05-20-2014 (Queensbury Planning Board 05/20/2014)
QUEENSBURY PLANNING BOARD MEETING
FIRST REGULAR MEETING
MAY 2 0,2 014
INDEX
Subdivision No. 6-2013 Dodge Watkins &Larry Clute 1.
REQUEST FOR TABLING Tax Map No. 296.9-1-54, 55
Site Plan No. 29-2014 Chris Abele 2.
ZBA RECOMMENDATION Tax Map No. 227.9-1-12
Site Plan No. 30-2014 Adirondack Mechanical- Bob Kladis 4.
ZBA RECOMMENDATION Tax Map No. 252.-1-36.7
Site Plan No. 31-2014 Dennis LaFontaine 6.
ZBA RECOMMENDATION Tax Map No. 295.12-1-3
Subdivision No. 1-2014 Mario DiSiena 10.
ZBA RECOMMENDATION Tax Map No. 296.9-1-10.1
Site Plan No. 22-2014 Vance I. Cohen 21.
Tax Map No. 295.8-1-2
Site Plan No. 28-2014 NYS ARC, Inc. 23.
Special Use Permit No. 36-2014 Warren,Washington&Albany Counties Chapter
Tax Map No. 303.5-1-20.1
Site Plan No. 33-2014 Francis Cocozza 32.
Tax Map No. 288.-1-86.14
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 05/20/2014)
QUEENSBURY PLANNING BOARD MEETING
FIRST REGULAR MEETING
MAY 2 0,2 014
7:00 P.M.
MEMBERS PRESENT
CHRIS HUNSINGER, CHAIRMAN
DONALD KREBS, SECRETARY
PAUL SCHONEWOLF
STEPHEN TRAVER
DAVID DEEB
THOMAS FORD
BRAD MAGOWAN
LAND USE PLANNER-LAURA MOORE
STENOGRAPHER-MARIA GAGLIARDI
MR. HUNSINGER-I'll call to order the meeting of the Queensbury Planning Board on Tuesday, May
20, 2014. For members of the audience,welcome. There are copies of the agenda on the back table.
There's also copies of a handout for public hearing procedures. Several of the later projects do have
public hearings scheduled, and we'll get into further details when we get to the first public hearing.
The first item on the agenda is approval of minutes from March 18th and 25th, 2014. Would anyone
like to make a motion?
APPROVAL OF MINUTES
March 18, 2014
MOTION TO APPROVE THE QUEENSBURY PLANNING BOARD MEETING MINUTES OF MARCH
18,2014, Introduced by Donald Krebs who moved for its adoption,seconded by Thomas Ford:
Duly adopted this 20th day of May, 2014,by the following vote:
AYES: Mr.Traver, Mr. Krebs, Mr. Magowan, Mr. Ford, Mr. Hunsinger
NOES: NONE
ABSTAINED: Mr. Schonewolf, Mr. Deeb
MR. HUNSINGER-We do have a couple of Administrative Items this evening. There's only one, and
that's Subdivision 6-2013 for Dodge Watkins and Larry Clute.
ADMINISTRATIVE ITEMS
SUBDIVISION 6-2013 DODGE WATKINS/LARRY CLUTE -FOR FURTHER TABLING
CONSIDERATION
MR. HUNSINGER-And that is for further tabling consideration. Is there any new information, Laura?
MRS. MOORE-There's no new information,but I spoke with Matt Steves about when to table this to,
and he said we can table it to a July meeting, so a June 15th submission deadline. He was waiting for
both the applicants to review the information that he had changed on the drawings, and to have
agreement between both parties. So that's what he was waiting for.
MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. Would you recommend the first or second meeting in July?
MRS.MOORE-The second is fine.
MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. So that will be July 22nd,if someone would like to make that motion.
RESOLUTION TABLING SUBDIVISION NO. 6-2013 DODGE WATKINS/LARRY CLUTE
A subdivision application has been made to the Queensbury Planning Board for the following:
Applicant proposes relocation of the common property line between 3 Maplewood Drive & 5
1
(Queensbury Planning Board 05/20/2014)
Twicwood Lane. Access will be by two separate driveways -one existing and one proposed.
Modification to an approved subdivision requires Planning Board review and approval.
PB made a recommendation to the ZBA on 12-19-2013; the ZBA tabled the variance requests to 5-
21-2014; PB tabled the application to 6-26-2014;
No new information has been received;
MOTION TO TABLE SUBDIVISION NO. 6-2013 DODGE WATKINS & LARRY CLUTE, Introduced
by Paul Schonewolf who moved for its adoption,seconded by David Deeb:
Tabled to the July 22, 2014 Planning Board meeting.
Duly adopted this 20th day of May 2014,by the following vote:
AYES: Mr. Deeb, Mr. Schonewolf, Mr. Ford, Mr. Magowan, Mr. Krebs, Mr.Traver, Mr. Hunsinger
NOES: NONE
MR. HUNSINGER-We have several items on the agenda for a recommendation to the Zoning Board
of Appeals.
PLANNING BOARD RECOMMENDATIONS TO THE ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS
SITE PLAN NO. 29-2014 SEQR TYPE II CHRIS ABELE AGENT(S) DENNIS MAC ELROY
OWNER(S) J. ARTHUR NORTON ZONING WR-WATERFRONT RESIDENTIAL LOCATION
102 ROCKHURST APPLICANT PROPOSES CONSTRUCTION OF A 2,021 SQ. FT. (FOOTPRINT)
SINGLE FAMILY DWELLING WITH DRIVEWAY, WASTEWATER SYSTEM, STORMWATER
SYSTEM AND LAKE WATER SUPPLY SYSTEM. SITE PLAN: PURSUANT TO CHAPTER 179-6-
050 OF THE ZONING ORDINANCE FILLING AND HARD-SURFACING WITHIN 50 FEET OF
SHORELINE SHALL BE SUBJECT TO PLANNING BOARD REVIEW AND APPROVAL. VARIANCE:
RELIEF REQUESTED FROM SETBACK REQUIREMENTS. PROJECT ALSO REQUIRES A SEPTIC
VARIANCE FROM TOWN BOH. PLANNING BOARD SHALL PROVIDE A RECOMMENDATION TO
THE ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS. CROSS REFERENCE TBOH SEPTIC VAR.,AV 35-14, BP 07-
236 WARREN CO. REFERRAL MAY 2014 APA, CEA, OTHER LG PARK CEA, APA
WETLANDS LOT SIZE 0.34 ACRES TAX MAP NO. 227.9-1-2 SECTION 179-6-050
DENNIS MAC ELROY, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT
MR. HUNSINGER-Laura?
MRS. MOORE-This application is before the Board for Site Plan at a later date,but the variance relief
requested is from the setback requirements, and the project also required a septic variance, and the
Planning Board shall provide a recommendation to the Zoning Board of Appeals. The project is to
construct a 1,750 square foot footprint of a home, and that's all I have.
MR. HUNSINGER-Good evening.
MR. MAC ELROY-Good evening. I'm Dennis MacElroy with Environmental Design, representing the
applicant on this project, Chris Abele. He is unable to be here this evening. I would mention that
Art Norton,who is the actual owner of the property, Mr.Abele has got the property under contract,
pending approvals through the various Boards. The project is at 102 Rockhurst Road,
approximately three-tenths of an acre east facing property,the Warner Bay side. It's a pre-existing,
nonconforming lot that Chris proposes to build the single family residence, and based on the
physical constraints of the lots and the existing setbacks, we've been able to meet the front, or the
shoreline, excuse me, the shoreline setback at 50 feet, feeling that was the most important one to
meet. The two side setbacks are compliant. What we fall short on is the front, or the roadside
setback, which is required to be 30 feet. We've got a garage portion of the house which is at 17.
The project involves a new State of the Art wastewater system for that property, a Pure A Flow Peat
Fiber system that I've designed several of in Queensbury as well as other municipalities around the
lake, about a dozen of them now, and that received the necessary approvals from the Board of
Health last week, two weeks ago, and their stormwater management plan as well, that you'll see as
part of the Site Plan Review. So really it's just a matter of that front setback is the issue.
MR. HUNSINGER-Anything else you wanted to add?
2
(Queensbury Planning Board 05/20/2014)
MR. MAC ELROY-I think that should do it.
MR. HUNSINGER-Questions,comments from members of the Board?
MR. SCHONEWOLF-I'd trade the front setback for a new septic system up there.
MR. KREBS-Yes,well, and not only that,but, I mean, if you've driven up and down Rockhurst,this is
not an unusual setback for properties. I mean, most of the buildings are, some of them are six feet
from the road,okay,so I don't think this is anything unusual.
MR. MAGOWAN-If that.
MR. MAC ELROY-If that.
MR. MAGOWAN-Some of them are right on the road.
MR. MAC ELROY-It's certainly characteristic of the neighborhood.
MR. KREBS-Yes, and we should mention that Art, at one point, sat on this Board, as the Chairman,
and even before that he was on the Board.
MR. MAC ELROY-Yes,Art was a charter member of the Planning Board in Queensbury.
MR. HUNSINGER-Wow.
MR. MAC ELROY-Ascended to the Chairmanship.
ART NORTON
MR. NORTON-1962.
MR. MAC ELROY-1962.
MR. NORTON-I was there until'78.
MR. SCHONEWOLF-I don't think I could take it that long.
MR. FORD-Is that supposed to be a positive or a negative?
MR. HUNSINGER-One of those double edged swords. You can look at it either way.
MR. HUNSINGER-Any other questions or comments? It's certainly a nice looking design.
MR. TRAVER-Could you describe the shoreline buffer? It's not clear from the drawing that it's
compliant.
MR. MAC ELROY-Well, there's quite an established stand of tall trees on the site. Those within 35
feet of the lake would be unaffected, other than the dead and diseased ones. There are a couple of
dead ones in that stand. We've supplemented that with ground cover and shrubs as per the
requirement.
MR.TRAVER-Thank you.
MR. KREBS-And just because I know the property well from going by it in my boat, you would not
want to disturb what's there today, to change it, because it's all very mature, large very high
absorption foliage. So I would not want to change that.
MR. HUNSINGER-Any other questions or comments from the Board? If not, would anyone like to
make a recommendation to the Zoning Board?
RESOLUTION RE: ZBA RECOMMENDATION FOR AV# 35-2014 CHRIS ABELE
The applicant has submitted an application for the following: Applicant proposes construction of a
2,021 sq. ft. (footprint) single family dwelling with driveway, wastewater system, stormwater
system and lake water supply system. Site Plan: Pursuant to Chapter 179-6-050 of the Zoning
Ordinance filling and hard-surfacing within 50 feet of shoreline shall be subject to Planning Board
3
(Queensbury Planning Board 05/20/2014)
review and approval. Variance: Relief requested from setback requirements. Project also requires
a Septic Variance from Town BOH. Planning Board shall provide a recommendation to the Zoning
Board of Appeals
The Town of Queensbury Zoning Ordinance, per Section 179-9-070 J 2 b. requires the Planning
Board to provide a written recommendation to the Zoning Board of Appeals for projects that
require both Zoning Board of Appeals &Planning Board approval;
The Planning Board has briefly reviewed and discussed this application, the relief request in the
variance application as well as the potential impacts of this project on the neighborhood and
surrounding community,and found that:
MOTION TO MAKE A RECOMMENDATION ON BEHALF OF THE PLANNING BOARD TO THE
ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS FOR AREA VARIANCE NO. 3 5-2 014 CHRIS ABELE: Introduced by
Donald Krebs who moved its adoption,seconded by Brad Magowan; and
a) The Planning Board, based on a limited review, has not identified any significant adverse
impacts that cannot be mitigated with current project proposal.
Duly adopted this 20th day of May, 2014,by the following vote:
AYES: Mr. Magowan, Mr. Krebs, Mr.Traver, Mr. Deeb, Mr. Schonewolf, Mr. Ford, Mr. Hunsinger
NOES: NONE
MR. HUNSINGER-Good luck.
MR. MAC ELROY-Thank you very much.
MR. HUNSINGER-Our next item on the agenda is also a recommendation to the Zoning Board of
Appeals.
SITE PLAN NO. 30-2014 SEQR TYPE II ADIRONDACK MECHANICAL-BOB KLADIS AGENT(S)
DENNIS MAC ELROY OWNER(S) SAME AS APPLICANT ZONING RR-5A, LC-10-RURAL
RESIDENTIAL, LAND CONSERVATION LOCATION 260 LOCKHART MOUNTAIN RD.
APPLICANT PROPOSES CONSTRUCTION OF A 2,910 SQ. FT. (FOOTPRINT) SINGLE FAMILY
DWELLING. PROJECT INVOLVES THREE (3) GARAGES - 264 SQ. FT. ATTACHED GARAGE,
1,200 SQ. FT. DETACHED GARAGE, 380 SQ. FT. PORTE COCHERE WITH DISTURBANCE OF
43,200 SQ. FT. SITE PLAN: PURSUANT TO CHAPTER 147-11 & 179-6-060 OF THE ZONING
ORDINANCE THE PROJECT IS CONSIDERED TO BE A MAJOR STORMWATER PROJECT AS
DISTURBANCE LIMITS APPEAR TO BE IN EXCESS OF 15,000 SQ. FT.; CONSTRUCTION WITHIN
50 FEET OF SLOPES IN EXCESS OF 15% AND SHALL BE SUBJECT TO PLANNING BOARD
REVIEW AND APPROVAL. VARIANCE: RELIEF REQUESTED FROM THE REQUIREMENT
THAT ALLOWS 1 GARAGE. PLANNING BOARD SHALL PROVIDE A RECOMMENDATION TO
THE ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS. CROSS REFERENCE AV 36-14, SB 4-99 APA,CEA,OTHER
STREAM OVERLAY WARREN CO. REFERRAL MAY 2014 LOT SIZE 24.86 ACRES TAX MAP
NO. 251.-1-36.7 SECTION CHAPTER 147-11, 19-6-060
DENNIS MAC ELROY, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT
MR. HUNSINGER-Laura?
MRS. MOORE-The applicant proposes construction of a 2,910 square foot footprint single family
dwelling. This property involves three garages: a 264 square foot attached garage; a 1,200 square
foot detached garage; and a 380 square foot port a cochere with disturbance of approximately
43,200 square feet. The relief requested for the variance only allows one garage, and the applicant
proposes two.
MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. Thank you. Good evening.
MR. MAC ELROY-Again, for the record, I'm Dennis MacElroy with Environmental Design,
representing the owner and applicants of this project, Bob and Angela Kladis. This is a lot that's
located in an RR-5 zone,bordering on an LC-10. It's an approximately 25 acre lot. It's located off of
Lockhart Mountain Road. It was part of the Granger subdivision that was approved a number of
years ago. It's one of the lots. The owner actually has added to that lot with some supplemental
acreage. The proposal is for a single family residence with a detached garage. The detached garage
4
(Queensbury Planning Board 05/20/2014)
is located back along the driveway. The driveway is several hundred feet long, 400 feet or so down
to the house location. The detached garage is located part way down along there, but for
convenience, he requested to have a single attached garage as part of the house. Another
architectural feature that's part of this design is a covered entry or port a cochere is the
architectural term, and by regulation, by your definitions in Queensbury, that constitutes a garage,
or falls under the interpretation or the determination by the Zoning Administrator is an additional
garage. So we're actually asking for two additional garage structures, one a single attached garage,
and the porte cochere. This is, again, a 25 acre lot, set significantly off of the road in a Rural
Residential zone. It is asking for relief, obviously, but I don't think a significant request, or
significant impact to the zone.
MR. HUNSINGER-Questions,comments from the Board?
MR. KREBS-I have a question. On that location of the garage that's 1200 square feet coming up the
road,there's also a 1,000 gallon concrete septic. Is there a reason?
MR. MAC ELROY-Yes,there's a bathroom in that garage.
MR. KREBS-Okay.
MR. MAGOWAN-It's a long way back up to the house,you know.
MR. MAC ELROY-Right.
MR. HUNSINGER-So obviously the garage would be heated?
MR. MAC ELROY-Yes. A portion of it would be a little shop area probably with the need for a
bathroom.
MR. KREBS-I just wanted to make sure that it wasn't going to be an additional potential residential
facility.
MR. MAC ELROY-Correct,it is not.
MR. KREBS-Okay.
MR. HUNSINGER-Other questions or comments?
MR. SCHONEWOLF-One of them doesn't look like a garage to me.
MR. HUNSINGER-Yes,the one car garage is fairly small. What's the size of that?
MR. MAC ELROY-It's a single stall for the garage,probably,you know, 12 by 22.
MR. SCHONEWOLF-When it snows at night you can go in there and not have to go down here.
MR. HUNSINGER-Well, I was thinking that was probably where his wife would park.
MR. MAC ELROY-I think it's for Mrs. Kladis.
MR. SCHONEWOLF-If it isn't,that's the way it'll work out.
MR. HUNSINGER-Yes,don't have to get out in the rain or snow.
MR. SCHONEWOLF-Well,there are some real big homes in this area,as you know,and this is not out
of line with them.
MR. KREBS-But I certainly wouldn't mind going there because I could just pull up under the port a
cochere.
MR. HUNSINGER-Absolutely,wouldn't have to get out,either.
MR. KREBS-Get out in the snow or anything.
MR. HUNSINGER-Yes. So are there any additional comments or concerns with the variance
request?
5
(Queensbury Planning Board 05/20/2014)
MR. MAGOWAN-For me, I mean, it's such a large piece of property. It's not like it's, you look at it,
and keep his plows and stuff like that down there or,you know,whatever. It's such a long distance.
It's almost like it's broken up. I don't know why they don't just call them pole barns.
MR. SCHONEWOLF-That's right.
MR. MAC ELROY-It's still an accessory.
MRS.MOORE-It's still an accessory structure.
MR. HUNSINGER-It's still an accessory structure.
MR. SCHONEWOLF-They used to call them boat storage facilities, remember that? Those flew right
through.
MR. MAGOWAN-Well,it's the garage that throws everything off.
MR. HUNSINGER-Yes. Okay. Hearing no concerns,would anyone like to make a recommendation?
MR. KREBS-Yes.
RESOLUTION RE: ZBA RECOMMENDATION FOR ADIRONDACK MECHANICAL- BOB KLADIS
The applicant has submitted an application for the following: Applicant proposes construction of a
2,910 sq. ft. (footprint) single family dwelling. Project involves three (3) garages -264 sq. ft.
attached garage, 1,200 sq. ft. detached garage, 380 sq. ft. porte cochere with disturbance of 43,200
sq. ft. Site Plan: Pursuant to Chapter 147-11 & 179-6-060 of the Zoning Ordinance the project is
considered to be a Major Stormwater project as disturbance limits appear to be in excess of 15,000
sq. ft.; construction within 50 feet of slopes in excess of 15% and shall be subject to Planning Board
review and approval. Variance: Relief requested from the requirement that allows 1 garage.
Planning Board shall provide a recommendation to the Zoning Board of Appeals
The Town of Queensbury Zoning Ordinance, per Section 179-9-070 J 2 b. requires the Planning
Board to provide a written recommendation to the Zoning Board of Appeals for projects that
require both Zoning Board of Appeals &Planning Board approval;
The Planning Board has briefly reviewed and discussed this application, the relief request in the
variance application as well as the potential impacts of this project on the neighborhood and
surrounding community,and found that:
MOTION TO MAKE A RECOMMENDATION ON BEHALF OF THE PLANNING BOARD TO THE
ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS FOR AREA VARIANCE NO. 3 6-2 014 ADIRONDACK MECHANICAL-
BOB KLADIS, 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 by the current project proposal.
Duly adopted this 20th day of May, 2014,by the following vote:
AYES: Mr. Magowan, Mr. Krebs, Mr.Traver, Mr. Deeb, Mr. Schonewolf, Mr. Ford, Mr. Hunsinger
NOES: NONE
MR. HUNSINGER-You're all set. Good luck.
MR. MAC ELROY-Thank you very much. Hope to see you Thursday.
MR. HUNSINGER-The next project for a recommendation to the Zoning Board of Appeals is Site Plan
31-2014 for Dennis LaFontaine.
SITE PLAN NO. 31-2014 SEQR TYPE II DENNIS LA FONTAINE AGENT(S) ETHAN HALL
OWNER(S) 1133 STATE ROUTE 9, LLC ZONING CI-COMMERCIAL INTENSIVE LOCATION
1133 STATE ROUTE 9 APPLICANT PROPOSES 1,852 SQ. FT. RENOVATION/EXPANSION OF
EXISTING ICE CREAM BUSINESS TO INCLUDE OUTDOOR FOOD GRILLE, GIFT SHOP, COVERED
6
(Queensbury Planning Board 05/20/2014)
OUTDOOR SEATING (800 SQ. FT.) AND UPGRADE TO BATHROOM. SITE PLAN: PURSUANT
TO CHAPTER 179-3-040 OF THE ZONING ORDINANCE EXPANSION OF THE USE SHALL BE
SUBJECT TO PLANNING BOARD REVIEW AND APPROVAL. VARIANCE: RELIEF REQUESTED
FROM PERMEABILITY AND SETBACK REQUIREMENTS OF THE Cl ZONE AND EXPANSION OF A
NON-CONFORMING STRUCTURE. PLANNING BOARD SHALL PROVIDE A RECOMMENDATION
TO THE ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS. CROSS REFERENCE AV 41-14, SP 51-13,AV 68-11,SP
71-11 WARREN CO. REFERRAL MAY 2014 LOT SIZE 2.21 ACRES TAX MAP NO. 295.12-
1-3 SECTION 179-3-040
ETHAN HALL, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT
MR. HUNSINGER-Laura?
MRS. MOORE-Okay. The applicant proposes an 1,852 square foot renovation/expansion of the
existing ice cream business to include outdoor food grill, a gift shop, and a covered outdoor seating
area. This is to be 800 square feet, and an upgrade to the existing bathroom. The variance relief
requested is from setback requirements of the Cl zone and expansion of a nonconforming structure,
and I just spoke with Ethan and we corrected the permeability. So that is not part of the request at
this time.
MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. Good evening.
MR. HALL-Good evening. Ethan Hall with Rucinski Hall Architecture. With me is Dennis LaFontaine
from Martha's. Just kind of a brief overview of the project. The drawing I have up here is the
existing site plan. It's the same as what's up on the screen up there. Dennis was here two years ago
for the expansion. We expanded to the south on the building to square off the building down here,
and to square off the front here. The red line is the outline of the building, or the outline of the
property bounds. The blue line shown here is the setbacks that are required. As you can see, the
existing building is already within the 75 foot front yard setback. One of the items that was brought
up on the Town Engineer's questions was the parking that's shown in the back. That's existing. It's
a gravel area. That's mostly where the employees park behind the building back there and where
the deliveries take place currently. That will remain gravel. That will remain as employee parking
and delivery parking. The proposed layout for the building is just to square off the front of the
building and run it to the north, thereby extending the front line of the building. It would not
exceed beyond the front line of the existing building now. They would be adding an indoor food
service area for food preparation. There'll be a full upgrade of the toilet room facilities which now
are consist of two single toilet rooms. This would be fully sized for the entire facility,and we're also
adding a shade structure for covered seating, for outdoor seating. The area that's indicated in the
lighter pink color on this drawing is all permeable pavement which is all the area. Some of the
existing pavement will be taken up to do the grading around the building, and then the major
improvement is that the northern most current curb cut, which is here, which is very close to
Round Pond Road and we get some traffic tie ups here, we're going to actually move that curb cut
farther to the north, up here farther away from Round Pond Road, and close that curb cut off. We'll
be doing some additional landscaping, green space out in front. Mr. LaFontaine is looking into
getting some of the sculptured trees to put along the front up here, and then in the parking lot we'll
have regular street trees and things of that nature.
MR. HUNSINGER-Anything else?
MR. HALL-I think that's about it.
MR. HUNSINGER-Questions,comments from the Board?
MR. KREBS-Well, there was one comment made by the Town Engineer that he was worried about
the fact that the new exit is graded toward Route 9.
MR. HALL-Yes, Mr. Nace, Tom Nace is our site engineer. He's working on that right now. The
grading, everything up there is permeable pavement. So he's taking all that into account and
according to what I've talked with Tom about, most of that is going to absorb through the pavement
before it gets a chance to run out.
MR. KREBS-Okay. We just don't want to have that running out onto Route 9.
MR. HALL-Right,and he's been talking with the DOT about that as well.
MR. KREBS-Okay.
7
(Queensbury Planning Board 05/20/2014)
MR. DEEB-I have two questions. That back parking lot where the employees park now,is that going
to be open to public parking,too?
MR. HALL-Yes, it'll be open, and that's also the way to get around the building. So it'll be a complete
traffic circle that goes all the way around,but it's.
MR. DEEB-I didn't see any dimensions,but it's widen enough for?
MR. HALL-Yes,it's a 24 foot drive aisle and 20 foot parking spaces.
MR. DEEB-And that front section where the ice cream is served now, are you going to block that off
so traffic can't go in there?
DENNIS LA FONTAINE
MR. LA FONTAINE-Yes, the design is we want to create a ring road around the property, for better
flow.
MR. DEEB-Instead of having,yes,that really makes a lot of sense.
MR. LA FONTAINE-Exactly,so there is no parking coming across the line.
MR. HUNSINGER-So,yes,what are you going to do to block that off?
MR. LA FONTAINE-Plantings and, you know, some type of barrier, but most likely with planter
boxes. The big thing is that ring road that goes around the property and the parking dumping off of
that so there's no hang ups in the front there,and that's just a lot better traffic flow to the property.
MR. KREBS-Most weekends today you couldn't go through that front part there anyway. There's
too many people standing waiting in line to get some ice cream.
MR. DEEB-The bathroom improvement looks tremendous.
MR. LA FONTAINE-I'm really excited about the bathroom.
MR. DEEB-Are you going to cook like you did before?
MR. LA FONTAINE-I am going to cook. I'm working on, I've got a 21 year old and a 19 year old
that'll be a lot of the cooking, I hope.
MR. DEEB-But I used to love your food.
MR. LA FONTAINE-Thank you.
MR. HUNSINGER-I was a little confused on the, I know it doesn't relate to the variance requests,but
on your internal plan,access to the bathrooms.
MR. HALL-Access to the bathrooms is two ways. There's no, the interior access is strictly for
employees. There's no seating. There's no public allowed into the main portion of the building.
MR. HUNSINGER-Okay.
MR. HALL-That's why we've got a door from the inside which is for the employees to use, and then a
door from the outside is for the public,general public.
MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. Yes,it didn't show a door.
MR. LA FONTAINE-There's a common hallway. There's a common hallway where it comes up into
the bathroom and then there's a door access for the bathroom.
MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. Now I understand.
MR. HALL-And it's kind of an exit way for the employees to go out that way, but it'll be locked so
that the general public can't come back in to that part of the building, just for security measures
more than anything else.
8
(Queensbury Planning Board 05/20/2014)
MR. HUNSINGER-Okay.
MR. SCHONEWOLF-If people are here and they want to walk over to The Great Escape,how do they
do it?
MR. LA FONTAINE-They have to walk down Route 9 to the bridge,and cross over the bridge and go.
MR. SCHONEWOLF-They can get out of your property at the end here?
MR. LA FONTAINE-The end,yes,there's a sidewalk that runs along.
MR. HALL-Yes,there's sidewalk that runs all the way up that side.
MR. SCHONEWOLF-So they just walk down the sidewalk and go over the bridge?
MR. HALL-Yes. There are no crosswalks on that portion of Route 9 since they put the pass over.
MR. SCHONEWOLF-Yes. I noticed that.
MR. FORD-And it's a 40 mile an hour speed limit.
MR. HALL-Correct.
MR. LA FONTAINE-And with that parking to the south of us,we do have a lot of people come across
our parking lot and we encourage, and The Great Escape I know also encourages to stay on our side
of the property,get to the bridge,and then cross over.
MR. FORD-You don't have any, there've never been any issues with The Great Escape and
pedestrian traffic using that overpass and coming to your site or going to the other site?
MR. LA FONTAINE-No,we have a good relationship with The Great Escape,you know, and we work
with them as best we can with signage on our property directing them that, you know, this is
Martha's parking, and we do try to prevent people from crossing in front of our area or Round
Pond.
MR. HALL-Going across the sidewalks there,yes. Going across Route 9 at that area is just so hard.
MR. FORD-It's deadly.
MR. HALL-And I think that's why DOT did not put any other crosswalks along there.
MR. HUNSINGER-Sure,to discourage it,yes.
MR. HALL-Right.
MR. MAGOWAN-But if you look going down, up and over and back and then coming back where you
just look at a B-line,you know which way they're going to take.
MR. HUNSINGER-Yes. So the variance requests are for permeability and setback requirements.
Are there any specific comments to either of those two?
MR. HALL-The permeability is a misprint.
MR. HUNSINGER-Okay.
MR. HALL-Because of all the porous pavement that we're putting down, we did that specifically
after meeting with Laura and talking with Staff about that. We're using porous pavement
exclusively on the new portion of it so that we do meet the permeability requirement.
MR. HUNSINGER-Okay.
MR. FORD-So that's been addressed.
MR. LA FONTAINE-Yes.
9
(Queensbury Planning Board 05/20/2014)
MR. DEEB-The setback is only,what,how many feet more than what the building is now?
MR. HALL-Two.
MR. DEEB-Two feet. And the other building is not within the.
MR. HALL-Yes, and it's because the property line and the building are askew to each other. They
don't run parallel, and just extending the building out. We currently, the existing building's already
in violation of the front yard Travel Corridor setback, the 75 foot setback, and it just, it increases
that requirement just a little bit because the building is skewed towards the property line that
direction. Otherwise if it was perfectly parallel we'd have the same setback that we have now. It's
just enough out of alignment that we're getting a little bit closer to the front.
MR. HUNSINGER-Any other questions or comments? Would anyone like to make a
recommendation?
RESOLUTION RE: ZBA RECOMMENDATION FOR AV#41-2014 DENNIS LA FONTAINE
The applicant has submitted an application for the following: Applicant proposes 1,852 sq. ft.
renovation/expansion of existing ice cream business to include outdoor food grille, gift shop,
covered outdoor seating (800 sq. ft.) and upgrade to bathroom. Site Plan: Pursuant to Chapter
179-3-040 of the Zoning Ordinance expansion of the use shall be subject to Planning Board review
and approval. Variance: Relief requested from permeability and setback requirements of the Cl
zone and expansion of a non-conforming structure. Planning Board shall provide a
recommendation to the Zoning Board of Appeals.
The Town of Queensbury Zoning Ordinance, per Section 179-9-070 J 2 b. requires the Planning
Board to provide a written recommendation to the Zoning Board of Appeals for projects that
require both Zoning Board of Appeals &Planning Board approval;
The Planning Board has briefly reviewed and discussed this application, the relief request in the
variance application as well as the potential impacts of this project on the neighborhood and
surrounding community,and found that:
MOTION TO MAKE A RECOMMENDATION ON BEHALF OF THE PLANNING BOARD TO THE
ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS FOR AREA VARIANCE NO. 41-2014 DENNIS LA FONTAINE,
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 by the current project proposal.
Duly adopted this 20th day of May, 2014,by the following vote:
AYES: Mr. Ford, Mr. Schonewolf, Mr. Deeb, Mr.Traver, Mr. Krebs, Mr. Magowan, Mr. Hunsinger
NOES: NONE
MR. HUNSINGER-You're all set. Good luck.
MR. LA FONTAINE-Thank you very much.
MR. HALL-Thank you very much.
SUBDIVISION NO. 1-2014 PRELIMINARY STAGE SEQR TYPE UNLISTED MARIO DISIENA
AGENT(S) BARTLETT PONTIFF STEWART & RHODES OWNER(S) SUTTON'S PROPERTIES,
LLC ZONING CM - COMMERCIAL MODERATE LOCATION 11 SUTTON TERRACE
APPLICANT PROPOSES SUBDIVISION OF A 5.95 ACRE PARCEL INTO 2 LOTS OF 2.8 AND 3.2
ACRES. SUBDIVISION: PURSUANT TO CHAPTER A-183 OF THE ZONING ORDINANCE
SUBDIVISION OF LAND SHALL BE SUBJECT TO PLANNING BOARD REVIEW AND APPROVAL.
VARIANCE: RELIEF REQUESTED FROM PARKING REQUIREMENTS - LOT 1 & LOT 2.
PLANNING BOARD MAY SEEK LEAD AGENCY STATUS OR MAY CONDUCT SEQR REVIEW.
PLANNING BOARD SHALL PROVIDE A RECOMMENDATION TO THE ZONING BOARD OF
APPEALS. CROSS REFERENCE AV 37-14, AV 38-14, SP 34-14, SP 35-14, SB 7-11, OTHERS
LOT SIZE 5.90 ACRES TAX MAP NO. 296.9-1-10.1 SECTION CHAPTER A-183
JON LAPPER, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT; MARIO DI SIENA, PRESENT
10
(Queensbury Planning Board 05/20/2014)
MRS. MOORE-The applicant proposes a subdivision of a 5.95 acre parcel into two lots of 2.8 and 3.2.
The variance relief requested is for is Lot One and Lot Two. They both require a parking variance,
and I've outlined in the packet in reference to a coordinated and uncoordinated review, and per
Staff recommendation, I would suggest that you do the coordinated review, which is where you
would be establishing that you're Lead Agency, but you do have that choice. I just want to make
sure you understand that, and the SEQR process during this application, you have the choice of
doing uncoordinated and coordinated review. So I've outlined that in the packet. So if you have
additional questions,let me know.
MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. Good evening.
MR. LAPPER-Good evening. For the record, Jon Lapper with Mario DiSiena in the shorts and Jared
Holycross,who is Donna Sutton's son-in-law who is the manager of the restaurant and marketplace
building. I'd like to just give you a brief overview, and then we can talk about the procedural SEQR
issue. As you saw from my application, we tried to design this subdivision so that both lots would
be completely conforming for area requirements, and the only variance that's required is for
parking, and that, what's proposed, as the application also stressed, is just to have a shared
easement for drive aisles, for the parking spaces and for maintenance of the stormwater facilities.
Everything will work exactly as it does now, as one site, because of this reciprocal easement
agreement. So if you're going to the furniture store or if you're going to the restaurant, they won't
be designated. You can park in any space. It's all going to be shared, and that's how it's worked for
all these years, successfully. So, in terms of that SEQR issue, my argument is that it doesn't need to
be coordinated review because, and it's really only a matter of timing and whether it takes an extra
month, and obviously it's your pleasure, and if you want it to be coordinated, we'll deal with that,
but there's absolutely no change, in terms of an environmental impact, what we're proposing is
nothing that anybody would see on the site, other than eventually it'll say Furniture House instead
of Sutton's,but nothing else is going to change on the site. So as far as anybody who enters the site,
they're not going to know that there's this property line. It's just going to work the way it has, and
it's worked well because these two uses are compatible,but they have different peak hours and the
retail furniture certainly is a low traffic use, and again, it was just drawn so that each site has the
correct permeability,the correct frontage,the correct lot width. So just so that it would make sense
under Queensbury zoning. Mario, you might recognize from his ample tv commercials from the
Furniture House. He has a very successful business on Saratoga lake, travels and delivers furniture
all over the Northeast, and Queensbury and Lake George and Glens Falls as well. So this was just a
great opportunity for him to expand his business up here, and for the Sutton Family just to
concentrate on what they want to do, which is not the furniture but the Sutton's Marketplace and
the restaurant. So a win/win for both sides. We just need that variance from the Zoning Board,you
know, based on the parking requirements, this site never had all of the spaces that you'd need
under Queensbury code,but,you know, for a furniture store,you certainly don't need it, and there's
never been a problem. So that's really it. So, you know, I would ask you to consider that this
doesn't need a coordinated review because, in terms of SEQR, if nothing's going to change, there's
really not any reason for a big SEQR issue, and then you could make the recommendation. We
could go to the Zoning Board tomorrow. They can do their independent SEQR review and hopefully
come back Thursday and you would do your SEQR and we'd look at Site Plan and Subdivision,but of
course if it's your pleasure that we should do a coordinated review, you know, that's acceptable as
well.
MR. HUNSINGER-Anything else?
MR. LAPPER-I don't think so. Questions,comments from the Board?
MR. KREBS-Well, I just had one question. I went over and looked at it again today, and there's an
antique shop. That whole building is part of one parcel,right?
MR. LAPPER-Yes. That beautiful building is what Mario's buying.
MR. KREBS-Yes,and there were on the drawings some parking up behind the building.
MR. LAPPER-That's always been there. That's where there's a house and a garage, and that was
always something that Steve and Donna had before they built the business into what it is. So we
kept that with the Marketplace and the restaurant, and they can use that for their employees or
whatever for parking.
MR. KREBS-Certainly having been in the furniture business, I understand that if you could fill that
parking lot,you would be an extremely happy furniture dealer.
11
(Queensbury Planning Board 05/20/2014)
MR. SCHONEWOLF-So Sutton's Properties currently owns all of that?
MR. LAPPER-Yes. You recall that maybe a year and a half ago I was here when we separated the
Louis Jeweler's site, and that's worked out well, and so Sutton's Properties owns what's left,and it's,
you know,way more than what you need for minimum lot size.
MR. SCHONEWOLF-And the furniture store is going to be broken off,right?
MR. LAPPER-Yes,but it'll still operate the same.
MR. MAGOWAN-There's some funky lines.
MR. LAPPER-Some of the funky lines were because of the retaining wall,just to make it make sense
that it should be for Mario to maintain the retaining wall. It just seemed to be practical.
MR. FORD-So regardless of where the lines are drawn, it is not going to impact the traffic patterns
or parking?
MR. LAPPER-They're going to plow,you know, one plowing contract,which they'll both pay for, and
there's not going to be any barriers. So if I'm going to the site just, I'll be driving down the drive
aisle and I won't know that I'm driving over a property line. It will function just the way it does
now.
MR. SCHONEWOLF-The way it is now.
MR. KREBS-Which is the way it's existed for some time.
MR. FORD-I just wanted to make sure that there wasn't any anticipated signage or anything of that
sort.
MR. LAPPER-No.
MR. FORD-Try to be restrictive.
MR. LAPPER-No, and that's what the condition of this is. It's reciprocal and everybody can park and
drive everywhere.
MR. HUNSINGER-I mean, that's always the concern is, you know, certainly the current owner and
proposed owner get along, you know, they otherwise wouldn't be proposing this, but, you know,
down the road,you have new generation or maybe one sells to someone else and.
MR. LAPPER-That's why there'll be a recorded agreement that will go on before the deed that says
that everyone has the right to use both and an obligation to maintain both. Run with the land.
MR. MAGOWAN-I say if these two can't get along,then we've got big problems.
MR. HUNSINGER-No, I'm not worried about those two. I'm worried about the next generation and
even the generation beyond that. I mean,we've all seen some of the silly things that happen around
Town when neighbors can't get along and they start putting in boulders and Jersey barriers and
everything else to keep each other away from each other.
MR. LAPPER-In some ways it's like a shopping center, which kind of works this way, too, but, you
know,that's why it has to be in writing as a recorded document.
MR. HUNSINGER-And so it goes with the deed.
MR. LAPPER-It goes with the land,yes,not personal.
MR. FORD-That raises my comfort level.
MR. HUNSINGER-Yes.
MR. DEEB-That planter that's been there forever.
MR. LAPPER-Where the sign is?
12
(Queensbury Planning Board 05/20/2014)
MR. DEEB-No,that planter.
MR. LAPPER-Oh,that planter,yes.
MR. DEEB-Have you ever had any problems with that?
MR. LAPPER-I don't know why that's there.
JARED HOLYCROSS
MR. HOLYCROSS-Usually people back into it.
MR. DEEB-I was going to say,is there any reason you keep it?
MR. HOLYCROSS-For some reason it's a target for people.
MR. DEEB-So did you ever consider getting rid of it?
MR. HOLYCROSS-We've considered. There's underground power lines there. There's a lot of
finance to it. It's a big issue.
MR. DEEB-Oh. I didn't realize it.
MR. HOLYCROSS-And it also gives some separation from the main parking lot to that traffic area.
MR. FORD-You're going to leave it to the people backing into it.
MR. MAGOWAN-It also slows the people down coming through the parking lot, too, where you're
not racing right around in front of the restaurant part.
MR. HOLYCROSS-They bump into it and drive away. Once every couple of years I have to replace
the wood.
MR. DEEB-There's parking on the north side of it.
MR. HOLYCROSS-Absolutely. That's where all the space is. There's only three handicap spots and
four regular spots right there.
MR. TRAVER-Well, I think on the issue of coordinated versus uncoordinated review, and I know, I
think Jon makes an excellent point in terms of the impact of this application on SEQR. I guess if I
heard from Staff that it didn't matter as far as Staff was concerned, either way I would feel
differently, but hearing Staff say they recommend a coordinated review, I think that's where my
comfort level would be. I would tend to default with Staff recommendation.
MR. HUNSINGER-I would tend to as well, and I guess I just want to, you know, beg the question,
why?
MR. FORD-The rationale for that. That's my concern.
MRS. MOORE-No, the coordinated review is simply because that's, you've always, you've gone
through the SEQR process in the past, and if you wanted to have a, I guess, a concrete information
that you've heard both sides, it would be a coordinated effort between the Zoning Board and the
Planning Board. So it's a coordinated review,so there's consistency and continuation of a process.
MR. KREBS-But I can understand that, we're not making any physical changes to anything. So why
are we doing the SEQR when we're not changing anything?
MR. HUNSINGER-Yes,that's the balance on this one.
MR. FORD-I think we ought to be seeking Lead Agency status.
MRS.MOORE-SEQR's required because of the type of application.
MR. LAPPER-The legal answer is that if it was a Type I action, it would be required to do a
coordinated review,but this is an Unlisted action. So it's not required. So it's perfectly fine for each
13
(Queensbury Planning Board 05/20/2014)
Board to do a SEQR review, and I, frankly, think that SEQR would be about,you know, five minutes
because there's nothing changing on the site,and it's been there and it works,but it's your call.
MR. HUNSINGER-Yes,is there any other involved agency besides the Zoning Board?
MRS.MOORE-No.
MR. HUNSINGER-So it's just the two Town Boards.
MRS.MOORE-Just the two,and the two Boards can do uncoordinated review.
MR. HUNSINGER-Right.
MR. TRAVER-So presumably they would acknowledge Lead Agency on our part tomorrow night,
and then at the next hearing we'd be able to move forward with a clean review.
MRS. MOORE-You'd hear a portion of the application again on Thursday, and then probably final
portion of the application in July.
MR. LAPPER-The difference, then, is that it just makes us come back in June and perhaps July and
they're hoping to get this thing sold and closed, but,you know, and so I view it as more procedural
than substantive, because I don't think there are real SEQR environmental issues here, at least
that's my argument.
MR. HUNSINGER-Why would you anticipate a July meeting as well?
MRS.MOORE-As I calculated it out.
MR. MAGOWAN-Well, I'm just a little confused of, I mean, I understand why we do the SEQR and
you know, the reasons of it, but basically all we're doing is changing the name, and they're drawing
some lines on a piece of paper. Is that changing anything on the property?
MRS.MOORE-No,there is no change.
MR. MAGOWAN-Yes, I mean, I understand,we've done it on projects where you have to put a shovel
in the ground,but I mean,this is mainly all through paperwork if anything else.
MRS.MOORE-Are you taking an uncoordinated review or?
MR. LAPPER-If it's uncoordinated,it doesn't need Lead Agency.
MR. HUNSINGER-That's what we're debating. Well,what's the will of the Board?
MR. FORD-Uncoordinated.
MR. KREBS-Uncoordinated.
MR. MAGOWAN-Uncoordinated.
MR. SCHONEWOLF-I think so.
MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. That's a majority.
MR. LAPPER-Then you'd be making a recommendation, and just one last thing. The way Laura and
Craig wanted this, just to track it in the system, we did two applications. So there's one for each
future site. So that's why it's on twice. There's one on for Lot One and one for Lot Two. So you're
dealing with this.
MR. HUNSINGER-Yes,that was going to be next,because they are listed as separate agenda items as
well.
MR. LAPPER-And that was just another procedural,to keep it straight.
MRS. MOORE-Your next procedural element is opening the public hearing and go forth as a regular
application.
14
(Queensbury Planning Board 05/20/2014)
MR. LAPPER-But, no, if it's uncoordinated, then it's just a, they would just be making a
recommendation to the Zoning Board.
MRS.MOORE-They need to complete their SEQR on their own.
MR. LAPPER-No,wouldn't that happen after we get the Zoning Board,when we come back for?
MRS. MOORE-That's not how I, no, because they need to complete their SEQR prior to moving
forward.
MR. KREBS-Why? Why do we need to do SEQR?
MR. LAPPER-I think that would happen after the, on Thursday, that would happen after the Zoning
Board grants the variance,because they're only giving a recommendation.
MRS. MOORE-No, that's the way the process, I have two of them right in front of me that this is the
process occurs,that as part of their recommendation,they've completed their SEQR review.
MR.TRAVER-And I can recall that in previous applications when we've made recommendations and
SEQR was required,we had to complete SEQR before it went to Zoning Board.
MR. HUNSINGER-Yes. For Unlisted actions,yes. The other projects that we looked at tonight were
Type II.
MR.TRAVER-Yes.
MR. HUNSINGER-So, I mean, the other procedural question is we have two site plans before us as
well. Just in terms of sequence, we would have to deal with them one at a time, in terms of agenda
items. Do the subdivision first, then each, because I assume you're going to want separate
resolutions on each agenda item.
MRS. MOORE-She, actually the draft resolutions that are included actually include the subdivision
and the two area variances and the two site plans,as one resolution.
MR. HUNSINGER-As one resolution,okay.
MR. LAPPER-At least that's easier.
MR. HUNSINGER-Yes.
MRS.MOORE-Yes.
MR. HUNSINGER-So, just getting back to the subdivision, are there any other questions from
members of the Board,questions or comments,before we move forward on the SEQR review?
MR. FORD-I have none.
MR. HUNSINGER-So, in terms of opening a public hearing, this would only be for SEQR, not for Site
Plan?
MRS.MOORE-It's for your subdivision.
MR. HUNSINGER-It's for subdivision,yes,okay.
MRS.MOORE-Yes.
MR. HUNSINGER-All right. Well, if there's no other questions or comments from members of the
Board, we will open the public hearing. Is there anyone in the audience that wants to address this
project? We have at least one couple that would like to address the Board. The purpose of the
public hearing is for members of the audience and interested parties to provide comments to the
Board. I would ask anyone who wants to address the Board to state their name for the record and
to speak clearly into the microphone. We do tape the meeting. The tape is used to transcribe the
minutes. The tape is also available on the Town's website for anyone to listen to after the meeting,
and I would ask that you direct your comments to the Board.
PUBLIC HEARING OPENED
15
(Queensbury Planning Board 05/20/2014)
CHUCK MC NULTY
MR. MC NULTY-Thank you. Chuck McNulty and Linda McNulty. We live at 14 Twicwood Lane. I
don't think we're here to argue for or against any of this, but we do have some concerns that we'd
like to make sure you know and understand so that you can consider them as you go through your
decision making process. A little bit of background,there's a dog leg on this map that goes off to the
right at the top, and on at least some of the maps, like the one that's in front of me here, there are
some outlying houses that are above that. Our house is the one that's in the middle labeled deck on
the back. So it'll give you an idea of where we sit. We bought this home in 1973, and when we did,
the line between commercial development and Route 9 was on the Route 9 side of that dog leg. In
the 1990's, the Town revised the zoning and moved the commercial residential dividing line to the
other side of that dog leg. Now the net result there was, when it was on the Route 9 side, we had a
buffer of all the vegetation within the dog leg, plus a 50 foot buffer in the commercial zone because
the zoning then required 50 feet in the commercial zone, 50 feet in the residential zone. Because it
was there, when our lot was set up and cleared, it was cleared to the property line because there
was residential behind our property, but now, with the commercial line at the back of our lot line,
the only buffer we have is the one that happens to be there because of the dog leg. So one of our
interests is we would like to see that dog leg remain natural as it is, and I don't know if there's any
possibility of something like that being in the resolution or not, but that's one concern. We have a
constant worry something is going to happen there, and it's not just an idle worry. A number of
years ago, Sutton's proposed building a huge warehouse in that, some of you may remember. I
think probably for what is proposed now, there's no worry about somebody using that area for
parking because as has been pointed out, parking's been working fine the way it is and it looks like
it's going to continue, but that would be our other fear, that if sometime somebody decided there
needed to be more parking,we'd hate to see that clear cut and paved. I guess the other thing,well,a
couple of other points. One is it's important for this Town to pay attention to commercial
development and not impede it, and we understand that, but there's also the Town's motto that
goes something to the effect of a good place to live. That implies protection for residential areas,
and the tough part is what we're in right now, where we've got a border line between residential
and commercial. So any extra consideration we can get towards preserving what little buffer we
have,we would appreciate. Last minor item is once in a great while we've had problems, especially
in the winter,with furniture delivery trucks coming in at night and parking down there and leaving
their engines running all night, and I know something like this was addressed for Wal-Mart when
they went in on Route 9 for the apartments behind. I would like to see something to the effect that
trucks would not do that. There's places for them to park, either in the rest areas on the Northway
as they're coming up or truck stops, but plan so they arrive during the day rather than at night.
One other last thought is lighting. We've been fortunate that the Sutton's in the past years have
been very responsive when we've raised issues about any of their lights shining into the back end of
our house and they've corrected the problem, but it would be nice to see some provision that says
area lighting on that property would remain on that property. I guess that's the sum of our
concerns. I don't know,did you have anything else, Linda?
LINDA MC NULTY
MRS. MC NULTY-I just would really like to urge you to stipulate in a resolution that that property
remain forever wild. Excavation can overcome the hill that is behind these properties to provide
for extra parking or whatever else they decide they want to do at a future date, and if that were
designated as forever wild,we would at least be guaranteed that much of a buffer.
MR. HUNSINGER-Anything else?
MR. MC NULTY-No, I think that's it.
MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. Thank you.
MR. MC NULTY-Thank you.
MR. HUNSINGER-Anyone else want to address the Board on this project? Any written comments,
Laura?
MRS.MOORE-No.
MR. HUNSINGER-If the applicant would like to come back to the table. I don't know if you have
anything to add in response to the concerns raised by the McNulty's.
16
(Queensbury Planning Board 05/20/2014)
MR. LAPPER-Just that there's absolutely no proposal to change anything, no lighting, certainly no
tree cutting. No utilization of that at this point. I don't see anything would change, but what's on
the table is just to keep everything exactly the same and anything that would ever be proposed
would have to come back before the Board for site plan, even if they were going to change the
lighting,but Mario is looking to keep everything exactly the same as it is now.
MR. HUNSINGER-I do remember the discussion at one of the previous site plan reviews about some
flood lights that were shining into the neighborhood. The only other question I had,based on those
comments, were, I don't know if you know yet what time your delivery trucks would be arriving.
Can we get you on the mic,though,please.
MR. KREBS-And just identify yourself.
MR. DI SIENA-Mario DiSiena. The good part about it is this store is really going to be, it's not our
main store. Our main store is in Saratoga. That's where we're going to receive and ship out of. So
the idea that there's going to be, I don't need two locations for that, and our main store is where
we're going to receive. So their concerns about trucks ain't going to happen. This is a showroom,
and the only trucks that'll be up there are when we're up there during our normal hours to pick up
or ship, but essentially I want to have this showroom as our flagship, where we show it there and
ship it out of Saratoga.
MR. HUNSINGER-Okay.
MR. DI SIENA-So everything, I appreciate what these people are asking for because I don't need any
more parking. It's already proven itself over 30 years to be significant. The exact format that they
are running is what I'm running, except for I'm a little broader base, where I have some different
things that they're not offering, more traditional, a little more contemporary,but essentially it's the
same exact situation, same exact program. We've been running parallel for 30 years, and I feel
privileged to be able to join their family and we have a phenomenally beautiful relationship, and it
will always be that way. So the idea of any kind of barricades, I can promise you, that is
counterproductive, and it will only be a win here, and their concerns, if there's any concerns, they
can more than bring it to my attention and I will make sure we change it or do whatever is
necessary, but I have no intention of taking the, I understand where they're coming from. I totally
agree with them. There's no reason for us to be up there, and there's no way to get to it accessible.
It's not necessary.
MR. HUNSINGER-Okay.
MR. DI SIENA-But receiving the trucks, there won't be any trucks there. I don't want to lock
ourselves out of that, but I can promise you, where we're at is primarily Saratoga, and the only
trucks that'll be there is our delivery trucks, which aren't going to be there at night, and they're
certainly not going to be running, and there's no, it doesn't make sense for us to send trucks up
there when I'm going to station out of Saratoga.
MR. FORD-You would anticipate deliveries being made when,then,between what hours?
MR. DI SIENA-The normal hours that they have, 9 to 5,that's when my guys work, and they're really
not going to be coming out of here like they are in Saratoga.
MR. LAPPER-They have a big warehouse in Saratoga.
MR. DI SIENA-And if I need a bigger one, I'm not going to want to utilize theirs like I want to utilize
the one I have. It doesn't make sense to have two locations for shipping.
MR. DEEB-So are you saying there might be fewer trucks coming in?
MR. DI SIENA-Absolutely.
MR. DEEB-Than what was being delivered before?
MR. DI SIENA-Yes, absolutely. They're receiving and shipping out of the that location because that's
their only location, but I'm going to be receiving tractor trailers at my location in Saratoga. I have
no intention of, I don't want to say that that can't happen, that a truck can't possibly go there, but
that's not where we're going, because once we give the freight company our location, they come to
us. They go where we tell them to go.
17
(Queensbury Planning Board 05/20/2014)
MR. DEEB-So trucks idling overnight would be very few,then,if ever.
MR. DI SIENA-It shouldn't be. It shouldn't be.
MR. LAPPER-Jared wants to add something.
MR. HOLYCROSS-If I may,Jared Holycross. As it was stated was that occasionally in the wintertime
there was a truck idle overnight. Our cut off hours for deliveries are 4 p.m. So if the roads are
terrible and a truck hits us at five o'clock and we're gone and he stays, there's nothing we can do
about it.
MR. HUNSINGER-Right.
MR. HOLYCROSS-You know, it's extremely rare, but our cut off time, Johnson, Skyline, Diminion,
everybody knows our cut off time is 4 p.m. So it's never been an issue. Occasionally you might have
it in the winter. I can't blame them for wanting to park for the night. If the roads, there's a foot of
snow on the ground,you know,so it's never been an issue,and I apologize if it was. Thank you.
MR. HUNSINGER-Thank you.
MR. DI SIENA-But the trucks will be received in Saratoga.
MR. HUNSINGER-Okay.
MR. FORD-Could you address the dog leg,the vegetative buffer and the potential for that being?
MR. LAPPER-Queensbury would require a 50 foot buffer anyway between residential and
commercial. So that's about 100 feet. So I don't really see that there's any practical use of that. I
mean,maybe, I mean,to re-grade it,to put in,you know,a few parking spaces, I don't see it,because
you have to keep 50 feet of trees between the commercial and the residential. So it really makes
that.
MR.TRAVER-And it would be subject to review.
MR. LAPPER-And it would absolutely be subject to review.
MR. FORD-There couldn't be a clear cutting or infringement on that 50 foot vegetative buffer
without it coming back before us.
MR. DI SIENA-If you know our property on Saratoga Lake, it is done very,very well. I have trees in
front of our store all around. We have a gorgeous setting. I'm very respectful of the environment.
So there's never, and my parking lot's not even in front of my store. It's off to the side.
MR. FORD-Well,we want respect for both the environment and our neighbors.
MR. DI SIENA-Exactly, and I appreciate everything they're saying. I totally agree with them. There's
no reason for us to do anything there, and lights, if there's lights that are projected their way,let me
know and we'll change it, absolutely. If there's anything like that, I'm reachable. I'm in here with
my shorts.
MR. MAGOWAN-So all that black hickory up there for furniture is going to be left alone,right?
MR. HUNSINGER-Any other questions or comments from the Board? Are we ready to move
forward with the SEQR review?
MR. FORD-Yes.
MRS.MOORE-Are you closing your public hearing?
MR. HUNSINGER-Well, only for SEQR.
MRS.MOORE-Okay.
MR. HUNSINGER-Because then we'll have public hearing for subdivision and site plan.
MRS.MOORE-Yes,okay.
18
(Queensbury Planning Board 05/20/2014)
MR. HUNSINGER-Yes. I can't recall doing the new Long Form previous to this evening. I know you
prepared a resolution. Are there any specific items that we need to review or go through
individually like we used to in the past?
MRS.MOORE-I did not identify any on this particular application that I would highlight.
MR. FORD-I can accept that.
MRS.MOORE-Okay.
MR. HUNSINGER-Does the Board feel a need to go through the SEQR review item by item?
MR. KREBS-No.
MR. FORD-Negative.
MR. HUNSINGER-Are there any specific environmental concerns anyone on the Board has
identified? Okay. Do I need to do anything more than that, besides move the motion? Okay.
Whenever you're ready.
MR. KREBS-Okay.
MR. HUNSINGER-There is a draft Negative SEQR.
RESOLUTION RE: SEQR REVIEW FOR SUB # 1-2014, SP# 34&35 &AV# 37&38 DI SIENA
The applicant proposes: Applicant proposes subdivision of a 5.95 acre parcel into 2 lots of 2.8 and
3.2 acres. Subdivision: Pursuant to Chapter A-183 of the Zoning Ordinance subdivision of land
shall be subject to Planning Board review and approval. Variance: Relief requested from parking
requirements - Lot 1 &Lot 2.
Lot 1 - Sutton's Business&Residence. Applicant proposes to maintain business&residence 14,560
sq. ft. with 83 parking spaces. Site Plan: Pursuant to Section 179-9-120 of the Zoning Ordinance
alteration to site with approved site plan shall be subject to Planning Board review and approval.
Variance: Relief requested from parking requirements
Lot 2 - Sutton's Furniture Store. Applicant proposes to maintain 16,753 sq.ft.two story commercial
furniture building with deck area and 55 parking spaces. Site Plan: Pursuant to Section 179-9-120
of the Zoning Ordinance alteration to site with approved site plan shall be subject to Planning Board
review and approval. Variance: Relief requested from parking requirements.
The Planning Board has determined that the proposed project and Planning Board action is subject
to review under the State Environmental Quality Review Act;
The proposed action considered by this Board is Unlisted in the Department of Environmental
Conservation Regulations implementing the State Environmental Quality Review Act and the
regulations of the Town of Queensbury;
No Federal or other agencies are involved;
Part 1 of the Long EAF has been completed by the applicant;
Part 2 of the Long EAF has been reviewed by the Planning Board;
Upon review of the information recorded on this EAF, as noted, it is the conclusion of the Town of
Queensbury Planning Board as lead agency that this project will result in no significant adverse
impacts on the environment, and, therefore, an environmental statement need not be prepared.
Accordingly,this negative declaration is issued.
MOTION TO APPROVE A NEGATIVE DECLARATION FOR SUBDIVISION NO. 1-2014,SITE PLANS
34 & 35-2014 MARIO DI SIENA, Introduced by Donald Krebs who moved for its adoption,
seconded by Thomas Ford:
In accordance with the resolution prepared by Staff.
19
(Queensbury Planning Board 05/20/2014)
Duly adopted this 20th day of May, 2014,by the following vote:
AYES: Mr. Ford, Mr. Schonewolf, Mr. Deeb, Mr.Traver, Mr. Krebs, Mr. Magowan, Mr. Hunsinger
NOES: NONE
MR. HUNSINGER-So the next step would be to make a recommendation to the Zoning Board of
Appeals.
MRS.MOORE-I have a copy of a draft resolution,if you want me to forward that to Mr. Krebs.
MR. HUNSINGER-Yes, I was going to say,if you want to give that to Mr. Krebs.
RESOLUTION RE: ZBA RECOMMENDATION FOR AV# 37&38-2014 MARIO DI SIENA
The applicant has submitted an application for the following: Applicant proposes subdivision of a
5.95 acre parcel into 2 lots of 2.8 and 3.2 acres. Subdivision: Pursuant to Chapter A-183 of the
Zoning Ordinance subdivision of land shall be subject to Planning Board review and approval.
Variance: Relief requested from parking requirements -Lot 1 &Lot 2.
Lot 1 - Sutton's Business&Residence. Applicant proposes to maintain business&residence 14,560
sq. ft. with 83 parking spaces. Site Plan: Pursuant to Section 179-9-120 of the Zoning Ordinance
alteration to site with approved site plan shall be subject to Planning Board review and approval.
Variance: Relief requested from parking requirements
Lot 2 - Sutton's Furniture Store. Applicant proposes to maintain 16,753 sq.ft.two story commercial
furniture building with deck area and 55 parking spaces. Site Plan: Pursuant to Section 179-9-120
of the Zoning Ordinance alteration to site with approved site plan shall be subject to Planning Board
review and approval. Variance: Relief requested from parking requirements.
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 requirements of the State Environmental Quality Review Act have been considered and the
Planning Board has adopted a SEQRA Negative Declaration;
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 NOS. 37 & 38-2014 MARIO DISIENA,
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 by the current project proposal.
Duly adopted this 20th day of May, 2014,by the following vote:
AYES: Mr. Ford, Mr. Schonewolf, Mr. Deeb, Mr.Traver, Mr. Krebs, Mr. Magowan, Mr. Hunsinger
NOES: NONE
MR. HUNSINGER-So just a point of order, on the Site Plans, we're really not taking any action on
those this evening.
MRS.MOORE-You will not take action on the Site Plans. You'll take action on Thursday.
MR. KREBS-Right.
MR. HUNSINGER-Okay.
MR. LAPPER-Hopefully we'll be back on Thursday to talk a little bit. Thanks everybody.
MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. Thank you.
20
(Queensbury Planning Board 05/20/2014)
TABLED ITEM:
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 AND CONSTRUCT A 6,280 SQ. FT.
PARKING LOT. PURSUANT TO CHAPTER 179-3-040 OF THE ZONING ORDINANCE PARKING
LOT IN A Cl ZONE REQUIRE PLANNING BOARD REVIEW AND APPROVAL. CROSS REFERENCE
SP 3-07 WARREN CO. REFERRAL APRIL 2014-NCI LOT SIZE 0.60 ACRES TAX MAP NO.
295.8-1-2 SECTION 179-3-040
VANCE COHEN, PRESENT
MR. HUNSINGER-Laura?
MRS. MOORE-The applicant proposes the demolition of an existing 2,149 square foot building to
develop a parking lot operation for a fee. The existing ice cream building is to remain with
associated outdoor eating area specific parking for the use. The applicant's project, originally
approved as Site Plan 3-2007, has expired, but the applicant intends to develop the project as
proposed. In addition, the applicant has provided a timeframe as to when this is to be completed,
and he's identified that as the Spring of 2014,the Summer of 2014 and the Summer of 2015.
MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. Thank you. If you want to come up to the table. Good evening. If you could
identify yourself for the record.
MR. COHEN-Vance Cohen.
MR. HUNSINGER-Do you want to tell us about your project?
MR. COHEN-The project I had approved in 2007 I'm looking to get re-approved. However, I'm still
trying to work on a couple of financials for the property, and so I'm going to ask to have this tabled
one more time.
MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. When would you like us to table it to?
MR. COHEN-Maybe a month. Maybe two.
MRS.MOORE-Coming back in September,would that be a sufficient?
MR. COHEN-That might work,yes.
MRS.MOORE-Okay. I guess my one concern is right now the site is in non-compliance.
MR. HUNSINGER-Right.
MRS.MOORE-For operations.
MR. HUNSINGER-Right.
MRS. MOORE-I would actually, can we table it until Thursday, and then I can come back, discussion
with Staff and the Zoning Administrator, to determine if there's some other avenue that we need to
proceed with? So that it can be addressed if operations can happen this summer, or whether it
needs to be resolved some other way. I would just ask that, because I don't know the next
procedure for him to make sure that he can operate this summer, and I don't want to table it
without knowing.
MR. HUNSINGER-Right.
MR. COHEN-Okay. So then I'll be in contact with you to go over that detail?
MRS.MOORE-Tomorrow.
MR. COHEN-Tomorrow.
MR. HUNSINGER-Yes,let's.
21
(Queensbury Planning Board 05/20/2014)
MRS.MOORE-If you table it until Thursday's,then we'll add it at the end of Thursday's agenda.
MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. Is there anyone here in the audience that wanted to address the Board on
this project? Maybe we should take the public comments,since he's here.
MRS.MOORE-You can take,yes,that's fine. Are there individuals that wish to speak? I didn't.
MR. HUNSINGER-Yes,there's one.
MRS. MOORE-You can open the public, I think the public hearing was tabled. So it's still considered
open.
MR. HUNSINGER-Yes, but I hate to have him come, if we table this to Thursday night, would you
come back?
AUDIENCE MEMBER-This Thursday?
MR. HUNSINGER-Yes,do you mind coming back,or do you want to get on the record now?
AUDIENCE MEMBER-No.
MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. So would anyone like to make a motion to table this project to Thursday the
22nd of May?
MR. FORD-I have one question of the applicant first. Are there or are there not two abandoned
cars on this property?
MR. COHEN-They're not abandoned. I do have two vehicles on the property,though.
MR.TRAVER-Are they licensed and registered?
MR. COHEN-Two of them are. I have one that is currently not.
MR.TRAVER-Okay. I think that,if I recall the Ordinance, I think that that's not allowed.
MR. COHEN-I'm allowed one. I believe I'm allowed one.
MR.TRAVER-Unregistered?
MR. COHEN-One unregistered vehicle on the property.
MR. FORD-And you have how many?
MR. COHEN-I have one unregistered vehicle that I have for sale.
MR. FORD-How many vehicles do you have there, pretty permanently?
MR. COHEN-Currently there's three. They're not going to be there much longer, but currently
there's three.
MR. KREBS-Yes, but when I was there today there was only one. There was the old cab sitting out
back.
MR. COHEN-I have a Sebring that's also for sale out front. That's the unregistered vehicle.
MR. KREBS-Okay. I didn't realize that.
MR. FORD-There are two in the rear.
MR. KREBS-Two in the rear.
MR. HUNSINGER-Okay.
MR. FORD-Isn't that correct?
MR. COHEN-Yes.
22
(Queensbury Planning Board 05/20/2014)
MR. HUNSINGER-So would anyone like to make a motion to table this to Thursday evening, May
22nd?
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.
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 22, 2014 Planning Board meeting.
Duly adopted this 20th day of May, 2014,by the following vote:
AYES: Mr. Deeb, Mr. Schonewolf, Mr. Ford, Mr. Magowan, Mr. Krebs, Mr.Traver, Mr. Hunsinger
NOES: NONE
MR. HUNSINGER-We'll see you in two nights.
MR. COHEN-Okay.
MR. HUNSINGER-Thank you.
NEW BUSINESS:
SITE PLAN NO. 28-2014 SPECIAL USE PERMIT 36-2014 SEQR TYPE UNLISTED NYS ARC ,
INC. WARREN,WASHINGTON &ALBANY COUNTY CHAPTERS AGENT(S) STEPHEN TRAVER
OWNER(S) NYS ARC, INC., WARREN WASHINGTON COUNTIES ZONING CLI-COMMERCIAL
LIGHT INDUSTRIAL LOCATION 436 QUAKER ROAD APPLICANT PROPOSES A BOTTLE &
CAN REDEMPTION CENTER (1,500 SQ. FT.) AND A SECURE DOCUMENT DESTRUCTION
FACILITY (5,120 SQ. FT.) USING A PORTION OF THE 51,753 SQ. FT. WAREHOUSE PART OF
THE BUILDING. PURSUANT TO CHAPTER 179-3-040 & ARTICLE 10 OF THE ZONING
ORDINANCE PROJECT ACTIVITIES REQUIRE SITE PLAN REVIEW AND SPECIAL PERMIT
REVIEW. CROSS REFERENCE BP'S; NYS DEC REDEMPTION CENTER REGISTRATION NO. 57-
030 WARREN CO. REFERRAL MAY 2014 APA, CEA, OTHER NWI WETLANDS LOT SIZE
6.81 ACRES TAX MAP NO. 303.5-1-20.1 SECTION 179-3-040,ARTICLE 10
STEPHEN TRAVER, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT
MR. HUNSINGER-Laura?
MR. TRAVER-Mr. Chairman, I need to recuse myself as I'm also the representative of that
organization and will be sitting at counsel table it seems.
MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. Thank you, Mr.Traver. Laura?
MRS.MOORE-Would you like an alternate to sit in?
MR. HUNSINGER-Would you like to sit in,Jaime?
MRS. MOORE-I'll read through the description. The applicant proposes to utilize a portion of a
51,753 sq. ft. existing warehouse area for two new uses. The new uses include a 1,500 sq. ft. bottle
can redemption center which requires a site plan. The secondary use is a 5,120 sq. ft. secured
document destruction facility which requires the special use permit for recycling operations. The
applicant has completed the site plan application. The Board may consider the applicant's request
for waivers, which I've identified, and the Board may consider their criteria for the Special Use
Permit, and I did identify, under the Term of Validity, the Staff recommends a one year conditional
operation of the Special Use Permit to identify if there's more work than expected or more
additional storage of material may be needed to expand,and so on.
MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. Thank you. Good evening.
23
(Queensbury Planning Board 05/20/2014)
MR. TRAVER-Good evening, members, Ladies and Gentlemen of the Planning Board. I'm here as
Stephen Traver, COO of Warren, Washington and Albany Counties NYSARC Incorporated. The
project that I have before you this evening represents a really, fundamentally, a change and an
expansion of what we hope to be the services that we're providing to our consumers, individuals
with special needs, primarily those with developmental disabilities in Warren and Washington
Counties. A couple of years ago we purchased the facility at 436 Quaker Road from Kaymr
Engineering and renovated the road most closest to the road frontage as office space, leaving a
large, something over 50,000 foot,warehouse space in the back of the building. One of the areas of
services that we would like to provide to our consumers are pre-vocational training and
employment opportunities. We have,those services are few and far between, and our agency really
provides none of those. So in investigating some possibilities, two projects caught our eye. The
first one was the idea of possibly doing a New York State redemption center,which basically would
be,we would sort bottles and cans for redemption by a third party. The organization, I'm told,that
does that,the commercial firm, is called Toma. Sometimes if you go to some of the markets around
you'll see Toma on some of the recycling machines. They're quite a large firm and they will come
and collect the containers of recyclables that we accumulate. For that operation, all that's really
required is a sorting table. There's no mechanics involved, no real volume, in terms of on site
storage. We hope to provide some employment opportunities for folks to be able to do that, and
again,we're not trying to offer people a career of sorting bottles and cans,but it is an opportunity to
allow our persons with special needs to demonstrate that they can report to work on time,that they
can work as part of a team. We have found that work is very therapeutic. It's very much a self-
esteem builder. Individuals,for example,that suffer from depression that can sometimes be related
to persons that are dealing with disabilities, can feel a need, you know, instead of staying home
today because I don't feel good, they need my help to sort the bottles and cans, so I'm going to get
up and I'm going to go to work and do a nice job. So that's one of the things that we are hoping to
develop. The second project that's a little bit more complicated, that's referenced in our
application, is something called secure document destruction. That's something that I heard about
when I went from the volunteer side of the agency to the staff side last year, and I attended a
training down in Washington that was put on by a national organization called Source America.
That organization used to be called NISH. You may have heard of that. It had the sort of unpleasing
name of the National Institute for the Severely Handicapped, and in August of last year, they
changed that name to Source America. It's a large nationwide nonprofit that was founded by law
back in the 1930's, is managed by a presidentially appointed commission of individuals, and they
work with the,sort of the sister agency of that,is the Association for the Blind. You may have heard,
perhaps more frequently, of that organization, but they try to support, on a nationwide basis,
nonprofits that provide opportunities for employment and vocational training for people that have
visual impairments or other types of disabilities, our population, again, being those with
developmental disabilities and other developmental disabilities. We fall under the Source America
jurisdiction. One of the projects that they have been promoting very much nationwide is secure
document destruction. The reason for that is that it is relatively easy to do or relatively safe to do,
and it provides a real opportunity for employment because one of the benefits of being a Source
America affiliated nonprofit is that we then can participate in the Commission's provisions of law,
one of which says that if there is a Source America affirmative business operating in the area, that
any government agency has to give first choice to that business for work that they have that needs
to be done. For example in our area, for secure document destruction,there are six IRS offices that
are currently using for profit providers for their secure document destruction. So if we open a
facility in our warehouse that is secure, and we can provide the IRS or, and also commercial
vendors as well, perhaps doctor's offices or anyone that has HIPPA related information, we can
securely obtain their documents, we can take them to our warehouse facility in a secure
environment with audio and video surveillance, destroy them with a commercially designed
shredding machine that's designed by Source America, and provide that agency or that business
with a piece of paper that says, in fact, these documents have been destroyed according to the
highest standards of the HIPPA regulations and government relations. That shredded paper can
then be sold as recycled material to, for example, Finch Pruyn or someone who can then use it for
pulp and paper manufacturing. So for that, I think in your packet I have a diagram, a blow up of the
area that's on the drawing that I submitted with Laura's help for this application that shows
basically a conveyor belt where individuals would sort the paper basically into white office type
paper versus other types of paper. It would then go into a shredding machine, not unlike what we
all have in our offices, except on a larger scale. The shredded paper then goes to a container that
when it reaches a certain size it's compacted and baled, and then delivered to a, basically a trailer.
When the trailer's full we pick up the phone and call whoever is buying the recycled paper. They
come and haul it away and give us another empty trailer. So that's basically it in a nutshell. This
would be an integrated setting in the sense that there would be both persons with disabilities and
also non-disabled individuals work. This is one of the goals that we have as an agency, to not have
the sheltered workshop that you may have heard of in the past where people are paid less than
24
(Queensbury Planning Board 05/20/2014)
minimum wage. We're not supportive of that type of business model. So there would beat least
minimum wage jobs for individuals that we serve here. Again, it would be, we would perceive it to
be primarily a training ground. It would not be, although there would be some individuals, and it's
been my experience over my long career in vocational services,that there are some individuals that
do become attached to a certain project or job. So there probably would be some individuals that
would want to remain with this operation, but largely it would be an opportunity, again, for
individuals to demonstrate that they could be good employees, that they have certain skill levels,
and then they would move on out into the community into a more fully integrated setting, a
community based setting where they may have, enjoy other employment opportunities. So, I guess
that's really an overview of what we're doing. One question I have, and I noticed in Staff comments,
there was a discussion about the Special Use Permit and the time limit, which of course I
understand. One of the concerns that I have is this is much like other applicants that I know you
hear,this is very much the beginning of the process for us. If this project, conceptually, is approved,
I need to then go back to my agency and sort of sell the idea to my board of directors, which then
has to approve a grant application to Source America for a five year lease purchase program for the
equipment. We really don't need any equipment for the redemption center, but for the recycling
program we would. I'm told by them that it's 12 to 16 weeks, assuming we accomplish all of that
and we put in an order for the equipment. It's 12 to 16 weeks for the machinery to be
manufactured because it's manufactured on a case by case basis. So I can see it being possibly as
long as six months before we're close to really beginning on the operation side. So I don't know if
the clock, if you will, on this Special Use Permit, I guess it would start at the time if this were to
obtain approval, or if it could be some formal notice to the Town could be given that would start
that one year review process, but that's the only concern that I have, really, is that the one year
could be close to being up before I would have good information to report on the operations once
we get going. There's also a period of, even after we have the equipment in place, and it's up and
running, Source America comes and does offer and insist upon actually, for a variety of reasons,that
their staff come and mentor some of my staff and indeed some of the individuals that we'd be
working with for a while to develop a certain comfort level that we know how to handle the
equipment and, you know, we're not going to destroy the place, so to speak. So there is a time
factor involved. Again, this is not something like some of the construction projects that's going to
start tomorrow. That's for sure.
MR. MAGOWAN-Steve, are you going to be going out and picking up the paper, or is it going to be
delivered?
MR. TRAVER-It's probably going to be a combination of both. There are some of the larger
government agencies I'm told actually have subcontracts where paper is delivered, because of the
sheer volume involved. I actually went to the closest Source America secure document destruction
center from our location here in Queensbury. Believe it or not it's in the South Bronx of New York,
and let me tell you,that was quite an experience for me down there. I wish I'd brought my Walther
PPK with me because it was like being in Korea or something, but there they have, on the smaller
scale, on a commercial side, they have small roll offs, not unlike what we use for the garbage
collection that comes, the sort of fiberglass roll offs, although the lids lock, and they have a slot in
the top, and they have them sort of in the back room of an office, and staff will come and just drop
paper in there, and when it's full they pick up the phone and presumably we would go with the
truck and pick up those,with the lock still on them,bring them into the warehouse,into the secured
part of the warehouse, with, again, with the cameras going to show that this bin was not opened
until it was within the secure area, and then it would be dumped on to the sorting table and so on,
so that there would be a chain of custody of this documentation from the office or wherever it came
from right through 'til when it was destroyed and that also is visually videotaped so it's
documented and kept for a certain period of time, if there was ever a question about the
documentation of a given batch.
MR. HUNSINGER-SEFCU bank has one of those bins in the lobby,down in Exit 15.
MR.TRAVER-Okay. Yes,and there are commercial firms that provide that service.
MR. HUNSINGER-Yes.
MR. TRAVER-And, you know, we're not the only ones that would do that. I've noticed, since I've
been involved and thinking about this project, I've seen, there are companies that provide mobile
shredding services where they would actually come to your business and they actually have a
shredding machine inside a big panel truck.
MR. HUNSINGER-Right.
25
(Queensbury Planning Board 05/20/2014)
MR. TRAVER-My understanding is that's quite a bit more expensive to the end user than what
we're talking about, where they just have the paper and we provide the documentation, but really
the, again, it's not going to be, my experience is this is not going to be a revenue generator for the
agency. It's probably going to be a deficit by the time we pay wages and so on, but it really fits well
into our mission of providing employment opportunities. It may be, we certainly are hopeful that
we'll be at least revenue neutral because there are some individuals are eligible for State funding if
their goal is to get a job, we can get funding to help pay for counselors and staff to make sure that
they're prepared for work and helping them deal with any difficulties they might have with their
job performance, that type of thing. There's State funding available and grants available to help
certain individuals to do that.
MR. MAGOWAN-Well, I'm not just thinking of, I think the concept is a great idea, and I know, you
know, I'm a little concerned once you get into the trucks and that,you know,you're going to have to
have a fenced in area. It's going to have to have a gate that opens and closes to allow the trucks in,
but I'm also thinking of the community,like I do it for a local business here,that I load up their files
in my trailer, secure the lock, bring it down to Clifton Park to 3N there and unload and weigh it all
in, get my certificate for destruction, but just local people, knowing that the local people have a
place to go that you'd be able to walk in and weigh your paper and give, you know, have them
collect a fee,you know,so many cents a pound to shred their,you know,my father always asks,hey,
when you're going down,let me know, I've got a couple of files to throw in there,you know.
MR.TRAVER-Yes, understood. Well,to answer your question about the deliveries and the gating of
the trucks and so on, how we have thought about handling that, again, if you look at the diagram,
where I have the circle with the dotted line where I have kind of a blow up, and I think in the packet
somewhere I have a, there's like a floor plan on an eight by ten sheet of paper. I hope it's in here
somewhere. In any case, it's on the large map. You'll notice there that there are three,what appear
to be three, actually four or five, actually, loading docks within that dotted circle, in the enlarged
area. The one to the right is going to remain. That's not part of what will become the secured area.
That's a trailer height conventional loading dock that we receive bulk purchases from. The two that
are in the middle will be contained within the secured document recycling area. So those doors will
be locked. One of them, the one on the left, will be the receiving door. So if a truck has these roll
offs in it that have the padlocks on them, and it pulls up to that door to unload, and you open that
door,those bins are going to go into a secure area. So the truck is never going to be open out in the
parking lot or anywhere outside of the secure area. Likewise, of those two loading docks, the one
on the right would be the one that we envision having an empty trailer parked at, where the then
destroyed paper would be loaded into that trailer until it was full or at capacity and then a third
party would come and haul it away, would come with an empty one and hook up to this one and
haul it away. The loading dock to the extreme left that you see there on the end of the building is
actually going to be removed in our design proposal and put on the other side of the building as a
ground level entrance, just for convenience for the, where you see it says bulk purchasing. We're
also trying to save money by encouraging our residential programs to go through our warehouse to
get consumables rather than going to Price Chopper or Hannaford as an individual household, the
way they are now. We've found that we can save a lot of money buying 100,000 paper plates
instead of a stack of 50 at Wal-Mart or something. So a ground level loading area would be helpful
for that. So that we thought we would move that door and wall that up, and that would be part of
the secure area. So that's how we planned to address the coming and goings, if you will, of the
paper in a secure fashion.
MR. FORD-Steve, could you address security of those trailers that will be receiving the shredded
paper?
MR.TRAVER-The ones that would be going out in the community to pick up the bins?
MR. FORD-No,the ones after the shredding takes place on site.
MR. TRAVER-Okay,yes, they would be parked and their door, so this is paper, then, that would not
require security because it's already been destroyed. In other words, this would be the shredded
paper.
MR. MAGOWAN-The baled paper,yes.
MR. TRAVER-The baled paper. That would, those bales would be loaded in a trailer in that one
door,and at night that trailer door would be closed and that loading door would be closed. So there
would be really no way to access that shredded paper.
26
(Queensbury Planning Board 05/20/2014)
MR. FORD-And the shredded paper is baled,you said?
MR. TRAVER-That is the, that's what they're recommending is that as part of the process that
they've done around the country that's been most successful is you sort the paper,then put it into a
shredding machine, and then the output of the shredding machine goes into sort of an accumulator
that automatically knows when it's full, and then it compresses and automatically wraps the bale
and sort of punches out a cube of securely destroyed paper which is then just recyclable material.
MR. MAGOWAN-Yes, it's like a ton of paper that comes out in a cube. It's amazing how much,
they're huge, but, Steve, I have to say, I don't know. You might have a hard time shutting those
truck doors there with,backed up to the docking,unless you've got an overhead.
MR.TRAVER-Shutting the door to the?
MR. MAGOWAN-The trailer. They usually open them up and then back in. So once you're in and
you have your cushion all the way around, you're set anyway, you know, you're docking bumper's
there and that,and then you have with your loading curtain that you back into.
MR.TRAVER-Yes,that could be a design element of the type of trailer that we would need to use.
MR. MAGOWAN-No, I wouldn't even worry about that. Once it's shredded,it's shredded.
MR. TRAVER-Well, true, but at the same time we don't, you know, we wouldn't want it exposed to
the elements or, you know, I mean, we'd want it secured, but again, I'm going on the, sort of the
design elements that I'm getting from Source America, and they're telling me that this system is
really ideal, so, and they've offered start up support as I said for us, and even contract negotiation
and all the rest of it.
MR. MAGOWAN-Well,you had me at Steve Traver. I think it's a great program, and,you know,like I
said,to get people in and working and I think it's a great opportunity,and like you said,it's a kind of
a simple, it's a simple thing,you know,bottles and the shredding paper. I've been in the,you know,
in the shreddings areas, and like I said, it really is, it's a nice little process but it's simple and it gets
people moving. I think it's a great opportunity for everyone to win on this.
MR.TRAVER-Yes. We're very hopeful that it's going to be, I think if it's done right and I think we're
working toward a plan to implement it that will work well. There are some issues, air handling, for
example, because there's dust that's created and we need to protect people from being exposed to
that. So there's some very specific design elements that we would need to work on to make sure
that this secured area would have the air handling equipment to make sure that it was clean and
healthy and so on. Those are all things that have been dealt with before by this Source America
group as they have developed these programs around the country and we're told that it can be done
and done right. So we're relying upon them to show us the way.
MR. DEEB-You know, Steve, as far as the one year conditional approval, I don't see why we can't go
two years, if it's going to be six to eight months before you get up and running, and that would give
you enough time to make sure everything goes, so in essence it would be a little over a year that
you'd be reviewing.
MR. TRAVER-Sure, yes. Well, I think it's, you know, the suggestion that we report back on our
progress and any issues or changes or whatever is, I can understand that being a recommendation
of Staff. Like I say, my only concern is the timeframe. I mean, I would love to be able to say that I'm
going to order the equipment tomorrow, but unfortunately that's not up to me. I have some more
sales to do before I convince people that this is financially and otherwise a viable project. So, yes,
it's going to take some time,but I'm sure you'll all be hearing about it as we go forward.
MR. HUNSINGER-Other questions,comments from the Board?
MS.WHITE-What are you currently doing in that space? Is it just empty space right now or is there
other things going on there?
MR. TRAVER-I like to think of it as empty space. My maintenance department is very jealously
guarding that space, and one of the battles that I have when I go back to the office is why there's
other places that they can park their lawn maintenance trailer with all of their weed whackers on it
and their lawnmowers and the ability, I mean,they have like 50,000 square feet out there,but they,
you know, it's being encroached upon. We have quite a robust recreational program now. One of
our staff was very interested in developing just residential service, or recreational services for our
27
(Queensbury Planning Board 05/20/2014)
folks. So we gave him a section of the warehouse and he put in a dance floor and he got a band
equipment donated and, you know, foosball tables and a basketball, and it's just every night now
when I leave the office like four or five o'clock,they're banging on the drums and playing music and
shooting hoops in the parking lot and that kind of thing. So the maintenance guys are, you know,
they're getting a little worried because the space is kind of, you know, we've got this bulk
purchasing thing going on in one of the bays and that's,you know, their concern. We know that at
some point we may need a walk-in freezer and a cooler. So then I came and I said well I'd like about
5,000 square feet of your 50,000 for this secure document destruction, and, oh yeah, well where do
you want it and I said, well how about over there, and of course that's where their stuff is. So it's
used, but we have plenty of room. We will need to, we actually even have a space that we're
donating to the Queensbury High School. There's a fenced in area where they store some of their
equipment in the wintertime for their recreation program. Right now I think they have a couple of
lawnmowers in there or something. We just let them store it in there because it's space. It's
secured. The whole building is secured with Mahoney proximity card access, and as I said, for this
project, to meet the requirements for secure document destruction we do have to have 24/7 video
surveillance and we planned on putting better security in. Right now we don't have any video
surveillance of our property, and that's something that we plan on doing anyway, but, yes, I mean,
there are people that will argue that that warehouse is totally being used and every square foot of it
is being used,but I think I can squeak out about 5,000 square feet. I mean, it's 50,000 square feet. I
fly my little battery powered radio control airplane out there every once in a while. There's plenty
of space there to set something like this up I think.
MR. HUNSINGER-Other questions,comments from the Board?
MR. KREBS-Well, just as a potential, I don't know the exact date, but there is a point at which all
medical records are going to have to be stored electronically, and there are a lot of physicians that
today have all those in handwritten documents. So all of those documents are going to have to be
destroyed. So it's another potential for you.
MR. TRAVER-That's a good point, and,you know, in some ways I hesitate to bring it up because it's
not before us tonight, but one of the other projects that I've sort of been thinking about, maybe at
some point down the road if I pull this off, the other, sort of the other shoe of something like this is
to have a program where we would offer digitizing services, and all that would really require is
some PC's and some scanners and some trained consumers to sit there and make sure there aren't
any paperclips and staples and feed the documents in to verify if they're on the computer, and then,
guess what,that paper then would go to the secure document destruction, and that firm would end
up with a digital chip or something that would have their documents on it. So that may smell like
another application coming at some point down the road, but right now I'll be extremely happy if I
can just get this going and convince people that we can employ folks, because we really don't, up
here in the northern part of our territory, in Warren and Washington County, and until February of
last year, we were a separate chapter. We weren't affiliated with Albany County. Now we're
responsible for Albany County services as well, and they actually have a pretty robust community
employment program down there, and we're hoping to learn from them and get something going
up here, and this is kind of a,what I hope to be a first step in doing.
MR. FORD-Steve,thanks for your leadership and your vision.
MR. TRAVER-Thanks, yes. I'm thinking about the name Gone for Good. How does that sound?
Kind of a little double entendre there, Gone for Good. So you may hear that name.
MR. HUNSINGER-Any other questions? We do have a public hearing scheduled this evening. Is
there anyone that wishes to address the Board on this project?
PUBLIC HEARING OPENED
MR. HUNSINGER-No comments. Any written comments?
MRS.MOORE-There are no written comments.
MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. We'll open the public hearing and let the record show no comments were
received. This is an Unlisted action. The applicant submitted a Short Form. Are there any
environmental issues that we need to address that haven't been discussed?
MR. KREBS-No.
MR. FORD-No.
28
(Queensbury Planning Board 05/20/2014)
MR. HUNSINGER-How long has it been since that was used for manufacturing,that building?
MR.TRAVER-It's been a few years.
MR. HUNSINGER-Yes.
MR.TRAVER-I want to say, I think it was For Sale for a couple of years before we bought it.
MR. HUNSINGER-Yes.
MR.TRAVER-Because I know we got a good deal on it.
MR. HUNSINGER-Yes,right.
MR.TRAVER-And I know,it's actually a good piece of property. There's some wetlands on it,but it's
like 30 acres. So,you know,there's some potential there, I suppose. I mean,we certainly don't have
any plans to do anything, development with it. I've thought about, every time, my office sort of
looks, now that I'm in my new office it kind of looks out on the pond that's out there, and I keep
thinking about having some kind of a fundraiser where I'd have sailboat races or something on it,
although I'm told it's very shallow. I haven't really had a chance to look at it, but it seems like that
might be,you know,some version of the rubber duck type thing that I know some non-profits do.
MR. HUNSINGER-I'm sure this is Unlisted because of the change of use.
MRS.MOORE-Because it's larger than 4,000 square feet.
MR. HUNSINGER-Okay.
MRS.MOORE-I did notice that that SEQR resolution is not in your packet. Do you want a copy of it?
MR. HUNSINGER-Mr. Krebs might.
MR. KREBS-Thank you, Laura.
MR. HUNSINGER-Because, I mean, certainly all the proposed uses that you've outlined this evening
are significantly less intense than when that was a manufacturing operation.
MR.TRAVER-Yes, it's really quite, I mean, if any of you would like to take a tour of the office, please
come by. I know, Chris,you've had occasion to be there.
MR. HUNSINGER-Yes, I've been there.
MR.TRAVER-Although I'm not sure if you got the whole cook's tour of the whole place.
MR. HUNSINGER-No, I did.
MR.TRAVER-Did you see the warehouse with the cranes and everything?
MR. HUNSINGER-Yes.
MR.TRAVER-It's really quite impressive. I mean,they were manufacturing machinery for pulp and
paper manufacturing, and they've got these giant electric, in fact, we thought we'd realize some
revenue from it because they left them behind in the building, giant chain hoists electrically
powered, but come to find out we actually had a couple of companies that were interested in them,
but they're so big and they're so part of the infrastructure with the giant beams and tracks and so
on that we're told it would cost more to move them than they're actually worth, but, again, the
maintenance guys love them because they go to work on a lawnmower, they hit a button and they
hoist the whole thing up in the air.
MR. MAGOWAN-Got a 20 ton crane that just lifts up the little lawnmower,right?
MR. TRAVER-Well, they're like chain hoists most of them, yes, and they all have the fickles, you
know, with the electrical, and they move, some of the bigger ones are actually electrically powered
and they travel overhead. It's really quite something. It's a neat facility, but,yes, if any of you have
a chance or whatever, come on over and I'd be glad to show you around and see the place. It's
29
(Queensbury Planning Board 05/20/2014)
pretty neat. We've made a lot of progress with it since we were first there. When, I was actually a
volunteer on the board at the time that we acquired the property and some of the staff are still
walking around with t-shirts that say I Survived, because when the front area where my office is
was being renovated, they all had temporary offices out in the warehouse, and it was not heated
very well and not air conditioned very well, and it was just, you know, it was pretty rugged
conditions. So they had like these survivor t-shirts made up and while all the renovations. Now it's
beautiful, all new carpeting,but I missed that part of it. I just showed up for board meetings.
MR. HUNSINGER-Are you ready for the SEQR resolution?
MRS.MOORE-You have not closed your public hearing yet.
MR. HUNSINGER-I'm sorry. Didn't I? If I didn't,we'll close the public hearing.
PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED
MRS.MOORE-Okay.
MR. KREBS-Okay. We have a SEQR resolution to approve Negative Declaration for New York ARC,
Inc. Warren,Washington and Albany Counties.
RESOLUTION RE: SEQR REVIEW FOR SP# 28-2014 SUP# 36-2014 NYS ARC, INC.
The applicant proposes a Bottle & Can Redemption Center (1,500 sq. ft.) and a Secure Document
Destruction Facility (5,120 sq. ft.) using a portion of the 51,753 sq. ft. warehouse part of the
building. Pursuant to Chapter 179-3-040 & Article 10 of the Zoning Ordinance project activities
require Site Plan Review and Special Permit Review.
The Planning Board has determined that the proposed project and Planning Board action is subject
to review under the State Environmental Quality Review Act;
The proposed action considered by this Board is Unlisted in the Department of Environmental
Conservation Regulations implementing the State Environmental Quality Review Act and the
regulations of the Town of Queensbury;
No Federal or other agencies are involved;
Part 1 of the Short EAF has been completed by the applicant;
Part 2 of the Short EAF has been reviewed by the Planning Board;
Upon review of the information recorded on this EAF, as noted, it is the conclusion of the Town of
Queensbury Planning Board as lead agency that this project will result in no significant adverse
impacts on the environment, and, therefore, an environmental statement need not be prepared.
Accordingly,this negative declaration is issued.
MOTION TO APPROVE A NEGATIVE DECLARATION FOR SITE PLAN NO. 28-2014 & SPECIAL
USE PERMIT NO. 36-2014 NYS ARC, INC. WARREN. WASHINGTON. & ALBANY COUNTIES
CHAPTER, Introduced by Donald Krebs who moved for its adoption,seconded by Thomas Ford:
As per the resolution prepared by Staff.
Duly adopted this 20th day of May, 2014,by the following vote:
AYES: Mr. Ford, Mr. Schonewolf, Mr. Deeb, Mr. Magowan, Mr. Krebs, Ms.White, Mr. Hunsinger
NOES: NONE
MR. HUNSINGER-We didn't talk at all about the waivers requested. Does anyone on the Board have
any issues with any of the waiver requests?
MR. KREBS-No.
MR. MAGOWAN-No.
MS.WHITE-No.
30
(Queensbury Planning Board 05/20/2014)
MR. FORD-No.
MR. HUNSINGER-Okay.
MR.TRAVER-All of the activity is internal to the warehouse.
MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. If there's no other questions or comments, I'll entertain.
MR. KREBS-We had talked about the term.
MR. HUNSINGER-Right,the term of the validity.
MR. KREBS-I think we should say two years renewable. That'll give you plenty of time to get it on
board,get it started,and then report back.
MR.TRAVER-It should. If I can't report progress in two years, I'm probably going to be retired.
MRS. MOORE-So, a renewable of May of 2016, you'll receive information, and do you want a new
submission of information or just a status of where the application is?
MR. KREBS-A status, I think. A report on the status of the project.
MR. MAGOWAN-I don't want to have to go through that whole speel again.
MRS. MOORE-That way it saves the applicant some time and space of what information is
submitted, and so right now I have May 2016. The information is to be shared by correspondence
and that'll be brought to the May agenda for the Special Use Permit item of it. The other item is the
Site Plan which is part of your resolution.
MR. HUNSINGER-All right. Okay. That makes sense. Okay.
RESOLUTION APPROVING SP# 28-2014&SUP# 36-2014 NYS ARC, INC.
A site plan application has been made to the Queensbury Planning Board for the following:
Applicant proposes a Bottle & Can Redemption Center (1,500 sq. ft.) and a Secure Document
Destruction Facility (5,120 sq. ft.) using a portion of the 51,753 sq. ft. warehouse part of the
building. Pursuant to Chapter 179-3-040 & Article 10 of the Zoning Ordinance project activities
require Site Plan Review and Special Permit Review.
A public hearing was advertised and held on 5-20-2014;
This application is supported with all documentation, public comment, and application material in
the file of record;
MOTION TO APPROVE SITE PLAN NO. 28-2014&SPECIAL USE PERMIT NO. 36-2014 NYS ARC,
INC. WARREN, WASHINGTON. ALBANY COUNTIES CHAPTER, 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) The requirements of the State Environmental Quality Review Act have been considered and the
Planning Board has adopted a SEQRA Negative Declaration;
3) Waivers requested: g, h, k, 1, m, n, o, q, r, & s; lighting, signs, topography, landscape plan, land
use district boundaries, traffic flow, floor plans, disposal of construction & demolition waste,
snow removal;
4) Term of validity: and we are establishing a two year renewable term, and the applicant will
report back to us progress in two years.
5) 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.
31
(Queensbury Planning Board 05/20/2014)
6) The applicant must meet with Staff after approval and prior to issuance of Building Permit
and/or the beginning of any site work.
7) Subsequent issuance of further permits, including building permits is dependent on compliance
with this and all other conditions of this resolution
Duly adopted this 20th day of May, 2014,by the following vote:
AYES: Mr. Magowan, Mr. Krebs, Ms.White, Mr. Ford, Mr. Schonewolf, Mr. Deeb, Mr. Hunsinger
NOES: NONE
MR. HUNSINGER-Good luck. You're all set.
MR.TRAVER-Thank you very much.
MR. HUNSINGER-You're welcome.
MR. TRAVER-I'd also like to express my thanks to Laura who was very patient with me as I went
through the, sort of the other side of the desk here and going through the application process. I had
a lot of questions,and she was very,very patient and met with me a couple of times and helped me.
MR. HUNSINGER-I think your experience will probably be invaluable the next time we talk about
the process and the paperwork and everything else.
MR.TRAVER-Yes. I hope so.
MR. HUNSINGER-Yes, I hope you took good notes to share with us all.
MR.TRAVER-They're all right here. Thank you, everyone.
MR. KREBS-You're welcome.
SITE PLAN NO. 33-2014 SEQR TYPE II FRANCIS COCOZZA AGENT(S) JARRETT ENGINEERS
OWNER(S) SAME AS APPLICANT ZONING RR-SA-RURAL RESIDENTIAL LOCATION 47
BUCKBEE ROAD APPLICANT PROPOSES A SINGLE FAMILY DWELLING AND DETACHED
GARAGE ON VACANT LOT. PURSUANT TO CHAPTER 179-6-060 OF THE ZONING ORDINANCE
CONSTRUCTION OF A DRIVEWAY IN EXCESS OF THE 10% MAXIMUM ALLOWABLE SLOPE;
AND FILLING/HARD SURFACING WITHIN 50 FEET OF THE SHORELINE SHALL BE SUBJECT TO
PLANNING BOARD REVIEW AND APPROVAL. CROSS REFERENCE SB 8 & 9 OF 2001 APA,
CEA, OTHER SHORELINE LOT SIZE 12.007 TAX MAP NO. 288.-1-86.14 SECTION 179-3-
040, 179-6-060
BOB HOLMES, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT; FRANK COCOZZA, PRESENT
MR. HUNSINGER-Laura?
MRS. MOORE-Okay. The applicant has completed the site plan application for the construction of
the single family home where site plan is necessary for the development of the driveway that has a
grade of more than 10% and hard surfacing within 50 feet of a shoreline. The Board may consider
the applicant's request for waivers.
MR. HUNSINGER-Good evening.
MR. HOLMES-Good evening. For the record, my name is Bob Holmes. I'm with Jarrett Engineers,
and with me tonight is Frank Cocozza the applicant and owner of the property. As you can see
before you, you should all have plans, I imagine. This is for a single family residence on a 12 acre
lot, plus or minus. It is a for a five bedroom home with a detached garage, onsite septic, well.
Proposed as part of this development is less than one acre of disturbance, and just a note that you
may be aware of not,that there was a maximum disturbance allowance established back in 2001 as
part of a subdivision approval, and that was at 1.25 acres and we are well below that threshold and
it's the intention to stay that way. Part of the triggers that actually provided the means of being
before you tonight was the slope on the driveway which we're exceeding over a small portion, the
10% requirement for Site Plan Review. Our maximum slope on the driveway is 11%, and with us
32
(Queensbury Planning Board 05/20/2014)
proposing a stream crossing it's we have a hard surface within the 50 foot setback of the stream
that crosses the property. That's really the short and the sweet of what we've got going on.
MR. HUNSINGER-Anything else you wanted to add?
MR. HOLMES-I don't know,are there questions, I guess,we can certainly address.
MR. HUNSINGER-We'll find out.
MR. HOLMES-Yes, I guess we will find out.
MR. HUNSINGER-Questions,comments from the Board?
MR. KREBS-I went up and looked at the road. Is it on the left hand side? Okay.
MR. HOLMES-Correct.
MR. KREBS-We're almost at the beginning of the road,yes.
MR. HOLMES-Correct. There is a corner piece of property that's on the corner of Buckbee and
Gurney Lane. This sets back up the road.
MR. KREBS-Yes. Okay. Because for the longest time I couldn't figure out where the shoreline was
but it's the brook that runs along next to the road.
MR. HOLMES-Correct.
MR. KREBS-Okay.
MR. HUNSINGER-Can you talk about the stream crossing, how you sized the culvert and how you
designed it?
MR. HOLMES-How we have sized the culvert is on the plans before you we've sized it for an arch
culvert. There is a stream crossing permit which we have obtained from the DEC and we are
expecting a pending signoff from the Army Corps of Engineers for the stream crossing. We are
required to be 125%, let me back up. The span of the culvert or the bridge crossing that we have is
required to be 125% of the stream banks, from bank to bank of the stream. That way it allows us to
not create any disturbance within the stream channel itself or the embankments of the stream. So
we are going to be spanning that distance, and obviously to access the property one of the first
things to go in is obviously the curb cut, and then to install the stream crossing so we can access the
proposed area of development.
MR. HUNSINGER-So that'll need to be a fairly significant arch in order to carry the trucks and
cement trucks and things like that that will need to go up there.
MR. HOLMES-What we propose right now is a span of approximately 11 feet. That meets the
requirements that we have footing, we have what's referred to as footing plates under the arch
culvert so it won't sink into the soil around it and that falls outside, each footing plate,which we do
have on the plans, I think it's on D-1 if you wish to refer to it,that we can maintain a natural stream
corridor,and that's basically the requirement of the DEC and the Army Corps of Engineers.
MR. HUNSINGER-And how do you determine the length of the culvert?
MR. HOLMES-The length of the culver that we have is based on that we have, you know,
approximately a 10 to 12 foot wide driveway, and then we're going to have, where we do have fill
going over with the culvert, we have a three on one slope going off to the sides. So that width is
how we've come up with an approximate length of about 45 feet. That being said, the concern of
my client was going to be cost, that we potentially are looking at an alternative of just putting in
steel eye beam bridge that crosses over the stream instead. That's being evaluated purely on the
financial aspect, and other than that, there's really no change, other than substituting a bridge for
an arch culvert,there's no change to site plan.
MR. FORD-What efforts were made to address the slope to the point where you would not have to
require 11%?
MR. HOLMES-I'm sorry?
33
(Queensbury Planning Board 05/20/2014)
MR. FORD-What efforts were made? Did you consider a reconfiguration of it so you would not be
required to reach 11%?
MR. HOLMES-You mean get below 11% or get below the threshold of the 10%. In an effort to meet
the requirements where we stayed, development remains on a slope of 15% or less,we're required
to be in the area on the property which is kind of that lower southeastern corner, kind of towards
the center. That's where we've identified an area that's applicable to constructing a home, a
detached garage, and a wastewater system that falls on slopes that are less than 15%. So in order
to access that area, we did have to exceed the driveway slope or I guess the trigger for site plan
review on the part of the driveway of 10% in which we are proposing over a section of being 11%
instead of 10%. Did that answer your question?
MR. FORD-It didn't really because you haven't addressed the efforts that were made to keep it at 10
or below.
MR. HOLMES-In order to reach the elevation in which the site is to be developed, meaning the
home, the detached garage, we can't exactly meet the 10%, that 10% trigger or below without
establishing a greater amount of disturbance to the property, meaning we would have a much
longer driveway which we would have to serpentine to access that area.
MR. FORD-Was that addressed,was that effort made,and did you look at that possibility?
MR. HOLMES-When we looked at that, or when I looked at that, it was in the case that we would be
exceeding, or potentially exceeding that 1.25 acre threshold for disturbance of the property, and
incorporating stormwater mitigation measures, we feel that we can appropriately address an 11%
slope on that section of the driveway.
MR. FORD-And approximately what percentage of the driveway would, the length of it again, and
what percentage of it would be 11%as opposed to 10 or under?
MR. HOLMES-Well, let me pull that up for you. The overall length of the driveway to the garage
itself is just about 500 feet, and if you want to take a look at what we refer to as driveway profile 3 A
on Drawing D-1, we do show a slope starting, an 11% slope that starts at about Station 200 to 250,
and maintains that 11% slope just shy of the deck landing area in front of the garage. It allows my
client to turn around his car or back into the garage.
MR. FORD-That's approximately how long?
MR. HOLMES-That distance would be approximately 200 feet, 200 feet and change.
MR. FORD-So 40%of the driveway is 11%?
MR. HOLMES-Correct.
MR. SCHONEWOLF-What did you say, 10 feet wide?
MR. HOLMES-We show a 10 foot wide proposed gravel drive,yes.
MR. SCHONEWOLF-And there's a turnaround space up there,too.
MR. HOLMES-That would be the deck landing area right in front of the garage.
MR. HUNSINGER-This kind of relates to the same questions. On Drawing C-1, there's reference in
the northwest corner of that 30 foot wide driveway easement.
MR. HOLMES-The driveway easement?
MR. HUNSINGER-Yes.
MR. HOLMES-In 2001, as part of the subdivision approval and actually was a variance approval, a
driveway access point was granted on the neighboring property to the north, in which at that time
an argument was made that if they can stay out of the stream corridor, there would be less
environmental impact. In the residential development area, meaning where the, at the time of the
subdivision approval in 2001 where the proposed developing a house, driveway or garage and
wastewater system in that area,they were looking at installing an 800 foot plus driveway, and from
34
(Queensbury Planning Board 05/20/2014)
my point of view, as far as the engineering and making sure that we can secure and protect the
stream, a much shorter driveway with a stream crossing can minimize or address any kind of
adverse impacts to the environment by providing stormwater mitigation.
MR. HUNSINGER-So you're saying that the proposed plan is superior to the previously proposed
plan?
MR. HOLMES-Is it superior? I'm going to say it's equivalent,but we are providing much, it would be
much less disturbance over a shorter driveway length than over a much greater driveway length.
MR. HUNSINGER-And how about just the general topography of the site? Is the house site selected
here the best location as well?
MR. HOLMES-I mean, it really could be one or the other. This really was the preference of my client
to be located here, and we did have sufficient slopes identified by the mapping that met the criteria
for development on the property.
MR. COCOZZA-We have five very large children and loud children. So being away from the
neighbors is good.
MR. HUNSINGER-Any other questions from Board members? I feel like I'm the only one asking
questions. I mean, the other questions I had relate to the stormwater management of the driveway
and the site itself,if you could comment on that.
MR. HOLMES-Sure. Obviously this has been submitted to the Town Engineer for review, which we
did receive, I believe it was six comments back. Many of them, I believe, are, we can easily address.
I did come up,if you want to go through those comments,we certainly can,if that's your preference.
MR. HUNSINGER-Yes.
MR. FORD-Yes,please do.
MR. HOLMES-The first, I guess the first question, which they actually labeled as number two, was
the separation distance from a proposed infiltration basin to a water well supply. It needs to be 100
foot in accordance to Appendix 513 of the New York State DOH requirements. A caveat to that is
when I referenced back to Appendix 513 myself,that that 100 foot setback to an infiltration device is
from, only from an infiltration device that has a hard surface runoff from a driveway, sidewalks,
something of that nature, not roof runoff. We do have eaves trenches for the house and the
requirements for an eaves trench coming from a clean surface, if you wish to refer to it that way, is
only a minimum requirement of 50 feet, which we can exceed that, or which we can meet that. I
will say this, as we do have it drawn right now,the Town Engineer did correctly identify that we do
have a couple of basins that are within that 100 foot setback from the well. We will relocate those
to make sure we can meet or exceed that 100 foot setback. Now, as a caveat to that, before I start
talking too much engineering for you, I do that all day long, is when we mottled the stormwater
runoff from the property from a pre-existing condition, meaning what it is presently now, versus
the proposed development, that we're meeting the stormwater mitigation requirements because
we are creating a great flow length or flow path for the stormwater to flow over the property, and
that's what we refer to as the time of concentration for the stormwater runoff. So we can actually
meet the requirements of the Town stormwater mitigation requirements without the check dams
being located along the driveway, or as what the Town Engineer refers to as an infiltration basin.
We can re-locate those to achieve the 100 foot setback to the well, but we are going to continue to
provide check dams along the length of the driveway and the swales on either side because that will
help slow down the stormwater and make it less prone to erosive forces from a high velocity runoff.
MR. FORD-So you're going to actually decrease stormwater runoff as a result of this project?
MR. HOLMES-Correct. Well, let's caveat that. It will decrease the flow rate. The flow volume is
mitigated as part of our infiltration basin. So the rate is reduced.
MR. HUNSINGER-Okay.
MR. HOLMES-Did that cause more questions?
MR. HUNSINGER-I thought you were going to go on to the next.
35
(Queensbury Planning Board 05/20/2014)
MR. HOLMES-I'm sorry, you're correct. Maintenance provisions for stormwater management
facilities on the plans per the maintenance agreement. As part of the package, we do have the
maintenance agreement. What we will be doing is pulling those conditions off and placing those on
the final set of plans. Stormwater delineation to be re-visited. Proposed sub-catchments divided at
a low point of the road. We have gone back and taken a closer look at how we divided up the sub
catchments on the property. We will be making some modest adjustments to address the
comments from the Town Engineer, and we did have one error on my part that we did show, and
the Town Engineer correctly showed, that we had a reverse crown on the driveway, so meaning it
was going to channel flow to the center of the driveway. That's just a matter of re-adjusting the
contour lines to show a crown, basically a crowned road in the center so we can get water,
stormwater to shed off the road. Next comment. Site Plan drawings have been revised to remedy
the, wait a minute, I'm sorry, wrong comment. Applicant is proposing vegetated swales on either
side of the proposed driveway. A portion of these swales have steep slopes such as it appears
additional stabilization measures may be warranted. I'm not sure I fully agree with the Town
Engineers on that,but this one, in an effort to provide additional stabilization means,we will adjust
the plans to include some erosion control matting in those areas as the Town Engineer has
identified for those slopes that do exceed the six percent.
MR. HUNSINGER-So the swales themselves would be grass?
MR. HOLMES-Vegetated,correct.
MR. HUNSINGER-Okay.
MR. HOLMES-But in an effort to mitigate erosive forces in the swale, making sure that if we just had
grass, there's a concern on the part of the Town Engineer that we could cause soil erosion in those
areas. So if we add a geo netting or a matting to the invert of the swales, we can additionally
mitigate that concern, and then, actually six kind of goes back to the whole discussion we had with
regards to the check dams. There was concern that they were not clearly indicated on the plans.
We will make efforts to clarify that so it's a little more straightforward. Then the soil testing, due to
the winter conditions when we did complete the design,was not complete at that point because we
had deep snow and frozen ground conditions. The intent is once we have access to the site,that the
soil testing requirements that the Town has will take place and we will advise the Town Staff,
Planning Staff,when that occurs.
MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. Is there anything else you wanted to add about the engineering comments?
MR. HOLMES-Other than the fact, I don't see any significant hurdles than what's been proposed by
the comments, I believe we can quickly resolve these and we can have revised plans to go back to
the Town Engineer to complete their review.
MR. HUNSINGER-Okay.
MR. KREBS-And the proposed resolution has engineering signoff required prior to signature of
Zoning Administrator of the approved plans. So it will have to be.
MR. HUNSINGER-Sure.
MR. HOLMES-And it's certainly not an uncommon condition for the Board.
MR. KREBS-Right.
MR. HUNSINGER-Any other questions or comments from the Board? Well, if there are no questions
from the Board, we do have a public hearing scheduled this evening. I imagine some of the people
that remained here were here to provide comments. Just to reiterate, the purpose of the public
hearing is for members of the audience and neighbors to provide comment to the Board. I would
ask that you identify yourself for the record before you start. Good evening.
PUBLIC HEARING OPENED
TANYA BRUNO
MRS. BRUNO-Good evening. Tanya Bruno. My husband and I reside on Gurney Lane, and we also
own the property which is the corner of Gurney Lane and Buckbee, and it is adjacent to the
applicant's property. Were many of you able to see that area? I know, Don, that you said that you
had gone up, but was anyone else able to take a look at the property and get familiar? Okay. Good.
36
(Queensbury Planning Board 05/20/2014)
There was only one thing I was really going to speak about tonight, but just in response to a couple
of things that the applicant's engineer had brought forward, I just wanted to address those couple
of things. The first was,well,we've been living there for about 17 years or so, and we have seen the
area go from, well, the street, the road going from a dirt road to being paved maybe 17 or so years
ago, shortly after we moved in. We purchased our corner lot from Hunt Lake Land Holdings. When
he subdivided all up and down through there we got to know him quite well, and the area at the top
of Mr. Cocozza's property that he spoke about that his engineer spoke about that was more flat that
had been planned to be more of the entrance, and he mentioned the 800 foot driveway. I'm not
sure,that wasn't from the original subdivision. It was left open that that was the best way to access
the property. The 800 foot distance that he's referring to I'm supposing might have come from
property owners that came after that, but that is certainly the best area to enter the property. It
would only require a small culvert. If you go in there, it's just as nice a building area. It might even
be more so because it's been partially logged when Mr. Hunt was in there originally. So that, if
you're looking for procedural to do what's best for the current project, really that whole piece of
property is best accessed in that area. Right across the street from that area is where the stream
that you saw on his property cuts across underneath the road. It's somewhere right in that area,
could be right up a little bit where Mark Cronin's house is, but the stream comes across and then
runs down Buckbee along Mr. Cocozza's property and then onto ours and then it kind of snakes
back and goes behind our house. It's actually the southern, or eastern property line to that piece of
property for us. If you look from Buckbee down into his property, the drawings are, don't look like
what you see. I tend to believe very much in design and what you see on plans, and it's very
quantitative, but it's really quite a steep drop, and what they were saying in terms of a bridge I
could actually see much more readily happening because I don't know how you're going to get
down there and put a culvert in. I know they've engineered it out,but if you just look,there's going
to be a lot of wash out. Speaking about the road being paved a number of years ago, prior to that
the stream was quite clear. We moved into the house and behind our house it was deep, the kids,
dogs played in it. It's a Class One trout stream as I'm sure you know from reading the information.
After the property, the road was paved, we started seeing a lot of silt coming down what we
assumed was off the road and into the stream. It's filled up to such a degree that we don't see the
fish anymore. There's only about this much water, a couple of feet of water behind our house and
the rest is just, if you go in you sink. It goes all the way down to the Pogonowski's house in Old
West Mountain Road. They've had to go to DEC to clear out their pond because of this road silt.
Now it's not just an anecdotal evidence that I'm talking about. In 2002, which is a year after the
Hunt Lake subdivision drainage report was put into the Town, I worked with Dave Wick and Jim
Leibrum from the Warren County Soil and Water. Dave Wick was the District Manager at the time.
Jim Leibrum was the Water Resource Specialist. I also worked with Bill Lupo who is an engineer
from ENCON, the division of water, and Mike Travis from Queensbury Highway. What we worked
on was the best that we could do, as Jim Leibrum had described, the runoff currently runs on that
side of the road, and the velocity of the runoff pushes the smaller stone and soil down to the stream.
He describes a catch basin and installation of an outlet structure towards the bottom of the ditch,
now this is the corner of Gurney and Buckbee which is our property, would need to be done to
allow the water to infiltrate into the ground and also flow overland through the woods to dissipate
velocity and drop out sediment. Now where that is describing does not drop off, it just slopes away
from the road towards the stream. I'm bringing this forward because if there is a 10, 11% or
whatever grade at that area which is about halfway down the road, regardless of if you have
infiltration areas down at the bottom,you're still going to have an extreme amount of velocity of all
of these sediments coming down, and I really put forward to you that, looking at this application,
that you encourage the applicant to look, once again, at the piece of property, and look again, and
I'm not sure, we were discussing over the dinner table whether this was perhaps looking into the
future for maybe a subdivision because it would fit. Five and five definitely fits into twelve. If that's
the case, I would also encourage you to have the applicant maybe go forward with the subdivision
first, so that that can be taken care of, but if it's just this application, again, there's a much better,
much better manner of doing this.
MR. HUNSINGER-I have a question for you, because a comment that you made seems
counterintuitive to me.
MRS. BRUNO-Okay.
MR. HUNSINGER-The turbidity in the stream got worse after the road was paved.
MRS. BRUNO-Right. Because the runoff would happen more quickly.
MR. HUNSINGER-Okay.
37
(Queensbury Planning Board 05/20/2014)
MRS. BRUNO-Water that would have, you know, if it was raining or whatever, it would have
infiltrated into the dirt road rather than just immediately running off.
MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. That makes sense,then.
MR. KREBS-Plus the fact that once you pave the road,then you put sand and salt on the road.
MRS. BRUNO-Exactly.
MR. SCHONEWOLF-Come up to the lake, I'll show you.
MRS. BRUNO-I know.
MR. HUNSINGER-So you solve one problem and create another. Yes, as we often do.
MRS. BRUNO-Actually the road was fine. I don't know if it was a problem or not,you know, it was a
nice country dirt road and, but that's what happened, and then we dealt with what we could
because that was what we saw coming off, you can kind of go down there and see. We ended up
getting drawings from, I think it was from the Warren County Soil and Water, and they did come in
and they did a catch basin and lined it and it does catch some, but again, I mean, that's going down
the road, and as you hit that corner, the stream is right there at the corner, but it's also following
along the road. So anything that's on the road really has the opportunity, and does, go right off
down that little slope, and that's exactly how Mr. Cocozza's property is, except we were just looking
this evening from the road, and it feels like a 30 foot drop, you know. It's quite hilly out there. So
again, I'd just encourage you to have him take a look and reconsider his application. Thank you.
MR. HUNSINGER-Thank you. Anyone else?
GRETCHEN STEFFAN
MRS. STEFFAN-Greetings. It's good to see everybody again. I'm Gretchen Steffan, 73 Buckbee Road
in Queensbury. I didn't look at the plans before I came tonight,but my house is a few lots up in the
subdivision. It's the pie shaped lot on the top of the hill. That hill's pretty wet. Just when they do
the peres they're going to find that things just don't perc as well as you might think. My only
concern is to make sure that the driveway, this is a very long driveway. My driveway's about 430
feet. It can be an adventure in the wintertime, but this is a much longer driveway, and different
than the original subdivision that was approved, the original subdivision, and there was a
disturbance limit of around an acre, and one of the reasons why the driveway was proposed to go in
where Mark Cronin is and then down the hill was just because of the stream crossing, and so it's up
to the Planning Board of whether this driveway is sufficiently designed and the engineers to be able
to cross over the stream appropriately. I certainly do understand that minimizing the disturbance,
if they put a driveway in where it was originally proposed, they would have to cut through the
property and down the hill to the site that they've selected for the house, and so they would have to
take the 12 foot length of the driveway,width of the driveway actually, and then obviously, in order
to put the driveway in, they would also be taking the swale area as well as some other trees down,
and so that would exceed the limits in the original subdivision, but it would also change the
character, I think, of the property and the view from the road, certainly it would be very thin and
very sparse in order to get down that hill to the site that they've selected, and so, you know, the
neighborhood character, when I heard the metal bridge, I wasn't excited about that, and so, you
know, the culvert sounded like a much better option, but the slope will be very exciting, but that
will be something that,you know, my neighbor will have to deal with after they build the site, but I
just wanted you to consider that,to make sure all the stormwater controls are in place, and to make
sure that there would be no further subdivision. I mean,this lot has been sold three times, and it is
a problematic lot because of the slopes and once you take out all of the slopes, there's not a lot of
buildable area on that particular lot, and so there are a lot of site limitations. The path that they've
taken from the driveway to the road is, you know, there is quite a, you know, quite a ditch there,
and so I'm just assuming that Jarrett-Martin Engineers has done a great job designing the driveway.
So,you know, I have great faith in that plan.
MR. FORD-Gretchen, I have a couple of questions. What is the slope of your drive?
MRS. STEFFAN-I don't remember, to be honest with you, but it is, there's a pretty significant slope
on my driveway.
MR. FORD-I remember that.
38
(Queensbury Planning Board 05/20/2014)
MRS. STEFFAN-And as a matter of fact, after we moved in, and we bought the property 12 years
ago. So we've been there 11 years, we took out a loan after we, because we had an Item Four
driveway, and we spent $30,000 getting it blacktopped and then we had a French drain put along
for drainage to make sure that the draining was sufficient. After we moved in, the Town did pave
the road. It was kind of interesting, because they didn't prepare the road. They just had extra
blacktop and blacktopped it. So the road, Buckbee Road is not paved what I would call
appropriately, and so it, you know, gets thrown up once in a while and they have to fix it and that
kind of stuff. So, as Tanya talked about,you know, there is a tremendous amount of sediment that
comes off that road now,but that's not the new neighbor's issue. That's just kind of a symptom of a
greater problem.
MR. SCHONEWOLF-Is Don going to give a speech about water problems?
MR. HUNSINGER-I don't know.
MRS. STEFFAN-So that's all I wanted to say. Just no further subdivision, I would appreciate that,
and then just making sure that the stormwater controls are in place on that long driveway, and I
would not be in favor of the metal bridge,but obviously it's not my project,but that's my opinion.
MR. KREBS-But, you know, there is some advantage to the metal bridge which allows more flow
than just through a culvert. When you have a lot flow, the culvert can be filled or sediment can
accumulate in the culvert and then you have a backup and then you have a different flow. So, I don't
know,sometimes I think bridges allow for a better natural flow of the water.
MRS. STEFFAN-You know, I think it's just one of those situations, this was a subdivision that was
approved a long time ago, and so the intent of the Planning Board at that time is very different than,
you know, the conditions that exist in 2014, and so, you know, just kind of weigh and consider it,
and it is a rural neighborhood. It's Rural Residential Five so, you know, everybody kind of does
their own thing there. So as long as it kind of stays rural, I think everybody could be okay.
MR. KREBS-Except I notice that Grove Associates is responsible for taking care of the trash pick up.
MRS. STEFFAN-You can't believe what I pick up off that road. So,thank you for your consideration.
MR. HUNSINGER-Thank you. Anyone else? Any written comments, Laura?
MRS.MOORE-No, I do not have any written comments.
MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. If you want to come back to the table. There were at least a couple of
comments about,related to the location of the house. I don't know if you have anything you want to
add in response.
MR. HOLMES-Sure. I mean, we can cover that. Mrs. Bruno I think certainly correctly pointed out
there are two potential sites for development. The first site that was developed or identified in the
original subdivision plan, normally when you see at the time of subdivision, it's a theoretical
development which you can identify on a piece of property that allows you, as a Planning Board
member,to say,yes,this property is buildable. It was that area at the west end of the property that
was identified in 2001 that was chosen by Mr. Barber and Mr. Hutchins who developed the plan at
that time, identified that location. We're looking at this point, obviously, to say we do have another
viable location for the development of a house, and obviously moving it down the hill,the means by
reducing area of disturbance is putting in a stream crossing and, Mr. Krebs,you identified the issue
with regards to a culvert versus a bridge, that if you have a higher, a similar width and a higher
elevation which the bridge deck is placed,yes,you can get more flow through there. In the instance
of the culvert that we've designed here, in order to make it meet the requirements of the DEC and
the Army Corps of Engineers that we do not disturb the stream channel,this thing's oversized to the
point that it can handle a 100 year storm. As a point of context, the culvert going underneath
Buckbee Road is 18 inches in diameter, well undersized for what it really should be, and it's
unfortunate, and I'll admit I do not know the history such as the neighbors do of the road, the
appearance to me is when they improved the road, we'll put that in quotes, because I think that
certainly could be.
MR. HUNSINGER-When they paved it.
MR. HOLMES-When they paved the road, there you go, that they found the shortest section of
culvert possible, which goes virtually perpendicular to the road, perpendicular to the route of the
road. The stream channel does not run perpendicular to the road. The stream channel runs at a
39
(Queensbury Planning Board 05/20/2014)
much askew. So that's where much of that comes from. Mrs. Bruno expressed concerns about the
11% slope on the driveway being subject to washout. That's where we are looking to, we would
mitigate that with a thickly vegetated swale, and also the incorporation of the check dams which we
put in there which we can slow that velocity to the point that it does not cause erosive forces. Now
as you are well aware, as part of any stormwater mitigation plan, there is further maintenance
going into the future that periodically this stuff will have to be cleaned out if there's sediment build
up or if erosion does occur in some locations, grass seeding will need to occur again to re-vegetate
that to prevent erosion. That's part of the maintenance in which Mr. Cocozza will be contending
with as a property owner. I'm trying to think. Yes, that was the point that we talked about the
metal bridge.
MR. KREBS-And if he doesn't maintain it,he'll have a very difficult time getting to his house.
MR. HOLMES-Exactly, and plus he would probably get a visit from Mr. Frank. So, the discussion on
the bridge, I mean,was it the culvert versus what was described as a metal bridge. It would be steel
girders that would carry a bridge, but it would be a wooden timbered decking that would go on it.
That's what the appearance would be. Hopefully that would make it certainly a little more visually
pleasing having a wooden deck on it.
MR. FORD-One of the descriptions was the increase already in silt in the stream. Please convince us
that you're not going to make that worse and not better.
MR. HOLMES-Much of the silt that was identified by the neighbors I certainly would concur is likely
as a result of runoff that does come from Buckbee Road itself, and placing the culvert or the stream
crossing, however form that takes, onto the property, again, we will not be disturbing the stream
channel itself, and any fill that's associative with the development of that stream crossing would
definitely need to be stabilized to make sure we've got vegetation growing on it,we have a durable
road base that's not subject to erosive forces, and the combination of the vegetation and a durable
driving surface,we believe we can certainly mitigate those concerns.
MR. KREBS-Plus the fact I would think that there must be some runoff coming off the opposite side
of the road. When you look at the incline of the road and then the incline going up the hill,there's a
lot of runoff coming down onto the road from the property.
MR. HOLMES-There are minimal ditch lines along Buckbee Road itself. In some places along
Buckbee Road they're much better than they are in other locations. Also the construction of
Buckbee Road, there's very little crown in the road. So some of it sheds onto Mr. Cocozza's
property. Some of it sheds to the north depending on where you are on the property.
MR. SCHONEWOLF-That's a Town road,right?
MR. HOLMES-Correct.
MR. SCHONEWOLF-So,you know, it's directly proportional to how you clean out those ditches, and
what the crown on the road, how it flows off the road, how fast it is, as to what it's going to do.
That's why you can't have pavement down there because it rips it up. It does the same thing on Bay
Road. They're out there now cleaning out the ditch. They don't put a metal pipe in, it'll fill right
back up. The water will be out in the road and the blacktop goes away. That's a Town problem.
MR. HOLMES-I concur.
MR. FORD-What's the potential for further subdivision?
MR. COCOZZA-There's no potential for further subdivision.
MR. FORD-Why?
MR. COCOZZA-I have no desire to. My wife and I have five children. This is our house. We have no
desire to subdivide the property. The location is sheerly, I did consider heavily the current
approved site, and in consultation with my neighbor, my direct immediate neighbor Mark Cronin,
we both sat actually on two logs right at the site of the house, and there's his house right there. So
we considered, I considered heavily the different site, the second lot on the site, because of the
proximity of the current site to his home,which,honestly owning 12 acres, I have no desire to have
a home next mine,especially with such a large family.
MR. MAGOWAN-Noisy loud family.
40
(Queensbury Planning Board 05/20/2014)
MR. COCOZZA-The Cocozza's are noisy, loud. So it was heavily considered, and I certainly did not
need to go down this road and hire an engineer. The site was already approved,hiring an engineer,
getting quotes on excavation for a culvert and a bridge, and this has been a long, arduous process
that I had hoped to start quite a while ago because my current home is under contract, and I'd
rather not be homeless with five kids, and we haven't even put a shovel in the ground. So I heavily
considered it, I certainly did. It would have been the easiest procedural thing to do, but not in the
best interest of my family, and also my immediate neighbor, Mr. Cronin, and he was planning on
coming tonight, but with all due respect he saw that I was last on the agenda, and he gave me
permission to say that he is 100% in favor of my current plan, and Mark Cronin is Number 45
Buckbee.
MR. FORD-Do we have that in writing, Laura?
MRS.MOORE-I do not have that in writing.
MR. HUNSINGER-Any other questions or comments from the Board?
MR.TRAVER-Why don't we put a no further subdivision clause in there,in our resolution.
MR. HUNSINGER-Sure. Did I ask you if there are any written comments?
MRS.MOORE-You did ask. There are no written comments.
MR. HUNSINGER-Okay,okay. Is the Board comfortable with the project to move forward?
MR. KREBS-I just have one question. They ask for waivers for proposed signs.
MRS. MOORE-Because it falls under Site Plan application, and the one I've seen consistently in the
Board, if it's identified on that worksheet and if it's not,you need to ask for a waiver from it versus
just saying it's not applicable.
MR. KREBS-Okay.
MR. HOLMES-Laura said complete the form. So we addressed that for Staff.
MR. KREBS-I just wondered what kind of sign.
MR. COCOZZA-Where we live you mean?
MR. MAGOWAN-I think the sign would say test your brakes. That's what the sign would say.
MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. If the Board's comfortable moving forward, I will close the public hearing,
and this is a Type II SEQR.
PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED
MR. HUNSINGER-I always find the SEQR process interesting, because, you know, a couple of
projects ago where there was literally no change to the project site and we had to go through a Long
Form,and this one which has the potential for more,yes,it's a Type II.
MRS. MOORE-Well,but it backs up to that, it's for a residential development,which under SEQR is a
Type II,no matter what it is.
MR. HUNSINGER-No, I understand, I understand. It's one of those ironies of the law,you know. So
no SEQR review, no further SEQR review is necessary. With that, unless there's any other questions
or comments from the Board, I'll entertain a motion. I'm sorry,excuse me.
MS. BRUNO-I'm sorry, the engineer's notes have not been addressed. He's asking for revisions to
the Town Engineer's comments.
MR. KREBS-Yes, in the resolution, Tanya, the third item is engineering signoff required prior to
signature of Zoning Administrator of the approved plans. So they will have to meet the engineer's
requirements.
MR. HUNSINGER-Yes. You're welcome. Go ahead.
41
(Queensbury Planning Board 05/20/2014)
MR. HOLMES-I was going to say, my client does have one little bit of pause. Mr.Traver,you made a
comment of making it a condition of no further subdivision.
MR.TRAVER-Correct.
MR. HOLMES-It is, obviously, the intention of Mr. Cocozza not to further subdivide, but as the
property's transferred forward, I guess he has concerns as to what that would do as far as
marketing for the future.
MR. SCHONEWOLF-They'd have to come through here.
MR. HOLMES-They would have to come back.
MR. HUNSINGER-Yes.
MR. HOLMES-I mean, it would be a, not only, we would be back, or we, someone would be back to
not only be granted a subdivision approval, but that would also, but that potentially could be
contrary to any approval you would grant in this action. You see that as problematic, that's the
question.
MR. HUNSINGER-I'm sorry?
MR. HOLMES-If a condition that no further subdivision on the property occur, is the door shut, the
door technically, I guess, or would the door be totally shut from a further subdivision? There's
obviously a concern that's been expressed that they would not wish to see a further subdivision,but
it's definitely not the intention of my client to subdivide.
MR. SCHONEWOLF-That's not something we can control. If somebody else applies, they apply, but
they've got to come through here. We're just talking about what's in front of us.
MR. HOLMES-Correct. Mr.Traver asked for a condition to be placed on the resolution.
MR. HUNSINGER-Yes, we're just reflecting on the comment and the intent that the applicant made,
that there was no interest in further subdividing the property. Any future subdivision would be
subject to subdivision review and approval and site plan review.
MR. HOLMES-Correct. Okay. We're on the same page.
MR. COCOZZA-So it's not a condition. It's just a.
MR. HOLMES-Well, it comes down to the terminology, is it a condition or is that noted in the
resolution?
MR. HUNSINGER-We're not a judicial body.
MR. HOLMES-I understand. I understand.
MR. HUNSINGER-That's what it comes down to.
MR. HOLMES-Correct.
MR. HUNSINGER-Yes. I think, I mean, personally I think it's worth putting in. Mr.Traver suggested
we put it in.
MR. KREBS-Okay.
MR. HUNSINGER-It does reflect the intent of the applicant. It does reflect the concern of the Board
and the public.
MR. KREBS-It would not necessarily prevent subdivision if they came before the Board again in the
future.
MR. HOLMES-It would be a future property owner.
MR. HUNSINGER-Right.
42
(Queensbury Planning Board 05/20/2014)
MR. KREBS-Okay.
MR. COCOZZA-Is there an answer to that question?
MR. MAGOWAN-You don't look convinced yet.
MR. COCOZZA-I don't because you didn't answer that.
MR. SCHONEWOLF-I don't think we should put it in.
MR. HUNSINGER-We, as a Board, always felt that if we put that condition in that it was binding,but
we have had one overturned by the court where we had to re-consider and then the subdivision
was granted, and that's why I said we're not a judicial body. We can't bind the property forever.
We can make it a condition of approval, but that's really all it is, which is why I said,you know, and
your engineer nodded his head, any proposal to subdivide would require, you know, subdivision
review and approval and site plan review and approval.
MR. KREBS-And that's similar to the situation, you could buy 100 acres and it could be zoned one
acre and the zoning changes to three acres, okay, you just can't, now you cannot have one acre lots
on it.
MR. HOLMES-Correct.
MR. HUNSINGER-Without a variance.
MR. KREBS-Without a variance.
MR. COCOZZA-Again, you're losing me a little in terms of the, in the deed it specifically states a
minimum acreage for a subdivision. You're talking about something much different than that.
MR. HUNSINGER-We're talking about a conditional approval of your site plan.
MR. SCHONEWOLF-Use it as an example.
MR. COCOZZA-Right. So I'm not sure how that plays into the stream crossing and the 10% slope
and the 50 feet within the shoreline. I don't understand how putting a provision that no further
subdivision.
MR. HUNSINGER-Well,it's all part of your site plan.
MR. DEEB-Do we really need to put it in?
MR. SCHONEWOLF-No.
MR. DEEB-I don't see where we need to put it in. That's not what they're here for. It has nothing to
do with it. It's not our purview.
MR. SCHONEWOLF-That's true.
MR. DEEB-I have a problem putting that in there.
MR. KREBS-And actually once the site plan is approved, there won't be any change to the site plan
unless they come back before the Board.
MR. HOLMES-Correct,or if there's a subdivision it would require subdivision approval.
MR. KREBS-Exactly.
MR. DEEB-I think we're doing a disservice by putting it in there.
MR. KREBS-Yes,okay.
MR. HUNSINGER-Anyone else want to comment on that?
43
(Queensbury Planning Board 05/20/2014)
MR. TRAVER-I think that the, if nothing else that function that that provision would serve is it
would give us an extra, should a subdivision application come before us on this piece of property, it
would reflect that at the time that we last reviewed it, we did not believe it was appropriate for
further subdivision.
MR. DEEB-That's not up to us.
MR. SCHONEWOLF-That'll be up to the Board that's sitting then.
MR. DEEB-That's not up to us to do that. We can't do that. You can't put a condition on something
that's not stated.
MR. SCHONEWOLF-You can't lock a Board into future consideration.
MR. TRAVER-I understand that, I understand that, but if that provision is there, it means that a
future consideration of the Board would require lifting that restriction and then taking the extra
step of approving a subdivision. That's all I'm saying.
MR. DEEB-We're dictating our will here. That's something I don't think we should be dictating.
MR. HUNSINGER-Yes, I don't necessarily agree with that, but, I mean, you're certainly entitled to
that opinion. I think all we're doing is expressing the intent and concern and were raised and
identified.
MR.TRAVER-Why don't we poll the Board on that.
MR. HUNSINGER-Well, that's what I was just trying to do to see, I don't know how you feel about
that, Brad.
MR. MAGOWAN-Well, I see what Steve's trying to say, but also, too, is, I mean, it doesn't matter.
Once we approve this, it doesn't matter. Any changes that come, they have to come and say, and
why can't we say no then,at that time,or,you know.
MR. DEEB-Yes,we can say no then.
MR. MAGOWAN-I mean, like I said, I understand his concerns and, like I said,you know, like say he
gets up there and the kids are too noisy and they have to leave, you know, and someone wants to
subdivide, and they'd have to come back, but, I mean, I understand where you're coming from, and
like I said,where's our jurisdiction? I don't know. I think once we approve the site plan,he can't do
anything else without coming back to us.
MR. FORD-Ownership of property can change, and at that time a new owner may choose to take a
totally different tact, at which time that would come before the Planning Board that would be in
existence at that time. Before us right now is not an issue of subdivision.
MR. KREBS-Right.
MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. I guess you and I, Steve, are the only ones that felt that had any value.
MR.TRAVER-Yes. That's all right. That's why we have a Board.
MR. HUNSINGER-Yes,go ahead.
MRS.MOORE-Can you start the motion again,please?
MR. HUNSINGER-Yes,he hadn't really started it yet.
RESOLUTION APPROVING SP# 33-2014 FRANCIS COCOZZA
A site plan application has been made to the Queensbury Planning Board for the following:
Applicant proposes a single family dwelling and detached garage on vacant lot. Pursuant to Chapter
179-6-060 of the Zoning Ordinance construction of a driveway in excess of the 10% maximum
allowable slope; and filling/hard surfacing within 50 feet of the shoreline shall be subject to
Planning Board review and approval.
SEQR Type II;
44
(Queensbury Planning Board 05/20/2014)
A public hearing was advertised and held on 5-20-2014;
This application is supported with all documentation, public comment, and application material in
the file of record;
MOTION TO APPROVE SITE PLAN NO. 33-2014 FRANCIS COCOZZA, Introduced by Donald Krebs
who moved for its adoption,seconded by David Deeb:
This is per the resolution prepared by Staff:
1) Pursuant to relevant sections of the Town of Queensbury Zoning Code-Chapter 179-9-080,
the Planning Board has determined that this proposal satisfies the requirements as stated in
the Zoning Code;
2) Waiver requests granted: lighting, proposed signs, landscaping, traffic flow, new
construction,disposal of waste,snow removal, EAF,multiple uses on one property;
3) Engineering sign-off required prior to signature of Zoning Administrator of the approved
plans.
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
7) 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 20th day of May, 2014,by the following vote:
MR. MAGOWAN-I'm a little confused. Have I seen that before under the waivers, that the multiple
use on one property is granted?
MRS. MOORE-In this case, that would be considered not applicable because there's only one
property you're discussing.
MR. MAGOWAN-I've just never seen it before.
MR. HUNSINGER-He filled out the form.
MR. MAGOWAN-Yes, I never saw that before. You're very thorough.
MR. HOLMES-Where are we talking? What are you referring to?
MR. MAGOWAN-Multiple uses on one property. What else are you planning on doing up there?
MR. HOLMES-Are you referring to my cover letter?
MRS.MOORE-No,it's identified as Letter U.
MR. MAGOWAN-Under waivers granted.
MR.TRAVER-The draft resolution. Draft Staff resolution.
MR. HOLMES-I'm sorry, I don't believe I have a copy of that.
MRS. MOORE-Let me explain. Under Site Plan Review requirements, Letter U says if there is more
than one property, you need to identify what's happening on each property. In this case, there's
only one parcel. It is truly not applicable.
45
(Queensbury Planning Board 05/20/2014)
MR. MAGOWAN-So really it didn't need to be typed in,but since he wrote it down.
MRS.MOORE-Yes.
MR. MAGOWAN-Okay. I mean, I just foresee, okay, we're not going to subdivide it,but then the next
thing you know he's,you know,we have the zip line and the rope slide and everything else up there,
you know,because they've got the kids.
MR. COCOZZA-I don't think so.
MR. KREBS-Well,he's got the hill for the sledding already.
MR. HUNSINGER-As long as he's not charging any money.
MR. DEEB-I second it.
MR. HUNSINGER-We have a motion and a second,is there any further discussion?
MR. HOLMES-I mean, real quick, it's your resolution. If you wish to strike that line, it's your
prerogative.
MR. MAGOWAN-No,it just caught me strangely. I've just never seen multiple uses on one property.
MR. HUNSINGER-We have a motion and a second. There's no further discussion. So call the vote,
please.
AYES: Mr. Deeb, Mr. Schonewolf, Mr. Ford, Mr. Magowan, Mr. Krebs, Mr. Hunsinger
NOES: Mr.Traver
MR. HUNSINGER-You're all set. Good luck.
MR. HOLMES-Okay. Thank you.
MR. HUNSINGER-Thank you. Is there any other business to be brought before the Board this
evening?
MR. SCHONEWOLF-I move we adjourn.
MR. HUNSINGER-We have a motion to adjourn. Is there a second?
MR. KREBS-Yes.
MR. HUNSINGER-Second by Mr. Krebs.
MOTION TO ADJOURN THE QUEENSBURY PLANNING BOARD MEETING OF MAY 20, 2014,
Introduced by Paul Schonewolf who moved for its adoption,seconded by Donald Krebs:
Duly adopted this 20th day of May, 2014,by the following vote:
AYES: Mr. Krebs, Mr. Magowan, Mr. Ford, Mr. Schonewolf, Mr. Deeb, Mr.Traver, Mr. Hunsinger
NOES: NONE
On motion meeting was adjourned.
RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED,
Chris Hunsinger, Chairman
46