2009.10.20
(Queensbury Planning Board 10/20/09)
QUEENSBURY PLANNING BOARD MEETING
FIRST REGULAR MEETING
OCTOBER 20, 2009
INDEX
Site Plan No. 29-2009 Pyramid Corporation of GF/NEWCO 1.
Tax Map No. 302.5-1-92.4, 92.11, 93.1
Site Plan No. 53-2009 James White 2.
ZBA RECOMMENDATION Tax Map No. 227.17-2-9
Site Plan No. 54-2009 Mike Arnold 5.
Tax Map No. 226.15-1-16
Site Plan No.28-2009 Eugene Timpano 9.
Tax Map No. 296.13-1-14
Site Plan No. 48-2008 NPA II, LLC 12.
Tax Map No. 296.18-1-47
Site Plan No. 25-2009 Randy Gross 35.
Tax Map No. 303.16-1-33
Site Plan No. 7-2009 Greg Canale 42.
Tax Map No. 296.16-1-11, 296.16-1-3.1
Subdivision No. 4-2003 Tra-Tom Development 49.
MODIFICATION Tax Map No. 308.7-1-50 thru 57
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 10/20/09)
QUEENSBURY PLANNING BOARD MEETING
FIRST REGULAR MEETING
OCTOBER 20, 2009
7:00 P.M.
MEMBERS PRESENT
CHRIS HUNSINGER, CHAIRMAN
GRETCHEN STEFFAN, SECRETARY
DONALD KREBS
STEPHEN TRAVER
DONALD SIPP
THOMAS SEGULJIC
THOMAS FORD
LAND USE PLANNER-KEITH OBORNE
STENOGRAPHER-SUE HEMINGWAY
MR. HUNSINGER-I’ll call to order the meeting of the Town of Queensbury Planning
Board Tuesday, October 20, 2009. The first item on the agenda is approval of minutes
thth
fro August 18 and August 25.
APPROVAL OF MINUTES
August 18, 2009
August 25, 2009
MOTION TO APPROVE THE QUEENSBURY PLANNING BOARD MEETING MINUTES
THTH
OF AUGUST 18 & AUGUST 25, 2009, Introduced by Gretchen Steffan who moved
for its adoption, seconded by Donald Krebs:
th
Duly adopted this 20 day of October, 2009, by the following vote:
AYES: Mr. Traver, Mr. Sipp, Mr. Seguljic, Mr. Ford, Mrs. Steffan, Mr. Krebs,
Mr. Hunsinger
NOES: NONE
MR. HUNSINGER-Our second item is an Administrative Item.
ADMINISTRATIVE ITEMS:
SP 29-09 PYRAMID CO: FOR FURTHER TABLING [SEE LETTER DATED 9/28/09
FROM J. LAPPER]
MR. HUNSINGER-There is a letter in your package requesting the table.
MRS. STEFFAN-I think we should just move it forward after December.
MR. HUNSINGER-Any other comments?
MR. TRAVER-That’s fine.
MR. FORD-Do you want to pick a meeting?
MRS. STEFFAN-Yes. Actually the agenda’s not set for December. So we could put it
th
on the first meeting, and in December we’ve got two meetings in one week, the 15 and
th
the 17, Tuesday and Thursday. It’s the week before Christmas.
MR. TRAVER-Good.
MOTION TO TABLE SITE PLAN NO. 29-2009 PYRAMID CORPORATION OF
GF/NEWCO., Introduced by Gretchen Steffan who moved for its adoption, seconded by
Thomas Ford:
1.A site plan application has been made to the Queensbury Planning Board for the
following: Applicant proposes construction of a 10,950 sq. ft. mixed use building.
1
(Queensbury Planning Board 10/20/09)
New Commercial construction in the ESC zone require Planning Board review
and approval; and
2.A public hearing was advertised and held on 6/16/2009 and the application was
tabled to 8/18/09; and
3.On 8/18/09 the application was tabled to 10/20/09 with a submission deadline of
9/15/09; and
4.There was no response by the applicant by 9/15/09 and Staff subsequently
contacted the applicant/agent requesting a letter regarding the status of the
project; and
5.Please see the attached letter dated 9/25/09 from Jonathan Lapper; and
6.MOTION TO TABLE SITE PLAN NO. 29-2009 PYRAMID CORPORATION OF
GF/NEWCO., Introduced by Gretchen Steffan who moved for its adoption,
seconded by Thomas Ford:
According to the resolution prepared by Staff. We’re going to table that to the
th
December 15 Planning Board meeting, and therefore they would need to submit
th
any material, and new information before November 16.
th
Duly adopted this 20 day of October, 2009, by the following vote:
AYES: Mr. Sipp, Mr. Traver, Mr. Krebs, Mr. Seguljic, Mrs. Steffan, Mr. Ford,
Mr. Hunsinger
NOES: NONE
MR. HUNSINGER-We have two recommendations for the Zoning Board this evening.
RECOMMENDATION TO ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS:
AV 54-09/SP 53-09 JAMES WHITE: EXPANSION OF NON-CONFORMING
STRUCTURE IN A CEA
ETHAN HALL, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT
MR. HUNSINGER-Keith, if you want to summarize Staff Notes, please.
MR. OBORNE-Sure. This is a recommendation to the Zoning Board of Appeals
concerning Area Variance 54-2009 and Site Plan 53-2009. The applicant is James
White. There is an expansion of a nonconforming structure in the WR zone that requires
Site Plan Review. The location is 104 Seelye Road. Existing Zoning is Waterfront
Residential. It’s a SEQRA Type II. Project Description: Applicant proposes expansion
of existing 480 square foot 17’-11” tall garage to a 1080 square foot 22’-10” garage in
order to provide additional vehicle bay and overhead storage as part of an overall
renovation and expansion of existing single family residence. Staff Comments: The
Planning Board is required to provide a recommendation to the Zoning Board of Appeals
concerning this site plan application per §179-9 of the town code. The applicant
requests 6’-10” of relief from the 16 foot height restriction for accessory structures in the
WR zone per §179-3-040. The existing garage has a height of 17’-10” and as such is a
non-conforming structure. Expansion of a non-conforming structure in a Critical
Environmental Area (CEA) requires Site Plan review. Finally, Plan Review. There
appears to be a portable garage and storage unit as part of the proposed site plan. The
applicant has stated to staff during a site visit on September 29, 2009 that these units will
be removed upon completion of the garage expansion. This appears to be an oversight
on the site plan; however, clarification on the proposed status of these structures must
be forthcoming. Will all garage roof water be directed to infiltration trench? Please
clarify. With that, I’d turn it over to the Board. That’s it.
MR. HUNSINGER-Thank you, Keith. Good evening.
MR. HALL-MR. Good evening. My name is Ethan Hall. I’m a partner with Rucinski Hall
Architecture. I’m here with Beth White. Jim couldn’t be with us this evening. As Keith
stated, it’s a pretty straightforward project. The White’s own the property at 104 Seelye
Road. It’s on the inbound side of Cleverdale. It’s not actually on the water. It’s on the
opposite side of the road. It is a 1.326 acre lot. It is an existing two car garage. The roof
2
(Queensbury Planning Board 10/20/09)
peak right now is 17 foot 11 inches above the existing grade. The existing garage is a
gable, peak gable roof, and the house is a gambrel style roof. The intent of the Whites is
to make the garage match the house and put a gambrel roof facing Seelye Road. There
is nobody behind them. They don’t have an adjoining property owner to the back. It’s
like a 17 and a half acre parcel that’s behind them that has no development on it at all.
The main reason for this increased height is the existing house has no basement. There
is no storage space in the house at all, and they’re recently moving back up to
Cleverdale. They just recently sold the house in Saratoga Springs and are in the
process of moving back up to Cleverdale, full time residents. So they need the extra
space in the garage, and this was a way to get it done and to make it match the house
and make it aesthetically pleasing that way.
MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. Questions, comments from members of the Board?
MR. KREBS-I visited the site the other day, and as far as I’m concerned, looking at the
house and looking at the plans for the garage, it’s going to be much more uniform looking
than it does today, and there certainly is nothing in the area that the additional height is
going to cause any problem to.
MR. HUNSINGER-Anything else from the Board?
MR. SEGULJIC-So this is just going to be used for storage?
MR. HALL-Overhead in the garage, yes. It’s an unheated garage. They need three bays
for the three vehicles that they own.
MR. SEGULJIC-So it’s just for storage.
MR. HALL-Yes.
MR. SEGULJIC-So there’s going to be no windows up there?
MR. HALL-There is a window to let light in, through into the stairwell, and there’s
windows on each end, and that’s just merely to match the aesthetics of the house.
MR. SEGULJIC-Now don’t, can they have the windows up there?
MR. OBORNE-Absolutely, yes.
MR. SEGULJIC-Then how do we maintain it as a non-living space?
MR. OBORNE-As not a living space?
MR. SEGULJIC-Correct.
MR. OBORNE-Well, it won’t be heated, and it won’t be insulated.
MR. FORD-Is there any plumbing in this structure?
MR. HALL-No.
MR. SEGULJIC-Well, what about in the summertime when it would be prime for living?
MR. OBORNE-I guess if they want to put a sleeping bag up there, that’s fine, but they’re
not going to use it as a living space. That’s my understanding.
MR. KREBS-If they wanted to do that, they could put a tent in their yard, too.
MR. SEGULJIC-Now why do you need the additional height?
MR. HALL-To make the gambrel, because right now, right now the roof peak runs
perpendicular, and we’re changing the rotation of the ridge. Right now the ridge is
running parallel with the overhead doors, and we’re turning it so that from the road, you
see the gambrel end, and to get the extra width that we need, it pushes that height up,
the height of the roof peak, because it’s a gambrel style roof to match the house. We
gain additional height that way.
MR. SEGULJIC-You couldn’t do a gambrel roof with the height that you have it now?
3
(Queensbury Planning Board 10/20/09)
BETH WHITE
MRS. WHITE-No, because it’s too squatty.
MR. HALL-It’s too, upstairs, upstairs at the ridge, Tom, my head hits the inside of the
ride. There’s only about six feet of storage space upstairs now, and when we add the
bay, which is coming forward towards where that portable is, we’re coming out that
distance, and then we’re changing the roof. Because right now it’s a stick framed roof
and it can’t span that direction any farther. So we’re using room over attic trusses to
minimize the height as much as we can, and to make it a gambrel style type house.
MR. SEGULJIC-So your goal is to make it a gambrel roof?
MR. HALL-Yes.
MR. SEGULJIC-Why can’t you bring the roof down lower?
MR. HALL-I can’t. There’s not enough room upstairs by doing that.
MR. SEGULJIC-So it’s the room upstairs you need?
MR. HALL-Yes.
MR. SEGULJIC-How much room do you need?
MR. HALL-Headroom height for storage?
MR. SEGULJIC-Well, for storage you don’t need headroom height.
MR. HALL-Well, we need as much as we can get.
MRS. WHITE-Sure we do.
MR. HALL-I mean, there is no garage, I mean, there is no basement space or anything in
this house right now. Every inch of space within the existing house is the residence, and
everything that they’re moving up from Saratoga has to be stored somewhere.
MR. SEGULJIC-Well, there’s rental units for that.
MRS. WHITE-We have no attic, and from an aesthetic standpoint, you know, we want it
to match the house. I mean, I don’t want a Quonset hut.
MRS. STEFFAN-I certainly think it sounds logical to me.
MR. KREBS-Well, and not only that, the house is 22 feet something.
MRS. WHITE-Right.
MR. KREBS-So you’re basically going to have two pieces that look similar and look
appropriate for the lot.
MR. HUNSINGER-That was going to be my question, is how high is the house?
MR. HALL-I think it’s 23 and change, 23 4 to the ridge.
MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. So it’s less than, it’s not as tall as.
MR. HALL-It’s not as tall as the house.
MR. FORD-I’m familiar with the property and I believe that this is a good move. I just
want to confirm that the temporary structures are going to be removed.
MRS. WHITE-As soon as the garage is completed, the temporary structures will
disappear.
MRS. STEFFAN-You won’t need them.
MR. HUNSINGER-Other questions, comments from the members of the Board? Would
anyone like to move a recommendation to the Zoning Board?
4
(Queensbury Planning Board 10/20/09)
MR. OBORNE-Just as a note to the Board, we have changed the recommendation
language. It’s a little bit more protocol driven at this point. They’ll all pretty much look
the same.
MRS. STEFFAN-Which we appreciate, actually. Thank you. I’ll make a resolution.
MOTION TO MAKE A RECOMMENDATION TO THE ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS
FOR AREA VARIANCE NO. 54-2009 AND SITE PLAN NO. 53-2009 JAMES WHITE,
Introduced by Gretchen Steffan who moved for its adoption, seconded by Stephen
Traver:
Whereas, the Town of Queensbury Zoning Ordinance, per Section 179-9-070 J 2 b.
requires the Planning Board to provide a written recommendation to the Zoning Board of
Appeals for projects that require both Zoning Board of Appeals & Planning Board
approval; and
Whereas, this project does require both Zoning Board of Appeals & Planning Board
approval, the following recommendation is hereby provided to the Zoning Board of
Appeals; and
Whereas, the Planning Board has briefly reviewed and discussed this application, the
relief request in the variance application as well as the potential impacts of this project on
the neighborhood and surrounding community, and
MOTION TO MAKE A RECOMMENDATION TO THE ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS
FOR AREA VARIANCE NO. 54-2009 AND SITE PLAN NO. 53-2009 JAMES WHITE,
Introduced by Gretchen Steffan who moved for its adoption, seconded by Stephen
Traver:
According to the resolution prepared by Staff. The first three paragraphs are fine, and
we will opt for Option One:
1. The Planning Board, based on a limited review has not identified any significant
adverse impacts that cannot be mitigated with the current project proposal.
th
Duly adopted this 20 day of October, 2009, by the following vote:
AYES: Mr. Sipp, Mr. Ford, Mr. Krebs, Mr. Traver, Mrs. Steffan, Mr. Hunsinger
NOES: Mr. Seguljic
MR. HALL-Thank you very much.
MR. HUNSINGER-You’re all set.
MR. HALL-We’ll see you in a week.
AV 52-09/SP 54-09 MIKE ARNOLD: EXPANSION OF NON-CONFORMING
STRUCTURE IN A CEA
MICHAEL ARNOLD, PRESENT
MR. HUNSINGER-Whenever you’re ready, Keith.
MR. OBORNE-Again, this is a recommendation to the Zoning Board of Appeals. This is
the same exact thing, expansion of a nonconforming structure in a CEA. This is Area
Variance 52-2009 108 Lake Parkway, and it should be Assembly Point, not Cleverdale.
Existing zoning is WR. SEQRA Type II. No further review is necessary. Project
Description: Applicant proposes construction of a 625 sq. ft. second story bedroom
addition above existing attached garage. The applicant is seeking 5.5 feet of side
setback relief and relief for the expansion of a non-conforming structure in a Critical
Environmental Area (CEA). Staff Comments: The Planning Board is required to provide
a recommendation to the Zoning Board of Appeals concerning this site plan application
per §179-9 of the town code. The applicant proposes an additional bedroom above the
existing garage. The garage is currently encroaching on the northeast side property line
by approximately 5 feet; thus making the structure non-conforming. The total increase in
the size of the addition is 625 square feet. The applicant states that no land disturbance
is planned and all vegetative screenings will be preserved. Plan Review: The applicant
5
(Queensbury Planning Board 10/20/09)
will be required to prove wastewater compliance or upgrade the septic system as a result
of the increase in bedrooms. The residence currently has 3 bedrooms. The distance
between the proposed new addition and the garage associated with the property to the
east is approximatly 38 feet, and with that I’d turn it over to the Board.
MR. HUNSINGER-Good evening.
MR. ARNOLD-Hi.
MR. HUNSINGER-If you could identify yourself for the record.
MR. ARNOLD-Michael Arnold. I’m here representing Anita Ross.
MR. HUNSINGER-Did you have anything else you wanted to add?
MR. ARNOLD-I guess not. Anita has had a stroke in the last few years. Her daughter
and son-in-law have moved in with her and they need more communal space.
MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. Questions, comments from members of the Board?
MR. SEGULJIC-So you’re going from three bedrooms to four bedrooms?
MR. ARNOLD-Well, we’re rearranging space. This is actually going to be more of a
communal room because they’re using the bedroom and some of the communal space
on the ground floor, and the rest of the house is only another bedroom and a large
living/dining area.
MR. SEGULJIC-So I, well, it’s my understanding you’re going from three bedrooms to
four bedrooms.
MR. ARNOLD-Pardon me?
MR. SEGULJIC-It’s my undrestanding you’re going from three bedrooms to four
bedrooms.
MR. ARNOLD-It’s not intended as a bedroom.
MR. SEGULJIC-Where did I get that impression?
MR. ARNOLD-There’s storage. We’re relocating a bathroom, and it’s a family room.
MR. FORD-Could it be used as a bedroom?
MR. ARNOLD-I suppose it could be. The space that we’re replacing is where the
grandchildren stay when they visit, and they, you know, it’s a game room, family room.
They sleep on the couch or in the sleeping bag. So I suppose it could be used as
sleeping, but it’s not intended as that.
MR. SIPP-Where is the present septic system located?
MR. ARNOLD-On the south side of the building. I think it should be on the survey map.
MR. SIPP-Yes. Now, is that going to have to be upgraded?
MR. ARNOLD-Not, well, we hadn’t considered this as a bedroom.
MR. SEGULJIC-Well, I guess, excuse me, Keith. In your notes it says there’s an
increase in bedrooms.
MR. OBORNE-Yes. Typically when you have an expansion that includes a closet.
MR. ARNOLD-Closets or bedrooms, okay.
MR. OBORNE-Yes. That will be considered a bedroom.
MR. SEGULJIC-Okay. So, for argument’s sake, they’re going from three bedrooms to
four bedrooms.
MR. OBORNE-There is no argument.
6
(Queensbury Planning Board 10/20/09)
MR. ARNOLD-Okay.
MR. SEGULJIC-Okay. I mean, my concern is that we don’t, concern about the septic
system, we don’t know the condition of the septic system. Potentially we’re putting an
increased load on it from three bedrooms to four bedrooms. I, personally, to me, I don’t
have a problem because all you’re doing is building straight up, but to make me
comfortable, I’d rather see, you know, have proof that the septic system can handle it
and has the proper capacity for it. Because I think we’re putting the cart before the
horse.
MR. ARNOLD-Okay, Well, I was unaware that a room was classified as a bedroom if it
had a closet. So that’s kind of thrown me off here a little bit. So I need to verify the
septic system.
MR. SEGULJIC-That’s just my opinion. Other people on the Board may disagree with
me.
MR. FORD-I agree with that.
MR. HUNSINGER-Do you have an information on the septic system?
MR. ARNOLD-I believe it’s a 1,000 gallon.
MR. HUNSINGER-I mean, do you know when it was installed or anything?
MR. ARNOLD-1985. It’s an engineered system. It’s a raised bed. I did notice, in some
of the older, in the original application, the house was approved, or at least it was
submitted as a four bedroom. So I’m assuming that actually the communal space that
we have now was going to be considered a bedroom, but they didn’t put the wall in. So I
assume the system was built for that four bedroom house, but all I can go by is 25 year
old facts.
MR. FORD-So you could have four bedrooms with the present structure?
MR. ARNOLD-It doesn’t, no. The original plans show the line drawing, and a room, but
that never took place.
MR. FORD-But it could.
MR. ARNOLD-I suppose, yes, it could.
MR. FORD-So you could go from three, currently, to five.
MR. ARNOLD-I mean, I’m sure that’s possible if that was our intention, yes.
MR. FORD-We need to know the capacity of that septic.
MR. SEGULJIC-Well, not only the capacity. It’s functionality.
MR. ARNOLD-There’s no closet in that room, though, at this point.
MR. OBORNE-I will say that, to interject, is that the tax rolls do classify this a three
bedroom house currently.
MR. ARNOLD-Three, right.
MR. HUNSINGER-Three bedroom? Yes.
MR. OBORNE-And I have not been in the house to verify that.
MR. HUNSINGER-Right. Any other questions, comments from the Board?
MR. FORD-Just looking at potential and lack of potential and that sort of thing.
MR. HUNSINGER-How does the Board feel, though, about the zoning request?
Because I mean really the septic is kind of a Site Plan issue more than a zoning issue.
7
(Queensbury Planning Board 10/20/09)
MR. SEGULJIC-But isn’t, I mean, in some ways aren’t we wasting their time if they get
approved and then find out further down the line they have issues with the septic? Isn’t it
better to get that straighted out up front?
MR. HUNSINGER-Yes. I’m sort of asking the question.
MR. SEGULJIC-Well, I, to me it would make sense that they provide information on the
septic system, that it is functioning properly, and it has capacity for four bedrooms,
before we were to consider a variance, recommending a variance.
MR. TRAVER-And we are in a CEA.
MR. HUNSINGER-No, I mean, I have the same concern. Don’t get me wrong.
MR. TRAVER-Yes, it’s a matter of procedure.
MR. HUNSINGER-Sure, it’s a matter of procedure, yes.
MR. TRAVER-Would this be a situation where they might be able to obtain some type of
a signoff? Could it be inspected and?
MR. HUNSINGER-Well, that’s why I suggested, maybe it’s a Site Plan issue rather than
a zoning issue.
MR. TRAVER-Perhaps in drafting a resolution to the zoning, we could alert them that
there may be an outstanding issue, and they can include that in their.
MR. HUNSINGER-Right. The new sample resolution has a sentence that says, based
on a limited review, has identified the following areas of concern.
MR. TRAVER-Right. Very good.
MR. HUNSINGER-Are there any other issues that we would be concerned about?
MR. SEGULJIC-So I guess when you do this, what are you going to do? You’re just
going to take the roof off, the existing roof off, and then build up?
MR. ARNOLD-Right.
MR. SEGULJIC-So you’re going to remove everything and then rebuild it, I would
assume.
MR. ARNOLD-Right, yes, I would dismantle it. Rebuild it. We’re putting new trusses
out. We’re not going to remove the roof in one piece, no.
MR. SEGULJIC-Right. Yes, you’re going to demolish that, get rid of it, and rebuild it.
MR. ARNOLD-Right.
MR. SEGULJIC-Okay.
MR. OBORNE-It’s my understanding you’re keeping the garage.
MR. ARNOLD-Yes. We’re just going up that, it’s.
MR. SEGULJIC-Everything above that line gets tossed into a dumpster.
MR. ARNOLD-That pitch on the roof is just going up eight feet.
MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. Any other comments, concerns, questions?
MRS. STEFFAN-Well, just from a zoning point of view, I mean, they’re not, what’s
happening is above the ground so the setbacks and the relief that they’re needing is
based on obviously submitting a Site Plan, but really nothing is changing on the ground.
MR. TRAVER-Right, no. There’s no stormwater issues beyond what’s there.
MRS. STEFFAN-So our major concern is the septic system. So they may just throw it
back to us.
8
(Queensbury Planning Board 10/20/09)
MR. FORD-Yes.
MR. SEGULJIC-It would come back to us anyway, correct?
MR. OBORNE-Yes.
MRS. STEFFAN-Right, but they may just approve the variance because nothing will
happen. I mean, it’s the same, you know, they’ve got the same situations, you know, 5.5
feet of side setback relief that they’re looking for. So I can’t see how that would be a
problem. It currently exists. It’s nonconforming.
MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. Would anyone like to put forward a motion?
MRS. STEFFAN-Okay.
MOTION TO MAKE A RECOMMENDATION TO THE ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS
FOR AREA VARIANCE NO. 52-2009 AND SITE PLAN NO. 54-2009 MIKE ARNOLD,
Introduced by Gretchen Steffan who moved for its adoption, seconded by Thomas Ford:
Whereas, the Town of Queensbury Zoning Ordinance, per Section 179-9-070 J 2 b.
requires the Planning Board to provide a written recommendation to the Zoning Board of
Appeals for projects that require both Zoning Board of Appeals & Planning Board
approval; and
Whereas, this project does require both Zoning Board of Appeals & Planning Board
approval, the following recommendation is hereby provided to the Zoning Board of
Appeals; and
Whereas, the Planning Board has briefly reviewed and discussed this application, the
relief request in the variance application as well as the potential impacts of this project on
the neighborhood and surrounding community, and
MOTION TO MAKE A RECOMMENDATION TO THE ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS
FOR AREA VARIANCE NO. 52-2009 AND SITE PLAN NO. 54-2009 MIKE ARNOLD,
Introduced by Gretchen Steffan who moved for its adoption, seconded by Thomas Ford:
According to the resolution prepared by Staff. The first three paragraphs apply, and we
would like to go with Option Two:
The Planning Board, based on limited review, has identified the following area of
concern:
a.The Planning Board is concerned because of this property being located in a
Critical Environmental Area, whether the current septic system can handle
the increase in load of an additional bedroom. We’re most concerned with
capacity and functionality of the system.
th
Duly adopted this 20 day of October, 2009, by the following vote:
AYES: Mr. Traver, Mr. Krebs, Mr. Sipp, Mr. Seguljic, Mr. Ford, Mrs. Steffan,
Mr. Hunsinger
NOES: NONE
MR. HUNSINGER-You’re all set.
MR. ARNOLD-Thank you.
MR. HUNSINGER-Thank you.
SITE PLAN NO. 28-2009 SEQR TYPE II EUGENE TIMPANO OWNER(S) SAME
ZONING HC-MOD LOCATION 928 STATE ROUTE 9 APPLICANT PROPOSES
CONVERSION OF A RESIDENTIAL RENTAL TO USE AS AN ICE CREAM SHOP.
PROPOSAL INCLUDES NEW PARKING CONFIGURATION AND NEW ACCESS DECK
WITH HANDICAP LIFT. NEW RESTAURANTS IN AN HC-MOD ZONE ARE AN
ALLOWED USE SUBJECT TO PLANNING BOARD REVIEW AND APPROVAL.
CROSS REFERENCE SP 30-05, AV 18-09 WARREN CO. PLANNING 5/13/09 LOT
SIZE 0.33 +/- ACRES TAX MAP NO. 296.13-1-14 SECTION 179-9-010, 179-7-050
9
(Queensbury Planning Board 10/20/09)
TOM HUTCHINS, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT
MR. HUNSINGER-Keith, whenever you’re ready to summarize Staff Notes.
MR. OBORNE-Site Plan 28-2009, Eugene Timpano. Requested action, Site Plan
Review for a restaurant in the HC-Mod zone. Location is 928 State Route 9. Existing
zoning is Highway Commercial Moderate. This is a Type II SEQRA. Project Description.
The applicant proposes conversion of a residential rental to use as an ice cream shop.
Proposal includes new parking configuration and new access deck with handicap lift.
Total retail space proposed for the ice cream shop is 580 square feet. Seating for 12 is
planned inside with no provisions for outside seating. There is a handicap access unisex
bathroom available. New restaurants in an HC-Mod zone are an allowed use subject to
Planning Board review and approval. Staff comments. The applicant has stated that no
business will be conducted through take out window mentioned in narrative. The
Planning Board may wish to make this a condition of approval. All parking spaces must
be drawn to scale. Those have been addressed, and quite frankly everything has been
addressed, and Mr. Timpano has received VISION Engineering signoff on this on this
project. My only issue is with site access, but I believe what has been proposed is the
best that they’re going to be able to do at the site. So that’s where I’m at.
MR. HUNSINGER-Thank you, Keith. Good evening.
MR. HUTCHINS-Good evening. Tom Hutchins, Hutchins Engineering with Mr. Timpano,
and Keith just summarized my statement. We have met with the Town Engineer and we
believe we’ve come up with the best and most functional layout that we can come up
with given the constraints of this site. We did look at numerous options on configuring
parking and this is the cleanest and gives us the most usable space. One of
engineering’s comments had to do with the back up space call it, behind the parking
space per se, and through site visits and updating it on the survey, we have confirmed
that the back up is indeed in the shoulder. It’s off the property line, but it’s not really in
the travel lane, and both Dan and I, and I believe Keith, feel this is the best layout we’re
going to get at with this site, and there were a number of other engineering issues from
the previous submission, and I believe they are all addressed, and with that I’ll turn it
over for comments, and do you have anything to add, Gene?
EUGENE TIMPANO
MR. TIMPANO-No.
MR. HUTCHINS-Okay.
MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. Questions comments from the Board?
MR. FORD-Good effort made on a tight site.
MR. HUNSINGER-Any outstanding concerns that Board members have? Okay. We did
have a public hearing that was held open. Is there anyone in the audience that wants to
address the Board on this application?
PUBLIC HEARING OPEN
MR. HUNSINGER-I will open the public hearing, and seeing how there are no
presenters, Keith, are there any written comments?
MR. OBORNE-No, sir.
MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. I will then close the public hearing.
PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED
MR. HUNSINGER-It is a Type II Action. So, unless there’s any other questions or
comments, I’ll entertain a motion.
MRS. STEFFAN-Okay.
MOTION TO APPROVE SITE PLAN NO. 28-2009 EUGENE TIMPANO, Introduced by
Gretchen Steffan who moved for its adoption, seconded by Donald Krebs:
10
(Queensbury Planning Board 10/20/09)
1)A site plan application has been made to the Queensbury Planning Board for the
following: Applicant proposes conversion of a residential rental to use as an Ice
Cream Shop. Proposal includes new parking configuration and new access deck
with handicap lift. New Restaurants in an HC-MOD zone are an allowed use
subject to Planning Board review and approval.
2)A public hearing was advertised and held on 6/16/09, 8/18/09 & 10/20/09; and
3)This application is supported with all documentation, public comment and
application material in the file of record;
4)MOTION TO APPROVE SITE PLAN NO. 28-2009 EUGENE TIMPANO,
Introduced by Gretchen Steffan who moved for its adoption, seconded by Donald
Krebs:
According to the resolution prepared by Staff. Paragraph Four, we approve,
Paragraph Four A complies. Paragraph Four G, we have granted waivers for
stormwater management and grading.
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.Type II, 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.Waiver requests granted: stormwater management and grading,
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.This is approved with the following condition:
1.That no business shall be conducted through the take out window as site
parking does not support this type of retail activity.
th
Duly adopted this 20 day of October, 2009, by the following vote:
AYES: Mr. Seguljic, Mr. Ford, Mrs. Steffan, Mr. Traver, Mr. Krebs, Mr. Sipp,
Mr. Hunsinger
NOES: NONE
MR. HUNSINGER-Good luck. You’re all set.
MR. HUTCHINS-Thank you.
11
(Queensbury Planning Board 10/20/09)
SITE PLAN NO. 48-2008 SEQR TYPE UNLISTED NPA II, LLC AGENT(S)
BARTLETT, PONTIFF, STEWART & RHODES OWNER(S) SAME ZONING HC-INT.
LOCATION 820 STATE ROUTE 9 APPLICANT PROPOSES CONSTRUCTION OF A
14,500 SQUARE FOOT WALGREENS PHARMACY AND A 4,642 SQUARE FOOT
CHILI’S RESTAURANT WITH ASSOCIATED SITE WORK. NEW COMMERCIAL
CONSTRUCTION REQUIRE PLANNING BOARD SITE PLAN REVIEW AND
APPROVAL. CROSS REFERENCE AV 21-09, AV 77-08; SV 74, 75, 76-08 WARREN
CO. PLANNING 11/12/08 LOT SIZE 22.87 +/- ACRES TAX MAP NO. 296.18-1-47
SECTION 179-9-010
JON LAPPER & STEFANIE BITTER, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT
MR. HUNSINGER-Keith, whenever you’re ready to summarize Staff Notes.
MR. OBORNE-Site Plan 47 (48) -2008, Northway Plaza Associates. Site Plan Review
for construction of a 14,820 square foot Walgreens Pharmacy, 4,642 square foot Chili’s
Restaurant, reconfiguration of existing office space to retail space, and associated site
work. Location is Northway Plaza, 802 State Route 9. Zoning is Highway Commercial
Intensive. SEQRA Status, this is an Unlisted. The Planning Board is required to make a
SEQRA determination on this. The Project Description: Applicant proposes construction
of a 14,820 square foot Walgreens Pharmacy, a 4,642 square foot Chili’s Restaurant,
reconfiguration of existing office space to retail use, parking reconfiguration and
associated site work. New commercial buildings require Planning Board Site Plan
Review and approval. Going through, just with the timing looming here, I’m just going to
go down to my additional comments that I have concerns. Staff has continued concerns
for pedestrian safety in the east parking area to the rear. Serious consideration to install
traffic calming devices should be explored in this area. Rumble strips should be
considered in deference to applicant’s architect’s concerns about noise and drainage
patterns.Staff has continued concerns with left turns out of the proposed reconfigured
parking area off of main entrance. The existing four-way stop is strongly preferred.
Minutes from the August 18, 2009 Planning Board, you should have received those in
the mail. Those are the two main outstanding issues, and I know the Fire Marshal has
an issue, as does VISION Engineering, and I’ll turn that over to the Board at this point.
MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. Thank you. Good evening.
MR. LAPPER-Good evening, everyone. For the record, Jon Lapper, Stefanie Bitter, Amy
Franco and Jim Hagan. Bill Dutch, who was here last time is ill and couldn’t be here and
wanted to apologize. We made a, I think, very thorough submittal after the last meeting,
and we’re very pleased that we’re down to just a handful of issues. Most of the changes,
I mean, we tried to address and upgrade the site to accommodate the wishes of Planning
Board. Most specifically, Tom Seguljic was looking for more planting, larger trees, both
along Glen Street and also in front of the two new structures, and we, the new submittal
specifies a minimum of 10 foot trees and we added a lot more plants in all of those
locations to do what we could there to soften it. The few issues that are left, and Amy’s
here. She can go over anything, any questions you have on anything that was
submitted, but mostly everything came back from Staff and the engineer as completed.
The reason, we did discuss this with the Board at some length at the last meeting. The
rumble strips in the back, we’re now going to one way traffic in that area because we’ve
got the diagonal spaces to make that work and to leave as much as buffer with the
cemetery, and because you have the diagonal spaces and the narrower drive aisles, it’s
just not like it is now where it’s open season back there and anybody can speed because
just with the narrower drive aisle. So it’s kind of self-regulating. Nobody likes going over
speed bumps, even when we’re coming to this meeting, so, you know, unless there’s a
strong reason for it, we’d rather avoid that back there, but we don’t see that there’s going
to be the problem because of the new configuration. Obviously if the Board insists, we’ll
add them. In terms of the issue of that four way stop. We had a pretty full discussion
and Bill talked about how important that is for re-tenanting the Plaza to provide parking
that’s not across the inner ring road, that area where Peter Harris is where there are
vacancies. So, you asked us to be imaginative and to look at alternatives and what Amy
and Jim came up with was to move what we had proposed last time, 65 feet farther from
Route 9. So it’s a compromise. It doesn’t leave as big a parking area in that area, but
the minimum that the applicant thinks they could live with, and it’s just a better plan that
what we had last time, and we hope that that’s acceptable. Do you want to explain that,
Amy, or show them anything or do you think that’s sufficient?
AMY FRANCO
12
(Queensbury Planning Board 10/20/09)
MS. FRANCO-I think the biggest concerns from last time were that we had parking right
along the drive aisle, which we’ve changed. So now it’s a straight drive through. So in
case of any stacking that is needed, there won’t be any conflict with cars having to pull
in, pull out or just trying to get out of or into the Plaza.
JIM HAGAN
MR. HAGAN-The driveway as shown last time was going to be approximately in this
location here. We’ve moved it away from Route 9 about 65 feet. In addition, the parking
in this area has been changed so you don’t have vehicles backing out into that driving
lane, because there was concern about congestion in this driving lane. So it’s a
combination of moving it and changing the configuration to minimize any conflicts. In
doing so, that also leaves us a decent distance between this intersection and the existing
intersection going into the Home Depot. So this is the new drive. That’s the existing
drive. Originally we were closer to Route 9, and this is the drive that I’m talking about
with the parking differences.
MR. SEGULJIC-Keith, could you just take a second and elaborate on Staff concerns?
MR. OBORNE-Well, it’s a current four way stop. It was designed for a particular reason.
It’s designed for traffic flow. I understand the applicant’s concern to re-tenant that area
because that is actually a pretty poor design for the tenants currently. I think that goes
without saying, but with that said, during high peak season, such as Christmas and even
during the summer, Spring season, traffic gets backed up there quite often, and to have
somebody try to make a left out of there, to go and get onto the egress area, my concern
is that they won’t be able to get into the travel lane, and thus back up traffic as people
are coming in. There’s also concerns with emergency vehicles, by the Fire Marshal, and
there really hasn’t been a whole lot of data presented on that by the applicant. So those
are my concerns.
MR. SEGULJIC-Does the Fire Marshal have the concern also?
MR. OBORNE-Yes. The Fire Marshal has concerns. It is Code compliant for their
purposes of getting in there. However, if traffic is backed up, they won’t be able to get in,
as stated on his submittal.
MR. LAPPER-And I guess we’re sort of laying this out for you, you know, it’s no surprise
that this Plaza’s taken a big hit because of losing the major tenant. So now we’ve got the
Traveler’s space vacant and the whole Monroe Muffler former medical office in front
vacant. We feel that the two new uses in front will both clean it up, make it function
better, make it look more attractive in terms of attracting tenants as well as customers,
but this is still a lift in this economy to get retail tenants for the Travelers space and also
to get retail tenants the area that we’re talking about now. I know that Bill felt very
strongly and expressed that to you that it really is a problem to re-tenant that, to have
people crossing the inner ring road and in some way it’s maybe better to take care of the
pedestrians than the cars, because there’s pretty good visibility. The left turns at worst
people would have to wait, but it’s certainly going to be good visibility at this location, but
I mean we’re here to try and get this done and do it as you tell us to, but we think that this
is a good compromise. Amy can address the Fire Marshal’s concern. He, as Keith said,
it is Code complaint, but we could probably move on parking space and make the turns
for emergency vehicles better at that new intersection.
MS. FRANCO-Yes. It appears from the way the truck would turn into the Plaza off the
main drive.
MR. LAPPER-Into that new right turn we’re talking about.
MS. FRANCO-Right, off of Route 9 in, that the fire truck would just need to make a wide
turn, and I think that’s the Fire Marshal’s concern is if there’s any cars that may be in that
location. So we could maybe, you know, take out a parking space, just make a wider
radius at that turn in, so then they would stay right in their own lane, regardless of
vehicles stacking.
MR. HUNSINGER-I’m sorry, which entrance are you talking about?
MR. LAPPER-She’s talking about after you come in off of Route 9 and you’re making a
right towards the old Travelers building to this new ring road, yes, here, take this.
13
(Queensbury Planning Board 10/20/09)
MS. FRANCO-At this point in here, because the turning movement was making a wide
right. So maybe, so just moving this down and making this lane wider.
MR. SEGULJIC-But isn’t more of the concern that people taking a left onto that egress
road, isn’t that more of the concern?
MR. OBORNE-That’s my concern, yes.
MS. FRANCO-Yes, not for the Fire Marshal.
MR. LAPPER-One is the Fire Marshal and one is Keith. Different concerns.
MR. SEGULJIC-All right. Sorry.
MR. HAGAN-Everybody knows, somebody going to a retail store, they want to get in
there quickly as possible, take care of their business and they’re focused on getting into
the store. They’re coming in off Route 9. They’re traveling a pretty good speed. So
clearly there’s a concern about people coming in that entrance drive, slowing down.
Conversely, though, people leaving there have already been to their destination. They’re
coming out. There’s a stop sign called for, I believe, at this intersection right here.
They’ve only got a short distance to start accelerating. If, in fact, there’s people backed
up here, there’ll be reason for people to say, okay, we’ve got somebody wanting to get
out here, give the guy a break and let him come out. If somebody has to wait here a little
bit longer to get out, it’s not an impossible situation. If they’re concerned about that, and
after one or two times trying that, they’ve got options. They can come back out this way
and make a right turn out on this side. It’s not like it’s an all or nothing situation. There’s
options here, and if people just use a little bit of commonsense, we don’t anticipate
there’s going to be any problem with people making the turns out of this area. There’s
also another relief point further back here up by the Post Office. So it’s not like it’s the
only drive that we’re dealing with.
MR. SEGULJIC-And your concern is to give greater access to the, shall I call it the
former Travelers building.
MR. LAPPER-And really more the stores after the building turns where the Peter Harris
stores are, where there’s vacancies, that right now there’s only two lanes of parking there
that are on the inside of that ring road. So it’s a capacity issue that retailers don’t want to
have to worry about their shoppers crossing the ring road because that’s, you know, if all
those spaces are taken, which happens because there aren’t that many spaces.
MR. HUNSINGER-Yes, there aren’t many.
MR. LAPPER-It’s a pedestrian safety issue, and it then becomes an issue about renting
that space.
MR. HUNSINGER-In fact, I’m surprised there aren’t more accidents there on that small
parking area that’s right in front of the Peter Harris stores. Because it’s really difficult to
maneuver in and out of there.
MR. LAPPER-Yes, it is, it’s tight.
MR. HAGAN-It was a good idea at the time, but we’ve learned.
MRS. STEFFAN-People are going slow when they’re in there.
MR. HUNSINGER-They are, yes.
MRS. STEFFAN-You can’t go fast.
MR. SEGULJIC-It sounds like either way it’s not ideal.
MR. LAPPER-Well, it’s a compromise, either way, but Bill feels very strongly that for the
center it needs to be more pedestrian access to those stores.
MR. HUNSINGER-The other question I have about that new intersection, what about the
elevation change? Because there is quite a bit of an elevation change there, and I went
out to the site and I looked at it and I was trying to envision where the new intersection
would be, and there’s a pretty good hill.
14
(Queensbury Planning Board 10/20/09)
MR. HAGAN-The entrance road currently sits higher than that parking field.
MR. HUNSINGER-Right, exactly.
MR. HAGAN-And at that point I’m going to say there’s probably about a two to three foot
grade differential from pavement surface to pavement surface. If you look at the detail
plans that have been prepared, part of that is not just to cut the drive through, but to re-
grade and re-pave that parking area and flair it out for 100 feet on each direction so that
it will be a gradual slope in all directions.
MR. HUNSINGER-Okay.
MR. LAPPER-So you’re addressing that.
MR. HAGAN-Yes.
MR. HUNSINGER-Okay.
MR. HAGAN-At the same time, that’s been coordinated with the drainage structures that
are in that area. So that will continue to function properly.
MR. HUNSINGER-Okay.
MR. LAPPER-Most importantly for us is to get this approved so that we can tell Chili’s,
because they want to get their building permit application in immediately, and that’s what
we’re hoping to accomplish.
MR. HUNSINGER-What other concerns are outstanding from Board members?
MRS. STEFFAN-This is the list, according to what I got from the Staff Notes and VISION.
The retaining wall detail is not provided. Let’s talk about those.
MS. FRANCO-We provided these elevations of each wall. This is the one right next to
the building, and this is the one on the property line with the cemetery. We had provided
in initial packets the retaining wall details and design, and just to see it visually, the
blocks themselves are 40 inches long, by 18 inches high. Forty inches long in this one,
twenty eight inches long in this block. So I tried to bring a sample. Didn’t happen.
MR. OBORNE-I did ask her to do that, too.
MS. FRANCO-The retaining wall company laughed at me. They’re like, good luck. So
what they’re provided me with were pictures of the same retaining wall block that are in
the area to here. We have this one in Port Henry, Malone, and Saratoga. Just so you
can see like the size of the block itself, because it’s kind of hard to tell in pictures, but,
you know, it’s a local block. They use it all over. And then just so you can see like the
different blocks, size of the walls that they’ve used at in other locations. So it does go
pretty tall. The wall next to Retail A is about, is 15 feet, and the one along the cemetery
is 12 feet, and that’s just what’s going to be visible. So you can see how we have the
cars parked below, cars above, guardrail, the loading zone, and then the cemetery with
the vegetation. This brown in here is the board on board six foot high cedar fence. So I
did a transparent so you could see there are cars behind it, but obviously it’s going to be
opaque and you won’t actually be able to see the cars themselves from the cemetery, for
headlights and those kinds of concerns. This is all evergreen dense vegetation, shown
transparent so you can see the wall behind, and then just the elevations.
MR. HAGAN-The height you talked about were peaked heights. The wall really (lost
words).
MS. FRANCO-Correct. Yes, the max height here is 15 feet, and then tapers down on
both ends, and then the max height here is 12 feet and then tapers towards Quaker
Road and then towards the back of the property.
MR. HAGAN-And actually the lower wall is set back a considerable distance from the
property line due to the landscaped area between the wall and the property line, correct?
MS. FRANCO-Right, and that’s what all of these evergreen trees are shown.
MR. HAGAN-(lost words) in relation to the elevation.
15
(Queensbury Planning Board 10/20/09)
MRS. STEFFAN-That was to accommodate the cemetery.
MS. FRANCO-Yes.
MR. LAPPER-That’s what we agreed to with the Zoning Board.
MRS. STEFFAN-Right. We talked about that before, way back when we were giving a
recommendation to the Zoning Board.
MR. LAPPER-Yes.
MR. FORD-At either the 12 or 15 foot elevation, how many feet below grade is the wall,
what’s the base?
MS. FRANCO-It’s 16 feet total for this one. So it’s only a foot and a half below grade on
the one by the property and the same for the one at the property line, with geo grid.
MR. HAGAN-This is a dry laid wall. It’s not a poured concrete wall, per se, and as a
result of (lost words) crushed stone base to support the wall on, (lost words).
MS. FRANCO-Because of the sheer size of the blocks themselves. They’re 2500
pounds and 1600 pounds, per block.
MR. HUNSINGER-No wonder you didn’t bring one. I was thinking it was a couple of
hundred pounds.
MR. TRAVER-Yes.
MR. HAGAN-This is what these things really look like to scale.
MRS. STEFFAN-How different is this from the retaining walls that exist on the other part
of the property?
MR. HAGAN-These walls are a similar material, but the block are much bigger,
proportionally.
MRS. STEFFAN-Okay.
MR. HUNSINGER-So what is the material?
MR. HAGAN-It’s a concrete.
MR. HUNSINGER-Okay.
MR. HAGAN-But the way it’s formed, it looks more like a natural stone.
MR. HUNSINGER-Yes, it does.
MR. HAGAN-Whereas what was used behind the Home Depot is more of a fractured
block. There’s a very straight edge to it. There’s the block, and then this is what we’re
talking about the wall heights, and this wall, Amy, if you could point to where that wall
curves, the high wall that’s there almost back to the building, that’s this one. This is the
one that’s along the property line that’s got the landscaping.
MS. FRANCO-Right, in here.
MR. SEGULJIC-So really you only have to go a foot and a half deep.
MR. HAGAN-Yes, actually.
MR. SEGULJIC-Wow.
MRS. STEFFAN-So once this plan’s executed, the whole back of your property will be
fortified with retaining wall.
MR. HAGAN-That’s correct. Terraced, in essence. Which you’ve got to understand the
theory behind this is that if you’ve got proper drainage material there, plus you know (lost
word) the water that exists is going to drain. If there’s no water, there’s no frost,
therefore the wall’s going to maintain stability. It works.
16
(Queensbury Planning Board 10/20/09)
MR. FORD-Isn’t that wall just a bit misleading, though? Because you’re talking about
vertical lines and horizontal lines in the wall itself, but the way the blocks are laid in there,
it doesn’t come across that way.
MR. HAGAN-You’re actually right. That’s correct. You’re absolutely right. (lost words)
regular running block.
MR. FORD-The horizontals will be there but not the verticals.
MR. HAGAN-That’s correct, and you’ll get a lot more texture to it with the way the block
is made.
MR. OBORNE-Just as a side, that’s what I was looking for with these type of details, just
to make sure that you’re comfortable with this, that Dan’s comfortable with it. I’ve seen
this before, too.
MR. HUNSINGER-Right, we have seen that before. Yes.
MR. SIPP-I’m still not comfortable with this landscaping plan, and I’ll tell you why. You’re
grouping trees too close together here in corners, and on Quaker Road, the corner of
Quaker Road and Route 9, and on up Route 9, and you’ve got three red maples in a very
small space with some understory up underneath, daylilies and so forth. These trees are
too close together.
MR. LAPPER-Let me first explain before I hand it over to Amy that we’re limited to that
space because we’ve got that whole underground system to filter all the water, to treat all
the water coming down Route 9 on the DOT property that we talked about, at various
meetings. So we’re limited, and we’ve tried to put in significant sized trees, but Don’s
point is that if they’re maple trees, Amy, maybe they’re too close together because the
canopy gets so big. What do you think about that?
MS. FRANCO-Well, they were placed where they were for the utilities themselves. They
are close, they’re planted closer than typically we would plant them on a site, just
because of the restrictions with the utilities, but what they’ll do is they’ll end up planting
and they’ll end up growing together and get one big canopy instead of being individual
trees.
MR. SIPP-Three trees in that little space you’ve got there with all the understory, are they
all going to grow?
MS. FRANCO-They’ll end up growing together as they get bigger.
MR. SIPP-They’ll all end up dying. That’s what’s going to happen.
MS. FRANCO-I don’t have a scale on me to know exactly how far they are.
MR. SIPP-And if you go out onto Route 9, you’ve got two Japanese Lilac trees in that
whole space.
MS. FRANCO-Yes. We added those from the comments last time we looked at the
utilities that are under there. There’s the water line, and there’s electric, and there’s gas.
MR. SEGULJIC-So what you’re saying is you did what you could to squeeze them in
there?
MR. LAPPER-Yes.
MS. FRANCO-Right.
MR. SEGULJIC-Okay.
MS. FRANCO-We did.
MR. LAPPER-Because of the constraints.
MR. SIPP-You’re leaving an opening there so everybody can look at Walgreens, look at
what you’re doing. You have no space, where the seven locust trees are now that you’re
taking down, you’re not putting anything in there to compensate for that at all.
17
(Queensbury Planning Board 10/20/09)
MS. FRANCO-Yes, and we added those, we took out those two parking spaces, based
on the Board’s last comments, added some full sized trees in front of the Walgreens.
MR. SIPP-Two, two trees.
MS. FRANCO-Right, and then you have the two right at the property line and then you
have the three right behind in the island.
MR. SIPP-Well, to me, that’s not enough.
MS. FRANCO-Okay.
MR. SIPP-You’ve got a lot of daylilies hanging around in there that, and a few
rhododendrons, but it just is not.
MR. LAPPER-There are good sized trees, in addition to the daylilies and rhododendrons.
You’ve got maples here, maples here.
MS. FRANCO-Right. Those are maples, and then these are just a weeping cherry.
MR. LAPPER-So the maples will get big, the maple trees. That’s what we put in the
notes.
MR. SIPP-Not when you put them that close together.
MR. LAPPER-Well, Amy’s the landscape architect, and she points out that they’ll grow
together to have a big canopy.
MR. HUNSINGER-So how far apart are they, roughly?
MRS. STEFFAN-One inch equals fifty feet. So they’re about 25 feet apart.
MS. FRANCO-On center.
MRS. STEFFAN-Yes, because if your scale’s one inch to fifty, they look like they’re half
an inch apart. That’s what it looks like to me.
MR. LAPPER-While Amy’s adding this up, remember that that stormwater plan is a really
important part of this for the Town and for the State, in terms of filtering that water before
it goes into Halfway Brook. We just got our final, final approval from DOT last week on
that whole project. So that’s ready to go as soon as our project starts.
MS. FRANCO-Yes, they’re 12 to 15 feet apart. So that’s actually pretty generous.
MRS. STEFFAN-I’ve been thinking about this landscaping plan, and this particular
project, I went to a New York State Planning Federation Conference and we looked a lot
at all different kinds of things regarding landscaping, stormwater controls, and one of the
things that I thought about this particular site, when I was going through one of the
presentations, and one of my original concerns, was the landscaping. You’ve taken out
the, you’re going to be taking out the locust trees as a result of the stormwater project,
but one of the things that bothers me about this whole site is you’ve got that four way
intersection, and the only green that was part of that intersection, and of course there’s
green down where the Olive Garden is, but it’s below grade. So you can see the tops of
the trees that are half dead, but that’s a whole other deal. So, we’re taking away that
green space. That’s a concern for me. I’ve expressed that every time you’ve been here,
but there is an opportunity, I think, along this whole section of area that you’re going to
improve with the shopping center, and I saw an application that was actually very well
done, and I thought was very well suited to your plan, and that was putting in a brick wall
between the parking spaces and Route 9, with a landscaped piece in front of it, so not
landscaping inside of the shopping plaza, but where you’ve got the greens, where you’ve
got the greenway planted all the way along the parking lot here, and behind where the
trees were, it would look very nice to have a brick wall with landscaping in front of it. I
don’t know if that’s an option for us.
MR. KREBS-I was under the impression that there’s gas lines, electric lines, etc., running
there. Can you put a stone wall on top of those? They won’t be able to have the access
to them.
18
(Queensbury Planning Board 10/20/09)
MRS. STEFFAN-I don’t know. I thought the utilities were right here? There are some
gas lines that are, the lines are running circuitously through the property. So that’s hard
to know.
MR. KREBS-Okay. I was under the impression there was.
MRS. STEFFAN-To where this purple line is. This is where I was looking. This was a
purple line that I drew, and then one of the things that that would do is, in my mind,
improve the site of the shopping center itself, because you’re going to see, and the wall
that I’m thinking of is, you know, probably waist height, but you’re going to be able to see
Walgreens, you’re going to be able to see Chili’s. Obviously there’ll be a couple of trees
and landscaping, but, you know, I thought it might improve the aesthetics of that
particular corner, which is a concern. I mean, it’s an ugly intersection. There’s no doubt.
I mean, it’s, that whole major intersection is about traffic and moving people from place
to place, but it’s also a highly visible intersection within the Town, and we’re making it
uglier, and I think there’s something we need to do.
MR. SIPP-Agreed.
MR. LAPPER-And I guess, you know, we’re here certainly ready to compromise, but
there are constraints because we’ve got all sorts of utility line on both of those, along the
Route 9 section, and I think that Gretchen’s really talking about the part that goes behind
the drainage area.
MRS. STEFFAN-Right.
MR. LAPPER-Because along Route 9 we’ve got all the utility lines, but Amy was pointing
out, just tell us what utility lines are over there.
MS. FRANCO-Yes. It’s just the sanitary line that runs across the front and then along
Route 9 cuts through that portion as well as the water line. So we just have to work
around those big utilities.
MR. SIPP-Now, you’ve got this Japanese Lilac sitting right on top of a water line.
MRS. STEFFAN-Well, the other thing that’s a concern, as I drove by your site, is that
there’s, I don’t know the genus and species of it, but they’re Japanese Barberries that
are along Route 9. I mean, half of them are dead. Half of them are gone. There’s only a
couple that are there sporadically, and that’s one of my concerns, you know, in the
landscape notes up in the corner, yes, for one year, the folks who are planting all these
things agree that they’re going to make sure everything stays alive and, you know, is
built according to plan. Well, what happens they kick the bucket and then all of a sudden
this beautiful landscape plan that we approved and thought, this is going to look great,
then it looks terrible.
MR. OBORNE-Well, the Town Code does have provisions for that, that they have certain
mulching and certain landscaping that must be kept up.
MRS. STEFFAN-And do we enforce it?
MR. OBORNE-Yes, absolutely.
MRS. STEFFAN-We do?
MR. OBORNE-Yes. Bruce is out there having people replace trees left and right.
MRS. STEFFAN-Then I wonder why are there so many dead trunks along that
particular?
MR. OBORNE-Because it probably wasn’t part of Site Plan Review. It was probably in
the County Right of Way. I can’t answer any specific, anything specific.
MRS. STEFFAN-Okay. That’s just my concern. Aesthetically, we have so many things
that are just not adding any aesthetic value.
MR. LAPPER-Well, the first thing we’ll agree, in terms of putting a note on the plan or a
condition of approval, to make sure that if it’s in the right of way, that those barberries
and the lilac trees, that they’re going to get replaced if they’re killed by, you know,
snowplows whatever it is. Don had asked about those Japanese Lilac trees, and that’s
19
(Queensbury Planning Board 10/20/09)
because those were suitable in terms of the size and the root base, because of the utility
restraints, that they would fit there, and they are salt tolerant. So there are a lot of
considerations. That wasn’t just picked as a whim, and in terms of the wall that Gretchen
is asking for, it’s not impossible. It’s just a question of working around the constraints of
those underground utility lines and dealing with the Water and Sewer Department.
MR. SIPP-What about backing up towards Walgreens and that island there, where your
parking spaces are, and put some trees in there.
MR. LAPPER-Well, we did that, but we’ve got parking requirements also. I mean, we
took out two spaces last time that the Board had asked and put in good sized trees.
MR. SIPP-Where? Where are you talking about? Yes, but what I’m saying is an island
in one of these here, and here, and here, some trees.
MR. LAPPER-There’s no room for an island there because of the spaces, because of
drive aisles.
MR. SEGULJIC-Question for Staff, and I can’t find it in the Code. Isn’t there a
requirement for a tree every 35 feet or so?
MR. OBORNE-Yes, there are landscaping and buffering requirements, absolutely. What
the specifics are, 25 feet, 35 feet, it all depends on the zone.
MR. SEGULJIC-All right. My comment, you were able, you did a good job squeezing a
couple of trees in there, because you’re dealing with the constraints, but between the
Japanese Lilacs, why can’t we continue them along and meet Code that says you have
to have a tree every 25 or 35 feet?
MR. LAPPER-Where would you like them, Tom?
MR. SEGULJIC-Well, continuing along Route 9.
MR. SIPP-Going north, north on Route 9.
MS. FRANCO-Yes, that’s where the water line, if you can see it coming in towards Route
9, and then it bends and it goes right along that area.
MR. SIPP-Yes, but you’ve got a tree right on top of the water line coming in.
MR. LAPPER-No. She put it right before the water line, right?
MS. FRANCO-The two I put in are new, but the one farther down is existing.
MR. SEGULJIC-So what you’re saying is the water line, so where, so it bends, so it
comes along Quaker then it bends onto Route 9 and it goes north along the road?
MR. LAPPER-Yes.
MR. SEGULJIC-Right along that area. So it goes right up here. So how does this tree
exist here, then?
MR. SIPP-That tree is sitting right on it, then, isn’t it?
MS. FRANCO-Yes. Part of good design, I don’t think you’d intentionally want to put a
tree on top of a water line. Maybe they installed that tree without knowing? I mean, I
don’t know.
MR. SIPP-Well, if it hasn’t bothered in 30, 40 years, I don’t think it’s going to bother.
MR. LAPPER-Amy, if we can do it and they want it, let’s do it.
MS. FRANCO-I don’t know if you want to put it on a water line, though.
MR. SIPP-Well, I wouldn’t put red maple out there because of the salt problem.
MS. FRANCO-Right. That’s why we did the Japanese Lilacs.
MR. LAPPER-Well, can we add some more?
20
(Queensbury Planning Board 10/20/09)
MR. SIPP-How about some locusts? How about some honey locusts?
MRS. STEFFAN-I’m wondering. What are the downsides of planting on a water line? If
the lines have to be dug up, obviously the landscaping’s got to be dug up, but, you know,
the pipes are either steel or, I don’t think they’re plastic.
MR. LAPPER-Well, as long as they don’t put willow trees in that are going to crack the
lines.
MR. HAGAN-The water lines will be five to six foot down. Sewer line will vary depending
on the pitch and covering.
MS. FRANCO-Yes, and the only concerns are, like you said, if any repair ever has to be
done, that tree will have to be taken out, and/or replaced depending on how it goes, and
also if there’s ever a leak in the water line or a sewer line, the potential for the roots to
find that water, and then it creates a bigger problem. Those are usually the two issues
that we have to worry about with planting here or on a water line or sewer line.
MR. LAPPER-But if there’s five to six feet and they really want it, can we agree to do it?
MR. SEGULJIC-Well, I guess it’s not that we really, it’s what the Code says.
MR. OBORNE-Well, I’m reading the Code right now. The applicability, 179-8-050, these
standards shall apply to all commercial, industrial, I’ll just stop there, and landscaped
strip along streets. A landscaped strip, and we’re talking about a landscaped strip along
Route 9, correct?
MR. SIPP-Right.
MR. FORD-Right.
MR. LAPPER-Right.
MR. OBORNE-A landscaped strip shall be provided adjacent to all public and private
streets. The landscaped strip shall be a minimum of 10 feet wide, exclusive of the street
right of way, and within the landscaped strip, one shade tree, three inch caliper
minimum, shall be provided for every for every 250 linear feet.
MR. SEGULJIC-And that’s where the 25 comes from.
MR. OBORNE-Yes, or any portion thereof of landscaped strip. Now this, all these
buffering standards can be modified by the Planning Board, but that is the guideline right
there, along the street. Interior landscaping, it depends on the size of the retail
development. It’s either 10% or 5% or 20%, depending on the size, and I think they’ve
done a pretty good job interior wise. That’s why I didn’t have much of an issue with that,
but, yes, it’s one every 250 linear feet, but it should be a 10 foot wide landscaping strip,
with hedges and plantings.
MR. SEGULJIC-Every 250 square feet.
MR. SIPP-Square feet.
MR. OBORNE-Linear feet.
MR. SEGULJIC-Every 250 linear feet?
MR. HAGAN-That’s a long distance.
MR. SEGULJIC-That’s a real long distance.
MR. LAPPER-Yes.
MR. OBORNE-That’s what it says.
MS. FRANCO-This is 320.
MR. LAPPER-But in any case, we’ll put in more trees.
21
(Queensbury Planning Board 10/20/09)
MR. OBORNE-I do suggest to direct the applicant as to what you want, you know, as a
Board, obviously.
MR. TRAVER-Keith, does the Town have a policy or a practice with regards to plantings
in or around utilities, utilities, water lines, sewer lines?
MR. OBORNE-There’s nothing stated in the Code. To me it seems to be commonsense
to not plant around utilities. That’s just.
MR. KREBS-Yes, plus the fact this is an area that you are going to have all the snow that
gets plowed off of the road, it’s going to go right into this area. So whatever you plant
there is going to have to be awfully hardy to withstand.
MR. LAPPER-We’ll agree to put them in and we’ll hope that they’ll survive. How many
do you want?
MR. SIPP-Well, now, let’s go back here. Down on the corner here, where you’ve got
three red maple sitting right out there on the corner, let’s get rid of them.
MR. LAPPER-No, I mean, we will if you want to, but we think you’re really going to like
those. I mean, red maples are big trees, and that’s eventually going to look really nice.
MR. SIPP-Yes, but they’re susceptible to salt damage.
MR. LAPPER-They’re not that close to the road because the right of way’s pretty big
there. I mean, that’s where we have room to put in substantial tree.
MR. SIPP-They’re too close together.
MR. LAPPER-Not according to Amy.
MS. FRANCO-They measure at 15 feet on center.
MR. SIPP-Yes, but I don’t want three of them one right on top of the other. Spread them
out.
MR. LAPPER-We can’t spread them out, but we can take one out.
MR. FORD-Would two be better than three, Don?
MR. SIPP-Yes. One would be (lost word).
MR. HUNSINGER-You’re talking about the corner in front of Walgreens?
MR. SIPP-Yes.
MR. HUNSINGER-Where there’s three in a row.
MR. SIPP-And even back down the road to the east you’ve got another plantation there
of two red maples.
MR. FORD-You’ve got two and then you’ve got three.
MRS. STEFFAN-By the way, this plan needs to have a tree legend on it.
MR. LAPPER-You have it. It somehow got.
MRS. STEFFAN-It was on an initial plan.
MR. OBORNE-Ma’am, I’ll ensure that the legend, they did supply one to me, by PDF, a
week or so ago.
MR. HUNSINGER-It wasn’t attached.
MR. LAPPER-That was an oversight.
MR. OBORNE-And I assure you it will be at final, to the direction of the Board.
MR. HUNSINGER-So what’s the SR-1?
22
(Queensbury Planning Board 10/20/09)
MS. FRANCO-The Japanese Lilac.
MR. SIPP-That’s that Lilac. I mean, if you’re going to put two out in front, let’s put two
more on either, one on either side of it. I know the Walgreens wants to get all their.
You’ve got two here. How about one here? How about one here on the corner?
Another one up here? That’s a red maple.
MS. FRANCO-Yes, that’s the existing.
MR. SIPP-What about down along here? Take some of these out of here. There are
three trees in a twenty foot circle. It just doesn’t, you’re going to stunt the growth. You’re
going to kill. One would be sufficient. Let it grow. The same thing here, well you’ve only
got two in this, and they’ve got to be 10 feet tall. You want to get these things so they
grow, and you’re going to starve them to death with three of them.
MR. OBORNE-Now were there changes made to the landscape plan?
MS. FRANCO-All right. So what Don marked were two additional trees along Route 9,
one towards the corner towards Quaker, where the striping is, and the other between the
two shown on the plan and the one existing.
MR. LAPPER-Which would be a Japanese Lilac.
MS. FRANCO-Correct, a Japanese Lilac.
MR. OBORNE-I just want to be able to verify that through the record when they come in.
MS. FRANCO-One in this location between the two we show.
MR. HUNSINGER-So there’d be another one there, to kind of balance that out.
MS. FRANCO-The one in here. One here, and one towards this corner, and then to take
one of these trees out.
MR. HUNSINGER-One of those. I thought it was inside the parking that we were taking
out. Okay.
MR. LAPPER-No, that’s where he wanted it.
MS. FRANCO-So these’ll just be two maples that.
MR. HUNSINGER-And what about the other stretch of Route 9 between the right in and
out only and the main intersection. What do we have for trees in there? There’s three
existing trees? The plan shows three circles.
MS. FRANCO-Yes, the three existing.
MR. LAPPER-What are they?
MS. FRANCO-They’re red maples with the Japanese barberry underneath.
MR. HUNSINGER-Everybody satisfied with those proposed changes?
MR. FORD-Yes.
MRS. STEFFAN-No, but I’ll go along with it. I thought the wall would be an excellent
idea.
MR. FORD-I liked that idea.
MRS. STEFFAN-It would improve the whole visibility of the site so that it would actually
be more attractive, I thought, but.
MR. KREBS-I’d agree with you if there weren’t the utilities there. That’s the only
problem.
23
(Queensbury Planning Board 10/20/09)
MRS. STEFFAN-But you know that’s, and I realize this is a greater issue than this
particular project, but how many opportunities do we have to make the Town look better?
I mean, our job is planning, and the main intersection of the Town.
MR. SIPP-As to (lost words) utilities, you’re going out there on Main Street, you’re going
to bury all the utilities and you’re going to plant trees over the top of them, right?
MRS. STEFFAN-No, I don’t think.
MR. KREBS-I don’t think so. Those are going to be back from the utility.
MR. OBORNE-There’ll be a utility easement on the properties. That landscape area with
Main Street is, there aren’t utilities underneath it.
MRS. STEFFAN-Yes, they planned that in advance.
MR. OBORNE-I promise you.
MR. SIPP-But it’s been done in a lot of places where the lines have been buried and
trees have been planted over the top, and I don’t see that National Grid or.
MR. OBORNE-The takings were on the properties along Main Street.
MR. SIPP-It’s all on private, all easements.
MR. OBORNE-Utility easements, yes. Now, I’m not going to say unequivocally that the
trees are not going to be impacted by it once it’s done, but for the most part they were
pretty sensitive to that, in my study of the plan.
MR. FORD-Are we beyond planting trees?
MRS. STEFFAN-I guess. Okay. The zoning, there’s an issue on the Sign Variance.
MR. LAPPER-No.
MRS. STEFFAN-No. That’s already, you are not going to do that. Okay. VISION
Engineering had a comment on the loading zone requirements, and they’re comment
was the proposed loading zone is in the access aisle and will interfere with internal traffic
movement.
MR. LAPPER-Our answer is basically that this is like Applebee’s by Lowe’s, where they
don’t get a lot of deliveries, they pull up behind the building and unload in the morning,
and it’s really not any big deal, or not something that doesn’t happen elsewhere in Town.
MR. HAGAN-This is just at the Chili’s. I think in some of the comments I saw it made
reference to Walgreens where there is a defined loading area out of the traffic lane.
MRS. STEFFAN-The other issue that is fairly major that VISION Engineering brought up
is that the traffic report is not adequate. It’s eight to ten years old, and I have to admit
that, you know, that really resonated with me, because I think it was just about two and a
half years ago that I went to a program that was put on by the Town of Queensbury. The
Town had contracted for a study of that main intersection at Route 9 and Aviation Road,
and there are some real traffic problems there, and they made some changes to that
particular intersection, but what resonates in my mind is that the changes that have been
made to expand that intersection is currently at its expansion capacity, and that that
intersection will fail in the next 17 years. So when VISION Engineering talked about a
traffic report not adequate, that’s what resonated with me. I remembered that traffic
study, and if your traffic study is, your data is based on a study that was done eight to ten
years ago, I know that the Town has done some things more recently than that.
MR. LAPPER-Well, let me address that, to start with. I’m very familiar with the
intersection improvements, and that was adding double left turns everywhere possible,
and that deals with really capacity problem at Christmas, and it comes down to whether
you design your town so that it functions at an A level during Christmas time and then the
rest of the year you have all this excess pavement. So it’s somewhat of a compromise,
but what the State did there was to acquire right of way and to expand the most capacity
that could fit. They took land from the Mobil station. They took land on this side, and I
think that does work most of the time, but obviously at some seasons we’re all sitting
there waiting for two revolutions of the light. In terms of this Plaza, when the traffic report
24
(Queensbury Planning Board 10/20/09)
was done, obviously Travelers was a tenant, and Travelers, we’d come back many times
to ask for additional parking because of Travelers, because they’re six and a half per
thousand in terms of jamming people into that space. The retail standard is five per
thousand, and the bigger the plaza it goes down to four per thousand. So this is going to
be re-tenanted with retail. You’re never going to have the kind of traffic generation that
you had when you had Travelers there, just in terms of jamming people in there. So in
terms of this project, it’s obviously, you know, two smaller uses, the Walgreens and the
Chili’s. Everything else there that’s vacant will someday hopefully sooner rather than
later will be re-tenanted, but it’ll be re-tenanted with retail. If it was anything different
then that, we’d be coming back for Site Plan anyway. So I think that the traffic reports
that were done then are sufficient, only because they were done looking at Travelers and
now we are going to go to retail.
MR. HUNSINGER-That’s a very good answer, you know, and I think that makes sense.
Because obviously if you have an office operation you’re going to have a huge peak
volume.
MR. LAPPER-Yes, everyone coming and going at the same time.
MR. HUNSINGER-Yes, and with retail the peak volume is going to be less.
MRS. STEFFAN-Okay.
MR. HUNSINGER-Yes, that makes sense.
MR. SEGULJIC-What if it goes back to office then? I realize that your intention is not to
have it that, what if it does go back to office?
MR. LAPPER-We would agree to come back in. We put on here that it’s retail, and that if
it’s going to be an office use, we’ll come back in for Site Plan. I mean, they just need to
get tenants in there, but it’s not going to be office.
MR. HUNSINGER-I was going to ask that very question, because it is on the plan as
being retail, and so that clearly is the intention.
MR. LAPPER-I just want to be clear. In the back we’ve got the space as office, and
they’ve got some additional room in the back that we’re building those spaces for in the
back, but what was the Travelers space in front is there, on here for retail on this plan,
and if it were to change, we’ll agree to come back in for Site Plan.
MR. HUNSINGER-Okay.
MR. SEGULJIC-Well, I guess just a clarification. If it goes to office space, would it have
to come back?
MR. OBORNE-Yes.
MR. SEGULJIC-They do? Okay.
MR. OBORNE-You’re proposing retail there, you’re not proposing any office. That would
be a change in use.
MR. LAPPER-We are proposing retail, yes, absolutely.
MR. OBORNE-Of course that would be a Zoning Administrator determination.
MR. FORD-You were asked at the last meeting to look at that parking arrangement
where there was two way traffic to the east side of Walgreens. You looked at that and.
MR. LAPPER-That would be whether this could go to diagonal, just that front section?
MR. FORD-Correct.
MS. FRANCO-Yes. I mean, obviously we did look at it, because it was a comment.
There were a couple of reasons, because it’s two way there, so then you’d only be
allowing traffic to park in there safely one direction, and then also.
MR. FORD-Two way traffic is not difficult, Jon.
25
(Queensbury Planning Board 10/20/09)
MR. LAPPER-Just in terms of the diagonal facing one way.
MR. FORD-Yes, I understand.
MS. FRANCO-And then just fitting the number of parking spaces, because you lose
spaces going diagonal.
MR. HAGAN-Right now the only place we have the diagonal parking is behind what was
Travelers, where we’ve got one way aisles, one northbound, one southbound, otherwise
everything else is 90 degree, and we feel that’s the way it should be.
MR. OBORNE-That’s the only way it could be.
MR. FORD-Thanks for looking at it.
MR. HUNSINGER-What else?
MRS. STEFFAN-Those were the only things that were on the list.
MR. SEGULJIC-The only other thing is the rumble strips in the back, and I guess the
concern, Staff, you’re talking about the strip along, shall we call it the cemetery area.
MR. OBORNE-Yes, for pedestrian safety.
MR. SEGULJIC-Because Staff’s thinking is that cars could potentially go zipping through
there to get to the other side?
MR. OBORNE-Staff definitely thinks that cars will go zipping through there.
MR. SEGULJIC-Staff has witnessed that?
MR. OBORNE-Staff will witness that.
MR. SEGULJIC-Okay.
MR. OBORNE-And not to be flip. It is a concern about, with me.
MR. SEGULJIC-I don’t understand what the issue is with having a rumble strip in there.
Why?
MR. LAPPER-People don’t like them. I mean, you know, driving over them.
MR. SEGULJIC-That’s why they slow down. That’s the purpose of them.
MR. LAPPER-Well, I guess there’s different ways to slow down traffic and making drive
aisles narrower is one way to do that, and those diagonal parking, I mean, this is not a
deal killer issue. If you guys say you want us to do it, we’re going to do it, but it’s an
issue for snowplowing, and it’s an issue, people don’t like to travel over them. So we’d
rather not do it. We think it’s covered by the narrow aisles and the diagonal parking.
MR. HUNSINGER-Well, and you also have those diamonds shown on the plan.
MR. LAPPER-Absolutely, and that was in the submittal.
MS. FRANCO-And just to note, too, they are just striping. It’s not like a raised bump or
anything.
MR. HUNSINGER-Right, I was going to ask that, because I’ve seen raised intersections.
MS. FRANCO-Like humps they call them or tables.
MR. LAPPER-It’s the white concrete that you’re talking about.
MR. HUNSINGER-No, no. It’s actually, it’s about a four to six inch, where you raise the
center of the intersection.
MR. OBORNE-Yes, I know what you’re talking about, a four way or a two way.
26
(Queensbury Planning Board 10/20/09)
MR. HUNSINGER-Yes, on like a four way stop where you raise the inside of the
intersection, and it’s gradual so snow plows, it doesn’t bother snow plows.
MS. FRANCO-Like a speed table.
MR. HUNSINGER-Yes. I’m not sure what you would call it, but when you actually see
them in practice it’s very interesting. Cars actually brake as they approach the
intersection because they see the bump, you know, and it’s really not a bump. It’s just a
little incline.
MR. OBORNE-And on the converse would be a dip.
MR. HUNSINGER-Yes.
MR. OBORNE-That you would do, that does not affect the snow plow.
MR. HUNSINGER-Yes, but I think the diamond would have the same impact. I think,
you know, and I mean, I’ve seen presentations where they talk about traffic calming, and
the diamonds, you know, maybe, well there are two shown on the plan.
MR. OBORNE-See, I was specifically looking for a device, not necessarily a visual for
that area. That’s all, and not to belabor the point.
MR. HUNSINGER-No, sure. No, I think it’s a point well taken. Absolutely. I mean, right
now, I mean, people fly through there to get to the Post Office or, you know, Home
Depot, and I think it’s partly because it’s wide open.
MR. LAPPER-And that’s because it’s so wide.
MR. HUNSINGER-It’s a wide drive aisle, and there’s room, you know, and I think by
closing it down and, you know, studies have shown that, by closing down, that’s the
whole idea of the crosswalks that come into the intersection in downtowns, because it
acts as a visual barrier to slow traffic down.
MR. TRAVER-And when I saw rumble strip, to me that’s different than a speed bump.
MR. OBORNE-Absolutely, yes. It’s just like on the side of the highways, they have the
sleeper strips that they have there. Very similar to that.
MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. You’re not talking about speed bump, but rumble strip.
MR. OBORNE-No, no.
MR. TRAVER-Yes, that to me is a different, right.
MR. KREBS-It’s not like what we have out here.
MR. OBORNE-I’m talking about a rumble strip. It’s very narrow. When you’re coming up
to tollbooths they have them.
MR. HUNSINGER-Sure.
MR. LAPPER-So you mean just a depression in the asphalt?
MR. OBORNE-It’s about eight or ten, and there’s certain specifications that you have to
do them by.
MR. TRAVER-You see them on the side of like the Northway. It’s really a warning.
MR. LAPPER-Yes, the Northway, yes, those are depressions that they actually melt the
asphalt. We thought you were talking about what’s behind Town Hall.
MR. TRAVER-They’re less annoying than a speed bump.
MR. LAPPER-Yes.
MR. HUNSINGER-Maybe put them in, in front of the diamonds.
MR. LAPPER-Yes, we’re okay with that.
27
(Queensbury Planning Board 10/20/09)
MR. OBORNE-That would be fine, in the drive aisles.
MR. HUNSINGER-Right in front of the diamonds.
MR. LAPPER-As long as they’re not speed bumps.
MR. KREBS-Just to remind the driver that this is an area to go slow.
MR. TRAVER-Yes, it’s an audio, and they’re effective.
MS. FRANCO-I just want to clarify, because there’s four stripes. I have one on each side
of the one way drive aisle, and then one here, and I put one down here for this. So you
want them in front of, one on this side, one on this side, for each driveway.
MR. OBORNE-I was specifically looking just from the point of view of that the area, yes,
right in there. Yes, when you’re coming in, one in the middle, when you’re coming into
that area, one in the middle and one at the end. That’s all I’m looking for. On the side
going straight in, going north.
MS. FRANCO-One, two.
MR. OBORNE-That’s what I’m looking for.
MS. FRANCO-Three. So you don’t need them coming this way?
MR. OBORNE-I’m not too concerned about it on that side because of the parallel parking
you have there. The width is a lot larger. You have a sidewalk on that side, too, do you
not, along the wall?
MS. FRANCO-No.
MR. OBORNE-I thought there was.
MS. FRANCO-No. That’s the retaining wall.
MR. OBORNE-I thought there was a sidewalk there. Isn’t there one there?
MR. HAGAN-No, there’s not.
MR. OBORNE-My mistake. Well, thinking about that, just off the cuff, if we could have
another two there, that would be fine.
MS. FRANCO-On the other side?
MR. KREBS-Why don’t you show her where you want it, so that we make sure we get it
correct.
MR. LAPPER-Okay. We’ve got the locations.
MR. FORD-While we’re talking about safety, I’ve got another congested area that I’d like
to have you take a look at. Twenty seven feet from that northeast corner of Walgreens,
to the opposite curb, we’ve got two way traffic coming in from around Walgreens, two
way traffic off Quaker Road and on Quaker Road, and along through that, the diagonal
parking, I’m sorry, not the diagonal parking, we got rid of that, but bike rack right there at
that intersection, there seems to be an awful lot of traffic right there. Isn’t there a more
appropriate place for a bike rack than right there at that corner?
MR. LAPPER-That’s an island, that’s why.
MS. FRANCO-Yes.
MR. FORD-Do you see all the vehicular traffic coming in and.
MR. LAPPER-Tom, how about diagonal across the Walgreens building from there, so it
would be in the southwest corner?
MS. FRANCO-I mean it’s good for visibility to have it right there, but.
28
(Queensbury Planning Board 10/20/09)
MR. HAGAN-It’s here now. They’re suggesting moving it over here to the front of the
building.
MR. FORD-That would address my concern. I’m just concerned about the people
coming in with bikes, and you’ve got two way traffic here and here and here. There’s a
confluence right there. Let’s get rid of the bike rack.
MR. LAPPER-Okay.
MR. FORD-Thank you.
MR. SEGULJIC-One other thing. In Staff Notes there’s a comment about the bus and
transit access should be discussed, and then it says applicant has discussed mass
transit, and then see response sheet. I’m not sure what that is.
MS. FRANCO-I personally called them and talked to them, and I included that in, I think,
our first round of comment letters that there’s bus stops, new bus stops at the Walmart
and one down south on Route 9 in front of the Plaza down that way that are new, and I
guess the bus stations, you know, said those are the closest ones, and won’t be adding
anymore.
MR. SEGULJIC-That’s that.
MR. HUNSINGER-That’s customer service for you. Yes.
MR. SEGULJIC-Okay. Then the only other thing is the issue with the four way
intersection in the front. Did we come to a conclusion on that? As far as I see it, it’s a
choice between the existing four way intersection, or having the entrance further to the
west, and it seems like there’s no good answer, and I think at this point what they
proposed is.
MR. HUNSINGER-I think what they’ve proposed is a reasonable compromise.
MR. SEGULJIC-Yes.
MRS. STEFFAN-That’s the main entrance on Route 9?
MR. SEGULJIC-The main entrance. There’s no good answer as I see it. You move that
proposed entrance a little further into the, a little further down, then you’re kind of
competing with the other one. The existing set up probably isn’t the best.
MR. HUNSINGER-Okay.
MRS. STEFFAN-The Fire Marshal certainly voted for that option.
MR. HUNSINGER-Yes. We do have a public hearing scheduled this evening. Is there
anyone in the audience that wants to address the Board on this application? I see no
takers.
PUBLIC HEARING OPEN
MR. HUNSINGER-Any written comments, Keith?
MR. OBORNE-No, sir.
MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. I will then open the public hearing, and since there are no
commentors, I’ll close the public hearing.
PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED
MR. HUNSINGER-This is a SEQRA Long Form. Are there any other questions,
comments, concerns from the Board before we go forward with SEQRA? Okay.
MRS. STEFFAN-Okay. Will the proposed action result in a physical change to the
project site?
MR. FORD-Yes.
MR. TRAVER-Yes.
29
(Queensbury Planning Board 10/20/09)
MRS. STEFFAN-Small to moderate, potentially large, can be mitigated?
MR. TRAVER-Small to moderate and mitigated by Site Plan.
MRS. STEFFAN-Okay. Does everyone concur?
MR. FORD-Yes.
MRS. STEFFAN-Will there be an effect to any unique or unusual land forms found
on the site?
MR. TRAVER-No.
MR. FORD-No.
MRS. STEFFAN-Will the proposed action affect any water body designated as
protected?
MR. TRAVER-No.
MR. FORD-No.
MRS. STEFFAN-Will the proposed action affect any non-protected existing or new body
of water?
MR. HUNSINGER-No.
MR. KREBS-No.
MRS. STEFFAN-Will the proposed action affect surface or groundwater quality or
quantity?
MR. KREBS-No.
MR. SIPP-No.
MR. HUNSINGER-Well, I was going to say, it’s actually improving stormwater,
groundwater runoff.
MRS. STEFFAN-On their site and on other sites, and on Route 9.
MR. HUNSINGER-Yes.
MRS. STEFFAN-Okay. Will the proposed action alter drainage flow or patterns, or
surface water runoff?
MR. HUNSINGER-It’s really more drainage flow.
MRS. STEFFAN-Yes. Will the proposed action affect air quality?
MR. HUNSINGER-No.
MR. FORD-No.
MRS. STEFFAN-Will the proposed action affect any threatened or endangered species?
MR. HUNSINGER-No.
MR. KREBS-No.
MRS. STEFFAN-Will the proposed action substantially affect non-threatened or non-
endangered species?
MR. HUNSINGER-No.
MR. KREBS-No.
MRS. STEFFAN-Will the proposed action affect agricultural land resources?
30
(Queensbury Planning Board 10/20/09)
MR. HUNSINGER-No.
MR. KREBS-No.
MRS. STEFFAN-Will the proposed action affect aesthetic resources?
MR. HUNSINGER-No.
MR. SEGULJIC-No.
MRS. STEFFAN-Will the proposed action impact any site or structure of historic, pre-
historic or paleontological importance?
MR. HUNSINGER-No.
MR. FORD-No.
MRS. STEFFAN-Will the proposed action affect the quantity or quality of existing or
future open spaces or recreational opportunities?
MR. FORD-No.
MR. TRAVER-No.
MRS. STEFFAN-Will the proposed action impact the exceptional or unique
characteristics of a critical environmental area?
MR. HUNSINGER-No.
MR. FORD-No.
MRS. STEFFAN-Will there be an effect to existing transportation systems?
MR. HUNSINGER-No.
MR. FORD-No.
MRS. STEFFAN-Will proposed action affect the community’s sources of fuel or energy
supply?
MR. TRAVER-No.
MR. FORD-No.
MRS. STEFFAN-Will there be objectionable odors, noise, or vibration as a result of
the proposed action?
MR. KREBS-No.
MR. HUNSINGER-No.
MRS. STEFFAN-Will the proposed action affect public health and safety?
MR. HUNSINGER-No.
MR. KREBS-No.
MRS. STEFFAN-Will the proposed action affect the character of the existing community?
MR. HUNSINGER-No.
MR. KREBS-No.
MRS. STEFFAN-And is there, or is there likely to be, public controversy related to
potential adverse environmental impacts?
MR. FORD-No.
31
(Queensbury Planning Board 10/20/09)
MR. HUNSINGER-No.
MRS. STEFFAN-Then I’ll make a motion for a Negative SEQRA declaration.
RESOLUTION WHEN DETERMINATION OF NO SIGNIFICANCE IS MADE
RESOLUTION NO. 47-2008, Introduced by Gretchen Steffan who moved for its
adoption, seconded by Thomas Ford:
WHEREAS, there is presently before the Planning Board an application for:
NPA II, LLC, and
WHEREAS, this Planning Board has determined that the proposed project and Planning
Board action is subject to review under the State Environmental Quality Review Act,
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT
RESOLVED:
1. No Federal agency appears to be involved.
2. The following agencies are involved:
NONE
3. The proposed action considered by this Board is Unlisted in the Department of
Environmental Conservation Regulations implementing the State Environmental
Quality Review Act and the regulations of the Town of Queensbury.
4. An Environmental Assessment Form has been completed by the applicant.
5. Having considered and thoroughly analyzed the relevant areas of environmental
concern and having considered the criteria for determining whether a project has
a significant environmental impact as the same is set forth in Section 617.11 of
the Official Compilation of Codes, Rules and Regulations for the State of New
York, this Board finds that the action about to be undertaken by this Board will
have no significant environmental effect and the Chairman of the Planning Board
is hereby authorized to execute and sign and file as may be necessary a
statement of non-significance or a negative declaration that may be required by
law.
th
Duly adopted this 20 day of October, 2009, by the following vote:
AYES: Mr. Traver, Mr. Krebs, Mr. Seguljic, Mr. Sipp, Mrs. Steffan, Mr. Ford,
Mr. Hunsinger
NOES: NONE
MRS. STEFFAN-I would like to recommend we take a few minutes so that we can put
together an appropriate motion. There’s been a lot of discussion, and I’m not prepared
to make the motion off the top of my head. I’ve taken notes, but.
MR. HUNSINGER-Yes.
MR. LAPPER-We’ve got a plan with a lot of marks on it, everything we’ve agreed to.
MR. HUNSINGER-I was going to ask who wants to help put that motion together.
MRS. STEFFAN-I think Don Sipp, Tom Ford, and who else?
MR. HUNSINGER-Only three? Okay. Don, Tom, and Gretchen. We’ll take a break.
MR. LAPPER-Would you like us to give you our list, would that help?
MR. HUNSINGER-Yes, go ahead.
MRS. STEFFAN-Sure. We like that.
MR. HUNSINGER-I’ll call the meeting back to order, and our Secretary has a resolution
ready to read into the record.
32
(Queensbury Planning Board 10/20/09)
MRS. STEFFAN-Okay. I will make a motion to approve Site Plan No. 48-2008 NPA II,
LLC, according to the resolution prepared by Staff. Paragraph Four A complies.
Paragraph Four B, Negative Declaration. Paragraph Four G does not apply. There are
no waiver requests. This application is approved with the following conditions. That,
One, the applicant will provide retaining wall details and obtain VISION Engineering
signoff. Number Two, regarding traffic, the applicant will add rumble strips, three
traveling north in the east parking area, and two in the east parking area. Regarding
landscaping, the applicant will reduce the number of maples from three to two, in the
main intersection, and they will also add two lilacs from the main intersection on the right
out section. I’m not really sure what that means. Does that make sense to you guys?
MR. SIPP-Route 9.
MR. SEGULJIC-Along Route 9.
MR. HUNSINGER-Route 9, yes.
MRS. STEFFAN-On Route 9. On the Route 9 out section, and those are all the
conditions that I have.
MR. HUNSINGER-The only thing that I would add to that, if I may, is just to delineate the
rumble strips would be located at the notation where the diamonds are.
MRS. STEFFAN-Okay.
MR. LAPPER-We also agreed to move one parking space with the Fire Marshal’s
comment, to change that turning radius at the intersection.
MRS. STEFFAN-Okay.
MR. OBORNE-And the bike rack, was that mentioned?
MR. HUNSINGER-The bike rack, yes, and then the bike rack.
MR. LAPPER-Relocate the bike rack at Walgreens.
MR. HUNSINGER-Relocate the bike rack to the southwest corner of Walgreens.
MRS. STEFFAN-Yes, to move the bike rack to the west corner of Walgreens. So I
should probably read that motion again so that Maria can understand it.
MR. HUNSINGER-Just read the conditions again.
MRS. STEFFAN-I will make the motion again. Just give me one minute.
MR. HUNSINGER-Sure.
MRS. STEFFAN-So you want to delineate the rumble strips.
MR. HUNSINGER-Just to say they’re near the diamonds.
MRS. STEFFAN-Okay, and then removal of one parking space, and where is that one
space?
MR. HUNSINGER-How do we describe that?
MR. LAPPER-On the west side of the new driveway onto the main access road. We’re
going to lose the space right next to, on the west side, the first space, and modify the
radius.
MRS. STEFFAN-Okay.
MOTION TO APPROVE SITE PLAN NO. 47-2008 NPA II, LLC, Introduced by Gretchen
Steffan who moved for its adoption, seconded by Stephen Traver:
1.A site plan application has been made to the Queensbury Planning Board for the
following: Applicant proposes construction of a 14,500 square foot Walgreens
33
(Queensbury Planning Board 10/20/09)
Pharmacy and a 4,642 square foot Chili’s Restaurant with associated site work.
New commercial buildings require Planning Board Site Plan review and approval
2.A public hearing was advertised and held on 11/25/08, 1/27/09, 3/3/09, 3/24/09,
5/19/09, 6/16/2009 & 8/18/09;
3.This application is supported with all documentation, public comment and
application material in the file of record;
4.MOTION TO APPROVE SITE PLAN NO. 47-2008 NPA II, LLC, Introduced by
Gretchen Steffan who moved for its adoption, seconded by Stephen Traver:
According to the resolution prepared by Staff. Paragraph Four A complies.
Paragraph Four B, this is a negative declaration. Paragraph 4 G regarding
waivers does not apply. This is approved with the following conditions:
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.Regarding traffic, that the applicant will add rumble strips, three traveling
north in the east parking area, and two [traveling] south [in the] east
parking area. Will delineate the rumble strips near the diamonds.
M.Also regarding traffic, the applicant will move the bike rack to the west
corner of Walgreens.
34
(Queensbury Planning Board 10/20/09)
N.Regarding the retaining wall, the applicant will provide retaining wall
details and obtain a VISION Engineering signoff.
O.Regarding landscaping, the applicant will reduce maples from three to
two, in the main intersection. They will also add two lilacs from the main
intersection on the Route 9 out section.
P.The applicant will also remove one parking space on the west side of the
new driveway on the main access road to modify the turning radius to
accommodate emergency vehicles.
th
Duly adopted this 20 day of October, 2009, by the following vote:
MR. KREBS-Can we just say, I think we, should we say southwest on that, so
there’s no question as to which corner on the west side that is?
MRS. STEFFAN-Regarding the parking space?
MR. KREBS-Regarding the bicycle rack?
MR. LAPPER-We think that’s the west corner, just the way that lays out.
MR. KREBS-The west corner. Okay.
MR. HUNSINGER-Okay.
AYES: Mr. Sipp, Mr. Seguljic, Mr. Ford, Mr. Traver, Mr. Krebs, Mrs. Steffan,
Mr. Hunsinger
NOES: NONE
MR. LAPPER-We really appreciate the Board working with us tonight. Thanks.
MR. HUNSINGER-Good job. Thanks.
MR. OBORNE-If I can remind the applicants, I still need your variances. I have not
received any paperwork for your variances, you’re Sign Variances, your parking lot
variances, I do not believe he has signoff on that yet.
MR. LAPPER-We don’t have Sign Variances.
MR. OBORNE-Yes, you do.
MR. LAPPER-You mean the ones we got?
MR. OBORNE-You’ve got a bunch of Sign Variances. For the Chili’s and the Walgreens,
you have certain parameters that you have to meet.
MR. LAPPER-You mean just resubmit the plans with all the conditions on them. Got it.
Okay.
MR. HUNSINGER-Good luck.
MR. LAPPER-Thank you.
MR. HUNSINGER-Thank you.
MR. TRAVER-I wanted to comment as well. I know that the other day in some of the
professional literature that Walgreens is particularly recognized for providing
opportunities for employment for persons with disabilities, and I think that that’s certainly
something that the Town can benefit from, in addition to jobs for those who do not have
disabilities. So, it’s a good project.
MR. HUNSINGER-Yes, thank you.
SITE PLAN NO. 25-2009 SEQR TYPE UNLISTED RANDY GROSS AGENT(S)
MICHAEL O’CONNOR, G. THOMAS HUTCHINS OWNER(S) SAME ZONING HC-
INT.; SR-1A LOCATION 487 DIX AVENUE APPLICANT PROPOSES A CHANGE TO
APPROVED SITE PLAN TO INCLUDE THE DEMOLITION OF EXISTING SINGLE
35
(Queensbury Planning Board 10/20/09)
FAMILY DWELLING, CONSTRUCTION OF A NEW SINGLE FAMILY DWELLING, USE
OF TEMPORARY STRUCTURE FOR SERVICES WITH ASSOCIATED WASTEWATER
SYSTEM, AN INCREASE IN PARKING AND ADDITIONAL SITE DETAILS. CHANGE
TO AN APPROVED SITE PLAN REQUIRES REVIEW AND APPROVAL BY THE
PLANNING BOARD. CROSS REFERENCE SP 10-2008 LOT SIZE 15.24 +/- ACRES
TAX MAP NO. 303.16-1-33 SECTION 179-9-010
MICHAEL O’CONNOR & TOM HUTCHINS, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT
MR. HUNSINGER-Whenever you’re ready, Keith.
MR. OBORNE-Site Plan 25-2009, Randy Gross is the applicant. Requested action:
Changes to an approved Site Plan requires review and approval by the Planning Board.
The location is 487 Dix Avenue. The existing zoning is bifurcated. It’s SR-1A and HC-
INT. SEQRA Status Type is Unlisted Project Description: Applicant proposes a change
to approved site plan to include the demolition of existing 3 bedroom single-family
dwelling previously proposed for parsonage, construction of a new 4 bedroom single-
family dwelling proposed for parsonage and temporary use of 2,560 square foot Pole
Barn for services with associated wastewater system. Let me amend that Pole Barn. I
believe that is to be for youth services at this point. Further, the applicants seek
permission to use tents from April thru October 31, 2009 for related ministries and
functions of the church. Additionally, the applicant seeks to use existing construction
entrance for congregation traffic until existing house is demolished. Moreover, an
increase to the limits of clearing adjacent to the east side of the church and religious
instruction building is proposed. Finally, the applicant has increased parking from the
previously approved 72 spaces to a revised 150 spaces. Staff Comments: The
applicant received approval for Site Plan 10-2008 on July 15, 2008. Since approval, the
applicant is now seeking to modify the site plan as described above. What follows is Site
Plan Review. I do want to just point to two additional comments. Final approved plans
to include all changes and revision to approved site plan must be complete and clear
when submitted. Staff recommends a post approval meeting with the Planning
Department prior to final submittal. The Planning Board may wish to make this a
condition of approval. The Planning Board must grant approval for the additional
parking.The plans should clearly demarcate the limits of clearing. Both existing and
proposed limits of clearing should be incorporated into the final plans, and with that I’d
turn it over to the Board.
MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. Thank you. Good evening.
MR. O'CONNOR-Thank you, Mr. Chairman. For the purpose of your record, I’m Mike
O’Connor from the law firm of Little & O’Connor. I represent the applicant and with me is
Pastor Randy Gross who is the applicant and Tom Hutchins from Hutchins Engineering
who is the project engineer, and our presentation will be brief. Amen. It took me a long
time to think of that, but I think we’ve answered everything. Okay, and we don’t have any
problems with the additional comments that Staff made.
MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. Thank you. I’ll open it up for questions, comments from
members of the Board.
MRS. STEFFAN-We’ve seen you a lot in the last few, actually this year we’ve seen you a
lot, and are these going to be the final changes, do you anticipate?
MR. FORD-Maybe semi-final.
MR. KREBS-The building is coming along nicely, though.
MRS. STEFFAN-Yes, it’s a very busy site.
MR. HUNSINGER-Anything from the Board? Okay. We do have a public hearing
scheduled. Is there anyone in the audience that wants to address the Board on this
application?
PUBLIC HEARING OPEN
MR. HUNSINGER-Let the record show there were no commentors. Any written
comments?
MR. OBORNE-No, sir.
36
(Queensbury Planning Board 10/20/09)
MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. Then I will close the public hearing.
PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED
MRS. STEFFAN-Okay. So how many additional parking spaces are we talking about?
MR. O'CONNOR-A total of 150 as opposed to 72. So there’s an additional 78. Well, the
previous approval was 72, according to Staff.
MR. HUTCHINS-Okay. The math I worked out for number of required per the limits of
the Ordinance was 78, and we’re asking for 150. So it isn’t double.
MR. OBORNE-This would be under the old Ordinance. I don’t know if that’s changed at
all.
MR. O'CONNOR-The total parking spots that we show is 150.
MRS. STEFFAN-And because this is modification we just have to re-visit SEQRA. Any
of the things we’re dealing with right now won’t change our SEQRA determination?
MR. OBORNE-That is for you and the Board to discuss.
MRS. STEFFAN-Looking for input, Board members.
MR. HUNSINGER-What’s the feeling of the Board?
MR. TRAVER-I don’t see any impact on SEQRA.
MR. FORD-I don’t see any additional impact.
MR. OBORNE-If that is the will of the Board, then obviously you can go ahead and
acknowledge the previous SEQRA with these changes.
MRS. STEFFAN-They have asked for a waiver from internal landscaping. Are we okay
with that?
MR. HUTCHINS-And that has to do with internal to the parking area, and the parking
area is located in the very rear of the site, and we would like not to landscape the interior
of that parking lot in the back.
MRS. STEFFAN-Does the Board feel okay with that?
MR. FORD-And the rationale for not doing it is?
MR. HUTCHINS-The rationale for not doing it is space and nobody’s going to see it, and
we could landscape better around areas that people are going to see. That’s the
rationale.
MR. O'CONNOR-If you looked at an area map, there are no adjoining owners that are
impacted by what’s behind the facility.
MR. KREBS-It’s actually wooded on three sides.
MR. OBORNE-For now.
MR. O'CONNOR-If you look at the lots, though, the lots that come off of the Airport Road
come to our side boundary line. They already have houses on the front of them, single
family homes. The likelihood of anything coming further back is not great.
MRS. STEFFAN-Okay. So those seem to be the outstanding items. I actually have a lot
of conditions. Okay.
MR. OBORNE-You are going to need to do a SEQRA resolution. If you’re going to re-
affirm, that’s fine. If you’re going to do it part of this resolution here?
MRS. STEFFAN-I was just going to say, when we got to Four B, that we have re-visited.
MR. OBORNE-Okay. I wasn’t sure if you decided on that. Okay. I apologize.
37
(Queensbury Planning Board 10/20/09)
MRS. STEFFAN-That’s okay. Is that okay with you, Chris?
MR. HUNSINGER-Yes. I think the Board decided.
MR. FORD-Yes.
MRS. STEFFAN-Yes, I thought I asked. Okay.
MOTION TO APPROVE SITE PLAN NO. 25-2009 RANDY GROSS, Introduced by
Gretchen Steffan who moved for its adoption, seconded by Stephen Traver:
1.A site plan application has been made to the Queensbury Planning Board for the
following: Applicant proposes a change to approved site plan to include the
demolition of existing single family dwelling, construction of a new single family
dwelling, use of temporary structure for services with associated wastewater system
and site details. Change to an approved site plan requires review and approval by
the Planning Board.
2.A public hearing was advertised and held on 5/28/09, 8/18/09 & 10/20/09; and
3.This application is supported with all documentation, public comment and application
material in the file of record; and
4.MOTION TO APPROVE SITE PLAN NO. 25-2009 RANDY GROSS, Introduced by
Gretchen Steffan who moved for its adoption, seconded by Stephen Traver:
According to the resolution prepared by Staff. Paragraph Four A complies.
Paragraph Four B, the Planning Board has re-visited the SEQRA review and
reaffirmed the Negative Declaration. Paragraph Four E does not apply.
Paragraph Four F doesn’t apply. Neither does Paragraph Four M.
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 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.
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)NOT APPLICABLE. If applicable, Item d to be combined with a letter of credit;
and
f)NOT APPLICABLE. The Sanitary Sewer connection plan must be submitted to
the Wastewater Department for its review, approval, permitting and inspection;
and
g)Waiver requests granted: internal landscaping
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)All lights to be downcast / cutoff fixtures. All fixtures shall be inspected by
Community Development Staff for compliance prior to installation
j)Engineering sign-off required prior to signature of Zoning Administrator.
38
(Queensbury Planning Board 10/20/09)
k)The applicant shall submit a copy of a NOI [Notice of Intent] SWPPP [Stormwater
Pollution Prevention Plan] & NOT [Notice of Termination] - see staff
l)The applicant shall submit a copy of a NYS SPDES [State Pollution Discharge
Elimination System]
m)NOT APPLICABLE. The Sanitary Sewer connection plan must be submitted to
the Wastewater Department for its review, approval, permitting and inspection;
and
n) Previous conditions of approval apply; and
o)This is approved with the following conditions.
1. That the Planning Board has approved additional parking so that their total
parking numbers will be 150.
2.That the applicant will provide a phasing schedule to include Phase Three,
which includes the future religious instructional building.
3.That the applicant must submit final plans that include all changes and
revisions to the approved Site Plan which are complete, clear, and
understandable to the Community Development Department for final review.
As part of this condition, the applicant will meet with the Community
Development Department for plan review prior to final submittal.
4.Final plans should clearly demarcate the limits of clearing, both existing and
proposed.
5.Provide grading plan for the area of the proposed church septic system, and
be sure the system’s size is accurately depicted with all fill and tow limits
shown. Also grading should be provided to the south to ensure the area of
the septic system drains freely. Note, the topography in that area is flat.
6.The septic fill system detail should be updated to reflect all site testing data.
Boundary condition is groundwater and no clay or hard pan. Twelve inches of
topsoil, not twenty-two.
7.The Planning Board is granting waivers for internal landscaping.
8.That you obtain a VISION Engineering signoff.
th
Duly adopted this 20 day of October, 2009, by the following vote:
MR. O'CONNOR-I believe we have submitted on those last three items and they’ve been
signed off by VISION Engineering.
MRS. STEFFAN-We don’t have that. We don’t have the signoff. So that it’ll be a
condition.
MR. OBORNE-Ma’am, I have, in my packet, a VISION Engineering signoff.
MR. KREBS-So do I.
MRS. STEFFAN-There are two outstanding items that were not listed complete, and
that’s why I added them. Four C is not listed complete. No additional information is
provided, and Four D, no additional information is provided, and then the waiver on the
internal landscaping is Number 10. So those things have not been completed. That’s
why I included them.
MR. O'CONNOR-All right. Can we explain that we’ve moved the septic system so we
weren’t in the area where the grading was required? And that’s, where it was moved
was signed off.
MRS. STEFFAN-Okay. Well, I think because the engineering comments identify those
things, VISION Engineering would probably give you a very quick signoff on those
issues, if you, you know, all you have to do is satisfy those requirements.
39
(Queensbury Planning Board 10/20/09)
MR. KREBS-But it says right here at the bottom, with the inclusion of the above
documents and/or project modifications, the applicant satisfactorily addressed all of the
technical review comments.
MR. OBORNE-How about if I get clarification, keep the condition as is, and I’ll get
clarification on those issues.
MRS. STEFFAN-Right. So obtaining the VISION Engineering signoff may satisfy those
conditions.
MR. HUNSINGER-Absolutely. Yes, the language came right out of the letter.
MR. HUTCHINS-Okay. I just read, if I read at the end of four, those sub comments are
from the previous system. If you read his comment number four, where we had re-done
the system, he indicates that was complete.
MR. TRAVER-Well, Staff has offered to clarify the issue. I’ll second the motion.
MR. OBORNE-We’ll get clarification on that.
MRS. STEFFAN-Yes, with a signoff they could go away very quickly.
MR. OBORNE-I anticipate that to be the case.
MRS. STEFFAN-Yes, but since we’re lay people, I can’t know that for sure.
AYES: Mr. Sipp, Mr. Seguljic, Mr. Ford, Mr. Krebs, Mr. Traver, Mrs. Steffan,
Mr. Hunsinger
NOES: NONE
MR. HUNSINGER-You’re all set. Good luck.
MR. O'CONNOR-We thank you, but we would ask you for one additional thing.
MR. HUNSINGER-Sure.
MR. O'CONNOR-And I didn’t want to confuse the application. The use of the tents are
limited to a certain time period that’s been discontinued. I think the time period ends on
st
October 31, and services are being moved to another site for the winter months. We
don’t know if we will have a CO for the main congregation building in April, when typically
we begin services on site. One of your approval, or two or your approvals, gave us
permission to use tents as long as we didn’t have the facility up and built with a CO. Can
we ask for that extension, that if next Spring we do not have the CO, that we can put the
tents back up until we get the CO? Not beginning any earlier than we did this year, and
certainly we wouldn’t go into April, or wouldn’t go into October.
MR. SEGULJIC-So you’re essentially asking for April until September or so?
MR. FORD-Until issuance of a CO.
MR. O'CONNOR-Or whichever is first, yes. They would happily get out of the tents as
soon as they get qualified for a CO.
MRS. STEFFAN-Keith, can we do that without advertising it?
MR. OBORNE-That’s what I’m concerned about.
MRS. STEFFAN-Because that’s a public issue, I think. I don’t know.
RANDY GROSS
PASTOR GROSS-I was just thinking in terms of housekeeping, to keep me from coming
back and bothering the Board.
MR. OBORNE-Yes, it specifically says the Planning Board does approve the applicant’s
use of tents until October 2009. There is no mention of 2010, and that may be an issue.
I think you’re going to have to come back, for it to be clean.
40
(Queensbury Planning Board 10/20/09)
MR. TRAVER-We could certainly do it as an expedited review, could we not?
MR. OBORNE-I don’t know if it would fall under that, to be honest with you, unless you
want to change your by-laws.
MR. TRAVER-Okay.
MR. OBORNE-I don’t anticipate that being a major issue, obviously.
MR. O’CONNOR-How is that different than any other modification? The advertisement
for this was an advertisement of a modification of the existing Site Plan.
MR. OBORNE-Well, you’ve already gotten approval for the tents, specifically, to 2009.
MR. O'CONNOR-Right, and we specifically had approval for 72 parking spaces, too.
MR. OBORNE-Well, you didn’t ask for that approval prior to this meeting, and now you’re
asking it after the condition of, after all the conditions of approval and everything’s been
voted on. It’s not clean.
MR. O'CONNOR-There’s been no public comment throughout this whole process.
MR. OBORNE-I’d defer to the Planning Board.
MR. O'CONNOR-And there’s been no problem with the occupancy of the tents.
MR. TRAVER-How likely is it that this will become an issue in reality that the CO won’t
be issued in time? It seems like you’re making very good progress, and with this matter
resolved this evening, you know, you’re looking at months.
PASTOR GROSS-Well, the completion of the scope of work is not the issue. It’s
finances. We’re paying cash as we go, and so the next leg of the journey is a more
expensive one than to shovel the building. So that’s the delay, more than getting work
done. It’s paying for it, and, you know, we’re delayed simply because of lending climate
in America right now is not really kind, you know.
MR. TRAVER-Right, but don’t the tents represent a fairly significant expense as well?
PASTOR GROSS-No, not at all.
MR. TRAVER-No?
PASTOR GROSS-The cost to us for the summer has only been maybe $1200. I
contribute to the guy who let’s me use the tent. So I was thinking in terms more that it
would perhaps avoid having to come again to the Planning Board. I’m not opposed to
doing that. I just know you’re schedules are always full, and it’s a likely, the likelihood is
great that we will need to be able to meet outdoors again through the summer, you know,
in the worst case scenario, we’re still paying cash and we’re not ready to move in, that’s
the only reason I’m forecasting the usage.
MRS. STEFFAN-I think, just come back in the Spring. It’ll be the simple modification to
that number.
MR. TRAVER-Yes. It shouldn’t be very, I mean, as I recall this past Spring it was a very
straightforward affair.
MR. HUNSINGER-Yes, we’re not going to have any problem with it, but I think Staff’s
comments are right on.
MR. TRAVER-Yes, we do have a process, you know.
MR. O’CONNOR-Can we do it by letter without 18 copies of Site Plans, etc., etc.
MRS. STEFFAN-Yes, just for that one item.
MR. KREBS-Well, don’t we already have all those Site Plans on file anyway?
41
(Queensbury Planning Board 10/20/09)
MRS. STEFFAN-And by that time you will have met the conditions of this approval, and
so the complete Site Plans will probably be on file at the Town’s office. So it would just
be a letter. You’re not going to modify the plan.
PASTOR GROSS-Unless they want some type of mapping as to where we’re going to
put the tents in that, 2010.
MR. HUNSINGER-So maybe we ought to save these, because they do show the tents.
MR. O'CONNOR-Well, they won’t be in the same place, because those will be, I think
that’s in the area of the parking, isn’t it?
PASTOR GROSS-Well, it’s going to be turned, one into parking, two the stormwater field
there, so it will alter it some, you know, the area.
MR. O'CONNOR-How about if we, in this submittal that we’re doing final plans, unless
Tom says we can’t do it, we show an area, a potential site for 2010 tent location, and
then we won’t have two sets of everything.
MR. OBORNE-Absolutely.
MR. O'CONNOR-Does that make it simpler?
MR. HUNSINGER-Sure.
MR. O'CONNOR-We’re trying to simplify it. We’re not trying to come through the back
door.
MR. FORD-Sounds like a good solution.
MRS. STEFFAN-And then all you’d have to do is to submit maybe a copy of that one
little page.
MR. O'CONNOR-I’ll take all the bets you want to give on that. We thank you.
MR. HUNSINGER-Thank you. Good luck.
MRS. STEFFAN-Thanks.
SITE PLAN NO. 7-2009 SEQR TYPE II GREG CANALE AGENT(S) VAN DUSEN &
STEVES OWNER(S) HARRY RUECKER, PINHAS SHABAT ZONING PO
LOCATION 456 BAY ROAD APPLICANT PROPOSES TO USE EXISTING DWELLING
AS A RESIDENCE AND PROFESSIONAL OFFICE. PROPOSAL INCLUDES NEW
PARKING CONFIGURATION, HANDICAP ACCESS DECK WITH LIFT, GRADING AND
LANDSCAPING. PROFESSIONAL OFFICE IN A PO ZONE IS AN ALLOWED USE
SUBJECT TO SITE PLAN REVIEW AND APPROVAL. CROSS REFERENCE AV 19-
09; BP 08-614, SIGN; BP 05-898 SEP. ALT.; BP 890 ADDITION WARREN CO.
PLANNING 2/11/09; 7/8/09 LOT SIZE 0.22 +/- ACRES, 62.61 +/- ACRES TAX MAP
NO. 296.16-1-11, 296.16-1-3.1 SECTION 179-9-010
GREG CANALE, PRESENT
MR. HUNSINGER-Keith, whenever you’re ready to summarize Staff Notes.
MR. OBORNE-Site Plan 7-2009 Greg Canale Site Plan Review for professional office.
Location is 456 Bay Road. Existing zoning is Professional Office. This is a Type II
SEQRA. No further review. For Project Description: Applicant proposes to use existing
dwelling as a residence and professional office. The applicant wishes to use the front
residence as office space while retaining a residence to the rear. The plan includes the
construction of a +/- 400 square foot deck with handicap access that will include a chair
lift, a different parking configuration than what currently exists and site improvements to
include lighting and landscaping. I’m going to go down, we’ve had this before us before,
quickly go through Plan Review. Many issues have been addressed. Under the new
comments: The applicant states that the project will not alter any pre-existing trees or
shrubs. This appears to be erroneous as multiple trees and bushes have been removed
on the lands to the north. Also a concern is the parking configuration by Van Dusen &
Steves depicted in ‘A1’ dated February 24, 2009 does not correspond with the previously
submitted parking configuration on-file, calculations stated on page 2 of most recent
submittal do not correspond to page A1. Please clarify. I do have issues with the
42
(Queensbury Planning Board 10/20/09)
lighting. There are floodlights. Those are prohibited. Absorption rates seem to be, need
to be clarified, and the stormwater management plan needs to be clarified and worked
through, needs to be fleshed out. VISION has many of the same issues. I don’t think
any of these are not assailable. I think they can be completed in a very short period of
time. However, the plans as submitted seem to be a bit incomplete in that regard, and
with that I’d turn it over to the Board.
MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. Good evening.
MR. CANALE-Good evening, Mr. Canale. My name’s Greg Canale and I’m the
applicant. I guess the first thing I’d like to do is start out with addressing the Town’s new
comments. Specifically Comment Number One, the applicant states that the project will
not alter any pre-existing trees or shrubs. This appears to be erroneous as multiple trees
and bushes have been removed on the land to the north. Some bushes have been
cleared out of there. No trees were removed. I think some dead trees were moved, and
this was done primarily for aesthetic purposes, just to clean the area up, and that was
done I think at some time in May, and so we didn’t cut any trees or anything of that sort.
We removed some dead brush, cleared it out a little bit to make it look a little better,
actually. Number Two, the parking configurations depicted in A-1, dated February 24,
2009, we would be using the parking configurations obviously dated April 23, 2009, as
those are the parking configurations that we’ve all agreed to and meet the zoning
regulations. With that being said, I want to simply point out that this project only alters
the existing topography in one way and one way only, and that’s by adding an addition to
the driveway, 16 by 40 feet, and 30 by 40 feet, and that’s simply to accommodate the
required parking for the office. Now, the last time I was here, the Board wanted some
kind of explanation as to the water runoff and erosion, and I asked, does that mean you
want an engineering report or something like that? And they said, no, just give us some
kind of narrative and so I went back and I did some research on the rules and regs
concerning water runoff management, and I recognized and most appreciated the
Board’s exercising its discretion in not requiring that I submit some kind professional
engineering report, considering the size of the plan. What I did try to address is possible,
as much as possible, some of the water runoff issues, and based on my personal living
at the property, since May, and going through this rather rainy summer season, it seems
to me that when I put that driveway down and configure and slope it so it goes into that
County basin, that that would eliminate the absorption of the water into the ground in any
event, even more so, so it seems to me that the driveway, putting the driveway in there
and sloping it into that basin, in the northwest corner of the property, would actually
reduce water runoff absorption. As it stands now when it rains, the water just absorbs
into the ground and presumably goes probably to the north, which is not wetlands it’s
abandoned property, and it’s filled with shrubs and what not. So it seems to me that I’m
not in any way changing or altering the natural flows or the calculations of water runoff, in
or around the surrounding areas. I put in my report while there will be added limited
square footage of the asphalt, it’s addition is so small as to be incapable of calculation.
The rain that would have fallen on the grass and surrounding areas, but now will fall on
the new asphalt ultimately will end up being absorbed by the same vegetation
surrounding the area, but more importantly will end up being, going into that catch basin
into the northwest corner. I also submitted a, that catch basin takes all the water off of
the driveway and pushes it across Bay Road into the wetlands across the street which
deposits it into the Halfway Brook area. Now as it’s been raining in there all summer
long, that property is very stable and has absolutely no signs of erosion whatsoever. I’d
also point out, in VISION Engineer’s report, under Paragraph 13, it says that the
applicant has provided construction procedures and specifications for the parking lot in
the narrative form, which should suffice, given the size of the project. I understand that
VISION Engineering does also have some concerns about water runoff, but I don’t know
what the basis of those concerns are. I really don’t. It seems to me that what I propose
wouldn’t in any way add to water runoff in and around the surrounding areas. In fact, it
seems to me that the project I propose would take water runoff and direct it into a catch
basin which it does not do at this present time. Instead it just gets absorbed into the
ground. With that being said, some of the other concerns that are raised, let’s talk about
the lighting. Now I did propose some, as you’ll see in my proposal, some of these
bronze design halogen outdoor lights with the, if they don’t, if you don’t like them, I don’t
need them. In fact, I was observing a piece of property, the sports physical therapy,
Steve Foss’s area, and that small little office area, with the same kind of parking type of,
amount of parking, and he just has a wall light, and I propose two wall lights on my plan,
which I suspect would be sufficient. I remember someone saying the less lighting the
better anyway, but I don’t need to put those lights on. I thought they’d be good because
you can direct the beams down onto the parking area, which would avoid any light
trespass. I suspect that the two wall lights mounted on both sides of the door would be
sufficient lighting, considering the number of parking. Some of the other comments I’ll
43
(Queensbury Planning Board 10/20/09)
address. Yes. The applicant or applicant’s agent may wish to have, they have some
concerns, it seems to me, about, it says the Planning Board may wish to direct the
applicant to verify with calculations the stated absorption rates of the land to the north.
Further, natural vegetation growth is not a recommended temporary erosion control
practice. I’m proposing to put, to extend a parking lot, some blacktop that’s, as far as a
temporary erosion practice, this project will take a day to complete. Laying down some
crushed stone and some blacktop is basically all we’re really doing. So as far as a
temporary erosion control practice, I would lay down the fence, but this project won’t take
more than a day to complete. My thinking is that the project simply, the only thing I’m
doing to alter any of the outdoor is adding this extra driveway. That would seem to me to
be the only thing that would affect the water runoff, and as I’ve stated before, it seems to
me it would reduce water runoff as opposed to alter it or increase it. With that being said,
I would take any questions.
MR. HUNSINGER-Questions, comments from the members of the Board? One of the
things that we talked about when you were here in July, with regards to lighting, there
was some discussion about some solar powered lights on the access ramp.
MR. CANALE-Yes, and I think we’ve decided that, you know, it wasn’t necessary and it
might, yes, so.
MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. I couldn’t remember. That’s why I asked the question.
MRS. STEFFAN-Well, in my mind, reading the Staff Notes and the VISION Engineering
comments and then hearing your presentation and then reading your packet, I mean,
we’ve got to divide between the significance of the project. Certainly our engineer and
our Staff are looking for more detail, and based on your presentation, you’re not
believing that that is important. Not important, but it’s a minor project, and so I’m not
really sure, I’m not sure where to be. I don’t know how the rest of the Board feels. Some
of the things that are in the VISION Engineering comments regarding the improvements
and the parking configuration changes are in the County right of way, and then we get
into some areas, because they have different requirements than the Town has. So I’m
not sure what’s right here.
MR. CANALE-I did appear in front of Warren County Planning Board, and they found that
this project has no County effect whatsoever, and any, I think building permits that I have
to apply for would, I think they indicated I’d have to get some kind of a building approval.
The right of way’s not being changed or altered at all. It’s just being extended I guess.
See, it says here the applicant has indicated that no work or improvements are proposed
in the County right of way. However, the proposed plan requires relocation of the
entrance to the property. That’s not necessarily true. It’s just basically extending it, and
then it goes on to say this presumably will require County approval and a permit. Well,
I’m not sure if it will. I do know that I did appear in front of the County Planning Board
and it was unanimous that it doesn’t affect, it doesn’t have any County effect.
MRS. STEFFAN-But is that the existing driveway or where you want to move it to? See, I
don’t know.
MR. CANALE-Well, it was this plan that I submitted the County reviewed.
MRS. STEFFAN-This one, okay, the same one we’re looking at.
MR. CANALE-The same exact plan.
MR. SEGULJIC-So if you’d just clarify for me. What you’re really proposing is an
addition to your existing driveway, an additional 15 by 20 or something like that.
MR. CANALE-Correct.
MR. SEGULJIC-You’re putting the couple of floodlights in the front.
MR. CANALE-Right.
MR. SEGULJIC-And then four shrubs, I think, along the.
MR. CANALE-Well, I’m putting a deck out there, and then shrubs in the front.
44
(Queensbury Planning Board 10/20/09)
MR. SEGULJIC-And the stormwater from the whole parking area, shall we call it that, is
going to go into the adjacent catch basin, which is to the north, it’s going to run under
Bay Road and goes into adjacent wetlands.
MR. CANALE-Correct.
MR. SEGULJIC-That’s, okay. (Lost words) flood lights.
MR. CANALE-Like I said, I don’t need those floodlights. The only reason I picked those
out was because they had those like blinders that you could direct the.
MR. SEGULJIC-Right. What we want to see is just downcast lighting.
MR. CANALE-What is that, downcast?
MR. SEGULJIC-So it points down. Which I think the floodlights would do, but I think the
term floodlight indicates a lot of light, and we don’t know, don’t have any photometrics on
it. You have this other, you also have, I guess you’d call it a carriage light.
MR. CANALE-Yes, those were going to be on the door. One on the right side of the front
door, one on the left side.
MR. HUNSINGER-Those are just 75 watt.
MR. SEGULJIC-Right. Those don’t appear to be an issue, it’s just the floodlights that
really.
MR. CANALE-Well, do I even need the floodlights?
MR. SEGULJIC-That’s up to you.
MR. CANALE-I don’t want them.
MR. SEGULJIC-Good. One issue resolved. All right.
MR. HUNSINGER-No floodlights.
MR. SEGULJIC-Now the concern with the parking area is you are going to increase
stormwater runoff, albeit very minimally, and I think, if I’m correct, Mr. Ryan the engineer
looked at that, and I think, didn’t he say it was going to be minimal and not going to have
an impact?
MR. CANALE-Yes. He did indicate in his VISION Engineering Number Eighteen, Page
Two of Two, due to this area being commonly flooded, the area is not commonly flooded.
My property is perfectly dry and the property directly to the north is perfectly dry. I think
the area, the golf course up on that hole is commonly flooded, but I’m not really near
there, or anywhere near there. So he’s saying providing runoff mitigation measures for
the increase of the impervious area will ensure any flooding conditions do not worsen,
and then he makes a suggestion, but my position is, the added asphalt is so minimal that
if any runoff does exist, it’s going to be uncalculable, and I am, in fact, taking that water,
that stormwater, and running it into that basin, which right now it just gets absorbed into
the ground.
MR. SEGULJIC-Well, and correct me if I’m wrong, but you’re supposed to keep
stormwater on your site.
MR. OBORNE-Yes, but they do have drywells, to Mr. Canale’s benefit, that we can direct
it to. It’s something that Dan had alluded to when he was here a few months ago, when
we had him sitting right next to me. He said, let’s try to get that water to go to the
drywells. It’s 900 square feet of additional impervious surface, and that’s not including
the deck.
MR. SEGULJIC-So, do you understand? Just direct the stormwater to the existing
drywell.
MR. CANALE-Right, exactly.
MR. SEGULJIC-And that takes care of the stormwater issue.
45
(Queensbury Planning Board 10/20/09)
MR. CANALE-Right. That’s what I proposed.
MR. SEGULJIC-But apparently it hasn’t been communicated clearly.
MR. CANALE-Okay.
MRS. STEFFAN-Well, and one of the other comments that VISION Engineering made,
Number Ten, is the applicant has indicated that a silt fence will be installed down
gradient to the north. Measures should also be specified to prevent siltation of the
existing drywells during grading and filling operations.
MR. CANALE-Yes. So I would propose to cap that drywell. Like I said, this project will
take about a day to complete, and to ensure that no soot or sand or dirt gets in it. It
would be hugely my obligation, and I did put that in my report, I am aware it’s my
obligation to make sure that that drywell’s clean and clear of debris and it’s functioning
properly.
MR. SEGULJIC-But am I correct in stating you didn’t put that on the plan, though?
MR. CANALE-I didn’t put the fact that I would cap that. Right.
MR. SEGULJIC-And I think that’s part of the issue here, is you need to put it on the plan.
MR. OBORNE-Right. The capping would not be something that you would be allowed to
do. I think if you put a silt fence, maybe not around it, but at least up gradient from where
it is.
MR. SEGULJIC-Yes, between the area of concern and the drywell.
MR. OBORNE-And if I may, to move the process along, if that’s okay, if it pleases the
Board.
MR. SEGULJIC-Please do.
MR. OBORNE-What I’m looking, that would be good, to put a silt fence there. I can’t
disagree that this driveway is going to take probably two and a half hours, grading,
everything done, okay. What I’m looking for, for vegetative controls, is you’ve got a 40%
slope being developed here, and there’s no, there’s no seeding program. There’s no
mulching program, there’s no armoring program, that is typical with this type of project.
You want some type of seeding, you want some type of mulch on that. You also, while
you have that tract equipment there, it needs to go perpendicular to the slope. Tract
equipment needs to go this way, and all those little things can be put on the plan, and I
certainly can help the client or the applicant with that. I don’t have a problem with that.
That pretty much takes care of my issues.
MR. SEGULJIC-Okay.
MR. OBORNE-And Dan’s, it seems.
MR. SEGULJIC-Right, because they had the lighting, the stormwater, and the
vegetation.
MR. OBORNE-Vegetation, yes.
MR. SEGULJIC-Okay. So now where do we go from here?
MR. CANALE-Okay.
MR. SEGULJIC-Is it possible that we condition the, can we give an approval with
conditions to meet?
MR. HUNSINGER-Aren’t what you’re talking about, though, aren’t those just kind of
standard?
MR. OBORNE-They are boilerplate.
MR. HUNSINGER-Boilerplate stuff that we could give him.
46
(Queensbury Planning Board 10/20/09)
MR. OBORNE-And Mr. Canale, obviously, he’s not CPESC certified, and he’s not
erosion control, you know, guru, but certainly if you’re going to make statements, they
need to be backed up, and they also need to be backed up with erosion control
practices, which are standard practices, which, I can fax you something or whatever.
MR. HUNSINGER-So if we say that he will, you know, that during construction they will
follow standard erosion control measures.
MR. OBORNE-Such as, bing, bing, bing.
MR. HUNSINGER-Well, do we have to go into that level of detail?
MR. OBORNE-Yes. I think so, I think for Dan’s signoff you certainly would have to do
that, but I guess it would depend on the plan that he would submit, and I can guide him
with that, I don’t have a problem with that.
MR. CANALE-So it seems to me that I should ask for one other adjournment to maybe
submit other plans and you could help me with it? Is that what you’re saying?
MR. SEGULJIC-I guess, can we do, are we comfortable with doing an approval that he
do these things to the satisfaction of the Town Engineer? Because I think what we’re
asking for is pretty simple.
MR. OBORNE-I would have no issue with that whatsoever.
MR. HUNSINGER-I am. I’m more, I mean, how many plans do we get with those inch,
well, it’s half inch thick, standard erosion control measures?
MR. OBORNE-I have the blue book right above my head every day.
MR. HUNSINGER-I’m thinking, you know, I probably just threw one in the trash from a
prior applicant.
MR. OBORNE-It’s a standard, but the thing is that when you do this, you have to call
Code Compliance, Bruce Frank, and he’s got to make sure all those processes are being
done and are being done correctly.
MR. HUNSINGER-And whoever’s going to do your excavation is going to know, you
know, is probably going to know what they are anyway.
MR. OBORNE-I wouldn’t go that far.
MR. SEGULJIC-I would not go that far.
MR. CANALE-Well, I’ll make sure he is well aware, and obviously in compliance with.
MR. OBORNE-I think VISION and Staff signoff would certainly would be, it’s such a tiny
project, and there has been a communication problem, maybe not a problem, isn’t the
right word, but a lot of silence on your part, and let’s just get this taken care of, and on a
personal note, off my desk.
MR. HUNSINGER-Well, quite frankly, I’d like to see you be able to run your business so
you could make a living.
MR. CANALE-Thank you.
MR. SEGULJIC-So what we need is the installation of the silt fence to the.
MR. OBORNE-Down slope of any gradient.
MR. SEGULJIC-Down slope of the proposed parking area.
MRS. STEFFAN-Okay. This is what I have. I have, so no floodlights will be installed.
Install a silt fence down gradient to the north to prevent siltation of existing drywells
during grading and filling operations, three, during construction they will follow standard
erosion control measures. I started to put i.e., but I don’t know.
MR. OBORNE-You could say standard temporary and permanent erosion control
measures.
47
(Queensbury Planning Board 10/20/09)
MRS. STEFFAN-Standard temporary and permanent?
MR. OBORNE-Yes, well, the permanent would be the vegetative erosion control
measures. That’s the really only permanent one.
MRS. STEFFAN-And erosion control measures. Okay. So I’ve got VISION Engineering
signoff, Staff signoff, and then Town of Queensbury Code Compliance Officer must be
present for construction.
MR. OBORNE-That’s on the boilerplate resolution. He has to call Bruce Frank before
anything happens.
MRS. STEFFAN-Okay. So that one’s off.
MR. SEGULJIC-And then just one other one. Shouldn’t we also have in there that the
stormwater shall be stormwater from the proposed parking area directed to the drywell.
MR. OBORNE-Yes, I think that is the intent, and you see that on the grading of the plan.
MR. SEGULJIC-All right. So I think that’s okay.
MR. HUNSINGER-So, Keith, isn’t the better reference, as you pointed out in Staff Notes,
the New York Standards and Specifications for Erosion and Sedimentation Control?
MR. OBORNE-That’s what I would be offering to him.
MR. HUNSINGER-Yes. Okay. We do have a public hearing scheduled. Is there anyone
in the audience who wants to address the Board?
PUBLIC HEARING OPENED
MR. HUNSINGER-Let the record show that there were no comments. Any written
comments?
MR. OBORNE-No, no sir.
MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. I will open the public hearing and I will close the public
hearing.
PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED
MRS. STEFFAN-Okay.
MOTION TO APPROVE SITE PLAN NO. 7-2009 GREG CANALE, Introduced by
Gretchen Steffan who moved for its adoption, seconded by Stephen Traver:
1)A site plan application has been made to the Queensbury Planning Board for the
following: Applicant proposes to use existing dwelling as a residence and
professional office. Proposal includes new parking configuration, handicap access
deck with lift, grading and landscaping. Professional office in a PO zone is an
allowed use subject to Site Plan Review and approval.
2)A public hearing was advertised and held on 3/3/09, 5/19/09, 7/28/09 & 10/20/09;
and
3)This application is supported with all documentation, public comment and application
material in the file of record;
4)MOTION TO APPROVE SITE PLAN NO. 7-2009 GREG CANALE, Introduced by
Gretchen Steffan who moved for its adoption, seconded by Stephen Traver:
According to the resolution prepared by Staff. Paragraph Four A complies. This
is a Type II action. No further SEQRA review is necessary. Paragraph Four F
does not apply. Paragraph 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
48
(Queensbury Planning Board 10/20/09)
b.Type II, 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.NOT APPLICABLE. 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.All lights to be downcast / cutoff fixtures. All fixtures shall be inspected by
Community Development Staff for compliance prior to installation
j.Engineering sign-off required prior to signature of Zoning Administrator.
k.The applicant shall submit a copy of a NOI [Notice of Intent] SWPPP
l. [Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan] & NOT [Notice of Termination] - see
staff
m.The applicant shall submit a copy of a NYS SPDES [State Pollution Discharge
Elimination System]
n.This is approved with the following conditions:
1.No floodlights will be installed.
2.The applicant will install a silt fence down gradient to the north to prevent
siltation of existing drywells during grading and filling operations.
3.That during construction, the applicant will follow standard temporary and
permanent erosion control measures, specifically following New York
Standards and Specifications for Erosion and Sediment Controls.
4.The applicant will obtain a VISION Engineering signoff.
5.The applicant will obtain a Staff signoff.
6.Just for clarification, the Planning Board is accepting the April 23, 2009
parking configuration.
th
Duly adopted this 20 day of October, 2009, by the following vote:
AYES: Mr. Sipp, Mr. Seguljic, Mr. Ford, Mr. Krebs, Mr. Traver, Mrs. Steffan,
Mr. Hunsinger
NOES: NONE
MR. HUNSINGER-You’re all set. Good luck.
MR. CANALE-Thank you, Board.
MR. HUNSINGER-You’re welcome.
SUBDIVISION NO. 4-2003 MODIFICATION TRA-TOM DEVELOPMENT AGENT(S)
NACE ENGINEERING OWNER(S) SAME ZONING MDR LOCATION LOTS 3-10,
RICHMOND HILL DRIVE APPLICANT PROPOSES A MODIFICATION TO AN
49
(Queensbury Planning Board 10/20/09)
APPROVED [SCHIAVONE] TO INCREASE THE NO-CUT BUFFER FROM 25 FEET TO
35 FEET ALONG THE REAR OF LOTS 3-10 WHERE THEY ABUT NATIONAL GRID
ROW. MODIFICATION TO AN APPROVED SUBDIVISION REQUIRES PLANNING
BOARD REVIEW AND APPROVAL. CROSS REFERENCE FINAL APPROVAL
10/18/05 WARREN CO. PLANNING N/A LOT SIZE 0.47 ACRES [5 LOTS]; 0.48
ACRES, 0.59 ACRES, 0.74 +/- ACRES TAX MAP NO. 308.7-1-50 THRU 57 SECTION
A-183
TOM NACE, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT
MR. HUNSINGER-Keith, whenever you’re ready.
MR. OBORNE-Absolutely. Subdivision 4-2003, Tra-Tom Development. Subdivision
modification requires Planning Board review and approval. Location is lots three through
ten, Richmond Hill Drive. Existing zoning is MDR. This is an Unlisted SEQRA. Project
Description: Applicant proposes a modification to an approved subdivision [Schiavone]
to increase the no-cut buffer from 25 feet to 35 feet where they abut National Grid ROW.
Modification to an approved subdivision requires Planning Board review and approval.
Quickly, I would point out to the Board under the modification language on the plat. It
succinctly describes what the applicant is trying to do, and why. The no cut buffer, and
I’ll read that. The no-cut buffer along National Grid Right-Of-Way increased to 35 feet to
mitigate the fact that National Grid has previously cleared the larger trees located at the
back end of these lots. It’s a klaxon on the plat before you. The only condition, the only
additional comments would be clarification as to why Lots 18 and 19 are without a 25
foot no cut buffer zone, and if you could, on the final plans, change it to Richmond Hill
Drive instead of Lupine Way, and that’s all I have.
MR. NACE-Okay. For the record, Tom Nace, Nace Engineering, representing Tra-Tom
Development. You said the buffer on Lots?
MRS. STEFFAN-Eighteen and Nineteen.
MR. NACE-Eighteen and Nineteen.
MR. OBORNE-Yes, they’re up top.
MR. NACE-The ones over on the west side of the side, why those are only 25?
MR. OBORNE-There’s no buffer on it.
MR. SIPP-No buffer.
MR. NACE-I’d have to go back to the original approval. I don’t remember, I honestly
don’t remember what the reason was that the, you know, during the original approval
process. That’s been, three, four years ago. I can research that and let you know.
MR. OBORNE-That’s fine.
MRS. STEFFAN-I wonder if there’s another property adjoining it.
MR. NACE-Most of, in fact, with the exception of the buffers in the center of the loop
road, the buffers on here I think were put in there to try to protect, the ones to the south
and to the west, were to try to protect other existing residences, and I would guess that
that is probably the case, is that 18 and 19 don’t have anything behind them except
vacant land, but I will research that and let you know. Is there one other item there that
you had?
MRS. STEFFAN-Just Lupine Way.
MR. OBORNE-Lupine Way, the Richmond Hill Drive.
MR. NACE-I will make those changes. I should have seen that, but I will make those
corrections.
MR. HUNSINGER-Questions, comments from the Board? I kind of saw this as a
somewhat unusual request, for the applicant to volunteer to increase the buffer.
MR. NACE-Well, it’s kind of unusual, yes, but when the property lines are actually staked
in the field, you can see that the actual tree line was about 10 feet outside of the property
50
(Queensbury Planning Board 10/20/09)
lines, or, you know, the back property lines were 10 foot into what NiMo had previously
cleared with, I think Kathy O’Brien originally brought it up, and your own Staff brought it
up, that we really didn’t have the anticipated 25 foot buffer of natural tree vegetation.
MR. HUNSINGER-Now I understand. Does anyone have a problem with the request?
MRS. STEFFAN-No.
MR. FORD-No.
MR. NACE-I would hope not.
MRS. STEFFAN-We can revisit SEQRA. Does anybody anticipate any changes to our
previous approval?
MR. FORD-No.
MR. TRAVER-No.
MR. HUNSINGER-No.
MRS. STEFFAN-Okay. So is there a public hearing on this?
MR. HUNSINGER-No, we’re ready to fly.
MRS. STEFFAN-Okay.
MOTION TO APPROVE MODIFICATION TO SUBDIVISION NO. 4-2003 TRA-TOM
DEVELOPMENT, Introduced by Gretchen Steffan who moved for its adoption, seconded
by Thomas Ford:
1.A subdivision application has been made to the Queensbury Planning Board for
the following:
2.A public hearing is not required for a modification; and
3.This application is supported with all documentation, public comment and
application material in the file of record; and
4.MOTION TO APPROVE MODIFICATION TO SUBDIVISION NO. 4-2003 TRA-
TOM DEVELOPMENT, Introduced by Gretchen Steffan who moved for its
adoption, seconded by Thomas Ford:
According to the resolution prepared by Staff. Paragraph Four A complies.
Paragraph, we considered and reaffirmed the Negative Declaration on SEQRA.
The applicant has not asked for waivers. So Paragraph Four D does not apply.
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 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) NOT APPLICABLE. Waiver requests
e)The limits of clearing will constitute a no-cut buffer zone, orange
51
(Queensbury Planning Board 10/20/09)
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) All previous conditions of approval apply.
l) This is approved with two conditions.
1.That the applicant will change Lupine Way to Richmond Hill Drive
on the revised plat.
2.And will clarify why Lots 18 and 19 are without a 25 no cut buffer
zone to our Community Development Department.
th
Duly adopted this 20 day of October, 2009, by the following vote:
AYES: Mr. Traver, Mr. Krebs, Mr. Sipp, Mr. Seguljic, Mr. Ford, Mrs. Steffan,
Mr. Hunsinger
NOES: NONE
MR. NACE-Thank you.
MR. HUNSINGER-Please extend our appreciation to the applicant for bringing this
forward.
MR. NACE-Yes.
MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. Before we adjourn, I do have one other item, and that is, well,
it’s actually, I guess, kind of two items. November meetings, which include a discussion
on the proposed workshop. There was a conflict with at least one Board member on
Thursdays, and so looking forward to the next several Tuesdays, the first Tuesday in
November is Election Day, and then the next Tuesday in November I’m not available, but
since we came to the meeting this evening, Staff has brought to my attention that even
thth
though we have two meetings scheduled for November, the 17 and the 24, we only
have enough agenda items for one meeting. So in terms of the workshop, I had asked
th
Staff to see if Wednesday the 4 of November was available, or now the workshop could
th
be on the scheduled meeting, which is Tuesday the 24. So I kind of throw that out for
the Board’s consideration. I can also just send an e-mail.
th
MR. TRAVER-Yes, why don’t we do it on the 24, since we’ve already got that booked.
MR. OBORNE-Well, that would be here.
MR. HUNSINGER-Yes. The other comment that I want to make is we all received a
memo from Town Counsel regarding the Fedorowicz lawsuit. I read it, had a lot of
questions. I don’t know if other members had similar questions, but I certainly thought it
might be in order to have Counsel at the workshop, to explain their reading of the
decision and, you know, how that may apply to future decisions and matters before the
Board.
MR. FORD-Great idea.
52
(Queensbury Planning Board 10/20/09)
MR. HUNSINGER-Obviously that discussion would be, well, I guess that depends on the
extent of the discussion, but it may or may not be in Executive Session.
MR. OBORNE-Was that Cathi Radner?
MR. HUNSINGER-Yes.
MR. TRAVER-Yes.
MR. OBORNE-She would be really the only one, because she wrote that treatise there.
MR. HUNSINGER-Right. So if you could find out if she would be available to come that
evening.
MR. SEGULJIC-I guess, do you know if, there’s a comment that the petitioner may no
longer own the property?
MR. OBORNE-That is my understanding.
MR. HUNSINGER-I saw it in the paper.
MRS. STEFFAN-Yes, it was in the paper.
MR. HUNSINGER-It was in the paper that it was sold, because the paper reports on
filings, you know, County filings.
MR. OBORNE-Now was it the eight acre parcel or the parcel where his home is?
MR. HUNSINGER-It was the parcel the home was located on.
MR. OBORNE-Yes, well, that makes sense because that’s been up for sale. He still
owns that other parcel, though. He may be wishing to subdivide that.
MRS. STEFFAN-This was a subdivision application. That’s why.
MR. HUNSINGER-Yes, the subdivision was the property that the house was on.
MRS. STEFFAN-We probably shouldn’t talk anymore about that.
MR. HUNSINGER-Probably not, yes. Any other business before the Board? If not, I’ll
entertain a motion to adjourn.
MOTION TO ADJOURN THE QUEENSBURY PLANNING BOARD MEETING OF
OCTOBER 20, 2009, Introduced by Thomas Ford who moved for its adoption, seconded
by Gretchen Steffan:
th
Duly adopted this 20 day of October, 2009, by the following vote:
AYES: Mr. Sipp, Mr. Seguljic, Mr. Ford, Mr. Traver, Mr. Krebs, Mrs. Steffan,
Mr. Hunsinger
NOES: NONE
On motion meeting was adjourned.
RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED,
Chris Hunsinger, Chairman
53