2010.03.16
(Queensbury Planning Board 03/16/2010)
QUEENSBURY PLANNING BOARD MEETING
FIRST REGULAR MEETING
MARCH 16, 2010
INDEX
Site Plan No. 14-2010 Steven & Christine Johnson 1.
RECOMMENDATION TO ZBA Tax Map No. 289.11-1-23
Site Plan No. 19-2010 Sally Strasser for Steven & Lillian Dobert 10.
RECOMMENDATION TO ZBA Tax Map No. 289.11-1-7
Site Plan No. 5-2010 Ivan Bell, IBS Septic & Drain 11.
Tax Map No. 303.19-1-27, 28, 26, 29
Site Plan No. 13-2010 Laura Feathers Family Footwear 16.
Tax Map No. 288.12-1-15
Site Plan No. 15-2010 SWANK/Kathy Hill 18.
Tax Map No. 288.12-1-22
Subdivision No. 2-2008 Raymond & Wendy Kraft 20.
MODIFICATION Tax Map No. 240.9-1-16.1
Site Plan No. 7-2010 Lucas Wilson – Earth Specialty Products 23.
Tax Map No. 303.20-2-43, 44
Site Plan No. 22-2010 Mike Ringer 41.
Tax Map No. 309.14-1-11
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 03/16/2010)
QUEENSBURY PLANNING BOARD MEETING
FIRST REGULAR MEETING
MARCH 16, 2010
7:00 P.M.
MEMBERS PRESENT
CHRIS HUNSINGER, CHAIRMAN
GRETCHEN STEFFAN, SECRETARY
THOMAS FORD
STEPHEN TRAVER
DONALD SIPP
STEVEN JACKOSKI, ALTERNATE
MEMBERS ABSENT
PAUL SCHONEWOLF
LAND USE PLANNER-KEITH OBORNE
STENOGRAPHER-SUE HEMINGWAY
APPROVAL OF MINUTES
January 19, 2010
January 26, 2010
MOTION TO APPROVE THE QUEENSBURY PLANNING BOARD MINUTES OF
JANUARY 19 & JANUARY 26, 2010, Introduced by Gretchen Steffan who moved for its
adoption, seconded by Thomas Ford:
th
Duly adopted this 16 day of March, 2010, by the following vote:
AYES: Mr. Sipp, Mr. Jackoski, Mr. Traver, Mrs. Steffan, Mr. Ford, Mr. Hunsinger
NOES: NONE
ABSENT: Mr. Schonewolf
MR. HUNSINGER-We have two items on the agenda this evening for Recommendations
to the Zoning Board of Appeals, and one of them we received a letter, I guess it was
dated Friday, from Steve and Lillian Dobert requesting that we table it until the April
meeting. Did everyone get a copy of that letter?
MR. FORD-Yes.
MRS. STEFFAN-Just did.
MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. The first one is Steven & Christine Johnson, Area Variance
No. 9-2010 and Site Plan No. 14-2010.
PLANNING BOARD WRITTEN RECOMMENDATIONS TO ZONING BOARD OF
APPEALS:
STEVEN & CHRISTINE JOHNSON [AV 9-10 / SP 14-10]
DEMOLITION OF EXISTING 1,198 +/- SQ. FT. SUMMER HOME & REBUILD TO A
YEAR ROUND 2,806 +/- SQ. FT. RESIDENCE RELIEF REQUESTED FOR HARD
SURFACING WITHIN 50 FEET OF A SHORELINE, MINIMUM ROAD FRONTAGE &
SHORELINE SETBACK REQUIREMENTS
STEVEN JOHNSON, PRESENT
MR. HUNSINGER-Keith, whenever you’re ready to summarize Staff Notes.
MR. OBORNE-Area Variance 9-2010/Site Plan 14-2010 Applicant is Steven & Christine
Johnson Requested action is a recommendation to the ZBA concerning the relief
requested in the Variance application as well as potential impacts of this project on the
neighborhood and surrounding community. Location is 96 Hall Road, which is on Glen
1
(Queensbury Planning Board 03/16/2010)
Lake. Existing zoning is Waterfront Residential. This is a Type II SEQRA. Project
Description: Demolition of existing 1,198 +/- sq. ft. summer home & rebuild to a year
round 2,110 +/- sq. ft. residence with a 576 +/- sq. ft. detached garage. Staff Comments:
According to the applicant, the existing camp will not support a second floor addition due
to foundation issues. The project is to raze the existing structure and build a two (2)
story, 2,110 square foot, 26 foot tall single family home utilizing the majority of the
existing footprint. Additionally, the project has a 576 square foot detached garage. The
Nature of the area variance is as follows: The applicant is requesting 24ft. 8in. shoreline
setback relief for SFD. Requirement is 50 feet. The applicant is requesting 15ft. 10in.
south sideline setback relief for SFD. Requirement is 20. The applicant is requesting 9
ft. 5in. south sideline setback relief for detached garage. Requirement is 20. The
applicant is requesting 150 ft. road frontage relief for SFD. Requirement is 150 feet, and
the reason for that is that the applicant owns two lots, and the one lot that they’re building
on does not have road frontage, so it needs to have that relief given to them by the
Zoning Board of Appeals, and that’s really all that the Planning Board is tasked to look at
right now is to briefly review and discuss it, the Site Plan issues. You’ll be seeing it next
week for Site Plan approval, pending Area Variance approvals. With that I’d turn it over
to the Board.
MR. JACKOSKI-Mr. Chairman, in the interest of fair disclosure, I did own property
immediately adjacent to the Johnsons, and I also sold them that back parcel that we
were just discussing.
MR. HUNSINGER-Good evening.
MR. JOHNSON-Good evening.
MR. HUNSINGER-If you could identify yourselves for the record.
MR. JOHNSON-I am Steve Johnson. I did note about this meeting, it asked us to make
a brief presentation outlining the key elements of the approval request, and so we are
attempting improvement within this lakefront property. No deleterious changes have
been made with this plan. Our historic attempts, that is the voluntary septic system that
we put in, evidence our actual, social and ecological conscience. Our guiding desire
remains that the Glen Lake shoreline continue socially and visually attractive for
ourselves and for our neighbors. The existing foundation, which is the object of this
rehabilitation, fully complied with local dimensional requirements at building construction.
Time passage alone creates the need for this plan, except for the garage plan. Variance
is needed due to current building setback rules, lot width rules, road frontage rules, and
water frontage rules that did not apply at house construction in the 1890’s. The new
garage, placed to allow sufficient vehicle access and egress movement, remains behind
vegetation, except at the roadway entrance, and so that’s a brief description of the
entirety of what we want to do. There was a map on the screen of where the property is.
Okay.
MR. HUNSINGER-Did you have anything else to add?
MR. JOHNSON-No. We’re essentially, it’s an old building, as I said, and the foundation
is getting bad, and we noticed that it needs some replacement in places, and we looked
at it and said, you know, this is not going to satisfy the needs of the building. We’ve got
to replace the whole thing, and replacing the whole foundation argues for replacing the
super structure over there, because (lost words).
MR. HUNSINGER-So is there a basement there now?
MR. JOHNSON-There is no basement, and there won’t be when we do it.
MR. HUNSINGER-Yes, I didn’t think so.
MR. JOHNSON-The water table is too high. We’re adding a second story in the back of
the house, but it’s, that is a 90 some, it’s not 100 feet from the lake, but it’s 90 some from
the lake, so the front part of the house is lower, and it doesn’t make any changes from
what was there before. We have a second story in the back, but the footprint remains
the same, and then we’re adding the garage, which is detached. It is a detached garage.
MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. I’ll open it up for questions, comments from members of the
Board.
2
(Queensbury Planning Board 03/16/2010)
MR. TRAVER-You are replacing the old foundation that’s there, but in the same
location?
MR. JOHNSON-In the same location. In the same footprint.
MR. TRAVER-But there’s no basement. So the foundation is just more or less above
ground?
MR. JOHNSON-Within six or seven inches under the ground. It’s nothing, it was not
adequate to support a building, really. That’s why we’re replacing it.
MR. TRAVER-I’m just wondering, since you’re redoing this, if this might be an
opportunity to perhaps move it further from the water.
MR. JOHNSON-Not really. You could bring up the, we have a septic system’s right
behind the house, five or six feet.
MR. TRAVER-Right. I see that.
MR. JOHNSON-And so we really can’t move back.
CHRISTINE JOHNSON
MRS. JOHNSON-It’s a huge wall, too. I brought pictures if anybody wants to look at it.
It’s a huge, steep wall that we’d have to level, more or less, out, to go back after the
septic, which is first.
MR. OBORNE-I’m currently loading the pictures on there. So it makes sense. There are
definitely site limitations for them to move the house away from the lake.
MR. TRAVER-Right. Okay. Thank you.
MR. HUNSINGER-Any other questions from Board members?
MR. SIPP-In the stormwater report here, done by Paragon, there is no mention of the
new garage that’s being (lost word) into the stormwater.
MRS. JOHNSON-It’s on the drawing, though.
MR. SIPP-It’s on the drawing, but I don’t know, it says square feet, which is 600 and
some odd square feet is being (lost word) into the engineer’s report. Nowhere do I find it.
MRS. JOHNSON-Well, he was suppose to have, because it’s drawn in. We have old
ones where it wasn’t there, I have those at home, and then we’ve got a new set that he
factored it all in. I assumed.
MR. SIPP-Well, I just wanted to make sure that it is.
MRS. JOHNSON-Now, on the VISION’s report, does that show that also, does that,
when you hired VISION to do?
MR. SIPP-Well, what he’s saying is the new house will be the same square footage of
impervious surface, and it makes no mention of the garage, the new garage, which is
576 square feet.
MRS. JOHNSON-Maybe because the distance from the house, would that matter? I
don’t know. So what you’re asking or looking for is a permeability factor from the
garage? Or non-permeable.
MR. SIPP-The garage being included in the stormwater.
MR. HUNSINGER-Yes, if I may, on the stormwater management report, at the bottom of
Page One, and at the top of Page Two, they list out the impervious items, but they don’t
mention the garage. So, I think what he’s asking is, is if the garage was, indeed,
included in that calculation.
MRS. JOHNSON-It must not have been if it’s not there in the study. It is on, you’re
talking about the study that’s actual typed up paper, versus the picture?
3
(Queensbury Planning Board 03/16/2010)
MR. HUNSINGER-Yes. I mean, I’ll just read it to you quickly. He says the total
impervious area, based on the attached survey information, is 1,247 square foot of
house roof, 253 square feet of gravel driveway, gazebo, well house, walls, patios and
walks, for a total impervious area of 3,300 square feet. So he doesn’t say if the garage is
included or not.
MR. OBORNE-Yes. I agree. Clark’s report does not reference the detached garage.
MRS. JOHNSON-So that does have to be included in the study?
MR. HUNSINGER-It should be.
MR. OBORNE-It should be, absolutely. It’s something that should be looked at as a site
plan review issue.
MR. JOHNSON-Well, that would be at our next meeting.
MR. HUNSINGER-Right.
MR. JOHNSON-So I’ll make a note that we have that. Yes.
MR. HUNSINGER-Any questions from the Board specifically on the variance request,
concerns? You mentioned earlier that you, and I forgot exactly the words you used when
you referenced the septic. When was the septic installed?
MR. JOHNSON-It was ’96, ’94.
MRS. JOHNSON-Four or five years, between four and five years ago, all the approval
went through here. Our engineers were out there. It’s all been done. It’s all pump up.
Obviously engineered. It was built for a three bedroom.
MR. OBORNE-In ’07.
MRS. JOHNSON-And we only want two bedroom, but we figured three would be better,
so it’s bigger. We do have the paperwork on that.
MR. HUNSINGER-Okay.
MRS. JOHNSON-All of it, anything, approvals and the system itself. It’s supposed to be
very reliable.
MR. FORD-I have a reaction. I wish the site permitted the new structure to be further
from the water’s edge. However, I do applaud you in an effort to maintain the same
footprint. We get a remarkable number of applications before us where that is not the
case.
MRS. JOHNSON-We don’t want to change anything. I don’t want to change.
MR. FORD-I appreciate the fact that you don’t believe that bigger is necessarily better.
MR. JOHNSON-No, we don’t. I don’t want to clean bigger either.
MR. JOHNSON-When we get into the final stages of construction, if we get there, some
of those trees may have to be removed. The one in front of the camp is, it’s dying now
anyway. So that’s going to have to go. We’ll probably re-plant it, and a couple of the
larger pines going up the walkway, I have to have them assessed. They may be getting
a little bad at this point.
MRS. JOHNSON-I have way better pictures, I’d love to show you.
MR. OBORNE-Steve, if that’s the case, if that’s the case, if any of those trees are within
35 feet of the shoreline, you want to make sure you get that taken care of now before you
go to the Planning Board.
MRS. JOHNSON-Yes, that one right in front might be.
MR. OBORNE-That wasn’t mentioned in the, in our conversations.
MR. FORD-I was going to mention that. Thanks, Keith.
4
(Queensbury Planning Board 03/16/2010)
MRS. STEFFAN-And those happen to be Site Plan issues, but that absolutely has to be
addressed because it’s obvious, walking the site, they have to go, because there’s no
way you’re going to be able to get equipment in there to do what you need to do without
taking all those trees down.
MRS. JOHNSON-And again, we don’t want to take too many more. It is a lot barer than
it used to be. Lighting has hit them. It’s clearing it. Personally, I understand for
construction, obviously, that one in the front has to come down, but it’s a shame if we
have to take too many. I don’t want to.
MRS. STEFFAN-Well, in order to do what you want to do, you’re going to have to.
MRS. JOHNSON-Well, honestly, when the fellow put in the septic, he brought tiny little
things. My yard had very little damage. I was surprised at the equipment that can move
in around there, that’s like a tiny Toyota truck, and I insisted, and it was me, not anybody
else. I do not want big things down here. Can you do this without a mess. He did an
absolute, he did work for Dave Hatin himself, the engineer here on Glen Lake, too, and
we applauded him for that, and what was put back was identical, and that was what we
were trying to do with anything we’ve done is keep it the same.
MRS. STEFFAN-Well, the septic is a little bit different than a demolition and a
reconstruction.
MRS. JOHNSON-It is, but I’m saying there is some good equipment out there that is very
helpful, and with that, but that is such a pitch down there, and we’re so tucked in, that’s
the beauty. That’s what I like.
MRS. STEFFAN-Now your road access is a right of way?
MR. JOHNSON-Yes. There’s two right of ways, well, actually, if you’d put the map up, I
could outline on the map. As you come in, on Hall Road, and then right where it says
Hall, that’s the edge of the property, comes through my property, curves around, and
goes through two other pieces of property, and ends in mind, and so there’s the right of
way that is a right of way by use, by those other people, but the access into the other
people’s camp is over my road and my right of way. So it’s a cooperative deal, so to
speak.
MR. HUNSINGER-Are you going to be consolidating the two lots, as part of the project?
MR. JOHNSON-Not as part of this project. We may in the future, but I’m not thinking
about it right now.
MR. HUNSINGER-Okay.
MR. OBORNE-There’s no need.
MR. HUNSINGER-Yes.
MR. JOHNSON-But part of the problem is that just to the right of the road, as it comes
into my property, that is where my leach field is for my septic system. So I can’t, if it was
not there, I could access across the other way, but I can’t go across, you know, my
access is blocked by my septic leach field.
MR. HUNSINGER-Okay.
MR. JACKOSKI-How much taller is the current house, the new house compared with the
current house?
MRS. JOHNSON-The front is the same exactly.
MR. JOHNSON-Yes. It’s 20, I think actually they’re the same maximum height, the high
points are the same, and my high point, the high point on my house now, where the
chimney is, will pretty much be maintained throughout the whole thing, and so there’s no
height change really. Maybe there is.
MR. OBORNE-I believe your existing house is about 16 feet, and you’re looking for a 26
foot tall house.
5
(Queensbury Planning Board 03/16/2010)
MRS. JOHNSON-Yes. I thought we had that. It is, yes.
MR. OBORNE-It’s about a 10 foot difference.
MR. JACKOSKI-So because the house is so close to the lake, have you had discussions
with your neighbors regarding the view impact that they will have because they’re so far
behind you?
MR. JOHNSON-There’s no one behind me. I own the property behind me.
MR. JACKOSKI-No, off to the sides.
MR. JOHNSON-And the side.
MRS. JOHNSON-No, we haven’t actually addressed them on that issue. No. We told
them we were going to try to build. They know that, but.
MR. JOHNSON-Yes. There are trees on one side of the camp.
MR. JACKOSKI-I know. I’m just thinking about when I had to go through the variance
Board, when I looked at doing my property, two doors down. They made particular, they
paid particular attention to the fact that they would not allow us to build forward. They
wanted us to average the distance off the shoreline between our neighbor. So I worry
that you could have an issue with building so close to the lake.
MR. JOHNSON-I understand what you’re saying, but the front part of the house is no
higher than the current house, and the second floor is in the back part and that is 93 or
96 feet from the lake, it’s almost 100 feet from the lake.
MRS. JOHNSON-You’re talking visual.
MR. JOHNSON-Yes. We’re all, so there’s no difference, there’s no visual.
MR. FORD-Well, there’s a difference if you’re adding 10 feet to the height of the
structure.
MR. JOHNSON-I’m thinking about visualizing it from my neighbor’s houses, and it won’t
make an impact, because their houses are higher, and they would look over my house,
they would look over the low part of the new structure.
MR. HUNSINGER-On your Site Development Data sheet, it says that the existing is 21
feet 6 inches, and the proposed is 25 feet 7. So it’s about four feet taller. Any other
questions, comments from members of the Board? People comfortable with the
request? What we’re asked to do this evening is make a recommendation to the Zoning
Board, and there’s four variance requests.
MRS. STEFFAN-I can’t say I’m comfortable with it, but it is what it is, unfortunately. The
lot is small. The septic and the leach field puts some restrictions on moving the house
back. There’s a slope. The house is very close to the lake and it’s very flat right there.
MR. JOHNSON-If I could, there is, I do have, in the front of the house, between the
house and the lake, there is a depression. So any runoff from the house will not go into
the lake. It will come back towards the house.
MR. HUNSINGER-What about the garage? Is there any way to move the garage so that
you don’t need a variance request for that?
MR. JOHNSON-It makes it an access question. By tipping it around, it’s hard to get in
and out to turn the car, I couldn’t even turn around.
MR. HUNSINGER-Okay.
MR. JOHNSON-It’s too narrow there.
MRS. JOHNSON-A big vehicle would have trouble, real trouble.
MR. FORD-What is the width there you’re talking about?
MR. JOHNSON-I’d have to look at the map.
6
(Queensbury Planning Board 03/16/2010)
MR. HUNSINGER-There’s no snow there now.
MR. OBORNE-What was the question?
MR. FORD-The width, they say that access is an issue.
MR. OBORNE-Yes. Well, one of the issues with that property, and I, to a certain extent,
concur, is that there is a wrought iron fence that runs along the property line, not that that
really would be anything, you know, out of the ordinary. It does make it tight to a certain
extent. There is a feasible method by which to eliminate an Area Variance. That would
be to move that forward. There is, it is feasible, but their argument is, is that there is a
conflict with maneuverability.
MR. JOHNSON-The fence is not mine, it’s my neighbor’s. If you see the post there, and
that’s the corner of his lot, on the edge of mine, and there’s only one vehicle width to get
through there, and if the garage were placed any closer to that post, there’d be no way to
turn around.
MR. HUNSINGER-Yes. Okay.
MR. JACKOSKI-May I ask what the cost of the septic system was?
MRS. JOHNSON-Nineteen something, almost twenty thousand.
MR. JACKOSKI-Keith, is it correct that the Fire Marshal asks for 40 feet?
MR. OBORNE-For?
MR. JACKOSKI-For turnaround, road access, that kind of stuff?
MR. OBORNE-The Fire Marshal has no issues with residential properties.
MR. JACKOSKI-What does he prefer to see?
MR. OBORNE-Just access for emergency vehicles. They really have no jurisdiction over
residential properties. I would think what they want is access. They don’t want to be
stopped because of, you know, any physical barrier.
MR. JACKOSKI-If the house were moved to the center of the lot and moved back a little,
and utilized as a walkout basement type, how much of the septic system could be kept?
The leach fields and anything else?
MRS. JOHNSON-How far back?
MR. JOHNSON-If it were moved to the center of the lot, we would save the leach field.
MRS. JOHNSON-The leach field is okay.
MR. JOHNSON-I know, we would save it, but that’s all, the rest of it would have to be,
the waste.
MRS. JOHNSON-It is, I don’t know exactly. In my mind’s eye, if you’re talking about
pushing it back and over, there’s a stone, the whole stone wall, and then the septic is
directly behind the house. So the wall, again, I don’t know if that would fit to move the
house. I don’t, with that stone wall, that’s the problem. I’m afraid to have to level,
another big demolition, because there’s a big stone wall, what is it, five feet to the septic,
six? I don’t really know my measurements, but it’s not 10 feet away from the stone stairs
to the septic, behind the house. It’s just a few feet. No, I don’t think, yes, the wall would
have to come down, too, that was the other issue. That wall, it’s a whole stone old wall,
giant thing. So we’d either be butting it or knocking it over to spare the bottom part of the
pump up for the leach field. Actually we measured that once, with a carpenter, and it
came right to the fence.
MR. JOHNSON-We’ve answered the question. That’s the only thing we’d save is the
leach field. The rest of it would have to be replaced.
MR. JACKOSKI-I mean, I think these are things that are going to come up when you go
to the Zoning Board.
7
(Queensbury Planning Board 03/16/2010)
MRS. JOHNSON-We measured that, though. I remember that.
MR. OBORNE-It’s 36 feet from the toe of the slope to the corner of the garage as
proposed, and the garage, to the leach field, is 40. So your question is can you move
the house farther into the slope?
MR. JACKOSKI-Could you make the wall that’s currently there the back wall of the
foundation and utilize a walk out access footprint configuration, and expose three sides
and utilize that wall as the foundation?
MR. OBORNE-Walk out towards the lake.
MR. JACKOSKI-I would think that that’s an alternative that the ZBA is going to address.
MR. OBORNE-Now is that the well in the back along the wall?
MR. JOHNSON-No, the wall is on the side.
MR. OBORNE-What’s the 30 inch diameter cover that is referenced on the plan?
MR. JOHNSON-That is for the direct septic tank. The waste goes from the house to that
tank, and then it’s pumped up from there.
MR. OBORNE-Okay. So that’s the pump. Okay. So that’s a limiting factor right there, I
would think, but okay.
MR. HUNSINGER-To me it was one of those things where you look at it on paper and
you say to yourself, it looks like there’s a lot of requests here, and then you go out and
visit the site, and you really get a very different impression , and it’s almost like, well, now
it makes sense to, you know, at least for me, you know, it really kind of made sense
because you’re really not seeking to change the footprint, and the site is so well
developed already, and, you know, the topography limits what you can do, but, you
know, as Steve’s pointed out, I mean, you could re-engineer almost anything, but how
practical is that? I had a totally different impression after going out there to look at it, and
walk around the yard.
MR. JOHNSON-That’s what they say about boots on the ground.
MR. HUNSINGER-Yes.
MRS. STEFFAN-Well, based on what I’ve heard in the conversation, we’ve got some
areas of concern. We don’t really have any answers because obviously we do site plan
in another time, but the issues that I’ve heard are that, of concern, access to the site,
specifically the one lane road/driveway, the closeness to the lakefront, third, the garage
is not included in the stormwater management report, and then, fourth, the view shed
interruption of the neighbors with the increased height of the proposed home. So those
were the four things I heard in discussion. Is that accurate?
MR. JACKOSKI-Yes.
MR. TRAVER-Yes.
MR. JOHNSON-Excuse me. I want to note these down to give to my planner.
MRS. JOHNSON-Yes, the four things, to make sure we know what you’re looking for.
MR. JOHNSON-I have the impervious area, the garage, the trees, that’s another thing,
yes, the trees, the view shed, and.
MRS. STEFFAN-The closeness to the lakefront.
MR. JOHNSON-Okay.
MR. HUNSINGER-None of those areas of concern really apply to the Area Variance
request, though. It’s all site plan related items.
MRS. STEFFAN-Right, but they’re things they’ll probably talk about as they review the
Area Variance.
8
(Queensbury Planning Board 03/16/2010)
MR. HUNSINGER-Sure.
MRS. STEFFAN-Okay. Then I will make a recommendation.
MOTION TO MAKE A RECOMMENDATION ON BEHALF OF THE PLANNING BOARD
TO THE ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS FOR AREA VARIANCE NO. 9-2010 FOR
STEVEN AND CHRISTINE JOHNSON, Introduced by Gretchen Steffan who moved for
its adoption, seconded by Stephen Jackoski:
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 found that:
MOTION TO MAKE A RECOMMENDATION ON BEHALF OF THE PLANNING BOARD
TO THE ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS FOR AREA VARIANCE NO. 9-2010 FOR
STEVEN AND CHRISTINE JOHNSON, Introduced by Gretchen Steffan who moved for
its adoption, seconded by Stephen Jackoski:
According to the resolution prepared by Staff. We select Item Two, the Planning Board,
based on limited review, has identified the following areas of concern:
A.Access to the site, specifically the one lane road/driveway.
B.The closeness to the lakefront
C.That the garage is not included in the stormwater management report
D.The view shed interruption of the neighbors with increased height of the
proposed home.
th
Duly adopted this 16 day of March, 2010, by the following vote:
AYES: Mr. Sipp, Mr. Traver, Mr. Ford, Mrs. Steffan, Mr. Jackoski, Mr. Hunsinger
NOES: NONE
ABSENT: Mr. Schonewolf
MR. HUNSINGER-So, assuming you make it through the Zoning Board tomorrow night,
we will see you back here next Tuesday.
MR. JOHNSON-Thank you.
MRS. STEFFAN-Okay, and Keith mentioned this, but just to be sure, make sure that
you’re able to speak to the tree removal, because that’s going to be a site plan issue and
I know that you’ll be questions on it.
MR. HUNSINGER-Yes, we’ll be asking you questions about that next week.
MRS. STEFFAN-So if there are specific trees that you’re going to take out, please be
prepared to talk about them and identify them.
MR. JOHNSON-I think, on your photos, I can identify them, there. That would be
sufficient, right?
MRS. JOHNSON-You mean the arborist or yourselves? Who do you mean that we’re
going to talk to about trees?
MRS. STEFFAN-You are going to talk to the Planning Board about what you’re going to
take away, because in the Zoning Code there’s specifics about clearing within.
9
(Queensbury Planning Board 03/16/2010)
MRS. JOHNSON-Okay. Right because we did see an arborist to tell us if any are sick,
first of all. We know the (lost word) probably has to come down, but we would like know
if there’s any, hopefully they’re sick and have to come down anyway, because I don’t
want to take down any trees I don’t want to.
MRS. STEFFAN-And what’s likely, I mean, I can’t decide what the rest of the Board’s
going to do, but what is likely is that any time a tree has to be taken down like that, you’re
going to need to re-vegetate the site and re-plant. So those air the kinds of things you
need to consider as we move forward.
MRS. JOHNSON-We’re certainly willing to plant.
MR. HUNSINGER-Thank you.
MR. JOHNSON-Thank you.
SALLY STRASSER FOR STEVEN & LILLIAN DOBERT [AV 12-10 / SP 19-10]
RENOVATION OF EXISTING 2,865 +/- SQ. FT. SINGLE FAMILY HOME TO INCLUDE
NEW 36 +/- SQ. FT. ENTRY PORCH RELIEF REQUESTED FOR EXPANSION OF A
NON-CONFORMING STRUCTURE IN A CEA, FLOOR AREA RATIO, MINIMUM
SHORELINE & SIDE SETBACK REQUIREMENTS
MR. HUNSINGER-The next item, as I had mentioned earlier, is Sally Strasser for Steve
& Lillian Dobert. They have asked to be tabled. I don’t know if that’s ever happened
before, where we had a table request from an applicant on an Area Variance request, on
a variance request. So do we need to take any action?
MR. OBORNE-Yes. We’re going to need to table this, and I would recommend you table
it to May, because we already have a full agenda at this point.
MR. HUNSINGER-For April.
MR. OBORNE-Yes, for April, and we’re already into May’s agenda.
MR. TRAVER-And they have additional data to submit based on the complaints.
MR. OBORNE-The deadline has past for submittal for the April agenda, and as such, I
would recommend that we table it until maybe the first meeting in May.
MR. HUNSINGER-First meeting in May.
MRS. STEFFAN-I don’t have my calendar.
MR. OBORNE-Yes. I’m not sure if anybody’s here for the applicant or not.
MR. HUNSINGER-Is there anyone here for the applicant? Okay. I will entertain a
motion to table.
MRS. STEFFAN-There was one question that I had, Keith, I did visits today, and there is
a tremendous amount of activity on that site, and based on the report by Bruce Frank, I
mean, they don’t have a Stop Work Order, I’m assuming.
MR. OBORNE-They do not have a Stop Work Order. They do have a valid CO at this
point, but we’re allowing them to go ahead and continue with the interior renovations
because that really doesn’t affect the site at this point. Bruce didn’t have much of an
issue with that, and didn’t issue a Stop Work Order. They’re working with us. So as
such, we will allow them to continue to work and not issue a Stop Work Order.
MRS. STEFFAN-Okay.
MR. HUNSINGER-I tell you, there was a lot of activity there this morning.
MR. OBORNE-Yes. It’s quite a project. It really is.
MRS. STEFFAN-Yes. I was there this afternoon, and that was quite something.
MR. OBORNE-Did you see the lake deposition?
10
(Queensbury Planning Board 03/16/2010)
MR. HUNSINGER-I did not. Was it on the side?
MR. OBORNE-Near the boathouse, that old block boathouse.
MR. HUNSINGER-Okay.
MRS. STEFFAN-Okay. I noticed that it was mucky, but I wasn’t, and that part of the ice
was out. So I wasn’t sure if that was the spot that I was.
MR. HUNSINGER-Well, when I was there, they were taking roof shingles off, and I didn’t
want to get hit in the head, so I didn’t go down that side.
MRS. STEFFAN-Yes, I walked the whole thing. Okay. Well, I’ll make a motion.
MOTION TO TABLE THE ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS RECOMMENDATION FOR
AREA VARIANCE 12-2010 AND SITE PLAN 19-2010 FOR STEVEN AND LILLIAN
DOBERT, 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
MOTION TO TABLE THE ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS RECOMMENDATION FOR
AREA VARIANCE 12-2010 AND SITE PLAN 19-2010 FOR STEVEN AND LILLIAN
DOBERT, Introduced by Gretchen Steffan who moved for its adoption, seconded by
Thomas Ford:
th
Tabled to the May 18 meeting.
th
Duly adopted this 16 day of March, 2010, by the following vote:
AYES: Mr. Traver, Mr. Jackoski, Mr. Sipp, Mrs. Steffan, Mr. Ford, Mr. Hunsinger
NOES: NONE
ABSENT: Mr. Schonewolf
SITE PLAN NO. 5-2010 SEQR TYPE II IVAN BELL, IBS SEPTIC & DRAIN AGENT(S)
ETHAN HALL, RUCINSKI HALL ARCH. OWNER(S) SAME ZONING CLI LOCATION
2 LOWER WARREN ST. APPLICANT PROPOSES A NEW 3,000 +/- SQ. FT.
BUILDING FOR MAINTENANCE AND VEHICLE STORAGE. EXPANSION OF A
CONSTRUCTION COMPANY IN A CLI ZONE REQUIRES PLANNING BOARD
REVIEW AND APPROVAL. CROSS REFERENCE NONE FOUND WARREN CO.
PLANNING 1/13/2010 APA, CEA, OTHER NWI WETLANDS LOT SIZE 0.35 AC.,
0.26 AC., 0.11 AC., & 0.13 +/- AC. ACRES TAX MAP NO. 303.19-1-27, 28, 26, 29
SECTION 179-9-010
ETHAN HALL, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT; IVAN BELL, PRESENT
MR. HUNSINGER-Keith, whenever you’re ready to summarize Staff Notes, please.
MR. OBORNE-Site Plan 5-2010, Ivan Bell, IBS Septic & Drain. Requested action is
expansion of construction company requires Planning Board review. Location is Clifford
Street, or 2 Lower Warren Street. It’s a CLI, Commercial Light Industrial zoning. Type II
is the SEQRA Status. Parcel History, none found. Project Description: Applicant
proposes a new 3,000 +/- sq. ft. building for maintenance and vehicle storage. The
Planning Board saw this, I believe it’s been about a month now, a little over, I think it’s
about two months now, and the applicant has responded to Staff comments. I do have a
couple of issues, not anything that’s really pointed towards the applicant, although it has
to do with the filling of the wetlands, the DEC and ACOE wetlands. Everything else, as
far as I’m concerned, was addressed. There are Paragon Engineering comments
attached, and with that, I’m sure Ethan Hall, the applicant’s agent, can speak to that.
11
(Queensbury Planning Board 03/16/2010)
MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. Great. Thank you. Good evening.
MR. HALL-Good evening. My name is Ethan Hall. I’m the architect for the project. With
me is Ivan Bell, the applicant. We did take a look at all of the comments that Paragon
had. Did you get the one I sent yesterday, Keith?
MR. OBORNE-Yes, but I didn’t have a chance to, Pam might have put it in here, and I’ll
take a look at that.
MR. HALL-Okay. They were relatively minor comments that came back from Clark. A
couple of things, looking for delineation, which I’m not sure if he just missed. We did
delineate on the plan where the limits of the gravel are. The existing septic field is right
next to the existing building, and it’s on the opposite side from the area that we’re doing
any work. So there won’t be any vehicular traffic over that portion of it, during
construction or after construction. The proposed floor elevation is six inches above
existing grade. We had stated that before. This is a relatively flat site out back, and it’s
the same height as what we’re showing. The stabilized construction entrance that he
talks about, they’re going to utilize the existing driveway that’s on the east side of the
building now for their construction. They utilize that now for in and out, and that would be
the intent to utilize that same area. The calculations for the stormwater report, he’s
saying that half the site drains easterly. I don’t think anything really drains to the east.
Everything kind of drains toward the north part of this lot, towards the back. The only
thing I think that might drain to the east would be the grass area that’s already on the
east. Outside of that, I don’t think anything really drains that direction, and he asked
something about the note that was underneath. When he did the perc test, and the test
pit, Dan Ryan from VISION Engineering was there to witness that, and one of the things
that he asked was, because we’re providing stormwater infiltration trenches right at the
eaves line of the building to take care of the roof water, what, because this area right
now is used for a driveway and for parking of vehicles, what Dan wanted to make sure
we did was that, typically we would just excavate out an area to put the frost wall and the
footing in, and what he’s asking is, is that we enlarge that excavation to make sure that
we chew that up, so when we put the eaves trench underneath, we’re not putting it on
ground that’s been heavily compacted.
MR. HUNSINGER-It makes sense.
MR. HALL-That was the clarification of that note, and I sent those back to Clark
yesterday morning.
MR. HUNSINGER-Okay.
MR. HALL-The only other issue was, as Keith says, was with the filling. Everything that
Mr. Bell had stockpiled on the site, he believed was on his property. As it turns out, once
we did the survey, it’s actually on the property of Lehigh Cement. That’s all been pulled
off. I don’t know if anybody visited the site in the last day or so, but everything’s been
pulled back onto Mr. Bell’s lot. He’s in the process of putting silt fence around the
stockpile material. The fill that was placed there, as we stated previously, is in the back
portion back there, and everything that was done in that back portion was done by
Warren County DPW, and it was done prior to Mr. Bell purchasing the two paper street
area, and that’s, it was.
MR. HUNSINGER-So were you able to obtain any documentation or anything in writing
regarding that?
MR. HALL-No. Weren’t able to get anything from DPW, other than Mr. Bell provided a
letter that said that that was in fact the case.
MR. HUNSINGER-Right. Yes. Okay.
MRS. STEFFAN-It’s like, what do you do? All those people are gone.
MR. HALL-Yes. Well, Bill Breen was the one that was actually in charge of it, and he’s
since passed away.
MR. HUNSINGER-Yes. I mean, it would have been nice if there was like some, you
know, like a consent letter or something, you know, that said, you know, just a paper trail.
12
(Queensbury Planning Board 03/16/2010)
MR. HALL-Right, and unfortunately most of that work was done on the actual Lehigh
Cement lot, and on the lot which encompasses the two paper streets. In walking around
out there late this afternoon and looking at it, it is, well, when is this, this is an ’07?
MR. OBORNE-’08.
MR. HALL-’08 picture, and that is exactly the extent of where the fill is.
MR. OBORNE-Yes, they were done by then. That’s for sure.
MR. HALL-Yes. Actually it was done in ’06, ’05, ’06.
MR. OBORNE-I will say, the whole area is a mess, obviously, and there is no paper trail
there. I just want to make sure that DEC doesn’t come down on them, and the ACOE
doesn’t come down on them. Honestly, with Staff levels as they are, nothing’s going to
happen, to be honest with you. You’re not going to get an answer from DPW, Warren
County DPW, because the person who is in charge is deceased.
MR. TRAVER-Well, to some degree we’re establishing a trail with this record, right?
MR. OBORNE-That is correct.
MR. HUNSINGER-That’s true.
MR. OBORNE-And that is sort of the intent of what we’re trying to do here.
MR. TRAVER-Yes, right.
MR. HALL-And that’s what we tried to do with Mr. Bell’s letter.
MR. HUNSINGER-I mean, you would think that there might even be something at the
Town from the County, because it was a paper street, you know. I mean, permission to
dump on the right of way, you know.
MR. HALL-It was a privately held paper street. I don’t believe it was held by the Town.
MR. HUNSINGER-Okay.
MR. HALL-I believe it was held by the developer who initially did the initial subdivision
and created the paper streets. I believe that’s who Mr. Bell purchased them from. Yes.
Those would be the extents of the paper street.
MR. HUNSINGER-So do you own all of that now?
MR. BELL-Yes.
MR. HUNSINGER-So all of those paper streets, not just the ones adjacent to your
property?
MR. BELL-No. I bought the whole thing, it’s been about a year.
MR. OBORNE-Glenn Pratt?
MR. BELL-Yes. Glenn Pratt, yes.
MR. HUNSINGER-Did you have anything else to add?
MR. HALL-No. One other thing that came up, and I know Keith spoke to it. There was a
question that came up regarding access on the lot, and we added a truck turning radius.
That truck turning radius was the only one we had. It’s for a semi-trailer, about three
times a year he might see a semi-trailer in there. The rest of the time it’s his tandems.
MR. HUNSINGER-Okay.
MR. HALL-So I figure if we can turn a tractor trailer around in there, he can turn the
office.
MR. BELL-The office trailer.
13
(Queensbury Planning Board 03/16/2010)
MR. HUNSINGER-It’s big enough for his. Yes. Questions, comments from members of
the Board?
MRS. STEFFAN-As I mention, I mean, it is, the whole thing is a mess, and it’s really hard
to sort it out, but the applicant’s got a project and he needs to build this building, and I
don’t think there is any way to sort it out and clean it up. I mean, clean it up as it cleans
the trail, the paper trail up.
MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. Nothing from the Board? We do have a public hearing
scheduled. Is there anyone in the audience that wants to address the Board on this
application? We did table the public hearing until this evening. Is there any written
comments, Keith?
MR. OBORNE-No, sir.
MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. I will re-open the public hearing.
PUBLIC HEARING OPEN
MR. HUNSINGER-And seeing as there are no comments, I will close the public hearing.
PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED
MR. HUNSINGER-Are there any conditions, other than signoff from the Town Engineer?
Okay, and it’s a Type II action. So there’s no further review required.
MR. OBORNE-Yes. There’s no SWPPP involved in this either, although there certainly
should have been at one point.
MRS. STEFFAN-Is the comment for the Fire Marshal on the plans, or does it have to be?
MR. HALL-I didn’t get a copy of that.
MR. OBORNE-Yes. You should have gotten that with the Staff Notes.
MR. HALL-Yes. It didn’t come through with the stuff.
MRS. STEFFAN-A Knox Box will be required for keyed access to the gate. The cover
shall be keyed for entry by South Queensbury Fire Department.
MR. HALL-Okay.
MR. OBORNE-Yes. That’s typical procedure.
MR. HALL-Yes.
MR. OBORNE-Because he locks his gates, and if they need to have access to it, they’d
have a key to open up the box.
MRS. STEFFAN-So do I have to put that as a condition, since it?
MR. OBORNE-Yes, that absolutely should be a condition.
MR. HALL-No problem. Yes. We can take care of that. It’s not an issue.
MR. HUNSINGER-And did you already consolidate the parcels?
MR. HALL-Matt Steves is in the process of doing that right now.
MR. HUNSINGER-Okay.
MR. HALL-He’s in the process of taking the paper streets. We’re also in the process of
getting, if you remember initially the existing building is actually in, part of it’s in the
Warren Street right of way. He’s in the process of working with the State to get that
boundary line adjustment done. We’re going to do the whole thing all at once, all in one
shot. That will be done, and if you want to make that conditional, we can do that as well.
MRS. STEFFAN-So parcel consolidation must be completed before building permit?
14
(Queensbury Planning Board 03/16/2010)
MR. OBORNE-Yes, for variance issues. You want to avoid that, because obviously the
lot line’s running right through the project. There’s a setback issue. That’s all.
MR. HALL-Right, yes.
MR. OBORNE-As far as the Lower Warren Street, that’s not anything we’re looking for at
this time because it’s an existing condition.
MR. HUNSINGER-Right.
MR. HALL-Yes, and we’re just trying to clean that up with the State right of way.
MRS. STEFFAN-So is the right language before the building permit, or no? Parcel
consolidation must be complete before building permit.
MR. OBORNE-I would say, yes, before CO is issued.
MR. FORD-A CO.
MRS. STEFFAN-Okay.
MR. OBORNE-Matt’s on vacation right now?
rd
MR. HALL-He’ll be back the 23.
MR. OBORNE-Okay.
MR. HALL-I talked to him right before he left. He said they’ve got the stake out work
done. They’ve got the fieldwork done. Now it’s just crunching paperwork.
MR. HUNSINGER-Right. Okay. Anything else?
MR. HALL-No, we’re all set.
MRS. STEFFAN-All right. I’ll make a motion to approve.
MOTION TO APPROVE SITE PLAN NO. 5-2010 IVAN BELL, IBS SEPTIC & DRAIN,
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 a new 3,000 +/- sq. ft. building for maintenance
and vehicle storage. Expansion of a Construction Company in a CLI zone
requires Planning Board review and approval.
2)A public hearing was advertised and held on 1/26/2010 & 3/16/2010; 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. 5-2010 IVAN BELL, IBS SEPTIC &
DRAIN, Introduced by Gretchen Steffan who moved for its adoption, seconded by
Thomas Ford:
According to the resolution prepared by Staff. Paragraph Four A complies. This
is approved with the following conditions:
a)Pursuant to relevant sections of the Town of Queensbury Zoning Code
[Chapter 179-9-080]], the Planning Board has determined that this
proposal complies with the requirements as stated in the Zoning Code;
and
b)Type II, no further 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
15
(Queensbury Planning Board 03/16/2010)
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)Engineering sign-off required prior to signature of Zoning Administrator.
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) The applicant shall submit a copy of a NOI [Notice of Intent] SWPPP
[Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan] & NOT [Notice of Termination] -
see staff
i) 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.
j) That the applicant will obtain a Town Engineering signoff on the project.
k) That the applicant will add the Fire Marshal’s comments, and comply with
them. The comment is a Knox Box will be required for keyed access to
the gate. Cover shall be keyed for entry by the South Queensbury Fire
Department.
l)That the parcel consolidation must be complete before a Certificate of
Occupancy is issued.
th
Duly adopted this 16 day of March, 2010 by the following vote:
AYES: Mr. Sipp, Mr. Traver, Mrs. Steffan, Mr. Jackoski, Mr. Ford, Mr. Hunsinger
NOES: NONE
ABSENT: Mr. Schonewolf
MR. HUNSINGER-You’re all set. Good luck.
MR. HALL-Thank you very much.
MR. HUNSINGER-Thank you.
MR. BELL-Thank you. Thanks for your time.
MR. HUNSINGER-You’re welcome.
SITE PLAN NO. 13-2010 SEQR TYPE II LAURA FEATHERS FAMILY FOOTWEAR
OWNER(S) GORDON DEVELOPMENT ZONING CI LOCATION 1500 STATE
ROUTE 9 APPLICANT PROPOSES A TENT SALE FROM AUGUST 1, 2010
THROUGH AUGUST 31, 2010. TENT SALES LONGER THAN 12 DAYS REQUIRE
PLANNING BOARD REVIEW AND APPROVAL. CROSS REFERENCE SP 12-09, SP
11-08, SP 26-07, SP 7-05, SP 22-04 WARREN CO. PLANNING 3/10/2010 LOT SIZE
1.61 +/- ACRES TAX MAP NO. 288.12-1-15 SECTION 179-9-010
LAURA FEATHERS, PRESENT
MR. HUNSINGER-Keith, whenever you’re ready.
MR. OBORNE-Site Plan 13-2010, Laura Feathers is the applicant. Requested action is
tent sales longer than 12 days require Planning Board review and approval. Location is
1500 State Route 9. This is a Highway Commercial Intensive. It’s a Type II SEQRA.
The Planning Board should be familiar with this project, especially if the Planning Board
members have been on for more than one year, and for seven years, etc. This has been
going on and on. I did ask the Zoning Administrator if we could just approve this in
16
(Queensbury Planning Board 03/16/2010)
perpetuity, but unfortunately that did not happen, and basically we, the Staff comments
pretty much dictate what needs to be done as far as this project, and the following project
needs to happen. I’m assuming that the Planning Board is familiar with this project.
MR. FORD-Yes.
MR. OBORNE-I’m going to turn it over to the Planning Board.
MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. Thank you. Good evening.
MS. FEATHERS-Good evening.
MR. HUNSINGER-If you could identify yourself for the record.
MS. FEATHERS-I’m Laura Feathers, the owner of Family Footwear, and this is Laurie
Burnett, the Manager.
MR. HUNSINGER-A lot of people have their own litmus test for when it’s Spring, but we
always know it’s Spring when we see the tent sales.
LAURIE BURNETT
MS. BURNETT-We’re before the Board again to see if we can once again do our annual
stst
August tent sale, from the 1 through the 31. It just really helps our sales and our
business every year. So every year I come back to visit and see if we can have
approval.
MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. Any questions, comments from the Board? I had one
question, and that’s on the site map. I seem to remember getting maybe better site
maps in the past, because I remember talking about making sure there was vehicular
access around the tent.
MS. BURNETT-It’s the same one I’ve been photocopying every year. I haven’t changed
anything.
MR. HUNSINGER-Okay.
MRS. STEFFAN-Yes. I don’t think you can drive around it with the.
MS. BURNETT-You can’t drive around the tent, no, you run into the building. It’s right
beside the rock.
MR. TRAVER-Right. In fact, it takes up some parking spaces.
MS. BURNETT-Right. It takes up a few spaces.
MR. HUNSINGER-Right, right up against the building.
MS. BURNETT-Well, not against the building. There’s a space between, there’s a little
sidewalk with a rock, and then it’s sitting in that little corner.
MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. That was my only question. Anyone else have anything to
add?
MR. FORD-No.
MRS. STEFFAN-It’s pretty straightforward.
MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. We do have a public hearing scheduled, though. Were there
any written comments, Keith?
MR. OBORNE-No, sir.
MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. Is there anyone in the audience that would like to address the
Board on this project? I will open the public hearing.
PUBLIC HEARING OPENED
17
(Queensbury Planning Board 03/16/2010)
MR. HUNSINGER-Let the record show there were no commenters. I will close the public
hearing.
PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED
MRS. STEFFAN-Okay. Then I will make a motion.
MOTION TO APPROVE SITE PLAN NO. 13-2010 LAURA FEATHERS FAMILY
FOOTWEAR, 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 Tent Sale from August 1, 2010 through August
31, 2010. Tent Sales longer than 12 days require Planning Board review and
approval.
2)A public hearing was advertised and held on 3/16/2010; 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. 13-2010 LAURA FEATHERS FAMILY
FOOTWEAR, 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 D, waivers are granted for stormwater, grading, landscaping and
lighting. This is approved with the following conditions:
a)Pursuant to relevant sections of the Town of Queensbury Zoning Code
[Chapter 179-9-080], the Planning Board has determined that this
proposal complies with the requirements as stated in the Zoning Code;
and
b)SEQR 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)Waiver requests granted: stormwater mgmt., grading, landscaping &
lighting plans
stst
e)That the tent will be installed from August 1 to August 31 for a total of
31 days.
f)That the applicant will contact the Town of Queensbury Fire Marshal’s
Office for inspection prior to tent sale event.
th
Duly adopted this 16 day of March, 2010, by the following vote:
AYES: Mr. Jackoski, Mr. Sipp, Mr. Ford, Mrs. Steffan, Mr. Traver, Mr. Hunsinger
NOES: NONE
ABSENT: Mr. Schonewolf
MR. HUNSINGER-You’re all set. Good luck.
MS. BURNETT-Wonderful. Thank you very much.
MR. HUNSINGER-You’re welcome.
SITE PLAN NO. 15-2010 SEQR TYPE II SWANK / KATHY HILL AGENT(S) SEE
APPLICANT OWNER(S) ADIRONDACK FACTORY OUTLET CENTER, INC. ZONING
18
(Queensbury Planning Board 03/16/2010)
CI LOCATION 1444 STATE ROUTE 9 APPLICANT PROPOSES A TENT SALE
FROM JUNE 19 THROUGH JULY 19. TENT SALES LONGER THAN 12 DAYS
REQUIRE PLANNING BOARD REVIEW AND APPROVAL. CROSS REFERENCE SP
21-09, SP 8-08, SP 28-07, SP 10-06 WARREN CO. PLANNING 3/10/2010 LOT SIZE
4.64 +/- ACRES TAX MAP NO. 288.12-1-22 SECTION 179-9-010
KATHY HILL, PRESENT
MR. HUNSINGER-Keith, whenever you’re ready to summarize Staff Notes.
MR. OBORNE-Sure. Site Plan 15-2010. Applicant is Kathy Hill for SWANK. Tent sales
longer than 12 days require Site Plan Review and approval. This is at 1444 State Route
9, just south of the last project, same Highway Commercial Intensive. It’s a Type II
SEQRA. Again, this is an ongoing thing. As far as the project descriptions go, there
thth
appears to have been a typo. It should be June 29 through July 19. Is that correct,
thththth
Kathy? June 29 through July 19, and not the June 19 through July 19. Again, same
conditions as with the previous plan, and I’d turn it over to the Planning Board.
MR. HUNSINGER-So it’s a total of 21 days?
MR. OBORNE-It is a total of 21 days.
MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. Good evening.
th
MS. HILL-Good evening. I’m Kathy Hill. This will be my 20 year out there for the tent
sale.
MR. HUNSINGER-Wow. Did you have anything else to add?
MS. HILL-No. I think you have everything. We’ve gone through this.
MR. HUNSINGER-Now you do have electricity in the tent, though, right?
MS. HILL-Yes.
MR. HUNSINGER-Yes. I thought so because you have a cash register out there.
MS. HILL-Cash register, fans, credit card machines.
MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. Yes.
MR. FORD-All of the essentials.
MS. HILL-All the essentials, and a cooler.
MR. HUNSINGER-Questions, comments?
MRS. STEFFAN-No, pretty straightforward.
MR. HUNSINGER-I thank you for bringing your application at the same time as the
Family Footwear so two similar projects in the same evening. We do have a public
hearing scheduled. Is there anyone in the audience that wants to address the Board on
this application? I will open the public hearing. Any written comments, Keith?
PUBLIC HEARING OPENED
MR. OBORNE-No.
MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. I will close the public hearing. Let the record show there were
no commenters.
PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED
MR. HUNSINGER-And I will entertain a motion.
MRS. STEFFAN-Okay, and I’ll make a motion.
MOTION TO APPROVE SITE PLAN NO. 15-2010 SWANK/KATHY HILL, Introduced by
Gretchen Steffan who moved for its adoption, seconded by Stephen Traver:
19
(Queensbury Planning Board 03/16/2010)
1)A site plan application has been made to the Queensbury Planning Board for the
following: Applicant proposes a Tent Sale from June 19 through July 19. Tent
Sales longer than 12 days require Planning Board review and approval.
2)A public hearing was advertised and held on 3/16/2010; 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. 15-2010 SWANK/KATHY HILL,
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 D, waiver requests are granted for stormwater management,
grading, landscaping and lighting. This is approved with the following conditions:
a)Pursuant to relevant sections of the Town of Queensbury Zoning Code
[Chapter 179-9-080]], the Planning Board has determined that this
proposal complies with the requirements as stated in the Zoning Code;
and
b)SEQR 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)Waiver requests granted: stormwater mgmt., grading, landscaping &
lighting plans]
thth
e)That the tent will be installed from June 29 through July 29 for a total of
21 days.
f)That the applicant will contact the Town of Queensbury Fire Marshal’s
Office for inspection prior to tent sale event.
th
Duly adopted this 16 day of March, 2010, by the following vote:
AYES: Mr. Sipp, Mr. Ford, Mr. Jackoski, Mr. Traver, Mrs. Steffan, Mr. Hunsinger
NOES: NONE
ABSENT: Mr. Schonewolf
MR. HUNSINGER-You’re all set. Good luck.
MS. HILL-Thank you very much.
MR. HUNSINGER-Thank you.
SUBDIVISION 2-2008 MODIFICATION SEQR TYPE UNLISTED RAYMOND &
WENDY KRAFT AGENT(S) VAN DUSEN & STEVES OWNER(S) SAME ZONING
WR LOCATION WEST OF CLEVERDALE ROAD APPLICANT PROPOSES
MODIFICATION TO APPROVED SUBDIVISION TO ADD 0.33 +/- ACRES OF LAND TO
EXISTING 1.95 +/- ACRE LOT. MODIFICATION TO AN APPROVED SUBDIVISION
REQUIRES PLANNING BOARD REVIEW AND APPROVAL. CROSS REFERENCE
AV 49-09, SUP 52-09, FW 8-09, SKETCH PLAN 4/15/08, SUP 32-07, SUB 8-00, SUB 2-
00 WARREN CO. PLANNING N/A APA, CEA, OTHER APA WETLANDS, L G CEA
LOT SIZE 1.95 +/- ACRES TAX MAP NO. 240.9-1-16.1 SECTION CHAPTER A 183
TOM HUTCHINS, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT
MR. HUNSINGER-Keith, whenever you’re ready to summarize Staff Notes.
20
(Queensbury Planning Board 03/16/2010)
MR. OBORNE-Absolutely. Subdivision 2-2008, Modification. The applicant is Ray and
Wendy Kraft, the requested action is subdivision modification requires Planning Board
review and approval. Location is 25 Cleverdale Road. Existing zoning is Waterfront
Residential. SEQR Status is Unlisted. Project Description: Applicant proposes a
modification to an approved subdivision by adding 0.33 acres to existing 1.95 acre lot
resulting in a 2.28 acre lot. According to the applicant’s agent, when this 2 lot
subdivision was approved on 9/22/2009, the additional lands in question where thought
to have been conveyed to the neighbor to the North. Upon further investigation by the
applicant and the surveyor, this was not the case and as such the applicant is now
before the Board for approval to add these lands to the approved subdivision.
Concerning SEQR, the Planning Board may either re-affirm previous SEQR findings or
re-open SEQR when making a determination.
MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. Thank you. Good evening.
MR. HUTCHINS-Good evening. My name is Tom Hutchins. I’m here for Van Dusen &
Steves on behalf of applicants Ray and Wendy Kraft, and you’ll recall a subdivision that
was approved in September involved a lot that was just under two acres, which we were
calling Lot One, and what has happened since then is if you look on your Sheet S-3, Lot
One is depicted on the far left of S-3, and you’ll see a light dashed line running from top
to bottom of the page. It’s 50 feet in from the northerly bounds of Lot One as it’s
showing. On the subdivision that was approved, that dashed line was the parcel line.
Now what there was is there was a map that had been mapped off to be sold some years
ago some years ago, and for a reason that I’m not fully aware of, the sale was never
made. So technically the parcel was still part of Kraft’s original parcel, although it was
mapped otherwise because the surveyors had mapping that showed it being taken off.
So, it has absolutely no impact on any of the infrastructure or other facets of the
subdivision whatsoever. It just takes Lot One and makes it 2.28 acres instead of 1.95
acres.
MR. OBORNE-And not to be an advocate for this. It does make the lot compliant under
current zoning.
MR. HUNSINGER-Did you have anything else to add?
MR. HUTCHINS-No, I don’t believe so. I do have a copy of the signed approved map, if
anyone wants to compare them. That’s all.
MR. HUNSINGER-Questions, comments from the Board? It looks pretty straightforward,
although I was, well, I mean, you explained it. It wasn’t clear to me what the issue was,
but you just explained it.
MR. HUTCHINS-Apparently it had been mapped out to be sold, and the map somehow
made it into the surveyor’s file. Ray thought it had been sold, actually, and it turned out it
never had been.
MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. No questions or comments from the Board? We do have a
public hearing scheduled this evening. Is there anyone in the audience that wants to
address the Board on this application? I will open the public hearing. Any written
comments?
PUBLIC HEARING OPENED
MR. OBORNE-Yes, there is. “My name is Frank Munoff and I reside at 2626 Route 9L in
Queensbury. This communication is in relation to Raymond and Wendy Kraft and their
request to modify their approved subdivision this evening. The Krafts are excellent
neighbors, and I have no objections to their request and want the Board to know that I
am in favor of their request for compliance. If you have further information regarding this
matter, I can be reached at”, number is submitted, “Respectfully submitted, Frank
Munoff”. That’s it.
MR. HUNSINGER-Thank you. If there are no other commentors in the audience, I will
close the public hearing.
PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED
MR. HUNSINGER-It’s an Unlisted action. We are required to re-visit SEQRA.
21
(Queensbury Planning Board 03/16/2010)
MRS. STEFFAN-I think with this having been looked at just last September, only a few
months ago, I don’t think it would be necessary to re-open SEQRA at this time.
MR. FORD-Re-affirm.
MRS. STEFFAN-Re-affirm. So we could re-affirm it.
MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. All right. I will entertain a motion, then.
MRS. STEFFAN-Okay. I’ll make a motion to approve.
MOTION TO APPROVE MODIFICATION TO SUBDIVISION NO. 2-2008 RAYMOND &
WENDY KRAFT, Introduced by Gretchen Steffan who moved for its adoption, seconded
by Stephen Traver:
1.
A subdivision application has been made to the Queensbury Planning Board for
the following: Modification to approved subdivision to add 0.33 +/- acres of land
to existing 1.95 +/- acre lot. Modification to an approved subdivision requires
Planning Board review and approval; and
2. A public hearing was scheduled and held on 3/16/2010; 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. 2-2008
RAYMOND & WENDY KRAFT, 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 requirements of the State Environmental Quality Review
Act have been re-considered and the proposed modification does not result in
any new or significantly different environmental impacts and therefore no further
SEQRA review is necessary. It’s approved without conditions.
a)Pursuant to relevant sections of the Town of Queensbury Zoning Code
[Chapter A-183], the Planning Board has determined that this proposal
complies with the requirements as stated in the Zoning Code; and
b) The requirements of the State Environmental Quality Review Act have
been considered and the proposed modification[s] do not result in any
new or significantly different environmental impacts, and, therefore, no
further SEQRA review is necessary; and
c) Final approved plans, in compliance with the Subdivision, must be
submitted to the Community Development Department before any further
review by the Zoning Administrator or Building and Codes personnel. The
applicant must meet with Staff after approval and prior to issuance of
Building Permit and/or the beginning of any site work. Subsequent
issuance of further permits, including building permits is dependent on
compliance with this and all other conditions of this resolution; and
d)The limits of clearing will constitute a no-cut buffer zone, orange
construction fencing shall be installed around these areas and field
verified by Community Development staff
e)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
f)If applicable, Item e to be combined with a letter of credit;
th
Duly adopted this 16 day of March, 2010, by the following vote:
AYES: Mr. Sipp, Mr. Jackoski, Mr. Ford, Mr. Traver, Mrs. Steffan, Mr. Hunsinger
NOES: NONE
ABSENT: Mr. Schonewolf
22
(Queensbury Planning Board 03/16/2010)
MR. HUNSINGER-You’re all set.
MR. HUTCHINS-Thank you.
MR. HUNSINGER-Thank you.
SITE PLAN NO. 7-2010 SEQR TYPE UNLISTED LUCAS WILSON – EARTH
SPECIALTY PRODUCTS AGENT(S) DARRAH LAND SURVEYING, PLLC
OWNER(S) SAME ZONING CLI LOCATION 139 & 141 RIVER STREET
APPLICANT PROPOSES STORAGE AND SALE OF BULK LANDSCAPE PRODUCTS.
FURTHER THE APPLICANT PROPOSES STORAGE OF HEAVY EQUIPMENT.
CONSTRUCTION COMPANIES, HEAVY EQUIPMENT STORAGE AND RETAIL
BUSINESS IN THE CLI ZONE REQUIRE PLANNING BOARD REVIEW AND
APPROVAL. CROSS REFERENCE 2000-015 [DEMOLITION] WARREN CO.
PLANNING 3/10/2010 LOT SIZE 1.33 & 1.66 ACRES TAX MAP NO. 303.20-2-43, 44
SECTION 179-9-010
LUCAS WILSON, PRESENT
MR. HUNSINGER-Keith, whenever you’re ready to summarize Staff Notes, please.
MR. OBORNE-Site Plan 7-2010, Lucas Wilson – Specialty Products. Requested action –
construction companies, heavy equipment storage and retail businesses in the
Commercial Light Industrial zone require Planning Board review and approval. Location
is 139 & 141 River Street, existing zoning is Commercial Light Industrial. This is a Type
II SEQRA . The Project Description: Applicant proposes storage and sale of bulk
landscape products adjacent to River Street in South Queensbury. The applicant also
proposes a home/office to serve as the business and the storage of heavy equipment on
site. Staff Comments: The parcels proposed associated with this project once had a
concrete manufacturing facility and currently has a single family residence located on the
eastern parcel. The applicant wishes to store and sell bulk landscape items for both the
general public and business. Further, the applicant proposes to store heavy equipment
associated with the business on site. Soils follow. Site Plan Review, as far as Staff is
concerned, there are some access issues through National Grid property. There’s a
Type C buffer that is required to the property to the west, because it’s a residential use at
this point. It is my understanding that that is not an issue with that landowner. However,
the Planning Board would have to waive that, and pretty much what follows is pretty run
of the mill stuff. Additional comments: The applicant may wish to contact the
Department of Building and Codes. The applicant has done so. There’s a letter before
each of the Planning Board members tonight. Handicap access to the Sales Trailer is
proposed. Paragon Engineering comments are attached, as are the Fire Marshal’s. I’ll
turn it over to the Board.
MR. HUNSINGER-Thank you, Keith. Good evening.
MR. WILSON-Good evening.
MR. HUNSINGER-If you could identify yourselves for the record.
MR. WILSON-I’m Luke Wilson, the owner of the business. This is Tom Jarrett to my left,
my engineer, and my surveyor, Don Darrah, and I’m here tonight hoping to get
conditional Site Plan approval so I can get started. Spring is coming, you know, we sell
landscape supplies. We’re not manufacturing there. We’re just, you know, just basically
buying and bringing it in and re-selling it to the public. I’ve done it for years now. I’ve
been in business probably seven years. I was over on Maple Street in Hudson Falls, but
my landlord, it didn’t work out, so I ended up buying this piece of property in Queensbury.
I’m looking forward to getting it opened up and, you know, it’s a short season, so I’m
really hoping you guys will work with me. I’ll comply with anything you guys need me to
do to make it okay with the situation that you’re involved with as well, with the
requirements. I’m just hoping this doesn’t get dragged out, because the season is, like I
say, is between April and July, and I’ve got to try to get going on this so I can get my
business opened up. So, I’m hoping for your support on this.
MR. FORD-Welcome to Queensbury.
MR. WILSON-Yes, I know. Well, I have a house in Queensbury, too. Thank God I didn’t
have to come here for that, but it was already going, but we’re pretty straightforward
here, I think, what we’re trying to do. As far as my home office, it’s actually my house.
23
(Queensbury Planning Board 03/16/2010)
I’m going to be living in there. I talked to Dave Hatin. The temporary, you know,
construction trailer that we’re going to put in, you know, we need to go in front of the
planning for a holding tank variance, and that’s one of the reasons why we have to hold
off on that until, and we’re just not going to bring the trailer on site until we get that
through, which is next, in a couple of weeks, and he didn’t see a problem with it. So, as
far as my neighbor, I’ve got a picture here, and she wrote a nice letter. I only have one,
but.
MR. HUNSINGER-I was going to say, give it to Keith. He’ll read it into the record.
MR. WILSON-This is in the wintertime. So when it’s green, it’s very, very, and this is the
letter.
MR. HUNSINGER-Give it to Keith. So the picture, this is just to depict the natural
vegetation that’s there between you and your neighbor.
MR. WILSON-Yes, and that’s just because we didn’t have them on our plan, I guess, you
really couldn’t see it, but that way you can see. I’m not going to touch any of that, what’s
there. It’s quite, I mean, you’re not going to be able to see through that, when the green
comes out of it, you know.
MR. HUNSINGER-Did you have anything else to add on any of the other specific Staff
Notes, Staff comments?
MR. JARRETT-We obtained the comments on Friday, and I have a package addressing
the engineering comments if you wish to address to address them, and Luke and Don
can address the other Staff comments regarding Site Plan.
MR. WILSON-Well, Don can address the NiMo.
DON DARRAH
MR. DARRAH-We’ve been in contact with National Grid. We have the application to
gain their approval to continue that use that’s already there. It’s an existing curb cut.
That’s basically why that route, access is being used.
MR. FORD-Did they give you a timeline for that?
MR. WILSON-We just received the application this morning. I do not have a timeline for
that, no, and we won’t be using that, as far as my business. That’s basically towards my
house side, my house where I live there currently now. So, I mean, that’s why I put it
really for me to come in and out, and it’s more for personal use, as far as the business
access for what we’re trying to obtain Site Plan approval on is on the other side, you
know, of the plan.
MR. HUNSINGER-Some of the engineering comments are real specific regarding
stormwater calculations.
MR. JARRETT-Do you want to address those?
MR. HUNSINGER-Well, I mean, I think you can address them verbally.
MR. JARRETT-Okay, but why don’t I give this to you, and I’ll just address them verbally.
MR. HUNSINGER-Because I mean one of the comments is that the calculations were
not provided to show that the volume will drain.
MR. JARRETT-Yes, and we now have provided that.
MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. Well, maybe before you walk through the handout, let me ask
the Board if there’s any questions or comments from members of the Board before we
dig into the new information. Any questions, comments from members of the Board?
MRS. STEFFAN-I guess one of the questions I have, Keith, when I was doing my prep at
home, I thought that there was a lot of outstanding issues, and that, you know, we’re
pretty far in our approval. When you read the Staff Notes into the record, you seem to
indicate that the issues were not significant, the outstanding issues were not significant.
24
(Queensbury Planning Board 03/16/2010)
MR. OBORNE-Well, I think as far as the planning aspect of it, I don’t think there’s many
outstanding issues. I think that there are issues that can easily be taken care of, but we
can certainly go through those. I think that the main issue is stormwater on this property,
because of soils in the area, and the fact that this used to be a concrete manufacturing
place. It’s rock solid. I mean, it really is, and also a few of my issues with the applicant
meeting with Dave Hatin. That’s why there’s a level of comfort there.
MRS. STEFFAN-Okay.
MR. OBORNE-Certainly don’t want to dismiss, there are some issues there, absolutely.
MR. JARRETT-And if I can jump in, I think you will see that a lot of these are resolved
very easily, as we go through these, and if you feel that they’re not, then we’ll go another
route.
MRS. STEFFAN-Okay. Good.
MR. JARRETT-Just to give you a broad overview of how we started, this site drains to
the south toward the river, essentially to the southwest corner right now, and there’s a
culvert there existing at that corner. We’re maintaining those drainage patterns
essentially, and we’re just going to impound water right near that culvert before it flows
through the culvert. So we’re really going to stop it there, slow it down and impound
water for infiltration right there. There is actually two, there’s a divide on the property and
a portion of the site drains to the east toward that National Grid right of way, and you can
see where the septic system is shown on our plan. What we’ve done, since the septic
system is in that drainage path leading toward the National Grid property, we’ve
minimized, change the drainage pattern slightly to reduce the amount of water that flows
near that septic system. So we have a little bit more water going toward the west toward
that culvert. That is the design intent in a nutshell, but getting into the details that
Paragon commented on, Number One is just signatures of the plans, and our plans were
signed, and the final plans will be signed. TC-1, there were no comments. EC-1,
vegetation wasn’t shown on the survey. That was just an oversight. What we did was
just a reconnaissance, visual reconnaissance ourselves, for development of the
stormwater calculations and stormwater plan, and we discussed that briefly with Clark,
because he saw some trees that had been removed from the property, and we did not
realize that when we mottled the site. So he re-mottled the site, you have the
calculations in front of you, and we upgraded the design to account for that. We took
those trees into account as existing.
MR. OBORNE-Tom, wouldn’t the trees reduce the amount of runoff, the existence of
trees?
MR. JARRETT-Yes, so there’s a greater difference between pre and post.
MR. OBORNE-Okay.
MR. JARRETT-So we’ve now mottled it so it’s more conservative as he suggested.
MR. OBORNE-Okay. I apologize.
MR. JARRETT-Sheet PC-1, Item Number One, the area of proposed concrete storage
bin should be mottled as impervious. We did do that. It was done that way.
MR. HUNSINGER-Okay.
MR. JARRETT-Item Number Two, the proposed palletized stone display area should
also be included as impervious area. We disagree. That’s a green space. Those pallets
will not be changed very often. Stormwater can seep underneath those pallets and
infiltrate. We don’t really think that’s an impervious area, and we disagree with that. It
may have been the way it was conveyed on our plans, but we think that’s not impervious
area. Item Number Three, the proposed tree line was not indicated on the plan, and that
affects runoff. That really reflects back to that earlier comment where we re-mottled the
site to account for existing conditions. Item Number Four, the existing landscape mulch
stockpile is not indicated as being removed/relocated, and replaced with seed and
mulch. That’s now been done. It’s on the plan. Sheet DT-1, Item Number One, the
construction sequence was not submitted. Well, it was in the SWPPP, it must have been
just missed during that review. It’s in there. Sheet C-1, the plan should indicate any soil
test pits and percolation test results. Last week Clark was out there to witness perc tests
and test pits done by our office. As Keith alluded, there is a layer of tight stone dust near
25
(Queensbury Planning Board 03/16/2010)
that culvert, just below the ground surface. The percolation test, by the way, was
acceptable and it was very rapid. So that was good, but we do agree that that soil layer
needs to be removed, and we’ve done that on the plan. We’ve shown a stone layer
being placed, after we dug out that tight soil, that tight stone dust. So there’d be a
course granular material now in the infiltration basin, and that’s shown on the detail that
you have in front of you. The grading within our stormwater basin, we showed it as 2.5
on one. We have now softened that at 3 on 1 or flatter. Item Number Three, this is on
Sheet C-1 still, the stormwater management area does not have access shown for long
term maintenance. The entire area is accessible for maintenance, and that will remain
that way. So the comment is I think moot at this stage. Item Number Four, the
stormwater collection swale should indicate the grading needed for slope and the
treatment of it and width, including spot elevations and contours, to show the impact of
grading the swale on site. We’ll get to that in just a second. We’ll refer to Item Number
Six. Item Number Five refers back to that same tree line comment, which we dealt with.
Now we’re getting to Item Number Six, this is at the top of Page Four in our responses.
There is no proposed grading shown on the plan except in the area of the proposed
stormwater basin. We’re really proposing very few changes in site grade, except in the
stormwater basin, and except in these very shallow swales that we’re utilizing throughout
the site to convey drainage to the stormwater basin. We’ve shown a construction detail
for those swales. We’ve indicated a minimum grade on the detail now, and we’ve
shown grading where we have contours to utilize. One note, we’re really trying to
promote infiltration in these swales. We’re really not trying to establish a strong drainage
gradient in these swales. Years ago, that would be the intent. Now we try to reverse it.
We try to keep stormwater as near to the source as we can, and make these swales
rather inefficient is the word we often use. Item Number Seven, there is no indication of
the method of construction, i.e. topsoil removed and gravel placed to existing grade, etc.
This effects how the sediment control will function. Essentially there’s very little topsoil
and vegetation on the site now, and we’re really not planning on adding a lot. Luke may
have to add some gravel in a few areas, but it’ll be placed essentially atop the existing
grade for the most part. Item Number Eight, there is no indication of concrete and/or
asphalt washout areas, stockpile areas and staging storage areas. These items should
be clearly indicated on the plan, and protected from erosion or sediment transport. We
don’t plan any concrete construction or asphalt paving. So we don’t need any of those
areas. There will be a little bit of stockpile needed. As Luke builds these swales, he may
have to move some of the mulch or topsoil temporarily. He’ll probably just move it to
another area within the stockpile, the existing stockpile.
MR. HUNSINGER-The comment there, though, about the asphalt washout area,
stockpile and staging, maybe he’s referring to existing areas? I can only speculate.
Maybe he means the existing areas where?
MRS. STEFFAN-Those big chunks of concrete that are in the back.
MR. WILSON-Yes, that was there when I got there. Basically what we did is, you know,
just piled, they were, there was chunk of them laying around, I put them in one little pile
there.
MR. HUNSINGER-Right, and that was shown on the map, but what caught my eye was
the washout area, you know.
MR. WILSON-I mean, after any storm I’ve seen on site, just by living there, there’s no
water. It drains very well on the site. I haven’t seen any issues with washout.
MR. HUNSINGER-Well, washout meaning to rinse the.
MR. JARRETT-Yes, it’s prior activity.
MR. HUNSINGER-Right.
MR. JARRETT-Okay. I see what you’re driving at now, and we can put that on the plan,
if there are still areas out there remaining. You may have cleaned some of those up.
MR. WILSON-Yes, I’ll do whatever you need.
MR. HUNSINGER-Yes. Like I said, I’m speculating. Maybe that’s what he meant, not
that you’re going to be doing those things, but the prior owner did those things.
MR. JARRETT-If there are some areas out there that will remain, we’ll show them on the
plan. Otherwise, they’ll be cleaned up. Item Number Nine, the silt fence shown on the
26
(Queensbury Planning Board 03/16/2010)
plan is not shown in accordance with the DEC manual. Specifically silt fence is only
used for sheet flow conditions, and therefore should be shown parallel with the existing
and/or proposed contours. This is a very flat site, and we believe that the silt fence as
shown will function in accordance with the DEC standards and the way they’re intended.
Along the west, excuse me, along the east property line, where it borders National Grid,
there is an existing relatively deep swale. That’s the one area where we could have
some concentrated flow. So we’ve shown an earth berm there in lieu of silt fence for
erosion control.
MR. OBORNE-Tom, what slopes can silt fencing be installed on, what’s the max slope,
for the Planning Board?
MR. JARRETT-Several percent. I don’t remember the exact number. Several percent I
what they recommend.
MR. OBORNE-I think it’s four to one, something along those lines.
MR. JARRETT-It’s flatter than that, and our site is on the order of two percent.
MR. OBORNE-I was going to say, you can install silt fences on the toe on four to one
slopes, somewhere around there. Anything above that is not going to work.
MR. JARRETT-Well our site doesn’t come close to four to one slopes. That’s a 25%
slope. We’re down in the two to three percent range.
MR. HUNSINGER-Yes.
MR. JARRETT-Item Number 10, a note should be included on the plan to prohibit
construction traffic from using the eastern most access onto River Street. We’ve added
that note. Eventually that access may be available, but for right now we’ve shown it as
not available for construction. Number Eleven, the existing landscape mulch stockpile is
not indicated as being removed/relocated and replaced with seed and mulch, and may
effect the proposed Collection Swale. This is the pile at the very western portion of the
site. We expect that mulch stockpile will be used during construction by Luke, or sold
very quickly, and either way he can move the stockpile if he needs to. So it’s not an
issue. Under SWPPP, Item Number One, this is still on Page Five, the report indicates
that the existing soils are “Elmridge”, and classified as a “C” Soil, the computations
indicate a “D” soil. This should be corrected. Well, for the Board you may realize that a
“C” soil is slightly more permeable than a “D” soil. A “D” is a poorer soil condition. We
recognize that this was an industrial site. So we mottled it as a “D”, more compact and
more impervious than what a normal Elmridge soil would be. So we stand by that on the
western portion of the site. On the eastern portion of the site, where we don’t have any
of that same type of construction, we re-mottled it per Paragon’s recommendation as a
“C”, and the stormwater calculations still work. So that is fine. Item Number Two, the
design and details indicate that the proposed stormwater control area will not have a
discharge from the site below an elevation of 239.6, with groundwater infiltration utilized
for the dissipation of that volume. Calculations were not provided to show that this
volume will drain in 24 hours. The percolation test that we did shows seven inches per
hour of infiltration, and our basin is a maximum of 1.5 feet deep. So that’s roughly two
hours it’ll drain in. Even given for some siltation over time, it’s well within the 48 hours
that DEC recommends for drainage of an infiltration structure. Item Number Three, there
is no provision for 10% of the infiltration area to be below frost elevation We modified
the plans and have provided that. It’s in your details. Item Number Four, for all storms
above the 25-year design storm, the peak elevation is shown higher than the proposed
top of the management basin. If the basin were to overtop, the storm water would flow to
the adjoining property to the west. We didn’t believe that was true, but rather than show
elevations to prove that, we’ve re-mottled the basin, taking into account a number of
other comments here, and actually enlarged the basin so there’s no chance of an
overtopping at all. So we’ve reduced the elevation of overflow to well below the site
contours. Item Number Five, the time of concentration for the proposed conditions
indicates an increase. The applicant’s engineer must provide the reasoning for this
increase. When mottling, when designing stormwater systems, these days, you try to
disconnect stormwater systems as best you can. You try not to connect them in an
integrated system so that you get rapid flow off the site. You try to make it as (lost word)
a condition as possible for stormwater flow, and that’s what we’ve done with these
swales, and it actually increases the time it takes for stormwater to runoff the site from
pre-existing conditions, and that’s a well accepted practice for managing stormwater, and
our swales do that, and that coupled with the stormwater basin actually exceeds the
Town and DEC standards significantly. Staff comments, Page C-1, clarification on the
27
(Queensbury Planning Board 03/16/2010)
method of storage for bulk materials should be forthcoming. Are materials to be placed
in bins as discussed with staff or piles as denoted on the plan? Early on we had bins
with three sides around each material, and then later on Luke and our team discussed
putting a bend along the center spine of the storage area. If you see it on our plan, it
really is just along the back wall of each storage area, and the side wall or wing walls on
each storage area are not really required. So we’ve deleted those from the plan. So the
plan is correct as shown. I think that just became confusing over time. D-1, Item
Number One, this is on the bottom of Page Six, Two types of silt fencing for Erosion and
Sediment Control are proposed; one with woven wire fencing (DT-1) and one without (D-
1). Please clarify type of fencing to be used. The silt fencing on D-1 meets the DEC
standards, and that’s what we propose. We’ve actually updated the plan to show the
woven wire fencing is as required for extra strength where you have some concentrated
flow or steeper slopes. Normally people try to use just geo textile fabric in these silt
fences, and that’s adequate on the flat slope, but they can add the woven wire fencing as
a strength enhancer when it’s needed. So we’ve updated our detail to show that, and
that’s meet the DEC standard. Normally what we show on a plan is a generic sediment
control barrier, parallel to the contours or around the perimeter, in this particular case,
because we have a flat site, and that was what was intended here, although we showed
the symbol for a silt fence. What Clark picked up on is that we narrowed the use down to
just a silt fence, and that was not intended. So we changed the symbol to be a generic
symbol. That means Luke can use any of the approved devices shown on our Drawing
EC-1 for sediment control, including the earth dike or earth berm that we’ve shown on
the eastern property line, a silt fence, which is probably what he’ll use in most areas on
this site, but there are also sandbags that can be used, a number of different items can
be used, and it really falls, it’s a performance standard. It falls back on the contractor
and the owner to make sure that sediment is controlled. Item Number Two, straw bale
dike detail on page yet not located on plot plan page C-1. I believe that has now been
done. I may have to defer to Keith on this to make sure I’m clear on what.
MR. OBORNE-You have put it on some locations for erosion control on the plan, that I’ll
be receiving, or that I just received?
MR. JARRETT-Yes. So I think you will see that even though we’ve re-mottled the
stormwater system to address these comments, most of the comments were pretty minor
in nature, and for clarification or just documenting the plan better, but I’ll open it up to any
questions that you might have regarding technical issues or any other issues.
MR. HUNSINGER-I did have a question on the sign. You didn’t give us any details, what
you have in mind.
MR. OBORNE-You should have a photo in your, it’s a current sign. It’s a pre-existing
sign that he’s using.
MR. WILSON-You should have a photo.
MR. HUNSINGER-I missed it. I’m sorry. I apologize.
MR. WILSON-It’s stapled to the front of the application.
MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. I didn’t realize. Okay. I did see that. I can’t find it now, but I
did see it. Any other questions, comments from members of the Board? The sign’s not
lit at all, is it?
MR. WILSON-No. There’s a streetlight there, though.
MR. HUNSINGER-Yes. Nothing else from the Board? We do have a public hearing
scheduled this evening. Is there anyone in the audience that wants to address the
Board? Okay. We do have some members of the audience that want to address the
Board. The purpose of the public hearing is to provide the public an opportunity to
provide comments to the Board. I would ask that you state your name for the record.
We do tape the meeting, to transcribe the minutes, and I would ask that you address any
questions or comments to the Board.
PUBLIC HEARING OPENED
JEFF REHM
MR. REHM-Okay. Good evening. My name is Jeff Rehm. I own and operate the
restaurant that’s directly across the street from this site. I’m happy that business is
28
(Queensbury Planning Board 03/16/2010)
moving in over there. It’s been kind of an eyesore, but I did want to address some
concerns. I do own the restaurant. It’s a car hop facility, the food, so it’s all outdoor stuff,
and I was just concerned if there was going to be fertilizers or manures or what actually
was going to be for sale over there that may impact my restaurant that’s directly across
the street, and I just wanted to, also hours of operation and what there may be possible
things that could impact, you know, I’ve been over there for 60 some odd years and I just
want to know what’s going to be happening on a day to day basis over there.
MR. HUNSINGER-Okay.
MR. REHM-That’s pretty much it.
MR. HUNSINGER-Are you concerned about odors?
MR. REHM-I realize there’s going to be trucks and things moving around, but odors, you
know, possible dust. I mean, people are sitting in their cars, the windows are open, and,
you know, I mean, I just wanted to put these things out there. I don’t see of anything
that’s, you know, I know he’s got a business to run but, you know, so do I, over there. So
that’s it, really.
MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. Thank you.
MR. REHM-You’re welcome.
MRS. STEFFAN-Thanks.
JOSEPH WALKUP
MR. WALKUP-My name’s Joseph Walkup. I own 149 and 147 River Street. I’ve been
there, I’ve 48, all my life. I’m the third generation there. I’ve got the same concerns as
Jeff there, odors and all of that, water runoff. Working hours. I have no problems with a
man, progress, working for himself. I’ve been self-employed since 1989, and those are
the same concerns I have, okay, the working hours, dust, smell. We have three families
there, plus two across the road, and I know it’s zoned Light Industrial and Residential.
So those are my concerns. I don’t have any problem with the guy. I don’t know him that
much, but I hope we can be good neighbors. That’s it.
MR. HUNSINGER-Let me ask you a question. You mentioned runoff. Is there a history,
or have there been problems with runoff on this site?
MR. WALKUP-I haven’t had any problems now. Since they did the construction on the
road, re-do it, they put the, those side things, it comes in my yard and down into my
basement, but I diverted it, so it runs down in the yard. My yard, those three properties
out there are lower than his. So if we have any problems with the water, it’s going to
come into ours, but like he says, it’s higher, then it converts towards the east, and the
west it’s lower. That, Torrington was there, and they had the building there, there’s a big
old metal thing that goes out towards the river. I really don’t think that’s working. It’s old,
and they did dump a lot of concrete on that property. So, it needs to be addressed.
Because I know one time when I was a kid, they kind of, for the dust they put some type
of oil on the thing, and it went right into the yards and burnt the grass out. So that’s, I
could tell you the history of that property out there. So, that’s the only thing I’m
concerned.
MR. OBORNE-Mr. Walkup, where are you located? Are you where the hands are here?
MR. WALKUP-Right there in the middle.
MR. OBORNE-Right here?
MR. WALKUP-Yes. I own that one and the one to the right, no the other way. Right
there. I bought those in ’93. The one that’s in there to the right, my cousin lives in there,
and we’re in the process of him owning it, but I’ve been there, like I said, 48, I’ve been
there my whole life. My father used to walk up the road to work, Ciba Geigy. That’s my
concern.
MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. Thank you.
MR. WALKUP-Like I said, I’ve been self-employed doing construction all my life. I
owned a bar on Warren Street up there. I have no problems, and I hope he runs his
29
(Queensbury Planning Board 03/16/2010)
business, be respectful to me and I’ll be respectful to him. Hours, you know, Saturdays,
let us sleep in. During the week, bust your butt, you know.
MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. Thank you.
MR. WALKUP-Thank you.
MR. HUNSINGER-Anyone else? Did you have any written comments, Keith?
MR. OBORNE-Yes. To Town of Queensbury, dated today. “I live at 147 River Street,
and we now have a neighbor, Luke Wilson, who bought the property next door to me, the
lot right next door. He is trying to run his business, and he has been no trouble
whatsoever. When he moved in, he came and introduced himself and explained what he
wanted to accomplish. He has not been noisy or unbearable. The Town DPW is much
louder and I hear them starting at 8:30 in the morning. We like the way everything is now
and would not like to have any barriers between our property. If there is a problem or
you need to talk to us, by all means stop by or call. Tricia Gross and Mickey Guy”
MR. HUNSINGER-A couple of the commenters asked about hours of operation and any
odors or dust or anything like that. Could you comment on that?
MR. WILSON-Well, my compost facility is out on a farm, I have a farm, but the topsoil’s
topsoil, it doesn’t smell like cow manure or anything like that. Other than that, Watkins
does have, right next to him, the first person, does have a compost facility which is in
proximity to his place, right, and horizontal, not even 200 feet away. So, I mean, if we
were to take a tape measure out, he’s probably closer than I am, as far as composting. I
don’t have any compost. It’s going to be topsoil. That’s it. No cow manure. I have a, I’ll
use calcium to keep the dust down. We’re not going to want dust flying all over the
place. I can concur with that, and he’ll have the same problem in his gravel driveway as
well, with his customers. So, likewise, you know, his driveway is all stone dust. So, you
know, he’s going to have the same issues with his cars.
MR. FORD-Hours of operation?
MR. WILSON-Seven to five.
MR. FORD-How many days a week?
MR. WILSON-It’ll be five days a week. Of course in the season we’d like to be open
seven days because it’s a short window. It’s only 12 weeks of business. We’d like to be
open on Saturdays on Sundays, but, you know, we can limit that to, maybe make it later
in the morning or something, you know, if that’s what we need to do, but, I mean, like I
say, we’ve got to make our monies between, you know, April and July, and, you know,
taxes are high there. I’ve got people I’ve got to feed. So, I don’t know what to say. You
can’t make money if you’re not open, and back in the day, when Callahan and Torrington
was there, that place was open 24 hours a day. So, I don’t know, you know, they made
concrete right around the clock there. I’m just asking for a little business to open up and
sell material, make a living. That’s it.
MRS. STEFFAN-How about the fertilizer issue?
MR. WILSON-I don’t sell fertilizer.
MRS. STEFFAN-Okay.
MR. WILSON-We do, but like I say, I store my compost at a farm. We make a sale, we
get it from the farm. It’s in Kingsbury.
MR. JARRETT-You’re not going to stockpile it there.
MR. WILSON-No.
MRS. STEFFAN-Okay. So only organic stuff, and you’ll get it from someplace else.
MR. WILSON-Yes, I mean, the topsoil that we have there now obviously has been there
forever. As a matter of fact, that pile that was there was there forever. I mean, that’s
why, you know, we’re just going to sell that, what we don’t use on site after construction.
MR. SIPP-What size truck do you anticipate being used in your?
30
(Queensbury Planning Board 03/16/2010)
MR. WILSON-Well, it’ll be a dump truck. You’ll have regular dump truck tandems
coming in, tri-axels and, you know, and possibly even dump trailers in there, but, you
know, just, but this isn’t a, you know, this isn’t a, you know, probably dump trucks mainly
is how I bring it from the farm over, you know, to dump it in the piles, no different than
what Gardentime’s doing and what everybody else is doing right around me. Watkins is
right next door.
AUDIENCE MEMBER-They’re down the road.
MR. WILSON-Yes, the Watkins is right across the road.
MR. JACKOSKI-What is the process for making bark mulch?
MR. WILSON-Well, that I buy, you know, I sold it to real (lost words) I used to own that,
and then I go pick it up, you know, already manufactured. I’m not doing any
manufacturing on my site.
MR. JACKOSKI-So there’ll be no manufacturing on site?
MR. WILSON-No.
MR. HUNSINGER-Any other questions from the Board?
MR. FORD-Storage and sales, then?
MR. WILSON-That’s it.
MR. JACKOSKI-Is it possible that you’d be comfortable with maybe limiting the loading
times?
MR. WILSON-Well, as long as we could, you know, I mean, most people are up and
moving by seven o’clock in the morning Monday through Fridays. I mean, eight o’clock
would be the latest I’d, in my opinion, because a lot of people, like landscapers, they
want to come in and get the stuff and go to the homeowner and get them taken care of,
you know. I mean, on the weekends, you know, we usually open from, like from eight
until noon on Saturday, and from nine to one on Sundays or something, you know, just to
give that homeowner that opportunity to come get some material. That’s why we need to
be open on weekends, because that’s when homeowners can do their work.
MR. JACKOSKI-What do you think the mix is of business clients versus residential
clients?
MR. WILSON-More residents. Mainly a pick up comes in, you know, we fill their pickup
up. They go home and spread it. Cranesville’s one of my distributors, you know, even
though they could go get it there, people have supported me over the years. I work with
Cranesville a lot, and the homeowner comes and gets it and spreads it. That’s about it.
We have some landscapers, but there’s no money in it. I don’t deduct anything. I don’t
lower my prices for a landscaper. It is what it is.
MR. JACKOSKI-In the landscaping business, is there any chance you could improve the
look of your signage, some landscaping around it, instead of just some four by four
posts?
MR. WILSON-Well, what I planned on doing was raising it with some big boulders and
putting it up nice and making it look nice, you know, put the sign in the center but elevate
it up a little bit so it’s a little higher with some big rocks, make a bed like and then set the
sign inside the bed. We could do something like that.
MR. JACKOSKI-Could you add some greenery or some shrubbery or some plantings of
some sort?
MR. WILSON-Yes, I mean, if that’s what you guys want me to do, I just don’t want to
make the greenery cover the sign where you can’t even read it.
MR. JACKOSKI-No, we understand that. Of course.
MR. WILSON-My thing is visibility. I didn’t spend all this money and have 500 feet of
road frontage to not be seen, you know what I mean, and I want to be out there, and if
31
(Queensbury Planning Board 03/16/2010)
you saw where I was before, I always maintained it, and, listen, my landlord used to be
Bob Barber, if that says anything. I had to make that look pretty, and that was an
eyesore, and I did make it look pretty. That was a challenge. This here, you know, I plan
on making it really nice. It’s mine. So, I’m excited about doing it.
MR. HUNSINGER-I mean, you do show quite a bit of landscaping along the road
frontage. So it seems like you’d want to have some kind of landscaping around your sign
as well.
MR. WILSON-Yes. We didn’t put anything there, but maybe we could, you know, what I
wanted to do is to take some, like out in (lost words). I did the (lost word) park years ago
as one of my construction project, and how nice that looks in the front there. We’ll put
some big rocks and fill it with some topsoil and put the sign in it, so it looks nice and it’s
up a little bit higher.
MR. JACKOSKI-Yes. I think as long as Tom’s got it on the plan, I mean, that’s.
MR. WILSON-Well, we can add that, you asked about it, and if you want.
MR. JARRETT-I can bump out the landscaping to go around the sign, and show
plantings there.
MR. SIPP-That would be good, low growing. What size loader do you have?
MR. WILSON-Well, I have a 920 CAT, but mainly what we use is a skid steer. It’s very
quiet. It’s a Bobcat S300. That would be the loads most of the time. It’s very quiet. The
loader will only be used to push the piles up to make them look pretty, and usually
they’re too big for a truck, you know, a pickup, and most people buy just a yard at a time.
MR. SIPP-If I came in with a small pickup, you would load that?
MR. WILSON-With a Bobcat. Yes. We have a one yard and a half yard bucket. So we
can, because, you know, there’s not much profit margin. If you make a mistake, you
don’t make anything. So we have the bucket to fit the right size. We had weights and
measures come in, and we got the right stuff on there so everybody gets what they’re
supposed to get.
MR. HUNSINGER-If you had a question or a comment, I’ll need to get you on the record.
MR. WALKUP-Just one question. On the one, (lost words), his walls and everything,
where he’s going to store the material, are along the property of 147?
MR. JARRETT-There’s the property line right there. That’s where he’s planning to store
the material.
MR. WALKUP-Okay.
MR. WILSON-Like where the dumpster is right now.
MR. WALKUP-Okay. All this stuff here is just going to be your?
MR. JARRETT-That’s just stormwater management, down near that culvert.
MR. WALKUP-Okay. So your stuff’s going to be off the property line how much?
MR. JARRETT-The stored materials, the stockpiled materials?
MR. WALKUP-Yes, you know, all your stuff there. Right now you’ve got a bunch of stuff
right there, right on the property, with fuel tanks and all that. Just in case something
happens to your fuel tanks, I just don’t want that to.
MR. WILSON-Those are double wall tanks. They’re empty, and they’re only there for
construction projects. They’re never filled. They’re only used when I have to go to a job,
I take one with me. They’ll never be used on my site.
MR. WALKUP-Okay.
MR. WILSON-I own them, so when I have to go to a job, I put it on the trailer and it goes.
32
(Queensbury Planning Board 03/16/2010)
MR. WALKUP-I’m just nervous with them that close to the land.
MR. WILSON-If you want, I can move them. It’s no problem.
MR. JARRETT-You’re showing that he would move it to the equipment parking area, in
the center of the site?
MR. WALKUP-Yes, that’s fine.
MR. FORD-For the record, you’re Mr. Walkup?
MR. WALKUP-Yes.
MR. FORD-Thank you.
MR. HUNSINGER-Thank you. Any other questions, comments from members of the
Board? People comfortable moving forward? Okay.
MR. JARRETT-If I could address one issue. Mr. Walkup brought up the issue of the
culvert at the southwest corner. We did inspect that culvert and it clears, it’s open. So
it’s functioning now. It may have been a problem in the past, but it is functioning now.
MR. HUNSINGER-Okay.
MR. JACKOSKI-I mean, I’m, personally, encouraged that you’re getting a non-
manufacturing facility in a Light Industrial area, in a neighborhood where there are quite
a few homes still. So it’s kind of almost a nice little use there, and everybody likes good
landscaping.
MR. HUNSINGER-Yes.
MR. JACKOSKI-So, it’s kind of what we always look for.
MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. If everybody’s comfortable moving forward, I will close the
public hearing.
PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED
MR. HUNSINGER-It’s an Unlisted SEQRA. They submitted a Long Form. They
submitted a Short Form. It’s right here.
MRS. STEFFAN-Okay, folks. “Does the action exceed any Type I threshold in 6 NYCRR
Part 617.4?”
MR. HUNSINGER-No.
MR. FORD-No.
MR. TRAVER-No
MRS. STEFFAN-“Will the action receive coordinated review as provided for Unlisted
Actions in 6 NYCRR, Part 617.6?”
MR. HUNSINGER-No.
MR. FORD-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.
MR. SIPP-No.
MRS. STEFFAN-“C2. Aesthetic, agricultural, historic, or other natural or cultural
resources; or community or neighborhood character?”
33
(Queensbury Planning Board 03/16/2010)
MR. HUNSINGER-No.
MR. SIPP-No.
MRS. STEFFAN-“C3. Vegetation, fauna, fish, shellfish or wildlife species, significant
habitats, or threatened or endangered species?”
MR. HUNSINGER-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. FORD-No.
MRS. STEFFAN-“C5. Growth, subsequent development or related activities likely to be
induced by the proposed action?”
MR. HUNSINGER-No.
MR. FORD-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. FORD-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. FORD-No.
MRS. STEFFAN-“Is there or is there likely to be controversy related to potential adverse
environmental impacts?”
MR. HUNSINGER-No.
MR. FORD-No.
MRS. STEFFAN-Then I’ll make a motion for a Negative Declaration.
MR. FORD-Second.
RESOLUTION WHEN DETERMINATION OF NO SIGNIFICANCE IS MADE
RESOLUTION NO. 7-2010, Introduced by Gretchen Steffan who moved for its adoption,
seconded by Thomas Ford:
WHEREAS, there is presently before the Planning Board an application for:
LUCAS WILSON – EARTH SPECIALTY PRODUCTS, 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
34
(Queensbury Planning Board 03/16/2010)
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 16 day of, March, 2010, by the following vote:
AYES: Mr. Traver, Mr. Jackoski, Mr. Sipp, Mrs. Steffan, Mr. Ford, Mr. Hunsinger
NOES: NONE
ABSENT: Mr. Schonewolf
MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. In terms of conditions, I mean, obviously we have engineering
signoff. Hours of operation.
MRS. STEFFAN-Now he said Monday through Friday, seven to five.
MR. HUNSINGER-Seven to Five, Monday through Friday?
MR. WILSON-Yes.
MR. JACKOSKI-I personally think limiting it to five o’clock is a little bit limiting for a
business. I mean, if somebody gets out of work and they need to run and get.
MR. WILSON-It is.
MR. HUNSINGER-That’s what you said.
MR. WILSON-I would like to see seven o’clock it would be more realistic. Because in the
summertime you’re working hard. It’s a short season. We need to be able to work. That
would be my ideal hours during the week, seven to seven.
MR. OBORNE-Could I make a suggestion possibly it could be seven to dusk? Because
then that gives you variability. You can go to eight at sometimes.
MR. WILSON-Yes. I mean, on the weekends I can understand, and I’m willing to work, if
we have problems with our neighbors, we’ll work it out. It’s just that 12 weeks we’re
open on the weekends, and then it’s over. It’s just during the week.
MR. HUNSINGER-It’s not going to be lit. So you’re not going to be open past dusk
anyway?
MR. WILSON-No. During the day on Saturdays and Sundays, and, you know, not before
like, a Sunday, people go to church. So usually nine o’clock’s when we open on
Sundays. If we leave it consistent seven to seven, and if we have a problem, you know,
on the weekends, if my neighbor has a problem, I’ll talk to him and I’ll make it right by
him.
MR. OBORNE-That’s fine.
35
(Queensbury Planning Board 03/16/2010)
MR. WILSON-That way it’s consistent.
MR. HUNSINGER-Well, do we even need to state hours of operation, then?
MR. WILSON-Seven to dusk, then, right?
MR. HUNSINGER-Well, I mean, we would only put them in the motion if we were going
to try to limit you. I mean, it’s not going to be lit, so I suppose we probably ought to at
least have the lower one, so that you’re not waking up neighbors to open early kind of
thing.
MR. WILSON-Right, no, but, you know, I have construction equipment out, and my dump
trucks are like new. They’re not junk, and you don’t hear them running. They’re like a
car. I mean, we will drive in and out of there, coming back from home, from work. I’m
usually in the truck. I don’t have my Jake brake on. I pull in as quiet as I can and get
out. I mean, I’m not going to sit here and say I’m not going to drive in and out of there
with my construction equipment after hours, because I probably will, but it’ll be very
minimal and very quiet. I mean, all my stuff has mufflers on it. They’re not loud.
MR. HUNSINGER-What’s the feeling of the Board?
MR. JACKOSKI-My thought is, I don’t have a problem with coming in and out, but I think
loading of, you know, patrons, if we could somehow protect the little bit of the community
that’s there. That’s my feeling. I think weekends are more of a concern for me than, I
mean, seven o’clock on a Sunday morning to hear a payloader dropping some slate or
stone or whatever on a dump truck, that’s pretty frustrating.
MR. HUNSINGER-Yes.
MR. JACKOSKI-But I do understand that the site, I mean, it was a manufacturing site for
a long time.
MR. WILSON-That’s what I’m getting at. You’re making it, you know, well, if we have to.
If I have to, I have to, but I want it to be left to the Board’s understanding that I can come
back at some point, you know, down the road if I want, you know, I’m not limiting myself,
but for now, I mean, I’ll abide by the rules of the Board. That’s what I’ve got to do, but I
don’t want to tie myself into that property, my hours of operation, in case, down the road,
we never know what’s going to happen. I might want to change. I might want to talk
about it.
MR. FORD-What’s your preference right now, sir?
MR. WILSON-My preference is seven a.m. to, what we talked about, seven a.m. to dusk.
MR. FORD-Seven to seven, that’s different than seven to dusk.
MR. WILSON-Okay.
MR. JARRETT-Take dusk.
MR. WILSON-Dusk. Seven to dusk, then.
MRS. STEFFAN-And then on the weekends. I’ve written down eight to one. Is that
going to work?
MR. WILSON-Yes.
MR. JARRETT-I think the early limit is good. I think you ought to extend the later in the
day, at least on Saturday. Wouldn’t you?
MRS. STEFFAN-Eight to five.
MR. HUNSINGER-Well, why don’t we just say that he won’t start before eight o’clock on
weekends.
MR. JARRETT-Eight o’clock on weekends.
36
(Queensbury Planning Board 03/16/2010)
MR. TRAVER-Well, the other limitation that you spoke about was the narrowness of the
season, right? What were the months that you described were your?
MR. WILSON-April through July generally. After July, there’s not much action.
MR. TRAVER-Okay. So what happens after July? Are you selling different materials?
MR. WILSON-Yes. It’ll be there, but generally it’s, you know, I staff it now and there’s
one person there because there’s very little business at that time. You know how you
schedule certain deliveries at certain times. We have a delivery truck.
MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. What other conditions did we have?
MRS. STEFFAN-Okay. The conditions that I’ve written here are to obtain a Town
Engineer’s signoff. The road sign will be placed in a landscaped area. The applicant will
move the fuel storage tanks to the equipment parking area. The hours of operation will
be seven a.m. to dusk, Monday through Friday, and eight to five on Saturday and
Sunday. That the applicant will minimize dust. That the applicant will not sell fertilizer on
site.
MR. WILSON-Well, now when you say fertilizer, I mean, if you’re buying fertilizer in the
bag form, that’s a whole different animal than what you’re referring to, the comments, the
public’s referring to is an uncomposted organic material, bulk.
MRS. STEFFAN-Okay. So are you selling bags of fertilizer?
MR. WILSON-Well, I may. I don’t want to limit. I mean, I don’t want to get into limiting,
there is fertilizer that’s non-smelling product, it’s in a bag.
MR. OBORNE-So there’s no manufacturing of fertilizer on site.
MR. WILSON-There’s no manufacturing. What I’m saying is I’m not going to be
composting cow manure there that’s raw, that stinks. Ever there, you know.
MR. JACKOSKI-Where is it going to be stored?
MR. WILSON-Right now it’s stored in Kingsbury.
MR. JACKOSKI-No, I know. The fertilizer that you’re going to sell there, where is it going
to be stored?
MR. JARRETT-Would you have any stored here to sell?
MR. WILSON-Well, actually, if we had it, where the pallets are, if we ever were to sell it,
it would be on a pallet. It would be sitting there on a pallet with some bags on it, if people
wanted to buy it.
MR. FORD-And it would all be contained in bags?
MR. WILSON-Yes.
MR. FORD-Not piles of fertilizer bulk.
MR. WILSON-Yes. I just didn’t want that word fertilizer.
MR. FORD-We’re just trying to differentiate.
MRS. STEFFAN-I’ve got it covered.
MR. FORD-There’s a substantial difference between a bag of fertilizer on a pallet.
MR. WILSON-And raw manure that you’re composting.
MR. FORD-Yes, or you’ve got a small mountain of it out there that you’ve got a bulldozer
moving it around.
MR. TRAVER-Especially in July.
MR. HUNSINGER-Yes, especially in July.
37
(Queensbury Planning Board 03/16/2010)
MRS. STEFFAN-Okay. So we’re satisfied that Mr. Jarrett’s responses to the Paragon
Engineering comments will be satisfied with a Town Engineer’s signoff?
MR. HUNSINGER-Yes.
MR. OBORNE-If I may, you discussed the Type “C” buffer. I don’t know what you’re
thinking about that, between the residential property and the industrial property, or
commercial property, basically. How does the Board feel about that? There’s currently,
approximately a 20 foot buffer there, would you say?
MR. WILSON-Yes. I mean, I really don’t see the need for that. I’m really disappointed in
that one, because that’s 50 feet of property that you’re asking me to just, you know what I
mean, is there already a current connection.
MR. JARRETT-But you’re willing to hold what’s there?
MR. WILSON-I’m not going to touch anything that’s there.
MR. JARRETT-The season of highest activity on this site also would be presumably
when the brush is leaved out, which would help some degree as well.
MRS. STEFFAN-Right.
MR. HUNSINGER-Yes.
MR. OBORNE-I think what I’m looking for there is the Board to waive that requirement,
existing conditions prevail. I’d also like to see, which is always dear to my heart, are
interconnects, an interconnect with the property to the west, and all that is, on a piece of
paper, if that property gets developed in the future, I have something on a piece of paper
that I could connect those properties together for traffic flow.
MR. HUNSINGER-Well, I mean, there’s an existing driveway there now that he’s going
to.
MR. OBORNE-Right, but that’s, the one that’s currently there, that’s not an easement.
That’s just a use right now, and I don’t care if you continue using it. That’s not my issue.
That’s between the two of you. What I’m looking for is in future planning purposes that
there is an interconnect installed on the plan.
MR. TRAVER-You want it on the plan.
MR. OBORNE-Right. It’s a paper interconnect is all that is.
MR. FORD-Right.
MR. JARRETT-I guess we don’t have any problem showing that.
MR. HUNSINGER-Okay.
MR. OBORNE-That’s really all I have.
MR. HUNSINGER-Are Board members okay with the waiver on the buffer requirement?
MR. FORD-Yes.
MR. HUNSINGER-Okay.
MR. JACKOSKI-Yes.
MR. HUNSINGER-Is there anything else in the Staff comments, that you don’t think we
addressed?
MR. OBORNE-I’m pretty satisfied. I think they’re working on National Grid, they’re going
to need to take care of that, or National Grid won’t allow them to go through. Again, it’s a
use that’s currently existing. I’m looking for formalization. That’s it.
MR. HUNSINGER-Okay.
38
(Queensbury Planning Board 03/16/2010)
MR. TRAVER-I think once they got the application, they’re on the radar.
MR. OBORNE-Exactly, and that’s, for me, it’s good enough for me, as far as National
Grid, that’s really not an issue. If you could reference the Dave Hatin, letter, if everybody
has read that. If you get that into it. That takes care of his Building and Code issues, as
far as the Planning Board is concerned, and that is between Dave Hatin and the
applicant and the Town Board.
MR. HUNSINGER-The applicant got a copy of this, right? Did the applicant get a copy of
this memo?
MR. OBORNE-You did not get a copy? Did you get a copy of Dave’s letter?
MR. JARRETT-No, we’ve not seen it.
MR. DARRAH-Yes, you did.
MR. JARRETT-I stand corrected.
MR. OBORNE-Luke, it’s what you discussed with him today.
MR. WILSON-Yes.
MR. HUNSINGER-Mostly, I mean, it was addressed to us, so that we understood where
we were.
MRS. STEFFAN-Should I read it into the record?
MR. HUNSINGER-No, no, just reference it. How do we do that? just say that the Board
th
acknowledges the memo from Dave Hatin dated March 16, as part of the record. That’s
about all you need to say.
MR. FORD-While we’re waiting, does the surveyor feel left out, not having contributed?
We want to give you every opportunity.
MR. DARRAH-I tried to get out of this.
MR. OBORNE-Don is a man of very few words.
MR. FORD-Has been tonight.
MRS. STEFFAN-All right. Okay. I’ll make a motion to approve.
MOTION TO APPROVE SITE PLAN NO. 7-2010 LUCAS WILSON – EARTH
SPECIALTY PRODUCTS, Introduced by Gretchen Steffan who moved for its adoption,
seconded by Ford:
1)A site plan application has been made to the Queensbury Planning Board for the
following: Applicant proposes storage and sale of bulk landscape products.
Further the applicant proposes storage of heavy equipment. Construction
Companies, Heavy Equipment Storage and Retail Business in the CLI zone
require Planning Board review and approval.
2)A public hearing was advertised and held on 3/16/2010; 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. 7-2010 LUCAS WILSON – EARTH
SPECIALTY PRODUCTS, Introduced by Gretchen Steffan who moved for its
adoption, seconded by Ford:
According to the resolution prepared by Staff. Paragraph Four A complies.
Paragraph Four B, we have a Negative Declaration. Paragraph Four E does not
apply [removed]. Planning Board grants the applicant a waiver from the 50 foot
Type C Buffer. The applicant will maintain the 20 foot buffer between the parcels.
This is approved with the following conditions:
39
(Queensbury Planning Board 03/16/2010)
a)Pursuant to relevant sections of the Town of Queensbury Zoning Code
[Chapter 179-9-080]], 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)The limits of clearing will constitute a no-cut buffer zone, orange
construction fencing shall be installed around these areas and field
verified by Community Development staff
f)Engineering sign-off required prior to signature of Zoning Administrator.
g)The applicant shall submit a copy of a NOI [Notice of Intent] SWPPP
[Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan] & NOT [Notice of Termination] -
see staff
h)The applicant shall submit a copy of a NYS SPDES [State Pollution
Discharge Elimination System]
i)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.
j)Planning Board grants the applicant a waiver from the 50 foot Type C
Buffer.
k)The applicant will maintain the 20 foot buffer between the parcels
l)That the applicant will obtain Town Engineering signoff.
m)That the applicant’s road sign will be placed in a landscaped area.
n)That the applicant will move the fuel storage tanks to the equipment
parking area.
o)The applicant’s hours of operation will be Monday through Friday from 7
a.m. to dusk, and on Saturday and Sunday from 8:00 to 5:00.
p)That the applicant will minimize dust.
q)That the applicant will not manufacture fertilizer on site.
r)That the applicant will formalize the interconnect on the Site Plan.
s)That Planning Board acknowledges the March 16, 2010 memo from Dave
Hatin regarding the office trailer and requirements.
th
Duly adopted this 16 day of March, 2010, by the following vote:
AYES: Mr. Traver, Mr. Jackoski, Mr. Sipp, Mrs. Steffan, Mr. Ford, Mr. Hunsinger
NOES: NONE
ABSENT: Mr. Schonewolf
40
(Queensbury Planning Board 03/16/2010)
MR. HUNSINGER-Good luck.
MRS. STEFFAN-Good luck.
MR. JARRETT-Thank you very much.
MR. WILSON-Thank you.
MR. HUNSINGER-Yes, welcome.
MR. FORD-And I seriously, again, say welcome to Queensbury.
MR. WILSON-Thank you. Glad to be here.
MR. FORD-Thank you for bringing your business.
SITE PLAN NO. 22-2010 SEQR TYPE II MIKE RINGER OWNER(S) SEE
APPLICANT ZONING MAIN STREET LOCATION 104 MAIN STREET APPLICANT
PROPOSES 2,650 +/- SQ. FT. COMMERCIAL ALTERATION FOR A PAIN
MANAGEMENT OFFICE WITH ASSOCIATED SITE WORK. OFFICE IN THE MAIN
STREET ZONE REQUIRES PLANNING BOARD REVIEW AND APPROVAL. CROSS
REFERENCE SP 10-01 WARREN CO. PLANNING 3/10/2010 LOT SIZE 0.32 +/-
ACRES TAX MAP NO. 309.14-1-11 SECTION 179-9-010
MIKE RINGER, PRESENT
MR. HUNSINGER-Keith, whenever you’re ready to summarize Staff Notes.
MR. OBORNE-Site Plan 22-2010, Mike Ringer is the applicant. Office in the Main Street
zone requires Planning Board review and approval. The location is 104 Main Street.
Existing zoning is Main Street. This is a Type II SEQRA. Project Description: Applicant
proposes 2,650 +/- sq. ft. commercial alteration for a Pain Management office and
associated site work. Staff comments: The parcel is located in the Main Street district
and as such design guidelines are to be followed. The applicant proposes site
improvements to include a new vehicle circulation pattern and parking, landscaping,
stormwater controls, cosmetic improvements to the exterior and additional site work.
The existing structure has a residential component on the second floor in the form of
three apartments. The ground floor has a proposed tenant occupying the majority of the
first floor with a portion of the rear area devoted to warehouse space for the parcel
owner. Site parking is limited and provisions have been made to have future inter-
connects for parking formalized to the maximum extent practicable. The applicant owns
the parcel to the south and as such can utilize this parcel for parking. A inter-connect
with the parcel to the east has been established on the site plan and should be
formalized with the adjoining landowner if possible. Note: The parcel to the west has no
inter-connect proposed as the existing building abuts the property line and little to no
open land would be available for parking. Per §179-7-070, Main Street Design
guidelines, the front façade of the structure and sides appears to be compliant. Any
sidewalks internal to the site must be comprised of concrete, brick, concrete or stone
pavers, or stone slabs. Asphalt in not allowed. Further, there are large trees to the rear
of the property and these trees should be encouraged to remain in order to comply with
the deciduous tree requirement for the zone. Finally, chain link fencing is prohibited in
the Main Street zone and the Planning Board may wish to ascertain if the fence on the
east property line is owned by the applicant or adjacent owner. As far as Site Plan
Review goes, it really is centered around parking at this point. The Fire Marshal, I
believe, had little to no issues with the site as designed. Again, the Planning Board may
wish to discuss at this time the use of the southern parcel for parking purposes. Snow
storage locations should be denoted on plan, if at all possible. Additional comments.
Although the applicant has asked for a stormwater waiver in his proposal cover sheet, a
stormwater plan has been designed and submitted by Nace Engineering. Paragon is
attached. Fire Marshal should be attached, and the existing septic system to be
removed upon completion of Main Street project and connection to Town sewer and
water. As far as the project goes, this is shades above what our previous project, we
had to deal with with the previous applicant. Again, Main Street is commencing at this
point, which we anticipate 18 to 24 months before that is all closed out and taken care of,
and at that point, the applicant will be required to install the landscaping to the build to
line at that point, and with that, I’d turn it over to the Board.
MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. Thank you. Good evening.
41
(Queensbury Planning Board 03/16/2010)
MR. RINGER-Good evening. My name’s Mike Ringer. I’m sorry to keep you up so late.
MR. HUNSINGER-This is early.
MR. FORD-This is early for us.
MR. HUNSINGER-Did you have anything else to add?
MR. RINGER-Well, you know what I mean, he’s pretty much covered everything. This
kind of hit us as a little surprise, but we’re all working through it, and I appreciate
everything that’s been done, and obviously I’ve worked quite a few years on this building.
This is an awful eyesore, and I’m finally putting the finishing touches on it. We had the
pool store there. I was here nine years ago, a pool store, so when he moved out, and
with a doctor moving in, it’s real good. It’s good for me and the area, and like you say, I
do own the trailer out in back. I bought it. I knew this was coming, sooner or later, but,
you know, basically, the questions from you, I don’t know.
MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. I’ll open it up for questions, comments from members of the
Board.
MR. SIPP-Your building faces south, right?
MR. RINGER-No, my building faces the north. I’m sorry, I probably wasn’t talking into
this thing. My building faces the north, right there. That’s facing the north. The trailer in
the back is in the south part of Linda Avenue. That’s in the back there. One thing. The
chain link fence was there since I bought it, and I think that’s the Greek people next door.
So I’m not getting involved with that one.
MR. HUNSINGER-So is the trailer occupied now?
MR. RINGER-Yes, the trailer is occupied. I’m sort of the HUD of Warren County. You
know what I mean? Like with Rose, she came with the building when I bought the
building, and so when I had her and her brother, it’s sort of, I don’t know, she gives me
what she can most of the times, because she won’t accept any money, I mean, any
welfare or anything. So I keep her. She was up in the apartment I did have to, when I
bought the trailer, I said, Rose, you’re going out in the trailer, and your next is and we’ll
hook the truck to the trailer and you don’t even have to pack. I’ll take it wherever you
want. So, in turn, down the road, that’s what obviously that’s, you know, obviously, as
business increases and things happen, that’s why I took this, especially with the
widening of Main Street, and I guess it does fall under the corridor project, right?
MR. OBORNE-It does. That southern property is Main Street.
MR. RINGER-I had spoken with Craig earlier, because I wanted to make a little beat feet
path out to the back to go out to Linda, in case, during the construction project,
something was really held up, because this project has really killed any kind of, that’s
why I’m happy to have this doctor, because I’ve had some good tenants that wanted to
go in there and pay some good money and didn’t want anything to do with this project,
and once it’s over, you know, everybody on Main Street is going to benefit, obviously,
you know what I mean, but I think this doctor is going to be, he signed a good lease and
he’s personally guaranteeing it, and we have done all of the, I don’t know if you see the
front of the building. I mean, all this summer, people thought I was tearing it down in the
beginning or there was a fire, but we tore all the front off and we put a, actually that’s all
stucco. As a matter of fact right now we’re just putting in a new storefront. All the
aluminum storefront’s just tearing everything out. So, you know, it’s, I’ve been in
compliance with everything that I’ve done. So I’ve been working with everybody for a
long time. So the Fire Marshal and everything.
MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. Keith had mentioned, you know, one of the major issues is
parking, and you’re showing eleven spaces on your Site Plan.
MR. RINGER-Yes, you know, and I’m sorry, I left the Site Plan and I left, you know, the
comments and everything right home. So I, at the office, it’s a bad time of year to be in
the door business right now. You’re chasing a lot of money. With the parking spaces, all
right, a big thing of this is that I have the second curb cut, because, you know, through
the buyout procedures, that was very interesting because I was offered a large sum of
money, and what I ended up with wasn’t much, but the whole purpose of me accepting a
lot of money is that through the County it was all re-engineered. I do have a second curb
42
(Queensbury Planning Board 03/16/2010)
cut, okay, and what it is is that in the parking, I’ll have parking in the back, but we’re
going to drive around the building.
MR. HUNSINGER-Right.
MR. RINGER-Okay, and so of owning the trailer that’s in the back, obviously, you know,
I’m going to push the parking, you know, pretty close, pretty close to the back to where
we’ll have maximum parking, you know what I mean.
MRS. STEFFAN-So the lot where the trailer is will be your parking?
MR. RINGER-Not where the trailer, I’m leaving the trailer, I mean, for now. I mean, it’s,
I’ll tell you where the parking, the people that were there, the pool store, I was almost
ready to open the pool store, okay, because there was a lot of people that, that was a
very large business, and a very large people coming in and out, okay, and we had no
problem with the parking, even the way it is, just on both sides, without the back
connecting, okay. I mean, parking has never been an issue. I mean, we got approval
the first time, you know, for the parking, and now I’m going with less. Obviously with less
vehicles, you know what I mean, because this Pain Management doctor isn’t like the
pool store where they’re actually lined up, and I’d have my tenants park in the back, but
like I say, what I’m doing now is if you look, I’m going to take, I’m going to grade back,
okay, and I’m going to crush stone it, because that was part of the plan that I’ve been
paid for, you know, through the County buyout, and in the end what you’re going to have,
this the way it is with the County, is you’re going to have an entrance and you’re going to
have an exit in the front.
MR. HUNSINGER-Right.
MR. RINGER-Okay, and so, like I say, through the provisions that have been made
through the County, you know, and we’re in intense negotiations over this because
obviously I didn’t want to ruin the value of my property.
MR. HUNSINGER-Right.
MR. RINGER-Because I’ll tell you, I was offered $120,000 the first time and ended up
with 17, you know, so, but this was all in, even before I ever owned the trailer, you know
what I mean. This has all happened before I even bought the trailer, and, you know, like
I say, so this is the plans that I had in the beginning, and what we settled on with the
County, and like you said, in Site Plan Review when I was here, I think it was back nine
years ago, you know, we had settled on the parking spots. Now in the back, yes, I could
make some more parking spots.
MR. HUNSINGER-Well, do you need more than 11?
MR. RINGER-I’m not using, like you say, the people that are going to come in and out of
there, no, I don’t think so.
MRS. STEFFAN-Will the whole facility be for Pain Management?
MR. RINGER-Yes, I mean, not the whole facility, because, like he said, we’re doing
about 2500 square foot for him. The warehouse will be left to me, you know what I
mean?
MR. OBORNE-You have residents upstairs, though, also?
MR. RINGER-Yes, I have two people upstairs, you know what I mean, and my wife uses
one apartment up there, you know what I mean, and like you said, we had talked about
out back, you know, and making more parking spots. It’s going to be a process, once I
get, you know, I got my backhoe up there right now and I’ve got to start, you know, I’ve
got to haul some fill out of there, and I’m going to work with Keith, I guess, you know, and
we’re just going to work through this and make it work, you know what I mean. On the
side here, that’s the back where my trailer is right now. So we’re going to go back
towards that tree. That tree used to be the old property line that ran through, but I’m
going to go back over, because obviously Rose doesn’t need the biggest part of the
world, and in a couple of years, probably after this project is over, you know what I mean,
you’ll see the trailer out of there, and that’s going to be one big parking lot, because, you
know, at some point in time, maybe this Pain Management doctor is going to want to
take the back part, then I could make this, you know, part of his place, too, and obviously
43
(Queensbury Planning Board 03/16/2010)
we’re going to need more parking spots. So, yes, the trailer is, you know, for now at
some point in time in the next couple of years the trailer will be gone.
MR. FORD-The current plan for parking would all be parallel to the building. Correct,
Mike?
MR. RINGER-Yes, as this shows on the plan.
MR. HUNSINGER-Okay.
MR. RINGER-And like I say, in the back, where we put interconnect, you know, in the
interconnect we plan on going out one side, I’ll probably just gravel that, you know,
because that’s going to help, because, boy, when they’re out there in the front doing that
work, I experienced this down on Western Avenue, in the mess down there, and it was a
mess.
MR. OBORNE-I think with the nature of the project, this property’s going to be in flux. I
think that we all realize that, and I’m not speaking for the Planning Board when I say this,
is that we need to get a level of comfort on what it’s going to eventually look like, and we
need to get that down on paper.
MR. OBORNE-Including the parking, which is what you’re alluding to. We can work on
that, absolutely, but you certainly want to satisfy the Planning Board with what you want
to do.
MR. RINGER-Like I say, you know, down the road, I’ll tell you, even as far as, I bought
piece of property over on Ryan Avenue, right in back of Cumberland Farms. Maybe I’ll
need a parking lot someday, or maybe I could sell them all together. That’s the plan, but
eventually in the next two to three year timeframe, yes, you’re going to see the trailer out
of there. I mean, because the doctor, I imagine him and I have already talked, you know,
about leasing the back of the building out, to maybe he’ll want to, you know, he’s in pain
management, so they rehabilitate people with exercise equipment and stuff, but we just
need to get this first one behind us, and like he said, too, to get Rose and to get the
trailer and to get everything out of here, you know, I’m going to take a couple of years to
do that, but the trailer, yes, in a timeframe it’s going to be gone, because I, as a matter of
fact, I talked with Craig, and he said that it wasn’t even, you know, that I’d have to come
up and re-zone everything, but I guess it’s in that project, because he said that the
zoning was residential or something in the back.
MR. OBORNE-It’s my understanding that it’s Main Street.
MR. RINGER-Yes, so that’s that Main Street corridor project. Then Craig changed his
mind, I guess.
MR. OBORNE-Well, Craig didn’t change his mind. He can’t do that because the Zoning
Code is what the Zoning Code is. It doesn’t say what this is.
MR. HUNSINGER-So what you’re asking us to look at tonight is just this plan here?
MR. RINGER-This plan here, let’s just look at this plan.
MR. HUNSINGER-I mean, because, I mean, you really didn’t give us a Site Plan. There
was just this drawing as part of your stormwater management report.
MR. RINGER-No. I don’t have (lost word) in front of me, but I do have.
MR. HUNSINGER-That’s all I have, except for pictures.
MRS. STEFFAN-That’s the narrative, and that’s the application packet.
MR. FORD-Site, sketch, one page.
MR. RINGER-Yes, I mean basically I had it drawn up and that’s what you’ve got right
there.
MR. OBORNE-It’s a plot plan, yes.
MR. RINGER-It’s a plot plan.
44
(Queensbury Planning Board 03/16/2010)
MR. HUNSINGER-Yes. So when you want to move the trailer and expand the parking
into the back lot, then you’re going to have to come back.
MR. RINGER-Well, am I going to have to come back, or are we going to have to take
care of it right now? I mean, because it’s all zoned.
MR. HUNSINGER-Well, I mean, we really can’t take care of it if we don’t know what you
really want to do.
MR. RINGER-Well, like I say, in a two year timeframe, okay, I’d like to have the trailer,
because I’ve got to see with removing the trailer. I might have to take it down piece by
piece and, you know, I guess from what I know, from what I’ve heard, that sometimes
you just can’t hook on a trailer and drag it because there’s years involved or something,
what year it’s been made or something. So you know what I’m saying, and I’ve got to
give her, you know what I mean, she just doesn’t have nothing, and she works at
McDonalds up there, and, you know what I mean. I don’t know, we got her out of the
front apartment up there. That was a start.
MR. HUNSINGER-Well, again, you know, what you’ve submitted is this Site Plan here.
MR. RINGER-Yes. I’ve submitted this and that’s what I’m looking for tonight.
MR. HUNSINGER-Okay.
MR. RINGER-That’s the bottom line I’m looking for tonight. Do you know what I mean?
MR. OBORNE-Understand that when you’re, and let me preface this with I think there’s a
unique opportunity here with that property to the south, for expanded parking, when Main
Street gets done. I just want to make sure you know, Mike, that when you are going to
execute on that property to be a part of your Site Plan here, you’re going to have to come
back to the Planning Board for Site Plan Review.
MR. RINGER-Okay. I can agree with that.
MR. FORD-At that time you will have a much better handle on what you’re going to be
doing, what you really want to do with it, what your timeline will be.
MR. RINGER-Yes, because the construction, you know, the construction is really out on
the road, you know what I mean. So I don’t know what’s going to hamper him into
expanding or, I’m just happy to have him for right now.
MRS. STEFFAN-Well, but, you know, and I can’t approve the plan the way it is. I just
don’t have enough information. As an example, with a pain management doctor, you
know, I don’t know how they run. I don’t know, you know, how they cycle patients
through, like for example in the pain management that I’m familiar with, you know, folks
come in for regular treatments and similar to like renal dialysis or something like that
where you go in, you’re there for a period of time, you’re given pain shots, and there’s
other kinds of interventions that they’re doing at the same time.
MR. RINGER-Well, I imagine, I don’t mean to interrupt you. Like I said, you know,
they’re scheduling by the hour patients, you know, most times when you go in you’re
scheduled for the hour, and like I said, there’s already been a pool store there, and
believe me, that was a very busy place, and it’s a lot busier than a pain management
doctor would have in there, and so as far as where I’m doing work in the back of the
building creating more parking, you know, and that should relieve even anymore stress
to the property.
MRS. STEFFAN-But we don’t know how many cars the pain management practice will
have at any one time. He could be treating 10 patients at the same time.
MR. RINGER-The inside of the building is not big enough for that. I mean, not for the,
you know, not for the exam rooms and stuff that I built. That’s impossible. They couldn’t
do it. They’re going to have a waiting room, and.
MRS. STEFFAN-But we don’t know that.
MR. RINGER-Well, let’s put it this way. You have two pain management places right
down the road, and one of them’s smaller than the place I have, and he’s got a very big
clientele. So, there’s two of them right on my street, and it’s where the old pool store
45
(Queensbury Planning Board 03/16/2010)
used to be, and then in the plaza, obviously the drugstore they’ve got a lot of parking, but
the one right up the road, he just, where was it next to the bar that was sold there.
MRS. STEFFAN-Are you talking about a physical therapy practice or a pain
management?
MR. RINGER-Well, they do both. I mean, they’ve got a pain management in there, plus
physical therapy.
MRS. STEFFAN-Okay, because they’re two different things.
MR. RINGER-Now, you know, like pain management, I know my wife goes to one in
Clifton Park. She gets the shots for her back, you know, she goes in for a 45 minute time
and she leaves, okay. So the plan shows with the amount of exam rooms, it’s impossible
to do it, do you know what I mean, and I’ve looked at, you know, I’ve looked at the place
down the road that’s existing. It’s a lot bigger, a lot more offices and a lot less parking
than I’m proposing, and like I said, that’s right down the road on the opposite side on
Main Street, just before you hit the light, and it used to be a pool store when I was a kid.
MR. HUNSINGER-So how many employees will be there?
MR. RINGER-I think he’s going to have the girl in the office, him. There’s a physician’s
assistant, okay, then their employees, and he might have a PT on hand, and that’s about
it.
MRS. STEFFAN-So there could be six employees.
MR. RINGER-Yes, there could be six employees, and then what I’m trying to reference,
before, you know, when Bartle had his pool store there, there were far more employees
and far more customers in and out of there, because that was a very busy place, and I
think he’s a little sorry that he let the lease go and moved down the road because, you
know, it’s a good location. So, what I’m trying to say is that I know that there’s going to
be less traffic on that piece of property then the retail store that was there before.
MR. TRAVER-These parking spaces are going to be used for the renters that you have
upstairs as well?
MR. RINGER-Pardon me?
MR. TRAVER-Are these, the people that live upstairs, are they parking in these spots as
well?
MR. RINGER-Yes, they’re going to be, you know, they’ll be parked over in the corner,
and there’s two people.
MR. TRAVER-So where, they’re parking is not reflected in this 11 space diagram?
MR. RINGER-If I answered you truthfully, you know what I mean, I would say that I had
them parked in the back.
MR. TRAVER-Other than where these spots are noted on the map you mean?
MR. RINGER-No, we’re going to use them in the parking spots in the back.
MR. SIPP-Now isn’t Main Street parking supposed to be all in the rear of the building?
MR. RINGER-Well, no. As a matter of fact, I don’t know. Keith and I have discussed
this, and this is an open situation for me right now, because I’ll tell you, I turned down
$117,000 because they were going to take and put my parking on the other side of the
sidewalk. This is why I turned down that money. So when the County made their plan,
okay, they planned parking straight in, in the front of my building. Now Keith and I have
had some discussions.
MR. OBORNE-Parking on the sides of buildings are discouraged, not prohibited. It is
site specific. On the previous site plan that we had, he had enough parking in the rear.
So we discouraged parking on the rear. This current situation, due to lot limitations, he
has no choice. So it is discouraged. I will say, it’s not prohibited. It’s prohibited in the
front, and he has lost those spaces on the site plan, and that’s green space now. So
that’s the long and short answer to side parking.
46
(Queensbury Planning Board 03/16/2010)
MR. RINGER-And I would like to bear in mind, like I say, when I was here in Site Plan
before, this is almost the identical site plan that we had in the beginning. Okay. I didn’t
supply the one. The only difference, we moved the parking spots from the front to the
back, in anticipation of no in the front parking. So like I say, when we were here before,
this is what we went, and was agreed to.
MR. OBORNE-Back in 1990, you said 1990 or 2000?
MR. RINGER-Yes, it had to have been nine years ago I think I was here, because it’s
just over the limit of the seven year time I guess, because I guess now you’ve got a law
in the Town of Queensbury that if you haven’t had Site Plan within seven years that you
need to come for Site Plan.
MR. OBORNE-Right, if you’re going to.
MR. RINGER-Okay, and it’s just outside of that window. This is what’s brought me here
tonight, and it’s been a very uncomfortable situation for me because months ago I
planned on all this, okay. I went to all the people that I was supposed to before I talked
to my lawyer, okay, and before I had papers drawn up and before money changed
hands, and I was called two weeks ago and said I made a mistake. Well, this is a very
costly mistake to me. That’s why I’m here tonight, bottom line, okay, and I’ve worked
with the Building Department and this gentleman here has been very nice to me, okay,
but, two months ago, in January, I called up and I went through, and I called Craig up. I
called Dave, Mike Palmer, we were all working with each other, and I get a call two
weeks ago saying I made a mistake, okay, you do need to go to Site Plan. Okay.
There’s been a lot of money invested and I was very angry in the beginning that this was
all handled like this, because I came and educated myself. I asked all the questions
before I even signed a lease with this man. Now I’m in this very uncomfortable situation
sitting here tonight. Happy, no, okay. I’m very disgusted, okay, but mistakes are made.
I make them every day in my business. I don’t make them every day, but we all do. You
understand what I’m trying to say. So this gentleman right now has a lot of money
invested. We all have a lot everything invested, and to get a call two weeks ago, I
believe it was two weeks ago.
MR. OBORNE-It was a little longer than that.
MR. RINGER-Yes, it was three weeks ago. We had the snowstorm. This poor guy got
the wrath of God that I didn’t even know, because when I went up there, I wasn’t smiling.
MR. OBORNE-I can corroborate what he’s saying. There was a mistake made.
MR. RINGER-There was a mistake made by Craig Brown. I called Craig. Craig and I
discussed this whole issue, and he said, Mike, you comply, you are fine. Okay. I went
with my attorney, the papers were drawn up. I had Dave Hatin in my building, you know,
I had Mike Palmer in my building. We all went through this together. Okay, and then for
this to be thrown in my lap, is very unfair. There’s a lot of money involved, and, you
know, it’s, the worst part of it is I come, put my best foot forward, and thought I had
everything covered. I don’t know how you would feel if this happened to you, but I’ve lost
$22,000 so far for this building being empty. I get a client. This client has invested a lot
of money because I have been working, like I said, this thing started back in January,
when he was a prospect as a client, and then when I got the phone call from Craig, you
know what I mean, yes, it was a shock in the beginning, but I’m sure that we all can work
through this, you know what I mean, because this, you know, I would have been here
months before. Okay. That’s why I called, you know what I mean, I talked to Craig, you
know what I mean, and that’ll sit you back in your tracks, because I did not need this right
now. I did not need this. I didn’t ask for it, you know what I mean? As a matter of fact
they were joking up there and said, hey, look, Mike’s up here asking what to do first, you
know what I mean, and we’re in a very uncomfortable situation right now, very
uncomfortable, you know what I mean, and like I say, yes, down the road that trailer’s
there, we’re going to put parking, we’re going to do it, but can I do all this in six months,
no I can’t, you know what I mean.
MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. Yes.
MR. RINGER-It’s just, I just don’t know what to say. The only thing I can say is that Keith
has very well worked with me, so, you know, for a lot of the wrong that’s been done, and
that’s why I’m here tonight. I didn’t ask for this. I was there. I asked Craig, Craig, you
know, what have I got to do? Do I need Site Plan? No, Mike, you don’t. He said that,
47
(Queensbury Planning Board 03/16/2010)
you know, you comply. It’s zoned. You’re only going to Professional Office. You’ve
been approved, blah, blah, blah, well, and then when you get that phone call, you know
what I mean, and there’s been work done, okay, because we’ve all been working
together, you know, the Building Department and me making sure that everything is, you
know, all the plans, everything’s going for the permits, money changing hands between
me and this doctor, and, you know, real estate people, and then to have this thrown in
my lap, you know, like I said, I didn’t ask for this.
MR. HUNSINGER-Yes.
MRS. STEFFAN-Okay.
MR. HUNSINGER-Do we have any other questions, comments from members of the
Board? Everyone clear on what it is we’re being asked to do?
MRS. STEFFAN-Keith, I’m looking for some direction from you.
MR. OBORNE-Well, we’re here now for Site Plan Review. What’s in the past is in the
past. Let’s move forward. I have been working with the applicant. To me, what would
get me comfortable, okay, and I’m almost there with this Site Plan, absolutely, is to have
those interconnects installed and approved by the Planning Board, and I could work with
the applicant to certainly develop some sort of generalized plan for parking in the
southern portion of the, the southern portion there, that will alleviate any potential future
conflicts with parking for this site. The site has one way in, one way out. There are
issues with handicapped spaces, but I don’t think that that’s a deal killer at this point. As
far as guidance, the only guidance I can give you is to get comfortable with what he is
proposing at this point, and if not, I can’t give you much more guidance than that, to be
honest with you.
MR. HUNSINGER-Well, I mean, it sounds like, you know, and one of the issues with the
whole Main Street right now is we know it’s going to be torn up and, you know, a lot of
the projects that we have proposed, you know, we put in clauses saying, well, we know
you’re not going to be able to do your landscaping until after the fact and after the
construction’s completed.
MR. OBORNE-Right.
MR. HUNSINGER-The only real landscaping that’s being shown here is the planter that’s
out front.
MR. RINGER-If you look at what I said in the Site Plan is that, you know, I will do green
accordingly, but, you know, and right now we talked about, I’ll throw some planters out
there and do whatever because there’s an issue, too, that I’d like to work through is, you
know, are we going to be able to put a sign out by the road, I mean, because should I run
a wire there for the future, but I mean, you can’t put one there now because it would be
torn right up when they come to dig it, but right now, you know, as far as plants and
flowers doing all that stuff, I mean, they’re on their way down the road right now, they’re
up by the Northway, you know, they’re heading. So I will do my best, you know, to work
with them. It’s like with the parking. I will go down there, and I own my own heavy
equipment, and I own everything, because I’m going to get started, and we will work this
issue out.
MR. OBORNE-And I think that that is the only real hang up as the Town Planner that I
have with this is the parking. I think the site flow works fine.
MR. HUNSINGER-Yes, traffic flows works fine.
MR. OBORNE-Traffic flow is fine. I think the pedestrian access will be, pedestrian safety
will be fine. He will be putting landscaping up to the build to line as required in the Code.
Besides that, and I can’t speak for Building and Codes, I can’t speak for Craig, I think
that you’re getting close to having that bottom portion done.
MR. RINGER-This project is nearing completion, and we need to be solution finders.
MR. OBORNE-Well, that’s what we’re here for.
MR. RINGER-What would have, could have and should have, that’s not a business
practice, and like you say, with the money that I put in the building over the years, just
trying to make it look nice, and, you know, with the plans that we have down the road,
48
(Queensbury Planning Board 03/16/2010)
you know what I mean, and like I say, the front greenery, you know, I can’t do anything,
but for now it’s going to be gone.
MR. OBORNE-If you’re going to make conditions on whatever you’re going to do, I would
suggest, and this would be guidance I would give you, would be to direct the applicant to
contact both Craig and Dave, in order to facilitate a Temporary CO for his client that
needs to move in, to at least get that done. The site’s not going to change that much at
this point. It’s going to be in flux. It’s going to get worse. He’s going to need that access
out.
MR. FORD-That’s an excellent word. This is temporary.
MR. OBORNE-It is temporary.
MR. RINGER-Yes.
MR. HUNSINGER-So do we tell him to come back in a year when the construction is
done? Because, I mean, there’s so many things on the Site Plan that aren’t addressed
that are required in the Main Street, you know, screenings and buffers, parking area,
landscaping, site lighting, I mean, the list kind of goes on and on.
MR. RINGER-But in turn, you know what I mean, it’s, how can I say, because none of
it’s, you know, that’s what I was wondering the other day, because I’m thinking, where
are they putting the street lights, you know what I mean, because you’re not going to
have any poles anymore. So I guess it’s going to look like Lower Warren Street or
something.
MR. HUNSINGER-Right. Yes. There’ll be, yes, there will be period lighting.
MR. RINGER-And like you said, on the back here you’re looking at the back. That’s all
going to be gravel. What I was done, is see they originally came back and they said to
me, all right, we’ll give you $7,000. Yes, my chin dropped to the ground. I figured I’d at
least get $50,000, and so they worked with me, and all right, we’re going to give you
some money to gravel the back, you know what I mean, to make it coming around, and
that’s, you know what I mean, and for your parking and stuff to be out in back, and like I
say, this was all before I bought the trailer, because I did try to come back to them and
say, hey, can I still get that $117,000 because I own the back piece now, but they
already re-engineered everything, but there’s two curb cuts right now that you’re going to
have, the way the plan is with the County, you’re going to have the in comes to the west
and the out will be on the east side of the building. Okay. The front is supposed to be for
deliveries, UPS deliveries, where they’ll be able to pull in and pull out. I mean, I’m just
going by what I settled for, okay, and actually there was supposed to be on street
parking, and Keith and I were talking, and he says, down the road there’s not going to be
any on street parking. So, but you understand, it’s sort of confusing with me, because I
gave up a lot of money. Now this is double whamming me because they made sure that
I had parking in front of my building because in the beginning they wanted two parking
spots on the outside of the curb, okay, and nothing, no, no drive through in the building.
So the County re-engineered this for me to have parking spots in the front, and an inlet
and an outlet, but at this point in time I’m not even concerned about front parking
because I own the trailer in the back, okay, in a couple of years we’re done, we’re gone.
We’ve got a nice parking lot. We’ve got drive aisles and we’re on and gone with it.
MR. FORD-I have a recommendation. Let’s do what needs to be done so we can get
him a Temporary CO, Certificate of Occupancy.
MR. RINGER-I appreciate that.
MR. FORD-With the understanding that you’re going to have to be coming back at some
point in the future for Site Plan Review.
MR. OBORNE-Near future. We would like to get this done for you, for Main Street, but
let’s get that Temporary CO, if possible.
MR. HUNSINGER-So how do we do that?
MRS. STEFFAN-Well, do we say when the Main Street project is complete? I mean,
that’s two years from now. When in the near future?
49
(Queensbury Planning Board 03/16/2010)
MR. OBORNE-What my guidance would be, and what Mike is looking for is a CO. It’s as
simple as that.
MR. RINGER-I mentioned this to the doctor.
MR. HUNSINGER-Can Building and Codes issue him a Temporary CO?
MR. OBORNE-I cannot answer that question. That’s why.
MR. HUNSINGER-Can we approve a temporary Site Plan?
MR. OBORNE-You cannot approve a Temporary CO.
MR. HUNSINGER-Can we approve a temporary Site Plan?
MR. OBORNE-No.
MR. HUNSINGER-Can we approve a Site Plan that’s contingent on him coming back
when Main Street’s finished?
MR. RINGER-If we could do that in the two year project.
MR. HUNSINGER-I know it’s not real clean.
MR. RINGER-If we could recommend a two year Site Plan Review, I will have the trailer
out of there, and hopefully.
MR. OBORNE-I would not be in favor of that. What I would be in favor of, Mike, would
be for this application to be tabled with conditions, the conditions being pursue that
Temporary CO, meet with Staff and let’s get these issues that need to be taken care of
fleshed out, including the southern parcel.
MR. RINGER-Okay, but let me ask you one question, though. I’m sorry, I didn’t mean to
interrupt.
MR. HUNSINGER-I don’t think any of us have a problem with what he wants to do. Do
we?
MR. FORD-No.
MR. TRAVER-No.
MR. HUNSINGER-I mean, I don’t even have a problem with his plan, you know, his
design there. The problem is it doesn’t meet the guidelines. There’s a lot more
information that’s needed.
MR. OBORNE-Well, with the general guidelines, he does meet quite a bit of them.
MR. HUNSINGER-Right, he does.
MR. OBORNE-And the Planning Board has a lot of wiggle room to do what they want.
What the Planning Board can’t do is approve parking in the front.
MR. HUNSINGER-Right.
MR. OBORNE-You just can’t do that.
MR. FORD-Right, nor do we want to, but life goes on, and the temporary nature of this
solution I think begs that we pursue it as being recommended with the understanding
that in the near future you have to come back for Site Plan Review, which will
encompass the total plan.
MR. RINGER-Yes, but let me ask you a question. I guess what I’m, I’m trying to be a
little diplomatic about this, and saying that I kind of offered the complete plan, other than
maybe Keith and I have got to go out there and do some measuring and where are we
going to put the gravel, because obviously I am the neighbor that’s in concern because I
own both pieces, you know what I mean, because this is my Site Plan.
MR. FORD-We understand that, but you’re not there yet.
50
(Queensbury Planning Board 03/16/2010)
MR. HUNSINGER-Yes, you’re not there.
MR. FORD-We’re trying to get you something in the meantime until you can get this.
MR. RINGER-Yes. I can agree to that. I’m sorry. I might have misunderstood it,
because I have, but you know as far as the Temporary CO, I should have no problem
whatsoever, because like you said, I have been working with Mike Palmer and I have
been working with Dave, you know what I mean, right from the beginning, before, you
know, like the interiors, they’ve had plans. They’ve been able to mark their plans.
MR. OBORNE-The Fire Marshal and Building and Codes have really no issues with this.
MR. HUNSINGER-I mean, we can say something strongly, say that we encourage or we
recommend.
MR. OBORNE-Strongly recommend, sure.
MR. HUNSINGER-That Building and Codes issue a Temporary CO, but, I mean, we
need more in the Site Plan.
MR. FORD-Life goes on. We can’t put this all on hold for two years.
MR. RINGER-The whole thing is that, really, and I can truly say this, I didn’t ask for this,
and it’s like, you know.
MR. HUNSINGER-We understand that.
MR. RINGER-Because I just broke the news to the doctor, and it was like.
MR. HUNSINGER-Do you have any written comment, Keith?
MR. OBORNE-There are no written comments.
MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. We do have a public hearing scheduled this evening. I will
open the public hearing and we will table this. In terms of giving us a plan, you know,
something on paper that we can respond to, that includes all of the elements that are
required of the Main Street site design. How long do you think that would take?
MR. RINGER-Number One, I’m just trying to say, now they’re coming at me with all
these new elements of Main Street that I don’t know, okay.
MR. HUNSINGER-It’s pretty clear in the Code, and, you know, you can get a copy of it
on the Town’s Internet, or Keith can help you.
MR. RINGER-I guess what I’m trying to ask, I’m just trying to say is that I thought that I
was, you know, I complied with site plan right with Keith and I, right from the beginning.
We had everything down but parking, okay, and it’s what Staff review is. So now we’re
going back, we say we’ve got to meet this criteria, we’ve got to meet this, this, this, and
this to me is becoming a double standard.
MR. HUNSINGER-Well, it’s not a double standard, sir. It’s pretty well laid out. It’s pretty
clear, and, you know, I think if you sat down with a landscape architect or Staff or just
about anyone else, they can kind of walk you through this.
MR. RINGER-Okay, but, like I said, I am willing to do within financial reason is what I put
in here. Are we talking landscape now?
MR. HUNSINGER-We’re asking for you to put it on a piece of paper, okay.
MR. TRAVER-I think as the process moves forward and you have further discussions
with Staff and as the Main Street project works forward and you listen to feedback from
people that are trying to help you with this project, it will become clear to you what it is
that you need to do. It’s not as complicated as you feel.
MR. RINGER-Is it the landscape?
51
(Queensbury Planning Board 03/16/2010)
MR. FORD-Let me offer a piece of advise. You do not, tonight, want an up or down vote
from this Board on this Site Plan. You do not want a yes or a no vote on your site plan
tonight. Okay.
MR. RINGER-Okay. I appreciate that. Okay.
MR. FORD-Can you accept that?
MR. RINGER-Yes.
MR. HUNSINGER-What I was starting to ask you was how much time do you think you
will need to give us a piece of paper that shows the things that we’ve been talking about
this evening? I mean, it doesn’t have to be elaborate, but it just has to be more than
what you’ve given.
MR. TRAVER-I’m not certain that the applicant knows exactly what it is. That’s my
concern.
MR. RINGER-Yes. That’s it.
MR. TRAVER-Maybe we could divine some date and then get an update from Staff as to
progress. We could always adjust the date as need arises later.
MR. HUNSINGER-Yes. I mean, the only risk is you might have to re-advertise the public
hearing. That’s all.
MR. RINGER-The only thing that I could say is that I would go along with a lot of what
Keith recommends. Okay. That’s the bottom line.
MR. HUNSINGER-Sure.
MR. FORD-He’s a great resource for you.
MR. RINGER-He’s been very resourceful to me, and like he says, we can get through
this. That’s the bottom line.
MR. HUNSINGER-Okay.
MR. OBORNE-Absolutely.
MR. RINGER-So let’s just put it like that. If we could take like.
MR. HUNSINGER-And if you can get a Temporary CO to allow your tenant to move in,
that takes the time pressure off you.
MR. RINGER-That’s right, and I appreciate that.
MR. HUNSINGER-What you’ve given us so far we don’t have a problem with.
MR. RINGER-I’ve got it.
MR. HUNSINGER-We need more detail, that’s all.
MR. RINGER-Yes, okay.
MR. TRAVER-We can certainly hear your intentions, and we know that you have a vision
for what it is that you’re trying to do, and it largely meets what the Town is trying to do in
that area. The issue, as far as this Board and the Town are concerned, is that we need
to take what you have up in your head and put it on a piece of paper that can be
examined by someone who hasn’t talked to you and don’t know what you have in mind
and can be interpreted as to know exactly what it is you’re trying to do, and that’s not as
difficult as it sounds.
MR. RINGER-Okay. I will, like I said, I’ll work with Keith.
MR. FORD-Keith, you’re pretty intimately aware of what’s going on here. What do you
see as an appropriate timeline for putting this off to?
MR. OBORNE-I would say May.
52
(Queensbury Planning Board 03/16/2010)
MR. HUNSINGER-Yes, that’s what I was thinking, too.
MR. OBORNE-That’s assuming he can get a Temporary CO, and I’m assuming you’re
going to get a Temporary CO.
MR. RINGER-Could we do one more step, though? Could we like maybe take it to June,
st
because the way things have been going, I don’t foresee them being in by April 1.
MR. HUNSINGER-Sure.
MR. OBORNE-I was trying to get you in.
MR. HUNSINGER-June sounds a whole lot better.
MR. FORD-Yes, better yes, yes.
th
MR. HUNSINGER-It would be June 15.
MR. RINGER-Am I doing something wrong?
MR. OBORNE-No, not at all. Not at all, but I think, under the circumstances, and these
are unique circumstances that you gentlemen have been put under, I think leeway is
called for. However, there is a Code that must be followed, and that’s it, in a nutshell.
MR. RINGER-I mean, if it ends up we’ve got to just get the trailer out of there, well, we’ll
just get the trailer out of that.
MR. OBORNE-I don’t think that’s the issue. What we need is something on paper, a
plan.
MR. RINGER-Yes, okay.
MR. FORD-And that plan will show that trailer out of there.
MR. HUNSINGER-Well, understand, the plan that you put on paper, you don’t have to do
it tomorrow. You have a period of time to do that, but if that’s the intent, if that’s what you
eventually want to do, and if you eventually want to put your parking out back, that’s what
you should be showing us.
MR. RINGER-Okay. I appreciate that. You’ve got to understand, especially now, like I
own a very large garage door business, and this is one of the worst times of the year to
be in business. That’s why I forgot it. This is a time that people, it’s a bad time, all right,
and I’ve got this going, and so like I say, I was really kind of floored by this whole thing. I
was up there removing snow in a snowstorm with my backhoe. So thank you and I thank
everybody, and we’ll work through this. I mean, because he’s comfortable that we’re
going to work it out.
MR. FORD-We’re with you on this.
MR. RINGER-Okay.
MR. FORD-We will work with you. Work with us.
MRS. STEFFAN-Okay. So you opened the public hearing.
MR. HUNSINGER-I opened the public hearing. We’ll leave it open.
PUBLIC HEARING OPENED
MRS. STEFFAN-We’ll leave the public hearing open. Okay. Then I’ll make a motion.
MOTION TO TABLE SITE PLAN NO. 22-2010 MIKE RINGER, 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 2,650 +/- sq. ft commercial alteration for a Pain
Management office with associated site work. Office in the Main Street zone
requires Planning Board review and approval; and
53
(Queensbury Planning Board 03/16/2010)
2)A public hearing was advertised and held on 3/16/2010; and
3)This application is supported with all documentation, public comment and
application material in the file of record;
4)MOTION TO TABLE SITE PLAN NO. 22-2010 MIKE RINGER, Introduced by
Gretchen Steffan who moved for its adoption, seconded by Stephen Traver:
th
This is tabled to the June 15 Planning Board meeting. It is tabled so that the
applicant
1. At the Planning Board’s direction, can contact Craig Brown, our Zoning
Administrator, and Dave Hatin, our Director of Building and Codes,
regarding a Temporary Certificate of Occupancy for his potential tenant at
104 Main Street.
2. It is also tabled so that the applicant can meet with Staff to address the
Staff comments and Engineering comments regarding plan changes and
amendments.
th
Duly adopted this 16 day of March, 2010, by the following vote:
MR. FORD-Do we want to make that stronger, in terms of our recommendation for the
Temporary CO?
MRS. STEFFAN-Well, you know, the Planning Board is directing the applicant to do it.
MR. OBORNE-You can strongly encourage Dave and Craig to issue a Temporary CO.
MR. FORD-That’s where I was going with it.
MR. OBORNE-However you want to do the language. I think either way, they’re going to
get the message, to be honest with you. However, talk amongst yourselves, I guess, if
you want it stronger.
MR. JACKOSKI-So would the Temporary CO suggest that the parking arrangement
would be such as to what was supplied to us tonight?
MR. OBORNE-No, it would be what site conditions are currently, pending the submittal
of the updated plan.
MRS. STEFFAN-Which the applicant will work through with Staff.
MR. OBORNE-With Staff. The engineering is pretty much a signoff.
MR. HUNSINGER-Yes, there’s not much there.
MR. OBORNE-That’s a plus.
MRS. STEFFAN-Unless there are any major changes that are made.
MR. OBORNE-Well, I think, with everything being equal at this point, unless there were
any major changes, I probably wouldn’t refer it to the engineer, at this point.
MRS. STEFFAN-Okay. If there are, then the motion covers it.
MR. OBORNE-Unless so directed by the Planning Board.
MRS. STEFFAN-Okay.
MR. HUNSINGER-I mean, I certainly think, Keith, you can express the feeling of the
Board, and I think certainly if, you know, they have questions about our intent here, they
can look at the minutes, but, you know, I mean, we’re not trying to tell them how to do
their job. We’re saying we’re okay with what he’s given us, it’s just not physical. There’s
not enough detail.
MR. RINGER-And I do understand that.
54
(Queensbury Planning Board 03/16/2010)
MR. HUNSINGER-Any other comments, discussion? Call the vote, please.
AYES: Mr. Sipp, Mr. Jackoski, Mr. Ford, Mr. Traver, Mrs. Steffan, Mr. Hunsinger
NOES: NONE
ABSENT: Mr. Schonewolf
MR. HUNSINGER-Now you can make your comments.
MR. RINGER-But that’s what I was saying, (lost words) with my ignorance to a lot of this,
but it would be better if I just had my old friend Matt Steves work and get everything the
way it should be.
MR. OBORNE-Well, I mean, you’re going to have people that you know do the plan.
MR. RINGER-Right, that’s what I’m saying.
MR. OBORNE-I can’t design the plan for you. I can only give you guidance. That’s it.
MR. HUNSINGER-He can tell you what you need to have included on it.
MR. RINGER-That would save a lot of frustration with you.
MRS. STEFFAN-Well, and certainly he’s somebody who knows our Town Code and has
worked with our Staff sufficiently, and it would probably make things easier for you.
MR. HUNSINGER-And if you know your tenant can move in, then the time pressure, you
don’t have to try to throw something together.
MR. RINGER-Yes, and that’s probably what I’m going to do. Probably the next time that
I’ll be here, I’ll be here with Matt, because I couldn’t even jump on it because he took off
on vacation, and we kind of threw this together really quick, very quick.
MR. HUNSINGER-Okay.
MR. OBORNE-And just for the record, I do appreciate, because I was pretty demanding,
the turnaround that you did. It was very short notice. It was after the agenda was
complete. You made extraordinary strides in a very short amount of time.
MR. RINGER-And like I say, times change. So I appreciate it. The next time you see
here, I’ll be here with Matt and let him do the talking and I’ll just shut up.
MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. Thanks.
MR. RINGER-All right.
MR. HUNSINGER-Do we have anything else this evening, any other business?
MR. TRAVER-Just a note that the annual training is scheduled for the same night that
we have a meeting, which is unfortunate. That’s three hours of training.
MR. HUNSINGER-Yes.
MR. TRAVER-I hope that we have an alternative opportunity to get the required training
evenings.
MR. OBORNE-You have the Planning Federation up in Lake Placid coming in
September, which is a fabulous training opportunity.
MRS. STEFFAN-Yes. It’s the best.
MR. OBORNE-In a fabulous location.
MR. HUNSINGER-Well, a couple of years ago when, and I’m not trying to pitch an
attorney here, but a couple of years ago when Fitzgerald Morris was the Town Attorney,
they did do some training with us, Matt Fuller did, and he actually gave us a piece of
paper, it was like a certificate, that we could hand in. So, I mean, we could have, you
55
(Queensbury Planning Board 03/16/2010)
know, our current Town Attorney come in and give us training. I mean, he speaks on
SEQRA and stuff like that all the time everywhere.
MR. OBORNE-Absolutely.
MR. TRAVER-That would be great.
MR. OBORNE-Yes.
MR. HUNSINGER-So maybe we could try to, if members want to, you know, recommend
some topics.
MR. OBORNE-If you want, specific SEQRA training is what you’re looking for?
MR. HUNSINGER-No. I’m just saying, it doesn’t have to be, the training doesn’t have to
be in a formal, I mean, even this is kind of informal, if you will. It doesn’t have to be
through the Association of Towns or anyone else.
MR. OBORNE-No, it doesn’t.
MR. HUNSINGER-I mean, it could be, as long as the Town Board recognizes the
authority of the trainer, then it satisfies the training requirement.
MR. TRAVER-It’s not only the training, but the fact that it’s in the evenings, so someone
like myself, that works Monday through Friday, it’s difficult for me to attend some of the
all day trainings that they schedule in the middle of the week.
MR. JACKOSKI-Chris, could you check into, with the Town Board, the American
Planning Association, is that the APA, the National Conference in New Orleans? I don’t
know if you guys know it or not, but they actual have virtual training that they utilize. The
presentations that are given at the National Conference, you can actually log in and buy
those training sessions, and it counts toward a certification maintenance. It actually tells
you how many hours of maintenance each of those seminar sessions qualify for.
MR. HUNSINGER-That’s if you’re a Certified Planner.
MR. JACKOSKI-But certainly if a Certified Planner can utilize it, we as a Planning Board,
I think, should. I recently, back in January, I think, completed a lot of those. I don’t
remember what it was. Craig seemed to say, congratulations, that’s great, that’s perfect
training, but maybe we should check with the Town Board that they will allow that,
because quite honestly we can all sit there for two, three hours, you know, with the
headphones on and listen to the seminar, and actually it’s a virtual seminar. You see the
slideshow. You see everything that everybody in the audience saw.
MR. OBORNE-I did send out e-mails concerning workshops, and Pam and I have been
working on some workshops that we’d like to present to you.
MR. HUNSINGER-Okay.
MR. OBORNE-And it would most likely be before a meeting. So it would require maybe
being here at six, and we’d do it over in the Conference Room, something along those
lines.
MR. HUNSINGER-Okay.
MR. OBORNE-And what we have so far developed is filtered views is one, where during
site plan review, instead of clearing the property, you do filtered views through transient
shots and the like. There’s a gentleman who does this for a living, and he gives this
presentation. We also have the Water Keeper that would like to give a presentation on
algae blooms in the lake, and that’s what we have so far. Me, myself, personally, I would
like to see more bioretention training for the Planning Board, because that’s going to be
a DEC requirement here soon is green stormwater infrastructure. That’s coming down
the pike.
MR. TRAVER-Right, and you gave us some literature on that not long ago. That was a
trend.
56
(Queensbury Planning Board 03/16/2010)
MR. OBORNE-Yes, exactly, and I sent that to you, too, and it’s, again, not rocket
science, but it’s a power that the Planning Board certainly can utilize to direct the
applicant to do certain green infrastructure.
MR. JACKOSKI-Would there be any opportunity to get someone in to talk about septic
systems? What kind of septic systems are out there, how they work, what’s better for
what soils, what’s better for what climate, all that kind of detail.
MR. HUNSINGER-Well, what I was going to suggest is if members have specific topics
like that, you know, to send an e-mail, so that we can start to put together a list.
MR. OBORNE-Absolutely, and you may want to, and this is something that has not
happened since I’ve been here, and I don’t know if it’s happened in the past, is to form a
committee to pursue what type of workshops that you guys would like to see, possibly.
So then it’s vested in two or three people, and then I could just deal with those two or the
three people or one person, whoever the committee head is.
MR. HUNSINGER-Sure, okay.
MR. OBORNE-That’s just one suggestion.
MR. HUNSINGER-I mean, you know, if people want to get topics to me, I’d be happy to
keep track of it.
MR. HUNSINGER-Absolutely.
MR. FORD-I like that concept of localizing it, too.
MR. HUNSINGER-Yes, I do, too.
MR. FORD-Because we can be very specific on some issues that we really want, we feel
the need to address, and get background on.
MR. OBORNE-Yes, I think septic systems would be a real good starting point, especially
with the pressures on the two large lakes in the Town, and, you know, there’s a lot of
wetlands floating around that’s going to be built on, not on, but.
MR. TRAVER-And things like native vegetation, like buffers and those type of things.
MR. OBORNE-Yes, and that would be, you’d want to bring the Water Keeper, they’d do
that for free. Well, I’m hoping they’d do that for free. They’d be more than happy to do
that, if you’d have them.
MR. HUNSINGER-Yes. There might be some concerns there, but we could talk about
that. Okay.
MR. TRAVER-Thank you.
MR. HUNSINGER-Sure, anything else?
MRS. STEFFAN-I just wanted to remind everybody. You all got e-mails regarding the
st
time keeping and the Comptroller’s Office would like to have your timesheets by April 1.
don’t know if you paid attention to the e-mail, but the Comptroller’s would like an
accounting of how much time you’re spending on Planning Board activities, and it goes
toward your pension credits.
MR. TRAVER-I’m not sure I got that e-mail.
MRS. STEFFAN-Apparently, this is a new requirement, and so they’re asking for it,
because I called, and I got a second e-mail, I’m sure you all did, and I said, what is this
about? And so they want you to log all of the time.
MR. FORD-I didn’t get it.
MR. TRAVER-Yes, I didn’t get that e-mail.
MR. FORD-Maybe you’re the only one on pension.
MR. OBORNE-I didn’t receive an e-mail, either, on that.
57
(Queensbury Planning Board 03/16/2010)
MR. HUNSINGER-No, I got it, but I signed up.
MRS. STEFFAN-I signed up five years ago.
MR. TRAVER-Maybe it could be re-sent.
MR. HUNSINGER-It’s just if you’re in the pension.
MR. OBORNE-Is that the Association of Towns?
MRS. STEFFAN-No.
MR. HUNSINGER-No. The State Retirement.
MRS. STEFFAN-This is New York State Retirement System. When I joined the
Planning Board, when I went to sign my paperwork, they recommended that I sign up.
MR. TRAVER-Maybe you could recommend that the rest of us be included in the State
Retirement.
MR. FORD-Yes.
MR. HUNSINGER-Well, the way it used to be, and I don’t pretend to know all the details,
so bear with me a little bit. The way it used to be was, I mean, if you’re on the Town
Board, you know, if you’re a Staff person, or if you’re an elected official, for every year of
service, you get a full year credit into the New York State Retirement System. For
Planning and Zoning members you get a month’s credit for every year, but that’s why we
have to now keep track, because I guess they have to either prove that that’s appropriate
or maybe each town makes up their own.
MR. OBORNE-I’m not sure.
MR. HUNSINGER-I can only speculate as to what it’s for. That’s what it relates to. So
it’s only if you’re in the pension.
MRS. STEFFAN-So for the five years, I’ve gotten five months?
MR. HUNSINGER-Yes, I think so.
MRS. STEFFAN-So the timesheet is really worthwhile. I haven’t put it together yet, but it
seems like an exercise in futility.
MR. FORD-But if only some are getting it and not others, I don’t.
MR. HUNSINGER-Well, see, I signed up because I was already in the State Retirement
System. So, you know, and they always tell you that even if it’s just a month or a few
days, it’s worth it.
MR. FORD-I don’t recall being given the option to sign up or not sign up. Given the
opportunity to sign up for a Retirement System, I can’t imagine I wouldn’t have.
MRS. STEFFAN-Well, and I didn’t even know you got paid to be on the Planning Board.
MR. HUNSINGER-I didn’t either when I first joined.
MRS. STEFFAN-They told me that I had to go fill out my payroll forms, I’m like, for what?
MR. HUNSINGER-Yes, I didn’t, either.
MRS. STEFFAN-So I didn’t even know you got paid to do this.
MR. OBORNE-There are Planning Boards around that don’t get paid, Chestertown for
Number One. There are Planning Board Chairs that get paid $13,000 a year to be a
Planning Board Chair.
MR. HUNSINGER-Wow, I want a raise.
MR. OBORNE-Yes, well, you need to go to Clifton Park.
58
(Queensbury Planning Board 03/16/2010)
MR. HUNSINGER-Okay.
MR. OBORNE-So there’s quite the dichotomy between, you know, Planning Boards.
MR. TRAVER-And there are some towns that have no Planning Board whatsoever.
MR. OBORNE-Zero, no zoning. In Washington County.
MR. HUNSINGER-Right.
MR. OBORNE-For the most part.
MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. Anything else?
MRS. STEFFAN-No, just confusion.
MR. FORD-Could we add that to our in-service training, retirement system?
MR. HUNSINGER-Yes, retirement system.
MR. OBORNE-We have tabled, we didn’t table anything to next month. We did to May.
MR. HUNSINGER-No, we did to May, May and June.
MR. OBORNE-Sally Strasser. We have enough for three Board meetings if need be this
coming cycle in April, and again, we have another Board meeting coming up on next
Tuesday and Thursday.
MR. FORD-And Thursday.
MR. HUNSINGER-Right, yes, two meetings next week.
MR. OBORNE-I just got my notes done for Tuesday, so now I have to work on zoning
notes tomorrow and then Thursday is Schermerhorn.
MR. TRAVER-And three meetings again next month.
MR. OBORNE-Well, that’s up to you. You may want to consider that, and Chris, we’ll
discuss that and we’ll see what we want to do at this coming Tuesday meeting or
Thursday meeting.
MR. HUNSINGER-Yes. Okay.
MR. OBORNE-I’m crushed right now. We have a good 14, we have probably 20
applications in. I have not done the review on them to see if they’re complete at this
point, and I anticipate at least that number in the hopper pending submittal.
MR. FORD-Are we anticipating t.v. coverage next Thursday?
MR. OBORNE-I would say no. Certainly press coverage.
MR. HUNSINGER-Yes, I’d be surprised.
MRS. STEFFAN-For what?
MR. HUNSINGER-Schermerhorn.
MR. OBORNE-Nobody has come in. Nobody has voiced any concerns.
MR. TRAVER-Do you think there’ll be any public comment?
MR. OBORNE-I think there’ll be quite a bit of public comment.
MR. HUNSINGER-Yes, I’m sure.
MR. OBORNE-Now I did put our favorite Pastor, Randy Gross, on for a quick turnaround,
should be 10, 15 minutes. That’s why I stuffed him in there.
59
(Queensbury Planning Board 03/16/2010)
MR. HUNSINGER-We’ll do him first.
MR. OBORNE-And he wants to re-align his driveway for temporary purposes for three
years. So, with that said, you can discuss that with him. Tom Hutchins will be here for
him, and then obviously Schermerhorn.
MR. HUNSINGER-Okay.
MR. OBORNE-So I’ll get you that list Tuesday, and we’ll get it going.
MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. Would someone like to make a motion to adjourn?
MR. FORD-Yes.
MR. TRAVER-Second.
MOTION TO ADJOURN THE QUEENSBURY PLANNING BOARD MEETING OF
MARCH 16, 2010, Introduced by Thomas Ford who moved for its adoption, seconded by
Stephen Traver:
th
Duly adopted this 16 day of March, 2010, by the following vote:
AYES: Mr. Traver, Mrs. Steffan, Mr. Jackoski, Mr. Sipp, Mr. Ford, Mr. Hunsinger
NOES: NONE
ABSENT: Mr. Schonewolf
MR. HUNSINGER-Thank you, everybody.
On motion meeting was adjourned.
RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED,
Chris Hunsinger, Chairman
60