1998-06-16
(Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 6/16/98)
QUEENSBURY PLANNING BOARD MEETING
FIRST REGULAR MEETING
JUNE 16, 1998
7:00 P.M.
MEMBERS PRESENT
CRAIG MAC EWAN, CHAIRMAN
CATHERINE LA BOMBARD, SECRETARY
ROBERT VOLLARO
ROBERT PALING
GEORGE STARK
TIMOTHY BREWER
LARRY RINGER
CORRECTION OF MINUTES
March 24, 1998: NONE
April 28, 1998: NONE
May 19, 1998: NONE
MOTION TO APPROVE THE MINUTES OF THE MEETINGS OF 3/24, 4/28, AND 5/19
,
Introduced by Robert Paling who moved for its adoption, seconded by Larry Ringer:
th
Duly adopted this 16 day of June, 1998, by the following vote:
AYES: Mr. Paling, Mr. Stark, Mrs. LaBombard, Mr. Vollaro, Mr. Ringer,
Mr. Brewer, Mr. MacEwan
NOES: NONE
OLD BUSINESS:
SITE PLAN NO. 35-92 EXTENSION HOWARD CARR OWNER: I. FLAUM ZONE:
PC-1A LOCATION: QUEENSBURY PLAZA APPLICANT REQUESTS EXTENSION
OF SITE PLAN APPROVAL OF 6/17/97.
JON LAPPER, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT
MRS. LA BOMBARD-And there is no public hearing this evening.
STAFF INPUT
Notes from Staff, Site Plan No. 35-92 - Extension of Approval, Meeting Date: June 16, 1998
“The applicant is requesting an extension of Site Plan No. 35-92 which expires on June 17, 1998.
The applicant is awaiting a land agreement with the Town.”
MR. MAC EWAN-Any other input?
MS. NOWICKI-No.
MR. MAC EWAN-Good evening.
MR. LAPPER-Good evening. For the record, my name is Jon Lapper and I’m here on behalf of
Howard Carr.
MR. MAC EWAN-And they just want to grant an extension for how long are they looking for?
MR. LAPPER-Well, in Queensbury, Site Plan approval lasts for a year, unless you build. So
we’re looking for an extension for another year. As you may recall from a year ago, this project
involves putting a new building in the back of the site across from the Evergreen bank branch.
There’s approval for a larger building up closer to Red Lobster, and we moved the building back,
reduced the size to approximately 30,000 square feet, and as part of this, we’re looking for a small
1
(Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 6/16/98)
piece of property to be conveyed by the Town, which is no longer necessary, for when Bank Street
was a dead end, before this Plaza was built, so that the snow plows could turn around, and that
would be located under part of the parking lot and a small portion of the building. The Town
Board has just retained an appraiser so that they can get an appraisal and we can come up with a
contract price to purchase it, and that’s what the delay has been caused by just working that out.
MR. MAC EWAN-All that time we’ve been waiting for that to happen?
MR. LAPPER-Well, part of it got delayed between John Goralski leaving and Chris coming on,
but part of it is that we haven’t been pushing real hard because they’ve been negotiating with
tenants, and they, you know, there’s been no reason to get it in the ground, but it’s all moving
forward, and when that is done, there are going to be a lot of very positive improvements to that
Plaza, which this Board provided for in that approval, including a wider drive aisle and the
extension of Bank Street to the main driveway, and putting good sized street trees on either side of
that, so it’ll, visually, look much more like an access drive and just create a lot more room. So I
think it’s a very positive project. I know the Board unanimously supported it last year when we
got the approval, and we’re just looking for an extension.
MR. MAC EWAN-Didn’t we also discuss, Bob, you may remember this, bringing up to par, I
guess you could say, the rest of the dividers and the planters and such in the remaining part of the
Plaza?
MR. LAPPER-A lot of that was changed as part of this Site Plan as well. The drive aisles were
moved back, and the wood would be removed and replaced with concrete curbs, and that was all
part of this site plan approval.
MR. BREWER-And weren’t they also going to, was it the grassy areas toward Quaker Road,
weren’t they going to dig that up and take the black top out of there?
MR. LAPPER-And that was done actually this year, even though, yes, that was done this spring,
even though they haven’t gone forward with the rest of the project yet.
MR. VOLLARO-Jon, you have a meeting before the ZBA tomorrow night?
MR. LAPPER-For the same thing.
MR. VOLLARO-For the same thing.
MR. LAPPER-Yes.
MR. VOLLARO-Okay. So this is contingent upon that approval?
MR. LAPPER-Well, that’s just an extension, as well, and I went to County Planning, and they
approved an extension last week.
MR. PALING-I just want to just get some clarification. This was kind of complex, and depending
upon how you read this motion, there’s about seven parts to it, and how you divide it, I mean. Is
there any effect on any parts of the motion because of the extension? Everything will be?
MR. LAPPER-No, everything will be exactly the same, just because the Queensbury Code
provides for one year, and you have to get it extended after a year.
MR. PALING-Okay, as long as it’s the same.
MR. BREWER-We can just make in our motion, Bob, just to include all of the previous conditions
that applied to it. That way that’s just a double.
MR. PALING-It’s a long motion, and it’s got a lot of parts to it, but as long as they’re saying, yes,
we’ll do it, that’s okay.
MR. LAPPER-I think you could just reference that.
MR. BREWER-Yes, we’re just extending the original approval is all we’re doing.
th
MR. MAC EWAN-All we’re doing is giving another extension to it, June 30 ’99?
2
(Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 6/16/98)
MR. LAPPER-Sounds good.
MR. MAC EWAN-Does somebody want to make a motion?
MOTION TO GRANT AN EXTENSION TO SITE PLAN NO. 35-92 HOWARD CARR
,
Introduced by Timothy Brewer who moved for its adoption, seconded by Robert Paling:
The only conditions being that all the previous stipulations in the approval are met with.
(Discussion prior to the resolution being made indicates the request is for an extension to 6/30/99)
th
Duly adopted this 16 day of June, 1998, by the following vote:
AYES: Mr. Stark, Mrs. LaBombard, Mr. Vollaro, Mr. Ringer, Mr. Brewer,
Mr. Paling, Mr. MacEwan
NOES: NONE
MR. LAPPER-Thank you.
MR. MAC EWAN-Okay.
SITE PLAN NO. 50-96 MODIFICATION BRIAN & KEVIN O’CONNOR OWNER:
SAME ZONE: LI-1A, SR-1A, WR-1A LOCATION: BIG BOOM ROAD APPLICANT
PROPOSES A MODIFICATION TO APPROVED SITE PLAN - MODIFICATION IS
FOR REDUCTION IN THE QUANTITY OF PLANTS AND FLOWERS. CROSS
REFERENCE: UV 49-1996 BEAUTIFICATION COMM. - 6/8/98 TAX MAP NO. 135-2-
1, 7 LOT SIZE: 17.63 ACRES SECTION: 179-26, 179-19, 179-16
MRS. LA BOMBARD-And there is no public hearing tonight.
STAFF INPUT
Notes from Staff, Site Plan No. 50-96, Site Plan No. 50-96 - Modification, Meeting Date: June
16, 1998 “The applicant proposes to modify the landscape plans of an approved site plan. The
application was submitted to the Beautification Committee for review and comment. The plans
indicate reduction, removal and different plant species. There appear to be fewer plantings than
the original with removal of 4 trees bordering the east portion of the property and removal of 2
trees bordering the west portion of the property. The applicant may consider adding some
additional landscaping to the area located between the service drive and the parking area (west
side) to eliminate pedestrian traffic to the back of the building. The proposed modification does not
appear to decrease the aesthetic view of the property. Staff has no additional concerns.”
MS. NOWICKI-That’s it. Do you want me to read in the Beautification Committee comments?
MR. MAC EWAN-Could we?
MS. NOWICKI-Okay. Beautification Committee comments, Site Plan No. 50-96, Brian & Kevin
O’Connor “Kevin O’Connor presented revised planting plan. Explained changes and
landscaping/paving/lighting work done so far. Motion made by Mrs. Wetherbee to approve
changes as shown on plan with no substitutions dated 7/31/96 revised 5/19/98. Seconded by Mr.
Lorenz”
MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. Is there anyone here representing the applicant? No? I had some
questions.
MRS. LA BOMBARD-I have some questions, too.
MR. MAC EWAN-We all have questions. Well, lets push this toward the back of the agenda and
we’ll hold off on it a little bit, okay. Were they advised that it would be a good idea to be here
tonight?
MS. NOWICKI-Yes.
NEW BUSINESS:
3
(Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 6/16/98)
SITE PLAN NO. 27-98 TYPE II BRAMER AUTOMATION & CONTROL OWNER:
MARK & LLOYD BRAMER ZONE: LI-1A LOCATION: 509 COUNTY LINE ROAD
APPLICANT PROPOSES HOUSING ELECTRICAL ENGINEERING OFFICES AND
ELECTRONIC PANEL ASSEMBLY FACILITY IN AN EXISTING STRUCTURE. ALL
USES IN LI ZONES ARE SUBJECT TO REVIEW AND APPROVAL BY THE
PLANNING BOARD. WARREN CO. PLANNING: 6/10/98 TAX MAP NO. 55-2-19.13
LOT SIZE: 2.79 ACRES SECTION 179-26 3(b)[5]
LLYOD & MARK BRAMER, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT
STAFF INPUT
Notes from Staff, Site Plan No. 27-98, Bramer Automation & Control, Meeting Date: June 16,
1998 “The applicant proposes to utilize an existing structure to operate an Electrical Engineering
and Panel Building Shop. All uses in LI-1A zones require site plan review. The use is consistent
with other uses in the area. The applicant met with staff prior to submission of the application and
was able to address staff concerns.”
MS. NOWICKI-For the County, there was “No County Impact”.
MR. MAC EWAN-Was this also, is there a cross reference in here for the Beautification as well?
MS. NOWICKI-Not that I know of.
MR. MAC EWAN-I thought it was, all on that one big long list. Nothing?
MS. NOWICKI-No.
MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. Good evening.
MR. L. BRAMER-Lloyd Bramer.
MR. M. BRAMER-I’m Mark Bramer.
MR. MAC EWAN-Would you like to tell us a little bit about what your plans are up there.
MR. M. BRAMER-Basically what we did was bought the Hilltop Construction building, which
was a home construction facility. Basically, we do electrical design, and implementation of
automated systems for electrical instrumentation, which includes not only doing design, but also
panel fabrication for automated industrial controls, and we are proposing to use the existing shop
area for that panel construction and the office area for the design purposes.
MR. MAC EWAN-Just pretty much the component kind of things that you’re basically assembling
there?
MR. M. BRAMER-Yes. Basically, it’s a pre-manufactured industrial components, which then
have to be integrated into a complete system.
MR. MAC EWAN-No hazardous waste or anything like that?
MR. M. BRAMER-No hazardous waste. It’s purely fabrication.
MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. Anything else that you wanted to add?
MR. M. BRAMER-No, that is it.
MR. VOLLARO-I have one question. It’s on the site plan review checklist, where on Q., I’m just
curious, it says provisions for pedestrian and handicapped access, and you have “not applicable”.
Does the building have any access for handicapped now?
MR. M. BRAMER-The building does not have access. Basically, they’re all ground level entry
ways. There’s nothing that’s elevated, for entry ways.
4
(Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 6/16/98)
MR. VOLLARO-But I’m just curious as to why it said there wasn’t any pedestrian or handicapped
capability there, but if it’s a purchased building, and that’s the way it was when you bought it?
MR. M. BRAMER-Yes, it’s a purchased building.
MR. VOLLARO-Okay.
MR. BREWER-Just to Bob’s point, don’t we still have to provide parking space for handicapped,
regardless?
MS. NOWICKI-That would be a building permit issue, I believe.
MR. BREWER-Okay.
MR. STARK-Tim, I don’t know, but only if it’s a public building, isn’t it?
MR. BREWER-He’s got employees. I don’t know, either. That was my other question. How
many employees do you have?
MR. M. BRAMER-Six, including my father and myself.
MR. BREWER-Hopefully, you’re going to have a lot more.
MR. M. BRAMER-Yes, hopefully.
MR. BREWER-Good luck.
MR. M. BRAMER-Thank you.
MR. MAC EWAN-Does the zoning require it?
MR. BREWER-I think it does, but if it’s a business, maybe not. I don’t know.
MR. MAC EWAN-Give us one moment here, gentlemen.
MR. BREWER-Do customers come to the shop?
MR. M. BRAMER-No, just the employees.
MR. BREWER-I’m sure if it’s a requirement, the building inspector will, maybe you might hire a
handicapped person.
MR. M. BRAMER-Right.
MR. MAC EWAN-Quickly going through this, I don’t see anything. I guess if it was a
requirement, you probably would only be required to have one, if you’re going to need one, and I
guess that’s something that could be brought to the attention, we’ll have Staff look at that, and if
it’s something that just has to be reflected on your site plan before it’s signed off on, we can take
care of that. That’s no big deal. There’s plenty of parking up there.
MR. M. BRAMER-Yes, plenty.
MR. MAC EWAN-We’ll open up the public hearing. Anyone wishing to discuss or make
comments to this application, you’re welcome to come up and address yourself to the Board.
PUBLIC HEARING OPENED
NO COMMENT
PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED
MR. MAC EWAN-We have no SEQRA. Does someone want to introduce a motion?
5
(Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 6/16/98)
MOTION TO APPROVE SITE PLAN NO. 27-98 BRAMER AUTOMATION &
CONTROL
, Introduced by Catherine LaBombard who moved for its adoption, seconded by
George Stark:
With the only stipulation that the Staff take a look at the issue of the handicap accessibility. As
written in the prepared resolution.
Whereas, the Town Planning Board is in receipt of a Site Plan No. 27-98 BRAMER
AUTOMATION & CONTROL; and
Whereas, the above mentioned application, received 5/21/98, consists of the following:
1. Application with diagrams attached
Whereas, the above file is supported with the following documentation:
1. 6/16/98 - Staff Notes
2. 6/19/98 - Letter to M. Bramer from C. Brown
3. 6/10/98 - Warren Co. Planning Bd. resolution
Whereas, a public hearing was held on 6/16/98 concerning the above project; and
Whereas, the Planning Board has determined that the proposal complies with the site plan
requirements of the Code of the Town of Queensbury (Zoning); and
Whereas, the Planning Board has considered the environmental factors found in the Code of the
Town of Queensbury (Zoning); and
Whereas, the requirements of the State Environmental Quality Review Act have been considered;
and
1. The Town Planning Board, after considering the above, hereby moves to APPROVE Site Plan
No. 27-98 BRAMER AUTOMATION & CONTROL.
2. The applicant shall present three (3) copies of the above referenced site plan to the Zoning
Administrator for his signature.
3. The Zoning Administrator is hereby authorized to sign the resolution.
4. The applicant agrees to the conditions set forth in this resolution.
5. The conditions shall be noted on the map.
6. The issuance of permits is conditioned on compliance and continued compliance with the
Zoning Ordinance and site plan approval process.
Duly adopted this 16th day of June, 1998, by the following vote:
AYES: Mrs. LaBombard, Mr. Vollaro, Mr. Ringer, Mr. Brewer, Mr. Paling,
Mr. Stark, Mr. MacEwan
NOES: NONE
MR. MAC EWAN-You’re all set, gentlemen.
MR. M. BRAMER-Thank you.
MR. MAC EWAN-And if there’s an addition to, that you need a handicapped parking spot, Staff
will get in touch with you, and let you know that, and reflect it on your site plan.
MR. L. BRAMER-Thank you.
MR. MAC EWAN-You’re welcome.
6
(Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 6/16/98)
SITE PLAN NO. 28-98 TYPE II THE DESIGN FUNCTION, INC. OWNER: JEANNE
DANAHER, WJT REALTY ZONE: LI-1A LOCATION: 639 QUEENSBURY AVE.
APPLICANT PROPOSES HOUSING A GRAPHIC DESIGN SERVICES AND
PRODUCTION FACILITY WITHIN THE EXISTING STRUCTURE. ALL USES IN LI
ZONES ARE SUBJECT TO REVIEW AND APPROVAL BY THE PLANNING BOARD.
CROSS REFERENCE: P8-90, SV 1-1990 WARREN CO. PLANNING: 6/10/98 TAX
MAP NO. 55-2-18.2 LOT SIZE: 3 ACRES SECTION: 179-26
ED OSBURG, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT
STAFF INPUT
Notes from Staff, Site Plan No. 28-98, The Design Function, Inc., Meeting Date: June 16, 1998
“The applicant proposes to utilize a pre-existing building for a graphic arts production company.
All uses in a LI-1A zone require site plan review. The applicant has presented a project that meets
site plan review requirements. Staff has no additional concerns.”
MS. NOWICKI-And the County has “No County Impact”.
MR. MAC EWAN-No Beautification either?
MS. NOWICKI-No.
MR. MAC EWAN-Good evening.
MR. OSBURG-Good evening. My name is Ed Osburg. I’m President of the Design Function.
MR. MAC EWAN-Could you tell us a little bit about your company and what you plan on doing
with the building.
MR. OSBURG-We’re a computer graphics design and production firm. We work with computers
to produce large photographic murals for use in museums and trade show use. We have a vinyl
cutting system for cutting vinyl for use in signs, lettering vehicles, that type of thing. We’re a
nation wide wholesaler. We support people who apply vinyl graphics to vehicles or signs. We
also produce graphic panels for use in trade shows, for other vendors who actually build the large
pieces.
MR. MAC EWAN-So primarily your business is wholesale related?
MR. OSBURG-Wholesale/retail, it depends on the customer.
MR. MAC EWAN-It depends on your mood.
MR. OSBURG-How big the sale is.
MR. MAC EWAN-Is there anything else you can tell us? I mean, are you totally going to
renovate?
MR. OSBURG-There’s not much renovation needed in that building at all. There’s no exterior
changes to the building.
MR. MAC EWAN-Are you going to occupy the entire building?
MR. OSBURG-Well, we’re the only ones leasing the building, but we’re moving from a 4,000
square foot facility into this, which is just slightly bigger. So, I’m sure we’ll grow into it.
MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. Questions on the Board?
MR. BREWER-How many employees are here?
MR. OSBURG-Four, including myself.
MR. BREWER-I don’t really have any questions, Craig.
MR. MAC EWAN-Anything else you want to add?
7
(Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 6/16/98)
MR. OSBURG-I’d just get myself in trouble.
MR. MAC EWAN-No, you won’t get yourself in trouble. Well, we have no SEQRA to do. We’ll
open up the public hearing. Anyone want to come up and address this application and make
comments?
PUBLIC HEARING OPENED
NO COMMENT
PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED
MR. MAC EWAN-Does someone want to make a motion?
MOTION TO APPROVE SITE PLAN NO. 28-98 THE DESIGN FUNCTION, INC.
,
Introduced by Robert Vollaro who moved for its adoption, seconded by Timothy Brewer:
With information in the resolution as written by Staff.
Whereas, the Town Planning Board is in receipt of Site Plan No. 28-98 The Design Function, Inc.
to house a graphic design services and production facility within the existing structure; and
Whereas, the above mentioned application, received 5/29/98 consists of the following:
1. Application with maps attached
Whereas, the above file is supported with the following documentation:
1. 6/16/98 - Staff Notes
2. 6/10/98 - Warren County Planning Board resolution
Whereas, a public hearing was held on 6/16/98 concerning the above project; and
Whereas, the Planning Board has determined that the proposal complies with the site plan
requirements of the Code of the Town of Queensbury (Zoning); and
Whereas, the Planning Board has considered the environmental factors found in the Code of the
Town of Queensbury (Zoning); and
Whereas, the requirements of the State Environmental Quality Review Act have been considered;
and
1. The Town Planning Board, after considering the above, hereby moves to APPROVE Site Plan
No. 28-98 THE DESIGN FUNCTION, INC.
2. The applicant shall present three (3) copies of the above referenced site plan to the Zoning
Administrator for his signature.
3. The Zoning Administrator is hereby authorized to sign the resolution.
4. The applicant agrees to the conditions set forth in this resolution.
5. The conditions shall be noted on the map.
6. The issuance of permits is conditioned on compliance and continued compliance with the
Zoning Ordinance and site plan approval process.
th
Duly adopted this 28 day of May, 1998, by the following vote:
AYES: Mr. Vollaro, Mr. Ringer, Mr. Brewer, Mr. Paling, Mr. Stark,
Mrs. LaBombard, Mr. MacEwan
NOES: NONE
8
(Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 6/16/98)
ABSENT: Mrs. LaBombard
MR. MAC EWAN-You’re all set. See, no trouble.
MR. OSBURG-Thank you.
MR. BREWER-Good luck to you.
SITE PLAN NO. 29-98 TYPE: UNLISTED ROBERT & ALICE HAYES OWNER:
SAME ZONE: WR-3A LOCATION: RT. 9L 400’ SOUTH OF LOCKHART
MOUNTAIN ROAD ON LAKE. APPLICANT PROPOSES CONSTRUCTION OF
9,286.6 SQ. FT. RESIDENCE AND A 900 SQ. FT. GARAGE ON 2.59 ACRE PARCEL.
REFERRED BY THE ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS FOR STORMWATER
MANAGEMENT AND DRAINAGE ISSUES. CROSS REF.: AV 17-1998 WARREN CO.
PLANNING: 6/10/98 TAX MAP NO. 1-1-14 LOT SIZE: 2.59 ACRES SECTION 179-16
BOB HAYES, PRESENT
STAFF INPUT
Notes from Staff, Site Plan No. 29-98, Robert & Alice Hayes, Meeting Date: June 16, 1998 “The
applicant proposes to construct a residential home on a vacant lot within the WR-1A zone. The
Zoning Board referred the application to the Planning Board to review the project for stormwater
and drainage issues. An area variance was received for relief from the height requirement. The
application was submitted to Rist Frost Associates for review and comment. Staff received
comment from the Lake George Park Commission with a general approval of concept.”
MS. NOWICKI-Warren County Planning Board approved this site plan, “With the conditions that
the property is monitored for drainage and that the Applicants secure a permit from NYS
Department of Transportation for the curb cut.” Rist-Frost Associates comments, I’m going to
read the letter from today, which you all have a copy of. “In response to our review letter of June
10, 1998 that we received on June 15, 1998 satisfactorily addresses our comments.” Would you
like me to read Lake George comment into the record?
MR. MAC EWAN-Absolutely.
MS. NOWICKI-Lake George Park Commission letter. “Based on our review of the Stormwater
Management Report dated May 27, 1998 for the above referenced project, it appears that the
stormwater plans would conform with the recently proposed revisions to the Commission’s
stormwater management regulations. Please keep in mind that since the Commission’s stormwater
management regulations are not presently in effect in the Town of Queensbury, they are only
“advisory or desired objectives” but nonetheless, your proposal clearly meets their intent. Indeed,
by capturing and infiltrating existing stormwater from NYS Route 9L, the plan appears to go
beyond what the regulations would require. Please feel free to give me a call if you should have
any questions. Sincerely, J. Thomas Wardell, P.E. Director of Engineering”
MR. MAC EWAN-Is that it?
MS. NOWICKI-Yes.
MR. MAC EWAN-Good evening.
MR. HAYES-Good evening. My name is Bob Hayes. I’m here with my wife, Alice. We’re the
owners of the property, and with me is Gary Van Alstyne, professional engineer for the project.
MR. MAC EWAN-Could you tell us a little bit about your project?
MR. HAYES-Yes. My wife and I recently purchased a two and a half acre site, and we intend to
build the residence on it. The site has a water drainage issue that is primarily caused by drainage
from Route 9L. There’s a pipe that takes drainage from the road and from Lockhart Mountain,
and dumps it on this particular parcel of land. There’s been a lot of erosion on the land because
this pipe has existed for a number of years, and it appears that sediment washes into the lake from
that. We propose to slow down the water moving off the mountain and off Route 9L, so that
there’s less sediment moving into the lake and it’s in a more controlled arrangement. So we’re
trying to improve a bad existing condition.
9
(Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 6/16/98)
MR. MAC EWAN-Can you give us a little bit of detail on how you want to accomplish that?
MR. HAYES-Sure. I’ll refer to Gary, and I think we have a map.
MR. MAC EWAN-Go ahead. You can put that map right up on the easel.
GARY VAN ALSTYNE
MR. VAN ALSTYNE-Good evening. This is the plan of the two and a half acre Hayes parcel.
Route 9L is down in this area. Currently, the site is vacant. It’s just wooded, but right now, if any
of you had a chance to visit the site, there’s a large rock escarpment right here. The existing 18
inch culvert that crosses 9L right here, originally, just found its own path, and went right down
through the middle of the site. Through this area, it had severely eroded, and originally, to give
you a little history on why we’re here, originally, one of our plans, in working with the entire site,
was to slow down some of the water in the drainage area through here, and just conduct it right
into this existing year round stream. There were some concerns from some of the neighbors, which
prompted the ZBA to refer it to the Planning Board. Since then, we’ve talked to the Park
Commission and numerous other people, Chris Round, Rist-Frost, and re-aligned it, the main
drainage corridor, to go down along the edge of the site. From this point, from up on the driveway
also, which are smaller drainage areas, but the main drainage area that picks up the most water
from Lockhart Mountain is this corridor. What we’re looking at is from this point all the way
down. It’s a natural stone channel. Almost trying to re-create a stream bed, one, to give is the
protection from erosion, and, two, just to keep in the same aesthetics. We don’t want to import any
unnatural materials, and trying to use the materials that are on the site for this. As far as
stormwater management criteria and aspects of the site, we’ve taken a small impoundment area up
in here, which, by virtue of the location of this culvert, any small runoff, a light rain, a fierce
storm, other than a heavy storm, will first fill up this area of runoff coming from 9L. Once this
area fills, it would then spill into this culvert, and come down and impound into a second area in
here, which would then have to build up to a level to flow over here, and then down through a
series of stone check dams to keep the velocity down, as it approaches the lake, and also dropping
sediments along the way.
MR. PALING-Are those stone check dams existing, or are you going to construct them?
MR. VAN ALSTYNE-They’re to be created, and one of the other issues that we added into the
end, right at the end here, is there’s a significant amount of sediment that has built up in this part of
the (lost word) is to remove much of the sediment right there and build a basin of the stone, so the
last shot before the water hits the lake, it goes into a pool, almost, before it will then spill out into
the lake.
MR. STARK-Will you have to have maintenance on these catch basins? I mean, will they have to
be cleaned out periodically because of sediments hidden in there?
MR. VAN ALSTYNE-In these two areas, possibly, over time, they’ll need to be maintained, but
they’re intended to be dry most of the time. So there will be.
MR. STARK-What’s the depth before they overflow?
MR. VAN ALSTYNE-In here, I believe it’s, from the deepest point, I don’t recall, but it’s about
18 inches over this whole area. This is about the same. It may reach 24 inches at the deepest
point, but it’s still 18 inches below the driveway.
MR. MAC EWAN-So the idea of this is to infiltrate a lot of water before it actually even gets to
lake?
MR. VAN ALSTYNE-Right, and on the light rainfall areas, there may not be any water that
reaches the lake.
MRS. LA BOMBARD-You’d still be able to keep the beach?
MR. VAN ALSTYNE-Yes. We don’t intend on going into the lake at all. It’s just up in this upper
area there’s a delta that’s formed over the years, and we don’t want the water coming out of all this
protected area and then hitting that sand and sediment and washing that into the lake.
10
(Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 6/16/98)
MR. MAC EWAN-Anything else?
MR. VAN ALSTYNE-Only if you have any questions.
MR. PALING-On site development data proposed building area, 3600 square feet, I must be
misreading that, because your house is 9300, and you’re adding, what, 900 square foot, to the
garage. How did you come up with 3600?
MR. VAN ALSTYNE-That’s the footprint for the building. It’s a two story with a basement.
MR. PALING-It’s the footprint. So that is accurate then.
MRS. LA BOMBARD-And the basement’s built into the hill. So basically that will living area,
too. You’ll have one side out, exposed to the lake.
MR. VAN ALSTYNE-Right. It will be exposed on its lower side.
MR. PALING-Okay. The other question I have has to do with the curb cut and approval by DOT.
What is the status of that?
MR. VAN ALSTYNE-We’ve been in contact. We’ve been just trying to work our schedules. I’ve
been trying to coordinate a meeting with a certain DOT individual that handles the driveway
permits, and either between his schedule or my schedule, we haven’t been able to get out to the site
yet.
MR. PALING-That’ll have to be a condition of approval, I think, that that be accomplished.
MR. VAN ALSTYNE-Well, it is one of the, granted, it is going to happen. There’s an existing
curb cut right here. There’s an existing driveway entrance.
MR. PALING-You will have how many, one or two accesses?
MR. VAN ALSTYNE-There’s one.
MR. PALING-One access, and is this a new curb or existing you’re talking about?
MR. VAN ALSTYNE-There is an existing driveway entrance right here. There’s no curbing.
MR. PALING-There will be no curbing, and, okay, DOT then, okay, so you’re working with just
one, and you’re going to get DOT approval for it as it is.
MR. VAN ALSTYNE-Right. We would like to abandon this one and just move it over here, and
that was our idea, just because it would improve the sight distance around this corner. I mean, we
can certainly leave it here, but we think it’s an improvement to bring it over to this area, due to the
curb and the way it drops over the hill on the north side.
MR. VOLLARO-Just in back of the house, where that natural stone swale is going to run, right
there, what’s the elevation of that, roughly?
MR. VAN ALSTYNE-Of the bottom?
MR. VOLLARO-Yes, well, what I’m really driving at, so you don’t have to interpret, I’m looking
for the slope. In the event that you do have an overrun there, is that going to run down toward the
house?
MR. VAN ALSTYNE-No. It would, if there was an overflow in this area, it would most definitely
follow this path. We’ve made, designed that in intentionally, that it’s not going to breech, in this
direction.
MR. VOLLARO-Okay. That’s what I was concerned with, whether it had a breech or not. Other
than that, I don’t have any questions.
MR. MAC EWAN-All right. If you gentlemen would like to give up the table for a minute, we’ll
open up the public hearing. Anyone who wants to come up and address this application, you’re
11
(Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 6/16/98)
welcome to do so. Please identify yourself for the record, and any questions or comments you
have, please direct them toward the Board, and we’ll certainly try to answer them for you.
PUBLIC HEARING OPENED
MS. NOWICKI-I have a written letter, if you’d like me to read that.
MR. MAC EWAN-Go for it.
MS. NOWICKI-“Dear Board Members: This letter to the Planning Board is in regard to the site
plan of N. Robert Hayes, Jr. for their property on Lake George. We believe the site plan will be
th
reviewed by the Planning Board on Tuesday, June 16. My brother, F. Michel Bishop and I, as
co-owners of the adjacent property and other members of our family have seen the new site plan
which Mr. Hayes sent us. We wish the Planning Board to know that we look with favor on the
plan and the changes which have been made since May, especially concerning the storm runoff
problem and the diverting of one small stream into a larger one. We also welcome the Hayes’ to
the Plum Bay area and especially as neighbors.” This is from Margaret Bishop Maynard.
MR. MAC EWAN-Were these the people who had some concerns to begin with?
MS. NOWICKI-Yes.
MR. MAC EWAN-Is that it?
MS. NOWICKI-Yes.
PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED
MR. MAC EWAN-We need to do a SEQRA, the Long Form.
MRS. LA BOMBARD-Is that included in the application?
MS. NOWICKI-It’s the Short Form. It’s Unlisted.
MR. MAC EWAN-Short Form.
MRS. LA BOMBARD-Okay.
RESOLUTION WHEN DETERMINATION OF NO SIGNIFICANCE IS MADE
RESOLUTION NO. 29-98
, Introduced by Catherine LaBombard who moved for its adoption,
seconded by George Stark:
WHEREAS, there is presently before the Planning Board an application for:
ROBERT & ALICE HAYES
, and
WHEREAS, this Planning Board has determined that the proposed project and Planning Board
action is subject to review under the State Environmental Quality Review Act,
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT
RESOLVED:
1. No Federal agency appears to be involved.
2. The following agencies are involved:
NONE
3. The proposed action considered by this Board is Unlisted in the Department of
Environmental Conservation Regulations implementing the State
Environmental Quality Review Act and the regulations of the Town of
Queensbury.
4. An Environmental Assessment Form has been completed by the applicant.
12
(Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 6/16/98)
5. Having considered and thoroughly analyzed the relevant areas of
environmental concern and having considered the criteria for determining
whether a project has a significant environmental impact as the same is
set forth in Section 617.11 of the Official Compilation of Codes, Rules and
Regulations for the State of New York, this Board finds that the action about
to be undertaken by this Board will have no significant environmental effect
and the Chairman of the Planning Board is hereby authorized to execute and
sign and file as may be necessary a statement of non-significance or a negative
declaration that may be required by law.
th
Duly adopted this 16 day of June, 1998, by the following vote:
AYES: Mr. Ringer, Mr. Brewer, Mr. Paling, Mr. Stark, Mrs. LaBombard,
Mr. Vollaro, Mr. MacEwan
NOES: NONE
MR. MAC EWAN-Does somebody want to make a motion?
MOTION TO APPROVE SITE PLAN NO. 29-98 ROBERT & ALICE HAYES
, Introduced
by Robert Vollaro who moved for its adoption, seconded by Larry Ringer:
To be done in accordance with the resolution prepared by Staff as written, with one additional
stipulation, that the curb cut be approved by New York State Department of Transportation.
Whereas, the Town Planning Board is in receipt of Site Plan No. 29-98 ROBERT & ALICE
HAYES for construction of a 9,298.6 sq. ft. residence and a 900 sq. ft. garage on a 2.59 acre
parcel. Referred by the Zoning Board of Appeals for stormwater management and drainage issues;
and
Whereas, the above mentioned application, received 5/29/98, consists of the following:
1. Application w/stormwater Man. Plan dated 5/27/98
2. Maps - 9814-1, Sheet 1 & 2 dated 4/27/98 revised 5/27/98
Whereas, the above file is supported with the following documentation:
1. 6/16/98 - Staff Notes
2. 6/10/98 - Warren Co. Planning Bd. resolution
3. 6/1/98 - Letter to T. Wardell of LGPC from G. VanAlstyne
4. 6/2/98 - Letter from G. VanAlstyne to T. Wardell of LGPC
5. 6/10/98 - Rist Frost comments
6. 6/15/98 - Fax to W. Levandowski of Rist Frost from G. VanAlstyne
Whereas, a public hearing was held on 6/16/98 concerning the above project; and
Whereas, the Planning Board has determined that the proposal complies with the site plan
requirements of the Code of the Town of Queensbury (Zoning); and
Whereas, the Planning Board has considered the environmental factors found in the Code of the
Town of Queensbury (Zoning); and
Whereas, the requirements of the State Environmental Quality Review Act have been considered;
and
1. The Town Planning Board, after considering the above, hereby moves to APPROVE Site Plan
No. 29-98 ROBERT & ALICE HAYES.
2. The applicant shall present three (3) copies of the above referenced site plan to the Zoning
Administrator for his signature.
3. The Zoning Administrator is hereby authorized to sign the resolution.
4. The applicant agrees to the conditions set forth in this resolution.
13
(Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 6/16/98)
5. The conditions shall be noted on the map.
6. The issuance of permits is conditioned on compliance and continued compliance with the
Zoning Ordinance and site plan approval process.
th
Duly adopted this 16 day of June, 1998, by the following vote:
AYES: Mr. Brewer, Mr. Paling, Mr. Stark, Mrs. LaBombard, Mr. Vollaro,
Mr. Ringer, Mr. MacEwan
NOES: NONE
MR. MAC EWAN-You’re all set.
MR. HAYES-Thanks very much.
MR. MAC EWAN-You’re welcome.
OLD BUSINESS:
SUBDIVISION NO. 5-1997 MODIFICATION MICHAELS GROUP - SURREY FIELDS
OWNER: SAME RR-3A, SFR-1A APPLICANT PROPOSES TO MODIFY EXISTING
SETBACKS OF SURREY FIELDS CLUSTER SUBDIVISION. THE PROPOSAL IS TO
CHANGE THE REAR SETBACK OF TWENTY FEET TO TEN FEET FOR THE
HOME/FOUNDATION AND TO FURTHER REDUCE THE REAR SETBACK TO
THREE FEET FOR PORCHES, DECKS, AND SUNROOMS. CROSS REFERENCE:
AV 17-1997 TAX MAP NO. 48-3-31, 33, 39.1, 39.2, 43, 44
JON LAPPER & JIM MILLER, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT
STAFF INPUT
Notes from Staff, Subdivision No. 5-1997 - Modification, Michael’s Group - Surrey Fields,
Meeting Date: June 16, 1998 “The applicant proposes to modify the setback requirements of an
approved cluster subdivision. The modification is for a ten (10) foot rear setback instead of twenty
for the principal building (home/foundation) and a three (3) foot setback for sunrooms, decks, and
porches. A modification to a cluster subdivision requires Planning Board subdivision review.
Staff is concerned with accessory use/structures with three (3) foot setbacks being available for
additional living space. With additional living space, the issues of septic capacity and distance of
the principal structure to the septic tank distribution box arise. Another concern is the permeability
of each lot. Per the Zoning Ordinance each zone has a permeability requirement.”
MR. MAC EWAN-Is that it?
MS. NOWICKI-That’s it.
MR. MAC EWAN-Good evening.
JOHN MICHAELS
MR. MICHAELS-Good Evening. I’m John Michaels, with the Michaels Group, with Jon Lapper
and Jim Miller. What we’re requesting tonight is a modification of our site plan. The reason we’re
at the Planning Board is because under the Cluster Ordinance, it gives the Planning Board the
ability to make modifications to the existing zoning, as you all might remember this, when we got
this cluster, was one acre and three acre zoning, and was modified to this site plan. The
modification that we’re requesting is we propose a 20 foot rear yard setback. We’d like to reduce
that to 10, and then on screened porches or decks, reduce that to three. The reasons behind this is,
in designing the all master bedroom down concept, in doing our marketing, we intended it as an
empty nester development, but the marketing has really come through. We’re going to have some
units that might have been for maybe, you know, a young professional, but every unit in the
subdivision is going to be designed with the master bedroom down. By the time you get your living
room and your kitchen and your garage, the depth is a little bit larger. The reason, on the screened
porches we’ve also found there’s a lot of requests for them. Even if we don’t build them, we think
that there’ll be a lot of trips to the ZBA if we don’t try to at least deal with this issue now, because
we think there’s going to be a demand for that. So we’re trying to get those two things cleared up
14
(Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 6/16/98)
at the same time. Jim’s going to go over the site plan, but when he does, just a few points. This
property is going to be all maintained by the homeowners association, including the lawns. So the
only people that will really ever see what we’re going to do here tonight, if we’re able to
accomplish this, is really the people that we see on the maps. The rear yards won’t change.
They’re going to be much larger than what’s on this map. They’re going to have access to the
common area. It’s all going to be mowed by one mower at the same time. It’s all going to be
fertilized at one time. There’s not going to be any stakes. There’s no ability to put up fencing. So
if we could build the site and go out and walk it and be indistinguishable where this property line
is, is the common maintenance, and I think that’s what, you know, the reason we’re in for this
request is it’s really just, really more for building permits, and to keep people out of here, in the
future, ZBA, trying to build decks or something, when the lot just really won’t allow it, but it is all
going to be commonly maintained. We have still 1.7 acres in green space per unit. Every lot in the
subdivision, except one, backs up to common space. At least 50 feet more, there’s no lots back to
back, and Jim’s going to address the permeability and the septic tank issue.
MR. MILLER-Good evening. For the record, Jim Miller. If you may recall, this is a map of the
overall subdivision, and the area that John was talking about includes all that homeowners
association land to the rear, as well as around all of the lots. This is the modified plan that we, this
is a modified plan that shows the lots that we’re talking about, and one of the important things that
John mentioned is that if you look at all of these lots, all of them back onto homeowners
association property, including this area called the Village Green, with the exception of Lot
Number One, which ended up on the corner, and Lot Number One we’re not looking to modify
that. We’re only looking to modify the rear lot lines where they open onto the homeowners space.
There’s two lots where we actually come fairly close to adjoining properties, Lot 43 and Lot 20,
and we’re not changing those. So what’ll happen is we have a 10 foot minimum green space that’s
owned by the homeowners association, plus we’ll maintain the existing 10 foot setback we had. So
we’re not going to, this would not have any impact on any of the adjoining homeowners. The
detailed map we showed, what we did is we picked four lots in the corner. We picked these four
because it shows that corner situation, and then what we did is we drew the floor plans of some of
the units, to show what, you know, how these would be situated. These four are typical of the
plans that they have, and you can see that the average length of the basement area of the building
was around 53 to 54 feet, and the original setbacks allowed for a 50 foot building envelope. So the
first thing, we’re not modifying the front or the sides. What’s happens, and the garage to the front
and the master bedroom downstairs, the units are just longer than originally anticipated. So the
first thing we’re looking at is that, the main building setback would be 10 feet, instead of the
original 20 that was approved, and this is similar to, you know, the MR-5 zones, 10 foot rear
setback, which Cedar Court next door, so, you know, it’s not an unusual setback for this situation,
and then what we’ve also added on is we’ve shown some of the options where there may be a
screened porch or a deck. These would be either a pier foundation or slab on grade foundation.
That would be an add on off of the dining room or off of the eat in kitchen, and some people may
opt for that, and that would extend into that area, and that was where we were suggesting a second
line that would be three feet. Staff’s comments, one was dealt with, the living space, you know,
what we’ve done, we’ve really looked at a maximum build out in these setbacks, is that these
screened porches, it may be a screened porch, it may be a sun room, and that would be the
maximum expansion. So they’re not going to come back, and, you know, want to add on again off
of their sunroom. Maybe there would be a little side porch or something to come off of that, but it
would be minimal. What we’re looking at is what’s going to be allowed, and, you know, under the
homeowners association, as a maximum build out. The other comment dealt with separations from
septic tanks and leach fields, and the Health Department requires certain separations from
structures for these, and we don’t see there’s going to be a problem to modify this, and the reason
being, you know, it’s 10 feet to the septic tank and 20 feet to the leach field is the requirements.
Because the porch addition is sort of a localized, it’s going to be like a 12 by 12 deck, there’s going
to be plenty of room for the sides, for the septic tank and the original concept was all the leach
fields were located to the rear of the homeowners association land. So the rear separation
requirement is with the septic tank, and we’re not going to have a problem, and we’re not asking
for any relief from the setbacks from the Health Department. The other question dealt with
permeability. What we did is we looked at these four units, and these lots average about 7,000 to
7,300 square feet. With the building coverage, you put in the porches and decks, a driveway and a
walkway, we end up with a permeability of the lots of about 60%, and that doesn’t include the 1.3
acres of common HOA space that is included in the project. So we feel the typical permeability
requirement’s at 40%. So we feel we can do that. The other concern, we went back and looked at
the storm drainage calculations and the square footages of impermeable space on each lot is
consistent with what the stormwater management report called for. So it would have no impact on
storm drainage.
15
(Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 6/16/98)
MR. MICHAELS-Could I just add one thing on this map, because it looks like on this map, maybe
when I explained it, it wasn’t clear. These lot lines, although they’re here, this area, this is the area
talked about before that will be mowed altogether, and fertilized altogether. These lot lines will
really, they’ll be on the plot plan somewhere. They’ll be on a mortgage somewhere, but for
purposes of ever seeing the subdivision, you’ll never know where these are. It’ll follow the, we
don’t allow the fencing. It will follow this little common area out back. Sometimes these lines
make it look, you know, they will be there from a legal sense, but from a practical sense, they’ll be
non-existent.
MR. BREWER-Well, then why don’t you move the lines back 10 feet rather than encroaching on
them?
MR. MICHAELS-Well, we did consider that, and there was a discussion of, you know, what is the
best alternative. One is moving it back 10 feet. Again, no one would ever know, really, the
difference, except the filed map, but what it would do is put some of the leach fields in on private
property. It could be done with easements to maintain them, but we thought it would be cleaner to
keep with the plan, and keep the whole septic system in common area, if it ever had to be dug up.
That was really the real issue. These areas have been graded for the leach fields.
MR. BREWER-I don’t follow you. The leach fields would be on private property?
MR. MICHAELS-No. The leach fields are on common property, common area now. If you move
the lot lines back, some of them would be on private property.
MR. MAC EWAN-Maintenance to the leach fields is done by the homeowners association.
MR. MICHAELS-That’s correct. So the idea was, that way we could keep the whole leach field in
the homeowners association property, rather than half and half, not that it couldn’t be done with
easements and cross easements, but it was more from the practical sense, that you keep the septic
tanks on the private lot, (lost words) to maintain that, and then keep the leach field on the common
area, that they would be maintained by their. There actually, there is plenty of room there to do
what you suggest. We did consider that. We just thought the trade off of having the septic field on
there, all on one ownership, would be more beneficial, and that way we don’t have to get into more
clearing to move the septic fields back, which is something else that we had considered.
MR. BREWER-I called Laura today and asked about the Planning Board having authority to make
adjustments to lot lines and what not. I didn’t speak to Chris. He was on the phone, but I did talk
to Jeff Friedland, and in my mind, I’m still not clear. I’m going to ask Mark. I read this again
tonight, and I still don’t see how we have authority to change, in other words, I think this is a ZBA
issue with the setbacks.
MR. SCHACHNER-I mean, it’s not crystal clear, but because it’s a cluster subdivision, the
language about Planning Board authority to look at lot coverage, lot sizes, and things like that, can
be interpreted to give the Planning Board the authority to deal with the setback issue as well, and
that’s true under State law also. It’s not crystal clear. It’s clearly not written, I shouldn’t say
clearly. It’s not written as clearly as it could be. It does not specifically state that setback is one of
the issues that the Planning Board can vary in the cluster subdivision, but it does say the lot sizes
are, and that’s consistent, just so you know, the origin of this authority is a New York State
Statute, part of a New York State Town Law that allows towns to authorize cluster subdivisions,
and that State Statute also doesn’t specifically state that setback is one of the things the Planning
Board can vary, but it certainly doesn’t say it can’t. It’s a bit of a gray area. We’re comfortable
with the Planning Board taking this authority, if the Staff is comfortable with it. Did you have a
chance to look and see if it happened in the past?
MR. ROUND-There’s not a consistent record from previous approvals, but it has been performed
before, and the project applicant approached our office, and we gave them the indication it was our
determination that the Planning Board does have that authority, that clustering allows for, and I
guess creative, encourages innovations in residential balance so that growing demands for housing
on all economic levels may be met, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah. Clustering is, in concept, allows
for greater flexibility in subdivision design, and setbacks is one of those things that goes along with
that.
MR. LAPPER-Can I point out the language that I’m relying on in the Code? In 179-49, Review of
Site Plan, the proposed site plan including areas within which structures.
16
(Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 6/16/98)
MR. BREWER-Where are you?
MR. LAPPER-179-49, the end of the first line, including areas within which structures may be
located. That’s what I’m looking at to define setback. It’s the building envelope, areas within
which structures may be located on the lot, is within your ability to modify.
MR. BREWER-Well, I’m just uncomfortable with putting buildings or setbacks that close to the
lot line, in my own personal opinion.
MR. SCHACHNER-Now, wait, that’s a separate issue. I mean, we’re not sitting here saying you
have to approve it.
MR. BREWER-Right. I agree with you, and I’m separating that.
MR. SCHACHNER-Okay.
MR. BREWER-I’m just, I understand what you’re saying. I’m still not convinced, although
you’re saying that we have the authority to do it, doesn’t necessarily mean I have to agree with it.
MR. SCHACHNER-Correct, and in fact, again, I want to emphasize, it’s not black/white. I
mean, the statement that the applicant’s counsel refers to.
MR. LAPPER-179-49.
MR. SCHACHNER-The statement that the applicant’s counsel referred to says, the proposed site
plan, then it lists, as he says, a bunch of different things, including this, this, this, and this shall be
subject to review and public hearing by the Planning Board. Again, and in our opinion it’s a gray
area, that does not clearly state the Planning Board has the authority to vary setback. No place is
that clearly stated. No place is it clearly stated otherwise. It’s just not clearly stated. If a majority
of the Planning Board felt that this was a ZBA issue, I wouldn’t stand in your way sending it to the
ZBA, but what I’m sitting here saying is that, looking at not only the Queensbury Zoning
Ordinance in particular, but New York State’s Statutes in general about cluster, we are not
uncomfortable with the Planning Board using that authority.
MR. ROUND-If you think of townhouse developments or condominium developments, zero
setbacks are incorporated into the design, and that’s under clustering and under condominium
sections of our Ordinance, and that’s not relief. We typically don’t go in an ask for zero setback
relief from the Zoning Board to issue.
MR. BREWER-But as I recall, zero setbacks, I’m using, I don’t know the name of the
development, but I believe they came in and got a variance for zero setbacks, maybe not. Over
here off of Bay.
MR. ROUND-I can’t speak specifically to that particular instance, but the historical record in
Queensbury is not clear, as would be expected, but there have been instances where clustered
subdivisions, where they’ve come in for several lots within a whole subdivision for variances for
just select lots, and this is more consistent with the complete design, so that we felt it was
appropriate for the Planning Board to address it, and again, it was my determination, and that’s
why I referred it to the Planning Board, instead of the Zoning Board, and I’ll let the applicant
speak, I guess.
MR. RINGER-I have no questions, but I don’t have any objections to it, though, either. I think the
plan is good the way it is.
MR. VOLLARO-I have a couple of comments. First, I’m uncomfortable with a three foot setback,
but I also would like to talk a little bit about the setback of the sunroom. I see the deck, and I see
the porch.
MR. LAPPER-The deck and the sunroom are the same thing.
MR. VOLLARO-Not in my mind. They’re clearly distinct. I mean, a sunroom can be built up to
a living space. A living space year round, with solar radiation, heat and so on. So you really are
coming up with a potential living space when you talk about a sunroom, that’s a feeling that I have
on it. The other thing, taking up where Mark just gave us some direction here, if he’s saying that
we’ve got, in a sense, the authority to move these lot lines around, then if he’s correct in that
17
(Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 6/16/98)
statement, we could move these buildings forward, enough not to have three foot sitting on the
backs of the line. Now, I don’t know, Mark, am I right?
MR. SCHACHNER-Yes, the premise is correct, and again, I want to stress one thing that I don’t
think I did stress. The only reason you arguably have this kind of authority is because it’s a cluster
subdivision. I want to make sure we’re all clear on that.
MR. VOLLARO-I understand that. That’s clear.
MR. SCHACHNER-No cluster, you can’t mess with this stuff. It’s a ZBA issue, but, yes, if we
take the premise that you have that authority, then certainly you would have the authority to,
you’re not bound to approve what’s proposed, then you have flexibility to push the thing around.
MR. BREWER-But didn’t they get a variance to get this to be a clustered subdivision?
MR. ROUND-They did. This particular property is zoned both SFR-1A and RR-3A, and the
SFR-1A doesn’t specifically allow clustering. Whether that was a conscious effort on the part of
the authors of this Code, I can’t say, but they did get a variance to allow that to occur.
MR. BREWER-So it’s a variance on part of it. Part of it they were allowed.
MR. ROUND-That’s right.
MR. VOLLARO-But the variance still applies. We’re operating under the cluster concept here.
MR. BREWER-Right.
MR. MAC EWAN-I guess I don’t get where you’re going with whether it’s a difference if it’s a
sunroom, a deck or a three season porch. What’s the difference?
MR. VOLLARO-Because I think a sunroom has the potential of being closed in and being used as
a year round living space, and I feel that that, my own opinion anyway, a porch or a deck is
something that you’d probably only use in the summer.
MR. MAC EWAN-I don’t get where you’re going with it, though. If you built a porch and it was
a three season porch, and you use it three seasons of the year, and you don’t use it in the dead of
winter, what’s the difference? I don’t understand.
MR. BREWER-More available living space, I think is what he’s trying to say.
MR. VOLLARO-I’ve seen sunrooms on backs of houses that are literally extensions of the living
space of the house.
MR. MAC EWAN-That’s what a porch is.
MR. VOLLARO-Well, we might differ on that, as to what the contents of a deck, a porch and a
sunroom is.
MR. MICHAELS-What they’re backed up to, again, each owner would own one undivided share
in the property behind them. So that’s the only thing. It’s not like it’s another neighbor behind
them who wouldn’t want them using that in the winter. I know what you’re saying. It’s hard to
distinguish between a sunroom and a.
MR. MAC EWAN-The other side that makes this a little bit different, though, is that it’s a
homeowners association. So you’ll never have another home backing up to that property line.
MR. VOLLARO-That’s true.
MR. BREWER-But on the same hand, though, Craig, the next time that a clustered subdivision
comes it, that necessarily doesn’t have an HOA behind them, they may very well want to do the
same thing.
MR. MAC EWAN-And we may very well say no. We might very well say yes.
MR. BREWER-Well, that’s what I’m thinking of down the road. We’re setting a precedent.
18
(Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 6/16/98)
MR. MAC EWAN-I don’t see that we’re setting a precedent, if we take every application as an
individual.
MR. BREWER-You have your right to your opinion. I have mine.
MR. MAC EWAN-Thank you very much.
MRS. LA BOMBARD-I just have a question as far as, what if you want to landscape around your
screened porch? What happens if some bushes, because you don’t want to plant stuff right against
the structure. What happens if some shrubs or some bushes go a little bit off onto that
homeowners association land.
MR. LAPPER-It’s only onto homeowners property, homeowners association property, which is
going to be maintained by the contractor.
MR. MICHAELS-They would have to get approval from the HOA.
MRS. LA BOMBARD-I see. See, it just seems like, just looking at this, that all that land behind
those homes is basically going to be like an extension of their back yards, but there is the
technicality there like, for example, if I wanted to put a little brick paver walkway around my
screened porch and the arch comes out a little bit more than that three feet, I mean, we’re pretty
tight there, and maybe the homeowners association will say, well, you know, Lot Number 42 has
more homeowners association land behind it, and Lot Number 43 doesn’t, and therefore, you know,
we can’t do it with one lot, but we can with another, or I’m just using that as being the Devil’s
advocate here. Why don’t you just give them an extension of the boundary and move the septic
systems back?
MR. LAPPER-What John said is that in some places that would require knocking down more
trees, and we’re trying to keep it as natural.
MR. BREWER-Then move the houses forward.
MRS. LA BOMBARD-No, you can’t. You’d need at least a 30 foot setback.
MR. MICHAELS-This line, again, I know it does look, to me, the first time I saw it, I wish we
could have rendered it without this line, because it’s like Catherine said, it’s going to feel like their
back yard.
MRS. LA BOMBARD-Yes. I just would hope that it becomes a very amicable group, and, you
know, you think of all the positive things, and that no animosity ever develops because, you know,
I just think three feet is tight.
MR. MICHAELS-It does also, though, give the homeowners association a lot better control over
fences, sheds, accessory uses, because if they want to do anything, they’re going to have to talk to
the HOA.
MRS. LA BOMBARD-Yes.
MR. VOLLARO-John, do you have an Offering Plan on Surrey Fields you have put together?
MR. MICHAELS-We have a draft, yes.
MR. VOLLARO-I know. I work with one of those. I understand the problem, because in there,
this issue, in the Offering Plan, it should be addressed. So when somebody sits down to buy one of
these, they know very clearly what the situation, and they do have to go to the Board of Directors
for being able to do what Cathy’s saying, plant around the screen or stepping over that invisible
line.
MR. MICHAELS-What we could do on that, there is a special risk section, and we would be glad
to incorporate that in there, to make sure it’s clear to the homeowners, if we could do it this way.
MR. VOLLARO-Lets just explore one thing. What is the problem with moving this, the buildings
a little bit forward? Is it strictly aesthetic problems?
19
(Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 6/16/98)
MR. MICHAELS-It’s strictly aesthetics. I mean, it’s not, we’d be open to some input there, a
little bit farther forward. Again, I don’t think anyone would ever know that, that you did that,
though, when you go to the back yard, because when it’s all mowed the same, you know, when you
drive around the street, you’ll probably know that we moved them forward a little bit, but if it’s
done this way, no one would ever know that we made a concession in the back yard.
MR. VOLLARO-The only problem I have, and I tend to hang with Tim on this a little bit, is the
precedent setting, and I’m listening to both members of my Board talk here, my Chairman and a
fellow member, saying that, the Chairman says, look, we take each one of these things on an
individual, so there’s no precedent setting. We look at each one, but I can see Tim’s point as well,
that there is some, we’re getting pretty close here, and, you know, three feet is close, in my opinion,
and it could very well be said, in the future, well, Surrey Fields got three feet, why can’t we. You
talk about level playing fields, and that’s (lost words).
MR. MICHAELS-Yes. I guess that the only, the trade off we made in going this way was the
leach fields being on common property. That’s really the only hindrance.
MR. MILLER-I think the unique thing about this project, that even if it is setting precedents is
that, you know, there’s 73 acres of commonly owned green space that all these lots back onto, and
you may never see another project like this, and if somebody else comes in and has 100 foot of
homeowners association green space, behind the lots, maybe they should be entitled to have lesser
setbacks, and the other thing is the type of housing this is, for empty nesters, is really a low
maintenance. All of the fronts are maintained. So, you know, it’s not the typical single family
residence, you know, where you’re going to have playground equipment and all these other things
in the back yard. Mostly what they’re going to do is have that deck overlooking these meadows.
MR. VOLLARO-Let me ask a question. In the Offering Plan, does the potential buyer just own
the footprint?
MR. MICHAELS-No. The potential buyer owns the lot.
MR. VOLLARO-He does own the lot?
MR. MICHAELS-Actually owns the lot, but doesn’t maintain it. We cut the driveway, shovel the
driveway, and do the walks, the Association does.
MR. MAC EWAN-No SEQRA to re-visit. Does someone want to make a motion? The motion’s
as written, if you want to follow it. You also want to put in there, the Planning Board has
determined there’s no significant change to the subdivision modification, and further finds there’s
no significant change to the original SEQRA findings. We have no public hearing, but we’ll take
some public comment if you want to.
BOB PALING
MR. PALING-I’m Bob Paling. I live in the adjacent subdivision on Cedar Court, south of this
subdivision. I’m surprised, and I don’t understand why there wasn’t a public hearing in this case.
I think as you can tell by the questions and comments by the Board members, I think there should
have been, but I took it upon myself to go to the neighbors in Cedar Court, living near me, to talk
about this, and I was mainly concerned with the aesthetics of it, and they, nor myself, are
concerned with the aesthetics of this. However, we are very concerned with runoff water. The
statement was made by the applicant that there would be less water runoff into Cedar Court when
this subdivision was built as compared to what there is now. There’s a very sensitive area here.
This is my house right here. This whole area in here had to be modified by the Michaels Group.
They had to dig a ditch, put a perforated pipe and what not in there, and re-grade it, so that the
runoff would be in this direction out, and it’s working, but it’s damp and can be very spongy, but
it’s acceptable, but if we have any additional runoff here, it’s going to mess this up and it will not
be acceptable. It’ll be a pond. So I’d like that taken into consideration, when you talk about the
increase roof space and so on.
MR. VOLLARO-What’s the topography lines look like there? Which way is the slope?
MR. MICHAELS-There’s a retention basin here, that takes the water. It does drop off this way,
but right now, with the rains that we’ve got. Right now, the site is pretty much graded, and there’s
no grass at all, and the catch basins are not working on the road, because the of (lost words) up
there. So any water we get right now is probably the worst condition we’ve had. With the rain
20
(Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 6/16/98)
we’ve had, it’s either that it’s even acceptable is surprising. Because really we’re not taking
advantage of any of the drywells within the subdivision at all, until we get paved, and again, there’s
no grass. So all the water that hits the dirt just runs. So right now we’re at the worst runoff
conditions we’re going to see, when we’re built out. So I think we’re going to do what Tom Nace
said he did, what the engineer did, is take care of the runoff.
MR. PALING-And the area behind the house, it seems okay now, with the runoff he’s referring to.
MR. MILLER-One of the things, Bob, I’d like to add, we didn’t bring the topographic maps, we
didn’t know we were going to discuss drainage. The existing drainage channel, natural channel
that came across the site and down, it actually comes through here, where we have some green
space, and came down along the back of the lot to the area that Mr. Paling is talking about. In the
design, what we did is we took this area and collected this water into our storm drainage system
and brought it down into our detention basin, and released it, and it goes down below Cedar Court,
and it was because of that re-routing of a large portion of the site, which is why the storm drainage
was going to be decreased, was made in the original application.
MR. MAC EWAN-Bob, your concern is that, for potential more runoff? I don’t get how it fits in
with this. I mean, if we have only these smaller setbacks, that’s going to help your cause over
there, because they couldn’t build as big a roof on porches or build as big a porch, if they had a
normal setback.
MR. BREWER-You’re bringing it closer to them, though.
MR. PALING-Additional building size will mean there’s less for water to get into, not by much,
but the additional roof area. I think they’ve got it all right, too, and I don’t see where there’s (lost
words), but if that space back there starts to become a puddle or a pond, we’ve advised Michaels
Group before, and I’ll re-advise them again, that we’ll be after them. I hope it doesn’t, and I don’t
think it will, from what they say, and it doesn’t right now. So, I don’t think that’s a problem, but if
it is, then we would have recourse for them to come back and correct it. Now the only other two
things I would comment on is that I think I heard the terms “lot line” and “lot size” referred to.
There is no lot line change. There is no lot size change. They are expanding the area of the
building, within the same lot, and lot lines are not effected by this, and the other thing is that the
build out is going to be tempting, and I agree with Cathy’s comments completely, to build
something out back there a little bit, and that should be a deed restriction, and very plainly written
in the Offering, because I know about it, and you can bet the people in Cedar Court are going to
know about it, because now you could affect aesthetics if they decide to build back on common
property, which is going to be a temptation. We don’t object to what they’re doing now, from the
aesthetic standpoint, and I hope we don’t object from the runoff standpoint, but if later on, all of a
sudden the homeowners association says, well, a few feet isn’t going to matter, well, it might not
matter to them but it might matter to us. Thank you.
MR. MAC EWAN-Thank you. That’s a good question for Staff. If we were to present a motion
to approve, and tying that into that they don’t build into the common areas without approval of the
homeowners, some sort of wording in the homeowners, how does that get tied into an approval that
we would do, and how do we police it?
MR. ROUND-Yes. I’d hesitate to go there, but that was a valid concern that was raised, and
we’ve gotten calls from other community environments where there is community space, that
people encroach upon the homeowners association lands, and they call us to look for enforcement,
and the same thing with deed restrictions. It’s not unique, and all we can do is instruct the
applicant to do the best job they can, informing homeowners what the restrictions are on their site.
MR. VOLLARO-Well, he has a risk area, I understand. Is there a risk area in your Offering Plan?
MR. MICHAELS-We could identify that.
MR. VOLLARO-He said he would identify that in the risk area.
MR. ROUND-I’d encourage that.
MR. MICHAELS-And we’ll give you a copy of that.
21
(Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 6/16/98)
MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. Anything else up here? We had a motion that we were starting to put
on the table. Why don’t you re-introduce it. Can we do that? Did we get far enough along that
you felt that we introduced a motion?
MR. SCHACHNER-Did anyone second it?
MR. MAC EWAN-No.
MR. SCHACHNER-Then you haven’t done much damage.
MR. MAC EWAN-Go ahead. Re-introduce it.
MOTION TO APPROVE MODIFICATIONS TO SUBDIVISION NO. 5-1997,
MICHAELS GROUP - SURREY FIELD
, Introduced by George Stark who moved for its
adoption, seconded by Catherine LaBombard:
As written, and the Planning Board has determined that there is no significant change in the
modification to change the original SEQRA findings, and the applicant will add that risk into their
Offering Plan.
Whereas, the Town Planning Board is in receipt of a modification to Subdivision No. 5-1997,
Michaels Group - Surrey Field to change the rear setback of twenty feet to ten feet for the
home/foundation and to further reduce the setback to three feet for porches, decks, and sunrooms;
and
Whereas, the above mentioned application, received 5/27/98 , consists of the following:
1. 5/27/98 - Letter to C. MacEwan from J. Lapper
2. Maps - M-1 dated 5/26/98, SP-2 dated 4/27/98 revised 5/27/98
Whereas, the above file is supported with the following documentation:
1. 6/16/98 - Staff Notes
Whereas, a public hearing was not held for the modification; and
Whereas, the Planning Board has determined that the proposal complies with the site plan
requirements of the Code of the Town of Queensbury (Zoning); and
Whereas, the Planning Board has considered the environmental factors found in the Code of the
Town of Queensbury (Zoning); and
Whereas, the requirements of the State Environmental Quality Review Act have been considered;
and
1. The Town Planning Board, after considering the above, hereby moves to Approve the
Modification to Subdivision No. 5-1997, Michaels Group - Surrey Field.
2. The applicant agrees to the conditions set forth in this resolution.
3. The conditions shall be noted on the map.
6. The issuance of permits is conditioned on compliance and continued compliance with the
Zoning Ordinance and site plan approval process.
Duly adopted this 16th day of June, 1998, by the following vote:
MR. ROUND-And prior to the introduction that there was no public hearing. We discussed the
impacts, most of the impacts were to common space, and we didn’t feel that there was a significant
change in what was approved previously. So it was at our discretion whether it was a significant
modification or not, and I know there may be differing opinions, but that was our opinion at the
time it was presented to us. There’s nothing in our Ordinance which addresses modification, the
modification procedure, and so it’s something that we deal with every time, how significant is the
change to the project.
22
(Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 6/16/98)
MR. RINGER-The last part of that, I’m not.
MR. MAC EWAN-It’s a standard boilerplate, when you make a modification to a site plan.
MR. RINGER-No. I meant.
MR. SCHACHNER-No, he means the risk putting.
MR. RINGER-The thing into the Offering Plan.
MR. MAC EWAN-The applicant is going to put in his Offering Plan to the Homeowners
Association, regarding building within the Homeowners Association area.
MR. RINGER-What benefit do we have of that? I mean, it’s nothing we could enforce anyway, is
it?
MR. BREWER-No.
MR. RINGER-I don’t see putting something in that we couldn’t.
MR. ROUND-No, it’s not, but hopefully it will alleviate us from receiving calls from those
individuals that aren’t well informed, or haven’t read their Offering Plan real close.
MR. MAC EWAN-It’s guaranteeing that people will be better informed.
MR. MICHAELS-We’re going to put it in the most noticeable section, not bury it back.
MR. RINGER-I just hate to put something in that we just can’t enforce, but I’m for the proposal,
but I just don’t like to add stuff to it that I don’t feel is necessary, but it’s just a question.
MR. MAC EWAN-I see where he’s going.
MR. SCHACHNER-Yes. I don’t know if this makes Mr. Ringer more comfortable or not, but I
would suggest that one of the functions the Board serves is, in essence, to be looking out for future
purchasers, and to the extent, you’re correct, that the particular thing you’re talking about is not
something that the Town would enforce, but since part of your role is to essential try to protect
future purchasers as well, by imposing this additional requirement, which the applicant evidently
has no problem with, you would be, at least arguably, protecting those future purchasers, because
the applicant would be putting this information in that document, in a relatively prominent place,
and hopefully people, therefore, won’t be violating that particular restriction. I don’t know if that
makes you more comfortable or not, but you have the authority to seek that, even though, you’re
correct, it’s not something that, ultimately, the Town might enforce.
MR. BREWER-It’s like putting a warning label on a pack of cigarettes. There’s nothing you can
do about it, but it’s there.
MR. MAC EWAN-Okay, Larry?
MR. RINGER-I’m fine.
AYES: Mr. Stark, Mrs. LaBombard, Mr. Vollaro, Mr. Ringer, Mr. MacEwan
NOES: Mr. Brewer
ABSENT: Mr. Paling
MR. MAC EWAN-You’re all set.
MR. STARK-Craig, O’Connor, I don’t see O’Connor, well, we can wait to do Knox, I mean, but,
what are we doing with this, push O’Connor back to Thursday?
MR. MAC EWAN-Next Tuesday, I’m going to ask to put it on next Tuesday’s agenda.
MR. STARK-Next Tuesday’s, okay.
23
(Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 6/16/98)
SUBDIVISION NO. 6-1998 SKETCH PLAN TYPE: UNLISTED PAUL KNOX, III
OWNER: SAME ZONE: WR-1A LOCATION: BAY PARKWAY RD. APPLICANT
PROPOSES TO SUBDIVIDE LOT 1 OF THE SUNSET HILL FARM SUBDIVISION
INTO TWO LOTS OF 3.85 AC. AND 1.00 ACRES. TAX MAP NO. 7-1-16.1 LOT SIZE:
4.98 ACRES SECTION: SUBDIVISION REGULATIONS
PAUL KNOX, PRESENT
MRS. LA BOMBARD-And there is no public hearing scheduled at the Sketch Plan stage.
STAFF INPUT
Notes from Staff, Subdivision No. 6-1998 - Sketch Plan, Meeting Date: June 16, 1998 “The
applicant proposes a two lot subdivision of a lot from an approved subdivision - Sunset Hill Farm.
The applicant met with staff prior to submission of the proposal. The Zoning Administrator’s
letter to the applicant addresses the review of this proposal under sketch plan. The proposal meets
the Town Subdivision Requirements Chapter A183.”
MS. NOWICKI-Do you want me to read the letter in? Okay. From the Town of Queensbury,
“Dear Mr. Knox: You have submitted an application for subdivision of Lot 1 of the approved 7 lot
subdivision entitled Sunset Hill Farm. The question is further subdivision of Sunset Hill Farm
restricted by previously issued approvals. I have reviewed the minutes for the Planning Board
meetings and associated resolutions relating to the sketch, preliminary, and final approvals for
Sunset Hill Farm Subdivision (Subdivision 11-1991). I have also reviewed the documents
associated with the subsequent modification of the subdivision and the filed subdivision map dated
May 22, 1992 and signed by the Planning Board Chairman July 22, 1993. I offer the following
information. Proposed Subdivision Lot 1 is noted as Lot 1A and Lot 1B on the referenced plat,
and the proposed subdivision is a division of Lot 1A to create a 1 acre building lot and an
approximately 4 acre parcel consisting of the remaining portion of Lot 1A as combined with sublot
1B. Historical Background Sunset Hill Farm is located on Assembly Point in the Town of
Queensbury with road frontage on Knox Road and to a lesser extent Assembly Point Road. The
sketch plan approval resolution dated January 21, 1992 relating to the then ten (10) lot subdivision
indicated “No further subdivision of the lots” as a provision of the approval. The final approval
for the ten lot subdivision was issued June 23, 1992 and incorporated the sketch plan provision by
reference. It should be noted that much discussion occurred regarding the ten lot subdivision.
Discussions included (but were not limited to) effects on the character of the neighborhood,
suitability of the sites for siting wells and septic, clearing limits, lengths of driveways, alternative
designs incorporating an internal roadway. The subsequent modification approval dated June 15,
1993 reduced the subdivision to a seven (7) lot subdivision. Determination On the basis of the
information reviewed and as presented in this letter it is my determination the subdivision of Lot 1
is not prohibited by the historical resolutions of record. Sketch plan approvals are
recommendations to a project applicant. Additionally, the recommendation no further subdivision
be allowed could be interpreted as a recommendation to the ten lot subdivision and therefore not
directly related to the further subdivision of the subsequently approved seven lot subdivision. Our
office will place the proposed subdivision of Lot 1A on the Planning Board agenda for June. You
will be notified of the meeting date in the near future.”
MR. MAC EWAN-Is that it?
MS. NOWICKI-Yes.
MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. The first question I’ve got is before we went on site visits last week, I
asked that copies of the minutes of that meeting regarding that prior subdivision approval be given
to all the members of the Board, no one received them. Do we know why?
MR. RINGER-We just got them.
MR. VOLLARO-I haven’t had a chance to read them.
MR. MAC EWAN-They were supposed to be in the packets delivered to us, and we’re getting
them tonight.
MR. ROUND-I don’t know why.
MR. MAC EWAN-Good evening. Would you identify yourself for the record, please.
24
(Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 6/16/98)
MR. KNOX-Paul Knox, and I own land on Assembly Point, and the reason I’m here is that I’d like
permission to subdivide Lot Number One into two lots, one being a one acre lot, and the other
being a four acre lot.
MR. BREWER-We don’t have a copy of that resolution, Craig, of 1/21/92?
MR. MAC EWAN-On your map, says Paul Knox, the area to be conveyed is one acre, 1.08 acres.
Is that the lot we’re referring to?
MR. KNOX-Right. The surveyor labeled it that, I’m sure, because I told him that I had plans to
sell that particular property on the Harris Bay side of Assembly Point.
MR. PALING-How do you identify that? What lot is the one that’s identified as one acre? 1A?
1B?
MR. KNOX-It’s part of 1A and 1B. It’s part of 1A.
MR. PALING-All right. It’s Part of 1A. Then what is the 3.85 acres? How do you identify that?
Well, it’s referred to in two different places.
MR. KNOX-That’s what would be, well, you would hopefully have a one acre lot and a 3.85 acre
lot.
MR. MAC EWAN-This is the original 4.85 acres that was not to be further subdivided as previous
subdivision approval. Now you’re suggesting that you want to do a two lot subdivision, retaining
the 3.85 for himself and selling the 1.0 to whomever.
MR. KNOX-Right.
MR. PALING-I understand that. I’ll go back to my question. I’ll refer to Chris Round’s letter to
you. It says proposed subdivision. Well, I want to know, I want to mark on my map 1A and 1B.
Tell me where to mark it. Because you’re referring to it in letters, but not on the print.
MR. ROUND-Yes. I know. It was on the original plan. That’s why I know. Is this the drawing
that you have?
MR. PALING-I think so, yes.
MR. ROUND-Okay, and this lot on the south side, this (lost word) is 1A, and then this one was
1B.
MR. PALING-So this whole thing here is 1B?
MR. ROUND-This whole thing north of the road is 1B, and 1A, when I was describing it, to make
sure we knew what we were all talking about, is that he’s subdividing the 1A portion of Lot 1.
This is all one lot.
MR. PALING-Okay. So then he’s subdividing the part across the street?
MR. ROUND-Right.
MR. PALING-Now, was this originally one lot? That’s what it indicates on here.
MR. VOLLARO-It was one of seven.
MR. ROUND-Correct. That was Lot One of a seven lot subdivision.
MR. PALING-Okay. Then give me the identifying numbers of it, as he wishes to do it. So far,
there should be a 1A and a 1C.
MR. BREWER-B.
MR. PALING-There’s going to be three lots resulting. Well, that’s what he just said.
25
(Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 6/16/98)
MR. ROUND-No, it’s still going to be.
MS. NOWICKI-There’s a land hook between, right now, there’s a land hook across the road. So
it’s one lot currently.
MR. PALING-Are you looking at this? Yes? That is one lot.
MS. NOWICKI-That is one lot that crosses the road.
MR. PALING-Right.
MR. KNOX-I think that’s why they labeled it 1A, 1B, north and south of Knox Road.
MR. PALING-1A is being divided into two lots.
MR. ROUND-This is all one lot, okay. For identification purposes, it’s identified as 1A and 1B,
instead of all one lot.
MR. PALING-Fine, this is 1A and that’s 1B.
MR. ROUND-So now they’re proposing a 1 acre lot here, and this lot will still be Lot One.
You’re only creating two lots.
MR. PALING-So there is no lot line where this is shown.
MR. ROUND-Correct.
MR. PALING-All right. So this is the whole lot. This is the whole thing here. All right.
MR. VOLLARO-Just for clarification, the top lot is all 1B?
MR. ROUND-Correct.
MR. VOLLARO-So that’s 1B. The bottom is 1A and 1A?
MR. PALING-You just said this is all one lot.
MR. ROUND-This is all Lot One. This whole lot is Lot One, and they’re proposing a one lot
subdivision, or two lot subdivision. This will be a lot, and this would be a lot.
MR. PALING-All right. Now, you’ve explained it two different ways, but now you’re back to the
way I understand it to be. This here, is one lot on both sides of the road.
MR. ROUND-Correct.
MR. PALING-And this is the other lot right here?
MR. ROUND-Correct, proposed, that’s proposed.
MR. PALING-Right.
MR. BREWER-All right. So this little cut out, so to speak, is not a subdivision, actually. In other
words this proposed. This is all, just goes around that piece?
MR. ROUND-No, that’s not their property.
MR. BREWER-If you look at that real, not even real quick, you would think that this is the
subdivision.
MR. ROUND-Yes. This is the lot they’re proposing, this one acre lot.
MR. BREWER-Do we have copies of this resolution?
MR. ROUND-Yes. You were supposed to get them, they were supposed to be sent out with your
packets, and I don’t know why they didn’t.
26
(Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 6/16/98)
MR. BREWER-We didn’t get them tonight, though, either, did we?
MS. NOWICKI-There is no prepared resolution for tonight.
MR. BREWER-No, I understand that. Previous.
MR. MAC EWAN-These minutes that I’m kind of really quickly gleaning over here, are not the
same minutes I read the day I was called to come up here to the Planning Department.
MR. ROUND-I don’t know what we’re looking at, to be honest with you.
MR. BREWER-No.
MR. MAC EWAN-And the minutes that I read very clearly stated, as part of the condition of
approval, that no further subdivision of this project be allowed because of consideration, as I
remember the wording, something to do with Department of Health and septic considerations.
With that being said, I’ll go back to what you have given us here, and it says in here, on staff input,
and this is really going to mess everybody up here I think, “The applicant is proposing to modify”,
this is modifying from the original ten lot to the seven lot.
MR. ROUND-I’m sorry, where are you read, Craig?
MR. MAC EWAN-I’m reading on Page 31, and it says on here, “The original 10 lot subdivision
was approved in 1991. The modification calls for combining of the lots Numbers 8 and 9 into
current Lot Number Six. Combining Lots Five and Ten into current Lot Seven, and merging Lot
Three into Lot One. The re-alignment of these lots reduces the total number of lots from ten to
seven.” Okay. That modification was allowed for them to do that, by re-configuring lot lines, but
it still was in consideration of the previous approval, where no further subdivision was going to be
approved or allowed. Now my question is, what lots are those lots?
MR. ROUND-This is all Lot One, and I don’t think any of the, “and merging Lot Three into Lot
One”, I guess a portion of it, again, I don’t have that original subdivision in front of me, and I did
instruct our office to give you copies of all the resolutions and meeting minutes, and I don’t know
why that was not done. This modification did go from a 10 lot subdivision, it was an approved 10
lot subdivision. This was originally approved as a 10 lot subdivision. Then they came back and
modified it and reduced it to seven lots, and that was even.
MR. MAC EWAN-Okay, and where was it said in that modification that if he wanted to come
back to subdivide, we’d change that modification from the 10 to 7 that said he could?
MR. ROUND-I’m not following you.
MR. MAC EWAN-Our original approval of the 10 lot subdivision said, as part of, one of the
conditions in there said no further subdivision of this property was going to be considered because
of, the wording that was in there was septics, something to do with the Department of Health. I
don’t remember the exact wording. They came back in and asked for a modification of 10 lots to 7
lots, but when the modification was given to them as an approval, it did not supersede what was
given in the original approval, as far as any further consideration of subdivision. Am I right on
that or am I wrong on that?
MR. ROUND-I guess I still don’t know what the question is. You said further subdivision by
going from 10 lots to 7 lots, does that constitute a subdivision, and did they not comply with the
previous approvals, is that what you’re asking?
MR. MAC EWAN-No. The original approval of 10 lots said we’ll give you a 10 lot subdivision,
providing you never come back and want to subdivide that one big lot that you had on there ever
again. That’s what the 10 lot subdivision said in so many words.
MR. ROUND-Okay.
MR. MAC EWAN-They came back in a year later and said, gee, we really need to modify this
thing to re-align some of these lot lines, we’re going to combine some lots, and we’re going to make
a seven lot subdivision out of it. You’re still dealing with the same area, but the key to the whole
thing was that one particular lot that was in question, that had the septic concerns on it, never got
27
(Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 6/16/98)
smaller, stayed the same. Now he wants to come in and take that one particular parcel and
subdivide it, where the original approval said you can’t.
MR. ROUND-Well, I think, Number One, what I relied on, and I read all the minutes, and the only
time it said no further subdivision was in the sketch plan meeting, and that related to a 10 lot
subdivision.
MR. MAC EWAN-No way.
MR. BREWER-I don’t remember that, either, but it says in this.
MR. ROUND-That’s when the original discussion was made.
MR. BREWER-I guess what, could we get a copy of the Planning Board resolution dated 1/21/92?
That should answer our problems. Because that is reference to, in here, there’s a Planning Board
resolution dated 1/21/92, wherein it was specified no further subdivision of the lots, and to consider
the shared driveway concept. Now if that was at sketch plan, it’s a moot point. We don’t care.
Because sketch plan is not.
MR. ROUND-That’s my reading of the record, was that was when it was discussed, at sketch
plan, and sketch plan is recommendations, and they’re not binding, and then I’ve given you my
determination in regard to whether further subdivision, whether you approve it or not is another
matter.
MR. BREWER-I remember this. I think a lot of us remember. This was a long, drawn out.
MR. ROUND-Yes, it was, from reading the record.
MR. BREWER-I think that’s what made Mark’s beard turn gray.
MR. SCHACHNER-Exactly.
MR. MAC EWAN-You know what I’m talking about, right? You know where I was going with
this? You were on the Board and you remember it?
MR. BREWER-Yes, I remember it.
MR. MAC EWAN-And am I?
MR. BREWER-I want to see this resolution, to see what it says. If we have a resolution that says
he can’t subdivide it, then.
MR. MAC EWAN-Which resolution are you looking for, the modification or the original?
MR. BREWER-1/21/92.
MR. MAC EWAN-That’s the original.
MR. BREWER-That’s the one that’s referenced here, saying that he can’t subdivide it. If that was
at sketch plan, then it doesn’t mean anything to me.
MR. MAC EWAN-We don’t do resolutions at sketch plan.
MR. BREWER-I understand that, Craig, that’s why I asked for a copy of it. We used to do
resolutions at sketch.
MR. ROUND-Yes. What my letter indicated to the applicant, it was at sketch plan, Number One,
and Number Two, that it did apply to a 10 lot subdivision, and it was never indicated in the seven
lot subdivision that further, no further subdivision would occur.
MR. MAC EWAN-But see, my bone of contention here, it wasn’t a whole new subdivision
application. It was a modification of an original approval. So that modification allowed him to go
from a 10 lot to a seven lot, but does that wipe out everything else that was, as far as the conditions
in the original approval?
28
(Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 6/16/98)
MR. ROUND-No, it doesn’t. In any subdivision, now you have a subdivision in front of you.
Regardless of whether you said no further subdivision or not, you could still modify that
subdivision. You could choose to modify, if you had a two lot subdivision, you said no further
subdivision. Now you have the discretion to modify that previous approval, on any given occasion.
MR. MAC EWAN-You can absolutely choose to modify any previously done approval.
MR. ROUND-Correct.
MR. MAC EWAN-What I think is not being fair here is that this Board does not have an
opportunity review all the pertinent minutes of previous approvals, and I think they should have.
MR. ROUND-This is a sketch plan submission. I read the record. As the Zoning Administrator, I
gave you my determination in that regard, whether further subdivision was prohibited by the
previous resolutions. It’s my contention that it’s not, but you’re certainly, I mean, those records
should be made available, and I cannot explain why they weren’t sent to you in your packages, and
we’ll make that happen.
MR. STARK-I understand what you’re trying to say. Before, you know, when we go to
Preliminary for this subdivision, make sure we have the original motion for the 10, from 1992.
You know what I’m saying? And then you have your minutes from 1993. Then we can talk about
it.
MR. BREWER-I guess what Craig is saying, and it doesn’t matter whether I agree or disagree.
What I think he’s trying to get across is if we said, or the Planning Board at that time said, no more
subdivisions, we can determine tonight if that’s the way we feel, if we don’t, then we can move on.
I think that’s what he’s trying to say.
MR. MAC EWAN-That’s all I’m trying to say.
MR. STARK-I understand that.
MRS. LA BOMBARD-Could we rescind that?
MR. MAC EWAN-Sure, I mean, you always have that option available to you.
MR. VOLLARO-But I wouldn’t want to rescind it unless I knew why I was doing it.
MRS. LA BOMBARD-Right. I’ve got to know, I don’t even know who owned the 10 lots to begin
with, from Day One.
MR. MAC EWAN-You’re not rescinding a done approval. You’re entertaining a new application.
MR. BREWER-Mr. Knox.
MRS. LA BOMBARD-You owned everything?
MR. KNOX-They’ve been in my family since 1902. My great grandfather bought the farm, which
I think they called Sunset Hill Farm, and my great grandfather, over the course of the next 20 or 30
years, sold, created lots and sold, essentially, one acre lots along the lake, and my grandfather and
my father, I’ve been trying to hold onto it. It’s difficult, because we’ve owned it for 95 years, and
it’s just too much. It’s just too much. That’s why I bit the bullet and went to the subdivision. I
plan on, I really, truly planned on retaining this five acre lot, spanning Harris Bay to the western
shore, because I like going down Harris Bay, swimming off the dock. It’s the sandy cove. It’s
beautiful, but the taxes, when I add it all up, the taxes really hit me hard on lakefront property, and
I’ve tried to sell the back property. (Lost words) back property but no access. I tried to sell the
back property. I sold two lots, and I would also like to point out, I took 25 acres and created a
modest subdivision of only 7 lots. I guess, technically, I could have tried to go to the 25 lots. I
didn’t, because I didn’t want that, Number One, for the neighborhood, for myself, because I plan to
live there hopefully for the rest of my life and pass it down to my kids. It’s a summer get away for
us. It’s not a year round residence, and we like to bring the family to the lake, enjoy the lake, but
it’s not enjoyable when my tax burden is so high, and I just, it breaks my heart to really sell the
property, but over the course of four generations, yes, we’ve sold bits and pieces of it off, and to
this point, I really did not, like I said, did not want to sell, particularly south of that road, because
that’s got the lake front. That’s got beautiful land, and I just didn’t want to sell, but I felt
29
(Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 6/16/98)
compelled. To create a one acre lot, it seems to go in line with both the back lines of all these other
lines. To create a one acre lot, and then retain what’s left of that five acre lot, which is almost four
acres.
MRS. LA BOMBARD-Mr. Knox, you were around in 1992 when the Planning Board made that
resolution?
MR. KNOX-I wasn’t at the meeting. I hired Mark Schachner to represent me.
MRS. LA BOMBARD-Okay.
MR. BREWER-There’s a lot, a lot of history to this, Cathy.
MRS. LABOMBARD-I’m sure there is.
MR. BREWER-I mean, literally, we were over a span of six, seven months doing this subdivision.
I mean, neighbors, from start to finish.
MR. KNOX-We started in September of ’91, and finally got our final approval stamped in June of
’93.
MR. BREWER-Well, that was after the modification, though, wasn’t it? But I mean the original
subdivision, it took us it seemed like forever. I mean, there was a lot of neighborhood concerns,
and everything was addressed. It just took, it seemed like forever to get from Point A to Point B,
and now to change it so quick, without them, other concerns and input.
MRS. LA BOMBARD-That’s why we’re having this discussion.
MR. KNOX-I shied away from the meetings because I didn’t know if, emotionally, I could handle
it.
MRS. LA BOMBARD-I understand. I know just where you’re coming from.
MR. STARK-We can talk about this all night, but, you know, if you could poll the Board right
now and find out, forget whether, forget ’92, okay. Find out if anybody has objections to the
subdivision now, of this, south of Knox Road, or the lake side of.
MR. MAC EWAN-Why would you want to forget ’92?
MR. STARK-I’m just saying, okay. I, personally, don’t have any objection to this thing, okay.
When we did this in ’93, in June of ’93, there was no mention, in the modification, of any further,
any prohibiting of any further subdivision, okay, in these minutes that we got tonight. We can
always go back and change ‘92’s, correct?
MR. VOLLARO-If we have a basis to do that.
MR. STARK-Do you have any objection to this subdivision? Forget ’92. Do you have any
objection to this subdivision?
MR. BREWER-You can’t forget it, George.
MR. VOLLARO-I can’t honestly give you a yes or no, because I haven’t read all the information.
MR. BREWER-How can you forget it when the whole picture is the whole thing?
MR. ROUND-I have the complete set of all the meeting minutes, and I can read in the resolutions
to you. As you know, and this borders on legal advice, that the resolutions are the only binding
aspect, all right, and I think we all know that, of Planning Boards, but this is “Motion to Approve
Sketch Plan Subdivision 11-1991, Sunset Hill Farm, Introduced by Edward LaPoint, who moved
for its adoption, seconded by Carol Pulver: To subdivide 25 acres into 10 lots, to be developed by
individual lot purchasers. Drilled wells and on site waste water will be constructed for water and
sewer services. Lots will be accessed for privately owned and maintained driveways. Lot One
contains the owners residence, and will be retained by the owner, with the following advisory
recommendations:” Again, this is at sketch plan. “That the applicant consider, in the design, the
letter dated 12 January 1992 from Lawrence R. Fischer to Lee York, Senior Planner. In terms of
30
(Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 6/16/98)
10 foot wide driveways, trees should not grow over the driveway that might block the road, and
turnaround areas to be provided. That the applicant consider and submit, at Preliminary, a plan to
provide right-of-way to connect Knox Road to Sunset Hill Lane. No further subdivision of the
lots, and to consider the shared driveway concept, in the context of the original plan. We’ll
reference S1 in the context of the original plan. That the applicant file covenants and restrictions
st
relating to the above referenced letter from Mr. Fischer. Duly adopted this 21 day of January,
1992”.
MR. VOLLARO-Chris, what I’m trying to get out of what you just read is the basis for no further
subdivision. I can’t find it.
MR. ROUND-Yes, and I don’t know how much this exercise is going to serve you. We’ve got
probably 100 pages of meeting minutes that you can read through, and I can’t say conclusively
what those objections were. I know it was impact, what I indicated in my letter, was impact on the
neighborhood, the number of lots that were going to take place on a relatively remote section of the
Town of Queensbury, at the time, Assembly Point, it was.
MR. BREWER-Runoff was a problem.
MR. ROUND-Runoff was a problem. There’s some steep slopes, there’s shallow depth to bedrock
on some of the sites, and whether it was suitable for this density development on this piece of
property, overall, but they did approve a 10 lot subdivision, and my contention is that the
restriction of no further subdivision was an inclusion in the sketch plan resolution, and that’s not
binding, in that the overall density, again, back to the overall density, what was allowed was 10
lots were allowed. Now there’s seven lots. Now the applicant’s proposing an overall of eight lots.
MR. BREWER-Wouldn’t you consider the configuration, though, too, Chris?
MR. ROUND-The configuration, also, and this is, they’re not going to be creating, you know, I’m
not commenting right now on the quality of the submission, but in a general perspective, there is
road frontage for both the lots that are created. There’s not a lot of conflicts with the adjoining
land uses. It’s not really going to create, overall, a terrific, a greater density of development, and
that’s something for the Board to weigh and consider. So that’s, I’m making my mind up whether
no further subdivision was, that entered into my decision making process, okay. They said no
further subdivision of a 10 lot subdivision. Now it hence got modified to seven lots, now does that
still apply. Is further subdivision of 10 lots the same thing as further subdivision of 7 lots? I don’t
think it is.
MR. MAC EWAN-Well, as I recall, and if you read the minutes of those meetings, what was in
consideration was that one large lot that was to be retained was the lot that was in question, as far
as all these considerations for the runoff, for the septics. That’s how I recall in reading of those
minutes. Now he did further subdivide it and make a seven lot, by a modification, but that one
large lot still remains the same, pretty much.
MR. ROUND-I think actually Lot One grew.
MR. MAC EWAN-Grew, so it actually enhanced it.
MR. ROUND-I’d have to look back.
MR. MAC EWAN-The modification was an enhancement to the original considerations by the
Board.
MR. ROUND-It was an enhancement, I think, and that’s what was commented in the modification,
that this was an improvement on the 10 lot. Whether that still applies in this Board’s mind, I don’t
know, but what I was faced with is to make a Zoning Administrator’s determination, well, does
this, read the resolution, does this apply to this project, and I made a determination that it doesn’t,
and there’s some difference in opinion here, but I’ll just read this portion of it, but I would suggest
that you take the meeting minutes, take the resolutions, and read it for yourself.
MR. BREWER-Where is the line drawn, though, Chris, hypothetical? We grant this application,
two years from now the burden, again, is, and this is strictly hypothetical.
MR. ROUND-Right.
31
(Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 6/16/98)
MR. BREWER-The burden gets bad again, comes in, and it keeps going. Where does it end? Or
is that something we have to determine, and then it changes again down the road?
MR. ROUND-Well, that’s correct, and I don’t know whether you could actually restrict further
subdivision of properties over all one. You really have to tie that to some significant factors when
you’re weighing your decision. Number One, that’s one aspect. The other aspect is.
MR. MAC EWAN-What do you consider a significant factor? Give me an example of one.
Stormwater, slope, drainage, bedrock?
MR. ROUND-Stormwater, slope, suitability of the sites themselves for development.
MR. MAC EWAN-They were considered in the original ’92 review.
MR. ROUND-Well, times change. Technology changes for development. Well, maybe they were,
they were concerned with groundwater contamination problem. Lets say that was the case, and
then you go forward, and now we’ve resolved the particular technology that prohibits
contamination of groundwater as a result of septic systems. This is a scenario, this is a
hypothetical, and so now, it’s changed, and you see that zoning changes also. The density, the
overall density, this was originally a 25 acre subdivision into 10 lots, and density, our current
zoning density, also restricts further development. If you have a one acre lot in a one acre zone,
and you come in, the Zoning Board is going to have to look at whether they’re going to allow you
to create two half acre lots in a one acre lot zone. That’s going to have an impact. We face the
same situation with homeowners associations, whether this is all community space. Well, now
we’re facing, we’re currently faced with, can we subdivide lands in Bedford Close that were called
green space, and did we do a good enough job drafting resolutions, deed covenants, etc. It’s a
problem we are going to face, and that’s something we’ll have to look at on an individual basis. I
don’t know how you can craft something so that no further subdivision. The laws are going to
change, also. We don’t know how State regulations are going to change that are going to limit or
enhance the Planning Board’s powers. There’s three, not to get side tracked, but there’s three laws
right now, at the State level, that are going to enhance or change Planning Board powers right now,
that are being contemplated by the Assembly and the Senate. So nothing is fixed. That’s, I guess,
what my point is. Nothing is fixed. Everything is dynamic, and everything is subject to change.
MR. MAC EWAN-That’s true, but you also have to look to the spirit of the intent of the original
approval, too, and whether modifications are significant enough or not. I guess maybe the best
course of action to take, considering there’s so much documentation over there to read, is that with
the applicant’s permission, we’ll table this thing, until next month, giving everyone time to get
copies of this stuff, and giving everyone on the Board ample time to sit here and read through the
history of this thing, because it is a rather long history, and I think in all fairness, I think everyone
on the Board, and there are new members up here who haven’t been a party to this since 1992, and
give everyone an opportunity read through the minutes and come to their own conclusions.
MR. STARK-Re-visit the site.
MR. MAC EWAN-Yes.
MR. VOLLARO-I have a question, Chris, correct me if I’m wrong. You said something about the
original 10 acre subdivision having been done on sketch plan.
MR. ROUND-Ten lot.
MR. VOLLARO-That the words “no further subdivision” was not binding because it was sketch
plan. Am I correct in that?
MR. ROUND-That’s my interpretation, yes. Sketch plans are recommendations, and the purpose
of sketch plan is to identify issues, and I don’t think it would hold up, and I would defer to legal
counsel.
MR. BREWER-It probably wouldn’t have held up, but I think the intent was there, and don’t get
me wrong, I have no objection to what you want to do here, but.
MR. ROUND-Tim can speak probably better to what the emotions were, and what the, you know
how emotions can rise when neighbors object to, when there’s a strong position on a particular
32
(Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 6/16/98)
subject, and it does sway his opinion, and I can’t, reading the meeting minutes, you can’t get that
out of there either.
MRS. LA BOMBARD-See, right, when I just initially look at this, I just feel, my gosh, I would
hate to be in your shoes. So, lets, you know, give the guy what he wants. Well, now when I hear
that there was really, you know, a lot of history behind this, that this was quite a long deliberation,
that maybe there was a good reason for putting that stipulation in the resolution.
MR. KNOX-It was at sketch plan, so it’s non binding.
MRS. LA BOMBARD-But you know, Mr. Knox, I’d have to see it, and the thing that, I don’t
want to get personal here, but the thing that, when I first initially looked at this, I’m thinking, oh,
My God, that poor guy. That was a generation ago. They sold all that land, when land wasn’t
going for much money, and now he’s, because, hey, I’ve got retired parents that we have two and a
half acres on the lake, and I know what you’re going through with taxes, and I’m thinking, well,
initially, I’m thinking this was a whole generation ago that this land was subdivided and sold for a
less amount of money, but we’re only talking six years. Shouldn’t we all be fortunate to have 25
acres in our family to be able to subdivide and sell, and I’m thinking, my gosh, where is the rainy
day little nest egg, so we don’t come into this problem that you’re in, and, I mean, that’s none of
my business, but these are all these little ramifications of it, and you don’t have to tell me your
personal affairs, but.
MR. KNOX-Those 25 acres are land view. They don’t have access, and, you know, Sharon
Davies of Owen Davies Real Estate, I’ve had her, with a listing to try to sell the lake view
properties, ever since I got final subdivision approval in 1993, and I’ve sold two lots out of seven.
MRS. LA BOMBARD-Do they have lake access, though?
MR. BREWER-No, only one lot.
MRS. LA BOMBARD-In other words, if they can’t even walk to a beach and be able to have lake
rights to swim.
MR. KNOX-No.
MR. BREWER-See, that was another part of it, Cathy.
MRS. LA BOMBARD-See, I’ve got to hear the whole thing.
MR. KNOX-See, all the property north of Knox Road essentially is lake view.
MRS. LA BOMBARD-Okay.
MR. KNOX-No access, with the exception of one lot that is six acres with a 50 foot strip down to
Harris Bay, which I promised to keep in the family.
MRS. LA BOMBARD-But there was no way that those other lots had any deeded lake rights
where the people could walk down and swim in a beach.
MR. KNOX-I think what you’ve got here is neighbors who are used to having their back yard
forever wild, and I’m, you know, my family and I have been paying taxes for 95 years, and as soon
as they heard that I’m going to subdivide the property, they, of course, thought the worst, I was
going to put condominiums up or something, right behind them, and that was not the case. It was
low density from the get go. We came in with 10 lots. We ended up with 7, and so it wasn’t a high
density. The issue became the driveway, which the common driveways that serve some of the back
lots became the issue, and that’s, relative to the sketch plan resolution, where they’re talking about
the concern was the common driveway serving the back lots, not this lake front lot. That was not
even part of the topographic study or the soil testing, because I said I was going to keep it in the
family. I was going to retain that, and that’s really true of what I intended to do. What this
resolution relates to, it’s a run on sentence, relating to no further subdivision of lots, but if you
back up, they’re talking about the common driveways that serve those back lots.
MR. BREWER-Craig, I think in all fairness we should get all the materials to all the members.
We can debate this thing all night.
33
(Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 6/16/98)
MR. MAC EWAN-I’d like the Board members to have complete sets of minutes. Also original
maps, too, so that we can understand what lots we’re talking about here.
MR. PALING-I’ve got one more thing, and I can’t proceed. I want what you guys are asking for,
but I cannot proceed with this comfortably, because I think it’s inaccurately described and
pictured. We start, on this print, with one lot. The applicant is saying he wants to divide it into
two lots. We’re dividing into three lots.
MRS. LA BOMBARD-No, we’re not, Bob. No, we’re not.
MR. PALING-This is a statement they just stood here and made that this is one lot.
MRS. LA BOMBARD-Right, and then where’s the third lot?
MR. PALING-All right. Then take this lot line out of here.
MR. MAC EWAN-That isn’t a lot line, it’s a road.
MRS. LA BOMBARD-No, no, no, that’s not a road. He’s right. I was wondering. I thought that
that was just a, so you had, the Town has 10 feet off the road. That’s what I thought that’s why
that was there, but maybe I’m wrong. The north one, that one, the one that goes, yes, east and
west.
MR. KNOX-This line does not exist.
MRS. LA BOMBARD-Yes. Bob’s right about that.
MR. KNOX-The Town got 35 feet of right-of-way from the center of Knox Road down to this
line. Previous to the subdivision, this land came right up to, presumably, the center of the road,
and as a pre-requisite to granting my subdivision, the Planning Board said, okay, we want to have
35 feet from the center of Knox Road down.
MRS. LA BOMBARD-Why did they want that?
MR. KNOX-Because they never owned the road. It was a road by use. It was a road by use. The
neighbors called, you know, they bought property from my family 100 years ago, my great
grandfather. They called the Town for services. The Town came in, serviced it. While we had
thought it was a private road, it wasn’t. It turned into a Town road, but to eliminate any
confusion, the Town said, okay, we’ll grant you the subdivision, but one of the requirements was
35 feet from the center of Knox Road down. Now they couldn’t do it here, because they don’t own
the land here, and they couldn’t do it here because they don’t own the land there, but they could do
it where I owned the land, which was here.
MR. PALING-And what about up to the north, the part that you own? Why is this line so close to
the road?
MR. KNOX-I don’t know. You know why, because Bill Bernard’s property line continues, and
Hawkins’ line continues. I don’t know.
MR. PALING-I think, also, that your number 3.85 does not really describe the lot that’s left. If it
describes all of the land on both sides of the road.
MR. KNOX-Yes, it describes this. This is what I’m going to be left with.
MR. MAC EWAN-You know what would make it very easy, put your 1A shown twice along the
lot, big lot, 1B on the small lot. Re-label that.
MRS. LA BOMBARD-I see what Bob, I had the same question, but then I said, oh, that must be
because they don’t, that it’s too close to the road for some reason, and that that northern boundary
there is confusing.
MR. KNOX-Yes. See, it’s not confusing to me because I’ve looked at it a million times.
MRS. LA BOMBARD-But the Town never came in and widened the road.
34
(Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 6/16/98)
MR. MAC EWAN-No. They just gained access.
MR. KNOX-Right.
MRS. LA BOMBARD-They just gained access for.
MR. KNOX-Deeded rights. I had to sign a deed over to them.
MRS. LA BOMBARD-And what does the Town do with it?
MR. MAC EWAN-It’s for the right-of-way, in case they ever want to put a whatever.
MRS. LABOMBARD-Like utilities or whatever.
MR. MAC EWAN-Yes. Okay. That’s what we’d like to do, and I think in all fairness that’s what
we should do.
MRS. LA BOMBARD-Yes.
MR. MAC EWAN-What we can do is put this on for the first meeting of next month, which will
st
be, it’s going to be on for the 21.
MRS. LA BOMBARD-Of July?
MR. KNOX-Do you have a meeting next week, is that too soon?
MR. MAC EWAN-It’s too soon. I mean, there’s way to much to read. We’re talking almost 100
pages of minutes. I don’t feel comfortable in asking the Board to, especially, we do have a rather
stacked agenda the next couple of meetings we have. It’s going to be a lengthy night.
MR. KNOX-I’m disappointed, but what can I say.
MR. MAC EWAN-Okay.
MR. RINGER-We could have a special meeting, I suppose, if you needed it, the seventh of July or
something like that. I don’t want another meeting, but if he feels.
MR. MAC EWAN-Well, lets hold off on that thought until we see what submission deadline brings
in, and if it really stacks up the agendas, real heavy.
MRS. LA BOMBARD-Right, because if this is going to be a three hour discussion, and we have
another two hours of stuff, I don’t want to pull another church.
MR. MAC EWAN-Now, question for Staff. This is going to be held over for sketch plan again.
Is that what we’re going to do? It’s sketch plan here tonight. So it would be sketch plan next
month?
MS. NOWICKI-Okay.
MR. STARK-Why does it have to?
MR. PALING-Why can’t it go to Preliminary?
MR. MAC EWAN-Preliminary means that you’re accepting his idea and moving on to the next
stage.
MR. STARK-No, it doesn’t mean that.
MR. MAC EWAN-Yes, it does.
MR. STARK-Mark, if we’re looking at a sketch plan, we have some disagreements about it and so
on, why do we have to continue that at sketch plan next month, instead of just enabling him to get
Preliminary, and we re-hash everything then and call it Preliminary?
MR. SCHACHNER-You never have to because sketch plan’s optional to begin with.
35
(Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 6/16/98)
MR. KNOX-I think the reason I wanted to keep it at sketch plan was because if I get to
Preliminary, at that stage, don’t I have to bring, really, engineering into the picture, as far as,
you’re going to be asking about where the septic field will go for this proposed lot, and if I do that
then I’m incurring a lot of expenses which I don’t want to do, if the worst case scenario is that you
come back and say, you know.
MR. MAC EWAN-I, personally, would feel more comfortable about it remaining at sketch plan.
MR. KNOX-That’s fine with me.
MR. MAC EWAN-Any other questions, comments? Okay. Is that it? All right. Thank you.
We’ll see next month.
MR. KNOX-Okay.
MR. MAC EWAN-The only other thing that was on the agenda was, do we need to do a motion to
table this?
MR. SCHACHNER-Table what?
MR. MAC EWAN-Him, because it’s just sketch plan?
MR. SCHACHNER-It’s sketch plan. You can do a motion to table, but you don’t have to. It
doesn’t matter. You’re not taking any action, either way.
MR. MAC EWAN-Okay.
MR. BREWER-Will we notice the neighbors up there about this or no?
MS. NOWICKI-No.
MR. RINGER-At Preliminary.
MS. NOWICKI-Not until Preliminary.
MR. ROUND-Not at sketch.
MR. MAC EWAN-Yes, not at sketch. Okay. The only other thing on the agenda is that Big
Boom Driving Range didn’t show.
MRS. LABOMBARD-Right.
MR. MAC EWAN-So I think what we’d like to do is hold them over.
MR. ROUND-You can review it and act on it if you’d like.
MR. MAC EWAN-I have questions I wanted to ask them.
MR. ROUND-Okay.
MRS. LA BOMBARD-Yes, I do. I have questions, yes.
MR. ROUND-The modifications consist of the changes in landscaping, and Beautification
Committee did pass on a recommendation.
MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. Would someone let them know that we’ll put them on next Tuesday
night’s agenda, and have someone here.
MS. NOWICKI-Go ahead. Open your public hearing, so we don’t have to re-advertise.
MR. MAC EWAN-There isn’t a public hearing scheduled. It’s a modification.
MS. NOWICKI-Sorry.
36
(Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 6/16/98)
MR. MAC EWAN-Is that it? Is there anything else? Okay. I’ll make a motion to adjourn.
MR. BREWER-I’ll second it.
On motion meeting was adjourned.
RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED,
Craig MacEwan, Chairman
37