03-13-2019
(Queensbury Planning Board 03/19/2019)
QUEENSBURY PLANNING BOARD MEETING
FIRST REGULAR MEETING
MARCH 19, 2019
INDEX
Subdivision No. 1-2019 Jeremy Entwistle & Cassie Leonard 2.
PRELIMINARY STAGE Tax Map No. 265.-1-73.1
ZBA RECOMMENDATION
Site Plan No. 13-2019 Christian & Eustacia Sander 4.
ZBA RECOMMENDATION Tax Map No. 226.15-1-19
Site Plan No. 2-2019 Stewart’s Shops Corp. 8.
Tax Map No. 309.13-2-25
Site Plan No. 6-2019 New Beginnings Community Church 20.
Tax Map No. 303.16-1-33
Site Plan No. 5-2019 Matthew J. Barrett 30.
Tax Map No. 303.16-1-8
Site Plan No. 10-2019 Marilyn Otto 41.
Tax Map No. 309.17-1-22
THESE ARE NOT OFFICIALLY ADOPTED MINUTES AND ARE SUBJECT TO BOARD AND
STAFF REVISIONS. REVISIONS WILL APPEAR ON THE FOLLOWING MONTH’S
MINUTES (IF ANY) AND WILL STATE SUCH APPROVAL OF SAID MINUTES.
1
(Queensbury Planning Board 03/19/2019)
QUEENSBURY PLANNING BOARD MEETING
FIRST REGULAR MEETING
MARCH 19, 2019
7:00 P.M.
MEMBERS PRESENT
STEPHEN TRAVER, CHAIRMAN
CHRIS HUNSINGER, VICE CHAIRMAN
DAVID DEEB, SECRETARY
JOHN SHAFER
JAIME WHITE
BRAD MAGOWAN
MICHAEL DIXON, ALTERNATE
MEMBERS ABSENT
MICHAEL VALENTINE
LAND USE PLANNER-LAURA MOORE
STENOGRAPHER-MARIA GAGLIARDI
MR. TRAVER-Good evening, ladies and gentlemen. Welcome to the Town of Queensbury
Planning Board meeting for Tuesday, March 19, 2019. This is our first meeting for March
and the fifth meeting so far in 2019. Please note the exit signs. If we have a power outage
or other emergency those would be your exits out of the building. Also if you have an
electronic device if you would either turn it off or turn the ringer off so that it would not
interrupt us that would be appreciated. There are agendas on the table at the back of the
room and also I believe some discussion about the public hearing policies that we follow, and
with that we will begin our agenda. The first item is the approval of minutes for January
thnd
15 and January 22, 2019.
APPROVAL OF MINUTES
th
January 15, 2019
nd
January 22, 2019
MOTION TO APPROVE THE QUEENSBURY PLANNING BOARD MEETING MINUTES OF
THND
JANUARY 15 & JANUARY 22, 2019, Introduced by David Deeb who moved for its
adoption, seconded by Jaime White:
th
Duly adopted this 19 day of March, 2019, by the following vote:
AYES: Ms. White, Mr. Shafer, Mr. Hunsinger, Mr. Dixon, Mr. Traver
NOES: NONE
ABSTAINED: Mr. Deeb, Mr. Magowan
ABSENT: Mr. Valentine
MR. TRAVER-Next we move on to our regular agenda. The first section of the agenda is
Planning Board Recommendations to the Zoning Board, and the first item on the agenda is
Jeremy Entwistle and Cassie Leonard, Subdivision Preliminary Stage 1-2019.
2
(Queensbury Planning Board 03/19/2019)
PLANNING BOARD RECOMMENDATIONS TO THE ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS:
SUBDIVISION PRELIMINARY STAGE 1-2019 SEQR TYPE: UNLISTED. JEREMY
ENTWISTLE & CASSIE LEONARD. AGENT(S): HUTCHINS ENGINEERING.
OWNER(S): SAME AS APPLICANT. ZONING: RR-3A. LOCATION: 1434 BAY ROAD.
APPLICANT PROPOSES A TWO LOT SUBDIVISION OF A 54.8 ACRE PARCEL INTO A 3
ACRE PARCEL FOR A NEW SINGLE FAMILY HOME AND A 51.8 ACRE PARCEL WITH AN
EXISTING HOME TO REMAIN. APPLICANT PROPOSES SEVERAL WAIVERS AT
PRELIMINARY STAGE INCLUDING CLEARING PLAN, GRADING AND EROSION
CONTROL AND STORMWATER. PURSUANT TO CHAPTER 183 OF THE ZONING
ORDINANCE, SUBDIVISION OF LAND SHALL BE SUBJECT TO PLANNING BOARD
REVIEW AND APPROVAL. VARIANCE: RELIEF IS SOUGHT FOR LOT WIDTH.
PLANNING BOARD SHALL PROVIDE A RECOMMENDATION TO THE ZONING BOARD
OF APPEALS. CROSS REFERENCE: PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED 169-2015 SF HOME;
BOTH 359-2015 GARAGE. WARREN CO. REFERRAL: N/A. SITE INFORMATION: APA,
CEA, WETLANDS. LOT SIZE: 54.8 ACRES. TAX MAP NO. 265.-1-73.1. SECTION:
CHAPTER 183.
LUCAS DOBIE, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT
MR. TRAVER-Laura?
MRS. MOORE-So this applicant proposes a two lot subdivision on a 54.8 acre parcel into a
three acre parcel for a new single family home, and a 51.8 acre parcel with an existing home
to remain. The reason for the variance is in reference to lot frontage. They’re required
to have 800 feet on Bay Road because it’s a collector road or a shared driveway. The
applicant is requesting a variance to have less than the lot frontage required. He’s proposing
400 feet with a single driveway for the new single family home.
MR. TRAVER-Okay. Thank you. Good evening.
MR. DOBIE-Good evening and thank you, Board. For the record Lucas Dobie with Hutchins
Engineering, representing Jeremy Entwistle and Dr. Cassie Leonard who aren’t able to be
with us tonight but hopefully we’re successful with our variance tomorrow night and maybe
we’ll see you next week, but pretty simple project than what we’re accustomed to quite
frankly. We’ve got gentle slopes, decent soils. We did some test borings, and our client
bought this property back in August. As you may recall the previous owner was before you
folks three or four years ago for a Major Stormwater project, and like I said they bought
the project and are finishing up the pole barn and everything and they’re just looking to sell
a new building lot to help generate some revenue quite frankly and our variance, as Laura
said, is for not having double the lot width on the arterial road, Bay Road. We can still
provide our 400 feet of lot width typical to RR-3 zone, and we’ve looked at several ways of
possibly gerrymandering the lot so the common lot line would be on their existing driveway
but that would create an ugly lot where the new lot would encompass almost all of the road
frontage. So we’d prefer not to do that. We could possibly move their existing driveway
to the new lot line, but we would want to do that as a last resort to avoid more disturbance
and modifying their approved Site Plan. We believe it’s a simple request and we’d be looking
for your recommendation to the Zoning Board. So I thank you for having us.
MR. TRAVER-Okay. Questions, comments from members of the Board?
MR. HUNSINGER-I had a question. So how far away is the proposed driveway from the
existing driveway?
3
(Queensbury Planning Board 03/19/2019)
MR. DOBIE-Right now the existing driveway to the proposed property line is just over 500
feet, 515, and I would imagine the new lot, when we do the full design, the driveway will be
approximately centered, so over 600 feet between the driveways. So it’s a significant
distance.
MS. WHITE-I know this is Preliminary, Laura, but it did seem like they asked for a lot of
waivers.
MRS. MOORE-Yes.
MS. WHITE-Is that typical or is that acceptable?
MRS. MOORE-It’s a little bit different, only, but the applicant has explained clearly that
they will provide that information. They’re trying to get in front of the Zoning Board of
Appeals and this is the only way to move their project to the Zoning Board of Appeals.
MS. WHITE-Okay. So that would come before us.
MR. DOBIE-Yes. Just to add to that, Ms. White, our goal is to have a shovel ready project,
if you will. So if we’re successful with our variance we’re going to ask to table this to let us
do a full design and come back for the Subdivision and Site Plan approval. So thank you.
MR. TRAVER-Other Board questions regarding the variance?
MR. SHAFER-Lucas, you’re confident the soils are fine for septics?
MR. DOBIE-Yes, I am. When they were building the pole barn we had a skid steer on site
with an auger and just before Christmas we had the three inches of rain we were out there
and did about a dozen borings to four feet. So we’re comfortable with the soils and the
good composition surprisingly. So we’re very happy with that.
MR. TRAVER-Any concerns or anything that we would want to pass along to the ZBA? I’m
not hearing anything but I just wanted to check. Okay. Then I guess we’re ready for a
motion.
RESOLUTION RE: ZBA RECOMMENDATION RE: Z-AV-11-2019 ENTWISTLE & LEONARD
The applicant has submitted an application for the following: Applicant proposes a two lot
subdivision of a 54.8 acre parcel into a 3 acre parcel for a new single family home and a 51.8
acre parcel with an existing home to remain. Applicant proposes several waivers at
preliminary stage including clearing plan, grading and erosion control and stormwater.
Pursuant to Chapter 183 of the Zoning Ordinance, subdivision of land shall be subject to
Planning Board review and approval. Variance: Relief is sought for lot width. 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 NO. 11-2019 JEREMY
ENTWISTLE & CASSIE LEONARD. Introduced by David Deeb who moved its adoption, and
4
(Queensbury Planning Board 03/19/2019)
a) The Planning Board, based on a limited review, has not identified any significant
adverse impacts that cannot be mitigated with current project proposal.
th
Motion seconded by Brad Magowan. Duly adopted this 19day of March, 2019 by the
following vote:
AYES: Ms. White, Mr. Shafer, Mr. Hunsinger, Mr. Magowan, Mr. Dixon, Mr. Deeb,
Mr. Traver
NOES: NONE
ABSENT: Mr. Valentine
MR. TRAVER-You’re off to the ZBA.
MR. DOBIE-Thank you very much.
MR. TRAVER-Next item on our agenda also under Planning Board Recommendations, is
Christian and Eustacia Sander, Site Plan 13-2019.
SITE PLAN NO. 13-2019 SEQR TYPE: TYPE II. CHRISTIAN & EUSTACIA SANDER.
AGENT(S): HUTCHINS ENGINEERING. OWNER(S): SAME AS APPLICANT. ZONING:
WR. LOCATION: 98 BAY PARKWAY. APPLICANT PROPOSES A 632 SQ. FT. GARAGE
ADDITION TO AN EXISTING HOME. PROJECT ALSO INCLUDES REMOVAL OF AN
EXISTING DETACHED GARAGE AND SHED, AND INSTALLATION OF PERMEABLE
PAVERS TO REPLACE A SLATE WALKWAY AT FRONT OF HOME. NEW SHORE
REPLANTING IS ALSO PROPOSED. PURSUANT TO CHAPTER 179-13-010 OF THE
ZONING ORDINANCE, EXPANSION OF A NONCONFORMING STRUCTURE IN A CEA
SHALL BE SUBJECT TO PLANNING BOARD REVIEW AND APPROVAL. VARIANCE:
RELIEF IS SOUGHT FOR SETBACKS, FLOOR AREA AND PERMEABILITY. PLANNING
BOARD SHALL PROVIDE A RECOMMENDATION TO THE ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS.
CROSS REFERENCE: AV 5-1998, AV 55-1995, AV 14-2000, AV 86-2001, SP 1-2002, AV 1-
2002, 2000-417 SEPTIC ALT. WARREN CO. REFERRAL: N/A. SITE INFORMATION:
APA, CEA, WETLANDS. LOT SIZE: 54.8 ACRES. TAX MAP NO. 226.15-1-19. SECTION:
179-13-010.
TOM HUTCHINS, REPRESENTING APPLICANTS, PRESENT
MR. TRAVER-Laura, can you brief us on this.
MRS. MOORE-This applicant proposes to add a 632 square foot garage addition to an
existing home. The relief sought is for setbacks, floor area and permeability. I did note
on the nature of the variance that in 1998 when this house was actually constructed there
was a different calculation for floor area. So it seems to be extensive, but they were
granted the floor area at that time and that building was 2,670 square feet and it included
the square footage of the lot at 10,200. So I just want to make sure the Board understands
it was granted a previous floor area variance.
MR. TRAVER-Okay. Thank you, Laura. Good evening.
MR. HUTCHINS-Good evening, Board. Tom Hutchins with applicants Christian and Eustacia
Sander. I hope you had a chance to read their cover letter. It kind of explains the situation
pretty well I thought. They propose to remove an existing one car garage. It’s very close
to the roadway. It’s about eight feet from the road, and they propose to construct a two
car attached garage which would be further back from the road, 22 and a half feet. They
5
(Queensbury Planning Board 03/19/2019)
feel the need to have a two car garage which I think is understandable. They’re year round
residents and also we feel that it provides an aesthetic improvement to the property to get
the small cabin looking garage further back and tie it in to the residence. We are requesting
variances for side setback. We are increasing the side setback by removal of the existing
shed, although nominally, and we are also asking for a front setback which we are also
increasing from the current level, but we’re still not up to the Ordinance, and in addition to
that we’re asking for FAR and Laura gave a little explanation of that prior, and that FAR and
the numbers, it includes a basement area, which is, it’s truly a basement. It’s only accessible
from a bilco door. There’s no inside door down to the basement. So you go outside and go
down a bilco to get into the basement. It’s certainly not finished. It’s not able to be
finished. It’s truly indeed a basement. However as we know by the procedures we must
include that in that FAR and that does go to make the FAR look higher but we think it’s a
fairly reasonable proposal. It’s very important to them and we’d ask your favorable
recommendation so we can move on to the Zoning Board. Do you guys want to add anything?
CHRISTIAN SANDER
MR. SANDER-It sounds good. We have our neighbor, we talked to our neighbors. They’re
all supportive. They actually stopped by to say they’re fine with it and we asked our direct
neighbor who has the closest proximity and he provided an e-mail that said that he approved
and supports us on the action.
MR. TRAVER-Questions from members of the Planning Board?
MR. SHAFER-I have a question on the size. Tom, why so large? When I was before the
Planning Board I had a small lot and I did a 20 by 20 garage. This is 24 by 24 with a bump
out toward the lake. So it’s more than ample for two cars.
MR. HUTCHINS-Well, I don’t think it’s large, large. It’s, I think 24 by 24 would be a typical
two car garage. It’s probably, you know, that’s what they want, that’s what they’ve been
looking at. Could it be a little smaller? Perhaps.
MR. SANDER-Yes, we want to tuck everything away, put everything in there, like snow
blowers this time of the year, lawnmower. That way it’s all neat and tidy in the area.
MR. DEEB-You’re getting rid of the shed, right?
MR. SANDER-Yes.
MR. DEEB- So you need more storage.
MR. SANDER-The shed has the shovels.
MR. DEEB-You said to tidy up the garage, when I was looking at the Site Plan, is the garage
going to stay or are you going to tear it down and build a new one?
MR. HUTCHINS-The existing one car detached garage, it will be removed, and the two car
will replace that as well as the storage shed.
MR. DEEB-That’s what I thought.
MR. HUTCHINS-Yes, he meant tidy up his new garage.
MR. SANDER-I meant like he said.
6
(Queensbury Planning Board 03/19/2019)
MR. HUNSINGER-So is there any way to loop the garage more towards the road, slide it so
that the side yard variance isn’t as great That was the only question I had.
MR. HUTCHINS-We’re starting to encroach into where the septic system is. That’s the
concern with moving it further north. So it would be more in front of the house. That’s
the concern there because the septic system is in the open area.
MR. MAGOWAN-When you look at the other adjoining garage on the north neighbor, I mean,
you have six inches.
MR. SANDER-It’s very common in that area to have it right on the line.
MR. MAGOWAN-The only question I have, I see crushed stone on here and then you have
proposed permeable pavers to the walkway, and so I would, you know, if you ever got rid of
the crushed stone, would you put permeable pavers there, too?
MR. HUTCHINS-Yes that’s the plan. I didn’t mention that. We’ve incorporated the
permeable paving in the apron to the driveway as well as in the walkway and the crushed
stone would be removed and replaced with permeable materials.
MR. MAGOWAN-I mean, I see it as really a functional purpose for you up there and I don’t
have an issue encroaching on the lake. It kind of tucks it back in a little bit further and it
gives you at least in front of the house, but I like the idea of the permeable and getting the
garage off the road. Unfortunately it’s a little more plowing in the wintertime for you.
MR. DIXON-Do you have gutters on this addition? And where is that water being routed
to?
MR. HUTCHINS-We have not planned any gutters on the new garage. There would be an
eaves trench, a shallow eaves trench and stone.
MR. MAGOWAN-Well I would probably foresee you putting them at least on the house side.
MR. SANDER-That would be 100%. We have gutters all around the house now, and we’d
100% put gutters along that.
MR. HUTCHINS-I was wrong.
MR. MAGOWAN-And that’s not too often, Tom.
MR. TRAVER-All right. Any other questions? Any concerns that we want to pass along to
the ZBA as they review this?
MS. WHITE-When you mentioned that basement is not enterable from inside the house, is
there plumbing, bathroom in the basement?
MR. SANDER-No, it’s just the utilities, the furnace and piping for upstairs.
MS. WHITE-Just curious as to what was included as, there’s the potential, sometimes, of
developing that further.
MR. MAGOWAN-You said it wasn’t a full height basement anyway. Right?
MR. HUTCHINS-Well, it’s reasonably high. You can stand up.
MR. MAGOWAN-You can stand up without hitting your head?
7
(Queensbury Planning Board 03/19/2019)
MR. SANDER-Yes. It’s right at the water table pretty much, too. So when we have a heavy
rain and a melt, it does get wet.
MR. TRAVER-The basement does get wet?
MR. SANDER-Yes.
MR. TRAVER-Anything else? I guess we’re ready for a motion.
RESOLUTION RE: ZBA RESOLUTION RE: Z-AV-12-2019 SANDER
The applicant has submitted an application for the following: Applicant proposes a 632 sq.
ft. garage addition to an existing home. Project also includes removal of an existing
detached garage and shed, and installation of permeable pavers to replace a slate walkway
at front of home. New shore replanting is also proposed. Pursuant to Chapter 179-13-010
of the Zoning Ordinance, expansion of a nonconforming structure in a CEA shall be subject
to Planning Board review and approval. Variance: Relief is sought for setbacks, floor area
and permeability. 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 NO. 12-2019 CHRISTIAN &
EUSTACIA SANDER. 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.
th
Motion seconded by Brad Magowan. Duly adopted this 19day of March, 2019 by the
following vote:
AYES: Mr. Shafer, Mr. Hunsinger, Mr. Magowan, Mr. Dixon, Mr. Deeb, Ms. White,
Mr. Traver
NOES: NONE
ABSENT: Mr. Valentine
MR. TRAVER-You’re off to the ZBA.
MR. HUTCHINS-Thank you.
MR. SANDER-Thank you.
MR. TRAVER-We next move on to the agenda under Old Business. The first item being
Stewart’s Shops Corp., Site Plan 2-2019.
OLD BUSINESS:
8
(Queensbury Planning Board 03/19/2019)
SITE PLAN NO. 2-2019 SEQR TYPE: UNLISTED. STEWART’S SHOPS CORP.
OWNER(S): SAME AS APPLICANT. ZONING: CI. LOCATION: 221 CORINTH ROAD.
APPLICANT PROPOSES A REVISION TO BUILD NEW CONVENIENCE STORE WITH
ATTACHED 5,139 SQ. FT. BANK AND A STORAGE SHED. THE EXISTING
CONVENIENCE STORE AND BANK, 4,711 SQ. FT., WILL REMAIN OPEN DURING
CONSTRUCTION AND THE EXISTING BUILDING AND GAS CANOPY WILL BE
DEMOLISHED WHEN THE NEW BUILDING IS COMPLETE. THE PROJECT ALSO NOW
INCLUDES TWO PROPOSED CURB CUTS ON BIG BAY ROAD AND SIDEWALKS TO
ALIGN WITH THE CROSSWALK AT THE CORNER OF BIG BAY AND CORINTH ROAD.
THE NEW CANOPY IS TO BE 4,656 SQ. FT. AND TO BE CONSTRUCTED WHEN THE
ORIGINAL BUILDING IS DEMOLISHED. PURSUANT TO CHAPTER 179-3-040 OF THE
ZONING ORDINANCE, NEW CONSTRUCTION SHALL BE SUBJECT TO PLANNING
BOARD REVIEW AND APPROVAL. CROSS REFERENCE: SP 5-2001 STEWART’S BLDG.;
SP 45-2012 BANK W/DRIVE THRUS; SP 20-2013 FREEZER ADDITION; MANY OTHERS;
AV 2-2019. WARREN CO. REFERRAL: JANUARY 2019. SITE INFORMATION: TRAVEL
CORRIDOR. LOT SIZE: 2.87 ACRES. TAX MAP NO. 309.13-2-25. SECTION: 179-3-
040.
CHRIS POTTER, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT
MR. TRAVER-Laura, do you want to bring us up to speed on this?
MRS. MOORE-Sure. So the application was tabled at our previous month’s meeting because
we came across a few items that needed further discussion and evaluation and put on plans.
The Number One reason why we did table it was for the 12 by 12 shed, and as you further
discussed it we started talking about sidewalks and arrangement of how to access the site
for the pedestrians. So the applicant did update those plans. There are sidewalks on both
Corinth and Big Bay and so what happens with those two sidewalks, the Corinth Road side is
manageable by the County. They are evaluating that. They understand that it is coming in.
They don’t identify any concerns at this time. So the applicant’s been made aware that they
need to get the permit and appropriate documents to them. On the Big Bay side, that’s the
Town owned road and the Town does not maintain sidewalks, but I did talk to Highway. They
requested to know who would be maintaining that. Chris identified that Stewart’s is familiar
with that situation and that they would maintain that. So that was updated, or at least
made me aware of how that would work, and then the last item that was added to this set
of plans was a second curb cut on Big Bay, and this was specifically for the Bank so they
would have their own access, so their traffic would not interfere with Stewart’s Shops, and
so I think that was a good addition to that plan. I think that’s the main items that were
addressed. Sorry, I will bring up one more is the lighting. So as you noted, I did not catch
the fact that when I was reviewing it there was a proposed and existing lighting plan. So
the proposed lighting plan remains still with higher light fixtures than what the guidance
requires. Right now he’s at 23, and I’ll have to look at the Code to confirm what the lighting
guidance is for under the canopy, and then I think the site was sufficient it was just mainly
the canopy that was our issue.
MR. TRAVER-Okay. So the numbers, under the fuel canopy, for example, we have revised
10.49 previously 22.63. So it was not revised.
MRS. MOORE-Correct.
MR. TRAVER-So where did the 10.49 come from?
MRS. MOORE-Because that’s the existing condition of that canopy today.
9
(Queensbury Planning Board 03/19/2019)
MR. TRAVER-Gotcha. Okay. So the question is do we want to bump it up to the 22.63, and
the same with the site foot candle with the 1.28 existing to 2.43. Correct? Okay. Thank
you. Good evening.
MR. POTTER-Good evening. Chris Potter from Stewart’s. I think Laura pretty much
touched on all the changes we made. We’ve also addressed all the engineering comments
from Chazen. We did get additional comments based on this submittal, which we did give a
comment letter based on that and revealed all the remaining I think four or five comments
I think we addressed. As far as the lighting, I think with this site being right across from
another gas station in competition that was approved with 33 foot candles under the canopy
is why, the reason why we’re asking for a deviation to have brighter lights underneath the
canopy. Other sites we’ve done in the Town we’ve done much less, but because of where
we’re at and what’s around us, we just, we feel that being 10 foot candles under what they
are to us would be acceptable and hopefully the Board feels the same way.
MR. TRAVER-Well what I would comment on that is that the site that you speak of across
the road sooner or later probably would be again in here for review and at that point we’ll
be addressing the extra bright lighting I suspect because that is excessive.
MRS. MOORE-I’m sorry. I apologize for interrupting but this Board already evaluated that.
MR. TRAVER-What’s currently there, correct.
MRS. MOORE-Yes, but you, the Board, already looked at that information is what Chris
identified and you’ve already reviewed that and said that that was okay.
MR. TRAVER-Right. All right. Questions, comments from members of the Board?
MR. MAGOWAN-Well I guess my only question is we approved 32 foot candles for there
across the street? Chris, you’re are lighting guy.
MR. HUNSINGER-Don’t look at me.
MR. MAGOWAN-That’s why I’m looking at you. That wouldn’t pass.
MRS. MOORE-So I’ll just add to this. That canopy is much larger. There’s two larger
canopies over there. I think that was maybe possibly one of the reasons why the Board
allowed the applicant to maintain the current candle footage. Obviously this canopy is a bit
smaller than that. So I don’t know what the Board is feeling. So under gas canopy pump
island, it’s supposed to be, the guidance is 10.
MR. TRAVER-So what’s there currently is above guidance, and we’d be doubling guidance if
we go with what’s before us.
MR. DEEB-It’s a larger canopy than across the street. What’s the lighting say on 149?
MRS. MOORE-So that information’s in your notes.
MR. POTTER-That one’s like 14 foot candles under the canopy.
MRS. MOORE-Yes.
MR. DEEB-Is that canopy bigger than this one?
MR. POTTER-No, it’s half the size of what we’re doing here.
10
(Queensbury Planning Board 03/19/2019)
MR. DEEB-So the one on Corinth Road would be twice the one on 149.
MR. POTTER-Correct.
MR. DEEB-I just have a, that increase in lighting is, I know you say it’s not fair, in comparison
to across the street, but you’re asking for a lot.
MR. TRAVER-Yes, myself I think it’s too much of an increase. I understand where the
applicant’s coming from, but it’s a battle that we’re dealing with around Town and I think if
we escalate this it’s just going to further sort of the light battle, if you will, and we’ll be
faced with further and further, I mean at some point we have to draw the line. If a site or
more than one site gets out of line, I don’t know what we can do about that, but we can
certainly deal with the future proposals, and that’s my feeling.
MR. MAGOWAN-Well, you know, if you also look at the spill out on the way out underneath
that canopy, it drops pretty drastically on the edge of the canopy, you know, I mean the
concentrated light it’s really in the center. I’m still a little baffled that, you know, it’s so
bright, and like I said, the candle lights on the LED, they don’t spill out as far as the other
light. I mean sometimes I hate to see a dark underneath the canopies. I mean that’s where
everybody looks under the hood and stuff like that, but you look at the spill out out there
and go all the way out to the edge of your lot, they’re concentrating their light underneath
that canopy.
MR. DEEB-That’s still bright, and I don’t think it’s going to be dark. It’s going to be less
lit, but not dark.
MR. SHAFER-Do we have a Code?
MRS. MOORE-Yes. So the Code is the guidance is 10. It’s not a requirement, it’s a guidance.
So the foot candle canopy should be about 10, and so the current situation is 10.49. So the
applicant is asking for double that at this time. I mean, and as Brad pointed out, it is a
concentration versus previously when we didn’t have LED being used as much, there was more
spill off from the canopy. So Brad does make a good point that that LED light is focused
underneath the canopy.
MR. SHAFER-That argues for an even lower number than previous lighting systems.
MRS. MOORE-Not necessarily.
MR. SHAFER-Well if the LED cuts off quickly.
MRS. MOORE-Right.
MR. SHAFER-And they’re asking for 22 instead of 10.
MRS. MOORE-But it still would be less bright I guess versus 20.
MR. MAGOWAN-But also your fixtures are recessed up into the canopy, too.
MR. POTTER-Yes, they are.
MR. MAGOWAN-All right. They don’t hang down where the light shines out this way, you
know. That also cuts down the, you know, I don’t have a problem with that. If it was spilling
out further, but, I mean, now that I’ve become more aware of the different LED lights and
all the other projects we’ve done and gone and checking, I mean, it’s different if it’s on a
building and shining out at you or it’s hanging down below the soffit and it shines out this
11
(Queensbury Planning Board 03/19/2019)
way, but yours are recessed up into the soffits which I’ve notice, and they’re bright, it looks
clean, but it diffuses out quickly.
MR. SHAFER-Is there consideration of changing the Code, Laura, for LED’s?
MRS. MOORE-Not at this time. Not that I’m aware of.
MR. MAGOWAN-It’s a guidance.
MR. TRAVER-Yes, it’s not Code.
MR. SHAFER-Whatever.
MR. DIXON-Were these lights going to be like a soft light or are they almost iridescent
blue?
MR. TRAVER-Well they’re LED’s.
MR. DIXON-Because I know you can get the soft light like a residential, so that yellow,
lower on the Calvin scale I guess.
MR. POTTER-Right, yes, there’s like a 5700 or 44.
MR. TRAVER-Yes, the frequency. Well these are recessed. So I would think that they
probably would not be the soft light because your eye is normally not exposed directly to
the light which I think is what the soft effect is intended for. This is going to be directed
down to illuminate, as Brad pointed out, the specific area around the pump so it’s probably a
bright white.
MR. MAGOWAN-Well is it like the other lights you have out on 149 and what you have up on
Route 9?
MR. POTTER-Yes.
MR. HUNSINGER-I was just going to say that. I did pull up the lighting plan from the 149
project, which we often use as the example, and it looks like you’re using the exact same
fixtures.
MR. POTTER-The number of LED’s I think my guess, since that would be a lower foot candle,
would be less or there’s different drivers that you can put in the fixture to lower the foot
candles. So my guess is we did a special order light for the 149 location to get that down
to those levels. So I think an average of 14.
MR. HUNSINGER-I think it was less than what you had actually proposed.
MR. POTTER-Absolutely. Yes. We originally came in with more and then revised it and we
went down to 14.
MR. HUNSINGER-Okay.
MR. POTTER-Yes.
MR. DEEB-Is that something you could do with this one?
MR. POTTER-We would like not to just because of, you know, what’s across the street. You
have a 33 foot candle canopy across the street and we’re only asking for a 22, and that was
12
(Queensbury Planning Board 03/19/2019)
just approved within the last couple of years. So it’s not like it’s something that’s been
there, but we’re going to be dimmer than what our competition is across the street and then,
you know, to go down to that 10, which is the recommended foot candles, they’re three times
higher than what we would be. I don’t think that’s fair. In other locations where we’re at,
149, you know, we’re in for re-development our Aviation Road site. Those levels we
decreased because of where we’re at. I think just because of this location in particular,
with the competition across the street being just approved recently with 33 foot candles, I
think it’s fair for us to have that.
MR. TRAVER-We do have a public hearing on this application. Do we want to listen to any
public comment that might be offered?
MS. WHITE-Sure.
MR. TRAVER-We’ll open the public hearing and ask is there anyone in the audience tonight
that wanted to address the Planning Board on this application? I’m not seeing any. Laura,
are there any written comments?
PUBLIC HEARING OPENED
MRS. MOORE-No written comments.
MR. TRAVER-Okay. Well, we’ll close the public hearing.
PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED
MR. SHAFER-Would you open to Page 9 and 9A please.
MR. POTTER=Sure.
MR. SHAFER-There appear to be six different scenarios there on vehicle routing, truck
traffic. Would you walk me through those?
MR. POTTER-Certainly. The first one on the left side of the page is our fuel tanker. So
that would be the movement that that fuel tanker would make. It would come in from
Corinth Road, come in that driveway, and exit out onto Big Bay.
MR. SHAFER-And he’d fuel the tanks over on the west side?
MR. POTTER-Yes.
MR. SHAFER-Okay.
MR. POTTER-The middle one is like a larger truck that would potentially fuel up or circulate
through the lot like the trucks that are down on Big Bay Road, you know, the Curtis Lumber
or the other commercial.
MR. SHAFER-So the fueling station is on the north edge of the property?
MR. POTTER-Correct.
MR. SHAFER-Okay.
MR. POTTER-So that’s that movement for that vehicle, and then same movement for the
other, the last one on the sheet, S-9, it’s just coming in from the other direction, to show
that that larger truck can make those movements around the canopy.
13
(Queensbury Planning Board 03/19/2019)
MR. SHAFER-What is the third one, the one on the right hand side?
MR. POTTER-That one is entering in from Big Bay and exiting out onto Corinth Road.
MR. SHAFER-Entering from Big Bay and exiting out onto Corinth.
MR. POTTER-Correct.
MR. SHAFER-So going out onto Corinth you’d have to go over into the opposite lane in order
to make that turn.
MR. POTTER-Correct.
MR. SHAFER-Is there no way to change the radii of the island there as the truck comes out
so they don’t have to do that?
MR. POTTER-That’s an existing driveway and there’s the pole there.
MR. SHAFER-You’re going to re-do the whole site.
MR. POTTER-Right, but there’s poles on each side of our driveway. There’s a pole on the
left side and the right side, all within a few feet.
MR. SHAFER-What kind of a pole?
MR. POTTER-A utility pole, for overhead wires.
MS. WHITE-National Grid.
MR. POTTER-Right.
MR. SHAFER-All right. How about the other three, though, on the next page?
MR. POTTER-So the first one it would be, if there’s a fuel tanker next to the tanks dropping
for a delivery, that shows vehicles being able to get around and also our delivery truck
circulating around, that would be the middle one, and then for some reason the last one is
indicated, that’s the same one as the third one that’s on the first page.
MR. SHAFER-The middle one is?
MR. POTTER-Is our, what would be the Stewart’s delivery truck which would deliver out
behind the store.
MR. SHAFER-So there’s just the one instance where you encroach on Corinth Road by trucks
coming out?
MR. POTTER-Correct.
MR. SHAFER-What about the idea of making sure they always come in the other way?
MR. POTTER-We don’t do that. What would be additional driveway addition on to Big Bay,
our delivery trucks would most likely exit out that, towards the rear.
MR. SHAFER-I was thinking of the right hand graphic on Page 9. That’s the one I have a
problem with where the truck has to go in the opposite direction on Corinth Road.
14
(Queensbury Planning Board 03/19/2019)
MS. WHITE-Which it sound like is what’s currently happening. That’s what’s happening now.
MR. POTTER-Yes. Correct. I don’t know that there would be a way to say trucks could
only enter here versus there.
MR. MAGOWAN-If the trucks on that S-9, all right, or WB 40, and the Stewart’s truck is
a WB 40.
MR. POTTER-Correct.
MR. MAGOWAN-Why can’t you just circle around the back side of the building in the back
and come out the upper, the south side entrance on Big Bay? If they’re both the same size
truck, why can’t they go around the building and go back out to the light?
MR. POTTER-They could. I think they’re going to take the easiest path would be my guess.
MR. MAGOWAN-That’s a pretty busy road. So that would be up to them.
MR. POTTER-Right, and I think the people that frequent the store would kind of know what
the best route to take would be, I would guess.
MR. MAGOWAN-I mean how many semi-trucks do you plan on coming in there?
MR. POTTER-Not a lot. We were told that Curtis would like to frequent us more than what
they do because of the additional space.
MR. MAGOWAN-Chances are they’re going to come out and be coming back.
MR. POTTER-And their trucks are actually smaller than a WB 40 anyway. It’s a straight
truck. So their movement is, you know, this is a worst case scenario. The chances of WB
40 size trucks frequenting our lot I think is slim.
MR. MAGOWAN-I see a bigger entrance and easier for them and I see trying to turn, they
might try it once and say, oops, you know, it’s easier to go over there. I see Curtis fueling
up on the way back at the end of the day with their trucks ready to go out first thing in the
morning and they’d just be going back to the shop. So my question is how many semi-trucks
do you think are actually going to do that, and if not, they’d see that line of traffic and
everything else and that tight turn and I would say that they would say well just go behind
the building and go out here. So you could always put up a sign no big trucks turning this
way, go that way.
MR. TRAVER-I think a truck that size typically is driven by a more experienced and perhaps
more professional driver.
MR. MAGOWAN-I agree with you.
MR. TRAVER-So they will assess the traffic, you know, at that particular time and make the
appropriate decision I would think, but at least they have more than one option.
MR. DIXON-Yes, and on the one plan, the S-9A, in the middle there, that tractor trailer,
WB 40, going around the Bank side, I just don’t see how that tractor trailer will clear that
canopy.
MR. MAGOWAN-And why wouldn’t you just go out straight?
15
(Queensbury Planning Board 03/19/2019)
MR. DIXON-Well that’s what I would presume that they would do.
MR. POTTER-Well these movements were made I guess essentially they weren’t revised
from when we added the additional driveway onto Big Bay.
MR. MAGOWAN-All right. Thank you.
MR. POTTER-So if they’re going to go around the back of the building and it’s a straight
shot, they’re not going to make the turn to keep circulating.
MR. MAGOWAN-Being the professional that they are, that’s the route I would go.
MR. POTTER-And when we met with the Bank, that’s why we came up with that. We looked
at all this, after we looked at all these trucks, and we realized it made sense to add that
additional driveway out to Big Bay for them and to separate out the Bank customers from
us.
MR. DIXON-I did want to make one comment on the lighting plan. I appreciated what looks
like on the new plan that there’s residential, or residences to the southern end and you’ve
dropped it down to zero pretty much across the board where currently you are showing some
light intrusion in its current state. So you are showing an improvement.
MR. POTTER-Yes we do have a new fixture with a back shielding capability on the pole lights.
So it literally pretty much throws all the light forward. It’s a very sharp cut off from
behind.
MR. TRAVER-Any other questions, comments from members of the Board? How do we feel
about the lighting issue? Obviously we’ve heard the argument from the applicant. They
would like to have the increased numbers, the 2.43 and the 22.63 based on significant
measure because of the competition directly across the street that has a bigger, brighter
site. How do we feel about that? Do we need to poll the Board? Do we have a majority
comfortable with that or uncomfortable with it?
MR. DIXON-I don’t have any issues.
MR. MAGOWAN-I don’t have any issues.
MS. WHITE-I’m comfortable with approving it.
MR. TRAVER-Okay.
MR. DEEB-I’m still uncomfortable with it.
MR. HUNSINGER-Yes, I still think there could be some compromise.
MR. TRAVER-Okay.
MR. HUNSINGER-It sounds like you’ve got a majority that are in favor of it.
MR. TRAVER-It does.
MR. HUNSINGER-So if I vote no, Brad, you can’t point to me down the road.
MR. MAGOWAN-That’s fine. I just can’t believe that we allowed the 32, and like I said,
but I’m actually, I don’t just look at the big number. I actually look at the spill out, and like
16
(Queensbury Planning Board 03/19/2019)
I said the big number is right in the middle, and the spill out is nil. So the light going out,
so I don’t have a problem with that.
MR. DEEB-I think that’s more than adequate, though, and even though they have a larger
brightness across the street, I don’t think we can use that as a criteria to allow us to approve
lighting that above what’s recommended. I mean, I can go a little bit, but I don’t think we
should use that as a basis because I think that’s a slippery slope.
MS. WHITE-So they’re request is actually a compromise. The request that they’re making
tonight is actually a compromise. They’re not asking for 33. They’re asking for 22. In my
mind, that is a compromise.
MR. SHAFER-I still have a problem with the truck routes.
MR. DEEB-I think that other curb cut should alleviate a lot of that. That second curb cut
will alleviate that.
MR. SHAFER-I just have not heard any willingness on the part of the applicant to respond
at all to the issue.
MR. TRAVER-The issue being the vehicle having to leave their lane under certain
circumstances.
MR. SHAFER-What are we going to say if there’s a head on accident in the west bound
direction on Corinth Road with a tanker truck?
MR. TRAVER-I suspect the driver will get a ticket and stern letter.
MR. SHAFER-And somebody may come back to the Planning Board and say you guys approved
that drawing.
MR. DEEB-Why not use some signage.
MR. SHAFER-There’s a pole there, well poles can be moved.
MR. TRAVER-Well, except the applicant doesn’t have control over, I don’t believe, control
over the utility pole.
MR. MAGOWAN-Not there because those are major phone lines. They had a problem
widening that road because of the amount of phone that’s on that. Yes, that’s a major
contender over there.
MR. TRAVER-Yes.
MR. DEEB-There must be some way to come up with some signage.
MR. POTTER-We could put signage up. Whether people obey the signage. I don’t think
signage really works.
MR. TRAVER-I don’t think it’s necessary for this specific instance that we’re talking about.
MR. POTTER-We are there today. There’s a Bank. There’s a Stewart’s. There’s gas.
There’s fuel tankers. There are larger trucks currently there today. To my knowledge I
don’t believe there’s been any accidents there. It is what it is today, and I think we’re
making it better with the additional access point onto Big Bay for vehicles to be able to
circulate around. Right now it’s very difficult for trucks to get around the back of the
17
(Queensbury Planning Board 03/19/2019)
building and around the Bank that’s currently there. We’re going to have a lot more
pavement for vehicles to be able to circulate around. So I think we could certainly do
signage if that’s what the Board wants. I don’t know that that’s really going to do anything,
but if it’s something that.
MR. DEEB-It at least gives you an outlet. There’s something that can be put up and at least
looked at.
MR. TRAVER-What signage would you suggest?
MR. POTTER-No trucks right turn, no right turn for trucks. I don’t know.
MR. SHAFER-No exit through trucks if they’re stopped there.
MR. DEEB-Truck exit on that southbound curb cut on Big Bay.
MR. TRAVER-Would you feel more comfortable with signage there? And would you have a
specific recommendation that we could?
MR. SHAFER-Well the issue is if a truck is stopped fueling, not to take the right out of
Corinth Road because he can’t make that swing. So he’s got to go back to the left out Big
Bay.
MR. MAGOWAN-So all you need is a sign up there with a big truck in it with a circle and an
“X” across and they should understand that.
MR. TRAVER-Okay. With an icon of a large truck. Is that something you could do?
MR. MAGOWAN-Yes, because some trucks might want to go left and up Corinth Road. So
have an arrow with a sign, you know, and then some sign language and everything else saying
you can go that way.
MR. DEEB-What about truck exit sign at that, like I said, at the south curb cut at Big Bay.
MR. POTTER-We could. I just don’t know that somebody that would be fueling there would
necessarily see that sign. I think one at the exit to where you may be headed towards that
you see, that now instead of making the right movement to go to that exit, they could then
make the left, go circulate around the back.
MR. DEEB-I don’t know if they’d do that.
MR. POTTER-No, and that’s what I’m saying. I don’t think that people are going to obey the
signs. They’re going to do the movement that they want to do. It’s just like right in and
right out. People still make the left out if they’re able to do it, you know, on a restricted
right in and right out. I’m saying that when you do like a center island there and you restrict
it to right turns only, you still get people that make left hand movements out of it when
they’re able to. So it’s the same situation here. If there’s not a lot of traffic, you’re going
to get people that are going to make that right hand turn with a truck, sign or no sign.
MR. TRAVER-True, but I think the sign lessens your exposure in the case of a bad accident,
to whatever degree. All right. So you’re willing to add signage to reflect those concerns.
MR. POTTER-Sure.
MR. TRAVER-Anything else? All right. I think we’re ready for a motion. We have to do
SEQR review on this. So looking at, under SEQR, I think the environmental impacts have
18
(Queensbury Planning Board 03/19/2019)
been addressed, but I’ll ask the Board members if they feel there are any concerns, after
reviewing this plan, that need to be addressed, or are we comfortable moving forward with
SEQR? Okay.
RESOLUTION GRANTING A NEGATIVE SEQR DEC SP # 2-2019 STEWART’S CORP.
The applicant proposes a revision to build new convenience store with attached 5,139 sq. ft.
bank and a storage shed. The existing convenience store and bank, 4,711 sq. ft., will remain
open during construction and the existing building and gas canopy will be demolished when
the new building is complete. The project also now includes two proposed curb cuts on Big
Bay Road and sidewalks to align with the crosswalk at the corner of Big Bay and Corinth
Road. The new canopy is to be 4,656 sq. ft. and to be constructed when the original building
is demolished. Pursuant to Chapter 179-3-040 of the Zoning Ordinance, new 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 2-2019 STEWART’S
SHOPS CORPORATION. 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.
th
Motion seconded by Brad Magowan. Duly adopted this 19 day of March, 2019 by the
following vote:
AYES: Mr. Hunsinger, Mr. Magowan, Mr. Dixon, Mr. Deeb, Ms. White, Mr. Shafer, Mr.
Traver
NOES: NONE
ABSENT: Mr. Valentine
MR. TRAVER-Next we move on to Site Plan resolution. I know we had at least one condition.
RESOLUTION APPROVING SP # 2-2019 STEWART’S CORP.
19
(Queensbury Planning Board 03/19/2019)
The applicant has submitted an application to the Planning Board: Applicant proposes a
revision to build a 5,139 sq. ft. new convenience store with attached bank and a storage shed.
The existing convenience store and bank, 4,711 sq. ft., will remain open during construction
and the existing building and gas canopy will be demolished when the new building is complete.
The project also now includes two proposed curb cuts on Big Bay Road and sidewalks to align
with the crosswalk at the corner of Big Bay and Corinth Road. The new canopy is to be 4,656
sq. ft. and to be constructed when the original building is demolished. Pursuant to Chapter
179-3-040 of the Zoning Ordinance, new 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 01/22/2019 and
continued the public hearing to 03/19/2019, 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
03/19/2019;
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 2-2019 STEWART’S SHOPS CORPORATION.
Introduced by David Deeb who moved for its adoption.
According to the draft resolution prepared by Staff with the following:
1) No waivers have been requested. (note lighting as submitted was approved with 22.63
foot candle avg. for fuel canopy and 2.43 foot candle avg. for the site)
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.
20
(Queensbury Planning Board 03/19/2019)
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.
l) A sign to be erected indicating no right turn for trucks exiting east bound on Corinth
Road.
th
Motion seconded by John Shafer. Duly adopted this 19 day of March, 2019 by the following
vote:
AYES: Mr. Magowan, Mr. Dixon, Mr. Deeb, Ms. White, Mr. Shafer, Mr. Traver
NOES: Mr. Hunsinger
ABSENT: Mr. Valentine
MR. TRAVER-You’re all set. All right. Moving on. The next section of our agenda is New
Business. The first application being New Beginnings Community Church, Inc. Site Plan 6-
2019.
NEW BUSINESS:
SITE PLAN NO. 6-2019 SEQR TYPE: UNLISTED. NEW BEGINNINGS COMMUNITY
CHURCH, INC. OWNER(S): SAME AS APPLICANT. ZONING: CM. LOCATION: 487
DIX AVENUE. APPLICANT PROPOSES TO UTILIZE A PORTION OF AN EXISTING
9,323 SQ. FT. CHURCH FOR A RESTAURANT. THE PROJECT INCLUDES LEASING 475
SQ. FT. KITCHEN SPACE AND 625 SQ. FT. OF DINING SPACE FOR 45 SEATS. NO
ADDITIONAL SITE WORK IS PROPOSED, AS THE NEW RESTAURANT WILL USE THE
EXISTING PARKING AND ACCESS USED FOR THE CHURCH. THE RESTAURANT AND
CHURCH ARE PROPOSED TO OPERATE ON THE SITE. PURSUANT TO CHAPTER 179-3-
040 OF THE ZONING ORDINANCE, NEW FOOD SERVICE USE SHALL BE SUBJECT TO
PLANNING BOARD REVIEW AND APPROVAL. CROSS REFERENCE: SUB 19-2005, SP
10-2008M SO 25-2009, SP 21-2010, SP 17-2011, 2008-615 CHURCH; WARREN CO.
REFERRAL: MARCH 2019 & TOWN OF KINGSBURY. LOT SIZE: 15.45 ACRES. TAX
MAP NO. 303.16-1-33. SECTION: 179-3-040.
RANDY GROSS, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT
MR. TRAVER-Laura?
21
(Queensbury Planning Board 03/19/2019)
MRS. MOORE-Okay. The applicant proposes to utilize a portion of the existing Church.
The current Church size is 9,323. The project for leasing space includes lease of 475
square foot kitchen space and a 625 square foot dining space for 45 seats. I’ve noted a
couple of items that I’ll just briefly go over. In reference to signage, the applicant needs
to update the information on signage so we know where it’s located and to confirm what
material and the size of it. In reference to the Site Plan overall I identified the previous
site plan, Site Plan 25-2009. There are additional items that have yet to be completed as
Staff, and I spoke to the applicant about this. We would recommend that the applicant
close out those items as part of this application and if they were to come about in a future
application and new site plan would have to be filed.
MR. TRAVER-So to just clarify on that item, Laura. So then the unfinished, any unfinished
items from the 2009 Site Plan would be excluded, removed, discontinued and if they wanted
to re-visit any of those earlier plans, they would return with a new site plan.
MRS. MOORE-With a new site plan for those items.
MR. TRAVER-Okay. Thank you for that. Good evening. State your name for the record,
if you would, and tell us about your project.
MR. GROSS-Randy Gross. We are going to move forward to put in a diner and which
definition do you want or information? Should I answer questions?
MR. TRAVER-Well you presented your plan to us. I guess if you have nothing further to
offer at this stage, I’ll just open it up to members of the Planning Board for any questions
they might have after looking at your application.
MS. WHITE-It will be continued to be owned and operated by the Church?
MR. GROSS-Yes.
MS. WHITE-So it’s not a separate.
MR. GROSS-Yes, it is a separate. It’s a separate LLC.
MS. WHITE-LLC, but still part of the Church operations. It’s an LLC as a separate entity
from the Church.
MR. GROSS-For profit and it’s separate in that the Church is a not for profit 501 C-3 versus
a corporation for profit and the building is being leased to the LLC for a dollar, and so the
clarification, motive for that is that in the course of my being the pastor there for 14 years
and I was the main contractor and laborer for the building project during these 14 years of
service, a lot of these years I’ve not taken any salary and the Board of Directors felt that
it would be very appropriate to lease the building to this LLC for a dollar. So I guess that
was maybe more information than you were seeking.
MS. WHITE-So you are the owner of the LLC?
MR. GROSS-Yes.
MS. WHITE-So the LLC is under your name.
MR. GROSS-Yes.
MS. WHITE-Okay.
22
(Queensbury Planning Board 03/19/2019)
MR. DEEB-It’s a novel concept.
MR. GROSS-To go half a million dollars in the hole?
MR. DEEB-No. The church runs bazaars, and now you’re actually going to run a diner. What
are your hours of operation of the diner going to be?
MR. GROSS-I’m pretty sure we’re going to do seven to three p.m.
MR. DEEB-Every day of the week.
MR. GROSS-Except for Sunday.
MR. DEEB-I guess Sunday you have services.
MR. GROSS-I have to work.
MS. WHITE-Background and experience in dining? Is that okay if I ask that?
MR. GROSS-I’ve always been hungry.
MS. WHITE-In operating a dining business.
MR. GROSS-I come from a family of entrepreneurs, although I’ve never run a restaurant, I
have talent around me.
MR. DEEB-I was going to say, do you have cooks? I’m sure your congregation must have
quite a few in there.
MR. GROSS-We have different types.
MR. TRAVER-Are you also I guess the Chief Financial Officer for the Church as well?
MR. GROSS-Well I would be the President of that corporation.
MR. TRAVER-Okay. Because my, and this is not my area of expertise, but my thinking is
that there’s going to be a tax liability for, and I forget, there’s an acronym for it, incidental
income from business activity or something like that, I believe, on the part of your 501 C-3.
MR. GROSS-Yes, I’ve done a full due diligence with CPA’s and attorneys and because the
Church is not going to monetarily benefit from the lease, there shouldn’t be exposure for
tax liability.
MR. TRAVER-I see. Interesting. Okay.
MR. SHAFER-Do you have any employees or will it all be operated by?
MR. GROSS-The LLC will be employing the public, you know, so it’s not like we’re targeting
employing people from the Church. I have an elderly congregation who aren’t interested.
MR. TRAVER-They all eat, but they don’t want to cook.
MR. GROSS-They want to come and eat.
MR. TRAVER-Okay, and you had a conversation with Staff regarding the earlier Site Plan,
the incomplete items. So you understand that those items are now going to be, that Site
23
(Queensbury Planning Board 03/19/2019)
Plan is going to be closed, effectively incomplete. Should you wish to re-visit those earlier
plans, you could certainly come back with another application to re-visit those projects. Do
you understand that?
MR. GROSS-Well my reading of the language was that that was a part of the discussion
tonight, not that it was a foregone conclusion that that’s how it was going to go. It was the
Staff’s recommendation.
MR. TRAVER-Well these are items that have been open for 10 years now. Right? 2009.
MR. GROSS-Well, yes. It took us two years to build the building. So I guess I’m not
thinking in terms of.
MR. TRAVER-It’s certainly not the Town’s practice or a common situation where you have a
site plan that goes 10 years incomplete. Generally it’s, the idea is to have it completed
within a relatively short period of time, and it’s certainly, for a variety of reasons, these
sub projects if you will with the large site plan you had in 2009, there are a variety of
reasons I’m sure why they were not undertaken at the time that it was approved, but we
cannot keep these just out there, open indefinitely. What we need to do is, and the
recommendation has been, that we close those items. There has been no movement on those
items in terms of undergoing those projects, and you do have the benefit in that in 2009
those items were approved ultimately. So it wouldn’t appear, unless you make major changes
in those projects, as though you would expect to have a great deal of difficulty, should you
come back in the future and say I now want to remove this house or I’m going to change this
driveway or these various other items that you had previously planned. So that is a
discussion item for members of the Board, but I would suspect that most would consider it
very appropriate to, after 10 years, to say, you know, we’re going to close that and move on
and look towards the future and we’d be happy to re-entertain those projects should you
decide to undertake them in the future, and you would just need to come back to us and let
us know that and go through the process with Staff again.
MR. MAGOWAN-I’m a little confused here.
MR. TRAVER-Okay.
MR. MAGOWAN-There’s open items on the 2009 that haven’t been closed out, and we’re
just going to close them out?
MR. TRAVER-Correct.
MR. MAGOWAN-Approve this project and just close them out and if he comes back again
he has to?
MR. TRAVER-Yes. If he wants to, in other words there were items on the 2009 plan that
after they got approval they decided not to do, okay, and they haven’t done them for 10
years. So what we’re going to do is say, okay, let’s just not leave that hanging out there.
You completed what you completed. You never undertook these various items.
MR. MAGOWAN-I see that part. So are any of them in violation?
MRS. MOORE-No.
MR. MAGOWAN-Because I know we had like lighting issues and we had, you know, buried
stumps or whatever. I know there were many issues long ago. All right. Like I said, I
wouldn’t think it would be fair because now, to me, this is another application.
24
(Queensbury Planning Board 03/19/2019)
MR. TRAVER-It is.
MR. MAGOWAN-All right.
MR. TRAVER-Well, what we’re trying to do is clean up the record a little bit because there’s
an existing application that’s incomplete from 2009. So what we want to do is end that.
I’m not sure we have to take any formal action to do that, but basically acknowledge for the
record that that application is closed, incomplete, essentially, and we’re now looking at this
application.
MR. MAGOWAN-So I guess my question is, do we want to do this again? How do we know
we’re not going to have the same problems as we did on building the first time that we’re
going to have these issues that will linger on this particular application? And I’m really
concerned with the fact that you have a nonprofit tied in with an LLC profit and is that even
legal?
MRS. MOORE-That’s not the purview of the Board.
MR. MAGOWAN-Well I know it’s not, but I’m really confused.
MRS. MOORE-That’s not, honestly he was very generous to offer that information to us.
That’s not the purview of the Board.
MR. MAGOWAN-All right. No offense. This just doesn’t sound right to me.
MR. TRAVER-Over my career I have been involved with nonprofits and there have been
occasions when there’s been consideration of assuming a partial for profit operation. That’s
how I have a little bit of peripheral knowledge about it. The only thing I do know is that
there is some potential for merely tax liability. It doesn’t impact the, if it’s done correctly,
it sounds like it is, they’re on the same property but they’re operating under separate
purviews, if you will, and as Laura pointed out, our concern is with the site, not the revenue,
but rest assured the revenue and the taxes and so on will be watched and will be addressed.
MRS. MOORE-So I’ll just offer some other items in reference to this. The applicant did
go through, when we first met there was going through the Site Plan from 25-2009, the
applicant did have the information updated to show the condition existing today. So that’s
why this plan is so important. It shows some of the things that I think Brad was concerned
about was that there was a parking area that had some gravel in it, and so now that plan has
been updated. So it really does show what the condition are today. So the applicant has
completed those items satisfactorily to what needed to be accomplished for the site at this
time.
MR. TRAVER-So there aren’t any enforcement concerns or anything at this time with what
has been accomplished thus far.
MRS. MOORE-Correct.
MR. TRAVER-So all we’re doing is we’re basically saying what I think we’ve said already this
evening, but we’re basically saying we’re acknowledging that the 2009 application, although
not all of the items, and in some ways they could be considered individual projects, some of
them.
MRS. MOORE-They actually can, yes.
MR. TRAVER-But as a whole we’re saying it’s closed incomplete.
25
(Queensbury Planning Board 03/19/2019)
MRS. MOORE-I wouldn’t necessarily use the word incomplete. I think it would just be
closed. Those items that remain not completed yet could be evaluated in the future as
separate applications.
MR. TRAVER-Okay.
MR. GROSS-The language is clear. It’s a phased program that, you know, which Phase I was
warranted. Then Phase II would cause the kicking in, removing the house in the front and
then building a house in the back.
MR. TRAVER-Sure.
MR. GROSS-And other buildings would be a part of Phase III.
MR. TRAVER-And we would certainly consider those.
MR. GROSS-So if I understand correctly, and I hope the record will reflect, that these are
approved plans, but for carrying them out, we would come back for another site plan review,
but it’s not really altering those plans. It should be pretty much a formality.
MR. TRAVER-If you submit them as originally proposed, then there wouldn’t be any change
in those plans. It may require another review. As I mentioned earlier, since earlier you
were approved for those plans, you should not face any major obstacles in getting them re-
approved at some point in the future unless there’s changes to regulations or your plans or
something causes some impact that we’re not aware of at this time. So you understand
where we’re at this evening with regard to that?
MR. GROSS-Yes. I do understand.
MR. TRAVER-All right. Then can you address the issue of the sign, location, and the design?
MR. GROSS-Okay. I spoke with Craig Brown regarding the zoning allowance for the sign
that will be placed at the road and what we’re planning for is a double sided sign that would
be four foot by eight, thirty-two square feet, the size of the one that’s currently up at the
road. It’ll be set back according to the proper distance, and it’ll be a sign that we included
pictures in the application of what we’re going to put there, and then there was another sign,
as this develops, that we’re going to place like a billboard on the roof of the building that
would be cut out of metal and it would be within the Code of 200 square feet. So it would
be under that square footage to be attached to the roof. So that’s another future sign
that I’ve already gone over with Craig.
MR. TRAVER-Okay.
MRS. MOORE-So in reference to the sign that’s at the road, the final plans that you’re
submitting, that location needs to be noted and then the other question is the type of sign.
So is it a monument sign, or is it similar? I mean all I have is the image of the sign itself.
I don’t have the structure of how it’s being, if it’s on posts or things like that.
MR. GROSS-Initially what I was going to do is just put up a sign over the Church sign, just
initially, and then later it would have its own place, but, yes, it would be just like that sign.
MR. TRAVER-Okay. So I think if we indicate in our resolution that the sign be Code
compliant and that the plan be submitted to you prior to the sign being erected. Would
that be sufficient?
MRS. MOORE-Yes.
26
(Queensbury Planning Board 03/19/2019)
MR. TRAVER-And the sign that’s, you heard him describe a billboard on top of the roof?
MRS. MOORE-Yes, and I understand he’s communicated with Craig and there are
opportunities in our Code for a roof sign I believe it’s called.
MR. GROSS-It’s 450 feet from the road at the point we would place it on the roof. It
allows for like a four foot high letter, and it could be 50 feet long at that 200 square foot
number.
MR. TRAVER-All right. So that would be Code compliant, too?
MRS. MOORE-Potentially. It has to be submitted to be reviewed. In reference to the
roof sign, do you believe it will be lighted or you don’t know yet?
MR. GROSS-Yes, I would assume so.
MRS. MOORE-Okay. So those plans are going to need to be submitted in advance for review
and approval by the Town. You understand that. Correct?
MR. GROSS-I believe that was through Craig’s office if I understand correctly.
MR. TRAVER-Well I would communicate with Laura initially.
MRS. MOORE-So there’s a sign permit process. I just wanted to confirm that the
freestanding sign would be Code compliant and what type of structure. So when we look at
the final plans we should probably have some sort of image of what it could potentially look
like. So if you’re just recopying the current sign that you have there, then that would be
something that we’d have in our final plans for this project now. So I was trying to obtain
that information and now I understand.
MR. TRAVER-Sure. Okay. And then there was a question about, oh the square footage of
the roof sign. Okay. So that’s going to be Code compliant and that would be submitted to
you. So we have those items. Do we have other questions, comments from members of the
Planning Board?
MR. DIXON-I just have a quick question. When I was out there doing the site visit, the
parking lot that’s on the east side, it was still covered with snow. So is that a crushed stone
or is it paved?
MR. GROSS-Yes it’s a full Item Four base put in according to the plan so it’s ready to receive
asphalt. Yes.
MR. DIXON-All right, and the road that accesses it, you’ve got it listed as a gravel drive. I
know there were quite a few ruts that were starting to go in there and I don’t know if there’s
any concern over drainage, as far as the water running through the ruts and heading towards
the main road. I don’t know if you’re planning in bringing in additional stone to correct that?
MR. GROSS-I’ll address that. That’s, you know I’ve been on the property for 10 years and
this year our rainfall has been extraordinary and we’re coming in to the spring thaw. The
property is such that you can drive over the property anywhere at any time of year in general
terms in general conditions and never have a rut, but this year has been just extraordinary
in our water.
MR. DIXON-And this diner, it’s going to operate all season long? It’s not just through the
summer?
27
(Queensbury Planning Board 03/19/2019)
MR. GROSS-Yes, sir.
MR. DIXON-Okay.
MR. TRAVER-Anything else? All right, and I’ll note, too, for the audience that on the agenda
for this evening this and actually the remaining plans on, items on the agenda are listed as
Unlisted but actually under SEQR there was some revisions to the Code this year and
actually as of now these are all Type II actions. So I’ll just note that if you have an agenda
that you’re looking at, and that includes this application as well. We need not do a SEQR
resolution on this, and we can move to the Site Plan. Okay.
MS. GAGLIARDI-Excuse me, Mr. Chairman, did you do a public hearing?
MR. TRAVER-Actually no, I didn’t. Thank you for reminding me. We’ll open a public hearing
on this application and ask if there’s any one in the audience that wanted to address the
Planning Board with regards to this application. I’m not seeing anyone. Are there any
written comments?
PUBLIC HEARING OPENED
MRS. MOORE-No written comments.
MR. TRAVER-Okay. With that, then, we will close the public hearing.
PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED
MR. TRAVER-And now we’re ready for a motion.
RESOLUTION APPROVING SP # 6-2019 NEW BEGINNINGS COMMUNITY CHURCH
The applicant has submitted an application to the Planning Board. Applicant proposes to
utilize a portion of an existing 9,323 sq. ft. church for a restaurant. The project includes
leasing 475 sq. ft. kitchen space and 625 sq. ft. of dining space for 45 seats. No additional
site work is proposed, as the new restaurant will use the existing parking and access used
for the church. The restaurant and church are proposed to operate on the site. Pursuant to
Chapter 179-3-040 of the Zoning Ordinance, new food service use shall be subject to
Planning Board review and approval.
Pursuant to relevant sections of the Town of Queensbury Zoning Code-Chapter 179-9-080,
the Planning Board has determined that this proposal satisfies the requirements as stated
in the Zoning Code;
As required by General Municipal Law Section 239-m the site plan application was referred
to the Warren County Planning Department for its recommendation;
The Planning Board has reviewed the potential environmental impacts of the project,
pursuant to the State Environmental Quality Review Act (SEQRA) and adopted a SEQRA
Negative Declaration – Determination of Non-Significance
The Planning Board opened a public hearing on the Site plan application on 03/19/2019 and
continued the public hearing to 03/19/2019, 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
03/19/2019;
28
(Queensbury Planning Board 03/19/2019)
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 6-2019 NEW BEGINNINGS COMMUNITY CHURCH,
INC. Introduced by David Deeb who moved for its adoption.
According to the draft resolution prepared by Staff with the following:
1) No waivers were requested.
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
l) Sign design and construction to be clarified and Code compliant.
m) Remaining items of Site Plan 25-2009 will need to be re-submitted for Site Plan
Review.
th
Motion seconded by Chris Hunsinger. Duly adopted this 19 day of March, 2019 by the
following vote:
29
(Queensbury Planning Board 03/19/2019)
MR. TRAVER-Any discussion on the motion? I guess the only question I would have, Laura,
and I think I know the answer, but do we need to, we don’t need to put anything on this
motion with regard to the 2009?
MRS. MOORE-You should do that.
MR. TRAVER-We should?
MR. DEEB-Okay. All right. Then we’ll add, not really a condition. We’ll add an
acknowledgement or a, how would you phrase that exactly? It’s not really a condition.
Maybe it is a condition.
MRS. MOORE-I think it is a condition, that the close out of Site Plan of 25-2009.
MR. HUNSINGER-Can we acknowledge the survey map that was submitted? Because that
shows what was completed.
MRS. MOORE-The existing condition.
MR. TRAVER-Well, yes, except that there’s still open items on that 2009. So why don’t we
say this approval is conditioned upon the.
MR. HUNSINGER-The survey map I’m talking about shows what’s existing. So it doesn’t
show any uncompleted items.
MRS. MOORE-But there’s other drawings in his packet that show the previous items that
were to be done.
MR. GROSS-I think what Chris is saying is that we removed from the documents the pending
items, the phases, Craig asked that they be removed, or Staff did, and so that what was
reflected on the document that you see is what was completed, completed conditions of
Phase I.
MR. HUNSINGER-I’m looking at the drawing that was labeled issued for Site Plan Review
and dated 1/29/2019.
MRS. MOORE-I understand now. So there should be maybe a note in there saying that the
drawing of that date acknowledges the existing conditions and any future review for those
items identified in Site Plan 25-2009 would come under a different site plan.
MR. GROSS-A lot of language.
MR. TRAVER-Yes.
MRS. MOORE-It’s just a through.
MR. TRAVER-If I may make a suggestion, why don’t we say that a condition is that with the
approval of this application the acknowledgement that the 2009 application is closed
complete.
MR. GROSS-Complete wouldn’t be right, though.
MRS. MOORE-Right.
MR. TRAVER-Well earlier I had said closed incomplete.
30
(Queensbury Planning Board 03/19/2019)
MRS. MOORE-Right. So the remaining items of Site Plan 25-2009 would need further
review.
MR. GROSS-Would need further review.
MR. TRAVER-Okay.
AYES: Mr. Dixon, Mr. Deeb, Ms. White, Mr. Shafer, Mr. Hunsinger, Mr. Magowan,
Mr. Traver
NOES: NONE
ABSENT: Mr. Valentine
MR. TRAVER-Good luck.
MR. GROSS-Thank you.
MR. HUNSINGER-So when do you hope to open?
MR. GROSS-Pending our permit with the Town, a week from Friday.
MR. TRAVER-All right. The next item on our agenda under New Business is Matthew J.
Barrett, Site Plan 5-2019, and as noted correction to the agenda, this is a SEQR Type II.
SITE PLAN NO. 5-2019 SEQR TYPE: UNLISTED: MATTHEW J. BARRETT. AGENT(S):
JARRETT ENGINEERS. PLLC. OWNER(S): JAMES E. BARRETT. ZONING: CM.
LOCATION: 437 DIX AVENUE. APPLICANT PROPOSES TO MAINTAIN AND EXPAND
AN OUTDOOR STORAGE AREA FOR BARRETT VEHICLES RENTED AND OWNED. THE
SITE AND BUILDING BUSINESS INCLUDES HERTZ RENTAL AND TOWAWAY THAT
HAS AUTO SALES AND SERVICE FOR VEHICLES. PURSUANT TO CHAPTER 179-3-040
OF THE ZONING ORDINANCE, OUTSIDE STORAGE SHALL BE SUBJECT TO PLANNING
BOARD REVIEW AND APPROVAL. CROSS REFERENCE: SP 59-2011 AUTO SALES; SP
27-2013 CONSIGNMENT SHOP; WARREN CO. REFERRAL: MARCH 2019. LOT SIZE:
1.72 ACRES. TAX MAP NO. 303.16-1-8. SECTION: 179-3-040.
TOM JARRETT, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT; MATTHEW BARRETT, PRESENT
MR. TRAVER-Good evening.
MR. JARRETT-Good evening. Tom Jarrett of Jarrett Engineers, Matt Barrett, owner of
Barrett Auto. This project is pretty straightforward and I’m hoping it’s simple. The
Barrett family has owned it since the mid 50’s, operated it at this location intermittently
and the area that we’re proposing is on the western portion of the site we’re proposing to
use what was formerly used for storage. We want to now formally get it approved for open
storage of vehicles. We’re not changing the grades. We’re not changing the configuration
of the site. We’re merely putting gravel down to give it stability especially in the spring
when it’s very muddy, and as a result of that site improvement we are putting in a drainage
interceptor across the lower edge of this proposed storage area, routing it to a detention
basin. And you’ll note in our application we’re proposing detention because we have very
shallow ground water at bedrock and we have a wastewater system directly downgradient of
it so I don’t want to infiltrate a lot of water in it. We’re detaining water, slowing it down,
and releasing it very slowly to the location that it routes to now in Queensbury Avenue. No
change in drainage patterns. Just improving the quality and improving the rate of runoff.
We are adding a buffer area to the rear and a fence along the rear to protect the neighbor.
We’re adding the landscaping on the property and Matt plans to potentially add lighting in
31
(Queensbury Planning Board 03/19/2019)
the future, just to disclose it to the Board. We’ll be back with details on that. We just
wanted to acknowledge to you that we may add lighting in the future. Laura had asked f or
some clarification on a few items.
MR. TRAVER-I’m doing this a bit out of order, but if I could I’d like to ask Laura to review
her Staff Notes as well. Sorry, Laura.
MRS. MOORE-That’s fine. He was right into it. I was just going to skip it. Right now the
applicant proposes to maintain and expand an existing outdoor storage area for Barrett
vehicles. I have rented and owned, and the reason why this is identified as rented and
owned by Barrett is because it can’t be, it’s like a storage lot for other tenants to come in
and store their items there. It has to be for the applicant’s stuff. So I just want to make
sure and clarify that. I did identify some items. I believe Tom was just going through
them and I’m skimming through their notes. I think most of the things will be addressed in
reference to site lighting and floor plans and the only thing that probably needs some
clarification is probably the signage and then stormwater and stormwater responses to
Chazen’s comments.
MR. TRAVER-Yes, I would tend to agree. Okay. Thank you, Laura. Sorry for the confusion
on the process here.
MRS. MOORE-That’s fine.
MR. JARRETT-So the letter’s in draft form, and if you’re willing to address those items, if
I may clarify things and I put it in writing, and I’ve summarized all the comments from Laura,
from the Fire Marshal, and from Chazen in one draft letter. Depending on how we leave
his meeting tonight, I’ll finalize it in whatever form is appropriate. As Laura said I think a
lot of these items were clarifications and I think you agree that we’ve got a lot of them
clarified.
MRS. MOORE-A lot of them are narrowed down now, and I apologize. So the one question I
had was in reference to Barrett Auto and Hertz Rental. They’re the same unit apparently
so it’s not like there’s two separate office spaces, and that’s what I wanted to clarify.
MR. BARRETT-Yes, to clarify, the company name is Barrett Transportation Services
Incorporated. We are a Hertz franchisee. So we operate as Hertz car rental, and we are
also a Penske agency, but all of that operates under that corporation.
MR. TRAVER-Okay. If I could get back to the engineering comments, Tom, for a second.
Do you have the draft maintenance agreement?
MR. JARRETT-We don’t have it prepared but we will follow the Town standard for that.
We’ve agreed to do that in that letter. In fact depending on how we leave this meeting we’ll
include it with the finalized letter.
MR. TRAVER-Okay.
MR. JARRETT-Two big issues were raised by Chazen. One is related to topographic
information. For design purposes we didn’t need to shoot any topo on the site because we’re
not changing the site at all, and our interceptor swale is downgradient of all of our
improvements so it actually will collect all that water and route it to our stormwater system.
The Planning Office asked us to run topo of the storage area, which we did do, and that’s on
your plan. Chazen has now asked for topo on the entire site, and I’m asking for relief from
that because I don’t think we need it. We’re not modifying anything below that storage
area meaning east of the storage area limit. I don’t think there’s any benefit to that.
32
(Queensbury Planning Board 03/19/2019)
MR. TRAVER-So on that basis you feel that you can get a signoff from the engineer on that
item?
MR. JARRETT-With some support from this body I think I can, but on my own I may not.
MR. TRAVER-Okay. We don’t normally specifically address engineering issues.
MR. JARRETT-I understand. I’m asking you to dip your toe in the water here.
MR. TRAVER-I’m not sure that’s a practice we want to start.
MR. JARRETT-Well the next one’s probably going to be an even bigger lift. We used
simplified calculations which are not used very often anymore, and that’s probably why
Chazen challenged them. They are old school calculations that were used exclusively 20
years ago, 30 years ago, I’m dating myself, but they are still applicable to small sites and I
was trying to save money and time for Matt, and I still think the calculations are appropriate.
What we’ve used here is a modified rational method which is explained on the back of your
letter, and depending on what the Board is willing to weigh in on, I know you have no major
expertise in this area. Maybe some of you have some expertise in this area. You probably
can’t weigh in on it but I’d like support for the simplified method because it is a very simple
project.
MR. TRAVER-Sure. Well certainly, obviously one of the requirements is you need a signoff
from the Town Engineer and typically when there are open questions regarding engineering,
and you’re familiar with this process as well. Generally if an applicant comes in and feels
confident that they have or can address all of the issues that are presented by the engineer,
then we will sometimes feel comfortable by simply stipulating that requirement that you
continue to do what you need to do to get that signoff.
MR. JARRETT-Well by default, if we have to provide topo on the entire site, we can do it.
It’s expensive. It’s unnecessary in my opinion. If we have to modify our stormwater
calculations I can do it. It’s expensive, it’s time consuming and it’ll cost Matt, but that’s
where we stand.
MR. TRAVER-Right. Understood.
MR. MAGOWAN-I have a question. That building’s been there as long as I’ve lived here and
in doing a site visit I noticed that there was gravel amongst a lot of gravel spots over there.
Wasn’t that a parking lot at one time?
MR. BARRETT-Yes. So the history on our site, you know, our grandfather started the
business in 1954 as a Hertz franchise. We operated out of that building until 1995. When
that land was acquired by my father, I believe in the late 60’s, that’s when it was used as
storage for our rental vehicles. Basically with rental you have expanding kind of flows, in
and out flows. So if I’m doing my job right my lot’s empty, but when we rent trucks during
the holiday season and FedEx and UPS rents from us, once the holidays are over, you know,
25 trucks come in and they’ve got to go back out. So that had always been gravel, and then
we had an environmental issue with gas tanks that were on the site. So we worked with the
New York State DEC spill coordinators and we used.
MR. TRAVER-That was one of the concerns that was in the engineering as well. Correct?
MR. BARRETT-Yes. So Steve Pasco was the coordinator. We were working with him since
early 2000 and what we did was we used that existing gravel hill and we threw down
protective tarp and remediated the soil on top of that hill and then we got the signoff from
him that the soil was good to go and he actually recently is closing the spill so we’re getting
33
(Queensbury Planning Board 03/19/2019)
a no further action letter on the site. We’re just waiting for Jeff Wink and Northeastern
Environmental to verify in the springtime that all the wells that they did throughout that
testing project have been certified closed and then Steve had already said that he’s willing
to close the case. He’s fine with the remediation that we’ve done. So I believe two site
plans ago because we left the site in ’95 and leased the site out to different tenants, I think
Nutech had a site plan that was approved where that area was still gravel being used as
storage for their equipment. What I’m trying to address here is bringing it back to true,
the latest site plan that was on file, two tenants, basically my uncle signed off on that area
classifying it as snow removal area. So unfortunately he should have never done that. It’s
still useable gravel space and area. It just wasn’t being used by the tenant we were renting
the building out to. So what we’re trying to do here is get this back to what it historically
was and is. We want to maintain it, update it, make the site, you know, to Code and clean up
the site plan and get it workable.
MR. TRAVER-Sure. Okay. Questions, comments from members of the Board?
MR. MAGOWAN-Well after explaining that, Matt, I could see why Tom is saying it is rather
a small project and all you’re doing is just really cleaning up something that was preexisting.
So I don’t have a problem with it.
MR. TRAVER-And do you feel comfortable with regards to the engineering, our typical, and
the requirement is that they receive a signoff.
MR. MAGOWAN-Tom’s reputable and like he said he’s been around a long time, no offense,
Tom, you know, if he feels confident I feel confident. I mean like I said, knowing what the
site looked like before and after my site visit and looking at the plans, I mean it actually
would be I think an improvement to even what was there before.
MR. TRAVER-Yes. Okay.
MR. HUNSINGER-So the question is begged by some of the discussion about the runoff and
such. You have these proposed detention basins, and you say in the notes eight inches deep,
three inches required. So is that the calculation that is under discussion?
MR. DIXON-It’s just three required. So it’s going to be three eight inch basins.
MR. BARRETT-There’s three basins, I think.
MR. JARRETT-There’s a step down. There’s three basins stepped down.
MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. All right.
MR. DIXON-And the area that’s going to be a rental area, just so I’m perfectly clear, in
some of my notes it kind of indicates it’s rental units or boats, RV’s that are owned by you,
but that can’t be the case. I’m assuming that you’re providing space for rental. Let me back
up, space rental for RV’s, boats. They’re not yours.
MRS. MOORE-They are his. They have to be. He can’t rent out space to someone that
owns an RV. He has to be the owner of that.
MR. BARRETT-So all the vehicles that are going to be on that space will be owned by myself,
and what our business model is, and what I’m trying to do is make it as broad as possible to
give us, to have approval for the flexibility, you know, we rent stuff. Right. So we’re renting
cars. We rent trucks. When we used to be over on Quaker Road, and were Barrett RV’s,
we rented RV’s. So if I start to rent pop up tent campers, again, I need to park those
campers somewhere when they’re not being rented. So that’s the intent of that language.
34
(Queensbury Planning Board 03/19/2019)
There’s no plans to rent out that as storage space for the winter for somebody’s boat. If
a boat’s stored up there it’s because it’s our boat. If there’s an RV up there or a trailer it’s
ours. In essence, you know, there’s other rental places where, you know, you can see all the
stuff check in on the weekends. They’re spilling over with vehicles everywhere, right, so
you need that extra space for that spillover when we do have the stuff returning and wait
for it to go back out.
MR. TRAVER-Okay.
MR. SHAFER-I have a question about process. Laura, the two issues that Tom raised, is
there an employee of the Town of Queensbury that can adjudicate those issues or do we
rely solely on Chazen’s opinion?
MRS. MOORE-We do rely on Chazen, but we also have staff discussion about those items.
MR. SHAFER-Okay.
MRS. MOORE-My first reaction to that is that it would still need to be a 50 year storm
because that’s what our Code requires. I understand the rational method.
MR. JARRETT-That is a 50 year storm.
MRS. MOORE-Okay. So you’re responding to Chazen with that comment, and then the
reference to actually doing topography for the entire site, I do think that’s a discussion
between the applicant and Chazen and ourselves as staff.
MR. TRAVER-Which typically it is.
MRS. MOORE-Right, and so just to confirm that those are spot elevations and to confirm
what Chazen is looking for so that they can complete their review.
MR. JARRETT-Those are contours that we drew. That’s a topographic survey that we
completed.
MRS. MOORE-I know. So that is a discussion between the applicant and Chazen that, you
know, we can look at. If Chazen’s going to come back and say how do you feel about that,
that’s a discussion with our Zoning Administrator.
MR. BARRETT-I have a quick question. I know because the site topography wise really
hasn’t changed over the years, I know looking at some of the prior site plans when I was
researching this project that Nutech did an extremely thorough site plan. Were there
topographical measurements done then?
MRS. MOORE-I mean you might want to share, I don’t have that information
MR. TRAVER-So you may already have the topographic information that they’re seeking.
MR. BARRETT-We’re trying to address the hill itself, because we have photos of the
property if people aren’t familiar with it. Where the pavement already is and the structures
is, we don’t feel that there needs to be a topographical survey done of that area.
MRS. MOORE-So the question from there, and this is why I think Chazen is looking for it,
and this is why we discussed whether the spot elevations would work, is you now have a new
drainage pattern that you’ve created.
MR. JARRETT-No, we do not. Chazen’s totally misunderstood our design.
35
(Queensbury Planning Board 03/19/2019)
MRS. MOORE-But you’re installing drainage. You’re installing drainage items.
MR. JARRETT-Correct.
MRS. MOORE-So we want to make sure that works with the topography that’s out there.
MR. TRAVER-I think we’re getting out of our purview. This is a discussion that you need to
have with Chazen, and certainly to me your points seem right on, but I’m not Chazen. So it’s
been my experience that generally applicants and Chazen are able to, or our Town Engineer
is able to work out these issues. Has that not been your experience? Okay. All right.
MR. JARRETT-It’s classically one sided.
MR. SHAFER-Which is why I asked the question is there a Town employee that can
adjudicate the difference of opinion.
MR. JARRETT-That’s very appropriate.
MRS. MOORE-That’s our Zoning Administrator.
MR. TRAVER-Yes. I mean that’s why we hire a Town Engineer. It sounds like there will
be more discussion on these issues. As far as this body is concerned, our requirement is
approval by the Town Engineer. How that process evolves, I mean, I’ve seen very, very
lengthy processes to get that done and I’ve seen more often than not, you know, counter
responses to their letter and that’s the end of it.
MR. JARRETT-I don’t think Matt can afford a lengthy process. I’ll have to capitulate if we
can’t make the argument.
MR. MAGOWAN-But he was able to use an older set of tops?
MRS. MOORE-I mean, if there are different topography lines, then.
MR. JARRETT-Yes, classically you accept only recent surveys. We have to be careful as to
what the vintage of that survey is.
MR. TRAVER-But if the topography hasn’t changed, and you haven’t installed.
MR. JARRETT-Somebody has to certify that, and that’s where you ask for surveyors to do
that. So we’ll look at it and see if we can make it work.
MR. TRAVER-Yes. Okay. We also have, before I forget, we have a public hearing on this
application. Is there anyone in the audience that would like to address the Planning Board
on this application? I’m not seeing anyone. Do we have any written comments, Laura?
PUBLIC HEARING OPENED
MRS. MOORE-There are no written comments, and in reference to SEQR, this project is
one of the ones that still triggers the Unlisted. So this one’s a little bit different. There’s
no language currently in the SEQR regs that address work on a site that is not a building.
If it were just in reference to the building, utilizing an existing commercial building. Type
II, but there’s no language in the Type II at this time that discusses work outside, on a site
that isn’t a building.
MR. TRAVER-So we should consider this Unlisted for our purposes this evening.
36
(Queensbury Planning Board 03/19/2019)
MRS. MOORE-Yes.
MR. TRAVER-Okay. All right. Then we’re lucky because we’re provided with a SEQR
resolution in our material.
MRS. MOORE-Your public hearing should be closed.
MR. TRAVER-Okay. So we’ll close the public hearing. There are no requests from the
audience and no written comments.
PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED
MR. TRAVER-With regard to SEQR, there are some outstanding engineering comments. It
sounds like there will be a discussion taking place and I personally am not concerned with
any environmental impacts related to any unresolved engineering issues, and we are requiring
a signoff, but I’ll open it up to members of the Board. Does anyone feel uncomfortable with
a SEQR resolution at this stage?
MR. SHAFER-No.
MR. TRAVER-Okay. Then we can do the SEQR.
RESOLUTION GRANTING A NEGATIVE SEQR DEC. SP # 5-2019 BARRETT
The applicant proposes to maintain and expand an outdoor storage area for Barrett vehicles
rented and owned. The site and building business includes Hertz Rental and Towaway that
has auto sales and service for vehicles. Pursuant to Chapter 179-3-040 of the Zoning
Ordinance, outside storage 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 5-2019 MATTHEW
J. BARRETT. 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.
37
(Queensbury Planning Board 03/19/2019)
th
Motion seconded by Brad Magowan. Duly adopted this 19 day of March, 2019 by the
following vote:
AYES: Mr. Deeb, Ms. White, Mr. Shafer, Mr. Hunsinger, Mr. Magowan, Mr. Dixon,
Mr. Traver
NOES: NONE
ABSENT: Mr. Valentine
MR. TRAVER-All right. So are Board members comfortable moving forward on this
application after hearing the.
MR. JARRETT-Impassioned plea.
MR. TRAVER-Yes, the discussion and the understanding.
MR. HUNSINGER-What I find interesting is I never would have picked up on some of those
points of friction from Chazen’s letter. To me that looked real minor.
MR. JARRETT-They acknowledge that the rational method is a reasonable method, but then
they said go do the calculations. Go do the more sophisticated calculations. I’m not sure
they understood what we were doing.
MR. DEEB-I just feel that, you know, I know there are two sides to every story. I think we
as a Town have to recognize this too and that maybe some undue burdens are placed on our
applicant sometimes, and a little bit of commonsense would go a long way.
MR. HUNSINGER-Well said.
MRS. MOORE-So before you proceed. We didn’t talk about signage. Can we talk about
signage?
MR. JARRETT-Yes, good point. Let’s talk about that. Matt may be able to elaborate a little
better than I can, well, go ahead, you start.
MR. BARRETT-Yes. So when that topic came up, I’m okay with the signage as permitted on
the site. The tenant that we have was out of regs and I’ve had communications with Craig
Brown about that, and I asked him to notify them that they are out of compliance with their
signage. So there are two signs that were permitted on the building. As far as that’s
concerned, I don’t want to deviate from that at this time. So if there’s extra signage on
the building, it’s, you know, it’s out of compliance as far as I’m concerned, and if we want to
expand the signage or review signage I’ll come to this Board and get approval for that at
that time.
MR. JARRETT-I had to show those street views overhead, but I did pass out a set of the
street views for everybody to look at. This is what the site looks like. This is a Google
Earth photo.
MR. TRAVER-Google street view?
MR. JARRETT-Google street view.
MRS. MOORE-So I guess if you’re preparing the resolution, there should be a condition
about signs being compliant, Code compliant.
38
(Queensbury Planning Board 03/19/2019)
MR. TRAVER-Code compliant. Okay.
MR. DIXON-Do we also have to mention anything regarding the lighting? I was under the
impression that we were going to vote on approval of the lighting, but that would have to
come back for, or they would have to present.
MR. TRAVER-They’ve modified the lighting.
MR. JARRETT-Well you could just acknowledge the lighting and handle the approval any way
you wish. We’ve got to come back with details, if Matt wants to do that, with the location
of poles, height of poles, fixtures, that kind of thing. It’s really not asking for much in the
way of approval now. We’re just disclosing that we want to do some lighting.
MR. TRAVER-And that would be Code compliant as well.
MR. JARRETT-Right.
MR. BARRETT-Yes.
MR. TRAVER-Okay.
MR. JARRETT-Matt took note of the discussion on the prior application.
MR. BARRETT-I got an education on lighting today.
MRS. MOORE-Okay. So this would be a waiver for a future light pole. So it makes it a bit
difficult, when the applicant does decide 10 years from now, to put a light fixture.
MR. TRAVER-We can’t do a waiver on a plan that hasn’t been submitted.
MRS. MOORE-Right. So in that point then the applicant would be coming back for a site
plan for adding five light poles, and I don’t necessarily think that’s good planning either. I’d
rather see the applicant give me.
MR. TRAVER-A proposal whether or not it’s ultimately built.
MRS. MOORE-Correct.
MR. TRAVER-Okay.
MRS. MOORE-That would be helpful.
MR. TRAVER-Can you do that?
MR. BARRETT-So either, A, we can move the light poles out of the drawings. Is that what
you’re saying?
MRS. MOORE-Right, or he can take them off the plan completely, but I don’t want to
preclude you, because otherwise you’d have to come back to the Board.
MR. JARRETT-Well let’s decide right now. Are you going to delete the poles from the plans,
or do you want to put some details together now that you might use?
MR. BARRETT-Just delete the poles from the plan. I don’t know what that’s going to look
like and I don’t want to put something in there and not do it for two or three or four years.
Let’s do something that’s relevant.
39
(Queensbury Planning Board 03/19/2019)
MR. JARRETT-If he decides to do it in a year I didn’t want the Board to say well why didn’t
you present the lighting at the time you came in for site plan.
MR. TRAVER-Yes.
MR. JARRETT-I said let’s get it introduced.
MR. TRAVER-Yes.
MRS. MOORE-Okay.
MR. TRAVER-All right. Thank you for that.
MR. DEEB-So we’re not going to consider lighting.
MR. TRAVER-Right. The applicant’s removing the light poles.
MRS. MOORE-You want to put that in the resolution, the applicant has removed those light
poles around the storage area.
MR. BARRETT-Yes, when we’re ready for lighting we’ll come with a proper proposal, Code
compliant proposal.
MR. JARRETT-And just to clarify, the Fire Marshal was at the site today.
MR. BARRETT-Yes, Mike signed off on everything.
MRS. MOORE-So now you have the approval of you as the tenant in there and Towaway.
MR. BARRETT-Yes, that’s all cleaned up.
MRS. MOORE-Okay. I hadn’t had a chance to talk to Mike.
MR. JARRETT-I think we narrowed it down just to my issues.
MR. TRAVER-Okay. All right.
MR. JARRETT-Matt’s done his homework. I’ve got my issues.
MR. DEEB-Can we just say that lighting has to be removed?
MRS. MOORE-I would say storage area. I would be specific.
MR. JARRETT-The potential new poles will be deleted.
MR. BARRETT-From the storage area.
MR. TRAVER-You’re not turning off the lights permanently.
MR. JARRETT-You can see from the photos it’s really just soffit lighting on the building
right now and then there’s lighting from Dix Avenue and Queensbury Avenue. There’s quite
a bit of light on the site. He may not do what he needs to do in the future, but it’s suffice
to date.
40
(Queensbury Planning Board 03/19/2019)
MR. TRAVER-All right. So we’ve done a public hearing. We even did SEQR. Does anyone
have any other final questions or concerns? Okay. I guess we’re ready for a resolution.
RESOLUTION APPROVING SP # 5-2019 MATTHEW J. BARRETT
The applicant has submitted an application to the Planning Board for Site Plan approval
pursuant to Article 9 of the Town zoning Ordinance for: Applicant proposes to maintain and
expand an outdoor storage area for Barrett vehicles rented and owned. The site and building
business includes Hertz Rental and Towaway that has auto sales and service for vehicles.
Pursuant to Chapter 179-3-040 of the Zoning Ordinance, outside storage 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 03/19/2019 and
continued the public hearing to 03/19/2019, 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
03/19/2019;
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 SITE PLAN 5-2019 MATTHEW J. BARRETT. 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.
41
(Queensbury Planning Board 03/19/2019)
h) All signage to be Code compliant.
i) Lighting poles to be removed from the Site Plan (for the storage area).
th
Motion seconded by Brad Magowan. Duly adopted this 19 day of March, 2019 by the
following vote:
MRS. MOORE-So the other one is that there needs to be a sign off from the Town Engineer
because that’s not in this reso.
MR. TRAVER-That’s not in the draft?
MRS. MOORE-No, it’s not.
MR. DEEB-Okay, and J., engineering sign off is needed for completion of the Site Plan.
MR. JARRETT-Laura didn’t think we’d get this far. That’s why.
MR. TRAVER-All right.
MR. DEEB-It is on there, Laura.
MRS. MOORE-Am I not looking at the right one?
MR. DEEB-Yes, Item A, If application was referred to engineering, then engineering sign-
off required prior to signature of Zoning Administrator of the approved plans;
MR. TRAVER-So he’s not only going to have to get it signed off, he’s going to have to get it
signed off twice.
MR. DEEB-So I amend my resolution to take out Item J.
MR. TRAVER-All right.
MR. MAGOWAN-I’ll second the amended motion.
AYES: Ms. White, Mr. Shafer, Mr. Hunsinger, Mr. Magowan, Mr. Dixon, Mr. Deeb,
Mr. Traver
NOES: NONE
ABSENT: Mr. Valentine
MR. JARRETT-Thank you all for your patience.
MR. BARRETT-Thank you very much.
MR. TRAVER-Good luck.
MR. TRAVER-And the next item on our agenda, also under New Business, is Marilyn Otto,
Site Plan 10-2019.
SITE PLAN NO. 10-2019 SEQR TYPE: UNLISTED. MARILYN OTTO. OWNER(S):
DOUGLAS MABEY, INC. ZONING: CLI. LOCATION: 94 BIG BOOM ROAD.
APPLICANT PROPOSES TO REUSE AN EXISTING 5,600 SQ. FT. BUILDING AT THE
EXIT 18 BUSINESS PARK FOR OPERATING AN AUTO ACCESSORIES AND BED LINERS
BUSINESS. THE BUILDING FLOOR PLAN INCLUDES A 375 SQ. FT. SHOWROOM, AN
42
(Queensbury Planning Board 03/19/2019)
OFFICE AREA AND THREE BAYS FOR AUTO SERVICE. BUILDING IS PART OF
EXISTING EXIT EIGHTEEN BUSINESS PARK THAT INCLUDES SELF-STORAGE AND
WAREHOUSE BUSINESS OPERATIONS. APPLICANT PROPOSES NO EXTERIOR
CHANGES AND NO SITE CHANGES. PURSUANT TO CHAPTER 179-3-040 OF THE
ZONING ORDINANCE, NEW COMMERCIAL USE IN A PRE-EXISTING BUILDING SHALL
BE SUBJECT TO PLANNING BOARD REVIEW AND APPROVAL. CROSS REFERENCE: SP
30-2000; (SP 62-89, SB 4-97, SP 23-97). WARREN CO. REFERRAL: N/A. LOT SIZE:
.34 ACRE. TAX MAP NO. 309.13-2-16. SECTION: 179-3-040.
MARILYN OTTO, PRESENT
MR. TRAVER-Laura.
MRS. MOORE-Okay. So this applicant proposes to re-use an existing 5,600 square foot
building at the Exit 18 Business Park for operating an auto accessory and bed liners business.
The information that’s been submitted to you shows the showroom area, an office area, and
three bays for auto services, and that’s it.
MR. TRAVER-Okay. Thank you. Good evening.
MS. OTTO-Good evening. Marilyn Otto, and Joy Elender of Adirondack Off Roader, LLC,
my partner. It is a woman owned business. A little bit about our business. We are a LINE-
X franchisee. So if you see the spray in bed truck, bed liners, that’s what LINE-X is, but
it’s also a protective coating.
MR. TRAVER-Undercoat, too?
MS. OTTO-No, not undercoating. It is only in the truck beds, but we can do other
applications. So we do anything that people want coated with a protective coating. We also
do after-market sales and installation. So thinks like tunnel covers, the step bars on your
trucks, pretty much a full stop, if someone is driving a truck or trailer that needs accessories
put on to it. Our sister company is Capital Tint and Graphics, also d/b/a LINE-X of Albany.
We’ve been operating that business for two years. We’ve had the LINE-X franchise there
for just a year and our current revenues down there are over a half a million a year. So we
are not a small business mom and pop.
MR. TRAVER-Is that gross or net?
MS. OTTO-That is gross. I’m not telling you my net, and we’re estimating our Queensbury
revenue in Year One will be, and this is going to be a 12 month run rate, not necessarily the
remainder of 2019, would be somewhere between $275 and $350,000, again gross. We
would start with four employees. We may need to grow. It just depends on business and
the dealers. We do service a lot of dealers, not only retail. So their customers will come
in, buy a truck, they will call us and say, hey, can we schedule a bed liner and they either
drop it off to us or we go pick it up. So we have a business going pretty much continually.
What we’re proposing to do is to, we have a lease in place for 94 Big Boom Road. As Laura
said, it’s a 5600 square foot building that’s been used for storage. So not generating
revenue for the County. We’re looking to change that and put our business into it. The
owner is Doug Mabey. We would be the lessee, Adirondack Off Road, LLC, and we feel that
the business fits with the existing businesses along Big Boom Road. There’s a lot of
industrial there, UPS is just up the road from us. There’s a big hotel going in. You have an
aerial plan that shows that building. As far as the exterior building, we would have no
changes to the building exterior, the site conditions or the exterior lighting. We’re going
to take the building as is. The only thing we would do is retrofit the inside of it and as part
of that retrofit we will be putting a vent system with an exhaust that would go out the side
of the building. So we would have to get that put into the building. There is an existing
43
(Queensbury Planning Board 03/19/2019)
well and septic and Doug has said he would test that to make sure that the well is potable as
well as the septic system will handle what we do, basically flush toilets and wash our hands.
There really is no heavy water usage of our building, and there’s adequate parking around
that site for anything that we bring in. We typically do four to five trucks a day if business
is going well. So you move them in and out pretty quickly. It’s a two hour spray, you know,
they come in. The truck is 80% cured by the time they drive out and it’s 100% within 24
hours. So it’s not like we have to do, it doesn’t take a long time to do this. As far as the
interior of the building, it has an office/showroom area that’s about 600 square feet.
Within that 600 it has two bathrooms. We’ve already had someone from the Town come
out and say that the bathrooms were approved as is. We don’t have to make modifications
to them. There is one office in there which will be the area that I work in, a showroom of
approximately 375 square feet where we would show our tunnel covers and the other items
that we will sell to the public. There’s a storage area and a mechanical closet. So within
the larger garage space area, this is where we will do most of the additional construction.
We’re going to put a truck bed liner booth, and I have an example in your packet. It’s going
to be 16 feet high, 20 feet wide, 40 feet long. So we can pull the trucks in, spray them
without any overspray getting into any other part of the building. It has a full venting
system in the back of it, with a vent that can move 34,000 cfm’s. It’s a lot, and it’s got
special filters in there. I actually had a presentation that would have shown those, but.
MR. TRAVER-Sorry about our IT problem.
MS. OTTO-That’s okay. So it’s going to be full walls and a ceiling. So it is a completely
contained unit in there. We have one in our shop in Albany. So it does not go anywhere
else, and in the garage area we’re going to install a two post lift and a four post lift. They
won’t be installed originally. We’re going to transition into them. One of them might go in
right away but we might wait a little bit for the other one.
MR. TRAVER-Now what would you need that for, for side bars and things like that?
MS. OTTO-Yes, lift kits, leveling kits. You want to get that vehicle up off the ground.
Anything it all.
MR. MAGOWAN-I don’t blame you for not wanting to work on the concrete.
MS. OTTO-No, and the little slider thing. I don’t do it. I’m way too old. We have people
that do that.
MR. MAGOWAN-My man garage is going to have one, don’t you worry.
MS. OTTO-So anyway I did have pictures of the booth, the configuration and what it looks
like, and it literally is a bank of filters. The entire back wall is a bank of filters. We have
a drop down 10 mil plastic with a PVC pipe. You cut a hole out of it. The truck backs in,
your plastic comes down. It keeps you from having to put plastic all the way around the
vehicle which is an environmental concern.
MR. TRAVER-Yes.
MS. OTTO-We generate enough stuff already so we try to minimize that kind of trash.
We’re going to have two dumpsters outside. One is going to be a recycle dumpster for our
cardboard and the other is going to be for the trash that cannot be recycled. So basically
that is the overview of what we’re doing. We feel that it fits within the site. Our business
is not new. In fact when we went to LINE-X a year ago, we asked for this territory as well.
They said not until you’ve operated a store for a year. That was their, because it’s a lot to
take on, and we have learned a lot in a year. We’ve sophisticated what we’ve done. We’ve
already purchased our spray machine. We’re in the process, as soon as we get the approval,
44
(Queensbury Planning Board 03/19/2019)
to purchase the manufactured booth. So this is going to come in panels already done. We
have to bolt them together. So it’s not like we’re going to cobb it together with plaster
board and two by fours. We’re buying almost a $40,000 booth. So we’re putting some
investment into this good clean business. So that is my summary.
MR. TRAVER-Very good. Well thank you for that. Questions, comments.
MS. WHITE-Who provides oversight for that type of booth? Are there inspections or
State agency?
MS. OTTO-There could be OSHA that comes in. We pretty much function by OSHA
standards. We have guidelines that LINE-X requires. Once we set up and we have
everything done, one of the requirements of a franchisee is to have their technical person
come in, make sure you set up to meet the specs that they need, make sure that the spray
machine is running, adequately make sure our venting system is going well. So we do have a
technical person that’s been at LINE-X, I don’t know how long Gene’s been there, but he
used to be an owner. Now he’s a technical inspector.
MR. TRAVER-Good. That makes sense.
MR. SHAFER-Do you have to wash the trucks before you do your work?
MS. OTTO-No. We do sand them down. So when you get a truck that’s got that nice shiny
paint on it, stuff doesn’t stick. So you want to go in there with a DA Sander or a regular
sander, you scuff it all down because that’s how the LINE-X adheres to the inside of the
bed.
MR. SHAFER-So there’s no issue with water runoff?
MS. OTTO-No, and if something comes filthy, we go to a car wash and wash it there, and
that would be mostly, we will possibly be doing some vinyl detailing, so decals on trucks, we
have a six foot printer down at the Albany shop, laminator/printer. We do full car wraps.
You may have seen my pink truck roaming around the area just once. It’s a full color change
wrap. So if we have a truck that comes that they want decaled and it’s dirty, we’re going
to take it out to the car wash, wash it, bring it back in so that the vinyl sticks adequately.
MR. TRAVER-Do you do the magnetic signs as well?
MS. OTTO-We do.
MR. TRAVER-Good to know. I might have some business for you.
MS. OTTO-Great. I’ll give you a card. I’m always selling.
MR. MAGOWAN-You’ll be using the entrance for maybe storage?
MS. OTTO-Yes.
MR. MAGOWAN-And the other question I have is you just have a star with a well and then
the septic on the side. I’m not seeing the 100 foot separation if the building’s 82 foot long.
MS. OTTO-I know.
BOB SEARS
45
(Queensbury Planning Board 03/19/2019)
MR. SEARS-This is the documentation that was done when the site plan was originally done.
That’s the information they had. It says that the well and the septic system would be 100
feet apart per Code and that basically that sums it up.
MRS. MOORE-Okay. Bob, can you just put your name on the record so we know who spoke.
MR. SEARS-My name’s Bob Sears. I’m a broker and I’m here.
MR. TRAVER-Thank you.
MR. DIXON-Laura, they are on Town water there, as well?
MRS. MOORE-So that’s the question that Douglas Mabey needs to come up with, whether,
this particular building sounds like it’s serviced by the well and the septic.
DOUGLAS MABEY
MR. MABEY-It is still on the well. The front buildings are service by the Town currently.
MRS. MOORE-Okay.
MR. MAGOWAN-Interesting. Well, if you’re going to drink the water, I’m sorry but it does
say 100 foot minimum, but that well’s in the far corner. If you look at it, and I’m not
questioning it. I’m just looking out for your safety. I wouldn’t drink the water but you can
wash your hands in it, but don’t rub your eye afterwards.
MS. OTTO-I’ll bring down bottled water for the coffee machine.
MR. MAGOWAN-But I would definitely get it tested just so you know. I mean, but to be
honest with you, if there are any issues with it, a UV light system, they’re inexpensive to
install.
MR. SEARS-We’ll get something from somebody saying that the well was tested or
engineered, the well was tested and the water is potable.
MR. MAGOWAN-I’m not worried about it.
MR. SEARS-There was a new pump, new grinder for the well, everything else.
MR. TRAVER-Laura, am I correct in interpreting the new SEQR regs that this goes from
Unlisted to Type II?
MRS. MOORE-Correct. This is a Type II.
MR. TRAVER-Okay. All right, and we have a public hearing on this application. I don’t see
anybody in the audience that wants to address the Planning Board. Are there any written
comments, Laura?
PUBLIC HEARING OPENED
MRS. MOORE-No, there are no written comments.
MR. TRAVER-Okay. Then we will close the public hearing.
PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED
46
(Queensbury Planning Board 03/19/2019)
MR. TRAVER-As discussed we have no SEQR action to be taken. Are there any more
questions for the applicant or comments by members of the Board before we move to a
resolution? Okay. I guess we’re ready to go.
RESOLUTION APPROVING SP # 10-2019 MARILYN OTTO
The applicant has submitted an application to the Planning Board for Site Plan approval
pursuant to Article 9 of the Town zoning Ordinance for: Applicant proposes to reuse an
existing 5,600 sq. ft. building at the Exit 18 business park for operating an auto accessories
and bed liners business. The building floor plan includes a 375 sq. ft. showroom, an office
area and three bays for auto services. Building is part of existing eighteen business park
that includes self-storage and warehouse business operations. Applicant proposes no
exterior changes and no site changes. Pursuant to Chapter 179-3-040 of the Zoning
Ordinance, new commercial use in a pre-existing building 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 30/19/2019 and
continued the public hearing to 03/19/2019, 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
03/19/2019;
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 10-2019 MARILYN OTTO. Introduced by David Deeb
who moved for its adoption.
Per the draft provided by staff conditioned upon the following conditions:
1) No waivers were requested.
2) Adherence to the items outlined in the follow-up letter sent with this resolution
th
Motion seconded by Jaime White. Duly adopted this 19 day of March, 2019 by the following
vote:
AYES: Mr. Shafer, Mr. Hunsinger, Mr. Magowan, Mr. Dixon, Mr. Deeb, Ms. White,
Mr. Traver
NOES: NONE
ABSENT: Mr. Valentine
MR. TRAVER-You’re all set.
MS. OTTO-Thank you.
47
(Queensbury Planning Board 03/19/2019)
MR. MAGOWAN-Thanks for a wonderful presentation. The energy was felt.
MR. TRAVER-Is there any other business before the Board this evening? If not, I will
entertain a motion to adjourn.
MR. SHAFER-So moved.
MOTION TO ADJOURN THE QUEENSBURY PLANNING BOARD MEETING OF MARCH
h
19, 2019, Introduced by John Shafer who moved for its adoption, seconded by David Deeb:
th
Duly adopted this 19 day of March, 2019, by the following vote:
AYES: Mr. Deeb, Ms. White, Mr. Shafer, Mr. Hunsinger, Mr. Magowan, Mr. Dixon, Mr.
Traver
NOES: NONE
ABSENT: Mr. Valentine
MR. TRAVER-We stand adjourned. Thank you everyone. See you next week.
On motion meeting was adjourned.
RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED,
Stephen Traver, Chairman
48