2010.10.26
(Queensbury Planning Board 10/26/2010)
QUEENSBURY PLANNING BOARD MEETING
SECOND REGULAR MEETING
OCTOBER 26, 2010
INDEX
Subdivision No. 7-2010 Meredith Kerr 1.
Tax Map No. 309.6-1-69.1
Subdivision No. 13-2007 John Fedorowicz 1.
PRELIMINARY & FINAL STG. Tax Map No. 265-1-19.11
Site Plan No. 63-2010 Jerry Brown’s Auto Parts 9.
Tax Map No. 303.19-1-49
Site Plan No. 67-2010 Thomas & Maureen Valenti 10.
Tax Map No. 289.17-1-41
Site Plan No. 66-2010 Patrick Mercurio 11.
Tax Map No.227.4-1-2
DISCUSSION ITEM Michael Pugh; Michael Greenwood 19.
Tax Map No. 309.7-1-4, 5
THESE ARE NOT OFFICIALLY ADOPTED MINUTES AND ARE SUBJECT TO BOARD AND
STAFF REVISIONS. REVISIONS WILL APPEAR ON THE FOLLOWING MONTHS MINUTES
(IF ANY) AND WILL STATE SUCH APPROVAL OF SAID MINUTES.
0
(Queensbury Planning Board 10/26/2010)
QUEENSBURY PLANNING BOARD MEETING
SECOND REGULAR MEETING
OCTOBER 26, 2010
7:00 P.M.
MEMBERS PRESENT
CHRIS HUNSINGER, CHAIRMAN
DONALD KREBS
STEPHEN TRAVER
DONALD SIPP
PAUL SCHONEWOLF
THOMAS FORD
BRAD MAGOWAN, ALTERNATE
LAND USE PLANNER-KEITH OBORNE
TOWN COUNSEL-MILLER, MANNIX, SCHACHNER, & HAFNER-CATHI RADNER
STENOGRAPHER-MARIA GAGLIARDI
MR. HUNSINGER-I’ll call to order the meeting of the Town of Queensbury Planning Board on
Tuesday, October 26, 2010. The first item on the agenda is an administrative item, Subdivision
7-2010 for Meredith Kerr.
SUB 7-2010: MEREDITH KERR [TABLED TO 10/26 PENDING VARIANCE DECISION
– VARIANCE HAS BEEN TABLED TO 11/17/10]
MR. HUNSINGER-Keith, did you have anything else to add?
MR. OBORNE-The only thing I have to add is that Counsel has been, for Kerr, has asked to
th
have it re-referred to the County Planning Board, and that will be heard on the 10 of November.
So ostensibly it would go back to the Zoning Board of Appeals and, again, ostensibly you would
be tabling this in anticipation of an approval of that variance.
th
MR. HUNSINGER-So table it until the 18 of November?
th
MR. OBORNE-The 18, or a date in December, whichever you feel would be more logical.
MR. HUNSINGER-The advantage to tabling it to December is then if it’s not approved on the
th
17, then it doesn’t take up an agenda item. So I think it would be inclined to table it until a
December meeting.
MR. FORD-I agree.
thst
MR. HUNSINGER-We have meetings on the 16 and the 21 of December. Either one matter?
MR. OBORNE-Not at this point.
MR. HUNSINGER-Would someone like to move it?
MOTION TO TABLE SUBDIVISION NO. 7-2010 MEREDITH KERR, Introduced by Donald
Krebs who moved for its adoption, seconded by Stephen Traver:
th
Until our December 16 meeting.
th
Duly adopted this 26 day of October, 2010, by the following vote:
AYES: Mr. Traver, Mr. Krebs, Mr. Magowan, Mr. Ford, Mr. Schonewolf, Mr. Sipp, Mr. Hunsinger
NOES: NONE
MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. The next item on the agenda is a tabled item.
SUBDIV. 13-2007 PRELIMINARY & FINAL STAGE JOHN FEDOROWICZ AGENT(S) B P S
R OWNER(S) WILLIAM J. JR. & JUDITH RICHARDS ZONING RR-3A LOCATION 1433
BAY ROAD APPLICANT PROPOSES SUBDIVISION OF A 10.14 ACRE PARCEL INTO 2
RESIDENTIAL LOTS OF 3.7 AND 6.44 ACRES. SUBDIVISION OF LAND REQUIRES
REVIEW AND APPROVAL BY THE PLANNING BOARD. SEE RETURN ON APPEAL DATED
1
(Queensbury Planning Board 10/26/2010)
10/9/09 CROSS REFERENCE SUB 8-99, SUB 1-00 LOT SIZE 10.14 +/- ACRES TAX MAP
NO. 265-1-19.11 SECTION A-183
JON LAPPER, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT
MR. HUNSINGER-Keith, if you’d like to summarize the Staff Notes.
MR. OBORNE-I think the Board is pretty much aware of what the issues are on this site. This is
Subdivision 13-2007, Preliminary Stage. You’ll have to accomplish SEQR at this point, and a
Long Form has been submitted, and the Planning Board did request a tabling last month in order
to complete the review of the record and address (lost words) that the Board may have. With
that, I’ll turn it over to the Board.
MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. Thank you. If you could identify yourselves for the record.
MR. LAPPER-Good evening, Jon Lapper and John Fedorowicz, and Laura Fedorowicz is here
as well. When we left it last time, Steve had asked about visual impact, and I know indicated
that the Board was going to take another caravan out to the site. John has also gone to the site
to take a look at it. We don’t believe that you can see the wetland area from this site. It’s a
pretty good distance. This is, you know, well south of Pickle Hill Road, but that was the last
discussion, so I guess I’ll turn it back to the Board at this point to see what you guys are thinking,
in terms of the environmental review.
MR. HUNSINGER-One of the things that came up on our site visit is, and we couldn’t determine
if it was on the site or just off the site, to the west of the proposed house site there’s a large
wetland, and I don’t think that had been identified previously.
MR. LAPPER-West would be up the hill.
MR. HUNSINGER-I’m sorry.
MR. KREBS-Yes, to the north.
MR. HUNSINGER-Well, it’s to the north and the west.
MR. KREBS-North and west.
MR. HUNSINGER-Yes, in both directions. These are pictures of the pond. There’s also a pond.
That’s more to the north.
MR. LAPPER-John, you’ll know.
JOHN FEDOROWICZ
MR. FEDOROWICZ-No ,that would be southwest. That particular pond is actually on.
MR. HUNSINGER-No, that’s.
MR. FEDOROWICZ-I could show you on that map.
MR. HUNSINGER-I was going to say, there is a wetland that shows up on the Town’s website
for APA wetlands, and it’s just off your site.
MR. LAPPER-Where do you believe that is, John?
MR. FEDOROWICZ-That would be right up in here.
MR. HUNSINGER-Yes.
MR. FEDOROWICZ-It’s wetlands, but the house site is like back here, 2, 300 feet.
MR. HUNSINGER-Yes, well, we couldn’t tell when we were on site visits. Pull up the other
pictures there, Keith, if you could. Yes, go back for a second. You can see the red flag in that
one picture, right there. I don’t know if that’s a property boundary or not.
MR. FEDOROWICZ-That’s where kids go through with motorcycles, snowmobile trails, but that
definitely is better than 300 feet from the property.
2
(Queensbury Planning Board 10/26/2010)
MR. HUNSINGER-That’s the picture of the pond, but there’s also pictures in there of the wetland
itself. It’s right after these, Keith. Before that. There, there you go. That wetland. I mean,
there was definitely cattails and there was standing water, and this is quite a ways away from
the pond.
MR. FEDOROWICZ-And that’s quite a ways away from my property and house site, like 300
feet or better.
MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. When we were standing there, facing the wetland, as you turned
around, there was a cliff, if you will, a steep embankment maybe five feet tall, and you could see
across your property to a pile of pipes.
MR. FEDOROWICZ-Right. That’s a pond that’s on.
MR. HUNSINGER-No, they’re blue pipes. It looks like somebody was, I don’t know what,
building a tree house or something there.
MR. FEDOROWICZ-Right, kids are building stuff there.
MR. HUNSINGER-Yes.
MR. FEDOROWICZ-But it’s not on my property.
MR. HUNSINGER-Okay.
MR. FEDOROWICZ-I know it for a fact, there’s nothing there.
MR. HUNSINGER-Okay.
MR. FEDOROWICZ-As a matter of fact, we had, the conservation was out. They looked over
everything up there. There is no wetlands on my property.
MR. HUNSINGER-Okay.
MR. FEDOROWICZ-There are no streams, no runoff, nothing like that, and that’s been cleared,
my 2008 APA letter has stated that everything has been cleared. There is absolutely no runoff,
goes toward the wetlands, everything is downhill from that wetland from my property.
MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. Anyone else have any other questions or comments?
MR. KREBS-There was also a pipe that looked like there was some sort of, that must not be on
your property, either, then.
MR. FEDOROWICZ-The pipe that, the culvert that I saw in that picture is an old spillway from a
pond someone made years ago and tore it out.
MR. LAPPER-What property is that on?
MR. FEDOROWICZ-And that is on, would be behind my property.
MR. LAPPER-It’s up the hill.
MR. FEDOROWICZ-Yes, there’s a parcel, 10 acre parcel up there, but it’s not on my property.
MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. One of the other difficulties that I had in reviewing the three volumes
is that some of the documents weren’t in there. Even though they were in the Table of Contents,
the complete documents weren’t there. One of them was the latest engineering letter from the
Town Engineer, and we did have copies from, that Staff had passed out with Staff Notes, but
there were several other locations as well where, even though it was in the Table of Contents,
you know, maybe the first page of the letter was there but not the second, or the third but not the
first two. There were several instances, at least in my copy of the record.
MR. LAPPER-That was something that the Town put together, not the applicant.
MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. I thought this was put together by the applicant.
MR. LAPPER-No, that was the record on review.
3
(Queensbury Planning Board 10/26/2010)
MS. RADNER-I don’t remember, Jon. I know we split the cost of it, but I thought we took it out
somewhere to have it done.
MR. LAPPER-Yes, I think it was sent out for copying.
MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. Any other questions or comments from the Board? Is everyone
ready to move forward on SEQRA?
MR. FORD-Yes.
MR. KREBS-Yes.
MR. HUNSINGER-Steve, would you mind doing the SEQR this evening.
MR. TRAVER-Will the proposed action result in a physical change to the project site?
MR. HUNSINGER-Yes.
MR. KREBS-Yes.
MR. TRAVER-Small to moderate?
MR. KREBS-Small to moderate.
MR. FORD-Small to moderate, with modifications.
MR. KREBS-Small to moderate, can be mitigated by project change.
MR. FORD-Can be mitigated.
MR. TRAVER-Mitigated by Site Plan Review.
MR. TRAVER- Will there be an effect to any unique or unusual land forms found
on the site?
MR. HUNSINGER-There’s the potential for it, and specifically I’m thinking of the cliffs along Bay
Road, which are pretty unique.
MR. TRAVER-So, again, we have to think in terms of small to moderate vs. potential large.
MR. HUNSINGER-Yes. I think it’s small to moderate, and the actions can be mitigated by
review.
MR. TRAVER-Okay. Will the proposed action affect any water body designated as protected?
MR. KREBS-No.
MR. FORD-No.
MR. TRAVER-Will the proposed action affect any non-protected existing or new body of water?
MR. HUNSINGER-No.
MR. FORD-No.
MR. TRAVER-Will the proposed action affect surface or groundwater quality or quantity?
MR. HUNSINGER-No.
MR. KREBS-No.
MR. TRAVER-Will the proposed action alter drainage flow or patterns, or surface water runoff?
MR. HUNSINGER-Again, I think the potential’s there.
MR. FORD-Yes.
MR. KREBS-Yes.
4
(Queensbury Planning Board 10/26/2010)
MR. KREBS-It’s possible.
MR. TRAVER-Mitigated by stormwater management?
MR. HUNSINGER-Mitigated by stormwater management, small to moderate impact.
MR. TRAVER-Okay. Will the proposed action affect air quality?
MR. HUNSINGER-No.
MR. TRAVER-Will the proposed action affect any threatened or endangered species?
MR. HUNSINGER-No.
MR. KREBS-No.
MR. TRAVER-Will the proposed action substantially affect non-threatened or non-endangered
species?
MR. HUNSINGER-No.
MR. KREBS-No.
MR. TRAVER-Will the proposed action affect agricultural land resources?
MR. HUNSINGER-No.
MR. KREBS-No.
MR. TRAVER-Will the proposed action affect aesthetic resources?
MR. HUNSINGER-I think there is some potential.
MR. TRAVER-Yes, there is some concern about the view shed, again, mitigated by Site Plan
Review.
MR. OBORNE-Are you saying it’s a small to moderate impact?
MR. HUNSINGER-Small to moderate impact.
MR. TRAVER-Small to moderate. Will the proposed action impact any site or structure of
historic, pre-historic or paleontological importance?
MR. KREBS-No.
MR. HUNSINGER-No.
MR. TRAVER-Will the proposed action affect the quantity or quality of existing or future open
spaces or recreational opportunities?
MR. KREBS-No.
MR. HUNSINGER-No.
MR. TRAVER-Will the proposed action impact the exceptional or unique characteristics of a
critical environmental area established pursuant to Subdivision 6NYCRR 617.14?
MR. HUNSINGER-No.
MR. FORD-No.
MR. TRAVER-Will there be an effect to existing transportation systems?
MR. HUNSINGER-No.
MR. FORD-No.
MR. TRAVER-Will proposed action affect the community’s sources of fuel or energy supply?
5
(Queensbury Planning Board 10/26/2010)
MR. HUNSINGER-No.
MR. FORD-No.
MR. TRAVER-Will there be objectionable odors, noise, or vibration as a result of the proposed
action?
MR. SIPP-Could be.
MR. FORD-Only from the blasting.
MR. TRAVER-Okay. Potential for noise, vibration as a result of blasting. Can we say small to
moderate, and mitigated by planning?
MR. FORD-Yes.
MR. TRAVER-Will the proposed action affect public health and safety?
MR. HUNSINGER-No.
MR. KREBS-No.
MR. TRAVER-Will the proposed action affect the character of the existing community?
MR. HUNSINGER-No.
MR. KREBS-No.
MR. TRAVER-And is there, or is there likely to be, public controversy related to potential
adverse environmental impacts?
MR. HUNSINGER-No.
MR. FORD-No.
MR. TRAVER-Then I’ll make a motion that we find a Negative SEQRA declaration.
RESOLUTION WHEN DETERMINATION OF NO SIGNIFICANCE IS MADE
RESOLUTION NO. 13-2007, Introduced by Stephen Traver who moved for its adoption,
seconded by Thomas Ford:
WHEREAS, there is presently before the Planning Board an application for:
JOHN FEDOROWICZ, and
WHEREAS, this Planning Board has determined that the proposed project and Planning Board
action is subject to review under the State Environmental Quality Review Act,
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT
RESOLVED:
1. No Federal agency appears to be involved.
2. The following agencies are involved:
NONE
3. The proposed action considered by this Board is Unlisted in the Department of
Environmental Conservation Regulations implementing the State Environmental Quality
Review Act and the regulations of the Town of Queensbury.
4. An Environmental Assessment Form has been completed by the applicant.
5. Having considered and thoroughly analyzed the relevant areas of environmental concern
and having considered the criteria for determining whether a project has a significant
environmental impact as the same is set forth in Section 617.11 of the Official
Compilation of Codes, Rules and Regulations for the State of New York, this Board finds
that the action about to be undertaken by this Board will have no significant
environmental effect and the Chairman of the Planning Board is hereby authorized to
6
(Queensbury Planning Board 10/26/2010)
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 26 day of October, 2010, by the following vote:
AYES: Mr. Traver, Mr. Krebs, Mr. Magowan, Mr. Ford, Mr. Schonewolf, Mr. Sipp,
Mr. Hunsinger
NOES: NONE
MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. Would anyone like to put forward a resolution for Preliminary Stage
approval? Unless there’s questions or comments.
MS. RADNER-Did you close the public hearing?
MR. HUNSINGER-Well, yes, the judge did. Remember?
MS. RADNER-Good point. Okay.
MR. HUNSINGER-Actually we did, months and months ago.
MOTION TO APPROVE PRELIMINARY STAGE SUBDIVISION NO. 13-2007 JOHN
FEDOROWICZ, Introduced by Stephen Traver who moved for its adoption, seconded by Donald
Krebs:
According to the resolution prepared by Staff.
th
Duly adopted this 26 day of October, 2010, by the following vote:
AYES: Mr. Traver, Mr. Krebs, Mr. Magowan, Mr. Ford, Mr. Schonewolf, Mr. Sipp,
Mr. Hunsinger
NOES: NONE
MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. There was a draft resolution prepared for this project. Did any
members of the Planning Board have any questions or comments or any other items to add?
MR. KREBS-I thought it covered everything that we discussed over time, you know, all the
concerns that we had.
MR. FORD-It’s well prepared.
MR. HUNSINGER-I know, you know, again, one of my particular thoughts is, you know, it is a
very difficult site to develop, especially with the access requirements, you know, the cutting and
filling of upwards of nine feet. You’re going to have an elevated driveway, almost nine feet in the
air in spots, on a nine percent elevation and on a curve, so I know it’s certainly not something
that I’d want to be driving up and down in the winter, but, you know, I think if the applicant does
want to develop it, that we can mitigate the concerns that we have. Any other questions or
comments from the Board?
MR. SIPP-I wonder, has there ever been a test pit below three feet?
MR. LAPPER-There were a whole bunch of test pits. That data should be in the record.
MR. FEDOROWICZ-That data is in the record. The engineer would have that.
MR. SIPP-And it was sand soil all the way down? Six feet?
MR. FEDOROWICZ-There’s loam soil, some sandy soil, some rocks and boulders. It’s all been
in the data sheet.
MR. SIPP-No solid rock?
MR. FEDOROWICZ-There’s some solid rock, yes.
MR. SIPP-That’s all going to have to be blasted out?
MR. FEDOROWICZ-Some, yes.
7
(Queensbury Planning Board 10/26/2010)
MR. LAPPER-If you’d like us to find it, I’m sure we can find the soils report.
MR. KREBS-I recall when we were talking about the parking there was a test pit right there.
MR. FEDOROWICZ-Yes. Yes, they’re all marked.
MR. OBORNE-Try Page One of Five, Jon.
MR. LAPPER-There are test pit results, One of Five, yes. I see some that go down to 66 inches,
72 inches, 48 inches, 48 inches. I know that the Board had asked for extensive soil tests for all
the areas for, not only the house site and the septic, but also the stormwater management
areas. So there’s nine test pits.
MR. HUNSINGER-Any other questions or comments? Any other questions, comments from the
Board? There is a draft resolution prepared, would anyone like to move it?
MR. TRAVER-I can read it, I guess.
MOTION TO APPROVE FINAL STAGE SUBDIVISION NO. 13-2007 JOHN FEDOROWICZ,
Introduced by Stephen Traver who moved for its adoption, seconded by Thomas Ford:
As prepared by the Chairman and Planning Board members, with input from Town Counsel.
a)Pursuant to relevant sections of the Town of Queensbury Zoning Code [Chapter A-183],
the Planning Board has determined that this proposal complies with the requirements as
stated in the Zoning Code; and
b)The requirements of the State Environmental Quality Review Act have been considered
and the Planning Board has adopted a SEQRA Negative Declaration.
c)Final 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 upon compliance
with this and all other conditions of this resolution; and
d)A waiver request is granted for location of septic fields on all adjacent properties.
Applicant shall, however, verify that no existing wells or septic fields are within 200 feet
of any well or septic proposed and shall properly label the final subdivision map.
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)As-built plans to certify that the subdivision is developed according to the approved plans
to be approved prior to issuance of the certificate of occupancy; and
g)If applicable, Item f to be combined with a letter of credit; and
h)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.
This application is approved also with the following statements and special conditions:
During the deliberations on this proposed subdivision, the Planning Board expressed
concerns with storm water run-off, grading, access, development on steep slopes, the depth
of bedrock, the need for excessive amounts of cut and fill, compliance with the
comprehensive plan and potential impacts on the public view shed. To date, not all of these
concerns have been addressed to the satisfaction of the board.
In addition, during a recent site visit on October 16, 2010, significant wetlands were
observed that were not previously identified by the Applicant. These wetlands located to the
west and north of the proposed house and septic on Lot 2-B (as denoted on Map S-1 dated
March 25, 2005), including a small pond, may or may not be located on the proposed site,
but are clearly proximate to any development that is likely to occur on the site.
Therefore, the following conditions must be met by the Applicant as a condition of approval:
8
(Queensbury Planning Board 10/26/2010)
1)The proposed driveway will be paved for the entire length.
2)No area of the driveway shall exceed 10% slope.
3)No stabilized sides of the driveway shall exceed a 3 on 1 slope. The Applicant will follow
the submitted erosion and sediment control plan for all disturbed soil during driveway
construction.
4)Applicant shall satisfy the conditions set forth in the June 11, 2008 letter from the Chief
of the Bay Ridge Volunteer Fire Co., Inc., specifically:
a.Driveway width shall be at least 12 feet the entire length.
b.A pull-off area, twenty-four (24) feet wide by forty (40) feet in length is required in
the proximity of Test Pit #6, and
c.The entrance to Bay Road shall be perpendicular in order for apparatus to enter
5)Driveways shall be engineered and constructed to accommodate the weight of
emergency vehicles. The design and construction must be verified by the Town
Engineer.
6)Applicant will identify approximate locations of blasting and provide details on the types
of blasting to be used and the resulting impact on any adjacent property owners, their
wells, and the aquifer.
7)All rock removed during construction shall be used on site.
8)The final plan will identify the approximate amount of fill to be brought on site.
9)Check dams used for storm water runoff along the sides of the driveway will be regularly
inspected and maintained. Applicant will provide details of the maintenance plan and
shall be subject to following the same.
10)Clearing limits shall be provided on the final plot with the notation that no trees outside
the clearing limit shall be removed.
11) No portion of driveway or other clearing shall be visible from Lake George or the
wetlands contiguous to Dunham’s Bay on Lake George.
12) Identify the location of all wetlands on the parcel and any that are within 200 feet of
any proposed structure, well, septic or driveway.
13) Any proposed structure on the newly created lot is subject to standard site plan review
by the Planning Board.
th
Duly adopted this 26 day of October, 2010, by the following vote:
AYES: Mr. Ford, Mr. Schonewolf, Mr. Sipp, Mr. Magowan, Mr. Krebs, Mr. Traver,
Mr. Hunsinger
NOES: NONE
MR. HUNSINGER-You’re all set.
MR. LAPPER-Thank you, everybody
MR. HUNSINGER-Thank you.
MR. KREBS-Jon, do you want any of these drawings?
MR. LAPPER-Do you want copies of your plan? They’re just going to toss them. Grab a
couple.
MR. KREBS-I’ve saved them from the beginning. So, actually, if you want, you can have all of
this.
SITE PLAN NO. 63-2010 SEQR TYPE II JERRY BROWN’S AUTO PARTS OWNER(S)
JERRY BROWN ZONING HI LOCATION 26 LOWER WARREN STREET APPLICANT
9
(Queensbury Planning Board 10/26/2010)
PROPOSES CONSTRUCTION OF 900 SQ. FT. METAL STORAGE BUILDING. PROPOSED
ACCESSORY STRUCTURES IN THE HI ZONE REQUIRE PLANNING BOARD REVIEW AND
APPROVAL. PLANNING BOARD TO PROVIDE A RECOMMENDATION TO THE ZONING
BOARD OF APPEALS. CROSS REFERENCE AV 54-10, BP 10-012, SP 59-09, 54-05
WARREN CO. PLANNING 10/13/2010 LOT SIZE 13.78 +/- ACRES TAX MAP NO. 303.19-1-
49 SECTION 179-9
MR. HUNSINGER-There is a note here that the application was tabled by the ZBA until
th
November 17. So we may wish to table this to a date in December. Is there anyone in the
audience here to address the Board on this project? Would anyone like to put forward a tabling
thst
resolution to table this until one of our December meetings, either the 16 or the 21?
MR. SCHONEWOLF-Which date do you want?
th
MR. HUNSINGER-It doesn’t matter. We tabled the last one to the 16, so why don’t we table
st
this one to the 21.
MR. SCHONEWOLF-Okay. So moved.
MOTION TO TABLE SITE PLAN NO. 63-2010 JERRY BROWN’S AUTO PARTS, Introduced by
Paul Schonewolf who moved for its adoption, seconded by Donald Krebs:
A site plan application has been made to the Queensbury Planning Board for the following:
Applicant proposes construction of 900 sq. ft. metal storage building. Proposed accessory
structures in the HI zone require Planning Board review and approval; and
The PB provided the ZBA with a recommendation on 10/19/2010; and
The ZBA tabled the variance to 11/17/2010; and
MOTION TO TABLE SITE PLAN NO. 63-2010 JERRY BROWN’S AUTO PARTS, Introduced by
Paul Schonewolf who moved for its adoption, seconded by Donald Krebs:
st
Tabled to the December 21 Planning Board meeting.
th
Duly adopted this 26 day of November, 2010, by the following vote:
AYES: Mr. Krebs, Mr. Magowan, Mr. Traver, Mr. Ford, Mr. Schonewolf, Mr. Sipp, Mr. Hunsinger
NOES: NONE
PUBLIC HEARING OPENED
MR. HUNSINGER-And let the record show that we did leave the public hearing open.
SITE PLAN NO. 67-2010 SEQR TYPE II THOMAS & MAUREEN VALENTI AGENT(S)
MICHAEL J. O’CONNOR OWNER(S) SAME ZONING WR LOCATION 117 BIRDSALL
ROAD APPLICANT PROPOSES REMOVAL OF ROOF TO ADD A SECOND STORY
CONTAINING 3 BEDROOMS, 1 BATH AND LAUNDRY ROOM. EXPANSION OF A NON-
CONFORMING STRUCTURE IN A CEA REQUIRES PLANNING REVIEW AND APPROVAL.
PLANNING BOARD TO PROVIDE A RECOMMENDATION TO THE ZONING BOARD OF
APPEALS. CROSS REFERENCE AV 56-10, AV 49-01, BP 04-459, BP 00-1-148 APA, CEA,
OTHER GLEN LAKE CEA LOT SIZE 0.27 +/- ACRES TAX MAP NO. 289.17-1-41 SECTION
179-9, 179-13
MR. OBORNE-I’d like to read this into the record, if I may.
MR. HUNSINGER-Yes. This is for Thomas and Maureen Valenti, 117 Birdsall Road,
Queensbury, Site Plan. “Gentlemen: Please table this application to your December Agenda.
We are having Tom Hutchins design the following: 1) Compliant Septic System; 2)
Stormwater Plan; 3) Landscape Plan – to extent possible along lake. We will file the updated
plans by November 15, 2010. If anything further is necessary, please advise. Yours Very Truly,
LITTLE & O’CONNOR ATTORNEYS, P.C. By: Michael J. O’Connor” And that’s dated October
25, 2010.
MR. HUNSINGER-Do you have a preference which date we table this to? Does it matter?
MR. OBORNE-None whatsoever.
10
(Queensbury Planning Board 10/26/2010)
thstth
MR. HUNSINGER-The 16 or the 21. Why don’t we table this one to the 16, if someone
would like to move that.
st
MR. FORD-Let’s try to keep the 21 relatively short.
stst
MR. HUNSINGER-The 21? Okay. We’ll table it to the 21.
th
MR. FORD-No, no. I like your previous, the 16.
th
MR. HUNSINGER-The 16.
st
MR. FORD-Let’s keep the agenda as short as possible on the 21.
MOTION TO TABLE SITE PLAN NO. 67-2010 THOMAS & MAUREEN VALENTI, Introduced by
Donald Krebs who moved for its adoption, seconded by Paul Schonewolf:
A site plan application has been made to the Queensbury Planning Board for the following:
Applicant proposes removal of roof to add a 1,000 +/- sq. ft. second story containing 3
bedrooms, 1 bath and laundry room. Expansion of a non-conforming structure in a CEA
requires Planning Board review and approval; and
The PB provided the ZBA with a recommendation on 10/19/2010; and
The ZBA approved the variance on 10/20/2010; and
MOTION TO TABLE SITE PLAN NO. 67-2010 THOMAS & MAUREEN VALENTI, Introduced by
Donald Krebs who moved for its adoption, seconded by Paul Schonewolf:
th
Tabled to the December 16 Planning Board meeting.
th
Duly adopted this 26 day of October, 2010, by the following vote:
AYES: Mr. Krebs, Mr. Magowan, Mr. Traver, Mr. Ford, Mr. Schonewolf, Mr. Sipp, Mr. Hunsinger
NOES: NONE
SITE PLAN NO. 66-2010 SEQR TYPE II PATRICK MERCURIO OWNER(S) NORTHEAST
REALTY DEVELOPMENT ZONING CI LOCATION 3342 STATE ROUTE 9 APPLICANT
PROPOSES HELICOPTER TOURS WITHIN 25 MILE RADIUS OF PROPOSED OFFICE.
PROPOSED OFFICE USE IN A CI ZONE REQUIRES PLANNING BOARD REVIEW AND
APPROVAL. CROSS REFERENCE SP 3-99, SP 32-97 WARREN CO. PLANNING
10/13/2010 LOT SIZE 0.55 +/- ACRES TAX MAP NO. 227.4-1-2 SECTION 179-9
PATRICK MERCURIO, PRESENT
MR. HUNSINGER-Keith, whenever you’re ready.
MR. OBORNE-Site Plan 66-2010, applicant is Patrick Mercurio, requested action is proposed
office use in the CI zone. Location is 3342 State Route 9. The existing zoning is Commercial
Intensive. This is a Type II SEQRA. Project Description: Applicant proposes Helicopter Tours
on adjacent lands located in Lake George with ticket sales for said tours to be accomplished in
Queensbury. An existing 1,275 square foot first floor office for ticket sales to be used during the
summer and fall. Staff Comments: The applicant was before the Town of Lake George
Planning Board on August 3, 2010 in order to gain approval for helicopter tours located to the
north of this project. The project was tabled pending approval from this board concerning the
office and associated parking (see attached Town of Lake George Planning Board minutes).
The applicant has stated that the sale of “bicycles, kayaks, etc. in addition to selling tickets for
the helicopter”. This is mentioned because the application before the Board does not mention
the sale of these items. Review, what follows is Site Plan Review. I basically just want to let the
Board know that the applicant is requesting waivers from stormwater, lighting, landscaping and
grading, and there is a Zoning Administrator letter dated August 4, 2010 that was attached. I will
say the applicant does have some issues with parking that appear to be not of his making
because of the taking of Route 9 by the Department of Transportation. There are some issues
with that, and I do mention that in there. I just want to bring that to the forefront, and with that,
I’d turn it over to the Board.
MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. Thank you. Good evening.
11
(Queensbury Planning Board 10/26/2010)
MR. MERCURIO-Good evening. My name is Patrick Mercurio. I represent a company called
Adirondack Heli Group. I am proposing the office use for 3342 U.S. State Route 9 for the bases
of operation of the helicopter tour company, Adirondack Heli Group. I will not be modifying or
changing anything of the interior or exterior on the property. I have already met with the fire
inspector of the Town of Queensbury, and he has given me the CO for the bikes and kayak
sales of the retail use of the building. All I ask of the Board tonight is that we give the parking
issue some looking into as far as what to do with it. The owner of the property has used the
building in the past, without any problems, for retail use. The only thing I’m asking for is to be
able to sell tickets for the helicopter rides. The helicopter will be used during Americade, in June
of next year, and the months of July and August.
MR. HUNSINGER-Anything else?
MR. FORD-So the operation would be confined to those three months?
MR. MERCURIO-The one week of June and July and August.
MR. SCHONEWOLF-Where is the helicopter based?
MR. MERCURIO-The helicopter right now I have in Long Island.
MR. SCHONEWOLF-No, but I mean where is it going to be based when it’s being used here?
MR. MERCURIO-There is that lot, vacant lot in the Town of Lake George, a couple of parcels
down from the building in the Town of Lake George.
MR. SCHONEWOLF-So it’s not going to be based in the Town of Queensbury?
MR. MERCURIO-No, it will not.
MR. SCHONEWOLF-Is it going to land in the Town of Queensbury?
MR. MERCURIO-Not at all. The only time I would be using it in the Town of Queensbury is to fly
to Floyd Bennett Memorial to re-fuel.
MR. SCHONEWOLF-That’s all right.
MR. HUNSINGER-So is this on the new lot that you see all the grading going in?
MR. MERCURIO-There was some grading done. As far as the lot, we really didn’t do much.
We graded the dirt down a little bit, and brought in some Item Four. That was the extent of it.
MR. HUNSINGER-Yes. No, I mean, I remember 25 years ago, there was a sign, and people
have been bringing fill in there ever since.
MR. MERCURIO-Yes. The owner let, apparently, some of the public utilities use it to dump
miscellaneous. It was all overseen by the DEC, and he has all the paperwork for that.
MR. SIPP-How close are you to the bike trail?
MR. MERCURIO-The bike trail is approximately 450 feet away. As far as the helipad goes,
once you guys are squared away with the building, I can move to the Town of Lake George and
go for another board meeting there. They would then sign off on an application that the Aviation
Division of the DOT has given me to fill out, and once it is approved by the Town of Lake
George, I can move to the Aviation Division.
MR. HUNSINGER-So people will come to the existing building to buy tickets, and then the
helicopter takes off and lands a few lots down. How will people get from the ticket sale office to
the helipad?
MR. MERCURIO-To the helipad? Is in walking distance, it’s approximately a two hundred feet.
MR. SCHONEWOLF-But it’s in two different towns.
MR. MERCURIO-Correct. The strip on Route 9, I don’t know if you’re aware of the giant Teepee
there. The Town line runs directly right next to the Teepee.
MR. HUNSINGER-Will they be walking on Route 9?
12
(Queensbury Planning Board 10/26/2010)
MR. MERCURIO-Absolutely not.
MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. So it’ll be off the highway?
MR. MERCURIO-Yes.
MR. HUNSINGER-An internal trail of some sort?
MR. MERCURIO-Yes, there’s a ramp made, it has railings, and follows it down to the empty lot.
MR. HUNSINGER-Okay.
MR. MAGOWAN-What’s the noise level like on take-off and that?
MR. MERCURIO-Well, I had it in here originally. I had decibel ratings of everything, as far as
distance from the helicopter. The most it was, I believe, was at 98 decibels at 200 feet away, I
believe it was. I can get all of those. We had all the helicopter information in the original Site
Plan. Keith helped me through everything. I’ve been re-doing it for about six months now, and
we thought that it would be best if we left the helicopter specifications and things like that to the
Town of Lake George, because this is just the business part of it. We’re not going to be landing
there or using the helicopter in any way in the Town of Queensbury.
MR. OBORNE-And I can corroborate what he’s saying. I did direct him to really not worry too
much about the helicopter at this point, because we’re looking at the office use only, that is a
Lake George issue. That’s not to say the Planning Board can’t ask for that, but I thought just to
look at it, segregate the two, two separate towns.
MR. MAGOWAN-If we open it up where he can sell tickets, then obviously, you know, and then
Lake George, just a couple of feet away allows, him to land and take off there, I’m thinking of the
neighboring people in Queensbury, if they want to hear that going up and down. That’s, I mean,
the only reason I’m bringing up is I understand that, you know, we’re in two different towns. So if
we go ahead with the approval of the ticket sales, then, you know, that opens up everybody for a
noise factor, and I know we’ve got the hotels and everything down there. So I’m, and I know we
have, what is it French Mountain right there, you know, and it’s echoy. I mean, I’m just thinking
of, you know, maybe it’s the movies and it just echoes more. I’m not sure, maybe it’s my
surround sound. I’m not sure.
MR. MERCURIO-That’s understandable.
MR. MAGOWAN-It’s not too often I’m around helicopters, but I just know when the Army goes
over and that, I mean, you really hear them, and I know yours is a, it’s not as big, and I’ve seen it
up on Lake George.
MR. MERCURIO-We operate a Robinson R-44. With the lot, we are able, the pilot is able to
take off and go directly up from the lot. So he’s not, you know, flying over, directly, anybody’s
houses or anything. The surrounding area, Ralph Macchio, I believe he is the closest rural next
person over, and all he asked is that if we can get up before we hit the farm area, then he’s fine,
and we were operating for a little bit in the beginning of the year, and he hasn’t had any
problems. We did some aerial photography for him, and he’s on our page, so, as far as that’s
concerned.
MR. HUNSINGER-Other questions, comments from the Board?
MR. SIPP-What’s your hours of operation?
MR. MERCURIO-Our hours of operation? As of right now, the hours of operation are still, we
have a roundabout time that we’re going to be doing them. We would like to go from about 10
o’clock in the morning to about nightfall. Of course we’re not going to be filling up the helicopter
slots night and day. I don’t really plan on, I’m using the helicopter as the main basis of the
operation. That’s why I went to go with the bikes and kayaks for the retail sale of them. It would,
you know, take up the slack of the time, because obviously we’re not going to be flying the
helicopter all day every day. So that’s why I went down that route.
MR. SCHONEWOLF-Have you already gotten approval from Lake George?
MR. MERCURIO-No. I have to get approval from you guys for the parking and the business, the
office. I would then go over to the Town of Lake George and get approved for the helipad.
MR. OBORNE-Yes. You were directed by the Lake George Planning Board to seek this.
13
(Queensbury Planning Board 10/26/2010)
MR. MERCURIO-Rob Hickey.
MR. SCHONEWOLF-I don’t have any, I had some questions about the helicopter, but that’s not
our business. That’s Lake George.
MR. MERCURIO-Well, if you have any questions, I’d be happy to answer them.
MR. SCHONEWOLF-No, because you’ll get into it when you file for the permit.
MR. FORD-I have some questions relative to your altitude flying over any of the Town of
Queensbury, flight altitude.
MR. MERCURIO-Are you asking if we will be flying over the Town of Queensbury?
MR. FORD-Well, obviously you’ll be flying over the Town of Queensbury, but particularly on your
approach and take off, what altitude would you be over the Town of Queensbury, that property?
MR. MERCURIO-By the time we get to the nearest person, Ralph Macchio, most of our tours fly
over the lake. There’s one tour that flies over Great Escape. I don’t think that we’re going to be
doing that next year. Other than that, the only time we’d be flying over Town of Queensbury
would be to re-fuel at Floyd Bennett Memorial.
MR. FORD-And to answer the question, altitude, upon either approach or take off.
MR. MERCURIO-Taking off and approaching, we fly at an altitude of, it depends on the cloud
ceiling, approximately 800 feet elevation, not sea level, and he can reach that altitude directly
over the lot. So he wouldn’t have to, it’s not like a plane where you have to gradually take off
and get your altitude. He can do that directly from the lot. So 800 is our average, average
height.
MR. FORD-How many passengers will you be flying?
MR. MERCURIO-There is four seats in a helicopter, one pilot and three passengers.
MR. SCHONEWOLF-This is not the same helicopter that’s based over in Bolton, is it?
MR. MERCURIO-No, it is not. No.
MR. TRAVER-That’s also a Robinson, but that’s not.
MR. SCHONEWOLF-Separate operation. Okay.
MR. HUNSINGER-Have you been in touch with the APA
MR. MERCURIO-The APA?
MR. HUNSINGER-Yes.
MR. MERCURIO-No, I have not.
MR. HUNSINGER-I got a, Keith, I don’t know if you got it, too, or not, but over the summer I got
a notice from the APA about plane flights over Lake George.
MR. MERCURIO-Yes, I know what you’re talking about.
MR. HUNSINGER-And how they’re prohibited, and I just threw it away, because 10 years on the
Planning Board, we’ve never seen a.
MR. MERCURIO-What that stated was it makes it a misdemeanor if you land on the lake or the
shores of the lake. That’s what that stated.
MR. HUNSINGER-Okay.
MR. SCHONEWOLF-What about the guys that land n the lake for gas? They do it all the time.
MR. MERCURIO-For gas? Is that a helicopter or an airplane?
MR. SCHONEWOLF-No, that’s an airplane.
14
(Queensbury Planning Board 10/26/2010)
MR. MERCURIO-Well, the APA stated it was for helicopters. It was directed toward helicopters.
MR. SCHONEWOLF-I’ve seen the (lost word) helicopter fly over the lake and land on the shore
at somebody’s house and pick up people, take them for a ride.
MR. MERCURIO-That’s another thing. When we received that letter, it had the rules, but it
didn’t have anybody who was to enforce those rules. The discrepancy also was somebody was
landing on the lake, I believe two years ago for the Winter Carnival, and nobody was
reprimanded in any way or taken for responsibility. So the APA, they sent the rules, but I guess
they haven’t enforced them in any way. We won’t be landing or flying over, landing on the
shores or any part of the lake at all.
MR. HUNSINGER-Okay.
MR. TRAVER-I had a question for Staff. Keith, in looking through the letter from the
Administrator Brown, and in various parts of the materials, I wasn’t completely certain that I
understood our responsibility with regards to the additional sales of the bicycles and the kayaks
and so on. It looks as though, if we’re just talking about selling tickets for the helicopter ride, it’s
a straightforward situation, but if we’re getting involved in the bikes and so on, then there’s a
Special Use Permit involved or something?
MR. OBORNE-No. It has to do with the ability of the applicant to have parking available for
people who are going to be taking rides. That’s what triggers the Site Plan. That’s that ability.
They have a Special Use Permit to sell items out of that. Kevin Quinn does, and Craig has
stated that that is an acceptable way of doing business at this point. What triggers this before
you is the fact that there’s going to be parking involved with the ancillary use or the main use, I
should say, in Lake George.
MR. TRAVER-Thank you.
MR. KREBS-But I can’t imagine that there’s going to be an awful lot of parking. They only have
three people. They’ll probably come in one car, and I would imagine most people are going to
try and schedule that beforehand, so that, so maybe you’re going to have two or three cars, but I
can’t imagine beyond that.
MR. MAGOWAN-How long will the rides take?
MR. MERCURIO-Rides vary from 10 minutes to a half an hour.
MR. MAGOWAN-So there could be a possibility that you’d have three cars backed up waiting.
MR. MERCURIO-Absolutely, which is why we do the scheduling.
MR. FORD-And you’ll do kayak and bike rentals out of that location?
MR. MERCURIO-As far as the bike and kayak rentals, we’re not going to be going down that
road right yet. We’re just going to be doing the selling, retail, of the bikes and kayaks.
MR. HUNSINGER-Could you walk us through your parking plan, then, because, I mean, we did
receive this. Are these supposed to represent parking spaces?
MR. MERCURIO-Who did you get that from?
MR. OBORNE-That was what was submitted.
MR. MERCURIO-Really? If you look in the actual Site Plan.
MR. HUNSINGER-Yes, I had a hard time following those color sheets. Maybe if you walk us
through it.
MR. MERCURIO-On Page Three, those in red, that has the parking on the bottom. The State
line is all the way on the inside of the crease, the handicapped parking, and it is a parallel
parking in the front of the building, approximately five spaces, including the handicap.
MR. OBORNE-This parking plan was submitted by the property owner. This is what Naomi
submitted.
MR. MERCURIO-Okay. Thank you.
15
(Queensbury Planning Board 10/26/2010)
MR. HUNSINGER-Do you have pictures, Keith?
MR. OBORNE-Yes. Actually, Mr. Mercurio has provided pictures also.
MR. HUNSINGER-Because, I mean, you know, this picture here, I mean, there’s.
MR. MERCURIO-Ample parking.
MR. HUNSINGER-Yes.
MR. MERCURIO-It’s the State line is the discrepancy.
MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. Now I’m understanding the dilemma here. Okay.
MR. OBORNE-The State took this property, and you can put all the curb cuts that they put in
there. This is, when they designed these things back in the day, they weren’t thinking about
vehicular conflicts, even though it is the Department of Transportation. They just put these
antiquated islands in with multiple access points, you know, and took a whole bunch of land,
basically, from the applicant, or from the owner.
MR. HUNSINGER-And of course because it’s State property, they can’t line the parking spaces,
or otherwise try to delineate parking so it’s just, people just park however they want.
MR. OBORNE-Yes, exactly. It is a free for all at times up there.
MR. HUNSINGER-But people, I mean, any time I’ve gone by there when it’s busy, I mean,
people just generally out of habit park perpendicular to the building. So even though it’s not
lined, it might as well be, really.
MR. OBORNE-But as you know, we like our lines perfect on a piece of paper. So just for the
Code.
MR. HUNSINGER-So now I understand what the issue is, because I mean, I always thought
there was plenty of parking up there. So why are we concerned about two parking spaces.
MR. OBORNE-And in reality there is. There certainly is plenty of potential for good site flow.
MR. HUNSINGER-Yes, in fact I’ve even seen people park parallel with Route 9, up against
Route 9, when all of the perpendicular spots in front of the building are full. People, they kind of
know how to do it.
MR. MERCURIO-The Town of Lake George, this is their main concern is the parking .
MR. HUNSINGER-Okay.
MR. OBORNE-And it’s my main concern, also.
MR. HUNSINGER-So how do we have the applicant show us a realistic Site Plan that doesn’t?
MR. OBORNE-Well, the requirements are that he’s required to have a certain amount of spaces
for the use, based on square footage, which I believe is six. You do have to show some type of
handicap parking. If it’s bleeding over to State lands, I think that it’s going to bleed over to State
lands. I don’t see how else you can avoid that.
MR. HUNSINGER-How about parking in the rear? Does it make sense to park cars in the rear
for the helicopter rides?
MR. MERCURIO-There is parking in the rear. If you look at the first page, there’s parking over
the entire lot, which none of the parking is on the State property, except for the few in the front,
and they do show parking in the back. It’s all pre-existing pavement.
MR. HUNSINGER-So, this sheet here, which building is yours? Which building is the building
that you will be occupying?
MR. MERCURIO-If you look at the circle is the Teepee, and then if you put the three gray on the
right, the middle one is my building.
MR. HUNSINGER-Okay, because the one all the way to the right is the one where we recently
approved the chain saw art.
16
(Queensbury Planning Board 10/26/2010)
MR. KREBS-Yes. So it would be relatively easy to direct people who are going to go up in a
helicopter ride to go and park in the back.
MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. Well, but they have to show a plan that has compliant parking.
MR. FORD-Let’s hope they have to use every possible spot.
MR. HUNSINGER-Yes, exactly. Any other 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?
PUBLIC HEARING OPENED
MR. HUNSINGER-We will open the public hearing. Is there any written comments, Keith?
MR. OBORNE-No.
MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. Was there anything from the Town of Lake George that we need to
act on? Is there any information they requested of us?
MR. OBORNE-No.
MR. HUNSINGER-I read their, I mean, I certainly read their meeting minutes.
MR. OBORNE-And obviously, you’re not bound, but certainly it’s plain that they are seeking
approval from this Town first before they’re going to move forward on the bigger issue.
MR. HUNSINGER-Sure. Okay.
MR. KREBS-Based on this document, though, I just counted the parking places delineated on
this document, and behind the stores, there’s 43 parking spaces.
MR. HUNSINGER-Yes. Well, it’s not on his.
MR. OBORNE-Yes, it’s all on one lot.
MR. KREBS-No, but it’s all on one lot.
MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. Everyone comfortable moving forward?
MR. FORD-Yes, sir.
MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. We’ll then close the public hearing.
PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED
MR. HUNSINGER-Mr. Traver, do you want to do SEQR, it’s a Short Form?
MR. TRAVER-This is Type II.
MR. OBORNE-It’s a Type II.
MR. HUNSINGER-I’m sorry. He submitted a Short Form, though.
MR. OBORNE-As well he should have.
MR. HUNSINGER-Yes. Okay. I’m sorry. It’s a Type II Action. So no SEQR’s required. I’ll
entertain a motion for approval, if anyone would like to move it. Keith, do we need anything else
from him, in terms of delineating a parking plan, other than what’s provided?
MR. OBORNE-If you’re satisfied with what was presented, then that’s fine with my department.
that’s pretty much all I can state at this point. You have to be satisfied.
MR. HUNSINGER-I mean, he does show on his actual application a compliant parking plan that
does not have parking on the State right of way.
MR. OBORNE-That is correct.
17
(Queensbury Planning Board 10/26/2010)
MR. HUNSINGER-So he meets the Code there. The reality is there’s.
MR. OBORNE-He doesn’t meet, you do need handicap parking. That is required. So, I mean,
he’s going to have handicap parking.
MR. HUNSINGER-Yes. You will need to designate at least one handicap spot.
MR. MERCURIO-Absolutely, nine foot spaces.
MR. OBORNE-With sign.
MR. MERCURIO-Extra space.
MR. OBORNE-Unloading zone.
MR. MERCURIO-My father owns a paving business. I’m quite aware of the parking rules.
MR. HUNSINGER-So I think that would probably be the only condition, that you’d have to
designate a handicap parking spot with markings, appropriate markings, and it can be in the
location as shown on your Site Plan there.
MR. MERCURIO-Site Plan.
MR. HUNSINGER-Would anyone like to move it?
MOTION TO APPROVE SITE PLAN NO. 66-2010 PATRICK MERCURIO, Introduced by
Donald Krebs who moved for its adoption, seconded by Thomas Ford:
A site plan application has been made to the Queensbury Planning Board for the following:
Applicant proposes Helicopter Tours within 25 mile radius of proposed office. Proposed office
use in a CI zone requires Planning Board review and approval; and
A public hearing was advertised and held on 10/26/2010; and
This application is supported with all documentation, public comment and application material in
the file of record;
MOTION TO APPROVE SITE PLAN NO. 66-2010 PATRICK MERCURIO, Introduced by
Donald Krebs who moved for its adoption, seconded by Thomas Ford:
According to the resolution prepared by Staff. Paragraph A complies. Paragraph F, waivers
are granted.
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 SEQRA review is necessary; and
c)Final approved plans, in compliance with the Site Plan, must be submitted to the
Community Development Department before any further review by the Zoning
Administrator or Building and Codes personnel. The applicant must meet with
Staff after approval and prior to issuance of Building Permit and/or the beginning
of any site work. Subsequent issuance of further permits, including building
permits is dependent on compliance with this and all other conditions of this
resolution; and
d)As-built plans to certify that the site plan is developed according to the approved
plans to be provided prior to issuance of the certificate of occupancy; and
e)The Sanitary Sewer connection plan must be submitted to the Wastewater
Department for its review, approval, permitting and inspection; and
f)Waiver requests granted: stormwater mgmt., grading, landscaping & lighting
plans
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
18
(Queensbury Planning Board 10/26/2010)
h)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.
i)That the applicant will provide a handicap parking space and so designate on his
final plan.
th
Duly adopted this 26 day of October, 2010, by the following vote:
MR. TRAVER-I would like to amend that motion to include that the applicant will provide a
handicap parking space and so designate on his final plan.
MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. We have a motion and an amendment. Do we have a second?
MR. FORD-Second.
MR. HUNSINGER-We didn’t ask you about lighting. Is there any new lighting proposed?
MR. MERCURIO-No new lighting.
MR. HUNSINGER-You said you’re going to operate until dusk.
MR. MERCURIO-Yes. There’s already some lighting on the building pre-existing, and it lights
up the parking lot, already pre-existing.
MR. HUNSINGER-Is it attached to the building?
MR. MERCURIO-Yes. One of the pictures, I believe, actually a couple of them, the first actual
picture, you can see on the corner of the overhang.
MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. It does shine down.
MR. MERCURIO-Yes.
MR. HUNSINGER-It doesn’t bleed out onto Route 9.
MR. MERCURIO-And there is, you can’t really see it on the actual telephone pole, there is an
overhang light on the State property.
MR. HUNSINGER-Yes. It’s a streetlight. Okay. Any other discussion? Call the vote, please.
AYES: Mr. Traver, Mr. Krebs, Mr. Magowan, Mr. Ford, Mr. Schonewolf, Mr. Sipp, Mr. Hunsinger
NOES: NONE
MR. HUNSINGER-You’re all set.
MR. MERCURIO-All right. Thank you very much, gentlemen.
DISCUSSION ITEM:
MICHAEL PUGH; MICHAEL GREENWOOD SEQR TYPE N/A OWNER(S) SAME ZONING
MS LOCATION 18 & 20 SOUTH WESTERN AVENUE APPLICANT PROPOSES
DEMOLITION OF EXISTING SINGLE FAMILY DWELLING AND CONSTRUCTION OF A 45’ X
106’ BUILDING WITH ASSOCIATED SITE WORK FOR A PROFESSIONAL OFFICE/RETAIL
PLAZA. PROFESSIONAL OFFICE AND RETAIL PLAZA IN THE MS ZONE REQUIRES
PLANNING BOARD REVIEW AND APPROVAL. CROSS REFERENCE NONE FOUND LOT
SIZE 0.24, 0.24 +/- ACRES TAX MAP NO. 309.7-1-4, 5
MICHAEL PUGH & MICHAEL GREENWOOD, PRESENT
MR. HUNSINGER-Keith, if you’d like to.
MR. OBORNE-This is just a discussion item. This is off of Western Ave. south, which is just
north of Hannaford in the Town of Queensbury. I have one of the two parcels. I can’t get the
other one, unfortunately. We don’t have the technology at this point, but they’ll certainly explain
and discuss what they’re planning at this point.
19
(Queensbury Planning Board 10/26/2010)
MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. Good evening.
MR. GREENWOOD-Good evening.
MR. HUNSINGER-If you could identify yourself for the record.
MR. GREENWOOD-I’m sorry. I’m Mike Greenwood.
MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. Thank you. Two quarter acre parcels. It’s 180 feet of road frontage
on Southwestern, including, it’s on the corner of Columbia Ave. Directly across from the law
office of.
MR. PUGH-Ron Newell, it used to be.
MR. GREENWOOD-Right, the property he just sold across the street. Our understanding it’s
the last, going that direction, it’s the last parcel that’s incorporated in the Main Street plan. So
before we started spending a lot of money developing it, we own the house and the lot next
door. We wanted to kind of sit in front of you guys and see what our concept looked like to you.
MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. Questions, comments from the Board?
MR. KREBS-Well, one question is, I don’t see any dimensions on the buildings itself. Is there?
MR. PUGH-I wrote it in. 45 by 106.
MR. KREBS-I’m sorry. 45 by 106. Okay.
MR. GREENWOOD-And we do have a larger scaled drawing of this. We just didn’t make the
copies until we go to Site Plan.
MR. FORD-That included the covered walkways?
MR. GREENWOOD-That does include covered walkways.
MR. FORD-Your actual building square footage will be smaller than that.
MR. GREENWOOD-Thirty eight hundred.
MR. PUGH-We’re figuring about 3860.
MR. GREENWOOD-Thirty-eight, approximately.
MR. HUNSINGER-I mean, just speaking from a design perspective, you know, I thought it was
certainly in keeping with the Main Street plan. You have, the building fronts the street. You have
parking to the side and to the rear.
MR. GREENWOOD-That’s what you’d prefer, isn’t it?
MR. HUNSINGER-Yes.
MR. GREENWOOD-We initially started talking about putting the building in the back and all the
parking out front.
MR. HUNSINGER-Yes.
MR. GREENWOOD-But Matt Steves says that part of the Main Street concept.
MR. HUNSINGER-Yes. No, this catches it pretty well, I think. The only, I mean, just a minor
thing, that you should show is on the lot to the south, you should show an interconnect, a future
interconnect. Because that is one of the other elements of the Main Street plan is to have
connected.
MR. PUGH-You’re talking about the lot that is physically two down from the (lost word).
MR. HUNSINGER-I mean, I don’t know what’s there now, but you would just show it on your
plan and label it as a future interconnect for, you know, vehicular traffic.
MR. PUGH-There’s actually a green house sitting there with a garage.
20
(Queensbury Planning Board 10/26/2010)
MR. HUNSINGER-Yes, but you don’t know what’s going to happen in the future.
MR. GREENWOOD-That would basically be the only residential parcel left until Columbia
Avenue, if we do this, would be that green house.
MR. HUNSINGER-Yes.
MR. GREENWOOD-Everything else is commercial.
MR. HUNSINGER-Yes, but, you know, I think the traffic pattern’s a little tight.
MR. GREENWOOD-He’s got them coming in at one entrance and exiting off of Columbia
Avenue.
MR. HUNSINGER-Yes. I’m just thinking of cars backing out. There’s no dimensions here, so,
you know, I don’t know how tight that is.
MR. PUGH-We don’t want it to be like the Glens Falls Post Office.
MR. GREENWOOD-Could you elaborate on that?
MR. HUNSINGER-Yes, you have to have 24 foot.
MR. OBORNE-The drive aisle, 24 foot.
MR. HUNSINGER-Twenty-four foot drive aisle.
MR. PUGH-Between the spaces.
MR. GREENWOOD-And I’m thinking that’s why Matt angled them was so that we would meet
the.
MR. HUNSINGER-Yes. I mean, it looks a little tight. There’s no scale here or anything.
MR. GREENWOOD-Okay. So 24 feet needs to be the drive aisle, though.
MR. HUNSINGER-And the elevation, that’s the street elevation, right?
MR. PUGH-We were messing around at around, and it was a concept, that we liked the part
about a sign.
MR. GREENWOOD-Well, actually this concept was when we were going to put the building to
the back. So quite honestly we would want to, we’re going to be bringing all our traffic in now
from basically the back of the building, but we need something attractive on the street as well,
but it’s not going to be, you know, it’s not going to be where the people come in from. They’re
going to come in from the parking lot, obviously.
MR. HUNSINGER-Well, I mean, they could walk in off the street.
MR. GREENWOOD-I don’t know that we want to give the suites two, a front and a back door,
though, because at some point, if they’re professional offices, especially, they’re going to want
something in the back, other than people walking through both exits.
MR. HUNSINGER-Yes. I mean, the whole purpose of having a street presence is to make it
pedestrian friendly and give it a human scale, and if the back is, if there’s no access to the front,
and kind of defeat that purpose.
MR. MAGOWAN-I mean, are you leaning more toward offices or any retail, or you don’t know at
this time?
MR. GREENWOOD-Yes. We’ve actually had the property for four years, and we’re having a
hard time attracting anyone with just a sign sitting on the corner. That’s kind of why we’re here.
I mean, we don’t know what we’re going to attract.
MR. PUGH-We originally bought this property thinking, and I still need an office. So I was like I’ll
buy this property and put my office in there.
MR. GREENWOOD-We may put Better Way Realty in one of the suites.
21
(Queensbury Planning Board 10/26/2010)
MR. PUGH-Maybe it may not be, but right now I think we’re coming out of this little low area
we’ve got, and I like what’s happening with the Main Street corridor and I think that this is going
to become a secondary artery. So I’m believing we’re about a year out.
MR. HUNSINGER-Is there a way, maybe, to have a common entrance on the street side, you
know, instead of three doors maybe two doors?
MR. GREENWOOD-There certainly is a way. I mean, it would eat up a little bit of our square
footage.
MR. PUGH-We might be able to do two little vestibules here or something.
MR. HUNSINGER-I was just thinking out loud.
MR. GREENWOOD-That’s kind of what we want to do.
MR. PUGH-Yes, I mean, that’s why we’re here.
MR. FORD-Please consider that, for pedestrian access.
MR. PUGH-Well, what if we were able to tie it into the side? Because I mean, you know,
obviously we’ve got a.
MR. GREENWOOD-Is there going to be a futuristic sidewalk there? I mean, will there be a
sidewalk coming along there? I mean, because without one, I mean, I’m not sure what the, if
you look at what that is, and you look at how close we are to the actual road with this, and we do
meet, you know, what’s required. I mean, I’m not sure how realistic pedestrians are going to, I
don’t think anybody’s going to be walking down that road. There isn’t now. Nobody walks down
that side of the road. I mean, Hannaford’s on the other side of the road, and there’s a sidewalk
that starts up on the other side of the road.
MR. HUNSINGER-Well, I mean, you know, there is the other mini mall, you know, just down the
street from you.
MR. GREENWOOD-Berry Mill.
MR. HUNSINGER-And then past that is Cool Beans. So, I mean, it is conceivable that there,
you could create the demand for pedestrian access, pedestrian traffic there.
MR. OBORNE-I would like to bring an issue up, though. I don’t mean to say it as a negative,
though, is that FAR in the Main Street district is 13.3%. That’s less than the Waterfront
Residential. Basically it’s 2,000 square feet of gross leasable space for every 15,000 square
feet of lot space. So, it’s, for reasons unknown, I don’t quite understand it from a planning
perspective, why the Floor Area Ratio is so small. So you’re going to have to get that hurdle
through the Zoning Board of Appeals, which should not be that difficult. It’s just another layer
you’re going to have to go through because of those design guidelines.
MR. GREENWOOD-Can you say, again, what it is, Keith, the Floor Area Ratio?
MR. OBORNE-The Floor Area Ratio, which basically is the relationship between the amount of
square footage in a building, opposed through the amount of square footage that the parcel has.
So, at this point, it’s 2,000 square feet for every 15,000 square feet of lot area.
MR. PUGH-Now, Keith, is that leasable square footage, usable square footage? Does that
include overhangs? Because we had really envisioned a nice six foot overhang and around.
MR. OBORNE-Yes, it does.
MR. PUGH-It includes the overhang area, too.
MR. HUNSINGER-Boy, that sounds like something we should recommend to the Board.
MR. OBORNE-I did bring this up to Craig last month when we were reviewing your documents,
and I was like, I was questioning that. Is that a typo? I mean, it just doesn’t make any sense to
me whatsoever.
MR. HUNSINGER-It’s 13%?
22
(Queensbury Planning Board 10/26/2010)
MR. OBORNE-13.3% is what it equates to, and he said he brought that up during the PORC
Committee, you know, during the Planning Ordinance Review Committee meetings, and they
wanted to keep it in there.
MR. HUNSINGER-I certainly don’t remember Craig bringing that issue up, but I also don’t.
MR. OBORNE-I should say at the zoning code meetings that they had with the Town Board, I
should say.
MR. HUNSINGER-Okay.
MR. OBORNE-So they wanted to keep it in, and I don’t understand it.
MR. HUNSINGER-I keep threatening to pull out my boxes in the basement of all the PORC
materials.
MR. KREBS-I’ve got a big stack of it, too, if you want me to bring it in some time.
MR. HUNSINGER-I have got two boxes.
MR. KREBS-But, the other thing is, in an area like this, like what we’ve talked about for Main
Street, is having second floors.
MR. HUNSINGER-Right.
MR. KREBS-Where you might have apartments, you know, which would make sense in a
location like this, but if you do that you’ve even complicated it. What I was saying is it would
make sense, in a building like this, to put apartments, you know, to put a second floor on, and
use it as residential apartments, which is kind of what we intended to do.
MR. GREENWOOD-We actually talked about that, but we were afraid of the parking. I mean,
we’d start eating up parking spaces, and then you’d require what kind of egress and elevators.
MR. HUNSINGER-Yes, but the thing with parking is, you know, the residential use, need is at a
different time as the business parking.
MR. GREENWOOD-Do they take that into account when they, because I know there’s a cut and
dry formula for parking spaces based on use, too.
MR. HUNSINGER-How did we address that on Main Street, Keith, or didn’t we?
MR. OBORNE-Well, you have to break out the uses and make sure that, you know, you cover
those parking spaces.
MR. GREENWOOD-So if we had one suite that was going to be retail, that parking would
require more spaces than if we had one that was going to be a take-out restaurant or one that
was going to be a professional office.
MR. HUNSINGER-So we don’t allow them to share parking?
MR. OBORNE-Well, there’s a formula that you have. You can reduce it by 20%, depending on
what the formula is and what your uses are. It’s certainly something this Board can obviously
discuss and recommend to the Zoning Board, if need be, as a positive for planning purposes.
MR. HUNSINGER-Sure. Yes.
MR. OBORNE-We do want to promote those second story with retail on the bottom.
MR. HUNSINGER-Absolutely.
MR. OBORNE-But we don’t, we also want to promote, first floor retail is definitely there also.
MR. HUNSINGER-Right.
MR. GREENWOOD-So something that would be favorable among you would be to do this as a
two story with residential on the second floor.
MR. HUNSINGER-Absolutely, yes, as long as the first floor is either professional office or retail,
yes. We just don’t want to see apartments downstairs. That’s the key.
23
(Queensbury Planning Board 10/26/2010)
MR. OBORNE-So I’m just going to put this on the record. I’m going to read the density issue for
the Main Street zone, and it goes density is 15,000 square feet of land area per principal use
with a minimum lot size of 15,000 square feet per 2,000 square feet of floor area. 13.3% is what
that equates to.
MR. GREENWOOD-And I just did the math. It’s 2600 square feet is all we can build, including
overhangs.
MR. TRAVER-Without a variance.
MR. OBORNE-And I think that, and I’m not speaking for the Zoning Board of Appeals, but I think
there’s some malleability there.
MR. GREENWOOD-And you also said per principal use. Does that mean if we build this
building and we have three suites is that three principal uses, or is that still one principal use?
MR. OBORNE-It depends on the use that you’re proposing for that. If it’s office, that’s one use.
If there’s two retail and one office, well, that’s two, but don’t be discouraged.
MR. GREENWOOD-Okay. Well, you might be seeing a lot of us, then.
MR. OBORNE-Absolutely.
MR. GREENWOOD-The parking, the egress, in one, out the other, is that something that’s
favorable?
MR. HUNSINGER-That’s fine. Yes, and we especially like the egress to go out onto a side
street.
MR. GREENWOOD-Okay.
MR. PUGH-We kind of thought about that northern area where it’s like void of any building or.
MR. GREENWOOD-The green space. It’s going to be the green space on the corner.
MR. PUGH-Have a little bit of a sign up there in the corner. Do you think that’s something that
we’d be looking for?
MR. GREENWOOD-Well, there’s a sign permit process.
MR. HUNSINGER-Yes, you’d have to meet the Sign Ordinance, yes.
MR. PUGH-I understand.
MR. PUGH-Because originally we had thought about putting the signs right above the, you
know, office area.
MR. GREENWOOD-We didn’t (lost words) for principal use. We knew about the green space
requirements and, you know, how much parking we could have compared to landscaping, and
we kind of looked at that, but I didn’t know about the Floor Area Ratio. That’s something that
would require a variance, then, for us to go forward, even not including the second floor.
MR. OBORNE-Well, it would certainly require Craig to make that determination.
MR. GREENWOOD-Okay.
MR. OBORNE-You’d definitely want to be in consultation with him and myself.
MR. GREENWOOD-Okay.
MR. PUGH-So the floor area would also include the apartments upstairs.
MR. OBORNE-Yes.
MR. GREENWOOD-Yes, and we’d be adding more floor space, and obviously not adding
anymore land.
MR. OBORNE-It’s not logical, in my mind, but it is the Code and it is the law.
24
(Queensbury Planning Board 10/26/2010)
MR. GREENWOOD-It’s also part of the Main Street corridor ideal.
MR. KREBS-So what we need to do is get the plans to the Town Board to change that.
MR. HUNSINGER-Yes.
MR. KREBS-It doesn’t make sense as it is.
MR. HUNSINGER-Anything else?
MR. FORD-I want to make sure that we’ve given them clear direction. I’m not sure that
everybody is on board as far as the plan for sidewalks along there, and the potential for that. Is
that called for adjacent to the Main Street corridor?
MR. OBORNE-Yes, the Main Street corridor of the Design Guidelines are pretty specific.
MR. GREENWOOD-Am I right, Keith, that it ends right at Columbia? I mean, the Main Street, I
mean, the designated Main Street corridor?
MR. OBORNE-Yes, it does.
MR. GREENWOOD-So we are the last.
MR. PUGH-Will we be looking at sidewalks on our, in front of our property?
MR. FORD-That would be the end of the sidewalk.
MR. MAGOWAN-Is that Glens Falls or Queensbury School?
MR. GREENWOOD-Glens Falls School.
MR. MAGOWAN-So you do, you are going to have kids walking, then. Especially if you have
apartments up above. There’s a potential of children walking to school.
MR. GREENWOOD-They tend to walk on the other side because that’s already.
MR. PUGH-That’s already a sidewalk.
MR. KREBS-But I think you’ll find that the people who will rent that type of an apartment are
young professionals who go to work in the morning and come home at night.
MR. GREENWOOD-Northway access, and, yes.
MR. OBORNE-And then hop out on the Town down Main Street.
MR. KREBS-Exactly.
MR. OBORNE-And that’s what we’re promoting.
MR. HUNSINGER-And walk down to Cool Beans for coffee.
MR. KREBS-Or down to Randy’s for a beer.
MR. HUNSINGER-Yes, that, too.
MR. GREENWOOD-So our next step, I mean, if you were to tell us where you would
recommend we take this from here, I like where you were going with that. I mean, the next thing
we have to do is talk with Craig and talk about this ratio.
MR. HUNSINGER-Okay.
MR. PUGH-So that might be the bigger hurdle to get over, at this point in the game.
MR. OBORNE-I don’t, I think logic will prevail. I really do.
MR. PUGH-I was just a little bit concerned about getting into this thing and designing a building
that’s, you know, if it’s doomed to fail from the onset, I don’t want to know that.
MR. OBORNE-Yes, we don’t want to lead you down that path, either.
25
(Queensbury Planning Board 10/26/2010)
MR. HUNSINGER-No, we don’t.
MR. GREENWOOD-Well, the house that’s there now is an eyesore.
MR. HUNSINGER-And we review variances before they go before the Zoning Board, and if we
give the Zoning Board a recommendation that this is, I mean, the concept that you’re describing
fits the Main Street plan. Now you just need to give us a plan that follows the same.
MR. GREENWOOD-Okay.
MR. HUNSINGER-But, you know, if we can give a strong endorsement, the Zoning Board will,
you know, they are an autonomous body, so I can’t speak for them, but they do take that into
strong consideration, and if we lead you down that path.
MR. GREENWOOD-You won’t leave us out there by ourselves.
MR. HUNSINGER-Right. Exactly.
MR. PUGH-In order to get to that path, could we just kind of more define the building we’re
looking for, talk to Craig first, and then have him put us back in front of you?
MR. HUNSINGER-Yes, absolutely. If you want to come back for a discussion item again, you
can.
MR. FORD-We’d be glad to.
MR. GREENWOOD-That would be awesome.
MR. HUNSINGER-Okay.
MR. FORD-We are a Planning Board, and once in a while it’s fun to help plan.
MR. HUNSINGER-Anything else? Thank you.
MR. GREENWOOD-Thank you.
MR. PUGH-Thank you.
MR. KREBS-Good luck.
MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. Before we adjourn, Mr. Sipp had something you want to bring up to
the Board.
MR. SIPP-Yes.
MR. HUNSINGER-Handout.
MR. SIPP-All right. While this is coming down your way, as you know, I’m concerned about the
lake itself being polluted, and these regulations were drawn up, that you see on the first page,
one part of the regulation, but there are others which may need to be put in there, too. It’s a
rather crude way of telling the applicant this is what you’ve got to deal with, and if you take a
look at the first, second page there, my hand is not as steady as it used to be, and on some of
this it gets a little, at 10, 11 o’clock at night doing this, it gets a little hard to read, but I think you
can get it if it were put in a better form, but it gives you the owner, the applicant, a way of
deciding what he wants on his property, by height, root depth, preference of shade or sun, and
the amount of moisture that they have, and these plants are broken down under, Number One,
and plants that will grow in or adjacent to water and are suitable for shoreline and wetland (lost
words), and you’ve got the large trees, smaller trees and brush, and then on the next Page,
Number Seven starts your Number Seven, which is, again, part of the small shrubs or small
trees, and then you get down into groundcover. Now the problem arises is that a lot of people
call one type of tree something, and somebody calls it something else, and so that’s why you
see all the scientific things put in there. That’s a way of deciding what you’re going to get.
MR. FORD-I remember one applicant who had a computer and had generated that all
evergreens are pines.
MR. SIPP-Yes.
26
(Queensbury Planning Board 10/26/2010)
MR. HUNSINGER-A spruce is not a pine, right?
MR. FORD-That’s right.
MR. SIPP-What is called a (lost word) maple, which is one of your shorter trees, that is affected
by the amount of light, on Page Three, under plants requiring shady conditions, striped maple is
also called Moosefoot, and it’s called Pennsylvania Maple, and then you go by the Latin name.
So you get the idea of what is available in that, and how tall it will grow, whether it’s resistant to
drought or is flood tolerant. You get into other growers which take in the other trees that will
grow basically in good, well drained soil, and this is where you get your maples and ash, white
pine, so forth, and again, in the reading of this you get the large trees and small trees and brush,
and into the ground covers. On the back is a, the last page is a warning about planting invasive
plants. Now what I wanted to know from you is do I go further, try to clean this up so it looks a
little better? Will it help somebody coming in who wants to, help somebody coming in for the
first time, and not being aware of the regulations and need to be informed, and this is a way they
can pick out what kind of plant they want, what it’s going to look like, and they can find it on the
computers, so they can see if it blooms red, green, yellow, brown, whatever it may be on the
ground covers.
MR. FORD-It seems extensive, Don. Would you say that it’s pretty inclusive?
MR. SIPP-Yes.
MR. FORD-Or are there specimens that are not included in this?
MR. SIPP-No. What is in there will work. There are many more plants. That one that the Water
Keeper passed out, that’s about twice as many as each one of these. Some he doesn’t have
that is in this, and there’s a lot that we don’t have that’s in his thing, but he has a nice
professional printing job, and he didn’t have to spend too many times at the computer to find out
what was good and what was bad. I just want to know if you think it’s worthwhile to pursue this.
You can use it yourselves in determining a tree, a brush that’s useful in that area.
MR. HUNSINGER-Well, I certainly think it’s useful for us, but I have a question, though, about
giving this to an applicant, and I’m not sure what further review we’d want to have before, you
know, because it’s not, I mean, it’s based on the Town policy, but it’s not the Town policy, you
know what I’m saying? It’s not the Town policy.
MR. SIPP-Yes.
MR. HUNSINGER-And we’d also at least want to have an arborist or someone else.
MR. SIPP-Well, that’s who drew it up.
MR. HUNSINGER-Okay.
MR. SIPP-That’s who put the original that’s in 179-8. All of these are just cut outs from that.
This printing right here, from here down, is just cut out, pasted and put into a copier.
MR. HUNSINGER-Okay.
MR. SIPP-So it’s all the stuff that’s in 179-8.
MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. So all you’re doing is giving the heights and root and soil information?
MR. SIPP-Yes. There are places on the lake where there’s rock.
MR. HUNSINGER-Right.
MR. SIPP-Extending on people’s property, and a deep rooted plant won’t make it.
MR. HUNSINGER-No.
MR. SIPP-So the idea is to look for something that’s shallow. Whether you want evergreens or
you want deciduous. One thing, well, there’s a lot of things. There’s one plant I could not find,
well, I did find it, but I couldn’t find any growth habit of it, and it’s on the Page, it’s the next to last.
MR. HUNSINGER-The American (lost word) Nut?
27
(Queensbury Planning Board 10/26/2010)
MR. SIPP-Shad Serviceberry, and Prickly Ash. Only ash I come up with a few things, but not
very, but Shad Serviceberry, even under the Latin name, I could not find it in the computer, or on
the USDA list. So, take it, read it over, think about what you would like to see on your plan, and
if you were an applicant, would this be a help to you? This came in, you know, last week, when
the guy, a nice drawing there, not to scale, but he had a drawing of what he can see. Well, there
were things in there that were not on anybody’s list.
MR. HUNSINGER-Right.
MR. SIPP-There was a thing that’s on the Water Keeper’s list, but not on ours, and a plant that
wouldn’t grow there at all. So it’s something new, and I think people have got to get used to it,
and have got to understand what they’re getting into.
MR. SCHONEWOLF-That amazes me. How can professional firms that are working in
Queensbury and know that this exists just go do something else? I mean, what are they
thinking?
MR. MAGOWAN-Like he said, he might have gone off a combination of Queensbury and the
Water Keeper’s.
MR. SCHONEWOLF-The Water Keeper has nothing to do with us.
MR. FORD-Well, they proved a point at that meeting, that you don’t have to follow what we
have.
MR. KREBS-Well, my personal opinion is I think this is excellent, and we should give it to every
applicant who comes in, with a statement on the top that this is suggested. This is a guide to
help you make your decision. I love the fact that, you know, I didn’t know the difference between
how much, whether it’s moist or dry or wet, or which plant should be used.
MR. HUNSINGER-I had no idea.
MR. KREBS-I think this is excellent.
STEVE JACKOSKI, ALTERNATE
MR. JACKOSKI-Don, just for the record, it’s Steve Jackoski. Is it possible for you to add the
canopy, at least for the large trees, the width of the canopy, the diameter of the canopy? You
know, a birch grows way different from a, sometimes I don’t, I don’t know, as I’m looking at these
things, how big that tree’s going to be. I know the height, but I don’t know the breadth. I mean,
I’d help you with that. I’d be glad to do that, if we can just get the research. The other thing I was
wondering, for me, visually, it would be great if I had a little picture of that tree, just to see what it
was really going to look like, so I can get a visual, when I’m looking at these plants. This
resource, for me, as a new Board member, is spectacular.
MR. SIPP-Yes. That’s what is, I was saying about the colors, that if we could put in the color of
red twig dogwood.
MR. JACKOSKI-I’d be more than happy to help with that, take that to the next step. It’s a great
resource.
MR. HUNSINGER-It’s a ton of work. I can’t imagine how much time you put into this, Don.
MR. JACKOSKI-Can I also ask a question, since we’re talking about it. Item Two, under 179-8-
040, the very front of this thing, Chris, I don’t know who was involved in this, but is there a
reason that the very first item, Two A, the very first word doesn’t say at every 50 linear feet, it
says for every 50 linear feet? And I have to tell you, I’ve had discussions recently with a 200
foot lot that, why can’t we clump four trees in this specific area because it does not say at every
50 feet, it says for every 50 feet.
MR. HUNSINGER-Right.
MR. JACKOSKI-It’s semantics, but quite honestly, what was the intent? Because I heard Staff,
last week, say you measure every 50 feet, but it doesn’t say at, it says four. So if you have 200
feet, you need four trees, or five trees.
MR. KREBS-Whether you space them five feet apart or.
MR. HUNSINGER-That was always the discussion.
28
(Queensbury Planning Board 10/26/2010)
MR. SIPP-No, it says for every 50 feet.
MR. JACKOSKI-Sure, 200 divided by 50 is four. So put four on the lot. It doesn’t say at every
50 feet.
MR. SCHONEWOLF-Your neighbor could have one that’s one foot off your line, and then you
start measuring from there.
MR. JACKOSKI-That’s why I’m wondering if there can be clarification. Because there are
discussions out there about, especially when we put it on Staff to fix it, you know, make sure it
meets Code, but it’s kind of ambiguous.
MR. HUNSINGER-And I’m not putting Keith on the spot, because you had said at a meeting.
MR. SCHONEWOLF-Last week.
MR. HUNSINGER-The other, and I didn’t have that same impression. To be honest with you, if
we did discuss the intent at the PORC Committee years ago, I don’t remember it. I think, you
know, the concept is that there be enough, you know, and going back to the comment about the
size of the canopy, I mean, if you have a big canopy, you know, you may not have to have, I
don’t know, this is my opinion. I mean, if you have a 100 foot canopy, you’re stretching out 50
feet. So, you know, if you have two trees, 50 feet apart, those canopies are going to interlock.
MR. OBORNE-It’s totally site specific.
MR. HUNSINGER-Yes, exactly.
MR. OBORNE-And I think it’s important that when an applicant comes before you that they show
existing conditions on the property, so you can make a wise decision.
MR. HUNSINGER-Yes
MR. SCHONEWOLF-I was out measuring mine today, because there’s two like that in the
middle, and I don’t know whether to go 50 feet, either side, and see if I needed anymore.
MR. HUNSINGER-Do you?
MR. SCHONEWOLF-No, because they’re in the neighbor’s yard.
MR. SIPP-There’s also some trees grow faster and grow better. A maple will out strip an oak or
an ash or any hard wood because it’s what they call a climax community.
MR. HUNSINGER-You know, a lot of the intent of the Zoning Ordinance, you know, the new
Ordinance, was to give the Planning Board a lot of discretion. You know, it was kind of big on
concept and kind of small on detail which is why we end up talking about detail a lot at the Board
meetings, and that was intentional, you know, that there be the maximum flexibility.
MR. JACKOSKI-And I think that’s why the word for was used in that.
MR. HUNSINGER-I think so, but again.
MR. JACKOSKI-You take some of the applications that are in front of us, they have a 50 foot lot,
and the neighbor owns a tree on one side of them, and the other neighbor owns the tree on the
other side of them, and they’re right on the line.
MR. HUNSINGER-Yes.
MR. JACKOSKI-Where does that 50 foot lot owner put his tree?
MR. OBORNE-Well, you can waive those requirements.
MR. JACKOSKI-I understand, but when you’re an applicant, as I often can sit there and do, I’m
struggling with, what are these guys going to want from me so that I can be prepared, so that I’m
not because that’s what we’re all talking about. We’re all talking about having the applicant
come in with a clean, crisp project, read the Code, interpret the Code, get it correct the first time.
MR. HUNSINGER-Well, I think from the applicant’s point of view, you know, they kind of need to
understand, again, you know, the concept, and if you’re coming in with a Site Plan, and you
29
(Queensbury Planning Board 10/26/2010)
have the ability to put in a large tree on your site, and it makes sense, then you should be
proposing one. I mean, that would kind of be my response. You don’t need to be spoon fed
what’s the right thing to do. You should try to anticipate, and in your own mind, you know,
realize what the right thing to do is, and if you have room for a large tree on your 50 foot lot, then
you should probably put one, even if you do have neighbors on either side with one.
MR. MAGOWAN-Well, last week was confusing because the trees actually went up beside the
lot.
MR. HUNSINGER-Yes, they were along the property line.
MR. MAGOWAN-But the whole purpose of the tree was to absorb the water coming down, and
so there was nothing in front, you know, and I think.
MR. OBORNE-Well, it was also to slow down the force of the raindrop. That’s the main issue.
MR. MAGOWAN-The raindrop.
MR. HUNSINGER-Yes. I mean, I can just tell you, from my own house, which is, you know, a
mile from the lake and not near any streams or wetlands or anything else.
MR. JACKOSKI-For the record.
MR. HUNSINGER-For the record. We had a huge pine tree that was really close to the house,
and it was infested with carpenter ants. So we really had no choice but to get rid of it, but ever
since we took that giant pine tree down, when we get bad rainstorms, we get water in our
basement, and I’ve put gutters up and I’ve run the stormwater off the roof away from the house,
but it doesn’t seem to matter. That pine tree, and I don’t know if it was from the root system or
just from the canopy, because the canopy itself was huge, you know, but that’s my own real life
experience of how this can make a difference.
MR. SCHONEWOLF-Did you take the stump out?
MR. HUNSINGER-Yes.
MR. FORD-But your root system coincides with the canopy.
MR. JACKOSKI-Well, Don, I, personally, I thank you. Because this is a great learning resource
for me.
MR. HUNSINGER-Yes, thank you, Don.
MR. SIPP-If I can get to the color, I’ll try. I gave you the one that had the color of some of them,
and it’s bunched into groups, and this was done by the Water Keeper 10 years ago or more, and
it shows, for dry, moist, wet, three or four different combinations that go together in color. So
maybe I’ll get back and do some of that again.
MR. OBORNE-Come bother me, and, you know, I’ll definitely, I have it on my desk right now.
MR. SIPP-It’s a way of pushing in, gently, towards what you want, I think.
MR. OBORNE-It’s all about keeping it simple, too.
MR. KREBS-I’ll tell you. I’ll volunteer. I’ll do a couple of pages on a spreadsheet, just so we can
all see what it looked like when it was all done on a spreadsheet.
MR. HUNSINGER-Okay.
MR. KREBS-And the nice thing about that is that you can always add or subtract, you know, if
you put it on a spreadsheet. So I’ll do a couple of pages, and the next meeting we have, I’ll
bring copies for everybody, and we can take a look at it and see what you think, and then we
can make adjustments based on that.
MR. SIPP-Because my hands sometimes get very.
MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. Thank you, again, Don.
MR. KREBS-Yes.
30
(Queensbury Planning Board 10/26/2010)
MR. FORD-Your brain is obviously in gear. Thank you, Don.
MR. HUNSINGER-Is there any other business this evening?
MR. OBORNE-I have none.
MR. HUNSINGER-Would anyone like to make a motion to adjourn?
MOTION TO ADJOURN THE QUEENSBURY PLANNING BOARD MEETING OF OCTOBER
26, 2010, Introduced by Paul Schonewolf who moved for its adoption, seconded by Donald
Krebs:
th
Duly adopted this 26 day of October, 2010, by the following vote:
AYES: Mr. Krebs, Mr. Traver, Mr. Magowan, Mr. Ford, Mr. Schonewolf, Mr. Sipp,
Mr. Hunsinger
NOES: NONE
On motion meeting was adjourned.
RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED,
Chris Hunsinger, Chairman
31