that I'd entertain any questions.
MR. TRAVER-As a result of your discussion with the ZBA, aside from the removal of the
auxiliary structure after construction, were there any other changes you made to the project?
MR. MAC ELROY-No. The other variances that were requested were related to a, first of all
the expansion of the pre-existing, nonconforming structure and that's related to setback. Part
of the addition is in that setback area but no closer, certainly than what currently exists. The
other variance was related to stormwater management in that if the infiltration device, which is a
shallow grass swale receiving runoff from the driveway area that falls under a Minor Project to
be 100 feet, the standard setback. This is not at 100 feet. It's 45 feet actually, but that
variance was also granted. So the short answer to your question is no. No other changes.
MR. TRAVER-Thank you. Questions from members of the Planning Board?
MR. FORD-Composition of the driveway, please.
MR. MAC ELROY-Paved, paved driveway down to the point where it's more level, where there'll
be permeable block pavers.
MR. FORD-Any possibility of using permeable paving?
aa.,�uuuuIlii. Ih.uuull`r II III:,,IIiiIIiiIIIr""iip.0 II � I II`�:u n:.„�`„ n�`."a� p �
MR. MAC ELROY-Permeable block pavers aren't as effective, functional in a slope area.
That's a bit of a slope coming down from the top so the water doesn't have the opportunity so
much to infiltrate through the seams of the block. So we generally don't use those in that
condition.
MR. SHAFER-Similar question, Dennis. There's a 16 foot difference in elevation from the top
to the bottom of the driveway. Could you just brief us on how you calculated the rain garden
down at the bottom? I mean that's a lot of slope.
MR. MAC ELROY-Right. Well the slope, in terms of a computation, isn't really a factor, but the
area is and that would have been based on a Minor, well actually I take that back. You have an
opportunity in a Minor Project to still do a more complex computer generated modeling of
stormwater that you are required to do for a Major. We used that and the volume of storage
that's required between the evaluation of pre and post is provided for in that storage volume of
that device.
MR. SHAFER-I'm just looking for some reassurance that that rain garden is large enough to
handle what will come down off that slope.
MR. MAC ELROY-Correct.
MR. FORD-At what slope does the permeable drive not do its job?
MR. MAC ELROY-Generally the standard I am familiar with is about five percent, five to six
percent. At some point the water's just moving past that and it's not really being that functional
as it is in a level situation.
MR. TRAVER-And with regards to the engineering stormwater and so on, how do you stand
with the engineer?
MR. MAC ELROY-We've been back and forth with Chazen's office a couple of times, and I
believe that we should be in good standing. I don't know if there's a formal letter, but they
made their comments. They responded. They gave some further comments. We responded
and they're relatively minor comments.
MR. TRAVER-Okay. All right. Anyone else?
MR. MAGOWAN-Yes, I want to thank you for following through with this and removing the
garage. I feel much better with the project.
MARYLOU DUNTON
MRS. DUNTON-The ultimate goal is to have the attached garage for safety and access as we
get older. So it's a small price we pay to get everything else.
MR. MAGOWAN-Well thank you for doing that. But I also notice that you'll be taking out 11
trees and the Hemlocks, the white pine, but you've got 15 maple, nine inch hemlock, twelve
inch, you know, they're good sized trees.
MR. MAC ELROY-I'm glad you brought that up because it allows me to respond to something
from last night. Chris was at the meeting, Chris Navitsky was at the meeting last night. He
submitted a comment letter and made a comment about tree removal, and I questioned where
he would have gotten that number. Now his number was 12. You say 11. 1 would say that it
may be nine or ten, but I want to go on the record as apologizing or clarifying to Chris that I
wasn't questioning his statement so much as wondering where it was. He wrote me a note
today which, you know, made me think that he wasn't happy with me.
MR. MAGOWAN-Well on S-2 you've got a layout of the trees. So I just labeled them one, two,
three, four, five, six, seven, eight, nine, ten, and eleven was the Aspen. You're leaving the
seven inch maple on top. That's how I came up with all that. Did you count the trees right
when you put them on the paper?
MR. MAC ELROY-Well, I'm not sure that, what's it say, twin 10 inch and 12 inch Hemlock are
something that would be removed either, but based on, this is another thing that maybe is a
benefit of removing the garage is that wastewater system moves up to that area and that frees
up that sloped area and I'm not sure that that's, you know, that the removal in that area would
be necessary. So that's where I think maybe the difference of what Chris was pointing to last
aa.,�uuuuIlii. Ih.uuull`r II III:,,IIiiIIiiIIIr""iip.0 II � I II`�:u n:.„�`„ n�`."a� p �
night. He may not have been taking into consideration the movement of the wastewater
system up as reflected in the revised plans we submitted, S-2.
MR. TRAVER-On S-2 can you point out, perhaps with Craig's help on the computer, which trees
are to remain so we can correct the thing for the record?
MR. MAC ELROY-S-2 is an existing conditions plan.
MR. TRAVER-But it shows remove existing trees. So if there are some of those remove
existing trees.
MR. MAC ELROY-1 see what you're saying, yes. I understand.
MR. MAGOWAN-I'm looking at S-1 and really all I see is the 24 inch white pine down at the
bottom, a 12 inch Hemlock to the north, the one on the property line and the seven inch. The
rest is really where the addition and everything is going out to the proverbial pavement. So, I
mean, if you look at S-1 and you look at S-2, a lot of those start trees are gone.
MR. MAC ELROY-Yes, what I'll do is indicate that those two trees that aren't Ieadered into,
saying existing trees on S-2, those would be included, and the two, the Aspen and the twin, 10
inch and 12 inch Hemlock, would remain. So it's sort of a two for two. That was probably a
graphic thing that didn't translate from plan one.
MR. MAGOWAN-So you're going to leave the seven inch map, the twelve inch Aspen and the
twin 10 inch and 12 inch Hemlock.
MR. MAC ELROY-1 believe that's what the grading allows for, yes.
MR. MAGOWAN-So that drops us down and now you're taking out only nine trees.
MR. MAC ELROY-Correct.
MR. MAGOWAN-And you're happy with your engineering for your stormwater? I mean usually
we try to make you do a little bit more planting on the front side, shoreline.
MR. MAC ELROY-Well, I think it's demonstrated maybe in some of the photos that were
submitted. There's a good vegetative buffer in that shoreline area, which are pines and
Hemlocks. Those won't be disturbed. There won't be any disturbance within that 35 foot zone
at all.
MR. MAGOWAN-Well if I look on this second one I do see the large trees. Especially you know
like on this one, the shoreline. Then I'm also looking at a root structure, pine needles, moss.
Really nothing to slow the water if it wants to run down. You're sloped all the way down and
then you're catching a rain garden at the bottom of the driveway.
MR. MAC ELROY-Well there's other stormwater devices. There's two rain gardens on the
lakeside of the house as well.
MR. MAGOWAN-On either side of the porch.
MR. MAC ELROY-Correct. Yes, so that will capture runoff from the roof. That would eliminate
what would come down that slope.
MR. MAGOWAN-Well I'm just looking at nine trees and the amount of water that a tree sucks
up.
MR. MAC ELROY-Understood.
MR. MAGOWAN-I'm more worried about, obviously not much is going to come through the
house, but I just want to make sure, since we are taking the nine absorption trees away, that
those two gardens, because it is, you do have an area that's open in between the two rain
gardens, right here. Do you know what I'm saying?
MR. MAC ELROY-Right.
MR. MAGOWAN-And it seems to be all sloped down.
a
aa.,�uuuuIlii. Ih.uuull`r II III:,,IIiiIIiiIIIr""iip.0 II � I II`�:u n:.„�`„ n�`."a� p �
MR. MAC ELROY-Right, but the runoff from the impervious surfaces, whether it be the roof,
which is guttered and leadered, directed by grading to those devices, and then off of the
pavement, we could direct it towards that. So I mean that's the basics of the stormwater
management.
MR. MAGOWAN-So you feel that you've adequately covered that area?
MR. MAC ELROY-Correct, and I think that Chazen agrees with that.
MR. MAGOWAN-Okay. I just thought I'd bring it up.
MR. MAC ELROY-Okay. Thank you.
MR. MAGOWAN-I'm not really an engineer but I do trust you because you do nice work.
MR. FORD-May I go back to S-1? And I just want to verify because you have designated there
permeable paver driveway. That's in the level section of the lot?
MR. MAC ELROY-Correct. That entry into the.
MR. FORD-And that will remain as a permeable paver?
MR. MAC ELROY-That's proposed as permeable paver, yes. It's not there now.
MR. FORD-No, no, but.
MR. MAC ELROY-Yes, that's what's being proposed in that level where the permeable pavers
would work.
MR. FORD-Would be effective.
MR. MAC ELROY-Right.
MR. FORD-Thank you.
MR. MAGOWAN-So that's the flat area.
MR. MAC ELROY-Correct. As it leads into your, you're coming down the slope, you're turning
south, turning left and enter into your garage. That's the more level area, and that should be
reflected by the grades.
MR. FORD-Thanks for that verification and clarification.
MR. SHAFER-But, Dennis, one of the sheets shows the existing septic system where the new
addition will be built. So what will be the wastewater system situation while they're living in the
garage during the construction of the house?
MR. MAC ELROY-Good question. A temporary holding tank. Yes, we've talked about that
and with the amount of use that it will get. As opposed to putting in a whole new system up
front, the holding tank was considered to be the beater option.
MR. SHAFER-Okay.
MR. TRAVER-Any other questions, comments by members of the Planning Board at this stage?
We do have a public hearing on this application before us this evening. This is a Type 11 SEQR
application so we don't need to do the SEQR review process, but I'll ask are there members of
the audience that would like to address the Planning Board on this application? I'm not seeing
any. Craig, do you know if there's any written correspondence?
PUBLIC HEARING OPENED
MR. BROWN-We do have written correspondence. We have several. What I thought I'd do is
just make mention of we have six letters in support, two from the most near neighbors, Brothers
and Mastro, and then four others from McKinney, Mason, Dean and End, and then one letter of
opposition that I thought I'd read into the record. I'll read them all, but six letters of support.
as
aa.,�uuuuIlii. Ih.uuull`r II III:,,IIiiIIiiIIIr""iip.0 II � I II`�:u n:.„�`„ n�`."a� p �
MR. TRAVER-Yes, that's fine. There's no public comment in attendance so why don't we go
with the one negative. I think we know what the positive ones will say and we know that there
are that many in support in the record.
MR. BROWN-Okay. So this is a December 20 letter from Lenton and Barbara Simms. "Dear
Mr. Traver: Thank you for the opportunity to comment on the revisions being considered for
Site Plan Number 65- 2017 submitted by Marylou and Robert Dunton, 18 Tall Timbers Road.
We own the home at the end of Tall Timbers Road approximately 200 feet south of the Dunton
property. As we indicated in October, the Dunton proposal is well presented and the proposed
design and details retain and complement the existing house and, most importantly, the plan
includes replacing an outdated septic system. However, the revised plans do not materially
address the significant issues included in our October letter to the board. The Zone WR rules
were established to protect our community and Lake George and we think it's reasonable to
expect those rules be followed unless hardship dictates otherwise. The property and site are
adequate for the Duntons to construct their addition with only one of the three variances
requested (one variance would be required for any addition to their existing non-conforming
structure). Granting the revised site plan will still introduce a significant change in the character
of the neighborhood. The revised plan calls for a 42% increase in square footage (from 3,860 to
6,581) nearly triple the 2,300 square foot average of the 6 neighboring houses to the south and
north, based upon the Warren County Real Property data. The revised plan will still have a
significant adverse environmental impact on the neighborhood and lake. By building along the
shore (rather than building back from the shoreline or behind the existing house) the plan still
requires the removal of most of the natural vegetation including nearly ten mature trees (see
Site Plan, Sheet S-2), to be replaced with impermeable surfaces (roofs, driveways, walkways,
walls) which necessitated the variance for an infiltration device setback of 45' vs. 100'. We
respectfully suggest that the revised site plan be rejected pending modifications to make the
plan more consistent in scale and character with the neighborhood and to limit the
environmental impact by taking advantage of the sites ample opportunities to build within
existing Zone WR rules. Sincerely, Lenton and Barbara Simms"
MR. TRAVER-Would you like to comment on that letter?
MR. MAC ELROY-Yes. I think we've covered the tree issues.
MR. TRAVER-You did say that the Water Keeper had raised some issues, and they were
reviewed at the ZBA.
MR. MAC ELROY-Correct. Yes. The thing I wanted to clarify last night was the comment that
Chris had made about the number of trees and I questioned that in response to that, and I think
he took exception to that, and I was questioning information that he got off of our plans. So I
recognize that. I apologize if that concerned him, but I think that he wasn't reading the revised
trees to see the number of trees because he submitted to me a copy of a plan with the trees
labeled, just like Brad did. He had twelve, but three of them don't fit into the area to be
disturbed. So that was my clarification.
MR. TRAVER-Yes, we've added back three as of tonight.
MR. MAC ELROY-From 12 to 9.
MR. TRAVER-Okay.
MR. MAGOWAN-The asphalt drive that comes off of the top there, which is, you know, you've
got the big square in front of the garage, and then it continues on. Is that the access road to
the neighbors to the south?
MR. MAC ELROY-The Mastro's property, correct.
MR. MAGOWAN-So they're going to have to drive past this Taj Mahal every time. Is that
maybe why they're upset?
MR. MAC ELROY-No, they're not upset. They wrote a letter of support.
MR. MAGOWAN-It's not the Simms? I thought you said the south side.
MR. MAC ELROY-No. Correct. Let me clarify that. The Simms' letter says they live at the
end of Tall Timbers. They don't access their property from Tall Timbers. They access it from
Burnt Ridge. But they're the very next property beyond Tall Timbers. The Mastro's, who wrote
a letter of support, are the last, is the last property that gains access through Tall Timbers.
aa.,�uuuuIlii. Ih.uuull`r II III:,,IIiiIIiiIIIr""iip.0 II � I II`�:u n:.„�`„ n�`."a� p �
MR. MAGOWAN-So you got approval letters at least from the neighbors on either side.
MR. MAC ELROY-Yes, and then beyond to the north side.
MR. TRAVER-Any other questions, comments discussion by members of the Board? Well, as
indicated we have no SEQR review for this particular application. I think we have potential for a
condition of S-2, restoring these three, to the north on S-2 that are indicated as to be removed.
All right. So we've added a condition that addresses the three trees that we discussed with the
applicant, restoring those back, spared their lives in the review this evening. So are there any
other conditions, other than the default the engineering signoff in regards to stormwater and so
on that members of the Board feel that we need to add to this motion? All right. I guess we're
ready to hear the motion.
MR. HUNSINGER-You need to close the public hearing.
MR. TRAVER-Thank you. We'll close the public hearing and then we'll do the motion.
PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED
RESOLUTION APPROVING SP # 65-2017 MARYLOU & ROBERT DUNTON
The applicant has submitted an application to the Planning Board for Site Plan approval
pursuant to Article 9 of the Town zoning Ordinance for: Applicant proposes a 3,860 sq. ft.
addition to an existing 3,213 sq. ft. home and proposed is 6,581 sq. ft. and associated site work.
Project includes removal of 634 sq. ft. detached garage. Pursuant to Chapter 179-4-010, 179-
13-010 & 179-5-020 of the Zoning Ordinance, expansion of a non-conforming structure shall be
subject to Planning Board review and approval. 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;
As required by General Municipal Law Section 239-m the site plan application was referred to
the Warren County Planning Department for its recommendation;
The Planning Board opened a public hearing on the Site plan application on 10/24/2017 and
continued the public hearing to 12/21/2017, when it was closed,
The Planning Board has reviewed the application materials submitted by the applicant and all
comments made at the public hearing and submitted in writing through and including
12/21/2017;
The Planning Board determines that the application complies with the review considerations and
standards set forth in Article 9 of the Zoning Ordinance for Site Plan approval,
MOTION TO APPROVE SITE PLAN NO. 65-2017 MARY LOU & ROBERT DUNTON;
Introduced by Mr. Deeb who moved for its adoption;
Per the draft provided by staff conditioned upon the following conditions:
1) Waivers requested are granted;
2) Adherence to the items outlined in the follow-up letter sent with this resolution.
a) If application was referred to engineering, then engineering sign-off required prior to
signature of Zoning Administrator of the approved plans;
b) Final approved plans should have dimensions and setbacks noted on the site
plan/survey,
floor plans and elevation for the existing rooms and proposed rooms in the building and
site improvements,
c) Final approved plans, in compliance with the Site Plan, must be submitted to the
Community Development Department before any further review by the Zoning
Administrator or Building and Codes personnel;
d) The applicant must meet with Staff after approval and prior to issuance of
Building Permit and/or the beginning of any site work;
aa.,�uuuuIlii. Ih.uuull`r II III:,,IIiiIIiiIIIr""iip.0 II � I II`�:u n:.„�`„ n�`."a� p �
e) Subsequent issuance of further permits, including building permits is dependent on
compliance with this and all other conditions of this resolution;
f) As-built plans to certify that the site plan is developed according to the approved plans to
be provided prior to issuance of the certificate of occupancy;
g) Resolution to be placed on final plans in its entirety and legible; and
h) The three (3) trees indicated to be removed from the northeast corner of Site Sheet S-2
will remain on the property.
Motion seconded by Mr. Magowan. Duly adopted this 21St day of December, 2017 by the following
vote:
AYES: Mr. Deeb, Mr. Ford, Mr. Hunsinger, Mr. Magowan, Mr. Shafer, Mr. Traver
NOES: Ms. White
MR. TRAVER-All right. Good luck.
MR. MAC ELROY-Thank you.
MR. TRAVER-All right. Next before us is Old Business, beginning with Maureen Valenti, Site Plan
71-2017.
OLD BUSINESS:
SITE PLAN NO. 71-2017 SEAR TYPE: TYPE II. MAUREEN VALENTI. AGENT(S):
MICHAEL O'CONNOR. OWNER(S): SAME AS APPLICANT. ZONING: WR. LOCATION:
112 BIRDSALL ROAD. APPLICANT PROPOSES TO COMPLETE A 570 SQ. FT. GROUND
LEVEL OPEN DECK ADDITION. THE EXISTING HOME IS 4,235 SQ. FT. PURSUANT TO
CHAPTER 179-4-080, 179-3-040, 179-6-050 & 179-13-010 OF THE ZONING ORDINANCE
EXPANSION OF A NON-CONFORMING STRUCTURE IN A CEA SHALL BE SUBJECT TO SITE
PLAN REVIEW AND APPROVAL. CROSS REFERENCE: 095152-209 SF DWELLING
W/GARAGE; 097155-5699 DOCK; SP 4-95; AV 35-1994; AV 1455-1998; AST 561-2017 SHED;
AV 77-2017. SITE INFORMATION: CEA GLEN LAKE. LOT SIZE: .69 ACRE. TAX MAP
NO. 289.17-1-40. SECTION: 179-4-080, 179-3-040, 179-6-050 & 179-13-010
MICHAEL O'CONNOR, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT; MAUREEN VALENTI,
PRESENT
MR. BROWN-Again, this is a Site Plan application for the continued construction of a deck that's
been constructed on the lakeside of the house. Last night the Zoning Board of Appeals granted
the requested setback variance. So now they're here for the Site Plan for the hard surfacing within
50 feet of the shoreline.
MR. TRAVER-Okay. Welcome back.
MR. O'CONNOR-Thank you. Michael O'Connor, for the purpose of your record, from the law firm
of Little, O'Connor& Borie, and Maureen Valenti who is the owner of the property. This is a Type II
project. We were with you Tuesday night and we were with the Zoning Board last night. They
approved the application for variances without condition. If you look in your packet, I think we have
letters there from seven different families in the immediate area saying that they approve of the
project. I don't think there's strong issues or any real issues. I don't know if you want me to go into
the variances or whatever, but I think we're here for Site Plan.
MR. TRAVER-Well, can you tell us, as a result of your conversation with the ZBA, were there any
changes to your proposal?
MR. O'CONNOR-No.
MR. TRAVER-Okay. Then we did review this fairly extensively Tuesday evening, I guess.
Members of the Planning Board, do you have any follow up questions for the applicant?
MR. FORD-1 don't.
aa.,�uuuuIlii. Ih.uuull`r II III:,,IIiiIIiiIIIr""iip.0 II � I II`�:u n:.„�`„ n�`."a� p �
MR. TRAVER-Okay. I know we did discuss it somewhat. This application also has a public
hearing. So we'll open the public hearing on this application this evening. Is there anyone in the
audience that would like to address the Planning Board on this application? I'm not seeing any.
Do we have any written comments, Craig?
PUBLIC HEARING OPENED
MR. BROWN-We do. I have a couple of short ones. They'/re kind of mixed. I can't tell if they're
in support or opposition. One of them is, I'll just read through them real quick.
MR. TRAVER-Thank you.
MR. O'CONNOR-There are seven letters. I think they are all in support. You've got them from
Cembrook, Merritt, Larkin, Pittenger and Whittle, Coombes, Hirsch and Moosbrugger.
MR. BROWN-Well they gave me five in this file here.
MR. O'CONNOR-1 have seven.
MR. BROWN-Well let me start with the ones we have here. This is from Russ Pittenger and Lynn
Whittle dated December 15. "1 have reviewed the submission. We are in favor of the proposed
variances for setbacks. The at-grade open deck has no visual impact when viewed from the lake
and permeability is not adversely effected. While I cannot condone working in advance of
obtaining proper permits, I am sympathetic to these necessary accessibility improvements that
prompted the immediacy of the deck construction." November 26, Sereena Coombes, "Having sat
before you a few times myself, both with and without neighbor support, I am acutely aware of how
much it means to have the community behind you. With that in mind, I am writing in support of the
deck that the Valenti's have begun adding on the lake side of their property. This is an area of their
yard that was used previously for family and friend gatherings, and adding the deck is simply a way
to make this easier and more enjoyable. The deck is aesthetic and in congruence with the rest of
their home. The lake is about living and sharing and enjoying, and I see no reason their addition
should negatively impact anyone else in the community from doing the same also.” William &
Carol Merritt, dated November 20th, "We are writing to express our support for the modifications that
Tom & Maureen Valenti are proposing to make to their property located at 113 Birdsall Road. We
support their plan because upon completion, it will improve the existing situation in a number of
ways including: 1) Mitigating storm water runoff— For decades we have observed an increasing
amount of non-permeable surfaces on the property that is now owned by the Valenti family, as well
as on the surrounding property. Paving by the town and neighbors, cutting of vegetation and the
natural compacting of soil has created an ever increasing amount of impervious surface that has
contributed to storm water runoff. The proposed project includes numerous components that help
to mitigate the negative impact of these "non self-imposed” circumstances. Modifying the existing
slope to re-direct run off away from the lake; removing and replacing highly compacted soil; re-
installing pavers to allow onsite filtration; and planting native shrubs, perennials, and ground cover
are all included in the project— some have already been accomplished. 2) Creating a safer more
easily traversed right of way for "the Hirsch's their heirs and assigns", as called for in the property
deed. 3) Creating unique water front that is handicap accessible and conducive for all family
members. 4) The amount of impermeable surface on the property will be decreased. 5) It will
increase the value of the property. For these reasons stated it is our recommendation that the
various town boards approve the Valenti's proposal." So those are the five that I have. I'll look for
the other two, but if you think there are two more letters of support, I'll try to stipulate that they're in
here someplace.
MR. O'CONNOR-There are seven different families that submitted letters of support.
MR. BROWN-Okay.
MR. TRAVER-Okay.
MR. FORD-None in opposition?
MR. BROWN-1 have not found any.
MR. TRAVER-Okay. Thank you for that. Then we'll close the public hearing.
PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED
MR. TRAVER-1 don't think that we initially had any, I didn't think that we needed any additional
conditions other than the draft. Right?
,naa
aa.,�uuuuIlii. Ih.uuull`r II III:,,IIiiIIiiIIIr""iip.0 II � I II`�:u n:.„�`„ n�`."a� p �
MR. O'CONNOR-We did in our application, Mr. Chairman, ask for waivers of the topographical
map, landscape plan, land use district boundaries and soil.
MR. TRAVER-Yes, that's in our.
MR. O'CONNOR-That's in the proposed.
MR. TRAVER-Yes. All right. I guess we're ready to hear the resolution.
RESOLUTION APPROVING SP # 71-2017 MAUREEN VALENTI
The applicant has submitted an application to the Planning Board for Site Plan approval pursuant to
Article 9 of the Town zoning Ordinance for: Applicant proposes to complete a 570 sq. ft. ground
level open deck addition. The existing home is 4,235 sq. ft. Pursuant to Chapter 179-4-080, 179-3-
040, 179-6-050 & 179-13-010 of the Zoning Ordinance expansion of a non-conforming structure in
a CEA shall be subject to Planning Board review and approval.
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;
As required by General Municipal Law Section 239-m the site plan application was referred to the
Warren County Planning Department for its recommendation;
The Planning Board opened a public hearing on the Site plan application on 12/21/17 and
continued the public hearing to 12/21/17 when it was closed,
The Planning Board has reviewed the application materials submitted by the applicant and all
comments made at the public hearing and submitted in writing through and including 12/21/17;
The Planning Board determines that the application complies with the review considerations and
standards set forth in Article 9 of the Zoning Ordinance for Site Plan approval,
MOTION TO APPROVE SITE PLAN NO. 71-2017 MAUREEN VALENTI, Introduced by Mr. Deeb
who moved for its adoption.
Per the draft provided by staff conditioned upon the following conditions:
1) Requested Waivers have been granted;
2) Adherence to the items outlined in the follow-up letter sent with this resolution.
a) If application was referred to engineering, then engineering sign-off required prior to
signature of Zoning Administrator of the approved plans;
b) Final approved plans should have dimensions and setbacks noted on the site
plan/survey,
floor plans and elevation for the existing rooms and proposed rooms in the building and
site improvements,
c) Final approved plans, in compliance with the Site Plan, must be submitted to the
Community Development Department before any further review by the Zoning
Administrator or Building and Codes personnel;
d) The applicant must meet with Staff after approval and prior to issuance of
Building Permit and/or the beginning of any site work;
e) Subsequent issuance of further permits, including building permits is dependent on
compliance with this and all other conditions of this resolution;
f) As-built plans to certify that the site plan is developed according to the approved plans to
be provided prior to issuance of the certificate of occupancy;
g) Resolution to be placed on final plans in its entirety and legible.
Seconded by Mr. Ford. Duly adopted this 21 st day of December, 2017 by the following vote:
aa.,�uuuuIlii. Ih.uuull`r II III:,,IIiiIIiiIIIr""iip.0 II � I II`�:u n:.„�`„ n�`."a� p �
AYES: Ms. White, Mr. Ford, Mr. Hunsinger, Mr. Magowan, Mr. Shafer, Mr. Deeb, Mr. Traver
NOES: NONE
MR. TRAVER-All right.
MR. O'CONNOR-We thank you very much.
MR. TRAVER-Okay. Good luck. Next we have before us, also under Old Business,
Queensbury Square, LLC, Site Plan 76-2017.
SITE PLAN NO. 76-2017 SEAR TYPE: UNLISTED. QUEENSBURY SQUARE, LLC.
AGENT(S): HUTCHINS ENGINEERING. OWNER(S): SAME AS APPLICANT. ZONING:
Cl. LOCATION: 909 STATE ROUTE 9. APPLICANT PROPOSES A NEW 5,460 SQ. FT.
COMMERCIAL BUILDING WITH POTENTIAL FOR SIX UNIT RETAIL AREAS. PROJECT
SITE CURRENTLY CONTAINS 7,000 SQ. FT. LIQUOR STORE. PROJECT INCLUDES NEW
PARKING AREA, STORMWATER, LIGHTING AND LANDSCAPING. PROJECT INCLUDES
EXISTING INTERCONNECTS TO WALMART PARKING/DRIVE AREA. PURSUANT TO
CHAPTER 179-3-040 OF THE ZONING ORDINANCE, NEW COMMERCIAL CONSTRUCTION
SHALL BE SUBJECT TO PLANNING BOARD REVIEW AND APPROVAL. CROSS
REFERENCE: SP 8-2015 MOD.; SP 70-2010 & AV 59-2010 CHANGE OF USE; 2015-237
WC RAMP; 2013-115 COMM. ALT.; 1995 SEPTIC ALT.; SIGN PERMITS. WARREN CO.
REFERRAL: DECEMBER 2017. SITE INFORMATION: TRAVEL CORRIDOR OVERLAY
ZONE. LOT SIZE: 1.42 ACRES. TAX MAP NO. 296.17-1-38. SECTION: 179-3-040
LUCAS DOBIE & TIM SHULER, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT; MONTY LIU
PRESENT
MR. BROWN-Okay. So this is a proposal for a 5,460 square foot multi-tenant retail building on
a site that has an existing retail facility. They were before the Zoning Board last night for, I
think, setback variances, and those setback variances were granted.
MR. TRAVER-Good thank you. Good evening. Welcome back.
MR. SHULER-For the record once again, I'm Tim Shuler from McPhillips, Fitzgerald and
Cullum, the applicant's principal Monty Liu and Lucas Dobie from Hutchins Engineering, and the
ZBA did grant the variance without condition, and no changes to the proposal.
MR. TRAVER-No changes to what we reviewed on Tuesday. Okay. Very good. Any follow
up questions from members of the Board?
MR. FORD-No. Not from me anyway.
MR. TRAVER-Okay, and I think the draft resolution, and this is a SEQR Unlisted, and we also
have a public hearing. So let's go ahead and open the public hearing on this application. Are
there members of the audience that want to address the Planning Board on this application?
Yes, sir.
MICHAEL VALENTI
MR. VALENTI-I'm Michael Valenti from Whispering Pines.
MR. TRAVER-If you would come up,just to get you on the record. We need to keep minutes of
the meeting. So thank you.
MR. MAGOWAN-We want to hear that nice voice on the record.
MR. TRAVER-That's right.
MR. VALENTI-Michael Valenti of Whispering Pines Apartment complex, Apartment and
Townhouses, Managing Partner, and I think we have a letter that needs to be read. If you
could just read that letter that would be great. Thank you.
MR. BROWN-Do you want to do that now, or do you want to get some points on the record?
MR. TRAVER-Yes, you can go ahead.
aa.,�uuuuIlii. Ih.uuull`r II III:,,IIiiIIiiIIIr""iip.0 II � I II`�:u n:.„�`„ n�`."a� p �
MR. BROWN-Okay. Dated December 21. It's from Jim Valenti. "Dear Planning Board
Members: In review of the Planning Board Site Plan Application for the above referenced
matter, we are requesting that the Board consider the following mitigating conditions that are
necessary in the approval of their application."
MR. VALENTI-Excuse me one second. This one right here is very important to us, just so the
Board knows.
MR. BROWN-Okay. "Situated on the north side of the proposed building is a paved roadway
that interconnects with Weeks Road. Our concern all along is that this feeder road onto Weeks
Road will bring commercial vehicles to Weeks Road and Weeks Road was not designed to
accommodate commercial traffic from the Route 9 commercial corridor. We are requesting that
the Board seriously consider eliminating the private Road interconnect with Weeks Road and
converting this to green space. Further, the six lamp poles running alongside of Weeks Road
and the proposed roadway should be eliminated as this additional lighting is excessive and not
necessary so close to Weeks Road. I feel that the proposed interconnect on the West side of
the building should be eliminated. Along the west side of the building they have a large
proposed interconnect to the Walmart parking lot. We are concerned about the traffic pattern. I
feel as though the easiest way for the trucks to exit the site would be going along Weeks Road
and entering onto the Walmart property through the 70 foot Walmart curb cut along Weeks
Road. They will then enter the proposed site through the large proposed interconnect on the
West side of the property. This will create an easier exit from the proposed site onto Route 9.
Any other way creates a difficult exit for trucks from the proposed site. The applicant already
has an existing interconnect to the Walmart property on the south side of the proposed building.
The Walmart customers can easily access this site from the south side of the existing
interconnect. In final, I would like to address the applicant's trash center location and the
Weeks Road existing sidewalk. In an effort to alleviate the commercial trash hauling vehicles
accessing Weeks Road to the applicant's trash center, I am requesting that the Board insist that
the trash containers be turned around facing the south and that all commercial trash vehicles
access this trash center via the entry on State Route 9. Once again, this will keep commercial
vehicles off of Weeks Road. Further, in the best interest of public safety for children and other
pedestrian use, the existing sidewalk along Weeks Road should be extended to Route 9. I am
urging the Board to consider these mitigating conditions so that commercial vehicular traffic
does not continue along Weeks Road. I have already filed many complaints concerning this
matter with the Town of Queensbury and it has fell on deaf ears. Should this be considered in
your approval, it will be very difficult to determine that continued commercial vehicle use to
Weeks Road would be the result of traffic to Walmart or this new retail plaza. I can see the
problem in the future for me, it will be very difficult to determine those truck use violators on
Weeks Road and where they are coming from. I look forward to the upcoming meeting and
having my concerns stated for the record at this meeting. I would like to thank you in advance
for your consideration in this matter. Jim Valenti”
MR. TRAVER-Okay. Thank you for that.
MR. MAGOWAN-Just to let the Board know, his brother Jim came on the Walmart project and
stated, you know, he was worried and we brought that up to Walmart and all of a sudden we
didn't hear any more about that project.
MS. WHITE-And we really didn't have an opportunity to address that any more.
MR. MAGOWAN-Right. So this is why I believe Mike is here with Jim is the truck traffic, and
since we haven't been able to address the Walmart, I can see the concerns that the Valenti's do
have.
MR. VALENTI-Thank you. I would just like to say one thing. With this project I can see a
couple of specialty retail stores and I think the Board needs to be aware of how that works from
a trucking standpoint. Okay, and in this day and age, it's very common for somebody to open
up a retail business, and I've been in the retail business for over 30 years and the way it works,
there's lots of special ordering going on for the different businesses, and the way it works, it's
very possible that somebody could place a special order, okay, and that company could get a
big truck, and there could be 50 deliveries over the course of five states. That's the way it
works. They could only have one item on a big truck like that, and that's just the way it works in
this world today with retail.
MR. TRAVER-Can you give me an example of the kind of order you're talking about? What
would I go to the store and order that would require how many trucks from how many states?
aa.,�uuuuIlii. Ih.uuull`r II III:,,IIiiIIiiIIIr""iip.0 II � I II`�:u n:.„�`„ n�`."a� p �
MR. VALENTI-Well, let's just say that somebody wanted to sell typewriters, okay. Let's just use
that as an example.
MR. TRAVER-Yes.
MR. VALENTI-And one company has like 75 different typewriters that you can order, okay, and
this company is selling typewriters to all different types of businesses all over the United States
and say one store has a small order of only five typewriters. So okay we'll deliver those five
typewriters to this company and then they've got to go another 70 miles, there's another store
70 miles away and they've got a special order for two. There could be 50 orders on that truck
for that.
MR. TRAVER-And you think they would all be coming from one of these six small retail spaces?
MR. VALENTI-Well, we don't know what's going to go in there, you know.
MR. TRAVER-We do know the size of the space that they're talking about renting.
MR. VALENTI-True, but don't just say it's going to be a box truck because you couldn't be more
wrong. It could be a big rig coming in there with only two items. That is part of the way it
works in the retail business. That's all I'm saying. Thank you.
MR. TRAVER-Okay. Thank you. Sir? Yes, go ahead, please. Good evening. If you
wouldn't mind stating your name for the record so our minutes are accurate.
WILLIAM TUCKER
MR. TUCKER-William Tucker. I live on Glen Lake Road. How many of the Board members
are aware of the traffic study that's happening in Warren County along that corridor?
MR. TRAVER-Actually there are a number of them that have happened and are in the process
now.
MR. TUCKER-So how will this affect that oncoming traffic study?
MR. TRAVER-The oncoming traffic study?
MR. TUCKER-1 hear there's a traffic study that's going to cost the County $100,000.
MR. TRAVER-Well, my understanding is, and I could be perhaps misunderstanding, but my
understanding is if a project is known to be approved and is anticipated, that will be taken into
account in the traffic study. I mean if there's nothing, if there's no project conceived nor
approved, then obviously they wouldn't be able to consider that, but if there's a project that's
approved but maybe it hasn't been fully built out yet but yet they know what the goal is, they
know what the demand should be should it be fully developed, that would be taken into account.
MR. TUCKER-But the traffic study is ongoing now.
MR. TRAVER-That's right. As long as they're aware of it, sure.
MR. TUCKER-So there are changes that could happen that would affect the traffic study.
MR. TRAVER-Absolutely. That's why we have to repeat them periodically.
MR. TUCKER-That seems like a little bit of a waste of money.
MR. TRAVER-I don't disagree. It depends on how sensitive the issue of traffic is in a particular
area. If it's particularly sensitive and it becomes an onerous issue for the Town and people to
deal with then the information needs to be current and needs to be accurate. That's what
drives the study.
MR. TUCKER-Mine is sort of at the end, at the far end of the site, but there's a project coming
up that's right in the middle of it, the one that's going to happen on the corner of 149 and 9.
MR. TRAVER-And you think that's going to impact on this application?
MR. TUCKER-It might. I have no idea.
aa.,�uuuuIlii. Ih.uuull`r II III:,,IIiiIIiiIIIr""iip.0 II � I II`�:u n:.„�`„ n�`."a� p �
MR. TRAVER-Okay.
MR. TUCKER-But the one gentleman stated about the truck traffic. They've got to follow some
corridor to get there.
MR. TRAVER-Sure, yes, agreed.
MR. MAGOWAN-But I believe the traffic study that they're working on, because we got part of it,
wasn't it from 149 up to Round Pond Road?
MR. TRAVER-Yes, I believe so.
MR. MAGOWAN-Right. It's not going all the way up to Aviation Road.
MR. TRAVER-No, not the one that we're.
MR. TUCKER-But the new one is going from Walmart, the way I understand it, all the way up to
149.
MR. MAGOWAN-That's that new one that the EDC is putting together in conjunction with
Warren County.
MR. TUCKER-Right, according to The Post Star. I still don't understand how you can make a
decision without having that traffic study in front of you.
MR. DEEB-Well, things are always changing constantly as far as projects coming and going.
So you can't take every project into consideration, every future project. We can only deal with
what we have now.
MR. TUCKER-That's sort of like, the way I look at it it would be like building a house. I mean,
you've got to have a plan, and if the carpenter puts the wall where the bath tub should be, then
it's got to change and that change is going to cost somebody money and time.
MR. TRAVER-Well a lot of it in the review process, both at the Town level and at our level, has
to do with the different, the various factors involved in an application and the example you give,
traffic, how big an issue is that or potential issue is that for a particular application? Now if
there's something going on in the Miracle Half Mile or whatever they're calling it these days, that
they know there's some, we know there's some traffic issues there. So clearly that would be
something that would be fairly high up on the list. Down here with the kind of traffic that we
have been presented thus far by the applicant, at least it's my general sense that traffic is not a,
at least volume of traffic, is not a significant issue. Now if you want to talk about the type of
traffic and the type of road service and so on, that's a site plan issue not a traffic.
MR. TUCKER-Right. I understand.
MR. TRAVER-1 understand what your concern is.
MR. TUCKER-Okay. Thank you.
MR. TRAVER-Anyone else? Okay. Let's see. Then we will close the public hearing and we
do have a, this is a SEQR Unlisted.
PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED
MR. TRAVER-If the applicant would like to come back up to the table, and we find the resolution
that we need to do here.
MR. SHULER-Mr. Chairman, may the applicant respond to some of the comments?
MR. TRAVER-Absolutely. Sure. Not a bad idea. So we've had some public comment
regarding I guess some concerns about volume, more particularly at least what I was hearing
was the type of traffic and perhaps the direction of flow, the concern that possibly some of the
tenants that you would be recruiting for your new facility might at least potentially draw a high
volume of shipping and therefore trucking and so on, and that raises concerns with regard to
safety in general, and then there were some other concerns about lighting I think, what the
perceived need was for some extra lighting you had proposed. Do you want to try address any
of those concerns?
aa.,�uuuuIlii. Ih.uuull`r II III:,,IIiiIIiiIIIr""iip.0 II � I II`�:u n:.„�`„ n�`."a� p �
MR. DOBIE-Yes. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. For the record, again, Lucas Dobie with Hutchins
Engineering. Regarding the lighting, I believe that Mr. Valenti's letter said pole mounted
lighting. I just want to note the lighting that is not shown on our plan, we show a building
mounted, essentially security lights at each man door on the back of the building, none of the 20
foot pole mounted lights along Weeks Road. We do have those along the southerly edge of the
parking, right in line with the liquor store parking. So there's, it's a pretty standard, just a
security light above the man door. We did want to get those on the plan so there's no question
later on. The trucking question, the question I had and I heard in the letter last night from Mr.
Valenti, I wonder if Mr. Brown could re-read a portion of it, in the second paragraph I think they
made a suggestion on where they would like the truck traffic to go, and I'm not sure if I heard it
correctly.
MR. TRAVER-Okay. That would be helpful, Craig, if you could accommodate that.
MR. BROWN-Sure. "I feel that the proposed interconnect on the West side of the building
should be eliminated. Along the west side of the building they have a large proposed
interconnect to the Walmart parking lot. We are concerned about the traffic pattern. I feel as
though the easiest way for the trucks to exit the site would be going along Weeks Road and
entering onto the Walmart property through the 70 foot Walmart curb cut along Weeks Road.
They will then enter the proposed site through the large proposed interconnect on the West side
of the property. This will create an easier exit from the proposed site onto Route 9. Any other
way creates a difficult exit for trucks from the proposed site. The applicant already has an
existing interconnect to the Walmart property on the south side of the proposed building. The
Walmart customers can easily access this site from the south side of the existing interconnect."
So that sounded like rather than have the vehicles come in on Weeks Road directly onto the
site, to send them further down Weeks Road and into the truck entrance on Walmart and then
come back to the east onto the site.
MS. WHITE-1 think it's actually the opposite was the concern prior to that. Because the actual
cut off of Weeks Road was never intended for truck traffic, and that's what Mr. Valenti's concern
is, is that the trucks automatically want to use that off of Weeks Road because it's easier for
them to get in and out, but originally all truck traffic was to come into Walmart off of Route 9.
Am I incorrect in that?
MR. TRAVER-Through the Walmart curb cut.
MS. WHITE-And not off of Weeks Road.
MR. BROWN-For the Walmart site. I was just trying to interpret what this letter sounded like, to
send the trucks down Weeks Road further.
MS. WHITE-Okay.
MR. DOBIE-I'm still a little lost. My interpretation was what Mr. Brown said.
MR. TRAVER-Okay. Well, perhaps if you wouldn't mind, take the microphone with you and
let's review it so we make sure we understand. All right. So why don't you show us what
you're proposing in your design and then reflect upon the concern Mr. Valenti raised.
MR. DOBIE-Sure. Our proposal and we imagined truck traffic being mostly the six wheeler box
vans and making the turn onto Weeks Road where the asphalt is the widest is approximately 24
feet wide, the normal width of the road. Here it's about 70 feet wide because it's essentially
paved right along the liquor store now and the trash access is here for the liquor store and so
we thought we'd piggyback that for this building and then since the curb cut is really wide here,
to just continue a 12 foot wide entrance only for the service suppliers for the store and then
direct them no through traffic to the west and subsequently back to the Walmart loading dock
area, to direct them south through our new parking area and then through the interconnect to
the Walmart light.
MR. TRAVER-So they would come in by the curb cut to the north on Weeks Road.
MR. DOBIE-Yes, sir.
MR. TRAVER-And go around the backside of the new facility you're proposing and do their
business and exit out the light, the lighted intersection at Walmart. Correct?
MR. DOBIE-That is correct, Mr. Chairman.
baa
aa.,�uuuuIlii. Ih.uuull`r II III:,,IIiiIIiiIIIr""iip.0 II � I II`�:u n:.„�`„ n�`."a� p �
MR. TRAVER-Okay, and now what's your interpretation of the concern raised by the public?
MR. DOBIE-My interpretation from the letter, I'm probably wrong, was I thought they said to
continue farther along Weeks Road to the Walmart where all the loading docks are and then
come through and to our site, and then back out, which clearly that's not a good option in our
opinion to direct traffic that far down Weeks Road towards the residential area. So that's why
we propose this essentially ring road to the service road.
MR. TRAVER-Now can we establish, you know, hypothetically could we establish some signage
that would ensure that the vehicles servicing your facility would not do that? In other words you
would direct them specifically, if they're making deliveries or whatever to your facility, that they
would have signage there that would indicate, you know, turn in here, do not continue type of
thing.
MR. DOBIE-Correct. I can envision what the plaza's going to be called, Queensbury Square
service entrance only sign here and then signage of do not exit across Walmart, all traffic south
would be our signage, and then an entrance only sign which I think we did delineate, or we said
no entrance signs here so none of the patrons try to get out through this side or back through
Weeks Road. So we would envision it there.
MR. TRAVER-Okay.
MR. HUNSINGER-1 have two follow up questions for you. What size trucks deliver to the liquor
store now?
MR. LIU-Just the small box truck.
MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. Would a tractor trailer, could a tractor trailer use the, could they fit in
the turning radius with the new project?
MR. DOBIE-They could fit. Obviously I'm sure they would turn into Weeks Road to get to
Walmart, guys are not familiar with the area, so they could make the left. If you get down in this
end, now I'm going to.
MR. HUNSINGER-Yes, that's what I thought, too.
MR. DOBIE-I've been in trucking my whole life and a tractor trailer could not make that turn
without banging the building.
MR. TRAVER-So if a particular delivery calls upon, I guess you'd call it an eighteen wheeler,
they're going to have to ignore those signs and go all the way to the Walmart area and back out
again. Right? Just what the public is talking about.
MR. HUNSINGER-Well my question is how would they get in? How would they get in to
deliver?
MR. DOBIE-Right now it would have to be coordinated with the store. Typically like the
truckers call ahead, where do you want us to come in. So the onus is on the store owners to
direct them to come through the south entrance of Walmart and they'd probably unload on this
end.
MR. TRAVER-1 see.
MR. DOBIE-Yes. Because even to turn into the liquor store is too tight for an eighteen
wheelers.
MR. TRAVER-So you'd have to go the other way around, and I guess I would ask the same
question then with regard to signage. Can you put something out on the Weeks Road area that
would indicate that the 18 wheelers should not turn off of Route 9 onto Weeks Road?
MR. DOBIE-Somewhere out here, Mr. Chairman, before they made the turn?
MR. TRAVER-Right. I mean I know there's a limitation on where you can place the signs.
MR. DOBIE-But we do own the property all the way to this corner.
MR. TRAVER-Right.
aa.,�uuuuIlii. Ih.uuull`r II III:,,IIiiIIiiIIIr""iip.0 II � I II`�:u n:.„�`„ n�`."a� p �
MR. DOBIE-That could be something to be considered, sure.
MR. TRAVER-Okay. Did the applicant follow along with this discussion? Did you hear any of
those issues as problematic?
MR. LIU-The way I look at it, it doesn't make sense why you want the truck traffic to go all the
way down to the Walmart entrance.
MR. TRAVER-We don't. That's what we want to avoid.
MR. FORD-We want to eliminate that possibility.
MR. TRAVER-So, Number One, we want the trucks, if possible, to be limited to the six wheel
type trucks, which you had indicated previously was your intention anyway. That's Number
One. Number Two, signage that directs them to turn into the back of your facility where that
access road is being constructed to accommodate them, so that they know that it's there and
they know to turn in there and use it. Otherwise by default they'll just keep going. Right? We
don't want that to happen. And then the other item would be, and there was discussion about
alerting the customer traffic to not go counterclockwise behind the building the other way.
Because you certainly don't want that to happen either, and then the other thing would be some
kind of policy with your vendors that you're dealing with, suppliers, that if they have to bring an
18 wheeler of some kind, Number One, that you, explain to them that they need to come
through the other way around. They need to come through the Walmart lights and access your
facility from that Walmart side, and then signage put up on Weeks Road to discourage large
trucks from turning in that road to begin with, and hopefully between those different things. So
my question is, does that seem feasible? Do you see any problem doing that?
MR. LIU-Right now the delivery trucks all have a certain time that they can show up. So I can
incorporate into the delivery policy with the specific instructions. I think it's feasible. I can do it.
MR. TRAVER-Okay. Any other questions, comments from members of the Planning Board?
MR. MAGOWAN-Well also what was brought up in the letter, too, was the dumpster area. So I
see the truck coming in, especially if it's a front loader, pick up, dump, all right, and then it backs
out, and I know there's a lot of kids that walk up and down Weeks Road to catch the bus there,
and you've got the noise and the beep, beep and the bap, bap, you know, but you have your
three bins right there and I'm worried about backing out Weeks Road and going back down to
Route 9, or do they back up and they follow out the exit route that you have them planned?
MS. WHITE-What do they do now? How do they pickup garbage now?
MR. LIU-They come in Weeks Road.
MS. WHITE-And do they back onto?
MR. DEEB-Onto Weeks Road?
MR. HUNSINGER-Well right now they don't have, unless they went all the way around into that
access road.
MR. TRAVER-Yes, but they're basically picking up these things, dumping them, setting them
back down and then leaving, right?
MR. LIU-Yes.
MR. TRAVER-So if they do that, would they be able to take the same loop that the delivery
trucks take? Around behind the building and out?
MR. DOBIE-That service road would facilitate those, Mr. Chairman. The turning radius would
be similar to the six wheel delivery vans. So that would be a nice option there.
MR. MAGOWAN-We talked a six wheel box truck, but also I've seen like, you know, the fifth
wheel, sixth wheel, where it's a smaller tractor trailer.
MR. DOBIE-Single axel.
MR. MAGOWAN-Single axel tractor trailer delivery, and like I said, that is a pretty sharp radius
down here.
nQ
aa.,�uuuuIlii. Ih.uuull`r II III:,,IIiiIIiiIIIr""iip.0 II � I II`�:u n:.„�`„ n�`."a� p �
MR. FORD-Signage for truckers would be pretty important.
MR. MAGOWAN-But if the trucker shows up and the signage is there, I can pretty much
guarantee you he's going to do what's best for him.
MR. TRAVER-Right. That would be the hope.
MR. MAGOWAN-And then Monty would have to run out there yelling and screaming and throw
empty bottles.
MR. DEEB-I have a question, and it's probably not relevant to this, but when Walmart gets
deliveries with tractor trailers, how is that implemented? Does anybody know?
MR. VALENTI-What was that again, now?
MR. DEEB-When Walmart gets their deliveries, where do tractor trailers come in and deliver?
MR. VALENTI-They go down Weeks Road. Everybody knows that Weeks Road is the best
way to get to Walmart. They go in the side entrance and that was something we went over 13
years ago.
MS. WHITE-So signage at the end of Weeks Road that talks about deliveries will actually assist
with that problem as well.
MR. DEEB-No tractor trailers, no semi's.
MR. MAGOWAN-Put a weight limit on the road.
MR. TUCKER-Weeks Road is way too narrow a road for tractor trailers period.
MR. VALENT-And it's happening. Walmart, you know Walmart. I don't have to tell you about
Walmart.
MR. BROWN-Yes. Mr. Chairman, we've addressed that with the Walmart crew, the manager
of the store, and he's kind of chased it up the corporate chain. They've made improvements to
it. Have tractor trailers been up and down Weeks Road in the past? Yes. I think that's
improved greatly over the last couple of months where we've told them to make those
corrections and changes. You still do get truck traffic on that road. The box trucks, the moving
size trucks that move people in and out of apartments. You're still going to get that size trucks
in there, but the tractor trailers for the most part, it's my understanding they're taking their
prescribed route through the Walmart site and leaving the same way.
MR. DEEB-You're staying on top of this.
MR. BROWN-Yes, absolutely.
MR. TRAVER-Thank you for that.
MR. SHAFER-So, Craig, a sign out at Route 9 would be another belt and suspenders.
MR. BROWN-It couldn't hurt.
MR. DEEB-Yes, I like that idea.
MR. MAGOWAN-Thank you, Craig.
MR. TRAVER-All right. Anything else? Let's see. We have to do the SEQR resolution. So
are there any environmental impacts that we have not discussed and that the applicant has not
addressed in those discussions that we need to mention in the SEQR resolution? I guess we're
ready for the resolution.
RESOLUTION GRANTING A NEGATIVE SEQR DEC. SP # 76-2017 QUEENSBURY
SQUARE, LLC
The applicant proposes a new 5,460 sq. ft. commercial building with potential for six unit retail
areas. Project site currently contains 7,000 sq. ft. liquor store. Project includes new parking
area, stormwater, lighting and landscaping. Project includes existing interconnects to Walmart
"n .
aa.,�uuuuIlii. Ih.uuull`r II III:,,IIiiIIiiIIIr""iip.0 II � I II`�:u n:.„�`„ n�`."a� p �
parking/drive area. Pursuant to Chapter 179-3-040 of the Zoning Ordinance, new commercial
construction shall be subject to Planning Board review and approval.
The Planning Board has determined that the proposed project and Planning Board action is
subject to review under the State Environmental Quality Review Act;
The proposed action considered by this Board is Unlisted in the Department of Environmental
Conservation Regulations implementing the State Environmental Quality Review Act and the
regulations of the Town of Queensbury;
No Federal or other agencies are involved;
Part 1 of the Short EAF has been completed by the applicant;
Upon review of the information recorded on this EAF, it is the conclusion of the Town of
Queensbury Planning Board as lead agency that this project will result in no significant adverse
impacts on the environment, and, therefore, an environmental impact statement need not be
prepared. Accordingly, this negative declaration is issued.
MOTION TO GRANT A NEGATIVE DECLARATION FOR SITE PLAN 76-2017
QUEENSBURY SQUARE, LLC, Introduced by Mr. Deeb who moved for its adoption.
As per the resolution prepared by staff.
1. Part II of the Short EAF has been reviewed and completed by the Planning Board.
2. Part III of the Short EAF is not necessary because the Planning Board did not identify
potentially moderate to large impacts.
Motion seconded by Mr. Magowan. Duly adopted this 21St day of December, 2017 by the
following vote:
MR. BROWN-1 have a question real quick.
MR. TRAVER-Sure.
MR. BROWN-Not to be the buzz kill here, but not having sat here, Laura does this most of the
time. My question is, do you guys usually go through these 11 questions and answer yes, no
on the record?
MR. TRAVER-We do, should, members of the Board when we initiate the resolution process, if
members raise specific issues, then we go through it in detail. Otherwise we use the default
motion that's been prepared.
MR. BROWN-Okay.
MR. TRAVER-And that's why I started by asking that question. I didn't hear any concern that
felt that we needed to go beyond the draft resolution, but, yes, we do that occasionally.
MR. BROWN-Okay. So again for record keeping purposes, we have to keep the file up to date,
so we're going to fill these out with noes and you're going to sign it at the end of the meeting?
MR. TRAVER-Correct.
MR. BROWN-Okay. Thank you.
AYES: Mr. Ford, Mr. Hunsinger, Mr. Magowan, Mr. Shafer, Mr. Deeb, Ms. White, Mr. Traver
NOES: NONE
MR. TRAVER-All right. So now we move to the, and we're going to need to be specific I think
on this. So at the intersection of Weeks and Route 9 signs that indicate no 18 wheeler
vehicles. No tractor trailers. Then we want, then at the rear of the Queensbury Square
complex where the delivery driveway is to be constructed we want signage indicating that
deliveries pointed in that direction off Weeks Road, utilize the entrance, like the delivery
driveway or whatever at the rear of Queensbury Square. Just, deliveries, delivery drivers with
just an arrow pointing, to take that off of Weeks where the compactor is, or the garbage. And I
think last but not least a sign on the west side of the southern, the parking lot to the south of the
aa.,�uuuuIlii. Ih.uuull`r II III:,,IIiiIIiiIIIr""iip.0 II � I II`�:u n:.„�`„ n�`."a� p �
Queensbury Square building saying no entrance, and that would be so that trucks wouldn't turn
in there, so that customers wouldn't turn in there, if you know where I mean. So if you see to
the south of the new facility you see parking spaces. On the left side you see where delivery
trucks would come out after they make their delivery. We don't want people going in there,
either the trucks or customers. So just a no entry. Because they're going to be going into an
area where the garbage is. They could potentially be interfering with trucks. All right. So in
addition to the one that's already on the plan, what we're talking about adding as conditions is a
sign at the intersection of Weeks and Route 9 indicating no tractor trailer traffic on that road.
Then in the middle of the rear of the Queensbury Square complex where the delivery trucks are
supposed to turn off Weeks Road and enter that service road at the rear of the building there
would be a directional sign indicating that deliveries go in that direction, and apparently there's
already a plan. I didn't notice that. There's already a plan saying no entrance to that for
traffic.
MR. MAGOWAN-We're going to put signs up at the parking lot that would eliminate any trucks
from turning and going into the north side parking lot in the back corner that says, you know, the
arrow goes around the building and brings you back out. I mean that's where I would put the
sign back there. You have the signs over here so people don't go any further out of the parking
lot, but, you know, signs on either side, you know, do not enter, so they won't go out this parking
lot because you'll have truck drivers come out here.
MR. TRAVER-Are you talking about additional signage on Weeks Road?
MR. MAGOWAN-No, no, no. The interconnect where you have cars coming in this way, a box
truck would go here and go out this way because it would be easier than coming all the way
through this stuff, you know. So they'd come this way and go out this way and go back down
Weeks Road, and that's what we want to prevent.
MR. TRAVER-So you're saying no entry.
MR. MAGOWAN-No entry into this. It's only an entrance from that parking lot. Correct?
MR. DOBIE-1 believe there is a leader on there, on that S-2 stating that, Mr. Magowan.
MR. MAGOWAN-Property right turn only.
MR. DOBIE-And above that it says proposed do not enter.
MR. MAGOWAN-I'm not seeing that.
MS. WHITE-It's next to the bushes.
MR. TRAVER-Well, we can add it to the.
MR. MAGOWAN-You've got the do not enter down here.
MS. WHITE-You see it? It's next to the little bushes. Proposed do not enter sign.
MR. TRAVER-Well, we can add it to the resolution.
MR. HUNSINGER-Yes, 1 see it. Yes, do not enter.
MR. MAGOWAN-All right.
MR. TRAVER-So then the only additional signs we need are the two we discussed. Okay. So
with regard to the resolution, we added the additional conditions of the two signage areas that
are not currently on the proposal, the one being the intersection of 9 and Weeks Road and the
other being at the rear of the building where the, we want to direct the delivery trucks off Weeks
Road to the access road that the applicant is installing as part of the project. Does anyone
have any concerns that we need any additional signage beyond those two additional ones and
the ones that are already on the plan? I'm not hearing any. I guess we're ready for that
resolution.
RESOLUTION APPROVING SP # 76-2017 QUEENSBURY SQUARE, LLC
The applicant has submitted an application to the Planning Board: Applicant proposes a new
5,460 sq. ft. commercial building with potential for six unit retail areas. Project site currently
contains 7,000 sq. ft. liquor store. Project includes new parking area, stormwater, lighting and
I �
h I „�`„ ,
�uuu�u�Ilii. Ih.uuull`r II III:,,IIiiIIiiIIIr""iip.0 II �� II`�:u n:. n�`."a� p �
landscaping. Project includes existing interconnects to Walmart parking/drive area. Pursuant to
Chapter 179-3-040 of the Zoning Ordinance, new commercial construction shall be subject to
Planning Board review and approval.
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;
As required by General Municipal Law Section 239-m the site plan application was referred to
the Warren County Planning Department for its recommendation;
The Planning Board has reviewed the potential environmental impacts of the project, pursuant
to the State Environmental Quality Review Act (SEQRA) and adopted a SEQRA Negative
Declaration — Determination of Non-Significance
The Planning Board opened a public hearing on the Site plan application on 12/21/17 and
continued the public hearing to 12/21/17, when it was closed,
The Planning Board has reviewed the application materials submitted by the applicant and all
comments made at the public hearing and submitted in writing through and including 12/21/17;
The Planning Board determines that the application complies with the review considerations and
standards set forth in Article 9 of the Zoning Ordinance for Site Plan approval,
MOTION TO APPROVE SITE PLAN 76-2017 QUEENSBURY SQUARE, LLC; Introduced by
Mr. Deeb who moved for its adoption.
According to the draft resolution prepared by Staff with the following:
1) Adherence to the items outlined in the follow-up letter sent with this resolution.
a) The limits of clearing will constitute a no-cut buffer zone, orange construction
fencing shall be installed around these areas and field verified by Community
Development staff;
b) If applicable, the Sanitary Sewer connection plan must be submitted to the
Wastewater Department for its review, approval, permitting and inspection;
c) If curb cuts are being added or changed a driveway permit is required. A building
permit will not be issued until the approved driveway permit has been provided to the
Planning Office;
d) If application was referred to engineering then Engineering sign-off required prior to
signature of Zoning Administrator of the approved plans;
e) Final approved plans should have dimensions and setbacks noted on the site
plan/survey, floor plans and elevation for the existing rooms and proposed rooms in the
building and site improvements;-
f) If required, the applicant must submit a copy of the following to the Town:
a. The project NOI (Notice of Intent) for coverage under the current "NYSDEC
SPDES General Permit from Construction Activity" prior to the start of any site
work.
b. The project NOT (Notice of Termination) upon completion of the project;
c. The applicant must maintain on their project site, for review by staff:
i. The approved final plans that have been stamped by the Town Zoning
Administrator. These plans must include the project SWPPP (Storm
Water Pollution Prevention Plan) when such a plan was prepared and
approved;
ii. The project NOI and proof of coverage under the current NYSDEC
SPDES General Permit, or an individual SPDES permit issued for the
project if required.
g) Final approved plans, in compliance with the Site Plan, must be submitted to the
Community Development Department before any further review by the Zoning
Administrator or Building and Codes personnel;
h) The applicant must meet with Staff after approval and prior to issuance of
Building Permit and/or the beginning of any site work;
i) Subsequent issuance of further permits, including building permits is dependent on
compliance with this and all other conditions of this resolution;
j) As-built plans to certify that the site plan is developed according to the approved plans to
be provided prior to issuance of the certificate of occupancy.
k) This resolution is to be placed in its entirety on the final plans;
I) Signage prohibits no tractor trailer traffic at the corner of Route 9 and Weeks Road.
aa.,�uuuuIlii. Ih.uuull`r II III:,,IIiiIIiiIIIr""iip.0 II � I II`�:u n:.„�`„ n�`."a� p �
m) Signage at the entrance of the rear of the building properties to indicate deliveries to
retail stores.
n) Colors to have the Adirondack Theme consistent with the submission.
Seconded by Mr. Shafer. Duly adopted this 21 st day of December, 2017 by the following vote:
MR. TRAVER-So are you clear on where those two additional signs are to go?
MR. LIU-Yes.
MR. TRAVER-All right. Any discussion?
MR. HUNSINGER-Yes, I'd like to add an amendment. I'm sorry I didn't think about it before.
That the color scheme be consistent with the color photo that's been provided.
MR. TRAVER-Yes, okay.
MR. HUNSINGER-1 don't think we need to have specific colors, but just that it be.
MR. TRAVER-As presented.
MR. HUNSINGER-Yes. Okay. So we'll add that.
AYES: Mr. Hunsinger, Mr. Magowan, Mr. Shafer, Mr. Deeb, Ms. White, Mr. Ford, Mr. Traver
NOES: NONE
MR. TRAVER-AII right. You're all set. Good luck.
MR. SHULER-Thank you very much.
MR. TRAVER-All right. The next section of the agenda is under New Business. The first
application is that of John Ellis, Site Plan 73-2017.
NEW BUSINESS:
SITE PLAN NO. 73-2017 SEAR TYPE: TYPE II. JOHN ELLIS. OWNER(S): SAME AS
APPLICANT. ZONING: WR. LOCATION: 54 SUNNYSIDE ROAD NORTH.
APPLICANT PROPOSES TO COMPLETE SHORELINE TERRACE PROJECT — INCLUDES
TWO WALL SECTIONS UNDER CONSTRUCTION, ONE NEW WALL NEAR TOP RAMP
AND ONE WALL AREA TO BE WIDENED NEAR SHORELINE. PURSUANT TO CHAPTER
179-3-040 OF THE ZONING ORDINANCE, HARD SURFACING WITHIN 50 FT. OF
SHORELINE SHALL BE SUBJECT TO PLANNING BOARD REVIEW AND APPROVAL.
CROSS REFERENCE: AV 47-2012 LOT LINE ADJ; SITE INFORMATION: CEA, GLEN
LAKE. LOT SIZE: .56 ACRES. TAX MAP NO. 289.17-1-47. SECTION: 179-6-050
JOHN ELLIS, PRESENT; JIM STARK, PRESENT
MR. BROWN-This is an application, the applicant has begun some site improvements, hard
surfacing and filling, retaining walls within 50 feet of the shoreline. So it's a review and
approval to I guess complete the work that's already begun.
MR. TRAVER-Okay. Good evening.
MR. ELLIS-Good evening.
MR. TRAVER-Tell us about your project, and state your name for the record, please.
MR. ELLIS-Okay. My name is John Ellis. This is my co-worker Jim Stark and we started this
wall. We had some problems before with a tree coming down and the roots were uprooted and
the tree was removed and I felt that there was going to be some erosion problems so we took
the stump out and decided to build a wall there for the soil and we felt that it would be better
here because everybody seems to want to go down that way, which has been, those walls have
been there I'd say 12 years or more and never had a problem, but that tree made me feel like I
should do something to that area.
MR. TRAVER-And this is after the tree fell over?
"ii
aa.,�uuuuIlii. Ih.uuull`r II III:,,IIiiIIiiIIIr""iip.0 II � I II`�:u n:.„�`„ n�`."a� p �
MR. ELLIS-After the tree fell over and I've been looking at that and noticed that there's a lot of
stuff in the ground, broken glass, wagon parts, all that. So that wall sort of cleaned that whole
area up. We built that wall and made it safe.
MR. TRAVER-Okay. All right. Anything else?
MR. ELLIS-Not at this time.
MR. TRAVER-Okay. Questions, comments from members of the Planning Board? This is
evidently a work in progress along the shoreline. I know that there was some confusion or
maybe concern that your drawings are not quite as detailed as some of the ones we're used to
looking at. I understand you prepared them yourself.
MR. ELLIS-That's right.
MR. TRAVER-But thank you for submitting them in any case. Sometimes that can make it a
little difficult to interpret exactly what's going on.
MR. ELLIS-Right.
MR. DEEB-Staff has a request that maybe more information about erosion control during
construction. Can you address that?
MR. ELLIS-I'm sorry, say again?
MR. DEEB-Staff's a little concerned about erosion control during construction. How do you
plan to implement that?
MR. TRAVER-Putting up silt fencing?
MR. ELLIS-That is pretty much done now. The erosion is not a factor right now.
MR. DEEB-You're still constructing.
MR. ELLIS-Well, I would like to finish off the wings of it so that it sort of ties into the ramp, and
as water will go down straight, it's not going to erode anymore because they have those flat
areas which have the fabric in there that allows the water to proceed and any dirt to stay behind.
That's all done. It's backfilled with river stone, like cobblestone, and then there's the
reinforcement mesh that ties back, like a tie back, and then there's the fabric that goes over
that, the topsoil.
MR. DEEB-Well how much more construction do you have to do?
MR. ELLIS-How much?
MR. DEEB-More construction do you have to do?
MR. ELLIS-1 want to take and build another wall in front of the low wall and take down the other
wall so I can put some of that river stone behind there. Because that really makes a difference
as far as letting the water through and not freeze and expand and make the wall fail.
MR. DEEB-And while you're doing that, how will you control the erosion from going into the lake
as you're doing the construction?
MR. ELLIS-There will be silt fences, yes.
MR. DEEB-That's what we're concerned about.
MR. MAGOWAN-So you want to add the wings?
MR. ELLIS-Yes. It's a matter of, the first wall down by the shore is done basically probably just
make like a return on the wall near that one tree. I was going underneath the tree but maybe it
would be better to not have it underneath the tree and just tie it off right there, and it's all
backfilled with the rocks and then the fabric goes around that and so the water will go through
and not erode anything. And so on the second tier I want to go into the ramp, which is already
existing, that comes down at like a diagonal, and so these horizontal walls will have a ramp,
they'll tie into that ramp, that will take care of the water going onto the flat surfaces.
h I „�`„ ,
�uuu�u�Ilii. Ih.uuull`r II III:,,IIiiIIiiIIIr""iip.0 II �� II`�:u n:. n�`."a� p �
MR. FORD-What percentage of this project has already been completed?
MR. ELLIS-Let's see, 35 feet of the wall down by the lake is done, and up above about 29 feet
is done, about four, five feet high, four feet high. I want to do one more further up that will be
like three foot that'll be shorter yet because the way the property runs it's like at a diagonal
going up the hill, and so down by the lake it's a little bit bigger and then shorter and then shorter
yet.
MR. FORD-So to answer the question, is it two thirds completed already?
MR. ELLIS-Would you say two thirds? Maybe half. Maybe two thirds. I'm not sure. There are
existing walls there that are going to stay and just get firmed up if they have to have, because
after 12 years the grounds settles, roots grow, and, you know, you might just want to put some
stone under them and make them all look pretty again, but it's doing its job. Nothing's
happened to that bank at all over these years, except that one tree coming down.
MR. FORD-Well I agree that the plans leave something to be desired, and when and if we
approve this, there will be inspections and they're going to be looking at these plans and need
to confirm that the work being completed follows these outlines.
MR. ELLIS-It's drawn as scaled.
MR. SHAFER-So, Mr. Ellis, in looking at these prospective drawing, so you're saying that one
and two have been built, three you want to do. Do you have that in front of you?
MR. STARK-What sheet is that, sir?
MS. WHITE-It's one that he's got up there.
MR. SHAFER-That one there. There are numbers on each of the walls.
MR. ELLIS-Right.
MR. SHAFER-And I just wanted to confirm, one and two have been built, but you want to add to
Number Two.
MR. ELLIS-Yes.
MR. SHAFER-Three you want to build.
MR. ELLIS-Right.
MR. SHAFER-Four, five, six, seven and eight are already existing?
MR. ELLIS-That's correct.
MR. SHAFER-Okay.
MR. STARK-Just to clarify, sir. Four, it is existing and it has been existing. That's not a new
wall that we did anything with, but that is one that we did want to move out two feet to be able to
put in the river stone and silt screen and sand to improve the runoff control.
MR. FORD-By move out, you mean extend it or replace it?
MR. STARK-Not make it any bigger than it is. We're replacing it.
MR. SHAFER-You're three feet from the property line right now. Which way are you going to
move it?
MR. STARK-Okay. Towards the property line, sir.
MR. SHAFER-Is Wall Number One right at the property line?
MR. ELLIS-Yes.
MR. FORD-So you want to come within a foot of the property line with this wall extension?
MR. MAGOWAN-Or even with Number One?
aa.,�uuuuIlii. Ih.uuull`r II III:,,IIiiIIiiIIIr""iip.0 II � I II`�:u n:.„�`„ n�`."a� p �
MR. STARK-Number One is already built.
MR. MAGOWAN-And that's right on the line, give or take.
MR. ELLIS-Well, it has a footer, which is a two foot long block that they manufacture that allows
it to be behind, and you put the river rock on top. That puts some weight so it doesn't tip over,
and so the wall is like four inches back of the property line because the footer which is white, the
wall is red, you know, maroon like. The four inches would be right up at the line and the wall is
like four inches back. Do you understand?
MR. MAGOWAN-Yes. So basically you want to bring Number Four in line with Number One
when you do it?
MR. ELLIS-No, it won't be.
MR. STARK-As proposed it's still going to be three feet back.
MR. ELLIS-Yes. Proposed will be three foot back. We're further back.
MR. MAGOWAN-All right. So you're going to jog it to the back side of that big tree.
MR. STARK-Right.
MR. MAGOWAN-It will be in line with the tree at the other end.
MR. STARK-Yes.
MR. MAGOWAN-Now you're leaving enough for those trees to grow bigger?
MR. ELLIS-Yes. We'll have the rocks in and around, the small rocks.
MR. FORD-Where do they show on your drawing?
MR. ELLIS-Well, the only way I show a cross section of the wall being built, or has been built
shows the wall going straight up and the rocks behind, then the reinforcement mesh, but that
won't be as, Number Four wall won't be as filled in. The bank is steep.
MR. FORD-How are we going to approve something that part of it already exists and part of it
won't be the way it's presented. I really don't have a great comfort level with this.
MR. TRAVER-Right. Well, we can't approve something that's not being constructed the way
it's before us. We can approve, hypothetically we can approve what we have before us, but if
this doesn't represent the intent, then it obviously needs to be changed to reflect that intent so
that we're looking at what we are actually being asked to approve.
MR. FORD-Good clarification. Now the question is do these drawings represent the intent?
MR. ELLIS-Yes. I'm sorry, what are you saying?
MR. FORD-Do these drawings that you have presented to us tonight represent what you intend
to do, what you've already done and what you intend to do and they represent a finished
product?
MR. ELLIS-Correct. As far as the One, Two and Three and Four are going to be the changes.
The ramp is going to be sort of figured out, to each one. It's easy to see but it's not easy to
say.
MS. WHITE-What is the ramp used for?
MR. ELLIS-Just access.
MS. WHITE-Walking, cars?
MR. ELLIS-No, no, it's just a pathway.
MS. WHITE-It's a pathway.
aa.,�uuuuIlii. Ih.uuull`r II III:,,IIiiIIiiIIIr""iip.0 II � I II`�:u n:.„�`„ n�`."a� p �
MR. FORD-When you start talking about sort of I start looking at sort of voting no. Because if
you don't know, then it's hard for me to envision something that you can't clarify and say this is
the way it's going to be, and here it is on paper.
MR. BROWN-Mr. Ford, if I could just ask a question because I may be one of the people going
out to inspect this when it gets constructed. So Number Four here on the screen, that's where
you want to build a wall. There's an existing wall behind it someplace? Is that what I heard
you say before?
MR. STARK-That's correct.
MR. BROWN-You're looking to construct this one. So the only thing that's missing from this
plan is the existing wall that's actually back here someplace?
MR. HUNSINGER-It is shown on the existing front view.
MR. BROWN-So it's just not on this drawing?
MR. HUNSINGER-Yes.
MR. BROWN-Okay.
MR. HUNSINGER-Yes, drawing B, yes, down in the left hand corner there's letters.
MR. BROWN-Okay. So Number Eight, and while we're on this one, this existing ramp here that
you had questions about, I've been to the site. I can tell you it's nothing more than a foot path
and it's barely that right now. Certainly not going to get any vehicles down there. Well you
might get them down there, but you're never going to get them back up. The site just isn't
conducive to that. I'm not trying to support it I'm just trying to explain. It's certainly not a
vehicular path.
MS. WHITE-No, I'm just trying to understand what the purpose of this.
MR. BROWN-So Number Eight you said, Chris?
MR. HUNSINGER-No, go up. It's Item B.
MR. TRAVER-It says existing front view.
MR. HUNSINGER-Existing front view.
MR. HUNSINGER-And at the bottom it shows the wall six foot back.
MR. BROWN-That's this one.
MR. HUNSINGER-Yes.
MS. WHITE-Okay. So that's where the three foot moving is.
MR. BROWN-About three feet in front of this existing wall right here.
MR. HUNSINGER-Yes, having the plans in front of me while he was explaining it, I was able to
understand it. I'm like all of you. When I was looking at it at home and trying to make heads or
tails out of it, but now I understand it. There's really just the one. There's two. There's the
existing front view and then the overview proposed, then he's got another layer.
MR. TRAVER-So, Craig, is it your understanding, your impression that Staff, in discussing this
with the applicant, feel comfortable that this represents what they have done and what they
intend?
MR. BROWN-1 can't speak for the intend, but certainly there are some components that have
been built and it looks like from what I understand from the drawings it makes sense to continue
what's already been built. This looks like it's representative of that.
MR. TRAVER-Well, I should clarify. When I say intend, I mean that as opposed to as built. In
other words, we've had people come in that have already done something, and we would
approve something that's already been done. We're not doing anymore. The applicant's got
both.
aa.,�uuuuIlii. Ih.uuull`r II III:,,IIiiIIiiIIIr""iip.0 II � I II`�:u n:.„�`„ n�`."a� p �
MR. BROWN-Not an as built, currently under construction.
MS. WHITE-So if you're going out to inspect this after this project is complete, you feel that this
is comparable? I mean, you can look at it and say, okay, yes, they did what they said they
were going to do based on this.
MR. BROWN-I'm going to try my best.
MS. WHITE-And I apologize but I am not an engineer, and maybe I'm a little spatially
challenged.
MR. BROWN-1 mean I've been to the site a few times and I've seen a couple of drawings. I
can kind of visualize what they have here thanks to Chris helping me figure out which wall is
which, but yes, I'm not uncomfortable.
MS. WHITE-Okay. That's what I need to hear.
MR. DEEB-You have to sign off on this. When it's done you've got to inspect it.
MR. BROWN-Yes.
MS. WHITE-Thank you.
MR. MAGOWAN-John, what is your background in life?
MR. ELLIS-I've done many things.
MR. TRAVER-Other than an artist and engineer.
MR. ELLIS-Okay. I have some construction experience. I have constructed the Flower Drum
Song Chinese Restaurant that's now Monty's Liquor Store.
MR. TRAVER-Yes, I complained about that the other night.
MR. ELLIS-1 built that.
MR. MAGOWAN-Not the construction. It was more that the restaurant wasn't there.
MR. TRAVER-Yes, I just said with the new project would you consider bringing back.
MR. ELLIS-So that's one thing. I built my own house I built this house that is here where the
retaining walls are.
MR. MAGOWAN-Well, I have to say I've been in construction for many, many years myself and
I've seen a lot of designs on napkins that have worked out well, but I really have to say it was
kind of hard to see it underneath the snow what you're doing, but after the walk through that
you've given us and having more time to listen and with the visual and with Craig, I feel, and you
did a really nice job. It really wasn't on the back of a napkin but I mean you have some thought
into this drawing. So I feel pretty comfortable that you'll follow your plan and understanding
what you're trying to do, you know, especially with this one, with the river rock and that,
understanding the floor and getting it back down to ground. I commend you for the time that
you put into this, and moving all that stuff is not easy. It's all heavy, and you don't have a
brother named Kenny do you?
MR. ELLIS-Yes, I do.
MR. MAGOWAN-I looked at you over in the corner and I said, boy, when I said Ellis, I said boy
he looks like a Ken.
MR. TRAVER-We also have a public hearing on this application. Are there folks in the
audience that wanted to address the Planning Board on this application this evening? Yes,
ma'am. Sir, if you wouldn't mind giving up the table.
PUBLIC HEARING OPENED
JOAN BOVEE
aa.,�uuuuIlii. Ih.uuull`r II III:,,IIiiIIiiIIIr""iip.0 II � I II`�:u n:.„�`„ n�`."a� p �
MS. BOVEE-Hi.
MR. TRAVER-Good evening.
MS. BOVEE-Joan Bovee, 1 Lakeview Drive. I live two houses away from Mr. Ellis' project,
which has been ongoing for 21 years. He's had a building permit for 21 years. The house is
not done. He's been working on these walls now for the past 15 years, maybe he said 12, and
like down by the lake there is a wall this far from the water, which is within the 50 feet of maybe
he should have had approval before he put it up, and I live two houses away, and that whole
side of the lake, there's no erosion problem now. I mean, he's dug up that whole backyard, but
whatever, it's like, it's going to be, in my opinion and some other people's, it'll never be finished.
The house will never be finished. I mean, I don't understand why the Town doesn't get after
him and other people, 21 years of a building permit and the house isn't done? And he's out
there all year now for the last year and a half he's been sawing rocks every day. I mean, if you
could hear it it's really annoying. I go out in my yard and I just have to go in the house. I can't
stand it. He has no consideration for the neighbors. He doesn't have to live there. We do,
and I think somebody should go and look at what he's done and proposes to do. It's a mess.
MR. TRAVER-Understood. Well, just so that you're aware, our purview this evening is the
specific application he has before us, which has to do with the wall that you spoke of.
MS. BOVEE-Walls, yes. There's a lot of them.
MR. TRAVER-Yes, thank you for that correction. Also the Town in fact has been out more than
once to visit this site. Now that, a part of the issue was prior to this evening we did not have a
written proposal or any kind of design element as to what the project was and what it was
intended to be. We now have that and if we move on this application at some point, putting this
project in writing and with a specific design compels the applicant to not only complete it but
complete it according to what he has submitted to the Town, and if you go to the
Queensbury.net website, you can access all of the drawings and all of the documents that have
been submitted with regards to this site. The other issues you raised with the house and
construction and the sawing and the other issues you have, those are not issues that are before
us this evening. If you feel that there are, you know, compliance or zoning or nuisance issues
you can certainly contact the Town or even law enforcement for that matter and make a
complaint, but our discussion this evening is narrowly defined by what he has asked us to
review on his behalf.
MS. BOVEE-Okay. All right. So I mean there really is no noise ordinance. I've done
everything I can, talked to everybody in the Town.
MR. TRAVER-Well there's been some discussion about that. There's technically not a noise
ordinance, but that does not preclude you from making a complaint.
MS. BOVEE-Okay. I did, and they said there's no noise ordinance. There's nothing they can
do, the Sheriff's Department anyway.
MR. TRAVER-Well there's different opinions about that. There may not be, they may not be
able to write a ticket, but I can assure you, as someone that was involved in law enforcement
myself years ago, if there are sufficient volume of concerns expressed particularly in a given
area about a particular issue, whether it be noise or anything else, there will be, the site will be
reviewed and there'll be some discussions taking place with that person. Whether or not they
can write a ticket or whatever, it's a matter of how big the issue is perceived to be.
MS. BOVEE-Okay. Now I mean I did look on line. I couldn't figure out the drawings at all, but
it did say he was, I think January next year until June next year is his project. So would that be,
if he were to be approved, he would have to have it done by that time?
MR. TRAVER-He would have to have done what he has before us.
MS. BOVEE-Right.
MR. TRAVER-Now if he decided that he wanted to do something different or he wanted to add
on to this or remove it at some point, he could submit another application and say now this is
what I want to do, and we would take a look at that at that time and have a public hearing and
all the rest of it.
aa.,�uuuuIlii. Ih.uuull`r II III:,,IIiiIIiiIIIr""iip.0 II � I II`�:u n:.„�`„ n�`."a� p �
MS. BOVEE-Now some of these walls that he's put up he wants to take down and re-build. So
we'd have to listen to that. I mean, why does he want to take them down? I don't understand.
Well first of all they're leaning.
MR. TRAVER-Okay. Well that might be a reason. I mean specifically we can't address the
motivation. Typically it's because they think it's going to be an improvement to the policy or to
the property rather, and, you know, you might disagree with that. Understand that people have
different, you know, what they perceive as valuable. Some might rather have a building run
down and falling to the ground rather than the noise of construction of it being replaced or
something. It's all a matter of, it becomes very subjective, and that's one of the reasons that
this body is set up to specifically look at what someone has submitted through the formal
application process to the Town, and that's what we're trying to do this evening.
MS. BOVEE-Okay.
MR. TRAVER-But we do appreciate your concerns and your comments.
MS. BOVEE-Thank you.
MR. TRAVER-Does anyone else have anything for the Board that they wanted to add?
MR. MAGOWAN-Well can we maybe help by maybe putting a time factor on finishing up the
walls?
MR. TRAVER-Yes, we can talk about that, sure. Bearing in mind the time of year. Sir, if you
could come back to the table. Are there any written comments, Craig?
MR. BROWN-None that I could find.
MR. TRAVER-Okay. Then we'll close the public hearing.
PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED
MR. TRAVER-This is a SEQR Type 11. So there's no SEQR action required on our part.
MR. SHAFER-Mr. Chairman, I think she raised an important point about the noise.
MR. TRAVER-Yes.
MR. SHAFER-Sawing stone is probably one of your decibel level that's loud.
MR. TRAVER-It's painfully loud, yes, I know that.
MR. SHAFER-So if we could put a timeframe, seven a.m. to seven p.m., whatever.
MR. TRAVER-Yes. I think that's certainly within our purview for construction purposes. Yes,
absolutely. So you heard the public comment. One of the questions is that this is sort of a
never-ending project. Now understanding that this is the first time that I'm aware of that this
has been formally presented as a plan and a project to the Town. So we now have something
before us where we did not before. You understand how, and there are some folks that tinker
with their property all the time. I mean, I have people in my neighborhood that are always
doing something. There's nothing wrong with that, but can you understand the concern about
the constant construction and noise and so on and perhaps the desire, and can you understand
a legitimate concern in saying, you know, let's set a date by which you will finish what you have
before us, you will finish this project.
MR. ELLIS-Yes. We can finish at a certain time. There's no problem. All the materials are
there ready to go. The plan is in place.
MR. TRAVER-Okay.
MR. ELLIS-1 just want to make a comment that we never really started before nine o'clock and
we always finished up about six.
MR. TRAVER-So you would have no objection to limiting the noise generated, the sawing
particularly?
MR. ELLIS-Yes.
,�aa
aa.,�uuuuIlii. Ih.uuull`r II III:,,IIiiIIiiIIIr""iip.0 II � I II`�:u n:.„�`„ n�`."a� p �
MR. TRAVER-From 9 a.m. to 6 p.m.
MR. ELLIS-Yes, that's no problem.
MR. TRAVER-Okay. So that would be.
MR. MAGOWAN-Is that seven days a week or could you take a day off for rest?
MR. ELLIS-I don't work weekends on the project.
MR. TRAVER-So Monday through Friday, 9 a.m. to 6 p.m. would be acceptable to you in terms
of actual construction?
MR. ELLIS-Yes. Actually Monday through Thursday.
MR. TRAVER-Monday through Thursday, nine a.m. to six p.m. will be the limit during which
construction will take place. All right. And then obviously we're in the winter months now.
Would you say that by August or September next summer you should be able to complete this,
largely done from what you explained already?
MR. ELLIS-Right. Is shoveling noisy? I mean can shoveling happen?
MR. TRAVER-That's subjective. I can't comment on that, but if you're not going to be
construction other than nine a.m. to six p.m. I think shoveling is fine.
MR. ELLIS-That's just, because I have other things to do also.
MR. TRAVER-Right. So assuming that we agree on the nature and scope of your project and
you get approval tonight, how soon can you wrap this up and have it completely done?
MR. ELLIS-I can have it done before June or the end of June. How does that sound?
MR. BROWN-Yes, Mr. Chairman the application states June 21St. So it looks like you guys
gave yourselves January 21St to June 21St. That's what it says in the application, just for a
starting point.
MR. TRAVER-Of 2018.
MR. BROWN-2018.
MR. TRAVER-Okay. So to be completed by, let's say June 30, 2018.
MR. FORD-If he set a date, let's use his date.
MR. DEEB-Yes.
MR. TRAVER-All right. That's fine. I'm not sure where that came from, but I mean.
MR. BROWN-It's in the application, the start date and end date.
MR. TRAVER-No, but I mean how was that date picked for the?
MR. BROWN-1 don't know.
MR. TRAVER-Probably the same way the drawings were made. All right. Any other conditions
that we want to talk about for this? Okay.
RESOLUTION APPROVING SP # 73-2017 JOHN ELLIS
The applicant has submitted an application to the Planning Board for Site Plan approval
pursuant to Article 9 of the Town zoning Ordinance for: Applicant proposes to complete
shoreline terrace project— includes two wall sections under construction, one new wall near top
ramp and one wall area to be widened near shoreline. Pursuant to Chapter 179-3-040 of the
Zoning Ordinance, hard surfacing within 50 ft. of shoreline shall be subject to Planning Board
review and approval.
aa.,�uuuuIlii. Ih.uuull`r II III:,,IIiiIIiiIIIr""iip.0 II � I II`�:u n:.„�`„ n�`."a� p �
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;
As required by General Municipal Law Section 239-m the site plan application was referred to
the Warren County Planning Department for its recommendation;
The Planning Board opened a public hearing on the Site plan application on 12/21/17 and
continued the public hearing to 12/21/17, when it was closed,
The Planning Board has reviewed the application materials submitted by the applicant and all
comments made at the public hearing and submitted in writing through and including 12/21/17;
The Planning Board determines that the application complies with the review considerations and
standards set forth in Article 9 of the Zoning Ordinance for Site Plan approval,
MOTION TO APPROVE SITE PLAN 73-2017 JOHN ELLIS; Introduced by Mr. Deeb who
moved for its adoption;
Per the draft provided by staff conditioned upon the following conditions:
1) Waivers requested are granted;
2) Adherence to the items outlined in the follow-up letter sent with this resolution.
a) If application was referred to engineering, then engineering sign-off required prior to
signature
of Zoning Administrator of the approved plans;
b) Final approved plans should have dimensions and setbacks noted on the site
plan/survey, floor
plans and elevation for the existing rooms and proposed rooms in the building and site
improvements,
c) Final approved plans, in compliance with the Site Plan, must be submitted to the
Community Development Department before any further review by the Zoning Administrator
or Building
and Codes personnel;
d) The applicant must meet with Staff after approval and prior to issuance of
Building
Permit and/or the beginning of any site work;
e) Subsequent issuance of further permits, including building permits is dependent on
compliance
with this and all other conditions of this resolution;
f) As-built plans to certify that the site plan is developed according to the approved plans to
be
provided prior to issuance of the certificate of occupancy;
g) Resolution to be placed on final plans in its entirety and legible;
h) Hours of construction to be from 9:00 am to 6:00 pm, Monday through Thursday;
i) Project to be completed by June 21, 2018;
Motion seconded by Mr. Magowan. Duly adopted this 21st day of December, 2017 by the
following vote:
AYES: Mr. Deeb, Mrs. White, Mr. Hunsinger, Mr. Magowan, Mr. Shafer, Mr. Traver
NOES: Mr. Ford
MR. TRAVER-All right. Good luck.
MR. ELLIS-Thank you very much.
MR. TRAVER-All right. The next application we have before us is Mike Barry, Site Plan 75-
2017.
SITE PLAN NO. 75-2017 SEAR TYPE: TYPE II. MIKE BARRY. AGENT(S): TODD
SMITH, MANDY SPRING FARM NURSERY, INC. OWNER(S): KERRY & CATHERINE
BARRY. ZONING: WR. LOCATION: 153 BIRDSALL ROAD. APPLICANT PROPOSES
TO REMOVE AN EXISTING WOOD PATHWAY TO DEVELOP A NEW LAWN TERRACE
AREA AND NEW GRAVEL PATH TO SHORE. APPLICANT ALSO REQUESTS APPROVAL
OF THREE TREES THAT HAD BEEN REMOVED IN 2016. PROJECT INVOLVES PLANTING
aa.,�uuuuIlii. Ih.uuull`r II III:,,IIiiIIiiIIIr""iip.0 II � I II`�:u n:.„�`„ n�`."a� p �
SHRUBS, TREES AND LAWN AREAS. PROJECT OCCURS WITHIN 50 FT. OF
SHORELINE. PURSUANT TO CHAPTER 179-6-050 OF THE ZONING ORDINANCE, HARD
SURFACING WITHIN 50 FT. OF SHORELINE SHALL BE SUBJECT TO PLANNING BOARD
REVIEW AND APPROVAL. CROSS REFERENCE: AV 47-2012 LOT LINE ADJ; SITE
INFORMATION: CEA, GLEN LAKE. LOT SIZE: .56 ACRE. TAX MAP NO. 289.17-1-47.
SECTION: 179-6-050
MICHAEL O'CONNOR & TODD SMITH, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT
MR. BROWN-This application is for some hard surfacing, filling, you know, grading landscaping
project within 50 feet of the shore, and for the after the fact removal of some trees that were
within 35 feet of the shoreline. So that's it.
MR. TRAVER-Good evening.
MR. SMITH-Good evening. My name is Todd Smith. I'm working with the owner, Mike Barry
and we have a fairly simple project planned. As Craig just said, firstly we're seeking, I'm sorry,
as Craig mentioned, firstly we're seeking after the fact approval of removal of several large trees
and secondly we have a landscaping. If you've been to the site we have a vegetative slope
right now without much form. So the second part of our project is to propose a very nice
landscaping plan that will completely vegetate the slope and the other significant consideration
to our proposal is the removal of a long, narrow set of steps of timber and to replace that with a
terraced walkway system. Mike has a minor disability that affects his ability to navigate steep
stairs and steps. So we tried to stretch out the walkway down to the lake so that the slopes are
minor. So if the plan before you seems rather lengthy and winding it is because we're trying to
stretch out the pitches. So beyond that we seek a, and this is, it's not that it can't happen, but
the homeowners are seeking a zero maintenance vegetative situation. They don't want to mow
it. They don't want to bark mulch it. They don't want to have to chop trees down. So we have
proposed native ground covers to secure the slope. All the paving would be permeable. The
terracing that we propose would be, we're going to use a very special product called wen lake
boulders, and so what comes out of the ground we're going to re-stack in the form of walls and
these would be dry stacked walls followed by a few extra, and the plan also shows us replacing
a number of trees, and we've chosen white birch and two, on either side, two groves on either
side, and we also, as you go back toward the road, are proposing replacing some
nonconforming steps and a current walkway that is impermeable with permeable paving. So
that, in a nutshell, is the project. I'm sorry, we'd like to reconfigure the dock which is floating
away. And that's also part of the project.
MR. TRAVER-Okay. Questions from members of the Board?
MR. MAGOWAN-Well, I will have to say, I don't know if anybody had a chance to check this out
before the white stuff had flown, but I had the opportunity to view this in the, over the
summertime, and I have to say, Mike, I know we kind of talked about it a little and when these
prints came in I was impressed. Really, it is wonderful. I mean you're taking a 50 yard set of
steps. Unfortunately turning it into a mile and a half walk back up to the house, but from what I
saw over the summer and what I'm seeing, for the rest of the Board, I'll tell you, this is pretty
awesome.
MR. TRAVER-Okay.
MR. MAGOWAN-And by the way I really don't like him anyway. No.
MR. O'CONNOR-If I could justify my presence. I'm Michael O'Connor from the law firm of
Little. O'Connor and Borie. I have a letter here from the adjoining neighbor saying that he
supports the project and asks for approval of it. The three trees that are mentioned as being
removed were trees that were diseased. One of them, a good part of one of them had fallen.
If you see the pictures of the property, the dock was directly at the bottom of the staircase. One
of the trees, a good sized branch fell off and damaged a boat. The other tree is near the house
and is probably ready to go any time. This is a very aggressive planting plan and I think it's an
improvement to what's there or what was there. That's as simple as I would say it.
MR. TRAVER-Okay.
MR. HUNSINGER-Yes, I wanted to compliment the design. I thought it was very well done and
very well presented. We don't usually see landscaping plans this detailed.
MR. TRAVER-Especially with the switchbacks on the trails.
aa.,�uuuuIlii. Ih.uuull`r II III:,,IIiiIIiiIIIr""iip.0 II ��I II`�:u n:.„�`„ n�`."a� p �
MR. FORD-I'm also familiar with the site and this is impressive.
MR. TRAVER-Okay. Any other questions?
MR. SMITH-1 noticed in the Staff Notes that whoever prepared those said that you may ask
about erosion control. So we did present, we did prepare a construction erosion control plan. I
have seven copies. Can I give them to you now?
MR. TRAVER-Yes, and please make sure that Craig has one. Any other comments from
members of the Planning Board at this point? All right. We do have a public hearing on this
application. Are there folks in the audience that wanted to address the Planning Board on this
application? I'm not seeing any. Are there any written comments, Craig, that you know of?
PUBLIC HEARING OPENED
MR. BROWN-There are. The two that Mr. O'Connor just referenced. Do you want me to read
those, Mike, or did you kind of paraphrase them already?
MR. O'CONNOR-The one from Vittengl?
MR. BROWN-Yes.
MR. O'CONNOR-Okay. It just says "We fully support their improvements and feel that their
stone and sloping walkway would have a much more natural look, than the current steep
wooden staircase. Sincerely, Dr. Morgan and Mary Vittengl"
MR. TRAVER-Okay. And the others, were they also positive?
MR. O'CONNOR-No, the others were with regard to.
MR. BROWN-These are for the other one. This goes in the Valenti. But I do have other ones.
There were two, both from Russ Pittenger on the same day but different times. So I'll just go
through them real quick. "I have reviewed the Site Plan submission and have the following
comments/questions for the Board's consideration. 1. The planting list includes existing trees
which on the Plan appear to be not on the subject property. Why is that? 2. There are
insufficient details to fully understand the proposed wall and stair construction. 3. The plans
fail to identify any proper erosion control measures. 4. No detailed design grades or elevations
are provided. Is it a Town requirement that plans be prepared by a registered Surveyor,
Landscape Architect or Civil Engineer? 5. The use of Indigenous plant material should always
be encouraged. The proposed plantings are all suburban in character, low, and small. Only 6
actual birch trees of any size are proposed. 6. The size of the proposed hemlocks is not
indicated. 7. Does this planting plan reflect reparation for the trees removed in 2016? Thank
you for your consideration. Russell Pittenger Seasonal Residence 139 Birdsall Road” And
the other one that was received about an hour later. "These comments are not specific to this
particular project but are intended to discuss unauthorized lakefront tree removal in general.
Please transmit to the review staff and Board members for consideration. Tree removal: The
attached undated photo taken from Google Maps shows the Barry residence prior to the tree
removals. The lakeside trees appear to be healthy, large and impressive. The lakeside of this
property is visually now a striking change from the prior condition. I am glad that an effort is
now underway to restore some of the vegetation lost. Regarding retroactive permission for
unauthorized tree removal in general, I have the following comments: Tree preservation should
be encouraged. Unauthorized tree removal should not be tolerated. Both the homeowners
and the contractor should be appropriately reprimanded for the action as both parties were
surely aware of the cutting restrictions. The Board should consider requiring the homeowner to
replace those trees removed with an appropriate species and comparable basil trunk area, ie: a
12 inch stump (113 square inches) may require four 6 inch caliper replacements (28si x 4) as
appropriate reparation. The replacements should also be in the same proximate location as the
trees removed and guaranteed by a commercial nursery for a three year period. The
contractor of record who performed the unauthorized removals should also be sanctioned; fined
or lose their ability to work in the Town for a period of time. I think that it's time to put some
teeth into enforcement of the existing laws and codes. Russell Pittenger 139 Birdsall Road”
And that's it.
MR. TRAVER-All right. Thank you.
MR. MAGOWAN-What was the name?
MR. BROWN-Russ Pittenger. Both of them were from Russ Pittenger.
aa.,�uuuuIlii. Ih.uuull`r II III:,,IIiiIIiiIIIr""iip.0 II � I II`�:u n:.„�`„ n�`."a� p �
MR. TRAVER-All right. Do you want to respond to that public comment?
MR. O'CONNOR-1 think we now have an erosion control plan submitted. I personally saw the
tree stumps that they were talking about, and they were rotting trees. They were not healthy
trees. One of them did come down on the applicant's boat that was parked at that dock there.
So as to the size of the trees, I think somebody else should respond to that.
MR. SMITH-Sure. I didn't get that whole list but I'll respond to what I can remember. If I'm
missing things, Craig, please tell me, but I think, yes, we responded to the erosion and then
backing up he made some questions or comments about the size of the plant material. So if
the Board would like we could provide a, that part of the plan we have not specifically created a,
we're a design build firm. So we have not specifically created a construction proposal for the
Barrys. Before or as we're doing that as a condition of approval, of a possible approval, we
could present a detailed planting list for your approval or your review, and that would have the
sizes of those plants. I believe he suggested that the plants were suburban in nature. I would
say, I would not agree with that. The main ground cover plant is a sumac variety which
everyone hates, but this is a native sumac we use in the Park. It's a very mild natured cousin of
the sumac that you all hate. So it's actually very, in my opinion it gives a very natural
understory look, but it doesn't get higher than two or three feet high. So it stays very low and
it's effectively self-mulching so the leaves fall straight down, not onto the neighbor's property
and it effectively prevents weed growth within a few years. So the majority of the plants are
native. There's just a few non-native plants. I think some of the sedum, we do some ground
cover sedums and some thymes for the permeable pathways so they don't appear to be all
gravel. I believe some of those you could argue are not native, although they are ubiquitous or
indigenous or they're naturalized in the United States. So we're not introducing any problem
plants.
MR. TRAVER-Well, I was going to suggest the Town actually has a list of recommended.
MR. SMITH-Yes, I used the LGA list as well as the Town's.
MR. TRAVER-Yes, I think as long as they're species from that list, you know, my feeling is that
that should be fine. The other question that I heard was that there were trees on the plan that
were not observed on the site. I'm assuming because they are proposed.
MR. SMITH-No, I think I can speak to that. I think most of those trees, I mean if you've been to
the site there are just one or two trees. This is before my time, and I concur with Michael. The
trees that were cut down, from what I can tell, and I'm not here to make any assertions, but they
were hollow, and I've worked on that side of the lake and the adjacent properties. I know what
those trees are like, and they will fall. So I'm not making any assertions but they probably were
diseased. Besides that, there's not many trees left at all on the property. Literally. So the
trees that he's talking about are symbols. I didn't go over to Dineens or Vittengls and locate all
their trees. They're just simply symbols that show on the plan that show that those areas are
wooded or semi-wooded. They're not intended to be.
MR. TRAVER-So it's a general representation of the site.
MR. SMITH-It's a general representation. Exactly.
MR. TRAVER-Okay.
MIKE BARRY
MR. BARRY-If I could make a comment. If you look at the actual property line itself or the
actual property, there's a buffer zone on both sides between the two properties, between the
Dineen property and the Vittengl property. The trees, and this is just a comment about Russ
Pittenger's comments. He is of the belief that that should be a nature preserve, that nothing
should be there. We shouldn't have a paved road. No trees should ever be harvested, taken
down for diseased reasons, whatever. Everything should be natural. To be quite honest his
grass in the summer is anywhere from two to four feet high. So he doesn't really take care of
his property in terms of stuff like that. So I'm trying to improve my property. To make a long
story short, I've had ten knee surgeries. So when I go down those stairs it's extremely painful.
I also have cancer, and so I have no endurance, okay, which is hard for me because I'm a
retired Special Forces guy, and so I used to be in fantastic shape, but now I've got to stop half,
three quarters of the way up the stairs in order to make it up and down the stairs. So again the
trees that I took down, if you want to come out and look at them you can come out and look at
them. There's holes in there. I had a certified arborist come out. Originally the plan was to
"
aa.,�uuuuIlii. Ih.uuull`r II III:,,IIiiIIiiIIIr""iip.0 II � I II`�:u n:.„�`„ n�`."a� p �
limb them up. When he climbed the tree and the limbs started breaking when he was cutting
them he told me the trees were diseased so I told him to take them down, and that was after
one of them damaged my boat. So it's a safety issue. I have pets. I have small kids. So I
took down three trees that were in the 35 foot zone. We have huge winds. I don't know if you
know the kind of winds that we have coming through there. We have micro bursts that come
through there and take down trees that are, you know, six foot in diameter and bowl them over
like they're nothing. So the trees that were there were diseased. I had an arborist confirm that
they were diseased. I took pictures. I don't have them with me now because I didn't think it
was going to be a big issue two years after the fact, but like I said, I had Dick Sears come out
and certify that, you know, do the limb up and then.
MR. TRAVER-And it's interesting. They never mentioned at the time when the recommendation
was to remove them altogether and not limb them, that there would be any contact with the
Town?
MR. BARRY-No.
MR. TRAVER-Interesting.
MR. BARRY-Who knows what the motivation is, but like I said, if you come out and look at the
stumps, there's anywhere from an eight to ten inch complete rot out of the center of the tree.
MR. MAGOWAN-1 will concur with that. I did see them this summer.
MR. DEEB-Well, I don't think we're questioning whether they're diseased or not, just a
comment, that letter, he got that from Google Map. I don't know how he could tell if they were
diseased or not.
MR. BARRY-Well, and the flipside of that is you don't know when Google Map, I mean, I used to
do Google Maps for a living.
MR. SMITH-Can I speak to all his questions on the landscaping side?
MR. BROWN-Yes, I guess in general it was specifics of species, types and sizes.
MR. SMITH-There was also specifics of the wall construction. I do show a cross section. If
the Board would like I can certainly prepare a more detailed cross section. I believe it calls out
the construction method in the cross section. However, if anything's required, it's not difficult to
create on the drawing.
MR. TRAVER-Understood. Okay. Thank you for that. Do Board members feel that they want
some additional information, additional details submitted on additional plans regarding this
project before we
act upon it?
MR. FORD-1 don't.
MR. MAGOWAN-1 don't.
MR. TRAVER-Okay. All right. Well this is a SEQR Type 11. We've already held the public
hearing and closed it. I guess we're ready for a motion.
RESOLUTION APPROVING SP # 75-2017 MIKE BARRY
The applicant has submitted an application to the Planning Board for Site Plan approval
pursuant to Article 9 of the Town zoning Ordinance for: Applicant proposes to remove an
existing wood pathway to develop a new lawn terrace area and new gravel path to shore.
Applicant also requests approval of three trees that had been removed in 2016. Project
involves planting shrubs, trees and lawn areas. Project occurs within 50 ft. of shoreline.
Pursuant to Chapter 179-6-050 of the Zoning Ordinance, hard surfacing within 50 ft. of shoreline
shall be subject to Planning Board review and approval.
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;
The Planning Board opened a public hearing on the Site plan application on 12/21/17 and
continued the public hearing to 12/21/17, when it was closed,
as
aa.,�uuuuIlii. Ih.uuull`r II III:,,IIiiIIiiIIIr""iip.0 II � I II`�:u n:.„�`„ n�`."a� p �
The Planning Board has reviewed the application materials submitted by the applicant and all
comments made at the public hearing and submitted in writing through and including 12/21/17;
The Planning Board determines that the application complies with the review considerations and
standards set forth in Article 9 of the Zoning Ordinance for Site Plan approval,
MOTION TO APPROVE SITE PLAN 75-2017 MIKE BARRY; Introduced by Mr. Deeb who
moved for its adoption;
Per the draft provided by staff conditioned upon the following conditions:
1) Waivers requested arerg anted:
2) Adherence to the items outlined in the follow-up letter sent with this resolution.
a) If application was referred to engineering, then engineering sign-off required prior to
signature
of Zoning Administrator of the approved plans;
b) Final approved plans should have dimensions and setbacks noted on the site
plan/survey, floor
plans and elevation for the existing rooms and proposed rooms in the building and site
improvements,
C) Final approved plans, in compliance with the Site Plan, must be submitted to the
Community Development Department before any further review by the Zoning Administrator
or Building
and Codes personnel;
d) The applicant must meet with Staff after approval and prior to issuance of
Building
Permit and/or the beginning of any site work;
e) Subsequent issuance of further permits, including building permits is dependent on
compliance
with this and all other conditions of this resolution;
f) As-built plans to certify that the site plan is developed according to the approved plans to
be
provided prior to issuance of the certificate of occupancy;
g) Resolution to be placed on final plans in its entirety and legible;
h) A detailed planting list has to be submitted including tree size before commencement of
the
project.
Motion seconded by Mr. Magowan. Duly adopted this 21St day of December, 2017 by the
following vote:
AYES: Mr. Deeb, Mrs. White, Mr. Ford, Mr. Hunsinger, Mr. Magowan, Mr. Shafer, Mr. Traver
NOES: NONE
MR. TRAVER-Good luck.
MR. BARRY-Thank you.
MR. TRAVER-All right. So next we have before us Mac Industries, Site Plan 77-2017.
SITE PLAN NO. 77-2017 SEAR TYPE: UNLISTED. MAC INDUSTRIES. AGENT(S):
MICHELLE COLON. OWNER(S): DMAR PROPERTY MANAGEMENT, LLC. ZONING:
CLI. LOCATION: 343 CORINTH ROAD. APPLICANT PROPOSES TO USE A .52 ACRE
PARCEL WITH 1,402 SQ. FT. BUILDING AND 630 SQ. FT. GARAGE FOR CONSTRUCTION
BUSINESS. THE 1,402 SQ. FT. BUILDING FOR OFFICE, 630 SQ. FT. GARAGE FOR
STORAGE OF MATERIALS, EQUIPMENT AND VEHICLES. PROJECT INCLUDES ADDING
9,000 +/- SQ. FT. FENCED-IN AREA STORAGE YARD FOR OUTDOOR STORAGE OF
MATERIALS, EQUIPMENT AND VEHICLES. ON CORINTH RD. PROPOSED NEW ACCESS
DRIVE TO STORAGE YARD — ONE WAY IN AND TO USE MERRITT ROAD EXISTING
PARKING AREA AND STORAGE YARD ACCESS. PURSUANT TO 179-3-040 OF THE
ZONING ORDINANCE, NEW BUSINESS USE SHALL BE SUBJECT TO PLANNING BOARD
REVIEW AND APPROVAL. CROSS REFERENCE: SEVERAL (91, 92, 94) MOST RECENT;
AV 36-1998; SP 67-2012 HOME TO OFFICE; UV 126-1992 CHG. OF USE; WARREN CO.
REFERRAL: DECEMBER 2017. LOT SIZE: .52 ACRE. TAX MAP NO. 308.16-2-12.
SECTION: 179-3-040
aa.,�uuuuIlii. Ih.uuull`r II III:,,IIiiIIiiIIIr""iip.0 II � I II`�:u n:.„�`„ n�`."a� p �
MICHAEL & MICHELLE COLON, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT
MR. BROWN-Yes. This Site Plan application is for, I guess we'll call it a recycling of a
previously occupied building for office space to now be office space and expanding the use of
the property for a construction company, you know, truck yard, storage materials, that kind of
thing, and I'm just reading through Laura's notes here. The Board may request additional
information on the sign lighting and is there any buffer between the commercial and residential
use.
MR. TRAVER-Right. Great. Thank you. Good evening.
MR. COLON-Good evening. My name is Michael Colon, co-owner of Mac Industries and DMar
Trucking.
MR. TRAVER-And you are?
MRS. COLON-Michelle Colon.
MR. COLON-She didn't put me down as an agent.
MRS. COLON-1 did all the paperwork.
MR. TRAVER-Okay.
MRS. COLON-So currently we have an active building permit to correct a pre-existing violation
of the office from the previous owner.
MR. TRAVER-On this property?
MRS. COLON-On this property.
MR. TRAVER-Okay.
MRS. COLON-So we're addressing that currently.
MR. FORD-Excuse me, but this previous owner, when did this occur and how long have you
owned the property?
MRS. COLON-We have only owned the property about two months.
MR. FORD-Okay. Thank you.
MRS. COLON-Very recent.
MR. MAGOWAN-Who was the previous owner?
MRS. COLON-K-Twin Four. I don't know them personally. I believe Doug maybe, Kruger. I
think that's it.
MR. TRAVER-Okay.
MRS. COLON-So, like I said, we're handling the building violation so we can get the CO for the
office use. The yard space that we are proposing is for vehicle, work vehicles, storage and
materials and equipment, cinder blocks, stone. We're masons. So, I don't know. What else
do you guys want to know? The sign. So the sign is pre-existing, previously approved sign.
It's a box sign with internal lighting.
MR. TRAVER-So there's no plans to change that,just the lettering obviously.
MRS. COLON-Correct.
MR. COLON-Just the lettering.
MR. TRAVER-But no plans to change the size, the lighting, anything of that nature?
MRS. COLON-No.
aa.,�uuuuIlii. Ih.uuull`r II III:,,IIiiIIiiIIIr""iip.0 II � I II`�:u n:.„�`„ n�`."a� p �
MR. TRAVER-Okay. Thank you for that. Questions from members of the Board?
MS. WHITE-Did you address the buffer between you and the neighbors? Is there anything
there?
MRS. COLON-The buffer, so there's an existing tree line now. We're proposing to put up a six
foot chain link fence with the privacy slats, five foot off of the property line to preserve the
natural tree line that's already there.
MR. TRAVER-So the tree line is on your side?
MRS. COLON-1 think it's both actually. It kind of covers both. We're going to have the
surveyor come out and put actual stakes so it's easier to visualize, and then five foot off of that
we propose to put the fence.
MR. TRAVER-Okay.
MR. DEEB-Is there room for any more plantings in that buffer zone?
MRS. COLON-To put in more? No. Just to put the fence five foot off of that.
MR. MAGOWAN-Is that already cleared now you said?
MRS. COLON-The property?
MR. MAGOWAN-Yes, you're talking over here. You but up to two roads. So obviously the
neighbors.
MRS. COLON-That corner, well there's no neighbor to the west side of us. That's where the
billboards are, right on Corinth Road. So there's a house to the south of us and then across the
street on Merritt on the opposite corner is a house, and across Corinth is the old West Side
Auto.
MR. MAGOWAN-Not that I don't find you interesting. It's been a long day.
MR. BROWN-So just to clarify the concern of the Code, the Code requires between commercial
and/or industrial use and a residential property there be a 50 foot buffer undisturbed natural
vegetation or whatever kind of substitute the Board may go for. So that's trying to clarify what
Laura's asking for.
MR. TRAVER-Okay. So this is a, you take away the fence they're proposing, it's in effect a pre-
existing nonconforming buffer.
MR. BROWN-Correct.
MR. TRAVER-And in an interpretation of the Code, they said it was supposed to be a natural
buffer. So in a way by adding the fence they're exacerbating the nonconforming nature of the
buffer that's there.
MR. BROWN-Well, I wouldn't necessarily agree with that. I think it's providing some more
screening to the area.
MR. TRAVER-Well agreed, but I thought it said natural.
MR. BROWN-Sure, a fence isn't a natural thing.
MR. TRAVER-Yes, that's what I meant,just the language, not the intent. Okay. Thank you.
MS. WHITE-There's really nothing we could suggest to create that 50 feet of natural.
MR. BROWN-Short of 50 feet of plantings which seems kind of excessive. So a lot of times the
substitute is some kind of manmade area that kind of creates the same effect.
MS. WHITE-Okay.
MR. BROWN-Which is what they propose. Exactly.
MS. WHITE-Which is what they're proposing.
aa.,�uuuuIlii. Ih.uuull`r II III:,,IIiiIIiiIIIr""iip.0 II � I II`�:u n:.„�`„ n�`."a� p �
MR. TRAVER-And we're speculating, but I think the fence is intended as a security measure as
well as screening.
MRS. COLON-Yes.
MR. TRAVER-Yes. Okay. All right. Any other questions from members of the Board? We do
have a public hearing on this application. And it's also a SEQR Unlisted. So we do need to
take SEQR action on it, but we'll open the public hearing and ask if there's anyone in the
audience who wanted to address this application with the Planning Board this evening? I'm not
seeing any hands. Do you know if we have any written?
PUBLIC HEARING OPENED
MR. BROWN-While I'm looking I did have one question just for clarification. I know that you
guys have probably discussed it with Laura, but the main storage area there, the truck area we'll
call it, you've got a label on here that says Number Two Stone. The way the Zoning Code is
written, Number Two Stone or larger, without any fines or any compactable material, that's
considered a permeable surface. If you guys are familiar with Number Two Stone, they're
maybe inch, inch and a half stones. It's not the ideal surface for driving on. You end up leaving
ruts in it all the time. So I just want to make sure you understand that that's the type of surface
you're going to have there. It's not something that's going to be compactable, and why is it an
issue? Well the issue is the permeability number on the site, if this whole area becomes a
compactable hard surface paved area, it puts them in a variance situation for permeability
numbers. So I just wanted to clarify that. The Number Two Stone is.
MRS. COLON-Yes, I actually sent the clarification to Laura and she told me that it had been
distributed to everybody in regards to the stone itself.
MR. BROWN-Okay.
MR. TRAVER-And that clarification is a change in the size of the stone that would be put in this
area.
MRS. COLON-That's the one, yes. Basically railroad ballasts is what we'd be putting in there.
MR. COLON-It's heavy enough for the equipment but still would be permeable.
MRS. COLON-It's permeable.
MR. DEEB-Are you going to store any vehicles there?
MRS. COLON-We have one truck that will be there overnight. His other vehicle comes home
with him. I'm in and out all day. I'm the office person and we have equipment. I'm sorry, I
didn't mean to jump thoughts on you. Did you hear about the driveway?
MR. BROWN-Yes, that's what I was going to talk to when you were done.
MRS. COLON-Okay. So, yes, so there's heavy pieces of equipment and the excavator goes
there. Out of sight and safe.
MR. TRAVER-Okay.
MR. DEEB-You won't be doing any mechanical work on those there?
MRS. COLON-No. Nothing will be there during the day. It's they'll go there in the morning.
Workers will come. They grab everything and they leave. All work is done off site.
MR. TRAVER-Okay. Any follow up questions from members of the Board?
MR. BROWN-Just to close out the public hearing question or the public comment question,
there aren't any written comments I can find in here except a Warren County referral. I'm not
sure if you guys saw that. It's a recommendation for approval, and in the Staff Notes section it
talks about a housekeeping thing for the County prior to construction of a new driveway on
Corinth Road the applicant must obtain the necessary permits from the Warren County DPW.
So that's just a permitting process.
MRS. COLON-1 guess we're waiting to see if we get the plan approval.
W
aa.,�uuuuIlii. Ih.uuull`r II III:,,IIiiIIiiIIIr""iip.0 II � I II`�:u n:.„�`„ n�`."a� p �
MR. BROWN-The County's waiting.
MRS. COLON-The County's waiting to hear from here.
MR. BROWN-Okay.
MRS. COLON-No, that's what I'm asking.
MR. BROWN-You'd have to ask them.
MRS. COLON-Okay. Fair enough.
MR. BROWN-1 would guess that they're waiting for us, yes.
MRS. COLON-Okay.
MR. TRAVER-Do we have any conditions beyond the draft that we need thus far? I wasn't
hearing anything. They already changed the stone.
MS. WHITE-1 didn't hear anything. They've already accepted the stone.
MR. TRAVER-Okay.
MR. DEEB-What about the Warren County issue? Are you waiting for them to approve?
MRS. COLON-1 think they're holding out for you guys for the driveway approval. We're
proposing to put a one way entrance from Corinth Road onto the property so that they can come
in off of Corinth and cut down on the traffic on Merritt.
MR. TRAVER-Okay, and that's part of your proposal.
MRS. COLON-Yes.
MR. TRAVER-Okay. All right. Well let's take a look at the SEQR regulations, then. We have
a draft SEQR resolution in our packet. Does anyone see any environmental impacts with this
application that require us to do a detailed analysis or do we feel comfortable in passing a
resolution on SEAR?
MS. WHITE-1 have no concerns.
MR. HUNSINGER-1 have no concerns.
MR. MAGOWAN-1 don't see any concerns.
MR. TRAVER-Okay. Then let's go ahead and here that motion.
RESOLUTION TO GRANT A NEGATIVE SEQR DEC. SP # 77-2017 MAC INDUSTRIES
The applicant proposes to use a .52 acre parcel with 1,402 sq. ft. building and 630 sq. ft. garage
for construction business. The 1,402 sq. ft. building for office, 630 sq. ft. garage for storage of
materials, equipment and vehicles. Project includes adding 9,000 +/- sq. ft. fenced-in area
storage yard for outdoor storage of materials, equipment and vehicles. On Corinth Rd.
proposed new access drive to storage yard — one way in and to use Merritt Road existing
parking area and storage yard access. Pursuant to Chapter 179-3-040 of the Zoning
Ordinance, new business use shall be subject to Planning Board review and approval.
The Planning Board has determined that the proposed project and Planning Board action is
subject to review under the State Environmental Quality Review Act;
The proposed action considered by this Board is Unlisted in the Department of Environmental
Conservation Regulations implementing the State Environmental Quality Review Act and the
regulations of the Town of Queensbury;
No Federal or other agencies are involved;
Part 1 of the Short EAF has been completed by the applicant;
aa.,�uuuuIlii. Ih.uuull`r II III:,,IIiiIIiiIIIr""iip.0 II � I II`�:u n:.„�`„ n�`."a� p �
Upon review of the information recorded on this EAF, it is the conclusion of the Town of
Queensbury Planning Board as lead agency that this project will result in no significant adverse
impacts on the environment, and, therefore, an environmental impact statement need not be
prepared. Accordingly, this negative declaration is issued.
MOTION TO GRANT A NEGATIVE DECLARATION FOR SITE PLAN 77-2017 MAC
INDUSTRIES, Introduced by Mr. Deeb who moved for its adoption.
As per the resolution prepared by staff.
1. Part II of the Short EAF has been reviewed and completed by the Planning Board.
2. Part III of the Short EAF is not necessary because the Planning Board did not identify
potentially moderate to large impacts.
Motion seconded by Mr. Magowan. Duly adopted this 21St day of December, 2017 by the
following vote:
AYES: Mr. Deeb, Ms. White, Mr. Ford, Mr. Hunsinger, Mr. Shafer, Mr. Traver, Mr. Magowan
NOES: NONE
MR. TRAVER-All right. So then we move on then to the Site Plan resolution. It does not
appear that, I have not heard of any conditions beyond that provided by Staff that we need to
add. Does anyone feel differently?
MR. FORD-No.
MS. WHITE-No.
MR. TRAVER-Then let's go ahead and hear that motion.
MS. GAGLIARDI-Mr. Chairman, did you close the public hearing?
MR. TRAVER-1 think so. Yes.
PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED
RESOLUTION APPROVING SP # 77-2017 MAC INDUSTRIES
The applicant has submitted an application to the Planning Board: Applicant proposes to use a
.52 acre parcel with 1,402 sq. ft. building and 630 sq. ft. garage for construction business. The
1,402 sq. ft. building for office, 630 sq. ft. garage for storage of materials, equipment and
vehicles. Project includes adding 9,000 +/- sq. ft. fenced-in area storage yard for outdoor
storage of materials, equipment and vehicles. On Corinth Rd. proposed new access drive to
storage yard — one way in and to use Merritt Road existing parking area and storage yard
access. Pursuant to Chapter 179-3-040 of the Zoning Ordinance, new business use shall be
subject to Planning Board review and approval.
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;
As required by General Municipal Law Section 239-m the site plan application was referred to
the Warren County Planning Department for its recommendation;
The Planning Board has reviewed the potential environmental impacts of the project, pursuant
to the State Environmental Quality Review Act (SEQRA) and adopted a SEQRA Negative
Declaration — Determination of Non-Significance
The Planning Board opened a public hearing on the Site plan application on 12/21/17 and
continued the public hearing to 12/21/17, when it was closed,
The Planning Board has reviewed the application materials submitted by the applicant and all
comments made at the public hearing and submitted in writing through and including 12/21/17;
The Planning Board determines that the application complies with the review considerations and
standards set forth in Article 9 of the Zoning Ordinance for Site Plan approval,
�.�_„
aa.,�uuuuIlii. Ih.uuull`r II III:,,IIiiIIiiIIIr""iip.0 II � I II`�:u n:.„�`„ n�`."a� p �
MOTION TO APPROVE SITE PLAN 77-2017 MAC INDUSTRIES; Introduced by Mr. Deeb who
moved for its adoption.
According to the draft resolution prepared by Staff with the following:
1) Waivers requested are granted;
2. Adherence to the items outlined in the follow-up letter sent with this resolution.
a) The limits of clearing will constitute a no-cut buffer zone, orange construction
fencing shall be installed around these areas and field verified by Community
Development staff;
b) If applicable, the Sanitary Sewer connection plan must be submitted to the
Wastewater Department for its review, approval, permitting and inspection;
c) If curb cuts are being added or changed a driveway permit is required. A building
permit will not be issued until the approved driveway permit has been provided to the
Planning Office;
d) If application was referred to engineering then Engineering sign-off required prior to
signature of Zoning Administrator of the approved plans;
e) Final approved plans should have dimensions and setbacks noted on the site
plan/survey, floor plans and elevation for the existing rooms and proposed rooms in the
building and site improvements;-
f) If required, the applicant must submit a copy of the following to the Town:
a. The project NOI (Notice of Intent) for coverage under the current "NYSDEC
SPDES General Permit from Construction Activity" prior to the start of any site
work.
b. The project NOT (Notice of Termination) upon completion of the project;
c. The applicant must maintain on their project site, for review by staff:
i. The approved final plans that have been stamped by the Town Zoning
Administrator. These plans must include the project SWPPP (Storm
Water Pollution Prevention Plan) when such a plan was prepared and
approved;
ii. The project NOI and proof of coverage under the current NYSDEC
SPDES General Permit, or an individual SPDES permit issued for the
project if required.
g) Final approved plans, in compliance with the Site Plan, must be submitted to the
Community Development Department before any further review by the Zoning
Administrator or Building and Codes personnel;
h) The applicant must meet with Staff after approval and prior to issuance of
Building Permit and/or the beginning of any site work;
i) Subsequent issuance of further permits, including building permits is dependent on
compliance with this and all other conditions of this resolution;
j) As-built plans to certify that the site plan is developed according to the approved plans to
be provided prior to issuance of the certificate of occupancy.
k) This resolution is to be placed in its entirety on the final plans
Motion seconded by Mr. Ford. Duly adopted this 21St day of December, 2017 by the following
vote:
AYES: Mr. Deeb, Ms. White, Mr. Ford, Mr. Hunsinger, Mr. Magowan, Mr. Shafer, Mr. Traver
NOES: NONE
MR. TRAVER-All right. You're all set.
MRS. COLON-Thank you.
MR. TRAVER-All right. That concludes our regular agenda. The remaining item we have
before us tonight is for discussion purposes. There is no public hearing on this discussion item.
This is for Cumberland Farms, Discussion Item 9-2017.
DISCUSSION ITEM:
DISCUSSION 9-2017 SEAR TYPE: UNLISTED. CUMBERLAND FARMS, INC.
AGENT(S): STEPHANIE BITTER. OWNER(S): SAME AS APPLICANT. ZONING: Cl.
LOCATION: 3 STATE ROUTE 149. APPLICANT PROPOSES TO REMOVE EXISTING ICE
CREAM/SNACK BAR BUSINESS AND REPLACE WITH A 5,275 SQ. FT. CONVENIENCE
STORE. PURSUANT TO CHAPTER 179-9-040 OF THE ZONING ORDINANCE,
DISCUSSION WITH THE PLANNING BOARD MAY BE REQUESTED BY THE APPLICANT.
kn'i
aa.,�uuuuIlii. Ih.uuull`r II III:,,IIiiIIiiIIIr""iip.0 II � I II`�:u n:.„�`„ n�`."a� p �
CROSS REFERENCE: (-8) UV 1377 1988. LOT SIZE: 4.25 ACRES TOTAL. TAX MAP
NO. 288.12-1-6; 288.12-1-8; 288.8-1-17;
STEFANIE BITTER, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT
MR. TRAVER-Do you have anything to add, Craig?
MR. BROWN-Sure. Let me see what Laura wrote. Not a lot. So I'll let Stefanie take it.
MR. TRAVER-Okay. That's why we call it a discussion item.
MR. BROWN-That's right. Good evening.
MS. BITTER-Good evening. Stefanie Bitter. I'm counsel for Cumberland Farms. I'm here
this evening with Jim Gillespie who is the project engineer as well as Alanna Moran who is with
VHB who is the traffic engineer. We're here tonight to start the early discussion on this
proposed project which would be located on the corner of 149 and 9 which is why we started
this discussion so early because we understand how important this intersection is. This is a
very important mile to this community and Cumberland Farms is really hoping to be a part of it.
What we are proposing is to remove the Loft structure which Jim has displayed on one of the
project boards and construct a 5,275 square foot convenience store with two full canopies.
One would be a five pump gas canopy and the other would be a three pump diesel canopy.
The parcel is fairly large in size. It's 4.33 acres, and it would have two full access points which
would be proposed at the furthest setback from both of the frontages as is displayed on the site
plan to the left. We were fortunate enough that our traffic engineer also participated in the traffic
study that the Town conducted a few years back. So they were knowledgeable in the data that
was collected for that traffic study when conducting this traffic study for this project.
MR. TRAVER-Is that the Creighton Manning study from 2009?
MS. BITTER-That is, even though they are now VHB.
MR. TRAVER-Okay.
MS. BITTER-Although there are new Cumberland Farms located in South Glens Falls, this is
really the newest Cumberland Farms that would be in Queensbury. It's a totally new design.
It's not your blue and orange box store, very attractive in nature if any of you have gone and
ventured down to South Glens Falls to see it, but again we started this discussion early because
we understand the sensitivity with the traffic outlet. The architectural design is demonstrated in
both the photos, demonstrated over here on the right. It has colonial style dormers, stonework,
columns. It really is a pleasing structure with a positive element to all of the other architectural
structures that are on this mile. Thirty-six parking spaces are proposed and it would be a 24/7
operation. The one element of it is obviously there is convenience services that are
incorporated, but it does have outdoor seating. There is a pedestrian type of element and with
that bike path in such close proximity we feel that that would be an added bonus. Before
turning it over to my team talk about some of the site details as well as the traffic comments, I
just want to say one personal item. I might not be from Queensbury but my family has a camp
up on Hadlock and I can say that I have made that turn many, many times, spending every
summer of my life at Hadlock, and I'm very familiar with that corner. That being said, I'm not a
traffic engineer, but I can tell you I also have frequented convenience stores many a time, and
when I frequent a convenience store it's when it's convenient to my route. Convenience stores
are not destinations. They're not going to generate traffic. They obtain those individuals that
are already on the road. That being said, I'm going to turn it over to Jim.
JIM GILLESPIE
MR. GILLESPIE-All right. Thank you. Jim Gillespie from Bohler Engineering. The plan is,
like we said we're here basically just as a discussion item trying to iron out any concerns the
Board may have at this time. The plan is conceptual in nature. It's just kind of for layout
purposes at this point. Obviously as we get further into this we'll have detailed lighting and
landscaping and utilities. Stormwater management, obviously we'll have to comply with New
York State DEC. We're currently working on having sewer and water services available to the
site. There's currently a private line that we're in the midst of trying to get dedicated to the Town
so we can tie into. So that's in progress. So at this point again we're just trying to get some
feedback before we get into some very detailed design. So that we're not re-inventing the
wheel type of deal.
MS. BITTER-The star of the show.
aa.,�uuuuIlii. Ih.uuull`r II III:,,IIiiIIiiIIIr""iip.0 II � I II`�:u n:.„�`„ n�`."a� p �
ALANNA MORAN
MS. MORAN-Thanks. Hi, Alanna Moran with VHB. We completed the traffic evaluation for
this project. As Stefanie had said this is a 5,275 square foot convenience market with fueling
islands. As part of the proposed project the Loft would be demolished and the two curb cuts
that are right now on the Loft property would be closed. The idea for this site would be to have
access much farther away from the intersection itself so as to try to reduce the influence of the
intersection on those driveways. On Route 9 the driveway would be located about 350 feet
north of that stop bar, the south bound approach, and on Route 149 it would be about 375 feet
away from the stop bar. So providing storage for vehicles about 14 cars on Route 9 and about
15 cars on Route 149 before you get to those driveways. Data collection for the project was
collected at two different time periods. So we wanted to look at what a typical kind of average
condition would be for the area. So data was collected near the end of May when school is in
session, which makes it kind of a typical. When school's in session you're usually good to go.
The other time that we collected data was.
MR. FORD-Excuse me. What day of the week was that?
MS. MORAN-1 could tell you it was May 24th, and I don't know the exact day of the week, but
almost all of our data is collected on a Tuesday, Wednesday or Thursday.
MR. TRAVER-And this is in 2009?
MS. MORAN-2017.
MR. TRAVER-2017. So this is an update.
MS. MORAN-This was collected specifically for the project. Yes. So that data was collected
May 24th. I would have to look at the day. I'll look into that.
MR. BROWN-Wednesday.
MS. MORAN-Wednesday. We also collected data during July, at the end of July, to do a
comparison and find out what's going on at the intersection during those higher peak summer
conditions. July 25th through the 27th
MR. BROWN-Tuesday through Thursday.
MS. MORAN-Yes. Thank you.
MR. MAGOWAN-How many days were raining?
MS. MORAN-I'd have to look into that. Sorry.
MR. MAGOWAN-That makes a difference.
MS. MORAN-1 know it does. I know it does. So I'm going to start just with the focus on the
average conditions, like the typical conditions of the intersection. So what we do is we count
traffic going during the morning peak period from seven to nine in the morning and then during
the evening peak period from four to six, catching all the commuters in the area going to and
from. That's typically when traffic volumes on the roadway are highest, and also generally
when traffic volumes at the convenience market are going to be highest because you're just
catching that commuter traffic. During that data collection period we found the morning peak
period occurred between 7:15 and 8:15 a.m. So that was our highest one hour, and in the
evening peak occurred between 4:30 and 5:30. So our one highest hour. We also looked at
vehicle queues during that time period to see what is going on as far as how far back are the
cars queueing. Are they going to be blocking the site, that type of thing? So as I said before,
there's space for 14 vehicles to queue on Route 9 before reaching the driveway and basically
the data showed that during that morning peak hour there were no times when the site driveway
would have been blocked, but during the evening peak hour it occurred twice, but then what
happens as the green cycles through, the cars cycle through with each cycle of the traffic.
MR. FORD-Excuse me. When you talk about back up of traffic on Route 9, is that south bound
or north bound?
MS. MORAN-That would be south bound. Yes. So the stop controlled approach to the
intersection.
aa.,�uuuuIlii. Ih.uuull`r II III:,,IIiiIIiiIIIr""iip.0 II � I II`�:u n:.„�`„ n�`."a� p �
MR. FORD-Did you also look at north bound?
MS. MORAN-So north bound, because the north bound movement in front of the site is a free
flow operation, we don't look at a queue on that, for that motion because it just continues to go
through.
MR. FORD-Thank you.
MR. SHAFER-No, there's a green south bound on 9.
MS. MORAN-Yes, south bound is the queue that we looked at, that south bound queue. So as
vehicles are waiting south bound it's stacking up towards the site.
MR. SHAFER-His question was north bound which is a right turn arrow. Right?
MS. MORAN-So the north bound queue isn't actually, to the project site. So if I'm, okay, so the
way that we count the vehicle queues is so on our Route 9 approach it's vehicles that are
stacking here and what we saw was that during the morning peak there weren't any queues that
backed up to the site and during the evening peak there were two. So then on the Route 149
approach what we're counting is the vehicles that are stacking up here and then I believe it was
three times during the morning peak hour this backed up past the site and then during the
evening peak hour it was nine times that this backed up past the site driveway, but again during
those average conditions, the vehicle queues cleared out with each cycle of the traffic signal.
MR. HUNSINGER-Was that the May or the July one?
MS. MORAN-That's the May, yes.
MR. HUNSINGER-May.
MR. TRAVER-And you said the intent was to have this open 24/7. Right?
MS. BITTER-Correct.
MR. TRAVER-So the traffic that you analyzed was early in the morning and late in the
afternoon, right. What about midday? I mean, I would think that we can agree it's a matter of
common experience to see traffic backed up on 149 miles to get out there, and I know this is
very simplistic compared to the analysis that you have done, but looking at this project just
conceptually it seems to me that this is going to generate some traffic that's not being generated
now because the Loft may have generated some while they were still open, but not significantly,
certainly compared to a project like this.
MS. MORAN-Right.
MR. TRAVER-So, and I'm not seeing anything, looking preliminarily at the plan, that does
anything to improve that intersection, which I think right now is rated a D according to the
original study.
MS. MORAN-Are you speaking of the 2009?
MR. TRAVER-Yes.
MS. MORAN-Okay.
MR. TRAVER-So pretty much anything that goes in here is going to add to what is kind of a bit
of a legendary problem in terms of traffic, is what my initial impression of this, you know, in
terms of discussion is, and I don't know if there's, it just seems to me that the direction, to try to
come up with a way to make this work, is somehow that this can contribute to improving the
situation at the intersection. This design, although elegant visually in many ways, appears to
be the kind of design that you would have in a typical intersection without regard to the traffic,
and it would seem to me that in order to approach this in my mind responsibly there'd have to
be some elements of the project that would actually improve the grade of that intersection. So
we're not, it's the philosophy of first do no harm.
MS. MORAN-Sure, sure.
MR. TRAVER-So if you could talk about that a little bit.
pa
aa.,�uuuuIlii. Ih.uuull`r II III:,,IIiiIIiiIIIr""iip.0 II � I II`�:u n:.„�`„ n�`."a� p �
MS. MORAN-So the existing information that we collect sets the base for the future evaluation.
So then we look at, you know, what's going on right now, what's going to happen in the future
condition without the project, and then what is it going to look like with that project. So what's
done for that is to estimate the trip generation for the site based upon industry standard data.
So we look at the size of the convenience market and then we estimate trips based upon that
particular project.
MR. TRAVER-And excuse me. When you talk about industry standard data, you're talking
about a similar facility at a similar, at an intersection.
MS. MORAN-So when we did the trip generation at this, it's based upon the land use itself.
Location is a little bit, it's not irrelevant, but location is not the primary factor in estimating trip
generation. What it is is the land use and the size of the land use at the site itself.
MR. TRAVER-Well my initial response would be we know this is not a typical situation. If
anything this is almost a nightmare situation. So I don't know how you can, and forgive me I'm
not a traffic engineer, and I admit that, but I don't know how you can use a sort of standard
model to overlay this project and say, well, according to that model we're going to generate X
number of turns when we know we have a dramatically failed intersection to begin with and
we're adding, obviously adding to that failure by the very nature of adding a bigger project and
then replacing something that's there.
MS. MORAN-Right. So we haven't actually gotten to the analysis point of the intersection itself.
What we do have to start with is estimating the number of trips that are attracted to the site
itself. So that's what the trip generation piece of this is, is that based upon the industry
standard data, and it's, you know, based on thousands and thousands of sites throughout the
United States and Canada, it's what traffic engineers use for this. The project in its entirety
would be expected to generate 216 trips during the morning peak hour and 269 trips during the
p.m. peak hour. Now of those trips a really important factor when we come to a convenience
market like this with the fueling islands is the number of people that are going to be attracted to
the site that are already passing by the roadway. So we call those pass by trips. It works out
pretty well that way. So during the morning peak hour you generally expect about 60% of your
trips to the site to be pass by trips and during the evening peak our it's 65%, which is going to
reduce our total number of new trips onto the roadway network to 95 during the morning and 86
during the evening. So that would be trips that would be attracted to the area that would not
typically be attracted to the area. So that would be in addition to what's going on at the Loft.
The other trips, those pass by trips, are ones that are already, you know, traveling on 149, they
pop in and grab coffee then they come back out and continue along their way. So they're
already at the intersection.
MR. TRAVER-If I might ask another question. You're looking at the trips, and I understand this
makes sense from the normal siting point of view to look at the morning commute, the evening
commute and so on, but again, because of the nature of this shopping area, some of the busiest
times are actually in the middle of the day, not in the morning or the evening.
MS. MORAN-Right. So I understand that aspect of it. However the site itself, even though the
peak for, you know, shopping may be two o'clock on a Saturday afternoon, anybody who is
destined to a Cumberland Farms is not going to go there at two o'clock in the afternoon when
the roadway network area is already busy. So anybody who's going into the Cumberland
Farms at that point is going there because they're already passing by and it's a very easy and
convenient trip for them. This is not a site where somebody is going to come from two or three
miles away if they don't have to and it's not convenient for them.
MR. TRAVER-Unless they're already at the end of the queue waiting for the light.
MS. MORAN-Unless they're already at the end of the queue waiting for the light in which case
they're a pass by trip so they're coming in and then they're going out. So that part does make a
difference and that's why we did look at the July condition as well to see what's going on, again,
not during that two o'clock hour because that's not really when the site is going to be, but
looking at what's going on during the commuter peaks.
MR. TRAVER-And then I guess lastly because I know there are other members that have
questions as well, but as a general approach to thinking about this project, do you, are you
generally in agreement that this is a beyond failed, as it stands now, beyond failed intersection
that's a huge traffic problem?
aa.,�uuuuIlii. Ih.uuull`r II III:,,IIiiIIiiIIIr""iip.0 II � I II`�:u n:.„�`„ n�`."a� p �
MS. MORAN-Well what I would say is that during average conditions what you're finding is
really operating at over a level of service C, during average peak hour conditions as in, what,
seven to nine in the morning, four to six in the evening, under average conditions the
intersection functions just fine.
MR. TRAVER-So you're coming from the premise that this intersection really isn't an issue in
terms of traffic right now.
MS. MORAN-No, that's not what I'm saying.
MR. TRAVER-Okay.
MS. MORAN-What I'm saying is that during your typical average conditions, and I've been
through the intersection multiple times myself, it's fine, but what happens is that when you have
those peak conditions during the summer months, and it happens for roughly a three month
period of the year, that the intersection becomes a bottleneck, but it's not just the intersection
that's a bottleneck, you know, it's the turns in and out of all of the shopping plaza areas. It's
trying to get down to Great Escape. It's trying to get to Lake George. It's all these things.
MR. TRAVER-Right.
MS. MORAN-So the intersection, while it does bottleneck some things, it's not the only part of
kind of what we.
MR. TRAVER-1 should clarify, again, I apologize for not being a traffic engineer, but when I
referred to the intersection I meant the traffic environment not the controls that are in place and
the turning lanes and so on. I wasn't commenting on that. I'm just saying that, and I guess I'm
extraordinarily unlucky because it seems that I've never gone by this intersection during an
average time, because any time I've gone by it's been, you know, tremendous waiting period, in
fact I personally avoid the area myself for that reason.
MS. BITTER-Well I can pretty much tell you exactly when you can hit it from my 43 years of
traveling that intersection.
MR. TRAVER-Okay.
MS. BITTER-And I also could tell you, if you reside in those sections, the other options that are
available.
MR. MAGOWAN-Well I can't believe for 43 years you've gone that way and not gone down Bay
or Ridge to get over there.
MS. BITTER-Well that's what I said there's other options that are available.
MR. MAGOWAN-That's a no no on you.
MS. BITTER-And I don't mean to highlight the other projects that you folks have been approving
throughout the last few years, but you know if you've traveled 149 or if you've even traveled this
stretch, that our competitors do exist. There are other options in which you're going to be able
to get gas, you're going to be able to coffee, if you're traveling down 149 and you're getting to
Route 9. So again it goes into that reasonable person perspective, you know, not that we don't
want customers to come to our store, but we're not going to be the person that's stopping traffic
because those folks are going to go to where it's convenient.
MR. TRAVER-Sure.
MR. MAGOWAN-Well I have to say when I first saw this project, you know what really came to
mind, and it's not really an intersection, but it's Route 4 in Vermont when you get out of
Woodstock and you make that 90 degree angle turn. You have a, you know, a Mobil station, I
don't know Sugar Creek or whatever it's called and the other one is a Cumberland Farms, you
know, and I'm just amazed of that amount of cars that, and, you know, it always gets to be a
little bottleneck on that corner of the people coming in and out all the time. So my first thing to
say to you guys, I'd like to commend you for being so crazy and coming up with this idea,
because it's like, I mean it really is such a great corner and a beautiful building, but I just know
the traffic concerns there, and that whole corridor, I mean it's just not this corner, and, you
know, it's the lighting and everything else, and another thing, since we're in discussion, it's not
to do with the traffic, but the location of your gas tanks, underground gas tanks. I would like to
see them further away from the 149 corridor in case something in the future comes and we have
p.;.„
aa.,�uuuuIlii. Ih.uuull`r II III:,,IIiiIIiiIIIr""iip.0 II � I II`�:u n:.„�`„ n�`."a� p �
to come in with, and swipe your land up because we're coming in with a bridge over off the
Northway.
MS. BITTER-From your lips to God's ears.
MR. MAGOWAN-But I mean I'm just thinking I mean that to me, they're right up there.
Because you really can't go south anymore because you're, you know, because you've got the
store and everything right there and since you are looking to do something, I would say, you
know, those tanks, you know, if you could shift it back a pinch or whatever, I mean, it's
something to look into. On paper here they look pretty close and you look at the highway
boundary, you know, it's right off the corner. I see your back entrance is coming in right before
where the north side splits into the double. So you'll be pulling out in a single lane and going
over, you know, I think that's a great idea because then you're not going over a double lane, but
if you're anything like me I'm right on the, abutting the other car that's right in front of me that's
going so slow to get around them because I've waited so long to get to that point, you know, but
like I said, it's really, it gets down to the traffic concerns, and you make such great sense, but I
have to say, I have a mechanical engineering minded thing. The trips and everything else, it's
mindboggling.
MS. MORAN-Well I do want to say that this project really based upon the size and scope of
what it is versus what's currently going on in the corridor during those busy months, it's not
going to change the nature of what's there already, and it's not going to change the nature of
what people feel and see. It's just not that different from what's already.
MR. FORD-You're not going to attract more traffic, more cars, more people than what exists
there right now?
MS. MORAN-1 think during the typical, what I would call those average conditions during the
morning and evening peak commuter periods that, yes, you will get a few more, you will get
more than what would be there at the Loft already, exactly.
MR. FORD-But you said there wouldn't.
MS. MORAN-But what that means to me is that, yes, you are going to add some more traffic,
but it's not significant, and it's not enough to cause what would be considered a SEQR impact.
MR. FORD-That's like beauty, it's in the eye of the beholder or the eye of the person sitting
there at the wheel trying to make the intersection turn, and it isn't just in the spring or the
summer as you know, but it also is a major thoroughfare for people traveling to the ski resorts in
Vermont.
MR. GILLESPIE-1 just want to add one thing. You guys said yourself you avoid this area
because of the traffic. So picture yourself if you need milk or you need something at the store,
are you going to go out of your way to go to Cumberland Farms during those peak hours. What
she was trying to say or what she is saying is it's not a traffic generator. It's going to generate
some traffic but in an area like this with that much traffic it's not going to be noticeable traffic.
It's going to pull off of the, it's going to feed off of the existing traffic that's already there.
MR. MAGOWAN-1 agree with that.
MR. FORD-Let's assume that that is accurate, it's not going to generate any more traffic.
MR. GILLESPIE-Not noticeable with the traffic.
MR. FORD-Okay, not noticeable.
MR. GILLESPIE-It's mostly, like you said, a 65.
MR. FORD-It isn't going to cut down on the traffic.
MS. MORAN-No.
MR. GILLESPIE-That's for sure.
MR. HUNSINGER-I'm surprised that it's 65%. 1 mean I don't particularly, you know, buy one
type of gas. I buy gas where it's convenient. And I know you guys are the experts, you do the
studies, you know, you do the right hand turn in, you won't take the left to go buy gas. You'll
take a right to go buy gas, but, you know, I do commend you, though, for a couple of the things
X11!
aa.,�uuuuIlii. Ih.uuull`r II III:,,IIiiIIiiIIIr""iip.0 II � I II`�:u n:.„�`„ n�`."a� p �
you did on the design, you know, you pushed the entrances, the ingress and egress out as far
as you could, which is a really good thing. I live on 149, just off 149, two miles away. So I drive
by there all the time and as, you know, people said there's just times when you just don't go
there, you know, we'll get off Exit 20, and I look at the traffic and if it's backed up at the Outlets I
turn right and I go down Glen Lake Road. If it's not bad, I'd go, and it's a lot faster to go 149
when traffic is, as you called it normal, but if it's backed up, you know, you can easily lose 10
minutes on a 6 minute drive.
MS. MORAN-Right.
MR. HUNSINGER-But the other comment that I wanted to make is, you know, on the design,
when I saw the design was like South Glens Falls I kind of cringed because when I think of that
site all I think of is the asphalt and the gas pumps out front. I never see the building. I've
never noticed the building because there's so many pumps and so much asphalt in front. At
least here you have a lot of green space. You do see the building design if it's anything like
those drawings and the pictures that you're showing and it is an attractive building. So I think
it's an okay building.
MR. SHAFER-Could I say something?
MR. TRAVER-Please.
MR. SHAFER-I'd like to build on Steve's first comment, which is, and my background is traffic
engineering by the way so I understand what you're saying, and I don't believe that the average
approach that you've portrayed, which was okay for almost any other project, is appropriate for
this one. Why do I say that? I'd like to know the number of days that 149 is backed up literally
way beyond the RV Park. It's got to be 50 to 100 days a year, and the reason is done that way
is because the traffic signal is such that only one or two cars get through the green phase, and
the reason that exists is because of the pedestrian crossings down at the shopping centers,
people coming out of the outlet stores and trying to make a left across all three lanes, and so
traffic is so stopped in front of the outlets that that signal just can't possibly work like it's
designed, or would work at midnight for example. I think you need to do a very different traffic
study in this instance. I mean you're talking about even in 2008 this report shows a level of
service at that intersection being E in the west bound lane, and that's 10 years ago. And it's
just everybody's experience at this table, most of us go Glen Lake Road if we're going to go to
the Northway or go back home. We'd never go this way because it is so jammed and so
backed up. I don't know how this Board could possibly approve something with this kind of
traffic analysis.
MS. BITTER-Can I ask you a question, Mr. Shafer?
MR. SHAFER-Sure.
MS. BITTER-How is that different than every other commercial building on that mile?
MR. SHAFER-That's not what's in front of us.
MS. BITTER-No, no, no, I know, but I'm just saying when you just mentioned that signal as
impacted by pedestrian crossings and it's backed up to the RV Park, how is this business
contributing any different than any of those other businesses that exist on that mile? They have
all been, to a certain extent, fairly recently approved and inspected. I'm just telling you to look
at it collectively, and I appreciate that you, you are an asset to this discussion because you have
an engineering background. So what differently, what different approach could we have taken
to assist with the traffic, or not contribute to the traffic problem but mitigate it? Because that's
really what we're in a position to talk about. That's what we're in a position to do, because we're
not creating the problem. We're just trying to become a participant in the community.
MR. SHAFER-Do you know what EDC is doing in their traffic study of the corridor? I don't
know that.
MR. HUNSINGER-They haven't shared that with us at all.
MS. MORAN-Actually I have an update on that. So one of the, the EDC is essentially updating
the study from 2009. So they're doing the corridor study. They've selected a consultant.
Creighton Manning Engineering is doing the work for them, but they are currently just in the kind
of initial kick off stages. It's supposed to be roughly a 10 month project. And so they're really
just getting started on what they're doing. What we've done is reach out to the project
manager, Mark Sergeant at Creighton Manning, to let him know about what we're doing here in
„aa
aa.,�uuuuIlii. Ih.uuull`r II III:,,IIiiIIiiIIIr""iip.0 II � I II`�:u n:.„�`„ n�`."a� p �
the corridor, the proposal for the Cumberland Farms in that parcel and also provided to him any
information and any data that he's looking for that we can actually provide. So they're in the
very, very initial stages of what they're doing and it will be about 10 months.
MR. SHAFER-Your paper said you talked to DOT. What did they say?
MS. MORAN-Yes. We've also started initial contact with DOT. They've seen, well they know
about the traffic study we've initiated, the highway work permit process with their initial review
and talked to them a little bit about both potential re-striping on Route 9 near the project
frontage with an extension of a two way left turn lane or the striping of a two way left turn lane to
facilitate turns in and out.
MR. SHAFER-Which direction?
MS. MORAN-On Route 9. So it would be north, yes, it would be the left turn lane and then
north of that. So along that project frontage. So it would benefit the two users that are also on
the west side of the roadway there. We've also talked to them a little bit about the sight
distance at the driveway on Route 149 because if you're sitting at that location and you're
looking to the left there's the pedestrian bridge and the bridge abutment, it blocks the visibility.
So we're talking about the potential to trim down that abutment and put in a retaining wall to
make sure we can maximize our sight distances because we do want to stay as far away from
the intersection as possible with the site access. You still need to be able to see in order to get
out safely.
MR. SHAFER-But have they talked at all about Northway traffic instead of going south by the
outlets going north to Exit 21?
MS. MORAN-We have not gotten into that level of discussion with them. That's something
they're more likely to be doing as part of, you know, the newest corridor study.
MR. SHAFER-I've done a lot of these average studies in my career and I don't think this is the
physical location to do that. I think you have to look more carefully at what happens
downstream at that intersection, meaning along the outlets. How many days is it backing up
and influencing that traffic signal and I think you have to look at the number of days it's backed
up on 149. I've literally seen it backed up to Martindale Road, which is three miles.
MS. MORAN-So I guess my question about doing it in that way, looking at those types of
conditions, is that no matter what the background conditions are in this corridor, there are not
enough trips associated with this project to have a SEQR impact. SEQR impact is a level of
service change as you know and we're not showing any level of service changes as part of this
project.
MR. TRAVER-But what if it's not generating new people coming from miles away to come to
your facility, but what if as opposed to the traffic flow, as poor as it is there now, you now
introduce people, for example coming out on the exit on 149 trying to nose into that traffic
because they want to turn left and they want to go east on 149. So you have the sort of the
existing flow, as terrible as it is, potentially interrupted by turning movements increase, not
number of cars or number of people, but simply because lights, turning, people don't use their
lights, people, you know, saying I want to go left, I want to go right. You have these entrances,
two lane curb cuts on both sides now, that are going to be interacting with whatever traffic, no
matter what we do to try to route traffic flow, you're introducing cars that are now going to be
trying to turn in front of you, all of that kind of thing. I don't know how you calculate that to think
about the traffic impact of this site where it wasn't there before, but I think that that's kind of the
problem that needs to be analyzed to assess the impact, because it is such an unusual, it's
really almost a unique geographic location in terms of all of the interactions with all of the other
stores and so on.
MR. SHAFER-Steve, traffic engineers can do gap analyses and get a handle on that situation.
MR. TRAVER-Okay. I wouldn't think there'd be any gap to analyze.
MR. SHAFER-And that's the problem, there may not be.
MR. TRAVER-But that would be the kind of information we'd want.
MS. MORAN-Well, and again, it depends upon when you look at it. If I look at it for a typical
commuter peak condition, there's plenty of gaps for the traffic to get into and out of the project
aa.,�uuuuIlii. Ih.uuull`r II III:,,IIiiIIiiIIIr""iip.0 II � I II`�:u n:.„�`„ n�`."a� p �
site. If I'm looking at it in July, no, there's not going to be gaps because as you all know there's
queues.
MR. HUNSINGER-The peak hour changes in the summertime very drastically.
MR. TRAVER-Yes, and I think we've already, I've heard several people comment that if I'm
trying to go from Point A to Point B, I'm not going to use this as part of my route. So this is not,
I'm not sure if this should be considered a commuter path. I'm not sure what individual would
commute, unless they're working at your store or one of these other stores, who would
commute via this?
MR. FORD-It's an intersection to be avoided as a matter of fact.
MR. SHAFER-The basic issue, of course, as you know is the long distance traffic from Vermont
to Albany say as an example is routed right down in front of the outlets, which is almost criminal
that that happens, and the obvious answer is to go straight over 9 and build a new interchange
on the Northway and separate those two major traffic streets, and I'm sure that's what the EDC
study will look at. I know they've looked at two lane roads behind the outlets on the east an
also on the west which are problematic in their own rights.
MS. MORAN-Right. I would suggest that funding source for anything like an interchange is, it's
just not anything that any of the DOT's, nobody's looking at that. They don't have any money
for that type of operation. So when you talk about maybe the potential as recommended in the
2009 study for the road to go behind, kind of separate things out, let people have options, those
are the kinds of things that are much more likely to happen because you can partner with your
local government. You can get maybe some State, I wouldn't count on that, but also some
private partnerships as well. So that kind of thing is more doable, and also recognizing your
tradeoffs. Do I want to have pedestrians easily accessible in the corridor? Do I want them to
be able to cross the street easily? If I do then that means my vehicles are going to have to
wait, and you have to recognize those tradeoffs.
MR. TRAVER-Yes.
MS. MORAN-It's a difficult position but it's where you are.
MR. FORD-1 want to jump in because Steve mentioned something that I wanted to just
reinforce. You've got an attractive layout here. The design is really attractive, but we're
looking at, when we look at traffic flow, that is great, and flow is good when it's flowing. When
you interrupt that flow with people making additional turns and stops and trying to get into traffic
going in and out of this at this intersection it is already a bad dream and those turns have the
potential to make it a nightmare.
MS. BITTER-So I have in my notes that we're going to talk about traffic. I just want to, I think
we're almost to the end, but I just wanted to end with something, that somebody had told me
over the last few weeks that when they developed the Northway, Exit 17 was developed in the
fashion it was to take the Vermont traffic, which I never knew, which makes sense now when
you think about it, but obviously no one in this community wants that Vermont traffic to go 17.
They want it to go 20. There was vision to create the outlets on this fantastic mile that exists off
of Exit 20, and with that there's stopping movements was what was created. So I appreciate
the traffic. I know the traffic. I know this corner, but again I go back to every commercial
business that exists on that Mile is counting on that stop and go traffic, is creating that stop and
go traffic. So again I just want you to think about the fact that this commercial building on this
commercial spot is just another commercial entity on that strip.
MR. FORD-Is this commercial entity going to improve or make worse that intersection?
MS. BITTER-1 don't think it's going to change it.
MR. FORD-You don't think it's going to change it?
MS. BITTER-Not any more than.
MR. FORD-With people coming in and out and adding additional.
MR. MAGOWAN-I think it will change it but I think it will be minimal. Your business is going to
come when people are in the queue. You're going to have people that are backed up down
149 and have to go to the bathroom. Once they get in there they're going to say well, gee, I
might as well have another coffee because I'm tired, we have this long trip we have to make
down to the City. Now I can have a coffee.
aa.,�uuuuIlii. Ih.uuull`r II III:,,IIiiIIiiIIIr""iip.0 II � I II`�:u n:.„�`„ n�`."a� p �
MR. FORD-But they have to get back into traffic.
MR. MAGOWAN-Well, and that's true, and I'm looking at that, and you've got your people
coming in off of 149. So this is what I see is I see all right, you've got the people, it's nice to
come in, but, you know, they can make that right in and get what they need, gas up. Now it's
getting out and doing that left, all right, because what you have, and this is only when traffic is
backed up. If you've got it flowing people are a little bit more patient and they'll, you know, let
people out and wave and I'll usually try to tell them when it's safe you could do it, but, you know,
they don't get my signal I step on the gas and get out quick because, but I don't do that
anymore, but like I said you're going to get people that, and then it's going to get a little more
impatient, and what I'm going to see is, you know, people are going to try to push it and thing
bingo we're going to have an accident there and that is not, not a good situation. I do agree
with what you're saying that that whole corridor is based on this traffic, and there is a large
volume of sales tax dollars that comes in to our Town for this. So what I see people coming in,
if you become a regular of this, you know, the best thing would be to come in and gas up and
then you'd pull out here on Route 9 and continue straight down. That's why I'm saying
eventually, that's why I brought up the gas tank because what I'm seeing is the holding tanks, if
we can move them, you know, over to what would be the west side maybe, until that study, and
what we come to figure out, yes, we'd all love a bridge to come right off the Northway right over
Dexter's Shoes, but that's not going to happen.
MR. DEEB-It does generate business and more business does generate business. There's a
lot of business there now. There's a tremendous amount of business there now. So how
much more is it going to add? Is it needed? Secondly your referral to the Exit 17 corridor, I
know that was cloverleaf, and the reason they put the cloverleaf in was because that was going
to be the main thoroughfare. Exit 18 was never supposed to be a thoroughfare, and that turned
to be used to no end, and to the Devil's Advocate here, we had a project before us recently on
the corner of Quaker and Dix. I'm sure you're familiar with it, Fastrac, and it was very similar to
this situation, very similar, as far as layout and that imploded.
BOB SEARS
MR. SEARS-Excuse me, can I say a few words about that?
MR. TRAVER-Are you part of this project?
MR. SEARS-I'm the broker involved. Speaking of Fastrac, I'm involved with both of the Fastrac
projects, the one down on Quaker and Dix Avenue, Fastrac was supposed to buy the whole
seven acres, then all of a sudden they backed out of buying the whole seven and they only
wanted to buy two. They couldn't just buy two, so that's why they backed out. The traffic was
obviously a problem down there, David, that had to be addressed, but that wasn't the reason
why it imploded.
MR. DEEB-That's not why they pulled out, but I think there was going to be an obstacle to
overcome.
MR. SEARS-Obviously. Now all that being said, you guys are wonderful. I love every one of
you because you put your homework in. You do the job right and you make good decisions.
This is a hell of an opportunity for both Cumberland Farms and for you people. Cumberland
Farms has come to you with a beautiful building that is a beginning of a project here. They're
trying to help the traffic. There could be things that could be done to mitigate some of your
concerns. The discussion is to seek those things out so that you have a comfort level.
MR. FORD-That's their challenge.
MR. SEARS-Yes, but they've got plenty of land here to do any number of things to move the
building back or do whatever needs to be done. At least they could mitigate some of the
problems that are there now. I've been marketing part of this property for the last four years,
and this use is not near as impactful as some of the other uses that have been discussed on
this property. It is zoned Highway Commercial Intensive. You could put another big retail
outlet center there. We had a dinosaur park that was looking at it, okay, and you know a
dinosaur park right there on those three or four acres, imagine the traffic that would create.
MR. TRAVER-Yes, and for that reason it probably never would have been located there.
MR. SEARS-It's zoned for it, okay, and it probably wouldn't have been, but the thing is this use
is probably, in general terms, is not as strong a use as you could get there and any number of
aa.,�uuuuIlii. Ih.uuull`r II III:,,IIiiIIiiIIIr""iip.0 II � I II`�:u n:.„�`„ n�`."a� p �
other uses. And also you have a very willing participant that will help to maybe mitigate some
of those concerns, and thank you for your time.
MR. TRAVER-Thank you.
MR. DEEB-Thanks, Bob.
MR. MAGOWAN-Thanks, Bob.
MR. TRAVER-All right. Well you've certainly heard plenty of feedback from us, much of it not in
traffic engineering terms, but I think we've given you some additional feedback anyway to go
back with some ideas of what we would be looking at in terms of reassurances and the kinds of
data that we like to look at because this is not a typical intersection, in my mind, that you can
pull a study out of a classic situation for all the reasons that you've heard us discuss. So I don't
know if you have any specific or follow up questions for us. What you see as next steps.
MS. BITTER-1 think you've given us some homework and that's why we started here with this
discussion. I mean, we knew this wasn't any easy site. It wasn't going to be a one meeting
approval, but, you know, I can tell you that, just to follow up on Mr. Deeb's comment, that we've
developed sites that Fastrac is in. So we're familiar with challenges and we've had multiple
discussions with municipalities that we start and traffic is a concern. So that's why we wanted
to start, we wanted to get ideas to gather as to what you thought could work and what you
thought could make it in this intersection.
MR. TRAVER-Well, and I think as we sit here as a Board this evening, we're not saying that we
can't end with a project, but you I'm sure are very sensitive to the fact that we feel that we have
almost a fiduciary responsibility to protect the public and this is such an infamous, if you will,
area that we really feel that it would be irresponsible to not come up with something that's going
to mitigate, again, coming from the approach of first do no harm, I think certainly where I'm
coming from and I think most of the Board is coming from.
MR. SHAFER-Just a comment on the traffic. I made the comment that this is not an average
situation. So using averages out of the ITE books is just not going to work, peak hour and p.m.
that's all fine but I think we need to know for example, not just the number of cycles during the
peak hour, but the number of hours of the year perhaps that the queue goes all the way out your
driveway and down 149 and similarly down where the outlets are, in years that it's so backed up
that it impacts that traffic signal's cycle, and then once we have that information, you would
need to tell us how the driveways are going to operate appropriately given those queues and
those backups.
MR. DEEB-The other thing, too, your studies were done Wednesdays, Thursdays. I think
we've got to look at a weekend. I mean, the weekends are the busiest times, and I agree that
the peak times are not going to be seven to nine and four to six. I think in the summertime
they're going to be nine to five, nine to six, they're going to be all day, because I had a business
up there and I know.
MS. MORAN-It gets a little, and you're not looking at a single peak hour or a single condition,
what are you looking at. This is not the type of thing where we can look at 24 hours and say
that it's going to look like this at midnight and look like this at seven. So I certainly want to give
you what you're looking for, but we need to be reasonable about how to go about it because we
can't collect a year's worth of data on vehicle queues.
MR. TRAVER-Well that makes sense. I think what raises a red flag is you were talking about,
you know, 10 or 15 cars queued up, and it's a matter of common experience that it's, you know,
in some cases the line can be several miles. So when we're hearing such a disparity, we're
assuming certainly you're being very forthright in presenting the data that you have. It could be
that the data that's relevant to our concern is maybe from, is from a different data set, is a
different period. What period of time that would be I don't know, but it clearly is not a, doesn't
seem to fit the common experience of people who live in the area and members of this Board.
MR. SHAFER-For example one of the backup periods is Saturday mornings. Because of the
rental program turnovers in Vermont. That's when all of the ski rentals turnover. So this
intersection backs up. If you go there this Saturday morning I would guarantee you'll find it
backed up.
MR. TRAVER-That's interesting.
aa.,�uuuuIlii. Ih.uuull`r II III:,,IIiiIIiiIIIr""iip.0 II � I II`�:u n:.„�`„ n�`."a� p �
MR. MAGOWAN-Yes, but see that's not because of Cumberland Farms. That's just because
it's a major corridor.
MR. TRAVER-Right, but again, the impact, as they pointed out, they're not generating people
coming deciding well I'm going to go to that area and go to Cumberland Farms. Some people
may do that, but not many. It's mainly the impact on the flow, the fact that now you're going to
have somebody after that foot bridge going up the hill to Route 9, they're going to want to get
out and turn left. So they're going to be, eventually they're going to get sick of waiting and
they're going to start nosing out and blocking traffic. But that's the kind of, it's more of a, think
of it like a work flow.
MR. MAGOWAN-No, and I understand that, there's going to be, I mean overall I have to say
that really you did a beautiful job of laying that and it would really look nice on that corner.
MR. TRAVER-That's not even an issue.
MR. MAGOWAN-And I would just like to see something done with the whole corridor to make
the traffic a little bit easier because I know what's going to happen. I say, gee, let's go for it and
do it and give you your approval, and I won't be able to walk around this Town anymore
because people are going to say why did you do that.
MR. TRAVER-Well that would never happen.
MR. HUNSINGER-But I can tell you what has happened already since the story in the paper
that you were proposing it. Several people have approached me and said how could you even
consider that. So I'm just telling you that's the public's perception.
MR. DEEB-No, it's true. It is out there.
MS. BITTER-Duly noted.
MR. MAGOWAN-So of course I told them, I said they're coming in for a discussion. That's all
right now.
MR. TRAVER-We haven't even gotten to the public hearing.
MR. MAGOWAN-Yes.
MR. DEEB-Do did we give you enough challenge?
MR. SHAFER-And we will try to ignore that the Loft had the best soft ice cream in the area.
MR. TRAVER-Well, and the good news is based on what you've presented us this evening it's
clear that your plan is to do a good job and provide us whatever we need to do a reasonable
evaluation of your project. So we'll look forward to you coming back with perhaps some of the
data after having looked at the specifics of this area that are more relevant to the issue of
dropping this in out of the atmosphere somehow. Now suddenly you have this facility with the
existing traffic flow. What's going to be the impact on that? And obviously there will be an
impact and so what we really need to do collectively is try to mitigate it. If we can make it work
and make the traffic not any worse or maybe even better somehow I don't know how we would
do that, but that should be our goal. I think you would agree.
MS. BITTER-Yes.
MR. TRAVER-So let's try and do that.
MR. FORD-Following up on what Steve said before. Look at it from a perspective of do no
harm. And if you can start with that and prove that point, any incremental step that you can
take to make it better, you're going to skate. That's your challenge.
MR. TRAVER-Yes.
MR. MAGOWAN-And in return of doing your work, I know this is going to be in The Post Star
tomorrow, if you make it tonight maybe the next day. I'll help you start marketing it.
MS. BITTER-All right. Thank you.
as
aa.,�uuuuIlii. Ih.uuull`r II III:,,IIiiIIiiIIIr""iip.0 II � I II`�:u n:.„�`„ n�`."a� p �
MR. TRAVER-Thank you. I appreciate your time. All right. That concludes our formal agenda
this evening. I just had a couple of things. I wanted, again, to acknowledge Mr. Ford. This is
his last meeting formally on the Planning Board. I'm sure he will perhaps be available as an
advisory capacity to us from time to time, but we certainly appreciate and thank you for your
service.
MR. DEEB-Thank you, Tom.
MR. TRAVER-And other than that, just everybody have a nice holiday season. Be safe in the
storm that's coming in about six hours.
MR. SHAFER-Motion to adjourn.
MR. HUNSINGER-Second.
MOTION TO ADJOURN THE QUEENSBURY PLANNING BOARD MEETING OF DECEMBER
21, 2017, Introduced by John Shafer who moved for its adoption, seconded by Chris Hunsinger:
Duly adopted this 21St day of December, 2017, by the following vote:
AYES: Mr. Shafer, Ms. White, Mr. Ford, Mr. Deeb, Mr. Hunsinger, Mr. Magowan, Mr. Traver
NOES: NONE
MR. TRAVER-We stand adjourned. Thank you, everybody.
On motion meeting was adjourned.
RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED,
Stephen Traver, Chairman