2010.12.21
(Queensbury Planning Board 12/21/2010)
QUEENSBURY PLANNING BOARD MEETING
SECOND REGULAR MEETING
DECEMBER 21, 2010
INDEX
Site Plan No. 63-2010 Jerry Brown’s Auto Parts 1.
Tax Map No. 303.19-1-49
Site Plan No. 14-2010 Steven & Christine Johnson 1.
Tax Map No. 289.11-1-23
Site Plan No. 3-2010 Irene Marshall 2.
Tax Map No. 289.14-1-28
Subdivision No. 1-2010 Paul Poirier 4.
Tax Map No. 209.14-1-46
ZBA RECOMMENDATION Mary Monthie 5.
RE: NOA 4-2010 Tax Map No. 302.14-1-79.2
Site Plan No. 73-2010 Denise Rudenko d/b/a Bull Hill Farm & Orchard 10.
Tax Map No. 296.13-1-8
Site Plan No. 74-2010 Denise Rudenko d/b/a Bull Hill Farm & Orchard 12.
Tax Map No. 302.8-2-66.1
Site Plan No. 76-2010 Plaza Glen LLP 17.
Tax Map No. 302.6-1-53
Site Plan No. 79-2010 Landcrafters, LLC, Carr Development, LLC 27.
Tax Map No. 302.6-1-58.1
Site Plan No. 75-2010 Hudson River Local Development Corporation 37.
Tax Map No. 303.12-1-9.5
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 12/21/2010)
QUEENSBURY PLANNING BOARD MEETING
SECOND REGULAR MEETING
DECEMBER 21, 2010
7:00 P.M.
MEMBERS PRESENT
CHRIS HUNSINGER, CHAIRMAN
GRETCHEN STEFFAN, SECRETARY
THOMAS FORD (BRAD MAGOWAN, ALTERNATE, ALSO SAT IN FOR T. FORD)
DONALD SIPP
PAUL SCHONEWOLF
STEPHEN TRAVER
DONALD KREBS
ZONING ADMINISTRATOR-CRAIG BROWN
LAND USE PLANNER-KEITH OBORNE
TOWN COUNSEL-MILLER, MANNIX, SCHACHNER, & HAFNER-MARK SCHACHNER
STENOGRAPHER-MARIA GAGLIARDI
MR. HUNSINGER-Good evening and Happy Holidays. I’d like to welcome everyone to the
Town of Queensbury Planning Board on Tuesday, December 21, 2010. For members of the
audience, there are copies of the Board agenda on the back table. There is also a copy of a
public hearing information. Several of our scheduled items do have public hearings scheduled.
The public hearing information helps you understand the purpose and the procedures involved
with the public hearing. If there are members of the audience here for the Mary Monthie Zoning
Board of Appeals recommendation, there is not a public hearing scheduled for this evening. We
will not be taking public comment.
ADMINISTRATIVE ITEMS:
SP 63-2010: JERRY BROWN’S AUTO PARTS, ACKNOWLEDGE WITHDRAWAL LETTER
DATED 11/4/2010
MR. HUNSINGER-Keith, did the letter give a reason for why they were withdrawing?
MR. OBORNE-Yes. They did not want to pursue the Area Variance at this point.
MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. Would anyone like to put forward a motion?
MRS. STEFFAN-I’ll put forward the motion.
MOTION TO ACKNOWLEDGE THE WITHDRAWAL OF SITE PLAN NO. 63-2010 JERRY
BROWN’S AUTO PARTS, Introduced by Gretchen Steffan 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 construction of 900 sq. ft. metal storage building. Proposed accessory
structures in the HI zone require Planning Board review and approval; and
On November 4, 2010 the Planning Office received a letter withdrawing the application; and
MOTION TO ACKNOWLEDGE THE WITHDRAWAL OF SITE PLAN NO. 63-2010 JERRY
BROWN’S AUTO PARTS, Introduced by Gretchen Steffan who moved for its adoption,
seconded by Thomas Ford:
According to the resolution prepared by Staff.
st
Duly adopted this 21 day of December, 2010, by the following vote:
AYES: Mr. Schonewolf, Mr. Ford, Mrs. Steffan, Mr. Krebs, Mr. Traver, Mr. Sipp, Mr. Hunsinger
NOES: NONE
SP 14-2010: STEVEN & CHRISTINE JOHNSON TABLED TO 12/21/10, PENDING VARIANCE
DECISION
1
(Queensbury Planning Board 12/21/2010)
MR. HUNSINGER-This was tabled to this evening.
MRS. STEFFAN-Keith, do you have any idea how long it will be before the ZBA hears that
again?
MR. OBORNE-Well, if the moon and the stars align, we’re talking February at this point. In
anticipation of an approval during that month, Staff requests a March 15, 2011 tabling date.
MRS. STEFFAN-Okay.
th
MR. SCHONEWOLF-March 15?
th
MR. OBORNE-March 15.
MR. SCHONEWOLF-That’s good.
MRS. STEFFAN-Okay.
MOTION TO TABLE SITE PLAN NO. 14-2010 STEVEN & CHRISTINE JOHNSON, Introduced
by Gretchen Steffan who moved for its adoption, seconded by Donald Krebs:
96 Hall Road, Glen Lake
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; and
The Planning Board provided a written recommendation as required to the ZBA on 3/16/2010;
and
On 3/23/2010 the Planning Board tabled to the application to 5/20/2010 pending a ZBA decision;
and
On 5/20/2010 the Planning Board tabled the application to 7/20/2010 pending a ZBA decision;
and
On 7/20/2010 the Planning Board tabled the application to 9/28/2010 pending a ZBA decision;
and
On 9/28/2010 the Planning Board tabled the application to 12/21/2010 pending a ZBA decision;
and
To date the ZBA has not rendered a decision and the application has been tabled on 3/17, 5/19,
7/23, 8/18, 10/27, 12/15/2010, therefore be it resolved; and
MOTION TO TABLE SITE PLAN NO. 14-2010 STEVEN & CHRISTINE JOHNSON, Introduced
by Gretchen Steffan who moved for its adoption, seconded by Donald Krebs:
According to the resolution prepared by Staff. This will be tabled to the March 15, 2011
Planning Board meeting.
st
Duly adopted this 21 day of December, 2010, by the following vote:
AYES: Mr. Krebs, Mr. Traver, Mrs. Steffan, Mr. Schonewolf, Mr. Ford, Mr. Sipp, Mr. Hunsinger
NOES: NONE
MR. HUNSINGER-I would just ask, would that be re-advertised for the public hearing, since so
much time has gone by?
MR. OBORNE-With the length of time that has gone by, I would think so.
MR. HUNSINGER-Okay.
SP 03-2010: IRENE MARSHALL TABLED TO 12/21/10, SEE LETTER DATED 11/9/2010
FROM APPLICANT
MR. HUNSINGER-They have not submitted the requested information.
2
(Queensbury Planning Board 12/21/2010)
MR. OBORNE-They have not, but she did submit a letter prior to the deadline date, okay, three
days after the deadline date, I should state. I think the Board may want to consider that letter. If
not, then I would proceed with the deny without prejudice.
MR. TRAVER-She talks about obviously working on the property line issue, but there doesn’t
seem to be, she doesn’t really mention anything concrete is my, you know, concern about that.
MR. OBORNE-That is true. There obviously appears to be issues with the property line
boundary. There’ll be issues with siting a septic also, or a compliant system, which she really
hasn’t pursued at this point.
th
MR. SCHONEWOLF-This is a letter of November 9?
th
MR. TRAVER-Received on the 18.
th
MR. OBORNE-Yes, the letter from Miss Marshal, that’s correct, received on the 18, but written
thth
on the 9 but received on the 18.
MRS. STEFFAN-How does the Board feel? Do you want to deny it or do you want to table it?
MR. HUNSINGER-I mean, it’s so indefinite. From her perspective, there’s probably no
difference if we deny it without prejudice than if we just table it, in terms of being in the queue.
MR. KREBS-Well, if you deny it, then she’s going to have to re-apply and pay the fee.
MR. TRAVER-Well, yes, that’s what I was wondering, too. I mean, her application, if the only
change is resolving the boundary line issue with her neighbor, then it might be, you know, and
again, we don’t know how long it might take, if at all, but if she doesn’t have to re-apply and pay
more fees and so on.
th
MR. FORD-Let’s hope she can resolve that by the February 15 deadline for submission, to get
on the March agenda.
MRS. STEFFAN-Also, just so that we’re clear, it’s not just the border issue. It’s also the septic
issue, because she originally came to us for a separate issue, and so that system is going to
have to be designed, and it may be some time before that can happen.
MR. TRAVER-That’s true.
MRS. STEFFAN-So do we want to leave it in the queue and have Staff juggle it, and then we’ll
have to come back for a tabling motion again? This has been around for a long time.
MR. TRAVER-Well, would it be, I know it’s not really our responsibility, but would it be possibly
appropriate to maybe inquire of her, the observation, she may not be aware of the implications
of, you know, denial versus a tabling.
MRS. STEFFAN-Did we not send her a letter, Keith?
MR. OBORNE-We did.
MR. HUNSINGER-We did.
MR. KREBS-But I don’t think that letter explains all the ramifications.
MR. OBORNE-No, that’s true, and the ramification would be there you’d have to re-apply for Site
Plan Review. She’s already received her Area Variance for her request, okay, albeit modified,
but nevertheless, she has received her Area Variance, and she is before you, obviously, for Site
Plan Review.
MR. KREBS-And I’d like to have a clarification. She brought up the fact that when you’re not
expanding the living area in the house that she was under the understanding that you were not
required to change the septic system.
MR. OBORNE-If the Planning Board has issues with that, which they did, on the record, then,
you know, she needs to follow those issues, or she needs to address those concerns.
MR. KREBS-Yes. I just wanted to make the clarification that we did make the right decision.
3
(Queensbury Planning Board 12/21/2010)
MR. OBORNE-I do not, well, I believe if the Planning Board feels they made the right decision,
then they’ve made the right decision. I’m not going to chime in on that.
MRS. STEFFAN-So what are we going to do?
MR. SCHONEWOLF-I’d table it, just for the simple reason I think she tried to do it herself and
was in over her head and she realizes she needs professional advice. I’d give her a chance to
do it.
MR. FORD-Should we schedule it for an April meeting? I originally thought March, but several
good points have been made.
MR. TRAVER-I mean, what’s a reasonable, I mean, I guess what’s the, I guess the longest, or
can we extend it beyond what we might normally do?
MR. OBORNE-I don’t think I’d go beyond March, to be honest with you. You certainly don’t want
it to end up in the ether. You definitely want some contact over a short amount of time.
MR. TRAVER-Okay.
MRS. STEFFAN-Okay. Then I’ll make a motion.
MOTION TO TABLE SITE PLAN NO. 3-2010 IRENE MARSHALL, Introduced by Gretchen
Steffan who moved for its adoption, seconded by Stephen Traver:
A site plan application has been made to the Queensbury Planning Board for the following:
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; and
A public hearing was advertised and held on 1/26, 5/20, 6/15, 8/17, 10/19/10 pending
submission for new material by 11/15/10. No new information was submitted; however a letter
was received in the Planning Office on November 18, 2010; and
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 Stephen Traver:
th
Tabled to the March 15 Planning Board. Submission deadline for new materials would be
th
February 15.
st
Duly adopted this 21 day of December, 2010, by the following vote:
AYES: Mr. Traver, Mr. Ford, Mr. Krebs, Mrs. Steffan, Mr. Schonewolf, Mr. Sipp, Mr. Hunsinger
NOES: NONE
SB 01-2010: PAUL POIRIER TABLED TO 12/21/10, NO NEW INFO. SUBMITTED
MR. HUNSINGER-Tabled to this evening’s meeting. No new information was submitted. We do
have a letter saying that they would request that we table it until February. Have you seen any
new information yet, Keith?
MR. OBORNE-There has not been any new information. I believe that they have to get the
access issues taken care of. When and how that’s going to happen is, I have no clue how that’s
going to transpire.
MR. HUNSINGER-Yes. My inclination would be to table this until March instead of February,
because if they miss the deadline again, then we have an item on the agenda that we have to
deal with.
MRS. STEFFAN-Well, the other issue is that the Zoning Administrator sent a letter to these folks
th
on October 26 that said if you wish to continue your application, information must be submitted
to our office by November 15, 2010 or the Planning Board will deny your application without
stth
prejudice at their December 21 meeting. We did just get a letter on December 15 from their
agents, saying that they wanted us to table it to the February agenda, but the Zoning
Administrator’s letter was clear.
4
(Queensbury Planning Board 12/21/2010)
MR. TRAVER-I think I recall an engineer or someone involved in this project was before us on
another application and made a comment about this, that they were making some progress on
this application.
MR. HUNSINGER-Yes, last month.
MR. SCHONEWOLF-Tom Center said that I think.
MR. TRAVER-Yes. I mean.
MR. FORD-There also was a neighbor who indicated just the opposite.
MRS. STEFFAN-Yes.
MR. TRAVER-Right, which does seem odd, but, what are we going to do?
MR. FORD-It’s a matter of perspective, I guess.
MR. OBORNE-Obviously this is up to the Planning Board what they want to do. I think that this
is going to continue over time, to be honest with you. My recommendation would be to deny
without prejudice at this point, until they get their ducks in a row, or it’s just going to continue to
be tabled.
MRS. STEFFAN-Yes.
MR. TRAVER-That’s good enough for me.
MR. HUNSINGER-Would someone like to make that motion?
MRS. STEFFAN-Then I’ll put forth a resolution to deny without prejudice.
MOTION TO DENY WITHOUT PREJUDICE SUBDIVISION NO. 1-2010, AREA VARIANCE NO.
34-2010 AND FRESHWATER WETLANDS PERMIT 3-2010 PAUL POIRIER, Introduced by
Gretchen Steffan who moved for its adoption, seconded by Donald Krebs:
Applicant proposes subdivision of an 18.50 acre lot into five lots ranging in size from 2.0 to 8.13
+/- acres. Subdivision of land requires Planning Board review and approval. Freshwater
Wetlands permit for disturbance within 100 feet of a wetland. Are Variance relief requested from
minimum road frontage and access requirements. Planning Board to conduct SEQR review and
provide a recommendation to the Zoning Board of Appeals; and
On 8/17/2010 this application was tabled to 10/19/2010 pending submission of new materials by
9/15/2010. To date no new information has been submitted; and
On 10/19/2010 the Planning Board tabled to the application to 12/21/2010 with a deadline of
11/15/2010, No new information has been submitted;
Therefore, Let It Be Resolved,
MOTION TO DENY WITHOUT PREJUDICE SUBDIVISION NO. 1-2010, AREA VARIANCE NO.
34-2010 AND FRESHWATER WETLANDS PERMIT 3-2010 PAUL POIRIER, Introduced by
Gretchen Steffan who moved for its adoption, seconded by Donald Krebs:
According to the resolution prepared by Staff.
st
Duly adopted this 21 day of December, 2010, by the following vote:
AYES: Mr. Krebs, Mr. Traver, Mrs. Steffan, Mr. Ford, Mr. Schonewolf, Mr. Sipp, Mr. Hunsinger
NOES: NONE
AS REQUESTED BY THE ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS
NOA 4-2010 MARY MONTHIE, SEE ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS RESOLUTION DATED
11/17/10 THE ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS HAS REFERRED THIS APPEAL TO THE
PLANNING BOARD FOR A RECOMMENDATION SUBJECT TO 179-14-040, D.
5
(Queensbury Planning Board 12/21/2010)
MR. HUNSINGER-Our next item on the agenda is the recommendation request from the Zoning
Board of Appeals, NOA 4-2010. Craig, would you like to summarize Staff Notes on where we
are and what we’re being asked to do, to the best of your knowledge?
MR. BROWN-Yes, sure. This application, the Appeal was before our Zoning Board of Appeals
in November. The Zoning Board of Appeals couldn’t come to a resolution with what to do with
the application. They found a provision in the Zoning Code that allows them to seek a
recommendation from the Planning Board and gather some input, and that’s basically what
they’ve done. I don’t know how much more you want, or if you want to get a presentation from
the appellant, to let them offer their side, or, I don’t know if you have a specific question.
MR. HUNSINGER-Okay.
MR. TRAVER-Mr. Chairman, I, as we all have, been looking through the materials on this, and I
was interested in some aspects of the record. There was, there seemed to be consensus that
there really wasn’t any disagreement between the appellant and the Zoning Administrator with
regards to the need for Site Plan Review, and I understand that we can expect that Site Plan
Review before us some time in the near future, and I then looked at the reason that it’s before us
tonight, in terms of the ZBA’s request of our feelings about this, and it refers to the Section 179-
14-040 Paragraph D, and that indicates that, under these circumstances, we’re to look at the
relief sought and make a recommendation. Well, in the absence of relief sought, I don’t see that
we have a role in this at this point. I mean, clearly we will, when we take a look at Site Plan
Review and so on, but in terms of making a recommendation, I mean, we, there seems to be
agreement on the need for Site Plan Review, but that’s not before us tonight. So I think, I mean,
my sense and my interpretation of this is that we would respond to the Zoning Board by saying
that we have looked at the Part 179-14-040 Paragraph D and found that there’s no relief being
sought and therefore we have no reason to make a recommendation because there’s nothing to
recommend.
MR. HUNSINGER-Other comments from the Board?
MR. SCHONEWOLF-I agree with that.
MRS. STEFFAN-Well, I’m not sure about the Site Plan, because based on my reading of the
minutes, and the information from the Zoning Administrator, we’re looking at future Site Plan
Review for the clearing plan, but according to the minutes and everything I read, that the
appellant is asking for Site Plan Review for the whole presentation, and so I think that there’s a
difference between those two things.
MR. HUNSINGER-Would you care to comment, Craig?
MR. BROWN-If you take a look at the determination letter that I issued in September, that
clearly says the excessive clearing and grading on the site triggers the need for Site Plan
Review, and that’s pretty much all it says. It doesn’t specify how much Site Plan Review, what
the Site Plan Review is limited to. It’s a trigger for Site Plan Review. So how much review you
give it is up to you when it gets before your Board. It’s not my decision. It’s not their decision.
It’s not the Zoning Board’s decision. That’s your decision. So I would agree with you on the
point that I said it needs Site Plan Review, they want it to have Site Plan Review, and they have
a Site Plan Review application submitted that’s on our January agenda. So, you will see it on
your January agenda, providing this Appeal comes to some end. If the Appeal doesn’t come to
an end, it kind of puts everything else on hold until this gets solved.
MR. FORD-What effect does that have on any current site work or other construction on site?
MR. BROWN-As far as the site work, the disturbance of the land and the grading and the cutting
of trees, they’ve been instructed to not do any more of that until they get an approval from this
Board to continue along those lines. What they do have are seven valid building permits. So if
they choose to continue working on the buildings but not the site, they’re allowed to do that.
MR. FORD-Thank you.
MR. HUNSINGER-The Site Plan that’s been submitted, has it been reviewed yet for
completeness? I know completeness review isn’t until, typically next week.
MR. BROWN-Yes. Actually we started to do that today. There was a question about some
clarification on the map about the clearing limits associated with the septic systems, and I think
that once they get that submitted, that the application should be complete enough for the Board
to review.
6
(Queensbury Planning Board 12/21/2010)
MR. HUNSINGER-I mean, I’m sure the public is here because they want to see this go to some
resolution. I’d hate for us to say, well, since we think we’re going to see it again in January, you
know, I hate to send everyone away unhappy not having some sort of, you know, definitive
process.
MR. BROWN-Yes, I can tell you this. We have it on the agenda. I will do whatever I need to do
to make sure the appellant, or the applicant in this case, has a complete application for you guys
to review in January. If there’s something missing tomorrow, if we look at it again, I’m going to
call them and tell them to get this stuff in, so you guys have a complete application.
MR. HUNSINGER-Okay.
MR. SCHONEWOLF-What’s his deadline for that?
th
MR. BROWN-Well, the submittal deadline’s always the 15 of the month.
MR. SCHONEWOLF-Yes, right, it was. Right?
MR. BROWN-It was. So our initial review of the application, all the lines were filled in, all the
boxes were checked, all the maps were there, but the nuts and bolts review that we sit down
and start to do and Keith starts to develop his Staff Notes, we didn’t get to until today. So that’s
when we really lifted the hood and looked underneath.
MR. SCHONEWOLF-So we could see it in our, one of the January meetings?
MR. BROWN-The plan is to have it on the first January meeting.
MR. SCHONEWOLF-Okay.
th
MR. HUNSINGER-Which would be the 18.
MR. SIPP-Chris, let me make sure I understand what you’re going to say. We will have the Site
Plan for this project to review, not the old one? That’s correct?
MR. BROWN-You’ll have the Site Plan Review application for the clearing and grading for this
property in January, that’s correct.
MR. SIPP-If something happens to arouse a stormwater problem with the clearing and grading,
we can delve into stormwater?
MR. BROWN-Yes. I guess the trigger that caused me to write the letter to send them to the
Planning Board for Site Plan Review is the extensive clearing and grading. If there are
components of the site and the project that are tied to that reason that they’re sent to you,
they’re fair game for you guys to look at. I don’t think that, you know, everything may be in play.
I’ll use the analogy, if you have a Site Plan application before you for a boathouse, I don’t think a
reasonable action to ask or information to ask is how does your septic system function. Well,
they’re there for Site Plan, but they’re for a sort of a specific Site Plan. So while the clearing and
grading is on the table, anything associated with that clearing and grading that can be
reasonably tied to it I think is on the table as well, but again, that’s a decision for you guys to
come up with.
MR. HUNSINGER-I see Counsel nodding your head.
MR. SCHACHNER-Just so I get it in the minutes, that’s correct.
MR. HUNSINGER-Any other comments, questions from members of the Board?
MR. SCHONEWOLF-My only other question was, there was some question, and I never saw it
absolutely resolved in the paper, was, was that schedule part of the law that was passed, or was
it not, since it wasn’t available at the time the Town Board did actually act on the Ordinance.
MR. SCHACHNER-Would you like me to address that question?
MR. HUNSINGER-Sure.
MR. SCHACHNER-Our view is that it’s actually not totally factually correct that that schedule
was not available at the time the Town passed the law. It was available in some places and not
in other places. Our view, and that of the Department of State and others, is that the Zoning
Law, as adopted, did include that schedule.
7
(Queensbury Planning Board 12/21/2010)
MR. SCHONEWOLF-Okay.
MR. HUNSINGER-I guess the only other thing I could add is in the 10 years that I’ve been on
the Planning Board, this is probably the most unusual request that’s come to us from the Zoning
Board, where it wasn’t real clear what the recommendation was that we were being asked to
make, and I would just agree with Mr. Traver’s comments that there’s really no relief being
sought, so there’s really no recommendation for us to make back to the Zoning Board.
MR. TRAVER-Yes, I mean, if it was a question of whether or not we would see a Site Plan, you
know, if there was disagreement about the need for Site Plan, something on that order, I could
see us discussing it and making a, hypothetically a recommendation that yes, it should come for
Site Plan or no, we don’t need to, but in this case, it’s on the agenda. So, I really don’t see their
request as applying to this particular part of the Code, Number One, and, Number Two, just as a
utilitarian purpose, I don’t see that it’s really a needed motion for this Board, at this point.
th
MR. SCHONEWOLF-Do we need a motion to move to January 18 or we just let it happen?
MR. HUNSINGER-Counsel?
th
MR. SCHACHNER-You don’t want a motion to move anything to January 18 . The related Site
Plan Review application is in our planning/zoning review pipeline with a tentative schedule for
th
the Site Plan Review application to appear before this Board on January 18. That’s being
processed in the ordinary course of business, although perhaps on a slightly fast track, which I
think is not inappropriate. What you do need to do, or what I would strongly urge you to do, is at
some point, if the Board is so inclined, make a motion in reference to the ZBA’s request for an
advisory recommendation. The motion can be along the lines that Mr. Traver has mentioned
and that others have echoed as well, but do it by motion, with a second, with an opportunity for
Board discussion and a vote.
MR. TRAVER-Okay. Well, I will make a motion.
MOTION THAT THE PLANNING BOARD RESPONDS TO THE ZONING BOARD’S REQUEST
REGARDING NOTICE OF APPEAL NO. 4-2010 MARY MONTHIE BY REPORTING THAT
THE PLANNING BOARD HAS EXAMINED THE MATERIALS THAT WERE SENT TO US IN
THE CONTEXT OF SECTION 179-14-040 PARAGRAPH D AND FIND THAT IN THE
ABSENCE OF RELIEF BEING SOUGHT, WE HAVE NOTHING TO REVIEW AND
THEREFORE NOTHING TO RECOMMEND, Introduced by Stephen Traver who moved for its
adoption, seconded by Donald Krebs:
Whereas, the Town of Queensbury Zoning Ordinance, per Section 179-14-040 D states that the
Zoning Board of Appeals, at its discretion, may request the Planning Board to make a
recommendation on such matter and such recommendation shall become part of the record; but
shall not be binding upon the Zoning Board of Appeals; and
On November 17, 2010 the Zoning Board made the following resolution:
MOTION THAT THE ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS SEEK
RECOMMENDATION FROM THE PLANNING BOARD REGARDING NOTICE
OF APPEAL NO. 4-2010 MARY MONTHIE IN REGARDS TO THE ASPECTS
OF THIS APPEAL AND TO THE SITE, Introduced by Roy Urrico who moved for
its adoption, seconded by John Koskinas:
th
Duly adopted this 17 day of November, 2010, by the following vote:
AYES: Mrs. Hunt, Mrs. Jenkin, Mr. Koskinas, Mr. Urrico, Mr. Underwood
NOES: Mr. Clements
ABSENT: Mr. Garrand
Whereas, the Planning Board has briefly reviewed and discussed this application, and found
that:
MOTION THAT THE PLANNING BOARD RESPONDS TO THE ZONING BOARD’S REQUEST
REGARDING NOTICE OF APPEAL NO. 4-2010 MARY MONTHIE BY REPORTING THAT
THE PLANNING BOARD HAS EXAMINED THE MATERIALS THAT WERE SENT TO US IN
THE CONTEXT OF SECTION 179-14-040 PARAGRAPH D AND FIND THAT IN THE
ABSENCE OF RELIEF BEING SOUGHT, WE HAVE NOTHING TO REVIEW AND
8
(Queensbury Planning Board 12/21/2010)
THEREFORE HAVE NOTHING TO RECOMMEND, Introduced by Stephen Traver who moved
for its adoption, seconded by Donald Krebs:
st
Duly adopted this 21 day of December, 2010, by the following vote:
th
MR. FORD-Do we want to further elaborate that the issue will be reviewed at our January 18
meeting. That may address whatever concerns they had and didn’t stipulate.
MR. TRAVER-Sure.
MR. HUNSINGER-Craig?
th
MR. BROWN-Well, again, it may be on your January 18 agenda. If the Zoning Board doesn’t
act on this, one way or the other, tomorrow night, it gets tabled, or they can’t come to some
consensus on a vote, and it’s not decided on, then the Site Plan application can’t go forward.
th
MR. SCHACHNER-It also may not be on your January 18 agenda. It may be on your January
th
25 agenda, or what have you. I mean, from my perspective, as Town Counsel, it’s pretty clear
from the minutes of this meeting and other sources as well, that a Site Plan application has been
made and that the Site Plan application’s being processed, and that the Site Plan application will
appear upon this Board’s agenda for consideration at some point in the near future. Having said
that, if Mr. Traver wants to modify his motion and whoever seconded it wants to modify the
second to add that this matter will be heard by the Planning Board at some time in the near
future, I don’t think it’s necessary, but it’s not inappropriate. It’s up to the Board.
MR. HUNSINGER-Thank you.
MR. SCHONEWOLF-It’s okay the way it is.
MR. HUNSINGER-Okay.
MR. SCHONEWOLF-We’re going to get it.
MR. HUNSINGER-Everyone okay with the way the motion’s worded? Any other discussion?
Gretchen?
MRS. STEFFAN-I just don’t know. We’ve got a motion prepared for the recommendation. I’m
not sure whether we should be using that or not, but if, procedurally, it’s okay, then we can go
with it.
MR. SCHACHNER-And from our standpoint, I mean, I haven’t seen the prepared motion, but
Mr. Traver’s motion, I think I can tell you, is legally sufficient to constitute a motion if, in fact, it’s
adopted.
MR. HUNSINGER-Okay.
AYES: Mr. Krebs, Mr. Traver, Mrs. Steffan, Mr. Ford, Mr. Schonewolf, Mr. Sipp, Mr. Hunsinger
NOES: NONE
MR. HUNSINGER-And before we leave this item, I just want to make two comments, one to the
public. If this does come back before our Board for Site Plan Review, there will be a public
hearing scheduled. That public hearing will be properly warned. It will be posted in the
newspaper, and notices will be sent to neighbors, and then the second thing I wanted to make a
comment on is Mr. Strough did provide a document that has several points that he wanted to
make sure the Board was aware of. It has been submitted to Staff for the record, so that
document will become part of the record, and the Planning Board will review that during their
Site Plan Review process.
MRS. STEFFAN-And, Craig, just for information, because there are valid building permits in
place, they will be able to continue work on the buildings, but they will not be doing any work,
any site work, around the building?
MR. BROWN-That’s correct.
MR. HUNSINGER-Any other questions, comments from the Board before we move on? Okay.
Moving on to our scheduled items.
9
(Queensbury Planning Board 12/21/2010)
SITE PLAN NO. 73-2010 SEQR TYPE II DENISE RUDENKO D/B/A BULL HILL FARM &
ORCHARD AGENT(S) WILLIAM RUDENKO OWNER(S) RAYMOND HIPPELE ZONING CI
[COMMERCIAL INTENSIVE] LOCATION 959 STATE ROUTE 9, MOUNT ROYAL PLAZA
APPLICANT PROPOSES A SEASONAL PRODUCE STAND. SEASONAL PRODUCE STAND
IN THE CI ZONE REQUIRES PLANNING BOARD REVIEW AND APPROVAL. CROSS
REFERENCE N/A WARREN CO. PLANNING 12/8/10 LOT SIZE 5.13 +/- ACRES TAX MAP
NO. 296.13-1-18 SECTION 179-9
WILLIAM RUDENKO, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT
MR. HUNSINGER-Keith?
MR. OBORNE-Absolutely. Site Plan 73-2010, Denise Rudenko is the applicant. Seasonal
Produce Stand in the Commercial Intensive zone requires Planning Board review and approval.
The location is 959 State Route 9. This is Mount Royal Plaza. CI is the existing zoning. This is
a Type II SEQRA. Project Description: Applicant proposes a Farm Produce Stand with a 20’ x
20’ canopy. Seasonal Produce Stands require Planning Board review and approval. According
to the applicant’s narrative, the stand is proposed to be operational starting June 15, 2011
through October 15, 2011 and yearly thereafter. What follows is the sign code which has been
typical for Mr. Rudenko’s applications. He is requesting waivers from landscaping, lighting and
stormwater. The following are Staff comments. Vehicular ingress and egress appears to be
safe and efficient and ample parking is available. The Planning Board, as a condition of
approval, may wish to consider the following: The hours of operation as stated in the narrative
should be observed. The dates of operation as stated in the narrative should be observed.
Note: The dates may be subject to change in years to come and as such, allowing the applicant
to commence operation on dates other than requested should be considered. The applicant is
requesting approval for 5 years or longer. The granting of waivers, as stated previously, and I
am looking for a directional sign indicating No Parking in drive aisle, just for pedestrian safety
purposes, and with that I’d turn it over to the Board.
MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. Good evening.
MR. RUDENKO-Good evening.
MR. HUNSINGER-If you could identify yourself for the record.
MR. RUDENKO-My name is William Rudenko. I am the agent for my wife, Denise Rudenko,
who’s the owner of Bull Hill Farm and Orchard.
MR. HUNSINGER-Did you have anything else to add?
MR. RUDENKO-No, no. The sign is fine for no parking in the drive aisle, because where our
proposed canopy is going to be situated, there’s ample parking to the right and left, and directly
in front of it, and other well marked and delineated, striped parking places. So that would be
fine.
MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. Anything else?
MR. RUDENKO-On this application? No.
MR. HUNSINGER-I’ll open it up for questions, comments from members of the Board.
MRS. STEFFAN-Yes. I think this is a good plan. It’s a good spot.
MR. HUNSINGER-How was your season at the Aviation Road site?
MR. RUDENKO-Very good. Very good. Business, of course, tracks with the national economy.
Sales were up about 20% this year over last year. So it all tracks. It’s all, everything’s related.
MRS. STEFFAN-Great.
MR. HUNSINGER-Questions, comments? We do have a public hearing scheduled this evening.
Is there anyone in the audience that wants to address the Board on this project?
PUBLIC HEARING OPENED
MR. HUNSINGER-We will open the public hearing. Any written comments, Keith?
MR. OBORNE-No, sir.
10
(Queensbury Planning Board 12/21/2010)
MR. HUNSINGER-Seeing that there are no comments, I will close the public hearing.
PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED
MRS. STEFFAN-And I will make a motion to approve.
MOTION TO APPROVE SITE PLAN NO. 73-2010 DENISE RUDENKO d/b/a BULL HILL
FARM & ORCHARD, Introduced by Gretchen Steffan who moved for its adoption, seconded by
Stephen Traver:
Tax Map ID 302.8-2-66.1, 959 Rt. 9 Quaker Road
A site plan application has been made to the Queensbury Planning Board for the following:
Applicant proposes a Seasonal Produce Stand. Seasonal Produce Stand in the CI zone
requires Planning Board review and approval.
A public hearing was advertised and held on 12/21/2010; and
This application is supported with all documentation, public comment and application material in
the file of record;
Therefore, Let It Be Resolved;
MOTION TO APPROVE SITE PLAN NO. 73-2010 DENISE RUDENKO d/b/a BULL HILL
FARM & ORCHARD, Introduced by Gretchen Steffan who moved for its adoption, seconded by
Stephen Traver:
According to the resolution prepared by Staff. Paragraph A complies. Paragraph D, waivers are
granted for stormwater, landscaping and lighting plans.
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)Waiver requests granted: stormwater mgmt., landscaping & lighting plans; and
e)The limits of clearing will constitute a no-cut buffer zone, orange construction
fencing shall be installed around these areas and field verified by Community
Development staff; and
f)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; and
g)This is approved with the following conditions:
1.That the hours of operation will be from 10 a.m. to 6 p.m.
2.The dates of operation will be from June through October.
3.That the applicant has requested a five year approval; and the Planning Board
approves the application for five years.
4.That the applicant will have directional signs identifying no parking in the drive
aisles for safety purposes.
st
Duly adopted this 21 day of December, 2010, by the following vote:
11
(Queensbury Planning Board 12/21/2010)
MR. OBORNE-Just about the dates of operation. You’re looking at June through October. Do
you want to say the beginning of June through the end of October.
MRS. STEFFAN-I thought that if I did June through October it would be first to last, but that’s
okay.
MR. OBORNE-That’s fine, and the record will bear that out. The record will bear that out.
MRS. STEFFAN-Okay.
MR. OBORNE-That’s fine.
AYES: Mr. Traver, Mr. Krebs, Mrs. Steffan, Mr. Magowan, Mr. Schonewolf, Mr. Sipp,
Mr. Hunsinger
NOES: NONE
MR. HUNSINGER-You’re all set.
MR. RUDENKO-Thank you very much.
MRS. STEFFAN-The other one’s a little more complicated.
thth
MR. SCHONEWOLF-And the other one’s June 15 to October 15. Is that what you usually do?
MR. HUNSINGER-That’s what that one was, too.
MR. RUDENKO-Well, our business is so, Mother Nature plays the important role, one or two
weeks earlier, one or two weeks later. If Spring comes sooner like it did this year and produce is
th
available sooner, we would open that one week or ten days earlier, to June 15, and if we had, if
th
we had an Indian Summer and tomatoes were available right up until October 15, we would
stay in business until first frost, which is some time the first two weeks of October. It’s subject to
Mother Nature, not so much to my desires.
MR. HUNSINGER-Okay.
SITE PLAN NO. 74-2010 SEQR TYPE II DENISE RUDENKO D/B/A BULL HILL FARM &
ORCHARD AGENT(S) WILLIAM RUDENKO OWNER(S) JOHN ALEXANDER/LITTLE TREE
PROPERTIES ZONING CI [COMMERCIAL INTENSIVE] LOCATION 294 QUAKER ROAD
APPLICANT PROPOSES A SEASONAL PRODUCE STAND. SEASONAL PRODUCE STAND
IN THE CI ZONE REQUIRES PLANNING BOARD REVIEW AND APPROVAL. CROSS
REFERENCE N/A WARREN CO. PLANNING 12/8/10 APA, CEA, OTHER NWI WETLANDS,
DEC WETLANDS LOT SIZE 11.22 +/- ACRES TAX MAP NO. 302.8-2-66.1 SECTION 179-9
WILLIAM RUDENKO, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT
MR. HUNSINGER-Keith?
MR. OBORNE-Yes. Obviously this is pretty similar to the next one, just a different site. The site
does have some limitations, but I’ll go through this Site Plan 74-2010. It’s 294 Quaker Road
which is the Hewitt’s Garden Center. Again, this is CI, Commercial Intensive. It’s a Type II
SEQRA. Again, applicant proposes a produce stand with a 20 by 20 canopy. Seasonal produce
stands require Planning Board review and approval. According to the applicant’s narrative, the
stand is proposed to be operational starting June 15, 2011 through October 15, 2011, and yearly
thereafter. What follows is the Sign Code. Again, same waivers as previous. Staff comments:
Staff does have some concerns with the proposal in regards to pedestrian safety, in particular
the canopy location is adjacent to the parking lot entrance and the potential for pedestrian
vehicular conflict may arise. Although the condition of the parking lot is not of the applicant’s
making, the existing conditions to include compliant striping and drive aisles are not present.
Concerning this proposal, the current configuration and condition of the parking lot is not
conducive, from a pedestrian safety and a vehicular conflict point of view. What follows is
basically verbatim from the previous application. Again, the hours of operation as stated in the
narrative should be observed. The date of operation as stated should be observed. Approval
requested for five years or longer has been requested. Granting of waivers as previously stated,
and again, another no parking in drive aisle sign should be considered, and with that I’d turn it
over to the Board.
MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. Thank you. Did you have anything else you wanted to add?
12
(Queensbury Planning Board 12/21/2010)
MR. RUDENKO-The no parking in the drive aisle is fine there. Comments on Hewitts. I’ve been
looking at this location for a couple of years and I’ve been trying to talk to these folks for a
couple of years and finally they responded. Oddly enough, not only do they want us to put one
here, but they have seven or eight other locations in and around the Capital area and they want
us to put one everywhere. Well, there’s only one of me. I can’t do that, but I put a lot of work
into this site and considering it. Sure, the parking places are not very well delineated. You
have to look at them to find them, but Hewitts is a quiet location. They don’t get a whole lot of
traffic in there. I’ve driven by there many times. If there’s 10 or 15 cars in there at any one time,
they’re having a good day. We are about 62 feet from the outermost area where they put their
outdoor merchandise to the, to where our tent begins, 62 feet for cars to travel back and forth.
Because of the light traffic there and the fact that most cars will park very near to our tent, to our
canopy, it’s a short walk, 20, 30, 40 feet, not necessarily into lanes of traffic. By comparison, I
wouldn’t want to put this 20 by 20 canopy 62 feet away from Wal-Mart in Queensbury from any
one of their front entrances. Now their parking lots are beautiful, meticulous, well designed and
well delineated. That would be a dangerous situation. Here, I don’t believe it’s dangerous at all.
We screen our locations to make sure that the people do feel comfortable pulling in in their cars,
getting out of their cars and walking over to us or parking right next to us, and necessarily not in
the drive lanes. That’s why that sign would be so important, no parking in the drive aisle, but
what has worked well for us on Aviation Road is the four or five cones, the bright orange
reflective cones we’ve put there. Our canopy is 20 feet long. I could put four or five cones that
extend not only that 20 feet, but going towards the road, another 10 or 15 feet, meaning that
they have to stay to the right of those cones and any people who traverse or pedestrian traffic in
front of our canopies or under our canopies would be that much more protected. It helps to
highlight our location also.
MR. SCHONEWOLF-So you put them at the end of the canopy here where the driveway goes
by it? I’m looking at this picture here.
MR. RUDENKO-That’s the Church of Christ on Aviation Road. That was just a typical rendering
of what our.
MR. SCHONEWOLF-Okay. So you’re going to put the cones on, okay, right along the driveway.
Okay.
MR. RUDENKO-It would be where the arrows say 62 feet, not on that line, but perpendicular,
heading towards Quaker Road, four, five or six cones, however many.
MR. SCHONEWOLF-I’ve got it. Yes, you could either put those or you could put one of those
barriers with the tripod things. They’re harder to walk through.
MR. RUDENKO-Yes, yes.
MRS. STEFFAN-I don’t know.
MR. RUDENKO-And, of course, we put the cones up when we open for business, and we take
them down at the end of the evening. They’re stackable and they fit right under our tables, but,
safety wise, I’ve given that lot a lot of consideration, and I feel, based upon all our experience in
the business that the ingress and the egress and the pedestrian traffic to and from our location,
especially with the cones in front of the canopy, would suffice.
MR. SCHONEWOLF-I mean, it’s not like you’re putting it in front of a speedway.
MRS. STEFFAN-Well, and, you know, that particular nursery stand, you know, they do a lot of
business early in the season, but then things taper off and it gets quiet, and there’s not a lot of
traffic that goes in and out of there. I certainly think that a much better location would actually be
the shopping center a couple of, you know, I think three lots down, but, you know, I don’t think
it’ll be a big problem.
MR. TRAVER-I was thinking the same thing because the Hewitts people are coming to get
tomato plantings and so on. I mean, they’re competing with you. They want to do their own
victory garden rather than come and buy them from you, but.
MR. KREBS-Yes, but then they’d have to put up with the IRS being in the same.
MR. RUDENKO-It might hinder business.
MR. TRAVER-Yes.
13
(Queensbury Planning Board 12/21/2010)
MR. KREBS-No, but I was going to suggest the cone idea. So I think that, for two reasons.
One, not only for the people driving in, but also the cones remind people, as they turn around
and walk away from the area of shopping, that they are walking into a travel lane.
MR. RUDENKO-Yes, yes. I mean, to make it simply, you know, how about a cone with a pole in
it, you know, a flag and then a, wrap the rope around, you know, to distinguish it’s not a walk
through, and it’s something easy to, you know, close up at the end of the night and just pull them
out.
MR. MAGOWAN-That could be done also, something could be propped inside the cones, inside
the center of the cone there, and just a little yellow rope across there.
MR. RUDENKO-Right, from cone to cone. So, because I feel most people are going to pull
straight ahead, park in the poorly delineated parking places, where they’re barely visible, and
some people may pull to the left. As they pull in they’ll pull to the left and pull right in. So, no
cone barrier with a yellow plastic chain on it would deter people from stopping and doing
business with us.
MR. HUNSINGER-Let me ask a question of Staff. I mean, I certainly think that the Staff
comment is a valid comment, witness the discussion we’re having right here. The parking
spaces that are delineated on Hewitts site plan are necessary for the use that’s there currently.
MR. OBORNE-Correct.
MR. HUNSINGER-So if we, in effect, modify the parking plan, to accommodate the seasonal
sales, what kind of problems does that create for us?
MR. OBORNE-I don’t think any problems, to be honest with you.
MR. HUNSINGER-Okay.
MR. OBORNE-Not as far as Bull Hill Farms is concerned. The Site Plan approval for this parcel
I did not delve into because of the existing site conditions were so poor.
MR. HUNSINGER-Right.
MR. OBORNE-I didn’t think it was worth it to spend the time doing that.
MR. HUNSINGER-Sure.
MR. OBORNE-Again, this is not of the making of the applicant by any stretch of the imagination.
I’m just trying to make sure that pedestrians in particular are protected.
MR. HUNSINGER-Yes. Like I said, I certainly agree with your comments, as it sounds like most
of the Board does as well. In fact, one of the things that I had done is circled the 20 feet
between the parking spot and the proposed tent. I mean, that’s not a large enough drive aisle to
meet Code. So I guess it all depends on how people park. I don’t know if directional signs
saying don’t park in the drive aisle would even help because there’s no delineated drive aisle,
but again, if he has cones out, you could always move a cone to get an emergency vehicle
through.
MR. TRAVER-Yes.
MR. MAGOWAN-Well, the no drive aisle could be right in front of the tent. I mean, people could
just pull right up in front of the tent and hop out and run over there. This way no parking there,
they’d have to go to a parking spot. That would be my only concern is people just pulling up
straight, being parallel with your tent there and jumping out, grabbing what they need and pulling
a quick U turn and going out.
MR. OBORNE-Which is an issue, and not just for Bull Hill Farms. They do a great job on
controlling their traffic, but I’ve seen multiple sites, not associated with Bull Hill Farms, that
there’s obviously been zero planning involved with it whatsoever. They just pull right on up, it
doesn’t matter, even if there’s parking spaces available, they’ll just pull right on up. That’s what
we want to avoid.
MR. HUNSINGER-Yes.
MR. RUDENKO-They will do that. They want to get real cozy with the stand for some reason.
They want to get right up close.
14
(Queensbury Planning Board 12/21/2010)
MR. HUNSINGER-Yes, that’s human nature.
MR. RUDENKO-The cones on Aviation Road keep people from pulling over to the side of the
road. If they went up close to the road, if they were 10 feet back, people would pull off there. So
the cones work. They do give them direction.
MR. HUNSINGER-Well, do members of the Board think that the idea of placing cones there
would be enough to minimize the concerns that have been expressed?
MR. KREBS-I think it’s going to notify the drivers that there’s activity there, and it’s going to
notify the pedestrians to look for the cars coming in and out.
MR. RUDENKO-Right, right.
MR. MAGOWAN-Now, do you want to say cones, you know, linked together with a yellow chain
or something or a yellow rope?
MR. TRAVER-My only question would be the duration of the permit. Would we want to take a
look at this maybe quicker than the other?
MR. HUNSINGER-I was thinking the same thing, yes.
MR. RUDENKO-Well, on the other hand, Mr. John Alexander, Vice President at Hewitts, I
believe he came in and he spoke to Craig Brown about redesigning everything, the whole traffic
pattern around the building.
MR. OBORNE-He spoke to me about that.
MR. RUDENKO-Right. To you, all right, Keith, where the parking places are now would be
where all the plants would move, and where the plants are, on the north and the west side of the
building, would be for vehicular traffic. So that may, he’s been in twice, so maybe, or maybe not,
he may get that on the road in a year or two or three.
MR. HUNSINGER-I was going to say, have they filed a site plan. Yes.
MR. RUDENKO-I mean, and which would have to come back here anyway to re-do the whole
process and hopefully come up with a much better location.
MR. HUNSINGER-Well, hopefully if they come back they would assimilate the produce stand as
part of the overall site plan.
MRS. STEFFAN-I think it should be a one year approval so that you know, the applicant has
some experience, comes back and then we make a decision, instead of a couple of years, I
think one year. That particular part of Quaker Road is just very busy, and it may not work for the
applicant, it may not work for the circulation of the site. So I would recommend just one year.
MR. RUDENKO-Okay, and I would come back again for Site Plan Review just like I did tonight,
or could it be handled through an executive type of order?
MRS. STEFFAN-You’d have to come back.
MR. RUDENKO-All right.
MRS. STEFFAN-But, you know, you have a model to use, and so, you know, you wouldn’t be
starting from scratch.
MR. TRAVER-Right.
MRS. STEFFAN-We’d just be asking you questions about circulation and those kinds of things,
and actually our compliance people, Code Enforcement would be taking a look at your plan and
how it’s behaving over the course of the year, too. So they’d have some information as well.
MR. KREBS-And since most of us drive back and forth, we’ll be taking a look also. We might
even stop at the stand.
MR. HUNSINGER-We do have a public hearing scheduled this evening. Is there anyone in the
audience who wants to address the Board on this project? Any written comments, Keith?
15
(Queensbury Planning Board 12/21/2010)
MR. OBORNE-No, sir.
MR. HUNSINGER-I will open the public hearing.
PUBLIC HEARING OPENED
MR. HUNSINGER-And let the record show there were no comments. It’s a Type II SEQRA. So
would someone like to move this?
MRS. STEFFAN-Now the farm stand, this is the language that I use. The farm stand will use
orange cones to demark farm stand boundary from the drive aisle. Is that sufficient? Do you
want a number of cones, what would you like?
MR. RUDENKO-Five cones, four feet from the outermost portion of the tent, or canopy.
MR. OBORNE-And running north south, is that what we’re looking at?
MR. RUDENKO-Yes.
MR. OBORNE-Yes.
MRS. STEFFAN-All right.
MR. SCHONEWOLF-Do we have any Adirondack cones?
MRS. STEFFAN-So in this particular situation, will we need to provide directional signage, that
the cones take care of that?
MR. TRAVER-We’ll find out in a year.
MR. SCHONEWOLF-Yes, don’t hit them. That’s what they mean.
MR. OBORNE-There’s really no demarcated drive aisles. So it would be kind of nebulous.
MRS. STEFFAN-All right. Okay. I’ll make a motion to approve.
MOTION TO APPROVE SITE PLAN NO. 74-2010 DENISE RUDENKO d/b/a BULL HILL
FARM & ORCHARD, Introduced by Gretchen Steffan who moved for its adoption, seconded by
Stephen Traver:
Tax Map ID 296.13-1-18, 959 St. Rt. 9
A site plan application has been made to the Queensbury Planning Board for the following:
Applicant proposes a Seasonal Produce Stand. Seasonal Produce Stand in the CI zone
requires Planning Board review and approval.
A public hearing was advertised and held on 12/21/2010; and
This application is supported with all documentation, public comment and application material in
the file of record;
Therefore, Let It Be Resolved;
MOTION TO APPROVE SITE PLAN NO. 74-2010 DENISE RUDENKO d/b/a BULL HILL
FARM & ORCHARD, Introduced by Gretchen Steffan who moved for its adoption, seconded by
Stephen Traver:
According to the resolution prepared by Staff. Paragraph A complies. Paragraph D, the
Planning Board grants waivers for stormwater management, landscaping and lighting.
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
16
(Queensbury Planning Board 12/21/2010)
Staff after approval and prior to issuance of Building Permit and/or the beginning
of any site work. Subsequent issuance of further permits, including building
permits is dependent on compliance with this and all other conditions of this
resolution; and
d)Waiver requests granted: stormwater mgmt., landscaping & lighting plans; and
e)The limits of clearing will constitute a no-cut buffer zone, orange construction
fencing shall be installed around these areas and field verified by Community
Development staff; and
f)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; and
g)This is approved with the following conditions:
1.The hours of operation for this farm stand will be 10 a.m. to 6 p.m.
2.The dates of operation will be from June through October.
3.The Planning Board grants a one year approval for this Site Plan.
4.That the farm stand will use five orange cones to demark the farm stand
boundary from the drive aisle running north/south.
st
Duly adopted this 21 day of December, 2010, by the following vote:
AYES: Mr. Traver, Mr. Krebs, Mrs. Steffan, Mr. Magowan, Mr. Schonewolf, Mr. Sipp,
Mr. Hunsinger
NOES: NONE
MR. HUNSINGER-You’re all set. Good luck.
MR. RUDENKO-Well, thank you very much.
MR. HUNSINGER-You’re welcome.
SITE PLAN NO. 76-2010 SEQR TYPE II PLAZA GLEN LLP AGENT(S) ETHAN HALL
RUCINSKI HALL ARCHITECTS OWNER(S) SAME ZONING CI [COMMERCIAL INTENSIVE]
LOCATION 736 GLEN STREET APPLICANT PROPOSES FAÇADE RENOVATIONS TO
EXISTING STRIP MALL. CHANGES IN SITE DESIGN IN THE CI ZONE REQUIRE PLANNING
BOARD REVIEW AND APPROVAL. CROSS REFERENCE N/A WARREN CO. PLANNING
12/8/10 APA, CEA, OTHERS NWI WETLANDS LOT SIZE 1.50 +/- ACRES TAX MAP NO.
302.6-1-53 SECTION 179-9, 179-7
ETHAN HALL, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT
MR. HUNSINGER-Keith, whenever you’re ready to summarize Staff Notes.
MR. OBORNE-Site Plan 76-2010, Plaza Glen LLP. Changes to site design in the CI zone
require Planning Board review and approval. Location is 736 Glen Street. Commercial
Intensive is the existing zoning. This is a Type II SEQRA. Project Description: Applicant
proposes façade renovations to existing strip mall. Changes in site design in the CI zone, as
previously stated, requires Planning Board review and approval. Staff comments: The applicant
proposes only a façade renovation and does not propose any site improvements beyond what is
proposed. The proposal calls for the renovation of existing façade to resemble in style the
façade of the property to the south, 730 Glen Street but not the color. The applicant intends to
use a blue aluminum with a beige stucco on the front. The applicant is requesting waivers from
stormwater management, grading, landscaping and lighting, and what follows is review. I think
everybody can agree that the site is in need of parking improvements. The current configuration
promotes vehicular and pedestrian conflicts. Ingress and egress control should be considered
for this site. There is a modicum of control. Obviously the site’s not wide open. It does have an
island that does control, to a certain extent, some of the site flow. Again, there are issues with
the lighting on the roof. I’m not even sure if those lights work, to be honest with you, and site
permeability is at .6 percent according to the applicant, and I’m not quite sure if that is correct,
because there is a little green area to the south and east of the parcel, and I’ll show a picture of
that. Additional Comments: Although a landscaping waiver has been requested, landscaping is
17
(Queensbury Planning Board 12/21/2010)
devoid on this parcel and some form of landscaping should be considered, and the lighting was
already touched on, and with that, I’ll turn it over to the Board.
MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. Thank you, Keith. Good evening.
MR. HALL-Good evening. Ethan Hall, for the record, partner with Rucinski Hall Architecture.
With me tonight is Art Dembroski representing the owner of Plaza Glen LLP. The Staff Notes
are correct. What is being proposed is simply a façade renovation to the existing strip mall. The
drawings that you have show, and the pictures that were supplied with the application, show the
existing front façade. Currently, there’s a small brick shelf that runs along the front of the
building, with single sheath pane glass from there all the way to the underside of the soffit. This
ownership group also purchased what was formerly Deco World, is now Jack’s Bistro and the
building that is immediately to the south of this project, and did the renovations to that building
as well. It’s their intent that they do the same façade type renovations, completely replace all of
the existing glass along the front with insulating aluminum storefront glass. They’re going to drop
the heads down a little bit so that there’s not as big of an expanse of glass, and provide an EFIS
or a stucco appearance on the front, in the same general cream color as the building that’s
immediately to the south, but instead of the green roof that’s on that building they’re looking at
using a blue standing seam metal roof, exactly the same stuff we used next door, and the strip
that’s above the windows would be blue, to accent that. As far as the ingress and egress on the
site go, we know we’re right up against Glen Street. That’s the way that that whole strip along
there is set up. Everything in those islands was recently re-done when they re-did Glen Street.
So there’s not a whole lot of opportunity for us to make any changes there. It’s actually outside
the bounds of our property anyway. I don’t know that there’s a whole lot that we can actually
pull out of that, in the front, and where, Keith, were you talking about in what was the green
space? Are you talking about immediately behind the building back here?
MR. OBORNE-Right where the hand is right there. There’s some green space there. It looks a
little over one percent, but I’m not quite sure.
MR. HALL-That’s where when, the former owner, Mr. Resnick was the owner, he had the oil
drum business, the fuel oil that he sold the empty tanks, and I think that was the area where all
the tanks were kept. Because that was fenced at one time.
ART DEMBROSKI
MR. DEMBROSKI-It was fenced in, yes, at one time.
MR. OBORNE-That’s the area there, in all of its glory.
MR. HALL-Right. Yes, and that’s actually, that’s behind what used to be Deco World, but it is
part of this property. Yes. So, I mean, there is some opportunity back there, but it’s in the back
of the building, and it doesn’t add any value to anything in the front. Mostly what we’re
concerned with is the façade of the building and things of that nature. All of the site drainage on
this building, the roof all drains to the back of the building. It’s a single sloped roof. It drops off
the back of the building, and the pavement that’s back here drains into the drainage swale along
the lands of Niagara Mohawk in the back, there’s a drainage swale that runs.
MR. MAGOWAN-After it gets through that hedge, right?
MR. HALL-Exactly. Yes. Exactly. It gets all the way down through, and that same drainage
swale picks up the building, the Quick Lube next door. It picks up this building and some of the
other portions that are on the other side of the Staples lot, and things like that.
MR. OBORNE-And, Ethan, when I was on the site, it was during a real good rainstorm, and the
site works fine. I mean, I’m not concerned about stormwater.
MR. HALL-Yes, the drainage does work very good, and, you know, we wish there was a way to
do more landscaping. There’s just nothing between us and Glen Street that we can really
improve up there. As far as the lighting goes, Keith’s right. There are two, and you can see
them in that picture. There’s two gooseneck lights that are on the top of the building. They don’t
work. Those are coming off, and all of the other lighting is underneath the canopy, and there’ll be
soffit mounted lights that are up there. The light, the signs that are currently hanging underneath
the soffit are going to go up onto the roof similar to what we did next door, to the one at Jack’s
where we put those up next door.
MR. TRAVER-Why a different color?
MR. HALL-Just to make it look like a different property.
18
(Queensbury Planning Board 12/21/2010)
MR. TRAVER-Okay.
MR. SIPP-Now you’re going to keep the two signs, the poles anyway, for?
MR. HALL-The Sherwin Williams sign is going to stay just like it is. There’s not going to be any
change to that at all.
MR. SIPP-What about this one, the Sprint?
MR. HALL-That’s on a different piece of property.
MR. SIPP-It’s on a different piece?
MR. HALL-Yes.
MR. SIPP-All right.
MR. MAGOWAN-Sherwin Williams doesn’t want a sign to go to a more modern looking one and
mounted?
MR. DEMBROSKI-They just re-did that sign, actually. That’s part of the lease.
MR. HALL-That is a relatively new sign.
MRS. STEFFAN-They have top billing on the pole mounted sign.
MR. SIPP-Keith, they never passed the new Sign Ordinance, then?
MR. OBORNE-That has not been passed as of, no.
MR. SIPP-But that lowers that sign to 20 feet high, rather than 24.
MR. HALL-If it was going to be re-done? Right.
MR. OBORNE-It’s pre-existing at this point.
MRS. STEFFAN-I actually like the signs lower instead of on the front of the building. I can’t
imagine spending all that money to put a standing seam roof on a building, and then puncture
holes in it to put a sign.
MR. HALL-The mounting brackets?
MRS. STEFFAN-Yes.
MR. HALL-They haven’t really had any problems with it next door. It actually has worked out
really well for them. They’re actually more a problem where they are there, because of the bird.
MRS. STEFFAN-You mean the way they hang down?
MR. HALL-Yes.
MR. DEMBROSKI-Yes, they’re hanging on the soffit.
MR. HALL-And they’re pulling down on that soffit.
MRS. STEFFAN-How about as far as landscaping goes? How big is the sidewalk, how wide is
the sidewalk in front of that building?
MR. HALL-The sidewalk itself is five feet. It’s a typical.
MRS. STEFFAN-I was just wondering if you could put landscape boxes underneath the
windows, and put flowers in them in the Spring?
MR. DEMBROSKI-They’d be awfully narrow.
MR. HALL-Between the parking aisle and the front of the building there?
MRS. STEFFAN-Yes.
19
(Queensbury Planning Board 12/21/2010)
MR. SCHONEWOLF-Then you’d have to water them.
MRS. STEFFAN-Yes.
MR. KREBS-Well, not only that, but then people not looking where they’re walking, step into
those and fall over.
MRS. STEFFAN-Not if they’re pretty and they look at them.
MR. KREBS-Well, but you know, they may be looking in the window of the store.
MR. HALL-Would it be problem to put potted, you know, big potted plants out there?
MR. MAGOWAN-That’s a tight parking lot. I go to Sherwin Williams all the time, and I have that
big crew cab dually, and, you know, I’ve got to watch people, but that is a tight parking lot.
MRS. STEFFAN-No, I’m talking about putting them at the base of the windows. If they’re
bringing the windows up, then, you know, something that comes out this far, underneath the
window, and you put annuals in it in the Springtime.
MR. MAGOWAN-Well, what I’m concerned is you come in on an angle and you park, and I know
my bumper hangs over onto the walkway, and I’m.
MR. HALL-Yes. The only real issue there is that’s a 60 inch wide sidewalk right now, and the
minimum is 44 inches for handicap access, and if anybody’s bumper’s hanging into that space
already, we start to get narrow. It would be a tough pull.
MR. SIPP-You do have some concrete planters around the side, don’t you, on the south side
going back, there’s a concrete, several concrete planters there?
MR. DEMBROSKI-I don’t believe so, no.
MR. SIPP-Movable. They’re not permanent they’re movable.
MR. MAGOWAN-On these curbed islands, can they do anything out on the road with them?
MR. HALL-It’s off our property.
MR. SCHONEWOLF-The State owns it.
MR. MAGOWAN-Well, they own it, but can you put oak barrels there with planters or
something?
MR. HALL-I don’t know if the State, it’s in their right of way. I don’t know if they would allow it.
MR. MAGOWAN-I was just wondering for a seasonal thing, you know, to add a little color. I
thought about, why didn’t they plant trees in them instead of, you know, capping them all off.
MR. SCHONEWOLF-Because the trees require maintenance.
MR. HALL-Yes, that’s the only thought I had is along that whole corridor there when they re-did
that whole section of Route 9.
MR. MAGOWAN-It’s a beautiful granite, how about a little green color?
MR. HALL-How about a little green beside it, yes, but then it becomes a maintenance thing, and
they’ve got.
MR. DEMBROSKI-Also probably line of sight. His trucks pull out, because that’s right in the
right of way. If somebody’s looking north or south at a tree.
MRS. STEFFAN-Okay. Then how about wall mounted, wrought iron brackets so that you can
hang hanging plants in the summer, on both ends, somewhere in the middle.
MR. HALL-That would be fine, sure.
20
(Queensbury Planning Board 12/21/2010)
MR. DEMBROSKI-Yes. I don’t care, you know, something like that whether it’s really going to
work or not, for what you’re trying to achieve. It would be nice, if there’s room there, to put some
nice green plantings.
MRS. STEFFAN-I just have to admit, those two shopping centers, they are ugly, you know, from
a design point of view. I mean, there’s no green space. It’s all blacktop. It’s just, it’s urban. I’m
trying to come up with options here.
MR. DEMBROSKI-We’re trying to make it look better, but we could leave it like it is.
MR. HALL-I think you’ve got some merit there. I think we could put some hangers on the
columns on the end. We don’t have really any columns at mid span to speak of. It’s pretty much
all glass, but I think we could put one. We’ve got one pillar here. We’ve got one here. I think
we’re at the fifth points or the quarter points of the building. Yes, we could put some hanging
brackets there.
MRS. STEFFAN-Hanging plants in there, and that would be at least, at least it would be
attractive. Because that’s the only way I could be sold on that blue roof, because I think that
blue roof is just, it’s not my color.
MR. DEMBROSKI-It’s a good thing the owner’s not here, because he’d cancel any plans to do
anything if he heard you say that. He loves that blue roof.
MRS. STEFFAN-Drive up the Northway and look at the blue and white storage buildings off the
Northway. It’s so unattractive.
MR. HALL-It’s not going to be that bright of a blue. It’s a much darker. It’s not Blockbuster blue.
MR. HUNSINGER-In fact, I was going to ask you if you had a color sample or rendering.
MR. HALL-We don’t have a color sample yet.
MR. HUNSINGER-Is that blue fairly reflective?
MR. HALL-Well, this is the closest blue that we had in our pen set to use.
MR. DEMBROSKI-The manufacturer’s going to probably have, you know, one blue really.
MR. HALL-Yes. It’s more of a Jamestown blue. It’s the darker blue. It’s not the bright Sherwin
Williams. It’s not the bright Blockbuster.
MR. MAGOWAN-Like the color of the chairs behind you?
MR. HALL-Yes. It’s along that line.
MR. HUNSINGER-That’s going to be a lot of blue.
MR. HALL-We thought that about the green on the roof next door.
MR. HUNSINGER-Yes, well, green’s more Adirondacky, though, you know. It’s more of an
earth.
MRS. STEFFAN-It’s found in nature.
MR. HUNSINGER-Yes.
MRS. STEFFAN-Bright neon blue is not found in nature.
MR. KREBS-Well, so is blue. Blue is found in the sky every day.
MRS. STEFFAN-Bright neon blue?
MR. KREBS-Sometimes.
MR. DEMBROSKI-I don’t like the blue either, to be honest with you, but the owner loves it.
MR. HUNSINGER-And he wants it different from the.
MR. SCHONEWOLF-The guy next door.
21
(Queensbury Planning Board 12/21/2010)
MR. MAGOWAN-Well, if he went tan and green it would be more Adirondacky.
MR. HALL-Yes, that’s what we went for next door, Jack’s.
MR. MAGOWAN-So flip it.
MR. HALL-And make Jack’s blue? They already spent the money on Jack’s.
MR. MAGOWAN-No, tan roof, green base.
MR. HALL-Tan roof, green building.
MR. MAGOWAN-So there, you know, you distinguish two different buildings, the same color.
MRS. STEFFAN-What about like burgundy or, I just.
MR. DEMBROSKI-Burgundy you’re going to run into more Red Lobster colors.
MR. MAGOWAN-Yes, but isn’t that kind of like a burgundy red?
MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. We do have a public hearing scheduled this evening. Is there anyone
in the audience that wants to address the Board on this project? Any written comments, Keith?
MR. OBORNE-I don’t see any.
MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. Let the record show that here were no comments received. I will
open the public hearing and close the public hearing.
PUBLIC HEARING OPENED
NO COMMENTS
PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED
MR. HUNSINGER-Type II SEQRA. No further SEQRA review is required. You mentioned that
there will be lights underneath the soffit.
MR. HALL-Correct.
MR. HUNSINGER-What are the wattages?
MR. HALL-They’ll be no more than 175 watt, 175 watt metal halide fixtures. It’s a recessed light
fixture. The bulb is completely recessed and it just shines straight down.
MR. HUNSINGER-Because 175 watts, that would be pretty bright, wouldn’t it?
MR. KREBS-Is that similar to what’s on the building next door?
MR. HALL-Next door, yes.
MR. KREBS-So that’s not that bright.
MR. HALL-Yes. It’s a shielded, the bulb isn’t visible. It’s a shielded bulb, and it’s just a, it’s the
size of the industrial commercial fixture. For the metal halide single light fixtures, I think the
smallest one there is 175.
MR. HUNSINGER-Okay.
MR. HALL-There may be a 100 watt fixture, but I don’t know if that, for those size lights, if there
is one. It’s a triple pin.
MR. MAGOWAN-The ones next door, though, are 175’s, they’re the same?
MR. HALL-Yes, I believe so. We’ll use the same lights that, it’s the same light that we use next
door.
MR. HUNSINGER-Did that come, I know it came before us for Site Plan Review, but did that
come under the new lighting code?
22
(Queensbury Planning Board 12/21/2010)
MR. HALL-For the façade, yes. Yes, when that was originally put in as Victory Lane, that was,
that came here, that was back in ’04, ’03, ’03, ’04.
MR. HUNSINGER-That would have pre-dated the lighting ordinance, then. The new lighting
code’s only two, three years old.
MR. HALL-Okay.
MR. HUNSINGER-Yes, so that would have pre-dated that.
MR. HALL-We can agree to use the same lights that are next door. I just, I don’t know what the
fixtures are.
MRS. STEFFAN-So is there a condition on lighting?
MR. HUNSINGER-Well, I raised the discussion. I don’t know how the rest of the Board feels.
MR. TRAVER-Not brighter than that being used in the neighboring property.
MR. KREBS-I’ve driven by the neighboring property many times, and I go to Jack’s quite
frequently, and I don’t find that to be real bright.
MR. HUNSINGER-Yes. I mean, I know there’s a lot of streetlights right in that section of Glen,
and you probably get more light from the streetlights, but we do have a lighting code.
MR. HALL-Yes, they are relatively subdued, and really those lights, they’re actually, they’re
there now, but the fixtures that are there now are old incandescent fixtures, and they’re not
energy efficient. So we’re going to use the ones that are more energy efficient. We’ll put them
right back in the same locations that they are now. We wouldn’t use more lights than are there
now.
MR. KREBS-And they’re focused directly down to the sidewalk.
MR. HUNSINGER-Yes.
MR. HALL-Yes, they’re just like the one that’s above your head that shoots right straight down.
So it’s not an exposed fixture or anything. It’s just a commercial grade instead of an indoor
grade.
MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. Any other questions, comments from the Board?
MR. MAGOWAN-Well, I think it’s going to really dress up the front of that, the blue’s the only
thing, but those big sheets of glass, a car actually hit Sherwin Williams there last year, didn’t
they?
MR. DEMBROSKI-Not since we’ve owned it, no, the past year.
MR. MAGOWAN-Yes. Someone cracked one of those big panes of glass. Didn’t drive through
it, they just hit the building. Maybe it was two years ago.
MR. HALL-They’re huge.
MR. KREBS-But just the heat factor, too. The insulated glass versus the other, it’s a savings.
MR. HALL-It’s actually, it’s just the opposite. It’s the solar heat gain in the summer, because it
faces due west, and that, those things just bake in there.
MR. MAGOWAN-Yes, it’s definitely hot up there if you’re looking at wallpaper in the
summertime, that’s for sure.
MR. HALL-It sure is.
MR. OBORNE-Especially with .6 percent permeability on the site, too.
MR. HUNSINGER-Yes, good point.
MRS. STEFFAN-Okay. So we don’t have any parking changes, and ingress and egress
controls should be considered.
23
(Queensbury Planning Board 12/21/2010)
MR. KREBS-Not much you can do. They’re there.
MR. OBORNE-That’s my example. Right there is why we need the ingress and egress control.
MRS. STEFFAN-So do we need arrows? Arrows? I don’t know.
MR. HUNSINGER-One way traffic?
MR. OBORNE-Yes, I mean, obviously it should be one way. There shouldn’t be any traffic
coming in from the north. It should be coming in from the south and exiting from the north.
MR. HUNSINGER-Yes.
MR. OBORNE-However you want to accomplish that. You can do that by painting arrows. That
would be about it.
MR. HALL-We can certainly put arrows on the blacktop.
MR. MAGOWAN-Well, as you can see, that light truck, which is not mine, is going the opposite
direction, but, no, that’s not a bad idea is to get a directional thing.
MR. HUNSINGER-Yes, I would think that would help a lot.
MR. TRAVER-And then you’re removing the roof lights you mentioned.
MR. HALL-Yes. The two overheads that are up there. That was from when Mr. Resnick was in
there with his, he had the big plumbing and heating sign up there, and when that came down,
they just left the lights. Save On Plumbing.
MR. MAGOWAN-They moved out back. His son put him out of business because he was
selling everything out out back. How’s that back wall on the back side of Sherwin Williams with
that roof?
MR. HALL-They just repaired the whole back wall.
MR. MAGOWAN-That was extensive.
MR. DEMBROSKI-Somebody hit that walkway. It was non-bearing, but.
MR. MAGOWAN-They did hit it?
MR. DEMBROSKI-Somebody hit it from the inside, yes.
MR. MAGOWAN-It was the forklift. I can’t mention any names.
MR. DEMBROSKI-Yes, we re-blocked that. We pulled all the block out.
MR. MAGOWAN-Because that was pretty much just deteriorated. That water just came off and
kind of washed out the footings, too.
MR. DEMBROSKI-The whole bottom area where the blocks were washed out, and the face of
the blocks had deteriorated, we replaced all that, and then that one section of wall that was
pushed out we jacked and put, that was a non-bearing wall. It’s a steel frame.
MR. MAGOWAN-Now, is that from the roof runoff?
MR. DEMBROSKI-No, somebody hit that from the inside. On the bottom was from the runoff,
yes.
MR. HALL-At the bottom, the block had deteriorated because it had built up over time.
MR. DEMBROSKI-But the building really is in need of a lot of maintenance. They didn’t keep it
up very well.
MR. MAGOWAN-Yes. Well, they did a nice job on the, before you bought it I was looking at the
building. So, you know, with another group, and I walked through and we went through it. It is a
heck of a building, though. A new rubber roof on the one side.
MR. DEMBROSKI-Yes, it’s in good shape.
24
(Queensbury Planning Board 12/21/2010)
MR. HALL-Well, you re-did all of Deco Glen’s roof, when they moved in, because that was in
such bad shape.
MR. DEMBROSKI-Yes.
MR. MAGOWAN-Now you’ve still got the aluminum oxide up on the Sherwin Williams side?
MR. DEMBROSKI-That, no that was a new roof, too.
MR. MAGOWAN-Did they just put that one down?
MR. DEMBROSKI-Well, I’m not sure that they just put it down, but that was, I got the roofing
contracts when we bought the building. It had been done within the last couple of years.
MR. MAGOWAN-Right.
MRS. STEFFAN-Is everybody okay with the blue?
MR. SCHONEWOLF-I am.
MR. TRAVER-The blue as they’ve described. Yes.
MR. SCHONEWOLF-Adirondack blue. I love it.
MRS. STEFFAN-And so you all know, you have no idea what color this is going to be. So it
could be neon.
MR. HALL-It will not be neon.
MRS. STEFFAN-It could be neon.
MR. KREBS-No, I know these guys. They’re not going to do anything like that.
MR. HALL-I have to come back to you. I wouldn’t do anything like that.
MRS. STEFFAN-This is the Planning Board. Okay, and we are granting waivers for stormwater
and grading and landscaping, but not lighting, because we’re asking the applicant to eliminate
the roof lighting, and any new fixtures that are added or changed will be Code compliant and
downcast.
MR. HALL-Correct.
MR. HUNSINGER-I like that language.
MR. OBORNE-I can’t figure out if they’re Code compliant unless they do a photo simulation, as
far as for the illuminants. So, downcast obviously is partial compliance, but I don’t know what
their luminance is.
MR. HUNSINGER-Well, if they gave you a cut sheet, wouldn’t you be able to tell from a cut
sheet?
MR. OBORNE-Well, absolutely, but you’re stating that you want it the same fixtures and lighting
intensity with the property to the south. I’m not sure that’s compliant.
MR. HUNSINGER-That’s what they offered. That was my whole point. I don’t know if it is
compliant either. I like Gretchen’s condition better than what was offered, because you just
need to give Keith a copy of the cut sheet to review, and you can tell from the cut sheet if it’s too
bright. Right?
MR. HALL-Yes.
MR. OBORNE-Yes, and if they can’t, for some reason.
MR. HUNSINGER-I’m saying that as a question because in a couple of applications there’s an
inconsistency between the cut sheet and the photometric plan that they provided.
MR. OBORNE-True.
25
(Queensbury Planning Board 12/21/2010)
MR. HUNSINGER-So that’s why I raise it as a question and not a statement.
MR. OBORNE-I’d be loath to have that responsibility.
MR. HUNSINGER-I’m sorry?
MR. OBORNE-I would not want that responsibility, as far as figuring out if it’s compliant, and the
reason is if it’s not compliant, they have to come back to this Board.
MR. HUNSINGER-Or change the fixture to something that is compliant.
MR. OBORNE-Or change the fixtures so they are compliant. Correct.
MR. HUNSINGER-Right.
MR. OBORNE-That’s fine. Again, the record will bear that out.
MR. HUNSINGER-Yes. They’re not in your head. So they’re not objecting.
MR. HALL-Yes, we can do that.
MR. HUNSINGER-Okay.
MR. TRAVER-It doesn’t look like we’re going to be too busy in January.
MR. HUNSINGER-No.
MR. TRAVER-Come back.
MR. SCHONEWOLF-They don’t want to come back.
MR. HUNSINGER-We closed the public hearing. We’re ready for a motion.
MRS. STEFFAN-You’re ready for the motion? Okay. Then I’ll make a motion.
MOTION TO APPROVE SITE PLAN NO. 76-2010 PLAZA GLEN LLP, Introduced by Gretchen
Steffan who moved for its adoption, seconded by Stephen Traver:
Tax Map ID 302.6-1-53, 736 Glen Street
A site plan application has been made to the Queensbury Planning Board for the following:
Applicant proposes façade renovations to existing strip mall. Changes in site design in the CI
zone require Planning Board review and approval
A public hearing was advertised and held on 12/21/2010; and
This application is supported with all documentation, public comment and application material in
the file of record;
Therefore, Let It Be Resolved;
MOTION TO APPROVE SITE PLAN NO. 76-2010 PLAZA GLEN LLP, Introduced by Gretchen
Steffan who moved for its adoption, seconded by Stephen Traver:
According to the resolution prepared by Staff. Paragraph A complies. Paragraph D, waivers
were requested and are granted for stormwater management, grading, landscaping and lighting
plan.
a)Pursuant to relevant sections of the Town of Queensbury Zoning Code [Chapter
179-9-080]], the Planning Board has determined that this proposal complies with
the requirements as stated in the Zoning Code; and
b)Type II, no further review required; 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
26
(Queensbury Planning Board 12/21/2010)
permits is dependent on compliance with this and all other conditions of this
resolution; and
d)Waiver requests granted: stormwater mgmt., grading, landscaping & lighting
plans; and
e)The limits of clearing will constitute a no-cut buffer zone, orange construction
fencing shall be installed around these areas and field verified by Community
Development staff; and
f)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; and
g)This is approved with the following conditions:
1. Because ingress and egress controls should be considered for this site,
the applicant will add directional arrows on the blacktop denoting ingress
and egress.
2.That the applicant will eliminate roof lighting; and any new fixtures on the
site will be Code compliant and downcast.
3.That the applicant will add five hanging plant brackets mounted to the
brick storefront so that the applicant can place five flowering hanging
plants there each Spring and Summer to improve the visual impacts due
to a lack of landscaping and green space.
st
Duly adopted this 21 day of December, 2010, by the following vote:
AYES: Mr. Traver, Mr. Krebs, Mrs. Steffan, Mr. Magowan, Mr. Schonewolf, Mr. Sipp,
Mr. Hunsinger
NOES: NONE
MR. HUNSINGER-You’re all set. Good luck.
MR. HALL-Thank you very much.
MR. HUNSINGER-You’re welcome.
SITE PLAN NO. 79-2010 SEQR TYPE II LANDCRAFTERS, LLC, CARR DEVELOPMENT,
LLC OWNER(S) JOHN CARR ZONING CI [COMMERCIAL INTENSIVE] LOCATION 704
GLEN STREET APPLICANT PROPOSES A CHANGE TO EXISTING SITE LANDSCAPING
TO INCLUDE THE INSTALLATION OF ON-SITE SIDEWALKS, SEATING AND POTENTIAL
FUTURE BUS STOP. CHANGES IN SITE DESIGN IN THE CI ZONE REQUIRE PLANNING
BOARD REVIEW AND APPROVAL. CROSS REFERENCE SB 7-01, SP 20-02, SB 4-02
WARREN CO. PLANNING 12/8/10 LOT SIZE 1.07 +/- ACRES TAX MAP NO. 302.6-1-58.1
SECTION 179-9
JOHN CARR, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT
MR. HUNSINGER-Site Plan 79-2010, Landcrafters, LLC, again, changing site design in the CI
zone requires Planning Board review and approval. Location is 704 Glen Street. CI is the
existing zoning. This is a Type II SEQRA. Project Description: Applicant proposes a change to
existing site landscaping to include the installation of on site sidewalk, seating and potential
future bus stop. Comments: The proposal for the landscape beds appears predominantly
located in the State Route 9 right of way. Approval from the State will need to be forthcoming for
the proposed additional landscaping. A letter from High Peaks Tree Removal was submitted
with the application and states that the trees are close to the power lines and that the existing
species are weak. Staff agrees to a certain extent with the power line statement but not with the
species weakness statement. The Planning Board may wish to have the applicant clarify this.
The applicant proposes landscaping changes only and as such is seeking waivers from grading,
lighting and stormwater review. What follows is Site Plan Review. I just want to jump down to
the application itself. Page Three, percentage of impermeable proposed exceeds 70%
necessitating an Area Variance. The applicant may wish to offer up additional green space to
negate the proposed increase in impermeable surface. What follows is the calculation, and
based on my review it’s at 71.1% impermeable, which would obviously kick it in need of an Area
Variance. My additional comments, although the applicant has requested a waiver from the
27
(Queensbury Planning Board 12/21/2010)
stormwater requirements for site plan review, visits has indicated the need for stormwater
controls for the parking lot adjacent to Warren Tire. Additional information also may need to be
submitted to include the following: Correspondence with Greater Glens Falls Transit concerning
the proposed future bus stop; certifiable information concerning the status and health of the
trees to be removed; potential stormwater responses to existing issues; potential submittal of an
area variance as previously discussed; approval from both New York State Department of
Transportation and Town of Queensbury Highway Department for proposed changes to
jurisdictional right of ways, and John and I have discussed additional site issues and he may
want to fill the Planning Board in as to what the intent is for this parcel. It’s quite interesting, and
with that said, I’d turn it over to the Board.
MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. Thank you. Good evening.
MR. CARR-Good evening.
MR. HUNSINGER-If you could identify yourself for the record.
MR. CARR-Yes. My name is John Carr, member of Landcrafters, LLC. We took over the
rd
building at 704 Glen Street on the 3 of October from the previous owner. Currently I’m
managing and I own the carpet store that’s there and the building, and this originally started as a
cleaning up the trees in the front. We did, we brought in several arborists who looked at them to
see how best to prune what was there. Their recommendation was that they’re structurally
unsound. Keith raised the question in the Staff Notes, which I did get yesterday, and I prepared
a response, if the Board would like to see that response to some of the questions that were
raised by the Staff, I’ve got a response to those that I think will help fill the Board in a little bit on
the issue, some photographs of the trees. I don’t know if the Board would like to see those at
this point.
MR. HUNSINGER-How extensive is the information?
MR. CARR-It’s mainly photographs, you know, showing like a photograph of the tree so you
understand when I’m talking about the trees that are there, it includes just some notes from
Colorado State University Extension Service and also, you know, just in response to the
questions about some of the stormwater and the impervious space that’s there. There are
several areas on the property where it would be very, not necessary to have those areas paved
at this point, it would make more sense to remove them, and it should also be noted the
impervious space that’s created is being put on the plan to help facilitate walking from Lafayette
to the crosswalk that actually was put in by Queensbury and the State DOT in front of this
building, but there’s no way to get from Lafayette to that without walking over. A lot, there’s
quite a few people that use the tire store that’s back there. I don’t know if anybody uses that, but
it’s a busy, busy, busy tire store. It’s amazing how many tires they sell in a day. People that,
when they’re getting their tires on, they walk through the parking lot and then to Glen Street to
go to Dunkin Donuts, Wendy’s, and things like that. So there really isn’t a good way to get from
one street to another. We’re hoping to improve the conductivity of that, and also create a
different feel to that parcel. The history of that parcel, it was a lumber mill for probably 70 years,
and then it went to a home center about 15 or 20 years ago, and it’s still, sort of has this home
center lumber store feel to it. My goal there is to make the building look less warehousey and
less office like. Currently the front part of the building had all of Woodbury’s and Moore’s offices
in there, and it has this kind of blank stare on the face of the building. Yet it is a key corner, and
what we’re trying to do is not just put landscaping on the front of the building, on the Glen Street
side, but also on the Lafayette side. There was some landscaping there that was put in. The
previous owner didn’t maintain it or really make it much of anything. We’d like to, you know,
mulch that in the Spring and improve that. You can actually see some of the trees that are
there. I don’t, do you want this information?
MR. KREBS-Let’s take a quick look.
MR. CARR-It’ll probably, here’s an original to put in the file. It does kind of sum up the general
gist of what I’m trying to do. Again, this did not start as a full blown landscaping plan. It started
more in discussions with arborists on how to clean up the trees that were in the front in an effort
to improve what currently is just an overgrown looking, neglected corner. Because of the fact,
and, you know, just to support what I’m saying and what the arborists were saying, is the health
of the trees is not necessarily a problem at this point, with the exception of the spruce trees that
are there. It’s more of a structural problem. The land that’s between the building and the
sidewalk is about 15 feet. The trees that are there, that are causing the problem, are not a
native species. They’re a fast growing, kind of a hybrid tree that’s there, and just to evidence
that, the survey map that you have in front of you was done in 2002, and you can see the size of
the trees that were there at that time. So you can see just how fast they’re growing. When you
go to prune the tree, and I think that photograph is probably the best example of what’s there,
28
(Queensbury Planning Board 12/21/2010)
there’s no dominant trunk to work off of. So when you start cutting one side of the tree, you
have to cut the other side of the tree, ends up out of balance, and that’s part of where the
problem began. The other thing is, over time, these trees are going to overwhelm the site
without either regular maintenance of some type, which was my preferred initial start to this, or,
without replacing them with a slower growing type of a tree. So what I’ve gone in and proposed
here was to replace those with smaller, like an apple type tree that would flower in the
Springtime, as a much slower growth cycle, and also, even if it were to be neglected in the
future, by some other owner, isn’t going to overwhelm a 15 foot strip of land. To support, you
know, what the arborists were saying, I included a couple of different things, and basically, you
know, talking about structural pruning of trees, structural problems of this type should have been
corrected when the trees were earlier in their growth stage. At this point, it’s predisposing the
trees to internal decay and unfortunately, you know, there is some concerns to it, and I included
a photograph of the Y’s in the trees. What’s happening right now is all water and everything’s
getting into the center of these trees, and they’re beginning to rot. There’s not a lot of room for
the tree to break off and either fall against the building or into the road, which is a problem. So,
as I said, starting with, let’s prune these trees and kind of get them to a presentable, cleaned up
look. It’s kind of turned into a little bit more of a project than I originally was planning on, but,
you know, while we’re here, let’s do the whole thing. Let’s figure out what we’re going to do. So
I included that, and I don’t know if the Board has any questions on the trees, you know, while I’m
on that part of Keith’s comments.
MR. HUNSINGER-Questions on the?
MR. SIPP-Well, it’s probably the salt that’s killing them.
MR. CARR-Yes. They’re fairly salt resistant. It’s more the structure of the tree that’s the
problem than the health. Now the evergreen trees that are there, yes, the salt is causing the
tree to, both trees are in very poor health, and they’re overgrown. I mean, there’s a light that’s
there. They’re growing into that, and I think if you look at the outside, I don’t know if we have a
photograph of the front of the building, but, you know, it’s just kind of an overgrown, you know,
it’s just got an overgrown, neglected, abandoned kind of look to the front of the building, which I
don’t think is fitting with that area. Lafayette Street, it looks a little bit more like a viable
business, but from Glen Street, it just kind of has an overgrown, maybe nobody cares kind of
look to it, and that’s kind of what we’re hoping to change. There’s some rotten wood that’s
there, and, you know, kind of improve that. Right next door is Glens Falls National. They do a
beautiful job with their landscaping. The grass that’s there can get sun to it. They’ve got bushes
next to the foundation. It has a very nice look to it, and I think that’s more the general look of
what we’re trying to achieve with this site. The other part is, you know, is dealing with the
flowers and trying to improve the site of, you know, the general feel of the site, where it’s less
strip mall look to it I guess would be one way to describe it. A little background about myself,
and I know you guys see a lot of people. We’ve, you know, the businesses that I’ve got up in
Lake George, we’ve worked, you know, in the last eight years we’ve won two beautification
awards, which we’re, you know, proud of, mainly because of the landscaping and the effort that
we put into the façade of the building, with the flowers, and, you know, to be honest with you, I
get more bang for my buck from flowers than I do from advertising in the newspaper. Just, you
know, it looks nice, people want to stop there, which is a little bit different philosophy than
maybe most business people take, but, you know, judging from the comment cards that we get
at the restaurants, it certainly works. The building looks good outside. They’re curious, they
want to stop in. So that’s kind of the general gist of it. It is a, I think, a pretty significant corner.
It’s a very visible corner, and also from Glens Falls National, the drive through that’s there, that’s
got to be the busiest drive through in Upstate New York. There’s cars there constantly. So
they’re all looking at the side of the building, which currently has no landscaping whatsoever.
There is not a single bush, shrub, flower, anything on the side of that building at all, and it’s, I
don’t know how many square feet of yellow vinyl siding that you look at when you’re parked at
the drive through, but as part of our plan, we’re hoping to put some foundation plantings along
the side of the building to break that up, and also along the back of the building, there’s kind of a
service entrance. There’s a garage door there and there’s a dumpster that’s there, is to improve
that area and kind of screen it off with some arborvitaes to kind of block that, you know, that
area a little bit, and just give it a, the whole property, not just the front, but the whole side and
rear of the property, a little bit more of a landscaped look than this Woodbury’s lumber store sort
of feel is the general gist of that. I did include a list of the plants that we would be putting in
there, primarily because of the southern exposure. There’s quite a bit of sun. If the trees are
removed, there’s sun that can actually get to the grass, get to the flowers, you know, and it
should be a fairly appealing corner once it’s done, putting in some stone, you know, like a small
stone wall to, you know, just set it off just a little bit. It will require approval from DOT, although I
doubt they’ll have problems with people planting flowers on State right of ways, but, you know,
just to check with them on what that’s going to be. We’re not going to change any outside
lighting. We’re not adding any outside lighting. We’re not doing any of that. We are, the goals
of your zoning encourages sidewalks, public transportation, things like that. The only sheltered
29
(Queensbury Planning Board 12/21/2010)
bus stop that I’m aware of in that section is up by the Staples plaza, kind of further up, because
that crosswalk is there, and it does get a fair amount of use, with people crisscrossing back and
forth, seems like a pretty natural place for a bus stop, you know, and so I put it on the plan, you
know, just to say, hey, I’m comfortable with it if the Glens Falls Transit wants to put one there, I
think it’s a good idea. I think it’s a logical place for it, especially with the crosswalk and Price
Chopper being there, it’s probably one of the safest ways to get from that side of the street to the
Price Chopper store itself without crossing directly in front. We’ve also added, you know, just
some park like features to just, again, set the corner off and make it less commercial looking.
Again, nothing fancy, I think a couple of benches and some flowers, just to set that corner in a
little different light than what’s up the street from us, which tends to be your more typical strip
mall type feel. So at the end of the day, you know, it should have a fairly good feel to it from
Glen Street and also from Lafayette when you’re at the drive through at Glens Falls National.
So, any questions so far?
MR. HUNSINGER-Questions, comments from the Board?
MR. SIPP-One of those, in that area in the front there in the, planting those flowers and the yews
and the pines and so forth. The yews are salt resistant, but some of the pines may be slightly
damaged, but they’re better than what you’ve got there now.
MR. CARR-Right, yes, and I’m hoping raising it up slightly, you know, will make it a little less
likely to get that far in there, and I think what’s there now is, like you said, it’s just, it’s such a
small, 15 feet, you know, isn’t a very big area for the size of the trees that are there, the front
part of the building, you know, so by placing trees like, you know, apple trees and things that are
a little less susceptible to salt damage, and again, some of the new pines that are available are
fairly resistive, you know, it’s not just, you know, white pine you take down on, you know, on
your back lot. It’s, you know, they’re specifically designed for those types of applications and
will weather much better than most in those situations. So, I think that will, I’m hoping that will
help to.
MR. SIPP-Yes, definitely.
MR. CARR-Yes, the main thing right now is it’s just overgrown, and looks neglected is what the
feel of the building is from the front.
MR. MAGOWAN-Those trees used to be lit all the time, many years ago. Is that some of the
wires you see still hanging on the tree?
MR. CARR-Yes. There’s stuff, there’s wires there. There’s an old sprinkler.
MR. MAGOWAN-Yes, those trees were like wired up for lights I think all the time, many, many
years ago.
MR. CARR-Yes, and I think having an appropriate size tree lit up at this time of the year would
look beautiful there. I think it would have a good, you know, a nice feel to it, with it being
tastefully done at the same time, and I would think it would, you know, be fitting with that area to
do something like that. I wouldn’t want to light them from underneath. I think that would, you
know, probably not fit with the feel of what we’re trying to accomplish.
MR. MAGOWAN-No, I’m saying that, I’m looking at these, and it looks like in one of these
pictures that’s a, you know, could be a branch or is that part of the old lighting wire?
MR. CARR-There’s a bunch of old wires that like, I think, I don’t know if they had Christmas
lights in them or what, but there’s wires that have kind of grown into the tree, and.
MR. MAGOWAN-That’s my concern are weakness in that, because it would choke it out and it’s
weakened the bark areas there.
MR. CARR-Yes. I’m hoping those wires are all disconnected. I think that they are, but.
MR. MAGOWAN-I think they are. They haven’t worked in years, but the tree’s definitely grown
around them.
MR. CARR-Yes, and again, it’s not a normal, it’s a very fast growing type of tree, and that, with,
nobody’s been out pruning it while it’s been going through this crown forming stage, and
unfortunately it’s just, going in and trying to either prune the crown and bringing it back in is not
an easy thing to do with not having a central trunk is the problem. When the tree comes up and
immediately splits into fairly large competing trunks, which is what’s causing.
30
(Queensbury Planning Board 12/21/2010)
MR. SIPP-Somebody said, I read here that cottonwood, and that’s not a cottonwood.
MR. CARR-I don’t know what it is. I looked it up in my tree book, and I can’t find it, and so it’s
some hybrid of some type of tree. Nobody seems to know what the tree actually is.
MR. MAGOWAN-It looks like a shrub gone wild.
MR. CARR-It kind of, yes, it’s like a radioactive bush that just, you know, took off. Even with the
leaves, it almost looks like some type of an oak, but it’s not an oak that is native to this area. It’s
a strange, you know, a strange tree. The other questions that the Staff brought up, which are
good questions there, and I think I can remedy some of the problems that have come up with the
impervious space towards the rear part of the building, which is where the problem seems to lie.
When we get heavy, heavy rains, there’s an area at the rear of the building, and I think the Staff
had some photographs of that, so in removing some impervious space, I’m trying to do it in
areas where it would help, and it takes, you know, a few hours for that to subside. A lot of it is
coming, you’ll notice the driveway that is in the lower right hand corner. Currently that is 18 feet
wide, which is not necessary. What we would look to do is reduce that by three feet to fifteen
feet, which would still allow for any type of vehicle, tractor trailers whatever need to get through
there, and also to include some check dams on the side of that, and you’ll notice in the handout I
gave you guys tonight, the green areas would be the areas to be removed, and I did some quick
calculations there, just to kind of give the Board a sense of, you know, just what we’d be doing,
and I apologize about getting these to you tonight. I just got the note from the Staff yesterday,
but in removing the square footage, we would also be adding some check dams to reduce the
flows in other areas of the property, so that all that curbed area currently flows into this area, and
is compounding the problem. By adding a couple of check dams would slow that down in other
areas of the property. Also to remove a three foot strip from the parking area between this Buy
Low lot and the tire store next door and replace it with a stone trench type design, which would
help store the water so it could dissipate into the soils that are there. The soils that are there are
fairly good soils. There’s not a lot of groundwater problems, so, you know, this type of design
should work well to give the water a place to go while it’s being absorbed, and, you know, should
help. We’ve also, in the rear of the building, looking to remove some other impervious stuff
that’s there. So, instead of taking it from the front part of the property, taking it from the area of
the property where, you know, it does pool up. It does subside, but it’s, and it’s, a lot of the, it’s
not water that’s leaving the property, it’s water that’s on the property that is being handled
currently on site, but looking to just give the water more place to go and, you know, should work
well in doing that and still not require extensive digging and drywells and things, it’ll serve that
same function. I did include some, you know, some basic design ideas showing infiltration
trenches and, you know, how they’re constructed, and this won’t be a very large one, but it will, I
think, alleviate some of that problem that’s, you know, that’s existing there, and again, the water
doesn’t leave the property. It’s not effecting any adjoining properties or any municipal
properties, but, you know, after heavy rains it pools up for, I don’t know, have you tracked how
long it’s? Okay. I mean, it’s at least a few hours that it pools up there and it slowly drains
through, but, you know, it is a problem that I think we can remedy, you know, at the same time
that we’re working with our impervious calculations to allow for the sidewalk in the front part of
the building.
MR. HUNSINGER-One of the Staff comments was that there’s, additional proposals for the site
have been discussed.
MR. CARR-Yes. In an effort to get financing for the property, it’s an 18,000 square foot building.
It used to have about 40 people that worked in offices there. It was, I don’t know if anybody ever
went to Woodbury’s and, you know, has been in that front part of the building, but there were, I
don’t, there’s got to be 50 offices up there, and.
MR. MAGOWAN-That would be a maze of offices, if I remember correctly.
MR. CARR-A maze of offices. There are all kinds of, about 5,000 feet of fiber optic cables, you
know, running between each office. At some, you know, currently, the carpet store that I’m
operating, we’re using about 10,000 of the 18,000 square feet. So that whole front of the
building is currently vacant, and has been for probably 10 years or so at least. At some point, I
would, as any, I guess property owner would do, and anyone on Glen Street would probably do
with 8,000 feet of empty space, we’d probably seek a tenant and come before the Board to
make a proposal.
MR. HUNSINGER-Okay.
MR. CARR-At this time, I don’t have the financial resources to sprinkler renovate, do all of that,
but, you know, that is part of the plan that we’d like to do, and it was part of what allowed me to
get financing for the property is to be able to show I can support what’s there because of the fact
31
(Queensbury Planning Board 12/21/2010)
that there’s 18,000 square feet, and I’m only going to use 10,000 of it. So, at some point, yes,
you know, whether it’s going to be offices, retail, I have no idea what that space is going to be.
Myself, personally, I don’t have any plans for it at this point. I’ve got enough going on just
getting the carpet store back on its feet, but, yes, in the future, and I think, you know, it is a good
corner. It’s a, you know, predominant corner in Queensbury, and, you know, to do something
there that would improve that Glen Street side of things would be advantageous for the
community, myself, the tenants, everybody.
MR. HUNSINGER-Okay.
MR. MAGOWAN-And you’re taking like a trailer a day of stuff out of there.
MR. CARR-It’s funny. The dumpster’s in the rear of the building, but I think they took everything
that they ever wanted to throw away and brought it to the 8,000 square feet in the front. The
basement was full. The first floor was full. Every wire rack that they ever had that sold carpet
they put upstairs, and I hauled about, I don’t know, probably about eight tons worth of just steel
out of the front, and it’s just, I don’t know why they saved receipts from, you know, 1989 and
newspaper ads from way back when, but you know, that’s the kind of stuff we’re cleaning out
right now to just get at what’s there. We’ll require, obviously, depending on use, Site Plan, it will
require sprinkler systems. I mean, there’s going to be quite a bit that goes into it if it’s something
other than offices, and again, I would be bringing that to this Board, and there’d be other
changes with these other uses with, you know, signage and things like that that we would, I’m
anticipating being here again, hopefully within the next year.
MR. HUNSINGER-Other questions, comments? We do have a public hearing scheduled this
evening. I will open the public hearing. Is there anyone that wants to comment on this
application? Written comments, Keith?
MR. OBORNE-No sir.
MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. I mean, we do have a number of outstanding items.
MR. CARR-And the two relating to Glens Falls Transit and to DOT, you know, DOT I don’t
anticipate a problem. Obviously that could be a condition, you know, before I do anything I get
approvals from them.
MR. HUNSINGER-Right.
MR. CARR-They do tend to prefer to see, you know, some suggestions from this Board first, I
suppose. Whether it’s an approval or something to that nature before they’ll, they don’t want to
supersede your Board. So, I guess, you know, that would be my approach there, and with
Glens Falls Transit, it’s there for the record. I will allow the use. I will encourage the use for a
bus stop. I think it’s a good place for one. Obviously it’s up to them if they decide to put one
there, if they feel it’s necessary, but, for the record, I support it and will support it for perpetuity
with this plan.
MR. HUNSINGER-Well, I think the question on that is where would it be located?
MR. CARR-It would be located in the front.
MR. HUNSINGER-You’d need to show the shelter on your site plan.
MR. CARR-I showed an area. I think you had one other photograph from that north corner, no, I
guess we don’t.
MR. OBORNE-I can get you the overhead, though.
MR. TRAVER-Well, I think Glens Falls Transit probably would have something to say about
where that would.
MR. CARR-They would probably have a preference. Originally, and bear with me here if I, on
one of the, you know, drawings, and forgive my, I don’t have a fancy CAD system to do these
things, but my proposal was on the north, it would be the northwest corner of the property kind of
where the mattress store joins Buy Low, which would put it just to the north of the crosswalk,
seemed to be a fairly logical space that would be far enough off of the corner of Glen and
Lafayette. Again, I’m sure they have their preferences, but that seemed to be a fairly safe, good
place to put it, but I support putting it wherever they would want to put it, and I think a structure
would probably make more sense, but whatever their preferences are, I would have no problem
with. I think the fact that there’s a crosswalk there, you know, it makes sense to have something
32
(Queensbury Planning Board 12/21/2010)
like this here. The next crosswalk that’s available for the public is way up on Quaker. So there
isn’t a lot of good, I mean, there’s a few good crosswalks, but, you know, there is a fair amount
of crosswalks there, and if, especially with the neighbors living across the street and the park
being there, I mean, there’s a, there is a decent, I mean, there is a path worn through the lawn to
get from Lafayette to the front of the property now. I would anticipate at, you know, over time, 20
years from now, that, you know, public transportation would probably look to develop more bus
stops and more things along the route, I would hope. So I think this would be a good spot to
have it on the record that they know this exists, and the Planning Office knows that this
opportunity exists, and to know that there’s a private property owner that would encourage that
type of activity.
MR. TRAVER-Are you pretty confident that the reduction in the impervious that you’ve given us
tonight will negate the need for a variance?
MR. CARR-The calculations that I’ve done, yes, I’m going to trust that Keith’s math was correct,
and he can verify that what I’m removing will exceed what his math is, and, you know, there may
be other opportunities to do some more work. Currently there’s a brick sidewalk that’s there
that’s a little overgrown and kind of, we plan on removing that. Again, I didn’t include that
removal in my calculations, but we’ll be removing that, not that it’s, you know, we’re not talking
thousands of square feet, but it’s certainly something that would, you know, would help with that,
and I think the general greening up of the property will accomplish the goals of the zoning, which
is green space and trees and a good feel to it, and, you know, especially towards the later, the
Lafayette side of this property, there’s no landscaping against that building whatsoever, at all.
There’s not a single bush against that building. So it’s, you know, I think the overall effect of the
greening up of it will benefit the property, and I hope my business, you know, in the future,
tenants and, you know, everyone.
MR. HUNSINGER-What’s the feeling of the Board?
MRS. STEFFAN-I think they have some outstanding issues regarding Staff Notes.
MR. SCHONEWOLF-It’s a good project.
MR. TRAVER-Yes, I think it’s a good project. I think that the material that we submitted tonight
is going to need to be, you know, obviously looked at and the calculations that we discussed
performed and that kind of thing.
MRS. STEFFAN-The applicant’s looking for a waiver from stormwater requirements, and it’s
certainly, based on the photographs of some of the input, it doesn’t look like we would want to
grant a waiver. We would want.
MR. TRAVER-Well, that’s it, we had the problem with a recent application where they asked for
a waiver and then submitted some stormwater controls. So, and I think we’re, you know, it
doesn’t seem like there are a lot of issues here, and we have what looks like a plan to address
them, but they’ll need to be looked at obviously.
MR. HUNSINGER-Anyone else want to comment? So we’re looking to table this. Is there any
new information that we want to see?
MR. MAGOWAN-Well, I guess the only thing that I would probably say is that, you know, in the
reduction is, I see what you’re trying to achieve here. Do we need, you know, the engineer to
sign off on it?
MR. CARR-I guess, because it’s a landscaping plan first, you know what I mean, I’m trying to
keep it simple, I suppose. At some point I’m anticipating, you know, some other uses on this
property. What they’ll be I don’t know. It would make sense to come, at that point, with a little
more industrial plan, you know.
MR. TRAVER-It sounds like your project is going to be moving forward in a series of phases.
MR. CARR-Yes.
MR. TRAVER-And at this point you’re looking at trying to improve the landscaping to make the
property more saleable and more compliant, more attractive.
MR. CARR-Right, yes. It started as a tree pruning project, and now I’m into stormwater
engineers, and I just, you know what I mean, at some point I will be, you know what I mean, with
parking, with, you know, there’ll be other things. I’d like to improve the façade of the building.
I’d like to add a little bit more of a retail look to the building.
33
(Queensbury Planning Board 12/21/2010)
MR. TRAVER-One thing that might be helpful. You have a lot of great ideas, and it seems like a
really good opportunity here, both for yourself and for the Town. It might be really worth
investing some time with Staff, with Town Staff, to try to develop a little bit more of a structured,
phased plan where you have a clear goal for say the coming year. You’re going to do exactly
what you want to do. You have a lot of ideas. The difficulty for us is that, if we don’t see it on
paper, then we can’t really analyze it, and you say, well, I might do this over there, and it kind of,
it’s a little confusing.
MR. CARR-And that was, you know, Keith and I did discuss it, you know, it was, and I agree with
you, it’s, you know, what could 18,000 square feet on the corner of Lafayette and Glen be? It
could be anything. Given, one, the economy, two, lack of financial resources on my part. Is it
going to happen tomorrow? Probably not.
MR. TRAVER-And what I’m suggesting, that would make it simpler for you and for us, would be,
you know, keeping that long term goal in mind, what can you put together to get through this
initial process to get your initial landscaping and so on going. There may be some of these
things that you’ll want to, and perhaps stormwater and so on, and clearly there are some issues
there that need to be addressed, I think if you discuss those with Staff and decide at what point
those want to be included, and then present to us a cogent plan to say, okay, this is what I’m
doing now.
MR. CARR-Yes. At this point, I do not have any prospective tenants. I do not have the property
listed for rent because I cannot make the renovations. I have my hands full with trying to sort
out the carpet store, and quite simply, at this point, I just want to clean up the outside of the
building.
MR. TRAVER-Right.
MR. CARR-That’s all I want to do. Now if a month from now somebody comes to me, fine. If it’s
two years from now, it’s two years from now, but at this point, I think the outside of the building is
a detriment to me with the carpet business that I’m trying to run. It’s a detriment to the
community, and I think that’s a priority to fix that as soon as possible. It’s basically January, you
know, I could start this in March, and be ready to go by, you know, have flowers growing in May.
MR. TRAVER-Sure.
MR. CARR-And I think at this point, that’s what I, trees and flowers, you know, it’s an 18,000
square foot commercial building. Probably there’s going to be things that this Board will see for
years to come, but what those will be, I can’t anticipate that. It’s very difficult for me.
MR. TRAVER-Right. We understand.
MR. CARR-And that was kind of where, when I did meet with Keith, his strategy was, John, keep
it simple. What do you want to do? I just want to do landscaping. That’s it, but, out of courtesy
to the Board, you know, there will be other things that I will try to do with an 18,000 square foot
building, out of fairness to you. I’m not trying to hide anything. It’s there. Stop by any time I’ll
show it to you.
MR. TRAVER-We appreciate getting your insight and look forward to seeing this, this is an area
that I think, as I said, will benefit everybody.
MR. CARR-It’s a big yellow warehouse sitting on a prime corner in Queensbury.
MR. SCHONEWOLF-Before we can approve anything, why don’t you give us what you’re going
to do in the next six months in a written plan. There’s got to be a little more than that, I think.
Address some of the issues that the Board told you about tonight and also the timing and a little
more specific on the landscaping, and work with Staff and give it to us in a written plan and then
we can, at a meeting, we can approve it or disapprove it.
MR. CARR-Just so I can prepare with the Staff, are there specific items that you need? I mean,
I listed all the flowers, the trees, where they’re going to go.
MR. TRAVER-You’ve given us some material tonight. I think now it’s a matter of following up,
not before us, but rather with Staff, to say, okay, here is, I’ve submitted some additional, for
example, some additional information with regards to impervious. We need to put that into, we
need to add to the project that we’re looking at so that that’s clear to us that that issue, for
example, is off the table.
34
(Queensbury Planning Board 12/21/2010)
MR. CARR-Would the Board request a full blown engineered stormwater plan or what degree
or? I mean, this thing can become quite a project very, I mean, it started as a tree pruning
project, and now I’m into stormwater.
MR. TRAVER-That’s why I suggest that you are, should invest some time discussing with Staff
whether you wanted to just address, you know, the amount of involvement you have in changing
the land as it currently is, at some point you’re going to run into kind of a threshold where
stormwater management is going to become an issue. So you need to decide, for example, do
you want to do the sort of minimal amount of landscaping and so on so that you avoid
addressing stormwater now and you address that later when you do more work on the project,
or maybe it makes more sense for you to address all those issues now, since you’re going to be
doing, changing the grounds and doing some landscaping, maybe it makes more sense to look
at stormwater now. That’s not something that I think I could suggest, but I think that probably
with, in some consultation with Staff, you can, in your own mind, get a clearer idea of whether or
not that’s got to be included or not, but certainly when it comes to us, we’ve got to, if it’s not
there, we’ve got to know why. If it is there, we’ve got to take a look at it.
MR. CARR-And I guess, because I’ll be seeing you tomorrow or shortly thereafter, is that
enough information that you know?
MR. OBORNE-I think what we need to land on is what does the Board want? Is the Board
willing to give the applicant a pass on the stormwater right now? And my feeling is, it’s not a big
deal if you do, because he doesn’t have any tenants in there right now. So he really doesn’t
need the parking that’s under a foot and a half of water right now, but eventually that’s going to
need to be addressed.
MR. TRAVER-Right.
MR. OBORNE-Two, you need to talk to Department of Transportation and Greater Glens Falls
Transit, at least get them on board with this.
MR. CARR-Okay.
MR. OBORNE-Three would be you still have to offer up that permeability. Which you have, I
haven’t vetted it, but it can be vetted, but part of that permeability is stormwater. So if you can,
and this is my suggestion to you, is maybe offer up the permeability without the stormwater
controls, if you can at all.
MR. CARR-Yes. I just want to make sure that you and I, when I get back, come back to see you
again I have all my ducks in a row.
MR. OBORNE-One of the issues that I see right off the bat with the stormwater is your access
aisle is you’re reducing it to 15 feet. Code requires 24 feet for two way traffic, and at the very
minimum, you can, I better not say that, but at the very minimum, you can, 20 feet is what you
need for emergency vehicles. You have to have 20 feet.
MR. CARR-Okay. This is a secondary connection between the two lots. It’s currently 18 feet.
MR. OBORNE-Right, and that’s been approved. That was previously approved. So it’s pre-
existing, non-conforming with today’s Code.
MR. CARR-Okay.
MR. OBORNE-So it’s not an issue. So I think, landscaping, get that taken care of, as far as
getting (lost word), or at least having some type of conversation with the two entities that have
been mentioned, and offer up 514 square feet of additional permeability, in one form or another.
MR. CARR-And you and I can work on where to find that.
MR. HUNSINGER-And then, of course, you’ll need to update the Site Development Data.
MR. OBORNE-Right, and we can work through that. That’s just a basic formula. That’s not a
big deal.
MR. CARR-Okay.
MR. OBORNE-And you’ll want to see that all wrapped up in a nice tight bow.
MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. So, I mean, if we table this until February.
35
(Queensbury Planning Board 12/21/2010)
MR. CARR-I’d like to get, the sooner the better, if possible.
th
MRS. STEFFAN-It has to be February, because January 15’s the deadline for material
submission.
MR. CARR-Okay.
MR. TRAVER-And hopefully we could give you something to get started on.
MR. CARR-Right.
MR. TRAVER-And while that’s underway, you could begin planning Phase II. Possibly, but at
least you’ll have something actionable.
MR. CARR-I’ve got to sell a lot of carpet for Phase II.
th
MR. HUNSINGER-So February 15, if someone wants to make a motion to table.
MRS. STEFFAN-Okay.
MOTION TO TABLE SITE PLAN NO. 79-2010 LANDCRAFTERS, LLC, CARR
DEVELOPMENT, LLC, Introduced by Gretchen Steffan who moved for its adoption, seconded
by Paul Schonewolf:
Tax Map ID 302.6-1-58.1, 704 Glen Street
A site plan application has been made to the Queensbury Planning Board for the following:
Applicant proposes a change to existing site landscaping to include the installation of on-site
sidewalks, seating and potential future bus stop. Changes in site design in the CI zone require
Planning Board review and approval
A public hearing was advertised and held on 12/21/2010; and
This application is supported with all documentation, public comment and application material in
the file of record;
MOTION TO TABLE SITE PLAN NO. 79-2010 LANDCRAFTERS, LLC, CARR
DEVELOPMENT, LLC, Introduced by Gretchen Steffan who moved for its adoption, seconded
by Paul Schonewolf:
th
Tabled to the February 15 Planning Board meeting, submission deadline date for new
th
materials would be January 17. This is so that the applicant can address these items:
1.The applicant will update Site Development Data.
2.Correspondence with Greater Glens Falls Transit concerning the proposed future
bus stop needs to be provided.
3.The applicant also needs to provide certifiable information concerning the status and
health of the trees to be removed.
4.The applicant also needs to provide the potential submittal of an Area Variance for
permeability or a location of additional green space required to avoid an Area
Variance.
5.The applicant also needs approval from both the New York State Department of
Transportation and the Town of Queensbury Highway Department for proposed
changes to the jurisdictional right of way.
st
Duly adopted this 21 day of December, 2010, by the following vote:
AYES: Mr. Magowan, Mr. Schonewolf, Mr. Sipp, Mrs. Steffan, Mr. Krebs, Mr. Traver,
Mr. Hunsinger
NOES: NONE
MR. HUNSINGER-And just let the record show the public hearing was kept open. Thank you.
36
(Queensbury Planning Board 12/21/2010)
MR. OBORNE-John, give me a call, make sure I can cull out some time and we can sit down.
MR. CARR-Okay. Thank you.
SITE PLAN NO. 75-2010 SEQR TYPE UNLISTED HUDSON RIVER LOCAL DEVELOPMENT
CORPORATION AGENT(S) BARTLETT PONTIFF STEWART & RHODES; LA GROUP;
JERSEN CONSTRUCTION ZONING CLI [COMMERCIAL LIGHT IND.] LOCATION 33
STONE QUARRY ROAD APPLICANT PROPOSES A 25,000+/- SQ. FT. BUILDING FOR USE
AS AN OFFICE/WAREHOUSE/ MANUFACTURING FACILITY.
OFFICE/WAREHOUSE/MANUFACTURING FACILITY IN A CLI ZONE REQUIRES PLANNING
BOARD REVIEW AND APPROVAL. CROSS REFERENCE SUB 12-03 WARREN CO.
PLANNING 12/8/10 LOT SIZE 3.80 +/- ACRES TAX MAP NO. 303.12-1-9.5 SECTION 179-
9
JON LAPPER, JIM MARTIN & MIKE BORGOS, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT
MR. OBORNE-Site Plan 75-2010, Hudson River Local Development Corporation is the
applicant. Requested action: Office warehouse/manufacturing facility requires Planning Board
review and approval. 33 Stone Quarry Road, Lot Four is the location. CLI, Commercial Light
Industrial, is the existing zoning. This is an Unlisted SEQRA. Project Description: Applicant
proposes a 25,000 square foot building for use as an office/warehouse manufacturing facility
located on Lot 4, a 3.80 acre parcel in the Queensbury Industrial Park. The Hudson River Local
Development Corporation intends to market this parcel, with site plan approval, as a shovel
ready site. What follows is soils, and what follows, and everybody must keep in mind that soil
surveys are a general guide and may not fully or accurately describe existing site conditions.
What follows is Site Plan Review. There were a few issues. My issues pale in comparison to
the engineering issues at this point. My issues really are easy and should not pose any
challenges for the applicant, but attached are the Paragon Engineering review of this plan, and,
with that, I shall turn it over to the Board.
MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. Thank you. Good evening.
MR. LAPPER-Good evening, everybody. For the record, Jon Lapper with Jim Martin. Mike
Borgos is here on behalf of the applicant, and Jay Hopeck on behalf of Jersen Construction. As
our application explained, and Keith briefly mentioned this, the goal here is to have a true shovel
ready site in the Queensbury Industrial Park for marketing purposes. So we tried to be generic,
so that it would be useful for many applications that are permitted in the Industrial Park, but also
the goal is to have this on the shelf and start marketing it and hopefully somebody will come
along quickly and want to build a building and employ people. That was the goal when Warren
County EDC started the Industrial Park and got that approved by this Board. Of course we just
got the Staff Notes and engineering comments yesterday, and although the engineering
comments are numerous, we think that they’re mostly technical and really fairly straightforward.
So our goal tonight, after Jim walks you through the project, is to see if there are other issues of
this Board, and then to get a resubmission to address the engineering issues as soon as
possible and get back here and hopefully be ready to approve it. So, with that, let me hand it
over to Jim.
MR. MARTIN-Good evening everyone. As Jon indicated, we’re here for Lot Four in the
Queensbury Industrial Park. The site is about, overall, 3.8 acres in size. We’re proposing a
building of approximately 25,000 square feet that would basically occur in two formats. The
front portion of the building would be a two story office area. The second part of the building
towards the rear would be more of a flex base on one floor, allowing for varying types of Light
Industrial type uses, you know, from assembly, some production, to just outright warehousing,
and it was designed purposely so. All told there’d be roughly give or take 50 employees,
depending on the specific tenant that’s identified. The resulting site plan shown here, we’re
providing 63 spaces of parking, 48 are required. So we’re in excess there, but we wanted to
have that cushion, so we can accommodate a range of tenants on the site. Loading dock
spaces shown towards the rear of the building and that one story level. It’s basically a fairly
straightforward site plan and use of the site, certainly in conformance with the use schedule, all
the zoning setbacks and so on. There is one unique aspect to the setback situation. There is a
Type C buffer required along the, I believe it is the western property line, and that has been
provided, and we are landscaping according to the requirements of that Type C buffer. The
setback along the NiMo property, being a public utility, we had a discussion with Staff, and they
agree that that being a utility use is, there are like uses there and the buffer’s not required along
that one property line. So, I mean, that’s pretty much it in terms of the site. We do have the
technical comments from the engineer. Although they appear to be somewhat voluminous in
their number, I don’t think there’s anything in there that’s a deal breaker or a fatal flaw, and we
just have to work our way through those with Clark and Staff. So, you know, I don’t think there’s
37
(Queensbury Planning Board 12/21/2010)
anything, you know, like I said, a deal breaker there, but we just have to have some opportunity
to clean some things up.
MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. Questions, comments from the Board?
MR. TRAVER-How flexible are you with regards to the building design? I know you don’t have a
tenant yet, and I understand the idea. It’s like kind of a neat idea to have a ready to go type
structure, but do you feel that you can be flexible and kind of change the design if a potential
tenant comes and says, you know, I like the concept but I want it, you know, this way, or?
MR. LAPPER-Yes, Steve, that certainly could happen, depending upon the specific nature of the
use, but at least this way it’s approved and it’ll be a modification to say here’s what you
approved and we just have to make some minor changes to accommodate this tenant.
MR. TRAVER-Got you. Okay.
MR. SCHONEWOLF-Do you have any potential tenants?
MR. LAPPER-Not at this point, but since the armory’s in there, you know, it’s a viable park, it’s
near the Airport park, good access, and part of this is all, what Jay’s company, Jersen, is doing a
lot of work at the Malta park right now, a huge amount of work, and so EDC I know is hoping and
anticipating that there’ll be a demand for some of the companies that are looking to be outside of
Malta to be up here. So this is just a way to really get on the map.
MR. MARTIN-It’s also hugely advantageous with an industrial type use here that we have a
sewered and watered industrial park, all up to Code.
MR. TRAVER-Right, ready to go.
MR. MARTIN-So it is ready to go, and we’re just trying to get one step closer, one discretionary
approval closer to having a really shovel ready site.
MR. SCHONEWOLF-Because that’s a big selling point right now. Right?
MR. MARTIN-Right. The idea of predictability and reliability in the process is key.
MR. LAPPER-At the same time, it takes timing.
MR. MARTIN-So we’re trying to get to that point.
MRS. STEFFAN-I think the only things you need to do is address Staff Notes and engineering
comments, because we don’t know, we don’t have a tenant. We don’t have a use. All the
questions we would ask regarding those things, there are no answers.
MR. MARTIN-And really, in terms of the, if we want to narrow the technical comments down
further, it really is centering around the stormwater issue on this site, because if, I don’t know
how much you recall from your subdivision approval, but there are somewhat challenging
conditions here with shallow depth to bedrock and things like that that we have to really put
some fine tuning on the stormwater approach here, and that’s what we have to work towards.
MR. HUNSINGER-I think one of the Staff comments was about ledge and any blasting
requirements. Do you have a greater sense for how much may be required on this site?
MR. MARTIN-Well, all I can tell you is we did some rather thorough, in the field test pit, we had, I
believe seven test pits were dug, and six were monitored. We have a soil scientist on our staff
that was present during the digging of the test pits, and even within the confines of a relatively
small lot, we’re seeing a lot of variation in the depth to bedrock. For example, if you see, if Keith
can point to the stormwater pond there towards the front of the site, there’s a large stormwater
pond by the road, the dark gray there. Fortunately, given the layout of this lot, this is really a
nice approach to the overall use of the lot, in terms of building placement and stormwater pond
placement, and where the pond is proposed, that’s where we found the shallowest, or I mean,
the deepest amount of soil available. There were some more shallow, as you got to the north of
this site, some of the test pits did indicate a little bit more shallow soil layer, and so my point is it
does fluctuate across even this small site, that depth to bedrock.
MRS. STEFFAN-Wal-Mart learned that when they were (lost word) their building.
MR. HUNSINGER-I was going to say, we were on site visits a few months ago and we saw the
blasting going on for the Wal-Mart not too far away.
38
(Queensbury Planning Board 12/21/2010)
MR. KREBS-But also, learn from what Wal-Mart did. I mean, Galusha did an excellent job there.
MR. HUNSINGER-Yes, absolutely.
MR. KREBS-What they did is they took all that bedrock, they broke it up, they crushed it and
then they used it as the sub for all the parking areas.
MR. MARTIN-And I think we would do a similar approach here, and there may be uses of larger
fragments, landscaping features and things like that, to keep it on site and not have to export it.
MR. HUNSINGER-Sure. That was going to be one of my questions is what would you do with
the blasting if you had to, with any ledge that you take out.
MR. MARTIN-There are several areas that, obviously building footings, sewer and water
laterals, and drainage pipes, and given the routing that we’re seeing, it doesn’t appear that
there’s going to be much blasting. There could be some potential that we don’t have any at all,
but I think all your points are well taken. It’s always good to plan for worst case scenario, and
that’s what we’re going to do a little more fine tuning on, to see where that may have to be done.
MR. KREBS-And you may not want to do too much of it, because in the semi-conductor
industry, if you get people from that industry having bedrock and having a very solid, non-
vibrational surface is very important.
MR. MARTIN-It’s advantageous, yes, that’s right.
MR. SIPP-I’d just say that that, to me, is a very important thing in an industry that’s going to be
so fine in their ability to produce electronic devices.
MRS. STEFFAN-Most of the ancillary and supply businesses don’t have to have that level of
precision. They’re usually just supplying, not manufacturing.
MR. SIPP-Did you ever test the depth of that bedrock?
MR. MARTIN-No, that we did not do. I don’t know how deep it could run through there.
MR. SIPP-An area that’s not too close to there, but we found at six feet we were still digging.
MR. MARTIN-I wouldn’t be surprised.
MR. HUNSINGER-I can’t remember if it was in Staff comments or if it was just my own
comment, but there seemed to be a discrepancy between the cut sheets for the lighting, and
then the lighting plan?
MR. MARTIN-Yes, that is one aspect that, I think it was in the Staff Notes, that does need some
clean up.
MR. HUNSINGER-Okay.
MR. MARTIN-In the first application submission we did not show a lighting plan for the wall
packs. I think that was one of the Staff comments. We will come back with that. The wall packs
will be where they’re supposed to be, over building entrances, over loading dock doors, that type
of thing, and we’ll supply the lighting plan, and then I think in looking at some of the pole lighting,
I think there’s an opportunity maybe to lose one pole in the parking lots because we do have a
lot of overlap, and we’re going to talk to the lighting contractor, the vendor, to see if we can get
some better, more logical spread on the lighting, so we can eliminate one pole, and that’ll be
one thing that the Staff pointed out, and then get some more logical lighting pattern on the site,
with some directional.
MR. HUNSINGER-When you looked at the sample photometric of the fixture, it only shows five
foot candle, but then when you look at the complete lighting plan, you had, you know, 11, 12.
MR. MARTIN-Yes, there’s some inconsistencies there that we’ve got to clean up.
MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. Any other questions, 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? I would ask if you could identify yourself for the record. We do tape the meeting
minutes.
39
(Queensbury Planning Board 12/21/2010)
PUBLIC HEARING OPENED
STAN RYMKEWICZ
MR. RYMKEWICZ-My name is Stan Rymkewicz, and I’m one-third owner of the house at 138,
the next one down, and we’re concerned about mainly water. We do have two sump pumps in
the house now, and it is a full cellar, and so that’s concerned me of water run out. They’re
talking about a pond, and you’re talking about in the summertime mosquitoes. Lighting is
another problem which they’re addressing. Another problem is my cousin owns property up
above in Washington County Industrial Park, you’ve probably read about them in the paper,
having all kinds of noise problems, and I have my scanner on and I hear the neighbors call up
for the sheriff to go and have the people shut their doors at ten o’clock at night because it’s hot
in there, in the building, and the noise is keeping people awake. So, noise is going to be a big
problem, because we do rent this house out, and that could be a problem, because as of right
now you don’t know what’s going in there.
MR. SCHONEWOLF-You’re talking about the pellet, the company that makes pellets?
MR. RYMKEWICZ-Yes.
MR. SCHONEWOLF-Okay.
MR. RYMKEWICZ-He’s got the place for sale, and he’s moving to Stony Creek, that’s how bad it
got, but another neighbor, Kelly, up the road, he calls the sheriff about twice a week in the
summer. That’s our main concern. I’m only one-third owner. My sister and my sister-in-law,
they all agree. I think she has a record of it, my sister calling her this morning. So, that’s all I
have right now.
MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. Thank you. There’s no one in the audience. Are there any written
comments?
MR. OBORNE-Yes, there is. This is a record of a phone conversation, December 20, 2010,
between Miss Bev Benway, property owner within 500 feet of Hudson River LDC project, and
Pam Whiting of the Planning Office. Miss Benway speaking for herself, and on behalf of Stan
Rymkewicz and others, they have concerns about water runoff, lighting, and noise after five p.m.
and who the building will be sold to, and that’s it.
MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. Thank you. We will leave the public hearing open since we intend to
table this application. Did you have any responses to the concerns just raised by the neighbor?
MR. MARTIN-Just quickly on the lighting, all the lighting will be contained within the site, and
with the double checking we’re doing and the refining, we’ll make sure that’s the case, and
there will be no excessive lighting, beyond what’s needed for security at the parking lot, loading
docks and so on. In terms of the stormwater, basically the site flows from north to south, given
the natural drainage pattern, and if you recall the work that was done with the subdivision
drainage system, basically speaking, that pattern continues, and the flow over the overall
subdivision plan is from northwest to southeast, so to speak, diagonally through the site.
MR. LAPPER-So away from the neighbor’s property.
MR. MARTIN-Correct, and there is a major stormwater pond for the subdivision created to the
right side of the road that’s shown there now, and there are a number of those wetlands that
kind of like finger off throughout the site, and that’s basically the drainage flow, we’re not going
to alter that pattern. We’re going to seek to go with it, so to speak, and work with it, and as
indicated on the prior plan, the colored plan, the pond will be to the front of the site, away from
the neighbors, and any spillway or excess water going out of that pond is going to go across the
road and take advantage of the existing system for the subdivision.
MR. LAPPER-And the wetlands that Jim was referring to are not on site. They’re on other lots in
the subdivision.
MR. MARTIN-Correct.
MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. Any questions from the Board? How quickly can you provide the
additional information do you feel?
MR. LAPPER-If we could be back in January, that would be great. Otherwise if we have to stick
th
with the 15 submission and we’ll be back in February.
40
(Queensbury Planning Board 12/21/2010)
MR. HUNSINGER-Yes. I mean, you already missed the deadline for January.
th
MR. LAPPER-Okay. Then we’ll certainly get it in by January 15 and be back in February.
MR. HUNSINGER-Okay.
MR. MARTIN-I told Keith today, I always know how, at that office, earlier is appreciated rather
thth
than later, so we’re going to do all we can to get it in by the 4 or 5. It’s always just better to be
in early.
MR. LAPPER-I guess if we could be on the first meeting in February, that would be appreciated.
th
MR. HUNSINGER-February 15?
MR. LAPPER-Yes.
MRS. STEFFAN-Okay.
MOTION TO TABLE SITE PLAN NO. 75-2010 HUDSON RIVER LOCAL DEVELOPMENT
CORPORATION, Introduced by Gretchen Steffan who moved for its adoption, seconded by Paul
Schonewolf:
Tax Map ID 303.12-1-9.5, 33 Stone Quarry Road
A site plan application has been made to the Queensbury Planning Board for the following:
Applicant proposes a 25,000 +/- sq. ft. building for use as an office/warehouse/manufacturing
facility. Office/warehouse/manufacturing facility in a CLI zone requires Planning Board review
and approval
A public hearing was advertised and held on 12/21/2010; and
This application is supported with all documentation, public comment and application material in
the file of record;
MOTION TO TABLE SITE PLAN NO. 75-2010 HUDSON RIVER LOCAL DEVELOPMENT
CORPORATION, Introduced by Gretchen Steffan who moved for its adoption, seconded by Paul
Schonewolf:
th
This is tabled to the February 15 Planning Board meeting, so that the applicant can address
Staff Notes and engineering comments.
st
Duly adopted this 21 day of December, 2010, by the following vote:
AYES: Mr. Schonewolf, Mr. Sipp, Mr. Magowan, Mrs. Steffan, Mr. Krebs, Mr. Traver,
Mr. Hunsinger
NOES: NONE
MR. HUNSINGER-And just for the record, sir, the public hearing has been left open and we will
th
take additional public comment on February 15, if you care to come to the meeting. If you have
additional comments, we’ll be glad to hear them, or anyone else.
MR. OBORNE-And if I could add to that, the file is open for review. You’re more than welcome
to come into my office and we can discuss anything, all your concerns.
MR. TRAVER-And there’ll be additional information on the project available before the February
th
15 meeting.
MR. HUNSINGER-Okay.
MR. LAPPER-Thanks everybody.
MR. HUNSINGER-Before we consider adjournment, we do have the matter of officer
nominations for next year.
MRS. STEFFAN-I nominate you for Chairman, Chris.
MR. SCHONEWOLF-I second it.
41
(Queensbury Planning Board 12/21/2010)
MOTION TO NOMINATE CHRIS HUNSINGER FOR CHAIRMAN OF THE QUEENSBURY
PLANNING BOARD FOR 2011, Introduced by Gretchen Steffan who moved for its adoption,
seconded by Paul Schonewolf:
st
Duly adopted this 21 day of December, 2010, by the following vote:
AYES: Mr. Schonewolf, Mr. Sipp, Mr. Magowan, Mrs. Steffan, Mr. Krebs, Mr. Traver,
Mr. Hunsinger
NOES: NONE
MR. HUNSINGER-Vice Chairman.
MRS. STEFFAN-Mr. Traver, have you enjoyed your role?
MR. TRAVER-It’s been a blast.
MRS. STEFFAN-Okay.
MOTION TO NOMINATE STEPHEN TRAVER FOR VICE CHAIRMAN OF THE QUEENSBURY
PLANNING BOARD FOR 2011, Introduced by Gretchen Steffan who moved for its adoption,
seconded by Paul Schonewolf:
st
Duly adopted this 21 day of December, 2010, by the following vote:
AYES: Mr. Schonewolf, Mr. Sipp, Mr. Magowan, Mrs. Steffan, Mr. Krebs, Mr. Hunsinger
NOES: NONE
ABSTAINED: Mr. Traver
MR. HUNSINGER-And then finally the office of Secretary.
MR. TRAVER-Hasn’t it been a blast, Gretchen?
MRS. STEFFAN-I have loved every minute of it.
MR. KREBS-I’ll make a motion to have Gretchen Steffan continue her superb job as Secretary.
MOTION TO NOMINATE GRETCHEN STEFFAN FOR SECRETARY OF THE QUEENSBURY
PLANNING BOARD FOR 2011, Introduced by Donald Krebs who moved for its adoption,
seconded by Stephen Traver:
st
Duly adopted this 21 day of December, 2010, by the following vote:
AYES: Mr. Sipp, Mr. Schonewolf, Mr. Magowan, Mr. Krebs, Mr. Traver, Mr. Hunsinger
NOES: NONE
ABSTAINED: Mrs. Steffan
MR. HUNSINGER-I had kind of an announcement to make. I think we all got material about the
th
January 26 Saratoga Planning Conference. Is there a deadline by which we would need to get
information in in order to register, Keith, do you know?
MR. SCHONEWOLF-I think most of us are in.
MR. HUNSINGER-No, I haven’t sent mine in yet, but I intend to.
MR. OBORNE-Yes. I think that on the application itself there’s a deadline date.
MR. HUNSINGER-Okay.
MR. OBORNE-You want to get it in. I don’t know that off the top of my head. All I can say is
ASAP.
MR. HUNSINGER-Yes, I know I’m negligent. I wasn’t sure I was going to be able to do it until
recently.
42
(Queensbury Planning Board 12/21/2010)
MRS. STEFFAN-I, too, am not, I’ve got a couple of outstanding things to schedule. So I wasn’t
sure whether I could go.
MR. HUNSINGER-Yes.
MR. TRAVER-Yes, I think it’s during the week or something.
MR. HUNSINGER-It’s during the week, and I know in the past we’ve had sort of an
organizational kind of meeting early in the year. Not that we need to pick a date or anything
now, but just give that some thought and maybe we could schedule that either in January or
February.
MR. OBORNE-Would you like that scheduled as a workshop or as an addendum to a?
MR. HUNSINGER-No, a workshop.
MR. OBORNE-Okay.
MR. HUNSINGER-And Mr. Traver made a comment regarding the Hayes and Hayes project, if
we want to have that as a special meeting, seeing as how we expect a lot of public comment.
MRS. STEFFAN-Yes. I think that it’s a good idea, considering how much public comment you
can expect.
MR. TRAVER-Yes, I think it deserves that much time, and I think the other applicants that might
be on the agenda on the same night would probably feel slighted that they were, you know, here
until the wee hours and might suffer from our exhaustion, having dealt with the other thing. It’s
something that we’ve done in the past, and I know it’s extra workload for us in some ways, but in
other ways it’s easier to deal with.
MR. HUNSINGER-So I guess when we put the schedule together, Keith, we’ll have to.
MR. TRAVER-Of course we don’t know, yet, when it’s going to be on.
MR. HUNSINGER-Right, exactly.
MR. OBORNE-Well, let’s pick a tentative date at this point, and have, if you wish, obviously, to
have that meeting, pick a date in January, pending resolution of the NOA that’s before the ZBA.
MR. HUNSINGER-Right.
MR. TRAVER-Right.
MR. OBORNE-Because you’re not sure if it’s going to be resolved at this point because there
are some issues with quorum, with the quorum for tomorrow night. So we’ll see.
MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. I mean, typically we would have a special meeting on a Thursday, the
thth
20 or the 27.
MRS. STEFFAN-What about the first Thursday in February? Then if either one of the Zoning
Board meetings in January.
MR. OBORNE-I think that’s pushing it. I think we want to resolve this and get that plan before
and get those E & S issues taken care of before the melt comes.
MRS. STEFFAN-But what happens if they don’t resolve it tomorrow and then they have to go
into January? Then they wouldn’t be on the agenda until the middle of January.
th
MR. OBORNE-I think you bring up a good point. I think the 20 would be logical because then
th
you would have a potential completion of that NOA on the 19 and then you can go forward on
the next day, which gives them two shots at it. I anticipate it being taken care of tomorrow, but,
you know, crazier things have happened.
MRS. STEFFAN-Right. I just don’t want to go through all that scheduling, because I know you
have to get the room, you have to notice it.
MR. OBORNE-I would not put it before any potential ZBA meeting at this point, I think is what
I’m stating, in January.
43
(Queensbury Planning Board 12/21/2010)
MR. HUNSINGER-Yes. Well, I mean, we’re not going to set the January agenda until after
tomorrow night anyway.
MR. OBORNE-That’s correct.
MR. HUNSINGER-I mean, in just kind of thinking it through, we mentioned to the public a couple
th
of times that, you know, we would probably hear it on January 18. So maybe we keep that
th
date for that project and do other business on the 20. I’m just throwing it out there.
MRS. STEFFAN-But what we just said is if it doesn’t get resolved tomorrow night then we could
give them another shot at it in January.
MR. HUNSINGER-Right.
th
MRS. STEFFAN-So it should be the week after, we put it on the 25.
th
MR. TRAVER-You mean the 27?
MR. HUNSINGER-One or the other, yes.
th
MRS. STEFFAN-Yes, on the 27. I’m sorry.
MR. TRAVER-So we just, all of us be aware that we will be hearing tomorrow or, not tomorrow,
the day after tomorrow, about which date we would be, or should we plan now?
MR. OBORNE-Right. You’ll know on Thursday with my debriefing notes, obviously, where that
has landed.
MR. TRAVER-Okay.
MR. HUNSINGER-So, but typically you wouldn’t set the agenda until next week.
MR. OBORNE-Right. The final agenda is.
MR. HUNSINGER-It’s usually the last Thursday of the month.
th
MR. OBORNE-Right. So that would be on the 30 will be the final agenda meeting.
MR. HUNSINGER-All right.
MR. TRAVER-So we don’t need to set it in stone. We just keep it in mind.
MR. HUNSINGER-Yes. I just wanted to get a sense from the Board if you wanted to have a
special meeting or not.
MR. TRAVER-Yes.
MRS. STEFFAN-Yes. I just don’t think it’s fair for other applicants to have to wait behind.
th
MR. OBORNE-And I agree, you shouldn’t usurp the 18 for this application because there are
recommendations and there’s flow issues that you have to deal with.
MR. HUNSINGER-Right, good point.
thth
MR. OBORNE-So either the 20 or the 27 would be your dates.
MR. HUNSINGER-Okay.
MR. TRAVER-Okay.
MR. HUNSINGER-That makes sense.
MR. TRAVER-Either date works for me.
MR. OBORNE-So do you put that in resolution form?
MR. HUNSINGER-I don’t know if we need to. I mean, you and I set the agenda .
44
(Queensbury Planning Board 12/21/2010)
MR. SCHONEWOLF-Just put it on the website. Stop using different software for the website.
Usually I just click it and it comes up.
MR. OBORNE-That’s because I sent it out as a PDF and not as a word document.
MR. SCHONEWOLF-Do you want to stop doing that?
MR. OBORNE-If that’s an issue.
MR. SCHONEWOLF-Well, it’s just a little more, I have to think, you know.
MR. KREBS-I’d prefer a word document because in my system I now have to take your
document, I have to save the document, then I have to print it, then I have to go back in and
delete it because I don’t want to keep it on my hard drive.
MR. OBORNE-I will send both. The reason that I send the PDF is for security issues.
MR. HUNSINGER-Yes, you can’t change it.
MR. OBORNE-You can’t touch that.
MR. TRAVER-Actually I think you can do that with a word document, too, it’s a couple of extra
key strokes.
MR. OBORNE-A word document you can do pretty much anything with, at this point.
MR. TRAVER-Okay. I think in ’07 there’s a way you can lock it.
MR. OBORNE-Okay.
MR. TRAVER-You have to do it with a password, but it can be read only.
MR. OBORNE-I’ll send both.
MR. HUNSINGER-Our Secretary has corrected me. In order to have a special meeting, it
requires a resolution of the Board. So I would entertain a motion to hold a special meeting on, I
th
guess the 20.
MOTION THAT THE PLANNING BOARD SCHEDULE AN ADDITIONAL MEETING FOR THE
TH
MONTH OF JANUARY TENTATIVELY TO BE HELD ON JANUARY 20, AND IF THAT
TH
NIGHT’S NOT AVAILABLE, THEN JANUARY 27 WOULD BE THE BACK UP FOR HAYES
AND HAYES, Introduced by Stephen Traver who moved for its adoption, seconded by Donald
Krebs:
st
Duly adopted this 21 day of December, 2010, by the following vote:
AYES: Mr. Magowan, Mr. Schonewolf, Mr. Sipp, Mr. Traver, Mr. Krebs, Mrs. Steffan,
Mr. Hunsinger
NOES: NONE
MR. HUNSINGER-And the press is here, so the neighbors will all know.
MR. OBORNE-That’s correct. Thank you, press. Just for the record, the only resolution that’s
going to be forwarded to the Town Board will be for Chairman. That’s the only one that they
actually act on. The other two are set in stone and you can’t change it now.
MR. HUNSINGER-If there’s no further business, I will entertain a motion to adjourn.
MOTION TO ADJOURN THE QUEENSBURY PLANNING BOARD MEETING OF DECEMBER
21, 2010, Introduced by Donald Krebs who moved for its adoption, seconded by Stephen
Traver:
st
Duly adopted this 21 day of December, 2010, by the following vote:
AYES: Mr. Krebs, Mr. Traver, Mrs. Steffan, Mr. Magowan, Mr. Schonewolf, Mr. Sipp,
Mr. Hunsinger
NOES: NONE
45
(Queensbury Planning Board 12/21/2010)
MR. HUNSINGER-Happy Holidays everyone.
On motion meeting was adjourned.
RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED,
Chris Hunsinger, Chairman
46