2007-05-24
(Queensbury Planning Board 05/24/07)
QUEENSBURY PLANNING BOARD MEETING
FIRST REGULAR MEETING
MAY 24, 2007
INDEX
Subdivision No. 8-2007 Irish Bay Partners, LLC 1.
SKETCH PLAN Tax Map No. 227.10-1-1, 2, 3
Site Plan No. 8-2007 Stewarts Shops 19.
Tax Map No. 303.19-1-61
Site Plan No. 18-2007 BBL Construction 26.
Tax Map No. 301.10-1-82, 83, 84
Off Premises Sign 27-2007 McDonalds Corp. 36.
Tax Map No. 303.19-1-61
Site Plan No. 20-2007 Agnus J. Vincze-Rosen 38.
Tax Map No. 226.16-1-49.1
Site Plan No. 21-2007 William Craig 57.
Tax Map No. 289.19-1-10
Site Plan No. 22-2007 Jolley Associates 60.
Tax Map No. 288.16-1-3
THESE ARE NOT OFFICIALLY ADOPTED MINUTES AND ARE SUBJECT TO BOARD
AND STAFF REVISIONS. REVISIONS WILL APPEAR ON THE FOLLOWING
MONTHS MINUTES (IF ANY) AND WILL STATE SUCH APPROVAL OF SAID
MINUTES.
0
(Queensbury Planning Board 05/24/07)
QUEENSBURY PLANNING BOARD MEETING
SPECIAL MEETING
MAY 24, 2007
7:00 P.M.
MEMBERS PRESENT
CHRIS HUNSINGER, CHAIRMAN
GRETCHEN STEFFAN, SECRETARY
STEPHEN TRAVER
THOMAS SEGULJIC
DONALD SIPP
MEMBERS ABSENT
THOMAS FORD
LAND USE PLANNER-SUSAN BARDEN
GIS ADMINISTRATOR-GEORGE HILTON
TOWN ATTORNEY-FITZGERALD, MORRIS, BAKER FIRTH-JEFF MEYER & MATT
FULLER
STENOGRAPHER-SUE HEMINGWAY
MR. HUNSINGER-In advance I’m going to apologize. We’re going to deviate from the
posted agenda. We’re going to hear Subdivision No. 8-2007 for Irish Bay Partners first,
and then move on with our regular agenda. The reason for that is we have a Staff
person here just for that item, and also Counsel here just for that item.
NEW BUSINESS:
SUBDIVISION NO. 8-2007 SKETCH SEQR TYPE N/A IRISH BAY PARTNERS, LLC
AGENT(S) B P S R; LA GROUP OWNER(S): H.W. FISCHER, INC. ZONING WR-1A
LOCATION BEAN ROAD APPLICANT PROPOSES SUBDIVISION OFA 4.5 ACRE
PARCEL INTO 6 LOTS RANGING IN SIZE FROM .096 TO 1.52 ACRES.
SUBDIVISION OF LAND REQUIRES PLANNING BOARD REVIEW. CROSS
REFERENCE AV 29-07 WARREN COUNTY PLANNING N/A ADIRONDACK PARK
AGENCY YES LOT SIZE 4.5 ACRES TAX MAP NO. 227.10-1-1, 2, 3 SECTION A-
183
JON LAPPER & KEVIN FRANK, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT
MR. HUNSINGER-Susan, if you want to summarize Staff Notes.
MRS. BARDEN-Did you want to do that first under New Business, or first?
MR. HUNSINGER-First, first.
MRS. BARDEN-First, first?
MR. HUNSINGER-Yes.
MRS. BARDEN-Do you mind if we wait for George Hilton to do the Staff Notes? He just
ran down. Do you mind?
MR. HUNSINGER-Not at all. You can start, I guess.
MR. LAPPER-Sure. Good evening. For the record, Jon Lapper with Kevin Frank from
the LA Group, and the existing owners are here, as well as our client, John Lefner, one
of the people buying the property. I guess to begin with, we’d just like to start
conceptually and explain what we think the benefits are of taking out the commercial
marina and why we think what we’re proposing to replace it with in Queensbury is
relatively a minor impact in comparison to what’s happening now, but I just want to point
out, procedurally, that when we were at the Zoning Board, they asked the Planning
Board to conduct a recommendation, a review for recommendation, and I noticed, I just
got the Staff Notes yesterday, but that didn’t make it into the Staff Notes. So you have it
on for a Sketch Plan review, and the Zoning Board resolution, it actually asked that you
make a recommendation as to the variances. We think it would be really helpful to have
1
(Queensbury Planning Board 05/24/07)
a recommendation when we go back to the Zoning Board. They’re really planning
issues, and we’ll discuss that with you as we get started, but that said, in general, in the
Town of Queensbury, what we’re proposing is ultimately to wind up with three building
lots, even though the application says six lots. One of them is a road, and then there’s
the Homeowners Association property and a piece of another lot which would be a
house lot in the Town of Fort Ann, and what we have in Queensbury now is obviously a
commercial marina with gasoline sales, boat service, boat sales, and a public boat
launch with metal buildings, and all of that would be eliminated and replaced by three
houses. In order to configure the houses so that we could get three lake houses, those
three lots are slightly narrow, but they all meet the minimum lot size of one acre. So
they’re one acre building lots, and all of the other three lots, which, when you look at the
application or the write up, it seems like these are absolutely tiny lots, it’s because
they’re not building lots. They’re either for the road or for a part of somebody’s back yard
where the house would be in the Town of Fort Ann. Obviously it’s one of the unique
sites, not the first time we’ve done it, but where we have property in two towns, but what
we’re saying is that what’s proposed for the lake is far less impact, these three homes,
than what you have now, in terms of all the activity, and certainly in terms of all the traffic
that you have now from the marina, visually, with the metal buildings, and in terms of
traffic generation, and for this reason our clients have had many discussions with the
neighbors, and our understanding is that the vast majority of the neighbors are very
pleased with the idea of taking out this marina business and replacing it with residences.
Everything that we’ve proposed in Fort Ann meets zoning, in terms of density and in
terms of the APA density. So we’re not seeking to increase density. We’re just doing
what’s allowed under the APA and under Fort Ann and in Queensbury it’s not a density
issue with these three lots. I think the Staff Notes pointed out that we could actually have
four lots, but it’s the three building lots and then these three little pieces of other property.
One of the issues that’s always important to this Board is that we’re going to be pumping
the wastewater away from the lake for these three houses into a place where the soils
are suitable in the Town of Fort Ann on the other side of Pilot Knob Road. So, we think
that the impact on traffic, the impact on the lake, the impact on the neighbors, is going to
be much less than what you have now, and for that reason, we’re hoping that at the end
of this process we’ll get a recommendation for the Zoning Board for these variances, and
then come back to deal with the subdivision with you. The other issue that needs to be
mentioned is that the project is not subject to SEQRA because the APA will be
conducting the primary review, and that doesn’t mean that it avoids an environmental
review. It means that APA does the environmental review. They don’t call it a SEQRA
review. They call it an APA review, but it covers all the issues. So this is technically a
Type II action because it’s a Class A project in the Town of Queensbury, which has an
approved plan, obviously, and it’s a Class B project and a Class A project in the Town of
Fort Ann. So APA has jurisdiction for those reasons. That was probably a lot to say just
to get started with. I want to just ask Kevin to walk you through the site plan, show you
what we’re talking about, and then we can take questions.
MR. FRANK-Good evening. Again, my name is Kevin Frank. I’m with the LA Group out
of Saratoga Springs, and I’ll give you a little bit more detail as to what Jon just outlined, I
terms of general project description. What we have here is a rendering of the proposed
project, showing the proposed 17 residential lots, on only a small portion of this project
site. The land itself actually extends well up the hill and encompasses approximately 90
acres. We’re only proposing to build on the lower elevations of this site, down to about
this point. What you see in the pink are the existing buildings that Jon mentioned, and
just quickly I’ll walk you through what is there on the site right now. Before I do that, let
me just point out that the line between the Town of Fort Ann and the Town of
Queensbury is shown here in red, okay. This is Pilot Knob Road, right here. The vast
majority of the project site is located in Fort Ann, and from this red line over is the portion
that is within the Town of Queensbury. The existing buildings that are on the site right
now, if you’ve been up Pilot Knob Road, this is the main shop building, so to speak,
which you’ll see with the Fischer’s sign on the on the front. There are some older
wooden structures located in this north northeastern portion of Queensbury. They’re
generally used for storage. There’s a single family residence on the property with an
attached garage located here. This is essentially a boat storage and boat work area, in
this large metal building located here. To access the existing docks at Fischer’s Marina,
which are right here, there’s a drive off of Pilot Knob Road that comes down to here.
This is the existing marina building shop. This is an open-ended front boat storage
building with two or three levels, with three levels of boat storage, and on the lakefront
itself, because there is gas service at these docks, you have an enclosed building with a
gas tank located within it and then another shed located adjacent to it. So that’s what’s
on the ground now, what’s shown in pink. As Jon mentioned, what we’re proposing for
the Queensbury portion of the project site are three single family residences. To
differentiate between Queensbury and Fort Ann, the ones in Queensbury are shown a
2
(Queensbury Planning Board 05/24/07)
little bit darker brown. So those are the three lots that are proposed within Queensbury,
all of them having lakefront on Lake George. What’s shown on this plan is a footprint for
4,000 square feet, and at this point we envision that that would encompass all aspects of
the development, including an attached garage, porches, decks, etc. So the
development that would occur would be within that box. When you compare what is
proposed under this plan in Queensbury, compared to what’s there now, essentially
you’re looking at about the same amount of impervious area between the buildings, the
driveways, etc. The docks themselves will be reconfigured somewhat, and we’ve had a
couple of meetings with Lake George Park Commission to discuss that matter. While
we’re at it, we’ve also met probably three or four times with the APA. We’ve had a pre-
application meeting with the DEC. So all the application processes will be on a parallel
path. As Jon mentioned, the variance we’re seeking include, if you look on the drawings
you have it might show up more clearly. We have building lots that are divided by the
Town line, and because of that, we have lots within the Town of Queensbury that do not
meet minimum lot size. Again, these are not building lots, but because the building lot
itself is divided by the Town line, those areas in the Town of Queensbury are
substandard lots. The other variance we’re seeking is for road frontage on a public road.
The roads will not be public. These roads will be maintained by the Homeowners
Association. That’s the reason for the second variance. As far as infrastructure, again,
all the roads, including this road in Queensbury and the one in Fort Ann, will be private
roads. There will be on site common wastewater disposal that will be located in this area
in the Town of Fort Ann, and there will be a community water supply as well that will be a
new well installation down in this area here. In addition to the 17 residences, there will
be a pool, and a pool building which is in the Town of Fort Ann. There’ll be some
common parking, so the folks that live up on the mountainside will be able to come
down, park here and have access to docks in this area as well. Generally, that’s
essentially the project, what the project entails. I’d be glad to entertain any questions
you folks might have.
MR. HUNSINGER-Before we start questions from the Board, did Staff have anything?
Because we skipped over Staff comments. Is there anything that you want to, I know
you missed the very beginning of it.
MR. HILTON-I did miss the very beginning, and if I heard you correctly, were you saying,
I may have heard that there was no mention of the recommendation to the Zoning Board
in Staff Notes?
MR. LAPPER-Yes.
MR. HILTON-Okay, I’m looking at Staff Notes, and I do see where I did mention that the
Zoning Board was looking for a recommendation. I just wanted to clarify that.
MR. LAPPER-It wasn’t on the agenda.
MR. HILTON-Okay. All right.
MR. SEGULJIC-What exactly are we doing?
MR. HUNSINGER-Good question. We are being asked to make a recommendation to
the Zoning Board on the zoning variances that are being requested.
MR. SEGULJIC-And that’s for the width of the lots, I believe.
MR. HUNSINGER-Yes. Could you be clear, in fact, that was the question I had. During
your presentation you made a comment that the first variance is being requested for lot
sizes.
MR. LAPPER-Yes, but the lot sizes are the three lots which are not building lots. It
seems kind of funny that we have to ask for a variance for that because we’re not asking
for building lots. Like a road, if you have a subdivision road, a road is not going to meet
the minimum requirements of a building lot, but that’s one of them.
MR. HUNSINGER-So, if I could just follow up, I’m sorry. There’s six lots, and they’re
identified as QB-1 through 6.
MR. LAPPER-I would call them six parcels rather than six lots.
3
(Queensbury Planning Board 05/24/07)
MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. So, QB-6 clearly is the road lot. QB-4 is a very small lot in the
Town of Queensbury. My assumption is that that property will be part of the lot that’s
identified as FA-1.
MR. LAPPER-That’s correct.
MR. HUNSINGER-What about QB-5? Is that linked with FA-4?
MR. FRANK-Correct. That will be contiguous with FA-4, and that will be Homeowners
Association property.
MR. HUNSINGER-Is there going to be any kind of a driveway or access from the public,
well, it’s the Homeowners Association parking lot down to the docks?
MR. FRANK-We had discussions with the West Queensbury Fire Department, and they
expressed the desire to maintain their existing access to the lake here for two purposes.
The first purpose for fire department access is to be able to pull in their pumper truck
down to here, and refill as necessary. The second is for emergency access via their
hover craft or other vehicles. It’s not shown on this plan, but we will detail out how we
propose to maintain access for the fire department to get down to this portion of the lake.
MR. HUNSINGER-So that would only be for emergency vehicles?
MR. FRANK-That’s correct. Yes. I mean, there may be a trail, say for golf carts or
something else, for residents who park here to take their coolers and everything else out
of their car and get it down to their boat. We’re envisioning that that would operate out of
the pool house building. There might be two or three golf carts there that when the
family comes down, parks here, someone gets a golf cart, brings it up, brings everything
down, brings the cart back down, and then accesses their boat.
MR. HUNSINGER-But clearly the parking lot, then, is for people who live in Fort Ann to
park their car so they can walk down to their boat.
MR. FRANK-Correct. Yes. It would be for these lots that are on this side of Pilot Knob
Road. It’s feasible, the way the property lines are set up, that these people could get in
their car and drive down to here and access their dock in that manner.
MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. I’m sorry, Tom.
MR. SEGULJIC-So what is the lot width requirement? Pardon my ignorance.
MR. FRANK-I believe it’s 120, if I’m not mistaken. I would have to confirm that.
MR. SEGULJIC-What is it zoned?
MR. FRANK-WR-1A.
MRS. BARDEN-One hundred and fifty feet.
MR. SEGULJIC-So it’s 150 feet. So if I’m understanding this correctly, QB-1 is 105, QB-
2 is 87, QB-3 is 105?
MR. LAPPER-That’s right.
MR. FRANK-Correct.
MR. SEGULJIC-Okay. So, my next question is, we’re only looking at what’s in
Queensbury.
MR. HUNSINGER-Yes.
MR. SEGULJIC-But in this entire, shall we call it the waterfront area, the one to the east
of Pilot Knob Road, these plans propose six homes. Am I understanding that correctly?
MR. LAPPER-You mean west of Pilot Knob Road.
MR. SEGULJIC-West of Pilot Knob Road.
MR. LAPPER-That’s correct.
4
(Queensbury Planning Board 05/24/07)
MR. SEGULJIC-Okay.
MR. LAPPER-And three of those are in the Town of Fort Ann.
MR. SEGULJIC-Okay. So, you made some comment about some of the lots actually
were larger because a portion of it’s in Fort Ann?
MR. LAPPER-Yes. FA-1, Fort Ann One and QB-4. That’s one lot, but it’s divided by the
tax map, because of the County border.
MR. SEGULJIC-Okay, but when you combine QB-4 and FA-1, that meets the
requirement, I assume?
MR. LAPPER-It meets the requirement in Fort Ann.
MR. SEGULJIC-And what is the requirement for?
MR. LAPPER-Fort Ann doesn’t have, the APA in Fort Ann has a density requirement for,
take all the land, and this is clustered, off of the mountain down by the road. So they
have a density requirement. They don’t have a lot width requirement.
MR. SEGULJIC-Okay, and then one other thing I’m trying to understand, how many slips
are there?
MR. LAPPER-The same as what’s there now, 46, but they wouldn’t be commercial.
They wouldn’t be available for the public. They would be for the homeowners?
MR. HUNSINGER-How many boat slips?
MR. SEGULJIC-I counted 33.
MR. LAPPER-Forty-five.
MRS. STEFFAN-According to what I read, it was supposed to be two per unit. Is that
correct?
MR. LAPPER-It’s two per unit, with a few extras for visitors.
MR. HUNSINGER-And that’s the same that’s there now?
MR. SEGULJIC-And you had indicated there’d be less impact.
MR. LAPPER-Yes, because right now it’s a commercial marina, where people have
quick launch, you know, where you have your boat stored in the building and you call
and you park and they put it in the lake. So that’s a traffic impact.
MR. SEGULJIC-So you’re going to reconfigure the dock but have the same number of
slips?
MR. LAPPER-Correct.
MR. SEGULJIC-Because essentially you don’t want to give up that number is what it
comes down to.
MR. LAPPER-That’s right. Slips are valuable.
MRS. BRUNO-Do we know, at this point, if these are considered year round houses?
MR. LAPPER-Yes, they’ll be year round houses. Yes. The concept is that to be able to
afford to purchase and take out of use a commercial operation like this, the property is
expensive, because it generates a lot of income now, and so what’s proposed are
expensive homes. They probably won’t all be that big, but we’re just trying to err on the
side of showing a big footprint, just in case.
MR. FRANK-What’s shown on the plan right now, those smaller buildings, that’s a 2,000
square foot footprint, and the larger buildings are a 4,000 square foot footprint. All three
that are in Queensbury are that 4,000 square foot footprint.
5
(Queensbury Planning Board 05/24/07)
MRS. BRUNO-Okay.
MR. SEGULJIC-What happens if you use the 150 lot width as required. Would you lose
a lot, I assume?
MR. LAPPER-Yes, and just, you know, again, the economics of the project require that
to be three lake lots. So what we’re asking you to do is to compare that to the benefit of
taking out these metal buildings and this commercial operation.
MR. SEGULJIC-Well, you had indicated that when you take out the metal buildings there
is no net decrease in impervious area.
MR. LAPPER-Impervious area, that’s correct, but in terms of having these, you know,
multi-story metal industrial looking buildings, it’s a big difference visually, and in terms of
the use, gasoline sales, boat sales, boat service, those are pretty intense uses as well,
compared to three single family homes.
MR. SEGULJIC-I would say right now I would be inclined, we have 150 foot width in the
Code, it should be 150 foot width.
MR. LAPPER-And I guess we’re saying that we’re offering you something kind of unique
here, to take out the commercial facilities, and as a result, in exchange for that, what
we’re asking for is to have three houses.
MR. SEGULJIC-I’d agree with that comment if you only had 20 dock slips, but you’re
going to maintain the same number of dock slips.
MR. LAPPER-But again, it’s not for the members of the general public to come in. It’s
just for people who live here.
MR. SEGULJIC-I have a feeling a lot of people will be renting them.
MR. LAPPER-No. They won’t be permitted to be rented, and that would be a condition.
MR. SEGULJIC-Well, that’s the first time I’ve heard that, but I would still make the same
comment.
MR. LAPPER-That will absolutely be offered as a condition. We have to go through a
whole APA review where there’ll be a lot of conditions, but these are not to be rented.
MRS. STEFFAN-That would be reflected in the Homeowners Association agreement?
MR. LAPPER-Yes.
MR. HUNSINGER-How many boats are permitted now, to the quick launch marina?
LARRY FISCHER
MR. FISCHER-Hi. I’m Larry Fischer. According to the way the Park Commission
operates, they put a number on everything you do, the boats you store in the winter,
quick launch, in/out service in the summer, and the question was how many quick
launch. We are capable of handling 65 quick launch. Sixty-five quick launch and forty-
eight boats in the water, and we store approximately 250 boats in the winter.
MR. HUNSINGER-So you could have as many, well, over 100 boats there at any given
time, 65 quick launch and 48?
MR. FISCHER-Yes.
MR. HUNSINGER-Okay.
MR. FISCHER-Plus launching. The public ramp is very busy, especially on a weekend
like this.
MR. HUNSINGER-How many boats would you say you launch on a busy weekend?
MR. FISCHER-A holiday weekend like this, we could probably do, a three day holiday,
hot and sunny, I’d say 75 to 80, 85.
6
(Queensbury Planning Board 05/24/07)
MR. HUNSINGER-Boats a day?
MR. FISCHER-No, over the weekend.
MR. HUNSINGER-Okay.
MR. FISCHER-Because what happens is people go out camping for a three day span or
a two day span, so they park their trailer and their vehicle over the days, is what
happens.
MR. HUNSINGER-Okay.
MR. FISCHER-Thank you.
MR. SEGULJIC-With regards to the dock, the southernmost dock, is that right on the
property line? It appears to be. Don’t you have to have a 20 foot?
MR. LAPPER-Right now it is. That’s how it exists.
MR. SEGULJIC-That’s how it exists now.
MR. LAPPER-Yes.
MR. SEGULJIC-But you’re going to reconfigure the docks, though.
MR. FRANK-Yes.
MR. SEGULJIC-That doesn’t mean that they have to meet the, is that a variance request
then?
MR. FRANK-That is, and in our discussions with Staff, the intent was to proceed with the
subdivision review, have that established to see if that’s going to move forward, and if
that is positive, as we anticipate, then the issuance of the dock variance, if one is still
needed, will be taken up at that time. That was the direction we got from Staff.
MR. SEGULJIC-I mean, isn’t one needed, though? I mean, they’re on the property line.
You have to have a 20 foot setback.
MR. HILTON-Well, with an existing condition, I would say no unless something’s being
changed, but because something is proposed, certainly I think we’ve acknowledge that,
and Staff has acknowledged, it’s my understanding, in speaking with the Zoning
Administrator, that variances will be required, but I would agree with what Mr. Frank
mentioned or said, that the idea was to proceed with this step first, and then come in with
the variance applications and such afterwards.
MR. SEGULJIC-I’m not following that.
MR. HILTON-I guess what I’m trying to say is that he was correct in what he said, is that,
in my conversation with the Zoning Administrator, that’s what they’ve discussed already
is to proceed with this application, and then at a later time, come in with the variance
applications for the docks and that portion of the overall project, but right now pursue or
concentrate, if you will, on the subdivision.
MRS. BRUNO-Mr. Frank, you don’t think that if, down the road, what you’re hoping for on
the docks isn’t given a variance, too, that that won’t negatively impact your design for the
subdivision, you know, numbers of houses or?
MR. FRANK-No. I’m comfortable in my discussions with our client, as well as
discussions with Mike White and Molly at the Park Commission, that we will be able to
work out a design that is, that will minimize the need for variances, hopefully eliminate if
possible, and be able to find a design that is permissible, from a local standpoint and
also from a regional planning standpoint.
MRS. STEFFAN-Mr. Frank, can you identify for me that, we went on our site visits over
the weekend, and we drove up a windy driveway to a house, and is that on the map, a
windy driveway and there was a house up in the woods.
MR. HUNSINGER-Yes, we turned right on Dean Road, driving, as we were driving north,
we turned right on Dean Road and drove up to a house.
7
(Queensbury Planning Board 05/24/07)
MR. FRANK-If you turned right and were going north.
MR. HUNSINGER-Into Fort Ann.
MR. FRANK-Right, that wouldn’t be on this property.
MRS. STEFFAN-So on that map, those are not existing homes? All of those are?
MR. FRANK-There are no existing structures on the east side of Pilot Knob Road at this
point, there’s no structures there.
MRS. STEFFAN-The reason I asked that question, I’m looking at the Fort Ann piece,
Number 18, and I thought, just the way we drove on the road, that there was a house on
the corner of that lot.
MR. LAPPER-That’s a field.
MRS. STEFFAN-It was a field, and then there was a house next to it. So I wasn’t sure.
MR. FRANK-That must be the adjoining property.
MRS. STEFFAN-Adjoining property? Okay.
MR. SIPP-There’s a driveway that does down along the lake, the house is to the west of
where you’re property is, right?
MR. SEGULJIC-Off Pilot Knob Road.
MR. SIPP-If you continue on that, you come down towards the dock area.
MR. HUNSINGER-We must have been just off the map.
MR. SEGULJIC-You’ve been doing test pits, if it looks like, if I’m correct, in the field area.
What’s it look like?
MR. FRANK-It looks very good. We had an initial meeting with the Adirondack Park
Agency back in February, where we presented them with data that was collected the
previous summer. The soil scientist from the Agency had some concerns at that time
and said let’s pick a date this Spring where you can go out and take a look at things. We
were out there last Tuesday I believe it was, and as soon as we popped open the first
hole and got down six feet, he said, okay, now I understand where you’re coming from.
Everything looks good to me.
MR. SEGULJIC-From what perspective?
MR. FRANK-In terms of texture, percolation rate, seasonal depth to ground water, etc.
MR. SEGULJIC-All right. I guess what I was getting at is the homes on the lakefront.
What I’m concerned about is blasting. People have a tendency, there’s going to be
plenty of soil there?
MR. FRANK-Yes.
MR. SEGULJIC-You were down there?
MR. FRANK-We initially went down to the four feet, logged those test pits, got everybody
out of the hole, and went down as far as the backhoe could go in that area, which was
easily seven or eight feet, and that’s all very course material in that area. We did not
encounter bedrock in any location where that wastewater disposal field is proposed.
MR. SEGULJIC-Okay. Well, I guess I just want to point out that this is in a CEA. So I’m
very uncomfortable with recommending a variance in a CEA. The Code says 150 feet,
and the Code also says if you’re in a CEA, you should look at it with a particular eye
towards the environment and we’re allowing increased activity. We’re recommending a
smaller lot width.
MR. HUNSINGER-And actually that kind of leads into one of the questions that I had,
and I don’t know if maybe Staff or Counsel should weigh in on this. Clearly the
8
(Queensbury Planning Board 05/24/07)
development that’s being proposed up the hill in Fort Ann could have an impact on the
property in the Town of Queensbury, and certainly on the lake. The comment was made
that the APA will be doing the environmental review, and therefore there’s no SEQRA
required. When does the Town and/or this Board get to comment on environmental
issues and how much can we take into consideration, the induced development in the
Town of Fort Ann, in our review for this proposed subdivision in Queensbury?
MR. MEYER-The APA does have the SEQRA authority because of the magnitude of the
project, because it’s in the Park. However, Queensbury’s regulations, planning and
zoning, give the Boards authority to look at the environmental impacts, outside of what’s
required in SEQRA. So, you know, you guys can certainly take into account what’s
happening on site and how this development will impact the area, both environmentally
and just the functional impact on the neighbors, and things like that. As for looking
outside of your tiny little bubble that is the area that’s on the Queensbury side of the
road, ultimately, we would recommend that you focus on your Queensbury portion, but it
would be permissible to take a look at the bigger picture, because obviously any
development just outside is also going to have an impact on the Queensbury portion. I
would caution against looking at a lot of the upland development that’s well away from
Queensbury that most likely won’t have an impact on Queensbury, but there is some
leeway to look at the larger, greater impacts, but I wouldn’t dwell on it, since what’s
before you is the Queensbury portion. If the Board has concerns about Fort Ann, when
Fort Ann addresses this, they’ll have a public hearing, and everyone in Queensbury is
welcome to show up and speak their piece. So, I mean, there is an interaction that’s
available from both sides. Just as the Fort Ann residents could come in here and say I’m
concerned about something that’s happening in Queensbury.
MR. FRANK-Mr. Chairman, if I may, if I could direct the Board’s attention to the plan set
that you have for the project, maybe this rendering doesn’t give a true sense of the
property that’s involved with this project, and what is not going to be disturbed as part of
the project. If I could direct your attention to the drawing set and Sheet SK-1. That
shows the, this is a blow up. This is SK-2. That shows a blow up of the lands to be
developed. I just would like to point out to the Board that I hope they don’t lose sight of
the remaining acreage that’s to remain undeveloped. Again, this is a 90 acre parcel with
higher elevation areas on the project site that.
MR. SEGULJIC-And believe you me, I think that’s great, but the problem with the, why
the water quality is degrading is because of all of the activity right along the shoreline.
We have a responsibility to help protect the lake. We are trying to increase the activity
beyond what is allowed. You are in a CEA.
MR. LAPPER-You don’t seem to be taking into account our argument that the gasoline
sales, the boat sales, the boat service, that those are very intense commercial activities.
Those are nonconforming uses now, pre-existing, nonconforming uses, and we’re
proposing to eliminate all those uses.
MR. SEGULJIC-If they’re properly managed, there shouldn’t be an issue.
MR. FRANK-If I could add to that, Jon, and this is not to disparage the current owners in
any way, because this operation has been there for a long time. We are required by law
to design stormwater controls that are now in effect from New York State DEC and the
Lake George Park Commission for this project, that if you go out on that project right
now, and again, not to disparage the current owners, because they’ve been there for a
while, there is no stormwater control out there. You’re looking at sheet flow off of
building roofs. You’re looking at sheet flow off of paved areas.
MR. SEGULJIC-I did not indicate I’m against the project at all.
MR. FRANK-I’m not saying you were, sir.
MR. SEGULJIC-I’m saying I know our Code says 150 foot lot widths. You are asking for
less. I am saying the development is in a CEA. I am particularly keen to that fact.
MR. FRANK-I’m keen to that as well.
MR. LAPPER-I mean, quite frankly.
MR. SEGULJIC-Then it should be 150 foot lot width.
9
(Queensbury Planning Board 05/24/07)
MR. LAPPER-We can’t do 150 foot lots. We have to have the three houses to justify
taking out the commercial activities. The alternative is that if Queensbury doesn’t want
the project in Queensbury, there are a number of marina operators who have expressed
interest in buying the marina. We can do the project in Fort Ann and keep an operating
marina and sell the marina to somebody else, and it’ll operate as a marina, and if that’s
the choice, that could work economically, and if that’s what we’re directed to do in
Queensbury, that’s what we’ll do. I mean, we came here to say, we’re offering a
compromise to take out this commercial operation, and if the Board doesn’t recognize
that or doesn’t agree with that, then we’ll have to go to Plan B.
MR. FRANK-And I understand your concern, sir, with the lot width variance, but if you
look at it from a density standpoint, and the three houses that we’re proposing, actually
there are more lands in Queensbury than is the minimum required in the Zoning
Ordinance to support those three homes. So, from a land planning standpoint, I would
approach it more from a density standpoint than a lot width, because that’s merely a
configuration of how things are laid out. My approach would be to look at it from what’s
allowable from a density standpoint, impervious area, stormwater controls, those types of
things. The true intent is to protect the CEA, which we intend to do at all costs, being the
lake itself, with all due respect.
MRS. BRUNO-May I ask if you have been in front of Fort Ann yet? I’m not that familiar.
MR. LAPPER-Yes.
MRS. BRUNO-Okay.
MR. FRANK-Yes. We were in Fort Ann I believe it was December, Jon?
MR. LAPPER-It was more recent than that.
MR. FRANK-January or February. Very well received. A lot of good questions were
asked, and the feedback that I’ve gotten since that meeting, in speaking to members of
the Planning Board, just having run into them on occasion, it’s very well received by the
Town. They would like to see this happen.
MRS. BRUNO-I have a question for Staff. Have we ever requested meeting notes from
other municipalities? If we weren’t aware of their meeting prior to our?
MR. HILTON-Have we ever requested? I don’t know. Can we? I can certainly look into
that and see if we can locate those minutes for you.
MRS. STEFFAN-The other problem might be, I know in the Town of Queensbury that we
tape the meetings and we have verbatim notes. Many municipalities do not do that. So
they may not be available.
MR. LAPPER-Certainly, I mean, those are public record. We’d be happy to provide what
records they have, because we’d like to show you that they’re very supportive.
MRS. BRUNO-The reason why I’m asking that is because I do think that the Fort Ann
side is going to affect the Queensbury side because we have the Homeowners
Association portion of land, which is in Queensbury, and that’s going to generate a lot of
traffic, and I notice that you have a stub at the end of, up by FA-15 and 16. Is that with
the possible intent of?
MR. LAPPER-No, that can’t go any further because there’s a wetland on the other side
of it. That’s because the APA said that if we did a hammerhead rather than a cul de sac,
it would be less land disturbance on the lakeside. So they suggested that, just as a turn
around.
MR. FRANK-And we did review that with the fire department and they were comfortable
with having that hammerhead.
MRS. BRUNO-You’re speaking of over on the Queensbury side.
MR. LAPPER-Yes. QB-6 is what you’re.
MRS. BRUNO-No. I was actually talking about over on the Fort Ann side and the
potential right for increased development, which would then increase the size of your
10
(Queensbury Planning Board 05/24/07)
Homeowners Association, increase the number of people going down to the docks. Do
you see where I’m going with this?
MR. FRANK-I see what you’re saying. There’s, theoretically, potential to extend this
road to the neighboring property that’s to the north. I can’t speak to that. I know that’s a
(lost words) there is another home that exists right about in this area here. This is the
project that’s being proposed.
MRS. BRUNO-And it wasn’t anything in the near future?
MR. LAPPER-No, it’s not under our control, and the land is owned by others, but it might
be helpful if the Board members were out on the lake or traveling on a holiday weekend.
Mr. Fischer talked about people coming in with their trailers and launching boats. I
mean, what you’re saying, Tanya, in terms of the type of activity, the intensity of activity
of having these off lake homes, compared to what’s there now, where people come in on
Pilot Knob Road with their trailers and their boats and launch them in the public launch
and then park them on the field along the lake. I mean, that’s a pretty intense use, and
especially on a summer or holiday weekend, if you see that I think you’d better
understand what we’re talking about in terms of the intensity of the use, what we’re
proposing.
MR. TRAVER-Well, what do you think those people are going to do when the marina is
gone?
MR. LAPPER-They’ll have to use another marina somewhere else on the lake, or
another lake.
MR. TRAVER-So the amount of marina activity on the lake essentially won’t change. It’ll
just be increasingly intense at other locations. Correct?
MR. LAPPER-Not necessarily. A lot of people go to Sacandaga because it’s cheaper,
you know, Lake George is getting pretty expensive and exclusive, and the fewer slips
there are the more prices go up, and it takes people out of the market.
MR. TRAVER-So your thought is that if the Fischer’s Marina is closed, that some number
of individuals will no longer be boating on Lake George and take their business
elsewhere?
MR. LAPPER-Yes, because as far as I know, all the marinas are pretty much at capacity.
There’ll be fewer slips available to the public on the lake.
MR. TRAVER-So, one of the things the Board might want to consider is, in effect, this
project would reduce public access to the lake.
MR. LAPPER-Yes. That’s what happens when a commercial marina gets purchased for
a residential property. That’s true, and we’re proposing to eliminate the public launch,
which, you know, there aren’t that many public launches.
MR. SIPP-Could you give me an estimate, how far from the lake is this FA-18 where you
want to have your sewer system situated? What’s the distance?
MR. FRANK-This drawing is one inch equals sixty feet. To the nearest corner, here,
nearest point on the lake which is here, about 600 feet.
MR. SIPP-Six hundred feet, and if you went straight west, you’d have more?
MR. LAPPER-The lake goes out.
MR. FRANK-The lake actually goes out this way, so, yes, it would be more going in that
direction.
MR. SIPP-All right. Now if all these lots were sold, and assuming all the ones in Fort Ann
and Queensbury were sold, what would be the total amount of sewage processed in one
year? Are these year round homes?
MR. FRANK-They are intended to be year round homes. In terms of an annual basis, I
don’t have that number for you, but if you use standard, the DEC or Department of
Health, the multipliers what they use is usually 150 gallons per day per vendor, and
11
(Queensbury Planning Board 05/24/07)
depending on the size of the home, you’re looking at three, four, with our larger homes,
possibly five bedrooms.
MR. SIPP-So you could have several million gallons of sewage per year.
MR. FRANK-And if I had my calculator, I would run those numbers, but.
MR. SIPP-I’m interested in how much sewage you’re putting through this, and I don’t
know what the size of this lot is, but I assume it’s four or five acres.
MR. FRANK-Yes. This is the open field that’s just past the main Marina building here,
where the shop is, right here. The open field itself is about 320 feet by 160 feet. As I
mentioned previously, we’ve already met with the Department of Health. We’ve met with
New York State Department of Environmental Conservation, which are two regulatory
agencies that have permitting jurisdiction over on site wastewater community systems,
as well as the APA, who has an advisory opinion on that matter, and at this point we
have not heard anything from any of those agencies which would indicate that they are
uncomfortable with the.
MR. SIPP-Now all the sewage has to be pumped from every house.
MR. FRANK-That’s correct. Actually, this will be gravity, up above. The Queensbury
lots, yes, you’re right, there will be a need for a pump station. It’s not shown on this
drawing, but there is a drawing in your plan set that shows the location of the pump
station as well as the wastewater infrastructure that brings it up to this area.
MR. SIPP-Now, what happens in the middle of December when there’s an ice storm an
the power goes out?
MR. FRANK-It will be equipped with an alarm system, back up power.
MR. SIPP-You’re going to have back up power on this?
MR. FRANK-Yes. You have to.
MR. SIPP-That’s what I mean, you’re going to have to. Now, where is the water system,
community water system? Where’s the water coming from?
MR. FRANK-The water will be a well that’s going to be located within Fort Ann, in this
area. It will be under the influence of surface water, so it will require filtration. So you’ll
see on the utility drawings we do show a building for filtration.
MR. SIPP-And this will have to be chlorinated.
MR. FRANK-Correct.
MR. SEGULJIC-What’s the average per person per day?
MR. FRANK-I believe that DEC uses still 150 gallons per day per bedroom, if I’m not
mistaken.
MR. SIPP-So that’s dependent upon electricity also. So when the power goes out,
there’s no sewage, there’s no water. I just am concerned about that amount of sewage,
all of these houses were hooked to that. This amount of sewage in that small an area.
MR. FRANK-Well, sir, the area itself is sized not unlike a single family home would be
sized. It’s based upon your percolation rate. It’s based upon your waste generation rate.
MR. SIPP-Now, what is the percolation rate?
MR. FRANK-We had a stabilized rate, depending on where you are within the field, that
ranged anywhere from about 45 seconds to about a minute and 20 seconds.
MR. SIPP-But we have scattered through this whole plot here wetlands, which tend to
tell me that there’s drainage problems in many areas.
MR. FRANK-There are not drainage problems in the area. There are natural drainage
courses that run through this site. You are correct that there is a wetland with an
intermittent stream that is up gradient of the wastewater treatment field. Again, the on
12
(Queensbury Planning Board 05/24/07)
site percolation tests that were done last week, when it was very wet out, we did not
encounter groundwater until at least seven to eight feet below the ground surface, which
clearly meets regulatory requirements by on site wastewater disposal.
MR. SIPP-Yes, but you have a wetlands up in your northwest corner, marked on this,
which must extend off of your property onto somebody else’s property.
MR. FRANK-That’s correct. It doesn’t show up well on this rendering. It shows up better
on your drawings because the color doesn’t obscure it, but there is a stream, an
intermittent stream, that runs down through here, comes across, and ends up entering
into the lake. Again, we are down gradient of that wetland and that drainage, and we’ve
got 100 feet separation from there.
MR. SIPP-Is this marina going to have sanitary facilities for pump out?
MR. FRANK-This will not be a marina. It will be docks for the homeowners, and, no,
there will not be a sanitary pump out, and, no, there will no longer be gasoline sales at
that dock. It will simply be docks and not a marina operation. That’s a very important
distinction to be made here.
MR. SEGULJIC-If I could just point out to everybody, I did a quick calculation, we’re
looking at potentially 7.2 million gallons of waste per year.
MR. FRANK-Per year? Whatever that number is, again, you’re looking.
MR. SEGULJIC-My concern, once again, is we are in a CEA. I have no problem with the
project. It’s our Code says 150 foot width. That’s where I get hung up.
MR. FRANK-If we were to develop only two lots and meet the width requirements, you’re
going to have a wastewater disposal system here, and you’re probably going to have a
wastewater disposal system here, if they’re on site from those lots.
MR. SEGULJIC-Excuse me. I don’t think so, because you have to be 200 feet from the
lake.
MR. FRANK-All right. So you’re going to be 200 feet, so you’re going to be back in here.
We’re proposing this up here. We’re also proposing that this has to be approved by DEC
and DOH who are not only regulating the wastewater disposal itself, but the protection of
New York State’s natural environment, including Lake George and the Critical
Environmental Area.
MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. Do we have any other questions or comments from members
of the Board? What, specifically, is the Zoning Board looking for recommendations on,
each of the variance requests?
MRS. BRUNO-I would like to say that if the ZBA allowed less than the 150 foot lot width,
that we’re looking at the setback requirements, I understand with your percentage of
non-permeable, I don’t remember if I looked at the Floor Area Ratio or not, but that we,
or that the ZBA does not give the eight foot side yard variance, it’s required to be 20 feet,
and you’re proposing 12 feet. You’d need eight foot. I would propose that you plan on
having perhaps smaller houses. I think we’re starting to do this. I’m probably going to
mention it in other meetings this evening, that it seems like we’re pushing the limits on
every piece of property around Queensbury.
MR. FRANK-It would appear that our client is amenable to, I mean, we’re sensitive. I’m
sensitive to that as well, because I live right around the corner, and I’d like to have Howie
Fischer come up and just talk a little bit about the history of the property and what we
propose and what the alternatives might be. So, whenever he’s able to come up, I’d like
to turn the mic over to him.
MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. Well, one of the questions that I have is if you combine a site,
the proposed subdivision of QB-4 with FA-1, is that combined lot over an acre, and are
the three other, the two other, FA-2 and FA-6, are those over an acre as well?
MR. FRANK-No, they’re not an acre. They’re approximately a quarter of an acre.
MR. HUNSINGER-Thank you. It makes it easier for Staff when they do the minutes.
MR. FRANK-The area in question involves FA-1 an QB-4.
13
(Queensbury Planning Board 05/24/07)
MR. HUNSINGER-Yes, right.
MR. FRANK-FA-1 is approximately ¼ of an acre, and then you have approximately
thrd
another 1/10 of an acre in QB-4 for a combined lot size of approximately 1/3 of an
acre.
MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. How about FA-2 and FA-6?
MR. FRANK-FA-6?
MR. HUNSINGER-Well, basically the other two Fort Ann lots that are on the west side of.
MR. LAPPER-Two and three.
MR. HUNSINGER-I’m sorry, two and three, I’m sorry.
MR. FRANK-FA-2 and FA-3 are located entirely within Fort Ann.
MR. HUNSINGER-I know, I realize that.
MR. FRANK-Okay. I guess I’m misunderstanding your question. I’m sorry.
MR. HUNSINGER-I was just asking if they’re over an acre each?
MR. FRANK-No, sir. FA-2 is approximately .43 acres, and FA-3 is approximately 2/3rds
of an acre at .664 acres.
MR. HUNSINGER-Okay.
MR. FRANK-You’re looking at approximately half to two-thirds of an acre.
MR. HUNSINGER-Okay.
MRS. BRUNO-Actually, looking at the site plan, it just reminded of a question I had when
reviewing the project. In terms of the archeologically sensitive areas, have you had
anyone come in and look at the Queensbury side for potential areas, typically when you
run into those areas it’s not just one. Sometimes you’ll end up finding.
MR. FRANK-I did notice that in Staff’s comments, and I had planned to address that
when it was appropriate. We had a full Stage 1B Cultural Resources Assessment
completed last Summer and Fall. That was submitted to New York State Parks and
Recreation. We had a meeting with them again in January, that was Cynthia Blakemore.
We outlined a proposal for some additional testing to be done. That field work was
recently completed as of last week or the week before, and we plan on re-submitting that
to Parks and Rec essentially to get, hopefully to get a clean bill of health as far as the
archeological resources are concerned. So, we’ve been cognizant of that requirement.
MR. LAPPER-Chris, in terms of the minimum lot size in Fort Ann, it’s a cluster concept.
So, I mean, obviously they don’t the one acre requirement that Queensbury does, but
when you cluster and you have community septic and you don’t have to put septic on the
lots, you don’t need that much land per house, and the upside is that you disturb less of
the property by clustering, but that all complies with the requirements, APA and Fort Ann.
MR. HUNSINGER-In my mind I was thinking that there was, there’d be a difference in
the runoff for the lots on the west side of the road, versus the lots on the other side of the
road, and that’s why I asked the question. I was thinking of stormwater management
and things like that, not necessarily septic and wells.
MR. LAPPER-I understand. As Kevin said, stormwater management, this will all comply
with the new requirements, whereas the present site doesn’t.
MR. HUNSINGER-I know personally, I can’t speak for the whole Board, I know
personally one of the difficulties that I have having is, you know, there seems like there’s
a lot of information that we really weren’t privy to yet, that’s making it difficult to make a
decision, for example, the questions that we were asking this evening about the marina
use and the intensity of that current use versus the intensity of the proposed use, and,
you know, some of those kinds of questions.
14
(Queensbury Planning Board 05/24/07)
MR. LAPPER-We’re not necessarily expecting you to make a recommendation tonight.
We figured you’d send us off with a list of questions. I think the Zoning Board, in their
resolution, requested a reply within 60 days. So they were expecting you would want
two meetings, and we’re certainly not trying to push it time wise.
MR. SEGULJIC-I guess if we’re going down that path, what I’d like to see you maintain
the 150 foot lot width as required by Code. What impact would that have? I’m thinking,
you’re trying to shove everything up towards the lake, and it’s obvious why. That’s where
you get your best dollar. I’m saying you’re in a CEA. We have to protect the lake. We
have an opportunity here to protect the lake. Why don’t we take some of these homes
and put them across the other side of the road, if, as you say, you’re concerned about
protecting the lake also.
MR. LAPPER-Well, Kevin gave you a pretty thorough answer to that, that this is better
protecting the lake than what’s there now because we’re going to comply with the
stormwater management.
MR. SEGULJIC-So are you indicating that the people that are there now are not
protecting the lake?
MR. LAPPER-I’m sorry?
MR. SEGULJIC-Are you stating that the current owners are not protecting the lake?
MR. LAPPER-No, I’m saying that that was grandfathered. It was built before you had the
stormwater regulations for infiltration, for pre-treatment.
MR. SEGULJIC-We have an opportunity here to do good and protect the lake bed. I’m
not saying I’m against the project. I’m just saying you can reduce the impact on the
lakefront.
MR. LAPPER-Basically if we don’t get the three lots in Queensbury, we can’t afford to
take down the marina use.
MR. SEGULJIC-That’s fine, but that’s not before us. This is before us.
MRS. BRUNO-Perhaps our own Counsel, if we weren’t to give the three acres because
of the 150 foot width, and you were to sell to another marina company, would we have
before us the marina, since it, I’m thinking that we would, that new marina would come in
front of the Planning Board because it is not an allowed use in that area, and at that point
we could at that time bring it up to stormwater codes and the like.
MR. MEYER-I highly doubt it. I’d have to double check, but a change in ownership isn’t
a change of use, and usually it’s triggered on a change of use. If they were to expand
the marina, then, yes, they would have to come before you, but not having it directly in
front of me right this second, I would caution you that that’s not.
MR. LAPPER-I would agree with Jeff. If the use is the same, they could sell it and it
could continue.
MRS. BRUNO-I didn’t know if there was a renewal of the permit.
MR. LAPPER-No, the Queensbury Code says it can be, pre-existing use can be
maintained in reasonable repair, but it can’t be expanded without a variance.
MR. MEYER-And that’s part of the issue, the dock structure. They’re talking about a
variance for moving the dock around or whatever, but if they don’t move it, it can stay
where it is. If they start moving it, then that’s where they would talk about needing
additional; permits, and variances, which they don’t want to do, but as it sits right now,
it’s fine.
MR. SIPP-Quickly, Mr. Chairman, I am somewhat in agreement with Tom. I also want to
question the fact, if were to allow these lots, these one, two, and three, how much area of
trees would have to be cut in order to put in the length of driveway and the size of this
house, these houses, how many, on Lot Two you’d be practically denuding the whole lot
from the driveway in.
MR. FRANK-Sir, right now that land is cleared, and there’s no tree clearing that would be
required.
15
(Queensbury Planning Board 05/24/07)
MR. SIPP-There’s no tree?
MR. FRANK-It’s treeless. Again, if you look kind of at the configuration of what’s there
on the ground now, and to point this out, the homes that we’re talking about are sitting in
this area in here. Access coming in this area. This is all open, all part of the existing
marina operations.
MRS. STEFFAN-There were some comments in the Zoning Board minutes about a
Lakewood development. Is that close by?
MR. FISCHER-About a half a mile.
MRS. STEFFAN-Okay. Well, the reason I brought that up is just because some of the,
the comment was about water problems. So I wanted to know how close it was to this
development. The other question I have is there’s a sea wall, if you look at QB-2 and
QB-3, where there is waterfront on those lots, and there is stormwater runoff that runs off
the road into that, there was a lot of sedimentation there when we went over it. Is that
natural, that little inlet there? Perhaps I’m not calling it the right word, but.
MR. LAPPER-That’s where the stream comes into the lake.
MRS. STEFFAN-So that was naturally occurring, just the sea wall there? Okay, and the
other question I have is there was some discussion in the Zoning Board minutes about
average width, average lot width. Could you explain that concept to the Board?
Because obviously these lots change in width, and you’ve identified an average lot width.
MR. FRANK-In our discussions with Staff, early on, as far back as last year, we raised
that very same question, how is that average width determined. There’s no specific
protocol within Town Ordinance that specifies how that is to be measured. The guidance
we were given was to take your lot and at a regular interval moving lengthwise draw your
perpendiculars, and take those and average it. It could be every 50 feet as you move
from front to back, every 100 feet, just to get a representative average by going at a
regular interval along that long access.
MRS. STEFFAN-Okay. It seemed a little vague in the minutes, and so that’s why I
asked.
MR. FRANK-It’s a little vague in the Ordinance, too. So it’s consistent at least.
MR. HUNSINGER-In the interest of moving this along, what’s the Board’s pleasure? Do
we want to table this?
MRS. STEFFAN-Well, this is Sketch. So we don’t have to table it. Do we?
MR. HUNSINGER-Well, we’re asked for Zoning Board recommendations.
MR. SEGULJIC-I’m uncomfortable granting, you’re in a CEA.
MR. HUNSINGER-Yes. No, I understand that, Tom.
MR. SEGULJIC-I mean, we might as well just give it to everybody, if you do it in the
CEA. So I’m against recommending that they allow the variance.
MR. HUNSINGER-How do others feel?
MR. TRAVER-I agree with Tom.
MRS. BRUNO-I’d like to see a few other layouts that, try working on the design or the
layout to see if perhaps you could still work something out, whether it’s that the road is
moved. It’s quite tight in there. I think I’ll refer back to my earlier comment that we’re
trying to put too much into small parcels, and it’s a problem across the Town and even
more so when it’s next to the lake.
MR. LAPPER-I guess I would just ask that you table it for tonight and we’ll take into
consideration what you said and see what alternatives we can come up with.
16
(Queensbury Planning Board 05/24/07)
MR. SEGULJIC-I don’t know what information’s going to change it. I mean, the Code
says 150 feet in a CEA. I’d be most comfortable if we voted on it and let the Board know
how we feel on it.
MR. HUNSINGER-You could certainly make that resolution.
MR. SEGULJIC-Are there any other waivers they’re asking for?
MR. LAPPER-Yes, well, there’s a whole bunch of variances.
MR. SEGULJIC-Variances.
MR. LAPPER-Such as the non building lots being less than one acre, which is kind of
silly in my opinion, but that is still a requirement that we have to ask for, the road parcel
and the pieces that make the Fort Ann pieces bigger.
MRS. BRUNO-Well, I would certainly say if they do grant those variances, that there’s
something in the deed that states that those are, down the road, not a building lot, so that
FA-1 doesn’t decide to sell off this little piece of land.
MR. LAPPER-Yes, of course, and there’s the lack of access on a public road because
they would have access on a private road, and certainly that’s less cost to the Town,
because it would be maintained as a private road. It doesn’t change anything, kind of a
technical variance. We heard your comments on the side setback, and Kevin indicated
that we might be able to change the footprint and improve the request for the side
setback.
MRS. STEFFAN-I guess, you know, this is just I guess one of the notes, actually the note
that I put in my notes after reviewing this, this is a very convoluted project. There’s a lot
going on, and I look at variances a lot like a union contract. The more grievances you
have, you know how good your contract was. We have, our Zoning Code is in place for a
reason, and that’s the law of the Town, and because there are so many variances
required for this project, it raises a flag that, you know, we need to take a closer look, and
I’m thinking, just having finished up the work of the Planning/Ordinance Review
Committee, I’m wondering if it might be prudent to evaluate, to have Staff evaluate the
project based on some of the recommendations in the new Comprehensive Land Use
Plan, and some of the Zoning Regs that have been proposed, and it might provide us
with some clarity where there’s a lot of ambiguity right now in the current Zoning Code.
I’m just wondering if, based on some of the recommendations of that Committee, if this
subdivision would be evaluated and some of the recommendations that we might make
would be more clear with our new or proposed Comprehensive Land Use Plan, and I
understand that, you know, from an applicant’s point of view, you want to be judged
based on the current zoning, but at the same time, I think that the new Code might
provide more clarity for us, because we’re obviously in a couple of places in where the
areas are gray. It’s not black and white.
MR. SEGULJIC-Could you give me some examples?
MRS. STEFFAN-The waterfront, some of the waterfront calculations are different, in the
new Code, than they are in the current Code.
MR. SEGULJIC-For example?
MRS. STEFFAN-I can’t quote them off the top of my head.
MR. SEGULJIC-Okay. I’d like to make a motion with regards to, that we do not
recommend variances for lot width and side setback. As far as the building lot less than
one acre, we’ll go silent on that, I’ll go silent on that.
MR. LAPPER-And how about the lack of frontage on a public road? Is that okay,
frontage on a private road?
MR. SEGULJIC-Well, my concern is that you recommend 150 foot, that’s going to
change your.
MR. HUNSINGER-Well, the road is proposed to be a private road.
MR. LAPPER-That’s the issue, that it’s private, not public.
17
(Queensbury Planning Board 05/24/07)
MR. HUNSINGER-That’s one of the issues.
MR. SEGULJIC-But if you don’t get the 150 foot, isn’t that going to change your design
then?
MR. HUNSINGER-Well, I mean, the only way to provide any of the property in
Queensbury with frontage on a public road is to make the road public rather than private.
MR. SEGULJIC-I guess I’m confused now.
MR. LAPPER-That’s what the variance is for, that it’s a private road.
MR. HUNSINGER-That’s one of the variance requests.
MR. SEGULJIC-Which one is that now?
MR. HUNSINGER-Frontage on a public road.
MR. SEGULJIC-For these three lots.
MR. HUNSINGER-Right. It’s different from the lot width request.
MR. SEGULJIC-I’ll tell you what, can we go through my motion first?
MR. HUNSINGER-Yes, we can.
MR. SEGULJIC-Okay. I have a motion on the floor.
MR. HUNSINGER-Could you restate it, though?
MOTION TO RECOMMEND THAT THE PLANNING BOARD NOT RECOMMEND
VARIANCES FOR LOT WIDTH AND SIDE SETBACKS (REGARDING IRISH BAY
PARTNERS), Introduced by Thomas Seguljic who moved for its adoption, seconded by
Stephen Traver:
th
Duly adopted this 24 day of May, 2007, by the following vote:
MR. MEYER-Can I caution the Board, before they go forward with that, the applicant has
requested that you guys table this, not take a recommendation of this tonight, and he has
requested, Tom, I believe, to come up with additional information and changes, and
unless it’s on the record, or some statement is made saying absent no Area Variances,
relative to that one part, the 150 foot lot, if that change is not contemplated, I would
recommend that you allow the applicant to come back with more information. If that’s
one of the deal breakers for the applicant, then I would say feel free to go forward with
your motion.
MR. SEGULJIC-Okay. Can you interpret that for me?
MRS. STEFFAN-I think what he’s saying is we should not make a motion at this point.
We should let the applicant leave us and come back with more information.
MR. MEYER-He’s requesting the opportunity to bring more information and perhaps
different designs. You’re not commenting on some of the variances request. If the
additional design view changes what he’s going to come back with, the lot size is still
less than 150 feet, which you guys appear to be firm on, that regardless of the change in
zoning, those lots need a variance (lost word) then I would say go forward, but if he’s
going to make changes that will affect, find a way to make that so that that isn’t one of
the variances, I would give them the opportunity to make those changes before you offer
your recommendation.
MR. HUNSINGER-It helped me.
MR. SEGULJIC-I would say it still stands the same. I mean, our Code says 150 foot lot
width, and we have setbacks in the Code. So I’ll continue with the motion then. It
wouldn’t change my mind.
MR. HUNSINGER-Okay.
MR. SIPP-Now, if this motion passes, then we are just denying the variance?
18
(Queensbury Planning Board 05/24/07)
MR. SEGULJIC-No, we’re just recommending to the Zoning Board. That’s all we’re
doing.
MR. HUNSINGER-And it’s only on the specific recommendations that Mr. Seguljic
specified.
MR. SEGULJIC-The lot width and the side setback.
MR. SIPP-All right.
MR. HUNSINGER-The other requests are still in play.
MR. SIPP-All right.
MRS. BRUNO-I’m a little uncomfortable because I’m not quite sure how that ends up
playing out in terms of, I think I was the one that requested perhaps different layouts. If I
vote on this, does that then supersede being able to see the layouts?
MR. MEYER-If you vote on this, it just means that your recommendation back to the
Zoning Board is that you disapprove of granting the variances.
MR. HUNSINGER-Those two specific variances.
MR. MEYER-Those two specific variances.
MRS. BRUNO-Okay.
MR. HUNSINGER-Lot width and side setback requirements.
MRS. BRUNO-So, I agree with that then.
MRS. STEFFAN-I agree with any concept, but I don’t think I have enough information
yet, because I don’t think I have enough information yet because I don’t think the plan is
fleshed out yet, and so I guess I need to vote no, because I’m voting no.
AYES: Mrs. Bruno, Mr. Sipp, Mr. Seguljic, Mr. Traver
NOES: Mrs. Steffan, Mr. Hunsinger
ABSENT: Mr. Ford
MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. So you’re certainly welcome to revise the plan.
MR. SEGULJIC-That was only a recommendation.
MR. HUNSINGER-Right, and it’s only a recommendation to the Zoning Board.
MR. LAPPER-We understand.
MR. HUNSINGER-Thank you.
OLD BUSINESS:
SITE PLAN NO. 8-2007 SEQR TYPE UNLISTED STEWARTS SHOPS OWNER(S)
SAME ZONING HC-INT. LOCATION 777 DIX AVENUE APPLICANT PROPOSES A
3,128 SQ. FT. STEWART SHOP AND ASSOCIATED SITE WORK. CONVENIENCE
STORE AND GASOLINE STATION USES IN THE HC ZONE REQUIRE SITE PLAN
REVIEW BY THE PLANNING BOARD. CROSS REFERENCE SP 59-2004 WARREN
CO. PLANNING 3/14/07 LOT SIZE 1.5 ACRES TAX MAP NO. 303.19-1-61 SECTION
179-4-020
TOM LEWIS, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT
MR. HUNSINGER-Susan, if you could summarize Staff Notes, please.
th
MRS. BARDEN-Most recently, this application was tabled on April 24, specifically for
the applicant to provide a revised lighting plan with cut sheets, at 12 foot poles on the
fixtures, and the appropriate uniformity ratios to meet our Town Code. The applicant has
19
(Queensbury Planning Board 05/24/07)
submitted a revised lighting plan with a couple of different alternatives, and Dan Ryan
from Vision Engineering brought a letter this evening regarding this project that I’d like to
read to you. “As requested, I have reviewed the documentation you forward to me on
May 23, 2007 regarding the above referenced project. Included in the documents were
re-submitted; Drawings T-1, S-1 thru S-10, G-1 thru G-2, a revised Lighting Plan,
comment letter from Tom Lewis dated May 7, 2007, and lighting consultant comment
letter and revised light intensity plan dated May 23, 2007. With the previously mentioned
updated drawings and response letters, the above named applicant has submitted the
requested information and/or made the necessary changes to the project which
satisfactorily address all of my previous technical review comments, with exception of the
following: The most recent submitted lighting plan modifications dated May 23, 2007
appear to mostly satisfy the requirements of the Town Code. A previous comment still
remains outstanding relating to the lighting levels proposed at the perimeter of the
building, where a maximum level of 26 fc is provided. Consideration should be given to
reducing the perimeter building lighting to suggested levels in the code related to
building entrances and walkways. Thank you, and please do not hesitate to call if you
have any questions, comments or require additional information. Sincerely, Daniel W.
Ryan, P.E. Vision Engineering, LLC”
MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. Thank you. Good evening.
MR. LEWIS-Good evening. Tom Lewis is my name. I’m the real estate rep at Stewarts
Shops, and the wonderful thing about land use is no matter how much I do it I always
find out I just really don’t know what I’m talking about. So let me just back up and say at
our last meeting it’s my understanding that the only remaining issue was the light poles,
that we had proposed light poles at 15 feet high, and the Board wanted 12 feet high. We
had no objection to whatever height they were, but it was also said, but the uniformity
ratio had to be four to one. So I sent the Code sheet to our lighting engineer,
manufacturer, out in Ohio, LSI, who’s been doing all of our lighting for years, gave him
the Code and said please just give me what they want. So, but we wanted, since the
Board wasn’t able to vote on something new, I had asked the Board at the last meeting
whether we could submit more than one sheet so that we could discuss different options,
different sized wattage. The engineer had said you could do 15 light poles and that way
the light’s more dispersed, rather than nine, and so we sent in four sheets, which
everyone should have, that are labeled 2-C, 3-A, B, and C, and then Susan very
diligently phoned me up and said, but, Tom, the uniformity ratio isn’t on here. Okay, let
me find out why that’s not done. So I phoned up our lighting guy and said, you know, we
need the uniformity ratio, whatever that means, and now I know what it means, would
you get that to me, please. So I just handed out the e-mail, and we had a file, May 4th,
Susan phoned me a day or two later, and you’ll see that I received an e-mail May 8th,
and I’ve highlighted in red what I learned, and Mr. Ellison, out I Ohio, says in keeping
with the present mounting height, there’s no chance of reaching the four to one. The
only way it can be done is to raise the mounting height. It’s just like holding a flashlight
down at a table. Hold it a couple of inches above the table and we get that bright spot.
Hold it a foot above, and we tone down the hot spot and we are able to get more spread
out of it, if you have any questions, call me, and he went over this. I said, look, send me
what sheet meets the Code. I want to be four to one. If you’re saying that the height has
to go, make it whatever it has to be, and then would you please phone the Town
Engineer, explain it to him so maybe he could persuade the Board, if, in fact, what you’re
saying is right, and give me a narrative so that I could look like I know what I’m talking
about in being able to try and persuade the Board that something doesn’t fit. Because
you’ve all heard a lot of sob stories, I won’t go into what happened the next week and a
half with not returning phone calls and people, you know, yelling at each other. So, we
finally got, yesterday, what Mr. Ryan said meets the Code, except that the lighting under
the soffit has to be changed, and the more that I find out, and I have so many of these
photometric sheets now, that the way I really describe it this is kind of like wac-a-mole.
You bring it down, and, you know, the lighting under the canopy pops up. You do the
canopy and the pole light pops up. So I want to pass out what I just got that Mr. Ryan
agreed to, which I don’t agree to, and, frankly, I don’t think you will, either. These are 16
feet high. Everyone says you don’t want 16 feet high. I don’t care how high it is.
MR. HUNSINGER-I don’t want to tell you, then, how much time I spent looking at the four
photometric plans trying to decide which one was better and, you know, how it was
different.
MR. LEWIS-I believe it, yes.
MR. HUNSINGER-Yes, I’m sure everyone else did the same thing.
20
(Queensbury Planning Board 05/24/07)
MR. LEWIS-Yes, and after I go into why I know I don’t want to do this, and hopefully you
won’t want me to do this, I’d like to focus in on a solution, on something that I think is
reasonable, that knowing this Board as well as I do, we’re going to reach a consensus.
The reason why I don’t want to do what I handed out is in order to meet the uniformity
ratio, if you look right by my building, by the entrance, you’ll see a nice big, fat A there.
That A is a light pole right in front of my building. I’ve never seen that. That just makes
no sense to me at all. Besides which, we’re 16 feet, and I think this Board was very clear
to me, we don’t want 16 feet. So, let me try to focus in on a solution. Now the four
sheets that we handed in, our packet, the first one, 2-C, is what I wanted to do at the last
meeting. I just thought I would toss that in in case what I want matters and we know it
doesn’t. Now, the next three, I think we could find a solution there, but before I go into
why either the second or three sheet I think will make the most amount of sense, while I
was in the audience, and I read over the minutes from last month, and in there Mr. Lewis
said, I think in January, and it was said again at the March meeting at least a couple of
times, that everyone thought our site at 9L and 149, that everybody was happy how that
lighting was. Did I misread that? One Board member said, it was, that’s all I can say,
meaning that they were very happy with our 9L and 149 site. Then another Board
member said, you heard that, because that’s what the Board said. Then another Board
member said, you heard it from more than one member. So at least three Board
members on record have said they like that site. Now, the second and third sheets of the
four sheets are below the lighting at 9L and 149, and I would ask you to consider 9L and
149, which back then I went kicking and screaming, okay, we’ll do that, was the
argument made by this Board was a very reasonable one, which even eventually I got.
Here’s a rural area, no one lives out there, you don’t need to be a beacon in the night,
they’re going to see you. Juxtapose with where we are looking to go today, at the corner
of Dix and Quaker Road, not what I would call out in the country, and I think it is
reasonable that if we go over numbers that are lower than those at 149, and are 12 feet,
that we could reach a consensus, knowing that we will not get the four to one ratio, and
I’m not sure anyone out there’s really going to care. So, if you look at the second sheet,
the little boxes on the bottom, and we’re only looking at the inside curve now. We’re only
talking about the lights at the curve. So the inside curve average 2.3. 9L is 3.69. Now
I’m sure that I handed out 9L at one other meeting. I could show you this, but I’m not
making this up. So 9L is 3.69, and this is down at 2.3. Maximum is 9L is 21.3, and this is
21.2, almost the same, not more, less. Now, that second sheet has the nine light poles,
which we think makes sense. There’s going to be safety. Cars won’t be hitting each
other, but the next page at 12 feet shows 15 poles, and the reason for the 15 was Mr.
Ryan thought that if you have more lights that that’ll somehow disperse it more. Also
note that these are 250 watters. These are not the 400’s that we originally asked for,
that we use everywhere in rural areas, and I’m sure that you don’t want the fourth one,
because those go to 400 watts. So why would you want 400 when I’m offering 250? So
it’s my hope that this Board will pick either 9 or 15, I hope you go with 9, 9 or 15,
whatever, that 12 feet, and then we could all go out for an ice cream, and I guess we
can’t do that. So, what does the Board think? Can we resolve this?
MRS. STEFFAN-I certainly think your argument’s reasonable, and I wasn’t on the Board
at the time that the Ridge Road was approved, but it is, it’s a dark area out there, and the
Highway Commercial place where you’re looking at this operation is very different, and
so I definitely see your point.
MR. LEWIS-Do you like nine poles or fifteen poles? You don’t care?
MR. HUNSINGER-Does either, or actually, do any of these four take into account light
spillage from adjoining properties?
MR. LEWIS-I doubt it.
MR. HUNSINGER-I didn’t think they did, because you have zero at the lot line, and, you
know, there are street lights out there. There’s light spillage from McDonalds next door.
So all of those will help to average out the Uniformity Ratio, because you don’t have zero
at the lot line.
MR. LEWIS-Okay.
MRS. BRUNO-I was going to go right down there, too, and ask that question.
MR. SEGULJIC-I say go with the nine poles, Plan Two.
MR. HUNSINGER-Three A.
21
(Queensbury Planning Board 05/24/07)
MR. SEGULJIC-Three A.
MR. SIPP-Yes, 3-A.
MR. LEWIS-We love 3-A. Three A moves me.
MR. SEGULJIC-Okay.
MR. LEWIS-Hopefully soon it’s going to move me out the door so the next applicant can
come up. I love being here, don’t misunderstand me. This is entertainment for me.
MR. SEGULJIC-Does everyone like 3-A?
MR. HUNSINGER-I can live with it.
MR. SEGULJIC-Just one clarification. Have we got signoff from the Engineer?
MR. HUNSINGER-Well, that was what I was just asking. The letter that you just read
from Vision Engineering, is it essentially a signoff? Was there any outstanding issues?
MRS. BARDEN-It is essentially a signoff.
MR. SEGULJIC-So that’s cleaned up.
MR. HUNSINGER-Essentially, or is?
MR. LEWIS-The item he mentioned was only on the new drawing. We had brought
down the lighting that used to be 26 at the area that he’s talking about to a number that
was acceptable.
MR. HUNSINGER-Right.
MR. LEWIS-We were only talking about the perimeter lighting, the pole lighting.
MRS. STEFFAN-Are you going to put picnic tables on this site?
MR. LEWIS-Sure, why not.
MRS. STEFFAN-Maybe some of your whiskey barrel planters like you have downtown.
Last week we talked about, the last time you were here last month we talked about
landscaping, internal landscaping, you were looking for a waiver.
MR. LEWIS-Yes. Is a whiskey barrel something you could take in and out?
MRS. STEFFAN-Yes.
MR. LEWIS-Yes, that’s easy.
MRS. STEFFAN-Well, you can’t take it in and out of the store. I mean, you’d have to
have a very Herculean person to whip that thing up in the store, but it would be easy to
move with a dolly.
MR. LEWIS-I’m not sure what that is. Tell me what it’s called.
MRS. STEFFAN-Whiskey barrel. It’s a planter, and it’s like a whiskey barrel cut in half,
and you put plants in it, topsoil and annuals, and you have one on Warren Street at the
Stewarts. You put two picnic tables out and you put whiskey barrels out, planted with
annuals, and I would just like you to do some of that internal landscaping, because you
can’t, the last time you were here you talked about not having a place to put permanent
planters, but I would like you to add some color.
MR. LEWIS-Right. So where would we put that, over by the picnic tables or something?
MRS. STEFFAN-You put it near the picnic tables. You can put it on the corners of your
sidewalks. Wherever it will fit.
MR. LEWIS-Sure. Whiskey barrel planting. Sure.
22
(Queensbury Planning Board 05/24/07)
MRS. STEFFAN-So we will grant them a waiver for interior landscaping. How does the
Board feel about that?
MR. HUNSINGER-Everyone think that’s a good idea?
MR. SEGULJIC-Yes.
MR. HUNSINGER-We did leave the public hearing open. Is there anyone here that had
comments or questions to address to the Board on this project?
PUBLIC HEARING OPEN
NO COMMENTS
PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED
MR. HUNSINGER-It’s an Unlisted. Is there any reason why the applicant provided a
Long SEQRA Form on this project?
MR. LEWIS-We were asked, otherwise we’d never do it. It takes a lot of time.
MR. HUNSINGER-It seems like a Short Form would have been.
MRS. STEFFAN-I think it’s because it’s a use.
MR. HUNSINGER-Well, we’re doing a Long Form. Can we do a Short Form? Is there
any reason we can’t? They submitted a Long Form.
MRS. BARDEN-You were asked to submit a Long Form?
MR. LEWIS-I would never voluntarily do that.
MRS. STEFFAN-All right. We’ll just do the Long Form.
MR. LEWIS-I could probably fill out a Short Form faster than you could review the Long
Form.
MR. HUNSINGER-We’ll go through the Long Form.
MRS. STEFFAN-Okay.
RESOLUTION WHEN DETERMINATION OF NO SIGNIFICANCE IS MADE
RESOLUTION NO.8-2007, Introduced by Gretchen Steffan who moved for its adoption,
seconded by Thomas Seguljic:
WHEREAS, there is presently before the Planning Board an application for:
STEWARTS SHOPS, 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
23
(Queensbury Planning Board 05/24/07)
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
statement of non-significance or a negative declaration that may be required by
law.
th
Duly adopted this 24 day of May, 2007, by the following vote:
AYES: Mr. Sipp, Mr. Traver, Mrs. Bruno, Mr. Seguljic, Mrs. Steffan, Mr. Hunsinger
NOES: NONE
ABSENT: Mr. Ford
MOTION TO APPROVE SITE PLAN NO. 8-2007 STEWARTS SHOPS, Introduced by
Gretchen Steffan who moved for its adoption, seconded by Donald Sipp:
1. WHEREAS, a site plan application has been made to the Queensbury Planning
Board for the following; Applicant proposes a 3.128 sq. ft. Stewart Shop and associated
site work. Convenience Store and Gasoline Station uses in the HC zone require Site
Plan Review by the Planning Board.
2. WHEREAS, a public hearing was advertised and held on 3/27/07, 4/24/07, tabled to
5/24/07; and
3. WHEREAS, this application is supported with all documentation, public comment and
application material in the file of record; and
4. WHEREAS, 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. WHEREAS, where appropriate, i.e. done at the completed review, and/or when
required [either Type I or Unlisted] the requirements of the State Environmental Quality
Review Act have been considered and the Planning Board has adopted a SEQRA
Negative Declaration and /or 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
6. WHEREAS, 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 NA
7. 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
8 If applicable, Item 8 to be combined with a letter of credit; and
9. The Sanitary Sewer connection plan must be submitted to the Wastewater
Department for its review, approval, permitting and inspection. NA
MOTION TO APPROVE SITE PLAN NO. 8-2007 STEWARTS SHOPS, Introduced by
Gretchen Steffan who moved for its adoption, seconded by Donald Sipp:
According to the resolution prepared by Staff. Paragraph Four complies. Paragraph
Five negative. Paragraph Six does not apply. Paragraph Nine does not apply. This is
approved with the following conditions.
24
(Queensbury Planning Board 05/24/07)
1.That the lighting plan LO-81594-3A is the acceptable lighting plan.
2.That we will grant a waiver for interior landscaping to the applicant. However,
the applicant agrees to add annual plantings to the site in summer.
th
Duly adopted this 24 day of May, 2007, by the following vote:
MR. LEWIS-May I just say. I know this is a little odd, but remember when I told you
about the McDonald’s deed restriction?
MR. HUNSINGER-Yes.
MR. LEWIS-So, even though I don’t think that’ll be a big issue the next item, but this
approval would have to be contingent upon that, because without the deed restriction,
we don’t buy it, and McDonalds wouldn’t give us, let us do the deal without their
directional sign. I mean, I don’t think this Board’s going to have a hard time with this next
item, but one never takes the Board for granted. We wouldn’t build it without that sign,
because we can’t get the deed restriction moved without it, that little directional sign on
the next item on the Board.
MRS. STEFFAN-Right. Do you want to just wait on this one and then hear McDonalds
first?
MR. LEWIS-Yes. I don’t mind waiting on this one at all and doing that one first, if you
want.
MR. SEGULJIC-But there’s a vote on the floor.
MR. HUNSINGER-Yes, there’s a vote on the floor.
MR. MEYER-You don’t need to act on this application. You can get approval and do
nothing. That’s just an option.
MR. LEWIS-Okay. If this went to foreclosure, and we didn’t buy it, and someone else
bought it, would they be buying an approved site?
MR. HUNSINGER-No, because the approval is specific to the plan that was presented,
which is why we had to reference, I mean, unless somebody took your plans and
implemented your plans, that would be the only way.
MRS. STEFFAN-Right, because you’re the applicant. The approval is for Stewarts
Shops.
MR. LEWIS-So this is an approval of a Stewarts Shop?
MR. HUNSINGER-Right.
MRS. STEFFAN-Of your site plan.
MR. HUNSINGER-Your site plan.
MR. LEWIS-Thank you. For a Stewarts Shop.
MRS. STEFFAN-Yes, your site plan application for Stewarts Shops.
MR. LEWIS-Okay. Thank you.
MR. HUNSINGER-Yes, no one else can use it.
MR. LEWIS-Pardon my interruption. You were about to vote.
MR. HUNSINGER-That’s okay. Okay.
AYES: Mr. Seguljic, Mrs. Bruno, Mr. Traver, Mrs. Steffan, Mr. Sipp, Mr. Hunsinger
NOES: NONE
ABSENT: Mr. Ford
25
(Queensbury Planning Board 05/24/07)
MR. HUNSINGER-You’re all set.
MR. LEWIS-Thank you.
MR. HUNSINGER-Well, mostly all set.
MRS. STEFFAN-Just hang around for a couple of minutes.
SITE PLAN NO. 18-2007 SEQR TYPE UNLISTED BBL CONSTRUCTION AGENT(S)
B P S R; JIM MILLER OWNER(S) Q.E.D.C. ZONING MR-5 LOCATION OFF
LUZERNE ROAD APPLICANT PROPOSES CONSTRUCTION OF AN 60,000 SQ. FT.
COMMERCIAL OFFICE BUILDING AND ASSOCIATED SITE IMPROVEMENTS.
COMMERCIAL OFFICE BUILDINGS IN THE MR-5 ZONE REQUIRE SITE PLAN
REVIEW BY THE PLANNING BOARD. CROSS REFERENCE AV WARREN CO.
PLANNING 4/11/07 LOT SIZE 3.72; 3.30; 3.80 ACRES TAX MAP NO. 301.10-1-82,
83, 84 SECTION 179-9-020, 179-8-070, 179-8-050, 179-6-020, 179-4-040
JON LAPPER & JIM MILLER, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT
MR. HUNSINGER-Susan, if you could summarize Staff Notes, please.
MRS. BARDEN-Well, there are a lot of them, but I will, in summary, that this application
th
was tabled most recently at the April 24 meeting for a number of items that were
submitted, including a Long EAF, a traffic report, revised lighting plan, revised building
elevations and responses to Vision Engineering comment letter of April 2, 2007. There’s
th
also, in your packet, a Vision Engineering comment letter dated May 14, with one
outstanding item, Number 15 on Vision comment, Number 15 from their previous
comment letter, and that is a comment on the Draft NOI. There’s also a letter of
clarification on the lighting plan from Jim Miller regarding the height of the lighting poles,
and that has been changed from 20 feet to 16 feet, and the corresponding detail sheet. I
think that that is all I have, unless there are any comments on Staff Notes.
MR. HUNSINGER-The floor is yours, gentlemen.
MR. LAPPER-Okay. For the record, Jon Lapper with Jay Hoepeke, on behalf of BBL,
and Jim Miller, Landscape Architect. I guess we’d like to start off talking about the
rendering. You made it clear at the last meeting that you wanted to see a more
interesting architectural design of the building, and we hope that you’ll agree that what
we’ve submitted is vastly superior. It took some arm twisting. It was considerably more
expensive than where we started out, but everybody ultimately liked it better, and we
hope that the Board does as well. So, any questions or comments on that at this point?
MR. SEGULJIC-It looks so good, I forgot what the other one looked like.
MR. LAPPER-That’s okay, as long as you like it.
MR. SIPP-Will the façade in the front there, raising that middle part of, right over the door
entrance, will that hide what is mechanically will be put on the roof?
JAY HOEPEKE
MR. HOEPEKE-It’ll partially hide and assist in hiding some of the other, most of the
mechanicals are centered on the roof, and Jim Miller also submitted a section that shows
the line of sight. That kind of clarifies some of the visibility of, or the concerns for rooftop
visibility.
MR. LAPPER-And I guess next we can address the Vision comment because we were
down to a signoff letter with just one small issue.
MR. MILLER-Yes. We had submitted the original letter that we reviewed last month with
you. There’s 14 items that were addressed. One of the items was to submit a Draft
Notice of Intent which was submitted, and he asked us to check one additional box on
the form, which was done and we have since submitted the note to DEC. So that’s been
taken care of.
MR. LAPPER-And then the Staff comments. The Long EAF, the Staff was right. We had
to make a few changes. We can go through that.
26
(Queensbury Planning Board 05/24/07)
MR. MILLER-Yes. On the Long EAF, A, Item Two, it’s correct. The Form shows that the
4.35 acres is the existing, and that should be zero, and the 4.35 is after completion. Item
Three is it should be well drained sands. We checked the box where it says well drained
100% of the site. So we need to fill that line in, well drained sands. Item Two, Staff
questions answers provided. I’m not sure I understood that one. I’m sorry, yes, that’s
the one where it talks about the amount of material to be excavated. I think our
preliminary numbers, we anticipated balanced cut and fills on the site. Isn’t that right,
Jay? Because there’s some low areas on the site. There’s a low area that was
previously excavated out for probably a borrow area which has to be filled. The building
area is actually being raised a little bit. So the material that’s coming out of stormwater
basins will be used as fill material in those areas. So the intent was to balance the cuts
and fills so we’re not hauling anything in or out.
MRS. STEFFAN-Okay.
MR. MILLER-I’m sorry. I was looking at the wrong line, Susan, and B-25, the State
agency, DEC, SPDES sets the stormwater. We don’t disagree with that. I guess we just
assume that that was a, you know, not a specific permit but a general permit. So that’s
why we didn’t check that, but we’d agree to do that, and that would take care of all those
SEQRA items.
MR. LAPPER-The Staff raised the question which was in the Staff Notes last time, and
we did talk about it last time, why it couldn’t be a three story building with a smaller
footprint, and that’s because the tenant has a program where they want their staff the
way they split them up into two floors rather than three floors, so it just doesn’t work for
them, but the notes also point out that the difference is not so consequential. It would
only be 44% rather than 41%, in terms of permeability. So we didn’t have the leeway to
do that, but we far exceed the requirement for permeability in that zone anyway, and Jim
addressed the comments in the submittal in terms of the landscape and buffering, in
terms of moving around the islands and trying to make the buffer as big as possible. Do
you want to just show them on the board?
MR. MILLER-Sure. The item that was questions, the triangular island, was the area in
the rear, and the reason we left that is what’s required along the residence there is a 10
foot buffer, which is what we’ve provided, and the idea was if we were to take the green
space from that island and put it against that island, we could increase that, but we end
up, we would lose some parking spaces because this layout is more efficient, and the
other side of the coin, which would bother me more, is that if we do that, then we take
that island, which was within the 10% within our parking lot, now we’re pushing it outside
the parking lot. So we would lose that green space within the island. So that’s why we
did it that way, and we would prefer to keep that as an island, and also that’s an area
where we’re hoping that there may be some trees we could save, which was another
comment that was in there, and if we move that, we would lose that opportunity also.
MR. HUNSINGER-While you’re on interior parking lot landscaping, there’s a comment
about the 16,799 square feet. Is that what you were just addressing?
MR. MILLER-Sure. The way we calculated the space of the parking lot, we included all
the pavement limits. The only thing we excluded was these two driveway areas, and we
took that area minus the area around the building up to the curb line, and we deducted
that out, and that’s what gave us the 165,000 square feet, and then when we calculated
the islands, we got the 16,000 square feet, and the one thing that we did do is I included
some islands that may occur at the end of a row, and areas like that, I feel those are
significant, because if the comment the Staff was making, all that green space has to be
in that island, then we’d have to add parking spaces there in order to make that island
bigger, which I think is less desirable, because I think these islands not only protect the
cars in those rows, but it also provides green space at the end of that row of cars. The
other thing is, the Code’s not really clear how to calculate this. The other thing is what
we did in our calculation is we included all the area of the islands within that 165,000
square feet. So if we came through and deducted the islands out, that would increase
our percentage even more. So, you know, I think we meet that requirement and we
could probably nit pick how I did the calculations, but I think we meet the intent of the
Code.
MR. HUNSINGER-Is everyone satisfied with that answer?
MR. MILLER-And we’ve got extra trees in there.
27
(Queensbury Planning Board 05/24/07)
MR. HUNSINGER-Yes, well, they did note that, yes. You’re required to have 28 and you
show 34.
MR. LAPPER-And then next is lighting. There was a misunderstanding about the 23 and
a half feet.
MR. MILLER-Yes, well, one of the things we talked about on the lighting plan, we
resubmitted the lighting plan, and what we did is we revised the lighting plan so all the
perimeter lights, the single lights, are cut off, and they’d be 16 feet high. We’d maintain
the cut off shields where they but against the residential properties, and the interior lights
that we were asking to be at 25 feet, will now be, where they’re the double headed lights
in the middle of the parking lot, they will be a maximum of 20, and in the calculations on
the plan that you see show that. I think where the confusion comes is you look at the
schedule in the lighting plan, it says like ET- 23 and a half high, and then you look at the
next line, it says pressure sodium, and that’s not a height. That’s a light number. That
has to do with the type of high pressure sodium light, and, you know, when I first saw
that, when it was pointed out in the Staff Notes, I was concerned, too. I was wondering
why they picked such an odd height to run their calculations. So when I called him and
he told me, no, keep reading the next line. So, it’s unfortunate the way they put that up,
but that has nothing to do with the height. That’s just the type of lens.
th
MR. HUNSINGER-Well, on SP-5, dated April 30, up in the light post detail.
MR. MILLER-Okay. If you look at the Staff Notes, we changed the light calculations,
Chris, and I didn’t change the detail. So we revised that now, and now that detail reads
16 feet for the single and 20 foot maximum. So we went through changing the light plan,
and I forgot to change the detail.
MR. HUNSINGER-That’s what I thought it was, yes. Okay.
MR. MILLER-Susan caught me on that right away.
MR. HUNSINGER-Okay.
MR. SEGULJIC-Two questions. The monument sign you propose, any idea on the
height?
MR. MILLER-We put that in as kind of a generic, if you remember, as we talked about
that last month, we don’t really have a tank. So that might change. Our intent was to
show you what we would envision. I would think that the brick portion of that pedestal at
the bottom, we would probably have like three to four feet high. So it would elevate the
sign above the landscaping. We show the sign and the landscape bed. So we would
want to have it high enough to be above the landscaping. So I’d say we’re probably
looking at four foot high, and then have sort of low more of a horizontal type of a sign,
you know, mounted above it.
MR. SEGULJIC-Sounds good.
MR. SEGULJIC-The other thing is, I’m pretty sure we discussed this last time, but when
the residential project to the east was originally before us, they talked about having an
interconnect, and I believe we discussed it before, and I don’t see one on the plan.
MR. LAPPER-Right, and we went through that in some length the last time. Our reason
for that is because it was envisioned that the park and ride would be adjacent, the park
and ride was going to be bigger at that point, and it was going to be adjacent to the
residential property. Now instead there’s a detention basin.
MR. SEGULJIC-So where that, doesn’t the housing project go further to the south than
the basin?
MR. MILLER-The housing project is along here.
MR. SEGULJIC-Right.
MR. MILLER-But I think what the intent was, when that was added, this was all one
parcel. So it was, the thought was that the park and ride would actually be closer,
because at the time the road wasn’t designed. I think the thought was that this park and
ride was actually going to be located back in this area, so then that connection would
28
(Queensbury Planning Board 05/24/07)
make sense. Now the park and ride is separated by private property, and that’s why we
haven’t shown the connection.
MR. SEGULJIC-Doesn’t it make sense to connect that residential project with this?
MR. LAPPER-Not through a detention basin which is sort of an attractive nuisance.
MR. SEGULJIC-All right, but doesn’t the residential project continue further towards the
south? That’s where my confusion is.
MR. LAPPER-Well, we wouldn’t want them walking through the parking lot, just as a
liability thing. I mean, they can walk around Luzerne Road and past the new EMS, if
they want to get there. We just feel like it’s not compatible to have them coming through
a busy parking lot to walk to park and ride.
MR. SEGULJIC-Well, I was thinking that people who lived over there may work here.
That’s what I was hoping.
MR. LAPPER-If that’s the case, there’ll probably be a path right through the woods, but I
mean, that’s certainly possible that that might happen.
MR. SEGULJIC-But it sounds like you guys really don’t want that.
MR. LAPPER-We don’t want it to go to the park and ride because the park and ride is not
at the border of the residential property.
MR. SEGULJIC-As more for this project. Does anyone have any thoughts on that?
MR. LAPPER-That’s not a park and ride. That’s like a walk and work path you’re
thinking of.
MR. SEGULJIC-And that would be great.
MR. LAPPER-And that will probably happen, if people work there, I’m sure that’ll
happen.
MR. SEGULJIC-I’d love that.
MR. LAPPER-We’re not proposing a fence there. There’s nothing that will preclude it.
MR. SEGULJIC-I’m all set, other than that.
MRS. BRUNO-Has there been anymore discussion about turning off the rear perimeter
lights at night? I saw that in the notes from the previous meeting.
MR. HOEPEKE-Yes, we could set a time, put the rear ones on a timer, based on the
quantity of the late night shift. That’s something we could easily do.
MR. MILLER-And we added the bike rack.
MR. SEGULJIC-I like that. Though nobody’s going to use it, but.
MR. HUNSINGER-What time would the rear lights turn off?
MR. LAPPER-It’s hard to say right now. We don’t know when that last shift ends.
MRS. STEFFAN-I was asking, is it 11 or midnight?
MR. HOEPEKE-It would be plus or minus, I mean, ten to midnight, something like that.
It’s because the later shift has a little bit fewer employees, they would primarily be
parking closer to the entrance of the building. So we could coordinate with the total staff
count for the late shift, and then just set an appropriate time for those far back lights to
shut off.
MR. SIPP-I’m sure you have this already calculated out, but the turning radius of a truck,
is that figured in your driveway calculations? How will they enter this property? Which
driveway are they going to use to enter with trucks, tractor trailers?
29
(Queensbury Planning Board 05/24/07)
MR. MILLER-Well, they don’t have many tractor trailers, but any service that comes in
would come in the southerly driveway and would come in here and they would basically
just back into the service door in this location, and the intent is that they don’t need, they
wouldn’t be there for, it’s not the kind of business where you have a tractor trailer there
for a long period of time. So we don’t need a loading dock, but they would basically pull
up in here and unload and then they would access, drive out around the back of the
building so they don’t have to turn around.
MR. SIPP-Out the north side. In on the south?
MR. MILLER-Yes.
MR. SIPP-All right. Now on the landscaping plan, we keep running into this, and I guess
I’m beating my head against the wall. Sugar Maples do not like salt, and you’ve got them
right out on the road there, and I’m afraid that they won’t do well, down in your
disturbance area across the road.
MR. MILLER-I forget where we put them, over in here?
MR. SIPP-No. Down the other corner.
MR. MILLER-Well, we’d be happy to switch those out. What would you like to see there?
MR. SIPP-On the landscape plan, right next to the sign, if you go to the landscape plan,
and on the corners of the building you have an LF, or LP.
MR. MILLER-LP.
MR. SIPP-LP. What is that?
MR. MILLER-That’s a spirea. It’s a shrub.
MR. SIPP-You don’t it listed in the box.
MR. MILLER-No kidding. You’re right. That’s a little princess spirea.
MR. SIPP-Okay. That clears up what it, I thought light fixture, and then. Okay.
MR. MILLER-Make those changes.
MR. SIPP-In that area also where the Sugar Maples are, what is there now, pine trees?
MR. MILLER-Well, there’s not much right there. If you look at this light line that’s here,
that’s sort of the limits of where the existing trees are. So this area, as a matter of fact, if
you drive over the Northway and look at the EMS, that’s fairly open there. So this corner
right here is, there’s nothing right there now. When you get down into this area, that’s
where there starts to get to be some of the pines.
MR. SIPP-What is that symbol in that area that has a “P” in the center with the dotted,
there are three, I don’t think it’s on the landscape. It’s on the, there’s three of them in a
triangular shape.
MR. MILLER-Those are drywells that are located within the stormwater basin. What we
did is the way the stormwater basin is designed, there’s a lower pocket that’s a four bay,
and then for the, in the larger storms, the basin fills higher. Then we have those drywells
there to assist with infiltration into the soil, and also that’ll allow us to have infiltration
when there’s frost in the ground.
MR. SIPP-I just wondered why they were on this plan and not on, they don’t show up on
any other.
MR. MILLER-Well, they should be, they’re on the grading plan also. That’s where they
were. Sometimes those structures, we just show them on the various plans for
reference.
MR. SIPP-Now the sign that you propose will be lighted?
MR. HOEPEKE-We haven’t fully designed, you’re talking a monument sign?
30
(Queensbury Planning Board 05/24/07)
MR. MILLER-The monument sign.
MR. SIPP-The monument sign out front.
MR. HOEPEKE-We have not gotten into specific details of, because we would assume,
we’d like to have it illuminated, early morning, night time, and they could be put on a
timer, also.
MR. SIPP-I’d like to see the size of the particular, that we get nothing over eight feet in
height.
MR. MILLER-We could say it would be under eight feet. Yes, we would agree to that.
The problem we have right now is the tenant is going to be the one that is going to do
that, and I think we could set a parameter like no more than eight feet and, you know,
they could work with that. The sign, it’s going to meet all of the Codes.
MR. HUNSINGER-So it wouldn’t be up lit.
MR. MILLER-No.
MR. HUNSINGER-Okay.
MR. SIPP-But it will be lighted.
MR. MILLER-Yes.
MR. HOEPEKE-Some sort of illumination.
MR. SIPP-The water coming in, are these hydrants a necessity?
MR. MILLER-Yes. We have to have access a certain distance from the building, fire
protection.
MR. SIPP-Well, you’ve got a hydrant in the northwest corner and then you’ve got one on
the southeast corner.
MR. MILLER-Right. That’s so that we’re within 500 foot of any point of the building. That
was the criteria for laying those out. The water line comes in on the south driveway. The
main utility room and sprinkler room for the buildings on the south side, so the water line
comes in there, so we’ve got a hydrant along the front, accessible from the front of the
building, and then the water line was continued around so there’d be a hydrant to the
rear of the building. So we’d have a hydrant off each corner of the building.
MR. SIPP-Now, in reading the traffic report there, which is a monumental task to begin
with, did their conclusion be that there would be a stoplight on Luzerne, a light on
Luzerne and a light on Main Street?
KEN WIRSTEAD
MR. WIRSTEAD-Ken Wirstead, Creighton-Manning Engineering. We had determined
that there was going to be a stoplight at the south end of South Avenue at Main Street,
and we had analyzed this intersection with Luzerne Road as two different conditions, one
being unsignalized and also one being signalized, depending on whether the grant
money comes through and that gets installed. So we have both conditions analyzed in
there. The northbound approach is going to operate at Level of Service C during both of
those conditions, and then traffic on Luzerne Road is going to operate at Level of Service
A and B.
MR. SIPP-Yes. I’m not particularly concerned with your traffic because a lot of it seems
to be an off peak traffic pattern. We’re starting at five in the morning and running until
seven thirty, although that may run into a little bit of a problem, but I’m concerned about
EMS, if they’re able to get out and go whichever direction they want by a light that would
be controlled by them. So that if they had to go to the north and then to the west, or to
the east, they would be able to, on Luzerne Road and also on Main Street, that there be
lights there, and who is responsible for putting these lights in, the Town?
MR. WIRSTEAD-I believe the south end would be part of the re-construction project on
Main Street, and then this one would be whoever is responsible for, you know, preparing
31
(Queensbury Planning Board 05/24/07)
and installing this traffic signal. It’s not included as part of this proposal. It’s already an
improvement that’s being considered at this point.
MR. SIPP-That’s all I had.
MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. Any other questions or comments from members of the
Board?
MR. SIPP-I must say that I’d approve the building change. I think it looks much better
than the original barn that you had on there.
MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. If there’s no other questions or comments from the Board, we
do have a public hearing scheduled this evening. Is there anyone here that had
questions or comments to the Board? Supervisor Stec?
PUBLIC HEARING OPEN
DAN STEC
MR. STEC-Good evening everyone. Dan Stec, Town Supervisor. I think I’ve been
before, in my time in office, seven and a half years, I think I’ve appeared before the
Planning Board to comment about a project only one other time, and it was about three
years ago, and I did so because, although it is my personal belief, and I think there’s a lot
of examples in case law and other opinions that Town Board should strive to keep at
arms length from the Planning and Zoning Boards, you know, as an elected official
wearing a lot of the other hats that we do and a lot of the other functions, there’s a certain
other perspective that I just think is important to bring when you have, and don’t get me
wrong, everybody’s project is important, and I know you all know that. However, there
are projects that are of regional or certainly Town wide impact, importance when it
comes to the Town’s economy, and while I know that you’re dealing with a builder here
and not the tenant, I think everyone understands who the tenant is, and in the climate
that we have in New York State, there are other suitors out there, and these aren’t jobs
that we are looking to draw here. These are jobs that we’re looking to retain here, and
we’re not talking about a couple dozen. Everybody’s job’s important. If it’s yours, it
doesn’t matter if you’re, you know, a one man operation that loses his business or a
4,000 person business and 4,000 people lose, you know, it’s very personal to people,
their jobs I mean, and so we’re talking about 400 jobs. So that’s what brings me here
tonight, plus, I’m glad I was here, because I know that some of the other discussion
that’s occurred just in the last few minutes I think I can shed a little light on. Unlike the
other project that I talked about three years ago, that one was just purely, I thought it was
that significant of an economic impact to the Town that I felt that I needed to at least to
wave that banner on behalf of the Town, but this one in particular, unlike the other one,
the Town Board and the Town itself has had a lot of direct contact with this project. The
shape of that parcel is a result of not one but two Town Board actions. This was all
originally QEDC property that the Town obviously funded QEDC. The history of QEDC
is they get almost all their funding from the Town Board over the years, and this property
was purchased by QEDC from Town taxpayer money. QEDC is the property owner.
BBL has an option on the property. What got carved out of the QEDC property, the EMS
building and the pesky but important park and ride lot in the middle, and so in an attempt
to work with this would be tenant and to draw them to stay in Warren County, to stay in
Queensbury, so that our folks didn’t have to worry about commuting to Schenectady or
losing their job altogether to an out of state location, we worked very closely with
Queensbury Economic Development Corporation, as the property owner, and Warren
County Economic Development Corporation, who the Town enters into an annual
contract to provide us an economic development arm, and we worked very closely with
them and State officials and other officials to decide, to get this to where it is right now.
So the park and ride lot was originally a little larger to accommodate the needs that were
perceived by this tenant. We went back and made that park and ride lot a little smaller,
and the Town Board had to be involved in all of that, because we became property
owner for the park and ride lot. So we’ve been very involved in this. The connector
road, to answer some of Mr. Sipp’s questions, right now, and we haven’t heard back from
DOT yet, but at the north end of the connector road, on the Luzerne Road, that light is
being submitted for as part of our Town’s project. So we’re hoping that the project and
the Town’s connector road project will be putting that light in. At the southern end, of
course there’s going to be a light there. That’s always been part of that project.
According to our consultant, B & L, they have every reason to believe that DOT is going
to give the final blessing on the north light. So there will be a signal at either end of the
connector road, and I think that’s important. Tanya, I want to compliment you. I thought
that the, it didn’t dawn on me. I really thought it was pretty good out of the box thinking
32
(Queensbury Planning Board 05/24/07)
and made all the sense in the world, that back light, the back property line by the
residences, on those off shifts when they know that they’re going to be parking near the
building, not back there, it makes all the sense in the world to say, hey, can we put those
on a timer. That takes care of a residential light pollution issue at night. So I really
thought, and maybe you guys do that all the time. I don’t frequent coming here and
watching that, but I really thought that that was a very practical solution, not costly. So I
wanted to at least comment on that, but.
MRS. BRUNO-I thank you, but that wasn’t my idea. That was simply because I wasn’t at
their initial meeting and reading the old minutes.
MR. STEC-Hey, when credit’s offered, sometimes it’s okay to smile and take it.
MRS. BRUNO-It rarely happens.
MR. STEC-Look, I’ve been following this closely, and like I said, you know, it should be
an arms length thing. I’m not going to presume to tell you guys how to do the site plan
thing, but I just wanted to emphasize to you that the Town Board has had contact with a
lot of the, this parcel is shaped the way it is because the Town Board has tried to work
with this would be tenant and the Rescue Squad. The sewer I can tell you, for those that
might be interested, we were waiting for one more signoff. We were all set to approve it.
We have already had the public hearing a month ago. We were waiting for one more
signoff that we just got ,yesterday or today, from SHPO. The State Office of Historic
Preservation, that, for the sewer line. That should be all set now. We haven’t received
the letter yet, but we were told it’s coming. That’s the last item that we needed. So the
th
Town Board, I presume, on our June 4 workshop, will approve the sewer line. The
th
connector road is supposed to go out to bid June 25 the bids should be back. I think
they wanted to put it out the first week in June now, and so the connector road bids
should be back the end of June. So at our first Town Board meeting in July, hopefully
we’ll be in a position to select the lower bidder, or a bidder, the low bidder, and some
time in July the connector road will start being built, and likewise I think some time in
June, in concert, again, with another developer for the residential project immediately to
the east, which you guys are very familiar with. You predicated the CO and approval on
sewer. EDC and Theresa Sayward’s office and QEDC and the Town, myself, worked
with these applicants and those applicants to get a sewer plan together that incorporated
the needs for the residential property to the east and the other. So, you know, there’s a
lot of moving parts here, and the Town Board and myself and other agencies have been
involved in getting this to where it is tonight. There are other suitors. They haven’t
pitched that tonight. I’m sure they’ve probably pitched that the first meeting, but this has
a tremendous impact on 400 jobs. Again, these aren’t 400 new jobs that we’re trying to
attract. They’re 400 jobs that are already here that we want to keep. So it’s of regional
significance, especially to the County, and certainly to the Town, and, you know, I’m
hoping that if you’re all satisfied, because there are people that don’t understand our
process in Queensbury, that get nervous, and so if you’ve seen enough, you know, I’m
hoping that we can get to a conclusion here, but I just wanted to address you just to point
out the significance that this really has to the Town and to the County and this isn’t just
me speaking in the dark. The Town Board has been involved in this as well, along with
DEC, you know a lot of our other agents on the Town’s behalf, but I also wanted to
address the connector road connection that I anticipate, as part of the Town’s project,
that both ends will be signaled. Certainly the south end is definitely going to be signaled,
and I think it’s a 95% chance that the north end will be granted in. If it’s not, then the
Town Board will have to decide, you know, are we going to signal it, but the expectation
is that it will be signaled through the connector road project, and I also wanted to update
you on the timeline for the connector road, that the connector road, I expect, they’ll be
building it in July. It should be done by the end of July. Probably a good time, you know,
it’ll be roughed in enough where they can get their construction equipment in there. So I
think that the timing, although maybe a few months slower than I would have liked it, at
least the timing now as it’s sifting out is falling in place for the Rescue Squad, their
project took longer than I know they wanted it to, so they’re coming together and they’re
going to be out of their old building, in short order, and they’re going to be on a holding
tank for about a month before they get to tie into sewer, which is, you know, when you’re
years down planning something, to get to, you know, something that really didn’t even
solidify until a few weeks ago, that they’re going to only be inconvenienced with a holding
tank for one month. The tumblers are happening to come into place at almost exact
mesh. So I’m pleased with that, so I wanted to let you know where some of these other
things were because there’s a lot of moving parts on this. You’re talking about a property
that really is landlocked right now, but we all know it’s not. The Town has been involved
in this. So I just wanted to let you know that you’re not out here on your own. We know
what’s going on, and I’m just encouraging you to let you know that, you know, there are
33
(Queensbury Planning Board 05/24/07)
other things that have been happening, and we’ve helped shape this. So any of the
deficiencies of the site, if we can make it bigger, believe me, the Town Board, we would
love to make it a little bigger. It’s as big as we physically could make it. So I just wanted
to throw that out for you, and I also want to thank Susan. Tonight’s her last Planning
Board meeting. Tomorrow’s her last day of work, and I know she’s worked closely with
all of you, and I’ve already told her this privately, but I’ll tell her, you know, in front of all of
you, that I know I’ll miss her. She’s done a great job, as far as I’m concerned, and I know
that she’s done a lot of solid work for you guys as well. So I just wanted to take an
opportunity to thank her for her efforts and tell her that she’ll be missed. So, good
evening everybody, thanks.
MR. HUNSINGER-Thanks.
MRS. BARDEN-Thanks, Dan.
MR. HUNSINGER-Anyone else? Okay. If there’s no one else that wants to speak, I will
close the public hearing. Do we have any written comments? No? Okay.
PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED
MR. HUNSINGER-Any other final questions or comments from members of the Board?
MR. SEGULJIC-I’m all set.
MR. HUNSINGER-We do need to do SEQRA. They gave a Long Form?
MRS. STEFFAN-Yes.
RESOLUTION WHEN DETERMINATION OF NO SIGNIFICANCE IS MADE
RESOLUTION NO. 18-2007, Introduced by Gretchen Steffan who moved for its
adoption, seconded by Donald Sipp:
WHEREAS, there is presently before the Planning Board an application for:
BBL CONSTRUCTION, 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
statement of non-significance or a negative declaration that may be required by
law.
th
Duly adopted this 24 day of May, 2007, by the following vote:
AYES: Mr. Traver, Mrs. Bruno, Mr. Seguljic, Mr. Sipp, Mrs. Steffan, Mr. Hunsinger
NOES: NONE
34
(Queensbury Planning Board 05/24/07)
ABSENT: Mr. Ford
MR. HUNSINGER-Do you have a motion?
MRS. STEFFAN-I do. On the Environmental Assessment Form, on B-4, there was a
Staff Note, how many acres of vegetation, trees, ground covers will be removed from the
site. Is that one of the changes? I’m sorry. I took notes, but now that I’m right about to
make the motion. I don’t know what’s to change.
MR. MILLER-What was the question?
MRS. STEFFAN-On the Staff Notes, it had the Long EAF that the question, is that 7.1
acres, is that an appropriate response there?
MR. MILLER-I believe it is.
MRS. STEFFAN-Okay. So I’m assuming that one doesn’t have to be changed. All right.
I’m going to put a condition in the motion that I make that during construction that I would
like, I guess I’ll ask the rest of the Board. I would like to have construction fencing
around all of the areas that were denoted, the existing trees to remain. We had talked
about this when you were here the last time. One of the things that’s been happening
repeatedly is the plans come before us. The existing trees are to remain, but then when
we get to the final construction, they’ve been destroyed or abused and because they
haven’t been fenced off, they haven’t been protected. So I just want to put that condition
in here, because there’s so little existing buffer. Okay. The rest of the Board feel okay
about that?
MR. SEGULJIC-Sounds good.
MR. HUNSINGER-Yes, that’s a good idea.
MRS. STEFFAN-All right.
MOTION TO APPROVE SITE PLAN NO. 18-2007 BBL CONSTRUCTION, 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 60,000 sq. ft. commercial office
building and associated site improvements. Commercial Office buildings in the M
R-5 zone require Site Plan Review by the Planning Board
2. A public hearing was advertised and held on 4/24/07 tabled to 5/24/07;
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 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 NA
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
35
(Queensbury Planning Board 05/24/07)
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. 18-2007 BBL CONSTRUCTION, Introduced
by Gretchen Steffan who moved for its adoption, seconded by Thomas Seguljic:
According to the resolution prepared by Staff. Paragraph Four complies. Paragraph
Five, Negative. Paragraph Six does not apply. It is approved with the following
condition.
1.That the applicant will amend the Long Environmental Assessment Form for
accuracy on A-2, 4.35 acres should be denoted in the after completion
column regarding roads, buildings and other paved surfaces. On A-3, the
question is what is the predominant soil type on the project, and sands should
be denoted, and on B-25, under Project Description, State agencies, that
section, yes should be checked and DEC SPDES should be included.
2.That the applicant will change the lighting plan details on Drawing SP-5.
3.That the applicant will place rear lights on a timer to turn off in the late
evening.
4.That during pre-construction, and through construction, the applicant will
fence existing trees to remain, and their root system buffers.
th
Duly adopted this 24 day of May, 2007, by the following vote:
AYES: Mr. Traver, Mrs. Bruno, Mr. Seguljic, Mr. Sipp, Mrs. Steffan, Mr. Hunsinger
NOES: NONE
ABSENT: Mr. Ford
MR. LAPPER-Thanks very much.
MR. HUNSINGER-You’re all set. Thank you. Good luck.
NEW BUSINESS:
OFF PREMISES SIGN 27-2007 SEQR TYPE UNLISTED MC DONALD’S CORP.
AGENT(S) STEWARTS SHOPS OWNER(S) QUAKER & DIX NORTHERN DRIVE
LLC ZONING HC LOCATION 777 DIX AVENUE APPLICANT PROPOSES AN OFF
PREMISES SIGN. OFF PREMISES SIGNS REQUIRE PLANNING BOARD
APPROVAL. CROSS REFERENCE SP 8-07 WARREN CO. PLANNING 5/9/07 LOT
SIZE TAX MAP NO. 303.19-1-61 SECTION 179-
TOM LEWIS, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT
MRS. BARDEN-This is an application for an off premises sign. The applicant is
McDonalds. The sign will be located on the Stewarts property at Dix and Quaker Road.
The applicant proposes a 5.15 square foot, five feet high directional sign advertising
McDonalds, in effect providing access to McDonalds through the Stewarts site. The
Warren County Planning, at their May meeting, recommended No County Impact for this
project, and that’s all I have. This is a SEQRA Unlisted action, and a Short Form was
submitted.
36
(Queensbury Planning Board 05/24/07)
MR. HUNSINGER-Great. Thank you.
MR. LEWIS-This isn’t Type II?
MRS. BARDEN-Not for signs.
MR. LEWIS-Hi. Tom Lewis. I’m the real estate representative of Stewarts, and we’re
only asking for this because there’s this ugly deed restriction that says we can’t sell
meet, which just cuts out too much stuff. So, we were able to verbally work out a deal
where we pay them a lot of hamburger money, and they insisted on the sign that we pay
for in approving the cut, and so we spoke with Staff and first they had some question
about the “M”, but then decided, no, that’s okay, it’s small. It’s only five feet or
something. So hopefully the Board is okay with this. When they purchased it, King
Fuels, they made a good business deal for themselves. We’ll give you X hundreds of
thousands of dollars, and you can’t sell meat on the remainder of the parcel, to keep out
a competitor. Now, the owner then, Claude Brink, said, and I believe him, that he thinks
we would be the best use there. We may actually enhance his business, but they still
want the $20,000, and the sign, but that’s all right. Good work if you can get it.
MR. SEGULJIC-I have no issues.
MR. HUNSINGER-Any other comments or questions from members of the Board? We
do have a public hearing scheduled. Is there anyone here that had questions or
comments on this application?
PUBLIC HEARING OPENED
NO COMMENT
PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED
MR. HUNSINGER-Okay.
MRS. STEFFAN-Okay. We’ll do a Short Form SEQRA.
RESOLUTION WHEN DETERMINATION OF NO SIGNIFICANCE IS MADE
RESOLUTION NO. 27-2007, Introduced by Gretchen Steffan who moved for its
adoption, seconded by Thomas Seguljic:
WHEREAS, there is presently before the Planning Board an application for:
MC DONALDS CORP., 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
37
(Queensbury Planning Board 05/24/07)
statement of non-significance or a negative declaration that may be required by
law.
th
Duly adopted this 24 day of May, 2007, by the following vote:
AYES: Mr. Sipp, Mr. Traver, Mrs. Bruno, Mr. Seguljic, Mrs. Steffan, Mr. Hunsinger
NOES: NONE
ABSENT: Mr. Ford
MRS. STEFFAN-Susan, do you have a motion for this? There’s not a motion attached to
it.
MRS. BARDEN-If you don’t have one in your packets, it might have been omitted.
MRS. STEFFAN-Okay.
MOTION TO APPROVE OFF PREMISES SIGN 27-2007 MC DONALDS CORP.,
Introduced by Gretchen Steffan who moved for its adoption, seconded by Thomas
Seguljic:
Whereas a sign application has been made to the Queensbury Planning Board, for an off
premises sign, and off premises signs require Planning Board approval,
Whereas a public hearing was advertised and held on May 24, 2007, and
Whereas the application is supported with all documentation, public comment and
application material in the file of record, and
Whereas, pursuant to relevant sections of the Town of Queensbury Zoning Code, the
Planning Board has determined that this proposal complies with the requirements as
stated in the Zoning Code, and
Whereas the Planning Board has considered the State Environmental Quality Review
Act and has determined a Negative SEQRA declaration, and
Whereas, 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, Building and Codes personnel, subsequent issuance of further permits,
including building permits, are dependent upon receipt, and
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 CO.
th
Duly adopted this 24 day of May, 2007, by the following vote:
AYES: Mr. Sipp, Mr. Traver, Mrs. Steffan, Mrs. Bruno, Mr. Seguljic, Mr. Hunsinger
NOES: NONE
ABSENT: Mr. Ford
MR. HUNSINGER-Now you’re all set.
MR. LEWIS-Thank you.
MR. HUNSINGER-Thank you.
SITE PLAN NO. 20-2007 SEQR TYPE UNLISTED AGNUS J. VINCZE-ROSEN
AGENT(S) CIFONE CONSTRUCTION; LITTLE & O’CONNOR OWNER(S) SAME
ZONING WR-1A LOCATION 262 CLEVERDALE ROAD APPLICANT PROPOSES
REMOVAL OF 1250 SQ. FT. BOATHOUSE WITH 307 SQ. FT. SUNDECK AND
REPLACEMENT WITH 1220 SQ. BOATHOUE AND 745 SQ. FT. SUNDECK.
SUNDECK/BOATHOUSE REQUIRES SITE PLAN REVIEW BY THE PLANNING
BOARD. CROSS REFERENCE AV 24-07 WARREN CO. PLANNING 5/9/07
ADIRONDACK PARK AGENCY YES LOT SIZE 0.48 ACRES TAX MAP NO. 226.16-
1-49.1 SECTION 179-5-050; 179-6-060
38
(Queensbury Planning Board 05/24/07)
MICHAEL O’CONNOR & MATT CIFONE, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT
MR. HUNSINGER-Susan, if you could summarize Staff Notes, please.
MRS. BARDEN-Sure. The applicant seeks site plan review for a boathouse in the
Waterfront Residential zone. The property is located at 260 and 262 Cleverdale Road.
This is a SEQRA Type II action. The applicant proposes to maintain the existing e-
shaped dock and replace the existing 1250 square foot boat roof with an 807 square foot
sundeck with a proposed 1220 square foot boat roof with a 742 square foot sundeck. An
Area Variance was granted for relief from the side setback requirement of 20 feet on
April 18, 2007. The applicant has sought height relief for the sun arbor but that request
was withdrawn by the applicant. The Area Variance approval was conditioned on
verification of a permit from the Lake George Park Commission. The applicant has
combined two adjoining parcels that total 143 linear feet of lake frontage. A property with
a minimum of 151 linear feet would be permitted one E-shaped dock. Therefore the
Board should discuss conditioning any approval with the removal of the L-shaped dock
to the to the north of the proposed. Final revised plans should be submitted as a
condition of any approval that identifies the removal of the sun arbor. There is a Vision
st
Engineering comment letter dated May 21 from Dan Ryan in your packet, and a Warren
County Planning Board, at their May meeting, recommended No County Impact for this
project.
MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. Thank you. Good evening.
MR. O'CONNOR-Good evening. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, members of the Board. I’m
Michael O’Connor from the law firm of Little & O’Connor. We represent the Rosens.
With me is also Matt Cifone who is the builder for the project, and basically there are two
parts of this project. One is reconstruction of the existing dock, and the other is
installation of a walkway down to the dock, hard surfacing within 50 feet of the lake. The
dock reconstruction has changed shape a little bit from the time that we started the
application. We’ve been to the Queensbury Zoning Board of Appeals and obtained their
approval. We’ve been to the Lake George Park Commission and obtained their
approval, and went to the County Planning Board who thought it had No County Impact.
The application, in that process, changed, and if you had pictures, there’s pictures of it
there. Basically we were trying to replace the cupola that’s on the top of the dock as you
see it. That is a metal frame thing that had a canvass over it. We had proposed a wood
structure, and if you take a look at the existing dock at the top, I believe that that is 19
feet 10 inches. What we’ve done is take off anything above the rail, so that what you
look at in the plans, if you will, take the cupola off the top of that. It’s in the top right hand
corner. The height that you are going to see when you’re all said and done is going to be
13 feet, seven and three quarters inches above the mean high water mark. It’ll be an
improvement from the existing dock in height, by better than a foot, even at the rail
height, and it’ll be a more significant improvement because upper super structure,
whatever you want to call it, will come off completely, and that’s basically the dock. We
had to get a variance for the dock because we have pre-existing that’s in place, that’s still
good cribbing, and we wanted to maintain that cribbing and just resurface it and build the
super structure or the sundeck above it. Part of what we’re doing here, if you take a look
at the staircase that we’re proposing, it’s a straight run. This particular owner has a
degenerative condition that probably will make her much less mobile near term, and with
the straight staircase, we can put some type of a device on there that will allow her still to
use this sundeck, and that’s basically the dock portion of it. I don’t know if you’ve got
questions on that. If you want to treat that separately from the sidewalk, or you want me
to talk about the sidewalk too or?
MR. HUNSINGER-Why don’t you continue, and talk about the sidewalk, too.
MR. O'CONNOR-Okay. The sidewalk is basically not very big. We don’t have any
objection to the Town Engineer’s comments, and we will meet those comments, or
satisfy those comments. We’re talking about 316 square feet, and I believe that 316
square feet actually goes beyond the 50 foot line, or setback from the lake. On the plat,
on the plan before you, the hatched out area for the walkway is shown, and that’s the
316 square feet. It produces 474 gallons, there’s 63 cubic feet. What we propose is
simply to put in a stone trench along the southerly side of that walkway. I think the Town
Engineer raised the question about the elevation of the bottom of the stone trench and
the groundwater. The groundwater in that area is at the same level as the lake, which is
really no surprise, and probably from the surface down it’s two feet, from the final grade
to groundwater, at the very end of the walkway. So what we would do, as opposed to
what’s shown on here, and we just got his comments yesterday, I guess, is we would
make the drainage trench, if you will, shallower and wider for that area down there, and
39
(Queensbury Planning Board 05/24/07)
as we go up away from the lake, we can also make accommodations. If that doesn’t, if
he has any issues with that, we can put in a swale for the lower part of it and have it drain
to the lawn area, in a depression type area. You’re not talking about a very significant
size of an area that we are trying to accommodate. I’ve talked to the owner about trying
to come up with something that would be more permeable, and again, she has problems
or would have problems with a wheelchair accessibility to it. It has to be a level surface,
and she’s afraid if she has something, these will be brick pavers. There will be no grass
between the brick pavers. She doesn’t want to have an unsurfaced, unlevel surface
area, like blue stone, or she doesn’t want to have something that has grass between
them. We’ve done that with a couple of patios that are within the 50 feet, and that’s
basically it. We think that we are significantly improving what’s there with what we’re
proposing. Somebody made a comment that this is a combination of two lots. These
people have been very good as far as the lake goes. There were two single family
homes on these two lots, and they have demolished both of those homes, and combined
them into one lot, and in addition to removing one septic area entirely, they actually took
the septic area and put it on the other side of Cleverdale Road and removed it from the
lake. They had a vacant lot on the other side of the road, which they have utilized as
part of this project, to move the septic even further from the lake than what the lot would
have had. So, I don’t know if you have questions.
MR. SEGULJIC-This dock that’s proposed looks like an E dock.
MR. O'CONNOR-Yes.
MR. SEGULJIC-If I look at the Code, you have 146 feet, 143 of lakefront, and if I look at
the Code for the number of feet of lake frontage, 66 to 150 is one straight, T, L or U.
MR. O'CONNOR-Right.
MR. SEGULJIC-And you have an E.
MR. O'CONNOR-Right.
MR. SEGULJIC-You’re still allowed an E? You don’t have the lake frontage for an E.
MR. O'CONNOR-Okay. The docks pre-existed the Code. The docks, we’ve got permits
and mapping that shows these docks that were in existence with the Lake George Park
Commission back to 1981 I think. They actually were built in the 40’s.
MR. SEGULJIC-But you’re renovating them. So doesn’t that open it up to?
MR. O'CONNOR-The Zoning Administrator hasn’t said that. The Zoning Administrator
said that we needed a variance because the dock was within 20 feet of a free board on
the south side.
MRS. BARDEN-The crib is to remain, the E-shaped dock. The crib is to remain. So it’s
a pre-existing, nonconforming E-shaped dock.
MR. SEGULJIC-I’ve heard this terminology of U-shaped docks a couple of times, though.
I believe the notes refer to it as a U-shaped dock.
MRS. BARDEN-No, it’s an E.
MR. O'CONNOR-It’s an E.
MR. SEGULJIC-So this entire dock has the cribbing under it? The E has the cribbing
under it?
MR. O'CONNOR-Yes.
MR. SEGULJIC-And then what about the existing L dock?
MR. O'CONNOR-That’s existing. It’s not going to be renovated. It’s not going to be
repaired. The dock, there are two docks at the north end of this site, on your site plan.
The first one that you come to is on our property. The one that’s above it is for the
adjoining property, it’s not our property.
MR. TRAVER-Is the L dock a crib dock as well?
40
(Queensbury Planning Board 05/24/07)
MR. O’CONNOR-Yes.
MR. SEGULJIC-So were there test pits done on this site at all?
MR. O’CONNOR-Only in the sense of the excavations that were done for the residence,
which is within 25 feet of the area that we’re talking about. Some places it’s closer than
that.
MR. SEGULJIC-And I forgot where I got the impression, but this, when the home was
built, it was treated as a minor stormwater project, I believe, and you got a permit, a
stormwater permit. Correct?
MR. O'CONNOR-I’m not sure, Tom. When the house was built, it was built without
variances, and as new construction, what they applied for was a building permit and
whatever would come with that, that was not, the house construction is not something
that went through Board approval. It’s not required if it meets all the requirements.
MR. SEGULJIC-I got the impression this was, you got a stormwater permit as a minor
project. Is that true?
MRS. BARDEN-Probably (tape turned)
MR. SEGULJIC-the stormwater permit could have been issued if in 147 it states, criteria
for issuance of stormwater control permits, 147-13 B(1) says that the project meet the
design requirements and performance standards set forth in this Chapter. One of the
performance requirements is that all, bottom line is that all stormwater control devices be
installed at least two feet above groundwater. So I don’t see how you can prove that
your stormwater features meet the design requirements and beyond that how the
stormwater permit was issued, if we don’t have that information. So my concern is that if
this existing stormwater system fails because we don’t have the information, the site
specific information required by 147, it could impact this area that we’re looking at.
MR. O'CONNOR-Which stormwater system are you concerned about failing?
MR. SEGULJIC-The infiltration, the nine, six foot infiltrator chambers to handle
stormwater.
MR. O'CONNOR-That are for the house?
MR. SEGULJIC-Correct.
MR. SIPP-Yes.
MR. SEGULJIC-When you, I believe, received a stormwater permit, and my question
was, did you install any test pits, and the answer was no. So I don’t see how you could
have met the design requirement under 147. So it’s possible, then, that this is a faulty
stormwater system that could impact 50 feet within the lake. So what I would like to see
is the stormwater permit and the test pit data that backs up the design.
MR. O'CONNOR-But that’s, okay, with due respect, that stormwater permitting is not
before this Board.
MR. SEGULJIC-But the potential impacts of a faulty system, if this system fails, it could
impact what we’re looking at.
MR. O'CONNOR-How is a sedimentation area, infiltration devices that are below the
surface or below the elevation of this walkway, which is 40 feet long, that, okay, but
you’re saying that something is going to come out of that system that’s going to affect
what we’ve put in as a trench drain on this walkway?
MR. SEGULJIC-We have no evidence that this system will work as designed.
MR. O'CONNOR-That system is not before the Board.
MR. SEGULJIC-And if it fails, it’s going to impact the portion of the site we’re looking at.
MR. O'CONNOR-I think that’s very speculative. I think you’re talking about a sidewalk.
MR. SEGULJIC-Well, once again, I’m just quoting what 147 says.
41
(Queensbury Planning Board 05/24/07)
MR. O'CONNOR-Commonsense, practicality, you’re talking about a three foot wide
sidewalk, I believe, about 50 feet long, whatever the distance is, and we’re here on that
issue because a portion of it is within 50 feet of the lake, and that’s what we’re here for, if
I understand this correctly.
MR. SEGULJIC-That is correct. However, what I’m saying is that the development
upslope of the area we’re looking at has a stormwater plan in place that was designed
according to 147. However, to get your stormwater permit, it states you need to meet all
of the design requirements. One of the design requirements is that you show that you
have a minimum of two feet between stormwater, groundwater and bedrock in the
bottom of your stormwater control device. I don’t see how you can show that if you don’t
have any test pits on the site. Therefore, the infiltration system could fail, which is going
to affect the area we’re looking at.
MR. O'CONNOR-It’s not even up gradient of the area that we’re going to put our
drainage in.
MR. SEGULJIC-We’re looking at the entire 50 feet along the lake.
MR. O'CONNOR-The only area that you’re putting any hard surfacing is this walkway.
MR. SEGULJIC-Once we look at a site, we’re able to look at the entire site.
MR. O'CONNOR-I understand that part of what you just said, and I don’t have any strong
objection to it. Just from a practical point of view you’re talking about these nine
infiltrators that were approved by the Building Department.
MR. SEGULJIC-I don’t see how they could be. Look at 147.
MR. O'CONNOR-Okay, but we have a building permit to construct them, issued by the
Building Department.
MR. SEGULJIC-You also have a permit, you also have a stormwater permit from 147.
Correct?
MR. O'CONNOR-I don’t know if we did or not.
MR. SEGULJIC-You better, because you’re subject to it, and if you don’t.
MR. O'CONNOR-We have whatever the Building Department required us to have.
MR. SEGULJIC-Is anyone with me on this? I believe, I got the impression they do have
a stormwater permit. I mean, they, right on their plans, say they have 1,000 square feet
of new impervious area. Therefore it’s subject to 147.
MRS. BARDEN-They definitely should have one, right.
MR. SEGULJIC-Therefore they should have a stormwater permit.
MRS. BARDEN-That’s right.
MR. SEGULJIC-147 says that they have to meet the design requirements, and they have
to maintain that two foot distance. They did no test pits to show that these will work.
MRS. BARDEN-They may just not be on these drawings. That is a possibility.
MR. SEGULJIC-Well, I asked the applicant, and they indicated.
MR. MILLER-Could I try to explain? My name’s Jim Miller, Landscape Architect. I
worked on this project back in 2005, and my memory isn’t great, but there was test pit
information done, because one of the, the test pits were done because I know we were
looking at a few different areas for septic systems. So test pits were done for septic
systems. I believe they were also done for that infiltration area. The other thing I’d like
to point out is that the stormwater requirements requires us to only address increases in
imperviousness, and as Mr. O’Connor said, this site originally had two houses with two
driveways and a lot of pavement and decking, which was all removed, and then when we
came back and did this stormwater report, we treated this site as if there was no previous
impervious surface. If we did the calculations according to Code, we probably wouldn’t
42
(Queensbury Planning Board 05/24/07)
have had to do any, because we probably would have ended up with less impervious
surface. So what we did is we took a very conservative approach and tried to deal with
this as if this site was just a grass site when we started. So we took a very, very
conservative approach. I can’t give you a specific answer about that infiltration trench,
but I know test pits were done on this site as part of the investigation. It’s just been too
long ago. I just don’t remember the specifics about it.
MR. HUNSINGER-Thank you.
MR. SEGULJIC-For clarification, on SP-1, it says existing impervious areas, 3600, 12,
when was that?
MR. MILLER-That’s the plan that’s before you right now.
MR. SEGULJIC-Yes. Total impervious area proposed is 6274, and it was acknowledged
that this is a minor stormwater project.
MR. HUNSINGER-Yes, and I guess this plan says what Mr. Miller just commented, that
the existing impervious area is not deducted. So the existing house and driveway, the
total 3612 square feet was not deducted from the total impervious area. That’s what
that’s saying.
MR. O'CONNOR-I think the notes, at least on this thing here, say that the previous area
was 6274. That is the proposed. The previous area was 3612, is not deducted from the,
so it was treated as though the whole 6274 feet was an increase, when in fact only less
than half of that was an increase, and your stormwater regulations that you’re reading
about says that you provide for any increase in non-pervious area. They’ve got 50%.
MRS. BARDEN-Just one comment, not directly related to that, but it was not identified in
the application, nor in Staff Notes or on the agenda, this brick walk, within 15 feet on SP-
1. That’s certainly hard surfacing within 50 feet, and that’s not something that I looked at
with this project, and I don’t know how you feel about that.
MR. O'CONNOR-On Page Seven, Susan, on Page Seven of the application, it says
remove and replace existing boat roof sundeck, existing boat roof 1250 square feet,
sundeck 307, proposed boat roof 1220, sundeck 745. Reinstall existing paver walkway
with new drainage detail.
MRS. BARDEN-It appears to be larger, in area.
MR. O'CONNOR-At the bottom for the stairs it is. The Staff Notes at the time of review
were address hard surfacing walk within 50 feet of lake, include cross section detail of
walkway and how stormwater will be addressed. That’s handwritten on our copy of the
application, on Page Eight. So in the pre-application meeting, this is when that hard
surfacing is raised, and when we submitted the application, it didn’t show the design. Do
you have that Page Eight?
MRS. BARDEN-I do. Can you direct me to the cross section detail?
MR. O'CONNOR-On Page SP-1, at the bottom, unit pavers and stone infiltration trench,
a cross section is shown on both of them.
MRS. BARDEN-I’ve got you.
MR. SIPP-Do we have a depth to water? Have they taken a test pit to tell us what the
depth to the water?
MR. O'CONNOR-Okay. My anticipation is that probably at the foot of the stairs, the
groundwater is two feet below that area. I have no problem saying that we will do this
and satisfy, give a report to the engineer and satisfy the engineer. He’s the one that
raised that issue.
MR. SIPP-You’ve got 70 linear feet of stone trench.
MR. O’CONNOR-Right.
MR. SIPP-Which has a depth of three feet, four inches. So it’s already into the water.
MR. O'CONNOR-At the lower end it is.
43
(Queensbury Planning Board 05/24/07)
MR. SIPP-Now where does that water go?
MR. O'CONNOR-Okay, we can’t do it that way.
MR. SIPP-Why not?
MR. O'CONNOR-Well, we would be not meeting the groundwater separation that Tom
raised.
MR. SEGULJIC-And that’s my concern with the infiltrator, because remember,
groundwater follows the contour of the land.
MR. O'CONNOR-When they excavated for the house and for the basement, the
groundwater that they found, which is above this area, was lake water level, and if you
look at the high water mark out here, it’s 322.
MR. SEGULJIC-Well, personally I think, our own engineer has told us we need test pits
to ensure this design. What I’d like to do is table this, get the test pits done, see the data,
as well as determine if it had a stormwater permit for the upper section of the property, if
it applies, because my concern is that the infiltrator, as they showed, they were going to
design a stormwater system that would have gone into the groundwater. How will we
know that their infiltrator designed above our site is going to effective? And once again,
we’re in a Critical Environmental Area.
MR. HUNSINGER-I guess I didn’t see where our engineer said we needed, well, he said
it should be field verified prior to approval.
MR. O'CONNOR-There’s topographical mapping that’s on the site plan that was
submitted. I think the survey is SP-1. Okay. I’m sorry, I’m looking at an SP-1 for the
house, and it does show topographical, and it shows at the area, as you come away from
the lake, rising to 324, 326, and before you get to the front of the house, it’s at 328, and
the high water elevation is 322. Let me ask this. Would the Board have a problem
separating the application, acting on our request to allow us to start the construction of
the decking, and we’ll come back with either a, with the test pits that you’re asking for or
a re-design, and a re-design if we have to on that walkway? You know, we got the
comments yesterday. We tried to do something between yesterday and today, and we
don’t honestly didn’t get it done.
MR. SIPP-You’re definitely into the groundwater, because if you follow the contour line of
the last one, headed to the lake, you’re at 322, and the average is 320, and you’ve got a
trench that’s three feet deep. Definitely into the groundwater.
MR. O'CONNOR-That’s why I spoke, and a lawyer shouldn’t speak in engineering terms,
that’s why I spoke about doing a swale perhaps.
MR. SIPP-I would rather see a buffer zone of indigenous plants planted that whole length
of that sea wall, to take up some of this groundwater, take up some of the possibility.
MR. O'CONNOR-You don’t have the, do you have the stormwater plan for the house?
MR. SEGULJIC-Well, yes, we do, but we don’t know if it works.
MR. O'CONNOR-Okay.
MR. SIPP-I’d still rather see, because this is going to be a grass area between the house
and the lake, right?
MR. O'CONNOR-Yes.
MR. SIPP-And the slope towards the lake.
MR. O'CONNOR-It slopes back towards the drainage area. It slopes away from the lake,
from the retaining wall back.
MR. SIPP-I see it at 324.
MR. SEGULJIC-It appears to me everything in front of the house slopes towards the
lake.
44
(Queensbury Planning Board 05/24/07)
MR. O'CONNOR-To the point that it gets to the retention area. My understanding is that
that was going to slope back.
MR. SEGULJIC-Well, then it goes from 324, 323, down to 322, and for the record, at the
house it used to be 325, and then it looks like three feet of fill was brought on site.
MR. O'CONNOR-I recognize that there’s an issue with stormwater on that walkway, and
if you want to have us look at, justify it by saying that the other stormwater will work, we
can do that. Okay.
MR. SEGULJIC-I just want to see that this existing stormwater system is going to work.
MR. O'CONNOR-I understand your concerns.
MR. SEGULJIC-And make sure that both stormwater systems, I have no evidence that
it’s going to work.
MR. O'CONNOR-Okay. I’m not saying that it’s not something we can do or can’t do, and
we will do it, but I’d like to have you proceed, if I can have you proceed, on allowing us to
undertake the dock renovations. We’d like to do them on a timely basis and do them
before we get into the middle of the season.
MR. SIPP-Well, I would also add to that that you consider a buffer area of at least 10 foot
in width the whole length of this, right along the stone seawall.
MR. O'CONNOR-Except for the walkway.
MR. SIPP-Except for the walkway.
MR. O'CONNOR-Okay. All right.
MR. SIPP-Would you consider this?
MR. O'CONNOR-I will ask the people about that, and you have a, somebody here has a
list of plantings that you like to see.
MR. SIPP-I do.
MR. O'CONNOR-You do. Okay. If I could get a copy of that, Don. I’ll see if we can
incorporate.
MR. SIPP-Also at the site plan visit, down along the northern end, northern section of the
seawall, there’s a drain opening, there’s an opening in that seawall for a four inch drain.
What does that drain?
MR. O'CONNOR-We don’t know. It’s not connected with the house construction. I don’t
know what it does.
MR. SIPP-It’s there for something. That should be either sealed off or removed, so that
there’s no hole in that.
MR. O'CONNOR-We can explore that and see what it is. If it’s somebody else’s pipe or
something like that, I can’t tell you what will happen to it. There’s all kinds of quirky
subsurface drains throughout that whole area. We can look at it.
MR. SEGULJIC-Now one other thing, the sundeck. When I look at the Warren County
Planning Board approval, it has it at 307, and I guess it’s at 308 existing, and you’re
asking to go to 1250. Is that correct?
MR. O'CONNOR-No, not the sundeck, 742. We had that spelled out in the application.
Okay. E-1 is existing, Tom. E-1 of the big maps, and that shows the area of the roof
level decking is 307, that’s the existing. The area of proposed of the roof level decking is
742.
MR. SEGULJIC-Just bear with me. I’ve just got a lot of stuff.
MR. O'CONNOR-Okay.
45
(Queensbury Planning Board 05/24/07)
MR. SEGULJIC-Here we go.
MRS. BARDEN-307 was the existing sundeck?
MR. O'CONNOR-Yes, and if you see it’s what it is, it’s perched out toward the lakeside,
between the two peaks, as you look at that photograph there. The expansion of it
actually is just bringing it back toward the shore. It’s not something that has a significant
impact on anything.
MR. SEGULJIC-So you’re asking for a 745 foot sundeck?
MR. O'CONNOR-Seven hundred forty-two.
MR. SEGULJIC-Seven forty two.
MR. O'CONNOR-Sundeck.
MR. SEGULJIC-It’s just got a lot of different numbers.
MR. O'CONNOR-I’m looking at A-1.
MR. SEGULJIC-All right, 742.
MR. O'CONNOR-Without the cupola.
MR. SEGULJIC-And if I understand, the variance, you got, I’m just looking at the
variance now. In there they have 807 square feet. You’ve got two different numbers.
MR. O'CONNOR-The variance resolution?
MR. SEGULJIC-Right.
MR. O'CONNOR-It says it both ways. I didn’t pick up on that. It says replace the
existing 1250 square foot boat roof with an 807 square foot sundeck, with proposed 1220
square foot boat roof with a 742 square foot sundeck.
MR. HUNSINGER-Yes, they have the existing numbers wrong.
MR. O'CONNOR-Yes. What’s proposed is on A-1 and the sundeck is 742. The area
covered by roof is 1220, and part of that, it’s a mansard roof. That’s not part of the deck.
The aprons of the roof, and the level of the decking below is 1116 square feet. Those
are actual dimensions. If you look at the 307 on this, somebody thought the three was
an eight.
MR. SEGULJIC-Okay.
MR. SEGULJIC-Okay, just got to straighten out all those numbers.
MR. O'CONNOR-Okay. If you look at A-1 is what is proposed.
MR. SEGULJIC-A-1.
MR. O'CONNOR-Except for the cupola coming off.
MR. HUNSINGER-Does anyone have any questions or comments on the
boathouse/sundeck?
MRS. STEFFAN-I’m just wondering how we can approve something that, how can we
alter an application? Mr. O’Connor asked if we could approve the boathouse
construction and separate the walking path, and I’m not really sure how we can do that.
Susan, any advice?
MRS. BARDEN-I think you can do it.
MR. O'CONNOR-You’re going to table part of it, I think. Table part of it and approve one
portion. I’ve done that before.
MR. SEGULJIC-But then what’s their impetus to come back?
46
(Queensbury Planning Board 05/24/07)
MRS. BARDEN-I think you’d have to put a stipulation of when they must come back.
MR. SEGULJIC-And if they don’t?
MRS. BARDEN-They’re not in compliance.
MR. SEGULJIC-Okay. I’d just like to point out one thing here, back to the stormwater.
Just take 30 seconds. On your plan SP-2, and this is what concerned me originally, on
E, your stormwater infiltration system, if I’m understanding this correctly, the design said
only one foot differential between the bottom of the infiltrator and the seasonal high water
table.
MR. O'CONNOR-Okay. I see it.
MR. SEGULJIC-And I believe this is, at a minimum, a minor project, and that is not
correct. To make me happy, I think we have to show that the system is going to work.
Particularly since we’re in a CEA.
MR. HUNSINGER-Do members of the Board have any problem in separating out the
boathouse from the walkway?
MRS. STEFFAN-I do have a question. In Staff Notes it talked about removal of the L-
shaped dock. Can you talk about that?
MR. O'CONNOR-It’s not something that the applicant is willing to do. We talked about
that. Staff made the same comment to the Zoning Board of Appeals. I don’t, if you take
a look at the project as it is, you’ve got existing structures. We’re improving the existing
structures. That dock has a lot of value. Why would the people, you know, the Lake
George Park Commission recognizes it. Everybody else recognizes it. Why wouldn’t
you recognize it?
MRS. STEFFAN-I think it might be the logic just behind more boat docks than an
individual would need, and the implication that they might be rental docks or whatever.
I’m not sure, but.
MR. O'CONNOR-I can’t speak forever and ever, but you saw this house that’s built.
They’re not going to rent out a boat dock. I think the father, for years, kept a boat at one
of the two places. That was the only use of the two places, and that probably will
continue, and when he visits here on occasion he will have his boat, and I don’t know if
it’s necessary to have that space to do that, but if I were owning it, I also would try and
maybe use that as my swim dock and the other one as my boat dock. That would make
a lot more sense, particularly if you get into young, young children, but that dock by itself
is probably an $80,000 structure.
MRS. STEFFAN-The L-shape dock?
MR. O'CONNOR-Yes. That’s a crib dock. So, I don’t know, you know, what they’re
proposing is they actually are lowering the height of an existing boathouse. They’re
making it look much nicer in appearance, as far as trading boathouse for boathouse. I
think it’s really an overreach to say in order to do that you’ve got to give up a dock.
MR. SEGULJIC-Especially a pier dock, or a crib dock.
MR. O'CONNOR-Yes. I think you cause more problems than not with a crib dock.
MR. SEGULJIC-Well, I’m encouraged to hear you say you’re open to having a buffer
along the lake.
MR. O'CONNOR-Okay.
MR. SEGULJIC-But I am concerned about the stormwater management, because it’s not
meeting, I mean, even on your plans it doesn’t.
MR. O'CONNOR-If you pare it back to what we’re required to show stormwater for, we
probably can make it work, okay, and I’m not going to get into the engineering. Let
somebody else figure out. You raised a valid concern. I don’t have an answer for you.
I’ll try and get you an answer.
47
(Queensbury Planning Board 05/24/07)
MR. SEGULJIC-Okay. So I guess if we split this, and if they don’t come back, it
becomes a compliance issue, then, but what if they just say they’re withdrawing the
application? When we’ve got right on the plans, you know, there’s evidence of it not
being designed and implemented properly.
MRS. BARDEN-Have all the, there’s a CO, the site has been compliant thus far?
MATT CIFONE
MR. CIFONE-It’s still under construction, probably a year away from finishing it.
MR. SEGULJIC-I think on the other hand what we’re looking for is pretty simple. Just the
test pit data. I mean, we could do it, we could entertain you next Tuesday, right? All we
want is the test pit data to show.
MR. CIFONE-We could do it as soon as possible.
MR. O'CONNOR-You’ve got to do it in May, haven’t you? When’s your window for test
pits?
MR. SEGULJIC-Well, that’s septic systems, but that’s a good point.
MR. HUNSINGER-I was going to say, that’s for septics, not.
MR. O'CONNOR-The test pit’s valid, it’s valid for one, it’s valid for another, it should be.
MR. HUNSINGER-Right.
MR. SEGULJIC-So I guess we’ll see you next week.
MR. O'CONNOR-We will have the test pits done by the end of next week. We can do
the test pits by the end of next week, and then we’ve got to talk to Jim about, I think the
point’s valid. Our design right now shows we’re going into groundwater, it at least
appears to show that we’re going into groundwater, and that’s not something that you’re
going to approve.
MR. SEGULJIC-Correct.
MR. O'CONNOR-Okay.
MR. SEGULJIC-And I would like to know if there was a stormwater permit issued for this
site. I don’t see how we can part them, because then they can just withdraw the
walkway application.
MR. O'CONNOR-Then you wouldn’t have a walkway.
MR. HUNSINGER-We could withhold the Certificate of Occupancy.
MR. SEGULJIC-For what?
MR. HUNSINGER-If they don’t comply with what we request.
MR. SEGULJIC-The Certificate of Occupancy for what?
MR. HUNSINGER-The house.
MR. O'CONNOR-That’s not before you. My initial reaction was, when Gretchen asked
whether or not you could separate them, is I’ll withdraw the walkway. Truthfully, and
then I’ll come back with the walkway, okay, if that’s a real problem with you saying I can’t
separate them and you don’t want to go forward with that, but this walkway is as
important to these people as the sundeck. She has to have ability to get there by
wheelchair, and I can tell you that. I’ll tell you that we will be back here with the walkway.
MR. SEGULJIC-Well, it’s just that it’s out of our control, is my problem.
MR. O'CONNOR-Well, if you’ve got a problem with the walkway but you don’t have a
problem with the deck, I’ll withdraw the walkway.
48
(Queensbury Planning Board 05/24/07)
MR. SEGULJIC-Here’s what I have a problem with. I have, on these plans, the design is
incorrect. Both stormwater controls are incorrect, the one by the walkway is designed
into groundwater.
MR. O'CONNOR-But that’s at the house.
MR. SEGULJIC-The infiltrator just has one foot differential. It’s supposed to have two
feet.
MR. O'CONNOR-Okay. You have a problem with the stormwater for the house, and you
have a problem with the stormwater that we presented for the walkway.
MR. SEGULJIC-Correct.
MR. O'CONNOR-The stormwater for the house is not before you.
MR. SEGULJIC-But that’s designed improperly on these plans, and it could impact the
site down gradient.
MR. O'CONNOR-I don’t know if the Building Department came up with the same
conclusion you did, Tom.
MR. SEGULJIC-It originally was indicated that there was a stormwater permit for this
site.
MR. O'CONNOR-Okay.
MR. SEGULJIC-Therefore it’s subject to 147. That says you have to have two feet. The
plans show one foot. As I showed to you, it shows one foot.
MR. O'CONNOR-I understand that, but the Building Department issued a building permit
in 2005.
MR. SEGULJIC-Apparently they made a mistake.
MR. O'CONNOR-I don’t know if they did or they didn’t.
MR. SIPP-I think if we had some test pits to show exactly where the water, high water
mark is, groundwater.
MR. O'CONNOR-Jim Miller’s recollection is that there were test pits.
MR. SEGULJIC-Then it should be pretty easy.
MR. O'CONNOR-Okay.
MR. CIFONE-We don’t want the system to fail either. Don’t get us wrong. So we will do
the test pit anyway. We’re not going to put it in the water. We don’t want to do that.
MR. O'CONNOR-Okay, but I don’t anticipate, if we table this, in normal course, we then
submit for your June meeting, or your June deadline, we won’t get on the July agenda.
So you would get on the August agenda.
MR. SEGULJIC-Well, I would think we could, could we speed that along? Because all
we’re looking for is the test pit. It’s very simple. Does anyone have a problem with that?
MR. O'CONNOR-Well, I don’t know why everybody has to take such a negative,
distrustful outlook on this thing, truthfully. I mean, they could have come in and just
asked to renovate the dock, not renovate the walkway that went down to the dock, and
the issues of the dock, I don’t think there are any significant issues with the dock. The
dock’s an improvement over what’s there.
MR. SEGULJIC-That’s fine. My only problem is we have no recourse. How does the
rest of the Board feel about that?
MR. SIPP-The docks could be built and the walkway is a problem because of the
drainage off of it, and the groundwater height at that point. So the docks may be
finished, but the walkway may never be able to be finished.
49
(Queensbury Planning Board 05/24/07)
MR. O'CONNOR-We will come up with some type of engineering that allows for a hard
surface for a walkway to get there. That’s one of their main goals on this thing. It may
not be the typical standard type thing, but we will do something with it.
MR. SEGULJIC-And I can agree you can do that. I just want to point out, once again, I’m
looking at plans that both stormwater designs are incorrect.
MR. HUNSINGER-We can give them a timeframe, and if they don’t, then they’ll be out of
compliance with their site plan. Right?
MR. O'CONNOR-Yes. I would like to have you, again, table the walkway portion, or the
hard surfacing within the 50 feet of the lake, approve the dock renovations that we
th
propose. If you want to condition the approval upon us resubmitting by the June 15
filing date plans that show a stormwater plan that is in compliance, and consideration of
the buffer that has been suggested along the water.
MR. TRAVER-The revised plans should also not show the upper most part of the
boathouse.
MR. O'CONNOR-We can do that either then or as part of the as builts. You have to
submit as builts.
MR. TRAVER-If you’re going to submit revised plans, they should be, the plans should
be accurate before construction begins.
MR. O'CONNOR-Okay. We can take that off.
MR. CIFONE-When we submit for a building permit, we’ll have a clean set.
MR. O'CONNOR-Okay. Is that solved? You’re going to condition your approval upon
that.
MR. SEGULJIC-Counselor, if I could just ask you, has there been an updated discussion
of dividing this application?
MR. FULLER-Yes, actually she just asked me that question.
MR. SEGULJIC-What are your thoughts on that?
MR. FULLER-If you want to do it, you just condition this approval on them submitting that
information for your next deadline, you could do it.
MR. SEGULJIC-And then if they don’t, though?
MR. FULLER-If they don’t?
MR. SEGULJIC-Submit that information or withdraw the application, once they get the
approval for the dock?
MR. FULLER-Well, then it’s an enforcement.
MR. SEGULJIC-Okay. All right.
MRS. STEFFAN-Okay. So we have to do a SEQRA.
MRS. BARDEN-Did you open the public hearing?
MR. HUNSINGER-I did not.
MRS. BARDEN-I’m sorry.
MR. HUNSINGER-I did not. We do have a public hearing scheduled this evening. Is
there anyone here that had questions or comments for the Board on this project? If you
could just state your name for the record, please, and address your comments to the
Board.
PUBLIC HEARING OPENED
KATHY BOZONY
50
(Queensbury Planning Board 05/24/07)
MS. BOZONY-Hi. I’m Kathy Bozony from the Lake George Association. I’ve spoken
with several of the residents, and they are concerned about this project, the size of the
boathouse, and they’re just hoping that the new boathouse has less of an impact so that
it doesn’t block their view. I’m really here to talk about the buffer strip, and I support Mr.
Sipp and Mr. Seguljic. The buffer strip is very important on these properties on
Cleverdale. The water level is very high, and there is no place for infiltration, and the
planting of a lot of plants, ten feet is fine, but a lot bigger buffer strip along the entire
property would do a lot to save sediment and pollutants from running directly into the
lake. I’m hoping to work with a lot of these homeowners along these properties and try
and share with them the importance of buffer strips. There was a condition set on a
home on another peninsula last fall, and it was promised that there would be buffer strips
put in, and as of this Spring it’s all lawn and a patio. So I have called Craig Brown to
investigate it, and I have not heard from him. It’s been two weeks now. So I’m just
saying a condition set, if it’s not enforced, or not followed through on, just like stormwater
and the permitting, it doesn’t mean a lot. So I would like to, you know, if the applicants
are interested in working with me on these buffers, I’ve got a lot of great information and,
you know, plants and a lot of methods and a lot of literature that would help them
understand this.
MR. HUNSINGER-That’s what I was just going to ask. Do you have like standard
brochures and information that you pass out?
MS. BOZONY-Yes, I definitely do.
MR. HUNSINGER-Is that something you could get to the members of the Board?
MS. BOZONY-I’d love to.
MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. You can just give it to Staff and they can distribute it to us.
MS. BOZONY-I will do that. Great.
MR. SEGULJIC-Excuse me. If I could just ask what site that was where the buffer strip
was not put in?
MS. BOZONY-Should I say this out loud right now, or should I tell you later?
MR. HUNSINGER-Does it matter?
MR. SEGULJIC-I don’t see why not.
MR. FULLER-I, first off, want to disclose to you that as of last week we represent the
LGA. We have not worked on this project. So there’s no conflict here.
MR. SEGULJIC-Well, could she tell us now?
MS. BOZONY-I believe it’s Mr. Kirshon.
MR. HUNSINGER-Okay.
MS. BOZONY-And he had left and said, you know, he would promise, and that he’s an
LGA member, which he’s not, and everything else, and that’s my concern is it is
important. I will share the information with you, and I am very much supporting you and
the rest of the water shed in this Critical Environmental Area and helping these residents
change their lawns to native species buffer plantings. It does a tremendous amount.
Thank you.
MR. HUNSINGER-Thank you.
MRS. STEFFAN-Thanks.
MR. HUNSINGER-Anyone else have comments or questions? Okay. Now I have a
question for Counsel. If we separate out the application, how do we treat the public
hearing and SEQRA? Do we leave the public hearing open?
MR. FULLER-Well, if you’re going to approve it, you’re going to have to close the public
hearing.
51
(Queensbury Planning Board 05/24/07)
MR. HUNSINGER-Close the public hearing.
MRS. STEFFAN-So it’s a new application.
MR. FULLER-I’m not, don’t want to insinuate that that’s the best course of action.
MR. HUNSINGER-Well, I think I was feeling that there was a consensus from the Board
that they were comfortable in doing that.
MR. FULLER-Right. Then that’s fine. They would re-submit that part of it.
MRS. BARDEN-Right, a modification of their plan.
MR. HUNSINGER-So we would keep the public hearing open only on the walkway.
MR. FULLER-Yes, but I would give the reasons why you’re not segmenting this apart. A
project can be reviewed in two different parts, but they’re not related necessarily. So
you’re not segmenting the issue under SEQRA. The boathouse is not related,
necessarily, has any impacts on the boathouse, not necessarily directly related to any
potential impacts that may arise from the sidewalk.
MR. HUNSINGER-And our Code clearly points that out. The wouldn’t even be here for
anything on the land if they weren’t proposing a walkway within 50 feet of the lake. The
boathouse is treated very separately in our Code.
MR. SEGULJIC-But just make me comfortable there. My concern is there’s a walkway
on this plan that we’re going to be approving, as well as a canopy on the boathouse. So
we’re asking him to take off the canopy.
MR. HUNSINGER-We’re only approving A-1.
MRS. BARDEN-You can ask for revised plans to be submitted as final plans.
MR. SEGULJIC-So we just approve A-1. Okay.
MR. O'CONNOR-I will stipulate to solve any of that issue that it’s my understanding that
the approval that you’re considering giving us this evening is an approval of the boat, the
dock and the boathouse renovations, without the canopy or without the cupola on the top
of it. It is not any approval of a dock way or a walkway, that you will keep the public
hearing open, so far as the walkway, and your SEQRA determination will be only as to
the boathouse renovations, and not as to the construction of the walkway.
MR. SEGULJIC-Now, just a clarification, too. The Zoning Board did not grant the waiver
for the high extent, correct?
MRS. BARDEN-The relief, no.
MR. O'CONNOR-We withdrew it.
MRS. BARDEN-It was withdrawn.
MR. SEGULJIC-So then why is it on our plans?
MR. O'CONNOR-Because we submitted them both at the same time. We submitted an
application for a site plan.
MR. SEGULJIC-Well, it just makes me nervous whenever we’re looking at things that
really aren’t there.
MR. O'CONNOR-Well, we don’t.
MRS. STEFFAN-We’re changing that, Tom.
MR. O'CONNOR-We submitted both applications at the same time, in order to get into
this agenda, and we got the approval from the Zoning Board in April, without the dock
way, without the cupola on it, and wouldn’t have had time to submit and still stay on this
agenda, and you’re going to cure that, you said?
MRS. STEFFAN-I hope so.
52
(Queensbury Planning Board 05/24/07)
MR. HUNSINGER-Boathouses are not even, they’re Type I, aren’t they? They’re Type I
actions. We don’t usually do SEQRA for boathouses, do we?
MR. FULLER-Type II you mean?
MR. HUNSINGER-I’m sorry, Type II. They would be Unlisted?
MRS. STEFFAN-Because they’re in the CEA.
MR. HUNSINGER-Because they’re in the CEA. So it’s Short Form. Okay. I will close
the public hearing.
PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED
MR. HUNSINGER-But leave the public hearing open on any discussion of the walkway.
MRS. STEFFAN-Okay. Now we are talking specifically about the boathouse.
RESOLUTION WHEN DETERMINATION OF NO SIGNIFICANCE IS MADE
RESOLUTION NO. 20-2007, Introduced by Gretchen Steffan who moved for its
adoption, seconded by Donald Sipp:
WHEREAS, there is presently before the Planning Board an application for:
AGNUS J. VINCZE-ROSEN, 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
statement of non-significance or a negative declaration that may be required by
law.
th
Duly adopted this 24 day of May, 2007, by the following vote:
AYES: Mr. Traver, Mrs. Bruno, Mr. Seguljic, Mr. Sipp, Mrs. Steffan, Mr. Hunsinger
NOES: NONE
ABSENT: Mr. Ford
th
MR. HUNSINGER-We can table it until July 17. Would it make sense to do two
separate motions, or one motion?
MR. FULLER-I would do one, make it a condition right of that one. Then you tie it, when
you satisfy that, you tie it with this one.
53
(Queensbury Planning Board 05/24/07)
MRS. STEFFAN-I’ll make a motion to approve Site Plan No. 20-2007 for Agnus Vincze-
Rosen, according to the resolution prepared by Staff. Paragraph Four complies.
Paragraph Five, whereas the requirements of the State Environmental Quality Review
Act have been considered and the Board declared a Negative finding. Paragraph Six is
fine. Seven is fine. Paragraph Eight does not apply. Paragraph Nine does not apply.
The applicant has withdrawn a portion of this application regarding the walkway and hard
surfacing within 50 feet of a waterfront. The applicant will resubmit plans by the June
th
15 application deadline for this walkway to be heard at the next Planning Board meeting
th
in July, July 17. This application is approved with the following conditions. That the
applicant will submit new drawings for the dock with a finished height of 13 feet 7 and
three quarters inches and no sun arbor. These plans will need to be approved by Vision
Engineering and will need to be approved prior to construction, and the one point that I
th
did not make was that when the applicant re-submits their application on June 15 for
the walkway, it will include a stormwater plan and a vegetative buffer along the shoreline.
MR. SEGULJIC-And test pit data.
MRS. STEFFAN-But that’s part of the stormwater plan, isn’t it?
MR. SEGULJIC-No, because they can just come in with a plan.
MR. HUNSINGER-Let’s be specific.
MR. SEGULJIC-Requesting test pit data in the area of the infiltrators and the walkway.
MRS. STEFFAN-So it’s just test pit data?
MR. SEGULJIC-Yes, to determine depth to groundwater.
MRS. STEFFAN-Okay. So in addition to the comments on the walkway, we will be
asking for test pits to determine groundwater in the area of the walkway.
MR. SEGULJIC-Walkway and infiltrator.
MRS. STEFFAN-And the infiltrator.
MR. SEGULJIC-And the other thing would be I’d like to see if the site had a stormwater
permit.
MR. HUNSINGER-How do we deal with that? That’s something that we would either
have or not have.
MR. O'CONNOR-Staff can tell you that.
MR. SEGULJIC-If they had a stormwater permit for this site.
MRS. BARDEN-I mean, I can look in their building permit that was issued for the house.
It would be in that file.
MR. SEGULJIC-So that’s something you can do for us?
MRS. BARDEN-Absolutely.
MR. SEGULJIC-Okay.
MRS. STEFFAN-So we don’t have to put that in the motion.
MR. HUNSINGER-No, we don’t need that in the motion.
MRS. STEFFAN-Okay. I believe that motion is complete.
MR. O'CONNOR-I think you said the applicant has withdrawn the walkway. The
applicant has asked you to table the walkway portion of the application because Tom
was worried about me withdrawing it.
MRS. STEFFAN-I see.
MR. O'CONNOR-And the other comment that you made some place that we will submit
new plans for the boathouse in compliance without this thing on the top.
54
(Queensbury Planning Board 05/24/07)
MRS. STEFFAN-Correct.
MR. O'CONNOR-You said those plans had to be reviewed by Vision?
MRS. STEFFAN-Vision just has to signoff on them. Because you’re revising a drawing,
and so they just have to review it.
MR. O'CONNOR-I don’t think they even, they didn’t sign off on the first set. All they
signed off on was the stormwater, or wrote about was the stormwater. I don’t think they
even looked at the dock.
MRS. BARDEN-Right, and I think that if this stormwater is for the walkway, it may be
premature to ask for signoff on this for the boathouse/sundeck.
MR. O'CONNOR-My question is the engineering, the Town Engineer doesn’t look at
boathouses, I don’t think. If he’s going to look at it, fine, but I don’t want to have a
condition in there that we can’t comply with.
MR. HUNSINGER-I think we were just looking for third party verification that it’s the
proper plan.
MRS. STEFFAN-Just to make sure that the numbers are correct, because there were
number changes. The arbor’s not on there, and if we leave it to the Staff, then they don’t
have the authority to do that.
MR. HUNSINGER-No, they’re liable.
MRS. STEFFAN-There’s also another condition from the Vision Engineering letter that
permits obtained from other regulatory agencies should be forwarded to the Town for
inclusion in the final approved documents.
MR. O'CONNOR-Okay. I have the Lake George Park Commission permit to give to you
now, which actually includes a drawing without the top on it. The drawing has been
done. We just haven’t gotten it into the submittal process.
MR. HUNSINGER-That’s what we figured. Yes. Okay.
MRS. BARDEN-If your concern is the dimensions of the boathouse and the sun arbor
removed, you can specify that, and Craig won’t stamp it with a zoning permit until those
revised drawings reflecting those changes have been submitted.
MRS. STEFFAN-Isn’t that what I said?
MRS. BARDEN-I thought you were going to have Vision look at those drawings for those
changes.
MRS. STEFFAN-I was. So the Zoning Administrator can look at those?
MRS. BARDEN-Absolutely.
MRS. STEFFAN-Should I just make the motion all over again?
MRS. BARDEN-I think that would be great.
MR. HUNSINGER-It might be easier, yes.
MRS. STEFFAN-All right. Let’s try this again.
MOTION TO APPROVE SITE PLAN NO. 20-2007 AGNUS J. VINCZE-ROSEN,
Introduced by Gretchen Steffan who moved for its adoption, seconded by Thomas
Seguljic:
1. WHEREAS, a site plan application has been made to the Queensbury Planning
Board for the following; Applicant proposes removal of 1250 sq. ft. boathouse w 307
sq. ft. sundeck and replacement with 1220 sq. boathouse and 745 sq. ft. sundeck.
Sundeck/Boathouse requires Site Plan Review by the Planning Board.
55
(Queensbury Planning Board 05/24/07)
2. WHEREAS, a public hearing was advertised and held on 5/24/07; and
3. WHEREAS, this application is supported with all documentation, public comment and
application material in the file of record; and
4. WHEREAS, 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. WHEREAS, where appropriate, i.e. done at the completed review, and/or when
required [either Type I or Unlisted] the requirements of the State Environmental Quality
Review Act have been considered and the Planning Board has adopted a SEQRA
Negative Declaration and /or 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
6. WHEREAS, 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
7. 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
8 If applicable, Item 8 to be combined with a letter of credit; and [NOT
APPLICABLE]
9. The Sanitary Sewer connection plan must be submitted to the Wastewater
Department for its review, approval, permitting and inspection [NOT APPLICABLE]
10. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that we find the following:
MOTION TO APPROVE SITE PLAN NO. 20-2007 AGNUS J. VINCZE-ROSEN,
Introduced by Gretchen Steffan who moved for its adoption, seconded by Thomas
Seguljic:
According to the resolution prepared by Staff. Paragraphs One, Two, and Three are fine.
Paragraph Four complies. Paragraph Five, whereas the requirements of the State
Environmental Quality Review Act have been considered and the Board declared a
Negative finding. Paragraph Six is fine. Seven is fine. Eight is not required. Nine is not
required. This is approved with the following conditions.
1.That the applicant has withdrawn a portion of the application and requests a
tabling regarding the walkway. The applicant will re-submit plans for this
thth
walkway by the June 15 application deadline, to be heard on the July 17
Planning Board meeting. Those plans will also contain a stormwater plan and
a vegetative buffer along the shoreline and test pit data to determine depth to
groundwater at the walkway and infiltrators.
2.The applicant will submit a modified drawing for the dock with a finished
height of 13 feet 7 and three quarters inches and no sun arbor, prior to
construction.
3.The applicant will provide permits obtained from other regulatory agencies to
the Town for inclusion in final approved documents.
th
Duly adopted this 24 day of May, 2007, by the following vote:
AYES: Mr. Sipp, Mr. Traver, Mrs. Bruno, Mr. Seguljic, Mrs. Steffan, Mr. Hunsinger
NOES: NONE
ABSENT: Mr. Ford
56
(Queensbury Planning Board 05/24/07)
MR. O'CONNOR-Okay. Thank you for your patience.
MR. HUNSINGER-Thank you.
MR. O'CONNOR-Let me, this infiltrator system right here shows a total, and this is
maybe again me doing something I shouldn’t be doing, but the infiltrator system itself is
like two feet four inches from the top of the stone to the bottom of the area that’s called
the infiltrator, and it’s from that that is measured the one foot. If they actually treated only
the water they were required to treat, rather than treat or build at capacity for all the
water that they’ve built, they probably could do it with just a grass sedimentation area,
without an infiltrator. Would you feel better about just a grass area that was capable of
treating the water that they’re required to treat, or using, continuing the infiltrator system
even if there’s a shortage of the separation?
MR. SEGULJIC-Yes, I would have to look at that all together. That’s a lot for me to think
about right now.
MR. O'CONNOR-All right. Okay. I thank you again.
MR. SEGULJIC-Thank you.
SITE PLAN NO. 21-2007 SEQR TYPE UNLISTED WILLIAM CRAIG AGENT(S)
JAMES MILLER, MILLER ASSOCIATES OWNER(S) SAME ZONING PO LOCATION
12 HAVILAND ROAD APPLICANT PROPOSES CONVERSION OF AN EXISTING
RESIDENCE TO A 1,007 SQ. FT. PROFESSIONAL OFFICE WITH NEW PARKING
LOT IN EXCESS OF REQUIREMENTS. PROFESSIONAL OFFICE USES REQUIRES
AN APPROVAL FOR EXTRA PARKING AND SITE PLAN BY THE PLANNING BOARD.
CROSS REFERENCE AV 21-07, BP 06-165 WARREN CO. PLANNING 5/9/07 LOT
SIZE 0.43 ACRES TAX MAP NO. 289.19-1-10 SECTION 179-4-040
JIM MILLER, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT
MRS. BARDEN-This is site plan review for a professional office building in a
Professional Office zone. William Craig is the applicant for this request, and the subject
property is located at 12 Haviland Road. This is a Type II SEQRA action. The applicant
proposes conversion of an existing 1,007 square foot residence to office space and
associated site work, including construction of 12 parking spaces. The applicant was
granted relief for eight additional parking spaces from the maximum parking requirement
of four for the office, totaling 12 spaces for the site. This property is located within the
Bay Road corridor and with that subject to the design guidelines of that district.
Specifically, Subsection C, Streetscape Elements, “Landscape strips will be provided
along both sides of the street; a combination of trees should be used and each variety
should be tolerant of urban conditions” This has not been provided for on SP-2. A Type
A (10-foot) vegetative buffer is required between office and single-family residential
uses. This is shown on the west side of the property where it abuts the residential use,
however, no specifics of how this area will be landscaped, i.e. species of trees and
shrubs was provided. The interior parking lot landscaping requirement calls for 5% of
the total parking area, resulting in 210 sq. ft. The applicant should verify this calculation
and discuss how it will be met or formally request a waiver from this requirement. The
plan shows one pole light in back of the building to illuminate the rear walkway. Will the
office be open in the evening hours? If so, the Board should consider additional lighting
in the parking area, office parking lots should average 1.0 foot candle. The Warren
County Planning Board at their May 9, 2007 meeting recommended No County Impact
on this project. There is a Staff plan review comment letter from the Fire Marshal dated
rd
April 3. I think that’s all I have.
MR. HUNSINGER-Great. Thank you.
MRS. BARDEN-You’re welcome.
MR. HUNSINGER-Good evening.
MR. MILLER-Good evening. My name is Jim Miller, Landscape Architect, representing
Gina and Dr. William Craig. The property is the small building out the end of our
driveway, about 1,000 square feet, and Dr. Craig is looking to, it’s in a Professional
Office zone. He’s looking to convert it to a professional office. Right now there’s an
existing driveway in this area. The proposal is to widen the driveway, extend it to the
rear for 12 parking spaces, which was granted by the Zoning Board. The 12 parking
spaces in the rear entrance in compliance with this area is a recommendation. There will
57
(Queensbury Planning Board 05/24/07)
be an existing sidewalk and the residential character of the building will be maintained in
the front. We would opt to have a small freestanding sign identifying the building. There
will be a rear porch constructed with the office building which would be wood with steps
up and there would be a ramp down with a handicapped parking space to the rear.
Storm drainage is handled, all the drainage sheets. This is all the property for
Adirondack Community College. Everything sheets here out into that field area. What
we’ve provided is some underground chambers where stormwater would be collected
and so they could be detained. There would be an outlet pipe which would be restricted
down to a four inch size that allows gradual release of the water so we’re not increasing
the release of the runoff. That water would drain out onto a stone outfall area which
would allow it to dissipate, similar to how it would fall off site. The comments about the
lighting, there’s some residential type lighting at the front of the building which would
remain. There’d be a light near the doorway, a residential style light. There’s no
anticipation of evening hours. The concern’s winter hours, at twilight times, that’s why
one single decorative style light is provided that would illuminate the ramp and the stairs
for those twilight times when the employees were leaving, and that light would be off at
night. There was some discussion in Staff comments about the buffer area. The area
where we actually abut a residential area is only this lot here in the corner. I believe
there’s about 18 feet, because this other, these are other professional offices along Bay
Road which would border us here, and to be quite honest, there’s a hedge that comes
down along there and since it’s just bordering that corner I didn’t feel any buffering was
really necessary. If the Board felt we should add something there, we certainly would.
There was another comment about some planting on the street. For some reason it
never dawned on me we were in the Bay Road corridor, far enough away we missed it,
but we’d certainly agree whatever is required as part of that. What is the requirement, a
street tree? Or whatever’s required, we’d certainly agree to that, and that’s pretty much
it.
MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. Questions, comments from the Board?
MRS. STEFFAN-This project’s been going on a long time, hasn’t it, the renovation of this
building’s been going on for a long time.
MR. MILLER-Well, I don’t know the history of it. I believe they started renovating it as
their own residence, and they were going to expand it, and then they bought a lot further
down, by Hiland I believe. I don’t know if it’s part of the Hiland development, and they
built a new house down there. So now they’re looking at using this in a Professional
Office zone as a professional office.
MRS. STEFFAN-Short commute.
MR. MILLER-Sure would be.
MR. HUNSINGER-I was looking for the Bay Road corridor.
MR. MILLER-Well, there was one other Staff comment that talked about the planted
islands. For some reason I always thought we didn’t need islands until we got to a
certain number of cars, but I mean, obviously in a small, 12 car lot, it’s difficult to put an
island. I would ask that, you know, where we’re landscaping at the entrance and that
island protrudes into parking, that that be considered as meeting that requirement, but
for 12 cars it’s hard to put an island in the middle.
MR. HUNSINGER-I’m not finding where it says, I thought there was somewhere in the
Code that talked about the distance between the trees. All it says is that, I’ll just read it.
“Street Trees - Landscape strips shall be provided along both sides of the street; a
combination of trees should be used and each variety should be tolerant of urban
conditions, especially salt and sand deposited with snow removal. Mulched tree wells
shall be placed around the base of each tree for protection and moisture retention.
Maintenance shall be the responsibility of the property owner according to the
landscaped section.”
MR. MILLER-This site here, if you can see on the plan to the east of us, towards ACC,
there’s a large tree, and then as you go to the rear yard of the other residential property
there’s trees along Haviland there. I mean, I would, you know, I would suggest to just
add a condition to say we’d add an additional street tree in front of our property. The
frontage is 100 feet, and you’ve got the driveway. So, you know, there’s not a huge area
for planting in there, but we certainly would agree to add a street tree.
MR. HUNSINGER-In that picture, the tree to the left, is that on your property?
58
(Queensbury Planning Board 05/24/07)
MR. MILLER-That’s just off the corridor.
MR. HUNSINGER-Just off it. Okay.
MR. MILLER-As you can see that’s, here’s the corner of the property. It’s just over the
line there. Yes.
MR. HUNSINGER-There it is on the lot, okay.
MR. MILLER-But I mean we certainly would agree to add another one.
MR. HUNSINGER-I think that would be. So, it would be somewhere between the
driveway and the edge of the property.
MR. MILLER-I’d say probably between the driveway and that other tree to the east of our
property along there.
MR. HUNSINGER-Okay.
MR. MILLER-The pictures I’ve got of that are all snow.
MR. SIPP-Sign type and size?
MR. MILLER-It’s going to be like a small carved wood sign, probably will not be lighted,
since they don’t have evening hours, but you’re talking about a, you know, just an office,
just a sign that’s going to identify the doctor’s office. It’s probably going to be like three
by four or something well within what’s allowed.
MR. SIPP-Monument type?
MR. MILLER-Yes.
MR. SIPP-A little landscaping around that?
MR. MILLER-Yes. Well, we indicated on the plan some shrubs, some low shrubs around
it. The sign’s proposed in that area where you see the sand there. It’s not a very big
area.
MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. Any other questions or comments from the Board? We do
have a public hearing scheduled. Is there anyone here that had questions or comments
on this project?
PUBLIC HEARING OPENED
NO COMMENT
PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED
MR. HUNSINGER-It’s Type II. So no SEQRA.
MRS. STEFFAN-So the only thing we’re going to do is add an additional street tree on
the east portion of the property?
MR. HUNSINGER-Yes.
MOTION TO APPROVE SITE PLAN NO. 21-2007 WILLIAM CRAIG, Introduced by
Gretchen Steffan who moved for its adoption, seconded by Thomas Seguljic:
1. WHEREAS, a site plan application has been made to the Queensbury Planning
Board for the following; Applicant proposes conversion of an existing residence to a
1,007 sq. ft. professional office with new parking lot in excess of requirements.
Professional office uses requires and approval for extra parking requires Site Plan
Review by the Planning Board.
2. WHEREAS, a public hearing was advertised and held on 5/24/07; and
59
(Queensbury Planning Board 05/24/07)
3. WHEREAS, this application is supported with all documentation, public comment and
application material in the file of record; and
4. WHEREAS, 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. WHEREAS, 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 [Type II SEQRA]
6. WHEREAS, 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
7. 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
8 If applicable, Item 8 to be combined with a letter of credit; and [NOT
APPLICABLE]
9. The Sanitary Sewer connection plan must be submitted to the Wastewater
Department for its review, approval, permitting and inspection [NOT APPLICABLE]
10. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that we find the following:
MOTION TO APPROVE SITE PLAN NO. 21-2007 WILLIAM CRAIG, Introduced by
Gretchen Steffan who moved for its adoption, seconded by Thomas Seguljic:
According to the resolution prepared by Staff. Paragraph One, Two, and Three are fine.
Paragraph Four complies. Paragraph Five, this is a Type II SEQRA. Paragraph Six is
fine. Seven is fine. Eight is not applicable. Paragraph Nine does not apply. This is
approved with the following conditions.
1.That the applicant adds an additional street tree to the east portion of the
property.
th
Duly adopted this 24 day of May, 2007, by the following vote:
MRS. STEFFAN-And this is not connected to the sanitary sewer.
MR. MILLER-No. There’s an existing septic system to the rear of the lot which is going
to continue to be utilized.
AYES: Mr. Sipp, Mr. Traver, Mrs. Bruno, Mr. Seguljic, Mrs. Steffan, Mr. Hunsinger
NOES: NONE
ABSENT: Mr. Ford
MR. HUNSINGER-Thank you.
SITE PLAN NO. 22-2007 SEQR TYPE UNLISTED JOLLEY ASSOCIATES AGENT(S)
NACE ENGINEERING OWNER(S) SAME ZONING HC-INT. LOCATION 1412
STATE ROUTE 9 APPLICANT PROPOSES REMOVAL OF EXISTING GAS STATION
AND CONSTRUCTION OF A NEW 4,250 SQ. FT. GAS STATION AND CONVENIENCE
STORE, NEW GAS ISLAND AND CANOPY, ALONG WITH ASSOCIATED SITE WORK.
GAS STATIONS AND CONVENIENCE STORE REQUIRE SITE PLAN REVIEW BY
THE PLANNING BOARD. CROSS REFERENCE BP 05-923 WARREN CO.
PLANNING 5/9/07 LOT SIZE 1.5 ACRES TAX MAP NO. 288.16-1-3 SECTION 179-
4-020, 179-8-050, 179-6-020
TOM NACE & JIM MILLER, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT
60
(Queensbury Planning Board 05/24/07)
MR. HUNSINGER-Susan?
MRS. BARDEN-Can I just bring something to your attention that I just found? Is a public
comment letter regarding Rosen.
MR. HUNSINGER-Is it good or bad? Is it appropriate to leave it for discussion on the
sidewalk? It’s relative to the?
MRS. BARDEN-Well, it’s relative to the boathouse and sundeck.
MR. HUNSINGER-Okay.
MRS. BARDEN-Do you want me to read it, acknowledge it?
MR. HUNSINGER-Yes, I mean, we’d have to do that. Bear with us a second.
MRS. BARDEN-“Dear Members of the Town of Queensbury Planning Board:
Unfortunately we are unable to attend the public hearing tonight due to the short notice
of the hearing. In light of recent developments with building on Cleverdale, we feel
compelled to write this letter expressing our strong opposition to the proposal before you
tonight. It is not that we are opposed to repairing or rebuilding docks, boathouse and
sundecks. It is the excessiveness of the development that we oppose. A sundeck of
745 square feet is similar in size to many of the small cottages surrounding the lake. In
fact, the house next door to the site contains only 594 square feet, according to Town
records. Also the applicant does not address the second dock on this site. Is this dock
being included in the area measurements? Will the applicant be removing this dock, or
will they be back next year with a proposal to construct a sundeck over this dock, too?
We ask the Board to consider the reasonableness of the proposed sundeck. Just look at
the house three doors north of this property, a new home that most people on the Point
refer to as the motel. This appears to be a trend. Who can build the biggest house, the
biggest dock, or in the case of this applicant the biggest sundeck. Is a sundeck the size
of a small house reasonable or even necessary? Have the safety concerns been
considered? How many people can fit on a deck this large? Have you considered the
right of the neighbors to enjoy their properties without the noise and the loss in views? In
the end, it is a lake that will suffer from this type of development long after the members
of this Board are gone. In closing, we ask you to consider the reasonableness, or lack
thereof, and vote down this proposal.” This is respectfully submitted, Al and Marty
Chanese.
MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. Thank you.
MRS. BARDEN-You’re welcome. I apologize.
MR. HUNSINGER-Good evening.
MR. MILLER-Good evening.
MR. NACE-Good evening.
MR. HUNSINGER-Should we acknowledge anything about, that was in the letter? I
mean, because I mean what was proposed is within the Town Building Code. I mean,
it’s not an absolute building of right, but it essentially is, as long as it’s within Code.
MR. SEGULJIC-It’s not within Code. It’s 700 square feet sundeck. This is 742. So they
got their variance, right?
MR. HUNSINGER-It’s, you know, I mean, when we were there on site visits, virtually
every property along that side of the lake has a similar size sundeck. In fact, there were
several that were much larger and much taller than the one that’s there now. I guess for
the record.
MR. NACE-Good evening. For the record, Tom Nace, Nace Engineering, Jim Miller and
Sean Crumb, from Jolley Associates. I guess we’ll try to keep things as brief as we can.
Do you want us to give a real quick presentation?
MR. HUNSINGER-Yes, please.
MR. NACE-Jim, you’re elected.
61
(Queensbury Planning Board 05/24/07)
MR. MILLER-Good evening. The property is now currently an existing Mobil station. It’s
across from the Montcalm Restaurant, to the north of the Warren County complex and
south of the outlet, the Polo outlet. The existing building that’s on the site basically sits in
the area that shows as a new canopy, and the existing canopy is in this front area. All of
the existing structures and lights and tanks, everything is going to be removed and all of
the construction that’s on the plan as proposed will be all new construction. The site’s
one and a half acres. It’s about 300, about 260 to 320 feet deep to the rear, and what’s
proposed is constructing a retaining wall across the property. The property slopes from
the back of the existing store to the rear. So the proposal is to construct a retaining wall
that would allow more of this site to be utilized. Right now across Route 9 in the front
there’s sidewalks, curbs that were all put in as part of the DOT approvals, improvements.
There’s some street trees and there’s some historic style globe lights, all along the front
of the property, and the intent is that we would maintain those. We would maintain the
entrance driveways as they were planned and installed by DEC. The proposal is for a
convenience store with four gas islands. By moving the store back, it allows the islands
to be turned so that the canopy is parallel to the road, to provide improved circulation on
the site, both to the store and to the gas islands. One of the features of the new building
proposes a drive thru. There’ll be a Dunkin Donuts located within the convenience store,
and the drive thru is for the Dunkin Donuts. The proposed building is about 4250 square
feet. We’ve provided parking. Essentially the way it exists on the site now, there’d be
parking along the front of the building. There’d be parking in the, inside the islands,
paralleling Route 9, and then along the north side of the property, and 28 parking spaces
will be provided. The dumpster area will be located off to the north side of the property.
It’ll be enclosed. The proposal is that it would be a masonry style, no, actually it was a
building, as we talked about. Because originally we had shown some fencing, but they’d
prefer it would actually be a building type enclosure. The site lighting, as you see on the
details that were submitted, they’re 17 foot high lights located around the perimeter. It’s
an arched pole style decorative pendant style light that would be a dark green. The
lights along the building would be a similar style light, also in a dark green, that would
match that, but it would be building mounted as opposed to a pole mounted, especially
around the rear of the building, and obviously the gas canopy is going to be lighted.
Storm drainage on the site is subject to DEC and a Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan
is being prepared. As a gas sales facility, it’s required that we have double pre-
treatment. So what’s provided on our site is there’ll be deep sub-catch basins in the area
of the fueling areas. That will go through an oil/water separator, and the very lower rear
portion of the site is where a stormwater basin is proposed. So we’ve got some oil
separation as a first treatment, at the upper level, and there’ll be a four bay settling area
which would be the second form of pre-treatment, and that four bay then overflows into a
second bay to accommodate the tension. Well drained sands in this area. So the
detention area will also have drywells to accommodate infiltration, and the landscape
plan, what we’ve proposed was some additional shrub plantings to supplement the
existing trees along Route 9. This would be an accommodation of some shrubs and
some perennials to provide some decorative planting, lower planting, and also to buffer
some of the parking area, and there was some street trees and some shrub planting
along the north and south sides of the property. There’ll be screened planting in the area
around the dumpster storage building, and also some screening along the back of the
property, along storm basin. Most of the areas around the building are going to be some
lawn, but most of that area will be lower shrubs and perennials, and some smaller
flowering trees around the building, and with that, that’s pretty much the proposal.
MR. HUNSINGER-Okay.
MR. SEGULJIC-Just a general question. It seems like a lot of gas stations are getting
renovated these days. What’s the driver?
SEAN CRUMB
MR. CRUMB-Well, quite honestly, we’ve had this plan for quite some time. It’s just taken
us a bit to get it to you. We purchased the property almost two years ago with the full
intent, at that time, to do a scrape and rebuild. So it’s basically a coincidence that our
neighbors down the street had proposed theirs, and I’ve been before you recently for 19,
and with the purchase of the three properties in Queensbury, we had had full intent, at
that time, to upgrade those facilities. We haven’t come forth with the third, but the third
will be quite scaled down, very minor improvement with that. The buildings and the
stations are just tired and worn out and in desperate need of renovations.
MR. SEGULJIC-So the time has come.
62
(Queensbury Planning Board 05/24/07)
MR. CRUMB-It has.
MR. SEGULJIC-Okay.
MR. CRUMB-There’s only so much paint and putty.
MR. HUNSINGER-Who wants to start?
MR. SEGULJIC-I’ll just make a quick comment on the lighting. I think under the canopy
you have up to 20? If you could drop that down.
MR. CRUMB-We have discussed that, and we’re working on that to address that, and we
will give you a resubmission.
MR. HUNSINGER-Do you want a copy of what we just approved earlier tonight?
MR. CRUMB-I have actually made notes of that, and, yes, I would like a copy of that.
MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. If you’ll bear with me, I’ll dig it out.
MR. CRUMB-Okay. Go ahead, Tom.
MR. SEGULJIC-I’ll let someone else take the lead here.
MR. TRAVER-Go ahead.
MR. SEGULJIC-I guess I’ll have to ask, then. What’s the building going to look like?
MR. CRUMB-I’m glad you asked that. We had discussed back with Exit 19, as you
recall.
MRS. STEFFAN-I thought it looked pretty similar to that.
MR. CRUMB-You didn’t really like the split block masonry. So taking that into account, I
hope that you’ll like these designs. With the Exit 19 project you had requested brick, and
taking into account our new neighbors down the street with their brick, if you’ll notice
their building has very similar lines as our new neighbors. However, this is our cookie
cutter, so to speak, design, that we have used in other areas, and coincidentally, they
had come close to our design. So I hope you’ll like that. We put a lot of thought and a lot
of time into that.
MR. SEGULJIC-I usually don’t comment on these things. It’s not my forte.
MRS. STEFFAN-As a general rule of thumb, on most of these gas station properties,
they put soda and things out in front of these buildings. Is that part of your plan?
MR. CRUMB-Currently on that site, you do happen to see that, and it’s generally related
to the lack of space in the store. I can assure you that that is not going to happen with
this new store. We do not like that image. Unfortunately, referring back to this store is
very, very limited space, and we don’t like the look any better than you do, and again, I
assure you with the new construction you will not see that.
MRS. STEFFAN-Okay. It also happens at the one on the corner, on the four corners of
Aviation and Route 9.
MR. CRUMB-Yes, and again, we’re working to limit that as well.
MRS. STEFFAN-It just raises a cheese factor, and it’s not a good look.
MR. CRUMB-I agree, and image is a very, very important issue for us.
MRS. STEFFAN-I ask the question because of the windows here. It looks very nice in
the plan, but if you stack things up five feet tall, then it changes the whole look of the
front.
MR. CRUMB-That’s not going to happen.
MRS. STEFFAN-Okay. I guess one of the other things on the plan is that, I think it’s a 27
foot retaining wall in the back of the property?
63
(Queensbury Planning Board 05/24/07)
MR. NACE-Yes, it’s 25, 26 feet. That has been engineered. We have complete
construction plans for that, which are much more detailed than what we presented to the
Board. In fact, they are five sheets just for the design of the wall, but we’ll give those to
Dan Ryan to take a look at, just to make sure he’s satisfied, but it’s an engineered wall,
the same as DOT would build along, you’ve seen along the side of the highway.
MRS. STEFFAN-The building behind this is the public safety building?
MR. NACE-No. The building directly behind this is a, I think just a maintenance garage
for McCormack Enterprises.
MR. SIPP-Yes.
MR. NACE-Okay.
MRS. STEFFAN-Because we didn’t drive around the back of the building. We drove in it,
but we passed down Route 9.
MR. NACE-About in here there’s a maintenance building, and then a newer maintenance
building, a smaller building that sits up in here. The actual jail property, or the jail site,
would be back here underneath the card table, and the land up here in front is vacant,
and it’s quite a ways before you get to the actual County complex parcel.
MRS. STEFFAN-Right. Thanks.
MR. SEGULJIC-I guess just, I wasn’t aware it was such a big retaining wall. Could you
flesh that out for me?
MR. NACE-Could I flesh it out? Okay. Sure. In fact, I think I have, the wall was
designed by Carl Schoder. I have some of his details here. It’s looking at two types of
walls, both very similar. One’s called a T wall, which is a pre-cast T shaped units, where
the stem of the T gets buried in the earth and the earth friction on that restrains the walls,
the wall in place, but it’s a very engineered, if I would say that, system of earth and pre-
cast concrete units. Like I said, one is a T wall with an actual concrete stem. The
second is, I forgot what the generic name is for them, but it’s a wall with a mechanical,
not concrete, but a mechanical steel tie back into the earth, back beyond the wall. It’s
not the same that you see say at Home Depot, the small blocks. These are larger blocks
of concrete, and the tie system instead of the geo grid, like those segmental retaining
walls at The Home Depot. It’s a much more positive mechanical tie.
MR. SEGULJIC-But no one’s going to see that, right?
MR. NACE-No, that’s correct. If you look at the site, all we’re trying to do with the wall is
to get level space on the site in order to build the store. If you want to take a look, there’s
the survey of the existing site. The top of the existing bank sits in here. Our wall sits
back here. All we’re trying to do is fill this area in to level off the site.
MR. MILLER-Yes, what happens, if you look at it from the south side, you know, where
the wall starts, it follows the grade, so it goes from nothing, it’s kind of a wedge shape in
the south, and then it turns and the tallest piece is along the back, and then it continues
up to the north where right now they have a retaining wall against our, the rear part of our
property where the Polo building is. Our retaining wall would actually go up into their
retaining wall. So some of their wall would disappear as a result of this.
MRS. STEFFAN-No underground parking garages?
MR. NACE-Without any cars in it.
MRS. BRUNO-Could you describe on the façade, again, I don’t recall, on either side of
the door, you’ve got the green panels.
MR. CRUMB-That’s kind of a brand logo if you will. We have that with all of our existing
Jolley stores that we’ve built new. It kind of sets us apart from the rest. Again, if you fall
back to the plan that you had approved for Midway Oil, or MT Associates, their plan had
surprisingly shocked me when I saw that, the change to their building, and not that it
really matters, but we would like to be separated from them. We’re not the same
company, and they have a similar looking building, and this just helps to differentiate
ourselves.
64
(Queensbury Planning Board 05/24/07)
MRS. BRUNO-What material are they?
MR. CRUMB-It’s like a Lexand type product, and I’d be happy to provide you with a
sample of that with all the building samples that I’ll provide at the next meeting.
MRS. BRUNO-Is it back lit or anything?
MR. CRUMB-Quite honestly, I hate to say this, but I can’t remember right now. If
memory serves me, I think it has some light, ambient lighting, but I’ll clarify that for you.
MRS. BRUNO-And what about over the windows on the end? They look almost like
awnings, and is that a stainless steel?
MR. CRUMB-It is. It’s almost like a stainless screen, if you will. I’ll provide a sample of
that as well.
MRS. BRUNO-Thank you.
MR. HUNSINGER-Are there existing stores that have been built with this design?
MR. CRUMB-We have existing stores in South Burlington, VT. that are of that design.
However, those are the split block masonry, and that was what I had provided you for the
Exit 19 proposal.
MR. HUNSINGER-I was going to say, because this isn’t the same as the Exit 19 design.
MR. CRUMB-It’s the same overall shape.
MR. HUNSINGER-Right.
MR. CRUMB-But utilizing brick, because you had requested brick, and in reading what
you had approved with MT, and what you had requested for Exit 19, we felt that this
might be appropriate to use for both. So I’m hoping that you’ll approve that, or like that,
because that’s what I’m going to come back with.
MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. We did talk a little bit about the lighting and you need to
reduce the wattage.
MR. CRUMB-Yes.
MR. HUNSINGER-But I actually personally like the fixtures. I don’t know if anyone else
commented on the actual fixtures themselves, but I think I liked the uniqueness of them.
MR. CRUMB-And we utilize those at all of our Jolley stores. We really like those, and I’ll
provide you some photographs of those, so that you have a better idea, and it’ll also give
you a better idea of how we image our sites, and don’t have the stacks of Coca Cola out
front.
MR. MILLER-One thing I had a question on the lights. You made a reference to lowering
the light levels in the canopy. Am I safe to assume that you’re comfortable with the rest
of it?
MR. HUNSINGER-No.
MR. MILLER-Okay. I gave it a shot.
MR. HUNSINGER-Well, I don’t know. The canopy was so bad, I didn’t get past that, to
be honest with you.
MRS. STEFFAN-Well, just lower the canopy.
MR. HUNSINGER-Yes. I mean, seriously, the rest of the site isn’t too bad. I mean,
you’ve got the canopy lights of 23 and a half, 25.4. Most of the parking areas two, you
know, 3.5 or less. I don’t know.
MR. MILLER-Yes, I thought it was okay. That’s why I asked, but I knew you focused on
the canopy.
65
(Queensbury Planning Board 05/24/07)
MR. HUNSINGER-I dragged out two copies of the, and I highlighted the one that we
approved which is 3A, right? Yes, good, 3A. Not that those are the best ones in the
world, but that gives you comparisons. What other comments does the Board have?
MRS. STEFFAN-Is the canopy going to be blue?
MR. CRUMB-Well, that’s what we currently have.
MRS. STEFFAN-I see. It matches the blue in the Jolley.
MR. CRUMB-It does, and the current store as you can see, has it as well. That’s a Mobil
standard that Mobil likes to see, and we certainly would like to have it.
MRS. STEFFAN-It’s certainly been there for a long, long time.
MR. CRUMB-Actually the gemen, that’s a fairly new look for Mobil, I mean, in recent
years. Probably three, maybe four at most.
MRS. STEFFAN-Well, maybe I’m dating myself.
MR. CRUMB-Did you approve the red stripe around the MT Associates down the street?
MR. HUNSINGER-I don’t remember.
MR. CRUMB-That’s another, you know, Exxon/Mobil, same brand, basically. So Exxon
is red. Mobil is blue.
MRS. STEFFAN-And reader boards, I think we mentioned that to you the last time.
MR. CRUMB-We do, and I can give you a rendering of the sign. I don’t have the
dimensions that I had had for these. This is basically what the sign would look like, not
to exceed 20 feet, and I will provide you dimensions with the next submission.
MRS. STEFFAN-I actually think what we did on the last one, 18 feet was the height we
were looking for.
MR. CRUMB-You scaled that back?
MRS. STEFFAN-Okay. Gold 20 feet.
MR. CRUMB-And one correction on Jim’s narrative. The light poles are actually 12 feet,
as you’ll see in the plan. We weren’t using 17 foot lights for the yard. Well, I think on the
plan it depicts 12.
MR. NACE-The plan depicts 17.
MR. HUNSINGER-I thought it said 17.
MR. NACE-The plan depicts 17.
MR. CRUMB-My mistake.
MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. We do have a public hearing scheduled this evening. I
assume you are here to comment?
PUBLIC HEARING OPENED
DAVE BENGLE
MR. BENGLE-Good evening. Well, my name’s Dave Bengle. I reside here in
Queensbury, and I represent a small group of us from Queensbury that reside here. I’m
going to read this because I’m really tired. Basically here to express our objections to
this proposal and why we feel it shouldn’t be approved at this time. For one, traffic is a
big concern, a lot of people. For approximately six months out of the year there’s
constant back up, which I’m sure everybody’s dealt with, from south of the traffic light at
Exit 20 to the Northway and going north on Route 9, and with merging traffic off Exit 20
onto Route 9 north, there’s always delays. An increase in traffic from this location I think
will add to the problem, essentially. The applicant is planning to double the amount of
pumps, which we’ve already discussed, from the existing four to eight. They’re going to
66
(Queensbury Planning Board 05/24/07)
triple the size of the building, from approximately 1400 square feet, if I’m correct, it’s over
4200, 4250, I believe, and will operate the convenience store and lease out the space to
the two national franchises, and of course the increase in traffic trying to enter and exit
the station we think could create gridlock on Route 9, more so. Another concern is
environmental issue, as far as the proposal requires filling in of the entire back portion
which is pretty extensive, which is currently the home of various wildlife and wooded
area. A tremendous amount of trees would be destroyed, and they’re planning to
replace it with, as they mentioned, the shrubbery and the trees. I guess from the plans
from the Town seem to be about 25 trees with shrubbery, taking up portions that aren’t
being paved, and they’ll be planted, it seems to be, well below the grade level of the
project. So between this and the height of the building, they won’t be seen, which may or
may not change, I’m not sure if that’s been altered, but the filling of the property will
destroy the woodland and eliminate any wildlife from the area, and honestly Queensbury
can’t really afford to lose the woodland area in that particular part of Town, and we did
obtain the applicant’s plans from the office, and had them reviewed by a licensed
engineer who couldn’t be here unfortunately. He submitted a list of concerns. We went
over it with him. Of course I would rather have him explain it, but rather than read the
entire report, he kind of typed something up briefly, and I’m going to have Mr. Eric
Johnson hand out, on the second page and it continues on the third page. Just taking a
look at it, to be quick here, it just consists of concerns with parking, stormwater, a gas
main, which he made not doesn’t show on the print. It exists, but it doesn’t seem to be
on the print that we had, but again, that could have been altered or fixed since. Grading
and retention walls, green space, dumpster size, internal traffic motions, traffic impact
and interconnections, which you kind of touched on, and the locations been operating as
a gas station and convenience store for over 25 years, and it seems like it could be
remodeled by using the existing facility. It’s not a need due to hardship, but rather desire
to expand, is what a lot of people feel, and I’m here to express that on their behalf, and
we’d be appreciate being kept informed of any future proceedings, and we’d like to make
arrangements to receive copies of the meeting minutes and review the comments if
possible. In short, that’s it. Thank you for your time.
MRS. STEFFAN-You’re welcome. The meeting minutes are always on line. So if you
have access, you can always get to those on line as soon as they’re available.
MR. HUNSINGER-But, yes, they aren’t posted until they’re approved.
MR. BENGLE-Yes, I assumed that.
MR. HUNSINGER-So they’re always at least a month behind.
MR. BENGLE-Right. Okay. That makes sense.
MR. TRAVER-Queensbury.net. That’s the website.
MR. BENGLE-All right. Thanks a lot. Thank you very much.
MRS. STEFFAN-And all the meetings are also noticed in the newspaper. So if you look,
usually two weeks before a Planning Board meeting, they are noticed.
MR. BENGLE-Right. Okay.
MRS. STEFFAN-You could always check the website also, because it lists the meetings
and the agendas.
MR. BENGLE-Okay, because many who couldn’t attend wanted me to ask. So I wanted
to make sure.
MRS. STEFFAN-So that’s just another way to check quickly what’s up.
MR. BENGLE-Sure. Yes, so Page Two and Three, if you could just possibly review it
and just take a look at it and consider some of that. We appreciate it. Thank you.
MR. HUNSINGER-Thank you.
MR. SIPP-Where were you when the jail was proposed? That’s the one that took the
wildlife out of there, the jail.
MR. BENGLE-Yes. Several people mentioned that to me tonight actually.
67
(Queensbury Planning Board 05/24/07)
MRS. STEFFAN-One question, Mr. Bengle, I’m just wondering why your group didn’t
come to the meeting on the MT project up the street. There was a convenience store.
I’m just curious.
MR. BENGLE-I’m not sure.
MRS. STEFFAN-It’s up near Frank’s Pizza, and there’s a convenience store that was
just approved, just a few months ago, that will be going in there. So I was just curious,
because it’s right on the same strip.
MR. BENGLE-Yes, I don’t know as much about that, but this. That should do it. Thank
you very much.
MRS. STEFFAN-Thank you.
MR. HUNSINGER-Great. Thank you.
MR. SEGULJIC-So just to clarify my overall understanding, you’re taking the existing
building and pushing it back?
MR. CRUMB-Well, we’ll be removing the existing.
MR. SEGULJIC-The area you’re developing is being pushed back?
MR. CRUMB-Yes.
MR. SEGULJIC-And you’re filling in that area it looks like up to 20 feet of fill’s going in
there.
MR. CRUMB-Correct.
MR. SEGULJIC-And you’re going to fill it all back 20 feet to level the site, build a
retaining wall, and have your stormwater management below.
MR. CRUMB-Correct.
MR. SEGULJIC-So how much further back is this new building going? Just about.
MR. MILLER-The existing building’s right about where the canopy is. The new building
is, it’s going to be, the canopy will be 75 feet, but we didn’t put a dimension on (lost
words). It’s going to be about 150 feet back to the base of the building, and 75 feet back
to the canopy. Right now the canopy is within the setback, the required 75 foot setback.
So the new canopy would be moved back to meet the setback, and the building would be
back about 150 feet.
MR. SEGULJIC-So for argument’s sake the new building’s going to be 75 feet back?
MR. MILLER-That’s just the new canopy. The canopy would be 75 foot.
MR. NACE-I think you’re asking how much further.
MR. SEGULJIC-Further back is the new building, from where it is now, just roughly.
MR. HUNSINGER-Well, I think one of the drawings shows.
MRS. STEFFAN-Yes, one of the drawings shows it.
MR. MILLER-It’s about 80 feet further back.
MR. SEGULJIC-Eighty feet.
MR. MILLER-If you look at this plan, see the light area right here, that’s the building,
okay. So that sits right there, and here’s the canopy. Right to there.
MRS. STEFFAN-Well, that’s the only way you could accommodate a drive through.
MR. NACE-Plus that gets us back to the setback, so that we have that 75 foot travel
corridor that’s required.
68
(Queensbury Planning Board 05/24/07)
MR. MILLER-So if you look at that photo that’s up there, where the building is, that will
be essentially where the new canopy will be, and, you know, and that canopy will be
pulled right back.
MR. NACE-Yes, which is really no different than any of the adjacent properties to the
north. In fact, they go much further back, and they’ve also filled a great deal, too.
MR. SEGULJIC-Now how wide is the buffer strip between the gas station, and what is it,
retail on the other side, and my question is, what’s the gas station considered?
MRS. BARDEN-There’s not a requirement between commercial and commercial. There
is one on the south side from office to commercial, but it’s commercial to the north.
MR. SEGULJIC-Okay.
MR. MILLER-As a matter of fact, the Staff had a couple of comments. They talked about
the landscape buffer along the north parking lot. We had provided some more, and they
had requested some additional, and we’ve discussed that, we’ve agreed that we’re going
to revise that and increase the landscaping in there, but there’s not a separation. We
first raised the question about the buffer to the south with it being, you know, the County
complex and all this being undeveloped, and the first indication we got, when we raised
that question, that there was no buffer required. So we were a little surprised to see that
in as a requirement. What we would like to do, I think, if that is, if indeed a buffer’s
required, one of the other comments was some additional landscaping here. What we
would like to do is increase the landscaping in that area, to have a more substantial
buffer, rather than to give up the additional space, especially, you know, the retaining
wall in here is at the lower level. We would buffer the upper level where the car traffic
would be. Some of the planting we had in here in this area was fairly low, like, two, three
feet, just a small plant bed, and we’d replace that with material that’s more of a hedge,
four to five foot high size. So some of those comments that were in there, you know, we
would agree to do, and as a matter of fact, Sean asked us to increase the landscaping. I
don’t get many clients that ask me to plant more.
MR. SIPP-What I’d like to see in this area is an opening between you and the next set of
shops there. I think for years there’s been talk of doing this, is connecting all of these
different shopping areas down to cut down on the in and out that we have to do now,
going from one to the other. This may be a beginning of that. Now to the south end, I
don’t think you need a hell of a buffer, because there’s all pine trees in there.
MR. NACE-That’s right. That’s really the jail property in there.
MR. SIPP-The only thing that was, and I don’t think it’s even there now, is there’s an old
snowmobile trail that used to come out there, because snow mobilers would come along
the bike trail, cut up where Boats By George is, come through McCormack’s woods and
exit out onto that and go right under the Northway through the drainage pipe.
MR. NACE-There’s still remnants of that trail down through there you can see.
MR. SIPP-But I would love to see you do a little talk with whoever owns that plaza there
where you’ve got those high class shops.
MR. NACE-We’ll take a much better look at that. My first look at it today, when we got
the Staff comments was, my reaction was that, because what happens, right now, the
entrance to this comes in, and there’s a parking up here, okay, and then the building,
there’s parking here and parking here, and the building starts back here and goes along
here and this is a road that goes down. The end of the existing retaining wall is right
there, and as soon as you hit that, the road starts to dive down to the lower level. So in
order to make a meaningful cross connection, it would have to be up here aligning with
this access aisle on their parking, and my first reaction was that that may be too close to
these entrances that you wouldn’t want cars coming across here when somebody is
coming in to the access point at a little higher speed, but we’ll take a much better look at
that and give you a definite answer.
MR. SIPP-Yes. There’s also a sump where, in back of whatever is in back of that
shopping area, they have an underground, they have a lower level garage.
MR. NACE-Yes, when you get back to somewhere about in here, they open up this
underground parking.
69
(Queensbury Planning Board 05/24/07)
MR. SIPP-Yes, but beyond the parking, there was an area designated as a sump for
their stormwater, back in there, just off of McCormack, well, it’s part of McCormack’s
property.
MR. NACE-Up in the back, that’s in the back of their parking lot. Correct, but at any rate,
we will take a much better look at this and see if it’s feasible or not. My first concern is
the traffic safety standpoint. If it is feasible from a traffic safety, we’ll try to work it into the
site.
MRS. STEFFAN-How long will it take this project, you know, from demolition to re-
opening?
MR. CRUMB-Well, I could give you a more definitive answer after our Clifton Park
project is done, but we were on a 100 day schedule there.
MR. HUNSINGER-Wow.
MR. CRUMB-Now this is a little bit more extensive with the fill and so forth. So I would
expect it to be a little bit longer, but we are on a relatively quick turnaround.
MRS. STEFFAN-And what time of year would you be looking to do that?
MR. CRUMB-Well, in a perfect world, we would like to start upon approval. Certainly we
need to get our building permits and get everybody in order and get bids and so forth.
So I would expect, if we got an approval sometime this summer, we’d like to start this
Fall, but again, it’s all relative to the conditions and everybody getting together and things
flowing smoothly. One thing I would like to clarify is there will not be a Subway sandwich
shop in there. We’ve decided to remove that from this site.
MRS. BRUNO-Could you potentially decrease the size of the store then?
MR. CRUMB-We’d rather not.
MRS. STEFFAN-You’ll probably find another vendor, too.
MR. CRUMB-No, actually we’re not going to have any other food service available, aside
from Dunkin Donuts, and so, no, there won’t be another vendor in there.
MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. Do we have a list of information?
MRS. STEFFAN-We just talked. The only condition I have is to answer the Vision
Engineering comments, because they were pretty extensive.
MR. HUNSINGER-Lighting, revised lighting plan.
MRS. BRUNO-Do we want to see some, the vehicular turning and everything like when
we looked at MT?
MR. CRUMB-I actually have that already prepared, but it was late, so I didn’t want to
drop that on you. That will be provided in the next submission.
MR. HUNSINGER-What about traffic, traffic analysis?
MR. CRUMB-Traffic is included in that.
MR. HUNSINGER-Okay.
MR. CRUMB-I have a copy of it if you’d like me to leave it for you. I thought so.
MRS. STEFFAN-Just by expanding the site the way you’ve proposed, I think it will help
traffic. That is a very tight site right now, and so folks, if their vehicle is too big to get in
there, they mess up the intersection.
MR. CRUMB-I will say that Creighton Manning’s report is favorable, and we did put a lot
of emphasis on that, so that if we needed to adjust things, we wanted to be aware of that
ahead of time. Things do flow smoothly.
MRS. STEFFAN-Yes, I certainly think it would improve the site. Okay. So we have
answer Vision Engineering comment, revised lighting plan, possible interconnect.
70
(Queensbury Planning Board 05/24/07)
MRS. BARDEN-Can I just mention something on the lighting plan? Because I don’t think
it was mentioned before, but it’s a pretty important point. That the fixtures are not
compliant. You’re showing the bulb that hangs down. It needs to be a flat lens cut off.
That’s a requirement.
MR. MILLER-I think we can get that style of light with the recessed. I think there’s like an
extension that extends that, that would cover that.
MRS. BARDEN-The canopy and the pole lights.
MRS. STEFFAN-Okay. Possible interconnection and traffic analysis.
thth
MR. HUNSINGER-July 17, again? The 24?
MR. NACE-Could we, for our own edification, get a copy of the comments that were just
dropped off by the?
MR. HUNSINGER-Sure.
MRS. BARDEN-Sure.
MRS. STEFFAN-How’s everybody feeling about the design that was presented? Any
recommendations?
MR. HUNSINGER-It’s always hard to tell on the computer printout because the colors
aren’t true. Every printer’s different.
MRS. BARDEN-Do you have some like real world sites that you can supply, possibly?
MR. CRUMB-Well, I can provide photos of the outline of the building. However the other
buildings we have are done in split block masonry. I will provide you samples of all the
exterior materials for the next meeting, samples of the brick and the colors used, as well
as the screening and so forth.
MRS. STEFFAN-Will you have an actual picture of the split block masonry?
MR. CRUMB-Yes, I will.
MRS. BRUNO-I’ll reserve my initial reactions until we get to see that.
MR. CRUMB-Okay.
MRS. STEFFAN-Okay.
MOTION TO TABLE SITE PLAN NO. 22-2007 JOLLEY ASSOCIATES, Introduced by
Gretchen Steffan who moved for its adoption, seconded by Tanya Bruno:
th
We would like to table this to the July 17 Planning Board meeting, and that will require a
th
submission of materials by June 15. We’d like to table this so that the applicant can
come back with answers to the Vision Engineering comments. So that the applicant can
provide a revised lighting plan with compliant lighting, and that the applicant can come
back with possible interconnection options, and a traffic analysis.
th
Duly adopted this 24 day of May, 2007, by the following vote:
AYES: Mr. Traver, Mr. Seguljic, Mr. Sipp, Mrs. Bruno, Mrs. Steffan, Mr. Hunsinger
NOES: NONE
ABSENT: Mr. Ford
MR. HUNSINGER-Thank you.
MR. CRUMB-Thank you.
MRS. STEFFAN-Thanks. Good night.
MR. HUNSINGER-Thanks for your patience.
71
(Queensbury Planning Board 05/24/07)
MOTION TO ADJOURN THE QUEENSBURY PLANNING BOARD MEETING OF MAY
24, 2007, Introduced by Chris Hunsinger who moved for its adoption, seconded by
Thomas Seguljic:
th
Duly adopted this 24 day of May, 2007, by the following vote:
AYES: Mr. Traver, Mrs. Bruno, Mrs. Steffan, Mr. Sipp, Mr. Seguljic, Mr. Hunsinger
NOES: NONE
ABSENT: Mr. Ford
MR. SIPP-I would like to say, a job well done to Susan. I would like to say, on my behalf,
that a job has been well done by Susan. We’re going to miss you.
MR. HUNSINGER-Yes, thank you, Susan.
MRS. BARDEN-Thank you, so much.
MR. SEGULJIC-Thank you so much, and good luck.
MR. HUNSINGER-Good luck.
MRS. BARDEN-I appreciate it. Thank you.
On motion meeting was adjourned.
RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED,
Chris Hunsinger, Chairman
72