2010.03.23
(Queensbury Planning Board 03/23/2010)
QUEENSBURY PLANNING BOARD
SECOND REGULAR MEETING
MARCH 23, 2010
INDEX
Site Plan No. 3-2010 Irene Marshall 1.
Tax Map No. 289.14-1-28
Site Plan No. 36-2009 Cellco Partnership d/b/a Verizon Wireless 2.
RECOMMENDATION TO ZBA Tax Map No. 307.00-1-31
Site Plan No. 20-2010 M & W Foods 6.
RECOMMENDATION TO ZBA Tax Map No. 302.6-1-43
Subdivision No. 3-2009 Christian & Eustacia Sander 8.
RECOMMENDATION TO ZBA Tax Map No. 278.-2-29
Site Plan No. 18-2010 Chris Gabriels for Steven & Caryn LaFleche 10.
RECOMMENDATION TO ZBA 227.17-1-29
Site Plan No. 14-2010 Steven & Christine Johnson 15.
Tax Map No. 289.11-1-23
Site Plan No. 19-2010 Sally Strasser 16.
Tax Map No. 289.11-1-7
Subdivision No. 3-2009 Robert Wing 17.
SKETCH PLAN Tax Map No. 279.17-1-60
Site Plan No. 16-2010 Glens Falls Animal Hospital 21.
Tax Map No. 296.19-1-16
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 03/23/2010)
QUEENSBURY PLANNING BOARD MEETING
SECOND REGULAR MEETING
MARCH 23, 2010
7:00 P.M.
MEMBERS PRESENT
CHRIS HUNSINGER, CHAIRMAN
GRETCHEN STEFFAN, SECRETARY
STEPHEN TRAVER
THOMAS FORD
DONALD SIPP
STEVEN JACKOSKI, ALTERNATE
MEMBERS ABSENT
DONALD KREBS
LAND USE PLANNER-KEITH OBORNE
STENOGRAPHER-SUE HEMINGWAY
MR. HUNSINGER-I’ll call to order the meeting of the Town of Queensbury Planning
Board on Tuesday, March 23, 2010. Our first item on the agenda is an Administrative
Item for Irene Marshall.
ADMINISTRATIVE ITEM:
SITE PLAN NO. 3-2010 SEQR TYPE II IRENE MARSHALL AGENT(S) STEVE
ALHEIM; ERIC & ERIC OWNER(S) DONALD MARSHALL ZONING WR
LOCATION 101 FITZGERALD ROAD EXT. APPLICANT PROPOSES REMOVAL AND
REPLACEMENT OF STAIRS/DECK. FURTHER, APPLICANT PROPOSES A NEW 216
SQ. FT. DECK ADJACENT TO SHORELINE. HARD SURFACING WITHIN 50 FEET
OF A SHORELINE, REMOVAL OF VEGETATION WITHIN 35 FEET OF A SHORELINE
AND EXPANSION OF A NON-CONFORMING STRUCTURE IN A CEA REQUIRES
SITE PLAN REVIEW AND APPROVAL. FOR FURTHER TABLING CONSIDERATION
UNTIL THE ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS ACTS ON AREA VARIANCE REQUEST.
CROSS REFERENCE AV 4-2010; BP 06-572 WARREN CO. PLANNING N/A APA,
CEA, OTHER GLEN LAKE CEA, NWI WETLANDS LOT SIZE 0.14 +/- ACRES TAX
MAP NO. 289.14-1-28 SECTION 179-9
MR. HUNSINGER-There is a draft tabling motion. The project was tabled by the Zoning
th
Board last week until the May 19 Zoning Board meeting. So presuming they submit the
requested information, we could hear it some time after that.
th
MRS. STEFFAN-The 20. I thought, based on the calendar that I have, the May meeting
th
was the 20.
MR. OBORNE-That’s a Thursday.
th
MRS. STEFFAN-I know, but the 25 it says it’s a holiday.
thth
MR. HUNSINGER-Yes. No, the 25 is Grievance Day. May 25 is Grievance Day. It
happens every year.
th
MRS. STEFFAN-So on the calendar that I have the 20 is shadowed. So I’m assuming
th
that that’s the other Planning Board meeting is Thursday the 20.
th
MR. OBORNE-We’ll do it the 20.
MRS. STEFFAN-Because it’s the day after that Zoning Board meeting. Does everybody
has the same calendar that has the same dates?
MR. HUNSINGER-We do now, yes. No, we have that every year. It’s tax grievance day
on the third, the Tuesday. Okay. Would anyone like to make that motion?
MRS. STEFFAN-Yes. I have what you have, but I have the superseded. So I think I am
correct. Okay.
1
(Queensbury Planning Board 03/23/2010)
MOTION TO TABLE SITE PLAN NO. 3-2010 IRENE MARSHALL, Introduced by
Gretchen Steffan who moved for its adoption, seconded by Thomas Ford:
On January 19, 2010 the Planning Board provided a written recommendation to the
Zoning Board of Appeals as required, and
On January 26, 2010 this application was tabled to March 23, 2010 pending the Zoning
Board decision on March 17, 2010; and
th
On March 17, 2010 the Zoning Board of Appeals tabled this application to May 19
pending submission of requested information by April 15, 2010;
Therefore, Let It Be Resolved;
MOTION TO TABLE SITE PLAN NO. 3-2010 IRENE MARSHALL, Introduced by
Gretchen Steffan who moved for its adoption, seconded by Thomas Ford:
According to the resolution prepared by Staff. This will be tabled to the Thursday, May
th
20 Planning Board meeting.
rd
Duly adopted this 23 day of March, 2010, by the following vote:
AYES: Mr. Traver, Mr. Sipp, Mr. Jackoski, Mrs. Steffan, Mr. Ford, Mr. Hunsinger
NOES: NONE
ABSENT: Mr. Krebs
MR. HUNSINGER-The next item on the agenda, we have four items that were requested
recommendations to the Zoning Board of Appeals.
PLANNING BOARD WRITTEN RECOMMENDATIONS TO ZONING BOARD OF
APPEALS:
CELLCO PARTNERSHIP / d/b/a VERIZON WIRELESS [UV 66-09 / SP 36-09]
CONSTRUCTION OF A 120 FOOT TALL WIRELESS COMMUNICATIONS FACILITY
USE NOT ALLOWED IN ZONE
JARED LUSK & MIKE ORCHARD, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT
MR. HUNSINGER-The first one is Cellco Partnership, d/b/a Verizon Wireless. Is there
anyone here from the applicant? Do you want to come up to the table. Whenever you’re
ready to summarize Staff Notes, Keith.
MR. OBORNE-Sure. Site Plan 36-2009 and Use Variance 66-09, Cellco Partnership,
doing business as Verizon Wireless is the applicant. Location is 311 West Mountain
Road. Existing zoning is MDR and LC. The actual placement of the tower is in the MDR
zone. SEQRA Status, this is a Type II, for the following reasons. This is a Class A, APA
Regional project and as such the APA has jurisdiction over environmental issues within
the Park. Project Description: Applicant proposes the installation of a 120 foot tall
monopole cell tower with a 12 foot by 26 foot equipment shelter (312 square feet) on a
+/- 147 acre parcel on the west side of West Mountain Road within the Adirondack Park.
Again, the Planning Board to briefly review and discuss this application and recommend
to the ZBA any potential impacts the relief requested would have on the overall project,
neighborhood and/or surrounding community. I’m going to skip over the Staff comments
and go to the nature of the variance and get it on the record. The nature of the variance
is a Use Variance relief required as per Section 179-5-130C. Telecommunication
Towers restricted to Light Industrial and Heavy Industrial areas within the Town of
Queensbury. Code reference per 179-5-130C for Telecommunication Towers:
Designated areas. Placement of telecommunications towers is restricted to certain areas
within the Town of Queensbury. These areas are as follows: in any Light Industrial (LI)
and Heavy Industrial (HI) Zoning District or co-located on any property where a
telecommunications tower or other tall structure (structures over 50 feet in height) exists.
I’ll touch on just a couple of Site Plan issue. There appears to be an existing stream on
the parcel located to the south of the access road, and no fill or hard surfacing shall be
permitted within 50 feet of any lake, pond, river, stream or wetland except by Site Plan
approval by this Board. Another one I’d like to bring your attention to is the plan calls for
a 12 by 30 foot equipment shelter, yet when scaled it is 12 by 26. This I would like
2
(Queensbury Planning Board 03/23/2010)
clarified, and again, we talked about why this is a Type II SEQRA action, and with that,
we can turn to the last page of my notes, application protocol. At this point, we are on
Number Four, which is, you’ve left the public hearing open. This is SEQRA Type II for
Number Five. So no review is necessary right now we’re here for a recommendation to
the ZBA, and with that I’d turn it over to the Board.
MR. HUNSINGER-Thank you. Good evening.
MR. LUSK-Good evening.
MR. HUNSINGER-If you could identify yourselves for the record.
MR. LUSK-Again, my name is Jared Lusk of Nixon, Peabody, representing Verizon
Wireless, and with me is Mike Orchard from Techtonic Engineering representing Verizon
Wireless.
MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. Did you have anything else to add?
MR. LUSK-No. I think most of the information that was asked for at the last, or all the
information that was asked for at the last meeting was provided in our correspondence
th
dated February 12. I think there are some sort of plan refinements that we need to go
through with the Planning Staff and engineer as we move forward based upon this latest
review, but we’re working through those with the engineers. I think most of it can be
dealt with with notes on the plan or clarification of the plans moving forward.
MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. Questions, comments from members of the Board?
MR. LUSK-Just for the record, I know that Mr. Oborne has, it is a 12 by 30 equipment
shelter, will be a 12 by 30, and it will be reflected on the plan as it comes in, but I tried to
make sure that was clear in the letter to you, but again, it didn’t follow with the shading of
the design of the shelter on the plan. It is 12 by 30 for the record.
MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. So do you plan to submit a revised plan, then?
MR. LUSK-We will at the, again assuming you send us up to the Use Variance, by the
time we get back to the Site Plan Review, we will have the final plans that hopefully
respond to all of the comments that have come, including the size of the equipment
shelter.
MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. Thank you. Sorry, Steve, go ahead.
MR. TRAVER-That’s all right. I just wondered if you have any clarification on the issue
about the proximity of the stream to the access road?
MR. LUSK-Without having the plan open to be able to, we’re confident that the stream is
55 feet from the road. There seems to be some lack of clarity in the plan. There’s a
dotted line.
MR. TRAVER-Right, because in your application it talks about 55 feet or more, and yet
on the plans it appears to be less.
MR. LUSK-Again, there’s a line on the plan that appears to be the stream. It’s actually
the wetland boundary. The stream is actually south of the, will be turns to the south
away from the boundary, and so, again, we’ll provide clarity in the plan. I can explain it
to you on the plan to show you how it is. I tried to do it with Mr. Oborne at the beginning,
but the bottom line is we’ll clarify that in the plan drawings to make sure that it’s clear, but
the engineer this morning, when I spoke to him, said I can see why they think it’s less
than 55 by the way that the lines sort of intersect on the map with regard with the wetland
versus the stream, but they are separate, and the stream is actually south of the wetland
boundary.
MR. TRAVER-I see. Thank you.
MR. FORD-Did you say the stream will be turning south?
MR. LUSK-The stream turns south.
MR. FORD-You’re not going to modify that?
3
(Queensbury Planning Board 03/23/2010)
MR. LUSK-No, sir.
MR. FORD-Yes. I know, but I’ve seen stream bigger than that modified.
MR. LUSK-I can assure you we won’t be going anywhere near the stream, or at least
within 55, depending on what near means, within 55 feet.
MR. OBORNE-Yes, and the concern is if they are within 50, they’ll quantify and qualify
that and you just need to approve that or have them move the road.
MR. HUNSINGER-Right.
MR. OBORNE-That’s really the only issue. We just need it quantified and qualified at
this point.
MR. TRAVER-And those are Site Plan issues anyway.
MR. OBORNE-Exactly.
MR. HUNSINGER-Yes.
MRS. STEFFAN-Well, the only issue that I have, and I brought this up the last time, is
just the visual impact of that. You had assured us that there would be no visual impact,
that it would be just above the tree canopy, but, you know, in the drawings that were
furnished, it doesn’t quite identify it for me, and so when you come back for Site Plan
Review, I will ask you to give us a better representation of exactly what that will look like.
The last drawing in the series shows where it will be on the tree canopy, but that’s a
drawing versus the impact. What I’d like to do is to see a photograph of West Mountain
with a diagram and how it will show itself.
MR. LUSK-We had a visual analysis that was submitted with the application that has
photo simulations.
MRS. STEFFAN-In the original?
MR. LUSK-In the original, well, it was in the supplemental materials. I have a copy of it I
believe in my file, if that’s.
MRS. STEFFAN-If it’s in your initial package, I’ll have that when we review it for Site
Plan, but I reviewed the package that you submitted with this for the Zoning Board
recommendation.
MR. LUSK-It would have been in, it’s in a binder that looks like that that came in with
these, I believe to be a December mailing. In it is our series of photos and simulations of
the tower, various points that were taken in coordination with the APA.
MRS. STEFFAN-Okay.
MR. OBORNE-You may have gotten that with the original. What’s the date on that?
That’s July of ’09. So it’s been a bit of time since you received that.
MR. HUNSINGER-Yes, I didn’t dig out the whole stack either.
MRS. STEFFAN-Yes. I didn’t. I just went with what we were provided.
MR. LUSK-Should I submit some more copies of that, or do you think you have enough?
MR. OBORNE-Well, let’s make sure the Board has, if they don’t have any, I’ll contact
you, if the Board can get back to me with that issue.
MRS. STEFFAN-It certainly might be something that you want to present the night of
your Site Plan Review to us.
MR. LUSK-I will.
MRS. STEFFAN-Because that will be an important factor.
MR. LUSK-Okay.
4
(Queensbury Planning Board 03/23/2010)
MR. SIPP-Are you planning any vegetative cover for a plant that is maybe damaged in
the process of building this road?
MR. LUSK-I think we have designed the road to avoid any impact on it. That’s one of the
APA’s sticking points is making sure that we minimize the amount of disturbance.
There’s an existing logging trail there that we’re using to the extent possible. So we, as
part of our construction means and methods, they put up snow fence to prevent any, the
disturbance of any trees that are outside of the clearing area, and they’re very explicit
with that. So I think ordinarily that we wouldn’t disturb trees that weren’t designed to
come out and approved, if we were to damage vegetation outside the clearing areas.
MR. SIPP-And with the installation of a culvert underneath the road there, there’s going
to be some disturbance of the soil, and that’s going to be corrected by?
MR. LUSK-The SWPPP and the erosion control measures during construction will, we
will make sure that we comply with the applicable regulations.
MR. HUNSINGER-Any other questions, comments from the Board? We did leave the
th
public hearing open from the December 17 meeting. Is there anyone in the audience
that wants to address the Board on this project?
PUBLIC HEARING OPEN
MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. We leave the public hearing open, right, until we get through
Site Plan? Yes. Would anyone like to make a recommendation to the Zoning Board?
MRS. STEFFAN-Okay.
MOTION TO MAKE A RECOMMENDATION TO THE ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS
FOR USE VARIANCE NO. 66-2009 AND SITE PLAN NO. 36-2009 CELLCO
PARTNERSHIP d/b/a VERIZON WIRELESS, Introduced by Gretchen Steffan who
moved for its adoption, seconded by Steven 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 TO THE ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS
FOR USE VARIANCE NO. 66-2009 AND SITE PLAN NO. 36-2009 CELLCO
PARTNERSHIP d/b/a VERIZON WIRELESS, Introduced by Gretchen Steffan who
moved for its adoption, seconded by Steven Jackoski:
According to the resolution prepared by Staff. We select Option Two. The
Planning Board, based on a limited review, has identified the following areas of
concern:
a.The visual impact of the proposed cell tower on the West Mountain vista.
b.The stream distance from the proposed driveway.
rd
Duly adopted this 23 day of March, 2010, by the following vote:
AYES: Mr. Sipp, Mr. Traver, Mr. Ford, Mr. Jackoski, Mrs. Steffan, Mr. Hunsinger
NOES: NONE
ABSENT: Mr. Krebs
MR. HUNSINGER-Good luck.
5
(Queensbury Planning Board 03/23/2010)
MRS. STEFFAN-Good luck at the Zoning Board.
MR. LUSK-Thank you.
MR. HUNSINGER-The next item on the agenda for the same purpose is M & W Foods.
M & W FOODS [AV 13-10 / SP 20-10]: DEMOLITION OF EXISTING KFC / A & W
RESTAURANT AND CONSTRUCTION OF A NEW 3,276 +/- SQ. FT. BUILDING
RELIEF REQUESTED FROM SETBACK REQUIREMENTS
STEFANIE BITTER & TOM HUTCHINS, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT
MR. HUNSINGER-Keith, whenever you’re ready to summarize Staff Notes.
MR. OBORNE-Area Variance 13-2010 and Site Plan 20-2010, this is for M & W Foods.
Requested action is a Recommendation to the ZBA concerning the relief requested in
the variance application as well as the potential impacts of this project on the
neighborhood and surrounding community. Location is 797 State Route 9, Northgate
Plaza. Existing zoning is Commercial Intensive. This is a Type II SEQRA. Project
Description: Applicant proposes the demolition of existing KFC and A & W Restaurant
and construction of a new 3,276 square foot building to house KFC only. Nature of the
variance: Eight foot six inches of relief from the 75 foot front setback requirement per
Section 179-3-040. I guess I’ll jump through real quick on some issues that I have, as far
as Site Plan. Potential trash and recycling enclosure would not be accessible by hauler
as configured. Strong consideration should be made to either closing the southeast
entrance or requiring traffic to make a right in and right out only, and pedestrian safety
should be looked at for this project. Again, I want to get that on the Board’s radar screen
for Site Plan Review next week, and with that, I’ll turn it over to the Board.
MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. Good evening.
MS. BITTER-Good evening. Stefanie Bitter for the record, together with Tom Hutchins
for the applicant. We’re seeking this evening a recommendation from the Planning
Board relative to the Area Variance for the front setback relief that’s necessary for this
project. As Staff has indicated in the Staff comments, what we’re proposing is to actually
the existing KFC and A & W Restaurant and construction a smaller building which will be
450 square feet smaller in size, with only one tenant. It will only be occupied by KFC. In
addition to making a smaller building, the applicant is also proposing to place it on a
more compliant location to enhance the landscaping, to enhance the stormwater, to
incorporate a bypass lane in the back of the Plaza and to decrease the impermeable
surfaces, to overall create a better development project for this lease hold that is
occupied by this tenant. The property is considered to be on two front portions on a
corner lot. As a result, two front setbacks are required, putting us back 75 feet from the
property. Although the building as it exists today is 32 feet from Old Aviation Road and
we’re trying to place it as compliant as possible, our best efforts places it 66.6 feet from
that road. So we’re making it less nonconforming but we still, unfortunately, don’t meet
that setback. However, in reviewing the balancing test, we feel that the benefit to the
applicant outweighs any detriment that can be deemed to exist in the community with
this Area Variance that we’re seeking. To go over the five factors, undesirable change
we don’t believe will exist because the building will actually be farther away from Old
Aviation Road. Any other feasible method? No, we’re dealing with a pre-existing,
nonconforming site, so we’re limited on our actual availabilities. Is the Area Variance
considered substantial? We don’t think so because we’re actually making it more
conforming. Are there adverse effects on the environment? No, because we’re actually
increasing the permeability on the site, and we don’t believe it should be considered self-
created because it’s a pre-existing nonconforming site. I’ll open it up to questions that
you might have.
MR. HUNSINGER-Questions, comments from the Board?
MR. TRAVER-Is the other tenant planning on re-locating somewhere else in the Town?
MS. BITTER-I don’t believe so. A & W?
MR. HUTCHINS-No. Presently there’s a KFC and an A & W and they’re the same
franchisee, and the replacement building will just be KFC.
MR. TRAVER-I see.
6
(Queensbury Planning Board 03/23/2010)
MS. BITTER-So get your root beer while you can.
MR. HUNSINGER-I had some Site Plan concerns, but, you know, they’re not really
relevant for the Area Variance, or, you know, I think the variance request is, I would
agree with your comments. It’s actually less of a relief than you currently have.
MS. BITTER-Right. Although we’d like to come back next week, I don’t think we’re back
until April.
MRS. STEFFAN-I think it’s better, I think it’s certainly a better situation than exists right
now, and with some of the other Site Plan issues that we’ll be able to address when you
come back in front of us, I think it’ll be a much better development, or a much better site
as a result of that.
MR. HUTCHINS-Yes. If I could just comment briefly, that part of the drive here was to
semi-isolate particularly parking for KFC from the remainder of the Plaza. Right now it’s
kind of a free for all except for about four spaces in the front of it.
MRS. STEFFAN-That’s true.
MR. HUTCHINS-And you’ve got a lot of foot traffic back and forth, and with this
configuration we’ve got substantial parking for KFC right at that facility. That’s the
primary drive between.
MR. FORD-It can get pretty dangerous there.
MRS. STEFFAN-Yes.
MR. FORD-For pedestrian traffic as well as vehicular.
MR. HUNSINGER-Yes, and really that’s what my concern is, is with the revised curb cut
and ingress and egress on Route 9, because it seems like that whole throat has been
closed down a lot, and I’m just concerned about, you know, the flow of traffic and
conflicts with traffic.
MR. HUTCHINS-Okay, and we’ll keep that in mind here. It was closed down a lot in an
effort to provide both a little more control and to isolate, provide an isolated parking area
to KFC.
MR. HUNSINGER-Sure. Understood.
MR. HUTCHINS-And I’m going to meet with DOT on this, on Monday. So I’ll be able to
get their input.
MR. HUNSINGER-Okay.
MR. TRAVER-Yes, in the best of times, that’s a very difficult plaza to obviously get in.
MR. HUNSINGER-It’s tricky. Especially if you’re making a left onto Route 9, it’s easier to
go to the northernmost exit than the southern exit because of the queuing lines with
people turning left onto Quaker.
MR. HUTCHINS-Right.
MR. HUNSINGER-So, in narrowing that down more, I don’t know if that’s going to create
more problems or not, but at first blush, that was.
MR. HUTCHINS-And we’ll look at that.
MR. HUNSINGER-Any other comments from members of the Board?
MRS. STEFFAN-No, the other issues are Site Plan issues. They’re not in regard to the
Area Variance.
MR. HUNSINGER-Do we have a public hearing, Keith?
MR. OBORNE-Not associated with recommendations.
MR. HUNSINGER-I didn’t think so.
7
(Queensbury Planning Board 03/23/2010)
MR. OBORNE-If you choose to do that, that’s fine.
MRS. STEFFAN-So based on the discussion that occurred, we have not identified any
significant adverse impacts.
MR. SIPP-Just re-do the landscaping. You’ve got numbers or letters on there that don’t
exist.
MRS. STEFFAN-Right, but those are Site Plan Review issues. So, they know that they
have to satisfy the comments.
MR. HUTCHINS-And I saw that comment. I have not been back through, but there’s a
possibility there could have been a translation thing between myself and the landscaper.
MR. SIPP-Well, there is a G-1 or something, but there’s no G-1 listed as to what type of
tree or shrub or anything. So it needs a little work.
MS. BITTER-Okay. We’ll look into that.
MRS. STEFFAN-Okay. Then I will introduce a resolution.
MOTION TO MAKE A RECOMMENDATION TO THE ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS
FOR AREA VARIANCE NO. 13-2010 AND SITE PLAN NO. 20-2010 FOR M & W
FOODS, Introduced by Gretchen Steffan who moved for its adoption, seconded by
Stephen Traver:
Whereas, the Town of Queensbury Zoning Ordinance, per Section 179-9-070 J 2 b.
requires the Planning Board to provide a written recommendation to the Zoning Board of
Appeals for projects that require both Zoning Board of Appeals & Planning Board
approval; and
Whereas, this project does require both Zoning Board of Appeals & Planning
Board approval, the following recommendation is hereby provided to the Zoning Board of
Appeals; and
Whereas, the Planning Board has briefly reviewed and discussed this application,
the relief request in the variance application as well as the potential impacts of this
project on the neighborhood and surrounding community, and found that:
MOTION TO MAKE A RECOMMENDATION TO THE ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS
FOR AREA VARIANCE NO. 13-2010 AND SITE PLAN NO. 20-2010 FOR M & W
FOODS, Introduced by Gretchen Steffan who moved for its adoption, seconded by
Stephen Traver:
According to the resolution prepared by Staff. The Planning Board selects Item One.
The Planning Board, based on limited review, has not identified any significant adverse
impacts that cannot be mitigated with current project proposal.
rd
Duly adopted this 23 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. Krebs
MS. BITTER-Thank you very much.
MR. HUTCHINS-Thank you.
MR. HUNSINGER-Good luck. See you next month.
CHRISTIAN & EUSTACIA SANDER [AV 14-10 / SUB 3-09] SUBDIVISION OF A 55.24
+/- ACRE PARCEL INTO 10 RESIDENTIAL LOTS RELIEF REQUESTED FROM ROAD
FRONTAGE REQUIREMENTS
TOM HUTCHINS, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT
8
(Queensbury Planning Board 03/23/2010)
MR. HUNSINGER-Keith, whenever you’re ready to summarize Staff Notes.
MR. OBORNE-Sure. There’s a bold statement on the very top. Due to Staff oversight,
this application will need to be placed on the April 20, 2010 Planning Board meeting.
The public hearing for SEQRA was not advertised, and we are painfully sorry that that
happened. I have discussed it with the applicant, and the applicant’s agent, I should say.
So he’s fully aware of what’s going on with that. There’s really no recourse but to table it
at this point because you’d need to get that recommendation, and before you have that
recommendation, you have to do SEQRA. You have to have a SEQRA determination.
So again, we apologize. I apologize for my Staff. It was an oversight, and that’s really all
I have to say about this application at this point.
MRS. STEFFAN-Okay.
MR. HUNSINGER-Did you have anything you wanted to add? I’m sorry, first, if you
could identify yourself.
MR. HUTCHINS-I’m Tom Hutchins, Hutchins Engineering, on behalf of Christian and
Eustacia Sander. I’m not totally sure I understand. Do we do a full SEQRA review for
the subdivision prior to being able to make a recommendation to the Zoning Board?
MR. HUNSINGER-Yes. Because you have to complete SEQRA before you can take
action, and by the Zoning Board considering and presumably approving the Area
Variance, that’s taking an action. So we have to approve SEQRA before we can take an
action.
MR. HUTCHINS-Okay. So we have to do a, my experience in the past with subdivisions
is we do SEQRA near the point where we’re ready to do a Preliminary approval?
MR. HUNSINGER-Yes. That’s where it gets a little tricky, with Area Variance issues.
MR. HUTCHINS-So we could be looking at a multiple meetings scenario to get through
Preliminary review of the Planning Board before we can get before the Zoning Board to
ask for a variance that we need? Otherwise this is trash if we don’t get the variance.
Well, I mean, I suppose that could happen. I mean, I didn’t see anything in the review
that would lead me to believe that that would happen here.
MR. HUTCHINS-Okay. So you would do a SEQRA review but not take the next step to a
Preliminary.
MR. HUNSINGER-Right.
MR. OBORNE-Right.
MRS. STEFFAN-Right, until the Area Variance was approved.
MR. HUNSINGER-Until the Area Variance was approved.
MR. HUTCHINS-Okay. Now this is a Type I coordinated review. Does that impact our
timing in any way?
MR. OBORNE-What you have to do is obviously go through SEQRA at Preliminary,
which is all subdivisions go through SEQRA at Preliminary, okay. They issue the
recommendation. The Planning Board cannot approve the Preliminary until the Area
Variances are taken care of, okay.
MR. HUTCHINS-Right.
MR. OBORNE-Okay. So you go to the next day, and that’s how I have it on the schedule
for April, is you go to the next day after you get your recommendation, and go through
SEQRA, Type I, get your recommendation, your determination and recommendation,
Area Variances, and then you’re back the following week. Now, if you want to speed this
process up, you can certainly submit Final also in anticipation of the Area Variances
being approved, and the Planning Board, if they so choose, could review them both on
the same night, where you can get Preliminary approval, and then move through Final
approval.
9
(Queensbury Planning Board 03/23/2010)
MRS. STEFFAN-And in this situation you’ve already been in front of us for Sketch Plan,
and so I’m assuming that a lot of things that we talked about in Sketch Plan are
incorporated in this.
MR. HUTCHINS-They are. I mean, we did what the Board asked for. We did exactly
what the Board asked for. It is a vastly different subdivision layout.
MR. HUNSINGER-I noticed that.
MRS. STEFFAN-But some of it was dependent on what happened with the 149 project,
because there were a lot of unknowns at that point.
MR. HUTCHINS-That’s correct, and that’s coming together. Okay. Well, I guess that’s
all I can say at this point.
MR. OBORNE-I guess, if I could say, I mean, we will endeavor, and I will endeavor,
personally, to make sure that the process goes as smoothly as possible, from our end.
MR. HUTCHINS-Okay. Thank you.
MRS. STEFFAN-Okay. Then I will make a motion to table.
MOTION TO TABLE SUBDIVISION NO. 3-2009 CHRISTIAN & EUSTACIA SANDER,
Introduced by Gretchen Steffan who moved for its adoption, seconded by Stephen
Traver:
Whereas, the Town of Queensbury Zoning Ordinance, per Section 179-9-070 J 2 b.
requires the Planning Board to provide a written recommendation to the Zoning Board of
Appeals for projects that require both Zoning Board of Appeals & Planning Board
approval; and
Whereas, this project does require both Zoning Board of Appeals & Planning
Board approval, the following recommendation is hereby provided to the Zoning Board of
Appeals; and
Whereas, the Planning Board has briefly reviewed and discussed this application,
the relief request in the variance application as well as the potential impacts of this
project on the neighborhood and surrounding community, and found that:
MOTION TO TABLE SUBDIVISION NO. 3-2009 CHRISTIAN & EUSTACIA SANDER,
Introduced by Gretchen Steffan who moved for its adoption, seconded by Stephen
Traver:
th
This is tabled to the April 20 Planning Board meeting. This is being tabled because the
public hearing for SEQRA was not advertised.
rd
Duly adopted this 23 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. Krebs
MR. HUNSINGER-I would just add, make sure you have the subdivision signs up. I
didn’t go and look to make sure they were there, but that is something that could hold
you up again if it’s not done, you know, the required subdivision signs.
MR. HUTCHINS-Okay. Because we are actually going to go into Preliminary review, in a
fair amount of detail, before we get any referral to the Zoning or any recommendation to
the Zoning Board.
MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. The next item on the agenda is also a Recommendation to
the Zoning Board of Appeals.
CHRIS GABRIELS FOR STEVEN & CARYN LA FLECHE [AV 15-10 / SP 18-10]
BOATHOUSE/SUNDECK w /57 +/- SQ. FT. DOCK EXPANSION RELIEF
REQUESTED FROM SIDE SETBACK, DOCK SIZE REQUIREMENTS & EXPANSION
OF NON-CONFORMING STRUCTURE IN A CEA
10
(Queensbury Planning Board 03/23/2010)
CHRIS GABRIELS, PRESENT
MR. HUNSINGER-Whenever you’re ready, Keith, to summarize Staff Notes.
MR. OBORNE-Area Variance 15-2010, Site Plan 18-2010, applicant is Chris Gabriels for
Steven & Caryn LaFleche. Again, this is a recommendation to the Zoning Board of
Appeals concerning the relief requested in the Area Variance application as well as the
potential impacts of this project on the neighborhood and surrounding community.
Location is 12 Waters Edge Drive. Existing zoning is Waterfront Residential. This is a
Type II SEQRA. Applicant proposes to modify an existing boat house to include
enlarging by 48 square feet each dock extension, replacing existing peaked roof with an
800 square foot sundeck with stairs and removal of a 48 square foot ancillary dock
extension located on east side of dock. I’ll go down to the Nature of Variance. The
applicant is requesting five feet of dock size relief as per 179-5-070(5). Second variance
is 100 square feet of sundeck relief as per Section 179-5-070(6). Number Three, six feet
of east side setback relief for proposed boathouse/dock expansion as per 179-5-060(7)
and finally relief is requested for the expansion of a nonconforming structure as per 179-
13-010. The Code references, just for the record, 179-5-070(5) is the maximum area of
any dock or wharf shall be 700 square feet, including any walkway. Section 179-5-
070(6), the maximum surface area of any superstructure built upon and/or above any
dock shall be 700 square feet, and 179-5-060(7), every dock or wharf constructed shall
have a minimum setback of 20 feet from the adjacent property line extended into the lake
on the same axis as the property line runs on shore where it meets the lake or at right
angle to the mean high water mark whichever results in the greater setback. With that, I
will turn it over to the Board and entertain any questions if there’s any confusion on
what’s going on.
MR. HUNSINGER-Thank you. Good evening. If you could identify yourself for the
record.
MR. GABRIELS-Chris Gabriels.
MR. HUNSINGER-Did you have anything else to add?
MR. GABRIELS-It is a pre-existing nonconforming structure. They are seeking to modify
it. Although it does not meet the 20 foot setback regulation and the modification does not
as well, they are drawing it into greater compliance. The Lake George Park Commission
has the exact same, in relationship to the 700 square foot dock regulation, Lake George
Park Commission has the exact same limitations. They have granted this permit with the
understanding that there’s a typo in the dimensioning of the little angles. They’re listed
as three by three. If they’re two by two, it does fall under the 700 square feet. In relation
to the 700 square foot boathouse regulation, Lake George Park Commission does not
have that, nor does Bolton have that, which I’m a little more familiar. The homeowners
would like a boathouse, but whatever determination or recommendation you’d like to
make in the regard, I’m sure they will follow suit.
MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. Questions, comments from the Board?
MR. TRAVER-Well, my concern, I suppose, with this, in as much as it’s nonconforming,
is that it appears that this application is going in the wrong direction. I mean, I can
certainly understand how the applicant might want to have a sundeck as opposed to a
peaked roof, but I think in making that modification to the boathouse, it would be more
appropriate to bring it more in compliance and perhaps have a somewhat smaller
sundeck than to further push the boathouse further out of compliance. That’s my feeling.
MR. GABRIELS-And to reiterate, that 700 square feet, I was not, I was not aware of it,
nor with the multiple meetings had with your Staff made aware of that, and the applicant
is more than happy to follow whatever decision or recommendation you’d like to make in
that regard.
MR. FORD-So coming into compliance will not be an issue?
MR. GABRIELS-No.
MR. TRAVER-Well, in that case, conceivably we are considering Variance No. Three,
which would be the side setback relief. Would that be correct?
11
(Queensbury Planning Board 03/23/2010)
MR. GABRIELS-Correct, and the modification of a pre-existing, nonconforming. I don’t
know how that fits in with your.
MR. TRAVER-Well, it’s actually, the variance number four is the expansion. So if you
don’t expand it, but merely modify it from primarily the roof from a peak to a sundeck,
then that, you would not need a variance for an expansion either.
MR. OBORNE-I don’t know if I agree with that. I think if the dock is being expanded, it’s
an expansion of a nonconforming structure. They’re within the, well, as Mr. Gabriels
said, that there was a typo, it was three by three, and you’re saying it was supposed to
be two by two? Okay. So, I mean, I’d have to look at those numbers again, to be honest
with you.
MR. GABRIELS-The little triangles that go from the dock to the walkway, there’s two of
them, equidistance, they’re three by three, which would be nine square feet. It should
have been two by two. That would be four square feet, and it would be five square feet
less. We’d fall underneath the 700 square feet limitation.
MR. OBORNE-Okay.
MR. TRAVER-So the dock size would be larger. It sounds like what you’re saying.
MR. GABRIELS-Than it presently is?
MR. TRAVER-Yes.
MR. GABRIELS-Dock size would be 48 square feet larger, although it would meet your
regulations and meet the Lake George Park Commission regulations.
MR. TRAVER-Okay. I see, okay. Then I stand corrected.
MR. OBORNE-It still would be an expansion of a nonconforming structure.
MR. TRAVER-Right.
MR. OBORNE-Because of the side setbacks.
MR. TRAVER-That’s right. I misunderstood.
MR. FORD-But only in that regard. That’s the only thing that’s going to make it
nonconforming.
MR. OBORNE-Well, as presented, it is what it is. There has not been any revisions at
this point. You’re going forward to a recommendation to the Zoning Board of Appeals.
They are looking at the exact same application that you’re looking at. So, with that said,
the determination of the Zoning Administrator is what is the nature of the variances
before you.
MR. FORD-Thank you.
MR. HUNSINGER-Just a point of clarification. The triangles that you mentioned, aren’t
those on the dock itself, not the roof, not the sundeck?
MR. GABRIELS-Correct.
MR. HUNSINGER-Okay.
MR. GABRIELS-But there’s, the first variance that he listed there was the variance from
the 700 square foot regulation of the dock as well.
MR. HUNSINGER-Okay.
MR. GABRIELS-So that there’s two.
MR. HUNSINGER-Gotcha. Thank you.
MR. GABRIELS-Yes, that’s a typo.
MR. HUNSINGER-So Item One, variance one, you would no longer need.
12
(Queensbury Planning Board 03/23/2010)
MR. GABRIELS-Correct.
MR. HUNSINGER-Okay.
MR. GABRIELS-Item Two, we would, you know, depending on your recommendation or
decision, we’d no longer need. Item Three and Four, we would.
MR. TRAVER-Right.
MR. JACKOSKI-As part of Site Plan, I think something that’ll come up is vegetation
along the shoreline. Has there been anymore discussion about vegetation along the
shoreline?
MR. GABRIELS-There’s no change proposed for any vegetation along the shoreline.
MR. JACKOSKI-Would the applicant be willing to add some? Again, this is, but this will
probably come up, certainly with me, back at Site Plan.
MR. GABRIELS-I have no idea.
MR. SIPP-I think you ought to take a look at the regulation on 179-8-040, of a buffer
zone needed between the lake and the house, vegetative buffer zone.
MR. GABRIELS-I’ll talk to them about it.
MR. HUNSINGER-Well, I think with your comment about the typo on the plan, so that
you no longer need the five feet of dock size relief, and you’re willing to reduce the
sundeck to 700 square feet, I could certainly support a positive recommendation to the
Zoning Board.
MR. TRAVER-I agree.
MR. HUNSINGER-Would anyone like to put forward that resolution? I’m sorry. Do we
have a public hearing, Keith?
MR. OBORNE-With this, no, I don’t think so.
MR. HUNSINGER-We do not. Okay.
MR. OBORNE-No public hearing.
MR. HUNSINGER-I mean, usually I make a comment how I hate all the sundecks and if
it were up to me we wouldn’t have any, but.
MR. TRAVER-Yes, at least they’re replacing the peak, which is up in the air anyway,
replacing it with people.
MR. HUNSINGER-Right, and what’s the language that we do at Site Plan Review to
make sure that they don’t exceed the height requirements?
MR. OBORNE-I’m not sure I follow the?
MR. HUNSINGER-After the debacle with Hoffman.
MR. OBORNE-Well, I mean, he does show a compliant height and mean high water.
MR. HUNSINGER-Right. I think we always just make sure we reference it in the
approval resolution.
MR. OBORNE-That’s fine.
MR. HUNSINGER-To reinforce it.
MR. OBORNE-And I’m not familiar with Hoffman.
MR. HUNSINGER-Well, it’s the one where they built the monstrosity and then came
back and said we’re sorry.
13
(Queensbury Planning Board 03/23/2010)
MR. OBORNE-Okay. I’m sure this applicant wouldn’t do that.
MR. HUNSINGER-The Town, we’ve been suing them ever since trying to get them to
come into compliance.
MR. OBORNE-Okay.
MR. HUNSINGER-Yes.
MR. FORD-With an apparent lack of success to date.
MR. HUNSINGER-Is there anything else that members, comments that members want
to express in reference to Site Plan Review for benefit of the applicant? Any other items
that you’re concerned about?
MR. TRAVER-No. I think the comments to the applicant regarding the shoreline
buffering are well advised, but I don’t see any other issues.
MRS. STEFFAN-And this is a recommendation to the Zoning Board. So we don’t have
to put that in this, because that’s for us.
MR. TRAVER-Right.
MR. HUNSINGER-That’s for us.
MRS. STEFFAN-Okay. So I’d like to introduce a resolution.
MOTION TO MAKE A RECOMMENDATION TO THE ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS
FOR AREA VARIANCE NO. 15-2010 AND SITE PLAN NO. 18-2010 CHRIS GABRIELS
FOR STEVEN & CARYN LAFLECHE, Introduced by Gretchen Steffan who moved for its
adoption, seconded by Stephen Traver:
Whereas, the Town of Queensbury Zoning Ordinance, per Section 179-9-070 J 2 b.
requires the Planning Board to provide a written recommendation to the Zoning Board of
Appeals for projects that require both Zoning Board of Appeals & Planning Board
approval; and
Whereas, this project does require both Zoning Board of Appeals & Planning
Board approval, the following recommendation is hereby provided to the Zoning Board of
Appeals; and
Whereas, the Planning Board has briefly reviewed and discussed this application,
the relief request in the variance application as well as the potential impacts of this
project on the neighborhood and surrounding community, and found that:
MOTION TO MAKE A RECOMMENDATION TO THE ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS
FOR AREA VARIANCE NO. 15-2010 AND SITE PLAN NO. 18-2010 CHRIS GABRIELS
FOR STEVEN & CARYN LAFLECHE, Introduced by Gretchen Steffan who moved for its
adoption, seconded by Stephen Traver:
According to the resolution prepared by Staff. The Planning Board, based on
limited review, has identified the following areas of concern:
a.The applicant will correct the typo on the deck blueprint from three feet three
inches to two feet two inches. So the dock size relief is not necessary.
b.The applicant will reduce the sundeck square footage to 700 feet which is
Code compliant, so sundeck relief is not necessary.
c.The Planning Board supports the six feet of east side setback relief, and the
Planning Board also supports the request for expansion of a nonconforming
structure.
rd
Duly adopted this 23 day of March, 2010, by the following vote:
MRS. STEFFAN-I’d like to introduce a resolution making a recommendation to the
Zoning Board of Appeals for Area Variance 15-2010 and Site Plan 18-2010 for Chris
Gabriels. According to the resolution prepared by Staff. We pick Option Two, the
Planning Board, based on limited review, has identified the following areas of concern:
14
(Queensbury Planning Board 03/23/2010)
a. The applicant will be correcting a typo on the deck blueprint from 3 feet three inches
to two feet, two inches. As a result, there will be no need for the 100 square foot of
sundeck relief. The Planning Board does support the six feet of east side setback relief,
and the Planning Board also supports the request for the expansion of a nonconforming
structure.
MR. TRAVER-Second.
MR. GABRIELS-Should I clarify that or let it go?
MR. HUNSINGER-Yes. I think we need to clarify that.
MR. GABRIELS-There’s a little bit of confusion in the description between the first two.
MR. HUNSINGER-Yes.
MR. GABRIELS-That’s there’s a typo with the dock square footage and there’s a desire
by the applicant to draw the boathouse square footage into compliance. I don’t know
how you want to word that.
MR. HUNSINGER-The five feet of dock size relief, that was the typo. So, you had the
three by three, you did two by two, which eliminates the need for the dock relief, but the
sundeck relief, they’re willing to reduce the sundeck to 700 square feet, which is
compliant.
MRS. STEFFAN-Okay. So this is correct.
MR. HUNSINGER-That’s correct, but that’s only for the dock size relief.
MRS. STEFFAN-That’s only for the dock size relief.
MR. HUNSINGER-Did everyone understand that?
MR. TRAVER-Yes. It further clarifies the issue of the sundeck.
MRS. STEFFAN-Okay. So they want this. They will reduce it to the seven foot
compliant.
MR. HUNSINGER-They’re willing to reduce the sundeck to 700 square foot, which would
be compliant.
MRS. STEFFAN-Okay.
MR. HUNSINGER-So I guess you should probably withdraw your first motion and enter a
new one.
MRS. STEFFAN-Okay. I withdraw the initial motion, sorry Maria, and I will make a new
resolution.
AYES: Mr. Traver, Mr. Jackoski, Mr. Sipp, Mrs. Steffan, Mr. Ford, Mr. Hunsinger
NOES: NONE
ABSENT: Mr. Krebs
MR. HUNSINGER-You’re all set. Good luck.
SITE PLAN 14-2010 SEQR TYPE II STEVEN & CHRISTINE JOHNSON OWNER(S)
ZONING WR-3A LOCATION 96 HALL ROAD APPLICANT PROPOSES
DEMOLITION OF EXISTING 1,198 +/- SQ. FT. SUMMER HOME AND REBUILD TO A
YEAR ROUND 2,110 +/- SQ. FT. RESIDENCE AND 576 +/- SQ. FT. DETACHED
GARAGE. HARD SURFACING WITHIN 50 FEET OF A SHORELINE REQUIRES
PLANNING BOARD REVIEW AND APPROVAL. CROSS REFERENCE AV 9-10; BP
07-275 SEPTIC ALTERATION WARREN CO. PLANNING N/A APA, CEA OTHER
GLEN LAKE CEA, 100 YEAR FLOODPLAIN LOT SIZE 0.25 +/- ACRES TAX MAP NO.
289.11-1-23 SECTION 179-9-010
MR. HUNSINGER-Did we expect anyone from the applicant to appear?
15
(Queensbury Planning Board 03/23/2010)
MR. OBORNE-No. Again, this has been tabled because the Zoning Board of Appeals
has tabled this application at the request of the applicant.
MRS. STEFFAN-Okay. So do we have to open the public hearing?
MR. HUNSINGER-Yes. The public hearing was left open, and I will open it. We will
leave it open.
PUBLIC HEARING OPEN
th
MR. HUNSINGER-And the ZBA is hearing it on the 19 of May. So.
th
MRS. STEFFAN-We have to hear it on the 20.
MR. HUNSINGER-We would have to hear it after that.
MRS. STEFFAN-So we just have to change that date. I’ll make a motion to table.
MOTION TO TABLE SITE PLAN NO. 14-2010 STEVEN & CHRISTINE JOHNSON,
Introduced by Gretchen Steffan who moved for its adoption, seconded by Stephen
Jackoski:
1)A site plan application has been made to the Queensbury Planning Board for
the following: Applicant proposes demolition of existing 1,198 +/- sq. ft. summer
home and rebuild to a year round 2,110 +/- sq. ft. residence with a 576 +/- sq. ft.
detached garage. Hard Surfacing within 50 feet of a shoreline requires Planning
Board review and approval.
2)The Planning Board provided a written recommendation as required to the ZBA
on 3/16/2010; and
3)The Zoning Board of Appeals at their 3/17/2010 meeting tabled the application
to 5/19/2010; and
4)A public hearing was advertised and held on 3/23/2010 [opened and left open];
and
5)This application is supported with all documentation, public comment and
application material in the file of record;
6)MOTION TO TABLE SITE PLAN NO. 14-2010 STEVEN & CHRISTINE
JOHNSON,
Introduced by Gretchen Steffan who moved for its adoption, seconded by
Stephen Jackoski:
th
This is tabled to the May 20 Planning Board meeting, which is a Thursday. This
th
application is tabled because of a ZBA tabling motion until May 19, and so again
th
this will be tabled until the May 20 Planning Board meeting.
rd
Duly adopted this 23 day of March, 2010, by the following vote:
AYES: Mr. Traver, Mr. Sipp, Mrs. Steffan, Mr. Ford, Mr. Jackoski, Mr. Hunsinger
NOES: NONE
ABSENT: Mr. Krebs
MR. HUNSINGER-And our next item, well, just before we move on, just let the record
show there was no one in the audience that wanted to address the Board during the
public hearing. The next item is a similar situation. Site Plan 19-2010.
SITE PLAN NO. 19-2010 SEQR TYPE II SALLY STRASSER AGENT(S) SEE
APPLICANT OWNER(S) STEVEN & LILLIAN DOBERT ZONING WR LOCATION 64
BARBER ROAD APPLICANT PROPOSES RENOVATION OF EXISTING 2,865 +/- SQ.
FT. SINGLE FAMILY HOME TO INCLUDE NEW 36 +/- SQ FT. ENTRY PORCH.
EXPANSION OF A NON-CONFORMING STRUCTURE IN A CEA REQUIRES
PLANNING BOARD REVIEW AND APPROVAL. CROSS REFERENCE AV 12-10
WARREN CO. PLANNING N/A APA, CEA OTHER NWI WETLANDS, 100 YEAR
16
(Queensbury Planning Board 03/23/2010)
FLOODPLAIN, GLEN LAKE CEA LOT SIZE 0.31 +/- ACRES TAX MAP NO. 289.11-1-
7 SECTION 179-9-010
MR. HUNSINGER-The Zoning Board also tabled that to April. I’m sorry. We tabled it
thth
until May 18, and then the Zoning Board tabled it to May 19.
th
MRS. STEFFAN-So we have to move it to the 20.
th
MR. HUNSINGER-So we’d have to move it until at least the 20.
MRS. STEFFAN-Okay.
MR. HUNSINGER-And I will open the public hearing.
PUBLIC HEARING OPENED
MR. HUNSINGER-And we will leave the public hearing open.
MRS. STEFFAN-Okay. Then I’ll make a motion to table Site Plan 19-2010.
MOTION TO TABLE SITE PLAN NO. 19-2010 SALLY STRASSER, Introduced by
Gretchen Steffan who moved for its adoption, seconded by Thomas Ford:
This is tabled because of a ZBA resolution tabling this application to their meeting on the
thth
19, and so we will hear this on May 20, which is a Thursday.
rd
Duly adopted this 23 day of March, 2010, by the following vote:
AYES: Mr. Traver, Mr. Sipp, Mr. Jackoski, Mrs. Steffan, Mr. Ford, Mr. Hunsinger
NOES: NONE
ABSENT: Mr. Krebs
SUBDIVISION 4-2010 SKETCH PLAN SEQR TYPE UNLISTED ROBERT WING
AGENT(S) VAN DUSEN & STEVES OWNER(S) SAME ZONING RR-3A LOCATION
145 & 159 SUNNYSIDE ROAD APPLICANT PROPOSES SUBDIVISION OF A 19.9 +/-
ACRE PARCEL INTO THREE LOTS OF 0.66, 1.86 & 17.38 +/- ACRES. SUBDIVISION
OF LAND REQUIRES PLANNING BOARD REVIEW AND APPROVAL. CROSS
REFERENCE SP 52-03 WARREN CO. PLANNING N/A LOT SIZE 19.9 +/- ACRES
TAX MAP NO. 278.17-1-60 SECTION A-183
MATT STEVES, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT
MR. HUNSINGER-Keith, whenever you’re ready.
MR. OBORNE-Subdivision 4-2010, Sketch Plan Review, applicant is Robert Wing.
Location is 145 & 159 Sunnyside Road. Existing zoning is RR-3A. SEQRA Status is
not applicable at Sketch Plan. Project Description: Applicant proposes the subdivision
of a 19.9 +/- acre parcel into three lots of 0.66, 1.86 & 17.38 +/- acres. Staff Comments:
The applicant proposes to create 3 lots from an existing 19.9 acre parcel that fronts on
both Sunnyside Road and East Road. For Lot 1, the applicant proposes to create a 0.66
acre parcel that has an existing single family residence fronting on Sunnyside Road. For
Lot 2, the applicant proposes to subdivide an additional 1.86 acres to create a residential
lot fronting on East Road. For Lot 3, the existing Nursery business will remain on the
resulting 17.38 acre lot which has current access off of Sunnyside Road. Additional
Comments: All three lots as proposed will require area variances as follows: Lot 1 – Lot
size, lot width, road frontage and side setbacks Lot 2 – Lot size Lot 3 – Road frontage
and side setbacks. The applicant has requested waivers for Sketch grading and
drainage. Application Protocol at this point will be determined after Sketch Plan Review.
With that, I’d turn it over to the Board.
MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. Thank you. Good evening.
MR. STEVES-Good evening. Matt Steves representing Rob Wing on this application. I
think Staff has said, this is property located on the north side of Sunnyside Road and just
on the east side of East Road, roughly about 600 feet west of Ridge Road. If anybody’s
been over in that area, it’s where Volt Landscaping has their shop over there now, and
the two parcels we’re talking about that front on Sunnyside Road are the existing
17
(Queensbury Planning Board 03/23/2010)
buildings that have been there, way back when it used to be McDermott’s Harley
Davidson area in there, and the structures have been there I think since about 1944, ’43,
somewhere in that range. So we’re not proposing any changes to the site, per se, but
just the existing house, the garage in the corner is an existing lot, and the people that are
actually renting the house that is on proposed Lot One that is a fenced in usage, as you
can see the fence line on our map, that’s what they’ve used since we did the survey back
in 2000, I believe it was originally 2003, to create the Site Plan. Those people wish to
acquire the ownership of that building. They’ve been renting there for years, prior to
even when Mr. Wing owned it, from the McDermott’s, and now they wish to purchase the
house. So he’s moving forward with the purchase of that house. He would like to see if
we can accommodate another lot along East Road. We do realize that that acreage, in a
three acre zone, is 1.86, and we need a variance for that. We’re trying not to wrap that
lot around the usage of the landscape company, so that they keep the usage separate,
and it would be definitely in conformance, as you can see from the location map, with the
rest of the residential lots in that area. The topography was generated during the time of
the Site Plan for the usage for the landscaping company, and like I say, at this time it’s
just Sketch Plan, and then we need to go to the Zoning Board, and then back to the
Planning Board.
MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. Questions, comments from the Board? It’s too bad this wasn’t
anticipated when the nursery business was put in. You may have been able to eliminate
maybe one of the variance requests.
MR. STEVES-Right. It was kind of anticipated at the time. You mean as far as the small
lot on Sunnyside Road?
MR. HUNSINGER-Well, maybe the road frontage. It’s probably the only one you could
have, you know, or maybe the side setback.
MR. STEVES-It would have been tough no matter really what, because the existing
driveway and the gate is in an ideal location from the Planning Board back then, where
they wanted the driveway for the access to the landscape company. I agree with you
wholeheartedly, and like I say, the variance, if you’ve been in that area, the variance,
even though that isn’t your review, but the variance for Lot Two, we could make that
three acres and extend it all the way up East Road, but 300 feet of frontage for most lots
in that area, if you look back, or about 125 to 150 feet, we can make it a completely
conforming lot, but does it make it any better of a lot? No, it’s still going to be, the house
is still going to be built exactly where we show it, because of the usage of the landscape
company, and like I say, if anybody’s been over in that area, and you know how he
maintains that property, he definitely wants the room around that maintenance building to
be able to maintain it in the manner he has in the past. That entrance road to his shop,
I’d like to have that for most medical buildings, you know. He just does a beautiful job.
MR. OBORNE-Yes, he does.
MR. STEVES-And he’s taken all those buildings up front, and taken off, if anybody
remembers, it was all white old clapboard, the paints. He’s replaced and refurbished
everyone of those buildings, all new electric, all new plumbing, all new siding, new roofs.
He’s done a beautiful job on that little area, and I remember when we came in to the
Planning Board for Site Plan to turn it into a landscape company when it used to be a
motorcycle track. So there’s a big difference in this area.
MR. HUNSINGER-It shows it good.
MR. TRAVER-Yes. Every time I drive by there, I remember many years ago, almost as a
kid, really, going over there to Tommy McDermott to get my motorcycle inspected every
year, and see the characters in the, you know, the mechanics hanging out in the back
and doing their thing. It’s quite amazing.
MR. STEVES-But like I say, the only change in use is really, Lot Two, is for the proposed
new lot, and he isn’t looking to necessarily sell it right away. He just said if he’s going to
go through the subdivision and the variance to create that small lot, now is the time to try
to create a lot that if he ever needed or wanted to be able to sell it, he has no intentions
at this time, and no purchaser for Lot Two. It’s just, since he’s here, I advised him this
would be the time, if you ever wanted to, in the future, not to piecemeal it again, as the
Chairman has already stated, you know, look at it in the future. So that’s why we’re here.
MR. HUNSINGER-And that was my question about the 17 acre lot, you know, what
future plans he might have there. Access is tough.
18
(Queensbury Planning Board 03/23/2010)
MR. STEVES-Yes. The only really thing you could do is if you ever wanted to do
anything with that lot, and we have discussed that, is really to, you know, have your
frontage for the landscape company off of East, which is a lot tougher because it’s not
as, the service on that road isn’t as good as it is on Sunnyside. It’s a narrow little road,
and then bring in a road, in a cul de sac, off of Sunnyside Road. That’s the only really
way to do it with the property, and even if you don’t create this lot, that’s still the only way
to create more than two lots because of the road frontage requirement, but right now with
the landscape company, and he utilizes a lot of this for storage during the summer, if you
go there, like the trees and the root balls, you know, storage for the supplies he uses for
some of the larger landscape jobs.
MR. HUNSINGER-Anyone else?
MRS. STEFFAN-Well, certainly looking at it for the first time, there’s an awful lot of relief
requested required, you know, but based on the history, and this is based on the new
zoning, based on the history of these parcels, I mean, they’re all very tiny, and there’s a
lot of very small lots in here. So, you know, from that point of view, I could be more
flexible, but I was wondering what everybody else thought.
MR. STEVES-Well, for example, the frontage on Sunnyside Road, currently they share
that driveway into the two residences, and whether it’s split or not, and I know that’s not
going to change. (Lost words) a lot, we said we’re going to create a new house and
we’re going to share the driveway, and we’re going to build a new house in there, we’re
going to add more traffic, I would say, no way.
MRS. STEFFAN-Right.
MR. STEVES-Absolutely, but no matter how you slice and dice this, it still ends up with
the same configuration, and it’s just drawing a line on a map right at this point, and it’s
not something that the hardship wasn’t necessarily created by Mr. Wing. It’s only
created by trying to create the lot. The usage is there. The residence has been lived in
since the 40’s, and it was a separate little postage stamp lot back until it was merged
with McDermott’s back in the 60’s.
MR. OBORNE-If I may ask a question of Mr. Steves. For Lot One, the driveway, is there
a formalized easement with that?
MR. STEVES-He owns all of it now, but there will be.
MR. OBORNE-Okay.
MR. STEVES-He owns every lot. It’s all under Mr. Wing’s name.
MR. OBORNE-Okay. Definitely look into that, just in case, obviously the lot gets sold
and.
MR. STEVES-Absolutely.
MR. OBORNE-Okay.
MR. SIPP-The water supply is wells?
MR. STEVES-Yes.
MR. SIPP-Well, I guess you can get it in, well 100 feet from the septic system on Lot
One.
MR. STEVES-Yes.
MR. HUNSINGER-Any other comments from the Board?
MR. FORD-Where is that well right now?
MR. STEVES-The well on Lot One is just near the south side of the driveway on the west
side of the house.
MR. OBORNE-There’s a “W” there, yes.
19
(Queensbury Planning Board 03/23/2010)
MR. STEVES-Yes.
MR. FORD-Thank you.
MR. STEVES-But there is enough room. We did make sure of that when we did the
design, as Keith has pointed out, that if there ever needed to be an updated septic in
there, that they can conform to the 100 foot separation.
MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. I see it now.
MR. STEVES-I can label that better for you if you need to.
MR. HUNSINGER-And that’s 100 feet from the septic?
MR. STEVES-No, I’m not saying it is. I’m saying that’s the pre-existing condition. If they
ever needed to put in the new septic, as Keith has stated, then you would have to be
able to maintain the separation at that point, and, yes, there is suitable room to do that.
At some point you’re going to need to do that.
MRS. STEFFAN-Yes, if they’ve lived there for 40 years, they need a new system.
MR. HUNSINGER-Yes.
MRS. STEFFAN-But the soil over there is very sandy.
MR. STEVES-You go down Ridge Road and drive down the (lost word), that’s where it
changes. That’s about, what, 40 feet below this level here.
MR. HUNSINGER-Yes. Okay. Anything else? You said you requested a waiver for
Sketch, but you’re here for Sketch.
MR. STEVES-For Sketch grading and drainage.
MR. HUNSINGER-I’m sorry. Okay.
MR. STEVES-Because we’re not making any changes to the Site Plan whatsoever.
MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. Now I understand. Sketch grading and drainage. Okay.
MR. STEVES-Yes.
MR. OBORNE-If you want to not honor that waiver, he’d have to come back for Sketch
again with the grading a drainage.
MR. HUNSINGER-Yes. I don’t think anyone has a problem with that. Does anyone
have a problem with that?
MRS. STEFFAN-No, on those two lots, Lot Two and Lot One are flat.
MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. Have you already submitted for next month? Yes.
MR. STEVES-Yes. We just need the recommendation to move forward.
MR. HUNSINGER-Okay.
MR. STEVES-Or, for next month, I mean.
MR. OBORNE-Right. We need Preliminary in, and that’ll get you, obviously, before his
Board. Go through SEQRA recommendation, Zoning Board, then back.
MR. STEVES-I’ll be back and forth for the next few months.
MR. OBORNE-And I would suggest, being that this is just a three lot subdivision at this
point, there doesn’t seem to be very many concerns, that you may want to submit
Preliminary and Final, do that at the same time.
MR. STEVES-Absolutely, unless there’s any, like I say, concerns from the Board. We
can address them at Preliminary.
20
(Queensbury Planning Board 03/23/2010)
MR. OBORNE-The only risk you’d be taking is if the Zoning Board required a change to
your.
MR. STEVES-Understood.
MR. OBORNE-Okay.
MR. STEVES-Thank you for your time.
MR. HUNSINGER-Thank you.
SITE PLAN NO. 16-2010 SEQR TYPE II GLENS FALLS ANIMAL HOSPITAL
AGENT(S) ETHAN HALL, RUCINSKI-HALL ARCHITECTS OWNER(S) ROBERT
O’CONNOR ZONING MDR LOCATION 66 GLENWOOD AVENUE APPLICANT
PROPOSES EXPANSION AND RENOVATIONS TO EXISTING VETERINARY CLINIC.
EXPANSION AND RENOVATION OF A VETERINARY CLINIC IN THE MDR ZONE
REQUIRES PLANNING BOARD REVIEW AND APPROVAL. CROSS REFERENCE
BP 2010-014 [PERC TEST] WARREN CO. PLANNING 3/10/2010 LOT SIZE 1.22 +/-
ACRES TAX MAP NO. 296.19-1-16 SECTION 179-9-010
ETHAN HALL, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT
MR. HUNSINGER-Keith, whenever you’re ready to summarize Staff Notes.
MR. OBORNE-Site Plan 16-2010, Glens Falls Animal Hospital. Requested action is
expansion and renovation of established business requires Planning Board review. This
is at 66 Glenwood Avenue. This in the Moderate Density Residential district. SEQRA
Status is a Type II. Project Description: Applicant proposes expansion and renovation
to existing Veterinary Clinic building to include site grading and paving. Further, the
applicant proposes a lot line adjustment for permeability purposes. Staff Comments: The
applicant proposes a 2,428 square foot expansion to the existing Glens Falls Animal
Hospital located on Glenwood Ave. The project includes a change to site
maneuverability for pedestrians / vehicles, a total of 31 parking spaces for clients and
staff and stormwater control. Additionally, the applicant proposes a lot line change to
incorporate 14,376 square feet of lands adjacent to the project in order to increase site
permeability from 43.2% to 49.3%; these lands are owned by the applicant. I do have a
note on the permeability. Those calculations are from the application itself, and that
application will probably have to be updated. That’s where I got that from. Soils are as
follows on the Site Plan. Again, as always, pedestrian safety, vehicular maneuverability
are always issues that I look very closely at, and with that, I don’t think there’s anything,
and I don’t mean to influence the Board by stating this, that there’s anything that cannot
be taken care of with this Site Plan. So, with that said, I’d turn it over to the Board.
MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. Thank you. Good evening.
MR. HALL-Good evening. My name is Ethan Hall. I’m a partner with Rucinski/Hall
Architecture. We’re the architects for the project. With me tonight is Rob Holbrook from
V & H construction. We’re here representing the O’Connors for Glens Falls Animal
Hospital. What we have here, this is the three lots that are in question. All three lots are
owned by Dr. O’Connor. The center lot is the one that has the Animal Hospital and the
barn out back. This lot over here is Dr. O’Connor’s house. This “U” shaped lot was Dr.
Wiswall’s house, and that’s been turned over to Dr. O’Connor. So this is the layout as it
currently exists. The driveway comes in , and there’s a “U” shaped, the parking is
horrendous, if you’ve ever been over there. This place is extremely busy. The parking in
this area is absolutely terrible. All of the Staff right now parks out back behind the
building. There’s a loading area here that goes in. There’s an overhead door in here
where Dr. O’Connor keeps, he has a big John Deere tractor that he uses to clean all the
snow off in the winter, and he uses it for doing the lawn mowing in the summer. So this
is the current layout. The road goes in, comes around. There is, Dr. O’Connor’s
driveway is here, but the Staff also uses this as an out direction, and the main flow of
traffic is in here. They park along the grass here, and then there’s about eight spots,
eight or nine spots along this edge over here. It’s very tight and not the best flow of
traffic, as Keith stated. They’re proposal that we’re looking at doing, the heavy shaded
area is the extension to the building that we’re talking about doing. It’s an almost 2500
square foot expansion out the front. There’ll be new exam rooms, new waiting area, new
x-ray area for the staff. There’ll be an additional operating room for the doctors and
some physicians offices, as well as an expansion to their existing records keeping and
bookkeeping area. The intent, what we’re looking to do for the boundary line adjustment,
as Keith was stating, we’re going to break this “U” shaped lot and take this piece off from
21
(Queensbury Planning Board 03/23/2010)
this end and add it to this lot. So this becomes one lot, this 1.83 acres, which will be Dr.
O’Connor’s lot. We’re pulling a piece off from this side, making this lot 1.52 acres to
increase our green space for what we’re adding down here in paving to offset that, and
then this end lot here stays with this house and this barn and becomes a 1.48 acre lot.
It’s a boundary line adjustment. I’ve talked with the surveyor and he says once we have
some, once we’ve gotten a little bit farther down the road, he said, this is not a huge deal
to do, as far as that goes. What we’re looking at doing, it’s a relatively tricky sequence
for making this whole operation happen because one of the things that Dr. O’Connor has
said is I absolutely cannot shut anything down while this takes place. So that kind of
throws a little bit of a monkey wrench into it. So what we’re intending to do is the “U”
shaped entry drive, we will leave this portion open and close this portion off. We’ll put up
construction fencing. This is the front of the existing building now. We’ll put up
construction fencing that will leave the ramp and the front entry to that portion open, and
we’ll shut this exit off. We’re going to create a temporary parking area along here. The
doctor has agreed that they can use some of this. This right now is a rental unit for some
of the staff that works here. We’ll use that. We’ll potentially create these first two as
temporary spaces, and we’ll work on this part out back for Staff, and all of the clients will
park here and in this area staff will continue to park out back as they do now, but what
that will allow us to do initially is to build this portion of the parking area and this side of
the new building addition. Once those two pieces are nearly complete, probably down to
at least the binder pavement, we’ll open this back up so that the clients can now park
here. We’ll change the entry from where it is now into the new portion of the building.
We’ll utilize the new portion of the building as the waiting room. That will allow us to
close off some of this part, work on this part of the building, and then come back through
and pave the whole thing when it’s completed. We’ve worked out a construction
sequencing kind of briefly with the building itself. So that kind of summarizes our
construction sequencing. The building itself is a masonry building for the most part. It
has a generally flat roof. It has a very shallow pitch to it. Most of the roof pitches to the
back of the building now. The part that’s the little stub in the front pitches side to side
and drops off the building. Our intent is that our new addition in the front will have a little
bit steeper pitch to the roof as you can see from the elevations that we provided, and
what we’re going to do is we’re going to go right up and over the existing roof with new
roof trusses, to make that happen. The exterior of our new building will be, the exterior
walls will be wood framed on a frost wall. They’re going to have an EIFS finish with
some stone on the bottom, a water table of stone on the bottom of the building, and the
colors are pretty much going to match what he has there. It will be a light neutral tone
color to the building.
MR. FORD-Continuing the masonry?
MR. HALL-We’re using the EIFS to kind of make that, to give it that appearance. The
block that’s on there is the long bond and they can’t get those anymore. So we’re trying
to use something that’s kind of a similar material. The back portion of the building is all
vertical, vertical horizontal siding, or vertical vinyl siding that’s over the top of the
masonry that’s underneath, because the masonry underneath is not very pretty to look
at. I think that’s about the extent of where we’re at. As far as landscaping goes, the lot is
very well landscaped to begin with. There’s a lot of the existing foundation plantings that
we intend to pull out and save. There’s a lot of nice juniper, hemlock and rhododendron
bushes that are around the ends of the building. It’s our intent to dig those up and save
them and re-use them when we do the front, just re-locate them. There are two big white
birches at the entry ways. Unfortunately one of them’s right in the exit drive, or in the
proposed exit drive, just to make our parking work. So one of those goes away. The
other one stays, but the three crabapple trees that are around the front are all going to be
re-located within the lot.
MR. HUNSINGER-It’s not the big tree to the right? To the left.
MR. HALL-It’s the one that’s on the left. The one that’s there, the one you see at the
back of the car, that one stays. The one down at the other end goes. It’s right dead
center of the exit drive. That one right there.
MR. HUNSINGER-Okay.
MR. HALL-And it’s pretty close to the drive right now anyway.
MR. HUNSINGER-Yes, it is.
MR. HALL-The sign, as it exists out front, will remain as it is. Our new parking comes
right up to the edge of it. The exterior lighting that’s there, there’s one big, if you could
22
(Queensbury Planning Board 03/23/2010)
go back one picture, Keith, there’s one big pole mounted light, just outside the sign, that
lights all of the front of the building, and in the back of the building, there’s one small pole
mounted light. It’s on a six by six out back. There is one light in the back of the building
that provides lighting out and around the corner and we’ve talked with Staff and they say
that the light that provides lights not only the driveway for that adjacent house but
everything that’s out back as well. So we’re not proposing any additional lighting. We’re
not proposing any lighting mounted to the building or anything like that. Any of our new
lighting on the front of the building will be recessed lights up underneath the entries to
the doors that would shine down on the walkways. Outside of that, I guess I can answer
any questions that you may have.
MR. HUNSINGER-Questions, comments from the Board?
MR. SIPP-The house on the land to the east of the Animal Hospital, is that occupied
now?
MR. HALL-I believe he rents it out. I don’t know that there’s anybody in it right now. He
had someone that was in it, and he’s talking to one of the staff at the Hospital about.
MR. SIPP-Because in your first phase here you’re going to be using that as a driveway
into, or parking and driveway into the Hospital, right?
MR. HALL-Yes. They use it now. They have a shared access easement through the
whole lot.
MR. SIPP-Where are you going to put the snow?
MR. HALL-Right now they take it all out back. Like I said, he’s got a big John Deere with
a front loader on it. The stuff that’s in the front, they pick up and they’ll move it out back.
There is some snow stockpiling on the sides of the road, and everything else goes out
back to the left of the barn. There’s a, this area to the left of the barn out here is all field,
and this area out back is all field as well. So right now everything that’s, everything that’s
out front right now just gets pushed off into this area. What we’ve talked to them about
is, because there’s an opportunity here, they can get most of this area, pick it up with the
tractor, bring it up and put it out here. Any of this area they can pick it up and bring it
around and put it out here. That’s the intent. Their stockpile it out back.
MRS. STEFFAN-It’s certainly an added bonus. He owns all three lots. So if we have
one of those snow years, you could just, you know, find a space for it.
MR. HALL-Right.
MR. OBORNE-I will say that previously this lot was subdivided from the estate of
Charlotte Wiswall, and bequeathed to Dr. O’Connor. With this change in lot line
adjustment, that is a subdivision modification. Now that I have clarity, I wasn’t quite sure
what was going on there. I thought you were trying to make hook lots or something
along those lines.
MR. HALL-And I talked to Matt out front, just before we started, and Matt was the one
that had done that, and he said it is, it’s a modification to the previous.
MR. OBORNE-You will need a modification to do this.
MR. HALL-Right.
MR. OBORNE-How does that affect the Site Plan? Well, that’s a decision that I think
you’re all going to have to make.
MR. HUNSINGER-Well, I think what you presented this evening makes more sense than
what was submitted to us before.
MR. HALL-Yes, it’s a little clearer.
MR. HUNSINGER-Yes, I think it works a lot better.
MR. OBORNE-I thought there were four lots at one point, and that’s the way the lines
kind of look and that’s why I was befuddled.
23
(Queensbury Planning Board 03/23/2010)
MR. HALL-Yes. Matt says it’s, according to Matt it’s three lots. It was last done by Matt
in.
MR. OBORNE-A year and a half ago.
th
MR. HALL-It was last done August 14 of ’08 by VanDusen and Steves. The map that I
have is from Dickinson Associates, and that was done February 24, 2009. So it was a
little over a year ago that the last work was done down there.
MR. HUNSINGER-So in terms of procedure, if this is a subdivision modification, we’d
have to re-notice a meeting?
MR. OBORNE-Yes, I think that that is the tactic you should take. We certainly should get
clarification on what’s going on, and at the same time that certainly would give the
applicant a chance to tighten up the Site Plan because there are a few issues I know that
Clark has, and if we can get that going, we could turnkey that both at the same time.
MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. That makes sense.
MR. HALL-Sure.
MR. HUNSINGER-Questions, comments from the Board, concerns?
MR. JACKOSKI-What is the timeline for construction?
MR. HALL-The timeline is they would like to start it this year. This summer they would
like to get everything under construction. They’d like to have the building, I think,
enclosed by the Fall. They want to get the building closed in and utilized. The reason
that I say in the narrative that it may take a, the cycle may be a year, we’re thinking the
planting, if we don’t get everything finished, planting may not, you know, the final planting
not take place until next Spring. We’re hoping to get all the blacktop down before the
plants close this Fall.
MRS. STEFFAN-Actually the Fall would be a great time to do the transplanting, you
know, because if you get them where they’re going to be, then they’ll be okay for the
winter.
MR. HALL-Right.
MR. FORD-This is certainly going to be an improvement in terms of curb appeal, but can
you tell us if there was consideration given initially or at any time to making the addition
on the back of the current structure rather than the front?
MR. HALL-The biggest problem, Tom, is in the front of the building is where all the client
work takes place, and all of their kenneling and the nature of the business, all of their
kenneling, they have the big crematorium in the back. In the back portion of the building
is kind of where all the operatory and kenneling takes place. So the addition back there
didn’t really help them out.
MR. FORD-That’s what I thought.
MR. HALL-What they really need is, yes.
MR. FORD-But it does put a squeeze on the front.
MR. HALL-It does. That area in the front right now is currently green space. I mean, we
could do a lot of this without, but the flow of the traffic around the front is just so bad it
made sense to attack both of them. There’s really, I mean, get in there at five thirty on a
Wednesday afternoon and there’s no place to park right now, it’s so tight, and the winter
makes it worse. So that’s what we’re trying to take care of. Right now the existing
building is about 16 inches higher than grade and they’ve got the ramp on the front of the
building which kind of sticks out into the drive aisle as well. Part of what we’re doing with
this new addition is we’re bringing the grade up, so that that building now will be
accessible at grade, and our drainage takes all that into account. All of our storm
drainage, we pick up storm trenches on the front of the parking areas. We’ve got two
catch basins at the front of the parking along Glenwood Avenue that goes into an
infiltrator bed under the paving, to the stormwater there, and that allow us to bring
everything up and put it all at grade.
24
(Queensbury Planning Board 03/23/2010)
MR. FORD-We’ll be interested in taking a look at that.
MR. HUNSINGER-Yes, we didn’t see a stormwater report.
MR. HALL-I have stormwater calculations on the drawings. I didn’t do a full blown report.
It’s such a small amount of additional blacktop.
MR. HUNSINGER-Okay.
MRS. STEFFAN-So we’ll table it for three things, the Staff, satisfy Staff Notes, satisfy
engineering comments, and so that the applicant can submit a subdivision modification.
MR. OBORNE-Yes, ma’am. That should cover pretty much anything, unless there’s any
other issues that the Board has.
MRS. STEFFAN-I don’t think so. I didn’t hear anything that was coming up.
MR. HUNSINGER-We do need to open the public hearing. Did you receive any written
comments?
PUBLIC HEARING OPENED
MR. OBORNE-No.
MR. HUNSINGER-There’s no one in the audience, so we’re not going to have any
comments this evening. We will leave the public hearing open.
th
MRS. STEFFAN-Keith, we just tabled a bunch of things, actually five things, to May 20.
th
Is the May 18 agenda open?
th
MR. OBORNE-Yes. There’s room there. They have to get everything in by April 15.
MRS. STEFFAN-Right.
MR. OBORNE-Including the subdivision mod.
MR. HALL-I’ll call you tomorrow about what we need to do for that. Because I’m
probably going to have to get either Dennis Dickinson or Matt involved in that. The
subdivision work, I can’t do.
MR. OBORNE-The only thing for the subdivision mod is existing conditions and
proposed conditions. It’s, you don’t have to go through subdivision, yes, exactly.
MR. HALL-Okay.
MR. OBORNE-But it needs to be quantified and qualified.
MR. HALL-Yes, it has to be, a licensed surveyor has to do that.
MR. OBORNE-Exactly, but it’s not like you go through Sketch, Preliminary or Final.
MR. HALL-Right.
MR. OBORNE-This is something that the Board can take a look at, if you’re satisfied with
it, they just send it up to the County after that.
th
MRS. STEFFAN-So the April 15 deadline seems reasonable to you?
MR. HALL-Sure. Yes, absolutely.
MRS. STEFFAN-Okay. Because we could always extend it one week if we had to. We
can do that now. We can’t do it.
MR. HALL-Right.
MR. OBORNE-Right. No, that should give them enough time to turn things around.
th
MRS. STEFFAN-April 15? Okay. All right. Then I’ll make a motion to table.
25
(Queensbury Planning Board 03/23/2010)
MOTION TO TABLE SITE PLAN NO. 16-2010 GLENS FALLS ANIMAL HOSPITAL,
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 expansion and renovations to existing Veterinary
Clinic. Expansion and Renovation of a Veterinary Clinic in the MDR zone
requires Planning Board review and approval; and
2)MOTION TO TABLE SITE PLAN NO. 16-2010 GLENS FALLS ANIMAL
HOSPITAL, Introduced by Gretchen Steffan who moved for its adoption,
seconded by Stephen Traver:
th
This is tabled to the May 18 Planning Board meeting with a submission deadline
th
of April 15, so that the applicant can satisfy three conditions:
th
1.They can satisfy the March 12 engineering comments.
2.They can satisfy Staff Note comments.
3.They can submit a subdivision modification.
rd
Duly adopted this 23 day of March, 2010, by the following vote:
AYES: Mr. Jackoski, Mr. Ford, Mr. Sipp, Mr. Traver, Mrs. Steffan, Mr. Hunsinger
NOES: NONE
ABSENT: Mr. Krebs
MR. HUNSINGER-Good luck.
MR. HALL-Great. Thank you very much.
MR. HUNSINGER-You’re welcome.
MR. OBORNE-Okay. Give me a call. I’m crushed this week, but just give me a call and
we’ll set something up.
MR. HUNSINGER-Is there any other business to be brought before the Board? If not, I’ll
entertain a motion to adjourn.
MOTION TO ADJOURN THE QUEENSBURY PLANNING BOARD MEETING OF
MARCH 23, 2010, Introduced by Gretchen Steffan who moved for its adoption,
seconded by Stephen Traver:
rd
Duly adopted this 23 day of March, 2010, by the following vote:
AYES: Mr. Traver, Mr. Ford, Mr. Jackoski, Mrs. Sipp, Mrs. Steffan, Mr. Hunsinger
NOES: NONE
ABSENT: Mr. Krebs
On motion meeting was adjourned.
RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED,
Chris Hunsinger, Chairman
26