08-21-2018 QUEENSBURY PLANNING BOARD MEETING
FIRST REGULAR MEETING
AUGUST 21, 2018
INDEX
Site Plan No. 27-2017 Seaton Properties 1.
FURTHER TABLING Tax Map No. 308.16-1-55, -56, -58, & -61
Site Plan No. 52-2018 TNT Corinth Road, LLC 2.
Tax Map No. 308.16-1-3
Subdivision No. 13-2018 Clear Brook, LLC 27.
PRELIMINARY STAGE Tax Map No. 316.14-1-6
Freshwater Wetlands Permit 6-2018
ZBA RECOMMENDATION
Subdivision No. 15-2018 Tra Tom Development
31.
PRELIMINARY STAGE Tax Map No. 308.7-1-48
ZBA RECOMMENDATION
Site Plan No. 54-2018 French Mountain Inn 33.
ZBA RECOMMENDATION Tax Map No. 288.-1-56
Site Plan No. 53-2018 Rachael Lujbli 40.
Tax Map No. 265.-1-31
Subdivision No. 11-2018 Marcia Parker 43.
FINAL STAGE Tax Map No. 316.5-1-8
Site Plan Modification 55-2018 Sean Garvey 45.
Tax Map No. 303.15-1-3
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
AUGUST 21, 2018
7:00 P.M.
MEMBERS PRESENT
STEPHEN TRAVER, CHAIRMAN
CHRIS HUNSINGER, VICE CHAIRMAN
DAVID DEEB, SECRETARY
JOHN SHAFER
JAMIE WHITE
BRAD MAGOWAN
MICHAEL DIXON, ALTERNATE
LAND USE PLANNER-LAURA MOORE
STENOGRAPHER-MARIA GAGLIARDI
MR. TRAVER-Good evening, ladies and gentlemen. Welcome to the Town of Queensbury
Planning Board meeting for Tuesday, August 21st. This is the first meeting of the month of
August and believe it or not it's the 17th meeting we've had thus far this year. Please notice the
exit lights around the building. In case of emergency please leave in an orderly and safe way.
If you have an electronic device like I do please turn the device off or at least turn your ringer
off, and if you're interested in the agenda for tonight's meeting and you don't have one there
may be some extras on the table at the back of the room. We will start with a few
administrative items. The first thing I want to announce really to members of the Board is at the
end of the regular agenda tonight I'm going to be announcing the formation of a committee of
the Planning Board to take a look at the unapproved development issue that we've discussed
over the past few months. So we'll talk about that later on. I just wanted to let people know
that that's going to be taking place. So the first item for tonight is approval of minutes. We
have minutes of the June 19th and June 25th meeting of 2018.
APPROVAL OF MINUTES
June 19th, 2018
June 25th, 2018
MOTION TO APPROVE THE QUEENSBURY PLANNING BOARD MEETING MINUTES OF
JUNE 19T" AND JUNE 25T", 2018, Introduced by David Deeb who moved for its adoption,
seconded by Brad Magowan:
Duly adopted this 21 st day of August, 2018, by the following vote:
AYES: Mr. Deeb, Ms. White, Mr. Shafer, Mr. Hunsinger, Mr. Magowan, Mr. Dixon, Mr. Traver
NOES: NONE
MR. TRAVER-Next we have one Administrative Item, Site Plan 27-2017 and Special Use Permit
7-2017 for Seaton Properties.
ADMINISTRATIVE ITEM
SITE PLAN 27-2017 & SPECIAL USE PERMIT 7-2017 SEATON PROPERTIES — FURTHER
TABLE APPLICATION PENDING TOWN BOARD REVIEW AND DECISION ON ZONING
CODE LANGUAGE PROPOSAL.
MR. TRAVER-This is, Laura, I understand further tabling pending continued review by the Town
Board?
MRS. MOORE-Actually we received notice that they did refer it to the Planning Board. So it will
be on for your September agenda. So that's when I would table it to, September.
MR. TRAVER-Okay. Do you have any preference as to which meeting?
MRS. MOORE-It does not matter.
MR. TRAVER-But we do need to table it to a specific date, correct?
MRS. MOORE-Yes, you do.
MR. TRAVER-All right. Why don't we make it the 18th, September 18th, 2018.
RESOLUTION TABLING SP #27-2017 & SUP 7-2017 SEATON PROPERTIES
Applicant proposes operation of a wood processing facility with a new 15,000 sq. ft. enclosed
pole barn for wood products and to install two 1,200 sq. ft. kiln units on the site. Project
includes merger of lots 308.16-1-55, -56, -58 & 61. Project includes continued auto facility for
C& J automotive and current use of expanded material storage area. Project includes
maintaining 4 existing buildings on the merged properties, additional clearing, installation of a
gravel parking area and material storage area (logs, woodchips etc.). Pursuant to Chapter 179-
3-040 and 179-10-040 of the Zoning Ordinance, light manufacturing — wood products, logging
company, and Special Use Permit for wood product facility shall be subject to Planning Board
review and approval.
MOTION TO TABLE SITE PLAN 27-2017 & SPECIAL USE PERMIT 7-2017 SEATON
PROPERTY HOLDINGS, Introduced by David Deeb who moved for its adoption, seconded by
Brad Magowan;
Tabled until the September 18th, 2018 Planning Board meeting.
Duly adopted this 21st day of August, 2018 by the following vote:
AYES: Ms. White, Mr. Shafer, Mr. Hunsinger, Mr. Magowan, Mr. Dixon, Mr. Deeb, Mr. Traver
NOES: NONE
MR. TRAVER-All right, and next we move to our regular agenda. The first category being
tabled items and the first item being TNT Corinth Road, application Site Plan 52-2018.
TABLED ITEM:
SITE PLAN NO. 52-2018 SEAR TYPE: UNLISTED. TNT CORINTH ROAD, LLC.
AGENT(S): ABD ENGINEERING. OWNER(S): SAME AS APPLICANT. ZONING: CLI.
LOCATION: 398 CORINTH ROAD. APPLICANT PROPOSES 12 BUILDINGS — 4
BUILDINGS AT 3,000 SQ. FT., 4 BUILDINGS AT 4,500 SQ. FT., 3 BUILDINGS AT 3,750 SQ.
FT. AND 1 BUILDING AT 4,750 SQ. FT. FOR 148 UNITS. SITE IS 8.60 AC. AND
DISTURBANCE IS 5.59 AC. PROJECT IS TO BE PHASED WITH SIX BUILDINGS AT A
TIME. PROJECT INCLUDES SITEWORK WITH NEW STORMWATER, LIGHTING,
FENCING, 50 FT. BUFFER TO THE EAST SIDE RESIDENCES, UPGRADE TO EXISTING
PARKING AREA AND ADDING NEW PARKING AREA FOR THE STORAGE FACILITY.
PROJECT INCLUDES UPGRADE TO EXISTING PARKING AREA AND ADDING NEW
PARKING AREA FOR THE STORAGE FACILITY. PROJECT WILL MAINTAIN EXISTING
RESTAURANT FOR FUTURE OPERATION. PURSUANT TO CHAPTER 179-3-040 OF THE
ZONING ORDINANCE, NEW COMMERCIAL CONSTRUCTION SHALL BE SUBJECT TO
PLANNING BOARD REVIEW AND APPROVAL. CROSS REFERENCE: SP 63-1990, SP
26-1992, AV 64-2010. WARREN CO. REFERRAL: JULY 2018. LOT SIZE: 8.6 ACRES.
TAX MAP NO. 308.16-1-3. SECTION: 179-3-040.
MICHAEL O'CONNOR & TOM ANDRESS, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT
MR. TRAVER-Laura, can you update us on this one.
MRS. MOORE-This application was tabled for re-advertising. I'll read the project description.
It proposes 12 buildings — 4 buildings at 3,000 sq. ft., 4 buildings at 4,500 sq. ft., 3 buildings at
3,750 sq. ft. and 1 building at 4,750 sq. ft. for 148 units. The site is 8.6 ac and disturbance is
5.59 ac. Project is to be phased with 6 buildings at a time. An outdoor storage area is also
included in the first phase which is 107 ft. X 190 ft. with a 6 ft. high security fence to the North
side of the proposed buildings. Included with this project is site work with new stormwater,
fencing, 50 ft. buffer to the east side residences, upgrade to existing parking area and adding
new parking area for the storage facility. Project will also maintain existing restaurant for future
operation.
MR. TRAVER-Okay. Thank you. Good evening.
MR. O'CONNOR-Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I'm Michael O'Connor from the law firm of Little,
O'Connor & Borie. I'm the attorney for the project. I'm here with Rod Cornelius who is the
owner of the project; Tom Andress the engineer for the project, and Tom Barber, the project
manager. We did listen to people last month and we've addressed a lot of their comments. I'll
have Tom update you as to the changes that we've made and that we should be able to satisfy
the comments that were made.
MR. TRAVER-Good.
MR. ANDRESS-Again, Tom Andress with ABD Engineers. You should have before you
hopefully a comment letter response from August 2nd from my office to Laura addressing some
of the issues. So I'll sort of go through that and address it, but I'll start with I guess some of the
concerns that the residents had in the beginning. As you're aware, there's the front building
and a little portion of the second building back on the east side, it's open to the property line.
It's an area that was cleared and you can see from the survey there's actually some
encroachments from the neighbors onto that area also. We have proposed some trees in that
area. What we've done is expanded the number of trees and we've expanded the buffering by
adding those trees on top of a berm. That was one of the comments that we made to try to get
some height there. We've also added solid fencing. So we did solid fencing along the east
side and we've also added solid fencing across the property so when you're in, say the patio of
one of those residential houses looking towards the restaurant, there'll be a solid fence there to
help to screen that view of any of the cars which might be part of the restaurant which right now
you can see those cars.
MR. TRAVER-Excuse me. Just to clarify for folks that may not be familiar with some of the
terminology we use, when you mentioned the trees on a berm you're talking about a raised area
to interrupt the view type of thing.
MR. ANDRESS-That's correct. I'd have to look exactly at it but it's a couple of feet high. It's
raised up. It has a little bit of a curve, linear to it and then those trees would sit on top of it so it
helps to get them up a little higher. We don't want them too high because you still need to
establish the root mass so that they have longevity of life in there, but it does help to just do a
little bit of buffering. So that was one of the principal concerns to try to do visual. We did add
in a visual analysis for the Board. One of the other things that we looked to do is as was
discussed at the last meeting and Mike has discussed it, the back of the buildings will be the
edge of the project so we won't have other fencing for the back there. We will have fencing in
between. So we've proposed the back of all those buildings to be a forest green color. We've
been very successful in the Town of Malta with that. So we would propose all that to be along
there. The fencing that goes in between the buildings there would also have slats. It would
provide an additional visual barrier. We have, as we go back, once we get into the tree area
we'll have that full 50 foot buffer of trees to remain. There was some discussion at the last
meeting going through with Mr. O'Connor that there were some concerns about the trees that
might have fallen over. Some of the residents in the rear were concerned that the trees had
fallen over onto their side. So what we did is we did notations on the plan to be able to go out
and work with the Town, when we go out to do the clearing, to first make sure we don't take too
many trees out, but also work with the Town so that they, when we walk through there if there
are trees that have fallen over, are leaning or represent a potential concern to the residents to
the east that we would be able to work with the Town knowing that we're taking those down to
try and clean up those areas. So I think that would be a help for the residents there but also
have a protection to this Board that it would be through the Town looking at it, so just not the
applicant coming in saying well we saw these trees we need to take them down. So it's sort of
a little safeguard in there. Again another thing that would help the residents in the rear. Those
are two of the main concerns.
MR. TRAVER-Excuse me again. I'm sorry. You mentioned a fence and slats. Are you, and
I'm just, in the back of my head I'm thinking of the chain link fence that has the plastic inserts.
MR. ANDRESS-It would be a chain link fence, and that would just be the area between, I don't
know the exact distance, but 10 or 12 feet between the buildings, it would be fence there. It
wouldn't be appropriate to have a wooden type fence because those are wrong, they're really
not quite the same security that a chain link fence has.
MR. TRAVER-Right, and the slats that you refer to are, they're fed through the loops?
MR. MAGOWAN-They're up and down. They're vertical. They slide right down through the.
MR. TRAVER-They're vertical or horizontal?
MR. ANDRESS-No, a lot of times they're usually done on an angle because the chain link works
across so they actually get an angle to them, and they would be the same general color, a forest
green or what would be very similar that would match that. So we'd stop any movement that
we do have in most instances with the 50 feet of buffer. If you're still looking through in the
winter maybe it would then stop you from seeing any movement inside the facility.
MR. DEEB-The height?
MR. ANDRESS-1 believe they were six feet, on that size scale.
MR. TRAVER-Thank you for that clarification.
MR. ANDRESS-So I think one of the other things that the Board was concerned about was the
lighting. We had a lighting plan on the initial plan. Mike actually didn't have the opportunity to
go through all that, but we did add a second plan for the re-submission with the lighting so it
shows over foot candles. We also define the lighting. They'll all be, in the self storage area
they'll all be in the aisles so there won't be any lights on the back of the building. They'll all be
LED lights, wall mounted, and they would be photo eye. So other than the few in the front that
are facing the back of the parking lot for the restaurant which would stay on, all the rest would
be on a photo eye. So when they come on, that also triggers the recording mechanisms to
come on. We'll have security cameras in there. So I think between that, again, both facing
inside. There's nothing facing outside. It will certainly help the residents for the concern.
Again, in the evening the photo eye would usually be set. The photo eye would be at the
beginning of each of the aisles. So when you drive by that whole aisle goes on and nothing
else would go and then you drive back out. If it's a long enough time they'd go out and then
they might come back on again. So that was one of the items we added. We did, it's really not
for the residents as much as for the Board. There was some question in reference to phasing.
So we clearly defined the first six buildings as the first phase of the two phased plan. Phasing
is maybe not an exact appropriate use. They're all going to be built. As soon as we finish one
we're going to the other, but the intention would be to build those first buildings first and then
build the second series of six buildings after. So that was the phasing and then we defined
some of the other items in there. We did speak about the RV storage. I know there were some
concerns that the Board had. We do have the RV storage shown. We do have the fencing
around it. We showed that that would actually be constructed as part of the first phase. Again,
we will do the clearing of the site, obviously including the 50 foot buffer as the first phase.
Reading through the minutes, I know that a lot of members had mentioned that you'll be
bringing concrete trucks in to do foundation work. So you should be able to bring in potentially
the clearing equipment for future phases. The problem we have is that the clearing equipment
is very specialized. If you've ever seen a tub grinder they're half the size of this room, and
most of the clearing equipment now, they actually have an arm that reaches in and another arm
that cuts across and takes the tree and turns it and moves it. They're all very heavy. They're
not something that you'd want to bring in even between the 24 to 28 feet we have. Again, we
have a couple of eaves on the end so it's a little less than that, but that pavement really is
certainly strong enough for commercial trucks to come in there, but really not for that. So we
feel that it really is an important thing to get this cleared, to get it graded out and speaking with
DEC to then get it all stabilized, and then I think at the same time we're handling all of the trees
in the back. So we can handle the residents' concerns to get rid of some of those trees that
might be leaning over so they don't have damage to their property, and just sort of clean that
whole thing up.
MR. TRAVER-Can we get back to the RV storage for a moment?
MR. ANDRESS-Certainly.
MR. TRAVER-As you mentioned we did have some concern about that, and part of that I think
is because we have a history of dealing with boat storage around the Town and quite commonly
we will, for example, say we want all the fluids out so that we don't have to worry about pollution
and all that, and I note that in your response, these vehicles are going to be stored and
purposed in such a way that it's important that they need the fuel and oil and so on to be
maintained in them.
MR. ANDRESS-That's correct.
MR. TRAVER-And my own feeling, and we haven't discussed it as a Board yet. My own feeling
is that okay that's fine, but they should then be, if they need to be that prepared, then they
should be registered, insured, ready to drive, basically. I mean if they're not going to be in long
term storage, or if they are going to be in long term storage, I guess I should say, then we
should make sure they're clean. Then we don't have to worry about the leaking. If they're not
and they're stored there but they're going to be used, well then they should be insured. They
should be registered. They should be registered.
MR. O'CONNOR-1 believe they generally are. These are very expensive vehicles and they take
care of them.
MR. TRAVER-1 understand, and again, thinking of what I might, and believe me I don't have an
RV. I have no interest in one, but if I had one and if it was going to be in long storage it would
be in long storage. If it wasn't, I'd probably want to have it available so if I decided on a nice
weekend I wanted to take off I'd be able to. That would solve that issue because being in that
ready state, if there were any mechanical or fluid problems with it they would be addressed right
away. So again we don't have to worry about the pollution aspect of it.
MR. O'CONNOR-We don't have a problem with that conditions. RV's that are stored there are
licensed and insured and drivable.
TOM BARBER
MR. BARBER-My name's Tom Barber. I met with the owner of Albany RV, and they have
seven dealerships throughout the east coast and he expressed to me that it's more of a public
service. It cleans up the communities to have RV storage like this.
MR. ANDRESS-And I'm a believer like you that I would never have an RV, but my son-in-law
went and got one here, and we went to Orlando, and because of the zoning regulations you
can't put it anywhere. So he has to put it in storage. So I keep telling him he could rent a five
star hotel for the amount of money he spends in storage, but I think really that's what we're
really looking for. Because this is not the type of inexpensive storage you might see way out in
the middle of nowhere where they have a decrepit RV or something. They're going to pay for
this storage because there's a reason, because they have a secure. They have the cameras.
They have everything to make sure that in fact they come in the spring to take their RV it hasn't
been damaged.
MR. TRAVER-Right.
MR. ANDRESS-So I think that's certainly the intent of what the storage would be.
MR. TRAVER-And I can remember, years ago, just out of curiosity, looking into, as you say,
these things are very expensive, and looking into it, and I found out that if I were to go out and
buy one, in order for it to make sense for me to pay for what I would pay to just go on vacation,
I'd have to live in the thing. Instead of going to a nice hotel somewhere. So it wasn't for me,
but I can understand how people would be with it, and I guess that's fine. We just understand
we want to protect the environment.
MR. ANDRESS-1 agree.
MR. DEEB-Do you have a set number of how many RV's you're going to store, a maximum
number?
MR. ANDRESS-We didn't set it up. We set up an area and it really would be depending on
what comes in. We might have the RV coming in. Tom's brother has one that, a tagalong
trailer type of thing so it doesn't, it's not self-propelled. You bring it in, versus a self-propelled.
So you're going to have different lengths. I mean they can go anywhere from probably 20
something feet to whatever a bus is, 60 something feet, 40 feet.
MR. TRAVER-But my understanding in looking, my understanding of your plans, the primary
purpose of this is not for RV storage.
MR. ANDRESS-No. It's an area available to accommodate those customers.
MR. O'CONNOR-We've got a designated area that's fenced in, and whatever that would
accommodate.
MR. DEEB-The area, the size of the area, the square footage of the area then would actually
determine how many RV's. You could put more smaller ones in or fewer larger ones. And
you'll have a maximum number.
MR. O'CONNOR-The area dictates what we can put in there.
a";
MR. DEEB-I'd like to see you base it on say a 20 footer, which is a small one, and calculate that
out and that would be the maximum.
ROD CORNELIUS
MR. CORNELIUS-If I may, the problem you have with that is Mike Giovanone has RV storage
over on Big Boom Road. He's full. He's seasonal mostly but they pay for the year and he's
full, and if we limit the size.
MR. DEEB-Well I'm not saying you have to limit the size.
MR. CORNELIUS-1 misunderstood that.
MR. DEEB-No. I'm just saying for what a maximum number would be. You'd probably have
fewer than that.
MR. CORNELIUS-They also have to navigate around. We can't pack them in.
MR. DEEB-That's true, too, especially the big ones.
MR. TRAVER-I think we have to just evaluate it based on the square footage.
MR. DEEB-We can do that.
MR. O'CONNOR-And if you actually put them at 20 feet, that would be more than what we
intend to put in there.
MR. DEEB-All right.
MR. O'CONNOR-We did give you a survey of other parks like this that are in the Town. I think
there's 11 parks. I presume they've been approved by this Board. All those operate 24 hours
and I think four of them have RV storage. I don't know of any problems that have been noticed
by the Town in any of those parks. It is a system that works, and that's our competition and
we're going to have to be as good as they are to be successful and offer the same services.
MR. ANDRESS-And I think sort of following along there my letter actually has sort of a
residential time and a commercial time proposed. Since then Tom has gone through and
documented the different storage facilities in the Town and they all are running 24 hours. So
that is one of the things we wanted to discuss tonight so that we're not at a competitive
disadvantage. The amount of actually use in the evening is probably almost nothing, but it's
more of a perception. So that is something we would want to discuss a little bit more tonight.
MR. DEEB-You put down that you were going to have commercial is going to be 24 hours but
then other than that residential you said would be up to 11.
MR. O'CONNOR-We think that would put us in an uncompetitive position, though, with the other
11 all have 24 hours.
MR. DEEB-So you're talking about having it 24 hours total?
MR. O'CONNOR-Yes, for all customers.
MR. ANDRESS-And just to summarize one of the last things, there was some question, and I
guess in reference to the site that's out there now and concern for unlocked storage. We would
note that all the storage would be locked. So whether it's being occupied or not it will have a
house lock on it. Because it was just a matter of Tom was going through the stuff and hadn't
quite gotten there yet. That's just something pretty much through the industry. Because it's
more of someone putting stuff in there. Because that's why we don't have dumpsters. There's
no trash things. They've got to take it home when they leave, and it's not in storage.
MR. CORNELIUS-With respect to the hours of operation, we have a facility a quarter of a mile
down from where this location is now. There's virtually no access. We have a computer that
will let us know who comes and goes and when. There's almost no activity. The important
part is everyone's advertising and marketing 24/7. We really don't want anything less favorable
or more burdensome to us than to our competitors. That's the principal reason for it, and
virtually if you look in our facility, I don't know if you're familiar with it, next to the New Hope
Church, there's no activity there. Once they fill up, and that's why we're building this, the other
one's full, and the other RV grounds are full around here as well. We just want to have access
to that, but there's no activity. When they store their RV, it's for the whole season usually, until
the sun shines.
MR. DEEB-Unless they go south.
MR. O'CONNOR-One other clean up comment is the back of the building towards the
residential is forest. The coloring of these you asked about before the back of the units that are
the units that are towards the residences on Stephanie Lane, will be forest green, something of
that nature, and I've got a photograph of it here at another facility which I'll be glad to pass
around to you. The sides of the units and the trim in front will be a brown, like it is at the other
facility that is up the road. So that's the coloring. I'll give you a couple of photos, too. Those
photos were taken from the Stephanie Lane backyards looking in to where the site would be,
the project will be, and on one of those photos there is a fellow standing 52 feet from the
property line, and when they first showed it to me I said there was no fellow, but you can take a
look at it, and he's about center, a little bit low center on the left side of the photo. There's pretty
good tree cover on that site, and the intent, we did do a written visual impact statement that said
we would maintain what is there. So if we have some stuff that comes out of there because it's
damaged, diseased or in danger of falling down, we will replace it.
MR. TRAVER-Okay. Anything else at this stage?
MR. ANDRESS-1 think that pretty much handles all the questions that the Board had, obviously.
MR. TRAVER-Okay. Questions from members of the Planning Board?
MR. SHAFER-Yes. Could you describe, it's hard to see from the scale of the map where the
chain link fencing will be. Could you describe that for us?
MR. ANDRESS-These small areas right between there, there, and as you progress down. So
that's really the only area that you would have as the chain link fence is between there, as you
progress down we do have a chain link fence around the RV storage area, and then at the
beginning you'll have a chain link fence that will basically come along here, have the access
gate and then tie into the other side. So really very little chain link fencing. You're utilizing the
back of the buildings as the secure.
MR. SHAFER-So there's be none on the west side?
MR. ANDRESS-The chain link fence again would be here. It would be the same thing in those
spots.
MR. SHAFER-Okay.
MR. ANDRESS-Correct. Yes, just the gaps.
MR. SHAFER-Did you consider some other type of fencing than chain link with slats? Some
people think that's about the ugliest fence on the planet.
MR. ANDRESS-Well because here's sort of the wood line. So you're really in the woods.
You're behind the woods. I think it's the best type of fencing to use from a security standpoint.
Now the fencing that we have, we're proposing additional fencing along here, and along here.
That would be, that's a solid fence, whether it be a solid vinyl fence.
MR. SHAFER-Wood or vinyl.
MR. ANDRESS-1 believe I think we call out vinyl fencing on it, and then these trees although this
doesn't have it, you can sort of see the curve of the linear.
MR. SHAFER-Well my concern is this is a residential area and is there not a wooden fence of
the same height that would provide the same degree of security and look better than a chain link
fence with slats in them?
MR. CORNELIUS-I've already checked with Afsco Fencing. We have other property, and we
put up a black chain link fence, a black coded. It's virtually invisible in 50 feet.
MR. SHAFER-What color will the slats be?
MR. CORNELIUS-A black chain link fence is virtually invisible at 50 feet in distance. I have it
on my property.
IX„p
MR. O'CONNOR-If you take a look at the photos coming down, you can see the trees that are in
between. This is 52 feet in that this fence is going to be.
MR. SHAFER-1 understand, but this is a residential area.
MR. O'CONNOR-You've got their backyards and you've got another 52 feet. You've got quite
a buffer here.
MR. DEEB-John asked what color are the slats.
MR. CORNELIUS-I've asked them. They're going to get back to me if they can do it, because I
have that on my property up in Lake George.
MR. DEEB-Black on black?
MR. CORNELIUS-Yes, and I can tell you less than 50 feet, not even through the woods, I have
a clear field, and you can barely notice the fence, but with all that wood in between there's a 50
foot of trees between the residentials and the back of our buildings. They'll never see it. They
probably wouldn't see the wood either. It's not a function of what's more expensive. It's a
function of effectiveness, and the chain link fence is more effective.
MR. SHAFER-But from what standpoint, security?
MR. CORN ELIUS-Security.
MR. DIXON-Mr. Chairman, may I ask a question also on the fencing?
MR. TRAVER-Please.
MR. DIXON-In between the fence, in between the buildings I know we're talking about the chain
link. I think I share the same concern as far as the slats going in there. I just have visions of
the slats breaking down over time and so, yes, there's potential for an eyesore. The other
concern about that, as these cars, they're traversing through there in the evening in the
wintertime, as the slats are breaking out, the headlights are going to shine through the
neighbors' yards. There is a buffer area, but as the leaves and everything else drop, that would
be my other concern, too. I would be more receptive to a solid vinyl type fence.
MR. CORNELIUS-If I may respond, the first thing you're looking at as you're driving in straight,
making U turns. That's the first thing.
MR. ANDRESS-We actually have bollards in between it, and this is set up so that you cannot
drive the car in between. These are these small units at each end. So the cars would stay out
here. They would not be driving into here. It's just, everything has to stay along the side. The
whole self storage industry has been designed, actually these are a little wider than usual.
Sometimes they're at 20 feet because they do not want someone to back up, because as soon
as you back up into something, you hit it. So even between here, just to make sure that they
can't get in here, these are bollards. They are removable so that they can get a snow blower
between it but that's, we're really trying to keep the control so that you don't ever have any
headlights facing that way.
MR. DIXON-All right, and then you've got the larger space after the first two buildings there to
the south. As you start heading north, what is all that area there?
MR. ANDRESS-This is actually green area in between it. So we would have a fence across
this area. This is the green. The fence would come across that point there.
MR. DIXON-And that would be a chain link as well is what you're proposing?
MR. ANDRESS-This would be a chain link as well. I'm not sure if we speced it but certainly the
chain link fence at this, it could be a vinyl fence, either green or the black. It actually, you can't
even see them. Although if you do it with the slats obviously it creates a visual barrier there.
We haven't had any problems. We actually do, even along dumpsters where we have
masonry dumpsters, a lot of the towns are looking at masonry dumpsters now, to match the
buildings. We still have the chain link gates because that's really the only gate that can really
hold up and those still are. Again, we do those in the vinyl coating but we still do slats on
those, too. So we haven't had a big problem with it. I think you're thinking the older slats were
very hard and brittle or they were just there for an awfully long time, but they're pretty flexible
now, and again I think there's a certain level of maintenance that has to be maintained on these
facilities because the maintenance equates to security. So when people see something that's
sort of rundown or broken, they're not going to want to store their items there because they
didn't feel then the rest of the security isn't up to the standard that they're looking for.
MR. MAGOWAN-Can I make a suggestion on the slats? Because I've seen them horizontal.
I've also seen them vertical. They almost look better vertical than horizontal. Because on the
back of here they're horizontal, and if you pull with the same color green across the fence with
the black, all right, it will just look like a continuation, just a little drop down, instead of 10 feet or
whatever the back is, you know, go six foot high fence. That's something. The other thing, I
know the machine you're talking about coming and taking down. They're on tracts, all right,
and they just look pretty bad when they're doing what they're doing. It's a mean machine. I
don't have a problem clearing. My question is why are we clearing all the way to the back?
MR. O'CONNOR-For expansion.
MR. ANDRESS-That would be Phase 3, or Phase 3 and 4. So we would be looking at, as long
as the sales go, if it goes as projected, then there would be continuation of this as we go further
back. You would take the RV and probably eliminate the RV and build additional storage.
MR. O'CONNOR-And we would have to come back here.
MR. MAGOWAN-And if it doesn't happen, say you finally come to a plateau in Queensbury of
storage units and if they don't go through, now we've got this big open space. Because I'm
looking at this picture right here, of the trees leaning, because I know the property, you know,
where the trees have come down. Because like I said before they're all toothpicks and they're
all together and they're hanging down together and you're going to clear that out, and I know
there's no substructure to these trees in the ground because it's been so thick. So I would
really.
MR. O'CONNOR-There would still be a 50 foot buffer.
MR. MAGOWAN-That's fine. I don't think that we need to do all the way back down to the last
corner until you can come back again, and that's my feeling. You've got enough for the
storage, the RV, you know, let's leave it forever green and then if you do need it, that equipment
will go down through there.
MR. CORNELIUS-It could do substantial damage to, we're going to pave this. We're going to
have blacktop, and also our neighbor just to the left has clear cut. There's nothing there.
That's on the commercial side. We have still a 50 foot buffer between the residences. This
would be an important issue for expansion and a lot of expense to us not to do it now.
MR. MAGOWAN-1 understand that. You're here for approval. I'm giving my opinion of what I
would like to see.
MR. CORNELIUS-We did a feasibility study and the demand is actually there. We're turning
people away. Almost all the self storage facilities here are full. Like Tom said, Tom did
mention before that eventually we'll probably just expand the self storage down and remove the
RV storage. So that would be an expansion later on. That's why we want to clear now.
MR. MAGOWAN-So why aren't you going for the whole project now if there's such a great
demand?
MR. CORNELIUS-We were. We were going to do that initially. We probably should have, but
we're going to go Phase 1, Phase 11, and depending on what the market bears, some people
may want a bigger building or a smaller building. So if you put it on the plans, we didn't want
that one 30 foot slab to dictate how we were going to build the buildings in the future because
we may want to put climate control in the back or a larger, wider building for Phase III or IV.
MR. SHAFER-You've said in the letter there'd be one year between Phase I and Phase 11?
MR. CORNELIUS-We did say in the letter approximately a year and a year would be the time it
would take to get those six units built and hopefully lease. If occurs quicker than that, then we
would just move right into Phase 11.
MR. SHAFER-The plan is to go right to Phase 11 immediately?
itu
MR. CORNELIUS-As soon as the units are up and they're leased to a certain percentage, then
we would start Phase II because obviously there's a certain amount of time it takes just to get
that building up. Hopefully that corresponds by the time when the rest of the first phase is
leased out.
MR. SHAFER-Would you stipulate to that kind of a schedule? I'm just concerned about the
length of construction the neighbors have to put up with, with all of this stuff going on.
MR. CORNELIUS-Sure. Tom, speak to how long it takes to build these buildings once the slab
is in place.
MR. BARBER-Once the slab is up, the buildings are up within weeks, three weeks. For
example the first phase would be less than three weeks. The second phase the same
scenario, the same size. The big thing is getting all the earthwork. That's why I want to do all
the earthwork right now and just get the earthwork done there, get the slabs in the ground, all
the concrete poured and then move to the phase, and I expect that we'll have it full in 12, 14
months. So we'll be on that Number Two in less than a year.
MR. HUNSINGER-Can you comment on the trees that you're proposing to plant towards the
front? On your plans it says total of 11. During your oral presentation this evening you said
there would be additional. I just wanted, if you could confirm the number, also the plans don't
show the size of the tree, and then you mentioned a berm. How high would the berm be?
MR. ANDRESS-What's on this current plan would be what we were proposing. I believe we
increased it from the previous. The berm is shown on Sheet Two. It's probably difficult for you
to see, but it is, it's 100 to 103. So it's around three feet high, and it varies. It has a flatter area
in some areas and then tapers to each side.
MR. HUNSINGER-Okay.
MR. ANDRESS-And then we added the fence in the front and we added some trees behind
that, doing additional buffer.
MR. HUNSINGER-So the number of trees is the 11?
MR. ANDRESS-It would be whatever is on this plan. There should be a landscaping schedule.
MR. HUNSINGER-Yes, I was looking for that. Well you show a detail of the tree on the larger
plan, but it doesn't show what size they would be.
MR. ANDRESS-We didn't put a landscaping schedule on here. The trees would be, we would
put in would be six to eight foot high. I apologize for that. Usually there's a schedule on the
plan.
MR. TRAVER-Are there other questions from members of the Board before we go to public
hearing?
MR. DEEB-I also have a concern about clearing the whole lot for the building. We're trying to
be environmentally conscious, and Brad's point I think should be looked at seriously.
MR. TRAVER-Okay. All right. We do have a public hearing that has remained open actually
on this application before us this evening, and so I will ask if there are those in the audience that
would like to address the Planning Board on this application? Yes, sir. I see at least one
gentleman. If you would give up the table for a moment, please.
PUBLIC HEARING OPEN
ROB SIRAGUSA
MR. SIRAGUSA-My wife asked me if I would say anything before I came. My name is Rob
Sirgusa. I live at 21 Stephanie Lane. I have a couple of questions, just listening to the
gentleman tonight, and the Board's questions. You were questioning, had some questions
about the RV and the RV storage, and that it may be long term or whatever. I just wanted to
know if they had a plan in place in case there is that reckless event or something that got stuck
there and it's not gotten rid of. Do they have a plan to ask that owner and, you know, legally to
get rid of that RV in a certain amount of time?
MR. TRAVER-You're speaking of say an abandoned one in storage?
MR. SIRAGUSA-Yes. Say, you know, if you ever take them in and out, just in case one gets
stuck or, you know, got through the cracks or fell through the cracks and all of a sudden it's
there for over a year. Do they have a plan to say, hey, because you had asked about are they
going to be registered and insured and things. So if those things lapse, then there's a legal
issue on what could happen, and I didn't want it to get stuck there, that RV to get stuck there for
a long period of time and nobody's checking it.
MR. TRAVER-If I could just be absolutely sure I understand what you're saying when you say,
stuck, okay. If an RV is stuck there, falls between the cracks, then you would jack it up and get
it out. If you're talking about an RV that I own and I give to these guys and I say, you know, I'll
come get it some day when I want it, and I never show up, that.
MR. SIRAGUSA-Yes.
MR. TRAVER-All right. We will ask that.
MR. SIRAGUSA-Thank you.
MR. MAGOWAN-Abandoned
MR. SIRAGUSA-Abandoned is a better word, yes, rather than stuck. Some of the other parks
they were mentioning with the security and things, are they next to residential areas? I'm not
sure. I know one was down the street next to a church, but I didn't know if others are in
residential, next to residential zones.
MR. TRAVER-You mean other self-storage units?
MR. SIRAGUSA-Yes. I live on the east side buffer. So I was wondering what the security
would be like on, like on the east side in the buffer zone? Is there going to be lighting back
there? And I know that they have cameras or security back there. We go back and forth about
the trees and sometimes I'm not sure. You say leave some trees, but I am concerned about
how much to leave back there. There's so many that are junk, that are just going to fall at
some point and either cause damage to his new buildings or to something on the residential
side. So, I don't know, sometimes I feel like all those trees should be gone and sometimes I
know it's a nice buffer. So could they go through those trees or say let's get rid of junk.
MR. TRAVER-So, again, if I could just make sure we understand your point of view here.
You've heard us express some concern about clearing the entire lot.
MR. SIRGUSA-Yes.
MR. TRAVER-It sounds like one of the things that you might be wondering about or might be
concerned about is maybe they're not going to clear the whole lot because it's going to leave
some old trees there that could be a problem. So you might be concerned that I want to be
sure that they do clear the whole lot. Is that what I'm hearing?
MR. SIRAGUSA-No, not necessarily. I think what's best, so I don't know, to leave those there,
but I feel like the little shorter group of trees that's there, I feel like they're just going to
eventually come down and cause damage. So I'm not the tree guy. I'm certainly not, but I
know there's a lot of junk back there. That's all, and I have one in particular that I would like to,
you know, as a neighbor, ask them to help with, that I am concerned about.
MR. TRAVER-Okay.
MR. SIRAGUSA-You talked about the fence, and somebody had concerns about the fence. A
gentleman here mentioned that it's going to be a black fence in between those. I kind of like
that better, with due respect, Mr. Dixon, then like a white PVC or something like that, because
those chain links that are black, that's really not so bad. My concern is a chain link fence,
though, is a little bit easier to climb, if I remember my kid days. So security is more my concern
as opposed to, the chain link seems like a good idea, but I am concerned about people getting
over there or whatever and then coming our way.
MR. TRAVER-Sure.
MR. SIRAGUSA-So that's all I have.
MR. TRAVER-Thank you very much.
MR. SIRAGUSA-Thanks for listening to me.
MR. TRAVER-Is there anyone else that would like to address the Planning Board on this? Yes,
sir? I see a gentleman in the back.
RICHARD SEELEY
MR. SEELEY-I'm Richard Seeley. I live at One Stephanie Lane, which is directly east of where
this project is going to border. I think a lot of the questions I had have been answered, but a
couple of things I want to make sure of. Between my house and the restaurant that is there
now, which is going to be in operation soon, there's a wooden fence. I want to make sure that
is maintained, and my understanding is at the end of that fence there's going to be a privacy
fence. Is that going to be like a solid vinyl type fence and from what I looked at in the drawings
today, it looked like it was going to be as much as 80 feet long? I'd like to have a clarification on
that if I could. What I did not notice on the drawings at all, and I think maybe they addressed it,
that the storage buildings are not going to have a dumpster area, that it's a take in, take out type
thing or whatever, but if so I don't see on the drawings where that's located, and I've also had
issues with previous restaurant people as to the location of the dumpster at the restaurant. It
started off on the west corner, which is fine with me because that's over next to where the pizza
shop is. Then it went to the north side. Well the north side now is where his entrance is going
to be. So that's not going to be feasible, and then it ended up on my property line, which is what
I don't want. So if we can address that along with addressing this, as long as it's going to be
intertwined sooner or later, I'd appreciate that also. Thank you.
MR. TRAVER-Yes. Thank you. Anyone else? Yes, sir.
JOHN CORDIALE
MR. CORDIALE-My name's John Cordiale and I live at 35 Stephanie Lane. I just have some
questions about security, again, the fence. My understanding was that the buildings
themselves were like nine feet tall, the actual building itself, but the fence is only six feet tall.
So I actually think that the smaller sections should be a higher fence, and possibly also have
some barbed wire on them so nobody can climb over them. In terms of the clear cutting, I'm
not for clear cutting the whole area. We heard Phase 1, Phase 11, and then they talked about
Three and Four, possible further expansion. I'd like to actually, you know, I know they have to
come back in front of the Board for Three and Four. So I'd like to respectfully request that you
actually have the whole area not clear cut, you know, just Phase I and Phase 11. And I looked
at the other storage units in the area, and pretty much this is the only one that's so close to a
residential area. The one on Corinth Road itself, not too far from me, actually the gate's never
locked there. It's always open. So people can go in and out all the time, and I think Mr.
Barber's other storage unit, that has a gate but there's no fence around it. So there's not like a
lot of security there either. So we need to make sure that it's secure storage facility, and
actually the cameras themselves, I want to make sure that they make sure there's no blind
spots in there, you know, for the storage units, and my experience with that, I actually had a
business in Hudson Falls, we had a storage unit and it got robbed, and that actually had a gate
and a code we had to put in. It was the same code for everyone. So actually they broke into
the storage unit and got into our unit and we actually saw footprints there and reported it to the
police. We had insurance and everything so it was all covered, but we went through and
looked at the tape and there were some blind spots so we couldn't actually see them go into the
unit. So they have to be really careful if they're protecting their customers, too, if they provide
that type of security, you know, cameras to cover all the different areas, and I guess that's it.
Thank you.
MR. TRAVER-Thank you very much. Yes, sir. I believe you were next.
VITO CAVALLARI
MR. CAVALLARI-I only want to ask one question.
MR. TRAVER-I'm sorry, if you don't mind, we do record the meetings and the minutes are
transcribed. So we'd appreciate it if you'd get on the mic so we have a record of everything.
MR. CAVALLARI-My name is Vito Cavallari. I have the property next to this property, and I
was concerned about what is the limitations involving what they're allowed to store? Is there a
volatile compound? Anything that might be explosive? Things like that. That's what my
concern is.
MR. TRAVER-Good question. We will ask. Thank you. Anyone else? Yes, sir, in the back.
EVERT BATCHELDER
MR. BATCHELDER-My name is Evert Batchelder. I live on Stephanie Lane. I just wanted to
emphasize a few things mentioned here. One is going to be about the RV storage area. Now
I used to work at a very large factory here in the Glens Falls area, and I used to work in a
department where we made expansions, modifications and so forth. Now on his diagram here
he just labeled and mentioned RV storage. In our blueprints and so forth, if we only put one
device in this area that we were going to modify, we had to draw dotted lines emphasizing
further equipment. He has no reference of what size RV and/or the position of these RV's. In
other words if I had a 22 foot pull along camper, now do you know the dimensions across of that
storage area? The width of it?
MR. MAGOWAN-The RV storage area?
MR. BATCHELDER-Yes.
MR. MAGOWAN-Thirty-two feet.
MR. BATCH ELDER-Thirty-two feet. And how long?
MR. MAGOWAN-Thirty-two, or is that eighty-two? Excuse me, 82.
MR. BATCH ELDER-Eighty-two feet across?
MR. MAGOWAN-Is it 82?
MS. WHITE-I see 107 by 109. Am I looking at the right thing?
MR. BATCH ELDER-Well, anyway, what I'm trying to make a point at is, there should have been
some examples of how many and what size to give a representative of what he can do, what he
can't do, how they're able to maneuver those devices around. So if somebody has one in the
rear of the area, if somebody comes in and there's five or six, ten others ahead of those, how's
he going to make arrangements to get that device out?
MR. TRAVER-1 understand. These site plans are quite different than blueprints.
MR. BATCHELDER-Like I'm trying to emphasize, in ours, what I'm familiar with, we had to
simulate what was going in, size, height and everything. Nothing is emphasized here. The
other thing is, who's going to regulate whether those vehicles are registered and licensed, you
know, who's going to do that? Is the Town going to supervise, have a sheriff's patrol in there,
check credentials and everything? The other thing is, we've had some very, very hot summers
this year. Now I assume most of you mow your own lawn. So you have five gallon gas cans.
Under that heat, have you noticed, you take the cap over, there's very extreme pressures in
those cans under the heat?
MR. TRAVER-There is, however, not in our vehicles. Because vehicles have regulations that
require ventilated fuel tanks. So it's different than a capped container of fuel, but I understand.
Sure.
MR. BATCHELDER-I'm used to working on a lot of equipment. Some of it was automated.
Some of the stuff was not, it was manual. Some of the auto stuff had to be manual override.
So even though it's an automatic device, they are subject, because they are man-made, they're
subject to failure. So if you get a lot of heat buildup, you can go up to a very, very extreme high
pressure and most pipe lines and so forth are only rated at 140 or 160 psi. Pressures can go
higher. So it could burst a line. You could have leakage there and you could have a spark
somehow and a fire.
MR. TRAVER-We will ask them about that concern.
MR. BATCH ELDER-Because I also took part in that 1964 fire we had in West Glens Falls.
That was very bad, but the other thing is, how many of you have driven up and down Corinth
Road by Hudson Headwaters and the A-1 tree place recently, I'd say in the last four months, six
months. Did you notice that huge large building they built there across from there? And did
you notice they cleared that, and by doing so they cleared and left the trees exposed to the
weather elements. Well we had a very high rainfall and windstorm that knocked all those trees
over onto the house. Did you notice that? Were you aware of that? That's why I'm
addressing these trees here. If they clear out the dirt and erosion, and leave the roots and so
forth bare on one side because our weather comes from the west, northwest, and we do get
high winds. If the roots are not in the earth sufficiently, it's going to topple those trees over onto
the east side, and I don't think I'm wrong there.
MR. MAGOWAN-That's why I mentioned the toothpick type stacking.
MR. BATCHELDER-Yes.
MR. MAGOWAN-Together they're a clump, but you thin them out, line them up, you're going to
get that, especially with the microbursts.
MR. BATCHELDER-Well I'm just trying to emphasize that they could possibly have that effect if
it's not foreseen. That's why I'm just mentioning it. That is a possibility. There's some other
things, but I can't remember.
MR. TRAVER-Well thank you very much.
MR. BATCHELDER-But if I may, this is my second time to a Board meeting, and I'm very
disappointed because of the communications you have here. I could hardly hear anybody, and I
believe some of the people in the back could hardly hear anything, unless the individual had the
mic up close. I mean I hope an improvement anyway because we could hardly hear any of you,
and that's what's important is for these people that come to these meetings also to hear what is
said.
MR. TRAVER-One thing I can offer, as little as it may be, is that these meetings are recorded
and transcribed. So at some point in the near future, following this meeting there will be an
audio recording which comes first, because that's the easiest to do, that will be available on the
Town website at queensbury.net under the Planning Board and this date, and you'll be able to
listen to the entire meeting through these microphones.
MR. BATCHELDER-But isn't that after the fact, when people are here?
MR. TRAVER-It is. There's also a written copy of the minutes of the meeting as well.
MR. BATCHELDER-1 understand that. You mentioned that before, but I'm just trying to
emphasize the fact that if something is said here at the time of the meeting, if somebody might
question something because it wasn't brought to your knowledge before, you listen to that
recording and it's kind of an after the fact because at that time of your meeting you can also
approve of the application, correct?
MR. TRAVER-Potentially, sure.
MR. BATCHELDER-And if a person were to listen to the recording, there's no say.
MR. TRAVER-We'll certainly ask Staff to review the sound system of the room and check to
make sure it's functioning normally. It has changed a couple of times.
MR. BATCH ELDER-Well, I just had to say that, you know, because I am hard of hearing, and
that's due to the war.
MR. MAGOWAN-Pardon me?
MR. TRAVER-Thank you very much, sir.
MR. MAGOWAN-We'll try to talk louder.
MR. TRAVER-Is there anyone else in the audience that wanted to address the Planning Board
on this application? Yes, sir.
KEVIN CRANNEY
MR. CRANNEY-Good evening. My name is Kevin Cranney, 33 Stephanie Lane. The property
is right at the tail end of it there, and just some of the comments about the tree line and stuff like
that. I mean, we've been walking through those woods and many woods for 25, 30 years.
Trees fall over all the time, you know, these are 50 year old, 60 year old trees that come down,
and nobody's talked about the new growth of forest that's happened around there. So this is
just routine forest. As far as the RV's, we hear about RV's. There's probably 20 storage
facilities in Queensbury, maybe 15 in South Glens Falls, and that's 35, 40 around the area.
Fortunately we just got West Side Auto storage cleared out. That was a mess. Too bad that's
not being built in.
MR. TRAVER-Well, that was a junkyard. That wasn't RV sales.
MR. CRANNEY-Yes. No doubt, but I mean it's not there anymore thank heavens.
MR. TRAVER-Yes.
MR. CRANNEY-But with the vehicles driving through around these, I've been around them
myself. I mean it's not just RV's. People's lives change. One month turns into six months.
They're not $100,000 RV's all the time. It could be a pop up camper, a truck full of debris,
motorcycles, I mean, boats. We've seen it all. So it's not like he's talking about$200,000 RV's
being stored here. Let's be real about it. So it's more than just the big picture, these beautiful
RV's that are well taken care of. That's all, and the forest there, if it could be gradually cleared
out, if it's got to be cleared out, that does make more sense, I would think. Again, this is just
natural, the lifecycle of a forest, you know, that's really all Richard's trying to point out. Thank
you.
MR. TRAVER-Thank you. Is there anyone else that wanted to address the Planning Board on
this application this evening? Yes, ma'am? I think I see a hand back there.
KAY CORDIALE
MRS. CORDIALE-Hi. I'm Kay Cordiale from 35 Stephanie Lane, and I was one of the people
coming here to talk about the hours of the meeting at the beginning of this, about what they
were planning for the hours, and if that could be clarified. The other thing was I think most of
the residents requested at least an eight foot privacy fence to block most of it. I know they've
been talking about the berms and the trees, but I'm not sure if the berm and the trees totally
block everything, and I kind of get the impression from most of us we want total blockage. We
do not want to see this. So the fence is kind of, we've been hearing a lot of things. Just for
comic relief, I have a chain link fence, I have a Siberian Husky and she didn't like her pen and
she went through that in about a half an hour. So I'm thinking if she can get through it anybody
can, not just over but through, and I think everything else has been.
MR. TRAVER-I'm sorry, ma'am, the dog went through?
MRS. CORDIALE-She chewed it, she chewed the links off, yes.
MR. TRAVER-That must be some dog. What kind of food are you feeding her?
MRS. CORDIALE-She wanted out.
MR. TRAVER-1 guess. I've seen them dig under. I had a horse that used to eat through
fences, but to go through a chain link fence. Okay. Sorry to interrupt. Thank you.
MRS. CORDIALE-And I think that's about it. It's just clarification of the trees and we've had
three microbursts in our backyard and we're at the end where the RV storage would be also.
We've had several trees go down. One was during Hurricane Floyd which is an unusual
occurrence, but this is not just a consideration for the residents but also for him if he's putting
storage things back there. You've got to leave the trees in clumps because otherwise they're
going down, and that's it. Thanks.
MR. TRAVER-Thank you. Is there anyone else? Yes, sir.
TRAVIS WHITEHEAD
MR. WHITEHEAD-Hello. I'm Travis Whitehead from Queensbury. I just came here just to see
what a Planning Board meeting was like, but I am a little dismayed when I hear all this talk
about the trees that, you know, some consideration hasn't been given to the environment, and I
know at least one of you joins me on the Clean Energy Committee. We know what trees do as
far as removing carbon dioxide from the air, etc. There doesn't seem to be an immediate need
identified to take down these trees. I haven't heard anything about stormwater and the fact that
clearing that out and getting rid of the root structure and such.
MR. TRAVER-That actually is, all of that hasn't been discovered specifically tonight, but that is
covered in the application process.
it a";
MR. WHITEHEAD-It's covered, but I'm saying if you're removing trees you're going to worsen.
MR. TRAVER-I've got you.
MR. WHITEHEAD-That's my point. If there's no need to take them down, what possible
justification do you have to take them down? I mean we're past that point in time, 19 whatever.
I mean we're past that time. 2018 we don't take down trees for no reason.
MR. TRAVER-Not for no reason. We agree with that, certainly. Thank you, Travis. Anyone
else that wanted to address the Planning Board this evening? Sir, I believe you already spoke.
MR. BATCHELDER-Yes, but I forgot something.
MR. TRAVER-If you don't mind, in the interest of moving the meeting forward, I'd rather that you
not speak again. Is there anyone who has not addressed the Planning Board that wanted to
speak this evening? I'm not seeing anyone. Are there any written comments, Laura?
MRS. MOORE-1 have no new written comments.
MR. TRAVER-Okay. Then we will close the public hearing on this application.
PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED
MR. TRAVER-So you all heard the public comment. There were questions regarding security.
There were questions about cameras. I think I have some idea of how you might respond to
this, but if you would sort of on the record. There was a question about the dumpster
associated with the restaurant. I know it's not in operation yet, but there was concern about a
resident living nearby to be concerned that that dumpster be placed in an appropriate location.
A lot of questions about security. Questions that came up about the height of the fence, and I
can understand sort of the concern about the visual impact, but when you talk about, you know,
how secure is it, I'm thinking these are people that have already gotten in. So, you know, I
mean if they want to climb out, I mean I suppose that's all right because they just paid to get in,
but can you understand the concern about the security aspect of it? I mean, just address, if
you would, the public comment.
MR. CORNELIUS-Our current facility, which is just down the road, we have a surveillance
system around the entire facility. Everything's recorded, every movement. We have a special
camera that picks up every vehicle as it comes in, and as a matter of fact it even picks up the
license plate. You can see the driver, very, very secure, but what you need to understand is
the demographics. If you look at the average person that rents storage now, statistically is 30
to 50 years of age and they're not young kids, and our rates aren't the cheapest in Town. So
we actually get a different type of clientele. We have a tremendous amount of doctors, nurses,
people from the hospital. People from out of town, they store their furniture from their nice
homes on the lake when they go down south. As far as the fence goes, barbed wire, not
necessary. Most of the facilities in Queensbury, if you drive around, some of them have gates,
some of them don't. The one that was just approved here just a few years ago in this very
room for Mr. Cleveland, Northway by Hudson Headwaters, there isn't a gate. He has lights. It's
not paved. It's a nice facility, and he does have cameras now, but there's no gate. We have a
gate and currently I'm there a lot. I work in the back so I'm at the facility a lot, but it's very, very
secure. Fence, we don't have a fence around our current facility there now because we were
going to put a fence up but one of the neighbors to the left didn't want it. We have a church
right next door. They're very, very happy from us. As a matter of fact, they rent a unit from us.
We have a great relationship. Security's not an issue at all.
MR. O'CONNOR-1 tend to agree with the issue of the height. It confuses me because you're
talking about people who are already in there, or you're talking about people who are on the
outside and want to get in by going over a fence? I'm not sure what the security issue is. If we
had to we probably could put an eight foot fence there instead of a six foot fence, which was
what was planned, but we don't think it's necessary. If the Board thinks it's necessary to have
that's something we would consider.
MR. TRAVER-Well my own feeling is, not from a security standpoint, but possibly from a visual
impact standpoint. Again, looking at the buffer, and that's something that I'm sure we'll be
talking about further.
MR. O'CONNOR-Well more fence is potentially more visible.
„i...
MR. TRAVER-That's one way to look at it.
MR. O'CONNOR-The fence isn't to block. It was for security purposes. It wasn't to block the
view necessarily into the project, but again, we'd be open to that if you think that's a necessity,
or if you think that's an improvement. We did change the front. When we first came in here we
did not have any fencing from the two properties that were nearest to Luzerne Road. We now
have a solid, they have a solid wood fence. Somebody asked will that remain. Yes. I'm not
sure whose property line it's on, and we've added to that a vinyl fence to go to the corner of the
first unit. We've fenced across the front of the units so that they wouldn't be visible from
Luzerne Road. There's a lot of changes that they made from the time that they first came in
here until this rendition of what they're proposing. The tree issue I heard somebody say take
down more trees, somebody said don't take down as many trees. We think it makes economic
sense to have a viable business to clear what we've asked for. We could compromise on that if
we have to.
MR. TRAVER-Well I think the question is, and you heard some of the public comment, that, you
know, if you have to you could clear trees. If you don't have to, you don't clear them. So that's
kind of where we come down is you're talking about a phased approach and if your project goes
ahead to fulfillment, then clearly you're going to need all of that, that space in there for, on that
level, the removal of trees is justified, but if you're doing it as a phased project and you're not
certain what the market's going to bear, then maybe you don't need to clear those trees, until
we can say there is a need to do that.
MR. O'CONNOR-We're not trying to be confrontational. We would offer as a condition that we
be allowed to clear the trees for 100 feet beyond what we show as the RV area, and that we
would work with the Town, we've talked about that in our actual plan, with clearing other trees
on the site that have come down. We don't want them to be up there. We don't want to have
the liability for those trees hurting somebody or hurting somebody's property or hurting our RV's
that are parked there. So if we could have tree clearance to 100 feet north, I think it is, of the
area shown for the RV.
MR. DEEB-Why would you want to do that?
MR. BARBER-Because that's area that we have on our front sheet as one of the snow storage
areas. Because you are somewhat limited. So we're going to be pushing from the front to the
back.
MR. DEEB-So you're going to use that.
MR. BARBER-So we're going to utilize that area, correct.
MR. DEEB-Okay. I wasn't sure. I thought you just wanted to have it cleared.
MR. BARBER-No, no. We need it.
MR. O'CONNOR-And I think that area is where some of the more severe spindle trees were that
Mr. Magowan was talking about.
MR. DEEB-I like the idea of an eight foot fence. I mean if it's black and you can't see it, I don't
think it's going to have much of a visual impact at all. The idea of an eight foot fence I think
gives them a little more confidence.
MR. O'CONNOR-I'm a layperson. I'm not into as many of these projects as Ron is, but my
idea, have the chain link fence coated black, without slats is probably less visible than anything.
The slats, from a layman's point of view, sounds nice. They assure you, if you put them in, as
Mr. Magowan says, at an angle, you're not going to have to see through it. You'd have to
maintain it, but that's a maintenance issue.
MR. MAGOWAN-That was vertical.
MR. O'CONNOR-Vertical.
MR. MAGOWAN-1 think they look better vertical.
MR. O'CONNOR-But I think if you had just the fence without the slats you'd be better off.
MR. CORNELIUS-If I could, I actually have hundreds of acres in this community and also acres
on the lake. When I put up a chain link fence and it was black, I did not put the slats in, and
especially with a 50 foot tree buffer that you have, you'll never see that fence. It won't show at
all, and all about the security, I mean it's our customers that we're securing. Right now there's
no fence there. Anyone can go anywhere they want on it, and the place has been overrun, and
Charlie, the former owner, was very generous and let a lot of people build fences on the
property and extend their land. We offered the same thing. The only thing I required was that
they sign the licensing agreement so there'd be no dispute as to the ownership in the future,
and that's why the 50 foot buffer never meant anything to me because we don't need to utilize
that. That's going to be pretty much undisturbed. It's already been disturbed by some of the
residents, that they built fences on it, some as much as 20 feet, but the point is that when you
look at clearing, and I guess we could compromise to the clearing. I don't know how much
more expensive it's going to be. Based on the surveys that we've done, that is going to be fully
utilized, that property at some point. Tom indicated earlier that some people may want 25 by
10's. We don't know because the number of antique cars, what people put in there. That's
why we didn't want to submit the plan now as to saying these are the units and be stuck with
that size. That's the only reason we didn't submit it at this time because we don't know what
the market's going to require once we fill out the first two phases here, but if you do a study, this
area is almost 350,000 square feet shortage of storage required for communities. You've got
some many all over the place, when they empty their garage to put their car in they come to our
place, but I think that when you mentioned that just the chain links, because the slats will do
nothing. After 50 feet of looking through trees, I think you see the photo of the individual you
can hardly see there. Imagine if that's a black chain link fence, you won't see it, and the
difference between six and eight feet doesn't mean anything to us. We could do that as well,
but again, are we keeping people out or keeping people in? I'm confused about the concern for
security.
MR. DEEB-But back to the visual, the thing is if you're not going to put slats in, you should be
able to see through the chain link fence.
MR. O'CONNOR-You won't see the fence is there. You will see the units which are before
screening, the back of those units.
MR. DEEB-The chain link fence is going to go between the units, right?
MR. O'CONNOR-Between the units.
MR. TRAVER-Where he indicated.
MR. O'CONNOR-Between the units all you're going to have is the existing vegetation. Because
you won't see the chain link fence probably.
MR. DEEB-So you won't be able to see into the property?
MR. O'CONNOR-You'll be able to see into the property if we don't put slats in probably.
MR. DEEB-Yes.
MR. O'CONNOR-You may.
MR. DEEB-You'll see movement.
MR. O'CONNOR-Maybe during the season. Right now it's very heavily treed, very heavily
covered vegetation.
MR. MAGOWAN-You'll probably see more of the movement in the wintertime when the lower
vegetation lays dormant for the winter.
MR. O'CONNOR-Yes.
MR. MAGOWAN-But I mean I don't have a problem with six feet. I mean six feet, eight feet, if
someone wants to get in and get out, they're going to get in and get out. I mean, locks
unfortunately only keep honest people out. So locks fences and that, eight foot with the slats, if
you maintain the green it looks consistent, and then let the vegetation grow up and you won't
see movement inside. You won't see the headlights going up and down.
MR. CORNELIUS-To address that, the facility we have now, if there's five cars a day, once
they're full, that's a lot. But on the other side of the property, we're talking their backyards is
where we are. On the front there's cars up and down that road every minute. I mean, people
have to drive at night. Our facility will have very, very little activity once we start. Early on
when you're filling up, yes, there's some activity, but once they're full, there's nobody there.
You could hope for a cemetery if you want something more quiet.
MR. DEEB-I'm not worried about that aspect of it. The other thing I wanted to ask you, what
color is the vinyl fence out front?
MR. BARBER-We're going to do either an earth tone color or white. It really doesn't matter.
MR. CORNELIUS-Not for the vinyl fence in front.
MR. BARBER-For the vinyl fence, we'll leave that black.
MR. DEEB-That will be black also.
MR. BARBER-One thing I'd just like to clarify. Sixty percent of our customers are women
believe it or not, and I read an interesting fact just a couple of weeks ago that women prefer not
to have fencing because they feel like they're in prison.
AUDIENCE MEMBER-You don't have to live and look out your backdoor at a metal unit behind
you. There's 600 cars that go back and forth.
MR. TRAVER-Excuse me, ma'am. Yes, go ahead.
MR. O'CONNOR-This is an application where the applicant is not asking for any variances.
This is a permitted use. We have followed the regulations as best we can. We've tried to
compromise when issues have been raised, whether we agree with those issues or don't agree
with those issues. I don't, and I didn't bring with me the zoning chart, but there are a number of
other uses that could go into this property that I think would be a lot more intrusive than what
this is, and the way that this is particularly planned and laid out, and I think if people really
thought about alternatives to what is being offered, they may be more receptive to it. So we
think that we've complied. We think that we're entitled to approval. We're willing to listen to
other questions or any issues that you think we haven't fairly addressed.
MR. MAGOWAN-Well, Mike, you said you'd be willing to go 100 feet beyond here, which would
be roughly about here.
MR. O'CONNOR-Yes.
MR. MAGOWAN-That's a good compromise because I'd really like to see what's going to
happen with these other trees, you known, really for all, to protect you, too, because I'm really
concerned that once you take them out with the wind, and there could be more costs that we're
going to have to bring in some big trees.
MR. SHAFER-The counterpoint to that, of course, is that if you clear the trees in four different
phases you've got that heavy equipment in there working and making noise four different times
instead of once.
MR. O'CONNOR-We offered to do it once.
MR. SHAFER-1 understand. I'm just raising the corollary to a compromise.
MR. O'CONNOR-We would go either way. We need to get this site stabilized.
MR. TRAVER-Well it sounds with regard to the clearing you're talking about doing it twice, not
four times. Correct?
MR. O'CONNOR-Yes.
MR. TRAVER- Okay. Other questions, comments?
MR. DIXON-Let me just throw one out there. We're giving an easement, letting you cut a little
more on the backside there, on the north side, are you willing to put in additional plantings once
you get them cleared on the perimeters? Because that would give them a chance to grow up.
Because if you're planning on putting additional storage buildings later on, we know that we're
going to have the same issues. It's going to be the public that lives on that street aren't going
to want to look at the backs of the buildings. Maybe there's some arborvitae and hemlocks that
you can get in now. Maybe they'll get some size to them.
, a
MR. CORNELIUS-1 still don't think it's clear in some people's minds that there's 50 feet of forest
between their fence line and our building, which is green. They will see the back side of our
building, which is green, nine foot high. At night they'll never see it and in the daytime they'll
rarely see it. I don't understand if you're saying on which perimeter.
MR. DIXON-So I guess my concern is, you know, we have more than just spring, summer and
fall around here. So we're going to lose the leaf coverage back there. I don't live on that
street, but I've lived in Queensbury for a very long time. I know that there's a lot of maples that
are probably in there, a lot of low-lying.
MR. BARBER-It's mostly pine.
MR. DIXON-Okay. Any of the shrubbery that's going to be low is going to lose its leaves. The
residents on that street can speak to it, but my concern is that if we start clearing on the
northern side, then, yes I would like to see some additional plantings put in.
MR. O'CONNOR-Excuse me. The northern side, I'm not sure, I think that the, Stephanie Lane
is on the east side.
MR. DIXON-Yes.
MR. O'CONNOR-It's on the east side.
MR. DIXON-So when I'm looking at the plans to the right.
MR. O'CONNOR-To the right of the end of the unit is the north.
MR. DIXON-Correct.
MR. O'CONNOR-Yes, okay.
MR. DIXON-So that's what I'm looking at. If we're going to be doing more in there, do we want
to be proactive, get some plantings in there, as well as also thrown in on the southern side
towards your entrance behind the restaurant. It looks like there should be some additional
plantings in there, too. The resident that lives on that first lot, anybody that's going to come in, if
this is going to be an active restaurant again, there's a wooden fence there that sounds like
that's yours. You're going to maintain it, but there's going to be some traffic in there, some
light. I'd like to see some plantings in there, too.
MR. CORNELIUS-We can't plant, there's a parking lot there for the restaurant. That's going to
remain there for the restaurant. If you pull in as you see the property, behind the restaurant, I
think that fence is eight feet high, this wooden fence, and it's been there for a very long time. In
fact it's probably 10 feet onto our property. We're not moving that. That's staying there, and
the restaurant has been operating since I think 1998, and there's never been any complaints of
headlights going in and out of there. In fact I don't think they're even open in the evening.
They were years ago but not now. Charlie most recently did not operate in the evening, but
going in there there's also a vinyl fence and our building is stretched down so that it was Frank
was the first neighbor because he didn't want his pool to be exposed is why we pulled that
building down. If you look at the plans there, if you see the first building, the one that's closest
to the bottom of the chart, the reason why that's longer than the other buildings was to
accommodate Frank. He didn't want us to have people coming in seeing his swimming pool.
That's why that was stretched out. So they're really, and all the headlights are on the interior,
and I'm still a little confused as to five or six cars a night. I mean, the road has 300 a night, and
we're focusing on headlights. I don't understand that.
MR. DIXON-Well I'm just trying to be proactive because there's a restaurant component here,
too.
MR. CORNELIUS-It's been there for 20 years.
MR. DIXON-Right, and right now there's nobody in it.
MR. CORN ELIUS-Shortly there will be.
MR. DIXON-But there will be, and going down the road, you know, if this property changes
hands it would be nice to get established greenery there.
MR. O'CONNOR-It would take probably six to eight months at that.
MR. ANDRESS-Yes. I think the, one of the speakers was that property owner at the corner
that you're speaking about, and that was the compromise that we spoke about was to maintain
his fence and to add that additional six foot solid fence all the way along there. So that was
what we did, and then we added the trees at the end of that. So that was the buffer that he had
spoken about.
MR. DIXON-Maybe that's the piece that I'm missing is the specific compromises that were
made. I know it was touched on.
MR. O'CONNOR-That was in the letter to the Board that laid out that and we went back and
agreed to it.
MR. TRAVER-One last clarification and perhaps I missed it. There was a concern raised,
again, going back to the restaurant and the property owner that was mentioned. There was a
question about the dumpster and where that was going to be placed. Can you clarify that?
MR. ANDRESS-Yes, well that is something we have to address. There are dumpsters sort of
moved all around in there.
MR. TRAVER-Yes. I think the concern was.
MR. ANDRESS-It was on that eastern side, and that was obviously his concern.
MR. TRAVER-Right.
MR. ANDRESS-So we'll have to look at it and push it maybe back to the, back closer to the
fence line and then we could do some additional buffering around that.
MR. TRAVER-Okay.
MR. CORNELIUS-The point is there's also an eight foot high fence there. I don't even know
how he saw the dumpster. There's no way, I know the parcel that the gentleman is speaking.
There's no way he can even see the restaurant.
MR. ANDRESS-No, but again when you're opening and dumpster and things there's noise
associated with it. So when you do the additional buffering around that, that helps. We will
have to address that at some point.
MR. TRAVER-Okay. Thank you for that. All right. Other questions?
MR. O'CONNOR-I didn't directly answer Mr. Dixon. You were talking about putting trees in the
area where we're going to, I apologize to everybody. Mr. Dixon asked a question about putting
trees in to the northern end of the area where we're going to clear to that 100 foot, the other
side area north of the RV area. Where were you talking about putting the trees, in the buffer
area, the 50 foot?
MR. DIXON-Along the buffer area. So, yes, you've got your 50 foot buffer area.
MR. O'CONNOR-I think we submitted a visual statement which said that we would fill in if there
were blank areas that needed to be filled in we would apply that to that area.
MR. DIXON-Okay.
MR. O'CONNOR-I don't think you're telling us to take 10 feet out and put in a nice grove of
arborvitae or something of that nature, you know, to take 10 feet of the buffer out and then plant
through there.
MR. TRAVER-That wouldn't make any sense.
MR. O'CONNOR-He's just talking about filling in, probably with pines, the same as the pines
that are up front.
MR. DIXON-I'm just concerned with trying to maintain some level of density through there.
MR. O'CONNOR-Okay. Well in our visual impact, our visual statement we said that we would.
We recognize every place along that whole frontage doesn't have the same density of existing
vegetation.
MR. ANDRESS-The next best thing to having self-storage, other than having self-storage in
your backyard, would be a cemetery. It's very quiet, very quiet.
MR. DEEB-One other thing, what about, just touch on the stormwater. Travis mentioned that.
MR. ANDRESS-1 can certainly go through the stormwater. It is all sand site. So we've done
stormwater testing out there, test pits, and everything actually sheets off of the buildings. We
do have a couple of catch basins and they go to depressions along the side of the building and
the infiltration goes into the ground. So it all stays on site.
MR. TRAVER-All right. Any last questions, comments from members of the Board before we
move on to resolutions? Okay. The first item that we have to consider this evening is
obviously the SEAR. We have the SEQR resolution that we need to consider. So we need to
take a look at environmental, specific environmental concerns that are unaddressed by the plan.
Does anyone have any specific environmental impacts that they're concerned with? We have
the SEQR information included in the application. Why don't we go ahead with the resolution,
then.
RESOLUTION GRANTING A NEGATIVE SEQR DECLARATION SP # 52-2018 TNT
Applicant proposes 12 buildings — 4 buildings at 3,000 sq. ft., 4 buildings at 4,500 sq. ft., 3
buildings at 3,750 sq. ft. and 1 building at 4,750 sq. ft. for 148 units. Site is 8.60 ac and
disturbance is 5.59 ac. Project is to be phased with six buildings at a time. An outdoor storage
area of 107 ft.x190 ft. with a 6 ft. high security fence to the north side of the proposed buildings
of Phase 2. Project includes site work with new stormwater, lighting, fencing, 50 ft. buffer to the
east side residences, upgrade to existing parking area and adding new parking area for the
storage facility. Project will maintain existing restaurant for future operation. Pursuant to Chapter
179-3-040 of the Zoning Ordinance, new commercial construction shall be subject to Planning
Board review and approval.
The Planning Board has determined that the proposed project and Planning Board action is
subject to review under the State Environmental Quality Review Act;
The proposed action considered by this Board is Unlisted in the Department of Environmental
Conservation Regulations implementing the State Environmental Quality Review Act and the
regulations of the Town of Queensbury;
No Federal or other agencies are involved;
Part 1 of the Short EAF has been completed by the applicant;
Upon review of the information recorded on this EAF, it is the conclusion of the Town of
Queensbury Planning Board as lead agency that this project will result in no significant adverse
impacts on the environment, and, therefore, an environmental impact statement need not be
prepared. Accordingly, this negative declaration is issued.
MOTION TO GRANT A NEGATIVE DECLARATION FOR SITE PLAN 52-2018 TNT CORINTH
ROAD, LLC. Introduced by David Deeb who moved for its adoption.
As per the resolution prepared by staff.
1. Part 11 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 21st day of August, 2018 by the
following vote:
AYES: Mr. Deeb, Ms. White, Mr. Shafer, Mr. Hunsinger, Mr. Magowan, Mr. Dixon, Mr. Traver
NOES: NONE
MR. TRAVER-All right, and next we move on to the Site Plan approval, and I know that we have
some conditions.
MRS. MOORE-Can you identify some of those conditions prior to making the resolution so I
know?
MR. DEEB-Yes. Permanent site stabilization before winter, RV storage should be maintained
with current registration, insurance, and it should be drivable. Next one would be trees to be
six to eight feet in height. We didn't say anything about width.
MR. ANDRESS-Trees are actually measured by height.
MR. DEEB-And then the last one would be clearing to 100 feet past the RV storage.
MRS. MOORE-So there's one additional one that the Board should clarify. We know that
there's fencing in between. There was definitely discussion whether it would be eight feet or six
feet and whether there's slats. So you should clarify that as part of the motion.
MR. TRAVER-Color and height.
MRS. MOORE-Color and height. Okay.
MR. O'CONNOR-With or without slats.
MR. TRAVER-Right. I thought that we had, and Board correct me if I'm wrong, that we had
talked about, when we were done, black without slats.
MS. WHITE-That's correct.
MR. TRAVER-And I think we were talking about eight feet. I could be wrong about that.
MR. SHAFER-1 don't see the point of eight.
MR. TRAVER-Okay.
MR. SHAFER-And I think Brad's point is the same. If somebody's going to climb over.
MR. MAGOWAN-Six foot, but I like the idea of slats because of the continuous.
MR. TRAVER-It increases the visibility, you understand that. What I'm hearing from the public
is visual impact. So the black without slats is going to be less visible. I understand what
you're saying, but that's going to be in your face compared to black netting that's going to kind
of disappear into the.
MR. MAGOWAN-If the Board's happy with that.
MR. TRAVER-How do other members feel about that?
MR. DEEB-So the last one would be chain link fencing to be black without slats and six feet in
height.
MR. TRAVER-Right.
MRS. MOORE-And do you want that on both the east and the west side?
MR. ANDRESS-We had actually speced the east side for that. The west side we'll just have
regular, the side that was commercial that was just regular.
MR. O'CONNOR-We didn't have any fencing on the west side.
MR. ANDRESS-No, we do have fencing on the west side. It was just regular chain link.
MR. SHAFER-Regular as opposed to?
MR. ANDRESS-Well, not plastic coated.
MS. WHITE-Wouldn't it be better just to be consistent?
MR. O'CONNOR-That's a Commercial Light Industrial zone. It's a continuance of that. So
what goes in there someday is probably going to be another business.
MR. TRAVER-So the black camouflage, in effect, fencing, is on the west side.
MR. ANDRESS-The east side.
MR. TRAVER-The east side.
MR. DEEB-That's going to be green also.
MR. TRAVER-Okay. All right.
MR. MAGOWAN-So the other side is going to be galvanized?
MR. CORNELIUS-Yes.
MR. DEEB-And that's in the Site Plan.
MR. TRAVER-Yes. All right. I think we're ready to hear that motion, then, with those
conditions.
RESOLUTION APPROVING SP # 52-2018 TNT CORINTH ROAD, LLC
The applicant has submitted an application to the Planning Board: Applicant proposes 12
buildings —4 buildings at 3,000 sq. ft., 4 buildings at 4,500 sq. ft., 3 buildings at 3,750 sq. ft. and
1 building at 4,750 sq. ft. for 148 units. Site is 8.60 ac and disturbance is 5.59 ac. Project is to
be phased with six buildings at a time. An outdoor storage area of 107 ft.x190 ft. with a 6 ft. high
security fence to the north side of the proposed buildings of Phase 2. Project includes site work
with new stormwater, lighting, fencing, 50 ft. buffer to the east side residences, upgrade to
existing parking area and adding new parking area for the storage facility. Project will maintain
existing restaurant for future operation. Pursuant to Chapter 179-3-040 of the Zoning Ordinance,
new commercial construction shall be subject to Planning Board review and approval.
Pursuant to relevant sections of the Town of Queensbury Zoning Code-Chapter 179-9-080, the
Planning Board has determined that this proposal satisfies the requirements as stated in the
Zoning Code;
As required by General Municipal Law Section 239-m the site plan application was referred to
the Warren County Planning Department for its recommendation;
The Planning Board has reviewed the potential environmental impacts of the project, pursuant
to the State Environmental Quality Review Act (SEQRA) and adopted a SEQRA Negative
Declaration — Determination of Non-Significance
The Planning Board opened a public hearing on the Site plan application on 07/24/2018 and
continued the public hearing to 08/21/18, 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 08/21/18;
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 52 2018 TNT CORINTH ROAD, LLC; Introduced by David
Deeb who moved for its adoption.
According to the draft resolution prepared by Staff with the following:
1) Waivers requested granted;
2. Adherence to the items outlined in the follow-up letter sent with this resolution.
a) The limits of clearing will constitute a no-cut buffer zone, orange construction
fencing shall be installed around these areas and field verified by Community
Development staff;
b) If applicable, the Sanitary Sewer connection plan must be submitted to the
Wastewater Department for its review, approval, permitting and inspection;
c) If curb cuts are being added or changed a driveway permit is required. A building
permit will not be issued until the approved driveway permit has been provided to the
Planning Office;
d) If application was referred to engineering then Engineering sign-off required prior to
signature of Zoning Administrator of the approved plans;
e) Final approved plans should have dimensions and setbacks noted on the site
plan/survey, floor plans and elevation for the existing rooms and proposed rooms in the
building and site improvements;-
f) If required, the applicant must submit a copy of the following to the Town:
a. The project NOI (Notice of Intent) for coverage under the current "NYSDEC
SPDES General Permit from Construction Activity" prior to the start of any site
work.
b. The project NOT (Notice of Termination) upon completion of the project;
c. The applicant must maintain on their project site, for review by staff:
i. The approved final plans that have been stamped by the Town Zoning
Administrator. These plans must include the project SWPPP (Storm
Water Pollution Prevention Plan) when such a plan was prepared and
approved;
ii. The project NOI and proof of coverage under the current NYSDEC
SPDES General Permit, or an individual SPDES permit issued for the
project if required.
g) Final approved plans, in compliance with the Site Plan, must be submitted to the
Community Development Department before any further review by the Zoning
Administrator or Building and Codes personnel;
h) The applicant must meet with Staff after approval and prior to issuance of
Building Permit and/or the beginning of any site work;
i) Subsequent issuance of further permits, including building permits is dependent on
compliance with this and all other conditions of this resolution;
j) As-built plans to certify that the site plan is developed according to the approved plans to
be provided prior to issuance of the certificate of occupancy.
k) This resolution is to be placed in its entirety on the final plans.
1) VISUAL IMPACT TO RESIDENCES TO EAST THAT FRONT ON STEPHANIE LANE
1. The easterly property line of subject premises is heavily forested with trees and
undergrowth past the point of the existing cleared area. A Zone C buffer is required
between the residential and commercial uses. Clearing within the Zone C buffer will be
limited to removing dead, dying and trees that present a hazard, approved by the Town.
2. The project calls for construction of one story Self-Storage Buildings with eve heights
under 10'.
3. To better blend in the rear of the storage units facing the residential zone, the rear
panels will have a forest green color.
4. The Zone C buffer to be maintained will be provided utilizing the existing trees and in
areas where there are not any trees, additional trees will be added. A small berm and a
solid fence will also be added towards the front of the property. All lighting will be
internal, with no lighting on the rear of the buildings. Lighting will be building mounted
down lights.
5. A filtered view from the residential properties will be maintained. The additional
screening in the open area of the site will have an added benefit of screening the
existing restaurant.
m) Permanent site stabilization before winter sets in.
n) RV's should be maintained with current registration and insurance and drivable.
o) Trees are to be six to eight feet in height (area noted on plans with new tree plantings).
p) Clearing to 100 feet past the outside fenced storage facility only.
q) Chain link fencing to be black without slats and six feet in height on the east side.
r) Operational hours will be a 24 hour operation (self storage facility).
Motion seconded by John Shafer. Duly adopted this 21 st day of August, 2018 by the following
vote:
MR. O'CONNOR-Just so we don't have confusion later or questions later. Our hours are 24
hour operation.
MR. TRAVER-Is that what's in the application?
MR. O'CONNOR-1 believe so.
MR. TRAVER-1 thought.
MS. WHITE-It says five to eleven for residential.
MR. ANDRESS-Right. The latest letter had five to eleven and then 24 for commercial. So that
was one of the discussions we had at the beginning of modification.
MR. MAGOWAN-Yes, I don't have a problem with 24 hours.
:...'G
MR. DEEB-Well the rest of them all have 24 hours.
MS. WHITE-Yes, but the rest of them aren't in residential areas.
MR. MAGOWAN-You don't get that much movement at night anyway. It's more marketing to
say we have 24 hours.
MR. TRAVER-Yes, I don't have a problem with that.
MR. DEEB-All right, operational hours will be for 24 hour operation facilities.
MR. TRAVER-All right. We have a motion. Do we have a second?
MR. SHAFER-I'll second it.
MR. TRAVER-Any discussion on the motion or the conditions?
MRS. MOORE-So I'm just going to add some clarification that I think should just be noted. So
the trees that are being planted are the ones noted on the plan and I know we also have a
visual representation where the applicant has indicated that they will do fill in and those aren't
necessarily required to be six foot unless the Board wants that to be, but right now I understand
it that the six foot is applied specifically to the tree planting that's to the front of the property.
MR. TRAVER-Right, and that was the discussion that we had with the applicant.
MRS. MOORE-Okay.
MR. HUNSINGER-And it's six to eight feet.
MR. TRAVER-Six to eight feet, and that's one of the conditions. Yes.
MR. DEEB-All right. Then to amend this.
MRS. MOORE-You don't have to amend it.
MR. DEEB-Six to eight feet, but we have to put as shown on the plan, as per the Site Plan.
MR. TRAVER-Well, no, you don't need to include that, because they were talking about it in
addition to doing the other maintenance issues.
MR. DEEB-All right.
MR. TRAVER-Anything else, Laura?
MRS. MOORE-No.
MR. TRAVER-Okay. All right. So we have a motion that's been made and seconded. Any
further discussion?
MR. HUNSINGER-I just have to add this. I used to rent from Meadowbrook, I mean it was
years ago, 20 years, not 20 years ago, but it was 15 years ago anyway. They closed at five
o'clock. They had a gate, you know, the guy was there until five. After five o'clock you couldn't
get in. I didn't want to argue the point. You put on your sheet they're open 24/7. Maybe they
are now, but they weren't at the time, but I had to say that. Sorry.
MR. O'CONNOR-1 had my furniture in storage when I moved and to be honest with you I visited
it three times. Once during the day time, twice at night, because I had somebody that would
help put it on a pickup truck.
MR. HUNSINGER-Well I just remember there was a time I had to get in, I can't remember if I
was bringing something in or picking something up, maybe taking something out, and I had to
rush to get there before five.
MR. BARBER-They're on the list. They're 24/7.
MR. TRAVER-All right. We have a motion that's been made and discussed and seconded.
Any further discussion? All right. Maria, can we have the vote, please.
AYES: Mr. Shafer, Mr. Hunsinger, Mr. Magowan, Mr. Dixon, Mr. Deeb, Ms. White, Mr. Traver
NOES: NONE
MR. TRAVER-All right. You're all set.
MR. O'CONNOR-We thank you for your time.
MR. ANDRESS-Thank you for your time.
MR. TRAVER-Thank you for your efforts to make the changes. All right. The next item on
our agenda is under Planning Board recommendations. We have a few applications of that
nature this evening. This application is Clear Brook, LLC, Subdivision Preliminary Stage 13-
2018 and Freshwater Wetlands Permit 6-2018.
PLANNING BOARD RECOMMENDATIONS TO THE ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS
SUBDIVISION PRELIMINARY STAGE 13-2018 FRESHWATER WETLANDS PERMIT 6-2018
SEAR TYPE: UNLISTED. CLEAR BROOK, LLC. AGENT(S): HUTCHINS
ENGINEERING. OWNER(S): EXCESS LAND, LLC. ZONING: WR. LOCATION: BIG
BOOM ROAD. APPLICANT PROPOSES A 15 LOT RESIDENTIAL SUBDIVISION OF A
145.30 ACRE PARCEL. LOTS 2, 3 & 4 SHARED DRIVEWAY, LOTS 8, 9 & 10 SHARED
DRIVEWAY AND LOTS 14 & 15 SHARED DRIVEWAY. PROJECT IS WITHIN 1-87 OVERLAY
ZONE. APPLICANT REQUESTS WAIVER FOR CONSTRUCTION DETAILS, LANDSCAPE
PLAN, CLEARING PLAN, GRADING AND EROSION AND STORMWATER. PURSUANT TO
CHAPTER 18 3 & CHAPTER 94 OF THE ZONING ORDINANCE, SUBDIVISION OF LAND
AND WORK WITHIN 100 FT OF A WETLAND SHALL BE SUBJECT TO PLANNING BOARD
REVIEW AND APPROVAL. VARIANCE: RELIEF IS SOUGHT FOR SETBACKS, FOR
LOTS NOT HAVING PHYSICAL ACCESS AND RESIDENTIAL US WITHIN 50 FT. OF 1-87.
PLANNING BOARD SHALL PROVIDE A RECOMMENDATION TO THE ZONING BOARD OF
APPEALS. CROSS REFERENCE: SUB SKETCH PLAN 4-2018; AV 54-2018. WARREN
CO. REFERRAL: N/A. SITE INFORMATION: 1-87 OVERLAY ZONE, WETLANDS. LOT
SIZE: 145.3 ACRES. TAX MAP NO. 316.14-1-6. SECTION: CHAPTER 183, CHAPTER
94.
TOM HUTCHINS & GEORGE STORY, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT
MR. TRAVER-Laura?
MRS. MOORE-Okay. So this applicant you saw previously under Sketch Plan. Again it's a 15
lot residential subdivision of 145.30 acres. In this case you now have some additional
information where Lot's Two, Three, and Four have shared driveways. Lot's Eight, Nine and
Ten also have a shared driveway, and Lot Fourteen and Fifteen have shared driveways. The
project is within the Northway Overlay Zone, and under the Nature of the Area Variances, one of
the variances requested is for the Overlay District, no new residential subdivision of land within
500 feet of the Northway, and the second one is in reference to the frontage requirements as
the applicant has proposed shared driveways, and we require under frontage that all lots have
physical access to the project.
MR. TRAVER-Right. Okay. Thank you. Good evening.
MR. HUTCHINS-Good evening, Board. Tom Hutchins with Dave Lipinski, George Story,
principals of Clear Brook, LLC, and we were here a couple of months ago on Sketch format and
we have advanced the design considerably. There's been a fair amount of effort put into it, and
we are looking for a recommendation tonight to get before the Zoning Board because we
continue to attempt to overcome the issue with that Northway Overlay District which is that line
right about there that you can see much clearer on your plans than you can up there. The
Overlay District, this being the Northway travel lane, this being the rest area right here, the
Overlay District is actually a 500 foot offset from this line where their travel plaza extends out
from the highway per se. So that 500 foot offset from the travel project overlay makes it about,
it's followed by this arc, and the Ordinance states no new residential subdivision anywhere
within 500 feet of that Overlay District. Again, this is a little bit of a unique parcel, 145 acres in
a WR. I doubt if there are any others of that size in Queensbury. I may be wrong, but it's a little
bit unique in that it's only used as residential, and it's 145 acres and with this Overlay District
issue, without relief we're unable to subdivide it off. So we're here primarily to seek your
support for a recommendation to the Zoning Board of Appeals. The other variances we're
requesting are, again, driveways that don't come off our road frontage. We have laid out road
frontage for all the parcels. However, all of our driveways do not come off the individual road
frontage as we've combined it. We've made some shared driveways. I think we discussed
that a little bit when we were here at Sketch, and we've relocated some of the building sites, and
with that I guess I'd turn it over to the Board. Do you guys want to add anything?
DAVE LIPINSKI
MR. LIPINSKI-No. It sounds exactly what it is.
MR. TRAVER-1 know we did discuss it with you in some length when you were here for Sketch
the first time.
MR. HUTCHINS-And we've done a fair amount of work on the site, delineated some of the
wetlands throughout, and there are some areas of wetlands that we're avoiding, for the most
part, which this area in here we're sort of leaving alone. We've moved these buildings out into
this area. We've kept this area up here with the shared driveway and we've kept this area with
a shared driveway, and we maintain the two large lots. This is 30 acres and this is 50 or
thereabouts. So with that we'd turn it over to you for questions.
MR. TRAVER-Okay. Well I know one of the concerns that we will run into very shortly is the
fact that there's not a whole lot of information in terms of the engineering details and so on that
are submitted. I mean sooner or later we're going to run into a problem with that.
MR. HUTCHINS-Well, and we're aware of that and I had this discussion with Staff. If we can't
get an answer to this Overlay question, that's what we really need initially, to know that we have
a project, and we realize there's a lot of detail to go, there's a lot of lifting to do before we're
back before this Board, but we really would like to get that question answered with, there's
already been considerable effort put forth here and we'd like to attempt to get that question
answered in the very near future, like tomorrow night.
MR. TRAVER-Okay. Questions, comments from members of the Board?
MR. HUNSINGER-1 don't have an issue with the Overlay District. The only real question I had,
and you may or may not have an answer this evening, and it's really not relevant to the variance
request, but it is relevant to the project, is the waterline easement that was talked about. You
have the letter that showed on your plan, you know, what impact that may have on the location
of that driveway.
MR. HUTCHINS-We have, and I know Chris has weighed in on this, Chris Harrington and I have
discussed, and I guess the true answer right now is we're a little bit in disagreement with Chris'
position in that our ownership granted Queensbury a non-exclusive easement to have the
waterline, and we feel that we still have the right to use an access drive that was there. Now
that's something that the Iegals are going to have to work out, frankly.
MR. HUNSINGER-Can't you just put the driveway adjacent to the easement?
MR. HUTCHINS-Well, it's not all that simple because the easement's where the historic
driveway was.
MR. HUNSINGER-1 figured as much, yes.
MR. HUTCHINS-And that's the logical place for a drive.
MR. STORY The easement's where an old Town road was, and when they put it in they took
out the old ridge that went across the canal and put a new one in. The easement's where the
old Town road went to the river, and there used to be a bridge across the canal years ago
before they put the new causeway in there which buried the waterline. So that's the only way
to get across the canal is that causeway now, and that's a non-exclusive agreement where
we're supposed to be able to use it, too.
MR. LIPINSKI-That's what the language of the easement says. It's non-exclusive and we get to
use it as we wish as long as we don't impact the waterline at all, and of course we won't.
MR. HUNSINGER-Right.
MR. STORY-There's even fire hydrants out in the 60 acres where at one time they anticipated
people would maybe be going out there and using the fire hydrants.
MR. HUTCHINS-But I think that detail is going to have to get worked out between our folks and
the Town.
MR. HUNSINGER-Right, and again that has nothing to do with the variance request.
MR. HUTCHINS-1 mean there are, it's a 16 inch ductile iron waterline that is over six foot depth.
There's waterlines under every road in Queensbury or thereabouts.
MR. LIPINSKI-Every road has water lines.
MR. HUNSINGER-Yes, that's where you put them.
MR. MAGOWAN-Where will you be pulling your water for the two houses out there?
MR. HUTCHINS-Well that's another detail that we're working out.
MR. HUNSINGER-Yes, that was part of the discussion. That was in the letter you said you
couldn't use it.
MR. HUTCHINS-We can't pull water from the well the meter is before it goes over what we're
calling the causeway which is where the canal is blocked and backfilled. So as far as water for
those two units out there, we're going to propose to drill wells for them. That's because they're
not in the water district and we'd like Town water, but the Town can't provide us water on that
side of the canal because it's already been sold to Moreau.
MR. MAGOWAN-Well the meter's before that.
MR. HUTCHINS-That's what I mean. Once it goes to the meter then it's not Queensbury's
water anymore.
MR. HUNSINGER-Gotta love government.
MR. MAGOWAN-And who's going to maintain that road and maintain the bridge?
MR. HUTCHINS-We're open to an agreement. We're open to some form of an agreement with
Queensbury to share in that. Right now it's Queensbury's maintenance responsibility, and
we're open to an agreement to share in that maintenance.
MR. MAGOWAN-Yes, and I also want to know, that causeway, bridge road, was it built for the
traffic and the trucks and everything else too that you have to use, you know, when you build all
the houses and get all the equipment out there to do what you have to do.
MR. HUTCHINS-They put in a waterline.
MR. MAGOWAN-Yes, but then they use that road occasionally. They do maintain it, they plow
it and that.
MR. TRAVER-Maybe you could provide us a letter or something from the Town stating that it
could withstand the construction traffic that would be needed to complete the project.
MR. HUTCH INS-Further on down the road this issue is going to have to get worked out. This is
another one of the issues that's going to have to get ironed out
MR. TRAVER-Right, yes, and we're talking about Site Plan issues now. We just need to
address the variance.
MR. DEEB-Which will be moot if you don't get your variance.
MR. HUTCHINS-That's right. If we can't get to this table for tomorrow night, then that's a big
unknown.
MR. DEEB-I see what you're saying. You want to find out before you start.
MR. HUTCHINS-Okay.
MR. SHAFER-Tom, why the long narrow lots as opposed to looking, I think I know the answer,
but as opposed to looking at this as a rectangular parcel where you'd have some access roads
and cut de sacs or whatever? Why these?
MR. HUTCHINS-We tried, and we just couldn't come up with, it didn't get us anymore density.
We have areas in here that really we can't really build in this area here. We looked at a
horseshoe road and we looked at a cul de sac. It didn't increase our number of lots.
MR. LIPINSKI-You'd have to build more roads.
MR. DEEB-It's more expensive.
MR. HUTCHINS-And there wasn't the bang from the investment.
MR. LIPINSKI-We tried different approaches.
MR. SHAFER-Okay.
MR. MAGOWAN-How many feet back is the furthest one? How long is that road?
MR. LIPINSKI-The driveway?
MR. MAGOWAN-Yes.
MR. LIPINSKI-It's right about 1500 feet.
MR. MAGOWAN-Fifteen hundred feet to those three houses?
MR. LIPINSKI-It should be on there. I think it's around there.
MR. MAGOWAN-You know in Queensbury we have a Code anything over 1,000 feet needs an
increase, an egress. Did yo8u hear that one?
MR. HUTCHINS-I'm sorry?
MR. MAGOWAN-There's a Code in Queensbury that any road over 1,000 feet needs an egress,
a road.
MR. LIPINSKI-Right. This is a driveway.
MR. HUTCHINS-Right. You don't have dead end streets over 1,000 feet.
MR. MAGOWAN-You may call it a driveway but it's going to three homes.
MR. HUTCHINS-Right.
MR. MAGOWAN-That means a road.
MR. LIPINSKI-Isn't that the definition of a driveway, a shared driveway?
MR. TRAVER-Well and again, pardon me, gentlemen, but we're getting into Site Plan issues
again. We're getting the cart a little before the horse.
MR. MAGOWAN-Well the reason I'm bringing this up is sometimes we send things off for a
variance and then it comes back and then we, why waste the time? It confuses me sometimes
we send it off to variance and then it comes back and then, you know, why do we do that if we
disagree with certain things at the beginning?
MR. TRAVER-Well because that's what we've been asked to look at is the variance. We've
been asked to make a recommendation on the variance to the Zoning Board and we've
discussed it at Sketch, including some of these issues that we're talking about again this
evening, and if they get their variance they'll be coming back for Site Plan.
MR. HUTCHINS-We'll be coming back for Subdivision, yes.
MR. TRAVER-Yes, right, Subdivision. Sorry.
MR. MAGOWAN-So basically you're shooting just for the Highway Overlay District, right?
MR. HUTCHINS-Well, yes, we've applied. That's the big one because that's a deal breaker.
:'„.i
MR. MAGOWAN-So if you get that and you come back and we start talking about Lots Two,
Four, Fourteen and Fifteen and Nine and Ten, I'm just going to give you a little heads up.
MR. DEEB-We'll get into definitions at that point. You'll have to figure it out.
MR. HUTCHINS-Yes.
MR. TRAVER-And you know what the issues are. You've looked at this ten ways to Sunday.
Any other questions, comments or concerns with regard to the recommendation regarding the
variance?
MR. DEEB-In the summary we've got Staff recommends that, Staff would not suggest the
waivers for all that's being requested.
MR. TRAVER-Well we're not because if they get their variance they understand they're going to
need to come back.
MR. HUTCHINS-Yes, I think we understand that we're not going to come back next week and
you folks are going to grant the waivers.
MR. TRAVER-Yes. We're going to need to have enough information.
MR. DEEB-We know we've got hurdles.
MR. TRAVER-Yes, that's why I started with that. Okay.
MR. SHAFER-The Overlay District is a Town Code issue not a State DOT or Interstate Federal
Highway?
MRS. MOORE-It would be a Town Code issue, specific to Town Code.
MR. TRAVER-Are there any specific, in terms of making our referral to the ZBA, are there any
specifics that we want to mention beyond the draft that Staff had provided us? I'm not hearing
any. Why don't you go ahead with the resolution.
RESOLUTION RE: ZBA RECOMMENDATION RE: Z-AV-54-2018 CLEAR BROOK, LLC
The applicant has submitted an application for the following: Applicant proposes a 15 lot
residential subdivision of a 145.30 acre parcel. Lots 2, 3 & 4 shared driveway, lots 8, 9 & 10
shared driveway and lots 14 & 15 shared driveway. Project is within I-87 overlay zone.
Applicant requests waiver for construction details, landscape plan, clearing plan, grading and
erosion and stormwater. Pursuant to Chapter 183 & Chapter 94 of the Zoning Ordinance,
subdivision of land and work within 100 ft. of a wetland shall be subject to Planning Board
review and approval. Variance: Relief is sought for setbacks, for lots not having physical
access and residential use within 50 ft. of I-87. Planning Board shall provide a recommendation
to the Zoning Board of Appeals.
The Town of Queensbury Zoning Ordinance, per Section 179-9-070 J 2 b. requires the Planning
Board to provide a written recommendation to the Zoning Board of Appeals for projects that
require both Zoning Board of Appeals & Planning Board approval;
The Planning Board has briefly reviewed and discussed this application, the relief request in the
variance application as well as the potential impacts of this project on the neighborhood and
surrounding community, and found that:
MOTION TO MAKE A RECOMMENDATION ON BEHALF OF THE PLANNING BOARD TO
THE ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS FOR AREA VARIANCE 54-2018 CLEAR BROOK, LLC.
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 Chris Hunsinger. Duly adopted this 21st day of August, 2018 by the
following vote:
AYES: Ms. White, Mr. Shafer, Mr. Hunsinger, Mr. Magowan, Mr. Dixon, Mr. Deeb, Mr. Traver
NOES: NONE
MR. TRAVER-Good luck with the ZBA.
MR. LIPINSKI-Thank you very much.
MR. STORY-Thank you.
MR. TRAVER-All right. The next application is Tra Tom Development, Subdivision Preliminary
Stage 15-2018.
SUBDIVISION PRELIMINARY STAGE 15-2018 SEAR TYPE: UNLISTED. TRA TOM
DEVELOPMENT. AGENT(S): HUTCHINS ENGINEERING & VANDUSEN & STEVES.
OWNER(S): SAME AS APPLICANT. ZONING: MDR. LOCATION: RICHMOND HILL
DRIVE. APPLICANT PROPOSES A FIVE LOT SUBDIVISION. FOUR LOTS TO E
RESIDENTIAL - LOT 1A TO BE 1.2 ACRES, LOT 1B TO BE 0.70 ACRES, LOT 1C TO BE
0.70 ACRES AND LOT 1 D TO BE 0.70 ACRES. LOT 1 REMAINDER OF 25.78 ACRES NOT
TO BE DEVELOPED PER PREVIOUS SUBDIVISION. PURSUANT TO CHAPTER 183 AND
CHAPTER 94 OF THE ZONING ORDINANCE, SUBDIVISION OF LAND SHALL BE
SUBJECT TO PLANNING BOARD REVIEW AND APPROVAL. VARIANCE: RELIEF IS
SOUGHT FOR LOT SIZE AND SETBACKS. PLANNING BOARDS SHALL PROVIDE A
RECOMMENDATION TO THE ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS. CROSS REFERENCE:
SUB 4-2003 & FWW 6-2003 (33 LOTS); MOD. 10/2009 (LOTS 3-10 & 18 & 19); AV 55-2018.
WARREN CO. REFERRAL: N/A. SITE INFORMATION: WETLANDS. LOT SIZE: 29.06
ACRES. TAX MAP NO. 308.7-1-48. SECTION: CHAPTER 183, CHAPTER 94.
TOM CENTER, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT
MR. TRAVER-Laura?
MRS. MOORE-So this applicant proposes a five lot subdivision. This is four lots to be
residential. He's labeled them 1A, 1 B, 1 C, and 1 D. 1A is to be 1.2. The other three lots are
to be 0.70 acres, and then the fifth lot which is to remain a regular 25.78 acres is not to be
developed per the previous subdivision and some of you were here. I don't believe I was here
when Barringer Heights was approved, but in that case there was some, the project included 24
residential lots and involved wetlands. At that time it was approved it was noted that there was
a wetland mitigation and that area of the property, which was in excess of 25 acres, was to
remain undeveloped. However the, I'm going to get this wrong, west side.
MR. CENTER-The east side.
MRS. MOORE-The east side, that remaining land, probably three acres plus, could be further
developed. So in this case this applicant didn't pursue that at the time of the development. So
this project falls under the current zoning MDR regulations. I tried to explain that in the notes
here.
MR. TRAVER-Okay. Good evening.
MR. CENTER-Good evening. Tom Center with Hutchins Engineering representing Mr. Farone.
As Laura stated, the previous Barringer Heights subdivision was a 32 acre conservation
subdivision, and I went back through the meeting minutes to kind of understand where we're at
today. The meeting minutes were very clear that there was to be no further subdivision to the
west of the lands to be undeveloped. Then with further soil investigation the lands to the east of
Richmond Hill Drive could be considered for further development. We've kept that
development to the same lot size as the rest of the Barringer Heights subdivision. I believe
there's 26 lots that are less than 0.7 acres, and we proposed 0.7 acre lots and then one 1.2 acre
lot. We've gone out and looked at the soils. The land here lies lower than the road. So
naturally we have to bring in fill anyway to give our separations for our septic systems,
stormwater management, and looking at how the land's been developed, and I know I've done
all the septic systems and test pits for all the other houses that have been constructed in there
and we haven't had any issues with groundwater. Based on, you may have seen Craig's letter
also. We'll be, tomorrow night if we do get a recommendation, we'll actually be reducing the
variance request. We will not be asking for the reduction in the side and rear setbacks, going
through that with Craig. We stayed with the same setbacks that the rest of the subdivision had,
but Craig looked at it and said that that wasn't the appropriate way that it was filed. So we
need to go back and we have to ask for that separately, but we've just decided to maintain the
MDR side and rear setbacks. So the only variance that we're requesting is for lots less than
two acres. Everything else is pretty straightforward. We've also left the 24 foot wide buffer on
the rear of the lots along the power lines, which was part of the original agreement with the
original subdivision.
MR. TRAVER-Okay. So pending approval, there'd be some details in terms of setbacks and so
on to be worked out, but basically right now you're just looking for the lot size.
MR. CENTER-We're looking for the lot size with them. We can stick within the MDR setbacks.
We didn't see any issues with those. There's plenty of room left. There's plenty of room left
for backyards even with the no cut buffer. There actually is only 25, there'd really only be 25
foot difference between the rear setback and the buffer. So, you know, we just decided to
withdraw that request.
MR. TRAVER-Okay. Questions, comments from members of the Planning Board?
MR. HUNSINGER-Karner blue butterfly?
MR. CENTER-Not in this area. That was done on the original subdivision. There were some in
the area over here, across the street, and that was the whole, where Mr. Clute had an acre with
the other subdivision. So that's already, in the original subdivision there's nothing in here that
involves the Karner blue or the wetlands.
MR. HUNSINGER-Okay.
MR. CENTER-That was all outside of this portion of the development.
MR. HUNSINGER-Okay.
MR. TRAVER-Any other questions, comments on our referral?
MR> DIXON-I'll just make a comment. The size that's being requested, 1.2, most are like .7
acres. The existing development is just a little over .5 acres. I'd say it's in keeping with.
MR. TRAVER-Yes. Okay. Well we have a draft resolution.
MR. DEEB-Okay. This resolution will be amended, then. Relief is sought for lot size only.
RESOLUTION RE: ZBA RESOLUTION RE: Z-AV-55-2018 TRA TOM DEVELOPMENT
The applicant has submitted an application for the following: Applicant proposes a five lot
subdivision. Four lots to be residential — lot 1A to be 1.2 acres, Lob 1 B to be 0.70 acres, Lot 1 C
to be 0.70 acres and lot 1 D to be 0.70 acres. Lot 1 remainder of 25.78 acres not to be
developed per previous subdivision. Pursuant to Chapter 183 and Chapter 94 of the Zoning
Ordinance, subdivision of land shall be subject to Planning Board review and approval.
Variance: Relief is sought for lot size. Planning Board shall provide a recommendation to the
Zoning Board of Appeals.
The Town of Queensbury Zoning Ordinance, per Section 179-9-070 J 2 b. requires the Planning
Board to provide a written recommendation to the Zoning Board of Appeals for projects that
require both Zoning Board of Appeals & Planning Board approval;
The Planning Board has briefly reviewed and discussed this application, the relief request in the
variance application as well as the potential impacts of this project on the neighborhood and
surrounding community, and found that:
MOTION TO MAKE A RECOMMENDATION ON BEHALF OF THE PLANNING BOARD TO
THE ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS FOR AREA VARIANCE 55-2018 TRA TOM
DEVELOPMENT. 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 21st day of August, 2018 by the following
vote:
AUDIENCE MEMBER-No discussion from the public?
MR. TRAVER-No, not for a recommendation. When it comes back there will be.
AYES: Mr. Shafer, Mr. Hunsinger, Mr. Magowan, Mr. Dixon, Mr. Deeb, Ms. White, Mr. Traver
NOES: NONE
MR. TRAVER-All right. You're off to the ZBA.
MR. CENTER-Thank you.
MR. TRAVER-All right. The next application is also a referral. This is French Mountain Inn.
Site Plan 54-2018.
SITE PLAN NO. 54-2018 SEAR TYPE: UNLISTED. FRENCH MOUNTAIN INN.
AGENT(S): GARY HUGHES. OWNER(S): AFTAB (SAMMY) BHATTI. ZONING: CI.
LOCATION: 1449 STATE ROUTE 9. APPLICANT PROPOSES TO MAINTAIN A 1,110 SQ.
FT. AREA AS BLACKTOP WHERE A PREVIOUS APPROVAL WAS FOR THIS AREA TO
REMAIN AS LAWN. PROPERTY USE IS AN EXISTING LODGING FACILITY. APPLICANT
REQUESTED APPROVALS IN YEAR 2012 FOR ADDITION TO LOBBY, STORAGE OVER
LOBBY, SIGN TOWERS, HANDICAP RAMP LOCATION AND A CANOPY AREA.
PURSUANT TO CHAPTER 179-3-040 OF THE ZONING ORDINANCE, PERMEABILITY
RELIEF SHALL BE SUBJECT TO PLANNING BOARD REVIEW AND APPROVAL.
VARIANCE: RELIEF IS SOUGHT FOR PERMEABLE AREA. PLANNING BOARD SHALL
PROVIDE A RECOMMENDATION TO THE ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS. CROSS
REFERENCE: AV 22-2005, AV 14-2009, AV 24-2011, AV 48-2012, SP 19-2005, SP 19-2009,
SP 33-2011, SP 54-2012, AV 53-2018. WARREN CO. REFERRAL: AUGUST 2018. SITE
INFORMATION: TRAVEL CORRIDOR. LOT SIZE: 1.01 ACRES. TAX MAP NO. 288.-1-
56. SECTION: 179-3-040.
GARY HUGHES, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT; SAM BHATTI, PRESENT
MR. TRAVER-Laura?
MRS. MOORE-So this applicant proposes to maintain a 1,110 square foot area as blacktop
where the previous approval for this area was to remain as lawn. The property use is an
existing lodging facility. The applicant requested approvals in the Year 2012 for addition to
lobby, storage over the lobby, sign towers, handicap ramp location and a canopy area. The
variance relief requested is to maintain hard surfacing of 22.6% where 30% relief was required,
and I note in the Staff Notes that you have there's an incomplete sentence in there, and I did
catch that. So the ending of that next sentence is the approved plans of 2012 indicate the
proposed permeability was to be 25%. The Code Compliance Officer notified the applicant in
2017 the site was not developed as per approved plans.
MR. TRAVER-Thank you, Laura. Good evening.
MR. HUGHES-Good evening. I'm Gary Hughes for the record. I'm representing Mr. Bhatti. If
I can answer any questions you might have.
MR. TRAVER-Questions, yes, how long will it take you to turn it back into lawn, the way it was
approved?
MR. BHATTI-There's a reason I did that, because at the end of the building the step goes down,
and that's the main office, and a lot of people are coming up to go to this building which is 14
units, and the two units on the right side and that whole area is grass. It's very hard to shovel
in the winter on the grass area. So people walk to these two doors and this building which is 14
units, and this is easier for the snow truck to move that so people can have access to go to
these two rooms and these fourteen rooms here.
MR. TRAVER-Right, but I mean we looked at all this when you submitted earlier approval for
the addition to your lobby and this area and so on, and that was discussed, and what was
approved was that this particular area would remain as lawn. We were very concerned about
permeable areas in this area, and I understand that you may have decided, well I think I'll just
pave it, but it's very important that this remain permeable and remain open. I'll open it up to
other members of the Planning Board.
MR. BHATTI-At that time I didn't realize how much traffic was going to come through this to go
to the 14 units, and also the two units on the right side, and before this one was a walkway
coming to here and was a walkway to this room and this room, and there was a walkway to this
building.
10,
MR. DEEB-But the problem is you would have had to come before the Board again. That's
what you probably should have done and then you wouldn't be in this position right now. We've
had problems with this in the past. In fact we're facing this issue head on now about asking for
relief after the fact.
MS. WHITE-And I'm in agreement with Mr. Traver, you know. It's gotten to the point that
people just figure we'll do it and we'll just figure what happens.
MR. TRAVER-Right, but we're talking about people in general, not specifically this applicant.
MS. WHITE-No, but I'm just saying I'm in agreement. I wonder how long it would take to put
this back to lawn, the way it was.
MR. BHATTI-Okay. I can put it back to lawn, but if we can't get to the room in the winter, then
the point is winter. How are we going to clean up snow from grass area, for people who walk to
this door, this door, and this 14 unit we have here?
MS. WHITE-But there's a process in place for you to come before the Board and explain your
reasoning and obtain the proper approvals.
MR. TRAVER-Yes, and these rooms that you speak of and the movement that you're describing
to serve these rooms apparently was not on the application that you made back in 2012 when
this was approved?
MR. BHATTI-I was not aware of that. That's the mistake. If I was aware of that I should have
done it at that time, but now I know, I should have asked, but this was done in the summer and
when I realized people have to come, traffic, and then I discovered, but this was all grass area.
MR. TRAVER-Well it's not going to be grass in the wintertime.
MR. BHATTI-Yes, the wintertime there's no grass, and the problem is mostly wintertime, not
summertime.
MR. TRAVER-Right, but what I'm saying is in the wintertime it's not going to be grass. It's
going to be a hard surface, right? I mean I guess it really doesn't matter. The point is.
MR. BHATTI-How are we going to shovel from a grass area snow so people can walk to this
door, this door, and this 14 units we have? That's the question. Because mostly the lobby's
down here. You have to go in four steps. If you think it's not going to be an issue, I can move
and put grass there, but people are still going to be coming from the steps up there and.
MR. TRAVER-Were there other changes to your plan beyond this since the approval in 2012?
Because I guess I'm not understanding why, if this was a concern, when you did these additions
to your property, you didn't include that. It sounds as though maybe there were some other
changes that were made.
MR. MAGOWAN-Excuse me, Steve. I'm a little confused here. Maybe, because I don't know
if I was here for this approval or maybe I was an alternate and don't remember, but it says here
the applicant requested approvals in the Year 2012 for an addition to the lobby, storage over the
lobby, sign towers, handicap ramp location, and canopy area.
MRS. MOORE-Those were all completed. Let me just paraphrase. Those items are not
what's under review. The only item that's under review is the applicant's non-compliance with
this particular piece of, 1100 square feet of property.
MR. MAGOWAN-So these, what I'm trying to say, were these units approved?
MRS. MOORE-Yes.
MR. MAGOWAN-All right. So it was a design flaw at the beginning of not seeing how we're
going to get paths around here.
MR. TRAVER-We don't know that.
MR. MAGOWAN-Well I'm just saying design flaw, but it wasn't thought of.
MR. TRAVER-We don't know, we're not accusing anyone of any flaws. There was an
application made.
„a
MR. MAGOWAN-I'm just a little confused on what I read and what I'm seeing and it doesn't look
like a lobby. So that had nothing really to do with this picture. It's this particular area had to be
green.
MR. TRAVER-Well that's why I kind of wondered if there were additional changes to what had
been approved. Besides just paving this area, and I don't know the answer to that, but it really
doesn't matter because all we're concerned about tonight is the fact that this is in violation.
MR. HUGHES-The Code Compliance Officer found two things. The lawn was blacktopped,
and he also saw that there was no guttering around this main. This was the main building of
work. Building Number Two there was really no work done on that. So that was left the way it
was with the grass going up to the door. So what Mr. Bhatti did was he took the liberty of
blacktopping the lawn area, and he has to put gutters around this building and get it into the
stone trench. Those are the two items that the Code Compliance Officer came up with.
MR. TRAVER-1 see. Okay, but again, Laura, just so that you can remind us again, the only
thing that we're concerned about tonight is this paved area. Correct?
MRS. MOORE-Correct.
MR. TRAVER-Yes, in violation of the approved Site Plan. Okay, and the applicant is requesting
that they get after the fact approval for the fact that they decided to pave over the area that was
approved to be lawn. Okay. All right. I'll open it up again for questions, comments from
members of the Board.
MR. MAGOWAN-Well, there's a lot of pavement over there, amongst all the malls, but the
reason why we have certain permeability is to get stormwater down.
MR. TRAVER-Right.
MR. MAGOWAN-So, I mean, I agree with you. I think it should be taken out and a permeable
solution thought out, and if that is in with permeable pavers, you know, you can plow in the
winter a lot, but that will put the water back into the ground instead of sheeting it across.
MR. HUGHES-Correct, because the way this would go right now, if that pavement were there,
that's the way the water would go.
MR. TRAVER-Well, the only issue I have with that, I guess the question I would have with that is
the language that I'm seeing is lawn, Laura. So would that allow, in other words if they took out
the blacktop, could they substitute permeable pavers for the lawn when the language says
lawn?
MRS. MOORE-No, it's up to you. It's now back to your purview, and the question is
permeability, and it's really permeability whether it's lawn or permeable pavers.
MR. TRAVER-Okay, but it doesn't have to be specifically lawn.
MRS. MOORE-Right.
MR. TRAVER-Just permeable, as long as it's permeable. Okay. All right. So maybe the
permeable pavers.
MR. MAGOWAN-1 mean they do have them where you can have grass growing through them.
MR. TRAVER-Okay. Good suggestion.
MR. MAGOWAN-That might be a nice little courtyard thing to give it a little green color and a
little bit of permeability.
MR. HUGHES-We can increase the permeability.
MR. TRAVER-All right, and we would need, Laura, I'm sure you would want to see, if this lawn
area, as specified in our documentation here, is to be substituted with permeable pavers, you'd
want to see some kind of plan for that, right, so you'd know what pavers they are and how big
they are?
MRS. MOORE-Right, and to confirm what, so the relief would be changing, to confirm that the
applicant could potentially get to 25% for the 2012, or is it between the 25%, 22%, because right
now it's at 22.6. You just need to determine that value so that you, because currently it's non-
compliant no matter what the applicant, what permeability is added.
MR. TRAVER-Right. Okay. So what we could do is we could make a referral and a
recommendation to the ZBA that the, leaving the pavement there be denied. However, the
applicant could consider submitting a design for a permeable paver solution that might function
in a similar or better fashion for his use, and yet meet the permeability and the regulations.
MRS. MOORE-Yes
MR. TRAVER-Okay.
MRS. MOORE-Only because it's not going to meet the regulation.
MR. DEEB-No matter what happens he's not going to get to the Code.
MRS. MOORE-No matter what happens.
MR. TRAVER-Even if you left it as lawn, you wouldn't be completely in compliance with
permeability.
MR. HUGHES-That's correct.
MR. MAGOWAN-So what can we do to increase?
MRS. MOORE-So the question, and this is the applicant's job, would be to determine what that
percent permeability will be increased to with the permeable option.
MR. TRAVER-Right. Okay.
MS. WHITE-So will it come back to us for?
MRS. MOORE-It will eventually come back to this Board.
MS. WHITE-We're just making a referral.
MR. DEEB-Could we table it?
MRS. MOORE-You could potentially table it.
MR. DEEB-I'd rather table it and have them come back before us with a new Site Plan that we
can send to the Zoning Board.
MR. TRAVER-Well, the only problem is the ZBA has asked us for a referral and a
recommendation. I'd like to make that recommendation. It would come back to us anyway if
they are in support of what we suggest, or maybe they come up with a better idea, but I'm in
favor of doing what we've been asked to do which is to make a referral, and I would be happy to
make that referral. My referral is going to be do not approve this and offer the applicant the
opportunity to look at a permeable.
MR. DEEB-If we table it we're not approving it.
MR. TRAVER-Right, but that just delays the applicant. Puts him in a no win scenario, plus it
leaves the blacktop there. We want to move to a solution.
MR. BHATTI-I want to say something.
MR. TRAVER-Yes, sir.
MR. BHATTI-Is it, if you look at the step, the step goes down, then the step goes to the new
building, and the second step goes to this building again, then the two doors enter on the right
side. So you've got five, I don't know where to put vegetation there because you need an
entrance to this, you have stairs, steps, this one, there's two rooms, and also a step that goes
down.
MR. H U G H ES-You've got to do permeable pavers.
•,dh IX,„P
MR. TRAVER-Yes, I understand it's confusing at this stage because you're hoping to just leave
it as pavement, but there are solutions. There are permeable solutions that you can apply that
will work well for purposes of the Town and the permeability. It will also work I believe for your
purposes as well.
MR. HUGHES-We'll get it to work.
MR. DIXON-1 mean a landscape engineer can help you with some things, too, offer
suggestions. I mean we like the idea of greenery. I like greenery, but the permeability, we're
talking about pavers. There's options.
MRS. MOORE-And there's a variety of permeable options. We talk about the word pavers, but
there is a green permeable option also. There is permeable blacktop, but there's a product out
there, there's actually quite a few products out there, that use a grading system where you're
actually growing lawn, as was described, and you're also maintaining a hard surface that if it
needs to be plowed or if it needs some sort of activity on it that it's still allowable to do that.
MR. TRAVER-Yes.
MR. HUGHES-Yes, I believe the Beach Road uses permeable blacktop.
MR. MAGOWAN-That's permeable blacktop. Keep that word out of there. It's not as
permeable as what we're talking.
MR. DIXON-1 think you have a nice opportunity to really dress it up in there in that courtyard
area.
MR. MAGOWAN-1 mean if you're re-designing that maybe you can, you know, go further back in
and increase your permeability and get those numbers up and really make us happy.
MR. TRAVER-We're recommending that this be denied and that instead the applicant be
encouraged to pursue this.
MR. MAGOWAN-Now, Dave, can you just explain, by sending it to variance and not sending it
to variance, by denying it, why would?
MR. TRAVER-We're not denying it. We're recommending, they've asked us for a
recommendation. So what I'm recommend that we do is that we recommend that they deny the
blacktop, however they encourage the applicant to look at alternatives of a permeable nature.
MR. MAGOWAN-That also keeps the ball rolling.
MR. TRAVER-Exactly. I mean if we just table it then he's just in limbo until he comes back and
then we're right back where we started.
MR. MAGOWAN-Right. All right. So this keeps the ball rolling.
MR. DEEB-Then we can continue without having to make an interruption. Now I'm
understanding. All right.
MR. HUNSINGER-And it's the Zoning Board's decision anyway.
MR. TRAVER-Exactly. We're just doing what we were asked to do.
MR. DIXON-Now, Steve, when he walks away today, though, will he have to start tearing that
up or can he leave it in place until he gets?
MR. TRAVER-He has to go through the, what we've done is made a referral. We haven't got
an application in front of us. We've made a referral to the ZBA. The ZBA will next take it up
that has any responsibility to actually address the issue, and then they will give further direction
to the applicant, hopefully according to our recommendations, which I think is likely, but then we
will hear about it later when he comes back and he says here's what I'd like to do which is going
to be better or whatever and we'll be done.
MR. MAGOWAN-And would that still be a referral to the variance?
MRS. MOORE-So if the Zoning Board grants the variance based on your information this
applicant is scheduled to come back next Tuesday. If the applicant hasn't come up with a plan
at that time or doesn't know the values, then it may be tabled at that time, but right now that's
the current schedule.
MR. TRAVER-So we're giving them a shot at the ZBA.
MRS. MOORE-You're making a recommendation. It's not Site Plan. You're making a
recommendation to the Zoning Board to deny it.
MR. TRAVER-All right.
MR. DEEB-All right. Let's see if I can get this correct, then. Motion for a Recommendation on
behalf of the Planning Board to the Zoning Board of Appeals for Area Variance 53-2018 is
denied? No.
MRS. MOORE-Based on a limited review the following areas of concern.
MR. DEEB-I have that one, but are we denying it? We're not denying it.
MR. TRAVER-No, no. We feel that it should be denied.
MR. DEEB-Okay. All right. Motion for a Recommendation on behalf of the Planning Board to
the Zoning Board of Appeals for Area Variance 53-2018.
MR. TRAVER-The Planning Board feels.
MR. DEEB-Feels this motion should be denied.
MRS. MOORE-The request.
MR. DEEB-This request.
MR. TRAVER-The request should be denied, and as an alternative the applicant should be
encouraged to come up with permeable alternatives.
MR. DEEB-Okay. So request on behalf of the Planning Board to the Zoning Board of Appeals
for Area Variance 53-2018 should be denied? No.
MR. MAGOWAN-Can we just second what Steve said?
MR. DEEB-I have the rest of it, but I just want to get the first of it.
MR. TRAVER-Yes. So let me see if I can pick up where you left off.
RESOLUTION RE: ZBA RECOMMENDATION RE: Z-AV-53-2018 FRENCH MOUNTAIN
INN
The applicant has submitted an application for the following: Applicant proposes to maintain a
1,110 sq. ft. area as blacktop where a previous approval was for this area to remain as lawn.
Property use is an existing lodging facility. Applicant requested approvals in year 2012 for
addition to lobby, storage over lobby, sign towers, handicap ramp location and a canopy area.
Pursuant to Chapter 179-3-040 of the Zoning Ordinance, permeability relief shall be subject to
Planning Board review and approval. Variance: Relief is sought for permeable area. Planning
Board shall provide a recommendation to the Zoning Board of Appeals.
The Town of Queensbury Zoning Ordinance, per Section 179-9-070 J 2 b. requires the Planning
Board to provide a written recommendation to the Zoning Board of Appeals for projects that
require both Zoning Board of Appeals & Planning Board approval;
The Planning Board has briefly reviewed and discussed this application, the relief request in the
variance application as well as the potential impacts of this project on the neighborhood and
surrounding community, and found that:
MOTION TO MAKE A RECOMMENDATION ON BEHALF OF THE PLANNING BOARD TO
THE ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS FOR AREA VARIANCE 53-2018 FRENCH MOUNTAIN
INN.
Introduced by Stephen Traver who moved its adoption, and
11..H.
b) The Planning Board, based on a limited review, has identified the following areas of
concern:
1) The Planning Board feels that the applicant's request for the pavement should be
denied and instead the applicant should be encouraged to pursue an application that
reflects the installation of a permeable paver solution.
Motion seconded by Brad Magowan. Duly adopted this 21st day of August, 2018 by the following
vote:
MR. TRAVER-1 know in some Boards Chairmans' can't make motions, but I believe in the
Planning Board.
MR. MAGOWAN-No, this particular case is a good one because I think it's the first time we've
ever had one of these.
MR. TRAVER-No, it's happened before.
AYES: Ms. White, Mr. Shafer, Mr. Hunsinger, Mr. Magowan, Mr. Dixon, Mr. Deeb, Mr. Traver
NOES: NONE
MR. TRAVER-All right. You're off to the ZBA.
MR. DEEB-You're on your way.
MR. HUGHES-Thank you, ladies and gentlemen.
MR. TRAVER-All right. So this is, I'm sorry I've got too much paperwork. This is under New
Business. So this is a new category of business this evening. Under New Business, Rachael
Lujbli, Site Plan 53-2018.
NEW BUSINESS:
SITE PLAN NO. 53-2018 SEAR TYPE: TYPE II. RACHAEL LUJBLI. OWNER(S):
SAME AS APPLICANT. ZONING: LC-10A/RR-3A. LOCATION: 1601 BAY ROAD.
APPLICANT PROPOSES A 100 SQ. FT. CHICKEN COOP ON AN EXISTING 6 ACRE
PARCEL. APPLICANT WILL ALSO MAINTAIN EXISTING RESIDENCE WITH NO
ADDITIONAL CHANGES. PURSUANT TO CHAPTER 179-5-040 OF THE ZONING
ORDINANCE, AGRICULTURAL USE — POULTRY/FOWL SHALL BE SUBJECT TO
PLANNING BOARD REVIEW AND APPROVAL. CROSS REFERENCE: 93017-2881 3-
CAR GARAGE. WARREN CO. REFERRAL: AUGUST 2018. SITE INFORMATION: APA.
LOT SIZE: 6.5 ACRES. TAX MAP NO. 265.-1-31. SECTION: 179-5-040.
RACHAEL LUJBLI, PRESENT
MR. TRAVER-Laura?
MRS. MOORE-Okay. The applicant is installing a 100 square foot chicken coop on an existing
six acre parcel. The applicant will maintain the existing residence with no additional changes.
The project does meet the requirements for maintain a distance of 50 feet from the property
lines and this applicant is proposing 60 feet.
MR. TRAVER-Okay. All right. I'm sorry for the confusion. Good evening. Welcome. So you
have like a 10 by 10 chicken coop. Is this something you want to do or something you've
already done and you're just looking for after the fact approval? That's not a loaded question.
MRS. LUJBLI-I'm looking for approval to put up this coop my husband is going to build.
MR. TRAVER-Okay. So have you raised chickens for a while?
MRS. LUJBLI-No, we've never had chickens before.
MR. TRAVER-Okay. So this is something new that you would like to do.
MRS. LUJBLI-Yes.
MR. TRAVER-Are you planning on having any roosters?
MRS. LUJBLI-No roosters.
MR. TRAVER-No roosters, just hens.
MRS. LUJBLI-Just hens.
MR. TRAVER-All right, and how many hens?
MRS. LUJBLI-Six.
MR. TRAVER-Six hens. Okay.
MRS. LUJBLI-That's New York State's minimum that you're allowed. You have to have six.
MR. TRAVER-Really? I didn't know that. Now why is that?
MRS. LUJBLI-I guess to get more of them to be happy enough and to thrive.
MR. TRAVER-Okay. Interesting.
MR. MAGOWAN-It's a pecking order, Steve.
MR. TRAVER-Yes. I hope so. So what about the square footage? Is 10 by 10 large enough
for six hens?
MRS. LUJBLI-Yes. Actually that can hold up to 20 or so, supposedly, based on our research,
but we only want six for now.
MR. TRAVER-Okay, and you're just looking for the eggs, or are you hoping to raise baby
chicks?
MRS. LUJBLI-No babies.
MR. TRAVER-Okay. Interesting. All right, and you live out in the country. You have quite a
bit of property, six and a half acres, and are there any Department of Agriculture licenses or
anything like that that you're required, or anything beyond or just our approval for the coop?
MRS. LUJBLI-Not as far as I'm aware.
MR. TRAVER-Not as far as I'm aware.
MR. DEEB-Did you check with the Department of Health?
MRS. LUJBLI-I checked with three or four different groups. I'm fairly certain that we're all within
the regulations.
MRS. MOORE-1 would think, it's covered under Ag & Markets versus the Department of Health.
MR. TRAVER-Okay.
MR. DIXON-Are these going to be free range?
MRS. LUJBLI-Right now they're just going to be in the coop. We're not sure if we're even
going to consider free range.
MR. DIXON-It's kind of a busy road there. I don't know how they'll fare.
MRS. LUJBLI-Exactly. I don't think it would be very nice for the chickens.
MR. MAGOWAN-1 mean it's on 120 square feet. I'm just really impressed that you are coming
to ask for approval and not just putting up a shed and a door and a chicken coop light.
MRS. LUJBLI-I'm impressed, too. I mean I read this and I said Laura must have stuck in a joke
or something.
MR. DEEB-Most of us have never seen anything with chickens. Do we allow chickens in
Queensbury?
MR. TRAVER-No, we don't.
MRS. MOORE-Well we do in this zone and with Site Plan Review process. Yes. It's going
through the correct process.
MR. DEEB-Because Glens Falls is trying to get their chicken license.
MR. TRAVER-Yes, that's not going anywhere I guess.
MS. WHITE-And you might get more requests in the future. I think this is a fairly.
MR. MAGOWAN-And if you let them free range they do love ticks and that.
MR. LUJBLI-Yes, we're just not, we're not experienced enough.
MR. MAGOWAN-Right after the kid, the sixth chick you're not going to worry about it.
MR. DIXON-1 had to do a little reading on this, too, as far as what's involved with a chicken. So
the only one thing that came up, and it's not in relation to the coop, it's actually the chicken
poop, what you're going to be doing with that. Have you researched that out?
MRS. LUJBLI-Yes, it's going to be a compost pile. It's going to go into a compost pile so that
we can actually use it towards our garden I plan to do in the spring. I guess that it's super
minimal, and we're using just, you know, a mossy area and it should just all recycle itself and,
you know, put our regular compost in this one tiny little spot and super minimal, especially with
six chickens.
MR. MAGOWAN-The only advice I can give you is good feed because I get fresh eggs and they
changed their feed once and I didn't get eggs for a while.
MRS. LUJBLI-No. That's one primary reason why we're looking to have chickens because we
want to have organic because you don't know what you're getting these days. So we want
organic chicken eggs that aren't six dollars a dozen.
MR. TRAVER-All right. Any other questions or concerns from members of the Planning Board?
MR. HUNSINGER-I think the project's pretty well designed the way they have it 60 feet to either
property boundary and you have enough land and it's wooded. It's not going to bother
anybody.
MR. TRAVER-Yes, I mean I feel better that it's a large piece of property. I would feel entirely
different if it was a very small lot, but this seems fine. I guess I don't have any problem with it.
MRS. MOORE-You need to open your public hearing.
MR. TRAVER-I'm sorry, I thought for once I was going to get through a meeting without
forgetting. We do have a public hearing on this application. Is there anyone that wanted to
address the Planning Board with regard to the chicken coop?
PUBLIC HEARING OPENED
MRS. MOORE-1 have two written letters.
MR. TRAVER-You do? Let's hear them.
MRS. MOORE-So "I am all for the chicken coop for 1601 Bay Road." This is from Steve
Wargo, and he's at 1581 Bay Road. And then I have one addressed to the Planning Board.
We own the property adjacent to the Lujbli's, at 1635 Bay Rd. Our property has been a farm
since Walt's grandfather, Walter LaPan, purchased it in 1925. Please note that we have no
problem with the Lujbli family building a chicken coop next door. We enjoy living in the "country"
and would be happy to hear a rooster crowing next door. We even hope to have easy access to
fresh eggs. Thank you for asking! Walt and Karen Lockhart"
MR. TRAVER-Thank you, Laura. All right. We will close the public hearing.
PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED
MR. TRAVER-And I guess we're ready to entertain a motion.
MR. DEEB-Okay.
RESOLUTION APPROVING SP # 53-2018 RACHAEL LUJBLI
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 100 sq. ft. chicken
coop on an existing 6 acre parcel. Applicant will also maintain existing residence with no
additional changes. Pursuant to Chapter 179-5-040 of the Zoning Ordinance, agricultural use —
poultry/fowl shall be subject to Planning Board review and approval.
Pursuant to relevant sections of the Town of Queensbury Zoning Code-Chapter 179-9-080, the
Planning Board has determined that this proposal satisfies the requirements as stated in the
Zoning Code;
As required by General Municipal Law Section 239-m the site plan application was referred to
the Warren County Planning Department for its recommendation;
The Planning Board opened a public hearing on the Site plan application on 08/21/2018 and
continued the public hearing to 08/21/2018, 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
08/21/2018;
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 53-2018 RACHAEL LUJBLI. 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
Motion seconded by Brad Magowan. Duly adopted this 21st day of August, 2018 by the
following vote:
AYES: Mr. Magowan, Mr. Dixon, Mr. Hunsinger, Mr. Shafer, Ms. White, Mr. Deeb, Mr. Traver
NOES: NONE
MR. TRAVER-You're all set.
MR. DEEB-Good luck.
MS. WHITE-I'll just mention that if you do have questions, Warren County Cooperative
Extension is an excellent resource.
MRS. LUJBLI-Okay. Thanks.
MS. WHITE-And they now have chickens at their office. They have them right on site.
MRS. LUJBLI-Good to know. Thank you.
MS. WHITE-Good luck.
MR. TRAVER-All right. Next under New Business we have Marcia Parker, Subdivision Final
Stage 11-2018.
SUBDIVISION FINAL STAGE 11-2018 SEAR TYPE: UNLISTED. MARCIA PARKER.
AGENT(S): VANDUSEN & STEVES LAND SURVEYORS. OWNER(S): SAME AS
APPLICANT. ZONING: WR LOCATION: 11 SPERRY ROAD. APPLICANT
PROPOSES TO SUBDIVIDE AN EXISTING 2.07 ACRE PARCEL INTO TWO LOTS — ONE
LOT 0.58 ACRES (LOT A) AND SECOND LOT 1.48 ACRES (LOT B). EACH LOT HAS AN
EXISTING HOUSE AND A GARAGE AND BOTH HOMES HAVE A DRIVEWAY TO SPERRY
ROAD. NO SITE CHANGES ARE PROPOSED. PURSUANT TO CHAPTER 183 OF THE
ZONING ORDINANCE, SUBDIVISION OF LAND SHALL BE SUBJECT TO PLANNING
BOARD REVIEW AND APPROVAL. CROSS REFERENCE: 2004-106 DEMO SF. HOME;
2014-310 SEPTIC ALT.; SP 77-2012 CONST. GRAVEL PATH 300' X 6' WITH SHORELINE
TURN AREA; SUB PREL. STAGE 7-2018; AV 29-2018. WARREN CO. REFERRAL: N/A.
SITE INFORMATION: HUDSON RIVER. LOT SIZE: 2.06 ACRES. TAX MAP NO. 316.5-
1-8. SECTION: CHAPTER 183.
TOM CENTER, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT
MR. TRAVER-Laura?
MRS. MOORE-This application is to subdivide an existing 2.07 acre parcel into two lots. One
lot is 0.5 acres and the second lot is 1.48 acres. Each lot is to maintain an existing house, a
garage, a driveway access to Sperry Road, and there are no other site changes.
MR. TRAVER-Okay. Thank you. Hello again.
MR. CENTER-Tom Center sitting in for Mr. Steves this evening. Pretty straightforward. Final
approval. Everything's been added to the drawing as requested.
MR. TRAVER-Two existing houses.
MR. CENTER-Two existing houses. It was previously two lots. The previous owner merged it.
MR. TRAVER-No site changes.
MR. CENTER-No site changes.
MR. TRAVER-Questions, comments from members of the Board? All right. Well, we have a
motion.
RESOLUTION APPROVING FINAL STAGE SUBDIVISION # 11-2018 MARCIA PARKER
A subdivision application has been made to the Queensbury Planning Board for the following:
Applicant proposes to subdivide an existing 2.07 acre parcel into two lots — one lot 0.58 acres
(Lot A) and second lot 1.48 acres (Lot B). Each lot has an existing house and garage and both
homes have a driveway to Sperry Road. No site changes are proposed. 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 08/21/2018.
This application is supported with all documentation, public comment, and application material
in the file of record;
MOTION TO APPROVE SUBDIVISION FINAL STAGE 11-2018 MARCIA PARKER.
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
11. !..n
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:
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 Brad Magowan. Duly adopted this 21st day of August, 2018 by the
following vote:
MRS. MOORE-I'll just note that on the agenda it lists a public hearing but it's not required to
have a public hearing for Final Stage.
MR. TRAVER-Okay. Thank you, Laura.
MR. DEEB-Thank you.
AYES: Mr. Hunsinger, Mr. Magowan, Mr. Dixon, Mr. Deeb, Ms. White, Mr. Shafer, Mr. Traver
NOES: NONE
MR. TRAVER-You're all set.
MR. CENTER-Thank you. Can I just make a comment on the last one when you were talking
about permeable pavement? On permeable surfaces you only get a 50% credit, even if it is
grass. So really a permeable pavement would give them a 50% reduction of what they're
asking for. So if you had 1100 square feet, even if they went to permeable, I think that's what
Laura was trying to explain. They still have 550 square feet whether or not, I don't know how
much they're over.
MR. HUNSINGER-They're already over.
MR. CENTER-That's one of the things with permeable surfaces. We only get, when we try to
design them, we only get a 50% credit. It would be nice to get more if you went to a grass
style, but the way that it's been kind of determined, and the Zoning Administrator, what we've
been functioning under is a 50% credit no matter what it is.
MR. DEEB-So it's moot. It's not going to.
MR. CENTER-Well it may help them, it may not. I don't know how much, how far.
MR. HUNSINGER-They're already over so they're going to have to get a variance regardless.
MR. MAGOWAN-But you're saying the ones with grass you get more but we only count it for
50%?
46
MR. CENTER-No, you don't get, I know what you were thinking is lawn area, if you did a
permeable surface, it still would be considered hard surface but it's not because.
MS. WHITE-But it's better.
MR. CENTER-It is better. I don't disagree with anything that you've said.
MR. DEEB-But if it stays lawn.
MR. CENTER-Even if you had the squares and the grass plugs, those still have concrete in
between those that allow water to go through there a little better. Because that's what we did at
the Kitchen's. So those are grass plugs, which we know are square, but we only got 50% for
that type.
MR. MAGOWAN-So we'll have to go further up, see what they come up with.
MR. CENTER-See what they come up with. Just kind of, when you're thinking through that,
they only get 50% credit.
MR. TRAVER-All right. Next we have Sean Garvey, Site Plan Modification 55-2018.
SITE PLAN MODIFICATION 55-2018 SEAR TYPE: UNLISTED. SEAN GARVEY.
OWNER(S): LONG RIFLE ENTERPRISES. ZONING: CI. LOCATION: 257 DIX
AVENUE. APPLICANT PROPOSES A NEW FACADE WITH NEW FONT FOR SIGNAGE
LETTERING. BUILDING FRONTAGE IS 90 FT. — CHANGING FROM BLUE FACADE TO A
BROWN/BRONZE FACADE. ENTRYWAY FALSE FACADE ABOVE ROOFLINE TO BE
REMOVED. NEW ROOFLINE MATCHES ELEVATION TO BE 21 FT. PURSUANT TO
CHAPTER 179-23 OF THE ZONING ORDINANCE, AMENDMENTS TO AN APPROVED SITE
PLAN SHALL BE SUBJECT TO PLANNING BOARD REVIEW AND APPROVAL. CROSS
REFERENCE: SP 44-2003. WARREN CO. REFERRAL: AUGUST 2018. LOT SIZE:
6.965 ACES. TAX MAP NO. 303.15-1-3. SECTION: 179-23.
SEAN GARVEY, PRESENT
MR. TRAVER-Laura?
MR. GARVEY-I'm Sean Garvey of Garvey Hyundai and I'm one of the owners of Long Rifle
Enterprises that owns the land that the Hyundai Dealership is on. I had original Site Plan
approval in 2003, SP 44, and there's some modification that we need to make of the site and so
I've been required to apply for a Site Plan approval. To break it down, this is the Hyundai
Dealership at 257 Dix Avenue. I tried to layout my presentation in a logical sequence that I
might want to go through if I was in your seats. Basically the steel exterior of the building is
going to remain. It's going to be a different pattern, which I'll get into. So the three changes
are a color change on the outside of the building. On the right side of the building there's an
open service drive for people to drive cars in inclement weather underneath and drop off the
car, and the third part of the application is slight sign modification. We're actually reducing the
square footage of the signs that were previously approved in 2003. Basically there's going to
be no lighting change, no landscaping change, no stormwater, no non-permeable membrane
change. The setback, building footprint, parking, traffic flow, all that remains as it was
approved and as it has been since 2003. If you grab my application, this is not numbered, but
one of the first pages shows what the building looks like now with yellow highlighting. That
was, Laura was kind enough to supply that to me. That was the original application in 2003,
and it's highlighted in yellow showing what the signage approval was. Because of the setback
requirement we had a certain amount of square feet that was allowed, and I think Craig Brown
suggested that I connect the signs, and you can see that they're connected by a foot of blank
space, and these three signs were given approval. Basically it was 258 square feet. The next
handout that I have is a little bit larger. It shows what the current design of the building is. And
I presume that they got to you in the order that I stapled them in. This shows what the new
front of the building will look like. There's a design change in the metal that is surrounding the
front of the building, and the signs are similar but they're slightly less in square feet. So
currently we have 258 square feet on the building and we're proposing 208 square feet, and this
shows how I got the math and my third grade printing. The next part of this is a color rendition
of a site plan that just shows that basically that's how the lot is being used now and that the
existing footprint of the building is not going to be changed. On the north part of that picture
there's a little bump that's in the building. That's a service drive, and we're going to get into a
better picture of that in a second here. On these larger plans here they're numbered on the
bottom right hand corner. If you can go to A-2, and that shows what the existing use of the
11 p1.
building is now. Basically nothing is changing in the building except that the service drive on
the top part of the building where the cars are in two's, that is currently an open canopy so the
front of that drive and the back are opened and the planter is what you see on the northern part.
The planter is, there's an open space above it. The next A-3 is a picture of what the building
looks like now. Basically, unfortunately it's not colored. Where the larger box in the left corner
of the building that says Hyundai on it, that's actually a blue box that stands out from the
building a hair and is above it. The top of that box will be cut off and it will be flush with the
building. These are the requirements for Hyundai and basically the word "Garvey" and the
word "Service" on the logo over there is going to remain that style, but there's a slight prompt
change. So you can see the service drive is open on the right side of the building, and then
the other drawings show what the rest of the building looks like on the back and the side. All
that remains the same. The next larger drawing, the eight and a half by, I mean is A-4.
Basically it shows the service drive is now enclosed and there might be a customer lounge area
that's going to be modified inside the building because the way the building is going to be used
will be slightly different. A-5 shows a better picture of what the new proposed building will look
like. Basically instead of having square ACM's that are basically silver and the big box on the
left is blue, the ACM that you see on the front of this design, they call it a wave pattern, it's a
thing that Hyundai's doing worldwide, that shows what the pattern will look like, and the signs as
I've proposed, and basically everything else remains the same. There's an error in this. I
should have put a line through it. These are renditions that were supplied by me. Over the
front entrance you'll see a U shaped gateway. That's not going to be there. Above the
gateway is a canopy that remains, but this is all I had to supply to you. The next picture is a
color picture of the proposed building. It looks like this, okay, it should be the next one on your
list I hope, if I did it correctly. This shows what it will look like, but again pointing out that the
entranceway, there's a U shaped, I forgot what they call it, entry. That is not going to be there,
and I should have put a line through it. So I'm not asking for that, but this was supplied to me
by Hyundai. Basically the building remains and you can see that we're enclosing the service
drive now with windows and an overhead glass door in the front and back.
MS. WHITE-But it'll be this neutral brown color?
MR. GARVEY-Yes. They call it bronze or brown, yes, but it's natural I guess. The next is a
more convenient size of the Site Plan that was used in 2003, and then I'm required to give you a
large, an actual size, which is all folded up, but I just, basically everything remains the same.
It's going to be, I forgot to mention this. There's a monument sign as you enter on the left that's
on this drawing, this site plan. It's a little square there. That basically remains, it's going to
change in color also. The size will remain the same. It will say the word Hyundai with the
Hyundai logo and probably my name on it. So that will be changed also. That just occurred to
me as I sat here. I'm sorry.
MRS. MOORE-It is part of the Site Plan. I did describe that in the notes.
MR. GARVEY-Yes, okay. So basically and I have apparently the Staff Notes. I think that's
everything. I don't know if there's anything else you need from me. I know it's late.
MR. TRAVER-So this is predominantly a branding.
MR. GARVEY-Yes. They're assisting me with the cost of it. There's a timeline that's kind of
critical and it's going to be difficult to meet that timeline because ACM is really expensive. Brad
probably knows. Let's say a steel panel building, multiply that by ten and that's what ACM
costs. It's just crazy numbers, and they made it even crazier. The ACM has to get removed,
that's on there now, then they send a team and measure it with lasers, and then they make
these custom black panels that are screwed onto the plywood that is underneath the ACM that's
on the building now and then there's a washer put behind it so it's perfectly level and then once
that's done then they glue the ACM on the black, the brown ACM, they glue it. There might be
cracks in between it. I don't know, primarily it's flat, but if you want to sell Hyundai's you've got
to get it done.
MR. DEEB-Yes, it's the franchise.
MR. GARVEY-And I mean all franchises are like this. I think Copernicus was wrong. They
think they're the center of the universe. They pick the furniture, the tile, the paint.
MR. HUNSINGER-It's a science. Right?
MR. GARVEY-Yes, well they want you to get an emotional attachment when you walk into the
building.
MR. MAGOWAN-Well when you came in for Volkswagen place they made you change it to the
yellow and stuff like that, right?
MR. GARVEY-Yes.
MR. MAGOWAN-And it increased sales you told me.
MR. GARVEY-Anything new helps increase sales I guess.
MS. WHITE-I'm seeing a little grimace.
MR. GARVEY-Well, you know, business is not easy. If it was everybody would be doing it and,
as an aside, I'm hit all the time by people who want to sell me stuff. Manufacturers are the
same way, and there'll be an interior designer who'll say I've got this idea and he sells it and
they buy it hook line and sinker and, you know.
MR. DEEB-And you pay for it.
MR. GARVEY-Yes, but this time they're assisting me, which is unique, but there's a deadline.
Initially I was only going to ask for the ACM change, the color change, and not do everything
else right now because it wasn't necessary for me, with the signage, but since I had to come in
front of the Board I asked for all three, enclosing the service drive, the signs and the ACM, color
change.
MR. TRAVER-Well you're not looking for any variances.
MR. GARVEY-No. So I modified the current Site Plan.
MR. TRAVER-In many respects it's fairly straightforward really.
MR. HUNSINGER-It's really just color changes.
MR. TRAVER-Yes, you're modernizing your.
MR. DEEB-The square footage of signs is going down.
MR. HUNSINGER-Yes.
MR. TRAVER-I don't see any issues with it.
MR. GARVEY-If I had a vote, I would say yes. It's more modernized.
MR. MAGOWAN-I want to comment on the paper PowerPoint that you put together. It was so
easy to follow with the speed that you were running, and I'm impressed, Sean, that you had the
time to put this together so delicately.
MR. GARVEY-Well I'll try to make it even better next time.
MR. HUNSINGER-My only concern was I had to re-fold it.
MRS. MOORE-Prior to reading SEAR, you can re-affirm the previous SEQR that was done in
2003. I know the language in that resolution indicates something, that you're doing a new
SEAR, but are you really changing or modifying the environmental characteristics of the
property?
MR. TRAVER-Right.
MRS. MOORE-If the Board feels that way, you could re-affirm the SEAR, your past Negative
Dec.
MR. TRAVER-All right. So we're going to pursue the SEQR resolution under SEQR first.
Does anyone feel, we can re-affirm our prior SEQR unless people feel strongly that something
significantly changed sufficiently to.
MS. WHITE-We've got to do the public hearing.
MR. TRAVER-Is there any written comments?
MRS. MOORE-There are no written comments, but you do need to open it and recognize.
MR. DIXON-Just a real quick question. So you carry the Genesis line also.
MR. GARVEY-Yes.
MR. DIXON-Are you going to have to carry a separate moniker for that at all or?
MR. GARVEY-Eventually yes.
MR. DIXON-But right now it's not required.
MR. GARVEY-Yes. We don't know exactly when it will be required. Right now there's a
Genesis sticker I think on the sign.
MR. TRAVER-Interesting. So there are no written comments. There's no one left in the
audience. So we will open and subsequently close the public hearing.
PUBLIC HEARING OPENED
NO COMMENT
PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED
MR. TRAVER-With regard to SEAR, does anyone feel there is a need to do anything other than
re-affirm our prior SEQR resolution?
MR. HUNSINGER-No.
MR. TRAVER-Okay. Then we have a motion to that effect.
RESOLUTION RE-AFFIRMING NEGATIVE SEQR DEC. SP MOD. # 55-2018 SEAN
GARVEY
The applicant proposes a new fagade with new font for signage lettering. Building frontage is 90
ft. — changing from blue fagade to a brown/bronze fagade. Entryway false fagade above roofline
to be removed. New roofline matches elevation to be 21 ft. Pursuant to Chapter 179-23 of the
Zoning Ordinance, amendments to an approved site plan 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 RE-AFFIRM NEGATIVE DECLARATION FOR SITE PLAN MODIFICATION 55-
2018 SEAN GARVEY. 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 21 st day of August, 2018 by the
following vote:
AYES: Mr. Deeb, Ms. White, Mr. Shafer, Mr. Hunsinger, Mr. Magowan, Mr. Dixon, Mr. Traver
NOES: NONE
MR. TRAVER-All right. So now we can move on to the Site Plan approval.
RESOLUTION APPROVING SP MOD. # 55-2018 SEAN GARVEY
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 new fagade with
new font for signage lettering. Building frontage is 90 ft. — changing from blue fagade to a
brown/bronze fagade. Entryway false fagade above roofline to be removed. New roofline
matches elevation to be 21 ft. Pursuant to Chapter 179-23 of the Zoning Ordinance,
amendments to an approved site plan 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 re-affirmed (SP44-2003) a SEQRA
Negative Declaration — Determination of Non-Significance
The Planning Board opened a public hearing on the Site plan application on 08/21/2018 and
continued the public hearing to 08/21/2018, 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
08/21/2018;
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 MODIFICATION 55-2018 SEAN GARVEY, 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.
Motion seconded by Brad Magowan. Duly adopted this 21 st day of August, 2018 by the
following vote:
n
AYES: Mr. Dixon, Mr. Magowan, Mr. Hunsinger, Mr. Shafer, Ms. White, Mr. Deeb, Mr. Traver
NOES: NONE
MR. TRAVER-You're all set.
MR. DEEB-What's going on with KIA? We approved that. Are you going to get those trailers
off the road that are on the road?
MR. GARVEY-Actually we might be clearing the property soon, but obviously it's finally moving
forward.
MR. DEEB-Is it? Good.
MR. GARVEY-It's been, right now, thank you for asking. This year I had to do up north,
Plattsburgh and we've been building a Nissan store in Rutland, VT and that was a nightmare
dealing with them. It's not even a Planning Board or Zoning Board of Appeals or Building
Department, but in Vermont you have the Agency of Natural Resources and there's 5,000
people and building all over the State. It's just horrible. I'll write a book on it someday. It took
me three years before I could put a shovel in the ground. It took three years, and I know how to
do these things. Well, thank you all very much and I really appreciate all that you do and I
appreciate the Building Department. They've been always fair and honest with me,
professional and helpful, and I appreciate all of you for the public service that you do.
MR. DEEB-Thank you.
MR. GARVEY-1 know you don't do this for the money. I appreciate all that you do. It's
because you love the Town.
MS. WHITE-Can I just say that I appreciate having the person behind it responding here. We
don't always have that. So I just wanted to tell you that.
MR. GARVEY-Well, I like to get personally involved. It's a big learning curve, and the Planning
Department has always been extremely helpful, and it's not difficult to follow the rules. It really
isn't.
MR. TRAVER-We agree.
MR. GARVEY-Thank you.
MR. TRAVER-Speaking of that, before we adjourn, speaking of following the rules, I am I guess
effective now forming a sub-committee of the Planning Board which is going to be looking at
unapproved development. I've received a lot of assistance and counsel from Laura and her
staff and basically the way, and I'll do this briefly because I know it's late, but the way the
process has to work by the way the Town is set up is that the Planning Board and not the
Zoning Board is capable of setting up a committee. So the Step One is for us to acknowledge
a committee, which we have just done, and once we form a committee and we begin looking at
the issue of unapproved development, we can call in subject matter experts, whether they be
members of the Planning Board, members of the public, subject matter experts of whatever
stripe we would like in order to gather the information that we feel that we need and my goal in
doing this, you saw the letter that I wrote that you all supported, thank you very much. My goal
is to generate a, I guess in effect a report, which would be available to Town officials,
specifically to Town Board, which would say, Number One, we identified the scope of the
problem, we identified the details of the problem, and hopefully we come up with some solutions
and some recommendations for them to follow to try to, if not eliminate at least reduce the issue.
In order to do that, we've got to get all this kind of information and just discuss it. So that's
where we're going to start. The easiest part probably will be a week from tonight. I'm going to
be meeting in the little meeting room that's off of this room here, starting at six p.m. to talk about
scoping, to talk about trying to get a handle on the very broadest aspects of this issue and how
we might proceed in setting up, and Laura's going to help us set up the public meetings and
various things like that. It might even be something that the public may have some interest in.
I'm not sure. I know that we've all heard complaints from people that say well why did this guy
get to do this, that and the other thing. In any case, so if you would like to participate as a
member of the Planning Board, believe me you are welcome. I appreciate your counsel and
advice. So if you can be here next Tuesday night at six p.m. and we'll spend a few minutes
before the regular Board meeting doing the scoping process, and then we'll try to come up with
some agreement on some initial steps in terms of who we might want to include in getting
!....., "
opinions and so on and we'll go from there with Laura's assistance in scheduling and publicizing
these meetings. We'll have a series of meetings and try to come up with some solutions.
MR. MAGOWAN-It sounds great.
MR. TRAVER-So thank you very much, everybody. Sorry it's so late.
MR. MAGOWAN-One more little quick thing. While we're all here. The other week we had
someone that was covering for our set up here.
MR. TRAVER-What do you mean covering for?
MR. MAGOWAN-Well the one who sets up our meeting here.
MR. TRAVER-Okay.
MR. MAGOWAN-And I've asked Laura before, you know, having a skirt put on the front table. I
think that makes it a little more comfortable looking at people, too, but I kind of liked having the
table up forward a little closer, made it more personal, and pulling the chairs up would probably
help some of the people, especially who like to sit in the back, you know, for hearing, you know,
along with checking the sound, but how do people feel about moving the table up for having the
skirt on and having the table moved up forward, bringing the chairs in? I mean, is there a
purpose for the angle, Laura, or why they can't be straight across?
MRS. MOORE-They can be straight across. It's just a notice to our staff in Building and
Grounds, updating the way it appears in this room.
MR. TRAVER-1 mean my own feeling, as far as the audience, I mean I don't really care how
those chairs are set up, as far as the applicant and so on. I actually kind of like the idea that
they're in between we as the Planning Board and the audience. I think if everybody were way
up in the front of the room and the audience was all the way in the back, it would tend to
alienate people more.
MR. MAGOWAN-No I'm thinking more with everybody up forward.
MR. TRAVER-Including?
MR. MAGOWAN-Yes, even the people, bringing the chairs up forward.
MR. TRAVER-1 don't have any problem with that, I guess.
MR. MAGOWAN-1 mean if we move it all forward, you get sound in the back, people in the back,
they really can't hear, and some people don't like sitting in the front row, but I felt, the other night
when that meeting was up closer with the skirt on, I felt more in touch with the person, you
know.
MR. TRAVER-1 have no objection unless anybody else does. We can ask Building and
Grounds to try it next week.
MRS. MOORE-These microphone cords drop further if we ask for them. My cord is supposed
to be further down.
MR. TRAVER-Yes, that would be something, Laura, that would be helpful, if you could ask staff
maybe to do some tests during the week or something when there's nobody around to see how
the acoustics are. See if, you know, you're sitting in the back can you hear.
MRS. MOORE-I'll ask that question. It's not something that Building and Grounds, I don't
believe that's something that they do, but I will ask that question.
MR. DEEB-What is the purpose of these tables?
MR. MAGOWAN-To hold these mics.
MR. DEEB-You can't put them on here?
MRS. MOORE-So that when you open your papers all you hear is rustling.
!..__„:„
MR. DEEB-Could we move the table this way and get it closer to the mic and that way you
wouldn't have to move that so much farther. We move this farther this way and that takes care
of that situation.
MRS. MOORE-I'll ask. I will pursue that.
MR. TRAVER-Yes, I mean if you could have a chat with the folks and you could let us know
what you found out next week, Laura.
MRS. MOORE-1 will do that.
MR. TRAVER-All right. Motion to adjourn?
MR. HUNSINGER-So moved.
MOTION TO ADJOURN THE QUEENSBURY PLANNING BOARD MEETING OF AUGUST
21S , 2018, Introduced by Stephen Traver who moved for its adoption, seconded by Chris
Hunsinger:
Duly adopted this 21 st day of August, 2018, by the following vote:
AYES: Mr. Deeb, Ms. White, Mr. Shafer, Mr. Magowan, Mr. Dixon, Mr. Hunsinger, Mr. Traver
NOES: NONE
MR. TRAVER-AII right. We stand adjourned. Thank you.
On motion meeting was adjourned.
RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED,
Stephen Traver, Chairman