Loading...
10-19-2021 (Queensbury Planning Board 10/19/2021) QUEENSBURY PLANNING BOARD MEETING FIRST REGULAR MEETING TH OCTOBER 19, 2021 INDEX Site Plan No. 64-2021 Hacker Boat Company 1. TOWN BOARD RECOMMENDATION Tax Map No. 308.16-2-4.1 GRANT LEAD AGENCY STATUS Site Plan No. 55-2021 Antonio & Maria Civitella 8. FURTHER TABLING Tax Map No. 239.7-1-20 Site Plan No. 61-2021 Michael & Susan Kajdasz 9. ZBA RECOMMENDATION Tax Map No. 227.17-1-49 Subdivision No. 9-2021 Streck’s Inc. 11. PRELIMINARY STAGE Tax Map No. 253.3-1-32.1 Subdivision No. 10-2021 FINAL STAGE ZBA RECOMMENDATION Site Plan No. 62-2021 Queensbury Auto Mall 13. Tax Map No. 303.15-1-18 Site Plan No. 65-2021 Hogan & Walsh 17. Special Use Permit 5-2021 Tax Map No. 309.11-1-46 THESE ARE NOT OFFICIALLY ADOPTED MINUTES AND ARE SUBJECT TO BOARD AND STAFF REVISIONS. REVISIONS WILL APPEAR ON THE FOLLOWING MONTH’S MINUTES (IF ANY) AND WILL STATE SUCH APPROVAL OF SAID MINUTES. 1 (Queensbury Planning Board 10/19/2021) QUEENSBURY PLANNING BOARD MEETING FIRST REGULAR MEETING OCTOBER 19, 2021 7:00 P.M. MEMBERS PRESENT STEPHEN TRAVER, CHAIRMAN CHRIS HUNSINGER, VICE CHAIRMAN DAVID DEEB, SECRETARY BRAD MAGOWAN JAMIE WHITE JOHN SHAFER MICHAEL DIXON, ALTERNATE MEMBERS ABSENT MICHAEL VALENTINE LAND USE PLANNER-LAURA MOORE STENOGRAPHER-MARIA GAGLIARDI MR. TRAVER-Good evening, ladies and gentlemen. Welcome to the Town of Queensbury Planning Board thth meeting for Tuesday, October 19, 2021. This is our first meeting for October and our 20 meeting for 2021. If you’ll note the illuminated exit signs. In the event that we have an emergency, those are the emergency exits. If you have a cell phone or other electronic device with you, if you would either silence it or turn it off so it doesn’t interrupt our proceedings, we’d appreciate that. There are a few applications before us this evening that do have a public hearing and that public hearing will be announced at the appropriate time. We also have a guest with us, Mr. Krebs, who’s a long time past member of the Planning Board who’s requested a few minutes to address the Board at the end of the evening regarding some stormwater and enforcement issues. So we’ll entertain that the time. We do have a few administrative thth items to begin with this evening, starting with the approval of minutes of the August 17 and August 24, 2021 Planning Board meetings. I believe we have a resolution. MR. DEEB-Yes. APPROVAL OF MINUTES August 17, 2021 August 24, 2021 MOTION TO APPROVE THE QUEENSBURY PLANNING BOARD MEETING MINUTES OF THth AUGUST 17 AND AUGUST 24, 2021, Introduced by David Deeb who moved for its adoption, seconded by Brad Magowan: th Duly adopted this 19 day of October, 2021, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Deeb, Ms. White, Mr. Shafer, Mr. Hunsinger, Mr. Magowan, Mr. Dixon, Mr. Traver NOES: NONE th ABSTAINED: Mr. Dixon, (the 17 only) ABSENT: Mr. Valentine MR. TRAVER-The next Administrative Item is Site Plan 64-2021 for Hacker Boat Company. ADMINISTRATIVE ITEMS: SITE PLAN 64-2021 HACKER BOAT COMPANY GRANT TOWN BOARD LEAD AGENCY AND RECOMMENDATION NATHAN HALL & GEORGE BABCOCK, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT MR. TRAVER-The Town Board has requested Lead Agency Status for a potential zoning change. Laura? 2 (Queensbury Planning Board 10/19/2021) MRS. MOORE-So the action tonight is in reference to consenting to Lead Agency and providing a recommendation to the Town Board, and I do have Nathan that’s in the audience. So just an update. This project includes an existing building that houses the Hacker Boat Company and included with the Hacker Boat Company they are now proposing to do boat storage outside, and so that’s why they’re proposing to have that added to a list of uses allowed in the Commercial Light Industrial. MR. TRAVER-And sales, too. MRS. MOORE-And sales. MR. TRAVER-All right. Thank you. Good evening. Welcome. MR. HALL-Thank you. Just for the record, Nathan Hall from Stafford, Carr, and McNally. So the applicant is Hacker Boat Company, Inc., and I’ve also got the President of Hacker Boat, George Babcock, with me. I think the summary was good. My understanding is that we’re here tonight seeking the Planning Board’s input on whether this Town wide zoning change is something that makes sense to the Town of Queensbury. My understanding is if it’s agreed we’d be back here looking at my client’s property specifically in the Site Plan Review process, but I’ve submitted materials already for this zoning change. I don’t want to go over that ad nauseam again because I’m sure you’ve all looked at them. Just a few things to note. We are looking to add commercial boat sales, service and storage in the Commercial Light Industrial district. That term makes sense here for my client and it’s already conveniently defined in the Code as an allowable use elsewhere. In that regard, it’s not currently, obviously, an allowed use in the CLI district, but, you know, I know that it’s been something that other landowners have contemplated, going through this whole process in the past to add, you know, I think it makes sense, in my opinion, given this new tech park that’s going in and kind of just the development in the Town of Queensbury over the past few decades. The understanding I have is that when this Code was developed or last updated, as far as the use chart, boat storage traditionally was more located in districts closer to the water, whereas now with all this seasonal use, boat storage is happening more and more. I know the Town of Lake George has a few projects that have gone in for off-site boat storage of a seasonal nature. You don’t want to keep it in the water. People are leaving the property to go back and they don’t want to have their nice boat stored out in the open in the yard or whatever. So I have been told that this may not have been something that was contemplated when the Code was done, sort of off-site boat storage in this area. Two other points to note. One is that my client is currently operating a boat manufacturing and refurbishing business that’s an allowed use. We’ve spoken with Craig Brown. That’s in operation. As the Code is currently constituted, however, there is no district in which they can do that use as well as boat storage. There’s no overlap on those two uses. So there isn’t a site in the Town of Queensbury where those two kind of consistent supplemental uses would be allowed at any one site, which we think merits reconsideration. And the last item is just the uses that are allowed in the CLI district currently. This site was previously a recycling client and there were multiple trucks, trailers with bottles, auto repair, limousine service. There’s a number of uses in this district that are very complimentary to what we’re doing here. This is just specifically boat storage, which isn’t allowed, but there’s all sorts of other vehicle storage, vehicle maintenance, vehicle repair in this district. So we think it fits right in there. I know we’re not getting into my client’s specific site tonight, but we think certainly at this particular location at 315 Corinth Road, it’s going to be very harmonious with everything else that’s there. They’ve already done some major, you know, fantastic improvements to the site, and, you know, at the end of this I think the Board and the Town will find that it’s exactly what you envisioned for the CLI district. MR. TRAVER-So they’ve been successfully operating at this location, doing the manufacturing and I think some restoration, and you recently added, as I recall, some staff and have seen a potential uptick in your customer base and so you’re interested in getting involved in sales and therefore that would involve more than manufacturing, but obviously you have boats there that would be in fact stored somewhat, and that’s the reason for wanting to add this capability to that site. MR. HALL-Right. If George wants to weigh in on that, I’d be happy to have him weigh in. They just started. They’re under contract to purchase this site now from Perkins and they’ve already done major renovations to create a state of the art manufacturing and refurbishing facility for Hacker Boats. As part of that they are allowed to store boats and are currently going through that process, but, I mean, they have customers around the lake. So what they’re envisioning is they have all this location at the back of the site away from the travel corridor where trailers and cans and bottles have traditionally been held. This would be boats that are shrink wrapped off-site, no drainage of fluids, nothing like that. They would just be stored off-site and transferred there for seasonal storage. No customers would be coming in and creating traffic. It would be a repair facility shielded from the public. Just a good use for some excess area of the site. MR. HUNSINGER-So I don’t have any issue with what you’re proposing to do, but the issue that I would have, and I don’t know if there’s any way to include this in the definitions, Laura, but I would be opposed to taking Commercial Industrial space and having it be only boat storage. I mean boat storage for you is incidental to what you’re really doing, which is manufacturing and refurbishing boats. So I don’t have a 3 (Queensbury Planning Board 10/19/2021) problem with that, but if that was the only use on that site I think that would be not the best use of our limited Commercial Industrial property. MR. TRAVER-Do you have any comment, Laura? MRS. MOORE-I don’t off the top of my head, but I do think that’s something that you should identify in your recommendation. Let me think about it as you go through it and see if I can come up with some language. MR. TRAVER-So as we consider it, it would be in the context of a pre-existing boat facility. MR. HUNSINGER-Well, just not always the primary use on the site. MRS. MOORE-Right. That’s what you’re trying to say. It’s not the primary, it’s an accessory or accessory to a primary use. MR. HUNSINGER-Right. MR. TRAVER-That makes sense. MRS. MOORE-Does that make sense? I just don’t know. MR. HALL-Do you have an accessory use table, or do you define like accessory uses? MRS. MOORE-Yes, there is an accessory use table. So that’s where this might fall under a Special Use Permit, but it is something that the Board, this Planning Board, could refer to the Town Board, and they request staff sort of flesh that out a little better, probably with your help as well, so that we’re not just grabbing names and numbers out of the air or something, but I mean, and the Town Board ultimately can say, no, we’re just going to add it. So the Planning Board understands that. I think it is something that maybe we could flesh out a little more. MR. HALL-Sure. I think the other thing to note would be that if this is added as an allowed use, it would be allowed upon Site Plan Review. So any proposal to look at this would still come before the Planning Board so that you have the opportunity to weigh in on whether it makes sense. I certainly understand that once it’s added to the use table, you know, your hands aren’t tied but. MR. HUNSINGER-It’s harder to control. MR. HALL-It’s harder to control, but certainly when you see these facilities popping up all over the place without any input from you or review of that use, and it’s also worth noting, again, we’re not necessarily here tonight talking about my client’s property in particular. What you’re proposing, you know, I think I understand where you’re coming from. Certainly. You don’t want a bunch of just boats in a field, in what you envision as an industrial park. That’s not what my client’s looking to do here. MR. HUNSINGER-Right. MR. HALL-Yes, and I certainly understand that. The distinction between boat storage, the difficulty is that the Code defines, that’s all combined in one definition. It’s commercial boat, sales, service and storage is one definition. So, I mean, I think a boat sales facility, or a boat storage facility would potentially be that industrial use that you’re looking for. MR. TRAVER-So that’s where you get into the Site Plan Review. MR. HUNSINGER-And again that would be different, you know, like I say, and I remember when we did the Comprehensive Land Use Plan, you know, we tried to maximize the amount of land that we set aside for commercial and industrial use. MR. HALL-Right. MR. HUNSINGER-So to add new allowable uses on those limited sites that , you know, just storing boats you could argue is commercial, but it’s really not generating wealth in the community. MR. HALL-Yes, and I mean you could do something, I mean you’re the Board and they’re the Town Board, but I mean you could certainly, again, distinguish allowed use versus ancillary use potentially, you know, with a footnote or something like that. MRS. MOORE-So a footnote is definitely something that they could do. So I pulled up the zoning district for Industrial because I thought there was something in here that says, this is an example that’s actually in the Code now that says maximum building size is 40,000 square feet total for retail use only, no limit for 4 (Queensbury Planning Board 10/19/2021) industrial uses. So if it was a retail use only it’s limited to a certain size. So you’re looking for similar language, but we just don’t know, is there, I don’t want to put a value of square footage on something that I’m not certainly about. MR. TRAVER-Yes, so there’ll be more work on the language that we’ll be doing, and that Town Board obviously will be looking at it as well. MR. MAGOWAN-I have a question. One I’d like to thank George from Hacker Boat for coming. I know it’s been a long haul. We had a propjet that we saw before and I’m happy that you were able to pull it off and come down from Ti. Not that was want to steer anything away from our neighbors up to the north, but you’ve got a great location down there. My question is, you have a beautiful boat and the shrink wrap and we do have them. Do you have an idea how many boats you might be talking about storing? MR. HALL-Sure. I don’t have all my notes on my client’s. MR. MAGOWAN-Just a rough idea. I think we were talking about roughly no more than 200. MR. BABCOCK-Again, I don’t think that would work. What we wanted to do. MR. DEEB-I recall seeing 200 in the notes. MR. TRAVER-Just state your name for the record. MR. BABCOCK-I’m sorry. My name is George Babcock, and I own the Hacker Boat Company. MR. DEEB-I recall seeing 200 in the notes. MR. BABCOCK-First of all, thank you. Our long term plan was to send the business in our marina, which is up in Hague, but we also have an arrangement on the southern basin to take boats in and out of the water. So the point was that with all the boats that are sold, not necessarily, but fiberglass boats, there’s a large storage market. We are packed at our two locations in Hague, and consequently we felt that we would do the outside storage there. I don’t think 200 is going to work at this point. I think it’s too many boats based on us getting in there now and understanding the piece of property and what we want to do long term. We had envisioned a showroom type of building on that property, you know, glass front, tastefully done, landscaped as we’ve done the other building now, to sell the boats, and maintain a showroom up in Hague which we have and add that to that facility. I don’t know what the exact number is. I’m not trying to be evasive, but as we re-think our use of the property going down the road, we see that I don’t think that many boats will work, but we did want to keep the boats, we did I think in our propose in our plan, in our plan you’ll see that we propose more cover, more tree cover and a fence so that from the Corinth Road side you won’t be able to see what is there. So that will come out as we go forward I think. MR. TRAVER-Yes. I don’t know that we need it tonight, but at some point a number will be useful as we’re in the planning process. So it’s something to think about. We’ll have plenty more discussions about it, but just be thinking about it. Keep it in the back of your mind. MR. BABCOCK-I just want to say one thing to our friends in Ti. Number One, we have not lost one employee that live in the Ti area or as we say on the other side of the mountain. Several of them have bought homes in this area and have rented apartments. So we haven’t lost one employee to the day, and we’ve added, as of today, eight new employees. Most of them are from the South Glens Falls, Hudson Falls area. MR. TRAVER-Good. Very good. MR. MAGOWAN-I have follow up on that, was thinking about economic development. Sorry, I lost my thought. MR. TRAVER-Other questions, comments on the discussion? Does anyone have any objection to consenting to the Town Board as Lead Agency? MR. MAGOWAN-Well, I brought this up before. Is this Town wide? MRS. MOORE-This will be a Town wide change to the Commercial Light Industrial zone. MR. MAGOWAN-And, you know, we had an application just the other week, and we can’t spot zone this for? MRS. MOORE-No. The entire zone will have that use as an allowed use in that zone. This applicant comes back through this Board for Site Plan Review. 5 (Queensbury Planning Board 10/19/2021) MR. MAGOWAN-All right. I just get confused, for this particular application. MRS. MOORE-It would go through this same process. It would be the exact same process, even if you said, the Town Board said we’re going to add this as a Special Use Permit. The Town Board could refer this to the Planning Board and say we’re going to, this is what we propose. In this case the applicant has come to us and said this is what we’re proposing, and the same thing happened previously with the Masonic. An applicant came to the Board requesting this zone, knowing eventually that they would have a project for us. MR. MAGOWAN-I guess I just envisioned going up Route 4 into Whitehall and I see the boat see the boat junk there and, George, not that you would be doing any of that with your bunch of boats, but I mean someone else coming in being a town wide, and think I’m going to start fixing boats and the next thing you know we have. MRS. MOORE-So I think that’s what Chris is trying to explain is that you might want to put a square footage limit to it or a numerical value to it, but that’s something that you could identify in your recommendation back to the Town Board, understanding that between the applicant and staff and the Town Board that it would be fleshed out further. MR. HALL-And again certainly you would have oversight over that site through the site plan process because they would still have to come in, if that’s how they wanted to do this, they’d still have to get your permission to do that because it’s subject to Site Plan Review. I think the only way you could ever have spot zone is, and George and I really didn’t go down that route, because we thought this would be a better solution, would be some sort of Use Variance, which is difficult and not something that made sense for us here. It is a process and it’s a commitment that George and Hacker Boat knew that they were getting into nine months ago to make a change, that’s not just for their benefit, but that is kind of helping the whole Town of Queensbury to update its Code and I’m sure all the property owners that are in different situations maybe shy away from doing that because of the financial and time commitment, but George and Hacker Boat, you know, it’s just part of the investment that they’re putting in to this property, helping to get the zoning to a position that we feel made sense and is right for the Town as a whole, but, you know, we are open and appreciate feedback on what the Board is and isn’t comfortable with. I think that we can work out a way, I hope that we can work out a way that allows this use in a way that you can address concerns you have about how other properties try to utilize this use. I mean you could say that with any, other properties have automobile repair facilities allowed in the CLI district and you can do that a lot of different wants and there are some that are topnotch and others that, you know, are properties that you wish you had a little more. MR. MAGOWAN-Well I’m sure it will be tastefully done and I don’t have a problem. I just wanted to voice my concerns of not particularly this application. It’s down the road if people, you know, sometimes they get an inch I’ve heard that they take a mile. Not in this instance. So thank you. MR. DIXON-Mr. Chairman, would we want to consider anything similar to the last proposal that was in front of us, either at the last meeting or prior, for a zoning change. Do we want to associate any acreage, a minimum of two acre lots, anything of that nature? I did not go into detail to look how widespread the zone was and if we have half acre lots involved with this elsewhere in the Town. I don’t know if people would want to recommend a minimum acreage. MRS. MOORE-So I did have that in the notes section. I did, in Ward 1, the total acreage is 75.12 acres and Ward 2 has the most with 1,267 plus and Ward 3 is 584. So it’s only those three Wards that have this specific zone, that Commercial Light Industrial, and then Town wide the parcel numbers are 365. I mean, the average acreage is 5.28 acres. MR. DIXON-So I think we’re probably good then, and I think this is certainly an appropriate use of this location. MR. TRAVER-All right. Well we already have the concern that we discussed to include. I know that’s going to be included in any potential motion. Our recommendation for the change of zone. Any other comments, questions? I’m assuming that everyone is agreeable to consenting to the Town Board as Lead Agency. I’ve not heard any objection to that. So that’s one motion, and then the second motion is the recommendation and I understand we have a recommendation, a positive recommendation, with the mention of the concern about the storage only being a use in the Commercial Light Industrial zone. We would be concerned should there be an application that was only for boat storage as opposed to part of a larger operation. Any other comments that we want to make as we communicate with the Town Board as they look at this? MRS. MOORE-Just to assist with Mr. Deeb’s preparing that. So it would be a concern with only boat storage. Maybe consider having a maximum. 6 (Queensbury Planning Board 10/19/2021) MR. TRAVER-Maximum number of boats? MRS. MOORE-Maximum value or you know similar to Item 11 in the Industrial zoning section so that the Board sort of has an idea that you might want some limits to it. MR. HALL-I think you would have to classify that by the words utilized for boat storage. MR. TRAVER-I guess I was thinking that that would be a site plan issue. MRS. MOORE-So typically we see if it’s an issue with site plan that it would be associated with a Special Use Permit, being with specific criteria. So, again, we’ve discussed this, that it may come out. MR. TRAVER-Okay. So perhaps add in our referral recommendation that other considerations such as total potential number of boats stored be considered. Anything else? All right. I guess we have two motions, then, on this action. First being consent to the Town Board as Lead Agency. MR. DEEB-All right. RESOLUTION CONSENTING TO THE TOWN BOARD AS LEAD AGENCY SP # 64-2021 HACKER Whereas Hacker Boat Company, Inc. submitted a zone change application to the Queensbury Town Clerk’s office on or about September 1, 2021 to allow for the addition of Commercial Boat Sales/Storage/Service as an allowable use by Site Plan Review in the Commercial Light Industrial Zoning District, MOTION TO CONSENT TO THE QUEENSBURY TOWN BOARD AS THE LEAD AGENCY FOR CHANGE OF ZONE FOR HACKER BOAT COMPANY, INC. Introduced by David Deeb, who moved for its adoption. th Motion seconded by Brad Magowan. Duly adopted this 19 day of October,2021, by the following vote: AYES: Ms. White, Mr. Shafer, Mr. Hunsinger, Mr. Magowan, Mr. Dixon, Mr. Deeb, Mr. Traver NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mr. Valentine MR. TRAVER-And then next we have the motion regarding the recommendation for the change of zone to the Town Board. MR. DEEB-We want to put a caveat in here. We’ve got boat storage to be considered, with a minimum acreage in the CLI zone. MRS. MOORE-I don’t think, I think you’re looking at not necessarily the number of boats, but you’re looking at the amount of space utilized for boats. MR. HUNSINGER-Yes. Maybe limit it to a certain percentage of the lot. MRS. MOORE-I don’t think it’s a numerical value. I think it’s a percentage of. MR. HUNSINGER-I don’t know what the number is, though. I mean that would require research. MR. HALL-My understanding is you would just voice that concern to the Town Board. MR. TRAVER-And they’ll flesh it out. So a recommendation that a percentage be established for a property allowed for boat storage. MR. HUNSINGER-Yes. If we say in the recommendation that we, the percentage of the land used be limited to a certain percentage, and the use be restricted to a specific percent. MR. TRAVER-Yes. MR. HUNSINGER-Or be incidental to the primary use. MR. HALL-Right, and I mean to use Hacker Boat as an example, I mean, just to play devil’s advocate, not that this is necessarily the forum or a concern, but just as I’m thinking about it, I mean regardless of how much space they would utilize for boats, the money making operation and the nature of this site and the boat manufacturing in the gigantic building there. So whether regulating by square footage, percentage, 7 (Queensbury Planning Board 10/19/2021) it wouldn’t make sense, if they also have a million dollar boat operation there, you’re doing and/or type situations. MR. HUNSINGER-Yes, there’s a lot of different ways it could go. MR. TRAVER-Yes. MR. DEEB-Well I have to come up with something. MRS. MOORE-So I think you identified there’s a concern with having only boat storage. I think that’s the concern. MR. DEEB-Do you want to say boat storage would be considered ancillary? MR. SHAFER-We don’t want it to be exclusive for boat storage. MR. TRAVER-Yes. I would say that part of our recommendation is that boat storage be a subset of the property percentage and it not be the primary use, and then they’ll be doing more research and getting more input in terms of what that percentage might be. MR. SHAFER-Laura, do you know the zoning of TLC on Ridge Road? Would that be CLI? MRS. MOORE-On Ridge Road? So that’s probably just Waterfront Residential. MR. SHAFER-TLC on Ridge Road? MRS. MOORE-I don’t know. MR. MAGOWAN-They do boat repair and boat storage. MR. HALL-If it’s boat storage it’s probably Waterfront Residential. MRS. MOORE-Waterfront Residential. MR. HALL-Because there’s only three zones where it’s allowed. MR. MAGOWAN-But TLC is down near Haviland, right? Is that the one you’re talking? MR. HUNSINGER-On Ridge. MR. MAGOWAN-On Ridge, down from Haviland. MR. DEEB-So we’re going to say boat storage to be considered as a percentage of lot size. MR. TRAVER-Correct. MR. DEEB-Do you want to leave it like that, Laura? Boat storage to be considered as a percentage of lot size? DON KREBS MR. KREBS-If you ever stored a boat at TLC. TLC does not keep all the boats on that particular property. MR. DEEB-We could say boat storage is not to be an exclusive use of the property. MR. HUNSINGER-My original comment was that boat storage not be the primary use. MRS. MOORE-There you go. I think that’s simple enough that it gives flexibility. MR. TRAVER-It covers it both ways. MRS. MOORE-Yes. I think I would use what Chris had just suggested. MR. SHAFER-Which was? MR. TRAVER-The recommendation that boat storage not be a primary use. MRS. MOORE-I would use the term exclusive use. That might be, because. 8 (Queensbury Planning Board 10/19/2021) MR. TRAVER-Well, but you could have a very, very minor use, and it could still be. MR. HUNSINGER-If it’s sales, you know, and I was thinking of a car dealer. Car dealers have cars on site for storage by themselves. MRS. MOORE-That’s fine. I think that answers the question. That it provides information to Staff as well as the Town Board to evaluate how to handle that. MR. TRAVER-Right. MR. DEEB-So considering boat storage not to be an exclusive use of the property. So if somebody comes in and has a small sales office that has 90% of the boats in storage, it’s not an exclusive use. MR. HUNSINGER-Well, we’d do Site Plan Review. MR. TRAVER-Yes, I mean there has to be some leeway in there, and there’s obviously going to be more language developed. MR. DEEB-So you want to have the Town Board hash it out? MR. TRAVER-That’s what they’re asking to do. They’re saying they want to be Lead Agency. Or we consented to that. MR. DEEB-All right. RESOLUTION RE: TOWN BOARD RECOMMENDATION RE: HACKER BOAT MOTION TO PROVIDE A POSITIVE RECOMMENDATION FOR CHANGE OF ZONE FOR HACKER BOAT COMPANY, INC., Introduced by David Deeb who moved for its adoption, That boat storage is not to be an exclusive use of the property. th Motion seconded by Brad Magowan. Duly adopted this 19 day of October 2021 by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Shafer, Mr. Hunsinger, Mr. Magowan, Mr. Dixon, Mr. Deeb, Ms. White, Mr. Traver NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mr. Valentine MR. TRAVER-All right. You’re all set. MR. HALL-Thank you gentlemen. MR. BABCOCK-Thank you. MR. DEEB-Good luck. MR. HALL-We appreciate all your time. MR. TRAVER-The next Administrative Item we have is Site Plan 55-2021 for Antonio & Maria Civitella. This is a tabling to December. SITE PLAN 55-2021 ANTHONY & MARIA CIVITELLA TABLE UNTIL DECEMBER 14, 2021 PB MEETING MR. TRAVER-Laura? MRS. MOORE-So they’re re-designing their plans for the Board after the concerns that were expressed with the extent of the request. So they’re in the process of updating those plan sets. th MR. TRAVER-Okay. So they’re asking to come back at the December 14 Planning Board meeting. MRS. MOORE-Correct. MR. TRAVER-Okay. We have a draft resolution to that effect. MR. DEEB-Yes. 9 (Queensbury Planning Board 10/19/2021) RESOLUTION TABLING SP # 55-2021 ANTONIO & MARIA CIVITELLA Applicant proposes a tear-down of an existing home to construct a new home with a footprint of 2,924 sq. ft. and a floor area of 5,465 sq. ft. The project includes installation of a patio area on the lake side, new driveway area of permeable patio product, new steps to future sundeck and dock, retaining walls for patio and driveway, new septic, new well, new site plantings and new shoreline plantings. Pursuant to Chapter 179-3-040 & 179-6-065 of the Zoning Ordinance, new floor area in a CEA, hard-surfacing within 50 ft. of shoreline, shoreline vegetation removal, steep slopes within 50 ft. and work within 100 ft. of wetland shall be subject to Planning Board review and approval. MOTION TO TABLE SITE PLAN 55-2021 AND FRESHWATER WETLANDS PERMIT 1-2021 ANTONIO & MARIA CIVITELLA. Introduced by David Deeb who moved for its adoption. Tabled until the December 14, 2021 Planning Board meeting. th Motion seconded by Brad Magowan. Duly adopted this 19 day of October 2021 by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Hunsinger, Mr. Magowan, Mr. Dixon, Mr. Deeb, Ms. White, Mr. Shafer, Mr. Traver NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mr. Valentine MR. TRAVER-Okay. Now we move to the next section of our agenda which is Planning Board recommendations to the Zoning Board of Appeals. The first item is Michael & Susan Kajdasz, Site Plan 61-2021. PLANNING BOARD RECOMMENDATIONS TO THE ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS: SITE PLAN NO. 61-2021 SEQR TYPE: TYPE II. MICHAEL & SUSAN KAJDASZ. AGENT(S): LUCAS DOBIE, HUTCHINS ENGINEERING. OWNER(S): SAME AS APPLICANTS. ZONING: WR. LOCATION: 113 SEELYE ROAD. APPLICANT PROPOSES A 700 SQ. FT. TWO CAR ADDITION AND TO CONVERT THE EXISTING 2 BAY GARAGE OF ONE BAY AND ANOTHER BAY TO A LAUNDRY/BATHROOM. THE GARAGE IS TO BE A TOTAL OF 1,050 SQ. FT. THE EXISTING FLOOR AREA IS 5,715 SQ. FT. AND THE NEW FLOOR AREA IS 6,765 SQ. FT. PURSUANT TO CHAPTER 179-3-040, 179-5-020 & 179-13-010 OF THE ZONING ORDINANCE, NEW FLOOR AREA IN A CEA AND EXPANSION OF A NON-CONFORMING STRUCTURE SHALL BE SUBJECT TO PLANNING BOARD REVIEW AND APPROVAL. VARIANCE: RELIEF IS SOUGHT FOR EXPANSION OF A NON-CONFORMING STRUCTURE AND SETBACKS. PLANNING BOARD SHALL PROVIDE A RECOMMENDATION TO THE ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS. CROSS REFERENCE: AV 5-2017 GAZEBO/LOT LINE ADJ., 2001-348 PORCH, 94646- 3985 ADDITION, 8733-1837 BOATHOUSE/DOCK, AV 69-2021. WARREN CO. REFERRAL: OCTOBER 2021. SITE INFORMATION: CEA, LGPC, APA. LOT SIZE: .96 ACRES TAX MAP NO. 227.17-1-49. SECTION: 179-3-040, 179-5-020, 179-13-010. CURT DYBAS & LUCAS DOBIE, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT MR. TRAVER-Laura? MRS. MOORE-So the applicant proposes a 700 square foot two car addition and to convert the existing two bay garage to remain as one bay and the other bay to be converted to a laundry bathroom. The request for relief is included as setback where proposed is 15.1 and the required is 20 feet, and expansion of a non- conforming structure. MR. TRAVER-Okay. Thank you. Good evening. MR. DYBAS-Ladies, Chairman, Board members, Curt Dybas and Lucas Dobie representing Michael and Susan Kajdasz, and I’ve known the couple for 50 years so I never knew they pronounced it that way, but we’re looking for a recommendation from the Board to go for a variance. The house was constructed in 1979 and it complied with all the zoning at the time, and the Kajdaszs wish to take one of these bays of the existing garage and convert it to a full bathroom and a laundry room, which presently there’s only a half bath for the house, and in so adding a two car garage approximately 700 square feet, with a setback of 15.1 feet from the north property line, which basically was compliant at the time of construction. So they’re looking for relief of approximately five feet to construct this garage, and basically that’s it. We will replace the septic system as part of this project. That’s it. MR. TRAVER-Thank you. Questions, comments from members of the Board? 10 (Queensbury Planning Board 10/19/2021) MR. SHAFER-The septic system will be installed approximately on the drawings where it says existing? MR. DOBIE-Yes, sir, Mr. Shafer. Sheet S-3 we provided a detailed site plan. So it’s approximately the same location, which is the most appropriate for the site. Going in and digging out what’s there, dig out any stained soils, new fill, elevate it, bring it into total compliance for the field. MR. DEEB-Lucas, you said the well is going to remain, or are you going to drill a new well? MR. DOBIE-No, the well will remain. MR. DEEB-That’s what I thought. MR. TRAVER-Other questions, comments? MR. SHAFER-Lucas, why couldn’t you just move the new garage five feet further into the lot? I mean the existing garage is on an angle. So only the corner of that garage violates the 20 feet. Why could you not have moved the new garage five feet in and you wouldn’t need a variance? MR. DYBAS-The existing garage, there’s five feet for the corner, and in order to make the two bay garage, the back wall is now parallel. To move that to the south would encroach on the entrance to the remaining bay of the garage. Getting in and out of that bay with that, would not. MR. SHAFER-So the plan is to use the existing garage one bay? MR. DYBAS-One bay, the outer bay. MR. TRAVER-Other questions, comments, concerns that we want to mention to the ZBA? MR. DIXON-Mr. Chairman, I didn’t see a planting plan. I think there’s questions regarding a shoreline buffer. I think that should be looked at as well.. MR. TRAVER-We’re actually talking about the referral on the variance tonight, but we can inquire. You’re coming back for site plan. Are you prepared to discuss the shoreline buffer? rd MR. DOBIE-Yes, we are, and to just briefly address it, approximately 2/3s of the shoreline is native woods. So about where the boathouse is. So really the only portion of the shore that’s open is the beach, which I rd estimate to be at 45 feet of the 138 feet of frontage. So it’s just over 1/3 of it is open. There is a section approximately 30 feet off of the beach, a natural stone wall that I counted 11 shrubs above it and there’s also native woods along the northerly property line. So to the Board’s point, we’re certainly prepared to address it should our variance be successful and we’ll be back here and we can discuss it further amongst our team also in anticipation of next week. MR. TRAVER-Okay. Very good. Other questions, comments? Any referral, any mentions that we want to make to the ZBA as they look at this? Okay. I guess we’re ready for a motion. RESOLUTION RE: ZBA RECOMMENDATION RE: AV # 69-2021 MICHAEL & SUSAN KAJDASZ The applicant has submitted an application for the following: Applicant proposes a 700 sq. ft. two car addition and to convert the existing 2 bay garage of one bay and another bay to a laundry/bathroom. The garage is to be a total of 1,050 sq. ft. The existing floor area is 5,715 sq. ft. and the new floor area is 6,765 sq. ft. Pursuant to Chapter 179-3-040, 179-5-020 & 179-13-010 of the Zoning Ordinance, new floor area in a CEA and expansion of a non-conforming structure shall be subject to Planning Board review and approval. Variance: Relief is sought for expansion of a non-conforming structure and setbacks. Planning Board shall provide a recommendation to the Zoning Board of Appeals. The Town of Queensbury Zoning Ordinance, per Section 179-9-070 J 2 b. requires the Planning Board to provide a written recommendation to the Zoning Board of Appeals for projects that require both Zoning Board of Appeals & Planning Board approval; The Planning Board has briefly reviewed and discussed this application, the relief request in the variance application as well as the potential impacts of this project on the neighborhood and surrounding community, and found that: MOTION TO MAKE A RECOMMENDATION ON BEHALF OF THE PLANNING BOARD TO THE ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS FOR AREA VARIANCE NO. 69-2021 MICHAEL & SUSAN KAJDASZ Introduced by David Deeb who moved for its adoption, and a) The Planning Board, based on a limited review, has not identified any significant adverse impacts that cannot be mitigated with current project proposal. 11 (Queensbury Planning Board 10/19/2021) th Motion seconded by Brad Magowan. Duly adopted this 19 day of October 2021 by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Magowan, Mr. Dixon, Mr. Deeb, Ms. White, Mr. Shafer, Mr. Hunsinger, Mr. Traver NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mr. Valentine MR. TRAVER-You’re off to the ZBA.. The next item on our agenda, also under Planning Board recommendations, is Streck’s Incorporated, Subdivision Preliminary Stage 9-2021 and Final Stage 10-2021. SUBDIVISION PRELIMINARY STAGE 9-2021 SUBDIVISION FINAL STAGE 10-2021 SEQR TYPE: UNLISTED. STRECK’S INC. AGENT(S): HUTCHINS ENGINEERING. OWNER(S): SAME AS APPLICANT. ZONING: RR-3A/RR-5A. LOCATION: 1903 RIDGE ROAD APPLICANT PROPOSES TO SUBDIVIDE A 19.36 ACRE PARCEL INTO 2 LOT S AS THE PARCEL IS NATURALLY DIVIDED BY RIDGE RD. THE WEST LOT IS TO BE 1.59 ACRES AND TO MAINTAIN THE EXISTING HOME AND OUT BUILDINGS. THE EAST LOT IS TO BE 17.77 ACES AND WILL MAINTAIN THE BARN BUILDINGS. LOT 1 IS IN AN RR-3A ZONE WHERE LOT CONDITIONS (SETBACKS) ARE PRE-EXISTING. LOT 2 IS IN AN RR-5A ZONE WHERE LOT CONDITIONS ARE PRE-EXISTING. PURSUANT TO CHAPTER 183 OF THE ZONING ORDINANCE, SUBDIVISION OF LAND SHALL BE SUBJECT TO PLANNING BOARD REVIEW AND APPROVAL. VARIANCE: RELIEF IS SOUGHT FOR LOT SIZE, LOT WIDTH, SETBACKS. PLANNING BOARD SHALL PROVIDE A RECOMMENDATION TO THE ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS. CROSS REFERENCE: PZ 246-2016, AV 70-2021. WARREN CO. PLANNING: N/A FOR SUBDIVISION. SITE INFORMATION: APA, LGPC, CEA. LOT SIZE: 19.36 ACRES. TAX MAP NO. 253.3-1-32.1. SECTION: CHAPTER 183. LUCAS DOBIE, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT MR. TRAVER-Laura? MRS. MOORE-The applicant proposes to subdivide a 19.36 acre parcel into two lots. The parcel has a natural division by Ridge Road, and the west lot is to be 1.59 acres and the east lot is to be 17.7 acres. It’s the west lot that requires relief where the zoning is Rural Residential Three acres and they are doing some improvements to the home, not changing the footprint, but there are some renovations, and so I identified some of those setbacks so the Board is was aware that that was occurring as well. MR. TRAVER-Okay. Thank you. MR. DOBIE-Thank you again, Mr. Chairman and Board, for your time. For the record, Lucas Dobie with Hutchins Engineering, PLLC and representing the Cleveland family is the applicant who is the westerly landowner and the landowner is Streck’s Inc., which bought the property it’s my understanding back in March of 2021 I believe and also with us is the Cleveland’s daughter, Katie and her fiancé Jason Simms who works for me. So we’re keeping everything in the family in the house tonight. The Clevelands negotiated a deal with the Streck’s to, if we’re successful with our subdivision approval process and our variances, to purchase the farmhouse and the lands west of Ridge Road, the 1.59 acres. If you drive by it today it looks like it should be two parcels. The easterly approximately 18 acres has several barns and accessory structures, and so it looks like it’s naturally two parcels. Over the years as that land got sold off up in that area it just never got subdivided out. So it’s one tax parcel today. So we need to go through the subdivision process and usually as you know we’re doing a lot of site work on these projects. There’s minimal site work on either parcel. So it’s go in, fix the house up and make it their home is the goal, and again the variance is deficient lot size for the westerly parcel Lot 1, below the three acres, and the same thing with it being a pie shaped lot. It doesn’t meet the 400 feet of average lot width and then also the third variance is to renovate the home, renovate a non-conforming structure is a variance. So there’s no expansion to the farmhouse. It’s just fix it up and we believe it’ll be a nice improvement to the neighborhood. With that I’d be happy to answer any questions the Board may have and hopefully we’re successful tomorrow night at the Zoning Board and we hope to see you next Tuesday for Preliminary and Final subdivision. MR. TRAVER-Questions, comments from members of the Board? MR. HUNSINGER-I would just make a comment. I guess in my mind this is a great example of why you have the variance route. Because you have two properties. MR. TRAVER-Divided by Ridge Road. 12 (Queensbury Planning Board 10/19/2021) MR. HUNSINGER-You apply your land use codes and it’s not going to fit every single little lot. There’s always going to be these little exceptions, and to me this is exactly what the variance is for, to correct an oversight when these controls were adopted. MR. DOBIE-I appreciate that. MR. SHAFER-How old is the house? MR. DOBIE-Late 1800’s is my understanding. MR. MAGOWAN-So it’s probably just a dirt road that went down there. MR. SHAFER-Lucas, there used to be a tree that grew up through the roof of the porch back in the 70’s and the 80’s. Our kids always noticed that as we came up here. What is the plan for the large parcel? MR. DOBIE-It’s my understanding the Strecks are going to keep it as it is. No plans at this point. There was before the Board under a previous owner some years back, I believe 2016 to build one of the new structures that we did a septic for. MR. SHAFER-So I think they own a machine shop in Watervliet. Do they not? AUDIENCE MEMBER-Yes. MR. SHAFER-I’m just curious what the intent for this large parcel was, is. MR. DOBIE-It’s my understanding it’s just as it is. I can’t see any commercial use. It’s certainly not an allowed use in the Rural Residential zone. MR. TRAVER-Other questions? Any concerns that we want to pass along to the ZBA regarding this? I’m not really hearing any. MR. MAGOWAN-I agree with Chris. MR. TRAVER-Yes, it’s certainly pre-existing. All right. Then I guess we’re ready for a motion. RESOLUTION RE: ZBA RECOMMENDATION RE: AV # 70-2021 STRECK’S INC. The applicant has submitted an application for the following: Applicant proposes to subdivide a 19.36 acre parcel into 2 lots as the parcel is naturally divided by Ridge Rd. The west lot is to be 1.59 acres and to maintain the existing home and out buildings. The east lot is to be 17.77 acres and will maintain the barn buildings. Lot 1 is in an RR3A zone where lot conditions (setbacks) are preexisting. Lot 2 is in an RR5A zone where lot conditions are preexisting. Pursuant to Chapter 183 of the Zoning Ordinance, subdivision of land shall be subject to Planning Board review and approval. Variance: Relief is sought for lot size, lot width, setbacks. The Town of Queensbury Zoning Ordinance, per Section 179-9-070 J 2 b. requires the Planning Board to provide a written recommendation to the Zoning Board of Appeals for projects that require both Zoning Board of Appeals & Planning Board approval; The Planning Board has briefly reviewed and discussed this application, the relief request in the variance application as well as the potential impacts of this project on the neighborhood and surrounding community, and found that: MOTION TO MAKE A RECOMMENDATION ON BEHALF OF THE PLANNING BOARD TO THE ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS FOR AREA VARIANCE NO. 70-2021 STRECK’S INC. Introduced by David Deeb who moved for its adoption, and a) The Planning Board, based on a limited review, has not identified any significant adverse impacts that cannot be mitigated with current project proposal. th Motion seconded by Brad Magowan. Duly adopted this 19 day of October 2021 by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Dixon, Mr. Deeb, Ms. White, Mr. Shafer, Mr. Hunsinger, Mr. Magowan, Mr. Traver NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mr. Valentine MR. TRAVER-You’re off to the ZBA. 13 (Queensbury Planning Board 10/19/2021) MR. DOBIE-Thanks so much. MR. TRAVER-The next section of our agenda is New Business, and the first item is Queensbury Auto Mall, Site Plan 62-2021. NEW BUSINESS: SITE PLAN NO. 62-2021 SEQR TYPE: TYPE II. QUEENSBURY AUTO MALL. AGENT(S): STUDIO A LANDSCAPE, SEI DESIGN GROUP. OWNER(S): MATT EBERLEIN. ZONING: CI. LOCATION: 44 EAST QUAKER SERVICE ROAD. APPLICANT PROPOSES TO DEVELOP A 1.58 ACRE SITE WITH A NEW CAR DEALERSHIP AND SERVICE CENTER. THE NEW BUILDING IS TO BE 6,260 SQ. FT. THE PROJECT INCLUDES SITE DESIGN WITH PARKING, STORMWATER MANAGEMENT, LANDSCAPING & LIGHTING. PURSUANT TO CHAPTER 179-3-040, REVIEW FOR NEW AUTO USE IN A CI ZONE SHALL BE SUBJECT TO PLANNING BOARD REVIEW AND APPROVAL. CROSS REFERENCE: SP 30-1994, SP 27-2005. WARREN CO. REFERRAL: OCTOBER 2021. LOT SIZE: 1.58 ACRES. TAX MAP NO. 303.15-1-18. SECTION: 179-3-040. MICHAEL BORGOS & MATT EBERLEIN, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT MR. TRAVER-Laura? MRS. MOORE-This application is to develop a 1.58 acre site with a new car dealership and service center. The new building is to be 6,260 square feet. The project includes site design with parking stormwater management, landscaping and lighting. MR. TRAVER-Okay. Thank you. Good evening. MR. BORGOS-Good evening. I’m Mike Borgos. I’m here on behalf of the applicant. I’ve got a roomful of experts with me here. So if I can’t answer something I’m sure they would be able to. I’ll give you a brief introduction to the project. This is our first appearance. MR. DEEB-Before you start, I’m reading here. You say a new car dealership. I think you meant a non- franchise car dealership, not a new car dealership. MR. BORGOS-Correct. MR. DEEB-I just want to make sure we get that clear. There’s a difference. MRS. MOORE-Okay. MR. BORGOS-You all know Queensbury Auto Mall in its other location in the other end of Queensbury on Glen Street. So we have a better location now and it’s time to invest further in Queensbury and this is really a super location, just off of Quaker Road. As you might have noticed through your applications you’ve been reviewing over the years, Quaker Road has become car avenue. That’s where all the shoppers are going. So it makes good sense to re-locate over there. So you see the plans that present a fully compliant structure without any variances requested for development of the site. I think Laura’s Staff Notes indicated that there were two prior approvals for this site and I think the one before back in 2005 was for a different car dealership on this site, under a prior ownership, but I don’t think there’s a whole lot to be concerned with. So I focused on Staff Notes, which I think have all been addressed, and one thing that just came up that I don’t know, Laura, that you have had an answer on is Mike Palmer’s comment about the access for the fire trucks. MR. TRAVER-Right. MR. BORGOS-So that’s something that our engineer Matt can talk about a little bit further, but basically we need to submit a drawing to show that it is totally compliant. It looks like Mike Palmer just needs to see it. We can give him a fire truck diagram to show that it does meet the requirements. MR. TRAVER-And there’s also information requested on signage. MRS. MOORE-So this afternoon I received information about their signage, and as typical with car dealerships, their signage is not going to be compliant. So it would not be part of this Board’s review at this time. That’s, I can move right over to here so you can see it, but again it’s typically the signage above the door, large sign at the building itself. They didn’t actually measure the signage. So there may be some information that says it can go up to a certain square footage based on the setback from the front property line if it’s greater than 80 feet or something to that effect, but at the moment there’s numerous signs. So it would be subject to a Sign Variance. So that would be something that at this point wouldn’t be seen by 14 (Queensbury Planning Board 10/19/2021) the Board as part of this project. They did provide some information on the façade, and I’ll let them describe that information when that time comes up. MR. BORGOS-Laura, would you be able to put up the image that’s on your packet that was shared and has the visual, has the exterior view from the packet? That gives you a pretty clear indication of what we’re looking to do. It’s similar to what they have now at their present location, if you’ve seen that. That’s very consistent with the other. MRS. MOORE-That was just received today. MR. HUNSINGER-So what’s the color on the left hand side? Is that charcoal? MR. BORGOS-It’s a light gray, actually. That’s a darker, it’s caught up in these renderings when they get re-produced, they come in darker. It’s actually a very light gray and the signage would have blue lettering on it and that’s proposed right now as backlit. MR. SHAFER-That replaces this/ MR. BORGOS-That is an expansion upon that. I think it’s a little bit more detail. MR. TRAVER-Okay. Questions, comments from members of the Board with the information that we have so far? MR. DEEB-Matt, how many cars do you have on the lot over there now? MR. EBERLEIN-Right now we’re sitting on about 80. MR. DEEB-Okay. You’ve got to identify yourself. MR. EBERLEIN-Matt Eberlein. MR. DEEB-Yes, because I was wondering. You’re crowded. I remember when Merrill was there. It’s got to be tough. Now the prior approval that you were talking about, Mike, was for a guy named Tom. MR. BORGOS-Yes. MR. DEEB-What was his last name? He leased my property. What was his last name? MR. BORGOS-Dicker. MR. DEEB-Dicker. That’s right. I forgot about that. Thank you. I know he said he got approved there and your plans are very similar, if I’m not mistaken. MR. BORGOS-Correct. MR. DEEB-Okay. So you’re making room for 99 cars on the new lot, which is more than what you have down on Glen Street. MR. EBERLEIN-Yes, it enables a little bit more parking for customers. MR. DEEB-Yes. That’s all I have. MR. TRAVER-We do have a public hearing also on this application. Is there anyone in the audience that wanted to address the Planning Board on this application? I’m not seeing any. Are there any written comments, Laura? PUBLIC HEARING OPENED MRS. MOORE-There’s no written comments. MR. HUNSINGER-I really only had one question about the site plan. What are you going to do for snow storage? MR. BORGOS-As far as I know, talking with the engineer, the snow storage is on the plans. Correct? MR. HUNSINGER-I kind of thought it was going to go to the northern triangle up there, but I saw the landscaping for up there. So I wasn’t sure. MR. EBERLEIN-Also in the lower left hand corner. 15 (Queensbury Planning Board 10/19/2021) MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. I liked your landscaping plan and the lighting plan. MR. MAGOWAN-I’m kind of happy and sad. I always liked looking at all the cars over there. So now I’m going to have to change my route so I can look at all of your nice cars over here. You’ve always kept that up. It’s almost like you’re going from one triangular lot to another triangular lot. It’s a nice design and I think it will really bring a larger exposure for you. MR. DEEB-Also it’s going to be nice to see that when you bring your cars in and unload them they don’t have to wait on Glen Street to do that. To get them off that road, off Quaker Road. I mean Garvey’s still unloading them on Quaker Road. That’s a dangerous situation. So we’re glad to see that. That road in front of it, what’s it called East Quaker? East Quaker Service Road. That’s been there for years and years and years and that’s a good addition. It helps you with your lot, too, because you’re at one end of it. Okay. MR. HUNSINGER-Well normally that would have been a comment, that connection to the lot next to you. That’s really what the service road’s purpose is. MR. TRAVER-Yes. MR. HUNSINGER-You’re off Quaker Road and you have the Service Road to go from one lot to the next. So that’s really to your benefit. MR. TRAVER-Are there any other questions, comments? Do Board members feel comfortable moving forward? All right. MR. DEEB-How many service bays are you going to have? MR. EBERLEIN-Six MR. DEEB-That’s right. It’s probably much more modern than what you have now to work with I would think. MR. EBERLEIN-Well, we get by with what we get by with now. MR. DEEB-I’ll bet you’re going to be happy to get in there. MR. EBERLEIN-Yes, extremely. MR. DEEB-All right. MS. GAGLIARDI-Excuse me, Mr. Chairman. Did you close the public hearing? MR. TRAVER-I did not actually. No. Thank you. I will close the public hearing. PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED MR. TRAVER-And, Laura, with regard to signage and the Fire Marshal, do we just condition those on potential approval? MRS. MOORE-You would condition the Fire Marshal approval. However, with the signage you could identify that the signage is not part of this review. So it’s not a condition. So that they can move forward separately with their signage. MR. TRAVER-Okay. All right. Thank you. MR. SHAFER-Does that mean they have to come back? MRS. MOORE-They would go to the Zoning Board of Appeals. They would not come back to this Board for their signage. MR. SHAFER-Okay. MR. BORGOS-Laura, just to clarify. If they wanted to submit a compliant sign application they would do that through Staff and that could be reviewed? MRS. MOORE-That would be reviewed as part of the normal permitting process if it was compliant. Yes. MR. BORGOS-Thank you. 16 (Queensbury Planning Board 10/19/2021) RESOLUTION APPROVING SP # 62-2021 QUEENSBURY AUTO MALL The applicant has submitted an application to the Planning Board: Applicant proposes to develop a 1.58 acre site with a new car dealership and service center. The new building is to be 6,260 sq. ft. The project includes site design with parking, stormwater management, landscaping & lighting. Pursuant to Chapter 179-3-040, review for new auto use in a CI zone shall be subject to Planning Board review and approval. Pursuant to relevant sections of the Town of Queensbury Zoning Code-Chapter 179-9-080, the Planning Board has determined that this proposal satisfies the requirements as stated in the Zoning Code; As required by General Municipal Law Section 239-m the site plan application was referred to the Warren County Planning Department for its recommendation; The Planning Board opened a public hearing on the Site plan application on October 19, 2021 and continued the public hearing to October 19, 2021, when it was closed, The Planning Board has reviewed the application materials submitted by the applicant and all comments made at the public hearing and submitted in writing through and including October 19, 2021; The Planning Board determines that the application complies with the review considerations and standards set forth in Article 9 of the Zoning Ordinance for Site Plan approval, MOTION TO APPROVE SITE PLAN 62-2021 QUEENSBURY AUTO MALL; Introduced by David Deeb who moved for its adoption. According to the draft resolution prepared by Staff with the following: 1) Waivers requested granted (no waivers were requested); 2) The approval is valid for one (1) year from the date of approval. Applicant is responsible for requesting an extension of approval before the one (1) year time frame has expired if you have not yet applied for a building permit or commenced significant site work. 3) Adherence to the items outlined in the follow-up letter sent with this resolution. a) 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; b) If applicable, the Sanitary Sewer connection plan must be submitted to the Wastewater Department for its review, approval, permitting and inspection; c) 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; d) If application was referred to engineering then Engineering sign-off required prior to signature of Zoning Administrator of the approved plans; e) Final approved plans should have dimensions and setbacks noted on the site plan/survey, floor plans and elevation for the existing rooms and proposed rooms in the building and site improvements;- f) If required, the applicant must submit a copy of the following to the Town: a. The project NOI (Notice of Intent) for coverage under the current "NYSDEC SPDES General Permit from Construction Activity" prior to the start of any site work. b. The project NOT (Notice of Termination) upon completion of the project; c. The applicant must maintain on their project site, for review by staff: i. The approved final plans that have been stamped by the Town Zoning Administrator. These plans must include the project SWPPP (Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan) when such a plan was prepared and approved; ii. The project NOI and proof of coverage under the current NYSDEC SPDES General Permit, or an individual SPDES permit issued for the project if required. g) 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; h) The applicant must meet with Staff after approval and prior to issuance of Building Permit and/or the beginning of any site work; i) Subsequent issuance of further permits, including building permits is dependent on compliance with this and all other conditions of this resolution; j) As-built plans to certify that the site plan is developed according to the approved plans to be provided prior to issuance of the certificate of occupancy. k) This resolution is to be placed in its entirety on the final plans l) Signage not part of this review. m) Fire Marshal signoff required. n) Color scheme has been approved as given,(plans provided at meeting). th Motion seconded by John Shafer. Duly adopted this 19 day of October 2021 by the following vote: 17 (Queensbury Planning Board 10/19/2021) MRS. MOORE-Before you move your motion, I would add one more item. The color scheme has been submitted as of tonight. So that would be part of your approval. So I don’t know what letter you’re at, David. AYES: Mr. Dixon, Mr. Deeb, Ms. White, Mr. Shafer, Mr. Hunsinger, Mr. Magowan, Mr. Traver NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mr. Valentine MR. TRAVER-You’re all set. MR. EBERLEIN-Thank you very much. MR. TRAVER-The next item on our agenda, also under New Business, is Hogan & Walsh, Site Plan 65- 2021 and Special Use Permit 5-2021. SITE PLAN NO. 65-2021 SPECIAL USE PERMIT 5-2021 SEQR TYPE: TYPE II. HOGAN & WALSH. AGENT(S): DOUGLAS SHARTRAND. OWNER(S): ROBERT ECKHARDT. ZONING: MS. LOCATION: 16 MAIN STREET. APPLICANT PROPOSES TO REUSE AN EXISTING BUILDING FOR A COMMERCIAL BUSINESS TO OPERATE OFFICE AND RETAIL FOR SECURITY AND KEY SERVICE. THE EXISTING BUILDING IS 660 SQ. FT. WITH A 450 SQ. FT. DETACHED GARAGE. THERE ARE NO CHANGES TO THE SITE FOR PARKING, LANDSCAPING, AND LIGHTING. PURSUANT TO CHAPTER 179-3-040 & CHAPTER 179-10 OF THE ZONING ORDINANCE, NEW COMMERCIAL BUSINESS AND NO REVIEW WITHIN THE LAST SEVEN YEARS SHALL BE SUBJECT TO PLANNING BOARD REVIEW AND APPROVAL. CROSS REFERENCE: SP 19-2008 SEVERAL SIGN PERMITS. WARREN CO. PLANNING: OCTOBER 2021. SITE INFORMATION: MAIN STREET ZONING. LOT SIZE: .28 ACRE. TAX MAP NO. 309.11-1-46. SECTION: 179-3-040, 179-10. SCOTT HOGAN & TOM WALSH, PRESENT MR. TRAVER-Laura? MRS. MOORE-So this application is to re-use an existing building for a commercial business to operate office and retail for security and key service. The existing building is 660 square feet with a 450 square foot detached garage There are no changes to the site for parking , landscaping and lighting. And this is subject to site plan review for new commercial business and no review within the last seven years. The idea behind the Special Use Permit, the applicant has addressed those questions, and that’s simply because their parking is to the front and to the sides, and I’m just going to see. Did you do SEQR because the building is greater than 4,000 square feet? For the last application? MR. TRAVER-No, we did not. MR. HUNSINGER-We did not. MRS. MOORE-I put Type II. Okay. All right. MR. DEEB-Yes, it’s listed as Type II. MRS. MOORE-All right. MR. TRAVER-Good evening. Tell us about your project. MR. HOGAN-My name is Scott Hogan. I’m the owner of the business. This is my business partner, Tom Walsh. We opened a small retail business doing security. We’ve been in business for 21 years. Our main location is down in Clifton Park. We just moved into the area. MR. TRAVER-So you acquired this facility and you just want to use it for your business. MR. HOGAN-Yes, sir. MR. TRAVER-All right. Questions, comments from members of the Board. MR. DEEB-Were you in South Glens Falls before? MR. HOGAN-Yes. MR. DEEB-I know I talked to one of you before. After the meeting I may want to talk to you. 18 (Queensbury Planning Board 10/19/2021) MR. HOGAN-Yes, we leased a property down there. MR. MAGOWAN-I want to thank you for coming across the river. MR. TRAVER-Yes. MR. MAGOWAN-It’s a good application. Nice re-use of the building. MR. TRAVER-We do have a public hearing on this application as well. Is there anyone in the audience who wanted to address the Planning Board on this Site Plan? Are there any written comments, Laura? PUBLIC HEARING OPENED MRS. MOORE-There are no written comments. MR. TRAVER-All right. We’ll go ahead and close the public hearing, then. PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED MR. TRAVER-Any further questions, comments from members of the Board? MR. DEEB-I think we have to consider whether it’s going to be a permanent, temporary, or renewable. How do you want to do this? MR. TRAVER-Well, if it’s sold and a new business is going in, we’d be looking at it again. Right? MRS. MOORE-If it didn’t meet the specific criteria of being, if it needed additional site plan review for a different use. MR. TRAVER-Right. MRS. MOORE-But it may not if it meets all the criteria. MR. WALSH-I do have two sons that are looking to take over. We do have 14 trucks on the road out of the Clifton Park location. So I think we’re here to stay. MR. DEEB-I would recommend a permanent. MR. HUNSINGER-I would, too. MR. DEEB-I don’t think we have to worry about that. MR. TRAVER-Okay. Then let’s propose that and see if it passes. MR. SHAFER-There was something in the Staff Notes about a septic hook up, wastewater hook up. Is that all in place. MR. HOGAN-Yes, that’s all operational and everything at this point. With the recommendations of Laura to get it hooked. MRS. MOORE-Right. So that’ll be a condition of this approval is to have, and I think there’s already language in the resolution with communication with connection with the sewer Wastewater Department. There’s a requirement that’s still open that the applicant is required to communicate with the Department for Wastewater and Water. MR. SHAFER-What about a sign out front? MR. HOGAN-There is a sign there. Again we acquired, we’re going to actually remove what’s there, meet all your requirements, the setbacks and also the size requirements. We’ve addressed all that. MR. SHAFER-Okay. So you meet Code. MR. HOGAN-Yes. MRS. MOORE-So I think, I don’t see it in here in reference to the connection to the sewer. So you will need to add that, David. MR. DEEB-Got it. 19 (Queensbury Planning Board 10/19/2021) MRS. MOORE-Okay. RESOLUTION APPROVING SP # 65-2021 SUP 5-2021 HOGAN & WALSH The applicant has submitted an application to the Planning Board: Applicant proposes to reuse an existing building for a commercial business to operate office and retail for security and key service. The existing building 660 sq. ft. with a 450 sq. ft. detached garage. There are no changes to the site for parking, landscaping, and lighting. Pursuant to Chapter 179-3-040 & Chapter 179-10 of the Zoning Ordinance, new commercial business and no review within the last seven years shall be subject to Planning Board review and approval. Pursuant to relevant sections of the Town of Queensbury Zoning Code-Chapter 179-9-080, the Planning Board has determined that this proposal satisfies the requirements as stated in the Zoning Code; As required by General Municipal Law Section 239-m the site plan application was referred to the Warren County Planning Department for its recommendation; The Planning Board opened a public hearing on the Site plan application on October 19, 2021 and continued the public hearing to October 19, 2021 when it was closed, The Planning Board has reviewed the application materials submitted by the applicant and all comments made at the public hearing and submitted in writing through and including October 19, 2021; The Planning Board determines that the application complies with the review considerations and standards set forth in Article 9 of the Zoning Ordinance for Site Plan approval, MOTION TO APPROVE SITE PLAN 65-2021 & SPECIAL USE PERMIT 5-2021 HOGAN & WALSH; Introduced by David Deeb who moved for its adoption; Per the draft provided by staff conditioned upon the following conditions: 1) Waivers request granted: j. stormwater, k. topography, q. soil logs, r. construction/demolition disposal s. snow removal. The items are appropriate for waiver requests as there are no changes to the site proposed- reuse of an existing building and site. The following items were provided as part of the application- g. site lighting, h. signage, l. landscaping, n traffic, o. commercial alterations/ construction details, p floor plans, 2) The approval is valid for one (1) year from the date of approval. Applicant is responsible for requesting an extension of approval before the one (1) year time frame has expired if you have not yet applied for a building permit or commenced significant site work. 3) Adherence to the items outlined in the follow-up letter sent with this resolution. a) If application was referred to engineering, then engineering sign-off required prior to signature of Zoning Administrator of the approved plans; b) Final approved plans should have dimensions and setbacks noted on the site plan/survey, floor plans and elevation for the existing rooms and proposed rooms in the building and site improvements, 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; d) The applicant must meet with Staff after approval and prior to issuance of Building Permit and/or the beginning of any site work; e) Subsequent issuance of further permits, including building permits is dependent on compliance with this and all other conditions of this resolution; f) As-built plans to certify that the site plan is developed according to the approved plans to be provided prior to issuance of the certificate of occupancy; g) Resolution to be placed on final plans in its entirety and legible. h) Special Use Permit to be permanent. i) The applicant is required to be in contact with the Queensbury Water Department for water and wastewater connection. th Motion seconded by Michael Dixon. Duly adopted this 19 day of October 2021 by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Hunsinger, Mr. Magowan, Mr. Dixon, Mr. Deeb, Ms. White, Mr. Shafer, Mr. Traver NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mr. Valentine MR. TRAVER-You’re all set. 20 (Queensbury Planning Board 10/19/2021) MR. HUNSINGER-Good luck. MR. TRAVER-So that concludes our regular agenda for this evening. MRS. MOORE-Before you continue on with your agenda, I just want to introduce Shauna Baker. She’s in the back of the room. She’ll be taking over for Sunny Sweet because Sunny will be retiring next week. MR. TRAVER-Welcome aboard. MRS. MOORE-So I thought it would be nice to have Shauna show up and sort of see who was here and introduce her. Okay. MR. TRAVER-Very good. SHAUNA BAKER MRS. BAKER-Thank you. MR. TRAVER-So before we adjourn, we have joining us Don Krebs. You all may remember Don was a member of the Board for a number of years and he wanted to take a few minutes to talk to us about an enforcement issue with Hiland Park. So we’ll turn the meeting over to Mr. Krebs. DON KREBS MR. KREBS-My name is Don Krebs and thankfully David took over my position. I’ve listened tonight as we always did, you tie into details, but we need to have some way that you can enforce those regulations. th I live on Masters Common North on the 10 fairway and when that was done, I left a couple of pictures there, but. MR. TRAVER-Yes, and just to clarify, in case not everybody has a copy of your notes. This is regarding the Hiland Park development that took place back in 1987 and as part of that agreement there was a stormwater maintenance agreement which was signed off on by Mr. Bowen at that time, and what you’re looking to point out to us is that that maintenance has not apparently occurred as it should. MR. KREBS-And there doesn’t seem to, I don’t know, there’s all kinds of information available. Sean Doty did a look at this and came up with all kinds of plans that were already written in that said this is how they should maintain the drain. It should be six feet wide. It should be three feet deep. MR. TRAVER-All right. So it’s an enforcement issue. MR. KREBS-Right. So right now I think that Bob Hafner is working on it, but we did the same thing last year and nothing ever happened. The Town Attorney took it over and nothing ever happened. So what I was thinking about, having been on Planning Boards, is that it’s a little more work for you, but if some way that you could possibly write into it that those requirements have to be executed within a certain timeframe. My situation, my lot when we first moved there all of a sudden I find out that there’s water pumping into my lot. Well it turns out that Bowen never put the second pipe in that would have taken it to the end of my property. MR. TRAVER-Was that part of the original approved plan that that pipe be installed? MR. KREBS-Yes. MR. TRAVER-Okay. So, again, that’s an enforcement issue and, Laura, I know that we’ve run into these, you know, enforcement’s an issue because for us, I mean we look at something on paper and hear the applicant state their plans and what they’re going to do including the maintenance and so on, and then if that doesn’t happen we’re pretty much out of it. It becomes a Town issue. Correct? MRS. MOORE-Correct. Yes. MR. TRAVER-And this has happened before. And I don’t know if this would be applicable with you and perhaps some of your neighbors, but know that there’ve been some civil action take, especially when there’s documentation that states that there are requirements in place that were agreed to, and, you know, there can be perhaps a judgment awarded that if the original signor or their representatives are not fulfilling the terms of the maintenance, that an outside firm can be hired out of like an escrow account or something that’s set up so it could come into compliance, but again, that wouldn’t involve us. That would be a civil matter. 21 (Queensbury Planning Board 10/19/2021) MR. KREBS-No, but I just wanted to point out that, you know, Number One, originally this was said that they were supposed to, or Mr. Bowen, was supposed to install all and maintain all of the drainage. MR. TRAVER-Right. MR. KREBS-Well it turns out that on my property they had to put in an additional 60 feet which the Town of Queensbury, I think it was Mike Travis who was the Highway Superintendent at the time, and he put in another 60 feet of 36 inch pipe to address water, because that water comes from all the way around the thing, and that’s what helps drain on the street, and there are actually who have water problems who pump their water into storm drains, okay. I know you don’t have any magic. I was on the Planning Board for 13 years. MR. TRAVER-Well as you know, when we, you know, we review these and stormwater, it’s not uncommon that it’s an issue particularly as the engineering gets more and more complicated with the remaining land that can be developed. So we’re often looking at stormwater and we see these plans and they are subject to engineering review, and if they pass muster with the engineer and they seem to make sense on paper, you know, there’s a limit to what we can do, unless somehow we were to, the Town were to put some kind of like an escrow account or something, against which the maintenance could come from. That’s an unusual. There needs to be grounds for that, and when the applicant proposes and is agreeable, you know, proposes a plan that’s acceptable to the engineering practices of the day and they sign off on it and they say this is what we’re going to do and believing them and seeing it in writing and it is subject to enforcement and after, you know, the development takes place it has to be signed off by the Town and so on. So we pretty much do what we can on our end, but when it comes to years down the road, it really becomes a civil matter, not a Planning Board matter. MR. MAGOWAN-Can I interject? Because I have been working with Don on this, and I’ve had meetings and I’ve been with Dave. I talked to John, and, you know, one of the problems we have here is like Don said is enforcing this, and this particular property was signed off by Gary Bowen and then that company went defunct and Hiland was bought out of a bankruptcy, and so really it’s kind of like carrying on a deed or right of way, you know, that how do we enforce that because the owners now are like, they knew nothing of it and now they do and they’re not going to take care of it, and it’s very frustrating. MR. TRAVER-Well that’s why I say I think it’s a civil matter. It’s something that needs to be adjudicated. MR. MAGOWAN-It’s not a civil matter. It’s actually, we logged it here in the Planning Board. So to me, you know, Dave, like he said, it’s been handed over to the attorney and we haven’t heard anything. MR. TRAVER-So it’s in process already and awaiting a decision. MR. KREBS-Right. MR. MAGOWAN-Thank you, Don, for coming. It’s so good to see you again. MR. KREBS-We waited all this time, but not only that, whatever we could do, all I wanted to say is whatever we can do now. Making it possible that when you approve something, if there are any requirements of that person, that they somehow be tied together so that they can’t just ignore them. Because basically what, with all the documentation I’ve got, what was written, and Sean looked at before, the young fellow who runs the place now just says I’m not going to do it. MR. TRAVER-Yes, well, as you know, in terms of our process, to answer your question directly, I mean, when there’s stormwater water required, there’s State law and local code requirements that we require and there needs to be plans submitted stating what will be done to address these, plus a recommendation and approval from the Town Engineer, and once all of that’s in place, we have, we’re not in a position to tell someone, you know, we don’t believe you if they sign off on this and we make it conditional. Our latitude is limited unless there’s a violation, and that goes to Town Code enforcement basically. MR. KREBS-I just wanted to give the Board an example of what can happen if a plan is not executed, even though it was approved . MR. TRAVER-Right, and that does happen unfortunately, you know, but we have had cases in the past where there’s been site plan approved and they haven’t been developed as approved. We’ve also had, and we have developed a new category of unapproved development where people will make development on a piece of property without even seeking approval, and we find out about it after the fact, and that’s been increasing, not been increasing thing, but that’s an issue that comes up from time to time as well. MR. DEEB-What I find unfortunate is that engineer signoff, they missed that they didn’t put that pipe in. I mean if they had caught that at that time. 22 (Queensbury Planning Board 10/19/2021) MR. KREBS-Yes. The Town should have insisted that they put that pipe in. Then afterwards when the water is discharged from that 60 foot pipe. Now it’s about 180 feet to the road to where you go into this little swampy area which is where the drainage was, and what they don’t do is they don’t clean out the drains. MR. TRAVER-Well please keep us informed. I mean your situation is not unique, but I think it would be helpful not only for your specific case but also just as to the process. We’d be interested in knowing how successful you are in seeking additional help from the Town and getting some counsel from council and whether you end up doing it in a civic way if the Town doesn’t feel they can respond. I certainly would like to know how this happens, because it has happened in the past and we don’t often find out the outcome of all these things. I mean there have been various disputes. I mean there are civil matters that go on between neighbors and there’s right of way issues and lot line, all kinds of stuff that we don’t have an opportunity to really participate in but we find out about it, and so this is, stormwater is especially concerning to us because it’s an increasing issue. So we would very much like to know how this goes forward. MR. KREBS-As I said I do know that the Board was aware of this. I just wanted to make you more aware of the fact that somehow we enforce when you make a statement and tell the perspective person that they’re going to be able to do this but they have to do the following things. You have to know how to enforce that. MR. SHAFER-Mr. Chairman, there’s another example here, and that is we approve a site plan for the house. The owner took the old house down, put in a leach field down below the property, blasted out a six foot hole, put crushed stone in the bottom that’s been sitting there for four years, and I’m told there’s nothing the Town can do to motivate an owner like that to do something. So this whole six foot hole in the ground has been there for years. MR. TRAVER-Yes, I’m not familiar with that. Again, that would be a Code Enforcement issue. MR. DEEB-Well we need better enforcement. MR. TRAVER-Yes, I mean, enforcement we’ve always known that it’s understaffed and it’s always been a problem. We don’t have the necessary staff. MR. SHAFER-I’m not sure what an approach could be. MR. TRAVER-Yes, I don’t know either. MR. DEEB-Don, I wish you good luck. I hope you can resolve this. MR. TRAVER-Yes, please let us know. MR. KREBS-I will. I enjoyed coming to see everybody. MR. HUNSINGER-Yes, it was great to see you again. MR. TRAVER-All right. If there’s nothing further before the Board this evening, we’ll entertain a motion to adjourn. MR. HUNSINGER-So moved. TH MOTION TO ADJOURN THE QUEENSBURY PLANNING BOARD MEETING OF OCTOBER 19, 2021, Introduced by Chris Hunsinger who moved for its adoption, seconded by Brad Magowan: th Duly adopted this 19 day of October, 2021, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Deeb, Ms. White, Mr. Shafer, Mr. Hunsinger, Mr. Magowan, Mr. Dixon, Mr. Traver NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mr. Valentine MR. TRAVER-We stand adjourned, ladies and gentlemen. Thank you very much. On motion meeting was adjourned. RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED, Stephen Traver, Chairman 23