08-27-2013 (Queensbury Planning Board 08/27/2013)
QUEENSBURY PLANNING BOARD MEETING
SECOND REGULAR MEETING
AUGUST 27,2013
INDEX
Subdivision No. 2-2013 Greenwood Builders 1.
PRELIMINARY STAGE Tax Map No. 290.-1-83
FWW 1-2013
Site Plan No.42-2013 William Duell 6.
Tax Map No. 303.20-2-15
Site Plan No.43-2013 Carrols, Inc. 8.
Tax Map No. 302.6-1-30
Site Plan No.45-2013 Hudson Headwaters Health Network 13.
Tax Map No. 309.13-2-31.2
Site Plan No.46-2013 Trustco Bank 15.
Tax Map No. 302.7-1-12
Site Plan No. 62-2011 Queensbury Partners 17.
FWW 6-2011 Tax Map No. 289.19-1-28 through 35
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 08/27/2013)
QUEENSBURY PLANNING BOARD MEETING
SECOND REGULAR MEETING
AUGUST 27,2013
7:00 P.M.
MEMBERS PRESENT
CHRIS HUNSINGER, CHAIRMAN
DONALD KREBS, SECRETARY
STEPHEN TRAVER
DAVID DEEB
THOMAS FORD
PAUL SCHONEWOLF
BRAD MAGOWAN
LAND USE PLANNER-LAURA MOORE
TOWN ENGINEER-CHAZEN ENGINEERING-SEAN DOTY
TOWN COUNSEL-MILLER, MANNIX, SCHACHNER&HAFNER-MARK SCHACHNER
STENOGRAPHER-MARIA GAGLIARDI
MR. HUNSINGER-I'll call to order the meeting of the Town of Queensbury Planning Board on
Tuesday, August 27, 2013. Before we get into the agenda, I did have a report for the Board. We
had asked Town Counsel to be present for the discussion on Queensbury Partners, and they had a
conflict this evening, so they couldn't be here when the meeting started. So it has been suggested
that we move the agenda order and listen to the Queensbury Partners project last. If there's no
objections from the Board,that's how we'll proceed. For members of the audience,we will hear the
Queensbury Partners project last.
PLANNING BOARD RECOMMENDATION TO ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS
SUBDIVISION NO. 2-2013 FRESHWATER WETLANDS 1-2013 PRELIMINARY STAGE REVIEW
SEQR TYPE UNLISTED GREENWOOD BUILDERS AGENT(S) JARRETT ENGINEERS
OWNER(S) H. THOMAS JARRETT ZONING MDR LOCATION RIDGE ROAD SITE PLAN:
APPLICANT PROPOSES SUBDIVISION OF A 16.02 ACRE PARCEL INTO 3 RESIDENTIAL LOTS OF
3.44, 4.13, AND 8.44 ACRES. SUBDIVISION OF LAND REQUIRES PLANNING BOARD REVIEW
AND APPROVAL. FRESHWATER WETLANDS: WORK ADJACENT TO ACOE WETLANDS
VARIANCE: RELIEF REQUESTED FROM ROAD FRONTAGE REQUIREMENTS OF THE MDR
ZONE. PLANNING BOARD MAY CONDUCT SEQR REVIEW AND PROVIDE A RECOMMENDATION
TO THE ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS. CROSS REFERENCE AV 43-13, SEPTIC VARIANCE
APA, CEA, OTHER NWI WETLANDS,STREAM OVERLAY LOT SIZE 16.02 ACRES TAX MAP NO.
290.4-83 SECTION CHAPTER A183,CHAPTER 94
TOM JARRETT, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT
MR. HUNSINGER-Laura?
MRS. MOORE-Yes. At this time the applicant's present to discuss any questions. I would
recommend the Board open the public hearing,but at this time the applicant is still pending a Board
of Health review for a septic variance.
MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. Good evening.
MR. JARRETT-Good evening. Tom Jarrett of Jarrett Engineers and the owner of the property, and
Gary Scott,partner in Greenwood Builders.
GARY SCOTT
MR. SCOTT-Gary Scott.
MR.JARRETT-This is a 16 acre parcel. It's being subdivided into three parcels,if you recall from our
Sketch Plan discussions, and we've prepared full design documents for the project, and in the
course of that we discovered we needed a variance for access not through our lot frontage. Lot
frontage is directly on Ridge Road,but we're proposing access for Lot Number Three, the larger lot,
1
(Queensbury Planning Board 08/27/2013)
through Stonehurst Drive,which we think is a positive for everyone because it's a shorter driveway.
There was a paper street provided for that future development, and it minimizes the number of
driveways on Ridge Road. We're here for a recommendation to the ZBA tonight, and if you wish to
discuss any other aspects of the project, we will do so, but I know you've got a full agenda. So I'll
keep it short and sweet.
MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. Questions,comments from the Board?
MR. FORD-How does this differ from a project that appeared before us a number of years back, the
same location,some of the same issues relative to the septic systems and the water?
MR. JARRETT-Well, we've delineated all the wetlands on the parcel. We have a number of acres
that are not wetlands. There's no DEC wetlands on the parcel by the way. There are Corps of
Engineers wetlands which are delineated, and we have areas that are suitable for wastewater
disposal with groundwater that is deep enough, and the soils are actually quite granular. They're
quite suitable for sewage disposal. I'm not privy to what was proposed years ago. I don't know
how many lots they proposed and in what configuration.
MR. FORD-One of the things that we certainly will be looking at when you come back will be the
septic systems.
MR.JARRETT-Which you have all that documentation,but,yes.
MR. FORD-I know that,but that was an issue in years gone by.
MR. JARRETT-The designs have been presented to you, but I know you're only making a
recommendation to the ZBA tonight.
MR. HUNSINGER-Right. Other questions, comments? The question I had is since you need to get a
variance on Lot Three anyway, why did you make it kind of loop around? Just in terms of
maintaining contiguous parcels.
MR.JARRETT-There were a lot of thoughts, a lot of thought processes that we went through, and in
fact at one point we thought of maybe a trail to connect back into the Halfway Brook corridor. That
was kind of abandoned because of some privacy issues that people discussed, and they were a little
concerned. Stonehurst people were a little concerned,but that was one of the earlier thoughts, and
then later on we discovered that we needed the frontage which Ridge Road provides where
Stonehurst does not, and rather than go for a variance on frontage we went for a variance on just
the access through the front.
MR. HUNSINGER-Okay.
MR. JARRETT-So there were a number of reasons for it, and it is a little bit odd shaped, but it's the
balance of the land that is left over from the other two lots.
MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. I figured there had to be a good reason,and it wasn't really obvious to me.
MR. JARRETT-I'm not sure it's a great reason, but the earlier reasons that would have come into
play are no longer a consideration.
MR. HUNSINGER-Other questions?
MR.JARRETT-Just as a further thought to that,we do have an easement set aside along the front for
a trail of some nature if there is one proposed at some point by the Town, and certainly if we still
own the parcel number three and there is pressure to put a trail in back to the Halfway Brook
corridor, we would certainly consider that. We're not sure there would be because of the wetlands
and because of the privacy issues back there,but very,very interesting access in the wintertime and
in the Fall.
MR. HUNSINGER-Right. Yes. We usually do SEQR before we make a recommendation.
MRS. MOORE-Correct. That's why you're tabling this. I would suggest you table the application
until the September meeting so that they resolve their Board of Health issue so that you can move
forward on SEQR.
MR. HUNSINGER-Now have you been before the Board of Health already?
2
(Queensbury Planning Board 08/27/2013)
MR.JARRETT-Yes,we have. The Board was receptive to our variance. In fact, I made an argument, I
don't know if you saw the documentation. I made an argument that variances should not be needed
there. I think it needs a clarification from the Town Board, and they're going to schedule a
workshop to discuss the regulations in general.
MR. HUNSINGER-Okay.
MR.JARRETT-Of which I volunteered to attend and help them with that process,but with regard to
the specific variances we've requested, a couple of neighbors came out and spoke about a stream
and some wet conditions, and Mr. Montesi went out with me last Friday, made a site visit, and in
fact the area where the stream does flow in wet seasons was not flowing at all. So it's an
intermittent stream that the DEC has so classified, meaning unclassified, and that was the concern
of the neighbors and so the Board tabled it to take action after the site visit.
MR. HUNSINGER-So is it likely that you'll have action from the Board of Health before the
September Board meetings?
MR.JARRETT-It's my expectation,yes. We're on the agenda for the Stn.
MR. HUNSINGER-Okay.
MR. JARRETT-And I've been told by the Board that they just wanted to visit the site first and then
they were prepared to take action.
MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. So you'd probably recommend that we table this to the first meeting in
September?
MRS.MOORE-Yes,please,the 17th,but you do need to open the public hearing.
MR. HUNSINGER-Yes,thank you.
MRS.MOORE-Okay.
MR. HUNSINGER-We will open the public hearing. Is there anyone in the audience who wishes to
address the Board on this project? We have at least one person. The purpose of the public hearing
is for members of the public to provide comment to the Board. I would ask anyone that wishes to
address the Board that they state their name for the record. We do tape the meeting. The tape is
available on the Town's website and is also used to transcribe the minutes. So please speak your
name into the microphone and ask any of your questions or comments to the Board.
PUBLIC HEARING OPENED
VINCENT SPERO
MR. SPERO-Excuse me. My name is Vincent Spero and I live two homes up from the designated
parcel. Besides the issues of the wetland, it is a wetland. However you want to classify it or spin it,
it's a wetland. There's a stream back there year round. It's wet. Even in the hottest time of the
year, you need boots to go back there. It empties into the brook. So whatever goes in the ground
goes in the brook. We also haven't been told what type of houses they're putting up. Are there
going to be three one family homes? Are there going to be three two family homes? Are they going
to be apartments? What are they going to be? Because that is a big issue, too. More people, more
waste, more stuff going in the ground. We all use well water there. We all have septics, and as far
as I'm concerned, these rules are put in place to protect the environment, and when you deviate,
you set a precedent, and once you deviate from that and set a precedent, the next person who's
going to want to build a house, and I'm sure in a year or two they're going to want to put another
house or two back there, they're going to get the same thing, and you're going to have more of the
same. You're going to have more waste; more crap going into the stream, which goes directly into
the brook. Now there might be times when you have a very hot summer, and in the back corner
there it is a little drier,but it's still wet. The ground is wet. I live,my parcel of land ends right at the
wetlands, and there's a stream there, and that stream runs year round. Even when,the hottest days
of August, there's still water in it. There might only be five inches of water in it, but in springtime,
you can't even go back there it gets so. I ask the Board to take that into consideration, that is the
water runoff is very important, and also the fact that they're not telling us what they want to build
there. I see three homes. What type of homes? That is very important. If it's a two family home,
you're going to have a lot more waste than a one family home. I mean, they could be putting
apartments up there. We have no idea. We haven't been told anything. So if they could give us that
3
(Queensbury Planning Board 08/27/2013)
information,that would help some,too,but I haven't heard any of that given. So naturally everyone
is concerned.
MR. FORD-Have you had any septic issues on your property?
MR. SPERO-I haven't, on my property, no. My septic system was installed when I bought the house,
and I had a new one installed in the same exact spot some years later because there was a crack in
the septic itself and instead of having it repaired, I didn't want any leaks, I had them put a new tank
in,but it was all in the same spot. So no variance or anything was needed,but,you know,the homes
are so far apart that it really hasn't been an issue. We all have at least two acre parcels or close to
two acre parcels. So, but for them to be putting a home so far back closer to the brook, at least one
or maybe more, worries me. It worries me, worries me about the environment, and like I say, if
you're going to build a home, and you're looking to put in a septic system, you have to know what
type of home you're putting in,don't you? I mean,you need to.
MR. HUNSINGER-Well, they're here for subdivision, which means, you know, they're taking one lot
and making it three. So that three different buildings could be installed.
MR. SPERO-Right,but are they going to be two family homes?
MR. KREBS-Well, prior to the fact, once they get the subdivision, when they come back to do the
individual buildings,they'll have to have a site plan review.
MR. SPERO-Right.
MR. KREBS-So at that point we'll determine what kind of building will be there.
MR. SPERO-And they'll come to us with a specific.
MR.TRAVER-Or is proposed to be there.
MR. KREBS-Or is proposed to be there.
MR. SPERO-Right. I see. I see.
MR. HUNSINGER-I mean, it will have to be consistent with the zone, which is Moderate Density
Residential.
MR. SPERO-Right,because I see what they did at,just down the road,that Moose Hollow complex.
MR. HUNSINGER-They're not proposing anything like that.
MR. SPERO-Yes, okay. All right, but those are my concerns, and my neighbors. They're not here. I
guess they're working. I was working myself and that's why I got here late, but we just have
concerns. Anytime somebody wants to start building next door to you, you wonder what are they
going to put up, what are they going to do about the septic, what about the water. That's our
drinking water. So,thank you for listening to me.
MR. HUNSINGER-Thank you. Any other comments from the Board? Were there any written
comments, Laura?
MRS.MOORE-No,there was not.
MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. We will leave the public hearing open. I don't know if you wanted to
address any of the?
MR.JARRETT-I can quickly.
MR. HUNSINGER-Quickly. Yes,go ahead.
MR.JARRETT-There certainly are wetlands on the parcel. The shaded areas on the overhead depict
the wetlands. The stream corridor that Mr. Spero was referring to is right there, and it does not
flow year round all the time. It was dry the other day, as a matter of fact. The wetlands behind his
house, going north, there were pockets of water, as (lost words) would demonstrate, but there
were,there was no flow in it at all. One house is proposed right there in that upland and one house
is proposed right there,and one house is proposed right there. So the density of three houses on 16
4
(Queensbury Planning Board 08/27/2013)
acres is far less than the density of anything in that neighborhood, and the houses to be built
depend on who owns the lots and what they propose, but it would be zoning compliant. Single
family and duplexes are allowed in that zone. We've shown,on the design documents that you have
in front of you, single family homes of reasonable size that can fit on those lots very effectively. I'm
not sure what else to say at this point.
MR. HUNSINGER-Okay.
MR. JARRETT-The septic systems would be designed; they have been designed to be compliant.
They're actually raised systems. Let me rephrase that. They're actually a raised type configuration.
They're not called raised systems because we're using fill to make them compliant, but they're
above groundwater by the required amount, and the septic systems are in front of the house on
Ridge Road, and on the east side of the house in back on the Stonehurst Drive lot. So, we'll get into
more detail if you wish.
MR. HUNSINGER-Sure. Any other questions,comments from the Board?
MR. FORD-Thank you.
MR. HUNSINGER-Then I will entertain a motion to table this to September 17th, and it's pending the
outcome of the meeting with the Board of Health.
RESOLUTION TABLING SUB # 2-2013 PRELIM. STG. FWW 1-2013 GREENWOOD BUILDERS
A subdivision application has been made to the Queensbury Planning Board for the following: Site
Plan: Applicant proposes subdivision of a 16.02 acre parcel into 3 residential lots of 3.44, 4.13, and
8.44 acres. Subdivision of land requires Planning Board review and approval. Freshwater
Wetlands: Work adjacent to ACOE Wetlands. Variance: Relief requested from road frontage
requirements of the MDR zone. Planning Board will conduct SEQR review and provide a
recommendation to the Zoning Board of Appeals.
Project requires a Septic Variance from the Town Board of Health; on 8-19-2013 the Town Board
tabled the application to a September meeting;
A public hearing was advertised for 8-19-2013; due to the Town Board tabling this application will
be tabled until the Septic variance has been approved;
MOTION TO TABLE PRELIMINARY STAGE SUBDIVISION NO. 2-2013 FRESHWATER
WETLANDS 1-2013 GREENWOOD BUILDERS, Introduced by Donald Krebs who moved for its
adoption,seconded by Thomas Ford:
Tabled to the September 17th Planning Board meeting so we can have a determination from the
Town Board acting as the Board of Health relative to the septic system.
Duly adopted this 27th day of August, 2013,by the following vote:
MR. FORD-I believe we ought to specify that it'll be the Town Board, but they'll be acting as the
Board of Health.
MR. KREBS-The Board of Health. Okay, I'm sorry.
AYES: Mr. Deeb, Mr. Schonewolf, Mr. Ford, Mr. Magowan, Mr. Krebs, Mr.Traver, Mr. Hunsinger
NOES: NONE
MR.JARRETT-Great. Thanks. Hope to see you next month.
MR. HUNSINGER-Yes, and the public hearing will be held open, and we will take additional
comments.
MR. SPERO-No meeting tomorrow?
MR. HUNSINGER-Not of this Board.
MR.JARRETT-There will be a ZBA meeting. It'll be tabled again, I believe.
5
(Queensbury Planning Board 08/27/2013)
MRS.MOORE-Correct. It'll be tabled again.
MR. HUNSINGER-We will take public comment again on September 17th.
MR. KREBS-And it won't go to the Zoning Board until we make a recommendation to the Board.
MRS. MOORE-Just to clarify that. It's scheduled as part of the public notice to be seen at the Zoning
Board. It'll be tabled similar to what it was tabled tonight.
MR. HUNSINGER-We have a number of items under New Business.
NEW BUSINESS:
SITE PLAN NO. 42-2013 SEQR TYPE II WILLIAM DUELL OWNER(S) HANS HANSEN ZONING
CLI-COMMERCIAL LIGHT INDUSTRIAL LOCATION 59 BOULEVARD APPLICANT PROPOSES
VEHICLE STORAGE FOR ICE HOUSE LIMOUSINE IN A PORTION OF AN EXISTING BUILDING.
NEW USES IN A CLI ZONE REQUIRE PLANNING BOARD REVIEW AND APPROVAL. CROSS
REFERENCE SV 1387, BP 94-189 WARREN CO. REFERRAL AUGUST 2013 LOT SIZE 2.91
ACRES TAX MAP NO. 303.20-2-15 SECTION 179-3-040
WILLIAM DUELL, PRESENT
MR. HUNSINGER-Laura?
MRS. MOORE-This is, under Summary, the applicant has completed a site plan application for an
existing operation to store limousines in a 1,100 sq. ft. space of an existing building. The applicant
has indicated that there are no changes to the exterior or interior of the building. The Board may
consider the waivers requested by the applicant A thru V.
MR. HUNSINGER-Good evening.
MR. DUELL-How are you?
MR. HUNSINGER-Good. How are you?
MR. DUELL-Good.
MR. HUNSINGER-If you could identify yourself for the record.
MR. DUELL-I'm William Duell.
MR. HUNSINGER-Okay.
MR. DUELL-Co-owner of Ice House Limousine.
MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. Do you want to tell us about your project?
MR. DUELL-We're dispatched out of Vermont. This is just a storage facility for a limo coach bus,
which is a 25 passenger. We have a van and what we call a sedan airport car, and that's what we
keep in there. This property has been used for storage since back in the 30's. It was an old trolley
barn, down on the Boulevard. Maybe some of you know it as the bus barn in the 40's and the 50's,
and through '55 through 60 something it was the Boulevard Bowling Alley and as of a little while
ago, five years ago, it was used as Pristine Limousine storage. There's pictures from the Town of
limousines stored outside back then, but they were never required to get a variance. We're storing
inside. The drivers bring their vehicles, take the car out, put their car in. It's not changing the
outside of the building at all. It's still the same old bowling alley building. The guy did fix up the
overhead over the garage door because it was rotted, but there's no painting going on. We haven't
changed anything. It's just a storage facility. No offices there or anything.
MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. Great. I'll open it up for questions,comments from members of the Board.
MR. FORD-There's no pick up or delivery of passengers at that location?
MR. DUELL-No,sir. No,sir.
MR. KREBS-I was just going to say, I think it's a good use for the building.
6
(Queensbury Planning Board 08/27/2013)
MR. HUNSINGER-Yes.
MR. DUELL-We're only using 1200 square feet out of that, and I think that building is ridiculous big.
It's 30,000 or something like that.
MR. HUNSINGER-Yes,it's huge.
MR. DUELL-It's Hans Hansen's appliance repair place.
MR. HUNSINGER-Yes. No other 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-I don't see any hands going up. Do we have any written comments, Laura?
MRS.MOORE-No.
MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. I will open the public hearing, and let the record show no comments were
received. We will close the public hearing.
PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED
MR. HUNSINGER-This is a Type II SEQR. So no SEQR review is required. Unless there's any other
questions or comments,we'll entertain a motion.
RESOLUTION APPROVING SP#42-2013 WILLIAM DUELL
A site plan application has been made to the Queensbury Planning Board for the following:
Applicant proposes vehicle storage for Ice House Limousine in a portion of an existing building.
New uses in a CLI zone require Planning Board review and approval.
SEQR Type II -no further review needed
A public hearing was advertised and held on 8/27/2013;
This application is supported with all documentation, public comment, and application material in
the file of record;
MOTION TO APPROVE SITE PLAN NO. 42-2013 WILLIAM DUELL, Introduced by Donald Krebs
who moved for its adoption,seconded by Stephen Traver:
As per the resolution prepared by Staff.
1) 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;
2) Waiver requests granted: Items F through V on the application checklist; Items A-0 Site plan
requirements for approval;
3) 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.
4) The applicant must meet with Staff after approval and prior to issuance of Building Permit
and/or the beginning of any site work.
5) Subsequent issuance of further permits, including building permits is dependent on compliance
with this and all other conditions of this resolution.
Duly adopted this 27th day of August, 2013,by the following vote:
AYES: Mr. Deeb, Mr. Schonewolf, Mr. Ford, Mr. Magowan, Mr. Krebs, Mr.Traver, Mr. Hunsinger
NOES: NONE
7
(Queensbury Planning Board 08/27/2013)
MR. HUNSINGER-You're all set. Good luck.
MR. DUELL-Thank you. I appreciate it.
MR. HUNSINGER-Yes,you're welcome.
SITE PLAN NO. 43-2013 SEQR TYPE II CARROLS,LLC AGENT(S) MATT STEVES,TOM BROGAN
OWNER(S) DOUBLE H HOLE IN THE WOODS RANCH, INC. ZONING CI-COMMERCIAL
INTENSIVE LOCATION 620 AVIATION ROAD APPLICANT PROPOSES REMODEL TO EXTERIOR
FACADE, INTERIOR DINING AREA, ALONG WITH ASSOCIATED SITE WORK. SITE &BUILDING
IMPROVEMENTS IN A CI ZONE REQUIRES PLANNING BOARD REVIEW AND APPROVAL. CROSS
REFERENCE SP 55-05, SV 50-89, BP 05-428 WARREN CO. REFERRAL AUGUST 2013 LOT
SIZE 1.59 ACRES TAX MAP NO. 302.6-1-30 SECTION 179-3-040
TOM BROGAN, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT
MR. HUNSINGER-Laura,whenever you're ready.
MRS. MOORE-Under Summary, I have the applicant has completed site plan application for the
renovations to an existing Burger King restaurant; that includes the removal of two existing
greenhouse eating areas, redesign drive thru, relocation of the trash to be included in the footprint,
new signage, new plantings, and additional sidewalk area replacing the building areas that are
removed. The applicant has proposed no changes to the area outside of the building.
MR. BROGAN-Good evening.
MR. HUNSINGER-Good evening.
MR. BROGAN-My name is Tom Brogan. I'm here on behalf of Carrols, LLC, the owner/operator of
the Burger King facility on Aviation Road. Carrols proposes to remodel that facility as described in
the summary. That would be exterior facade, including removal of the greenhouse structure,
interior dining room, bathrooms, ADA upgrades, and replacement and introduction of some
signage. I think we're here this evening as a result of the changing of the footprint of the building
which is removal of approximately 750 square feet of structure.
MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. Anything else?
MR. BROGAN-No.
MR. HUNSINGER-All right. I'll open it up for questions,comments from the Board.
MR.TRAVER-So you're actually making the restaurant somewhat smaller.
MR. BROGAN-Correct. The greenhouse, I think it was a fad of the past and it's a lot to maintain and,
you know, seating arrangements. There's adequate seating in that facility as it stands today. So,
instead of fixing something that's not really, doesn't have a high intensity of use, and it's an ongoing
maintenance issue.
MR.TRAVER-Yes. I hate to admit eating Whoppers too regularly,but it can get quite warm in that.
MR. BROGAN-I think there was a period where there was a lot of greenhouses built, and it's a thing
of the past. I mean, there's really few places that they make sense. They're either too hot some
place or it's expansion/contraction with weather and so forth. So the exterior facade, what'll
happen is the greenhouse will come off. The walls will come up, you know, will continue up.
There'll be storefront glass. The mansard roof that sits on the front of the building today and wraps
around the side,that's going to be removed, so there'll be a greater,you know, a larger surface area
in terms of facade, without that mansard colored roof, and the colored roof, the portion of the roof
to the rear that would remain would be standing seam metal in like a tin coat color, it looks like
aluminum, and then the window treatments would have canopies, aluminum fabricated canopies
over the windows,much more attractive facility.
MR. TRAVER-The only other thing I was going to ask about, and I know it's not part of your plan,
but I have to ask again about the connection to the Aviation Mall.
MR. FORD-Thank you, Steve.
8
(Queensbury Planning Board 08/27/2013)
MR.TRAVER-Is there any thought or discussion?
MR. BROGAN-Yes. Interesting,we would,we more than welcome that, and in fact there's a plan that
I have with me that shows a connection. We, Carrols, have spent money at the request, we started
back in the Jim Martin area, where we created a drawing with a connection through Matt Steves'
group did a whole study on tree removals,you know,would have to go through„ and that driveway
back then connected directly through the back corner here to Aviation Road, Aviation Mall Drive I
think they call it Aviation Mall Road, and then there's a subsequent plan. At some point the Town
asked us to look at something differently. It was probably as a result of some feedback from the
Mall.
MR.TRAVER-Okay.
MR. BROGAN-So there was an ultimate plan which I think was included in your packages,too. Kind
of coming off the back southwest corner. We are not opposed. I've seen communications between
the Town and our neighbor where they were, you know, trying to enforce the requirement in the
Code, and I can't speak to the, you know, I've, personally, been on the phone with some
representatives there but it seems like it got little attention. So we can't enforce it. The Town
would be the one that's in a position, I believe,to bring that to fruition.
MR.TRAVER-But you're not opposed to the idea.
MR. BROGAN-Absolutely not. I mean,we've spent considerable dollars.
MR. TRAVER-And in your discussions with Pyramid Corporation, are you hearing that they're
opposed to the idea?
MR. BROGAN-Well, I've reviewed minutes, some time ago, that were minutes from these hearings,
you know, prior hearings, and, you know, there was a lot of discussion, in some cases, I mean,
there's a plan. There's a little line shown behind our building on the plans in front of you, and at
one point my understanding was the Board required it as part of a previous,the interconnection as
part of a previous plan approval. I can't enforce it. I mean, you know, we're more than happy, we
even,we had volunteered to build that drive.
MR. FORD-When was the last discussion that occurred between Carrols Corp.and Pyramid?
MR. BROGAN-I don't know honestly. I mean,if I had to guess,it's been a few years.
MR. HUNSINGER-Yes. I seem to remember that there was some, when the Mall was here for the
proposed expansion we had a lengthy discussion with the Mall about it, and they pretty much kind
of tried to dodge it as much as they could.
MR. BROGAN-Yes, I've reviewed minutes. Yes, but my understanding from, I mean, I've been
around and doing stuff in the township to the point where I've, you know, worked with some
different planners over the years, and to the best of my knowledge, I think it was articulated to me,
that in fact it was a requirement to one of the prior planning approvals,you know, and I, again, we
initially, at Jim Martin's request, had developed this plan, you know, including the vegetation
survey, the whole deal. I saw a letter, this goes back, you know, 15 years ago, where Jim said you
will,you know, provide for this improvement, and it didn't go anywhere, and then that was prior to
one or two or those expansions in the past, and then more recently there was a, probably about the
time when that drawing was modified, one of the prior planners had asked to generate another
drawing that would show that interconnection, so you would not be adding additional curb cut
along the entrance drive, which made sense, and we've generated that drawing that ties in to the
drive aisle parallel to the Aviation Mall Road, and at the time the only thing we asked,because it's a
little bit more remote and visually you're somewhat obstructed to the facility there,we just said we
would ideally like to see if we could have signage there, some directional or a little pylon or
something,just to make people aware of the interconnection,but we have never been opposed to it,
and we,you know, we have facilities,you know, we have locations in the Mall. So it's not a matter
of credibility. We do have,you know,we've operated in their facilities before.
MR. FORD-You have willingness,now,to pursue that.
MR. BROGAN-If you told us we could go ahead and do that project as part of our remodel, it would
get done this fall.
MR. HUNSINGER-Too bad we can't force the Mall to.
9
(Queensbury Planning Board 08/27/2013)
MR. FORD-Yes.
MR. BROGAN-I don't know enough of the legal portion. I thought it was part of a requirement to
one of the prior approvals,but I can't say that definitively.
MR. HUNSINGER-Well, I think it was for you,you know,for Carrols.
MR. BROGAN-No,it's from their end.
MR. HUNSINGER-Okay.
MR. BROGAN-Yes. The requirement, as best I know. I mean, the various planners have come to us
to ask for our cooperation, and we generated those plans, but not as part of an application to you.
As a result of the application that was coming in from our neighbor.
MR. HUNSINGER-Okay.
MR. BROGAN-That's as far as I know.
MR. HUNSINGER-Okay.
MR. BROGAN-I think at one point,that's what I know.
MR. FORD-Can we ask our Zoning Administrator to reach out to Pyramid Corp. and reiterate that
there is a willingness on Carrols Corp.part to make that connector road?
MR. HUNSINGER-It certainly seems appropriate,yes.
MR. FORD-I would like to see that happen.
MRS.MOORE-Okay.
MR. HUNSINGER-So you're not proposing to remove that from your site plan? I mean, it's still
shown.
MR. BROGAN-No, I didn't know how. We gave you guys two drawings because we didn't want to,
you know, it's a little bit of a, I'm assuming it was a little bit sensitive, so we gave you the existing
condition, as it exists today, as well as what was, I think there's a line directly behind where you
queue up for the drive thru, and that was the drawing I got from, I think Matt Steves, as a result of,
that was the proposed connection on our neighbor's approval.
MR. HUNSINGER-Okay.
MR. BROGAN-I didn't make sense, there was steeper topography there, and it's right where you'd
queue up for the drive thru, and it kind of drives into nowhere, doesn't go into an aisle. So at the
time, I think that was the trigger of when someone from the township came back to Carrols and
said, you know, there is a plan that your neighbor was conditioned with a plan approval, the
connection. However the plan location, the connection doesn't make sense where it is, where it's
proposed. So we came up with that drawing there after we asked Matt to investigate the
topography and so forth and we wanted to mitigate any impact on parking and make it sort of an
orderly flow, and so that's how it ended up in the location as shown on that drawing.
MR. KREBS-I have a question. You're removing the greenhouse, which is approximately 1,000
square feet of space. Are you just going to leave the concrete subfloor there?
MR. BROGAN-The plan that we've submitted shows, no, we're going to take that out, but our, we're
going to put asphalt, we're going to put concrete in its, you know, there's no sidewalk on the west
side of that building. There's a planter against the greenhouse. So we'll provide for, you know, a
walkway there. We didn't want to get into too much,you know, we could end up with plantings in
there, but we didn't want to cause a lot of difficulties in terms of the calculations. I know there's
kind of a different formula here in terms of building area, non-building area, and there are not
sidewalks along the front. So we wanted to provide for the sidewalks. We also have a dining slab,
remote, all the way across the parking field over by the trees on the site, and so right here there's a,
this is the restaurant here. This is,there's I think five tables over here for patrons to eat. We could
provide a couple of tables in there or something closer. I think it's something to study. I don't
10
(Queensbury Planning Board 08/27/2013)
know, I can't speak directly as to how often this is being used. I know it's used in some peak
periods,and people are traveling. I can't speak on a day to day basis.
MR. HUNSINGER-And obviously it's a seasonal use anyway.
MR. BROGAN-Yes.
MR. KREBS-You mean you're not going to go over there and have your burger in January?
MR. HUNSINGER-Well,some days I might.
MR. SCHONEWOLF-When you come home from skiing you might.
MR. HUNSINGER-Yes. The one question I had, and you kind of ran through it kind of quickly, is the
color scheme. Because we didn't have any color renderings at all.
MR. BROGAN-I do. The difficulty is none of this stuff prints well off the, the tones are generally
earth tone. This is not the structure, but the concept's the same. So, you have a, you know, a
creamy brown color. The lower part of the building's a darker brown. There's two vertical
elements in the building. So,the greenhouse sits here today as well as on this front elevation. That
gets removed. There's a vertical element. This is a hardy product, clapboard. The two towers here
are, this portion is black. This is a dark brown. This is a dark brown. This is the tan, and these are
canopies that are fabricated aluminum, and then at the front entrance, the primary entrance on the
side here, and then this front entrance,this is a,these are actually a tile, like a six by six ceramic tile
was put on there to highlight this entrance, the corner of the building. So there's a, there still is a
parapet band here with the (lost words) all the way around to it. (Lost words) the front portion of
the building there it's an LED parapet band; it's a lot lighter in beige. It's pretty attractive, though.
(lost words) the structure kind of has a pitched roof here. It will look a lot different, and then you
don't get,you know, on the front of the building today is,you know,you have a mansard roof there,
and that gets (lost words). This is all a hardy panel as well,which is like a concrete,a masonry.
MR. HUNSINGER-Is everyone happy with the color schemes? Any other questions on the colors? It
would probably be helpful to have that as part of the application, even though it's not the exact
same drawing,you know,the color scheme.
MR. BROGAN-Sure. The difficulty is this isn't, the difficulties with these is that the color lots, when
you print these things,aren't right on,but that's a reasonable reflection in terms of the (lost words).
MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. You might as well pass it down. We'll give it to Laura for the record.
MR. BROGAN-Sure, and there is a schedule in the building plans that calls out specifically the colors
and Sherwin Williams numbers and stuff like that.
MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. I did see that on the plan,but.
MR. BROGAN-I know,it's meaningless.
MR. HUNSINGER-Exactly. Any other questions or comments from the Board?
MR. KREBS-I was just going to comment that picture shows some nice natural growth here, some
flowers,you know,if that's what you ended up with,that would be very nice.
MR. BROGAN-No, and currently there is no green space along that side and there's no sidewalk
there. So there'll be some combination thereof. From a standpoint of our application, we stuck
with the slab so we wouldn't be tripping over the ratios and the calculations on the various
required calculations in the package.
MR. HUNSINGER-Any other questions, comments from the Board? We do have a public hearing
scheduled on this project. Is there anyone in the audience that wants to address the Board?
PUBLIC HEARING OPENED
MR. HUNSINGER-Do we have any written comments?
MRS.MOORE-No, I don't have any.
11
(Queensbury Planning Board 08/27/2013)
MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. I will open the public hearing, and let the record show no comments were
received. We'll close the public hearing.
PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED
MR. HUNSINGER-This, too, is a Type II SEQR. So no SEQR review is required, and unless there's
another question or comment, I will entertain a motion.
RESOLUTION APPROVING SP#43-2013 CARROLS, LLC
A site plan application has been made to the Queensbury Planning Board for the following:
Applicant proposes remodel exterior facade, interior dining area, and miscellaneous ADA upgrades.
Site&building improvements in a Cl zone requires Planning Board review and approval.
SEQR Type II -no further review needed;
A public hearing was advertised and held on 8/27/2013;
This application is supported with all documentation, public comment, and application material in
the file of record;
MOTION TO APPROVE SITE PLAN NO. 43-2013 CARROLS, LLC, Introduced by Donald Krebs who
moved for its adoption,seconded by Stephen Traver:
As per the resolution prepared by Staff.
1) 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;
2) Waiver requests granted: stormwater mgmt., grading, landscaping & lighting plans; Items A-0
Site Plan requirements for approval;
3) We wanted to add that we wish that the Queensbury Staff would contact Pyramid Corporation
to see if we could have that interconnection;
4) 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;
5) The applicant must meet with Staff after approval and prior to issuance of Building Permit
and/or the beginning of any site work;
6) Subsequent issuance of further permits, including building permits is dependent on compliance
with this and all other conditions of this resolution.
Duly adopted this 27th day of August, 2013,by the following vote:
MR. KREBS-And we wanted to add that we wish that the Queensbury Staff would contact Pyramid
Corporation to see if we could have that interconnection.
MR. FORD-Thank you.
MR. BROGAN-And for the record,we are not opposed.
MR. HUNSINGER-Yes,well,it's on your plan.
AYES: Mr.Traver, Mr. Krebs, Mr. Ford, Mr. Magowan, Mr. Schonewolf, Mr. Deeb, Mr. Hunsinger
NOES: NONE
SITE PLAN NO. 45-2013 SEQR TYPE II HUDSON HEADWATERS HEALTH NETWORK
AGENT(S) RICHARD E. JONES ASSOCIATES OWNER(S) SAME AS APPLICANT ZONING CLI-
COMMERCIAL LIGHT INDUSTRIAL LOCATION 161 CAREY ROAD APPLICANT HAS
CONSTRUCTED 13 ADDITIONAL PARKING SPACES AND SEEKS A MODIFICATION TO
MAINTAIN THEM. MODIFICATION TO AN APPROVED PLAN REQUIRES PLANNING BOARD
12
(Queensbury Planning Board 08/27/2013)
REVIEW AND APPROVAL. CROSS REFERENCE SP 45-10, BP 11-256 WARREN CO. REFERRAL
AUGUST 2013 LOT SIZE 6.56 ACRES TAX MAP NO. 309.13-2-31.2 SECTION 179-4-090
RICHARD JONES, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT
MR. HUNSINGER-Laura?
MRS. MOORE-The applicant has completed a site plan application for the modification to an
approved site plan requesting approval of 13 additional parking spaces that were not part of the
original plan. The Board may consider the waiver requests for lighting, signage, SWPPP,
landscaping,and soil logs.
MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. Thank you. Good evening.
MR. JONES-Good evening. For the record, Richard Jones. I'm the architect representing Hudson
Headwaters. What we're looking for is a modification to an existing site plan that we had an
approval on a couple of years ago. We are adding 13 parking spaces along the, what would be the
south property line behind the Health Center building. There are minimal to no changes. We're not
modifying any lighting. Minimal changes to grading. We're using porous pavement similar to what
we already have on site. We're not doing any modifications to building infrastructure of any type.
It's pretty straightforward. I'd be happy to answer any questions.
MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. Questions,comments from the Board?
MR. FORD-Do you have any awareness as to how this occurred when it was not a part of the original
approval?
MR.JONES-Yes. We actually looked to do the modification last fall. We had actually prepared these
documents last fall. We had completed the application, and by the time we had it completed and
were ready to submit the blacktop plants had closed. Hudson Headwaters was looking to park
along that additional area, and basically I told them, don't park on the lawn. If we're going to park,
we'll put Item Four down. There is no pavement down. It's basically an Item Four base.
MR. HUNSINGER-Okay.
MR.JONES-So that they could park on it without sinking into the mud. It was my fault that they did
it. I'll admit that. We basically intended, this spring, to do it. We're in the midst of doing the new
health center in Warrensburg, and we had not gotten to it yet, and when we got the letter from
Bruce Frank,that's when we made the application.
MR. FORD-It beats asphalt.
MR.JONES-What,the Item Four? Well,we're actually going to put porous pavement down,which is
basically, I think,about 95%of the pavement that we have on site.
MR. HUNSINGER-Other questions? I was there for a meeting recently, and I can attest to the fact
that parking's tight.
MR. JONES-Yes, I think when we actually completed the health center project, we were
underestimating, I think, the volume of patient encounters that they were going to have there. We
were looking to, at that point, transfer some of the patient load from Queensbury Family Health to
West Mountain, and it did occur, but in an overwhelming fashion, and the relief that they got at
Queensbury Family Health is, Queensbury Family Health is now back to where it was. So their
practices are growing. They're adding a lot of physicians to staff, and it's just inevitable. We had
planned on roughly two and a half spaces per exam room, which is typical, and the amount of
administrative staff and other staff that they have in the building has just overwhelmed the parking.
MR. KREBS-And in addition to that you also have the pharmacy there, which also creates some
additional problems.
MR. JONES-Yes, and I think, of the two facilities, I think the health center is really the one that's
reated the biggest backlog for parking on site.
MR. HUNSINGER-Other questions, comments from the Board? We did have a, essentially a signoff
letter from the Town Engineer.
13
(Queensbury Planning Board 08/27/2013)
MR.JONES-Yes.
MR. HUNSINGER-We do have a public hearing scheduled on this project. Is there anyone in the
audience that wishes to address the Board?
PUBLIC HEARING OPENED
MR. HUNSINGER-Any written comments, Laura?
MRS.MOORE-No.
MR. HUNSINGER-I will open the public hearing, and again, let the record show no comments were
received. I will close the public hearing.
PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED
MR. HUNSINGER-This,too,is a Type II SEQR. So no additional SEQR review is necessary,and unless
there's any other questions or comments, I'll entertain a motion.
RESOLUTION APPROVING SP#45-2013 HUDSON HEADWATERS HEALTH NETWORK
A site plan application has been made to the Queensbury Planning Board for the following:
Applicant has constructed 13 additional parking spaces and seeks a modification to maintain them.
Modification to an approved plan requires Planning Board review and approval.
SEQR Type II -no further review needed;
A public hearing was advertised and held on 8/27/2013;
This application is supported with all documentation, public comment, and application material in
the file of record;
MOTION TO APPROVE SITE PLAN NO. 45-2013 HUDSON HEADWATERS HEALTH NETWORK,
Introduced by Donald Krebs who moved for its adoption,seconded by Stephen Traver:
This is per the resolution prepared by Staff.
1) 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;
2) Waiver requests granted: stormwater mgmt.,grading,landscaping&lighting plans
3) 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;
4) The applicant must meet with Staff after approval and prior to issuance of Building Permit
and/or the beginning of any site work;
5) Subsequent issuance of further permits, including building permits is dependent on compliance
with this and all other conditions of this resolution.
6) 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.
Duly adopted this 27th day of August, 2013,by the following vote:
AYES: Mr.Traver, Mr. Krebs, Mr. Magowan, Mr. Ford, Mr. Schonewolf, Mr. Deeb, Mr. Hunsinger
NOES: NONE
MR. HUNSINGER-You're all set. Good luck.
MR.JONES-Thank you very much.
14
(Queensbury Planning Board 08/27/2013)
SITE PLAN NO. 46-2013 SEQR TYPE II TRUSTCO BANK AGENT(S) ABD ENGINEERS &
SURVEYORS OWNER(S) QUEENSBURY QUAKER LLC ZONING CI-COMMERCIAL INTENSIVE
LOCATION 118 QUAKER ROAD APPLICANT PROPOSES AN ATM ADDITION BY REDESIGNING
EXISTING DRIVE-THRU LANES. SITE & BUILDING IMPROVEMENTS IN A CI ZONE REQUIRES
PLANNING BOARD REVIEW AND APPROVAL. CROSS REFERENCE SP 32-03, SV 30-10
WARREN CO. REFERRAL AUGUST 2013 LOT SIZE 4.22 ACRES TAX MAP NO. 302.7-1-12
SECTION 179-3-040
BRIAN SLEECEMAN, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT
MRS. MOORE-The applicant has completed the site plan application for building improvements to
an existing Trustco Bank where the project will involve the removal of a 3rd travel lane and canopy
area to allow only two lanes for banking with an ATM access. The applicant has provided a site plan
showing site details for all of the buildings on the property as the bank is only one of the buildings
on the site in an existing shopping center.
MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. Thank you. Good evening.
MR. SLEECEMAN-Hi. I'm Brian Sleeceman from ABD Engineers and Surveyors. It's essentially just
what she said. It's a renovation of the Trustco Bank right over here on Quaker Road. There are
three lanes, one with access to the teller and then two vacuum lanes. They're going to get rid of one
of the vacuum lanes and replace it with an ATM with a vacuum further down from the ATM, and
that'll be it. There's no other changes to the site. The canopy will be brought in just a little bit, but
it'll look the same. We're just going to move the Trustco sign with the canopy. That should be it. So
we're just seeking approval for that.
MR. HUNSINGER-Questions, comments from the Board? The only question I had was on the
lighting.
MR. SLEECEMAN-Yes.
MR. HUNSINGER-And we've had multiple lengthy discussions, especially with banks, about lighting,
and,you know,we do have a lighting code in the Town,and I really had no way to delineate the, and
I did highlight somewhere. Yes,there are going to be four 175 watt under canopy lights.
MR. SLEECEMAN-Yes.
MR. HUNSINGER-Can you give us any opinion as to how that would compare to what's existing
there now?
MR. SLEECEMAN-I can't exactly. I'm not super familiar with this project,unfortunately.
MR. HUNSINGER-Okay.
MR. SLEECEMAN-But I spoke with the engineer right before I came up and he said something about
the lighting. He said it's comparable to what's there. It shouldn't be, you know, any noticeable
difference.
MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. So it won't be any brighter.
MR. SLEECEMAN-No.
MR. HUNSINGER-Because that would really be my concern with this project.
MR. SLEECEMAN-Right,yes.
MR. KREBS-Well, plus, isn't there a regulation for; there is a certain requirement for lighting in an
area where you have banking like that.
MR. SLEECEMAN-Right.
MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. That was the only question I really had.
MR. FORD-Will free samples be given out at either of the lanes?
MR. SLEECEMAN-I wish.
15
(Queensbury Planning Board 08/27/2013)
MR. KREBS-Only if they're$50 bills.
MR. HUNSINGER-Well,we also have a public hearing scheduled with this project. Is there anyone in
the audience that wants to address the Board?
PUBLIC HEARING OPENED
MR. HUNSINGER-Any written comments?
MRS.MOORE-No.
MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. I will open the public hearing, and, again,let the record show no comments
were received. We will close the public hearing.
PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED
MR. HUNSINGER-This, too, is a Type II SEQR. So no additional SEQR review is necessary, and, with
that, I will entertain a motion.
RESOLUTION APPROVING SP#45-2013 TRUSTCO BANK
A site plan application has been made to the Queensbury Planning Board for the following:
Applicant proposes an ATM addition by redesigning existing drive-thru lanes. Site & building
improvements in a Cl zone requires Planning Board review and approval.
SEQR Type II -no further review needed;
A public hearing was advertised and held on 8/27/2013;
This application is supported with all documentation, public comment, and application material in
the file of record;
MOTION TO APPROVE SITE PLAN NO. 46-2013 TRUSTCO BANK, Introduced by Donald Krebs
who moved for its adoption,seconded by Stephen Traver:
As per the resolution prepared by Staff.
1) 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;
2) 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;
3) The applicant must meet with Staff after approval and prior to issuance of Building Permit
and/or the beginning of any site work;
4) Subsequent issuance of further permits, including building permits is dependent on compliance
with this and all other conditions of this resolution.
Duly adopted this 27th day of August, 2013,by the following vote:
AYES: Mr.Traver, Mr. Krebs, Mr. Magowan, Mr. Ford, Mr. Schonewolf, Mr. Deeb, Mr. Hunsinger
NOES: NONE
MR. HUNSINGER-You're all set. Good luck.
MR. SLEECEMAN-All right. Thank you.
TABLED ITEM:
SITE PLAN NO. 62-2011 FRESHWATER WETLANDS 6-2011 SEQR TYPE I QUEENSBURY
PARTNERS AGENT(S) MATTHEW FULLER,ESQ. OWNER(S) SAME AS APPLICANT ZONING 0-
OFFICE LOCATION SOUTHEAST CORNER OF BAY & BLIND ROCK ROADS APPLICANT
16
(Queensbury Planning Board 08/27/2013)
PROPOSES CONSTRUCTION OF 11 BUILDINGS TOTALING 132,000 SQ. FT. ON A 34.05 ACRE
PARCEL. THE INTENDED USES FOR THE SITE INCLUDE OFFICE, BUSINESS RETAIL, AND
MULTI-FAMILY. ACTIVITIES ALSO INCLUDE LAND DISTURBANCE FOR INSTALLATION OF
PARKING AREA AND OTHER INFRASTRUCTURE AND OTHER INFRASTRUCTURE AND
UTILITIES ASSOCIATED WITH THE PROJECT. SITE PLAN REVIEW AND APPROVAL IS
REQUIRED FOR MULTI-FAMILY COMPLEX,OFFICE AND BUSINESS RETAIL IN AN OFFICE ZONE.
CROSS REFERENCE AV 61-11; SUB 13-99 WARREN COUNTY REFERRAL APRIL 2013
WARREN CO. DPW REFERRAL MARCH 2013 APA, CEA, OTHER NWI WETLANDS, STREAM
OVERLAY LOT SIZE 34.050 ACRES TAX MAP NO. 289.19-1-23 THROUGH 35 SECTION 179-
3-040, 179-9,CHAPTER 94
MATT FULLER&DAN GALUSHA, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT
MR. HUNSINGER-Laura?
MRS. MOORE-Sure. Under Summary, the applicant has completed the site plan application and the
freshwater wetlands permit application for project on the corner of Bay and Blind Rock Road that
involves the construction of 11 buildings -9 of which are residential, 1 mixed commercial
residential building, and 1 commercial with associated site work. The Planning Board has
completed the SEQR review for this project as a negative declaration and has provided a
recommendation to the Zoning Board that there are no adverse impacts related to the variance
request for the project. The Planning Board may consider during the reviewing opportunities to
incorporate public transportation, tourist traffic, residential storage of recreational vehicles i.e.
boats and recreational vehicles. The Planning Board may discuss as part of site plan review how
the buildings and other site features work together and interact with the surrounding area.
MR. HUNSINGER-Thank you, and I would just add for the benefit of the Board, we are joined by the
Town Engineer, Sean. Thank you for coming. Good evening and we will soon be joined by the Town
Counsel. Good evening.
MR. FULLER-Good evening. For the record, Matt Fuller with Meyer & Fuller, for the applicant,
Queensbury Partners. I'm joined with Dan Galusha tonight, one of the project owners. I think I'll
just start, recap where we've been. I think Staff had updated the Board. When we last appeared
before the Board, it was for a recommendation to the ZBA on what amounted to four variances, one
from the 300 foot setback along Bay, two for the 75 foot setbacks along Blind Rock, the third was
the height setback above 40 feet. We were just under 47 feet, and the other was for the
accoutrements along the intersection of Bay and Blind Rock, some pergolas and outside awnings,
things like that. We went to the ZBA and I thought those things might have been acceptable to
them, but it came out that the height and the improvements along the corner there, Bay and Blind
Rock, again, the outside seating and things like that, seem to have been a concern, and one of the
variances down along Blind Rock, one of the buildings, we were asked to take a harder look at that
to see if we can move some of those around, and we did end up cutting one back entirely. I mean, it
moved, the net effect of what it did was it moved the road a little bit closer to the wetland but not
within the setbacks. So we don't have any issues there. We still needed one for the, I'll call it the
eastern most residential building along Blind Rock. We did cut the height down from 45 to 40,
which basically just removed the elevation to hide the mechanicals, and I will say,you know,just as
part of the final approval from the ZBA, that I think in hindsight that probably was regrettable
decision, and I think some of the members on that Board felt that way,but it is what it is. I mean, a
concern was expressed with regard to height. There were other height, despite arguments that no
variances have been granted along Bay for the height,there were variances along Bay, and we were
right in that ballpark. There was one at about 45 feet. So we were in that ballpark. Again,that last
variance, too, was to hide the mechanicals. So we thought we were in that ballpark, but
nonetheless, the ZBA, a few members made it clear that that wasn't acceptable to them. So we cut
the buildings down, and resulted in two setbacks, one, again, for that first residential structure
heading down Blind Rock Road, and the other for the setback from Bay Road of 300 feet. So those
are from upwards of into the 20's of variances that we were at. We finally ended up with two. The
brief memo that I gave you tonight just goes through the site plan criteria,it's in the site plan review
law, and again,we've been, again dawned on me when I heard the number on the application, 2011,
where we are and where we've come on this project, and so I was thinking about it, and I took the
site plan criteria and really went through it,because,you know,you get a lot of projects before you,
and what you're doing and the questions that you guys ask as you're going through that criteria.
It's not like a ZBA where you have to answer specific questions,but,you know, even on the last one,
asking about lighting, things like that, that's the criteria you guys are dealing with, and you do that,
and you do it diligently. So I wanted to just kind of recap where we've been, the various arguments
that have come up in the context of the site plan review law that we have to deal with,and if I could,
I'll try not to take a lot of time, but I wanted to go through just the comments that I've prepared for
17
(Queensbury Planning Board 08/27/2013)
you, of where we are, visa vie that site plan review criteria. The first is the Comprehensive Plan.
There've been arguments up and down, and I've said it before that, you know, you can pick and
choose words out of any statute or the Comprehensive Plan to support your argument,but I turned
right back to the opening paragraph in that Office zone,you know, which is intended to be a mix of
high density residential, office and commercial, and in working with the Planning Board and the
Zoning Board of Appeals, we've accomplished all three, and I think we've done it in a tasteful way.
The second is that the project complies with the zoning law, including the setbacks, dimensional,
bulk, density regulations, and with that, with those two Area Variances granted by the ZBA, the
project is zoning compliant,and that allows the Planning Board, of course,to proceed under the site
plan review law. Site plan encourages pedestrian activity. Again,we've,what I would say, included
extensive internal pedestrian improvements, both within the project and along the corridor, along
Bay and Blind Rock, we have, you know, provided for sidewalks that can stub to neighboring
properties if ultimately the sidewalk's approved in either direction, either down Bay or out Blind
Rock. Have to conform with Chapter 136, Sewage, and Sewage Disposal, and that became quite a
big topic at the Zoning Board of Appeals. Really, frankly, in an effort to derail the project, and
there's still, and I know more materials have been submitted to the Planning Board. They'll
probably be submitted again tonight, and with the crux of dealing with density that the variances
allowed more residential units. I saw that argument again. Again I get the e-mails and things that
get circulated around. That's not the case. The density that is allowed on the site is what's allowed
per Town zoning. We didn't ask for a single additional unit. Originally, yes, there was a density
variance component to one of the earlier proposals after we were working with the Planning Board,
but that was made very clear that that wasn't going to happen. So 142 is the number. That is the
maximum number. There are no more residential units. There are no density variances allowed.
So the discussion of, that the variances allowed additional capacity on the sewer system is false.
There was no density variance. We meet the density. So, getting back to the sewage and sewage
disposal, some of the other arguments were that we're using capacity in the district. Again, to be
frank,yes,we are. Our project is in the district. My clients installed the sewer line that has allowed
people to the north and this facility that we're in to connect. That line was oversized at my client's
expense, to accommodate our project, whatever facet it may be, this building and capacity to the
north. My client wasn't paid for that. The Town didn't compensate them. The Town didn't
purchase capacity in that line. My clients paid for that line, but again, that topic's going to come up
and we'll deal with it. The proposed use should be in harmony with the general purpose or intent
of the Chapter. Again,taking into account the district,the allowed uses, intensity of use, and I think,
you know,of all the complaints people have,the one thing they can't have is with the planning that's
gone into it. This has been a long process. There's been a lot of changes. We've spent a lot on
changes. We've made a lot of changes,both at the request of the Planning Board,the Zoning Board,
the joint committee, and I think we've done that in good faith to arrive at a project that's good for
the Town. The operation of the proposed use will not create public hazards from traffic, traffic
congestion. You'll remember early on, and right from Day One when we came in, the Planning
Board made it very clear that traffic was an issue, and we didn't dodge it. We knew it. We knew it
from the numbers of our initial traffic report, and you didn't need the numbers. Anybody who lives
out here and drives through that intersection knew that traffic was an issue out there. We went to
the County. We met with Town Staff. We, ourselves, paid for and commissioned a study to not only
evaluate the existing conditions out there, but to recommend a change, and if you'll recall, the
engineer came back and said,well,this is going to be a little bit difficult,but you actually don't need
a turning lane. That said, it was made very clear early on that the option to have a turning lane
coming off Blind Rock is something that not only this Board but the Zoning Board was also
interested in, and we've planned for that. That turning lane is built into the plans. It can be done at
the inception or later, whatever the Town's pleasure is, but, in addition to that, again, without
getting to an approval,we went out and handed the Town the plan to adjust the timing and sensors
on those poles, and I think, you know, anybody that's gone through it, I go through it daily, if not a
couple of times a day,has definitely resulted in an improvement in that intersection.
MR. MAGOWAN-I'd like to thank you for that,because it definitely is a big difference.
MR. FULLER-It is a difference, and again, it's similar to the sewer line. There was no approval
granted. My client's did it. They paid for that sewer line to go in, and I think you have to do that to
show the good faith and the quality that you're putting into a project. So we've addressed the
traffic, and I think the traffic, we did get approvals from the County. I know that Laura had
contacted me about that, and that should be in the file. I have it as well. Off street parking should
be behind the buildings. That's a big Office zone component. If you remember originally,
particularly parking along Blind Rock wasn't. The road was flipped, and I think the Planning Board
had a good comment that that should be flipped the other way. We worked with the engineers,
came up with a plan that allowed that to happen. All the parking along Blind Rock similar or along
Bay similar to the rest of Bay is behind the buildings. Those she's not here anymore with us, she's
around, I see her every now and then, Gretchen was a big proponent of a parking facility of some
18
(Queensbury Planning Board 08/27/2013)
sort, and we did build internal parking into the project, and the residential units out back and part
of the commercial structure along Bay, that does have an internal parking component in the middle
of the building. You can't see it. It doesn't look like a parking garage, nor, frankly, do I think it
should. I think that's one of the benefits of the project. Back to the criteria, will it have an undue
impact on natural, scenic, aesthetic, ecological, wildlife, historic, recreation or open resources. We
do have the every elusive SHPO signoff that is in the file. We had accomplished that about a year
ago now. Again, no small undertaking. We had submitted an initial report to SHPO and got the oft
response as sometimes you do, particularly with a site like that, that,you know, they wanted some
further follow up on a couple of the old house locations. So we did it, went back out, did a little
work in the dirt, and sent back another rather detailed report with, frankly, a couple thousand of
little bits and pieces of things that were found out there. So it wasn't a paper report. It was a field
report, and we did get that, again, that elusive letter from SHPO that we'll have no impact on
historic resources. Again, the crossover of pedestrian traffic with vehicular traffic on the site, I
think that the project, the roads, internally, will be private. Right, as part of this project, is the, I
would say the withdrawal of the prior subdivision approval on the site. It will be one lot, and it will
be a privately maintained road through the middle. That said,we've got crosswalks and things that
you might expect on a public road. So the plan takes those things into account. Stormwater,that is
probably the final large, outstanding issue, and I think, and I won't speak for Sean, but I've gone
through, I actually went through that letter again today. I printed it and left it on my desk, but I
think that they're technical comments, numbers, adjustments to the plan that need to be made, and
we've talked to the LA Group,talked to Mike Ingersoll, again, about that last week, and he didn't see
a problem with the comments. I think it's,you know, it's styles and how things need to look within
the facilities,the stormwater facilities themselves, and Mike didn't see any issue with meeting what
were some detailed comments, but there weren't any deal breakers in there that Mike had
identified. Water supply. We do have adequate water at the property, and we don't need to extend
districts or lines. It will be at the curb cut. Trees, plantings, things like that, are all set out on the
plans. They had been for some time. We will be sticking to those plans as we've proposed. Fire
lanes, emergency zones, fire hydrants will be adequate and meet the needs and requirements of
emergency service providers. Even when we came, dating back now to the original proposal we
came in, which was the traditional office along Bay and the apartments to the back, we had that
secondary access along Blind Rock. That was an early comment that came out of the fire
department. That comment still stands, and the added location with the Knox Box that will be on
there is still on the plan. So that will be part of the improvements. We'll take care of that as part of
our plans. The design of the structures, roadways, landscapings, and areas susceptible to ponding,
flooding and erosion,will it minimize or avoid such impacts. We did do the tests out there as part of
the stormwater plans, ponding and things like that aren't an issue. The soils over here are certainly
conducive to what we need to accomplish on the stormwater, and the final, this is 0. I've gone A
through 0. The site plan conforms to design standards, landscape standards and performance
standards of the Chapter, and I think we've gone above and beyond and met all of those design
standards. So I kind of treated it a bit like the review you would do with the zoning and the
checklist and the ZBA's criteria, but I think with all we've gone through and everything that's going
on now, certainly for the Board's information there is an Article 78 pending with regard to the ZBA.
There's been an attempted shot at this Board, but I think that will be dealt with in due course.
Counsel can speak,but that's an issue with the Zoning Board that we'll frankly answer and deal with
in the court process, but with that I'll certainly answer questions of where we are with the plans
and where we go from here.
MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. Thank you. Questions,comments from the Board?
MR. KREBS-I think Matt did a very good job of covering everything.
MR.TRAVER-Yes,that's a good summary of where we stand, I think.
MR. HUNSINGER-I didn't want to interrupt you when you were talking about traffic. The last time
that you talked to this Board about traffic,you were still waiting for the photo lights to come in and
be installed, so that it would trip the light to change, the microwave lights. Have those been
installed
MR. FULLER-I don't know. Yes. I asked Peter Faith from the engineering firm that did traffic was
on vacation this week and I did e-mail him and I didn't hear back from him at the end of the last
week to see if they had put those in,yet. So I don't know,but we'll get an answer to that. They were
ordered. I know they were ordered.
MR. HUNSINGER-No, I know you had said when you were here that they were ordered. You didn't
realize that they weren't working until you did the study, and that you thought after they were
19
(Queensbury Planning Board 08/27/2013)
installed they would even improve the light better. I mean, I go through that intersection at least
twice a day myself,and I also think that it's much better than it used to be.
MR.TRAVER-Yes,those devices would help in the off peak.
MR. HUNSINGER-Yes.
MR. FULLER-Someday I'll get one at Quaker and Ridge.
MR. DEEB-Matt,you are amenable to doing the turning lane at the inception of the project you said?
MR. FULLER-If it's the Planning Board's pleasure,yes,we can put that there. Like I said,the reason I
say if it's your pleasure is that based on the traffic study, it's not needed. So I don't want to say yes
and overrule the engineer because that's, frankly, out of my league, but to answer your question,
yes. We have the set aside. It is there,and it can be put in,yes.
MR. KREBS-Well, plus the fact, you would have to have Warren County's approval to put that in
before,whether you wanted to do it or not,you still would need Warren County's approval.
MR. FULLER-And that was part of their review when we met with them.
MR. KREBS-Right.
MR. FULLER-And they were okay, again, with the numbers as they were and the turning lane. It
didn't hurt, I guess,it didn't hurt the numbers. It could.
MR. FORD-Was it a topic of discussion at that time when you met with the County, anything relative
to the potential for width expansion of either or both of the roads?
MR. FULLER-With ours. Ours would be a width expansion. That's why we set that aside. So that
was the discussion. The outlet of Haviland is constrained by the Town and a house next door. I
think practically, we had that discussion. The only way it could come is north, that road. It would
have to encroach on the Town's property; just because of the distance of that house isn't nearly
sufficient for the space. There is room, on both Bay and Blind Rock, but frankly DOT didn't see any
need for any increase on Bay. If any place, it was Haviland, if it ever needed it, and we did have a
discussion about the no right sign, and nobody could figure that out,where it came from or why, on
Haviland.
MR. FORD-Probably the speed of the north,south traffic.
MR. FULLER-It could be.
MR. HUNSINGER-You talked a little bit about some of the outstanding engineering issues, mostly
being stormwater, and we do have our Town Engineer here as well. The last letter that was issued
by the Town Engineer was dated May 8th. Do we have a resolution to any of those items at this
point?
MR. FULLER-No,we're do a response back.
MR. HUNSINGER-Okay.
MR. FULLER-To be frank,we had to wait to see what happened last week.
MR. HUNSINGER-Right. That's what I would have expected the answer to be, but I just wanted to
make sure.
MR. TRAVER-On the other hand, you don't see any comments in there that you don't feel can be
addressed?
MR. FULLER-No. Again, I won't speak for Sean,but certainly if there are any conditions or things in
the plans that are overall plan problematic, I think that we would want to know, but we went
through them, Mike Ingersoll and I,and we didn't see any.
MR. DOTY-And if I could, Mr. Chairman.
MR. HUNSINGER-Yes,go ahead. In fact, I was going to ask.
20
(Queensbury Planning Board 08/27/2013)
MR. DOTY-Yes, a lot of, I think there's 21 comments. Many of them are conformance related to the
stormwater design manual,where there's some minor,modest adjustments that need to be made to
some of the stormwater devices. The larger of the comments related to total peak and volume
runoff numbers. At the design points there's a few design points that have additional volume going
off site. They need to provide a bit more mitigation to take care of that. That's the biggest comment
in here. There's enough room on the site that I think they'll be able to address it. There's also some
additional soil test pitting that has to occur and soils investigation. Those are largely the bigger
comments.
MR. HUNSINGER-Okay.
MR. KREBS-Well, and we can certainly make part of our approval the fact that you get engineering
approval,but you could work it out with the engineer.
MR. HUNSINGER-Any other questions, comments from the Board? What we're talking about is the
Article 78 that's been filed against the Zoning Board and if you had any comment about that.
MR. SCHACHNER-Technically it's actually being filed against the Zoning Board of Appeals and this
Board, although this Board hasn't taken any action yet, other than the SEQR review and an advisory
recommendation, neither of which are challenged. I mean, I'm not going to discuss our litigation
strategy in an open public meeting. Do you have a question about it? Generally speaking, Mr. Fuller
has accurately stated that there is a new Article 78 challenge to principally the Zoning Board of
Appeals, although this Board is a named party, despite the fact that no action by this Board is
challenged, and the basis of the challenge has to do with the type of variance that was required for
the situating of residential facilities within 300 feet of the Bay Road corridor. That determination,
the determination that that's an Area Variance issue as opposed to a Use Variance issue is what's
been challenged in the Article 78 proceeding.
MR. FORD-Okay. Thank you.
MR. SCHACHNER-It doesn't really have any specific bearing on this Board's ability to continue this
evening, although there's a contention, just so everybody knows, there's a contention in the
litigation that this Board can't proceed because the ZBA acted improperly,but that's not, although it
is a contention,it is not legally the case that you can't proceed. You are free to proceed if you wish.
MR. HUNSINGER-Okay.
MR. FORD-Thank you.
MR. HUNSINGER-Any other questions, comments from the Board? Is there anything else that you
wanted to add?
MR. FULLER-I know you have a public hearing.
MR. HUNSINGER-Yes, that's what we're leading up to. As everyone's probably aware, we do have a
public hearing scheduled this evening. I guess I would just add, for the record, even though there
hasn't been a public hearing really held for this Board, there has been extensive public comment
received for the record, both by the Zoning Board of Appeals and we have all read those minutes.
There has also been written comment received that we have all become aware of. So anyone
wishing to address the Board, I would ask that you address your comments related to the Site Plan
Review, and for the project that's before us this evening. If I could kind of just get a show of hands,
how many people do plan to speak and address the Board?
AUDIENCE MEMBER-I'm planning on speaking and I have letters from 10 people that would like to
allot their time to me to speak on their behalf.
MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. So are you the only person that's prepared to speak this evening?
AUDIENCE MEMBER-There might be a couple of others, but most of the people here have agreed
that I can speak for them.
MR. HUNSINGER-The reason I asked the question,just for the benefit of the Board,was to try to get
a sense for whether or not we wanted to limit comment to three minutes like we often do if there's
a controversial project with a lot of public comment. If there's only three people that wish to
address the Board, I think we could be a little bit more generous in how we allot time, but I also
don't want to give them unlimited time or to engage in a dialogue,which I think would also be.
21
(Queensbury Planning Board 08/27/2013)
MR.TRAVER-My feeling is that the individuals that are speaking as individuals,we should limit,but
the lady who's representing a number of individuals by their consent, I think we should grant her
some leeway.
MR. HUNSINGER-Okay.
MR.TRAVER-Reasonable leeway.
MR. SCHONEWOLF-Put a limit on it. Ten minutes.
MR. HUNSINGER-Ten minutes. Would that be sufficient?
KATHLEEN SONNABEND
MRS. SONNABEND-Well, I don't know. We'll see. There's 10 people that would like me to speak for
them, and Mr. Fuller has had many opportunities to speak, and he's not presented an accurate
picture. He claims there's no evidence. Kathleen Sonnabend. So today I dropped off a packet this
thick of evidence, and it's evidence that was supposed to have been taken from Town Board
documents, and he says you can take a few comments here and there and paint a different picture,
but actually when you read through the Comprehensive Land Use Plan, it makes it very clear that
this project of Fowler Square was intended for Main Street, not the Bay Road corridor. I've got the
Comprehensive Land Use Plan here, 2007, and when you look on Page 42, it says there are building
height restrictions. On Bay Road it's one to two stories. On Main Street,they have to be a minimum
of two stories and a maximum of three. On Page 46, Recommendation D-5, the Bay Road
Professional Office and Quaker Road East commercial areas, setbacks should reflect the more rural
nature of the area. The areas are less dense. The standards imposed on these areas should reflect
that. The setbacks should be larger allowing for green space in front of the buildings. The next
Page, on 47, Recommendation D-8, commercial mixed use areas, that's what you've been talking
about here, that's for Main Street and Dix Avenue to host denser and more varied housing than is
found in other parts of Queensbury. Again, not Bay Road, Main Street, and Dix Avenue. The next
page, Page 48, Residential uses should not be allowed to overrun mixed use areas. Again,this is the
Main Street mixed use idea. By its very nature,the current intense development in the Commercial
Mixed-Use areas is not a good neighbor too many of Queensbury's housing areas. Adequate
buffering should be maintained between these uses. Again, they're talking about Main Street, not
Bay Road. Bay Road is supposed to be rural. Enforcement and Administration on Page 56 of the
Comprehensive Land Use Plan. Effective enforcement and efficient administration are vital to the
success of a comprehensive plan. Regulations must be predictable and fairly applied. Businesses,
individual and their communities thrive in stable environments. Investment becomes tricky when
rules change from one applicant to the next. Page 58, Variances should be rare. Zoning rules
supposedly provide for the uniform application of adopted standards that will move the community
toward its vision. The Zoning Board needs to remember that variances set precedents. Under
similar circumstances, the board must grant similar variances. The cumulative effect of granting
variances can quickly undermine the zoning ordinance and the community's vision as established in
the Comprehensive Land Use Plan. The whole purpose of that update in 2007 to the Zoning Code
where they moved from a 1,000 foot setback for multi-family to 300 was to avoid these variances,
and 300 feet was not what was discussed during the Comprehensive Land Use Plan study. It was
more like 650. Three hundred shows up, and I suspect it's because the internal road on this Fowler
Square property for a decade has been set at 300 feet back. So it was very convenient for this
applicant to have professional offices in the first 300 feet and apartments beyond, but they're not
following that either now. They're having apartments within the first 300 feet. At the bottom of
Page 58 of the Comprehensive Land Use Plan, there are two types of variances,Area Variances and
Use Variances. A use variance permits a use for the land that is otherwise not allowed by zoning.
An area variance permits a use that is allowed,but does not meet dimensional requirements such as
setback, height or area. This 300 foot setback is not a setback. It's a use description. When you
look at the table, the first 300 feet from Bay Road can only have offices. That's it. Beyond 300,
that's when you can have multi-family or offices. At the bottom of Page 59, In the case of both
variances, state law requires that the zoning board grant the minimum variance necessary and
must at the same time preserve and protect the character of the neighborhood and the health,
safety and welfare of the community. Now, Mr. Fuller has said many times that there was no such
purchase of excess capacity to protect the other properties up and down Bay Road, but I've got lots
of documentation from the Map Plan Report in 2002 and the minutes from the public hearing on
December 9, 2002 that confirm that's exactly what happened. In the Comprehensive Land Use Plan
it says, the Comprehensive Land Use Plan adopted, now this was the previous plan, 1998, adopted
by the Town of Queensbury in December 1998 refers to the need for sewers in the Bay Road
corridor. The Town has recognized this need for some time as evidenced by many stop start efforts
dating back some 25 years. That goes to the late 1970's. The proposed district extension will not
22
(Queensbury Planning Board 08/27/2013)
only provide sewer service to the properties within the district, but will also provide additional
sewer capacity, allowing future extension of sewer service along Bay Road. It says the soil
conditions in the corridor are generally not suitable for multi-user septic systems and the
Comprehensive Land Use Plan makes the following recommendation. Until this issue of the sewer
is resolved, no high density residential users should be allowed in the Bay Road corridor. It goes on
to say that, this is, again, the 2002 extension, which included the Willow Brook pump station, the
Baybridge apartments, and the Baybrook office buildings. The pump station and force main will be
designed to operate under both the initial flow conditions of District 7 and ultimate future flow
conditions which would include flow from all of Bay Road corridor north to Cedar Court, and it has
a table showing the needs. This list includes all of the properties north of the proposed district
along Bay Road corridor up to Cedar Court. These are presented for the purposes of demonstrating
the adequacy of the proposed facilities to accommodate the ultimate future extensions of the sewer
district that might utilize the sewers and pump station presently being proposed. At that time,they
said that the property at Blind Rock and Bay would need approximately 11,400 gallons per day.
That was based on having as many as 22 apartments or townhomes and the rest office buildings. So
at that point, with a 1,000 foot setback, 22 multi-family units was all they could have on that
property. Further it says as discussed in the generation of wastewater flows herein, the proposed
sewer collection facilities are designed with adequate capacity for future expansion of the system
along the Bay Road corridor. In this regard, the Town of Queensbury will purchase the excess
capacity on a per gallon basis. This capacity will then be available for future district extensions to
purchase from the Town. Now Mr. Fuller has frequently said,hey,we're in the district. They're not,
so, you know, it's available to us. Nobody was in the sewer district until they did a sewer district
extension. When Willow Brook was formed, that was a sewer district extension that was paid for
by Schermerhorn, Baybridge and the Town because the Town wanted to protect all of the other
properties up to and including Cedar Court. When Queensbury Partners wanted to bring the sewer
up, they filed the Map, Plan Report for 2006, and in that report it was just the Cedars and BRB or
Queensbury Partners that were participating, and so they became part of the sewer district then,
too. If Cedar Court decides at some point they need to hook up because of a failed septic system,
they will also be doing a sewer district extension. I've talked to Chris Harrington. I've FOIL'd this
information, and the answer I got was, yes, the Town prefers sewer district extensions. So it's not
like we're a (lost words). That's the way it works. You do a sewer district extension,you pay for it,
not the Town unless the Town's buying excess capacity. In the case of the 2006 Map Plan Report,
the cost was shared between the Cedars and Queensbury Partners. The Town didn't buy any
additional excess capacity, but the excess capacity relates to the Willow Brook pump station which
is what their pipe hooks up to, and everybody else along Bay Road that would be hooking up would
be going through that Willow Brook pump station. That's where the excess capacity was
purchased. In the 2006 Map Plan Report it also recognizes that they have to think about the other
properties. It says the goal of this proposed sewer district is to extend sanitary sewer service to
large existing developments as well as to any new development that may occur along the corridor.
The project will also address contributing flows from existing properties along the sewer route that
have not elected to be part of the proposed district at this time. It says further the region along Bay
Road has experienced dense growth in the past 10 years and is expected to have, that future
development would strain the percolation limits of the soils, particular when the BRB or
Queensbury Partners development is built. At the time of this report, they said that they would be
building offices, no multi-family. Now this in 2006. After they'd been here in 2004 and 2005
talking to the Planning Board about a big apartment complex, no offices, but in 2006 they say we're
going to be building offices, and the maximum office space we can build is 120,000, and that
120,000 square feet would need 12,000 gallons per day. So that's very close to the 2002 Map Plan
Report that said they needed 11,400. So when, and then it says further that they also took a look at
the wastewater flows generated by all other properties from Walker Lane north to Surrey Fields.
Now we're going even further beyond Cedar Court. So as I said, in this particular report they were
expecting 12,000 gallons per day. So that is what Fowler Square is entitled to, absolutely. They are
entitled to that, but they are not entitled to 44,000 gallons per day, which is what they're now
saying they need, at the expense of everybody else who was supposed to be protected along Bay
Road. So this very dense apartment complex, and this is what they've always been trying to do.
Every single proposal that has come before us over the past decade has been for a huge apartment
complex on land that was intended for professional offices, and the reason it was intended for
professional offices is that the Town has known since the late 70's that the soil conditions along Bay
Road are not conducive to multi-user septic systems. So the way the Town got around it was
saying, okay, because we know there's this limit, but we still want growth, let's have the Bay Road
corridor be professional offices that don't need as much sewer capacity. It'll be a nice transition
from the commercial Quaker Road to the rural residential that's to the north, and everything was
working great. All the other developers were cooperating,but these guys kept coming in saying we
need to build a lot of apartments and it's our right to do it, and it's right to take the remaining
excess capacity. Could you put up that PDF file that I e-mailed to you? I did a spreadsheet. I've
been asking since December for information from the Town. I've been asking them to do a real
23
(Queensbury Planning Board 08/27/2013)
sewer study. I've been asking them how much sewage is currently flowing through Willow Brook,
who's already hooked up, so that I could figure out how big of a crisis we've got going. When that
opens up, I'll show you. I finally got the information I needed on August 6th when Chris Harrington
issued his sewer report. It's not a complete study. It isn't everything we need, but it gives me
enough information to point a few things out to you. First of all, this column is from Chris' report.
The next column is the 2002 Map Plan Report. The last one is the 2006 Map Plan Report, and you'll
notice here $12,000 and $11,400, that's what was assumed that Queensbury Partners would need,
versus $44,000 they told Chris in March that they were going to be needing for this project. I can
also hand you individual sheets. So basically what we've got here in the Chris Harrington report.
MR. SCHACHNER-Mr. Deeb would love to have an individual sheet.
MRS. SONNABEND-Sure.
MR. KREBS-So would I.
MRS. SONNABEND-So Chris has said that currently there's 50,000 gallons per day going into that
Willow Brook pump station. That consists of the Baybridge townhomes, the Baybrook Office Park,
which is Schermerhorn's big offices, the Cedars, which has two phases now. Originally they were
expecting one. There's two more, but they're probably not going to do them. The Queensbury
Town Hall and Surrey Fields. Those are all of the properties currently connected generating 50,000
a day. When you look down below, and this screen is cutting off the bottom,yes, there you see the
current capacity is 150,000. Chris says that with a minor adjustment, minor expense, he can
probably get that up to 168,000, and by the way, he was very generous with his time. I called him
because I wanted to make sure I understood his report. I'm not an engineer, and I did not want to
be presenting something to you that I did not believe was accurate. So he went through it with me
and explained it. He's talked to the manufacturers. He's confident he can get it to 168,000. With
another expenditure of between $35 and $60,000, he can get it up to 192, he thinks, but he's not
going to be confident of that until he's had a chance to see how the increased flow works, because
when a pump station is only at a third of its state of capacity,the numbers, I'm not an engineer,but I
guess the numbers don't always work out well. When you get closer to capacity, then you can tell
really what the real capacity is. So what he's telling us is that without having to replace the pump
station and go to a very big expense, he can get it up to 192,000 gallons per day. So if you could
scroll down a little bit. So right now there's 50,000 gallons per day going through there, and these,
by the way, are average numbers. Peaking factors, which you hear about, are much higher, and it
could be anywhere from three to four times that number. I'm just working with average daily
gallons per day. So we've got 50,000 currently going through. There's going to be an extra 15 to
20,000 gallons per day with the new Schermerhorn apartments that are going in where there
would have been offices under the old Code, and then we've got 30,000 he says coming from the
new apartment complex that Valente got approved, which was much denser than anybody
expected. It was originally going to be townhomes, and then you've got 44,000 for Fowlers Square.
So the total is 139 to 144,000 which is getting pretty close to the limit. So now you've got to think
about what about all the other properties. When you look at the 2002 report, the numbers are
based upon current properties and development that would occur under the 1,000 foot setback
assumption. So that 2002 report, they thought they were solving the sewer problem on Bay Road
forever,but they didn't know that this Town Code would be changed to a 300 foot setback, and now
we're talking about a variance that has no setback for multi-family. So we're going to have much
more intensive development along Bay Road. So if you look at the properties that were supposed to
be taken care of, you've got the Baybrook apartments who are part of sewer extension seven that
have not hooked up yet. So they definitely have a right to hook up. Now we're over 150,000 a day,
and then you've got all of the other properties, including Cedar Court, the church, Bayberry Court,
Adirondack Manor, Old Coach Manor, Canterbury Woods. All of those properties, according to the
2002 report, would add up to about another 72,000 gallons per day. The 2006 Map Plan Report
was not as inclusive. They didn't include some of the properties and they did not include any
estimates for future development. Their number was more like 56,000,but if you include the other
properties that are already there, you're getting pretty close to the 72,000 also. So when you add
these numbers up, you're well, if you scroll down, you're well over even what Chris Harrington
thinks he can do to increase the capacity. So now we're talking about really big numbers. You're
going to have to replace the T-4's at the pump station with T-6's, and not just replace that
equipment, but probably replace the infrastructure underneath it, because when you put these
things in, everything else has to coordinate with the size. So we're talking about big dollars. If you
would just follow the Code and hopefully scale back the 300 feet someday, but that's, right now it's
the Code. If you just follow the Code, that will minimize the impact of this, but by giving Fowlers
Square the variance and approving this project,you are setting us up for a sewer crisis that could be
happening in just a few years. We're not talking decades down the road. Most of these properties
that are not hooked up, they've been around for a while. Their septic systems are 20 years old or
24
(Queensbury Planning Board 08/27/2013)
more. How long do you think a multi-user septic system lasts? I'm told the average is about 25
years, and when they fail, they can't just replace them. The DEC has told us that when your septic
system fails, if it's a single family home, that's one thing, that's not a problem, but when it's a
development with more than four entities going into the same leach field, so it's a multi-user
system, they will not let us replace it because they know how bad the soil conditions are along Bay
Road. They will force us into the sewer. That's what happened to Surrey Fields. That's what
happened to Baybridge. Baybridge was under a DEC mandate. The Willow Brook pump station
saved them. So this is really serious. I haven't just been making things up. I haven't just been
fighting this project to fight it. Yes, I would rather, I've been here because I want you to follow the
Code, and I want you to make long term decisions that are in the best interests of the community,
and it's not just the sewer. They say the traffic problem has been resolved,but who are we kidding.
The traffic study they did doesn't even talk about all the Schermerhorn and Valente apartments that
are going to be built in the next year. They didn't talk about the ACC dorms. They're assuming a
one percent annual increase in traffic without even considering what's going to be added by those
properties, and with this project, if you approve it, I'm willing to bet you're going to see a flood of
people coming in here saying, now I want to build apartments along Bay Road. Because you can fill
apartments. Professional offices take longer. Look at Valente's project down there. He's finally got
two office buildings, and that park has been there for a couple of decades. Now with the Nanotech
park really scaling up we might have a chance of getting some really good companies, engineering
companies, consultants, wanting to build professional offices up here, but it's not something that
happens overnight. Whereas you can build all the apartments you want, and we'll be attracting
people from other communities. There are people in other neighboring communities who move
into apartments in this Town to get their kids into the Queensbury school district, especially if they
have special needs because we've got really good services in our school district, that some of these
surrounding communities cannot afford. So we've got a problem here, and the traffic, if you really
look at the maps, first of all, Country Club, Quaker, Blind Rock, Haviland, those are County roads,
and the Post Star reported on August 9th that 42% of the County roads are impaired. Over the last
three years, they have not been spending enough on maintenance. So where's the County going to
have the money to widen Blind Rock when it needs to be widened, and you know it's going to have
to be widened one of these days. We really should have a traffic circle there because when you start
thinking about where could you put stop lights, there's no good place on Blind Rock or Bay, along
Fowlers Square, to put a stop light in. So we've got all this traffic coming and going. When the
school buses are running in the morning or ACC classes are out, sometimes traffic is backed up
almost a mile on Bay Road. I've personally experienced it, and even with the improvement, and I
admit, the timing of the lights was a good improvement, but that's based on the traffic now, before
this gets developed and everything else is getting developed, and it's not like we have an easy
option. When I leave Cedar Court, most of the time, I want to go south or west. I've got to go
through Blind Rock and Bay. My only other option is to head north and go way out of my way to go
around Glen Lake or around Sunnyside. It's not like I only have to go a couple of blocks to find an
alternate route. This is a really choke point here, and we've got to be really careful. We allow these
developers to do these intensive projects,they make great profit from it, and then the taxpayer gets
stuck with the hassle and the expense of making the sewer improvements and making those traffic,
those road improvements. There's so many things that Matt Fuller has said in person or in writing
that just aren't true, and I,you know, I could go on for hours. I just wish that you would listen more
to the public and please don't approve this. This is crazy. The first item on the site plan review is,is
it consistent with the policies of the Comprehensive Land Use Plan. Well it's obviously not, when
this is a project that was intended for Main Street, not Bay Road, and the idea of having a walkable
neighborhood and having more of this development on Bay Road, yes, if the sewer and the roads
could handle it, it would be great to have connecting sidewalks where people could walk to
services, but I'm telling you, we can't even afford to have this project go in, and once it's in, there
isn't going to be any other opportunity for any contiguous, so there's going to be nice sidewalks on
their property, but it's not going to go anywhere, and trying to cross Blind Rock or Bay, students
coming from ACC, it's dangerous walking down Bay Road, and trying to cross over, it's just not, it's
not the right place for this kind of a project, and there has been consistent public controversy over
the change in neighborhood character, over the sewer and the traffic. We've written letters,we've
done petitions. I don't know how it's been so easily discarded. We've been told that we didn't care,
that we didn't have any problems with the change in the neighborhood character, we didn't have a
problem with the setback on Blind Rock. I know the setback on Blind Rock is not as significant,but
that road's going to have to be widened, and then that setback does become more significant. At a
minimum, we need a left turn lane on both ends, onto Bay and onto Country Club, and the left turn
lane can't just be two cars long, because oftentimes we've got several cars waiting to turn left onto
Bay. So if you only have a lane that's two or three cars long,you're still going to be backing up the
road. So there's a lot of things that need to really be thought through better on this project. They
also talk about how density's not an issue. Well density's a calculation,but it also is subject to all of
the other requirements of the site. You've got, you're subject to the height requirements. They're
not supposed to have three stories on this property. It's supposed to be limited to two. You're
25
(Queensbury Planning Board 08/27/2013)
supposed to be set back far enough from the wetlands. I'm not sure it is in all places. You're
supposed to have enough room so, you have to meet Town standards so the snow can be cleared.
They're compliant proposal,what they call compliant from 2010, I've got a copy of the map here. It
shows 98 apartments, and they are crammed in tight. I've not even sure it's compliant,but if this is
compliant, 98 is the maximum apartments they can build, even though the density calculation is
bigger. If it doesn't meet all of the other requirements like no apartments in the first 300 feet, no
buildings above two stories, all those requirements, then you can't have the density of 142. If
anybody has any questions about this, I'd be happy to answer them. I've done a lot of research. I've
gone through and read minutes. I've got lots of proof and evidence. I just have not had the time, in
the past, being limited to three or five minutes, to, I've referred to these things, but I haven't been
able to show it to you,but it's been there all along.
MR. HUNSINGER-Thank you. It's very obvious you really did your homework on this,yes,very good
presentation. Yes,thank you.
MRS. SONNABEND-Did I forget anything you guys wanted me to talk about? Okay.
MR. HUNSINGER-I know a couple of other members of the audience wanted to speak. I don't know
who wants to be next.
DOUG AUER
MR.AUER-I gave up my time already. I can't hold a candle to that.
MR. KREBS-Thank you, Doug.
JOHN SALVADOR
MR. SALVADOR-I kind of feel like the dog and pony show following the burlesque act.
MR. FULLER-I've been called a lot of things, John. I don't know that dog and pony show is one of
them.
MR. SALVADOR-Good evening. My name is John Salvador. I'm a resident in North Queensbury. The
record compiled for the review and approval of this Board's recommendation contains a
memorandum of law prepared by the applicant's attorney, Mr. Fuller. In said memorandum of law,
Mr. Fuller offered a convincing argument that, quote, the sewer capacity is a site plan and SEQR
related argument. Better said, the sewer system conveyance and treatment capacity. With respect
to the treatment capacity of the sewage system components of transmission lines and pump
stations being a site plan issue, Town Code Chapter 179-9-080 requirements for site plan review,
speaks in Section K to that sewage disposal facilities be adequate and will meet the current
requirements of Chapter 136. Chapter 136 deals with on site waste disposal, not with municipal
sewers, and I think the problem we're having here, this Board and the ZBA, sewer district
extensions are an affair of the Town Board. They're not a zoning issue. They're not covered in
Chapter 179. Pursuant to Town Code, the sewer capacity of Fowler Square project, of which Mr.
Fuller speaks, cannot be considered a site plan issue. The only other possibility, according to Mr.
Fuller, is that, quote, sewer capacity is a SEQR related issue. As you know,this Board, as SEQR Lead
Agent, rendered a SEQR determination of no significance on April 23, 2013. Before the Fowlers
Square project received final approval for the Area Variance 61-2011. The project was still in a
state of flux when this Board approved SEQR. Wasn't it? It was in a state of flux. Significantly, the
project was announced to all involved agencies, and advertised to the public as a SEQR Type I
project. However, excuse me, how is it that this Board in its resolution of approval approved a
SEQR Type II project? That is a Negative Declaration, and the meeting of April 23"d was
subsequently affirmed,the minutes.
MR. HUNSINGER-No,we did a Long Form on this, Mr. Salvador.
MR. SALVADOR-Pardon me.
MR. HUNSINGER-I'm sorry to interrupt you,but we did do a Long Form on this. We did do a Type I
SEQR review.
MR. SCHACHNER-Yes,the contention is completely erroneous. 100%wrong.
MR. SALVADOR-I'll get to that.
26
(Queensbury Planning Board 08/27/2013)
MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. All right.
MR. SALVADOR-It seems to me that a SEQR Neg Dec of a Type I project is a contradiction in terms.
With respect to the sewer capacity being a SEQR Type I action, the applicant completed Part I,
project information on the environmental assessment form. In answering no to EAF Part I Question
Number Twelve, is surface liquid waste such as sewage disposal involved,the applicant overlooked
that the sewage from the project will, in fact, be disposed of as surface liquid waste to the Hudson
River during a storm event. This occurs because the Town of Queensbury failed to run new sewer
lines to the Glens Falls sewage treatment plant as recommended in the EPA's 1984 final EIS on the
Warren County Sewer District Number One, of which this community was a part of the study area.
Instead,the Queensbury sewage, once mixed with the City stormwater, and the combined sewer, is
shunted, untreated,to the Hudson River. I understand this occurs about 30 times a year, and that's
causing our, untreated sewage is causing pollution to the Hudson River. This storm associated
event was completely overlooked when the Board completed Part II of the Environmental
Assessment Form,that is this Board. In the section titled Impact on Water, Question Number Three,
will the proposed action affect any water body designated as protected? You answered no, the
answer is yes, the Hudson River. Question Number Five, will the proposed action affect surface or
groundwater. This Board answered no. It should have been yes. Sub question to Question Number
Five, liquid effluent will be conveyed off the site to facilities which presently do not exist or have
inadequate capacity. The Glens Falls Wastewater Treatment Plant has inadequate capacity during a
storm event. In a letter to the Chairman of the ZBA, Mr. Fuller stressed, as he did here tonight, that
my clients have built the sewer line having undertaken it in good faith. In good faith for what? For
the assurance that the Town would approve the sewer line as a district extension? This assurance
amounts to the Town acting in violation of the State constitution,Article 8, Section 1, no Town shall
give its money or lend its credit to a private purpose or undertaking. No way would a developer
build this sewer in anticipation that he's going to operate it the rest of his life. There has to be
reasonable assurance that the Town is going to take it over in a sewer district extension. Fowlers
Square is a private undertaking. The Town lent its credit to a developer to take the sewer.
Continuing with SEQR concerns. EAF Part II Number 15, Impact on Transportation. Will there be
an effect on existing transportation systems? The Board said no. I contend that the answer should
be yes, when consideration is given to the transportation of school children to and from school.
School buses stop,by the way, school buses in this community do not enter the development. They
stay on the main road, and they stop on the main road, and when they stop on the main road, two
lanes of traffic stop. You're familiar with that. they do travel on Blind Rock Road. I can't imagine
the tie up that will be there at that time of day, morning and afternoon. EAF Part II, Question 19.
Will the proposed action set an important precedent for future projects? You heard Mrs.
Sonnabend expound on that. I don't have to talk about that. EAF Part II Question Number 20. Is
there likely to be public controversy related to potential adverse environmental impacts? I don't
have to go any further. The Planning Board's Lead Agency request should have included the
Queensbury Town Board, because of this sewer district extension. The City of Glens Falls should
have been an involved agent, because the sewage is going to the treatment plant. The DEC issues
SPDES permit for the Glens Falls Sewage Treatment Plant, and I can tell you that direct discharges
are not allowed. Other involved agents might have been County DPW, and the school district, with
regard to school bus traffic. The project was originally classified as a SEQR Type I. It was
erroneously, unanimously approved as a SEQR Type II. That's in the record, with a Negative
Declaration. A Type I Negative Declaration, as I said before is a contradiction in terms. The SEQR
Negative Declaration aside,the SEQR review itself was the very essence of segmentation, as defined
in the SEQR law. Thank you.
MR. HUNSINGER-Thank you. Anyone else? No other comments. Were there written comments,
Laura,since the last meeting?
MRS. MOORE-I have written comments from Kathy Sonnabend. Did you want me to read the
information that you submitted?
MR. HUNSINGER-Is that the same package that was submitted to the Board?
MRS. SONNABEND-It's a comprehensive (lost words) going through all the site plan,A through 0. If
you need that before you go any further, than maybe you should read it. If you're not going to vote
tonight,then you should read it at your leisure.
MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. Thank you. As I mentioned at the beginning of the public hearing, we did
have extensive comments, one of which was submitted last week, which all of the members of the
Board got a copy of, and we've also read all of the comments that were made at the Zoning Board
meetings as well. Were there any other written comments.
27
(Queensbury Planning Board 08/27/2013)
MRS. SONNABEND-There's some new information that I dropped off to (lost word).
MR. HUNSINGER-Okay.
MR. SCHONEWOLF-I'd like our attorney to comment.
MR. HUNSINGER-Yes. Well,go ahead and ask him.
MR. SCHONEWOLF-I'd like your response to some of the comments that were made,because I know
they're not true.
MR. SCHACHNER-Which ones do you want me to respond to?
MR. SCHONEWOLF-Any ones that you think are important.
MR. SCHACHNER-I guess my broad base comment will be that,to her credit,the vast majority of Ms.
Sonnabend's comments do relate to this Board's site plan review function,with the exception of her
comments, and I'm not criticizing them, but with the exception of her comments about the
allowance of residential uses within 300 feet,which is not this Board's decision and not this Board's
purview. That variance has been granted. Right, wrong, better, worse, that's not before you this
evening as an issue, but the rest of her comments pretty much do relate to your site plan review
function and she looked at the right criteria in our Zoning Law. As to the next commenter, Mr.
Salvador, his comments were largely or exclusively focused on your SEQR review. Many of his
comments are completely, legally erroneous. He did say one thing that I think is true. In his whole
diatribe I did identify one thing that I think I agree with, and that is that school buses do stop on
Blind Rock Road, and when they do, sometimes traffic stops as well. The SEQR, first of all, your
SEQR review ship has sailed. It's been more four months since you conducted your SEQR review.
That's not what's on your agenda tonight. You've done that. All the criticism of your SEQR review,
in my opinion, Number One, is too late. Number Two, is misplaced, and Number Three, to the
extent he made a number of comments about legal issues involving SEQR review, they were 100%
incorrect. This Board did not treat this action as a Type II action. A Type II action means no SEQR
review required. You didn't treat this as a Type II action. You conducted SEQR review. You treated
it properly as a SEQR Type I action. There was what's called coordinated review, which means
designation of this Board as the SEQR Lead Agency, and the notion that there's something legally
inappropriate about issuing a SEQR Negative Declaration for a Type I action is completely
erroneous. As an empirical, statistical matter, more than 95% of the Type I actions in the State of
New York ultimately receive SEQR Negative Declarations. That was a statistic of some years ago.
My personal,my professional suspicion is it's now probably closer to 99%,but as of a few years ago,
more than 95%. So it's just wrong. There's nothing else to comment. Those comments are too late,
misplaced, and incorrect. I'm referencing Mr. Salvador's SEQR comments. Ms. Sonnabend's
comments, again, other than the 300 foot one, do relate to your site plan review criteria, and, you
know, she's made a number of points that you can consider. The other thing that Mr. Salvador said
that is completely incorrect is that sewer capacity is not a site plan review issue. That's not correct.
That is actually one of the things you're allowed to take into account. He did say one sub thing that
is correct there, which is that I think you all know, it's neither this Board nor the Zoning Board of
Appeals that has the legal right to approve of sewer district creation or sewer district extension. I
think everyone in the room knows that is, in fact, and he's correct, a Town Board function, but he's
not correct when he said, and I wrote this down because I was so shocked, that sewer capacity is
not a site plan review issue. That's completely incorrect. Helpful?
MR. SCHONEWOLF-Thank you.
MR. HUNSINGER-Yes,thank you.
MR. FORD-Thanks.
MR. HUNSINGER-Was there some comments?
MR. FULLER-Just a couple of comments. I want to deal with the sewer issue. Could you pop that
chart back up again. I got a copy of it as well. A couple of things. Because I, too, talked to Chris
Harrington myself actually months ago when this issue first surfaced. These numbers are not
actuals. He hasn't run actuals. They're based on Map Plan Report average unit numbers. There's
been no flow meter that's been installed out there, and we'd tell you that. The second part is, the
big comment, and this keeps coming up, that all these prior reviews and all of these numbers, in
particular this 2002 Nace Map Plan Report and it wasn't a comment that was made once. I counted
three times that it came up, that it was based on a 1,000 foot setback. That is legally impossible
28
(Queensbury Planning Board 08/27/2013)
because that 1,000 foot setback was not enacted until the Town Board flipped to a different
majority and three members voted to jack that zoning up to 1,000 feet.
MS. SONNABEND-That's absolutely wrong,and I can prove it in the minutes.
MR. FULLER-That part,right there,it happened in'06. We all remember it.
MS. SONNABEND-It was in 2002.
MR. FULLER-That's when it flipped. There were members of the Zoning Board that were put on the
Town Board. So that's, there certainly is, with any sewer district that is either going to have
extensions to it or have additional users put in it, a point where improvements are required, and
that's why there, frankly, is quite a sizeable fee for this project to even develop in its own district.
There's a development fee that doesn't get discussed here, but ultimately we have to pay to the
Town to put these units in the district. That goes into a pot to make these improvements.
MR. HUNSINGER-Well,there was reference,in an e-mail from Chris Harrington,of that cost.
MR. FULLER-Exactly. That's right. It is in the record that we'll pay, and the final part is, again, it's,
there's a letter, and I didn't submit it. It was put into the record last week, no, a couple of weeks
ago, August 8th. At a meeting of the Board of Directors the Cedar Court Homeowners Association
held on January 5, 2011, the Board voted to terminate our interest in establishing a sewer district
for Cedar Court. They had an option to get in. I get that, and they look to the future to be able to do
it. I get that. No question, but they opted out. They had an ability to get in and they opted out.
Read it. There was an option, in the future, if we need to, we'll look at it again. No question that
they'll look at it again.
MR. HUNSINGER-Excuse me. Ms. Sonnabend, no one interrupted you. I would appreciate the same
courtesy to the applicant.
MS. SONNABEND-I didn't get a chance to rebut him.
MR. HUNSINGER-You don't get a chance. I'm sorry. Please be courteous. That's all I ask.
MR. FULLER-I'll read the whole letter. At a meeting of the Board of Directors the Cedar Court
Homeowners Association held on January 5, 2011, the Board voted to terminate our interest in
establishing a sewer district for Cedar Court at this time. Two factors influenced our decision.
First, the estimated cost presented through the Feasibility Study was prohibitive, by everyone's
standards especially considering the number of residents who would have to bear the burden.
Second, after extensive investigation into the health of our current septic system, it was determined
that it is functioning as it was designed. The Board contracted with a separate septic company to
uncover the distribution tanks in our four zone leach field. Upon inspection, it was found that they
are in perfect working order. In fact, the contractor made the comment that they looked brand
new. So, at this time, the Board is adopting an enhanced maintenance program for our current
system and holds the option of hooking up to the Town's municipal system for the future. The
Board would like to thank you and the town staff and in particular Mike Shaw for all you have done
to help us through this process. It is comforting to know that the information in the study will be
available if needed in the future. And no different than what the developer on this project will have
to pay. An out of district user of that number of units that's in Cedar Court will pay that similar
number, based on a per unit basis, and whatever extension it takes to get there. So, I guess the
overall comment is, yes, the development will use up capacity in the sewer system. No question,
but based on the numbers, and even the projected numbers of what's there now, eventually if you
come to a threshold and it's your project that comes to a threshold where improvements need to be
made, you need to make those improvements. We're not there yet. To penalize a developer that's
here now when this topic wasn't raised when Valente was here, a year ago, is patently unfair.
That's my argument to the Board.
MR. HUNSINGER-Well,we did ask the questions of the other developers.
MR. FULLER-Yes,right.
MR. HUNSINGER-And I guess the question I would ask, and I don't know if it goes back to Staff.
Certainly you can answer it if you want to comment,but,you know,ultimately,who is the arbitrator
to determine whether or not there's capacity. I mean, it's the sewer department in the Town.
Correct?
29
(Queensbury Planning Board 08/27/2013)
MRS.MOORE-Yes.
MR. SCHACHNER-The short answer is yes.
MR. HUNSINGER-And I do recall,and I was looking for it during one of the presentations. I do recall
that we had either a memo or a letter stating that there was current capacity to serve the proposal,
and I wasn't able to locate anything.
MRS. MOORE-I have identified an e-mail from Chris Harrington on March 8th. I can read through
eight items. It just comments back and forth to the LA Group.
MR. HUNSINGER-Yes. I found that myself. That didn't really address capacity, though, did it? Or
maybe it was a different memo that I found.
MRS. MOORE-This is simply in reference to, it also identifies the discharge calculations and
information that's needed from the applicant. I don't.
MR. FORD-Can we get clarification as to whether, in fact, there is a flow meter on the present
system or not?
MR. SCHACHNER-Did you ask did you,or can you?
MR. FORD-Do we have that available tonight?
MRS.MOORE-I don't have that information at the moment.
MR. FORD-Okay.
MR. SCHACHNER-Yes, and for what it's worth, if there is any dispute as to whether there's existing
capacity, it would certainly be appropriate for the Board to get that information from Mr.
Harrington,along with the,whether there's flow meter information or not,as Mr. Ford mentions.
MR. HUNSINGER-Yes. Just to go back to the comments, this is the same memo that Laura, well, it's
an e-mail dated March 8th from Chris Harrington where he talks about the discharge calculations,
and he says, this figure is used to calculate the buy in, which is 327 a gallon. This includes buy ins
for the City of Glens Falls capacity of $1.15, general fund money to pay for infrastructure
downstream of $1.12, and an equity buy in for the Queensbury Consolidated Sewer District of
$1.00. So I think that's what you were referring to,but nowhere in this e-mail does he say anything
about capacity, but again, I thought we had something previous that addressed the capacity issue,
from either the Town Engineer.
MR. TRAVER-Aren't those costs, those fees and those costs projections based on anticipated need
and capacity?
MR. HUNSINGER-Yes.
MR. TRAVER-So we may not have those numbers in front of us, but the numbers we do have
indicate that capacity has been considered,considered in view of this project.
MR. HUNSINGER-Right. Yes.
MR. FULLER-And, again, you've got the added unusuality, it's not a leverage, as Mr. Salvador put it
or a promise to the future, but if that line hasn't been run down the front of that property as it is
now, and we had to run it, we'd be paying for it. We'd have to bond it, for us to improve it, or we'd
have to put a cash letter of credit for us to put that line in. It's already there. We've already paid for
it,to the tune of half a million plus. So that's in addition to that number that you were talking about.
It is a different circumstance where the applicant has already put in a line.
MR. GALUSHA-Typically it isn't done that way. Typically you don't put the line in until you get the
project.
MR. FULLER-But that money has been already spent. That's a less risky developer proposition for
the Town.
MR. SCHONEWOLF-I think we discussed that and I think we encouraged you to do that.
30
(Queensbury Planning Board 08/27/2013)
MR. FULLER-Many years ago.
MR. TRAVER-There was a, I have in my notes, and I don't remember who brought it up, but in the
public comment, there was an issue about, I think, again, relating to the sewer capacity, and/or
SEQR that the project was in a state of flux, but I think from the very beginning it was always
anticipated that there would be a connection to the sewer system, and it was always anticipated
that the capacity would be what has been consistently discussed. So that was not in flux.
MR. FULLER-And that, again, goes back to the constant argument about density and that variances
have driven density. The number of units that Craig calculated can be built out there, whether it's
an office at the front of that property or an apartments at the back. We can fit them in. There's
adequate space with the space, the land that we've got open for development. It has never been a
density issue. It's never been a density variance. To say they allowed it or this Board working with
the applicant allowed some higher density is just, it's patently untrue. The zoning set the density
and we haven't gone over it. Craig Brown calculated it and it's been met. Years ago it was
calculated.
MR. HUNSINGER-Other questions,comments from the Board?
MR. FORD-Does our engineer have anything that he wishes to reflect upon that was presented in
the last hour?
MR. DOTY-Is there anything specific you'd like me to talk about?
MR. FORD-No. If there's something that trips your trigger,then I want to hear about it.
MR. DOTY-Yes. We were requested to review stormwater management and erosion control items
only. So I have not reviewed sewer capacity. I have not reviewed any traffic engineering. I haven't
reviewed any of those elements, just stormwater for this project. So really that's what I would be
best suited to speak about.
MR. SCHONEWOLF-What you're saying to us is any approval from this Board has to be (lost word)
on approval of what you said about stormwater. In other words, they have to meet those
conditions,but if they do meet those conditions,you're satisfied.
MR. DOTY-In regard to stormwater.
MR. SCHONEWOLF-Correct.
MR. DOTY-Again, I haven't reviewed any other elements.
MR. DEEB-Well, I'd like to ask a comment, Ms. Sonnabend, and, Mark, I think you're the one who's
going to have to maybe help us with this. Is that with the Comprehensive Plan, which I admittedly
am not versed on yet, that the Bay Road corridor isn't suited to this. Is there anywhere in the
Comprehensive Plan that discourages that or? I guess what I'm looking for, I took heed of her
comment,and I'd like clarification on that.
MR. SCHACHNER-We'll probably tag team answer this, myself and Laura, Dave. I mean, I think my
sense is, and I haven't looked at this in a while, but I have looked at it, and Laura can amplify this
because she's more familiar with our Comp Plan than I am, but as I recall there are sections or
verbiage from the Comp Plan that could be taken out of the Comp Plan that would arguably be
supportive of this type of mixed use development and there are sections of the Comp Plan and
verbiage that can be taken out of the Comp Plan that are arguably not supportive. That's my
recollection,but Laura knows the Comp Plan better than I do.
MRS. MOORE-I guess I can refer to the previous Comp Plan as well as this one. Prior, the previous
Comp Plan, this area was always indicated as a professional office mixed use area. It's always been
in the Comp Plan. The recent Comp Plan indicates that this area,yes,you know, parking should be
behind buildings and things like that. So specifically for this specific project it's not going to identify
that, but it's going to identify generalities of what was anticipated in this area, and this type of use
was anticipated.
MR. DEEB-So it was never exclusively excluded.
MRS.MOORE-Correct.
31
(Queensbury Planning Board 08/27/2013)
MR. DEEB-From the Bay Road corridor.
MRS.MOORE-Correct.
MR. SCHACHNER-Certainly not excluded.
MR. DEEB-Okay.
MR. HUNSINGER-Other questions from the Board? Comments from the applicant?
MR. FULLER-I think we've gone through what we've gone through. It's been a long process and
we've got some final engineering comments to take care of, but the contents of the stormwater can
be resolved.
MR. SCHONEWOLF-Yes. Looking back, this is, what,two years, we've had the project in front of us,
and we turned around and decided, with your help, that we could make it better. That set the
project back a long time. In retrospect, I still think we were right, and I thought we did the right
things in meeting with the Zoning Board and trying to get a mutual level of understanding. I'm
disappointed that didn't happen, but, you know, the Zoning Board is the Zoning Board, and we're
the Planning Board,but I still look back on the project with what you're left with,and I still think it's
a very good, solid project, and in the long run it'll be good for the majority of the people in this
Town. So I don't feel as bad as I did six months ago when I was getting hacked about this variance
and that,but I think this Board did a good job, and I've served on other Boards, and it's rare that the
Planning Board gets a chance to do planning, and in this case we did, and I commend the Chairman
for getting us into that.
MR. HUNSINGER-Thank you.
MR. FULLER-I think that's probably the one argument that I have no response to, because it's been
lodged at me and certainly my clients a bunch of times, which is you followed, or you blew open
that door once it was opened, and that's why you have the ZBA, is we got a project that, as I said at
the ZBA, I started to grow concerned as the variances started to mount. I was keeping track of them
after every meeting. When we went back and made changes, we had a lot of meetings on our side,
and I knew, I've been before the Board. I know the Zoning Board. I knew it was going to be an
issue, and that's, it's kind of the balance. It's the checks and balances, if you will. They've got a role,
which is to yea or nay on the adjudicatory side of a variance, and they expressed big concern and
we came back. So,yes, to that extent, to the extent we can be accused of following that process, we
did, but I tend to agree. Traffic problems on this side of Town,we don't have nearly the issues that
other areas do,and I would disagree with that from a living on this side of Town standpoint.
MR. SCHONEWOLF-You don't know what traffic problems are until you've lived in some of the
bigger areas.
MR. FULLER-West of the Northway,try to get east.
MR. SCHONEWOLF-Get down around Exit 20 I'll show you traffic problems.
MR. FULLER-I think it's been a long process. I think we have legitimately done everything we were
asked to do. Did we do it willingly? Yes. Guilty,but at the end of the day, I can remember when we
came back,the very first time when I came in with that first project,thought we had it nailed down,
went through every minutes from 2004 to, up to that point, and I checked off, made a list of all the
allegations that were made against my client's project,hit them all, and came in and the Board said,
no, and then moved in one direction. The Zoning Board brought it back. We had joint meetings and
we got to the project where it is today. I still think that the roof part should be there to hide the
mechanicals,but it's not a deal breaker if those had to go.
MR.TRAVER-I think they call it a site plan modification.
MR. FULLER-I think even after, it was a heat of discussion at that Zoning Board meeting where the
height thing came up. There were a lot of discussions about the Blind Rock setbacks and things,and
I think that one, that discussion of the height was a victim of that discussion. You can look in the
minutes, that the ZBA, some of the members said afterwards. (lost words), but it is. It's part of the
project,and that's what we'll build.
MR. DEEB-So you're saying the mechanicals are going to be exposed?
32
(Queensbury Planning Board 08/27/2013)
MR. GALUSHA-Yes.
MR. DEEB-Whatever happens, I really feel that that turning lane should be done at the beginning of
the project. I just don't feel we should leave that up to chance.
MR. FULLER-It is there and can be done.
MR. DEEB-I feel very strongly about that.
MR. GALUSHA-I think we've shown through this process what needs to be done and done right,
we've been down this road for two years. So it's all there. You folks see it. It is what it is. We
would just like to move forward.
MRS.MOORE-Can I interrupt?
MR. HUNSINGER-Is there any other information that the Board feels we need from the applicant at
this time? Yes,go ahead, Laura, I'm sorry.
MRS. MOORE-Chris, can I just add, I know that there's a draft motion in your packet. I also have a
draft motion that's more detailed if the secretary would like to review that.
MR. HUNSINGER-Do you have a hard copy for him?
MRS.MOORE-Yes. I'll need it back,but I just wanted to make sure that he had it available to him.
MR. FORD-I would tend to agree that if there was, if we proceed, that there would have to be all
steps taken to address the present and anticipated traffic flow issues. They're going to happen.
They're there now. It's not going to get any better with greater density.
MR. KREBS-But I also laughed a little bit at this argument about school buses, etc.,you know, I grew
up in Argyle and major roads, Route 40, the school bus stops and everybody behind it stops and
waits for the kids to get on. I mean, that's part of life. You're not going to change that. That's kind
of ludicrous. I don't care. I live over here in Hiland, and every day when I come out and get on the
road,when the kids are going to school, I have to stop and wait for the school buses.
MR. FULLER-The bus already stops closer to that turn.
MR. KREBS-Yes.
MR. FULLER-I've been behind it. For the apartments that are there now.
MR. KREBS-So that argument about school buses, as far as I'm concerned, is a useless argument.
That's my opinion,okay,but,so I wouldn't even consider that as part of the decision.
MR. FORD-I didn't mention that. I was talking about general traffic,day and night.
MR. KREBS-But already, Tom, you live near where I do, and I'll tell you, the timing change that
they've made already on those traffic lights has significantly increased the flow factor. I can tell you
that from my own experience. I go through that intersection three or four times a day.
MR. FORD-I agree. It's very noticeable.
MR. DEEB-I would like to commend Ms. Sonnabend on her passionate presentation. I thought it
was excellent.
MS. SONNABEND-I appreciate it. It's all true. It's based on documents from the Town.
MR. HUNSINGER-So what's the will of the Board? Where are we here?
MR.TRAVER-Well,we have engineering comments. Obviously there's an outstanding issue with the
zoning,but that's not our business tonight.
MR. HUNSINGER-Right. Yes.
MR.TRAVER-So I think we should move forward.
33
(Queensbury Planning Board 08/27/2013)
MR. SCHONEWOLF-So does I.
MR.TRAVER-That's my feeling.
MR. SCHONEWOLF-Don's got a lot of things he's got to include in it.
MR. SCHACHNER-Chris, I mean, if you entertain a motion, you know you've got to close the public
hearing first.
MR. HUNSINGER-Yes, and I was about to ask the Board if anyone would like to make a motion,
would anyone on the Board like to make a motion. I'm sorry?
MR. SALVADOR-Are you going to allow rebuttal?
MR. HUNSINGER-No.
MR. SALVADOR-I thought you said she.
MR. HUNSINGER-No,we have no obligation to provide a rebuttal.
MR.TRAVER-I'll make a motion that we close the public hearing.
RESOLUTION CLOSING PUBLIC HEARING SP 62-2011 &FWW 6-2011 QUEENSBURY PARTNERS
MR. HUNSINGER-We have a motion.
MOTION TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING FOR SITE PLAN NO. 62-2011 & FWW 6-2011
QUEENSBURY PARTNERS, Introduced by Stephen Traver who moved for its adoption,seconded by
Donald Krebs:
Duly adopted this 27th day of August, 2013,by the following vote:
AYES: Mr. Schonewolf, Mr. Magowan, Mr. Krebs, Mr.Traver, Mr. Hunsinger
NOES: Mr. Deeb, Mr. Ford
MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. The public hearing is closed.
PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED
MR. HUNSINGER-Would anyone like to put forward a motion?
MR. KREBS-Yes. I'd like to put forward a motion to Approve Site Plan No. 62-2011 & Freshwater
Wetlands 6-2011 for Queensbury Partners. Waivers were not asked for, so we're not denying or
granting them, per this particular copy I have, okay, and I was just going to point out this is per the
draft which was for 4/23,okay, and of course engineering signoff will be required prior to signature
of Zoning Administrator for the approved plans.
MR.TRAVER-Second.
MR. HUNSINGER-We have a motion and a second. Did you have a comment, Sean?
MR. DOTY-I thought perhaps you might want to make one of the conditions that turn lanes be done.
So we're all on the same page,because that was brought up.
MR. HUNSINGER-I was just going to ask the Board if there were any special conditions.
MR. KREBS-Well,you know, personally, I feel that these engineering things should have been taken
care of a long time ago. Okay,but we don't do,we don't have a process, and I remember a couple of
years ago I made a big thing out of this. We need to change the procedure so that you resolve those
engineering things before they ever come to the Board, and only those that can't be resolved should
come before the Board. We get these papers, 23, 34 engineering comments, you know, it's kind of
ludicrous. So, but in any case, this particular draft does require engineering signoff prior to. So it
will be resolved.
MR. FULLER-We don't have a problem with that.
34
(Queensbury Planning Board 08/27/2013)
MR. DEEB-Are we going to include it in the motion?
MR. SCHONEWOLF-It is included.
MR. HUNSINGER-Laura?
MRS. MOORE-Yes. As he stated before, Chazen reviews stormwater and provides comments on
that. In regards to traffic,that is something that the applicant has agreed to, and I would encourage
you to add that as a condition.
MR. HUNSINGER-Would you like to make an amendment to your motion, Mr. Krebs?
MR. KREBS-Yes, I'd like to make an amendment that a traffic study provided by the applicant will be
reviewed by the Town Engineering department for proper use.
MR. HUNSINGER-Do you want to specify the turning lane?
MR. DEEB-I want to specify the turning lane.
MR. KREBS-Okay. New amendment. We will require the applicant, when constructing the project,
to make available a right turn lane,which will give us a left turn lane also, at the corner of Bay Road
and Blind Rock Road.
MR. DEEB-At the inception of the project.
MR. KREBS-Yes, but you have to understand, we're saying this, you have to understand, they can't
make that decision. That is a Warren County road and Warren County is the only person who can
make the decision.
MR. HUNSINGER-Well,they have to grant the approval.
MR. FULLER-We'll apply. I can concede that we're going to include it on our application for the
permit.
MR. KREBS-Okay.
MR.TRAVER-And they've already discussed it with them.
MR. FULLER-We did.
MR. HUNSINGER-Do we have a second to the amendment?
MRS.MOORE-And as approved by the County DPW.
MR. FULLER-Correct.
MR. KREBS-Okay.
MR. HUNSINGER-We have an amendment that was.
MS. GAGLIARDI-Can I just ask you, so were you actually going to say at the inception of or, I just
want to make sure I get the wording right.
MR. SCHACHNER-Right. Mr. Deeb suggested, I think, that the condition regarding the turn lane
include that it be provided at the inception of the project, and Maria's asking is that part of the
motion?
MR. KREBS-I don't believe that we can require that because you have to have Warren County's
approval to change their road.
MR. SCHACHNER-Right. All due respect, Mr. Krebs, you can require it. Warren County may not
agree, and in which case the applicant will not be able to fulfill your approval, but legally you do
have the authority to require a right turn lane, but the question that's on the table from our
secretary is is Mr. Deeb's editorial comment suggesting that the condition include the phrase at the
inception of the project,is that part of your motion?
35
(Queensbury Planning Board 08/27/2013)
MR. KREBS-Yes,because they've already agreed to do it.
MR. SCHACHNER-All right. So it's part of the motion and part of the second.
MR. KREBS-Yes.
MR. SCHACHNER-Yes and yes.
MR. HUNSINGER-And we did have a second from Mr. Schonewolf. Is everyone clear on the
amendment and the resolution?
MR.TRAVER-Thank you for that clarification.
MR. HUNSINGER-Is there any further discussion?
MS. GAGLIARDI-I hate to bother you again, but could, I hate to ask you, but could you just start the
motion over again,just so I'm sure 100%what you want in the motion,because I want to make sure
I get it right. I'm sorry,but there was a lot of discussion.
MR. KREBS-Well,we weren't provided with a proper motion tonight. So this one is from a May 231,x,
but I'll read it again.
RESOLUTION APPROVING SP# 62-2011 &FWW 6-2011 QUEENSBURY PARTNERS
A site plan application has been made to the Queensbury Planning Board for the following:
Applicant proposes construction of 11 buildings totaling 132,000 sq. ft. on a 34.05 acre parcel. The
intended uses for the site include office, business retail, and multi-family. Activities also include
land disturbance for installation of parking area and other infrastructure and utilities associated
with the project. Site Plan review and approval is required for a multi-family complex, office and
business retail in an Office zone.
SEQR Negative Declaration on 4/23/2013 and reaffirmed on 8/27/2013;
ZBA approved variance requests on 7/24/2013;
A public hearing was advertised and held on 4/23, 5/23, 7/23 &8/27/2013;
This application is supported with all documentation, public comment, and application material in
the file of record;
MOTION TO APPROVE SITE PLAN NO. 61-2011 FRESHWATER WETLANDS 6-2011
QUEENSBURY PARTNERS, Introduced by Donald Krebs who moved for its adoption, seconded by
Stephen Traver:
Per the draft resolution.
1) 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;
2) 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,
3) The Sanitary Sewer connection plan must be submitted to the Wastewater Department for its
review,approval,permitting and inspection;
4) 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;
5) Engineering sign-off required prior to signature of Zoning Administrator of the approved plans;
6) We are adding a requirement to this motion that we will require them to provide a right turn
lane at the inception of the project,at the corner of Bay Road and Blind Rock Road.
7) If required,the applicant must submit a copy of the following to the Town:
36
(Queensbury Planning Board 08/27/2013)
a. The project NOI (Notice of Intent) for coverage under the current"NYSDEC SPDES
General Permit from Construction Activity"prior to the start of au site work.
b. The project NOT (Notice of Termination) upon completion of the project;
8) The applicant must maintain on their project site,for review by staff:
a. The approved final plans that have been stamped by the Town Zoning Administrator.
These plans must include the project SWPPP (Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan)
when such a plan was prepared and approved;
b. The project NOI and proof of coverage under the current NYSDEC SPDES General
Permit,or an individual SPDES permit issued for the project.
9) 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.
10)The applicant must meet with Staff after approval and prior to issuance of Building Permit
and/or the beginning of any site work.
11)Subsequent issuance of further permits, including building permits is dependent on compliance
with this and all other conditions of this resolution;
12)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.
Duly adopted this 27th day of August, 2013,by the following vote:
AYES: Mr. Deeb, Mr. Schonewolf, Mr. Ford, Mr. Magowan, Mr. Krebs, Mr.Traver, Mr. Hunsinger
NOES: NONE
MR. FULLER-Thank you.
MR. HUNSINGER-You're all set. Good luck. Is there any other business to be brought before the
Board this evening? If not,would anyone like to make a motion?
MR. FORD-So moved.
MOTION TO ADJOURN THE QUEENSBURY PLANNING BOARD MEETING OF AUGUST 27. 2013,
Introduced by Thomas Ford who moved for its adoption,seconded by Donald Krebs:
Duly adopted this 27th day of August, 2013,by the following vote:
AYES: Mr. Deeb, Mr. Schonewolf, Mr. Ford, Mr. Magowan, Mr. Krebs, Mr.Traver, Mr. Hunsinger
NOES: NONE
On motion meeting was adjourned.
RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED,
Chris Hunsinger, Chairman
37