2007-03-22
(Queensbury Planning Board 03/22/07)
QUEENSBURY PLANNING BOARD MEETING
SPECIAL MEETING
MARCH 22, 2007
INDEX
Site Plan No. 36-2003 Gary & Jill Wilson 1.
MODIFICATION Tax Map No. 296.9-1-2
Site Plan No. 30-2002 Adirondack Girl Scout Council 11.
MODIFICATION Tax Map No. 296.16-1-10
Site Plan No. 55-2000 Queensbury Village Mobile Home Park 32.
RECOMMENDATION Tax Map No. 308.6-1-61
Site Plan No. 13-2007 Richard & Cindy Smith 39.
Tax Map No. 227.9-1-10
Site Plan No. 11-2007 Kevin & Annie Dineen 41.
Tax Map No. 289.16-1-46
Site Plan No. 12-2007 Paul Kruger 51.
Tax Map No. 296.20-1-18
Subdivision No. 6-2007 Hal Raven 53.
SKETCH PLAN Tax Map No. 295.-1-1.1
THESE ARE NOT OFFICIALLY ADOPTED MINUTES AND ARE SUBJECT TO BOARD
AND STAFF REVISIONS. REVISIONS WILL APPEAR ON THE FOLLOWING
MONTHS MINUTES (IF ANY) AND WILL STATE SUCH APPROVAL OF SAID
MINUTES.
0
(Queensbury Planning Board 03/22/07)
QUEENSBURY PLANNING BOARD MEETING
SPECIAL MEETING
MARCH 22, 2007
7:00 P.M.
MEMBERS PRESENT
CHRIS HUNSINGER, CHAIRMAN
GRETCHEN STEFFAN, SECRETARY
THOMAS SEGULJIC
TANYA BRUNO
THOMAS FORD
MEMBERS ABSENT
DONALD SIPP
STEPHEN TRAVER
EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR-BLANCHE ALTER
LAND USE PLANNER-SUSAN BARDEN
TOWN COUNSEL-FITZGERALD, MORRIS, BAKER FIRTH-MATT FULLER
STENOGRAPHER-SUE HEMINGWAY
OLD BUSINESS:
SITE PLAN NO. 36-2003 MODIFICATION SEQR TYPE UNLISTED GARY & JILL
WILSON WILSON’S YAMAHA AGENT(S) BARLETT, PONTIFF, STEWART &
RHODES; VAN DUSEN & STEVES OWNER(S) SAME ZONING HC-INT LOCATION
1043 STATE ROUTE 9 APPLICANT PROPOSES MODIFICATIONS TO THEIR
PREVIOUSLY APPROVED SITE PLAN 36-2003. MODIFICATIONS TO APPROVED
SITE PLANS REQUIRE REVIEW BY THE PLANNING BOARD. CROSS REFERENCE
WARREN CO. PLANNING N/A LOT SIZE 3.73 ACRES TAX MAP NO. 296.9-1-2
SECTION 179-4-020
STEFANIE BITTER & MATT STEVES, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT
MR. HUNSINGER-Susan, if you could summarize Staff Notes, please.
MRS. BARDEN-Sure. The applicants request modification for their previously approved
site plan for Wilson’s Yamaha at 1043 State Route 9, specifically for constructed
changes and outstanding deficiencies from Phase I approved September 23, 2003. The
applicant’s agent states that the only modification is the re-striping of the parking lot and
maintenance of the existing curb cut along Route 9. However, deficiencies called out in
the Code Enforcement Officer’s inspection report should be addressed here. The Board
should review modifications to Phase I only, and if acceptable approve with a specific
timeline for when outstanding site work will be completed, prior to review of future
th
proposed uses on the site. Vision Engineering has a comment letter dated March 19.
th
There’s also a Mike Shaw Wastewater Supervisor comment letter dated March 12,
which indicates that connection to the sanitary sewer has not been made. This is a
SEQRA Unlisted Action, and a Short Form has been submitted.
MR. HUNSINGER-Thank you. Good evening.
MS. BITTER-Good evening, Chairman. I’d first like to thank you for the special meeting
tonight.
MR. HUNSINGER-You’re welcome.
MS. BITTER-My name’s Stefanie DiLallo Bitter. I’m here as Counsel, together with Gary
Wilson and Matt Steves for the project. As Susan just explained, we’re here seeking
modification to the existing site. I know that the application also incorporated a proposed
tenant, but due to Staff’s direction, we’re not incorporating that in our presentation this
evening. The only modifications we’re seeking are the curb cut, to maintain the curb cut
as it exists on Route 9, as well as to incorporate re-striping of the front parking lot for
display areas, for Mr. Wilson’s current use. The curb cut we feel needs to be maintained
due to the tractor trailers that enter the parcel to drop of the merchandise that Mr. Wilson
1
(Queensbury Planning Board 03/22/07)
is selling. This is the main issue that he feels can only happen with the way the curb cut
exists today. With regards to the re-striping of the parking lot, he feels it’s necessary for
his display. As to the outstanding items that Bruce Frank mentioned, I also included in
our application a list of timelines that Mr. Wilson was trying to maintain to make those up.
Just to kind of go over at least the proposed timeline that could have been things that we
omitted. Landscaping the curb cuts on Hidden Farms Road, we plan on incorporating by
this summer, by the end of the summer, to have it done. I think there was some mention
that the curb cut issue on Hidden Farms Road hadn’t been completed, and Mr. Wilson
has identified that it has, in fact. To construct the landscaping/parking islands, that also
is going to be done this summer, and the drywell with Number Five is going to be done
with the sewer connection, which Mr. Wilson identified that it was just done today, your
permit.
MR. FORD-I’m sorry, what was done today?
GARY WILSON
MR. WILSON-We got the permit for the septic, was just issued yesterday.
MS. BITTER-The sewer line.
MR. FORD-The sewer line.
MS. BITTER-Connection.
MR. FORD-The connect, not the septic.
MR. WILSON-Yes.
MR. HUNSINGER-Okay.
MS. BITTER-A lot of the comments that Vision Engineering made were based on both
the applications for the tenant’s use and this use. So I could have Mr. Wilson explain
which ones, if you need me to, but I think because he had the application as we originally
presented it, it was kind of unclear as to which items you really needed to respond to.
MR. HUNSINGER-So have you abandoned the concept of the building in back?
MR. WILSON-Yes.
MR. HUNSINGER-Okay.
MS. BITTER-Right. The 2003 proposal only incorporated Phase I. When I reviewed
those minutes, it was determined that to only, if he went back to do Phase II, he had to
come back for further approval.
MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. I just wanted to make sure. Okay.
MS. BITTER-Did you have anything you wanted to add? Okay.
MR. HUNSINGER-Any questions or comments from the Board?
MR. FORD-We’ve got clarification on that tie in with the sewer. What about stormwater
calculations, Number Four under Vision.
MS. BITTER-We were planning on utilizing what was done before because of the
changes are not really major in the sense of the plan that was approved in ’03. We didn’t
incorporate an additional plan at this time.
MR. HUNSINGER-Have you reviewed the letter from Vision Engineering?
MS. BITTER-Yes.
MR. HUNSINGER-Could you address that specific comment? Because they did say that
the calculations address a 10 year storm and don’t meet the current stormwater
management standards.
MR. FORD-Right, the design standards.
2
(Queensbury Planning Board 03/22/07)
MR. WILSON-Is that for the rear or the front?
th
MR. HUNSINGER-Well, it’s Item Four in Vision Engineering’s letter from March 19.
MS. BITTER-That’s why it’s unclear.
MR. WILSON-We’re talking about the front parcel now.
MS. BITTER-Right.
MR. WILSON-Which those stormwaters are all done, with the exception of Number Five,
which is going in with in the next few weeks when we do the sewer connection.
MS. BITTER-Right, the sewer connection.
MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. They do say, though, on the top of the next page, that no
comparison or analysis was made assuming the site was undeveloped.
MR. WILSON-Right, which we have not developed it. The back is park, is all pavement.
It’s a parking lot. We’ve done nothing with it. It still remains the same as when I
purchased the building. They weren’t requiring any stormwater at that point. The only
time that they would want something back there is if we were to put that other building in.
MR. STEVES-The stormwater report was for, excuse me, Matt Steves with Van Dusen
and Steves, on the first submission or first approval was for the addition of the building in
the back, the new roof, the down leaders from the roof, and the re-working of the parking
lot in the back, and like I said, Phase I is what it is. There’s no changes to the site, just
re-striping.
MR. SEGULJIC-These are always the most confusing applications.
MR. HUNSINGER-I know, yes.
MR. SEGULJIC-Because you never know what’s what. The landscaping in the parking
lot. So that was not done, correct?
MR. WILSON-Correct. We just got the lights in. We’re waiting to get the curbs done,
because the landscaping actually goes within those curbs.
MR. HUNSINGER-Okay, but you will be doing the landscaping?
MR. WILSON-Correct.
MS. BITTER-Yes.
MR. SEGULJIC-And I guess part of my confusion, too, is I have the letter from, what,
2005. It’s October 2005, and it says Spring 2006.
MR. WILSON-Right.
MR. SEGULJIC-So now that’s been pushed forward to Spring 2007.
MR. FORD-What happened?
MR. WILSON-I ran out of money. I sell snowmobiles, and I’ve had three bad winters.
MR. SEGULJIC-Okay. So, I guess, what exactly are we doing here? Approving the?
MR. STEVES-It is basically the re-striping, which does not change anything.
MR. SEGULJIC-So you want to eliminate the re-striping.
MR. STEVES-We’re re-striping the parking lot.
MS. BITTER-The front of the parking lot.
MR. STEVES-And I believe in the original approval it was to narrow the entrance. We
had this discussion, or you had a discussion similar to this with Stewarts the other day,
and with tractor trailers coming in and out, it doesn’t work well. Leaving it the width it is
3
(Queensbury Planning Board 03/22/07)
works much better. It’s almost identical to that situation you were discussing Tuesday
night at the Stewarts store.
MR. SEGULJIC-So you’re still going to install Drywell Number Five?
MR. STEVES-Yes.
MS. BITTER-Correct.
MR. SEGULJIC-Maybe you could run down for me again.
MS. BITTER-Sure. Let me give you that list one more time. I’m sorry. The landscaping
curb cuts on Hidden Farms Road we’re going to complete in the Summer of 2007, by the
end of the Summer of 2007. Construct landscape parking islands, again, by the end of
the Summer of 2007. Drywell Number Five is going to be completed with the sewer
connection.
MR. SEGULJIC-And you don’t know when that’s going to be completed then?
MR. WILSON-We’re ready to go. We just got the permit issued. We’ve been waiting for
the permit. So that was issued yesterday.
MR. HUNSINGER-So if I’m looking at S-1, dated December 14, 2006, that would be the
current site plan, then?
MS. BITTER-Right.
MR. HUNSINGER-Okay.
MR. STEVES-If you look at the 2003, it shows the building in the back.
MR. HUNSINGER-Right.
MR. FORD-And that’s been eliminated on the plan.
MR. WILSON-Correct.
MR. SEGULJIC-So, once we approve this, what exactly are we approving?
MS. BITTER-Well, we’re seeking the modification, with the curb cut and the re-striping
incorporated, and obviously this approval has to identify our timeline, since we still have
those outstanding issues from the 2003 site plan approval.
MR. FORD-And should we make a notation of the modification, the elimination of the
other building in back?
MR. HUNSINGER-Well, that’s why I asked.
MR. FORD-Because we approved that.
MS. BITTER-Actually, no. Only Phase I. Only Phase I got approved.
MR. WILSON-Right.
MR. STEVES-There was a two phase site plan. Phase I was the front. Phase II was the
rear, being the, Phase II was being the addition of the building, which we’re not doing.
MR. SEGULJIC-And that’s why you’re saying the stormwater in the back doesn’t count.
You’re making my head spin.
MR. HUNSINGER-Yes. So, as I’m looking at the site plan, which curb cut onto Hidden
Farms Road is the one being eliminated? The closest one to Route 9?
MR. WILSON-It’s the curb cut onto Route 9.
MS. BITTER-No, these two that he’s asking about, what happened with these two.
MR. WILSON-I’m sorry. Those stayed open. There’s two openings, and the front two
were closed.
4
(Queensbury Planning Board 03/22/07)
MS. BITTER-Okay. The one in the front right below the display area, that was closed.
MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. That’s the one that’s been closed. Okay.
MR. WILSON-Yes. There was actually two openings. Both of them are closed.
MR. STEVES-There were four.
MR. WILSON-Four total, and now there’s two.
MR. HUNSINGER-Okay.
MR. WILSON-Correct.
MS. BITTER-Do you see it on the front?
MR. HUNSINGER-I just wanted to make sure I was reading that correctly.
MR. FORD-This current proposal will allow display how close to Route 9?
MR. STEVES-No closer than the current parking lot. The actual distance from the travel
onto Route 9, Tom, or the right of way?
MR. FORD-The right of way.
MR. STEVES-It would be about 15 to 20 feet west of the right of way.
MR. FORD-Thank you.
MR. HUNSINGER-So when the plan says existing curb cut to be updated to DOT specs
at same location, what does that refer to?
MR. STEVES-That was for the radius of 34 feet, and actually what is there now is a little
wider, I believe, than that.
MR. HUNSINGER-Okay.
MR. STEVES-In other words, DOT radius specs say a minimum of. If you look at the
Queensbury Code, I believe they say like a 24 foot throat with a 34 foot radius. It’s wider
than that now, to accommodate the swing of these trucks as that are coming in, and has
been there for 30 years.
MR. HUNSINGER-So you’re not changing the opening. So that’s why I asked. Why the
notation?
MR. STEVES-That really should be taken off.
MR. HUNSINGER-Okay.
MR. STEVES-I apologize.
MR. HUNSINGER-You can see why I was confused, then. Yes.
MR. FORD-As you’re aware signage is something we really take pretty seriously, and
you talk about the modification that you’re talking about in this plan, existing sign to be
modified at same location.
MS. BITTER-That was the original.
MR. WILSON-That was the original.
MR. FORD-That was the original.
MR. STEVES-The original site plan was approved in 2003. There was a sign there, and
it was updated basically for Mr. Wilson’s business from what was there before, but the
sign itself remained in the same location. I apologize. I’m working with a plan by others,
not by Van Dusen and Steves, and trying to accommodate as much as I’ve got, but that
sign was the original approval of 2003. So what is there now was part of that approval.
5
(Queensbury Planning Board 03/22/07)
MS. BITTER-Right. I think I was the cinema sign that was there before. Right?
MR. WILSON-Yes.
MR. STEVES-So we’re not changing the sign from what exists right now.
MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. Well, now I’m wondering if there’s other notations on this site
plan that need to be taken off.
MR. FORD-We’ve got a plan that I’m not really sure why I’m looking at this plan, there’s
so many modifications in it.
MR. STEVES-We have three notes. The sign, the curb cut to DOT, the 34 feet, and the
one on the south closure review of the driveways which we already know has been
closed.
MR. HUNSINGER-Okay.
MR. FORD-What about the utility pole notation, up by 98?
MR. STEVES-Utility pad review?
MR. WILSON-That would be for the new building. Right.
MR. STEVES-That would come off as well.
MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. Any other questions or comments?
MR. SEGULJIC-How are we going to handle the Vision Engineering letter, then?
Especially with that comment about the stormwater calculations? So, I mean, the letter
is okay except for Number Four.
MR. HUNSINGER-Right. I have the same.
MR. SEGULJIC-And their comment is it doesn’t apply anymore, and I’ll just turn to Staff
to verify.
MR. STEVES-Understood.
MR. SEGULJIC-Susan, with regards to the Vision Engineering letter, and Number Four
with regards to the stormwater. So what the applicant is saying since that, I guess,
Phase II is not occurring, Comment Four doesn’t apply. Is that accurate?
MRS. BARDEN-Well, Phase II was never approved before. So that’s, everything, at
least from Bruce Frank’s inspection report, is only from Phase I.
MR. SEGULJIC-Yes, but then Vision Engineering Comment Four about the stormwater
doesn’t apply, then. Because everything else on the Vision Engineering letter can get
addressed easily, I think.
MRS. BARDEN-Okay. Comment Four.
MR. SEGULJIC-He’s looking for verification on it.
MRS. BARDEN-Yes, it does say Phase II.
MR. STEVES-It says Phase II. It says Phase II right on that Comment Four.
MRS. BARDEN-Right.
MR. SEGULJIC-So that would not apply to this.
MRS. BARDEN-That’s correct.
MR. SEGULJIC-Okay.
MR. FORD-Does the lighting analysis apply to what we’re discussing tonight or is that
2002 or 03 or 05?
6
(Queensbury Planning Board 03/22/07)
MS. BITTER-We’re implementing what was originally approved.
MR. STEVES-I believe you’re looking at the photometrics for Phase I that was originally
approved and that’s what we’re installing, correct.
MR. FORD-Except for the future addition.
MS. BITTER-Right.
MR. STEVES-Yes.
MR. HUNSINGER-Just put the word proposed on that.
MR. FORD-What do I do with the lighting in that space for the proposed or future
addition, or the non-future addition?
MR. STEVES-Like I say, that is not going to change from what it is currently today.
Whatever they had planned at the time, with the original design of that, none of those, no
changes from what’s currently there are proposed. Just taking that Phase II right out of
the picture.
MRS. STEFFAN-I’m majorly confused.
MRS. BARDEN-Mr. Ford, as far as the lights, I can tell you, if you see Bruce Frank’s
most updated report, that the pole lights have been installed, with the exception of that
one fixture in the front, that was previously approved as a double-headed light pole, and
it is a single.
MR. FORD-I remember reading that.
MRS. BARDEN-Everything else as far as the previously approved lighting for Phase I
was installed per the approvals.
MR. FORD-Okay.
th
MRS. STEFFAN-Okay. Why I said I was confused. We’ve got a letter from March 8
that went to Stefanie from Craig Brown, no, from Susan Barden, and the review will be
limited to construct changes to the previously approved site plan, and what specifically
are those?
MS. BITTER-The curb being maintained on Route 9, and the display area being
proposed in the front of the site.
MRS. STEFFAN-The display proposed?
MS. BITTER-The display area. The re-striping of the parking lot we’ve been classifying it
as. So those two issues, and then the deficiency timeline.
MR. HUNSINGER-But you still are installing trees where indicated?
MS. BITTER-Exactly. That timeline that we were just talking about.
MR. HUNSINGER-End of the summer.
MS. BITTER-End of the summer.
MRS. STEFFAN-So that will be meeting the deficiencies noted in Bruce Frank’s, the nine
deficiencies, well, actually eight deficiencies, because the lighting issue as we talked
about.
MS. BITTER-Right.
MRS. STEFFAN-So the landscaping not complete. The landscaped parking islands
have not been built yet.
MR. WILSON-No, they go around the light poles which were just installed.
7
(Queensbury Planning Board 03/22/07)
MRS. STEFFAN-Okay, and the parking area is not striped because you’re looking at
changing that in the next phase?
MS. BITTER-Right.
MR. FORD-Lighting is going to be within Code and according to what was originally
prescribed according to this lighting plan?
MR. STEVES-Yes, and like I say, Bruce Frank has already stated that everything is up to
that except for the one (lost word).
MRS. STEFFAN-Okay. The parking area closest to Route 9 found being used for
storage and display of trailers, that was approved for parking only.
MR. WILSON-Right.
MRS. STEFFAN-So you are?
MS. BITTER-That’s what they’re trying to do with the re-striping.
MR. WILSON-Yes.
MRS. STEFFAN-Next Phase. Okay. Okay, we’ve already talked about the approved
curb cut.
MR. HUNSINGER-Well, I’m confused on Number Eight, which reads the three remaining
curb cuts found along Hidden Farm Road between existing building and Route 9 still
open, two were proposed to be closed.
MR. WILSON-Right. Two are closed. That was October 2005. The second one was
closed last year.
th
MR. FORD-So they’ve been closed since October 19?
MR. WILSON-Since 2005, yes.
MR. HUNSINGER-Okay.
MRS. STEFFAN-So are the parking lines that are on this drawing what you’re proposing
to change, or are those lines there currently?
MR. STEVES-No, that’s what we’re proposing.
MRS. STEFFAN-All right.
MR. HUNSINGER-And what will the display area, is that going to be striped?
MR. STEVES-The parking to the south of that will be striped, up to the edge of the
display area, and then it’ll be, the islands and the light poles will be just like the
parking/striping will continue to the north. They’re just not going to stripe it to the north.
MR. HUNSINGER-Okay.
MR. STEVES-But it’ll be a defined area for customers to come in and park, and they’ll be
striped and handicapped just like we show, up closer to the building, but that area on the
northerly end of the parking lot will be exclusively for display area.
MRS. BRUNO-I apologize for my late arrival. Let me just ask, was there a parking
calculation calculated for the potential future use?
MS. BITTER-The future use isn’t being incorporated. We can only review this
application for the existing use.
MRS. BRUNO-Okay. I wasn’t sure.
MRS. BRUNO-Not the new tenant.
MRS. BRUNO-Thank you.
8
(Queensbury Planning Board 03/22/07)
MS. BITTER-No problem.
MR. HUNSINGER-Any other questions or comments from the Board?
MR. SEGULJIC-I’m all set.
MR. FORD-I’m done.
MR. HUNSINGER-Well, what we’re approving is S-1.
MS. BITTER-Do you want me to identify those timelines again?
MR. HUNSINGER-Yes. Well, the timelines are identified in your letter.
MS. BITTER-Right, but there was a modification, because the landscaping islands was
identified as being done in, I think, the Spring of ’06, and that hasn’t been completed yet,
and then the landscaping curb cuts on Hidden Farms Road, that wasn’t done yet either.
MR. SEGULJIC-And also the sewer installation and drywell within a certain amount of
time of connection to the sewer.
MS. BITTER-Right. That’s Number Five. Right. Exactly.
MR. SEGULJIC-Something like six months.
MRS. STEFFAN-I’m just so confused that I don’t know what to put in this motion.
MR. HUNSINGER-Well, the site plan we’re approving is depicted on S-1, dated
December 14, 2006, with the exception of those four notes that should be removed. I
mean, in terms of the timeline, I don’t know, do we need to specify? Do we need to be
specific about the timeline?
MR. SEGULJIC-I think we do.
MS. BITTER-Just because of the fact that Bruce Frank, I mean, that was part of the
submission to address the deficiencies.
MR. HUNSINGER-Right. Okay.
MS. BITTER-So I obviously don’t want to overlook them.
st
MR. SEGULJIC-So the landscaping will be installed by September 1?
MR. WILSON-Yes. That’s fine.
MR. FORD-Providing we have more snow, right, the money doesn’t run out again.
MR. WILSON-Yes, the lighting’s in.
MR. HUNSINGER-So what was incorrect on this letter other than the landscaped parking
islands?
MS. BITTER-Landscaped parking islands. Landscaped curb cuts on Hidden Farms
Road. Drywell Number Five to be completed with the sewer connection.
MR. SEGULJIC-Just to clarify. So when you say completed with sewer connections,
once the sewer is connected you will have the drywell in?
MR. WILSON-No, we’re hooking to the Town sewer.
MR. SEGULJIC-Sewer, and then you’re going to put the drywell in.
MR. WILSON-We’re going to put the drywell in at the same time because it’s within 30
feet of each other.
MR. SEGULJIC-Okay.
MR. HUNSINGER-So really what you’re saying is that all the deficiencies in that letter
will be done within six months?
9
(Queensbury Planning Board 03/22/07)
MR. WILSON-Correct.
MR. HUNSINGER-Okay.
MR. FORD-So by Balloon Festival weekend they’ll be done?
MR. HUNSINGER-Right. No public hearing required. Okay.
MOTION TO APPROVE MODIFICATION TO SITE PLAN NO. 36-2003 GARY & JILL
WILSON WILSON’S YAMAHA, Introduced by Gretchen Steffan who moved for its
adoption, seconded by Thomas Ford:
1. A site plan application has been made to the Queensbury Planning Board for the
following; Applicant proposes modification to their previously approved Site Plan
36-2003. Modifications to approved site plans require review by the Planning
Board.
2. A public hearing is not required for a modification;
3. This application is supported with all documentation, public comment and
application material in the file of record;
4. Pursuant to relevant sections of the Town of Queensbury Zoning Code [Chapter
179], the Planning Board has determined that this proposal complies with the
requirements as stated in the Zoning Code; and
5. The requirements of the State Environmental Quality Review Act have been
considered and the Planning Board has adopted a SEQRA Negative / Positive
Declaration; and
6. 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; and
7. 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. Subsequent issuance of further permits,
including building permits are dependent on receipt; and
8. The applicant will provide as-built plans to certify that the site plan is developed
according to the approved plans prior to issuance of the certificate of occupancy;
and
9. If applicable, Item 8 to be combined with a letter of credit; and
10. The Sanitary Sewer connection plan must be submitted to the Wastewater
Department for its review, approval, permitting and inspection.
11. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that we find the following:
MOTION TO APPROVE MODIFICATION TO SITE PLAN NO. 36-2003 GARY & JILL
WILSON WILSON’S YAMAHA, Introduced by Gretchen Steffan who moved for its
adoption, seconded by Thomas Ford:
According to the resolution prepared by Staff.
1. Paragraph One should read, a site plan application has been made to the
Queensbury Planning Board for the following: Applicant proposes modification
to their previously approved Site Plan 36-2003.
2. Modifications denoted in Drawing S-1 dated December 14, 2006. That drawing
needs to be modified so that four notes are removed. The notes include existing
curb cut to be updated to DOT specs at the same location. That will be
eliminated. Existing sign to be modified at the same location. That will be
eliminated. Closure review of driveways per planning comments 7/18/03, add
four parking if existing drive to remain, and the fourth note to be eliminated, utility
pad review per NiMo planning.
3. Paragraph Two says the same.
10
(Queensbury Planning Board 03/22/07)
4. Paragraph Three stays the same.
5. Paragraph Four complies.
6. Paragraph Five, this was an Unlisted Action, and it does not require further
review.
7. Paragraph Six and Seven are the same.
8. Paragraph Eight applies.
9. The applicant agrees that they will complete, within six months, the landscaped
parking islands, that they will install the Number Five drywell when the sewer
connection is made, that they will re-stripe the parking area, and that they will
finish any remaining landscaping.
nd
Duly adopted this 22 day of March, 2007, by the following vote:
AYES: Mr. Seguljic, Mrs. Steffan, Mr. Ford, Mr. Hunsinger
NOES: NONE
ABSTAINED: Mrs. Bruno
ABSENT: Mr. Sipp, Mr. Traver
MR. HUNSINGER-You’re all set. Thanks.
SITE PLAN NO. 30-2002 MODIFICATION SEQR TYPE PREVIOUS SEQRA ADIR.
GIRL SCOUT COUNCIL AGENT(S) JONATHAN LAPPER OWNER(S) SAME
ZONING SFR-1A LOCATION 213 MEADOWBROOK ROAD APPILCANT IS SEEKIG
APPROVAL FOR CONSTRUCTED CHANGES TO THE 4,428 SQ. FT.
ADMINISTRATIVE BUILDING. IN ADDITION REVIEW OF THE MASTER PLAN
SUBMITTED AS A CONDITION OF PREVIOUS APPLICATION IS REQUESTED.
CROSS REFERENCE AV 47-02, FW 1-02, UV 12-02, AV 37-05, UV 44-92 WARREN
CO. PLANNING 6/12/02 LOT SIZE 13.38 ACRES TAX MAP NO. 296.16-1-10
SECTION 179-9-020
STEFANIE BITTER & KIT HUGGARD, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT
MR. HUNSINGER-Susan, if you could summarize Staff Notes, please.
MRS. BARDEN-The applicant is seeking site plan modification for a previously approved
plan, including constructed changes to the administration building. This application was
most recently tabled in May 2005, for among other things a Master Plan for the property
for review by this Board. With this, the Board should review the DEC permit that has
been issued regarding the wetland mitigation plan, Bruce Frank’s site inspection report,
identifying outstanding deficiencies of the site, and the submitted Master Plan. The
th
Town engineer has submitted a comment letter dated March 20, and there’s a previous
SEQRA action that was conducted in June of 2002 for this project.
MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. Thank you. Good evening.
MS. BITTER-Good evening. Stefanie Bitter, Kit Huggard for the Girl Scouts, and Dean
Long from the LA Group. Just to kind of regroup, I know that not all these Board
members were here in 2005 when this application was before you. In 2002, the Girl
Scouts came before this Town to address a renovation project that they were planning
on pursuing. In 2005, during constructions, certain modifications were made that the
applicant wasn’t aware needed further approval. When we were before the Board in
2005, due to the fact that there’s wetlands that are present on the site, it was identified
that it needed to be tabled until such time that DEC issued all necessary permits for the
wetland mitigation. Unfortunately, it took until September of 2006 in order to have all
those permits issued. During the 2005 review by the Planning Board, as Susan
mentioned, it was noted in the resolution that we needed to submit a Master Plan, which
the Girl Scouts compiled and sat down with Staff and reviewed. This plan, it’s my
understanding, was submitted to the Planning Board, and it wasn’t until this time it’s
actually been reviewed, but in order for us to move forward with the site plan
modifications, we need to have a review of this plan. The plan identifies three phases.
The first two phases, at this time, have been completed, pending the site plan
modification approval that we’re here this evening seeking. The last Phase implements
the nature lodge as one of the items which we’ve submitted in March to hopefully be
heard in the near future. That kind of gives you an overview. I don’t know, Kit, if you
have any items to add, but we’d just open it up for questions from the Board.
11
(Queensbury Planning Board 03/22/07)
MR. HUNSINGER-Does everyone understand what it is we’re asked to do this evening?
MR. SEGULJIC-No.
MR. HUNSINGER-Could you elaborate, please?
MS. BITTER-Sure. I know that you guys all got this book that I submitted with the
th
submission. Page Two explains the resolution that was issued on September 26, or at
least provides it. If you go to Page Two of your resolution, it specifically identifies that in
order to move forward, before the final project is approved, the Girl Scouts need to come
back with a Master Plan. That’s what we’ve submitted. That in order to validate the
condition of putting the Master Plan on, the Girl Scouts had to meet with Staff within the
date of this resolution, which they did, in order to review it, and I think actually Marilyn
Ryba was the one that met with you and signed off on it.
MR. FORD-And she verified that, that that had occurred.
MS. BITTER-Okay.
MRS. STEFFAN-I guess one of the questions that begs to be asked here is that the letter
th
from Bruce Frank, dated March 16, the Site Plan Inspection Report, there are so many
discrepancies here, and I just have to ask, where did we go wrong? Why are there all
these deviations from the approved plan?
MS. BITTER-I’d be happy to go into that, and that’s essentially the same application we
were before you in 2005. Nothing’s changed since 2005. It’s just an itemized list of what
needed to be incorporated in that site plan modification, which we have submitted. I can
recap. I don’t know if you were present during that 2005 review, but what happened
during construction was, what was originally proposed was an addition to the
administrative building. When they went to start construction, they realized that the
integrity of the structure wasn’t what they had anticipated, and as a result, it couldn’t
sustain an addition. They went forward with demolishing the building, which they
actually went forward and got the demolition permit, if I understand it correctly, from the
Building Department, under the understanding that the Building Department would only
issue that if it was within the scope of the approvals that were issued in 2002. The
building was demolished and rebuilt on the same foundation, and because that
happened, that was part of the deficiencies that have resulted. The porches as well, the
back deck I’ll refer to it as, or the rear deck, that was also deemed rotted, and they made
that modification as well. A lot of these modifications were entered into by the Girl
Scouts with the understanding that it was just within their jurisdiction to (lost words)
approval that was provided in ’02. So it was really a mistake, and I know that we went
through this in 2005 and explained a lot of these changes, but the understanding that I
had from Bruce Frank when he issued that just a few days ago, was just to assist you as
to the differences between the 2002 approval and what we’ve submitted to try and
modify everything.
MRS. STEFFAN-But the approvals that were given by the Board were interpreted for you
by the Building and Codes folks. Is that like when you had to demolish the building?
MS. BITTER-I’m sorry. Where they?
MRS. STEFFAN-Interpreted for you by the Building and Codes people?
MS. BITTER-No. Obviously not.
MRS. STEFFAN-Because if the site plan was for a modification, for example, to your
building, but it had to be demolished, that didn’t come back before this Board.
MS. BITTER-Right, it should have before we did demolition, but when we got the permit
issued, it was our understanding that the permit wouldn’t have been issued if it couldn’t
have been done within the site plan approval that was issued in 2002.
MRS. STEFFAN-Okay.
MR. FORD-So why wasn’t it complied with? Why didn’t you come back?
MS. BITTER-Why didn’t we come back when?
DEAN LONG
12
(Queensbury Planning Board 03/22/07)
MR. LONG-Dean Long from the LA Group. The Building and Codes Department issued
the demolition permit. So at that point, the Girl Scouts interpreted that as long as they
stayed, and again, they did stay virtually on the footprint of the prior old building, and the
whole fundamental problem with the old building was that it was way too low. The sills
and everything had rotted out. They knew they were going to have to raise the interior
floors to get out of the 100 year flood plain. So when they opened up the building, the
backs of the building, in order to make the addition that had been approved, at that point,
that’s when they discovered the rot, all the other problems. So at that point they went
back to Building and Codes and requested a demolition permit to take down the other
three walls. At that point they got a demolition permit, and it was the perception at that
point that because they were essentially staying in and on that footprint, that we didn’t
have to return for site plan approval.
MS. HUGGARD-It was also that the builder went to Dave Hatin, asked the question, and
he said, no, it’s the same footprint, go right ahead. You can’t use the building you have.
It’s got mold and rot in it. So you have to go ahead with that and we applied for the
demolition permit, got the demolition permit, and went ahead.
MRS. BRUNO-Was this a documented meeting between the builder and Mr. Hatin?
MS. HUGGARD-I don’t know that there was written documentation. It was very clear to
Mr. Albrecht that that was perfectly fine to do, as long as we weren’t going outside the
footprint of the building, and we couldn’t do, we couldn’t add on to what we had, then that
was fine to go ahead. So we did.
MRS. BRUNO-Mr. Long, I appreciate that you weren’t the architect on the job, since
you’re a landscape architect.
MR. LONG-I’m a planner.
MRS. BRUNO-You’re a planner. Do you know, once they took it down to the foundation,
obviously you’re at the same height if you come down to the foundation. Did they then
add additional cement blocks around to raise it up, so that your sill wasn’t at the same?
MR. LONG-Yes. The floor became a slab on grade. They raised everything up, and it
became a radiant floor for the structure, and in that whole process, which was, I don’t
know exactly how the other floors were going to be proposed for the previous
construction, but it became a radiant floor, so that, one, it could be high enough to come
out of the 100 year floodplain. That was one of the fundamental problems with the entire
structure.
MRS. BRUNO-Okay. Thank you.
MR. FORD-May I ask Susan for a Staff perspective on this, if there’s any documentation
or recall?
MRS. BARDEN-This was actually before my time with the Town.
MS. BITTER-I think you just came on when we submitted.
MRS. BARDEN-Yes, and my understanding was that there was, well, of course you
know from the parcel history that there was an approved site plan for an addition to the
existing building, and at that time, Tom Albrecht, the architect or the contractor must
have deemed that the structure was not safe, and a demolition permit was applied for.
I’m not sure that it was issued. That was my understanding.
MS. BITTER-I think it’s on your notes. We talked about this the last time, too.
MR. HUNSINGER-So what was the approval that the Planning Board made in 2005, in
May of 2005?
MS. BITTER-2005 they at least approved the completion of the winter lodge, because a
tree had fallen on it, if I understand correctly, and the inclusion of a splash pad. So that
was the only thing that they modified at that time, with the understanding that we had to
return to address all of these other outstanding items once the DEC issued their permits.
MR. HUNSINGER-So really what we’re being asked to identify and deal with this
evening is everything in that’s in this March 16, 2007 inspection report.
13
(Queensbury Planning Board 03/22/07)
MS. BITTER-Right. Those are the outstanding items that need to be modified.
MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. That’s what I thought. I just wanted to make sure.
MRS. BARDEN-Because in 2005, and you have the resolution from that, because of the
outstanding issues with the DEC, you didn’t have a permit for the work that had been
done in the adjacent area to the DEC wetland, that you approved the splash pad and the
winter lodge improvements, and when they received their permit, they would come back
and you’d address the administration building and the other outstanding issues on the
site.
MR. HUNSINGER-Okay.
MS. ALTER-Mr. Chairman, I would just like to point out that the stormwater report that’s
in the booklet that was handed out, I’ve just reviewed it quickly, is not sufficient to comply
with the new regulations that the Town is forced to enforce for the Federal government
and the State.
MS. BITTER-I think you’re looking at the DEC application. Because this submission
doesn’t have.
MS. ALTER-Yes, it does. It has a very brief stormwater report, maybe three-quarters of
the way back.
MS. BITTER-Which sections are you looking at?
MS. ALTER-It’s talking about the basin and the proposed conditions. It’s right after you
Federal wetlands section.
MS. BITTER-So January 6, Number Six? The tab’s on the side.
MS. ALTER-It’s talking about the change in the base flood elevations under the National
Flood Insurance program.
MR. FORD-What tab are you?
MS. ALTER-I’m in the back of Three.
MS. BITTER-The back of Three, and Number Three identifies, November 11, 2005 DEC
application.
MS. ALTER-Okay, but we’re going to require, I’m just pointing out, that we’re going to
require a complete stormwater report that’s not part of this package.
MS. BITTER-Not in that section.
MR. LONG-Right, but previously the stormwater report had been submitted to the Board,
and we have, the sole comment that we’ve got from Vision Engineering is that they
wanted us to further modify the basin out in the front. Again, this work and effort started
back in 2002.
MS. BITTER-That was only for the sole purpose of submitting what we submitted to the
DEC for their permit.
MS. ALTER-I understand, Stefanie, but I’m pointing out to you that we need to see a full
copy of the stormwater report. Did you send it directly to Vision Engineering?
MR. LONG-Obviously he got it somehow. It must have been in one of the prior
submittals.
MS. BITTER-This was just my submission.
MR. LONG-Right. Because this, again, we resubmitted this back in, I think this was part
of, again, the 2005 submittal, because one of the comments was to update the
stormwater report to account for the small, for the conversion of the wood deck walk to a
concrete walk.
14
(Queensbury Planning Board 03/22/07)
MS. ALTER-The point I’m making, I guess we’re talking at cross purposes. The point
I’m making is that there are more modifications necessary than just that simple little
thing, and I believe that what Mr. Ryan signed off on was just that minor change. I’m
telling you, you need to submit a complete stormwater report.
MR. LONG-And I believe we have submitted a complete stormwater report.
MR. FORD-To whom?
MR. LONG-To the Town in 2005.
MR. FORD-Okay.
MS. ALTER-You still are not getting what I’m saying. What you submitted in 2005 isn’t
going to work in 2007. So whether it’s submitted or not is moot. You’re going to need a
new one.
MS. BITTER-I guess what I don’t understand is what Dan Ryan reviewed.
MS. ALTER-I think when, Dan Ryan was just hired in January. So he reviewed whatever
he was sent, but there was some confusion in our Ordinance as to what we required.
That confusion has been clarified, and I’m telling you that we need a new stormwater
report. I’m just pointing it out so it doesn’t come as a shock later on. That’s all.
MS. BITTER-So we’d be willing to modify that.
MR. SEGULJIC-Not that you need to get into a lot of detail, but what’s the difference?
What are they going to require now?
MS. ALTER-There’s much more stringent requirements including pre-treatment and
more retention on the site, and that’s a significant difference. I’m just pointing that out.
MS. BITTER-I guess I’m confused because obviously the Town Engineer just reviewed
it. Our engineer.
MS. ALTER-Stefanie, let’s not talk at cross purposes. The Town Engineer was just
hired. The Town Engineer reviewed the file that he was provided. That file is not current
to 2007. I’ve already had a discussion with the Town Engineer about there has to be a
new stormwater report. He concurs. I was going to let you, I didn’t want to hold you up
from being before the Planning Board, but I’m just pointing that out to the Planning Board
as a point of information. If you want to have a side conversation about this tomorrow,
we can do that, but I just don’t want you to think that what you submitted in 2005 is going
to fly today, because there are new stormwater regs, that’s all.
MR. HUNSINGER-We appear to not have a copy of Dan Ryan’s letter, which is what I
was looking for.
MS. ALTER-They were adopted by the State of New York and we have six years to
implement them.
MR. SEGULJIC-Which one are they? I mean, this is new to me. What’s the Code?
MS. ALTER-MS-4.
MR. SEGULJIC-MS-4.
MS. ALTER-I’m going to provide the, what other communities did, as soon as those were
adopted they changed their drainage laws. I’ve given the Town Board a draft of the new
drainage law. So I’m just trying to give everyone a heads up, so that they know what we
need to do. That’s all. I’m not trying to make trouble. I’m just trying to clarify a situation.
MR. HUNSINGER-Okay.
MR. FORD-Thank you.
MR. HUNSINGER-Thank you.
15
(Queensbury Planning Board 03/22/07)
th
MRS. STEFFAN-Could the applicant take us through Bruce Frank’s March 16 note,
item by item, and address for us, just for clarification, the short falls of the project, and
then explain what happened.
MS. BITTER-Sure. Well, I think we’ve addressed Number One, a portion of the new
structure with regard to the Administrative Building.
MRS. STEFFAN-Right.
MS. BITTER-The approved 40 foot ramp extending northwest of the pedestrian bridge
was not built. The raised boardwalk built in its place extends for approximately 220 feet.
The understanding that was provided to me was because of the soils located in the area
of the proposed original bridge, it was not feasible to construct what was originally
proposed in 2002. They had talked to the floodplain coordinator who approved the
location as well as received C.T. Male signoff, but they put it in this location, and that
needed to be modified.
MR. LONG-Right, and what’s important to understand is that the condition from the
Planning Board was to go get that permit, and so what they had to do is just shift,
because of the confluence of the two branches of the meadow brook that occur there,
they had to shift the bridge slightly to the south and west from where we had originally
proposed it. So it shifted over probably a matter of five or ten feet in that permitting
process.
MR. HUNSINGER-And that was DEC’s recommendation and approval?
MR. LONG-That was in order to comply with the floodplain rules, and to get a position
where they could manage the floodplain issues.
MR. HUNSINGER-Okay.
MR. LONG-Because what happens in, it’s a pile and post supported structure, and it had
to be at a position where it could pass the 100 year flood. So, it had to just shift over,
you know, about 10 feet.
MR. HUNSINGER-So the whole bridge is above the 100 year flood.
MR. SEGULJIC-It’s just shifted over five or ten feet.
MR. LONG-Yes.
MR. SEGULJIC-Okay.
MR. LONG-Which is one of the illustrations that’s been back in the record a dozen times,
with the red and green lines that show the inches and feet where everything.
MR. SEGULJIC-I’m fine with that.
MR. HUNSINGER-Right. Yes, we had that in our.
MR. FORD-We’ve got that.
MRS. STEFFAN-And is the floodplain coordinator, is that a DEC person or is that Dave
Hatin?
MS. BITTER-Dave Hatin.
MR. LONG-Right.
MRS. STEFFAN-For our Town, he’s it.
MR. LONG-Right.
MS. BITTER-All right, and then the approved ramp and boardwalk, the concrete walk
was put in its place. Again, that was, the applicant didn’t realize it had to be that specific.
MR. FORD-I’m sorry. Would you reiterate that, Stefanie?
16
(Queensbury Planning Board 03/22/07)
MS. BITTER-The approved, Number Three, instead of putting the wooden ramp and
boardwalk, they made it a concrete walkway.
MR. FORD-How could one misinterpret, or interpret it that it didn’t matter between
concrete and wood and board?
MS. BITTER-I think it was just part of, the contractor explained it as being a better
choice, or being more feasible. So the applicant assumed that that was doable.
MR. HUNSINGER-It’s almost too bad, sometimes, that the contractors aren’t here,
because even though I wasn’t.
MS. BITTER-And I apologize. I think he was here until five, but I don’t know how many
of you guys were. I wasn’t here until five o’clock.
MR. HUNSINGER-Well, I wasn’t here at the meeting when we approved this, but I
remember the discussion about the wooden walkway, and part of the argument that was
made by the people representing the Girl Scouts was that if it was a wooden walkway,
that it wouldn’t be an impervious as concrete, because it would allow, you know, water
between the slats.
MR. LONG-Part of the justification, for whatever reason, it did happen. The builder, you
know, trying to serve his client to the best of his extent, chose to build a concrete
walkway because of its infinitely longer life span, and it’s a far better surface, as far as
handicap access.
MR. HUNSINGER-Right.
MR. LONG-And because of the importance of the wetland bridge walkway that connects
the two sides of the camp, it becomes a very, very unique resource that’s one of the few
places where you have fully handicap accessible access in and through, you know, a
very well functioning shrubbed, treed, wetland where you actually can see, you know, the
entire area. So there is benefits, and this was part of the whole thing with the Army
Corps and DEC. They recognized the benefits of having this facility in the community.
MR. FORD-And did they authorize it, the modification?
MR. LONG-Army Corps and DEC have authorized it.
MR. FORD-After the fact or before?
MR. LONG-As far as the concrete surface changed, it didn’t make a difference at the
Army Corps because it was, most of it was outside of their jurisdictional area, and the
issue at DEC was that it was conversion of a wood walkway in the adjacent area to a
concrete walkway in the adjacent area. So, again, they did issue the permit.
MR. FORD-After the fact?
MR. LONG-The permit was issued as far as the wetland disturbance, and, you know,
there was a few square feet between having a wood versus concrete, and they did issue
an after the fact permit to authorize it.
MR. FORD-Because we have documentation that clearly admonishes the applicant to
follow, the permittee and his agents to read and comply with all of the issues involved,
you know, pertaining to permitting, and they should be followed, and not not followed and
then asked for forgiveness later, and get a modification in the approval, and that’s what
occurred.
MRS. STEFFAN-Okay. On Item Four?
MS. BITTER-That was the deck that I was referring to in the rear that was also deemed
to be rotted when the contractor was evaluating the project, and he replaced.
MRS. STEFFAN-He replaced it bigger, though.
MS. BITTER-Right.
MR. SEGULJIC-How much bigger are we talking?
17
(Queensbury Planning Board 03/22/07)
MS. BITTER-The decks together, the front and the rear, compile 1,098 square feet. I
don’t know the difference between the rear deck. I don’t know if it was that much. It was
obviously a deficiency.
MR. LONG-Right. I think between the approved site plan and what was built was a
matter of like six or eight square feet difference. Again, you go back to that red and
green figure, you see the differences.
MRS. STEFFAN-Just a comment that Bruce used, the structure built much larger. It just,
you know, a few feet doesn’t seem like that would be much larger.
MR. LONG-Well, that’s been his problem from the beginning.
MRS. STEFFAN-You mean that the language is expansive?
MRS. BRUNO-I’m sorry. Could we, just for a moment, return to Two? There was one
thing that we kind of jumped over, in terms of the vegetation that was cleared past the
limit of the construction line. Was that simply because the bridge was moved over and
you needed to get in and clear out underneath to set the pilings, or is that more of a
visual?
MR. LONG-No, this is on Number Two for the boardwalk where it was cleared, you
know, beyond the construction limit, and it was just outside of the actual footprint,
because they did pour concrete post. They had to cut out a little bit more shrub on either
side in order to get the concrete post set.
MRS. BRUNO-So you would say, again, a little bit would be two feet?
MR. LONG-I think probably there is about three feet on either side, but now it’s grown
back, because the best practice in the wetland is to shear off the vegetation so that it
doesn’t get ripped apart during construction, and just let the root stock regenerate it.
MRS. BRUNO-What prompted that question was actually part of Part Four where it says
that the no lawn area with wildflower mix was planted, and I was just thinking in terms of
where are we going with our planting, you know, perhaps if the wildflower weren’t put in.
I haven’t visited the site recently, I’ll be honest. I didn’t know if perhaps we’re trying to
open up the boardwalk area for more of, like I had said, a visual access, you know, to the
area around. Just trying to feel you out to see where we’re going, I mean, with this.
MS. HUGGARD-It’s a beautiful wildflower area, and it’s all grown in. There’s myrtle and
there’s marsh marigold in there. There’s Jack in the Pulpits. We’ve enjoyed it for years
and years, cardinal flowers, violets.
MRS. BRUNO-And that was the native, the original native plants that you’re speaking of.
MS. HUGGARD-They all just moved and then they’ve all come back.
MRS. BRUNO-Okay.
MS. HUGGARD-Dog Tooth Violets. It’s a beautiful area. Come in the Spring.
MRS. BRUNO-I will. Thank you.
MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. Are we up to Item Five? Yes.
MS. BITTER-With regards to the lighting. I think that there was a concern about visibility,
and that could have been why things were modified and included, at least I think that’s
how it was addressed in the 2005 meeting. I think that’s Five, Six, and Seven.
MRS. BRUNO-Actually, Mr. Chairman, I’m sorry, but did we skip over why they were,
that the lawn was, how was the lawn re-seeded? Was that?
MS. BITTER-Near the deck.
MS. HUGGARD-It’s just grass.
MRS. BRUNO-Just grass.
MR. LONG-Yes.
18
(Queensbury Planning Board 03/22/07)
MS. BITTER-I’m not sure if he would have been able to note that when he was there on
th
March 16. It could have been when he was there in ’05, and obviously he’s not here to
th
vouch for that, but on March 16, I don’t think there was any visibility of any grass
because of the snow?
MRS. BRUNO-And what’s the slope there from the lawn down to the wetland?
MR. LONG-Do you have the pictures or not? Those are from probably two years ago.
MRS. BARDEN-This is actually recent.
MS. BITTER-I mean, like his comment about the no lawn area is probably from his prior.
MR. LONG-Yes.
MRS. BRUNO-What was the reason for just seeding it with grass and not following the
approved plans?
MR. LONG-Well, the original plan for the wildflower mix was to be actually inside
between the wooden deck and, well, between the wooden walkway ramp that goes out to
the wetland and the deck, the deck that was going to be attached to the building. So that
was going to be the inter wildflower seeding area. So that was the area that now has just
become turf and in between, well, there isn’t that in between (lost word). So then turf has
just been planted as the embankment and control on the side of the concrete, and part of
the reason is that, you know, the turf is going to grow more aggressively than a
wildflower mix on that slope.
MR. FORD-May I ask why there isn’t the in between space, as you refer to it?
MR. LONG-Just because it was concrete. The in between space was lost because of
the sub fill for the concrete. Whereas when we had it as a boardwalk, it was just going to
be flat underneath there, and it was going to create this void between the building deck
and the ramp to the wetland walkways.
MRS. BRUNO-It is called actually in the point, in the other areas, the lawn and wildflower
mix, new lawn wildflower mix to limits of disturbance typical. So it’s more than just those,
I’m just curious, you know, and you’ve stated because it was the slope.
MR. LONG-The slope.
MR. FORD-And it became a solid structure rather than a raised structure?
MR. LONG-Right.
MR. FORD-Thank you.
MRS. BRUNO-Thank you.
MR. HUNSINGER-In talking about the lights that were erected, that weren’t on the origin
site plan, do you know what the wattages are or anything like that?
MS. HUGGARD-They’re not particularly bright. They’re safe enough that you can cross
the bridge, but they’re a kind of a golden fixture.
MR. HUNSINGER-Yes, I saw those. I guess I was still on Items Five, Six and Seven, the
motion detectors and the wall packs and the light poles.
MS. HUGGARD-Motion detectors were put on the corners of the building, after we were
in the building, because we had people who were falling. They couldn’t see the
difference between the curb and the parking lot. So we put a motion detector, so that
when they walked down, after an evening meeting, the light would turn on, and they
could see where they were going. It’s just for safety.
MR. FORD-You may have covered this before, but I was on another topic. On Number
Five, the three unapproved pole lights. They are where and why?
19
(Queensbury Planning Board 03/22/07)
MS. HUGGARD-They’re in the parking lot. It was discovered that the approved plan had
no lights in the parking lot, which of course you can’t have a parking lot without lights. So
we just put lights in the parking lot.
MR. HUNSINGER-Has there been any complaints from any of the neighbors about the
lighting?
MRS. BARDEN-It’s a north parking lot light.
MS. HUGGARD-There is a street light that burns all night. The parking lot lights go on in
the evening and they go off at eleven, and they shine straight down.
MR. FORD-The reason I’m asking, when I hear of something like this with lighting that’s
installed, not approved, we put a lot of applicants through some real hoops when it
comes to lighting, and, you know, that’s just our community structure, and the way it
operates.
MS. HUGGARD-Absolutely. Absolutely.
MR. FORD-I’m concerned when lighting is, and how I deal with the next applicant to grill
them on lighting when they have an issue here where lighting very probably was needed,
but not approved but installed.
MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. Unless people had other questions on the lighting, I guess
we’re up to Item Nine.
MR. LONG-Right. The issue there is that those two parking spaces, the warp in the
pavement wasn’t correctly sloped back to the small stormwater area, and the design of
that stormwater area, every since the beginning, has always been to fill and then to weir
overflow to the wetland, and again, the warpage hasn’t been corrected because we’ve
been waiting for the site plan approvals to correct that issue.
MR. HUNSINGER-So that’s also Item 10.
MR. LONG-Yes.
MRS. STEFFAN-Wouldn’t that be part of the stormwater plan, though, if it’s?
MR. LONG-Yes.
MR. HUNSINGER-So how are you proposing to correct that?
MR. LONG-Probably what will end up happening is that those two spaces will have to be
cut and then re-laid, cut out and re-laid.
MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. So that the water sheets the right way.
MR. LONG-Yes, the right way.
MR. FORD-Is that part of a plan you have submitted?
MR. LONG-Yes. That was part of the original plan, and I don’t believe it ever changed,
and it’s just, you know, when it got constructed, it didn’t get constructed and warped quite
correctly, and so then ever since, because of all the other things that have happened,
you know, we haven’t had the opportunity to go back and fix it yet because everybody
says, everybody wanted us to get everything fixed once and all the inconsistencies
corrected and then go in there and, you know, repair what was a construction deficiency.
MR. HUNSINGER-So what other construction deficiencies are there? Well, I guess Item
Eleven might be another one, that the settlement basin is smaller than approved.
MR. LONG-I think the settlement basins, both basins are pretty much as approved.
Again, you know, they were always, the one issue on the settlement basin out in the front
of the parking lot is that they added a four inch pipe to discharge back to the wetland
rather than having it just weir overflow and flow across the parking lot. The contractor
was concerned about icing, you know, it works either way, whether or not you’re going to
get icing and whether or not the four inch pipe would actually prevent that basin from
overflowing. So, you know, the pipe is there. The Town Engineer from Vision requested
us to re-look at that and either put a gravel pack around it or create it so that less
20
(Queensbury Planning Board 03/22/07)
sediment would get into that four inch pipe, because the four inch pipe was set right at
the bottom of the basin, and we sent up a drawing to them today showing how we would
fix that, but I guess we’ve got to re-look at the stormwater a little further. So, we’ll see
how that one changes, well, gets modified.
MS. BITTER-The wetland mitigation area hasn’t been constructed yet because we were
trying to construct it if possible, but Staff felt it was necessary to wait until all approvals
were completed.
MR. LONG-And again, on the wetland, again, one set of site plans shows it slightly
different than the second set, because in the final moments of approval of the building,
we went from I think it was originally a 1200. It went up to 1600. The bubble was
conceptually put on to the plan. Subsequent to that and during this process, we’ve gone
out there, re-delineated the wetland, found the upland areas adjacent to the wetland,
moved the entire basin, the entire new mitigation wetland into the upland area as it has
to be in order to be, you know, mitigation so that it’s converting the upland area. So,
again, we’ve just been waiting for that approval to come forward so that we can go ahead
and start building the mitigation wetland.
MR. FORD-So you re-determined where the wetlands are?
MR. LONG-Yes, because one of the questions was, was exactly where they were,
because the original delineation was performed I think in 1999, in the back there, and of
course wetlands change, just through matter of nature, etc.
MR. FORD-Did the U.S. Corps of Engineers determine that?
MR. LONG-Delineator that’s qualified to complete the Army Corps delineation completed
the work.
MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. Other questions, comments from the Board?
MR. SEGULJIC-Just clarify for me once again the wetland mitigation project. Is that
going to be done in the future, then?
MR. LONG-Yes. Our anticipation is depending on how the Spring goes, and this is what I
explained to the ZBA is normally the way we like, our preferred method of building
mitigation wetlands is to try to do the excavations in the Fall. What it allows us to do is
then watch how it floods in the Spring and how the water sits in it, because then we can
plant, put the plants in more accurately, and so what we’d like to be able to do, and
because the Spring season is notoriously short around here, it’s impossible to excavate
and plant in the optimal season. Plus, with the Girl Scouts, you know, wanting to be able
to use the property, you know, we have to be out of there before June, with all the heavy
equipment to do the excavation. So our, the proposal that we described to the ZBA
would be to excavate it in this Fall, in 2007, and plant it in 2008.
MR. SEGULJIC-And so why wasn’t it done to date, then?
MR. LONG-Because we haven’t got the site plan approval yet.
MR. SEGULJIC-Okay. All right. So Catch-22 for you.
MR. HUNSINGER-So the wetland mitigation has not come before this Board until this
evening?
MR. LONG-No, you approved a wetland mitigation area in the original approval.
MR. HUNSINGER-Subject to DEC.
MR. LONG-Subject to DEC. Subject to Army Corps.
MR. HUNSINGER-Okay.
MR. FORD-But it wasn’t followed. It wasn’t complied with.
MR. LONG-No, absolutely wrong. We have been waiting.
MR. FORD-Was it or wasn’t it?
21
(Queensbury Planning Board 03/22/07)
MR. LONG-No, we have been waiting to get the site plan approval for, we have the site
plan approval for it, and then because of the other discrepancies, we’ve just been waiting
to build it.
MRS. BRUNO-And the wetland delineation has changed since the original mitigation?
MR. LONG-Since the original 1999 delineation, which is what we’ve based the 2005, you
know, final site plan on.
MRS. BRUNO-But what I’m saying is, after you had the mitigation plan, then you
changed, went back and had the wetlands re-delineated?
MR. LONG-Right. So that we’d have the precise wetland upland boundary, so that we
could go forward and finalize it again, because during the approval process, we had
proposed 1200, and then it had to go up to 1600 because the Board was concerned
about some minor additional impacts. So there was a changing in sizing through the
approval process.
MRS. BRUNO-I’m curious if, because of the new delineation, if that mitigation plan will
still be applicable, even with the additional 400 square feet?
MR. LONG-Yes.
MRS. BRUNO-It still works.
MR. LONG-L1-5-6-05, if you would pull out that one. This kidney shaped areas was the
original proposal for the wetland mitigation, and then what happened is when we went
back out there to hard line and re-delineate this boundary, some of it ended up in the
wetland itself. So then what we did is we simply shifted out over into this area, because
hydraulically we want to be able to utilize flood waters coming in off of Meadowbrook as
it enters this area. So that’s basically, you know, that’s what happened.
MRS. BRUNO-Okay. So the mitigation plan has been updated since the delineation has
been updated?
MR. LONG-Correct.
MRS. BRUNO-Okay. Thank you.
MR. SEGULJIC-So, Mr. Chairman, what we’re doing here is we’re going through these,
I’ll call them violations, approve those changes, and then also approve the Master Plan,
in theory, that includes the new lodge that they’re going to build?
MR. HUNSINGER-I think the applicant, I don’t want to put words in your mouth, I think
you said that in order to have the new lodge approved, you’d have to come back for site
plan review.
MS. BITTER-Right. That’s already, it’s identified as a plan in the Master Plan.
MR. SEGULJIC-You’ll have to come back for site plan.
MS. BITTER-Exactly, and we’ve submitted in March. So hopefully we’ll be heard in the
near future.
MRS. STEFFAN-Right, it’s a three phase plan.
MR. SEGULJIC-And, excuse me, you alluded to a plan that has the colors on it that
denote how much of a change there was?
MR. LONG-Yes.
MR. SEGULJIC-Maybe that would be helpful. It sounds like everything is pretty minor.
MR. HUNSINGER-That was this. Didn’t you have that?
MR. SEGULJIC-Is that in my package?
MR. HUNSINGER-Yes.
22
(Queensbury Planning Board 03/22/07)
MR. FORD-Yes, it’s in here someplace.
MR. HUNSINGER-Thank you.
MR. SEGULJIC-The only thing is, I forget what number it was, it was with the bridge?
MR. LONG-Yes.
MR. SEGULJIC-How the bridge was moved. Are you talking about the bridge at the
confluence?
MR. LONG-Yes.
MR. SEGULJIC-And you’re saying that was moved about five feet?
MR. LONG-Yes.
MR. FORD-Five or ten.
MR. LONG-Yes, five or ten.
MR. SEGULJIC-And you’re saying that was due to encountered site conditions.
MR. LONG-Due to the site conditions with the way the confluence is, and in order to
have, well, the technical problem is the change in the hydraulic capacity, and how the
flooding happens at that confluence. So that’s what caused the bridge to shift around.
MR. SEGULJIC-Okay.
MR. HUNSINGER-So what information do we feel we still need, is I think where we’re
at?
MR. SEGULJIC-Other than the discussion of the stormwater plan.
MR. HUNSINGER-And signoff from the Town Engineer.
MR. SEGULJIC-Right.
MR. HUNSINGER-Is there anything else that Board members feel we need?
MR. FORD-What about the mitigation plan?
MR. HUNSINGER-What about it? Can you be more specific?
MR. FORD-It’s been modified since the last time that it was approved by the Planning
Board, correct?
MR. LONG-Right, and there was the submittal in 2005.
MR. HUNSINGER-Yes, it is in here.
MR. SEGULJIC-Yes, and the area has been identified.
MS. BITTER-Right, pursuant to the permit.
MR. SEGULJIC-I’ve always been amazed by this building of wetlands anyway, but that’s
a whole other story.
MR. HUNSINGER-Did you have a more specific question, Tom?
MR. FORD-Has that revision been approved by a previous Planning Board? Submitted
to and approved by?
MR. LONG-The concept of the mitigation areas were always approved, and now the
position and shape has changed in order to comply with all the conditions, and the DEC
has approved it because it goes into their adjacent area.
MR. SEGULJIC-So the DEC reviews it?
23
(Queensbury Planning Board 03/22/07)
MR. LONG-Right, and that’s already done.
MRS. BARDEN-Mr. Ford, my understanding was in 2005 the Board was happy with the
plan. They were just waiting for the DEC permit with regard to the wetland mitigation
plan, and they’ve submitted that.
MR. FORD-And it’s been approved by DEC?
MRS. BARDEN-Yes. The permit’s in your package.
MR. FORD-Thank you. I’m trying to catch up historically.
MRS. BARDEN-There’s a lot to catch up on.
MR. FORD-Thank you.
MRS. BARDEN-You’re welcome.
MR. SEGULJIC-Those are the only issues I see, are the discussion of the stormwater
permit and the engineer’s comments.
MRS. BRUNO-Those are definitely the larger issues. There’s one that I’d like to go back
to, and I’ll explain myself a little bit more so it doesn’t sound like I’m harping on a smaller
point, and I’m not sure if it’s too late, at this point, for us to request this from the Girl
Scouts, but in terms of the lawn area and the green space, is part of it’s within the
wetland boundary, and the rest is within 100 feet. We’ve recently put other applications
(end of one tape and next tape picked up here) fertilizers are not used, especially areas
around the lake, and Glen Lake, and we’ve suggested the use of more of those native
plants that you were speaking of, and I don’t know how the rest of the Board feels about
the fertilization issue, but I found myself more of a person who’s been trying to take
better care of our waterways since I’ve seen a lot of change just in the 15 years that I’ve
been here, because it does influence everything around us.
MR. SEGULJIC-I guess the question is, what is your current landscaping practice?
MS. HUGGARD-Well, we just mow the green areas. We have shrubs that are kind of
foundation plantings. Everything else is wild. All the ferns have come back, and then
some, and all the wildflowers are back with a vengeance. They seem to have liked the
vacation I guess, and the bridge, the bridge has opened up areas, that was, it was
always that the stream was a boundary, and now that you can walk across, all those
pockets of wildflowers in the water are visible. We have parents whose children are
going to summer day camp who, on purpose, park on the building side instead of going I
the camp side just so they can take their children across the bridge. It’s absolutely
beautiful.
MR. FORD-I like the reference in your plan to the crossing over as well. It may not be
the right terminology, but there’s something in your practice there, your bridging.
MS. HUGGARD-Absolutely, and they have used that bridge for those very ceremonies.
MR. FORD-How about the fertilization, what is used?
MS. HUGGARD-I don’t believe we’re fertilizing the lawn. I can check with the caretaker,
but I think we just mow it.
MRS. BRUNO-So if we were to put a stipulation in the motion that you’d be okay if we
just said no fertilizer be used. That would be okay?
MS. HUGGARD-Yes. It’s not that kind of a lawn.
MRS. BRUNO-Okay.
MR. HUNSINGER-Anything else we want to see more information on, more detail,
questions, comments?
MR. LONG-Would it be appropriate for us to get a stormwater update and have it as a
condition of approval, is to work out exactly it’s going to be, and, you know, revising the
basins, etc.? Because one of the challenges with this site are the overriding floodplain
issues, the wetland boundaries, the wetland adjacent areas and everything else. So,
24
(Queensbury Planning Board 03/22/07)
you know, there’s not a lot of flexibility here. Work with your Town Engineer, come up
with the best possible plan.
MR. HUNSINGER-I guess I’m not sure what your question is.
MR. LONG-And make that as a condition of the approval.
MRS. BRUNO-You’re saying rather than table it for the information?
MR. LONG-Right.
MR. HUNSINGER-What’s the feeling of the Board?
MR. FORD-We’re not prone to throw that kind of responsibility to the engineer on any
previous application.
MS. BITTER-Well, we’re just in a position, and I realize this has nothing to do with the
Board either, but, you know, we were trying to get it obviously approved in 2005, and had
to hold up for the DEC permits, and it took this long to get the DEC permits, and then to
compile the application, you know, we had to make sure everything was in tune with the
Zoning Board got the approvals, and now we’re before the Board, and now it’s already
coming close to the next season for the campers. So we’re kind of getting into that tight
timeframe again. So that would be our only reason to request this type of leniency, and
honestly, and as you could tell from our reaction, it was really our first time hearing that
the stormwater plan that we submitted wasn’t accurate for the standards that are now
intact. So that’s what would be our request to make this one exception.
MR. SEGULJIC-But don’t you have to submit a new stormwater plan anyway with the
new lodge?
MS. BITTER-We would.
MR. LONG-Yes, but that’s on the other side.
MS. BITTER-Yes, that’s not the same site that we’re talking about.
MR. LONG-Right. That’s on the other side of the brook, and then in the main camp area
itself.
MR. SEGULJIC-So by giving you this approval tonight, what’s to gain?
MS. BITTER-We’re going to be able to move forward with the nature lodge, soon.
Because we can’t (lost word) the nature lodge until you guys have approved this.
MRS. STEFFAN-And there would be two different stormwater plans, one for Phase I and
II and then there’d be another stormwater for Phase III?
MS. BITTER-Is that accurate, Dean?
MR. LONG-Phase I, II.
MS. BITTER-Well, she’s talking about the master plan. This being this site plan
modification and then the next site plan modification. You’re correct.
MRS. STEFFAN-So when we’re talking about a stormwater report.
MR. HUNSINGER-I certainly don’t see what would limit them from submitting an
application, pending approval of what we’re working on this evening. I mean, we
obviously wouldn’t approve a new application until we addressed these concerns.
MRS. BARDEN-It’s just that it specifies in your previous motion, tabling motion, that you
need to clear that up and review the master plan prior to them coming back with another
project. I mean, you can modify that now, but that’s how it, the last time you saw this, the
condition on the tabling.
MR. HUNSINGER-I realize that, but I guess in my mind I’m not understanding how we’re
holding them up, is I guess what I’m really saying, because, you know, you could
certainly submit the Phase III plan. We just won’t hear it until we deal with these issues.
25
(Queensbury Planning Board 03/22/07)
MR. LONG-Well, what I would propose, as another route to advance the lodge, is that
the master plan would be the item that impinges the ability of the Girl Scouts to advance
the lodge plan. So, if the master plan gets approved, then the lodge plan can go ahead,
and then finalizing the stormwater plan that everybody is comfortable with for this, you
know, it may take us a month. It may take us a week. It may take us two months to get
everybody on Board with that, but at least the lodge, which, you know, has a much
simpler siting issues than this building, at least you’d be able to look at and evaluate the
lodge next month.
MR. HUNSINGER-Again, I’m not sure.
MS. BITTER-The way it would just work so far is that we had to get this site plan
modification approved before we could even look at the nature lodge, and the nature
lodge is the addition that they’re trying to have completed before this season, and that’s
what we’re kind of in a tight spot now because we haven’t received this whole entire site
plan modification approval. So, I think what Dean was suggesting is that if you’re
comfortable with it, and you want to table it to see this whole stormwater submission
made, would you be comfortable at least reviewing the nature lodge at the next meeting,
obviously tabling this site plan until you’re comfortable with the stormwater results?
MR. HUNSINGER-Has the Phase III been submitted?
MS. BITTER-Right, we just submitted it.
MR. HUNSINGER-You have, okay.
MR. SEGULJIC-So there’s almost concurrent reviews.
MS. BITTER-Right.
MR. SEGULJIC-Okay.
MR. HUNSINGER-I don’t see a problem with that. Does anyone else on the Board?
MR. FORD-As long as we’re not giving a green light and carte blanch to this.
MRS. BRUNO-I think we need to table this, but I don’t see a problem with looking at the
nature lodge at the same time.
MR. HUNSINGER-I mean, I can’t speak for the whole Board.
MRS. STEFFAN-It would be on the same agenda, but just this one would have to be
decided before the other one.
MR. HUNSINGER-When I read comments from our Code Enforcer saying that the
settlement basin appears to be smaller than approved, and there’s concerns with runoff,
and some other stormwater management issues, I mean, that impacts your site plan. So
we can’t say, I don’t feel comfortable saying, you know, we can approve the site plan
contingent on engineering signoff, because, you know, you may come back here and
say, well, gee, we need to modify the settlement basin or, you know, I don’t know what
you might need to do in order to comply with the stormwater management report, and I
think what I’m hearing from the Board is that really seems to be the only issue.
MR. LONG-Right.
MR. HUNSINGER-Is that fair?
MR. LONG-Yes, we understand that.
MR. HUNSINGER-Okay.
MR. LONG-And just to be clear, you know, the linkage part of the prior resolution is the
master plan.
MR. HUNSINGER-Right, and I’m not hearing any concerns with overall master plan. I’m
just hearing concerns with stormwater management.
MR. LONG-Right.
26
(Queensbury Planning Board 03/22/07)
MR. FORD-It’s the details of the master plan that are of concern to me, because there’s
a history here of, you know, getting a plan down and then finding it difficult to comply with
what has been agreed to.
MRS. STEFFAN-Not executed according to plan.
MR. FORD-Exactly.
MRS. BRUNO-Right.
MRS. STEFFAN-And that always raises red flags for us. Every meeting on our agenda
is some change, something was approved. There’s always a modification and it’s
tedious, actually. We just spend a lot of time going through this and then we have to go
back and re-educate ourselves, and the amount of time we’re spending is the reason
why the agenda, it’s so hard to get on the agenda. So it’s very frustrating, and what
seems like a small change to a contractor is a big change when it doesn’t meet the Town
Zoning Law.
MR. HUNSINGER-Yes.
MR. FORD-And that becomes the red flag when we have a meeting like this and we go
back and the historical review shows that there were modifications made without
approval. So I want to see it in black and white, and I want to see it followed.
MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. Anything else? So I think we’re going to look at a tabling
resolution. Is there just two items?
MR. FULLER-Mr. Chairman, just a couple of quick points for you. One, to do that, to
table it, what you’d want to do is modify the 2005 resolution, specifically condition
Number Five that said no further additional applications come in front of this Board until
that process is complete. That process being the master plan. You would want to
modify that portion of that resolution to allow them to come back next month, to allow
them to run concurrently, and really, the practical effect of this is, if ultimately you don’t
approve the master plan, then that other, the third phase cannot go forward. The risk’s
on the applicant by going forward next month. It’s their time and resources. So that’s
not a problem, but you should include that in your resolution. The other is, to keep in
mind your SEQRA requirements, and that was a very good point in the Staff Notes, to do
a consistency review. It doesn’t have to be tonight. If you think there are aspects of the
SEQRA review from last time that you want to address tonight, probably a good time. So
that the applicant can address them as part of this going forward process, but just to
keep that in mind that, as part of the final master plan resolution, whatever it would be,
and then that would be the precursor to the resolution on the Phase III, that that’ll come
up again, that consistency review.
MR. HUNSINGER-I understand what you’re saying on the May 2005 resolution, because
it says that no further additional applications come in front of this Board until that process
is complete, referring to the master plan, but, you know, and maybe it’s an issue of
semantics, but I guess what I was thinking is if it would be possible for Phase III to get on
the agenda, but we just won’t hear it. We would table it if we don’t finish this first.
MR. FULLER-Yes. I think what they’re asking you to do is that if, on the chance that they
don’t get the stormwater issues resolved by whenever they get on the next agenda, that
they would like to be heard on the Phase III application, not withstanding the fact that the
master plan may not be approved that night. Hypothetically, I’m not sure what the April
agenda is looking like, but they may get on for April with Phase III, not have master plan
come back until May. I think they still want to be heard in April, if they were to get on that
meeting.
MR. FORD-Is that an accurate interpretation?
MS. BITTER-Right, and I guess I was misunderstanding where the Board was going with
the master plan. That was my mistake, but, yes, we’re trying to obviously have the
nature lodge heard as soon as possible. So, I mean, if that’s possible, I don’t know what
the feeling of the Board is.
MR. FORD-Well, it can be, but in the proper sequence.
MR. FULLER-And again, in that scenario, the risk’s on them that they get heard next
month, and then the following month the master plan comes back on, and for whatever
27
(Queensbury Planning Board 03/22/07)
reason there was a denial, that they’ve gone through the effort of being at next month’s
meeting with that application, having to amend it and come back later on, based on
changes that might be made to the master plan. That’s the risk.
MR. FORD-And they understand that risk. Correct?
MS. BITTER-We’re not clear as to what the, I guess we haven’t really talked about what
the issues with the master plan are, because the master plan.
MR. LONG-Right. I don’t know if there are any.
MS. BITTER-Right. That’s why we’re just kind of confused.
MR. LONG-That’s why we’re confused because we thought, well, specifically, what I
think may work is approve the master plan, and say we have a master plan, and next
month then you can go ahead and hear the nature lodge. Because, one, it’s going to be
th
probably impossible to make your 15 submittal with a plan that satisfies the Town
ndrd
Engineer on stormwater. Because we’re sitting here on the 22 or 23. I’ll do what I can
do, but, you know, it’s not going to be a simple solution out there. I can guarantee you
that right now.
MR. FORD-I believe that.
MR. FULLER-And what I was hearing from the Board is that you wanted to not approve
that master plan until that stormwater issue was resolved. Is that correct?
MR. FORD-That’s what I believe. That’s what I feel.
MR. FULLER-Right.
MR. LONG-See, they’re totally separate.
MS. HUGGARD-The renovation of the nature lodge is this. The buildings are very old.
They were built in the 60’s. It’s just a rectangle on a slab. In the summer, it’s hot as blue
blazes in there. The ceiling is low. We put, we have two buildings, winter lodge and
nature lodge. When the tree went down through the winter lodge, we raised the roof
somewhat, so that we could have a very gently modified cathedral ceiling in there, and
drop ceiling fans. We also poured a concrete slab alongside it, so kind of L-shaped
around the outside of the building, roofed it. When we put the new roof, it went over
both. Then the wall on the side is half wood, half screen. We wound up with a building
that is extremely usable for summer camp. Children can get in from the beating sun,
because we’ve got the porch. They can, on rainy days, it’s a place they can play, and in
the evenings when they stay the night, the fans keep it much cooler. So we were hoping
to have two buildings like that for the summer. We have a very short building season.
It’s not a long project. The contractor said that, you know, once he starts, it’s going to be
six weeks and he’ll be done, but getting it permitted and then on his schedule and done
so that the kids can use it for the summer, we’re with a ticking clock.
MR. HUNSINGER-Yes. When does your summer camp season start?
MS. HUGGARD-Very early in July.
MR. HUNSINGER-Yes, that’s what I figured.
MRS. BRUNO-Is this Hilltop Construction again, the same contractor? Okay.
MR. SEGULJIC-If we approve the master plan, and then they come back, because of the
stormwater plan review, they have to change the basin or whatever, does that change
the master plan?
MR. LONG-No.
MR. FULLER-The master plan is a conceptual document.
MR. SEGULJIC-Right. That’s what I was going to say. It’s going to require the
stormwater control. The master plan doesn’t get into the detail of it. It’s just the umbrella
which they can develop.
28
(Queensbury Planning Board 03/22/07)
MR. FULLER-Yes, what I was hearing is that was the direction you were heading is to
table it, pending that getting resolved. I didn’t know if you guys knew that that’s, in effect
what it does is going to stop that next month’s application from really going forward, if
you tie those together. Whether you do or not is up to you, the stormwater and the
master plan.
MR. FORD-Yes. I just felt that it was the sequence that we would address them would
be critical. The stormwater would be addressed and then the master.
MR. LONG-This is the illustration of the conceptual, of the master plan for the site. So,
you know, obviously all the stormwater issues of the office building sit here, and are
indigenous to that location. The friendship lodge, its stormwater, the nature lodge and its
stormwater, are, you know, they’re on the other side of the creek. They all need to be
handled in that area. So they are entirely, you know, the details of the buildings are
entirely separate, you know, that need to be reviewed. The idea of the preservation of
the camp and future, you know, eventually adding, improving the, well, improving and
creating the true amphitheatre area, and the additional nature lodge number thirteen, you
know, that’s not even on the docket yet, but that’s their desire.
MS. HUGGARD-When we met with the Staff, we made the master plan very simple, and
by enlarge all that is left on the master plan to do is the nature lodge, and it is not a, it’s
not that drastic a renovation, new roof, poured porch, that’s it.
MR. FORD-And the amphitheatre.
MS. HUGGARD-No amphitheatre.
MR. LONG-It’s on the master plan, but it’s not on the schedule.
MS. HUGGARD-It’s not in the master plan.
MR. LONG-You took out the amphitheatre?
MS. HUGGARD-We did, indeed.
MR. HUNSINGER-So what you talk about master plan, you’re referring to the revision to
this document? Yes, okay.
MS. HUGGARD-And you’ll notice that on Page Nine you look at the Phases that have
been completed, Phase I and II. Phase III, restoration and addition to the nature lodge,
and we have the water and sewer ready to hook up the hill because we had to do it when
we put in the splash pad. So that’s, you know, we’re really ready to go with that. The
Bromley lean-to we’ve re-roofed, just re-shingled, not did anything major with it, but that’s
been spruced up. A Florence Bromley Society Family Garden is two flower beds and
two benches, and that’s done. The rock teaching area, we’ve thought about and thought
about and decided not to do. There is a rocky outcropping area, that’s pretty interesting
to geologists, but as risk management, it would be kids hopping over crevasses, and we
decided that we were just going to leave it with the honeysuckle and not go forward with
it, that it just wasn’t feasible, and so that’s it.
MR. FORD-Thanks for that explanation. That was enlightening. What was the game
plan? What were we to do once the master plan was submitted to us? Was it the
submission that brought us in compliance with the sequence, or was there some kind of
an approval of that?
MRS. BARDEN-I think that the idea of that was initially, with a project of this size, of, you
know, that’s been kind of staged, the idea was to bring it together from maybe a long
range plan, and this was new for us. It was new for the Girl Scouts, and so we just
wanted them to kind of put their minds together, so that we would know what to
anticipate in the future. So it’s not something that you have to formally approve. It’s just
an idea, so when they come back, you can see if it’s consistent with this. Do you like it,
do you not?
MR. FORD-As far as I can see, correct me if I’m wrong, but it appears to me that they
have complied with that.
MRS. BARDEN-They have.
29
(Queensbury Planning Board 03/22/07)
MR. FORD-They have presented that. We don’t have to pass on that. We can measure
their progress and future applications against that, but they have complied with that
component of what was issued several years ago.
MRS. BARDEN-They did.
MR. FULLER-And I was reading back through the minutes, and it seemed to have grown
out of SEQRA discussions, where segmentation was a concern, and going back and
forth between the ZBA and the Planning Board.
MR. HUNSINGER-That’s right.
MR. FULLER-So a very good planning tool, much like the Town doing its own master
plan, was to say, listen, instead of looking at different impacts as they come up, as you
want to add this unit or this structure, give us an idea where you’re going to be in 10
years or so, so that we can say, all right. Here’s what this site is going to be able to
accommodate, because it may not be able to accommodate everything some day. So
that now you’ve got, that’s what the master plan, I think, has accomplished, is giving you
that overview of what they think.
MR. FORD-And that’s been modified since they’ve completed it. Correct? You just gave
us modifications. The amphitheatre that you showed us is already gone.
MS. HUGGARD-We’re not going to do the rock teaching area because it obviously was
too risky with the kids.
MR. FULLER-Coming in under what they had planned, not going beyond what they have
in their master plan.
MRS. BARDEN-It should be a living document that they can use.
MR. FORD-Yes, I’m happy with that.
MR. SEGULJIC-So we technically don’t approve the master plan. Is that what I heard?
MR. HUNSINGER-We don’t need to.
MR. FORD-No.
MR. SEGULJIC-We don’t need to.
MRS. BRUNO-We’ve approved it. We’ve received it.
MRS. BARDEN-They had to provide it to you.
MR. FORD-And they’ve done that.
MRS. BARDEN-Yes.
MR. HUNSINGER-And they have.
MR. FORD-They have done that. They have complied.
MS. HUGGARD-Yes. In 2005 we submitted it twice, we submitted it and then there was
asked for some revisions, so we revised the plan and re-submitted it.
MR. FORD-Susan made a good point. It’s a living document.
MS. HUGGARD-Absolutely.
MR. HUNSINGER-So I think we have worked our way through the hurdle that they were
concerned with. Is that fair? Okay.
MRS. BRUNO-It’s just the technical points of this stormwater management.
MR. HUNSINGER-Because what we haven’t approved is the site plan, which is different
from the master plan.
MRS. STEFFAN-Right.
30
(Queensbury Planning Board 03/22/07)
MR. HUNSINGER-Okay, and Gretchen’s been working on a tabling resolution.
MS. BITTER-If it’s in April, we don’t mind where our place is on the agenda.
MR. HUNSINGER-Well, I mean, assuming that you come together with the Town
Engineer, this simply could be a five minute review. I mean, assuming the stormwater
management plan is submitted according to the Town Code, and the Town Engineer has
signed off on it, you know, we could be looking at an approval letter from the Town
Engineer, and, you know, a resolution for approval, unless there’s another issue that
comes up that we haven’t hashed out already this evening. So, I guess I would feel
comfortable in trying to get them in to a May meeting, based on that. I thought I said
April. Did I say May?
MS. BITTER-We’d prefer April.
MR. HUNSINGER-Well, here’s the question. If we want to try to put this on the agenda
th
for an April meeting, we will be looking at an April 6 deadline of materials.
MR. LONG-Okay.
MR. HUNSINGER-Which really doesn’t give a lot of time for our engineer to review it and
comment. So, you know, you’d have to be real confident in what you’ve submitted is
going to work, for one thing, and then, you know, it’s not going to give us any back and
forth, it’s not going to give you any back and forth time with him.
MR. LONG-Yes.
MR. HUNSINGER-So that’s the risk we take, and what we did with a couple of items that
we tabled from Tuesday, was say, you know, if the materials aren’t submitted by that
date, then you’re back into the mix, which means, you know, May.
MR. FULLER-Susan and I were just discussing a point of clarification. This part doesn’t
necessarily have to hold up the April application either.
MR. HUNSINGER-That’s right.
MR. FULLER-If they can’t get in for April, having this portion of the project come back for
May, I don’t think, impedes their progress on the other side.
MR. HUNSINGER-So maybe we should table it until May, then, to be safe.
MRS. BARDEN-Yes.
MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. It’s almost two sites for stormwater management, because
they’re on different sides of the stream.
MRS. STEFFAN-But when you get down to the final drawings, they’re as built drawings.
So I’m just thinking that they’d have to do a complete set of drawings when it was all
done, versus if they do this stormwater plan and then they do their next plan, both plans
are on their drawings, and then they have a completed set of plans. I’m just thinking
cost. So do we want to put it on this early?
MR. SEGULJIC-I’d leave that up to the applicant.
MR. LONG-Yes, there’s no harm in trying.
MR. HUNSINGER-Okay.
MRS. STEFFAN-Okay.
MOTION TO TABLE MODIFICATION TO SITE PLAN NO. 30-2002 ADIRONDACK
GIRL SCOUT COUNCIL, Introduced by Gretchen Steffan who moved for its adoption,
seconded by Thomas Ford:
A site plan application has been made to the Queensbury Planning Board for the
following: That the applicant is seeking approval for construction changes to the 4,428
square foot administration building, which is Phase I and II of a three phase plan, in
addition to review of the Master Plan. The Planning Board tables this application to the
31
(Queensbury Planning Board 03/22/07)
thth
April 24 meeting, with a submission deadline for materials of April 6. Specifically the
tabling items that the applicant needs to provide:
1.They need to provide a complete stormwater report to comply with 2007
stormwater regulations.
2.They also need to obtain a signoff by the Town’s Engineers, which is Vision
Engineering.
3.The applicant will please note that the Board will re-visit SEQRA before final
approval.
nd
Duly adopted this 22 day of March, 2007, by the following vote:
AYES: Mr. Seguljic, Mrs. Bruno, Mrs. Steffan, Mr. Ford, Mr. Hunsinger
NOES: NONE
ABSENT: Mr. Sipp, Mr. Traver
MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. Thank you.
MRS. STEFFAN-We’ll see you next month.
MR. LONG-Thank you.
SITE PLAN NO. 55-2000 RECOMMENDATION TO TOWN BOARD SEQR TYPE N/A
QUEENSBURY VILLAGE MOBILE HOME PARK AGENT(S) BARTLETT PONTIFF
STEWART & RHODES OWNER(S) SAM WAHNON, VIOLA WAHNON ZONING SR-
1A LOCATION 0 PETRIE LANE APPLICANT IS PROPOSING A MODIFICATION TO
THE EXISTING APPROVED SITE PLAN TO ALLOW DOUBLE WIDE HOMES IN THE
PARK. MODIFICATIONS TO APPROVED SITE PLANS REQUIRE REVIEW BY THE
PLANNING BOARD AS WELL AS RECOMMENDATION TO THE TOWN BOARD.
CROSS REFERENCE SP 55-2000 T.B. RES. 332,06; 379,00 WARREN CO.
PLANNING 3/14/07 LOT SIZE 12.48 ACRES TAX MAP NO. 308.6-1-61 SECTION
CHAPTER 113-7
STEPHANIE BITTER, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT
MR. HUNSINGER-Susan, if you could summarize Staff Notes.
MRS. BARDEN-Sure. This is an application, the applicant is Queensbury Village Mobile
Home Park. The request is by the Town Board for a recommendation by the Planning
Board with regard to the request for the siting of double wides on all 53 lots within the
Park. The Park is located on Petrie Lane off of Warren Lane. The only other thing I have
is a letter regarding access for emergency vehicles from Mike Palmer. I’m not sure if it’s
th
in your packet, March 19 e-mail from Mike Palmer. I’ll read it into the record. The Fire
th
Marshal’s office drove through the above site this date, March 19. This was prompted
by your information regarding a change in the Park makeup. My findings are that the
roads are paved and of adequate width to allow emergency vehicles access to the
property. Two private yard hydrants are noted on the site. The area indicating a
connector road and break away gate is also adequate for emergency services use and
was free of any snow build up at the time of inspection. I do not feel that a change from
single wide homes to double wide homes would adversely impact emergency services.
The Park is serviced by one main entry/exit road which is at the far end of the site. A
second road can be easily incorporated at the area located emergency access and break
away gate, and this is from the Fire Marshal.
MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. Thank you.
MS. BITTER-Good evening. Stephanie Bitter as Counsel
MR. HUNSINGER-Good evening.
MS. BITTER-Sam Wahnon, the owner, unfortunately couldn’t be here this evening. He
just had extensive surgery. So he’s in the hospital. The Town approved this mobile
home in 1993. At this time, as you’re aware, we’re seeking a recommendation for the
Town Board’s modification of this plan. Mr. Wahnon purchased this parcel in 2000. At
that time, he applied to expand it from a 49 existing lot mobile home to a 53. Since his
32
(Queensbury Planning Board 03/22/07)
ownership, he’s upgraded the park with landscaping. There’s septic systems that have
already been incorporated in the approved plan, which Mr. Wahnon explained to me was
designed to handle two homes. They’re actually designed for four bedrooms each, for
each home, and two bathrooms each, for each home. The Park is rented by retired
senior citizens. The original permit only allows certain lots to have double wides, and
when Mr. Wahnon went to apply for a permit to place a double wide on this one lot, he
was surprised to learn that this restriction applied to the actual plan of this mobile home
park. At this time, he’s trying to get a modification which allows double homes on all the
lots that are identified in the plan. In July, the Town Board issued a referral to the
Planning Board for their recommendation, and I guess there could be some confusion,
and I’m just going to go over the Staff comments, that it’s my understanding, as to the
mobile home park, 13-23, that obviously this would be a modification because it’s an
existing mobile home park, and that we are looking at getting approvals in accordance
with 113-17. I don’t know if I’m misreading that or if that would be the only applicable
section that we’d have to seek clarification with. As to that section, I understand that we
were supposed to provide Park rules, regulations, and I’m not sure if those are already
on file, because it’s an already existing mobile home park, but we’d obviously be willing
to supplement that if that’s necessary, and as to the other items that I guess pertain to
the survey with regards to topo features, we were always under the impression because
this was a modification, that such detail wasn’t going to be needed. So I think that’s
where a confusion’s been caused. So that’s essentially where we’re at right now.
MR. HUNSINGER-This is why I wanted Town Counsel to stay through this discussion.
MS. BITTER-That would be great.
MR. HUNSINGER-To the best of my knowledge, in the seven years that I’ve been on the
Board, we haven’t reviewed a mobile home park before. So this is all kind of new, but I
guess I’ll just open it up for questions from Board members.
MR. FORD-The number would remain the same, as would the acreage?
MS. BITTER-Right.
MR. FORD-You’re just increasing the size of the structures?
MS. BITTER-Right, exactly, because there was a certain limitation, or condition that was
placed on one of the original permits, as to the number of double wide homes that would
be allowed on this site.
MR. FORD-And there probably was a good rationale for that.
MS. BITTER-Unfortunately I wasn’t there at the time, but I don’t know if you’ve seen
pictures or been to this facility, but Mr. Wahnon was nice enough to provide me with like
an idea of the double wide homes versus the single wide, and aesthetically it makes it
look ten times better.
MR. HUNSINGER-Well, probably at the time that this Park was.
MS. BITTER-There might not have been that many double wides.
MR. HUNSINGER-Yes.
MS. BITTER-That’s definitely possible.
MR. SEGULJIC-So each unit has its own individual septic system?
MS. BITTER-Shared with the adjacent, so two homes would share a septic system that
would be able to maintain an eight bedroom and four bath. That’s how he explained it to
me.
MR. HUNSINGER-Wow.
MS. BITTER-And unfortunately, I’m not the owner. So, and he communicated that to
me, and I don’t know if that’s already on file, since it’s an already existing application.
MR. SEGULJIC-I guess that’s one thing I’d be looking for, in doubling capacity.
33
(Queensbury Planning Board 03/22/07)
MRS. STEFFAN-See, that’s my concern. With the Vision Engineering comments, Mr.
Ryan talked specifically about the increased number of bedrooms, and as far as
increasing the impervious area.
MR. FORD-And bathrooms.
MS. BITTER-Because I can’t imagine that the double wides are going to be more than
four bedrooms, but, obviously, you know, I’m not an engineer to know that.
MRS. STEFFAN-Right, but the other thing is I would believe, since this is an older
approval, that we probably don’t have the septic designs on file, and considering the
density of this particular property, regardless of whether it’s zoned, I think it would be
prudent to have that.
MS. BITTER-Okay.
MR. FORD-Space and capacity is an issue, or are issues, rather.
MRS. STEFFAN-I know that the soils over in that part of Town are usually fairly sandy,
but we don’t know what the perc rates are or any of those things, which are of concern.
MS. ALTER-We’re going to need the septic information from Mr. Ryan to review, and
he’s probably going to want to do some test pits to make sure that the soil can absorb it.
I’m, personally, doubtful, because the soil over there is sort of not great for septics, but,
you know.
MRS. STEFFAN-It actually might be too fast. I think in that part of Town we’ve had that
with subdivision applications. It’s too fast.
MS. ALTER-The perc is really fast over there.
MR. SEGULJIC-And then the other main concern would be the stormwater there. You’re
doubling the, increasing by 30%.
MR. HUNSINGER-Now, Susan or Matt, we’re asked to make a recommendation to the
Town Board.
MS. BITTER-Do you include those as conditions to the Town Board to review? I guess
that’s where it’s kind of ambiguous.
MR. HUNSINGER-Yes. That’s exactly where I was headed.
MS. BITTER-Because, I mean, if it’s your recommendation that these are items that
need to be incorporated for the Town Board to make that modification, that’s kind of
where I thought it was going, but I’m not sure.
MS. ALTER-I would still try to find that information, because that will expedite the Town
Board’s review.
MS. BITTER-Right, absolutely, and that’s what I understood, that it would get us to the
next level, but obviously we needed it.
MR. FORD-Do you want them to bring it to us.
MR. HUNSINGER-Well, that’s sort of what we’re asking. Does that just go to the Town
Board, then, or does it come back to us?
MRS. BARDEN-Well, I know that it’s not an approval from this Board. It really is just a
recommendation. The Town Board will ultimately approve this, and they’re just, I think,
asking for a recommendation on specific issues that you would like to have addressed
before they ultimately approve it. I’m not sure if that should be tabled to come back here
for review before then you issue your recommendation.
MR. FULLER-Yes. Shall refer the application to the Planning Board for Type II site plan
review as more particularly described in Chapter 179.
MR. HUNSINGER-So we’re doing a standard site plan review.
MRS. BARDEN-Right.
34
(Queensbury Planning Board 03/22/07)
MR. FULLER-That’s what I’m looking at, 113-17 B.
MRS. STEFFAN-It’s Type II. There’s no SEQRA required.
MRS. BARDEN-The Town Board will do SEQRA.
MR. HUNSINGER-What it says is unless mutually extended by the Planning Board and
the applicant. Within 45 days we should make recommendation to the Town Board.
MR. FULLER-Well, within 45 days after the conclusion of any site plan review hearing.
MR. HUNSINGER-Conclusion. Okay, and we don’t have a hearing scheduled.
MR. FULLER-It just goes on until it ends, but in any event, it’s probably the applicant’s,
and I’m not going to speak for you, benefit to have these addressed here, those site plan
issues, than at the Town Board. Ultimately they’re seeking a recommendation from you,
and if the recommendation is to advise the Town Board to look into septic and
stormwater issues, the likelihood is it’s going to come back
MRS. BARDEN-Right.
MR. FULLER-If I was sitting up there, I’d recommend that they send it back to you.
That’s how I read 113-17 B-2. Unless mutually extended within 45 days after the
conclusion of any site plan review hearing.
MS. BITTER-I realize that this is new and different to you, as well as it is to me. I’m just
trying to follow the appropriate path.
MR. FULLER-I think that would be my recommendation, would be that the site plan
issues be dealt with by this Board.
MS. BITTER-And I think there might have been confusion when the Town Board did the
referral, because they based it on a recommendation, and I think, as Susan will attest,
it’s taken this long to get to this point because there was confusion as to what the
submission had to be and what the applicant was told needed to be reviewed by the
Planning Board, and I think it’s because of the fact that this has not happened in a very
long time.
MR. HUNSINGER-I was going to say, I think you had mentioned that it was in July.
MS. BITTER-Right, we made, the referral came in July. So that’s why it’s been so
confusing because we based it on the original plan, and went back and got the survey.
MR. HUNSINGER-Are there any other concerns of the Board or questions that you have
for the applicant? One of the other comments by the engineer was that Section 113-18
D-2 requires two off street parking locations per home site.
MS. BITTER-And obviously have Matt refer. The way I understand it is 113-17 is the
only thing that’s applicable for modifications.
MR. HUNSINGER-Okay.
MS. BITTER-And obviously site plan review is incorporated, but that’s what I was basing
my understanding of 113-23, which deals with existing mobile home parks.
MR. HUNSINGER-Okay.
MS. BITTER-113-23 deals with modifications to existing mobile homes, and it says, but
no such mobile home park may be altered, extended or enlarged on or after the effective
date of this article except by application and approval in accordance with 113-17 hereof.
So I mean, if it’s necessary to make, to identify that 113-18, and maybe it’s my
misinterpretation, but I think, in viewing these pictures, that there are two spaces
incorporated for each of these lots, but if the engineer needs that to be specified.
MS. ALTER-Stephanie, do you have the old site plan that was approved?
MS. BITTER-Not with me.
35
(Queensbury Planning Board 03/22/07)
MS. ALTER-I mean, does it exist?
MS. BITTER-Yes, we submitted it the first time. We submitted it the first time, and it got
rejected because it didn’t incorporate all the necessary modifications, I believe.
MS. ALTER-So you’ve re-submitted it now?
MS. BITTER-Right. Well, it’s been going on since July. So we had to revise it.
MR. FORD-The request or the plan has been modified since July?
MS. BITTER-No, no, no. The original submission was literally the original map with
some writing on it, the original map that was approved back in 2000.
MR. FORD-Okay.
MS. BITTER-So then we re-submitted to the Planning Board to get on to this agenda,
and we had to do a survey of the parcel, which is what you have now. No modifications
since the July Town Board referral.
MR. FORD-I followed that.
MS. ALTER-Do you have an extra one, Stefanie?
MS. BITTER-Sure.
MR. HUNSINGER-I guess it’s easy to see how two cars could fit. I don’t know.
MR. SEGULJIC-It would be helpful to get a site plan that depicts that.
MR. HUNSINGER-Yes, it would be.
MR. FORD-Excellent.
MR. SEGULJIC-The only other concern I would have, and I don’t know if it’s a valid
concern, is I assume this is supplied municipal water?
MS. BITTER-Yes, I believe it is.
MRS. BARDEN-It is.
MR. SEGULJIC-In theory we’re potentially doubling the use of water, I mean, to make
sure that there’s adequate water.
MS. BITTER-Water consumption.
MR. SEGULJIC-Because I would assume you would talk to whoever.
MRS. BARDEN-We always send these to the Water Department.
MR. SEGULJIC-Okay, and they would review that.
MRS. BARDEN-We’d get something back if there’s a concern to them.
MR. SEGULJIC-Those are the things that I see.
MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. So, Matt, it would be your recommendation that we table this,
like a normal site plan, and have them come back here to review those items?
MR. FULLER-Yes. It’s reviewed under 17, but it still has to meet with the requirements
of 113-18.
MS. BITTER-So then why does the application requirement state these items? That’s
where I get confused. I mean, if it’s those requirements, I appreciate it. It’s just that it’s
not a brand new mobile home permit. That’s why I was under the impression that,
obviously, if whatever existing conditions were were reviewed when it was originally
approved. So you wouldn’t have to change all of those existing conditions, only the
modifications would have to be demonstrated in this application process, and I think
that’s where it’s ambiguous.
36
(Queensbury Planning Board 03/22/07)
MR. FULLER-Well, as far the criteria that you have to meet?
MS. BITTER-Right.
MR. FULLER-113-23 says that no such mobile home park may be altered, extended or
enlarged on and after the effective date of this article, except by application and
approval, in accordance with 113-17. So 113-17 deals with your application
requirements for a mobile home park. The prior sections deal with mobile home courts.
Then 118 goes on to show the site requirements for mobile home parks.
MS. BITTER-So, and these site requirements pertain to just the modifications or to the
existing layout as well? I mean, that’s why he just says requires two off street parking
spots per home site. So, I mean, I don’t know. Obviously there’s existing homes that are
already there.
MR. FULLER-Well, I think on the portions that are going to be enlarged.
MS. BITTER-Right, those are the ones you want to demonstrate that you, that’s fine.
MR. FULLER-Then I think you’re going to have to meet that new criteria, or the criteria of
113-18.
MS. BITTER-Criteria set forth in 18, okay.
MR. FULLER-And if he’s going to, I think I read the proposal it’s to allow it on any lot
where there currently a double wide where the applicant wants to expand it.
MS. BITTER-Right.
MR. FULLER-To allow for that.
MS. BITTER-Right.
MR. FULLER-And I think the way I would read this is those lots are going to have to
meet this enlarged criteria.
MS. BITTER-Right. Okay.
MR. FULLER-And then the concern about the septic is well placed, and if your
engineering report comes back and says that it is sized for that, then that is what it is.
MS. ALTER-Stephanie, it’s my recollection that the site plan for this, because I did see it
in the map room, shows septic areas that are shared, and it looks to me, from just
looking at this map, you may be having people park on the septic.
MS. BITTER-I don’t know. I can’t say that one way or the other.
MS. ALTER-And I just, I mean, just by eyeballing it, you really need to have an
engineering report because I really don’t think there’s room, if this is to scale, for the
expansion areas that are now required under Sanitary Code.
MS. BITTER-Right, and I don’t know the plan you were looking at, the year it was,
because Mr. Wahnon.
MS. ALTER-It’s the original.
MS. BITTER-Okay, because Mr. Wahnon purchased it in 2000. So that one was based
in ’93. He’s identified that he’s done upgrades to the septics. So I’m not sure of the
modifications that have been made, to be perfectly honest.
MR. HUNSINGER-Okay.
MR. SEGULJIC-Yes, and that’s what I’d like to see on a site plan, where they’re going to
park, where the septic systems are.
MS. BITTER-Right.
MR. SEGULJIC-Where the roads are.
37
(Queensbury Planning Board 03/22/07)
MR. FORD-Capacities and so forth.
MR. FULLER-Just like a standard site plan, I’d identify those issues.
MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. So we will resolve them here, before we pass it on to the Town
Board. Okay. So we’re tabling it. We’ll treat it like a site plan, but instead of an
approval, we’ll make a recommendation to the Town Board.
MRS. STEFFAN-I’m just wondering how we can table something that we don’t have an
application for?
MRS. BARDEN-There’s a site plan number for it, 55-2000.
MRS. STEFFAN-I see. Yes, so was it submitted to the Community Development
Department? I’m a little bit confused with the authority here.
MRS. BARDEN-Yes.
MR. FULLER-Through the Town Board.
MRS. BARDEN-Through the Town Board it was referred.
MRS. STEFFAN-For review, okay.
MRS. BARDEN-But they also submitted a site plan application with it as well.
MS. BITTER-Site plan application.
MRS. STEFFAN-So we’re going to table this based on the requirements that we asked
for in our discussion.
MR. HUNSINGER-Yes.
MRS. STEFFAN-All right. That just changes my language a little bit.
MR. HUNSINGER-Pending submission of stormwater management report.
MRS. STEFFAN-I’ll try this and let me know whether I’ve got it or not.
MOTION TO TABLE SITE PLAN NO. 55-2000 QUEENSBURY VILLAGE MOBILE
HOME PARK, Introduced by Gretchen Steffan who moved for its adoption, seconded by
Thomas Seguljic:
th
According to the resolution prepared by Staff. This will be tabled to the 15 of May. So
that the applicant can return with a site stormwater plan, a septic plan to include system
layout capacity and percolation rates, to provide parking, a parking scenario, to provide
an accurate survey, to provide a copy of all park rules, regulations, covenants,
management tenant responsibilities, and also to provide an accurate site plan denoting
roadways and lighting.
nd
Duly adopted this 22 day of March, 2007, by the following vote:
MR. FORD-Will pervious and impervious surfaces be included in, if they cover all of
those?
MRS. STEFFAN-They would have to do a Site Development Data Sheet and then they
would have to identify permeable and impermeable surfaces. That’s part of the
requirement, isn’t it, Susan?
MR. FORD-Okay.
MRS. BARDEN-Part of the stormwater plan.
AYES: Mrs. Bruno, Mr. Ford, Mr. Seguljic, Mrs. Steffan, Mr. Hunsinger
NOES: NONE
ABSENT: Mr. Sipp, Mr. Traver
38
(Queensbury Planning Board 03/22/07)
MS. BITTER-Thank you.
MR. HUNSINGER-Thank you.
EXPEDITED REVIEW:
SITE PLAN NO. 13-2007 SEQR TYPE II RICHARD & CINDY SMITH AGENT(S)
FRANK DE NARDO ELITE DOCK CO. LLC OWNER(S) SAME ZONING WR-1A
LOCATION 112 ROCKHURST ROAD APPLICANT PROPOSES REMOVAL OF ICE
DAMAGED DOCK AND SUNDECK AND CONSTRUCTION OF A 673 SQ. FT DOCK
AND 684 SQ. FT. SUNDECK. BOATHOUSES IN THE WR ZONE REQUIRE REVIEW
BY THE PLANNING BOARD. WARREN CO. PLANNING 3/14/07 ADIRONDACK
PARK AGENCY YES LOT SIZE 0.19 ACRES TAX MAP NO. 227.9-1-10 SECTION
179-5-050
FRANK DE NARDO, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT
MR. DE NARDO-Yes. Frank DeNardo, Lee Dock Company, representing the Smiths.
MR. HUNSINGER-Go ahead. The floor is yours.
MR. DE NARDO-Okay. Basically we have a pre-existing dock, really not a conforming
dock. We’re going to re-build it. It’s been ice damaged, and basically we’re going to
move it over so it meets the setbacks and re-new it.
MR. HUNSINGER-Anything else?
MR. DE NARDO-Basically, no. If you have any questions.
MR. HUNSINGER-Questions?
MR. SEGULJIC-Just one comment. You’re going to build it to the design?
MR. DE NARDO-Yes.
MR. SEGULJIC-Okay.
MR. HUNSINGER-I was going to ask if he was going to be the builder.
MR. DE NARDO-I am the builder.
MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. Then you won’t make it more than 14 feet high from the mean
high water mark.
MR. DE NARDO-Exactly.
MR. HUNSINGER-Okay.
MR. DE NARDO-Haven’t missed yet.
MR. SEGULJIC-Nor double the size of the dock.
MR. DE NARDO-Haven’t missed yet.
MR. SEGULJIC-Okay.
MRS. STEFFAN-Mr. DeNardo’s been here before.
MR. DE NARDO-If we’re going to go over the mean high, mean low, I’m ready.
MR. HUNSINGER-Any other questions from the Board?
MR. FORD-I don’t.
MR. DE NARDO-It looks pretty good there. We have plywood up on top of the docks
right now, so you could use it. That was last season.
39
(Queensbury Planning Board 03/22/07)
MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. If there’s no questions from the Board, we do have a public
hearing scheduled. Is there anyone here that wanted to speak to this application?
PUBLIC HEARING OPENED
NO COMMENT
PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED
MR. HUNSINGER-It’s a Type II SEQRA.
MRS. STEFFAN-I guess I’ll make a motion.
MOTION TO APPROVE SITE PLAN NO. 13-2007 RICHARD & CINDY SMITH,
Introduced by Gretchen Steffan who moved for its adoption, seconded by Thomas
Seguljic:
1. A site plan application has been made to the Queensbury Planning Board for the
following; Applicant proposes removal of ice damaged dock and sundeck and
construction of a 673 sq. dock and 684 sq. ft. sundeck. Boathouses in the WR
zone require review by the Planning Board.
2. A public hearing was advertised and held on 3-22-07;
3. This application is supported with all documentation, public comment and
application material in the file of record;
4. Pursuant to relevant sections of the Town of Queensbury Zoning Code [Chapter
179], the Planning Board has determined that this proposal complies with the
requirements as stated in the Zoning Code; and
5. Final approved plans, in compliance with the Site Plan, must be submitted to the
Community Development Department before any further review by the Zoning
Administrator or Building and Codes personnel. Subsequent issuance of further
permits, including building permits are dependent on receipt; and
6. The applicant will provide as-built plans to certify that the site plan is developed
according to the approved plans prior to issuance of the certificate of occupancy;
and
7. The Sanitary Sewer connection plan must be submitted to the Wastewater
Department for its review, approval, permitting and inspection.
8. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that we find the following:
MOTION TO APPROVE SITE PLAN NO. 13-2007 RICHARD & CINDY SMITH,
Introduced by Gretchen Steffan who moved for its adoption, seconded by Thomas
Seguljic:
According to the resolution prepared by Staff. Paragraph Four complies. Paragraph
Five, Type II SEQRA. So it’s not necessary, and Item Nine is not applicable.
nd
Duly adopted this 22 day of March, 2007, by the following vote:
AYES: Mrs. Bruno, Mr. Ford, Mr. Seguljic, Mrs. Steffan, Mr. Hunsinger
NOES: NONE
ABSENT: Mr. Sipp, Mr. Traver
MR. HUNSINGER-You’re all set. Thank you.
MR. DE NARDO-Thank you. Have a good night.
MR. HUNSINGER-You, too.
NEW BUSINESS:
40
(Queensbury Planning Board 03/22/07)
SITE PLAN NO. 11-2007 SEQR TYPE UNLISTED KEVIN & ANNIE DINEEN
AGENT(S) TODD SMITH OF MANDY SPRING FARM NURSERY OWNER(S) KEVIN
DINEEN ZONING WR-1A LOCATION 149 BIRDSALL ROAD APPLICANT
PROPOSES REPLACEMENT AND IMPROVEMENTS TO THE RETAINING WALLS,
PATIO, WALKS AND STEP SYSTEM. SITE PLAN FOR FILLING AND HARD
SURFACING WITHIN 50 FEET OF THE LAKE. ALSO SITE PLAN FOR VEGETATION
REMOVAL WITHIN 35 FEET OF THE SHORELINE. CROSS REFERENCE AV 60-92,
SP 37-92, AV 29-97 WARREN CO. PLANNING 3/14/07 LOT SIZE 0.62 ACRES TAX
MAP NO. 289.16-1-46 SECTION 179-6-060
TODD SMITH, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT
MR. HUNSINGER-Susan, if you could summarize Staff Notes, please.
MRS. BARDEN-Sure. Kevin and Annie Dineen are the applicants for this site plan review
request for replacement and improvements to impermeable surfaces within 50 feet of the
lake, as well as removal of one tree within 35 feet of the shoreline. The property is
located at 149 Birdsall Road. You have an inspection report from Craig Brown, Zoning
nd
Administrator, dated January 22, and I think that’s all I have. It’s an Unlisted SEQRA
Action.
MR. HUNSINGER-Good evening.
MR. SMITH-Good evening. Thank you. My name is Todd Smith. I’m with Mandy Spring
Farm Nursery. Here tonight on behalf of Kevin and Annie Dineen who own the home
here on 149 Birdsall Road, and they asked me to convey that they’re sorry that they can’t
be here tonight. They do have a winter residence in Maine, and I’m here to request the
review and approval of the proposed site plan for their property on Glen Lake. As Susan
just mentioned, we are requesting, we are proposing the removal of existing timber
retaining walls that were decrepit and dangerous, and we’d like to replace them with
natural stone veneer gabion walls, and the project also involves the removal of patios,
walkways and steps, and replacement of the same. Requesting removal of one pine
tree. Obviously as you can see from the pictures, the homeowners, I’m actually the
contractor. I represent the contracting company as well. So I’m in there fully with them.
They erroneously identified the action, the project, as just a replacement, and so I got
involved and when Bruce came in January, we were well into the project. So we stopped
work, sealed up the site, and that’s where we stand today.
MR. SEGULJIC-Just a clarification. You said they winter in Maine?
MR. SMITH-Yes. They rent a house in Portland. Well, he works there in Portland.
MR. SEGULJIC-You don’t hear that very often.
MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. Questions from the Board? Tom? Anyone else want to start
off here? One of the things that I was a little confused about, there’s no actual
construction on the shoreline, is there?
MR. SMITH-No, there’s not. The only thing that was done, that has been done and that
will be done, is the installation of silt fencing, and as you can see from Bruce’s notes,
when he came the first day, we were in action, and a couple of the silt fences he deemed
were insufficient. I agree. During that course of that day there was a double silt fence
installed. Our crews had did that, but some boulder, as you know, around Glen Lake it’s
all ground cobble. So a couple of boulders had fallen down and actually were pushing
against the silt fence. So that’s the only construction at the lake.
MR. HUNSINGER-Okay.
MR. SMITH-But everything is so, as you can see, the property is, I don’t know, we
measured as six feet, one of the decks as six feet from the lake. So everything’s very
crunched up.
MR. HUNSINGER-Right.
MR. SMITH-So it’s very close. Everything is very close to the lake.
MR. SEGULJIC-If I could ask, I have all these different drawings here. I’m confused as
to what’s what.
41
(Queensbury Planning Board 03/22/07)
MR. SMITH-Okay. I can help you. The order that I delivered them, the first drawing
should say original site features. It should have some photographs with plenty of red ink
in the drawing. It looks like this. Okay. That shows, in small scale, but that shows in red
ink exactly what was existing when we showed up. The retaining walls are in small
parallel lines to the lake. There’s rip rap retaining walls. There’s a kind of a mess of
walkways and patios and steps. That’s the first drawing. The second drawing is
admittedly confusing. It says original and proposed overlay, but if you look at it, the red
still remains. It’s just an enlargement and you can’t, on that drawing there, it’s not as
easy to see the proposed. The third drawing should be the proposed landscape site
plan. It’s really clear there what the new proposal is.
MR. SEGULJIC-Okay. These walkways you’re constructing. What are they?
MR. SMITH-There’s, well, there’s a step way I call it. It’s a set of, it’ll be replacement of
existing and adding addition of new stone slab steps. So they’ll be about four feet wide
and they’re of granite. So they’ll be, that’s the only real walkway that will be added, and,
Tom, there’ll be a stone terrace right near the residence that will be added, that we’re
proposing as added.
MR. SEGULJIC-So you’re going to be increasing the impervious area, it sounds like.
MR. SMITH-We’re actually increasing, our calculations that we did, we’re actually
increasing the impervious area by about, it’s a few feet. Maybe about two-tenths of a
percent, and it’s about, if I can do my math here quick, it’s about 50 feet. It’s really, it’s
almost a wash.
MR. SEGULJIC-Now you had mentioned, I think somewhere in the letter, you were
putting in a stormwater management?
MR. SMITH-Yes, included with, additionally, the comments from Vision were specific on
the request for clarification on the stormwater management.
MR. SEGULJIC-And what are you envisioning?
MR. SMITH-And we did propose, I did submit but it has not been reviewed by Vision, a
complete clarification of both the construction sedimentation measures, the stormwater
management measures, with a stormwater calculation, and also a clarified landscape
plan.
MR. SEGULJIC-So do you plan on infiltrating the stormwater?
MR. SMITH-Yes, we plan on creating, underneath the two terraces, if you can look at the
landscaping, the proposed site plan, you’ll see a helicopter landing pad and a half a
helicopter landing pad closer to the house, the circle and the half circle, and we are
proposing creating, underneath those, three feet, three to four feet deep of crushed stone
and fabric, and creating a stormwater drywell, essentially, and we have capacities that
meet the 10 year runoff, 10 year storm runoff calculations.
MR. SEGULJIC-And how about the walkways and other hard surfaces?
MR. SMITH-Well, if I could show you, obviously this is at Vision right now, but if you can
see the dark blue line. The site is such, have you been to the site?
MR. SEGULJIC-I’m embarrassed to say I haven’t.
MR. SMITH-It is, the driveway, the site is up near the road, and the driveway comes
down like this and it curves around. The house is actually set down in the hole. These
are some sand models of the home, looking from the lake. However, the water, the
driveway/walkway, which is a grass pathway that comes down to the home, you can see
this. This is all sort of a flat to the slope plane that comes down to the back of their
property, the lake side of their property. What we’re proposing, as far as stormwater and
runoff is we can catch all the driveway, all the stormwater from the garage, and we can
catch it in that grassed path. So the size of the driveway, we can bring it down by the
house, and we’re proposing creating a slight berm with a collection point, and that’s
these blue lines, and we’d like to run it from there in two eight inch lines, plastic, into a
percolation system here underneath the patio. So this is a patio. This is just a grassed
terrace, we call it. Basically we have, I have the calculations with me, they’re in the
packet I gave (lost word), but we’re assuming, and Dan helped me with some numbers,
42
(Queensbury Planning Board 03/22/07)
assuming 85% runoff off the property, we can meet it within a few cubic feet of the, within
20 cubic feet of the actual runoff on the property, we can catch it right there.
MR. HUNSINGER-What about runoff from the house?
MR. SMITH-I’m sorry. If you can see, we’re trying to meet both corners where the
gutters are. We’ll take the gutters off the house. The upper garage does not have
gutters, but it just falls onto the driveway. The driveway’s asphalted, and it will just come
down, and we’ll catch it and bring it down. You can kind of see in the landscaping plan
just a little bit of the lawn area here. This has been, of course, disrupted from our
construction, initial construction. We’re going to re-sod that, but it’s already nicely
graded in the upper three-quarters of the property for us to be able to catch the water as
it comes off that large paved driveway down and we should be able to funnel it very
definitely in that little clean spot right there.
MR. HUNSINGER-Now you said you could meet the 10 year storm requirements, but we
require you to meet the 50 year storm.
MR. SMITH-Well, Dan recommended to me, on the phone, I guess you don’t have that
recommendation, that I could do a 10 year, and actually his words were, and I don’t have
a written, he said actually if that’s too crazy, come back to me with a five year. If that’s
too crazy, I could probably do a five year. So I went with the 10 year. I guess our
standpoint was that, when we arrived on the site, there was no stormwater control
whatsoever. Everything was just running into the lake. So we’re hoping to be able to
actually mitigate, improve the situation immensely. We could meet a 15, I suppose, if we
had to. We’d just have to be deeper. We’d have to create a deeper drainage drywell.
MR. HUNSINGER-You’re looking it up. Doesn’t the Code require 50?
MR. SEGULJIC-That does say that, 25 years.
MR. HUNSINGER-Okay.
MR. SEGULJIC-Twenty-five years. That’s according to Code.
MR. SMITH-Yes, we used 4.3 inches is what Dan told me to use.
MR. SEGULJIC-My other question would be your other hard surfaces, the walkways, the
walls, things of that nature.
MR. SMITH-Well, the walls are dry laid. So they’re, in effect, permeable, but in once
sense they’re just a pile of stones inside of a wire basket. So, they will drain the water.
MR. SEGULJIC-How about the walkways?
MR. SMITH-Well, the walkways are, the blue stone walkway, the blue stone patio is
included in the impervious number.
MR. SEGULJIC-Now, blue stone, what I’m thinking of the small blue stone?
MR. SMITH-No, this would be blue stone patios, the flagging. That was included in the
impervious number. Of course that’s dry laid. So the water will go down through there,
and the stone slabs, the stone slab steps that would come down, you can see in the
model, those would come down through there. They’ll actually be, they are included in
the number as well.
MR. SEGULJIC-But will you be collecting the stormwater and infiltrating from those
areas?
MR. SMITH-From, we won’t be able to really collect from those steps right there, no. We
really won’t, except for there’s landscaping and vines, and there’s ground covers around
all of those, in the landscape plan.
MRS. BRUNO-The base of those steps are approximately how far from the edge of the
water?
MR. SMITH-The base, 10 feet.
MR. FORD-And what will you have between the water?
43
(Queensbury Planning Board 03/22/07)
MR. SMITH-The customer prefers grass, between the water and the walls and the steps
sod, but a ground cover could work as well, if grass wasn’t acceptable?
MR. SEGULJIC-What is there now?
MR. SMITH-There was grass and sand.
MR. SEGULJIC-And this pine tree you want to cut down, that’s the one with the orange
tape on it I guess?
MR. SMITH-Yes.
MR. SEGULJIC-Okay. Because one thing our regs do say, the regs say, within 35 feet
extending inland from all points along the mean high water mark, no vegetation shall be
removed. So that means the tree’s got to stay.
MR. SMITH-The tree’s gone.
MR. SEGULJIC-It’s already been cut down?
MR. SMITH-The homeowner asked us to cut it down, and honestly, I was not aware of
that either, but we were asked to cut it down, so we did. That tree is gone. So we’re
proposing landscaping to mitigate it.
MR. HUNSINGER-Were there any other trees taken out?
MR. SMITH-There was one diseased white paper birch. They’ve nailed like railings into
it, and it had bronze birch bore all through it. So it was fully diseased. They wanted to
keep everything except for, of course, the pine. They wanted that gone. So I do not
know if the homeowner knew, the homeowner maintains they didn’t know that regulation.
I, in all honesty, did not know that regulation. I should have, but, no, I didn’t.
MS. ALTER-Could I ask a question?
MR. HUNSINGER-Yes.
MS. ALTER-These retaining walls are six feet tall out of stone? That’s what I’m looking
at here. Height wall, 5’ 11”. That’s almost six feet.
MR. SMITH-Yes. Some of them are more than that, well, 5’ 11” I think would be the
highest one.
MS. ALTER-And what were the wood retaining walls, how high were those?
MR. SMITH-I think the highest point was about 11 feet tall. Actually, I’m sorry. There
were sections about four feet tall, stacked right on top of each other. If you were at the
site, it’s very, very steep there. They were treacherous, the old walls.
MS. ALTER-I know, but those are very tall.
MR. SMITH-The site’s very tall.
MS. ALTER-You think stone’s the best material?
MR. SMITH-In this situation, yes. Those gabion, the gabion wall systems are cost
effective and they’re very secure, because they’re just massive gravity retaining walls.
MS. ALTER-What about aesthetically pleasing?
MR. SMITH-It’ll look like any other dry stacked granite and cobblestone wall. It’ll look
like a, if you can see we drew, in this picture we drew some in. What you’ll see when
you’re done, when the project is done, you’ll basically see some stone walls. You will not
see that wire mesh. It’s going to be all coated with, it’s going to be veneered, if you will,
dry stacked granite stone.
MS. ALTER-Do they have to be this tall?
44
(Queensbury Planning Board 03/22/07)
MR. SMITH-To yield any real utility out of the backyard for the homeowners, for my
clients, they need to be that tall.
MS. ALTER-How big is their back yard right now?
MR. SMITH-It’s less than 3,000 square feet.
MS. ALTER-And how big will it be then?
MR. SMITH-The same size.
MS. ALTER-So you’re just keeping what’s there?
MR. SMITH-We’re basically just giving them some more level spaces. In other words,
it’s precipitous. They’re back, they have young children. It’s literally 15 feet from the
basement floor to Glen Lake, and it happens within 30 feet. It’s very, it’s two on one.
MR. SEGULJIC-When I look at the regulations, I interpret them, you’re not allowed to
have retaining wall more than 16 inches in height. That’s how I interpret the Code.
MRS. BARDEN-Well, that’s what I’m reading as well, and this would be the Zoning
Administrator’s interpretation, but I think that that’s just for shoreline, along the shoreline
retaining walls.
MR. SEGULJIC-But I believe if you go back in the regulations, they define shoreline, if
you can just give me a minute.
MRS. BARDEN-Are these right? I know that not all of them are because they’re stacked,
but what is the height from the mean high water mark of any retaining wall on the
shoreline?
MR. SMITH-The height from the mean high water mark of the lake up to the first
retaining wall, this distance in height? I don’t have the exact, to the decimal point of what
the mean high water mark, but in my best professional estimate, it’s within 20 inches. It’s
16 inches, but it’s a sloping, grassy down to a cobblestone edge, just like a typical Glen
Lake shoreline would be. It’s not, there is, it’s not any more than that.
MS. ALTER-Did you do anything to increase the size of the residence?
MR. SMITH-No, nothing was touched on the house. I would have been here before then
if we had. In other words, I knew that much because I’d been before the Board when we
were doing additions on homes. So I knew that, I knew it was a nonconforming property.
I knew it was too close to the lake, but, no, we did nothing to the house or the decks,
except for to take one, we took off some steps that were in the way, four steps.
MR. HUNSINGER-Any other questions or comments from members of the Board? Did
you have anything else to add?
MR. SMITH-Just that Vision had recommended I clarify how much fill was being added
to the shoreline, because that was really the two areas that Craig had, when I met with
Craig after Bruce had come by originally, the two areas that Craig identified as being the
catalyst to come here for a site plan was the tree being chopped down, which is obvious,
and the fact that we were filling near the shoreline.
MR. HUNSINGER-Right.
MR. SMITH-I think Craig, I’m not putting words in Craig’s mouth, but he told me that the
replacement on the retaining walls was reasonably possibly reasonably a replacement of
the existing retaining walls, repair, but the placement of fill less than 50 feet from the lake
was an issue, and I did a measurement for you. It’s a little bit of an estimate regarding
how much we took out, but we think we took out 405 cubic yards, in order to do the
construction. We are planning on putting back 304 cubic yards. So the net gain in fill is
actually a loss. There’s no net gain. It’s actually a loss. We’ve actually taken out more
fill than we’ve added, about perhaps 50 and 100 yards less than we had in their to start
with. It’s just that we’re moving it around to create more usable spaces.
MR. HUNSINGER-Anything else from the Board? We do have a public hearing
scheduled? I’ll open up the public hearing. If you could state your name for the record.
45
(Queensbury Planning Board 03/22/07)
PUBLIC HEARING OPENED
FREY FREJBORG
MR. FREJBORG-Yes. My name is Frey Frejborg. I’m a neighbor of the Dineens, and I
live at 153 Birdsall Road. My wife and I, we are very supportive of Kevin’s project, and
let me explain why. The old rotten retaining walls are located close to a small sandy
beach type playground. This area has been like a magnet for our grandchildren as well
as the Dineen’s children, and knowing children’s natural design, this has represented a
scary potential for disaster to happen. So we felt very relieved and relaxed when we
learned about this project. So we were very pleased that the Dineen’s have decided to
take this safety improving action regarding a very hazardous area, and have presented
to us also taking the opportunity to further enhance the lakefront with the help of
professionals. So that’s our view and we appreciate this opportunity to share it with you.
Thank you, and here is a written note for you.
MR. HUNSINGER-Thank you. You can give it to Susan, please.
MRS. BARDEN-I have one written comment as well. This is from Kate and Wally Hirsch,
at 145 Birdsall Road. It’s dated March 19, 2007, to the Town of Queensbury Planning
Board. “Dear Board Members: We have seen the plans for landscape changes
proposed by Annie and Kevin Dineen for their property at 149 Birdsall Road. We have
no issue with these modifications and anticipate an attractive improvement to the
lakefront view. Sincerely, Kate and Wally Hirsch”
MR. HUNSINGER-Thank you.
MRS. BARDEN-You’re welcome.
MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. Anyone else? Good evening.
DON KRUGER
MR. KRUGER-Hi. My name is Don Kruger, and I live on Glen Lake. Usually the thing to
do in the summertime on Glen Lake is just go out and boat around real slow and have a
few pops, and when you go by that house, the retaining wall that they took out of there
were made out of railroad ties. If you know anything about railroad ties, but they’re
basically hard wood that’s treated with creosote. There’s no way that that creosote
railroad tie wall could be there without it washing into the lake. So I’m a very big
proponent of removing that and putting the stone in. The way he’s doing those gabions
are pervious and then veneering them with granite really should really look pretty and
aesthetically it’ll be better and certainly for the environment that will be an improvement.
MR. HUNSINGER-Thank you. Anyone else? What’s the will of the Board here?
MR. SEGULJIC-Well, we definitely need a stormwater management plan. I’m concerned
about them cutting down the tree.
MRS. STEFFAN-It’s a physically appealing project. There’s no doubt about it, and the
neighbors support it. Unfortunately, you know, there are regulations that they need to
follow. They’d have to come back with the plans that were like stormwater plans. Are
they going to replace the dock? The dock in this picture looks pretty bad.
MR. SMITH-They will be applying, at some point, for replacement. That’s not now.
Would I be out of line to request, since we’ve gone to the trouble, to Monday morning,
we’ve received the engineer’s comment last Friday evening from Vision, and we did go
to the trouble of completing the complete stormwater analysis, the calculations, the full
landscape plan and the project storm sedimentation provisions, all which were
addressed in the original site plan proposal you have in your hands, but it wasn’t as clear
as Vision would have liked to have seen it.
MR. HUNSINGER-Right.
MR. SMITH-Would I be out of line in proposing that you approve the project for go
ahead, contingent upon the engineer’s approval of the stormwater management plan?
Because I think we have a very good handle. I might be off by 15 years, on the, but I
think really with just a few calculations and provisions, there’s really no site plan change.
There would be no physical change to the plan. You could approve it as it stands this
moment, but it would just be underground provisions that would change, and we would,
46
(Queensbury Planning Board 03/22/07)
proposing approving the plan contingent upon the engineer’s review, which sounded like
it was about a week away.
MR. SEGULJIC-I’m uncomfortable with that. I’d like to take a look at it.
MR. HUNSINGER-Tom?
MR. FORD-That close to the lake, I’d like to look at it.
MRS. BRUNO-I agree.
MR. HUNSINGER-Okay Sorry, it seems like there’s a consensus that we want to see it.
MR. SMITH-Okay.
MRS. STEFFAN-So we need a stormwater plan, landscape plan. Todd mentioned a
sedimentation plan. We don’t call it that.
MR. SMITH-Vision requested that for the construction phase.
MS. ALTER-And you submitted it to the Town?
MR. SMITH-I submitted everything Monday afternoon.
MS. ALTER-To the Town?
MR. SMITH-Yes, but they didn’t give me enough time to review.
MS. ALTER-I just wanted to make sure it’s part of the record and it’s not going to Dan
directly. That’s all.
MR. SMITH-Okay.
MRS. BRUNO-Staff had made a comment about, with regard to the removal of a tree,
the Board could discuss a re-vegetation plan in the area along the shoreline. Tom, do
you think that that would help to mitigate some of the?
MR. SEGULJIC-It’s too late. That’s a question for Don when he comes back.
MRS. BRUNO-Okay. So we have to table this until after Don returns.
MR. SEGULJIC-Well, he’ll be back next month.
MRS. STEFFAN-Yes, but we’d like the applicant to come back with the final project and
not have to table him again.
MR. HUNSINGER-Yes.
MR. SMITH-So all you’d be looking for, the reason you can’t approve it tonight is
because you’re not comfortable with the engineer’s analysis of the, in other words, you
want to see that?
MRS. BRUNO-We want to see his analysis.
MR. HUNSINGER-Yes. We haven’t reviewed it at all.
MR. SEGULJIC-Yes, we haven’t seen it at all, and then also, looking at your
landscaping, we have no idea what the trees are, and what you’re proposing there.
MR. SMITH-Okay. We made a more detailed itemized plan. It is available, but you don’t
have it yet.
MR. FORD-There’s some other vegetation that we’d be interested in seeing between
those walls and the lakefront, other than just grass.
MR. SMITH-Yes. The plan has, the landscape plan addresses his recommendations.
MR. FORD-I’m sorry. I thought that you had said that it was going to be grass.
47
(Queensbury Planning Board 03/22/07)
MR. SMITH-Well, yes, mostly grass, but we have put some, yes, some native low bush
blueberries and other plants there along the shoreline, you know, to add to the beauty
and to help with erosion control.
MR. HUNSINGER-So those are the three things that we need to review.
MR. SMITH-Okay. Well, if you feel like you can’t, it puts the project off a month. So
there is a, I guess my thought would be, if I could ask again, the site is open now, and,
yes, there’s silt fence up, but continue with the project, as soon as weather breaks, would
be advisable. It would be better for the environment.
MR. HUNSINGER-I agree.
MR. SMITH-And you can’t approve anything until you see the plan yourself. Is that the
consensus?
MRS. BRUNO-We keep running into so many projects, as Mrs. Steffan mentioned earlier
on, that come back after they’ve started with, you know, whether it’s contractors or
owners or whatever looking over, and I can say we’ve gone over a number of these
types of projects were people have come forward before starting and we’ve usually
tabled it at least once to make sure that we see what we need to see again to protect our
water bodies, and I think we can appreciate the difficulty that you’re in at this point, but.
MR. SMITH-No, the homeowner would very much like to be, and the work has been
started and now stalled. So that’s, I’m requesting on the owner’s behalf, they would like
to use the property this summer, and there’s still a lot of work to do.
MR. FORD-One of the things that’s a real stumbler for us is the cutting of that tree.
That’s indicative of, it’s easier to get forgiveness than permission.
MR. SMITH-What we do, Thomas, request that we do to mitigate that then. What would
be, in your opinion, if you can force out of that for me, would be a reasonable mitigation
of that when we come back?
MR. FORD-Seeing how we don’t allow it, that would be the first type of mitigation, but I
think there are going to have to be some plantings that will really take care of a lot more
of the runoff, and then I don’t know what you have planned. Initially I thought you said it
was going to be grass, and then you’re into some blueberries and some other shrubs.
MR. SMITH-Yes. It would be, any slope space would be fully planted. So it’ll be,
obviously, we can’t plant a tree as tall as the pine. That’s the only thing. So I think
there’s, in the plan, in the landscape plan as it is right now, there’s maybe four large 16
feet tall white birch going back in. So there would be new ones of those planted.
MR. SEGULJIC-What I’d really like to see is native vegetation.
MR. SMITH-Okay. I think everything is native.
MR. SEGULJIC-What concerns me, too, it appears as if you didn’t have siltation fences
up there on the project.
MR. SEGULJIC-No. We did. We had two, double, versus a little, when he writes in that
letter, he writes in the letter from Craig Brown, it’s my interpretation of it, he says I
directed Mr. Smith to cease all activities on the site until all necessary approvals have
been obtained. The only exception is that I will allow Mr. Smith to properly install erosion
control barrier along the shoreline.
MR. SMITH-I think what he’s saying is that part of it wasn’t properly installed, because it
was a double silt fence, all along the whole shoreline.
MR. SEGULJIC-Well, those are the things that concern me because you look at the
water quality of Glen Lake, and you can kind of understand why it is what it is.
MR. SMITH-Yes.
MR. SEGULJIC-Because people say they’re environmentally friendly when they’re really
not.
MR. SMITH-It was installed.
48
(Queensbury Planning Board 03/22/07)
MR. SEGULJIC-A project like this is not environmentally friendly, especially coupled with
the fact you cut down a tree, which is clearly against Code, and Number Two you didn’t
have stormwater, siltation fences properly installed.
MR. SMITH-Yes, I understand.
MR. SEGULJIC-And Third, you didn’t have stormwater controls in place. So, to call it
environmentally friendly, I’m very troubled, and that’s why Glen Lake is the way it is.
MRS. STEFFAN-Okay. Well, I have a tabling motion.
MOTION TO TABLE SITE PLAN NO. 11-2007 KEVIN & ANNIE DINEEN, Introduced by
Gretchen Steffan who moved for its adoption, seconded by Tanya Bruno:
According to the resolution prepared by Staff. I would like to table this application to the
thth
April 17 meeting with a submission deadline of April 6, and the reason for that is
because of the environmental concerns. So that’s why we’re moving this one to an
earlier date. The applicant will need to provide a stormwater plan, a full landscaping plan
with enhanced shoreline planting, and a sedimentation plan for the construction phases.
nd
Duly adopted this 22 day of March, 2007, by the following vote:
AYES: Mr. Seguljic, Mr. Ford, Mrs. Bruno, Mrs. Steffan, Mr. Hunsinger
NOES: NONE
ABSENT: Mr. Sipp, Mr. Traver
MRS. STEFFAN-So you have two weeks to get your revised plans into the queue so that
you can be here for the first meeting in April.
MR. SMITH-Can I get a clarification on two things? How the Town Engineer will work on
that, his timeframe, and a clarification on the, because Dan definitely told me a 10 year
would be good enough. So I want to make sure we’re clear on that, and what is his
requirement? I will get things to him.
MRS. STEFFAN-He’s a sub contractor to the Town, and so the Town Code requires 25
years.
MR. HUNSINGER-Yes.
MRS. STEFFAN-You need to submit all your information to the Community Development
office.
MR. HUNSINGER-To Staff.
MRS. STEFFAN-Because he’s a sub contractor of the Town. So all information has to
go through him.
MS. ALTER-Have you posted money to pay for his review? Okay. Well, you’re going to
need to do that, especially if you want an expedited review. So you should come and
see Pam in the morning.
MR. SMITH-Okay. So he’ll be able to review, so this will be, this application will be in to
him, does anybody have any idea when, and when will I get that back from him?
MS. ALTER-You don’t get it back. The Board gets it first.
MR. HUNSINGER-Well, it goes through Staff.
MS. ALTER-And you don’t get to deal directly with Dan. That’s a misnomer. That’s not
the way things work here.
MR. SMITH-That’s fine.
MS. ALTER-Okay.
MR. HUNSINGER-Yes, it all goes through Staff.
49
(Queensbury Planning Board 03/22/07)
MR. SMITH-It seems like, I want to get it right the next time. So if I don’t have a chance
to see what his comments are until six days before the meeting, and then he can’t review
it before the meeting, it seems like we’ll be back in the same spot we were tonight,
because his recommendations came in six days before, and no chance to review. So I
would like to make sure, is there a way I can make sure?
MS. ALTER-We cannot just stop the process to make it easier for you.
MR. SMITH-I know.
MS. ALTER-We have other people to review and everybody waits in line. Where you
went afoul is that you didn’t follow the rules and regulations from the beginning.
MR. SMITH-I understand.
MS. ALTER-And these side conversations with Dan are very inappropriate and
unprofessional.
MRS. BARDEN-Todd, do you want me to send your most recent submission to Dan, or
do you need to modify that, the one that you just.
MR. SMITH-I think I need to modify it to a 25 year.
MR. FORD-Definitely.
MRS. BARDEN-And as soon as you bring that in to us, we can get it to Dan.
MR. SMITH-And how much is the expedited fee that I need to post?
MS. ALTER-No, no. I’m just saying it’s going to be more than the $1,000 we usually
spend on an application. Because he’s going to be reviewing it more than once, that’s all
I’m saying.
MR. SMITH-Okay.
MRS. STEFFAN-The other thing is that your submission, based on our discussions here,
we’ve asked for an enhanced shoreline planting plan, which obviously you haven’t
provided yet. So that’s going to have to be part of this. Our recommendation to all
applicants is that you meet with Staff. Obviously the minutes document everything that
we’ve talked about, even though the tabling motion is very specific with what you need to
provide, but you’ll work with Staff, Susan, to make sure that everything gets in to the
engineer.
MR. SMITH-Okay.
MR. FORD-Recommendations by the Lake George Park Commission have been
beneficial to others as they approach the shoreline of the lake.
MRS. BRUNO-The Lake George Association.
MR. SMITH-The LGA.
MR. SEGULJIC-And just one last comment. What I would be looking for is all hard
surfaces are infiltrated.
MR. SMITH-All hard surfaces are infiltrated. So we’re making sure that, Thomas, we’re
taking all the, any water that I can get.
MR. SEGULJIC-Any water generated I’d like to see infiltrated before it gets in the lake.
MR. SMITH-I’m sorry, you don’t care where it’s generated, you want to see it infiltrated?
MR. SEGULJIC-Well, that’s the goal.
MS. ALTER-Yes.
MR. SEGULJIC-That’s the goal.
50
(Queensbury Planning Board 03/22/07)
MR. SMITH-So those steps will be the one thing you’ll be looking at. If I can get water
into a percolation basin.
MR. SEGULJIC-Then we’ll be talking environmentally friendly.
MR. FORD-It doesn’t go to the lake. It never gets there.
MR. HUNSINGER-Okay.
MR. SMITH-I appreciate your patience.
MR. HUNSINGER-Sure.
MR. SMITH-I’m just doing my job.
MR. HUNSINGER-We’re always willing to work with applicants.
MR. SMITH-I understand. Thank you very much.
MR. HUNSINGER-Thank you.
MRS. STEFFAN-Thank you.
SITE PLAN NO. 12-2007 SEQR TYPE II PAUL KRUGER OWNER(S) SAME
ZONING SFR-1A LOCATION 131 MEADOWBROOK ROAD APPLICANT
PROPOSES A 384 SQ. FT. RESIDENTIAL ADDITION TO AN EXISTING 2,030 SQ. FT.
MULTI-FAMILY DWELLING. EXPANSION OF USES ALLOWED BY USE VARIANCE
REQUIRES SITE PLAN REVIEW. CROSS REFERENCE UV 70-95, UV 2-07
WARREN CO. PLANNING 3/14/07 LOT SIZE 1.20 ACRES TAX MAP NO. 296.20-1-
18 SECTION 179-9-020
PAUL & MARIA KRUGER, PRESENT
MR. HUNSINGER-Susan, if you could summarize Staff Notes, please.
MRS. BARDEN-Sure. The applicant is Paul Kruger. The project location is 131
Meadowbrook Road. This is a residential additional totally 384 square feet to an existing
2,030 square foot multi-family dwelling. A Use Variance was approved. The resolution
th
is in your packet. This was approved January 17 of this year for the addition on the
multi-family dwelling, which is not an approved, an allowable use in the Single Family
Residential zone. This is a Type II SEQRA Action, and the public hearing was noticed
for tonight. The only Staff comment on this application was the precise, identification of
the precise square footage of the addition. There were two different figures, and I was
unclear on which one was the footprint and which one was the total square footage, and
also a question on any additional lighting and a question on how this addition will impact
the existing parking on site.
MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. Thank you.
MR. SEGULJIC-Can I just clarify? This is an existing multi-family home, right?
MRS. BARDEN-Yes, this an addition to the back.
MR. SEGULJIC-On an existing multi-family home?
MRS. BARDEN-Yes.
MR. SEGULJIC-So what was the variance for?
MRS. BARDEN-It’s a pre-existing, nonconforming structure. So anything, they can
maintain it but they can’t enlarge it without a Use Variance.
MR. HUNSINGER-Good evening.
MR. KRUGER-Good evening everyone. Okay. For Item One.
MR. HUNSINGER-If you could just state your name for the record.
51
(Queensbury Planning Board 03/22/07)
MR. KRUGER-My name is Paul Kruger. This is my wife Maria. Item One was total
square footage of the new addition. That would, it’s current 336 square feet. We’re
proposing to increase to 528 square feet, which is a loss of 192 square feet of green
space, lawn. There will be no impact on parking, and the light will be by the door. It’ll be
a carriage light with a low wattage fluorescent bulb.
MR. FORD-On the house itself?
MR. KRUGER-Correct, on the house by the door.
MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. Questions, comments from the Board?
MR. SEGULJIC-I’m all set with it.
MRS. STEFFAN-It’s very straightforward.
MR. HUNSINGER-Yes. Well, if there’s no questions or comments from the Board, I
mean, you did clarify the questions that I had already. So we do have a public hearing
scheduled. Is there anyone here that wanted to speak to this application? I will open the
public hearing.
PUBLIC HEARING OPENED
NO COMMENTS
PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED
MR. HUNSINGER-It’s a Type II SEQRA.
MRS. STEFFAN-So I’ll make a motion.
MOTION TO APPROVE SITE PLAN NO. 12-2007 PAUL KRUGER, Introduced by
Gretchen Steffan who moved for its adoption, seconded by Thomas Seguljic:
1. A site plan application has been made to the Queensbury Planning Board for the
following; Applicant proposes a 384 sq. ft. residential addition to an existing 2.030
sq. ft multi-family dwelling. Expansion of uses allowed by Use Variance requires
Site Plan Review.
2. A public hearing was advertised and held on 3-22-07;
3. This application is supported with all documentation, public comment and
application material in the file of record;
4. Pursuant to relevant sections of the Town of Queensbury Zoning Code [Chapter
179], the Planning Board has determined that this proposal complies with the
requirements as stated in the Zoning Code; and
5. The requirements of the State Environmental Quality Review Act have been
considered and the Planning Board has adopted a SEQRA Negative / Positive
Declaration; and
6. 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; and
7. 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. Subsequent issuance of further
permits, including building permits are dependent on receipt; and
8. The applicant will provide as-built plans to certify that the site plan is developed
according to the approved plans prior to issuance of the certificate of occupancy;
and
9. If applicable, Item 8 to be combined with a letter of credit; and
52
(Queensbury Planning Board 03/22/07)
10. The Sanitary Sewer connection plan must be submitted to the Wastewater
Department for its review, approval, permitting and inspection.
11. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that we find the following:
MOTION TO APPROVE SITE PLAN NO. 12-2007 PAUL KRUGER, Introduced by
Gretchen Steffan who moved for its adoption, seconded by Thomas Seguljic:
According to the resolution prepared by Staff. Paragraph Four complies. Paragraph
Five, it is a Type II, so that doesn’t apply.
nd
Duly adopted this 22 day of March, 2007, by the following vote:
AYES: Mr. Ford, Mr. Seguljic, Mrs. Bruno, Mrs. Steffan, Mr. Hunsinger
NOES: NONE
ABSENT: Mr. Sipp, Mr. Traver
MR. HUNSINGER-You’re all set.
MR. FORD-Thank you for your patience.
MR. SEGULJIC-I’m sorry you had to wait so long.
MR. KRUGER-Okay. Just one thing. Is it the Board’s position if there is no change to
the area, that we still need an Area Variance? Do you understand what I’m saying?
MR. HUNSINGER-You already got a variance from the Zoning Board. Right?
MR. KRUGER-No, I just, for future reference.
MR. SEGULJIC-If there’s no change to the area, say that again?
MR. KRUGER-If there’s no change to the site, is a site plan variance still necessary, site
plan review and variance?
MRS. STEFFAN-In your situation, you had a nonconforming structure. So according to
the Zoning of the Town, which is the law of the Town, because it was a nonconforming
structure, it required a variance. It required Zoning Board review to get a variance. If it
was a conforming structure.
MR. KRUGER-No, we know that, but I’m talking as far as being, like being here tonight.
Does it always require that site?
MARIA KRUGER
MRS. KRUGER-Does getting a Use Variance always require a site plan review?
MR. HUNSINGER-Yes.
MRS. STEFFAN-Yes, one triggers the other.
MRS. KRUGER-Okay. We just didn’t know that at the beginning of the whole process.
MR. HUNSINGER-Yes.
MRS. STEFFAN-It’s not easy to navigate through all the, you sat through the whole
meeting. You understand.
SUBDIVISION NO. 6-2007 SKETCH SEQR TYPE UNLISTED HAL RAVEN
AGENT(S) VAN DUSEN & STEVES OWNER(S) SAME ZONING RR-3A, LC-10
LOCATION VERANDA LANE APPLICANT PROPOSES EXPANSION OF AN
EXISTING 9 LOT SUBDIVISION TO CREATE 14 NEW LOTS TOTALING 23
RESIDENTIAL LOTS. NEW LOTS RANGE IN SIZE FROM 1.29 TO 5.88 ACRES
SUBDIVISION OF LAND REQUIRES REVIEW BY THE PLANNING BOARD. WARREN
CO. PLANNING N/A LOT SIZE 39 +/- ACRES TAX MAP NO. 295.-1-1.1 SECTION
A-183
53
(Queensbury Planning Board 03/22/07)
MATT STEVES, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT
MR. HUNSINGER-I remember this.
MRS. BARDEN-Hal Raven is the applicant for this request of Subdivision. This is Sketch
Plan review. Subdivision is located on Veranda Lane. This is an existing nine lot
subdivision. There’s further subdivision proposed to create 14 new lots totaling 23
residential lots, ranging in size from 1.29 to 5.88 acres. The Zoning is split zoned RR-3A
and LC-10, and SFR-1A as well. Just a couple of Staff comments. A density calculation
was provided. However, it does not appear that it considered the areas identified in the
environmental features map as slopes over 25%. The proposed road exceeds the 1,000
foot maximum length for a dead end street. Any alternatives to this layout should be
discussed. If the proposed is determined to be acceptable by the Board, this
requirement will have to be waived, and among the other requirements at Preliminary
Stage a landscaping plan is required for subdivisions greater than 20 lots.
MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. Thank you.
MRS. BARDEN-You’re welcome.
MR. HUNSINGER-Good evening.
MR. STEVES-Yes, good evening. Matt Steves with Van Dusen and Steves representing
the applicant. As I’m sure, I don’t know if a few of these Board members might have
seen this in the past. This was originally a seven lot subdivision that was developed
back in the 70’s, and then back somewhere in the mid 90’s, Lot Eight was created, where
Lot Two and Three, that point there where with the big swing in the road, so it went to an
eight lot subdivision, and then Lot Nine was created in 2001 with the stipulation that no
further development would take place, one lot, one lot, like they were doing like that, until
a concept for the entirety came into play. That’s what this is at this time. We understand
it’s only a Sketch Plan. At the time when the 1973 survey was originally, or subdivision
was originally developed and filed and had that “T” at the top, when it showed proposed
roads going in both directions, and back in the time of ’73, ’74, which you have in our
files, they didn’t know if they were going to try to do a loop road or two cul de sacs or one
cul de sac, and we’re proposing a loop road. We think it makes more sense, especially
the fact, the length of a dead end road going back into two cul de sacs. It is only Sketch
at this time. Perimeter work has been accomplished, but we now have to do the entire
property with two foot contours, and then have the engineer, whichever engineer Mr.
Raven decides to utilize, most likely Tom Nace to do the stormwater, the road design, all
the pertinent information that is necessary for Preliminary. We understand that test pits
have to be done on the entirety. We understand that it will have to go in front of the
Department of Health and DEC and that a landscape plan is also required. Like I say, at
this time it’s just Sketch Plan. That was the requirement that a concept Sketch Plan be
shown to this Board before any future development, so you knew what the build out of
the parcel was to be, and this would be the maximum build out of this parcel.
MRS. STEFFAN-I would think so.
MR. STEVES-Like I said, showing it by pure Zoning Code, by area only, not by the
topography. As I stated, this is USGS. It works with that, but we have to verify with the
actual two foot ground topography, which we actually started a little bit in the Fall, and
did a little bit over the winter, but then when I got hit with about three and a half, four feet
of snow, I don’t do a lot of topography. So, we will be back there in the near future to do
that, and then, you know, conceptually this is what we’re trying to do is a loop road. How
many lots we can accommodate is 100% dependent upon the topography and the
engineering. As I stated in the beginning, and, Gretchen, you made a good point. We
know this is the maximum, but that’s exactly what the Board wanted to see, if you go
back through the minutes, and so that’s what we’ve shown, but as far as the loop road,
that’s what we had hoped would be able to be accomplished because we think it makes
the best sense, unless, and again at Sketch Plan only for conversation’s sake, we know
it’s not an official approval, would this Board rather see a cul de sac on the ends of
these, or would they rather see an attempt to make the loop road? In our opinion, the
loop road’s a much better scenario.
MRS. STEFFAN-One of my concerns with this plan is it’s on a hill, and the top of the
subdivision is in Land Conservation 10.
MR. STEVES-The very top, yes.
54
(Queensbury Planning Board 03/22/07)
MRS. STEFFAN-And there was a reason for that, and one of the reasons was to protect
the view sheds. That’s why some of those properties are LC-10, and so splitting this into
four would not, it doesn’t please me, I guess is the best way to put it.
MR. STEVES-Understood.
MRS. BRUNO-I actually feel the same way about the Rural Residential Three Acre.
We’ve got, basically you’ve cut all of those in half. I, personally, live in a Rural
Residential Three Acre area myself, and if this were in my neighborhood, I would be
heart sickened.
MR. STEVES-And that’s why I’m here, to find out your input from the Board.
MRS. STEFFAN-And I’m also not sure, there’s a map in the Town, I think we’ve talked
about this before, Matt.
MR. STEVES-With the view sheds.
MRS. STEFFAN-The scenic views and vistas, and I think this area falls in that map.
MR. STEVES-And we’ll superimpose any of those on this.
MRS. STEFFAN-Okay.
MR. STEVES-And that’s exactly what I want to know. Like I said, I wanted to make sure
you understand. I prefaced this by saying that this is the maximum based upon area
only. I agree.
MRS. STEFFAN-Sure, but it’s good to have these conversations at Sketch Plan. I mean,
that’s what Sketch is for.
MR. STEVES-You can only go down from here. You can’t go up.
MR. FORD-And it will.
MR. STEVES-I had no doubt.
MR. HUNSINGER-I’ll make a positive comment.
MR. FORD-I thought mine was positive.
MR. STEVES-I thought they were all positive.
MR. FORD-Thank you.
MR. HUNSINGER-I do like the oval road. As you pointed out, you know, the Code says
that dead end streets shall not extend more than 1,000 feet, and that’s something that I
feel strongly about. This helps to mitigate that concern.
MR. STEVES-On the original plan, which we won’t get into at this point, but went up to
the “T”, this stubbed up just a little ways on the north, and the south road went way up to
a cul de sac. That was back in ’73, and Codes were different, but I’d much rather see a
loop if possible.
MRS. STEFFAN-Matt, you talked about there’s a place here where there was no further
subdivision. Where is that?
MR. HUNSINGER-No, what the Board said was we would not look at this in piecemeal
fashion. Because he kept coming in for one lot, one lot, and we said no more.
MR. STEVES-What was happening is at the time the developer was coming in for one
lot, and then another lot, and then another lot, and then the Board said, okay, we want to
see what the overall development scheme of this will be before we approve one more lot,
and we agree. I know that was in ’01, I believe, and now we’re moving forward with that.
MR. FORD-Could you address this notation, proposed drive easement over lands of
Raven?
55
(Queensbury Planning Board 03/22/07)
MR. STEVES-That was actually during the creation of Lot Nine. The driveway that
currently goes to that house goes over the proposed road that was shown on the original
subdivision that is owned by the developer. So that way, until that becomes a Town road
to access off of, he had to obtain an easement from the landowner. His lot does front on
a Town road at the very top of that “T”, but the driveway access to the Town road is
through somebody else’s property.
MR. FORD-Thank you.
MR. SEGULJIC-If I recall correctly, there was stormwater problems at the bottom of this
hill?
MR. STEVES-I believe so.
MR. SEGULJIC-Have those been cleared up?
MR. STEVES-As far as the surveyor is concerned, I don’t know. The engineer will be
working on that. I wish I could answer that, Tom, I really do. I believe they have been. I
don’t have any letters or notes from Staff saying that there was any pending or open
issues with this, but Tom Nace I believe is going to be the engineer of record on this. He
has been in the past. I believe Mr. Raven has hired him to continue. I don’t know for a
fact on that, but I believe that’s the case. I’m just working on the topography, and then
it’s going to be going into the engineer’s hands.
MRS. BRUNO-We could all make a mandatory road trip there in the morning, if it’s still
raining.
MR. STEVES-Obviously, no question, and your point is well taken that if there is any
existing conditions that need to be addressed, it should be addressed at this point.
MR. SEGULJIC-Right.
MR. STEVES-No question.
MR. SEGULJIC-The other thing, maybe I’m all wet on this, but shouldn’t we be looking,
also, at cluster? Is that applicable for this, in light of the possibility for view sheds?
MR. STEVES-I can kind of shed some light on that.
MR. SEGULJIC-Okay.
MR. STEVES-And looking at that, your requirement of cluster is to try to minimize road
length. This is basically the shortest Route I can go and maintain the required centerline
radiuses and keep it a loop road without going through a cul de sac, and as the
Chairman just brought up, you know, the length of a road, 1200 feet or 1,000 feet to the
length without having a return, you need a variance from that anyways, or a waiver from
that. So, yes, I agree, but at the same time, we’re limited, and there’s only two options to
go. Either you loop the road, or you go with a dead end, and we were stating that the
number of lots will obviously be reduced. So it may end up being in somewhat of a
cluster fashion anyway, but as far as reducing the length of road, there’s really no way to
do that and still loop it.
MR. SEGULJIC-Okay.
MRS. STEFFAN-Now there’s, we’ve talked about contours. This is a fully wooded site.
MR. STEVES-Yes. Except, there is a logging road that goes all the way up through this
property, but it is predominantly wooded.
MRS. STEFFAN-One of the things that I would like to see is that often, and we’re getting
several subdivision applications, and we’ve looked at several Sketch Plans for West
Mountain Road, and as folks are considering building on these mountainsides, one of the
things that I would like to see is clearing limits. Obviously, you’ve got the subdivision.
You will identify where houses are going to be with septic fields and things like that. I
would like to see where the clearing limits will be for each one of those, but then I would
like a simulation of some sort, and I don’t know whether that could be done with GIS, but
if we’re going to look at a mountainside, and it’s going to be carved up, I want to know
what it’s going to look like from above.
56
(Queensbury Planning Board 03/22/07)
MR. STEVES-We can do, and it’s expensive, but it can be done, but it’s similar to what
you had, the 3-D rendering, I think from the architect on Tuesday night about the gas
station. You can do that with any type of site. You really can, and it’s a good point, and
another thing, moving forward not just on this but with a lot of these applications that
you’re going to be seeing in the future, and have seen, and a lot of other municipalities
do that, is you approve the subdivision. Obviously you have the stormwater and the
roads and you tweak it to the way it meets with the Code, and you’re happy with it, but
then you can also have site plan review specifically on each lot. Okay, because I can
come in here and say that this is where I would build a house, but then you sell the lot
and the lot up here goes for say $100,000, $150,000, and somebody’s building a
$400,000, $500,000 house, they might not want to put it where I showed it, and to their
credit. That’s fine. You have to try to conform to, you know, we have to give you a
scenario of what we think is a standard or typical, but there’s nothing saying that you
can’t say, hey, you know, we know that it might change from this. So we want to have a
good review of all those, and say that anything above a certain area, you know, the lower
lots, no, but if you get up to the higher areas where the view sheds are, that you want to
have site plan review on every lot. I think your Counsel can say that that’s fine. I would
think.
MR. FULLER-Yes, it would be a reasonable mitigation of a visual impact, and there are
municipalities, particularly around the lake, that are doing it, lot by lot.
MR. STEVES-And the reason I say that is because of the fact, you know, many
subdivisions, I can show a detailed clearing and grading plan, but it’s based upon a
house that has a side load garage, and somebody puts a front load garage and they
want it under their house, or they want it entered from the back. I mean, there are so
many different scenarios, and once you get the exact house plan, then you can, you
know, do a stormwater for that particular lot, but you can do the grading and clearing
plan right to the nines. They can build it exactly the way it’s designed, instead of saying
this is generally where you want it. I mean, you have to have a good general stormwater
management plan in place to accommodate the development on the lots, but then you
can fine tune it and actually have site plan review on each lot, and I see that a lot, and
I’m in favor of that. I’m not in favor of it when you’re down in the flats and a half acre lot
in Queensbury, but in these areas I’m wholeheartedly in favor of it.
MRS. STEFFAN-And with most houses that have a view, folks want to build up, and so.
MR. STEVES-Absolutely, and then you have the opportunity to look at the architectural
of that house. Is it a, you know, three story glass house with lights shining out, or, you
know, then you have the opportunity to look at cut off lights, you know, low E glass in the
windows. There’s all kinds of things you can look at at that point.
MR. FORD-What is the length of that loop?
MR. STEVES-Eleven hundred to thirty.
MR. FORD-Is it half a mile?
MR. STEVES-Not quite. From the end of the actual “T” that’s there, you’ve got about
1150 to 3350, so 2,000 feet.
MRS. BRUNO-What is it on the existing Veranda right now, up to the “T”?
MR. STEVES-How long is that?
MRS. BRUNO-Yes.
MR. STEVES-About 1700, I believe, including the “T’s”.
MR. FORD-I’m just looking at the possibility of that being reduced, and as you reduce the
number of lots, that may, the elimination of those interior lots may come into play.
MR. STEVES-Right. I can look, but like I say, the radius is what’s key, unless we can get
a waiver and have a little tighter radius. I mean, it’s not a high speed road. The
centerline radiuses in Queensbury, I believe, are 300 feet, and then you need a waiver
from that or, you know, Planning Board review waiver, to go less than that radius, to
tighten it up, to shorten the road, but that’s a possibility to look at, too, but that’s where
I’m going to leave it Tom Nace’s hands.
57
(Queensbury Planning Board 03/22/07)
MRS. BRUNO-What’s the radius on that hairpin right there?
MR. STEVES-Unfortunately that was approved and filed and lots, they were tax parcels
since 1973.
MRS. BRUNO-’73.
MR. STEVES-I don’t want to waste your time, but I think it was ’73, original map. That
was filed. It was called Berkley Development Section One, actually filed in 1978, about
that, and back then, as you can see, there’s the “T”, and they showed this road all the
way up to the top, a cul de sac. At that time it was a hammerhead that they showed as
future development, and they showed the number of lots I show here.
MR. FORD-Really? And here we thought you were being creative.
MR. STEVES-Not in the same configuration.
MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. Any other comments or questions on this? I think we gave you
some direction.
MR. STEVES-Absolutely. We thank you.
MR. HUNSINGER-Thank you.
MRS. STEFFAN-Thanks for hanging with us.
MR. HUNSINGER-Okay, before we adjourn, I guess we need to talk about our caseload
again. It looks like we’re heading for another three meeting month in April.
MRS. BARDEN-We had 20 coming in to tonight, and I think we tabled at least two to
April.
MR. HUNSINGER-Three.
MRS. BARDEN-Three.
MR. HUNSINGER-Two or three.
MRS. BARDEN-No, no, you have two, we had two from Tuesday night.
MR. HUNSINGER-That’s right, because the Girl Scouts.
MRS. BARDEN-So we came in with 20. So 23.
MR. HUNSINGER-What’s the pleasure of the Board?
MRS. BARDEN-Or you can just add a couple of items to your regularly scheduled
meetings, like you did, well, you did a combination, I guess.
MR. HUNSINGER-Yes, we did a combination.
MR. SEGULJIC-Well, what do the applications look like?
MR. HUNSINGER-Well, I think some of the ones that we’ve tabled shouldn’t require a lot
of time when they come back.
MR. FORD-Shouldn’t.
MS. ALTER-Do you want to see if maybe Staff could expedite some of these, like the
stormwater plan that we should have had? Do you know what I’m saying? I mean, do
you want us to intervene and see if we can get more complete applications? So that
there’d be fewer things that you would have to table? We don’t typically hold people’s
hand, but maybe, I mean, that’s, if you want Staff to do that, we could do it.
MR. HUNSINGER-I think that would help a lot.
MR. FORD-Go for it.
MRS. STEFFAN-It’s very frustrating to get incomplete plans.
58
(Queensbury Planning Board 03/22/07)
MR. FORD-Very frustrating.
MRS. STEFFAN-Incomplete information.
MRS. BARDEN-Well, we don’t put anything back on if you’ve tabled it for something
specific until we have that information.
MR. HUNSINGER-Right.
MS. ALTER-But if we see something’s really missing that’s key, we could maybe
intervene before it gets adjourned, put it on an agenda.
MRS. BARDEN-We try, as you know, but.
MS. ALTER-It’s a fine line between giving someone due process.
MR. HUNSINGER-Yes, and we seem to be all over that line all the time. It really
depends on the applicant and the application.
MR. FORD-We sit here for prolonged periods of time, when a more complete application
would substantially allow us to focus and to be more productive.
MS. ALTER-On Girl Scouts, just so you know, I told Mr. Lapper we needed a stormwater
plan, which is probably why he sent Stephanie.
MRS. STEFFAN-Well, I think that one of the things we need is, you know, tonight was
very confusing. From my point of view, it gets kind of embarrassing when we sit here
and have a debate because we don’t have the information, we don’t know what we’re
supposed to be doing exactly, and all of us do independent review of the plans at home,
and it’s very difficult when there’s a plan that was approved three years ago or four years
ago and we’re supposed to be comparing the information in front of us to an old plan that
we don’t have, and so I think it’s up to the applicant to provide what was and what is,
superimpose one drawing over the other so it’s clear what was approved and what
exists. I mean, that’s reasonable. One of the, Jarrett-Martin Engineering does an
excellent job of providing feedback from tabling motions, and as an example, they’ll put
the condition of the tabling, you know, Number One condition in a tabling motion in bold,
and then they’ll answer that. So they provide feedback in a logical, coherent manner, so
that when we’re doing our review, we know what was agreed upon. We know what we’re
looking for, and what their response is. For us to have to plow through two inches of
information to get the information we need to make a good decision is a very poor use of
our time, and it’s extremely frustrating. As a volunteer who is just spending a
tremendous amount of time trying to do this job well, is extremely frustrating, and then to
come to the meeting and feel like a fool, because you don’t really know what you’re
looking at, it’s just not a situation that I want to continue.
MS. ALTER-Okay. Thank you. I’m glad to hear this.
MRS. STEFFAN-Yes, and I think the applicants need some feedback on what’s
appropriate and what’s not. The applicants, the mom and pop applicant who is trying to,
you know, draw their own plans, this is their first time in front of the Board, yes, they
need some coaching and assistance, but the folks who are coming in with professional
engineers who should know better need to have a much better package for us to review,
and I don’t think it’s an unreasonable standard to set.
MS. ALTER-I think we have to send back a couple of packets, and the word will get out.
I think we have to just make that step.
MR. HUNSINGER-Well, and we’ve done that before.
MR. FULLER-You could give that form to Dan. Because I know I work with, Tom
represents some of the municipalities that I work with, as well, and he does that same
format. When he’s representing the Town, he has all of his comments and then he’ll put
in there, he’ll put in bold what his comments were, and the date, and in italics what the
response was, then the date, in bold, of his response, so you get a natural flow, and you
may want to give a copy of that to Dan, and I’ll remember that for things you give to me.
That’s a very good point. It does create a flow, and you could certainly impose that on
applicants as well. Say, listen, when you respond to a table, as part of your regs, you
59
(Queensbury Planning Board 03/22/07)
could say, this is how we want it back. If we impose a table, we want you to put it in a
letter, here’s what you tabled me for, here’s my response.
MRS. STEFFAN-Because I believe that there are times when the sheer confusion of an
item pushes it through, and people get approvals when they have not earned approvals,
and so that is a frustration for me.
MR. HUNSINGER-And a lot of times when we’re reviewing these projects, when we’re
sitting at home, it’s a simple question that could be resolved in a simple narrative that,
you know, when we come in and they give their briefing, before we start review, it clears
everything up.
MRS. BARDEN-Right, and that’s why I think we really recommend a cover letter, so that
they’re really framing the project for you, and I have, I do, in my pre-application
conference with applicants, say, I mean, I have the benefit of sitting there with them, and
them telling me what their project is, and I say, think about these Planning Board
members that are at home, by themselves, you know, that don’t have this benefit. Make
it as clear as possible for somebody that’s just looking at what you give them, so they
understand what your project is.
MR. HUNSINGER-Right.
MRS. BARDEN-You know, and I think the cover letter really helps with that, but some of
these crappy maps that come back with these modifications and unfortunately Bartlett-
Pontiff has been just cranking out some pretty poor maps, where you don’t follow through
on the project, and you come back with modifications and you don’t have a clear map.
You have white out and stuff in the margins that doesn’t apply. It’s frustrating.
MRS. STEFFAN-I can’t speak for anybody else, but my time is very valuable to me. I do
a lot of things, and I don’t want to spend more time on an application than the applicant
does, trying to figure it out, and I get resentful of having someone steal my time because
they didn’t do a competent job making their presentation, and so I’m getting to the point
where I’m going to get cranky, and I’m just going to say, no, because if we’re having this
debate, and I’m feeling this way, and I don’t want to make a decision. So I will start
making tabling motions and send them away.
MRS. BARDEN-Right.
MRS. STEFFAN-So the choice will be theirs.
MRS. BARDEN-Right. Do it right the first time.
MR. HUNSINGER-So maybe for our Tuesday meeting, you can find out if the room’s
thth
available for the 19 and the 26, and then we can pick one or the other.
MRS. BARDEN-Okay. Those are the Thursdays.
MR. HUNSINGER-Yes, if people would prefer a third meeting, or maybe two longer
meetings. Maybe I shouldn’t jump to that conclusion.
MR. SEGULJIC-Yes, I mean, I hate to say it, but I’d rather have a third meeting.
MR. HUNSINGER-Yes. I’m not real happy about it either, but.
MS. ALTER-I mean, we could get food in, and you could eat and start a little later. I’m
not being facetious. The Department could pay for food.
MR. SEGULJIC-Coffee would be good.
MS. ALTER-All right. We could get you some coffee.
MR. SEGULJIC-Because I’ll tell you, later at night, you start getting.
MRS. BRUNO-Yes, you start getting.
MR. HUNSINGER-You start crashing.
MRS. BARDEN-How about additional items?
60
(Queensbury Planning Board 03/22/07)
MRS. STEFFAN-I’m just afraid, the other night the meeting went to midnight, and tonight
we’re almost 11:00.
MR. FORD-To Chris’ credit and everybody else’s the other night, we were on our four
hour schedule. We went over by the amount of the time that we were in Executive
Session. So we were right on otherwise.
MRS. BARDEN-Right.
MR. SEGULJIC-Well, we’re going to have a list of the applications next week, right? Do
we have a list of the applications?
MR. HUNSINGER-Yes, in fact, I have one now. I didn’t bring it. I didn’t bring it with me.
MR. SEGULJIC-Do you have an idea of what we’re looking at?
MR. HUNSINGER-Yes. Susan, that list that you gave me, Tuesday night, can you make
copies for everyone?
MRS. BARDEN-Sure. Yes.
MR. SEGULJIC-Because maybe there’s some quick things on there, at least we think.
MR. FULLER-Is there anything on for me Tuesday?
MR. SEGULJIC-I don’t think so. I think we’re okay. Yes, thanks, Matt.
MR. FULLER-No problem.
MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. If there’s nothing else, would someone like to make a motion
to adjourn?
MR. FORD-So moved.
MOTION TO ADJOURN THE QUEENSBURY PLANNING BOARD MEETING OF
MARCH 22, 2007, Introduced by Thomas Ford who moved for its adoption, seconded by
Gretchen Steffan:
nd
Duly adopted this 22 day of March, 2007, by the following vote:
AYES: Mrs. Bruno, Mr. Seguljic, Mr. Ford, Mrs. Steffan, Mr. Hunsinger
NOES: NONE
ABSENT: Mr. Sipp, Mr. Traver
MRS. STEFFAN-And I just want to remind everybody I will not be at the Tuesday
meeting.
MRS. BARDEN-Tuesday meeting next week.
MRS. STEFFAN-Next Tuesday.
MR. FORD-Without prejudice, what does that mean? This is Warren County.
MR. FULLER-Without prejudice to re-apply.
MR. HUNSINGER-Is that what they mean? They want them to re-apply?
MR. FULLER-Without prejudice to re-apply, meaning it’s not a flat out this will never
work. That’s how I’ve always taken it.
On motion meeting was adjourned
RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED,
Chris Hunsinger, Chairman
61