2007-02-27
(Queensbury Planning Board 02/27/07)
QUEENSBURY PLANNING BOARD MEETING
SECOND REGULAR MEETING
FEBRUARY 27, 2007
INDEX
Site Plan No. 49-2006 Thomas Groos 1.
Tax Map No. 240.6-1-20
Site Plan No. 22-2006 Martha Schmulbach 9.
Tax Map No. 227.17-2-12
Site Plan No. 51-2006 Andrew & Susan Liucci 21.
Tax Map No. 309.11-2-31; 309.11-2-30
Site Plan No. 3-2007 Vance Cohen 28.
Tax Map No. 295.8-1-2
Site Plan No. 5-2007 ADD Development 33.
Tax Map No. 302.8-2-4
Site Plan No. 6-2007 NCE Building Corp. 38.
THESE ARE NOT OFFICIALLY ADOPTED MINUTES AND ARE SUBJECT TO BOARD
AND STAFF REVISIONS. REVISIONS WILL APPEAR ON THE FOLLOWING
MONTHS MINUTES (IF ANY) AND WILL STATE SUCH APPROVAL OF SAID
MINUTES.
0
(Queensbury Planning Board 02/27/07)
QUEENSBURY PLANNING BOARD MEETING
SECOND REGULAR MEETING
FEBRUARY 27, 2007
7:00 P.M.
MEMBERS PRESENT
CHRIS HUNSINGER, CHAIRMAN
GRETCHEN STEFFAN, SECRETARY
STEPHEN TRAVER
THOMAS FORD
THOMAS SEGULJIC
MEMBERS ABSENT
TANYA BRUNO
DONALD SIPP
EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR-BLANCHE ALTER
LAND USE PLANNER-SUSAN BARDEN
STENOGRAPHER-SUE HEMINGWAY
MR. HUNSINGER-The first item on the agenda is Old Business, Site Plan No. 49-2006
SITE PLAN NO. 49-2006 SEQR TYPE II THOMAS GROOS OWNER(S) SAME
ZONING WR-1A LOCATION 11 HANNEFORD ROAD APPLICANT PROPOSES
CONSTRUCTION OF AN 198 SQ. FT. COVERED PORCH. EXPANSION OF NON-
CONFORMING STRUCTURES IN A CRITICAL ENVIRONMENTAL AREA REQUIRES
REVIEW BY THE PLANNING BOARD. CROSS REFERENCE AV 75-06 WARREN
CO. PLANNING 12/13/06 ADIRONDACK PARK AGENCY YES LOT SIZE 0.22
ACRES TAX MAP NO. 240.6-1-20 SECTION 179-13-010
THOMAS GROOS, PRESENT
MR. HUNSINGER-Susan, if you could summarize Staff Notes, please.
MRS. BARDEN-This proposal is for site plan review for an expansion of a
nonconforming structure in a CEA, specifically construction of a 198 square foot partially
covered porch. The property is located at 11 Hannaford Road. This application was
th
tabled at the December 26 meeting. Prior to that, variances were granted from the
minimum front and side setback requirements of the Waterfront Residential zone. The
tabling specifies submission of proof of consolidation of the two parcels and revised
elevation drawings which were submitted for Board review. The public hearing remains
open on this application and it is a Type II SEQRA action.
MR. HUNSINGER-Good evening.
MR. GROOS-Hi, good evening.
MR. HUNSINGER-If you could identify yourself for the record.
MR. GROOS-I’m Tom Groos.
MR. HUNSINGER-Did you have anything else that you wanted to add?
MR. GROOS-I could just summarize where we were last time. When we met the last
time, the site plan that I submitted was missing. So I think you have that now. The
drawing that I submitted wasn’t that great. So we came up with something a little better,
and we weren’t meeting the FAR ratio on the one parcel. So since then we combined
the two.
MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. Anything else?
MR. GROOS-No.
MR. HUNSINGER-I’ll open it up for questions from the Board. Does anyone have any
questions or comments for the applicant or for the Board?
1
(Queensbury Planning Board 02/27/07)
MR. TRAVER-I would just like to ask, I remember from site visits that the, after the porch
is constructed, it’s going to be fairly close to the neighbor to the north, I think, to their
property line, if I remember right.
MR. GROOS-Yes.
MR. TRAVER-Have you spoken with them? Do they have any issue with the new?
MR. GROOS-Well, if you look at the plan, the shed and the frame building already are
closer.
MR. TRAVER-Right.
MR. GROOS-Unfortunately the neighbor died recently, that was Gracie Hannaford.
MR. TRAVER-Okay.
MR. GROOS-So she was the only one there.
MR. TRAVER-I see.
MR. SEGULJIC-Is this going to be open or enclosed?
MR. GROOS-Do you have this drawing?
MR. SEGULJIC-Yes.
MR. GROOS-Half is a steel roof, which is about 12 by 10, 12 by 10 is a covered roof.
The other part is this open pergola slats, which is the other 10 by 12. So it’s split, half
open and half closed.
MR. SEGULJIC-I guess it’s just going to be an open porch, then, it’s not going to be
enclosed.
MR. GROOS-Right. Yes. Totally open. I thought you were talking about the roof
specifically.
MR. SEGULJIC-Where I’m coming from is I don’t have any problems as it is now, but if
you were to enclose it, and then be able to expand it into bedrooms or sleeping space in
the future.
MR. GROOS-No, not at all.
MR. SEGULJIC-It’s not going to be enclosed at all.
MR. GROOS-No, completely open. Just what you see is the four, four by fours and
that’s it. Everything else is open.
MR. FORD-I have a question, if I could, please, on the dimensions. You’ve got it nine
feet out from the house, correct?
MR. GROOS-Yes.
MR. FORD-Okay. I see rafters indicating 10 feet, but you’re talking then in parenthesis
nine feet plus one foot overhang. If you only have the nine feet, then you’re not going to
have any slope to your roof, with the one foot overhang. In other words, the rafter will
come out to the supporting beam, the nine feet, the same as your base.
MR. GROOS-And it wouldn’t overhang that beam. Is that what you mean?
MR. FORD-Yes.
MR. GROOS-Well, the front four by four is eight feet tall, and the rear, where the plate is
into the building, is ten feet. So I guess it would slope from the ten feet to eight feet.
MR. FORD-The side view, it’s 10 feet high.
MR. GROOS-Yes.
2
(Queensbury Planning Board 02/27/07)
MR. FORD-And your rafter, you’re showing a length of that two by eight as ten feet, but
then on this drawing here you show 10 feet in length, which gives you a nine feet plus
one foot overhang you have in parenthesis, and if you’re only coming down nine feet,
you’re not going to have any slope. It’ll be straight out, just the same as your base will
be.
MR. GROOS-Now I understand what you mean. It would have to be a little longer on top
to overhang. It can’t be the same as the base.
MR. FORD-Yes. It doesn’t provide for slope any more than your base provides for slope
if you’re only coming out nine feet.
MR. GROOS-I thought the height would make a difference, being that it’s at an angle
now. It would have to be longer to make that.
MR. FORD-Otherwise it’ll miss.
MR. GROOS-Okay.
MR. FORD-And you’re talking about a one foot overhang.
MR. GROOS-Right.
MR. FORD-So, does everyone else see what I’m talking about there? If you look at the
design on the Page Two at the bottom, nine foot base and ten feet for the length of that
rafter, but come over to Page One and it says ten feet which accommodates nine feet
plus a one foot overhang.
MR. HUNSINGER-I see what you’re saying.
MR. FORD-If you only have a nine foot rafter, or a ten foot rafter, you’re not going to
have any slope. There’ll be a flat roof. You don’t want that, do you?
MR. GROOS-No.
MR. FORD-Then your dimensions are wrong.
MR. GROOS-Okay. I can correct that. It’s probably more like 12 feet.
MR. HUNSINGER-Anyone else?
MR. SEGULJIC-Stormwater. How do you propose to handling that?
MR. GROOS-We were going to plant around the sides, pachysandra, and I didn’t know
how much it really is going to change what’s there today, because part of this is going to
be under an existing three foot soffit that’s up top. Then that’s going to be against the
house. So we’re going to eliminate three feet by twenty-two, so sixty-six square feet, you
know, already as is. So we’re only changing it by 140 something square feet. Would
that be significant to have a different plan?
MR. SEGULJIC-In my world it is. All I’d like to see is a trench drain along the edge of
this so when the water runs off the roof, it just goes over the trench drain and gets
infiltrated into the ground.
MR. GROOS-Now that would be in the front side.
MR. SEGULJIC-Yes, you know, where the roof is coming down, so the water, when it
slopes off the roof, you know, have a, what you’d have to do is figure out how much
rainwater would collect on the roof and have adequate volume in the trench drain that’s
filled with rocks essentially that’s going to infiltrate into the ground there.
MR. GROOS-Okay. Just on the covered 10 by 12 roof.
MR. SEGULJIC-Yes.
MR. GROOS-Not the entire, but just the covered section.
MR. SEGULJIC-No, along the.
3
(Queensbury Planning Board 02/27/07)
MR. FORD-Eaves, under the eaves, right?
MR. SEGULJIC-The length of the porch.
MR. GROOS-Okay.
MR. SEGULJIC-So your porch is going to come out this way, correct, where the ladder
is?
MR. GROOS-Yes.
MR. SEGULJIC-And it’s going to come out 10 feet for argument’s sake and be 12 feet
back.
MR. GROOS-Right.
MR. SEGULJIC-No, 22 feet.
MR. GROOS-Across, right.
MR. SEGULJIC-So along that 22 foot length, because the water’s going to come off that
roof and then spill down onto the ground.
MR. FORD-There will be a drip line at those eaves.
MR. GROOS-Okay.
MR. SEGULJIC-Along that edge, so it can collect and infiltrate the water.
MR. GROOS-Okay.
MR. SEGULJIC-I’d love to table this and have them go out and do a design, but I don’t
think it’s necessary.
MR. HUNSINGER-Yes, I don’t think so, either.
MR. SEGULJIC-But how can we handle that then?
MR. FORD-Either table it or condition it, right?
MR. HUNSINGER-Well, we can condition it.
MR. SEGULJIC-Condition it? Okay.
MR. HUNSINGER-Yes, that he put in.
MR. SEGULJIC-Adequate infiltration along the?
MR. HUNSINGER-Yes. We’ve certainly done that before.
MR. SEGULJIC-Okay.
MRS. BARDEN-Just be as specific as you can of what you’d like.
MR. SEGULJIC-Adequate stormwater infiltration down.
MR. FORD-The drip line off eaves.
MR. SEGULJIC-Down along the drip line of the porch. Because the concern is you’re
taking impervious area and creating a pervious area where there was impervious.
MR. GROOS-I understand.
MR. SEGULJIC-You want to reduce the runoff into the lake. Runoff picks up sediment,
and sediment leads to other issues.
MR. GROOS-I completely understand. I wasn’t sure about the size, when that becomes
an issue.
4
(Queensbury Planning Board 02/27/07)
MR. SEGULJIC-Okay. Along we’ll call it the drip line which is the 22 foot length.
MR. GROOS-Okay. So it’s anywhere along there.
MR. HUNSINGER-Do you know how wide you’d like to see that, Tom, or how deep?
MR. SEGULJIC-I should have done the calculation but I didn’t.
MR. HUNSINGER-Yes.
MR. SEGULJIC-I’d say adequate to collect the one inch rainfall, I’d say.
MR. HUNSINGER-I wonder how we can be more specific, so the Building Department
knows that he did it properly.
MR. SEGULJIC-Yes.
MR. HUNSINGER-I don’t think we have any other plans tonight that would have that, or
show that level of detail.
MR. SEGULJIC-Two feet wide by two feet deep along the length.
MR. HUNSINGER-That might be more than he needs.
MR. FORD-Yes.
MR. SEGULJIC-Two feet by one foot.
MR. FORD-The depth shouldn’t have to be more than that, yes.
MR. HUNSINGER-One foot.
MR. SEGULJIC-One foot.
MR. HUNSINGER-Have you got that, two feet wide and a foot deep.
MR. FORD-I don’t mean to beat a dead horse, but I want to go back to that pitch on the
roof. Just for your own benefit, because the last thing you want to put on is an addition of
that size and not have sufficient pitch to that roof.
MR. GROOS-Yes, I’ll make sure that that’s corrected. All it was supposed to be is a foot
overhang from the base, the floor of the porch, and maybe to make that angle from eight
feet to ten feet it needs to be a little longer, but I’ll figure out what the right calculation is
and put it on the plan that way.
MR. HUNSINGER-You’ll need to have a little bit of a pitch to the floor as well.
MR. FORD-You don’t want a flat roof.
MR. GROOS-Sure.
MR. SEGULJIC-My opinion is they’ll figure that out. That’s not our.
MR. HUNSINGER-Yes.
MR. SEGULJIC-I trust you will.
MR. HUNSINGER-Any other questions or comments from the Board? We do have a
public hearing scheduled. Is there anyone here that questions or comments about this
application?
PUBLIC HEARING OPEN
MR. HUNSINGER- The public hearing was left open. I will close the public hearing.
PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED
MR. HUNSINGER-Are members comfortable moving forward with SEQRA?
5
(Queensbury Planning Board 02/27/07)
MRS. BARDEN-It’s a Type II.
MR. HUNSINGER-Sorry.
MR. HUNSINGER-Would anyone like to offer a resolution?
MRS. STEFFAN-So what we want to do is tell the applicant to correct the dimensions of
the roof for adequate pitch. Is that sufficient?
MR. HUNSINGER-What do you think, Tom?
MR. FORD-We should be more specific as to the actual pitch, you know, the ratio
involved.
MR. SEGULJIC-Well, do you really think, I mean, that’s a Building Department or zone
issue, contractor issue, whether you build a flat roof or pitched roof.
MR. HUNSINGER-Well, I think the issue here is that since he provided a drawing, and
we know that the drawing’s not accurate, that we ought to at least acknowledge that that
length is not right, because otherwise, you know, how does the Building Department
know if he built it to the right specs. So I think what we would need to say is that the
width of the floor will be nine feet and the height on the building side is ten. The height
on the outside is eight, and then whatever that length is needs to be determined.
MR. GROOS-Okay. Before I submit for the permit.
MR. FORD-To provide your one foot overhang.
MR. GROOS-Right.
MRS. STEFFAN-The width of the floor is nine feet. Is that what we want to put in our
motion?
MR. HUNSINGER-And actually if I’m reading this right, the nine feet is to the edge of the
overhang. Am I reading this drawing correctly?
MR. GROOS-Well, it was supposed to be nine feet was like, you know, mirrored the
deck.
MR. HUNSINGER-The width of the deck.
MR. GROOS-Right, the same, and then plus one foot for overhang.
MR. HUNSINGER-Okay.
MR. GROOS-So that nine feet will probably change to ten or eleven when I do the
calculation what it should be.
MR. FORD-For rafter length.
MR. GROOS-Yes.
MR. HUNSINGER-The rafter length will change. I don’t know if there’s an easier way to
say it. Maybe, in fact, if you look at the original submission, he didn’t give us the rafter
length. He only gave us the other three dimensions. So maybe we just say, no, I think
we should have a specific statement saying that we understand that the rafter length will
exceed ten feet, if that’s easier than saying the other three dimensions.
MR. FORD-Are you going to be doing the actual construction?
MR. GROOS-No, I’m not.
MR. HUNSINGER-Well, I mean, he’s really given us the pitch, if you will, because the
height is ten foot on one side and eight foot on the other side. So however that pitch
works out, that’s.
MR. GROOS-It’s going to ten feet to eight feet, nine feet to get there.
6
(Queensbury Planning Board 02/27/07)
MR. HUNSINGER-Right.
MRS. STEFFAN-I understand about pitch and everything, but I don’t know whether the
dimensions are correct or not.
MR. HUNSINGER-Well, I think, I mean, what he’s telling us is that the ten foot high on
the house side is accurate. The eight foot high on the outside wall is accurate, and the
nine foot width of the porch floor is accurate. So the only thing that’s not correct is the
length of the rafter.
MR. GROOS-That roof rafter.
MRS. STEFFAN-And then the trench drain to accommodate stormwater runoff from the
roof for stormwater infiltration, two feet wide and one foot deep.
MR. SEGULJIC-Along the 22 foot length of the porch eaves.
MR. HUNSINGER-Yes, you actually want it a little longer on each side. So maybe, yes,
a foot longer on each side, twenty-six feet.
MR. SEGULJIC-Twenty-six feet along the edge of the porch, twenty-two foot.
MR. GROOS-Part of it looks like solid bedrock there, too. So the trench around it.
MR. HUNSINGER-That’s right. We saw that when we were there. That’s more towards
the, away from the lakeside, though, isn’t it?
MR. GROOS-It’s towards the lakeside. See right up the ladder, that’s where the stone
starts.
MR. HUNSINGER-Is there soil between the rock and then your property line?
MR. GROOS-Yes. It turns more toward soil when it gets to the lakeside. Just that area
we’re talking about is where most of it is.
MR. HUNSINGER-So maybe they need to do something along the edge of the rock, too.
MR. SEGULJIC-Nothing’s easy.
MR. HUNSINGER-No.
MR. SEGULJIC-I mean, part of our problem with not having detailed plans, we’re trying
to avoid you having to go out and design it.
MR. GROOS-I think the trench will run most of the way before it hits that rock.
MR. SEGULJIC-I mean, we could just run with that, and if it becomes an issue, he’s got
to come back.
MR. HUNSINGER-Yes, if it’s significant.
MRS. STEFFAN-Are we sure we’re comfortable with this?
MR. SEGULJIC-No, but.
MRS. BARDEN-Excuse me. There’s been a suggestion that the applicant meet with the
Town Engineer to design appropriate stormwater management for the porch.
MR. HUNSINGER-Perfect.
MR. SEGULJIC-I’m okay with that suggestion.
MS. ALTER-Susan, the trench rock may occlude the drain, that’s why I think it’s
important to either have a drain and a drywell. I’m not practicing engineer here, but I’m
just concerned that you’re going to put water in the lake that isn’t treated first. In other
words, it’s not going to go through the soil to get out the contaminants. He can sit down
with you, I think, and get you on the right path. The drawings have to be approved by the
Building Department anyway. So I think in the long run you’ll be better off.
7
(Queensbury Planning Board 02/27/07)
MR. GROOS-Okay.
MOTION TO APPROVE SITE PLAN NO. 49-2006 THOMAS GROOS, Introduced by
Gretchen Steffan who moved for its adoption, seconded by Thomas Seguljic:
1. A site plan application has been made to the Queensbury Planning Board for the
following; Applicant proposes construction of a 198 sq. ft. covered porch.
Expansion of non-conforming structures in a Critical Environmental Area requires
review by the Planning Board.
2. A public hearing was advertised and held on 12/26/06 tabled to unspecified date;
2/27/07 RE-ADVERTISED and
3. This application is supported with all documentation, public comment and
application material in the file of record; and
4. Pursuant to relevant sections of the Town of Queensbury Zoning Code [Chapter
179], the Planning Board has determined that this proposal complies with the
requirements as stated in the Zoning Code; and
5. The requirements of the State Environmental Quality Review Act have been
considered and the Planning Board has adopted a SEQRA [Negative / Positive]
Declaration; and
6. If the application is a modification, the requirements of the State Environmental
Quality Review Act have been considered, and the proposed modification[s]
do not result in any new or significantly different environmental impacts, and,
therefore, no further SEQRA review is necessary; and
7. 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. Subsequent issuance of further
permits, including building permits are dependent on receipt; and
8. The applicant will provide as-built plans to certify that the site plan is developed
according to the approved plans prior to issuance of the certificate of
occupancy; and
9. If applicable, Item 8 to be combined with a letter of credit; and
10. The Sanitary Sewer connection plan must be submitted to the Wastewater
Department for its review, approval, permitting and inspection.
11. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that we find the following:
MOTION TO APPROVE SITE PLAN NO. 49-2006 THOMAS GROOS, Introduced by
Gretchen Steffan who moved for its adoption, seconded by Thomas Seguljic:
According to the resolution prepared by Staff, with the following changes. The date
should be February 27, 2007. Paragraph Four complies. Paragraph Five, this is a Type
II SEQRA, and it is approved with the following conditions:
1.That the applicant meet with the Town Engineer to design an appropriate
stormwater management plan.
2.That the applicant will correct the dimensions of the roof for adequate pitch,
specifically to adjust the length of the rafters.
th
Duly adopted this 27 day of February, 2007, by the following vote:
AYES: Mr. Traver, Mr. Ford, Mrs. Steffan, Mr. Seguljic, Mr. Hunsinger
NOES: NONE
ABSENT: Mrs. Bruno, Mr. Sipp
MR. HUNSINGER-You’re all set.
MR. GROOS-All right. Thanks for your help.
8
(Queensbury Planning Board 02/27/07)
SITE PLAN NO. 22-2006 SEQR TYPE II MARTHA SCHMULBACH AGENT(S):
JONATHAN LAPPER, B P S R OWNER(S) SAME ZONING WR-1A LOCATION 96
SEELEY ROAD APPLICANT PROPOSES A CHANGE TO THE EXISTING ROOF LINE
TO ALLOW FOR ATTIC STORAGE ONLY. EXPANSIONS OF NONCONFORMING
STRUCTURES IN A CRITICAL ENVIRONMENTAL AREA REQUIRE REVIEW BY THE
PLANNING BOARD. CROSS REFERENCE: AV 20-06, SP 31-90, AV 27-90, TB RES.
OF 8/14/06 WARREN CO. PLANNING 5/10/06 ADIRONDACK PARK AGENCY YES
LOT SIZE: 0.18 ACRES TAX MAP NO. 227.17-2-12 SECTION: 179-4-020
JON LAPPER & BOB FLANSBURG, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT
MR. HUNSINGER-Susan, if you could summarize Staff Notes, please.
MRS. BARDEN-This proposal is a site plan review for expansion of a nonconforming
structure in a Critical Environmental Area, specifically construction of a residential attic
addition for storage only to the existing 900 square foot single family dwelling. The
property is located at 96 Seeley Road. Most recently this application was tabled
th
December 26 meeting. Previously variances were granted from the minimum front,
side, and rear setbacks of the Waterfront Residential zone. The tabling was at the
request of the applicant’s agent to arrange for the applicant to be in attendance.
Therefore no new information was submitted. At the previous meeting, the Board
discussed the proposed height of the attic ceiling at eight feet. The consensus of the
Board was that that should be lowered. Additionally, the Board requested and the
applicants agreed, the applicant’s agent agreed to condition any approval on inspection
of the applicant’s well for contamination by the Department of Health.
MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. Thank you. Good evening.
MR. LAPPER-Good evening. For the record, Jon Lapper, with Marty Schmulbach, Bob
Flansburg the project architect, and Tom Hutchins, the project engineer. As Susan said
when we were here last time, we felt that we couldn’t fully answer all the questions
without having Marty here to address the Board, just in terms of the issues of her
intentions, and the need for the storage space in the attic. So I felt at that point it was
best to bring her here, and here we are. There were a number of neighbors last time
who were talking about stormwater issues. The file has a documentation from Bruce
Frank, the Town’s Code Enforcement Officer, that indicated that this is a contentious
issue with the neighbors where they’ve been calling a number of times, and he’s gone up
every time and he prepared a letter that was submitted with the application that
documented that every time he went and looked that there are stormwater issues in the
neighborhood, but they’re not caused by and can’t be remediated by Marty’s property,
and Tom Hutchins is here to talk about, answer any questions on stormwater, but very
simply the project has been scaled back, and all we’re seeking is approval for this
additional attic storage space. Marty is moving a lifetime of stuff from a larger house to
what’s really a very small cottage, and she needs additional space, both in the basement
and in the attic, and I think she’s best to address that. Would you like us to go through
the architectural plans, anything before I ask Marty to speak?
MR. SEGULJIC-Have the architectural plans changed at all since last time?
MR. LAPPER-No.
MR. HUNSINGER-No, the same.
MR. SEGULJIC-Still eight foot ceilings?
MR. LAPPER-Well, we’re certainly willing to go down below eight feet.
MR. FLANSBURG-Yes. I guess what we’re doing tonight is picking up from where we
left off last meeting. The plans have not changed. We had some discussion last time
about lowering the collar ties below eight feet, and that’s still on the table.
MR. HUNSINGER-Okay.
MR. LAPPER-Let me ask the applicant to just describe to you why she needs this
additional space.
MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. That would be great.
9
(Queensbury Planning Board 02/27/07)
MRS. SCHMULBACH-Thank you. I’ve been a resident of the area, the area of
Schenectady, Ballston Lake, Clifton Park and Lake George since 1955. I’ve raised a
family here, and so what’s happened is I’ve collected a lot of stuff, and I have gotten rid
of quite a bit of it. I’ve sent some of it to my children. I still have quite a bit of stuff. Now,
I do want to live in this little house because I like the lake, and otherwise I don’t think I
would be arguing for the little house. I realize its limitations, but I do think that perhaps
we might get a little more storage space. I’m interested in having storage space
especially for my books. When we were asking for a bigger space, I was going to use
one of the downstairs rooms as a library. Now that is out of the question. It’s back to the
downstairs that it always was, which is two bedrooms, and so the upstairs would be
where I keep these books, plus off season clothes, and other things that I don’t want to
get rid of right now and that I feel I couldn’t really store in a basement that is subject to
being damp perhaps. We don’t know yet if it’s going to be terribly, terribly dry or not, but
most of the time basements are a bit damp. So I would like to have the storage space
upstairs. If there are any other questions, I would be glad to try to answer them.
MR. SEGULJIC-Why not offsite storage?
MRS. SCHMULBACH-I beg your pardon?
MR. SEGULJIC-Why not use off-site storage?
MRS. SCHMULBACH-I have done that. When I first moved out of the Clifton Park
house, I had storage on Route 9. At present, I’m in an apartment, one of the
Schermerhorn apartments, which has got a basement and I have storage there. I do not
have storage in my house that I’d like to live in. So that’s, and off-site storage, I don’t
want it, because I’ve already had it. I don’t like it. I can’t get to my things. I’d like to
have them in my house.
MR. SEGULJIC-Why not then, if you’re concerned about water in the basement, you
don’t know if there’s water in the basement yet, postpone this until you’ve determined if
there’s water in the basement, you can store your materials there.
MR. LAPPER-I guess, Tom, just in general, what we’re proposing, this is obviously a
very modest 900 square foot house, and what we were talking about last time when you
were asking about using the basement, and that’s what Marty was really responding to,
because she reviewed the minutes, it’s still, this is certainly not anything large, in terms
of what we’re proposing, and we do think that using the attic for dry storage space,
whatever happens with the basement, it’s still not a big house, and we really believe this
is a modest proposal. The Board was concerned that this could never, by any future
owner, be turned into living space, in terms of a bedroom, and we’re here tonight
prepared to make whatever concessions, in terms of the height of the ceiling, that would
make the Board satisfied that that won’t happen, but she’s looking for upstairs dry
storage space.
MR. SEGULJIC-And I think you can appreciate where we’re coming from because we’re
bound by our Code, and our Code says that we need to consider any space that can be
expanded for bedrooms. An attic with eight foot ceilings can be expanded into.
MR. LAPPER-We’re willing to go below eight feet. So that it can’t be.
MR. SEGULJIC-Five feet?
MR. LAPPER-Well, five feet’s not convenient for standing up, whether you have books or
anything else. So we’d talked about six and a half feet.
MR. SEGULJIC-That’s what my attic is.
MR. LAPPER-Yes, but it’s not optimal. I mean, if you’re building something new, you
build it as good as you can. We had talked, last time, about six and a half feet. It doesn’t
qualify as living space under the Code, but it would provide some decent storage space
upstairs, and that’s it. I mean, in general, we really think this is a modest proposal in
terms of the size of the house. We’re not looking for the expansion.
MR. SEGULJIC-It is modest. However, you’re forgetting the fact it’s a non-compliant,
has a non-compliant well on site. The Distribution box is off site. The site itself has
issues. It’s too small, and you’re coming back asking for more.
10
(Queensbury Planning Board 02/27/07)
MR. LAPPER-Well, let’s just talk about that. The septic system was brought up to Code
in 1990, and we submitted that permit to the Town, and the well is approximately 80 feet
from the septic system, but that doesn’t hurt anybody off-site. If there was an issue, it
would only affect the owner, and certainly 80 feet has been deemed sufficient by the
engineer, and she does have a UV system that we weren’t aware of when we were here
last time. She already has an existing UV system to treat the water. So there shouldn’t
be a problem, but we’re not proposing to add storage space. We’re just trying to make it
a little bit more utilitarian, just that because it’s such a small house. So I don’t feel that
we’re asking for anything that violates the Code. We got the variance from the Zoning
Board to expand up, but it’s not for a bedroom. It’s just being proposed for an attic.
MR. SEGULJIC-Why not go back and get the variance from the Town Board for the
septic system?
MR. LAPPER-Because there’s nowhere, what happened is that the neighbor put in a
well in close proximity to her property, there’s nowhere, if there was a location where we
could re-locate the septic system, we would do that, but that choice doesn’t exist.
There’s no place, it’s precluded by the neighbor, but let me ask Tom to address that
since he’s the project engineer.
TOM HUTCHINS
MR. HUTCHINS-I’ve looked in a fair amount of detail at this site, in coming up with, first
off, a compliant septic system and water supply on site, and secondly if we cannot come
with a compliant wastewater on site, what would be the best we could come with to
minimize variances. I cannot develop a fully compliant wastewater system and well on
this site that meets all of the setbacks of today’s Code. I cannot do it. The system that is
in place is 80 feet, and the primary issue there is the triangular shape of the lot. You
start offsetting setbacks and your distances creep in real quickly. We did develop a
couple of options for replacement wastewater systems. One of them involved
abandoning the well, and going back to a lake water source, which was not preferred.
Mrs. Schmulbach just didn’t want to go there, and we still would have required setback
variances in order to make that system work. Simply put, the existing system is
functioning well. It’s in place. Yes, it’s 80 feet from the well, but it’s kind of becoming a
semi-standard practice in some of these I do with the Health Department if, where we’re
in a situation where we can’t maintain the 100 foot setback, well, we install a UV
disinfection system, residential style. UV disinfection systems have come a long way,
and they work, and they’re installed as a safety measure, and I think that, keeping that
well and keeping the UV system, and keeping the perfectly functioning wastewater
system is just the most logical approach here. It’s sized adequately. It’s functioning. In
order to replace it you’re really going to have to switch everything on this site because of
that, the well that was installed fairly recently by the southerly neighbor. We did go up
and do test holes and do a lot of exploration in order to try to make this work. Ralph Van
Dusen was with us on behalf of the Town, and we just didn’t come up with an approach
that really makes sense.
MS. ALTER-I was going to suggest the UV system myself. So maybe that would be the
way to go, given the circumstances. I think that that’s sort of a fair alternative. You’re
disinfecting the water to a higher level, and you don’t want to be drinking effluent.
MR. FORD-And you already have that system.
MR. HUTCHINS-And she has that in place.
MR. FORD-So what is your suggestion.
MS. ALTER-No, I wasn’t aware that that system was in place. That’s what I was getting
up to say. So I’ll just go back and say, as Rosanne Rosanna Danna used to say, never
mind.
MR. HUNSINGER-Are there any other questions or comments from the Board?
MRS. STEFFAN-I read the minutes. I wasn’t at the last meeting, but I was wondering,
with this attic addition, why couldn’t we do the same thing we do with other applications
and just condition an approval so that the attic space cannot be turned into living space.
MR. SEGULJIC-You can’t enforce that.
11
(Queensbury Planning Board 02/27/07)
MR. FLANSBURG-Tom, I think where we were going last time, you know, we had some
discussion as to what constitutes living space, and we removed the windows. We can
lower the ceiling joists, certainly below eight feet, because it’s not intended to be living
space. All we would ask for Mrs. Schmulbach is that she’s not going to be stooped over
if she’s using it for attic space. So, five feet I think is a little low. I mean, I don’t know
how tall you are.
MRS. SCHMULBACH-Yes. I think so, five foot four.
MR. FLANSBURG-But I would ask that, I think Jon, you know, a standard door height is
six, eight, you know. So, I mean, we’re willing to do pretty much anything else in terms
of making it so that it cannot become living space. A window is a very visible item. If a
window shows up in the exterior of a building, it’s going to be noticed, and it’s a Building
Code issue. You can’t have a bedroom without a window, an egressible window. So
we’ve also talked, we had some discussion last time about insulating it, not insulating it.
We have no plans to insulate that attic space. The ceiling below the space underneath,
the first floor space, can be insulated so it contains the heating costs for Mrs.
Schmulbach and so on, but Mr. Vollaro, when he was here, said I’d prefer you to
sheetrock it and that makes it harder to insulate later. Well, that’s open to discussion. I
don’t think we need to go that far, but I guess the point is, you know, from a Building
Code standpoint, without windows, without attic, ceiling height, it’s not legally habitable
space, and it’s not desirable.
MR. SEGULJIC-Could I ask you a question, Susan. If we give them approval, and down
the road they were to put a window in, there is no permits, registrations, requirements for
installing a window.
MRS. BARDEN-There’s not.
MR. SEGULJIC-So they could just put in a window. Nothing could stop them.
MR. LAPPER-It would be illegal. It would violate the approval.
MRS. BARDEN-But they still wouldn’t have the light and ventilation and egress constitute
living space, habitable space. So they’d still be missing a couple of key items.
MR. SEGULJIC-I just want the Board to be aware, once again, our Code says, you either
look at 136 or the Red Book and you take the stricter of the two septic codes. That’s
what applies for the site, and the Red Book, okay, states, expansion of attics,
basements, sleeping porches, dens and recreation rooms which may be converted into
additional permanent bedrooms in the future, it doesn’t say anything about having to put
windows in, putting ventilation or anything like that in. It says if you can, you have to
consider it in the design flow.
MR. LAPPER-That’s that language that you quoted, that it may be converted in the
future, and this may not be converted in the future.
MR. SEGULJIC-But it certainly may be.
MR. LAPPER-Not without doing building. I mean, what we’re asking you to approve is
six and a half feet without a window, and that may not be converted. That would require
a variance.
MR. SEGULJIC-If you go to five feet, you’ll have my vote. That’s what my attic is.
MR. LAPPER-Okay, and I guess we’re just asking for a little bit more than five feet to
make it a little bit more usable, and that’s all. No one is saying, you’re not sitting here
saying that we’re building something that’s living space. It’s just a question of, you want
to ensure that it can’t be illegally converted, and we want to ensure that as well. It’s just
a question of, we don’t want to make it so that she has to stoop down just to prove the
point that she’s not trying to get away with something.
MR. SEGULJIC-Well, I have two big concerns with this. One is that I know of no other
house that 901 square feet of living space, 1511 square feet of storage, almost double
the storage space. I know of no other house.
MR. LAPPER-It’s only a basement, and many people have unfinished basements.
12
(Queensbury Planning Board 02/27/07)
MR. SEGULJIC-Number Two, I forget what Number Two was, and Number Two, in the
earlier minutes it was stated that this is for living space. The second floor addition is for
living space. That is part of this application.
MR. LAPPER-We had originally come proposing that the upstairs was going to be a
completely different design. When we came, before the issue came up about the septic,
she was going to move a bedroom upstairs and make an office downstairs. That’s a
different application. That’s not what we’re here for tonight. That was a much more
ambitious project. She’s already accepted that.
MR. SEGULJIC-It’s part of this application.
MR. LAPPER-No, it’s not living space.
th
MR. SEGULJIC-It was stated in the July 18 minutes.
MR. LAPPER-July was, we’ve modified the application since then. When we were here
in July, that was a totally different house. That was for living space.
MR. SEGULJIC-That’s part of this application, though.
MR. LAPPER-Well, the application wasn’t pulled. It was just modified. As issues arose,
we downsized the proposal. It was a modification. It’s the same application, but it’s not
the same house.
MR. FORD-So it was modified from living space to attic space.
MR. LAPPER-Absolutely.
MR. TRAVER-By removing the window.
MR. LAPPER-No, it would have been a bigger, it was a very much more ambitious
project.
MR. FLANSBURG-There was a shed dormer. There was full eight foot head room even
to the outside of where the gables now provide. We had a shed dormer out the side,
several windows, not just the ones on the gable end. We had a bathroom. There was a
much more, as Jon said, a much more ambitious plan, but it’s, at this point, it’s not
needed. It’s not part of the application, and I think, again, you know, it cannot, getting
back to, Gretchen, what you had asked. If the approval could be conditioned that this
could not be turned into living space, we would be happy with that, and as a second
thought on that, Dave Hatin and company, at the Building Department, if a window
shows up or if this space is ever converted, it’s illegal, and it becomes an enforcement
issue. I understand and I know how Building Departments feel about that, but a window
is a pretty obvious, combined with the letter on file, that this could not be turned into
living space, I don’t see the danger to the Board.
MR. SEGULJIC-It’s not the danger to the Board. It’s that you have an adequate site that
you’re looking to expand. The danger is to the lake. That’s what we’re attempting to
protect.
MR. LAPPER-And we’re willing to go to any reasonable length to assure you that it’s not
going to be living space.
MR. SEGULJIC-Make it a five foot ceiling.
MR. LAPPER-We’re asking for six and a half.
MR. HUNSINGER-Is there any other issues that members of the Board have other than
the ceiling height in the attic?
MR. FORD-Access. How will the attic be accessed?
MR. FLANSBURG-Currently, Tom, there’s a staircase. We had talked last time. There’s
a basement staircase, looking at the plan, that occupies floor space. So we can’t, we’re
going to continue to keep the stairs to go up to that space, so we don’t ask Mrs.
Schmulbach to crawl through an attic access hatch to get to her books and other storage
that she alluded to. If it were a matter of, there wasn’t any basement access, and we
weren’t using this space, you know, we were taking other space from a floor plan on
13
(Queensbury Planning Board 02/27/07)
another staircase, it wouldn’t be worth the while, but in this case there’s no, does that
make sense? We’re stacking the stairs.
MR. FORD-So there’s a staircase and it’ll be open at the top?
MR. FLANSBURG-Well, there’ll be a door because it won’t be conditioned space up
there, and there’ll be a door at the top, an insulated door in this case.
MR. LAPPER-Because it won’t be heated.
MR. FLANSBURG-It won’t be heated up there.
MR. FORD-A door, as a component of the ceiling? In other words, it will be a flat door?
MR. FLANSBURG-I would say it would be a vertical door. You get to the top of the
stairs, you open the door and you walk into the attic.
MR. SEGULJIC-Just like a bedroom door.
MR. TRAVER-Exactly like a bedroom door. I think one of the problems that we have to
consider, too, is, you know, what’s going to happen to this property in the future, and I
understand your comment about making it an enforcement issue, but I really don’t think
that’s necessarily our role. We’ll just make it an enforcement issue, make it an
enforcement problem. That’s what we’d be making it. I have to agree with Tom. I think
that the ceiling, if you make the structure such that, you know, it cannot be, at any point
in the future, because of the ceiling height, and I understand the inconvenience of, I have
an attic. I’m not sure how many feet it is, but I know it’s not six and a half, and I just don’t
put things up there that I’m going to be accessing every day. You can rearrange your
belongings in such a way that, for example, you added a basement not long ago. So
perhaps you could structure where you store things so that those items that you need to
be, your bookshelves and that type of thing, could be in that part of the house that is
living space, as opposed to this.
MR. FLANSBURG-How tall are you?
MRS. SCHMULBACH-Five foot four.
MR. FLANSBURG-Is five, six acceptable?
MR. SEGULJIC-Five feet, like my attic.
MR. LAPPER-So now we’re willing to go down to five, six. It’s not legal space. It’s not
habitable space. At six, five we’re only trying to compromise to get this done, and
certainly five, five is not something that somebody’s going to turn into, some future owner
is not going to turn into living space.
MR. FLANSBURG-In fact that door at the top of the stairs is no longer going to be a
standard door. It would be a door that you’d have to cut down and be a small door, but
it’s just not, it’s one that you could walk through as opposed to pushing up a hatch.
MR. HUNSINGER-Okay.
MR. FORD-I understand.
MR. FLANSBURG-I mean, if it were my house, I could probably climb through the hatch,
but you understand where we’re at.
MR. HUNSINGER-It seems like we’ve focused on sort of a single issue, if you will. We
did have, the public hearing was left open until this evening. Is there anyone here that
had questions or comments for this application?
PUBLIC HEARING OPEN
MRS. BARDEN-I have three pieces of correspondence.
MR. HUNSINGER-Okay.
MRS. BARDEN-This is dated February 24, 2007, from the Rowlandsons, 7641 North
Santa Monica Boulevard, Milwaukee, Wisconsin, to the Town of Queensbury Planning
14
(Queensbury Planning Board 02/27/07)
Board. “Dear Board Members: In regards to Tuesday night’s agenda, site plan # 22-
2006, Martha Schmulbach, 96 Seeley Rd., we, Ian and Sandra Rowlandson, would like
to be heard, on the record, in favor of successful completion of the residence. We spent
all of last summer living with vacant, in-complete remodeling property abutting ours. This
owner has been stopped from completion due to delays in your meetings by complaints
that have been answered; Mrs. Schmulbach and her agent have been willing to do
whatever the Board has requested. If her property would be passed tonight, we could all
benefit from a lovelier residence, collecting taxes on a much improved, completed home
and not be stuck with a forestalled project to look at another summer. We ask the Board
to allow Mrs. Schmulbach to finish her home. We believe the complaints have been
addressed in a prompt and efficient manner and that any further delay would be without
merit. Thank you, Ian Rowlandson Sandra Rowlandson (owners of 90 Seeley Rd)” This
is dated February 23, 2007, Record of Phone Conversation regarding Site Plan No. 22-
2006 Martha Schmulbach. “Call from John Shanahan stating that he is thoroughly
against any steps going to the attic, he would like to see pull down steps. He would like
there to be no way for children to get up into the attic to sleep.” This is a phone
conversation from John Shanahan to Pam Whiting, Office Specialist in the Planning
Department. This was received by Fax from Richard O’Keefe, Attorney at Law, in
Larchmont, New York. “Dear Board Members: I understand that the application by
MARTY SCHMULBACH to complete the renovations to her house is before the Board
tonight. I am a neighbor of Marty, directly across Seeley Road (10 Holiday Point). I
would urge the Board to approve the proposed construction and renovations to her
home. Thank you for your consideration in this matter. RICHARD J. O’KEEFE”
MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. Thank you.
MRS. BARDEN-You’re welcome.
MR. HUNSINGER-If there’s no one in the public that had comments or questions for the
Board, then I will close the public hearing.
PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED
MR. HUNSINGER-There is no SEQRA required, since it’s a Type II. The applicant has
offered to reduce the ceiling height of the attic to five foot six. Does that satisfy the
concerns mentioned by Board members?
th
MR. SEGULJIC-Once again, the concern is, as stated in the July 18 Planning Board
minutes, she wants to maintain the first floor as her living space and have the second
floor available in the event that guests do arrive, which does happen. I think if we put it
down to five feet, no guests can stay up there. Anything above that, children can go up
there then.
MR. TRAVER-I agree.
MR. HUNSINGER-Tom?
MR. FORD-It’s either that or the pull down stairs. That’s one other option.
MR. HUNSINGER-Do you have a preference, Gretchen? Do you want to comment on
any of these items?
MRS. STEFFAN-I know that as a Board we are suspicious of many projects because
they can be changed and modified over time, and that is the nature of what we do, but
we have a person who has a home, and she’s looking to store books in her attic. She
would have a difficult time using pull down stairs to access that storage, and so it’s
unreasonable, from my point of view, to put some of these structures in place. If they’re
okay with reducing the ceiling height down, and that works, I think that that’s reasonable.
The stairs, I have a space over my garage that’s attic space. It’s cold. I have an
insulated door. I can walk to it. I like to store stuff there because it’s out of the way, but
it’s accessible, and, you know, I think that’s reasonable. It’s not living space. It’s storage
space, and we’ve put plat notations on lots of things before, for no further subdivision,
and I don’t see any reason why we couldn’t put a plat notation on this that, you know, this
area will not be used as living space, that, you know, this person can access this space
for storage in a reasonable manner.
MR. SEGULJIC-I think one of the big things, once again, is this site is inadequate. What
we want to do is prevent overnight guests from staying there, because they have decided
not to obtain the waiver. In addition, this is the first time we’ve ever heard, out of I
15
(Queensbury Planning Board 02/27/07)
believe seven public hearings we’ve had, that she wants to store books upstairs. If that
was the case, I think they should have come out up front, but instead we’ve heard up
front that it was going to be used for overnight guests, which happen to stay from time to
time. So it’s as if the story is changing with, you know.
MR. FORD-As the design changes, actually.
MR. LAPPER-Yes, those are design changes.
MRS. STEFFAN-Yes. The situation has changed, and so it sounds reasonable to me,
you know, that the project has morphed several times, you know, as it’s been in front of
us. So you kind of change what your uses are going to be, based on what the outcomes
are.
MR. SEGULJIC-Because they refuse to acknowledge they have an inadequate site for
development.
MRS. STEFFAN-Well, what is she going to do, abandon it?
MR. SEGULJIC-No, not have a second story for attic or anything like that. She has a
basement now. Do you know of any other homes that have double the storage space
than living space? Can you name any?
MRS. STEFFAN-See, I don’t have a house on the lake, but, you know, if you’re near a
lake and you do have people come and visit, and you’re taking a lot of your life
possessions and you have a lot of stuff to store, yes, that sounds reasonable to me, and
the other thing is, you know, if you’re asking somebody to use basement for storage, that
means that, is she going to need a de-humidifier running all the time, and do you store
books in a damp place, whether it’s a wet basement or a dry basement. It’s below
ground. It’s got moisture, and so books don’t like moisture.
MR. SEGULJIC-There’s a whole business that has risen up for storage off-site.
MRS. STEFFAN-Yes, I know, we’ve seen site plans for them all the time, and I dislike
them.
MR. SEGULJIC-That’s what this is intended for.
MR. LAPPER-We’re only talking about six inches. I’d like to bring you back to that, and
in terms of the credibility issue and the future, five and a half feet is not a lot to finish, but
five feet, but five feet is just really inconvenient to have to stoop over. So I’d just ask
you, Tom, because you have the strongest feeling about this, to accept that you’ve
already won. If we go to five and a half feet, it’s not great space, but at least it’s usable
space, and at five feet, anyone’s crouching, and it’s just really inconvenient. I really think
that we’ve given a lot to get to this point. She just needs to get the project done, and I’m
just asking that you accept it at five and a half feet, and feel like the Board’s taking care
of the issue, that nobody can convert it in the future.
MR. HUNSINGER-It seems like we’ve debated this enough. I guess at this point I would
look to any member that might want to put forth a motion.
MR. SEGULJIC-I’ll put forth a motion.
MOTION TO DENY SITE PLAN NO. 22-2006 MARTHA SCHMULBACH, Introduced by
Thomas Seguljic who moved for its adoption, seconded Stephen Traver:
1. A site plan application has been made to the Queensbury Planning Board for the
following; Applicant proposes a change to the existing roof line to allow for attic
storage only. Expansions of nonconforming structures in a Critical Environmental
Area require review by the Planning Board.
2. A public hearing was advertised and held on 5/22/06, 6/27/06, 7/18/06, 9/26/06,
12/26/06, 2/27/07 tabled to unspecified date RE-ADVERTISED; and
3. This application is supported with all documentation, public comment and
application material in the file of record;
16
(Queensbury Planning Board 02/27/07)
4. Pursuant to relevant sections of the Town of Queensbury Zoning Code [Chapter
179], the Planning Board has determined that this proposal complies with the
requirements as stated in the Zoning Code; and
5. The requirements of the State Environmental Quality Review Act have been
considered and the Planning Board has adopted a SEQRA [Negative / Positive]
Declaration; and
6. If the application is a modification, the requirements of the State Environmental
Quality Review Act have been considered, and the proposed modification[s] do
not result in any new or significantly different environmental impacts, and,
therefore, no further SEQRA review is necessary; and
7. 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. Subsequent issuance of further
permits, including building permits are dependent on receipt; and
8. The applicant will provide as-built plans to certify that the site plan is developed
according to the approved plans prior to issuance of the certificate of occupancy;
and
9. If applicable, Item 8 to be combined with a letter of credit; and
10. The Sanitary Sewer connection plan must be submitted to the Wastewater
Department for its review, approval, permitting and inspection.
11. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that we find the following:
MOTION TO DENY SITE PLAN NO. 22-2006 MARTHA SCHMULBACH, Introduced by
Thomas Seguljic who moved for its adoption, seconded Stephen Traver:
For the expansion of a nonconforming structure within a Critical Environmental Area
based on the following findings: The nonconforming structure is located in a CEA in a
Waterfront District. 179-5-110, Sanitary requirements of the Waterfront Residential
District states any increase in floor area of a principle structure serviced by a sanitary
sewage facility of any kind that is located in a Waterfront district and which requires a
building permit shall conform with the requirements of Chapter 136. Chapter 136-7A
states individual septic disposal systems shall comply with the requirements of this
Article and with the most recent additions of the waste treatment handbook. Individual
household systems New York State Department of Health and Institution or Commercial
Storage Facilities, New York State Department of Environmental Conservation, in case
of conflicts amongst these standards, the most restrictive shall apply. Page Four of the
waste treatment handbook states expansion of attics, basements, sleeping porches,
dens and recreation rooms which may be converted into additional permanent bedrooms
in the future should be considered in calculating design flows. The agent for the
applicant in the July 18, 2006 Planning Board minutes stated she wants to maintain the
first floor as her living space and have the second floor available in the event that guests
do arrive which does happen. Further the applicant’s agent stated in the December 26,
2006 Planning Board minutes that the structure has storage space in the basement.
Therefore, as noted in design drawings dated November 14, 2006 provided by the
applicant, the proposed nonconforming structure will consist of 901 square feet of living
space, and 1,511 square feet of storage space. Drawing S-1 dated February 9, 2006
depicts the on-site drinking water well 83 feet from the septic system. The house’s
existing septic field does not meet the required 100 foot separation distance between an
well and septic system. Drawing S-1 dated February 9, 2006 depicts the sanitary
system’s distribution box off the property. Regulations require that the D box be located
within 10 feet of the property line. In summary, initially the applicant’s residence was
temporarily relocated on this site to allow the construction of a full basement. The house
was then re-set on the newly constructed foundation walls. The applicant then proposed
the addition of a second floor to a nonconforming structure which the applicant’s agent
stated would be used for overnight guests. The applicant has decided not to seek a
waiver from the septic requirement, but rather decided to remove a window from the
proposed second floor addition, thereby referring to the addition as storage space. Keep
in mind the applicant’s agent initially referred to this addition as potential living space for
overnight guests. While the removal of the window technically relegates this proposed
space to accommodate storage, the applicant or future buyer of the property could install
the window that would convert the space to living quarters. Please note no reviews,
permits or approvals are required for the installation of a window. In addition, septic
17
(Queensbury Planning Board 02/27/07)
code states we should consider expansions which may be converted into permanent
bedrooms in calculating design flow. Further, the site’s well is located 83 feet from the
on site septic drainage field which contravenes septic code standards which require a
minimum separation distance between a well and a septic field of 100 feet. To further
complicate the septic issue, the Distribution Box is currently located off the applicant’s
property line. This process would completely circumvent the requirement to bring the
existing septic system up to Code when the planned expansion of a building is proposed.
The end use would be the conversion of a nonconforming structure located in a CEA in a
Waterfront district operating on the original noncompliant septic system which was in
existence prior to the addition of the proposed second floor addition.
th
Duly adopted this 27 day of February, 2007, by the following vote:
MR. FORD-A question for Staff, please. If we deny this, we’re really denying the entire
application. Correct?
MRS. BARDEN-Correct.
MR. FORD-In other words, the total project, not just addressing the issue of ceiling
height in an attic.
MRS. BARDEN-That’s correct.
MR. FORD-Okay, and what are the options and alternatives at that point?
MRS. BARDEN-Anything that is proposed, she would need to come back for approval,
Site Plan Review approval. Any expansion, it’s expansion of a nonconforming structure.
Anything that needs a building permit will have to come before you for review and
approval.
MR. FORD-So where does that leave us with this structure that we had a picture of on
just a moment ago?
MRS. BARDEN-It stays like that.
MR. SEGULJIC-Well, it would be able to be inhabited after that.
MRS. BARDEN-Sure.
MR. SEGULJIC-I mean, it doesn’t have a second floor. That’s all.
MRS. BARDEN-Sure.
MR. SEGULJIC-She can go back to the existing house with the basement.
MRS. BARDEN-I’m sure she has a CO now.
MR. FORD-There is a CO there.
MR. LAPPER-They don’t have a CO.
MR. FORD-That’s the real crux of why I’m raising these questions.
MRS. BARDEN-Well, she’ll be able to get a CO to inhabit the space.
MRS. SCHMULBACH-But not the attic.
MRS. BARDEN-Right. Well, the attic’s not there yet.
MR. FORD-What is the structure, the interior of the structure now?
MR. FLANSBURG-Tom, I’d like the builder, Jim Mooney, to speak to that, if he’s willing.
MR. FORD-I’ve been on site and I’ve seen it, but not recently.
JIM MOONEY
MR. MOONEY-My name is Jim Mooney. I’m one of the contractors for the project. As
you know, we did move this house off of the foundation that was there and dug a new
18
(Queensbury Planning Board 02/27/07)
foundation and then placed the building on top of it. Since then, nothing’s really been
done to it. All the plumbing’s out of it. The electrical wires are out of it. There’s nothing
in it. Showers, toilets, it’s gutted. It’s been like that for almost a year. She’s been living
in an apartment for a year, and I think it’s ridiculous how long this is taking, myself, and
now she’s downsized the thing completely different than what it started out to be, and I
don’t see how anybody can tell you what you can use something for, if it’s not within
Code. She can store an elephant up there if she wants to. You can’t tell her no.
MR. LAPPER-She can’t live there.
MR. MOONEY-Right.
MR. HUNSINGER-Any further discussion?
MR. FORD-So there is not a Certificate of Occupancy that has been issued?
MR. LAPPER-She didn’t finish the house because they were waiting to get the plans
approved so it can be done. So without plumbing, electrical, sheetrock, I mean, it’s a
shell, and she’s been out waiting and she kept downsizing this, and I guess Tom’s
motion is just wrong, just on that issue. We’ve stated that that was a different application
in July, and Tom has to acknowledge that what she was talking about was building a
bedroom upstairs with a bathroom, and that’s what we were talking about at the time,
before it was determined that the 83 feet rather than 100 feet for the septic. So she’s not
changing, she’s not adding any new bedrooms. All she’s doing is proposing the storage
space. It’s a big difference.
MR. SEGULJIC-But the reality is, whether this is denied or not, if it’s denied, she just has
to get her house back in order, she can move right in then. If it’s not denied, it’s going to
take her longer in reality, since she has a second floor put on. It doesn’t put her in any
worse shape.
MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. We do have a motion on the floor. So if we could keep any
further discussion to the motion itself and questions regarding the motion. Is there any
additional discussion? Are you ready to move forward with a yes or no, Tom?
MR. FORD-So I just want to make sure that we understand what our vote is going to be
for. A vote in the affirmative will allow that structure that we just saw there to be
completed on the interior, but with no attic space. Is that correct?
MR. SEGULJIC-Correct.
MRS. BARDEN-Yes. She could do residential alteration of the interior, yes, and get her
CO, with no addition.
MR. FORD-So we would be acknowledging the septic issue and accepting that and the
V-shape and all the other issues.
MRS. BARDEN-It’s a pre-existing, nonconforming lot and a pre-existing, nonconforming,
well, the septic system is designed for two bedrooms.
MR. LAPPER-There’s something that the architect needs to add. Apparently there’s a
problem with the roof.
MR. FLANSBURG-I think, if I may, just take an aside, and I was out of the loop for about
six months of this paper trail here, but when the project started, and correct me if I’m
wrong, if I say anything that’s not true, but when we looked at the existing structure and
measured it up and said, okay, let’s re-model the house and what do we want to do with
it, the existing roof needs replacement. The structure that’s there was two by four rafters
at 24 on center, or something of that order. Snow load, some of them were broken, as a
matter of fact. So there’s a bigger issue here, Tom and Tom, than simply finishing off the
inside, and I just want to, you know, the project started with the property needed
attention. We’ve arrived at this point in this process, after Zoning Board approval and
several other steps, and all of a sudden we say okay, we need Site Plan approval
because it’s in a Critical Environmental Area. I think we started with the Building
Department and said here’s what we’d like to do with the place, and of course then
you’ve got to get zoning approval and site plan approval. So we’ve arrived at this point,
but not to forget the initial mission is that the roof needs to be replaced. The portion in
the front you see there with the door is newer than the portion behind that, and the plans
that you have now call for, in fact, I don’t know if you can see these, because they’re
19
(Queensbury Planning Board 02/27/07)
eight scale, from where you are, but this roof is that roof in the front. It’s the roof, the
portion, the older portion of the house that that roof needs to be replaced, and that, since
we’re replacing it, we offered that we increase its pitch, increase the aesthetics of the
building, and so on. So the application as it is before you has kind of arrived at this point,
certainly there’s several steps. You probably know better than I, but the roof does need
to be replaced. I’m talking not just shingles, structure.
MR. SEGULJIC-The roof can be replaced anyway.
MR. LAPPER-You’d need site plan review because it’s a vertical expansion.
MR. SEGULJIC-You can repair that roof as it is now. You don’t need a vertical
expansion.
MR. FLANSBURG-In the back portion of the roof, if the Building Department agrees, and
I would expect, you know, if we replace it in kind, which is I think what you’re saying, I
just wanted to make that clear. We’re talking motion. We were talking, a few minutes
ago, about five foot headroom as being on the table, and, Tom, you said if that were the
case, you would approve that. I would like to, Mrs. Schmulbach just told me that she’d
be willing to accept five feet if that’s still open for discussion.
MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. Are you ready to move forward? We have a motion and a
second. So if there’s no further discussion on the motion, we do need to take the vote.
MR. FORD-With that new information, do you wish to maintain your motion?
MR. SEGULJIC-Yes, we have to. There’s a motion on the floor.
MR. FORD-My vote is no.
AYES: Mr. Traver, Mr. Seguljic
NOES: Mr. Ford, Mrs. Steffan, Mr. Hunsinger
ABSENT: Mrs. Bruno, Mr. Sipp
MR. HUNSINGER-Would anyone else like to put forward a motion?
MRS. STEFFAN-I would.
MOTION TO APPROVE SITE PLAN NO. 22-2006 MARTHA SCHMULBACH,
Introduced by Gretchen Steffan who moved for its adoption, seconded by Thomas Ford:
According to the resolution prepared by Staff. Paragraph Four complies. Paragraph
Five, it is a Type II SEQRA, and with the following conditions:
1.That the ceiling height of the attic be reduced to five foot six inches to allow a
staircase to attic storage, that the walking space would be five foot six inches.
2.To add a plat notation that the attic will not be used as living space in
perpetuity.
3.For removal of the window in the attic storage area.
th
Duly adopted this 27 day of February, 2007, by the following vote:
MR. HUNSINGER-If I could just ask for a clarification. When you say reduce the ceiling
in the attic, you mean the collar ties?
MRS. STEFFAN-So that, the discussion was that there would be, the walking space
would be five foot six inches.
MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. Any discussion?
MRS. BARDEN-Could I have just a comment. The elevation drawings that we have still
have the window. You might have to condition your approval on removal of that window.
MRS. STEFFAN-Okay. I will amend the conditions for removal of the window in the attic
storage area.
20
(Queensbury Planning Board 02/27/07)
MR. HUNSINGER-Do we have a second on the amendment?
MR. FORD-Yes.
AYES: Mrs. Steffan, Mr. Ford, Mr. Hunsinger
NOES: Mr. Traver, Mr. Seguljic
ABSENT: Mrs. Bruno, Mr. Sipp
MR. HUNSINGER-Unfortunately, there’s only five members. So the motion does not
carry, because you need four. I don’t know where that leaves us.
MR. LAPPER-We’d take the five feet to not have to come back.
MR. HUNSINGER-Would anyone else like to make a motion? The same motion but
reduce it to five feet, and no attic windows.
MOTION TO APPROVE SITE PLAN NO. 22-2006 MARTHA SCHMULBACH,
Introduced by Gretchen Steffan who moved for its adoption, seconded by Thomas Ford:
According to the resolution prepared by Staff. Paragraph Four complies. Paragraph
Five, it is a Type II SEQRA. Approved with the following conditions:
1. To reduce the ceiling height in the attic to five feet.
2.To allow a staircase to the attic storage area.
3.To include a plat notation that the attic will not be used as living space in
perpetuity.
4.That the attic windows will be eliminated from the drawings.
th
Duly adopted this 27 day of February, 2007, by the following vote:
AYES: Mr. Seguljic, Mr. Traver, Mrs. Steffan, Mr. Ford, Mr. Hunsinger
NOES: NONE
ABSENT: Mrs. Bruno, Mr. Sipp
MR. HUNSINGER-You’re all set.
MR. LAPPER-Thank you.
SITE PLAN NO. 51-2006 SEQR TYPE UNLISTED ANDREW & SUSAN LIUCCI
AGENT(S) PARADOX DESIGN ARCHITECTS OWNER(S) SAME ZONING MIXED
USE LOCATION 7 LUZERNE RD. & 3 HOLDEN AVE. APPLICANT PROPOSES 4200
SQ. FT. SINGLE STORY RETAIL BUILDING WITH TWO TENANT SPACES. RETAIL
USES IN A MIXED USE ZONE REQUIRE REVIEW BY THE PLANNING BOARD.
CROSS REFERENCE SP 46-02 WARREN CO. PLANNING 12/13/06 LOT SIZE 0.49
ACRES TAX MAP NO. 309.11-2-31, 309.11-2-30 SECTION 179-4-030
CHARLES JOHNSON, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT
MR. HUNSINGER-Susan, if you could summarize Staff Notes, please.
MRS. BARDEN-The proposal is for office uses in the Mixed Use zone, specifically
construction of a 4200 square foot office building for retail sales or professional office
space. The property is located on Luzerne Road at Holden Avenue. This application
th
was previously reviewed and tabled at the December 19 meeting, specifically for
submission of a lighting plan, to address C.T. Male comments, an improved landscaping
plan, to address residential buffers to the north and east of the property, and to provide
an alternate access plan. Vision Engineering submitted a project review document dated
rd
February 23. A waiver from the interior parking lot landscaping requirement should be
discussed, and if acceptable to the Board, granted with any approval for the project.
Both Staff and Town Engineer expressed comments regarding the proposed lighting plan
21
(Queensbury Planning Board 02/27/07)
which should be discussed. The public hearing remains open on this application, and
the SEQRA designation is Unlisted. A Short Form is included in your packet.
MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. Thank you.
MRS. BARDEN-You’re welcome.
MR. HUNSINGER-Good evening.
MR. JOHNSON-Good evening.
MR. HUNSINGER-If you want to explain your project and where we’re at.
MR. JOHNSON-Sure. My name’s Charlie Johnson, the architect. Here’s Andy Liucci,
the owner. We’ve addressed all of the Town Engineer’s comments. We’ve supplied the
revised landscaping plan. We’ve supplied an alternate ingress plan as well. We’ve
supplied the lighting plan that was requested. We’ve supplied the artist’s colored
rendering of the building. We’ve also submitted two letters of support from the two
adjoining landowners in support of this project. We can go over the color scheme that
we’ve come up with, unless there’s other issues you’d like to discuss first, but we’re at
that point now where we’ve brought our final color scheme. We’ve got the landscaping
issue and the driveway to talk about, I guess.
MR. HUNSINGER-Yes, why don’t you go ahead, if you want to present the colors.
MR. JOHNSON-Okay. We’ve selected a Harvard Gray roof for the majority of the roof.
We have the tower element that you see, that portico.
MR. FORD-That’s what you’re pointing to, is it?
MR. JOHNSON-Yes, right here.
MR. FORD-Okay. Thanks. Are we in agreement on that?
MR. JOHNSON-My finger went to the wrong one. We are in agreement. Sorry about
that. It’s Harvard Gray, if you want to have the name.
MR. FORD-Is that over the livable attic space?
ANDY LIUCCI
MR. LIUCCI-We don’t have any. We have a huge basement.
MR. JOHNSON-There will be a part of the building that will have a metal roof. It’ll either
be this light or medium gray. We’ve got a base course of stone. It will be one of these
two bottom sort of tannish color or grayish color stone. The siding will be this Village
Green color, it’s a light green, Village Green. It’s this particular manufacturer’s color, and
the window frames themselves will be a Terracotta color, and here’s a sample of that.
So that pretty much depicts the rendering that you have.
MR. FORD-Could you hold those two together, please. Thank you.
MR. JOHNSON-I’m going to kind of tuck it behind, because you won’t see much of this.
MR. FORD-It is interesting because it’s a completely different green than is depicted
here. I’m glad you brought those in.
MR. JOHNSON-All right. Yes, between the computer rendering and the printer, that was
what we were going for.
MR. FORD-That’s why we appreciate you bringing those samples in. Thank you.
MR. HUNSINGER-Did you have anything else to add before we open it for questions?
MR. JOHNSON-No, that’s it.
MR. HUNSINGER-I guess I’ll just open it for general questions from the Board. As
Susan mentioned, when we tabled it, there were a handful of issues left to be resolved.
Does anybody want to jump in with questions or comments?
22
(Queensbury Planning Board 02/27/07)
MRS. STEFFAN-There’s just, the Vision Engineering report, they’re playing off C.T.
Male’s former report, but then they’ve added some things on stormwater management
that need to be addressed also on lighting.
MR. JOHNSON-I haven’t seen any comments back, yet, from any engineer yet, other
than Staff Notes, to me, where they’ve referenced the lighting.
st
MRS. STEFFAN-Okay. This letter was dated February 21.
MR. JOHNSON-Still issues with the stormwater report?
MR. HUNSINGER-Well, unfortunately the author of the letter says I did not receive a
copy of the stormwater management report forwarded to C.T. Male. I only received
additional requested calculations pertaining to that report. So based on earlier
comments, the report may not be complete, and then they go on to list the standard
items that need to be addressed in a stormwater report.
MR. JOHNSON-Okay. The stormwater engineer that was hired had some
correspondence with I think Jim Houston.
MR. HUNSINGER-Right.
MR. JOHNSON-And I know they had conversed and modified the report, but again, I had
not heard any feedback from C.T. Male, as to the satisfactory nature of those
modifications, unfortunately, or I’d have something in response.
MR. HUNSINGER-Susan, do you know if Vision Engineering received a copy of the
complete stormwater report?
MRS. BARDEN-I do not know. That was the original stormwater report that would have
been given to Vision Engineering from C.T. Male?
MR. HUNSINGER-Yes.
MRS. BARDEN-That’s what these comments say.
MR. HUNSINGER-Yes.
MRS. BARDEN-They just received follow up in formation on that original stormwater
management report.
MR. HUNSINGER-Yes, and as pointed out, we did have follow-up discussion needed for
the lighting plan.
MR. JOHNSON-Right. I think the review of the lighting plan stated the light levels at the
entrance was higher than they wanted. So we can reduce those.
MRS. STEFFAN-Yes, that’s an easy thing to do.
MR. JOHNSON-So we can reduce the intensity of the lights, the bulb in each light fixture
to get that foot candle down.
MR. SEGULJIC-Yes, because that was going to be one of my concerns. The parking lot
seems to be, you only have to have two and a half foot candles, and you have six.
MR. JOHNSON-Correct.
MR. SEGULJIC-I know sometimes it’s the way you lay out your grids, but less light is
always better.
MR. JOHNSON-I think there was an average you were looking for as well. All right.
We’ve got, you’re looking for five at the main entrance. We have five in most of them.
There’s a seven foot candle and a nine foot candle in a couple of locations. There’s only
one light pole, directly under the light pole, where there’s a six and a half foot candle
instead of five. Everything else is below that, below the five foot candle threshold. So
it’s not like a Wal-Mart parking lot here.
MR. SEGULJIC-If you could just tweak it down a little bit.
23
(Queensbury Planning Board 02/27/07)
MR. HUNSINGER-Actually the Wal-Mart parking lot meets Town Code.
MR. JOHNSON-It does. That’s a bad reference.
MR. HUNSINGER-We worked really hard on that one. The Lowe’s parking lot is too lit.
MR. SEGULJIC-I guess while we’re speaking of light, mainly what I’m concerned with is
how tall are the light poles.
MR. JOHNSON-Fourteen foot. They’re actually on the detail that we re-submitted, the
drawings, S-2 has them. Up in the top left corner, and there’s also the building mounted
light detail there as well, and then the bottom left corner, the bottom of the page, was
also the privacy fence detail that was missing.
MR. HUNSINGER-Any other questions or comments from members of the Board?
MR. TRAVER-There was another comment in the Vision Engineering report regarding
water treatment. I’m just reading that, this pre-treatment, Number Two.
MR. JOHNSON-Correct. All right. Well, I think we can, I think the stormwater
management report, grading plan are the two comments that look like, I can’t speak to at
this point. We’ve hired a consultant to take care of that for us. So we could have had
something modified probably for tonight’s meeting. I don’t know. It still would have been
dependent on Town Engineer approving it, even if we had seen it. So this is sort of a
technical issue. The Board may feel inclined to pass judgment on this project, as long as
your Town Engineer can approve the details.
MR. HUNSINGER-Yes, and we have done that on occasion.
MR. JOHNSON-Okay. So don’t read anything in here that sounds like it’s not going to
work the way we’ve done it. There just needs, again, some massaging of numbers or
taking a look at a detail or two.
MRS. STEFFAN-The applicant has asked for a waiver on interior parking lot
landscaping. How does the rest of the Board feel about that?
MR. JOHNSON-There really is no interior for this parking lot, or we would have done it.
MR. SEGULJIC-As much as I like trees, I can see that, but my one comment would be,
how about the tree on the corner, on the western, it would be the southwestern corner?
Put another red maple there?
MR. JOHNSON-Near the intersection?
MR. SEGULJIC-Yes.
MR. JOHNSON-You know I wanted to put as many as I could. I looked through the
regulations, and your planting regs say 35 feet off an intersection and ten feet off a
driveway. So I was kind of trapped between roadways, or there’d be more trees,
honestly.
MR. LIUCCI-My only concern with the front, I mean, I feel that there’s, my opinion is that
there’s quite a bit of planting, which is fine. I mean, I don’t have a problem with it. It’s
just that what we were trying to do in the front was keep it as low as we can, only that so
we can be careful for cars coming in and out and I think, you know, we don’t want to
have anything in the way of people making the turn or whatever and obstructing any of
the view of the cars. I mean, I’m concerned about safety myself. Obviously we’ve been
trying to work with that.
MR. SEGULJIC-All right. I’m fine.
MR. FORD-I don’t have any additional issues.
MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. We do have a public hearing that was left open. Is there
anyone here that had questions or comments to the Board on this application?
PUBLIC HEARING OPEN
24
(Queensbury Planning Board 02/27/07)
NO COMMENTS
PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED
MR. HUNSINGER-If not, I will close the public hearing. Was there any public comments,
Susan, any written comments?
MRS. BARDEN-For previous meetings. Not any additional comments.
MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. What’s the will of the Board? There’s at least two outstanding
issues, stormwater management and lighting, and I think the lighting plan we could just
tweak a little bit.
MR. SEGULJIC-Yes. As far as stormwater, it’s more of a technical issue, right?
MR. HUNSINGER-Yes. Well, and it’s not clear if the new Town Engineer received all of
the stormwater information.
MR. SEGULJIC-I’d be fine with having them tweak the lighting plan and getting the
signoff for the letter and moving forward tonight.
MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. It is an Unlisted Action. So we do have to do SEQRA.
MRS. STEFFAN-There is a Short Form.
MR. HUNSINGER-Yes.
MR. FORD-So we would condition it upon our Engineer approving it.
MRS. STEFFAN-Getting their signoff, specifically on lighting and stormwater plans.
MR. FORD-That’s a far bigger issue to me than a couple of foot candles here and there.
MRS. STEFFAN-Okay.
RESOLUTION WHEN DETERMINATION OF NO SIGNIFICANCE IS MADE
RESOLUTION NO. 51-2006, Introduced by Gretchen Steffan who moved for its
adoption, seconded by Thomas Ford:
WHEREAS, there is presently before the Planning Board an application for:
ANDREW & SUSAN LIUCCI, and
WHEREAS, this Planning Board has determined that the proposed project and Planning
Board action is subject to review under the State Environmental Quality Review Act,
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT
RESOLVED:
1. No Federal agency appears to be involved.
2. The following agencies are involved:
NONE
3. 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.
4. An Environmental Assessment Form has been completed by the applicant.
5. Having considered and thoroughly analyzed the relevant areas of environmental
concern and having considered the criteria for determining whether a project has
a significant environmental impact as the same is set forth in Section 617.11 of
the Official Compilation of Codes, Rules and Regulations for the State of New
York, this Board finds that the action about to be undertaken by this Board will
have no significant environmental effect and the Chairman of the Planning Board
is hereby authorized to execute and sign and file as may be necessary a
25
(Queensbury Planning Board 02/27/07)
statement of non-significance or a negative declaration that may be required by
law.
th
Duly adopted this 27 day of February, 2007, by the following vote:
AYES: Mr. Traver, Mr. Seguljic, Mr. Ford, Mrs. Steffan, Mr. Hunsinger
NOES: NONE
ABSENT: Mrs. Bruno, Mr. Sipp
MR. HUNSINGER-In terms of the lighting plan, did anyone, including the applicant, have
suggestions on how to modify it slightly so that it’s more in compliance?
MR. JOHNSON-Well, I think the wall mounted fixtures, we could just change the bulb,
the wattage in the bulbs, and that’ll reduce her spillage out there, and I think that’s where
he’s mostly concerned. I also noticed when I read these comments further they were
noting there’s a secondary entrance that doesn’t have any lighting, and actually there is
lighting, but my lighting engineer didn’t get that put on there. So that will also be
corrected.
MR. HUNSINGER-So what would be the new wattage of the lights that are being
reduced? I guess that’s the information I was looking for.
MR. SEGULJIC-What are they now?
MR. JOHNSON-I can’t tell you what they are now, at least on the building. I don’t have
that with me. I brought pictures rather than specs. So I’m sorry I can’t tell you what the
wattage is now or what it would be changed to.
MR. HUNSINGER-Okay, and it’s not on the lighting plan itself.
MR. JOHNSON-No.
MR. HUNSINGER-It just shows the lumens, and the cut sheets from Guard Co lighting.
MR. JOHNSON-Do not call it out.
MR. HUNSINGER-Yes.
MR. SEGULJIC-Can we just say for the parking lot lighting to be brought down to two
and a half feet, and the entryways down to five, and let the engineer verify that?
MR. HUNSINGER-Yes, we can do that.
MRS. STEFFAN-We’re looking to have him in compliance with Code right?
MR. HUNSINGER-Yes.
MRS. STEFFAN-So we can just say.
MR. HUNSINGER-Yes, reduce the entry to five.
MR. FORD-To be Code compliant.
MRS. STEFFAN-Okay. So it’s stormwater and lighting that we want to pay attention to.
MR. HUNSINGER-Yes.
MRS. STEFFAN-Okay.
MR. HUNSINGER-And did you write down the colors.
MRS. STEFFAN-Yes.
MR. HUNSINGER-Okay.
MOTION TO APPROVE SITE PLAN NO. 51-2006 ANDREW & SUSAN LIUCCI,
Introduced by Gretchen Steffan who moved for its adoption, seconded by Thomas Ford:
26
(Queensbury Planning Board 02/27/07)
1. A site plan application has been made to the Queensbury Planning Board for the
following; Applicant proposes 4200 sq. ft. single story retail building with two
tenant spaces. Retail Uses in a Mixed Use zone require review by the Planning
Board.
2. A public hearing was advertised and held on 12/19/06 tabled to 2/27/07 PH Left
Open;
3. This application is supported with all documentation, public comment and
application material in the file of record;
4. Pursuant to relevant sections of the Town of Queensbury Zoning Code [Chapter
179], the Planning Board has determined that this proposal complies with the
requirements as stated in the Zoning Code; and
5. The requirements of the State Environmental Quality Review Act have been
considered and the Planning Board has adopted a SEQRA Negative Declaration;
and
6. If the application is a modification, the requirements of the State Environmental
Quality Review Act have been considered, and the proposed modification[s] do
not result in any new or significantly different environmental impacts, and,
therefore, no further SEQRA review is necessary; and
7. 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. Subsequent issuance of further
permits, including building permits are dependent on receipt; and
8. The applicant will provide as-built plans to certify that the site plan is developed
according to the approved plans prior to issuance of the certificate of occupancy;
and
9. If applicable, Item 8 to be combined with a letter of credit; and
10. The Sanitary Sewer connection plan must be submitted to the Wastewater
Department for its review, approval, permitting and inspection.
11. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that we find the following:
MOTION TO APPROVE SITE PLAN NO. 51-2006 ANDREW & SUSAN LIUCCI,
Introduced by Gretchen Steffan who moved for its adoption, seconded by Thomas Ford:
According to the resolution prepared by Staff. Paragraph Four complies. Paragraph
Five Negative. This application is approved with the following conditions:
1.That the applicant address the Vision Engineering comments listed in their
February 23, 2007 letter, with specific attention to stormwater and lighting
plans, to be sure they conform with our Town Code.
2.We want reflected the building material colors. The siding will be Village
Green, Terracotta window trim, Harvard roof, medium gray steel accents, and
foe stone.
th
Duly adopted this 27 day of February, 2007, by the following vote:
MRS. BARDEN-I think you should specify what you said before about having the
building, the exterior of the building, maintain five foot candles in the parking lot at 2.5, if
that’s what you’d like, an average.
MR. FORD-That isn’t per Code?
MR. JOHNSON-Yes, that’s what’s in the Zoning Code.
MRS. STEFFAN-Because in the Staff Notes it said five at the door entries.
MRS. BARDEN-Okay.
27
(Queensbury Planning Board 02/27/07)
MRS. STEFFAN-Should I be more specific?
MRS. BARDEN-No.
MRS. STEFFAN-I mean, that will meet Code, right?
MRS. BARDEN-Yes.
MR. FORD-That’s what we wanted.
MR. JOHNSON-Did the Board want to make a decision on the entry, the drive? We had
a two way versus entry only on the Luzerne side?
MR. HUNSINGER-Well, I was of the impression that the latest proposal was in only on
Luzerne.
MR. JOHNSON-Correct. It was an either/or, though. I was presenting two versions.
You guys were going to pick one to go with. So if it’s the in only, I just wanted to make
sure I understood which one you liked.
MR. HUNSINGER-That’s what I thought we were approving, yes.
MR. JOHNSON-Okay.
MR. HUNSINGER-Is everyone else of the same opinion?
MR. FORD-Yes.
MR. JOHNSON-Okay.
AYES: Mr. Traver, Mr. Seguljic, Mrs. Steffan, Mr. Ford, Mr. Hunsinger
NOES: NONE
ABSENT: Mrs. Bruno, Mr. Sipp
MR. JOHNSON-Thank you very much.
MR. HUNSINGER-You’re all set. You’re welcome.
MR. LIUCCI-Thank you.
MRS. STEFFAN-Good luck with your project.
MR. LIUCCI-I was going to say that, putting this approval aside, that I’ve already spoken
to the Supervisor a while back on my comments about the Planning Board, the Zoning
Board and now that I’ve met both you people and have told them what a great job they
do in Queensbury. I’ve dealt with them only once, but I feel that it’s a great Town and
that you all do a great job and I like Queensbury. I’ve lived here for seven years. My
wife has actually just been nominated tonight as the President of the World Awareness
Children’s Museum.
MRS. STEFFAN-Great.
NEW BUSINESS:
SITE PLAN NO. 3-2007 SEQR TYPE UNLISTED VANCE COHEN AGENT(S) RON
MOGREN SARATOGA ASSOCIATES OWNER(S) DR. MITCHELL COHEN ZONING
HC-INT. LOCATION 1159-1161 STATE ROUTE 9 APPLICANT PROPOSES AN
18,000 SQ. FT. PUBLIC PARKING FACILITY. PARKING FACILITIES IN THE HC
ZONE REQUIRE SITE PLAN REVIEW BY THE PLANNING BOARD. CROSS
REFERENCE AV 7-2007 WARREN CO. PLANNING 2/14/07 OTHER FLOOD ZONE
X LOT SIZE 0.57 ACRES TAX MAP NO. 295.8-1-2 SECTION 179-4-020
RON MOGREN, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT; V. COHEN, PRESENT
MR. HUNSINGER-Susan, when you’re ready, if you could summarize Staff Notes,
please.
28
(Queensbury Planning Board 02/27/07)
MRS. BARDEN-The applicant requests site plan review for a public parking facility,
specifically the project is for construction of an 18,000 square foot public parking facility.
The property is located on State Route 9 south of The Great Escape. A variance is
sought from the minimum permeability requirements of the Highway Commercial
st
Intensive zone. With that at the Zoning Board meeting on February 21, that Board
determined that the project was an Unlisted SEQRA action and requested and
consented that the Planning Board seek Lead Agency status on behalf of the Zoning
Board and other involved agencies. Furthermore, the Zoning Board requested that the
Planning Board provide a SEQRA determination and recommendation prior to their April
th
25 meeting. With that, the applicant’s agent has submitted Part I of the Long EAF,
identifying potential involved agencies as the Town Zoning Board of Appeals, Warren
County Planning Board, and the Department of Transportation. Tonight the Board
should open the public hearing. It was advertised for tonight, keep it open and table the
application upon seeking Lead Agency status. This will authorize Staff to send notices
on behalf of the Planning Board to any potential involved agencies, including those
identified on the EAF. That’s it.
MR. HUNSINGER-Thank you, Susan.
MRS. BARDEN-You’re welcome.
MR. HUNSINGER-Good evening.
MR. MOGREN-Hi.
MR. HUNSINGER-Did you understand what it is we’re doing this evening?
MR. MOGREN-I believe so. It’s the SEQRA Lead Agency?
MR. HUNSINGER-Yes. So I’m not sure how much we really want to get into the Site
Plan at this point in time. I think, certainly, if, you know, members have specific
comments that they want to make to the applicant, you know, we certainly can, but the
only thing that we would be acting on tonight is a resolution to seek Lead Agency Status.
MR. SEGULJIC-Mr. Chairman, if you could just clarify for me what we’re doing. So we’re
going to seek Lead Agency Status.
MR. HUNSINGER-Right.
MR. SEGULJIC-Then ultimately approve or deny SEQRA. If we approve it, then it goes
back to the Zoning Board for their approval and then back to us?
MRS. BARDEN-That’s correct.
MR. HUNSINGER-Yes.
MR. SEGULJIC-Okay.
MR. HUNSINGER-So the earliest that we could review Site Plan would be?
th
MRS. BARDEN-You could do March 27, to start SEQRA.
MR. HUNSINGER-To start SEQRA.
th
MRS. BARDEN-Or April 17, but again, the Zoning Board gave you a limited window of
th
60 days. It will be back on their agenda for the variances April 25. So it might be better
th
to go ahead and on March 27 go ahead and start your SEQRA.
MR. HUNSINGER-Okay.
MRS. BARDEN-Providing all the other involved agencies consent to this Board acting as
SEQRA Lead Agency.
MR. HUNSINGER-Right. Okay. Great.
MRS. STEFFAN-What are the involved agencies?
MR. HUNSINGER-Gretchen asked what other involved agencies would be included.
Those are listed in the Long Form that was submitted to us this evening, right?
29
(Queensbury Planning Board 02/27/07)
MRS. BARDEN-Right.
MR. HUNSINGER-On Page Eight.
MRS. BARDEN-Town Zoning Board, Warren County Planning Board, and DOT.
MR. HUNSINGER-They’re the only other involved agents?
MRS. BARDEN-Unless you can think of any others that you’d like to include on that Part
I.
MR. HUNSINGER-I can’t think of any.
MRS. STEFFAN-So New York State DOT, Warren County Planning, or Queensbury
Zoning Board of Appeals.
MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. Now that we’ve got the logistical stuff out of the way, do you
want to summarize your project for us?
MR. MOGREN-Sure. You probably understand the plans pretty good, but what I wanted
to just mention.
MR. HUNSINGER-I’m sorry, did you identify yourself for the record?
MR. MOGREN-I’m sorry. Ron Mogren from the Saratoga Associates. This is Vance
Cohen.
MR. HUNSINGER-Thank you.
MR. MOGREN-You may or may not be aware, but both of those structures on the site
were vacant last summer. The Cohens have been trying to lease out the restaurants.
They’re not in the restaurant business, and they need to lease these out to make some
money. I think that the creation of the parking around the site with Great Escape has
cast some hardships on the site, and the first one that was most notable to me was when
they removed the pedestrian crosswalk, which was nearly across the street from the A-
frame ice cream shop. That took away a lot of pedestrian traffic that would come right in
and use that facility. Our proposal calls for demolishing the bigger building there. I think
that’s an eyesore, that might help get the community get rid of that, and because of the
open leases or the unfulfilled leases on that, that’s why we’ve made a request for the
impermeable area. Now that impermeable area that we’re missing by I think about 1500
square feet results in about 10 parking spaces, and it just seemed to me to make sense
that given our design of the site, for instance in the New York State right of way along
Route 9, it just so happens that that strip right there is about equal to what we’re lacking
on our site, and we kind of dealt with that strip in the manner such that we’re, you know,
removing some asphalt paving in the right of way. We’re doing some, you know,
reducing of asphalt ourselves in the right of way. Our stormwater management plan
takes that strip into account as it’s part of our watershed. So we’re kind of dealing with
that area with our stormwater management system, which is the, you know, we’re
introducing those infiltrator chambers for that. Also on the left hand side here, on the
north side, when that parking lot was installed and all that fill was brought in, it kind of
dammed up some of the stormwater flow that was headed in that direction. So we’re
also kind of dealing with a little bit of extra stormwater from that site, just that slope
coming down, and again, we’ve figured that into our stormwater calculations for the
storage volume for those infiltrators, and so I guess what we’re just asking is that we feel
that those 10 spaces are very important to the viability of the site and that’s where we’re
asking for some relief from that to kind of compensate for the loss of the income that
they’ve lost based on how this site somehow got, it seems like it got isolated by the
construction of the parking all around it, and so that’s, you know, that’s the basis of why
we really are looking for those 10 spaces, and other than that, I think the rest of the
plans, I think we’ve met your landscaping requirements and I think it’s a pretty nicely
designed parking lot, and that’s about all I’ve got to say, I guess.
MRS. STEFFAN-I’ve got a question. Is this site hooked up to the municipal sewer, the
sewer that ran along Route 9?
MR. COHEN-Yes, it is.
MRS. STEFFAN-So its? Okay.
30
(Queensbury Planning Board 02/27/07)
MR. FORD-Could you address the issue of loss of income from a non-used facility? Isn’t
that what you indicated?
MR. COHEN-Well, in the past we’ve been renting out both locations, and 90% of the
business that we did there was a walk-up business. It wouldn’t be uncommon for you to
drive in to our parking lot and expect an empty restaurant because there’s only three or
four cars in the driveway, and come in and we’re packed, because we get large families,
large groups that would meet and, you know, they start lining up at eight a.m. at The
Great Escape and we’d, you know, be cooking our breakfast, large groups would come
over while they’re waiting. The gates don’t open until ten, sometimes, you know, it takes
you a half an hour, forty-five minutes just to get through the lines that are there, and
we’ve always fed people that went to the Park there as a walk-up business. Now The
Great Escape blocked off that entrance completely, with the Board’s permission and
everything. They put in the bridge, which helped with traffic flow crossing Route 9, which
really damaged our business considerably, and we’ve had a lot of hardship, and we were
unable to rent it. A lot of restaurateurs felt that because this was a walk-up business,
that’s not there anymore, and they would have to be re-established as, you know, a
drive-in or, you know, you have to pull them in via their vehicles, and also.
MR. FORD-So it was not utilized last year?
MR. COHEN-It was not, no. We tried extensively, spent a lot of money advertising,
trying to bring in tenants. I had several people look at it, but based on the fact that we’re
now caged in, basically, by all this fencing and the loss of the crowds that used to walk
by our front door, they’re not longer there. The south side of the parking lot, you know,
I’m sorry, the north side of the parking lot used to fill up by eleven a.m. and so the people
would be parking on the southern side of the parking lot, and that was perfect timing for
our lunch business, which we would then carry over, because all these crowds are
walking by us and we would sell them a sandwich, a bag of chips, a soda, as they were
going into the Park. That’s been considerably altered, and we’re trying to adapt our
business plan based on our new environments, and by removing this building and
utilizing the parking lot as, you know, better flow for traffic, we’ve created a little island for
the cars in the middle, kept the nice flow, so there’s no bottlenecking on the property.
Right now we kind of have a bottleneck situation towards the back of the property, and
we’re just trying to eliminate that and maximize the usage of our property as well.
MR. HUNSINGER-So neither building was open last summer. Did you lease out parking
spaces, because we noticed when we went on site visits that there were signs all over
the ice cream stand.
MR. COHEN-Right. We’ve ran the ice cream shop/snack shop last year, and we found
that there was more of a need for the parking than for the treats and ice creams and
things that we sold out of there. So until we could find a suitable tenant for it, we
continued to do what we’ve been doing in the past.
MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. Because I was going to say, I could have sworn I went there
last summer for ice cream. I’m one of the few people that actually drives up. If Martha’s
is too crowded, I go there.
MR. COHEN-Sure, and by eliminating this building in the front, we will expose our
property a little bit better for the usage of the snack shop as well as having the parking
facility. Most of the business for the ice cream shop, when our parking lot would actually
fill up, would be towards the evening, which is dessert time, and so during the day, you
know, we’re looking at parking our cars and serving whatever foods and drinks we serve
out of the ice cream shop/snack shop and utilizing the property the best that we can for
the 100 days that we really. It’s a seasonal spot. Always has been. Until it can be
created into a year round facility.
MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. Any other questions or comments from the Board? We do
have a public hearing scheduled for this evening. Is there anyone here that had
questions or comments on this application?
PUBLIC HEARING OPENED
MRS. STEFFAN-Did you folks get the copy of the Vision Engineering letter?
MR. COHEN-Not yet.
31
(Queensbury Planning Board 02/27/07)
MR. MOGREN-I was curious about that.
rd
MR. HUNSINGER-Yes. It’s dated February 23. Staff will make sure that you get it.
MR. TRAVER-I can give them mine.
MR. HUNSINGER-Okay.
MRS. BARDEN-Thank you, Mr. Traver.
MR. HUNSINGER-So I’m confused. We’re supposed to leave the public hearing open,
right?
MRS. BARDEN-Yes.
MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. So I will leave the public hearing open, and would anyone like
to put forward a resolution to seek Lead Agency Status? There is a sample in our Board
package.
MRS. STEFFAN-I guess I’ll make a motion.
MOTION FOR THE QUEENSBURY PLANNING BOARD TO SEEK LEAD AGENCY
STATUS REGARDING SITE PLAN NO. 3-2007 VANCE COHEN, Introduced by
Gretchen Steffan who moved for its adoption, seconded by Thomas Ford:
According to the resolution prepared by Staff. The application should be tabled until the
March 27, 2007 meeting.
WHEREAS, the Town Planning Board is in receipt of a Site Plan and Area Variance
application for a 18,000 sq. ft. Public Parking Facility, and
WHEREAS, the Planning Board of the Town of Queensbury has determined to begin an
environmental review process under the State Environmental Quality Review Act
(SEQRA), and
WHEREAS, the Planning Board of the Town of Queensbury has identified the projects to
be a Unlisted action for the purposes of SEQRA review pursuant to 6 NYCRR 617, and
WHEREAS, the Planning Board is the agency most directly responsible for approving the
actions because of its responsibility for approving the land uses for the property, and
NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED,
The Planning Board of the Town of Queensbury hereby indicates its desire to be Lead
Agency for SEQRA review of this action and authorizes and directs the Department of
Community Development to notify any other potentially involved agencies of such intent.
That Part I of the SEQRA will be sent to the following agencies: Queensbury Zoning
Board of Appeals; Warren County Planning Department and NYS Dept. of
Transportation.
th
Duly adopted this 27 day of February, 2007, by the following vote:
AYES: Mr. Seguljic, Mr. Ford, Mr. Traver, Mrs. Steffan, Mr. Hunsinger
NOES: NONE
ABSENT: Mrs. Bruno, Mr. Sipp
MRS. STEFFAN-Now do we have to make a recommendation to the Zoning Board on
the minimum permeability requirements?
MRS. BARDEN-After you determine significance, SEQRA, and then you will comment to
them on the variance request.
MR. HUNSINGER-That would be in March, right?
MRS. STEFFAN-Okay. Thank you.
32
(Queensbury Planning Board 02/27/07)
MR. MOGREN-Susan, should I pick up the engineering comments and the plans and re-
submit for the next?
MRS. BARDEN-Yes, sure.
MR. HUNSINGER-What would be the deadline for them to get those comments in?
th
MRS. BARDEN-The next time they’re in front of you, on March 27, you’ll probably just
get through SEQRA and your recommendation to the Zoning Board.
MR. HUNSINGER-Right, but some of the engineering questions are related to SEQRA.
MRS. BARDEN-Right. Well, I would just suggest that they address the comments back
to our office and we will forward them on to Vision Engineering, just keep up the pace.
MR. HUNSINGER-Okay.
MRS. STEFFAN-And so do you want to put a date in place that they?
MR. HUNSINGER-That’s what I was alluding to. Should we give them a date by which
they should get new materials so that you have time to distribute it to the Board?
MRS. BARDEN-Absolutely.
th
MRS. STEFFAN-Is March 9 enough time for you, Susan? That would be a week from
this Friday.
MRS. BARDEN-Is that enough time for you?
MR. MOGREN-I believe so.
MRS. BARDEN-Okay.
MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. Okay, thank you.
MRS. STEFFAN-See you in a month.
SITE PLAN NO. 5-2007 SEQR TYPE II ADD DEVELOPMENT AGENT(S) ABD
ENGINEERS AND SURVEYORS OWNER(S) TREMONT, LLC ZONING LI
LOCATION 89 EVERTS AVENUE APPLICANT PROPOSES 216 SQ. FT. BUILDING
ADDITION TO AN EXISTING 2,932 SQ. FT. BROADCASTING STATION.
EXPANSIONS OF TV OR RADIO STATIONS IN THE LI ZONE REQUIRE PLANNING
BOARD REVIEW AND APPROVAL. CROSS REFERENCE 10-2007 WARREN CO.
PLANNING N/A OTHER FLOOD ZONE C LOT SIZE 4.35 ACRES TAX MAP NO.
302.8-2-4 SECTION 179-9-020
TOM ANDRESS & ANGELO TREMANO, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT
MR. HUNSINGER-Susan, if you could summarize Staff Notes.
MRS. BARDEN-The applicant requests Site Plan Review for an expansion to a t.v. or
radio station in the Light Industrial zone. Specifically, the proposal is for a 216 square
foot addition to the existing 2900 square foot broadcasting station. The property is
st
located at 89 Everts Avenue. An Area Variance was granted on February 21 for relief
from the minimum shoreline setback to wetlands requirement for the Light Industrial
zone. Waiver requests as stated in the applicant’s cover letter should be discussed and
formally granted as part of any approval for the project. A condition of any approval
should be that the disturbance area be secured with erosion and sediment control
measures and installation inspected by Town Staff prior to any site development. The
st
Vision Engineering project review letter dated February 21 is in your packet. A Warren
County Planning Board determination of No Action. The public hearing should be
opened and it’s a SEQRA Type II Action.
MR. HUNSINGER-Great. Thank you. Good evening.
MR. ANDRESS-Good evening.
MR. HUNSINGER-If you could identify yourself for the record.
33
(Queensbury Planning Board 02/27/07)
MR. ANDRESS-Certainly. Tom Andress with ABD Engineers and Surveyors. We’re
representing the applicant. Angelo Tremano here is also from ADD Development, which
is the applicant.
MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. If you could just summarize your project.
MR. ANDRESS-I’d certainly like to. This is an approximately nine by twenty-four
addition. I’ve provided you with the photo. So it sort of gives you a little better idea.
Basically what we’re doing is the building is a little bit of a U-shape. We’re just infilling
that one area that’s approximately nine feet wide, and it’s approximately 24 feet long to
the short end of the building. We’re infilling that so that, in the back of your package I
think there’s a floor plan. It will allow us to re-do the inside of the building to be able to
make the rooms a little more compatible. Right now, because of that sort of U-shaped
arrangement, the rooms are very odd. This will allow us to be able to put a conference
room in there and slightly reconfigure the inside of the building. Again, this whole
proposal is on the rear of the property. So you won’t see it from the street at all. There is
no site work proposed other than just this addition. This addition, as you can see from
the photo, is in a gravel area. So we’re not changing any of the impervious area. We
have asked, as part of the narrative, for a waiver for landscaping, I think stormwater
management, grading plans, even though we did do topo out there, but there’s no
grading. There’s no landscaping. There’s really no stormwater management, per se, for
the area because it is on an existing gravel area. We’re not proposing any lighting on
this portion. So all the lighting for the building will remain just as it is. Basically a fairly
straightforward, small addition, but even though it’s small, it will really allow a much
better utilization of the inside of the building.
MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. I’ll open it up for questions from members of the Board.
MRS. STEFFAN-Did you folks receive the comments from Vision Engineering?
MR. ANDRESS-I have not.
MRS. STEFFAN-They made a couple of good comments. I had reviewed your project,
and then read the letter, and they did make a couple of notes, and I’ll read them to you.
You can have a copy of this. The roofline shown in a hand sketched elevation drawing
indicate a long, flat roof valley between the existing roof and the new over framed roof.
This should be reviewed to correct this problem to show a positive roof drainage,
because otherwise you have two valleys draining down into, which might be a flat spot.
I’m not really sure, and then Number Two, even though the area is small for the addition,
some stormwater control or management should be designed and implemented for the
roof runoff. The roof drainage patterns are being altered and long valleys could
discharge large quantities of uncontrolled runoff uncontrolled runoff to certain areas, and
with the wetland behind you, that is significant. Number Three, the location of the
addition in the rear between the two existing building wings will be difficult to access.
Because of the proximity to wetlands, erosion and sediment control practices should be
specified and shown on the plan along with staging areas and access points to the
addition, which I thought were good points. I hadn’t thought about it. The engineer did. I
thought they were good points.
MR. ANDRESS-Yes. They might not have actually gone out on the site. Because
actually it’s all gravel all the way around it. So it’s actually easy to access, and there’s a
staging area right there. So it might be that they just did the plan review, but if you
actually look on the plan, there’s gravel all the way around it. So it’s really simple to get
to it. You’re working a complete gravel area. I think Staff had mentioned the silt fence
and of course we would have to put that up. The wetland is very defined there, because
basically you have the gravel parking area. It goes down a couple of foot, grade change,
and the water sits right there. So we would put a silt fence, certainly, right along that
edge.
MR. FORD-What about the roof?
MR. ANDRESS-Well, the roof, what you’re adding on is a nine by twenty-four. You’re
adding 216 square feet. A normal roof maybe on a single family home would be may be
ten times that size. The other roof drainage from the other portions of the roof are
already coming off there. I mean, we’re not adding additional roof to the other areas, and
where they’re coming is right into this area.
MR. FORD-What will be the slope of the new addition’s roof?
34
(Queensbury Planning Board 02/27/07)
MR. ANDRESS-Well, all you’re going to do is slope that roof, and ADD is still working
with the architect to see exactly how it works, but it will just be sloped towards the rear,
which is exactly the way all the water is going now. It comes down, you can see from the
photograph it just comes down and discharges right into that area. So that’s exactly the
same area where the water’s going to go in the future, once you have that roof on there.
There’s only a couple foot grade change between the gravel area, which is all a gravel
area from there to the edge of the wetland. So I don’t see any need for anything other
than allow that to run off the same gravel area in the back that it’s running off now, from a
stormwater standpoint.
MR. FORD-Thank you.
MR. HUNSINGER-Any other questions or comments from members of the Board? I
think this picture really helps a lot.
MR. ANDRESS-It says it all.
MR. HUNSINGER-Yes. When we went out on the site visits, I didn’t have the benefit of
the plans with us. So we didn’t actually go all the way around to the back.
MR. ANDRESS-Yes. Once you walk around the back and look at it, there is a little shed
there that I’m not sure if I’m not sure if they’ll move it or just even keep that.
MR. TREMANO-We’ll end up eliminating that shed.
MR. ANDRESS-And that’ll even make it a little easier for construction, but you can keep
that away from all the area where they’re parking. So they’re not taking the parking
spaces while they’re constructing it.
MR. HUNSINGER-Okay.
MRS. STEFFAN-Just a question. There are a lot of trees behind your building.
MR. ANDRESS-There are no trees.
MRS. STEFFAN-There were. Is that your property or is that the neighbor’s property,
where all the trees were cut down?
MR. ANDRESS-There were no trees cut down.
MR. TREMANO-There were no trees on our property. It may have been the adjacent
property.
MRS. STEFFAN-Okay.
MR. TREMANO-It wasn’t our property.
MRS. STEFFAN-Okay. Yes, there was a lot of cutting last year, and I thought it was kind
of odd.
MR. ANDRESS-It could have been along the perimeter of the next commercial building
to the north, maybe. Because that whole area is all, everything to the west is all
wetlands, which is why they put the radio stations there. I mean, it’s pretty traditional.
You stick a radio station in the middle of the wetlands because it’s about the only thing
you could do. Of course that was done before really regulations went in. I mean, now
you can’t even do that.
MR. HUNSINGER-That’s interesting.
MR. ANDRESS-But that whole thing, when you look at it, it’s all just open. It’s just all
wetlands. There’s not much you can do. The only area you can see immediately around
the building, that’s the area that was filled, which is gravel to behind it and then it is grass
from the strip to the building to the center control tower. That’s sort of a dike made out of
grass.
MRS. STEFFAN-Because it was last year when I was driving down Everts and Homer
and, you know, it appeared clear cutting in that area, and it surprised me, and I thought it
was the radio station. I just assumed it was the radio station.
35
(Queensbury Planning Board 02/27/07)
MR. ANDRESS-I’m not aware of any cutting.
MRS. BARDEN-I think it might have been south of there. It couldn’t have been north.
MR. ANDRESS-There’s no trees that were cut along that site. I mean, maybe it could
have been that little box that’s adjoining property.
MRS. STEFFAN-It could be. It was a large swath. I actually talked to several people
who had the same comment that I did. They were surprised all that. It was leveled. So
the picture doesn’t reflect it. Although some of the GPS photos that we get.
MRS. BARDEN-This is 2004.
MRS. STEFFAN-Right, because the parking, last week’s meeting, when we were looking
at the parking at the Mountainside Auto I think it was, it didn’t show the Country Inn motel
on the adjacent property. That wasn’t there. So I knew that it was an old GPS, or GIS.
MR. ANDRESS-I was told recently that this whole area is going to be re-photographed
now, in April of 2009.
MRS. STEFFAN-2009?
MR. ANDRESS-2009. Well, that’s what I was told. Working on another GIS project.
MR. HUNSINGER-I imagine that’s the kind of planning it takes. Any other comments
from the Board?
MR. SEGULJIC-I’m all set.
MR. HUNSINGER-We do have a public hearing scheduled. I will open the public
hearing, unless Mr. Klein has any comments.
PUBLIC HEARING OPENED
NO COMMENTS
PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED
MR. HUNSINGER-Were you comfortable in moving forward with SEQRA? It’s a Type II,
so that would be the Short Form.
MRS. BARDEN-It’s Type II. So there’s no SEQRA.
MR. HUNSINGER-I’m sorry. I always get Type II’s and Unlisted’s mixed up, in case you
haven’t noticed. It just doesn’t seem logical to me. Sorry about that. Would anyone like
to entertain a motion?
MRS. STEFFAN-Do we have to specify to grant the waivers?
MR. HUNSINGER-How do we deal with the outstanding engineering comments, I guess,
is the first question. I think the applicant said that they would comply with the erosion
and sediment control practices during construction that was mentioned.
MR. ANDRESS-We can add that directly to these plans prior to them coming back to the
Planning Department for stamping.
MR. HUNSINGER-Okay.
MRS. STEFFAN-So we’ll just say to address comments in the Vision Engineering letter.
Is that going to be sufficient or is that too much?
MR. HUNSINGER-I guess I don’t think that’s too much. Gretchen posed the question,
should we just ask them to address the engineering comments. There’s really just three,
and the first one, you know, you kind of said you’re still kind of struggling with it anyway,
which is the roofline and how that’s going to be constructed.
MRS. STEFFAN-But Number Two, if we grant a waiver for stormwater plan, then that
contradicts what the engineer is trying to do.
36
(Queensbury Planning Board 02/27/07)
MR. HUNSINGER-Yes.
MR. ANDRESS-I mean, 200 square feet, if you take it another way, is less than a parking
spot. Well, this is actually nine by twenty-four. So it’s about a regular, I’m thinking of 10
by 20. So it’s about a regular, I’m thinking a 10 by 20. So it’s a parking spot.
MRS. STEFFAN-It’s a double wide.
MR. ANDRESS-No, a single wide. I mean, it’s shorter than the distance from your table
to this table.
MR. HUNSINGER-And if you’re taking away that shed, you’re removing that much.
MR. ANDRESS-It’s fully gravel. There’s really nothing you can do out there because of
the water table and everything. I don’t know how you would handle any stormwater, but
again, I mean, it’s not even the distance from there to here.
MR. HUNSINGER-Right.
MR. ANDRESS-I mean I understand stormwater, and we certainly do make sure that we
do things, but this is clearly under any limitations for DEC requirements.
MR. HUNSINGER-What’s the feeling of the Board?
MR. SEGULJIC-I don’t have any problems with this.
MR. HUNSINGER-Okay.
MRS. STEFFAN-So we don’t need to worry about that, and we’ll grant the waivers.
MR. HUNSINGER-Do we have a list of the waivers?
MR. ANDRESS-We had it in our narrative.
MR. SEGULJIC-Landscaping, stormwater, grading, and lighting.
MR. HUNSINGER-Right. We could just say the waivers requested are granted.
MOTION TO APPROVE SITE PLAN NO. 5-2007 ADD DEVELOPMENT, Introduced by
Gretchen Steffan who moved for its adoption, seconded by Stephen Traver:
1. A site plan application has been made to the Queensbury Planning Board for the
following; Applicant proposes a 216 sq. ft. building addition to an existing 2,932
sq. ft. Broadcasting Station. Expansions of TV or Radio Stations in the LI zone
require Planning Board review and approval..
2. A public hearing was advertised and held on 2/27/07;
3. This application is supported with all documentation, public comment and
application material in the file of record;
4. Pursuant to relevant sections of the Town of Queensbury Zoning Code [Chapter
179], the Planning Board has determined that this proposal complies with the
requirements as stated in the Zoning Code; and
5. The requirements of the State Environmental Quality Review Act have been
considered and the Planning Board has adopted a SEQRA [Negative / Positive]
Declaration; and
6. If the application is a modification, the requirements of the State Environmental
Quality Review Act have been considered, and the proposed modification[s] do
not result in any new or significantly different environmental impacts, and,
therefore, no further SEQRA review is necessary; and
7. 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. Subsequent issuance of further
permits, including building permits are dependent on receipt; and
37
(Queensbury Planning Board 02/27/07)
8. The applicant will provide as-built plans to certify that the site plan is developed
according to the approved plans prior to issuance of the certificate of occupancy;
and
9. If applicable, Item 8 to be combined with a letter of credit; and
10. The Sanitary Sewer connection plan must be submitted to the Wastewater
Department for its review, approval, permitting and inspection.
11. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that we find the following:
MOTION TO APPROVE SITE PLAN NO. 5-2007 ADD DEVELOPMENT, Introduced by
Gretchen Steffan who moved for its adoption, seconded by Stephen Traver:
According to the resolution prepared by Staff. Paragraph Four complies. Paragraph
Five does not apply because it is a Type II SEQRA. The applicant has requested
waivers and the waivers are granted. With the condition:
1. That there will be a silt fence required during the construction process.
th
Duly adopted this 27 day of February, 2007, by the following vote:
MRS. BARDEN-I’m sorry, I thought that you were going to add a condition that the silt
fencing was put on the plan.
MRS. STEFFAN-I thought that that was a requirement of, is that a State requirement?
MR. HUNSINGER-It’s a requirement anyway, right?
MRS. BARDEN-It’s not. It’s not on there right now. They need to have that on before
they submit their three copies.
MR. ANDRESS-That’s fine.
MRS. STEFFAN-We will add a condition that there will be a silt fence required during the
construction process.
AYES: Mr. Seguljic, Mr. Ford, Mrs. Steffan, Mr. Traver, Mr. Hunsinger
NOES: NONE
ABSENT: Mrs. Bruno, Mr. Sipp
MR. HUNSINGER-You’re all set.
MR. ANDRESS-Thank you very much.
MR. TREMANO-Thank you very much.
MR. HUNSINGER-Thank you.
SITE PLAN NO. 6-2007 SEQR TYPE II NCE BUILDING CORP. AGENT(S) DAVID
KLEIN OWNER(S) SAME ZONING HC-INTENSIVE LOCATION 1557 STATE
ROUTE 9 APPLICANT PROPOSES CONSTRUCTION OF A 5 BAY 1440 SQ. FT.
STORAGE BUILDING WITH 720 SQ. FT. OF ATTIC SPACE. EXPANSIONS OF
OFFICE USES IN THE HC ZONE REQUIRE REVIEW BY THE PLANNING BOARD.
WARREN CO. PLANNING BOARD 2/14/07 ADIRONDACK PARK AGENCY YES
OTHER FLOOD ZONE X LOT SIZE 1.16 ACRES TAX MAP NO. 288.8-1-6 SECTION
179-9-020
DAVE KLEIN, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT
MR. HUNSINGER-Susan, if you could summarize Staff Notes, please.
MRS. BARDEN-The applicant requests site plan review for expansion of an office use in
the Highway Commercial Intensive zone, specifically for construction of a five bay, 1,440
square foot garage with 720 square feet of attic storage area. An additional 1,770
square feet of gravel or paved area is also proposed. The property is located at 1557
State Route 9. The applicant requests waivers from the submission requirements of the
38
(Queensbury Planning Board 02/27/07)
stormwater and grading plan, lighting plan and landscaping plan. In addition a waiver
from the Type B, 20 feet of landscaped buffer between office and commercial uses on
the north side, proposed as 10 feet is requested. Staff has questions regarding a color
scheme and concerns regarding the proposed building lighting. Vision Engineering
nd
project review letter dated February 22 has been submitted and there is a public
hearing advertised for tonight, and this is a SEQRA Type II Action.
MR. HUNSINGER-Great. Thank you. Good evening.
MR. KLEIN-Good evening.
MR. HUNSINGER-If you could identify yourself for the record, and summarize your
project.
MR. KLEIN-I’m Dave Klein, principle at North Country Engineering and a partner in NCE
Building Corp. We’ve recently traded a building in Downtown Glens Falls for this
property in Queensbury. We suspect by late August we’ll be moving our operations from
Glens Falls to this building and we’ll be occupying a third to half the building, and we’ll be
leasing the other portions out. Prior to the current occupant, the building was up into I
believe three or four office spaces. The building’s a one story building with a slab on
grade. The back part of the building has got attic trusses with mechanical equipment in
it. The front part of the building’s got some attic trusses that are used for storage. Our
current archives are located in about a 1,000 square foot basement in Downtown Glens
Falls. So we have to have storage space for our records. By law we have to keep our
records for seven years. Some records we keep much longer for repeat clients. So we
need some, you know, convenient storage space for our records before we moved in.
Also, I’ve got a friend that wants to rent a couple of garage spaces to store some sports
cars in there. So we thought we’d build a garage, and this is the maximum size it will be.
We may want to tone it down a bay or two, but it’s not a real big project. We located it
where it is, currently there’s a dumpster at the end of the driveway, as you drive back
behind the building, and it sits on a small paved area, and we thought we would take that
spot and continue it on straight back, and get access to the proposed garage that way.
There’s also a small, well, there’s a natural retention area behind there. I’ve walked the
property. There’s standing water there at some times, but it’s bermed up so that it could
probably hold two foot of water and it’s plenty large enough to take any additional runoff
from this property, or this project. With regards to the lighting, currently the building’s got
a series of spotlights around the building. I was told that they were motion detected. I
recently went back there and I think the ones on the front are switched and there might
be one in the back that’s switched also.
MR. SEGULJIC-Excuse me. Are you talking on the existing building?
MR. KLEIN-On the existing building.
MR. SEGULJIC-Okay.
MR. KLEIN-The building’s got a security system. Another reason that we located the
building where it is, eventually, we may want to put a security monitor in, going back to
the garage, to see that nobody goes back there, and we need some lights, you know,
basically security lights. Somebody goes back there, a light will come on. It’s not going
to be accessed in the middle of the night on a regular basis. I guess by Code we have to
put lights over the doors, entering to the attic. So we’ve got some switched lights over
the doors. I don’t think the lights are going to be on very often. If my buddy wants to get
his sports car out in the middle of the night he might turn the lights on, or activate the
lights.
MR. FORD-No fencing anticipated?
MR. KLEIN-No fencing.
MR. SEGULJIC-Okay. I’m looking at Drawing C-1 and the proposed garage. Could you
just clarify that for me. I’m confused as to, because isn’t the garage going to be a big
rectangle?
MR. KLEIN-The garage is going to be a big rectangle, 60 foot long, and 24 foot deep.
There’ll be a maximum of five bays in it, 12 foot bays.
MR. SEGULJIC-Okay. I guess where I’m getting confused is it looks like it juts out to the
south.
39
(Queensbury Planning Board 02/27/07)
MR. KLEIN-Yes. The roof is extended over the stairs.
MR. SEGULJIC-Okay.
MR. KLEIN-We’ve got stairs going up on both sides of the garage.
MR. SEGULJIC-And so the garage is going to be sitting east/west orientation.
MR. KLEIN-Parallel to the property line, yes.
MR. SEGULJIC-And the garage doors are going to be on the north side, then?
MR. KLEIN-Correct.
MR. SEGULJIC-So then the parking lot would get extended, for argument’s sake, along
the property line, to get into the bays.
MR. KLEIN-This shaded area here is the extended parking area, or drive area. It’s really
not a parking area.
MR. SEGULJIC-Okay. All right.
MR. KLEIN-To get access to the garage doors.
MR. SEGULJIC-All right, and then you’re going to have some security lights around the
garage at the entranceways?
MR. KLEIN-We show two little V’s here. Those are floodlights, motion detected
floodlights.
MR. SEGULJIC-All right.
MR. KLEIN-That would be pointed down onto the surface and if somebody drives back
there, the light will come on, and there’ll be, of course, vision, you know, they won’t come
on in the middle of the day.
MR. SEGULJIC-Right. Okay, and how about the color scheme?
MR. KLEIN-The color scheme’s going to match the existing building.
MR. SEGULJIC-Which is?
MR. KLEIN-It’s kind of a cream color. I’ve got some photographs. The existing building
is the basically the same size. It’s got attic trusses. It’s 24 foot across.
MR. SEGULJIC-Okay. All right.
MR. KLEIN-So it’s going to match the existing building. It’s a fairly well landscaped lot
from the front. We’re not clearing a lot of land. One other thought I did have, that’s not
on our plans, on the west wall that faces the existing building, I was thinking about
adding a garage door so we could get maybe a boat in for storage.
MR. SEGULJIC-You’re storing everything there.
MR. KLEIN-Yes, well, it’s 24 foot deep. That will give us enough depth to get a boat in
there.
MR. SEGULJIC-My only concern would be the color of it. When it comes to colors, I’m
no good, but what would the visibility, is there going to be visibility from the Northway?
MR. KLEIN-No.
MR. SEGULJIC-So it won’t be, because I was thinking to have it painted a greenish color
to mix in, but it’s not going to be visible.
MR. KLEIN-We can put in an earth tone. I would rather keep it to match the existing
building.
40
(Queensbury Planning Board 02/27/07)
MR. SEGULJIC-Just a thought. I’m all set with it.
MRS. STEFFAN-Yes, I was actually thinking, you probably wouldn’t see it from the road,
because the part that, when you drive around the building, when you continue back
there’s a dumpster, but where the access would be to the barn, that’s the place you
would see, you really, the building, the new garage will be behind the existing building,
and just the way the grade comes up from the road, I doubt that you’ll be able to see it
from Route 9.
MR. FORD-We were concerned about from the Northway.
MR. SEGULJIC-From the Northway.
MRS. STEFFAN-I think there’ll be enough buffer.
MR. KLEIN-Yes, it’s a real steep bank there. You’re not going to be able to see really
anything down there.
MRS. STEFFAN-Yes, not like the new motel. That didn’t turn out so well.
MR. KLEIN-There’s at least 50 foot of vegetation in that area, you know, depth before
our property line, and then there’s some more vegetation on the side of the Northway.
MR. FORD-The dumpster is going to be replaced where?
MR. KLEIN-I was thinking about putting it in the south side of the existing parking lot.
Right now, when you drive around back, that’s what you see, the dumpster, and getting it
down to the south side, there’s a fence. The neighbor’s got a fence up there that will
screen it from that side and kind of be out of sight.
MRS. STEFFAN-How many folks do you have working for you? How many parking
spaces will you need?
MR. KLEIN-Right now we’re just down to half a dozen people. We’ll probably get to eight
to twelve people.
MR. HUNSINGER-Are you going to use the whole building, though, or are you going to
rent out part of it?
MR. KLEIN-No, we’re going to rent out two or three spots in the building.
MR. HUNSINGER-That’s what I thought. Okay.
MR. KLEIN-We’ll occupy a third to a half of it, and there’s additional parking in the front,
like you see in the photograph. It’s well landscaped from Route 9, and you won’t be able
to see it from the main thoroughfare.
MR. HUNSINGER-It seems funny to look at green vegetation right now.
MRS. BARDEN-These historic photos are really good now, with all the snow.
MR. HUNSINGER-Any other questions or comments from members of the Board? We
do have a public hearing scheduled. I will open the public hearing and unless Blanche
has any comments, I will close the public hearing.
PUBLIC HEARING OPENED
NO COMMENTS
PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED
MS. ALTER-We don’t screen dumpsters?
MR. HUNSINGER-We typically do, yes. The current one is not screened.
MRS. STEFFAN-It’s covered with vegetation. That’s probably why, where we’re moving
the dumpster to.
MS. ALTER-That would be my only comment.
41
(Queensbury Planning Board 02/27/07)
MR. HUNSINGER-Type II, so no SEQRA required.
MRS. STEFFAN-Dave, where’s the dumpster going to go?
MR. KLEIN-Probably put it right back in this side of the parking lot, on the south side of
the existing parking lot. So when you drive around back, you’re not going to see the
dumpster first thing. You have to drive around back now to see the dumpster, but when
you do, it’s right there in your face.
MR. HUNSINGER-I don’t suppose you have a picture of the rear of the property, do you,
Susan?
MRS. BARDEN-I do have that orthophoto, the rear of the building? No, I don’t.
MR. HUNSINGER-Okay, because you said there was a privacy fence. I remember that
when we went out on site visits.
MR. FORD-Along the south side.
MR. KLEIN-To the north, right. This is the south back of the building. The fence, it’s a
motel, it’s right up to the property line and I believe there’s a fence over here, a little
courtyard, a landscaped courtyard in between the (lost word). Here’s the back of the
building. I don’t know if I have one of the fence, but I do have a bunch of them here.
Here’s the back of the building.
MR. HUNSINGER-My interest in asking about the fence is for screening of the dumpster,
specifically.
MRS. STEFFAN-From the motel.
MR. KLEIN-There is a fence there, and it’s a solid fence. You can’t see through.
MRS. STEFFAN-Between you and the motel.
MR. KLEIN-Yes, I believe it’s the motel.
MR. HUNSINGER-Okay.
MRS. STEFFAN-And I think that’s fine because there’s no way you’ll be able to see it
from the front of the property.
MR. HUNSINGER-No.
MRS. STEFFAN-Okay. So I guess we’re okay on that. We don’t have to. Are we okay
with the lighting waiver that they asked for?
MR. HUNSINGER-I am.
MR. SEGULJIC-Yes.
MRS. STEFFAN-And how about the 10 foot vegetative buffer on the north side in lieu of
20?
MR. SEGULJIC-I’m more concerned about the adjoining property owner. He’s not here,
or she’s not here.
MR. KLEIN-His father-in-law was just here, and he’s got no problems with it.
MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. Would anyone like to put forward a motion for consideration?
There were two comments from Vision Engineering. Of course one is dealing with a
waiver for stormwater, and the other is control measures for temporary and permanent
soil stabilization.
MR. KLEIN-We can put a silt fence on the downhill side of the clearing.
MR. HUNSINGER-Okay.
42
(Queensbury Planning Board 02/27/07)
MR. KLEIN-We’re going to try and take as few trees as necessary. Where the building’s
going to sit is higher than the.
MRS. BARDEN-To the north it’s?
MR. KLEIN-Fish 307, there’s a new daycare that’s gone in there recently, and then Leo’s
Lobster, and then to the south is Stark’s hotel.
MRS. BARDEN-It is the Mohican. It’s how many feet up from 9 and 149, probably not
far.
MR. KLEIN-It’s not too far. There’s the golf course.
MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. Are you ready?
MRS. STEFFAN-Okay. Folks, I’ll make a motion.
MOTION TO APPROVE SITE PLAN NO. 6-2007 NCE BUILDING CORP., Introduced by
Gretchen Steffan who moved for its adoption, seconded by Thomas Ford:
1. A site plan application has been made to the Queensbury Planning Board for the
following; Applicant proposes construction of a 5 bay 1440 sq. ft. storage building
with 720 sq. ft. of attic space. Expansions of office uses in the HC zone require
review by the Planning Board
2. A public hearing was advertised and held on 2/27/07;
3. This application is supported with all documentation, public comment and
application material in the file of record;
4. Pursuant to relevant sections of the Town of Queensbury Zoning Code [Chapter
179], the Planning Board has determined that this proposal complies with the
requirements as stated in the Zoning Code; and
5. The requirements of the State Environmental Quality Review Act have been
considered and the Planning Board has adopted a SEQRA [Negative / Positive]
Declaration; and
6. If the application is a modification, the requirements of the State Environmental
Quality Review Act have been considered, and the proposed modification[s] do
not result in any new or significantly different environmental impacts, and,
therefore, no further SEQRA review is necessary; and
7. 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. Subsequent issuance of further
permits, including building permits are dependent on receipt; and
8. The applicant will provide as-built plans to certify that the site plan is developed
according to the approved plans prior to issuance of the certificate of occupancy;
and
9. If applicable, Item 8 to be combined with a letter of credit; and
10. The Sanitary Sewer connection plan must be submitted to the Wastewater
Department for its review, approval, permitting and inspection.
11. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that we find the following: This
application is hereby
MOTION TO APPROVE SITE PLAN NO. 6-2007 NCE BUILDING CORP., Introduced by
Gretchen Steffan who moved for its adoption, seconded by Thomas Ford:
According to the resolution prepared by Staff. Paragraph Four complies. Paragraph
Five this is a Type II SEQRA, and we’ll approve this with the following conditions:
1.That the color scheme of the new building match the existing building.
43
(Queensbury Planning Board 02/27/07)
2.That the Planning Board is granting waivers for lighting, stormwater and 10
foot buffer as requested by the applicant.
3.That during construction the applicant will add silt fencing to protect the
wetland.
th
Duly adopted this 27 day of February, 2007, by the following vote:
MR. KLEIN-There was one other waiver, requesting the 10 foot buffer instead of the 20
foot buffer.
MRS. STEFFAN-You’re right, and let’s amend that motion to approve the 10 foot buffer.
AYES: Mr. Seguljic, Mr. Traver, Mr. Ford, Mrs. Steffan, Mr. Hunsinger
NOES: NONE
ABSENT: Mrs. Bruno, Mr. Sipp
MR. KLEIN-Thank you very much.
MR. HUNSINGER-You’re all set. Thank you.
MRS. STEFFAN-Good luck on your move and your project.
MR. KLEIN-Thank you very much. I’m looking forward to being in Queensbury.
MR. FORD-Welcome to Queensbury. For whatever reason, I did not receive the
engineering e-mails.
MR. HUNSINGER-What day did that come out?
MRS. BARDEN-I think they were just e-mailed.
MR. HUNSINGER-Was it Friday?
MRS. BARDEN-Late Friday.
MS. ALTER-Unless you have something on your computer that lets it keep bouncing
back, you don’t always get it, when it’s delayed in sending it.
MR. HUNSINGER-Tom said he didn’t get the engineering comments. Is there any other
business before the Board? Blanche, did you have anything else you wanted to add to
the committee, to the Board tonight, since it’s your first meeting? Any comments,
observations?
MS. ALTER-I was told, in my letter when I was hired, I told them I had attended all the
meetings in Armonk for 12 years, and the Town Board asked me if I was going to do that
here told them I was going to do that here, so what could I say? So it’s not that I don’t
trust Staff, but I just want to get used to everything, and we’re working on the master
plan. So I’m not here to make trouble. I’m just here to help out.
MR. HUNSINGER-No. I’m just curious if you had any observations or, you know,
comments of the Board.
MS. ALTER-Well, I’m a little bit confused, because the Town Board is under the
impression that you’re, I don’t think you want this on the record, do you?
MR. HUNSINGER-We haven’t adjourned yet.
nd
MRS. BARDEN-One last thing on the record. Did we decide on the March 22 date for
the special meeting date, third meeting in March?
nd
MR. HUNSINGER-Yes. The third meeting in March would be on the 22. What I had
suggested to Staff, there are two Sketch Plans next month, and what I suggested is if we
could maybe limit the discussion on the Sketch Plans, that for the two Tuesday meetings
have a normal six item agenda, plus a Sketch Plan, and limit each Sketch Plan to, you
know, maybe 15 or 20 minutes, which is typically about all they take. That way we could
get into the backlog pretty significantly. That’s what I would propose, unless there’s any
44
(Queensbury Planning Board 02/27/07)
strong feelings from the Board to the contrary. In fact, I think if I had realized all we were
doing for the one item tonight was the SEQRA, I think we could have added another item
tonight, too.
MRS. BARDEN-We didn’t know, though.
MR. HUNSINGER-Yes, we didn’t know.
MS. ALTER-You never know. If you schedule two more, then they’ll run ‘til midnight.
MR. HUNSINGER-Yes, but we have an outstanding, in our Policies and Procedures
manual, it does limit the agenda to six items in a meeting, unless there’s, you know, a
small item, then the Chairman can add an additional item or two. So that’s why I wanted
to bring up the two Sketch Plans for next month.
MS. ALTER-One of my goals is to try to have better coordination between the Zoning
Board and Planning Board. You’re more used to doing SEQRA, and sometimes it’s hard
for the Zoning Board Chairman to relinquish control of something, but I’m trying to get
him to do that, and the other thing I would say is that I thought you did a very good job at
looking at all the issues and reviewing it within a very, you know, there wasn’t a lot of
superfluous chitchat. Are you just, because of the volume of so many applications? Is
that why you’re behind?
MR. HUNSINGER-Yes.
MRS. BARDEN-Primarily I think because of the agenda limits.
MR. HUNSINGER-It’s both, actually.
MRS. STEFFAN-And the building season is just starting to ramp up. So folks are getting
their site plans in now, and historically we’ve had to have an extra meeting or two in the
Spring, just because of that.
MS. ALTER-Is there anything that you want from me? I’m going to be coming to the
meetings. I think Sue and Susan did a good job, not for that reason, but sometimes I
know something and sometimes I don’t, that can be helpful.
MRS. STEFFAN-We used to, before, obviously there were some changes with Counsel,
and we used to have a lawyer here for each one of our Planning Board meetings, and for
budget reasons I guess we’ve changed that policy, but we also have a new law firm
that’s representing the Town, and there’ve been a few times where we’ve wanted some
help, and we haven’t had the help.
MS. ALTER-Well, all you have to do is ask for the help and they will come.
MR. SEGULJIC-Speaking of which, weren’t we supposed to meet tonight?
MRS. STEFFAN-Yes, tonight, for example, our attorney was supposed to be here for a
briefing and he’s not here.
MR. HUNSINGER-Yes. When I met with him a couple of weeks ago, well, originally it
was supposed to be last week, and he said he was going to be out of town for the
Associations of Towns meeting, and I said, well, then, we’ll put you on the agenda for the
th
27, and the purpose was for him to update us on the current litigations. I didn’t call to
remind him. I didn’t think I’d need to, but when I met with he and Craig, maybe it was
three or four weeks ago now, that was how it was left.
MS. ALTER-I apologize for missing your meeting. I don’t know. I’m thinking that maybe,
I’ve had this sinus infection. I take antibiotic. I’m fine for a few days and it comes back.
MR. HUNSINGER-Yes. I think it might have been before you officially started work, or
maybe it was your first week on the job or something. It was, if you were on the job.
MS. ALTER-I have a feeling that there’s something wrong with the water where I’m
living, because my cats won’t drink it, and to me that’s kind of like, you know, they don’t
want it, and they see me drinking bottled water and they meow. So I give them bottled
water now.
MR. HUNSINGER-Who has who trained?
45
(Queensbury Planning Board 02/27/07)
MS. ALTER-They have me well trained, but I’m wondering if maybe because there’s no
record of the well if we’re getting, I live on Ash Drive by Glen Lake, and I’m wondering if
maybe that’s it, because I’ve never had sore throats or sinus like this . So I have a sore
throat today, and I only brush my teeth with the water this morning. I’m going to have to
think I’m in a third world country, like Mexico.
MR. FORD-It may be something other than the water.
MS. ALTER-What?
MR. FORD-I’m just thinking creatively.
MS. ALTER-No, I’m just concerned that maybe effluent was going into the water.
MR. HUNSINGER-So I guess maybe at our next meeting we’ll have an update from
Counsel on the litigation and we’ll deal with that.
MRS. BARDEN-I will contact them.
MR. HUNSINGER-Yes, I will as well.
MS. ALTER-Do you think he was confused and thought he had to be at the Zoning
Board?
MR. HUNSINGER-I don’t know.
MRS. BARDEN-It was at his request, right, that we do this Executive Session.
MR. HUNSINGER-Well, how it evolved was he had asked me if the Planning Board
would re-consider the Golden Corral Site Plan, and I brought it up to the Board. He
happened to call me the day of a meeting. So I said, well, you know, I’m really not a
good person to ask, but I’ll bring it up to the Board, and when I brought it up to the Board,
we had some discussion, and basically what the Board decided was, well, why don’t we
have him come and give us an update on where we stand, and if there’s other, and we
knew, for example, the Hoffman was coming up soon. We said if there were other
projects under litigation he could update us on those as well. So that was how it evolved.
So it was his request of us for consideration, but it was the Board’s request for him to
come and address the Board, but if we could do that at the first meeting in March.
MRS. BARDEN-Okay.
MR. HUNSINGER-And then when we set up the March agenda, if there’s any items that
th
we feel we should have Counsel, we’ll try to schedule them on the 20 as well, while he’s
there.
MRS. BARDEN-Okay.
MS. ALTER-Might I suggest that you put the items for Counsel first so we’re not paying
him for the whole night.
MR. HUNSINGER-Yes, we would.
th
MRS. BARDEN-Okay. March 20 meeting.
MR. HUNSINGER-Yes. I know Craig said we had to get the agenda set for March by
Thursday.
MRS. BARDEN-Yes.
MR. HUNSINGER-Okay.
MRS. BARDEN-Which probably means that, the first one that comes to mind is Jean
Hoffman. You’d certainly want to have Counsel for that.
MR. HUNSINGER-Sure.
MS. ALTER-There’s a lot of correspondence from outside people on that.
46
(Queensbury Planning Board 02/27/07)
MRS. BARDEN-Yes, and I’ll give you this, though, Chris, and if you see anything else.
MR. HUNSINGER-Okay.
MRS. BARDEN-That you think we need Counsel for, just let me know.
MR. HUNSINGER-I would also defer to Staff’s opinion, too, you know, if there were any
that you thought, in your review, would be useful.
MRS. BARDEN-How about Girl Scouts?
MR. HUNSINGER-It wouldn’t hurt.
MRS. STEFFAN-Did they ever get a master plan done?
MRS. BARDEN-Yes.
MR. HUNSINGER-That’s what we’re going to be considering. Okay. Is there any other
business for the Board?
MS. ALTER-The PORC Committee, I got to go, and the minutes are voluminous. You’ll
love them. My suggestion, and Saratoga concurred, was that we try to sit down with the
Town Board and come to closure on the things that there’s no disagreement on. So
hopefully we’re going to do that shortly.
MR. HUNSINGER-Okay.
MS. ALTER-So we’ll keep you in the loop.
MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. Good.
MRS. STEFFAN-Will we do that at the next meeting?
MR. HUNSINGER-I think that was the consideration, yes. Anything else for the Board? I
was told yesterday that under the Open Meeting Law that motions to adjourn have to be
voted on. Whereas we have historically just kind of said, you know, a motion to adjourn
is always in order, and we just adjourned, without a vote taken.
MRS. BARDEN-I can’t imagine anybody voting no.
MR. HUNSINGER-I can’t, either.
MR. FORD-So all those meetings are still open?
MR. HUNSINGER-Apparently. Either that or they didn’t officially comply with the Open
Meeting Law.
MRS. STEFFAN-Especially those meetings that end at one o’clock in the morning.
MR. HUNSINGER-I will be so bold as to make a motion to adjourn.
MOTION TO ADJOURN THE QUEENSBURY PLANNING BOARD MEETING OF
FEBRUARY 27, 2007, Introduced by Chris Hunsinger who moved for its adoption,
seconded by Thomas Ford:
th
Duly adopted this 27 day of February, 2007, by the following vote:
AYES: Mr. Traver, Mr. Seguljic, Mrs. Steffan, Mr. Ford, Mr. Hunsinger
NOES: NONE
ABSENT: Mrs. Bruno, Mr. Sipp
On motion meeting was adjourned.
RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED,
47
(Queensbury Planning Board 02/27/07)
Chris Hunsinger, Chairman
48