2009.12.15
(Queensbury Planning Board 12/15/09)
QUEENSBURY PLANNING BOARD MEETING
FIRST REGULAR MEETING
DECEMBER 15, 2009
INDEX
Site Plan No. 46-2008 Angio Dynamics 1.
Freshwater Wetlands 13-2008 Tax Map No. 290.-1-7, 8; 297.8-1-10
Site Plan No. 29-2009 Pyramid Co. of Glens Falls/NEWCO 3.
Tax Map No. 302.5-1-92.4, 92.11, 93.1
Site Plan No. 59-2009 Jerry Brown’s Auto Parts 3.
Tax Map No. 303.19-1-49
Subdivision No. 7-2009 Ernest Burnell 7.
SKETCH PLAN Tax Map No. 278.-1-21
Site Plan No. 60-2009 The Golub Corporation 12.
Tax Map No. 302.10-1-7
Site Plan No. 61-2009 Outback Steakhouse 25.
Tax Map No. 296.13-1-17
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 12/15/09)
QUEENSBURY PLANNING BOARD MEETING
FIRST REGULAR MEETING
DECEMBER 15, 2009
7:00 P.M.
MEMBERS PRESENT
CHRIS HUNSINGER, CHAIRMAN
GRETCHEN STEFFAN, SECRETARY
DONALD SIPP
STEPHEN TRAVER
DONALD KREBS
THOMAS SEGULJIC
THOMAS FORD
LAND USE PLANNER-KEITH OBORNE
STENOGRAPHER-SUE HEMINGWAY
th
MR. HUNSINGER-I’ll call to order the 27 meeting of the Town of Queensbury Planning
Board on Tuesday, December 15, 2009.
APPROVAL OF MINUTES
October 20, 2009
October 27, 2009
MOTION TO APPROVE THE QUEENSBURY PLANNING BOARD MEETING MINUTES
THTH
OF OCTOBER 20 AND OCTOBER 27, 2009, Introduced by Gretchen Steffan who
moved for its adoption, seconded by Donald Krebs:
th
Duly adopted this 15 day of December, 2009, by the following vote:
AYES: Mr. Traver, Mr. Sipp, Mr. Seguljic, Mr. Ford, Mr. Krebs, Mrs. Steffan,
Mr. Hunsinger
NOES: NONE
MR. HUNSINGER-The next item on the agenda is Election of Officers. At the pleasure
of the Board, I would like to move that to last on the agenda.
MRS. STEFFAN-Okay.
MR. KREBS-Fine.
ADMINISTRATIVE ITEM:
SITE PLAN 46-2008: ANGIO DYNAMICS
MR. HUNSINGER-Any further information, Keith, than what was in the Staff Notes?
MR. OBORNE-Just what’s there. They have withdrawn their application. The world
headquarters will not be in Queensbury.
MRS. STEFFAN-Okay.
MOTION TO DENY WITHOUT PREJUDICE SITE PLAN NO. 46-2008 & FRESHWATER
WETLANDS PERMIT 13-2008 ANGIO DYNAMICS, Introduced by Gretchen Steffan
who moved for its adoption, seconded by Stephen Traver:
On November 18, 2008 the Planning Board passed a resolution seeking Lead Agency
status for Site Plan 46-2008 and Freshwater Wetlands 13-2008 for Angio Dynamics; and
There has been no activity associated with this application since that date; and
On November 18, 2009 the Planning Office received a letter dated November 6, 2009
from US Army Corps of Engineers closing their files based on an e-mail received from
Randy Bodkin of Angio Dynamics [see attached letter]; and
1
(Queensbury Planning Board 12/15/09)
THEREFORE, LET IT BE RESOLVED,
MOTION TO DENY WITHOUT PREJUDICE SITE PLAN NO. 46-2008 & FRESHWATER
WETLANDS PERMIT 13-2008 ANGIO DYNAMICS, Introduced by Gretchen Steffan
who moved for its adoption, seconded by Stephen Traver:
According to the resolution prepared by Staff.
th
Duly adopted this 15 day of December, 2009, by the following vote:
MR. FORD-I have a question. On both this one and the next one on our agenda. It’s just
semantics, but is it appropriate to accept the withdrawal rather than deny without
prejudice?
MR. OBORNE-I think you can go either way. I think denying without prejudice is cleaner.
MR. FORD-Is it?
MR. OBORNE-Yes, that’s why we put it in the resolution. I mean, if you’re more
comfortable to just accept the withdrawal, that’s fine. They’re not coming back either
way.
MR. FORD-Right.
MR. HUNSINGER-Yes.
MR. TRAVER-Although denying with prejudice gives him the opportunity to re-apply.
MR. OBORNE-That’s true.
MR. FORD-Well, couldn’t they do that anyway?
MR. OBORNE-Well, they’d have to re-submit a new plan.
MR. FORD-Sure.
MR. OBORNE-Either way.
MR. TRAVER-Yes.
MR. OBORNE-Now, by denying without prejudice is a defacto accepting of their
withdrawal.
MR. FORD-It’s a matter of semantics. I just found both of these motions having a
negative connotation, and I just would prefer to accept it, but I certainly can live with it
either way.
MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. Well, we really didn’t get a letter from Angio Dynamics
requesting the withdrawal.
MRS. STEFFAN-No, but they did send one to the DEC.
MR. HUNSINGER-DEC. Was that the primary issue?
MR. OBORNE-Yes.
MR. HUNSINGER-That’s what killed the project.
MR. OBORNE-No. I don’t think they were going to build it. I think the economy killed the
project.
MR. HUNSINGER-Okay.
MR. KREBS-And I think they also, it was in the paper a couple of months ago, that they
rented space for their world headquarters in Albany because they wanted to be closer to
an active airport.
MR. OBORNE-Correct.
2
(Queensbury Planning Board 12/15/09)
MR. HUNSINGER-Okay.
AYES: Mr. Sipp, Mr. Seguljic, Mr. Ford, Mrs. Steffan, Mr. Krebs, Mr. Traver,
Mr. Hunsinger
NOES: NONE
SITE PLAN 29-2009: PYRAMID CO. OF GLENS FALLS
MR. HUNSINGER-And then we have a similar motion for the Pyramid Company of Glens
Falls, Site Plan 29-2009. The applicant has asked to withdraw their application.
MRS. STEFFAN-Okay. Then I’ll make a motion.
MOTION TO DENY WITHOUT PREJUDICE SITE PLAN NO. 29-2009 PYRAMID CO.
OF GLENS FALLS/NEWCO, 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 10,950 sq. ft. mixed use building.
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.Subsequent to that on October 20, 2009 the application was tabled to December
15, 2009 requesting information by November 16, 2009; to date no new
information has been received; and
7.On November 23, 2009 a letter was received from Stefanie Bitter of Bartlett
Pontiff Stewart & Rhodes withdrawing the application without prejudice;
therefore, be it resolved;
8.MOTION TO DENY WITHOUT PREJUDICE SITE PLAN NO. 29-2009
PYRAMID CO. OF GLENS FALLS/NEWCO, Introduced by Gretchen Steffan who
moved for its adoption, seconded by Stephen Traver:
According to the resolution prepared by Staff.
th
Duly adopted this 15 day of December, 2009, by the following vote:
AYES: Mr. Sipp, Mr. Seguljic, Mr. Ford, Mr. Krebs, Mrs. Steffan, Mr. Traver,
Mr. Hunsinger
NOES: NONE
SITE PLAN NO. 59-2009 SEQR TYPE: II JERRY BROWN’S AUTO PARTS
OWNER(S) SAME ZONING CLI LOCATION 26 LOWER WARREN STREET
APPLICANT PROPOSES CONSTRUCTION OF A 900 SQ. FT. STORAGE BUILDING.
CHANGES TO AN APPROVED SITE PLAN IN A CLI ZONE REQUIRE PLANNING
BOARD REVIEW AND APPROVAL. CROSS REFERENCE SP 54-05, SP 16-02, SP
19-92, UV 40-92 WARREN CO. PLANNING 12/9/09 APA, CEA, DEC, ACOE, OTHER
NWI WETLANDS LOT SIZE 13.79 +/- TAX MAP NO. 303.19-1-49 SECTION 179-9
STEFANIE BITTER, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT
MRS. STEFFAN-Mr. Chairman, I need to recuse myself due to a professional business
association with this applicant.
3
(Queensbury Planning Board 12/15/09)
MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. Thank you. Keith, whenever you’re ready to summarize Staff
Notes.
MR. OBORNE-Site Plan 59-2009. This is a modification to Site Plan 54-2009, Jerry
Brown’s Auto Parts. That is the applicant. Requested Action: Site Plan approval for new
accessory structures in the CLI zone. The location is 26 Lower Warren Street. This is in
the CLI, Commercial Light Industrial zone, in the Town of Queensbury. It’s a Type II
SEQRA. No further review is necessary. Project Description: Applicant proposes
construction of a 900 sq. ft. storage building. The applicant proposes to store site
maintenance equipment and tools. No heating or electricity is proposed. Staff
Comments: There currently exists a concrete pad located in the area that the storage
shed will be placed. There will be no change to the permeability of the site. Plan
Review, there’s really no immediate issues. Just maybe some clarification on which
building is going to be going up, and then as you see in your plans, there’s seems to be a
more of a rectangular building, but this is really a square building. Also, interior lighting
should be considered for safety purposes as this is a 900 square foot storage structure,
and again, the Planning Board may wish to direct the applicant to clarify the size of the
building, which building is going to be erected.
MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. Thank you. Good evening.
MS. BITTER-Good evening. Stefanie Bitter on behalf of Jerry Brown’s Auto Parts as the
applicant’s attorney. Mr. Brown is out of town this evening. This project moves with
Larry Brown’s plan to make the site more attractive and to eliminate as much outdoor
storage as he can. As you know, we’re proposing to construct a 900 square foot storage
building which is essentially like a large carport as the plans demonstrate. The building
will be constructed north of the existing garage and actually on an existing concrete pad.
Visibility of the building will be protected by the existing gate, the existing garage and
existing retaining walls. The height, as noted in the plan, is 30 feet. As you’re aware, 60
feet is allowed. The building will be used, as demonstrated, for storage, snow blowers,
lawnmowers, equipment of the site, generators, Billie goats, maintenance equipment,
and they have a great deal of palettes which they use for storage purposes as well. This
will help protect them from the weather. No change in stormwater as Tom Jarrett, the
project engineer, identified in an e-mail due to the fact that the concrete pad was already
incorporated in the stormwater calculations from the previous plan. No impact on water
and sewer. In response to Staff comments, the elevations are for a standard carport and
some modifications had been made, as the invoice demonstrates. Relative to the doors,
they’re proposing to have two overhead doors or roll up doors when viewing it from the
front of the building, with a walk-in door in the middle of that front view, with another
walk-in door in the back of the building as well, and the building is for daytime use only.
Cold storage, so no lighting is being proposed.
MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. Is that it?
MS. BITTER-Yes.
MR. HUNSINGER-Questions, comments from members of the Board?
MR. TRAVER-I understand that the intent for daytime use only, although it would seem
that you might want to consider some lighting, if only for safety purposes, particularly
when you have heavy equipment in there and so on. I’m not sure if there are, if there’s a
requirement for exit lights in the event of fire, something like that, but just, even, I can tell
you from walking around in my own garage that, even in the daytime on a cloudy day, it
can be, you know, a bit of an issue.
MS. BITTER-I can definitely bring that to Larry’s attention.
MR. HUNSINGER-Anything else from the Board?
MR. SEGULJIC-No, it seems pretty straightforward to me.
MR. HUNSINGER-Yes.
MR. FORD-Yes.
MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. We do have a public hearing scheduled. Is there anyone in
the audience that wants to address the Board on this project? I’ll open the public
hearing.
4
(Queensbury Planning Board 12/15/09)
PUBLIC HEARING OPENED
MR. HUNSINGER-Are there any written comments, Keith?
MR. OBORNE-No, sir.
MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. Let the record show that there were no commentors, and I will
close the public hearing.
PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED
MR. HUNSINGER-Any other questions, concerns? How about the color, is it going to
match the existing buildings?
MS. BITTER-I believe so. I’m not exactly sure of the color.
MR. HUNSINGER-Okay.
MR. OBORNE-That was my understanding with discussions with the applicant that it will.
MR. HUNSINGER-Okay.
MR. OBORNE-I will admit, it’s a pretty tight site for what it is. It really is. Just
clarification on what building’s going up is the main issue at this point.
MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. It’s a Type II SEQRA. So I guess I would entertain a motion if
there’s no questions or comments.
MR. SEGULJIC-With regards to requesting waivers for stormwater management,
grading, landscaping and lighting, right? I assume no one has a problem with that.
MR. HUNSINGER-Yes, they’re not adding anything.
MR. SEGULJIC-Okay. All right.
MOTION TO APPROVE SITE PLAN NO. 59-2009 JERRY BROWN’S AUTO PARTS,
Introduced by Thomas Seguljic 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 900 sq. ft. storage building.
Changes to an approved site plan in a CLI zone require Planning Board review
and approval.
2.A public hearing was advertised and held on12/15/09; 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. 59-2009 JERRY BROWN’S AUTO
PARTS, Introduced by Thomas Seguljic who moved for its adoption, seconded by
Thomas Ford:
According to the resolution prepared by Staff. Number Four A complies, Four B
is a Type II action. That the following waivers will be granted for stormwater
management, grading, landscaping, and lighting plans.
a)Pursuant to relevant sections of the Town of Queensbury Zoning Code
[Chapter 179], the Planning Board has determined that this proposal
complies with the requirements as stated in the Zoning Code; and
b)This is a Type II action-no further review needed; 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
5
(Queensbury Planning Board 12/15/09)
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 mgmt., grading, landscaping &
lighting plans; and
h)The limits of clearing will constitute a no-cut buffer zone, orange
construction fencing shall be installed around these areas and field
verified by Community Development staff.
i)Engineering sign-off required prior to signature of Zoning Administrator.
j)The applicant shall submit a copy of a NOI [Notice of Intent] SWPPP
[Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan] & NOT [Notice of Termination] -
see staff.
k)The applicant shall submit a copy of a NYS SPDES [State Pollution
Discharge Elimination System].
l)If curb cuts are being added or changed a driveway permit is required. A
building permit will not be issued until the approved driveway permit has
been provided to the Planning Office.
th
Duly adopted this 15 day of December, 2009, by the following vote:
MR. HUNSINGER-Do we want to stipulate the building color or is it pretty clear that they
intend to make it gold to match?
MR. OBORNE-If the Board is more comfortable, you may want to direct them to match
the color with the existing building, or some shade close.
MR. HUNSINGER-Yes.
MR. KREBS-From looking at the site personally myself, you can, I don’t even know if
you’re going to be able to see the building.
MS. BITTER-No. It’s really going to be in the closed in area.
MR. HUNSINGER-Right.
MR. KREBS-So the color is really not a major thing.
MR. OBORNE-I was thinking of the airplanes.
MS. BITTER-Well, if you’ve ever been in their store, they do have the aerials above. So
I’m sure they’re concerned as well.
MR. SEGULJIC-I can go either way on it. If the Board feels strongly about it. I think he’d
want to make it look good.
MR. HUNSINGER-Yes, absolutely. Okay.
AYES: Mr. Traver, Mr. Krebs, Mr. Sipp, Mr. Seguljic, Mr. Ford, Mr. Hunsinger
NOES: NONE
ABSENT: Mrs. Steffan
MS. BITTER-Thank you.
6
(Queensbury Planning Board 12/15/09)
MR. HUNSINGER-You’re all set. Thank you.
MS. BITTER-Did that motion include the color stipulation?
MR. HUNSINGER-It did not.
MS. BITTER-Okay. I just wanted to make sure I could communicate that to the client.
Thank you.
SUBDIVISION 7-2009 SKETCH PLAN SEQR TYPE N/A ERNEST BURNELL
AGENT(S) VAN DUSEN & STEVES OWNER(S) SAME ZONING RR-3A
LOCATION 419 STATE ROUTE 149 APPLICANT PROPOSES SUBDIVISION OF A
34.22 +/- ACRES INTO FOUR RESIDENTIAL LOTS RANGING IN SIZE FROM 3.0 TO
21.26 +/- ACRES. SUBDIVISION OF LAND REQUIRES PLANNING BOARD REVIEW
AND APPROVAL. CROSS REFERENCE NONE FOUND LOT SIZE 34.22 +/- ACRES
TAX MAP NO. 278.-1-21 SECTION A 183
MATT STEVES, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT
MR. HUNSINGER-Keith, if you want to summarize your Staff Notes.
MR. OBORNE-Subdivision 7-2009. This is a Sketch Plan, Ernest Burnell. This is,
requested action is review for subdivision of land. Location is 419 State Route 149. The
zoning is Rural Residential Three Acres. SEQRA, there is no SEQRA at this point.
Parcel History, no recent history. Project Description: Applicant proposes subdivision of
a 34.22 +/- acre parcel into four residential lots ranging in sizes from 3.0 to 21.26 +/-
acres. Staff Comments: The parcel proposed for subdivision has approximately 750
feet of frontage on the north side State Route 149. The parcel has an existing single
family dwelling on site and will be included in the proposed subdivision. The parcel has
many steep slopes and wetlands as noticed on the survey. The applicant does not
propose any clearing or grading within 100 feet of the identified wetlands. The parcel is
predominantly wooded; however, there does appear to have been some logging on the
parcel in recent years, and currently. I discuss the soils. I’m sure the Board’s familiar
with these notes. I’ll move on to my Additional Comments. There seems to be a
discrepancy with the size of the overall lot as indicated by the Queensbury property
description reports that we have. We’d like to get clarification of that. The Sketch Plan
indicates two driveways associated with this subdivision. Staff recommends that either
the existing driveway be maintained for subdivision access or the existing driveway be
decommissioned and access for Lot 1 be utilized from proposed new access drive, and
Lot One is the one with the current house on it, and Preliminary Plans should be one to
fifty. All steep slopes and wetlands should be qualified and quantified. Engineer of
record should be denoted at Preliminary review, and as stated previously, all work
appears to be outside of the 100 foot DEC wetland buffer. What follows is the
application protocol, and with that I’d turn it over to the Board.
MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. Thank you. Good evening.
MR. STEVES-Good evening. Matt Steves. I represent Ernest Burnell on this
application. As Staff has commented on, this is property on the north side of New York
State Route 149. Their first question, as far as the area of the parcel, the tax map
incorrectly had it like an “L” Shaped piece of property, and it is not. So there’s that
difference of three and a half acres. It is a straight line back. It’s just that the tax
mapping department didn’t have any record surveys in that area, and the description for
the piece to the east didn’t describe their westerly line very well.
MR. HUNSINGER-I saw that in the deed, yes.
MR. STEVES-But in surveying it there is, as you can see on the map, there is a
substantial tree hedgerow through there, wire fence that’s probably 100 years old, and
that stone wall that’s probably 200 years old when it was an old pasture back in there,
and there is no question that the property is not the 37 acres as indicated on the tax rolls.
Sometimes when you get a survey done, you actually either end up with more or less
land than the tax rolls are approximate for taxing purposes, but that is definitely, as you
can see on the tax maps, it is not. That’s a straight line back through there. So that
would answer that question. As far as the soils and comments that the Staff had, we
agree with that. There’s no problem there. As far as the comment number two is the
sketch plan for the driveways, again, I have no issues with either scenario. What we
were trying to accomplish here is the three new lots off of a shared drive. If anybody’s
7
(Queensbury Planning Board 12/15/09)
been to the property, I know Keith has, there’s a drive that exists up through there, and
Mr. Burnell would like to use that, obviously just to improve that. Coming in off of the
other, that road to the existing house, is not a problem. He’s going to maintain
ownership of that house and live there. So that’s not an issue, as you can see coming in
that’s not going to be an issue whatsoever. The only thing with that, I’d look at the Board
for some direction, is if you go by New York State Realty law, more than three houses on
a common drive, then you need to get into an HOA, which would be a simple CPS 7 in
this scenario, but you still would have to accomplish that. So, look at some guidance
with the Board. I mean, the one Lot Two has substantial enough frontage to have its
own frontage on 149, but we’re not going to use that. We want to utilize the three new
lots off of the existing road that’s there. Obviously Ernie would prefer just to keep his
house separate from the other three, but, you know, looking at it, reviewing the site and
going up there yourselves at Preliminary, if that is an issue, we’ll change it. That’s not
going to be a stop for this subdivision. As far as the rest of the comments, we don’t have
any issues at all. We’ve already done the full topography on the entire site. As you can
see, we’re only developing the area short of the little drainage stream that runs through
there. It is a seasonal stream. It is not year round, and there’s not DEC or APA
wetlands. They’re actually small Army Corps, but we’re still maintaining the 100 foot
setback from all of the wetlands that are on the property, and we actually, with Staff,
when we first came in and discussed this, we actually re-located the proposed driveway
on Lot Four to accommodate no grading anywhere near that area. As I say, he just
wants a simple three additional lots, and you can see from the photos, you can see the
path where the road goes in the back there. They have logged it I think about 35 years
ago, and they have done some selective cutting in the recent I think year or two. That’s
been a field there for a long time. If you looked at some of the older photos of the area
and like the 40’s State photos, it was about 70% field. Now it’s quite a bit wooded, but as
far as the soils and stuff, everything’s fine. Slopes, we have that data on the map but I
will actually shade those areas so people can see them. That’s not an issue there.
Engineer of record, that’ll either be Tom Nace or Tom Hutchins, depending on which one
has the availability in my office to work on it with me next month, and at that point we’ll
have one of those two sign the next step when we come in with any kind of stormwater
and/or grading for the road, and septic systems. Real quick on the existing driveway, I
did a quick profile on the bottom, just to kind of give you an indication of what the existing
driveway does. It does come in off of 149 at roughly about five percent, and then if we
just cleaned it up a little bit, you can see I think the steepest portion at any point would be
just under 10%, and that’s just before the end at the hammerhead, but it does meet all
the criteria for, whether it be a Town road, a private road or a driveway, and that’s where
it exists right now. So obviously the least amount of impact for the property would be to
leave it right where it is now. Yes, there would be some clean up, you know, some
surface material put down, and possibly some type of ditch line or some type of
stormwater management along that driveway, but the soils in this area are extremely
suitable for any type of stormwater controls we wanted to use. I’ll leave it at that.
MR. HUNSINGER-Questions, comments from the Board?
MR. KREBS-Well, my only comment would be, you know, I would like to see one
entrance way rather than two, just because that’s a fairly high speed area on that road,
and you want to limit the number of accesses to the road. That would be my only
comment.
MR. TRAVER-Yes, that was my concern as well.
MRS. STEFFAN-Are there any proposed changes on Route 149 in that section?
MR. STEVES-They’ve already been completed. What you see on this plan is the
appropriation and the construction that’s already taken place.
MR. HUNSINGER-Any other questions, comments?
MR. SEGULJIC-So you’re going to, in theory, use the existing roadway?
MR. STEVES-Correct.
MR. SEGULJIC-If I can call it that, and you’ve depicted the grade on that.
MR. STEVES-Correct.
MR. SEGULJIC-And this portion of 10% you said is past the last house?
8
(Queensbury Planning Board 12/15/09)
MR. STEVES-It is just past the last driveway, right actually just coming in to the driveway
on Lot Number Four, and then coming back down the hill just before the turnaround at
that 1.9% or 2% grade is where the driveway comes in for Lot Three.
MR. SEGULJIC-Okay. So you’d have to go up that 10% grade to get to Lot Three.
MR. STEVES-Correct.
MR. SEGULJIC-And then at the end of the road that’s a turn around, shall we say?
MR. STEVES-That’s correct. Since it’s a driveway we just incorporated a “T” turn
around. As you can see in the topography, I think there’s a three foot or, you know,
maximum grade across it, 100 foot turn around at the end, and it’s basically one there
right now where the log trucks had had a staging area. So it’s a perfect spot to leave it.
Like I say, it’s the least impact possible for the site is to leave it just the way we have it,
and actually the one driveway into which would be Lot Three is basically already cut in
there from a path that was done for logging years ago.
MR. HUNSINGER-I mean, that was going to be my question, do you even need to have
the hammerhead, but if it’s already there, you might as well show it.
MR. STEVES-There’s already a landing area there from the header for the skidding
operation. So in case an emergency vehicle had to get in there and turn around, it is
suitably wide enough for that, and then the hammerhead was there and like I say actually
it’s a big, large cleared area. You might as well leave it there.
MR. SEGULJIC-What is the grade? What’s the proposed grade look like for Lot Four’s
driveway?
MR. STEVES-Lot Four’s driveway, that is about a seven percent grade, overall.
MR. SEGULJIC-And that does not exist at this point, correct?
MR. STEVES-No.
MR. SEGULJIC-Okay, and what would the elevation difference be between that
proposed lot and 149?
MR. STEVES-The house on that lot compared to 149?
MR. SEGULJIC-Yes.
MR. STEVES-Well, that contour basically runs parallel, you know, and it runs in a
north/south direction, and you can see it runs all the way out to 149. That’s at about 275,
I believe, 280, and 149 is 280 near the westerly edge, about 290, and about 265, 258 at
the easterly edge.
MR. SEGULJIC-So it wouldn’t be that great of a difference.
MR. STEVES-No.
MR. SEGULJIC-Okay.
MR. STEVES-I was trying to preserve the area in the back for that, just that Lot Four to
own the entire large piece in the back. Keith wants that, by the way.
MR. SIPP-Is this driveway going to be paved eventually?
MR. STEVES-Potentially it could be paved. I mean, we have to, you know, as far as
non-permeable issues, we have to consider it non-permeable whether it be gravel or
paved. We would rather see just a gravel road in there, but, you know, some of the
people off of that may want to pave portions of their own driveway. We don’t anticipate
paving the whole thing at this point, no.
MRS. STEFFAN-It would likely be easier to plow in the wintertime.
MR. STEVES-And depending on who buys these lots, that may be the first thing
somebody does. If somebody buys Lot Four, for example, that may be the first thing
9
(Queensbury Planning Board 12/15/09)
they want to have done, and then you’re going to have an Association there, with four
lots, and they share in the maintenance of that.
MR. FORD-It’ll be costly.
MR. STEVES-It’ll be costly, but at the same time, in the long run it would probably be
beneficial.
MR. SEGULJIC-Now, the lots to the, I guess east and west, those are large lots right
now, correct?
MR. STEVES-Correct. Meaning to the east and west of this existing parcel?
MR. SEGULJIC-Yes.
MR. STEVES-To the west you have an 11 acre parcel and a 43 acre parcel.
MR. SEGULJIC-Is it possible to have, in case they ever come before us for subdivision,
instead of having all these individual roads going up there, some type of consideration
that future, you know, loop that road around to either side, but then the problem is you go
to the west, you’ve got to go over that stream which, for the east, would be an issue.
MR. STEVES-Going to the west is not only the stream but you also have the bank going
to the west. I mean, that’s the slope that you would have an issue with. Going to the
east we could accommodate a right of way for future, like between Lots One and Three,
but if you look to the, going to the east, there’s already a small lot of just over an acre,
and a 2.71 acre, Dessicio. So you have to go north of that into Martindale’s property,
which we could accommodate a potential right of way or easement to connect to that. I
mean, it’s not going to be a Town road, so it wouldn’t have to be an ownership. It could
just be another 50 foot wide easement along Lot Three line.
MR. SEGULJIC-So if something ever came up in the future, at least we could connect
two roads.
MR. STEVES-Well, you’d have private driveways. It’s not a road.
MR. SEGULJIC-Okay.
MR. STEVES-That’s the difference from here. You could, you know, if it’s going to be an
HOA they’d have to get permission from the HOA to connect and you’d have to go
through the Attorney General’s, I’m sure, to modify the Offering Plan to allow other
people to use the road. I think that gets awful complicated for three lots, but I mean, we
could leave an access there and let somebody else deal with it down the road.
MR. HUNSINGER-We’ve just seen so many instances where you have lots of this shape
and you have these long cul de sacs, you know, and then a few years later the property
next door comes in and says, well, there’s no, you know, there’s no way we can hook in
to the property next door.
MR. STEVES-I wholeheartedly agree, and like I say, the opportune location, if we have
room, is to do it right on Lot Three along the northerly boundary of Lot One and just
create a 50 foot easement, and I’m just saying it’ll be there.
MR. SEGULJIC-Correct. That’s all we’re asking is just thinking that way.
MR. STEVES-And we have no problem with that.
MR. HUNSINGER-So you’re saying between Lots One and Three or between Lots Three
and Four?
MR. STEVES-Between, on the north property, north of the line dividing Lots One and
Three. That way it would connect to the larger parcel that’s owned by Martindale, 37
acres, connecting to the two acre lot to the south of that, Desiscio, would not
accommodate any benefit.
MR. HUNSINGER-Right.
MRS. STEFFAN-Plus you wouldn’t cross the stream that way.
10
(Queensbury Planning Board 12/15/09)
MR. HUNSINGER-Good point. Yes, okay.
MR. KREBS-And plus you’d keep that forever wild in the back that’s there.
MR. OBORNE-Yes, there’s nothing going on in the back. Absolutely not.
MR. STEVES-And also, to be honest with you, that would be the best spot, as far as the
grade off the existing drive, and we have no problem with that. I agree, thank you.
MR. HUNSINGER-Thanks, Tom.
MR. OBORNE-Is there any preference that the Board may have on how they would want
the driveway to be designed? Do you want it to go through the existing drive? Any
thought given to that? As we move along to Preliminary, you want to give him all that
information now.
MRS. STEFFAN-It’s one of those areas where there is visibility, so, you know, two
driveways would not be our preference, but there’s some other extenuating
circumstances, you know, regarding the Homeowners Association for more than three
homes. So that’s certainly a contributing factor. I don’t know how other Planning Board
members feel about it, but I feel that the visibility is sufficient there so you could
accommodate two driveways, but that’s just my feeling.
MR. SEGULJIC-But on the other hand, maintaining a long road like this, I would assume
they’re all going to share in there, right?
MR. STEVES-Yes.
MR. SEGULJIC-So in some ways, you’re almost forced to have one.
MRS. STEFFAN-Right, but the three would. It’s just a question of whether the existing
home on Lot One wants to reconfigure the driveway or whether it’s necessary.
MR. STEVES-Correct. Any lot that would be sold, that would have to be a deed
condition, as far as maintenance of the driveway, whether it be three or four. The
difference is, you know, we’ve looked at it as well, and we agree that there’s sufficient
sight distance there, and it’s a single family home. It’s not like it’s a huge amount of
traffic. He drives a school bus, and for him to access off the very beginning, he’d be
utilizing 100 feet, if that, of the proposed driveway or the shared driveway I should say,
but then all of a sudden now you’re throwing him into the mix of maintaining 600 feet of it.
That’s all we’re looking at. I mean, I understand. If we wanted to share it, we discussed
at the beginning we could. We can accommodate and show you the sight distances for
both if that would help with your decision.
MR. SIPP-Is there any proposal here for erosion control between, especially in the area
of Lot Two, Lot Three and Four?
MR. STEVES-Yes.
MR. SIPP-What are you going to use?
MR. STEVES-That’s what I’m going to allow the engineer to look at when he does his
test pits, but again, it’s all suitable soils here for any kind of stormwater.
MR. SIPP-Ask him to take a Ph test, too. So if you put anything in there that’s going to
hold, it’s going to have to be probably a legume.
MR. STEVES-Yes, unless you modify the soil.
MR. OBORNE-Correct. If I may, there are other issues besides just sight line issues with
this. You do have refuse pick up. You do have emergency vehicles. It does make it
easier, and, you know, I just want to make sure the Board is aware of that. I would prefer
to be as one. End of the world, no, obviously, but from a planning perspective, it is the
way to go, in my mind, and sight distances, yes, they’re fine. I mean, they really are.
MR. SEGULJIC-Can you just expound, when you said refuse pick up? The truck having
to come in and off the road twice, you’re saying?
MR. OBORNE-Exactly.
11
(Queensbury Planning Board 12/15/09)
MR. SEGULJIC-Okay. No, I would agree. To me, I mean, 149 is, it’s a fast road.
MR. HUNSINGER-Absolutely.
MR. SEGULJIC-And I think it just makes sense to me, because all these people are
going to get together and maintain the road. So in some ways it’s just going to formalize
all this for me.
MR. SIPP-I think there should be a pull off here, too, because you can get two cars on a
10 foot wide road and they’re not going to pass one another.
MR. SEGULJIC-On the driveway side.
MR. SIPP-On the driveway side.
MR. STEVES-That is not an issue. There’s plenty of room to do that.
MR. FORD-We were talking about maintenance of, if you used the new drive for the
existing house, what if you were to “Y” off that existing driveway.
MR. STEVES-That’s what I was just going to suggest.
MR. FORD-And bring it in there, using the current driveway, “Y” off it very early on that
property, stay away from that existing structure and go over and tie it in with the
proposed road.
MR. STEVES-Yes, I was just going to suggest that, and leaving the property line where it
is so that we don’t interfere with, well, to be honest with you, it doesn’t make any
difference, because if you look at the setback from 149, because of the taking in there,
the setback line is behind his existing house anyway, the 100 foot from the road, his
house is completely, so it really won’t make any.
MR. FORD-That would be my recommendation.
MR. STEVES-And I agree. We’ll do that, because that grade there, you can see on the
photo that Keith had up, and that’s right across the existing open field. So that’s not an
issue.
MR. HUNSINGER-Okay.
MR. STEVES-That’s what we’ll do. I just was drawing that in.
MR. FORD-I think we’re on the same page.
MR. STEVES-You can see he has kind of like a horseshoe driveway. We’ll just use it,
right when you come in on this road we’ll just branch off to the left hand edge of it, and
bring it right back into that road that you see on the left hand side of the photo.
MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. Anything else from the Board?
MR. STEVES-Thank you.
MR. HUNSINGER-Other than that, it looks good. Thank you.
SITE PLAN 60-2009 SEQR TYPE UNLISTED THE GOLUB CORPORATION
AGENT(S) MICHAEL KOPCHIK, MARCHAND JONES ARCHITECTS OWNER(S)
GLEN STREET, LLC [BRIAN FIELDING] ZONING CI LOCATION 677 GLEN STREET
APPLICANT PROPOSES REMOVAL OF EXISTING BACK UP GENERATOR AND
INSTALLATION OF NEW LARGER CAPACITY BACK-UP GENERATOR, INCLUDING
ASSOCIATED FUEL TRANSFER/RETENTION AREA. CHANGES TO AN APPROVED
SITE PLAN IN A CI ZONE REQUIRE PLANNING BOARD REVIEW AND APPROVAL.
CROSS REFERENCE SP 42-09, SP 22-98, SP 69-05, SP 65-95 WARREN CO.
PLANNING 12/9/09 APA, CEA, DEC, ACOE, OTHER DEC & NWI WETLANDS LOT
SIZE 18.79 +/- ACRES TAX MAP NO. 302.10-1-7 SECTION 179-9
MICHAEL KOPCHIK, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT
MR. HUNSINGER-Keith, whenever you’re ready to summarize Staff Notes.
12
(Queensbury Planning Board 12/15/09)
MR. OBORNE-Site Plan 60-2009, Golub Corporation. This is a Site Plan Review for a
change to approve Site Plan. 677 Glen Street is the location. Commercial Intensive is
the zoning. This is an Unlisted SEQRA. Project Description: Applicant proposes
removal of existing back up generator and installation of new larger capacity back-up
generator, including fuel transfer / retention area. Staff Comments: The Price Chopper
is currently undergoing renovations both internally and externally. The façade changes
appear to be complete and the internal upgrades are well underway. Approval for these
renovations where obtained at the August 25, 2009 Planning Board meeting. The
purpose of the current request before the Planning Board is for a generator upgrade to
allow for the entire location to remain open and operational during power outages.
Currently, the existing 100 kW generator is undersized in regards to meeting the power
needs during outages. The request is for a 1000 kW generator capable of supporting all
the functions of the store during outages. The existing generator will be removed. The
proposed generator will be located to the west of the existing generator and will have a
spill containment area component that is required under the Code of Federal Regulations
Part 112, Oil Pollution Prevention. I do want to have the Planning Board take a look at
potential snow removal issues for the delivery location, assurances that the sluice gate
valves are operational during winter months, and snow and ice removal should be
considered for the sluice gate, and erosion and sedimentation controls should certainly
be part of this plan, either if this was to be tabled at a future submittal, or at final
submittal, if this is approved with conditions, and with that I’d turn it over to the Board.
MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. Thank you. Good evening. If you could identify yourself for
the record.
MR. KOPCHIK-Hi. Yes, Mike Kopchik, Marchand Jones Architects, agent for Golub
Corporation, Price Chopper.
MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. Did you have anything else you wanted to add?
MR. KOPCHIK-The only other thing I wanted to mention is in the narrative we describe
the construction of the fuel transfer retention area as being primarily out of asphalt. The
Golub Corporation is, to do that at this point in time obviously, they would have to wait
until Spring to do the work. They are looking into an alternative design. It would look
exactly the same, but it would be built out of concrete as opposed to asphalt. That would
allow them to do the work in the winter, and the final design work, and design drawings,
are underway right now, and would actually be done shortly. There was no way we
could get them done prior to making a submission, but we do have, this is intended to
indicate where we’re putting it, how it’s going to work, give a general feel for how it would
function and the fact that it doesn’t impact, significantly, any of the other area. We do
have full construction drawings that are being prepared and would be submitted,
obviously. I assume we’d need a building permit to actually do the work, and those will
be done shortly, probably within two weeks.
MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. Questions, comments from the Board?
MR. TRAVER-Can you address the snow removal concern raised by Staff?
MR. KOPCHIK-Yes. The reason we’ve actually located where it is right now, as opposed
to in the vicinity existing generator, is particularly because of the whole transfer station
and the ability for traffic to move through there, and with snow removal. This transfer
station would essentially have a very low four inch curb around the perimeter of it. It
actually drops down into the transfer station, as opposed to rising above the adjacent
area. So they would simply plow it right straight through to the back, just like they do
now. If you go over there now, you’ll see the snow is plowed to the end of the pavement.
It would essentially keep going, just beyond the end of the transfer area itself. Also in the
narrative you may have noted that we have indicated that that gate valve would be
located either on the west side where it’s shown now or possibly on the north end. It
looks like it’s more likely to end up on the north end, just because of the topography in
that area. That’s where actually the drainage goes and moves around the actual transfer
station itself. That makes it even easier to plow it because they would simply go straight
off the end. That gate valve is essentially a manual wheel that projects up, you know,
above the curbing, and they would have a couple of bollards around it to protect it, and
you would just manually open or close it depending on whether they’re transferring any
fuel.
MR. TRAVER-Thank you.
13
(Queensbury Planning Board 12/15/09)
MR. HUNSINGER-So let me understand. It would only be closed when fuel’s being
transferred?
MR. KOPCHIK-That’s right. Normally, obviously if it’s raining, water would fall in that
transfer area, and it would exit out of that gate valve and essentially drain away exactly
the same way it does now. The path of the site drainage is essentially right around the
north side of this proposed area. When they were transferring fuel, they would close it, in
the event that anything were spilled, so it would be contained within that curve, and then
it would be cleaned and removed before they would open it again. It’s a fairly simple
arrangement.
MR. HUNSINGER-Keith had a picture there of the puddle.
MR. OBORNE-The puddle?
MR. HUNSINGER-Yes. That puddle today is really big.
MR. KOPCHIK-Yes. What happens is this entire site drains without any catch basins.
It’s all surface runoff from the pavement out to the perimeter of the property, and that
happens to be somewhat of a low spot. We would be building the transfer area literally
just beyond that, and what we would end up doing is re-grading that area to take water
around the north side of the transfer area. Essentially helping that problem.
MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. That was my question.
MR. KOPCHIK-Right. We would fix that by placing this facility.
MR. FORD-Well, fix it in that location, but that water’s going to go some place.
MR. KOPCHIK-Yes, and where it’s going to go, if you walk the site and if you even look
at the Site Plans, the partial Site Plans that I have, you can see on the contours that the
water actually right now naturally follows out the north side of that area, once you get
over this edge, and then it gets lower and lower and there’s basically a small little ravine
that runs right out the back, to, you know, beyond the area that we’re intending to build a
transfer station. So we feel that the transfer station itself is having almost no impact on
the natural progression of drainage that occurs now. If anything, it’ll help it out a little bit,
because we’re going to move it around that north side, and out into its natural path,
rather than having it congregate right there.
MR. HUNSINGER-Any questions, comments from the Board?
MR. SIPP-Does that eventually drain towards Halfway Brook?
MR. KOPCHIK-Yes. Eventually that goes way out to the back of the site. Again, I think
I’ve got the small ones there. If you look at the larger overall plan, you can see there’s a
huge area on this property.
MR. SIPP-It doesn’t impact the apartments back there, the townhouses or whatever they
are?
MR. KOPCHIK-In terms of the drainage?
MR. SIPP-Yes.
MR. KOPCHIK-No. We don’t think there’s going to be any change to the drainage. The
same amount of water, I mean, we’ve got a .01% permeability change. It’s really
insignificant, and we also have equipment in that area. There’s a switchgear station, a
Niagara Mohawk switchgear box which was just in the general vicinity of the planned
generator itself.
MR. SEGULJIC-My only comment is that’s a big generator.
MR. KOPCHIK-Well, the reason for it is they would like to provide power so that that
store in an outage can remain fully functional. Obviously it allows them to sell product. It
also allows customers to shop, to eat dinner, be in heated, lighted space. Right now the
generator that’s there is barely enough to keep their coolers operating.
14
(Queensbury Planning Board 12/15/09)
MR. SEGULJIC-Is there any discussion about getting them into the demand reduction
program? In other words, besides emergency, for peak shavings and things of that
nature? Because I would, because you could make some money that way.
MR. KOPCHIK-Well, there was a discussion at one time about possibly using a fuel cell
at this site, which would be enormous energy savings. The problem is to incorporate
that equipment they have to replace almost everything in the building itself. The
renovations that are taking place there, I assume you’ve seen the outside, that I think
came out fairly nice. The inside has some renovations in some departments, partial
renovations. It’s not a complete re-do of the whole store. We’re not replacing all of the
equipment and all of the mechanical equipment, refrigeration equipment. So the
generator is really, the intention is just to allow them to keep that one.
MR. SEGULJIC-So there’s no intention to get into the demand reduction program?
MR. KOPCHIK-I honestly don’t know for sure what their overall plans are in terms of, I
mean, lighting, we use all the reduced level lighting.
MR. SEGULJIC-Do you know what the demand reduction program is?
MR. KOPCHIK-Not in terms of the store.
MR. SEGULJIC-I mean, obviously you want to use it to power the store.
MR. KOPCHIK-You want to sell the power back?
MR. SEGULJIC-Yes. In the times when the (lost words) you can take the power and sell
it back to the Grid. My only comment there is, it’s one thing to run it in an emergency.
It’s another thing when you run it in demand reduction, because you could run it for hours
at a time when there is no need to run it, other than to get into demand reduction.
MR. KOPCHIK-I understand. I don’t know what the Golub Corp’s position is on that.
MR. SEGULJIC-So my only concern is the potential for noise, which I can understand
when the power is down there’s no problem. I don’t know how the Board feels.
MR. KOPCHIK-Well, the comment I would make relative to noise is, and it’s published in
the material on the generator itself, really it’s an 80 decibel at 23 feet noise rating. That
is actually, because it’s a new piece of equipment, despite the size of it, it’s actually
quieter than the unit that is there at this time.
MR. FORD-Eighty db is good.
MR. SEGULJIC-I missed the 80 decibels. Eighty decibels is really nothing.
MR. KOPCHIK-It’s better than what it already there.
MR. SEGULJIC-Talk to your client and tell them to get the generator into the demand
reduction program and make some money. They’ll make money.
MRS. STEFFAN-Well, it certainly is a change. I mean, they’re going from natural gas to
diesel, but obviously they’re putting in all the environmental controls that are required by
the State, and the other thing when I thought about, you know, the way diesel burns and
smells and this is for times when the power goes out. How often does that happen in a
year, you know, even in some of the worst years we’ve had with ice storms and snow
storms, maybe three, four times will we go without power. So, you know, when you look
at the utilization of it, it won’t be all that traumatic, by the way, the exterior of the store
does look very nice. I wish we’d been able to give you more signs because I think more
signs actually would have looked more attractive, but.
MR. KOPCHIK-I don’t disagree, with all due respect.
MR. HUNSINGER-Well, it wasn’t this Board.
MRS. STEFFAN-Yes.
MR. KOPCHIK-The generator will also be run occasionally because they have to test it.
MR. HUNSINGER-Yes, is that like once a week or something?
15
(Queensbury Planning Board 12/15/09)
MR. KOPCHIK-I don’t believe it would be once a week.
MR. SEGULJIC-Well, typically you’ve got to do it once a week, just for a start up, and
then do once a month load test.
MR. KOPCHIK-Yes, once a month was what I was going to suggest. Yes, that’s a very
quick, right, the load test they have to transfer the power and make sure it’s running.
You also have to cycle the fuel. You have to mix the fuel a little bit.
MR. HUNSINGER-I would just make sure that you do that during the daytime and not
during the night when it could bother the neighbors.
MR. FORD-I think it’s a fine improvement. It certainly will cut down on some nice sales
for the public of perishables during the shutdown time.
MR. HUNSINGER-There were some engineering comments. Did you have any
response to any of those?
MR. KOPCHIK-These were the Town Engineer, VISION Engineering?
MR. HUNSINGER-Yes, VISION Engineering.
MR. KOPCHIK-Well, my comments, what I can offer is that we do have final design that
will be prepared shortly. When he first began this process, I think we were struggling to
try to get under the gun weather wise to see if he could get this in before winter hit.
Obviously winter has hit, and that’s why we’re looking at possibly building out of concrete
rather than asphalt. Otherwise we’d have to wait until April essentially to do this, and the
best way for me to answer these questions is probably to provide final design which
would show, it would show contours, stormwater management, hay bale fencing, all
those particular items are going to be included. C.T. Male is actually producing the
design of the transfer station. They do all of Price Chopper’s generator permitting work
and that sort of thing.
MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. Anything else from the Board?
MR. FORD-It looks good to me.
MR. HUNSINGER-We do have a public hearing scheduled this evening. Is there anyone
in the audience that wants to address the Board on this project?
PUBLIC HEARING OPENED
MR. HUNSINGER-I will open the public hearing. Are there any written comments,
Keith?
MR. OBORNE-No, sir.
MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. Let the record show that there were no commenters. I will
thereby close the public hearing.
PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED
MR. HUNSINGER-This is an Unlisted action. I believe they submitted a Short Form.
MR. OBORNE-If I could.
MR. HUNSINGER-Yes, Keith.
MR. OBORNE-Are you, now all the plans have not been submitted. I mean, they have a
change to what was submitted for this. Are you leaning towards approving with
conditions or tabling? And the only reason I ask is because you closed the public
hearing. That’s the only reason.
MR. HUNSINGER-What’s the will of the Board?
MR. FORD-Table until they get the final plans.
MR. TRAVER-Well, we certainly need the engineering signoff.
16
(Queensbury Planning Board 12/15/09)
MR. HUNSINGER-Sure.
MR. TRAVER-And without the final plans, as VISION has indicated, you know, they need
to see that. I don’t know that the result of that analysis would lead to our needing to re-
hear the applicant, but I suppose it might. I guess that’s kind of we don’t know the
answer to that.
MR. KOPCHIK-If I may, wouldn’t those final plans require submission to the Building
Department before we could, were able to proceed?
MR. HUNSINGER-Yes.
MRS. STEFFAN-Yes.
MR. KOPCHIK-So that if we had a, to me it sounds like a conditional approval based on
the engineering department’s approval of the final construction drawings.
MR. HUNSINGER-I think that’s where I saw us going.
MR. SIPP-Yes. Under Number Two from VISION Engineering, the last line, for us a to
complete a full review we require details and specifications. So we could make it
contingent on.
MR. HUNSINGER-I had it highlighted, too, yes.
MR. KOPCHIK-Right. We obviously are proceeding with all that and will have it shortly.
We’re hoping that the general design could be approved conditional upon the
engineering department also verifying all our details and additional submissions were
correct before we could begin any work.
MR. HUNSINGER-Okay.
MR. OBORNE-That certainly is, that’s a requirement. I mean, you have to get VISION’s
signoff on it.
MR. KOPCHIK-Right.
MR. HUNSINGER-Is the Board comfortable with that?
MR. FORD-Yes.
MR. HUNSINGER-Do we feel we have enough information to move forward with
SEQRA?
MR. SEGULJIC-Yes.
MR. HUNSINGER-Okay.
MRS. STEFFAN-Okay. “Does the action exceed any Type I threshold in 6 NYCRR Part
617.4?”
MR. HUNSINGER-No.
MR. KREBS-No.
MRS. STEFFAN-“Will the action receive coordinated review as provided for Unlisted
Actions in 6 NYCRR, Part 617.6?”
MR. HUNSINGER-No.
MR. SEGULJIC-No.
MRS. STEFFAN-“Could the action result in any adverse effects associated with the
following: C1. Existing air quality, surface or ground water quality or quantity, noise
levels, existing traffic patterns, solid waste production or disposal, potential for erosion,
drainage or flooding problems?”
MR. HUNSINGER-No.
17
(Queensbury Planning Board 12/15/09)
MR. SEGULJIC-No.
MRS. STEFFAN-“C2. Aesthetic, agricultural, historic, or other natural or cultural
resources; or community or neighborhood character?”
MR. HUNSINGER-No.
MR. SEGULJIC-No.
MR. FORD-No.
MRS. STEFFAN-“C3. Vegetation, fauna, fish, shellfish or wildlife species, significant
habitats, or threatened or endangered species?”
MR. HUNSINGER-No.
MR. SEGULJIC-No.
MR. FORD-No.
MRS. STEFFAN-“C4. A community’s existing plans or goals as officially adopted, or a
change in use or intensity of use of land or other natural resources?”
MR. HUNSINGER-No.
MR. SEGULJIC-No.
MRS. STEFFAN-“C5. Growth, subsequent development or related activities likely to be
induced by the proposed action?”
MR. SEGULJIC-No.
MR. FORD-No.
MR. HUNSINGER-No.
MRS. STEFFAN-“C6. Long term, short term, cumulative or other effects not identified
above?”
MR. HUNSINGER-No.
MR. FORD-No.
MRS. STEFFAN-“C7. Other impacts (including changes in use of either quantity or
energy)?”
MR. SEGULJIC-No.
MR. HUNSINGER-No.
MRS. STEFFAN-“Will the project have an impact on the environmental characteristics
that caused the establishment of a Critical Environmental Area?”
MR. HUNSINGER-No.
MR. SEGULJIC-No.
MR. KREBS-No.
MRS. STEFFAN-“Is there or is there likely to be controversy related to potential adverse
environmental impacts?”
MR. HUNSINGER-No.
MR. SEGULJIC-No.
MRS. STEFFAN-Okay. Then I’ll make a motion for a Negative Declaration.
18
(Queensbury Planning Board 12/15/09)
RESOLUTION WHEN DETERMINATION OF NO SIGNIFICANCE IS MADE
RESOLUTION NO. 60-2009, Introduced by Gretchen Steffan who moved for its
adoption, seconded by Thomas Ford:
WHEREAS, there is presently before the Planning Board an application for:
THE GOLUB CORPORATION, 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 15 day of, December, 2009, by the following vote:
AYES: Mr. Sipp, Mr. Seguljic, Mr. Traver, Mr. Krebs, Mrs. Steffan, Mr. Ford,
Mr. Hunsinger
NOES: NONE
MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. Would anyone like to put forward a resolution?
MRS. STEFFAN-I guess I just need another couple of things that we talked about.
Obviously the applicant would have to obtain a VISION Engineering signoff. That we
talked about monthly cycle testing will take place during daytime hours only, and then
there’s Keith notes here, snow removal plans. It says snow removal should be
considered for fuel delivery locations. Do we want to put that snow removal plans need
to be noted on the plat, or what’s the right way to deal with that?
MR. OBORNE-Are you satisfied with the explanation given? Because as drawn, it
appears to not work very well.
MR. KOPCHIK-I think that when you see the final design, which I understand has moved
the gate to the north side, that the description and explanation I gave early would be
fairly obvious, that we’ll push it straight back over. I can certainly modify these
preliminary drawings to reflect that as well, but you will actually have, or at least the
Building Department will have the full set of construction drawings that show that
change.
MR. FORD-Gretchen, why don’t you insert so that it reads both weekly and monthly start
up to be done during daylight hours.
MRS. STEFFAN-Okay.
MR. HUNSINGER-I guess I misunderstood your comments, Keith, when I first saw it.
Your concern is whether or not the sluice gate will operate properly during the winter.
19
(Queensbury Planning Board 12/15/09)
MR. OBORNE-That has something to do with it, too, sure.
MR. HUNSINGER-Yes.
MR. OBORNE-If you’re piling snow up there, I mean, it’s the conditions up here, I’m not
exactly sure how it works. It’s not heated. Right, Mike?
MR. KOPCHIK-No, that’s a maintenance issue.
MR. OBORNE-That is a maintenance issue.
MR. KOPCHIK-It would have to be kept clear.
MR. OBORNE-Clean.
MR. SEGULJIC-And I agree, because whenever you put those speed bumps in there, it’s
going to be tough to plow it there, but my attitude is it’s your issue, not the Planning
Board’s.
MR. KOPCHIK-That’s true. They are very minimal on the non transfer area side. They
actually are more of drop as opposed to a rise. So that was why we didn’t really want it
in the middle of the parking lot where the unit is now, because they’d have to cross it and
hit the other side, and obviously you could easily break it out. It’s a little simpler to push
it across the end and then off of the end of the transfer area. So we’ll still have to be
careful. You’re not going to have a big highway plow running through there.
MR. SEGULJIC-And be careful and the gate could freeze up, and those are concerns,
but I have to look at those are Price Chopper’s issues to make sure it’s operating
properly because New York State regulations say they have to have it in place.
MR. KOPCHIK-Right, and there will also be bollards around the generator itself to
protect the truck from hitting the generator. So there’s going to be snow removal and
plowing that’s going to have to be done with us, smaller than the big units they use to
take care of the whole parking lot.
MR. SEGULJIC-Maybe even someone shoveling out that area.
MR. KOPCHIK-Well, it’ll probably, most likely be some sort of front loader, as opposed to
a plow, which they have there now, which will go back and clean it off, dump it over the
back.
MR. OBORNE-Yes. I imagine some individual or two or three would get out there with
pick axes and stuff during the ice storms, but.
MR. KOPCHIK-Yes. If they don’t do that obviously it’ll pond, and then it will overflow it’s
perimeters, I’m sure. Yes, no, that’ll have to be kept clear, and they’ll have to close it
whenever they’re filling the tank obviously, or doing anything with the tank.
MR. OBORNE-Yes, and that is my main concern is during the filling operations, if that
sluice gate is stuck open.
MR. KOPCHIK-My understanding is that’s very controlled, and if that’s ever done, there’s
severe penalties. I mean, it has to function. I don’t believe the fill company is really
allowed to make that transfer.
MR. OBORNE-Okay.
MR. SEGULJIC-How big is the tank going to be on site?
MR. KOPCHIK-Eighteen hundred gallons.
MR. SEGULJIC-Yes. So you’re going to be subject to a lot of regulations, PBS, SPCC,
you’re going to have to have plans.
MR. KOPCHIK-That size has to do with having the unit run long enough to work through
the power outage. I believe it’s 1180, 1120 is the turning point where you need all of this.
So we’re far in excess of that.
20
(Queensbury Planning Board 12/15/09)
MR. SEGULJIC-Yes. So if it makes the Board feel any better, they have to come up with
an SPCC plan that’s driven by the EPA that has to have a plan how they’re going to
handle all of this, and then PBS, New York State has a say in this. So it’s their issue.
MR. OBORNE-Yes, and I will say that I’m leaning on Dan Ryan heavily to review this,
obviously, and I wanted him to look at the HazMat aspect of it, the Hazard Materials
aspect of it. He feels he doesn’t have enough information at this point.
MR. HUNSINGER-So I think it’s implicit in satisfying engineering comments that the
sluice gate’s going to have to work in the winter.
MR. OBORNE-It is. It’s going to have to work in the winter. Exactly, yes.
MR. HUNSINGER-So I don’t know if we need to say anything.
MR. OBORNE-I don’t think that we can use Code compliance to make sure the sluice
gate is working. I don’t think that’s an enforceable issue at this point. It has to be done.
MR. HUNSINGER-Right. Exactly. So I think we’re okay in just what you had prepared in
terms of engineering comments.
MRS. STEFFAN-Okay. Well, I did just add something to modify the snow removal
scenario plan just so that it heightens the awareness and that they obtain signoff on that,
too. Erosion and sediment control plan would be part of the final plan. I don’t have to
add that. I mean, that’s required.
MR. OBORNE-Yes. I think Dan talks about that.
MR. HUNSINGER-Yes, it’s in Dan’s comments.
MRS. STEFFAN-Yes, that’s a requirement, and what about waivers, certainly for, they
requested waivers for lighting, stormwater and landscaping. How does the Board feel
about that? I don’t think landscaping, I mean, waiver, that’s a no brainer. I think we can
do that. Lighting. The back of the building is lit. I would imagine most of the fuel
deliveries will be during the day, but even so, there are wall packs on the back of the
building, and then stormwater. Is that a concern?
MR. HUNSINGER-Well, just to the extent that we’ve been discussing. I don’t think, we’re
not going to ask them for a complete stormwater plan for the whole site.
MR. TRAVER-And we’re going to get signoff.
MR. HUNSINGER-Right, but we want to, you know, stormwater on the addition.
MR. KOPCHIK-Right. It’s also less, it’s far less than an acre of development, which
usually allows you to not have to comply with all of that regulation.
MR. OBORNE-Well, I mean, you still have to comply with Town 147. You still have to
comply with the Town Code, and that’s basically the stormwater you’re waiving. There’s
no SWPPP needed for this. It’s under an acre.
MR. HUNSINGER-Right.
MRS. STEFFAN-Let me go with this. Okay. I’ll make a motion to approve Site Plan No.
60-2009 for The Golub Corporation, according to the resolution prepared by Staff.
Paragraph Four A complies. Paragraph Four B, a Negative Declaration. The applicant
has requested waivers for stormwater, landscaping, and lighting. The Board will be
granting waivers for landscaping and lighting. This is approved with the following
conditions: Number One, that weekly and monthly cycle testing will take place during
daytime hours. Number Two, that the applicant will modify the snow removal scenario
plan so that the sluice gate valves are accessible and operational during winter and will
obtain a VISION Engineering signoff, and then overall, with the final plans submitted, the
applicant will have to obtain VISION Engineering signoff. So there are three conditions.
MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. We have a motion.
MR. OBORNE-You’re directing the applicant to provide a stormwater plan? Because
you only gave them landscaping and lighting.
21
(Queensbury Planning Board 12/15/09)
MRS. STEFFAN-Correct, but the discussion was that they needed to do some
stormwater submission. So we can’t give them a waiver. If we give him a waiver, then
he doesn’t have to submit a stormwater plan at all.
MR. OBORNE-Okay. Now the stormwater plan specifically for the new impervious area,
to account for that? New impervious area? It’s kind of nebulous, and I apologize.
MRS. STEFFAN-That’s okay. So let’s rescind the motion because we can start that
again. What does the Planning Board want to direct the applicant to do on stormwater
specifically?
MR. HUNSINGER-Well, we did have discussion, and VISION did talk about remedying
the ponding condition that exists, and the applicant did say that they were going to make
some improvements that would make that situation better. So I tend to agree. We can’t
really say we’re going to give them a waiver on stormwater when we’ve asked them to
address at least a portion of.
MR. KREBS-Address the concerns of VISION Engineering.
MR. HUNSINGER-Yes, and it’s only on the area where you’re doing work. It’s not the
whole site.
MR. KOPCHIK-Right. I believe we intend to do that. I think our design is going to solve
that problem. We can certainly highlight some of that design verbally, notes or whatever
on the drawing to indicate that, path of water, you know, the moving around the north
side.
MR. FORD-We want it appropriately addressed, so we’re not going to waive it.
MR. HUNSINGER-So I’m not sure how we.
MR. OBORNE-Well, you’re not giving a waiver for grading either. So, you know, you’re
going to want to see a grading plan, and that.
MRS. STEFFAN-But according to your Staff Notes, they didn’t ask for grading. So that’s
why, I mean, it’s in the motion, but.
MR. OBORNE-Okay. That’s right, because that’s the template. Okay.
MRS. STEFFAN-Okay. So that’s why I didn’t include that.
MR. OBORNE-So grading plan is required.
MRS. STEFFAN-Okay. All right. Let’s try this again.
MR. SEGULJIC-The one with the sluice gate in it, could you just read that one.
MRS. STEFFAN-The applicant will modify the snow removal scenario plan so that the
sluice gate valves are accessible and operational during winter. They will also need to
obtain a VISION Engineering signoff on that plan.
MR. SEGULJIC-I guess my only comment there is if they come back without a sluice
gate there, in their final design, does that mean they’d have to come back before us
again if they change their design?
MR. OBORNE-Yes, but I don’t anticipate them coming back without a sluice gate
because water’s got to run through that.
MR. SEGULJIC-Right, and I was just going to say something like, that they come back
with a properly designed petroleum transfer secondary containment area. Because then
it gives them more incentive. They don’t have a sluice gate, then all of a sudden they’ve
got to come back.
MR. OBORNE-Well, if you’re going down that path, this is just my recommendation, you
ought to table it and get all this information in at this point, if you’re not comfortable with
it.
MR. SEGULJIC-All right. Then we’ll go with the sluice gate. It’s just my
recommendation.
22
(Queensbury Planning Board 12/15/09)
MR. SEGULJIC-Because, I mean, my concern is we’re starting to tread on EPA’s and
DEC’s regulations, and having a say in that, you know, and it’s not really our purview.
MR. KOPCHIK-No, I think your engineer is the one who’s going to sign off on that.
MRS. STEFFAN-Right.
MR. KOPCHIK-Based on our final construction and design construction drawings.
MRS. STEFFAN-We’re asking Dan.
MR. HUNSINGER-Yes, we’re asking him to look at it.
MRS. STEFFAN-Yes. We’re asking Dan Ryan to do that for us as our agent, and based
on his technical review, and his recommendations, he’ll be looking at that. For a
complete review we require full details and specifications for the concrete pads,
elevations, storage tank, filling containment area. Recommended a ponding condition,
and.
MR. SEGULJIC-All right. Well, then run with what you had.
MR. HUNSINGER-Yes. I think we’re okay with what we had.
MR. KREBS-And the last sentence of his Paragraph Two definitely covers it. It says that
for us to complete a full review, which we’re saying has to be done, we require details,
specifications for the concrete pads, the elevations, the storage tank, filling containment
area, and, etc., be submitted. So I think that covers pretty much.
MR. TRAVER-And the applicant has indicated that they’ve prepared those things.
MR. HUNSINGER-Yes. I think we’re good.
MR. KOPCHIK-I think my question would be whether that information is brought back
before this Board or whether it is provided to the Town’s.
MR. OBORNE-It will be provided for my department and we’ll move it forward to VISION.
That’s pretty much how the protocol works.
MR. KOPCHIK-Okay.
MR. HUNSINGER-Yes.
MR. KREBS-The only way it would ever come back here is if he couldn’t satisfy the
engineering department.
MR. TRAVER-And they needed a change.
MR. HUNSINGER-Or if there’s a dramatic change. Yes.
MR. OBORNE-Knowing Mike, I’m pretty sure that he will make all attempts to satisfy our
engineer.
MRS. STEFFAN-All right. I will make a motion.
MOTION TO APPROVE SITE PLAN NO. 60-2009 THE GOLUB CORPORATION,
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 removal of existing back up generator and
installation of new larger capacity back-up generator, including associated fuel
transfer / retention area. Changes to an approved site plan in a CI zones require
Planning Board review and approval; and
2.A public hearing was advertised and held on12/15/09; and
3.This application is supported with all documentation, public comment and
application material in the file of record;
23
(Queensbury Planning Board 12/15/09)
4.MOTION TO APPROVE SITE PLAN NO. 60-2009 THE GOLUB
CORPORATION, Introduced by Gretchen Steffan who moved for its adoption,
seconded by
According to the resolution prepared by Staff. Paragraph Four A complies.
Paragraph Four B, this is a Negative Declaration. Paragraph Four G regarding
waivers, the applicant had requested waivers for stormwater, landscaping and
lighting. The Planning Board will grant waivers for landscaping and lighting.
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
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: landscaping & lighting plans.
h)The limits of clearing will constitute a no-cut buffer zone, orange
construction fencing shall be installed around these areas and field
verified by Community Development staff.
i)Engineering sign-off required prior to signature of Zoning Administrator.
j)The applicant shall submit a copy of a NOI [Notice of Intent] SWPPP
[Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan] & NOT [Notice of Termination] -
see staff.
k)The applicant shall submit a copy of a NYS SPDES [State Pollution
Discharge Elimination System].
l)If curb cuts are being added or changed a driveway permit is required. A
building permit will not be issued until the approved driveway permit has
been provided to the Planning Office.
m)The applicant will need to provide a stormwater plan, specifically to
remedy the ponding conditions and address the stormwater conditions in
the area of construction.
n)This application is approved with the following conditions:
1. That the applicant will perform weekly and monthly cycle testing only
during the daytime hours.
2. That the applicant will obtain VISION Engineering signoff on their final
submission.
3. Further, that the applicant will modify the snow removal scenario plan
so that the sluice gate valves are accessible and operational during
winter. That must also obtain a VISION Engineering signoff.
24
(Queensbury Planning Board 12/15/09)
th
Duly adopted this 15 day of December, 2009, by the following vote:
AYES: Mr. Sipp, Mr. Traver, Mr. Krebs, Mr. Seguljic, Mr. Ford, Mrs. Steffan,
Mr. Hunsinger
NOES: NONE
MR. HUNSINGER-You’re all set. Good luck.
MR. KOPCHIK-Thank you.
MR. HUNSINGER-And again, the front looks great.
MRS. STEFFAN-Yes, it does. It’s a very nice improvement.
MR. KOPCHIK-Thanks.
SITE PLAN NO. 61-2009 SEQR TYPE TYPE II OUTBACK STEAKHOUSE AGENT(S)
JUSTIN WICKART, OSI RESTAURANT PARTNERS, LLC OWNER(S) BABAJANI &
MAMA, LLC ZONING CI LOCATION 925 STATE ROUTE 9 APPLICANT PROPOSES
MODIFICATION TO AN APPROVED SITE PLAN WITH A CHANGE IN BUILDING
COLOR SCHEME. CHANGES TO AN APPROVED SITE PLAN REQUIRE PLANNING
BOARD REVIEW AND APPROVAL. CROSS REFERENCE SP 4-05, AV 6-05, SV 58-
04, AV 67-04, SP 7-93, AV 7-93, SP 70-89, UV 114-89 WARREN CO. PLANNING
12/9/09 LOT SIZE 3.49 +/- ACRES TAX MAP NO. 296.13-1-17 SECTION 179-9
JUSTIN WICKART, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT
MR. HUNSINGER-Keith, whenever you’re ready to summarize Staff Notes.
MR. OBORNE-Site Plan 61-2009, modification to Site Plan 4-2005, the applicant is
Outback Steakhouse. The requested action is Site Plan Review and approval for
changes to an approved Site Plan, 925 State Route 9 is the location. This is in the
Commercial Intensive zone. SEQRA Status is Unlisted for this color change. Applicant
proposes modification to an approved Site Plan with a change in building color scheme
and the addition of white trim to the exterior walls. Staff comments: The applicant has
changed the site plan approved outside wall color of the structure from the Benjamin
Moore Brushed Aluminum to a two tone color scheme of brown and yellow shades.
Further, a strip of white trim has been added around the building in order to separate the
two colors. Additional comments: If approved, the Planning Board may wish to direct
the applicant to provide the color pallet designation for future reference. Site Plan 4-
2005 approval resolution and minutes are attached, and with that, I’d turn it over to the
Board.
MR. HUNSINGER-Thank you. Good evening.
KEVIN COOK
MR. COOK-Good evening.
MR. HUNSINGER-If you could identify yourselves for the record.
MR. COOK-My name’s Kevin Cook. I’m the joint venture partner for Upstate New York
for Outback Steakhouse.
MR. WICKART-And Justin Wickart, managing partner of this location.
MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. Do you have anything else to add, any comments?
MR. WICKART-Yes. Obviously, I wanted to apologize to the Board for moving forward
with painting the building without your approval. There was no intention behind it. We
were unaware. We thought landlord approval was all that we needed. If we knew that
we had to come before the Board, we certainly would have. We were not, there was no
intention to do anything mischievous. It was just we were trying to improve the
appearance of the restaurant, freshen it up, make it look better so that, to improve the
community in general. So, at this point, we’re just looking to possibly see what we can
do to resolve the situation as quickly as possible.
25
(Queensbury Planning Board 12/15/09)
MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. Anything else?
MRS. STEFFAN-I know that you were required to come back to paint it, but I have to
admit, I really liked it after you did it. I was never thrilled with the original color scheme of
the location, and so I think it looks remarkably better. That’s my opinion.
MR. COOK-Well, we’re very happy to hear that. I mean, the intention was to, we used,
you know, some earthy tones and some colors that were a little brighter, and we felt the
(lost word) was a little plain and a little outdated. Our brand is over 20 years old now,
and our intention, like I said, was just to kind of reinvigorate, you know, let people know
that we’re here and that we have changed a little bit as a company, and that, you know,
we have a new logo and some new colors, and we just wanted to make people aware of
it.
MR. HUNSINGER-Any other comments from the Board? I have to admit, I mean, I was
on the Board when we approved the gray, and I was never that happy with it. It’s one
thing to look at a palette, to see how it would look, but it’s another thing to see it on the
building, and I would echo the earlier comments that it does look better. The only
negative comment that I really have though, is, you know, when we reviewed the
restaurant, it was also in the context of the hotel next door. So I was concerned with how
the, you know, the new colors would look together, and, you know, I think the burgundy
color that’s on the hotel is so close to the brown that’s on the restaurant that I think it
looks actually pretty good together.
MR. COOK-We appreciate that.
MR. KREBS-Plus the fact my wife did comment to me, right after you painted it, that,
gee, they did a great job.
MRS. STEFFAN-It was funny, when I read the minutes, I had forgotten about the
relationship between the Outback building and the hotel next to it. I mean, it was a long
time ago, but there was supposed to be a connection at some point, but is the ownership
still the same?
MR. COOK-Well, the landlord is still the same, I believe, from the original.
MR. WICKART-Yes. He, Schoky is still currently there, and he does the hotel, but
there’s been no talk about us ever joining together.
MRS. STEFFAN-Well, the new colors, I think, look great.
MR. COOK-Thank you.
MR. WICKART-It was intended as just an improvement to freshen up the building, and
make ourselves stand out a little bit.
MRS. STEFFAN-And according to the package, it’s working. Your numbers are up?
MR. WICKART-Yes. Our patrons’ immediate feedback from, even before when it was
done being painted, the feedback came in right away. So the response was good.
MR. COOK-It’s been a positive, not only in this community, but we’ve kind of moved in
that direction as a company. I oversee 12 restaurants in Upstate New York. Justin’s, the
th
Queensbury location, was the 10 one that I painted, and the feedback that we’ve gotten
from e-mails and just, you know, in the restaurant, the patrons, in most communities, has
been pretty positive.
MRS. STEFFAN-Good.
MR. COOK-So we’re hoping you guys feel the same way.
MRS. STEFFAN-And when your numbers are up, our sales tax revenue is up. So we
like it.
MR. HUNSINGER-So are these the new sort of standard colors if you will?
MR. COOK-Yes.
MR. HUNSINGER-Okay.
26
(Queensbury Planning Board 12/15/09)
MR. COOK-If you travel throughout the country, that’s what you’ll be seeing.
MR. HUNSINGER-One of the Staff comments was the color chart references. Is that
something that you can easily provide?
MR. COOK-The color chart references?
MR. HUNSINGER-The color names and the brand?
MR. COOK-Yes, the actual specs from Sherwin Williams? Chocolate Brown?
MR. HUNSINGER-Yes.
MR. COOK-Yes. We can provide all that.
MR. WICKART-Yes, we can provide that.
MR. COOK-And we will know, going forward, if we’re ever going to do anything, we will
be in front of you guys.
MR. HUNSINGER-We do have a public hearing scheduled this evening. Is there anyone
in the audience that wants to address the Board? I will open the public hearing.
PUBLIC HEARING OPENED
MR. HUNSINGER-Any written comments, Keith?
MR. OBORNE-No, sir.
MR. HUNSINGER-I will close the public hearing, since there were no comments.
PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED
MR. HUNSINGER-And this is a Type II action. So if anyone would like to move this.
MRS. STEFFAN-Okay.
MOTION TO APPROVE SITE PLAN NO. 61-2009 OUTBACK STEAKHOUSE,
Introduced by Gretchen Steffan who moved for its adoption, seconded by Donald Krebs:
1.A site plan application has been made to the Queensbury Planning Board for the
following: Applicant proposes modification to an approved site plan with a
change in building color scheme. Changes to an approved site plan require
Planning Board review and approval.
2.A public hearing was advertised and held on12/15/09; 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. 61-2009 OUTBACK STEAKHOUSE,
Introduced by Gretchen Steffan who moved for its adoption, seconded by Donald
Krebs:
Which is a modification to Site Plan 4-2005. According to the resolution prepared
by Staff. Paragraph A complies. Paragraph B, this is a Type II action.
a)Pursuant to relevant sections of the Town of Queensbury Zoning Code
[Chapter 179], the Planning Board has determined that this proposal
complies with the requirements as stated in the Zoning Code; and
b)This is a Type II action-no further review is needed; 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
27
(Queensbury Planning Board 12/15/09)
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)The limits of clearing will constitute a no-cut buffer zone, orange
construction fencing shall be installed around these areas and field
verified by Community Development staff.
h)Engineering sign-off required prior to signature of Zoning Administrator.
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 [State Pollution
Discharge Elimination System].
k)If curb cuts are being added or changed a driveway permit is required. A
building permit will not be issued until the approved driveway permit has
been provided to the Planning Office.
l)This is approved with the following condition:
1. That the applicant will provide the Town with the color palette
designation or specifications reflecting the building’s color scheme for
future reference.
th
Duly adopted this 15 day of December, 2009, by the following vote:
AYES: Mr. Traver, Mr. Ford, Mr. Seguljic, Mr. Krebs, Mrs. Steffan, Mr. Sipp,
Mr. Hunsinger
NOES: NONE
MR. HUNSINGER-You’re all set. Thank you.
MR. WICKART-Thank you very much.
MR. COOK-We appreciate your time. Thank you very much.
MR. HUNSINGER-Our last scheduled item of business is the Election of Officers for
2010.
MR. SEGULJIC-Well, my term is up. I’ve put in for a re-appointment.
MR. HUNSINGER-Okay.
MR. OBORNE-That doesn’t preclude you, and I’ve had discussions with Craig about this.
That doesn’t preclude you from being nominated for anything, and obviously it’s all
dependent on Town Board approval.
MR. SEGULJIC-Right.
MR. OBORNE-Now, the Town Board only approves the Chairman, okay, but obviously
the Town Board approves your re, basically, appointment, seven year appointment, but
the only reason I’m saying that is if Tom is to be elected by this Board for one of the
officer positions, it’s contingent upon the Town Board extending it.
MR. HUNSINGER-Okay.
28
(Queensbury Planning Board 12/15/09)
MR. KREBS-Is there any reason why we can’t just wait until the first meeting in January
when we know?
MR. OBORNE-Well, yes, there is, actually. The Chairman has to be designated and
approved by the Town Board at the first Town Board meeting, which will be after, or
before your first meeting. You want all three officers now, we want to have that in place.
MR. SEGULJIC-I nominate Chris to be Chairman of the Board.
MR. KREBS-Second.
MOTION TO NOMINATE CHRIS HUNSINGER FOR CHAIRMAN OF THE
QUEENSBURY PLANNING BOARD, Introduced by Thomas Seguljic who moved for its
adoption, seconded by Donald Krebs:
th
Duly adopted this 15 day of December, 2009, by the following vote:
AYES: Mr. Seguljic, Mr. Krebs, Mr. Traver, Mr. Sipp, Mrs. Steffan, Mr. Ford,
Mr. Hunsinger
NOES: NONE
MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. Vice Chairman?
MRS. STEFFAN-I’ll nominate Tom Seguljic for Vice Chairman.
MR. KREBS-Second.
MOTION TO NOMINATE THOMAS SEGULJIC FOR VICE CHAIRMAN OF THE
QUEENSBURY PLANNING BOARD, Introduced by Gretchen Steffan who moved for its
adoption, seconded by Donald Krebs:
th
Duly adopted this 15 day of December, 2009, by the following vote:
AYES: Mr. Seguljic, Mr. Krebs, Mr. Traver, Mr. Sipp, Mrs. Steffan, Mr. Ford,
Mr. Hunsinger
NOES: NONE
MR. HUNSINGER-And Secretary? Any nominations for office of Secretary?
MR. KREBS-Yes. I’ll nominate Gretchen.
MR. TRAVER-I’ll second.
MOTION TO NOMINATE GRETCHEN STEFFAN FOR SECRETARY OF THE
QUEENSBURY PLANNING BOARD, Introduced by Donald Krebs who moved for its
adoption, seconded by Stephen Traver:
th
Duly adopted this 15 day of December, 2009, by the following vote:
AYES: Mr. Sipp, Mr. Krebs, Mr. Traver, Mr. Ford, Mrs. Steffan, Mr. Seguljic,
Mr. Hunsinger
NOES: NONE
MR. HUNSINGER-Okay.
MR. SEGULJIC-So on Thursday?
MR. HUNSINGER-Thursday we’re meeting at 6:30 in the Supervisor’s Conference
Room. Right?
MR. OBORNE-That is correct.
MR. HUNSINGER-Supervisor’s Conference Room at 6:30 to discuss the lawsuit,
Fedorowitz, and then we’ll have our regular meeting here at 7:00.
MR. OBORNE-And then we have a meeting at 7:00.
29
(Queensbury Planning Board 12/15/09)
MR. SIPP-She’s just going to discuss that one item?
MR. OBORNE-Which item is that? Yes, the Fedorowitz.
MR. HUNSINGER-Well, certainly, I mean, if there’s any other outstanding legal issues
that we have questions on, you know, feel free to bring questions.
MR. OBORNE-Obviously you’re going to want to wrap it up about five ‘til.
MR. HUNSINGER-Yes. I mean, we can do all that in Executive Session, I assume,
right?
MR. OBORNE-Yes.
MR. HUNSINGER-Since we’re discussing lawsuits. So if there’s any other, I mean, the
only other one that comes to mind is the boat dock, Hoffman.
MR. OBORNE-You also have Glandon.
MR. HUNSINGER-Right. Yes.
MR. OBORNE-Which is all now under the Provident Batavia.
MR. SEGULJIC-Now that was the suit about the new or the old?
MR. OBORNE-Yes. Correct, and that’s to be heard tomorrow night. So, on Thursday
we’ll know what the deal is with that.
MR. HUNSINGER-Okay.
MR. SEGULJIC-Because Craig decided it’s under the old.
MR. OBORNE-Right. Well, he didn’t decide. It just remained.
MR. SEGULJIC-Okay.
MR. SIPP-It falls under the old rule.
MR. OBORNE-Yes.
MR. SIPP-That’s good.
MR. HUNSINGER-Any other business? I’ll entertain a motion to adjourn.
MOTION TO ADJOURN THE QUEENSBURY PLANNING BOARD MEETING OF
DECEMBER 15, 2009, Introduced by Donald Krebs who moved for its adoption,
seconded by Thomas Seguljic:
th
Duly adopted this 15 day of December, 2009, by the following vote:
AYES: Mr. Segulijc, Mr. Ford, Mr. Krebs, Mr. Traver, Mrs. Steffan, Mr. Sipp,
Mr. Hunsinger
NOES: NONE
On motion meeting was adjourned.
RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED,
Chris Hunsinger, Chairman
30