04-15-2014 (Queensbury Planning Board 04/15/2014)
QUEENSBURY PLANNING BOARD MEETING
FIRST REGULAR MEETING
APRIL 15,2014
INDEX
Site Plan No. 8-2013 CRM Housing 2.
EXTENSION REQUEST Tax Map No. 302.9-1-28.1
Site Plan No. 15-2014 Marc&Betty Fuchs 2.
FURTHER TABLING REQUEST Tax Map No. 239.14-1-2
Site Plan No. 22-2014 Vance I. Cohen 3.
Tax Map No. 295-8-1-2
Site Plan No. 21-2014 David&Lisa Doster 4.
ZBA RECOMMENDATION Tax Map No. 289.17-1-5
Site Plan No. 24-2014 William&Pamela Roberts 6.
ZBA RECOMMENDATION Tax Map No. 239.12-2-64
Site Plan No. 27-2014 Linda M. Hart 9.
ZBA RECOMMENDATION Tax Map No. 296.20-1-40
Site Plan No. 17-2014 James Ayers 14.
Tax Map No. 227.14-1-4
Site Plan No. 25-2014 Laura Feathers 17.
Tax Map No. 288.12-1-15
Site Plan No. 20-2014 Omall Family, L.P. 19.
Tax Map No. 302.7-1-13
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 04/15/2014)
QUEENSBURY PLANNING BOARD MEETING
FIRST REGULAR MEETING
APRIL 15,2014
7:00 P.M.
MEMBERS PRESENT
CHRIS HUNSINGER, CHAIRMAN
DONALD KREBS, SECRETARY
STEPHEN TRAVER
THOMAS FORD
BRAD MAGOWAN
DAVID DEEB
MEMBERS ABSENT
PAUL SCHONEWOLF
LAND USE PLANNER-LAURA MOORE
STENOGRAPHER-MARIA GAGLIARDI
MR. HUNSINGER-I'll call to order the meeting of the Town of Queensbury Planning Board on
Tuesday,April 15, 2014. For members of the audience, welcome. There are copies of the agenda
on the back table. Many of the items have a public hearing scheduled. There's also a handout for
public hearing procedures, and we'll go into those in a little more detail on the first public hearing.
We do have, the first item on the agenda is approval of minutes from February 18th and 25th, if
anyone would like to move those.
APPROVAL OF MINUTES
February 18, 2014
February 25, 2014
MOTION TO APPROVE THE QUEENSBURY PLANNING BOARD MEETING MINUTES OF
FEBRUARY 18 AND FEBRUARY 25, 2014, Introduced by Donald Krebs who moved for its
adoption,seconded by Thomas Ford:
Duly adopted this 15th day of April, 2014, by the following vote:
AYES: Mr. Deeb, Mr. Ford, Mr. Magowan, Mr. Krebs, Mr.Traver, Mr. Hunsinger
NOES: NONE
ABSENT: Mr. Schonewolf
MR. HUNSINGER-We have a few Administrative Items. The first one is rescheduling our second
June meeting. There is a draft resolution. I don't know if people have a preference between the
19th and the 26th, but our regular meeting date, there will be elections being held in this room. So
we can't meet.
MR. KREBS-I'd like to propose the 19th.
MR. TRAVER-I'm not going to be available the 19th. I'm going to be, that's another weekend away
for me. So I won't be available.
MR. KREBS-Would you rather the 26th?
MR.TRAVER-Well,yes,of those two dates,that's the only one I can make.
MR. HUNSINGER-Yes,those are the two that we asked them to check on.
MR. KREBS-The 26th?
MR. FORD-The 26th.
1
(Queensbury Planning Board 04/15/2014)
MR. HUNSINGER-The 26th. Okay.
RESOLUTION CHANGING JUNE 2014 PLANNING BOARD MEETING DATE
MOTION TO RESCHEDULE THE 2ND JUNE QUEENSBURY PLANNING BOARD MEETING,
Introduced by Donald Krebs who moved for its adoption,seconded by Brad Magowan:
The Queensbury Activities Center is closed to all activities for Federal Primary Elections, therefore,
the 2nd June Planning Board meeting will scheduled to June 26th.
Duly adopted this 15th day of April, 2014,by the following vote:
AYES: Mr. Magowan, Mr.Traver, Mr. Krebs, Mr. Ford, Mr. Deeb, Mr. Hunsinger
NOES: NONE
ABSENT: Mr. Schonewolf
ADMINISTRATIVE ITEMS
SP B-2013 CRM HOUSING-EXTENSION REQUEST
MR. HUNSINGER-Next we have a request by CRM Housing to extend their Site Plan approval. They
have asked if we could extend that for a year. Was there any other information or details that you
wanted to share, Laura,other than what was in the letter?
MRS. MOORE-That was the only information that was in the letter that currently the conditions did
not support the construction of the project this past year. So he's asking for an extension until next
year of May.
MR. HUNSINGER-Does anyone have any comments or questions? I know we spent a lot of time on
that project when it was before us.
MR.TRAVER-That's the Sweet Road project,right?
MRS.MOORE-No,it is not.
MR. HUNSINGER-No,this is the.
MR. MAGOWAN-By the mall.
MR. HUNSINGER-Yes.
MR.TRAVER-Okay.
MR. HUNSINGER-By the Ramada.
MR.TRAVER-Gotcha.
MR. FORD-By the Ramada.
MR. HUNSINGER-Well,if there's no comments,we'll entertain a motion.
RESOLUTION FOR ONE YEAR EXTENSION SP#9-2013 CRM HOUSING
The applicant's agent, Michael J. O'Connor is requesting a one-year extension of approval;
MOTION TO GRANT A ONE YEAR EXTENSION TO SITE PLAN NO. B-2013 CRM HOUSING,
Introduced by Donald Krebs who moved for its adoption,seconded by Brad Magowan:
Duly adopted this 15th day of April, 2014,by the following vote:
AYES: Mr. Magowan, Mr. Krebs, Mr.Traver, Mr. Ford, Mr. Deeb, Mr. Hunsinger
NOES: NONE
2
(Queensbury Planning Board 04/15/2014)
ABSENT: Mr. Schonewolf
SP 15-2014 MARC&BETTY FUCHS-FOR FURTHER TABLING CONSIDERATION
MR. HUNSINGER-The last administrative item is Site Plan 15-2014 for Marc& Betty Fuchs, and they
have sent a letter withdrawing their application. So no action is needed to further consider a
tabling motion, since the application's been withdrawn. Is it because of what happened with the
Zoning Board? I mean, I didn't really follow.
MRS. MOORE-Both of you have asked for additional constructional details about how they're going
to bolt that in, and they felt that there was too much information for them to gather to move
forward,costing more money.
MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. Thank you.
MRS. MOORE-And just a note. Do you want to, I did receive a request from one of the applicant's
that's later in the evening for Site Plan 22-2014 to table their application to May 20th. Do you want
to handle that as administrative or do you want to wait until?
MR. HUNSINGER-I'd rather handle it as an Administrative Item. This is Site Plan 22-2014 for
Vance Cohen.
SITE PLAN NO. 22-2014 SEQR TYPE UNLISTED VANCE I. COHEN OWNER(S) MITCHELL
COHEN ZONING CI-COMMERCIAL INTENSIVE LOCATION 1161 STATE ROUTE 9
APPLICANT PROPOSES TO DEMO A 2,149 SQ. FT. BUILDING AD CONSTRUCT A PARKING LOT.
PURSUANT TO CHAPTER 179-3-040 OF THE ZONING ORDINANCE PARKING LOT IN A CI ZONE
REQUIRE PLANNING BOARD REVIEW AND APPROVAL. CROSS REFERENCE SP 3-07
WARREN CO. REFERRAL APRIL 2014 LOT SIZE 0.60 ACRES TAX MAP NO. 295.8-1-2
SECTION 179-3-040
MR. HUNSINGER-I don't know. Is there anyone in the audience who's here for the public hearing
on that project? We have one member.
MRS. MOORE-I do,knowing who the member is, there is a letter in the file in reference to what that
member would be commenting on.
MR. HUNSINGER-Okay.
MRS. MOORE-So I can read that into the public record. If you open the public hearing, I can read it
in now.
MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. Would that be satisfactory, sir?
AUDIENCE MEMBER-I'm not sure what she said.
MR. HUNSINGER-She said that you had submitted a letter and she's going to read the letter into the
file.
AUDIENCE MEMBER-Yes.
MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. We will open the public hearing,then, and we'll read the letter into the file
and then we'll consider the tabling motion.
PUBLIC HEARING OPENED
MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. "To Whom It May Concern: Our office has been retained by Donald J.
Daniels to commence a foreclosure action against Mitchell A. Cohen for the property located at
1161 State Route 9, Queensbury, New York. Mr. Daniels holds a note and mortgage on the
property. The action will be filed with the Warren County Clerk on April 10, 2014. It has been
brought to our attention that an application was filed with your office requesting that the building
on the aforementioned property be demolished. On behalf of Mr. Daniels we oppose said
application. Mr. Daniel's security interest in the real property includes the building for which
demolition has been requested. We would ask that during the pendency of the foreclosure action
the application be placed on hold. If you have any questions in the interim, please feel free to
contact our office. Very truly yours,Thomas R. Knapp" And the letter is dated April 10, 2014.
3
(Queensbury Planning Board 04/15/2014)
MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. Thank you. And they've requested that we table this until May?
MRS.MOORE-May 20th.
MR. HUNSINGER-Any additional questions or comments from the Board? We will leave the public
hearing open and we will take additional comments and if there's anything else provided we'll read
that into the minutes as well.
RESOLUTION TABLING SP# 22-2014 VANCE I. COHEN
A site plan application has been made to the Queensbury Planning Board for the following:
Applicant proposes to demo a 2,149 sq.ft.building and construct a parking lot. Pursuant to Chapter
179-3-040 of the Zoning Ordinance Parking Lot in a Cl zone require Planning Board review and
approval.
A public hearing was advertised and held on 4-15-2014;
The applicant has requested to be tabled;
MOTION TO TABLE SITE PLAN NO. 22-2014 VANCE I. COHEN, Introduced by Donald Krebs who
moved for its adoption,seconded by Thomas Ford:
Tabled to the May 20, 2014 meeting,at the request of the applicant.
Duly adopted this 15th day of April, 2014,by the following vote:
MR. HUNSINGER-I guess we should probably just add that it's at the request of the applicant.
AYES: Mr. Ford, Mr. Deeb, Mr. Magowan, Mr. Krebs, Mr.Traver, Mr. Hunsinger
NOES: NONE
ABSENT: Mr. Schonewolf
MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. Next on the agenda is Planning Board Recommendations to the Zoning
Board of Appeals.
PLANNING BOARD RECOMMENDATIONS TO THE ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS
SITE PLAN NO. 21-2014 SEQR TYPE II DAVID & LISA DOSTER OWNER(S) SAME AS
APPLICANTS ZONING WR-WATERFRONT RESIDENTIAL LOCATION 94 ASH DRIVE
APPLICANT HAS BEGUN CONVERSION OF EXISTING ATTIC SPACE TO LIVING SPACE - 686 SQ.
FT. FLOOR AREA. SITE PLAN: PURSUANT TO CHAPTER 179-13-010 OF THE ZONING
ORDINANCE SITE PLAN REVIEW SHALL BE REQUIRED FOR ANY ENLARGEMENT OF A LAWFUL
NON-CONFORMING STRUCTURE IN A CRITICAL ENVIRONMENTAL AREA. VARIANCES:
RELIEF REQUESTED FROM FAR REQUIREMENTS OF THE WR ZONE AS WELL AS EXPANSION
OF A NON-CONFORMING STRUCTURE IN A CRITICAL ENVIRONMENTAL AREA. THE
PLANNING BOARD SHALL MAKE A RECOMMENDATION TO THE ZBA. CROSS REFERENCE AV
23-14, BP 14-052, UV 48-98, BP 98-256, 98-364 WARREN CO. REFERRAL N/A APA, CEA,
OTHER GLEN LAKE CEA LOT SIZE 0.95 ACRES TAX MAP NO. 289.17-1-5 SECTION 179-3-
040, 179-13-010
DAVID&LISA DOSTER, PRESENT
MR. HUNSINGER-Laura?
MRS. MOORE-Okay. The applicant has begun conversion of the existing attic space to living space
- 686 sq. ft. floor area. Site Plan is required. Variance is required. Relief requested from the FAR
requirements of the WR zone as well as expansion of a nonconforming structure in the Critical
Environmental Area. The Planning Board is to provide the recommendation to the Zoning Board
based on the information submitted. They're requesting relief from the Floor Area. Please note
that the applicant proposes to install a new septic system as part of the project in the spring of 2014
and the project only involves interior work.
MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. Thank you. Good evening.
4
(Queensbury Planning Board 04/15/2014)
MR. DOSTER-Good evening, and thank you. For the record, my name's David Doster representing
myself and my wife Lisa for the project.
MR. HUNSINGER-I'm sorry I mispronounced your name.
MR. DOSTER-Doster. That's okay. Thank you again for allowing us to recap the information and
some of the crucial things that we wanted to cover with you this evening on our project at 94 Ash
Drive, formerly known as the Glen Lake Casino. For those of you over the age of 50 that have lived
here for some time, I'm sure you have some memories or stories to tell.
MR. MAGOWAN-Don't have any hours at all.
MR. DOSTER-You'd be quite surprised. We grew up here, and I spent some time there as a child
and as a teenager, and it's changed quite a bit, and we love the area and we love the property. So
we're looking forward to this project. We are in the process remodeling the project now, and three
of the key areas why we think this is important for this to get approved is the attic space into the
loft area is very crucial to the project, First and foremost, it really opens up the property. The
building's quite high, and for those of you who are familiar with it, it's got over 30 feet of roof space
on the interior, and so when we took the,we have our nine foot ceilings there, and you open up that
attic area, it really, and put some skylights in,which they are in when we re-did the roof recently, it
adds light down into the first floor. It also gives us additional living space. Most people have a
basement, as you can appreciate, we have two young children. It gives us some room for them to
get up and run around and some storage. So we don't have a basement, and it will allow us to do
that. Additionally there's no added structural work that has to be done. This is inside the building
that's already existing. So we're really just utilizing the existing space, and I think that's important.
So there's very little impact to the building, or the look of the building. We need to improve the
look of that beautiful building that's been there for almost over 100 years. We are adding, as
mentioned earlier, we are going to add a brand new septic system. It's going to be a 2000 gallon
septic system that was designed by D.L. Dickenson. It'll have the Elgin leach field with it. That'll go
up on the northeast corner, or west corner of the parking lot now, that is now parking lot. So we
are going to have to sacrifice some parking space, but we will have some adequate, ample parking
space left after the project is done. We're also adding green space. So that blacktop or macadam
area now will become green space as well, and we have, you know, we have almost a dozen
neighbors who have been just applauding the work that we've done there. We're the first owner
occupants of this land in over 30 years, and for lack of a better phrase,and I'll say it's been raised by
slum lords for the last 30 years, and we're really turning the property around. We've got the
buildings all matching colors and have been working on landscaping and beautifying the area, and
even the president of the Glen Lake Protective Association has endorsed this, and has worked with
us along the way to make sure we're doing the right things, and we want to do the right thing for
the lake. We do live there. We plan on raising our family there and being there for a long time. So
really looking forward to enjoying the property and improving as we move forward. We are active
members of the Glen Lake Protective Association. So we do really enjoy the lake and want to make
sure that we're doing all the right things as well, and I hope you take that into consideration for this
evening's request to move forward with this project. Thank you, and I'll take any questions you
have.
MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. Questions,comments from members of the Board?
MR. DEEB-You're a year round resident?
MR. DOSTER-Yes,sir. As painful as this winter was,yes.
MR. MAGOWAN-You definitely have done a nice job fixing it up there. I was up there fishing last
year and I think you guys might have been out on the front porch having coffee, and I had a few
good pickerel. I was going for the bass,but I got the pickerels,but,hey it was a catch is a catch,but,
no,you've really done a nice job.
MR. KREBS-You don't want to eat the pickerel.
MR. MAGOWAN-No, I'm a catch release. Really, you've done a great job of keeping that, of fixing it
up. Because, like I said, it was run down there for a while and it looked busy that morning. So it's
nice.
MR. DOSTER-Thank you.
5
(Queensbury Planning Board 04/15/2014)
MR. FORD-I applaud the Elgin system and it's separation from the wells on site and nearby. Right
on.
MR. DOSTER-We've got it in the right spot, thank you, and it's, you know, it's more than the
minimum,right?
MR. FORD-Yes.
MR. DOSTER-It's, the tank is it's over, it's larger, you know, I'm surprised, when you're digging a
hole and you're doing the work,you might as well go a little bit extra at the beginning. Most people
do the minimums,but I think this'll be really helpful to the area.
MR. KREBS-Besides that,you have to drink the water,right?
MR. DOSTER-I do.
MR. HUNSINGER-Other questions or comments from the Board? Any questions specific to the
variance request?
MR. KREBS-Fifteen,twenty years ago you wouldn't have even had to come for a site plan review.
MR. HUNSINGER-That's true. Okay. Well, if there's no other questions or comments, I'll entertain
a recommendation.
RESOLUTION RE: ZBA RECOMMENDATION FOR AV# 23-2014 DAVID&LISA DOSTER
The applicant has submitted an application for the following: Applicant has begun conversion of
existing attic space to living space - 686 sq. ft. floor area. Site Plan: Pursuant to Chapter 179-13-
010 of the Zoning Ordinance Site Plan review shall be required for any enlargement of a lawful non-
conforming structure in a Critical Environmental Area. Variances: Relief requested from FAR
requirements of the WR zone as well as expansion of a non-conforming structure in a Critical
Environmental Area. The Planning Board shall make a recommendation to the ZBA.
The Town of Queensbury Zoning Ordinance, per Section 179-9-070 J 2 b. requires the Planning
Board to provide a written recommendation to the Zoning Board of Appeals for projects that
require both Zoning Board of Appeals &Planning Board approval;
The Planning Board has briefly reviewed and discussed this application, the relief request in the
variance application as well as the potential impacts of this project on the neighborhood and
surrounding community,and found that:
MOTION TO MAKE A RECOMMENDATION ON BEHALF OF THE PLANNING BOARD TO THE
ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS FOR AREA VARIANCE NO. 23-2014 DAVID & LISA DOSTER,
Introduced by Donald Krebs who moved for its adoption,seconded by Thomas Ford:
The Planning Board,based on limited review,has not identified any significant adverse impacts that
cannot be mitigated with the current project proposal.
Duly adopted this 15th day of April, 2014,by the following vote:
AYES: Mr. Ford, Mr. Deeb, Mr. Magowan, Mr. Krebs, Mr.Traver, Mr. Hunsinger
NOES: NONE
ABSENT: Mr. Schonewolf
MR. HUNSINGER-You're all set. Good luck.
MR. DOSTER-Thank you.
MR. HUNSINGER-You're welcome. Thank you. Our next item on the agenda is also a
recommendation to the Zoning Board.
SITE PLAN NO. 24-2014 SEQR II WILLIAM & PAMELA ROBERTS AGENT(S) DENNIS MAC
ELROY OWNER(S) SAME AS APPLICANT ZONING WR-WATERFRONT RESIDENTIAL LOCATION
4 HOLLY LANE APPLICANT PROPOSES CONSTRUCTION OF TWO COTTAGES PREVIOUSLY
6
(Queensbury Planning Board 04/15/2014)
APPROVED FOR REPLACEMENT WITHIN THE EXISTING FOOTPRINT AREA. MAIN COTTAGE
TO BE CONSTRUCTED WITHIN 50 FEET OF THE SHORELINE. SITE PLAN: PURSUANT TO
CHAPTER 179-6-050 OF THE ZONING ORDINANCE HARD SURFACING WITHIN 50 FEET OF
THE SHORELINE SHALL BE SUBJECT TO PLANNING BOARD REVIEW AND APPROVAL.
VARIANCE: RELIEF REQUESTED FROM SETBACK REQUIREMENTS OF THE WR ZONE. THE
PLANNING BOARD SHALL MAKE A RECOMMENDATION TO THE ZBA. CROSS REFERENCE AV
25-14, SP 8-14,AV 2-14, SP 33-13,AV 36-13; BP 13-513, 512 WARREN CO. REFERRAL APRIL
2014 APA, CEA, OTHER L G PARK CEA LOT SIZE 0.42 ACRES TAX MAP NO. 239.12-2-64
SECTION 179-3-040, 179-6-050
DENNIS MAC ELROY, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT
MRS. MOORE-This applicant proposes the construction of two cottages previously approved for
replacement within the existing footprint area. Main cottage to be constructed within 50 feet of the
shoreline. The guest cottage requires variance relief for the setback of the front setback and the
reference to the Summary, again,the Planning Board is to provide a recommendation to the Zoning
Board in regards to the variance request, and here it is. It says guest cottage to be 17 feet from the
front where 30 feet is required. Also request is to allow two dwelling units where only one is
allowed, and in reference to this project,just note that it's not the, it's similar to the projects you've
seen in the past,but shows you a different roof alteration.
MR. HUNSINGER-Thank you. Good evening.
MR. MAC ELROY-Hello. I'm back again. Dennis MacElroy with Environmental Design representing
the Roberts on this application. As I say, once again, let me start out by just apologizing that we're
back here again doing this and taking your time. In January we received an approval for the tear
down and re-build of these cottages. In the preparation of the building plans necessary for the
building permit, I came to realize that there were certain issues that were part of the new
architectural design that necessitated Code compliance, and therefore certain changes took place in
the design. So when I recognized that, I really thought they were relatively minor, but we went
back and had a meeting with the Zoning Administrator and he suggested that we come back to the
Board. So the best way to explain it is to give you both, go through both cottages, and I'll do this
briefly, but as far as site plan and your recommendation and the impact of site plan, there's no
changes. The footprint is the same. What we've done is some architectural changes to the
building so that primarily it's a Code compliance issue. There are a couple of logical changes to the
roofline, I apologize, I just didn't pick up on before that, you know, we could have handled that in
the January meeting. So if you want to compare,you look at the two renderings we have. The color
version is the one that's in front of you today for this variance. The black and white was the
previous version of that, and if you look, for instance, at the front left elevation of the main house,
I'll start with the main house, you'll see a, just a, what these cottages had previously was what I
refer to as a two slope roof, probably because maybe the way it was originally constructed or added
on to over time. So in this version we're going from peak to eaves in a continuous slope. So that's
one of the issues regarding the main house, and you'll also note, in the front right elevation of that
main house, there's a gable section on the right side of the building that now has been expanded to
go over to, as far as the entry. So that was a personal preference thing that the owner thought of
after the fact. So that's the difference in that building, and I'd just note that this building is no
higher than it was before. Code compliance, one of the things that we'll talk about on the guest
cottage is, the member sizes of the floor system or the trusses increases slightly. Ceiling height
comes into play. Well this particular, in the main house, they had an over, a higher ceiling height
that's required. So some of the changes that are required by the structural member sizes
increasing can be taken up by that ceiling difference. So that's why the main house has no
difference at all in terms of the building height. Now, switching to the guest cottage, again, the
color version is the one before you. The black and white is the previously approved. We've got
that same two slope roof situation. So we go from peak to eaves with one continuous roof. On this
structure, we do raise the peak height by 17 inches, and that's, again, related to Code compliance.
This cottage had a less than standard ceiling height. It was under seven feet actually. So now
we're going to the industry standard of eight feet, and that, in addition to the structural members of
the floor system and the trusses,we're up to 17 inches. So that's,was another thing on the list that
Craig felt was important to make known to the Boards, but, again, the purpose of the variances are
that very same reason we were here before and approved before was setbacks and what not, but
the footprints all the same. There are slight differences, as you can tell from the renderings of the
structures themselves. So that's as brief an explanation as I guess I can manage.
MR. HUNSINGER-Questions,comments from members of the Board?
7
(Queensbury Planning Board 04/15/2014)
MR. MAGOWAN-Well, Dennis, I'm glad you picked up that, because these old rooflines, they're not
really winter friendly. You know what I'm saying?
MR. MAC ELROY-Right.
MR. MAGOWAN-Whenever you get that crease, I've always known thereto be problems. I like,you
know, and the roofline, to me, looks just so much neater and smoother, you know, it doesn't look
like it was added on to.
MR. HUNSINGER-I just said it would probably be a lot easier to build,too.
MR. MAC ELROY-Correct. Exactly, you know, and we went from a, if you remember the first
version of this was the replace in kind,you know, and then we went to the tear down and re-build
and naturally when you tear down and re-build you can start from scratch and build it the way you
should and that's what those renderings should have reflected in January, but unfortunately,
communication between the architectural designer and the engineer could have been better.
MR. FORD-Visually and practically,this is win/win. That's the way I view it.
MR. KRE B S-Particularly after a winter like this where the accumulation of snow on that low slope
would have been unbelievable.
MR. HUNSINGER-Yes, I wish I could say that I was surprised when I saw it coming back again. Well,
you know, you get into rehab, and, you know, it's one thing to do rehab. It's another thing to say,
well,we're going to make it like it was, and,yes,but,you know,there's no way you could anticipate
what it would be.
MR. MAGOWAN-So, Dennis,this is your last chance. No more prints?
MR. MAC ELROY-I hope so. The owner isn't hereto commit to that.
MR. HUNSINGER-Well, I'm certainly not hearing any concerns from any Board members.
MR.TRAVER-No.
MR. HUNSINGER-Yes. Okay. Go ahead.
RESOLUTION RE: ZBA RECOMMENDATION FOR AV# 25-2014 WILLIAM &PAMELA ROBERTS
The applicant has submitted an application for the following: Applicant proposes construction of
two cottages previously approved for replacement within the existing footprint area. Main cottage
to be constructed within 50 feet of the shoreline. Site Plan: Pursuant to Chapter 179-6-050 of the
Zoning Ordinance hard surfacing within 50 feet of the shoreline shall be subject to Planning Board
review and approval. Variance: Relief requested from setback requirements of the WR zone. The
Planning Board shall make a recommendation to the ZBA.
The Town of Queensbury Zoning Ordinance, per Section 179-9-070 J 2 b. requires the Planning
Board to provide a written recommendation to the Zoning Board of Appeals for projects that
require both Zoning Board of Appeals &Planning Board approval;
The Planning Board has briefly reviewed and discussed this application, the relief request in the
variance application as well as the potential impacts of this project on the neighborhood and
surrounding community,and found that:
MOTION TO MAKE A RECOMMENDATION ON BEHALF OF THE PLANNING BOARD TO THE
ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS FOR AREA VARIANCE NO. 25-2014 WILLIAM & PAMELA
ROBERTS, Introduced by Donald Krebs who moved for its adoption,seconded by Brad Magowan:
The Planning Board,based on limited review,has not identified any significant adverse impacts that
cannot be mitigated with the current project proposal.
Duly adopted this 15th day of April, 2014,by the following vote:
AYES: Mr. Magowan, Mr. Krebs, Mr.Traver, Mr. Ford, Mr. Deeb, Mr. Hunsinger
NOES: NONE
8
(Queensbury Planning Board 04/15/2014)
ABSENT: Mr. Schonewolf
MR. HUNSINGER-You're all set. Good luck.
MR. MAC ELROY-Thank you very much. I hope to see you next week.
MR. HUNSINGER-Our last item for a recommendation to the Zoning Board of Appeals is Site Plan
27-2014.
SITE PLAN NO. 27-2014 SEQR TYPE II LINDA M. HART AGENT(S) LITTLE & O'CONNOR
OWNER(S) LINDA M. HART ZONING CI-COMMERCIAL INTENSIVE LOCATION 4 CRONIN
ROAD APPLICANT PROPOSES A 385 SQ. FT. ADDITION TO INCLUDE A NEW ENTRY FOR
TAKEOUT AND KITCHEN EXPANSION; IN ADDITION A NEW EXIT ONLY OUT OF REAR
PARKING LOT ONTO CRONIN ROAD. SITE PLAN: PURSUANT TO CHAPTER 179-9-020 OF
THE ZONING ORDINANCE EXPANSION OF THE USE IN A CI ZONE SHALL BE SUBJECT TO
PLANNING BOARD REVIEW AND APPROVAL. VARIANCES: RELIEF REQUESTED FROM
FRONT SETBACK REQUIREMENTS OF THE CI ZONE AND EXPANSION OF A NON-CONFORMING
STRUCTURE. THE PLANNING BOARD SHALL MAKE A RECOMMENDATION TO THE ZBA.
CROSS REFERENCE AV 26-14, SP 51-09 WARREN CO. REFERRAL APRIL 2014 LOT SIZE 2.0
ACRES TAX MAP NO. 296.20-1-40 SECTION 179-3-040, 179-9-020
MICHAEL O'CONNOR, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT
MR. HUNSINGER-Laura?
MRS. MOORE-The applicant proposes a 385 square foot addition. This includes new entry area for
takeout and kitchen expansion. The variance relief requested is from the front setback on Cronin
Road,and I believe in my Staff Notes I have Corinth Road a couple of times,and that is inaccurate.
MR. KREBS-I was going to say,that's quite an entrance to go from.
MRS. MOORE-So the Board, all I have is that the commercial additions do not meet the front setback
and relief for the expansion of a nonconforming structure. The Board may consider, during the site
plan for requesting a revised plan showing the vegetation planting and a copy of the deed that
requires that the lots be combined as one lot. Right now they're combined for assessment,but they
are not combined by deed. And actually the applicant is in the hallway.
MR. HUNSINGER-Okay.
MRS.MOORE-So I'll go tell them they're up.
MR. HUNSINGER-We're waiting for you. Yes,we already introduced it.
MR. O'CONNOR-Mr. Chairman, I'm Michael O'Connor from the law firm of Little & O'Connor. I'm
here representing the applicant Linda Hart who is the owner of The Harvest restaurant, and the
project that we have before us is to add 195 feet to the existing kitchen. One hundred and ninety
feet is a covered entrance and waiting area, and add a driveway to the Cronin Road side of the
property further away from Bay Road. There's no new seating. This is really a re-organization.
It's done without any real purpose of increasing the business, but making the business more
convenient,more customer friendly,particularly the waiting area for people who are taking takeout
food that always stand at the end of the bar, and probably everybody here has been there, making
that a little bit larger, and making that a covered walkway from the parking lot level up to that level
of the restaurant. So, it's really for convenience. We require two variances. One is a front yard
setback. This is a corner lot, so both Bay and Cronin Road are considered setbacks, or 75 foot
setbacks. We propose not to increase the actual projection, if you will, of the building. We're
building within the outer limit of the building. They're not really significant. We also need a
variance because of the expansion of a nonconforming structure. I truthfully thought that this was
going to be a very simple and easy application because this has been before the Board on a number
of times. I think the last time we were here, we added the handicap ramp on the south side of the
building, but I guess new people take new looks at things. So we have some comment letters,
which is what, and I spent most of the morning answering the comment letters that came in, and
the material that I handed to you has to do with that. There was a comment as to whether or not
the existing, I use the word existing grease trap which is 1250 gallons would be impacted by the
addition to the building. One,we don't expand,we don't really think this is going to greatly expand
the business. It's just going to serve the present customers,but secondly, I talked to the head of the
9
(Queensbury Planning Board 04/15/2014)
sewer department and explained to him what we were doing, and he wrote a note saying that he
did not have any difficulty with it. I also talked to George Drellos from Sanitary Sewer service and
they actually pump this tank monthly. He said some restaurants pump their tank bi-monthly.
Some pump their restaurants every three months, but the Harts will collect and do pump theirs
every month, and he wrote a letter saying that he did not think there was any problem with
capacity, even if the business did increase to some degree. I think the comment from the head of
the sewer department was that he would like to have Tom Hutchins look at it after we get this thing
approved and assure him that everything we've said is correct, and I said I had no objection to that.
Tom, unfortunately, is in Italy, and we got these comments Friday morning, and I wasn't really
available until part of yesterday to really focus on them, but I don't think that should be an issue.
The other comment that we had had to do with access,and I think the last time we were here before
you we had a lot of discussion about access and about the open driveway on the Bay Road side of
the property. The County engineer, because Bay Road is a County road, wrote a lengthy memo for
the file and to Wayne LaMonthe, and based upon that memo, Wayne LaMonthe, as County Planner,
recommended that you deny the application, even though the two additions have nothing to do
with the access, except for the fact that we're improving the traffic pattern on the property because
we're going to have some of the people leave the property further out on Cronin Road, as a
convenience to them and also so that they will be able to come down Cronin Road and go back to
Bay Road. In discussions with the County engineer, and with Mr. Hart, we agreed to shorten that
driveway access. We would add another 20 feet of planter, along with the planter that you
required at the time of your last application, and that seemed, and that did satisfy him. We also
indicated that the driveway that we're going to construct on Cronin Road, we would align that the
best we can with the existing driveway for the Social Security building that's on the north side of
Cronin Road. So it becomes like a four way intersection as opposed to two driveways offsetting
each other. I'm not 100% sure. I sent Matt Steves out today and I didn't get a map back from him
but I'll probably have it back tomorrow, as to whether or not our property line allows total
alignment, or there may be some offset, but it won't be as much offset as you see on the plans that
you have, and one other comment, and I'm sure I'm mixing up the comments between the Zoning
Board and the Planning Board, like I thought we were last on the agenda tonight because we are
last on the agenda tomorrow night, was that when you did your variance, or when you did your
approval for the handicap, you conditioned it upon us combining the tax lots. I think at that time
there were four tax parcels, or three, I'm not 100% sure. I did combine those, and the property is
under one tax map number now. Recently in discussions with Craig,he said that he wanted to have
a deed combining them. I said I would do it. The deed has been done. It's been sent to the Harts.
They are not in the State for signature. It will be done by the time we, I'll have it in my hands by the
time we get through this process. The reason I didn't do that is it was my understanding that, and
if my understanding was wrong, I'd actually probably prefer it, was that there's a process by w
which you have the Assessor combine your adjoining property. It usually results in less taxes to
you as a taxpayer. You don't do that, though, if you're afraid of losing the individual identity of the
lots, if you've got some pre-existing sized lots, and we've always followed that as being the guiding
document. Craig now says, and I'm going to ask for an opinion from Craig in writing,that that does
not, in effect, join the lots, that the lots still would be individual when and if you ever choose to
separate them. That's not the way it's been,but I also don't like doing the deed business because it
costs an applicant probably $350, $375 to record the documents, particularly when you have a
commercial property, and it seems to me just to be a waste of money for having somebody drawing
a deed from themselves to themselves, as opposed to having the Assessor create one tax parcel.
That's my pitch, I guess. So we're here to ask you for your recommendation for the two variances
that we've asked. We will be back to you asking for your site plan approval for the layout that we
have. I guess one other item that we're doing is revising the showing of the trees that are on the
south end of the property toward the back of the property. Some of those trees were removed and
other trees were, new trees were planted. If you go down there, you see a line of nice trees along
that driveway. They will be shown on the new driveway, and I guess that's pretty much it, and this
building and this operation has been in existence since 1972. It's pre-existing in all senses that I
can think of. Phil always reminds me that when he built,he wanted to face onto Bay Road. At that
time he was told no, face it on to Cronin Road. So his main entrance has been on Cronin Road,
which creates a little bit of problem as far as spacing and whatnot. The parking that's there, if you
look at the map,you're going to see some parking along the northwest corner that faces onto Cronin
Road. It looks like people can drive right through the parking spot out on to Cronin Road,but there
are curbs at each of those parking spots,and beyond those curbs there's actually a ditch. So it's not
a drive through process. If you drive through,you've got a problem,and maybe not a muffler.
MR. FORD-I saw someone this winter do that.
MR. O'CONNOR-Did you? Well, I've not had this with the Town before, but the County Planner, in
my discussions with him, said, well, maybe you're going to have to name the Town as an insured,
additional insured on your insurance policy. If they request that, we will do it. So I tried to
10
(Queensbury Planning Board 04/15/2014)
answer all the issues that I could see from Staff Notes, from the County Planner, from the head of
the Wastewater Department. I don't know if you've got other comments for me, or questions. We
have a rendering if you want to take a look at it. It really is in keeping with what's there. It's going
to look like it was part of the original building.
MR. MAGOWAN-Well, you're just coming right off the entrance now where you have the double
door, you know, the alcove and just going to be closing that off, taking the steps off, and then
running it alongside the building.
MR. O'CONNOR-Correct.
MR. MAGOWAN-Which to me would be, is so much safer. I watch, so many people I help down off
those steps that are coming out of there,you know,the older people that just love the.
MR. O'CONNOR-Hopefully with 10 or 12 pizzas in their hand.
MR. MAGOWAN-Right. No, they're usually the ones eating. I'm the one that's racing in to get the
pickup,but on the inside of that I see some steps. How many are you talking?
MR. O'CONNOR-There's one step at the entrance to it to get up off the parking lot level, and then I
think there's two steps as you come up it. So there's a total of three steps.
MATT CIFONE
MR. CIFONE-Yes, the floor will be the same. Go out the door is the same height, then you go down
two steps,out and one step down to the blacktop.
MR. DEEB-So that's just a waiting area.
MR. O'CONNOR-Yes.
MR. DEEB-For people. So they go in,say I have an order,then they go back out and wait?
MR. MAGOWAN-Well, they're going to knock it down, instead of having three to four chairs at the
end of the bar there,they're going to have a pickup little spot there.
MR. DEEB-You'll take the chairs out?
MR. MAGOWAN-So I think that's the greatest idea.
MR. O'CONNOR-We still show two chairs there. I think right now there's four.
MR. DEEB-I see two chairs. There are.
MR. MAGOWAN-They might take one out on the busier nights. I don't know, but I think it's, how
long is that alcove?
MR. CIFONE-It's all Code compliance for the door openings. So it's, I think it ended up,it's about 10,
11 feet inside.
MR. MAGOWAN-Just talking off the top of my head, what would be the pitch of that if you didn't
have the steps with that,if you had a ramp? Would that be over our quarter inch?
MR. CIFONE-Yes. The same elevation on the other side goes all the way, it's twice as long that. It's,
I think it's 28 feet over on the other side.
MR. MAGOWAN-All right. I was just talking off the top of my head, but that to me looks so much
safer, and like you said, you'd have railings on both sides, and you don't have to contend with the
weather, and you have a nice, one little nice big step down onto the parking lot. No, I think it's a
really, would be a great addition to The Harvest, especially for their take out business. I like the
idea of the proposed exit only back out onto Cronin, because that can get a little tight going behind
the building for, you know, especially some of the bigger vehicles. Now, Mike, you were talking
about bringing the planter up on the Bay Road,off the corner there,right?
MR. O'CONNOR-Yes,and we'll add 20 feet to that.
11
(Queensbury Planning Board 04/15/2014)
MR. DEEB-That's going to be a good addition because that's a pretty long entrance. I've seen
people pull in all kinds,helter skelter.
MR. O'CONNOR-You really have to decide, as you're coming in, as to whether you're going to this
side of the building or you're going to that side or you're trying to park. It's tight, but that'll cut it
down a little bit.
MR. DEEB-The parking lot gets full.
MR. O'CONNOR-Yes,the idea,we're trying to do is encourage people to go out the back if we can.
MR. KREBS-And I think it will,with the additional area there, people will decide to go on the corner
road and go into the parking lot in the other direction.
MR. HUNSINGER-So, I'm sorry, the 20 foot addition to the curb on Bay was mentioned. You don't
have a problem with that,then?
MR. O'CONNOR-No, I suggested it.
MR. HUNSINGER-Okay.
MR. O'CONNOR-I tried to resolve all the issues before I got here.
MR. HUNSINGER-Gotcha.
MR. O'CONNOR-And it was reluctantly agreed to by the owner.
MR. FORD-So access and egress,vehicular wise, on Bay and Cronin, will remain the same, but there
will be the additional exit added on Cronin?
MR. O'CONNOR-Yes.
MR. FORD-Thank you.
MR. HUNSINGER-The other question I had is on the north side,where the planter is going to be and
where the addition is,are those parking spaces going to be removed, or are they going to stay?
MR. O'CONNOR-They're going to stay. Instead of parking up to the planter,you're going to park up
to the new building.
MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. Do you lose any parking spots on the edge there,on the Cronin side?
MR. O'CONNOR-Where, here? I don't think we do. We may, if you look at the line that comes
along,that's perpendicular to Cronin,we may lose the end parking spot there.
MR. HUNSINGER-That's what I was wondering,because that's really tight in there sometimes.
MR. O'CONNOR-Well,people are going to have to come in further south and then go north and make
the turn.
MR. HUNSINGER-Right.
MR. O'CONNOR-To go along that side of the building. So practically speaking we may lose that
parking spot.
MR. HUNSINGER-Yes. Okay.
MR. DEEB-That Cronin Road, that new entrance, it's going to be an egress and an entrance, or just
an egress?
MR. O'CONNOR-An exit only.
MR. DEEB-Just exit.
MR. O'CONNOR-And we are going to lose a couple of parking spots back there,but we seem to have
enough parking.
12
(Queensbury Planning Board 04/15/2014)
MR. DEEB-Yes.
MR.HUNSINGER-Yes,people just want to park as close to the front door.
MR. O'CONNOR-Yes.
MR. FORD-It's always helpful when we get an application where so many of the Planning Board
members can relate to it directly.
MR. HUNSINGER-I asked the barmaid one night how many pizzas go out of there on a busy night,
and she said on a busy Friday or Saturday they get about 300. So that's how busy it is.
MR. O'CONNOR-I'm surprised she told you.
MR. HUNSINGER-Yes.
MR. MAGOWAN-That's a lot of pizzas.
MR. HUNSINGER-That's a lot of pizza. Any other questions or comments? Anyone like to make a
recommendation? Actually before we request a recommendation, the County Planning Board
review,in the past,if they recommend deny without prejudice,we've needed a super majority.
MRS.MOORE-That's in reference to the site plan. You're doing a Planning Board recommendation.
MR. HUNSINGER-Right. I just want to ask the question now,though.
MR. O'CONNOR-Okay. If you look at the e-mail, he has withdrawn that, and he says that he has No
County Impact based upon the stipulation to add the 20 feet and align the new entrance.
MR. HUNSINGER-Okay.
MRS.MOORE-So he has an NCI with stipulation.
MR. HUNSINGER-Okay.
MR. O'CONNOR-And we have no objection to the two stipulations.
MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. So has the meeting been held with the County highway staff? Is that why
you got the e-mail?
MR. O'CONNOR-I did that by phone with the engineer.
MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. Is that why you got the e-mail? Actually the e-mail from the County
engineer was before the e-mail from Wayne?
MR. O'CONNOR-Right, and then I went back to Wayne and said, I first tried to get Wayne to change
his opinion. He didn't. So then I went to the County engineer and said what do we need to do, and
we figured out what we needed to do. He then wrote the opinion that he had no more concerns
based upon the two stipulations. Then I went back to Wayne and said, based upon the new
position of the County engineer, will you re-look at your recommendation of denial, and then he
sent that second e-mail, or he sent that e-mail.
MR. HUNSINGER-Okay.
MR. DEEB-And you said that the deeds are being combined?
MR. O'CONNOR-The deed is being combined,or the property is being combined.
MR. DEEB-So there's just no more question of that,then. That's a done deal?
MR. O'CONNOR-I sent it to Florida, either Monday, or maybe it went yesterday. I don't know, but
it'll be back.
MR. DEEB-Is Phil going to sign it?
13
(Queensbury Planning Board 04/15/2014)
MR. O'CONNOR-No, Linda's going to sign it.
MR. DEEB-Okay.
MR. O'CONNOR-Maybe that's something,one of those things you look at,we need a clear ruling as to
whether or not lots lose their identity if they are joined for assessment purposes, and then we can
avoid doing this deeding business and it's unclear to me at this point. I think the only place, I know
if you're in the Critical Environmental Area or you're in the APA lands,they'd be joined as operation
of law,but we're doing it.
MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. Anything else? Are you ready?
MR. KREBS-Yes.
RESOLUTION RE: ZBA RECOMMENDATION FOR AV# 26-2014 LINDA M. HART
The applicant has submitted an application for the following: Applicant proposes a 385 sq. ft.
addition to include a new entry for takeout and kitchen expansion; in addition a new exit only out of
rear of parking lot onto to Cronin Road. Site Plan: Pursuant to Chapter 179-9-020 of the Zoning
Ordinance expansion of the use in a Cl zone shall be subject to Planning Board review and approval.
Variances: Relief requested from front setback requirements of the Cl zone and expansion of a
non-conforming structure. The Planning Board shall make a recommendation to the ZBA.
The Town of Queensbury Zoning Ordinance, per Section 179-9-070 J 2 b. requires the Planning
Board to provide a written recommendation to the Zoning Board of Appeals for projects that
require both Zoning Board of Appeals &Planning Board approval;
The Planning Board has briefly reviewed and discussed this application, the relief request in the
variance application as well as the potential impacts of this project on the neighborhood and
surrounding community,and found that:
MOTION TO MAKE A RECOMMENDATION ON BEHALF OF THE PLANNING BOARD TO THE
ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS FOR AREA VARIANCE NO. 26-2014 LINDA M. HART, Introduced
by Donald Krebs who moved for its adoption,seconded by Brad Magowan:
The Planning Board,based on limited review,has not identified any significant adverse impacts that
cannot be mitigated with the current project proposal.
Duly adopted this 15th day of April, 2014,by the following vote:
AYES: Mr. Magowan, Mr.Traver, Mr. Krebs, Mr. Ford, Mr. Deeb, Mr. Hunsinger
NOES: NONE
ABSENT: Mr. Schonewolf
MR. HUNSINGER-Good luck.
MR. O'CONNOR-Thank you very much. We will be back hopefully Tuesday,if I can get the maps re-
done and whatever.
MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. We have one item of Old Business on the agenda.
OLD BUSINESS REQUIRING PUBLIC HEARING:
SITE PLAN NO. 17-2014 SEQR TYPE II JAMES AYERS AGENT(S) DOUGLAS MC CALL
OWNER(S) SAME AS APPLICANT ZONING WR-WATERFRONT RESIDENTIAL LOCATION 31
HICKOK LANE APPLICANT PROPOSES A 108 SQ. FT. ADDITION TO AN EXISTING NON-
CONFORMING STRUCTURE. PURSUANT TO CHAPTER 179-3-040 & 179-13-010 OF THE
ZONING ORDINANCE SITE PLAN REVIEW SHALL BE REQUIRED FOR ANY ENLARGEMENT OF A
LAWFUL NON-CONFORMING STRUCTURE IN A CRITICAL ENVIRONMENTAL AREA. CROSS
REFERENCE AV 20-14, BP 14-025, 14-024,SP 46-89,AV 63-89,BP 89-593 WARREN COUNTY
REFERRAL MARCH 2014-NCI APA, CEA, OTHER L G PARK CEA,APA WETLANDS LOT SIZE
0.539 ACRES TAX MAP NO. 227.14-1-4 SECTION 179-3-040, 179-13-010
DOUG MC CALL, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT
14
(Queensbury Planning Board 04/15/2014)
MR. HUNSINGER-Laura?
MRS. MOORE-The applicant proposes a 108 sq. ft. addition to an existing nonconforming structure.
The variance was granted for minimum shoreline requirements in the WR zone and relief was
granted from the expansion of a nonconforming structure. The addition is to be to the rear of the
structure and is to be one story and consistent with the home's exterior. The Board may consider
the waiver requests from stormwater, topography, landscaping, land use boundaries, traffic, soil
logs, during the application review, and again, I noted that the Zoning Board granted the shoreline
setback relief.
MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. Thank you. Good evening.
MR. MC CALL-Good evening. I'm Doug McCall. I'm representing the Ayers. I don't know how
much you want me to go into this. I know you probably want to go home. I've written it all in the
narrative. So I can read it if you'd like me to,but if not,that's fine.
MR. HUNSINGER-I guess, I mean, seeing as how we reviewed it back in March, if you could maybe
just comment on any new information since the Zoning Board.
MR. MC CALL-There is no new information. We're going to start the septic, the new septic, on
Friday. So that's about the only new information we have.
MR. HUNSINGER-Okay.
MR. MC CALL-The snow is finally gone.
MR. HUNSINGER-Yes.
MR. MAGOWAN-I have to correct you on that,going home. This is my Tuesday night out.
MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. I'll open it up for questions,comments from the Board.
MR. KREBS-It's pretty straightforward.
MR. FORD-I have none.
MR. MAGOWAN-Yes,we went over it pretty good in the recommendation.
MR. HUNSINGER-I thought so as well, yes. Well, if there's no questions or comments from the
Board, we do have a public hearing scheduled this evening. Is there anyone in the audience that
wants to address the Board on this project? I don't see any takers.
PUBLIC HEARING OPENED
MR. HUNSINGER-Any written comments?
MRS.MOORE-I do have one written comment.
MR. HUNSINGER-Okay.
MRS. MOORE-The written comment is from the Lake George Water Keeper. It's dated April 15,
2014. It's addressed to Mr. Hunsinger. "The above referenced Site Plan Review application was
personally reviewed in my capacity as a licensed professional engineer and the Lake George Water
Keeper. The Lake George Water Keeper supports the applicant's proposal to install a compliant
onsite wastewater treatment system (OWTS) as part of the proposed project. The Lake George
Water Keeper requests the Planning Board apply the Town's regulations regarding Site Plan review,
specifically regarding environmental review, during your deliberations regarding the above
referenced Site Plan Review application. The applicant should consider the relocation of the
septic tank prior to grinder pump for operational and environmental considerations. It is
our professional opinion the OWTS would function better with the septic tank installed prior to the
grinder pump: • The removal of solids from the wastewater prior to the grinder pump would
reduce the strain and corrosion to the grinder pump system, which would improve the efficiency
and lifetime of the grinder pump. This is also an environmental concern with the pump station
located 50 feet from the lake in the event of a failure. • The grinding of solids prior to septic tank
install will result in a reduction of the settling of the solids due to increased buoyancy and settling
15
(Queensbury Planning Board 04/15/2014)
time of smaller particles. This will increase the potential of solids exiting the tank and clogging the
absorption fields resulting in premature system failure. • Access to the septic tank for pumping
and maintenance would be easier if the tank was located closer to the house instead of on the hill.
• It could be assumed the tank is located at a high point of the force main to prevent an air lock.
However, an air release valve on the force main could eliminate this concern. There should be
no waivers for stormwater management for any project within Lake George Park, especially
when there is no existing stormwater management. The Lake George Water Keeper looks
forward to working with the Town of Queensbury Planning Board to defend the natural resources
of Lake George and its watershed. Thank you for your consideration. Sincerely, Christopher
Navitsky, PE Lake George Water Keeper"
MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. Thank you. I mean, I'm not an engineer. I don't know if I have any
thoughts on, I mean,what he said makes sense to me.
MR. MAGOWAN-Who's putting in the system?
MR. MC CALL-McNally Excavation is putting in the system, but it wasn't, it was engineered. I don't
know a thing about the systems. I just trust the engineer that I hire.
MRS. MOORE-I do have a septic permit that was provided by the Town. So the system has been
reviewed.
MR. MAGOWAN-That's fine.
MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. So it was reviewed by the Town Engineer?
MRS.MOORE-No,it was reviewed by Dave Hatin,the Building Director.
MR. HUNSINGER-Yes. Okay. I guess there were no takers from the public hearing in the audience.
So if that was the only comment letter,we will close the public hearing.
PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED
MR. HUNSINGER-I mean, I feel like we're in the same position you are.
MR. MC CALL-Yes, I mean, none of it makes sense to me. So I just trust the professional that you
hire.
MR. HUNSINGER-Yes. But a permit's already been issued,right?
MRS.MOORE-Yes.
MR. MC CALL-Yes,without a doubt I can say this is better than the system that's there.
MR. HUNSINGER-Sure.
MR. MC CALL-That was done in the 1930's.
MR. HUNSINGER-Yes.
MR. MAGOWAN-Yes.
MR. KREBS-It's much better this way.
MR. HUNSINGER-Yes. Any other questions or comments from the Board? This is a Type II SEQR
so no SEQR review is necessary unless there's some item that we feel needs to be addressed. So
with that,if anyone would like to make a motion.
RESOLUTION APPROVING SP# 17-2014 JAMES AYERS
A site plan application has been made to the Queensbury Planning Board for the following:
Applicant proposes a 108 sq. ft. addition to an existing non-conforming structure. Site Plan:
Pursuant to Chapter 179-3-040 & 179-13-010 of the Zoning Ordinance Site Plan review shall be
required for any enlargement of a lawful non-conforming structure in a Critical Environmental
Area.
16
(Queensbury Planning Board 04/15/2014)
SEQR Type II-no further review required;
PB made a recommendation to the ZBA on 3-18-2014; the ZBA approved/denied the variance
request on 3-26-2014;
A public hearing was advertised and held on 4-15-2014;
This application is supported with all documentation, public comment, and application material in
the file of record;
MOTION TO APPROVE SITE PLAN NO. 17-2014 JAMES AYERS, Introduced by Donald Krebs who
moved for its adoption,seconded by Brad Magowan:
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., topography, landscaping, land use boundaries,
traffic,soil logs;
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 15th day of April, 2014,by the following vote:
AYES: Mr. Magowan, Mr. Krebs, Mr.Traver, Mr. Ford, Mr. Deeb, Mr. Hunsinger
NOES: NONE
ABSENT: Mr. Schonewolf
MR. HUNSINGER-You're all set. Good luck.
MR. MC CALL-Thank you.
NEW BUSINESS:
SITE PLAN NO. 25-2014 SEQR TYPE II LAURA FEATHERS OWNER(S) GORDON
DEVELOPMENT ZONING CI-COMMERCIAL INTENSIVE LOCATION 150 STATE ROUTE 9
APPLICANT PROPOSES A TENT SALE FOR THE MONTH OF AUGUST 2014 & AUGUST 2015.
PURSUANT TO CHAPTER 179-9-020 OF THE ZONING ORDINANCE TENT SALES IN EXCESS OF
THE MAXIMUM OF 7 CONSECUTIVE DAYS AND MORE THAN TWICE IN ANY YEAR REQUIRE
PLANNING BOARD REVIEW AND APPROVAL. CROSS REFERENCE SP 18-12, SP 29-11, ETC.
WARREN CO. REFERRAL APRIL 2014 LOT SIZE 1.61 ACRES TAX MAP NO. 288.12-1-15
SECTION 179-3-040, 179-9-020
LAURIE BURNETT, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT
MRS.MOORE-The applicant has requested tent sales in excess of the maximum of seven consecutive
days and more than twice in any year requiring Planning Board review. The previous tent sale
was approved in May of 2012. This application is for August of 2014 and August of 2015.
MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. Thank you. Good evening.
MS. BURNETT-Good evening, gentlemen. I'm Laurie Burnett and I'm representing Laura who
couldn't be here. She's in Vermont. I'm the store manager at the property. I've been employed
17
(Queensbury Planning Board 04/15/2014)
there since 1992, and I've done the tent sale over the years for every year that we've done it. It's a
modest 20 by 20 tent located off the northern end of the building. It occupies approximately two
parking spaces. It's a temporary tent. It has no sides, unless it rains and we put up some clear
plastic protectors. There's no electricity in the tent. We bring the merchandise in and out in the
morning and at night and it's meant to generate business and it's a key component of our summer
trade, and we hope that the Board would approve the tent sale for another year or two, and nothing
has changed. It's the same as it's been under the regime of Laura and Scott Feathers. And if you
have any other questions, I would be glad to answer them for you.
MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. Thank you. Questions,comments from members of the Board?
MR. KREBS-Well, they've been doing this for quite a few years now. We never have any adverse
reaction to it. They seem to do it very well. So I don't see any reason why not to approve it for
another two years.
MS. BURNETT-Thank you. The Fire Marshal comes out and inspects everything. We have it
regulated and the setbacks are all proper. The ropes are marked.
MR. HUNSINGER-One of the things that I was looking for in the package, Laura,was did we approve
this for two years the last time?
MR. KREBS-Yes.
MRS.MOORE-Yes.
MR. HUNSINGER-Yes. Okay. I agree with Mr. Krebs, you know, usually we joke and we say we
know it's spring when Laura comes before the Planning Board to ask for a permit for the tent sale.
Well,we do have a public hearing. Is there anyone in the audience that wants to address the Board
on the project?
PUBLIC HEARING OPENED
MR. HUNSINGER-Any written comments?
MRS.MOORE-No,there are 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-It's a Type II SEQR. So no SEQR review is necessary, and with that, I'll entertain a
motion. I just want to make sure,they've asked for a two year permit for 2014 and 2015.
MR.TRAVER-Yes.
MR. HUNSINGER-Okay.
RESOLUTION APPROVING SP# 25-2014 LAURA FEATHERS
A site plan application has been made to the Queensbury Planning Board for the following:
Applicant proposes a Tent Sale for the month of August 2014 &August 2015. Pursuant to Chapter
179-9-020 of the Zoning Ordinance Tent Sales in excess of the maximum of 7 consecutive days and
more than twice in any year require Planning Board review and approval.
SEQR Type II;
A public hearing was advertised and held on 4-15-2014;
This application is supported with all documentation, public comment, and application material in
the file of record;
MOTION TO APPROVE SITE PLAN NO. 25-2014 LAURA FEATHERS. Introduced by Donald Krebs
who moved for its adoption,seconded by Thomas Ford:
As per the resolution prepared by Staff:
18
(Queensbury Planning Board 04/15/2014)
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) Waivers granted: grading,lighting,stormwater management and landscaping.
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 15th day of April, 2014,by the following vote:
AYES: Mr. Ford, Mr. Deeb, Mr. Magowan, Mr. Krebs, Mr.Traver, Mr. Hunsinger
NOES: NONE
ABSENT: Mr. Schonewolf
MR. HUNSINGER-You're all set. Good luck.
MS. BURNETT-Thanks,gentlemen.
MR. HUNSINGER-You're welcome.
MS. BURNETT-I was hoping I wouldn't draw the first no.
SITE PLAN NO. 20-2014 SEQR TYPE PREVIOUS-UNLISTED OMALL FAMILY, L.P. AGENT(S)
VISION ENGINEERING OWNER(S) SAME AS APPLICANT ZONING CI-COMMERCIAL
INTENSIVE LOCATION 102 QUAKER ROAD APPLICANT PROPOSES TO MODIFY AN
APPROVED PLAN TO ALLOW THREE TENANTS. PREVIOUS APPROVAL REMOVED PARKING
IN FRONT AND REPLACED IT WITH GREEN SPACE. MODIFICATION REMOVES GREEN SPACE
AND MAINTAINS 7 PARKING SPACES AND BUILDING ENTRANCES. PURSUANT TO CHAPTER
179-9-020 OF THE ZONING ORDINANCE EXPANSION OF THE USE SHALL BE SUBJECT TO
PLANNING BOARD REVIEW AND APPROVAL. CROSS REFERENCE SP 39-13 WARREN CO.
REFERRAL APRIL 2014 LOT SIZE 1.31 ACRES TAX MAP NO. 302.7-1-13 SECTION 179-3-
040, 179-9-020
DAN RYAN, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT
MRS. MOORE-The applicant proposes to modify an approved plan to allow three tenants. The
previous approval removed parking in the front and replaced it with green space. This
modification removes that portion of the green space and maintains seven parking spaces at the
building entrance along Quaker Road.
MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. Thank you. Good evening.
MR. RYAN-Hi. Good evening. I'm Dan Ryan with VISION Engineering here representing the
applicant. You may recall this project was here, I believe, in July of 2013. We did receive Site Plan
approval at that time. At the time, we proposed the revisions to the site and the building. The
building it contained either three or four tenants originally then it's been vacant for several years,
and at the time last year when we came before this Board, the intent was to have one large anchor
tenant and an existing tenant in the back flooring space, you're probably familiar with that, to
remain in his current space. Since that time,the larger tenant has asked for less space, and because
of the way the building is configured, there's been interest developed in having a third tenant,
primarily on the second, the two story component of the building that's on the west side. So,
there's some inherent difficulties with the building having three tenants, as it has in the past,
because the two story addition on the back and towards the west really has no immediate access,
other than from the front of the building, which has historically been the case. So when we were
here before with the anticipation of two tenants, we were willing to commit both entrances to the
19
(Queensbury Planning Board 04/15/2014)
east side of the building with all the parking, and now that we're seeking a third tenant to maintain
that western portion of the building, we do require, that tenant would require a little bit of parking
and ADA access in the front. So, Laura, I don't know if you can pull up C-3. So basically to sum up
the changes we would basically be taking that northwestern corner,which originally was approved
as green space, and all that existing parking moved to the east. We would maintain essentially
seven spaces in that area. It still would improve access management from the perspective of
removing 150 feet of curb cut, but we would end up with two individual accesses rather than the
primary of one. So that's the predominant change overall. The loading would still be from the
back part of the building. We had already anticipated adding a couple of overhead doors to that
back space anyway. So we would just allow the western tenant to have one of those doors for
loading and unloading space. Overall, the parking would increase by seven, the seven in the front
from what we had proposed previously. We would still be installing all of the anticipated
landscaping, all the re-paving and improvements including some stormwater. We did obtain some
waiver requests, including stormwater and landscaping, although we have provided for some
addition of that in the previous approval, and that is maintained as well. Originally the existing
site had about 15% permeability, and we were able to increase that to 30% in our approved project
last July, and that has dropped down four percent to 26 overall. So it's still 11% improvement over
the current condition, although it's not in excess of what we had previously. I'd be happy to
answer any questions. I think that sums up the changes to the project. We do have a little bit of a
time constraint. We have until July. The one year Site Plan approval would expire in a couple of
months. What has been done so far is upon attempting to start the project and re-development
project, an underground fuel storage tank was discovered from ancient days. You probably
noticed a big hole in the front of the building at one point last fall and into the early winter. So DEC
got involved for a little bit of a small cleanup project. That has been completed to DEC's
satisfaction. So that is really all that has been done is removal of that tank in the front of the
building. So we basically, the owners would like to commence with the updated project for three
tenants. If that isn't granted, then we probably would have a re-grouping and have to come back
either for an extension for the original approval or re-submit for another revision.
MR. HUNSINGER-Anything else?
MR. RYAN-No, I'd be happy to answer any questions.
MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. Questions,comments from the Board?
MR. MAGOWAN-Well, the way the front of that building looks, with the second story on one side
and the lower roof, with that divided, yes, well, with the division of the grass, you really did a nice
job to bring in that third tenant. You're still dressing up that front entrance, because right now it
just,it's ugly.
MR. RYAN-And I think a lot of times what happens,because it's so, it's like 200 and something feet,
people have a tendency to try to do U turns there. So if that has been a problem that's it's still being
substantially mitigated by the fact that you really can't pull in in either entrance and do a U turn and
get out easily. So it would be a pretty substantial deterrent from that perspective, so, improving
safety,obviously.
MR. MAGOWAN-But the green that you're adding up front and then the shrubbery's over to the side,
I feel, if that brings in the third tenant and that's what you need,then I,you did a nice job,you know,
changing it and bringing it. I'm shocked that you didn't know about the tank. That's kind of been
known for years.
MR. RYAN-And that was like Day One. So, fortunately there wasn't any substantial contamination
or plume. So it was really isolated to the tank perimeter. So it worked out pretty well.
MR. FORD-Good.
MR. HUNSINGER-How did you know there was a tank there?
MR. MAGOWAN-I've dealt with people that have looked at that building. The word was it was
contamination.
MR. HUNSINGER-I guess the question I had is, since you referenced Drawing C-3 and we have it up
there,is your preference the proposed or the optional parking layout?
MR. RYAN-I think,the optional one, I think,was I give six spaces total. I thought that would be just
a nice, if there was serious concerns about access management that would at least, again, continue
20
(Queensbury Planning Board 04/15/2014)
to minimize that. It does keep a little bit more green space. I think it was like another one percent.
So it really wasn't a substantial change. The proposed condition on the left on the primary plan is
really more of a maintaining of the existing conditions a little bit more. It would require just re-
surfacing. So it would save a little bit of money to do that,versus the alternative, but I think I did
both just really to give you guys, if you had a preference for any particular reason, to give you an
idea of what an alternative plan would be.
MR. HUNSINGER-Okay.
MR. RYAN-I think the owner would be happy with either alternative if it got him what he needed for
that third tenant.
MR. MAGOWAN-C-3 and C-4?
MR. RYAN-C-3,you'll see the upper right corner has an alternative parking entrance layout.
MR. MAGOWAN-Yes,right.
MR. RYAN-We're a little bit contained and constrained by the existing stormwater structures that
are in Quaker Road. So we really can't get out to, you'll notice there's still five or eight feet of
pavement to the property line. We just can't get out that far without affecting the road drainage.
MR. HUNSINGER-Okay.
MR. MAGOWAN-Now with the optional parking you go, you're really, you're losing some of that
green planting up front. Correct?
MR. RYAN-Yes.
MR. MAGOWAN-It looks like five feet from what's that,eight and a half.
MR. RYAN-Yes, I believe on the front.
MR. MAGOWAN-Three and a half feet.
MR. RYAN-Yes, so basically the center portion stays, I think essentially to what we had originally
proposed. The alternative plan does give you a little more green space and there could be a little
more vegetation out along the road. I would be a little concerned, it would be all low lying,
obviously, you know, for getting in and out, you want to have low lying, you know, visibility to
Quaker Road.
MR. KREBS-The thing that I have against the alternative is if you have somebody backing out of a
parking space as somebody's coming in,that's a very dangerous situation.
MR. FORD-I agree with you, Don.
MR. KREBS-Yes, I like the original much better.
MR. FORD-I like that.
MR. HUNSINGER-I mean,the reality is what you've proposed is better than the existing.
MR. KREBS-Yes.
MR. HUNSINGER-It's just not as good as what we approved in July.
MR. RYAN-And I think we came in with the best plan possible at the time.
MR. HUNSINGER-Sure,yes, I agree.
MR. RYAN-And he was happy to do it that way. Things worked out.
MR. HUNSINGER-This is still a good plan. I agree.
MR. KREBS-And we want to get the building rented.
21
(Queensbury Planning Board 04/15/2014)
MR. HUNSINGER-Absolutely. Any other questions or comments from the Board? We do have a
public hearing scheduled. Is there anyone in the audience that wants to address the Board on this
project?
PUBLIC HEARING OPENED
MR. HUNSINGER-Any written comments?
MRS.MOORE-There's no written comment.
MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. We 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 an Unlisted action. It's similar as the last one, the Warren County
Planning Board has recommended denial without prejudice.
MR. DEEB-Can you address that?
MR. RYAN-I wasn't able to communicate with them to get the particular feedback of what their
concern was related to the project. I'm assuming either they didn't understand that all that
greenery didn't exist and we were trying to add a curb cut, but they must be familiar with the
property and understanding there's 300 feet of pavement there. So, you know, I honestly don't
have any particulars about what their concerns were, other than they would probably prefer the
original project because it is one less access point.
MR. HUNSINGER-Right, and they also, they do say that no parking be allowed in the public right of
way,but based on the plan that you've submitted, I don't see,yes.
MR. RYAN-Yes, the survey, I mean, we're clearly off the right of way there. So I'm not sure what
they're discussing. Again, maybe they didn't understand a part of the plan or the existing condition
plan was something they were referring to that confused them.
MR. HUNSINGER-Right. Yes, I mean, it is a common issue on Quaker Road,but, I mean, not on this
particular site.
MR. FORD-You can agree with their concern.
MR. HUNSINGER-Yes,absolutely.
MR. DEEB-Well, I mean,we need a super majority,right?
MR. HUNSINGER-Yes.
MR. DEEB-So five guys.
MRS. MOORE-In reference to SEQR, it was previously Unlisted. So you would be reaffirming the
SEQR from the previous resolution.
MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. So that's all we would need to do then?
MRS.MOORE-Yes.
MR. HUNSINGER-Okay.
MR. HUNSINGER-Should we do that as a separate motion,or can we do that as part of any approval?
MRS.MOORE-Let me just look at the resolution. You can do it as part of the motion,and under Item
Two, you're just reaffirming the previous resolution, instead of a Negative or a Pos Dec, and the
previous resolution was a Negative.
MR. HUNSINGER-Right.
MR. KREBS-Yes.
22
(Queensbury Planning Board 04/15/2014)
MR. HUNSINGER-Just before we consider the motion, I just wanted to make sure that it was the
collective opinion from the Board that the proposed northwest corner parking plan is what was
preferred and not the option.
MR. MC CALL-Not the alternative.
MR. FORD-Correct,yes.
MR.TRAVER-Right.
MR. KREBS-Yes.
MR. HUNSINGER-Okay.
MR. DEEB-Were you going to communicate with Warren County on this?
MR. MC CALL-I mean, we'd be happy to communicate with them to see if there's additional things
we can include on the project, and if that was a condition, we'd be happy to work with them. I
don't,because I wasn't able to communicate with them in terms of their specific concern,you know,
before the meeting I can't offer any additional information,other than we would be willing to talk to
them about whatever their concerns were.
MR. FORD-Was it a matter of timing, Dan? Why wasn't there that communication?
MR. RYAN-Yes, I just got this, I believe it was last Friday, and I just did not have time to
communicate with them on several fronts.
MRS. MOORE-I think if you're proposing to make that as part of your condition, if the whole Board
agrees with that, I would suggest making it so that it's a communication that is responsive, not
necessarily that he has to follow through on an action. If it's, I'm just concerned that if you go for
an approval that when he goes to the County Planning Office, if that's a requirement, then there's
going to be some changes,and I don't know what that change would be.
MR. DEEB-Well,there'd be no need to have communication then.
MR. MC CALL-It's kind of a double edged sword in that respect.
MRS. MOORE-Right. So if they didn't understand that there were two proposals, and they could
have said, conditioned upon having this optional proposal versus just looking at it and not seeing
either one of them,they just said don't park in the right of way. There's clearly no parking in right
of way. So I don't know what their response, I don't know what their comments are either.
MR. HUNSINGER-Right.
MR. DEEB-I just don't like loose ends, and I,you know, it just kind of makes me nervous to see that
without you having not talked to them.
MR. MC CALL-I would agree with you. I mean, the only, in defense of my client, you know, the
existing condition, you know, expires in July. Doing nothing is the worst case scenario. So, you
know, we did come in with honest intentions of having the best scenario, which obviously I'm sure
the County would prefer one access over 300 feet. There's a lot of problem areas for access on
Quaker Road and this would solve a few of them all in one fell swoop. So,you know, I think it's still
a fair project and it's still a substantial improvement from what exists. So on those merits, you
know, we obviously are seeking the ability to move forward with that project and an approval. We
would be happy to communicate with them, but unfortunately we don't know what their concerns
are.
MR. HUNSINGER-Right.
MR. MC CALL-I mean, if their concern is they only want one access, that basically takes the whole
western half of the building or half the square footage,and makes it unusable.
MR. KREBS-Yes.
MR. DEEB-Well, we don't know. I mean, the problem is we don't know what their concerns are,
and I think I would rather know their concerns at this point. I mean,we can supersede them.
23
(Queensbury Planning Board 04/15/2014)
MRS.MOORE-Yes.
MR. DEEB-I mean,if we vote,we supersede them.
MR. HUNSINGER-Right.
MR. DEEB-But I'm not sure that's the way we should go. Any other opinions?
MR. KREBS-What I see is an improvement over what's there today.
MR. DEEB-I agree.
MR. KREBS-Okay, and I do think that you're going to have to, if you want to utilize that right hand
side of the building, you are going to have to have some immediate parking there. It's in a retail
area, and you're going to want to have immediate access. I don't see a problem,you know,with the
parking there any more than what exists today.
MR. MC CALL-Unfortunately there's no way to divide the building or reconfigure it so that we can
park entirely on the east, you know, walk 200 feet to that side of the building, and there isn't
enough room behind the structure for that either,really.
MR. KREBS-And half of the area along Quaker Road where the Warren County is responsible, there
are huge humps as you go into the driveways because the County has not maintained the road
properly. So I'm not sure I have anything against the County. If the County wanted to object to
this, they should have had somebody here, or they should have written a detailed explanation.
That's my feeling. We're holding up something that'll, and again, Laura, I don't mean to say it, but
this is just another example of what I have said before where the engineering people or we get the
information on a Friday for a meeting on Tuesday and there's not sufficient time to look into the
engineering problems.
MR. TRAVER-Well, I'm comfortable with the applicant communicating with the Planning Board in
an attempt to reach some kind of understanding of what their concerns are. I interpret the
document that we received from the County Planning, I agree with Dan. I think that it isn't clear to
me that they completely appreciate exactly what the nature of the application is. They talk about
modification removes green space. Well,that's written, it could be that they're assuming that all of
the green space is being removed. They talk about basically, it appears that they're interpreting
that there's no change to the curb cuts. So I think it's a miscommunication issue,not a fundamental
engineering issue.
MR. FORD-I concur with Steve's observation.
MR. DEEB-I guess I'd be okay with it as long as you attempt to communicate with them. Whatever
happens happens. I agree that it is an improvement. It's just that,having that there,but I imagine
if you reach out to them, and explain to them what we have discussed here, then I guess I'd be okay
with it.
MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. Any final comments? Questions? I'm just not sure how we put that in the
motion.
MR. FORD-Very carefully.
MR. HUNSINGER-You need to get a permit, right, to do work in the, well, you're really not in the
right of way.
MR. MC CALL-Yes,we're not doing anything in the right of way.
MR. HUNSINGER-So you don't need a right of way permit.
MR. MC CALL-No.
MR. HUNSINGER-You already have a continuous curb cut.
MR. MC CALL-And we're maintaining for five or eight feet, I forget what the number is, off the
property line. So really we won't be working within the right of way at all.
24
(Queensbury Planning Board 04/15/2014)
MR. HUNSINGER-Okay.
MR. MC CALL-So the only other thing would be a building permit for anything. I mean, I think they
may have pulled a building permit to change some windows and doors already,last fall.
MRS.MOORE-Could I suggest this?
MR. HUNSINGER-Yes,go ahead.
MRS. MOORE-The applicant provides a follow up correspondence between the County and the
applicants in regards to the denial without prejudice, so it's a correspondence, and if that
correspondence leads the applicant comes back for another modification, then we'll move forward
at that time,with them submitting any new plans,if that comes to be.
MR. MC CALL-I mean, the question is, I see what you're saying is if we have to, in order to address
their comments,and certainly we'd be willing to consider them,and if it requires a Site Plan change,
we'll be back for that amendment. If it's a miscommunication then we would obviously clear that
up at that time.
MRS.MOORE-It would just be a copy of that correspondence in the file.
MR. MC CALL-If they flat out don't want this access point, then we'll be expiring our original Site
Plan by that time anyway. So we'll be back here regardless. July 15th, I believe, is the expiration of
the original approval,or 23rd.
MRS. MOORE-But if the Board includes this condition, it's simply saying that you're going to share
correspondence, so that there's correspondence in the file that says that there was a follow up
conversation.
MR. DEEB-It doesn't matter what was resolved.
MRS.MOORE-And at this point it does not matter if it was resolved.
MR. DEEB-Are you okay with that?
MR. MC CALL-I think communicating and understanding their questions and attempting to address
them,we'd prefer to not have to come back for re-approval. So if it's a misunderstanding,we'd be
happy to clear that up for them. We'd be happy to show them the benefits of the project compared
to the existing condition in hopes that they would understand that. Again, the alternative is to do
nothing and,you know, use the building and site as is, and that's obviously the worst alternative of
the three.
MR. HUNSINGER-Yes, I agree.
MR. FORD-Yes.
MR. HUNSINGER-Yes.
MR. MAGOWAN-Well, I think that's really a good option and it's not really,you know, if there's any
modifications to the Site Plan after talking to them then he'll have to come back. Otherwise, we've
done our job.
MR. HUNSINGER-Yes. Okay. You got that, Don?
MR. KREBS-Yes.
MR. HUNSINGER-You ready?
MR. KREBS-Yes. Motion to approve Site Plan 20-2014 for Omall Family, L.P. This is per the draft
provided by Staff, and we're talking about the Environmental Quality Review Act, we are re-
confirming our previous Negative Declaration. We are also adding Item Number Eight, applicant
will communicate with the Warren County Highway Superintendent relative to his concerns.
MR. MAGOWAN-I second it.
MR. HUNSINGER-We have a motion and a second. Discussion? Go ahead.
25
(Queensbury Planning Board 04/15/2014)
MR. TRAVER-I believe if I could suggest that that condition be amended to include that
correspondence will be made part of the file. I think that's what Staff is recommending.
MR. FORD-Yes.
MR. HUNSINGER-Yes.
MR. TRAVER-So that it's more than communication. It should be correspondence, so that we have
something in concrete coming out of that communication.
MR. HUNSINGER-Okay.
MR.TRAVER-Would be what I would recommend.
MR. HUNSINGER-Other discussion? Go ahead.
MRS.MOORE-On another note,it's the County Planning Office,not the Highway Superintendent.
MR. FORD-Right.
MR. KREBS-I thought the comment came from the Highway Superintendent.
MR. HUNSINGER-Yes,no,it's the County Planning, County Planning Department.
MR. KREBS-County Planning Department, but Staff is recommending, it says Staff is recommending
that the applicant work with,oh,work with the Highway Superintendent.
MRS.MOORE-Okay,and the other item is granting the waivers.
MR. HUNSINGER-Yes. That's what I was going to mention, too. Yes. So if you could amend the
motion to grant the waivers as well.
MR. KREBS-Yes,okay. Okay. Shall I just do this again?
MR. HUNSINGER-It might be cleaner,yes.
MR. KREBS-Okay.
RESOLUTION APPROVING SP# 20-2014 OMALL FAMILY, L.P.
A site plan application has been made to the Queensbury Planning Board for the following:
Applicant proposes to modify an approved plan to allow three tenants. Previous approval removed
parking in front and replaced it with green space. Modification removes green space and maintains
7 parking spaces and building entrances. Pursuant to Chapter 179-9-020 of the Zoning Ordinance
expansion of the use shall be subject to Planning Board review and approval.
A public hearing was advertised and held on 4-15-2014;
This application is supported with all documentation, public comment, and application material in
the file of record;
MOTION TO APPROVE SITE PLAN NO. 20-2014 OMALL FAMILY. L.P., Introduced by Donald
Krebs who moved for its adoption seconded by Brad Magowan:
As per the resolution prepared by Staff. We are also asking the applicant to communicate with the
Warren County Planning Board and provide correspondence that resolves any concerns about
highway entranceways.
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 State Environmental Quality Review Act, we are reconfirming our previous Negative
Declaration.
26
(Queensbury Planning Board 04/15/2014)
3) Waiver requests granted: Buffers & landscaping, stormwater management, topographic
survey,grading,building elevation&floor plans,signage.
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 15th day of April, 2014,by the following vote:
AYES: Mr. Magowan, Mr. Krebs, Mr.Traver, Mr. Ford, Mr. Deeb, Mr. Hunsinger
NOES: NONE
ABSENT: Mr. Schonewolf
MR. HUNSINGER-You're all set. Good luck.
MR. MC CALL-Thank you.
MR. HUNSINGER-You're welcome. Thank you. Is there any other business to be brought before
the Board?
MR. O'CONNOR-Could I have a moment?
MR. HUNSINGER-Sure.
MR. O'CONNOR-I apologize for coming in late. Was CRM taken care of, CRM Housing,the extension
of their Site Plan?
MR. MAGOWAN-Yes.
MR. FORD-Yes.
MR.TRAVER-Yes,that was handled as an Administrative Item at the beginning of the meeting.
MR. HUNSINGER-Yes.
MR. O'CONNOR-Okay. Secondly, I thank you for that. Secondly, I have a question. I filed, today,
an application for, I filed, last month, an application for a Use Variance. Tried not to file the Site
Plan application with it. Was told I had to file the Site Plan application with the Use Variance. So I
filed the Site Plan application today. It really is a skeleton, okay. There are two vacant lots down
across from the cement company. They're on the north side of what I call Warren Street, next to
Taylor Welding Supply. It's a Light Industrial zone and automobile service is allowed in that zone.
I've got a young guy who wants to start a business. He was in the business a few years ago.
Something happened to his back. He's been out of business for two years and now wants to do an
automobile service and sales. In that zone automobile sales aren't allowed. I have no idea why we
make that distinction. I would think you would certainly want to have, a sales operation would be
a lot neater than an automobile service business. So I have to get a Use Variance, and I
acknowledge that. Getting a Use Variance is not as easy as getting an Area Variance. There are a
lot of different considerations, although I think in this case we meet them all, and we're prepared to
do that. I've got the financial information. I've got the fact that everything on the site's going to be
compliant, setbacks, permeability, height, all that stuff. The only thing I'm going to have on the
variance table is can he sell cars as well as repair cars, and I think that should go, but, this is a guy
trying to start a business. It's not going to be a big business. For me to complete the Site Plan
application, it's about another $6500, probably $1500 for the survey, probably $5,000 for the
engineering. Those are quotes that I regularly hear when we ask people for those quotes. There's
discretion in your regulations that you can waive things at time. So really what I'm asking you to
consider is would you accept the application as it is,in a skeleton form, and I put a stipulation there
knowing that if we do get the Use Variance, I will have to have the survey and engineering done. I
don't want to risk this young kid's $6500. He's better off going looking for another site, and I don't
27
(Queensbury Planning Board 04/15/2014)
think there are going to be a lot of uses for this property that he actually is looking at. It's been
vacant all my lifetime, never been anything on it that I'm aware of. It's odd shaped, but I just don't
want him to risk his $6500 and then for some reason somebody come out of the woodwork and say
we can't get the Use Variance.
MR. KREBS-And not only that,but it's right down the road from Jerry Brown Auto Parts.
MR. MAGOWAN-Yes,Jerry Brown's.
MR. O'CONNOR-And you've got the cement company across the street.
MR. KREBS-Right.
MR. O'CONNOR-And you've got the IBS service, sewer service there. There are a couple of houses
there. There's a house, this property fronts on Warren Street and goes all the way back to Green
Street, and I think there are a couple of residential houses, old houses that used to be,there used to
be more cement company factory houses there,new houses,but I don't predict for anybody.
MR. MAGOWAN-Is there a building, Mike,on that property now?
MR. O'CONNOR-No,it's vacant. It's always been vacant,that I can tell.
MR. HUNSINGER-So you've already filed the Use Variance?
MR. O'CONNOR-I've filed the Use Variance.
MR. HUNSINGER-Has it been scheduled?
MR. O'CONNOR-It probably will get scheduled in May, but I was told that they wouldn't accept the
Use Variance unless I had a Site Plan application with it.
MRS.MOORE-That's correct,because it's required by the Zoning Code.
MR. O'CONNOR-So I made up a Site Plan application that's very thin.
MR. DEEB-Bare bones.
MR. O'CONNOR-Bare bones.
MRS.MOORE-I have not had the chance to review it yet.
MR. HUNSINGER-Well, let me just think out loud for a second, and I hope I don't put anyone on the
spot by throwing this out there, but why couldn't we have this as a discussion item at a meeting,
and then,you know,well,we're not really reviewing anything.
MR. O'CONNOR-No, no, I'm just asking you, because there is a provision, and Craig included the
letter from Craig back to me saying that the Board does have discretion to accept what I've said. It
does not mean you have to approve it.
MR. HUNSINGER-Right.
MR. O'CONNOR-And I've put in my cover letter that I stipulate, if we get the Use Variance, I'll come
in with the full survey and the full engineering, but I have to get by the threshold to get to the
Zoning Board to find out whether or not they'll give me the Use Variance.
MR. HUNSINGER-Understood,but we need to give them a recommendation.
MRS.MOORE-Right. You'll be going back and forth like you do in the previous application process.
MR. HUNSINGER-Yes.
MR. O'CONNOR-The lawyer relief act.
MR. HUNSINGER-Yes,so what was your thought, Laura?
28
(Queensbury Planning Board 04/15/2014)
MRS.MOORE-So my thought is I have not had the opportunity to review that,and this is not the first
time this has come up. So I have been able to review the Site Plan application and determine if
there's little, you know, if there's additional information that's necessary to move the application
forward for Site Plan Review in itself,then I can work with the applicant and provide that guidance.
I know engineering is an issue. I know those full blown drawings are an issue. So I typically just
review the application. I have not had, sat down and looked at this application. I did not have a
pre-app in reference to the Site Plan application. So I don't know what's in it.
MR. HUNSINGER-Okay.
MR. O'CONNOR-The Site Plan application, I can tell, I'm not asking you to make your review as you
sit here. It has all the site information as to lot size, setbacks, owner, agent, and that's about, and
we have the deeds attached. We have a plot plan that the fellow had prepared, not by a surveyor.
We have the elevations of the building prepared there,and we have the letter from Craig, explaining
that the Board has discretion to at least say that we've filed an application so that we can go
forward with the ZBA. I hate spending people's money, whether it's $350 to record a deed that
does absolutely nothing, or $6500 for a survey an engineering that you might not have the
opportunity to use. So, I think it will come to a point as to the Board's discretion whether or not,
and I understand that all you're saying is, yes, we've got an application, go ahead and hear the
variance application, and the variance application is nothing to do with site or the environmental
conditions. It only has to do with the classification of use.
MR. HUNSINGER-Right.
MR. O'CONNOR-And the distinction is between whether or not you can service vehicles or can you
service and sell vehicles, and, you know, you're going to have maybe 10 to 15 cars on the lot if I
remember right. It's not a big deal.
MR. HUNSINGER-And I would certainly tend to agree with you that selling vehicles is a lesser use
than servicing.
MR. MAGOWAN-Basically he's going to be servicing the cars he sells.
MR. O'CONNOR-I would imagine he's going to refurbish cars and then put them on the market, but
he is also going to be open to the general public for service.
MR. FORD-And we do have an application,it just has not been reviewed?
MRS.MOORE-Correct. It goes into the upcoming month's meeting.
MR. O'CONNOR-I thank you.
MR. HUNSINGER-Yes,you're welcome.
MR. O'CONNOR-Another distinction without substance.
MR. HUNSINGER-Right. Is there anything else that needs to come before the Board this evening?
MR. FORD-We appreciate your sensitivity, Mike.
MRS.MOORE-I have nothing else.
MR. HUNSINGER-Okay.
MR. KREBS-You want to get paid for accomplishing something, right? Not just filling out
paperwork.
MR. O'CONNOR-You're down to mom and pop lots. Thank you.
MR. HUNSINGER-You're welcome. Well,if there's no other business. I will entertain a motion.
MOTION TO ADJOURN THE QUEENSBURY PLANNING BOARD MEETING OF APRIL 15, 2014,
Introduced by Donald Krebs who moved for its adoption,seconded by Thomas Ford:
29
(Queensbury Planning Board 04/15/2014)
Duly adopted this 15th day of April, 2014, by the following vote:
AYES: Mr. Ford, Mr. Krebs, Mr.Traver, Mr. Deeb, Mr. Magowan, Mr. Hunsinger
NOES: NONE
ABSENT: Mr. Schonewolf
On motion meeting was adjourned.
RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED,
Chris Hunsinger, Chairman
30