06-02-2015 (Queensbury Planning Board 06/02/2015)
QUEENSBURY PLANNING BOARD MEETING
SPECIAL MEETING
JUNE 2, 2015
INDEX
Site Plan No. 15-2015 Action Sign Co. for Dollar General 1.
Tax Map No. 309.10-1-57
Site Plan No. 27-2015 David Dawkins & Alyssa Barber-Dawkins 4.
Tax Map No. 296.13-1-67
Subdivision No. 5-2015 Lynne Fish & Wendy Schmidt 6.
PRELIM & FINAL STAGE Tax Map No. 279.17-1-1, 7
Site Plan No. 31-2015 Thomas Kubricky 9.
Tax Map No. 227.13-2-24
Site Plan No. 29-2015 Garvey KIA 12.
Tax Map No. 303.6-1-4
Special Use Permit No. 32-2015 Thomas Jones & Brendon Rozell 15.
D/B/A Devocean Water Sports
Tax Map No. 252.-1-65
THESE ARE NOT OFFICIALLY ADOPTED MINUTES AND ARE SUBJECT TO BOARD AND
STAFF REVISIONS. REVISIONS WILL APPEAR ON THE FOLLOWING MONTHS MINUTES
(IF ANY) AND WILL STATE SUCH APPROVAL OF SAID MINUTES.
1
(Queensbury Planning Board 06/02/2015)
QUEENSBURY PLANNING BOARD MEETING
SPECIAL MEETING
JUNE 2, 2015
7:00 P.M.
MEMBERS PRESENT
CHRIS HUNSINGER, CHAIRMAN
PAUL SCHONEWOLF, SECRETARY
DAVID DEEB
BRAD MAGOWAN
GEORGE FERONE
STEPHEN TRAVER
JAMIE WHITE, ALTERNATE
LAND USE PLANNER-LAURA MOORE
STENOGRAPHER-MARIA GAGLIARDI
MR. HUNSINGER-I'd like to call to order the meeting of the Town of Queensbury Planning
Board. This is a Special Meeting on June 2nd, and for members of the audience, welcome.
There are copies of the agenda on the back table. There's also a handout for public hearing
procedures. I believe every project before us this evening has a public hearing scheduled, and
we'll go into more detail when we open the first public hearing. I would remind you to silence
your cellphones before we get started so that you don't interrupt the course of the meeting, and
with that, the first item on the agenda is Old Business.
OLD BUSINESS REQUIRING PUBLIC HEARING:
SITE PLAN NO. 15-2015 SEAR TYPE UNLISTED ACTION SIGN CO. FOR DOLLAR
GENERAL OWNER(S) PRIMAX PROPERTIES, LLC ZONING MS LOCATION 61
MAIN STREET APPLICANT PROPOSES THREE (3) WALL SIGNS - EACH SIGN IS TO BE
28 +/- SQ. FT., AND EXTERNALLY LIT WITH GOOSE NECK LAMPS. SIGNS TO BE
LOCATED ON THE EAST, WEST AND SOUTH SIDE OF THE BUILDING. PURSUANT TO
CHAPTER 140-7 OF THE ZONING ORDINANCE SIGNS IN THE MAIN STREET ZONE SHALL
BE SUBJECT TO PLANNING BOARD REVIEW AND APPROVAL. CROSS REFERENCE
SV 9-15 SP 76-14, SUP 77-14 WARREN CO. PLANNING MARCH 2015 LOT SIZE 0.87
ACRES TAX MAP NO. 309.10-1-57 SECTION 179-3-040, CHAPTER 140-7
WAYNE GENDRON, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT
MR. HUNSINGER-Laura?
MRS. MOORE-Okay. The applicant has revised their submission to show a 28 sq. ft. sign.
The Zoning Board saw this information on 5/20, and reduced the signage, the applicant agreed
to reduce the signage to two signs, one being located on the storefront to the south elevation,
and one being located at the entrance of the west elevation. They also conditioned it upon
Dollar General not erecting a freestanding sign, and that if they were to do so, they would follow
the proper process, and that the lighting of the signage should be on a timer and the lights
should only be on during the hours that the business is open to the public.
MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. Good evening.
MR. GENDRON-Good evening. How are you?
MR. HUNSINGER-Good. How are you?
MR. GENDRON-Not bad.
MR. HUNSINGER-If you could identify yourself for the record.
MR. GENDRON-Yes. Wayne Gendron with Action Sign Company representing Dollar General.
MR. HUNSINGER-Did you have anything else that you wanted to add?
MR. GENDRON-Just, the first time I sat down I came in with 207 sq. ft. We're down to 56. I
think it's a good compromise and with the lack of space to put a freestanding sign we kind of had
everything come together and we've met the criteria of the street, I think, and really reduced the
2
(Queensbury Planning Board 06/02/2015)
signage, got the gooseneck lighting, no more internally illuminated signs. The Zoning Board
liked it.
AUDIENCE MEMBER-We cannot hear what is being said. Speak up please.
MR. HUNSINGER-Well, actually if you could pull the microphone closer I think that would
probably help better.
MR. GENDRON-Okay. So the Zoning Board seemed to like what they saw. They did approve
it for me and I'm just hoping tonight it's a happy day and we'll move on with the project at this
point.
MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. Questions, comments from the Board?
MR. MAGOWAN-Well, I want to thank you for going back to the drawing board and getting the
reduction. I think, like you said, it was a compromise on both sides. I did drive by today and
saw the metal up on the front there. So I got a visual. I think it's going to look nice. That's all I
have to say.
MR. HUNSINGER-Any other questions or comments from the Board? We do have a public
hearing scheduled for this project. The purpose of a public hearing is for members of the
audience, interested citizens to provide comment to the Board. Anyone who wishes to address
the Board I would ask that you direct your comments and questions to the Board and not to the
applicant and speak clearly into the microphone. We tape the meeting. The tape is available
on the Town website. The tape is also used to transcribe the minutes. So I would ask that you
identify yourself for the record and speak clearly into the microphone if you wish to address the
Board. Is there anyone that wishes to address the Board on this project? Any written
comments?
PUBLIC HEARING OPEN
MRS. MOORE-There were no written comment.
MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. This is an Unlisted action. I think there was a SEAR resolution with
our package.
MR. SCHONEWOLF-Yes, we have to do a Negative Dec, right?
MR. HUNSINGER-Yes.
RESOLUTION APPROVING NEGATIVE DEC SP # 15-2015 ACTION SIGN CO.
The applicant proposes three (3) wall signs -each sign is to be 28 +/- sq. ft., and externally lit
with goose neck lamps. Signs to be located on the east, west and south side of building.
Pursuant to Chapter 140-7 of the Zoning Ordinance Signs in the Main Street zone shall be
subject to Planning Board review and approval;
The Planning Board has determined that the proposed project and Planning Board action is
subject to review under the State Environmental Quality Review Act;
The proposed action considered by this Board is Unlisted in the Department of Environmental
Conservation Regulations implementing the State Environmental Quality Review Act and the
regulations of the Town of Queensbury;
No Federal or other agencies are involved;
Part 1 of the Short EAF has been completed by the applicant;
Upon review of the information recorded on this EAF, it is the conclusion of the Town of
Queensbury Planning Board as lead agency that this project will result in no significant adverse
impacts on the environment, and, therefore, an environmental statement need not be prepared.
Accordingly, this negative declaration is issued.
MOTION TO GRANT A NEGATIVE DECLARATION SITE PLAN NO. 15-2015 ACTION SIGN
CO. FOR DOLLAR GENERAL, Introduced by Paul Schonewolf who moved for its adoption,
seconded by Stephen Traver:
Per the draft resolution prepared by staff -Part II of the Short EAF has been reviewed and
completed by the Planning Board.
3
(Queensbury Planning Board 06/02/2015)
Duly adopted this 2nd day of June, 2015, by the following vote:
AYES: Mr. Traver, Mr. Deeb, Mr. Schonewolf, Mr. Ferone, Ms. White, Mr. Magowan, Mr.
Hunsinger
NOES: NONE
MR. HUNSINGER-And are there any other questions, comments or concerns with the proposal?
If not, I will entertain a motion.
RESOLUTION APPROVING SP # 15-2015 ACTION SIGN CO. DOLLAR GENERAL
An application has been made to the Town of Queensbury Planning Board for Site Plan
approval for three (3) wall signs -each sign is to be 28 +/- sq. ft., and externally lit with goose
neck lamps. Signs to be located on the east, west and south side of building. Pursuant to
Chapter 140-7 of the Zoning Ordinance Signs in the Main Street zone shall be subject to
Planning Board review and approval;
Pursuant to relevant sections of the Town of Queensbury Zoning Code-Chapter 179-9-080, the
Planning Board has determined that this proposal satisfies the requirements as stated in the
Zoning Code;
As required by General Municipal Law Section 239-m the site plan application was referred to
the Warren County Planning Department for its recommendation; received a recommendation of
No County Impact dated 3-2015;
As required by the Town of Queensbury Zoning Ordinance, per Section 179-9-070 J 2 b. the
Planning Board made a recommendation to the Zoning Board of Appeals on 3-17-2015 and a
2nd recommendation on 3-24-2015; the Zoning Board of Appeals approved the variance
requests on 5-20-2015;
The Planning Board opened a public hearing on the Site Plan application on 2-24-2015 and
continued the public hearing to 6-2-2015 when it was closed;
The Planning Board has reviewed the potential environmental impacts of the project, pursuant to
the State Environmental Quality Review Act (SEQRA) and adopted a SEQRA Negative
Declaration - Determination of Non-Significance;
The Planning Board has reviewed the application materials submitted by the applicant and all
comments made at the public hearing and submitted in writing through and including 6-2-2015;
The Planning Board determines that the application complies with the review considerations and
standards set forth in Article 9 179-9-080 7 of the Zoning Ordinance for Site Plan approval.
MOTION TO APPROVE SITE PLAN NO. 15-2015 ACTION SIGN CO. FOR DOLLAR
GENERAL, Introduced by Paul Schonewolf who moved for its adoption, seconded by Brad
Magowan:
Per the draft resolution provided by staff conditioned upon the following:
1. Adherence to the items approved by the Zoning Board of Appeals on 5-20-2015:
a. Two (2) signs -one (1) located on the storefront for the south elevation; one (1) located at
the entrance or the west elevation;
b. The property owner building Dollar General may not erect a freestanding sign. If they
desire to do so, they must approach the town and request a review of all applications by
the town;
c. The lighting of the signs should be on a timer and the lights should only be on during the
hours that the business is open to the public.
2. Adherence to the items outlined in the follow-up letter sent with this resolution.
Duly adopted this 2nd day of June, 2015, by the following vote:
AYES: Mr. Traver, Mr. Ferone, Mr. Magowan, Ms. White, Mr. Schonewolf, Mr. Deeb, Mr.
Hunsinger
NOES: NONE
4
(Queensbury Planning Board 06/02/2015)
MR. HUNSINGER-1 also want to thank you for the compromise. It's a much better project.
MR. GENDRON-Thank you.
MR. HUNSINGER-Good luck.
SITE PLAN NO. 27-2015 SEAR TYPE UNLISTED DAVID DAWKINS & ALYSSA-BARBER
DAWKINS AGENT(S) ETHAN HALL-RUCINSKI HALL ARCHITECTURE OWNER(S)
JEFFREY SCHWARTZ ZONING CM LOCATION 980 STATE ROUTE 9 _APPLICANT
PROPOSES TO REUSE AN EXISTING 3,458 SQ. FT. BUILDING FOR A DAY SPA &
TREATMENT FACILITY. SITE AND EXTERIOR BUILDING MODIFICATIONS ARE ALSO
PROPOSED. PURSUANT TO CHAPTER 179-3-040 OF THE ZONING ORDINANCE
CHANGE OF TENANCY AND FAQADE ALTERATIONS SHALL BE SUBJECT TO PLANNING
BOARD REVIEW AND APPROVAL. CROSS REFERENCE AV 15-15, SP 1-14, SV 22-14
WARREN CO. REFERRAL MAY 2015 LOT SIZE 0.86 ACRES TAX MAP NO. 296.13-1-67
SECTION 179-3-040
ETHAN HALL, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT
MR. HUNSINGER-Laura?
MRS. MOORE-This applicant proposes to re-use an existing 2,458 sq. ft. building for a day spa
and treatment facility. The Zoning Board granted the relief requested for setback.
MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. Good evening.
MR. HALL-Good evening. For the record, Ethan Hall principal with Rucinski-Hall Architecture
and Alyssa Dawkins. Here we are back again. We were here last meeting and we went
through everything. I don't think there were any major questions that came from the last
meeting. Just waiting for the public hearing portion.
MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. Questions, comments from the Board?
MR. FERONE-1 think we pretty well reviewed it the last time, Chris.
MR. HUNSINGER-Yes, me, too.
MR. FERONE-The rendering looks very good.
MR. HALL-Thank you.
MR. MAGOWAN-Yes, I'm pleased with what we discussed and like I said, I'm happy, and can't
wait to see the new face on Route 9.
MR. HUNSINGER-We have a public hearing scheduled for this project also. Is there anyone in
the audience that wishes to address the Board?
PUBLIC HEARING OPEN
MR. HUNSINGER-Any written comments, Laura?
MRS. MOORE-There were no written comments.
MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. I'll open the public hearing and let the record show no comments
were received. We'll close the public hearing.
PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED
MR. HUNSINGER-This also is an Unlisted action. There is a draft SEAR resolution in our
package, if anyone would like to move that.
RESOLUTION APPROVING NEGATIVE DEC SP #27-2015 DAWKINS
The applicant proposes to reuse an existing 3,458 sq. ft. building for a Day Spa & Treatment
facility. Site and exterior building modifications are also proposed. Pursuant to Chapter 179-3-
040 of the Zoning Ordinance Change of Tenancy and Fagade Alterations shall be subject to
Planning Board review and approval.
5
(Queensbury Planning Board 06/02/2015)
The Planning Board has determined that the proposed project and Planning Board action is
subject to review under the State Environmental Quality Review Act;
The proposed action considered by this Board is Unlisted in the Department of Environmental
Conservation Regulations implementing the State Environmental Quality Review Act and the
regulations of the Town of Queensbury;
No Federal or other agencies are involved;
Part 1 of the Short EAF has been completed by the applicant;
Upon review of the information recorded on this EAF, it is the conclusion of the Town of
Queensbury Planning Board as lead agency that this project will result in no significant adverse
impacts on the environment, and, therefore, an environmental impact statement need not be
prepared. Accordingly, this negative declaration is issued.
MOTION TO GRANT A NEGATIVE DECLARATION SITE PLAN NO. 27-2015 DAVID
DAWKINS & ALYSSA-BARBER DAWKINS, Introduced by Paul Schonewolf who moved for its
adoption, seconded by David Deeb:
As per the draft resolution prepared by Staff.
1. Part 11 of the Short EAF has been reviewed and completed by the Planning Board
2. Part III of the EAF is not necessary because the Planning Board did not identify
potentially moderate to large impacts.
Duly adopted this 2nd day of June, 2015, by the following vote:
MRS. MOORE-Please note on Item Two that Part Three is not necessary
MR. SCHONEWOLF-Right.
MR. HUNSINGER-Right, thank you.
AYES: Mr. Deeb, Mr. Schonewolf, Ms. White, Mr. Magowan, Mr. Ferone, Mr. Traver,
Mr. Hunsinger
NOES: NONE
MR. HUNSINGER-You're all set. Good luck.
ALYSSA BARBER-DAWKINS
MRS. BARBER-DAWKINS-Thank you very much.
MR. HUNSINGER-I'm sorry. That was just the SEAR.
MR. HALL-We're halfway there.
MR. HUNSINGER-We'll try this one more time. Sorry. Would anyone like to make a motion for
approval?
RESOLUTION APPROVING SP #27-2015 DAWKINS
The applicant has submitted an application to the Planning Board for Site Plan approval
pursuant to Article 9 of the Town zoning Ordinance for: Applicant proposes to reuse an existing
3,458 sq. ft. building for a Day Spa & Treatment facility. Site and exterior building modifications
are also proposed. Pursuant to Chapter 179-3-040 of the Zoning Ordinance Change of Tenancy
and Fagade Alterations shall be subject to Planning Board review and approval.
Pursuant to relevant sections of the Town of Queensbury Zoning Code-Chapter 179-9-080, the
Planning Board has determined that this proposal satisfies the requirements as stated in the
Zoning Code,
On 5-19-2015 the Planning Board made a recommendation to the Zoning Board of Appeals; on
5-20-2015 the Zoning Board of Appeals approved the variance request(s),
As required by General Municipal Law Section 239-m the site plan application was referred to
the Warren County Planning Department for its recommendation;
6
(Queensbury Planning Board 06/02/2015)
The Planning Board has reviewed the potential environmental impacts of the project, pursuant to
the State Environmental Quality Review Act (SEQRA) and adopted a SEQRA Negative
Declaration - Determination of Non-Significance,
The Planning Board opened a public hearing on the Site plan application on 5-21-2015 and
continued the public hearing to 6-2-2015 when it was closed,
The Planning Board has reviewed the application materials submitted by the applicant and all
comments made at the public hearing and submitted in writing through and including 6-2-2015;
The Planning Board determines that the application complies with the review considerations and
standards set forth in Article 9 of the Zoning Ordinance for Site Plan approval approved as
further discussed below;
MOTION TO APPROVE SITE PLAN NO. 27-2015 DAVID DAWKINS & ALYSSA-BARBER
DAWKINS, Introduced by Paul Schonewolf who moved for its adoption, seconded by George
Ferone:
Per the draft provided by staff conditioned upon the following conditions:
1) Adherence to the items outlined in the follow-up letter sent with this resolution
Duly adopted this 2nd day of June, 2015, by the following vote:
MR. HUNSINGER-The only thing that I would comment on is have you submitted the color
renderings yet?
MR. HALL-You got color renderings?
MRS. MOORE-Yes.
MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. I knew we saw them, but I didn't know if they were actually submitted.
I just wanted to make sure they were on the record.
MR. HALL-Yes.
MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. Any further discussion?
MR. MAGOWAN-It's Ethan Hall. It's all taken care of.
AYES: Mr. Deeb, Mr. Schonewolf, Ms. White, Mr. Magowan, Mr. Ferone, Mr. Traver, Mr.
Hunsinger
NOES: NONE
MR. HUNSINGER-Now you're all set.
MR. HALL-Thank you very much.
MR. HUNSINGER-You're welcome.
SUBDIVISION NO. 5-2015 PRELIMINARY& FINAL STAGE LYNNE FISH WENDY SCHMIDT
AGENT(S) VAN DUSEN & STEVES; HUTCHINS ENG. OWNER(S) SAME AS APPLICANT
ZONING RR-3A; WR LOCATION SUNNYSIDE RD. NORTH, DREAM LAKE ROAD
APPLICANT PROPOSES SUBDIVISION OF A 14.65 ACRE PARCEL INTO 3 LOTS OF 4.4, 5.8
& 4.5 ACRES. PURSUANT TO CHAPTER A-183 OF THE ZONING ORDINANCE
SUBDIVISION OF LAND SHALL BE SUBJECT TO PLANNING BOARD REVIEW AND
APPROVAL. CROSS REFERENCE AV 21-15 LOT SIZE 14.65 ACRES (12.6 & 2.05) TAX
MAP NO. 279.17-1-1, 7 SECTION CHAPTER A-183
TOM HUTCHINS, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT; LYNNE FISH, PRESENT
MR. HUNSINGER-Laura?
MRS. MOORE-Okay. This applicant proposes a three lot subdivision of a 14.65 acre parcel.
You reviewed the project at Sketch Plan. The applicant indicated an option for driveways which
they've shown on the revised drawings. All three parcels are split zoned. The zone line for
WR and RR-3A shown on the plans. The homes are proposed to be located in the RR-3A zone.
7
(Queensbury Planning Board 06/02/2015)
The plan also shows areas of slopes greater than 20%. The Zoning Board did grant the
variances, the variance for not maintaining 400 foot for the average lot width and road frontage
length.
MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. Good evening.
MR. HUTCHINS-Good evening. I'm Tom Hutchins with co-owner, applicant Lynne Fish. We
were here last month and we did get to the Zoning Board and they approved our variances for
lot width on two of the lots. We're comfortable with this layout, and I don't really have anything
to add. I do have something to add. Engineering comments, we did receive our signoff from the
Office of Parks, Recreation and Historic Preservation, as well as endangered species, and
we've agreed to modify the rain gardens to the 10 feet from the building we've shown seven,
and I believe that's it. I'll turn it over to the Board for comments.
MR. HUNSINGER-Questions, comments from the Board? We have a public hearing scheduled
on this project as well. Is there anyone in the audience that wishes to address the Board? Any
written comments, Laura?
PUBLIC HEARING OPEN
MRS. MOORE-No.
MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. We will open the public hearing and will close the public hearing.
PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED
MR. HUNSINGER-And let the record show no comments were received. We already
completed the SEAR review for this project.
MRS. MOORE-No, you did not. So there is a SEAR resolution in your packets.
MR. HUNSINGER-1 was wondering why we had the resolution. They submitted a Long Form.
Are there any items anyone identified that needs to, these would be any items of potentially
moderate to large impact?
MR. SCHONEWOLF-I don't believe so.
MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. If you want to make a resolution.
RESOLUTION APPROVING NEGATIVE DEC SUB # 5-2015 FISH & SCHMIDT
The applicant proposes <insert agenda description: Applicant proposes subdivision of a 14.65
acre parcel into 3 lots of 4.4, 5.8 & 4.5 acres. Pursuant to Chapter A-183 of the Zoning
Ordinance Subdivision of land shall be subject to Planning Board review and approval.
The Planning Board has determined that the proposed project and Planning Board action is
subject to review under the State Environmental Quality Review Act;
The proposed action considered by this Board is Unlisted in the Department of Environmental
Conservation Regulations implementing the State Environmental Quality Review Act and the
regulations of the Town of Queensbury;
No Federal or other agencies are involved;
Part 1 of the Long EAF has been completed by the applicant;
Upon review of the information recorded on this EAF, it is the conclusion of the Town of
Queensbury Planning Board as lead agency that this project will result in no significant adverse
impacts on the environment, and, therefore, an environmental impact statement need not be
prepared. Accordingly, this negative declaration is issued.
MOTION TO GRANT A NEGATIVE DECLARATION SUBDIVISION NO. 5-2015 LYNNE FISH &
WENDY SCHMIDT, Introduced by Paul Schonewolf who moved for its adoption, seconded by
Stephen Traver:
Per the draft resolution prepared by staff.
1. Part 11 of the Long EAF has been reviewed and completed by the Planning Board.
8
(Queensbury Planning Board 06/02/2015)
Duly adopted this 2nd day of June, 2015, by the following vote:
MR. HUNSINGER-1 just have a clarification. Is this Subdivision 5 or 6? Because it's listed as
both.
MRS. MOORE-Sorry, it is 5.
AYES: Mr. Traver, Mr. Ferone, Mr. Magowan, Ms. White, Mr. Schonewolf, Mr. Deeb, Mr.
Hunsinger
NOES: NONE
RESOLUTION APPROVING PRELIM. STAGE SUB # 5-2015 FISH & SCHMIDT
A subdivision application has been made to the Queensbury Planning Board for the following:
Applicant proposes subdivision of a 14.65 acre parcel into 3 lots of 4.4, 5.8 & 4.5 acres.
Pursuant to Chapter A-183 of the Zoning Ordinance Subdivision of land shall be subject to
Planning Board review and approval.
Pursuant to relevant sections of the Town of Queensbury Zoning Code-Chapter A-183, the
Planning Board has determined that this proposal satisfies the requirements as stated in the
Zoning Code;
The requirements of the State Environmental Quality Review Act have been considered and the
Planning Board has adopted a SEQRA Negative Declaration;
A public hearing was scheduled and held on 5-21-2015 and tabled to 6-2-2015;
This application is supported with all documentation, public comment, and application material in
the file of record;
MOTION TO APPROVE PRELIMINARY STAGE SUBDIVISION NO. 5-2015 LYNNE FISH &
WENDY SCHMIDT, Introduced by Paul Schonewolf who moved for its adoption, seconded by
David Deeb:
Per the draft resolution provided by staff.
Duly adopted this 2nd day of June, 2015, by the following vote:
AYES: Mr. Deeb, Mr. Schonewolf, Ms. White, Mr. Magowan, Mr. Ferone, Mr. Traver, Mr.
Hunsinger
NOES: NONE
MR. HUNSINGER-And finally would anyone like to put forward a motion for Final Stage
approval?
RESOLUTION APPROVING FINAL STAGE SUB # 5-2015 FISH & SCHMIDT
A subdivision application has been made to the Queensbury Planning Board for the following:
Applicant proposes subdivision of a 14.65 acre parcel into 3 lots of 4.4, 5.8 & 4.5 acres.
Pursuant to Chapter A-183 of the Zoning Ordinance Subdivision of land shall be subject to
Planning Board review and approval.
Pursuant to relevant sections of the Town of Queensbury Zoning Code-Chapter A-183, the
Planning Board has determined that this proposal satisfies the requirements as stated in the
Zoning Code;
A public hearing was scheduled and held on 5-21-2015 & tabled to 6-2-2015;
This application is supported with all documentation, public comment, and application material in
the file of record;
MOTION TO APPROVE FINAL STAGE SUBDIVISION NO. 5-2015 LYNNE FISH & WENDY
SCHMIDT, Introduced by Paul Schonewolf who moved for its adoption, seconded by Brad
Magowan:
Per the draft resolution provided by staff conditioned upon the following:
1. Waiver requests granted: stormwater mgmt., grading, landscaping & lighting plans;
9
(Queensbury Planning Board 06/02/2015)
2. The limits of clearing will constitute a no-cut buffer zone, orange construction fencing shall
be installed around these areas and field verified by Community Development staff
3. Engineering sign-off required prior to signature of Planning Board Chairman.
4. The applicant must submit a copy of the following to the Town:
a) The project NOI (Notice of Intent) for coverage under the current NYSDEC SPDES
General Permit or for coverage under an individual SPDES prior to the start of any site
work.
b) The project NOT (Notice of Termination) upon completion of the project; and
5. The applicant must maintain on their project site, for review by staff:
a) The approved final that have been stamped by the Town Zoning Administrator. These
plans must include the project SWPPP (Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan) when
such a plan was prepared and approved; and
b) The project NOI and proof of coverage under the current NYSDEC SPDES General
Permit, or an individual SPDES permit issued for the project.
6. Final approved plans, in compliance with the Subdivision, must be submitted to the
Community Development Department before any further review by the Zoning Administrator
or Building and Codes personnel.
7. Adherence to the items outlined in the follow-up letter sent with this resolution
Duly adopted this 2nd day of June, 2015, by the following vote:
AYES: Mr. Magowan, Mr. Schonewolf, Ms. White, Mr. Deeb, Mr. Traver, Mr. Ferone, Mr.
Hunsinger
NOES: NONE
MR. HUNSINGER-You're all set. Good luck. Thank you.
SITE PLAN NO. 31-2015 SEAR UNLISTED THOMAS KUBRICKY AGENT(S) ERNEST
STANLEY OWNER(S) SAME AS APPLICANT ZONING WR LOCATION 53
ROCKHURST ROAD APPLICANT PROPOSES 1,062 SQ. FT. OF HARD SURFACING - 600
SQ. FT. PARKING AND 402 SQ. FT. OF SIDEWALK. THE 912 SQ. FT. +/- PORTION IS
WITHIN 50 FEET OF THE SHORELINE. PURSUANT TO CHAPTER 179-6-050 OF THE
ZONING ORDINANCE FILLING WITHIN 50 FEET OF THE SHORELINE SHALL BE SUBJECT
TO PLANNING BOARD REVIEW AND APPROVAL. CROSS REFERENCE AV 22-15, AV 1-
15, SP 53-14, AV 67-14 WARREN CO. REFERRAL MAY 2015 APA, CEA, OTHER L G
PARK CEA, APA & NWI WETLANDS LOT SIZE 0.14 ACRES TAX MAP NO. 227.13-2-24
SECTION 179-6-050
TOM KUBRICKY, PRESENT
MR. HUNSINGER-Laura?
MR. MOORE-The applicant proposes installation of a parking and sidewalk area. The Zoning
Board did grant this project with reductions. Now the sidewalks are three by thirty-one.
They're reduced in width by three feet, and all the materials are to be permeable, pavement and
permeable pavers for each of those items, and that information the applicant has shared with
me. I do have drawings of those.
MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. Thank you. Good evening.
MR. KUBRICKY-How are you doing? Tom Kubricky.
MR. HUNSINGER-Do you have anything to add?
MR. KUBRICKY-No, I don't, really. Yes, we tightened it up like the other people asked. I'm
asking for your permission to proceed forward. The Town of Queensbury has been a big help
to me, Laura especially.
MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. Any questions, comments from the Board?
MR. MAGOWAN-No. I want to thank you for changing most of it over and shrinking it down.
It's a good compromise.
10
(Queensbury Planning Board 06/02/2015)
MR. KUBRICKY-No problem. I appreciate you letting me do it.
MR. MAGOWAN-But remember, we see every weed you pull.
MR. KUBRICKY-1 hear you.
MR. HUNSINGER-Anything else from the Board? We do have a public hearing scheduled for
this project as well. Is there anyone that wishes to address the Board? Any new written
comments? Because we had a comment from the Water Keeper before.
PUBLIC HEARING OPENED
MRS. MOORE-Right. So I had a previous comment, and I can't remember if this was entered
into the record. It was a phone call conversation with the resident at 49 Rockhurst Drive,
Margaret Colacino who expressed concern about stormwater management, new impervious
surface and the amount of relief requested.
MR. HUNSINGER-Was it since the 21St of May?
MRS. MOORE-Yes.
MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. We did talk about it. Yes. Okay. If there's no other comments, I
will close the public hearing.
PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED
MR. HUNSINGER-We have a SEAR resolution. This is an Unlisted action. Are there any
environmental concerns that we have not already addressed or discussed?
MR. TRAVER-1 don't think so.
MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. There is a draft SEAR resolution in your package.
RESOLUTION APPROVING NEGATIVE DECLARATION SP #31-2015 KUBRICKY
Applicant proposes installation of parking and sidewalk areas on a 5,587 sq. ft. parcel. A portion
of the installation is within 50 feet of the shoreline. Pursuant to Chapter 179-6-050 of the Zoning
Ordinance Filling within 50 feet of the shoreline shall be subject to Planning Board review and
approval.
The Planning Board has determined that the proposed project and Planning Board action is
subject to review under the State Environmental Quality Review Act;
The proposed action considered by this Board is Unlisted in the Department of Environmental
Conservation Regulations implementing the State Environmental Quality Review Act and the
regulations of the Town of Queensbury;
No Federal or other agencies are involved;
Part 1 of the Short EAF has been completed by the applicant;
Upon review of the information recorded on this EAF, it is the conclusion of the Town of
Queensbury Planning Board as lead agency that this project will result in no significant adverse
impacts on the environment, and, therefore, an environmental impact statement need not be
prepared. Accordingly, this negative declaration is issued.
MOTION TO GRANT A NEGATIVE DECLARATION SITE PLAN NO. 31-2015 THOMAS
KUBRICKY, Introduced by Paul Schonewolf who moved for its adoption, seconded by George
Ferone:
Per the draft resolution provided by staff.
1. Part 11 of the Short EAF has been reviewed and completed by the Planning Board.
Duly adopted this 2nd day of June, 2015, by the following vote:
AYES: Ms. White, Mr. Schonewolf, Mr. Deeb, Mr. Ferone, Mr. Magowan, Mr. Traver, Mr.
Hunsinger
11
(Queensbury Planning Board 06/02/2015)
NOES: NONE
MR. KUBRICKY-Thank you guys very much.
MR. HUNSINGER-We're not done yet. There's also a draft resolution for Site Plan approval in
our package. If anyone would like to move that.
RESOLUTION APPROVING SP # 31-2015 THOMAS KUBRICKY
The applicant has submitted an application to the Planning Board for Site Plan approval
pursuant to Article 9 of the Town zoning Ordinance for: Applicant proposes installation of
parking and sidewalk areas on a 5,587 sq. ft. parcel. A portion of the installation is within 50 feet
of the shoreline. Pursuant to Chapter 179-6-050 of the Zoning Ordinance Filling within 50 feet of
the shoreline shall be subject to Planning Board review and approval.
As required by General Municipal Law Section 239-m the site plan application was referred to
the Warren County Planning Department for its recommendation;
Pursuant to relevant sections of the Town of Queensbury Zoning Code-Chapter 179-9-080, the
Planning Board has determined that this proposal satisfies the requirements as stated in the
Zoning Code;
On 5-19-2015 the PB made a recommendation to the ZBA; on 5-20-2015 the ZBA approved the
variance request(s);
The Planning Board has reviewed the potential environmental impacts of the project, pursuant to
the State Environmental Quality Review Act (SEQRA) and adopted a SEQRA Negative
Declaration - Determination of Non-Significance;
The Planning Board opened a public hearing on the Site plan application on 5-21-2015 and
continued the public hearing to 6-2-2015 when it was closed;
The Planning Board has reviewed the application materials submitted by the applicant and all
comments made at the public hearing and submitted in writing through and including 6-2-2015;
The Planning Board determines that the application complies with the review considerations and
standards set forth in Article 9 of the Zoning Ordinance for Site Plan approval;
MOTION TO APPROVE SITE PLAN NO. 31-2015 THOMAS KUBRICKY, Introduced by Paul
Schonewolf who moved for its adoption, seconded by Brad Magowan:
1. As per the draft resolution prepared by Staff and the changes made by the ZBA (see a
through c):
a) All hard surfaces will be covered in permeable surfaces, whether it may be permeable
blacktop or permeable pavers. The driveway area will be permeable material, blacktop
or paver, the 600 foot driveway.
b) The sidewalk will be permeable pavers. The sidewalk will also be reduced to a width of
three feet.
c) There will be a removal of a six foot by seven foot, or 42 sq. ft. platform that was
proposed.
2. Adherence to the items outlined in the follow-up letter sent with this resolution
Duly adopted this 2nd day of June, 2015, by the following vote:
MR. HUNSINGER-And, Laura, you said you had a revised plot on file?
MRS. MOORE-1 do.
MR. HUNSINGER-Okay.
AYES: Mr. Ferone, Mr. Traver, Ms. White, Mr. Schonewolf, Mr. Deeb, Mr. Magowan, Mr.
Hunsinger
NOES: NONE
MR. HUNSINGER-You're all set. Good luck.
12
(Queensbury Planning Board 06/02/2015)
MR. KUBRICKY-Thanks again, guys.
MR. DEEB-Good luck.
MR. HUNSINGER-We have two items under New Business.
NEW BUSINESS:
SITE PLAN NO. 29-2015 SEAR TYPE TYPE UNLISTED GARVEY KIA AGENT(S) NACE
ENGINEERING OWNER(S) TOWBAR, LLC ZONING CI LOCATION JUST NORTH OF
GARVEY VW APPLICANT PROPOSES CONSTRUCTION OF NEW 18,000 SQ. FT. AUTO
DEALERSHIP AND ASSOCIATED PARKING LOT, ACCESS ROAD AND SITE WORK.
PURSUANT TO CHAPTER 179-3-040 OF THE ZONING ORDINANCE NEW RETAIL USE
(AUTO SALES) SHALL BE SUBJECT TO PLANNING BOARD REVIEW AND APPROVAL.
CROSS REFERENCE PZ 4-03 (LI TO HC) WARREN CO. REFERRAL MAY 2015 APA,
CEA, OTHER DEC & NWI WETLANDS LOT SIZE 20.4 ACRES TAX MAP NO. 303.6-1-4
SECTION 179-3-040
TOM NACE, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT; SEAN GARVEY, PRESENT
MR. HUNSINGER-Laura?
MRS. MOORE-This applicant proposes construction of an 18,000 sq. ft. new auto dealership.
The new building to be located on Quaker Road adjacent to the existing dealership owned by
the applicant. The site will be for KIA autos and the adjacent site is for VW autos. The site is
proposed to have three areas of vehicle display and 83 parking spaces. The site will have an
interconnection with the adjoining dealership property. The applicant explained that the vehicle
delivery trucks for both dealerships will be handled on the KIA site and deliveries will no longer
occur on Quaker Road. The applicant has indicated infrastructure will be installed to connect to
the municipal water and sewer, and I have confirmation of that. The applicant has, the existing
fire hydrant on the opposite side of the property is to be used for emergency. The applicant has
proposed landscaping on the exterior of the parking areas and so the applicant has requested a
waiver from the internal landscaping to address snow removal during the winter months. The
remainder of the information addresses lighting and landscaping.
MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. Thank you. Good evening.
MR. NACE-Good evening. For the record, Tom Nace, Nace Engineering and Sean Garvey.
We were here a couple of weeks ago and went through the project. I think we've put everything
up on the table. So unless there are questions, I have nothing more new to add.
MR. GARVEY-He won't let me say anything.
MR. MAGOWAN-What did I tell you about that tie?
MR. GARVEY-1 wore the same tie. Someone liked it the last time.
MR. HUNSINGER-Questions, comments from the Board?
MS. WHITE-Just the comment on appreciating the safety of bringing that off of Quaker Road.
Having driven down there.
MR. GARVEY-It's been an Achilles heel for us for a long time.
MS. WHITE-So I think this is, you know, it has other things going for it, but that's a real strong.
MR. GARVEY-Thank you very much.
MR. TRAVER-1 was wondering about the waiver for the pole height. You want it to be 25
instead of 20. The concern with the added height, again, is light pollution. We try and cut
down on that. Does it really need to be 25?
MR. NACE-Well, we get much better distribution. Your hot spots are not so concentrated. It
spreads the light out a little bit different. You end up with less fixtures.
MR. TRAVER-1 know. I mean, we hear that frequently, and we're not going to 30 to 35 feet.
Those are the ones that really spread light off site. Twenty-five feet, we feel, is fairly
reasonable.
13
(Queensbury Planning Board 06/02/2015)
MR. GARVEY-1 know you guys have granted that in the past. Our Hyundai site has 30 foot
poles. It was built about 12 years ago. All the light's been changed to the diode lighting. We
reduced our carbon footprint at all of our stores by 100,000 pounds, and as you know with the
diode lighting it's 180 degrees down, and we felt there'd be less obstructions there on the site
also. So we thought it was a compromise. I really wanted 30.
MR. TRAVER-Okay. Thank you.
MR. MAGOWAN-Thanks for being honest.
MR. HUNSINGER-1 just wanted to comment on the interior landscaping waiver that's been
requested. I really like the way that you've laid out the parking plans with the landscaping
concentrated on the edges, and, again, I think it's a good compromise. I think too often when
we try to have small islands of landscaping they end up getting neglected. I think it's better to
have larger ones that are better represented.
MR. GARVEY-Thank you, Chris.
MR. HUNSINGER-Any other comments, questions from the Board? We have a public hearing
scheduled for this project as well. Is there anyone that wishes to address the Board? Any
written comments?
PUBLIC HEARING OPENED
MRS. MOORE-There are no written comments.
MR. HUNSINGER-Any other questions or comments? One of the advantages of having a
previous meeting, we've pretty much addressed everything.
MR. GARVEY-I'm an adjacent landowner and I'm all for the project.
MR. HUNSINGER-It's on the record.
MR. DEEB-You should do standup, Sean.
MR. GARVEY-1 wouldn't make enough money.
MR. HUNSINGER-We do have a draft SEAR resolution in the package.
RESOLUTION APPROVING NEGATIVE DECLARATION SP #29-2015 GARVEY KIA
The applicant proposes construction of new 18,000 sq. auto dealership and associated parking
lot, access road and site work. Pursuant to Chapter 179-3-040 of the Zoning Ordinance New
Retail use (auto sales) shall be subject to Planning Board review and approval.
The Planning Board has determined that the proposed project and Planning Board action is
subject to review under the State Environmental Quality Review Act;
The proposed action considered by this Board is Unlisted in the Department of Environmental
Conservation Regulations implementing the State Environmental Quality Review Act and the
regulations of the Town of Queensbury;
No Federal or other agencies are involved;
Part 1 of the Short EAF has been completed by the applicant;
Upon review of the information recorded on this EAF, it is the conclusion of the Town of
Queensbury Planning Board as lead agency that this project will result in no significant adverse
impacts on the environment, and, therefore, an environmental impact statement need not be
prepared. Accordingly, this negative declaration is issued.
MOTION TO GRANT A NEGATIVE DECLARATION SITE PLAN NO. 29-2015 GARVEY KIA,
Introduced by Paul Schonewolf who moved for its adoption, seconded by Jamie White:
Duly adopted this 2nd day of June, 2015, by the following vote:
AYES: Ms. White, Mr. Schonewolf, Mr. Deeb, Mr. Ferone, Mr. Magowan, Mr. Traver, Mr.
Hunsinger
14
(Queensbury Planning Board 06/02/2015)
NOES: NONE
MR. HUNSINGER-And there's also a resolution for grant or deny in our package, if anyone
would like to move that.
M S. GAGLIARDI-Excuse me, Chris. Did you close the public hearing?
MR. HUNSINGER-1 thought I did. If I didn't, we did now. Thank you.
PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED
RESOLUTION APPROVING SP #29-2015 GARVEY KIA
The applicant has submitted an application to the Planning Board for Site Plan approval
pursuant to Article 9 of the Town zoning Ordinance for: Construction of new 18,000 sq. auto
dealership and associated parking lot, access road and site work. Pursuant to Chapter 179-3-
040 of the Zoning Ordinance New Retail use (auto sales) shall be subject to Planning Board
review and approval.
Pursuant to relevant sections of the Town of Queensbury Zoning Code-Chapter 179-9-080, the
Planning Board has determined that this proposal satisfies the requirements as stated in the
Zoning Code;
As required by General Municipal Law Section 239-m the site plan application was referred to
the Warren County Planning Department for its recommendation;
The Planning Board has reviewed the potential environmental impacts of the project, pursuant to
the State Environmental Quality Review Act (SEQRA) and adopted a SEQRA Negative
Declaration - Determination of Non-Significance;
The Planning Board opened a public hearing on the Site plan application on 5-21-2015 and
continued the public hearing to 6-2-2015 when it was closed,
The Planning Board has reviewed the application materials submitted by the applicant and all
comments made at the public hearing and submitted in writing through and including 6-2-2015;
The Planning Board determines that the application complies with the review considerations and
standards set forth in Article 9 of the Zoning Ordinance for Site Plan approval,
MOTION TO APPROVE SITE PLAN NO. 29-2015 GARVEY KIA, Introduced by Paul
Schonewolf who moved for its adoption, seconded by David Deeb:
Per the draft resolution provided by staff conditioned upon the following conditions:
1) Waivers request granted: pole height of 25 feet in lieu of required 20 feet; interior
landscaping.
2) Engineering sign-off required prior to signature of Zoning Administrator.
3) Adherence to the items outlined in the follow-up letter sent with this resolution.
Duly adopted this 2nd day of June, 2015, by the following vote:
MR. SCHONEWOLF-Engineering comments have been received.
MR. NACE-No, it has not. You can make it contingent upon that.
AYES: Mr. Deeb, Mr. Schonewolf, Ms. White, Mr. Magowan, Mr. Ferone, Mr. Traver, Mr.
Hunsinger
NOES: NONE
MR. NACE-Thank you.
MR. HUNSINGER-You're all set. Good luck.
MR. DEEB-Good luck.
MR. GARVEY-Thank you.
15
(Queensbury Planning Board 06/02/2015)
MR. HUNSINGER-You're welcome. The next project on the agenda is also New Business.
SPECIAL USE PERMIT 32-2015 SEAR TYPE UNLISTED THOMAS JONES & BRENDON
ROZELL D/B/A DEVOCEAN WATER SPORTS OWNER(S) FRANK J. PARILLO ZONING
RR-5; LC-42 LOCATION 2036 BAY ROAD APPLICANT PROPOSES TO UTILIZE A
PORTION OF THE EXISTING MARINA - 4 DECK SLIPS AND 8 LAUNCH PASSES TO
OPERATE A JET-SKI TOUR COMPANY. NO CHANGES TO SITE. PURSUANT TO
CHAPTER 179-10 OF THE ZONING ORDINANCE ADDITIONAL USE TO A MARINA SHALL
BE SUBJECT TO PLANNING BOARD REVIEW AND APPROVAL. CROSS REFERENCE
PARILLO CLASS A MARINA WARREN CO. REFERRAL MAY 2015 APA, CEA, OTHER
APA, NWI WETLANDS, L G PARK CEA LOT SIZE 24.77 ACRES (PORTION) TAX MAP
NO. 252.-1-65 SECTION 179-10
THOMAS JONES & BRENDON ROZELL, PRESENT
MR. HUNSINGER-Laura?
MRS. MOORE-Okay. This applicant proposes to add a use to an existing Class A Marina,
Dunham's Bay Marina to allow a jet ski tour company to operate out of the marina. The
applicant has indicated 4 dock slips and 8 launch passes will be utilized for the business. The
business has office and storage facility in Glens Falls and the Marina is only used for launching
the jet skis. The applicant has met with the Lake George Park Commission. They will share
with you the information that they discussed at the Park Commission meeting. I do have it on
file that I can display so that that information can be shared with the audience and the Board
members.
MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. Thank you. Good evening.
MR. JONES-Good evening. For the record again my name is Thomas Jones.
MR. ROZELL-And Brendon Rozell. So as we, last meeting we sat down and explained the
touring company.
MR. HUNSINGER-Right.
MR. ROZELL-About, you know, family friendly adventure tour out on the lake. In a similar
fashion, as you can see, as the tour boats. We're the ones in red on this. We went to the Lake
George Park Commission meeting. We met with them. We got a fairly, actually a pretty
decent response from them. They were going back to the lawyer just to make sure that
everything, as far as the permitting goes. If we can hold the permits in our name, we're waiting
to hear back on their decision on that, but as far as everything else goes they were pretty
excited to work with.
MR. JONES-There were some concerns raised in the meeting as well as some letters that were
sent in to the Lake George Park Commission as well as the Queensbury Town board. I did get
a chance to review some of those, so I would like to address some of the concerns they did
have. Number One on the list I guess would be noise. Like stated before, we did do intense
research on the machines. We did find Seadoo to actually have a patent component. It's called
a DC valve component. It literally makes this jet-ski specifically one of the quietest boats on the
water, including all boats, and as stated before they are, you know, user friendly to the point
where one click, they do move in a forward motion four miles an hour producing no wake, and
obeying all the speed zones that are in place in the bay through the channel and the bridge. So
as well that was a concern. Some of the traffic, homeowners were also concerned about the
high volume of traffic, things like that, as well as speeding. As addressed before, you know, we
do take about a half hour, 15 minute on land, 50 minute through the bay, using the four mile an
hour zone to get acquainted with the machines. We fully respect all the speed limits. We want
our customers to understand the safety all the way through the lake, you know, not just in that
bay. Being near land, 500 feet off shore, we need to be aware, as user, you know, to obey
speed zones and things like that. As long term locals, we take pride in the lake as well.
Therefore, to help with the extensive boat use, we decided to cut our fleet down 25%. We were
asking for eight launch passes to utilize for possibly eight machines for our tour company. We
are willing to operate with six. Therefore, if, we will have five tour boats for our guides. One
guide, PWC, for our use, and then one public vessel, like we were saying before, will be leading,
one guide in the front, one guide in the back. We would more or less like the boat out front
because it's more visible, and then we would keep them in an orderly fashion, control speed, A.
B, everyone's in synch. We're not out there wandering or anything like that. So with Dunham's
Bay, we, like was stated before, we will be holding four dock slips. So potentially four boats.
Also we will have launch passes for each one of our jet-skis. So six total. That adds up to ten
16
(Queensbury Planning Board 06/02/2015)
potential boats, but in all reality we're actually operating with seven. So we knock three boats
out of the water because of the space we would be taking. All the, there is no addition to the
marina. These are all just utilizing what's already established. We don't want to bump up any
of the permits on their end. We just want to hold the permit in our name just to use, but at the
same time it's more of like a lease, you know, storefront lease out of a building. Also a concern
was, you know, a great concern was brought up in the Lake George Park Commission about site
location, kind of where our docks are going to be. We are located in the back. Our jet-skis will
be pulled out of the water every night, just for the integrity of the machines, as well as the lake.
In case any storms rock in or anything like that we have even a boating accident, our machines
won't be there. So, all in all, about 1.5 to 2 hours a day they'll actually be at the dock slips
themselves, and we'll be pulling them out. There's also a boat inspection site right on there,
right at the site. So, you know, for any reason we can always have them checked out every
time we pull them out, even though they will be tagging them. Another main concern is the
milfoil spread. Everyone, you know, should be well aware of this that lives on the lake or uses
the lake. After researching the plan, you know, we all have a concern about this. So looking
through the Lake George efforts and projects that they've actually established on their website,
you know, it is quite all over the place and in certain main bays you have actually, you know,
scatter plots of the main bays that they did in the last couple of years. I can provide them for the
Board to look at, but as you can see, this is actually Dunham's Bay, the red being the most
current year, the yellow being the previous year. So we're actually in Dunham's Bay. It has
subsided somewhat over the years. This coming year they will not be actually taking care of the
site specifically. They consider it under control now. They will be actually where we enter the
bay there's a site there that they will be actually cleaning up or going in there to take care of.
So our main exit would be already managed, and then at the same time we have this diagram to
basically try to avoid it. Also from the research that we found, you know, we do have downtown
Lake George. It is fairly overwhelmed, but at the same time we are not allowed into the bay.
So that kind of eliminates that. We have Harris Bay. They're kind of, their whole exit here, you
know, it's kind of hard to get by without, you know, coming in contact with it, and then we have
Warner Bay and Huddle Bay, and they all have it as well. The one fortunate thing about our bay
is that we can avoid it, you know, we can go around it. It is basically hugging the shoreline on
the left side when exiting on the right side and when entering. It did also provide kind of like the
pounds they took out for 2014. It ranges anywhere from 3,000 pounds to it looks like 59,000
pounds, or, I mean, I'm sorry, 21,000 pounds. Dunham's Bay is the lowest at 3,050, and then
our max would be Warner at 15,513. I apologize, Harris Bay with 21,000.
AUDIENCE MEMBER-Sorry, what do those figures represent pounds of?
MR. JONES-Yes, they represent pounds.
MR. ROZELL-The pounds of milfoil that have been removed from the lake in the last year in
those specific bays. Dunham's Bay was actually the least overpopulated of the milfoil in the six
major bays that are effected by pretty significant.
MR. HUNSINGER-I'm sorry, the public hearing's not open yet. You can ask questions later.
MR. JONES-Also they have another chart here that, sites that have remained clear at least three
seasons, sites managed by the Fund. The sites under the Fund management is actually in the
Dunham's Bay, but at the same time it's considered under control and they're moving forward in
other locations to take care of for the next couple of years. As you can see it's not, Dunham's
Bay is down here, and it is not as one of the top density sites on the lake. I know it can be
perceived as so sometimes, but it's not. So actually it did help us out, knowing all this
knowledge now that if we are out on tour, we will avoid coming in contact with any of these other
bays or things like that. We know where it is. It's hard to prevent, but we can help prevent the
spreading. So we're doing all efforts to avoid all contact with that. I mean, yes, that basically
addressed all the concerns that I saw within the letters, but we'd open the Board for any
questions maybe we didn't cover from the last meeting or now that maybe you thought of.
MR. HUNSINGER-Questions, comments from the Board? What I was looking for, you
mentioned a couple of times this evening as well as at the last meeting, how quiet these Seadoo
machines are. I was looking for the actual specifications, the decibel ratings. Did you have
those?
MR. ROZELL-We do not have them currently with us.
MR. MAGOWAN-Well, you've got two out in the parking lot, right? Well, bring one right in here,
cranker `er up.
MR. JONES-If anyone really has concerns we'll take you out on it.
17
(Queensbury Planning Board 06/02/2015)
MR. ROZELL-We'll put it this way to you. We drove by two ladies out on their decks reading a
book and not a one of them picked their head up and even noticed we were going by.
MR. JONES-The little girls on the dock actually realized after we passed and started waving. I
thought it was pretty astounding. I was like, okay, and also to avoid milfoil we are going at, you
know, more or less the center of the bay. We're trying to stay away from, you know, both sides.
MR. TRAVER-Mr. Chairman, as you know I spend a great deal of time on the lake and I think
the test, not to these specific models, but the general test characteristics of the ones
represented here, most importantly being four stroke power plants versus two stroke, there's a
dramatic difference in the noise. The ones, at least that I find, I think most people find
particularly annoying are the two stroke that have the very high pitched sort of screaming, in
addition to contributing to the pollution of the lake. Four stroke motor is very quiet. It's
essentially a smaller version of the same motor that's in my boat, that's in Don's boat, you know,
so it's, particularly when they're controlled, I don't think that sound, I don't see sound, in this
case, as an issue, if they're monitoring the group as they say they will.
MR. ROZELL-We have a four winds 20 foot bow rider that the two of these next to that, and our
boat's not a loud boat by any means on the water. It's an in board out board. It's not a loud
boat, and these are, they don't even sound like they're on.
MR. JONES-We like the fact that we can communicate with the customers over the engine.
That's a big safety thing for us as well. We want them to know what we're saying.
MR. DEEB-Well, that's pretty important. The question I have is what if you get a rogue rider
and they decide that they're going to do a little hot dogging on their own? How are you going to
rein them in?
MR. JONES-Each one of the skis has, they're built for basically touring. Each one of the skis
has a touring key. You pop it on, there's no other option. They can only go 30. To get to 30 it
takes quite a while. As you can see out in the parking lot, if you did get a glimpse, we did
purchase for our guides one step up. It's basically for towing. So it has more power to tow, but
at the same time you're not going to get away from it.
MR. DEEB-So he can be the sheriff and go after them?
MR. JONES-Yes.
MR. ROZELL-As well as having the boat on the water, if somebody is acting that way, they will
be removed.
MR. DEEB-Everyone once in a while you always get that one.
MR. JONES-We try to take that into consideration as for, A, we can tow it and, B, we can get
them to the boat, and, hey, you're done riding, but you're still on the tour. Try to keep
everybody happy at the same time.
MR. DEEB-Okay. Thanks.
MR. TRAVER-One question I had, and I apologize if this was addressed at the last meeting that
I missed, but the, you're utilizing the marina facilities. This is going to be a bit of a change in the
customer or consumer traffic, if you will. I'm not familiar with the facilities there in terms of
restrooms and so on. Will that facility be able to accommodate the traffic, increase in traffic?
MR. ROZELL-Absolutely. They've got 135 parking spots for our customers. We've planned,
with the timing of our tours, having the morning tour and the afternoon tour, where our usage of
the boat launch will be minimal at times that aren't peak hours for them, as well as being able to
be docked in a location that's out of the way from them.
MR. TRAVER-What about the restroom facilities?
MR. ROZELL-The restrooms, they have onsite restrooms that are more than capable of
handling it.
MR. TRAVER-Okay, and trash and so on?
MR. ROZELL-Onsite trash, everything.
MR. TRAVER-Okay.
18
(Queensbury Planning Board 06/02/2015)
MR. SCHONEWOLF-You've got more port-a-johns than you ever had now that you've got the
testing group there. Because they're there all day long.
MR. HUNSINGER-So in terms of the boat wash requirements, how will that work with your jet-
skis?
MR. ROZELL-As long as the jet-skis do not go into another body of water, they come off the
trailer, they get a steel cable zip tie that goes from the trailer to the skis every night, that
according to the Lake George Park Commission is reason enough to believe that it hasn't been
in another body of water. So we take them out of the water at night. They'll get that tie in the
morning, they bay will cut them off, the marina will cut them on, we launch them, and we do not,
unless we're in need of, you know, cleaning some algae off the side of them or something, we
would not need any type of boat wash. It would just be a simple pull them out and put them
back into the water.
MR. SCHONEWOLF-Which is what they do with some fishing boats now.
MR. ROZELL-Absolutely. I mean, there's numerous people all across the lake that do.
MR. HUNSINGER-Yes, I didn't know how it worked. That's why I asked the question.
MR. SCHONEWOLF-Once they put that thing on there, it's not going to come off.
MR. ROZELL-You need a pair of wire snips to break it off. So, and if you don't have anything on
there you've got to take it back to the inspection facility.
MR. HUNSINGER-So does someone witness it when you re-launch them the next day?
MR. ROZELL-Yes, there is someone at the launch, as well as the inspection daily.
MR. HUNSINGER-Any other questions or comments? So we do have a public hearing
scheduled this evening. How many people wish to address the Board? Just a few. Okay. I
was just trying to get a sense for how many people wanted to address the Board, to see if we
needed to limit the comments. If you want to give up the table, please, and, Mr. Salvador,
would you like to be first? You raised your hand first.
PUBLIC HEARING OPENED
JOHN SALVADOR
MR. SALVADOR-Good evening. For the record my name is John Salvador. As you are aware,
I own a number of parcels of land and operate a business in the immediate vicinity of this
operation. I want to say from the outset, I have no objection to the offering of recreational
activity for the traveling public. That's a business I'm in, and providing it's done properly and in
the right place, it should not be harmful to the lake. However, the way this commercial jet-ski
program is being proposed, it will exacerbate the restrictions imposed by the 1973 enactment of
Section 39 of the State Navigation Law. This law was intended to restrict motor boat traffic in
certain locations on Lake George, the Dunham Bay estuary being one of them. Never properly
implemented and today totally disregarded. Going back to 1973, if you'll bear with me, the
State had put forth on the 1972 the first of its environmental bond acts, and a major portion of
the funds to be raised were to be used for land acquisition in the Adirondacks, and 1100 acres of
wetland in the Dunham Bay, Harris Bay, Warner Bay area was a major part of that land
acquisition program. After the bond act was enacted, there was a lot of lobbying being done to
support the acquisition of the Dunham Bay wetland, Harris Bay and others, and I'll read to you a
correspondence put forth by the environmental planning lobby with a Park Avenue address.
The State and independent biologists and ecologists have certified that these wetlands are an
integral and vital part of the whole ecological system of Lake George and should be preserved.
In addition to this, the home of the Bog Turtle and many other endangered species which are
becoming almost extinct. The president of the Lake George Association wrote a letter to our
newly elected congressman at that time, Jerry Solomon. Jerry Solomon, in 1972, 1973, went to
the State legislature. He was previously this Town's supervisor. The need for legislation which
will help to protect the fragile wetlands at the southern end of Lake George by placing limitations
upon the use of power boats on the shallow inlet streams of that area has long been evident to
all those who appreciate the important role the wetlands play in the Lake's ecology. Mr. Alton
Warner, president of the Lake George Association, penned a letter to the then Governor
Rockefeller. This area is one of the largest still unpolluted freshwater wetlands in New York
State and is high on ENCON's priority list. There have been abundant expert testimony by
biological scientists as to the fragility of the streams and retaining the entire area in a natural
19
(Queensbury Planning Board 06/02/2015)
state. Jerry Solomon issued a memorandum and distributed to the Governor for justification for
this bill saying it is well accepted that motor boats are extremely damaging to the bottom of
valuable wetlands and to plants growing in said wetlands and is endangeringly disturbing to the
wildlife in said wetlands. The purpose of this law is to protect wetland areas at the southern end
of Lake George which are not now part of the normal navigation traffic patterns on the lake, and
on and on it goes, and the Lake George Park Commission was also involved. Mr. Bill Bush who
was, as you know, the proprietor of Canoe Island Lodge, was Chairman of the Lake George
Park Commission and he wrote saying that the Park Commission was influential in drafting the
original bill with the Lake George Association for the protection of this valuable marshland.
Now the bill we're talking about became Section 39 of the Navigation Law which prohibits the
use of motor boat traffic in that estuary beyond a point 1800 feet from the face of the bridge.
MR. TRAVER-And there is a buoy that's labeled as such in there, that says no motor boats
beyond this point.
MR. SALVADOR-Where's that?
MR. TRAVER-In the, when you go under the bridge, I kayak up there fairly frequently. So I go
by it all the time. If you go under the bridge past the second set of docks, there's a buoy in the
middle of the stream, the middle of the channel there, that says no motor vessels.
MR. SALVADOR-The second set.
MR. TRAVER-Correct.
MR. SALVADOR-If you measure 1800 feet from the thread of the stream.
MR. TRAVER-So is your concern that this proposal will violate that warning buoy and that they'll
operate beyond the marked buoy?
MR. SALVADOR-There has been no enforcement of Section 39 from Day One. There's been a
lot of controversy about how we measure 1800 feet, and certainly you don't measure it as the
crow flies. That is in determinant. That can be in any direction.
MR. TRAVER-I understand that, and excuse me, Mr. Chairman, for asking questions, but the
docks, what I'm referring to as the second, and I think you are, too, the second set of docks in
that bay are pre-existing and not, I don't believe relevant to this particular application. We want
to inquire of the gentlemen if they intend to operate beyond the marked area. I understand your
concern that the buoy should be moved, but unless someone comes with an official capacity to
re-designate that area, we're dealing with what the applicant is dealing with before us tonight,
and so I ask again, if your concern is that they will operate beyond that buoy, why don't we ask
them and get it on the record that they will not, and that should address the concern, which I
think we all share, that as the water shallows, you have a motor vehicle, and these are
propellerless, but nevertheless they do disturb the water, and I understand and appreciate your
concern, but I think if we ask them, they probably don't tend to operate up in that area, and as I
say, I'm fairly familiar with it, and it's not really practical to operate up in there anyway, but
appreciate if that's your concern. If there's something else you're talking about, then please
proceed.
MR. SALVADOR-Yes, well, we are bringing it to the DEC's attention that the buoys are not
properly located, okay. We have mapped and put on file at the Warren County Clerk's Office a
map showing the location of 1800 feet from the face of the bridge as measured along the thread
of the stream. Now this is a navigation law. If somebody was to only require 1800 feet as the
crow flies, you could have made it an environmental conservation law on the land. This law
pertains to navigation. Navigation takes place on the water.
MR. SCHONEWOLF-John, that 1800 feet is in the water of Bolton Landing isn't it?
MR. SALVADOR-No, this is in the Town of Queensbury.
MR. SCHONEWOLF-When they drew that line across the swamp and put Bolton Landing on
one side of it and Queensbury on the other side of it, where does it cross?
MR. SALVADOR-The estuary is in the Town of Lake George. Excuse me, Queensbury. The
estuary is in, there's no question about that.
MR. SCHONEWOLF-Okay.
MR. SALVADOR-Okay.
20
(Queensbury Planning Board 06/02/2015)
MR. SCHONEWOLF-Most people don't know that most of the water out there is the Town of
Bolton Landing.
MR. TRAVER-No that's true, yes.
MR. SCHONEWOLF-And that has nothing to do with Queensbury.
MR. SALVADOR-1 have a couple of other points. With respect to your outline here, you say
that this is a SEAR Unlisted project. This is taking place in a Lake George designated Critical
Environmental Area, and I believe a Type I action is in order, in the CEA.
MR. SCHONEWOLF-No.
MR. HUNSINGER-No.
MR. TRAVER-1 think that's been evaluated by.
MR. HUNSINGER-The Zoning Administrator.
MR. SALVADOR-That's the problem. It's something you should give serious consideration to.
Okay.
MR. HUNSINGER-We will, thank you.
MR. SALVADOR-You say here that according to Chapter 179-10 of the Zoning Ordinance,
additional use to a marina. This is a new use in that marina, and consequently requires a Use
Variance. We don't have additional uses. We have new uses or existing uses.
MR. SCHONEWOLF-You have additional uses in yours. You bring all sorts of things in there.
Anybody who brings them into those docks is an additional use. Right?
MR. SALVADOR-This is, this operation, a tour boat and the jet-ski rental is a new operation.
MR. TRAVER-The business is taking place in Glens Falls. I think by the time they get to the
marina the operators have already, you know, they're not renting them at the marina. They're
business office is located, I believe, in Glens Falls. So by the time they get to the marina, my
interpretation of the application is that they are simply another person renting a boat. I could go
and rent a boat from a marina and drive up there and launch it and go out for the day and that
wouldn't be a new use for that marina. They'd be happy to see me.
MR. SALVADOR-No, it's the commercial use we're talking about.
MR. TRAVER-Well, so am 1.
MR. SALVADOR-But you would be permitted to rent that, whatever you're renting, from the
location you're renting it from. They have the permit.
MR. TRAVER-Right.
MR. SALVADOR-Okay. All right. The Lake George Park Commission has promulgated
regulations as of 1988, and they talk about restricted use zones, restricted use. That is a
specific designation in their regulations. They have designated as specific use zones, Sandy
Bay and Paradise Bay. This Dunham Bay estuary was legally a restricted use zone, and has
not been put into their regulations. Now, another regulation that the Commission has, and by
the way, we should mention that the Commission has not even listed this project for hearing.
These gentlemen appeared at the Commission meeting last week and presented their project
and there was a discussion amongst the Commission, but the public had no participation, was
not noticed.
MR. SCHONEWOLF-The public was noticed tonight. The public was noticed on this meeting
tonight.
MR. TRAVER-Yes, I think their application is pending.
MR. SALVADOR-Yours was, not the Commission.
MR. TRAVER-Yes, I think that's still pending. I don't think they have a permit.
21
(Queensbury Planning Board 06/02/2015)
MR. SALVADOR-It hasn't even come to be. The application has not been accepted for
discussion.
MR. TRAVER-Well, they can't operate without it. So any action we take or don't take is going to
be pending that approval.
MR. SCHONEWOLF-It's between them and the Commission. They have to get the permit.
MR. HUNSINGER-Yes.
MR. TRAVER-Don't you agree, Mr. Salvador? Do you disagree with that?
MR. SALVADOR-Pardon me?
MR. TRAVER-Don't you agree that they're required to receive permission, approval from the
Park Commission and that that's not in our jurisdiction?
MR. SALVADOR-Yes, definitely.
MR. SCHONEWOLF-Okay. Well, that's not our job. That's between them and the
Commission.
MR. SALVADOR-The Lake George Park Commission has a regulation specific to recreational
activities. One of them is personal water craft. Number Four, no person shall operate a PWC
on the waters of Lake George so as to knowingly annoy, disturb, injure or endanger the health,
comfort, repose or peace of any person.
MR. SCHONEWOLF-Are you claiming that this does that?
MR. SALVADOR-It may.
MR. SCHONEWOLF-It may. The sky might fall, too, but it's between them and the
Commission.
MR. SALVADOR-Okay.
MR. HUNSINGER-Yes, and we've heard from the applicants.
MR. SCHONEWOLF-There's a lot of people out there that need to get tickets.
MR. TRAVER-1 would add, too, that the applicant, in their materials, talks at some length about
the pre-ride training and the monitoring by two guides that's going to be taking place. I wish
every seadoo that's on the lake had two guides following them around to make sure they did
what they should.
MR. SALVADOR-Yes. As I said, I don't take issue with the operation. I take issue with the
location. Now in addition to being a Critical Environmental Area, it is often overlooked, these
wetlands are a part of the State Forest Preserve. Very special attention should be given to
what's going on. The Court of Appeals has ruled, a long time ago, that in the State Forest
Preserve the work of man shall not be seen. Those are the exact words.
MR. TRAVER-Excuse me, but another question. The docks that we're talking about for the
marina, both the first set and then the second set, aren't they subject to annual review and
permitting by the Park Commission?
MR. SALVADOR-As long as you pay your fee and get your permit.
MR. TRAVER-So you're saying that the Park Commission only wants to receive the money, they
don't investigate?
MR. SALVADOR-Yes.
MR. TRAVER-Well, there's those that might disagree with you.
MR. SCHONEWOLF-That's true, and they're going to raise the fee, you know, so.
MR. TRAVER-They are talking about raising the fee.
MR. SALVADOR-Yes, and I do want to emphasize that this is a new use. If you look at your
use tables, this is a new commercial activity in that estuary and needs a Use Variance.
22
(Queensbury Planning Board 06/02/2015)
MR. SCHONEWOLF-John, that's between the Commission and them.
MR. SALVADOR-Excuse me?
MR. SCHONEWOLF-I said those decisions are between the Commission and the applicant.
MR. SALVADOR-No, no, this is a Town issue.
MR. HUNSINGER-He's talking about the Town permit.
MR. SCHONEWOLF-The Town permit. Okay.
MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. Thank you. Did you want to be next, ma'am?
CAROL COLLINS
DR. COLLINS-Good evening.
MR. HUNSINGER-Good evening.
DR. COLLINS-My name is Dr. Carol Collins, and I'd like to read a letter written on behalf of the
Assembly Point Water Quality Coalition. "Dear Mr. Hunsinger: The Assembly Point Water
Quality Coalition opposes the Special Use Permit and fully supports the position, issues and
concerns of the Dunham's Bay Association in this matter. We also strongly believe that the
residents of Assembly Point should have been notified of this Special Use Permit. The 335
motor boats docked in Dunham's Bay are required to obey the 5 mile an hour speed limit in
Dunham's Bay. When these boats reach the opening of the Bay, the boats speed up and travel
at high speeds along the shores of Assembly Point creating noise, safety, drinking water and
erosion problems. The Special Use Permit would compound and magnify these problems at a
time when we should be reducing them. Remember this is not just an individual using a boat,
but a new business using these boats over and over again, each day and every day of the week.
As you well know, Dunham's Bay has long been a hot spot for invasive plants, and I might just
add here I'm an expert in invasives, an expert in Lake George invasives, and did the first
analysis of the Dunham's Bay milfoil invasion. Millions of dollars have been spent on this site
and others to remove milfoil and other invasives. More boats mean more problems for
Dunham's Bay and Lake George. What was represented earlier, to indicate that this was
probably the least, they were taking the least amount of milfoil out of the Bay, is probably a little,
is misleading, and because this is one of the most prone areas for milfoil, and has spent millions
in that area to get rid of milfoil to this point. It comes back in significant quantities every year.
What you may not know is that the Dunham's Bay Wetland is one of the more perturbed
ecosystems in Lake George. You'll probably notice this in your kayaking. Milfoil has invaded
the wetland. To date New York State has not addressed or removed any invasives in the
Wetland. Further, they have no plans to do so because it would be so costly. They really don't
know what to do. You've probably seen how when you go back in there in your kayak or even in
your boat just up to the first set of docks, it's overpowering. You can see it just coming in and
it's so congested in there. I mean, there's points where it's hard to paddle. It's hard to pull a
boat through in some places. You can see that bubbling and all those kinds of activities, and
that's reflective of the kind of deterioration in that water quality because of all these invasives.
So I can't stress enough how fragile Dunham's Bay is in terms of invasives, and how fragile the
wetlands is in terms of this. It just, I'm just stopping just thinking about it. Access of boats and
PWCs to the wetland has brought in these invasives plants creating serious water quality
problems and clogged waterways. The Special Use Permit would make the problem worse.
The Plan for the Future of Lake George recommended that wetlands be protected from boat
traffic. The entire wetland, not 1800 or anything else. In an article in the Post Star on
3/25/2003 it states it even clearer than what I'm saying. "Frank Perillo (stet), owner of a marina
on Dunham's Bay, said he supported the jet-ski ban, to the detriment of his own business.
"During the summer, we launch 50 to 75 jet-skis a week at a cost of $25 per craft," Perillo said.
"That's several thousand dollars each season. But I'd gladly give that up to get rid of them." In
the minutes from the Village of Lake George Planning Meeting held on 3/24/2003 it included the
following comment, Frank Perillo spoke in support of the moratorium ban stating that he is the
owner of Dunham's Bay docks and launch. The growing use of wet water crafts is a threat to the
safety of users. The noise is intolerable and the wave impact caused by waver runners running
in packs makes matters worse. Unquote. I think some of the points that John just made are
extremely valuable. This is a new use. Prior to this this was individual docks, individual
boaters. There was no sort of use like this before in Dunham's Bay. We've never had anything
like this. I really hope that you consider that, and consider the special AA quality of this lake
and that waterway. Thank you, and if you have any questions, I'd be happy to answer them.
23
(Queensbury Planning Board 06/02/2015)
MR. HUNSINGER-Thank you. Anyone else?
ROLF AHLERS
DR. AHLERS-Please distribute these. My name is Dr. Rolf Ahlers. I speak on behalf of the
Assembly Point Water Quality Coalition, supporting what Dr. Collins has just said. I wish to
express also opposition for the proposed new ski-jet business operating out of Dunham's Bay,
addressing specifically these points: 1. Boat traffic has generally increased for decades
especially in the lower portions of Lake George, specifically also out of Dunham Bay. 2. Lake
George is a public waterway with public rights of access. 3. Americans have a constitutionally
guaranteed "pursuit of happiness". 4. Increase of boat traffic has been affirmed by various
interests around Lake George, not least the mandate to promote economic growth. 5. That
economic growth has not only negative implications for the natural environment of Lake George.
6. For decades there has been talk about a "fine balance" between economic and
environmental, private and public interests. But the precise point of that "fine balance" has
never been specified. The "fine balance" has for decades shifted toward more and more
growth, louder and louder boat traffic and more and more environmental degradation, as has
been pointed out, and because talk of that fine balance is meaningless, I suggest here that we
drop the illusion and just acknowledge more and more growth. 7. Motorized PWC also known
as "ski jets" are particularly loud and fast. The older governor Mario Cuomo therefore tried to
ban ski jets from Lake George. His efforts were futile. In closing, I would like to ask: Does the
"fine balance" between economic development and the constitutionally guaranteed "pursuit of
happiness" on the one hand and the sacredness of our beautiful lake with its loons, blue herons
and other wildlife have to shift inevitably toward more and more economic growth, noise and
environmental degradation? Because I do not believe this inevitability exists, I wish to speak on
behalf of the Assembly Point Water Quality Coalition against the proposed ski jet rental business
out of Dunham Bay.
MR. HUNSINGER-Thank you.
MR. AHLER-Okay. Any question or comment? Thank you.
MR. HUNSINGER-Anyone else? Good evening.
KATHARINE SEELYE
MS. SEELYE-Good evening. My name is Katharine Seelye, and our family lives adjacent to
where this new jet-ski touring company would go. Our family has six houses on the west side of
Dunham's Bay, and we have been there for two centuries. It's an area I don't know if you're
familiar with it. It's really one of the last totally natural areas on the lake, certainly on Dunham's
Bay. We have a big stretch of untouched woods there, and it's really a unique place, I think,
along the lake, and I think having these multiple jet-skis going in and out is really incompatible
with the nature of our place along the lake and with the residential quality of most of the rest of
the Bay, with the exception of where this big marina is. I've sent a letter, and detailed our
family's objections to this plan. So I won't read the letter, but I just want to make a couple of
points. I certainly endorse what Mr. Salvador and Dr. Collins said about the milfoil in the Bay,
and before you make any decision along those lines, I would really urge you to go and look at
the Bay and do try to kayak up the creek and you will see that your paddles really just get caught
in all the milfoil. So the fragility of the ecosystem there is a really serious issue. Second is the
safety issue. As has been noted, the five mile per hour speed limit is routinely ignored, and we
have a small beach area where children are swimming, where you try to swim. You don't go
out too far because it's too mucky now in the Bay, but I think safety is a real issue with the
addition of jet-skis. Parking is impossible at that marina now. Their plan did not mention
anything about where the additional cars would be parked. They're already on the shoulders of
the Bay Road. If you go on a busy weekend, or even a not so busy weekend, the cars there,
they're parking in the road are extensive, and there was nothing in their plan about where they
would park. There was a question about trash cans. If you've been by there, you'll see that
those trash cans are overflowing with trash constantly. So I'm not sure what the plan for
additional trash is. One concern I have not heard addressed that's very serious on our part, is
this plan proposes to use Diamond Island as a base of operation. Diamond Island is a State
owned property, very historic. It has only two docks on it. You already have to compete for
dock space that's very limited dock space. It's unclear to me how a private commercial
enterprise could go and take over essentially this State owned property. I don't know if they've
gotten permission from somebody to do that, but that's a very serious concern that we have, on
this, you know, public island that the dock space, there are only two docks there, that these two
docks would be basically taken over by a commercial enterprise and squeeze out all the day
trippers, or family boaters, other people who use that island during the day. Another point.
National trends are against jet-skis. Many places are banning them and, as I'm sure you know,
all national parks, recreation areas and seashores ban jet-skis, for good reason, in my view. 1
24
(Queensbury Planning Board 06/02/2015)
also wanted to point out that my own house, well, I represent the family immediately on the west
side of the Bay that's adjacent to where this would go. My own house sits a little bit farther out,
at the mouth of the Bay, and as Dr. Collins said, when boats reach that point, they just open up
their throttles and roar out of the Bay, and on any given day, you can see jet-skis doing, you
know, loops and turns and just accelerating very fast in that area, and it's just a matter of time it
seems to me before there's serious accidents there. With the sound of these boats, the number
of them, it's like the Indy 500 out there on certain days. Finally there's a statement in their
application that I was kind of surprised to see. It said that people ride jet-skis for quote a scenic
tour of landscape and history. That's just not consistent with reality when you see jet-skis on
Lake George, they're not there to contemplate nature. They're out joyriding, and that's what
these are for. So, I appreciate the opportunity to speak here. I did have three questions that I
wanted to ask the Board, if you can give me some guidance on this. One is a process question.
I know obviously the LGPC is also reviewing this issue. If one of you approves the application
and the other does not, what happens?
MR. HUNSINGER-They wouldn't be able to do what they propose. They need approval from
both bodies in order to proceed.
MS. SEELYE-Okay. My second question was, was this application put forth for Lake George
Village? And then has it been rejected from the Village? Or was there a proposal that it go in
the Village?
MR. SCHONEWOLF-The business is located in the Town of Queensbury.
MR. HUNSINGER-Yes, the business is in the Town of Queensbury.
MR. SCHONEWOLF-It has nothing to do with Lake George Village.
MR. TRAVER-It wouldn't be proposed in Lake George. That's not the venue for the business,
Number One, and, Number Two, currently the Village has a moratorium on jet-ski operations.
So they wouldn't be able to operate there. It wouldn't make any sense for them to try to start
the business there.
MS. SEELYE-And why does Lake George Village have a moratorium on jet-skis?
MR. SCHONEWOLF-Ask them.
MR. TRAVER-Yes. I'm not sure. You'd have to go back.
MS. SEELYE-You guys don't know?
MR. HUNSINGER-No.
MR. TRAVER-We don't have that information in front of us. We don't know what the arguments
for and against it were.
MS. SEELYE-Okay, and then my third question was about the use of Diamond Island for a
private enterprise. Is that something that?
MR. SCHONEWOLF-Ask the Park Commission.
MS. SEELYE-You guys don't know about that either?
MR. TRAVER-Well, I think I do. Diamond Island, as you know, is a State designated picnic
area and a permit is required to use the facility. So just like anyone else, you can't go and say,
well, I'm a businessman. I want to rent, you know, the use of the Island for the summer or
something. You have to go out and get a day permit for that Island. There's a certain number
of permits that you can get and it's basically first come, first serve.
MS. SEELYE-1 understand that, which is why I'm asking how this proposed jet-ski company
could go and.
MR. TRAVER-Well, there are other companies that use it as well. This is not the only tour
company on the lake. There are other commercial tours that take place on the lake that go to
picnic sites and do things.
MS. SEELYE-Right, but they don't go to the same site every day and occupy.
25
(Queensbury Planning Board 06/02/2015)
MR. TRAVER-1 can't speak to that. I mean, there are certain sites, in my own experience being
on the lake, that I see people frequent. Some tour groups, some private. You can't always tell
if the boat is a rental boat, as these would be, or privately owned or borrowed or whatever.
MS. SEELYE-Right, but it's not the same company that goes back and stakes out.
MR. TRAVER-Well, I don't think the ranger of Long Island particularly takes note of whether
you're, have you rented a boat or whatever. He's just looking at his clipboard and saying, you
want Site One on Diamond Island.
MS. SEELYE-Right. I understand that. I live within view of Diamond Island.
MR. TRAVER-1 guess what I'm saying is I'm not sure your question is relevant for the State use,
because the State is just looking at the availability and if you have the, whatever it is, $10, $12 a
day for the use of the site. Be off the site at a certain time and carry it in, carry it out. They
have to obey the same regulations as everyone else does. They're not renting to a commercial
venture. They're renting to an individual.
MS. SEELYE-1 understand that.
MR. MAGOWAN-1 also believe at the last meeting they stated something in their plan about
Diamond Island. If you give them a chance to speak about it.
MR. HUNSINGER-We can ask them to clarify when they come back to the table.
MS. SEELYE-Okay. They're coming back after we speak? Okay. Yes. I'm just curious how
that would work. Thank you.
MR. HUNSINGER-Yes. Thank you. Anyone else? Yes, ma'am.
MRS. MOORE-If you have a letter, Mrs. Seelye, is it possible to obtain a copy of the letter?
Because I don't have it in the packet.
MS. SEELYE-1 sent it.
MR. TRAVER-Or you could e-mail it.
AUDIENCE MEMBER-1 have one.
MS. SEELYE-1 did e-mail a copy. I can re-e-mail it.
MRS. MOORE-1 took all the copies that we received, and that doesn't seem to be one of them.
MS. SEELYE-1 just have notes on it. Can you make a copy?
MRS. MOORE-1 can't make it right now, but if you wish to e-mail it.
MS. SEELYE-I'll e-mail it.
MR. HUNSINGER-Good evening.
BARBARA SIMMS
MRS. SIMMS-Hi. My name is Barbara Simms. I'm a Dunham's Bay resident, and I do have a
question. I know there are a lot of people sitting in the audience who did submit letters and I'm
just curious if the audience might hear how many letters you did receive regarding this?
MRS. MOORE-The office received 13 letters. Dr. Carol Collins read one of those. So there's
12 letters that have not been read yet.
MRS. SIMMS-And you will see those at a later date or after this meeting?
MR. HUNSINGER-Well, the normal practice is to read them into the record during the public
hearing.
MRS. SIMMS-1 see. In that case I'm not sure if this is appropriate, but Dr. Collins did reference
the letter from the Dunham's Bay Association, and if it's allowed I would like to read that letter
into the record.
26
(Queensbury Planning Board 06/02/2015)
MR. HUNSINGER-Sure, go ahead.
MRS. SIMMS-"Dear Mr. Hunsinger: This letter is in regard to Mr. Thomas Jones' and Mr.
Brendon Rozell's Special Use Permit 32-2015 to operate a jet-ski tour business out of the
Dunham's Bay Marina. I'm President of the Dunham's Bay Association, an organization of over
60 Dunham's Bay area property owners and their families formed to address matters affecting
Lake George and our bay. I'm writing to express significant concerns about Special Use Permit
32-2015. This modification would routinely add an additional 8 Jet Skis to the already heavy
boat traffic in the bay. Dunham's Bay already has: 1. 3 major marinas 2. 335 motor boats
docked within the bay and half of those are "Marina" boats which contribute disproportionately to
bay traffic 3. Additional boats launched daily from the Dunham's Bay Marina on Bay Road. 4.
Boat traffic to and from the bay's multiple gas docks adding more congestion. 5. More than 60
lakefront homes with additional canoes, kayaks and sailboats Although Dunham's Bay is small
(about '/2 of 1 percent of the total lake area) it is home to 3 percent of the lakes registered boats.
Every 40 seconds on moderately busy weekends a boat moves in or out of Dunham's Bay (90
boats per hour). On busy weekends (July 4t", Log Bay Day, very hot periods) that number
nearly doubles. Association members have repeatedly contacted the LGPC with safety
concerns due to heavy boat traffic within the Bay and the lack of consistent and visible law
enforcement in the 5 MPH "No Wake Zone". Dunham's Bay residents also have concerns
about the appropriateness of state-owned Diamond Island being advertised and used as a
commercial base for Devocean Water Sports. Diamond Island already has serious issues with
overuse and abuse (including damaged privies forcing visitors to use the woods as a latrine).
Although they would need to have appropriate day use permits from DEC, routine use of
Diamond Island by this company's 8 jet skis could easily monopolize the limited dock space.
This venture will only exacerbate the existing problems. I am writing to ask that you do not add
to the overuse of Diamond Island and the congestion and safety concerns in Dunham's Bay.
Please reject Special Use Permit 32-2015." And it's signed Cheryl Baldwin President,
Dunham's Bay Association.
MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. Thank you.
MRS. SIMMS-Thank you.
MR. HUNSINGER-Anyone else? Yes, ma'am. Good evening.
MARIE LOUISE LEPPERT
MRS. LEPPERT-Good evening. My name is Mary Louise Leppert, and while my family has not
lived in Dunham's Bay for two centuries, we have lived there for almost one, 90 some years to
be specific. We're very concerned that the commercial interests in make money on rentals and
commercial pursuits has overshadowed people's ideas of what the value of Dunham's Bay and
the wetlands are. Once they have become overused, and so to speak corrupted, it's very hard
to get them back to where they were originally. People who understand about the chemical
makeup of the lake understand this and know that our lake is in a middle stage. It's not ruined,
but if we keep doing some of the things that we are doing, we're going to go over that edge, and
my children and my grandchildren will not be able to use the lake as we have for nearly a
century. Right now I'm so concerned about things happening on the lake that I either use
bottled water or boil my water. It makes me wonder whether I should let my grandchildren swim
in the Bay anymore. There is one specific thing that I would like to ask you to consider. If Lake
George Village, which is totally commercial, has outlawed the use of these vehicles, does it not
seem that we ought to find out why they have? I will make it my business to ask the appropriate
people, and I think this Board should, too. A number of years ago, commissioner Stec said to
us one day at a meeting up at the firehouse, you know, you guys are our bread basket. All the
things that we want to do in Queensbury, we look to you for your high taxes, and I urge you to
think about that. We do pay very high taxes because we live on the lake, and we're very
privileged to do so, but we are also custodians of the lake, and we love it, and we want it to not
become anymore ill-used than it has been in the past. I'm really asking very hard to consider
what you would do if you were to give permission for one more totally business enterprise that
does not care about the wildlife and about the fact that that estuary down there is a nursery for
fish and other wildlife. Once it's ruined, and it is already well on the way, let's not make it any
worse. Please, please consider what your permission would mean to us. Thank you.
MR. HUNSINGER-Thank you. Anyone else? No other commenters?
MR. SALVADOR-If I could add something.
MR. HUNSINGER-As long as it's very quick.
27
(Queensbury Planning Board 06/02/2015)
MR. SALVADOR-Most people aren't aware of this, but I believe on three occasions now Mr.
Perillo has been successful in getting a dredging permit from the DEC, and they have, this was
just last year that they dredged the wetlands, and what they're doing is they're dredging the
macrophytes off the bottom of the wetland. It's ludicrous that they allow this to happen, but they
call that a maintenance dredging. It's contrary to everything we've ever been taught about the
functioning of wetlands. Thank you.
MR. HUNSINGER-Thank you. If you want to come back to the table.
MR. AHLER-If I may just make one more point. Rolf Ahlers. Milfoil contamination, one of the
most important ways that milfoil spreads is through motor boats. Dunham's Bay is
contaminated severely with Eurasian Milfoil, as Dr. Collins pointed out. We have our dock
about three-fifths up on the west side of Assembly Point. Supposedly we are free of milfoil.
That is not the case. What happens with these power boats in Dunham's Bay is they back into
the milfoil, milfoil is all over, and break up the milfoil. There's a natural water flow from the
southern end of the lake towards Ticonderoga. What happens with that water flow is that these
churned up bits of milfoil drift up the lake, and that movement is augmented by the wake of the
power boats coming out of Dunham's Bay. Standing on my dock, I can see, especially during
days of high traffic, during the high summer, these snippets of milfoil bobbing up the lake and
moving in a northern direction, and these snippets are trying to root in the lake. So in addition
to the normal spreading in the bottom of the lake through the root expansion, you have these
milfoil snippets being dragged out of areas of high contamination to areas of less contamination.
It is really a serious problem. We do not know how to contain it. Thank you very much.
MR. HUNSINGER-Thank you.
CHERYL BALDWIN
MS. BALDWIN-May I say something?
MR. HUNSINGER-This is the last one, ma'am. We need to get on with our business here.
MS. BALDWIN-Hi. I'm Cheryl Baldwin, the President of the Dunham's Bay Association, and
also part of the Joshua Rock Family Corporation. What I want to know from you is what's next?
We've written many, many letters. I'm just curious about the process.
MR. HUNSINGER-The process is someone makes an application. We review it.
MS. BALDWIN-Okay. I hear someone mention that you already had a meeting last week? I
didn't know anything about that.
MR. HUNSINGER-That's why we're here this evening. The meeting was originally scheduled
on May 21St, but the notices weren't properly sent out. So we couldn't take any action. We
tabled all of the items to this evening so that the proper notification could be sent out to the
neighbors.
MS. BALDWIN-Okay. Someone makes an application, our friends here, and then what, you're
going to either accept it or reject it? What role does the Lake George Park Commission play?
MR. HUNSINGER-They have to review it as well.
MS. BALDWIN-So all the letters that we've sent to them will be reviewed by them?
MR. HUNSINGER-Yes.
M S. BALDWIN-And the letters that we have sent to you will be reviewed by you?
MR. HUNSINGER-Will be reviewed by us, and both organizations have to approve in order for
them to move on with the project.
MS. BALDWIN-And what's the timeframe?
MR. HUNSINGER-1 don't know what the Park Commission's timeframe is.
AUDIENCE MEMBER-What is your timeframe?
MR. HUNSINGER-Well, we're going to find out in a few minutes.
MR. SCHONEWOLF-We're in the middle of it.
28
(Queensbury Planning Board 06/02/2015)
MR. HUNSINGER-We're in the middle of it.
MS. BALDWIN-I don't understand. You don't have any timeframe? Your process is so vague?
Will there be another meeting?
MR. HUNSINGER-There may or may not. It depends on what the will of the Board is.
MS. BALDWIN-This really bothers me.
MR. HUNSINGER-Excuse me, ma'am. You asked me a question, give me a chance to answer.
MS. BALDWIN-Okay.
MR. HUNSINGER-This Board has been empowered by the Town Board to review projects in
accordance with the Town Ordinance. This is the Town Ordinance that we have to follow. It's
this thick. So there's formal processes and procedures that have to be followed. When they
aren't followed, we have to do it over, which is why we're holding this meeting for a second time.
MS. BALDWIN-Okay. I'm going to trust you, and I'm going to challenge you.
MR. HUNSINGER-I'm not asking you to trust me, ma'am, but please don't challenge me.
MS. BALDWIN-I'm going to challenge you, the Queensbury Planning Board, with our Bay, and I
really, really hope that you oppose this new jet-ski business.
MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. That's not our purview, ma'am. Our purview is this project that's
before us this evening. That's all. That's all we're empowered to vote on and consider.
MS. BALDWIN-I'm sorry, I didn't hear you. What did you just say?
MR. HUNSINGER-The only thing that we're charged with is to review projects that are brought
before us. We are not responsible for the overall quality or degradation of Dunham's Bay.
MS. BALDWIN-But you vote on them.
MR. HUNSINGER-This project.
MS. BALDWIN-Yes.
MR. HUNSINGER-Yes.
MS. BALDWIN-So you have the power.
MR. HUNSINGER-For this project.
MS. BALDWIN-Okay. Then I ask you, I challenge you to oppose it.
MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. Thank you. Is there anyone else?
SHERRY BUNTING
MRS. BUNTING-It was said very quickly, but, sorry, my name is Sherry Bunting, and I just think
that if it has been opposed in Lake George Village, I think it is very important to find out why that
is opposed there, especially for this Board which is in charge of approving it. There must be
very good reasons, and that would be important to find out.
MR. MAGOWAN-Are you talking the business or just jet-skis, ma'am?
MRS. BUNTING-Jet-skis.
MR. SCHONEWOLF-Well, if you can remember, about five years ago they banned them
because there was high traffic in a crowded area so there was a safety problem, and there was
a noise problem.
MR. DEEB-And they were two stroke.
MR. SCHONEWOLF-And those were the old type jet-skis. I've lived on this lake for 20 years,
and the jet-ski noise and all the baloney we put up with from those guys was caused by bad
drivers and the old engines. The old engines are gone. The kids aren't gone and they still do
29
(Queensbury Planning Board 06/02/2015)
things they shouldn't do, but that's why they have to be supervised and that's why they have to
use the new jet-skis.
MR. TRAVER-There still are some older jet-skis on the lake.
MR. SCHONEWOLF-Yes, I know there are. Because they couldn't ban them all.
MR. HUNSINGER-If you want to come back to the table.
MRS. MOORE-Do you want me to read those letters into the record?
MR. HUNSINGER-Well, I want to see where the Board's at before we do that. Because if we're
apt to table this project then you could distribute them to the Board eventually, is what I was
thinking, rather than read them all.
MR. TRAVER-Well, the Park Commission hasn't acted. I don't know that, I mean, obviously if
they, sorry.
MRS. MOORE-They have asked us to continue our process first. That is what their process is.
MR. HUNSINGER-That was my understanding, too.
MRS. MOORE-Yes. So we must complete our process.
MR. HUNSINGER-So we have to complete before they will start?
MRS. MOORE-No, they're in the middle of starting it now. They're running concurrently.
MR. HUNSINGER-Yes, that's what I thought. Did you get any indication from the Park
Commission, when you were there, when your project might be heard?
MR. ROZELL-The 23rd of June.
MR. HUNSINGER-The 23rd of June.
MR. ROZELL-Yes, we're not sure of the time.
MR. TRAVER-Well, Mr. Chairman, in my mind, if you're looking for comment, I mean, I have to
say I'm not a fan of jet-skis. I guess maybe that was obvious early on. On the other hand, I
think, and this is a somewhat unique, your business model is somewhat unique in the history of
some of the things I've looked at as far as projects are concerned. That being said, and despite
my personal dislike of jet-skis, they have improved quite a bit. We were just having a
discussion just now about the two stroke versus, I'm sure you're familiar with that. Huge
difference from the noise, which was my primary concern. My other personal experience and
concern has to do with the piloting, in an irresponsible manner, of the jet-skis. You appear to
have addressed that on paper, in your business model with the guides and the governors on the
devices and so on so that people can't go too fast. So I think that you have, I mean, you're in a
tough spot because of many of those things. I think, on the other hand, some of the points that
Mr. Salvador is proposing that perhaps this restriction on motorized vehicles up the Bay needs
to be re-examined, and if that were to happen obviously that would have an impact on you. You
talk a lot about training and safety, but if you had a significant accident, that would be an issue.
We've talked about noise. You have made an effort in your, again, on paper, to try to address
that. So my own feeling, and we are looking at a Special Use Permit, so I'm leaning, I would
say to other members of the Board, I'm leaning on some kind of temporary or pilot approval to
let you attempt to do what you propose, which I think is reasonable, and then we find out what
the impact is by building, by giving you an opportunity to have a history, a track record, and find
out if the, for a limited period of time, if some of the specific concerns that are mentioned, and
some of the concerns I don't believe are impacted by whether your handful of boats is on the
lake or not, with all due respect. On the other hand, there's no question that it's going to
increase the traffic. You're doing two tours a day, as I understand it, weather permitting, but
again, if, you have planned your work, so if you work your plan, I think you've made a
reasonable effort to try to accommodate the speed, responsible operation, the safety concerns.
The quality of the vehicles you're using eliminates the two stroke noise issue and so on, I
believe. So I would be in favor of some kind of limited approval, and then we'll see what
happens, see what the record shows. If there's clearly a lot of issues, and many of the people
that are here tonight are going to be the first ones to let us know, if your business is not being
followed, if you have rogue riders that are slingshotting or going off. Certainly if there are, you
know, unfortunate mishaps or if there's a problem with people using the State sites, we will know
about it, and then when you come up for review, we'll need to talk about that.
30
(Queensbury Planning Board 06/02/2015)
MR. JONES-And the State site, to clarify, we will not be using it as of right now. We are in talks
with the DEC to get a revocable permit so that we can use it as just a quick stop to show people
the monument. It is a neat place that most people don't get to see on the lake.
MR. TRAVER-So they're talking about coming up with a new type of a permit?
MR. JONES-They have, it's a revocable permit that you can apply for. It's the same thing that
any of the other.
MR. SCHONEWOLF-Campers use.
MR. TRAVER-You're talking about, I think last year it was a green sticker. It's like $80 a year or
something.
MR. ROZELL-There's an empire pass they offer. It's different for commercial users, a revocable
permit. We've been in contact with a few offices about it. We do have the application. When
we move forward, it's something we would like to apply for. Also I know the concerns of, you
know, congestion and things like that, but we'd have other options other than Diamond Island.
It's just, it's close to the Bay. It's a nice easy quick stop. That's what we're going for. We're not
trying to hold down the fort or anything like that.
MR. TRAVER-And I suspect from my own experience that people not acquainted with boating
that you've had on the lake, you'd rather not have people docking and undocking any more than
possible.
MR. DEEB-You're taking Diamond Island off the plan for now?
MR. JONES-Correct. Yes, until we further seek any of the permitting access. As of now, we
won't be touching Diamond Island.
MR. DEEB-A couple of more questions I have. You have two docks, eight slips.
MR. ROZELL-It would be two full docks, four slips.
MR. DEEB-Four slips.
MR. ROZELL-Correct.
MR. DEEB-You've got a total of six.
MR. ROZELL-So you can fit two jet-skis on each side.
MR. DEEB-And if you didn't use those jet-skis, you didn't use those slips, you would have four
boats?
MR. JONES-Correct. So if there wasn't.
MR. DEEB-Four different boats, and those four boats would most likely go out and use the lake.
MR. JONES-Correct.
MR. DEEB-If it weren't your jet-skis.
MR. JONES-Correct
MR. DEEB-So I'm a little confused as to the increase in traffic.
MR. JONES-Yes, it was a concern as a new use. Yes, it is a new use, but there is no addition.
We've made it in our efforts to, you know, work with the program.
MR. DEEB-You're going to use current jet-skis that are, I think, more environmentally friendly.
MR. JONES-Correct.
MR. DEEB-Than perhaps a larger boat.
MR. SCHONEWOLF-Yes, I'll give you my opinion of it, having lived up there. Like my
associate, I was trained well to hate jet-skis because they were a pain in the neck. They caused
31
(Queensbury Planning Board 06/02/2015)
us accidents. We had to go out there and rescue people, and they were allowed. You bring an
alternative to that. Less traffic, it's supervised, and these people that come and go through your
course, they might learn something and they wouldn't be the wild cowboys that we've had out
there for 20 years.
MR. JONES-Well, they might eventually be renting a pontoon boat. They'll be at least, we
might not be able to certify, a boating certificate, but they're going to be going through the
pamphlet that we did for the course. So more or less they're getting the same information. We
just can't hand them a license.
MR. SCHONEWOLF-That's right, and I heard a couple of other things, and as a resident of the
lake, I think I should clarify. First of all, the Assembly Point Water Quality Coalition is just a
group of people. They're not an official Town organization. Okay. They're my neighbors,
many of them are, and they're entitled to their opinion. However, their opinion is just that.
There is a group here that everybody should get to know, and that's called the Jefferson Project,
and they're a bunch of high tech scientists who are studying the lake over a period of four years,
and they're already going through their first year, and they're coming up with data about really
what does harm the lake and where does it come from, and they'll talk about milfoil because
milfoil has been eradicated in places, they won't eradicate it, but they won't use sonar here, so
that's why we have milfoil. So there's a lot of things that have gone into the lake that people
here would represent as a tragedy, but they're not quite that bad because it can be taken care
of, and I'd call all of your attention to look and see what the Jefferson Project is doing. It is, it's
beyond my comprehension, but I know the primaries of it.
MR. SALVADOR-Nothing in Dunham Bay. The Jefferson Project is doing nothing.
MR. SCHONEWOLF-John, I've seen them in Dunham's Bay. Okay.
MR. SALVADOR-Okay.
MR. SCHONEWOLF-So we'll wait until the facts come out. I'm not here representing them, but I
am representing science against opinion. So I would like to wait and see what they have to say.
I've seen some of it, just because I know the people involved, but we'll wait and see, but I think
you have a good idea, if it's properly maintained and properly run, and it's certainly a solution to
the three ring circus we've had out on the lake for the last 20 years with the jet-skis.
MR. ROZELL-Right. We are from here. We've been on the lake our entire lives. We haven't
been blessed and fortunate enough to live on the lake, but we do enjoy it, personally. We have
for many, many years.
MR. JONES-We feel we're all on the same team.
MR. HUNSINGER-So the question we have before us right now is if we want Laura to read the
other 11 letters into the record, or how the Board would like to assimilate the information. If we
were going to be tabling it, then we could distribute them electronically.
MR. DEEB-I like Stephen's idea. I concur that it should be a temporary phase.
MS. WHITE-But in order to do that, we need to have the letters read.
MR. TRAVER-In the meantime, I have one more question for the applicant. You heard the
discussion with Mr. Salvador. Again, I mentioned this before, but I didn't clarify it. There is a
restriction on motorized activity up into the swamp area, and there is currently a buoy, or at least
there was the last time I was up there, that says no motor boats beyond this point, and it's
evidently under question about whether it's in the proper place or not, but can you, for the
record, assure us that you will not operate your vehicles beyond that point, wherever it is?
MR. ROZELL-Absolutely.
MR. TRAVER-That's all I had.
MRS. MOORE-Okay. I'm going to read through these letters. There's 11 of them, and I'm
going to ask Mrs. Simms if she would like me to read her letter. You read the Dunham's Bay
letter, and I can read yours into the record as well. Is that acceptable? Okay. So this one is
dated May 30th. It's addressed to Mr. Hunsinger. "My wife and I are residents of Dunham's
Bay. This letter is in regard to Mr. Thomas Jones' and Mr. Brendon Rozell's Special Use Permit
32-2015 to operate a jet-ski tour business out of the Dunham's Bay Marina. Dunham's Bay is
already overwhelmed by the number of boats routinely traveling in and out of the bay. If
approved, Special Use Permit 32-2015 would routinely add an additional 8 Jet Skis to the
32
(Queensbury Planning Board 06/02/2015)
already heavy boat traffic in the bay. Every 40 seconds on moderately busy weekends a boat
moves in or out of Dunham's Bay (90 boats per hour). On busy summer weekends that number
nearly doubles. Dunham's Bay is home to 335 motor boats and 3 major marinas; half of the
boats in the bay are "marina" boats which contribute disproportionately to bay traffic. Dunham's
Bay is small (about '/2 of 1 percent of the total lake area) and yet it is home to 3 percent of the
lakes registered boats. Additional trailered boats are launched daily from the Dunham's Bay
Marina on Bay Road and transient boat traffic to and from the bay's multiple gas docks add
more congestion. Dunham's Bay needs fewer boats rather than 8 new touring Jet Skis. We
also question the appropriateness of state-owned Diamond Island being advertised and used as
a commercial base for Devocean Water Sports. Diamond Island already has serious issues with
overuse and abuse (including damaged privies forcing visitors to use the woods as a latrine).
Although they would need to have appropriate day use permits from DEC, routine use of
Diamond Island by tourists on 8 jet-skis could easily monopolize the limited dock space. This
venture will only exacerbate existing problems. I am writing to ask that you do not add to the
overuse of Diamond Island and the congestion and safety concerns in Dunham's Bay. Please
reject Special Use Permit 32-2015. Sincerely Lenton and Barbara Simms 8 Burnt Ridge Road
Lake George, NY 12845" This next letter is dated June 1St, addressed to Mr. Hunsinger. "I am
writing on behalf of my husband, William J. Calogero, Sr., and myself in opposition to the
application of the above applicants to operate a jet-ski business out of the Dunham's Bay
Marina. My husband and I have resided on Dunham's Bay for over thirty years and have
witnessed the increasing disregard of visiting boaters and jet skiers for the 5 mile per hour/no
wake speed limit in our bay. Adding a commercial rental/tour business for jet skis will only add
to the disruption and heavy traffic in our small bay. Many of us living on Dunham's Bay
purposely moved to the east side of our beautiful lake, into a small bay, for the specific purpose
of getting away from the heavy traffic generated by the commercial enterprises in the southern
basin. While we are aware there are three marinas on our bay, those operations have been
relatively stable over the last thirty years and have been good neighbors. We are already
sharing our bay with hundreds of boats who either launch from or dock at the marinas in the bay,
in addition to those boaters who come into the bay to fish or just anchor and spend the day.
This bay is used by the homeowners who reside here, as well as those who come into the bay
from surrounding areas, for swimming, canoeing, kayaking, sailboarding and just floating around
on tubes. Adding a commercial jet-ski operation at the end of our already very busy bay will
endanger those of us who pursue these endeavors and will add to the congestion we have
already begun to experience. We are strongly urging the Planning Board to reject Special Use
Permit 32-2015. Thank you for your consideration. Yours truly, Patricia L. Calogero" This is
dated June 2nd. It's addressed to the Queensbury Planning Board. "I'm writing to add my voice
to those who have already raised strenuous objection to the application for a jet-ski touring
company at the Parillo Marina. Since the 60's, I have been enjoying summer vacations with my
family on Dunham's Bay, directly across from the marina. Our extended family keeps a
watchful eye out for any marina expansion, as we know this will adversely affect water quality in
the bay as well as our own quality of life on these shores. Increased pollution goes hand-in-
hand with an increase in the number of water-craft with internal combustion engines plying these
fragile waters. In addition to water pollution, the obvious noise pollution created by operating
many jet-skis on the bay would be amplified by the high hills surrounding the bay. This
topography creates a "bowl" effect which enables someone standing on one side of the bay to
often hear normal conversation clear across the bay. The high-pitched whine of jet-skis would
be that much more annoying as a result. From a practical standpoint, I can't see jet-ski
operators adhering to the 5 mph speed limit within the bay, which raises safety concerns. To
legally open their throttles up, jet-skiers would have to go out into the main lake, where it is often
too rough for smaller craft. For these reasons, I must join the many members of my extended
family in raising strong objection to plans for a Jet Ski Touring Company in Dunham's Bay.
Sincerely, Winton Williams, Jr. 14 Joshua Rock Road (on Dunham's Bay)" The next one is
dated June 2nd. This is addressed to Staff. "I am a life-long summer resident of Dunham's
Bay for over 63 years now. It is still a wonderful place on a wonderful lake, but the increase in
motorized boat traffic has, I feel, decreased the human and natural enjoyment of the lake
significantly. Our family has owned the cottage since it was built by my ancestors in 1883. 1
have spent most of my career as a county water planner and soil and water district manager,
working primarily with individual lake owners and lake associations in northern Minnesota on
water quality protection and other related issues, including the effects of increasing motorized
boat use. I am deeply concerned about the proposal to add jet-ski tours as an allowable and
possible frequent addition to the boat traffic to Dunham's Bay. I believe that jet-ski traffic of
several jet-skis at a time along the shore would be very intrusive, and would add significantly to
the existing safety and congestion issues in Dunham's Bay, especially if they, as do many other
motorized boats, drive slowly along the shoreline. Existing water management challenges
relating to disturbance of wildlife and spread of exotic species would also be exacerbated. Lake
George and Dunham's Bay are wonderful and priceless resources, and I have long appreciated
the Town of Queensbury's and other groups' efforts to help keep them so. I am writing to ask
that you do not approve this application (Z#5234.-14-15, Frank Parillo, 3010 State Route 9L).
Sincerely, Art Norton summer address: 10 Highview Road, Dunham's Bay, Lake George, NY
33
(Queensbury Planning Board 06/02/2015)
12845 winter address: 15542 County Road 72, Warba, MN 55793" This is dated May 22nd,
and it's addressed to the Lake George Park Commission "I am writing in opposition of the
application made by Mr. Parillo to add a personal watercraft (PWC) touring company to their
existing and expansive dock rental facility. My family and I own the camp at 4 Joshua's Rock
Road and have been there for many decades. The expansion of the docks owned by the Parillo
family has seen a very substantial increase in boat traffic and also transient boat traffic in
Dunham's Bay in recent years. The addition of a fleet of PWC would have a detrimental effect
on the bay as more sediment would no doubt accumulate. This would add to the growing algae
problem in Dunham's Bay. We would assume that this is something that LGPC would ask to be
researched. At present there are a large number of customers that do not adhere to the five
mile an hour zone in Dunham's Bay. This is a constant source of aggravation for our family.
We can only imagine that the customers of such a fleet of PWC would be transient and therefore
have no knowledge or care about the speed limitation in the bay and also the proper care of the
quality of water on Lake George. Last but not least is our own personal enjoyment of the lake
that would be greatly diminished if Mr. Parillo is allowed to operate a PWC touring company
adjacent to our property. Many thanks for allowing us this opportunity to articulate our
opposition to this proposal. I am available by cell or email for any additional questions.
Sincerely, R. Scott Rasmussen" Next letter is also dated June 2nd, and it's addressed to Staff.
"As a property owner in Dunham's Bay, I am writing this letter to express my concern regarding
the proposed Parillo Jet Ski Operation. It is identified in the project description as "Modify a
Class A Marina to add 1 charter vessel and personal water craft (aka jet-skis) tours.' I know that
this proposal is up for review at tomorrow's Queensbury Town Planning Meeting, and I strongly
object to it. Unfortunately, due to the travel distance and my work commitments I am not able to
attend a Tuesday night meeting. So I am sending you this letter instead. However, I am
thankful that some of my family members will be in attendance tomorrow night. My family has
owned the Joshua's Rock Property in Dunham's Bay since 1802, and we have tried to be
stewards of the land. There has been no further building of new houses on our property since
the 1950s, just the remodeling of existing homes. I have been kayaking, canoeing, sailing,
boating, and swimming here all of my life. I am in the eighth generation of my family to love this
lake. I few up ere and graduated from Lake George High School, and the "Queen of American
Lakes" is still where my heart resides. Unfortunately, the water quality in our bay has
deteriorated over my lifetime considerably with the increased traffic in and out of the creek since
Parillo opened his marina and his boat launch, the large beds of the invasive species Eurasian
milfoil (which I extensively researched as my final term paper in college), the increased docking
in the southern end of the bay, and the traffic from the marinas. There are already jet-skis in the
bay, and they do not obey the 5 MPH rule, especially because of the length of the speed zone.
More jet-skis and this charter vessel will churn more of the muck from the creek into the bay and
spread the invasive species Eurasian milfoil by further fragmenting the plants in the water. This
weed will grow out of control mining the sediments on the floor of the bay and further degrading
our water quality. Thank you for taking your valuable time to read my letter. It is my hope that
with the recent activism of the property owners in the bay that this plan for a jet-ski business
based in Dunham's Bay will be rejected. Lake George is a treasure, and I hope that it will be
enjoyed for many more generations to come. Please feel free to contact me if you have any
questions, or if I can be of any further assistance. I hope to hear from you soon. Sincerely,
Janie Fitzgerald" The next one is dated June 1' and it's addressed to Mr. Hunsinger "I am
writing in regard to Mr. Thomas Jones' and Mr. Brendon Rozell's Special Use Permit 32-2015 to
operate a jet-ski tour business from the Dunham's Bay Marina. I am a homeowner at 11 Grey
Ledge's Drive that includes lake front property on Dunham's Bay and would like to express my
concerns about this application. The proposal would routinely add additional traffic in
Dunham's Bay, which is already suffering from the impacts of overuse. Dunham's Bay is
currently home to three marinas along with a continuous stream of additional boats entering
Lake George on a daily basis through the boat launch at the Dunham's Bay Marina. There is
an existing five mile per hour no wake zone within Dunham's Bay to protect the fragile shoreline
and homeowner docks and boats within the Bay. However, many boaters disregard this no
wake zone and speak through the Bay once they pass under the highway bridge over 9L,
creating environmental and safety concerns. Additionally, Dunham's Bay has the largest
concentration of invasive milfoil within Lake George located just past this bridge. This constant
traffic through this large bed of milfoil exacerbates the problem by churning up the plants and
spreading the milfoil further into the Bay. Last summer was the first time I actually observed
milfoil taking root along the shore of my property. The additional daily traffic resulting from the
approval of this proposal would only make the problem worse. I also have concerns regarding
the proposed use of Diamond Island that is described in this application. I do not believe the
commercial use of Diamond Island is an appropriate or lawful use of State land and should not
be allowed. Please do not approve this application. Sincerely, Salvatore Ervolina" This is
dated June 1St, addressed to Staff. "I am a longtime resident in Dunham's Bay, located at 2
Joshua Rock Road, and adjacent to the entrance to Wiggly Creek and where Parillo's Marina is
located. From this location I have been able to observe the goings-on from and at this marina
over the years. Many of the boaters from this marina are quiet boaters, respectful of the 5 mph
speed in the Bay. The biggest problem has been with PWC boaters that speed around the bay
34
(Queensbury Planning Board 06/02/2015)
with no regard to speed limits. By the time they get back under the bridge to the marina, any
chance of the lake police catching them is gone. Quite frankly, there is very little monitoring of
speed limits in the bay by the Lake George Patrol and by the Park Police. The plan is to use
diamond Island as a gathering place, but who will enforce that? I doubt if anyone will from what
I've seen in the bay and on the lake. The increase in traffic by my residence and dock, 4 times
and more a day would adversely affect the quiet residential nature of the Bay. If we get a windy
day, will the PWC users be floating around at the end of Dunham's Bay, eating, drinking, and
using the lake as a bathroom? If the two docks at Diamond Island are already taken, will the
PWC users be looking for other venues to "hangout"? In fact this group of PWC users will have
no place to stay on the lake and will not be monitored during their runs. As a commercial
venture they will be maximizing PWC use in order to pay for the expensive machines. How can
this company be expecting to use the state's facilities, monopolizing some of the best spots for
private boaters, and have this as a part of their business plan? This would seem to be
subsidizing a private commercial venture with public monies and facilities. Back to Parillo's
marina, how can this commercial group be controlled when over the years Queensbury has
been mostly helpless in preventing Parillo's expansion to ever more docks. The PWC boaters
from this marina are never controlled when they violate the Bay speed limit. What's to prevent
a group of PWCs from inhabiting Dunham's Bay whenever they feel like it and for hours at end?
I strongly urge you to turn down this proposal. It's wrong for the lake, wrong for the bay, and
prevents protection of the state's facilities meant for public and not commercial use. Lito
Abrams" The next one is received on June V. It's addressed to the Queensbury Planning
Board. "As a homeowner on Dunham's Bay I am writing in opposition of the proposed jet-ski
tours to be operated out of Dunham's Bay to Diamond Island. Dunham's Bay already supports
a large number of boats that traverse the bay to and from their moorings/dock sites and many of
the operators do not follow the 5 mph speed limit. The Bay is under environmental pressure
from runoff and the large number of motorized watercraft already utilizing it. Most people that
would want to do jet-skis want to go fast and a large part of the trip would be at 5 mph.
Additionally Diamond Island is a small island with limited dock space that is already heavily used
by the local population. It does not seem to be a reasonable choice as a destination. Thank
you, Allison U. Branson" Two more. The next one is dated June V. It's addressed to the
Queensbury Planning Board. "I'm writing in response to a notice that I received about Frank
Parillo's application to operate a jet-ski touring company out of his marina. My family and I have
been long-time summer residents with a home adjacent to the Joshua's Rock Corporation on
Dunham's Bay. In fact, my great-great grandfather, Edward Eggleston purchased several acres
on Dunham's Bay back in the 1800s, and my grandfather, Elwynn Seelye had the foresight to
preserve this property for continued family use throughout the generations. Our family uses it
as a quiet retreat, a place for us to gather and renew ties, and each of us is deeply connected to
Dunham's Bay. Over the years, we have had to put up with a constant stream of boats blaring
music, the loud thrubbing of engines (and often inebriated drivers) as boats pass through the
bay to the marina at all hours of the day and night. Most of the houses are not equipped with air
conditioning, so these sounds carry right into our living and bedrooms. Jet-skis have their own
brand of irritating noise - - something akin to a very loud mosquito. Imagine living next door to a
dirt-bike track. That is what you would be condemning me and my family too. To say that
adding a jet-ski touring company to the marina would be disturbing and disruptive would be a
gross understatement. Adding more boat traffic to a bay that was meant to be a quiet retreat, is
abominable to me and my family. So much so that I would venture to say that Okaying
something of this nature is a vote for business, no matter the cost to long-time residents and
taxpayers who love Lake George deeply. Please please consider preserving what we have left
of the beauty and tranquility of Lake George, and do not allow this kind of noise pollution to
multiply! Sincerely, Ann Campanella 14 Joshua's Rock Road, Lake George, NY 12845." The
last one is dated June 1St and is addressed to the Town. "We have received information
regarding the application by Devocean for the addition of a proposed jet-ski operation to the
already overcrowded Dunham's Bay Marina owned by Frank Parillo. We would like to register
our strong opposition to this proposal and request a negative decision on it. Here are our
reasons: 1) We already have way too much boat traffic! Our camp, which is part of Joshua's
Rock Corporation and where our family has vacationed for almost 50 years, is contiguous to the
bridge under which hundreds of boats associated with Parillo's operation enter and exit on a
daily basis. The noise (from booming motorized boats and the people in them) and pollution
(smell of exhaust fumes and evidence of leaking fuel in oil slicks) are already a very degrading
part of our surroundings. The traffic is continuous from mid-June through September, just the
time that Devocean's proposed operation would be the most active. We have seen the growth
in boat traffic at the Parillo operations mushroom as various expansions to his operations have
occurred over the years. Adding the type of operation described in Devocean's application to
our current load of pollution and noise would be insufferable! 2) Degradation of our already
fragile bay and marsh ecosystem will be amplified and accelerated. In our grandmother's day,
a person could row out onto the Bay and see the masts of the sunken boats from the
revolutionary war! These boats have long since been covered up by muck coming from the
creek, and nowadays, we are plagued with turbid waters and silt. The Dunham's Bay
Association, of which we are members, is working diligently with authorities to stop the septic
35
(Queensbury Planning Board 06/02/2015)
pollution of older systems from polluting the ecosystem. Other agencies have been actively
working to eliminate milfoil from the bay for which we are very grateful. We are almost there!
But added boat traffic will only undermine these gains. 3) Safety of swimmers, Jetskis are
dangerous and are being banned from lakes in many places for that reason! Boats already go
too close to our dock where we swim daily in good weather. They already accelerate when
leaving the lakeside marina or coming out from the marina that is located on the other side of the
bridge along with the boat launch facility. The authorities already cannot adequately police this
flaunting of existing laws. Safety can only get worse, riskier, and more unpleasant with an
added operation of the size that Devocean is asking for! 4) It's not just about boat traffic,
pollution, noise and unsafe conditions! Every jet-ski user will arrive and leave in a vehicle. The
parking lots associated with the marinas are already over capacity at busy times and then there
is parking on highway right of ways, causing congestion, further noise and unsafe driving
conditions. We hear this traffic from our cottage. The intersection of Bay Road and 9L is
becoming very precarious due to the additional traffic we are already experiencing. The
proposed new operation can only exacerbate the traffic situation! Our bay will always be
beautiful and special (for this end of the lake) because of the large swath of land that Joshua's
Rock Corporation is holding undeveloped, we hope in perpetuity. The bay can still be a
wonderful, peaceful place at times, perfect for kayaking, canoeing and swimming. It is still a
good place for families to vacation away from the bustle of places like Lake George Village.
Help us keep it that way and reject the Devocean proposal. Finally, I would like to receive any
notices relating to this project directly, either by mail at the above address, or by email address."
Sincerely, Connie Smyser Treasurer, Joshua's Rock Corporation"
MR. HUNSINGER-That's all of them?
MRS. MOORE-That's all of them.
MR. HUNSINGER-Okay.
MR. TRAVER-I have one follow up question for the applicant, if I could?
MR. HUNSINGER-Yes, go ahead.
MR. TRAVER-I wanted to ask about your understanding, if you know the answer to this, about
the issue of the permit for Diamond Island. My understanding is that there is a sort of a season
pass. I don't know what it's officially called, but I can get a sticker to put on my boat, and if I
show up to say Diamond Island or one of these picnic sites and there's no one there, I can pull
in and dock, right, without having to go to the ranger's station and register, because I registered
for the season.
MR. JONES-Right.
MR. TRAVER-However, if someone else goes to the ranger's station and formally registers and
then they show up, they can displace me from that dock.
MR. JONES-Correct.
MR. TRAVER-The permit that you're reporting to be investigating, is that your understanding of
what your position would be as well?
MR. ROZELL-Yes. It would be something every morning we'd actually have to call and see for
reservations.
MR. TRAVER-Okay. So you wouldn't be displacing anyone that went to register?
MR. JONES-Not at all. That's why our tours are built the way they are, so we're versatile. If we
call up and they're occupied, that's their right to be there.
MR. TRAVER-Okay. Thank you for that clarification. That's all, Mr. Chairman.
MR. HUNSINGER-Any other questions or comments from the Board?
MR. DEEB-Are you going to have your people drive to the marina?
MR. ROZELL-Yes. We have a parking area set aside for that.
MR. DEEB-How many spaces?
36
(Queensbury Planning Board 06/02/2015)
MR. ROZELL-Anywhere from five to seven spots in the back, depending upon the size of the
vehicles.
MR. DEEB-Do you anticipate ever having more than that?
MR. ROZELL-Not really, because you're looking at a maximum of five separate individual
parties that would be coming on the boat.
MS. WHITE-What about employees?
MR. ROZELL-You're looking at them.
MS. WHITE-So it's just you two, you won't have other?
MR. ROZELL-Correct.
MS. WHITE-You're not planning on more than that?
MR. ROZELL-You don't have to worry about anything other than us.
MR. DEEB-Where are you keeping the jet-skis at night?
MR. ROZELL-We have them dry docked in a facility.
MR. DEEB-Right there?
MR. ROZELL-In our parking spaces.
MR. DEEB-I thought I read something about in a garage, at one point you were going to put
them somewhere else?
MR. ROZELL-That was in an old, the Town of Lake George and everything we had to do with
the Park Commission, we had to modify that.
MR. DEEB-Okay. All right.
MR. MAGOWAN-Well, I do want to say one thing, you know, your proposal and what you have
put in, and all the back information you've put together for being such young gentlemen, I
applaud you for all the work that you've put in. One of the things that I've been listening about
it, you know, the milfoil and that, which is a great concern and I'm all behind doing what we can
to get rid of it, but I look at four boats going in and out, that far back in the bay, all right, is much
more detrimental than a shallow jet-ski that's going out, and a lot of people feel the jet-skis have
the bad reputation and I agree that the average Joe that wants to get out on the lake doesn't
care about the rules and regulations, and I just want to let the people know, from what I'm
reading everybody thinks you're going to get in and yee haw right out of there. You're a tour
group. You're there to explain some of the camps and some of the different, you know, you're
going to be educating the people of the lake, and you're doing it at a slow pace than just going to
a destination, you know, sucking down some cold beers and then racing back or something or
whatever, you know, people do on their jet-skis. I feel what you are trying to achieve and what
you're doing here is, you can educate people more, you know, of the wetlands that we have
here and what we have to do to preserve them so, you know, from here forward, and maybe
interest more people in doing it. You're familiar with where the milfoil is. You plan on going
around it. Like I said, every aspect I think you've covered very well. So I'm tending to lean with
Steve, you know, on giving a term on it there of, like Steve, my colleague said, to see how it
goes for you. You've put a lot of effort and time and money into doing this. I'd like to see if
what you've proposed you can hold together and make it work and please all the people on the
way out, and show all the other jet-skiers that this is the way that, you know, you've got to
respect the people that have been here and that are going to stay here, and I think you guys
can, it would help.
MR. ROZELL-Thank you very much, and that is our main goal.
MR. SCHONEWOLF-If you get the Park Commission out there, maybe they can stop the rogues
that are out there cutting across the wakes of the tour boats and that kind of nonsense, and then
we've got to go out and pick them up.
MR. DEEB-The other one, too, I heard in several of the letters was the speed limit, which is
enforceable by the patrol, and I think you would have an extra bearing on that because as a tour
you're going to make sure they don't go over the speed limit. You don't want to jeopardize your
37
(Queensbury Planning Board 06/02/2015)
operation. So that when you get into Dunham's Bay, you'll stay within that speed limit, rather
than all the other boats. I don't know what other boats are going out there.
MR. MAGOWAN-Well, yes, they're definitely able to enforce it by saying you're off, you're in the
boat because you, you know.
MR. DEEB-It's in a controlled situation. Whereas an individual boat isn't.
MR. ROZELL-Sorry to interrupt, but we've already, we're under the assumption that we are
going to be under a heavy watch by the Park Commission, by the marine patrol.
MR. DEEB-No alcohol.
MR. ROZELL-No alcohol. If there's any presence, any sign.
MR. DEEB-You'll monitor that with your groups.
MR. ROZELL-If they show up hungover, there's no way you're even getting near the dock.
MR. HUNSINGER-Is there any information that Board members feel that we need still?
MR. DEEB-Diamond Island.
MR. TRAVER-Yes, I mean, we don't have any jurisdiction over that.
MR. DEEB-I know, but they said they were going to take it, they weren't going to consider it at
this point.
MR. TRAVER-1 think the most that they could hope for would be just a permit which currently we
can all apply for now. They're talking about a commercial version of it, but it still would not
displace someone who, say you wanted to go, you could go to the ranger's station and get a
permit, you would displace them, unless they went and got a permit. It's first come, first serve.
MR. DEEB-So, Stephen, you're not concerned, right?
MR. TRAVER-What's that?
MR. DEEB-You don't have any concerns with Diamond Island?
MR. TRAVER-Do I have any concerns? Well, I mean, all we have is what's on paper. So what
I want to see is a track record. That's why I'm proposing a temporary approval. To see if, I
think they've done as good as they can, standing and looking at the bay. Now they've got to
actually get some tourists and load them on these things and take them out there and enforce
the rules and make sure that the governors' work on the thing so they don't break the speed limit
and have a good safety record. They are going to be watched, as they are already keenly
aware. So let's find out what the comment is that comes in, and when it's time for renewal we
will then just not have a proposal, we will have a history and we'll have a track record.
MR. DEEB-Are you thinking, what kind of term are you thinking?
MR. TRAVER-What's that?
MR. DEEB-What kind of a term? Two years?
MR. TRAVER-1 think two years. Yes, I mean, this year, it's going to take them probably this
season just to get everything figured out. So that would essentially give them one year of what I
would expect to be good operations. So that's what I would say.
MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. Well, if there's no other information that the Board's looking for, I
would seek a motion to close the public hearing.
RESOLUTION CLOSING PUBLIC HEARING FOR SUP # 32-2015 JONES & ROZELL
MOTION TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING FOR SPECIAL USE PERMIT NO. 32-2015
THOMAS JONES & BRENDON ROZELL D/B/A DEVOCEAN WATER SPORTS, Introduced by
Paul Schonewolf who moved for its adoption, seconded by George Ferone:
Duly adopted this 2nd day of June, 2015, by the following vote:
38
(Queensbury Planning Board 06/02/2015)
AYES: Mr. Magowan, Ms. White, Mr. Deeb, Mr. Schonewolf, Mr. Ferone, Mr. Traver, Mr.
Hunsinger
NOES: NONE
MR. HUNSINGER-The next question is, this is an Unlisted SEAR action. The applicant has
submitted a Short Form. Our responsibility is Pages Three and Four. Are there any specific
concerns that the Board has that may result in a moderate to large impact?
MR. TRAVER-1 have none.
MS. WHITE-No.
MR. MAGOWAN-No.
MR. FERONE-Mr. Chairman, that statement about no Federal or other agencies are involved,
does that include the Lake George Park Commission?
MRS. MOORE-Are you looking at Number Two on the first page?
MR. SCHONEWOLF-Yes.
MR. FERONE-I'm looking at the top.
MR. DEEB-No federal or other agencies.
MR. SCHONEWOLF-He's looking at the Neg Dec.
MR. HUNSINGER-Yes, they're not an involved party.
MRS. MOORE-So I do want to ask you to make a correction, and this is not one I caught, but we
had gone over this in the normal SEAR form but I must have been stuck on the other pages, but
on Page One, Item Number Two, it says the proposed action requires permit or approval, and
that should be a yes, and that should be site plan and special use permit, the Town as well as
the Park Commission. So that's amended, as the applicant has agreed to that.
MR. SCHONEWOLF-Okay, as amended.
MR. HUNSINGER-Any other comments on the draft resolution? The draft SEAR resolution?
Go ahead.
MR. SCHONEWOLF-Okay.
RESOLUTION APPROVING A NEGATIVE DEC SUP # 32-2015 JONES & ROZELL
The applicant proposes Applicant proposes to utilize a portion of the existing marina -4 deck
slips and 8 launch passes to operate a jet-ski tour company. No changes to site. Pursuant to
Chapter 179-10 of the Zoning Ordinance Additional Use to a Marina shall be subject to Planning
Board review and approval.
The Planning Board has determined that the proposed project and Planning Board action is
subject to review under the State Environmental Quality Review Act;
The proposed action considered by this Board is Unlisted in the Department of Environmental
Conservation Regulations implementing the State Environmental Quality Review Act and the
regulations of the Town of Queensbury;
No Federal or other agencies are involved;
Part 1 of the Short EAF has been completed by the applicant;
Upon review of the information recorded on this EAF, it is the conclusion of the Town of
Queensbury Planning Board as lead agency that this project will result in no significant adverse
impacts on the environment, and, therefore, an environmental impact statement need not be
prepared. Accordingly, this negative declaration is issued.
MOTION TO GRANT A NEGATIVE DECLARATION SPECIAL USE PERMIT NO. 32-2015
THOMAS JONES & BRENDON ROZELL D/B/A DEVOCEAN WATER SPORTS, Introduced by
Paul Schonewolf who moved for its adoption, seconded by Stephen Traver:
39
(Queensbury Planning Board 06/02/2015)
As per the draft resolution prepared by Staff.
1. Part II of the Short EAF has been reviewed and completed by the Planning Board.
2. Part III of the EAF is not necessary because the Planning Board did not identify potentially
Moderate to large impacts.
Duly adopted this 2nd day of June, 2015, by the following vote:
MRS. MOORE-You're going to remove Part Three because you did not answer that.
MR. HUNSINGER-Right. Three is not necessary.
AYES: Mr. Ferone, Mr. Traver, Mr. Magowan, Ms. White, Mr. Schonewolf, Mr. Deeb, Mr.
Hunsinger
NOES: NONE
MR. HUNSINGER-Are there any other questions or comments from the Board?
MRS. MOORE-What I've heard is that you're looking to do a two year temporary. Is that
accurate?
MR. HUNSINGER-That's what Mr. Traver proposed.
MR. TRAVER-That was my suggestion. I haven't heard really.
MR. SCHONEWOLF-It says term of validity. Is that what you're talking about?
MRS. MOORE-That's what I'm talking about.
MR. HUNSINGER-That's what we're talking about.
MRS. MOORE-So I'd like to hear what your thoughts are on that so that you can put that within
your resolution.
MR. SCHONEWOLF-I think a two year temporary is a good enough trial period. We'll know
long before that, believe me, if there's a problem.
MR. DEEB-Laura, two year temporary or renewable. What's the difference?
MRS. MOORE-A two year, very similar I guess, is that the two year, to me, would mean that it
ends on this date, and they would be re-submitting a new application.
MR. DEEB-That's temporary?
MR. SCHONEWOLF-For a renewable.
MR. TRAVER-Probably for their benefit we should probably have it expire like in January or
something, after next year. So that they have the spring to prepare their application and get a
review and ask for an approval before the ice goes out in April. I mean, they wouldn't want to
lose their permit in the middle of May.
MR. HUNSINGER-Right.
MR. TRAVER-After Memorial Day weekend.
MRS. MOORE-So you're looking at having it end, so it ends, it's not an operation. If you're
saying the term ends period, then there's no operation existing. They cannot do any functions at
that site. Whereas a renewable, it's my thinking that it would extend, they would renew the
operations with any new information to your application materials in the spring.
MR. SCHONEWOLF-So you wouldn't say temporary renewal. You'd just say renewal.
MR. TRAVER-Well, if I could maybe turn that around and ask you, what I would like to see is to
have them have approval to operate this season and next season, and then not operate another
season on the lake without our review.
MRS. MOORE-Okay.
40
(Queensbury Planning Board 06/02/2015)
MR. TRAVER-So I don't know how we would, how you think we should word that, but that's
what I was, when I said two years, I'm really saying two seasons. I'm saying the rest of this
year to kind of get things figured out.
MR. HUNSINGER-So you're really saying the year end 2016.
MR. SCHONEWOLF-2016, right?
MR. TRAVER-Yes. I guess that's right, yet, but I didn't want it to end in May. I mean, they're all
geared up for Memorial Day weekend and then now their permit expires. So I would have
them, at the end of the season, presumably they're going to get their information together and
work with an application for the, over the winter, so that they know where they stand.
MR. MAGOWAN-Wouldn't the process be easier for, they come in for a renewal?
MR. SCHONEWOLF-Yes.
MR. MAGOWAN-So it would be a renewal and not a temporary. They'd have to come in for.
MRS. MOORE-Renewal on January of 2017.
MR. MAGOWAN-17.
MRS. MOORE-Yes.
MR. MAGOWAN-2017.
MR. SCHONEWOLF-Or Year End 2016.
MR. MAGOWAN-At the end of the season 2016.
MR. JONES-We appreciate that.
MR. SCHONEWOLF-Do you care, Year End 2016 or January 2017?
MR. TRAVER-Well, the only difference is one day. The Year End 2016 and January 2017, 24
hours.
MR. DEEB-Which is 24 hours, right.
MRS. MOORE-I don't have a preference, just as long as you know you're ending.
MR. DEEB-At that point, we'd be looking at it again.
MR. TRAVER-And that's what we're looking for, too. We want just to gather some data on the
actual on water operation and give the people time to observe and comment.
MR. HUNSINGER-So the only other question that I would throw out for discussion is the
applicant has offered a lot of what I would consider to be mitigation. They talked about the
speed limits. They talked about training. They talked about the operation being used, the
training. Are there any other special conditions beyond the term that the Board would be looking
for?
MR. SCHONEWOLF-You say adherence to the items outlined, you've got them all.
MR. TRAVER-The only thing I could think of, which I don't think really would be necessary for
our purposes, would be that they follow all the guidelines by the marina operator, you know, in
terms of obeying whatever Park rules, garbage, restrooms. I'm sure they're going to keep an
eye on that.
MR. HUNSINGER-And the Lake George Park Commission rules.
MR. TRAVER-I hope. Yes. I mean, I hope so.
MS. WHITE-Just like any other user.
MR. TRAVER-Right.
MR. HUNSINGER-But I guess I'm asking if there's anything else that hasn't been discussed.
41
(Queensbury Planning Board 06/02/2015)
MR. TRAVER-The only other thing I can think of, and I don't think it's really up to us, is what if,
for some reason, their operating environment, in terms of, like, what if jet-skis, these vessels
were banned lake wide. I mean, that wouldn't be, I mean, that would just end it, right?
MR. HUNSINGER-That would be out of our jurisdiction.
MR. TRAVER-Yes. This temporary approval is in the context of the information we have before
us tonight, and their current operating project. That's fine with me.
MRS. MOORE-I do have another question for the Board. Is information about the permits, and
it sounded like they were not going to go to Diamond Island? However, I don't think that's the
issue that the applicant will obtain appropriate permits to utilize State sites.
MR. SCHONEWOLF-Right. They have to.
MR. DEEB-They have to anyway.
MRS. MOORE-So I just want to make sure that it's not that they're not using Diamond Island.
They will follow their process to obtain the necessary permits.
MR. DEEB-Right, the same as everybody else.
MR. HUNSINGER-Right.
MRS. MOORE-Okay, and the last item that I had was in a previous information they indicated
that they would not be operating on Log Day, and I don't know if that's a condition that.
MR. SCHONEWOLF-You've got that in your letter, right, that you're not going to operate on Log
Bay Day?
MR. ROZELL-Yes, it's in our proposal.
MR. SCHONEWOLF-It's in their proposal.
MR. DEEB-What about alcohol? Can we make it conditioned on that?
MS. WHITE-That's in their proposal as well.
MR. DEEB-That is in there, too? Okay.
MR. HUNSINGER-That's why I said, they've already offered a lot of what we would normally
consider to be mitigation measures. It's already in there. Just like any other application.
MRS. MOORE-I would, the language that you just used, you can use as a condition, operate as
proposed.
MR. SCHONEWOLF-Yes, that's what it's in here.
MRS. MOORE-Because there's a lot of language in the application.
MR. SCHONEWOLF-Adherence to the items in the follow up letter. I can say proposal, as
presented.
MRS. MOORE-As submitted. I mean, there's a lot of information the applicant has submitted
and that information we typically ask for that information to be placed on the site plan. In this
case this entire packet is quite a few pages and outlaying their business operation. I just would
like it to be included as part of the site plan.
MR. SCHONEWOLF-In the proposal as presented, as submitted.
MRS. MOORE-Either way.
MR. SCHONEWOLF-Okay.
MR. HUNSINGER-Well, I mean, it isn't, I mean, the resolution says that we have reviewed the
application materials submitted and all comments made at the public hearing and submitted in
writing through and including 6-2-2015.
42
(Queensbury Planning Board 06/02/2015)
MR. TRAVER-1 think that if they operate at variance with what they propose, both written and in
their proposal tonight, we'll hear about it, and rightly so.
MR. HUNSINGER-Yes.
RESOLUTION APPROVING SUP #32-2015 JONES & ROZELL
The applicant has submitted an application to the Planning Board for Site Plan approval
pursuant to Article 9 of the Town zoning Ordinance for: To utilize a portion of the existing
marina -4 deck slips and 8 launch passes to operate a jet-ski tour company. No changes to site.
Pursuant to Chapter 179-10 of the Zoning Ordinance Additional Use to a Marina shall be subject
to Planning Board review and approval.
Pursuant to relevant sections of the Town of Queensbury Zoning Code-Chapter 179-9-080, the
Planning Board has determined that this proposal satisfies the requirements as stated in the
Zoning Code;
As required by General Municipal Law Section 239-m the site plan application was referred to
the Warren County Planning Department for its recommendation;
The Planning Board has reviewed the potential environmental impacts of the project, pursuant to
the State Environmental Quality Review Act (SEQRA) and adopted a SEQRA Negative
Declaration - Determination of Non-Significance
The Planning Board opened a public hearing on the Site plan application on 5-21-2015 and
continued the public hearing to 6-2-2015 when it was closed,
The Planning Board has reviewed the application materials submitted by the applicant and all
comments made at the public hearing and submitted in writing through and including 6-2-2015;
The Planning Board determines that the application complies with the review considerations and
standards set forth in Article 9 of the Zoning Ordinance for Site Plan approval,
MOTION TO APPROVE SPECIAL USE PERMIT NO. 32-2015 THOMAS JONES & BRENDON
ROZELL D/B/A DEVOCEAN WATER SPORTS, Introduced by Paul Schonewolf who moved for
its adoption, seconded by Stephen Traver:
Per the draft resolution provided by staff conditioned upon the following:
1) Term of Validity: Renewable permit ending at the end of year end 2016.
2) Adherence to the items outlined in the follow-up letter sent with this resolution.
Duly adopted this 2nd day of June, 2015, by the following vote:
AYES: Mr. Schonewolf, Mr. Deeb, Ms. White, Mr. Magowan, Mr. Ferone, Mr. Traver, Mr.
Hunsinger
NOES: NONE
MR. HUNSINGER-And I also want to commend you for a well-designed application. It's very
thorough.
MR. SCHONEWOLF-It's one of the most complete we've seen.
MR. DEEB-Good luck, folks.
MR. JONES-All right. Thank you.
MR. HUNSINGER-Is there any other business to be brought before the Board this evening?
MRS. MOORE-There's no further business that I have, but I do have your packets for June
sitting on the table.
MR. HUNSINGER-1 was going to say, we do have regular meetings on the 16t" and the 23rd
MRS. MOORE-Yes.
MR. HUNSINGER-Okay.
43
(Queensbury Planning Board 06/02/2015)
MR. TRAVER-Yes, I would note that it's been quite a while since we've had three meetings in a
month.
MR. DEEB-Yes.
MR. HUNSINGER-Would someone like to make a motion to adjourn?
MR. SCHONEWOLF-So moved.
MOTION TO ADJOURN THE QUEENSBURY PLANNING BOARD MEETING OF JUNE 2,
2015, Introduced by Paul Schonewolf who moved for its adoption, seconded by George Ferone:
Duly adopted this 2nd day of June, 2015, by the following vote:
AYES: Mr. Ferone, Ms. White, Mr. Traver, Mr. Magowan, Mr. Deeb, Mr. Schonewolf, Mr.
Hunsinger
NOES: NONE
On motion meeting was adjourned.
RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED,
Chris Hunsinger, Chairman
44