2009.07.21
(Queensbury Planning Board 07/21/09)
QUEENSBURY PLANNING BOARD MEETING
FIRST REGULAR MEETING
JULY 21, 2009
INDEX
Site Plan No. 28-2008 Schermerhorn Commercial Holdings 1.
EXTENSION REQUEST Tax Map No. 309.13-1-73
Special Use Permit No. 15-2009 John & Kim Polunci 2.
Freshwater Wetlands 1-2009 Tax Map No. 289.15-1-1.1
Subdivision No. 6-2008 Kelaco, LLC 9.
PRELIMINARY STAGE Tax Map No. 301.17-3-45
FINAL STAGE
Subdivision No. 11-2008 Wal-Mart Stores 22.
PRELIMINARY STAGE Tax Map No. 303.15-1-25
FINAL STAGE
Site Plan No. 17-2009 Wal-Mart Stores 43.
Freshwater Wetlands 2-2009 Tax Map No. 303.15-1-25
Freshwater Wetlands 1-2008 Wal-Mart Stores 58.
EXTENSION REQUEST Tax Map No. 303.15-1-25
RECOMMENDATION AV 36-2009 Golub Corp. [Price Chopper] 59.
Tax Map No. 302.10-1-7
RECOMMENDATION AV 37-2009 Robert Kristel 62.
Tax Map No. 239.8-1-38
RECOMMENDATION AV 38-2009 San Souci of Cleverdale, Inc. 64.
Tax Map No. 226.12-1-43
RECOMMENDATION AV 39-2009 Debaron Associates 68.
Tax Map No. 239.18-1-47
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 07/21/09)
QUEENSBURY PLANNING BOARD MEETING
FIRST REGULAR MEETING
JULY 21, 2009
7:00 P.M.
MEMBERS PRESENT
CHRIS HUNSINGER, CHAIRMAN
GRETCHEN STEFFAN, SECRETARY
THOMAS SEGULJIC
STEPHEN TRAVER
THOMAS FORD
DONALD KREBS
DONALD SIPP
LAND USE PLANNER-KEITH OBORNE
TOWN ATTORNEY-MILLER, MANNIX, SCHACHNER, & HAFNER-MIKE HILL
TOWN ENGINEER-VISION ENGINEERING-DAN RYAN
STENOGRAPHER-SUE HEMINGWAY
MR. HUNSINGER-I’ll call to order the meeting of the Town of Queensbury Planning
Board on Tuesday, July 21, 2009. First item on the agenda is approval of minutes from
May 14, 19, and 28.
APPROVAL OF MINUTES
May 14, 2009
May 19, 2009
May 28, 2009
MOTION TO APPROVE THE QUEENSBURY PLANNING BOARD MINUTES OF MAY
14, MAY 19, AND MAY 28, 2009, Introduced by Gretchen Steffan who moved for its
adoption, seconded by Thomas Ford:
st
Duly adopted this 21 day of July, 2009, by the following vote:
AYES: Mr. Sipp, Mr. Seguljic, Mr. Krebs, Mr. Traver, Mrs. Steffan, Mr. Ford,
Mr. Hunsinger
NOES: NONE
MR. HUNSINGER-For members of the audience, there are copies of the agenda on the
back table, if you didn’t already pick one up. Our next item on the agenda is
Administrative Items, 2.1. Site Plan 28-2008 for Schermerhorn Commercial Holdings.
ADMINISTRATIVE ITEMS:
2.1 SITE PLAN NO. 28-2008 SCHERMERHORN COMMERCIAL HOLDINGS:
REQUESTING A ONE YEAR EXTENSION TO 7/22/2010.
MR. HUNSINGER-They have requested a one year extension to July 22, 2010. Any
questions, comments from members of the Board?
MRS. STEFFAN-No. Since they haven’t been able to close on the property, it just
seems appropriate.
MR. FORD-I agree.
MOTION TO APPROVE THE ONE YEAR EXTENSION REQUEST FOR SITE PLAN
NO. 28-2008 SCHERMERHORN RESIDENTIAL HOLDINGS, Introduced by Gretchen
Steffan who moved for its adoption, seconded by Donald Krebs:
According to the resolution prepared by Staff.
1
(Queensbury Planning Board 07/21/09)
st
Duly adopted this 21 day of July, 2009, by the following vote:
AYES: Mr. Traver, Mr. Seguljic, Mr. Sipp, Mr. Ford, Mr. Krebs, Mrs. Steffan,
Mr. Hunsinger
NOES: NONE
MR. HUNSINGER-At the pleasure of the Board, I would like to move the Wal-Mart
extension request to that portion of the agenda when we actually address the Wal-Mart
applications.
MR. FORD-Makes sense to me.
MRS. STEFFAN-Seems reasonable.
MR. HUNSINGER-Okay, and also, if it please the Board, I’d like to change the agenda
item to move the recommendations after we deal with the projects for review this
evening. Any objections?
MRS. STEFFAN-No.
MR. HUNSINGER-Okay.
SPECIAL USE PERMIT 15-2009 FRESHWATER WETLANDS 1-2009 SEQR TYPE II
JOHN & KIM POLUNCI AGENT(S) FITZGERALD MORRIS BAKER & FIRTH;
HUTCHINS ENGINEERING OWNER(S) MARYLEE GOSLINE ZONING RR-3
LOCATION 21 BLIND ROCK ROAD APPLICANT PROPOSES CONSTRUCTION OF A
KENNEL FACILITY WHICH INCLUDES A 2,064 SQUARE FOOT PET CARE
BUILDING, A 576 SQUARE FOOT ADMINISTRATIVE BUILDING/KENNEL WITH
ASSOCIATED SITE IMPROVEMENTS. KENNELS IN AN RR ZONE REQUIRE A
SPECIAL USE PERMIT; FRESHWATER WETLANDS PERMIT IS REQUIRED FOR
LAND DISTURBANCE/FILLING WITHIN 100 FEET OF A WETLANDS BOUNDARY.
BOTH ARE SUBJECT TO PLANNING BOARD REVIEW AND APPROVAL. CROSS
REFERENCE SUP 30-08, SP 18-05 WARREN CO. PLANNING 3/11/09 NO COUNTY
IMPACT DEC, ACOE, OTHER NWI WETLANDS LOT SIZE 20.58 +/- ACRES TAX
MAP NO. 289.15-1-1.1 SECTION 179-10, 179-6-060
MATT FULLER & TOM HUTCHINS, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT
MR. HUNSINGER-Keith, whenever you’re ready to summarize Staff Notes.
MR. OBORNE-Okay, and I’ll summarize them quickly. Special Use Permit 15-2009
Freshwater Wetlands 1-2009. The applicant is John and Kim Polunci. The requested
action is a Special Use Permit for kennel facility, and Freshwater Wetlands Permit
required for land disturbance, filling within 100 feet of a wetland boundary. Location is
21 Blind Rock Road. The existing zoning is RR-3A. This is a Type II SEQRA. Project
Description: Applicant proposes construction of a Kennel Facility with associated site
improvements on the 20.13 acre parcel in the RR-3A zone. There are two buildings
associated with this project. I believe everybody on the Board is pretty much up to speed
on this plan. I won’t bore the Board with the details. I do have, as Staff, a couple of
issues. One being the details on the availability of space to board up to 30 dogs,
regardless of size should be submitted, and Staff does recommend a stop sign at the
intersection, and with that said, I’d turn it over to the Board.
MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. Thank you. Good evening.
MR. FULLER-Good evening. For the record, I’m Matt Fuller from Fitzgerald, Morris,
Baker, Firth, with Tom Hutchins, the engineer, and John Polunci. We were here last
month. The Board had requested input from Counsel as to the conditions that we had
proposed. We did send them on to Counsel, through Staff. The limited changes that
were included in there are acceptable, and we don’t have a problem with those changes
as recommended by Counsel. What I just handed out to you, just so that you have it for
the record, there had been discussion in the past about the septic system, you know,
whether the standards were acceptable and what kind of standards you would use for a
dog kennel like this, and we did follow up, just kind of doing a bit more homework, with
DEC. Tom had some extensive conversations, and sent them the materials we had
given to the Planning Board, and the short of that letter is that the standards, we ended
up, Tom ended up finding the North Carolina standards, were acceptable. So DEC did
say that those were fine with them. So with that, I think we’ve, you know, kind of
2
(Queensbury Planning Board 07/21/09)
addressed all the concerns. The one outstanding question I think we had last time was
the question about the trees to the entrance. I don’t know if anybody got out there to
actually take a look at them. We’d still leave that before the Planning Board. Again, not
to try to muddy the water or change things, but we think, aesthetically, that, you know, if
it please the Planning Board, we would leave as many of the trees there as we could.
We had to show clearing limits on the plans to meet the criteria for the Special Use
Permit and the Site Plan approval, but I think the family is sincere. They would like to
keep as many of those trees out there as they possibly could. So that’s one of the things
that’s before you, and I think the last thing was the stop sign. Again, you know, we’d
really leave that to the discretion of the Board. We didn’t necessarily think that, you
know, similar to other commercial uses around Town, we didn’t think one was necessary
there. People are going to stop if cars are coming. It’s similar to a driveway in that
respect. It’s not going to be, as we said, an all day in and out traffic from this use. So we
didn’t see putting up another sign as necessarily required in this instance. So obviously I
think our preference would be to not have another sign there. Again, that’s before the
Board as well. Tom, did I miss anything?
MR. HUTCHINS-No, I don’t believe so, except the few outstanding items that VISION
had are complete.
MR. FULLER-Yes, and we did get the signoff from the, thanks, Tom, that’s important.
We did get the signoff from the Town Engineer that we had addressed all of their
concerns as well.
MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. Anything else?
MR. FULLER-That’s it.
MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. Questions, comments from members of the Board?
MR. KREBS-My only question is, have you agreed that you would put, including walking
of their own pets?
MR. FULLER-Yes, that was originally in there. That was something we had talked about
in the past. We’re fine with that, and I think there was one, in the first sentence I think
Mike had put which shall be part of a renewable Special Use Permit. We didn’t have a
problem with that either.
MR. KREBS-Okay.
MR. TRAVER-I think, with regards to the trees in the entrance way, as I recall we were in
there, and the pictures that you showed us when you were before us, I think that, you
know, any trees that you can leave are only going to add and preserve the forested area
and be very positive. So I would be favorable to not requiring that you remove those.
That’s just my own feeling.
MR. KREBS-I would agree with that.
MR. FULLER-I think how we would approach that is it’s shown on the plans as the extent
of clearing, and what we would propose is, as they proceed with the project, you know,
selectively within that limit, they’re going to maintain as many of the trees as they can.
So it wouldn’t be, what I was concerned about was a project change or something like
that. It won’t be a project change. It’s, selectively as they go through there and need to
move the driveway a little bit here and there, they’ll not cut down a swath, as you
otherwise normally would in order to put in a driveway. So I think that’s how, you know,
moving forward, we would probably do it.
MRS. STEFFAN-Well, and for the most part when that property was filled, I mean, there
were some pretty large trucks that were traveling that particular road. So we certainly
know that it’s capable of taking heavy truck traffic, which, once this is completed, you
certainly won’t be expecting that.
MR. FULLER-Yes.
MR. HUNSINGER-Anything else from the Board?
MRS. STEFFAN-I don’t know how I feel about the stop sign. I know Staff is desirable of
the stop sign. There isn’t a lot of traffic on that road at this point in time. As the area
grows, you know, it’ll grow exponentially, the stop sign may be needed at some point in
3
(Queensbury Planning Board 07/21/09)
the future, but I’m not believing that it’s needed right now. I don’t know how the rest of
the Board feels about that.
MR. TRAVER-Well, my feeling is, I didn’t feel very strongly about it one way or another,
but quite honestly the fact that it’s recommended by our professional staff makes me
lean toward let’s put it up. What harm can it do? I mean, I understand it’s an additional
expense, but I don’t think after all the effort the applicant has put in to design a good
project, I think, I suspect, that, although they probably would prefer not to have to do that,
that they also would defer to Staff if that was what we wanted.
MR. FULLER-Yes, and it wasn’t the cost, necessarily. It was more visual.
MR. TRAVER-Yes, I understand, and perhaps it doesn’t have to be the regulation size. I
think you can get, perhaps, smaller ones. That might be a compromise. I don’t know if
that would present a problem for the Town. I mean, it would be on private property.
MR. OBORNE-No, there’s no problem for the Town.
MR. FORD-I concur. I believe that there ought to be one there, at that intersection, and
a smaller size would certainly be acceptable to me.
MR. TRAVER-Yes, we really just want to signal to the driver leaving the facility that they
need to be extra careful, and actually you may find your insurance would prefer that as
well.
MR. FULLER-The comment that was whispered to me is we could put one on, like, to the
back of a rock, so it wouldn’t be on a big post, standing out there. You could have a little
rock. We’d have to pull it back out of the right of way. Tom’s comment was if it’s in the
right of way, it’s got to be a uniform sign. If we pulled it back, it wouldn’t.
MR. TRAVER-Well, another way to reflect upon this is that, you know, with the Special
Use Permit, we certainly want to avoid, I mean, it would be a terrible tragedy, and I’m not
saying that the stop sign would prevent it, but if there were an accident or something that
drew further attention to this development, that wouldn’t be in anyone’s best interest,
obviously. This may be one way that we can just help make sure that things go
smoothly.
MR. FORD-I concur. I don’t want someone down the road coming back and saying, the
Queensbury Planning Board approved a non stop sign at an intersection like this.
Thanks anyway.
MR. HUNSINGER-Any other questions, comments from the Board?
MR. SEGULJIC-Well, the only other question is the Staff comment about the 30 dogs
and the eight spaces. I guess, my understanding is that these kennels are expandable
and contractible, or whatever. So if you’ve got small dogs, it’s 30, if you’ve got big dogs
it’s eight, but you could have any combination. I guess what is your comment based on?
MR. OBORNE-My issue is based on what was submitted in the elevation drawings and
the floor plans, denoting just eight kennel spaces for dogs. There’s no room, or there’s
no indication that 30 dogs can be kenneled. What I’m looking for is corroboration that
that could actually happen.
MR. FULLER-It was shown really just for the internal, just kind of view of what the
building was. I know generally with Site Plans we don’t get into what’s inside. We
showed the kennels to show you, we wanted to show the rough idea of here’s where
they are, and.
MR. TRAVER-I think they were just representative.
MR. SEGULJIC-A note on there saying something like eight kennels that could
accommodate 30 dogs.
MR. OBORNE-I’m looking, me, as Staff, myself as Staff, I am looking for the actual
machinations for lack of a better term, on how you are going to board 30 dogs. Show me
that. Show me that on the plan. All I see is eight, that’s all.
JOHN POLUNCI
4
(Queensbury Planning Board 07/21/09)
MR. POLUNCI-He’s not reading through the whole application. The Pet Service
Association specifically tells you how to do that. It’s in that application, and he didn’t look
at that when he read through the whole application. They’re adjustable kennels. Some
of them are actually, you’ve all seen them before, they’re smaller kennels. It’s, they’re
determined by the size of the dog. That’s just, what you see in the print is an idea of
where the kennels are going to go, and they could be moved, some towards the center a
little bit more, some to the side. It’s relative to the size of the dog. As far as the layout of
it, it’s not actually spelled out per square foot per dog.
MR. HUNSINGER-Is there another way to depict that in the Site Plan so that there’s no
confusion to any, you know, future reviewer? Is there another way to present that,
perhaps?
MR. POLUNCI-I just, I mean, I don’t understand what the issue is. You have, they’re
large kennels. In some cases, the Pet Care Service Association, I’m not saying that I
would do this, but will let you stack kennels. I mean, when you board your dog at Glens
Falls Animal Hospital or any other places, they’ll stack dogs up and down. I mean, we
have eight foot of ceiling, I mean, so, for his question on, you know, mathematical, it’s
the layout. I mean, we can put them all in that area if we have to, we can put them in the
center. It’s set by the Pet Care Services Association.
MR. HUNSINGER-Well, maybe just a notation on the Site Plan itself, you know, is really,
you know, I think all we’re looking for, just so there’s no ambiguity.
MR. FULLER-So, something along the lines that the maximum would be within the
standards of the Pet Care Services Association, and that’s really what we have said and
that’s what we’ve maintained. That’s what we’re going to do.
MR. HUNSINGER-Yes, I mean, I understand the narrative says that, but what we’re
talking about here is the actual plot itself.
MR. FULLER-Yes, we could put that on that one plan.
MR. HUNSINGER-Just a notation.
MR. FULLER-Just as a condition here, just say when you submit that Final, put it on
there?
MR. HUNSINGER-Yes.
MR. FULLER-I think we could do that.
MR. HUNSINGER-Yes, I think that would address that issue.
MRS. STEFFAN-So how do we put that as a condition, a notation on the signed plan and
the maximum number of?
MR. FULLER-Just that the maximum number will be within the standards of the Pet Care
Services Association, basically the similar condition that we have, or like or higher
standard, I guess is how I would word it. The concern I think, and to just voice it another
way, is it’s a numerous number of layouts. I think of it kind of a tetrus block thing. You
could put, stack them, so for us to say this is how many you could put in there, it could
change today, tomorrow or the next day, and I think, again, the overall condition is that
it’s going to operate within those conditions and the requirements of the Pet Care
Standards Association. This is one of them, and again, there is square footage for like
the running area. We talked about that last time. That is a specific square footage per
dog per area, and the running area was calculated with that in mind. Similar to the other,
you know, they give you moving room. In the application and the materials we submitted
talks about, you know, a sufficient room to move. That changes per animal. I think that’s
what John’s trying to say is to come up with that, to show it, it would be infinite, it could
be infinite, depending on small dogs, big dogs. So that’s what I’m saying is, if you want,
in addition to the conditions we’ve already agreed to, which are what I would interpret
would impact even the plans we’ve submitted, that’s an overall condition on this Special
Use Permit is compliance with that. We could also put it on that one, the drawing there
that depicts the internal structure and say, you know, the maximum number of dogs and
per the boarding kennel will be in compliance with the Pet Care Standards Association,
or like or higher standard.
5
(Queensbury Planning Board 07/21/09)
MR. KREBS-But it already says in this agreement that the permittee will design,
construct and operate a kennel in accordance with the standards of the Pet Care
Association, or a like organization with like or higher standards.
MR. FULLER-And that’s what I’m saying, we basically would cut that off and paste it.
MR. HUNSINGER-Okay.
MR. FULLER-We could submit a final plan with that stamped on it.
MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. Anything else from members of the Board? I did have a
request that I forwarded to the Board, actually today. There was a request, I’m getting
some puzzled looks so I did bring copies. There was a request from one of the
neighbors to re-open the public hearing, and I did have some discussion with Counsel on
that, and Counsel basically said, you know, a decision to re-open the public hearing
would have to come from the whole Board. There would certainly be certain
consequences to doing that. The issue that the neighbor brought up is that they didn’t
feel that their questions were adequately addressed. Obviously that’s something that,
you know, it’s the Board’s role. We have to determine whether or not those questions
are addressed or not, but I did say to Counsel that I would bring this to the Board this
evening for your consideration, and, you know, to be fair to all parties. My personal
position is that the issues have been addressed, and, you know, re-opening the public
hearing would, you know, would take us down a path we’ve never gone before, but,
again, you know, in fairness to the request, I did want to bring it to the Board’s attention.
MR. KREBS-I personally agree with you. I don’t think we should re-open the public
hearing.
MR. HUNSINGER-We don’t need to take any action on it. I just wanted to bring it to the
Board’s attention. If it’s the will of the Board to let it lay, then we’ll let it lay.
MR. FORD-Thank you, Chris.
MR. HUNSINGER-Okay.
MRS. STEFFAN-I certainly think that we’ve had a great deal of dialogue that there’s
been quite an exchange of information, and when you closed the public hearing, you had
considered that at that time. So I’m satisfied with that, too. I guess I just want to talk
about the agreement. How does the rest of the Board feel about the revised draft that
was presented by our Counsel?
MR. KREBS-I think it’s fine.
MR. TRAVER-Yes, I think it covers all the points that were discussed previously, and
certainly not changed significantly from what the applicant and Mr. O’Connor presented
to us, but we’ve now run that by our Counsel just to be sure, which is what our intent is.
MR. HUNSINGER-Yes.
MR. SEGULJIC-My other question is, what happens with the agreement? Is it just
between the two parties, then?
MR. FULLER-It’s in a condition.
MR. SEGULJIC-So it’s going to be embodied in the condition?
MR. HUNSINGER-That’s why we felt we need to have our Counsel weigh in on it,
because it would be a condition with the Town. It wasn’t, even though it was designed
as an agreement between the neighbors and the applicant, they had asked us to make it
a condition of our approval.
MR. SEGULJIC-Okay.
MR. HUNSINGER-So that’s why we wanted Counsel to weigh in on it.
MR. SEGULJIC-So we’ll just reference the agreement, which then becomes a part of the
file, shall we say?
MR. HUNSINGER-Yes.
6
(Queensbury Planning Board 07/21/09)
MR. SEGULJIC-Okay.
MRS. STEFFAN-Right, and I think one of the other issues is that, you know, within this
agreement, there are a few families that are mentioned here, but it certainly is a limited
sampling, compared to all of the people from the community who have been here during
public hearings and expressed their input. So as a Planning Board, you know, we just
have to be cognizant that, yes, this agreement will be a condition that would be part of,
you know, the potential approval, we also have to look at the comments that we have
gotten from the general public on this issue, to consider, to make sure the language is
appropriate and represents the interests of all the parties, and I say that specifically
because this is a Special Use Permit and this is one of the situations where the public’s
input is very important in our decision matrix.
MR. HUNSINGER-Did you have anything to add, Mike?
MR. HILL-Well, only that the applicant and a neighbor group have submitted suggested
conditions for your consideration, but as a Board, I think, as you know, you can impose
reasonable conditions. If there are additional conditions above and beyond those that
have been submitted, you could certainly add to the conditions that have been submitted
for your review. If you believe that there are other additional property owners, for
example, that should be encompassed in that group that would receive notification per
one of the paragraphs of the proposed conditions, you could add to the list of property
owners that would be so notified if you believe that that would be an appropriate thing to
do. So you certainly have the ability to add to the conditions, subtract from the
conditions, whatever you think is appropriate. These are, as I understand it, suggestions
that have been offered that have apparently are agreeable between the applicant and a
group of surrounding neighbors, but you can go beyond (lost words) with appropriate
conditions. I mean, they have to be reasonably related to what’s being proposed.
MR. FORD-Gretchen, did you have particular concerns about any item or issue in that
agreement?
MRS. STEFFAN-No. Just, I think that the notification piece, I think, isn’t there a petition
within this application, Keith, that people signed, and so I think that here it talks about
notification of current owners, and I think that, you know, a reasonable condition might
be, you know, folks in the area and the petition is probably a good list of places to start.
MR. KREBS-But these are the adjacent property owners.
MRS. STEFFAN-The adjacent landowners, but again, when this comes up for renewal.
MR. KREBS-Yes, but then how do you limit that? If I live in South Queensbury, do I get
to get a notification that they’re going to make a change or something?
MRS. STEFFAN-It depends on if you were here for the public hearing to review this
application.
MR. KREBS-Okay. So you’re saying everybody that was here, okay.
MRS. STEFFAN-That was part of this process.
MR. KREBS-Would have to get a notification.
MRS. STEFFAN-Yes. Well, we have a list of folks who have spoken at the public
hearing. Don’t we have a list? I mean, it was, folks signed up to speak at the public
hearing.
MR. KREBS-I would kind of think that these people, if they were notified, would get the
rest of the people out there.
MR. HUNSINGER-Well, that was my, that’s what I was going to say.
MR. TRAVER-I was going to say. There’s only really two circumstances, when this
comes up for referral, that we’re going to be looking at, one is that things go as we hope
and the kennel is doing well, in which case these are the people who, even though
they’re not going to be affected, should be notified. If things are not going well and we
see a change in circumstance of one kind or another which causes this renewal of this
permit to be controversial, then I suspect we will have a public hearing with more people
7
(Queensbury Planning Board 07/21/09)
attending than merely the people that are immediately adjacent to the property, and we
will find out what those problems are.
MR. FORD-I concur. I think adjacency is the way we ought to go.
MRS. STEFFAN-The only issue is what if these people move? It talks about here they’re
listed as current owners. What if these people move and other people move into those
properties in the next four years?
MR. TRAVER-Well, you’re talking about the tax map parcels.
MR. KREBS-Right, and it says to the successor owners of the subject parcels.
MR. FULLER-Yes.
MR. KREBS-So since they’ll be on the tax map, and they’ll have that tax, they’ll be
identified, and they’ll be sent a notification, even though it’s transferred.
MRS. STEFFAN-Right. Okay. Right. All right. That sounds reasonable.
MR. FULLER-And this condition is just, the one that’s in the conditions, just deals with
sale. As far as your renewal process or anything like that, the zoning would kick in as far
as who gets notice of that. This condition that’s in here doesn’t relate to the renewal
application process. So those people in the future, whatever the zoning, 500 feet
adjoining, whatever it is, they’re still going to get that notice. This isn’t intended and
definitely doesn’t, you know, oust that requirement or set it aside. This is just if they sell
it within that timeframe, we have to provide them notice.
MRS. STEFFAN-Okay. That sounds reasonable.
MR. HUNSINGER-Anything else from the Board? This is a Type II action, so we can go
right to a resolution.
MRS. STEFFAN-All right. So we’re looking at a renewable term, four years from the
date of Certificate of Occupancy. The conditions that we talked about is the applicant
will provide a stop sign at Blind Rock Road access and denote on the Site Plan, and that
way they can put it where they deem necessary. The second is that the applicant will put
a notation on the Site Plan of the maximum number of dogs to be boarded, which is 30,
and the third is the inclusion of this revised draft agreed conditions of approval.
MR. HUNSINGER-Anything else?
MRS. STEFFAN-Chris, how do I note that, inclusion of the revised draft?
MR. HUNSINGER-Yes, I think how you said it was fine.
MRS. STEFFAN-And we want to include the highlighted piece, which is including the
walking of their own pet dogs.
MR. HUNSINGER-Right.
MOTION TO APPROVE SPECIAL USE PERMIT NO. 15-2009 & FRESHWATER
WETLANDS PERMIT 1-2009 JOHN & KIM POLUNCI, Introduced by Gretchen Steffan
who moved for its adoption, seconded by Thomas Ford:
1)A site plan application has been made to the Queensbury Planning Board for the
following: Applicant proposes construction of a Kennel Facility which includes a
2,064 square foot Pet Care Building, a 576 square foot Administrative Building /
Kennel with associated site improvements. Kennels in an RR zone require a
Special Use Permit; Freshwater Wetlands Permit is required for land
disturbance/filling within 100 feet of a wetlands boundary. Both are subject to
Planning Board review and approval.
2)A public hearing was advertised and held on 4/21/09, 6/23/09 (public hearing
closed); and
3)This application is supported with all documentation, public comment and
application material in the file of record; and
8
(Queensbury Planning Board 07/21/09)
4)MOTION TO APPROVE SPECIAL USE PERMIT NO. 15-2009 & FRESHWATER
WETLANDS PERMIT 1-2009 JOHN & KIM POLUNCI, Introduced by Gretchen
Steffan who moved for its adoption, seconded by Thomas Ford:
According to the resolution prepared by Staff. Paragraph Four A complies.
Paragraph Four B, this is a Type II Action. Paragraph Four D does not apply.
Paragraph Four E does not apply. Paragraph Four F, this Special Use Permit is
granted on a renewable basis with a term of four years from the date of
Certificate of Occupancy. This is approved with the following conditions:
1.That the applicant will provide a stop sign at Blind Rock Road access and
denote that stop sign on their Site Plan.
2.That the applicant will put a notation on the Site Plan of the maximum number
of dogs to be boarded at the facility, which is 30.
3.That the applicant will include the revised draft of the agreed conditions of
approval dated July 15, 2009 as presented to include within Paragraph Three,
including the walking of their own pet dogs.
a)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
b)This project is a Type II, and, therefore, no further SEQRA review is necessary;
and
c)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
d)NOT APPLICABLE. If applicable, Item 7 to be combined with a letter of credit;
and
e)NOT APPLICABLE. The Sanitary Sewer connection plan must be submitted to
the Wastewater Department for its review, approval, permitting and inspection;
and
f) Per 179-10-030 K SUP 15-2009 is granted the following status: this Special Use
Permit is granted on a renewable basis with a term of four years from the date of
Certificate of Occupancy
st
Duly adopted this 21 day of July, 2009, by the following vote:
AYES: Mr. Traver, Mr. Krebs, Mr. Seguljic, Mr. Sipp, Mr. Ford, Mrs. Steffan,
Mr. Hunsinger
NOES: NONE
MR. HUNSINGER-You’re all set. Good luck.
MRS. STEFFAN-Good luck on your project.
MR. FULLER-Thank you.
MR. HUNSINGER-Thank you.
SUBDIVISION NO. 6-2008 PRELIMINARY STAGE/FINAL STAGE SEQR TYPE I
KELACO, LLC AGENT(S) VISION ENGINEERING OWNER(S) SAME ZONING SR-
1A LOCATION CORNER WEST MT. ROAD & SHERMAN AVENUE APPLICANT
PROPOSES SUBDIVISION OF A 36.2 ACRE PARCEL INTO 21 RESIDENTIAL LOTS
RANGING IN SIZE FROM 1 ACRE TO 7.0 ACRES. SUBDIVISION OF LAND
REQUIRES PLANNING BOARD REVIEW AND APPROVAL. THE PLANNING BOARD
MAY COMMENCE SEQR REVIEW. CROSS REFERENCE BP 08-633, SKETCH
9/23/08 WARREN CO. PLANNING N/A APA, DEC, ACOE, OTHER APA
WETLANDS, DOH LOT SIZE 36.2 +/- ACRES SECTION A-183
MATT FULLER & KEN COLLETTE, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT
MR. HUNSINGER-Keith, whenever you’re ready to summarize Staff Notes, please.
9
(Queensbury Planning Board 07/21/09)
MR. OBORNE-Subdivision 6-2008, Preliminary Stage and Final Stage. Applicant is
Kelaco, LLC. The requested action is Site Plan Review for the subdivision of land.
Location is the corner of West Mountain Road and Sherman Avenue. This is an existing
zoning is SR-1A. SEQRA Status is Type I. Project Description: Applicant proposes
subdivision of a 36.2 acre parcel into 21 residential lots ranging in size from 1 acre to 7.0
acres. The western portion of the project is located in the Adirondack Park and effects
portions of 3 lots (see attached APA Jurisdictional Determination J2009-133 dated March
23, 2009). Staff Comments: There currently exists a single family dwelling on a mostly
wooded 36.2 acre parcel. The predominant soils on site are Oakville loamy fine sand. I
shall go down to additional notes. I do want to state, concerning sidewalks in the Town
of Queensbury, the applicant’s agent has submitted a ‘Sidewalk Discussion’ document
dated June 15, 2009. Staff agrees with the fact that the Neighborhood Residential
Planning Area, as described in the Comprehensive Plan, may result in a more densely
populated area than the proposal location for this subdivision. The fact is that this
proposed subdivision is not located in the Neighborhood Residential Planning Area. This
subdivision is considered to be part of the Moderate Density Residential Planning Area
and as such, recommendation A.5 might apply better. The Moderate Density Residential
Planning Area, as stated on page 14 of the Comprehensive Plan, ‘occupies the middle
portion of the town. It arcs around the Traditional Neighborhood Planning Area from the
Hudson River to the Kingsbury line. It extends out just past West Mountain Road to the
west and just north of Glen and Sunnyside Lakes”. Staff continues to believe the A.5
might be a better recommendation in this instance. Further, Chapter 149, STREETS
AND SIDEWALKS, does not require sidewalks in the Town of Queensbury. Sidewalks,
in the case of this subdivision, are at the discretion of the Planning Board. This discretion
is given to the Planning Board by Chapter 183, SUBDIVISION OF LAND. Under §A183-
9(B2), Plat details and requirements, ‘the location of all streets, pavements, curbs,
sidewalks, easements, parks and other open space’ shall be shown. To reiterate,
sidewalks are at the discretion of the Planning Board and are not a requirement. The
Planning Board will need to grant a waiver from the 100 ft contour extending off site
requirement. The Planning Board will need to grant a waiver from the one inch equals
50 feet scale requirement. With that, I’d turn it over to the Board.
MR. HUNSINGER-Thank you. Good evening.
MR. FULLER-Good evening. For the record, again, Matt Fuller from Fitzgerald, Morris,
Baker, Firth, representing the applicant, with Mike Farrell from VISION Engineering and
Ken Collette, the owner of the LLC and the development. Following up where we left off
last time, this is a 36.2 acre parcel, 21 lot subdivision. Some follow up items that we had
last time, the discussion on sidewalks, the two driveways that are proposed on West
Mountain Road, and the endangered species. I’ll take the endangered species first,
because we did get that letter, and I think we submitted it with that last application. DEC
did concur with Deb Roberts’ analysis that the site is not a host of endangered species.
So I think certainly we’ve done our homework and addressed that concern. I’ll take the
last two. The driveways, and kind of go with Lot 21, and the sidewalks, I’ll take the
sidewalks first. We did, the Planning Board asked us to submit a plan showing
sidewalks in the development. I did, you know, obviously go through the Comprehensive
Plan, because that seemed to be a focus of some of the comments, and we did submit
that plan, and I did point out in there that that obviously is not our proposal, it was at the
direction of the Planning Board, is what we did. We do remain of the opinion that, you
know, sidewalks aren’t warranted. Is cost an issue? Sure, we’re not going to dodge that.
Cost is an issue. It’s certainly not something to be taken lightly, but more important, and
I think sincerely, that they’re not going to go anywhere, and I mean that. We’d feel
differently if we were closer to the City. I think if you read the Comprehensive Plan in its
totality, especially the discussion over sidewalks, that’s really the intent is to, and for
good reason, even over by the school, you know, over off Aviation Road, developments
that are closer to the school, more of a walking population, more of a, I’d call it more of a
Comprehensive Plan from the Town to have sidewalks in certain areas. I think you’re
going to build out from those areas. So, again, you know, is it at the discretion of the
Board? It’s in the subdivision law. That’s what you asked for. Is it required? No. Does
the Comprehensive Plan point to them in this area? I don’t think so. I think it leaves
open the door to the Planning Board for some discretion on whether or not to, but I just
think that this development, being on the very outskirts of the area where they’re even
remotely talked about, you know, I think it weighs more towards the applicant’s directive.
Again, if there were sidewalks down Sherman, if that was part of a big plan, you know,
perhaps we’d be in a different situation, but, you know, given the houses across the
street, even on this side of the street, down Sherman, I went out there after the last
meeting and drove it again. I just don’t see it. I don’t see those people on Sherman
having sidewalks in their front yards, especially where the right of way and things are,
especially with that north side, it would just encroach, you know, right into their yard. So
10
(Queensbury Planning Board 07/21/09)
I guess we’re asking that the Planning Board not exercise it’s discretion in that regard. I
think the debate’s been good. I think you’ve really fleshed out the position of, you know,
with developments that are going to be closer to the areas, you know, the City or the
School, areas with sidewalks, that you set up that discussion, that that is going to be an
issue, and you better come prepared to deal with it. We did, and I think we’ve done a
good job, you know, of addressing those concerns. Looking at the driveways and Lot 21
in particular, a couple of things that you asked us to, Number One, have the driveways
located by the surveyor. We did that. Have the sight distances, both from Sherman and
Cedar, you know, located and shot and we did that. We did also follow up with the
Sheriff’s and the troopers. Though it wasn’t a specific requirement, it was discussed last
time. We did follow up with the Sheriff’s and the troopers on accident data. Not big
returns. One return at Sherman and West. That might have been the one that was Dan.
There was one at Cedar Court, and that was a one car, and then there was one further
down West Mountain. So there wasn’t significant enough for us to delve into more
accident reports and things like that. The data just wasn’t there, and, you know,
personally I can tell you I did also kind of stop by there a couple of times at that
intersection just to see, you know, a lot had been made, people don’t go 45. They go 55.
They go 60. Well, I don’t know. I mean, I think it’s interesting to come in and say it
because it kind of raises a red flag, but I was out there and, you know, do people speed?
I think they do in every town. I live on Ridge, they do, but I did really get the sense, and
that’s just anecdotal, and I appreciate that, but I wanted to know myself because people
are coming in here and saying people are speeding all the time, and so I wanted to see.
MRS. STEFFAN-Wasn’t there, I just recollect, wasn’t there an accident two weeks ago at
that particular intersection on the front page of the local section of the Post Star?
MR. FULLER-Luzerne. I was going to say, I saw that one, too, and I saw the same thing,
West Mountain Road, and I was going to say.
MRS. STEFFAN-Okay.
MR. FULLER-If I missed something, I’d be surprised.
MRS. STEFFAN-It’s just, you know, on that particular road, it’s just, it’s reasonable and
prudent, and a lot of people are not reasonable or prudent on that road.
MR. FULLER-Yes, exactly. The sight distances, Mike can talk about a bit, but they did
come back acceptable for stopping. Another thing that we did is get the discussion going
with Warren County. We did say that we were going to start that last time, and we did,
and we actually got back today the report from Warren County DPW for the two
driveways, and that permit will be issued. We had a long discussion with them. I know
there was discussion with Staff and representatives from the County and the Adirondack
Glens Falls Transportation Council, and we’ve addressed those concerns, with some
good planning, dealing with where the driveways should be. It needed to be moved a
little bit. We didn’t have a problem with that, and I think, you know, Lot 21 has been the
focus. Really I think the driveways, and the arguments surrounding that are aimed at
that lot. Here’s a practical, I think, take on that lot in particular. It’s already carved off
from the rest of that property. Without any subdivision right now, to get to that lot, you
can’t go through the wetland, both practically or, I would say, legally. You can’t disturb
that wetland to get piece of property over there, even the three and a half, four acres of
property that are above the wetland mark. So, you know, you’re getting to it from West
Mountain Road, and I think that’s a reality, both now and with the subdivision, and, you
know, together with the fact that it’s a no variance subdivision, and we did that on
purpose, and a lot of times you guys see subdivisions where they have to get variances
for lot frontage and shared driveways because they can’t get the double the frontage or
shared driveways on those roads. We’ve done that, and we did that on purpose, to meet
the Code, and again, turning to the questions that you had identified, you know, the
safety, the sight distances, stopping distances, and the planning for that one driveway in
particular on 21, you know, I think we’ve addressed those. So, you know, with the
questions and comments that the Planning Board put to us and required us to go
investigate further, I think we’ve satisfied all those concerns. Again, as for the numbers
and things, if you have questions for Mike about the sight distances that we had Van
Dusen and Steves shoot, by all means, we’ll address them. So, with that, I’ll quiet down
and turn it over to questions.
MR. HUNSINGER-Questions, comments from the Board?
11
(Queensbury Planning Board 07/21/09)
MR. TRAVER-Can you review for us the results you found from, I know they’re in the
application, but, can you talk about the sight distances and how you arrived at them and
so on?
MIKE FARRELL
MR. FARRELL-The sight distances were calculated by Van Dusen and Steves with
regard to surveying the roads. Basically the shot is from where the driveway entrance is
10 feet off the pavement. We did meet with the County engineer out on site, walked both
entrances for Lot 21 and also Lot 19 and 20, and the County engineer requested that we
move the driveway down about 13 feet to increase the distance between Glen Court and
the driveway access, so that it was in compliance with the recommendations from the
Adirondack Glens Falls Transportation Council which requires 220 feet from a driveway
to an intersection, or an intersection to intersection on that type of road. So we did move
the driveway down, increasing the sight distance and also looking at the vegetation that
we could remove within the right of way. There is vegetation within the right of way that
we will be able to remove to increase the sight distance, and the sight distance is
adequate in compliance with New York State DOT recommendations and guidelines.
MR. TRAVER-Thank you.
MR. HUNSINGER-So do the revised plans that we have show that movement of the
driveway?
MR. FARRELL-The revised plans do not show the movement. I do have a copy of the
application to the County that shows the permitted drawings that will be permitted, that
are associated with this letter for the Board to, for the Town’s record.
MR. HUNSINGER-Okay, and that’s on Lot 21, the driveway on Lot 21?
MR. FARRELL-That’s on Lot 21, yes. The driveway moved to the north 13 feet, and we
were readjusting the guiderail in that location to increase, to maximize, basically the
County determined that that was probably the best location to locate it in the maximum
sight distance at that location.
MR. FORD-How many feet north?
MR. FARRELL-Thirteen.
MR. FORD-Thirteen.
MR. TRAVER-You mentioned that you anticipated cutting back some vegetation to help
with that sight distance?
MR. FARRELL-Yes. We had the surveyor stake out the right of way line all the way to
Glen Court and there is considerable right of way on Glen Court and also on West
Mountain Road, and as part of the permit that the County will be issuing, the requirement
is that we trim the vegetation back to the right of way line.
MR. TRAVER-And maintain it?
MR. FARRELL-Yes.
MR. TRAVER-Thank you.
MR. SEGULJIC-So, just to clarify, that mark on the map in the driveway, that’s at 10 feet
from the road, I assume?
MR. FARRELL-That is.
MR. SEGULJIC-So that’s where, if you were sitting in a car, like a four foot elevation I
guess it is?
MR. FARRELL-Approximately four feet, yes, and that’s where the sight distance
measurement’s taken from, 10 feet from the pavement edge.
MR. SEGULJIC-So you can see 372 feet to the south then, clearly?
MR. FARRELL-Correct.
12
(Queensbury Planning Board 07/21/09)
MR. SEGULJIC-And that driveway that’s on the west side, that’s 220 feet from there
then? You just mentioned something about 220 feet from a driveway.
MR. FARRELL-Two hundred and twenty feet from Glen Court, the edge of pavement on
Glen Court to the new driveway.
MR. SEGULJIC-Okay.
MR. FARRELL-And that’s recommended by the Adirondack Glens Falls Transportation
Council as a separation distance for that type of road.
MR. SEGULJIC-All right. Thank you.
MR. FORD-So there will be less of a curve in that driveway, then?
MR. FARRELL-Slightly. Slightly, it still follows the same pattern. It’s just moved 13 feet
to the north, the actual connection to the pavement.
MR. HUNSINGER-Any other questions from the Board? Comments?
MRS. STEFFAN-I guess the only comment I want to make about the sidewalks. I’m
certainly willing to give up that position based upon the information that was presented
by Staff, but one of the points that I wanted to make is regarding sidewalks. It’s not
about connecting sidewalks to nowhere. It’s about connecting sidewalks from house to
house, and that’s what makes a neighborhood. Kids shouldn’t have to walk in the street
to go see their neighbors, and can they walk across lawns? Sometimes, but that’s the
point. When we’d have the conversations during the Comprehensive Land Use Plan
update, those are some of the things that we talked about. You build a neighborhood by
having sidewalks that kids can play on or that people can walk to each other’s homes on,
and I know there’s been quite a bit of debate over the last four years about the sidewalks
to nowhere, and no, we don’t have a sidewalk infrastructure in the Town for the most
part, you know, except on Route 9, but we’re really talking about building neighborhoods,
and it’s a house to house issue. So I just wanted to state that.
MR. HUNSINGER-And of course the bigger picture is, if you look at the screen over
there, you see the neighborhoods to the east and the south of this proposal, and all of
those should be connected. I mean, the horse is out of the barn. I mean, it’s already too
late, but, I mean, in terms of good planning, you know, and then people complain that
there’s too much traffic on Upper Sherman because you’re forcing all the traffic out onto,
you know, several roads instead of accommodating local traffic within neighborhoods.
MR. FULLER-Well, I think to a degree, with some developments that the Planning Board
caught on to that. You did have people stub streets.
MR. HUNSINGER-Yes.
MR. FULLER-And there are developments out there where there are still paper streets
for a neighboring property some day, and absolutely. That was one of the first things we
looked at, before we ever even closed. Because we thought that there was that one
piece down there to the south, the little one with the garage on it, we thought that was a
paper street, and if that was the case, we would have tied through to that, but it wasn’t.
MR. HUNSINGER-It wasn’t.
MR. FULLER-Or it may have been at some point in the past, and somebody ended up
buying it at a tax sale or something like that, or purchasing it and putting a garage on it,
and that eliminated the tie through, but, you know, from a planning perspective,
whenever you have that opportunity to stub streets, I think you guys have done that.
MR. SEGULJIC-Clearing limits, there was a discussion about the no cut zones, I believe.
You have, I think it’s the first thing you depicted, the vegetation on the map.
MR. FARRELL-Yes. We revised the vegetation based upon our previous meetings
associated with putting fingers in between the houses. We did re-grade the site on the
west side. The west side we had completely cleared because of grading. We took
another look at that and revised the grading accordingly so that we were able to save
trees in between the houses on the site.
13
(Queensbury Planning Board 07/21/09)
MR. FORD-Thank you.
MR. SEGULJIC-So that’s your intention, as well as, I mean, in your declaration of
easements, you talk about maintaining all trees that are greater than three inches in
diameter.
MR. FULLER-Yes, that was where that was directed. I mean, Mike can correct me if I’m
wrong, but I think that the number we tried to get to, and I think we did get to it, was over
50%. We hit the 50% preserved on the site.
MR. FARRELL-Sixty-five is the number.
MR. HUNSINGER-Wow.
MR. FARRELL-Sixty-five percent of this site is not developed. Thirty-five percent is.
With the tree lines, we’ve submitted the revised EAF, and that was the calculations for
the revised tree line. It was in 40 before with the not saving, but certainly Ken, I know, is
planning on trying to save as many trees as he can.
MR. FORD-Good move. Thank you.
MRS. STEFFAN-We have the two issues of granting waivers for the 100 foot contour
and the 50 foot scale requirement. How does the Board feel about that?
MR. SEGULJIC-I don’t see what 100 foot contours off the site are going to do for us.
The contour’s off the site, correct?
MR. HUNSINGER-Right.
MR. SEGULJIC-I don’t see what they’re going to do for us.
MR. HUNSINGER-One of the things I did find helpful in the revised plans is you showed
all the driveways on, well, actually both Sherman and West Mountain Road, and I found
that to be very helpful. Any other comments on the waivers? People okay with them?
MR. FORD-Yes.
MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. We did have a public hearing scheduled this evening. Is there
anyone in the audience that wanted to address the Board? We do have, on the back
table, an information sheet on the public hearing information. Anyone that wishes to
address the Board, we ask that you address your questions, comments to the Board.
We do record our meetings, and then those recordings are used to make the minutes,
which are then approved by the Board and posted on the Town’s website. So we ask
anyone that wants to address the Board to give their name and their address before they
make their comments, and we do ask you to try to keep your comments to within three
minutes. Sir, did you want to be first? Good evening.
PUBLIC HEARING OPEN
GERALD KANE
MR. KANE-Good evening. My name is Gerald Kane, and my wife is Elizabeth. We live
at 7 Cranberry Lane, which is an adjacent community to this division here. Apparently
we have a different view of trees and sidewalks than the Board, and we would like to
express our view about sidewalks. I’d like to read a letter that we have prepared for your
benefit. Dear Board Members: It is our understanding that the plans submitted by
Kelaco will minimize the environmental impact by retaining as many trees as possible in
keeping with the aesthetics of the area. The addition of sidewalks to this subdivision
would obviously require the removal of more trees and need additional paving. This
begs the question: Are trees and landscaping less desirable than sidewalks? Further
tree removal could also reduce the buffer zone to the residents of Cranberry Lane by the
necessity of building the homes further back on the adjacent lots. It’s conceivable that
future homeowners like us would purchase wooded lots for Adirondack living and would
probably not want to pay extra cost that sidewalk installing would entail. We will only
briefly mention snow removal and how plowing would affect the sidewalks. It would be
incumbent for homeowners to clear the sidewalks, which was mentioned last time, by the
way. Finally, on a personal note, we have resided on cul-de-sacs and rural roads with
no sidewalks for 39 years. Our children and we never needed a sidewalk to visit or
converse with our neighbors. So we respectfully ask you to consider, we desire trees
14
(Queensbury Planning Board 07/21/09)
and Adirondack living and we love our rural neighborhood. So please, don’t make it
more urban for us. Thank you.
MR. HUNSINGER-Thank you.
MRS. STEFFAN-Thank you.
MR. HUNSINGER-If you want to give your letter to Staff.
MR. KANE-Okay.
MR. HUNSINGER-Anyone else?
MR. KREBS-Jerry, just so you know, not everyone on the Board agrees with the
sidewalk idea.
MRS. STEFFAN-Sidewalks.
MR. KREBS-I don’t think sidewalks belong there, either.
MR. KANE-Why, thank you for saying that. That’s great.
MR. FORD-That’s true.
MR. KANE-Good.
MR. HUNSINGER-Anyone else?
MR. FORD-I’m not opposed to sidewalks, but not pro sidewalk, just without limitation
either.
MR. KANE-Okay. Thank you.
MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. If there are no other members of the audience to address the
Board, I will close the public hearing.
PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED
MR. HUNSINGER-Do you want to come back up? Is the Board comfortable moving
forward?
MR. FORD-Yes.
MR. SEGULJIC-I guess just one other question. Are there going to be any lights along
the street?
MR. COLLETTE-Lampposts?
MR. SEGULJIC-Yes.
MR. COLLETTE-No.
MR. SEGULJIC-So it’s just going to be the coach lights at the house.
MR. COLLETTE-It’ll be the coach lights in the driveways.
MR. SEGULJIC-Okay. All right.
MR. FORD-Coach light at the entrance of each driveway?
MR. COLLETTE-There’ll be a coach light, yes.
MRS. STEFFAN-Actually, that brings up a question. As I read through the materials, you
don’t have a homeowners association in this particular development, but you do have
some restrictions that are part of.
MR. COLLETTE-Covenants.
MRS. STEFFAN-Yes. How are they enforceable?
15
(Queensbury Planning Board 07/21/09)
MR. FULLER-I can answer that. Individual owner. They’re all protected and subject to
them themselves. So, Masters Common is one that has, was originally supposed to
have a Homeowners Association but didn’t, so that any neighbor can enforce them
against the other.
MR. KREBS-And they have.
MR. FULLER-And they have.
MRS. STEFFAN-So if somebody puts up an obnoxious clothes line?
MR. FULLER-It’s self-policing.
MR. COLLETTE-They won’t go to me. They’ll go to the lawyer and fight it out.
MR. FULLER-Yes, it’s self-policing.
MRS. STEFFAN-Okay. Interesting. It was a very interesting document. Okay. Ready
to do SEQRA?
MR. HUNSINGER-Ready to do SEQRA. It’s a Long Form.
MRS. STEFFAN-Okay. Will the proposed action result in a physical change to the project
site?
MR. TRAVER-Yes.
MR. FORD-Yes.
MRS. STEFFAN-Small to moderate, potential large, or can impact be mitigated by a
project change?
MR. FORD-It can be mitigated.
MRS. STEFFAN-Okay.
MR. HUNSINGER-Well, is it small to moderate or potentially large impact, first?
MRS. STEFFAN-We’ve learned now that 65% of the site is going to remain wooded.
MR. FORD-Small to moderate.
MR. HUNSINGER-Small to moderate impact, okay.
MRS. STEFFAN-Okay. So the impact can be mitigated. All right. Will there be an effect
to any unique or unusual land forms found on the site?
MR. TRAVER-No.
MR. HUNSINGER-No.
MRS. STEFFAN-Will the proposed action affect any water body designated as
protected?
MR. KREBS-No.
MR. HUNSINGER-No.
MRS. STEFFAN-Will the proposed action affect any non-protected existing or new body
of water?
MR. KREBS-No.
MR. HUNSINGER-No.
MRS. STEFFAN-Will the proposed action affect surface or groundwater quality or
quantity?
16
(Queensbury Planning Board 07/21/09)
MR. KREBS-No.
MR. TRAVER-No.
MRS. STEFFAN-Will the proposed action alter drainage flow or patterns, or surface
water runoff?
MR. HUNSINGER-No.
MR. TRAVER-No.
MRS. STEFFAN-Will the proposed action affect air quality?
MR. TRAVER-No.
MR. HUNSINGER-No.
MRS. STEFFAN-Will the proposed action affect any threatened or endangered species?
MR. KREBS-No.
MR. HUNSINGER-No.
MRS. STEFFAN-Will the proposed action substantially affect non-threatened or non-
endangered species?
MR. FORD-No.
MR. HUNSINGER-No.
MRS. STEFFAN-Will the proposed action affect agricultural land resources?
MR. TRAVER-No.
MR. FORD-No.
MRS. STEFFAN-Will the proposed action affect aesthetic resources?
MR. HUNSINGER-No.
MR. FORD-No.
MRS. STEFFAN-Will the proposed action impact any site or structure of historic, pre-
historic or paleontological importance?
MR. HUNSINGER-No.
MR. FORD-No.
MRS. STEFFAN-Will the proposed action affect the quantity or quality of existing or
future open spaces or recreational opportunities?
MR. HUNSINGER-No.
MR. KREBS-No.
MRS. STEFFAN-Will the proposed action impact the exceptional or unique
characteristics of a critical environmental area?
MR. FORD-No.
MR. KREBS-No.
MRS. STEFFAN-Will there be an effect to existing transportation systems?
MR. HUNSINGER-No.
MR. FORD-No.
17
(Queensbury Planning Board 07/21/09)
MRS. STEFFAN-Will proposed action affect the community’s sources of fuel or energy
supply?
MR. HUNSINGER-No.
MR. FORD-No.
MRS. STEFFAN-Will there be objectionable odors, noise, or vibration as a result of
the proposed action?
MR. KREBS-No.
MR. FORD-No.
MRS. STEFFAN-Will the proposed action affect public health and safety?
MR. HUNSINGER-No.
MR. FORD-No.
MRS. STEFFAN-Will the proposed action affect the character of the existing community?
MR. HUNSINGER-No.
MR. FORD-No.
MRS. STEFFAN-And is there, or is there likely to be, public controversy related to
potential adverse environmental impacts?
MR. KREBS-No.
MR. FORD-No.
MRS. STEFFAN-Then I’ll make a motion for a Negative SEQRA declaration.
RESOLUTION WHEN DETERMINATION OF NO SIGNIFICANCE IS MADE
RESOLUTION NO. 6-2008, Introduced by Gretchen Steffan who moved for its adoption,
seconded by Stephen Traver:
WHEREAS, there is presently before the Planning Board an application for:
KELACO, LLC, 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
18
(Queensbury Planning Board 07/21/09)
statement of non-significance or a negative declaration that may be required by
law.
st
Duly adopted this 21 day of, July, 2009, by the following vote:
AYES: Mr. Krebs, Mr. Seguljic, Mr. Sipp, Mr. Ford, Mr. Traver, Mrs. Steffan,
Mr. Hunsinger
NOES: NONE
MRS. STEFFAN-Okay.
MOTION TO APPROVE PRELIMINARY STAGE SUBDIVISION NO. 6-2008 KELACO,
LLC, Introduced by Gretchen Steffan who moved for its adoption, seconded by Donald
Krebs:
1. A subdivision application has been made to the Queensbury Planning Board for
the following; Applicant proposes subdivision of a 36.2 acre parcel into 21
residential lots ranging in size from 1 acre to 7.0 acres. Subdivision of land
requires Planning Board review and approval. The Planning Board may
commence SEQR review
2. A public hearing was scheduled and held on 3/17/09 & 5/19/09; 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 SUBDIVISION NO. 6-2008
KELACO, LLC, Introduced by Gretchen Steffan who moved for its adoption,
seconded by Donald Krebs:
According to the resolution prepared by Staff.
st
Duly adopted this 21 day of July, 2009, by the following vote:
AYES: Mr. Sipp, Mr. Seguljic, Mr. Ford, Mr. Traver, Mr. Krebs, Mrs. Steffan,
Mr. Hunsinger
NOES: NONE
MRS. STEFFAN-Okay. On the approval, are there any conditions on this approval?
MR. HUNSINGER-There were the two waiver requests.
MRS. STEFFAN-That’s in the motion. Paragon signed off.
MR. HUNSINGER-There is the driveway on Lot 21 that’s moved 13 feet to the north per
Warren County DPW and the Adirondack Glens Falls Transportation Council. Is there
anything else? Was there going to be any language regarding the no cut zones? I
couldn’t remember if that was put on the plot, no removal of trees larger than?
MR. FULLER-It’s in the covenants and restrictions. It’s on the plot.
MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. I just wanted to make sure. Thank you.
MR. SEGULJIC-Excuse me, though. The three inch caliper is only between the
homeowners, right? The Town can’t enforce that. Is that true?
MR. FULLER-If we submit it as part of our, actually, I would defer to Mike, but we’d
submit it as part of our application.
MR. HILL-That if you make it a condition of your approval, then certainly it’s enforceable
by the Town, and it may also be in your covenants, conditions and restrictions, in which
case it would also be enforceable between property owners as well.
MR. FULLER-Yes. If it’s part of our application, I believe that if we deviated from the
application it would require Planning Board approval, if you fail to follow the application
you submitted, you fail to follow subdivision. So it was part of our application to you.
You can certainly condition it, but I don’t know that you have to.
19
(Queensbury Planning Board 07/21/09)
MR. HILL-Yes. I think you would, if it’s in the covenants, conditions and restrictions, I
think I would suggest that you also make it an explicit condition of your subdivision
approval, so that it’s clear that it’s enforceable by the Town, not just enforceable between
the property owners in the covenants and restrictions.
MR. FORD-Good point.
MR. HUNSINGER-Should we just reference all of the covenants, then? Would that
make it easier?
MR. FULLER-No, just as shown on the plan.
MR. HILL-I guess it would depend on whether or not you want to make them enforceable
by the Town.
MR. HUNSINGER-Do we just want to include the cutting?
MR. SEGULJIC-Well, I think you just want to include the cutting.
MRS. STEFFAN-Well, yes, but the other thing is, does the Town want the administrative
burden of enforcing? The no trees?
MR. HUNSINGER-Yes.
MR. SEGULJIC-I assume that you guys are okay with that. It’s in the covenant anyway.
MR. FULLER-Yes. Within the clearing limits that we’ve shown on the plan. If you’re
going to recite that, I would just say within the clearing limits shown on the plan, or
outside of the clearing limits shown on the plan, that is what applies, because obviously
where the house sites are, those trees are going to be removed.
MR. HUNSINGER-Right. Just say outside of the clearing limits as shown on the plan.
MR. SEGULJIC-Just as a sidebar here. I mean, that covenant is pretty restrictive. Did
you say you can’t store any flammables on site, things of that nature.
MR. FULLER-Except for things that we’ve allowed on there.
MR. SEGULJIC-I think it says you can’t store flammables.
MR. FULLER-I think grills and things like that.
MR. SEGULJIC-You couldn’t even store nail polish at your house.
MR. FULLER-Well, everything is within reason.
MR. HUNSINGER-How can you enforce it, though.
MR. SIPP-You’re pretty tight on propane tanks, allowing the size for a barbecue. No oil
fuel, diesel, gasoline or propane shall be maintained on any lot except for one small
residential barbecue propane tank per lot.
MR. FULLER-Yes. That’s a tank.
MR. SIPP-Yes, but if people like propane for cooking or so forth, they cannot have a 100
gallon tank.
MR. SEGULJIC-Well, yes, and that’s not, I mean, that’s between you and the landowner.
MR. FULLER-Yes. The intent with tanks is tanks.
MR. FORD-Let’s stick to the trees.
MR. OBORNE-Yes, I would suggest you just stick to the trees.
MRS. STEFFAN-All right.
20
(Queensbury Planning Board 07/21/09)
MOTION TO APPROVE FINAL STAGE SUBDIVISION NO. 6-2008 KELACO, LLC,
Introduced by Gretchen Steffan who moved for its adoption, seconded by Thomas Ford:
A subdivision application has been made to the Queensbury Planning Board for
1.
the following; Applicant proposes subdivision of a 36.2 acre parcel into 21
residential lots ranging in size from 1 acre to 7.0 acres. Subdivision of land
requires Planning Board review and approval.
2. A public hearing was scheduled and held on 3/17/09, 5/19/09; and
3. This application is supported with all documentation, public comment and
application material in the file of record; and
4. MOTION TO APPROVE FINAL STAGE SUBDIVISION NO. 6-2008 KELACO,
LLC, Introduced by Gretchen Steffan who moved for its adoption, seconded by
Thomas Ford:
According to the resolution prepared by Staff. Paragraph Four A complies.
Paragraph Four B, Negative. Paragraph Four E is not applicable. Paragraph
Four F is not applicable. Paragraph Four I, waivers are granted for the 100 foot
contours extending off the site, and the scale requirements. This is approved
with the following conditions:
1.The applicant will provide amended drawings to reflect driveway changes on
Lot 21, specifically that the driveway will be moved 13 feet to the north per
Warren County DPW and Adirondack Regional Transportation Council
memos.
2.The applicant will, outside of the clearing limits shown on the plan, no trees in
excess of three inches in diameter at breast height shall be cut on any lot,
except those reasonably necessary for the construction of the house,
outbuilding, swimming pool, driveways, walkways, patios and grading related
thereto, and except for dead, diseased, or partially fallen trees necessary to
protect the inhabitants of the subdivision.
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.
21
(Queensbury Planning Board 07/21/09)
i)Waivers granted: 100 ft. contour extending off site requirement; one inch equals
50 foot scale requirement.
st
Duly adopted this 21 day of July, 2009, by the following vote:
AYES: Mr. Sipp, Mr. Traver, Mr. Seguljic, Mr. Krebs, Mrs. Steffan, Mr. Ford,
Mr. Hunsinger
NOES: NONE
MR. HUNSINGER-Good luck.
MR. FULLER-Thank you.
MR. HUNSINGER-Thank you.
SUBDIVISION NO. 11-2008 PRELIMINARY/FINAL STAGES SEQR TYPE UNLISTED
WAL-MART STORES AGENT(S) BERGMANN ASSOCIATES OWNER(S) FOREST
ENTERPRISES MANAGEMENT, INC. ZONING HC-INT. LOCATION QUAKER
RIDGE ROAD APPLICANT PROPOSES SUBDIVISION OF A 39.7 +/- ACRE PARCEL
INTO TWO LOTS OF 33.3 & 6.4 +/- ACRES. SUBDIVISION OF LAND REQUIRES
PLANNING BOARD REVIEW AND APPROVAL. CROSS REFERENCE SP 61-07, FW
1-08, SV 1-09 WARREN CO. PLANNING N/A APA, DEC, ACOE, OTHER ACOE/NWI
LOT SIZE 39.7 +/- ACRES TAX MAP NO. 303.15-1-25 SECTION A-183
MARK PETROSKI & VIC MACRI, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT
MR. HUNSINGER-Keith, whenever you’re ready to summarize the Staff Notes.
MR. OBORNE-Yes. One moment, please. Subdivision 11-2008, Preliminary and Final
Stage review. Applicant is Wal-Mart Stores. Requested action: Subdivision of land.
Location: Quaker Ridge Road. The existing zoning is Highway Commercial Intensive.
This is an Unlisted. The Planning Board must make a SEQRA determination on this.
Project Description: Applicant proposes subdivision of a 39.65 acre parcel into two lots
of 33.28 & 6.37 acres. Subdivision of land requires Planning Board review and approval.
I do want to state that the applicant has submitted a Long Form EAF, and this review is
to be accomplished by the Planning Board with the knowledge that the applicant has
submitted a retail business use for this parcel. Please see applicant’s narrative dated
June 15, 2009. The following will need to be accomplished by the applicant: An
easement agreement for the pending Quaker Ridge Road extension and the north
entrance to the Wal-Mart parking lot from Parcel 1 onto Parcel, which has been
completed; obtain ACOE sign-off on the disturbed wetlands associated with Site Plan.
61-2007. That has been acknowledged by applicant, and obviously Site Plan
modification for Site Plan 17-2009 in conjunction with this subdivision request, and that is
pending. Note: The applicant has responded to the tabling resolution dated April 28,
2009 (see attached). See applicant narrative dated June 15, 2009 for responses, and
with that I’d turn it over to the Board.
MR. HUNSINGER-Thank you. Good evening.
MR. MACRI-Good evening.
MR. HUNSINGER-If you could identify yourselves for the record.
MR. PETROSKI-My name is Mark Petroski. I’m a project manager with Bergmann
Associates, representing Wal-Mart Stores. With me this evening is also Vic Macri, the
property owner, with VMJR Companies, and also Mary Elizabeth Sleven with Stockley,
Green, Sleven & Peters, the attorney representing the project.
MR. HUNSINGER-Did you have anything else you wanted to add, or any particular items
that you want to bring to our attention?
MR. PETROSKI-My thought was, Mr. Chairman, that I first wanted to thank the Board for
all of your hard work of going through this a second time. I know we had inundated you
with a lot of paper, and I saw some of the members carrying big stacks under their arms
on the way in. So I’m sure it was a big effort, and I just want to thank you for doing that.
MR. HUNSINGER-Thank you. I appreciate that.
22
(Queensbury Planning Board 07/21/09)
MR. FORD-Thank you, also, for covering it with plastic. Putting this on top saved a lot of
the other applicants from being all blurry.
MR. PETROSKI-You’re welcome. The Staff did a pretty thorough job, I thought, of going
through the documentation and had indicated where things were complete and where
things were adequate. There’s a few areas where they had commented and I would only
comment on those few areas, and then if you had any other questions, then you certainly
st
would want to ask them. I have the Staff’s comment letter dated July 21, Staff Notes
dated July 21, 2009, and this is for the Subdivision. That’s the subject we’re on at the
moment. Correct?
MR. HUNSINGER-Yes.
MR. PETROSKI-And under Staff comments, as I went down, the first bullet item was
complete. The second bullet item was complete. The third bullet item, they’re again,
acknowledging that we designated the use for this Lot Number Two, which is the tan
color lot on the drawing, is for retail business use. So, other than that, I think we had a
comment from, that was the only thing I really had to say about the Staff’s comments,
otherwise they were pretty thorough, and then under VISION Engineering, they had a
th
July 17 letter. Comment Number two was talking about the lot development plan, and
that Plan DP-01 that we included in the package, and it basically was the same plan as
we had submitted last time. The only way I can describe this plan is, it’s an attempt to
show some of the development characteristics of Lot Two. We have no Site Plan. We
have no application before the Board to develop anything on the property, but the Board
wanted to know where is the developable piece of the property, where are the wetlands,
where are the setbacks, how much wetlands. So we labeled all that information. We
clarified how much wetlands were on the property, and the one question that the
engineer was asking about the wetland buffer. Not to be overly technical, but we couldn’t
find a definition for wetland buffer in the Code. I think it’s more of a common name or a
common phrase that we’re using. The terminology in the Code is adjacent area. There’s
a 100 foot adjacent areas regulated.
MR. HUNSINGER-Right.
MR. PETROSKI-So on that basis, the Code doesn’t say you can’t do anything there. It
just says that whatever you do there you have to get a permit for. So I guess in the most
technical terms, that area is quote unquote developable up to the wetland, except that
within the 100 feet area. Anybody who wanted to do something would have to get a
permit. So it doesn’t exclude it from the developable area, and so we didn’t change
anything on the drawing, but again, the Board is, at some point, would consider an
application for Site Plan approval, and you’re going to review everything with regards to
any action on that property anyway, which follows into the third comment about the
zoning, and I don’t know if Staff had a chance to look at the setback designations that we
used. Basically anything to the left or right of the front we called a side yard, and the one
line opposite the front we called the rear yard, and if that’s adequate for this stage, then
that would be an acceptable way to represent it. If anything, the side yards could be
redefined later, if that’s what the Board’s pleasure was, and it may change depending on
whatever application is presented, and for the time being at least it gives you some idea
of what’s developable on the property. There is some land there that can be developed.
That’s all we really had to add to the subdivision in responding to the Town Engineer’s
and the Staff’s observations.
MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. I mean, I know, just from my own review, it was useful to see
the wetlands depicted and to see the volume, in acreage, that the wetlands represented.
That gave a clearer picture of the lot, to me.
MR. FORD-I agree. Thank you. That was helpful.
MR. KREBS-Yes, and I brought it up before, but the access is through the wetland. Do
we want to do that? I mean, the property owner happens to own some other lots that
would give him access from Quaker Road. Why we’re running an access through this
commercial property, or retail property, through the wetland, I don’t.
MR. PETROSKI-At one point in time, if I recall correctly, we were asked to show, how
could you access the property, and so we picked a spot where you’d have the least
possible impact to wetlands because there’s wetlands along that whole side. Is it
possible that that land could be combined or somehow merged with the property along
the frontage road? Absolutely, that’s a possibility. In which case, you could wetlands
disturbance, but we’re not asking for any wetlands disturbance at this time. We’re
23
(Queensbury Planning Board 07/21/09)
identifying it as a potential impact, something that you might want to consider, but
certainly that doesn’t say the Board is agreeing that that’s going to happen. It’s just the
conceptual sketch showing development area and some of the impacts that could occur.
MR. KREBS-If we approve that subdivision, then you’re going to say that that lot has
been approved as a subdivided lot, and the only access is through a wetland.
MR. SEGULJIC-As I look at it, I mean, it is a concern, and that’s something that could
possibly be mitigated through another access.
MR. KREBS-When they come back for Site Plan Review.
MR. SEGULJIC-Yes. Because, I mean, it is a potential impact that we need to satisfy
(lost words).
MR. MACRI-Keep in mind when the original development was approved, there was a
road running all the way to the back, okay, and access was in that direction. I mean, you
also need to take into account pedestrian safety and those issues, too, which I’m sure
we’ll bring up at a future date.
MR. PETROSKI-I see your quizzical look. Actually, there’s a filed easement across
Niagara Mohawk right of way, which is in align with that extension.
MR. HUNSINGER-Other questions, comments from the Board?
MR. SEGULJIC-I have a question regarding the traffic count in your prepared SEQRA.
You say maximum vehicles generated per hour is 828. Now is that just Lot Two, or is
that Lot Two and One combined?
MR. PETROSKI-That number is strictly related to Lot One, because there’s no
development proposed for Lot Two. That’s the same number that we’re using in the
original traffic study for the Site Plan approval for the retail store.
MR. MACRI-That number is also based on 240,000 square foot retail store.
MR. PETROSKI-No, we changed that number to reflect exactly what we have proposed,
156,000 square feet project.
MR. SEGULJIC-Originally you came in with a traffic study that was for a much bigger
site.
MR. PETROSKI-Two hundred and twenty-five thousand square feet.
MR. SEGULJIC-And now Lot One is what, again?
MR. PETROSKI-As currently proposed it’s 156,000.
MR. SEGULJIC-And looking at your plans you, conceptually, could do 70 or 100,000
square foot building there. So it could be 250,000 or something like that?
MR. PETROSKI-We had originally done a traffic study for 225,000 square feet.
MR. SEGULJIC-And if I recall correctly, I remember there were minimal impacts, if I
recall.
MR. PETROSKI-Yes, that’s correct.
MR. SEGULJIC-So the development of Lot Two with retail should not really impact this
area, traffic wise.
MR. PETROSKI-We addressed that, I think, I think we addressed it in the Site Plan, and
we talk about that there was a sensitivity analysis done to see that there was extra
capacity in that intersection. So that, if something does happen on Lot Two, you have
some capacity already built there and it would take something like in the Year 2030
before the capacity of that intersection degraded just from background traffic right before
I had to do anything to do. So there’s capacity built into that intersection the way it’s
currently designed.
24
(Queensbury Planning Board 07/21/09)
MR. SEGULJIC-All right. So when Lot One and Four are developed, there’s a capacity
there to handle it?
MR. PETROSKI-There is.
MR. SEGULJIC-Okay. Yes, but, I would say, as a Board, I don’t want to make Vic’s job
difficult, but I mean, any time that you come with another application, it should be verified
again and counts should be done and should be checked.
MR. HUNSINGER-Sure, and we would ask that.
MR. FORD-Yes.
MR. PETROSKI-I figured you would.
MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. Any other questions, comments from the Board? We do have
a public hearing scheduled this evening. Is there anyone in the audience that wants to
address the Board on this application? Okay. We do have one. Good evening.
PUBLIC HEARING OPEN
JOHN CAFFRY
MR. CAFFRY-Good evening. John Caffry for the Big Cedar Swamp Coalition. I went up
to Town Hall yesterday and reviewed the files there with the latest updates on this, and I
had two concerns. One’s already been discussed, the fact that the conceptual layout for
Lot Two shows access going through a wetland. So basically if you approve this
subdivision, you’re approving, in advance, that they would put a driveway through a
wetland , and although it’s only, they calculate it at 464 square feet of this hypothetical
driveway, I don’t know how wide it is or how many lanes or whatever, which is a pretty
small amount. What it would do is bisect the wetland that’s there, and essentially cut off
one end of it from the other, which would affect the hydrology of the wetland. It could
affect movement of animals through there and things like that. So, I think that it’s more
of a wetland impact than it looks like on that conceptual plan, and I question whether or
not the subdivision should be approved without further study of the potential effects of
subdividing this. The second issue is a little larger. When I was looking in the Town’s
file, there was in there some plans or fliers that came from a realtor, C.V. Richard Ellis,
advertising this property, and the applicant keeps saying, we have no specific plans for
Lot Two, we have no specific plans for anything else. It’s all some time in the future, but
these real estate documents that are in the Town’s file, and I’d like to ask Mr. Oborne if
he has them with them and could share it with the Board.
MR. HUNSINGER-We have them.
MR. CAFFRY-You have those? Okay. All right. They show that there are specific plans
for this property. One of them says on Lot Two, and also connecting to Quaker Road
through to the other parcels, it’s called Quaker Ridge Plaza, 70,000 square feet of retail,
and so it seems to me there is a specific plan, and these documents also show the
commercial, or industrial and office development on the other side of the National Grid
power line, 100,000 square feet. It says shovel ready approvals in process. I don’t know
if this Board’s reviewed any plans or not, but they claim they have approvals in process.
So it’s my opinion that they do have specific plans in mind for these properties. They’re
already marketing them apparently, and that this is a, they are trying to get you to
segment the review of this development, and that they should be presenting the entire
plan. Under the SEQRA Regulations, 617.7F, you can rescind your prior Negative
Declaration and you could consider SEQRA for the entire three part development. It’s
quite possible that the combined project would be a Type I action under SEQRA,
because it would disturb more than 10 acres combined, again, for the three different
parts of the project. So I think there’s a lot more information needed now about the
entire project, and not just the Wal-Mart, before you can approve this subdivision. This is
subject to this public hearing. Thank you.
MR. HUNSINGER-Thank you. Anyone else? I’m glad Counsel is here, because that
was an issue that had come up before, is the whole segmentation of SEQRA, and I didn’t
know if you had anything to add, Mike, relative to the applicant’s comments on
segmentation and the earlier comments and discussion on that.
MR. HILL-Well, I think if we could go back for just a few minutes to the project that was
previously proposed, if my recollection is correct with regard to the Wal-Mart, when it
25
(Queensbury Planning Board 07/21/09)
was initially proposed, the question arose as to whether or not there was a question
about segmentation because the applicant owned additional adjacent property.
MR. HUNSINGER-Right.
MR. HILL-And the applicant informed the Board that there were no plans to develop that
additional property, and that there was no desire to interconnect those properties. There
was nothing on the horizon with respect to those properties, or that adjacent property,
and at the time, we went through an analysis, considered a number of different factors,
with respect to whether or not it would constitute impermissible segmentation to not
consider the potential development of that adjacent property, and we concluded, after
analyzing those factors, that it would not be an instance of impermissible segmentation
to confine your SEQRA review to the consideration of the proposed Wal-Mart. Now, if
my understanding of what’s being proposed is correct, the site that was originally
proposed for the Wal-Mart, which included this area that’s now being proposed for
subdivision and for creation of a separate lot, which was originally part of the overall plan
for the Wal-Mart, that’s now being proposed for separate subdivision, although it sounds,
on the one hand, that the applicant is saying, well, we don’t really have any specific
plans, there is information in your file to indicate that the property, that there’s a realtor or
broker who is actively seeking to market the property and is suggesting 70,000 square
feet of retail use to be developed on the property. I think that puts you in a different
position with respect to what’s being proposed now, than what you were dealing with
before, where the applicant happened to own adjacent property. Here, the site that was
originally proposed to you and was approved, the applicant is now coming back and is
proposing further subdivision for additional development on this same site, and it seems
that, under the circumstances, you do need to consider exactly what is being proposed
or considered or what the potential is for this proposed adjacent lot that would be carved
out of the original area, the original lot that was proposed for the Wal-Mart, and to the
extent that you might not have absolutely specific information, detailed plans, I think it’s
not unreasonable for you to consider what the potential use is, and what the most
intensive potential use of that site is, in considering whether or not there are potential
SEQRA affects. So you would have the original proposed Wal-Mart, and that proposed
development, and then a consideration of what the potential build out is for this proposed
new lot that the applicant is seeking to create, and consider whether your previous
SEQRA determination is still, first of all, whether the category or the action is still the
same, or whether it changes the type of action that’s being proposed, and then secondly
whether or not the previous conclusion that you reached with regard to SEQRA is still
applicable given whatever additional development might occur on this proposed new
parcel.
MR. HUNSINGER-Okay, and I think that’s really what Tom’s earlier questions were
alluding to, is what would be the combined traffic impacts, and I guess in my own mind,
the comments that you just made is the exercise that we would typically go through on
any subdivision anyway, because we’re going to consider the maximum potential impact
of the development of the new lot, in consideration of the SEQRA review for the
subdivision.
MR. HILL-And here you want to take a step back, and I think you want to look at both the
Wal-Mart development, which of course you’ve previously considered, but now you have
this new element on the proposed new lot with potential development there, and I think
you have to look at the whole now, Wal-Mart and the proposed new lot, and consider
how does that get classified for SEQRA purposes, and then consider the SEQRA
analysis of the whole.
MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. Everyone follow that?
MR. KREBS-Yes.
MR. TRAVER-Yes.
MR. FORD-Yes.
MR. HILL-I guess for clarification purposes, what, if anything, has been submitted with
respect to SEQRA on the proposed new lot? Has there been no additional SEQRA
submission? Are we relying on the previous SEQRA form and your previous
determination here, or?
MR. HUNSINGER-No. They provided additional SEQRA information.
26
(Queensbury Planning Board 07/21/09)
MR. OBORNE-There’s a Long Form submitted with the subdivision, the two lot
subdivision.
MR. HILL-Okay, and does that Long Form address the proposed development on what
I’ll call the Wal-Mart parcel, for shorthand, plus whatever potential development there is
on the new parcel?
MR. OBORNE-And just to answer that question is, no, and that’s why we’re here, and
the applicant has stated that they’re going to have a retail use for that six acre parcel,
and that’s why they were tabled previously, because they did not suggest what the
biggest or largest build out would be.
MARY ELIZABETH SLEVEN
MS. SLEVEN-If I could address that. To my knowledge, and Mr. Macri can correct me if
I’m wrong, there is no specific plan for Lot Number Two. The direction that we received
from Staff was that we needed to identify a potential use for Lot Two, so that we could
look at the setback requirements, and to determine whether there was a developable
area on the lot, but beyond that, there is not a specific plan, and I can’t speak to
advertising materials from a realtor. Number One, I haven’t seen them, but, Number
Two, again, to my knowledge, there is not a specific plan for Lot Two, and the purpose of
the application for subdivision is to eliminate lands that Wal-Mart does not need for its
uses and to essentially leave those lands available for Mr. Macri for the rest of his
development of his parcels, Lot Two and all the remaining parcels that he has. So that
he can then go forward with whatever plans he has for all of his lands, either on a lot by
lot basis or on a more comprehensive basis, but those are plans that, you know, certainly
Wal-Mart’s not privy to, and in our conversations with the property owner, he’s indicated
that there is no current plan. Obviously there is a desire to move forward with
commercial development on that parcel, and all the remaining parcels at some point in
time, but there is not a plan, at this moment, and so to the extent that SEQRA, a Long
Form was provided, it addressed the potential use of the property, but didn’t provide any
specific calculations because there simply is no proposal for the land.
MR. FORD-May I ask, who is this realtor representing?
MR. MACRI-They’re representing Forest Enterprises, the owner of the property.
MR. SIPP-So there is a plan?
MR. MACRI-There is no plan.
MR. SIPP-Well, what are you selling, then?
MR. MACRI-There’s a commercial property. We always said there was potential
development on the remainder of the property. I do have, and I’ve always said, we do
have a grant from New York State to, we’ve gone through this thing I don’t know how
many times. I never, ever indicated to anybody that we weren’t going to develop the
property.
MR. SIPP-What I’m questioning is why do you want to segment it?
MR. MACRI-No. The issue here was shrinking a building down from 250,000 square feet
to 150,000 square feet and the viability of it being a tenant facility versus being full
ownership. So we’re just splitting off the property, selling the property to Wal-Mart.
MR. TRAVER-Right, and it sounds as though what’s happened thus far with Lot Two
might be characterized more as marketing than specific plan. Your representative is
having some conversations, sort of trial balloons, in terms of what potential interest there
might be, hypothetically, in some kind of development, and that’s, I think, the problem
that we have, because on the one hand, the applicant isn’t in a position to declare a final
disposition for Lot Two, but on the other hand, how can we evaluate SEQRA? I mean,
we’re kind of where we were back the last time when we were talking in terms of
maximum possible, some hypothetical maximum possible development for Lot Two, but I
don’t see how we can put that on the applicant.
MR. PETROSKI-Mr. Chairman, because this was discussed at the last meeting that we
attended, you had asked us to provide some documentation to the Board with regards to
this segmentation question.
27
(Queensbury Planning Board 07/21/09)
MR. HUNSINGER-Which you did. Thank you.
MR. PETROSKI-And I don’t know if the Board members have been able to read it, but
there’s a, the concluding section talks about reasons why this project can proceed as it’s
been proposed, and that segmentation is not a question. Now, I could read this to you,
but I’m sure you’ve already read it, but there is a test that you can go through to
determine if there is a segmentation issue, and it has to do with is there a common
purposes, is there time.
MR. HUNSINGER-Yes. Mike, have you had a chance to take a look at that?
MR. HILL-I’ve not seen the document that’s being referred to, so, no, I haven’t.
MR. HUNSINGER-Okay.
MR. PETROSKI-Well, you wouldn’t let us send it to him unless it was sent by Staff.
MR. HUNSINGER-I just want to just pick up on Steve’s comments. We all received the
marketing information from the realtor that you listed the property with, and, you know,
my personal feeling is that’s, you know, any potential development is purely speculative,
and, you know, we can’t say, geez, you know, you can’t advertise your property for sale,
just because you’re going through Site Plan Review on a portion of it. I mean, that was
just my own feeling, you know, just to sort of elaborate on Steve’s comments, but, I
certainly didn’t see that as any, you know, damaging information outside of what you’ve
presented to the Board, or what you’ve said to the Board at previous meetings.
MR. MACRI-Originally during the Comprehensive Plan, we had offered a commercial
Planned Unit Development concept.
MR. HUNSINGER-That’s right.
MR. MACRI-In order to fully expand on the potential development of the property, and it
just never got beyond that. So it’s never been a secret that we planned to develop the
property. We need the clients to do that, and the first step, obviously, would be to have
an anchor like Wal-Mart to help us develop it.
MR. HUNSINGER-Any other comments or questions from the Board?
MR. SEGULJIC-So, as far as SEQRA goes for the subdivision, is it going to be a Long
Form or Short Form? Long Form, I believe, correct?
MR. HUNSINGER-Yes.
MR. SEGULJIC-Okay. Now we have the responsibility to look at the highest and
greatest use of the site, and when I do that, what I come back to is traffic being the
biggest issue, and I remember that they had submitted the earlier traffic study, and you
did that for the bigger, 250,000 square foot.
MS. SLEVEN-And it’s discussed, again, in the Site Plan materials that were recently
th
submitted on June 14. I think if you look at Page Three of those materials, it talks about
the traffic analysis that was completed, and I believe it’s responsive to the question.
MR. SEGULJIC-Which packet would that be?
MS. SLEVEN-I’m sorry, Preliminary subdivision.
MR. SEGULJIC-Page Three? I’m not seeing it on Page, is traffic discussed?
MR. PETROSKI-In the middle of the page. This is the Preliminary subdivision/Final
subdivision letter, right in the middle of the page, where it responds. You go down to the
middle of the paragraph, and you see the number, SEQRA analysis with respect to traffic
included the study of up to 225,000 square feet of development, and the mitigation for
that size development contained the same elements, left turn lanes, right turn lanes,
traffic signals as I proposed for the 150,000 square foot project. The original TIS
included a sensitivity analysis for future growth along the 254 corridor through the Year
2020, illustrating that the traffic mitigation for Lot One and had (lost words) before major
changes at Quaker Road would be necessary. All other aspects of development on Lot
Two are functionally independent of Lot One, and then there’s a further discussion, I’m
trying to think of where it was, actually on Page Six of that same letter, the third
28
(Queensbury Planning Board 07/21/09)
paragraph from the top, we’re saying the four percent building increase of 6,350 square
feet for Lot One is not significant. The Traffic Study addendum prepared in May 2008
shows that the actual lane lengths for proposed mitigation were rounded up and that
more than four percent extra capacity already incorporated in the design, and then it
talked about the drainage report.
MR. SEGULJIC-Okay.
MR. PETROSKI-So, as I was saying earlier, there’s capacity in that signal and the lane
length’s, everything’s being designed to handle Lot Two.
MR. SEGULJIC-I’m no traffic expert, but you’re saying four percent extra capacity, that
doesn’t sound like a lot to me.
MR. PETROSKI-Well, the four percent is regarding the 150,000, 156,000 square feet,
okay. I wish you had the traffic, I don’t have the traffic report with me, but when we do a
traffic study, what we do is we determine how much queuing is required, how many cars
are going to stack up at an intersection before, and to know how long the turning lane
needs to be. So if you have a left turning lane, you have to decide how long it needs to
be, how many cars are going to stack before the light changes, and then that clears out.
So in that queuing analysis, the queues were calculated to be a lower number than the
minimum required, just for stopping sight distances and transition from going from the
main lane to the turning lane, and so you end up with a lane length that’s longer than the
minimum that was even calculated in the analysis. So that lane length handles the four
percent increase in the Wal-Mart proposal, plus it handles the lot increase for, or some
kind of development on Lot Two, okay. So there is capacity there in the original traffic
report, documented in the queuing analysis, that the lane lengths have more built into
them than they need.
MR. SEGULJIC-Because you were going to put the turning lane in there. Was there
going to also be a signal?
MR. PETROSKI-There’s a new traffic signal, and there’s a left turning lane for east
bound traffic to turn north on the Quaker Ridge Boulevard, and there’s also a right turn
lane for west bound traffic to turn right into Quaker Ridge Boulevard.
MR. HUNSINGER-Other questions, comments from Board members?
MR. SEGULJIC-Also, just to clarify, we have the wetlands issue. That’s something we
can address during the Site Plan, if this site ever does come back to us.
MR. FORD-You mean when it comes back.
MR. KREBS-We just need to make sure that, in this subdivision, if we approve it, that the
applicant understands that we’re not approving that access across the wetlands.
MR. OBORNE-I would highly suggest that you make that a condition of your approval, if
it is a concern.
MR. KREBS-Okay.
MR. HUNSINGER-Well, we don’t have that authority anyway, for them to impact the
wetland. I mean, that’s not within the realm of our authority. They would have to get
other permits and approvals in order to do that.
MR. KREBS-Right, but I’m saying if we approve this subdivision, is the applicant going,
has he given us a drawing that shows the access to this piece of property through that
existing wetland, and if we approve that subdivision and don’t specifically say that we are
not approving the access through the wetland, then is he going to think he’s got approval
to access through that space? I mean, he owns a piece of property just behind the
Glens Falls National, or the bank’s property, that would give him access to that property
without going through the wetland.
MR. MACRI-Wouldn’t you only be approving the subdivision which is a plat, which has
no wetlands information per se? I mean, we provided all this information strictly for your
education.
MR. KREBS-Well, except that we knew about that, Vic, because that wetland was
originally on the approval of the original Wal-Mart.
29
(Queensbury Planning Board 07/21/09)
(Two people talking at once – lost words)
MR. MACRI-Right, but also, all we’re doing here is approving a plat which is a
subdivision which is metes and bounds for that subdivision. It has nothing to do with the
existing contours or conditions of that property. Does it? I mean, correct me if I’m
wrong.
MR. HUNSINGER-Well, there is an implication that it’s a buildable lot, a developable lot.
MR. MACRI-(Lost words) by being zoned as buildable.
MR. PETROSKI-But the maps that we’ve put on file with the Town, there’s a Preliminary
plat set and there’s a Final plat drawing. The Preliminary plat set is all of the
development drawings for the Wal-Mart store, okay, because they had all this
infrastructure that’s going to be built with this quote unquote subdivision.
MR. HUNSINGER-Right.
MR. PETROSKI-There is no indication on the Preliminary plat that there’s any
disturbance to Lot Two at all. So if you approve the Preliminary plat, you’re not
approving anything besides the lot line around Lot Two, and then on the Final plat, that’s
what Vic’s saying, there’s nothing shown on the Final plat which shows any disturbance
of any wetlands either on that lot.
MR. HILL-Well, but I think it’s important to note that you’re showing the access into the
proposed six acre lot that you’re going to be creating. You’re sharing a common access
with the access to Wal-Mart, if my understanding is correct. Is that right?
MR. MACRI-No.
MR. HILL-What’s the access to the six acre lot that you’re proposing to create? You’re
not creating a landlocked parcel. This is well back off of Quaker Road, right?
MR. PETROSKI-It has frontage on the end of Quaker Ridge Boulevard.
MR. HILL-It has independent road frontage?
MR. HUNSINGER-Yes.
MR. HILL-I’m sorry, I didn’t understand that.
MR. PETROSKI-Yes.
MR. FORD-On Quaker Ridge Boulevard. Not on Quaker Road.
MR. MACRI-They’re all owned, I mean, they’re subdivided lots, but they’re all owned by
the same owner, and it’s Quaker Ridge access road.
MR. SIPP-Yes, but that access leads right into the wetlands.
MS. SLEVEN-Well, the road frontage is shown in order to comply with Code. Any
driveway or entrance into the site is clearly going to be a matter that’s going to be subject
to the Planning Board approval, and if that’s something that the Board needs to note in
the minutes of the approval, then certainly that’s something that we understand.
MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. Is the Board comfortable moving forward? Do we have
outstanding questions?
MR. SIPP-I just feel here that Wal-Mart has told you to dump these Lot Two, they’re
looking for a way to unload it conveniently. Now, maybe that’s being too cynical, but I
just think that it just looks that way to me, is that you’re left with a piece of land that
nobody wants and now you’re trying to make it into something that it’s not.
MR. MACRI-That’s not true. I mean, we have contiguous property surrounding that
property, and it’s all owned by the same owner. If we decide to landlock it, if you want to
call it a landlock, then we can’t develop it, and why would we want to do that?
MR. SIPP-Well, you’d own a lot more beyond that.
30
(Queensbury Planning Board 07/21/09)
MR. MACRI-But not commercial property. The rest is industrial property, understand.
This is the only commercial property.
MR. SEGULJIC-Yes, I mean, he has an opportunity now. Wouldn’t you if you had the
land?
MR. MACRI-If I decided to sell the three lots in front of this property, you’re telling me it’s
landlocked potentially because of the wetland.
MR. SIPP-Yes. I’m just concerned about these wetlands. The only access right now is,
to get to Lot Two, is the wetland.
MR. MACRI-But we’re not talking about developing those lots at this juncture and when
we come back to the Board, you can express your concerns and we’ll offer the mitigation
if necessary.
MR. SEGULJIC-Remember, what we had asked them to do is show us where the
wetlands were on the site and give us an idea of what the maximum use would be.
They’ve done that.
MR. SIPP-Well, what is the idea, what is the maximum use?
MR. SEGULJIC-Well, 70 to 100,000 square foot of retail.
MR. SIPP-Over the wetlands, to access it?
MR. SEGULJIC-No, but remember, this is just conceptual. When they come back for the
Site Plan, for Site Plan at that time, we can work on not going through the wetlands.
MR. MACRI-Well, we’ll have a bigger hurdle to get past the Corps of Engineers than this
Board, if we want to disturb any wetlands. I can guarantee you that.
MR. FORD-You’re already sampling that, aren’t you?
MR. MACRI-Yes.
MR. HUNSINGER-Did you have any comments, Mike, after looking at that letter?
MR. HILL-Well, Chris, I haven’t been able to get all the way through the letter yet.
MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. I’m sorry.
MR. HILL-But with regard to my comments a minute ago about access and so forth, I
think if you’re going to move ahead, it looks like the access to the property, at least as
the plan is laid out logically speaking, is going to be along the proposed Quaker Ridge
Boulevard that is also going to serve the Wal-Mart, and given the proximity to the
wetland, at the point where that is going to intersect the proposed lot, I think you
probably do want to note for the record, and in any approval, should we ultimately decide
to do it, that you are not approving, at this point, any access through the wetland itself.
It’s apparent it does provide a point of contact with the property, but I don’t think you
want to say that you’re approving any access through the wetland. If the applicant wants
to put that issue off to future consideration and review by the Army Corps and obtaining
the permits that will presumably be necessary to go through that wetland, that could be
the applicant’s prerogative, but I think you want to make it clear that you’re not, at this
point, approving access through the wetland.
MR. HUNSINGER-Okay.
MR. HILL-With regard to SEQRA, I’ve not been able to get completely through the letter
provided by the applicant to address the segmentation issue, but I do have reservations
about treating SEQRA review of the proposed six acre parcel separately. I think you’re
in a qualitatively different situation with regard to this proposal than you were with
respect to the previous consideration and approval of the Wal-Mart. This is a situation
where you’re taking, again, you’re taking the proposed, the lot, and it’s being proposed
for subdivision. It’s apparent that there is an effort or an intention to market the proposed
six acre lot for retail, retail development. This is not, I think that you could reasonably
say that this is not of the same highly speculative nature as the consideration was with
respect to the northern lands that are on the, I guess, it’s my understanding, on the
31
(Queensbury Planning Board 07/21/09)
opposite side of the easement, the Niagara Mohawk power easement. The factors here
seem different, and it doesn’t seem to me that it’s unreasonable for you treat this as a, to
consider the potential development on the proposed six acre parcel, and to do so now,
as part of your consideration for the subdivision rather than put off the SEQRA review.
From the, it appears that the purpose of the proposed six acre parcel is going to be retail
development. It appears that there’s a current effort being made to market and develop
the property, even if the specific development has not been identified. With regard to
impacts, it seems as though there would be common traffic and access impacts,
potential, possibly potential wetlands impacts that could affect both the proposed Wal-
Mart parcel and the proposed six acre parcel, and at least arguably that there may be
some level of inducement for the development of the six acre parcel, given the fact that
there’s going to be a Wal-Mart on the remaining parcel. That’s certainly going to make
the six acre parcel highly attractive to some business to be located next to a high traffic
retailer like Wal-Mart. So I don’t, this seems to me to be a somewhat different situation
than you faced when you considered whether or not you should conduct a SEQRA
review on the applicant’s other lands, located to the north, that were separate lots, not
part of the proposed Wal-Mart development, and again, I haven’t had a chance to review
the letter in detail, but those are just my preliminary observations for your consideration.
MS. SLEVEN-And if we could just address the for a moment. We believe that the Board
can proceed, because, again, there is not a specific plan for development. There’s
certainly a wish for development for the parcel, but not a specific plan. To the extent that
traffic is a concern, as Mark pointed out previously, traffic has already been reviewed
with respect to a larger development, larger than is contemplated for the Wal-Mart.
Excess capacity was identified. So, you know, you certainly can look at those issues.
To look at wetlands impacts, we have absolutely no idea what, if any, wetlands impacts
there would be. Anything’s going to be purely speculative that we would do, and that’s
not an analysis that’s required under SEQRA. So for those reasons, we would ask the
Board to proceed with it’s review, to proceed to decision on the subdivision, because
there isn’t any more that we can offer that wouldn’t be pure speculation, as a form of
development, on the six acres. We can certainly make something up, but there just isn’t
a plan, and it would be somewhat of a futile exercise to do, beyond the information that
we’ve already provided, which is to look at the one impact we can evaluate, which is the
traffic impact, and that’s been done.
MR. FORD-Counselor, could you address it a little bit differently. Can you anticipate the
development of Lot Two, without any impact on wetlands?
MS. SLEVEN-I certainly can contemplate it, because I can see that it would happen in
conjunction with the development of the property owner’s other contiguous parcels, with
a shared driveway through those parcels into Lot Two. So that’s the problem. There is a
possibility that there doesn’t need to be any wetlands impacts at all, but that’s going to
depend on the larger development proposal that comes through, and I think, you know,
the Board’s correctly pointed out, you’re not approving access. You’re not approving a
specific driveway to Lot Two, and you’re doing that on purpose because you’re not
willing to concede an impact to the wetlands, and it’s not necessary.
MR. TRAVER-But on the other hand if we have to consider the maximum potential
impact on Lot Two in order to conduct SEQRA, then by definition we have to consider
maximum impact on the wetland.
MS. SLEVEN-But that presumes that there’s an impact, but there may not be any impact
at all.
MR. TRAVER-My understanding is that’s our duty, in the absence of a plan, is to
assume, since you don’t have a Site Plan for Lot Two, our responsibility, as I understand
it, and someone please correct me if I’m wrong, but my understanding is that, in the
absence of a specific proposal for Lot Two, we have to theorize the maximum possible,
maximum potential impact when we consider SEQRA, and that would have to include, I
would think, maximum impact on the wetlands.
MS. SLEVEN-I would respectfully disagree. Because requiring to look at maximum
impact means within the parameters of the law. It doesn’t presume that a permit’s going
to be necessary. Just like we looked at the maximum development of the parcel, in
terms of what’s the limits of the wetlands, what’s the setbacks. That’s the developable
area. That’s the parameter or the perimeter within which any development has to
happen. That does not presume that there will be any impacts whatsoever. In fact, it’s
reasonable to say, there won’t be any impacts, because that wouldn’t be permitted.
32
(Queensbury Planning Board 07/21/09)
MR. HUNSINGER-Yes. I guess my own thought is, and you’re both kind of right,
because I think, Steve, what you’re saying is when we go through the SEQRA analysis
we have to say, is there potential for an impact, and the answer would have to be yes.
MR. TRAVER-Right. Not only that, but we have to assume that it’s the maximum
possible potential impact.
MR. HUNSINGER-Right, but then the answer then becomes, can the impact be
mitigated by a project change, and then the answer is going to be, yes, you know, so the
impact, the potential for an impact, is still there, and we do have to consider that, but
then we also have to consider what, how can that be mitigated, and that’s really the
purpose of SEQRA is to mitigate and to flesh out those kind of issues.
MR. TRAVER-But I think the problem that we’d be faced with, with that, and in this
situation is, though on the one hand we can theorize a maximum impact to the wetlands,
I don’t see how we can imagine what mitigation would be possible.
MR. SEGULJIC-You would move the access.
MRS. STEFFAN-And reduce the size of the project.
MR. TRAVER-Yes. The only other thing I could think of would be, with the additional
lands to the southwest, could they somehow be, yes, could they somehow be added to
this subdivision, so that instead of having that line across the back, there would be a
clearly, a direct access to this Lot Two?
MR. HUNSINGER-Well, and that’s what the applicant suggested, you know, as an
option.
MR. TRAVER-Yes, right. I think that would be, that would certainly make SEQRA a lot
easier, because I don’t see how, we can certainly theorize on what the maximum
wetland impact would be, but I don’t see how we could theorize what mitigation there
might.
MS. SLEVEN-I believe that the mitigation would be to either reduce the size of the
project or to find some common access through, you know, non regulated lands, to the
property.
MR. TRAVER-I understand and agree. The problem is, and again, as I understand it, if
we approve this subdivision, we’re declaring that a buildable lot as it is, without any
connection to, without an alternate connection that does not cross the wetland.
MS. SLEVEN-You’re saying that there’s a buildable lot, but you’re not saying where the
driveway’s going to be.
MR. MACRI-Is it buildable? That’s up to you guys to decide when I bring a plan to you.
MR. HILL-But when this Board approves a buildable lot, there needs to be a point of
access, there needs to be a viable point of access.
MR. TRAVER-Right.
MR. HILL-And that’s, I think that’s the nub of the issue. I mean, one way around this is to
take this proposed six acre lot and simply merge it with other lands that Mr. Macri owns.
I mean, I think that would probably solve a lot of this. I don’t know whether that’s been
considered or not, but that would be, potentially, another way around this. If there aren’t
any plans for the parcel, then it could be merged with this other lands and it could be
subdivided at some point in the future, or access could be, at that point, there would be
presumably multiple different access possibilities at that point. I don’t know whether
that’s been considered.
MR. TRAVER-Yes, and then when a plan is proposed, when we get to Site Plan for that
lot, then, you could still apply for access to that property across the wetlands, but in
making the approval, we would have the ability to declare it a buildable lot, without, with
sort of a way of getting around the wetland issue. So we wouldn’t have to theorize a
maximum impact on the wetland by having an access without impacting the wetland.
MR. MACRI-But even if the buildable lot, quote unquote buildable lot, was to disturb
wetlands, after it was proposed that way, and proper mitigation was provided that was
33
(Queensbury Planning Board 07/21/09)
acceptable to all authorities having jurisdiction, wouldn’t that, in itself, make it an
acceptable, buildable lot?
MR. TRAVER-Yes, I don’t think we could say, tonight, that on Lot Two, as proposed, it
wouldn’t be possible to submit a Site Plan that might be approved in some fashion, but
that’s a different issue, as I understand it, from our SEQRA review, where, since we don’t
have a Site Plan, we have to look at maximum possible impact.
MR. MACRI-You’re, in theory, saying that the wetlands that would be impacted are
wetlands, I mean, there’s all soils issue, too, which I don’t even want to get into, because
they’re not hydric soils, so it’s really not a wetlands, if we want to go down that road, but
we don’t. We’ve been down that road.
MR. TRAVER-And I know some of the wetlands are man made.
MR. MACRI-They’re all man made, on that side, but in theory, though, if I could go to the
Corps of Engineers and say, and they agree that it’s not wetlands, I’m not saying that
that would happen, then that’s the mitigation, and they’re the authority having the
jurisdiction to say that.
MR. TRAVER-But we’re looking at, what’s before us, has got wetlands indicated on Lot
Two. So, you know, if we’re moving ahead tonight, we have to look at what’s in front of
us tonight.
MR. MACRI-But that’s based on a delineation which expires in another year, I think. The
Corps only allows five year (lost words).
MR. TRAVER-I understand.
MR. MACRI-So, I mean, that delineation could change.
MR. TRAVER-It could change, and there’s also, the land itself evolves, you know, the
wetlands change.
MR. MACRI-That’s right.
MR. TRAVER-Yes, so, but unfortunately, or fortunately, depending on how you look at it,
I mean, what we have in front of us is what we have in front of us, you know. We can’t
speculate on.
MR. PETROSKI-Well, we don’t have, I don’t know if Staff has it, maybe in their, I don’t
know if that map he has on the screen there can be expanded farther to show a larger
area than what’s just outlined in red, because there are lots, there are lots adjacent to
this property that have no direct frontage on any public road. So you’re saying to me that
it’s not possible, basically, in this conversation, to have a lot that has no frontage,
because of access issues, because of wetlands issues. All that property in the whole
area has wetlands and access issues.
MR. TRAVER-All I’m trying to do is address the issue of SEQRA, and I’m just saying
that.
MR. PETROSKI-The property right behind it VMJR owns, the one in the back, the 80
acres. Where do you see the access? How is that developable?
MR. TRAVER-Well, I also don’t see them on the agenda.
MR. PETROSKI-It is developable. There is an access, and the reason why there’s an
access, if I could finish this thought, the reason why there’s access to that 80 acres is
because there is an easement granted to that property. So rather than concern
ourselves with how we re-combine lot lines, is it possible for Mr. Macri to grant an
easement through his adjacent property so that he has a point of access, okay, that is
not impacting any wetlands, all right, and if it should change in the future, it should
change in the future, but he can prove to you that he doesn’t have to disturb any
wetlands at this time, in order to develop that six acre parcel. It would be no different
than what’s already been done in other cases in that area.
MR. TRAVER-Okay. That might possible resolve the access issue, but I think, again,
and again, I’m not talking about lot lines or ownership at this point, I’m just, right now,
trying to get my head around the SEQRA issue that’s before us and approving the
34
(Queensbury Planning Board 07/21/09)
subdivision, and it still boils down to me, that in the absence of a Site Plan, and we
understand the reasons that you don’t have a Site Plan for Lot Two, but looking at our
responsibility for doing SEQRA, in the absence of that specific plan, we have to consider
the maximum possible impact, and there’s no looking at this property without getting
away from the fact that it currently indicates that there are wetlands on the property.
Now, in the future there may not be, maybe in the past there weren’t, but looking at what
we’re looking at tonight, there’s wetlands there.
MR. PETROSKI-And we have proposed a developable area that shows no impact to
those wetlands, other than that access issue. So if we remove that access issue, we are
then showing no impacts to wetlands, as part of this SEQRA review.
MR. TRAVER-I understand, but on the one hand you can’t, I think it’s, on the one hand,
can you ask us to consider what you’re saying is not a plan, the plan for SEQRA review?
On the one hand you’re saying, but we’ve got a plan, and all we do is we make a little
disturbance and cross the wetlands.
MR. PETROSKI-We’ve been told to provide the information to you.
MR. TRAVER-But then, on the other hand, you’re saying, that’s not a plan, that’s just a
marketing idea. So don’t consider.
MR. PETROSKI-It’s not, because you told us to provide that information to you.
MS. SLEVEN-I think it goes back to where you started the conversation. (Lost words),
but the next question is, can that impact be mitigated? And the answer is, yes, Number
One.
MR. TRAVER-You’re saying the answer is yes. I’m not sure that we know the answer to
that, and again, I’m only one person on the Board.
MS. SLEVEN-Sure, but the answer is, you know, can access be obtained through
another means, so that there’s no wetlands impact, and the answer is yes. The second
part of the answer, though, is, if there are wetland impacts, does the project need to be
reduced? And the answer would be yes. So the mitigation would be reduction of any
proposal that did come before the Board to minimize or eliminate wetlands impacts.
That’s the analysis. Can it be done? Could there be impacts? Can they be mitigated?
Yes. At the end of that analysis, you can conclude that the appropriate conclusions can
be reached under SEQRA.
MR. TRAVER-I understand what you’re saying. I think you’re talking about SEQRA in
the context, again, of a Site Plan, and you’re saying, you know, we could think about
different ways that there might be an impact, but again, it’s my understanding that in the
absence of a specific plan, rather than consider, you know, different levels of impact, we
specifically are charged with considering the maximum impacts, and that, on this piece of
property, clearly involves massive impacts on the wetlands.
MS. SLEVEN-The analysis doesn’t stop to say that there’s going to be maximum impacts
because the analysis requires the next question, which is, can the impacts be mitigated.
MR. TRAVER-Can it be mitigated, correct.
MR. HUNSINGER-Counselor?
MR. HILL-Yes. I think that I would agree that you don’t, if the applicant is willing to
provide an easement that would enable access to the property some other way than
through the wetland, then you can pick up your SEQRA analysis, you can assume that
there will be access some other way. You’re obviously aware of the presence of
wetlands on the property. In assuming a maximum build out, I think you can assume, for
purposes of analysis, the avoidance of the wetlands, that the applicant will have to stay
out of the wetlands. If the applicant, at some point in the future, makes appropriate
application with the Army Corps to fill the wetlands or to provide other compensating
wetlands or whatever, that can be done, but for purposes of your consideration for
SEQRA, I think you can assume that the applicant will stay out of the wetlands, and that
the maximum build out, if you will, will occur outside of the wetlands area.
MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. Thank you.
35
(Queensbury Planning Board 07/21/09)
MR. TRAVER-Okay. So could we make that a condition of approval of the subdivision
that there be a right of way so that the draft, if you will, entrance to the property across
the wetland be eliminated or?
MR. HUNSINGER-Well, what we had talked about before is making it a condition saying
that we’re not approving, in any manner, any access through a wetland.
MR. TRAVER-Right, but we will still would be approving a buildable lot, and what I’m
wondering is, can we approve a buildable lot if we make the condition that there be
another right of way?
MR. MACRI-As long as we provide an easement to that lot.
MR. TRAVER-An easement, yes, I’m sorry, an easement.
MR. MACRI-Which we’re willing to do.
MS. SLEVEN-So we would provide the easement as part of the subdivision.
MR. TRAVER-That way, as part of the subdivision.
MR. HUNSINGER-They may not need it.
MR. HILL-But if they don’t need it, it’s across his own property.
MR. MACRI-Well, if it relieves everybody’s concerns, then I don’t have a problem with
drawing up an easement for that.
MR. TRAVER-Yes, I mean, that would certainly mitigate that aspect of SEQRA, yes, I
think.
MR. HUNSINGER-Okay.
MR. HILL-If I may, just for one second, though. I think you’re assuming, and I’m
assuming you’re talking about an easement on Lots Three, Four or Five for an additional
access, but you’re assuming that wetlands don’t connect all the way across those lots,
and you do have a possibility to do that, and I’m not sure that’s been the case. I don’t
know if that’s been delineated or not.
MR. PETROSKI-Yes, the delineation that was done.
MR. HILL-Did include those lots?
MR. PETROSKI-It’s already been agreed to in the courts. We know exactly where they
are.
MR. HILL-So I suppose we would want an easement provided in an area that doesn’t
impact wetlands.
MR. HUNSINGER-Okay.
MR. TRAVER-And make that a condition of approval of the subdivision.
MR. MACRI-That’s fine.
MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. Given this discussion, are members of the Board comfortable
moving forward on the subdivision?
MR. FORD-Yes.
MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. I did leave the public hearing open. I will close the public
hearing.
PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED
MR. HUNSINGER-And let’s get into SEQRA.
MR. SEGULJIC-Long Form?
36
(Queensbury Planning Board 07/21/09)
MR. HUNSINGER-Long Form, yes.
MRS. STEFFAN- Will the proposed action result in a physical change to the project site?
MR. SEGULJIC-Yes.
MR. HUNSINGER-Yes, and what is the impact?
MR. SEGULJIC-Construction on land where depth to water table is less than three feet.
MRS. STEFFAN-Okay. Is that a small to moderate impact or a potential large impact?
MR. SEGULJIC-Small to moderate, can be mitigated.
MRS. STEFFAN-And it can be mitigated by the project change.
MR. TRAVER-By Site Plan Review.
MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. Thanks, Tom. Everyone in agreement with that?
MR. TRAVER-Yes.
MR. FORD-Yes.
MR. HUNSINGER-Good.
MR. HILL-Mr. Chairman, just before we go any farther, I just want to clarify and make
certain. You’re doing a SEQRA analysis now on the entire project, is that right, both the
Wal-Mart and the proposed development on the six acre parcel. Am I understanding
correctly how you’re proceeding on this?
MR. HUNSINGER-I thought we were just doing subdivision.
MR. HILL-You’re doing SEQRA review, now, on a project that’s going to involve the
whole site, right? Am I understanding this correctly?
MR. FORD-The whole site being Lot One and Lot Two combined?
MR. HILL-Lot One and Lot Two, the proposed development on Lot One and Lot Two.
MS. SLEVEN-Yes.
MR. PETROSKI-The SEQRA form was filled out that way.
MR. HUNSINGER-It was filled out that way, yes. Okay.
MR. HILL-It was filled out that way.
MR. TRAVER-So wouldn’t we really just be amending our prior SEQRA review with the
additional lands on Lot Two, rather than to re-do the whole?
MR. HUNSINGER-Well, what Counsel has advised us is that we need to look at the
whole thing. Yes, right?
MR. HILL-I think you do. You’re considering the thing as a whole now, the potential for
development on the proposed six acre parcel that the applicant’s going to break off.
You’ve obviously considered the impacts of the Wal-Mart in your previous approval.
Now you’re considering whatever additional impacts there might be from the build out on
the six acre parcel, but you’re looking at the whole thing.
MR. HUNSINGER-Thank you for clarifying that. Is everyone clear on that?
MR. FORD-Yes.
MR. TRAVER-Yes.
MRS. STEFFAN-Okay. So I can go forward to Question Two?
MR. HUNSINGER-Yes.
37
(Queensbury Planning Board 07/21/09)
MRS. STEFFAN-Will there be an effect to any unique or unusual land forms found
on the site?
MR. SEGULJIC-No.
MRS. STEFFAN-Will the proposed action affect any water body designated as
protected?
MR. FORD-Yes.
MR. HUNSINGER-Yes.
MR. SEGULJIC-The wetland.
MRS. STEFFAN-Okay, and small to moderate impact or potentially large impact?
MR. SEGULJIC-Small to moderate.
MR. HUNSINGER-Small to moderate.
MR. TRAVER-Small to moderate, mitigated by project change.
MRS. STEFFAN-Mitigated by project change.
MR. HUNSINGER-Mitigated by project change.
MRS. STEFFAN-Okay. Will the proposed action affect any non-protected existing or
new body of water?
MR. SEGULJIC-No.
MR. HUNSINGER-No.
MRS. STEFFAN-Will the proposed action affect surface or groundwater quality or
quantity?
MR. SEGULJIC-No.
MR. FORD-Will you re-read that, please.
MRS. STEFFAN-Will the proposed action affect surface or groundwater quality or
quantity? And let me give you the examples proposed. Proposed action will require a
discharge permit. Proposed action requires use of a source of water that does not have
approval to serve proposed the project or action. Proposed action requires water supply
from wells with greater than 45 gallons per minute of pumping capacity. Construction or
operation causing any contamination of a water supply system. Proposed Action will
adversely affect groundwater. Liquid effluent will be conveyed off the site to facilities
which presently do not exist or have inadequate capacity. Proposed Action would use
water in excess of 20,000 gallons per day. Proposed Action will likely cause siltation or
other discharge into an existing body of water to the extent that there will be an obvious
visual contrast to natural conditions. Proposed Action will require the storage of
petroleum or chemical products greater than 1,100 gallons. Proposed Action will allow
residential uses in areas without water and/or sewer services. Proposed Action locates
commercial and/or industrial uses which may require new or expansion of existing waste
treatment and/or storage facilities. Those are the definitions of will the proposed action
affect surface or groundwater quality or quantity.
MR. FORD-I don’t think there’s any question, but what groundwater will be impacted by
this.
MRS. STEFFAN-Okay. Will that be a small to moderate impact on groundwater, or a
potentially large impact on groundwater?
MR. HUNSINGER-They did provide a wastewater.
MR. KREBS-In a sense it’s hard to tell because we don’t know what’s going to be on the
property.
38
(Queensbury Planning Board 07/21/09)
MR. TRAVER-I think maybe you just skip that step for a minute. We can say that it will
be mitigated by the Site Plan Review.
MR. HUNSINGER-Right.
MR. FORD-I concur with that.
MR. TRAVER-Yes. So size doesn’t matter in this case.
MRS. STEFFAN-Okay. Will the proposed action alter drainage flow or patterns, or
surface water runoff?
MR. FORD-Yes.
MR. KREBS-Yes, but it can be mitigated.
MRS. STEFFAN-Okay. So that can be mitigated.
MR. HUNSINGER-Well, we have to define the size of the impact, first. Small to
moderate impact?
MRS. STEFFAN-Sorry.
MR. HUNSINGER-Yes, that’s okay.
MR. KREBS-Yes.
MR. FORD-Yes.
MRS. STEFFAN-And it can be mitigated by project change.
MR. HUNSINGER-Thank you.
MRS. STEFFAN-Okay. Will the proposed action affect air quality?
MR. FORD-No.
MR. TRAVER-No.
MR. HUNSINGER-No.
MRS. STEFFAN-Will the proposed action affect any threatened or endangered species?
MR. HUNSINGER-No.
MR. FORD-No.
MRS. STEFFAN-Will the proposed action substantially affect non-threatened or non-
endangered species?
MR. HUNSINGER-No.
MR. FORD-No.
MRS. STEFFAN-Will the proposed action affect agricultural land resources?
MR. HUNSINGER-No.
MR. FORD-No.
MRS. STEFFAN-Will the proposed action affect aesthetic resources?
MR. KREBS-No.
MR. HUNSINGER-No.
MRS. STEFFAN-Will the proposed action impact any site or structure of historic, pre-
historic or paleontological importance?
39
(Queensbury Planning Board 07/21/09)
MR. HUNSINGER-No.
MR. FORD-No.
MRS. STEFFAN-Will the proposed action affect the quantity or quality of existing or
future open spaces or recreational opportunities?
MR. HUNSINGER-No.
MR. TRAVER-No.
MRS. STEFFAN-Will the proposed action impact the exceptional or unique
characteristics of a critical environmental area?
MR. SEGULJIC-No.
MR. HUNSINGER-No.
MRS. STEFFAN-Will there be an effect to existing transportation systems?
MR. SEGULJIC-No.
MR. HUNSINGER-No.
MR. TRAVER-Well, I would say, yes, but again, mitigated by the Site Plan, the addition
of traffic controls and so on.
MR. FORD-Right.
MR. HUNSINGER-Yes.
MR. TRAVER-Small to moderate.
MRS. STEFFAN-Okay.
MR. FORD-Small to moderate and can be mitigated.
MR. HUNSINGER-Yes, and it’s mitigated by the traffic control devices proposed.
MRS. STEFFAN-Proposed. Will proposed action affect the community’s sources of fuel
or energy supply?
MR. TRAVER-No.
MR. FORD-No.
MRS. STEFFAN-Will there be objectionable odors, noise, or vibration as a result of
the proposed action?
MR. HUNSINGER-No.
MR. FORD-No.
MRS. STEFFAN-Will the proposed action affect public health and safety?
MR. HUNSINGER-No.
MR. TRAVER-No.
MRS. STEFFAN-Will the proposed action affect the character of the existing community?
MR. HUNSINGER-No.
MR. KREBS-No.
MR. FORD-No.
MRS. STEFFAN-And is there, or is there likely to be, public controversy related to
potential adverse environmental impacts?
40
(Queensbury Planning Board 07/21/09)
MR. HUNSINGER-No.
MR. FORD-No.
MRS. STEFFAN-Okay. Based on the Board’s input and discussion, I’ll make a motion
for a Negative declaration.
RESOLUTION WHEN DETERMINATION OF NO SIGNIFICANCE IS MADE
RESOLUTION NO. 11-2008, Introduced by Gretchen Steffan who moved for its
adoption, seconded by Donald Krebs:
WHEREAS, there is presently before the Planning Board an application for:
WAL-MART STORES, 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.
st
Duly adopted this 21 day of, July, 2009, by the following vote:
AYES: Mr. Traver, Mr. Ford, Mr. Seguljic, Mr. Sipp, Mr. Krebs, Mrs. Steffan,
Mr. Hunsinger
NOES: NONE
MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. Mr. Seguljic, would you like to make a motion for approval?
MR. SEGULJIC-Okay. There were two issues, then. One was the approval of the
subdivision does not grant approval of impacts on the wetlands depicted on Drawing DP-
01. However, you said you’d be open to having an easement? So do we need to
access to the site shall be gained via an easement via lots.
MR. TRAVER-I don’t think we need to say that that’s where the access will be. I think we
just need to indicate that there will be an easement.
MR. OBORNE-That doesn’t affect wetlands.
MR. FORD-That does not affect wetlands. That’s critical.
MR. TRAVER-I mean, they can still apply to Army Corps and get their original crossing
approved. What we’re doing is that’s enabling us to consider a buildable lot that, without
any plan, can be accessed without going through the wetland.
41
(Queensbury Planning Board 07/21/09)
MR. OBORNE-And that’s with the assumption that there will be no wetlands being
disturbed.
MR. TRAVER-In the easement.
MR. HUNSINGER-And those conditions would be in Final.
MR. KREBS-But there’s four other lots that you could put an easement across and avoid
the wetland. So, depending on how he ends up developing it, you put it some place.
MR. MACRI-And, I mean, potentially the rear lots you can put an easement coming back
from the rear.
MR. HUNSINGER-Yes, that’s what I just said, even to the north.
MR. MACRI-Coming from the north.
MR. HUNSINGER-We have to do Preliminary first.
MOTION TO APPROVE SUBDIVISION NO. 11-2008 PRELIMINARY STAGE WAL-
MART STORES, Introduced by Thomas Seguljic who moved for its adoption, seconded
by Stephen Traver:
A subdivision application has been made to the Queensbury Planning Board for
1.
the following; Applicant proposes subdivision of a 39.7 +/- acre parcel into two
lots of 33.3 & 6.4 +/- acres. Subdivision of land requires Planning Board review
and approval.
2. A public hearing was scheduled and held on 4/28/09, 6/23/09, 7/21/09; and
3. This application is supported with all documentation, public comment and
application material in the file of record; and
4. MOTION TO APPROVE SUBDIVISION NO. 11-2008 PRELIMINARY STAGE
WAL-MART STORES, Introduced by Thomas Seguljic who moved for its
adoption, seconded by Stephen Traver:
st
Duly adopted this 21 day of July, 2009, by the following vote:
AYES: Mr. Sipp, Mr. Krebs, Mr. Ford, Mr. Traver, Mr. Seguljic, Mr. Hunsinger
NOES: NONE
ABSTAINED: Mrs. Steffan
MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. Would you like to put forward a motion for Final? And there is
draft resolution prepared by Staff.
MOTION TO APPROVE SUBDIVISION NO. 11-2008 FINAL STAGE WAL-MART
STORES, Introduced by Thomas Seguljic who moved for its adoption, seconded by
Thomas Ford:
A subdivision application has been made to the Queensbury Planning Board for
1.
the following; Applicant proposes subdivision of a 39.7 +/- acre parcel into two
lots of 33.3 & 6.4 +/- acres. Subdivision of land requires Planning Board review
and approval.
2. A public hearing was scheduled and held on 4/28/09, 6/23/09, 7/21/09; and
3. The application is supported with all documentation, public comment and
application material in the file of record; and
4. MOTION TO APPROVE SUBDIVISION NO. 11-2008 FINAL STAGE WAL-
MART STORES, Introduced by Thomas Seguljic who moved for its adoption,
seconded by Thomas Ford:
With the two following conditions: The approval of this subdivision does not grant
approval of impacts on the wetlands as depicted on Drawing DP-01, and an
42
(Queensbury Planning Board 07/21/09)
easement is to be provided for access to the site that does not impact the site’s
wetlands.
st
Duly adopted this 21 day of July, 2009, by the following vote:
MR. SEGULJIC-Approving this subdivision, the Planning Board would not be
approving access through the wetland itself, which would be subject to Army
Corps of Engineer review and a potential easement from the applicant from other
lands they own.
MR. OBORNE-Was there any mention of wetlands not being disturbed through
that easement?
MR. SEGULJIC-Approving this subdivision would not be approving access
through the wetlands itself.
MR. TRAVER-I think, can we simplify it to simply, that condition to simply say that
the subdivision is approved on the condition that an easement be provided to the
property that does not impact wetlands?
MR. HILL-An access easement.
MR. SEGULJIC-Can I amend the motion, then?
MR. HUNSINGER-Why don’t you start over, and make it clearer.
AYES: Mr. Traver, Mr. Krebs, Mr. Sipp, Mr. Ford, Mr. Seguljic, Mr. Hunsinger
NOES: NONE
ABSTAINED: Mrs. Steffan
MR. HUNSINGER-You’re all set.
SITE PLAN NO. 17-2009 FW 2-2009 SEQR TYPE PREVIOUS SEQR [9/16/08] WAL-
MART STORES AGENT(S) BERGMANN ASSOCIATES OWNER(S) FOREST
ENTERPRISES MANAGEMENT, INC. ZONING HC-INT. LOCATION QUAKER
RIDGE ROAD APPLICANT PROPOSES MODIFICATIONS TO THEIR APPROVED
SITE PLAN TO INCLUDE A REDUCTION IN LOT SIZE FROM 39.7 TO 33.3 ACRES,
CHANGES TO FAÇADE COLORS AND PYLON SIGNAGE LOCATION.
ADDITIONALLY, AND IN CONCERT WITH A SHIFT OF THE BUILDING LOCATION 60
FEET TO THE WEST, A BUILDING SIZE INCREASE FROM 150,200 SQUARE FEET
TO 156,850 SQUARE FEET IS PROPOSED ALONG WITH 28 ADDITIONAL PARKING
SPACES. FURTHER, PARKING LOT AND DRIVE AISLE CHANGES ARE PLANNED
TOGETHER WITH A RECONFIGURATION F PORTIONS OF THE PROPOSED
LIGHTING, LANDSCAPING AND STORMWATER INFRASTRUCTURE.,
MODIFICATIONS TO AN APPROVED SITE PLAN REQUIRE PLANNING BOARD
REVIEW AND APPROVAL. CROSS REFERENCE SP 61-07, FW 1-08, SV 1-09, SB
11-08; UV 27-93, AV 34-93 WARREN CO. PLANNING N/A APA, CEA, DEC, ACOE
ACOE/NWI LOT SIZE 39.65 +/- ACRES TAX MAP NO. 303.15-1-25 SECTION 179-9
MARK PETROSKI & VIC MACRI, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT
MR. HUNSINGER-Keith, whenever you’re ready to summarize the Staff Notes.
MR. OBORNE-Give me a moment, please. Site Plan 17-2009, Applicant Wal-Mart
Stores. Requested action, modification to an approved Site Plan, location, Route 254,
Quaker Road and Quaker Ridge Boulevard. Existing zoning is Highway Commercial
Intensive, that is under the old Code. That is a note. SEQRA Status, previous SEQRA.
The Planning Board may wish to re-affirm previous SEQRA determinations for Site Plan
61-2007 VMJR, or re-open SEQRA. The project description, The applicant proposes a
6,350 square foot increase to the retail structure from an approved total square footage
of 150,200 to 156,550. Further, the applicant proposes changes to building location,
building color, site parking configuration, site parking lot lighting, loading docks, and
pylon sign configuration. Additionally, the applicant is proposing a change to the
configuration of the seasonal garden center to the west, a change to the loading area to
the rear, and an increase in finished floor elevation of 1.5 feet. Finally, the applicant
proposes an increase in storage capacity to Storm Water Basin “A”, the relocation of
pedestrian access walkway from the east side of Quaker Ridge Road to the west side of
43
(Queensbury Planning Board 07/21/09)
Quaker Ridge Road and additional tree removal associated with the applicant’s site line
issues related to the free standing sign located at the entrance to Quaker Ridge Road.
Staff comments, quickly, The applicant stated that the size of the building and a change
in style has not been agreed to by the Wal-Mart home office at the time of the original
submittal to modify dated February 13, 2009. It does appear now, with the submittal of
the letter of intent and the subsequent revised plan submittal date of June 15, 2009 that
the applicant has been given final direction from the client. The applicant has submitted
a Project Description/Summarization letter dated June 15, 2009. The letter details the
changes proposed and will be used as a guide for review. Staff has reviewed the
modifications and will follow, in order, the applicant’s project description letter. Planning
Board approval required for the following. What follows is the project description, in lock
step with that letter dated June 15, 2009. I do want to highlight additional comments.
Clarification on west elevation drawing, it does not match with overall Site Plan, Page
1.1, specifically the loading doors depicted in the elevation drawing are blocked by the
garbage compactor on site plans. Please update elevation drawings. Elevation
drawings should denote direction of elevation. Please clarify that. Further, no tractor
trailers are to be parked in the front of the building or parking lot. It as come to my
attention that that is actually on the plan and Mr. Petroski will direct you to where that is.
Further, as a result of the reconfiguration of the parking lot, the photometric plan has
changed. Pole light detail missing from a logical location on Page C5.2. The Planning
Board may wish to inquire of the applicant if the revisions before the Board are all that
will be required for this project, and with that I’d turn it over to the Board.
MR. HUNSINGER-Thank you, Keith. Good evening. Did you have anything else you
want to add?
MR. PETROSKI-Mr. Chairman, just for the record, again, Mark Petroski with Bergmann
Associates, representing Wal-Mart, and with me are still Vic Macri, the property owner,
and Mary Elizabeth Sleven with Stockley, Green, Sleven and Peters. I would do the
same thing as I did before. I only had a few items where the Staff had said clarify this or
talk about that. So I’m looking at the Staff comments, under A. project description, Item
Two C, apparently, of all the paperwork that we submitted, we neglected to actually
submit a three page Freshwater Wetlands modification application. I think all the
information is contained within all the documentation we sent, and I reviewed the
application form, and the only two things that would have changed from before is
identifying the modification relative to the pylon sign, and that that modification does not
require any Corps of Engineer approvals or any other DEC approvals. So that’s the only
information that we would add. I think we owe you the signed form. Under D, there was
a comment about conditioning the request for the pylon sign on approval from DOT for
tree removal within the State right of way. This plan, this Ellis 01 drawing, is in your
application packet. The area in tan is the area that’s going to be impacted by the right
turn lane. That’s all within the County right of way. I don’t know how the Town handles
jurisdiction of what’s happening in the County right of way, but the area that we’re talking
about, that effects the property, is from this dashed line south to the property line. The
property line is this heavy black line, and then you’ve got the dashed line above. That’s
the line of sight, basically, to the sign. So from that dashed line, that triangular wedge is
where we’re talking about taking out trees, and I think Staff counted like 10 trees in that
area, but we’re looking at this whole wedge shape to have trees taken out for visibility
purposes.
MR. HUNSINGER-So those couple of big trees that are in the picture down in the bottom
left, those are all in the County right of way anyway.
MR. PETROSKI-These here?
MR. HUNSINGER-The other picture, all the way to the left, the other left.
MR. PETROSKI-This tree here?
MR. HUNSINGER-Yes, there’s two trees there that you show on your plan as having,
you know, 20 and 24 inch. One’s dead. Okay.
MR. PETROSKI-Actually this tree here that’s dead, this dead one, this would go, and
then this one here, yes.
MR. HUNSINGER-Yes, okay. So those are in the County right of way anyway.
MR. PETROSKI-Yes.
44
(Queensbury Planning Board 07/21/09)
MR. HUNSINGER-Okay.
MR. PETROSKI-It’s up to you how you want to structure your approvals, obviously. I’m
just trying to point out what’s in the right of way and what’s not.
MR. HUNSINGER-Sure.
MR. PETROSKI-The next item that was talked about is the trash compactor. Actually,
we have deleted one of the trash compactors. Wal-Mart has a current goal of being
100% trash free. Everything that will be trash is recycled, and that’s what they’re going
for, and so as they continue to improve their operations, they have eliminated trash
compactors, and we’ve gone from two to one. So although I understand, the store gets a
little bigger, you would think there would be more trash, but they actually recycle and
control it, so they don’t need it, the extra compactor. This is the plan on top here that
actually we looked at in July of 2008, and this plan down here is the one we’re currently
looking at in July of 2009. So whereas before we had a trash compactor behind the
store and on the side of the store, now we just have one on the back side of the loading
dock, and as before, we had a two sided loading dock, facing both directions, now we
have a loading dock that only faces into the property. So you wouldn’t see trucks parked
there, but like I said, on the back side of it, you would have the compactor. That was
Item 3-J, by the way, I was looking at, and then Item 3-K was talking about the bale and
pallet recycling area. We previously had an area here in the back behind the store
which, when they bale up cardboard and they stack pallets and they store them in a
location until they’re picked up and taken to a recycler, we moved that area around the
corner a little bit, and the reason for shifting it is because, simply is State law requires we
maintain 60 feet of separation from the building. You can’t have any combustibles stored
within 60 feet. So we slide it around the corner, but Wal-Mart is going to put a screen
around it, just to hide it from public view, if you will. So we put, basically, a screen wall
around it. The added advantage to having that screen wall is simply that it keeps any
kind of loose material from blowing around. It doesn’t get caught in the wind. So, I think
it’s an aesthetic benefit, even though it’s not really highly visible, but who knows, in the
future, if something else might happen in the area and you certainly want to put it in there
now, so that it screens that storage area. So, that’s all it is, and then Item M. We
previously had shown on the plan a sidewalk on the east side of Quaker Ridge
Boulevard, and we put it in the private property side. The Board basically said if you
wanted to maintain it, we have no problem with you putting it there, and at the time it was
on private property, so we were willing to maintain it, but we’re trying to get utilities in
here without anymore impacts to wetlands, and we couldn’t fit the electric, telephone,
gas, and the sidewalk all in the same space on private property without impacting the
wetlands. So we pushed the sidewalk over to the other side of the road, and again,
because of space constraints between the property lines and the street, and not having
control of all the property on the other side of the road, we put the sidewalk in the right of
way. So that would, I would conclude that it becomes the Town’s responsibility for
maintenance of that sidewalk if it was to be built there. Now, last time we talked about it,
the Town wasn’t really willing to take on the maintenance of that sidewalk. So if the
Town doesn’t want to take on the maintenance, we won’t build a sidewalk, but that’s the
only real logical location to put it at this point. So it’s something to discuss further. On
the elevation drawings, getting into the additional comments, I think Keith was a
detective in his prior life. What Keith was pointing out in the notes, before, as I was
saying, before we showed a two sided dock. We had dock doors facing both directions.
Well, now, on this side of the building, we don’t have, I’m sorry, yes, this is the back of
the building, okay, this is the loading dock appendage on the back. On this one side
where I pointed out earlier, that’s where the compactor is. On the other side is the
loading dock doors. So we look at the side elevation now, you only see loading dock
doors on one side, and you don’t see them on the other side, which would be this view
here, because that’s a frontal view of the compactor at the end of the dock. So on one
side you see the compactor. The other side you see the loading dock doors. So the
elevation that we put in there, if you look at it, now looking at this one, you’ll see that we
showed loading dock doors on both sides and the compactor in the wrong place. So I
corrected it here. I owe you that drawing, as a record of it being corrected, but I know
you don’t always like to receive things at the last minute. So I figured, okay, I owe it to
you, but I wanted you to see the correct version of what it would look like. This is also,
we’ve pointed out that this is a different color scheme. We introduced this the last time
we were here, but again, it’s carrying the same color scheme as we’ve been talking
about, the tans as opposed to that yellowy orange color, which was kind of awful. So,
with that.
MR. HUNSINGER-So the one up there, is that the one that’s correct, or is that the one
that’s?
45
(Queensbury Planning Board 07/21/09)
MR. PETROSKI-This is correct.
MR. HUNSINGER-Okay.
MR. PETROSKI-This is correct, and if you were to bring that up and look at the two side
by side, you’d see the differences more clearly, and at Staff’s request, we also labeled
the elevations, north, south, east and west, which would reflect on any other submittal,
so you can pick out which side of the building you’re looking at. The top elevation there
is the frontal view, which is considered the south elevation. The next one down, east
side of the building, the right side as you’re facing the front, and the next one down is the
rear of the building, and the final one at the bottom is the west side or the left side.
There is a screening element here, because we have these compressors that work the
refrigeration equipment and the grocery part of the store, and we put this masonry
pilaster and iron railing in front of that to break up the view of that, so you just don’t see
the mechanical equipment, okay. So that helps aesthetically address that west side of
the building. This next bullet, the third bullet about no tractor trailers are to be parked in
the front of the building, I know it’s on Drawing C-1.2. It’s Note Number 15. So if you
look at your drawing set, it’s there. We didn’t put it in a big box or boldface it, but it is a
note on the drawings. The next comment had to do with the parking lot lighting. At one
point, we had prepared for the Board two options, an Option A and an Option B. Option
A was a plan that showed 20 foot light poles and Option B was a plan that showed 28
foot light poles. We all agreed, and the record reflects that we agreed that Option B was
acceptable, which was the 28 foot poles, and at the time, we were talking about the
difference between high pressure sodium and metal halide, and I, unfortunately I think I
confused the discussion a little bit, but in a subsequent meeting we came back, and we
th
agreed that metal halide, 28 foot, was the accepted plan. From June 15 of ’08, all the
way through to the approval that was granted, was that same Option B, 28 foot poles,
metal halide. We want to do the same thing again, but unfortunately, we ran into some
confusion. The Town’s zoning code was changing, and I think in the new code it goes,
we went back to the 20 foot again, and there was miscommunication on our part, and my
lighting designer took the 20 foot and ran with it, and we ended up with a plan that
showed 20 foot poles, and that certainly isn’t our intention. We really want to go with
fewer poles, the energy conversation aspects, and stick with the original plan of 28 foot.
So unfortunately the drawing that you have shows 20 footers, but it is the intention of
keeping the 28 footers that you originally approved a year ago. So we’d have to modify
that drawing accordingly, and the last bullet, which talks about, I’m sorry. The missing
detail, back in, I think it was, well, it’s on the back table, I want to say it was June of 2008,
we submitted, in one of our response documents, there was an Attachment Seven, June
13, 2008, as a matter of fact, Attachment Seven had catalog cuts of the lights. We
showed you the shoebox fixture. We showed you the compliance with illumination
society standards, the down facing lights, all the things that are Dark Sky compliant.
That was part of our application, and the drawings, the codification of the drawings, list
the LSI Greenbriar lens and the shoebox style light. So it’s all consistent with what we
said we would do. I don’t have the catalogue cut on the drawing, but it has been
submitted to you. It has not changed. So, that’s just where you find the information. I
didn’t have anything else to say about the Staff’s comments, and the Town Engineer’s
comments, I think it’s sort of a generic review that you’re requesting.
MR. RYAN-I think there’s a discrepancy between the final pump station design that you
had from, looks like someone else designed that and you had just put their details on
there. Coordination issue between the size of the pump station, the diameter, the pipe
inlet, and the distribution, they’re all different on your plans versus that. So just
coordinate those.
MR. PETROSKI-Okay. All right, and I think to address that question, also, we have to
get a permit from Mike Shaw before we can actually make any connection. So he’ll be
doing the final review on the drawings to make sure those things are resolved. Those
are kind of the open items with regards to Staff comments. I can talk about anything else
about the plans, as you wish. We did try to spell out very specifically every single
change that was done from the previous plan to this plan. I think, personally, and I think
other people have told me that they feel that this plan is better from a circulation
standpoint and from a design element standpoint, but I think we worked a little harder to
make sure that the customers that are going to be using the facility are also going to be
better served. So I hope you agree. So, any questions for me or our team, we’ll be
happy to answer them.
MR. HUNSINGER-Questions, comments from the Board?
46
(Queensbury Planning Board 07/21/09)
MR. FORD-Yes. This has been going on for some time, and it has been marked with
numerous revisions, that we won’t delineate, but does this appear to have everyone on
board now? We don’t anticipate any further revisions to this?
MR. PETROSKI-We put that question to Wal-Mart.
MR. FORD-Thank you.
MR. PETROSKI-And to the best of our knowledge this is what they want to do.
MR. FORD-Almost time, wasn’t it?
MR. SIPP-I have a question about the line of sight and the sign. Now, on this diagram
here you have these trees marked in green. If these trees are removed, is there a
necessity of having this sign at 24 feet? If we were to waive the cutting of the tree in the
wetlands area, you’ve got enough trees in there anyway to block any view during the
summer. Winter you’ll have a better view, but if we were to eliminate those, is there a
necessity that this sign has to be 24 feet tall?
MR. PETROSKI-I think the answer to the question, from Wal-Mart’s standpoint, is, yes,
there is a necessity. I mean, the sign that they’re asking for is within what the code
allows, which is a 25 foot tall sign. Typically they ask for signs that are 30 feet tall or
taller, but they’re willing to concede to the Town’s requirements, which is what you permit
as a maximum. When you’re talking about a project like this, I think people can say that,
yes, you identify with where the Wal-Mart is in Town, but the last thing you want to have
is people that are not familiar with the area, and there are people that come through,
especially in an area that’s highly seasonally impacted like this area is, that are going to
be looking for that store, and I don’t feel comfortable when they see the sign at the last
minute, in an area that’s going to have more traffic than you might normally expect, and
you want to give these people the best chance, from a safety standpoint, to identify
where they’re going to turn, where they’re going to stop, and where they’re going to get
in.
MR. SIPP-What are the lighting provisions for the sign?
MR. PETROSKI-The lighting that they propose for these signs now is internal
illumination. So there’s no bulbs casting light in any direction.
MR. SIPP-Still, 24 feet is, to me, I’d love to see this revised on the Sign Ordinance, is just
too tall. It just clutters up the line of sight of people, and as for 99% of the people who go
to this Wal-Mart know where it is to begin with, and the one percent, I’m sure, will find it,
without having a 24 foot sign. To me, it’s just too much.
MR. FORD-The pilots and passengers using Runway One need to be able to see it.
MR. PETROSKI-They probably won’t, actually. It’ll be too small. Well, the other thing I
would point out to you is that your Code also says, I think a four foot by sixteen foot
dimension is the maximum. Normally Wal-Mart likes, under pylon signs, they have
something that’s five feet by twenty foot. So they are dropping it down in terms of size,
as well as height, to be within your Code requirement. So they have made a concession
without coming in and asking for a variance to make that sign bigger.
MR. SIPP-Well, let’s hope that they, as Mr. Ford said, are finished with their nit picking. I
would love to see that sign reduced.
MR. FORD-So would I.
MR. TRAVER-I’d like to talk about the sidewalk again, if we might, and I know that we
had some conversations about this in the original plan, and decided that the sidewalk
was something that would be valuable to folks accessing, you know, Quaker Road and
transportation and so on. You mentioned that in this latest revision that you have the
sidewalk on public property and should the Town elect to not accept the responsibility for
maintaining that sidewalk, that you would then not provide a sidewalk. I would like to
suggest that, instead, if the Town does not want to maintain the sidewalk on public
property, that we re-visit having the sidewalk on private property. Because I think we’ve
already acknowledged that the sidewalk is an important feature.
MR. PETROSKI-I do have a different understanding of that discussion. Because I
remember that we also had a sidewalk along the frontage of Quaker Road, and at the
47
(Queensbury Planning Board 07/21/09)
time, it was asked will the County maintain that sidewalk, because it was the only place
we could put it without impacting wetlands was in the County right of way, and they said
that they weren’t going to maintain it. So we took it off.
MR. TRAVER-I’m not, at this point, talking about that section of the sidewalk. I’m talking
about the section of the sidewalk leading in to the Wal-Mart itself.
MR. PETROSKI-This piece or are you talking about?
MR. TRAVER-That piece, yes.
MR. FORD-Parallel to the access road.
MR. PETROSKI-We’ll build it. I mean, that’s, we’ll build it. It just becomes a question of
who maintains it. We can get it on to the private property continuously from one end to
the other, because we don’t have access to all that property, but there’s also wetlands
along that whole side of that road on both sides, and there’s no place else to put the
sidewalk on private property anyway that doesn’t have a wetland impact. So the only
place to put it is where we’re showing.
MR. KREBS-Have you talked to the bus transportation people? Would they drive into
the parking lot and let people off there rather than even, if you did that, then you really
don’t need the sidewalk.
MR. PETROSKI-I believe we contacted the bus company, some of this stuff is a little bit
old, and we, I believe we have. I think, we have a sign here for bus pick up. So we’re
allowing the bus to come in, circulate around, and come back out on site, and I think
they wanted to have that access, and we don’t object to that.
MR. KREBS-Well, that’s better than having them stop on Quaker Road drop people off
then have the people walk in the sidewalk.
MR. PETROSKI-I’d have to look at the plans, but I’m pretty sure we have a bus stop sign
there.
MR. TRAVER-Well, that addresses my concern, then, thank you.
MR. FORD-Yes. If the buses will go in there, then that’s the, we don’t want them
dropping them off on Quaker Road and walking in traffic.
MR. PETROSKI-Yes, that’s fine, we don’t have a problem with that.
MR. TRAVER-That’s all I had.
MR. FORD-I have one additional question.
MR. HUNSINGER-Go ahead, Tom.
MR. FORD-Are any of you familiar with the Wal-Mart that has been constructed in St.
Lawrence County between Potsdam and Canton?
MR. PETROSKI-Between Potsdam and Canton. There is a Potsdam Wal-Mart, I think,
that was recently constructed. I wasn’t involved with that project, but I think it was
recently constructed.
MR. FORD-I was just wondering because it is, by comparison with a lot of other facilities,
very attractive, and it appears that you’re getting closer to that in coloration and
presentation, and I applaud that.
MR. PETROSKI-Thank you.
MR. SIPP-One more thing on the sign. Has any thought been given to landscaping the
base of it?
MR. TRAVER-I think the base of it is below grade, if I remember right.
MR. MACRI-The base is at grade.
MR. TRAVER-Or at grade?
48
(Queensbury Planning Board 07/21/09)
MR. PETROSKI-This proposal brings the base to grade. We don’t show anything, but I
don’t have a problem with making that a condition to provide, I mean, it can be done with
annuals or perennials or shrubs or whatever you’d like. You can make the condition that
you, Mr. Sipp, have the authority to put whatever plants you would like to put there.
MR. FORD-Can you make them whatever size he would like?
MR. PETROSKI-They will be on the standard list from the Town.
MR. SIPP-One single pole sticking up in the air doesn’t appeal to me.
MR. PETROSKI-Well, we talked about bringing in some kind of shrubs that are on your
approved list that could be in the six to twelve foot range, and I’d be happy to work to do
something like that.
MR. SIPP-That would be good, and reduce the height to 20 feet.
MR. PETROSKI-To hide the actual pole base itself, but you’ll see the sign.
MR. SIPP-Now, how about the sign being reduced to 20 feet?
MR. PETROSKI-In height?
MR. SIPP-Yes.
MR. PETROSKI-Knowing the concession that Wal-Mart has given to make the sign
smaller and shorter than they typically would do, I can’t make that determination here
without.
MR. FORD-We can.
MR. PETROSKI-I know you can, but I can’t.
MR. SIPP-Now, this is probably my sarcasm against Wal-Mart, but the last time when
they put the Wal-Mart on Route 9, I remember many meetings in which the Town would
ask for something to happen and the Wal-Mart representative saying, no, we can’t do
that, and the Town Board, at that time, the Planning Board, which I think Mr. Hunsinger
was on at that time.
MR. HUNSINGER-Yes. We sent them packing three meetings in a row without any
discussion because they came in and said we can’t change our plan. We said, okay,
well, I guess we’ll see you later. We did that three meetings in a row before they finally,
and the irony is, the big irony of that, and, you know, I like your design, too. So I don’t
want you to think that we’re picking on you. I’m picking on the process from the prior
Wal-Mart. The Wal-Mart that they ended up building here looks exactly, well, I shouldn’t
say exactly. It looks almost exactly like the Wal-Mart they built down on Route 9, I think
it’s in Malta, maybe. They look so much alike it’s just unbelievable, and I think they
actually built that one first.
MR. SIPP-Well, they took over an existing building. The building that was there was part
of what was Zayre’s and, they didn’t build it from scratch.
MR. HUNSINGER-Right.
MR. SIPP-They added on to an existing facility.
MR. HUNSINGER-But they still re-built the whole façade.
MR. PETROSKI-For the sake of discussion, I don’t want to lose sight of the fact that we
have done a lot to keep that store out of the wetlands. It’s all the way in the back of the
property. You’ve got 800 feet from the store to the road, and, as you know, six months of
the year, at least, you’re not going to see much of the signage on that building. It’s tough
to see back there, and that, you know, you lose the visibility of the parking lot, you lose
all those car things, and the only thing that’s sticking out by the road is that one sign, and
I don’t think that that’s that bad of a concession, even for the size of it.
MR. FORD-I do.
49
(Queensbury Planning Board 07/21/09)
MR. PETROSKI-I know. We kept the wetlands down to like, (lost word) a little.
MR. FORD-As well we should have.
MR. HUNSINGER-Anything else from the Board? We do have a public hearing
scheduled this evening. Is there anyone that wants to address the Board on this
application?
PUBLIC HEARING OPEN
MR. HUNSINGER-I didn’t think there were any. I will open the public hearing, and I’ll
leave it open for the time being. What’s the will of the Board? I mean, there are a couple
of issues, still, that are outstanding. Lighting, and, well, the only two I have is the lighting
and landscaping around the sign.
MR. FORD-And the sign.
MR. OBORNE-Just looking, and having been able to look up the laser fiche, that back in
July of last year, as far as the lighting goes, you gave, in a tabling resolution, Number
Six, so that the applicant will eliminate Option A of the lighting plan and adopt Option B
as presented with high pressure sodium fixtures and 28 foot poles. Those are previously
approved.
MR. HUNSINGER-Right.
MR. OBORNE-Now, I do ask of the applicant, because we had a discussion today, that
you wanted metal halide, but that would have to be changed, and it would have to be
obviously discussed because this was already approved previously.
MR. PETROSKI-Well, I think, and we’d have to go look, but I think the minutes from the
following meeting, the next meeting, reflect that we discussed that I made an error in the
discussion, and it was intended that the lights would be metal halide, and so they would
continue to reflect that as we move through to the final approval. So, I mean, it’s some
research that we can do, but I’m confident that we discussed with the Board, the final
decision was going to be, after the tabling motion, next meeting, that it was going to be
28 foot poles, metal halide, because that’s the way the plans were when they were finally
approved.
MR. OBORNE-I don’t want that to hold up any potential approval or anything along those
lines, because that certainly can be researched. I did want to bring that to the attention
of the Board, however.
MR. HUNSINGER-Yes. Thank you, Keith.
MR. FORD-Just quickly, please. That sign, again, square footage and height to the top
of it.
MR. PETROSKI-It’s shown as 25 feet tall. So it’s a 20 foot pole with a four foot height of
the sign on the top, okay, and the sign panel itself is four by sixteen. So that’s 64 square
feet.
MR. SIPP-Too big.
MR. OBORNE-Is the total height 29 feet, then?
MR. SIPP-No.
MR. PETROSKI-From grade at the road.
MR. OBORNE-I know that, pole plus sign is 25 feet.
MR. PETROSKI-It’s 21 feet of pole and four feet of sign, yes.
MR. FORD-So the top of it will actually be how high?
MR. PETROSKI-The very top will be 25 feet off the ground.
MR. KREBS-Isn’t the ground recessed there?
50
(Queensbury Planning Board 07/21/09)
MR. PETROSKI-Right, and this proposal is to bring the ground up to the level of the
road, and then build a sign from.
MR. TRAVER-Yes, that was one of the early discussions we had about (lost words).
MR. KREBS-Okay. So you’ve brought the base up to?
MR. PETROSKI-To the level of the adjacent streets. Yes.
MR. KREBS-Okay.
MR. PETROSKI-I don’t know what the ceiling height in this room is. I’m assuming it’s
about 10 feet.
MR. HUNSINGER-Yes. Do you know what the height of the Wal-Mart sign is on Route
9?
MR. PETROSKI-That’s one of their standard signs, actually. That’s a 30 footer.
MR. HUNSINGER-Is it?
MR. PETROSKI-Yes. It’s also the five by, I believe it’s the five by twenty, but they also
have a second panel below it that has additional information. So this doesn’t have that.
MR. SIPP-Yes. That’s not a pylon type sign.
MR. PETROSKI-Actually, it is, it’s a pole.
MR. SIPP-Well, it’s two poles, rather than one.
MR. PETROSKI-Well, I had a picture. I didn’t bring it with me.
MR. SIPP-On Route 9? Are you talking about the one on Route 9?
MR. PETROSKI-Route 9. Right. Yes. I’m pretty sure it’s a single pole, and that one
also has exterior lights on it, too, that shine up on it.
MR. HUNSINGER-Yes, it does.
MR. FORD-It’s too big and too high.
MR. PETROSKI-It is. That’s why this one’s smaller.
MR. HUNSINGER-I mean, I agree with both Don and Tom. I would like to see the sign
lower, but if the Ordinance, if the Sign Ordinance is 25, I don’t know, you know, how far
we can expect them to reduce it less than the Ordinance allows. That’s my own personal
feeling.
MR. OBORNE-Well, it is a compliant sign, and obviously the Planning Board can dictate.
MRS. STEFFAN-So it will be 25 feet above the road level.
MR. PETROSKI-Correct.
MR. FORD-How about 23?
MR. SIPP-Twenty.
MR. PETROSKI-I can ask them, but I’d rather do a better job of landscaping the area
where we take out the trees and try to make that whole area look blended in to the
wetland, and make the area look nice.
MR. SEGULJIC-All right. So that landscaping you haven’t submitted yet.
MR. PETROSKI-Well, Mr. Sipp was asking about putting landscaping at the base.
MR. SIPP-Right.
51
(Queensbury Planning Board 07/21/09)
MR. PETROSKI-But I would rather do a better job of, once those trees come out, is do
something in there, using the native species that are in the Town’s list, and try to put
something in there that eventually blends in and becomes part of the wetland, but not
things that will grow to be so tall that you would lose the sign.
MR. SEGULJIC-That sounds good, but, so as I see the issues now, we discussed that if
the sidewalk comes out, making sure the bus goes up to the area of the store. Are we
sure it goes up there?
MR. PETROSKI-Well, I would confirm that. I mean, I’m 99% sure. Some of these
details, there’s so many thousands of them, I’ll go back and look at the plans right now.
MR. SEGULJIC-Could you?
MR. TRAVER-I would think it would be their desire to go up in their. It’s certainly going
to contribute to their ridership.
MR. PETROSKI-Remember I was showing you that there’s a bus stop, right.
MR. SEGULJIC-And Glens Falls Transit has agreed to go there?
MR. PETROSKI-Well, they’ll provide the sign. We provide the posts.
MR. SEGULJIC-But will they provide the bus?
MR. PETROSKI-Yes, but it’s heavy duty pavement for the circulation pattern for the
buses.
MR. SIPP-This is an aside, here. You had in your landscaping, in your original, I forgot
to look to see if it changed. You had Norway Maple in there. They’re gone? Good.
MR. PETROSKI-They’re gone. Yes.
MR. SEGULJIC-All right.
MR. HUNSINGER-I was going to ask how comfortable the Board is in moving forward
with the items that are left outstanding.
MR. SEGULJIC-I was going to bring up the lighting issue. I guess what we’re saying is,
and we pre-approved it, but there seems to be some discussion about whether we
approved metal halide or the sodium lights.
MR. OBORNE-Right, and Mr. Petroski is stating that at a later meeting that it was
clarified, and I don’t have time to research that right now, so.
MR. SEGULJIC-What would we do?
MR. OBORNE-You could condition the approval, if you are leaning that way, towards a
resolution as to what was previously approved, concerning the lighting.
MR. HUNSINGER-I guess the only question is, can it be engineered? Because the
parking layout has changed, and can the lighting plan be engineered, you know, given,
assuming we did approve metal halide, 28 foot poles, can it be engineered so that it
meets the lighting standards.
MR. PETROSKI-Town’s requirements.
MR. HUNSINGER-Like the old plan did.
MR. PETROSKI-Absolutely.
MR. HUNSINGER-Okay.
MR. PETROSKI-Beyond a shadow of a doubt.
MR. SEGULJIC-So can we say that the lighting to meet Town standards, then, is that?
MR. OBORNE-Well, the Town standards is 20 feet, so you’re approving 28, which you
already have, I think it’s a matter of where the fixture is or the bulb is at this point.
52
(Queensbury Planning Board 07/21/09)
MR. HUNSINGER-But you’re not proposing to change the fixtures or anything from the
plan that was approved? All you’re doing is moving some poles around a bit.
MR. PETROSKI-Right, and there’s just a confusion about, the discussion between high
pressure sodium and metal halide. The metal halide is a whiter light. It’s better color
definition, and we can go with a lower wattage. So I confused the issue.
MR. HUNSINGER-I mean, but the question is, you know, when I say can it meet the
Town standards for lighting, you know, will it meet the Uniformity Ratios?
MR. PETROSKI-Yes. We’ve already done it for 28 foot poles, and the variations we
have to make are very slight, just to make sure they’re on the center of a strip or move
into an island.
MR. HUNSINGER-Okay.
MR. MACRI-We’ll provide a new photometric for that.
MR. PETROSKI-Absolutely.
MR. MACRI-To verify that.
MR. HUNSINGER-Okay, and then the landscaping around the sign. I mean, I don’t think
we want to approve something subject to, you know, Mr. Sipp being satisfied. I think we
need to be a little more, no offense, Don.
MR. SEGULJIC-All right. So what I’m hearing is here is we’re going to table this with
several conditions.
MR. HUNSINGER-Well, I’m trying to gauge the Board’s willingness or ability to move
forward.
MR. SIPP-Well, I would, can we get into the preliminary and speed this up a little bit with
certain conditions being met before the final approval?
MR. HUNSINGER-No, this is Site Plan.
MR. OBORNE-This is a Site Plan Review. We’re on Site Plan Review.
MR. SIPP-All right.
MR. SEGULJIC-If we table this for that additional information?
MR. MACRI-Can we come back tomorrow?
MR. HUNSINGER-We won’t be here, but you’re welcome to come back.
MR. MACRI-Can we condition it based on the fact that we meet the Town standards as
far as the lighting is concerned? Because they can’t issue a building permit unless we
do that.
MR. HUNSINGER-Right.
MR. MACRI-Or that, you know, we provide sufficient plantings around the sign and meet,
you know, Town requirements or the Board’s requirements?
MR. HUNSINGER-I guess that’s what I was trying to gather from the Board, if they were
comfortable.
MR. MACRI-And that would be for you to take a final look at, or Mr. Sipp to take a final
look at it and sign off on it.
MR. SEGULJIC-But the problem is there are no standards, per se, correct?
MR. MACRI-No, there’s no specific standards.
53
(Queensbury Planning Board 07/21/09)
MR. KREBS-We’re talking about a multi-million dollar project here. They’re not going to
skimp on a few flowers or shrubs, you know. I think we’re being a little ridiculous about
this.
MR. PETROSKI-I can only stand on my own record. I have worked with you every step
of the way and I’m not going to stop now.
MR. SIPP-Well, I would trust Mark to do it right. I’m not holding up a million dollar project
for two cents in. If we’re going to do something, let’s do it right, and I think right is to
landscape the base of that sign, and other.
MR. SEGULJIC-You had indicated you would put additional.
MR. MACRI-Provide additional plantings around the sign.
MR. SIPP-And make a pitch to Wal-Mart that we would like to see the sign height
reduced.
MR. OBORNE-If I, be a little more specific on what you’re looking for as far as
landscaping. Are you looking for large shrubs, I believe is what you’re looking for?
MR. SIPP-Yes.
MR. SIPP-Yes, he offered six to twelve foot tall.
MR. OBORNE-Give them something to work with, and we can cull it off the list.
MR. HUNSINGER-He offered six to twelve foot tall shrubs, a mix of six to twelve foot
shrubs.
MR. FORD-I like that.
MR. OBORNE-And just give us some guidance to go by, instead of just a generic.
MR. SIPP-Some upright Junipers.
MR. OBORNE-Fabulous, honestly.
MR. SIPP-Some rhododendrons.
MR. SEGULJIC-Can I just say shrubs from the approved list?
MR. FORD-In a six to twelve foot range.
MR. OBORNE-Well, you need specific shrubs.
MR. SEGULJIC-So, say, landscaping at base of pylon sign consisting of six to twelve
foot rhododendrons and junipers. Is that what we want, then?
MR. PETROSKI-Well, Mr. Sipp, my landscape architect had made some suggestions
here.
MR. SEGULJIC-Okay.
MR. PETROSKI-He had said there are columnar varieties of juniper, yew, and arborvitae
that reach a maximum height of 12 feet, and then he said there’s other varieties that we
could also suggest like a Hicks Yew, a Mission Arborvitae, a Hetz Columnar Juniper.
MR. SIPP-That’s good.
MR. PETROSKI-Those varieties. I mean, if we work with those varieties, then you’d be.
MR. SIPP-Yes, six to ten feet would be, you know, a mature height would be six to ten
feet.
MR. PETROSKI-Right.
MR. SIPP-Junipers, yews.
54
(Queensbury Planning Board 07/21/09)
MR. PETROSKI-Right. They’re available in seven, well, depending on what you buy, six,
seven, eight foot height to start. So they’d be pretty far along.
MR. SIPP-Well, you’re going to get three, four to start with.
MR. SEGULJIC-All right. So what we’re going to say is landscaping at base of pylon
sign consisting of rhododendrons, junipers, and like varieties.
MR. HUNSINGER-I think you want to mention, though, the height, you know, six to
twelve feet.
MR. PETROSKI-Yes, mature height.
MR. HUNSINGER-You know, with a maturity height of six to twelve feet.
MR. PETROSKI-No less than six foot at time of planting. Minimum six foot planting. Six
feet at planting, and they will grow to be ten to twelve feet.
MR. FORD-You don’t want them to grow higher than that 25 foot sign.
MR. PETROSKI-Well, now the sign’s going to look like it’s only about eight feet tall.
MR. SEGULJIC-So that’s really (lost words) so we’re going to lean on the prior approval
for the lighting, then.
MR. HUNSINGER-Yes.
MR. SEGULJIC-So we’re not even going to mention that?
MR. HUNSINGER-No, we need to mention it, because they changed the parking lot
configuration. So they’re going to have to move the poles around a little bit.
MR. SEGULJIC-So what are we going to say?
MR. MACRI-We’re going to provide a revised photometric survey to justify the relocation
of the light fixture.
MR. OBORNE-And I do want to remind the Board that SEQRA does need to be
accomplished here, you can reaffirm, in a generic sense, and I believe we have it stated I
the approval resolution.
MR. HUNSINGER-Yes. I didn’t see a sample resolution for this one.
MR. OBORNE-I do have one here if you need it.
MR. HUNSINGER-I don’t need it. Tom needs it, more than I. I might have pulled it off
when I ripped off the sample resolution for the subdivision.
MR. SEGULJIC-All right. So is there anything else we need there? Is there anything
else we have to include in the motion?
MR. HILL-Mr. Chairman, before you move ahead, just to make sure that we address
SEQRA, because SEQRA just came up. I think the appropriate way to do that would be
to, for the Board to consider whether any of the material that has just been discussed,
whether that causes you to believe that your prior SEQRA Negative Declaration should
be changed, whether anything that’s been discussed just now would cause you to
believe that there’s any significant adverse environmental impacts from that. If there’s
not, then I would suggest that somebody offer a motion to reaffirm the SEQRA Negative
Declaration, and then you simply handle SEQRA that way, and then move into the
motion to approve.
MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. Thank you.
MR. TRAVER-We also have the two administrative items on Wal-Mart, still.
MR. HUNSINGER-Yes. We’ll deal with those in a minute. Since we are appearing like
we’re going to move forward, I will close the public hearing, which wasn’t done before.
PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED
55
(Queensbury Planning Board 07/21/09)
MR. HUNSINGER-Would anyone like to reaffirm the SEQRA resolution, the Negative
Declaration for this project?
MR. SEGULJIC-So what Site Plan is this, 17-2009 or 61-2007?
MR. OBORNE-This is 17-2009.
MR. SEGULJIC-17-2009.
MOTION THAT THE PLANNING BOARD HAS REVIEWED NEW INFORMATION
SUBMITTED WITH REGARDS TO SITE PLAN MODIFICATION NO. 17-2009 WAL-
MART STORES AND WE RE-AFFIRM OUR PRIOR NEGATIVE SEQRA
DECLARATION, Introduced by Thomas Seguljic who moved for its adoption, seconded
by Thomas Ford:
st
Duly adopted this 21 day of July, 2009, by the following vote:
AYES: Mr. Sipp, Mr. Krebs, Mr. Traver, Mrs. Steffan, Mr. Ford, Mr. Seguljic,
Mr. Hunsinger
NOES: NONE
MR. SEGULJIC-Okay. Now.
MR. HUNSINGER-Motion.
MR. SEGULJIC-Motion. What we have is the landscaping at the base of the pylon.
Now, revised photometric survey consisting of 28, submission of a revised photometric
survey consisting of 28 foot poles that meets Town lighting standards.
MR. OBORNE-For photometrics.
MR. HUNSINGER-I just wonder if there’s an easier way to do that by referring to the
previously approved lighting plan.
MR. OBORNE-Sure, previously approved Site Plan.
MR. HUNSINGER-That the modified lighting plan will not deviate from the previously
approved lighting plan.
MR. FORD-Well said.
MR. HUNSINGER-Thank you.
MR. PETROSKI-Understood.
MR. SEGULJIC-Now what’s the will of the Board regarding the height of the sign?
MR. KREBS-The Ordinance says that the sign can be that height and that size. I think
that’s the Ordinance. We live with the Ordinance.
MR. HUNSINGER-Yes, I tend to agree.
MR. SIPP-I think we can still ask.
MR. KREBS-Come on. We’re not here to create law. We’re here to administer it.
MR. SIPP-Three members of the Board have said that they have concerns about the
height.
MR. TRAVER-Well, I agree it’s a concern, but on the other hand, the applicant has also
compromised, if you will, in their application from what their desired size and height
would be. I’m fine with it, I guess.
MR. HUNSINGER-So I guess we don’t need to say anything.
MR. KREBS-Normally they would have had a much larger sign than that.
56
(Queensbury Planning Board 07/21/09)
MR. TRAVER-And a taller sign.
MR. KREBS-And a taller sign.
MR. SIPP-No, they wouldn’t have a taller sign. That’s as tall as you can get.
MR. KREBS-No, not in Queensbury, but normally for their stores they would have had a
larger sign and a taller sign.
MR. SIPP-Well, fine, but we’re.
MR. KREBS-Don, it’s our Ordinance. It’s an approved.
MR. HUNSINGER-Go ahead, Tom.
MOTION TO APPROVE SITE PLAN NO. 17-2009 WAL-MART STORES, Introduced by
Thomas Seguljic who moved for its adoption, seconded by Stephen Traver:
1)A site plan application has been made to the Queensbury Planning Board for the
following: Applicant proposes modifications to their approved site plan to include
a reduction in lot size from 39.7 to 33.3 acres, changes to façade colors and
pylon signage location. Additionally, and in concert with a shift of the building
location 60 feet to the west, a building size increase from 150,200 square feet to
156,850 square feet is proposed along with 28 additional parking spaces.
Further, parking lot and drive aisle changes are planned together with a
reconfiguration of portions of the proposed lighting, landscaping and stormwater
infrastructure. Modifications to an approved site plan require Planning Board
review and approval.
2)A public hearing was advertised and held on 4/28/09, 6/23/09 & 7/21/09; 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. 17-2009 WAL-MART STORES,
Introduced by Thomas Seguljic who moved for its adoption, seconded by
Stephen Traver:
With the following conditions: That modified lighting plan will be consistent with
the prior approved lighting plan. Landscaping at base of pylon sign consists of
minimum six foot planting bed junipers and rhododendrons and like varieties, and
in light of the fact that a bus stop is provided at the store, the sidewalk along
Quaker Ridge Boulevard can be removed.
MR. SEGULJIC-Did I miss anything?
MR. HUNSINGER-We need to say something about the sidewalk, I think,
because it is shown on the plan.
MR. SEGULJIC-And in light of the fact that a bus stop is provided at the store, the
sidewalk along Quaker Ridge Boulevard can be removed.
MR. HILL-Mr. Chairman, just one very, very minor thing. You were saying that
the lighting plan will not deviate from the previous plan, and I think actually it’s
going to be a little bit different. I think perhaps you might want to say that it will
be consistent with the previous plan. I would suggest that as a possible
modification to just the term.
MR. TRAVER-I’ll second the motion as amended.
MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. We have an amendment and a second.
st
Duly adopted this 21 day of July, 2009, by the following vote:
AYES: Mr. Sipp, Mr. Krebs, Mr. Ford, Mr. Seguljic, Mr. Traver, Mr. Hunsinger
NOES: NONE
ABSTAINED: Mrs. Steffan
57
(Queensbury Planning Board 07/21/09)
MR. HUNSINGER-Before you go any further, we do have the Administrative Items on the
Extension Request for Site Plan 61-07 and Freshwater Wetlands 1-2008.
ADMINISTRATIVE ITEMS:
SP 61-07 & FW 1-2008 WAL-MART STORES EXTENSION REQUEST
MR. OBORNE-Is that even necessary at this point? Didn’t you just give them approval
for a new Site Plan?
MS. SLEVEN-The only question I would have is do we need the extension for just the
Freshwater Wetlands, because I think the only thing the Board just voted on was Site
Plan, but not the Freshwater Wetlands.
MR. HUNSINGER-Right.
MR. OBORNE-Right. It should be Freshwater Wetland 2-2009 on here, as approval,
also. I would agree with the applicant’s counsel that you may want to extend that, at this
point. Because you didn’t approve the Freshwater Wetland 2-2009 with this Site Plan.
Unless you go ahead and do that now.
MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. I guess those are the two choices.
MS. SLEVEN-The preference would be to have (lost words). So if the Board is willing to
entertain an action on the Freshwater Wetlands Permit.
MR. HUNSINGER-What’s the will of the Board? Does everyone understand the
comment.
MR. SEGULJIC-So you have a freshwater wetlands permit that’s due to expire shortly.
So do we extend that, or grant a new one with this approval?
MS. SLEVEN-With the new Site Plan, that’s right.
MR. SEGULJIC-What’s easier from your perspective?
MR. OBORNE-Both.
MR. SEGULJIC-It doesn’t matter.
MR. OBORNE-Honestly, both, is to extend the one from the previous, from that, and this
one that is before us now, only because there is going to be a modification to that
Freshwater Wetland that is currently associated with this Site Plan that you just
approved.
MR. HUNSINGER-So they can put the sign up.
MR. OBORNE-So I think for ease, and to blanket everything, I would go ahead and
extend the one and approve the other.
MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. So would someone like to make a motion to approve, didn’t
you mention Freshwater Wetlands in the? Okay. I’m sorry. I thought you did. Would
anyone like to make a motion to approve the Freshwater Wetlands Permit 2-2009 for
Wal-Mart?
MOTION TO APPROVE FRESHWATER WETLANDS PERMIT NO. 2-2009 WAL-MART
STORES, Introduced by Thomas Seguljic who moved for its adoption, seconded by
Donald Krebs:
1)A site plan application has been made to the Queensbury Planning Board for the
following: Applicant proposes modifications to their approved site plan to include
a reduction in lot size from 39.7 to 33.3 acres, changes to façade colors and
pylon signage location. Additionally, and in concert with a shift of the building
location 60 feet to the west, a building size increase from 150,200 square feet to
156,850 square feet is proposed along with 28 additional parking spaces.
Further, parking lot and drive aisle changes are planned together with a
reconfiguration of portions of the proposed lighting, landscaping and stormwater
58
(Queensbury Planning Board 07/21/09)
infrastructure. Modifications to an approved site plan require Planning Board
review and approval.
2)A public hearing was advertised and held on 4/28/09, 6/23/09 & 7/21/09; and
3)This application is supported with all documentation, public comment and
application material in the file of record;
4)MOTION TO APPROVE FRESHWATER WETLANDS PERMIT NO. 2-2009
WAL-MART STORES, Introduced by Thomas Seguljic who moved for its
adoption, seconded by Donald Krebs:
st
Duly adopted this 21 day of July, 2009, by the following vote:
AYES: Mr. Traver, Mr. Sipp, Mr. Ford, Mr. Seguljic, Mr. Krebs, Mr. Hunsinger
NOES: NONE
ABSTAINED: Mrs. Steffan
MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. Now would anyone like to address the extension request?
MOTION TO APPROVE EXTENSION REQUEST FOR FRESHWATER WETLANDS
PERMIT NO. 1-2008 WAL-MART STORES, Introduced by Gretchen Steffan who moved
for its adoption, seconded by Thomas Ford:
According to the resolution prepared by Staff.
st
Duly adopted this 21 day of July, 2009, by the following vote:
AYES: Mr. Traver, Mr. Krebs, Mr. Seguljic, Mr. Sipp, Mrs. Steffan, Mr. Ford,
Mr. Hunsinger
NOES: NONE
MR. HUNSINGER-And now it’s my understanding there’s no need to consider the other
extension request because we just approved the new Site Plan.
MS. SLEVEN-That’s correct.
MR. HUNSINGER-Everyone in agreement on that? Okay.
MS. SLEVEN-Yes. Is it the Board’s pleasure that we withdraw that request?
MR. HUNSINGER-No. We don’t need to take action on it. I just wanted to make sure
that everyone agreed that that was the right thing to do.
MR. HUNSINGER-You’re all set. Thank you. Good luck.
MS. SLEVEN-Thank you. Thank you for all of your efforts. We appreciate it.
MR. TRAVER-Do you have any idea when construction will start?
MR. MACRI-March.
MS. SLEVEN-Spring of 2010.
MR. TRAVER-Spring of 2010.
MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. Under our business of recommendation to the Zoning Board of
Appeals.
RECOMMENDATION TO THE ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS [SUBJECT TO NEW
ORDINANCE]:
SIGN VARIANCE NO. 36-2009 FOR GOLUB CORP. [PRICE CHOPPER]: APPLICANT
PROPOSES PLACEMENT OF 9 ADDITIONAL WALL SIGNS. RELIEF REQUESTED
FROM NUMBER OF ALLOWABLE SIGNS.
59
(Queensbury Planning Board 07/21/09)
MIKE KOPCHIK, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT
MR. HUNSINGER-I don’t know if we need to read Staff Notes.
MR. OBORNE-Yes, Mr. Chairman, I think what I’ll do is I’ll just explain quickly and not go
through the whole Area Variance process, just to get it on the record.
MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. Thank you.
MR. OBORNE-This is for Sign Variance 36-2009. This is Golub Corporation, which is
also Price Chopper on Glen Street. Note: Site Plan subject to new Ordinance. Planning
Board to make a recommendation to the Zoning Board of Appeals concerning this Sign
Variance. Applicant proposes placement of 10 additional wall signs and the relocation of
2 existing wall signs on the front façade of Price Chopper on State Route 9. Relief
requested from number of allowable signs. Please note that two of the ten new
proposed wall signs are considered internal to the site and do not require a variance. So
what you will be approving is 10 additional wall signs, and we’ll get into an explanation of
that, because two of the existing signs are being relocated in a manner that requires
additional approval. So, if you need any further clarification, I’m sure I can help you with
that, and so can Mike. So, I’d turn it over to you.
MR. HUNSINGER-Thank you. Okay. Good evening. Thanks for your patience. We
appreciate it. Did you have anything to add?
MR. KOPCHIK-Just a couple of things. One, I don’t know if anyone remembers, but I
had the pleasure of being here about three years ago for a similar request, which was, at
the time, approved. For whatever reason the Golub Corporation chose not to do the
work at the time, but now they are looking to do that and more, and I also had the
pleasure of following a controversial project last time as well. So, it’s becoming habit
forming. I’m Mike Kopchik with Marchand Jones Architects in Clifton Park, representing
the owner, which is a California based entity, the tenant, which is Golub Corporation,
also Price Chopper. We’re actually looking for, we’ve gotten Site Plan Review request
for continuation of the existing space as a grocery store. We want to, some minor
exterior changes, remove the existing greenhouses on the south end of the front façade,
replace it with a reverse vending bottle return, bottle can return vestibule in essentially
the same location. There’s also associated canopy extensions, obviously color changes,
and signage relocation and proposed additions that go with that. There also are some
interior equipment décor finish modifications as well that show up on the plans and
material that you’ve been given. I believe we’re concentrating just on the signage issue
right now, and I’m going to be here tomorrow with the Zoning Board for the same
purpose.
MR. HUNSINGER-Any questions, comments from the Board?
MRS. STEFFAN-I like the color change. I think it looks very good. I know that, you
know, ten additional wall signs, based on the new code, seems like a lot, but, you know,
based on the distance from the road, non illumination, in my mind, I would support a
variance. I think it better enables the applicant to define the service offerings and so, I
think it’s good.
MR. KOPCHIK-The particular change of those small placard signs is becoming
somewhat of a corporate trademark for them. In all their new projects we’re doing that. I
could list a series of, recently that have been done with that addition, as well as the color
changes, obviously, which are being done throughout.
MR. HUNSINGER-I think what it does for you is it almost brings a pedestrian scale to the
façade, because it almost looks like individual store fronts.
MR. KOPCHIK-It brings it down to the individual walking around the canopy as opposed
to just the large single Price Chopper sign on the front of the store.
MR. HUNSINGER-No, I think it’s very attractive.
MRS. STEFFAN-Right, and I think the other issue is it’s kind of a complex situation when
you’re looking at a variance. There’s really three business units within the building. I
mean, you have a Starbucks business within the Price Chopper store. You also have a
Citizens Bank within the store, and so if there were three different entities that had
storefronts, we’d have to look at the Code a little bit differently, but I think in this situation
it works, from my point of view.
60
(Queensbury Planning Board 07/21/09)
MR. KOPCHIK-Yes, and also, the Citzens Bank sign is one of the ones that we need to
relocate, due to the canopy extension and the changes that are being made. I mean, we
could effectively try to leave it in about the same place, but it doesn’t really work with the
design.
MR. HUNSINGER-Any other comments from the Board?
MR. FORD-Very functional, and very attractive.
MR. KREBS-Yes.
MR. FORD-I think it looks good.
MR. HUNSINGER-Would anyone like to make a recommendation to the Zoning Board?
MR. SEGULJIC-So we’re making a recommendation to the Zoning Board, it goes to the
Zoning Board and then you come back here for Site Plan. Is that what’s going on?
MR. KOPCHIK-Apparently, that’s what we’ve got to do. We’re trying to do this work this
Fall. So the sooner we can get the permit, the better off we’re going to be, but I don’t
know if there’s any way that, if zoning were to approve the signage, if we can speed the
process, as opposed to going another month and coming back to do this again.
th
MR. HUNSINGER-Sorry. It looks like we have it scheduled for the 25 of August at this
point, which is the best we can do.
MR. KOPCHIK-Whatever is necessary.
MR. HUNSINGER-Yes, we’re full up. So, okay, would anyone like to put forward the
recommendation?
MRS. STEFFAN-Okay.
MOTION TO MAKE A RECOMMEND FROM THE QUEENSBURY PLANNING BOARD
TO THE QUEENSBURY ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS REGARDING PRICE
CHOPPER’S SIGN VARIANCE NO. 36-2009 REGARDING 10 ADDITIONAL WALLS
SIGNS. CONSIDERING THERE ARE THREE BUSINESS UNITS WITHIN THE
BUILDING, PRICE CHOPPER, CITIZENS BANK AND STARBUCKS, THAT THE
APPLICANT IS IMPROVING THE COLOR SCHEME OF THE BUILDING, THAT THE
DISTANCE OF THE SIGNAGE FROM THE ROAD, THE FACT THAT THESE SIGNS
ARE NOT ILLUMINATED, WE WOULD SUPPORT A VARIANCE, AS THE APPLICANT
WILL BE BETTER ABLE TO DEFINE THEIR SERVICE OFFERINGS AND IMPROVE
BRANDING, Introduced by Gretchen Steffan who moved for its adoption, seconded by
Stephen Traver:
1)The applicant has submitted applications to the Zoning Board of Appeals for
placement of 9 additional wall signs. Relief requested from number of allowable
signs.
2)MOTION TO MAKE A RECOMMENDATION FROM THE QUEENSBURY
PLANNING BOARD TO THE QUEENSBURY ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS
REGARDING PRICE CHOPPER’S SIGN VARIANCE NO. 36-2009 REGARDING
10 ADDITIONAL WALLS SIGNS. CONSIDERING THERE ARE THREE
BUSINESS UNITS WITHIN THE BUILDING, PRICE CHOPPER, CITIZENS
BANK AND STARBUCKS, THAT THE APPLICANT IS IMPROVING THE
COLOR SCHEME OF THE BUILDING, THAT THE DISTANCE OF THE
SIGNAGE FROM THE ROAD, THE FACT THAT THESE SIGNS ARE NOT
ILLUMINATED, WE WOULD SUPPORT A VARIANCE, AS THE APPLICANT
WILL BE BETTER ABLE TO DEFINE THEIR SERVICE OFFERINGS AND
IMPROVE BRANDING, Introduced by Gretchen Steffan who moved for its
adoption, seconded by Stephen Traver:
st
Duly adopted this 21 of July, 2009, by the following vote:
AYES: Mr. Krebs, Mr. Ford, Mr. Seguljic, Mr. Sipp, Mrs. Steffan, Mr. Traver,
Mr. Hunsinger
NOES: NONE
61
(Queensbury Planning Board 07/21/09)
MR. HUNSINGER-You’re all set with Step One.
MR. KOPCHIK-Thank you.
MR. HUNSINGER-Good luck. Our next recommendation to the Zoning Board is Area
Variance No. 37-2009 for Robert Kristel.
AREA VARIANCE NO. 37-2009 FOR ROBERT KRISTEL: APPLICANT PROPOSES
CONSTRUCTION OF A 766 SQ. FT. SECOND FLOOR ADDITION TO AN EXISTING
766 SQ. FT. HOME LOCATED AT 17 CAYUGA DRIVE. RELIEF REQUESTED FROM
SETBACK REQUIREMENTS, EXPANSION OF A NONCONFORMING STRUCTURE.
ROBERT KRISTEL, PRESENT
MR. OBORNE-I’ll quickly summarize.
MR. HUNSINGER-Yes. Thank you, Keith.
MR. OBORNE-Subject to the new Ordinance. Planning Board to make a
recommendation to the Zoning Board of Appeals concerning this Area Variance.
Applicant proposes construction of a 766 square foot second floor addition to an existing
766 square foot home. Relief requested from front, side, and rear setback requirements.
Further, relief requested from minimum floor area ratio requirements and relief for the
expansion of a nonconforming structure. I do want to say that this falls under the
Memorandum of Understanding for the Takundewide subdivision resolution, and with
that I’d turn this over to the Board.
MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. Thank you. Good evening.
MR. KRISTEL-Good evening.
MR. HUNSINGER-If you could identify yourself for the record.
MR. KRISTEL-My name is Robert Kristel from 17 Cayuga Drive in Cleverdale.
MR. HUNSINGER-Did you have anything else that you wanted to add, or anything that
you wanted to convey to the Board?
MR. KRISTEL-Well, we’d like to put on this addition. When we first bought the property,
since then our family has expanded. We have two new grandsons that like to stay at our
place. Our daughter got married last Friday, and our son-in-law and daughter would like
to stay at the place, and we really don’t have the bedrooms to accommodate them, and I
would like to put on a second story to accommodate those additional family members.
MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. Any questions, comments from members of the Board?
MR. KREBS-When I did my site review, there are four or five other houses that are
exactly like what he wants to do.
MR. HUNSINGER-Well, what I was going to say is I think, there were a number of similar
projects that came before us and, you know, we kind of said, geez, we could be here
forever. We sent them and said, you know, do a generic EIS and give us a master plan,
and we worked out this memorandum of understanding, and what you’re proposing is
certainly within that.
MRS. STEFFAN-Yes, and I think that, when I read that, that makes it all clear. The
recommendation, I think is very straightforward.
MR. HUNSINGER-Yes.
MR. FORD-Yes. I concur.
MR. SEGULJIC-My question is, the septic system.
MR. KRISTEL-They have a community septic system that.
MR. SEGULJIC-So you’re going to hook into that, the new septic system?
62
(Queensbury Planning Board 07/21/09)
MR. KRISTEL-If necessary, yes, we will.
MRS. STEFFAN-Because that’s what we approved last year.
MR. KRISTEL-Right.
MR. SIPP-You’re increasing the number of bedrooms, therefore you have to, the septic
system has to be compatible with the number of bedrooms.
MR. KRISTEL-Right. We have a 1250 gallon septic tank, holding tank, right now, 1250
gallons. It’s my understanding that it’s 110 gallons per bedroom, which would be, if we
have four bedrooms, it would be 440 gallons, and we have 1250. So we’re more than
adequate.
MR. SEGULJIC-The laterals, also.
MR. KRISTEL-Yes. The leach fields have been tested.
MR. SIPP-Have you ever had any problems with your septic system?
MR. KRISTEL-No, none whatsoever. We’ve been there for nine years, eight years.
MR. SEGULJIC-Well, I guess I’m just uncomfortable, if we have a septic system, and we
have one bedroom now and you’re increasing to three additional, so you have a total of
four bedrooms.
MR. KRISTEL-We have two bedrooms now.
MR. SEGULJIC-You’re going to increase it to four.
MR. KRISTEL-We’re going to increase it to four.
MR. SEGULJIC-And we don’t have any information on that septic system to see if it
handles, we don’t know how long the laterals are. I mean, ideally what you’d do is hook
up.
MR. KRISTEL-Well, we would hook up with the community septic system. That’s our
plan.
MR. SEGULJIC-Can we state that then, that you’ll hook up to the, as part of the
condition?
MR. KRISTEL-That’s fine, yes, that’s fine with me.
MR. FORD-Good move.
MR. HUNSINGER-I was thinking along the same lines. I mean, that would be, he would
have to come back for Site Plan, and so that’s when we would flesh all that out. I was
going to advise him to make sure you have that information for Site Plan Review.
MRS. STEFFAN-Okay. Are we ready to go?
MR. HUNSINGER-Yes.
MOTION THAT THE QUEENSBURY PLANNING BOARD WOULD LIKE TO MAKE A
RECOMMENDATION TO THE QUEENSBURY ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS
REGARDING THE MATTER OF AREA VARIANCE NO. 37-2009 ROBERT L. KRISTEL.
THIS IS REGARDING THE 766 SQUARE FOOT SECOND FLOOR ADDITION TO HIS
HOME. THE PLANNING BOARD RECOMMENDS GRANTING VARIANCES FOR
BOTH FLOOR AREA RATIO SQUARED AND RELIEF FOR THE EXPANSION OF A
NONCONFORMING STRUCTURE, DUE TO THE SEPTEMBER 23, 2003
MEMORANDUM OF UNDERSTANDING BETWEEN THE TOWN OF QUEENSBURY
PLANNING BOARD AND THE TAKUNDEWIDE HOMEOWNERS ASSOCIATION,
Introduced by Gretchen Steffan who moved for its adoption, seconded by Donald Krebs:
1)The applicant has submitted applications to the Zoning Board of Appeals for:
Applicant proposes construction of a 766 sq. ft. second floor addition to an
existing 766 sq. ft. home located at 17 Cayuga Drive. Relief requested from
63
(Queensbury Planning Board 07/21/09)
setback requirements, expansion of a nonconforming structure, and maximum
floor area ratio requirements.
2)MOTION THAT THE QUEENSBURY PLANNING BOARD WOULD LIKE TO
MAKE A RECOMMENDATION TO THE QUEENSBURY ZONING BOARD OF
APPEALS REGARDING THE MATTER OF AREA VARIANCE NO. 37-2009
ROBERT L. KRISTEL. THIS IS REGARDING THE 766 SQUARE FOOT
SECOND FLOOR ADDITION TO HIS HOME. THE PLANNING BOARD
RECOMMENDS GRANTING VARIANCES FOR BOTH FLOOR AREA RATIO
SQUARED AND RELIEF FOR THE EXPANSION OF A NONCONFORMING
STRUCTURE, DUE TO THE SEPTEMBER 23, 2003 MEMORANDUM OF
UNDERSTANDING BETWEEN THE TOWN OF QUEENSBURY PLANNING
BOARD AND THE TAKUNDEWIDE HOMEOWNERS ASSOCIATION, Introduced
by Gretchen Steffan who moved for its adoption, seconded by Donald Krebs:
st
Duly adopted this 21 day of July, 2009, by the following vote:
AYES: Mr. Traver, Mr. Sipp, Mr. Seguljic, Mr. Ford, Mr. Krebs, Mrs. Steffan,
Mr. Hunsinger
NOES: NONE
MR. HUNSINGER-Good luck.
MR. KRISTEL-Thank you very much.
MR. HUNSINGER-Thank you. Our next item on the agenda is Area Variance No. 38-
2009 for San Souci Restaurant.
AREA VARIANCE NO. 38-2009 SAN SOUCI RESTAURANT: APPLICANT
PROPOSES CONSTRUCTION OF A 217 SQ. FT. ADDITION ONTO THE EXISTING
RESTAURANT, AND RE-CONFIGURATION OF TAKE-OUT OPERATIONS TO
CHILDREN’S GAMING CENTER. RELIEF REQUESTED FROM SETBACK AND
PARKING REQUIREMENTS, FLOOR AREA RATIO REQUIREMENTS, EXPANSION
OF A NONCONFORMING STRUCTURE AND PERMEABILITY REQUIREMENTS.
JON LAPPER & TOM CENTER, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT
MR. OBORNE-One moment, please.
MR. HUNSINGER-Yes. I’ll extend the same apologies to you for making you wait. I
appreciate your patience.
MR. OBORNE-Let me summarize notes here. Area Variance 38-2009, San Souci
Cleverdale, Incorporated. The project location is 92 Mason Road. Note: Subject to new
Ordinance, Planning Board to make a recommendation to the Zoning Board of Appeals
concerning this Area Variance. Applicant proposes changes an existing restaurant to
include a 360 square foot expansion to the kitchen and bathroom areas, and
reconfiguration of lower portion of building to food take out and children’s gaming area
with seating, and that’s all I have, and I’d turn it over to the Board.
MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. Thank you. Good evening.
MR. LAPPER-Good evening. For the record, Jon Lapper with Tom Center, the project
engineer. Larry Clute is the owner and Scott Parker is the owner. You know Larry as
builder of homes, but he’s also the owner of the San Souci. I want to just give you a little
bit of quick background. It’s late and we’ll give you our late presentation, the short
version, but it’s an important project to the restaurant. We first approached the Town
Board about a year ago to seek a zone change because this is a prior nonconforming
commercial use, obviously, in a residential zone, and what, the 360 square foot addition
is minor in size, but very important in terms of operation of the restaurant. I’ll explain
that in a few minutes, but because it was in a residential zone, any change would require
a Use Variance, and obviously we can’t make the Use Variance standard that it can’t
make any economic return based upon the use as a restaurant, it’s really merely just a
minor addition that was needed, but because it was in the wrong zone, it couldn’t be
done. So we went to the Town Board and asked them to make it no longer a
nonconforming use, and the Town Board was unanimously supportive of that, and on
that basis the Code was changed in May. So that this is now a permitted use with a
Special Use Permit in the Waterfront Residential zone. So on that basis we could come
64
(Queensbury Planning Board 07/21/09)
before you. However, because of the Waterfront Residential zone, all of the area
requirements are residential, such as the 75% permeability, the Floor Area Ratio. It
doesn’t conform to what would typically be in the Code for a commercial use where you’d
have to have, for example, 30% permeability. So that’s just because it’s a small lot. It’s
a pre-existing building, and although it looks like a long list of variances, they’re very
minor in scope, we believe, and we’d like to explain that, but in terms of what Larry and
Scott are trying to accomplish here, it is making the two existing bathrooms handicap
accessible, adding a walk-in cooler, which is important for the kitchen, and slightly
expanding a very inadequate and antiquated kitchen, and that’s it, but, you know,
knowing that there has to be some give and take in exchange for those small additions or
small upgrades, what they’re offering is that the exterior of the building will be completely
re-sided. It’s very tired and it very much needs that, and most importantly adding holding
tanks, instead of the septic system that’s been there for a long time. When you’re on a
peninsula, and you have water on three sides, you know, a commercial use that’s
obviously much smarter, environmentally, to have septic holding tanks. That variance
was recently approved by the Town Board. So that’s all set. It’s an expense and an
inconvenience to them because it has to be pumped out, but it’s certainly, for the
environment, to have it pumped out rather than go into the ground is a good thing. In
addition to that, in compliance with the Code, the slight addition in the permeability which
is 177 square feet, I think, is going to be, go into a trench for stormwater. So that’s being
treated, to the extent that it can be on that site, so we’re dealing with the difference, but
in general, this is just a clean it up, you know, make a pretty good investment in the
holding system to install it and to maintain it, and certainly in the façade to justify, in your
mind and the Zoning Board’s minds, the small addition, but, you know, beyond that, in
terms of the stuff that you’d usually be looking at, the specific variances, parking, the way
this works, and we put it in the cover letter, and I assume that a lot of you are familiar
with how the Sands has operated for all these years. It’s not that people from central
Queensbury drive up there to have dinner, and not that that doesn’t happen, but it rarely
happens, it’s for Cleverdale. People are walking. People are driving, but they all live
there. They all know each other. It really functions as sort of a social gathering place,
and eating establishment for people that are there. So they make it work. We’re going
to have a whole bunch of people tomorrow night for the Zoning Board supporting this
because they all understand that some upgrades need to be made, but, you know, from
everything we know, everybody up there is very happy with the way this has been
operating and supportive of the changes. So I’ve got the whole team here. We can get
into any level of detail that you’d like, but maybe at this point we’ll just turn it over to the
Board for questions and see what you’d like us to do.
MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. Questions, comments from the Board?
MR. TRAVER-One question I had, and there seems to be a disparity between the
numbers that are on the agenda and the numbers that are on the.
MR. LAPPER-Do you mean the setbacks, Steve, the one issue of the side setback?
MR. TRAVER-No, if you look at the, I guess it would be the Staff Notes, it talks about a
360 square foot expansion, and then when you look at the agenda, Area Variance 38-
2009, it talks about proposal construction of a 217 square foot addition.
MR. LAPPER-They’re both correct.
MR. TRAVER-I was afraid you were going to say that.
MR. LAPPER-The 217 refers to the ground floor. So we’re talking about a permeability
issue, and actually you take off 40 feet from that for permeability because a deck is being
reduced in size. So it comes to 167 is the increase in permeability. The total 360 is
when you include the second story, because it’s a two story building, and the walk-in
cooler is downstairs, and the kitchen addition and the little bathroom additions are
upstairs. So that was truly confusing. You’re right.
MR. TRAVER-Yes, okay. So one is a footprint and the other is a square footage
expansion?
MR. LAPPER-Correct.
MR. TRAVER-Thank you for that clarification. I think it’s an improvement to the site. I’ve
been there a number of times, and I think that what’s proposed will be an improvement,
both environmentally and visually to the area. I know it’s in a fragile area, but I think in
view of the business that they’re operating, it’s an investment worth making.
65
(Queensbury Planning Board 07/21/09)
MR. LAPPER-Thank you.
MR. KREBS-And I think the parking situation, I’ve been going to the San Souci since
probably I was 16 for my first beer or something like that, but, you know, you go visit your
friends on Cleverdale and you park in their driveway and you walk over to the restaurant.
I mean, that’s the way it is.
MR. TRAVER-Yes.
MR. SIPP-When the new holding tanks are put in, will the old septic system be dug up?
MR. CENTER-The old septic tank will be decommissioned, filled in, disconnected from
the system.
MR. SIPP-How about removing whatever is there?
MR. CENTER-Removing whatever’s there not knowing to what ends, is very difficult to
know exactly what the system is, what is there. I think disconnecting it and filling in the
holding tank, if we do find a drywell, it certainly will be filled in, but I think you open
yourself up to more problems by trying to dig it up and remove it as opposed to letting it
take it’s course.
MR. SIPP-I’d rather see it removed.
MR. OBORNE-If I may remind the Board that we’re here for a recommendation and
those are Site Plan issues, and time is of the essence.
MR. HUNSINGER-Yes. Thanks, Keith.
MR. SEGULJIC-Just one question on the septic system, then. I think you have here
approximate location of existing septic system to be commissioned.
MR. CENTER-Yes, it’s in that area.
MR. SEGULJIC-You mean decommissioned?
MR. CENTER-Yes.
MR. SEGULJIC-Do you have any, is this all you plan on doing? Do you plan on doing
any other expansions at all?
MR. LAPPER-No, no.
MR. SEGULJIC-This is the only expansion?
MR. LAPPER-There’s no room. Yes. This is just to get this walk-in.
MR. SEGULJIC-I mean, I’m no wastewater expert, but when I went to Metcalf & Eddy
(lost words) they said two to three gallons per meal, and you have twelve and a half
gallons per seat.
MR. CENTER-What we have is based on DEC regulations for sizing criteria to size this,
but what we do know is the system that they have now, they have a UV treatment system
that monitors the water, and that has a flow meter on it, and they know that they have
about, in their busy times, about 420 gallons a day. So that equals out to these holding
tanks will be pumped out approximately every other week during the peak season. So
that kind of jibed with our design.
MR. SEGULJIC-Four hundred gallons a day?
MR. CENTER-Yes.
MR. SEGULJIC-Okay.
MR. CENTER-During peak season.
MR. SEGULJIC-That sounds low.
66
(Queensbury Planning Board 07/21/09)
MR. CENTER-Yes, it does, but they also, they have a special system for dishwashing
that allows them to use low flow water, and a lot of their water is consumed and steamed
during cooking, and for drinks.
MR. SEGULJIC-Okay.
MR. CENTER-But that 420 is still based on overall water usage for the entire building.
MR. SEGULJIC-Yes. Overall it’s a good plan. My only other comment would be, you
don’t have a grease trap?
MR. CENTER-A grease trap? They have a grease recovery, they recycle their grease
through their system, and speaking with the IBS septic, who’s pumped it out for the last
number of years, they have not had any issues with the septic tank with grease in there,
and the holding tank is, a grease trap is nothing more than a holding tank anyway. It
does catch it in there, but it’s still going to go, you know, into the first tank, and it flows
into the next one. So the first tank may have the higher grease load, but it all goes to the
same place.
MR. HUNSINGER-Any other questions, comments? Would anyone like to put forward a
recommendation?
MRS. STEFFAN-Okay.
MR. FORD-I have a question, before we go through. Operation, how many months of
the year?
MR. LAPPER-It’s open year round, except for maybe, you know, a week or two in the
winter, but it’s just very quiet in the winter.
MRS. STEFFAN-All right.
MOTION TO RECOMMEND TO THE ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS REGARDING
AREA VARIANCE NO. 38-2009 SAN SOUCI OF CLEVERDALE, ACCORDING TO THE
RESOLUTION PREPARED BY STAFF. WE RECOMMEND THAT THE ZONING
BOARD OF APPEALS APPROVE AREA VARIANCES AS REQUESTED. AFTER
DISCUSSION THE MAJORITY OF THE BOARD BELIEVES THAT GRANTING THE
VARIANCE WILL BE AN IMPROVEMENT TO THE SITE, BOTH ENVIRONMENTALLY
AND VISUALLY., Introduced by Gretchen Steffan who moved for its adoption, seconded
by Stephen Traver:
1)The applicant has submitted applications to the Zoning Board of Appeals for:
Applicant proposes construction of a 360 sq. ft. addition onto the existing
restaurant, and reconfiguation of take-out operations to childen’s gaming center.
Relief requested from setback and parking requirements, Floor Area Ratio
requirements, expansion of a nonconforming structure and permeability
requirements
2)MOTION TO RECOMMEND TO THE ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS
REGARDING AREA VARIANCE NO. 38-2009 SAN SOUCI OF CLEVERDALE,
ACCORDING TO THE RESOLUTION PREPARED BY STAFF. WE
RECOMMEND THAT THE ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS APPROVE AREA
VARIANCES AS REQUESTED. AFTER DISCUSSION THE MAJORITY OF THE
BOARD BELIEVES THAT GRANTING THE VARIANCE WILL BE AN
IMPROVEMENT TO THE SITE, BOTH ENVIRONMENTALLY AND VISUALLY.,
Introduced by Gretchen Steffan who moved for its adoption, seconded by
Stephen Traver:
st
Duly adopted this 21 day of July, 2009, by the following vote:
MR. OBORNE-If I may, the recommendation needs to be specific to the Area
Variance. You had stated that the site improvements are what you’re making a
positive recommendation for. You need to give guidance to the Zoning Board
specifically for the Area Variance. How does this expansion relate to the
neighborhood and planning issues.
MR. HILL-And fundamentally whether this Board recommends approval of the
variances. Do you want that level of specificity?
67
(Queensbury Planning Board 07/21/09)
MR. OBORNE-No, not at all. Just something, a recommendation from the Planning
Board to the Zoning Board of Appeals specifically to the Area Variance, more of a
recommendation, not an approval.
MR. HILL-Maybe I’m not understanding what you’re asking. With regard to potential
Site Plan implications of the grant of the variance?
MR. OBORNE-That can absolutely be discussed and put in there. Sure.
AYES: Mr. Krebs, Mr. Ford, Mr. Seguljic, Mr. Sipp, Mr. Traver, Mrs. Steffan,
Mr. Hunsinger
NOES: NONE
MR. LAPPER-Thanks. We hope to be back soon to go through the Site Plan.
MR. HUNSINGER-Good luck.
AREA VARIANCE 39-2009 FOR DEBARON ASSOCIATES: APPLICANT PROPOSES
CONSTRUCTION OF A 1,886 SQ. FT. SINGLE FAMILY DWELLING ON LOT 4 OFF
DARK BAY LANE. RELIEF REQUESTED FROM SHORELINE, REAR YARD AND
ROAD FRONTAGE REQUIREMENTS. RELIEF REQUESTED FROM INFILTRATION
DEVICES (STORMWATER CONTROL MEASURES).
DENNIS PHILLIPS, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT
MR. HUNSINGER-And then our last Area Variance for this evening is 39-2009 for
Debaron Associates. Keith, whenever you’re ready.
MR. OBORNE-Yes. Area Variance 39-2009, Debaron Associates. Location is Dark Bay
Lane, Lot Four. Description of Proposed Project: Note: Subject to new Ordinance,
Planning Board to make a recommendation to the Zoning Board of Appeals concerning
this Area Variance. Applicant proposes construction of a 2,130 square foot single family
dwelling. Relief requested from shoreline setback, rear yard setback, and minimum road
frontage requirements. Further, relief requested for the installation of infiltration devices,
also known as stormwater control measures, within 100 feet of Lake George. A point of
clarification on my notes, I do state under Staff comments, that the reduction in size was
accomplished by reducing the, it should say length and not the width of the house, and it
should say from 40 feet to 36 feet. With that, I’d turn it over to the Board.
MR. HUNSINGER-Thank you. Let me extend the same appreciation to you for your
patience. Thank you.
MR. PHILLIPS-Thank you.
MR. HUNSINGER-If you could identify yourself for the record.
MR. PHILLIPS-Yes. For the record, my name is Dennis Phillips. I’m a lawyer with
McPhillips, Fitzgerald & Cullum, and next to me is Tom Hutchins of Hutchins
Engineering, and we are back to this Board with a downsized proposed house on this
property. Basically, listening to the recommendation of the Board the last time we were
here, and listening to the Zoning Board as well, and listening to some members of the
public, but I’ll be very brief, in terms of my comments, because I have submitted to the
Board, in writing, the history of this property, just to refresh your recollection. This is a
building lot that was approved back in 1969, by this Planning Board, and then more
recently last year and this year it was re-affirmed by the New York State Department of
Health and the Town Board, by allowing for a holding tank on the property, instead of a
sewage disposal field, and so that was looked at as being a practical solution to a
previously approved building lot. Our submission to you does add the legal
documentation where you know that going back to 1968, 1969, this was very peculiarly
something in the nature of a mandatory subdivision. It was then followed through on by
the owner of the property at the time the approvals were obtained and the reason we’re
here today is that we’ve had changes in the law since this approval was made back in
1969. So with that, even though it appears as though we’re making application for a lot
of variances, I would say that mostly the variances that we’re looking at relate to our
stormwater management plan, and we, as I mentioned in my materials, we were a lawful
subdivision lot at the time of approval, but things change and rules have changed. So
now we’re coming back for some setback variances and for some variances relative to
stormwater, primarily. This whole area is a built out subdivision. So it’s not as though
68
(Queensbury Planning Board 07/21/09)
we have a new situation here. It’s built out. This is the last lakeshore lot in the
subdivision to be built on, and so with that, I’ll turn this over to Tom, who’s going to talk
about the stormwater and some of the mathematical formulas that apply to what we are
proposing here.
MR. KREBS-Tom, would you mind if I just said something first? I have reviewed this
thing, and I really feel that the Staff has made a mistake, that this is not a Site Plan
Review necessary. This is an approved building lot, and as long as you meet the
requirements of the time that that building lot was approved as a subdivision, you don’t
need to have a Site Plan Review. All the things that Craig, and I’ll give you all a copy.
I’ve made notes, but all the things Craig identified for the reasons for a Site Plan Review
and the Staff comments all relate to laws that have been instituted after the 1969
approval of the subdivision. If we don’t allow them to build on this lot, then we shouldn’t
bother to approve any more subdivisions, because if I go out and buy a subdivision lot, I
expect, if it’s an approved subdivision lot, to be able to build on that lot, based on the
rules and regulations at the time I buy that lot.
MR. HILL-Mr. Chairman, I’m sorry, were you done? I don’t want to interrupt you if you’re
not done. Did you have more that you wanted to add?
MR. KREBS-No, I was just going to go on to say, if you look at the original approval, the
size of the house is 1250 square feet. That’s what’s shown on the document, okay.
MR. HUNSINGER-Is that the footprint?
MR. KREBS-Yes, that’s the footprint.
MR. HUNSINGER-Okay.
MR. KREBS-And that subdivision with that footprint was approved by the Town Planning
Board. So, my feeling is that, you know, if we have approved, buildable lots, they’re
either buildable under the Code when they were approved, because they’re a pre-
existing lot, when the new Ordinances are past. That’s my feeling.
MR. HUNSINGER-Yes. Counsel?
MR. HILL-There is an exemption that applies for a certain brief, limited period of time
after a subdivision lot is approved, so that someone who subdivides property for a
certain, short limited period, would not be subject to changes in zoning. That period of
time varies, depending on certain factors that are provided for in the law, but here you’re
dealing with a situation, as I understand it, where the lot, the subdivision lot was
approved in 1969, and that’s what, 40 years ago now. The exemption that’s provided for
is very, relatively short. It’s between a year and two years I think, and I would have to
look at the exact provisions of the law to know, in any particular circumstance, how to
advise you how long the exemption would be, but the exemption would not apply in this
case, and so when there are changes in zoning that occur over time, then even though, I
don’t think anybody here is questioning the existence of the lot. Nobody is saying that
the lot doesn’t exist. The lot exists, but it’s now a pre-existing nonconforming lot. It
doesn’t comply with the current zoning regulations, and, as such, under those
circumstances, today, when someone wants to build on that lot, they need to comply with
the current zoning, and I think, although I haven’t, I’m not familiar with all the details of
this particular case, so I guess I need to speak in generalities, but in a circumstance like
that, the zoning officer is going to say to the applicant or property owner, you’ve got a
pre-existing, nonconforming lot. It doesn’t comply with current zoning, and for example
you may need relief from the side setback requirement. You may need a variance for
that, or you may need a variance for the front setback requirement, or whatever it
happens to be or stormwater, or whatever the new regulations are. So, even though it
may seem on some level to be somewhat unfair to someone who has an approved
subdivision lot, the rules are, and the law requires, that after that very short, limited
period of exemption, that the, a person wanting to build on that lot comply with the
current zoning requirements.
MR. HUNSINGER-I think, though, in the newest Code, there’s a clause that says if it was
an approved subdivision and the development is within the requirements of the
subdivision then in effect, then they can comply with the original Subdivision
Regulations.
MR. HILL-Okay. All right. Well, I’m not familiar.
69
(Queensbury Planning Board 07/21/09)
MR. HUNSINGER-That’s kind of where I thought you were going, because I think that
was something that we introduced that was, that’s new, which would kind of be ironic in a
sense, and I didn’t bring the new Code with me, because I didn’t think I’d need it this
evening.
MR. KREBS-Do you know where it is?
MR. HILL-I’m not familiar with that specific provision. So what I just said relates to the
general principles of law.
MR. HUNSINGER-Right. Understood.
MR. PHILLIPS-If I could help the Board a little bit on this. On Page Four of my
submission, Paragraph C, I do make reference to Section 179-13-060, little b, of your
Code. However, I would say this, I think that that’s probably a Zoning Board of Appeals
interpretation of your Code, and I appreciate the help that I’m getting from Mr. Krebs on
this, but I have raised that issue for the Zoning Board of Appeals, but having said that,
rather than get involved in the legality of that before this Board, you know, we think that
we’ve made a lot of progress since being here the last time, and we know that, even if
we do have the assistance of that provision of the Code, we probably would be better
served with a recommendation from this Board that what we have designed for this lot is
acceptable from an environmental point of view, acceptable from a stormwater point of
view, which was the reason we were here the last time. I think the last time, under the
old regulations, we were here because we were required to have a recommendation on
the stormwater, in terms of whether the stormwater plan we designed for this project was
workable or not workable, because we knew that the Zoning Board of Appeals would
have to give us a variance because of the setback issues, but we really were trying to get
a recommendation from this Board that the stormwater plan that we had designed for this
property then was workable, and now, as we come back, we have a stormwater plan in
place for a smaller house, because I did, as I mentioned, we did downsize the house. So
I would like to save the legal issue for the Zoning Board of Appeals, but I have raised it,
but I think if we could go to the merits of what we’ve done here, because we’ve worked
hard since seeing you the last time, and, you know, maybe we could proceed with that.
MR. SIPP-Could you repeat that Section again?
MR. PHILLIPS-It’s Section 179-13-060b, on Page 225 of the Zoning Ordinance.
MR. HUNSINGER-Yes. I have it open to that now.
MR. PHILLIPS-Okay.
MR. HILL-And I would definitely concur with Attorney Phillips that the proper venue for
the consideration of whether that Section of the Code applies or not in this instance
would be with the Zoning Board of Appeals. I think that’s the proper venue for essentially
an appeal from the zoning officer’s determination.
MR. HUNSINGER-It doesn’t matter, because it’s clear in that Section in Item D, where it
says, development, I’ll just read it quickly. Development of nonconforming lots in a
Critical Environmental Area shall comply with the current minimum lot standards, etc.,
etc.
MR. OBORNE-And it will require Site Plan Review.
MR. HUNSINGER-Yes. So, if it wasn’t in the CEA, it would be okay.
MR. TRAVER-Unless it was outside of the grace period, right?
MR. HUNSINGER-It doesn’t mention any grace period.
MR. TRAVER-So that’s been removed?
MR. HUNSINGER-Yes.
MR. SEGULJIC-So, Counsel, what happens is, ordinances are changed as we learn new
things, to address those issues as they arise.
MR. HILL-Zoning Ordinances change over time.
70
(Queensbury Planning Board 07/21/09)
MR. SEGULJIC-Over time, it’s a fluid situation, as we learn new things.
MR. HILL-Right, but I think, if I understand correctly, based on the Code, our Code, most
recent version, outside of Critical Environmental Areas, it sounds like there’s an
exception to the general principal under law.
MR. SEGULJIC-Right, because we have learned how important these areas are.
MR. HILL-That the Critical Environmental Areas are.
MR. SEGULJIC-The Critical Environmental Areas as designated by the State of New
York.
MR. HILL-Right, but outside of Critical Environmental Areas, it sounds like our Code
makes an exception from what would be the normal applicability of a State law principal
to that. So, but anyway, I think Mr. Phillips is right. The Zoning Board of Appeals is the
proper place for any consideration of interpretation of the Code.
MR. OBORNE-And I would like to add, if the applicant was to go before the Zoning
Board of Appeals, and not agree with what the Zoning Administrator said, they would
have to apply for a Notice of Appeal, which I’m sure everybody knows that.
MR. HUNSINGER-I’m sorry, we kind of cut you off in the middle of your presentation.
MR. HUTCHINS-Tom Hutchins. I would like to very briefly summarize the changes.
This is a new application. It’s a very, very similar project to what we were here with
before. We came for a recommendation on stormwater, and we left with a
recommendation that we consider reducing the size of the house. That is what we have
done. The primary stormwater control devices remain the same, shallow infiltration
trenches with amended soils. We have maintained the pre-treatment methodology used
for off site runoff that is running down the hill from the south. We have removed the
proposed infiltration trench for off site runoff from the west, and simply diverted it, and
the reason we’ve removed that is because of the fact that it wasn’t directly on our
property. It presented additional regulatory hurdles that we decided weren’t, that weren’t
going to help us. The smaller house has, it’s reduced the size of the overall disturbance.
Our calculated Floor Area Ratio as we see it with this proposal is about 13%. Our
calculated disturbance is about 5300 square feet, and our impermeable area is 19%.
Those are all well within the requirements of the new Zoning Code as far as density and
permeability. We are asking for essentially the same variances that we asked for the last
time we were here, no lot frontage on a public road, lake setback, relief from a 75 foot
requirement, although the new Code is probably a little less clear with respect to this
one, because the shoreline setback is stated as 50 feet, except if you’re in a particular
area that the Adirondack Park Agency zones 75 feet. So it is still 75 feet in this area. So
we are still requesting that relief from the lake setback. We are, we were before, and we
continue to be greater than 50 feet from the lake with the building. We have our primary
infiltration device in the front, which is an infiltration trench with peat amended soils, and
we are asking for relief from the 100 foot setback from the lake for that device, as well as
for the device at the driveway, the devices along the existing stairs, and the device near
the existing storage cabinet, and, with that, I’ll turn it over to the Board for questions.
MR. HUNSINGER-Questions, comments from the Board?
MR. TRAVER-You’re asking for, as you say, you’re asking for basically the same
variances in this application that you requested and were denied earlier this year. So
you haven’t reduced the number or, with the exception of stormwater, the extent of the
variance that you’re, extent of relief that you’re requesting. Is that correct?
MR. PHILLIPS-That is correct. This lot creates practical difficulty.
MR. TRAVER-Right.
MR. PHILLIPS-So, wherever we would locate a building on this lot, we would be before
the Zoning Board of Appeals for variances, and some of the, the one variance relative to
frontage on a public road, is an inherent variance application, because this is an old
subdivision that was built out a long time ago, already has its own internal road system,
private internal road system. So that’s a variance that any lot in that subdivision would
have, and so I look at that as being, yes, it’s a variance, but it’s also something that goes
with every lot in the subdivision, because we have an old, built out subdivision. As to the
stormwater variances, this lot is inside 100 feet, and the stormwater variances are
71
(Queensbury Planning Board 07/21/09)
caused by the upgrade of this project from a minor to a major. Ordinarily, with a minor,
we would not get kicked into a Major stormwater unless we were going to disturb more
than 15,000 square feet, but because we are within that 100 feet, the Zoning
Administrator has basically bumped this up to a Major, which causes us to have these
variances, but with a 5300 square foot of disturbance, we’re really one third of a minor,
as far as the actual disturbance that we’re going to do, but because of the bump up, all of
a sudden, we are in a position where we have to ask for many, many variances. So
they’re real, in one sense, but they’re illusory in another sense, because, you know,
we’re forced, by this lot itself, to get variances because now we’re a Major instead of a
minor.
MR. TRAVER-Right. It’s a difficult lot, I understand.
MR. PHILLIPS-It’s a difficult lot.
MR. TRAVER-Did I recall from, and I know we had a lot of discussion about this piece of
property the last time we were here, and as I recall, all these many years, it’s been used,
they have a gazebo on it or something. It was used as kind of a place to go and look at
the lake and soak up the rays and that kind of thing, but it was never used as any kind of
building lot, until before this application.
MR. PHILLIPS-Back in 1990, a variance request was made to the Zoning Board of
Appeals for a dwelling to be constructed on this lot. The Zoning Board of Appeals did
approve that back in 1990. Actually then the house was going to be closer to the lake.
That was before the codification of the Town law that went into the balancing test, in
terms of the various components of what is required for an Area Variance. So, when it
went to the Adirondack Park Agency, it was vetoed by the Adirondack Park Agency for
non-specific findings by the Zoning Board of Appeals, and so it then went before Judge
Viscardi, and he sent it back without prejudice for a development of a better record. So
that was done by our client’s father, back in 1990. It was always intended to be a
building lot, but now we are in a situation where we have three siblings. We have
Ronald. We have Deborah, who is our client, and we have her sister Barbara, and the
siblings are in the process of estate planning, where they now are looking to build out
their, what I call their birth right, because their father gave them this property back in
1974. So it’s one of those situations where, I guess they didn’t think there was a penalty
for waiting, and we’re hoping there isn’t, but this property always, from the record, was
intended to be a building lot.
MR. TRAVER-And, do you have any comment as to why you think that, prior to this, it
was not considered for building, or that no building was actually constructed on this lot?
MR. PHILLIPS-My guess is, when the father conveyed this property to his three children,
in 1974, and then it was a building lot, it was one of those things where probably a father
was probably turning over something to his children that they would have for themselves
and their future generations, and he probably thought that it was a very significant gift,
but my theory is that they were young at the time. They probably didn’t have any money
to build. They probably were sending kids through college, and those things take time,
and so I think that probably now they’re at that stage of their life where they’re able to do
something, whereas prior to now, they probably economically were not in a position to do
something.
MR. TRAVER-And do these siblings live in the immediate area currently?
MR. PHILLIPS-Our client lives in Massachusetts.
MR. TRAVER-Okay.
MR. PHILLIPS-Her husband is with us here tonight. Her brother lives in New Jersey,
and the sister lives in also New Jersey.
MR. TRAVER-Thank you.
MR. SEGULJIC-If I can just clarify the record. Keep in mind that any minor project can
and should be made a Major project once it’s located in a CEA. I don’t believe that’s
what you stated.
MR. PHILLIPS-And that’s what’s been done here.
MR. SEGULJIC-That’s correct as according to the Code.
72
(Queensbury Planning Board 07/21/09)
MR. PHILLIPS-Well, as I look at the Code, it seems to me that it’s discretionary with the
Zoning Administrator, as opposed to mandatory, and I would defer to Counsel and to
Keith on that issue.
MR. SEGULJIC-It’s correct. It’s discretionary, but it states that it may become a Major
project if it’s located in a CEA. The other thing is, as I understand it, the Site Plan was
denied back in 1989 for a single family dwelling on the site.
MR. PHILLIPS-The Zoning Board of Appeals granted the variance for the single family
dwelling. I think that, back in 1989, there may have been a negative recommendation by
the Planning Board because, well, whatever the reasons, but I know that, back in ’89, the
house structure was located only about 36 feet from the lake, and so I know the proximity
to the lake was one of the reasons for the non recommendation back in ’89, but the
Zoning Board of Appeals accepted that recommendation, and I think put it in the light
that if this lot intended to be a building lot, could not be built on, in effect it would be a
regulatory taking by the Town of this piece of property.
MR. KREBS-I just pointed out to Chris, I’m reading the new Ordinance, too, and the last
sentence in Section D, which is under the development of nonconforming, it says, the
last sentence says, lawful, nonconforming lots shall include those lots in pre-existing
subdivisions which were approved by the New York State Department of Health, and
right on the drawing is the New York State Department of Health approval. I’m confused,
at this point, because, if I read the Ordinance, it says that it’s a lawful lot.
MR. HILL-I’m sorry, Don. I don’t think there was a question about whether it’s a, whether
it was a lawfully created lot. Was there, did I miss something? I think the question is the
applicability of the new zoning codes.
MR. KREBS-Right.
MR. HILL-And it is, I don’t think there was a question about whether it was it was a
lawfully existing lot. It’s a lawfully existing lot. It’s a lawfully, it’s pre-existing,
nonconforming.
MR. KREBS-But this is talking about development of nonconforming lots, okay, and it
says that if it’s a nonconforming lot, in a CEA, or in an APA area, it has to apply to the
new things, but then the last sentence says lawful nonconforming, which I guess the
others are not lawful. I just am confused by the Code.
MR. HILL-I’d have to look at it. I don’t think there’s necessarily any inconsistency in what
you’re reading, Don.
MR. HUNSINGER-Other questions, comments from members of the Board?
MR. SEGULJIC-There’s docks on the site, correct?
MR. HUNSINGER-Yes.
MR. SEGULJIC-Four docks, I believe. What are those docks used for?
MR. PHILLIPS-The docks, currently, are used by the adjoining house that was the
Durante house, now known as the VanSlooten house, as it appears on your map, and so
the boat that is docked in that dock is actually partially owned by Debbie Schiebel’s
husband who is here with us today. So those are pre-existing docks that have been
there. I know that even the old map, I believe, shows dockage in place on that property.
MR. SEGULJIC-All right. So are all four slips used, then?
MR. PHILLIPS-I was there this morning, and I only saw one slip being used, and I didn’t
see any boats in any of the other slips.
MR. HUNSINGER-Counsel has a comment.
MR. HILL-The significance of that last sentence is that, it relates to a merger effect that
this paragraph talks about. So that if someone were to have an approved subdivision, to
have two adjoining approved subdivision lots, they’re essentially, they are essentially
treated as one lot, as if they were merged, and the significance of the last sentence is to
say that if there’s a lot that was created by the Department of Health, that that, similar to
73
(Queensbury Planning Board 07/21/09)
a lot that was created by a subdivision approval issued by the Town, that those lots,
those adjoining lots would be considered one lot. That’s the significance of that last
sentence, that it doesn’t have to be a Town approved lot. It could also be a lot approved
by the Department of Health. So that if you had two lots like that, that they would be
considered one.
MR. OBORNE-I do want to state that the Zoning Administrator has made a determination
on this application. If there are any issues with his determination, I suggest that any
Board member or anybody who has a problem with that determination take it up with the
Zoning Administrator. We’re here for a recommendation.
MR. KREBS-Keith, we have an attorney here so that we can ask the attorney questions
relative to the law. That’s why the Town is paying this man to sit here.
MRS. STEFFAN-I think, if the applicant had built this house many years ago, it probably
would have been permitted. I mean, they did have a prior approval on a zoning variance.
The applicant has certainly been trying to satisfy some of the input that they’ve gotten
from certainly the Planning Board, and now they’re going through the Zoning Board of
Appeals for several variances. They are, all their stormwater controls are on site, as the
Staff Notes indicate. I think that that’s a positive thing. I think that the applicant has
downsized the footprint of the building, which, in essence, decreases the impact on the
site, and potentially the lake, which is the consequences of infiltration too close to the
lake, and so I don’t know what else we can recommend. I think that it’s really unfair for
this applicant to have paid the taxation on this particular land, all these years, and not be
able to use it for its pre-determined use.
MR. SEGULJIC-Well, excuse me, but they have been able to use it.
MR. KREBS-No, not as a residential lot, which it’s.
MRS. STEFFAN-Right.
MR. KREBS-It’s a buildable residential lot, as far as taxes are concerned.
MR. SEGULJIC-Right, but I have a lot on the lake. We spend a lot of money on that just
for that. We’re not going to build on it. So I don’t understand your logic then.
MRS. STEFFAN-Well, that was, when that property was given to the children by their
father it was based on.
MR. SEGULJIC-But once again, I don’t think that comes into our decision.
MR. KREBS-Yes, but yours is a common lot, right?
MR. SEGULJIC-Correct.
MR. KREBS-Yes, for a whole subdivision up the side of a mountain.
MR. SEGULJIC-Correct.
MR. KREBS-And that subdivision was approved and that lot was approved as part of that
subdivision, okay. This was not part of a subdivision with common water frontage.
MR. SEGULJIC-They have it next door.
MR. PHILLIPS-There is a common lot next door to this property.
MR. KREBS-Yes, but not this lot.
MR. PHILLIPS-But this is not a common lot.
MR. KREBS-Right.
MR. PHILLIPS-This was approved as a buildable lot.
MR. KREBS-Yes, and the point she was making, Tom, is it’s taxed as if it was a
buildable lot, because if it wasn’t buildable, it would have been taxed at a much lower
rate.
74
(Queensbury Planning Board 07/21/09)
MR. SEGULJIC-Well, wait until they build a house on it. I hate to ask (lost words), can
you eliminate any of the Area Variances requested by downsizing?
MR. HUTCHINS-No, it didn’t change the variances requested, with the exception of
removing the trench I had that was on the cooperative property next door, which I still
thought was a good idea, but it caused all kinds of problems, downsizing the house did
nothing to lessen the variances.
MR. SEGULJIC-No, but can you downsize the house further?
MR. HUTCHINS-Not and lessen the variances.
MR. OBORNE-The only way that you’re going to lessen the variances on this lot to move
the house closer to the shoreline to eliminate the rear lot setback.
MR. SEGULJIC-So that leads one to believe it’s not a developable lot.
MRS. STEFFAN-Which, as Mr. Phillips identified, the approval from the Zoning Board in
prior years was a house that was closer to the lake, and so they’ve made improvements
based on the project change over time, which is what we want. We want to keep it
farther away from the lake.
MR. SEGULJIC-But keep in mind, we have learned things. Therefore we have changed
our ordinances, and the CEA wasn’t created until the 90’s, I believe. So, I mean, we
change ordinance to reduce negative impacts.
MR. PHILLIPS-I agree that change is the only constant, and that we continue to upgrade
our environmental protection laws, but we also balance that against constitutionally
protected private property rights, and we do have a sense of fairness going forward, as
we make these changes, and this is one of those old things. This is kind of like in the old
business category where we’re not proposing anything new that’s going to stand the new
environmental protection scheme on its head. We’re now kind of cleaning up some old
business, and the Department of Health has honored that old business. The Town
Board has honored that old business, and I think that’s the balancing thing where we’re
trying to balance what is fair relative to the old business, with environmental protection,
and our job, particularly on the stormwater side, has been to design something here that
is going to function and meet the rules and regulations in terms of working, even though
we’ve got some metrics that we can’t meet. I think the big thing, also, is that, even with
your permeability standard increasing to 75%, since we were here the last time, we’re
here at 81% permeability, so in terms of what we’re doing to this lot, you know, we’re
putting 19% of impermeability on an old business kind of lot, and our floor ratios are well
within your standards as well, and so, you know, relative to those environmental factors,
we do comply with your new standards, and so I think we’ve worked hard to try to make
this work, and we think that, I think that, as a matter of fairness, we’re asking you for this
recommendation to the Zoning Board of Appeals, positive recommendation, to balance
those things that are evident and of record in this application.
MR. SEGULJIC-But what I get hung up on is the soils on the site are characterized as
being highly erodible, I believe it’s referred to as, erosion can be severe on sloped areas,
and your slope, and you have sloped areas up to 25%, I believe.
MR. HUTCHINS-Well, there’s terraced areas. It’s terraced low, there’s a wall, and it’s
terraced across the front. Actually, the place where the house is being built, the majority
of the area is relatively flat. I hope you’ve walked it. As far as soils being characterized
as highly erodible, any soils will erode if water’s moving fast enough over them, and
these soils are granular, meaning they’re sands and gravels and relatively large grain
size, versus silts and clays of relatively fine grain size, which are much more erosive
than granular soils. So I’m not sure about the reference you have to soils being highly
erodible. Based on my nine test holes, I wouldn’t characterize them that way. I mean,
they’re gravely soils. They’re probably the least erodible soils.
MRS. STEFFAN-Well, and if they were highly erodible, the plan for road access and
parking above it wouldn’t work.
MR. SEGULJIC-Well, remember, there’s vegetation on the site also that holds of lot of
these soils in place. You’re going to be taking down a lot of the vegetation. You’re going
to be compacting the soils even more so.
75
(Queensbury Planning Board 07/21/09)
MR. HUTCHINS-We’re going to be disturbing just over 5,000 square feet to build a
house. When’s the last time you guys have seen an application with that little of a
disturbance to build a house? Most of the houses are bigger than the area we’re going
to disturb.
MR. SEGULJIC-Where are you going to stage the soil during construction?
MR. HUTCHINS-We’re not going to stage, we’ve already stated that at the last meeting.
Any material’s going to go off site.
MRS. STEFFAN-Right, we already talked about that.
MR. SEGULJIC-And then it’s going to come back on.
MR. HUTCHINS-And then what we need’s going to come back on.
MR. SEGULJIC-Where are you going to stage the soils?
MR. HUTCHINS-Off site.
MR. OBORNE-If I can remind the Board, we’re here for a recommendation for an Area
Variance.
MR. HUTCHINS-Tom, if our excavator takes materials, puts it on his truck and heads up
this driveway, it really doesn’t matter where he’s going to stage the soils. He may take
them to another job and bring in fresh soil when he comes back here. I mean, how can
that be germane to this process?
MR. SEGULJIC-I’m asking the question. It’s a concern, plus you’re going to have to do
some blasting, I believe.
MR. HUTCHINS-We’re going to have to excavate some rock. If you went up to the
house up here, they excavated an awful lot of rock. We’re going to have to excavate a
rather small amount of rock.
MR. SEGULJIC-All right. So, with that, I’ll make a motion, then.
MOTION THAT THE QUEENSBURY PLANNING BOARD RECOMMENDS THAT THE
QUEENSBURY ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS DOES NOT GRANT THE
REQUESTED AREA VARIANCES FOR AREA VARIANCE NO. 39-2009 DEBARON
ASSOCIATES, DUE TO THE FOLLOWING: GRANTING OF VARIANCES WILL HAVE
ADVERSE IMPACT ON A SITE LOCATED IN A CEA. SITE CONSISTS OF SLOPES
UP TO 25% IN GRADE. SITE CONSISTS OF BRICE VERY BOULDERLY FINE,
SANDY LOAM AND SANDS THAT IS CHARACTERIZED AS POTENTIALLY HIGHLY
EROSIVE, Introduced by Thomas Seguljic who moved for its adoption, seconded by
Donald Sipp:
1)The applicant has submitted applications to the Zoning Board of Appeals for:
Applicant proposes construction of a 2,130 sq. ft. single family dwelling on lot 4
off of Dark Bay Lane. Relief requested from shoreline, rear yard and road
frontage requirements. Relief requested from infiltration devices (stormwater
control measures).
2)MOTION THAT THE QUEENSBURY PLANNING BOARD RECOMMENDS
THAT THE QUEENSBURY ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS DOES NOT GRANT
THE REQUESTED AREA VARIANCES FOR AREA VARIANCE NO. 39-2009
DEBARON ASSOCIATES, DUE TO THE FOLLOWING: GRANTING OF
VARIANCES WILL HAVE ADVERSE IMPACT ON A SITE LOCATED IN A CEA.
SITE CONSISTS OF SLOPES UP TO 25% IN GRADE. SITE CONSISTS OF
BRICE VERY BOULDERLY FINE, SANDY LOAM AND SANDS THAT IS
CHARACTERIZED AS POTENTIALLY HIGHLY EROSIVE, Introduced by
Thomas Seguljic who moved for its adoption, seconded by Donald Sipp:
st
Duly adopted this 21 day of July, 2009, by the following vote:
MR. KREBS-Well, I’d like to say that, you know, when you and I, Chris, went and
looked at that, you’re talking about a 25% grade, but you don’t go like this down.
There’s a flat area and then there’s another flat area. I mean, we’ve commented
76
(Queensbury Planning Board 07/21/09)
about it that day we walked the lot. So, it’s different than having a 25% grade. That’s
all my comments.
AYES: Mr. Traver, Mr. Sipp, Mr. Seguljic
NOES: Mr. Krebs, Mrs. Steffan, Mr. Ford, Mr. Hunsinger
MR. HUNSINGER-So it’s four to three. Would anyone else like to put forward a
recommendation?
MRS. STEFFAN-I haven’t gotten there yet. The Zoning Board of Appeals doesn’t care
that these people have been paying taxes for all these years.
MR. HUNSINGER-No, they don’t. It’s really not germane.
MRS. STEFFAN-All right. I’ll put a motion forth.
MOTION THAT THE QUEENSBURY PLANNING BOARD RECOMMENDS TO THE
QUEENSBURY ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS, REGARDING AREA VARIANCE NO.
39-2009 DEBARON ASSOCIATES, ACCORDING TO THE RESOLUTION PREPARED
BY STAFF. THE PLANNING BOARD PROVIDES THE RECOMMENDATION THAT
THE ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS CONSIDER THE APPLICANT’S DILIGENCE IN
DECREASING THE FOOTPRINT OF THE HOUSE AND THAT THEY ARE
MAINTAINING STORMWATER ON THE SITE, AND THAT THIS IS A PRE-EXISTING,
NONCONFORMING USE THAT HAD RECEIVED AN AREA VARIANCE IN THE PAST.
IF THIS APPLICANT HAD BUILT MANY YEARS AGO, THIS WOULD HAVE BEEN A
PERMITTED USE., Introduced by Gretchen Steffan who moved for its adoption,
seconded by Thomas Ford:
1.The applicant has submitted applications to the Zoning Board of Appeals for:
Applicant proposes construction of a 2,130 sq. ft. single family dwelling on lot 4
off of Dark Bay Lane. Relief requested from shoreline, rear yard and road
frontage requirements. Relief requested from infiltration devices (stormwater
control measures).
2.MOTION THAT THE QUEENSBURY PLANNING BOARD RECOMMENDS TO
THE QUEENSBURY ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS, REGARDING AREA
VARIANCE NO. 39-2009 DEBARON ASSOCIATES, ACCORDING TO THE
RESOLUTION PREPARED BY STAFF. THE PLANNING BOARD PROVIDES
THE RECOMMENDATION THAT THE ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS
CONSIDER THE APPLICANT’S DILIGENCE IN DECREASING THE
FOOTPRINT OF THE HOUSE AND THAT THEY ARE MAINTAINING
STORMWATER ON THE SITE, AND THAT THIS IS A PRE-EXISTING,
NONCONFORMING USE THAT HAD RECEIVED AN AREA VARIANCE IN THE
PAST. IF THIS APPLICANT HAD BUILT MANY YEARS AGO, THIS WOULD
HAVE BEEN A PERMITTED USE., Introduced by Gretchen Steffan who moved
for its adoption, seconded by Thomas Ford:
st
Duly adopted this 21 day of July, 2009, by the following vote:
AYES: Mr. Krebs, Mr. Ford, Mrs. Steffan, Mr. Hunsinger
NOES: Mr. Traver, Mr. Seguljic, Mr. Sipp
MR. HUNSINGER-Good luck.
MR. HUTCHINS-Thank you very much.
MR. PHILLIPS-Thank you.
MR. HUNSINGER-Thank you. Is there any other business to be brought before the
Board this evening?
MR. KREBS-I just have one thing. Have we ever come to a conclusion as to, you know,
Craig sent us all a note about when, you know, timing of the engineering reports and
then Staff reports?
MRS. STEFFAN-And we never did resolve that particular issue.
77
(Queensbury Planning Board 07/21/09)
MR. KREBS-I don’t think we’ve come to a conclusion on that. All I want to do is have
you think about this. One of the things I was thinking about today is if we could have the
engineering comments and the Staff comments, 14 days before, we could actually have
our Saturday site review after we received the Staff comments and the engineering
comments, so that when we visited the site, we would be much more knowledgeable of
what to look for. I’m just throwing it out, because we need to come to a resolution, but
that way we would have all the information when we went to the site to review the site.
MRS. STEFFAN-Well, unfortunately, when I got the feedback from the e-mail that I had
sent, the logistics of that are not possible at this point, because of the Land Use Planner
preparing the material to go to the engineer that he’s got to review to make sure that all
the information is included for, I think the six agenda items that we have, that it gets to
the engineer, and then they have at least a week or ten days to review it, and so we end
up having a compressed timeframe that won’t allow for us to have two weeks.
MR. KREBS-But couldn’t we move that submittal date back 15 days also? Then you
have the same amount of time available.
MR. TRAVER-This sounds like a familiar conversation to me.
MRS. STEFFAN-Yes, it does, and, you know, I think it’s the kind of thing.
MR. TRAVER-No, I agree that it’s a problem, but.
MRS. STEFFAN-Maybe to just go and meet with Craig and Keith with a calendar that
identifies, okay, this is when this happens and this is when this happens, because I think
we need some fixed dates. It’s a little too, you know, from my point of view.
MR. TRAVER-It probably would have to be done on a monthly basis. That’s, I think part
of the problem is that what, your suggestions sound good, but the complication is the
variations in the month and the variations in the workload and the limitations we have on
Staff resources. Now, if you were, instead, to do almost a customized type thing for each
set of applications that came in, maybe you could structure something that would work a
little differently. It would just be very, very complicated.
th
MR. KREBS-Right now, you know, on the 15 of each month is submittal time. Make
that the first. Okay.
MR. TRAVER-Well, yes.
MR. KREBS-You’re saying that there’s no solution to a problem.
MR. TRAVER-No, I’m saying it’s more complicated than it seems. I’m not saying there’s
no solution.
MR. KREBS-As far as I’m concerned, it’s a critical problem.
MR. FORD-I move we adjourn the meeting.
MOTION TO ADJOURN THE QUEENSBURY PLANNING BOARD MEETING OF JULY
21, 2009, Introduced by Thomas Ford who moved for its adoption, seconded by Thomas
Seguljic:
st
Duly adopted this 21 day of July, 2009, by the following vote:
AYES: Mr. Krebs, Mr. Ford, Mrs. Steffan, Mr. Traver, Mr. Seguljic, Mr. Sipp,
Mr. Hunsinger
NOES: NONE
On motion meeting was adjourned.
RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED,
Chris Hunsinger, Chairman
78