2009.07.07
(Queensbury Planning Board 07/07/09)
QUEENSBURY PLANNING BOARD MEETING
SPECIAL MEETING
JULY 7, 2009
INDEX
Subdivision No. 8-2008 Christine Mozal 1.
PRELIMINARY/FINAL STAGE Tax Map No. 289.14-1-27
Site Plan No. 39-2009 Redbud Development 7.
Tax Map No. 296.9-1-10
Site Plan No. 40-2009 Scott Smith 14.
Freshwater Wetlands 6-2009 Tax Map No. 266-3-1-8
Subdivision No. 5-2009 Michael & Christina Breda 22.
SKETCH/PRELIM/FINAL STAGE Tax Map No. 301.8-1-30
Site Plan No. 41-2009 Michael & Christina Breda 29.
Tax Map No. 301.8-1-30
Subdivision No. 6-2009 Linda Dator 36.
SKETCH PLAN Tax Map No. 240.5-1-30
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 07/07/09)
QUEENSBURY PLANNING BOARD MEETING
SPECIAL MEETING
JULY 7, 2009
7:00 P.M.
MEMBERS PRESENT
GRETCHEN STEFFAN, ACTING CHAIRMAN
THOMAS SEGULJIC, VICE-CHAIRMAN
DONALD KREBS, MEMBER
STEPHEN TRAVER, MEMBER
DONALD SIPP, MEMBER
PAUL SCHONEWOLF, ALTERNATE
STEVEN JACKOSKI, ALTERNATE
LAND USE PLANNER-KEITH OBORNE
TOWN ENGINEER-VISION ENGINEERING-DAN RYAN
STENOGRAPHER-SUE HEMINGWAY
th
MRS. STEFFAN: Good evening folks. I’d like to call to order the July 7 special
meeting of the Queensbury Planning Board. I’d like to remind everybody if you have a
cell phone it needs to be on vibrate please and if you have to take a call please do so out
in the lobby. The first item on the agenda is Christine Mozal Subdivision 8-2008
Preliminary and Final stage review.
SUBDIVISION NO. 8-2008 PRELIMINARY/FINAL STAGES SEQR UNLISTED
CHRISTINE MOZAL AGENT(S) VAN DUSEN & STEVES; M. O’CONNOR ZONING
WR-1A, WR-3A LOCATION 99 FITZGERALD ROAD APPLICANT PROPOSES
SUBDIVISION OF A 3.42 ACRE PARCEL INTO TWO LOTS OF 1.0 & 2.42 ACRES.
SUBDIVISION OF LAND REQUIRES PLANNING BOARD REVIEW AND APPROVAL.
CROSS REFERENCE AV 77-98, SP 34-91, AV 70-08 WARREN CO. PLANNING N/A
APA/DEC/CEA/NWI GLEN LK CEA, NWI WETLANDS LOT SIZE 3.42 +/- ACRES
TAX MAP NO. 289.14-1-27 SECTION A-183
MICHAEL O’CONNOR, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT
MR. O’CONNOR: Good evening, for purpose of your record I’m Michael O’Connor
representing the applicant and with me is Tom Hutchins who is the applicant’s project
engineer and also with me at the table is Christine Mozal. We have seen the latest letter
from Vision Engineering and believe the only issue that they left open was the question
of the location of the well and we have had the site visited by Rosick well drillers and
they have sent an e-mail saying they can access that site and that they can put a well in
on where we show it on our mapping. There was a question I think also whether or not
we had filed the letter from DEC as to protected habitat and we have filed it now so it is
in the file I believe so there should be no issue on that.
MRS. STEFFAN: Keith you have a copy of that.
MR. OBORNE: Yes.
MRS. STEFFAN: Okay.
MR. O’CONNOR: The other question I had a question not necessarily from what the
engineering comment was more as to the staff comments and that had to do with the
resolution that tabled this and I would even before refer to that comment again thank you
on behalf of the applicant for convening a special meeting not necessarily just for her but
it certainly was a great convenience to her to have you do this. The language that you
had in your tabling resolution I think needs to be clarified so that we all understand what
we were attempting to do and the language I’m referring to is No. 1 that the applicant can
add a plat notation that site plan review will be required for any exterior alteration to the
existing structure and/or the building of a single family dwelling. My comments as to
that were related to whether we would add some deck or something of that nature to the
building. Obviously we are going to change the exterior of the building on one side I
think there a three car garage doors and we convert this to a single family home we’re
not going to leave those doors as that so there is going to be some filling in, there may
some changing of windows, there will no expansion and that’s what I meant is that we
would not expand the footprint of the existing building unless we came back for site plan
1
(Queensbury Planning Board 07/07/09)
review. I just wanted to see if that was what you understood me to say and I suppose
even since I thought of that I’m not sure the elevation of the door step and if it’s over a
certain number of inches you now have to have a 3 foot by 3 foot stoop or step to step
on. So that’s a possibility. But I think its pretty well level with the ground, isn’t it? So we
may not have to do that but I know I’ve run in to that before remember with the cabins at
Takundewide we got area variances and site plan approval and everything else and then
when they went to get building permits they were told unless they were ground level they
had to have a stoop by building code. So that stoop is the only exterior thing that we
believe that we would be talking about and the second part of the language was and/or
the building of a single family dwelling. If you meant in addition to this existing building
certainly there’s no plans on doing that. But I didn’t know if you were saying we needed
that to convert the inside of the building to single family and we don’t think that would
have any site plan impacts so I just wanted to be clear and I would suggest this language
site plan review will be required for any exterior expansion of the existing structure or the
building of a separate single family dwelling. We haven’t given you copies of that but I’ll
give you copies if you want to pass it so you can read it as well as hear me say it and
see if you have a problem with it.
MRS. STEFFAN: My recollection on this I think we were trying to accomplish a couple of
things there and so I understand the clarification on the language because it is a little
muddy from my point of view.
MR. O’CONNOR: I just don’t want to get into the position with staff where we go to do
something and staff says you have to come back.
MRS. STEFFAN: Right and I don’t have the minutes here but one of the things I was
thinking about is that I recollect that the discussion was that if you did interior changes
we didn’t want you to have to come back for site plan review but if you did things on the
exterior yes but.
MR. O’CONNOR: But when you say on the exterior you mean in addition to the exterior
that’s what my point is.
MRS. STEFFAN: Right if you change the configuration of the building.
MR. O’CONNOR: We have no problem with that.
MR. OBORNE: If I may I think expansion is what you’re looking at. If you’re going to add
a deck you’re probably going to want to come in for site plan review. If you’re going to
change.
MR. O’CONNOR: I’d challenge your language we would want to come in, we will come
in.
MR. OBORNE: And I can appreciate that but if you’re going to change your siding you
don’t need to that. If you do anything on the interior well no unless you’re going to add
another bedroom that is you know doesn’t make the wastewater system compliant.
That a whole other issue, that is a building code issue.
MR. O’CONNOR: That’s the whole purpose of my request to clarify.
MR. OBORNE: Any expansion, yes.
MR. O’CONNOR. The only exception I would have is if they make us do this 2 foot by 3
foot stoop, if we have to put a step to get into the building to make it code compliant I
would ask that that be considered not an expansion of the building.
MR. OBORNE: The Planning Board can’t do that.
MR. O’CONNOR: Okay but the Planning Board can make their resolution of approval
not conditioned upon us coming for site plan review for that, there is no other
requirement for site plan if we.
MR. OBORNE: Is there an issue with that do you believe?
MR. O’CONNOR: I haven’t been to the building in awhile and I’ve, it’s not a big issue.
2
(Queensbury Planning Board 07/07/09)
MRS. STEFFAN: Any other comments from the Planning Board or any comments from
the Planning Board or any questions from the PB. Is there anybody in the audience that
would like to speak to this application? I guess not, okay.
PUBLIC HEARING OPENED
MRS. STEFFAN: And I believe this is a SEQR long form?
MR. OBORNE. This is a SEQR for, this is the subdivision, so, yes, the long form.
Excuse me, ma’am, it’s an unlisted SEQR.
MRS. STEFFAN: Right, Unlisted. Excuse me, I forgot the other hat that I was wearing.
MR. OBORNE: A point of clarification, it is an unlisted SEQR but it is under the
auspicious of the long form. Does that make sense?
MRS. STEFFAN: Yes
MR. O’CONNOR: Because it’s in the CEA, because part of it’s in the CEA?
MR. OBORNE: Yes
MRS. STEFFAN: Yes, a long form was submitted according to my notes. Okay since
there is no one to speak to this application I will close the public hearing. And we will
commence SEQR. Will the proposed action result in a physical change to the project
site?
MR. SIPP-No.
MRS. STEFFAN- Will there be an effect to any unique or unusual land forms found
on the site?
MR. TRAVER-No.
MRS. STEFFAN-Will the proposed action affect any water body designated as
protected?
MR. SEGULJIC-No.
MRS. STEFFAN-Will the proposed action affect any non-protected existing or new body
of water?
MR. SIPP-No.
MRS. STEFFAN-Will the proposed action affect surface or groundwater quality or
quantity?
MR. SEGULJIC-No.
MRS. STEFFAN-Will the proposed action alter drainage flow or patterns, or surface
water runoff?
MR. TRAVER-No.
MRS. STEFFAN-Will the proposed action affect air quality?
MR. SIPP-No.
MRS. STEFFAN-Will the proposed action affect any threatened or endangered species?
MR. SEGULJIC-No.
MRS. STEFFAN-Will the proposed action substantially affect non-threatened or non-
endangered species?
MR. SIPP-No.
MRS. STEFFAN-Will the proposed action affect agricultural land resources?
3
(Queensbury Planning Board 07/07/09)
MR. TRAVER-No.
MRS. STEFFAN-Will the proposed action affect aesthetic resources?
MR. SIPP-No.
MRS. STEFFAN-Will the proposed action impact any site or structure of historic, pre-
historic or paleontological importance?
MR. SEGULJIC-No.
MRS. STEFFAN-Will the proposed action affect the quantity or quality of existing or
future open spaces or recreational opportunities?
MR. SIPP-No.
MRS. STEFFAN-Will the proposed action impact the exceptional or unique
characteristics of a critical environmental area?
MR. TRAVER-No.
MRS. STEFFAN-Will there be an effect to existing transportation systems?
MR. SEGULJIC-No.
MRS. STEFFAN-Will proposed action affect the community’s sources of fuel or energy
supply?
MR. SIPP-No.
MRS. STEFFAN-Will there be objectionable odors, noise, or vibration as a result of
the proposed action?
MR. TRAVER-No.
MRS. STEFFAN-Will the proposed action affect public health and safety?
MR. SEGULJIC-No.
MRS. STEFFAN-Will the proposed action affect the character of the existing community?
MR. TRAVER-No.
MRS. STEFFAN-And is there, or is there likely to be, public controversy related to
potential adverse environmental impacts?
MR. SIPP-No.
MRS. STEFFAN-Then I’ll make a motion for a Negative SEQRA declaration.
PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED
RESOLUTION WHEN DETERMINATION OF NO SIGNIFICANCE IS MADE
RESOLUTION NO. 8-2008, Introduced Gretchen Steffan by who moved for its adoption,
seconded by Donald Sipp :
WHEREAS, there is presently before the Planning Board an application for: CHRISTINE
MOZAL, 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
4
(Queensbury Planning Board 07/07/09)
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 7 day of July, 2009, by the following vote:
AYES: Mr. Krebs, Mr. Traver, Mr. Sipp, Mr. Schonewolf, Mr. Jackoski, Mrs. Steffan
NOES: NONE
ABSENT: Mr. Seguljic
MRS. STEFFAN : Then I will make a motion to approve preliminary stage subdivision 8-
2008 for Christine Mozal according to the resolution as prepared by staff
RESOLUTION TO APPROVE PRELIMINARY STAGE FOR SUBDIVISION 8-2008
CHRISTINE MOZAL
1.A subdivision application has been made to the Queensbury Planning Board for
the following; Applicant proposes subdivision of a 3.42 acre parcel into two lots of
1.0 & 2.42 acres. Subdivision of land requires Planning Board review and
approval.
2.A public hearing was scheduled and held on 5/28/09; and
3.This application is supported with all documentation, public comment and
application material in the file of record; and
4.MOTION TO APPROVE PRELIMINARY STAGE FOR SUBDIVISION 8-2008
CHRISTINE MOZAL, Introduced by Gretchen Steffan who moved its adoption,
seconded by Donald
According to the resolution prepared by staff.
Duly adopted this 7th day of July 2009, by the following vote:
AYES: Mr. Traver, Mr. Sipp, Mr. Jackoski, Mr. Schonewolf, Mr. Krebs, Mrs.
Steffan
NOES: None
ABSENT: Mr. Seguljic
MRS. STEFFAN: I’ll make a motion to approve final stage subdivision 8-2008 for
Christine Mozal according to the resolution as prepared by staff.
RESOLUTION APPROVING FINAL STAGE SUBDIVISION 8-2008 CHRISTINE MOZAL
1. A subdivision application has been made to the Queensbury Planning Board for
the following; Applicant proposes subdivision of a 3.42 acre parcel into two lots of
1.0 & 2.42 acres. Subdivision of land requires Planning Board review and
approval.
2. A public hearing was scheduled and held on 5/28/09; and
3. This application is supported with all documentation, public comment and
application material in the file of record; and
5
(Queensbury Planning Board 07/07/09)
4. MOTION TO APPROVE FINAL STAGE SUBDIVISION NO. 8-2008, CHRISTINE
MOZAL, Introduced by Gretchen Steffan who moved for its adoption, seconded
by Paul Schonewolf
Paragraph 4A complies, 4B Negative, Paragraph 4E & F do not apply. This is
approved with the following conditions:
1.That the plat notation that was noted in our previous resolution
[read into the record]. That language will be replaced with Site
Plan will be required for any exterior expansion of the existing
structure or the building of a separate single family dwelling.
2.Also, the applicant will need to submit the letter from Rosick Well
Drillers that can access the site and can put in a well on the site
and that will be submitted to our staff.
a)Pursuant to relevant sections of the Town of Queensbury Zoning Code [Chapter
A-183], the Planning Board has determined that this proposal complies with the
requirements as stated in the Zoning Code; and
b)The requirements of the State Environmental Quality Review Act have been
considered and the Planning Board has adopted a SEQRA Negative Declaration;
and
c)Final approved plans, in compliance with the Subdivision, must be submitted to
the Community Development Department before any further review by the Zoning
Administrator or Building and Codes personnel. The applicant must meet with
Staff after approval and prior to issuance of Building Permit and/or the beginning
of any site work. Subsequent issuance of further permits, including building
permits is dependent on compliance with this and all other conditions of this
resolution; and
d)As-built plans to certify that each lot in the subdivision is developed according to
the approved plans to be provided prior to issuance of the certificate of
occupancy; and
e)NOT APPLICABLE. If applicable, Item d to be combined with a letter of credit;
and
f)NOT APPLICABLE. The Sanitary Sewer connection plan must be submitted to
the Wastewater Department for its review, approval, permitting and inspection;
and
g)The limits of clearing will constitute a no-cut buffer zone, orange construction
fencing shall be installed around these areas and field verified by Community
Development staff
h)Engineering sign-off required prior to signature of Planning Board Chairman.
Duly adopted this 7th day of July 2009, by the following vote:
AYES: Mr. Traver, Mr. Krebs, Mr. Sipp, Mr. Jackoski, Mr. Schonewolf, Mrs.
Steffan
NOES: None
ABSENT: Mr. Seguljic
MR. O’CONNOR: We thank you very much.
MS. MOZAL: Thank you.
MRS. STEFFAN: Good luck with your project.
MR. O’CONNOR: If you’re not going to use the maps we’d like to collect them.
MRS. STEFFAN: Okay folks the next item on the agenda is Redbud Development Site
Plan 39-2009.
6
(Queensbury Planning Board 07/07/09)
SITE PLAN NO. 39-2009 SEQR TYPE UNLISTED REDBUD DEVELOPMENT
AGENT(S) GEFF REDICK OWNER(S) DONNA SUTTON ZONING HC-MOD [NOW
CM] LOCATION 1066 ROUTE 9 APPLICANT PROPOSES CONSTRUCTION OF A
1,187 SQUARE FEET PATIO RETAIL AREA. EXPANSION OF A RETAIL UES IN THE
HC-MOD ZONE REQUIRES PLANNING BOARD REVIEW AND APPROVAL.
SUBJECT TO 2009 ORDINANCE. CROSS REFERENCE SP 42-07, SP 15-05
WARREN CO. PLANNING 6/10/09 LOT SIZE 6.98, 1.02 +/- ACRES TAX MAP NO.
296.9-1-10 SECTION 179-9-010
GEFF REDICK & ERIC ROSETTI, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT
MR. OBORNE: Ma’am, I’ll read this into the record.
MRS. STEFFAN: This is the first time we’ve seen this so Keith can you preview this for
us?
MR. OBORNE: Site Plan 39-2009, Red Bud Development for Suttons. Requested
Action, expansion of a retail use in the HC Mod zone requires Planning Board review,
subject to the 2009 Ordinance. Location 1066 Route 9. SEQRA Status is Unlisted.
Project Description: Applicant proposes construction of 1,187 square feet of patio retail
area. Expansion of a Retail Use in the HC-Mod zone requires Planning Board review and
approval. Staff Comments: Site Plan 42-2007, which is similar to this proposal, was
approved with conditions on August 21, 2007 (see attached). The removal of a fire pit
and a change to storm water controls appear to be the differences. The applicant did not
begin the project within the one year required time frame and as such the approval has
lapsed. The current proposal calls for the addition of approximately 1,190 square feet of
patio to the front of the furniture store to be used for outdoor retail display. The patio,
according to the applicant, will utilize porous pavers to collect runoff to infiltration
trenches installed below grade. Patio details to include infiltration trenches are located in
the Engineering Report for Storm Water Management dated April 13, 2009 and revised
May 12, 2009. Plan review follows, and I’ll just go over those real quick. Utility locations
not noted on plan. Please clarify location of gas, electric, water and sewer on plot plan.
The proposal appears to remove a portion of the existing landscaping. Please clarify any
proposed replacement landscaping, and I’d turn it over to the Board.
MRS. STEFFAN: Can you please introduce yourselves?
MR. ROSETTI: I’m Eric Rosetti, I’m with Redbud Development and along with me is
Geff Reddick from Redbud Development also.
MRS. STEFFAN: And could you explain your project in a little more detail?
MR. ROSETTI: Essentially what we’re trying to do is create a project for Sutton’s to
expand their retail space so they can have some a display area for outdoor furniture and
things of that nature. The initial approval was based on stormwater controls utilizing dry
wells and subsurface drainage to those dry wells. We were trying to figure out
alternative routes and alternative methods to decrease costs to our client. We came up
with the use of permeable pavers which utilize underground infiltration trenches which is
specified in our engineering report.
MRS. STEFFAN: Planning Board members what questions do you have for the
applicant?
MR. TRAVER: Can you clarify the issue of the landscaping, how the landscaping has
been altered from your original proposal in 2007.
MR. ROSETTI: Yes, I’ve actually got plans if you’d all like a copy to see the new
landscaping that got left off of the submitted drawing, if that helps.
MRS. STEFFAN: Is the purpose of this new area to replace the outdoor patio area that
exists, they’re currently at the furniture building right now if you’re standing in front of the
building over to the right there are a lot of patio furniture.
MR. ROSETTI: No this is actually in addition and we’re trying to also enhance the
appearance of the front of the building because right now it’s, that area is just grass and
there is minor landscaping along the foundation of the building. The area to the left
where is says existing concrete walk, just to the right of that there are existing plantings
7
(Queensbury Planning Board 07/07/09)
and there is a vacant spot, we weren’t planning on replacing any of the plantings there.
Only the additional plantings on the plan that you see here.
MR. SIPP: When you say existing maples are these red maple or sugar maple or
MR. ROSETTI: I believe they are sugar maples and what they are for the project they
have to be shifted forward approximately three to five feet just to get outside of our patio
area so we’re essentially just going to dig a trench, pull them forward, and then reinstall
them.
MR. SIPP: If they are sugar maple are affected by salt so, if salt is going to be used on
the parking lot you’re going to have some problems, red maple is not
MR. ROSETTI: I believe we’ve got a decent distance between the parking lot and where
the trees
MR. SCHONEWOLF : You’re a ways from the road aren’t you?
MR. ROSETTI: Yes, I think he’s referring to the parking lot itself, but I think we’ve got
approximately 10 or 12 feet off the parking lot.
MR. SIPP: Okay.
MR. SCHONEWOLF: So the gravel parking stays where it is?
MR. ROSETTI: Yes, we are not doing anything with the gravel parking.
MR. SCHONEWOLF: Any runoff from the clothing store?
MR. ROSETTI: I don’t believe we, we’re not touching any of the parking lots so I’m not
actually sure exactly what you’re referring to.
MR. KREBS: How high are those timbers? It says existing timbers along the parking
lot?
MR. ROSETTI: I believe there is just one timber bordering the parking lot.
MR. KREBS: I was just thinking about water from parking lot to go into the lawn area.
MR. ROSETTI: Yes, I’ve got a catalog here with the permeable pavers in it if anyone is
interested in seeing those as well.
MRS. STEFFAN: I think fortunately we’re familiar with the pavers because we just had a
project come through with using pavers.
MR. ROSETTI: Okay.
MR. JACKOSKI: Now is that pavers or permeable pavers?
MRS. STEFFAN: They were permeable pavers cause we were in an area where there
was a lot of sheet flow runoff and so we were dissecting them actually, not just
evaluating, but dissecting the project. Any other questions from the Planning Board?
MR. SIPP: You’re going to remove the barbecue, that’s going to be removed.
MR. ROSETTI: The outdoor barbecue is going to remain, that is actually a feature that
they are retailing.
MR. OBORNE: It’s a fire pit, that’s being removed.
MR. SCHONEWOLF: The fire pit’s being removed, the barbecue is stays.
MR. OBORNE: Yes.
MR. SIPP: In the original 2007 site plan review there was a question of light spillage or
excess light. Has this been taken care of?
MR. ROSETTI: That has been resolved, yes. I guess I didn’t touch on the utility
location. The utility locations currently run if you’re facing the plan there on the left side
8
(Queensbury Planning Board 07/07/09)
and they run behind the store and restaurant portion of the building and then they cut
around and tie in to the left side of the sales building on the plan.
MR. OBORNE: Are they on the plans?
MR. ROSETTI: I believe the water line is on there, I added the gas line on to my.
MR. OBORNE: On the final submission, if I may speak here, just make sure you get
those on there, locate them on the final plans.
MR. ROSETTI: Okay, no problem.
MR. OBORNE: Along with the landscaping you’re proposing.
MR. ROSETTI: Yes, okay.
MRS. STEFFAN: Any further questions from the board at this time? Is there anyone in
the audience who would like to speak to this application?
PUBLIC HEARING OPEN
MRS. STEFFAN: Could you give up the table, we’d like to open up the public hearing.
Ma'am, and if you could introduce yourself, your name and address.
LISA FARNUM
MS. FARNUM: My name is Lisa Farnum and I live at 18 Twicwood Lane which is
beeline right behind this project. I love Sutton’s, great people, class A company,
however, as far as being a neighbor is concerned I have had issues in the past and I’m
wondering how the new activity there and the building there is going to affect the buffer
zone behind the building. I know a lot of those trees have already come down. There is
still a buffer between my property and this property I’d like to see it remain intact. I’ve
also had problems in the past because of trucks being parked overnight with the
headlights on pointing into my bedroom window. Dumpsters being emptied out at 5- 6 in
the morning, you know they lift up the dumpsters and bang them against the truck. So
I’m concerned about those sorts of issues, but also anything that might affect my
property value.
MRS. STEFFAN: Okay, any questions? There is a driveway that goes up beyond
behind that building. Oh gosh I can’t see that. The reason I’m asking that question is if
you have lights that are coming into your home are they from the parking lot in front of
the furniture store?
MS. FARNUM: No, they’re on the side of well the last photo that was up there shows
sort of the end of the building there where the, right behind that so there have been 18
wheelers parked over there like overnight I guess the drivers are sleeping or whatever. It
hasn’t been for a few months now but if there is going to be increased activity there then
I would have those same concerns again, but I, okay you see the trees to the right of the
building there, if you go straight back, oh wait, is that the Toy Cottage?
MRS. STEFFAN: Behind the furniture store toward Cottage
MS. FARNUM: So I’m looking at it this the wrong way. I’m talking about if you’re looking
at Sutton’s, my property is right behind the space there between the Toy Cottage and
where this patio is. I’m right back there.
MRS. STEFFAN: Okay, so the truck is pulled in with their lights at the bank but that
shoots at your house.
MS. FARNUM: There is somewhat of a buffer now, there’s still trees there, there is
somewhat of a visual buffer that serves also to buffer noise, but I’ve noticed that some of
that has come down next door to me and I’m concerned that that all will be taken down.
MRS. STEFFAN: Okay, thank you very much, Mrs. Farnum. Is there anyone else who
would like to speak to this application?
LINDA MCNULTY
9
(Queensbury Planning Board 07/07/09)
MRS. MC NULTY: Twicwood Lane, um, we’re also behind Sutton’s Marketplace and we
have experienced over the last several years an immense amount of vegetation being
taken down, I know that when the Town went through in 1987 and rezoned the property
behind us which at that time was residential to Highway Commercial they left us with a
50 foot buffer. That’s totally inadequate, I really hate to see anymore of the trees come
down. There is more than 50 feet behind us but they did go ahead and they did extreme
clearing behind two neighbors down from us, they did have to replant, however, the
plantings I think were about 4 foot tall cedars which doesn’t make a hoot of difference. I
really would like to see more supervision I guess on the project. I’m not really in favor of
it seeing as how they’ve gone ahead and done some clearing but there is not too much
we can.
MR. KREBS: Linda, have they cleared anything in that 50 foot buffer?
MRS. MC NULTY: Yes they did, two doors down, well actually three doors down from
where our house is.
MRS. STEFFAN : And I’m assuming the town made them
MRS. MC NULTY; Replant, however, like I said, they’re about three to four foot tall
cedars from the looks, from what we can see.
MRS. STEFFAN : Okay, any questions? Thank you Mrs. McNulty. Is there anyone else
in the public who would like to speak to this application? Okay Geoff and Erik, if you’d
like to come back up to the table please.
PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED
MRS. STEFFAN: Perhaps you could address the buffer situation and tell us a little bit
about the history and bring us up to date.
MR. ROSETTI: The buffer area really is not been anything that we’ve been involved
with. We’ve really just focused on the front of the building. If you have a frontal shot I
can maybe show a little bit better where our project is, but we do not intend to do any
work out behind Sutton’s. Essentially if you see where the two pillars come down that
area of grass there is where we intend to build this patio and in all actuality when you
think about how big the furniture is the amount of volume that I think they’re going to be
setting there is not tremendous. And that’s really the extent of our project. We don’t
intend to do anymore clear cutting or cutting in the back behind the building. Our project
will not affect any of the buffer area.
MR. OBORNE: Ma’am, I did have a conversation with Bruce Frank, Code Compliance
Officer, and we did discuss those buffer clearing that took place and Ms. McNulty had
touched on that and the trees were planted at his request or his demand actually so they
will grow eventually obviously, not large enough probably but the issue seems to have
been not necessarily resolved but at least mitigated at this point. Code Compliance is
aware of that, these guys, and again, I’m not, you know, on anybody’s side here are
doing work in the front that really does not affect anybody.
MRS. STEFFAN: Thank you for that input, that at least clears up the Town’s oversight,
obviously.
MR. OBORNE: And I will say Code Compliance will be out to make sure that it’s done
correctly once and if its approved.
MRS. STEFFAN: How would the Board like to proceed? Mr. Traver?
MR. TRAVER: I think they’ve addressed my concerns.
MRS. STEFFAN: Mr. Krebs?
MR. KREBS: Yes, I’ve, you know, I understand their concern in the back but this is
something that is being done totally in front of the building and doesn’t affect that buffer
at all.
MRS. STEFFAN: Mr. Sipp?
MR. SIPP: If the lighting is sufficient , taken care of and the landscaping looks good. I’d
proceed, I think.
10
(Queensbury Planning Board 07/07/09)
MRS. STEFFAN: Okay. Mr. Schonewolf?
MR. SCHONEWOLF: I have no problems with it.
MRS. STEFFAN: Mr. Jackoski?
MR. JACKOSKI: I have no questions.
MRS. STEFFAN: Then I will close the public hearing. And this is an Unlisted Short.
“Does the action exceed any Type I threshold in 6 NYCRR Part 617.4?”
MR. TRAVER-No.
MR. KREBS-No.
MRS. STEFFAN-“Will the action receive coordinated review as provided for Unlisted
Actions in 6 NYCRR, Part 617.6?”
MR. TRAVER-No.
MR. SIPP-No.
MRS. STEFFAN-“Could the action result in any adverse effects associated with the
following: C1. Existing air quality, surface or ground water quality or quantity, noise
levels, existing traffic patterns, solid waste production or disposal, potential for erosion,
drainage or flooding problems?”
MR. TRAVER-No.
MR. KREBS-No.
MRS. STEFFAN-“C2. Aesthetic, agricultural, historic, or other natural or cultural
resources; or community or neighborhood character?”
MR. KREBS-No.
MR. TRAVER-No.
MRS. STEFFAN-“C3. Vegetation, fauna, fish, shellfish or wildlife species, significant
habitats, or threatened or endangered species?”
MR. TRAVER-No.
MR. SIPP-No.
MRS. STEFFAN-“C4. A community’s existing plans or goals as officially adopted, or a
change in use or intensity of use of land or other natural resources?”
MR. KREBS-No.
MR. TRAVER-No.
MRS. STEFFAN-“C5. Growth, subsequent development or related activities likely to be
induced by the proposed action?”
MR. KREBS-No.
MR. SIPP-No.
MRS. STEFFAN-“C6. Long term, short term, cumulative or other effects not identified
above?”
MR. TRAVER-No.
MR. SIPP-No.
MRS. STEFFAN-“C7. Other impacts (including changes in use of either quantity or
energy)?”
11
(Queensbury Planning Board 07/07/09)
MR. KREBS-No.
MR. SIPP-No.
MRS. STEFFAN-“Will the project have an impact on the environmental characteristics
that caused the establishment of a Critical Environmental Area?”
MR. SIPP-No.
MR. KREBS-No.
MR. TRAVER-No.
MRS. STEFFAN-“Is there or is there likely to be controversy related to potential adverse
environmental impacts?”
MR. KREBS-No.
MR. SIPP-No.
MRS. STEFFAN-Then I’ll make a motion for a negative declaration.
RESOLUTION WHEN DETERMINATION OF NO SIGNIFICANCE IS MADE
RESOLUTION NO. 39-2009, Introduced by Gretchen Steffan who moved for its
adoption, seconded by Donald Sipp:
WHEREAS, there is presently before the Planning Board an application for:
REDBUD DEVELOPMENT FOR SUTTONS, 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.
Duly adopted this 7th day of, July, 2009, by the following vote:
AYES: Mr. Traver, Mr. Krebs, Mr. Schonewolf, Mr. Jackowski, Mr. Sipp, Mrs. Steffan
NOES: NONE
ABSENT: Mr. Seguljic
MRS. STEFFAN: Now we need a motion for this. Mr. Krebs and Mr. Traver could you
put together a motion, just take a few minutes and put together a motion on this one.
12
(Queensbury Planning Board 07/07/09)
MR. KREBS: Sure.
RESOLUTION APPROVING SITE PLAN 39-2009 REDBUD DEVELOPMENT FOR
SUTTON’S
RESOLUTION: SP 39-2009
INTRODUCED BY: Stephen Traver
WHO MOVED ITS ADOPTION
SECONDED BY: Steven Jackoski
1)A site plan application has been made to the Queensbury Planning Board for the
following: Applicant proposes construction of 1,187 square feet of patio retail
area. Expansion of a Retail Use in the HC-Mod zone requires Planning Board
review and approval. Subject to 2009 Ordinance.
2)A public hearing was advertised and held on 7/7/09; and
3)This application is supported with all documentation, public comment and
application material in the file of record;
4)MOTION TO APPROVE SITE PLAN NO. 39-2009 REDBUD DEVELOPMENT
FOR SUTTON’S, Introduced by Stephen Traver who moved for its adoption,
seconded by Steven Jackoski:
According to the resolution prepared by staff. Paragraph 4a complies.
Paragraph 4b is a negative declaration. This approval is made with the following
conditions:
1.That as part of the final submission that the landscaping details
be added
2.The location of the utilities be placed on the final drawing.
b)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
c)The requirements of the State Environmental Quality Review Act have
been considered and the Planning Board has adopted a SEQRA Negative
Declaration; and if the application is a modification, the requirements of
the State Environmental Quality Review Act have been considered, and
the proposed modification[s] do not result in any new or significantly
different environmental impacts, and, therefore, no further SEQRA review
is necessary; and
d)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. The applicant
must meet with Staff after approval and prior to issuance of Building
Permit and/or the beginning of any site work. Subsequent issuance of
further permits, including building permits is dependent on compliance
with this and all other conditions of this resolution; and
e)As-built plans to certify that the site plan is developed according to the
approved plans to be provided prior to issuance of the certificate of
occupancy; and
f)NOT APPLICABLE. If applicable, Item d to be combined with a letter of
credit; and
g)NOT APPLICABLE. The Sanitary Sewer connection plan must be
submitted to the Wastewater Department for its review, approval,
permitting and inspection; and
h)Waiver requests granted / denied: stormwater mgmt., grading,
landscaping & lighting plans]
13
(Queensbury Planning Board 07/07/09)
i)The limits of clearing will constitute a no-cut buffer zone, orange
construction fencing shall be installed around these areas and field
verified by Community Development staff
j)Engineering sign-off required prior to signature of Zoning Administrator.
k)The applicant shall submit a copy of a NOI [Notice of Intent] SWPPP
[Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan] & NOT [Notice of Termination] -
see staff
l)The applicant shall submit a copy of a NYS SPDES [State Pollution
Discharge Elimination System]
th
Duly adopted this 7 day of July 2009, by the following vote:
AYES: Mr. Sipp, Mr. Schonewolf, Mr. Krebs, Mr. Jackoski, Mr. Traver, Mrs. Steffan
NOES: None
ABSENT: Mr. Seguljic
MRS. STEFFAN: And I just to note for the record that we appreciate Bruce Frank
following up on this project and we would encourage his follow up on the site plan review
and development of plan. Thank you very much. Good luck with your project.
MRS. STEFFAN: Okay the next item on the agenda is Scott Smith, Site Plan 40-2009. &
Freshwater Wetlands Permit 6-2009 for the Queensbury Country Club.
SITE PLAN NO. 40-2009 FRESHWATER WETLANDS 6-2009 SEQR TYPE
UNLISTED SCOTT SMITH AGENT(S) JARRETT ENGINEERS OWNER(S)
QUEENSBURY COUNTRY CLUB ZONING NC-1A LOCATION 907 ROUTE 197
APPLICANT PROPOSES PARKING LOT ADJUSTMENTS DUE TO DOT ROUTE 149
RECONSTRUCTION. FILLING WITHIN 50 FEET OF WETLANDS IN AN NC ZONE
REQUIRES BOTH SITE PLAN REVIEW AND A FRESHWATER WETLANDS PERMIT.
SUBJECT TO 2009 ORDINANCE. CROSS REFERENCE NONE APA, CEA, DEC,
ACOE APA WETLANDS LOT SIZE 209.76 +/- ACRES TAX MAP NO. 266.3-1-8
SECTION 179-4-040, 179-9-010
TOM JARRETT, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT
MR. OBORNE: Site Plan 40-2009 Freshwater Wetlands 6-2009, Scott Smith,
Queensbury Country Club. This is Site Plan Review for parking lot reconfiguration and
filling within 50 feet of a wetland. This is a Neighborhood Commercial zone. The Type is
Unlisted SEQRA status. The Project Description: Applicant proposes a Parking lot
reconfiguration due to DOT Route 149 reconstruction. Filling within 50 feet of wetlands
in a NC zone requires both Site Plan Review and a Freshwater Wetlands permit. Staff
Comments. The applicant appears to be losing a portion of an existing parking lot due to
a DOT taking associated with the Route 149 road project currently underway. The loss of
26 parking spaces are anticipated as a result of the road project and the applicant
proposes to replace those spaces in kind by developing lands directly to the west of the
remaining spaces by filling, grading and re-surfacing with gravel. Total area of
disturbance, according to the applicant, equals 0.37 acres or 16,200 square feet. What
follows is Plan Review, and I turn it over to the Board
MRS. STEFFAN: Thank you. Could you please introduce yourselves for the record
MR. JARRETT: Good evening. Tom Jarrett of Jarrett Engineers and Scott Smith the
owner of Queensbury Country Club.
MRS. STEFFAN. Tell us a little bit about your situation.
MR. JARRETT: I’ll let Scott introduce the background history and then I’ll tell you what
we are intending to do to resolve it.
SCOTT SMITH
MR. SMITH: Hi, the golf course has been in my family since 1970. My father bought in
as a partner and bought out his partner in 1976. I’m currently married and my wife and I,
I bought out my parents 10 years ago and my wife has become partners with me. It’s
14
(Queensbury Planning Board 07/07/09)
been a family run business, we employ 42 people, we’ve been around here a long time.
So DOT has come through with this project and they are taking all of our front parking so
we’re trying to recoup some parking to stay in business I guess is the bottom line.
MR. JARRETT: Some of it is right-of-way that was technically owned by the DOT
originally but it’s been used for 60 years and no one made an issue and the remainder of
it is actually land that Scott owned and they’re taking a portion of that to expand and
widen and redesign the road. A minimum of 26 spaces are being lost as we document
on the plan and the easiest way to recoup or recover some of that parking or all of the
parking, the 26 spaces, is to expand into a brushy swale immediately west of the parking
on the north side of the road. For those of you who have visited the site you can see
there is a depression, there is a swale, its drainage from Rout 149 that flows north. There
is also a spring that breaks the hillside that we’ve identified on our plan and that leads to
a little wetland finger that starts more than 100 feet north of 149 and then leads into a
jurisdictional wetland that is further to the west. We’ve designed the project to stay south
and away from that spring and from the wetland. It will not impact that. What we’ve
done is added back to back parking with an aisle between spaces to give us 26 spaces
and we’ve intended, we’re planning to build a very shallow swale at the edge of the
parking area to the north edge of the parking area to divert all of the runoff from this
parking into an existing swale on the golf course. Any of you who have played golf there
know there is a swale between the parking lot and first fairway. What we plan to do is
block that off and use it as retention to treat stormwater from not only the new parking
but a pretty sizable chunk of existing parking lot so really this project ends up being an
environmental benefit, in our opinion, because not only do we not get direct discharge of
road runoff into the wetland but we’re infiltrating runoff from the parking area before it
gets to the wetland and treating it. So we think there’s a double benefit here. Our focus
tonight is really not to get into the engineering comments that were issued. I’d really like
to focus more on where what the Board would like to see from us. We’ve asked for
several waivers, and primarily topographic information and detailed stormwater
calculations are the waivers that we feel we need to expedite this project and keep it
affordable. Dan’s office has recommended that the waivers not be granted but I’d like to
throw that to the Board and see what the Board’s feelings are on those waivers.
MR. SCHONEWOLF: So you’re losing all of the south side?
MR. JARRETT: Essentially, everything to the west of the club house right on the
shoulder of the road.
MR. SCHONEWOLF: The driving range is going to remain.
MR. JARRETT: The driving range on the other side of the road is going will remain.
MRS. STEFFAN: So that part of road is untouched, pretty much.
MR. SMITH: Basically they are going to widen it.
MR. JARRETT: It’s going to widen it, but it’s not going to lose, we’re not going to lose
the driving range
MR. SMITH: Because that’s back farther from the road.
MR. JARRETT: But as you know crossing that road to use that parking over there is very
hazardous. I don’t like to do it.
MRS. STEFFAN: Especially after they widen the road it’ll be even more challenging.
th
MR. SCHONEWOLF: Does the road come right up against the 18 green?
MR. SMITH: The upper green there is a sand trap in the berm and I think they are going
to leave most of that berm there, they’re going get into the berm a little bit but mostly it’s
going to stay there.
MR. SCHONEWOLF: The road is going to be below it.
MR. SMITH: Yes.
MR. JARRETT: I don’t think they’re modifying the road elevation much in that location
15
(Queensbury Planning Board 07/07/09)
MR. SMITH: In front of the club house they are dropping it a meter so the line of sight
will improve.
MR. JARRETT: Good for the road. Good for travel.
MRS. STEFFAN: I know we had another actually it was a sketch plan that came in front
of us a month or two ago and they weren’t so lucky. They lost a quite a bit of property to
the change in grade on Route 149.
MR. JARRETT: In discussing this with the APA I understand there are other properties
that are before them for projects and applications and I think you’ll see more too.
MRS. STEFFAN: Yes.
MR. JARRETT: You’ll note that I’ve handed out a letter that was sent to me via fax today
and a copy was sent to your Planning Office. Essentially the APA has approved this
project but you can read the letter yourself.
MRS. STEFFAN: What is the cost associated with a topographic survey and I don’t need
to know exact amounts just ballpark. One of the things that you mentioned Mr. Jarrett
was the cost of some of these requirements.
MR. JARRETT: I didn’t get a quote specific to this but typically you’re looking $1000 to
$2000 for something of this nature. And then there is detailed engineering to go through
the stormwater calculations which you know, frankly, I have no problem doing but I just
didn’t think it was warranted for this project and I was trying to save Scott some money.
MR. SIPP: What is the soil type in this area?
MR. JARRETT: It’s mixed, it’s a loamy, it’s not a highly permeable soil but it’s not clay
either, so it’s a loamy mixture I think
MR. SIPP: How deep to water?
MR. JARRETT: In the area where our swale is it’s relatively deep because the wetland
actually drains quite a bit lower in elevation away from our swale so we have some depth
to groundwater there.
MR. SEGULJIC : So if I’m understanding this you propose to build additional parking to
the west, it that going to be paved or is that going to be the bluestone
MR. JARRETT: No its going to be similar to what’s there now basically a gravel.
MR. SEGULJIC : But what you’re going to have to do is essentially going to fill in a part
of an existing swale then, because when I look at your drawings essentially that’s what
you’re going to be doing, you’re going to be
MR. JARRRETT: It’s a brushy swale right now I don’t know if Keith has a photo, you’re
looking almost directly west now and the brush beyond the lawn is the swale that we’d be
filling in. That’s looking more toward 149 a little bit southwest
MR. SEGULJIC : Is that the area you’ll be filling in then.
MR. JARRETT: That’s the edge.
MR. SEGULJIC : Where the trees are coming back.
MR. JARRETT: Those trees are coming down by DOT actually, those are within the
DOT ROW, they’ll be coming down by them. Our fill would probably start approximately
there and go across the swale through here.
MR. SEGULJIC : And then the next picture you have on your drawing, is that like your
check dam?
MR. JARRETT: Right that is.
MR. SEGULJIC : You’re going to build that across an existing depression to
16
(Queensbury Planning Board 07/07/09)
MR. JARRETT: Right. That swale right there, actually that’s, yes, that’s the swale right
there, we’re going to put check dams across that. This parking area will drain into that
and we’ll use, we’ll retain water there and infiltrate it in that swale.
MR. SEGULJIC : So you’re contending is that it is going to be more treatment than
what’s existing now.
MR. JARRETT: Right, all this water right now just runs straight out of the swale into the
wetland, so what we’re going to do is retain it and infiltrate it.
MR. SEGULJIC : Okay, then I guess the question is, if I may ask Mr. Ryan, then. Mr.
Jarrett had eluded that had recommended against granting the waivers, for the
topographical and stormwater?
MR. RYAN: Yes, for the stormwater and topographical grading information.
MR. SEGULJIC: Can you shed some light on that for me?
MR. RYAN: Yes, I’m familiar with the site, I actually had the pleasure to golf there
Thursday so being that the conditions have been pretty rainy I would I guess there were
a couple of things that we’re concerned about. There is relatively shallow bedrock
scattered throughout that property. There is also a lot of shallow water table in particular
in this area. I know fairway 1 was extremely wet last week with standing water. Some
areas with one foot of water on them, so I seriously doubt we’ll get too much infiltration
but certainly in terms of the amount of stormwater I’m concerned about runoff from
DOT’s highway, what are they doing for modifications and drainage patterns, are they
altering them? There is no reference here to what DOT is actually doing as part of their
changes that they’re proposing there. There is a lot of coordination I think that needs to
go into this project to make it enforceable number one by the town and number 2 to
ensure that DOT knows how much fill can come in and what their limits of the proposed
project are.
MR. SEGULJIC: Not to put you on the spot, conceptually does it sound good we’ve got
to just work on the details.
MR. RYAN: I think conceptually this project has got merit, there is no question about
that. I think that we just need to be careful on what we’re proposing in proximity to the
wetlands. We have a wetland delineation, of course, I don’t know how that was depicted
on this particular map if’s not tied to a survey so I have no idea really spatially where it is
and what type of buffer that they’re providing so I think there’s merit here to the extent
that it’s being proposed I don’t know until we have additional information.
MR. SEGULJIC: So let’s make sure we do it right then.
MR. RYAN: Yes.
MR. SIPP: I’ll like to see a map with the wetlands, at least approximately where they are.
MR. JARRETT: Well the map we gave you has the wetlands delineated by a wetlands
biologist and I measured off Rt. 149 myself to locate those flags for the delineation so I
would say its within six inches to a foot. I’m not a surveyor but I think I was pretty close.
Okay. I’m being told by Scott that DOT went out with their wetlands specialist and
marked the same areas that we did.
MR. RYAN: Is there any DOT drawings available for their project for this particular area?
MR. JARRETT: We were sent some drawings actually today for more consideration by
Scott in another area and I think there is some overlap and I might be able to provide the
board will some topo here now that we weren’t told of before but now they’ve provide to
us.
MR. RYAN: Yes, I would presume they have all the topo within their right of way, and
any grading changes they’re making beyond those.
MR. JARRETT: Originally we were told they didn’t go anything north of the right of way
with their topo now I’ve seen some as of today and it does go somewhat north. I have to
evaluate it yet.
MR. RYAN: And you said their dropping the road one meter in front of the clubhouse?
17
(Queensbury Planning Board 07/07/09)
MR. SMITH: That area I’m not exactly sure of it, directly in front of the clubhouse it will
be dropping a meter.
MR. RYAN: Okay.
MR. SMITH: I imagine they’re a little bit.
MR. JARRETT: Now I hope we don’t have to take responsibility for the DOT drainage
but I was told that they’re going to drain the road now directly west create a ditch going
into the main wetland at the bottom of the hill west of the club which off the record I’m
not so sure is a great idea but that’s their plan.
MRS. STEFFAN: Do you know Mr. Jarrett is the Whalen property next to the golf
course, I’m just asking that because we did a site plan review for, 6 months ago and it
was right in that area.
MR. SEGULJIC : It was west of there down by the curve. I guess on of my concerns
would also be in this is the Lake George CEA?
MR. SCHONEWOLF: There going to drain the whole road down to the bottom of the hill.
MR. JARRETT: That’s was I was told, only orally so please do not quote me on that.
MR. RYAN: They are, actually construction wise they are up to this project just about
MR. JARRETT: What they told Scott they’re not going to really work in this area for
possibly later this summer, possibly not to the fall.
MR. SMITH: It’s changed a little bit because they’re getting held up by National Grid
moving all the utilities. So they are doing what they can in the areas between the poles.
They may have to start on my section earlier.
MRS. STEFFAN: When the applicant has requested waivers for lighting, stormwater
calculations and the topographic information I have to admit when I read the package, its
difficult, I’m looking at the costs being inflicted on this business owner because of a DOT
project and I understand we have needs and in my mind I was just trying to reconcile you
know how can we come to a happy medium between those two places. It seems unfair
in some respects you know to make this applicant jump through hoops to meet our codes
and I’m not saying our codes are not important but at the same time the applicant is
having this project inflicted on them, the DOT is not held to any of our town standards,
they do what they please. They are not subject to site plan review, they can call there
own shots and chart their own destiny. So in my mind I thought we needed to come to
some kind of happy medium between the two places.
MR. JARRETT: And that’s what I was hoping to discuss tonight.
MRS. STEFFAN: Comments from the Planning Board, questions.
MR. SCHONEWOLF: Doesn’t DOT have to provide the homeowner with their final
drawings so they know what’s going to go on in front of their own property.
MR. RYAN: They should be available.
MR. JARRETT: They’ve given Scott final drawings for the highway itself.
MR. SCHONEWOLF: No, I’m talking about the drainage and.
MR. JARRETT: I’ve not seen those drawings, we have not, I’ve been told that they’re
draining their highway to the west, not through his property, in the ditch line to the west.
MR. SCHONEWOLF: So that why they won’t give them to you.
MR. JARRETT: Right now that portion of his property drains onto his property, excuse
me, that portion adjacent is probably drains through his property to the wetland. They’re
now going to divert it via a ditch to the main segment of wetland further to the west.
MR. SCHONEWOLF: So your concern is draining the parking lot.
18
(Queensbury Planning Board 07/07/09)
MR. JARRETT: We’ve provided for drainage from our parking lot, I’m not so sure from
the big picture standpoint that I like draining the highway directly into the main wetland.
That’s not part of this project. It’s a different animal altogether. That’s wearing a
different hat at a different time.
MR. SCHONEWOLF: You’re not sure its going to go there either, no matter what we
say.
MR. SEGULJIC: I understand what you’re saying Gretchen but whatever engineering is
recommending, if its not done right it could cost them a lot more money. I can’t say it’s a
minimal amount of money but I think I want to make sure its designed right. I think
engineering recommending we should have that information to make sure its done
correctly.
MRS. STEFFAN: Okay, How does the rest of the board feel?
MR. TRAVER: I agree.
MR. SIPP: I’d like to see some contours lines of the wetlands delineated on there.
MR. JARRETT: We’ve got a timing issue that we need to discuss as well. As Scott
alluded to we’re not sure when DOT is going to try and start through this area and work
on this project. If we need to address these comments in detail and come back to the
board which we obviously will we’d like to almost phase this now. We’d like to talk to the
board about the ability to place the fill from DOT on the site and iron out the parking
details and not start parking on it, not actually construct it and park on it until we iron out
the details with the board. Would you entertain that concept?
MR. SEGULJIC: You’re saying you want to place the fill for the parking area.
MR. JARRETT: At least in that area or in some area on the site.
MR. SEGULJIC: I would turn to our engineer and see what his opinion was on that.
MR. JARRETT: I expected you would.
MR. RYAN: I’m certainly not going to make that recommendation, I mean, I have
projects that the town, we’re still waiting to approve and they are under construction and I
certainly wouldn’t recommend that, but I would disagree that that is an acceptable way
to move forward on this project. DOT has been under design probably for two years
here, this project could have been incorporated in that had they known that they would
looking for places to dump fill, but I don’t think that’s any reason to rush this. The
timeframe of DOT, they really don’t care much about this project except that they need to
dump their fill, the contractor needs to dump his fill somewhere that’s working for him.
MR. JARRETT: I don’t think I would characterize it that way but I understand his
comment.
MR. SCHONEWOLF: You’re trying to get it done between the end of this golf season
and the start of next year.
MR. JARRETT: Absolutely, that’s right.
MRS. STEFFAN: Keith, what do our agendas look like going forward. I didn’t check on
that before the meeting today, what do our August and September’s agendas look like?
MR. OBORNE: The August agenda, the first meeting is full, I believe we have 10 in the
queue right now for August The agenda obviously has not been made up, there have
nd
been I think 4 tabled to August, obviously July is full, so it would be the 2 meeting in
August, you do have a couple of slots in August.
MRS. STEFFAN: Okay, certainly it seems like the Planning Board is leaning toward
having the Vision Engineering comments as well as the staff comments. Now we are at
the, this is a special meeting, so we’re a little bit earlier in the month than usual. The
th
application for deadline for August is the 15 of July. We could give you a little more
room on your application deadline in order to make that August meeting if you think you
could turn the comments around in a two week period.
19
(Queensbury Planning Board 07/07/09)
MR. JARRETT: I believe I can, it depends on how much of the topo information I’ve got
from DOT as of today, if I’ve gotten most of what I need then I’m probably in pretty good
shape. If I have to supplement that with additional topo information from a detailed field
survey then I’m going to be in trouble time wise.
MRS. STEFFAN; Well in that situation if we tabled you to August and you knew that you
weren’t going to have the information you obviously would go on to the next agenda and
you would end up in September anyway.
MR. JARRETT: Right.
MRS. STEFFAN; Right Keith? My logic sequenced.
MR. JARRETT: I’m willing to give Keith a head’s up as to where we stand and if we
need to move it forward in September we’ll do that.
thth
MR. OBORNE: Were you looking for a 15 or possibly the 24 or someone around
there?
nd
MRS. STEFFAN: The 22 .
nd
MR. OBORNE: The 22 , the Wednesday afterwards. That’s fine.
MRS. STEFFAN: It gives the applicant a little more time to address the issues but
enough time for you to handle the administrative review.
MR. JARRETT: That’s the submission deadline?
MRS. STEFFAN: Yes, and we’re just trying to accommodate because of the, because
it’s a DOT project and they are a lot of variables here.
MR. JARRETT: We understand and we appreciate that.
MRS. STEFFAN: And how does the Planning Board feel? The applicant has requested
waivers for lighting, stormwater and topographic, obviously the Vision Engineering has
made other recommendations, how does the Planning Board feel?
MR. SEGULJIC : I have no problem with the lighting, you’re not doing anything with
lighting correct?
MR. JARRETT: No.
MR. SEGULJIC: Okay.
MRS. STEFFAN: And there was a comment in Vision Engineering which actually was a
comment that I had, talked about the lights being an issue but yet the narrative was.
MR. JARRETT: It was good comment from Dan’s office. That was my fault and we
weren’t really, any of you who have played golf there know that you don’t play golf in the
dark. I have to at times, but typically if you stop for a drink afterward or a sandwich you
might end up in at dusk and you might turn your lights on and it is a Town standard to
provide landscaping along the front. We thought it would dovetail with the DOT work but
I described it wrong in the application. It was fault.
MRS. STEFFAN: All right then, because there are so many comments I’m make the
motion but I’m not going to specifically identify what issues because you’re going have to
satisfy most of the staff comments as well as Vision Engineering comments so I won’t be
specific with those. I will make a motion to table Site Plan 40-2009. Oh excuse I had a
misstep here, this is only my second time being a chairman, so is there anybody here
who would like to speak to this application? There is a public hearing. Could you give
up the table please?
PUBLIC HEARING OPENED
MRS. STEFFAN: Mr. Ryan.
GEORGE RYAN
20
(Queensbury Planning Board 07/07/09)
MR. RYAN: George Ryan, 955 State Route 149. I’m right east to Scott. I think this is a
good project. I think he needs some parking in there. But what needs to be looked at
and you guys have to take advantage of this, there’s no parking entrance and exits on
this road. It’s, to drive by this place is a nightmare if you have kids that drive, so while
you have him here you should try to get some interest in some entrances and exits to
make the road more safer. As far as his parking lot I think he deserves to have a nice
parking lot and if you could fit it in, you know, he should have it. But you should take a
look at the entrance and the exits. Myself I drive by there 4 or 5 times a day, it’s
dangerous. It’s going to be better, there are going to cut the grade from my land to in
front of his place three feet and its going to be better. As far as his parking lot I think he
deserves a nice parking lot there, a little work, he should have it. I mean I think it’ll just
make a better neighborhood and nice road. The cars are going to go by a lot faster, this
is going to be like a highway, you know, and uh those are my concerns. But as far as the
parking lot I think he deserves to have a nice parking lot where the cars could all go and I
think you should work with him and try to get it done as fast as possible. Topographical
map I mean that’s not a hard thing, you today they’ve got this eye in the sky. That guy
could come back AND did his homework, he could have had it tonight. So that’s all I
have to say, thank you.
MRS. STEFFAN: Okay, thanks Mr. Ryan. Is there anyone else who would like to speak
to this application? The public hearing will remain open.
MR. JARRETT: I’d like to comment on that. The DOT has designated driveway
entrances for the golf course now as part of the reconstruction so that the continuous
quote end quote curb cut will be modified, it will be much more controlled than it is now.
MR. SMITH: They’re actually installing island curbs all across the whole front of the
property so there going to be one entrance and one exit.
MR. JARRETT: Much better.
MR. SMITH: They are going to be eight feet wide and they are taking all the front
parking in the whole place so
MR. RYAN: I’m sure you’re not against that, that its dangerous
MR. JARRETT: Other than losing parking it will be an improvement
MR. SMITH: That’s a whole other, what this project is addressing is the 26 spots on the
western parking lot, then I still have to take care of all the spots I’m losing in the front so
I’m going to have a hard time. I’m going to need parking to stay in business. I don’t want
to build a building, I love that land, I want to keep working that land, I want to keep doing
what I’m doing.
MRS. STEFFAN: Well it’s an asset to that side of town, there’s no doubt about it. And
it’s always beautiful to drive by.
MR. SMITH: Thank you.
MR. JACKOSKI : Mr. Smith, can I just clarify for the record I just want to make sure
there is no conflict of interest. The previous owners were your parents and I believe they
have ownership in the Takundewide HOA in Cleverdale?
MR. SMITH: Yes they do.
MR. JACKOSKI: But your parents no longer have ownership in the golf course?
MR. SMITH: No, I bought them out 10 years ago.
MR. JACKOSKI: Okay thank you.
MRS. STEFFAN: Okay, all right.
MR. JARRETT: Should I have started this off by asking who plays golf at the course?
MRS. STEFFAN: You don’t have to worry about me. Okay. I will make a motion to table
RESOLUTION TO TABLE SITE PLAN 40-2009 & FRESHWATER WETLANDS 6-2009
SCOTT SMITH QUEENSBURY COUNTRY CLUB
21
(Queensbury Planning Board 07/07/09)
MOTION TO TABLE SITE PLAN NO. 40-2009 & FRESHWATER WETLANDS 6-
2009 SCOTT SMITH QUEENSBURY COUNTRY CLUB, Introduced by Gretchen
Steffan who moved for its adoption, seconded by Stephen Traver:
th
This will tabled to the August 25 Planning Board meeting. We will extend the
nd
application deadline for submissions to July 22 so the applicant can address the
th
staff comments of July 7 and can also address the substantial commentary by
nd
Vision Engineering in their letter dated July 2.
th
Duly adopted this 7 day of July 2009, by the following vote:
AYES: Mr. Krebs, Mr. Schonewolf, Mr. Seguljic, Mr. Sipp, Mr. Jackoski, Mr.
Traver, Mrs. Steffan
NOES: None
MR. JARRETT: Thank you we’ll be back to you in some manner.
MRS. STEFFAN: We’ll see you next month. The next item on the agenda is Subdivision
5-2009 sketch, preliminary and final stage for Michael & Christine Breda.
SUBDIVISION 5-2009 SKETCH/PRELIMINARY/FINAL SEQR TYPE UNLISTED
MICHAEL & CHRISTINA BREDA AGENT(S) JARRETT ENGINEERS OWNER(S)
ESTATE OF HELEN SLEIGHT ZONING NC-10 LOCATION 369 AVIATION ROAD
APPLICANT PROPOSES SUBDIVISION OF A 2.13 +/- ACRE PARCEL INTO TWO
LOTS OF 1.07 & 1.06 +/- ACRES. SUBDIVISION OF LAND REQUIRES PLANNING
BOARD REVIEW AND APPROVAL. CROSS REFERENCE SP 41-09 WARREN CO.
PLANNING N/A LOT SIZE 2.13 +/- ACRES TAX MAP NO. 301.8-1-30 SECTION A-
183
TOM JARRETT, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT
MR. OBORNE: Subdivision 5-2009, Michael & Christina Breda. Applicant requests
Sketch, Preliminary and Final Stage subdivision review accomplished in one meeting.
Location: 369 Aviation Road. Existing Zoning is Neighborhood Commercial. All lots to
be a minimum of one acre. Neighborhood Residential, all lots to be a minimum of 0.5
acre per dwelling unit, if not connected to public sewer and water, or 10,000 square feet
per dwelling unit if connected to public sewer and water. SEQRA Status is Unlisted.
Project Description: Applicant proposes to subdivide a 2.13 acre parcel into two lots of
1.07 and 1.06 acres. Clarification will be needed as Town of Queensbury records show
the lot size to be 2.93 acres. Please note that the lot extends to the north side of Manor
Drive. The subdivision proposal is in response to a potential traffic circle located at
Aviation Ave, Dixon Ave and Farr Lane and a proposed Daycare facility to be built by the
applicant. Please see applicant’s narrative for further explanation. Staff Comments:
The parcel currently has a single family dwelling located on-site. The structure is to
remain pending the construction of the traffic circle. The northern lot will be used as the
site for a 6,500 square foot daycare center, fronting on Manor drive. The applicant has
developed the subdivision layout based on conceptual plans for the traffic circle.
According to the applicant, if the plans change and will require additional land, a future
lot line change could be accomplished. What follows is Staff review. I do want one,
under additional comments. Clarification of the parcel boundary must be forth coming. It
appears that the dimensional requirements for both zones associated with this proposal
can be met. The Planning Board may wish to direct the applicant to clarify the intentions
of the northern portion of the lot north of Manor Drive.
MRS. STEFFAN: Thank you. Would you like to introduce yourself for the record?
MICHAEL BREDA
MR. BREDA: Michael Breda owner of World Class Kids.
MR. JARRETT: Tom Jarrett, Jarrett Engineers. This project comes about as a result of
Mike trying to relocate his daycare facility, and I’ll let him elaborate on that, but we are
also trying to accommodate Town needs with the potential for a traffic circle or round
about at the intersection of Farr Lane and Aviation Road. This plan accommodates
Mike’s needs for the day care facility along with the potential for the Town locating a
round about on the southern portion of the property. We don’t know the status of that,
Mike you can fill us in on that if you know anything further, but we don’t know the status
22
(Queensbury Planning Board 07/07/09)
of that at this time whether it’s actually going to go or not. We’re leaving room for it, if it
does not go then Mike will leave the existing structure in place and then eventually it may
be replaced by another commercial use. If it is purchased by the town for a round about
then we believe we’ve accommodated that appropriately. It leaves some issues up in
the air and staff has enumerated those for you but frankly we don’t have anymore detail
than that at this point. Do you want to add anything right now Mike?
MR. BREDA: No
MR. JARRETT: Again we received a list of comments from Vision Engineering and from
staff. We don’t wish to get into the minor details of all those comments tonight but I
would like to discuss some of the planning issues with you including ingress and egress
to the site, sidewalks, landscaping, buffers that kind of thing. To see what the Board’s
wishes are and how you feel about the overall plan.
MRS. STEFFAN: Okay on the issue of the subdivision. It identifies in the project
description that the records regarding the lot sizes, there is a discrepancy there and that
has to be cleared up before this can move forward to approval.
MR. JARRETT: We understand that. Mike had felt it had been wrapped up but
apparently the paperwork is not in place to document that so the subdivision.
MR. BREDA: What’s that?
MR. JARRETT: The subdivision and the portion of the parcel north of Manor Drive.
MR. BREDA: As far as I know Virginia Sleight, they have separated those, that lot north
of on Manor, from this. When I had to contract to purchase this property over a year ago
June that had been separated from this. I believe it has its own tax number now but that
was not part of the purchase of this property here contract.
MR. JARRETT: And I think that Keith will probably tell you that he didn’t find
documentation of that so that’s why the question right?
MR. OBORNE: There is no documentation, if you were to remove that that would have
had to come through our office. You know, Craig could have done an administrative two
lot subdivision but this is treated as one lot at least on GIS and in our records.
MR. TRAVER: So we’ll clear that up. The question I had was with regard to the, and
you brought up the issue Tom of the entrances and exits to the proposed project and I
see in the comments there is a recommendation that it’s again it’s tied to the traffic circle
proposal that the exit / entrance on to Farr Lane be eliminated from the plan and I’m
wondering if since we don’t know definitively if this round about is to be created if the
plan could call for Manor Drive only at this point and then if the circle were not to be
come to fruition you could add the second entrance onto Farr Lane.
MR. BREDA: We discussed that earlier and the whole reason when I first put a contract
in on this property, this whole project was going to be up on Aviation Road frontage and I
heard about the round about proposal talked to Dan Stec numerous times throughout
this process, said okay, I’ll help you guys out, I’ll put everything I need on the back. But I
would not only have preferred to be on Aviation Road frontage and had the front of the
building facing Aviation but right now the front of the building faces Farr Lane. As far as
removing the Farr Lane entrance exit I have a problem with but I would, and I talked to
Tom about this, wouldn’t mind it being an entrance only which would eliminate that
question that we just got. If it was entrance only and then Manor Drive have an exit that
would be fine for me. But eliminating it is most of my traffic will be coming off of Aviation,
so to have an entrance off of Farr is pretty important. Now it doesn’t have to exit there.
Entrance would be fine. We could make it a one way with posted signs.
MR. JARRETT: And I believe the biggest conflict would be due to exiting so.
MR. BREDA: Yes, exiting is where the conflict is.
MR. JARRETT: So that would resolve the question in my mind, you can could refer to
Dan.
MR. TRAVER: That would be a big improvement.
23
(Queensbury Planning Board 07/07/09)
MRS. STEFFAN: Well and I think that that’s the best recommendation, I go over there
several times a week because my mom lives in the Solomon Heights development
complex behind this and so Farr Lane especially during the busier times of the day, if
there is not a round about that section of Farr Lane queues up right there so that would
be a problem for people getting out. With an entrance there and then an exit on Manor
Drive which virtually has no traffic it would also encourage people to go to the end of
Manor Drive and then exit on to Aviation Road above this intersection, this problematic
intersection.
MR. JARRETT: Right it might split the traffic better.
MRS. STEFFAN: So I think that that’s probably the best solution for the lot.
MR. JARRETT: So we’re willing to do that if that meets with the approval of the Board.
MR. TRAVER: Yes that would actually work with Gretchen’s comments and
observations about the traffic on Farr Lane, that the entrance only on Farr Lane actually
work whether the traffic circle went in or not.
MR. JARRETT: Right, it would give Mike the visibility and the access and yet avoid any
conflict
MRS. STEFFAN: Right.
MR. JARRETT: Now along that same vein I think there was discussion in the comments,
and I don’t remember if it was staff or engineering regarding screening and landscaping.
I think Mike would to keep a high visibility for the building and the facility from Aviation as
much as he can since he’s accommodating the town by moving it to the north. So hiding
it with landscaping is really contraindicated here or contradictory to his goals. So we’re
hoping that the Board will understand that issue and work with us on that. There is one
issue that was raised, I think by Keith, regarding the sign location. And frankly that’s a
little glitch in communication because we had located the sign on the plans and then we
worked with Keith to modify the limits of the lot to better accommodate the round about
and we never moved the sign so it became non-compliant and we will move that to a
compliant location and Mike will put on the record right now that that will be a monument
sign with landscaping around it. We threw in our proposal to the board, as you can see
from the plan that much of the lot needs to be cleared, disturbed to make this project
work and anybody that has been to the lot knows that there is some landscape quality
species out there but a lot of it is scrub. And what Mike would like to be able to do in the
areas where we don’t have to disturb the site in some of the corners we’d like to be able
to thin that out and get rid of some of the scrub and leave the nice, the better looking tree
species. Dan raised that as an issue and he correctly identified that if we get a little bit
too crazy with clearing we could trip the SPDES threshold for DEC permit which would
we obviously don’t want to do. But we’d like the board’s concurrence that as long as we
are under control we could thin out some of that vegetation and make it more attractive.
MRS. STEFFAN. There isn’t a lot of green trees on that particular property.
MR. JARRETT: A few not many.
MRS. STEFFAN: I understand what you mean.
MR. JARRETT: There are a couple of trees that we’d actually like to save that we can’t,
we just couldn’t design the project around them.
MR. SIPP: You’re planning on sidewalks?
MR. JARRETT: Around the building.
MR. BREDA: The perimeter of the building, front and side.
MR. JARRETT: This type of facility of necessity doesn’t invite children walking to it, it’s
drop off so sidewalks around the building are really what’s needed.
MR. SEGULJIC: There’s an engineering comment about the play area being over the
septic field, do you see that as an issue at all?
MR. JARRETT: Right I don’t see that as an issue, I understand why Dan brought it up.
Frankly you know play areas are around septic systems all the time and we’re blessed
24
(Queensbury Planning Board 07/07/09)
here to have great soil conditions, very deep sand and I don’t expect a problem and
obviously Mike’s going to have to be very cognizant of any situation that would you know
that would make his day care facility not function and if he had a failure of that septic
system he’d have to deal with it right away. And he could close up the play area if he
needed to. So I don’t see a problem, every backyard basically has a septic system and
you’ve got kids playing on them all the time.
MRS. STEFFAN: No elephant rides?
MR. BREDA: No farm animals coming to.
MR. JARRETT: The issue of installing fence posts foundations within the septic system
was also brought up. Which was a good comment and we put a note on the plans that
they need to be coordinated, we need to stagger those foundations in between the
infiltrator units. So that we don’t have that problem but other than that I don’t see an
issue with it. And that note is already on the plan. We had a discussion with the Board
earlier this year, comment was brought up about landscaping and you asked us to
enhance the landscaping which we have done. And that came up in comments to some
degree and I’m wondering if we can get that on the table right now and see what your
thoughts are.
MR. BREDA: At April’s meeting that was really the only comment we had to address.
MR. SEGULJIC: The only thing I see is it looks like some of your, if you can clarify for
me your landscaping along the existing Manor Drive is in the swale area?
MR. JARRETT: Right.
MR. SEGULJIC: What kind of vegetation is that?
MR. BREDA: Those are basically wing euonymous about three to four feet tall.
MR. SEGULJIC: Okay so that’s going to have some height to it.
MR. JARRETT: We also called for some rhododendrons as I recall, and I don’t see them
here
MR. BREDA: Junipers and euonymus, I don’t think there were any rhododendrons in
there. We staggered different species, alternated them.
MR. JARRETT: Tried not to be all one species, we tried to give it a little bit of variety.
We understand the, it’s a little unconventional to plant them in the stormwater basin but
we’ve mounded up around it to the plants and we think it will work well. We’re
constrained by space but Mike plans on planting a height that will give the town and give
him the screening and yet conserve space.
MR. SEGULJIC: Do you have the planting list on here?
MR. JARRETT: Yes.
MR. SIPP: Where is the sign going?
MR. JARRETT: If you look at the bottom left corner near that existing cedar tree, it’s kind
of buried under the cedar branches. We have to move that now to be compliant. I think
we’re going to move it a little bit to the east. More or less directly in front of the play area.
MR. BREDA: And they’ll be one on the front of the building too.
MR. JARRETT: Yes that’s the freestanding sign, that will be the monument sign.
Question was brought up regarding size and Mike plans on relocating the sign, it’s
already at his building across the street, so presumably that’s.
MR. BREDA: Mike Baird just made that last year and put it up in front of Sokol’s when
they did their renovations there.
MR. SIPP: So there will be two signs? One on the outside and one on the north side.
MR. JARRETT: One on the front and one monument sign.
25
(Queensbury Planning Board 07/07/09)
MR. BREDA: One on the west facing Farr and one facing Aviation on the south.
MR. SIPP: All right. So why can’t you on the Manor Drive side instead of all the low
growing shrubs put in one or two trees on either side of the driveway. I mean, you’ve
got.
MR. BREDA: I’m sure we could but we didn’t want to effect any visibility pulling out or in
with Manor Drive.
MR. SIPP: No, I mean if they are hardwood trees they’re not going to lower branches
you trim off and.
MR. BREDA: I’ve got no problem putting two maples there similar to the Farr Lane.
MR. JACKOSKI: I think in regard to what Mr. Sipp is saying I’m wondering where does
the snow go? Are we going to be burying these shrubs and everything with snow?
Because I just don’t see where you place the snow to this property.
MR. JARRETT: Frankly we angled off the ends of the parking lot especially on the east
end, we’ve allowed for snow, we moved the swale out from the parking area purposely to
accommodate snow and let it drain into the stormwater basin. And then likewise on the
south end along Farr Lane pushing snow into those corners.
MR. OBORNE: If I could interject I think what’s before you now is the subdivision and
not necessarily the site plan, not to say that you can’t talk about it.
MR. JARRETT: We’re doing it all at once.
MRS. STEFFAN; We’re crossing the stream.
MR. OBORNE: What I suggest is to go ahead and finish up subdivision and see what
you like and then move onto the site plan.
MR. JARRETT: So we don’t to do any landscaping for the subdivision so that’s on the
record. Keith you raised a question early on regarding the boundary of the subdivision,
the boundary between the two lots, trying to accommodate the round about. Do you see
any issues from your perspective.
MR. OBORNE: I don’t see any issues, maybe with utilities is my understanding from
Chazen, having had correspondence with them. I think Dan would probably be more of
an expert on that than I would. But from a planning point of view the way its drawn on
there it seems to work. My only issue is with the entrance off of Farr Lane and that is a
concern.
MR. JARRETT: It still is?
MR. OBORNE: Oh, yes.
MR. BREDA: Entrance or entrance/exit.
MR. OBORNE: Well I have an issue with the people coming south on Farr Lane making
a left into there. Now how many people are doing that, probably not too many so I think
that’s mitigated to a certain extent but certainly coming out of there, exiting is definitely
not going to work.
MR. JARRETT: I think if you see people stacked up on Farr lane you’re going to turn
into Manor and enter there right?
MRS. STEFFAN: Right.
MR. JARRETT: I don’t think, we’re not providing just one entrance so think we’ve
probably given them an option.
MR. RYAN; How do people turn around if it’s enter only or exit only on Manor once you
enter the facility? Dropping of kids. I presume you really need to drop kids off and keep
the flow of traffic going and it seems to me that an enter only and exit only would be
better for that particular incidence.
MR. JARRETT: Exit only on Manor and enter only on Farr?
26
(Queensbury Planning Board 07/07/09)
MR. RYAN: Yes, only to prevent people from coming in both entrances and having no
ability to turn around.
MR. SCHONEWOLF: You have somebody coming in from Manor would have to turn
around to get out.
MR. RYAN: Yes, how do they turn around with traffic coming in off Farr as well? It’s
nearly impossible.
MR. JARRETT: What they do now in his South Glens Falls facility in just turn around in
a parking spot. We can look at that, we’ll take a look.
MRS. STEFFAN; So Dan what you’re saying that the Manor Drive should be an
entrance and an exit.
MR. RYAN: It’s just a suggestion not having looked at it thoroughly. It seems to me if
you have people entering from both directions there’s not that much space on that
property to maneuver around each other in particular if there’s cars already parked there
and I assume everyone is dropping their kids off around the same time.
MR. TRAVER: On the other hand if we don’t give them the option to enter on Manor
Drive we are forcing into the Farr Lane which is going to exacerbate that situation
problem
Mr. RYAN: It will, that’s.
MR. TRAVER: I don’t have kids but I’m thinking that if I were dropping somebody off , if I
were dropping a child off and had to walk them into the entrance I would probably pull up
to a parking lot, stop the vehicle and get out and escort the child in and then back out
and take off again.
MR. JARRETT: That’s what happens at your Moreau facility right?
MRS. STEFFAN: And the other issue is the front door is on Farr Lane so folks are going
to want to pull into Farr Lane to drop the kids off.
MR. JARRETT: We’ll flush it out a little further and discuss it with Dan.
MRS. STEFFAN: So Keith the staff notes are pretty clear that we can’t go any further
until that issue is resolved, the parcel boundary.
MR. OBORNE: Unless the Planning Board feels comfortable going forward.
MRS. STEFFAN: I’m not willing to take that one on.
MR. JARRETT: Subdivision doesn’t matter to us without site plan anyway.
MRS. STEFFAN: Exactly.
MR. JARRETT: He needs the site plan first anyways so or concurrently so let’s just
resolve them all at once.
MR. OBRONE: Would you care to give the applicant an indication on how you’re feeling
about this, let’s say that area up to the north of Manor is in fact part of your property.
MR. BREDA: It’s not in my contract that way.
MR. OBORNE: So then let’s just stop there and let’s get that clarified.
MR. JARRETT: He didn’t buy it so we’ve got a problem.
MR. BREDA: It’s not part of my purchase, I will it was.
MR. OBORNE: That’s opening up a can of worms so let’s get everything clarified before
we entertain any more discussion on it.
MRS. STEFFAN; Okay then I’ll make a motion to table.
27
(Queensbury Planning Board 07/07/09)
MR. JARRETT: I’ll defer to Mike here to talk about schedule because I’m not sure what
his constraints are.
MRS. STEFFA: Let’s pull back that motion because we want to discuss where we are.
MR. BREDA: Well I originally came in front of you guys in April as a discussion, wishful
thinking put me into May, June I figured we were going to be on, we weren’t. I
appreciate you guys making a special meeting in early July. Once again I’ve had a
contract on this property since June of last year. I understand the north parcel should be
subdivided legally on paper. I don’t know why Virginia Sleight who is an attorney didn’t
have that done properly. It’s not part of my purchase contract, but if I don’t get on a
meeting until September it’s going to be a problem for my construction and my lease with
Sokol’s is up in March 2010. I have to be out, which I’m already pushing the envelope
my scheduling, my contractors, my.
MRS. STEFFAN : How quickly do you anticipate that this boundary issue could be
resolved?
MR. BREDA: Quick. Virginia told me, I don’t know if you guys know Virginia Sleight but,
I don’t know why it’s not recorded as subdivided or like how she could sell that parcel
without the north side being separated is a question. I’m a real estate agent, that was a
question for me.
MR. OBORNE: I agree.
MR. BREDA: I wish it was part of my purchase, I’d love to have it but it wasn’t so how
she got, whether she has separate tax map numbers which I guess she doesn’t, why it
wasn’t subdivided correctly, whether it was a separate parcel, it’s not showing up as a
separate parcel. I don’t know the answers but I don’t.
MR. TRAVER: Well, I guess another way of putting it would be do you think it’s likely
that litigation is going to be required or is it just a matter of paperwork?
MR. BREDA: Paperwork, absolutely.
MR. OBORNE: I would think it would able to be resolved at least get some answer in 24
hours to be honest with you. It’s a trip up to the municipal center and see what the file
says, our file and our GIS says its one parcel. So with that said.
MR. JARRETT: So optimistically what would be the first meeting we could get on?
th
MRS. STEFFAN: August 25.
MR. JARRETT: Why don’t we leave it the same way we did with the prior project. That
I’ll give you notice if we have a problem and we’ll table it ourselves to September if we
need to.
MRS. STEFFAN: We are of like mind, okay. Then I will make a motion to table
Subdivision 5-2009:
RESOLUTION TO TABLE PRELIMINARY STAGE / FINAL STAGE
SUBDIVISION 5-2009 MICHAEL & CHRISTINE BREDA
MOTION TO TABLE PRELIMINARY & FINAL STAGE SUBDIVISION 5-2009
MICHAEL & CHRISTINE BREDA, Introduced by Gretchen Steffan who moved its
adoption seconded by Thomas Seguljic
th
Tabled to the August 25 Planning Board meeting with a submission deadline of
th
July 15 so the applicant can clarify the parcel boundary discrepancy specifically.
th
And also to address the July 7 staff notes.
Duly adopted this 7th day of July 2009, by the following vote:
AYES: Mr. Sipp, Mr. Traver, Mr. Krebs, Mr. Schonewolf, Mr. Jackoski, Mr.
Seguljic, Mrs. Steffan
NOES: None
28
(Queensbury Planning Board 07/07/09)
MR. JARRETT: No that’s on the subdivision only?
MRS. STEFFAN: On the subdivision only
MR. JARRETT: When we get to the site plan I might ask for a little more leeway on
submission deadline.
MRS. STEFFAN: That’s what I thought, Okay
MR. OBORNE: If you could, could you open the public hearing so we don’t have to re-
advertise it?
MRS. STEFFAN: I apologize, is there anybody here who would like to speak to the
application? There is no one here to speak to this application so the public hearing will
remain open
PUBLIC HEARING OPENED AND WILL REMAIN OPEN
MRS. STEFFAN: Thank you for the reminder.
SITE PLAN NO. 41-2009 SEQR TYPE UNLISTED MICHAEL & CHRISTINA BREDA
AGENT(S) JARRETT ENGINEERS OWNER(S) ESTATE OF HELEN SLEIGHT
ZONING NC-10 LOCATION 369 AVIATION ROAD APPLICANT PROPOSES
CONSTRUCTION OF A 6,500 SQUARE FOOT DAY CARE CENTER. DAY CARE
CENTERS IN THE NC ZONE REQUIRE PLANNING BOARD REVIEW AND
APPROVAL. SUBJECT TO 2009 ZONING CODE. CROSS REFERENCE SUB 5-09
WARREN CO. PLANNING N/A LOT SIZE 1.06 +/- ACRES TAX MAP NO. 301.8-1-30
SECTION 179-9-010
TOM JARRETT, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT
MRS. STEFFAN: We are on to the Site Plan issues. Some of the things we talked about
a while ago were the entrance and exit issue, an entrance on Farr Lane, a potential only
on Manor Drive. The applicant talked about enhancing the landscaping plan and
keeping some of the trees that are existing. And wanted the Planning Board support on
that plan. There are extensive Vision engineering comments that the applicant would
love to address. What other discussion do we need to have on the site plan.
MR. TRAVER : We have to clarify the location of the sign, the type of sign.
MRS. STEFFAN: Yes.
MR. JARRETT: I think we resolved the sign issue but we left off at landscaping if I recall,
so
MR. SIPP: You’re going to have a freestanding sign on the south side facing Aviation
Road, how tall?
MR. JARRETT: Monument sign.
MR. SIPP: Monument sign on both of them?
MR. JARRETT: Well there’s one mounted on the building itself and then a monument
sign facing Aviation
MRS. STEFFAN: And the one mounted that will be mounted on the building will be the
one that currently exists in the Sokol’s plaza.
MR. BREDA; Actually that one is going get double-sided and put on the monument. The
one I took off the plaza to put the new one on is going on the building. They both were
existing at one point.
MR. JARRETT: Good thing you asked.
MR. OBORNE: If I may add please make sure that that sign is compliant, because it’s
50 square feet, 15 feet from your property line.
MR. JARRETT: We’ll stipulate right now that both signs will be compliant.
29
(Queensbury Planning Board 07/07/09)
MR. OBORNE: Well if you’re to take one that’s currently existing I mean is that a 10 x 5
sign? That’s not even a 10 x 5.
MR. BREDA: I think it’s 8 feet long. They were both on the building before so I’m sure
they were.
MR. OBORNE: But there are different requirements for wall signs and monument signs.
There are certain thresholds that you can meet. A wall sign can be 100 square feet and
a monument can be 50 or 64.
MR. BREDA: Yes it will be compliant.
MR. SIPP: On number 30 on the engineer’s comments the discrepancy in the amount of
water per person.
MR. JARRETT: I reviewed the DEC standards again today and I don’t see where 15
gallons per day per student or child is required. We designed this same facility for Mike
in Moreau and used this same waste generation rate and it worked out fine and he’s had
no problem with that facility so I wasn’t proposing to change our design. I don’t know
how Dan will react to that but I wasn’t proposing to change it.
MR. RYAN: We were looking for clarification on how you came up with the 12.5,
because the 2.5 is not referenced there. It’s 5 gallons with a kitchenette would be added.
MR. JARRETT: Actually what, there is a typo on our drawing, we list 1.25 for a
kitchenette, it’s actually snacks kind of thing, it’s not a full cafeteria. And then we listed,
duplicated again, said 1.25 per cafeteria again, it’s supposed to be for washing for
miscellaneous, if kids get sick or whatever. Washing miscellaneous things so we added
some flow for that and we’ll clarify that
MR. RYAN: I think if you just clarify the type of service you have there with the
kitchenettes or whatever you’re doing with lunch.
MR. JARRETT: It’s not a full kitchen service, not full meals, that type of thing, we just
allowed the water use for snacks
MR. BREDA: And we calculated it off 99 people.
MR. SIPP: Percolation test, No. 3 which shows a percolation rate of 30 seconds. Is that
going to be a concern in that field there?
MR. JARRETT: Actually we show for wastewater system we show a what’s called a cut
and fill system under DOH guidelines, accommodating that rapid soil percolation. We
don’t foresee a problem, it’s adds a little headache to us, it’s the same kind of problem he
had in Moreau.
MR. BREDA: Too fast.
MR. SIPP : You’re going to add something.
MR. JARRETT: We had to replace the soil and amend it right.
MRS. STEFFAN: Okay we had quite a bit of discussion about landscaping. Where are
we on that?
MR. TRAVER: We’re adding two trees as I recall on the Manor Lane entrance on each
side. We need to clarify the language on the thinning that’s proposed where the existing
structure is. I know we’ve used that language in other applications.
MR. KREBS: I’m sorry, I missed you said Steve.
MR. TRAVER: You’re talking about doing some thinning of the brush area.
MR. JARRETT: Outside the areas that we have to disturb for construction we want to
thin some of the less attractive brush.
MR. TRAVER: I don’t know how can we word that, by caliper?
30
(Queensbury Planning Board 07/07/09)
MR. JARRETT: We can review it with Bruce later if you’d like. Once we get construction
well underway Bruce Frank we can review it with him if you like. Once we get
construction well underway Bruce Frank we can review with him or flag it for review or
whatever. We just wanted to bring it to the Board’s attention that we think it makes
sense.
MR. KREBS: I think it’s reasonable, but is it reasonable for staff to be?
MR. JARRETT: Why don’t we leave it at that we’ll flag what we’d like to remove and
we’ll have Bruce Frank review it with us.
MR. OBORNE-What?
MR JARRETT: This is the extraneous foliage that’s not, the underbrush. The
underbrush outside of the disturbance limits that we want to get rid of to thin the side out
and make it more attractive. We’ll just flag it and review it with Bruce.
MR. OBORNE-And then put it on the plan for submission?
MR JARRETT: Well, that kind of detail is very tough to do.
MR. OBORNE-Are you planning on keeping any of the trees?
MR. JARRETT: Yeah, we’re planning on keeping the large trees outside the areas we
have to disturb, but some of the underbrush we want to get rid of we can flag it for to
Bruce to review.
MR. KREBS: What if they just put on the plan, those trees that they are going to keep.
MR. OBORNE-Absolutely.
MR. KREBS: And then everything else they can do whatever they want with.
MR. JARRETT: We can try to approximate that. When we had the survey done, Van
Dusen and Steves did not located trees, we’ll have to get out and try to locate trees.
MR. OBORNE-Yes, you want try to make it as user friendly as possible and not make it
cumbersome, so if you just slap the trees, for lack of a better term, on the plan that
you’re planning on keeping and that is easily enforceable.
MR. KREBS: And, I don’t think it’s so much that we need to know the exact location but
we need to know that there is a maple.
MR. JARRETT: We’ll flag the approximate location.
MR. KREBS: Yes, the approximate location.
MR. JARRETT: We’ll flag the approximate location of the trees and flag them in the field
that we want to save.
MR. BREDA: Well, the one’s on there already, and then there’s just another little birch in
the other corner and that’s about it. We’re just missing a birch tree in the northeast
corner.
MR. TRAVER: I think we’re okay with that.
MR. JARRETT-All right. So Mike has agreed to the two trees at the entrance to Manor.
MR. KREBS: Okay.
MRS. STEFFAN: And where are we on the access to, on Manor Drive, is that exit only?
MR. JARRETT: Personally, I’m leaning toward entrance only off Farr and entrance and
exit off Manor but I will review it and we could come back with something else, but I am
leaning towards that right now.
MRS. STEFFAN: What’s the Planning Board think?
MR. TRAVER: That’s my preferred layout.
31
(Queensbury Planning Board 07/07/09)
MR. STEFFAN: Entrance and Exit on Manor?
MR. TRAVER: Correct and entrance only on Farr.
MRS. STEFFAN-On Farr.
MR. KREBS: Yes, I agree.
MR. KREB: Just for clarification, we’re talking about clearing the brush on the other
lot, correct?
MR. JARRETT: I’m sorry?
MR. KREBS: We’re talking about clearing the brush on the other lot. Correct?
MR. TRAVER: North?
MR. KREBS: No, no not the north lot, the south lot after you subdivide.
MR. OBORNE: You’re talking about the north lot?
MRS. STEFFAN: There are no trees.
MR. TRAVER: There aren’t that many on the south lot.
MR. BREDA-Where the brown house is? There’s like one, yes, a birch, a big birch and
then a huge white pine, but no brush at all on that lot.
MRS. STEFFAN-Right, it’s flat.
MR. JARRETT: What I’m talking about is the brush outside the area that we have to
disturb for construction and it would not constitute ground disturbance because we don’t
really plan to grub it per se, because we’re cutting it at ground line.
MRS. STEFFAN: The language that I was putting in and preparing for the motion is that
the Planning Board discussed and agrees with the applicant on thinning site underbrush
and identifying larger trees that will remain on the plan.
MR. JARRETT: Yes, okay. That’s fine.
MRS. STEFFAN: Okay, other issues that are not covered, a couple of things: I’ve
addressed Staff Comments, Vision Engineering Comments, Identify Sign locations, type
and size; ensure that they are Code Compliant, add two maple trees to the Manor Drive
exit. And, then the issue on the remaining trees and then change the Farr Lane access
to entrance only and identify Manor Drive access as both entrance and exit.
MR. OBORNE: Does the Planning Board wish to discuss parking that applicant is asking
for. We’re going to have to grant approval for what they are asking for.
MRS. STEFFAN: For less parking?
MR. OBORNE: For more parking.
MR. TRAVER: More Parking
MR. OBORNE: Also, the new Code, the dimensions of the parking spaces appear to
have changed, they are a little bit longer.
MR. JARRETT: Mike and I discussed this after we saw the Staff Comments and we
would prefer to go through whatever review process we have to go through to try to keep
the design the way it is. We would rather not add the extra asphalt for increased width of
the parking lot, really, the spaced are lengthened. And this site is already constrained. If
we had the whole property, we wouldn’t have any problem, but trying to leave room for
the round-about – we’re constrained. We prefer to try to get the Boards approval to leave
the spaces the way they are.
MR. OBORNE: The problem with that is those are dimensional requirements and the
Zoning Board of Appeals would have to approve those.
32
(Queensbury Planning Board 07/07/09)
MR. KREBS: But wasn’t this on the 2000 , the prior ?
MRS. STEFFAN: It’s not the old zoning? It’s the new Zoning ?
MR. KREBS: I thought that when this originally brought up.
MR. JARRETT: It came up for a discussion item.
MR. OBORNE: It was on for a discussion item, it wasn’t a submitted.
MR. KREBS-Okay.
MR. SCHONEWOLF-The cars are getting smaller, so they made the parking spaces
bigger.
MR. OBORNE: I was pretty dropped jaw at that when I saw it. I was not aware of that in
the Code, but it is in the Code.
MR. JARRETT: Now can we circumvent an extra meeting if we ask the Board now to
render a recommendation to the ZBA? If we have to file an application to the ZBA.
MRS. STEFFAN: What is the ZBA’s schedule? How booked are they?
th
MR. OBORNE: Their deadline day is the 15, next week, I do have many pre-application
meetings, I can’t quite get a handle; pre-applications meetings don’t always correlate
into an actual application coming in on deadline day. I can’t speak to that. I would say
that they are going to be full meetings; but I have to assume that. I would say they are
going to be full meetings I have to assume that.
MRS. STEFFAN: Because, you know, I’m recalling, I don’t have the minutes of the
meeting but I recall a conversation that we had that you needed, I think, eight spaces for
employees, and so you need a little additional parking.
MR. BREDA-Well, I have 16, 17 employees.
MRS. STEFFAN-Right. So there were more employees. So you needed employee
parking in addition to the pick up and drop off.
MR. BREDA-Correct.
MR. JARRETT-Right.
MR. SEGULJIC-Could you enlighten me as to what the difference is in Code per parking
spaces?
MR. OBORNE-They have been lengthened by two feet. They’re to 20 feet.
MR. SEGULJIC-SO the width remains the same, it’s just the length?
MR. OBORNE-Yes.
MR. JARRETT-Yes, they were nine by eighteen. Now they’re nine by twenty.
MR. SEGULJIC-You have nine by eighteens down here. So what impact is that extra
two feet going to have on?
MR. SCHONEWOLF-That’s why he wants to go to the ZBA.
MR. JARRETT-Fairly significant, because it widens the whole site disturbance out and
constrains, it actually pushes the boundary limit. We’d have to probably encroach on the
roundabout lot to some degree, and I don’t think we can do that.
MR. SEGULJIC-Okay. It just would impact the western strip?
MR. JARRETT-Yes, it would. Everything is going to be squeezed. It would widen
everything by four feet, or two feet on the north and four feet on the west. That much
more asphalt.
33
(Queensbury Planning Board 07/07/09)
MR. SIPP-Did the handicap increase, too?
MR. OBORNE-The handicap has always been that. That hasn’t changed.
MR. SIPP-That hasn’t changed.
MR. OBORNE-Yes, it’s a New York State Code. It’s actually a Building and Codes
issue.
MRS. STEFFAN-Mike, how long have you been working with the Town on this
roundabout issue? I mean, you’d have a contract on the property for a year?
MR. BREDA-Over a year now.
MRS. STEFFAN-So you’ve been having discussions with the Town Board?
MR. BREDA-With Dan Stec mostly. Like I said, originally I was going to knock down the
brown house in front, put everything towards the south side, facing Aviation. Then it
came to my attention, I don’t know how I originally found out, but it came to my attention
about a proposed roundabout, and I had gone to Dan Stec, and questioned it, he’s like
yes, yes, you know, this is all proposed right now, but, you know, if you’ll work with me,
this will be great. So really everything that’s designed here is to try to help out the Town
and the traffic issues and the roundabout. I would certainly much rather have Aviation
Road frontage, and to be honest with you, a lot of these issues that are coming up are
mostly because of the roundabout and trying to design around it. So I’m a little frustrated
with that, and I understand the codes and rules and everything that has to be followed,
but I still technically could design my project up front, and be like, well, there’s not going
to be a roundabout because I own it and now my building’s in the way. I don’t know. I
don’t want to get, we’re trying to accommodate, that’s all.
MRS. STEFFAN-Okay.
MR. SEGULJIC-So I guess what he’s saying is anything this Board can do to help the
process would be welcomed.
MR. BREDA-Now is this, this line here, where did we get that from, the accuracy?
MR. JARRETT-That came off the plans that, the conceptual plan.
MR. BREDA-From Chazen?
MR. JARRETT-Yes, and it may yet be that way.
MRS. STEFFAN-Okay. Based on the discussions here, my understanding is that the
applicant is going to apply to the Zoning Board of Appeals for a variance on parking
space dimensions, and so, in light of that, I’ve prepared a recommendation for the
Zoning Board of Appeals, but before we deal with that, we have to deal with the Site Plan
issue.
MR. OBORNE-If I may.
MRS. STEFFAN-Yes.
MR. OBORNE-If you could open the public hearing for the Site Plan, and leave it open,
then we can move forward.
MRS. STEFFAN-Okay. Thanks. Is there anyone in the audience who would like to
speak to this application? Based on the fact there are no takers, we will keep the public
hearing open.
PUBLIC HEARING OPENED
MRS. STEFFAN-Is the Planning Board in favor of going forward and tabling this
application to the last meeting in August, extending the submission deadline one week,
based on the conditions that we discussed about 15 minutes ago, regarding the thinning,
changing the landscaping to add two trees, the signs, addressing Staff comments and
VISION Engineering comments, and the access management on Farr Lane and Manor
Drive?
34
(Queensbury Planning Board 07/07/09)
MR. KREBS-Yes.
MR. TRAVER-Yes. I think with the applicant’s offer to keep in contact with the Planning
Staff to let them know if they’re going to be able to accommodate that, I guess that’s
reasonable.
MRS. STEFFAN-All right. Then I will make a motion.
MOTION TO TABLE SITE PLAN NO. 41-2009 MICHAEL & CHRISTINA BREDA,
Introduced by Gretchen Steffan who moved for its adoption, seconded by Donald Krebs:
th
This is tabled to the August 25 Planning Board meeting. We are extending the
nd
submission deadline for this applicant to Wednesday, July 22 so they have a
one week extension of the submission deadline so that the applicant can satisfy
the following conditions of the tabling motion:
1.So the applicant can address all of the Staff comments and Vision
Engineering comments
2.So they can identify the sign locations, type and size to ensure that they
are code compliant.
3.That they will add two maple trees to the Manor Drive access point.
4.The Planning Board discussed and agrees with the applicant on thinning
site underbrush and identifying larger trees that will remain on site on their
landscaping plan or on their plan, it doesn’t have to be just on the
landscaping plan.
5.The applicant will change the Farr Lane access to an entrance only.
6.That the applicant will identify the Manor Drive access as both an
entrance and an exit.
Duly adopted this 7th day of July 2009, by the following vote:
AYES: Mr. Traver, Mr. Sipp, Mr. Seguljic, Mr. Jackowski, Mr. Schonewolf, Mr.
Krebs, Mrs. Steffan
NOES: NONE
MRS. STEFFAN-Okay, and it is our understanding that the applicant will be submitting
an application to the Zoning Board of Appeals for a variance regarding this Site Plan 41-
2009 for Michael and Christina Breda.
THE PLANNING BOARD WOULD LIKE TO MAKE A RECOMMENDATION TO THE
ZONING BOARD WHEN THEY REVIEW THIS PARTICULAR APPLICATION FOR
WORLD CLASS KIDS REGARDING PARKING SPACE DIMENSIONS. THE APPLICANT
APPEARED BEFORE THE PLANNING BOARD FOR SKETCH PLAN REVIEW A FEW
MONTHS AGO-PRE ZONING CHANGE. THEY HAVE SUBMITTED THEIR PLANS TO
THE PLANNING BOARD BASED UPON THE EXCHANGE OF INFORMATION AT THAT
MEETING. THE APPLICANT IS ALSO WORKING COOPERATIVELY WITH THE TOWN
OF QUEENSBURY REGARDING THE PROPOSED AND POSSIBLE ROUNDABOUT ON
AVIATION ROAD AND FARR LANE. AS A RESULT OF THE NUMEROUS
DISCUSSIONS AND COOPERATION BETWEEN THE TOWN AND THIS APPLICANT
AND THE EFFECT OF THE ROUNDABOUT ON THE DEVELOPMENT OF THIS
COMMERCIAL SITE THE PLANNING BOARD RECOMMENDS GRANTING A
VARIANCE FOR PARKING SPACE DIMENSIONS THAT MEET THE STANDARDS OF
THE PRIOR ZONING CODE, Introduced by Gretchen Steffan who moved its adoption,
seconded by Donald Krebs:
Duly adopted this 7th day of July 2009, by the following vote:
MR. JARRETT-Any chance of getting on an August Zoning Board meeting?
MR. OBORNE-Well, you’ve got your ZBA, you’ve got your Planning Board
th
recommendation right now. You need to get something in by the 15 for a
recommendation for an AV.
MR. JARRETT-Is there an opening for an agenda slot?
MR. OBORNE-See me tomorrow. Give me a call in the morning. I’m extremely busy. I
have at least five applications and I have a debriefing meeting I need to do in the
morning.
35
(Queensbury Planning Board 07/07/09)
MR. JARRETT-Okay.
AYES: Mr. Sipp, Mr. Seguljic, Mr. Jackowski, Mr. Schonewolf, Mr. Krebs, Mr. Traver,
Mrs. Steffan
NOES: NONE
MRS. STEFFAN-Thank you.
MR. JARRETT-Thank you for all of those. I have one last question for the Board. The
comments that came up on Dan’s list, on both these last two projects, regarding full sized
plans. We have attempted to try and downsize our submission size and minimize paper
and handling behind the desk for you. So we’ve tried to go to 11 by 17 drawings. We
can go to full size drawings for the full Board, and certainly for Dan’s office, if you wish.
We’re open to whatever size you want. We were trying to downsize our submissions.
MRS. STEFFAN-Is there a conflict, and I want to ask Dan Ryan and Keith this. Is there a
problem with the Town and our engineer consultant getting full sized plans and getting
smaller plans for the Planning Board to review? Is there a conflict?
MR. OBORNE-I would prefer larger plans.
MRS. STEFFAN-Okay.
MR. JARRETT-For the Board or for you?
MRS. STEFFAN-Okay.
MR. OBORNE-For me.
MR. RYAN-Yes, I think the half sized plans are normally sufficient for the Planning Board
members. We need them just, a lot of times we’re using the scales on these plans and
we can’t do it. We still can, but it’s difficult to be legible in some instances, but I don’t
have a problem.
MR. JARRETT-I’d prefer to give them full size, and if it’s easier for you to handle these,
then it works great. So I just wanted to clarify that.
MRS. STEFFAN-Okay. Good. I just wanted to clarify that. I thought that’s what I said,
but maybe not. So if the Community Development and the engineering professionals get
the full size plans, that’s great for the Planning Board. If we get the compact plans, it’s
better for us and more manageable.
MR. JARRETT-And then it’s very expensive for him to send full size to everybody. So
this is a good compromise. I think it works great.
MRS. STEFFAN-Yes. We would be completely satisfied with that.
MR. JARRETT-Thank you for that clarification.
MRS. STEFFAN-Okay.
MR. JARRETT-All right. We’ll see you soon.
MRS. STEFFAN-Thank you. Good luck, and I know you guys have a lot of work to do,
but our Community Development Department will work with you.
MR. JARRETT-Thank you. We appreciate that.
MR. BREDA-Thank you.
MRS. STEFFAN-Okay, and we’ll see you in August. Thank you.
SUBDIVISION NO. 6-2009 SKETCH SEQR TYPE N/A LINDA DATOR AGENT(S)
JARRETT ENGINEERS OWNER(S) SAME ZONING WR LOCATION 2583 STATE
ROUTE 9L APPLICANT PROPOSES SUBDIVISION OF A 3.66 ACRE PARCEL INTO
TWO LOTS OF 1.67 & 1.99 ACRES. SUBDIVISION OF LAND REQUIRES PLANNING
BOARD REVIEW AND APPROVAL. CROSS REFERENCE AV 30-09 WARREN CO.
36
(Queensbury Planning Board 07/07/09)
PLANNING N/A APA, CEA, OTHER APA WETLANDS L G CEA LOT SIZE 3.66
ACRES TAX MAP NO. 240.5-1-30 SECTION A-183
TOM JARRETT, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT
MRS. STEFFAN-And according to the notes from our Staff, the review has been moved
th
to the July 28 meeting. Mr. Jarrett is here to talk about this application.
MR. JARRETT-No, it’s just going to be tabled, I believe. Right?
MR. OBORNE-It is going to be tabled, yes.
MRS. STEFFAN-Okay.
MR. JARRETT-If you have any questions, I’m glad to answer them, but you’ve already
looked at it once.
MR. OBORNE-Yes. You’ve given a positive recommendation to the ZBA. It has to go to
the ZBA, and then it will be back before you.
MRS. STEFFAN-Okay. Then I will make a motion to table.
MOTION TO TABLE SKETCH PLAN STAGE SUBDIVISION NO. 6-2009 LINDA
DATOR, Introduced by Gretchen Steffan who moved for its adoption, seconded by Paul
Schonewolf:
th
Tabled to July 28 Planning Board meeting.
th
Duly adopted this 7 day of July 2009 by the following vote:
AYES: Mr. Traver, Mr. Krebs, Mr. Jackowski, Mr. Seguljic, Mr. Sipp, Mrs. Steffan, Mr.
Schonewolf
NOES: NONE
MR. JARRETT-Great. Have a good night.
MRS. STEFFAN-Is there any other issues that the Board would like to discuss? Then I’ll
entertain a motion to adjourn.
MOTION TO ADJOURN THE QUEENSBURY PLANNING BOARD MEETING OF JULY
7, 2009, Introduced by Paul Schonewolf who moved for its adoption, seconded by
Donald Krebs:
th
Duly adopted this 7 day of July, 2009, by the following vote:
AYES: Mr. Traver, Mr. Krebs, Mr. Seguljic, Mr. Jackowski, Mr. Schonewolf, Mr. Seguljic,
Mrs. Steffan
NOES: NONE
MRS. STEFFAN-And I’d just like, for the record, that it’s twelve minutes after nine, and
we’re out of here.
On motion meeting was adjourned.
RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED,
Gretchen Steffan, Acting Chairperson
37