07-17-2018 4�..
I[:rIarning : (,-.)M .i 0 711.7/2 0 18)
QUEENSBURY PLANNING BOARD MEETING
FIRST REGULAR MEETING
J U LY 17, 2018
INDEX
Zoning Change Recommendation The Fort Miller Co., Inc. 1.
Tax Map No. 279.-1-48
Site Plan No. 47-2018 Larry Steinhart 6.
ZBA RECOMMENDATION Tax Map No. 226.12-1-64
Site Plan No. 36-2018 Faden Enterprises, Inc. 8.
Tax Map No. 296.17-1-49
Site Plan No. 37-2018 Faden Enterprises, Inc. 16.
Tax Map No. 296.17-1-47
Subdivision No. 10-2018 Richard & Sharon Bapp 18.
FINAL STAGE Tax Map No. 308.19-1-29.1
Site Plan No. 44-2018 Mike Baird & Julie Jarvis 21.
Tax Map No. 308.15-1-44
Site Plan No. 48-2018 Community Work & Independence, Inc. 25.
Tax Map No. 302.12-1-44
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
FIRST REGULAR MEETING
4�..
I[:rIarnin ; : t,-.M .i 0 711.7/2 0 18)
J U LY 17, 2018
7:00 P.M.
MEMBERS PRESENT
STEPHEN TRAVER, CHAIRMAN
CHRIS HUNSINGER, VICE CHAIRMAN
DAVID DEEB, SECRETARY
JAMIE WHITE
BRAD MAGOWAN
JOHN SHAFER
MICHAEL VALENTINE
LAND USE PLANNER-LAURA MOORE
STENOGRAPHER-MARIA GAGLIARDI
MR. TRAVER-Good evening, ladies and gentlemen. Welcome to the Town of Queensbury
Planning Board meeting. This is the Tuesday, July 17th meeting. This being the first meeting in
July and the 15th meeting so far in 2018. Please take note of the exit signs. In the case of
emergency we would ask that you leave the building in an orderly manner, and there should be
some agendas on the table at the rear of the room if you need one of those. Those of you who
have an electronic device, if you would either turn it off or turn the ringer off we would appreciate
it, and with that we begin our agenda with approval of minutes for May 15th and May 17tn.
APPROVAL OF MINUTES
May 15th, 2018
May 17th, 2018
MOTION TO APPROVE THE QUEENSBURY PLANNING BOARD MEETING MINUTES OF
MAY 15T" AND MAY 17T", 2018, Introduced by David Deeb who moved for its adoption,
seconded by Michael Valentine:
Duly adopted this 17th day of July, 2018, by the following vote:
AYES: Mr. Deeb, Ms. White, Mr. Shafer, Mr. Hunsinger, Mr. Magowan, Mr. Valentine
NOES: NONE
ABSTAINED: Mr. Traver
MR. TRAVER-And the first item on our agenda is an Administrative Item for the Fort Miller Co.,
Inc., a Zoning Change Recommendation.
ADMINISTRATIVE ITEM
ZONING CHANGE RECOMMENDATION SEAR TYPE: TYPE I DEC COMPLETED. THE
FORT MILLER CO., INC. AGENT(S): JONATHAN C. LAPPER, ESQ. OWNER(S): JOHN
KUBRICKY & SONS. ZONING: RR-5A. LOCATION: 1359 RIDGE ROAD ZONING
REFERRAL: PLANNING BOARD TO PROVIDE A RECOMMENDATION TO THE TOWN
BOARD ON ZONING REQUEST FROM MDR TO RR-5A. ALSO TO INCLUDE
COMMERCIAL MINERAL EXTRACTION AND SAND, GRAVEL & TOP SOIL EXTRACTION,
COMMERCIAL IN THE LIST OF USES OF THE RR-5A ZONE. SITE PLAN AND SPECIAL
USE PERMIT IN REVIEW PROCESS. APPLICANT PROPOSES CONTINUATION OF SAND
AND GRAVEL OPERATIONS. PROJECT HAS ACCESS ROAD FROM RIDGE ROAD
THROUGH AN EASEMENT WITH KUBRICKY/COLLINS PROPERTY AND WILL ABANDON
DREAM LAKE ROAD ACCESS EXCEPT FOR EMERGENCY. CROSS REFERENCE: SP 6-
2015; SP 7-2015; SP 55-2015, UV 57-2015; SP PZ 223-2016; SUP PZ 224-2016; SP 12-2017;
UV 1-2017. WARREN CO. REFERRAL: N/A FOR ZONING RECOMMENDATION. SITE
INFORMATION: APA. LOT SIZE: 9.23 ACRES. TAX MAP NO. 279.4-48. SECTION:
179-10-070, 179-3-040, 179-9-080
JON LAPPER, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT
MR. TRAVER-And this is a little bit of an unusual item for us, Laura. So I wondered if we could
go through for everyone's edification sort of the process timeline that we're looking at.
2
4�..
I[:rIarning : (,-.)M .i 0 711.7/2 0 18)
MRS. MOORE-Okay.
MR. TRAVER-My understanding is that Fort Miller put a proposal to do a zoning change and
submitted that to the Town, that there was some preliminary discussion which lead to a referral
to us to look at it and decide if it should go to the Town Board for a full review including public
hearing and potential approval or denial of the zoning change and that could happen, we would
conceivably do that tonight and potentially in August the Town Board would hold a public
hearing, and then in September/October, sometime in the fall presumably we would get the
formal application for Site Plan Review and so on. There would be another public hearing
associated with that process.
MRS. MOORE-That's correct.
MR. TRAVER-So that's generally correct?
MRS. MOORE-That's generally correct.
MR. TRAVER-Okay. Thank you. Good evening.
MR. LAPPER-Good evening, everyone. For the record Jon Lapper with Butch Marcelli. So
some of you are new but many of you are familiar with this. This project has been before the
Town and before the Planning Board for a number of years. The gravel pit, which is quietly
located between Ridge and Bay Road, which is just north of here, quietly I mean only because
you drive on Ridge and Bay and you have no idea it's there, but it does go by a whole bunch of
people's homes on Dream Lake Road, the access road. So after some different iterations in
the proposal what we ultimately came up with was to construct the new road to come out by the
Town transfer station on Ridge Road, which will eliminate driving in front of everybody's home
on Dream Lake Road. So we've been meeting with the Town Board for a while to finalize that,
required the change of zoning on the parcel which is owned by Kubricky and leased to Fort
Miller which is right on the access area of Ridge Road, in order to have the rights to build this
pretty expensive road, but the result of building this road is that the trucks would leave the pit
and go directly onto the new road and directly onto Ridge Road and not on Dream Lake Road at
all and not past anybody's house. So procedurally, because it's a mining permit, DEC has
jurisdiction so they have gone through the whole process of SEQR and this Board and the Town
Board consented to them being Lead Agency for SEAR. They did a review, had a public
hearing, granted the Neg Dec, both Type I action and Neg Dec and also granted the mining
permit. So we're all set with DEC with the mining permit subject to, the main thing is that the
Town Board has to change the zoning from MDR to RR-5A on that last piece. So if you see on
the top right, the very last piece on top, that's where the zone would change from MDR to RR-
5A and that thick road you can see on the top, coming from there halfway down is the new
access road, and everything on the bottom that you see is where they go now past everybody's
home on Dream Lake Road. That will be eliminated. The other change that we requested is
that right now there's a setback for mining from residential and we've asked that that be, instead
of a setback, a buffer so that the Planning Board has the right to review that and to determine
what's appropriate. So that's part of this change as well. So it would give the Planning Board
rather than make it a variance issue with the DEC, Planning Board part of the whole planning
process, they'd get to decide what's an appropriate buffer. So we're hopeful that you will
recommend this, the Town Board will approve it after a public hearing, and as the Chairman
said we'll be back here in September or October to start the process of reviewing this. It's an
important project to Fort Miller. They're a big player and they need to have the materials for
construction. Mining is an important part of construction in every area, and that's what DEC,
the State's in charge of that because you need to have mines but they need to be done properly
and Fort Miller's got a really good reputation for doing it properly and we think that this is the
right way to do it, to change the road even though it's at a very substantial cost. So that's really
the general story and we're just here to answer any questions.
MR. TRAVER-Okay. Questions from members of the Planning Board?
MR. VALENTINE-I'm starting from not having been involved with this in the past. So it may
sound redundant, some of the questions. Lead Agency, as I look through, that went through
with DEC?
MR. LAPPER-Yes.
MR. VALENTINE-Okay. And I'm looking at Laura's notes in here, is also to include commercial
mineral extraction and sand, gravel and topsoil extraction, commercial in the list of uses. So
there are commercial uses that are being proposed other than just a mining operation?
3
4�..
I[:rIarning : (,-.)M .i 0 711.7/2 0 18)
MR. LAPPER-They're not. We're only proposing mining.
MR. VALENTINE-Okay. Just mining.
MR. LAPPER-Just generic changes for the whole zone.
MR. VALENTINE-Okay. Coming out with the new drive, new entrance, curb cut permit.
MR. LAPPER-It's an existing curb cut that's been there for 50 years because Kubricky already
has a mine pit.
MR. VALENTINE-Okay. So DOT recognizes it?
MR. LAPPER-Yes.
MR. VALENTINE-Okay.
MR. MAGOWAN-It's coming out where the cell tower is now.
MR. LAPPER-Yes.
MR. VALENTINE-And then the other question was, and I had it at the beginning of your notes
then later on my first question, does it conform to the Comprehensive Plan, and Laura answered
that one later on in the notes there. It doesn't specifically spell out any recommendations for
this area.
MRS. MOORE-Correct.
MR. VALENTINE-1 think the biggest thing I had here in your notes is that the change of zone of
the parcel is not out of character for the neighborhood, and I think that would be, on this, for our
recommendation, would probably be the prime reason for it being there. So when it comes
back to us we'll see it again for Site Plan.
MR. TRAVER-For Site Plan.
MR. LAPPER-And Special Use Permit.
MR. VALENTINE-Okay.
MR. DEEB-Jon, can you elaborate on the buffer you were talking about?
MR. LAPPER-Well, that would be part of our presentation, when the zone change goes through
you would have the right to look at what's an appropriate buffer for this use in this zone. So
we'll make that case when we come back to you. This would just give you the right to review.
MR. TRAVER-But the default currently would be 1,000 feet.
MR. DEEB-It's now 1,000 feet.
MR. TRAVER-From a residential.
MR. LAPPER-Yes, and basically because of the topography here that it goes up a hill behind
the houses so nobody can see it, but we'll have to make that case and justify it when it's
appropriate and come back.
MR. SHAFER-Question. On the Code map what specifically is being, what parcel specifically is
being re-zoned or is it the whole parcel?
MR. LAPPER-That's a good question because it's easy to see on the colored map.
BUTCH MARCELLI
MR. MARCELLI-It's this parcel right here, 9.23 acres that belong to Kubricky.
MR. SHAFER-Okay. That's the issue.
MR. MARCELLI-We have an easement with them through ours to go through that.
4
4�..
I[:rIarning : (,-.)M .i 0 711.7/2 0 18)
MR. SHAFER-Okay.
MR. MARCELLI-So we're looking to get it zoned RR-5 so we can get into our pit.
MR. SHAFER-9L to the north, that stopping sight distance is adequate there, DOT standards?
MR. MARCELLI-Yes, it's been used as a gravel pit for 30, 40 years. There's been no issues.
The transfer station's right across the street. So this came about, if you remember the story,
the history of this whole project, we originally were going out 149. You remember that whole
story, and so we, that was our plan you approved. The Town changed the zoning say great
we're going to get you guys off Dream Lake Road. We're happy. We called DEC, APA, Corps
of Engineers, the Town Planning Board was there, Planning Board members, and DOT, we had
everybody there. We started walking the property, and they're saying to me why are you going
out this way? Why don't you? And I said well we're going to 149, and they said well why
don't you go this way through Kubricky's? It's an existing gravel pit. It's a road. It's a State
highway and you don't have to go through environmentally sensitive stuff. So I did one of these
jobs and we said okay, came back and APA said they're good. Corps of Engineers is gone.
DOT is gone. DEC is now done. So here we are. So that was a, we didn't think of that, to be
honest with you.
MR. TRAVER-So in addition to being an existing gravel pit I think I've seen some firewood
processing take place there, too.
MR. MARCELLI-Not on our property.
MR. TRAVER-Well, no, I'm talking about on the Kubricky. Just driving by I've seen piles of.
MR. MARC ELLI-Ku bricky's? Yes, they also were using the fill, they were filling in as part of
their reclamation. They put the cell tower in as part of their plan to. DEC, by the way, has
already modified their permit and is ready to issue them the modification permit to allow the road
to come in. So that is part of their review.
MR. MAGOWAN-But they're not going to be taking anymore fill out of there.
MR. MARCELLI-I can't speak for them but there's nothing left there. There's just a big hole
there. They were filling it in.
MR. HUNSINGER-One of the interesting comments on the SEAR, on the Part III assessment,
and I mean I know this isn't your language. This is DEC saying this, but it says the mine is a
continuation of an existing mine with no intended expansion at the rate of operation.
MR. LAPPER-That's expansion at the rate of operation.
MR. HUNSINGER-Yes. I was just asking to clarify that.
MR. MARCELLI-Yes, we don't plan on increasing the activity. We bought the pit from the
previous to protect ourselves when the Hudson River dredging was going through because we
were told by the suppliers that it was sand and stone going to the gravel pit and our price could
go crazy. Why would they sell it to us if they could put it in the river? So we got a little
nervous and started to look around and this property became available. We purchased it from
the Fane family who had operated it for a while. It was originally the Ellsworth family I think
who had it before them, and we purchased it to provide it to the Fort Miller Co. who were in the
pre-cast concrete business. You need sand and stone in order to make concrete and we were
concerned about, I said we may get bumped out of the market. So we bought that kind of as a
survival and didn't do anything with it for three years. It kind of calmed down. People saw that
we had a pit. Prices started to come back and everybody was our friend again. About six
years ago we started operating again, and we were taking about 100,000 tons a year out of
there.
MR. VALENTINE-Is that the basis of what Chris was saying is the rate?
MR. MARCELLI-Right. We don't plan on going in there and taking two million tons out of there.
That's not our end game. Our end game is to, in a year.
MR. MAGOWAN-And that's about what you guys need.
MR. MARCELLI-No, that's total.
5
4�..
I[:rIarning : t,-.M .i 0 711.7/2 0 18)
MR. MAGOWAN-No, I mean, is that 100,000 tons just for Fort Miller?
MR. MARCELLI-100,000 tons is what we've been selling. We've sold to Duke Concrete.
They've been buying our sand, and Latham Clemente Concrete. They're buying the sand. It's
a very good quality sand, concrete sand.
MR. MAGOWAN-Right.
MR. MARCELLI-So those are our three customers pretty much, and we don't sell a whole lot to
anybody else.
MR. MAGOWAN-And then I see Peckham's Corp is also kind of. It's kind of funny because I'm
out on Pattens Mills and they dug a six foot trench and once they got below the sand they got
into the gray, nice sand. So I know there's a vine that goes all the way out there and all the
way down, and that's why they're all on the same line, from Dream Lake, and really my major
concern is really that buffer zone right behind all the houses because of what's going on across
the street, and I mean they're going haywire across the street, which is not you but it used to be
the old McLaughlin's and then I think it's Ellsworth's owns across the street. So my only
concern would be the buffer, because I was there on the walk. I was there when we walked out
to 149. I think this is a much better application. It's a heck of a road, but you're willing to do it,
and like I said, you do, do a nice, anything to get it off of Dream Lake and get the people happy
over there, but I also am concerned about the people along Ridge, and like you said, Kubricky's
been up there for a coon's age the dump was made out of that and Ceiba Geigy's fill, and
O'Connor's is still down there. So it's not out of the characteristics of the area, but I'd just hate
to see, you know, a mountain being created by taking out too much on either side of Ridge
Road.
MR. TRAVER-At this stage there is no public hearing. There will be opportunity for public
hearing, assuming that the Town takes up this item further, and then should this come back for
Site Plan as anticipated there would be opportunity for public hearing at that stage as well. Any
other comments, questions from members of the Planning Board? Our object tonight is
basically to make a referral to the Town Board for the zoning request to allow them to continue
the process. So I guess on that basis, so I guess if there are no more questions. Are there
anymore comments or questions from the applicant? Okay. Then I guess we're ready for a
motion, then.
RESOLUTION RE: TOWN BOARD RECOMMENDATION RE: FORT MILLER
Whereas, an application has been made to the Town of Queensbury Town Board for a zoning
change. The Town Board referred this application to the Planning Board for an advisory
recommendation pursuant to Section 179-15-020;
Whereas, the applicant proposes to rezone a 9.23 acre parcel currently zoned Moderate
Density Residential (MDR) to Rural Residential Five Acre (RR-5A);
Whereas, the Planning Board will review the applicant's site plan and special use permit
pursuant to the requirements of Section 179-10-070 and Section 179-9-020;
Whereas, the State Environmental Quality Review Act has been completed by the New York
Department of Environmental Conservation and the agency has issued a negative declaration
January 2018;
Now, Therefore, be it resolved, that we find the following:
MOTION FOR RECOMMENDATION TO THE TOWN BOARD AS FAVORABLE FOR ZONING
REQUEST FROM MDR TO RR-5A AND TO CLARIFY SECTION 179-10-070 TO INCLUDE
RURAL RESIDENTIAL IN THE LIST OF ZONES FOR THE PROPOSED USE. (FORT MILLER
CO., INC.) Introduced by David Deeb who moved its adoption, and
Motion seconded by Brad Magowan. Duly adopted this 17th day of July, 2018 by the following
vote:
AYES: Ms. White, Mr. Shafer, Mr. Hunsinger, Mr. Magowan, Mr. Valentine, Mr. Deeb, Mr.
Traver
NOES: NONE
MR. TRAVER-All right.
6
4�..
I[:rIarnin ; : (,-.)M .i 0 711.7/2 0 18)
MR. LAPPER-Thank you.
MR. TRAVER-See you at some point in the future.
MR. MARCELLI-Thank you.
MR. TRAVER-Next we move to the next section of our agenda which is Planning Board
Recommendations, and the first application is Larry Steinhart, Site Plan 47-2018.
PLANNING BOARD RECOMMENDATION TO THE ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS:
SITE PLAN NO. 47-2018 SEAR TYPE: TYPE II. LARRY STEINHART. AGENT(S):
HUTCHINS ENGINEERING. OWNER(S): SAME AS APPLICANT. ZONING: WR.
LOCATION: 362 CLEVERDALE ROAD. APPLICANT PROPOSES 136 SQ. FT. SINGLE
STORY ADDITION TO EXISTING 1156 SQ. FT. (FOOTPRINT) HOME. EXISTING HOME
HAS FAR OF 2,007 SQ. FT. AND PROPOSED IS 2,143 SQ. FT. PROJECT INCLUDES
REMOVAL OF SOME EXISTING HARD SURFACE AREAS. PURSUANT TO CHAPTER
179-3-040 OF THE ZONING ORDINANCE, EXPANSION OF A NON-CONFORMING
STRUCTURE SHALL BE SUBJECT TO PLANNING BOARD REVIEW AND APPROVAL.
VARIANCE: RELIEF IS SOUGHT FOR SETBACKS AND FAR. PLANNING BOARD SHALL
PROVIDE A RECOMMENDATION TO THE ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS. CROSS
REFERENCE: 2013-547 SEPTIC ALT.; WARREN CO. REFERRAL: JULY 2018 SITE
INFORMATION: APA, LGP. LOT SIZE: .21 ACRES. TAX MAP NO. 226.12-1-64.
SECTION: 179-3-040.
JON LAPPER & TOM HUTCHINS, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT
MR. TRAVER-Laura?
MRS. MOORE-All right. So this applicant proposes a 136 square foot single-story addition to a
1,056 square foot, and this is the footprint of the home. The variance is relief sought for
setbacks and Floor Area Ratio. The addition is to expand a first floor bedroom and the
requirement is a 20 foot setback and they're proposing 7.6. The Floor Area is proposed to be
23.7 and is to be 22%.
MR. TRAVER-Okay. Thank you.
MR. LAPPER-Thanks, everybody. For the record Jon Zapper with the project engineer Tom
Hutchins. I'll start out and let Tom walk you through the Site Plan but in general is an older
couple that's owned the property since 2009 and they want to make this their permanent
retirement home. So they now have a first floor powder room and they want to make it into a
full bath so that they have it on one floor a master suite. We looked at this and said we're over
on permeability so we're going to come in and ask for a variance for 136 square feet, relatively
modest, but we should change the permeability so it's not going to be any more impermeable
and Tom was able to eliminate some hard surface to make it less impermeable to justify the
variance. Again, 136 square feet, pretty minor, but it's really important to them. It's away from
the lake. It's in the back of the property, but really important to them in terms of the
functionality as a retirement home. So with that I'll turn it over to Tom.
MR. HUTCHINS-Good evening, Board. For the record Tom Hutchins. Yes, the proposed
addition on this residence would fit in this square area here and basically square off this corner.
Again it's 136 square feet. The building plans show it fairly well. There's a side by side floor
plan existing. Proposed is a very small bedroom. It's a ten by eleven bedroom or something
with a very small bath and this allows them to put a reasonably sized master bedroom/bath on
the first floor. As far as the property, again we've reduced, we've taken out what we found
were some, or at least the least necessary impermeable areas on the site. So we have a net
reduction in impervious area by a few square feet. So we're not increasing that. Floor area
ratio we're asking for a little relief because we are adding 136 square feet of floor area. History
on the property, the wastewater system was updated in 2013 with an enhanced treatment
system. It's current. It's modern. It's to today's standard and it's what we want to see on the
lake. With that I think I'd turn it over to the Board for questions. Again we're asking for relief
on this side setback right here and floor area ratio.
MR. TRAVER-Right, the side away from the lake.
MR. HUTCHINS-Well, yes, the lake down here. It's this, but there's a garage right here. So
you're really, this will be essentially not visible, because it is much lower.
7
4�..
I[:rIarning : (,-.)M .i 0 711.7/2 0 18)
MR. TRAVER-Okay. Questions of the applicant from the Planning Board?
MR. SHAFER-Tom, the 2013 wastewater design included this new bedroom, sorry, bathroom?
MR. HUTCHINS-It included, yes, the bathroom, well, there is a bathroom there. It's a five
bedroom design and it's technically a five bedroom house, although the upstairs bedrooms are
very, very small.
MR. SHAFER-On the site plan there's a dashed line that geos from the existing tanks obviously
to the stone bed, but there's also a dashed line that goes all the way down to the lake. I didn't
understand what that was there for on the site plan.
MR. VALENTINE-What sheet are you on, John?
MR. SHAFER-The site plan.
MR. MAGOWAN-Is that a toilet down in the boathouse area?
MR. HUTCHINS-1 presume it may be. I don't know the answer to your question.
MR. MAGOWAN-Because if you look at it, John, it comes into the house and it ties in right here
with the existing tanks and then it's pumped up into the, up to here. So I'm thinking this round
thing here. I saw that line, too. I think there's a toilet out there.
MR. HUTCHINS-Yes, it goes to the wastewater system.
MR. MAGOWAN-It must be a pump toilet for being elderly. I have to say this is quite a design
change with taking out the concrete putting in the patio, you know, the pavers, and what you're
doing for an upgrade, just to make it a little bit easier bathroom, and what is the corner of the
house right now is a little over eight feet, and you're going to seven foot six.
MR. HUTCHINS-Yes.
MR. MAGOWAN-And actually that's on the eaves trench. Right?
MR. HUTCHINS-Well, that dimension's cut to the corner of the foundation.
MR. MAGOWAN-Tom, your numbers are usually spot on. I have to say that I was very
impressed to see what's there and now to see what you're putting there. I think it'll be a nice
improvement and it will definitely help the owners be able to age out and be able to enjoy the
house.
MR. TRAVER-Other questions from members of the Board? This is a referral to the ZBA.
There's no public hearing at this phase. Do we need to list any concerns we have with the
application or are there any at this stage?
MS. WHITE-None.
MR. HUNSINGER-It's pretty modest.
MR. TRAVER-Yes, it is. I guess we're ready for a motion.
RESOLUTION RE: ZBA RECOMMENDATION RE: Z-AV-47-2018 LARRY STEINHART
The applicant has submitted an application for the following: Applicant proposes 136 sq. ft.
single story addition to existing 1156 sq. ft. (footprint) home. Existing home has FAR of 2,007
sq. ft. and proposed is 2,143 sq. ft. Project includes removal of some existing hard surface
areas. Pursuant to Chapter 179-3-040 of the Zoning Ordinance, expansion of a non-conforming
structure shall be subject to Planning Board review and approval. Variance: Relief is sought
for setbacks and FAR. Planning Board shall provide a recommendation to the Zoning Board of
Appeals.
The Town of Queensbury Zoning Ordinance, per Section 179-9-070 J 2 b. requires the Planning
Board to provide a written recommendation to the Zoning Board of Appeals for projects that
require both Zoning Board of Appeals & Planning Board approval;
8
4�..
I[:rIarnin ; : t,-.M .i 0 711.7/2 0 18)
The Planning Board has briefly reviewed and discussed this application, the relief request in the
variance application as well as the potential impacts of this project on the neighborhood and
surrounding community, and found that:
MOTION TO MAKE A RECOMMENDATION ON BEHALF OF THE PLANNING BOARD TO
THE ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS FOR AREA VARIANCE NO. 47-2018 LARRY
STEINHART; Introduced by David Deeb, who moved its adoption, and
a) The Planning Board, based on a limited review, has not identified any significant adverse
impacts that cannot be mitigated with current project proposal.
Motion seconded by Brad Magowan. Duly adopted this 17th day of July, 2018 by the following
vote:
AYES: Ms. White, Mr. Shafer, Mr. Hunsinger, Mr. Magowan, Mr. Valentine, Mr. Deeb, Mr.
Traver
NOES: NONE
MR. TRAVER-All right. You're off to the ZBA.
MR. LAPPER-Thank you.
MR. TRAVER-Next on the agenda is Old Business. The first application that we've seen before
is Faden Enterprises, Site Plan 36-2018.
OLD BUSINESS:
SITE PLAN NO. 36-2018 SEAR TYPE: UNLISTED. FADEN ENTERPRISES, INC.
AGENT(S): LANSING ENGINEERING. OWNER(S): 894 REALTY, LLC. ZONING: CM.
LOCATION: 894 NYS ROUTE 9. APPLICANT PROPOSES TO DEMOLISH AN EXISTING
BUILDING TO CONSTRUCT AN 11,400 SQ. FT. SINGLE STORY BUILDING MULTI-TENANT
COMMERCIAL BUILDING. PROJECT SITE WORK INCLUDES MAJOR GRADING AND
FILLING, NEW ACCESS RIGHT-IN/RIGHT OUT, AND INTERCONNECT TO ADJOINING
RESTAURANT. PURSUANT TO CHAPTERS 179-3-040, 179-4-090 OF THE ZONING
ORDINANCE, NEW COMMERCIAL BUILDINGS IN THE COMMERCIAL MODERATE ZONE
SHALL BE SUBJECT TO PLANNING BOARD REVIEW AND APPROVAL. CROSS
REFERENCE: SP 37-2018; AV 34-2018. WARREN CO. REFERRAL: MAY 2018. SITE
INFORMATION: TRAVEL CORRIDOR OVERLAY ZONE. LOT SIZE: 1.22 +/- ACRES.
TAX MAP NO. 296.17-1-49. SECTION: 179-3-040. 179-4-090.
SCOTT LANSING, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT; RUSS FADEN, PRESENT
MR. TRAVER-Laura?
MRS. MOORE-Okay. So this applicant we've seen a couple of times and so now we're back.
We've resolved the sewer easement agreement and I have a copy of that in the file. We also
have the information from SHPO so that's been completed, and recently I know that they're in
conversations with DOT, but my understanding is that they would prefer a right in/right out
system.
MR. TRAVER-Right in/right out.
MRS. MOORE-Yes, and so we're back to doing Site Plan Review. The applicant has provided
you with an overview of different view sheds of the site building. That's what I had requested
so that you understood the orientation and the retaining wall and things like that in relation to the
area.
MR. TRAVER-Great. Thank you. Good evening. Welcome back.
MR. LANSING-Good evening. My name is Scott Lansing with Lansing Engineering. I'm also
here tonight with the applicant Russell Faden. As Laura mentioned we have been before the
Board a few times before. I think the Board is familiar with the project. Just to bring the Board
up to speed and recap where we've been, obviously we did get a referral to the ZBA from this
Board. We did go to the ZBA. We had three particularly minor variances that we did get.
Everything that we are presenting to you this evening is either in compliance with the zoning or
we have variances in place for what we are showing. Our objective for this evening is I would
9
4�..
I[:rIarning : (,-.)M .i 0 711.7/2 0 18)
like to ask the Board for consideration of approval of the project. The applicant is under
contractual for the parcel. So anything we can do to work with the Board to request
consideration of approval would be greatly appreciated. As far as the existing conditions we are
located at 894 Route 9 approximately 1.3 acres. We are zoned Commercial Moderate zone.
There is one existing building. The drawing all the way to the left I show the site as it exists
right now. There is one building there, approximately 1300 square foot building with six parking
spaces, access to that parcel from Route 9 is basically to the north of that parcel as well as the
six parking spaces. There are no wetlands on the parcel. Our slopes generally slope from
Route 9 back towards the back of the parcel back towards the east or the right on the page. As
far as proposed conditions we are proposing the demolition of the existing structure. So the
drawing in the middle does show what we are proposing for the site. We're proposing one new
structure, approximately 11,400 square feet in size. This would be a single story retail building.
It's a multiple tenant structure building so we're anticipating multiple tenants in the building.
Right now there is one tenant that is slated for the building. That is a Subway restaurant that'll
be approximately 2500 square feet. There would be approximately 8900 square feet remaining
in the building. As far as access we are proposing two points of access. The first point would
be from Route 9. We are showing a curb cut in the approximate location where the current
curb cut is shown, and we also have another shared access point with the parcel to the north
which is the Pizzeria Uno site. So we are aligning perfectly with their drive aisles that they have
in place along the front of their building and lining up, aligning our parking in the same general
configuration as the parcel to the north, and we do have a shared access agreement with that
owner. The applicant does have that in his possession. As far as green space on the parcel
we're approximately 53.3% green space on our particular parcel. Parking, the restaurant
requires 15 spaces. The retail requires 45 spaces. So 60 spaces overall which we are
providing around the building. There were several questions, both from Chazen Engineering
and in the Staff review. So some of the things I'll go through right now. Hopefully we'll
address a lot of those questions or concerns. First of is relatively to archeology. There was a
question about the status of archeology and specifically one site, Blind Rock, which is a
significant site within the Town. We did have Curtain Archeology take a look at the site and
coordinate with the State Historic Preservation Office. The Blind Rock site is approximately
100 feet off the eastern property line of the parcel. So that is the view from our parcel and
protected very nicely by the existing vegetation on that parcel that's off of our parcel. So we do
not have any impact on that. Subsequently reports from Curtain Archeology were submitted to
the State Historic Preservation Office and we do have a letter stating that the project does not
have any archeological concerns or any impacts.
MS. WHITE-Before we move on, what about the historical marker on the corner? Will that
remain in place?
MR. LANSING-1 would have to check on that. It might be something that we might have to re-
locate. I'll be honest with you, I'm not exactly sure.
MS. WHITE-Okay, because even though the location is further down Montray, there is a marker
on the corner, and I'm just curious to know whether that's going to stay where it is. I see that
there's kind of an angle on the corner and I'm not sure if that encompasses where that historical
marker is now or not.
MR. LANSING-I'm not sure. I can take a look at that and make sure that does stay.
MS. WHITE-Okay. Thank you.
MR. LANSING-You're welcome. Next item was relative to access. As I mentioned we have
the shared access with the parcel to the north. There was a question on the access. As
currently mentioned on our plans, we have full access in and right access only. That is
something that we were hopeful, optimistic that we would obtain for the parcel. We have
coordinated with DOT and they have gotten back to us that they prefer a right in/right out for that
particular location. So the curb cut is okay. It's just the type of curb cut that we have with the
full access in is something that they're not willing to recommend. So we'll modify the plans
obviously to show the right in/right out access for the parcel. The next question was relative to
the walls that are proposed on the project. We have one wall along the southern boundary
along Montray, and then we have another wall up in the northeast corner of the parcel and there
was a question relative to the length and height of those walls. As far as the wall on the south,
or engineering drawings, Sheet One does outline that wall along that southern end. As far as
the length of that wall, it's approximately 195 feet. It starts at the intersection and works its way
back towards the back corner of the property. As far as height of that wall, it starts off at 0 feet,
so it basically meshes in with the grade. About a quarter of the way down the wall is
approximately six feet high, and the middle of the wall, which is the highest section of the wall, is
approximately 13 feet high. About three-quarters of the way in it's about seven feet high, and
10
4�..
I[:rIarning : (,-.)M .i 0 711.7/2 0 18)
then at the end it goes back down to zero and meshes in with the grade. As far as the wall on
the northeast corner, it goes up basically. It wraps around the back of the building in back of
that parking area. That wall is approximately 94 feet in length. At the beginning of the wall it's
about two feet high. In the middle of the wall at the highest section it's about eight feet high,
and at the end of the wall it's zero. It basically meshes back in with what we have. Also what
we have done is over on the far right we have prepared renderings of the site using existing
conditions in the area, existing buildings, roadways, basically draping the aerial photo over the
topography for the area and positioning our site on there along with the walls. So in the upper
right hand corner it does, I'm sorry in the lower left hand corner it does show a view looking up
north, looking at that wall as the highest elevation. It gives the Board a perspective of what that
wall looks like at the highest point from Route 9. Also we've provided these renderings for the
Board to consider the location of our structure relative to the existing adjacent structures. So
we're slightly forward of Pizzeria Uno to the left but we're behind the parcel to the south which is
across Montray. I feel that the position of the structure is appropriate and uniform to the
existing structures in the area. That was a question that the Board had. So hopefully that
addresses those questions. As far as landscaping on the parcel, there was a question about
our landscaping plan. That is something that we have proposed for the parcel. What we tried
to do was provide lower plantings along the front of the parcel. Obviously we'd like some
visibility on the plaza so motorists going by on Route 9 see the plaza, recognize the tenants in
the plaza and hopefully visit the tenants in the plaza frequently, and so we've provided lower
level plantings only. On the southern side, on Montray, on the south side of the building we've
tried to provide some enhanced plantings, some bigger plantings to screen that side of the
building, make it a little softer transition from that area. As far as signage, we are proposing a
monument sign on the northwest corner of the property. There'll also be tenant signs over the
usual spaces on the building. Any sort of signage that would be proposed would be in
accordance with the Sign Code. We're not asking for any sort of variances on that. Those
sign applications would come in as those tenants have their signs and we'd submit for those.
Outside of that, we have provided a Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan for the parcel. Public
water would be extended into the site and public sanitary sewer would be extended as well.
We have received comments from both Chazen and Staff. As far as the Staff comments I
think they're for the most part technical in nature, and I think, hopefully I've addressed those
over the course of what I've gone through. As far as the Chazen comments we did receive six
comments from Chazen. I would like to go through the comments because we are obviously
requesting the Board's consideration for approval this evening. So I'd like to go through those
and just make sure the Board is okay with those. We did respond back to Chazen and make
sure they're comfortable with these as well. As far as the first comment relative to the storm
events analyzed, and there was a question on why the storm system and the pipe sizing were
not analyzed for the 50 and 100 year events. They were analyzed for the 10 year storm events
which I understand that is what the Town Code requires, piping sized for the 10 year storm
event and the overall storm system be sized for the 50 and 100 year event. So we have sized
it for the 10 year event. We can review that with Chazen Engineering. Site patterns relative to
site lines and feedback from DOT. I've outlined that. The plans will be modified to include
right in and right out. Comment Number Three was relative to a sample stormwater operation
and maintenance agreement. They indicated that they did not see it in Appendix H. I'm not
quite sure if they received the most current Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan because it
was included on Page 162 and 163 of the SWPPP and we will update that to Chazen so they
are aware of that. Comment Number Four was relative to the wall elevations. We have
provided elevations with that with our application. Comment Number Five is relative to soil
testing on construction, just verifying the soils per the detail of construction. We do not take
any exception to that, and the last comment was relative to the chambers, the mottling of the
chambers, and again I'm not sure Chazen had the most current copy of the Stormwater
Pollution Prevention Plan because we did modify the SWPPP. Outside of that that was
essentially it.
MR. TRAVER-So you feel comfortable that you can respond favorably to the Chazen
comments?
MR. LANSING-Absolutely.
MR. TRAVER-Because our draft resolution would require Town Engineer's signoff.
MR. LANSING-Absolutely.
MR. TRAVER-Questions, comments for the applicant by members of the Planning Board?
MR. VALENTINE-I've always baffled since we first started by this parking situation, where the
spaces are, how they coordinate, things like that. You come down to there are 60 required and
11
4�.. IFrIarning : (,-.)M .i 0 711.7/2 0 18)
can you break the 60 down to say how many are with this, your site versus how many you're
going to get from Pizzeria Uno?
MR. LANSING-Sure.
MR. VALENTINE-And then what kind of agreement, long term agreement, do you have for the
use of those spaces?
MR. LANSING-Sure. Absolutely. On our parcel, and completely on our parcel, 45 spaces are
on our parcel. There are an additional 15 spaces that would be located on the Pizzeria Uno
site. So there is access along the northern portion that accesses some of those spaces as well
as some of the spaces on our parcel. There is a shared access agreement in place between
the owner of the 894 Route 9 and the Pizzeria Uno.
MR. VALENTINE-Is that some kind of perpetual agreement?
MR. LANSING-Yes.
MR. VALENTINE-Okay. And then the question I had before about that center turn lane goes
away.
MR. LANSING-Yes.
MR. DEEB-You're going to have right in and right out?
MR. LANSING-Correct. Yes.
MR. DEEB-At the light you come in, come through and get to your property and you can exit
from that property two way also.
MR. LANSING-Correct.
MS. WHITE-As much as I hate to say it you can access it from Sweet Road.
MR. DEEB-You can?
MR. MAGOWAN-You come out behind Gambles and then you go right behind the hotel and you
can come in that way, too. There's plenty of access there. That's for sure.
MR. HUNSINGER-That's the way it's supposed to be.
MS. WHITE-Plenty of ways to get in.
MR. VALENTINE-This is a question I don't usually care about but I just want to ask. Signage,
okay. You picked a corner, you said the northwest corner of the property there would be a
monument sign, but that does not get your northbound traffic. They're past that.
MR. LANSING-That's where we show it on the plans. I mean perhaps the applicant might want
to adjust that.
MR. VALENTINE-I'm just wondering why. Like I said, if anybody's driving, I guess the only
advantage would be to get the traffic when they stop they see the sign, but if you're looking at
say low lying plant level, so you can see the building, you're defeating, the signage is not being
met, or it doesn't meet that need also.
MR. FADEN-1 guess the thought process is if you're going north to south at the other end you
can't get into the site.
MR. VALENTINE-Well, unless you were to do a monument sign down there where Jamie's
talking about where that existing sign is.
MR. TRAVER-That's a historical marker.
MR. VALENTINE-Well, you could incorporate something around that marker also.
MS. WHITE-But I see where Mr. Faden's going is if you're going up the hill you still have the
opportunity to make the right at the light. Whereas if you're coming down the hill you don't have
that opportunity here.
12
4�..
I[:rIarning : (,-.)M .i 0 711.7/2 0 18)
MR. DEEB-You cannot get in once you get past the light.
MR. TRAVER-Past the light. Right.
MR. MAGOWAN-Right. I kind of like your thought there.
MS. WHITE-There's a dedicated space there.
MR. TRAVER-Right where that marker is. Okay.
MS. WHITE-And I hate to see it go because it's a nice little area.
MR. TRAVER-Yes.
MR. VALENTINE-Well, the only thing I said to Chris before that question was asked the last
time, and that's why you would have thought we'd have an answer tonight.
MS. WHITE-And we don't have an answer.
MR. VALENTINE-Yes.
MR. FADEN-I think the marker might be on the other side of the wall that we're proposing. It's
right on that corner.
MS. WHITE-It's right on the corner. There's some wooden structure and some plantings and a
nice marker there. I know every time this comes up I remark on it but I don't have a good
answer to that. And one more question on the wall. The photograph that we see on the wall
looks like it's incorporating steps. Is there, so this little tiny inset is not, kind of an idea.
MR. LANSING-Gives you an idea of the types of material that's being proposed. As far as the
steps and the plantings, that's not proposed.
MR. TRAVER-There is a public hearing on this application and actually it remains open from
last month when we discussed this previously the month before and the month before that. Is
there anyone in the audience that wanted to address the Planning Board on this application this
evening? I'm not seeing anyone. Are there any fresh written comments?
PUBLIC HEARING OPEN
MRS. MOORE-No.
MR. TRAVER-Okay. Then we'll close the public hearing on Site Plan 36-2018.
PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED
MR. TRAVER-Other comments or questions from members of the Board before we move to a
resolution?
RESOLUTION GRANTING A NEGATIVE SEQR DEC. SP 3 36-2018 FADEN
ENTERPRISES, INC.
The applicant proposes to demolish an existing building to construct an 11,400 sq. ft. single
story building multi-tenant commercial building. Project site work includes major grading and
filling, new access right-in/right-out, and interconnect to adjoining restaurant. Pursuant to
Chapters 179-3-040, 179-4-090 of the Zoning Ordinance, new commercial buildings in the
commercial moderate zone 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;
13
4�..
I[:rIarning : t,-.M .i 0 711.7/2 0 18)
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 36-2018 FADEN
ENTERPRISES, INC. Introduced by David 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 Brad Magowan. Duly adopted this 17th day of July, 2018 by the following
vote:
AYES: Mr. Hunsinger, Mr. Magowan, Mr. Valentine, Mr. Deeb, Ms. White, Mr. Shafer, Mr.
Traver
NOES: NONE
MR. TRAVER-All right. And if the Board is comfortable we have a Site Plan approval
resolution.
MRS. MOORE-Do you want to, prior to your reading that resolution, do you want to go over, I
think there's possibly two conditions or three conditions that may be discussed. So can we just
identify those before you actually read the resolution?
MR. DEEB-I've got one about the historical marker.
MRS. MOORE-Okay. I have a parking and access easement documentation to be included as
a condition.
MR. TRAVER-Isn't that actually part of the next, 37-2018.
MS. WHITE-Well it's between both parties.
MRS. MOORE-Between both parties.
MR. MAGOWAN-So we can have it on both, right? It doesn't matter.
MR. TRAVER-Yes. Okay.
MR. DEEB-So you want the parking easement to be documented.
MRS. MOORE-The documentation to be submitted as part of their final plans.
MR. TRAVER-And the only other condition I think we have is the historical marker to remain.
MR. DEEB-Submitted with the final?
MRS. MOORE-Final plans.
MR. DEEB-Well, we've got two. We need one more. We've got the historical marker and
we've got the parking easement.
MR. VALENTINE-1 think that was two or three.
MRS. MOORE-Right. I wasn't sure.
MR. DEEB-Those are two.
MR. TRAVER-Yes, in addition to what's already been addressed.
MRS. MOORE-Correct.
14
4�..
I[:rIarning : (,-.)M .i 0 711.7/2 0 18)
MR. TRAVER-All right.
RESOLUTION APPROVING SP # 36-2018 FADEN ENTERPRISES, INC.
The applicant has submitted an application to the Planning Board: Applicant proposes to
demolish an existing building to construct an 11,400 sq. ft. single story building multi-tenant
commercial building. Project site work includes major grading and filling, new access right-
in/right-out, and interconnect to adjoining restaurant. Pursuant to Chapters 179-3-040, 179-4-
090 of the Zoning Ordinance, new commercial buildings in the commercial moderate zone 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 05/17/2018 and
continued the public hearing to 07/17/2018, 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
07/17/2018;
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 36-2018 FADEN ENTERPRISES, INC.; Introduced by
David Deeb who moved for its adoption.
According to the draft resolution prepared by Staff with the following:
1) Waivers requested granted/denied;
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) The applicant must submit a copy of the following to the Town:
a. SHPO sign-off letter;
b. NYSDOT review letter;
f) 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;
g) The following must appear on the final plans:
a. Easement notation about shared interconnection and shared parking. A copy of the
easement needs to be provided for the file when executed;
b. Retaining wall detail approved by town designated engineer — this includes
materials, width, height, length and an elevation drawing showing elevation change
corresponding
topography contours along Montray Road;
c. Lighting information —average foot candles for the site and building;
h) 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.
15
4�..
I[:rIarning : t,-.M .i 0 711.7/2 0 18)
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.
i) 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;
j) The applicant must meet with Staff after approval and prior to issuance of
Building Permit and/or the beginning of any site work;
k) Subsequent issuance of further permits, including building permits is dependent on
compliance with this and all other conditions of this resolution;
I) 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.
m) This resolution is to be placed in its entirety on the final plans
n) Care to be taken in the construction of the buildings to make sure that the historical
marker is not damaged.
o) The parking and access easement documentation is to be submitted with the final plan.
Motion seconded by Jamie White. Duly adopted this 17th day of July, 2018 by the following
vote:
MR. DEEB-Item N. The historic marker on the property to remain where it is in its present
condition. Just to remain or in its present condition?
MS. WHITE-1 mean because it's not just the historical marker, it's that little area.
MR. TRAVER-Yes, I think to remain.
MS. WHITE-To remain as is.
MR. DEEB-To remain where it is presently situated on the site.
MRS. MOORE-1 don't know if you can do that. So I would say to remain, and details of its
location to be addressed.
MR. SHAFER-It looks like it's on a public property.
MRS. MOORE-It looks like, I believe it is, but I don't know that.
MR. DEEB-It's not on the property?
MR. LANSING-It's not. Actually we just looked on.
MR. DEEB-If it's not on his property then we don't really need any resolution. That shouldn't be
part of the resolution if it's not on his property.
MS. WHITE-But could it hurt to be in there?
MR. MAGOWAN-1 just don't want Russ to back over it.
MR. VALENTINE-Well, in that case, who's responsible for the maintenance of it?
MR. TRAVER-Well if it's close to the property line why don't we include something to the order
care to be taken that the historical marker not be damaged.
MRS. MOORE-Disturbed.
MR. DEEB-All right. Including Item N. Care to be taken in building of the property of the
buildings to make sure the historical marker is not damaged. Does that work?
MRS. MOORE-Yes.
MS. WHITE-Remains.
16
4�..
I[:rIarnin ; : (,-.)M .i 0 711.7/2 0 18)
MR. DEEB-And Item O. the parking easement documentation is to be submitted with the final
plan. Did I catch everything?
MR. TRAVER-Yes. So we have a resolution. Do we have a second?
MR. WHITE-Second.
MRS. MOORE-Before you move on to your second, there were no waivers requested.
MR. TRAVER-So that still works because the waivers requested weren't denied. All right. Is
there any discussion on that motion? Can we have that vote, please, Maria?
AYES: Ms. White, Mr. Shafer, Mr. Hunsinger, Mr. Magowan, Mr. Valentine, Mr. Deeb, Mr.
Traver
NOES: NONE
MR. TRAVER-All right and then we move immediately to Site Plan 37-2018 also for Faden
Enterprises, Inc.
SITE PLAN NO. 37-2018 SEAR TYPE: UNLISTED. FADEN ENTERPRISES, INC.
AGENT(S): LANSING ENGINEERING. OWNER(S): EVEREST ENTERPRISES, LLC.
ZONING: CM. LOCATION: 900 STATE ROUTE 9. APPLICANT PROPOSES NEW
PARKING IMPROVEMENTS & INTER-CONNECT TO NEIGHBORING PARCEL.
ADDITIONAL HARD SURFACING AND ADJUSTMENT TO THE PARKING AREA FOR
DRIVE AISLE AND NEW PARKING SPACES. PURSUANT TO CHAPTER 179-3-040, 179-4-
090, 179-9-020 OF THE ZONING ORDINANCE SITE WORK ON AN EXISTING
COMMERCIAL PROPERTY WITH NO SITE PLAN REVIEW WITHIN 7 YEARS SHALL BE
SUBJECT TO PLANNING BOARD REVIEW AND APPROVAL. CROSS REFERENCE: SP
36-2017; AV 35-2018. WARREN CO. REFERRAL: MAY 2018. SITE INFORMATION:
TRAVEL CORRIDOR OVERLAY ZONE. LOT SIZE: 1.72 ACRES. TAX MAP NO. 296.17-
1-47. SECTION: 179-3-040, 179-4-090, 179-9-020.
SCOTT LANSING, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT; RUSS FADEN, PRESENT
MR. TRAVER-And, Laura, can you remind us of?
MRS. MOORE-This project as we've seen includes new parking improvements and an
interconnect to the neighboring parcel. The Zoning Board did grant the requested relief at their
meeting which granted a permeability relief, and so the applicant as I noted their site
development of 15 new parking spaces and access to eight spaces on the adjoining southern
parcel. Fifteen total.
MR. TRAVER-All right. Thank you. Hello again. And so this is the second half, which we've
also reviewed previously, and this has to do with the additional parking and interconnect.
Correct?
MR. LANSING-Correct.
MR. TRAVER-And I see the variance was granted last month. Did you have anything to add or
were there any changes required as a result of the variance?
MR. LANSING-1 really don't have anything to add. We have not had any changes since the
variance was provided. I guess the only thing I could mention is yes we have added pervious
area to that parcel to the north. In my opinion one of the significant factors in that is the fact
that our stormwater management on the parcel is an infiltration system. So even though we're
adding that impervious area, all that impervious area that we're adding plus the impervious area
from the parcel to the south that we just received approvals for is infiltrated into the ground. So
we essentially have a pervious site, even though we're developing the roof and asphalt.
MR. TRAVER-So it is an improvement in stormwater.
MR. LANSING-1 believe so, in my opinion.
MR. TRAVER-Okay. Any follow up questions from members of the Board? This, too, has a
public hearing which remains open from prior discussions. Is there anyone in the audience that
17
4�..
I[:rIarning : t,-.M .i 0 711.7/2 0 18)
wanted to address this application with the Board? And, Laura, I'll ask if there were any
additional comments?
PUBLIC HEARING OPEN
MRS. MOORE-There were no additional public comments.
MR. TRAVER-All right. Then we'll go ahead and close the public hearing.
PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED
MR. TRAVER-And we're also doing a SEQR on this application. So if the Board is ready, we
can go ahead and do that resolution. I'm not hearing any concerns.
RESOLUTION GRANTING A NEGATIVE SEQR DEC SP # 37-2018 FADEN
ENTERPRISES, INC.
The applicant proposes new parking improvements & inter-connect to neighboring parcel.
Additional hard surfacing and adjustment to the parking area for drive aisle and new parking
spaces. Pursuant to Chapters 179-3-040, 179-4-090, 179-9-020 of the Zoning Ordinance, site
work on an existing commercial property with no site plan review within 7 years 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 37-2018 FADEN
ENTERPRISE, INC. Introduced by David 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 Brad Magowan. Duly adopted this 17th day of July, 2018 by the following
vote:
AYES: Mr. Deeb, Ms. White, Mr. Shafer, Mr. Hunsinger, Mr. Magowan, Mr. Valentine, Mr.
Traver
NOES: NONE
MR. TRAVER-All right, and so now we can consider the Site Plan resolution. We have a draft,
and I don't believe that there are any conditions. Although do we want to add the discussion
about the interconnect and the parking?
MRS. MOORE-Right. So you're going to request, one of the conditions should be that the
parking agreement and the access agreement are part of the final plans.
MR. TRAVER-Okay. So the same basically.
MR. DEEB-There's no waivers on this?
18
4�..
I[:rIarning : t,-.M .i 0 711.7/2 0 18)
MRS. MOORE-There were waivers requested, yes.
MR. DEEB-Okay.
RESOLUTION APPROVING SP # 37-2018 FADEN ENTERPRISES, INC.
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 new parking
improvements & inter-connect to neighboring parcel. Additional hard surfacing and adjustment
to the parking area for drive aisle and new parking spaces. Pursuant to Chapters 179-3-040,
179-4-090, 179-9-020 of the Zoning Ordinance, site work on an existing commercial property
with no site plan review within 7 years 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 05/17/2018 and
continued the public hearing to 07/17/2018, 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
07/17/2018;
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 37-2018 FADEN ENTERPRISES, INC. Introduced by
David Deeb who moved for its adoption.
Per the draft provided by staff conditioned upon the following conditions:
1) Waivers request granted:
2) Adherence to the items outlined in the follow-up letter sent with this resolution.
3) Easement agreement for parking and access to be included in the final plans.
Motion seconded by Jamie White. Duly adopted this 17th day of July, 2018 by the following
vote:
AYES: Mr. Magowan, Mr. Valentine, Mr. Deeb, Ms. White, Mr. Shafer, Mr. Hunsinger, Mr.
Traver
NOES: NONE
MR. TRAVER-We're going to miss you guys.
MR. LANSING-Thank you.
MR. FADEN-Thank you.
MR. TRAVER-All right, and next on our agenda we go to New Business. The first application
being Richard & Sharon Bapp, Subdivision Final Stage 10-2018.
NEW BUSINESS:
SUBDIVISION FINAL STAGE 10-2018 SEAR TYPE: UNLISTED. RICHARD & SHARON
BAPP. AGENT(S) STEPHEN PERKINS. OWNER(S): SAME AS APPLICANTS.
ZONING: MDR. LOCATION: 45 OGDEN ROAD. APPLICANT PROPOSES TO
SUBDIVIDE A 1.37 ACRE LOT INTO TWO LOTS OF .92 ACRE AND .46 ACRE. THE
19
4�..
I[:rIarnin ; : (,-.)M .i 0 711.7/2 0 18)
EXISTING HOME IS TO REMAIN ON LARGER LOT (LOT 1) AND SMALLER LOT (LOT 2)
TO BE SOLD WITH FUTURE BUYER TO COMPLETE CONSTRUCTION DETAILS FOR
HOUSE SIZE, LOCATION OF DRIVEWAY, CLEARING, GRADING AND EROSION
CONTROL. APPLICANT REQUESTS WAIVERS FROM STORMWATER AND SEPTIC
INFORMATION FOR THIS PARCEL WITH PURCHASER RESPONSIBLE FOR THESE
ITEMS. PURSUANT TO CHAPTER 183 OF THE ZONING ORDINANCE, SUBDIVISION OF
LAND SHALL BE SUBJECT TO PLANNING BOARD REVIEW AND APPROVAL. CROSS
REFERENCE: 2016 SEPTIC ALT.; AV 21-2018; SUB (P) 3-2018 WARREN CO.
REFERRAL: N/A. LOT SIZE: 1.37 ACRES. TAX MAP NO. 308.19-1-29.1. SECTION:
CHAPTER 183.
STEVE PERKINS, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT
MR. TRAVER-Laura?
MRS. MOORE-Okay. So this application is to subdivide a 1.37 acre parcel into two lots. One
lot is 0.92 acres and the other lot is 0.46 acres, and I believe he's out in the hallway. So do you
mind if I go grab him?
MR. DEEB-He might want to come in.
MRS. MOORE-I'll finish reading and hopefully he'll be back in.
MR. TRAVER-Okay.
MRS. MOORE-So again it's the 1.37 acres into two lots. One lot is to remain. The larger lot is
to remain with the existing house and garage and then the second lot is to be sold and
marketed for sale and the applicant has noted that there is waiver in reference to clearing plan,
grading and erosion and construction details as well as stormwater.
MR. TRAVER-Okay, and that variance was granted.
MRS. MOORE-Yes, the variance for the actual lot size was granted.
MR. TRAVER-So we are at Final Stage.
MR. VALENTINE-We could just take it up and then when they come back in tell them that
they're approved.
MR. TRAVER-Well, they did have a discussion with the ZBA since we've spoken with them so it
would be nice if they were here. Are they in the building, Laura?
MRS. MOORE-Yes, he is.
MR. TRAVER-Okay.
MRS. MOORE-They're attorney is here.
MR. DEEB-Glad you could join us.
MR. PERKINS-My apologies.
MR. TRAVER-That's already.
MR. PERKINS-1 misinterpreted the agenda.
MR. TRAVER-So we've already, well I'll let you introduce yourself for the record, please.
MR. PERKINS-Steve Perkins.
MR. TRAVER-Okay, and so you're aware we've already noted that this is Final Stage,
Preliminary having been completed and approved along with the SEQR resolution, and we also
noted that your Area Variance was granted in May and with that we're ready to proceed with
Final Stage. So can you update us on your experience with the ZBA?
MR. PERKINS-So there's really been no change since my last meeting with the Planning Board
but the Zoning Board granted the variances we needed. There were the two substandard lots
and we needed I think it was three setback variances that they granted.
20
4�..
I[:rIarning : (,-.)M .i 0 711.7/2 0 18)
MR. TRAVER-Okay. So there were no changes in your plan basically.
MR. PERKINS-No changes.
MR. TRAVER-Okay. Questions, comments from members of the Planning Board? I know we
reviewed this somewhat at length previously. So, okay. SEQR's complete. If there are no
questions, I guess we're ready to look at Final Stage resolution.
MRS. MOORE-Before you do that, I do notice that we did advertise a public hearing. Typically
you don't do that. Usually we hold them together, the Preliminary and the Final. In this case it
is noticed that we did advertise a public hearing.
MR. TRAVER-Okay. All right. Then we'll go ahead and open up the public hearing on this
application, Subdivision Final Stage 10-2018 and we'll ask is there anyone in the audience who
wanted to address the Planning Board on this application? Are there any written comments?
PUBLIC HEARING OPENED
MRS. MOORE-There were no written comments.
MR. TRAVER-Okay. Then we'll close the public hearing and proceed to the resolution.
PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED
RESOLUTION APPROVING SUBDIVISION FINAL STAGE # 10-2018 RICHARD & SHARON
BAPP
A subdivision application has been made to the Queensbury Planning Board for the following:
Applicant proposes to subdivide a 1.37 acre lot into two lots of .92 acre and .46 acre. The
existing home is to remain on larger lot (Lot 1) and smaller lot (Lot 2) to be sold with future
buyer to complete construction details for house size, location of driveway, clearing, grading and
erosion control. Applicant requests waivers from stormwater and septic information for this
parcel with purchaser responsible for these items. Pursuant to Chapter 183 of the Zoning
Ordinance, subdivision of land shall be subject to Planning Board review and approval.
Pursuant to relevant sections of the Town of Queensbury Zoning Code-Chapter A-183, the
Planning Board has determined that this proposal satisfies the requirements as stated in the
Zoning Code;
A public hearing was scheduled and held on 07/17 2018;
This application is supported with all documentation, public comment, and application material
in the file of record;
MOTION TO APPROVE SUBDIVISION FINAL STAGE 10-2018 RICHARD & SHARON BAPP.
Introduced by David Deeb who moved its adoption.
1. The requirements of the State Environmental Quality Review Act have been considered
and the Planning Board has adopted a SEQRA Negative Declaration; and if the
application is a modification, the requirements of the State Environmental Quality
Review Act have been considered, and the proposed modification[s] do not result in any
new or significantly different environmental impacts, and, therefore, no further SEQRA
review is necessary;
2. Waiver requests granted: stormwater mgmt., grading, landscaping & lighting plans;
3. The limits of clearing will constitute a no-cut buffer zone, orange construction fencing
shall be installed around these areas and field verified by Community Development staff
4. Engineering sign-off required prior to signature of Planning Board Chairman.
5. The applicant must submit a copy of the following to the Town:
a) The project NOI (Notice of Intent) for coverage under the current NYSDEC
SPDES General Permit or for coverage under an individual SPDES prior to
the start of any site work.
b) The project NOT (Notice of Termination) upon completion of the project; and
6. The applicant must maintain on their project site, for review by staff:
21
4�..
I[:rIarning : t,-.M .i 0 711.7/2 0 18)
a) The approved final that have been stamped by the Town Zoning
Administrator. These plans must include the project SWPPP (Storm
Water Pollution Prevention Plan) when such a plan was prepared and
approved; and
b) The project NOI and proof of coverage under the current NYSDEC
SPDES General Permit, or an individual SPDES permit issued for the
project.
7. Final approved plans, in compliance with the Subdivision, must be submitted to the
Community Development Department before any further review by the Zoning
Administrator or Building and Codes personnel.
8. The applicant must meet with Staff after approval and prior to issuance of Building
Permit and/or the beginning of any site work.
9. Subsequent issuance of further permits, including building permits is dependent on
compliance with this and all other conditions of this resolution;
10.As-built plans to certify that the subdivision is developed according to the approved
plans to be provided prior to issuance of the certificate of occupancy;
Motion seconded by Chris Hunsinger. Duly adopted this 17th day of July, 2018 by the following
vote:
AYES: Mr. Valentine, Mr. Deeb, Ms. White, Mr. Shafer, Mr. Hunsinger, Mr. Magowan, Mr.
Traver
NOES: NONE
MR. TRAVER-All right. You're all set.
MR. HUNSINGER-Good luck.
MR. TRAVER-The next item under New Business is Mike Baird & Julie Jarvis, Site Plan 44-
2018 and Special Use Permit 2-2018.
SITE PLAN NO. 44-2018 SPECIAL USE PERMIT 2-2018 SEAR TYPE: UNLISTED. MIKE
BAIRD & JULIE JARVIS. OWNER(S): MIKE BAIRD. ZONING: CLI. LOCATION: 414
CORINTH ROAD. APPLICANT PROPOSES PERMANENT SPECIAL USE PERMIT FOR
KENNEL, MAINTAIN EXISTING SIGN BUSINESS AND RESIDENCE. APPLICANT
PROPOSES A 950 FT. PERIMETER FENCE. PURSUANT TO CHAPTER 179-3-040, 179-10-
040, & 179-5-070 OF THE ZONING ORDINANCE, KENNEL USE ND FENCE SHALL BE
SUBJECT TO PLANNING BOARD REVIEW AND APPROVAL. CROSS REFERENCE: AV
30-90, SP 62-90, AV PZ 219-2016, SP PZ 220-2016, SUP PZ 221-2016. WARREN CO.
REFERRAL JULY 2018. LOT SIZE: 1.37 ACRES. TAX MAP NO. 308.15-1-44.
SECTION: 179-3-040, 179-10-040, 179-5-070.
MIKE BAIRD & JULIE JARVIS, PRESENT
MR. TRAVER-Laura?
MRS. MOORE-Okay. So this application received Site Plan and Special Use Permit in 2016
and we gave them a term limit and so now the applicant is back before the Board to renew that
and hopes to have a permanent status. In addition to asking for that information in reference to
the kennel, the applicant is also proposing fencing that will go around the perimeter of the
property that has to be six foot in height, and since it's in the Light Industrial zone, or this
particular zoning for CLI it requires Site Plan Review.
MR. TRAVER-Okay. Thank you. Good evening. So you have been operating your kennel, I
recall when you were here before and you've been operating for two years under a Special Use.
MR. BAIRD-Eighteen months, that was the.
MR. TRAVER-Eighteen months.
MR. MAGOWAN-Excuse me, Mr. Chairman. Would you guys like to introduce yourselves so
we have it on the record?
22
4�.. IFrIarning : (,-.)M .i 0 711.7/2 0 18)
MS. JARVIS-I'm Julie Jarvis.
MR. BAIRD-And Mike Baird.
MR. MAGOWAN-Thanks.
MR. TRAVER-So tell us about your, primarily I guess the fence. Why are you adding the
fence?
MR. BAIRD-The fence is my idea. It has nothing to do with the kennel. I have some photos
from last time for those of you who weren't here on the Board. We have the building up front.
Everything is nice, and the split rail white fence out by the Corinth Road so we don't block
anything. Thirty foot runs on one of the sides of my property. I've always wanted to fence it in
so I went and talked to Craig Brown and he said you've got a fence now. It shouldn't be a big
deal. My home is residential and the business is commercial. So you always have that
hassle. So he said to come here anyway because the commercial says all fences must go
before the Board. He said otherwise it if was just your house then he wouldn't mess around
with it. So we came and did them both at once. I want the fence because one side is real
drab from years and years ago. I never wanted to do anything with the backyard. Now I think I
do.
MR. TRAVER-Okay. Questions comments from the Planning Board?
MR. VALENTINE-The fencing doesn't need to come all the way to the front? Because I know
you've got a stopping point here and a stopping point here.
MR. BAIRD-Where you're on the right side there, coming towards the Corinth Road, the
stopping point is my 30 foot tree. It's beautiful, and that's where the other driveway in the front
is.
MR. VALENTINE-So for visibility.
MR. BAIRD-I did that for preference because the most important part is snow banks and a plow,
my plowing and your plowing. I don't want to block, I can tell you, even though you can easily
put snow banks out there and a fence would be terrible. I would never do that.
MR. VALENTINE-So the fencing doesn't have anything to do with the kennel?
MR. BAIRD-No. It's like a two for one.
MR. VALENTINE-Okay. We try to do our best.
MR. TRAVER-We do have a public hearing on this application. Is there anyone here that
wants to address the Planning Board on this application?
PUBLIC HEARING OPENED
MARIA RUGGI
MS. RUGGI-I came just to ask a question.
MR. TRAVER-If you could come up to the table, ma'am.
MS. RUGGI-Yes. My question was what you just answered.
MR. TRAVER-If you could sit down. We need to get your name and put you on the
microphone.
MS. RUGGI-I'm Maria Ruggi and I live on 7 Stephanie Lane and so I know where the kennel is.
My question was will any of the dogs be able to run from the back where they are?
MR. BAIRD-The fence for the whole property has nothing to do with what we've already been
approved for.
MS. RUGGI-All right. Because I know next week we have another issue going in.
MR. BAIRD-Yes, we do. I know all about it.
23
4�..
I[:rIarning : (,-.)M .i 0 711.7/2 0 18)
MS. RUGGI-So that was my issue, was it related to the kennels. If it's not related to the
kennels then we're all set.
MR. TRAVER-Okay. Thank you.
MS. RUGGI-Thank you.
MR. TRAVER-Is there anyone else that wanted to address the Planning Board on this
application? I'm not seeing anyone. Are there any written comments, Laura?
MRS. MOORE-There are no written comments.
MR. TRAVER-All right. So you heard the lady's concern. Can you address that on the record
for us?
MR. BAIRD-Yes. That's a valid concern because we've actually had customers who, they're
coming from the outside in. So we got approved for, in the drawing, for a six foot fence that is
totally connected to the kennel and when they leave, they come in, it's like 40 foot by 12 foot
that we were approved through you and the ZBA. So we've had customers come in and they
see the property and they say do you have a run all the way out back. So to kind of answer
your question it has nothing to do with the dogs.
MR. TRAVER-Right, and you've stated that before.
MR. BAIRD-Absolutely.
MR. TRAVER-Okay. So that's been clarified.
MR. BAIRD-And I don't blame her for asking. How would she know?
MR. TRAVER-Right. Yes. Very good. All right. So we'll close the public hearing.
PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED
MR. TRAVER-Are there any other questions from members of the Board?
MR. MAGOWAN-No. The only thing I would say, Mike, is you did a nice job pulling both
businesses together. I know you've been there for a long time and you're still looking good.
You don't look tired. That's good. And like I said I can understand why you're here due to the
commercial property but it is residential, but I think it would be a nice addition, being able to
walk away from your business into your backyard and have, you know.
MR. BAIRD-The truth is when I went to put, the neighbor on the one side he's a nice guy and
everything but years ago when I was in my 20's, I was going to plant these 27 inch shrubs and
they could grow 30 feet on that side, I remember Joe Podnorski bringing them over and my
neighbor said I'll help with the money, nah. The thing is with this fence three neighbors are
going to benefit a beautiful vision. They will, and then they'll plant on their side of it.
MR. MAGOWAN-I think it's going to work nice, and like I said, you've got a good reputation.
MR. BAIRD-I will never put a white fence up. There's not going to be white in that yard.
MR. TRAVER-All right. So we did SEQR originally. So we can do a re-affirmation unless
people feel there's been an environmental impact since our prior SEAR. We can do a SEQR
resolution that re-affirms the previous SEAR. If you're ready to do that.
RESOLUTION RE-AFFIRMING SEQR NEG. DEC. SP # 44-2018 SUP 2-2018 BAIRD &
JARVIS
The applicant proposes permanent special use permit for kennel, maintain existing sign
business and residence. Applicant proposes a 950 ft. perimeter fence. Pursuant to Chapter
179-3-040, 179-10-040 & 179-5-070 of the Zoning Ordinance, kennel use and fence 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;
4
4�..
I[:rIarning : t,-.M .i 0 711.7/2 0 18)
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;
Whereas, the Planning Board adopted Resolution SP PZ 220-2016 and SUP PZ 221-2016, on
10/25/2016 adopting SEQRA determination of non-significance, and
Upon review of the information recorded on the EAF, it is the conclusion of the Town of
Queensbury Planning Board as lead agency reaffirms 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 REAFFIRM NEGATIVE DECLARATION FOR THE PROPOSED SITE PLAN 44-
2018 & SPECIAL USE PERMIT 2-2018 MIKE BAIRD & JULIE JARVIS. Introduced by David
Deeb who moved for its adoption, seconded by Chris Hunsinger;
Duly adopted this 17th day of July, 2018 by the following vote:
AYES: Mr. Valentine, Mr. Magowan, Mr. Hunsinger, Mr. Shafer, Ms. White, Mr. Deeb, Mr.
Traver
NOES: NONE
MR. TRAVER-All right. So now we look at the Site Plan, and, Laura, I'm not seeing anything in
the resolution that talks about the.
MRS. MOORE-Permanency?
MR. TRAVER-Yes.
MRS. MOORE-That would be added as a condition. I mean you can grant it as part of the
resolution.
MR. TRAVER-Just add it? Okay. So we'll make the Special Use Permit permanent. Thank
you, Laura.
MRS. MOORE-Okay.
MR. VALENTINE-Steve, are you saying the title where it says Site Plan approval, or where were
you referring to?
MR. TRAVER-They were also requesting that their Special Use Permit which was previous to
tonight was temporary. They're asking for it to be permanent.
MR. VALENTINE-And I just had a question on what's the difference?
MR. TRAVER-It means that unless it's revoked it doesn't end. They don't have to come in and
have it renewed.
MR. VALENTINE-All right. How about the sale of the property. Does that use go with the
property in a Special Use Permit?
MRS. MOORE-It can.
MR. TRAVER-Yes, if there's no change in use.
MR. VALENTINE-So if they were to sell to somebody and they wanted to operate that kennel,
not having to come back here. Okay.
MR. TRAVER-Correct. If there were any change then they would.
MR. VALENTINE-Okay.
25
4�..
I[:rIarning : (,-.)M .i 0 711.7/2 0 18)
MR. TRAVER-If it was a continuation and there were no changes in conditions and everything
was complied with, then they would not have to.
MR. MAGOWAN-Or if they retire and after 18 months or something of non-use then whoever
bought it would have to come back. So you can't retire.
MR. TRAVER-All right. So I think we're ready for that resolution.
MR. DEEB-Okay.
RESOLUTION APPROVING SP #44-2018 & SUP 2-2018 MIKE BAIRD & JULIE JARVIS
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 permanent special
use permit for kennel, maintain existing sign business and residence. Applicant proposes a 950
ft. perimeter fence. Pursuant to Chapter 179-3-040, 179-10-040 & 179-5-070 of the Zoning
Ordinance, kennel use and fence 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 07/17/2018 and
continued the public hearing to 07/17/2018, 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
07/17/2018;
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 44-2018 & SPECIAL USE PERMIT 2-2018 MIKE BAIRD
& JULIE JARVIS; Introduced by David Deeb who moved for its adoption;
Per the draft provided by staff conditioned upon the following conditions:
1) Waivers request 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.
26
4�..
I[:rIarnin ; : (,-.)M .i 0 711.7/2 0 18)
h) The Special Use Permit (kennel operations) to become permanent.
Motion seconded by Michael Valentine. Duly adopted this 17th day of July, 2018 by the
following vote:
AYES: Mr. Shafer, Ms. White, Mr. Deeb, Mr. Valentine, Mr. Magowan, Mr. Hunsinger, Mr.
Traver
NOES: NONE
MR. TRAVER-You're all set.
MR. BAIRD-Thank you very much. I appreciate it.
MR. VALENTINE-Can I make an after the fact just sort of comment?
MR. TRAVER-Yes.
MR. VALENTINE-Laura, on your notes here it says compatibility, okay in the different uses, and
the people I go to church with on Sunday morning would not consider a dog kennel to be
compatible with a church.
MR. TRAVER-All right. So the next item on our agenda is Community Work & Independence
Incorporated, Site Plan 48-2018.
SITE PLAN NO. 48-2018 SEAR TYPE: UNLISTED. COMMUNITY WORK &
INDEPENDENCE, INC. AGENT(S): DAN RYAN, VISION ENGINEERING, LLC.
OWNER(S): COMMUNITY WORKSHOP RES. CORP. ZONING: CLI. LOCATION: 37
EVERTS AVENUE. APPLICANT PROPOSES A 348 SQ. FT. EGRESS AREA ON THE EAST
SIDE OF THE BUILDING FOR DAY PROGRAM AREA EGRESS ONLY. THE EXISTING
BUILDING IS 38,398 SQ. FT. AND NO CHANGES TO THE SITE ARE PROPOSED.
PURSUANT TO CHAPTER 179-3-040 OF THE ZONING ORDINANCE, NEW COMMERCIAL
CONSTRUCTION SHALL BE SUBJECT TO PLANNING BOARD REVIEW AND APPROVAL.
CROSS REFERENCE: 2001-803 HANDICAP RAMP, SEVERAL INT. ALTERATIONS;
WARREN CO. REFERRAL: JULY 2018 & CITY OF GLENS FALLS. LOT SIZE: 4.73
ACRES. TAX MAP NO. 302.12-1-44. SECTION: 179-3-040.
DAN RYAN, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT
MR. TRAVER-1 understand we have a member that's going to recuse herself.
MS. WHITE-I will recuse myself.
MRS. MOORE-Jamie, before you leave, as part of your recusing yourself you need to indicate
why.
MS. WHITE-I am recusing myself because I'm an employee of the company that's presenting.
MR. TRAVER-Mike, then you can participate or stay. Thank you. Good evening.
MR. RYAN-Good evening.
MRS. MOORE-Do you want me to read through that? So the applicant is proposing a 348
square foot egress area on the east side of the building for the day program area. The existing
building is over 38,000 square feet and what is happening is that their workshop area or the day
use area is being modified and they need an access corridor, and so this access corridor
actually requires an access to the outside. So this is with the new area that's sort of like a
covered porch and a walkway and allows them to have the emergency access that's required.
MR. TRAVER-Okay. Thank you.
MR. RYAN-Good evening. Dan Ryan from VISION Engineering here on behalf of the
applicant, Community Work & Independence. I assume some of you are familiar with the
facility. If you're not I'll give a brief description of what their operations are. We did include
documents, photos, site plans. The architect for the project, Gary McCoola, was not able to
attend tonight. So he did provide a nice narrative of the facility operations and some of the
planned and proposed modifications. So I'll review some of that information. I'll be happy to
review Site Plan questions since that's why we're here. This is in my opinion I guess relatively
27
4�.. IFrIarning : (,-.)M .i 0 711.7/2 0 18)
minor, from a project perspective, but nonetheless important so I'll be happy to review any of the
detail and then answer any questions.
MR. TRAVER-Yes, I mean the understanding I guess is that it's really just a re-alignment of the
entrance to match interior renovations. Correct?
MR. RYAN-Yes. So basically because of labor laws and other regulatory changes, the type of
operations that they have done historically at this building with the contract manufacturing is
getting less feasible so to speak so it is being reduced in scale. So to supplement that and
replace and continue to utilize the space, it is a large building, 37,000 square feet, plus or
minus. They're going to be adding some of the same amenities or facility operations that
already exist. So they're going to be adding separate community integration day programs.
Currently people that come to utilize this facility are bussed in on small buses. They're dropped
off and picked up at various times throughout the program hours and so essentially from a
facility standpoint it will operate nearly exactly as it does today. The difference would be there
may be a few more people, participants on the buses, and as Laura explained the
reconfiguration of the interior space, because of the Building Code, requires the additional exit.
So we're here primarily for the fact that an exit was required. It does require a ramp and thus
requires a canopy and so we're proposing a 348 square foot canopy and ramp addition for that
exit. That would not be a regularly used exit. We're talking emergency egress only. So it
wouldn't even be used on a common basis in any fashion. As a result of that, Laura, do you
have the site plans up? Do you want to zoom in on the lower right of C-21? You've got it up
right there. Yes, if you could zoom in a little bit there. So basically this is the southeast corner
of the building. So if you're familiar with the property that's the southeast corner, it would be
the lower right hand corner of the property limits. To the right of that would be Everts Avenue
which is where the access point for this site is. It's basically a straight driveway off Everts to
the front door which is basically just to the top of that depiction right there. So the exit canopy
is proposed in that straight length of wall in the southeast corner. That entire area is basically
parking lot currently and we would be removing four spaces, two spaces on each side, in order
to integrate that exit. We did provide calculations in the Site Plan documentation basically
proving that we do have satisfactory parking per the calculations of the Code. There is some
additional area on the property that could, that's currently not used but is available if overflow
parking were ever necessary. Because of their extensive bussing it's typical that that is how
most people use the facility. Laura did mention the waivers in the Staff comments. I don't
usually include that in my cover letter specific to any waivers we request. Because of the
simplicity of the project I kind of overlooked the fact that there's some submissions tht aren't
necessary for the project but still we would require a wavier for. Laura, could you outline
those?
MRS. MOORE-Yes, they're outlined.
MR. RYAN-So I guess I'll formally request waivers for these items. Site lighting. Basically the
existing lighting is to remain. There are some canopy lights that are going to be recessed in the
canopy for the ramp that we do propose, but they would not be visible from any place and they
would be directed down on the ramp surface. So we'd ask for a waiver for that. Signage.
There is no change for the signage. The facilities are basically going to remain the same.
Topography, because of the simplicity of the project we're basically connecting a floor with
existing grade via the ramp. There really was no major changes in grading or anything there.
So we would request a waiver from topography. Similarly with traffic. Again the operation
facilities are going to remain the same. The bus activity will be approximately the same with
more occupants. So we would ask for a waiver from traffic considerations. Construction
details. While we did provide floor plans and elevations, we didn't provide full construction
details of the changes. So again we would ask for some relief from those submissions. Soil
logs. I did include one soil log from an auger test that was conducted. There's shallow water
tables so we are doing minor infiltrations at the surface level for the increase in impervious from
the canopy. So 100% of that runoff is being collected and conveyed. There is a drainage
report included in the application which kind of vets out the drainage design. So if there was a
waiver needed for additional soil logs we'd ask for that. Snow removal and disposal. Again,
nothing's changing other than the fact that we're reducing a couple of parking spaces on that
side. So we would request waivers from those submission requirements.
MR. TRAVER-Okay.
MR. RYAN-I think that sums it up. I don't think there's too much more detail, but I'd be happy
to answer any questions.
MR. TRAVER-Okay. Thank you. Questions or comments for the applicant by members of the
Planning Board?
28
4�..
I[:rIarning : (,-.)M .i 0 711.7/2 0 18)
MR. VALENTINE-On the south side of the parking lot where the two spaces will be lost and you
have a planting there, and this is just not knowing the area or whatever is behind it. There are
residences behind those spaces. Any visual impact to them with the bus operation?
MR. RYAN-There wouldn't be. Just so you're aware and I guess I could go into this in a little
more detail. There's two things happening there. The bus activity is, it's kind of hard to see
there. Do you have the survey up? Okay. Perfect, that's the survey.
MR. VALENTINE-Yes.
MR. RYAN-So all of the bus activity for the drop off and pick up points is on the north side of the
building. You'll see the big apron, right, go to the left even further. Right there.
MR. VALENTINE-Okay.
MR. RYAN-So that is the current main entrance to the facility for its daily operations. While
there's some administrative people in the front, that is where the bus activity takes place.
There's actually a good maneuvering system where they can pull in, loop all the way around,
drop people off, pick them up, and then continue right back out. So none of that would change.
I don't believe the buses ever go down in that lower corner. That's mostly parking.
MR. VALENTINE-1 didn't know how close the residence was here, that if you're opening up
anything.
MR. RYAN-Yes. There is pretty good vegetative buffer that's naturally. We wouldn't be doing
any disturbance whatsoever beyond the existing pavement.
MR. VALENTINE-Okay. Thank you.
MR. TRAVER-Any other questions?
MR. SHAFER-The access easement. Who is that with and is that permanent?
MR. RYAN-The only information that I have, or that I have knowledge about, is what was
indicated on the survey, and I believe that is a deeded permanent easement. Let me just pull
that survey out here.
MR. SHAFER-It just says easement on the map.
MR. RYAN-Yes. You'll have to look at the deed references. Does it have notations for deed
references there?
MR. SHAFER-1 don't see one.
MR. VALENTINE-No.
MR. TRAVER-But it is permanent if it's on the deed.
MR. VALENTINE-There is one. There is one deed reference Quade to Community Workshop
Resources.
MR. RYAN-Yes, and I'm not sure if that's the easement but it may be, but I guess I'd hate to
answer it incorrectly. I'm assuming there is a permanent easement on the adjoining
landowners for that access point but I don't know, I'm not certain of the details.
MR. MAGOWAN-This is an emergency egress, you know.
MR. RYAN-The survey does denote an easement, and I doubt they would denote that if it
wasn't a deeded access point.
MR. TRAVER-Right. We do have a public hearing on this application. Is there anyone in the
audience that wanted to address the Planning Board on this application? I'm not seeing a
show of hands. Are there any written comments, Laura?
PUBLIC HEARING OPENED
MRS. MOORE-There are no written comments.
29
4�.. IFrIarning : (,-.)M .i 0 711.7/2 0 18)
MR. TRAVER-Okay. Then we'll go ahead and close the public hearing.
PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED
MR. TRAVER-We have, this is a SEQR Unlisted and we do have a draft resolution in our
packet. Does anyone have any environmental concerns with this modification to the facility?
MR. DEEB-Laura, we didn't get a Short EAF in our packet.
MR. VALENTINE-1 had it listed as Type 11.
MRS. MOORE-Yes, it is a Type 11 action because it's less than 4,000 square feet.
MR. DEEB-So we don't need that. That's why we didn't get it in our packets. That makes
sense.
MR. TRAVER-Then we can discontinue any discussion about SEQR and we can move to the
Site Plan resolution.
MRS. MOORE-So in the Site Plan resolution where it talks about SEQR you should note that it's
a Type 11 action. The fourth paragraph down.
MR. TRAVER-So you can just strike that.
MR. DEEB-Do we need to make mention of that?
MRS. MOORE-You should identify that it's a SEQR Type 11. The project is a SEQR Type 11.
MR. TRAVER-And with that I guess we're ready.
MR. MAGOWAN-By the way, nice package.
MR. RYAN-I do the same every time.
RESOLUTION APPROVING SP #48-2018 COMMUNITY WORK& INDEPENDENCE, INC.
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 348 sq. ft. egress
area on the east side of the building for day program area egress only. The existing building is
38,398 sq. ft. and no changes to the site are proposed. 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 irnpaGtS of the prc)jeGt, pursuant
to the State Environmental Quality Review AGt (SEQRA) and adopted a SEQRA Negative
DeGlaration Determination of Nen_Sionifinanno
Ali �Determination ITfGG�TTG�i
The Planning Board opened a public hearing on the Site plan application on 07/17/2018 and
continued the public hearing to 07/17/2018, 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
07/17/2018;
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 48-2018 COMMUNITY WORK & INDEPENDENCE, INC.;
Introduced by David Deeb who moved for its adoption;
30
4�..
I[:rIarning : t,-.M .i 0 711.7/2 0 18)
Per the draft provided by staff conditioned upon the following conditions:
1) Waivers request 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.
Motion seconded by Brad Magowan. Duly adopted this 17th day of July, 2018 by the following
vote:
AYES: Mr. Hunsinger, Mr. Shafer, Mr. Deeb, Mr. Magowan, Mr. Valentine, Mr. Traver
NOES: NONE
ABSENT: Ms. White
MR. TRAVER-You're all set.
MR. RYAN-All right. Thank you very much.
MR. TRAVER-Is there any other business before the Planning Board this evening?
MR. HUNSINGER-Motion to adjourn.
MRS. MOORE-Yes, there is none, but I just want to note that you all have new cards.
MR. TRAVER-Yes, thank you for those.
MRS. MOORE-Please use them so that when you make a Planning Board recommendation to
the Zoning Board, look these over. If there's something in the Area Variance or the variances
of some sort that you want to highlight for the Zoning Board of Appeals, you should use these
cards.
MR. TRAVER-Sure.
MR. MAGOWAN-Now you have four and I have three.
MRS. MOORE-That's because I have extras.
MR. TRAVER-We have a motion to adjourn.
MOTION TO ADJOURN THE QUEENSBURY PLANNING BOARD MEETING OF JULY 17tn,
2018, Introduced by Chris Hunsinger who moved for its adoption, seconded by Michael
Valentine:
Duly adopted this 17th day of July, 2018, by the following vote:
AYES: Mr. Deeb, Mr. Valentine, Mr. Hunsinger, Mr. Shafer, Mr. Magowan, Mr. Traver
31
["..lanning Bc)aircl 0 7117/20 18)
NOES: NONE
ABSENT: Ms. White
MR. TRAVER-We stand adjourned. Thanks, everybody.
On motion meeting was adjourned.
RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED,
Stephen Traver, Chairman
32