2009.09.10
(Queensbury Planning Board 9/10/09)
QUEENSBURY PLANNING BOARD
FIRST REGULAR MEETING
SEPTEMBER 10, 2009
INDEX
Site Plan No. 31-2008 Della Honda 1.
EXTENSION Tax Map No. 296.20-1-6
RECOMMENDATION Marvin Stan Dobert 2.
Area Variance No. 42-2009 Tax Map No. 309.10-1-26, 27, 28
RECOMMENDATION NBT Bank, N.A. 7.
Area Variance No. 43-2009 Tax Map No. 302.8-1-44
RECOMMENDATION D & G Management, LLC 10.
Area Variance No. 45-2009 309.5-1-1.2
RECOMMENDATION Stewart’s Shops 13.
Area Variance No. 47-2009 Tax Map No. 296.13-1-63, 64, 65
RECOMMENDATION Ray and Wendy Kraft 15.
Area Variance No. 49-2009 Tax Map No. 240.9-1-1
Subdivision No. 5-2009 Michael & Christina Breda 21.
SKETCH/PRELIMINARY/FINAL Tax Map No. 301.8-1-30
Site Plan No. 41-2009 Michael & Christina Breda 30.
Tax Map No. 301-8-1-30
Subdivision No. 1-2009 Robert Gray 41.
PRELIMINARY & FINAL Tax Map No. 265.-1-21
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 9/10/09)
QUEENSBURY PLANNING BOARD MEETING
FIRST REGULAR MEETING
SEPTEMBER 10, 2009
7:00 P.M.
MEMBERS PRESENT
CHRIS HUNSINGER, CHAIRMAN
THOMAS SEGULJIC
STEPHEN TRAVER
DONALD SIPP
PAUL SCHONEWOLF, ALTERNATE
STEPHEN JACKOSKI, ALTERNATE
MEMBERS ABSENT
THOMAS FORD
LAND USE PLANNER-KEITH OBORNE
STENOGRAPHER-SUE HEMINGWAY
MR. HUNSINGER-All right. I’ll call to order the meeting of the Town of Queensbury
Planning Board on Thursday, September 10, 2009. The first item on the agenda is
Approval of Minutes from July 7, 21, and 28, 2009. Would anyone like to put forward a
motion?
APPROVAL OF MINUTES
July 7, 2009:
July 21, 2009
July 28, 2009
MOTION TO APPROVE THE QUEENSBURY PLANNING BOARD MINUTES OF JULY
THST
7, JULY 21 & JULY 28, 2009, Introduced by Thomas Seguljic who moved for its
adoption, seconded by Paul Schonewolf:
th
Duly adopted this 10 day of September, 2009, by the following vote:
AYES: Mr. Traver, Mr. Sipp, Mr. Seguljic, Mr. Schonewolf, Mr. Jackoski, Mr. Hunsinger
NOES: NONE
ABSENT: Mr. Ford
MR. HUNSINGER-Next item on the agenda is an Administrative Item.
ADMINISTRATIVE ITEMS:
SP 31-2008 DELLA HONDA: ONE YEAR EXTENSION REQUEST
STEFANIE BITTER, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT
MR. HUNSINGER-There was a letter from Della Honda seeking a one year extension to
their approved Site Plan.
MS. BITTER-Hi, Stefanie Bitter, just in case you have any questions.
MR. HUNSINGER-Hi, Stefanie.
MS. BITTER-We submitted the letter just seeking the one year extension, as we
indicated in the letter. They, you know, have been working on the Bay Street project,
and just completed it, and now are ready to turn over to the next project. It just wasn’t
economically reasonable to do both at the same time.
MR. HUNSINGER-Any comments, concerns from the Board?
1
(Queensbury Planning Board 9/10/09)
MR. SEGULJIC-So, I guess the only question is, do we just grant a one year extension,
or do we give a date? I guess if we gave a date, it would be September 16, 2010.
MR. OBORNE-A date’s fine.
MR. SEGULJIC-Okay.
MOTION TO GRANT A ONE YEAR EXTENSION TO SITE PLAN NO. 31-2008 DELLA
HONDA MICHAEL DELLA BELLA, SR. TO SEPTEMBER 16, 2010, Introduced by
Thomas Seguljic who moved for its adoption, seconded by Paul Schonewolf:
1)A request has been made to the Queensbury Planning Board - see letter dated
8/17/09 from J. Lapper of Bartlett Pontiff Stewart & Rhodes; and
2)MOTION TO GRANT A ONE YEAR EXTENSION TO SITE PLAN NO. 31-2008
DELLA HONDA MICHAEL DELLA BELLA, SR. TO SEPTEMBER 16, 2010,
Introduced by Thomas Seguljic who moved for its adoption, seconded by Paul
Schonewolf:
th
Duly adopted this 10 day of September, 2009, by the following vote:
AYES: Mr. Traver, Mr. Jackoski, Mr. Sipp, Mr. Seguljic, Mr. Schonewolf, Mr. Hunsinger
NOES: NONE
ABSENT: Mr. Ford
MR. HUNSINGER-Thank you.
MS. BITTER-Thank you.
MR. HUNSINGER-We have five items, this evening, for recommendations to the Zoning
Board of Appeals for various variances. I guess they’re all Area Variances.
RECOMMENDATIONS TO ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS
AREA VARIANCE 42-2009: MARVIN STAN DOBERT
APPLICANT PROPOSES RENOVATION AND A 2,180 SQ. FT. EXPANSION OF
EXISTING BUILDINGS. FURTHER, THE APPLICANT PROPOSES 900 SQ. FT.
CONSTRUCTION OF A NEW BUILDING ATTACHED TO 50 AND 52 MAIN STREET.
APPLICANT REQUESTS RELIEF FROM THE FRONT AND SIDE SETBACK
REQUIREMENTS AND FOR EXPANSION OF A NONCONFORMING STRUCTURE.
MR. HUNSINGER-Keith, whenever you’re ready to summarize Staff Notes.
MR. OBORNE-The application is Area Variance 42-2009 and Site Plan 47-2009. The
applicant is Marvin S. Dobert. Requested Action: Recommendation to Zoning Board of
Appeals. Location 50 through 51 and 52 Main Street. Existing zoning is Main Street.
It’s a Type II SEQRA for purposes of this Area Variance. Project Description: Applicant
proposes renovation and expansion of existing buildings, construction of a 900 square
foot new building attached to 50 & 52 Main Street and associated site work. The project
proposes a mix of residential, office, and retail space. Commercial expansion in the
Main Street zone requires Site Plan review and approval. Staff Comments: The
applicant must obtain a recommendation from the Planning Board to the Zoning Board of
Appeals concerning the associated area variances as well as the expansion of a non-
conforming structure. The Main Street Design guidelines are attached for reference
purposes. I’m going to quickly go through the three Area Variances that are before you
tonight. Area Variance for front setback relief: The design guidelines for Main Street
require the applicant to locate the building front twenty one (21) feet from the edge of the
pavement of Main Street after it is widened. This is known as the build-to line. The
closest building to the build-to line is the 1 ½ story wood framed house at 43 feet. Thus,
the applicant is seeking 22 feet of front setback relief. The second Area Variance is for
west side line setback relief: The design guidelines for Main Street require the applicant
to locate the building zero to twenty (0-20) feet from side property line. The fact that
existing conditions have the west structure 3.8 feet over the side property line and the
Queensbury Town Board has authorized the continued use of this minor encroachment
onto Richardson Street, the relief is for all expansion proposed for that portion outside of
the west property line. The applicant proposes a second story expansion to the west
structure for office space. Finally, the variance for the expansion of a nonconforming
2
(Queensbury Planning Board 9/10/09)
structure: This component of relief is predicated upon the western most structure
encroaching onto the Richardson Avenue R.O.W. and the proposed expansion of said
project. With that, there are additional comments that speak to the Main Street Design
Guidelines, and I will, at this point, turn it over to the Board.
MR. HUNSINGER-Good evening.
STAN DOBERT
MR. DOBERT-Hi
MR. HUNSINGER-If you could identify yourself for the record.
MR. DOBERT-Yes. My name is Stan Dobert.
MR. HUNSINGER-Did you have anything you want to add about your project?
MR. DOBERT-Well, the fact that we’re looking at private investment to upgrade the
property. So that’s the biggest thing. We’ve owned the property since 1987, and it’s
kicked along, and we’ve waited for the road construction to come through, and that’s
been a big waiting game for the last 10 years. So now we’re ready to do it, and it looks
like the road’s going to go through. So we’re very excited to do this project.
MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. I’ll open it up for questions, comments from member of the
Board.
MR. SEGULJIC-It is definitely an interesting project. So what you plan on doing is taking
the two existing structures, building a second floor on those?
MR. DOBERT-Well, first bridge.
MR. SEGULJIC-Okay, build infill.
MR. DOBERT-Bridge the building, yes.
MR. SEGULJIC-And then build a second floor across the entire structure.
MR. DOBERT-Correct, yes.
MR. SEGULJIC-Okay.
MR. DOBERT-Actually not across the entire structure. The middle structure that you
see, the largest dark one, is, it’s self-standing cinderblock building, was used as a
garage for many years. There you go, so the one with the awnings in front of it was a
garage until we changed the building to conform to the guidelines to make it a non-
garage.
MR. SEGULJIC-So, and then you proposed, I think it was, retail office space.
MR. DOBERT-Combination retail/office, and on the second floor residential.
MR. SEGULJIC-Residential. Have you done any structural evaluations on these
buildings? I guess one of my concerns is you start into the project and you find out that
it’s not going to happen, you’ve got to tear them all down and start fresh.
MR. DOBERT-Yes. We’ve looked at the structure, and there’s a full basement on, the
one that we see right here is a slab with a frost wall, and we’ve dug down and looked at
the foundation and it’s pretty solid. Cinderblock is a frost wall with a poured slab that’s a
relatively newer building compared to the other two, and then the residential house is a
full basement combination older foundation and newer foundation combination.
MR. SEGULJIC-How about the structures themselves.
MR. DOBERT-It’s mostly two by four (lost word) two by six construction.
MR. SEGULJIC-So someone’s looked at it and you’ve decided you can build on it?
MR. DOBERT-Yes. So we’ve done, originally got this property in ’87, and it was an old
firehouse for a long time. The building on the Richardson side was a firehouse. So we
3
(Queensbury Planning Board 9/10/09)
had to take everything down. The interior walls re-support, and then re-wire and re-
plumb and everything. So we know the building very well.
MR. SEGULJIC-Okay.
MR. DOBERT-All three buildings, actually.
MR. SEGULJIC-Now, I remember looking at your plans, and I can’t find it now, but you
propose to have parking in the front also?
MR. DOBERT-Yes, that’s correct.
MR. SEGULJIC-And you need those parking spaces there to meet your parking
requirements, then?
MR. DOBERT-Well, there is no.
MR. OBORNE-Right. There’s no parking requirements for the Main Street district.
MR. DOBERT-But for the history of the building, we’ve had drive through and parking for
many, many years, and we’d like to keep it.
MR. SEGULJIC-Okay, and then could you explain to me that second variance request?
We’re actually into the, they’ve encroached, but.
MR. OBORNE-Yes. That has to do with the westernmost portion of the lot, and let me
get the overhead for you. You can basically see it up there. It encroaches on the right of
way right there. Now the Town Board has given them the ability or the approval to
continue to encroach on that right of way.
MR. SEGULJIC-Right. Then in your notes you went on further to state that the relief is
for all expansion proposed for that portion outside of the west side boundary line.
MR. OBORNE-Right. Anything that’s expanded in that right of way area, the second
story that they’re proposing, that’s the expansion of a nonconforming structure. That
structure is currently nonconforming because it’s over the line.
MR. SEGULJIC-Okay. So the Town Board granted.
MR. OBORNE-A minor encroachment variance.
MR. SEGULJIC-Okay, but then they’re going to continue to build up, and that’s where
(lost words).
MR. OBORNE-Right, and they have to go to the Zoning Board of Appeals to get approval
to do that.
MR. SEGULJIC-Okay.
MR. SCHONEWOLF-And the encroachment can’t be increased, if I read the resolution
right.
MR. OBORNE-Correct, it cannot be increased. That is correct.
MR. SIPP-Are you aware that all the parking will have to be in the rear, set up on the
Main Street?
MR. DOBERT-I am aware that those are the.
MR. SIPP-Are you going to have enough room for?
MR. DOBERT-I’m aware that the Main Street guidelines encourage parking in the rear.
However, our building, is, as you can see, is set back, and that’s one of the first
variances that we’re requesting is setback quite a ways. If we were to build to the line,
we would have to bring our, all buildings up maybe 15 feet or so, and that would
discourage any development, because it would just be cost prohibitive. So we have all
this area in the front that we would like to utilize for parking, and the curb cuts are
encouraged.
4
(Queensbury Planning Board 9/10/09)
MR. SIPP-You’re going to have to have a variance for that.
MR. DOBERT-For the parking in the front.
MR. SEGULJIC-I guess where I sit on this project is, I mean, I think it’s great to recycle
the buildings. I can understand why you wouldn’t want to tear them down and bring them
forward, but I think that we should try and respect the Main Street Guidelines and get the
parking in back, or at least minimize the parking in the front.
MR. DOBERT-The Guidelines encourage curb cuts in the front, and on the side. So
there is drive thru encouraged, but no parking.
MR. SEGULJIC-But that’s off the side road, I believe.
MR. DOBERT-And off the front.
MR. OBORNE-Yes. We wouldn’t want to encourage off the arterial road or Main Street.
It’s not prohibited, but we wouldn’t encourage that. We would much prefer to have any
access, ingress and egress, off of what is a collector road or Richardson Avenue. I do
want to state that, as far as the Design Guidelines go, for existing structures, and that’s,
it’s that they are to build hedges up to the build to line, or fences, picket fences along that
area, up to the build to line.
MR. SEGULJIC-So if I understand you, from the street back, onto the site 21 feet?
MR. OBORNE-Correct.
MR. SEGULJIC-Which wouldn’t make sense, and how much room would that leave you,
then? Another 20 feet, if I’m?
MR. OBORNE-Well, you’re asking for 22 feet of relief I believe.
MR. DOBERT-Yes, 22 feet. So, in our eyes, there’s plenty of room for parking, and
since cars will be driving through, both ways off Main Street and off Richardson. We can
minimize the parking, maybe.
MR. SEGULJIC-Well, I guess, personally, what I’d like to see, I’m only speaking for
myself, is that you respect the build to line. You have the hedges, and some type of
landscaping, I like trees, from the street up to the 21 foot line, I believe, 21 foot line, and
then beyond that, put parking if you need it there, although I’d rather see nothing in the
front, but I can understand because you’re back further. Is that making sense to you?
MR. DOBERT-Go ahead and repeat that so I’ve really got it.
MR. SEGULJIC-Well, I’m only speaking for myself. We’ve got to see what the rest of the
Board says, but the build to line is 21 feet from the road, and as Keith just pointed out,
that if you can’t build to that line, it’s encouraged that you have hedging or landscaping
up to that point, from the street 21 feet back into the site. In your case the building is at
40 feet or whatever.
MR. DOBERT-Forty-two feet.
MR. SEGULJIC-So at a minimum what I’d like to see is that landscaping up to 21 feet,
and then, although I’d prefer it not be there if you needed the parking, you could have
parking at 20 feet and then have the building, okay.
MR. DOBERT-That would probably eliminate the, or it would do something to the
Richardson curb cut or the drive thru.
MR. OBORNE-You’d have to re-engineer that, and the Code specifically states that
parking in the front is prohibited. The Planning Board can waive that. Prohibited is a
pretty strong word. I think the Code is trying to say don’t do it.
MR. DOBERT-So currently there’s no trees on there, but we, in our landscaping plan, are
putting many trees and hedges in.
MR. SEGULJIC-And understand, we’re trying to, I mean, this is just me speak, Main
Street isn’t a very pleasant looking place right now.
5
(Queensbury Planning Board 9/10/09)
MR. DOBERT-I would agree. Any start is a good start.
MR. SEGULJIC-And I think you can, what we’re trying to do is improve it, and thankful to
people like you stepping up, hopefully we can do that.
MR. HUNSINGER-Does anyone else have any comments? I do like your building
design. I think the façade is very attractive, and I think the façade does lend itself to the
Main Street Design, you know, with the two story and you’re filling it in, the infill is two
stories, and you’re doing some things with the parapet out front to make it look like it’s
two story, so I think your building design is good, but I do have to agree with Tom’s
comments about the parking and the front lawn use. In terms of, you know, like the
number of parking spaces, did you basically just, you know, put the parking spaces to
work the design, the flow, or did you figure out, well, we need, you know, X number of
parking spaces and that’s why we laid the parking out the way we did?
MR. DOBERT-Originally we looked at the retail and office space on the first floor and the
residential on the second, and then just calculated based on the format that we were
given, calculated the number of parking spaces to be in the neighborhood of 20, and
then just laid them out accordingly, but there is no parking requirement on the Main
Street corridor.
MR. HUNSINGER-Right. Well, that’s what I was asking, you know, if you had
calculated, internally, what you felt you needed for parking, and that’s why you ended up
with the number of spaces you show.
MR. DOBERT-Yes, that’s kind of how we did it.
MR. HUNSINGER-Yes. The other question that I had is, it wasn’t clear from the plans
what would be immediately in front of the building, if there would be green space or if that
would just be, well, it’s labeled as two way traffic. Would that just be the traffic corridor?
MR. DOBERT-Yes. Coming off Main Street, it will be a traffic corridor. On that side of
the street, there’s a proposed bike and walking lane going down through there. So we
figured it would encourage pedestrian traffic also, and on the lower, left hand side of the
screen, you can see where there’s a road, traffic that comes in through there. So we
thought that having the traffic coming in and out of the retail and office in the front,
maybe someone would want to park occasionally run in, get something, come out, and
that’s why we provided the parking in the front.
MR. HUNSINGER-Okay.
MR. DOBERT-And we did go ahead and get an easement for the, the grant of the
easement. We also got the language in there saying that parking is okay. So the
second to the last page on the grant of easement says that the grantor shall retain the
privilege to utilize the unoccupied easement area for vehicular parking. So, National
Grid is saying it’s okay.
MR. HUNSINGER-Anyone else have any comments? What’s the opinion of the Board?
MR. TRAVER-Well, they’re specifically asking us for these two, I’m sorry, three
variances. Two and Three I think are addressed because it’s a pre-existing situation, as
I understand it. So we’re mainly left with the front setback, and if the applicant can
address the build to line with the landscaping, that should address that. There really isn’t
anything in here, at this point, about parking.
MR. OBORNE-Yes, that would be a Site Plan issue.
MR. HUNSINGER-Yes.
MR. SEGULJIC-So we really don’t even have to, in our motion, say anything about that
at this point?
MR. OBORNE-If you care not to, that’s fine. I think the applicant’s on notice that you’re
not wild about parking in the front, but it will be taken care of at Site Plan.
MR. SEGULJIC-Okay, because what I was just doing is coming up with a motion
whereas, you know, granting the three requested variances. However, further stating
that the Planning Board strongly encourages the applicant to provide parking to the rear
of the building, and the vegetation at the 21 foot build to line.
6
(Queensbury Planning Board 9/10/09)
MR. DOBERT-How about parking that wouldn’t be impervious, you know the pavers.
Does that qualify as landscaping, where that water goes down into the ground?
MR. OBORNE-No, that would still be considered, it would still be considered a parking
area, even if it’s impervious. That has to do with your permeability, and your site
permeability is, quite honestly, fabulous for this site.
MR. DOBERT-Just, the Design Guidelines are encouraging pedestrian usage of that
area, a hometown feel, so to speak, and they highly promote parking in the rear with
interconnects with adjoining properties, thus reducing the amount of spaces required per
the Code for that type of use, but that would be more of a Site Plan issue at that point.
MR. SEGULJIC-Okay. So is everyone ready for a motion, then?
MR. HUNSINGER-Yes.
MOTION THAT THE QUEENSBURY PLANNING BOARD RECOMMENDS TO THE
QUEENSBURY ZONING BOARD THAT THE VARIANCES REQUESTED FOR MARVIN
DOBERT UNDER AREA VARIANCE NO. 42-2009 BE GRANTED. IN PARTICULAR,
THE FOLLOWING VARIANCES BE APPROVED: SETBACK RELIEF, WEST LINE
SETBACK, AND EXPANSION FOR NONCONFORMING STRUCTURES., Introduced by
Thomas Seguljic who moved for its adoption, seconded by Donald Sipp:
th
Duly adopted this 10 day of September, 2009, by the following vote:
MR. TRAVER-With regard to the front setback relief, were we going to recommend any
conditioning on the streetscape elements to the build line?
MR. SEGULJIC-That would become a Site Plan issue. So at that point we would
address that, and I think the applicant, at this point, understands.
MR. TRAVER-I see. Okay.
MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. Everyone clear on what we’re recommending? Okay. Call the
vote, please.
AYES: Mr. Traver, Mr. Schonewolf, Mr. Jackoski, Mr. Seguljic, Mr. Sipp, Mr. Hunsinger
NOES: NONE
ABSENT: Mr. Ford
MR. HUNSINGER-Do you understand what we did?
MR. DOBERT-I do, thank you.
MR. HUNSINGER-Yes. We made it so you need to go before the Zoning Board now and
assuming they award the variances, then you’ll be back for Site Plan Review.
MR. DOBERT-Okay. Thank you.
MR. HUNSINGER-Thank you. Good luck.
AREA VARIANCE NO. 43-2009: NBT BANK, N.A.
APPLICANT PROPOSES RECONFIGURATION OF EXISTING 2,344 SQ. FT.
RESTAURANT TO BRANCH BANK FACILITY TO INCLUDE A DRIVE-THROUGH
CANOPY AND 110 SQ. FT. FOYER. APPLICANT IS REQUESTING RELIEF FROM
REAR YARD SETBACK REQUIREMENTS OF THE COMMERCIAL INTENSIVE ZONE.
ANDREW KOWALCZYK, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT
MR. HUNSINGER-Keith, whenever you’re ready to summarize your Staff Notes, please.
MR. OBORNE-Application Area Variance 43-2009 and Site Plan 48-2009, applicant NBT
Bank, N.A. Requested Action: Recommendation to Zoning Board of Appeals. Location:
242 Quaker Road Existing Zoning is Commercial Intensive. This is a Type II. No further
review needed. Project Description: Applicant proposes conversion from current use
[restaurant] to branch bank facility to include drive-through teller, ATM machine, façade
7
(Queensbury Planning Board 9/10/09)
and internal changes and associated site work. Change of use in the CI zone requires
Site Plan review and approval. Staff Comments: The applicant must obtain a
recommendation from the Planning Board to the Zoning Board of Appeals concerning
rear setback relief associated with this site plan. Nature of Area Variance: Area
Variance for rear setback relief. The applicant proposes a drive-thru canopy that
extends 5.0 feet within the 25 foot rear setback. The applicant requests 5.0 feet or 20%
of rear setback relief from the 25 foot rear setback requirement per §179-3-040. What
follows is the first bite at the apple for the Planning Board as far as Site Plan Review.
Those are the Site Plan Review comments. The only reason that they’re here is that
their canopy as designed is encroaching five feet within the rear setback, and with that
I’d turn it over to the Board.
MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. Thank you. Good evening.
ANDREW KOWALCZYK
MR. KOWALCZYK-Good evening.
MR. HUNSINGER-If you could identify yourselves for the record.
MR. KOWALCZYK-Sure. My name is Andrew Kowalczyk. I’m an attorney at law. I
representing NBT Bank, the applicant. Also before this proceeding I represent Tammy
Calabrese, who is the land owner and current occupant of the premises, and Ms.
Calabrese is present this evening. To my left is Daniel Burke, the Bank’s Regional
President.
MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. Did you have anything to add?
MR. KOWALCZYK-The only indication that I would add, there were a list, I believe, of
other, eight other comments made by the Staff, and two of them I think we should visit
with this Board this evening. They have indicated that the interconnect with Denny’s
restaurant to the east should be maintained, and we’d have responses to that. In
accordance with your Zoning Ordinance, I contacted both the occupants of the Sunoco
convenience store and the franchisee Denny’s, and the Sunoco’s operators did not
prefer an interconnect and your Staff also does not request an interconnect in that area
for the very same reason. I contacted the Denny’s franchisee, and the Denny’s
franchisee immediately indicated to us that he would recommend closing the
interconnect at the rear of the properties because it did not benefit his restaurant.
However, we believe most importantly, if you look at the Bank’s Site Plan, it’s a
counterclockwise movement of traffic that we propose goes through three lanes, two
being tellers, one an ATM. That traffic will be exiting those three lanes and heading
directly into the existing cut to Denny’s, such that if a vehicle was entering this property
from Denny’s, they would be facing head on the traffic coming out of the drive thru lane,
and they would be making a right turn. So we believe maintaining that cut through does
not benefit either of the land owners or either of the proposed tenancies such that we
would propose that it would be closed rather than continued to be opened. We do
propose, and I think that the Staff agrees with us, as I understand the comments, that a
counterclockwise path be maintained. Item Eight indicates that the overhead lighting
luminants appears excessive. I don’t have the statute with me this evening, but the
Federal statutes require a specific illumination over an ATM machine and that is the
wattage that we’ve proposed. I can obtain the statute for you if you wish, but I would
also remind this Board that the illumination over the ATM is directed at the ATM and at
the pavement, so that it does not spread, and even if it did spread a little, it would spread
only to the rear of the convenience store on one side, to the rear of Denny’s restaurant
on the other, and into a water retention pond that would be directly behind it. The
variance that we’re seeking this evening, we propose, hopefully, is minimal. It’s a
canopy, and the canopy would invade five feet of your zoning 25 foot setback restriction
in the rear, such that it would be 20 feet, and at that property line we’re bordered by a
water retention pond.
MR. HUNSINGER-Anything else?
MR. KOWALCZYK-Not from us.
MR. HUNSINGER-Questions, comments from members of the Board?
MR. SEGULJIC-I have no issues with the setback relief. It sounds reasonable to me.
8
(Queensbury Planning Board 9/10/09)
MR. TRAVER-Yes. I don’t have any problem with the canopy issue. I guess with
regards to the interconnect, Keith, could you explain a little bit more about the, or remind
me a little bit about the interconnect concept and how it might be appropriate for this site
after it’s converted into a bank.
MR. OBORNE-Sure. It’s to promote traffic movement between uses, not using an
arterial road or adding more traffic counts to an arterial road. It is, again, to promote
vehicular movement throughout the Main Street, or not the Main Street, throughout this
Commercial Intensive corridor. It’s not promoted in every area, but certainly in
Commercial Intensive areas, it certainly is.
MR. TRAVER-Right. With that in mind, and keeping in mind the concerns expressed by
the applicant, would an alternative to closing the interconnect be possibly to put signage
up making that one way from the Bank to Denny’s, so that there would not be traffic
coming against the flow of the Banking traffic?
MR. OBORNE-I’d have to look at that on the Site Plan. I probably, just kneejerk reaction,
would not want that. If anything, I would, and this is, again, off the cuff, is to direct the
traffic from the innermost teller window and the center teller window to go left, and then
any other traffic should be allowed to go through, either way, and then signage saying do
not enter if you’re coming through Denny’s into the Bank, you have to make a right.
That’s all.
MR. TRAVER-Okay. Thank you.
MR. OBORNE-And again, that is a Site Plan issue.
MR. TRAVER-Right. Thank you.
MR. HUNSINGER-I can understand the applicant’s comments, though, because if they, I
mean, you essentially have one way traffic.
MR. KOWALCZYK-We do.
MR. HUNSINGER-As it’s designed.
MR. KOWALCZYK-And it’s reasonably tight, but again, I would defer to when we’re
before you on Site Plan as well to speak further on.
MR. OBORNE-It certainly can be explored in depth later on. There is a current
interconnect between the two properties. In fact, all three properties have interconnects.
MR. HUNSINGER-Right.
MR. OBORNE-But the one with the gas station, there’s parking spaces in front of that
interconnect.
MR. HUNSINGER-And I remember we had this same issue with a bank drive thru on
Aviation Road, the Glens Falls National Bank.
MR. TRAVER-We’ve also had the issue with the illumination of the ATM.
MR. HUNSINGER-Yes.
MR. OBORNE-Yes. New York State Banking Law requires 10 foot candles for that, and
a minimum five foot candles for surveillance cameras. That’s my understanding, unless
that’s changed.
MR. HUNSINGER-Yes, but I had, even before I saw the Staff Notes, I had some
questions on the lighting, you know, we’ll do that when we get to Site Plan Review.
Okay. Would anyone like to put forward a motion, if there’s no further discussion? Tom?
MOTION THAT THE QUEENSBURY PLANNING BOARD RECOMMENDS TO THE
QUEENSBURY ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS RELATIVE TO AREA VARIANCE NO.
43-2009, FOR NBT BANK, THAT THE ZONING BOARD GRANT THE AREA
VARIANCE FOR THE REQUESTED REAR SETBACK RELIEF., Introduced by Thomas
Seguljic who moved for its adoption, seconded by Stephen Traver:
9
(Queensbury Planning Board 9/10/09)
th
Duly adopted this 10 day of September, 2009, by the following vote:
AYES: Mr. Schonewolf, Mr. Jackoski, Mr. Sipp, Mr. Traver, Mr. Seguljic, Mr. Hunsinger
NOES: NONE
ABSENT: Mr. Ford
MR. HUNSINGER-Good luck.
MR. KOWALCZYK-Thank you.
AREA VARIANCE NO. 45-2009: D & G MANAGEMENT, LLC
APPLICANT PROPOSES CONSTRUCTION OF A 6,000 SQ. FT. LIGHT INDUSTRIAL
BUILDING AND REQUESTS RELIEF FROM ROAD FRONTAGE REQUIREMENTS.
MR. HUNSINGER-Keith, whenever you’re ready.
MR. OBORNE-Area Variance 45-2009, D & G Management, LLC. Recommendation to
the Zoning Board of Appeals is the requested action. The location, south side of
Sherman Avenue, opposite Lupine Lane. This is a landlocked parcel. Existing zoning is
Commercial Light Industrial. The SEQR Status is Unlisted for this. Just a note, the
Planning Board does not have to do any SEQR review tonight on the recommendation.
Parcel History, obviously it has a Site Plan, Site Plan 49-2009 pending. Project
Description: Applicant proposes construction of a 6,000 square foot light industrial
building. New commercial construction in the CLI zone requires Site Plan review and
approval. Staff Comments: The applicant must obtain a recommendation from the
Planning Board to the Zoning Board of Appeals concerning road frontage relief per §179-
4-050 of the Town of Queensbury Zoning Code. According to the applicant’s agent,
National Grid will not consider an access easement until an area variance approval for
the project has been obtained. The applicant, post area variance approval, will submit all
necessary documentation to include stormwater, landscaping, lighting, erosion and
sedimentation and grading plans to the Planning Department for site plan review. The
applicant has discussed this scenario with the Zoning Administrator and Planning Staff
and it has been deemed reasonable to move forward in this manner. Nature of Area
Variance: Area Variance from road frontage requirements. Per §179-4-050, every
principle building shall be built upon a lot with frontage upon a public street improved to
meet the standards of the Town of Queensbury. The required frontage for one principle
building shall be at least 50 feet, and such frontage shall provide physical access to and
from the lot to be built upon. As this property is land locked, and the closest property
line is 520 feet from Sherman Avenue, an area variance is required for this project. And
with that, I’d turn it over to the Board.
MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. Thank you. Good evening.
MATT STEVES
MR. STEVES-Good evening. Matt Steves representing D & G Management, together
with George Drellos, one of the principals, representing the application. Again, as Staff
has said, this is a parcel of property that lies south of Sherman Avenue just about a
quarter mile west of the Northway overpass between basically Arbutus Drive and Lupine
Lane. You can see that on the enclosed map, and this is property that they’ve owned.
It’s just over four acres, and it is in the CLI, Commercial Light Industrial zone, and they
would like to utilize it for about a 6,000 square foot commercial building, but the fact
remains that it is landlocked, and that we would come in with a full fledged Site Plan,
would not ask for waivers, once the variance was granted, but it’s kind of crazy to go
through the topography and the soil testing and the stormwater analysis and that, and
not be able to obtain the required variance for the road frontage. As you can see, that
whole area to the north of this property is, you have a Niagara Mohawk power line that
comes into their large acreage that they have just to the east of the site that is where
their substation is located, basically opposite Oak Tree Circle, and then, going north of
that 75 foot ownership by National Grid is lands of about 10 different properties that front
on Sherman Avenue. We’d be proposing to come in on the easterly end of the property
with a 50 foot right of way through National Grid’s property, and exit out onto Sherman
Avenue somewhere in the vicinity of the existing storage units that are there. As you can
see from the aerial that Keith has up, that corner we’re coming into is predominantly
cleared in the area of the National Grid. If anybody’s been over there in recent months,
National Grid cleared all the trees out of there, all the larger trees, and thinned them all
out because they’re having lots of problems, over the years, with the wind storms falling
10
(Queensbury Planning Board 9/10/09)
into that substation. So there is minimal clearing that’s necessary, because of the fact
that most of the trees, if you’ve been over in that area, are cleared out at this point.
There are some trees remaining, but we can move in between those, and again, as Staff
has stated, the National Grid doesn’t really have an issue with it. It’s just the clearance
issue on the power line, but they’re not going to go through the process of permitting and
deeding and describing and getting a license agreement that they call and then find out
that the Town would never move forward with the variance. So, that’s where we are.
MR. HUNSINGER-Do you have the ability to come in off your other property?
MR. STEVES-They’re all, the other properties that D & G owns, that is the mobile home
park, Northwinds, and they’re all occupied.
MR. HUNSINGER-Okay.
MR. STEVES-And those are all like 18 foot wide, the old stone and tar type road, and it
really isn’t suitable for commercial traffic. What they’re looking to do is move their
Sanitary Sewer business here at some point, downsizing that, and having a few trucks, a
dump truck and a trailer come in and out a couple of times a day, and it’s not suitable to
go through those narrow streets inside the trailer park.
MR. HUNSINGER-Okay.
MR. STEVES-And all those sites are occupied as well.
MR. HUNSINGER-Other questions, comments from members of the Board?
MR. SEGULJIC-How did you end up with this parcel?
MR. STEVES-It was originally owned by Ferriss.
MR. SEGULJIC-I guess, how did it get created as such with no access?
MR. STEVES-It was a parcel that was there long before the Northway went in, and there
was a piece that was landlocked, and it was just.
MR. SEGULJIC-So it’s been landlocked.
MR. STEVES-It’s been landlocked for 35 years, I believe, and it was against, like I say,
Dan and George, D & G Management, had the property, then they have since acquired
this landlocked piece, but it was after the fact that they had done their Northwinds Mobile
Home Park, which I think we did in 1984, and they subsequently have purchased this,
but now the Mobile Home Park is completely installed, and like I say, if you go down in
there, there are 90 degree turns and corners. It’s a nice park, and you don’t want to start
putting big commercial vehicles through there. Where, Sherman Avenue and quick
access to Luzerne Road and Veterans Road is right here, and it’s not a usage that would
have a high volume of traffic anyway, but it’s just better suited to come out onto Sherman
Avenue.
MR. SEGULJIC-How much of the area is zoned Commercial Light Industrial?
MR. STEVES-Commercial Light Industrial is from the south line of the subject parcel,
that is included, all the property that National Grid maintains is included, and then
easterly over to the Northway. In the back is a Mobile Home Overlay District.
MR. SEGULJIC-So all of that open area is Commercial Light Industrial and then this plot
we’re looking at is like an appendage that sticks out?
MR. STEVES-That’s correct.
MR. OBORNE-Keep in mind that whole area is Commercial Light Industrial, with a
Mobile Home Overlay District on top of it.
MR. STEVES-To the south.
MR. OBORNE-Correct.
11
(Queensbury Planning Board 9/10/09)
MR. STEVES-That’s correct. So everything basically to the south of our property and
east and west is Commercial Light Industrial, excluding the residential lots north of us, on
the other side of National Grid.
MR. HUNSINGER-And how wide is the National Grid property at that point?
MR. STEVES-That’s a 75 foot wide corridor, until it runs to the easterly border of our
property, then it widens to a parcel that’s approximately 900 feet deep.
MR. HUNSINGER-I mean, when you look at this, I think kind of the first issue that would
come out is any impact on those homes on Sherman Avenue, but with the 75 foot
corridor from NiMo, and, you know, some Site Plan work and such, you know, I don’t
think it would be too bad.
MR. STEVES-And what we’re proposing, as you can see, I mean, we’ll definitely address
all that at Site Plan, but a good point, Chris, is the fact that we’ve put the building to the
back as far as we can. It’s a small building. We put it on the widest portion of that lot,
and we’re not going to be utilizing a large portion of that lot for anything to buffer that.
Mr. Ramstorff on Sherman Avenue, I’ve actually been in contact with my crew, when
they’ve been working out there, and he knows about it and does not have an issue, and
we’re trying to align the driveway as it’s coming out, as you can see, to avoid that power
pole that’s on Sherman Avenue and not, the house that’s across, the lines up not in front
of their house, it lines up to their garage side. So if there would be any headlights
coming out, it wouldn’t be shining in anybody’s front house. So we tried to align it that
way. We can, we do have room to move it over closer to the storage units and line up
right on the property line there for the houses across the street, because the one in the
corner, that’s on, in Hidden Hills, obviously it would be in their backyard, but we’re trying
to, you know, and we will show all those driveways and the locations of the house at Site
Plan, but where it is proposed is to minimize any impact on the houses on the north side
of Sherman.
MR. HUNSINGER-Anyone else have questions, comments?
MR. SEGULJIC-It’s not an ideal situation, but I guess any of the issues we should be
able to deal with at Site Plan.
MR. HUNSINGER-Yes, I think there’s enough room.
MR. SEGULJIC-Because, you know, I’m obviously going to be concerned about impacts
on the neighbors.
MR. STEVES-Absolutely, we can’t even move forward with that until, you know, you
have to be able to get access to the highway, and no matter what we do, we need a
variance.
MR. SEGULJIC-Ready for a motion?
MR. HUNSINGER-I guess we are.
MOTION THAT THE QUEENSBURY PLANNING BOARD RECOMMENDS TO THE
QUEENSBURY ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS RELATIVE TO AREA VARIANCE NO.
45-2009 FOR D & G MANAGEMENT, THAT THE AREA VARIANCE FROM ROAD
FRONTAGE REQUIREMENTS BE GRANTED, AND THAT ISSUES RELATIVE TO THE
SITE DEVELOPMENT BE ADDRESSED AT SITE PLAN., Introduced by Thomas
Seguljic who moved for its adoption, seconded by Stephen Traver:
th
Duly adopted this 10 day of September, 2009, by the following vote:
MR. JACKOSKI-Mr. Chairman, on the advice of Town Counsel, I’ve been asked to
mention that I have, and will continue in the future, to use some of the same agents or
professionals that the applicant is using for this project.
MR. HUNSINGER-Okay.
AYES: Mr. Schonewolf, Mr. Jackoski, Mr. Sipp, Mr. Seguljic, Mr. Traver, Mr. Hunsinger
NOES: NONE
12
(Queensbury Planning Board 9/10/09)
ABSENT: Mr. Ford
MR. STEVES-Thank you.
MR. HUNSINGER-Yes. You’re welcome. Good luck.
AREA VARIANCE 47-2009: STEWART’S SHOPS
APPLICANT PROPOSES CONSTRUCTION OF A 5,022 SQ. FT. STEWARTS STORE
AND BANK RENTAL. APPLICANT REQUESTS RELIEF FROM THE TRAVEL
CORRIDOR SETBACK REQUIREMENTS.
MR. HUNSINGER-Keith, whenever you’re ready to summarize Staff Notes.
MR. OBORNE-Sure. The requested action is recommendation to the Zoning Board of
Appeals. Location is 1002 Route 9. This is in a Commercial Moderate zone. SEQRA
Status is Type Unlisted. Again, the Planning Board does not have to do any SEQRA
tonight. The Project Description: Applicant proposes construction of a 5,022 square foot
convenience store with a bank rental. New commercial construction in the CM zone
requires Site Plan review and approval. Staff Comments: The applicant must obtain a
recommendation from the Planning Board to the Zoning Board of Appeals concerning
travel corridor setback relief per §179-4-030 for the gas island canopy associated with
this site plan. Nature of Area Variance: Area Variance for Travel Corridor setback relief.
The applicant is requesting 37 feet or 49% relief from the 75 foot Travel Corridor setback
requirement for the Route 9 Travel Corridor Overlay Zone per §179-4-030.
MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. Thank you. Good evening.
TOM LEWIS
MR. LEWIS-I’m Tom Lewis, the Real Estate representative of Stewarts Shops and this is
one of the owners, Alyssa Barber Dawkins. What we are proposing to do is to put, have
a gas island so that it matches the front of both the restaurants on both the left and right.
We certainly don’t think this will be a detriment to the neighborhood. In fact, Alyssa
actually got a written letter in favor of this from seven of nine neighbors that surround us
and behind us, and I’ll hand that in to the record. This is a 1.5 acre parcel. If this thing
th
happens, this’ll be my 99 store.
MR. HUNSINGER-Wow.
MR. LEWIS-This is the second largest piece I’ve ever had under contract, and we’re
asking for a 40 foot variance. Why is that? That’s what I’m about to go into. If you look
at the setback area that’s on that first sheet that I handed out, 56% of this 1.5 acres is in
the setback area, and that’s the reason why we need a 35 foot variance. The actual
structures, if you include the gas canopy, are 12%. So it’s not like we have a whole lot
on there. Now the four sheets that I handed out, let me go over each of those, because I
think that makes the case. You’ll see on the cover of Sheet One, on the west side of the
canopy, there’s a red line, and that red line shows how the canopy lines up with the
restaurants that are on either side. You’ll notice that right in the center there are three
cars. There’s one car which is extending beyond the edge of the canopy, and then there
are two cars further to the east that have arrows on them. Does everyone see that? So,
this shows you the relationship that we must have between the building and the gas
canopy. So cars don’t hit each other. Now some people will look at the car under the
canopy and say, well, that car really isn’t under the canopy. Why is it edged over. Well,
you’ll see that the next time you guys go get gas, almost anywhere where the nozzle fits
inside the car, you will almost always edge out either way, and then the next car to the
east with an arrow that points south, that has to be a travel lane that you have to have
between the canopy and the parking spaces, and then the next car that has an arrow
shows the car backing out, so that the car backing out doesn’t hit the car that’s in the
travel lane. Now your next sheet, Number Two, shows what if the setback were 50 feet,
because I think the setback here is 50, but in the Travel Overlay lane it moves to a 75,
and there you’ll see, even at 50, I mean, we certainly want to ask the minimum variance
possible, but if you look at the same three cars, you’ll see the car backing up and the car
in the travel lane are likely to hit each other, in addition to which, if you look at the rear of
the building, that it shows our delivery truck, and now there’s not enough room behind
that to have a car who goes up to the Bank, and this will obviously be one way around
the Bank, and then the car’s going to hit the truck. Now your next sheet shows that if we
don’t get the variance, we don’t have a project. Because there’s no drive around, and
again, the difficulty is more than half of all this land is not buildable because of how the
setbacks are, and then our final sheet shows the buffer between our shop, if we get the
13
(Queensbury Planning Board 9/10/09)
variance, and the residences, which I assume is why almost every one of them, you
know, signed the piece of paper saying they had no problem with this project, and you’ll
see that you’re 233 feet from one house and 241 feet from another. So we’re certainly
hoping that this Board will make a positive recommendation to the Zoning Board, and
then we’ll make the balancing test with the Zoning Board next week.
MR. HUNSINGER-Questions, comments from the Board?
MR. SCHONEWOLF-Keith, this looks almost identical to the positioning of Cumberland
Farms up the street. Is it?
MR. OBORNE-Yes. Very similar, sure.
MR. LEWIS-It’s the same kind of business.
MR. SCHONEWOLF-Well, then it’s positioned the same way. It’s got about the same
distance. That’s my point. They have a side road which is probably a negative, from the
near misses I’ve seen there, rather than just coming in off the.
MR. LEWIS-No, I mean, this is a very comfortable lot, where we’re pretty happy with it,
except for the variance.
MR. HUNSINGER-I would be negligent if I didn’t commend you on your building design,
and I really like the new one that you built up in Lake George, too.
MR. LEWIS-Thank you. Yes, this is very similar. The way that building was positioned
doesn’t allow the exact same thing here.
MR. HUNSINGER-Right.
MR. LEWIS-But it’s exactly the same.
MR. HUNSINGER-The same concept.
MR. LEWIS-And hopefully the Zoning Board will think the same thing.
MR. HUNSINGER-Yes.
MR. SEGULJIC-Excuse me, Keith, pardon my ignorance. What is the purpose of the 75
foot travel lane, or the Overlay?
MR. OBORNE-For safety purposes, for visual ingress and egress, to have a wider field
of vision, I think would be one of the reasons. There are probably aesthetic reasons
also, to put more landscaping.
MR. SEGULJIC-Okay, but it doesn’t really have anything to do with the DOT possibly
taking that land over in the future?
MR. OBORNE-No.
MR. SEGULJIC-Okay.
MR. HUNSINGER-How much of an exact science is it? I mean, the handout that you
just gave us, I mean, basically the first three, you’re moving not just the building but also
the canopy. So how much of an exact science is it in the distance between the road and
then the canopy and the canopy and the store?
MR. LEWIS-It’s a very exact science.
MR. HUNSINGER-Yes, and I figured that.
MR. LEWIS-There’s not a lot of sciences in my business, but that is, because after you
build a lot of these, guess what, you get sued a lot, so you say, well, why did that
happen, you know, because I had this narrower than it should have been, or this wider
than it should have been.
MR. HUNSINGER-Yes, and in a lot of your substandard sites, you’ve taken out the gas
pumps.
14
(Queensbury Planning Board 9/10/09)
MR. LEWIS-And there are some substandard ones out there.
MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. Any concerns? Anyone want to put forward a motion, if there’s
no further comments or questions?
MR. SEGULJIC-Okay.
MOTION THAT THE QUEENSBURY PLANNING BOARD RECOMMENDS TO THE
QUEENSBURY ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS, RELATIVE TO AREA VARIANCE NO.
47-2009 STEWARTS SHOPS, THAT THE AREA VARIANCE TRAVEL CORRIDOR
SETBACK RELIEF BE GRANTED, Introduced by Thomas Seguljic who moved for its
adoption, seconded by Stephen Traver:
th
Duly adopted this 10 day of September, 2009, by the following vote:
MR. JACKOSKI-Mr. Chairman, in the intent of full disclosure, I have a contractual
relationship on a parcel of property within the immediate area of this parcel, and I just
wanted to let everybody know that.
MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. Thank you.
AYES: Mr. Schonewolf, Mr. Jackoski, Mr. Sipp, Mr. Seguljic, Mr. Traver, Mr. Hunsinger
NOES: NONE
ABSENT: Mr. Ford
MR. LEWIS-Thank you very much.
MR. HUNSINGER-Good luck.
MR. LEWIS-Hopefully we’ll see you in a few weeks, if we get past zoning.
MR. HUNSINGER-Thank you.
AREA VARIANCE 49-2009: RAY & WENDY KRAFT
APPLICANT PROPOSES CONSTRUCTION OF A 14-SLIP 3 DOCK MARINA. RELIEF
REQUESTED FROM MINIMUM SETBACK REQUIREMENTS FROM ADJACENT
PROPERTY LINE FOR TWO OF THE PROPOSED DOCKS.
MR. OBORNE-Area Variance 49-2009, Special Use Permit 52-2009, and Freshwater
Wetlands Permit 8-2009. Applicant Ray and Wendy Kraft. Requested Action:
Recommendation to the Zoning Board of Appeals. Location is 25 Cleverdale Road. The
existing zoning is Waterfront Residential. SEQRA Status Unlisted. Project Description:
Applicant proposes construction of a 14 slip 3 dock marina. Marinas are permitted by
Special Use Permit in the WR zone. Staff Comments: The applicant must obtain a
recommendation from the Planning Board to the Zoning Board of Appeals concerning
minimum dock setback requirements per §179-5-060. Nature of Area Variance: Area
Variances for minimum setback from adjacent property line. The applicant proposes the
construction of 2 U-shaped docks. The northern dock encroaches 10.1 feet or 50.5%
into the 20 foot required setback line and the adjacent dock to the south encroaches 9.8
feet or 49% into the 20 foot required setback line per §179-5-060A(7). Note: The existing
dock to the south is pre-existing non-conforming and as such is considered a compliant
dock for purposes of this area variance. Concerning this Special Use Permit, which will
be later on in this month, I will not go down that, and I think pretty much the nature of the
Area Variance is as described, and I’d turn it over to the Board.
MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. Thank you. Good evening.
STEFANIE BITTER
MS. BITTER-Good evening. Stefanie Bitter, attorney for the applicant, together with Matt
Steves from Van Dusen and Steves and Mr. and Mrs. Kraft are in the audience. It would
be inappropriate for me not to identify that although we’re here this evening seeking a
recommendation for an Area Variance, the project, as a whole, which I know that you all
have all the literature that we’ve submitted, incorporates five actual requests from two
different Boards. The first is the marina, the Special Use Permit that we are seeking, the
variance, obviously, that you’re aware of, the boundary line adjustment, which is
incorporated with the marina use, the subdivision to create the new parcel, and a
15
(Queensbury Planning Board 9/10/09)
Freshwater Wetlands permit. We put the map up because this is a complicated
submission. The Krafts own two separate parcels. The first one, as I refer to in my
application as the dock parcel, is this 4.42 acre lot here, okay. It obviously maintains the
existing E-shape dock. The second parcel is 47 acres in size, and the way I explained it
was that it maintains the house that’s already there, the tennis courts that we’re
proposing to integrate, and the marina use, and also parcel that’s land hooked on 9L,
okay. The part of the application that we’re here for this evening is dealing with the
marina use. The marina use, due to the land that’s required, requires a boundary line
adjustment from the 47 acre parcel to incorporate 16,000 plus or minus feet into that
parcel to allow for the land to be necessary. That at least gives you an understanding of
two of the requests that we’re seeking. Part of the 47 acre parcel, we’re creating a new
lot which will be located on the northern end into the shoreline. I’m not going to go into
any additional details on that, but at least you know all the prongs that are being
proposed with the project. The marina use is going to also incorporate the tennis court,
which is currently on the 47 acre parcel, to then be utilized for parking, because one of
the main objectives that the Krafts are trying to obtain here is to minimize the disturbance
on this parcel to create this marina use, but they will be constructing the two new U
shaped docks, which are on the northern end of the parcel. Now that we understand all
the parcel details, the total number of slips that we’re going to be proposing with this
marina use is 14. Obviously it’s only eight additional. Six are already maintained. This
is strictly for mooring. They’re going to be converting the existing building that’s located
on that Lot Four for bathroom facilities, and they’re going to try, again, to minimize all
additional disturbance. Where there’s already existing paths, there’s already existing
gravel, we’re going to use whatever’s there. To actually answer one of Staff’s
comments, we can note the paths that are already existing, so that there’s an
understanding of the direction that the pedestrians will take. All existing vegetation will
remain. There’s electricity that’s already existing that we’re going to use. There’s water
pump to the lake that we’re already going to use, and we’re seeking a permanent Special
Use Permit, which we feel is a compatible use to the surrounding area, because Harris
Bay Yacht club is right across the street, or marina. There’s obviously existing facilities
and infrastructure there so, again, minimal disturbance. As to the subdivision, like I said,
it’s just the northernmost end of the parcel. We would be creating a 1.95 acre parcel.
Some of you may recall that the Krafts were before you in April of 2008 and received
Sketch Plan approval for the creation of that lot, or Sketch Plan review, so then that way
it actually is maintained under the old Code, which is why we can request it to be 1.95
acres in size. That parcel will be accessed over the existing right of way. For purposes
of tonight’s meeting, now that I’ve given you all the nuts and bolts and everything else,
we were advised, after we submitted all these applications, that because the boundary
line of the parcel is maintained by the mean low water mark, that a variance would
actually be required for the docks that we were proposing for the 20 foot setback. I’m
going to let Matt actually go into the technical details of that, but we feel that, obviously,
it’s just a technicality in the sense that we’re maintaining it from this mean low water
mark and we have a very unique situation with our shoreline and the extensive shoreline.
Without further ado I’m going to turn it over to Matt for the details on that.
MATT STEVES
MR. STEVES-Yes, good evening. Matt Steves, again, representing the Krafts in this
application. What we’re looking at tonight for the variance is the property line extended
and/or perpendicular to mean high water, where it meets the shoreline, I should say, and
then perpendicular out into the water. In this instance, if I pass around a vicinity map
that’s here, it’s a little bay right down at the end of Harris Bay, and the way it wraps
around, the property line extended, as Keith has put up there, which is perfect, and the
red line to the far left, is you can see how the meandering line in there is really basically
the mean high water mark, and you extend that line out, or perpendicular to where it
meets the shoreline, it’s in essence the same line, and runs parallel to the shore of
Cleverdale, and would cut off every dock that you’d put in. So it’s a unique situation
because it actually falls into like kind of a corner of a Bay, and the property line, in this
unique situation, falls parallel, as you can see on that map, like I say, Keith has up,
would extend straight out and parallel to the shore of Cleverdale for the entire length of
Cleverdale. So typically you’ll have property lines, if you are on Cleverdale, anywhere
along, besides the end of this bay, your lines would extend out into the water, and you
could put your dock in and never come anywhere near the property line, extended or
perpendicular to mean high water, but in this instance, because it’s kind of unique in the
bay, it would require a variance, and that’s why we’re here tonight. The proposed two
new docks are going to be located north of the existing dock that is already currently on
that parcel, and if you look, as you go north from the existing dock that you see there,
you are actually getting farther away from the docks at Harris Bay. So you’re really not
infringing on anybody else’s water rights or usage for the neighboring docks. At the
16
(Queensbury Planning Board 9/10/09)
northerly most dock that is proposed, you’re actually about 170 feet away from the Harris
Bay Yacht Club docks, just because of the fact that we have a unique situation where the
property line runs almost identical in line with the shoreline of Cleverdale. If you don’t
understand, I can depict it a little bit better.
MR. HUNSINGER-We do now, yes.
MR. STEVES-That line right there extends, your Code calls for a line extension or
perpendicular to mean high water where the property line meets the water, and in this
instance, they’re one and the same. So, anything you did along there would require a
variance because you can just see what happens.
MR. SCHONEWOLF-Why does it require a variance from us, seeing that the docks are
in the water and the water’s in the Town of Bolton?
MR. OBORNE-Well, it doesn’t require a variance from the Planning Board, from the
Zoning Board of Appeals.
MR. SCHONEWOLF-Yes, but that’s the Town of Queensbury.
MR. STEVES-Because wherever they are attached to shore, it now becomes part of the
review of that municipality, as well as the Lake George Park Commission. That’s just
how they do it. If it was attached to shore in Queensbury, then Queensbury reviews it. If
it’s attached to shore in Lake George, Lake George reviews it, as well as the Lake
George Park Commission. It just happens to be where it attaches to shore.
MR. HUNSINGER-Yes. I totally didn’t understand this until he just explained it, because
on your Site Plan here, you show the 20 foot setback line to the north, and you’re within
that. So I said I don’t understand why we need this variance.
MR. STEVES-It’s that weird southerly line, like I say, it runs parallel to the entire length of
Cleverdale. I mean, it’s very unique. I don’t think you’ll find this in too many instances in
Lake George, but it does happen.
MR. SCHONEWOLF-When you get down there, it looks like it’s part of Harris Bay
Marina.
MR. STEVES-Correct.
MR. HUNSINGER-But I guess the related question, though, is how close to the proposed
docks, and how close does your existing dock, get to the docks of the Harris Bay
Marina?
MR. STEVES-The new docks will be farther away than the existing docks. The northerly
most dock, and like I say (lost words) Harris Bay docks, not that they substantially move,
but they move slightly, about 175 feet.
MR. HUNSINGER-You’re that far away from them?
MR. STEVES-Correct.
MR. HUNSINGER-See the structure that’s in the water, that Keith has the cursor on?
MR. STEVES-Yes.
MR. HUNSINGER-What’s that? Is that an old dock that’s been removed?
RAY KRAFT
MR. KRAFT-No, that’s the existing dock.
MR. TRAVER-We actually saw that when we visited that site.
MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. Gotcha.
MR. STEVES-That’s the existing E-shaped dock.
MR. HUNSINGER-The E-shaped dock. Okay.
17
(Queensbury Planning Board 9/10/09)
MR. STEVES-The two new docks would be going north of that.
MR. OBORNE-I’m taking the picture from the dock.
MR. HUNSINGER-What confused me on the aerial was the red lines.
MR. STEVES-Gotcha.
MR. HUNSINGER-Because the site that we’re really looking at is outside of the red lines
that are there.
MR. STEVES-Right. They’re trying to depict on there where mean high water is. If we
go back to my survey, if you have a copy of it with you, mean low water is at 317.74, and
it’s an established elevation, and mean high in Lake George is 320.20. If anybody’s
familiar with Harris Bay Yacht Club, they own, everybody owns out to mean low water,
but the State regulates the mean high, but in some instances, you never reach mean
high with elevation. For example, Harris Bay Yacht Club, when you pull off of 9L into
their parking lot, at one time they were at about 318. So when the water elevation came
up in the Spring, they were flooded out. If anybody ever remembers going there before
the 80’s, before they filled in the parking lot, I remember going there with Jim Miller when
we were doing the Site Plan work for that fill in in there, parked into the, right on 9L and
had to wade through the water to get to their office.
MR. SCHONEWOLF-They still do get flooded.
MR. STEVES-They still do, but that’s why you’re in a unique situation there. You never
quite meet the mean high, but you’re between mean high and mean low, and it’s just in
that area where it’s dammed up and there, as you know on the south side of Harris Bay,
it’s a big swamp in there, the big State wetland, and it just kinds of ebbs and flows, never
reaches mean high, because by the time you hit that, you’d be up on 9L. It’s just in the
low area. So that line is, property line is really under water for most of the way, even
though it, you know, you’re in a half a foot, three quarters of a foot of water all the time.
MR. HUNSINGER-Wow.
MR. STEVES-It’s a very unique situation.
MR. SEGULJIC-Pardon my ignorance. I don’t understand the setback requirement, why
that is. Because, I mean, (lost words) perpendicular line from the.
MR. OBORNE-From this point here, it comes out this way. This point here, it would go
out that way.
MR. SEGULJIC-And you have to go perpendicular to that line for your 20 foot setback.
MR. STEVES-Your requirement says that where your property line meets the shore, you
extend that out and then put 20 foot from there, or you draw a line back to the shore
where the property line meets, perpendicular to the mean high water, whichever one has
the least restrictive, most restrictive.
MR. HUNSINGER-So essentially you’re drawing a line like that, and that’s within 20 feet
of these docks.
MR. SEGULJIC-But then if draw a line, you draw a line like this, perpendicular comes off
like this, though.
MR. HUNSINGER-Yes, they overlap.
MR. SEGULJIC-You draw the line like this, and your perpendicular line goes like this.
MR. STEVES-Well, no, your Code says, where it meets the shore, that line extended, so
you just pretend this line extends, or you’ll take this, and you draw a 90 degree angle off
the shoreline where the shore meets. Where your property meets the shoreline, say
your shoreline was this way, and where the shore, your property line hits the shore, then
you turn a 90 off of that line, and whichever is the most restrictive, here the most
restrictive would be the extension of the property line. Then the 20 foot setback from
there puts you right into the docks.
MR. SEGULJIC-Okay.
18
(Queensbury Planning Board 9/10/09)
MR. STEVES-On the north side, here is your property line extended down into the water.
MR. SEGULJIC-Right.
MR. STEVES-And here it is perpendicular to where the property line meets the shore,
running in a line perpendicular to the shoreline, is this one. So we have to use the most
restrictive.
MR. SEGULJIC-So it’s this line here.
MR. STEVES-So you take the perpendicular to the shore, right, and then you apply a 20
foot setback, and then that’s that line, which all three of these meet, but here, no matter
which line you use, extended or perpendicular, it’s the same line. When you apply a 20
foot setback, you’re right through the docks.
MR. SEGULJIC-But you have to take this line, though.
MR. STEVES-Correct, you have to take the most restrictive.
MR. SEGULJIC-So without the variance, you couldn’t build either dock.
MR. STEVES-That’s correct, because of the fact, if you look at that line extended, it
basically is parallel to the shore all the way.
MR. HUNSINGER-Yes.
MR. STEVES-But what the purpose of that Code is for, if you take the most restrictive for
you, it is obviously the least restrictive for the neighbor.
MR. HUNSINGER-Right.
MR. STEVES-And then if the neighbor takes the most restrictive, it’s the least restrictive
for you. So what that is creating is this pie-shaped (lost words) of an area for boat traffic
and motorist traffic in the water, to allow the most distance between docks, so that you
have the most navigation room, and that’s what it’s for, but looking at that aspect of why
they implemented the setbacks, our docks are going to continue to get farther away from
Harris Bay, even though we don’t meet the setback, because of the unique situation of
the property line.
MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. Everyone understand that now? Anyone have any questions,
comments?
MR. SIPP-I have a question that may not be involved tonight, but I just wanted to find
out, on the first page of your handout on subdivision of boundary line adjustment, down
in the second paragraph, where you say, as you are aware, since this application was
reviewed in April of 2008, this will continue to be re-reviewed under the old Code, and
WR-1A zoning. Now, am I correct in say that this is in a CEA, therefore the new zoning
laws apply?
MR. OBORNE-I’m not sure what, off the top of my head, what the determination from the
Zoning Administrator was, I’d have to look into that. I think it’s been through Sketch. So
it’s an active subdivision.
MS. BITTER-I only put that in the letter because we met with Keith and Craig extensively
before we submitted this. So it was to the purposes of our discussions to document that,
why it was coming in with a 1.96 acre lot.
MR. OBORNE-But that’s the long and the short of it. I don’t have it off the top of my
head, Don.
MR. SEGULJIC-But if it came in under the new Code, would it make any difference?
MR. OBORNE-Yes. It would have to be a two acre lot.
MR. STEVES-It’s a 1.96 acre.
MR. OBORNE-Yes.
19
(Queensbury Planning Board 9/10/09)
MR. SEGULJIC-Because I do remember that provision.
MR. SIPP-See, this was applied in another, one we had a couple of weeks ago, on that
lot on Dark Bay.
MR. OBORNE-Correct.
MR. STEVES-It’s really a distinct, separate application.
MR. SIPP-Where the new zoning laws applied.
MR. OBORNE-Because that project was denied, and then it came in as a new Site Plan.
MR. SIPP-Right.
MR. OBORNE-This is an old subdivision, reviewed back in April of ’08.
MS. BITTER-So it continues to be attached to that old Code.
MR. OBORNE-Right. It is attached to the old Code. Now, I will look into that.
MR. SIPP-Okay. There’s just confusion here as to what Code will apply.
MR. OBORNE-Right, and I’ll get clarification on that. I know we have looked at it
extensively as Counsel has stated.
MR. SEGULJIC-And aren’t we in some ways putting the cart before the horse if you don’t
have your Lake George Park Commission approvals yet?
MS. BITTER-Actually you’ve been working with the Lake George Park Commission, is
that correct, with regards to the modifications.
MR. KRAFT-Well, I do have a Lake George Park Commission marina permit on that
parcel.
MS. BITTER-For the E-shaped lot.
MR. SEGULJIC-Right, but you don’t have it for the additional.
MR. KRAFT-I can’t get an additional until I have the variance.
MR. SEGULJIC-You can’t get that until you have the variance.
MS. BITTER-We’ve got a lot of horses here.
MR. SEGULJIC-Well, here’s my stand on this, and I realize you’re in a unique situation,
but when you’re in a CEA, there shouldn’t be any variances. CEA’s were meant to
protect and we’re always granting these different variances. If there’s a place where the
Code should stay, it’s in the CEA.
MS. BITTER-Right, and if we had a square shaped lot, I could appreciate that, but we’re
not talking about a little one acre, you know, square shaped lot that we’re trying to
extensively use to the fullest capacity, you know, we’re talking about.
MR. SEGULJIC-But you also have how many boats are going to be in the corner of this
Bay now?
MS. BITTER-Well, it’s not necessarily the corner. We’re actually extending it to the
north.
MR. SEGULJIC-Right. So why, I mean, in some ways we’re adding more to it.
MS. BITTER-Right, and we’re actually, we’re also dealing with 49 acres in total. We’re
not dealing with, like I said, a small, one acre lot.
MR. HUNSINGER-Your concerns are noted. Would anyone like to put forward a
resolution? A recommendation to the Zoning Board?
20
(Queensbury Planning Board 9/10/09)
MOTION THAT THE QUEENSBURY PLANNING BOARD RECOMMENDS TO THE
QUEENSBURY ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS RELATIVE TO AREA VARIANCE NO.
49-2009 FOR RAY AND WENDY KRAFT, THAT THE AREA VARIANCE FOR MINIMUM
SETBACK FROM ADJACENT PROPERTIES NOT BE GRANTED, DUE TO THE
PROJECT’S LOCATION WITHIN THE CEA., Introduced by Thomas Seguljic who moved
for its adoption, seconded by Donald Sipp:
th
Duly adopted this 10 day of September, 2009, by the following vote:
MS. BITTER-If I could just request a discussion from that motion, if possible.
MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. We have a motion. Is there a second?
MR. SIPP-I’ll second that.
MR. HUNSINGER-We have a second. Okay. Any discussion?
MS. BITTER-I just would like to reiterate that, like I said, when we submitted these
applications and had extensive discussions, there was no thought that a variance was
requested. It was later. So there was a lot of thought put into these applications.
MR. HUNSINGER-Okay.
MR. JACKOSKI-Mr. Chairman, I, again, have to mention that I continue to use, and will
use in the future, some of the agents of this particular applicant.
MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. Thank you. Any further discussion? Hearing none, call the
vote.
AYES: Mr. Sipp, Mr. Seguljic
NOES: Mr. Traver, Mr. Schonewolf, Mr. Jackoski, Mr. Hunsinger
ABSENT: Mr. Ford
MR. HUNSINGER-Would anyone like to put forward another motion?
MR. SCHONEWOLF-I’ll make the same motion in reverse.
MOTION THAT THE QUEENSBURY PLANNING BOARD RECOMMENDS TO THE
QUEENSBURY ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS RELATIVE TO AREA VARIANCE NO.
49-2009 FOR RAY AND WENDY KRAFT, A POSITIVE RECOMMENDATION,
Introduced by Paul Schonewolf who moved for its adoption, seconded by Stephen
Traver:
th
Duly adopted this 10 day of September, 2009, by the following vote:
AYES: Mr. Traver, Mr. Jackoski, Mr. Schonewolf, Mr. Hunsinger
NOES: Mr. Seguljic, Mr. Sipp
ABSENT: Mr. Ford
MS. BITTER-Thank you very much.
MR. HUNSINGER-You’re all set. Thank you.
SUBDIVISION 5-2009 SKETCH/PRELIMINARY/FINAL SEQR TYPE UNLISTED
MICHAEL & CHRISTINA BREDA AGENT(S) JARRETT ENGINEERS OWNER(S)
ESTATE OF HELEN SLEIGHT ZONING NC-10/NR LOCATION 369 AVIATION ROAD
APPLICANT PROPOSES SUBDIVISION OF A 2.99 +/- AC PARCEL INTO THREE
LOTS OF 1.07, 1.06 AND 0.86 +/- ACRES. SUBDIVISION OF LAND REQUIRES
PLANNING BOARD REVIEW AND APPROVAL. CROSS REFERENCE SP 41-09
WARREN CO. PLANNING NA LOT SIZE 2.99 +/- ACRES TAX MAP NO. 301.8-1-30
SECTION A-183
TOM JARRETT, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT
MR. HUNSINGER-Keith, whenever you’re ready to summarize Staff Notes, please.
21
(Queensbury Planning Board 9/10/09)
MR. OBORNE-I’m sure the Planning Board is quite familiar with this application. This is
Subdivision 5-2009, Michael and Christina Breda. Applicant requests Sketch,
Preliminary and Final Stage subdivision review. 369 Aviation Road is the location. This
is in the NC and NR districts. Type is Unlisted. Planning Board will need to make a
SEQR recommendation. Project Description: Applicant proposes to subdivide a 2.99
acre parcel into 3 lots of 1.07, 1.06, 0.86 acres. The subdivision proposal is in response
to a potential traffic circle located at Aviation Ave, Dixon Ave and Farr Lane and a
proposed Daycare facility to be built by the applicant. Please see applicant’s narrative for
further explanation. Staff Comments: The parcel currently has a single family dwelling
located on-site. The structure is to remain pending the construction of the traffic circle.
The northern lot will be used as the site for a 6,500 square foot daycare center, fronting
on Manor drive. The applicant has developed the subdivision layout based on conceptual
plans for the traffic circle. According to the applicant, if the plans change and will require
additional land, a future lot line change could be accomplished. There are some points
still here under my additional comments. Clarification of the parcel boundary must be
forth coming. It does appear that the dimensional requirements for both zones
associated with this proposal can be met, and further the applicant states that the parcel
located to the north is not part of the Site Plan for the World Class Kids daycare center
and only Lot A will be developed for the daycare center. Of course right now we’re
looking at the Subdivision, and what follows will be Site Plan, and when we come to that
point, I’ll read that in, too.
MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. Thank you.
MR. JARRETT-Good evening.
MR. HUNSINGER-Good evening.
MR. JARRETT-For the record, Tom Jarrett and Mike Breda. When we last met, we were
charged with coming back with a three lot subdivision, or at least resolving the
subdivision question, as well as dealing with engineering questions, which are largely
related to Site Plan, which we’ll get into in a minute. I don’t think we have anything to
add to the subdivision portion of the application, other than maybe we could request
Keith clarify his note. I’m not sure if we know what it means, his request.
MR. OBORNE-Which note?
MR. JARRETT-The one you read regarding clarifying the, what is it, acreage or
boundary?
MR. OBORNE-It appears that the dimensional requirements for both zones associated
with this proposal can be met.
MR. HUNSINGER-Well, the first statement, clarification of the parcel boundary must be
forthcoming.
MR. OBORNE-Right, and that had to do with that northern lot, and that has been
clarified, and I probably should have put complete on that.
MR. JARRETT-Okay. So that’s been resolved. All right.
MR. OBORNE-I apologize.
MR. JARRETT-No problem.
MR. HUNSINGER-So we resolved the big question, or at least what I thought was the
big question.
MR. JARRETT-We can move forward now with that, right.
MR. HUNSINGER-Yes.
MR. SEGULJIC-All right. So we can perform a SEQRA?
MR. HUNSINGER-Well, I mean, unless there’s questions or comments. There were, we
didn’t get the engineering comments until this evening.
MR. JARRETT-Either did I.
22
(Queensbury Planning Board 9/10/09)
MR. HUNSINGER-Yes, but I think that there were a couple of comments.
MR. JARRETT-I didn’t think there were any on subdivision, are there?
MR. HUNSINGER-Well, the first one is on subdivision because he said that the EAF
data is based on a four lot subdivision, and he references Question B-1g.
MR. JARRETT-Actually, we had revised the EAF, and now I’m drawing a blank as to
whether we.
MR. HUNSINGER-I think at one point you did submit a three lot subdivision EAF, but if
that’s the only item, you know, I think we could probably address that right now.
MR. JARRETT-Yes, that’s the subdivision that’s really not our subdivision. It’s a crazy
fluke of a situation.
MR. HUNSINGER-I guess what I’m, you submitted a revised EAF on 8/25/09.
MR. JARRETT-Right, actually you’re right. That is before we clarified that it had to be
modified. So you are correct.
MR. HUNSINGER-So I’m just looking for the B-1g.
MR. JARRETT-So the acreages involved are exactly the same. It’s just one less lot.
MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. Question B-1g relates to vehicular trips. B-1g asks, on Project
Description, physical dimensions and scaled project, fill in dimensions as appropriate,
and G is maximum vehicular trips generated per hour, and it was left blank, upon
completion of the project. That was left blank, but I think at one point in time you did tell
us what the.
MIKE BREDA
MR. BREDA-Yes, we had discussed that.
MR. HUNSINGER-Last meeting we discussed pick up and drop off.
MR. BREDA-Pick up and drop off, how many cars.
MR. JARRETT-Do you want to go back into that, Mike? You had a two hour period, and
you had.
MR. BREDA-Yes. Most of the drop off was 7:30 in the morning to 9:30. Mostly pick up
was from 3:30 in the afternoon to 5:30, spread out, you know, I think I figured 40 cars in a
two hour span. I don’t have the paperwork in front of me, but we discussed that.
MR. JARRETT-Yes, I remember the discussion about that.
MR. HUNSINGER-Yes.
MR. JARRETT-Do you have the minutes handy, Keith?
MR. OBORNE-No, I don’t.
MR. SCHONEWOLF-Yes, it’s in our packet. Who’s comments do you want?
MR. JARRETT-Where Mike described the traffic that he sees at his existing facility in
Sokol’s Plaza.
MR. HUNSINGER-I remember the discussion. I thought I remembered writing the
numbers down even. Sixty-two maximum cars per day, and you said the most would be
five cars at one time.
MR. BREDA-Correct.
MR. HUNSINGER-Does that seem, is that what you recall?
MR. BREDA-Yes.
23
(Queensbury Planning Board 9/10/09)
MR. JARRETT-That 62 max per day would be divided over four hours.
MR. BREDA-Correct.
MR. JARRETT-But we could say 15 cars per hour.
MR. BREDA-And that’s max, because a lot of families have more than one child.
MR. HUNSINGER-Yes, because what you said was your current maximum is 72 kids,
and there’s at least 10 kids that are siblings, which results in 62 cars, and then I guess
the only other question, the only other comment on the most current engineering
comments is Number Eight on Page Two, the existing septic system extends west and
not north.
MR. JARRETT-Right. Mike investigated that further and talked to the, well, go ahead,
why don’t explain what research you did.
MR. BREDA-Tinker Maille has lived there for quite some time. I met with him. He’s the
excavator. He’s installed the systems on the property. The two tanks on the north side
of the brown house, the existing house, are for gray water, and there’s a tank on the west
side of the house that is for septic, and that goes towards Farr Lane. Nothing goes to the
north of that residence.
MR. JARRETT-So the net is there’s no conflict.
MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. So as far as I can tell, the only corrections that would need to
be made to the Environmental Assessment Form is the description of action, which is
three lot subdivision instead of four, and then B-1g.
MR. OBORNE-Mr. Chairman, I can change that on the Long Form to make it tidy, and I
did see description of action, I could cross that out and write in three, and was it
vehicular trips, is that correct?
MR. HUNSINGER-Yes, he said 15 cars per hour.
MR. OBORNE-And that is on Page Five.
MR. HUNSINGER-Page Five.
MR. OBORNE-Fifteen per hour, that’s an average?
MR. JARRETT-He sees 62 cars a day over a four hour period.
MR. BREDA-Well, no, I mean, pick up and drop off, the majority of pick up and drop off is
in a two hour window in the morning and two hour window in the evening, but there are
certainly cars coming after 9:30. It’s just the majority of them come in that two hour
span. We still have people dropping off at 11, 12.
MR. JARRETT-Maximum trips generated per hour.
MR. OBORNE-What’s the maximum, not the average. So the maximum is what?
MR. HUNSINGER-It would be more like, it would be 30 or more, then.
MR. BREDA-No way 30 an hour.
MR. JARRETT-Or is it 62 each going and coming? Or total?
MR. HUNSINGER-Sixty-two is the total.
MR. JARRETT-Then we’d have to double it to 30. You’re right.
MR. HUNSINGER-Yes.
MR. BREDA-There’s no way I see 30 cars in an hour.
MR. HUNSINGER-That’s one car every two minutes.
24
(Queensbury Planning Board 9/10/09)
MR. JARRETT-So what number did you think is maximum?
MR. HUNSINGER-Well, if you think there’s no way, then that’s probably the maximum.
MR. OBORNE-Well, the Board needs to be comfortable with that number.
MR. SEGULJIC-How many children are there again?
MR. SCHONEWOLF-Sixty-two.
MR. HUNSINGER-Sixty-two cars he said, 72 children. Right?
MR. JARRETT-Seventy-two maximum children.
MR. BREDA-Children, max.
MR. SEGULJIC-All right. So 62 cars. Yes. Okay. It sounds like 30 to me.
MR. JARRETT-Well, they don’t all come in the two hour window, but that’s the maximum
drop off is two hours. Right? You want to use 30?
MR. BREDA-I think that’s a lot.
MR. JARRETT-Drop it down to 25 or 20 if you want. What do you think? What would
you guess, based on your observations?
MR. BREDA-Twenty is more than.
MR. OBORNE-Okay. I’m going to put 20 in. Okay. Mr. Chairman, were there any other
issues concerning the EAF?
MR. HUNSINGER-Well, those are the only two that I saw.
MR. OBORNE-Okay. Well, I think that that has been taken care of.
MR. HUNSINGER-But I can’t be certain that there wasn’t another one somewhere.
Okay. Any other questions, comments from Board members on Subdivision? We do
have a public hearing, which was left open. Is there anyone in the audience that wants
to address the Board on this application?
PUBLIC HEARING OPEN
MR. HUNSINGER-Let the record show that there were no commentors. Were there any
written comments, Keith?
MR. OBORNE-No, sir.
MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. I will close the public hearing.
PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED
MR. HUNSINGER-Are people comfortable moving forward? Okay.
MR. SEGULJIC-Will the proposed action result in a physical change to the project site?
MR. SIPP-Yes.
MR. HUNSINGER-Yes.
MR. SEGULJIC-Small to moderate.
MR. TRAVER-Not the subdivision.
MR. JARRETT-The question is are you dealing with just the subdivision, or are you
dealing with SEQRA all together?
MR. OBORNE-Subdivision.
MR. HUNSINGER-Subdivision.
25
(Queensbury Planning Board 9/10/09)
MR. SEGULJIC-Just subdivision. Okay.
MR. HUNSINGER-Well, I mean, there’ll be a change, but it’s small to moderate.
MR. SEGULJIC-Okay. Small to moderate? All right.
MR. SEGULJIC-Will there be an effect to any unique or unusual land forms found
on the site?
MR. HUNSINGER-No.
MR. SIPP-No.
MR. SEGULJIC-Will the proposed action affect any water body designated as protected?
MR. HUNSINGER-No.
MR. SIPP-No.
MR. SEGULJIC-Will the proposed action affect any non-protected existing or new body
of water?
MR. HUNSINGER-No.
MR. SIPP-No.
MR. SEGULJIC-Will the proposed action affect surface or groundwater quality or
quantity?
MR. TRAVER-No.
MR. HUNSINGER-No.
MR. SEGULJIC-Will the proposed action alter drainage flow or patterns, or surface water
runoff?
MR. HUNSINGER-No.
MR. SIPP-No.
MR. SEGULJIC-Will the proposed action affect air quality?
MR. HUNSINGER-No.
MR. SIPP-No.
MR. SEGULJIC-Will the proposed action affect any threatened or endangered species?
MR. HUNSINGER-No.
MR. SIPP-No.
MR. SEGULJIC-Will the proposed action substantially affect non-threatened or non-
endangered species?
MR. HUNSINGER-No.
MR. SIPP-No.
MR. SEGULJIC-Will the proposed action affect agricultural land resources?
MR. HUNSINGER-No.
MR. SIPP-No.
MR. SEGULJIC-Will the proposed action affect aesthetic resources?
MR. HUNSINGER-No.
26
(Queensbury Planning Board 9/10/09)
MR. SIPP-No.
MR. SEGULJIC-Will the proposed action impact any site or structure of historic, pre-
historic or paleontological importance?
MR. HUNSINGER-No.
MR. SIPP-No.
MR. SEGULJIC-Will the proposed action affect the quantity or quality of existing or future
open spaces or recreational opportunities?
MR. HUNSINGER-No.
MR. SIPP-No.
MR. SEGULJIC-Will the proposed action impact the exceptional or unique
characteristics of a critical environmental area?
MR. HUNSINGER-No.
MR. SEGULJIC-No. Will there be an effect to existing transportation systems?
MR. HUNSINGER-No.
MR. SEGULJIC-No. Will proposed action affect the community’s sources of fuel or
energy supply?
MR. HUNSINGER-No.
MR. TRAVER-No.
MR. SEGULJIC-Will there be objectionable odors, noise, or vibration as a result of
the proposed action?
MR. HUNSINGER-No.
MR. SEGULJIC-No. Will the proposed action affect public health and safety?
MR. HUNSINGER-No.
MR. SEGULJIC-No. Will the proposed action affect the character of the existing
community?
MR. HUNSINGER-No.
MR. SIPP-No.
MR. SEGULJIC-Is there, or is there likely to be, public controversy related to potential
adverse environmental impacts?
MR. HUNSINGER-No.
MR. TRAVER-No.
MR. SEGULJIC-I make a motion for a Negative declaration.
MR. SIPP-Second.
RESOLUTION WHEN DETERMINATION OF NO SIGNIFICANCE IS MADE
RESOLUTION NO. 5-2009, Introduced by Thomas Seguljic who moved for its adoption,
seconded by Donald Sipp:
WHEREAS, there is presently before the Planning Board an application for:
MICHAEL & CHRISTINA BREDA, and
27
(Queensbury Planning Board 9/10/09)
WHEREAS, this Planning Board has determined that the proposed project and Planning
Board action is subject to review under the State Environmental Quality Review Act,
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT
RESOLVED:
1. No Federal agency appears to be involved.
2. The following agencies are involved:
NONE
3. The proposed action considered by this Board is Unlisted in the Department of
Environmental Conservation Regulations implementing the State Environmental
Quality Review Act and the regulations of the Town of Queensbury.
4. An Environmental Assessment Form has been completed by the applicant.
5. Having considered and thoroughly analyzed the relevant areas of environmental
concern and having considered the criteria for determining whether a project has
a significant environmental impact as the same is set forth in Section 617.11 of
the Official Compilation of Codes, Rules and Regulations for the State of New
York, this Board finds that the action about to be undertaken by this Board will
have no significant environmental effect and the Chairman of the Planning Board
is hereby authorized to execute and sign and file as may be necessary a
statement of non-significance or a negative declaration that may be required by
law.
th
Duly adopted this 10 day of, September, 2009, by the following vote:
AYES: Mr. Traver, Mr. Schonewolf, Mr. Jackoski, Mr. Seguljic, Mr. Sipp, Mr. Hunsinger
NOES: NONE
ABSENT: Mr. Ford
MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. Would anyone like to put forward a motion for Preliminary
subdivision approval?
MR. SEGULJIC-Excuse me. This is going to be Preliminary and Final subdivision?
MR. HUNSINGER-Preliminary first, Preliminary Stage subdivision first.
MR. SEGULJIC-Preliminary Stage subdivision, and then we’re going to do Final after?
MR. HUNSINGER-Yes.
MR. SEGULJIC-So should we just do a Preliminary approval and then all the?
MR. HUNSINGER-Yes. Any conditions we would do in Final.
MOTION TO APPROVE PRELIMINARY STAGE SUBDIVISION NO. 5-2009 MICHAEL
& CHRISTINA BREDA, Introduced by Thomas Seguljic who moved for its adoption,
seconded by Paul Schonewolf:
1. A subdivision application has been made to the Queensbury Planning Board for
the following; Applicant proposes subdivision of a 2.99 +/- ac parcel into three
lots. Subdivision of land requires Planning Board review and approval.
2. A public hearing was scheduled and held on 7/7/09 & 8/25/09 & 9/10/09; 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. 5-2009
MICHAEL & CHRISTINA BREDA, Introduced by Thomas Seguljic who moved
for its adoption, seconded by Paul Schonewolf:
28
(Queensbury Planning Board 9/10/09)
th
Duly adopted this 10 day of September, 2009, by the following vote:
AYES: Mr. Sipp, Mr. Traver, Mr. Schonewolf, Mr. Jackoski, Mr. Seguljic,
Mr. Hunsinger
NOES: NONE
MR. SEGULJIC-Okay.
MOTION TO APPROVE FINAL STAGE SUBDIVISION NO. 5-2009 MICHAEL &
CHRISTINA BREDA, Introduced by Thomas Seguljic who moved for its adoption,
seconded by Stephen Traver:
1. A subdivision application has been made to the Queensbury Planning Board for
the following; Applicant proposes subdivision of a 2.99 +/- ac parcel into three
lots. Subdivision of land requires Planning Board review and approval.
2. A public hearing was scheduled and held on 7/7/09 & 8/25/09 & 9/10/09; 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. 5-2009 MICHAEL &
CHRISTINA BREDA, Introduced by Thomas Seguljic who moved for its adoption,
seconded by Stephen Traver:
In accordance with the resolution prepared by Staff. Under Number One, where
it refers to four lots need to be changed to three lots, and eliminate 0.34 acres.
Number Four is approved, Final Stage Subdivision, Number Four A complies,
Number Four B Negative.
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/ or If the application is a modification, the requirements
of the State Environmental Quality Review Act have been considered, and
the proposed modification[s] do not result in any new or significantly
different environmental impacts, and, therefore, no further SEQRA review
is necessary; and
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.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
e.Engineering sign-off required prior to signature of Planning Board
Chairman.
f.As-built plans to certify that the subdivision is developed according to the
approved plans to be provided prior to issuance of the certificate of
occupancy; and
g.If applicable, Item h to be combined with a letter of credit; and
h.The applicant shall submit a copy of a NOI [Notice of Intent] SWPPP
[Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan] & NOT [Notice of Termination] -
see staff
29
(Queensbury Planning Board 9/10/09)
i.The applicant shall submit a copy of a NYS SPDES permit [State Pollution
Discharge Elimination System]
th
Duly adopted this 10 day of September, 2009, by the following vote:
MR. HUNSINGER-Didn’t they have, they had waiver requests, stormwater, grading,
landscaping and lighting.
MR. OBORNE-Yes, those are not, it’s boilerplate. So it does not apply.
MR. HUNSINGER-Okay.
AYES: Mr. Jackoski, Mr. Schonewolf, Mr. Sipp, Mr. Traver, Mr. Seguljic,
Mr. Hunsinger
NOES: NONE
ABSENT: Mr. Ford
MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. One down.
MR. JARRETT-Now we move to the heavy lifting.
MR. HUNSINGER-Now the next item is the Site Plan 41-2009.
SITE PLAN NO. 41-2009 SEQR TYPE UNLISTED MICHAEL & CHRISTINA BREDA
AGENT(S) JARRETT ENGINEERS OWNER(S) ESTATE OF HELEN SLEIGHT
ZONING NC-10 LOCATION 369 AVIATION ROAD APPLICANT PROPOSES
CONSTRUCTION OF A 6,500 SQUARE FOOT DAY CARE CENTER AND
ASSOCIATED SITE IMPROVEMENTS. DAY CARE CENTERS IN THE NC ZONE
REQUIRE PLANNING BOARD REVIEW AND APPROVAL. CROSS REFERENCE
SUB 5-09 WARREN CO. PLANNING NA LOT SIZE 1.06 +/- ACRES TAX MAP NO.
301.8-1-30 SECTION 179-9-010
TOM JARRETT, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT
MR. JARRETT-Unfortunately, we all got the technical comments tonight, and we’ve tried
to wade through them as best we can, and I still think there’s some confusion. Maybe,
Keith, you can weigh in here as to what you know and what you’ve resolved and didn’t
resolve.
MR. OBORNE-Right. As discussed prior with the Chair, I had a meeting with Dan Ryan
today on another applicant, and we had discussed Breda in passing, and we did try to
contact the applicant’s agent, but he was not available. We tried to get together. The
short turn around on this is the reason why the notes were here today.
MR. HUNSINGER-Right.
MR. OBORNE-Because we basically turned this around in 13 days, is it, something
along those lines, and with that said, I did sit down with the Town Engineer, and he’s of
the mind that there are some issues that need to be discussed. There are, there’s
nothing about this Site Plan that cannot be engineered. It can be engineered is basically
what I’m stating here, and it would not be out of the realm, and again, I’m not trying to
influence the Board, but in my discussion with Dan Ryan, a conditional approval would
be fine with him, and then we can work out the stormwater issues after that. There’s just
a difference in methodology that is being applied here, and that’s something that the two
engineers are going to have to come to grips with. With that said, that’s the long and the
short of our meeting.
MR. HUNSINGER-Okay.
MR. OBORNE-He did explain to me what some of the issues were. Not being an
engineer, it’s just a wee bit over my head. So, with that said, that’s it.
MR. HUNSINGER-Did you have anything to elaborate on those comments, Mr. Jarrett?
MR. JARRETT-Frankly, I’m a little confused by the stormwater comments. So I’m going
to have to meet with Dan again and try to get those resolved. I agree with him that
certainly this site is feasible because we have good soils there and it’s flat terrain and we
30
(Queensbury Planning Board 9/10/09)
have plenty of area to resolve this. It’s just a matter of making sure the calculations, you
know, we’re both comfortable with. So, I’m not sure I understand his comment. So I
really can’t comment more about those specifically tonight, but all the other comments, I
thought we had resolved either with the Planning Board or I had resolved with Dan in the
field. I met with him two weeks ago, right after our Planning Board meeting, and it was a
very constructive meeting, and I thought we had resolved all these and a number of them
show up again tonight. So I’m a little confused by that, but. So I don’t know if you’d like
to go through them individually or not.
MR. HUNSINGER-Yes, I’m just looking at them for the first time, really.
MR. SEGULJIC-Well, yes, going through them, I mean, what I’ve seen so far can all be
addressed. I mean, they’re not really that involved other than Number Eight, and I
thought we came to an agreement on that already.
MR. JARRETT-A number of them we’ve already come to an agreement with the Board,
or I came to an agreement with Dan in the field, and we still see them here tonight. So
I’m not clear on that.
MR. SEGULJIC-Maybe if you could just go through them, shall we say quickly for us.
MR. JARRETT-All right. Number Two is still outstanding, but we responded to the Town.
In fact, we related this during the subdivision, that the septic system is not a conflict. So
Number Two is resolved.
MR. HUNSINGER-Right.
MR. JARRETT-Number Three, we have discussed this with the Board regarding access
for the existing lot to be maintained where it is right now, off Aviation Road, Farr Lane.
It’ll be changed and you can review it during Site Plan Review, if the lot is ever
developed commercially. The goal is to develop it as a roundabout.
MR. HUNSINGER-Right.
MR. JARRETT-Mike reserves his right to negotiate with the Town, and if the Town is not
willing to purchase it for a roundabout, then he will sell it for something else, or could sell
it for something else. Item Number Four is the septic system again. So that’s been
resolved. The next outstanding item is Number Eight. The access and entrances have
been reviewed by the Planning Board a number of times. I think that had been put to
bed, unless I’m missing something here. Yes, that’s all part of the same discussion we
had on access. Number Eight was discussed at length, I thought. Does anybody
disagree? Should I move on? Okay. Number Nine, I discussed this with Dan in the field
two weeks ago, and he has some concerns regarding compaction of soils during
construction. I don’t share those same concerns on this particular site, but we agreed to
rake the soils after construction, if need be, to loosen the soils, to make sure there is
permeability. I would have hoped that his notes would have reflected our agreement in
the field, but they do not. We do not have any problem adding that note to the drawing to
do that after construction. Number Twelve, I think we’ve already resolved that, the
number of trips. In fact we dealt with that just a minute ago in subdivision. That’s been
resolved. Number Fifteen, we had discussed this with the Board and come to an
agreement and I was understanding that we would add that note during final
clarifications.
MR. HUNSINGER-I’m sorry, which one?
MR. JARRETT-Number Fifteen. That’s the trees, the disturbance, and Number Sixteen,
I discussed this with Dan during our meeting two weeks ago, and I thought we left that he
was comfortable with the way we had discussed it with the Board, meaning that if the
tree dies, that we’ll extend our pavement. While the tree’s living, we’ll leave the
pavement the way it shows on the drawing, and we can add that as a note to the drawing
if you wish.
MR. HUNSINGER-Yes, I thought we resolved that last week, last meeting also.
MR. JARRETT-And I thought Dan was comfortable with that when I met with him. Okay.
Number Seventeen. This is stormwater. I’m going to have to resolve this face to face. I
can’t resolve it tonight. Number Eighteen as well. By the way, we had modified our
stormwater design, and incorporated Farr Lane and Manor Drive into our analysis, and I
also agreed to expand the pond closest to Farr Lane to address a number of his
31
(Queensbury Planning Board 9/10/09)
concerns. They’re not reflected in this letter. So you would not know that. Twenty is the
same thing, stormwater. Twenty-one is drop off hours, and that was reviewed by the
Planning Board a number of times. So that’s been resolved. Number Twenty-Three, this
is the request to provide a foot of free board, and I discussed it with Dan. I disagreed
with him, but I also agreed to provide the extra pond volume near Farr Lane to address
his concern.
MR. HUNSINGER-So, in terms of the additional pond volume, how was that, to date,
shown? It hasn’t been shown on any revised plans yet.
MR. JARRETT-No, well, I didn’t get these notes until tonight. I would have, you know, he
was going to acknowledge these things to me, and then I was going to update the plans,
or we would do it as a condition of approval, whichever. I’m just seeing these tonight.
MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. So if we, I don’t want to assume that we’re going to move
forward this evening, but if we were to say reference the items in this letter that still
remain to be addressed, we could say Item Twenty-three, the applicant has agreed to
provide additional pond volume to address this issue. Right. Okay.
MR. JARRETT-We’re down to Item Thirty-one. Subsequent to our last meeting, Mike
obtained water use records for his existing facility here in Queensbury, and we use, he
uses approximately two-thirds of the amount of water that we designed the wastewater
system for. So his use is two-thirds of what we designed the system for, which is not
atypical, by the way. Average would be around a half to three quarters of the design
rates. It’s unusual that somebody would use the full design rates. There’s some
contingency built in there.
MR. HUNSINGER-Sure.
MR. JARRETT-And Item Thirty-Four, unfortunately this is a detail that’s been in our
plans from Day One, and I discussed it with Dan in the field, and I thought we had
resolved it, but apparently there’s a mix-up somewhere. We have a system that drains
during the wintertime. It’s got infiltration surface below four feet, and I think we’re
complete on all the other items.
MR. HUNSINGER-I’m sorry, going back to Fifteen. We’ve resolved Fifteen, right, the
clearing plan?
MR. JARRETT-Yes. We resolved it here, and we will agree to add a note, if you wish.
MR. SCHONEWOLF-It’s not on the drawing.
MR. HUNSINGER-It’s not on the drawing.
MR. JARRETT-It’s not on the drawing yet.
MR. HUNSINGER-Okay.
MR. JARRETT-We were kind of leaving these things to clean up all at one time, since we
were going back and forth a number of times. We had cleaned up what we could, but
there were some loose ends that needed to be dealt with. Do you disagree with anything
I’ve stated?
MR. BREDA-No.
MR. OBORNE-I also want to state that I don’t necessarily agree, but I do not disagree.
MR. JARRETT-Is there anything in particular you care not to agree with?
MR. OBORNE-No, not at this point.
MR. HUNSINGER-Additional questions, comments from the Board? We did, Keith did
provide us with a drawing from the neighbors that shows the future ingress/egress
easement.
MR. JARRETT-Okay. Good.
MR. HUNSINGER-He’s giving you a copy right now. I don’t want to speak for the whole
Board, but the discussion at the last meeting was along the lines of, you know, we
32
(Queensbury Planning Board 9/10/09)
weren’t sure if we wanted to encourage additional vehicular traffic onto the site where
you’re dropping off and picking up children.
MR. JARRETT-I would concur with that recollection. In fact, we had talked about a
possible walking connection, but I don’t think anybody was in favor of a vehicular
connection.
MR. HUNSINGER-Right.
MR. SEGULJIC-I would agree with that, but the only thing I would say is what if it
changes to a future use where it does make sense?
MR. JARRETT-Well, if Lot A on the south becomes a use to have a connection, then you
can deal with that at Site Plan Review.
MR. HUNSINGER-They’d have to come back for Site Plan Review.
MR. JARRETT-That does present an opportunity if that use is compatible. So that’s
right.
MR. SEGULJIC-Or even if the daycare center changes into something else.
MR. OBORNE-And I might say that is the intent of that interconnect is that if a use
changes.
MR. SEGULJIC-So he can come back to us and invoke it. Okay. All right.
MR. HUNSINGER-Okay.
MR. SEGULJIC-So, I mean, it’s, you guys have been here quite a few times. We’ve very
close. If we’re going to make a motion for this, what does everyone want to do?
Because if we’re going to approve this, I think we have to be careful in our motion, then,
and get the conditions right. So, I guess, not to stand in for the Chairman, but how do
people feel about that? If that’s what we want to do, then I think we want to take a little
bit of a recess to get this right. That’s what I would recommend. Because I can’t do this
sitting here right now.
MR. HUNSINGER-Yes.
MR. SEGULJIC-In a little time. I would need someone’s help.
MR. JARRETT-Yes. I think most all, if not all, the issues have been resolved except
stormwater, but I certainly, you know, if you want to take a few minutes and digest it a
little bit, that’s certainly fair.
MR. HUNSINGER-I just want to make sure that we’re comfortable with all the other
aspects of the Site Plan, including the landscaping and lighting. I think we went over
them pretty extensively last meeting.
MR. OBORNE-I don’t know if you mentioned the public hearing tonight for this project.
MR. HUNSINGER-I haven’t mentioned it yet, no.
MR. OBORNE-I wasn’t sure if you had or not.
MR. HUNSINGER-Yes.
MR. JARRETT-Just to reiterate, we did modify lighting prior to the last meeting. We
downplayed the wattages and the lamps and we did provide the extra landscaping
details that VISION Engineering requested.
MR. SEGULJIC-We haven’t seen those.
MR. JARRETT-Yes, you did see them. You saw them at the last meeting.
MR. SEGULJIC-The changes. The lighting changes?
MR. JARRETT-Yes.
33
(Queensbury Planning Board 9/10/09)
MR. SEGULJIC-Okay.
MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. Are there any other outstanding concerns that Board members
have?
MR. TRAVER-The only other comment that I saw, I think it’s in Staff Notes, was
regarding the lighting in the parking lot, that there be some timers.
MR. JARRETT-Right. We’ve agreed to do that, that the lighting would be turned off after
hours.
MR. TRAVER-Okay. I remember we talked about that, but.
MR. JARRETT-Basically the parking lot lighting we wanted to turn off after hours. If you
want to leave some of it on.
MR. BREDA-Well, there’s a security issue that we weren’t keeping all of them on, but.
MR. JARRETT-You were going to keep, I think, some of the recessed lighting on the
building on for safety. You want to keep some parking light on, too?
MR. BREDA-I think the one on the main entrance should be left on.
MR. JARRETT-It sounds like.
MR. BREDA-VISION Engineering didn’t want all the parking lot’s left on. That was the
issue?
MR. JARRETT-I think that actually came from Staff
MR. OBORNE-It’s from Staff, that is correct. You have different zones, you’re abutting
two different zones there. You do have a residential zone to the north, and that’s my
concern, is just over glare. Certainly entrances should stay lit, absolutely. Security
lighting’s fine, but I mean, the big 15 or 8 foot candle parking lot lights.
MR. BREDA-Just designate which ones are going to get left on.
MR. OBORNE-You put something along, pole mounted lighting.
MR. JARRETT-So I think what Mike is leaning toward is the two fixtures, the two poles
along Manor Drive should get turned off, could get turned off, and the fixtures at the Farr
Lane entrance he’d like to leave on, for security.
MR. HUNSINGER-And you do have wall, your plan does show wall packs with motion
detectors.
MR. BREDA-Right.
MR. HUNSINGER-So the cluster of lights on.
MR. JARRETT-Near the Farr Lane entrance is what Mike is leaning toward leaving on.
MR. HUNSINGER-Farr Lane, and you’d leave those on all night?
MR. JARRETT-Right. They’re all downcast fixtures.
MR. HUNSINGER-Would you want those left on all night?
MR. BREDA-The ones along Manor we can turn off, if that’s a concern, but I think we
should have some parking lot lights on.
MR. JARRETT-Do you want them all night, is what his question is.
MR. BREDA-Yes, dawn to dusk.
MR. HUNSINGER-So just the ones on Manor Drive would be turned off.
MR. JARRETT-Manor Drive lamps, the ones nearest to Manor Drive entrance would be
turned off after hours.
34
(Queensbury Planning Board 9/10/09)
MR. HUNSINGER-Okay.
MR. JARRETT-And the ones, the multiple fixture pole at the Farr Lane entrance would
remain on.
MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. Are there any remaining concerns on landscaping from Board
members? Okay. All right. Well, for the record, I will re-open the public hearing that
th
was left open from August 25. Was there anyone that wanted to address the Board on
this application?
PUBLIC HEARING OPEN
MR. HUNSINGER-Let the record show that there were no commentors. I will close the
public hearing.
PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED
MR. HUNSINGER-There weren’t any written comments, were there, Keith?
MR. OBORNE-No, sir.
MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. Are Board members comfortable moving forward with a
motion?
MR. SIPP-I would comment on Number, what was it, 15 again, about the cutting outside
of the disturbance area.
MR. HUNSINGER-Yes. They agreed to add a note.
MR. SEGULJIC-Yes, we’re going to put a note on there.
MR. HUNSINGER-They agreed to add that note, yes.
MR. JARRETT-Now, what Dan did acknowledge is him requesting the basin get a little
larger toward Farr Lane may mean we lose some of those trees that we were intending
to keep, but I guess that’s a balancing act we’re following here.
MR. HUNSINGER-So the list of conditions that I have, the first one that you mentioned,
th
and most of them come from the VISION Engineering letter of September 10, is you will
add a note to the plans that you would rake the soils after construction to ensure
permeability.
MR. JARRETT-Right. That is correct.
MR. HUNSINGER-You agree to add the note for Item 15.
MR. JARRETT-Correct.
MR. HUNSINGER-On Item Sixteen, you agreed that if the tree dies you would replace it.
MR. JARRETT-No, Sixteen is if the tree that’s in conflict with that parking lot extension
dies, we’ll extend the parking lot, and that’s really up to this Board, whether you feel
that’s appropriate or not. We didn’t feel it was necessary, but we agreed to do it if the
tree died. We discussed it last meeting.
MR. HUNSINGER-I knew I didn’t write it down right.
MR. JARRETT-It’s a back out area at the end of the parking lot.
MR. HUNSINGER-I understood the issue. I knew I didn’t write it down right, and then the
items that, and then finally the parking lot lighting along Manor Drive will be turned off
after hours. Item Twenty-three, you agreed to provide additional pond volume.
MR. JARRETT-Right.
MR. HUNSINGER-And then Items Seventeen, Eighteen, and Twenty remain
outstanding.
35
(Queensbury Planning Board 9/10/09)
MR. JARRETT-Sounds correct.
MR. HUNSINGER-So you would need a signoff from VISION on those three items.
MR. JARRETT-Right.
MR. SEGULJIC-Which numbers did you have for that?
MR. HUNSINGER-Seventeen, Eighteen, and Twenty.
MR. JARRETT-Lumped together as stormwater management design, basically.
MR. HUNSINGER-What about Number Two?
MR. SEGULJIC-Where he’s asking for utilities.
MR. JARRETT-No, that’s the utilities. That’s been resolved. Mike has documented that
there are no utilities in conflict.
MR. SEGULJIC-So you took care of that, and then Number Four?
MR. JARRETT-Same thing.
MR. SEGULJIC-So that’s taken care of?
MR. HUNSINGER-Yes.
MR. JARRETT-Yes.
MR. SEGULJIC-And then Number Nine.
MR. HUNSINGER-That was the compaction issue.
MR. JARRETT-Yes, we agreed to add a note regarding scarifying or loosening the soils
after construction.
MR. SEGULJIC-And then Number Twenty-Five, that was addressed also?
MR. JARRETT-We don’t have information on what National Grid will do.
MR. HUNSINGER-But that should be added to the plan.
MR. JARRETT-We may not have that before these plans are submitted actually.
MR. BREDA-I met with National Grid.
MR. JARRETT-Did they give you a specific location?
MR. BREDA-Yes.
MR. JARRETT-They did. I beg your pardon. I stand corrected.
MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. Because I was going to say, if nothing else, you could do an
as built plan.
MR. BREDA-It’s on the corner of Farr and Manor.
MR. JARRETT-Usually they tell me they won’t give me specifics until they get a contract.
MR. HUNSINGER-So, Twenty-Five needs to be added to the plan.
MR. SEGULJIC-And then Number Thirty-Four? Is that the?
MR. HUNSINGER-This is the one they said they disagreed with.
MR. OBORNE-But I will say that during our meeting today that was a concern of the
Town Engineer’s.
MR. BREDA-Which one?
36
(Queensbury Planning Board 9/10/09)
MR. OBORNE-Was the winter infiltration.
MR. SEGULJIC-So Number Thirty-Four?
MR. OBORNE-Yes.
MR. HUNSINGER-Yes.
MR. JARRETT-He did not reflect that we had discussed that and some detail on the
plan?
MR. OBORNE-No, not the detail, no, but if it’s there, it should be easily mitigated, if it’s
been discussed.
MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. I guess Thirty-Four remains outstanding, too.
MR. SEGULJIC-So what I have is 17, 18, 20, 25, and 34, right?
MR. HUNSINGER-Twenty, well, Twenty-Five is just a notation on the plan, but, yes. You
can handle it either way. You can either say add a note to the plan, or address it. Yes.
MR. SEGULJIC-All right, and then putting the notes, Number Fifteen, putting the note on
the plan about the tree cutting.
MR. HUNSINGER-Yes.
MR. SEGULJIC-And then I think you had some other ones.
MR. HUNSINGER-A note would be added to the plan that they would rake the soils after
construction to ensure permeability. Scarify I believe was the term you used.
MR. JARRETT-Yes. I’m not sure that’s a word, but we all use it.
MR. HUNSINGER-Yes.
MR. SEGULJIC-Will scarify soils after construction to ensure permeability.
MR. HUNSINGER-Because he’s concerned about compaction.
MR. SEGULJIC-Okay, and then we had the one on lighting, parking lot lights along
Manor Drive shall be turned off during non-operating hours?
MR. HUNSINGER-Yes, after hours.
MR. SEGULJIC-After hours. I think that takes care of it.
MR. HUNSINGER-Yes.
MR. OBORNE-Keep in mind this is a SEQRA Short Form Unlisted.
MR. HUNSINGER-We have to do a Short Form for Site Plan. Okay.
MR. SEGULJIC-All right. So we have those engineering comments, we have the notes
about the trees, we have the parking lot light and the scarification of the soils.
MR. HUNSINGER-Yes.
MR. SEGULJIC-Okay. All right. So it’s a Short Form?
MR. HUNSINGER-Short Form.
MR. SEGULJIC-Are we good to go on that?
MR. HUNSINGER-Yes.
MR. SEGULJIC-Okay. “Does the action exceed any Type I threshold in 6 NYCRR Part
617.4?”
37
(Queensbury Planning Board 9/10/09)
MR. HUNSINGER-No.
MR. SIPP-No.
MR. SEGULJIC-“Will the action receive coordinated review as provided for Unlisted
Actions in 6 NYCRR, Part 617.6?”
MR. HUNSINGER-No.
MR. SEGULJIC-No. “Could the action result in any adverse effects associated with the
following: C1. Existing air quality, surface or ground water quality or quantity, noise
levels, existing traffic patterns, solid waste production or disposal, potential for erosion,
drainage or flooding problems?”
MR. HUNSINGER-No.
MR. SIPP-No.
MR. SEGULJIC-“C2. Aesthetic, agricultural, historic, or other natural or cultural
resources; or community or neighborhood character?”
MR. HUNSINGER-No.
MR. SEGULJIC-No. “C3. Vegetation, fauna, fish, shellfish or wildlife species, significant
habitats, or threatened or endangered species?”
MR. HUNSINGER-No.
MR. SIPP-No.
MR. SEGULJIC-“C4. A community’s existing plans or goals as officially adopted, or a
change in use or intensity of use of land or other natural resources?”
MR. HUNSINGER-No.
MR. SEGULJIC-No. “C5. Growth, subsequent development or related activities likely to
be induced by the proposed action?”
MR. SEGULJIC-No.
MR. SIPP-No.
MR. SEGULJIC-“C6. Long term, short term, cumulative or other effects not identified
above?”
MR. HUNSINGER-No.
MR. SEGULJIC-No. “C7. Other impacts (including changes in use of either quantity or
energy)?”
MR. SIPP-No.
MR. HUNSINGER-No.
MR. SEGULJIC-“Will the project have an impact on the environmental characteristics
that caused the establishment of a Critical Environmental Area?”
MR. HUNSINGER-No.
MR. SIPP-No.
MR. SEGULJIC-No. “Is there or is there likely to be controversy related to potential
adverse environmental impacts?”
MR. HUNSINGER-No.
MR. SIPP-No.
MR. SEGULJIC-No. I motion for a Negative Declaration.
38
(Queensbury Planning Board 9/10/09)
RESOLUTION WHEN DETERMINATION OF NO SIGNIFICANCE IS MADE
RESOLUTION NO. 41-2009, Introduced by Thomas Seguljic who moved for its adoption,
seconded by Donald Sipp:
WHEREAS, there is presently before the Planning Board an application for:
MICHAEL & CHRISTINA BREDA, and
WHEREAS, this Planning Board has determined that the proposed project and Planning
Board action is subject to review under the State Environmental Quality Review Act,
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT
RESOLVED:
1. No Federal agency appears to be involved.
2. The following agencies are involved:
NONE
3. The proposed action considered by this Board is Unlisted in the Department of
Environmental Conservation Regulations implementing the State Environmental
Quality Review Act and the regulations of the Town of Queensbury.
4. An Environmental Assessment Form has been completed by the applicant.
5.Having considered and thoroughly analyzed the relevant areas of environmental
concern and having considered the criteria for determining whether a project has
a significant environmental impact as the same is set forth in Section 617.11 of
the Official Compilation of Codes, Rules and Regulations for the State of New
York, this Board finds that the action about to be undertaken by this Board will
have no significant environmental effect and the Chairman of the Planning Board
is hereby authorized to execute and sign and file as may be necessary a
statement of non-significance or a negative declaration that may be required by
law.
th
Duly adopted this 10 day of, September, 2009, by the following vote:
AYES: Mr. Traver, Mr. Schonewolf, Mr. Jackoski, Mr. Seguljic, Mr. Sipp, Mr. Hunsinger
NOES: NONE
ABSENT: Mr. Ford
MR. HUNSINGER-Okay.
MR. SEGULJIC-It’s been a long time in getting here.
MR. HUNSINGER-That’s all right.
MR. SEGULJIC-Were there any waiver requests for this? I don’t think so.
MR. JARRETT-Waivers? No.
MR. SEGULJIC-Okay.
MOTION TO APPROVE SITE PLAN NO. 41-2009 MICHAEL & CHRISTINA BREDA,
Introduced by Thomas Seguljic who moved for its adoption, seconded by Donald Sipp:
1)A site plan application has been made to the Queensbury Planning Board for the
following: Applicant proposes construction of a 6,500 square foot Day Care
Center. Day Care Centers in the NC zone require Planning Board review and
approval. Subject to 2009 Zoning Code.
2)A public hearing was advertised and held on 7/7/09 & 8/25/09 & 9/10/09; and
3)This application is supported with all documentation, public comment and
application material in the file of record;
39
(Queensbury Planning Board 9/10/09)
4)MOTION TO APPROVE SITE PLAN NO. 41-2009 MICHAEL & CHRISTINA
BREDA, Introduced by Thomas Seguljic who moved for its adoption, seconded
by Donald Sipp:
In accordance with the resolution prepared by Staff. Number Four A complies.
Four B, Negative. Four G, no waivers were requested.
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)The requirements of the State Environmental Quality Review Act have
been considered and the Planning Board has adopted a SEQRA Negative
Declaration; and if the application is a modification, the requirements of
the State Environmental Quality Review Act have been considered, and
the proposed modification[s] do not result in any new or significantly
different environmental impacts, and, therefore, no further SEQRA review
is necessary; and
c)Final approved plans, in compliance with the Site Plan, must be submitted
to the Community Development Department before any further review by
the Zoning Administrator or Building and Codes personnel. 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 the site plan is developed according to the
approved plans to be provided prior to issuance of the certificate of
occupancy; and
e)If applicable, Item d to be combined with a letter of credit; and
f)The Sanitary Sewer connection plan must be submitted to the
Wastewater Department for its review, approval, permitting and
inspection; and
g)Not applicable. Waiver requests
h)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
i)Engineering sign-off required prior to signature of Zoning Administrator.
j)The applicant shall submit a copy of a NOI [Notice of Intent] SWPPP
[Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan] & NOT [Notice of Termination] -
see staff
k)The applicant shall submit a copy of a NYS SPDES [State Pollution
Discharge Elimination System]
l)If curb cuts are being added or changed a driveway permit is required. A
building permit will not be issued until the approved driveway permit has
been provided to the Planning Office.
m)The approval has the following conditions:
1.Engineering comments noted on the September 10, 2009
VISION Engineering letter, including Number 17, Number 18,
Number 20, Number 25, and Number 34 shall be addressed and
engineering signoff shall be obtained. In addition, Number 16, if
the tree dies in the northeast corner of the parking lot, the
applicant shall extend the paving in that area.
2.A note shall be added to the plan stating trees to be removed
outside the limits of disturbance will be flagged and reviewed by
the Town before cutting. No ground level disturbance is to occur
during cutting.
40
(Queensbury Planning Board 9/10/09)
3.Parking lot lighting along Manor Drive shall be turned off after
hours.
4.Soils shall be scarified after construction to ensure permeability.
th
Duly adopted this 10 day of September, 2009, by the following vote:
MR. HUNSINGER-And then the only other one was the Item Sixteen, the
northeast corner parking lot, where they said if the tree died, they would extend
the parking lot.
AYES: Mr. Schonewolf, Mr. Jackoski, Mr. Traver, Mr. Seguljic, Mr. Sipp,
Mr. Hunsinger
NOES: NONE
ABSENT: Mr. Ford
MR. JARRETT-Thanks again for working with us.
MR. HUNSINGER-Congratulations. Good luck. You’re welcome.
SUBDIVISION NO. 1-2009 PRELIMINARY & FINAL SEQR TYPE UNLISTED
ROBERT GRAY AGENT(S) VAN DUSEN & STEVES ZONING RR-3A LOCATION
½ MILE NORTH OF ELLSWORTH ROAD APPLICANT PROPOSES SUBDIVISION OF
AN 11.56 +/- ACRE PARCEL INTO TWO LOTS OF 3.18 AND 8.38 ACRES.
SUBDIVISION OF LAND REQUIRES PLANNING BOARD REVIEW AND APPROVAL.
CROSS REFERENCE BP 82-09; SKETCH PLAN 2/19/09 WARREN CO. PLANNING
N/A APA, DEC, ACOE, OTHER L G CEA LOT SIZE 11.56 +/- ACRES TAX MAP NO.
265.-1-21 SECTION A-183
MATT STEVES, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT
MR. OBORNE-Subdivision 1-2009, Preliminary and Final Stage review for Robert Gray.
Subdivision of land requires Planning Board review and approval. Location: West side
of Bay Road, 0.5 miles north of Ellsworth Road. This is an RR-3A. SEQRA Type
Unlisted. Long Form has been provided. Project Description: Applicant proposes
subdivision of an 11.56 +/- acre parcel into two lots of 3.18 & 8.38 acres. Subdivision of
land requires Planning Board review and approval. Staff Comments: The smaller of the
two lots has an existing single family residence. The larger of the two proposed lots is
vacant. Both lots appear to be density compliant with the overall density for Lot 1 being
3.10 acres and the overall density for Lot 2 being 3.55 acres. See survey for calculations.
The applicant has requested waivers for topography extending 100 feet offsite, grading,
stormwater and Erosion and Sedimentation. Additional comments from myself. Again,
the applicant has received waivers for topography extending 100 feet offsite, grading and
Erosion and Sedimentation, and Sketch Plan minutes are attached, and with that I’d turn
it over to the Board.
MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. Thank you, Keith. Good evening.
MR. STEVES-Good evening. Again, Matt Steves representing Robert Gray on this
application. It’s been in front of you before for conceptual review. This is property on
the west side of Bay Road, as the Staff has stated, just north of Ellsworth Lane. It’s a
parcel of 11.56 acres. Back when we first came in front of the Board for Sketch Plan, we
had already had the topography done, and because of the proximity and the location of
the proposed house, and no real work or drainage issues being near the property lines,
we asked for that waiver extending topography 100 feet offsite. As you can see going to
the north and to the west, you know, we’re in the 1,000 feet away from the northerly line,
and probably 500 feet from the westerly line going up to the slope. To the south, the
property, as you can see on the contours, stays consistent, and they would just extend
over that 100 feet. There was no substantial change to the topography in that area. We
do comply with the slope. We did the slope analysis on this as well, and on Sheet S-2 is
the areas of each lot that would comply with the zoning, 8.38 acres and 3.55, and the
smaller lot being 3.1 acres of underneath the 25% slopes. Since we’ve been here last,
we had Hutchins Engineering and perform a test pit, deep test pit with a backhoe, then
perform a perc test and design a septic system based upon a proposed four bedroom
house. There’s been no problems with the soils up there. They’re good soils, sustained,
just over three minutes, I believe, was the percolation rate, and no issues with that at all.
41
(Queensbury Planning Board 9/10/09)
As you can see there was the test pit and the perc test on the blow up on the first sheet
of the engineering detail Sheet S-3. There was a couple of Staff comments as far as the
driveway. The driveway that currently exists up to Mr. Gray’s house is paved, and the
small new driveway that would accommodate the new house would also be paved. The
requirement of the 10% not to exceed from the edge of the asphalt to the right of way
line, it does not. The first 100 feet of this driveway is approximately about 9.5%. So we’ll
just call it 10, it’s about 7% percent from the asphalt back to the property line. It does
have a, as you see, the existing driveway. We discussed this at Sketch Plan. It is an
existing drive. We’re utilizing that. We’re not putting in a new one. Ensuring that drive,
that’s why we ran the property line down the middle of it. It does have a small section
that is about 12%, but then flattens back out to about 10 at the top. So it has an average
of just over 10%, but it is paved and will remain paved, and any additional driveway to
the house will be paved. As far as the waiver request, the area where the proposed
drive is going to go is basically right on the existing trail. We show the envelope of a
house, but not necessarily the exact house that’s going to be built. Like I say, the soils
up there are suitable for all the stormwater requirements. We’re not having a significant
amount of disturbance on this property, because part of that area is already cleared, and
that we would stipulate that the general location of the house as shown on the Site Plan
would, we’d conform to that. We wouldn’t be putting it anywhere else on the site.
There’s just not a suitable place to put it anywhere else on the site. That’s the best spot
with the shared driveway and the proposed septic locations.
MR. HUNSINGER-Questions, comments from members of the Board?
MR. SIPP-I don’t see any well for the house that’s already there. Where is the well?
MR. STEVES-I know Mr. Hutchins was up there and dealt with that, I think. I think it’s
down toward the power pole over to the north of the existing structure, but it’s like 200
feet away from our proposed septic system. I can depict that on the mylar if you would
like.
MR. SIPP-Now what is the plan for controlling stormwater on the proposed driveway up
to the new house?
MR. STEVES-Again, you can just utilize driveway ditches or swales. The soils up there
are more than adequate for that minor disturbance of the small driveway. The existing
driveway is there, and you’re only talking about a 60 to 70 foot, maybe 100 foot long
driveway depending on if you have a turnaround in it. We’d be utilizing some type of just,
you know, sheet drainage off of the driveway into a swale.
MR. SIPP-You’ve got a 12% slope for that driveway. That’s a pretty good, water’s going
to start moving fairly fast down through there.
MR. STEVES-Like I say, the soils are extremely permeable there. If you have been to
the site, and drive up his existing driveway, you can see that we would utilize the exact
same type of construction that was utilized with the existing driveway, because that’s
really the steepest part of the driveway, and there is no issue there, and we wouldn’t be
doing any construction along the existing driveway, and everything there works fine. We
have no erosion, I think Keith can attest to that, along the Bay Road corridor, if he’s been
up to the site. It’s very stabilized good soils up there.
MR. HUNSINGER-I actually went up there again today. I didn’t drive all the way up to
the house, but I pulled up the driveway a bit.
MR. STEVES-And there’s no drainage or stormwater issues along that driveway.
MR. HUNSINGER-I didn’t see any.
MR. SEGULJIC-There’s a note that there’s a stream on site.
MR. STEVES-It’s really a seasonal stormwater, or drainage during the spring thaws. I
don’t think it runs year round. It’s not a classified stream, but we treated it as a stream as
far as all setback requirements. It’s not a named stream.
MR. SEGULJIC-So that’s the one that runs north of the proposed house, then?
MR. STEVES-That’s correct.
MR. SEGULJIC-So it’s more of an intermittent stream is what you’re saying?
42
(Queensbury Planning Board 9/10/09)
MR. STEVES-Yes, it’s more of a, from what I remember of it as being a, more of a
seasonal during the heavy rains and Spring thaws.
MR. SEGULJIC-And you’re not going to be doing anything in that area?
MR. STEVES-No.
MR. HUNSINGER-Any other questions, comments, concerns? We do have a public
hearing scheduled on this project. Is there anyone in the audience that wants to address
the Board?
PUBLIC HEARING OPENED
MR. HUNSINGER-Any written comments, Keith?
MR. OBORNE-Yes. Public comment, “Dear Mr. Hunsinger: The Lake George Water
Keeper has reviewed this submission material regarding the above referenced
subdivision application and would like to offer the following for consideration by the
Board: 1. The existing limits of clearing are shown on the site plan, but the proposed
limits of clearing for the new subdivided parcel and single family dwelling (SFD) are not
indicated. 2. The location of the well for the existing SFD is not indicated on the site
plan and is required to be 100 ft from the proposed new SFD’s on-site waste water
treatment system or its replacement. 3. A reduction in clearing could occur if the
proposed well were located within the existing cleared area. Excessive clearing of
vegetation and trees to install a well could be minimized with its relocation into the
existing cleared area which would maintain a more complete buffer along the stream. 4.
Due to the slopes and stream on the site, the Planning Board should require a Site Plan
Review prior to construction of this SFD. 5. The requested “….waiver for the grading
plan and the erosion and stormwater plan….” Should not supersede the need to identify
that the proposed site can adequately infiltrate stormwater. With the subdivision of land,
will stormwater management also be required for the existing SFD? Thank you for your
discussion of the above issues. The Lake George Water Keeper looks forward to
working with the Town of Queensbury Planning Board in defending the natural resources
of Lake George and its watershed. Sincerely, Kathleen SL Bozony Natural Resource
Specialist/Lake George Water Keeper” This is dated today, and that’s it. That’s the only
public comment.
MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. Thank you.
MR. STEVES-I didn’t get a copy of that either, Mr. Chairman. The only comment that I
had on that, quickly, is that he’s talking about the clearing limits, and they say limits of
existing clearing typical. It’s basically that we’re not going to go outside. There’s a few
trees that have to be in there, but it’s basically already a cleared area, but that’s why we
utilized what was already basically cleared, and said we’re going to construct inside of
that. The proposed well, located just outside the existing clearing, if you drive up in
there, there’s a few little trees you can work around it to put the well in. If you wanted us
to show a clearing bubble around the existing well, or proposed well, I have no problem
with that, but you really don’t need to clear a large area to put in a well up there.
MR. HUNSINGER-Right.
MR. STEVES-So we would just rather leave it the way it is and tuck it up in behind the
house.
MR. HUNSINGER-Okay.
MR. STEVES-I don’t, we’re trying to minimize the clearing. That’s typically what we like
to see, and I don’t want to clear a 50 foot swath just to put in the well when I don’t need
to.
MR. HUNSINGER-Sure. Okay. Since there are no other written comments, and there
are no other commentors in the audience, I will close the public hearing.
PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED
MR. HUNSINGER-Members comfortable moving forward?
MR. SEGULJIC-Well, back to the well for the existing house. You think it’s down by?
43
(Queensbury Planning Board 9/10/09)
MR. STEVES-It’s going to the north of the existing house above the power pole. So the
septic system is down gradient from the existing well.
MR. SEGULJIC-So you should have that 100 foot separation, then?
MR. STEVES-Yes. This was a newly constructed house just a few years ago, and they
had to comply at that time. I apologize for not depicting it on there, but I will show that for
you if you need, but I can assure you that we took that in when we were up there with
Mr. Hutchins doing the test pits, and confirming that the existing septic and existing well
would conform with the proposed septic and proposed well, but that is a good point, and I
will place it on any future maps that would be needed for signature.
MR. SEGULJIC-And also, the scalloped area, which I guess is your clearing limits.
MR. STEVES-Correct.
MR. SEGULJIC-So these are what you’re proposing as your clearing limits?
MR. STEVES-Basically it’s already cleared.
MR. SEGULJIC-All right, but you’re not going to cut anything beyond that, then?
MR. STEVES-No.
MR. SEGULJIC-All right, can we state that on there, then?
MR. STEVES-Sure. You say limits of existing clearing typical. We can just say limits of
existing and proposed clearing. However, you want to word that.
MR. SEGULJIC-I like that second one, I think. There you’ve got it right there. Limits of
existing clearing.
MR. OBORNE-If I may, Tom, typically what we require is an orange construction fence
installed around the clearing limits. That would be in the resolution.
MR. SEGULJIC-That’s in the resolution.
MR. OBORNE-Yes. If you want to reiterate that, I highly suggest you do.
MR. STEVES-And we have no problem with that.
MR. OBORNE-Have it placed on the plan.
MR. SEGULJIC-So we’re going to say existing, we’ll say on Sheet S-3, that limit of
existing clearing shall state limits of existing and proposed.
MR. STEVES-Absolutely.
MR. SEGULJIC-Okay.
MR. SEGULJIC-And the only other thing is, with regards to the well, then, how are we
going to state that? You’re going to locate the well and verify it’s at least 100 feet from
the septic system?
MR. STEVES-The existing well?
MR. SEGULJIC-Yes.
MR. STEVES-Yes. I guarantee you it is, but I will depict it on the final map. I apologize
for not having it on there.
MR. SEGULJIC-I guess my only concern is, let’s say it’s within 80 feet, then, and if we
approve it, and say just locate it.
MR. OBORNE-They’d have to get a Town Board of Health approval for that.
MR. SEGULJIC-They’d have to get a Town Board of Health. Okay.
44
(Queensbury Planning Board 9/10/09)
MR. STEVES-I guarantee you that it’s beyond.
MR. SEGULJIC-Okay.
MR. STEVES-Because no matter what, they will, obviously I understand, Tom, but we
would have to have that checked before we put the new septic in anyway.
MR. SEGULJIC-Okay.
MR. STEVES-But I guarantee you that it’s well beyond the 100 feet.
MR. SEGULJIC-All right.
MR. STEVES-But I will depict it on the map so that it can be shown that way for anything
that is filed.
MR. SIPP-How did they get that camping trailer down in that position on the lot line?
MR. STEVES-I don’t believe, I don’t know exactly where that came from, to be honest
with you. The sheds that are there and the pool, I believe that that is the neighboring
property owners. I don’t believe that it is my clients.
MR. SIPP-The camping trailer, that’s wooded. Must have had a tough time getting that
down in there.
MR. STEVES-I don’t think my client did that. I believe it’s the neighboring property that
put it in there.
MR. HUNSINGER-We need to do a SEQRA Long Form.
MR. SEGULJIC-Long Form. Okay. “Will the proposed action result in a physical change
to the project site?
MR. HUNSINGER-Yes.
MR. SEGULJIC-Small to moderate?
MR. HUNSINGER-Small to moderate. We have construction of a driveway on slopes of,
well, I don’t think they’re more than 15%, are they? Small to moderate impact.
MR. SEGULJIC-Will there be an effect to any unique or unusual land forms found
on the site?
MR. HUNSINGER-No.
MR. SIPP-No.
MR. SEGULJIC-Will the proposed action affect any water body designated as protected?
MR. HUNSINGER-No.
MR. SIPP-No.
MR. SEGULJIC-Will the proposed action affect any non-protected existing or new body
of water?
MR. HUNSINGER-No.
MR. SIPP-No.
MR. SEGULJIC-Will the proposed action affect surface or groundwater quality or
quantity?
MR. HUNSINGER-No.
MR. SIPP-No.
MR. SEGULJIC-Will the proposed action alter drainage flow or patterns, or surface water
runoff?
45
(Queensbury Planning Board 9/10/09)
MR. HUNSINGER-No.
MR. SIPP-No.
MR. SEGULJIC-Will the proposed action affect air quality?
MR. HUNSINGER-No.
MR. SIPP-No.
MR. SEGULJIC-Will the proposed action affect any threatened or endangered species?
MR. HUNSINGER-No.
MR. SIPP-No.
MR. SEGULJIC-Will the proposed action substantially affect non-threatened or non-
endangered species?
MR. HUNSINGER-No.
MR. SEGULJIC-No. Will the proposed action affect agricultural land resources?
MR. HUNSINGER-No.
MR. SEGULJIC-No. Will the proposed action affect aesthetic resources?
MR. HUNSINGER-No.
MR. SEGULJIC-No. Will the proposed action impact any site or structure of historic, pre-
historic or paleontological importance?
MR. HUNSINGER-No.
MR. SEGULJIC-No. Will the proposed action affect the quantity or quality of existing or
future open spaces or recreational opportunities?
MR. HUNSINGER-No.
MR. SIPP-No.
MR. SEGULJIC-Will the proposed action impact the exceptional or unique
characteristics of a critical environmental area?
MR. HUNSINGER-No.
MR. SIPP-No.
MR. SEGULJIC-Will there be an effect to existing transportation systems?
MR. HUNSINGER-No.
MR. SIPP-No.
MR. SEGULJIC-Will proposed action affect the community’s sources of fuel or energy
supply?
MR. HUNSINGER-No.
MR. SIPP-No.
MR. SEGULJIC-Will there be objectionable odors, noise, or vibration as a result of
the proposed action?
MR. HUNSINGER-No.
MR. SIPP-No.
46
(Queensbury Planning Board 9/10/09)
MR. SEGULJIC-Will the proposed action affect public health and safety?
MR. HUNSINGER-No.
MR. SIPP-No.
MR. SEGULJIC-Will the proposed action affect the character of the existing community?
MR. HUNSINGER-No.
MR. SIPP-No.
MR. SEGULJIC-Is there, or is there likely to be, public controversy related to potential
adverse environmental impacts?
MR. HUNSINGER-No.
MR. SIPP-No.
MR. SEGULJIC-I motion for a Negative declaration.
RESOLUTION WHEN DETERMINATION OF NO SIGNIFICANCE IS MADE
RESOLUTION NO. 1-2009, Introduced by Thomas Seguljic who moved for its adoption,
seconded by Paul Schonewolf:
WHEREAS, there is presently before the Planning Board an application for:
ROBERT GRAY, and
WHEREAS, this Planning Board has determined that the proposed project and Planning
Board action is subject to review under the State Environmental Quality Review Act,
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT
RESOLVED:
1. No Federal agency appears to be involved.
2. The following agencies are involved:
NONE
3. The proposed action considered by this Board is Unlisted in the Department of
Environmental Conservation Regulations implementing the State Environmental
Quality Review Act and the regulations of the Town of Queensbury.
4. An Environmental Assessment Form has been completed by the applicant.
5. Having considered and thoroughly analyzed the relevant areas of environmental
concern and having considered the criteria for determining whether a project has
a significant environmental impact as the same is set forth in Section 617.11 of
the Official Compilation of Codes, Rules and Regulations for the State of New
York, this Board finds that the action about to be undertaken by this Board will
have no significant environmental effect and the Chairman of the Planning Board
is hereby authorized to execute and sign and file as may be necessary a
statement of non-significance or a negative declaration that may be required by
law.
th
Duly adopted this 10 day of, September, 2009, by the following vote:
AYES: Mr. Sipp, Mr. Traver, Mr. Jackoski, Mr. Schonewolf, Mr. Hunsinger
NOES: NONE
ABSENT: Mr. Ford
MR. HUNSINGER-So I think there’s just two conditions, right?
MR. SEGULJIC-Correct.
47
(Queensbury Planning Board 9/10/09)
MR. OBORNE-You’ve got Preliminary and Final.
MR. HUNSINGER-Yes. Thank you. Would anyone like to make a motion for Preliminary
subdivision approval?
MR. SEGULJIC-Okay. So, once again, we’ll just do a Preliminary with no, and then
everything at Final?
MR. HUNSINGER-That sounds fine. Yes.
MR. SEGULJIC-Okay.
MOTION TO APPROVE PRELIMINARY STAGE SUBDIVISION NO. 1-2009 ROBERT
GRAY, Introduced by Thomas Seguljic who moved for its adoption, seconded by Paul
Schonewolf:
1. A subdivision application has been made to the Queensbury Planning Board for
the following:
2. A public hearing was scheduled and held on 9/10/09; 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. 1-2009
ROBERT GRAY, Introduced by Thomas Seguljic who moved for its adoption,
seconded by Paul Schonewolf:
th
Duly adopted this 10 day of September, 2009, by the following vote:
AYES: Mr. Traver, Mr. Jackoski, Mr. Sipp, Mr. Seguljic, Mr. Schonewolf,
Mr. Hunsinger
NOES: NONE
ABSENT: Mr. Ford
MR. SEGULJIC-Now there were waivers requested, correct?
MR. STEVES-Correct.
MR. SEGULJIC-They were stormwater, I believe, and grading.
MR. OBORNE-Stormwater, grading, 100 foot contours offsite. What else, Matt?
MR. STEVES-I believe that was it.
MR. HUNSINGER-Grading, erosion, and sedimentation.
MR. STEVES-Correct.
MR. SEGULJIC-Is everyone comfortable with granting those, then?
MR. TRAVER-Yes.
MR. HUNSINGER-Yes.
MR. SEGULJIC-All right. So it’s going to be stormwater management, grading, and 100
foot contours offsite.
MR. OBORNE-And erosion control.
MR. STEVES-Erosion control.
MR. SEGULJIC-And Erosion and Sedimentation. Okay.
MOTION TO APPROVE FINAL STAGE SUBDIVISION NO. 1-2009 ROBERT GRAY,
Introduced by Thomas Seguljic who moved for its adoption, seconded by Stephen
Traver:
48
(Queensbury Planning Board 9/10/09)
1. A subdivision application has been made to the Queensbury Planning Board for
the following:
2. A public hearing was scheduled and held on 9/10/09; 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. 1-2009 ROBERT
GRAY, Introduced by Thomas Seguljic who moved for its adoption, seconded by
Stephen Traver:
According to the resolution prepared by Staff. Four A complies. Four B, Negative. Four
D, waivers are granted for stormwater management, grading, erosion and sedimentation
and contours 100 feet off site.
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/ or
If the application is a modification, the requirements of the State Environmental Quality
Review Act have been considered, and the proposed modification[s] do not result in any
new or significantly different environmental impacts, and, therefore, no further SEQRA
review is necessary; and
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)Waiver requests granted: stormwater mgmt., grading, landscaping & lighting
plans
e)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
f)Engineering sign-off required prior to signature of Planning Board Chairman.
g)As-built plans to certify that the subdivision is developed according to the
approved plans to be provided prior to issuance of the certificate of occupancy; and
h)If applicable, Item h to be combined with a letter of credit; and
i)The applicant shall submit a copy of a NOI [Notice of Intent] SWPPP [Stormwater
Pollution Prevention Plan] & NOT [Notice of Termination] - see staff
j)The applicant shall submit a copy of a NYS SPDES permit [State Pollution
Discharge Elimination System]
k)If curb cuts are being added or changed a driveway permit is required. A building
permit will not be issued until the approved driveway permit has been provided to the
Planning Office.
l)The motion is approved with the following conditions:
1)Locate well of existing house on Lot One.
2)Revise wording on Sheet S-3, limit of existing clearing to read limit of existing
and proposed clearings.
3)Applicant will show a proposed construction fence within the clearing limit on
Lot Two, and it will be installed prior to construction
th
Duly adopted this 10 day of September, 2009, by the following vote:
49
(Queensbury Planning Board 9/10/09)
MR. SEGULJIC-That construction fencing shall be installed during construction on Lot
Two, depicting the clearing limits.
MR. STEVES-We’ll show a proposed construction fence within that clearing limit, and
say to be installed prior to construction.
MR. SEGULJIC-So noted.
AYES: Mr. Sipp, Mr. Jackoski, Mr. Schonewolf, Mr. Seguljic, Mr. Traver,
Mr. Hunsinger
NOES: NONE
ABSENT: Mr. Ford
MR. STEVES-Thank you.
MR. HUNSINGER-Thank you. Good luck. Did we have any other business to be
brought before the Board? I had a letter that I wanted to share with the Board, which is,
st
it’s actually addressed to the Supervisor. It’s dated August 31, from the, everyone got a
copy of it, the letter from the Water Keeper and the Fund for Lake George? I don’t need
to read it, then, if everyone already got it.
MR. SCHONEWOLF-Yes.
MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. Anything else to come before the Board?
MR. TRAVER-There was a letter from.
MR. SCHONEWOLF-An attorney, relative to the traffic at The Great Escape.
MR. TRAVER-Yes, thank you.
MR. SCHONEWOLF-I have that letter. It really isn’t our problem.
MR. TRAVER-It sounds like it’s an enforcement, possibly. If the concerns raised in the
letter are valid, and certainly on paper they appear to be, it sounds like an enforcement
issue. Am I correct, Keith?
MR. OBORNE-It is. Counsel for The Great Escape has asked and requested of the
Zoning Administrator to look into potential violations along Route 9 and the parking
situation along Route 9 by Great Escape. That is an ongoing investigation at this point. I
will say that a few of those lots in question have had Site Plan approval before this
Board, for parking. So that is also in the mix at this point, and that’s about where I’m at
with it.
MR. SCHONEWOLF-So just some of them were in violation?
MR. OBORNE-I’m not sure if any are, or if any are compliant. The determination will be
made.
MR. SCHONEWOLF-Yes, but the other thing that they’re doing is standing out in the
road to direct people in, and that is against the law and that can be stopped immediately
if the Sheriff’s Department wants to do it.
MR. TRAVER-They probably didn’t notice some of the parking furthest away until they
turned on the light at the top of the Sasquatch Ride, illuminated the extra parking area.
MR. SIPP-That one parking lot across from The Great Escape is supposed to have a
sign up telling the patrons that they should go to the bridge.
MR. TRAVER-To use the overpass, right.
MR. SIPP-And that sign was never up until about three weeks ago, and they finally put
one up and it didn’t deter anybody. This, I think, arose out of the fact there was an
accident there where one of The Great Escape employees.
MR. HUNSINGER-Yes. I had heard about that, too.
50
(Queensbury Planning Board 9/10/09)
MR. SCHONEWOLF-Yes, in front of the ice cream place, but the signs are in the parking
lot, but they need to have them out on the walkway, too.
MR. TRAVER-Well, let’s see what the investigation.
MR. HUNSINGER-Yes. Did you have any issue to bring before the Board? Okay.
Anything else? A motion to adjourn is always in order.
MOTION TO ADJOURN THE QUEENSBURY PLANNING BOARD MEETING OF
SEPTEMBER 10, 2009, Introduced by Paul Schonewolf who moved for its adoption,
seconded by Stephen Traver:
th
Duly adopted this 10 day of September, 2009, by the following vote:
AYES: Mr. Jackoski, Mr. Schonewolf, Mr. Traver, Mr. Seguljic, Mr. Sipp, Mr. Hunsinger
NOES: NONE
ABSENT: Mr. Ford
On motion meeting was adjourned.
RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED,
Chris Hunsinger, Chairman
51