10-16-2018 (Queensbury Planning Board 10/16/2018]
QUEENSBURY PLANNING BOARD MEETING
FIRST REGULAR MEETING
OCTOBER 16,2018
INDEX
Site Plan PZ 230-2016 Legacy Land Holdings 1.
REQUEST FOR 1 YR. EXT. Tax Map No. 296.11-1-48, 49, 54, 55, 60
Site Plan No. 70-2017 Mark & Kimberly Gardner 2.
REQUEST FOR 1 YR. EXT. Tax Map No. 226.15-1-35
Subdivision No. 13-2018 Clear Brook, LLC 3.
PRELIMINARY STAGE Tax Map No. 316.14-1-6
Freshwater Wetlands 6-2018
FURTHER TABLING
Site Plan No. 70-2014 James Varano 3.
REQUEST FOR 1 YR. EXT. Tax Map No. 296.13-1-59
Site Plan No. 64-2018 Damon Hartman/Prentiss Carlisle 4.
TABLED TO 11/27/18 Tax Map No. 300.-1-20.2, 300.4-21, 300.4-22
Site Plan No. 46-2018 Rasheed Bhatti 5.
Tax Map No. 288.8-141.2
Subdivision No. 22-2018 John Kokoletsos 15.
PRELIMINARY STAGE Tax Map No. 296.13-1-26
Subdivision No. 21-2018
FINAL STAGE
Site Plan No. 63-2018 Michael Fiacco/63 Quaker Rd. LLC 20.
Tax Map No. 296.18-1-5
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 10/16/2018]
QUEENSBURY PLANNING BOARD MEETING
FIRST REGULAR MEETING
OCTOBER 16, 2018
7:00 P.M.
MEMBERS PRESENT
STEPHEN TRAVER, CHAIRMAN
CHRIS HUNSINGER, VICE CHAIRMAN
DAVID DEEB, SECRETARY
BRAD MAGOWAN
JOHN SHAFER
JAMIE WHITE
MICHAEL VALENTINE
LAND USE PLANNER-LAURA MOORE
STENOGRAPHER-MARIA GAGLIARDI
MR. TRAVER-Good evening, ladies and gentlemen. Welcome to the Town of Queensbury Planning
Board meeting for Tuesday October 16t", 2018. This is our first meeting for the month of October
and the 21" meeting for 2018. Please note the illuminated exit signs around the building. In case of
emergency please leave accordingly. If you have an electronic device, if you would either turn it off
or turn the ringer off we would appreciate it. There should be agendas at the table at the back of the
room if you're looking for one, and with that we'll being our agenda. I'd like to express our thanks
to the Soil and Water District for presenting us with an MS4 update and training between 6:00 and 7
this evening. It was much appreciated. The first item of business is approval of minutes for the
meetings from August 21" and 28t", 2018.
APPROVAL OF MINUTES
August 21, 2018
August 28, 2018
MOTION TO APPROVE THE QUEENSBURY PLANNING BOARD MEETING MINUTES OF
AUGUST 21sT & AUGUST 28T", 2018, Introduced by David Deeb who moved for its adoption,
seconded by Michael Valentine:
Duly adopted this 16" day of October, 2018, by the following vote:
AYES: Mr. Deeb, Ms. White, Mr. Shafer, Mr. Hunsinger, Mr. Magowan, Mr. Valentine, Mr. Traver
NOES: NONE
MR. TRAVER-And next we have some administrative items with regards to tabling and so on. The
first one being Site Plan PZ 230-2016, Legacy Land Holdings.
ADMINISTRATIVE ITEMS:
SITE PLAN PZ 230-2016 LEGACY LAND HOLDINGS — REQUEST FOR AN ADDITIONAL ONE
YEAR EXTENSION
MR. TRAVER-They've requested an additional one year extension, and noting this is the second
request, second year of requesting an extension. Laura, do you have any updated information for us?
MRS. MOORE-1 just understand they're still working on the agreement and that they're not ready for
construction at this point.
MR. TRAVER-Okay, and we have a resolution, a draft resolution in our packets. So is there any
discussion prior to discussing the resolution? Any questions?
RESOLUTION GRANTING A ONE YR. EXTENSION SP PZ 230-2018 LEGACY LAND HOLDINGS
The applicant has submitted an application to the Planning Board for: Applicant proposes a partial 3
story, 27 unit senior housing facility with associated site work for parking, stormwater control and
2
(Queensbury Planning Board 10/16/2018]
landscaping. Project involves lot line adjustments for lots 1, 2, 3, 7, 8, 9, 13 & 14. A portion of the
existing pathway is to be increased in width and to be paved within 50 ft. of the stream for emergency
access. Pursuant to Chapter 179-3-040 and 179-6-050 of the Zoning Ordinance, senior housing, multi-
family housing and fill or hard surfacing within 50 ft. of a stream shall be subject to Planning Board
review and approval. Project includes subdivision modification for lot line adjustments for current site
plan and SP 4-2011.
The Planning Board approved this application on November 15,2016. A one year extension was granted
on October 17, 2017.
MOTION TO APPROVE A ONE YEAR EXTENSION FOR SITE PLAN PZ 230-2016 LEGACY LAND
HOLDINGS. Introduced by David Deeb who moved for its adoption, seconded by John Shafer.
Duly adopted this 16" day of October, 2018 by the following vote:
AYES: Ms. White, Mr. Shafer, Mr. Hunsinger, Mr. Magowan, Mr. Valentine, Mr. Deeb, Mr. Traver
NOES: NONE
MR. TRAVER-And the next item is also a request for an extension. Site Plan 70-2017, Mark 8T
Kimberly Gardner, requesting a one year extension.
SITE PLAN 70-2017 MARK & KIMBERLY GARDNER — REQUEST FOR ONE YEAR EXTENSION
BRIAN BORIE, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT
MR.TRAVER-They were originally approved in December of 2017. Laura,do you have any information
on that?
MRS. MOORE-1 just understand that they're still working towards the construction of the home
project. I think the attorney is in the audience if you want to hear some additional information.
MR. TRAVER-Okay.
MR. BORIE-Good evening. How are you? My name is Brian Borie. I am actually the attorney for
the purchaser. The applicants, the Gardners, are selling their property to my clients, and put simply
they just aren't sure if they're going to move forward with the plans. They just don't have the time.
At this point in the year they haven't started construction. They haven't connected with builders.
They haven't closed. So the closing is proposed end of this month. We're hoping with a one year
extension that'll give us enough time to consider whether they're going to propose this or if they need
to come back to the Town with something different, but my clients understand that they would have
to comply with the Site Plan and all conditions therein.
MR. TRAVER-Sure. Okay. Thank you for that update.
MR. BORIE-Thank you very much.
MR. TRAVER-Any questions for the attorney or any discussion on the resolution? Okay.
RESOLUTION GRANTING A ONE YR. EXTENSION SP # 70-2017 MARK & KIM GARDNER
3,617 sq. ft. home to construct a new 3,638 sq. ft. home. Project involves tree removal within 35 ft.
and hard surfacing within 50 ft. of shoreline, replacement of retaining wall, permeable pavers, rain
garden areas and shoreline planting plan. Pursuant to Chapter 179-3-040 & 179-6-050 of the Zoning
Ordinance, tear down and new construction and hard surfacing within 50' of shore line shall be subject
to Planning Board review and approval.
The Planning Board approved Site Plan 70-2017 on December 19, 2017.
The applicant has requested a one year extension to 2019.
MOTION TO APPROVE GRANT A ONE YEAR EXTENSION SITE PLAN 70-2017 MARK 8T
KIMBERLY GARDNER. Introduced by David Deeb who moved for its adoption, seconded by Michael
Valentine:
Duly adopted this 16" day of October, 2018 by the following vote:
3
(Queensbury Planning Board 10/16/2018]
AYES: Mr. Shafer, Mr. Hunsinger, Mr. Magowan, Mr. Valentine, Mr. Deeb, Ms. White, Mr. Traver
NOES: NONE
MR. TRAVER-And we have a tabling request, one of two actually this evening, for Subdivision
Preliminary Stage 13-2018 and Freshwater Wetlands Permit 6-2018 for Clear Brook, LLC.
SUBDIVISION PRELIM. STAGE 13-2018 & FRESHWATER WETLANDS PERMIT 6-2018 CLEAR
BROOK, LLC — REQUEST TO FURTHER TABLE
MR. TRAVER- think we're all familiar with this project related to the Northway zone and so on, or,
no, I'm sorry. This is the one that has the paving where it's supposed to be grass.
MRS. MOORE-No.
MR. TRAVER-No.
MR. VALENTINE-You were right the first time.
MR. TRAVER-1 was right the first time. All right. I'll just keep my mouth shut.
MRS. MOORE-So the suggestion is to table this to the first meeting in December.
MR. TRAVER-Okay. The first meeting in December. So that would be, I have that as December 18t"?
MRS. MOORE-Yes.
MR. TRAVER-Okay. So the tabling would be until December 18"
RESOLUTION TABLING SUB 13-2018 & FWW 6-2018 CLEAR BROOK, LLC
A subdivision application has been made to the Queensbury Planning Board for the following: Applicant
proposes a 15 lot residential subdivision of a 145.30 acre parcel. Lots 2, 3 & 4 shared driveway, lots 8,
9 &10 shared driveway and lots 14&15 shared driveway. Project is within 1-87 overlay zone. Applicant
requests waiver for construction details, landscape plan, clearing plan, grading and erosion and
stormwater. Pursuant to Chapter 183 and Chapter 94 of the Zoning Ordinance, subdivision of land
and work within 100 ft. of a wetland shall be subject to Planning Board review and approval.
MOTION TO TABLE SUBDIVISION PRELIMINARY STAGE 13-2018 & FRESHWATER WETLANDS
PERMIT 6-2018 CLEAR BROOK, LLC. Introduced by David Deeb who moved for its adoption.
Tabled to the December 18, 2018 Planning Board meeting.
Motion seconded by Brad Magowan. Duly adopted this 16" day of October, 2018 by the following
vote:
AYES: Mr. Hunsinger, Mr. Magowan, Mr. Valentine, Mr. Deeb, Ms. White, Mr. Shafer, Mr. Traver
NOES: NONE
MR. TRAVER-And next we have an extension request for Site Plan 70-2014 James Varano.
SITE PLAN 70-2014 JAMES VARANO — REQUEST FOR ADDITIONAL ONE YEAR EXTENSION
MR. TRAVER-And this is interesting because they've already been extended for three years. So
they're basically asking for a fourth one year extension to October 2019, and as noted by Staff, Laura
has explained that there's no limit on us as far as how many extensions we can grant. Although I
think after four years if they're not back by then we may, at the very least, need to update the
topography for the parcel and, Laura, did they give another explanation for this additional?
MRS. MOORE-Yes. There's been some hardships in the family of the seller.
MR. TRAVER-Okay.
4
(Queensbury Planning Board 10/16/2018]
MRS. MOORE-And so they've requested, the applicant has indicated that they plan on closing and I
believe he can apply for his building permit next month. So he just wanted to catch this in case
something did fall through again, but that's his intent is to file for his building permit next month.
MR. TRAVER-Okay.
MS. WHITE-Can we do something like say yes we'll do it this time but this is the last one?
MRS. MOORE-You can. You can also grant six months instead of one year. I mean, you could make
it shorter this time, three months instead of one year. Either one.
MR. DEEB-There's some special hardships there.
MR. TRAVER-Yes. I'm not sure that we can tell them in so many words that we wouldn't grant
another because we'd have to consider it if it came up again, but I think Staff understands the
circumstances and certainly can communicate to the applicant that four years has raised some concern
on the part of the Planning Board and it sounds like their intent is to move forward. So I think we're
fine. At least I don't see any problem with granting this request under the circumstances. Does
anyone have any further discussion? Okay. All right. Then we have a resolution.
RESOLUTION GRANTING A ONE YR. EXTENSION SP # 70-2014 JAMES VARANO
Applicant proposes construction of a single family dwelling Pursuant to Chapter 179-8-060, -070 of
the Zoning Ordinance, installing/maintaining a buffer less than 50 feet between zones (CM & MDR —
10 feet is proposed) shall be subject to Planning Board review and approval. Applicant was granted an
extension on 10/20/15 to 10/20/16. Applicant was granted a second extension on 10/18/16 to 10/18/17.
Applicant was granted a third extension on 10/17/17 to 10/16/18.
Applicant has requested another one year extension to October 2019.
MOTION TO GRANT A ONE YEAR EXTENSION FOR SITE PLAN 70-2014 JAMES VARANO.
Introduced by David Deeb who moved for its adoption, seconded by John Shafer:
Duly adopted this 16" day of October, 2018 by the following vote:
AYES: Mr. Magowan, Mr. Valentine, Mr. Deeb, Ms. White, Mr. Shafer, Mr. Hunsinger, Mr. Traver
NOES: NONE
MR. TRAVER-And the last item that we have is new to our attention this evening which is actually an
agenda item. I wanted to alert members of the audience. The application for Site Plan 64-2018 for
Damon Hartman/Prentiss Carlisle, which is a timber harvest that's being proposed, had requested to
be tabled until November 27tn
SITE PLAN NO. 64-2018 SEQR TYPE: UNLISTED. DAMON HARTMAN/PRENTISS CARLISLE.
OWNER(SJ: THEODORE RAWSON. ZONING: -20.2 44-3A; -21 & -22 LC40A. LOCATION:
WEST MOUNTAIN ROAD. APPLICANT PROPOSES A TIMBER HARVEST PLAN FOR THREE
PARCELS. PROJECT INCLUDES A SELECTIVE HARVEST WITH MAIN ACCESS AND HEADER
TO BE LOCATED ON PARCEL 300.1-20.2. SKID TRAILS HAVE BEEN IDENTIFIED WITH 50 FT.
BUFFER FROM STREAM CORRIDOR AND ONLY ONE STREAM CROSSING. HARVEST IS TO
BE NO GREATER THAN 15% OF PROPERTY. PURSUANT TO CHAPTER 179-6-010 OF THE
ZONING ORDINANCE, TIMBER HARVEST SHALL BE SUBJECT TO PLANNING BOARD REVIEW
AND APPROVAL. CROSS REFERENCE: N/A. WARREN CO. REFERRAL: OCTOBER 2018.
SITE INFORMATION: STEEP SLOPES, STREAM CROSSING. LOT SIZE: 135.33 ACRES TOTAL
OF 3 PARCELS. TAX MAP NO. 300.1-20.2, 300.1-21, 300.1-22 SECTION: 179-6-010.
MR. TRAVER-So if you're here to comment on that application be advised we're going to be next
discussing a tabling motion on that Site Plan application. So one of the things that's been noted, Laura,
just prior to getting into the tabling motion, is the last application we had for a timber harvest in the
Lake George area had quite a substantially more extensive application from the maps and explanations
of the logging roads and that type of thing, and it seems as though there's not a whole lot of detail
thus far in this application, and I don't know if you have any comment on that? I'm sure you've been
discussing this application with the applicant.
MRS.MOORE-1 have. I went through this and I worked with Soil and Water,again,with this application
to obtain their thoughts on this application. So in the applicant's submission he's indicated that he
5
(Queensbury Planning Board 10/16/2018]
will install the devices that Soil and Water has guided them to, guided to put on the site to direct
stormwater and handle erosion control. So when the applicant does present to you, I don't think it's
as extensive a project as other timber harvests may have been.
MR. TRAVER-Right. Understood.
MRS. MOORE-And that may be the reason there's not an extensive map and things like that, unless
at the meeting you feel you need additional information, that's fine.
MR. TRAVER-Yes. Okay. All right.
MR. HUNSINGER-1 mean I'd just like to see a better map, I mean at least a boundary map so we can
get a better idea of, you know I went to Google and tried to look it up. I mean it's kind of sad when
the Google map is better than the map the applicant's submitted.
MRS. MOORE-I'll give him some guidance on that. That's fine.
MR. TRAVER-Yes. It just might be to their advantage in terms of the process, to give them a heads
up that we're concerned about some background, more detail in terms of exactly what they're doing,
and it doesn't involve SEQR and all that stuff. So it doesn't hurt to give us. Any other discussion?
I guess we're ready for that. Before we do that, so we are going to open the public hearing on this
application.
PUBLIC HEARING OPENED
MR. TRAVER-It is being tabled. We don't know if there will be any changes between now and when
they return. Is there anyone in the audience that wanted to comment on this application this evening?
I'm not seeing anyone. Are there any written comments, Laura?
MRS. MOORE-No written comments.
MR. TRAVER-Okay. All right. So we will entertain a tabling motion but be aware that we will be
leaving the public hearing open on his application, and you can go ahead and do that.
RESOLUTION TABLING SP # 64-2018 DAMON HARTMAN/PRENTISS CARLISLE
The applicant has submitted an application to the Planning Board for Site Plan approval pursuant to
Article 9 of the Town zoning Ordinance for: Applicant proposes a timber harvest plan for three parcels.
Project includes a selective harvest with main access and header to be located on parcel 300.4-20.2.
Skid trails have been identified with 50 ft. buffer from stream corridor and only one stream crossing.
Harvest is to be no greater than 15% of property. Pursuant to Chapter 179-6-010 of the Zoning
Ordinance, timber harvest shall be subject to Planning Board review and approval.
MOTION TO TABLE SITE PLAN NO. 64-2018 DAMON HARTMAN/PRENTISS CARLISLE,
Introduced by David Deeb who moved for its adoption, seconded by Chris Hunsinger:
Tabled to the November 27, 2018 Planning Board meeting.
Duly adopted this 16" day of October, 2018, by the following vote:
AYES: Mr. Deeb, Ms. White, Mr. Shafer, Mr. Hunsinger, Mr. Magowan, Mr. Valentine, Mr. Traver
NOES: NONE
MR. TRAVER-All right, and we next move into the next category of agenda items which is Tabled
Items, and the first application is Rasheed Bhatti, Site Plan 46-2018.
TABLED ITEMS:
SITE PLAN NO. 46-2018 SEQR TYPE: UNLISTED. RASHEED BHATTI. OWNER(SJ: SAME AS
APPLICANT. ZONING: Cl. LOCATION: 1602 STATE ROUTE 9. (1J APPLICANT REQUESTS
TO MAINTAIN EXISTING IMPROVEMENTS TO CABIN 1 AT 270 SQ. FT. WITH A 132 SQ. FT.
DECK,AND CABIN 2 AT 294 SQ. FT. WITH A 144 SQ. FT. DECK. PROJECT WORK FOR CABINS
1-7 INCLUDE EXTENDING ROOF AREA OVER PORCH AREA OF THE CABINS. (2J PROJECT
ALSO INCLUDES REMOVAL OF A 75 SQ. FT. STORAGE AREA AT THE REAR OF THE MAIN
MOTEL UNIT BUILDING TO CONSTRUCT A 420 SQ. FT. STORAGE BUILDING ADDITION.
6
(Queensbury Planning Board 10/16/2018]
PROJECT ALSO MAINTAINS PREVIOUS SITE PLAN TO CONSTRUCT 4 ADDITIONAL CABINS
SP PZ 153-2016 AND ASSOCIATED SITE WORK. APPLICANT HAS ACTIVE PERMITS FOR CABINS
3, 4, & S. RENOVATIONS IN SAME FOOTPRINT. PURSUANT TO CHAPTER 179-3-040 OF
THE ZONING ORDINANCE, NEW COMMERCIAL CONSTRUCTION SHALL BE SUBJECT TO
PLANNING BOARD REVIEW AND APPROVAL. CROSS REFERENCE: SP PZ 153-2016, AV 33-
2017,ASSORTED BLDG. PERMITS. WARREN CO. REFERRAL: JULY 2018. SITE INFORMATION:
TRAVEL CORRIDOR OVERLAY. LOT SIZE: 3.95 ACRES. TAX MAP NO.288.8441.2. SECTION:
179-3-040.
RASHEED BHATTI, PRESENT
MR. TRAVER-Laura, do you want to give us an overview?
MRS. MOORE-So this applicant we've seen in the past months representing Cabin One and Cabin Two.
Cabin Two did receive an Area Variance at the meeting in September and the applicant requests to
maintain additions to Cabin Two, and the Zoning Board granted that. The reasons for the additions
on both buildings was to increase the bathroom size. Cabins One through Seven also had the additional
roof area extended over the porch area. This project also includes removal of a 75 square foot storage
area at the rear of the main motel unit building to construct a 420 square foot storage building
addition and the applicant did explain that at the September meeting he misunderstood the meeting
notice.
MR. TRAVER-Okay. Thank you, and, sir, do you want to come up to the table. Good evening.
MR. BHATTI-I'm sorry about the last time. I missed the meeting. I was not aware that I had to show
up on the 25t". So I'm sorry.
MR. TRAVER-Okay. All right. State your name for the record if you would. We do record the
meetings and the minutes are transcribed.
MR. BHATTI-Yes. My name is Rasheed Bhatti. I'm from the King Hendrick Motel, 1602 State Route
9, Lake George.
MR. TRAVER-Okay. I know that we discussed your application previously and with that you went to
the ZBA and were granted your variance on September 19t". Were there any changes to your proposal
that were required by that review of the Zoning Board?
MR. BHATTI-No changes.
MR. TRAVER-Okay. So what we're looking at is the same application that we looked at.
MR. BHATTI-Yes, sir.
MR. TRAVER-Questions, comments from members of the Planning Board? I'm not hearing any.
There is a public hearing on this application. Is there anyone in the audience that wanted to address
the Planning Board on this application? I'm not seeing anyone. Laura, are there any written
comments?
PUBLIC HEARING OPENED
MRS. MOORE-There are no written comments. I can note in my summary I've explained that when
we went through a site visit there were areas on the site that needed to be stabilized and that's something
that the Board can include in their review process, giving direction about stabilization and maybe setting
a date for that stabilization to take place.
MR. TRAVER-Okay. Thank you. I'll ask the applicant, are you familiar with that issue regarding the
stabilization on the site?
MR. BHATTI-Not quite.
MR. TRAVER-Not quite? Okay.
MRS. MOORE-So there were areas of exposed dirt on the site when we did our site visit. So Bruce
suggested you need to seed and grass it.
MR. BHATTI-It's been done.
7
(Queensbury Planning Board 10/16/2018]
MRS. MOORE-Okay.
MR. BHATTI-That's been done a long time ago. Right after Bruce stopped by and he said he would
visit again Monday but he never did.
MRS. MOORE-All right.
MR. BHATTI-So that part has been done.
MRS. MOORE-Okay. Thank you.
MR. TRAVER-Okay. All right. Well we can make that a condition as well.
MR. SHAFER-Mr. Chairman, there was a Staff comment about there are to be 37 parking spaces once
the four cabins previously approved are completed. At this time the site supports 29 spaces. I guess
the question, is there room for the 37? Under Traffic, the bottom comment, Laura.
MRS. MOORE-Right. So there's also parking spaces I think also with the other sites with the other
cabins on the other part of the property.
MR. SHAFER-So that's not an issue, then?
MRS. MOORE-1 don't believe that's an issue.
MR. SHAFER-Okay.
MR. TRAVER-Any other questions or comments?
MR. MAGOWAN-Yes, I was wondering if it's possible, what we can do for some more planting up
along the backside, you know, along the backside of Cabins One and Two, and down further along the
property line, doing some shrubbery.
MR. TRAVER-Landscaping, you mean?
MR. MAGOWAN-Yes. Some more landscaping in that, since you did get your approval but you're
all close and it's right next door to a historical marker area, and what we can do to kind of buffer that
back corner cabin, Two, and bringing it around.
MR. TRAVER-Do you have some specific suggestions that we can include in a resolution in terms of
number and type of plantings? It would be helpful for the applicant to know specifically and also for
follow up inspections to know specifically what.
MR. MAGOWAN-Yes.
MR. BHATTI-It's been all cleared. There used to be a very large tree there. It's flat. So it's planned
to put some grass. It's all flat right next to the land you're talking about.
MR. MAGOWAN-Right off of Cabin Two?
MR. BHATTI-Cabin Two. So it's all flat and there's been dirt there. So I'm planning to put some grass
come the spring.
MR. MAGOWAN-Right. I'm thinking more like a spruce, something that will grow out and tall,
because you are six feet right off the line there, six and a half feet.
MR. BHATTI-Yes.
MR. VALENTINE-Was there ever a landscaping plan associated with this layout plan do you know
before?
MR. TRAVER-I don't believe that there was a landscaping plan associated with what we're looking at,
Cabin One and Cabin Two.
MR. VALENTINE-What we have is Sheet Two of Five. So I didn't know if there was anything else.
8
(Queensbury Planning Board 10/16/2018]
MR. TRAVER-Well I think we can certainly ask for landscaping, but I think for the benefit of the
applicant and Staff we should be specific in terms of what we're asking.
MR. MAGOWAN-Yes. I'm thinking of, you know, maybe 14 good sized hemlocks or spruce
combination, you know, starting on the down side and kind of falling where you have your silt fence
line, and then finishing it over here, right behind.
MR. TRAVER-So you're talking about the south boundary?
MR. MAGOWAN-No, this would be the north boundary.
MR. TRAVER-The north boundary. I was close.
MR. MAGOWAN-So I'm thinking right along the silt fence line you know where you have your silt
fence, it says see detail on Sheet Five. Your silt fence.
MR. BHATTI-Yes.
MR. TRAVER-So starting there.
MR. MAGOWAN-Starting there and running 14 right along the property line and then following it
back behind that two bedroom cabin there, the 30 by 30, A B.
MR. TRAVER-So you're talking about 14 trees, right?
MR. MAGOWAN-Yes.
MR. TRAVER-And what caliper should they be?
MR. MAGOWAN-Well I would say, I don't know what.
MRS. MOORE-If they're evergreen trees it's typically a height issue. So either a three foot or a five
foot typically.
MR. MAGOWAN-1 was thinking six.
MRS. MOORE-Okay. Sounds good. So just to make sure I'm on the right page, so you said from
the silt fence corner all along?
MR. MAGOWAN-Yes, if they're evenly spaced out along that.
MR. BHATTI-But Cabin A and B, the land goes way deep. There's no way we can put any trees. The
only flat land is by Cabin One behind and we put a silt fence because it's very steep.
MR. MAGOWAN-Well the silt fence curves in, doesn't it?
MR. BHATTI-It's right behind where the fill was and then the land.
MR. MAGOWAN-And the land slopes down right back from the flat, right beyond your septic. Is
that your septic there?
MRS. MOORE-That's a drainage area.
MR. MAGOWAN-Infiltration basin.
MRS. MOORE-Yes.
MR. MAGOWAN-So isn't that flat there right on the back side of that infiltration basin?
MR. BHATTI-Right flat is behind Cabin One, it's flat.
MR. MAGOWAN-Right.
MR. BHATTI-And then the further up you come, where the future cabin will be, A and B, it's flat, and
then right, then it's very steep after a few feet down.
9
(Queensbury Planning Board 10/16/2018]
MR. TRAVER-You can see the topographic lines.
MR. MAGOWAN-Right. Well I'll show you where. Fourteen trees starting about here, all the way
along here to follow this and you follow this, because this is where it starts sloping down. Right, it's
all flat here, and you're going to bring them down here to around here.
MR. BHATTI-Okay.
MR. MAGOWAN-So 14 six foot spruce and hemlock combination or, I mean unless the Board has
some other.
MR. TRAVER-Fourteen hemlock or spruce.
MR. MAGOWAN-Or a combination.
MR. TRAVER-Right, and then beginning at a point.
MR. MAGOWAN-Actually right at the end of the big dark line there, right where the, beginning
where the silt fence arrow is.
MRS. MOORE-1 guess I'm concerned, if you're saying it's behind what we call Cabin A B, that feature
that's just behind it, I wouldn't, I'd be cautious about.
MR. VALENTINE-Yes, if you're planting in the Swale.
MRS. MOORE-In the Swale. I guess I would avoid that.
MR. MAGOWAN-No, the silt fence, on the silt fence there.
MRS. MOORE-Yes, but it would appear to be really close.
MR. MAGOWAN-Yes, but you're going to be this side, no, not all the way behind A B, but covering
One. Come back up.
MR. BHATTI-But there's all trees there anyway. There's no neighbors.
MR. VALENTINE-From the looks of it, it looks like your clearing line is established right along that
property line, fence line. It's almost, Brad, if you were going to pick up right at the end of the
infiltration system, the left end, behind that area where it's flat. Right there.
MRS. MOORE-And I would extend some system of trees to Cabin Two, because right now it's cleared
to the property line and so it's your responsibility on your side of the property to be a good neighbor.
MR. HUNSINGER-So from the tree line.
MR. TRAVER-So from the edge of the clearing line over to the, to the east to the.
MR. MAGOWAN-To where it starts going down. So start right there at the silt fence and 14 trees
all the along, all the way over until it starts dropping down, straight across. Keep going. Go the
other way, Laura, a little further. Right to where it starts to drop off.
MRS. MOORE-1 would say this is the clearing line.
MR. MAGOWAN-Right, go right up to the clearing line.
MRS. MOORE-Okay. To the stone wall.
MR. TRAVER-To the stone wall?
MRS. MOORE-This is a retaining wall that's in there, Rasheed?
MR. BHATTI-Yes.
MRS. MOORE-Okay.
MR. TRAVER-So from the.
10
(Queensbury Planning Board 10/16/2018]
MRS. MOORE-Retaining wall to the cleared area along that property line.
MR. MAGOWAN-Yes, because the retaining wall starts going back down again. Correct?
MRS. MOORE-Along the property line.
MR. MAGOWAN-Yes, all along the property line.
MR. TRAVER-Will that work? From the retaining wall, on the north end of the property from the
retaining wall on the east side to the clearing limit on the west side, along the property line.
MR. MAGOWAN-Is that hemlock and spruce you've got there, Dave?
MR. TRAVER-Yes, 14 six foot trees in any combination of hemlock or spruce. Clearing limit to the
north end of the retaining wall. On the clearing limit which would be the northwest side going east
to the north end of the retaining wall.
MRS. MOORE-So it appears to be roughly maybe 70 feet, maybe 70 feet in length.
MR. DEEB-That's easier.
MR. TRAVER-All right. Anything else? So we're talking about what Mr. Magowan is suggesting.
I'm not hearing any objections to it. It would be a combination of hemlock and spruce, six feet in
height, 14 in number, extending from the clearing limit on the north side of the property east
approximately 70 feet to the vicinity of the end of the retaining wall. Any other discussion?
MR. VALENTINE-Just saying that the fact that Laura giving a measurement there and you're talking
being six foot tall, you're usually looking at being 30 foot on center.
MRS. MOORE-That's why I was wondering, thank you. It's not going to fit. I apologize.
MR. VALENTINE-Not unless you did two rows and you did offset and staggered them or something,
but if you just did consecutive trees in a row you're going to kill your trees.
MRS. MOORE-Yes.
MR. BHATTI-What is the purpose of putting the trees there? The trees are already there. There's
no neighbors. Everything looks wonderful if you come and take a look at the site, just stop by.
MR. DEEB-And what are we buffering?
MR. TRAVER-It's not buffering. It's landscaping.
MR. MAGOWAN-Landscaping.
MR. BHATTI-The landscaping is already, there's a lot of trees. There's not much flat land there with
the two properties. I cleaned it all up and I'm planning on putting just nice green grass and it looks
beautiful. The trees aren't going to do any good there. It's going to look very ugly there.
MR. TRAVER-An ugly tree?
MR. BHATTI-No, I'm just saying there's no purpose. I'm just confused. If you were physically there
you'd see what I'm talking about.
MR. VALENTINE-1 think Brad's original comment is maybe what I was looking at was some stabilization
of the slope area there would be part of it. If 14 trees don't work you could use seven.
MR. TRAVER-Well I think it's important that we be specific.
MR. VALENTINE-1 was going to say with trees. Then if you're looking at stabilizing, use some
junipers, blue rug junipers, something to hold the ground between them.
MR. BHATTI-But the land is already stable. I don't know what you guys are talking about. The slope
is right behind where future Cabin A and B will be. Then way back of the slope, everything else is
stable.
11
(Queensbury Planning Board 10/16/2018]
MR. TRAVER-Yes, I'm not sure that this area is the bare ground that Laura is talking about in terms
of stabilization. You had said that you had already done stabilization in the area.
MR. BHATTI-It's been there for years. This is all settled.
MR. TRAVER-Okay. I mean, this is not stabilization. This is landscaping. I believe is what's being
proposed.
MR. BHATTI-Because the other side of the property is all trees.
MR. TRAVER-How many trees are in the area that we're discussing?
MR. BHATTI-The other side is.
MR. TRAVER-Not the other side, the area that we're discussing.
MR. BHATTI-There's no trees. It's just a little bit of flat area left.
MR. TRAVER-So what's being suggested is adding trees to that area, where there are currently none.
MR. MAGOWAN-1 mean like I said, instead of in a straight light there, if you wrap them around and
bring them back and tie them into the wall there.
MR. BHATTI-But there's no wall there. That's why I was confused. There's only one wall on the
other side. There's no wall there.
MRS. MOORE-This isn't constructed yet?
MR. BHATTI-Nothing is done yet. There's no wall there yet.
MRS. MOORE-Not yet.
MR. BHATTI-Not yet. This is all new, when the new cabins come. Right now we're working on the
old cabins.
MR. TRAVER-Well, so we would need to describe that end as not to the wall but to the proposed wall
because it apparently hasn't been constructed yet.
MR. BHATTI-I can add the trees, I know what you're talking about, from Cabin Two. I can go from
there, from the corner, and I can go all the way up to the first cabin, behind the cabin. That would
be our property line, and it's all flat, and then the tree will overgrow over the years, but there's big
trees behind which is the neighbor's land which is the monument.
MR. MAGOWAN-So you're saying planting them in front of the retention area?
MRS. MOORE-No. He just said both. So I believe you can either plant them on the boundary or
property line, or behind the parking area, and that's not where I think you want them.
MR. BHATTI-No, that would be the boundary line.
MRS. MOORE-And it sounds like seven trees would survive versus fourteen. I just want to make sure
you're aware of that.
MR. MAGOWAN-Okay. Well I was actually going further over to the A B, but you can't go there
because of the retention and the Swale.
MR. BHATTI-If you were to stop by then you'd have a better picture of what physically is there right
now, what it looks like, and I can add any trees.
MR. TRAVER-So, Mr. Magowan, what you're reducing your number of trees to seven from fourteen?
MR. MAGOWAN-1 will reduce it down to seven.
MR. TRAVER-Okay. Seven not fourteen.
12
(Queensbury Planning Board 10/16/2018]
MR. MAGOWAN-Well that's just my opinion. It's up to the Board.
MR. TRAVER-Yes. So any discussion, further discussion I guess I would say. We did clarify the
number. Any discussion or concern about the location?
MR. MAGOWAN-1 mean if you have to wrap them around toward the wall there, that would also
hide you from the bike trail that's behind that. So you could plant seven, you know, six foot combo
hemlock spruce, around from the future wall to, up there to the northwest corner.
MR. TRAVER-To the northwest corner where the clearing limit is indicated.
MR. MAGOWAN-The clearing limit, yes.
MR. TRAVER-Okay.
MR. MAGOWAN-1 mean because you've got a little flat area there. You can always bring it in a
little.
MR. TRAVER-Okay. It still would be from the location of the proposed wall to the. The retaining
wall has not yet been constructed. So before we were talking about going to the wall. Now we're
saying to the proposed wall. All right. So what we're talking about now is seven, six foot either
hemlock or spruce trees planted in a 70 foot space from approximately the clearing limit to the
northwest along the property line to the end of the proposed retaining wall. Correct?
MR. MAGOWAN-Yes.
MR. TRAVER-Okay.
MR. MAGOWAN-Wrap it right around the back of Two.
MR. TRAVER-All right. Any further discussion?
MR. VALENTINE-Laura, how does that get translated to Staff or who checks it?
MRS. MOORE-So Bruce will, the applicant receives a compliance letter. The compliance letter gives
them direction to submit final plans, part of the final plans placing this resolution on their final plans
and then also showing the required update of the plan. So seven trees will be added to this Site Plan.
Bruce goes out and identifies, works with Rasheed during the pre-construction meeting and identifies
that there's seven trees to be planted here. When they are planted he comes back and inspects it.
MR. TRAVER-Yes. Remember a couple of meetings ago we talked about the letter that Laura devised
that has the, the handout to all approved applicants detailing what the, or I should say reinforcing what
the expectations are.
MR. VALENTINE-Exact locations can be made out in the field, though?
MRS. MOORE-Yes.
MR. TRAVER-Yes, we need to give some general direction which is why we have to be specific about
where the line is. So, okay. Well we also have SEQR on this application,and we have a draft resolution
in our packet.
MR. DEEB-Did you close the public hearing?
MR. TRAVER-1 don't remember if I closed the public hearing or not. I think so.
MRS. MOORE-Maria keeps track of that, and I just asked. You have not closed the public hearing.
MR. TRAVER-Okay. Well then we will close the public hearing.
PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED
MR. TRAVER-Thank you for that, and we will begin our review under SEAR. We do have a draft
SEQR resolution. I think the only thing that we're looking at with this is the changes that the ZBA
approved to Cabins One and Cabins Two that were unapproved development. So does anyone have
13
(Queensbury Planning Board 10/16/2018]
any environmental concerns regarding impacts of those changes? Then we can entertain the SEQR
motion.
RESOLUTION GRANTING A NEGATIVE SEQR DEC. SP # 46-2018 RASHEED BHATTI
The applicant proposes: [1] Applicant requests to maintain existing improvements to Cabin 1 at 270 sq.
ft. with a 132 sq. ft. deck, and Cabin 2 at 294 sq. ft. with a 144 sq. ft. deck. Project work for Cabins 1-
7 include extending roof area over porch area of the cabins. [2] Project also includes removal of a 75
sq. ft. storage area at the rear of the main motel unit building to construct a 420 sq. ft. storage building
addition. Project also maintains previous site plan to construct 4 additional cabins SP PZ 153-2016 and
associated site work. Applicant has active permits for cabins 3, 4 & 5 renovations in same footprint.
Pursuant to Chapter 179-3-040 of the Zoning Ordinance, new commercial construction shall be subject
to Planning Board review and approval.
The Planning Board has determined that the proposed project and Planning Board action is subject to
review under the State Environmental Quality Review Act;
The proposed action considered by this Board is Unlisted in the Department of Environmental
Conservation Regulations implementing the State Environmental Quality Review Act and the regulations
of the Town of Queensbury;
No Federal or other agencies are involved;
Part 1 of the Short EAF has been completed by the applicant;
Upon review of the information recorded on this EAF, it is the conclusion of the Town of Queensbury
Planning Board as lead agency that this project will result in no significant adverse impacts on the
environment, and, therefore, an environmental impact statement need not be prepared. Accordingly,
this negative declaration is issued.
MOTION TO GRANT A NEGATIVE DECLARATION FOR SITE PLAN 46-2018 RASHEED BHATTI.
Introduced by David Deeb who moved for its adoption.
As per the resolution prepared by staff.
1. Part II of the Short EAF has been reviewed and completed by the Planning Board.
2. Part III of the Short EAF is not necessary because the Planning Board did not identify potentially
moderate to large impacts.
Motion seconded by Brad Magowan. Duly adopted this 16th day of October, 2018 by the following
vote:
AYES: Mr. Valentine, Mr. Deeb, Mr. Shafer, Mr. Hunsinger, Mr. Magowan, Mr. Traver
NOES: NONE
ABSTAINED: Ms. White
MR. TRAVER-Next we move on to the Site Plan, and we have a draft resolution that we've added in
this draft motion at least one condition pertaining to the trees that we talked about for landscaping.
So do you want to read that? And stabilization, thank you, which the applicant has indicated has
already been done and will be verified.
MRS. MOORE-You can either confirm that it's been stabilized or verify that it's been stabilized.
RESOLUTION APPROVING SP #46-2018 RASHEED BHATTI
The applicant has submitted an application to the Planning Board for Site Plan approval pursuant to
Article 9 of the Town zoning Ordinance for: [1] Applicant requests to maintain existing improvements
to Cabin 1 at 270 sq. ft. with a 132 sq. ft. deck, and Cabin 2 at 294 sq. ft. with a 144 sq. ft. deck. Project
work for Cabins 1-7 include extending roof area over porch area of the cabins. [2] Project also includes
removal of a 75 sq. ft. storage area at the rear of the main motel unit building to construct a 420 sq.
ft. storage building addition. Project also maintains previous site plan to construct 4 additional cabins
SP PZ 153-2016 and associated site work. Applicant has active permits for cabins 3, 4 & 5 renovations
14
(Queensbury Planning Board 10/16/2018]
in same footprint. Pursuant to Chapter 179-3-040 of the Zoning Ordinance, new commercial
construction 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 09/25/2018 and continued
the public hearing to 10/16/2018, when it was closed,
The Planning Board has reviewed the application materials submitted by the applicant and all comments
made at the public hearing and submitted in writing through and including 10/16/2018;
The Planning Board determines that the application complies with the review considerations and
standards set forth in Article 9 of the Zoning Ordinance for Site Plan approval,
MOTION TO APPROVE SITE PLAN 46-2018 RASHEED BHATTI. Introduced by David Deeb who
moved for its adoption;
Per the draft provided by staff conditioned upon the following conditions:
1] Waivers request granted:
2] Adherence to the items outlined in the follow-up letter sent with this resolution.
a) If application was referred to engineering,then engineering sign-off required prior to signature
of Zoning Administrator of the approved plans;
bJ Final approved plans should have dimensions and setbacks noted on the site plan/survey, floor
plans and elevation for the existing rooms and proposed rooms in the building and site
improvements,
cJ Final approved plans, in compliance with the Site Plan, must be submitted to the Community
Development Department before any further review by the Zoning Administrator or Building
and Codes personnel;
dJ The applicant must meet with Staff after approval and prior to issuance of Building
Permit and/or the beginning of any site work;
eJ Subsequent issuance of further permits, including building permits is dependent on compliance
with this and all other conditions of this resolution;
fJ As-built plans to certify that the site plan is developed according to the approved plans to be
provided prior to issuance of the certificate of occupancy;
gJ Resolution to be placed on final plans in its entirety and legible.
hJ Stabilization and remediation has been completed and can be inspected by the Town Staff.
iJ Seven 6 foot hemlock or spruce to be planted beginning from the edge of the clearing limit
from the northwest property line to extend east approximately 70 feet to the end of the
proposed retaining wall.
Motion seconded by Brad Magowan Duly adopted this 16th day of October, 2018 by the following
vote:
AYES: Mr. Deeb, Mr. Shafer, Mr. Hunsinger, Mr. Magowan, Mr. Valentine
NOES: Mr. Traver
ABSTAINED: Ms. White
MR. TRAVER-All right. You are all set.
MR. BHATTI-Thank you, sir.
MR. TRAVER-The next category under New Business we have two items. The first being John
Kokoletsos, Subdivision Preliminary Stage 22-2018 and Subdivision Final Stage 21-2018.
15
(Queensbury Planning Board 10/16/2018]
NEW BUSINESS:
SUBDIVISION PRELIMINARY STAGE 22-2018 SUBDIVISION FINAL STAGE 21-2018 SEQR TYPE:
UNLISTED. JOHN KOKOLETSOS. AGENT(SJ: HUTCHINS ENGINEERING; BARTLETT,
PONTIFF, STEWART & RHODES, VANDUSEN & STEVES. OWNER(SJ: SAME AS APPLICANT.
ZONING: MDR. LOCATION: 132 MONTRAY ROAD. APPLICANT PROPOSES A TWO LOT
SUBDIVISION OF A 4.28 ACRE PARCEL. ONE LOT TO BE 2.28 ACRES AND TO MAINTAIN
EXISTING HOME AND DRIVEWAY ACCESS TO MONTRAY ROAD. THE SECOND LOT IS TO
BE 2.0 ACRES FOR A PROPOSED NEW HOME TO HAVE ACCESS FROM PINECREST.
PURSUANT TO CHAPTER 183 OF THE ZONING ORDINANCE, SUBDIVISION OF LAND SHALL
BE SUBJECT TO PLANNING BOARD REVIEW AND APPROVAL. CROSS REFERENCE: AV 60-
2018; SUB (PJ 18-2018 WARREN CO. REFERRAL N/A. LOT SIZE: 4.28 ACRES. TAX MAP NO.
296.134-26. SECTION: CHAPTER 183.
TOM HUTCHINS, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT
MR. TRAVER-Laura?
MRS. MOORE-This applicant is requesting a two lot subdivision of a 4.28 acre parcel. One lot is 2.28
acres and the second lot is to remain 2 acres for a proposed new home to have access from Pinecrest.
The Zoning Board did grant the applicant the access on Pinecrest on 9/19 and the applicant has since,
and the agent has since communicated with Staff that their clearing plan needed to be updated. So
that's why it's back in front of the Board as Preliminary because the first clearing plan was different.
So it's back to you as Preliminary, and the applicant completed their Final application stage. So you're
seeing Preliminary and Final and I'll briefly read the clearing plan information. The new clearing is a
larger portion of the applicant's backyard of the proposed home and the northern side of the property.
The applicant proposes to maintain 10 foot vegetated buffer on the south side. The plan shows the
areas where vegetation is to remain on the south side of the property. The applicant has explained
the clearing opens the lot to sunlight. The applicant is aware dead and down trees may be removed
and dying trees will need to be discussed with the code compliance officer. The plans show the new
clearing area for the house, rear yard area, site septic and well installation for the proposed home.
MR. TRAVER-Okay. Thank you, Laura. Good evening.
MR. HUTCHINS-Good evening, Board. Tom Hutchins with Mike Kokoletsos and his wife Tammy
who will be the owners/occupants of the house on Lot Number Two. The applicant is Mike's father,
and we were here last month if you recall. We did receive Preliminary approval and we have since
modified our clearing limit a little bit, and that's why we're back here asking you to re-affirm SEQR
and asking for Preliminary again. The clearing limit went from roughly 20,000 square feet to roughly
40,000 square feet but was expanded to get some more light in the area both on the front yard of
the house per se and in the rear. Other than that, there are no changes. We seek your support and
if there's any questions, feel free. Do you want to add anything?
MIKE KOKOLETSOS
MR. KOKOLETSOS-1 don't know if you're aware of the property there, but it's just 100 foot old trees.
We're trying to open it up to get a little sunlight in there and keep a buffer on each side so that you
don't see the neighbors and they don't see us.
MR. TRAVER-Okay. So after our Preliminary review, there are no changes other than changing
clearing limits that you described?
MR. HUTCHINS-Correct.
MR. TRAVER-Okay.
MR. HUNSINGER-So the location of the house didn't change?
MR. HUTCHINS-Correct.
MR. DEEB-Do you need that extensive? You're doubling the area that's to be cleared. Do you need
that much?
MR. KOKOLETSOS-Yes, I'd like it.
MR. HUTCHINS-It was very, very tight, and so, yes, it was very tight in the first one.
16
(Queensbury Planning Board 10/16/2018]
MR. MAGOWAN-Well I thought you were going to, you know, put a big old long trailer in there or
something, you know what I'm saying? I can see why you want, it did look narrow and tight, and like
you said, you know, usually in most things you have more of a front yard, but really you're caught in
with a lot of big trees, and I can see just opening up to get some more sun. It's still going to be
pretty dense back in there, but you got it to go with the sunrise and sunset. So you should have sun
on the roof all day.
MR. TRAVER-Any other questions for the applicant on the follow up? We do have a public hearing
on this application as well. Is there anyone here that wanted to discuss this application with the Board?
I'm not seeing any hands. Laura, are there any written comments?
PUBLIC HEARING OPENED
MRS. MOORE-1 do have two written comments.
MR. TRAVER-Okay.
MRS. MOORE-This is to the Queensbury Planning Board from Barbara Warner of 4 Wincrest Drive.
"I am not in favor of the newly proposed disturbance zone bordering several Wincrest Drive residents'
properties. Originally, I believe, 30 feet of vegetation was proposed, and I would like to keep as much
privacy as possible. The non-Wincrest Drive properties, I believe, are not affected by this disturbance
zone. Please reconsider this revision before approving. Thank you. Barbara H. Warner" The
second letter is from Patricia and Ken Zacharias of 6 Wincrest Drive. "My wife and I are unable to
attend this Public Hearing as we will be out of town that week. We are not in favor of the new
proposed disturbance zone as has been redrawn from the approved original application. The non-
Wincrest Drive side of the property is a non-issue as it is all wooded and there is no access to the
property other than by the present property owners on Montray Road. Several Wincrest Drive
residents, however, will be adversely affected by this newly proposed extension of the disturbance zone
as our rear property lines abut the Kokoletsos property. Rather than leaving approximately 30 feet
of vegetation along much of the Wincrest Drive side of the property as originally proposed, the new
proposal shows no more than 10 feet of vegetation along that entire Wincrest Drive side. I am sure
Mr. Kokoletsos wants his privacy as much as we want ours. I hope Mr. Kokoletsos and the Planning
Board consider this issue before approval of this revised application. Ken Zacharias"
MR. TRAVER-Laura, can you show us on the map approximately where those.
MR. MAGOWAN-They're right here.
MR. HUNSINGER-Who was the first letter from?
MR. HUTCHINS-Right here.
MR. MAGOWAN-Barbara Warner, and the house is going to be right in between the two properties.
MR. TRAVER-Right.
MR. HUTCHINS-And we really haven't expanded the cut limit at that point beside those two parcels.
We're 10 feet off our property line with our original submission, although it did taper further out
going easterly and westerly.
MR. TRAVER-Right.
MR. HUTCHINS-Again we've agreed to hold 10 feet native vegetation along that parcel line, which is
more than there are, than there is here certainly.
MR. TRAVER-Okay. Those are the only written comments, Laura?
MRS. MOORE-Yes.
MR. TRAVER-Okay. Then we'll close the public hearing.
PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED
MR. MAGOWAN-Mike, you're also a landscaper too, aren't you?
17
(Queensbury Planning Board 10/16/2018]
MR. KOKOLETSOS-Yes.
MR. MAGOWAN-So I'm sure you will fill it in nice. I mean the house you have now is beautifully
done and kept up nice. I think you could work with the neighbors there. Like I say, I don't see as
much disturbance there as what you say. You went deeper more than anything else.
MR. VALENTINE-So what do you want, seven or fourteen hemlocks?
MR. MAGOWAN-Just to show how nice I am I'm going to ask for 2 ten footers.
MR. TRAVER-All right. Any further discussion or questions for the applicant? We do, in case I've
forgot I'll close the public hearing. We do need to consider SEAR, and this is with the new
information. If no one has any renewed environmental concerns we can re-affirm our previous SEAR.
Is there any concern regarding environmental impacts of the modest change that the applicant has
made from the Planning Board? I'm not hearing any. Okay.
RESOLUTION GRANTING A NEGATIVE SEQR DEC. SUB # 2018 JOHN KOKOLETSOS
The applicant proposes a two lot subdivision of a 4.28 acre parcel. One lot to be 2.28 acres and to
maintain existing home and driveway access to Montray Road. The second lot is to be 2.0 acres for a
proposed new home to have access from Pinecrest. Pursuant to Chapter 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;
Part 2 of the Long EAF has been reviewed by the Planning Board;
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 RE-AFFIRM A NEGATIVE DECLARATION FOR SUBDIVISION PRELIMINARY
STAGE 18-2018 JOHN KOKOLETSOS, Introduced by David Deeb who moved for its adoption;
As per the resolution prepared by staff.
1. Part II of the Long EAF has been reviewed and completed by the Planning Board.
2. Part III of the Long EAF is not necessary because the Planning Board did not identify potentially
moderate to large impacts.
Motion seconded by Brad Magowan. Duly adopted this 16" day of October, 2018 by the following
vote:
AYES: Ms. White, Mr. Shafer, Mr. Hunsinger, Mr. Magowan, Mr. Valentine, Mr. Deeb, Mr. Traver
NOES: NONE
MR. TRAVER-Next we move to the Preliminary Stage approval resolution.
MR. HUNSINGER-So just going back to the comment letter, is there any way that you could shift the
house north a little bit and get a bigger buffer on that side, in light of those concerns? So that maybe
there's a 20 foot buffer.
MR. HUTCHINS-Well we've agreed to hold the house to beyond the 25 foot side setback.
18
(Queensbury Planning Board 10/16/2018]
MR. HUNSINGER-Right, yes, you're at 33.
MR. HUTCHINS-And we're dimensioned at 33. 1 mean we feel pretty good about allowing the 10
foot buffer along that entire length. There really is no buffer on the adjoining properties, and I don't
know, what are your thoughts on that, Mike?
MR. KOKOLETSOS-1 think 10 foot's plenty enough, and the way I maintain property, if you've driven
by my house now it's kept up and maintained and I'd like to make a note that Mr. Zacharias likes 30
feet, he's been dumping his yard waste for the past 30 years 30 to 40 feet onto my father's property,
which I have pictures of, which I'm not happy with, but I'd like to, once I get that area cleaned up I'd
like to prevent those residents from dumping their yard waste in my yard.
MR. TRAVER-So that's part of the issue associated with the buffer really.
MR. HUNSINGER-Yes.
MR. TRAVER-Okay.
MR. HUTCHINS-We talked about plantings. We talked about fencing. We decided that a natural
buffer was our best approach there.
MR. TRAVER-That's usually preferable anyway.
MR. HUTCHINS-Yes.
MR. TRAVER-When it's available.
MR. VALENTINE-In going in that area on that southern side of that property line, as you go towards
the septic in the back there, you've got it cleared out, you've added clearing where the house is, and I
can somewhat understand that, you know trying to set trusses and stuff like that in there, but is it
necessary where the septic is to have it cleared that far out on the septic? I mean even if you kept
that existing tree line to the 25 foot setback line, that would still give you open space in there and at
least that would take care of the one neighbor you just mentioned, Zacharias, with providing any buffer
in there would increase that. That 10 foot setting to a 25 foot setting along there.
MR. KOKOLETSOS-The structure of the land is very, very narrow as is the parcel of land. I'm just
trying to get as much clearing in there in some way as I can. If you walk that property you'll see the
height of some of those trees. I walked in there yesterday and had 20 ticks on both legs because it's
just infested.
MR. TRAVER-And it sounds as though it's not just clearing but perhaps some reclamation going on
as well.
MR. KOKOLETSOS-There's dead trees everywhere.
MR. TRAVER-Yes. All right.
MR. MAGOWAN-As long as he's going to have to plant something where the guy's been dumping
his yard waste 40 feet in. So obviously that's got to be open from his yard all the way back to yours.
So you're going to, you know, and being in landscaping you're always coming across someone saying
get that tree or that shrub out of here, whatever, and you don't want it to go so you'll bring it home
and plant it. I think it will look nice. I don't have a problem with the boundary line here.
MR. TRAVER-Okay. Any other discussion? All right. Let's hear the motion for the Preliminary,
please.
RESOLUTION APPROVING SUB # 22-2018 PRELIM. STAGE JOHN KOKOLETSOS
A subdivision application has been made to the Queensbury Planning Board for the following: Applicant
proposes a two lot subdivision of a 4.28 acre parcel. One lot to be 2.28 acres and to maintain existing
home and driveway access to Montray Road. The second lot is to be 2.0 acres for a proposed new
home to have access from Pinecrest. Pursuant to Chapter 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;
19
(Queensbury Planning Board 10/16/2018]
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 10/16/2018;
This application is supported with all documentation, public comment, and application material in the
file of record;
MOTION TO APPROVE SUBDIVISION PRELIMINARY STAGE 18-2018 JOHN KOKOLETSOS,
Introduced by David Deeb who moved its adoption.
Motion seconded by Brad Magowan. Duly adopted this 16" day of October, 2018 by the following
vote:
AYES: Mr. Shafer, Mr. Hunsinger, Mr. Magowan, Mr. Valentine, Mr. Deeb, Ms. White, Mr. Traver
NOES: NONE
MR. TRAVER-And next we consider Final Stage. We have a draft by Staff with the usual conditions.
I think we're ready for that motion.
RESOLUTION APPROVING SUB # 21-2018 FINAL STAGE JOHN KOKOLETSOS
A subdivision application has been made to the Queensbury Planning Board for the following:
Applicant proposes a two lot subdivision of a 4.28 acre parcel. One lot to be 2.28 acres and to maintain
existing home and driveway access to Montray Road. The second lot is to be 2.0 acres for a proposed
new home to have access from Pinecrest. Pursuant to Chapter 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 10/16/2018.
This application is supported with all documentation, public comment, and application material in the
file of record;
MOTION TO APPROVE SUBDIVISION FINAL STAGE 21-2018 JOHN KOKOLETSOS. Introduced
by David Deeb who moved its adoption.
1. The requirements of the State Environmental Quality Review Act have been considered and
the Planning Board has adopted a SEQRA Negative Declaration; and if the application is a
modification, the requirements of the State Environmental Quality Review Act have been
considered, and the proposed modification[s] do not result in any new or significantly different
environmental impacts, and, therefore, no further SEQRA review is necessary;
2. Waiver requests ranted: stormwater mgmt., grading, landscaping & lighting plans;
3. 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
4. Engineering sign-off required prior to signature of Planning Board Chairman.
5. 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
6. 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.
20
(Queensbury Planning Board 10/16/2018]
7. 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.
8. The applicant must meet with Staff after approval and prior to issuance of Building Permit
and/or the beginning of any site work.
9. Subsequent issuance of further permits, including building permits is dependent on compliance
with this and all other conditions of this resolution;
10. As-built plans to certify that the subdivision is developed according to the approved plans to
be provided prior to issuance of the certificate of occupancy;
Motion seconded by Brad Magowan. Duly adopted this 16" day of October, 2018 by the following
vote:
AYES: Mr. Hunsinger, Mr. Magowan, Mr. Valentine, Mr. Deeb, Ms. White, Mr. Shafer, Mr. Traver
NOES: NONE
MR. KOKOLETSOS-Thank you.
MR. TRAVER-The next item on our agenda is Site Plan 63-2018 for Michael Fiacco, 63 Quaker Rd.,
LLC.
SITE PLAN NO. 63-2018 SEQR TYPE: UNLISTED. MICHAEL FIACCO/63 QUAKER RD., LLC
AGENT(SJ: KEITH BAFF. OWNER(SJ: SAME AS APPLICANT. ZONING: Cl. LOCATION:
63 QUAKER ROAD. APPLICANT PROPOSES TO UPGRADE SIX MAIN FACADES AND ADDING
ONE NEW FACADE ENTRY FOR TENANTS IN A BUILDING COMPLEX. FACADE
IMPROVEMENTS INCLUDE NEW LIGHTING AND CANOPY. NEW FACADES TO REMOVE
EXISTING STUCCO FACADE TO REPLACE WITH WOODEN FASCIA — NO EXTERIOR
EXTENSION FEATURES. PURSUANT TO CHAPTER 179-3-040 OF THE ZONING ORDINANCE,
EXTERIOR BUILDING WORK SHALL BE SUBJECT TO PLANNING BOARD REVIEW AND
APPROVAL. CROSS REFERENCE: SP 30-2017&AV 3-2017 FACADES; BOTH 196-2015 LOADING
DOCK ROOF; SP 53-2015; MANY SIGN AND INTERIOR ALT. PERMITS; WARREN CO.
REFERRAL: OCTOBER 2018. SITE INFORMATION: TRAVEL CORRIDOR. LOT SIZE: 3.18
ACRES. TAX MAP NO. 296.184-5. SECTION: 179-3-040.
KEITH BAFF, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT
MRS. MOORE-This applicant proposes to upgrade six main facades and adding one new facade entry
for tenants in a building complex. Facade improvements include new lighting and canopy coverings,
and so we previously saw an application that has since expired and we saw canopy features that were
going towards Quaker Road and at this time the applicant has changed that so that all the facade
changes are flat against the building itself and is removing the existing stucco and complete a wooden
facade feature.
MR. TRAVER-Okay. Good evening.
MR. BAFF-Good evening. So my name is Keith Baff. I'm the architect. I'm representing Michael.
He couldn't be here. So I am here. So we were here last year and we did an extensive facade
renovation at 63 Quaker.
MR. TRAVER-Right. I remember.
MR. BAFF-Yes, we're since re-thinking that. The owner has committed to re-paving the entire 63
Quaker Road which has taken a significant portion of his funds. So we re-thought it and we re-
designed and we've done something much more, a little upscale I guess you could say where we're just
taking the existing facade, and if you guys know 63 Quaker, it's got existing stucco canopies, you
know, kind of big columns, and what we're going to do is we're going to swap out the columns for
timber columns. We're going to rip all the stucco off. We're going to re-side it with wood siding
and all the brick still gets painted. The second floor stucco still gets painted. Laura, if you just want
to go to the next. So, you know, it's still painted brick. We're still doing some timber columns.
There's still going to be wood cladding, but what we're doing is we're essentially maintaining what's
there, but we're just going to re-skin all, just to give it kind of a fresh updated look. Before we were
21
(Queensbury Planning Board 10/16/2018]
actually ripping them all off and completely re-doing them with steel and timber, and we actually had
to apply for a variance because we were protruding out here on the Quaker Road side, but we're not
going to do that anymore so we're not protruding. We don't need the variance. So, you know, it's
sort of a dumbed down version of what we did the last time.
MR. TRAVER-Okay. You mentioned re-paving the entire parking area. Any changes to stormwater?
MR. BAFF-No. No changes to stormwater. Over the course of probably the last winter season his
parking lot took quite a beating and he's got a culvert there on Quaker Road that he's had to deal
with multiple times over the course of the last year. So he bit the bullet and he's committed to re-
paving everything in the spring. That's very expensive.
MR. TRAVER-Yes.
MR. MAGOWAN-Well the parking lot there and to do it right.
MR. HUNSINGER-So the only question or concern that I had is there's comments in the Staff Notes
about stormwater, that the sheet flow from the site drains to the perimeter. There are two drop inlets
but it's unknown their discharge points as well as the roof that has an internal drain system. Can you
comment on that?
MR. BAFF-Well, I guess he has no stormwater issues. There's no standing water on site. I think when,
Laura, who was the stormwater engineer, Tom?
MRS. MOORE-Yes.
MR. BAFF-Because he had done some work on, I think they had done the loading dock. I think he
just didn't know where they discharged. I mean there's no standing water on site in a storm event.
MR. HUNSINGER-Well my concern is the reason there's no standing water is because you're pushing
it off onto the neighbors, and that's so close to Halfway Brook.
MR. BAFF-Yes, I mean we can get Tom involved to sort of address the.
MR. HUNSINGER-I mean if I'm the only one that has that concern.
MR. MAGOWAN-No, that would be the time.
MR. HUNSINGER-I mean I wouldn't have picked it up if it wasn't in the Staff Notes.
MR. TRAVER-Well that was one of the things that I was concerned about.
MR. DEEB-Stormwater should be addressed.
MR. HUNSINGER-I mean other than that what you want to do is beautiful. I have no problems with
that.
MR. TRAVER-Just doing the re-paving it occurred to me if you're doing that it's a good time to
address it. It would certainly be easier at that point than at some point later on. Laura, I know you've
worked with the applicant. Do you have any?
MRS. MOORE-No, other than if the Board feels that the applicant should work with this potential
engineer just to clarify the stormwater system and its function and that can be reviewed by the engineer.
MR. TRAVER-Okay. All right.
MR. BAFF-Is that just an evaluation and a letter by a civil engineer or does, I mean that's good enough?
MRS. MOORE-Yes, I mean, so that, the engineer would potentially, if this is what the Board would
like, is to evaluate what the system is now, and it sounds like just a little more in-depth information
from Tom to review that site,and that is something that sometimes the engineer can provide a sufficient
letter that says the stormwater is functioning on the site and this is why. Other times we would send
this on to the engineer. I'm not certain at this point if it would go that far, but it's something that
you can say potentially reviewed by the Town Engineer.
MR. HUNSINGER-Yes. It would be good to have verification.
22
(Queensbury Planning Board 10/16/2018]
MR. TRAVER-Yes, especially in the context of the re-paving.
MR. HUNSINGER-That's all.
MR. TRAVER-That's why I wondered about the stormwater if they're doing the re-paving.
MR. VALENTINE-What was your comment about a culvert.
MR. BAFF-And I know he's talked to the Town to say is it my issue or is it your issue.
MRS. MOORE-Right.
MR. MAGOWAN-It runs right along the front?
MR. BAFF-Yes, it's right at the existing.
MR. VALENTINE-Is it in the County right of way?
MRS. MOORE-Yes.
MR. BAFF-Yes, it's right here. He's re-paved over this culvert numerous times.
MR. VALENTINE-Is it draining across?
MR. BAFF-Yes.
MR. VALENTINE-But it works?
MR. BAFF-It works.
MR. VALENTINE-Okay.
MR. MAGOWAN-Is it humped up?
MR. BAFF-No, it's sunk in. And I don't know what the particulars are that Michael has, and who he's
had conversations with at the Town, but he's had a number of conversations as to whether, who's
responsible for it. Is it my responsibility or the Town or the County?
MRS. MOORE-1 don't have any comments.
MR. MAGOWAN-Yes, it's a County road.
MR. HUNSINGER-1 was going to say, it's a County road.
MR. TRAVER-We do have a public hearing on this application. Is there anyone here that wanted to
address the Planning Board on this application? I'm not seeing anyone. Laura, are there any written
comments?
PUBLIC HEARING OPENED
MRS. MOORE-There's no written comments.
MR. TRAVER-All right. So we'll close the public hearing.
PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED
MR. TRAVER-We have to consider under SEQR we have a SEQR resolution to consider environmental
concerns. I know there was a discussion about stormwater. I think in the context of the anticipated
requirement on a potential approval that the stormwater would be reviewed. I think that should
address that. Does anyone have any specific environmental concerns?
MR. HUNSINGER-Well I mean the only thing they're really doing is changing the facade.
MR. TRAVER-Yes. Exactly, and the parking lot paving. Okay. It's maintenance.
23
(Queensbury Planning Board 10/16/2018]
MS. WHITE-And it's a reduction from what we approved last time.
MR. HUNSINGER-Yes.
MR. TRAVER-Okay.
RESOLUTION GRANTING A NEGATIVE SEQR DEC. SP # 63-2018 MICHAEL FIACCO
The applicant proposes to upgrade six main facades and adding one new facade entry for tenants in a
building complex. Facade improvements include new lighting and canopy. New facades to remove
existing stucco facade to replace with wooden fascia — no exterior extension features. Pursuant to
Chapter 179-3-040 of the Zoning Ordinance, exterior building work shall be subject to Planning Board
review and approval.
The Planning Board has determined that the proposed project and Planning Board action is subject to
review under the State Environmental Quality Review Act;
The proposed action considered by this Board is Unlisted in the Department of Environmental
Conservation Regulations implementing the State Environmental Quality Review Act and the regulations
of the Town of Queensbury;
No Federal or other agencies are involved;
Part 1 of the Short EAF has been completed by the applicant;
Upon review of the information recorded on this EAF, it is the conclusion of the Town of Queensbury
Planning Board as lead agency that this project will result in no significant adverse impacts on the
environment, and, therefore, an environmental impact statement need not be prepared. Accordingly,
this negative declaration is issued.
MOTION TO GRANT A NEGATIVE DECLARATION FOR SITE PLAN 63-2018 MICHAEL
FIACCO/63 QUAKER ROAD, LLC. Introduced by David Deeb who moved for its adoption.
As per the resolution prepared by staff;
1. Part II of the Short EAF has been reviewed and completed by the Planning Board.
2. Part III of the Short EAF is not necessary because the Planning Board did not identify potentially
moderate to large impacts.
Motion seconded by Brad Magowan. Duly adopted this 16" day of October, 2018 by the following
vote:
AYES: Mr. Deeb, Ms. White, Mr. Shafer, Mr. Hunsinger, Mr. Magowan, Mr. Valentine, Mr. Traver
NOES: NONE
MR. TRAVER-And next we move on to the Site Plan, and we discussed one additional condition.
RESOLUTION APPROVING SP # 63-2018 MICHAEL FIACCO d/b/a 63 QUAKER RD. LLC
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 upgrade six main facades and
adding one new facade entry for tenants in a building complex. Facade improvements include new
lighting and canopy. New facades to remove existing stucco facade to replace with wooden fascia —
no exterior extension features. Pursuant to Chapter 179-3-040 of the Zoning Ordinance, exterior
building work 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;
24
(Queensbury Planning Board 10/16/2018]
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 10/16/2018 and continued
the public hearing to 10/16/2018, when it was closed,
The Planning Board has reviewed the application materials submitted by the applicant and all comments
made at the public hearing and submitted in writing through and including 10/16/2018;
The Planning Board determines that the application complies with the review considerations and
standards set forth in Article 9 of the Zoning Ordinance for Site Plan approval,
MOTION TO APPROVE SITE PLAN 63-2018 MICHAEL FIACCO/63 QUAKER ROAD, LLC.
Introduced by David Deeb who moved for its adoption;
Per the draft provided by staff conditioned upon the following conditions:
1) Waivers request granted:
2) Adherence to the items outlined in the follow-up letter sent with this resolution.
a) If application was referred to engineering,then engineering sign-off required prior to signature
of Zoning Administrator of the approved plans;
b) Final approved plans should have dimensions and setbacks noted on the site plan/survey, floor
plans and elevation for the existing rooms and proposed rooms in the building and site
improvements.
c) Final approved plans, in compliance with the Site Plan, must be submitted to the Community
Development Department before any further review by the Zoning Administrator or Building
and Codes personnel;
d) The applicant must meet with Staff after approval and prior to issuance of Building
Permit and/or the beginning of any site work;
e) Subsequent issuance of further permits, including building permits is dependent on compliance
with this and all other conditions of this resolution;
fJ As-built plans to certify that the site plan is developed according to the approved plans to be
provided prior to issuance of the certificate of occupancy;
g) Resolution to be placed on final plans in its entirety and legible.
h) Confirmation of a properly functioning stormwater system to be submitted.
Motion seconded by Brad Magowan. Duly adopted this 16" day of October, 2018 by the following
vote:
AYES: Ms. White, Mr. Shafer, Mr. Hunsinger, Mr. Magowan, Mr. Valentine, Mr. Deeb, Mr. Traver
NOES: NONE
MR. TRAVER-You're all set.
MR. BAFF-Thank you.
MR. TRAVER-The last item has already been tabled. So that concludes our regular agenda this evening.
I do have a reminder for members of the Board. Next week we have a brief Planning Board meeting.
I think with just one administrative item and then the unapproved development committee is going to
be meeting and Staff have invited a number of guests from the Town and ZBA and environmental
concerns to discuss that with us. We'll start that at 7:30. And with that, is there any other business
before the Board this evening?
MR. VALENTINE-1 have a question. On the matter of abstentions. I have abstained before when I
had a financial conflict with something, and you guys have abstained.
MS. WHITE-1 abstained because I felt that there was a major discussion on that project at a meeting
that I was not in attendance.
MR. VALENTINE-All right. My question was, as long as we have alternates, like if you know ahead
of time or I know ahead of time, and I should have done it when we had that application that was the
Wood Carte there and I knew he was coming back and I remember the vote came I abstained, and I
thought about it later and I said, gee, there's an alternate here at all times. If I know that there's going
25
(Queensbury Planning Board 10/16/2018]
to be something that I'm going to abstain from, is it proper to turn to the Chair and say can the
alternate sit in at this time?
MR. TRAVER-Certainly if you know, I would say yes if you know in advance that there's a potential
conflict.
MR. VALENTINE-And when you said that, you might have, you didn't, I know in your abstention
that was because of the presentation that night, John, for something, but like I knew on mine I was
going to and I just felt bad as I walked away because it didn't give the applicant a full, you know, a
vote.
MR. DEEB-Well before the item comes up on the agenda, should you recuse yourself first?
MS. WHITE-But it really didn't register to me the depth of the discussion until I was in the middle of.
MR. DEEB-If it occurs in the future do we recuse ourselves from that?
MR. TRAVER-We need to clarify. There's a major difference between a recusal and an abstention on
a vote. Okay. A recusal, you're recusing yourself even from discussion on the item. If you're
simply abstaining on the vote, you can still participate in all the discussion. You're just choosing not
to participate in the vote, and that could be for any number of reasons, as can a recusal.
MR. VALENTINE-All right.
MS. WHITE-As opposed to the night where I actually had to physically leave the room because it was
a CWI vote.
MR. TRAVER-That's a recusal, not an abstention.
MR. VALENTINE-Okay.
MR. TRAVER-Right. Yes, a recusal includes an abstention in effect because obviously in that case
you're not voting, but you can participate fully in everything leading up to the vote and abstain from
the vote. That's fine.
MR. VALENTINE-But if I had something that I knew, my wife sold an insurance policy to the guy that
does the wood carving, and so I knew I wasn't going to because of the potential, if somebody raised
it, but I'm just saying, it's that point, should I have turned, we had counsel here then, and I did ask
Mike before on that.
MR. TRAVER-Well the other thing about a recusal is you can have a conflict of interest or the
appearance of a conflict of interest and as long as it's disclosed, you can still participate if you feel that
you can participate without it causing a conflict.
MR. VALENTINE-Yes, and I looked back at my own situation on that one. I could have participated,
I thought, could have participated and voted.
MR. TRAVER-The most important thing for a conflict or a potential conflict is disclosure. That's the
most important thing. So that becomes part of the record, and then, you know, you can make a
determination on your own if you want to recuse yourself or you can disclose it and say that I don't
feel that I need to recuse myself. Then it can be a matter of discussion I suppose, but that's substantially
different than abstaining on a vote.
MR. DEEB-Let's get back to the original question. If he's going to abstain from a vote, do we have
the alternate vote?
MRS. MOORE-Prior to, my thought is that you should always give the individual that's going to step
in that clear opportunity to participate.
MR. DEEB-In the discussion.
MRS. MOORE-In the discussion.
MR. DEEB-Yes, I agree with that.
MRS. MOORE-Yes.
26
(Queensbury Planning Board 10/16/2018]
MR. DEEB-Which means you've got to recuse yourself.
MR. TRAVER-Well, or, yes, I suppose. Yes, if you know you're not going to vote, then I suppose
the thing to do would be to recuse yourself, if you're comfortable doing that.
MR. DEEB-Right.
MR. TRAVER-And if you know in advance then, yes, if you notify the Board that you're going to
recuse yourself then that gives the alternate an opportunity to sit in. Correct. The only thing I would
add is that that's really most critical when there's an opportunity or chance that the vote could be
close. So, you know, something can come up during the discussion that can disclose a potential
conflict of interest or can lead you to feel that you want to abstain and that's fine, but if you do know
well in advance then that's also fine and the Board can handle that and that's part of the purpose of
the alternate.
MR. VALENTINE-All right.
MR. TRAVER-That's what I would say.
MR. MAGOWAN-1 always ask the Chairman his advice when I have to deal with that at the County,
you know, talk to the Chairman and express yourself ahead of time. That's how I usually do it, get a
recommendation.
MR. TRAVER-We have a pretty good record I think as a Board as far as, you know, recusals and
abstentions. Everyone has a pretty good understanding that we all take advantage of the training
opportunities and we all kind of know. It's always a good refresher and reminder.
MR. VALENTINE-1 think I've learned in my short time here that I always turn to Brad for advice.
MR. TRAVER-Yes, I'm sure we all do.
MR. DEEB-I move we adjourn.
MR. TRAVER-We stand adjourned. Thank you, everybody.
RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED,
Stephen Traver, Chairman
27