12-18-2018 QUEENSBURY PLANNING BOARD MEETING
FIRST REGULAR MEETING
DECEMBER 18,2018
INDEX
Site Plan No. 76-2018 Queensbury Square, LLC 2.
ONE YR. EXTENSION Tax Map No. 296.17-1-38
Subdivision No. 13-2018 Clear Brook, LLC 2.
PRELIMINARY STAGE Tax Map No. 316.14-1-6
FWW Permit 6-2018
FURTHER TABLING
Site Plan No. 65-2018 Cameron &Jessie Gardner-Lewis 3..
ZBA RECOMMENDATION Tax Map No. 295.6-1-8
Site Plan No. 78-2018 C. Raymond Davis & Sons, Inc. 6.
ZBA RECOMMENDATION Tax Map No. 226.19-2-2
Site Plan Modification 74-2018 John R. Buchanan 7.
ZBA RECOMMENDATION Tax Map No. 289.11-1-38
Site Plan Modification 73-2018 Charles Kane IL
Tax Map No. 296.13-1-19
Site Plan No. 72-2018 Joseph Demello 15.
Tax Map No. 308.13-1-4.11
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.
1
QUEENSBURY PLANNING BOARD MEETING
FIRST REGULAR MEETING
DECEMBER 18, 2018
7:00 P.M.
MEMBERS PRESENT
STEPHEN TRAVER, CHAIRMAN
CHRIS HUNSINGER, VICE CHAIRMAN
DAVID DEEB, SECRETARY
JAMIE WHITE
MICHAEL VALENTINE
BRAD MAGOWAN
STEVEN JACKOSKI, ALTERNATE
LAND USE PLANNER-LAURA MOORE
STENOGRAPHER-MARIA GAGLIARDI
MR. TRAVER-Good evening, ladies and gentlemen. Welcome to the Town of Queensbury Planning
Board meeting for Tuesday, December 18t", 2018. This is the first meeting for the month of December
and the 25" meeting for this year thus far. If you have an electronic device if you would mute it or
turn it off so it doesn't disturb our discussions this evening, and also please note the lighted illuminated
signs. If we have an emergency of some kind that would be your safest route out of the building.
With that, we'll begin with a couple of Administrative Items. The first being approval of minutes for
October 16" and October 23" of 2018 and September 18" and September 25tn
MR. DEEB-Can we do both sets of minutes in one motion? Is everybody okay with that?
MS. WHITE-I'm going to abstain from September.
MR. DEEB-I can do it separately. I don't care.
MR. TRAVER-Well, since she's abstaining.
MR. DEEB-All right.
APPROVAL OF MINUTES
September 18t", 2018
September 25t", 2018
MOTION TO APPROVE THE QUEENSBURY PLANNING BOARD MEETING MINUTES OF
SEPTEMBER 18TH & SEPTEMBER 25TH, 2018, Introduced by David Deeb who moved for its adoption,
seconded by Michael Valentine:
Duly adopted this 18" day of December, 2018, by the following vote:
AYES: Mr. Deeb, Mr. Jackoski, Mr. Hunsinger, Mr. Magowan, Mr. Valentine, Mr. Traver
NOES: NONE
ABSTAINED: Ms. White
October 16t", 2018
October 23rd, 2018
MOTION TO APPROVE THE QUEENSBURY PLANNING BOARD MEETING MINUTES OF
OCTOBER 16TH AND OCTOBER 23RD, 2018, Introduced by David Deeb who moved for its adoption,
seconded by Brad Magowan:
Duly adopted this 18" day of December, 2018, by the following vote:
AYES: Ms. White, Mr. Jackoski, Mr. Hunsinger, Mr. Magowan, Mr. Valentine, Mr. Deeb, Mr. Traver
2
NOES: NONE
MR. TRAVER-Next we have a request for a one year extension of approval for Site Plan 76-2017 for
Queensbury Square, LLC.
ADMINISTRATIVE ITEMS
SITE PLAN 76-2017 QUEENSBURY SQUARE, LLC — REQUEST FOR ONE-YEAR EXTENSION OF
APPROVAL
MR. TRAVER-Laura, where are we at with that project?
MRS. MOORE-In that packet was your letter that explained that they needed some more time.
MR. TRAVER-Okay.
RESOLUTION GRANTING A ONE YEAR EXTENSION SP # 76-2017 QUEENSBURY SQUARE
The applicant has submitted an application to the Planning Board: Applicant proposes a new 5,460 sq.
ft. commercial building with potential for six unit retail areas. Project site currently contains 7,000 sq.
ft. liquor store. Project includes new parking area, stormwater, lighting and landscaping. Project
includes existing interconnects to Walmart parking/drive area. Pursuant to Chapter 179-3-040 of the
Zoning Ordinance, new commercial construction shall be subject to Planning Board review and approval.
The Planning Board approved Site Plan 76-2017 on December 21, 2017.
MOTION TO APPROVE A ONE YEAR EXTENSION FOR SITE PLAN 76-2017 QUEENSBURY
SQUARE, LLC. Introduced by David Deeb who moved for its adoption, seconded by Brad Magowan:
Duly adopted this 18" day of December, 2018 by the following vote:
AYES: Mr. Jackoski, Mr. Hunsinger, Mr. Magowan, Mr. Valentine, Mr. Deeb, Ms. White, Mr. Traver
NOES: NONE
MR. TRAVER-And next we have a tabling motion for the Preliminary Stage of Subdivision 13-2018,
Freshwater Wetlands Permit 6-2018 for Clear Brook LLC.
SUBDIVISION PREL. STAGE 13-2018 & FWW PERMIT 6-2018 CLEAR BROOK. LLC — TABLED TO
FEBRUARY 19, 2019
MR.TRAVER-And, Laura,this is likely to attempt to address some of the issues that we were addressing
when we did the site visit I think?
MRS. MOORE-They're addressing some of the issues that resulted in an archeological study on their
site. So they have submitted new information for the January review. It did reduce the number of
lots from 15 to 14 at this time. They will receive the same information that you received in your
packet in regards to information from the Water Superintendent.
MR. TRAVER-Right.
MRS. MOORE-Just as a note, please keep that information with you because that will follow up in your
January meeting as well.
MR. TRAVER-Okay. Thank you. And we have a draft resolution this evening.
RESOLUTION TABLING SUB PRELIM. STG. 13-2018 & FWW 6-2018 CLEAR BROOK, LLC
A subdivision application has been made to the Queensbury Planning Board for the following: Applicant
proposes a 15 lot residential subdivision of a 145.30 acre parcel. Lots 2, 3 & 4 shared driveway, lots 8,
9 &10 shared driveway and lots 14&15 shared driveway. Project is within 1-87 overlay zone. Applicant
requests waiver for construction details, landscape plan, clearing plan, grading and erosion and
stormwater. Pursuant to Chapter 183 and Chapter 94 of the Zoning Ordinance, subdivision of land
and work within 100 ft. of a wetland shall be subject to Planning Board review and approval. Project
was tabled on 8128118 to 10/16/18. Tabled on 10/16/18 to 12118118. Request by applicant to table to
011I5119.
MOTION TO TABLE SUBDIVISION PRELIMINARY STAGE 13-2018 & FRESHWATER WETLANDS
PERMIT 6-2018 CLEAR BROOK, LLC. Introduced by David Deeb who moved for its adoption.
Tabled to the January 15, 2019 Planning Board meeting.
Seconded by Jamie White. Duly adopted this 18" day of December, 2018 by the following vote:
AYES: Mr. Hunsinger, Mr. Magowan, Mr. Valentine, Mr. Deeb, Ms. White, Mr. Jackoski, Mr. Traver
NOES: NONE
MR. TRAVER-All right, and next we move on to our regular agenda. The first section of that agenda
being Planning Board recommendations to the Zoning Board, and the first item being Cameron and
Jessie Gardner-Lewis, application Site Plan 65-2018.
PLANNING BOARD RECOMMENDATIONS TO THE ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS:
SITE PLAN NO. 65-2018 SEQR TYPE: TYPE 11. CAMERON & JESSIE GARDNER-LEWIS.
AGENT(SJ: JARRETT ENGINEERS, PLLC. OWNER(SJ: JOSEPH WOODWARD. ZONING: RR-
SA. LOCATION: 11 OLD WEST MOUNTAIN ROAD. APPLICANT PROPOSES CONSTRUCTION
OF A 1,392 SQ. FT. HOME WITH ASSOCIATED SITE WORK, INSTALLATION OF SEPTIC AND
WELL ON A PARCEL WITH STEEP SLOPES. HOME IS TO BE ONE AND ONE-HALF STORY
WITH A LOFT AND UNFINISHED BASEMENT. PROJECT OCCURS WITHIN 50 FT. OF 15%
SLOPES AND IS TO HAVE A DRIVEWAY GREATER THAN 10%. PURSUANT TO CHAPTER 179-
6-060 OF THE ZONING ORDINANCE, CONSTRUCTION WITHIN 50 FT. OF 15% SLOPES AND
OVER 10% DRIVEWAY SHALL BE SUBJECT TO PLANNING BOARD REVIEW AND APPROVAL.
VARIANCE: RELIEF IS SOUGHT FOR SETBACKS. PLANNING BOARD SHALL PROVIDE A
RECOMMENDATION TO THE ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS. CROSS REFERENCE: SP 62-
2012 SF HOME;AV 68-2018. WARREN CO. REFERRAL: DECEMBER 2018. SITE INFORMATION:
SLOPES. LOT SIZE: 5.87 ACRES. TAX MAP NO. 295.64-8. SECTION: 179-6-060.
TOM JARRETT, REPRESENTING APPLICANTS, PRESENT
MR. TRAVER-Laura?
MRS. MOORE-This applicant proposes construction of a 1,392 square foot with associated site work.
It also includes installation of a septic and well on a parcel with steep slopes. The home is to be one
and one half story with a loft and an unfinished basement. The project occurs within 50 ft. of 15
percent slopes and a driveway that has greater than 10%. The relief requested from the Zoning Board,
the side setback is proposed to be 22.7 feet were a 75 foot setback is required and the front setback
is 37.6 feet where 100 foot setback is required.
MR. TRAVER-Okay. Thank you. Good evening.
MR. JARRETT-Good evening. For the record, Tom Jarrett of Jarrett Engineers, and with me is the
Lewis clan, Jessie, Cameron and Mike. They are proposing to build a single family home on the lot
on the screen. It's a six acre lot on Old West Mountain Road. You can see it's a very narrow lot.
It meets the side requirements for the zone but it does not, it has a very, very small building envelope
and this project was in front of this Board four years ago with another owner, and it was approved by
this Board for a single family home. We obtained variances to put the house near Old West Mountain
Road because the lot is quite steep and moving it back on the lot to a more compliant location would
have entailed a lot more environmental impact, a lot more damage to the site, and, you know, gaining
access to the site in and out day to day would have been difficult with that driveway. So we proposed
it nearer Old West Mountain Road and this Board and the Zoning Board approved those, the project
at that time. Subsequently that owner did not act on the approvals, did not build on the site, and the
Lewis' have bought it right now. You've closed on it, and we're seeking essentially the same approval
that we gained four years ago. We've modified the house footprint slightly, added a little bit of
stormwater management accordingly, added some stormwater management for the driveway as well
and we've increased the setback, in other words reduced the variance by a few inches. It was 37.1. It's
now 37.6. We made it a hair better. So for those of you who never saw the project or those who
don't remember it, I can answer any questions you might have. I'm sure there's one person on the
Board who remembers it at least.
MR. VALENTINE-1 don't.
MR. JARRETT-So fire away.
MR. VALENTINE-A couple, just a couple of comments. I did speak to Laura today and she explained
some of the background to me. This was two lots, two parcels.
MR. JARRETT-Going way back. When we were in front of the Board before it was the same parcel
that you see in front of you.
MR. VALENTINE-Okay. And then my question was to her, which is not a major thing now, but I
was wondering why these variances we're looking at tonight were not subject when the variances were
approved previously for setback variances, and I think on your drawing Sheet Two of Seven, C-1 it
shows the variances requested from the Town of Queensbury of the setbacks. I said okay why wasn't
the driveway variance and the steep slope variances brought up at that time before? And I'm just
asking that for maybe just some background.
MR.JARRETT-I'm not sure I totally understand the question. In other words you're thinking we need
additional variances from what we've requested?
MR. VALENTINE-No. That's not it. I'm looking on your sheet here, C-1, and it covers the variances
required or requested.
MR. JARRETT-Setback variances.
MR. VALENTINE-And they were noted as being approved previously.
MR. JARRETT-Correct.
MR. VALENTINE-Correct, and then I was looking and saying okay why are the slope variances,
proximity to the steep slopes, and the driveway, why are they coming now after variances were looked
at and approved before?
MR. JARRETT-Well, no action was taken on the Site Plan and the approved variances so they lapsed.
So we're back in front of these Boards to regain approval both from this Board and the Zoning Board,
if that answers your question.
MR. VALENTINE-Okay. That answers my question.
MR. JARRETT-It's really just the same project with minor tweaks, but we had to come back.
MR. VALENTINE-Okay. The other thing I had. Your letter of November 14t", on the front page,
addressed to the Chairman, references an 8.5% grade for the driveway, yet we're looking for a variance
because it's greater than 10%.
MRS. MOORE-It's not a variance.
MR.JARRETT-I'm not,yes. I'll let Laura address that. We've reduced the driveway grade to something
that we think is probable and below the standard. So I think we're okay on that. I think we only
need setback variances.
MR. TRAVER-The slope of the driveway requires Planning Board review, but it's not technically a
variance.
MR. VALENTINE-I'll catch on after a while.
MR. JARRETT-Just to extend that, one of the reasons we put the house down near the road is to get
that driveway slope down that.
MR. VALENTINE-And I understand that.
MR. JARRETT-And that was our goal and we've, actually we've softened the driveway a hair more with
this project.
MR. VALENTINE-Okay. I was just referencing the difference in the letter.
MR. JARRETT-Okay.
MR. VALENTINE-The other thing that comes back and I always get an answer back as far as what we
reference, but I think I may die out here referencing this all the time, the difference in acreages. We
h have references in here to 6.144, and then also references to 5. something else as to acreages.
MR. JARRETT-I recall it as 6.1. I'd have to research what you're referring to the 5.
MR. VALENTINE-1 think it was 5., no the deed had 6.144, and there was another reference to.
MR. JARRETT-The old tax map?
MR. VALENTINE-You're right, it was that. It was on the aerial view on that.
MR. JARRETT-Yes, I think the 6.1 is more accurate. If we erred, I apologize, but it should be 6.1.
MR. VALENTINE-If you come back on, and this is pulling off the tax maps, from that front page, and
it shows it as 5.87.
MR. JARRETT-5.87. Right.
MR. VALENTINE-It may not have any meaning at all. The difference between them is just one is
surveyed and one is.
MR. JARRETT-Yes, the 5.87 1 don't have faith in. We may have accidently pulled that number off for
SEQR but it's 6.1 should be the accurate number. I didn't catch that when I reviewed that.
MR. MAGOWAN-I'm shocked, Tom.
MR. JARRETT-I am, too.
MR. TRAVER-Any other questions for the applicant at this stage? Bearing in mind they're here not
for Site Plan but for a recommendation on the variance request for setbacks at this point. No
questions? All right. I guess we're ready for that motion.
RESOLUTION RE: ZBA RECOMMENDATION RE: Z-AV-68-2018 GARDNER-LEWIS
The applicant has submitted an application for the following: Applicant proposes construction of a
1,392 sq. ft. home with associated site work, installation of septic and well on a parcel with steep slopes.
Home is to be one and one-half story with a loft and unfinished basement. Project occurs within 50
ft. of 15% slopes and is to have a driveway greater than 10%. Pursuant to Chapter 179-6-060 of the
Zoning Ordinance, construction within 50 ft. of 15% slopes and over 10% driveway shall be subject to
Planning Board review and approval. Variance: Relief is sought for setbacks. Planning Board shall
provide a recommendation to the Zoning Board of Appeals.
The Town of Queensbury Zoning Ordinance, per Section 179-9-070 J 2 b. requires the Planning Board
to provide a written recommendation to the Zoning Board of Appeals for projects that require both
Zoning Board of Appeals & Planning Board approval;
The Planning Board has briefly reviewed and discussed this application, the relief request in the variance
application as well as the potential impacts of this project on the neighborhood and surrounding
community, and found that:
MOTION TO MAKE A RECOMMENDATION ON BEHALF OF THE PLANNING BOARD TO THE
ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS FOR AREA VARIANCE NO. 68-2018 CAMERON & )ESSIE
GARDNER-LEWIS. Introduced by David Deeb who moved its adoption, and
a) The Planning Board, based on a limited review, has not identified any significant adverse impacts
that cannot be mitigated with current project proposal.
Motion seconded by Jamie White. Duly adopted this 18"day of December, 2018 by the following vote:
AYES: Mr. Magowan, Mr. Valentine, Mr. Deeb, Ms. White, Mr. Jackoski, Mr. Hunsinger, Mr. Traver
NOES: NONE
MR. TRAVER-All right. You're off to the Zoning Board.
MR. JARRETT-Thank you much. Hopefully we'll see you Thursday.
MR. TRAVER-Right. All right. Next we have another application under review for recommendation
to the ZBA. C. Raymond Davis & Sons, Inc., Site Plan 78-2018.
SITE PLAN NO.78-2018 SEQR TYPE: TYPE 11. C. RAYMOND DAVIS&SONS, INC. AGENT(SJ:
TOM HUTCHINS, HUTCHINS ENGINEERING. OWNER(SJ: ROBERT & LORRAINE
CARBOGNIN. ZONING: WR. LOCATION: 197 ASSEMBLY POINT ROAD. APPLICANT
PROPOSES 176 SQ. FT. OF NEW FLOOR AREA INVOLVING NEW ROOFLINES OF HOME, AND
DORMER FEATURE ON SECOND FLOOR. PURSUANT TO CHAPTER 179-3-040 &17943-010 OF
THE ZONING ORDINANCE, EXPANSION OF A NON-CONFORMING STRUCTURE IN A CEA
SHALL BE SUBJECT TO PLANNING BOARD REVIEW AND APPROVAL. VARIANCE: RELIEF IS
SOUGHT FOR SETBACKS AND EXPANSION OF A NON-CONFORMING STRUCTURE.
PLANNING BOARD SHALL PROVIDE A RECOMMENDATION TO THE ZONING BOARD OF
APPEALS. CROSS REFERENCE: 2008-614 DECKS; 2009-346 DOCK REPAIR; AV 76-2018.
WARREN CO. REFERRAL: DECEMBER 2018. LOT SIZE: .52 ACRE. TAX MAP NO. 226.19-2-2.
SECTION: 179-3-040. 1794 3-010.
JOHN ISAACS & LUCAS DOBIE, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT
MR. TRAVER-Laura?
MRS. MOORE-Okay. The applicant proposes 176 square foot of new floor area involving new roof
lines of a home and a dormer feature on the second floor. The variance relief sought is for setbacks
and expansion of a nonconforming structure.
MR. TRAVER-Okay. Good evening.
MR. ISAACS-Hi, good evening. I'm John Isaacs with C. Raymond Davis. We're the contractor that's
looking to do some renovation work for the Carbognin's, 197 Assembly Point Road and we have a
nonconforming structure we're going to set within the side yard setbacks. What we're trying to do is
extend the roof lines slightly at the eaves. Right now the siding has rotted quite a bit from the
rainwater being able to come down directly onto the siding. It doesn't have the standard overhangs
that you normally put on your eaves side of your home. We'd like to construct those slight overhangs
by 12 inches and so that way we can have the siding that we're looking for, the new siding, but it does
require a variance. We're looking for that recommendation this evening.
MR. TRAVER-Okay. There's a comment in the Staff comments regarding lighting, just to recommend
that your lighting be cut off fixtures. Are you aware of that? Have you seen that?
MR. ISAACS-Yes. I did see that in there. We're not doing anything with the light fixtures but any
light fixtures that are out there we'll make sure that they are cut off.
MR. TRAVER-Okay. Questions from members of the Planning Board?
MR. HUNSINGER-It seems pretty straightforward.
MR. TRAVER-Yes.
MR. HUNSINGER-Thank you for that explanation. That explained a lot.
MR. TRAVER-Yes.
MR. VALENTINE-Can I throw the old question out here? And I'm wondering as I'm looking at this
I'm saying okay what triggered you guys to come in here with this? Because somebody could easily
just slip by with this and say I'm just going to, you know.
MR. ISAACS-We want to make sure that we're maintaining a good relationship with all municipalities
in the communities that we work within and we want to do things like that.
MR. VALENTINE-Let me ask you a question beyond. It's a good answer. We have just gone through
an exercise on unapproved development. Have you heard about that at all?
MR. ISAACS-No I have not.
7
MR. VALENTINE-Okay. That was the reason for my question that's all. Thank you. I appreciate
your answer.
MR. TRAVER-All right. Well if there are no other questions or comments for the applicant, I guess
we're ready to entertain a motion for it and they'll be back for Site Plan.
RESOLUTION RE: ZBA RECOMMENDATION RE: Z-AV-76-2018 C. RAYMOND DAVIS
The applicant has submitted an application for the following: Applicant proposes 176 sq. ft. of new
floor area involving new rooflines of home, and dormer feature on second floor. Pursuant to Chapter
179-3-040 & 179-13-010 of the Zoning Ordinance, expansion of a non-conforming structure in a CEA
shall be subject to Planning Board review and approval. Variance: Relief is sought for setbacks 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. 76-2018 C. RAYMOND DAVIS 8T
SONS, INC. Introduced by David Deeb who moved its adoption, and
a) The Planning Board, based on a limited review, has not identified any significant adverse impacts
that cannot be mitigated with current project proposal.
Motion seconded by Michael Valentine. Duly adopted this 18" day of December, 2018 by the following
vote:
AYES: Mr. Valentine, Mr. Deeb, Ms. White, Mr. Jackoski, Mr. Hunsinger, Mr. Magowan, Mr. Traver
NOES: NONE
MR. TRAVER-Okay. You're off to the ZBA.
MR. ISAACS-Thank you all very much and I hope to see you on Thursday.
MR. TRAVER-And the next application is also a Planning Board recommendation to the ZBA. This is
for Site Plan Modification 74-2018 for John R. Buchanan.
SITE PLAN MODIFICATION 74-2018 SEQR TYPE: TYPE 11. JOHN R. BUCHANAN. AGENT(SJ:
JARRETT ENGINEERS, PLLC. OWNER(SJ: JOHN R. BUCHANAN TRUST. ZONING: WR.
LOCATION: 66 REARDON ROAD. APPLICANT PROPOSES REVISION TO REMOVE AN
EXISTING OPEN DECK TO CONSTRUCT AN ENCLOSED PORCH OF 92.5 SQ. FT. PORTION
OF WALL SECTIONS ADJOINING THE DECK ARE ALSO TO BE REMOVED AND
RECONSTRUCTED ABOUT EIGHT FEET. PROJECT INCLUDES CONSTRUCTION OF A
WHEELCHAIR RAMP FROM THE HOME TO THE BOAT HOUSE OF 34 FT. 2 IN. IN LENGTH.
PURSUANT TO CHAPTER 179-3-040 & 179-6-050 OF THE ZONING ORDINANCE, HARD
SURFACING AND CONSTRUCTION WITHIN 50 FT. OF SHORELINE SHALL BE SUBJECT TO
PLANNING BOARD REVIEW AND APPROVAL. VARIANCE: RELIEF IS SOUGHT FOR
SETBACKS. PLANNING BOARD SHALL PROVIDE A RECOMMENDATION TO THE ZONING
BOARD OF APPEALS. CROSS REFERENCE: 911674983 ALTERATIONS; AV 61-2018; SP 58-2018;
AV 75-2018; WARREN CO. REFERRAL N/A SITE INFORMATION CEA LOT SIZE: .75
ACRE. TAX MAP NO. 289.114-38. SECTION: 179-3-040, 179-6-050
TOM JARRETT & BILL DEAN, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT
MR. TRAVER-Laura?
MRS. MOORE-Okay. So the applicant proposes a revision to remove an existing open deck to
construct an enclosed porch. This is approximately 92.5 square feet. The project includes removing
8
the front wall sections adjoining the deck to be reconstructed about eight feet in length. The project
also includes the previous application item which is the wheelchair ramp from the home to the
boathouse which was 34 feet 2 inches in length. The variance relief again is sought for setbacks.
MR. TRAVER-Great. Thank you. Good evening. Welcome back.
MR. JARRETT-You might recognize this team. We were here two months ago or so. Bill Dean, Tom
Jarrett, John Buchanan. The project has not changed a lick except for the fact that we've opened up
the wall of the existing bedroom. It was sort of an eclectic mix of construction. So the wall really
needs to be re-built to get better structural members in there and better insulation. Technically we
can't do that without approval. We didn't ask for that the first time around. I might make a
recommendation to the Board. It might not make a difference to us tonight but something this
straightforward probably could be handled administratively and not tie up this Board to bring applicants
back. I would urge you to maybe have Dave Hatin and Craig Brown confer on these kinds of projects
and if there's nothing to be gained by the applicant other than an improvement in the structure and
not gaining setback or something to the lake or whatever, it could be an administrative item.
MR. TRAVER-Well maybe Staff can correct my apparent misunderstanding, but I thought it was a
simple repair and replace that did not require Planning Board review.
MRS. MOORE-This is not repair/replace. This is tear down.
MR. TRAVER-That's what I thought.
MRS. MOORE-Yes, so this is tear down and re-build.
MR. JARRETT-It's almost a repair but literally the existing wall has to be totally re-built.
MR. TRAVER-Well, almost, never mind.
MR. MAGOWAN-The existing footprint?
MR. JARRETT-Same footprint. Same dimensions. Everything's exactly the same except the existing
wall is trash. We need to re-build it.
JOHN BUCHANAN
MR. BUCHANAN-And I'm giving you the dimensions wrong. Whatever the length of the room is, it
was, the house ended here once and there as a porch, and then the house absorbed that porch and
added a porch and then the house absorbed that porch and added a porch. So every time it's just
kind of come together. It's not a square.
MR. JARRETT-They ran out of chewing gum.
MR. DEEB-So let me ask you this, sir. Technically it's not a repair, but in order to make it right, to
make the repair you had to go farther to do it right, which is still to me a repair.
MR. JARRETT-Bill needs to replace the studs, put in new structural members and put in new insulation
which is more than technically a repair, although we're not grabbing anything. We're not going closer
to the lake. We're not going closer to the side line. I think it should be handled administratively in
the future, and that's just a recommendation.
MR. TRAVER-That's an argument that would be made typically to Staff and to the Zoning
Administrator.
MR. JARRETT-I have. I thought I'd raise it to the Board so you could support it if you do.
MR. TRAVER-Well, it's a simple repair, I have no problem, but, you know, you're doing, you're not
doing a repair. You're doing a re-design, which is a little different.
MR. JARRETT-Not really a re-design. There's no configuration change. The existing wall we can't
really tie anything into it.
MR. DEAN-I disagree. It's just, we opened up the wall in the structure. There's no integrity to it.
The original approval was to take the wall, add to the wall height to approximately eight foot to match
the existing roof. What we're looking for is to take the wall, make it approximately eight foot to
lr;
match the existing roof. No change in size. No change in anything other than we're able to do it
right, put the insulation in.
MR. MAGOWAN-Sounds like really all you needed was just to have a building permit just to have it
inspected that you're doing it correctly.
MR. JARRETT-They want the improvements, but they said they couldn't bless it without this Board's
approval.
MR. JACKOSKI-Tom, in your estimation, if you were to do miscellaneous complete replacements such
as this, at what percentage of the overall structure would you then consider it to be more like a true
replacement that would require the Board's approval? I get eight feet out of a house that's got 60
feet of linear exterior wall.
MR. JARRETT-Just one wall out of the entire structure.
MR. JACKOSKI-But there could be a point where somebody wants to re-build a whole garage.
MR. JARRETT-Absolutely.
MR. JACKOSKI-So what is the percentage of the structure that could be considered an administrative
approval, 10%, 20%?
MR. JARRETT-Yes, I think 10 is the number.
MR. JACKOSKI-I agree. We've had this issue with docks before. They put the same darn dock right
in the middle of the same place, not that we do docks anymore. I know that.
MR. JARRETT-Same idea.
MR. JACKOSKI-It seems to be administrative.
MR. TRAVER-Well, let's put it this way. We have it before us. I mean I suppose you could appeal
that decision.
MR. JARRETT-We're thinking that other applicants in the future shouldn't be tying this Board up and
spending their money doing this kind of thing if it's not needed.
MR. TRAVER-Yes. I can appreciate that. We have to rely on our Staff to make that call, and it's the
way the Code is, the Zoning Administrator makes that call.
MR. JARRETT-But you go through periodic reviews of the Code and periodic reviews of procedures.
MR. TRAVER-Sure.
MR. JARRETT-And I think if you understand what we're arguing, that if you support this then you
can bring that argument to the table the next time.
MR. VALENTINE-There are other municipalities where in the regs they say 10% or a maximum like
1250 square feet, that's a lot, but then again.
MR. TRAVER-Well, my concern with a percentage is that that number can be taken and manipulated.
We have Critical Environmental Areas where structures exist where if you remove 10% and you put
10%, you know, replace that 10% in a way that we might not agree with. So I think it has to be made,
unless it's very obviously something that's a replacement, it has to be, I mean that's why we have the
Zoning Administrator. So, I mean, we have to go by his call. I mean I certainly support the concept
of if it's a simple repair that, you know, that's a pretty straightforward call.
MR. JARRETT-We're here following the procedure.
MR. TRAVER-Yes, and that's your position, but we have to depend upon our Staff to make that call.
So here we are.
MR. JARRETT-We're not arguing for this application. We're arguing for the future.
10
MR. DEEB-Well, this was a judgment call obviously. Unfortunately it becomes a cost of debt for
somebody.
MR. JARRETT-Well Bill lost two months, and the owners are out two months.
MR. DEEB-Going back to Mike's comments, had you not come back to us and gotten it done, I don't
know if anybody would have noticed, but you did it right.
MR. JARRETT-That's not the way we work.
MR. DEEB-That's not the way you work. The same as our last one we had here, too, and we appreciate
that also, and to let you know that we really do respect the decision that you made to do that.
MR. JACKOSKI-I'll personally mention it to Craig that I'm in favor of what you've suggested and I
hope other Board members too will, but I agree with you. When I've got stuff in front of the Boards
it's frustrating because nothing has changed.
MR. MAGOWAN-Especially when you do a renovation and tearing down, you never know what's
behind the walls.
MR. TRAVER-Yes. And we've run into that actually quite a bit where they end up replacing, we had
somebody who replaced the whole structure.
MR. JACKOSKI-That's another issue.
MR. JARRETT-Both Dave and Craig have been around a long time and if they see somebody who's
playing a game and trying to grab something, they can put the kibosh on it. To see that it's really
legitimate I think they should be able to treat it as an administrative item.
MR. TRAVER-And they do have the freedom to make that call.
MR. JARRETT-They said they didn't.
MR. TRAVER-They said they didn't?
MR. DEAN-They were pretty emphatic about that.
MR. TRAVER-Well I'm not hearing that we have any problem with your.
MR. JARRETT-Just the applicants, not the project.
MR. TRAVER-Yes. You're here really because you need the variance again.
MR. DEEB-It's the same variance.
MR. TRAVER-Yes. It's the same variance.
MR. DEEB-We're approving the same thing.
MR. TRAVER-Because it's a nonconforming structure. Does anyone have any additional discussion or
questions for the applicant? All right. We're ready to introduce a motion.
RESOLUTION RE: ZBA RECOMMENDATION RE: Z-AV-75-2018 JOHN R. BUCHANAN
The applicant has submitted an application for the following: Applicant proposes revision to remove
an existing open deck to construct an enclosed porch of 92.5 sq. ft. Wall sections adjoining the deck
are also to be removed and reconstructed about eight feet. Project includes construction of a
wheelchair ramp from the home to the boat house of 34 ft. 2 in. in length. Pursuant to Chapter 179-
3-040&179-6-050 of the Zoning Ordinance, hard surfacing and construction within 50 ft. of shoreline
shall be subject to Planning Board review and approval. Variance: Relief is sought for setbacks. Planning
Board shall provide a recommendation to the Zoning Board of Appeals.
The Town of Queensbury Zoning Ordinance, per Section 179-9-070 J 2 b. requires the Planning Board
to provide a written recommendation to the Zoning Board of Appeals for projects that require both
Zoning Board of Appeals & Planning Board approval;
11
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. 75-2018 JOHN R. BUCHANAN.
Introduced by David Deeb who moved its adoption, and
a) The Planning Board, based on a limited review, has not identified any significant adverse impacts
that cannot be mitigated with current project proposal.
Motion seconded by Brad Magowan. Duly adopted this 18" day of December, 2018 by the following
vote:
AYES: Mr. Deeb, Ms. White, Mr. Jackoski, Mr. Hunsinger, Mr. Mr. Magowan, Mr. Valentine,
Mr. Traver
NOES: NONE
MR. TRAVER-Thank you.
MR. MAGOWAN-1 want to thank you for your patience.
MR. TRAVER-Okay. So that concludes the Planning Board recommendations for the ZBA. Our
next section of the agenda is under New Business. Charles Kane, Site Plan Modification 73-2018
NEW BUSINESS:
SITE PLAN MODIFICATION 73-2018 SEQR TYPE. UNLISTED. CHARLES KANE. AGENT(SJ:
ETHAN HALL. OWNER(SJ: NORTH COUNTRY DEVELOPMENT, LLC. ZONING: Cl.
LOCATION: 973 STATE ROUTE 9. APPLICANT PROPOSES TO MODIFY EXISTING SITE PLAN
FOR PAVED AREAS AND PARKING ARRANGEMENTS ON PROPERTY. THE CURRENT
EXISTING CONDITIONS ARE 11,850 SQ. FT. OF HARD SURFACING OR 18.22% PERMEABLE AND
PROPOSED TO MAINTAIN PREVIOUS EXISTING CONDITIONS ARE 11,535 SQ. FT. HARD
SURFACING OR 19.97% PERMEABILITY. PURSUANT TO CHAPTER 179-9420 OF THE ZONING
ORDINANCE, MODIFICATION TO AN APPROVED SITE PLAN SHALL BE SUBJECT TO
PLANNING BOARD REVIEW AND APPROVAL. CROSS REFERENCE: SP 41-2017 SITE
INFORMATION: TRAVEL CORRIDOR. WARREN CO. REFERRAL: DECEMBER 2018. LOT SIZE:
.46. TAX MAP NO. 296.13449. SECTION: 179-9420.
ETHAN HALL, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT
MR. TRAVER-Laura?
MRS. MOORE-Okay. This applicant proposes to modify the existing Site Plan for paved areas and
parking arrangements. The current existing conditions area, prior to probably a week ago, was
approximately 11,850 square feet of hard surfacing or 18.22%. The proposed and what is currently
now, and I'll explain that, is 11,535 square feet, which is at 19.97. What the applicant did was the
representative and the client discussed there was pavement on an adjoining property that they had
done without approvals. They then proceeded to try to work a deal to try to get that owner to
accept that pavement on their property and to come in with a modified site plan. That did not occur,
and so the applicant and the client also went further and decided to bring it back to the conditions
where it was prior to this applicant getting Site Plan approval which is that 19.97, and Bruce Frank went
out and inspected it. That site is now seeded where there was pavement and so now that is stabilized.
MR. TRAVER-All right. Thank you, Laura. So good evening.
MR. HALL-Good evening. For the record, Ethan Hall, principal with Rucinski Hall Architecture. As
Laura described this was the former Queensbury Tire. It is now owned by North Country
Development, LLC which is Charles Kane. We were before you roughly a year or so ago when they
were looking to do the facade improvements and doing the paving upgrades and things of that nature.
Everything was taken care of and the paver came in and they decided they were just going to pave and
apparently the drawings that they had so diligently, I'm putting together they decided weren't worth
the paper they were printed on and just paved what had already been used by Queensbury Tire
previously, which included some of the land of the Glen Drive-in, and so we talked with Brett Gardner,
12
the owner there, had a verbal agreement that he was fine with it. It didn't take up much of his space.
We asked to get that in writing. He said absolutely not. I said, okay, would you come to the meeting
and state that you have no problem with it? He said absolutely not. Okay. So we're going to go
ahead and remove it. So we took the pavement that had been done on that property off and in an
effort to get it back to what the pre-construction lot coverage was, we removed an additional portion
which wasn't going to amount to anything. If we left it there it wasn't going to do any good. You
couldn't park on it. It was about four and a half feet wide. So we took that part off, squared off the
back part of it. Additionally we took off some additional paving that was done on the north side of
the building that wasn't affecting anybody. It wasn't going to do any good. We couldn't park another
car there. So we took that part off to get us back down to, I think actually what has been removed
now is actually better than what we're seeing. I think we're somewhere down around 11,275 square feet.
So we're a little bit less, but if we can get back to what it was pre-construction we're happy.
MR. TRAVER-Yes. So let me make sure I completely understand here, or at least partially understand.
So you had,the paving guy came in and he ended up paving some property that was on your neighbor's
property.
MR. HALL-Yes, that Queensbury Tire had been using forever. It was crushed stone that went over
the property line, and he just went by where the crushed stone was and everything else.
MR. TRAVER-Sure. Yes, I can see where that could happen. So you went to the owner and you
asked to get an acknowledgement or permission that that pavement was there?
MR. HALL-Rather than spend the money to tear out something that he had payed to put in.
MR. TRAVER-But he didn't pay to put it in. Did he?
MR. HALL-No. This owner.
MR. TRAVER-Okay. That's what I'm getting at. Okay. So you went to the owner who didn't pay
for it and you wanted his acknowledgement in writing, which he wouldn't give you. So you had it
removed?
MR. HALL-Right. Yes.
MR. TRAVER-Did you get his permission to get it removed?
MR. HALL-Yes.
MR. TRAVER-Okay.
MR. HALL-That was the deal. We either had to get a written, and I had talked with Laura at great
length about this. We either had to get something in writing from him that said it was okay for us
to utilize his property, and basically he didn't want to have anything to do with having anything in
writing. He said if you want to just keep using it and nobody has a problem with it, I'm okay with it.
Well, it wasn't so. So in talking with Charlie we just said, look, it's going to be easier just change it
right out, then everything's clean. You're not on his property anymore. You don't have to deal with
it.
MR. TRAVER-Yes. Okay. Understood. All right. Thank you. Questions, comments from
members of the Board?
MR. VALENTINE--So the permeability percentage that's quoted in here, is that permeability on this
subject parcel?
MR. HALL-On this parcel.
MR. TRAVER-For this application.
MR. HALL-Yes.
MR. TRAVER-Anything else? We have a public hearing on this application. Is there anyone in the
audience that wanted to address the Planning Board on this application? I'm not seeing anyone. Are
there any written comments?
PUBLIC HEARING OPENED
J
MRS. MOORE-There's no written comments.
MR. TRAVER-Then we'll close the public hearing and I guess we're ready to entertain a motion.
PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED
MRS. MOORE-Prior to you doing that, just as a reminder in my Staff Notes I identified lighting, and
there is a current light fixture that is not compliant, and there's a spotlight that shines.
MR. HALL-There is?
MRS. MOORE-Yes. Go drive by it tonight. At any rate, as a reminder that the applicant needs to
have compliant lighting.
MR. TRAVER-Okay. So we can make that a condition on the approval motion, and we do have a
SEQR resolution on this, which we can re-affirm a previous environmental review actually since there's
less environmental impact. Does anyone have an issue with a SEQR resolution that re-affirms our
previous review? I guess we're ready to hear that motion, then.
RESOLUTION GRANTING A NEGATIVE SEQR DECLARATION SP # 73-2018 MOD. KANE
The applicant proposes to modify existing site plan for paved areas and parking arrangements on
property. The current, existing conditions are 11,850 sq. ft. of hard surfacing or 18.22% permeable and
proposed to maintain previous existing conditions are 11,535 sq. ft. hard surfacing or 19.97%
permeability. Pursuant to Chapter 179-9-120 of the Zoning Ordinance, modification to an approved
site plan shall be subject to Planning Board review and approval.
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;
Upon review of the information recorded on this EAF, 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 impact statement need not be prepared. Accordingly,
this negative declaration is issued.
MOTION TO GRANT A NEGATIVE DECLARATION FOR SITE PLAN MODIFICATION 73-2018
CHARLES KANE. Introduced by David Deeb who moved for its adoption.
As per the resolution prepared by staff.
1. Part II of the Short EAF has been reviewed and completed by the Planning Board.
2. Part III of the Short EAF is not necessary because the Planning Board did not identify potentially
moderate to large impacts.
Motion seconded by Brad Magowan. Duly adopted this 18" day of December, 2018 by the following
vote:
MR. JACKOSKI-I'm going to abstain because I own property two doors down.
AYES: Ms. White, Mr. Hunsinger, Mr. Magowan, Mr. Valentine, Mr. Deeb, Mr. Traver
NOES: NONE
ABSTAINED: Mr. Jackoski
MR. TRAVER-All right. Next we have the Site Plan resolution, and the one condition is the lighting.
1
RESOLUTION APPROVING SP # 73-2018 MOD. CHARLES KANE
The applicant has submitted an application to the Planning Board for Site Plan approval pursuant to
Article 9 of the Town zoning Ordinance for: Applicant proposes to modify existing site plan for paved
areas and parking arrangements on property. The current, existing conditions are 11,850 sq. ft. of hard
surfacing or 18.22% permeable and proposed to maintain previous existing conditions are 11,535 sq. ft.
hard surfacing or 19.97% permeability. Pursuant to Chapter 179-9-120 of the Zoning Ordinance,
modification to an approved site plan shall be subject to Planning Board review and approval.
Pursuant to relevant sections of the Town of Queensbury Zoning Code-Chapter 179-9-080, the
Planning Board has determined that this proposal satisfies the requirements as stated in the Zoning
Code;
As required by General Municipal Law Section 239-m the site plan application was referred to the
Warren County Planning Department for its recommendation;
The Planning Board has reviewed the potential environmental impacts of the project, pursuant to the
State Environmental Quality Review Act (SEQRA] and adopted a SEQRA Negative Declaration —
Determination of Non-Significance
The Planning Board opened a public hearing on the Site plan application on 12/18/2018 and continued
the public hearing to 12/18/2018, when it was closed,
The Planning Board has reviewed the application materials submitted by the applicant and all comments
made at the public hearing and submitted in writing through and including 12/18/2018;
The Planning Board determines that the application complies with the review considerations and
standards set forth in Article 9 of the Zoning Ordinance for Site Plan approval,
MOTION TO APPROVE SITE PLAN MODIFICATION 73-2018 CHARLES KANE Introduced by
David Deeb who moved for its adoption;
Per the draft provided by staff conditioned upon the following conditions:
1] Waivers request granted:
2] Adherence to the items outlined in the follow-up letter sent with this resolution.
a) If application was referred to engineering,then engineering sign-off required prior to signature
of Zoning Administrator of the approved plans;
bJ Final approved plans should have dimensions and setbacks noted on the site plan/survey, floor
plans and elevation for the existing rooms and proposed rooms in the building and site
improvements,
cJ 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;
dJ The applicant must meet with Staff after approval and prior to issuance of Building
Permit and/or the beginning of any site work;
eJ Subsequent issuance of further permits, including building permits is dependent on compliance
with this and all other conditions of this resolution;
fJ 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;
gJ Resolution to be placed on final plans in its entirety and legible.
hJ Compliant lighting to be completed by the applicant.
Motion seconded by Brad Magowan. Duly adopted this 18" day of December, 2018 by the following
vote:
AYES: Mr. Hunsinger, Mr. Magowan, Mr. Valentine, Mr. Deeb, Ms. White, Mr. Traver
NOES: NONE
ABSTAINED: Mr. Jackoski
MR. TRAVER-You're all set.
11°;
MR. HALL-Thank you very much.
MR. TRAVER-The next item on our agenda is also under New Business, Joseph Demello, application
Site Plan 72-2018.
SITE PLAN NO. 72-2018 SEQR TYPE: UNLISTED. JOSEPH DEMELLO. AGENT(SJ:
SUSTAINABLE FORESTRY, LLC; KURT KOSKINEN. OWNER(SJ: ARTHUR & CHRISTINE HULL.
ZONING: MDR. LOCATION: ACROSS STREET FROM 311 WEST MT. ROAD. APPLICANT
PROPOSES A TIMBER HARVEST PLAN FOR 96 ACRES OF 101 ACRE PARCEL. APPLICANT HAS
PROVIDED A TIMBER HARVEST PLAN SHOWING LANDING AND MAIN SKIDDER TRAIL FROM
LUZERNE ROAD. THERE ARE SPURS FROM THE MAIN SKIDDER PATH TO AREAS AS SHOWN
TO HARVEST 7 STANDS. PURSUANT TO CHAPTER 179-6-010 OF THE ZONING ORDINANCE,
TIMBER HARVESTS SHALL BE SUBJECT TO PLANNING BOARD REVIEW AND APPROVAL.
CROSS REFERENCE: N/A WARREN CO. REFERRAL: DECEMBER 2018. SITE INFORMATION:
PARTIAL APA. LOT SIZE: 101 +/- ACRES. TAX MAP NO. 308.134-4.11. SECTION: 179-6-
010.
KURT KOSKINEN, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT; JOSEPH DEMELLO, PRESENT
MR. TRAVER-Laura?
MRS. MOORE-Okay. This applicant proposes a timber harvest plan for 96 acres of a 101 acre parcel.
The applicant has provided a timber harvest plan showing the landing and main skidder trail from
Luzerne Road. There are spurs from the main skidder path to areas as shown to harvest 7 stands.
MR. TRAVER-Okay. Thank you. Good evening.
MR. KOSKINEN-Good evening. My name's Kurt Koskinen. I'm the owner and forester of Sustainable
Forestry, and essentially the applicant is Joe Demello. The owners are Arthur and Christine Hull. The
property's approximately 101 acres. Ninety-six acres will be thinned. There is basically no classified
streams on the property. There's no APA wetlands on the property. There's approximately 15,900
trees on the property, six inches in diameter and larger at breast height. About 5 to 6,000 of those,
or about 40% will be thinned out. The guideline will be a 14 inch breast high harvest. A scattered
tree here and there under 14 inches will come up because certain trees will fall in a different direction,
and some skid trails. We're basically working under the guidelines of also the approved, not approved,
but the guidance of the Warren County Soil and Water Conservation District. They gave us a very
good letter in the package there that talks about all the different conditions, how to approach the
intermittent streams, utilizing fabric, the landing site coming off Luzerne Road and some stone put on
the fabric to keep any kind of mud off the main road. Let's see here. There'll be one main skid trail
through the property from one landing, serpentining its way through the property. As it crosses the
two intermittent stream guts we're going to pick the spots that are the least steep and try to maintain
a 20 to 30 foot buffer on both sides of those. Occasionally there's a tree or two every hundred feet
or so that could be of high quality and just try and pull those out to help the owners and Joe, and
more or less I'm open to your questions.
MR. TRAVER-Okay. In the Staff comments under the Summary there is a discussion about the landing
area and the design. Is that the design that you're referring to?
MR. KOSKINEN-Yes.
MR. TRAVER-Okay. I thought there was something.
MR. KOSKINEN-Yes, there'll be one landing near the cemetery. The access road will be 20 feet wide,
fabric with stone on it and that works well, 80 to 100 feet going in, and that works very, very well.
MR. TRAVER-And is the access only from Luzerne Road?
MR. KOSKINEN-Yes.
MR. TRAVER-Questions from members of the Board?
MR. VALENTINE-The last question as far as is it West Mountain or is it Luzerne, and which one is
the County road?
MR. TRAVER-Luzerne Road is a County road.
1'
MR. VALENTINE-So that would require a curb cut permit then?
MR. TRAVER-I'm not sure for a construction entrance.
MRS. MOORE-The applicant would have to contact the County or the Town whether they need a
permit for a curb cut and I don't know off the top of my head.
MR. TRAVER-Yes, I'm not sure that it would require a curb cut because it's not permanent. I think
that they would have to notify and get approval for a construction entrance.
MR. VALENTINE-Well that's another thing would be a work permit or something.
MR. TRAVER-Yes.
MR. VALENTINE-Then that comes back to my question particularly this time of the year would be
the cleanup of the road after work, as far as now you're going to wind up with freezing temperatures
and mud or clay coming out there, but you said you've got fabric and stone there.
MR. KOSKINEN-Yes, that works very, very well, and the stone, too. That breaks off the chunks of
ice.
MR. TRAVER-Other questions, comments? We do have a public hearing on this as well. So we'll
open a public hearing and ask are there members of the audience that would like to address the Planning
Board on this application this evening?
PUBLIC HEARING OPENED
JAY MC ADAM
MR. MC ADAM-1 have a couple of questions.
MR. TRAVER-Yes, sir. Would you come up to the table, please? We do record the minutes so we'd
like to get your name and your comments on the record.
MR. MC ADAM-Sure. Jay McAdam. I live on 9 Mabel Terrace. So I'm on the other side of
Clendon Brook and Herald Square, and one of my questions is, what's the timeframe on the project?
And secondly what would be the work hours? I mean if this goes into summer, then we could have
an issue with working late. So I just wanted to understand those couple of things.
MR. TRAVER-And your concern in terms of working late is, what, noise?
MR. MC ADAM-Noise, yes.
MR. TRAVER-Traffic?
MR. MC ADAM-Yes. I don't know how noisy it's going to be but.
MR. TRAVER-So hours of operation and the overall timeframe is what you're concerned about?
MR. MC ADAM-Yes, is it six months? Is it eight months? Two months? I don't have any idea how
long it takes to harvest 100 acres.
MR. TRAVER-Right. A lot of that's driven by conditions and the approach the applicant takes.
MR. MC ADAM-Absolutely.
MR. TRAVER-We will certainly address that. Anything else?
MR. MC ADAM-No, that would be it.
MR. TRAVER-Thank you very much. Is there anyone else that wanted to address the Planning Board
on this application? I'm not seeing any other hands. Laura, are there any written comments?
MRS. MOORE-There are two written comments.
17
MR. TRAVER-Okay.
MRS. MOORE-This is addressed to myself. "Laura, I received your voicemail and am sending the
questions my parents Claude and Lois Stehle who reside at 671 Luzerne Rd. had regarding the logging
operations next to their property [site plan 72-2018]. My parents are elderly and unable to attend the
meeting on Dec 18, 2018 so would like to make sure the loggers would not start working each day at
an unreasonable time in the mornings that would disturb them since it appears the logging landing and
main skid road will be next to their house. Also, how long a duration the logging was estimated to
take. If you can find this information out at the meeting and email me back I would appreciate it.
Thank you. Rene Stehle" The second one is addressed to the Planning Board. "We are extremely
concerned about the main skidder trail intersecting Luzerne Road. We are worried about the road
drainage problems and the major noise and traffic disruption it will cause our neighbors and us. The
road water drains down Luzerne Road starting at the intersection of Luzerne and West Mountain into
our driveway after heavy rains. We are the first driveway and the lowest place for the water to flow.
There are no drainage ditches on this part of Luzerne Road, and when we get heavy rain or spring thaw
our property gets damaged. Building a logging road at that location will create a muddy mess that
will drain on to our property. Our other concern is the major noise and traffic problems this road
will create. This section of Luzerne Road is peaceful and quiet. Creating a logging landing and road
at the proposed location will cause major disruptions to the home at this location. Our house and
garage are near the property line, and with logging trucks and skidders traffic will make it impossible
for me to work at my home office. In addition the traffic on Luzerne Rd. has increased, there has
been numerous new homes and residential developments built on Luzerne Road in the last few years
causing traffic to back-up well past our house. Adding a logging road that will be used to remove
that much lumber will unquestionably create traffic issues on Luzerne Road and possibly increasing the
danger on an already dangerous area. The intersection of Luzerne Road and West Mountain Road has
had numerous accidents and some resulting in death. Adding a road that will be used by large trucks
a very short distance from that intersection will make our road more dangerous. It is our hope the
logging access main skidder road could be located along West Mt. Road which the property owner
owns a huge amount of property along West Mt. Road that has very few home and easily accommodate
a road that will handle this type of truck traffic. Sincerely, Mark Landon & Judith McNealus 675
Luzerne Road"
MR. TRAVER-Okay. Thank you, Laura. We'll close the public hearing.
PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED
MR. TRAVER-So some concern about a couple of issues, one being the total of time from when you
plan to start to when the project is completed. Do you have an idea of that?
MR. KOSKINEN-Well, the one thing that would help there immensely would be if he could start soon
during this wintertime and good frozen ground, no mud. There's fewer people. Of course when
summer comes you'll have vacationers coming and there's more people. So the more he can get done
between now and say the end of March type thing or beginning of March, because he could really get
through there, maybe three or four truckloads a day, that kind of thing. So if he had four loads a
day and that's like one truck every two hours. So not like one truck every 20 minutes, you know,
and that would be a major benefit. The sooner he can start now, the better from that point of view.
MR. TRAVER-So you would expect to be concluded by say the end of March?
MR. KOSKINEN-Well.
MR. MAGOWAN-You don't want to go into mud season.
MR. KOSKINEN-No, no, definitely not. Technically frozen or bone dry is what we're looking at, and
usually somewhere in the middle of March, March I" or the middle of March we try to pull out, let it
dry for a couple of months, but if you could do, let me see, 60,000 feet a week for eight weeks, that
would get, you know, two-thirds of what we're taking out of there fast. So that would be about two
months. If you had three months in there you could really do a good job. If he can get three-
quarters of it done this winter, then it wouldn't take that much more in the summer, maybe six weeks
in the summer, five weeks in the summer.
MR. TRAVER-And so you would operate during the winter months. Then you'd have a break until,
what, like July or something?
MR. KOSKINEN-No, no. It gets pretty hot like the first of June maybe, June I`/
1 ;
<;
MR. DEMELLO-Yes, it just depends on how much snow we get and how wet the land is.
MR. TRAVER-Right.
MR. DEMELLO-I mean as long as you're able to work, and we might not get any more snow. We
might have a pretty quick mud season, when the frost comes out of the ground, and we might be back
to work pretty quick. So just if we get dumped on with a lot of snow, it's going to take us a while.
MR. TRAVER-And then if you're unable to complete the whole project during the frozen months and
you do have to come back during the summer, it sounds like you're talking about maybe another
month for the completion of it during the dry season.
MR. KOSKINEN-Yes. Four, five, six weeks.
MR. TRAVER-And then what do you anticipate for hours of operation? What time would you start
in the morning and what time would you be done in the evening?
MR. DEMELLO-We're willing to work, I want to work with people. I don't want to upset anybody.
I mean, like a seven to five.
MR. TRAVER-Seven to five?
MR. DEMELLO-Yes, something like that.
MR. TRAVER-Okay. I'm just trying to get an idea of what the parameters of our hypothetical approval
would be for this. As far as when you could begin, if you are able to gain this Board's approval and
you operate according to the plan that you have with Soil and Water, they could begin very quickly,
right?
MRS. MOORE-Very quickly.
MR. MAGOWAN-1 have one question. On your staging area, why didn't you pick Pitcher Road?
MR. KOSKINEN-The owner wanted to have the landing in that location and that's what he.
MR. DEMELLO-That's where he said he would like it the most, you know, have us stage it there.
MR. MAGOWAN-Yes, I was just wondering because there's less houses over there on Pitcher Road.
I mean I know the property and actually I'm shocked because the family is, you know, that's like the
sacred ground there for so many years, and I think one of the kids built a house back in there, but it's
a beautiful, but, Kurt, I mean, this handwritten stuff, I mean you're unbelievable.
MR. KOSKINEN-Old School.
MR. MAGOWAN-You are old school. You've been doing this a long time.
MR. KOSKI N EN-Forty-five years.
MR. MAGOWAN-But I have to say I was impressed with your tree count and everything. That was
quite intense writing and I enjoyed going through this.
MR. KOSKINEN-Thank you.
MR. DEMELLO-Yes. I was referred to him highly, very highly.
MR. HUNSINGER-I was going to say one of the reasons we didn't have many questions is because
your application is so detailed.
MR. TRAVER-It's also nice to see you're following the guidelines. It's critical to the forest and
ultimately to the success of the project.
MR. KOSKINEN-One of my own personal sayings is that I'd rather be pro-active than reactive. That's
big.
MR. TRAVER-Well we appreciate that. So are there any other questions? We've done the public
hearing. Does the Board have any further questions or discussion with the applicant before we?
1
MR. DEEB-Do you want a limit or a guideline as to the length of time it's going to take you? Are you
comfortable that you can get done whatever the weather provides in the winter?
MR. DEMELLO-There's just so many variables with that.
MR. KOSKINEN-Yes, the primary concern is that if we happen to have a nightmarish spring thaw
February I", so we only get like four or five weeks of real good work, then you're hamstrung, you
know.
MRS. MOORE-1 guess I would suggest that knowing that you have I guess this certain time period
between December and March and then the summertime period, I would ask the Board do a time limit
and that by December of this coming year that they be completed, and if it's not completed then the
applicant comes back before the Board so that we know what the status is.
MR. TRAVER-Sure.
MRS. MOORE-1 do have one other item. It's in reference to the construction entrance. There's no
drawings in the documentation that we have that talks about what the construction entrance looks like,
and that is something that there's other communities that are also working on timber harvesting items
and one of the issues that keeps coming up is the construction entrance design and location on a
property. So I would ask the applicant include a drawing that specifically outlays that construction
entrance detail including, I know they referenced the Soil and Water letter, but we need the actual
detail and location. I think that should be part of your, if you were to do a condition.
MR. TRAVER-Okay.
MS. WHITE-Do you have any problem providing that?
MR. KOSKINEN-No. I was just going to say, I'm going to have Rick Maguire build the landing and I
asked him to draw something up and he gave me this quick scratch. He's like just tell them it's going
to be like this.
MR. MAGOWAN-You're lucky you didn't get it on a napkin.
MR. KOSKINEN-Yes, and I'm like are you sure? And he said, yes, yes, if they need anything else,
just let me know, but he said, you know, it'll be 20 foot wide, the entrance where I back in my truck,
and then it'll be all fabric and stoned, Number Two Stone. My truck will never touch mud. So I
don't know how I'd track mud out into the road. It'll be all.
MR. TRAVER-Well, if you would work with Laura and her staff to make sure that she has the
appropriate drawings for the record, we'd appreciate that.
MRS. MOORE-Right, and just for the record, I know there's audience still listening, is that the site is
inspected. We have a Code Compliance Officer that meets with an applicant prior to the project taking
place and goes through those details especially about tracking mud and if neighbors call and complain,
Bruce comes out and talks with the applicant and says, look, you can't do that anymore, you need to
come up and clean it up. So that is an opportunity for the audience, I mean I know they're listening.
It's an opportunity for you to communicate with the Town to say look there's a problem on this road
with the debris, and I'm sure, and the applicants will probably be made aware of it instantly to clean it
up.
MR. TRAVER-Yes, good point, Laura. Thank you.
MR. MAGOWAN-The other thing, in their letter the neighbor said about the flooding of the land.
Is that north or south, would that be north or south of the entrance or anything when constructing
the entrance that you can mediate?
MR. KOSKINEN-I don't know how we could alter it because it's not, I'm not like disturbing it. I'm
just taking like a small amount of smaller trees and then I'm going straight back into the woods. So
I'm not, you know, and then t here's like, it tapers down into the woods not down, it doesn't lean
towards Luzerne, tip towards Luzerne Road down to the drainage.
MR. TRAVER-1 think the whole point of the exercise is to avoid the mud by working in the wintertime.
20
MR. MAGOWAN-Yes, no. It's not the mud. I was more worried about the neighbor saying that
their land floods.
MR. VALENTINE-But it's a pre-existing condition.
MS. WHITE-Yes, nothing they're doing will change that.
MR. VALENTINE-It sounds right from their letter that they've got a history of that happening.
MR. MAGOWAN-Yes.
MS. WHITE-What they're doing, this project should not affect.
MR. MAGOWAN-No, I understand that. I see what he's trying to do. Is there anything that you
see when constructing the road, I'm wondering if you could, you know?
MR. KOSKINEN-I think they're just worried that my truck is going to draw the mud out into the
road and that it's going to run down and push more sediment, mud down into their property because
it does drain down that hill into that dip on Luzerne Road there.
MR. VALENTINE-Are you going to have a culvert in your drive?
MR. KOSKINEN-No. It's right flat.
MR. TRAVER-Anything else before we discuss the SEQR resolution?
MRS. MOORE-One more thing, in looking at this the neighbor was concerned that the road, that
landing trail would be close to their property line, and I just want to confirm, you said it's 20 feet
wide. Would it be closer to the cemetery side, or you don't know yet?
MR. KOSKINEN-1 was going to try to get it like dead center, and then clear off to the sides, because
then I'll have an area for the skidder to pull the logs up, the trees into. Then my truck will sit in the
middle. Then if I have to stack wood, it'll be on the other side.
MRS. MOORE-Okay, but that would be past that, just looking up. The skidder trail comes here. The
landing is past the cemetery?
MR. KOSKINEN-Do you want me to show you?
MRS. MOORE-Yes, could you do that?
MR. KOSKINEN-All right. So I wanted to put it dead center. The truck should sit right and in this
area. The skidder trail, you know, will come around here, and then we'll stage the wood, land the
wood say on this side. The truck will sit in the middle and I can pile wood and logs and I'm not taking
out that right there, and this is the cemetery here, and this is the neighbor's house.
MRS. MOORE-Okay. Just so the Board's aware of where that starts.
MS. WHITE-Yes, that helps.
MR. TRAVER-Thank you for that clarification.
MR. VALENTINE-You had stated the letter came in and talked about times of operation and you had
said seven and I can understand seven as far as construction operation, but I think the lady that wrote
the letter or person that wrote it was an elderly lady, and I'll tell you, my mother's 85. She's not up
at seven. So I'm just thinking of that noise, if it is a seven o'clock start, I don't know if you want to
talk to those people beforehand or something.
MR. DEMELLO-I mean we're even willing to say eight.
MR. VALENTINE-Because I wind up with this in Saratoga County with the forest lands and we wind
up having comments coming back to us from neighbors with just early morning hours of operation.
MR. TRAVER-The only disadvantage to that is now you're going to have a longer duration.
21
MR. VALENTINE-Yes, I know. There's not a good answer. That's why I'm thinking a conversation
with them one on one or something would be beneficial.
MR. DEMELLO-And I do understand the skidders, the chainsaws are loud. So, I mean, I'm willing to
work with people. I want as little friction as possible.
MR. DEEB-Are you okay with an eight o'clock start?
MR. DEMELLO-Yes, we can say eight o'clock.
MR. HUNSINGER-If the neighbor doesn't mind seven, why hamstring them.
MR. DEEB-We have to put a time in there.
MR. MAGOWAN-Why don't we compromise and say seven thirty.
MR. HUNSINGER-How about no earlier than seven?
MR. TRAVER-Well as long as the applicant's expressed, and it's on the record, a willingness to work
with the people affected. So let's put seven.
MS. WHITE-No earlier than seven.
MR. TRAVER-Let's put seven.
MR. DEEB-I'll just put start at seven o'clock.
MR. TRAVER-All right. Anything else? We still have SEQR to do. We talked about the construction
entrance design to be presented. How are folks feeling regarding SEAR? We certainly have a complete
application. Are people feeling as though they're prepared to vote on SEAR? Okay. We're all ready
for that.
RESOLUTION GRANTING A NEGATIVE SEQR DEC. SP # 72-2018 JOSEPH DEMELLO
The applicant proposes a timber harvest plan for 96 acres of 101 acre parcel. Applicant has provided a
timber harvest plan showing landing and main skidder trail from Luzerne Road. There are spurs from
the main skidder path to areas as shown to harvest 7 stands. Pursuant to Chapter 179-6-010 of the
Zoning Ordinance, timber harvests shall be subject to Planning Board review and approval.
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;
Upon review of the information recorded on this EAF, 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 impact statement need not be prepared. Accordingly,
this negative declaration is issued.
MOTION TO GRANT A NEGATIVE DECLARATION FOR SITE PLAN 72-2018 JOSEPH DEMELLO.
Introduced by David Deeb who moved for its adoption.
As per the resolution prepared by staff.
1. Part II of the Short EAF has been reviewed and completed by the Planning Board.
2. Part III of the Short EAF is not necessary because the Planning Board did not identify potentially
moderate to large impacts.
22
Motion seconded by Jamie White. Duly adopted this 18" day of December, 2018 by the following vote:
AYES: Ms. White, Mr. Jackoski, Mr. Hunsinger, Mr. Magowan, Mr. Valentine, Mr. Deeb, Mr. Traver
NOES: NONE
MR. TRAVER-All right. Next we move to the Site Plan resolution, and I know we added some
conditions. Is there any discussion before we have the Site Plan resolution?
RESOLUTION APPROVING SP # 72-2018 JOSEPH DEMELLO
The applicant has submitted an application to the Planning Board for Site Plan approval pursuant to
Article 9 of the Town zoning Ordinance for: Applicant proposes a timber harvest plan for 96 acres
of 101 acre parcel. Applicant has provided a timber harvest plan showing landing and main skidder trail
from Luzerne Road. There are spurs from the main skidder path to areas as shown to harvest 7 stands.
Pursuant to Chapter 179-6-010 of the Zoning Ordinance, timber harvests shall be subject to Planning
Board review and approval.
Pursuant to relevant sections of the Town of Queensbury Zoning Code-Chapter 179-9-080, the
Planning Board has determined that this proposal satisfies the requirements as stated in the Zoning
Code;
As required by General Municipal Law Section 239-m the site plan application was referred to the
Warren County Planning Department for its recommendation;
The Planning Board has reviewed the potential environmental impacts of the project, pursuant to the
State Environmental Quality Review Act [SEQRA] and adopted a SEQRA Negative Declaration —
Determination of Non-Significance
The Planning Board opened a public hearing on the Site plan application on 12/18/2018 and continued
the public hearing to 12/18/2018, when it was closed,
The Planning Board has reviewed the application materials submitted by the applicant and all comments
made at the public hearing and submitted in writing through and including 12/18/2018;
The Planning Board determines that the application complies with the review considerations and
standards set forth in Article 9 of the Zoning Ordinance for Site Plan approval,
MOTION TO APPROVE SITE PLAN 72-2018 JOSEPH DEMELLO. Introduced by David Deeb who
moved for its adoption;
Per the draft provided by staff conditioned upon the following conditions:
1] Waiver request granted:
2] Adherence to the items outlined in the follow-up letter sent with this resolution.
aJ If application was referred to engineering, then engineering sign-off required prior to
signature of Zoning Administrator of the approved plans;
bJ Final approved plans should have dimensions and setbacks noted on the site plan/survey,
floor plans and elevation for the existing rooms and proposed rooms in the building and
site improvements,
cJ 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;
dJ The applicant must meet with Staff after approval and prior to issuance of Building Permit
and/or the beginning of any site work;
eJ Subsequent issuance of further permits, including building permits, is dependent on
compliance with this and all other conditions of this resolution;
fJ 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;
gJ Resolution to be placed on final plans in its entirety and legible.
hJ Hours of operation to be 7 a.m. to 5 p.m.
iJ Project to be completed no later than December 15t", 2019.
jJ Applicant to submit detailed construction entrance plans to Staff.
23
Motion seconded by Brad Magowan. Duly adopted this 18" day of December, 2018, by the following
vote:
AYES: Mr. Hunsinger, Mr. Magowan, Mr. Valentine, Mr. Deeb, Ms. White, Mr. Traver
NOES: Mr. Jackoski
MR. TRAVER-Just a note on the December deadline for completion of the project. If you find out
that you're unable to complete by then, I would hope that you would know say by the summer if we
have to go to the summer, you would want to then begin planning to come in and discuss with us how
you're going to complete the project, which probably we'd bump until frozen ground again, which is
probably what you'd want to do anyway. We're hoping obviously that you can conclude this project
during the frozen months. Okay. And any follow up questions, you'll get a letter detailing next
steps and all the rest of it. If you have any questions reach out to Staff. They'll be glad to help you
with that. All right, and that concludes our agenda this evening. A reminder that, due to the holiday,
our second meeting of this month will be this coming Thursday the 20t" and that will also be our
annual meeting. Is there any other business before the Board this evening? Then I'll entertain a
motion to adjourn.
MR. DEEB-So moved.
MOTION TO ADJOURN THE QUEENSBURY PLANNING BOARD MEETING OF DECEMBER 181",
2018, Introduced by David Deeb who moved for its adoption, seconded by Jamie White:
Duly adopted this 18" day of December, 2018, by the following vote:
AYES: Ms. White, Mr. Jackoski, Mr. Hunsinger, Mr. Magowan, Mr. Valentine, Mr. Deeb, Mr. Traver
NOES: NONE
MR. TRAVER-We stand adjourned. Thank you, everybody. See you Thursday.
MR. HUNSINGER-Except for me.
On motion meeting was adjourned.
RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED,
Stephen Traver, Chairman