2011.04.26
(Queensbury Planning Board 04/26/2011)
QUEENSBURY PLANNING BOARD MEETING
SECOND REGULAR MEETING
APRIL 26, 2011
INDEX
Site Plan No. 53-2007 Provident Batavia, LLC 1.
MODIFICATION Tax Map No. 239.7-1-14
Subdivision No. 1-2011 VMJR Companies 12.
PRELIMINARY STAGE Tax Map No. 303.11-1-4, 303.15-1-25.2
FWW 1-2011
Site Plan No. 29-2011 Laura Feathers 16.
Tax Map No. 288.12-1-15
Site Plan No. 6-2011 Inwald Enterprises 17.
ZBA RECOMMENDATION Tax Map No. 227.17-1-16
Site Plan No. 39-2010 Inwald Enterprises 21.
ZBA RECOMMENDATION Tax Map No. 227.17-1-16
Site Plan No. 28-2011 Susan Clermont 25.
ZBA RECOMMENDATION Tax Map No. 239.12-2-13
Site Plan No. 11-2011 Cellco Partnership d/b/a 30.
ZBA RECOMMENDATION Tax Map No. 302.8-2-4
Site Plan No. 30-2011 Dr. Jessica Shin 34.
Tax Map No. 301.08-1-35
Site Plan No. 80-2010 Hayes & Hayes, LLC 39.
Tax Map No. 302.14-1-79.2
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.
QUEENSBURY PLANNING BOARD MEETING
0
(Queensbury Planning Board 04/26/2011)
SECOND REGULAR MEETING
APRIL 26, 2011
7:00 P.M.
MEMBERS PRESENT
CHRIS HUNSINGER, CHAIRMAN
GRETCHEN STEFFAN, SECRETARY
STEPHEN TRAVER
PAUL SCHONEWOLF
DONALD KREBS
DONALD SIPP
BRAD MAGOWAN, ALTERNATE
LAND USE PLANNER-KEITH OBORNE
STENOGRAPHER-MARIA GAGLIARDI
MR. HUNSINGER-I’ll call to order the meeting of the Town of Queensbury Planning Board on
Tuesday, April 26, 2011. For those members of the audience, welcome. There is a copy of the
agenda on the back table as well as a handout for the public hearing information which will
come into play on later applications. Our first item on the agenda is a tabled item for Provident
Batavia, LLC.
SITE PLAN 53-2007 MODIFICATION SEQR TYPE UNLISTED PROVIDENT BATAVIA, LLC
OWNER(S) JIM QUINN, KEN ROTUNDO ZONING WR -WATERFRONT RESIDENTIAL
LOCATION 67 KNOX ROAD APPLICANT PROPOSES TO MODIFY EXISTING
ND
INCOMPLETE SINGLE FAMILY DWELLING BY REMOVING 2 FLOOR LIVING SPACE AND
MODIFY PREVIOUSLY INSTALLED DRIVEWAY TO ALLOW ACCESS FOR NEIGHBORING
PARCEL TO THE NORTH. THIS PROPOSAL HAS BEEN CLASSIFIED AS A MAJOR
STORMWATER PROJECT; PLANNING BOARD REVIEW AND APPROVAL IS REQUIRED.
CROSS REFERENCE NOA 4-09 & 11-07, BP 06-271 WARREN CO. PLANNING 1/12/11-NO
ACTION APA, CEA, OTHER APA, L G CEA LOT SIZE 0.45 +/- ACRES TAX MAP NO.
239.7-1-14 SECTION 179-9
KARLA BUETTNER, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT
MR. HUNSINGER-We did get the engineering comments.
MR. OBORNE-Yes, sir, you did.
th
MR. HUNSINGER-Albeit at the 11 hour.
MR. OBORNE-Yes. Obviously you tabled this application last week to this date, first on the
agenda. They did get the engineering review, and I’m sure the applicant will discuss that in
detail.
MR. HUNSINGER-Did you receive a copy of the engineering comments as well?
MS. BUETTNER-Yes, Saturday night.
MR. HUNSINGER-Okay.
MS. BUETTNER-We received them. Thank you. Mr. Chairman, we’re not going go through the
history of this unless the Board wants. Thank you, again.
MRS. STEFFAN-Thanks anyway.
MS. BUETTNER-Thank you for putting us on so quickly. I do appreciate it.
MR. HUNSINGER-Yes. If you could just identify yourselves for the record.
MS. BUETTNER-Sorry. Karla Buettner, Bartlett, Pontiff, Stewart & Rhodes, here for Provident
Batavia. With me is Nicholas LaFountain of Provident Development and Ed Esposito from
Monarch Design. We did receive the engineering comments from VISION Engineering on
Saturday, as I stated. We have had an opportunity to not only review the comments but to meet
with Staff and go over what needs to be completed to get approval here tonight. We are
hopeful, and keep our fingers crossed that we will obtain that approval, because the comments,
most of which are note comments, can be addressed, and I’m going to have Nick LaFountain,
1
(Queensbury Planning Board 04/26/2011)
who’s created our presentation, and has a handout for the Board, since this is kind of an unusual
situation, has a handout for the Board, if you so desire. He did fax it or e-mail it over to Staff.
MR. HUNSINGER-Okay.
MR. LA FOUNTAIN-Yes. So, again, my name is Nicholas LaFountain from Provident, and I did
this thorough investigation of all the documents that he listed, and I just wanted to go through
that on here. Do you guys wish to have a handout? It might be easier. It’s the same thing that’s
going to be up here, and I think it’s going to be easier to go through it.
MR. HUNSINGER-I see one nodding head. Steve?
MR. TRAVER-Well, I guess my concern is when we tabled this last week it was with the
assumption that we were going to get a signoff, and it appears that there are multiple issues
remaining and I don’t know if it’s appropriate for us to go through an engineering review at this
point. I think we’re still looking for a signoff, in addition to our resistance to accepting materials
on new comments the night of the meeting. So I guess I would prefer that we table this item.
MR. HUNSINGER-Any other members want to comment? Don?
MR. KREBS-Well, I’d like to comment to the fact that, you know, some of the comments from the
engineer asked the applicant to evaluate, but it doesn’t establish what the criteria for the
evaluation is. So I, as a Board member, really don’t know how to, it says in Item Ten, the
applicant should evaluate the impact of the up gradient septic system with the perforated
foundation drainage system proposed. What kind of an evaluation is our engineer looking for? I
don’t understand that. Okay, and the next one is the applicant should evaluate the impact of the
proposed storm chamber infiltration device, which appears to be directly adjacent to the
neighboring residents. What is it that the engineer is looking for the applicant to do? When I
look at that, I can’t decipher, from this comment, what it is that they’re asking you to do.
MRS. STEFFAN-Nick, can you explain that for us?
MR. LA FOUNTAIN-Well, I can explain it. I mean, I have a couple of diagrams that relate to
that, but, yes, it’s typical that we get this engineering review so late, and then it’s so vague as
well.
MR. TRAVER-But you represented to us, sir, last week, that you had a signoff, essentially, that
you had met with VISION, and that you had discussed these items in detail and had agreement
with VISION and supported your plan. Now we’re reading, again, as you point out, albeit at the
last minute, that your sewage disposal system doesn’t meet Code, and you want us to discuss it
tonight, as an agenda item and have other people wait?
MR. LA FOUNTAIN-Well, I spoke with Dave Hatin over the subject matter of the sewage system
not being compliant, and Dave Hatin and I believe that it’s all because of a setback requirement
and Dave has satisfied that requirement and said it’s fine to go, and I have an e-mail showing
that.
MR. TRAVER-So you disagree with the report of our engineer in this document that we
received?
MR. LA FOUNTAIN-Well, Dave Hatin and I believe that it’s a setback requirement, and with the
position that it’s on the plans right now, if we build it to that position, Dave Hatin, I think Keith got
that e-mail as well, says that is not an issue. Is that correct?
MR. OBORNE-I wouldn’t say it’s not an issue. I think he needs a little bit more clarification, but if
it was built, having talked to Dave this morning about this subject, if it is designed as it was
previously proposed, prior to anybody on this Board seeing this application, it should be fine. He
just needs clarification on the details.
MR. TRAVER-Okay.
ED ESPOSITO
MR. ESPOSITO-But we do disagree with that letter. I think it’s a hoodwink. It’s not what we
discussed, and I’d love to go over it point by point.
MR. TRAVER-But do you understand the position that this puts us in? Because we did add you
to an already full agenda and put you at the beginning of that agenda, and have other people
2
(Queensbury Planning Board 04/26/2011)
who were prepared previously, obviously, wait while we were expected, by your representation,
to have a signoff, and here we have a list of a dozen items, right here.
MS. BUETTNER-If I may, Member Traver, what was represented was what they believed they
heard Dan Ryan say at the meeting. I mean, they came here with it was their belief. I mean,
apparently Dan did not say it was a signoff. There was no misrepresentation intended to the
Board. I want to put that on the record.
MR. TRAVER-Right. I understand.
MS. BUETTNER-In addition, we do appreciate the fact that you put us on, and we understand
the audience sitting and waiting as we’ve been in that position before, for the past five years. So
we do understand that, but at the same time we received these comments, we have created the
presentation tonight to address those comments, and I think if you would just give us a little
leeway on that, and allow Nick to give his very brief presentation, perhaps that would answer
some questions for you.
MR. TRAVER-Well, again, I’m only speaking for myself. I think other members should
comment, but I feel that we were given substantial leeway last week.
MR. SIPP-I think you’re speaking for a lot of people, and I was going through the back
comments, back through last Fall and so forth, and on one of the comments from the engineer it
said in essence there should be a provision put on the new deed so that the buyer/owner is
aware that he has a lot of maintenance to do on his stormwater and septic system. I’m not
quoting it correctly, but that’s what the essence of it. Now, if it’s that bad that he thinks that the
buyer or the owner needs lessons in maintaining these systems, how long are these systems
going to hold up? One Spring? Snow melt, heavy rain? Is that system going to be plugged for
the rest of the summer?
MR. ESPOSITO-I remembered the comment. In response to that, these stormwater devices,
they’re permanent controls. We have drafted a sediment erosion control post construction,
where the deed owner would have to maintain chamber design. It’s an industry standard that
they’re hollow. They have a manhole access and so forth, and we’re prepared to do that. We’ve
had many toe the line questions and answers and yes we can do that, yes we’ll add a fence.
Yes we’ll add deeper stone in the chamber. Yes we have tested 10 foot of soil and it’s, it was
exposed for five years, and it has not eroded. These devices, some of the devices exist on the
property with no impact to the lake and no erosion. It’s all healed over, and we haven’t even
begun to do the permanent control. So, you know, there are issues that Dan raised, add a note
on the drawing. We have. We have that, in addition to the permanent controls, he’s asked for
that to be put on the sediment erosion control. We’re happy to comply. We could show the
Board the note on the drawing. We’ve got full size exhibits, or Nick’s, you know, exhibits of what
each and every question was question and answer. He’s asked us to check and evaluate.
We’ve got an environmental engineer that has pretty much signed off on that, and for the life of
me I don’t know why Dan Ryan didn’t agree to, you know, after shaking our hands and telling us
that the plans were satisfactory, he’s got certain comments that, okay, in the interest of the
Town, protection of the Town and your better interests, we’ve added these things and these
notes on the essay sheet exhibits. So we’d be happy to go over point by point, but we don’t
think they’re large comments at this point. So we’re still seeking a conditional approval. I’d be
happy to walk you through, basically, in the interest of time and perhaps it’s not best, so I
thought Nick could do the short version that, yes, those comments were addressed, and if we
were seeking additional approval, we’re all on the hook with whatever conditions the Board
places on these as a follow up, you know, but again, we’ve just begun, you know, looking at the
reconstruction of the site that, quite honestly, it’s been there. It’s not a new site. The site is
stabilized, the home is there. We’ve got a game plan to re-do it. The law changed. The
applicant said, okay, we’ll take the building down. It’s not a new application. So I know, it’s very
disappointing at this date. We do have 12 comments, but again, they’re not large issues of, you
know, add a note here and here, guarantee, personally guarantee to the Town. We’ve had
Queensbury’s staff sign off on the, okay, we’ve looked at the original permits, the original septic
field, had the soil tested. It’s the same site. In fact, we’ve just done a boosted version of
everything that was required of us to get the Board comfortable, and if there’s additional
conditions, I have never seen an applicant so motivated. I’m sure the Town wants this off their
plate. Let’s move on. We’ve each looked at this long and hard, and I don’t know your exit
strategy of, if we had a Town engineer who’s not available for comment, as this letter implied,
there’s things we could have worked out over the phone or he could have called Staff, but, be
that as it may, we’ve got three professionals willing to stamp off on this, whatever conditions that
this Town feels, at this point, as a follow up. We’ve got great soil, a safe design. It’s not
impacting the neighbors, and last week we heard from the Water Keeper, and I’ve got my own
responses after the meeting, but I’ll turn it back over to Karla.
3
(Queensbury Planning Board 04/26/2011)
MR. HUNSINGER-I guess before we do that, I just want to kind of poll the Board here for a
second, because, I mean, literally what we did say is we would spend like five minutes on this
this evening, because we did have a full agenda. So in my mind we really have two choices
based on the parameters that we set a week ago, either to move it with conditions or to table it.
Personally I’m kind of torn. I tend to agree with the applicant that a lot of the engineering
comments are fairly minor, and they really don’t impact the Site Plan, but I’m just one person.
So I guess I’d like to hear from the rest of the Board.
MR. TRAVER-Well, Mr. Chairman, again, my feeling, again, speaking for myself, is that there
are issues. I don’t question the applicant when they indicate that they’re prepared to work with
the engineer to work these things out. This is a Critical Environmental Area. This has been a
problem for five years, as the applicant pointed out. The fact that it’s taken five years and we
have this still before us, makes me less likely to just say, well, you guys go off and tend to it
yourself and we’ll just sign off on it. I really think that we need this done really by the book at
this point. I’ve lost confidence in the process with this particular case. There’s so many
changes and we’ve boosted this and we’ve changed that, and if we go back to the original
design, you know, it might work. I don’t want to endanger the lake by saying, well, that sounds
good enough for me. I’m not an engineer. So that’s my feeling. I think we need to go get this
taken care of properly.
MS. BUETTNER-I’m sorry. If I may address Member Traver, you said that this has been a
problem for five years and that concerns you and that we’re still here for five years. I just want to
remind the Board as a whole that we were in litigation for five years. We had Stop Work Order
back in 2007. The law changed. We went to Supreme Court, the Appellate Division, then a
couple of more, and then neighbor litigation. It’s all been resolved. So it’s not as though we’ve
been before the Board for five years. I just want to make it clear that it’s been in litigation.
MR. TRAVER-You’re right. I stand corrected.
MS. BUETTNER-And we were in compliance until all of that happened.
MR. TRAVER-Right.
MS. BUETTNER-And as to your comment, I completely agree with you, you know, this has been
one of those odd duck comments that, you know, you had this drawing, take that away, take this
away, take that away, but.
MR. TRAVER-It’s a difficult piece of property.
MS. BUETTNER-Understood.
MR. TRAVER-And, you know, I certainly respect what you have been wrestling with, in terms of
having a pre-existing, nonconforming, well, actually not a pre-existing, non-conforming structure,
but a non-conforming structure that you’re trying to engineer in a compliant way. I understand
that, but please understand the situation that we’re in, as you’re, you know, all the things that
we’ve discussed before, you’re right on Lake George. You have very steep slopes. You have
these septic system issues, all of the things that are still being outlined in here, and they are
largely engineer issues. I agree. They’re not subjective. We’re not talking about the color or,
you know, something that we necessarily are going to have a strong comfort level with saying,
well, that’s fine. Just go off and do what you think best. This is, there’s some serious
engineering issues here, and, again, I see no reason to be, to doubt that you’ll be able to work
these things out, but I think they do need to be worked out before we grant any kind of approval.
MS. BUETTNER-As indicated, the applicant would be willing to obviously do any conditions this
Board places on it, would work with Staff, if they want to come and inspect on a daily basis. Our
concern, at this point, is that we got these on Saturday night. Nick and I were e-mailing back
and forth on Saturday night, about the comment. We’re here on Tuesday. If we table this until
the next month, we’ve basically, the building season may be gone because, if history is going to
repeat itself, we don’t know what kind of response we’re going to get from the Town Engineer,
with all due respect to everyone involved. That’s really been a thorn in everyone’s side here.
MR. TRAVER-Yes, and I understand your position. Again, understand ours, that when we
discussed this engineering situation last week, you know, we all, as the Chairman reminded us
tonight, we all decided that we would only need to spend a few minutes on this because it was
your expectation that we would have an engineering signoff, and I think that we discussed that,
in the event that we didn’t, it would need to be tabled, and we’d have to do more engineering
work.
MS. BUETTNER-That that would be an option, I believe.
4
(Queensbury Planning Board 04/26/2011)
MR. TRAVER-That that would be an option. Yes, and, I mean, had I seen, I mean perhaps is
there, maybe if some of the issues were different, I might feel a little differently, but these are
engineering issues.
MS. BUETTNER-Which we have responses to, and that’s.
MR. TRAVER-I understand that, but we don’t have VISION here to respond to your responses,
and when we made room for you on the agenda last week, we didn’t plan on spending this much
time talking about it.
MS. BUETTNER-I understand.
MR. TRAVER-So it’s a situation, it’s difficult for all of us.
MS. BUETTNER-Absolutely.
MR. TRAVER-Maybe if we had a better understanding last week of the true status of the
relationship with the engineer, we might have been able to expedite things a little further, but we
are where we are.
MS. BUETTNER-And we were all in the dark on that one.
MR. TRAVER-Right, I understand that.
MS. BUETTNER-And have been for months.
MR. TRAVER-I understand that.
MR. HUNSINGER-Any other Board members want to comment on?
MR. SIPP-I’m no engineer, but I’ve had a lot of contact with soil and water management, and I
cannot see how you can properly do this with the systems that you’ve got in place right now. As
steep a grade as approaching 35% in some places, and it takes quite a bit of engineering to do a
good job of containing that water, preventing erosion, and having things work correctly, and I
don’t see that it, as I say, I’m not an engineer, but I do have contact with drainage problems, and
I just don’t see that this is going to be what a person is going to pay that kind of money for this
piece of property is looking for.
MR. SCHONEWOLF-I’m not an engineer either, but for the engineering firm that works for us,
that we hire, to come through on a Saturday night and tell the client that they should be making
the evaluation, that’s totally unacceptable, and this, once again this is a perfect example of why
we need an engineer on staff. A Town this size without an engineer on staff is ridiculous, and if
we’d have an engineer on staff, he would have been sitting there when we went through this,
and we wouldn’t be going through this. I think this is an embarrassment.
MRS. STEFFAN-I just, I have a question for Nick. Can you answer Number Two? Do the
Town’s Community Development Department, do they have it on file that the Department of
Health has given this an approval? Do you have an application, an approved application for
your septic?
MR. LA FOUNTAIN-No, I mean, this is a complete system that is approved and is all set to go.
We don’t need any waivers for this. The fact that it says that it’s non-compliant is probably
because of the setback issue that we had discussed earlier with Dave Hatin.
MRS. STEFFAN-With the road?
MR. LA FOUNTAIN-No, it’s a 20 foot setback that’s required between the dwelling and the
septic system. We have 13 feet, but it’s the garage. So the house is 34 feet 6 inches. The
living space is 34 feet 6 inches to the septic system, and that’s why.
MR. HUNSINGER-Yes. So it’s your position that there’s no variances needed. It’s a compliant
system?
MR. LA FOUNTAIN-Exactly, and for Dan Ryan to write that it’s a non-compliant system, that
could easily be done by a setback issue that is not correct. I mean, that’s an easily, that’s a
scapegoat to the whole system is that it’s non-compliant because it doesn’t meet a setback
issue.
5
(Queensbury Planning Board 04/26/2011)
MR. HUNSINGER-Yes. Do you have other questions, Gretchen?
MRS. STEFFAN-That was the biggest one for me. There’s another septic comment. The septic
calculations could not be reviewed since they’re not legible, but I thought that Dan was out in the
field and looked at those.
MR. LA FOUNTAIN-That one is an easy response, and if you just look on your sheets, on that
page, I can read everything on it on an 11 by 17, and there’s no issues with it. So I don’t know
what he’s referring to illegibility on that sheet.
MS. BUETTNER-He’s been on site.
MR. ESPOSITO-But we did prepare a response to that, and three issues of some clarity that it
was in excess of the standards for Part 75.
MR. LA FOUNTAIN-And he writes, later on, in Question Number Seven, about being a pressure
dose system, and it is a pressure dose system, and we have all the calculations in my little
report here for you guys.
MR. ESPOSITO-It’s a pressure dose with a gravity feed, which is allowed under the septic code,
and then, at this hour, he makes a statement like it’s hard to understand where he’s coming
from. I respect the fact there is pressure distribution system that would require Department of
Health approval, but if we wanted to do a confined system like that, we’d dose, but we do, our
environmental engineer has, he’s a sharp cookie, too. He’s researched this out, and he’s, we’re
all, as I stated earlier, very confident that it’s a safe system for the Town. I would think, you
know, it’s a rated system that we have the most optimum soils, 4.5 minutes per inch perc, and
anyone can see what the 10 foot of soil is to support that absorption system, and to answer your
question in the corner, there’s 10 foot of soils to take up the septic, 50 foot separated from the
drainage system which is another seven foot below that. We’ve got these same good tested
soils that take up the drainage, and as I’ve stated time and time again, that site is not eroding.
It’s performing perfectly as is, with minimal controls, and we’ve, you know, all investigated, but,
as Karla stated, please allow us to proceed with a conditional approval for the follow up
inspections. We don’t want to get off on the hook and self inspect. We’ve got the Town to do
that at every turn, of the building and everything we’ve forecasted. So I assure you the systems,
both the drainage, the septic, retaining wall, these are all orchestrated very tightly. It is a
challenged site, but we’ve got safe solutions for all of these.
MR. LA FOUNTAIN-I think what the comments that we got back from VISION Engineering, I
mean, if I had done a little presentation, I think you’d be able to see that 10 of the comments are
either note issues or very minor points, and that I think the two biggest points are Question
Number Two, which I think we have controlled with Dave Hatin in the, as a Staff member, and
Question Number Seven, which had some calculations on it and is definitely more of an
engineering question. So, had there been, I mean, had these note questions been taken care of
in the last review, and there would have only been two of these questions on this last report,
would that change your mind about this project, of getting approved? Because that’s where, I
mean, he said in his letter, in the last paragraph that, for your convenience below, we only find
the outstanding comments that still require the attention. All satisfied technical review
comments have been removed. So we already satisfied that last, the last list of 35 questions.
We already satisfied all 35 of them, and what do we get, we get 12 more, but thank you very
much.
MR. HUNSINGER-Yes. Keith, has there been any further correspondence with VISION since
Saturday?
MR. OBORNE-No.
MR. HUNSINGER-Okay.
MR. OBORNE-No. I don’t know what the applicant has done.
MR. HUNSINGER-Yes, no, I meant from Staff’s perspective. Yes. Okay.
MR. LA FOUNTAIN-I asked a very simple question to Dan Ryan about, is the non-compliant
septic system based on a setback issue. I mean, just a very yes or no question.
MR. HUNSINGER-Right.
MR. LA FOUNTAIN-And no response.
6
(Queensbury Planning Board 04/26/2011)
MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. Well, again, I think we’ve already spent more time on this than we
said we would. What’s the pleasure of the Board? I know at least three people said they would
prefer to table it and have a clean signoff. Paul, you didn’t really state your position.
MR. SCHONEWOLF-No. I’m just disgusted with it.
MR. HUNSINGER-Yes. Well, I think we’re all frustrated with the process because it clearly
hasn’t worked for anyone’s interest in this particular case.
th
MRS. STEFFAN-I, personally, would like to table this until May 19, but I also would like to table
it and I would like Chazen to take a look at these comments and weigh in here, and I know
VISION has been the engineer of record, but I would like Chazen to weigh in on this last review
to validate these comments, you know, based on what I’ve heard from the applicant and based
on what I’ve heard from the Board, everybody’s got concerns, and our new engineer, I would like
them to take a look at these last comments to just ensure that, obviously the applicant has
provided responses to these 12 questions and the Chazen group is another engineering firm
who can address those on our behalf, and I think.
MR. OBORNE-Would you prefer that Chazen pick it up at this point and run with it, or have the
two engineering groups vet each other?
MRS. STEFFAN-Well, my concern with that is I don’t know what the, I don’t know whether we
can count on the current engineer to provide the timely feedback that we need.
MR. OBORNE-The only issue with that scenario is that when the contract was written for
Chazen, all outstanding items were to be reviewed by VISION. That is the contract.
MS. BUETTNER-Another concern we would have would be cost, of putting another engineer on.
MR. TRAVER-A concern I would have would be time. I mean, if I were Chazen, I would say,
sure, I’ll look at it, but you’re not going to be looking at this in May.
MS. BUETTNER-Right. There goes our building.
MR. TRAVER-I mean, we’re kind of where we last week, and if these are non-issues, you know,
and they just need to be clarified. I mean, you know, he’s talking about the sewage disposal
system not complying with Code requirements. He doesn’t say setback requirements. Well, if it
really should be setback requirements, well, then let’s just get that amended, and we’ll take a
look at it again, the same with all these other things, but, I mean, you know, maybe, I don’t
know, I mean, if that’s not going to work, then maybe it would be a better investment to look at it
from the beginning, but that’s going to take more time than we had hoped, I think, and we
certainly don’t need this on the agenda, again, but.
MR. OBORNE-I can’t disagree with you on that.
MS. BUETTNER-Neither can we.
MR. TRAVER-But, I mean, there’s not a lot of choice here.
MR. OBORNE-Yes, I mean, you are definitely caught in a very difficult position, absolutely, and,
it’s difficult for me to advise you, to be honest with you.
MR. TRAVER-Another alternative, I don’t even know if this makes sense, but would it be worth
having Staff, your office, Keith, and VISION and maybe Chazen discuss it and find out if it
makes sense, if these, in fact, can be cleared up and we can get a signoff from VISION, or if
there are legitimate engineering issues that need follow up meetings and so on that VISION is
not.
MR. OBORNE-Well, I guess what I would pose is what would be the purpose of tabling if you’re
going to go down that path? If you’re going to leave it on Staff to work through it.
MR. TRAVER-I’m talking about developing a process, which would end up in a signoff. I’m not
saying go off and just make sure everything is okay. I’m saying, because we’ve talked about, do
we want to have VISION continue this until it’s done or do we want to have Chazen pick it up.
MR. OBORNE-I think the Town is contractually obligated to have VISION complete this.
MR. SCHONEWOLF-Well, VISION’s under contract to us, I think they should come in here, with
these people, to get it settled, maybe just a special meeting of a half an hour, whatever, but we
7
(Queensbury Planning Board 04/26/2011)
owe it to them to move it off the table, and VISION owes us all to come in here and get it cleared
up, because they’ve just been moving this ball around for too long.
MR. OBORNE-Yes.
MR. TRAVER-Yes. I could certainly support a special meeting to try to move this forward, on
behalf of the client, if VISION is willing to cooperate as well to get this, you know, resolved.
MRS. STEFFAN-Well, the only problem with that is that the special meeting, with room
availability and those kinds of things, is not until after the next Planning Board meetings. So,
th
May 19 would be the soonest that the applicant would be able to get back on one of the
agendas to be able to talk about it.
th
MR. OBORNE-Or the 17.
thth
MRS. STEFFAN-Right, the 17 or the 19.
MS. BUETTNER-I’m sorry, and maybe I’m just a novice here, but special meetings, the rooms
are, the rooms are already allocated, every room is already allocated, we can’t actually have a
special meeting?
MRS. STEFFAN-Keith actually was trying to be proactive for next month, because we have a lot
of, there are a lot of applications in queue, and we have to have another meeting next month,
st
and so we’re looking at a potential date of May 31. That’s the day that the room was available.
We even had to move our Planning Board because of Grievance Day. It’s potential, but there’s
Grievance Day next month, and this room between Zoning Boards, Town Boards, the room’s
booked.
th
MR. SCHONEWOLF-I’m talking about between now and the 17 of May.
MS. BUETTNER-Right, that’s what I thought was a good idea.
MR. TRAVER-Well, yes, I think whatever we can do, but I don’t think we know what we can do,
because we don’t know where VISION stands. So that’s why I was advocating, if we could get
some Staff collaboration with the applicant and VISION not to get a signoff, but to say, you
know, this can work. We can have a meeting. We can have a half hour meeting or something, a
special meeting, and we can get this resolved, or, no, we can’t, we’ve got to go back. We’ve got
to re-do X, Y, Z, whatever, so that we get this clear and tight.
MR. OBORNE-We can certainly promote collaboration with VISION. That has been difficult
recently, to be honest with you.
MR. TRAVER-Understand, sure. I mean, it requires all the parties to participate equally, but
again, what else can we do, I mean, we want to try to move this along.
MRS. STEFFAN-The only other thing we could do is conditionally approve it, and then Staff and
the engineer and the applicant have to work out the details, again, but we give up our ability to
accept or reject the information, if we’re leaving it up to the engineer, then they’re working on our
behalf.
MR. TRAVER-And there may be a majority that can do that. I mean, maybe you want to make
such a resolution and see if it flies. I personally don’t feel that I can support that, but I can
understand that maybe others do.
MR. HUNSINGER-Yes, I’m not hearing support for that.
MS. BUETTNER-It would make a lot of sense to do it. Obviously, we would like a conditional
approval to get on the site and deal with it, because as we go on, you know, we’re losing the
building season, and we’re losing faith in the process, as you are, as well, and Keith did make a
good point, and it’s been our understanding from Staff, generally, that they would recommend a
conditional approval, and then we could work more than daily with Staff and the engineer and do
any conditions, any on site discussions, anything this Board would want. I’m really pleading
practicality here.
th
MR. HUNSINGER-What if we were to table it to the 17 and consider this at 6:30, and do the,
you know, the regular meeting, if you will, at 7, and if we don’t have a signoff letter, to have,
make a request that VISION attend at 6:30, and see if we can wrap it up.
MR. SCHONEWOLF-Yes, and if we don’t have a signoff letter, I want to see VISION here.
8
(Queensbury Planning Board 04/26/2011)
MR. HUNSINGER-I mean, if they sign off on it, then we don’t need them here, but if there’s still
questions, then, you know, it’s kind of like what we had expected this evening, you know, there
was either going to be a signoff letter, or we were going to have someone represented so that
we could kind of hash it out. Are members, is that a reasonable approach? I mean, at least we
th
know we have the room, you know, we’re geared to having a meeting on the 17.
MR. OBORNE-Well, doing it at 6:30 is difficult, because the room’s not available right at 6:30.
MR. HUNSINGER-Okay.
MR. OBORNE-And this would require a public hearing.
th
MR. SCHONEWOLF-Are there any days before the 17 that this room is available?
MR. OBORNE-I do not have that information at hand. I would imagine there may be, but we
can’t.
MR. SCHONEWOLF-I would think so.
MR. HUNSINGER-What about the Conference Room?
MR. OBORNE-Well, that would be available, obviously, but again, we have a public hearing
associated with this.
MR. HUNSINGER-Right, yes. Okay.
MR. LA FOUNTAIN-Can we hear it out the next couple of days and see if there’s a room
opening here?
MR. HUNSINGER-Well, except we need a tabling resolution this evening, a date certain. Is
there anyone in the audience who wants to address the Board on this project? We did leave the
public hearing open. We have at least one commenter. Good evening.
PUBLIC HEARING OPEN
JOHN SALVADOR
MR. SALVADOR-Good evening. My name is John Salvador. I’m somewhat familiar with this
project five years ago. I haven’t been following it lately. However, I hear Mr. Sipp mention 35
degree slope, Critical Environmental Area, and wastewater, and it scares me. Please, we’re not
going to substitute an engineer’s signoff for a variance from the public board of health. Now we
have a Code that limits the slope for the design of a septic system, and only the public board of
health can grant a variance to that. The engineer can’t sign off on that. Thank you.
MR. HUNSINGER-Thank you. Any other thoughts from the Board?
MRS. STEFFAN-Keith, can you validate that point of order? Just to know, the applicant has
talked about being 34 feet 6 inches from the house, from the septic system to the house, can
you just validate?
MR. OBORNE-I mean, I can validate that that is what the measurement is. I can’t validate
what’s coming out of Dave Hatin’s mouth. I do know that he does not have a concern with the
setback, as discussed earlier this morning, but he would like clearer plans presented to him.
MR. HUNSINGER-Okay.
MRS. STEFFAN-But we’re not looking for Dave Hatin’s approval. We’re looking for VISION
Engineering’s approval.
MR. OBORNE-That is correct.
MR. TRAVER-Right.
MR. SCHONEWOLF-That’s my point.
MR. LA FOUNTAIN-I was talking to Craig Brown yesterday, no, actually this morning. Actually
it was this morning, and he was basically saying that the septic system, as long as Dave Hatin
9
(Queensbury Planning Board 04/26/2011)
is, feels comfortable with it in signing off, because it’s a Building and Codes issue, that’s what
he’s looking for. That was Craig Brown.
MR. TRAVER-Well, we can sure save a lot of money on engineering, then, can’t we?
MR. LA FOUNTAIN-Well, I mean, it still has to be the right way.
MRS. STEFFAN-Well, Dave’s department is responsible for building permits and such. When it
comes to Site Plan Review, our engineer’s the one who makes the decisions on those issues.
MR. LA FOUNTAIN-Well, I mean, both, I mean, it’s got to be collaborative as well.
MR. HUNSINGER-Right.
MR. LA FOUNTAIN-Because it’s going to go to Dave next.
MR. HUNSINGER-Sure.
MRS. STEFFAN-Right.
MR. HUNSINGER-Well, I guess, you know, I think the safest thing to do is to table this to the
th
17, and, you know, we’ll just take it on at seven o’clock, and, you know, and then we can talk
later about whether or not we want a special meeting in May.
MR. SCHONEWOLF-Okay.
MR. HUNSINGER-Would anyone like to make that motion? I’m sorry, before you do, now you
have new information to pass out, I mean, we can certainly accept that tonight, but, I mean,
we’re not going to consider it tonight. We’ll consider it at.
MR. LA FOUNTAIN-Well, especially if there is a special meeting in between, at least you guys
would be prepared.
MR. HUNSINGER-Right, and you already got a copy of it, Keith?
MR. OBORNE-I have not received it yet, but I’m sure I will get one.
MR. HUNSINGER-Okay.
MRS. STEFFAN-Is it appropriate?
MR. HUNSINGER-Well, we’re going to accept the new information, but we’re not going to talk
th
about it until the 17, you know, we’re not going to consider it this evening.
MRS. STEFFAN-I personally believe it would be better for Staff to have the information and
distribute it to us with any new engineering comments.
MR. OBORNE-I agree.
MR. HUNSINGER-Okay.
MRS. STEFFAN-Then it comes in a comprehensive package.
MR. HUNSINGER-Okay.
MRS. STEFFAN-I’ll make a motion to table Site Plan 53-2007 for Provident Batavia, LLC. This
th
is tabled to the May 17 Planning Board meeting. The applicant, tonight, is submitting
nd
responses to VISION Engineering comment letter of April 22, and that will be given to Staff and
will be distributed to the Planning Board for that May17th meeting, and so if there are any new
materials that will be submitted along with that package, we’ll extend the submission deadline
th
on that until Friday, April 29. That would be this Friday.
MR. OBORNE-As far as what you’re looking for from VISION, are you looking for a signoff? If
th
they come in here on the 17 without a signoff, I just want to make sure that they know that
they’re going to be tabled again.
MR. TRAVER-That was going to be my comment as well. I’d like to be clear on that, because
we don’t want to go through this again.
10
(Queensbury Planning Board 04/26/2011)
MR. HUNSINGER-Yes.
MRS. STEFFAN-Okay. So instead of satisfying VISION Engineering comments, you want me to
obtain a signoff?
MR. OBORNE-And if not, VISION should be here.
MR. TRAVER-In the absence of such signoff.
MR. SCHONEWOLF-We want them here.
MR. LA FOUNTAIN-Can we have them here no matter what?
MR. KREBS-I think we should.
MR. SCHONEWOLF-Yes, I think we should.
MR. LA FOUNTAIN-Yes, that would be our preference.
MR. OBORNE-Put that in the resolution. Please.
MRS. STEFFAN-Okay. Then, Maria, I would like to amend my motion. I would like to make a
motion to table.
RESOLUTION TABLING SP 53-2007 PROVIDENT BATAVIA, LLC
A site plan application has been made to the Queensbury Planning Board for the following:
nd
Applicant proposes to modify existing incomplete single family dwelling by removing 2 floor
living space and modify previously installed driveway to allow access for neighboring parcel to
the north. This proposal has been classified as a Major Stormwater project; Planning Board
review and approval is required; and
A public hearing was advertised and held on 1/25/2011, 3/15/2011, 4/19/2011, tabled to
4/26/2011; and
This application is supported with all documentation, public comment and application material in
the file of record; and
MOTION TO TABLE SITE PLAN NO. 53-2007 MODIFICATION TO PROVIDENT BATAVIA,
LLC, Introduced by Gretchen Steffan who moved for its adoption, seconded by Donald Krebs:
th
This is tabled to the May 17 Planning Board meeting. Submission for any new materials, the
th
deadline for that would be Friday, April 29. The applicant does have in hand a response to
nd
VISION Engineering’s April 22 letter, which they will submit to Keith in the Community
Development Department. We are tabling this so that the applicant can satisfy VISION
Engineering comments and obtain a signoff. We request that a representative from VISION
th
Engineering will be present at that Planning Board meeting on May 17 to represent the Town
on this application.
th
Duly adopted this 26 day of April, 2011, by the following vote:
AYES: Mr. Krebs, Mr. Traver, Mrs. Steffan, Mr. Schonewolf, Mr. Sipp, Mr. Hunsinger
NOES: NONE
ABSENT: Mr. Ford
MR. HUNSINGER-We’ll see you in three weeks.
MS. BUETTNER-Thank you very much. We do appreciate everything that the Planning Board
has done and we would like to, again, echo Member Traver’s frustrations and our
disheartenment, but not at the Planning Board.
MR. HUNSINGER-Yes, no, I realize that. Thank you. If there are no objections from the Board,
I would like to move the agenda, at the suggestion of Staff, and next hear Subdivision No. 1-
2011 for VMJR, since the only thing we’re doing this evening is considering seeking Lead
Agency Status.
NEW BUSINESS:
11
(Queensbury Planning Board 04/26/2011)
SUBDIVISION NO. 1-2011 PRELIMINARY STAGE FRESHWATER WETLANDS 1-2011
VMJR COMPANIES AGENT(S) MJ ENGINEERING & LAND SURVEYING, P.C. OWNER(S)
FOREST ENTERPRISE MGMT. ZONING CLI-COMMERCIAL LIGHT INDUSTRIAL
LOCATION QUAKER ROAD/QUEENSBURY AVENUE SUBDIVISION: APPLICANT
PROPOSES SUBDIVISION OF AN 84 +/- ACRE PARCEL INTO FIVE (5) COMMERCIAL LOTS
RANGING IN SIZE FROM 6.53 ACRES TO 29.91 ACRES WITH A SIXTH LOT OF 8.86 +/-
ACRES PROPOSED AS OPEN SPACE. SUBDIVISION OF LAND REQUIRES PLANNING
BOARD REVIEW AND APPROVAL. FRESHWATER WETLANDS: PROPOSED
CONSTRUCTION WITHIN 100 FEET OF WETLANDS –[GREAT CEDAR SWAMP] REQUIRES
PLANNING BOARD REVIEW AND APPROVAL. CROSS REFERENCE SP 65-10, SP 49-10
APA, CEA, OTHER DEC, ACOE LOT SIZE 6.39 & 84 +/- ACRES TAX MAP NO. 303.11-1-4,
303.15-1-25.2 SECTION CHAPTER A-183
MARY BETH SLEVIN, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT
MR. HUNSINGER-Keith, we’re going to hear VMJR next, as you had suggested, if you want to
summarize the Staff Notes for us.
MR. OBORNE-Yes. At this point, obviously we’re going through the SEQRA process. This is a
Type I SEQRA. The first step we need to do is seek Lead Agency Status as a Planning Board,
because there are involved agencies. What this basically does is it starts the 30 clock for
comments to come back, and we can discuss, obviously, the protocols that are involved with
this, as far as getting this applicant on an agenda after this discussion, and that’s basically, I’m
pretty sure the Planning Board’s aware of what the project is, and at this point it probably really
wouldn’t mean a heck of a lot for me to summarize my Staff Notes at this point. So, with that, I’d
turn it over to the Board.
MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. Thank you. Good evening.
MS. SLEVIN-Good evening.
MR. HUNSINGER-If you could identify yourselves for the record.
MS. SLEVIN-Thank you. Mary Beth Slevin with Stockli, Slevin & Peters, here on behalf of
VMJR to speak about the subdivision. We are asking the Board to take Lead Agency this
evening, but we are also asking the Board to allow us an opportunity to review the project to a
certain extent. We are in receipt of the Staff comments and the comments from Chazen
Engineering. We just received them on Friday. We’re in the process of addressing those
comments, and would expect to be able to be prepared to provide responses to them relatively
soon. We were here last in February, and we did hear, very loudly, that the Board was, had
specific concerns with respect to the traffic impacts of the project, and we have asked our traffic
consultant to be here this evening, Gordon Stansbury. George Turner is here from MJ
Engineering, and Mr. Stansbury’s here to perhaps talk about the traffic report, if the Board would
be so inclined to hear some of those provisions.
MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. Thank you. What’s the will of the Board?
MRS. STEFFAN-Just move them up. We just moved them up on the agenda because it was an
Administrative Item.
MR. TRAVER-Yes, and there’s an issue, we have a request that this be tabled because of the
issue involving the extension of the airport runway.
MR. HUNSINGER-Yes.
MR. OBORNE-Well, that was from public comment.
MR. TRAVER-Right. I understand.
MS. SLEVIN-We’re certainly prepared to address that comment.
MR. TRAVER-Sure, okay.
MR. OBORNE-I would think, I think the direction the Board should go in, again, this is my
opinion, if the Board is willing to listen to the applicant’s presentation, that’s fine. I mean, that’s
obviously within your auspices, but at this point, we are looking at an Administrative Item to
open up and seek Lead Agency Status, open up the public hearing and seek Lead Agency
Status. That’s really where we’re at. If the Board feels that this application is complete, Staff
12
(Queensbury Planning Board 04/26/2011)
does feel that it is complete, but if the Board feels that it is complete, then, great. If the Board
feels they need additional information, convey that to the applicant. Hold off on seeking Lead
Agency. That’s pretty much where we’re at.
MR. HUNSINGER-Okay.
MR. TRAVER-Well, to follow up with the public comment regarding the airport, since the County
is involved in the multi-agency review, correct? So would it not be appropriate to have the
County give us information regarding exactly what their concerns are with regard to this project
and potential impact it might have in conjunction with an expansion of a runway?
MR. OBORNE-Well, they have. Don McGraw, who is the Airport Manager, has chimed in on
that subject. Absolutely, and he works for the County.
MS. SLEVIN-And with respect to that comment, we certainly have taken a look at the comments
from the County, reviewed them in the context of the proposal for the project. We believe that
the plans of the County would not be impacted by the project and we can demonstrate that. We
think that, you know, as part of the SEQRA process, as part of the review process for the
subdivision, those are all issues that will be looked at by this Board along with any other
involved agencies, and we would ask that we be able to move forward with the expectation that
those issues will be reviewed and carefully evaluated as we move forward.
MR. HUNSINGER-I guess that kind of begs the question if we wanted to hear comments related
to traffic or if members wanted to raise questions or concerns about traffic now. I mean, there
was a very lengthy traffic report I’m sure members have had an opportunity to review and read.
There were a number of intersections that had D’s, E’s or F’s ratings on Level of Service. I don’t
know if we want to raise specific questions this evening or if we want to wait until we talk about
subdivision review, after we kind of launch the SEQRA process.
MRS. STEFFAN-I guess I looked at the traffic data, and, you know, without knowing exactly
what’s going to go there, and I understand sometimes you have to put the cart before the horse
because this is, you know, a general getting ready to develop, but we don’t know exactly what’s
going to go there. Perhaps warehousing and distribution, perhaps some kind of, you know,
large office, and so the traffic study is based on the square footage that’s presented, but we
really don’t know how the area’s going to be used and whether it’s cars or trucks or tractor
trailers, we don’t know that, and so that information that’s presented is obviously presented, but
we have to put it in context. The Comment Six from the Community Development Department,
about the Board may wish to consider a Generic Environmental Impact Statement for this
project, but it would require a SEQRA Positive Declaration, and the applicant references the
Earletown Corporation Draft Environmental Impact Statement in the application materials with a
mention to the current proposal, and this was generated back in 1987 for a different kind of
development, and so I was wondering how the rest of the Board felt about that particular
comment. Because I also would be concerned about an older Environmental Impact Statement
for another project being used to support this project.
MR. TRAVER-Right. Well, I think it’s clear, based on Staff evaluation of the situation in the
context of the EIS that that’s not, really doesn’t have anything to do with this project. So we’re
starting without an EIS, and that has to be taken in the context of, obviously of SEQRA, you
know, how we look at SEQRA.
MR. SIPP-I think we ought to take this in baby steps here. Let’s become a Lead Agency, then
we can discuss what we want to know and so forth. A traffic study now, to me, would be
useless. We have no idea what’s going in there, how many cars would be going in to an office
building or storage facility or a factory. We don’t know these things.
VIC MACRI
MR. MACRI-What we did is we took the worst case scenario, we laid it out, because that’s what
we needed to do in order to meet the SEQRA criteria. So that’s what you have in front of you.
MR. SIPP-Yes, but what is the worst case scenario?
MR. MACRI-The worst case scenario is what we presented as a subdivision. The biggest build
out we could do, the worst case. So that brings you up to your top threshold, and that’s where
we were supposed to start in order to proceed with the SEQRA process. So we’ve gone through
that whole design process in order to do that, and I think we ought to be allowed to, under those
conditions, move the project forward, and I think that that was agreed to in Sketch Plan, and I
think that’s where we are today.
13
(Queensbury Planning Board 04/26/2011)
MS. SLEVIN-In the context of that, as you know, what’s before the Board is a subdivision
application, but in order to satisfy our obligations under SEQRA, we have made certain
assumptions about how the site could be used. As Mr. Macri has said, those assumptions are
all worst case scenario. We looked at what’s the greatest density that would be permitted.
What’s the use that would impose the greatest type of traffic generation, other types of impacts,
so that the Board can fulfill its obligation to conduct its review, take the hard look at the proposal
in front of it, and ultimately make a determination, and so, that’s the basis that we’re asking you
to proceed on the subdivision application and to look forward to moving the process for the
st
Preliminary plat. We understand that you’re considering a special meeting May 31. If you do
decide to do that and you are able to take Lead Agency tonight, we would hope that we would
be able to be considered on that agenda as well, for the simple reason that we are trying to get
some guidance on some certain issues with respect to the project, how we’re going to proceed,
and we really can’t do that until we have more input from the Board. Some of those things
include obviously direction under SEQRA, some of the waivers that we have requested for the
subdivision, and we would hope to get some, at least direction from the Board.
MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. Thank you.
MS. SLEVIN-But, yes, we remain ready to provide some additional information if the Board
wants to hear it this evening.
MR. MACRI-And I believe if the traffic engineer is given five minutes, he can explain, you know,
use, traffic, whatever that was considered in the analysis, and I think it’s more than what’ll ever
be seen from the site.
MR. HUNSINGER-Any other questions, comments from the Board?
MR. TRAVER-Well, just with regards to the suggestion of a special meeting to review this, I
mean, it is a very large project. I don’t think it would be inappropriate to devote a significant
amount of time in one evening to try to move this forward. It might be much more practical than
trying to add it to a list of other things that we’re looking at.
MR. OBORNE-If I could chime in on that, the 30 day clock starts tonight. So they would not be
able to get on an agenda in May unless you have a special meeting. So that special meeting is
specifically for this client, for this applicant, and I have already checked in to availability, and the
st
31 does work.
MR. HUNSINGER-Okay.
MR. OBORNE-And it gets them past that 30 day window.
MR. HUNSINGER-Members in agreement that that would be a way to move forward with this?
MR. MAGOWAN-In view of the size of it, yes.
MR. HUNSINGER-Now, we’re going to open the public hearing this evening. That’s just
regarding SEQRA, the Planning Board taking Lead Agency status, right? Okay. I just wanted to
make sure. We do have a public hearing scheduled this evening, and again, as I just
mentioned, the only purpose for the public hearing is comments related to the Planning Board
taking Lead Agency status. Is there anyone in the audience that would like to address the
Board?
PUBLIC HEARING OPENED
MR. HUNSINGER-We already got the written comments in our package.
MR. OBORNE-There’s only one public comment, and that was based on the traffic, but that
really has zero to do with this administrative action.
MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. Would anyone like to move the motion to seek Lead Agency status?
MRS. STEFFAN-I’ll make a motion.
RESOLUTION SEEKING LEAD AGENCY STATUS SUB 1-2011 & FWW 1-2011 VMJR
WHEREAS, the Town Planning Board is in receipt of a Subdivision & Freshwater Wetlands
application for VMJR Companies: Subdivision: Applicant proposes subdivision of 84 +/- acre
parcel into five (5) commercial lots ranging in size from 6.53 acres to 29.91 acres with a sixth lot
14
(Queensbury Planning Board 04/26/2011)
of 8.86 +/- acres proposed as open space. Subdivision of land requires Planning Board review
and approval. Freshwater Wetlands: Proposed construction within 100 feet of wetlands [Great
Cedar Swamp] requires Planning Board review and approval.
WHEREAS, the Planning Board of the Town of Queensbury has determined to begin an
environmental review process under the State Environmental Quality Review Act (SEQRA), and
WHEREAS, the Planning Board of the Town of Queensbury has identified the project to be an
Type I action for the purposes of SEQRA review pursuant to 6 NYCRR 617, and
WHEREAS, the Planning Board is the agency most directly responsible for approving the
actions because of its responsibility for approving the land uses for the property, and
NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED, The Planning Board of the Town of Queensbury
hereby indicates its desire to be Lead Agency for SEQRA review of this action and authorizes
and directs the Zoning Administrator to notify any other potentially involved agencies of such
intent. That Part I of the SEQRA will be sent to the following agencies [as identified in EAF]:
NYS DEC, USACOE, NYS DOT
MOTION TO SEEK LEAD AGENCY STATUS IN CONNECTION WITH SUBDIVISION NO. 1-
2011 & FRESHWATER WETLANDS PERMIT NO. 1-2011 VMJR COMPANIES, Introduced by
Gretchen Steffan who moved for its adoption, seconded by Stephen Traver:
According to the resolution prepared by Staff.
th
Duly adopted this 26 day of April, 2011, by the following vote:
AYES: Mr. Traver, Mr. Krebs, Mrs. Steffan, Mr. Sipp, Mr. Schonewolf, Mr. Hunsinger
NOES: NONE
ABSENT: Mr. Ford
MR. HUNSINGER-Now, in your e-mail, Keith, you had suggested that perhaps there were other
projects that we consider at a special meeting?
MR. OBORNE-I think with the way the agenda fleshed out, that it would not be necessary.
MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. All right. Would anyone like to make a motion to hold a special
st
meeting on May 31 for purposes of reviewing this project?
RESOLUTION FOR SPECIAL MEETING SUB 1-2011 & FWW 1-2011 VMJR
MOTION TO CONDUCT A SPECIAL MEETING OF THE QUEENSBURY PLANNING BOARD
ON TUESDAY, MAY 31, 2011 SO THAT THE PLANNING BOARD CAN REVIEW
SUBDIVISION NO. 1-2011 & FRESHWATER WETLANDS PERMIT NO. 1-2011 VMJR
COMPANIES, Introduced by Gretchen Steffan who moved for its adoption, seconded by Donald
Krebs:
th
Duly adopted this 26 day of April, 2011, by the following vote:
AYES: Mr. Krebs, Mr. Traver, Mrs. Steffan, Mr. Schonewolf, Mr. Sipp, Mr. Hunsinger
NOES: NONE
ABSENT: Mr. Ford
MR. HUNSINGER-Okay, before we move on, is there any comments or direction that the Board
wants to give to the applicant relative to the subdivision review or what items we want to review
st
with them on the 31 of May? Other than the extensive list.
MRS. STEFFAN-I was just going to say, we did our Sketch Plans are the Staff Notes are
obviously extensive, but my issue was the Environmental Impact Statement, but we’ll talk about
that with the traffic and those other issues.
MR. TRAVER-Right.
MRS. STEFFAN-It’s a tremendous package. I mean, you’ve provided, all the details were.
15
(Queensbury Planning Board 04/26/2011)
MR. HUNSINGER-Is there anything else that you wanted to add before?
MS. SLEVIN-That was it. We appreciate your time.
MR. HUNSINGER-Thank you, yes, you’re welcome.
MS. SLEVIN-Thank you.
MR. HUNSINGER-You’re welcome.
st
MR. TRAVER-See you on May 31.
MR. HUNSINGER-With the Board’s permission, I’d like to modify the agenda again and move
Site Plan 29-2011 for Laura Feathers next.
NEW BUSINESS:
SITE PLAN NO. 29-2011 SEQRA TYPE: II LAURA FEATHERS AGENT(S) SAME AS
APPLICANT OWNER(S) GORDON DEVELOPMENT ZONING CI-COMMERCIAL
INTENSIVE LOCATION 1500 STATE ROUTE 9 APPLICANT PROPOSES A TENT SALE
FROM AUGUST 1, 2011 THROUGH AUGUST 31, 2011. TENT SALES LONGER THAN 12
DAYS REQUIRE PLANNING BOARD REVIEW AND APPROVAL. CROSS REFERENCE SP
13-10, SP 12-09, SP 11-08, SP 26-07, SP 7-05, SP 22-04 WARREN CO. PLANNING
4/13/2011 LOT SIZE 1.61 +/- ACRES TAX MAP NO. 288.12-1-15 SECTION 179-9-010
LAURA FEATHERS, PRESENT
MR. HUNSINGER-I joked with the Board last month when I saw that you were on the agenda,
that it must be Spring, because you’re back for a tent sale.
MS. FEATHERS-I’m Laura Feathers from Family Footwear Center, and I’m back, hoping to get
approval from the Board for a tent sale in the month of August.
MR. HUNSINGER-Any questions from the Board?
MR. KREBS-No, I think this is pretty straightforward. We’ve done it before.
MS. FEATHERS-I’m probably the easiest of the whole night.
MRS. STEFFAN-Well, it wasn’t always easy, if you remember.
MS. FEATHERS-That’s true.
MR. HUNSINGER-The only question I have is it just wasn’t real clear in the application or in
Staff Notes if there were any changes from prior years. I didn’t see any, but I just wanted to get
that on the record.
MS. FEATHERS-Nothing. Yes, everything is exactly the same. We’ve put up the tent and we
get the Fire Marshal to come and authorize everything and make sure it’s approved, and we
st
take it down on the 31. There’s no lighting inside the tent. There’s no register on the tent.
MR. HUNSINGER-We do have a public hearing scheduled this evening. Is there anyone in the
audience that wants to address the Board on this project? Any written comments, Keith? I’ll
open the public hearing.
PUBLIC HEARING OPENED
MR. HUNSINGER-And let the record show that there were no comments received and no one
commenting at the meeting. It’s a Type II SEQRA. So, unless there’s an environmental concern
from a member of the Board, no further SEQRA review is necessary.
MRS. STEFFAN-Okay. Then I’ll put forth a resolution.
RESOLUTION APPROVING SP 29-2011 FEATHERS
A site plan application has been made to the Queensbury Planning Board for the following:
Applicant proposes a Tent Sale from August 1, 2011 through August 31, 2011. Tent Sales
longer than 12 days require Planning Board review and approval; and
16
(Queensbury Planning Board 04/26/2011)
A public hearing was advertised and held on 4/26/2011; and
This application is supported with all documentation, public comment and application material in
the file of record;
MOTION TO APPROVE SITE PLAN NO. 29-2011 LAURA FEATHERS , Introduced by
Gretchen Steffan who moved for its adoption, seconded by Stephen Traver:
According to the resolution prepared by Staff. We can identify that the tent will be installed from
stst
August 1 through August 31, 2011, for a total of 31 days, and that the Town of Queensbury
Fire Marshal’s Office will be contacted by the applicant for inspection prior to sale.
1)Pursuant to relevant sections of the Town of Queensbury Zoning Code [Chapter 179-9-080]],
the Planning Board has determined that this proposal complies with the requirements as
stated in the Zoning Code; and
2)Type II-no further action required; and
3)Final approved plans, in compliance with the Site Plan, must be submitted to the Community
Development Department before any further review by the Zoning Administrator or Building
and Codes personnel. The applicant must meet with Staff after approval and prior to
issuance of Building Permit and/or the beginning of any site work. Subsequent issuance of
further permits, including building permits is dependent on compliance with this and all other
conditions of this resolution; and
4)Waiver requests granted: stormwater mgmt., grading, landscaping & lighting plans; and
th
Duly adopted this 26 day of April, 2011, by the following vote:
MR. TRAVER-There are three recommendations from Staff to be listed as conditions of
approval, on the first page of the Staff comments, the dates, Fire Marshal’s Office. I guess
there’s only two that would need to be amended.
MRS. STEFFAN-Well, certainly the letter that she put together had those in it, so I didn’t think it
was necessary, but I’ll amend the motion so that we can identify that the tent will be installed
stst
from August 1 through August 31, 2011, for a total of 31 days, and that the Town of
Queensbury Fire Marshal’s Office will be contacted by the applicant for inspection prior to sale.
AYES: Mr. Traver, Mr. Krebs, Mrs. Steffan, Mr. Magowan, Mr. Schonewolf, Mr. Sipp,
Mr. Hunsinger
NOES: NONE
MR. HUNSINGER-Good luck, you’re all set.
MS. FEATHERS-Thank you very much. I appreciate it.
MR. HUNSINGER-You’re welcome. Thank you.
PLANNING BOARD RECOMMENDATIONS TO ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS:
SITE PLAN NO. 6-2011 SEQR TYPE II INWALD ENTERPRISES AGENT(S) LEE HORNING
OWNER(S) SAME AS APPLICANT ZONING WR-WATERFRONT RESIDENTIAL LOCATION
38 GUNN LANE SITE PLAN: APPLICANT PROPOSES MODIFICATION TO APPROVED
SITE PLAN – SP 38-2008 [8/18/09]. MODIFICATIONS INCLUDE A CHANGE FROM
EXPANSION OF A NONCONFORMING STRUCTURE TO NEAR TOTAL REBUILD. AREA
VARIANCE: APPLICANT REQUESTS ADDITIONAL SIDE SETBACK RELIEF. PLANNING
BOARD TO PROVIDE WRITTEN RECOMMENDATION TO THE ZONING BOARD OF
APPEALS. CROSS REFERENCE AV 7-11, SP 39-10, AV 26-10, AV 45-10, AV 68-08, SP 38-
08, BP 09-384 WARREN CO. PLANNING 2/9/2011 3/9/2011-NO COUNTY IMPACT APA,
CEA, OTHER L G CEA LOT SIZE 0.66 +/- ACRES TAX MAP NO. 227.17-1-16 SECTION
179-9
STEFANIE BITTER & LEE HORNING, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT
MR. HUNSINGER-Keith?
MR. OBORNE-Yes. I’m pretty sure the Board’s aware of what’s going on here. I’ll quickly
summarize my Staff Notes. This is Site Plan 6-2011 & Area Variance 7-2011, Inwald
17
(Queensbury Planning Board 04/26/2011)
Enterprises. Now this is a recommendation to the Zoning Board of Appeals. They are on
tomorrow night’s meeting for this. This is located at 38 Gunn Lane. Waterfront Residential is
the zoning. This is a Type II SEQRA. Warren County has issued a No County Impact, and the
Project Description: Applicant proposes modification to approved Site Plan. Modifications
include a change from expansion of a nonconforming structure to a total rebuild. As far as the
Area Variance, applicant requests additional side setback relief, and quickly, the nature of the
variances side setback relief, request for 16.7 feet of relief from the 20 foot side setback
requirements, and just one other issue would be expansion of a nonconforming structure. A
quick background on this project, as initially approved back in, I think, Stefanie, was it ’08, the
setback issue. I believe it was approved back in 2008, yes, SP 38-08. The application did not
reference a correct survey, as a result of the applicant’s agent executing on an as built survey, it
was found that it was not, relief was not properly given in the past. So that is why we’re back
here for this house portion of the project, and with that I’d turn it over to the Board.
MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. Thank you. Good evening.
MS. BITTER-Good evening. Stefanie Bitter from Bartlett, Pontiff, here on behalf of Inwald
Enterprises, together with Lee Horning, the builder. As you may recall we were here in
February, at which time we did receive the recommendation relative to the variances. The
background was that the application that will follow this relative to the sundeck/ramp, it was our
understanding that the County had issued a denial for that application, when in fact the denial
was for this application. To clarify, all the applications that were pending for Inwald Enterprises,
th
all of us were before the County on March 9 to describe the sequence of events that occurred
over the last year, which resulted in these two applications pending, at which time the County
issued No County Impacts for all applications that are pending for Inwald Enterprises. As you
are aware, on February we did describe to you what had happened during the house’s
construction, and the fact that there were miscommunications with the Building Department,
which resulted in the house being constructed as it is. So we’re here this evening seeking either
no further action by the Planning Board or for you to reaffirm the recommendation that you
th
provided on February 15. So we’re in kind of an interesting predicament.
MR. HUNSINGER-Yes. I guess I’m a little confused. Because we had acted on this previously.
MS. BITTER-As am I, and I asked Staff this. I had asked Staff why this was still placed on the
agenda because we ultimately had received the recommendation on this application in
February. We returned to the County because of the confusion. However, that didn’t change
th
your recommendation. So, and I’m not aware that you had acted after February 15 relative to
your recommendation. Everything got referred back to the County, but no change has been
made.
MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. All right. Questions, comments from members of the Board?
MR. TRAVER-My recollection, and it may be incorrect, but my recollection was that this was
referred together with the next application, relating to the ramp. That’s why this is before us
again.
MS. BITTER-Right, they all got referred to the County.
MR. TRAVER-They were all sent back.
MS. BITTER-That’s correct.
MR. HUNSINGER-Yes, okay.
MS. BITTER-So what I had said in your absence, Keith, is that, I apologize, that I guess we’re
requesting that no further action occur because the recommendation had already been issued in
February, unless they feel that they have to reaffirm it.
MR. OBORNE-Yes. My position is that you do reaffirm the recommendation for clarity
purposes, because at the previous meeting that you executed on that recommendation, there
was, not maliciously false information presented. It was a confusing scenario, and to keep the
record straight, I would prefer that you would just start from the beginning and move forward
now, with a recommendation for the house at this point. She is correct. There was a
recommendation issued, a positive recommendation issued previously, but then there was a
denial for the boathouse, which required a supermajority, and the Board wanted to send that
back, at the request of the applicant. So, for the record, just for clarity, Staff would prefer that
you go ahead and execute on a recommendation.
18
(Queensbury Planning Board 04/26/2011)
MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. Any other questions, comments from members of the Board? We do
have a public hearing scheduled this evening. Is there anyone in the audience that wants to
address the Board on this project?
PUBLIC HEARING OPENED
MR. HUNSINGER-Were there any written comments, Keith?
MR. OBORNE-I’ll check. Sorry about that.
MR. HUNSINGER-Well, the public hearing would be left open anyway, because this is a
recommendation.
MS. BITTER-Right.
MR. OBORNE-No, there’s no comment at this point.
MR. SCHONEWOLF-We did a recommendation once. We’re just affirming it, right?
MR. HUNSINGER-Right. Well, as Keith suggested, you know, because there was confusion as
to the County action that was taken or not taken on the project, he thought it would be cleaner if
we kind of pretend like we’re starting over.
MRS. STEFFAN-I don’t remember, I think I was here for that application, but I’m not
remembering.
MS. BITTER-I have the minutes here if you need it.
MRS. STEFFAN-The, I’m reading the letter from Staff, from Craig Brown on what happened with
the house.
MR. HUNSINGER-Well, the issue with the house, basically, was the exit off the back.
MS. BITTER-Right, that there was a platform that was incorporated off the back.
MR. HUNSINGER-Right.
MS. BITTER-And the fact that, although Mr. Horning had been talking to the Building
Department relative to the house’s stabilization and he had lifted the house and moved it on to
the site and had to construct a new one, the Zoning Department was not aware that that house
was not, that there was an addition placed on that house when the house was constructed.
MR. OBORNE-Yes, the house was placed in the proper place.
MS. BITTER-Right, it’s on the foundation.
MR. OBORNE-Lee did his job. It’s the design person previously that did not reference the
correct survey. So the survey that was referenced before had a greater distance away from the
house. Now with the as built survey, it’s closer, and that is why you’re back here.
MR. HUNSINGER-I thought it was because of the.
MS. BITTER-And the platform.
MR. OBORNE-And the platform.
MS. BITTER-And from the platform.
MR. HUNSINGER-Yes.
MS. BITTER-Right, both play a role.
MRS. STEFFAN-So in this letter it says it appears as though the camp structure was removed
and completely rebuilt along with the additional components that were originally discussed and
approved.
MS. BITTER-That’s correct.
MRS. STEFFAN-So was that true, or was that not true?
19
(Queensbury Planning Board 04/26/2011)
LEE HORNING
MR. HORNING-We salvaged some of the foundation. We salvaged about 50% of the
foundation.
MRS. STEFFAN-Okay.
MR. HORNING-On the same footprint.
MRS. STEFFAN-And so how did this get resolved? I mean, I guess I’m wondering how the
Zoning Administrator feels with this? Obviously it needs to have a variance because the
building is sitting too close to the line, but.
MR. OBORNE-It’s back for Site Plan Review also.
MR. KREBS-But based on what the original deed or survey said, it was already too close to the
line.
MR. OBORNE-Right.
MR. KREBS-So that pre-existed, so they just picked it up, took it off, put the new foundation in
place, and then put it right back in the same spot. So I don’t know the answer.
MR. HUNSINGER-Any other questions? Is that clear?
MRS. STEFFAN-As mud.
MR. HUNSINGER-Now, as we know for a recommendation, there’s two choices. Either we
have concerns or we haven’t identified any significant adverse impacts.
MRS. STEFFAN-I don’t even know what we can recommend, really.
MR. TRAVER-Well, we’re reaffirming our previous response, right?
MR. HUNSINGER-Basically, that we did not identify any adverse impacts.
MR. KREBS-Right.
MR. SCHONEWOLF-So that’s the motion.
MRS. STEFFAN-So that’s on this one, and then we go back and do the deck?
MR. HUNSINGER-Yes. Then we do the ramp separately.
MRS. STEFFAN-Okay. Then I’ll put the motion forth.
RESOLUTION RE: ZBA RECOMMENDATION FOR AV 7-2011 INWALD ENTERPRISES
The applicant has submitted applications for the following: Site Plan: Applicant proposes
modification to approved site plan – SP 38-2008 [8/18/09]. Modifications include a change from
expansion of a nonconforming structure to total rebuild. Area Variance: Applicant requests
additional side setback relief. Planning Board to provide written recommendation to the Zoning
Board of Appeals; and
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; and
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. 7-2011 AND SITE PLAN 6-
2011 FOR INWALD ENTERPRISES, Introduced by Gretchen Steffan who moved for its
adoption, seconded by Paul Schonewolf:
20
(Queensbury Planning Board 04/26/2011)
The Planning Board re-affirms its earlier recommendation that the Planning Board, based on a
limited review, has not identified any significant adverse impacts that cannot be mitigated with
the current project proposal.
th
Duly adopted this 26 day of April, 2011, by the following vote:
AYES: Mr. Schonewolf, Mr. Sipp, Mr. Magowan, Mrs. Steffan, Mr. Krebs, Mr. Traver,
Mr. Hunsinger
NOES: NONE
MR. HUNSINGER-Okay.
MS. BITTER-Thank you.
MR. HUNSINGER-You’re welcome.
SITE PLAN NO. 39-2010 SEQR TYPE II INWALD ENTERPRISES AGENT(S) JONATHAN
LAPPER, B P S R; CLA SITE OWNER(S) SAME AS APPLICANT ZONING WR-
WATERFRONT RESIDENTIAL LOCATION 38 GUNN LANE SITE PLAN: APPLICANT
PROPOSES TO CONSTRUCT A BOATHOUSE WITH SUNDECK ACCESSED BY HANDICAP
ACCESS RAMP ABOVE TWO EXISTING DOCKS. BOATHOUSES IN A WR ZONE
REQUIRES PLANNING BOARD REVIEW AND APPROVAL. AREA VARIANCE: APPLICANT
REQUESTS SHORELINE & SIDELINE SETBACK RELIEF FOR ACCESSORY STRUCTURE
[RAMP]. PLANNING BOARD TO PROVIDE WRITTEN RECOMMENDATION TO THE ZONING
BOARD OF APPEALS. CROSS REFERENCE SP 6-11, AV 7-11, AV 26-10, AV 45-10, AV 68-
08, SP 38-08, BP 09-384 WARREN CO. PLANNING 6/9/2010 3/9/2011 –NO COUNTY
IMPACT APA, CEA, OTHER L G PARK CEA LOT SIZE 0.66 +/- ACRES TAX MAP NO.
227.17-1-16 SECTION § 179-9, 179-5-020A
STEFANIE BITTER, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT
MR. HUNSINGER-Keith?
MR. OBORNE-Again, this is a recommendation for the same property, 38 Gunn Lane.
Waterfront Residential is the existing zoning. This is a Type II SEQRA. 3/9/2011 the Warren
County Planning Board issued a No County Impact on this. Project Description: Applicant
proposes to construct a 50 foot long by four wide handicap ramp with glass panel guardrails
leading to the ZBA approved boathouse location. The applicant must appear before the ZBA for
side and shoreline setbacks concerning that portion of the ramp on land up to the mean high
water mark, in this case 38.5 feet of proposed ramp. Further, relief is required for that portion
that is proposed over the water and violating the side setback requirement, in this case 10.5
linear feet of proposed ramp. Additionally, the applicant proposes to import fill in order to
decrease the length of the proposed ramp and install a gravel path. Further, the applicant
proposes a 52 linear foot natural stone retaining wall, not to exceed 30 inches in height on the
north side of the gravel path. What follows is Staff comments, and I’ll just go through the nature
of the Area Variances, which I like to get on the record. Side setback request for 6.7 feet of side
setback relief from the 20 foot requirement of the WR zone for the 38.5 foot ramp proposed
above the mean high water mark. Two, side setback relief request for 10.7 feet of side setback
relief from the 20 foot requirement of the WR zone for the 10 and a half foot ramp proposed
below the mean high water mark. Shoreline setback request for 38.5 feet of shoreline setback
relief from the 50 foot requirement of the WR zone for the ramp total within the shoreline
setback. With that, I’d turn it over to the Board.
MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. Thank you. Good evening.
MS. BITTER-Good evening. Stefanie Bitter on behalf of Inwald Enterprises, together with
William Springnether and Peter Loyola from CLA site. Just to kind of re-visit this issue, as you
are aware, we were before you in February. This matter has continued since last June. Inwald
Enterprises had presented a variance application relative to a sundeck with a supporting ramp
last June, at which time the sundeck and dock received the necessary variances. Subsequent
to that, it was determined by the Zoning Administrator that the ramp required further variances.
Once that was discovered, and let me indicate that the reason for the ramp is due to Ms.
Inwald’s substantial disabilities that prevent her to be mobile on the topographic that exists on
the site. At that time, Ms. Inwald had retained CLA to design a ramp that would minimize the
visual impacts to the area. Since that time we were before you, we had identified last month that
the initial ramp that was proposed last summer was 58 feet in length. They’ve reduced it to 50
feet. To further lessen the visibility, they added glass panels along the side, and they also
reviewed the alternative of a lift that we discussed last month, which really is an industrial type
21
(Queensbury Planning Board 04/26/2011)
structure that we don’t feel would be in harmony with the area. Since the February meeting, we
did take into consideration the comments that were made with regards to incorporating pavers
with the development as well as adding additional plantings. We did go before the County on
th
March 9 and had received no county impact relative to this. There was a suggestion to
incorporate no glare type glass materials for those glass panels, which I’ll allow Bill to go into
further detail now relative to these design changes.
MR. SPRINGNETHER-We’ve actually just eliminated the glass panels and gone with a cable rail
system to eliminate all the visual impact, and then we’ve added additional plantings to the south
of the ramp, along here. We’ve incorporated additional plantings within the shoreline buffer
zone, and changed the pavement material from a paver stone that was set in concrete which
would have matched the rest of the property, to a paver stone set on a permeable surface, to
allow infiltration. So we’ve made those changes, based on the recommendations from the
Board from February, and we’re moving forward.
MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. Questions comments from the Board?
MR. SCHONEWOLF-So a handicap person can negotiate the pavers?
MR. SPRINGNETHER-Yes. They’ll be set with quarter inch gap, and then sand will be brushed
in, groomed in, into those gaps, so that any water will be able to infiltrate.
MR. HUNSINGER-Now we haven’t, I mean, until we saw your board right there, we haven’t
seen the details on the additional plantings.
MR. SPRINGNETHER-No. I was actually going to, I had been in conversation with Keith today
about that deadline being two days before your next meeting. I was just surmising that perhaps
that deadline had shifted based on the meeting date, and so he asked me to ask you that
th
question. Additional drawings for the 17 meeting would be due on what day, and we can get
them to you whenever you need them.
MR. HUNSINGER-Okay.
MR. SPRINGNETHER-But I just wanted to clarify that.
MS. BITTER-We just know that at the last, in our February meeting, those comments had been
brought up at the end, that you really wanted to see a response to those concerns incorporated
in our presentation tonight. So we wanted to demonstrate that we are willing to accommodate
those concerns.
MR. HUNSINGER-Do you have a depiction of what the cable railing system would look like?
Okay.
MR. SPRINGNETHER-But it’s a thin three-eighth inch stainless steel cable. It’s powder coated
to be a dark bronze color, similar to a lot of the light fixtures that you see in parking lots that are
often speced out as dark bronze. So it would be that color, which would match kind of the
browns that you see throughout on a lot of the deck materials, and then she would have the rest
of the structure painted or stained brown.
MR. HUNSINGER-So what’s the vertical? I’m just trying to understand what the railing system
would look like.
MR. SPRINGNETHER-It would be a vertical post with a horizontal top piece and a horizontal
bottom piece and then vertical cables every four inches.
MR. HUNSINGER-Okay.
MR. SPRINGNETHER-So it’s like a mesh, like kind of a wide mesh type of arrangement, and
very transparent. I mean, much more transparent than I think, and less reflective. That was one
of the things that the County did mention was that they were really concerned about the glass,
plexi-glass that we would be incorporating, that they were worried about the glare off the sun,
and I think that takes care of it. There are going to be vertical pieces, just for the posts and for
the, you know, stability of the structure, but it’s kind of the framework of the railing, and so you’re
not going to have these dense spindles that kind of, that would be a normal wooden deck.
Instead you have vertical pieces and some horizontal pieces, and then just this mesh in
between. So much less opaque and much more transparent.
MR. TRAVER-I remember some discussion with regards to the ramp, concerns that I had, and
maybe this is Site Plan issue and not for tonight, but on the one hand, wanting a person with a
22
(Queensbury Planning Board 04/26/2011)
disability to access their boathouse, but on the other hand wanting to reduce the number of
these ramps on the lake, and there was some discussion about, I can remember thinking of it
almost like a special use permit, although it clearly wouldn’t be, but somehow, having a bonding
that could restore the site to its original shape when the handicapping condition no longer
applied, and there was discussion about, you know, how are you ever going to enforce that and
all that kind of thing.
MR. HUNSINGER-Right.
MR. TRAVER-But I don’t know if that’s something that we’d want to talk about tonight or just let
the ZBA know that it’s a concern, at least of mine, and then deal with it at the Site Plan?
MR. SCHONEWOLF-The way that’s usually dealt with in other areas is when they put in a
handicap ramp, it has a lifetime, okay, and the lifetime is usually as long as the handicap person
lives there, and then you have so much time to get rid of it. I think that’s what Steve’s talking
about.
MR. TRAVER-That might be a solution. Yes. That’s simpler, actually, than what I remember
discussing was something like having a doctor’s letter or something, every, you know, so many
years, you know, verifying that in fact the conditions, but that’s even simpler. Just, you know,
say it has an expiration. That’s much more like the special use permit.
MR. MAGOWAN-Okay. Thank you for that.
MR. HUNSINGER-Any other questions, comments from the Board?
MR. MAGOWAN-Yes, that gable spindles, you said there was a top horizontal and a bottom
one. Now, what’s the strength, you know, of children or something trying to go through or?
MR. SPRINGNETHER-It’s a three-quarter inch steel cable.
MR. MAGOWAN-So three-quarter inch?
MR. SPRINGNETHER-Three-eighth inch steel cable. Pulled tight, they don’t flex.
PETER LOYOLA
MR. LOYOLA-This meets all New York State Building Code for, you know, safety and childproof
and all of that. I mean, it’s readily used and you’ll see it in, you know, public piers, you know, in
public spaces. So we would absolutely make sure that it, you know, it meets all the New York
State Building Code.
MR. SPRINGNETHER-The system that the client has chosen is, it’s pre-fabricated. So it’s not
constructed on site out of nuts and bolts and cables. It’s pre-fabricated in the factory by Feeney
Architectural and they ship it up and it’s installed.
MR. MAGOWAN-Basically bolted in between the railings, it’s already got it’s?
MR. LOYOLA-Right, exactly.
MR. TRAVER-That’s only four inches, he said.
MR. SPRINGNETHER-Yes, which is what Code is.
MR. HUNSINGER-Any other questions, comments from the Board?
MS. BITTER-Just if I can respond to Mr. Traver’s concern. We’re definitely willing to explore the
concept of the handicapped, the life of the handicapped person or something of that nature. The
only concerns we have, and we would explore that during that discussion is, you know, the site
stabilization that’s presented with the ramp, you know, the expense of the ramp, the fact that,
you know, the ramp that’s being constructed is going to be, you know, the least visible structure
that we can provide, and that will be incorporated with the site. So we’ll want to take those
things into consideration when talking about that, because it might be that removing the ramp
provides just as much of a, more of a detriment than keeping the ramp there, in further days, but
we can discuss it at site plan.
MR. TRAVER-Sure.
23
(Queensbury Planning Board 04/26/2011)
MR. HUNSINGER-Anything else from the Board? We do have a public hearing scheduled this
evening. Is there anyone in the audience that wants to address the Board on this project?
PUBLIC HEARING OPENED
MR. HUNSINGER-Do we have any written comments, Keith?
MR. OBORNE-Yes, we have a written comment from the Water Keeper, again, this is a
recommendation. I certainly can read this in.
MR. HUNSINGER-Sure. Yes.
MR. OBORNE-This is actually to the Zoning Board, but it was asked of me to present this to
you. “The above referenced Area Variance application was personally reviewed in my capacity
as a licensed professional engineer and the Lake George Water Keeper. The Lake George
Water Keeper understands the hardship which the applicant has to provide safe access to the
shoreline. It is our opinion the plan that is proposed does not completely mitigate the potential
impacts resulting from the disturbance and grading required. The Lake George Water Keeper
requests the Zoning Board of Appeals to apply the Town’s regulations, specifically § 179-8-040
Shoreline Buffers, during your deliberations regarding the above referenced area variance
application. A substantial shoreline buffer should be proposed. The project plan fails to include
the minimum required shoreline buffering as required by the Town Code. With the extensive
earthwork proposed, the shoreline buffer should be expanded to require the planting of
additional trees and shrubs for natural stormwater runoff reduction through deeper root
structures, slope stabilization and pollutant removal. Additional alternatives should be evaluated
to reduce potential impacts. Permeable surface, such as pervious concrete or pavement,
should be provided to reduce runoff. In addition, the slope should be increased to reduce the
extent of grading and disturbance. Furthermore, the expansive patio should be reduced in size.
Stormwater management plan should be improved. The previously requested shoreline buffer
expansion should be incorporated into a rain garden to mitigate the disturbance and the impact
from the lawn. The proposed underdrain (for the proposed French Drain) should be eliminated
to reduce the potential of the discharge of minimally treated stormwater. Conditions on the
restriction on the application of fertilizers and pesticides should be considered. Fertilizers feed
algae and aquatic plant growth and pesticides change the natural ecology of the lake. It is
imperative to limit the application of nutrients within the Critical Environmental Area of Lake
George. In conclusion, further mitigation must be provided to reduce the potential impacts to
balance the benefits for the applicant. The Lake George Water Keeper recommends the
following to the Town of Queensbury Zoning Board of Appeals: 1) Require a substantially
expanded shoreline buffer to incorporate additional trees and shrubs; 2) Alternatives including
pervious pavement, reduction in patio size and fill should be evaluated; 3) Submission of a
detailed stormwater management plan; and 4) Restrict the application of fertilizers and
pesticides on the property. The Lake George Water Keeper looks forward to working with the
Town of Queensbury Zoning Board of Appeals to defend the natural resources of Lake George
and its watershed. Thank you for your consideration. Sincerely, Christopher Navitsky, PE Lake
George Water Keeper”
MR. HUNSINGER-Thank you. Anything else? Any other comments, Keith?
MR. OBORNE-That’s it.
MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. Any other questions, comments from the Board? Would someone like
to move a recommendation?
MRS. STEFFAN-There was discussion of a special use type approval with a finite approval time,
or, what did Paul say?
MR. HUNSINGER-How did you word the?
MR. SCHONEWOLF-I said the part of the handicap access expires with the end of need,
meaning the person is no longer residing at that residence. It doesn’t mean you can’t leave the
pavers down there, but you don’t have the handicap part, and it’s commonly done on houses
where they’re doing ramps on the front door and stuff like that which, you know, you don’t want it
there forever.
MRS. STEFFAN-It’s kind of convoluted, but, stop me if you don’t think it’s right. I’ll make a
motion to the Zoning Board of Appeals.
RESOLUTION RE: ZBA RECOMMENDATION FOR AV 45-2010 & AV 35-2010
INWALD ENTERPRISES
24
(Queensbury Planning Board 04/26/2011)
The applicant has submitted applications for the following: Site Plan: Applicant proposes to
construct a boathouse with sundeck accessed by handicap access ramp above two existing
docks. Boathouse in a WR zone requires Planning Board review and approval Area Variance:
Applicant requests shoreline & sideline setback relief for accessory structure [ramp]. Planning
Board to provide written recommendation to the Zoning Board of Appeals; and
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; and
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. 45-2010 AND SITE PLAN
39-2010 FOR INWALD ENTERPRISES, Introduced by Gretchen Steffan who moved for its
adoption, seconded by Paul Schonewolf:
The Planning Board, based on a limited review, has identified the following areas of concern:
This plan is presented as a permanent structure, and some Board members are concerned with
this. There was discussion of a special use type of approval with a finite approval time, or
perhaps an expiration date for the handicap access.
th
Duly adopted this 26 day of April, 2011, by the following vote:
AYES: Mr. Sipp, Mr. Schonewolf, Mr. Magowan, Mrs. Steffan, Mr. Krebs, Mr. Traver,
Mr. Hunsinger
NOES: NONE
MR. HUNSINGER-You’re all set. Good luck.
MS. BITTER-Thank you very much.
MR. HUNSINGER-You’re welcome.
SITE PLAN NO 28-2011 SEQR TYPE II SUSAN CLERMONT AGENT(S) STEPHEN BEAN
OWNER(S) SAME AS APPLICANT ZONING WR-WATERFRONT RESIDENTIAL LOCATION
OLD ASSEMBLY POINT ROAD SITE PLAN: APPLICANT HAS CONSTRUCTED A 200 +/-
SQ. FT. DECK AND PROPOSED TO RECONFIGURE EXISTING 120 +/- SQ. FT.
NONCONFORMING DOCK. HARD SURFACING WITHIN 50 FEET OF A SHORELINE
REQUIRES PLANNING BOARD REVIEW AND APPROVAL. AREA VARIANCE: RELIEF
REQUESTED FOR SIDE SETBACK FOR BOTH THE DECK AND DOCK AS WELL AS A
SHORELINE SETBACK FOR THE DECK. PLANNING BOARD TO PROVIDE WRITTEN
RECOMMENDATION TO THE ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS. CROSS REFERENCE AV
20-11 WARREN CO. PLANNING 4/13/2011 APA, CEA, OTHER L G CEA LOT SIZE 0.01 +/-
ACRES TAX MAP NO. 239.12-2-13 SECTION 179-9, 179-5-060
STEPHEN BEAN, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT
MR. OBORNE-Site Plan 28-2011 and Area Variance 20-2011. Susan Clermont is the applicant.
Again, this is a recommendation. Location is 28 Old Assembly Point Road. Waterfront
Residential is the existing zoning. This is a Type II SEQRA. Project Description: Applicant has
constructed a 200 plus or minus square foot deck and proposed to reconfigure existing 120 plus
or minus square foot nonconforming dock. Hard surfacing within 50 feet of a shoreline requires
Planning Board review and approval. The Area Variance is requested for side setback for both
the deck and dock as well as the shoreline setback for the deck. The nature of the Area
Variance, keep in mind this is a .01 acre parcel, or 235 square feet. It’s less than postage
stamp I would say. The parcel is 235 square feet and is associated with the landlocked parcel
located approximately 600 feet to the southeast and separated by both Assembly Point Road
and Old Assembly Point Road. What follows is the nature of the variance. Deck portion of the
project, side setback relief request for 12 feet of north and south side setback relief for the 12
foot side setback requirement for the WR zone. Shoreline, request for 50 feet of shoreline relief
from the 50 foot shoreline setback requirement. This is for the deck portion. Now for the dock
portion you have north side setback relief, request for 12 feet of north side setback relief from
the 12 foot side setback requirement, and south side setback relief request for 9.6 feet of south
side setback relief from the 12 foot setback requirement. If you need further clarification, the
25
(Queensbury Planning Board 04/26/2011)
applicant will certainly give that to you. What follows is additional comments that will obviously
be looked at at Site Plan, and with that I’d turn it over to the Board.
MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. Thank you. Good evening.
MR. BEAN-Hi. My name’s Steve Bean. I’m just a friend of Sue Clermont’s, representing her.
I’m not an engineer or a lawyer.
MR. HUNSINGER-That’s okay.
MR. BEAN-Anyway, so, he probably spelled it out pretty good what we’re looking for is setback
relief. Everything I submitted before, the pictures and everything is self-explanatory, and as far
as what was originally there, and what I put up to this point, to make it a much safer use of the
property, the way you get down to the dock, for the deck portion, and as far as the dock portion, I
would like to narrow the dock up so that she can get a boat in, you know, for her side of the
property.
MR. MAGOWAN-Did you say get a boat in?
MR. BEAN-Yes. Alongside her, on her property.
MR. MAGOWAN-Does she use the dock at all, what, just to swim now? She doesn’t have a
boat?
MR. BEAN-Well, presently she doesn’t have a boat. She purchased the property last year, and
there’s a dock permit already in place from, well, from the Park Commission to change the way
the dock is constructed. There’s a five foot wide dock now, and she wanted to narrow it so that
she can put a small boat in on her side.
MR. MAGOWAN-Now, when she purchased the property, the previous owners were able to
have a boat in there or was there?
MR. BEAN-No, well, there’s room for a jet ski, but there’s not room for it, on her side
MR. MAGOWAN-Because it’s pretty shallow there, too, isn’t it?
MR. BEAN-Well, the end of the dock is about five feet or so in water depth at the end of the
dock.
MR. MAGOWAN-Now that five foot one, now, is that on a crib?
MR. BEAN-Yes.
MR. MAGOWAN-So you’d have to be removing some of that crib?
MR. BEAN-Yes. The permit that they got calls for a pile driven dock, the arm. We just were,
with the other part of the crib dock, like the picture shows, we just put a new top on it. So we just
want to change the arm part.
MR. SCHONEWOLF-Did she just buy this property?
MR. BEAN-Last year. From Darcy Harding.
MRS. STEFFAN-I didn’t see it. We tried to find it and we couldn’t find it, when we went to look
for it. Is there a house that goes with it, or is it just the lot?
MR. BEAN-Yes, the house is on Assembly Point Road, when you first go down the road, that
cabin that sits in there on the right hand side.
MR. HUNSINGER-The yellow one, it’s yellow, right?
MR. BEAN-No, it’s wood.
MR. MAGOWAN-Two brown ones, aren’t there?
MR. BEAN-No, that’s before, no, that’s after this. When you start right into Assembly Point
Road. The property is off Old Assembly Point Road, that we’re talking about.
MR. HUNSINGER-Yes, that’s where the yellow cabin is.
26
(Queensbury Planning Board 04/26/2011)
MR. BEAN-But the house that goes with this piece of property is on Assembly Point Road, just
as you start to go down the hill.
MR. HUNSINGER-That one. Okay.
MR. BEAN-It’s tucked back in there against the rock in there.
MR. HUNSINGER-So how do you access this property? You have to go through the
neighbor’s?
MR. BEAN-Well, yes, she has a deeded right of way to go across the people’s front yard. It
goes, you know, in front of the, I think the name is Rondell.
MR. HUNSINGER-So what house number is it, do you know?
MR. BEAN-Twenty-eight Assembly Point Road.
MR. HUNSINGER-No, the neighbors that you access.
MR. BEAN-I don’t know the house number.
MR. OBORNE-Forty-five.
MR. HUNSINGER-Forty-five.
MR. TRAVER-You can hardly see that.
MR. OBORNE-Yes. You might have better luck actually on accessing this 42 Old Assembly
Point Road or this parcel here, where the hand is. Because I’m pretty sure that there’s some
acrimony with this parcel owner here.
MR. TRAVER-Regarding access to this?
MR. OBORNE-There’s some setback, there’s just not, it’s not a comfortable relationship. So I
wouldn’t want Board members to.
MRS. STEFFAN-So 43 would be the number to?
MR. OBORNE-I would suggest.
MR. HUNSINGER-It looks like if you just, it looks like the end of Old Assembly Point, if you just
keep going straight.
MR. BEAN-Yes, it dead end’s there, and then it turns in to the guy’s front yard, and she walks
across that front yard to access her piece.
MR. HUNSINGER-Okay.
MR. BEAN-It’s probably one of the smallest pieces of property on the lake.
MR. OBORNE-It is, yes.
MR. TRAVER-Two hundred and thirty-five square feet.
MR. BEAN-It’s 10 feet wide.
MR. MAGOWAN-So this is the neighbor’s dock here.
MR. BEAN-Yes.
MR. MAGOWAN-And then this is her little spot that you’re trying to widen.
MR. BEAN-Yes. If you’ll look at the, if you look at this picture, I don’t know if you’ve got that in
the ones there, you’re looking down at it, the arm, which is about five feet wide, we want to
narrow it over here to, she has a permit, her permit is like two to three feet wide. So we just
want to cut this dock off.
MR. MAGOWAN-Right.
27
(Queensbury Planning Board 04/26/2011)
MR. BEAN-So that she has enough room to get a small boat in there.
MR. MAGOWAN-All right. Now these are driven down now, there’s no crib underneath?
MR. BEAN-No, there’s a crib under there now.
MR. MAGOWAN-There’s a crib underneath there. All right.
MR. BEAN-Yes.
MR. TRAVER-Does she own both sides of that dock?
MR. BEAN-No.
MR. TRAVER-So the person that owns the other half, is it okay with that person to narrow the
dock?
MR. BEAN-She owns this dock.
MR. TRAVER-So she owns both sides of the dock? That was my question.
MR. BEAN-Yes, she owns the dock.
MR. TRAVER-Okay. I thought so.
MR. BEAN-I thought you meant both sides of the water. She doesn’t own both sides of the
water. She only owns the one side of the water. That side. This is the neighbor’s dock. This is
her dock.
MR. MAGOWAN-That’s the neighbor’s dock and boathouse there.
MR. BEAN-Yes.
MR. TRAVER-So who ties their boat up to the, what would be your left hand on that picture, no,
the other side. There you go.
MR. BEAN-Nobody.
MR. TRAVER-Nobody, but she could tie a boat up there.
MR. BEAN-No.
MR. TRAVER-So someone else uses that side of the dock and will be impacted if you make the
dock narrower.
MR. BEAN-No, you can’t put anything on that side of the dock. It’s somebody else’s water
rights, the neighbor’s water rights.
MR. TRAVER-Okay.
MR. BEAN-Yes, if you looked at the survey.
MR. TRAVER-What I’m saying is someone is accessing that side of the dock, is that not
correct? No?
MR. BEAN-Not that side. We just want to access this side which is on her property. If you look
at that survey.
MR. TRAVER-Okay.
MR. MAGOWAN-Because if you look on this one here, you can see like the property line comes
right straight down, so that’s what he’s saying is that that must be the neighbor’s right of water.
MR. TRAVER-Right. So it’s the neighbor’s water, but they can’t tie up to her dock.
MR. BEAN-Well, no, they can’t tie up to her dock. The water line, if you look at the survey, at a.
MR. TRAVER-I understand now. Thank you very much.
28
(Queensbury Planning Board 04/26/2011)
MR. MAGOWAN-But nobody can tie up on that other side.
MR. BEAN-Right.
MR. KREBS-Well, then the existing dock on the left can’t use its side of the dock because it’s
not on their property. If you look at the diagram, you know, this is this dock that’s on the left
hand side of the picture, but it doesn’t have enough room on the property line for the boat. So
the boat can be put here.
MR. HUNSINGER-Any other questions from the Board? We do have a public hearing
scheduled this evening. Is there anyone in the audience that wants to address the Board on this
project?
PUBLIC HEARING OPENED
MR. HUNSINGER-Any written comments, Keith?
MR. OBORNE-No, sir.
MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. I will open the public hearing. Would anyone like to make a
recommendation to the Zoning Board?
MRS. STEFFAN-Does anyone have any issues?
MR. TRAVER-I have none.
MR. SCHONEWOLF-I’d give them a positive recommendation, see if they can figure it out.
MRS. STEFFAN-And, Steve, the ball is now to you. Okay. I’ll put forth a recommendation.
RESOLUTION RE: ZBA RECOMMENDATION FOR AV 20-2011 CLERMONT
The applicant proposes: Site Plan: Applicant has constructed a 200 +/- sq. ft. deck and
proposed to reconfigure existing 120 +/- sq. ft. nonconforming dock. Hard surfacing within 50
feet of a shoreline requires Planning Board review and approval. Area Variance: Relief
requested for side setback for both the deck and dock as well as a shoreline setback for the
deck. Planning Board to provide written recommendation to the Zoning Board of Appeals; and
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; and
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. 20-2011 AND SITE PLAN
28-2011 FOR SUSAN CLERMONT, Introduced by Gretchen Steffan who moved for its adoption,
seconded by Donald Krebs:
According to the resolution prepared by Staff. The Planning Board selects Option One. Based
on a limited review the Planning Board has not identified any significant adverse impacts that
cannot be mitigated with the current project proposal.
th
Duly adopted this 26 day of April, 2011, by the following vote:
AYES: Mr. Krebs, Mr. Sipp, Mr. Traver, Mr. Schonewolf, Mrs. Steffan, Mr. Magowan,
Mr. Hunsinger
NOES: NONE
MR. HUNSINGER-You’re all set. Good luck.
MR. BEAN-I thank you very much for your time.
MR. HUNSINGER-You’re welcome.
MR. BEAN-I just want to make one comment.
29
(Queensbury Planning Board 04/26/2011)
MR. HUNSINGER-Sure, go ahead.
MR. BEAN-I live in Kinderhook, the little Town of Kinderhook, and Mr. Schonewolf’s comment
about the engineering, you know, we contract out our engineering, too, for the Town of
Kinderhook.
MR. HUNSINGER-Okay.
MR. BEAN-But that engineer sits at every meeting, Planning Board, and ZBA meeting, and
they’re there, regardless of what the agenda is, they’re always there at that meeting so you don’t
have issues like the previous people.
MR. HUNSINGER-Thank you. We appreciate that.
MR. BEAN-That’s the way they do it.
MRS. STEFFAN-Thank you.
MR. HUNSINGER-Thank you.
SITE PLAN NO. 11-2011 FRESHWATER WETLANDS 2-2011 SEQR TYPE UNLISTED
CELLCO PARTNERSHIP D/B/A VERIZON WIRELESS AGENT(S) MICHAEL CUSACK,
ESQ. OWNER(S) TREEMONT, LLC ZONING CLI-COMMERCIAL LIGHT INDUSTRIAL
LOCATION 89 EVERTS AVENUE SITE PLAN: APPLICANT PROPOSES REPLACEMENT
OF EXISTING 182 +/- SQ. FT. GUYED AM RADIO TOWER WITH A NEW SHIELDED 180 +/-
SQ. FT. AM TOWER CAPABLE OF SUPPORTING MULTI-CARRIER USE. FURTHER, A 360
+/- SQ. FT. VERIZON WIRELESS SERVICE FACILITY TO BE CONSTRUCTED.
TELECOMMUNICATION TOWERS REQUIRES PLANNING BOARD REVIEW AND
APPROVAL. AREA VARIANCE: RELIEF REQUESTED FROM MINIMUM SETBACK FROM
ON-SITE DESIGNATED WETLANDS. PLANNING BOARD TO PROVIDE WRITTEN
RECOMMENDATION TO THE ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS. CROSS REFERENCE AV 21-
11, SP 2-09, AV 86-08, AV 10-07, SP 5-07 APA, CEA, OTHER NWI WETLANDS LOT SIZE
4.35 +/- ACRES TAX MAP NO. 302.8-2-4 SECTION 179-9, 179-5-130
MICHAEL CUSACK, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT
MR. OBORNE-Site Plan 11-2011 and Area Variance 21-2011, Cellco Partnership. This is a
recommendation, again, to the Zoning Board of Appeals. 89 Everts Avenue. Commercial Light
Industrial is the zoning. This is an Unlisted SEQRA. On 4/13/2011 the Warren County Planning
Board issued a No County Impact. Engineering review should be before you. Project
Description: Applicant proposes replacement of existing 182 square foot guy AM radio tower
with a new shielded 180 foot plus or minus square foot linear or high guy AM tower cable and
supporting multi-carrier use. Further, a 360 square foot Verizon Wireless service facility is to be
constructed. Area Variance relief requested from minimum setbacks from on site designated
wetlands. Currently there exists there the tower there, slated for removal. The applicant
proposes access from the existing asphalt parking to the south of the office with a dedicated
gravel drive to the proposed site. The majority of the parcel contains NWI wetlands or Army
Corps of Engineer wetlands. The applicant proposes temporary disturbance within the wetlands
to remove existing guy wires and install proposed guy wires. Nature of the variance: Tower
portion of the project, shoreline, wetland setback relief, approximately 69 feet from the 75 foot
shoreline setback requirement for the CLI zone. Support shelter of the project, shoreline,
wetland setback relief. Applicant requests 75 feet of relief from the 75 foot shoreline setback.
Keep in mind that Site Plan you have disturbance within the wetland that you’ll be looking at,
and with that, I’d turn it over to the Board.
MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. Thank you. Good evening.
MR. CUSACK-Mike Cusack and Jean Marie Frawley representing the applicant on this project,
and just to kind of hit the highlights of it, the tower that’s there now is very, very old. We’re not
able to rehabilitate it, and it is an active AM radio tower, and in radio technology, an AM tower is
electrified. It is the antenna. So the current of the signal passes through the tower itself and
comes back down and circulates. So the only way you can get other users on that tower is to
shield the tower, or re-build it as a shielded tower, and because of the age of the tower and its
condition and how many years it’s been up there, the radio station’s engineers have determined
that structurally it’s just not going to support any additional equipment on there. They’re not
even willing to put any more of their own equipment on it. So a total replacement is required,
and that replacement will meet all of the modern requirements for structural design and safety,
and also will enable them to continue operating the two AM radio stations that they’re operating
off of that tower right now. So there’ll be no permanent impact to the community services AM
30
(Queensbury Planning Board 04/26/2011)
radio stations that are currently operating there now. The FM stations that they’re operating out
of their studio will continue to operate as they currently operate. I believe they’re linked to a
remote tower somewhere else, perhaps, up on West Mountain, but they do have some studio
activities there, and this will be basically no impact to the radio station itself. The benefit of the
project, in addition to providing Verizon Wireless space to put its antennas on the tower, is also
that we will be building this tower capable of supporting three additional users, so that as the
other carriers start coming into Town to try to improve their networks, this will be available for
them as an opportunity, if it works in their network. So that’s the thumbnail sketch. I can get
down real, real granular, but since we’re just going to the ZBA at this point, I thought I’d hit the
higher levels of what the project was about.
MR. HUNSINGER-Great, thank you. Questions, comments from the Board?
MR. SCHONEWOLF-When you say support other services, are you talking about cellular?
MR. CUSACK-That’s correct, any wireless type service. It’ll be built with structural capacity in
the foundation and in the steel of the tower itself to accommodate.
MR. SCHONEWOLF-I thought I saw the building was Verizon?
MR. CUSACK-Our equipment will be inside the 360 square foot shelter, 12 foot by 30 feet, and
as other users come in, they would have to go through the same process with the Town that’s in
the Code now, for a co-location, they would have to tell you where they’re putting their ground
equipment, you know, what it consists of, what they’re putting on the tower, you would review it
in accordance with the current regulations. We’re not pre-approving anything other than Verizon
Wireless issues.
MR. HUNSINGER-So is the copper rod that you brought with you, is that the lightening rod that
goes on the top?
MR. CUSACK-That’s the lightening rod. Everyone always asks me, what’s a lightning rod, how
much taller does it really make the tower. This is a four foot lightening rod. I’m not going to hold
it too high tonight.
MR. KREBS-Not while you're walking outside anyway.
MR. OBORNE-I will say this is a rare application that actually fits the use for the property. So
that was a breath of fresh air, but of course there’s wetland issues on site.
MR. HUNSINGER-Yes.
MRS. STEFFAN-But they’ve been there.
MR. CUSACK-Yes, we are not making them worse. The setback from wetlands now is zero. So
it’ll continue to be zero. It’ll just be a little bit closer for one or two of the components.
MR. MAGOWAN-So you’re taking down the AM antenna and replacing it with?
MR. CUSACK-With a new tower.
MR. MAGOWAN-Like on S, page, say S-2?
MR. CUSACK-Yes, correct.
JEAN MARIE FRAWLEY
MS. FRAWLEY-The new tower will be built first, because there’s AM. They’ll put the new tower
up so that you don’t lose any AM radio, because the tower that’s there actually right now that’s
your radio. You don’t see the antennas on it. When they build the new tower, it’ll be shielded so
they can put out on cell sites like Verizon or emergency 911 services, can use that tower also.
Once they get that up, they’ll be able to take the other one down.
MR. MAGOWAN-Now, is Verizon doing this, I mean, is the signal low here in Town?
MR. CUSACK-Yes, the purpose of the project from our standpoint is to improve third generation
service and add new fourth generation service in the Quaker Road area of Town. This area is
primarily served from Downtown Glens Falls, where we have antennas on top of 333 Glen
Street, which I believe is the CNA building, and that site is serving all of Glens Falls. So it’s
constantly being overloaded with all of the subscribers in the area, including into Queensbury,
31
(Queensbury Planning Board 04/26/2011)
and we’ve upgraded that site as much as we possibly can to add more capacity to it or modify it.
It can’t be changed anymore. We actually have to go out and build a new site so that there’s
adequate coverage and adequate capacity for users in Queensbury.
MR. SCHONEWOLF-How old is that tower?
MR. CUSACK-We don’t have the exact date. It’s 1950’s or 60’s they believe.
MS. FRAWLEY-The latest we could track it back to was the 1950’s.
MR. CUSACK-That’s why we’re replacing it.
MR. MAGOWAN-Now what happens if other users come in? Do they have to come for approval
because the more heads you put up there, the bigger and larger it’s going to get.
MS. FRAWLEY-Each carrier who would come on would also do a new structural, even though
it’s going to be designed for multiple carriers, they would still do an updated structural, still come
before you for their equipment, their ground equipment, whatever. They’d still have to come
before you.
MR. HUNSINGER-So how different would the new tower look, as opposed to the existing tower?
MR. CUSACK-It’s essentially going to be the same. The guy wires are different on the newer
tower because of the structural capacity, and that’s where we ran into some of the wetlands and
setbacks issues, because the standards that applied back in 1950’s and 60’s are not the same
standards that apply now, and we’re designing for additional capacity or use.
MR. HUNSINGER-Right.
MR. CUSACK-So it’s going to be roughly the same size, and approximately the same height,
with the exception of this lightening rod, and I think that it’s very, very comparable, a standard
AM tower is the best way I can describe it.
MR. HUNSINGER-And in terms of the location of the cells, typically, that’s a very lengthy
discussion about the height of where the cell is, but I still have the question, because you’re not
proposing to put the cell all the way to the top.
MR. CUSACK-That’s correct.
MR. HUNSINGER-So I’m just curious as to.
MR. CUSACK-We have a balancing issue here to deal with. The engineers were very, very
concerned with being too high, and not too low, because if they go too high, then that signal’s
going to project back into Glens Falls, which I mentioned earlier is already covered by the CNA
building, but if it’s too low, then it won’t cover an adequate enough piece of the geography of
Queensbury. So they were trying to run a balance of somewhere around 100 to 120 feet, 130
feet, and when the design came out, from the tower manufacturer, there were guy wires right in
the exact spot where they wanted to put the antenna. So you can’t have your antennas
broadcasting into metal wires. It just, it doesn’t work. So we had to adjust our height. I can’t
remember if it was slightly up or slightly down, but we had to adjust around the guy wires. So
the location is intentionally lower than the top of the tower.
MR. HUNSINGER-Yes, because usually the debate is the cell company wants to go as high as
they can, and we say no, we don’t want it that high because of the visual impact. So I was a
little surprised to see that you didn’t want to put it all the way to the top.
MR. CUSACK-Most everything we’re building these days is in the 120 foot range.
MR. HUNSINGER-Interesting.
MR. SCHONEWOLF-I don’t know if they still do it, but most t.v. and radio towers, for years, were
always built in swamp or wet areas.
MR. CUSACK-Right.
MR. SCHONEWOLF-You get better grounding.
MR. CUSACK-Yes, that’s true.
32
(Queensbury Planning Board 04/26/2011)
MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. Any other questions, comments from the Board? We do have a public
hearing scheduled this evening. Is there anyone in the audience that wants to address the
Board on this project?
PUBLIC HEARING OPENED
MR. HUNSINGER-Any written comments, Keith?
MR. OBORNE-No, sir.
MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. Would anyone like to make a recommendation to the Zoning Board?
MRS. STEFFAN-Okay.
RESOLUTION RE: ZBA RECOMMENDATION FOR AV 21-2011 CELLCO PARTNERSHIP
The applicant proposes: Site Plan: Applicant proposes replacement of existing 182 +/- sq. ft.
guyed AM radio tower with a new shielded 180 +/- sq. ft. AM tower capable of supporting multi-
carrier use. Further, a 360 +/- sq. ft. Verizon Wireless Service facility to be constructed.
Telecommunication Towers requires Planning Board review and approval. Area Variance:
Relief requested from minimum setback from on-site designated wetlands. Planning Board to
provide written recommendation to the Zoning Board of Appeals; and
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; and
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. 21-2011, SITE PLAN 11-
2011 & FRESHWATER WETLANDS PERMIT NO. 2-2011 FOR CELLCO PARTNERSHIP d/b/a
VERIZON WIRELESS, Introduced by Gretchen Steffan who moved for its adoption, seconded
by Stephen Traver:
According to the resolution prepared by Staff. The Planning Board selects Option One - Based
on a limited review the Planning Board has not identified any significant adverse impacts that
cannot be mitigated with the current project proposal.
th
Duly adopted this 26 day of April, 2011, by the following vote:
AYES: Mr. Traver, Mr. Krebs, Mrs. Steffan, Mr. Magowan, Mr. Schonewolf, Mr. Sipp,
Mr. Hunsinger
NOES: NONE
MR. CUSACK-Thank you.
MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. You’re all set. Good luck.
MS. FRAWLEY-Thank you.
MR. HUNSINGER-The next item on the agenda is Site Plan 80-2010 for Hayes & Hayes, LLC.
Is the applicant out in the other room, Keith?
MR. OBORNE-I think they’re out there.
MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. Is that what you’re here for?
ETHAN HALL
MR. HALL-Yes, Site Plan No. 30-2011.
MRS. STEFFAN-Do you want to do that?
MR. HUNSINGER-Why don’t we address Site Plan 30-2011 for Dr. Shin, while we wait for the
Hayes Group to come in.
33
(Queensbury Planning Board 04/26/2011)
MR. OBORNE-Yes, just for clarification, tabled business is usually before new business. Go
ahead.
SITE PLAN NO. 30-2011 SEQR TYPE II DR. JESSICA SHIN AGENT(S) ETHAN HALL,
RUCINSKI HALL ARCHITECTS OWNER(S) 365 AVIATION, LLC ZONING NC-
NEIGHBORHOOD COMMERCIAL LOCATION 365 AVIATION ROAD APPLICANT
PROPOSES A DENTAL OFFICE AT A FACILITY THAT WAS FORMERLY A PROFESSIONAL
OFFICE. APPLICANT PROPOSES SIGNIFICANT SITE IMPROVEMENTS THAT REQUIRE
PLANNING BOARD REVIEW AND APPROVAL. CROSS REFERENCE BP 11-028 LOT SIZE
0.61 +/- ACRES TAX MAP NO. 301.08-1-35 SECTION 179-9
ETHAN HALL, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT
MR. HUNSINGER-Whenever you’re ready, Keith.
MR. OBORNE-Yes, I apologize.
MR. HUNSINGER-Sure, no problem.
MR. OBORNE-Site Plan 30-2011, Dr. Jessica Shin. Site improvements including, grading,
stormwater, paving, landscaping, lighting, require Site Plan Review. Location is 365 Aviation
Road. Neighborhood Commercial is the existing zoning. This is a Type II SEQRA, engineering
review 4/13/11 should be before you. Applicant proposes a dental office at a facility that was
formally a professional office. Applicant proposes significant site improvements, as previously
discussed. I think that there are really not any huge issues. We did speak, earlier this week,
Ethan and I, about signage, directional signage, and also snow storage should probably be
looked at a little closely also, and any signage, as a condition of approval, should be Code
compliant, and with that I’d turn it over to the Board.
MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. Thank you. Good evening.
MR. HALL-Good evening. Ethan Hall, I’m a partner with Rucinski Hall Architecture. Here
tonight representing Dr. Jessica Shin. She has purchased the property up at 365 Aviation Road,
and is moving her dental office from down on Quaker Road up there to Aviation, doing some
interior renovations to the building and putting new siding around the outside of the building.
The back part of the building currently is a crushed stone driveway. That’s going to be paved.
We’re going to put some stormwater management devices out there, catch basins and dry wells,
adding some foundation plantings around the building, and some trees around the outer portion
of the building as well. The existing sewage disposal system was installed in 2001, I think, is
what we got from Jarrett-Martin. It was re-done for the previous owner. Jarrett-Martin put that in
in 2001. As far as the signage issue goes, we had proposed to put striped paving, painted
arrows on the ingress and egress. We’re coming in opposite Poplar Lane. We’d be going out
further away from Poplar Lane, but we can certainly put, you know, signage up, one way in, one
way out. We have no problem with that, and as far as the signage goes, she hadn’t indicated, at
this point, any preference for signage, but anything she puts up will obviously conform with, you
know, with the Town Code. As far as the colors go, I have the colors, I got the colors from the
contractor. I can hand these out to you if you’d like.
MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. Great. Thank you. Is there anything else that you wanted to add?
MR. HALL-That’s it.
MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. While he’s handing that out, are there any questions or comments
from members of the Board?
MRS. STEFFAN-Ethan, what will you be doing with snow?
MR. HALL-The snow is going to be put in the back portion away from where the sewage
disposal system is. Obviously it won’t be piled on top of that sewage disposal system. We have
an area off to the eastern side, beyond the end of the pavement. That’ll be used for the primary
snow storage. Once that begins to fill up, obviously it has to be taken off from the site, and she’s
aware of that, that when she gets to a certain point, that has to be taken off. As you can see
from the colors that are shown in the elevation that we’ve got, we have a mix of horizontal siding
and vertical siding below a freeze board band or a water table band at the elevation of the sill of
the window. The top portion is going to be that Kenyon blend which is basically a very light tan.
The vertical portion below it is a darker tan or a grayish color, and then the band itself is a darker
clay. So you’ve got a light, a very dark line, and then a line below that that’s a little bit darker,
so, or a little bit less dark than the band.
34
(Queensbury Planning Board 04/26/2011)
MR. HUNSINGER-Questions, comments from the Board? There are a couple of engineering
comments. Did you have any response to those?
MR. HALL-I got the engineering comments. We are asking for relief, obviously, from the
stormwater management. We’re just re-paving over what’s already hard surface, and we are,
there are no stormwater management devices there now. We are adding two catch basins, two
dry wells to take care of that area that there’s nothing for. The other thing that they asked for
was, we’ve obviously asked for a waiver. It’s a flat site. There’s no change in elavation at all
over this site. So we asked for a waiver from that for the grading plan and the next question they
asked for was for us to put silt fence on the down slope side of the flat site. So I’ll ring the site
with silt fence if you want, but the perc rate up there, they can’t make water stay in the ground.
When they re-did the sewage disposal system, they had to excavate and bring material back in,
just to slow the water down enough so they could get an on site sewage disposal system in
there. We don’t feel that it’s a well, you know, it’s a flat site that’s got green area all the way
around it. So water’s not going to leave this site at all, but, you know, all the other items we
agree with.
MR. SIPP-Any additional landscaping going in?
MR. HALL-Beyond what we were proposing?
MR. SIPP-Yes.
MR. HALL-No. Beyond what we’re proposing, I mean, we’re proposing foundation plantings all
the way around, and we’ve got trees. There basically are no trees on the site, other than the
one, there’s the one white birch that’s at the end of the.
MR. SIPP-You could use a tree or two maybe in there.
MR. HALL-Yes. We’ve added trees all the way along the Aviation Road side and on both
driveways, front and back. Yes, we’re adding nine trees in total, and a bunch of the smaller
foundation plantings around the foundation of the building.
MRS. STEFFAN-Ethan, on the Staff Notes it just wanted a clarification on the perennial
plantings should be clarified, 48 on each plan, 96 on the planting schedule.
MR. HALL-I’ve got three planting beds, each planting bed has a combination, and the
combination is there’s 16 of each of the Hosta and the daylily, in each of the three, for a total of
48 hosta and 48 daylilies, which is what I’ve got in my quantity plan.
MR. OBORNE-I wasn’t sure if it was 15 hosta and 1 daylily or, I’m just not quite sure.
MR. HALL-Sixteen of each.
MR. OBORNE-That’s fine.
MR. TRAVER-That makes quite a difference.
MR. HALL-They are, they’re small plants, but the nice thing about those is they come back year
after year, and I don’t care what you do, you can’t kill those.
MRS. STEFFAN-Unless you have deer. Then they mow them down flat.
MR. HALL-Yes. The deer at the Aviation Road site are few and far between.
MR. HUNSINGER-Other questions, comments? We do have a public hearing scheduled this
evening. Is there anyone in the audience that wants to address the Board on this project?
Okay. We do have one taker. All that we ask, ma’am, is that you identify yourself for the record
PUBLIC HEARING OPENED
VIRGINIA SLEIGHT
MRS. SLEIGHT-My name is Virginia Sleight. My property adjoins 365 Aviation Road. In fact
our areas abut. I have a couple of questions. I am concerned with snow removal, because it is
a very limited space, and I know from trying to deal with my own driveway on the opposite side
of the road, that it does get to be a major problem if it isn’t taken care of. It does have to be
taken away. Secondly, I am concerned with how close this new driveway is going to come. Is
35
(Queensbury Planning Board 04/26/2011)
she going to move the driveway that’s there over so that it actually abuts my green lawn area?
And that is a problem because I don’t want, obviously, a snowplow to come and dig my lawn up.
My other problem is that I had the property surveyed, and my surveyor put up signs, and we
don’t quite agree with where her survey is. I have talked with your gentleman over here, and I
attempted, today, to get the surveyors who did my property to take a look at her plot plan
because the property she is showing comes down in a straight line, where my surveyor put in
the stakes, it’s over and comes down in a pie shape to nothing. So that is a problem. So I
would like to be able to have some input from my surveyor before all these things are going to
go up. Otherwise, I have no problem.
MR. HUNSINGER-Okay.
MR. MAGOWAN-Do you know where your septic is located on your property?
MRS. SLEIGHT-Yes. If you come over, two feet on to my property, there is a septic system on
the west side, which was there when I bought the property 25 years ago, and if somebody
decides to drive a truck over that, it’s going to collapse. My own septic system that services
most of my house is on the east or opposite side of the house.
MR. MAGOWAN-All right. So is it a gray water, kind of like for your kitchen sink or something
that’s on that side?
MRS. SLEIGHT-Yes, it is the kitchen sink that’s on the west side of the house.
MR. MAGOWAN-All right. So you’re saying the majority of your tank system then is on the east
side?
MRS. SLEIGHT-It’s on the east. The only thing, don’t ask me why they put it on the left side, but
they did.
MR. MAGOWAN-Well, does your kitchen face the property?
MRS. SLEIGHT-Yes, the kitchen faces the west side of the house, and the other, I have had a
new septic system put in on the east side that services for the laundry and bathroom, but I am
very concerned about, the difference in lines, as I explained to this gentleman, I don’t see how
two surveyors could come up with so much different. So I’d like to have him take a look at it.
MR. HUNSINGER-How much, what’s the width at the widest point, do you know?
MRS. SLEIGHT-At the widest point, using my surveyor’s figures, I think it’s about seven feet,
and then according to where he put the stakes, it comes down to a pie shaped angle of nothing.
MR. HUNSINGER-So is the seven feet in the front or in the back?
MRS. SLEIGHT-All of this is in the back.
MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. Thank you.
MRS. SLEIGHT-Yes, this is all in the back. So if it’s hers, I have no problem, but if it isn’t hers, I
would like to stay with what’s there. Other than that, I have no problem here.
MR. HUNSINGER-Okay.
MRS. SLEIGHT-I would say that her contractor has done an excellent job so far.
MR. OBORNE-Yes, my understanding is that this site plan obviously is based off of a survey.
That’s a requirement, and on top of that, the tax map parcel shows you what the shape of the
parcel is. Now the tax map parcel is notoriously inaccurate.
MRS. SLEIGHT-Yes, I know.
MR. OBORNE-So I will say that. But it is based on a survey. I’m sure that Ethan will comment
on that.
MRS. SLEIGHT-Okay.
MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. Thank you.
MRS. SLEIGHT-No problem.
36
(Queensbury Planning Board 04/26/2011)
MRS. STEFFAN-Thank you, Mrs. Sleight.
MR. HUNSINGER-Is there anyone else that wants to address the Board? If you could come
back to the table, Ethan.
MR. HALL-As far as the survey goes, our survey was done by Rourke Associates on November
19, 2010. I don’t know when the other, when was the survey done, Mrs. Sleight?
MRS. SLEIGHT-The last one would have been done in probably five years ago.
MR. HALL-They referenced Mrs. Sleight’s property on Rourke’s survey, and I do have a copy of
the original survey that we were given. I don’t think I have it with me tonight, but it’s the original
that was sent to us via electronic file, but nothing’s altered from what they’ve given us. The
driveways are going to be right where they are now. So we’re not moving our.
MRS. SLEIGHT-You’re not making them any wider.
MR. HALL-No. They’re going to stay right on the same. They’re going to be just squared off to
where they are now. They’re going to stay right on top of that space. So we’re not moving them
closer to any of the property lines that we’re on now, and the area in the back we’re just
squaring that off where the crushed stone already is in the back of the property. So we have no
intention of changing any of the drainage patterns that are there. The pie shaped pie in the
back, there is a note, and on the survey there’s a pie shaped piece in the back at one point that
was transferred via deed, and we’ve got the deed that was dated in 1966. So I don’t know if
that’s the piece that’s in question or not, but I can leave copies of the original surveys.
MR. HUNSINGER-Okay.
MRS. SLEIGHT-I just need, then, to have somebody come up from your office to put in some
markers so I know where I’m going.
MR. HALL-Okay.
MRS. SLEIGHT-The markers where my surveyor put them obviously aren’t clear.
MR. HUNSINGER-Did you have any written comments, Keith?
MR. OBORNE-No, sir.
MR. HUNSINGER-Okay.
MRS. STEFFAN-How about the snow removal, Ethan. You talked to us about it, but regarding
Mrs. Sleight’s comment.
MR. HALL-The area is directly in back, right about where Keith has the hand on the top,
everything from there back, Mrs. Sleight’s newer septic system is on the right hand side, on the
opposite side of your house, that’s correct?
MRS. SLEIGHT-Yes.
MR. HALL-It’s on the east side of the house, and our septic system is on the west side of this
property. So there is a piece right in between the two in the back that’s right straight back from
the driveway. So we’re going to go off from that side and then everything else gets removed. It
has to, there’s just no, because we obviously aren’t going to store on top of anybody’s septic
system.
MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. Any other questions, comments from the Board?
MRS. STEFFAN-The survey clarification issue, Keith, is that something that you do? We don’t
have to put it in here, in the motion, the survey dispute?
MR. OBORNE-Well, I’m not quite sure there is a dispute, to be honest with you. I mean, it’s
referenced off of a survey, and it’s been presented on the plan. I know that she asked and she
wanted to know, have stakes placed in the ground. So maybe you may want to add that as a
condition, but that, obviously, would be discussed with the Board. I’m not sure how you want to
proceed with that.
37
(Queensbury Planning Board 04/26/2011)
MR. HALL-I will make sure that I get together with her, and we’ll make sure that we get it
squared away.
MR. HUNSINGER-Okay.
MR. HALL-I was just speaking with her and she was saying that she thinks that there’s an
irrigation line that may be partially on this parcel, and we’ll get it squared away.
MR. HUNSINGER-Okay.
MR. HALL-I’ll absolutely get up there. I’ll get together with her surveyor, whoever it is, we’ll get
together with Rourke Associates and make sure that that boundary line is correct.
MR. HUNSINGER-I mean, it’s not uncommon to have, you know, boundary disputes like that,
have them worked out.
MR. HALL-Especially on those pieces of property up there.
MR. HUNSINGER-Yes, sure.
MR. HALL-Absolutely.
MR. HUNSINGER-Okay, and you said there were no written comments, Keith?
MR. OBORNE-No written comments.
MR. HUNSINGER-Okay, and since there are no other public comments, everyone comfortable
with closing the public hearing? I’ll close the public hearing.
PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED
MR. HUNSINGER-It’s a Type II SEQRA. So no review is necessary unless we identify concern.
Members comfortable moving forward?
MR. TRAVER-Yes.
MR. KREBS-Yes.
MR. MAGOWAN-Yes.
MR. HUNSINGER-Then I will entertain a motion for approval.
MRS. STEFFAN-I’ll make a motion to approve.
RESOLUTION APPROVING SP 30-2011 SHIN
A site plan application has been made to the Queensbury Planning Board for the following:
Applicant proposes a Dental Office at a facility that was formerly a professional office. Applicant
proposes significant site improvements that require Planning Board review and approval.
A public hearing was advertised and held on 4/26/2011; and
This application is supported with all documentation, public comment and application material in
the file of record;
MOTION TO APPROVE SITE PLAN NO. 30-2011 DR. JESSICA SHIN, Introduced by Gretchen
Steffan who moved for its adoption, seconded by Stephen Traver:
According to 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 complies with the requirements as
stated in the Zoning Code; and
2)Type II-no further action required; and
3)Final approved plans, in compliance with the Site Plan, must be submitted to the Community
Development Department before any further review by the Zoning Administrator or Building
and Codes personnel. The applicant must meet with Staff after approval and prior to
38
(Queensbury Planning Board 04/26/2011)
issuance of Building Permit and/or the beginning of any site work. Subsequent issuance of
further permits, including building permits is dependent on compliance with this and all other
conditions of this resolution; and
4)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; and
5)The Sanitary Sewer connection plan must be submitted to the Wastewater Department for
its review, approval, permitting and inspection; and
6)Waiver requests granted: stormwater management and grading; and
7)The limits of clearing will constitute a no-cut buffer zone, orange construction fencing shall
be installed around these areas and field verified by Community Development staff; and
8)If curb cuts are being added or changed a driveway permit is required. A building permit will
not be issued until the approved driveway permit has been provided to the Planning Office;
and
9)This is approved with the following conditions:
1.Any signage will be Code compliant.
2.Snow storage will be on the eastern side of the lot off pavement. Please denote on
plan.
3.The color selections as presented will be Kenyon blend, natural clay with white
window trim.
4.That the applicant will obtain engineering signoff.
5.That the applicant will add directional signage that’s Code compliant.
6.Perennial planting numbers confirmed at 96.
th
Duly adopted this 26 day of April, 2011, by the following vote:
MR. HALL-We’re going to put up signage, not painted. We’ve already indicated we were going
to paint on the pavement for our directional, and Staff would prefer us to put up signage.
MRS. STEFFAN-Okay.
MR. HALL-So we’re going to put signage up, and not paint the arrows.
MRS. STEFFAN-Okay.
AYES: Mr. Traver, Mr. Krebs, Mr. Magowan, Mr. Schonewolf, Mr. Sipp, Mrs. Steffan,
Mr. Hunsinger
NOES: NONE
MR. HUNSINGER-You’re all set. Good luck.
MR. HALL-Thank you very much.
MR. HUNSINGER-Good luck.
SITE PLAN NO. 80-2010 SEQR TYPE UNLISTED HAYES & HAYES, LLC AGENT(S) NACE
ENGINEERING OWNER(S) SAME ZONING NR [NEIGHBORHOOD RESIDENTIAL]
LOCATION SOUTH SIDE DIXON ROAD, EAST OF I-87 APPLICANT PROPOSES SEVEN (7)
DUPLEXES. LAND DISTURBANCE IN EXCESS OF 0.25 +/- ACRES IN THE NR ZONE
REQUIRES PLANNING BOARD REVIEW AND APPROVAL. CROSS REFERENCE NOA 4-
10, BP’S 2010 34-40, ADMIN. SUBDIV. 5-03 WARREN CO. PLANNING 1/12/2011 APA,
CEA, OTHER NYS DEC LOT SIZE 8.50 +/- ACRES TAX MAP NO. 302.14-1-79.2 SECTION
179-6-010, 179-9
JON LAPPER & TOM CENTER, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT
MR. HUNSINGER-Keith, whenever you’re ready.
39
(Queensbury Planning Board 04/26/2011)
MR. OBORNE-Sure. Site Plan 80-2010, for Hayes and Hayes. This is located on the south side
of Dixon Road, east of the Northway. Neighborhood Residential is the existing zoning. This is
an Unlisted SEQRA. Project Description: Applicant proposes seven residential duplexes with a
proposed total land disturbance of 3.01 acres. Staff comments: The applicant has commenced
construction on all seven duplexes, with four of six grouped together along the eastern portion of
the parcel framed out. The seventh unit, located along the western boundary, has only the
foundation poured. At this point, I’m not really going to go into depth with my notes, because it’s
more of engineering issues at this point with this project. Most of the engineering issues have
been taken care of. There are a few that are not, and I’m sure the applicant will discuss those
issues, and the Board is aware of what the issues are with this site. So I won’t keep on going,
and with that, I’ll turn it over to the Board.
MR. HUNSINGER-Thank you. Good evening.
MR. LAPPER-Good evening. For the record, Jon Lapper, with Tom Center from Nace
Engineering, and Mickie and Jaime Hayes are here. When we were here last month, you
narrowed it down to a pretty specific list in the tabling resolution, and we made a submission. As
Keith has said, we got the VISION Engineering letter, which almost all of their issues were
completed. There were three open issues that we’ll talk about. The same with the Staff Notes.
Keith’s indicated that his issues were addressed. We submitted the mounding study. That’s
one of the issues that we’ll talk about under the VISION comments. The additional test pits were
dug, and the Town Engineer’s witnessed those. The motorized vehicles, that was on the plan,
that restriction of motorized vehicles on the no further development area. The color schemes
we discussed with the Board, but Mickie was of the impression that you were going to tell him
whether that was the colors that you wanted before we put it on the plans, but we brought that in
last time and presented that, and we submitted elevation drawings. So, I guess the, what’s
really out there are the three comments that are not yet completed from VISION Engineering.
One of those, the mounding analysis, you had asked for mounding analysis that addressed the
Town water, the additional Town water that has to be brought to the site, and rather than asking
Nace Engineering to look into this, Mickie retained a hydro geologist who specializes in this type
of work. When we got the VISION comments, they went beyond what the Board had asked for
and said, could you also look at the stormwater facilities. So we did get an additional letter
today and sent it to Dan. Obviously you haven’t seen that yet, but what was the conclusion,
Tom, at the end of that?
MR. CENTER-Similar to the wastewater systems that the, any change in groundwater would be
minimal, as compared with seasonal elevation change. Their basis was the same as that the
amount of water that’s being put back into the soil, since we’re not creating any additional
stormwater, we’re not changing drainage patterns, we’re taking the water from the hard surface
and getting it directly back into the ground, close to where it was created, i.e. the roofs are going
right into eaves trenches, and the roadside swales are right next to the road. On top of that we
also have the stone diaphragm along the edge of all the pavement, which we’ll capture and pre-
treat prior to getting into the swales. So that has some infiltration capacity that’s no within the
stormwater calculations, but it’s there. It does happen, and based on all those factors, he did
not see any issue with potential mounding from the stormwater or the wastewater, and, you
know, we asked him to look at the stormwater in particular, which he did provide a letter, based
on the analysis of our test pit results, his knowledge of the area, and his analysis, and we
provided that to Dan.
MR. LAPPER-That went beyond what you had asked for, but we felt that since the engineers
asked for it, it was better to have it in the record, so, of course, that just went in today, but that
was what the conclusion was, and then, Tom, do you want to talk about the wastewater and the
stormwater questions that were still open?
MR. CENTER-I did have, after reviewing Dan’s comments, I was able to speak with him on the
phone today, trying to get a fax, which I did copy the Town on, out to Dan. Basically we agreed
that we would clarify the wastewater system inverts, and we’d provide a table, specifically to the
maximum septic tank invert out, the maximum D box invert out, and the maximum end of lateral
at the end cap, the maximum lateral there. So we confirmed that even, we had that in the table
for the lateral, but we’ve also added the D box and the septic tank to confirm that we have our
separations to groundwater. Along, as far as the tank flotation, the worst case scenario out of
any of them would be building five, which may have, at worst case scenario, mottling two feet of
seasonal high groundwater fluctuation at the bottom of the tank, when you look at flotation for
that, and we’ll provide the calculations to Dan. The weight of the tank and six inches of soil on
top of the tank is more than enough to resist any flotation force coming up from any of the
groundwater underneath. It would actually have to be almost to the invert before the tank would
even, you know, start to move in an upward motion. So that wouldn’t allow us to run gravity for a
septic system. So we don’t have any issues with flotation. So I believe we have an answer to
28 that we can resolve with Dan. Twenty-nine refers to the same thing as the inverts, as we
40
(Queensbury Planning Board 04/26/2011)
addressed in comment twenty-eight, and thirty John discussed about mounding analysis. Thirty-
three is revised stormwater management, in regards to water quality volume for each sub
catchment that has the ponds. We asked, we had broken that out already. I believe it was
missed in the review portion. I did talk to Dan about it, where we did look at water quality
volume from those two sections of road, and we ensured that the ponds had enough volume to
cover that water quality volume. Actually they exceeded it, and also we had pre-treatment, we
show the pre-treatment, and we give those calculations in the report. I provided them in the fax
to Dan, show them where that was mentioned already in the report. He said they’d certainly
look at it, but he didn’t see any further need to address that if we have that in the report. I think
those are the three comments.
MR. LAPPER-So that was really it. Everything else was completed. Anything else? I think
we’re ready for questions from the Board.
MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. Questions from the Board?
MR. TRAVER-Just a question regarding your communications with VISION. It sounds like
you’ve spoken with VISION Engineering several times in like the last week or so, regarding
follow up questions to their comments. Did you have any problem getting a hold of them or find
them difficult to communicate with, to clarify these issues?
MR. CENTER-I did make attempts, last week, starting last week, to see if they had any
comments, to see if we could get together. I did not receive any communication. I did talk to, I
talked to Mike Farrell I believe Tuesday, got a hold of someone in their office. He said he wasn’t
reviewing it, that Mr. Ryan would contact me, that he was going to be handling the review. I
didn’t receive, the next communication I received was the e-mail from Pam Whiting, it actually
came on Saturday from the Town. So we received that over the weekend. I got that Monday
morning. I attempted to call Monday to discuss those issues. I actually got a hold of him. I left
several messages on Monday, talked to him this morning, and then that’s why, you know, once
we had an agreement, I put something on paper and faxed that this afternoon at one o’clock.
We were working trying to get Hansen Vanvlett to come up with a response to Dan’s comments.
They didn’t get anything to me until four o’clock, which we immediately faxed to Mr. Ryan as
soon as we were able to get it there. So we tried to comply as quickly as possible, but there was
a conversation.
MR. TRAVER-Thank you.
MR. HUNSINGER-Other questions? No other questions from the Board?
MRS. STEFFAN-The only question I had was about the water table under the new Test Pit C,
but you’ve identified that, you know, what you’re doing is you’re putting in a shallow, a more
shallow system, in order to accommodate for that. So we had the, you’ve provided the
information that we asked for. We know what water levels we’ve got, and so you’ve designed
the stormwater to accommodate that. So we have our answers regarding that.
MR. HUNSINGER-Anything else? If there’s no other questions or comments from the Board,
should we move to the public hearing?
MRS. STEFFAN-Yes, because the only two comments I had, there was a, Staff Notes had the
information regarding, that referred to VISION Engineering comment number thirty on the
groundwater mounding analysis, but they’ve answered that sufficiently, and then the Notice of
Intent was submitted. Correct?
MR. CENTER-Yes, that’s part of, the draft copy is part of the stormwater report and will be filed.
MRS. STEFFAN-That’s done. Those are the only things that I have that are outstanding on the
Staff Notes. So I think you’ve got the information that we asked for.
MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. All right. I’ll open the public hearing.
PUBLIC HEARING OPEN
MR. HUNSINGER-I think most members have been here before. I would ask, if you want to
address the Board, that you state your name for the record and address any of your comments
or questions to the Board, and we didn’t have a sign in sheet tonight, but if anyone would like to
raise their hand and be recognized, and, yes, sir, you can be first. I would ask that you try to
keep your comments to three minutes, and we will have a timer. When you hear the bell go off,
you’ll know that your time is up.
41
(Queensbury Planning Board 04/26/2011)
ED PETRUSH
MR. PETRUSH-Okay. My name is Ed Petrush. I live on 36 Pershing Road, and I have a
handout here for some of the things that we wanted addressed, and we feel some of them have
not been addressed happily.
MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. Why don’t you start right down there.
MR. PETRUSH-Thank you for your patience. We still have a good number of issues with some
of the water things. Many of the problems that we wanted addressed stem from the fact that, on
the buildings, their Building Number Four and Number Five are so close to the property lines,
okay, this creates the major concern of what we have. Obviously removing those two buildings
and separating the distance from the property lines, to moving it back another 40 or 50 feet
would really, really help the situation. The other things that we requested was that eventually
there’s going to be a municipal sewer system that’s going to go up Dixon Road. I don’t know
just how quick or what it’s going to go, but there is currently a stormwater system on Dixon
Road, and what we would like to see is that the Town Engineer was asked to review this option
of the sump pump, tying the stormwater and sump pump discharges into the Dixon Road
system, and it was not addressed to our knowledge at this point. The other thing is the
stormwater runoff presently runs right towards the property owners on the adjacent line, okay.
Then the topographical situation would be really, really advantageous if they moved it to the
other end of the property. There is, the berm that they have, and we will address this, we have
the drawings here of some of our concerns, and we’ve taken their drawings. There just is a lot
of situations that we think were going to be major problems. If you walk out there right now, all
right, on the back end of the property, which has not been graded, there is actually a pond
already, you know, there’s that much water above ground. Will it be like that in August?
Probably not, but when we had the problem, there’s a lot of water out there, and I will, you know,
pass my time on to the next person.
MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. Thank you. Anyone else? Yes, sir.
WILLIAM PARKS
MR. PARKS-I’m William Parks from 1 Griffing Place. Is it okay if I move around at some point,
too?
MR. HUNSINGER-As long as you take the mic with you, because it does come out.
MR. PARKS-Yes. Would you be able to get the aerial photograph back again that we had? I
may want to look at that. Looking at the plans that have been submitted here, it strikes me that
not much has changed. It is gratifying to see that there’s this no cut, no build zone, but the new
zoning laws basically will accomplish that without anybody else dealing with it, now that there
are no residences within 500 feet of the Northway, which means most of the houses on Griffing
Place would not be there if they had to be built today, but the stormwater collection tank that is
so obnoxious to the neighborhood because it’s right on the line with us, hasn’t been moved, and
this whole southern septic system that’s going to require the cutting of more trees, no sound as if
there’s going to be any change there. We think that, first of all, we need to define, by survey,
where this no cut, no build zone is going to be. You have to remember that a big swath of trees
here is gone already. We believe that the line here between the Monthie property and the,
what’s listed as the Kingsley property here, should be more or less extended across here, and
that should be established by survey, so that there’s no encroachment on it at some later date.
Second, the, we really think that this septic system needs to be moved to the north, up into this
area. If you look at your sheet that you were handed, you see that in Item Three F, that there’s
really, make sure I’ve got the right one, there’s some questions about the quality of the soil down
in this area apparently isn’t ideal for septic systems. Meanwhile, the best test pits are up in
here. I think they, in Item Three C, they’re talking about mottling that’s down 120 inches. That’s
like 10 feet. That would be an excellent place for something like this, and the idea that you
could hook up a future septic system at Dixon Road, which is just out of sight up here, is the final
thing. The cutting of trees, it seems to me as though we’re here because the project cut more
trees than were allowed on the original building permits, and I think you’re probably talking about
another half-acre of trees that will be cut to do this septic system. Given the questionable
events that I think have lead us here, I certainly hope this Board is going to require some serious
changes in this plan. I think it just looks like they’re sort of proceeding with the original plan.
There haven’t been many real changes. Thank you.
MR. HUNSINGER-Thank you. Anyone else?
ED LA POINT
42
(Queensbury Planning Board 04/26/2011)
MR. LA POINT-I’m Ed LaPoint, 15 Hughes Court. What we’re concerned about on this drawing
is this stormwater place from the road, where the snow will be, and that should be moved back
by Building Number Seven, in order that they can engineer that to get rid of that big basin, so
that water won’t run down in the surface and golf down on to Hughes Court properties. It’s right
here. It can be moved up to here. Engineering, water will flow the way the pipes flow, the water
will flow that way, okay. It’s about a foot. Moving the stormwater device to the western side of
the property would decrease the likelihood of the saturation adjacent to our properties. The
Hughes Court septic systems are not shown on the plans that as our septic tanks. Concern is
adjacent septic tanks and the integrity may currently make the stormwater device not adjacent
and not coincide with our systems, and moving the stormwater device to the west side of the
property will better accommodate the requested buffer and avoid the utility right of ways and
encumbrances. Note the utility right of way is not on the plan. Anybody know where those wires
go? I haven’t the faintest idea. Okay. I know they’re back. Okay. Cutting the road to
accommodate the western stormwater device would improve the apartment building’s driveway
drainage. You would lower the road driveways will be more likely to be pitched downward
toward the road, and encased with professionally designed developments. In other words, the
road will be coming back off on their own property instead of Hughes Court backyards. The
snow will melt and it’ll go percolate, sooner or later, through this area into Hughes Court. Let me
see, prevent excessive re-charge impact on properties from stormwater to municipal water and
sump pump discharge. So we’re looking for something that’s going to take the property, the
water system, and keep it on the development, and problem identified by the VISION
Engineering and argued by Nace Engineering, see 16, I don’t have it anyway, but it’s something
else that’s in one of the plans, and would be less likely to contribute to the basic flooding and
surface ponding of other properties. In other words, water from their property eventually coming
to the surface on Hughes Court in the backyards. Everybody’s got playgrounds, and it’ll help
keep their stormwater burden on the Hayes property. Now it won’t become our property or the
Town property down the road. Okay. Thank you.
MR. HUNSINGER-Thank you. Anyone else? Yes, sir.
STEVEN LUBIN
MR. LUBIN-Good evening, Steven Lubin, 19 Hughes Court. One of the issues that we all feel
pretty strongly about, too, is the buffer area. If I may just go up here for a moment. Right now
there’s a tentative berm planned for basically right here. These trees are essentially gone from
this point forward, and what we would like to see done is essentially from Dixon Road on down
to where the existing trees are, to have a berm installed there that’s four to five feet in height,
with seven to eight foot cedars and some redwoods, or red maples, excuse me, that would be
staggered back and forth, so that way eventually they will grow into each other, okay, and on the
same token, if we were able to have Buildings Number Four and Five eliminated, this would
create really a spectacular buffer between the buildings, what would then be the existing
buildings and the Hughes Court properties, especially with the trees there, and that would give
plenty of space for National Grid to go in there and do whatever maintenance that would be
necessary on their behalf. Let’s see. As far as the building colors, which we had addressed
also last time, we would like to see the different buildings with different colors on them, to make
it look more like a neighborhood type setting, versus an apartment complex or any other item.
So, the other issue about the berm itself, the snow plows, or snow plowing could come up to the
berm and the berm itself on its own accord would act as a spectacular buffer in preventing that
water from going back to the Hughes Court properties, which would be beneficial to several
neighbors over there, and a question that I would just like to pose is what is the basement
elevation versus the pond elevation? We have some concerns that this may exacerbate the
existing problem, and the, I guess the underlying thought that would be passed back is who is
ultimately going to be responsible? Is that something that the Town is going to bear if there is a
problem with water coming into people’s basements? Is it something that’s going to go through
Hayes Construction, or is it something where perhaps they might say, well, you’ll get results only
if you sue us? I mean, people should have to go through that ordeal to get something taken
care of if it’s not being done correctly in the first place. So I guess my time’s up. Thank you.
MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. Thank you. You’re welcome. Anyone else? Yes, ma’am.
CAROL LA POINT
MRS. LA POINT-I’m Carol LaPoint. I live at 15 Hughes Court, and I’ve got a question here.
When we were before the Zoning Board, the Zoning Board administrator said he was sending it
back here to the Planning Board for a full site plan review. He said it right out that night. As a
matter of fact, there was one gentleman up there at that table who was there, and now, why was
our Town Engineer, VISION Engineering, as reported in this memo here, says, as requested in
the transmittal from the Zoning Administrator, we have limited our technical review to stormwater
43
(Queensbury Planning Board 04/26/2011)
management and sediment control and the planned on site treatment system only. Now why
would that be? Why would they direct the engineering firm to just do this for stormwater?
MR. HUNSINGER-Our standard policy is that the engineers only concern themselves with
engineering issues, and that the Planning Board concerns ourselves with the Site Plan related
issues, and that’s a typical separation of duties that’s conducted, routinely, on virtually every
project that the engineers review.
MRS. LA POINT-Okay. So the other things are really being addressed here with the Planning
Board?
MR. HUNSINGER-That’s correct. Yes.
MRS. LA POINT-Okay. I just wanted to make sure of that.
MR. HUNSINGER-Yes. No, that’s a good question. Yes, because you wouldn’t know if you
weren’t like part of the process.
MRS. LA POINT-No. It doesn’t sound good. It just didn’t sound good to me when I was reading
it.
MR. HUNSINGER-Sure, understood.
MRS. LA POINT-Okay. Thank you very much.
MR. HUNSINGER-You’re welcome. Any other questions? Any other commenters? Mr.
Strough? I’m sorry, I didn’t see your hand, sir.
STEPHEN REGAN
MR. REGAN-My name is Stephen Regan. I live on 2 Bentley Place, which is the street that
abuts Hughes Court, and I just want to comment that I feel that the plan for the stormwater
management needs to be modified to more aggressively protect the existing property owners on
Hughes Court and the neighbors in the vicinity of Hughes Court, such as myself and a few other
people that are here tonight that live in the vicinity of Bentley Place and Queensbury Place. We
have all been pumping groundwater now since early March, and there’s no end in sight. My
sump pump is coming on about every 20 minutes, and I feel that this project, the way it’s
designed, with the stormwater being collected and re-introduced into the groundwater in the
vicinity of the neighbors on Hughes Court, that could be minimized by moving the stormwater
management system to the west side of the property closer to the Northway. Also on a long
term basis, I think the Board should clearly require an on going permanent maintenance
program for the stormwater system, so that it does not deteriorate over time, and that, one of the
previous speakers mentioned about what would have to be done in the future, as far as maybe
even having to sue somebody in order to get a problem fixed. I think that, you know, a
maintenance program would address that. Thank you.
MR. HUNSINGER-You’re welcome. Thank you. Yes, ma’am. Good evening.
CAROL ECKLER
MS. ECKLER-Hi. My name is Carol Eckler. I live at 3 Bentley Place, and my house, backyard
backs up to Dr. Garrett’s house, and I have been there since ’88, and so we have had bad
winters. Right now the Garrett’s I think could put a boat in their backyard. My sump pump is
going every five minutes, and there is water at the end of my property, and I really am
concerned about the septic systems, because I believe it’s all because of the trees that were cut
this year. That’s all. I’m just concerned.
MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. Thank you. Anyone else? Yes, ma’am.
JENNIFER DE FELICE
MRS. DE FELICE-My name is Jennifer DeFelice. I live on 9 Hughes Court. My property is
directly being impacted right behind here by the tree that’s actually listed as Kingsley. So some
of the concerns that I have is that the, it’s my understanding that the amount of trees that initially
were going to be taken down, what needs to be done, now more trees need to be taken down to
accommodate the septic systems. So some of my concerns are just like some of my neighbors
have already voiced, that there’s going to be issues with water, and I know that they were saying
that they had, we haven’t had the benefit of actually reading the documentation that they’re
saying that their engineer’s looked at, saying that it’s not going to impact that, but I can tell you,
44
(Queensbury Planning Board 04/26/2011)
just as some of my neighbors have, my sump pump is constantly going. There’s already water
in our backyards. My backyard, you know, just in general with rains and, you know, already
collects water. So I have some serious concerns. There’s going to be six septic systems
directly outside of my backyard. So I know that I have some serious concerns about that as
well, and then all of the issues that are listed here, you know, some of our neighbors here have
come up individually to discuss some of these, but these are global issues that a lot of people in
our community that weren’t able to make it here tonight feel very strongly about a lot of these
issues, and again, for some, you know, family obligations and things like that, they weren’t able
to make it out, but there’s definitely a stronger presence within the community than what was
able to come out tonight, and there are some, you know, legitimate concerns that, you know,
neighbors have been getting together to discuss this and this was a group effort here. So even
though one person came up to discuss one issue, everything that’s on here is a collective
concern of all of the neighbors being on Hughes Court, you know, Bentley, and all of the
surrounding, and even, you know, we have folks here from Dixon. So that’s all I had to kind of
contribute.
MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. Thank you.
MRS. DE FELICE-You’re welcome.
MR. HUNSINGER-Is there anyone else that didn’t get a chance to speak that wanted to speak?
Mr. Strough?
JOHN STROUGH
MR. STROUGH-Queensbury. I think that just about everybody would agree that tying in to the
municipal stormwater sewer would solve a lot of problems in an area that has had a history of
hydrology issues. We would all agree that having a community septic system, which, you know,
many multi-family units do adopt, that’s not unusual. As a matter of fact, it’s more common than
it is unusual, would be better, especially in the northern part where the distance to the water
table is 10 feet. I don’t think anybody would disagree that a community septic system and tying
in to the municipal stormwater system would be the best options. I don’t know why they haven’t
been explored, but, there’s two other things that I’ve heard after several meetings with the
neighbors. I just want to try and make it clear, that, you know, the Hayes have said that, you
know, they will try and accommodate these neighbors, you know, whatever they want. All right,
what they want is they want this stormwater device that’s located right next to them, moved up
here, in this blank area. Now the Hayes might argue that the inclination of the road is in this
direction so it’s only natural it goes here, but we’re only talking one foot here. A bulldozer would
take care of that within a matter of a couple of hours. As a matter of fact, digging the road down
might help these driveways flow better into the road, and it might be helpful to everybody, but
they’re very uncomfortable with this stormwater device being right next to them. Now here’s a
couple of other issues with that stormwater device. They have told me that there is a National
Grid right of way, and they showed me the telephone poles, or the power poles, and no right of
way is addressed on here. We think that right of way goes through here, right next to the
property where you see where the yellow line is? That’s exactly where the neighbors would like
to have their buffer. Now they’ve asked for a berm, and repeatedly, and the Hayes have
promised a berm, repeatedly, but there’s no berm on the plans. What they offered was some
white pines, rather minimum. I think we’d all agree. What we’ve offered and countered to that
is a berm that’s about four to five feet high, maybe about ten foot wide, and they would like
cedars, about six foot apart, in the way that I’ve shown you in that handout. That’s what they
asked for, and they would like that buffer to go all along this area where the yellow line is. All
right. I don’t think that’s unreasonable, asking for that stormwater device to be moved up here. I
don’t think it’s unreasonable to ask for a considerable buffer, not the one that they’ve offered, but
one that’s substantial, to be located along all the properties. I just, I think that’s very reasonable
on their behalf. I’d be shocked if the Hayes, you know, won’t go along with this plan, but also
(lost words) that the no build areas, which this is one and hopefully this is one, too, because of
the new Town Code says you cannot have residential development within 500 feet of the
Northway, and the new Code also says, one building per lot, okay. That’s what the new Code
says. So, we would also, if this, you know, ideally we think this is a community septic system
would be best here, but if you’re not inclined to go there, we’d like to have this labeled as a no
build area and have it vegetated appropriately so it provides some protection. Thank you.
MR. HUNSINGER-Thank you. Mr. Salvador?
JOHN SALVADOR
MR. SALVADOR-Good evening. My name is John Salvador. I’m a resident in the Town of
Queensbury. I’d like to address the issue of soil mottling, simply because Mr. Traver brought up
the point at your last meeting that he wanted to have a mounding analysis, and that’s been
45
(Queensbury Planning Board 04/26/2011)
prepared, and I’ve had the benefit of reading that report. The firm of Hayes & VanFleet, in their
letter report of April 8, 2011 states that the test pit percolation rate of the native soil ranged from
26 to 56 seconds per inch, and that groundwater was first encountered at a depth of 10 feet. I
don’t see how the percolation can be so rapid and that the groundwater be at 10 feet, and I’d like
to know at what elevation the perc test was taken. Mottling was identified by the firm as ranging
from 43 to 68 inches below grade. This compares favorably with the project sponsor’s findings
that soil mottling was encountered at a depth of 3.6 to 5.7 feet below grade. However, the
current absence of groundwater in the mottling zone, at a time of the year when it might be
expected to be at least as high as the historical indication, is puzzling. Instead groundwater was
not encountered until a probing depth of 10 feet was reached. This makes no sense. With
respect to the consultant’s reliance on soil mottling occurring in soils which are demonstrated to
have a very high percolation rate, indicating permeable soil conditions, I would like to submit the
following, and I’m quoting from this text. Mottling is a color pattern observed in soil consisting of
blotches or spots of contrasting color. Mottling, that is an indication of what the high seasonal
groundwater elevation might be, is observed in poorly drained soils. Mottling is not expected to
be apparent in free draining soils. Based on the soil characteristics of the site and the actual
recent test pit data, the evidence is that soil mottling should not be a significant factor in
determining the feasibility of a cluster of 14 individual on site wastewater systems, nor for
establishing the elevation of building structures. I believe the problem here is that we have a
perched water table, and that’s why the site is wet. Once you get through those fines, those fine
sands that have been mapped, then you get rapid percolation, but in the meantime, all the water
that is trapped above those fines, the fine layer, is going to pond, and that’s what the folks are
experiencing when they say their backyards or wet. I just have a couple of other things I might
like to mention. This whole water situation, and the fact that the municipal water is going to be
used for this water, I think is just going to produce a lot of problems, and the real solution to this
is as John Strough mentioned, a municipal sewer, that the, remember these septic system
design parameters are predicated on a basis of a rural setting where you don’t have a generous
supply of municipal wastewater, and those factors of 110 gallons a minute per bedroom or
whatever they are, per person, they’re based on this rural setting, and, you know, one
farmhouse here and a quarter of a mile down the road another farmhouse, but not a cluster of
buildings the way we have here, and I’m afraid this generous supply of municipal wastewater is
going to produce an incidence of use greater than what is in the design, and that’s going to
affect all of the calculations. In addition to that, the consultant has gotten 4,620 gallons per day
for 14 systems, equally distributed. That equates to 330 gallons per day, per septic systems,
and the Nace Engineering design has 220 gallons per day. Now either the Nace design is under
designed or the consultant has too much water coming in. I don’t know which. Maybe they’re
using a different basis for the amount of water to arrive in the septic system, but that should be
checked out. The other thing, you’ll see on the utility design, they have a water distribution
system that has a water meter at the curve, where they get their supply, and that meter, I think,
is intended to supply all of these units, and so they will pay one bill, now that doesn’t represent a
good incentive to minimize the flow of water, which you should have when you have an on site
septic system. You should incentivize low flow, and therefore I think that these units should
each have a water meter, and who’s ever using them, renting them, buying, whoever, knows
exactly what they are using and they pay their fair share, and that will incentivize the low flow.
Another thing that I think is missing on the drawing is some provision for solid waste
management. If these units are going to be owned by one individual and rented out to 14
different families, what kind of a collection system, on site collection system are you going to
have, who’s going to pick it up, where’s it going to be, you know, if there’s going to be one place
for this big dumpster to be, it could be a problem. It could be a health problem, odors, attracts
vermin, that sort of thing. So that should be taken care of.
MR. HUNSINGER-Anything else?
MR. SALVADOR-The other thing about water, when you’re renting units, we all know the length
of a teenage shower is a function of the capacity of the hot water tank, and there’s no way, in
this design, that you’re going to minimize that, and so I see a negative impact on the design of
the wastewater systems, and again, the solution to this problem is a municipal sewer.
MR. HUNSINGER-Thank you. Anyone else? Did you have something new to add? Okay.
MR. LUBIN-Hi. Steven Lubin again. The issue with the engineers and the engineering on this
site, it’s been in question. Everybody has questioned the ability as to what’s happened, the
Town inclusive. I guess the question I would like to pose to you folks in the Town is, couldn’t we
reach out to another engineering firm that’s not affiliated with the Town in any shape or form, or
Hayes and Hayes construction, for basically a second opinion or third opinion, if you will?
Obviously in the past there’ve been too many mistakes made. Western Reserve is the present
issue which was brought to light at the last meeting, and of course the other big issue, prior to
that, was Queensbury Forest, off of Peggy Ann Road, where it cost the taxpayers tons of
money, and it just seems like it would be, it’s going to be another expense, granted, but it would
46
(Queensbury Planning Board 04/26/2011)
certainly be minimal to have that done, and at least it would give everybody some more insight
to this, hopefully going one way or the other, to confirm or not. Okay.
MR. HUNSINGER-Thank you.
MR. LUBIN-Thanks.
MR. HUNSINGER-Last opportunity. Mr. Strough?
MR. STROUGH-John Strough, Queensbury. I just, you know, I wanted to get, back to moving
this stormwater device and putting it up here, and putting a more substantial berm and more
substantial plantings being reasonable. The other thing about placing this here, and like I say,
the right of way, I think, is near the property line. Moving it toward the edge of this road and
putting a berm there would deter mounding by the snow plows. In other words, they’d have to
start pushing their plow into open area. This becomes the open area. So here we are. We’ve
got properties here, in an area we know has hydrology issues. We’re worried about soil
saturation, water saturation, surface runoff and so forth. Moving everything up here, away from
them, will make them feel a whole lot better about this, and it’s not a great engineering feat to do
this. It just seems reasonable, and like I said, the plowing and everything else would be done
here, push and shove this stormwater flow away from them. They’d feel very happy about that.
Thank you.
MR. HUNSINGER-Thank you. Anyone else? Okay. We will conclude, then, the public hearing
for this evening. If the applicant wants to come back to the table. I don’t know if any of the
comments are necessarily new information, but I think there were a couple of suggestions,
maybe, that the neighbors have made that might be worth some comment.
MR. LAPPER-I guess we’ll certainly address any comments that the Board would like. In
general, we’ve been working for months with the Town Engineer to narrow down and to make
the changes and do the additional testing that the Town Engineer and the Board required to get
to this point. So, you know, just some general comments is that under the new stormwater
regulations you’re supposed to infiltrate as close to the source as possible. That’s why the
stormwater facilities are located where they are, and I think that Councilman Strough might not
have been here at the last meeting when the Town Engineer went on record and said that it
didn’t make sense to have a combined community system for septic, that this was a better plan,
and that tying into the stormwater system didn’t make sense as well. So, I mean, all of those
alternatives were not only discussed, but were reviewed by the Town Engineer. We feel that the
plan has been changed to address the issues that you’ve asked us to address, and there was
the letter on record at the last meeting from the closest neighbor, Ms. Dalton, that she
appreciated the berm and thought that that was suitable to protect her interests and she’s right
closest to the two units on the end. So, you know, we feel we’ve done what we’ve been asked.
Tom, anything you want to add?
MR. CENTER-To address some of the basement sump pump issues, we do provide, on SP-1,
we show that all the basements are higher than the seasonal, at or higher than the seasonal
high groundwater elevation, and on top of that, if the water does rise up any higher, we have the
sump pumps there, but the basements are already elevated above the seasonal high
groundwater, the mottling level. So, and we do show those, we do have sump pumps. We do
have protection against that. As far as the stormwater issues, we are not creating any new point
discharges. We are getting the stormwater off the road, into the ground, close to where it’s
being created. The additional pond has been created where we’ve looked at multiple different
layers of not looking at infiltration, what happens in the far out scenarios, that’s how we got to
the pond size that we have today, but even at the 100 year storm, the peak elevation in that east
swale is only going to be 199.3. That’s with infiltration, and in the 50 year storm, it’s still not
even reaching the drywell that we have provided in case, in worst case scenario. So we’ve
provided a lot of redundant protections for the stormwater as designed, and then Jon handled
the other thing in regards to the community septic system.
MR. LAPPER-One other thing, Mr. Salvador was talking about, I think he was confused about
seasonal high groundwater and mottling.
MR. CENTER-The difference between mounding and mottling. Seasonal high groundwater and
mottling, we’ve done test pits at various times throughout different years, including the most
recent to look at the most affected areas for this plan, and they’ve confirmed those initial test pits
that were done in previous years, and they were done during the springtime, then we were able
to confirm, you know, Test Pit C was able to confirm the highest groundwater area, and that
confirms the other test pits that were there. So we did that with the Town Engineer. We looked
at the most affected areas, in regards to the wastewater systems and both the stormwater
ponds, and we confirmed the data, again, most recent to this.
47
(Queensbury Planning Board 04/26/2011)
MR. LAPPER-He was being critical of the fact that the groundwater, the existing groundwater is
many feet below the mottling and doesn’t that make sense?
MR. CENTER-Well, it changes throughout the site. As you go from, as we know, as we go from
the eastern portion, or the southern portion of the site to the northern portion of the site, the
groundwater does drop, and we’ve proven that with the test pit information that we have. So, no
matter what year, including the most recent, all the data agrees. Nothing has changed in
regards to the mottling conditions.
MRS. STEFFAN-Why would it be unreasonable to move the stormwater basin that you have on
the property lines for Hughes Court over to the other side of Lot Seven? When I look at the Test
Pit B that was dug, you’ve got water at seven feet, seven feet down, and when you look at Test
Pit 26 on the other side of Building Seven, you know, you’ve got a very good infiltration there.
You’ve got fine sand, compact down to 120 inches. Water was seeping in at 120 inches. So
you have a lot more latitude with the soils on the other side of Unit Seven than you do on the
property line to Hughes Court.
MR. CENTER-Actually we designed to the mottling elevation. So if you look at Test Pit 26, that
shows mottling is observed at 54 inches, and mottling was at 48 in Test Pit B. So they’re
relatively close. We don’t gain much there. We would also, it would also require additional tree,
additional removals along that buffer with the Northway, to create a spot for a pond, and the
trees, you know, that’s a no clear area that we currently show between the parcel boundary and
Building Seven.
MRS. STEFFAN-I certainly don’t think the neighbors on Hughes Court would have an issue with
the clearing over there versus the clearing that’s been done.
MR. CENTER-Right.
MRS. STEFFAN-But then there’s the other issue of the berm that they brought up, and how do
you feel about that or what’s your position on that, the folks have asked for a berm from Dixon
Road to the other side of the Kingsley property, a berm with trees for visual protection as well as
stormwater management. What’s your response to that?
MR. CENTER-I believe a berm’s not going to gain as much in regards to our depression. We
are creating a depression. We are using the level of land there, and we are providing those
plantings to separate the two lands which we worked out. I believe in one of the first meetings
we did talk about a berm and we came up with the plantings were a better fix for that area, as we
went through that in our original meeting.
MRS. STEFFAN-I think those were specifically in response to the dialogue that you had with, I
believe Mrs. Dalton was that person, but I remember the public comment that other folks felt
excluded because the landscaping was fortified in that area, but other folks felt that they needed
more fortification. So I think that’s where that discussion came from. How does the rest of the
Planning Board feel about that? I highlighted some of the issues that came up during the public
comment.
MR. TRAVER-Yes. I think the question regarding the berm is not so much, you know, have we
talked about it before or is there an alternative, but would you be willing to consider it since it’s
something specifically brought up by the neighbors? You may not even think it’s necessarily the
best alternative, but if they’re specifically requesting it, I think our question is, do you have a
problem with it? Is it something you’d be willing to do?
MR. LAPPER-So the issue behind Ms. Dalton’s property, there’s not enough room?
MR. CENTER-Trying to get a five foot high berm would be difficult. You have 25 feet there
between the edge of the.
MR. LAPPER-To make it so it’s not too steep.
MR. CENTER-To make it so it’s not too steep, so that it can be graded, so it can hold soil and
you can get the plantings to hold on top of it.
MR. TRAVER-So how high could it be?
MR. LAPPER-What would be reasonable?
MR. CENTER-I think you could come up with, probably come up two feet, possibly, in that area,
and still have a level area to get the side. We’ve got some substantial trees there. We may
48
(Queensbury Planning Board 04/26/2011)
have to change the type of vegetation that we’re trying to put on top of that berm. We could
probably do two feet and still get the trees that we’ve shown on there.
MR. TRAVER-Okay, and I think the discussion was the cedar trees on top.
MR. CENTER-We’ve got eastern white pines.
MR. TRAVER-White pines.
MR. CENTER-And the red maples. So we’re trying to provide deciduous, a mix of trees so that
all seasons are covered.
MR. TRAVER-Could you substitute the cedar for the white pine?
MR. CENTER-What was the first, we had ash.
MR. LAPPER-Keep the maples and replace the pines with cedars and add a two foot berm
under that whole planting area. Is that doable?
MR. CENTER-We could squeeze it in, yes.
MR. SIPP-Now you’re going to have to bring in soil to make this berm, aren’t you?
MR. CENTER-Topsoil. We have planting plans for the trees.
MR. SIPP-Along with the, along with whatever trees you’re going to, I think you might look at
arborvitae as one. Because it’s a fair grower. Secondly, you’re going to have to have
groundcover or that is going to erode, the berm will erode.
MICKIE HAYES
MR. HAYES-That’s a good point. The arborvitae, as a matter of fact, is Janet Dalton’s which
we’ve made arrangements with her, arborvitaes will be planted on her property to create a buffer
on her property so it creates more width, and she has a fenced in area, so the deer and such,
because the deer love them. So on the other side she’s going to probably have 20 to 30
arborvitaes on her property to create a buffer on that way. So you’re going to have the
arborvitaes on the other side of our property.
MR. SIPP-Take a look at the one that’s behind Whispering Pines, between Whispering Pines
and Wal-Mart. That’s much higher, and that was done for sound, but it’s done well, copy some
of that. That’s using, I think, either a hemlock or a spruce as the main tree, but there’s also
groundcover, and if you don’t cover the ground, the first good rainstorm you’re going to have
those trees hanging, roots hanging out in the air.
MR. HAYES-Understood.
MR. LAPPER-So Mickie, we’re talking about a two foot berm and then replacing the pines with
the cedars.
MR. SIPP-How about a three foot berm, because you want to get up higher than that.
MR. HAYES-We just wanted to make it, engineer it so it can actually work. I’ll make the berm as
high as I can, as long as it can actually, we have a slope and have a stable top so it’s not a
peak, and I would actually ask Keith what species that he would recommend for a cedar or what
particular species would actually accommodate what they’re trying to accomplish?
MR. OBORNE-I think you should offer species to the Planning Board and see how they go for it.
MR. HAYES-Okay. I didn’t know if, okay. Gotcha. I think a white cedar is the fastest growing of
the cedar. The arborvitae, I believe, is the same family, but that’s on her property. So that’s the
fastest growing.
MR. SIPP-It would help if the soil brought in was good soil. The ones that the County planted
next to my subdivision, they planted and they grew well, but they don’t grow very fast because
the soil is pretty bad.
MR. HAYES-We’d probably try to bring something in that has a little bit of clay mixed in, so it
would be more stable, the mounding would be more stable, and most of the balls come, they
have more of a clayish thing so it sticks together. It’s not quite as sandy.
49
(Queensbury Planning Board 04/26/2011)
MR. SIPP-Well, they’ll grow together well, now, in areas where they might be shaded, which is
the south, as you go towards the south, you’re going to have more trees shade. They do not
feed well with any tall, particularly hardwood, maples, oaks. They don’t compete that well. They
grow, but they grow much slower.
MR. HAYES-Yes, the sun is the key.
MR. HUNSINGER-Now the question I have about the establishment of a berm is how do you
integrate the berm with the existing vegetation? I mean, you have, there are some mature trees
there, and if you try to berm around those trunks, you’re going to create problems.
MR. HAYES-They’ll, usually when that happens, whenever you change the, because the roots
obviously are set by their own genetics, and usually what you would have is the trees that you
would mound around would perish eventually because they’re, the water tables that they’re
accustomed to. So that’s, there’s definitely going to be some trees that will perish as a result of
it.
MR. LAPPER-Are there existing trees right in that area?
MR. HAYES-It’s brushy. There’s a couple, but it’s brushy. Another thing, to address Mr.
Salvador’s thing, is that every one of our units will have a water meter. They pay for their own
water.
MR. HUNSINGER-You had mentioned that last time.
MR. HAYES-I didn’t know if you remembered, and all the fixtures are low flow, Energy Star. I
just wanted to make sure that people know that, and historically they use about 55% of what it’s
designed for. We have master meters of the design of 110 per bedroom. It’s usually about 55%
is the actual use.
MR. HUNSINGER-How about the hot water heaters?
MR. HAYES-What about them?
MR. HUNSINGER-He made the comment that, you know, teenagers would use up all the hot
water.
MR. HAYES-Well, basically, I can tell you one thing, there’s two things the tenants count on the
most is they want water pressure, and they want to have hot water tanks that don’t run out.
Those are two of the major issues. I can tell you that right now. Water pressure is a big one,
though, as well.
MR. HUNSINGER-Yes. So what size hot water heaters do you use?
MR. HAYES-We usually use, we use a 50. So, because you can get away with a 40, but a 50
because it’s a major sticking point for people, that they don’t want the time delay, but with the
low flow fixtures, it’s not like an older house that was built 15, 20 years ago, you know, the
fixtures use much less water. So they don’t use as much water. So it’s changed a lot.
MRS. STEFFAN-Okay. So the berm issue. The neighbors asked for a berm that’s five feet wide
and 10 feet high. I do think that’s kind of high, but.
MR. HUNSINGER-The other way around, 10 feet wide and 5 feet high.
MRS. STEFFAN-Okay. I must be dyslexic, because that’s the way I wrote it. Okay. So, Mr.
Center, you talked about offering up a berm that was, what dimension?
MR. CENTER-Two feet high, with a ten foot, a minimum of a ten foot wide. I think I can get 15,
but I don’t want to be held to that number because I’m working without a scale here. I think I can
get a two foot high by fifteen foot wide berm. That would make the side slopes about one on two
and a half feet, yes, two feet high by ten feet wide. So, I mean, that’s.
MRS. STEFFAN-And you were talking about white cedar, white pine, arborvitae and red maple.
So those were all the species that were thrown out. Any decisions?
MR. CENTER-Maple and cedar.
MR. HAYES-The arborvitaes will be on Janet Dalton’s property.
50
(Queensbury Planning Board 04/26/2011)
MR. LAPPER-They wanted us to change the white pines.
MR. HAYES-On the cedars, white cedar, whatever.
MRS. STEFFAN-White cedar you wanted.
MR. HAYES-Mr. Strough, would white cedar, is that the tree that you would recommend? I
mean, I know you’ve done a lot with it.
MR. SIPP-Well, the cedar I think that they’re looking for, and that we talked about was the
cedars that would grow up bushy and tall pointed, and provide top to bottom coverage, and, you
know, after discussing the matter, we would like them alternate, in other words, six foot, six foot,
but here another one, and I have a diagram that is in the handout that you got a copy of, as a
suggested, what they would like to see on top of that berm. I think it’s on the second page in to
the handout, you’ll see it at the bottom. It shows the cedars, six foot, six foot, six foot, and on
top of the berm, and then the red oaks in front. See where it says RO, RO?
MR. SIPP-You’ve also got to get groundcover in there, something to cover the ground while
these are taking root. Whether it be a grass or a clover or.
MR. LAPPER-We could stagger them. So there’s room to stagger the cedars.
MRS. STEFFAN-Could you folks comment on the National Grid right of way? Do you know
anything about that, public comment brought that up.
MR. CENTER-It runs along the property line. Actually the power lines, if you look, which is the
dashed, dot line, is actually on to the Hughes Court parcels, it’s not on the Hayes property.
MRS. STEFFAN-Okay.
MR. CENTER-So the actual power lines run on the Hughes Court side, and looking at that, the
only requirements, that’s an easement, power line easement. The only requirements that
National Grid has is from building structures, which our buildings are set back plenty for that.
MR. SCHONEWOLF-Is that power only, or is it joint?
MR. CENTER-It might have power and telephone, I believe. So, you know, even with this berm,
our trees are, you know, are on at least seven, eight feet off the property line, more so if we go
with this berm.
MRS. STEFFAN-But that right of way gives them the opportunity.
MR. CENTER-That right of way is just the opportunity and they do, what they do now is cut the
trees. It has nothing to do with any stormwater management.
MR. HAYES-They really don’t have a right. They have an aerial right, they don’t have a physical
right of way on the property, on my property at all.
MR. LAPPER-Yes, but I think they do on the Hughes Court property.
MR. HAYES-I don’t know about that.
MR. CENTER-They have a maintenance easement, basically, to maintain.
MRS. STEFFAN-Right. They will go on your property and cut the trees if they think the trees are
interfering.
MR. HAYES-They were just there this Fall.
MR. HUNSINGER-They did a lot of trimming this Fall.
MR. HAYES-Yes, they don’t listen to anybody else.
MRS. STEFFAN-Well, they subcontract the service, so, I mean.
MR. HUNSINGER-Going back to the trees, how tall? We didn’t specify the height, or the
diameter.
51
(Queensbury Planning Board 04/26/2011)
MR. CENTER-Eight to ten foot high on the cedars, and two and a half to three inch caliper on
the red maples. We have eight to ten foot high on the, well, eastern white pine that shows on
the drawing, but the cedars, it’s going to be changed to the cedars, and two and a half to three
inch caliper red maples.
MRS. STEFFAN-Keith, do we have any feeling, there’s been a lot of public comment, about a
municipal system and, you know, perhaps on Dixon Road, at some point there might be
municipal wastewater. Any idea, is that on the planning horizon?
MR. OBORNE-Not an inkling, to be honest with you. I don’t think there’s a map plan and report
even mentioned at this point.
MR. TRAVER-Yes, we’ve talked about that a couple of times. It’s obviously something that
would be better.
MRS. STEFFAN-Well, the reason I asked the question, certainly the public comment, it came up
a few times, but I would ask the applicant the question if it’s going, you know, if it was on the
horizon, would you hook up at a later date, but if it’s not in the pipeline, then.
MR. HAYES-I called the Town, Mike Shaw, and there’s not even a design. There’s nothing on
the books, and whatever it would take, that’s totally outside. There’s no plan. There’s no
funding. I’m sure it’s talked about conceptually, and I know John’s been a big proponent of it,
and at one time they talked about bringing it up to the school. It didn’t happen, but that’s, there’s
nothing, we can’t do anything about something that theoretically doesn’t exist.
MRS. STEFFAN-Correct. Okay. The tree cutting, minimizing the tree cutting, that’s another
issue that came up. The public comment was that another half-acre of trees will be needed to
clear for the septic. Will that have to be clear cut? I mean, it’s clear cut on the plan.
MR. HAYES-Well, you’re going to have to cut, you can’t leave trees because the roots can
adversely affect the septic. There’s nothing we can do about that.
MRS. STEFFAN-Correct. There is a tree line that is identified around those areas and so that is
a buffer zone and will not be cleared.
MR. HAYES-Exactly.
MRS. STEFFAN-We talked about moving the stormwater basin to over near Lot Seven, and the
applicant had a response to that. Is the Planning Board concerned with that, or are they happy
with where it is?
MR. KREBS-Well, it hasn’t been constructed yet, has it?
MR. TRAVER-I’m sorry, you’re talking about the stormwater?
MRS. STEFFAN-The stormwater basin between, at the end of the, I’ll call it the hammerhead on,
next to Monthie and Dalton’s property.
MR. TRAVER-Well, I think it goes back to the larger issue that we weren’t involved in the initial
planning of this whole project, and so we’re in a situation now where we’re sort of nipping
around the edges and making sure we have engineering signoff, and we have that, or will have
that shortly. So, you know, could they move it? Sure. I mean, you know, can we force them to
move it?
MRS. STEFFAN-Well, the question becomes does the Planning Board want them to move it?
MR. SCHONEWOLF-What’s the advantage?
MR. KREBS-Just less water next to the back yards of the other people, that’s all.
MR. HUNSINGER-Well, kind of a related question, though, you know, without, it was almost
presented like there’s only one stormwater catch basin, when, in fact, you’ve shown basically all
along the entire road.
MR. CENTER-Correct.
MR. HUNSINGER-So, if, you know, hearing the concerns from the neighbors, is there a way to
help mitigate some of those concerns by simply making, you know, there’s two areas around the
curb on the road, you know, just to the west of Building Seven and Two, you know, could you
52
(Queensbury Planning Board 04/26/2011)
make those areas larger to accommodate additional runoff, thereby minimizing the amount
that’s going to flow down?
MR. LAPPER-One issue there is that, there are existing trees, and we don’t see the issue as
houses looking at houses, but it’s houses looking at the Northway. What we really want to buffer
is the view of the Northway. So it’s better to have the trees along the Northway.
MR. HUNSINGER-Well, certainly on the inside of the curb, there’s no trees shown there.
MR. LAPPER-That’s a pretty small area, inside the curb.
MR. HUNSINGER-I’m just trying to offer some mitigation factors here that would help people
feel more comfortable with the project and also, you know, accomplish.
MR. TRAVER-Yes. I think part of the issue, too, is the sort of subject, almost subject, concerns
of the neighbors who have wet basements and sump pumps running, and the, I think, very
logical assumption that, you know, really any kind of development on this property, is going to
exacerbate that situation, which is why we had, we have to rely on the engineering and the
mounding studies. So, you know, certainly if I lived next door to this thing and I saw that
stormwater thing there and I would say, well, that’s gotta make my basement worse, but the
engineering says it isn’t.
MR. HUNSINGER-Right.
MR. TRAVER-So, you know, it’s a tough situation, again, that we’re in, because, you know,
would we have approved this original design? Probably not.
MR. KREBS-But, you know, that’s not a unique problem this year. I mean, I live on Masters
Common North, and every day I take a walk, and you can hear the sump pumps pumping into
the sewer, and the water running. I mean, we’ve had a lot of rain this Spring. We’ve had a lot of
snow this winter. So you’d have a very high water situation this year.
MR. TRAVER-Yes. It’s a subjective thing, but it’s a comfort level of the residents in the
neighborhood, and that’s why we wanted to see a professional study done. I mean, I don’t know
what else we could do. I mean, it goes back, again, to the original design component. I mean, if
we had been at the table during that, this might look very different, but I think that, you know,
we’ve done what we could do in terms of looking at the science and mottling of how the water
moves through the soil in that area, and, you know, the applicant is pointing out that moving that
device to the other side may have a greater visual impact, and we’ve learned from the
engineering it really won’t have an impact on the water. So, we might actually be causing more
harm than good by.
MR. KREBS-Well, and plus the fact that they’ve changed the zoning now that you can’t have
anything within 50 feet of the Northway anyway.
MR. OBORNE-I’d like to clarify that point, to be honest with you. If you own property along the
Northway, you can build on that property. You can’t subdivide property, that’s the difference,
though. If you currently own a parcel that is within 50 feet of the Northway, you can build on that
property. There’s no preclusion from that. I just want to make sure everybody understands that.
MR. TRAVER-Thanks for that clarification, and, you know, getting back to the stormwater and
some of the other issues, I think there’s really three factors here, as I’ve been looking at this
thing. One is the reality that we weren’t involved in the original design. The second is the, you
know, what, as a non-engineer, and as a resident living in the neighborhood, what you assume
or what feels like is logical that will happen, as a result of this development, and the other is the
science, the hard science of, you know, what is the soil. What is going to happen with the water
and so on, and we have to kind of put all that stuff together and come up with the best possible
solution.
MR. HUNSINGER-Which is why we asked the applicant to do the engineering, and then have
our engineer double check it.
MR. TRAVER-Right. Exactly. So I think a lot of it, at this point, is the visual impact, which the
berm, I think, is going to have, you know, some help with.
MRS. STEFFAN-Well, and I think what I heard, you know, what I heard the public saying is that
when they were asking the questions about these units and how, you know, what’s the seasonal
high groundwater elevation, and how far are the basements going to be, and they’re not so
concerned about these folks getting water in their basement sump pumps. They’re worried
53
(Queensbury Planning Board 04/26/2011)
about taking the sump out, you know, using the sump pump so that they don’t get water, but
then it goes into the water table and then they’ll get more water. This area has historically had a
problem, and so, you know, we don’t want to put anymore in, but the engineers tell us that the
science works.
AUDIENCE MEMBER- Concerns about having to sue people to get things fixed.
MR. HUNSINGER-Thank you, sir. It’s a tough one.
MRS. STEFFAN-It’s a very tough one.
MR. HUNSINGER-And it goes right to the comments that you were just making, Steve. You
know, people have water in their basements, now. So how can anyone, you know, say next
year, well, I have more water because of what was done on this site.
MR. TRAVER-I mean, we have to go by the science. We have to. Everything else is subject.
MR. HUNSINGER-Yes. Right, and here we have two engineers that have put their license and
their reputation and their livelihood on the line.
MR. CENTER-And a hydrogeologist who’s done multiple mounding, groundwater analysis
studies for many towns, not just clients, not just commercial clients, but he’s also done
groundwater analysis for many towns, and we do have their qualifications, and we can provide
them, too, if required, but, you know, he’s an independent third party that looked at the data that
was provided and chimed in on the mounding analysis, and also this is very conservative from
the Town Engineer’s standpoint because VISION Engineering was concerned without an outlet
they wanted us to design that stormwater, both stormwater basins for winter conditions. So we
have designed the pond to look at no infiltration, to look at, we’re ignoring any infiltration in that
stone diaphragm where the pre-treatment’s going to happen. We’ve ignored a lot of factors
which has made that pond larger to accommodate those very infrequent but possible events,
and that’s how we’ve done this. We’ve, this is one of the most conservative designs dealing with
VISION that we have come up with based on the comments from the public, put into this design.
From what we started out with, we have added many levels of safety to try to account for any
possible groundwater issues, and like Steve said the science. We’ve provided the science to
back up the design that we have, and try to leave the visual impact of the Northway and
continue with the design that we did have.
MRS. STEFFAN-One of the other comments that came up from the public is stormwater
maintenance.
MR. CENTER-The stormwater management report has a section for long term maintenance.
When the Notice of Intent is terminated through the Notice of Termination, that has a section
that the owner who signs a Notice of Intent agrees to follow the maintenance procedures that
are in that stormwater management report, and those are annual maintenance issues which are
mowing of the grass, removing of any sediment and that nature. So there is an enforceable
document that goes with the property for the life of the property, based on this design. So that is
addressed. Those maintenance items are addressed in the stormwater management report for
annual maintenance.
MRS. STEFFAN-Okay. Different buildings with different colors. That’s another issue that came
up.
MR. HAYES-Well, last time I brought the siding choices and Ms. Dalton who is most affected,
their right in her backyard, she made three choices. So, I would like to at least go with the
selections closest to her, the choice, her first choice, directly in her backyard, but there’s two
other choices that are along the same earth tonish tone, so they won’t be totally clashing, look
like a checkerboard. If they want to pass around and see how they feel about which ones for the
remainder, I’d be glad to. Would you guys like to look at them?
AUDIENCE MEMBER-Well we have someone else who has them right in her backyard, too.
MR. HAYES-Okay. Do you want to look at them first?
MR. HUNSINGER-And quite frankly, that’s why we didn’t decide on a color last month because
we had only had one neighbor really comment on the colors and we wanted more input from the
neighbors.
54
(Queensbury Planning Board 04/26/2011)
MR. SIPP-Can you give an approximate size and location of this pond? Can you give me an
approximate dimensions of this pond? And where it’s going to be? I don’t have a plan that
shows any pond on it.
MR. CENTER-It’s right on SP-1. It’s on SP-1 at the very end of the road, and it’s more, it’s a
depression. It’s not necessarily a pond. It’s a collection point for the larger storms. Anything
that does not infiltrate into the roadside swales will infiltrate and come down, the road is pitched
so that the road drains from both sides. From the high point on down to the end of the road, the
road is pitched, drains to either side of the road which goes into the swales. The water has to fill
up in those roadside swales before it comes down to the very end of the road, and even in the
100 year storm, with the infiltration, with a conservative infiltration rate used of five minutes per
inch, we get a peak elevation of 199.5, I believe, in that pond, or the detention area. So, at the
100 year storm, there’s a half a foot of water, max, in the pond. When you use our conservative
infiltration rate, which we used, I believe it was 11 inches per hour, which works out to five
minutes per inch, which is five times greater than the one minute in that area, so, again, that’s
why I say, we’ve built in a lot of redundancy when we came up with these things, so that as the
project matured and the concerns of the public for groundwater issues, that’s where VISION
Engineering required us to size the detention area to accommodate a 50 year storm and no
infiltration at all. So, again, now you’re taking that hard surface, and that’s where you’re coming
up with another number that may or may not be there, but it’s conservative.
MR. MAGOWAN-So from the top of the road closest to the Northway, you’re at 200.75, and at
the bottom of the road, you’re at 201, right? Is that, that would be considered like a 10 inch
difference? So it’s not like it’s going to be pouring right down the center of the road.
MR. CENTER-Exactly. It’s not like, exactly. The road is pitched to go up. It’s crowned. So that
it goes off to either side. So we’re taking the flow.
MR. MAGOWAN-Well, you have probably like a five inch crown?
MR. CENTER-Yes, not even.
MR. MAGOWAN-So a four inch crown, and how wide’s the road?
MR. CENTER-Twenty-four feet.
MR. MAGOWAN-And then how far is it from one side of the property to, you know, to the end of
the road?
MR. CENTER-I want to say 300 feet.
MR. MAGOWAN-So, I mean, just, you know, so they can hear this.
MR. CENTER-You’re talking a 24 foot wide road, 12 foot either side, going to the swales on
either side, and then going down to that pond at the very end. So, and again, the houses are
being maintained at the eave line of the house.
MR. MAGOWAN-Now, when they plow, they’re going to plow?
MR. CENTER-One side to one side.
MR. MAGOWAN-So there won’t be snow being pushed down into that at the.
MR. CENTER-There probably will be snow that will end up getting stacked up in the swales, but
we have looked at what happens in those scenarios, if it doesn’t go underneath the snow. We
were just out there at the end of winter to do the test pits, and we had, you know, some very cold
March, and we had little to no frost in the ground, and we had a very cold, but we all know you’re
going to get some frost with the road into the ground. So we have looked at that, that the pond
has, the detention area at the end of the road, has the capacity, minus those swales, to
accommodate those storms, and again, you know, minus any infiltration plus, if it gets over,
before it gets to the top of the berm, it’s going into drywells which will get it back down (lost
word), and then now if we put this, the berm on the end, that’s going to have another factor of
safety between the two properties to contain it.
MR. HUNSINGER-Does the Board feel that there’s any new information that’s necessary?
MR. SCHONEWOLF-No. As long as she wrote down all the conditions. Did you write those?
MR. HUNSINGER-Well, there’s a lot.
55
(Queensbury Planning Board 04/26/2011)
MRS. STEFFAN-I’ve got War and Peace going here. One of the other issues for the Planning
Board, the decision on no further subdivision or, you know, that the applicant had talked about
the potential to put another building in the front, but we haven’t, you know, we’ve gathered that
information, but we haven’t talked about how you feel about it. So as a Board, how do we feel
about that eventual, the potential unit in the front?
MR. TRAVER-Well, it would be subject to Site Plan Review, would it not?
MR. HUNSINGER-Yes, it would, it would be subject to further Site Plan Review.
MR. MAGOWAN-Yes, so, I mean, it’s not, they’re not getting another building without convincing
us that it’s appropriate to put one there.
MRS. STEFFAN-That would be a future Board. That would not be us.
MR. MAGOWAN-Well, you’re probably right.
MRS. STEFFAN-I just want to know your feelings, because we’ve got to come up with
something.
MR. TRAVER-Yes, I think we talked about the southern end of the property.
MRS. STEFFAN-Correct, which has got a notation on it, that’s fine, but we didn’t make a
decision on this one.
MR. TRAVER-I think that, my recollection was that we left it that they would have to come back
and apply.
MR. HUNSINGER-Yes, I think we kind of left it open.
MR. TRAVER-Right.
MRS. STEFFAN-Okay. We’ve had a discussion about things being too close to the Northway.
We haven’t talked about Unit One. How does the group feel about Unit One?
MR. KREBS-Well, after Keith’s explanation, if you have existing property, you can put a building
on it. So, that certainly fits in that description.
MRS. STEFFAN-It can, but this application’s in front of us for Site Plan Review, and it’s a
foundation in the ground. It’s not a building yet. So how do we feel about it?
MR. LAPPER-There’s a house a lot closer to the Northway than that.
MRS. STEFFAN-Yes, an old house, not a new house.
MR. TRAVER-I think it’s really the structures to the east that are, at least for me, more of
concern, I think. On that side it’s not really adding much to the issues that are being discussed,
other than stormwater, which we’ve already addressed.
MRS. STEFFAN-Don, are you okay?
MR. KREBS-I’m okay with it. Yes.
MRS. STEFFAN-Chris?
MR. HUNSINGER-Any other comments? Yes.
MR. SIPP-Well, I’d just say, nobody knows the effects of the Northway, or they won’t for another
40, 50 years, on children
MR. SCHONEWOLF-The Northway’s famous for just dumping their water.
MR. HUNSINGER-Yes, that’s true.
MR. SCHONEWOLF-That’s why you’ve got all the problems that you have up on Route 9. Just
from the Northway.
MR. LAPPER-Mickie spoke to the neighbors about the colors and can report what they wanted.
56
(Queensbury Planning Board 04/26/2011)
MR. HAYES-Janet, her first choice was something called Sagebrook which you’ve all seen
these here, the earth tones. Sagebrook is not really a color. It’s just a fancy name they call it.
So it’s not a particular color, and the other neighbors chose, like as I think a lot of them said they
didn’t want to see them all being so uniform, which we’ll try to alter them as much as we can to
give as much character, because we want to make these look like houses as much as possible.
MR. HUNSINGER-Right.
MR. HAYES-Their second choice, which the neighbors liked, too, was called Olive, and this is
Georgia Pacific siding. So that we’re going to mix and match, but keep the first choice of Janet
and her adjacent neighbor, and her house is right there. So she’d like to see the darker color as
well, and we’ll mix and match the choices that they chose, which coincide with Janet’s, which
are earth tone in nature.
MR. HUNSINGER-So the two units on the east side would be the sagebrook, and then you
would alternate between sagebrook and Olive?
MR. HAYES-Olive, yes.
MR. HUNSINGER-Just those two?
MR. HAYES-Just those two, because after that it gets to be a little bit crazy. We alter trim colors
and we alter doors. So everybody can see a little bit different, to make it look as nice as
possible.
MR. HUNSINGER-Okay.
MR. KREBS-I also think that by changing the color, instead of having them all matching, your
salability will be much better.
MR. HAYES-The rentability is definitely, to have something they can call their own, that’s the
purpose of these versus an eight plex or a ten plex. So that’s, each door is different. We try to
do that, and they do pay more, too.
MR. HUNSINGER-What other questions or comments does the Board have?
MRS. STEFFAN-We dealt with (lost word), got Staff Notes, the public comments.
AUDIENCE MEMBER-Mr. Chairman, one thing that hasn’t been mentioned is the length of the
berm.
MRS. STEFFAN-The discussion, I thought that I presented it on your behalf, was from Dixon
Road to the end of the Kingsley property.
MR. HUNSINGER-Was that acceptable to the applicant?
MR. LAPPER-No, because the Kingsley property would be taking down trees, you know, mature
trees.
MR. HUNSINGER-That’s why I raised that issue, yes.
MRS. STEFFAN-The trees that are left, because it’s been three months since I’ve been there,
the trees that are left in front of the Kingsley property, because you’ve got, says it’s buffered, are
they trees, or is it brush?
MR. LAPPER-They’re right there, on the photo.
MR. HAYES-They’re trees.
MRS. STEFFAN-They’re trees. Large basal width trees?
MR. HAYES-Pine trees. There’s still a natural forest that’s going to be saved. It’s going to be
(lost word).
AUDIENCE MEMBER-The tree line is right about here. So all of these are non-existent, and
now they want to take another 50 to 60 feet down.
MRS. STEFFAN-For the septics.
57
(Queensbury Planning Board 04/26/2011)
MR. MAGOWAN-So bring the berm right to the edge of the new tree line, the no cut line.
MR. HAYES-The berm is right to the tree line now.
MR. HUNSINGER-So give us, not necessarily distance, give us a start and end point, just a
reference point.
MR. CENTER-Well, the end point looks to be just halfway middle of the lands of Monthie, if you
look at the southern end.
MR. HUNSINGER-Okay.
MR. CENTER-And then the northern end is, again, almost halfway or a third of the way up on
the lands of Monthie again.
MR. HUNSINGER-So it’s pretty much as depicted on the plan.
MR. CENTER-So it’s pretty much as depicted, that’s, you know, 220 feet long. A lot of berm,
and we’re not taking down any additional trees that we haven’t already shown. If we have to
continue down, we’re going to get into those larger trees as you go further north will be, in order
to create the berm, we’ll be disrupting that area there, as we go to the north.
MR. MAGOWAN-So what you’re saying, halfway through Monthie’s land.
MR. CENTER-Monthie on the south side of Dalton.
MR. MAGOWAN-The south side, you’re going to start curving it in toward the backyard.
MR. CENTER-Right.
MR. MAGOWAN-So it’s not a, I’m looking at a straight line across here.
MR. CENTER-No, no. What we’ve done is as we came towards the detention area, we took that
buffer and brought it back away from the property line, so that we could leave whatever was
there between them and we didn’t have to disturb anything along the property line. So it does
have kind of a “U” or a semi-circle shape to it.
MRS. STEFFAN-So it ends at the limit of the retention basin that’s there.
MR. CENTER-To the south, yes, towards the southern end of the basin that goes in there, and
then to the north it’s, it extends a little bit past probably 35 feet.
MR. HUNSINGER-The other references would be the edges of the houses. I mean, it’s pretty
close to the.
MR. CENTER-Yes, it would be the south edge of the house. In the north, it goes beyond, so it
goes beyond Building Four.
AUDIENCE MEMBER-Sir, if they take those trees down behind the buildings, they’re going to
have to go down almost right down as far as Kingsley’s with the berm, because if they take
those trees out.
MS. GAGLIARDI-Excuse me, Mr. Chairman, if you’re going to get an accurate record, then you
need to have people on the microphone.
MR. HUNSINGER-Yes. The comment that was made by the woman in the audience is that if
additional trees are taken down, that the berm would need to be extended.
MR. LAPPER-But you’re showing, for the septic system, that there’s still some trees.
MR. CENTER-Yes, for the septic area, remember there’s a, that’s a replacement, the edge is
where we have the disturbance, where that 200 contour is on the eastern portion. So we’ve kept
that disturbance right to that graded line.
MR. HUNSINGER-So, for example, if you were to draw a line along the property line between
Kingsley and Monthie, what’s the depth of the remaining forest, if you were to draw a line
straight across?
58
(Queensbury Planning Board 04/26/2011)
MR. CENTER-At the deepest, it’s 55 feet, and at the narrowest it’s approximately 40 feet, that is
right on the Kingsley, Monthie line.
MR. HUNSINGER-Okay.
MRS. STEFFAN-And you identified that they’re good sized trees that are there.
AUDIENCE MEMBER-Can you please re-address the height of this berm? I don’t think that’s
accurate.
MR. LAPPER-Big trees will go on top of it.
MR. KREBS-Yes, but the trees will be another six feet on top of the berm. So you’re really
looking at, and if they put the trees the way they’re talking about, like Jon explained, you’re
going to have a wall that’s going to be basically eight feet high, that you can’t see into that area.
I may not like the fact that my neighbor has a house on their lot, but, you know, that’s part of the
way the world is.
MR. HUNSINGER-If we could have one commenter at a time, that would be appreciated.
What’s the will of the Board, is there any additional information that we need from the applicant
at this time?
MR. KREBS-I think we’re fine.
MR. HUNSINGER-Would anyone like to make a motion to close the public hearing?
RESOLUTION CLOSING PUBLIC HEARING SP 80-2010 HAYES
A site plan application has been made to the Queensbury Planning Board for the following:
Applicant proposes seven (7) duplexes. Land disturbance in excess of 0.25 +/- acres in the NR
zone requires Planning Board review and approval; and
A public hearing was advertised and held on 1/27/2011, 3/15/2011 tabled to 4/26/2011; and
MOTION TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING FOR SITE PLAN NO. 80-2010 HAYES &
HAYES, LLC, Introduced by Paul Schonewolf who moved for its adoption, seconded by Donald
Krebs:
th
Duly adopted this 26 day of April, 2011, by the following vote:
AYES: Mr. Traver, Mr. Krebs, Mrs. Steffan, Mr. Magowan, Mr. Schonewolf, Mr. Sipp,
Mr. Hunsinger
NOES: NONE
MR. HUNSINGER-This was an Unlisted action. I believe you submitted a Long Form or a Short
Form?
MR. LAPPER-It was so long ago, we better check.
MR. HUNSINGER-Yes, I need to check as well.
MR. OBORNE-I only see a Short Form.
MR. LAPPER-I think it was, Short Form was only required. It’s not a subdivision.
MR. HUNSINGER-I see the Notice of Intent.
MRS. STEFFAN-I have a Short Form.
MR. HUNSINGER-Short Form?
MRS. STEFFAN-Apparently we started it and stopped it. No, I’m sorry. Yes, Short, 11/15/10.
MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. Everyone ready?
MR. TRAVER-Yes.
MRS. STEFFAN-Okay. “Does the action exceed any Type I threshold in 6 NYCRR Part 617.4?”
59
(Queensbury Planning Board 04/26/2011)
MR. HUNSINGER-No.
MR. KREBS-No.
MRS. STEFFAN-“Will the action receive coordinated review as provided for Unlisted Actions in 6
NYCRR, Part 617.6?”
MR. HUNSINGER-No.
MR. TRAVER-No.
MRS. STEFFAN-“Could the action result in any adverse effects associated with the following:
C1. Existing air quality, surface or ground water quality or quantity, noise levels, existing traffic
patterns, solid waste production or disposal, potential for erosion, drainage or flooding
problems?”
MR. TRAVER-No.
MR. SIPP-Yes.
MRS. STEFFAN-“C2. Aesthetic, agricultural, historic, or other natural or cultural resources; or
community or neighborhood character?”
MR. HUNSINGER-No.
MR. TRAVER-No.
MR. OBORNE-Did you give an answer to that first one on Part Three, or Part C? I heard a yes.
MRS. STEFFAN-Existing air quality?
MR. OBORNE-Existing air quality, surface or ground water quality or quantity, etc.
MR. SCHONEWOLF-Moderate, I thought somebody said.
MRS. STEFFAN-I heard yes.
MR. SIPP-I said yes.
MR. SCHONEWOLF-He did.
MRS. STEFFAN-I heard it from Chris.
MR. HUNSINGER-I didn’t say it.
MR. SCHONEWOLF-No, he didn’t say it.
MRS. STEFFAN-Okay. Let me go back again. This is Letter C. “Could the action result in any
adverse effects associated with the following: C1. Existing air quality, surface or ground water
quality or quantity, noise levels, existing traffic patterns, solid waste production or disposal,
potential for erosion, drainage or flooding problems?”
MR. TRAVER-No.
MR. KREBS-No. None that weren’t mitigated with the plan.
MR. SIPP-I can say yes.
MR. KREBS-You can say, yes, yes.
MR. HUNSINGER-Yes. The action could result in those, but they have been mitigated through
the plan.
MR. TRAVER-Well, if there’s mitigation needed, then the answer is yes. We’re saying no. So,
you can’t say no through mitigation, I don’t think.
MR. OBORNE-We’re on no?
60
(Queensbury Planning Board 04/26/2011)
MR. MAGOWAN-Yes, with mitigation?
MR. LAPPER-You’re thinking of a Long Form.
MR. HUNSINGER-We’re thinking of a Long Form. It’s a Short Form.
MR. TRAVER-So, to clarify for the minutes, that’s a no?
MR. HUNSINGER-It’s a no.
MRS. STEFFAN-“C3. Vegetation, fauna, fish, shellfish or wildlife species, significant habitats, or
threatened or endangered species?”
MR. HUNSINGER-No.
MR. KREBS-No.
MRS. STEFFAN-“C4. A community’s existing plans or goals as officially adopted, or a change
in use or intensity of use of land or other natural resources?”
MR. HUNSINGER-No.
MR. KREBS-No.
MRS. STEFFAN-“C5. Growth, subsequent development or related activities likely to be
induced by the proposed action?”
MR. KREBS-No.
MR. TRAVER-No.
MRS. STEFFAN-“C6. Long term, short term, cumulative or other effects not identified above?”
MR. HUNSINGER-No.
MR. TRAVER-No.
MRS. STEFFAN-“C7. Other impacts (including changes in use of either quantity or energy)?”
MR. HUNSINGER-No.
MR. TRAVER-No.
MRS. STEFFAN-“Will the project have an impact on the environmental characteristics that
caused the establishment of a Critical Environmental Area?”
MR. HUNSINGER-No.
MR. TRAVER-No.
MRS. STEFFAN-“Is there or is there likely to be controversy related to potential adverse
environmental impacts?”
MR. HUNSINGER-No.
MR. TRAVER-No.
MRS. STEFFAN-Then I’ll make a motion for a Negative Declaration.
RESOLUTION WHEN DETERMINATION OF NO SIGNIFICANCE IS MADE
RESOLUTION NO. 80-2010, Introduced by Gretchen Steffan who moved for its adoption,
seconded by Donald Krebs:
WHEREAS, there is presently before the Planning Board an application for:
HAYES & HAYES, LLC, and
WHEREAS, this Planning Board has determined that the proposed project and Planning Board
action is subject to review under the State Environmental Quality Review Act,
61
(Queensbury Planning Board 04/26/2011)
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT
RESOLVED:
1. No Federal agency appears to be involved.
2. The following agencies are involved:
NONE
3. 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.
4. An Environmental Assessment Form has been completed by the applicant.
5. Having considered and thoroughly analyzed the relevant areas of environmental concern
and having considered the criteria for determining whether a project has a significant
environmental impact as the same is set forth in Section 617.11 of the Official
Compilation of Codes, Rules and Regulations for the State of New York, this Board finds
that the action about to be undertaken by this Board will have no significant
environmental effect and the Chairman of the Planning Board is hereby authorized to
execute and sign and file as may be necessary a statement of non-significance or a
negative declaration that may be required by law.
Duly adopted this 26th day of, April, 2011, by the following vote:
AYES: Mrs. Steffan, Mr. Traver, Mr. Krebs, Mr. Magowan, Mr. Schonewolf, Mr. Sipp,
Mr. Hunsinger
NOES: NONE
MRS. STEFFAN-Okay. The resolution is huge, and there are some language issues that we
believe need to be incorporated into the motion. So I believe what we are recommending is that
we table this application until the next Planning Board meeting in May, so that we can formulate
our motion.
MR. LAPPER-They’ve had these buildings sitting there half built for all this time.
MRS. STEFFAN-How does the Planning Board feel about this? To table this application until
the next Planning Board meeting so that we can formulate our motion, to incorporate all the
things that have been talked about, and also get counsel’s input.
MR. HUNSINGER-We had some specific recommendations from counsel at the last meeting,
related to the reasons for no further subdivision, plus I’m sure there’s a lot of contingencies, so
rather than.
MR. TRAVER-So we want counsel involved in crafting a resolution.
MR. HUNSINGER-Yes. Help us draft a resolution.
MR. TRAVER-If that’s the recommendation, that’s fine.
th
MR. HUNSINGER-We would table this to May 17, and, you know, basically we would read the
motion and take the vote.
MR. TRAVER-Make it an Administrative Item, basically.
MR. HUNSINGER-Pretty much.
MR. TRAVER-Yes, okay.
MR. HUNSINGER-That would give us an opportunity to draft a motion that works for everybody.
MR. TRAVER-Sounds good.
MR. OBORNE-You closed the public hearing?
MR. HUNSINGER-We closed the public hearing.
62
(Queensbury Planning Board 04/26/2011)
MR. OBORNE-And you’re going to table? Yet you’re going to table?
MR. HUNSINGER-Well, we’re only going to table the resolution. Just the resolution. Counsel
has advised us that, you know, we should never feel under pressure to make a resolution, one
way or another, the night of the meeting, and that we can always consider the resolution at a
future meeting.
MR. OBORNE-So, just for the general audience’s understanding, the public hearing has been
closed.
MR. HUNSINGER-That’s right.
MR. OBORNE-So there will be no more public hearing.
MR. HUNSINGER-No further public comment.
Member of the public upset at public hearing closed.
MR. HUNSINGER-We went through this last month. I gave everybody more than ample
opportunity to make comments. In fact, you came up three times, so, I mean, I don’t think we
did anything to diminish the opportunity for people to comment and be, you know, part of this
deliberation. At the end of the day, the Planning Board has to make the decision. We take into
account your concerns and your considerations. There was no new evidence presented this
evening. There’s been nothing new for the last three meetings that we’ve been deliberating this
project, with the exception of the mounding report that was presented to us since the last month.
So I don’t want to be argumentative with you, but I think we’ve been more than fair in giving
everyone an opportunity to comment and participate, and we followed the letter of the law, to be
quite honest with you.
MR. HAYES-Basically, Chris, obviously with these, the project has been waiting in the wings for
a while, and there’s, the buildings are deteriorating and stuff, and I understand the public doesn’t
care about that, but I do. I just wanted to express my concern that if there’s stipulations that we
talked about, we’re glad to abide by any stipulations that you come up with, so we, you know,
expediency is important. There’s men waiting to work. There’s people waiting to move in. I just
want to get those points across, that’s all.
MR. HUNSINGER-Yes. I appreciate that, yes. We did close the public hearing. We are
obligated to come to a resolution within 30 days. We’re well aware of that, and three weeks
from this evening we will have the motion and we’ll be on our way.
MR. HAYES-All right. Thank you.
MR. HUNSINGER-Is the Board comfortable with that?
MR. SCHONEWOLF-Yes.
MR. MAGOWAN-Yes.
MRS. STEFFAN-Yes.
MR. TRAVER-With your explanation, I think it makes sense.
MR. HUNSINGER-So we’re really not tabling it, we’re just not taking the action this evening,
because, as Staff pointed out, we’ve closed the public hearing, so, you know, there’s nothing
really to table. We’re just delaying the resolution.
MR. HAYES-It makes sense, I just wanted to express my situation, that’s all.
MR. HUNSINGER-Yes, I appreciate that. Thank you. Any last comments from the Board?
MRS. STEFFAN-I’ll make a motion to adjourn.
MR. LAPPER-Thank you.
MR. HUNSINGER-You’re welcome.
MOTION TO ADJOURN THE QUEENSBURY PLANNING BOARD MEETING OF APRIL 26,
2011, Introduced by Gretchen Steffan who moved for its adoption, seconded by Brad Magowan:
63
(Queensbury Planning Board 04/26/2011)
th
Duly adopted this 26 day of April, 2011, by the following vote:
AYES: Mr. Traver, Mr. Krebs, Mrs. Steffan, Mr. Magowan, Mr. Schonewolf, Mr. Sipp,
Mr. Hunsinger
NOES: NONE
MS. GAGLIARDI-Excuse me, did you make a motion to table the Hayes, did you make a formal
motion to table?
MR. HUNSINGER-No. What I want to do is have the resolution drafted and then vetted by
counsel, and then presented, and I certainly have no problem presenting it to the applicant prior
to the meeting.
MR. OBORNE-Okay. Will the secretary afford me the courtesy of a copy of that prior to sending
it off?
MR. HUNSINGER-Absolutely.
MR. OBORNE-Okay.
MRS. STEFFAN-Yes, I was the only one taking notes.
MR. HUNSINGER-No, I was, too.
MR. OBORNE-I took a few notes, too.
MRS. STEFFAN-No, but we’ll get the record. We’ll get the minutes from Maria. We’ll compare
them to my notes. We’ll make sure that everything’s included, include counsel, and we’ll go
from there.
MR. OBORNE-Okay.
MRS. STEFFAN-Make sure it’s all in there.
MR. HUNSINGER-And certainly if individual Board members have items that they want to make
sure get in there, to do that.
MR. SCHONEWOLF-What was the date you did it, to the first meeting in May?
MR. HUNSINGER-Yes.
th
MR. OBORNE-May 17.
MR. SCHONEWOLF-You better make it an Administrative Item because Provident Batavia
could go for another week.
MR. HUNSINGER-Yes, no kidding.
MR. OBORNE-I do have a couple of comments. I did send you a draft change to our
procedures and policies. I haven’t heard anything back. It was based on our workshop from
February, I believe it was, before everybody went out of Town. I’d like to get that back in front of
you for comment, so then we can discuss that so we can alter our procedures. That has to do
specifically with the engineering aspect, sending it to the engineering first, which, quite frankly,
is not working all that well, at this point, but I think that that would get better over time, to be
honest with you.
MR. SCHONEWOLF-Did you say you did send it?
MR. OBORNE-I did send it via e-mail.
On motion meeting was adjourned.
RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED,
Chris Hunsinger, Chairman
64