2001-10-16
(Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 10/16/01)
QUEENSBURY PLANNING BOARD MEETING
FIRST REGULAR MEETING
OCTOBER 16, 2001
7:00 P.M.
MEMBERS PRESENT
CRAIG MAC EWAN, CHAIRMAN
CATHERINE LA BOMBARD, SECRETARY
ROBERT VOLLARO
CHRIS HUNSINGER
ANTHONY METIVIER
JOHN STROUGH
THOMAS SEGULJIC, ALTERNATE
PLANNER-LAURA MOORE
TOWN COUNSEL-MILLER, MANNIX SCHACHNER & HAFNER-MARK SCHACHNER
STENOGRAPHER-MARIA GAGLIARDI
MR. MAC EWAN-Good evening. I’ll call tonight’s meeting to order. We’re moving our agenda
around a little bit tonight. The Mitchell subdivision has been moved back to the third item on the
agenda tonight, and we’ll move on, now, with the rest of our agenda, please.
CORRECTION OF MINUTES
August 21, 2001: NONE
August 28, 2001: NONE
MOTION TO APPROVE THE QUEENSBURY PLANNING BOARD MEETING
MINUTES OF AUGUST 21, 2001 AND AUGUST 28, 2001, Introduced by Robert Vollaro who
moved for its adoption, seconded by Catherine LaBombard:
Duly adopted this 16 day of October, 2001, by the following vote:
th
AYES: Mrs. LaBombard, Mr. Vollaro, Mr. Seguljic, Mr. Metivier, Mr. Strough, Mr. Hunsinger,
Mr. MacEwan
NOES: NONE
NEW BUSINESS:
SITE PLAN NO. 42-2001 TYPE II RICHARD & CHRISTINE MOZAL PROPERTY
OWNER: SAME AGENT: MICHAEL O’CONNOR ZONE: WR-1A LOCATION:
DOCKSIDER RESTAURANT APPLICANT REQUESTS REVIEW OF A 30 SQ. FT.
AREA WITHIN 50’ OF THE SHORELINE OF GLEN LAKE, CONSTRUCTION OF A
397 +/- SQ. FT. RETAINING WALL ALONG THE PROPERTY LINE, AND
REARRANGEMENT OF THE PARKING AREA. FILL WITHIN 50’ OF THE
SHORELINE AND CONSTRUCTION OF THE RETAINING WALL REQUIRES
PLANNING BOARD REVIEW AND APPROVAL. GLEN LAKE CEA TAX MAP NO.
38-4-2 LOT SIZE: 0.83 ACRES; SECTION: 179-16, 179-60
MICHAEL O’CONNOR, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT
STAFF INPUT
Notes from Staff, Site Plan No. 42-2001, Richard & Christine Mozal, Meeting Date: October 16,
2001 “Project Description
The applicant requests review of a portion of a concrete pad and sidewalk, approximately 125 square
feet of hard surfacing within 50 feet of the lake. In addition they propose to construct a retaining
wall to stabilize the bank along the waterfront.
The applicant had previously been before the Zoning Board of Appeals for an appeal of the Zoning
Administrator’s determination letter of January 17, 2001. The Zoning Board acted on the appeal and
advised the applicant of the conditions; see resolution of AP 1-2001 dated April 25, 2001.
1
(Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 10/16/01)
The applicant submitted a plan that addresses the Zoning Board’s action on the appeal. The filling
and construction of the retaining wall are subject to site plan review.
Project Analysis (Section 179-38)
Site Overview
The applicant intends to construct 300 linear feet of retaining wall in accordance with the
NYSDEC permit #5-5234-00184/00005 and correspondence from Deb Roberts in regards
to the federal wetlands.
The applicant has been requested to address the alterations to the parking area because of
the two defined entrance points. Staff believes this is a better arrangement for traffic flow
on the site. The Highway Department has also indicated they agree with the defined
entrance and exit as enhancement to site distance. The Highway Department evaluated the
site distances and found the following: driving west to east there is a site distance of 300’ to
the proposed exit; driving west to east there is a site distance of 75’ to the proposed
entrance; driving east to west there is a site distance of 375’ to the proposed exit.
The applicant has indicated the stormwater will be accommodated on site. The pitch of the
parking area will be directed to three drywells on the site. There will also be a berm added to
the southwest corner to assist in directing stormwater. The plans also include notes on
erosion and sediment control.
The parking area will remain gravel surface with enhancements being added to the road
frontage of the property. The applicant has indicated additional landscaping will be added
along the road frontage. The details of the enhancements will be established with the
installation of the septic system.
Suggestions
Staff would suggest approval of the application with the following information added to the site plan:
??
Entrance and exit signage
??
Landscaping information including type and quantity
??
NYSDEC permit number”
MR. MAC EWAN-Good evening.
MR. O'CONNOR-Good evening, Mr. Chairman, and Ladies and Gentlemen of the Board, I’m
Michael O’Connor. I’m appearing for the applicant. With me is Tom Jarrett, from Jarrett & Martin,
and Mr. Steves, with VanDusen and Steves, also on behalf of the applicant. With us in the audience
are both Richard and Christine Mozal. We have no problems with Staff comments. We will mark
the entrances as requested, and if it’s on the west, we will stipulate will be the entrance, and the
entrance on the east will be the exit from the property. Landscaping information we have provided.
TOM JARRETT
MR. JARRETT-We’ve prepared a landscaping plan that you have in your package, I believe, and
we’ve colored it in here to illustrate the essence of what the site is now and what’s proposed. The
proposed changes in landscaping include the shrubbery along the northeast corner of the property, to
screen the adjoining property owner. Landscaping around the proposed septic area, which is in the
center north portion of the parking area.
MR. MAC EWAN-Could I interrupt you for a second?
MR. JARRETT-Certainly.
MR. MAC EWAN-Is that the first time we’re seeing this plan?
MR. JARRETT-You have this in your package. It was not submitted originally. It was submitted in
response to Staff comments.
MR. MAC EWAN-It came yesterday.
MRS. LA BOMBARD-Yesterday it came.
MR. MAC EWAN-Right, okay. I’m sorry. Go ahead.
MR. JARRETT-It’s the exact plan that you have in your package.
MR. MAC EWAN-Okay.
2
(Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 10/16/01)
MR. JARRETT-The proposed sewage disposal area, the north central portion of the parking area, is
to be landscaped. Around the perimeter of the system will be a stone rock garden. That’s what’s
shown in gray here. The top of the system will be planted in perennials and annuals. There will also
be some shrubs around the perimeter to discourage people from driving on the system and there will
be some trees proposed, basically flowering fruit trees along the Glen Lake Road side, also to prevent
ingress into the septic area and to provide some landscaping buffer. Along the lakeshore, the Mozals
plan to plant some perennial and annual beds, to supplement the existing barrels that are there
currently.
MR. O'CONNOR-I think that’s it for our response to Staff on the landscaping information. The
DEC permit, I’ll give you a copy of the actual permit extension. This is an extension of the permit
through November 30, 2001, and I think all she wanted was the number on that. Basically, I think
what you are looking at, when you started talking about hard surfacing within 50 feet of the mean
high water mark. We’re talking about the 30 feet of concrete pad that’s right here, and as I
understand it, Staff has added to that approximately 95 feet of the walkway for the total of 125 feet.
That was poured as one pour. It is pitched away from the lake. It does not drain into the lake, and
subsequent to that, the lawn was sodded and landscaping was put in. It’s proposed , even on this
plan here, that there will be a continuation of landscaping around the immediate edge of the entire
concrete pad and around the front, partially to screen it, partially to enclose it. The other issue that
we had was, and we have had, or this property has had, since 1990, a DEC permit to stabilize the
shoreline. The prior owner actually obtained that permit. It has been kept in existence by renewals,
and the last couple of years, the present owners of the site have tried to go forward with that. I tried
to, and maybe I explained to this Board once before, to get a clean letter from the Army Corps of
Engineers who also has jurisdiction of that activity, and until recently, we were not able to do that,
and basically we had them on site. They reviewed what we proposed, and they had no objection and
said that no permit would be required from them because we fall within what they call nationwide
permitting, or regulations that we simply can go ahead. Before, what was happening is they were
telling us you can go ahead and do it, on the DEC permit, but you do it at risk, if we come along
later, inspect it, and say, you should have done something differently. So we’re happy with that, and
I think there is a discrepancy or not a discrepancy, but there is a difference from, and we’ve talked to
DEC with this. They do not have a problem with our permit. In 1990, the nationwide permitting
regulations provided that they would be applicable to a piece of property with 300 linear feet or less.
When they re-wrote those, they took out the lineal requirement, and at that time, in 1990, we were
only going to do 300 feet. Now, because they’ve taken off that restriction, we will do the whole
shoreline. It now is up to 500 feet, the new restrictions. So basically we’re going to stable the
shoreline. The shoreline stabilization is actually a lot less than what we were going to do. We had a,
I think 1959 map or something like that, and we were going to reestablish that, but what we were
going to do is just what we’ve shown on the maps now. So those were the three points I think that
Staff talked to us about. Do you have any questions or anything else that we can answer?
MR. MAC EWAN-Tony, we’ll start with you.
MR. METIVIER-Where’s the septic system in all of this?
MR. O'CONNOR-The current one?
MR. METIVIER-Yes.
MR. O'CONNOR-The current septic system is in this area here.
MR. METIVIER-I just noticed the well, and I was just trying to decide, I mean, if it’s going to be 100
feet away from the septic or not, but I guess it will be if it’s in that area.
MR. O'CONNOR-Where it is up here? Yes.
MR. METIVIER-Well, the new proposed well.
MR. O'CONNOR-The new proposed well is out in this point, here. It’s 180 feet.
MR. METIVIER-That’s fine.
MR. MAC EWAN-Anything else?
MR. METIVIER-No.
MR. MAC EWAN-Tom?
MR. SEGULJIC-The catch basin in the southwest corner of the parking lot, what does that tie into?
3
(Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 10/16/01)
MR. O'CONNOR-Tom?
MR. JARRETT-That’s an existing system that currently does not discharge to the lake, and we’ve
proposed to leave that in place.
MR. SEGULJIC-Is it like a drywell then?
MR. JARRETT-It’s a drywell.
MR. SEGULJIC-And you don’t have any lighting proposed for the parking lot?
MR. JARRETT-Essentially, there’s no lighting proposed for the lot now.
MR. SEGULJIC-That’s it for now.
MR. MAC EWAN-Robert?
MR. VOLLARO-I’ve got a couple here. On the permit, I was looking for the sketch plan that was
supposed to be attached to that permit and couldn’t find it. On Page One of Four, the description of
the authorized activities says we claim 300 linear feet of shoreline, etc., etc., as shown on the sketch
dated November 2, 1990 it looks like. I don’t understand that, attached to and made part of this
permit, and I looked for that. Do you have that sketch plan that DEC looked at to approve this?
MATT STEVES
MR. STEVES-I can answer that. I have the copy of what was approved and issued to DEC back in
1990 by Morse Engineering. I have since then talked with Tom Hall from DEC and have provided
him with the map that is in front of you on the board today, and that is the one that he has in his
possession for the renewal of the permit.
MR. VOLLARO-Okay, but it says that it was to be attached to this. The thing that bothered me was
I didn’t find it. Normally, when they say attached, it’s in here.
MR. STEVES-It’s attached as an original copy that is at the DEC office. I would gladly give the
Board a copy of that. It’s that exact map that you’re looking at as a Board right now.
MR. VOLLARO-Okay. It’s the same thing?
MR. STEVES-Yes.
MR. VOLLARO-Okay. Taking a look at the VanDusen and Steves drawing dated 9/04/01, shows
the concrete patio at 473 square feet. I think Counsel has addressed that topic a little bit ago, but
we’re talking about 125 square feet here, and how do we get down to 125 from the 473?
MR. O'CONNOR-The restriction is any new hard surfacing within the 50 foot setback from the
mean high water mark. When we went through the Zoning Board application, it was determined,
and the Zoning Board agreed, that there was a pre-existing, 473 foot concrete patio there.
MR. VOLLARO-I’m just looking at the project description, and that’s what I’m going by, Staff’s
recommendation, that says applicant requests review of a portion of a concrete pad and sidewalk,
approximately 125 square feet of hard surfacing.
MR. O'CONNOR-On the VanDusen and Steves map that’s shown, there is a line here which is
actually the setback from the shore, and if you take a look at it, and the Glen Lake is out this side.
MR. VOLLARO-Is that the thing that says 50 feet from mean high water, is that what you’re looking
at?
MR. O'CONNOR-Yes, right.
MR. VOLLARO-That doesn’t look like 50 feet to mean high water, or maybe it is. I can’t get the, I
looked at that today and couldn’t draw 50 feet out of that.
MR. STEVES-That’s a parallel line from the mean high water which is at an elevation.
MR. VOLLARO-Yes, I know that, because you’ve got a mean high water mark, looking along the
shore here, it looks like. Because what you talk about is setting the sea wall 18 inches out from the
mean high water.
4
(Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 10/16/01)
MR. STEVES-Right, that’s correct.
MR. VOLLARO-And that’s what this drawing is showing.
MR. STEVES-Yes.
MR. VOLLARO-And from that, I took that the dotted line was mean high water, and I measured
from that concrete pad.
MR. O'CONNOR-That is not mean high water.
MR. VOLLARO-It is not mean high water. We’re only talking ten inches of variation here, in the
lake.
MR. STEVES-That’s correct, but 10 inches in variation depending on where you are in the lake can
mean several feet linear footage, as far as 10 inches in elevation, but the line that I depicted on there,
that is within the 50 foot, is the actual setback from the mean high water mark of Glen Lake.
MR. VOLLARO-And where are you taking that measurement from, from in front of the Docksider
Restaurant?
MR. STEVES-Yes.
MR. VOLLARO-I’m measuring, okay. I won’t quibble with that one. It looks like there was going
to be a variance associated with that 473 feet, but the reduction to 125 eliminated the use for a
variance. Now this is what I get out of reading some of the ZBA data.
MR. O'CONNOR-There is actually some additional footage that has been removed, and that
eliminated the need for the variance.
MR. VOLLARO-I know there’s no variance, but when I reviewed this, I said, okay, they’re going to
125 feet and that’s why we don’t need a variance, because we’re going from 473 to 125, but that’s
not a good analysis.
MR. O'CONNOR-No. Because the 473 pre-existed, that was the issue of the variance, we kept it at
the 473. So there’s no need for a variance. Basically, the area that is the part of the, this area here
was a walkway before, and all we did was pave it. We changed the surfacing of it. We made it
smoother. We also used this for access for the handicapped to get onto the patio, and we poured the
concrete in front of the shed building.
MR. VOLLARO-Okay. That’s that 216?
MR. O'CONNOR-Yes. The 216, in all honesty, is all the way to the back.
MR. VOLLARO-Minus the shed?
MR. O'CONNOR-Yes, it’s that whole pad, minus the shed area.
MR. VOLLARO-Okay.
MR. O'CONNOR-We did this. We got into extensive discussions with Staff, with the Zoning
Board, as to the permeability of the site, and maintaining the pre-existing permeability, and not
increasing it, and that was an issue that we dealt with with them.
MR. VOLLARO-So that was basically, was based on the fact that you had the pre-existing, you’re
only looking at what’s being added.
MR. O'CONNOR-Right.
MR. VOLLARO-Not what’s already there?
MR. O'CONNOR-Right, yes.
MR. VOLLARO-Does that square with what you discussed?
MRS. MOORE-Yes.
5
(Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 10/16/01)
MR. VOLLARO-Okay. All right. Looking at the drawing itself, this is having to do now with the
shoreline. The drawing talks about 397 feet of shoreline. However, the actual measurement on the
drawing, now I paced off the actual sea wall as it’s called there, with a pair of dividers, and come up
with 295. I say, well, that’s pretty close to the 300 that we talk about, but now you’re saying that
we’re going to do 500 feet of shoreline.
MR. STEVES-No.
MR. O'CONNOR-No. The old regulations said that you could, under the nationwide permit, go up
to 300. The current regulations says you can go up to 500.
MR. VOLLARO-Up to 500. You’re only going to 300.
MR. O'CONNOR-We’re going to what we have.
MR. VOLLARO-Which I say is 295 roughly.
MR. STEVES-Along the shore?
MR. VOLLARO-Well, yes. You’ve got 397, but I paced it off with a pair of dividers, and I get 295.
MR. O'CONNOR-And our surveyor tells us it’s 397.
MR. STROUGH-Bob, did you go out two feet from the shore, a foot and a half from the shore and
measure that?
MR. VOLLARO-Well, a foot and a half on this map is hardly anything with a pair of dividers, not
very far.
MR. O'CONNOR-But I think they’ve actually scaled it, or not scaled it, they’ve actually run it on the
computer.
MR. STEVES-As it undulates back and forth with the mean high water elevation, that’s what I come
up with is about 397 total feet.
MR. VOLLARO-I would buy it if we were close by 50 feet, but we’ve got a great disparity in
numbers here.
MR. MAC EWAN-Did you use CAD?
MR. STEVES-Yes.
MR. MAC EWAN-CAD versus dividers. I’ll go with CAD.
MR. VOLLARO-I’ll go with the dividers. How does that sound?
MR. STEVES-What the shore reclamation is is the entire length of their ownership. So, be it, if it’s
between where you say it is and where I say it is, you know that the wall is not extended beyond our
property.
MR. VOLLARO-Well, I’m just looking for, you know, when you review, and I, review something
like this, I don’t have the benefit of all of the stuff that you guys throw at us when we’re sitting here.
So I do my analysis on what I see. That’s the best I can do.
MR. STEVES-Understood.
MR. VOLLARO-So this is why I have the questions that I have.
MR. STEVES-Okay. Understood.
MR. O'CONNOR-We try to answer them.
MR. VOLLARO-In the site development sheet, just take a look at that real quickly. The site
development data does not reflect the addition of the 1,002 square feet. It sounds to me like, from
reading the ZBA notes, that the ZBA agreed with the Zoning Administrator’s determination on that
one.
MR. O'CONNOR-Okay. We have not taken credit for that in the calculations for permeability, and
I think that was the point. I tried to get a credit from the ZBA for the shore or for the surface that
6
(Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 10/16/01)
would be created by the restoration of the shoreline, and they said it was speculative, and until it was
accomplished, they would not consider it. It seemed as though the feeling in the Board was that if
we had it done, it would be something that they would consider. They would take it as part of the
total site, but I think in part because this permit had been pending since 1990 and the work hadn’t
been done, they weren’t going to buy it until it was done.
MR. VOLLARO-Well, if you read the determination from the Zoning Administrator, I believe it was
on Item Three, his letter, where he talks about the fact that the 1,002 should be considered as an
addition, and the ZBA agreed with that. They disagreed with some and they agreed with others.
MR. O'CONNOR-Okay. You’re talking about the 1,000 feet, as to permeability issue.
MR. VOLLARO-Yes, this is a permeability issue.
MR. O'CONNOR-Okay. We’ve met with Staff. We’ve agreed that what we have presented on this
site plan is not an increase. It, in part, I think, is their determination that some of what is there was
hard surface before, and all we’ve done is substitute concrete. I think particularly the walkway on the
east side, which was 285 feet or 257 feet. We also had decreased, if you will, part of the parking area,
in the prior configuration, and this 235 feet, that was in that 1,000 square feet. So we took that out.
I think they had only allowed in the 1,000 square feet, you really have to go through those minutes.
They had allowed in that 1,000 feet, only 240 feet for patio, but then they ruled that the pre-existing
was 473. So we go from 240 to 473. We’ve gone over that at length with the Zoning Administrator,
and I think we’ve satisfied him that we have not, or that we are in compliance. I don’t know if that’s
really an issue this evening.
MR. VOLLARO-Well, again, without that clarification, I don’t have the benefit of that when I sit
here, but on your Item Three, and this is a letter to you, Michael J. O’Connor, from Christopher
Round, dated January 17, and it says, “It is my understanding that your position is the 1,002 square
th
feet increase in impermeable area is to be offset by an increase of 1,796 square feet of permeable
area, as a result of a shoreline reconstruction. I understand your proposal which states that the
impermeable calculation for the site would remain constant at 55%. However, my position has not
changed. The increase of the 1,002 square feet of impermeable area constitutes a net increase to the
impermeable area of the site.” Now, that determination was challenged, and the ZBA agreed with
that, under Item Three.
MR. O'CONNOR-Right, and we have not taken any credit against the permeability on this site for
the, I think it was then 1700 square feet that was going to be created with the restoration before or, I
think it’s 580 feet under this restoration. We simply have done it. We have not taken credit for it.
So we’re not at issue with that. In addition to that, if you look at the other parts of the Zoning Board
determinations, the 1,000 feet was, that we were comparing to, was actually whittled down, as I
explained it before. So we’re not at issue with that ruling. We’re not at issue with it. I know what
they did. I agree with it. We haven’t taken credit on this.
MRS. MOORE-I’ll agree that the applicant met with Staff, the Zoning Administrator, as well as the
Code Compliance Officer, with the information that’s in front of us, and that met the appeal, how do
I word it in my Staff notes, the applicant submitted a plan that addresses the Zoning Board’s action
on the appeal. So everything has been addressed that was part of that appeal.
MR. VOLLARO-Okay, but when I read the ZBA’s minutes of the motion actually, and the motion
says, Motion we affirm Mr. Round’s decision with respect to Item Three referred to in his letter of
January 17.
th
MRS. MOORE-So the applicant met with Staff after that.
MR. VOLLARO-Okay. That’s the clarification that, when I sit and read this, I don’t have. That’s
the line of questioning I’m coming up with.
MRS. MOORE-All right.
MR. VOLLARO-I don’t know that. You see, I don’t have a way to make a yes out of that.
MR. O'CONNOR-Mr. Vollaro, if we weren’t in compliance, we’d have to file another variance
application before the Zoning Board before we got here.
MR. VOLLARO-Okay.
MR. MAC EWAN-On that one topic, are you satisfied with that?
7
(Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 10/16/01)
MR. VOLLARO-Yes. Based on that direction from Staff I think I have to be, because I’m not privy
to all of the things that went on from the time.
MR. MAC EWAN-That’s what it’s about is just getting clarification of things, that’s all.
MR. VOLLARO-Yes.
MR. MAC EWAN-What else have you got?
MR. VOLLARO-Okay. I feel like John Strough here tonight.
MR. MAC EWAN-That went on the record.
MR. VOLLARO-It’s a credit to John. Now, looking at the new proposed well, down at the tip of
that property there, that well is less than 20 feet from the shoreline. This is just a question now. Is
this considered good practice, in view of the docking facilities being almost right there, you know, oil,
gasoline, outboard motors?
MR. O'CONNOR-It’s being approved by the Health Department. It’s part of their review process.
It is a deep casing well that is grouted into bedrock.
MR. VOLLARO-Okay. As long as you’re all happy with that, that’s fine. Now, there’s a letter in this
package here from a Deborah Roberts, a Ph.D., that referred to the seawall. Does she refer to the
seawall in there or some other stabilization material? She never refers to the seawall. She talks about
stabilization material. Is she referring to the seawall?
MR. STEVES-That’s correct.
MR. VOLLARO-Okay, and now I think you answered the one question Tony asked, is where is the
existing septic tank located, and how big is it and how often is it pumped, because this area of
proposed septic is merely a leach field. Is that correct? The one that’s proposed here is a leach field
only?
MR. JARRETT-That’s correct. Well, what you see, in the north central part of the site, is the
leaching system. This spring, three new tanks were installed, just to the east of the existing
restaurant. They’re currently being used as holding tanks. We’re going to convert those to septic
tanks and grease traps, as soon as the entire wastewater system is put on line.
MR. VOLLARO-Just taking a look at the elevation differences there, pretty flat, 404, 404. How are
you going over there?
MR. JARRETT-It’s going to be a pump station.
MR. VOLLARO-It’s going to be a pump station.
MR. JARRETT-Yes, both from an elevation perspective and we have a large enough system we need
to dose it with a pump.
MR. VOLLARO-So you’re going to be dosing each side of that?
MR. JARRETT-Yes, actually, we’re proposing four beds, Beds One and Three will be dosed at one
time, and then Two and Four will be dosed alternately.
MR. VOLLARO-Okay. I don’t think I have any further questions on this, Mr. Chairman. You can
move to another member of the Board.
MR. MAC EWAN-Cathy?
MRS. LA BOMBARD-I’m fine.
MR. MAC EWAN-Chris?
MR. HUNSINGER-I really like the new layout of the parking area, but one of the questions that sort
of came up in my mind is I counted the number of parking spaces on the one site plan. How does
that compare to the number of spaces that are currently used. I know it’s kind of haphazard now.
MR. O'CONNOR-The same if not, there may be a slight increase. What we’ve agreed to with Staff
is that we would agree to a square footage of area on site that’s devoted to parking, and this is the
historic use of the property, and the size of the parking spots have changed even somewhat from
8
(Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 10/16/01)
when they initially were laid out. So there may be a few extras, but we think it’s pretty close. We
don’t think it’s changed less. The square footage is the same. We’ve been very particular with Staff.
We would like to have it larger, but Staff is making sure that we’re not.
MR. HUNSINGER-I mean, I always had the sense, I mean, you go there on a Friday night, and it’s
really crowded. I always had the sense that if the parking were laid out better, you could get more
cars in. That’s partly why I asked the question. I just wanted to make sure that there weren’t actually
going to be fewer spots than there currently is.
MR. O'CONNOR-This layout actually gives more monuments, if you will, that are parked against,
which may help that. There won’t be as much free parking as there was in the past. So it should be
some natural improvement.
MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. I didn’t have anything else.
MR. MAC EWAN-John?
MR. STROUGH-Let’s deal with a tough one first. The seawall. I, too, measured it out. I put a
string along the outside edge, approximately a foot off of what’s marked there as the shoreline, used
your scale, and I got less than 300 feet, which is fine, because if it gets more than 300 feet, then
there’s something that has to be resolved. So I, too, measured it.
MR. STEVES-More than 500 feet is the permitted regulation.
MR. STROUGH-Well, here’s where I have a problem that maybe you can help me with. I have in
front of me, I have the New York State Department of Environmental Conservation, dated June 28,
1999, to Richard and Christine Mozal, 99 Fitzgerald Road.
MR. O'CONNOR-Since that date, this map that you have here, showing 397, has been submitted to
them, and that was the October extension of that permit.
MR. STROUGH-All right, well, maybe the October extension will accommodate what I’m about to
address. The third paragraph down on this letter that I just referred to says that the permit is valid
only for the activity expressly authorized. Work beyond the scope of the permit shall be considered
as work without a permit. Any failure to comply with these terms may be treated as a violation of the
Environmental Conservation Law, and the permit, as Bob had pointed out, says 300 linear feet of
shoreline, and the front of it says it doesn’t allow anything more than that.
MR. O'CONNOR-Your approval is not an authorization for us to violate any other department’s
rules or regulations. My understanding of their extension was based upon this map, and my
understanding is that they have then either indirectly or directly, approved the seawall for the whole
397 feet. We did not have that issue. We can go back to them and ask them to change the lineal
footage, if that were an issue, but I think that’s.
MR. STROUGH-Well, I don’t want to approve something that DEC hasn’t approved, and what I
have before me is what I have before me, and what I have before me is approval for 300 feet, and it
even says, anything beyond the scope of this permit is considered to be work without a permit, and
the scope gives 300 feet. Now I measure less than 300 feet. I mean, if that 397 turns out to be
inaccurate, this is a moot point.
MR. STEVES-It’s not inaccurate, but at the same time, the wall will be 300 feet or less. You have to
remember that I’m going upon an elevation that goes right around the docks, goes around every little
rock. I’m talking about a substantial amount of undulation in the shore to establish a mean high
water mark that you don’t see. The wall will be 300 feet or less. So I think it’s a moot point.
MR. STROUGH-Well, in my mind, and I think in Bob’s, too, we haven’t come to terms here. I’d be
very happy if this said 397 feet. Fine, but, to me, that’s got to be, somehow we have to come
together on this.
MR. STEVES-Okay. I think that there’s an easy answer for that is, as the way it’s eroded in and out,
if you view it with the actual elevation, you’re looking at it as a straight line, and I’m looking at it as
an elevation that might, in a linear footage of three feet, might tape in seven or eight feet, of actual
elevation along the mean high water is what I have to give them. As far as now, when you have a
nice straight edge, when it is completed with the wall, it will be 300 feet.
MR. STROUGH-Well, that’s all well and good, Mr. Steves. If it’s 397, it’s 397. What I’m saying is, I
don’t see the permission given to you.
MR. STEVES-The wall will be 300 feet.
9
(Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 10/16/01)
MR. O'CONNOR-It’s permission to have a finished wall of 300 feet, which will be (lost words).
MR. STROUGH-The wall will be 300 linear feet?
MR. STEVES-That’s correct.
MR. O’CONNOR-Yes.
MR. STROUGH-Well, then that doesn’t seem to be a problem, but the shoreline is 397 feet, but the
wall is only going to be 300 feet.
MR. O'CONNOR-Yes.
MR. STROUGH-Okay. Let’s move on to some other issues. Now the boat launch, is that going to
remain?
MR. O'CONNOR-Yes.
MR. STROUGH-So we’re not going to have a seawall where the boat launch is.
MR. O'CONNOR-No, we are not.
MR. STROUGH-So it’s going to be even less than I measured, because I measured to the boat
launch. Now is that a problem that the boat launch extends into Town property?
MR. STEVES-It pre-existed that way before I purchased it. I haven’t had any complaints.
MR. STROUGH-And it has a by use situation. Now, the new entrances from the Glen Lake Road.
I think the Highway Department suggested that one be used for ingress and one be used for egress?
MR. O'CONNOR-Yes, or somebody did.
MR. STROUGH-I think it was the Highway Department.
MR. O'CONNOR-We proposed it. Staff asked that it be marked, I think.
MR. STROUGH-So there’s going to be signage there?
MR. O'CONNOR-Yes. The one on the west will be the entrance. The one on the east will be the
exit.
MR. STROUGH-Okay, and that signage will be added to the site plan, S-1?
MR. O'CONNOR-Yes.
MR. STROUGH-Now the hill that’s currently to the east side of the parking lot, where it’s kind of an
elevated plateau, that’s coming down?
MR. O'CONNOR-Yes.
MR. STROUGH-So that basically it’ll be a flat surface instead of that elevated?
MR. JARRETT-Not completely flat, but most of that hill will be taken down.
MR. STROUGH-Yes. Well, I see about three feet. Now, the landscaping, I like it. It’s very nice. I
think it’ll be a great addition. The only confusion I had, Mr. O’Connor said that the concrete patio
would be landscaped on the exterior?
MR. O'CONNOR-Yes.
MR. STROUGH-But it’s not on the plans as such.
MR. O'CONNOR-It’s on the colored plan.
MR. STROUGH-You see, here’s my landscaping.
MR. O'CONNOR-Okay. What we’ve proposed to do is just a short hedge, one that won’t block the
view of people that are sitting on the patio. That’ll be in this area here, and come across the front of
10
(Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 10/16/01)
the patio. I asked Staff about plantings in front of the premises toward the lake, and if we make
additions, either this addition or other additions, are there restrictions. Apparently there aren’t.
There are more restrictions on cutting restrictions or clearing restrictions, but we can do whatever
flowers, I take it, or plantings that we want in that area.
MR. STROUGH-Okay. I think it’s a good idea, and I think it’s a great addition to what I already
consider to be a great landscaping plan.
MR. O'CONNOR-Okay.
MR. STROUGH-The beds in between the docks, is that going to be, I see flowers and shrubs. Is
that going to be like wood chips, or is it going to be like rocks? What are they going to use as a fill
there?
MR. O'CONNOR-Mrs. Mozal is telling me it’s to be mulched.
MR. STROUGH-Yes. I see it now. Now the one area that I still have a question about, as far as
landscaping, while I’m on the topic, is in the parking area. There’s two legs that extend down from
where the infiltration bed will be, but there’s nothing identified with what’s going to happen there. I
don’t know if it’s going to be, the landscaping is only in this area, but nothing, nobody tells me what’s
going to happen here with these two legs.
MR. JARRETT-On the east side of the leaching area you’ll see where we’ve proposed the dumpster
and one tree is to remain in that area. That’ll remain as green space. It will become green space, I
should say.
MR. STROUGH-So that’ll be lawn?
MR. JARRETT-Grass or something similar to that, yes.
MR. STROUGH-I mean, because it probably went into the permeability calculations as permeable,
right?
MR. JARRETT-Actually, it did not. That’s been proposed since then.
MR. MAC EWAN-Mr. Jarrett, can I get you to back up for a minute. What’s something similar to
grass?
MR. JARRETT-What’s something similar to grass?
MR. MAC EWAN-Yes.
MR. JARRETT-I propose a grass.
MR. MAC EWAN-Well, you said, or something similar. I just wanted to make sure what we were
talking about here.
MR. JARRETT-I’m hearing behind me that it will be sod.
MR. MAC EWAN-It could have been astro turf. I’m not sure.
MR. JARRETT-This side, the western side, will be, right now proposed as gravel parking. I’ll
describe the eastern corner first, which will be green space, and the dumpster and the tree. The
western side will be parking.
MR. STROUGH-So this map is going to be parking.
MR. JARRETT-I think it’s shown as parking. This is the one that’s going to be sodded.
MR. STROUGH-It’s not shown as anything.
MR. JARRETT-This the area that’s proposed as green space. That’s proposed, actually, technically,
as parking.
MR. STROUGH-That’s going to be parking?
MR. JARRETT-Yes, that one space.
11
(Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 10/16/01)
MR. STROUGH-All right. Back to landscaping. Is there going to be curbing around the
landscaping, so that people don’t drive on it?
MR. JARRETT-We’re proposing around the leaching system a rock garden, and then shrubs within
that rock garden.
MR. STROUGH-So the boulders will?
MR. JARRETT-Yes, correct.
MR. STROUGH-All right. Now let’s go to stormwater. Before we go to stormwater, I see another
thing. It shows kind of that the seawall extends beyond, a bit beyond the Mozal property onto Town
property. That’s just an inaccurate representation, isn’t it?
MR. O'CONNOR-Yes, it is, if that’s the case. That may not be the seawall.
MR. STROUGH-That may be just the extension of the shoreline?
MR. O'CONNOR-Yes.
MR. STROUGH-Okay. All right. Now, we have three drywells, right? Now, has anybody
calculated the capacity of the drywell?
MR. O'CONNOR-We’ve submitted that to C.T. Male, or the Town has submitted it to C.T. Male,
and you have a report in your packet.
MR. STROUGH-I don’t think I got that. Is that what we got tonight?
MR. VOLLARO-Yes, that is.
MR. STROUGH-I haven’t read that.
MR. VOLLARO-Bullet Number Four.
MR. O'CONNOR-Those are minor comments that we’re willing to abide by.
MR. STROUGH-Yes, I did see that, but it said the depth. It didn’t say the capacity.
MR. JARRETT-Well, essentially, the drywells are sized to contain the first flush of stormwater in the
entire parking area. That’s a half inch of rainfall, the first half inch of rainfall.
MR. STROUGH-See, I didn’t see any calculation.
MR. JARRETT-That’s what’s shown here.
MR. STROUGH-Yes, well, but just for the first flush. I mean, aren’t we supposed to take a look at a
24 hour storm event?
MR. JARRETT-This is, in discussion with Staff, again, this is a pre-existing condition. We’re
modifying the location of the parking, but not increasing the parking surface area. So we’ve agreed
to deal with the first flush, which is containing the most pollutants on the site, but we are not dealing
with a quantity of stormwater.
MRS. MOORE-Craig, the similar application that the Board saw before them was when Price
Chopper paved their parking area, they also did something, in regards to stormwater, to handle the
first flush. So that’s where we were consistent with this applicant.
MR. STROUGH-Well, see, I used the rational method, and just tried to figure out, I get a 44,514
cubic foot capacity, in a four and a half inch, 25 year, 24 hour storm. I just didn’t know if the three
drywells could meet that capacity.
MR. JARRETT-Based on our calculations, we believe it can. C.T. Male submitted comments,
yesterday or today, and agreed with our.
MR. STROUGH-See, I never had the opportunity to read those. Okay. Now the surface is going to
be crushed blue stone or is it going to be paved?
MR. JARRETT-It’s a gravel surface. I haven’t gotten down to specifics as far as, it is blue stone, as
John’s asking? It’s a gravel surface, it’s not going to be paved.
12
(Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 10/16/01)
MR. STROUGH-So it’s going to be just blue stone. That’s better. I know the Town considers that
to be impermeable, but we all understand it’s got some permeability to it. All right. The only thing
that is outstanding in my mind is the resolution between the permit allowance and what we have in
front of us. As soon as I get that resolved, I’m fine.
MR. O'CONNOR-I think you’re talking about, again, the DEC permit that we have?
MR. STROUGH-Yes.
MR. O'CONNOR-Okay. Mr. Steves indicates that the permit stating of 300 feet is the length for the
measurement of wall that we will have when we are done with the project.
MR. STROUGH-All right. Okay. So, but the wall’s not going to extend beyond 300 feet, so that’s
fine.
MR. O'CONNOR-Yes.
MR. STROUGH-Okay. I think I’ve just about got everything. Thank you very much.
MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. Anything to add, Staff? Any other questions or comments from Board
members? I’d ask you gentlemen to give up the table and we’ll open up the public hearing.
MR. O'CONNOR-Mr. MacEwan, one other comment. You do have a letter from C.T. Male, and
just for the record, we will abide by their comments.
MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. Have you had a chance to review it?
MR. O'CONNOR-Yes.
MR. MAC EWAN-Let’s take it through bullet by bullet. Why don’t we do that. Mr. Jarrett, do you
want to go over it?
MR. JARRETT-Certainly. Bullet Number One is will one of the proposed curb cuts be used for
ingress only and the other for egress? Yes, that’s correct.
MR. MAC EWAN-And you’re going to so note it on the plat?
MR. JARRETT-Correct.
MR. MAC EWAN-Okay.
MR. JARRETT-Bullet Number Two is what is the surface treatment of the lot, paved or stone? It
will be stone.
MR. MAC EWAN-Note that on the plat as well.
MR. JARRETT-Yes, correct.
MR. MAC EWAN-Okay.
MR. JARRETT-Bullet Number Three, will both sides of the lot be connected for through
movements? The reason we bring this up is that the proposed grading contains a steep ramp, 12%
plus or minus, just to the east of the entrance, creating an abrupt grade change. The grade that he
notes is immediately adjoining the planter, and the actual travel way is eight percent, not as steep as
what he is indicating. However, we will make an attempt to modify that grade and show that on the
site plan.
MR. MAC EWAN-How will you do that?
MR. JARRETT-We’ll soften that grade and pull that slope back a little bit.
MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. Is that doable?
MR. JARRETT-Correct, it is. We looked at it today, and it is.
MR. MAC EWAN-Not to exceed 10%?
13
(Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 10/16/01)
MR. JARRETT-Yes. Bullet Number Four, although the intent of the grading plan is understood, the
plan should contain additional spot elevations at key locations to assure that the stormwater is
conveyed to the drywells. Also, what is the disposition of the existing catch basin on the southwest
corner of the lot? We’ve addressed the disposition of the catch basin earlier, and we will show
additional spot elevations on the grading plan for the.
MR. MAC EWAN-That’s somewhat of a vague statement, because where do you pick and choose as
to what elevations you’re going to show and where you’re going to show them? I mean, there
doesn’t seem to be a lot of guidance there with what they’re looking for.
MR. JARRETT-Well, I think I understand what they’re asking for, although I wouldn’t necessarily
agree with it, I think we will comply with it and show some additional spot elevations.
MR. MAC EWAN-On the plat as well, right?
MR. JARRETT-Roughly, I’d say, 10 to 12 spot elevations we could show.
MR. O'CONNOR-I think they intended to show 12, and we will put the spots on.
MR. MAC EWAN-Right. I just thought they would have given a little bit more direction as to where
they wanted them indicated.
MR. JARRETT-The last bullet reads the calculations for sizing the drywells are displayed on the
plans. The drywells are sized to handle the first flush or half inch of rain. This approach seems
reasonable, given the fact that any additional runoff will flow towards the lake. Is the top of the
berm elevation known? From the existing grading on the site, the top of the berm should be no
higher than 400.5 to 401. It’s only a six inch berm that we’re proposing. So it should not impede
flood flows.
MR. MAC EWAN-Okay, and that will also be noted on the plat, right?
MR. JARRETT-Correct. The elevation?
MR. MAC EWAN-Yes.
MR. JARRETT-Yes.
MR. MAC EWAN-Any questions from Board members on any of those? Okay.
MR. JARRETT-Thank you.
MR. MAC EWAN-I’ll open up the public hearing. Does anyone want to comment on this
application? You’re welcome to do so. If you have any questions or concerns, please address them
to the Board. Any takers?
MRS. MOORE-I do have a letter.
MR. MAC EWAN-Yes. Let’s do your letter, then.
MRS. MOORE-Okay. This is dated October 15, 2001, this is from Ann Sullivan, “Dear Members of
the Planning Board: My family is not able to attend tonight’s meeting, due to other commitments.
However, I would like to make it clear that I have several concerns regarding the site plan and
variances before you tonight. My family’s property is adjacent to the Docksider. It is the only
privately owned property adjoining the restaurant. On the other side is the County right of way. The
decisions you make tonight will have an impact on our property. Over the past several weeks, I have
spoken with Mr. Jarrett, the New York State Department of Health, Mr. Missita and the New York
State DEC. No one has been able to guarantee me that this plan will not have a detrimental effect
on our property.”
MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. Anyone else? I’ll close the public hearing.
PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED
MR. MAC EWAN-Discussion with Board members? No questions, comments? Anything you guys
wanted to add? I’ll entertain a motion, if someone wants to put a motion up.
MR. STROUGH-Well, I’m still working on it.
MRS. LA BOMBARD-Yes, John, I’ve got some stuff, too.
14
(Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 10/16/01)
MR. MAC EWAN-How about we take a quick five minute recess and we’ll pen a motion here. All
right. I’ll call the meeting back to order. Do we have a resolution all prepared here, do we?
MR. STROUGH-I think so.
MR. MAC EWAN-Okay.
MOTION TO APPROVE SITE PLAN NO. 42-2001 RICHARD & CHRISTINE MOZAL,
Introduced by John Strough who moved for its adoption, seconded by Catherine LaBombard:
WHEREAS, the Town Planning Board is in receipt of Site Plan No. 42-2001for R.& C. Mozal.
Applicant requests review of a 125 sq. ft. area within 50’ of the shoreline of Glen Lake, construction
of a 397 +/- sq. ft. retaining wall along the property line, and rearrangement of the parking area. Fill
within 50’ of the shoreline and construction of the retaining wall requires Planning Board review and
approval. Glen Lake CEA. Tax Map No. 38-4-2. Lot size: 0.83 acres; Section: 179-16, 179-
60, and
WHEREAS, the application was received 8/01:
WHEREAS, the above is supported with the following documentation and inclusive of all newly
received information, not included in this listing as of 10/12/01:
10/16 Staff notes
10/15 CT Male eng. comments
10/15 PB from Ann Sullivan
10/10 LM from R. Missita
10/9 Notice of Public Hearing
10/5 FOIL request – A. Sullivan
10/4 T. Jarrett from LM
10/3 Meeting notice
10/1 Bd. of Health Res. 44,2001 – Sewage Disposal Variance
10/1 LM from T. Jarrett – Grading & Stormwater plan, Erosion Control plan
9/17 R. Mozal from CB – removal from Sept. agenda
8/31 FOIL request – A. Sullivan
WHEREAS, public hearing was held on 10/16/01 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 Queensbury (Zoning); and
WHEREAS, the Planning Board has considered the environmental factors found in the Code of the
Town of Queensbury (Zoning); and
WHEREAS, approval of the application means that the applicant can now apply for a Building
Permit unless the lands are Adirondack Park Jurisdictional or other approvals are necessary.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT
RESOLVED, that
The application is approved as per the resolution prepared by Staff and is subject to the
following conditions:
1. The first Whereas should be amended to say 125 square feet, and
2. The second to last Whereas should be deleted regarding SEQRA, and
3. The applicant will abide by the C.T. Male comments dated October 15, 2001 with
the following notations to be added to the plans: In reference to the third bullet of
C.T. Male comments the applicant agrees to no greater than 10% grade, and Bullet
No. 5 of the C.T. Male comments, the plan will show 10 to 12 spot elevations and
flow of stormwater on plans and in addition to that, the top of the berm will be less
than or equal to 400.5 to 401 feet, and only six inches of the berm, so as to not
impede flood flow, and
4. Also to be added to the plans will be stone surface as indicated for parking area, and
15
(Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 10/16/01)
5. Also to be added to the plans will be ingress and egress signage will be added, the
west drive will be signed as ingress only and the east drive will be signed as egress
only, and
6. Boulders will be located on the perimeter of the leaching area to act as curbing and
retaining wall will not exceed 300 feet in linear length, and
7. The plans must show the New York State DEC Permit Number, and
8. The plans must also show a short hedge that will be shown on the landscaping plan
around the concrete patio, and
9. All conditions are to be noted on the final approved plans submitted for the Zoning
Administrator’s signature in a form to read as follows:
Plans have been approved under authority of a resolution adopted 10/ /01 by the
Planning Board of the Town of Queensbury, New York with the following
conditions:
1.
Duly adopted this 16th day of October 2001 by the following vote:
MR. SCHACHNER-Craig, in addition, the second to last “Whereas” should be deleted from the
prepared motion, in that it contemplates SEQRA review, and it’s my understanding that this is a
Type II Action.
MR. STROUGH-So noted.
MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. Amended as noted.
AYES: Mrs. LaBombard, Mr. Vollaro, Mr. Seguljic, Mr. Metivier, Mr. Strough, Mr. Hunsinger,
Mr. MacEwan
NOES: NONE
MR. MAC EWAN-You’re all set. Good luck.
MR. O'CONNOR-Thank you.
OLD BUSINESS:
SUBDIVISION NO. 1-2001 TYPE: UNLISTED MODIFICATION HELEN
MITCHELL PROPERTY OWNER: SAME AGENT: VAN DUSEN & STEVES ZONE:
SPLIT ZONED, LC-10A AND RR-5A LOCATION: LOCKHART MOUNTAIN ROAD
APPLICANT PROPOSES MODIFICATION TO APPROVED SUBDIVISION. THE
APPLICANT PROPOSES COMBINING LOTS ONE AND TWO OF THE ORIGINAL
SUBDIVISION. THIS WILL REDUCE THE NUMBER OF LOTS FROM 12 TO 11. TAX
MAP NO. 23-1-13, 40, 41 LOT SIZE: 2.75 AC., 79.84 AC., AND 50.65 SECTION:
SUBDIVISION REGULATIONS
JON LAPPER, TOM NACE, MATT STEVES, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT
MRS. LA BOMBARD-The public hearing back on September 25 was tabled until tonight.
th
STAFF INPUT
Notes from Staff, Subdivision No. 1-2001, Helen Mitchell, Meeting Date: October 16, 2001
“Project Description
The applicant was tabled at the September 25, 2001 meeting until the first meeting in October. The
applicant was given direction to review the opportunity of having each lot development be reviewed
by the Planning Board through site plan review.
Areas of Concern or Importance
Staff would discourage the Planning Board from making this a condition of the resolution because
the subdivision is subject to the existing conditions in regards to lot clearing, individual lot grading
plan to be supplied at time of building permit application, and no timber harvesting. In addition, the
Town’s Attorney has discouraged the Board from making this a condition of the resolution.
16
(Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 10/16/01)
Suggestions
Staff would suggest approval of the modification of combining lots 1 and 2 from the original plat to
one lot of 12.08 acres +/-.”
MR. MAC EWAN-All right, Mark. We’re going to turn it right over to you.
MR. SCHACHNER-Board members, the procedural status of this application is a little different than
most of the applications we deal with, in that your prior approval of the proposed subdivision is
already the subject of an Article 78 litigation challenge. The petitioners are represented by co-
counsel, one of whom is present this evening in the person of an attorney named Thomas West
who’s here. The applicant is obviously represented by Mr. Lapper. There have been substantial
negotiations between the applicant, through Mr. Lapper, and the petitioners, through Mr. West, and
there’s a proposal to settle the Article 78 litigation. The proposed settlement would contemplate
modification of the subdivision as you’ve previously approved it, as I understand it, by reduction in
the amount of lots by one lot, correct me if I’m wrong either attorney, and then, and I think the
Board’s aware of that proposal because that’s the modification that’s before you this evening. In
addition, as a result of these negotiations between the parties, there are a number of additional
restrictions on the proposed subdivision, which the applicant agrees with and the petitioner
neighbors agree with, if the Board agrees with that, and, understand that, you’re the Planning Board,
and that you are the ultimate decider of all issues before you. Neither I, as your counsel, or anyone
else, can tell you what you must agree with. All we can tell you is that the proposed terms of
settlement, including the additional conditions of approval, have been agreed to by the applicant and
by the previously opposing neighbors, who have commenced the Article 78 litigation action. If it’s
appropriate, if the Board feels it appropriate, what I would suggest is that Mr. Lapper, on behalf of
the applicant, present the proposed modification, along with the proposed additional approval
conditions. Obviously, this is a public process, and if Mr. West has any comments, on behalf of the
petitioners, I would encourage the Board to hear him out on those comments, but it’s my
understanding, subject to clarification by both counsel for the applicant and the petitioners, and by
petitioners, that’s the lawyer word for litigants, the people who have brought the Article 78 litigation.
It’s my understanding that the terms that Mr. Lapper will outline are agreeable to the applicant and to
the petitioners, and will settle the Article 78 litigation, if you’re comfortable approving them and
incorporating them as part of your subdivision approval. Any questions about the process, please
ask me now.
MR. MAC EWAN-I guess we’re all set.
MR. VOLLARO-I have a question. Are these terms that we’re talking about, we’re going to listen to
them verbally, rather than seeing anything written. Is that correct?
MR. SCHACHNER-They exist in writing. I have a copy, which anyone who wants is welcome to. I
don’t know how many copies there are.
MRS. MOORE-I provided a copy to each of the Board members.
MR. VOLLARO-There is a copy somewhere.
MR. SCHACHNER-You all have copies. You all should have copies before you, and I believe Mr.
Lapper will outline two extremely minor proposed modifications to the proposed settlement terms
you have before you, and this is not something to rush or to rubberstamp. If you want to take a
couple of minutes. The proposed settlement terms are two pages. If you want to take a couple of
minutes to read them, do so. Make sure you’re comfortable with them, because as I said, neither I, as
your counsel, nor anyone else, can dictate to you what you should decide or what you should
approve. It’s only if you agree and if you’re comfortable.
MR. MAC EWAN-Do you want to go over them, just kind of summarize? All right. Let’s go. Let’s
do that.
MR. LAPPER-For the record, Jon Lapper, Tom Nace and Matt Steves. This is Helen Mitchell who’s
behind me, and as Mark said, we’ve had numerous discussions with Mr. West, and I think that we’ve
worked out settlement terms that are agreeable to all parties involved, if it’s agreeable with the Board.
Mrs. Mitchell was never intending to maximize the development, or ask for the maximum lots
possible. If you will, this is just sort of a credibility issue that puts it in more concrete terms, the
cutting restrictions that we agreed to, and we’re comfortable with it, and I’m glad that Attorney West
and his clients, co-petitioners, are as well. We had previously agreed to one and one quarter acre
maximum clearing area for the house, the septic, the driveway, and that’s now been reduced to one
acre because that was determined, by our surveyor and engineer, to be plenty to build large houses on
these lots. We don’t need to take out more trees than is necessary. In addition to that, to be more
17
(Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 10/16/01)
specific about the clearing restrictions, there’s now a formula that provides that, so the building
envelope will be reduced from one and a quarter acres to one acre. There are now specific clearing
restrictions that relate to the degree of slope from the back of the property, from the back of the
house to a slope of no more than 25 feet from the rear elevation of the house, and in front of the
home, no more than 60 feet. So this just is an additional requirement within that one acre clearing,
that if the slope is too great, you might be able to see the house. So the trees wouldn’t be removed in
any area that exceeded the slope that’s provided here. The building characteristics, buildings and
roofs will be colored earth tones, not light colors. Roofs will be made of non-reflective materials,
and there will be a roof overhang of at least one foot. There are exterior lighting restrictions, which
is typical to what you do in commercial projects. Down lighting, and a maximum total amount of
exterior lumens. Most important for the petitioners were some credibility issues, in terms of
inspection. This will be codified in a Declaration of Covenants, which will take all of these terms,
plus the other conditions that have been imposed by the Planning Board, grant them in a Declaration
of Covenants, which would be enforceable by all of the individual lot owners and also a conservation
easement will be granted to a conservation organization, and they will have the right to enforce it as
well. We always meant what we said, that this is what would be done. So there’s nothing wrong with
having somebody come in and verify, and I think that addresses the issue of John Strough last time,
in terms of just that, making sure that it’s done in accordance with what’s agreed to. Now we would
have probably the Lake George Land Conservancy, one of the conservation groups, would be
granted the right to enforce this, as well as the Town Code Enforcement Officer, as well as the other
owners in the subdivision, and the procedure that this would be incorporated into the modification
of the final subdivision approval, these conditions. There were two minor changes that we agreed
with tonight that we had referred to a conservation organization with more than 1,000 members, and
that, we just struck that. It wasn’t necessary, the more than 1,000 members, and, in terms of
incorporating this into the Planning Board conditions for approval, I just added, plus any other
conditions imposed by the Planning Board.
MR. MAC EWAN-How are you going to arrive at what conservation group’s going to oversee that?
MR. LAPPER-There’s a procedure that we’ve designated the Lake George Land Conservancy, and if
that doesn’t work out, then Tom’s group would have the right to pick another one, with our
approval, which wouldn’t be unreasonably withheld. There are only so many, and we think that, we
think that it will work out with the Lake George Land Conservancy.
MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. Tom, any questions?
MR. SEGULJIC-I guess the clearing, there’s really a couple of conditions with regards to that, it can’t
exceed one acre, and then there’s the formulation.
MR. LAPPER-Yes.
MR. SEGULJIC-Based upon the slope of the land and how much land, up or down slope from the
house, could be cut.
MR. LAPPER-Exactly. In general, the area is on the site where the houses would be built, as shown
on the topographic map. It’s pretty flat areas. There’s plenty of area to build where it’s pretty flat.
This is just being careful, in terms of views from the lake, which is what the neighbors are concerned
about.
MR. VOLLARO-That formula would be used on every house?
MR. LAPPER-Yes.
MR. SEGULJIC-Okay. With regards to windows on the front of the house, that’s where the one
foot overhang comes in.
MR. LAPPER-Yes, that’s part of it, but in general, because this is not steep slope area, you’re not
going to be seeing these houses.
MR. NACE-By keeping the cutting restrictions, you’ve shielded the view of the house itself, so that
reflections off windows should not be, you know, you wouldn’t see the window directly, to get that
reflection.
MR. SEGULJIC-Then I guess, beyond that one acre clearing, no trees could be cut unless they were
diseased?
MR. LAPPER-And we’ve got that they’d have to be approved by a certified arborist that they are
truly diseased or dead.
18
(Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 10/16/01)
MR. SEGULJIC-All right. That’s it for now.
MR. MAC EWAN-Bob?
MR. VOLLARO-Would the Board be comfortable taking a short recess while you have a couple of
minutes to read and digest this thing a little bit?
MRS. LA BOMBARD-I’m fine.
MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. Everyone seems to be fine.
MR. VOLLARO-Okay. If they’re fine, that’s good.
MR. MAC EWAN-Do you want me to come back to you?
MR. VOLLARO-Yes.
MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. Cathy?
MRS. LA BOMBARD-All right. Then am I too know, Mark, that what we had proposed before,
where we had voted about each lot coming up for individual site plan review, I know that that isn’t
even an issue anymore. Is that correct?
MR. SCHACHNER-It’s correct that that’s not part of the proposed settlement terms. It’s also
correct, if you look through your Staff notes.
MRS. LA BOMBARD-I did, I read it.
MR. SCHACHNER-That neither Staff nor us, as Counsel, believe that’s an appropriate step to take.
MRS. LA BOMBARD-Right. So that’s, okay. Yes, I read all that. I just wanted to hear it.
MR. MAC EWAN-Anything else?
MRS. LA BOMBARD-No, I’m fine.
MR. MAC EWAN-Chris?
MR. HUNSINGER-I just want to make sure that I understand this one issue. So the current
proposal is to combine Lots One and Two?
MR. LAPPER-Yes.
MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. The other question I have is the definition of earth tones. I think that’s
something that may mean one thing to one person and another to another person. I just wonder if
that could be clarified, for the record.
MR. LAPPER-Well, I think the earth tones, plus no light colors will be used, that sort of is a
clarification.
MR. HUNSINGER-Okay.
MR. LAPPER-You can’t have a white house, even if white were considered an earth tone.
MR. HUNSINGER-Okay.
MR. LAPPER-And again, at best, or at worst, these things would have very filtered views. You’re
really not going to see these, but it’s just a matter of being careful. There’s one house on that road,
on Lockhart Mountain Road, that’s a white stucco, and it certainly stands out.
MR. HUNSINGER-Right.
MR. LAPPER-So this is an attempt to avoid that.
MR. HUNSINGER-I’m all set.
MR. MAC EWAN-John?
19
(Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 10/16/01)
MR. STROUGH-I need to get my memory refreshed a little bit, Laura. Maybe you can help. Did we
already condition the preliminary with the stormwater control maintenance agreement, or?
MRS. MOORE-During the process of, I’m sorry, Craig Brown wrote a letter to the applicant,
requesting them to submit their stormwater plans. C.T. Male reviewed that stormwater plan and did
a sign off on that plan, for the original subdivision.
MR. STROUGH-Okay. That is already part of the agreement?
MR. LAPPER-That’s not exactly correct, because we submitted as a minor subdivision, and then,
and Tom can explain this better than I, Craig asked for the plan to be resubmitted in more detail,
which was also before you last month, and Tom did that and C.T. Male reviewed it, and approved it.
Tom, why don’t you address that.
MR. NACE-Sure. Because it’s in the Lake George basin, the size of it, consider a major project. So
it was a major application, and I guess that stormwater permit process needs to be approved in your
motion to approve the final modification subdivision.
MR. STROUGH-My question was eventually what’s going to be, is it already part of the package or
do we have to condition it that that will be included as well?
MR. NACE-It is part of the package. It just needs your final blessing of approval.
MR. STROUGH-So it doesn’t need to be conditioned, Laura?
MRS. MOORE-It’s not a condition, but you should mention it in your resolution.
MR. STROUGH-Okay, and another thing, I was just wondering if we should mention in the
resolution is the definitions of no cut, as supplied by Mr. Steves.
MRS. MOORE-That should be considered a note on the plat, not just a condition of your resolution.
MR. LAPPER-This is actually more specific, because it talks about the certified arborist, licensed
arborist. So this is sort of a qualification of what Matt came up with.
MR. STROUGH-All right. So we should note these in our conditions?
MR. SCHACHNER-If you decide to approve the modification, part of your resolution of approval,
in my opinion as counsel, should include explicit adoption of the proposed settlement terms. By
explicit I don’t mean that you have to read this thing aloud again, but Mr. Lapper has summarized
them, and the document before you can be incorporated as part of your resolution of approval as
conditions of approval. That’s one of the factors that’s important to the petitioner neighbors,
because, by incorporating these terms as conditions of approval, that means that the Town has the
authority to enforce these restrictions in the future, should they not be complied with.
MR. STROUGH-So what you’re saying, Mark, is that when we condition this, if we go to approve it,
and we condition it that the settlement terms, in reference to the Mitchell, should be mentioned in
the condition as that’s just part of the agreement, and probably should be added to the covenants of
the deeds to lots 10 through whatever.
MR. SCHACHNER-Yes. That’s correct. Both those. Understand you’re saying two different
things. Putting them in the deed restrictions is beneficial to the neighbors, but making them part of
your approval is critical to the neighbors, so that the Town has the authority to enforce these, should
there be compliance issues in the future.
MR. STROUGH-Okay.
MR. SCHACHNER-The short answer to your question is, yes.
MR. STROUGH-Okay. Now the only other thing that I have, that’s come to mind, is we’ve
combined lots one and two, which I’m reading now we have 10 lots. The resolution says that the
number will reduce the number of lots from 12 to 11. Shouldn’t that be from 11 to 10?
MR. LAPPER-We have 11 lots. It’s from 12 to 11.
MR. STROUGH-Am I misunderstanding something? I see 11 lots. Now that you’re combining
Lots One and Two.
MR. LAPPER-No. Old One and Two, which were approved last time.
20
(Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 10/16/01)
MR. VOLLARO-That was the basis of the discussion at the last meeting, and I have a big note on
here, need a revised map to understand that.
MR. LAPPER-The previous map, which I have a copy of, along 9L, there were two lots, one and
two. The new map which you have before you, instead of two five acre lots, that’s one 12.8 acre lot.
That is the combination of those two lots. The existing Mitchell home with the out buildings.
MR. STROUGH-I see. Well, the way I read it was I thought they were going to combine them
again.
MR. LAPPER-No.
MR. STROUGH-But what this map reflects, and I’m looking at the S-1 sheet dated September 25,
2000.
MR. NACE-That’s the modified one that has already made that change.
MR. STROUGH-Okay. I thought they were doing it again, because I saw it again in the notes.
MR. LAPPER-When we came in originally we had 13 lots. The Board asked us to reduce one up on
top of the hill, in the back, because of the configuration of the lots. So we went to 12, and now we’re
going to 11.
MR. STROUGH-Then that part of the resolution stands as it is. Okay. Thank you.
MR. NACE-John, you had a question on stormwater. Let me make one clarification. Because we’re
in the Lake George basin, when each lot is developed with a house, the application for a building
permit will contain site specific stormwater design for that house.
MR. LAPPER-Which would be in keeping with Tom’s report.
MR. NACE-That’s in keeping with the report, and in keeping with your regulations.
MR. VOLLARO-And that’s assuming that each one of those houses that are developed are over
15,000 square feet. Is that correct? That’s what, it talks, minor projects are 15,000 square feet, major
projects are anything over 15,000 square feet.
MR. LAPPER-Because the subdivision is a major project.
MR. VOLLARO-Then the whole thing is a major project.
MR. NACE-Yes. Each lot, regardless of size.
MR. VOLLARO-I’m just looking, I happen to have the local law filing with me, just to see what that
has to say.
MR. MAC EWAN-John, did you have more questions?
MR. STROUGH-Well, it’s just that, I think Mr. Nace was suggesting that it doesn’t need to be a
condition, that it’s in the package, and you said the Lake George Park Commission?
MR. NACE-No. Your approval of the stormwater plan and report that was submitted, and
application for major projects stormwater permit, needs to be part of your approval process tonight.
What I’m saying is that, above and beyond that, when each lot is developed, when each lot comes in
for a building permit, they will have to have site specific stormwater design and report with that lot,
in order to get a building permit.
MR. STROUGH-And again, who’s approval would that be?
MR. NACE-That will be Dave Hatin’s approval, at that point.
MR. HUNSINGER-Isn’t that already part of the record, though?
MR. NACE-Yes, it is.
MR. HUNSINGER-Yes. So we don’t need to reference it in the resolution.
MR. NACE-No. I’m just sort of clarifying what had previously been said.
21
(Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 10/16/01)
MR. LAPPER-But your resolution should include that that full stormwater report was submitted and
has been reviewed by C.T. Male and it’s approved by the Planning Board, because that is a detailed
report on how the stormwater will work for these lots.
MR. SCHACHNER-Assuming you feel that way, again.
MR. HUNSINGER-Well, it’s already part of the record. I don’t know why we need to reference it as
a condition of the resolution.
MR. SCHACHNER-I think the applicant’s point is that that particular stormwater management plan,
at the detailed level that Mr. Nace submitted it, correct me if I’m wrong, has been submitted since
your last approval.
MR. LAPPER-Absolutely.
MR. SCHACHNER-That’s why.
MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. What was the date of that?
MR. VOLLARO-This says September 2001 on it. It hasn’t got a date specific.
MR. STROUGH-Okay. I’m fine.
MR. MAC EWAN-Tony?
MR. METIVIER-I only have one comment about the trees being trimmed in a no cut zone. I guess
my concern here, if you have trees on your lot that are dead, clearly dead, you’d still need to bring in
a certified tree master to have them cut down?
MR. LAPPER-That is a little onerous, but in the spirit of compromise, we’ve agreed to it.
MR. METIVIER-If you have dead trees that are down, it’s a fire hazard in the summer time. It
doesn’t promote good tree growth for other trees in the area. So, clearly, if a tree is dead, or laying
down, and the homeowner wants to take it down, I don’t see why that should be an issue.
MR. LAPPER-If it’s within the acre, you could take it down yourself, if you didn’t maximize your
building, but if it’s outside of the acre.
MRS. LA BOMBARD-But, you know, you could probably go through 12 acres of land, right now,
and find lots of trees that could be thinned out and weeded out, to let the other ones grow well.
MR. LAPPER-They wanted to make sure it was certified by a licensed arborist, and we’re agreeable,
it’s going to be an expense, and an inconvenience, but if it creates the credibility that is needed to
settle this, it makes sense.
MR. MAC EWAN-I understand what the neighbors are looking for. The motivation here is to keep
it an unchanged, natural state. I mean, if it was the side of Buck Mountain, no one would be going
up there cutting down dead or diseased trees. It would just go through their natural course the way
they are. So I think that’s what they’re trying to make certain happens here.
MR. METIVIER-Right, but I guess my concern is there’s going to be houses there now, and you
want to reduce the threat of fire, and in order to do so, you try to get rid of some of the dead wood.
That’s my thinking at this point, but, again, if somebody could start questioning dead versus live
trees, then you run into problems.
MR. LAPPER-We’ll try and market one of the houses to a certified arborist.
MR. METIVIER-All right. That’s all.
MR. MAC EWAN-Robert, back to you.
MR. VOLLARO-On the stormwater report, I didn’t see anything in it that talked directly to this
Local Law No. 4 of the year 1991 on stormwater management. This is the law that pertains to the
Lake George basin.
MR. NACE-Right. There was an application.
MR. VOLLARO-So when you wrote this, did you write it to this document?
22
(Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 10/16/01)
MR. NACE-Yes, sir. Yes, I did, and there was also an application which was submitted with that
report, which is absolutely specific to your local law. You should have an application that looks like.
It’s Town of Queensbury application for stormwater management permit under Chapter 147,
Stormwater Management, LL499.
MR. VOLLARO-Well, since I can’t read it from here, I don’t see anything that’s a reasonable
facsimile of that in my package, but that’s.
MR. MAC EWAN-It could have been a previous package.
MR. VOLLARO-It could have been a previous package. My only question is to get on the record
that this document is written through the local law pertaining to the Lake George basin.
MR. NACE-Directly responsive to your Chapter 147, correct.
MR. VOLLARO-Okay. My other question is, looking at Lot Number 10, I think we still have a Lot
Number 10, I’m not sure.
MR. LAPPER-Yes, we do.
MR. VOLLARO-That’s good. Should we have a no further subdivision in Lot Number 10?
MR. LAPPER-That you already did in the approval for last time, it was called Lot 11 at the time.
MR. VOLLARO-Yes.
MR. LAPPER-That’s already in the conditions.
MR. VOLLARO-In the conditions of the prior approval?
MR. LAPPER-In the conditions of the prior subdivision approval.
MR. VOLLARO-Okay. That’s on the preliminary.
MR. LAPPER-No, you granted final, and we came back after final to reduce the lot.
MR. SCHACHNER-Right. You’ve already done final approval of this subdivision.
MR. VOLLARO-Thank you, Mark. Okay.
MR. MAC EWAN-Is that it? Any other questions, comments from Board members? Staff?
MR. SEGULJIC-I guess if there are violations, someone does go out and cut down trees, what is the
enforcement action?
MR. LAPPER-The Town Code Enforcement Officer would be able to enforce it and bring someone
to court in Queensbury. The conservation group that is granted the right to enforce it would, that
agreement that you have provides for an enforcement mechanism that they can enforce it and they
can assess money damages against the lot owner for the cost of replanting trees. So it’s all pretty
specific as to enforcement.
MR. SEGULJIC-So each of the owners would be made aware of this by deed?
MR. LAPPER-This will be in a deed covenant, when they close, when they buy their property and
get a deed, they will have this in writing. It’ll be in their title report. It’ll be with their deed.
MR. SEGULJIC-Okay.
MR. MAC EWAN-Any other questions? Has Staff got anything to add? Applicants?
MR. VOLLARO-I have one question. The two C.T. Male letters, one is 9/25, and Tom Nace’s letter
of 9/25, I guess they are not included in the resolution, but the resolution says, and inclusive of all
newly received information not included in this listing as of 10/12. Is that how you cover the 9/25?
MRS. MOORE-That’s correct.
MR. SCHACHNER-Where does it say that, in the prepared resolution?
23
(Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 10/16/01)
MRS. MOORE-Yes.
MR. MAC EWAN-Yes, the third “Whereas”.
MR. SCHACHNER-Right. I mean, I would encourage the Board to mention the two C.T. Male
things.
MR. VOLLARO-Okay. I have them here. I wanted to know whether or not.
MR. SCHACHNER-I would encourage you to mention them specifically, and not just use the
catchall.
MR. VOLLARO-Okay.
MR. MAC EWAN-Just mention the date received. Is that it? Anything that you gentlemen wanted
to add?
MR. LAPPER-No.
MR. MAC EWAN-We’ll open up the public hearing. We had left it open. Does anyone want to
comment on this application?
PUBLIC HEARING OPEN
TOM WEST
MR. WEST-Thank you very much. I’ll just be very brief tonight. I want to thank a couple of people
who worked very hard on this settlement process, to make it all happen. First of all, we’d like to
thank Mrs. Mitchell, first and foremost, for being willing to work with us to bring about this
settlement. In addition, her Counsel and her consultants worked with our group to work out these
terms and conditions, and we’d like to thank them. I’d like to also thank Lionel Barthold, who’s an
engineer and one of the petitioners who really put a lot of effort into the formula and the restrictions
and drafting them up and working with Mrs. Mitchell’s consultants to make all this happen, but I
think most importantly, I’d like to thank the Board for having reservations at the last meeting, and
expressing those reservations. It was your reservations, your willingness to take a hard look at this
issue, when we came back to you and pleaded to you to have you take another look at it, that enabled
the proceeding to be paused, so that we could sit down and try and work something out that made
sense for Lake George, and I commend all of you for having exercised your discretion to show that
kind of caution, and encourage all of us to talk and work this out. I recognize that some of these
conditions may seem onerous to some of you. We think, in practice, they’ll work fine on these lots.
We are trying to come up with a formula that works for Lake George. Upland development is a very
serious issue facing Lake George, and it’s going to require a little bit of experimentation by all of us,
as we go forward, and we’re very thankful that this Board was willing to work with our group of
petitioners to come up with a solution.
MR. SCHACHNER-Mr. Chairman, before Mr. West leaves, a couple of suggestions.
MR. MAC EWAN-Go ahead.
MR. SCHACHNER-First, the speaker neglected to identify himself. I’d ask that he do so for the
purposes of the record.
MR. WEST-My name is Tom West. I’m one of the petitioners in the litigation. I am a resident of
the Town of Queensbury in several locations, as I stated the last time, I think this was a continuation
of the record where I did identify our property holdings, close to and directly across from the subject
property. I’m also co-counsel, now, which probably gives me a fool for a lawyer or a lawyer for a
fool, as the saying goes, in this proceeding.
MR. SCHACHNER-That was the second question I was going to ask, and I would only ask that Mr.
West acknowledge, for the purpose of the record, that, in fact, petitioners agreed to the proposed
settlement as described.
MR. WEST-That’s correct. We are in the process of making sure that we have all the signoffs.
We’re comfortable that everybody will follow our recommendations in settling this litigation. We still
have a lot of work to do. We haven’t even begun the process of drafting the declaration of
covenants and restrictions, and that has to be prepared. We’re going to get to that right after we get
this process done, work that out. We have to negotiate with the conservation organizations to make
sure that this program is in the hands of somebody that will administer it properly and that it’s
funded, because you can’t just have a program like this without having an ongoing inspection
24
(Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 10/16/01)
program, and that’s something that the fund for Lake George is looking at funding the ongoing
inspection. So we’re trying to put together a program that will work for this property and work for
other properties as well. We’re hopeful that we can wrap all this up in the next several weeks or so,
and then have a stipulation of discontinuance when everything’s ready to be recorded.
MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. Thank you. Anyone else?
MRS. MOORE-I do have a letter.
MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. This is dated October 11, 2001, from Thomas Jabaut and Mercedes
Gaudier, “Dear Mrs. Mitchell: At the last Town Planning Board meeting, we were encouraged to
hear that you would be interested in selling parts or all of your property for non-building purposes.
We would consider purchasing, for a fair price, the lot adjacent to our property and preserving it.
We would add this land to our existing acreage. We thought this would lessen the impact on this
sensitive area and help reassure those concerned about over-development of the Lake George basin.”
MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. Thank you. Anyone else? All right. I’ll close the public hearing.
PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED
MR. MAC EWAN-Any additional comments? Staff? Does someone want to introduce a resolution,
please?
MRS. MOORE-Do you want to outline some of your conditions prior to your resolution?
MR. MAC EWAN-Why don’t you go over them first, Chris.
MR. HUNSINGER-I really only had three. The first condition is regarding reference to the
settlement terms. The second is referencing the stormwater management report, and then the third
one is referencing the C.T. Male letter of 9/25. If you want the specific language, I’d be happy to
read that off.
MRS. MOORE-Something that I would suggest is that, if there’s any conditions, that those
conditions be noted on the subdivision plat.
MR. STROUGH-Weren’t there other notations that were to be added to the plat? Such as no
further division of?
MR. LAPPER-Yes.
MR. STROUGH-It wasn’t on one of the lots, but.
MRS. MOORE-Right.
MR. STROUGH-Was it Lot 10, was it?
MR. NACE-I believe it was Lot Three.
MR. STROUGH-I’m trying to find it in this pile here.
MR. NACE-It was C.T. Male’s letter of.
MR. HUNSINGER-I’m sorry. My understanding, Laura, is the conditions would be referenced on
the plat, the way that this resolution is worded?
MR. LAPPER-Yes.
MRS. MOORE-Okay. I just want to make sure it’s clear, and the comment that John just made, the
note on the plat should be revised to indicate Lot Number Two, previously Lot Three, and Lot Ten,
previously Lot Eleven, should indicate no further subdivision. I’m sorry for the previous, but that
was, so this plat, it’s only referencing Lot Number Two and Lot Number Ten, should indicate no
further subdivision.
MR. HUNSINGER-Okay.
MR. MAC EWAN-That’s all we need. We don’t need to reference all the previous plats.
MRS. MOORE-No, you do not.
25
(Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 10/16/01)
MR. MAC EWAN-That’s only going to confuse things. Anything else, Laura?
MRS. MOORE-No.
MR. HUNSINGER-Do you want me to rip it off?
MR. MAC EWAN-Yes.
MR. HUNSINGER-Okay.
MOTION TO APPROVE MODIFICATION TO SUBDIVISION NO. 1-2001 HELEN
MITCHELL, Introduced by Chris Hunsinger who moved for its adoption, seconded by Robert
Vollaro:
WHEREAS, the Town Planning Board is in receipt of SB 1-2001, Helen Mitchell, Modification.
Applicant proposes modification to approved subdivision. The applicant proposes combining Lots
One and Two of the original subdivision. This will reduce the number of lots from 12 to 11.Tax
Map No.23-1-13, 40, 41. Lot size: 2.75 ac., 79.84 ac., and 50.65, and;
WHEREAS, the application was received 8/01;
WHEREAS, the above is supported with the following documentation, and inclusive of all newly
received information, not included is this listing as of 10/12/01;
10/16 Staff Notes
10/16 T. Ulasewicz from Town Counsel
10/11 H. Mitchell from T. Jabaut & M. Gautier
10/10 New Info to be submitted by J. Lapper per LM
9/25 Staff Notes
9/19 APA – Jurisdictional Determination
9/18 Notice of Public Hearing
9/5 Meeting Notice
WHEREAS, public hearing was held on 9/25/01 and 10/16/01 concerning the above project; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Board has determined that the proposal complies with the Subdivision
requirements of the Code of the Town 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 the Planning Board has adopted a SEQRA Negative Declaration; and/or if application is a
modification, the requirements of the State Environmental Quality Review Act have been
considered; and the proposed modification(s) do not result in any new or significantly different
environmental impacts, and, therefore, no further SEQRA review is necessary; and
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT
RESOLVED, that
The application for the modification is approved as per the resolution prepared by Staff with
the following special conditions:
1. That the settlement terms, Mitchell Development, dated and received October 16,
2001 are hereby referenced and incorporated in this approval. Under Item Six, the
words “with more than 1,000 members” shall be stricken. These settlement terms
shall be filed as covenants in all deeds in lots Two through Eleven, and
2. The Stormwater Management report submitted by the applicant, as prepared by
Nace Engineering, P.C. dated September 2001 and amended September 25, 2001 is
hereby referenced and incorporated in the approval, and
3. The C.T. Male letter dated September 25, 2001 is hereby specifically incorporated as
part of the record, and
4. The final plat should note, on Lots Two and Ten, that these lots will not be further
subdivided, and
26
(Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 10/16/01)
5. All necessary outside agency approvals have been received by the applicant, with a
copy sent to and received by Planning Department Staff within 180 days, and
6. The plat must be filed with the County Clerk within 60 days of receipt by Planning
Department Staff of outside agency approvals noted.
7. All conditions are to be noted on the final mylar submitted for the Chairman’s
signature in a form to read as follows:
“Plans have been approved under authority of a resolution adopted _______ by the
Planning Board of the Town of Queensbury, New York with the following
conditions:”
1.
Duly adopted this 16th day of October 2001 by the following vote:
AYES: Mr. Vollaro, Mr. Seguljic, Mr. Metivier, Mr. Strough, Mr. Hunsinger, Mrs. LaBombard,
Mr. MacEwan
NOES: NONE
MR. MAC EWAN-You’re all set.
MR. LAPPER-I appreciate it.
MR. NACE-Thank you.
MR. MAC EWAN-Good luck.
SUBDIVISION NO. 8-2001 PRELIMINARY STAGE FINAL STAGE TYPE:
UNLISTED HUNT LAKE HOLDING CO., INC. PROPERTY OWNER: SAME
AGENT: MICHAEL BORGOS, ESQ., MULLER & MULLER ZONE: RR-5A
LOCATION: 250’ WEST OF GURNEY LN. & BUCKBEE RD. APPLICANT IS
REQUESTING REVIEW FOR SUBDIVISION OF A 46.14 ACRE PARCEL INTO 3 LOTS
OF 5.92 ACRES, 12.69 ACRES, AND 27.53 ACRES. CROSS REFERENCE: SB 5-2000, AV
16-2001 TAX MAP NO. 32-1-32.41, 32.42, 32.43 LOT SIZE: 46.14 ACRES SECTION:
SUBDIVISION REGULATIONS
MICHAEL BORGOS, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT
MRS. LA BOMBARD-It was tabled because we needed the final signoff from the engineer. The
public hearing last September 18, this past September 18, was also tabled.
thth
STAFF INPUT
Notes from Staff, Subdivision No. 8-2001 Preliminary Stage Final Stage, Hunt Lake Land Holding
Co., Inc., Meeting Date: October 16, 2001 “Project Description and Areas of Concern or
Importance
The applicant’s request for approval of a three-lot subdivision was tabled at the September 18, 2001
Planning Board meeting. The Planning Board tabled the application so the applicant could address
the CT Male comments. The applicant has indicated the plans will be revised to address CT Male
comments.
The Planning Board should be aware that lots 1 and 2; 27.53 acres and 12.69 acres respectively have
future development possibilities. The rural residential five-acre zoning allows for additional lots to
be subdivided through review and allows for other non-residential uses through review. The
applicant has only indicated that lot 1 of 27.53 acres would be further subdivided for residential use.
Suggestions
Staff would recommend approval of the three-lot subdivision and the plat should include the
following block "Approved under authority of a resolution adopted _(Date)_________ by the
Planning Board of the Town of Queensbury, New York_(Signature of Chairman)_, Chairman; Date
of Plat Signature _(Date)_. In addition a full set of plans would include the survey from David
Bolster and the site plan drawings 00-033A-01 through 00-033A-03 prepared by Jim Hutchins”
MRS. MOORE-I don’t have any new information, other than that C.T. Male did provide a signoff
for this three lot subdivision.
27
(Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 10/16/01)
MR. MAC EWAN-Good evening.
MR. BORGOS-Good evening, Mr. Chairman. Michael Borgos for the applicant, Hunt Lake Land
Holding. The subdivision that’s on the map in front of you here is the three lot subdivision. As
noted in Staff notes, we were here last month, and we have taken the tabling time to respond to the
C.T. Male comments, and I believe that, in your packet, you’ll have the correspondence from James
Houston at C.T. Male that was received by the Town of Queensbury on October 12, that indicates
th
that they have basically signed off on all the comments that were made, and that were discussed at
the last meeting. Are there any questions I can answer for the Board? I’d be happy to do so.
MR. MAC EWAN-Mrs. LaBombard, we’ll start with you.
MRS. LA BOMBARD-I don’t have anything to say right now.
MR. MAC EWAN-Chris?
MR. HUNSINGER-I’m all set.
MR. MAC EWAN-John?
MR. STROUGH-Just the applicant’s response to Staff’s suggestions. Staff would suggest the
Planning Board would approve the four lot subdivision with the following conditions. Did you see
that?
MR. BORGOS-For the three lot, yes, I did.
MR. STROUGH-And the lots are limited to the clearing areas shown on the plan?
MR. BORGOS-You’re referring to the next application for the four lot.
MR. STROUGH-Okay. I guess it’s the next one. I put them both in the same folder. All right.
MR. BORGOS-Yes. The suggestions for this one just indicate that they recommend approval, and
the block language that traditionally is on the plat.
MR. STROUGH-That’s right. I have it right here. You’re correct. No, I have no questions, no
further questions.
MR. MAC EWAN-Tony?
MR. METIVIER-I’m fine.
MR. MAC EWAN-Tom?
MR. SEGULJIC-Okay.
MR. MAC EWAN-Robert?
MR. VOLLARO-The one question I do have is on Mr. Bolster’s map, and I’ve got to find it, under
Notes, it says this survey was prepared without the benefit of an abstract of title and is therefore
subject to any easements, covenants or restrictions. What I’m driving at in Note Number One, lower
left hand corner of the drawing, is that this Note One from Dave Bolster is really a disclaimer on
future easements. I would like to know where the power lines are going. There’s no, I think his
comment sort of covers that, but I don’t see, I’m kind of interested in what the NiMo routing was
going to be in this, and I don’t see anywhere on the drawing, but when I looked at that note, I knew
that he was.
MR. BORGOS-I recall that you brought that up at the last meeting, and it’s been a subject of our
discussions in the past month. We had some concerns about that as well, and in talking about, we
turned to the Code book for the Town of Queensbury for our resolution to the question, and in
there I found that we’re required to mark any existing utilities, and we’ve done so, but you’re correct,
there is not power to each lot, but we believe we can take care of that in the traditional means, as any
other property in this Town would have it. There are many lots in this Town that don’t have utilities
right to them. The person actually developing the lot and putting the house on it will deal with that
through the use of obtaining easements to go across, but what we present to you on the map for this
subdivision approval is simply what is existing.
28
(Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 10/16/01)
MR. VOLLARO-Normally we see that, the routing and the distribution of power, and if it’s not here,
it’s not here. I guess you’re going to have to do it on a house by house basis. Is that what the plan
is?
MR. BORGOS-That’s correct.
MR. VOLLARO-Okay. Other than that, I don’t have any questions.
MR. MAC EWAN-Cathy, we’re back to you. Did you have any questions?
MRS. LA BOMBARD-No.
MR. MAC EWAN-Anything you wanted to add, Mr. Borgos?
MR. BORGOS-No.
MR. MAC EWAN-Staff? I’ll ask you to give up the table for a couple of minutes. We have a public
hearing. We left it open. I’ll take anyone who wants to comment to this application.
PUBLIC HEARING OPEN
NO COMMENT
PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED
MR. MAC EWAN-We need to do SEQRA on this. Long or Short on this?
MRS. MOORE-This is a Long Form.
MRS. LA BOMBARD-This is the Long one. I’ve got it.
RESOLUTION WHEN DETERMINATION OF NO SIGNIFICANCE IS MADE
RESOLUTION NO. 8-2001, Introduced by Catherine LaBombard who moved for its adoption,
seconded by Robert Vollaro:
WHEREAS, there is presently before the Planning Board an application for:
HUNT LAKE LAND HOLDING CO., INC., 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.
5. Having considered and thoroughly analyzed the relevant areas of environmental concern and
having considered the criteria for determining whether a project has a significant
environmental impact as the same is set forth in Section 617.11 of the Official Compilation
of Codes, Rules and Regulations for the State of New York, this Board finds that the action
about to be undertaken by this Board will have no significant environmental effect and the
Chairman of the Planning Board is hereby authorized to execute and sign and file as may be
necessary a statement of non-significance or a negative declaration that may be required by
law.
Duly adopted this 16 day of October, 2001, by the following vote:
th
AYES: Mr. Vollaro, Mr. Seguljic, Mr. Metivier, Mr. Strough, Mr. Hunsinger, Mrs. LaBombard,
29
(Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 10/16/01)
Mr. MacEwan
NOES: NONE
MR. MAC EWAN-Would someone like to introduce a resolution for preliminary, please?
MOTION TO APPROVE PRELIMINARY STAGE SUBDIVISION NO. 8-2001 HUNT
LAKE LAND HOLDING CO., INC., Introduced by John Strough who moved for its adoption,
seconded by Anthony Metivier:
WHEREAS, the Town Planning Board is in receipt of preliminary stage SB 8-2001, Hunt Lake Land
Holding Co., Inc. Applicant is requesting review for subdivision of a 46.14 acre parcel into 3 lots of
5.92 acres, 12.69 acres, and 27.53 acres. Tax Map No. 32-1-32.41, 32.42, 32.43. Zone: RR-5A, and;
WHEREAS, the application was received 7/01;
WHEREAS, the above is supported with the following documentation, and inclusive of all newly
received information, not included is this listing as of 10/12/01;
10/16 Staff Notes
10/11 FOIL request – T. Bruno
10/9 J. Houston, CT Male from J. Hutchins – letter w/ revised drawings and
drainage reports in response to 10/9 comments.
10/9 CT Male eng. comments from info rec’d. 10/8
9/28 PB resolution
9/18 Staff Notes
9/13 CT Male engineering review
9/11 Notice of Public Hearing
9/6 Meeting Notice
WHEREAS, public hearing was held on 9/18/01 concerning the above project; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Board has determined that the proposal complies with the Subdivision
requirements of the Code of the Town 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 the Planning Board has adopted a SEQRA Negative Declaration; and/or if application is a
modification, the requirements of the State Environmental Quality Review Act have been
considered; and the proposed modification(s) do not result in any new or significantly different
environmental impacts, and, therefore, no further SEQRA review is necessary; and
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT
RESOLVED, that
The application for preliminary stage is approved as per the resolution prepared by Staff.
Duly adopted this 16th day of October 2001 by the following vote:
MR. STROUGH-Laura, should the Preliminary have the new verbiage added to it, or just the Final,
the verbiage being plans have been approved under the authority of a resolution adopted blank by
the Planning Board?
MRS. MOORE-The Final is fine.
MR. STROUGH-Okay. As prepared by Staff.
AYES: Mr. Metivier, Mr. Strough, Mr. Hunsinger, Mrs. LaBombard, Mr. Vollaro, Mr. Seguljic,
Mr. MacEwan
NOES: NONE
MR. MAC EWAN-Would someone like to introduce one for Final, please?
30
(Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 10/16/01)
MOTION TO APPROVE FINAL STAGE SUBDIVISION NO. 8-2001 HUNT LAKE
LAND HOLDING, CO., INC., Introduced by John Strough who moved for its adoption,
seconded by Robert Vollaro:
WHEREAS, the Town Planning Board is in receipt of final stage SB 8-2001, Hunt Lake Land
Holding Co., Inc. Applicant is requesting review for subdivision of a 46.14 acre parcel into 3 lots of
5.92 acres, 12.69 acres, and 27.53 acres. Tax Map No. 32-1-32.41, 32.42, 32.43. Zone: RR-5A, and;
WHEREAS, the application was received 7/01;
WHEREAS, the above is supported with the following documentation, and inclusive of all newly
received information, not included is this listing as of 10/12/01;
10/16 Staff Notes
10/15 FOIL request from M/M Nortman
10/12 CT Male eng. comments
10/9 New Info - J. Houston, CT Male from J. Hutchins – letter w/ revised
drawings and drainage reports in response to 10/9 comments.
10/9 CT Male eng. comments from info rec’d. 10/8
9/28 PB resolution
9/18 Staff Notes
9/13 CT Male engineering review
9/11 Notice of Public Hearing
9/6 Meeting Notice
WHEREAS, public hearing was held on 9/18/01 concerning the above project; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Board has determined that the proposal complies with the Subdivision
requirements of the Code of the Town 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 the Planning Board has adopted a SEQRA Negative Declaration; and/or if application is a
modification, the requirements of the State Environmental Quality Review Act have been
considered; and the proposed modification(s) do not result in any new or significantly different
environmental impacts, and, therefore, no further SEQRA review is necessary; and
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT
RESOLVED, that
The application for Final Stage is approved as per resolution prepared by Staff and is subject to the
following conditions:
1. All necessary outside agency approvals have been received by the applicant, with a
copy sent to and received by Planning Department Staff within 180 days.
2. The plat must be filed with the County Clerk within 60 days of receipt by Planning
Department Staff of outside agency approvals noted.
Duly adopted this 18th day of October 2001 by the following vote:
AYES: Mr. Vollaro, Mr. Seguljic, Mr. Metivier, Mr. Strough, Mr. Hunsinger, Mrs. LaBombard,
Mr. MacEwan
NOES: NONE
MR. MAC EWAN-One down.
SUBDIVISION NO. 9-2001 PRELIMINARY STAGE FINAL STAGE TYPE:
UNLISTED HUNT LAKE HOLDING CO., INC. PROPERTY OWNER: SAME
AGENT: MICHAEL BORGOS, ESQ., MULLER & MULLER ZONE: RR-5A
LOCATION: 250’ WEST OF GURNEY LN. AND BUCKBEE RD. APPLICANT
PROPOSES SUBDIVISION OF A 27.5 +/- ACRE PARCEL INTO 4 LOTS OF 5.04
ACRES, 5.19 ACRES, 5.29 ACRES, AND 12.11 ACRES. CROSS REFERENCE: SB 5-2000,
AV 16-2001 TAX MAP NO. 32-1-31.41 LOT SIZE: 27.5 ACRES SECTION:
SUBDIVISION REGULATIONS
31
(Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 10/16/01)
MICHAEL BORGOS, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT
MRS. LA BOMBARD-And the public hearing on September 18 was tabled.
th
STAFF INPUT
Notes from Staff, Subdivision No. 9-2001 Preliminary Stage, Final Stage, Hunt Lake Land Holding
Co., Inc., Meeting Date: October 16, 2001 “Project Description and Areas of Concern or
Importance
The applicant’s request for a four lot subdivision was tabled at the September 18, 2001 Planning
Board meeting so the applicant could respond to CT Male comments. The applicant has indicated
the plans will be revised to address the comments.
Staff has spoken with the Highway Department about Buckbee Road and Gurney Lane Road. Both
of the roads are maintained Town roads. The Highway Department does not identify any concerns
with four additional dwellings on Buckbee Road.
Suggestions
Staff would suggest the Planning Board approve the four-lot subdivision with the following
conditions
1. The lots are limited to the clearing areas shown on the plan
2. The plat note all the conditions including the area variance
3. The plat should include the following block:
"Approved under authority of a resolution adopted _(Date)_________ by the
Planning Board of the Town of Queensbury, New York_(Signature of Chairman)_,
Chairman; Date of Plat Signature _(Date)
4. In addition, a full set of plans would include the survey from David Bolster and the
site plan drawings 00-033A-01 through 00-033A-03 prepared by Jim Hutchins.”
MRS. MOORE-We did receive a C.T. Male sign-off on this project.
MR. BORGOS-For the record, I’d have the same comment, that there is that letter from C.T. Male,
James Houston, dated October 12, 2001.
MR. MAC EWAN-For the record, could you identify yourself again, please.
MR. BORGOS-Sure. I’m Michael Borgos for the applicant, Hunt Lake Land Holding Company.
MR. MAC EWAN-Thank you.
MR. BORGOS-And that letter from Mr. Houston states that the re-submitted package addresses all
the comments made in their previous correspondences, dated September 13, 2001 and October 9,
2001. If I may briefly, I think I understand what the neighbors will be commenting upon in the
public hearing. We’ve heard from them twice before, and I’d just communicate to the Board that the
applicant has done what they can to minimize whatever development here, and the impact upon
those neighbors and the aesthetics of this road. It is certainly a rural road in Queensbury, but in
conformity with the master plan adopted by the Town. All of the lots are in excess of five acres, and
indeed the one closest to the neighbors, the Brunos, closer to the corner of Gurney Lane, is in excess
of 10 acres, and as described on this drawing from Mr. Hutchins, the lot clearing would be rather
minimal in relation to the size of the lots, and the setbacks are considerable as well, well in excess of
what’s required by the Town Code, and I believe that’s one of the suggestions from Staff is that the
lots be limited to the clearing areas shown on that plan from Mr. Hutchins, and we don’t object to
that.
MR. MAC EWAN-Is that it?
MR. BORGOS-That’s it.
MR. MAC EWAN-Chris?
MR. HUNSINGER-I didn’t have anything.
MR. MAC EWAN-John?
MR. STROUGH-We have not gotten back C.T. Male’s comments then?
32
(Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 10/16/01)
MR. MAC EWAN-Yes, we have.
MR. VOLLARO-Yes, we have. We received them. Their letter of October 12, John.
th
MR. STROUGH-All right. Pass me. Let me catch up.
MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. Tony?
MR. METIVIER-I’m fine.
MR. MAC EWAN-Tom?
MR. SEGULJIC-I’m all set for now.
MR. MAC EWAN-Robert?
MR. VOLLARO-I have no comment. The only comment I had was on the power input to the lots,
and that comment is applicable to this one as well.
MR. MAC EWAN-Cathy?
MRS. LA BOMBARD-No. Didn’t I just have that October 12 letter in front of me? Here it is.
th
No, I’m okay.
MR. MAC EWAN-John, did you catch up? We’re back to you already.
MR. STROUGH-Yes. I’m fine with that.
MR. MAC EWAN-Okay.
MR. STROUGH-No questions.
MR. BORGOS-If I may, one more thing. I just noted in the Staff notes, apparently Staff has spoken
with the Highway Department regarding one of the concerns that was raised during the public
hearing, at the last meeting, about the use, and the increase of use, of that roadway. Apparently, the
Highway Department does not identify any concerns with four additional dwellings on that roadway.
I don’t know if that was read aloud to the public or not. I’m not sure if I heard that before.
MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. I’ll ask you to give up the table for a couple of minutes, we’ll open the
public hearing. Does anyone want to comment on this application?
PUBLIC HEARING OPENED
MARTY BUCKBEE NORTMAN
MRS. BUCKBEE NORTMAN-My name is Marty Buckbee Nortman. I live at 86 Buckbee Road. I
do have some questions that were not, maybe to my satisfaction, I’m not sure. The drainage runoff
effects, he just spoke of the Town didn’t have any problem. This is a road by use, and you’re now
going to put up four homes on it. It is not properly paved. It was just some blacktopping put over
the dirt, and that’s a little bit questionable to us, as to how it’s going to stand up, the runoff, etc.
Recently, at the corner of Bell Road and Gurney Lane, there’s an addition being put on to a house
down there. They had to do blasting in order to put the foundation in. We’re concerned, very
concerned, with that same problem, for these houses to go up across the road, because it’s all rock
and all, what kind of an effect is this going to have on the aquifer, on our wells, and the runoff are
problems that will be on the lower lots. The setback on Lot Number One, it says a 50 foot setback,
and that looks a little bit questionable. The other thing is how close to the line can they come,
because it’s a pie shaped lot. It shows on the map where the houses will be, if someone buys that lot,
do they have to put their house in that spot that’s shown on there, or can they go back farther or to
the right or to the left?
MR. MAC EWAN-The short answer to that, the purpose of a subdivision plat is to show that a
parcel can be developed with a representation of a house footprint, it doesn’t necessarily mean that
that’s exactly where that house has got to be positioned when it comes time to build it.
MRS. BUCKBEE NORTMAN-Okay, but they still have to follow the 50 foot setback?
MR. MAC EWAN-They have to meet all the setback requirements for that zone, yes.
MRS. BUCKBEE NORTMAN-Okay. All right.
33
(Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 10/16/01)
MR. MAC EWAN-I think that answered your Question Number Two, as well, didn’t it?
MRS. BUCKBEE NORTMAN-Yes. Thank you, and it says that they need to maintain the 35 foot
buffer along the front where there’s a ravine. That’s already been destroyed, that 35 foot. They’ve
already cut trees and things in that area. They’re still clearing trees and stuff out of there. So it kind
of appears, in a way, to be clear cut. I think that addresses pretty much what I have, and just to say
that we’re opposed to it. Thank you.
MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. Thank you. Anyone else?
JOANN MILLER
MRS. MILLER-My name is Joann Miller. I live at 175 Gurney Lane, and I’m the adjacent property
owner, and the purchaser of the parcel that was just in the subdivision that you just finalized. In May
we came, and there was a letter that had been signed by I think it was 25 to 30 of the residents on
Buckbee, Gurney Lane, and Bell Mountain, that represented homeowners that were opposed to the
density of this subdivision, and I would like that re-entered into these minutes, please. The concerns
still stand. We’re looking at a very significant increase in the density on Buckbee and therefore then
traffic on Gurney, and all the other concerns that have been addressed. We’re still looking at very
steep terrain and runoff, and we’re concerned about this, and we remain opposed to the density of
the division. We would rather see three lots on it, even though we recognize that they do have the
right to set these lots up and that it is zoned five acres, but we feel that the character of the
neighborhood is such that this is just too dense. There are only three people who live on Buckbee
Road. You have three homes, and now you’re increasing that by more than 100%, and we just feel
that this is just not in character with the nature of the neighborhood. Thank you.
MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. Do you have a copy of that letter, which she’s referring to?
MRS. MOORE-I’m assuming I do. It was an application that was withdrawn. So I’d have to pull
that information back out.
MR. MAC EWAN-That was way back when when there was the dispute over the legality of the
subdivision at the time, right?
MRS. MOORE-That’s correct.
MR. MAC EWAN-And if that application was withdrawn, how can we legally take a letter that was
responding to one application and make it part of another?
MR. SCHACHNER-My thought on the commentor’s comment was if they want that letter part of
this application, they need to submit it. “They” the commentors.
MR. MAC EWAN-Do you understand the concern here?
MRS. MILLER-I do understand this. I feel that that’s a bit onerous on our part. We did not cause
this problem. We did not, you know, illegally subdivide this. We’ve sort of been, the Brunos and
myself, have sort of been victims here. We were presented that, well, if you want this buffer, you
better do it within the three days that we give you to purchase this land, and so we did. We came up
with the money and we purchased it, because we did not want clear cutting and lots directly next to
our property, myself or the Brunos, and so we came up with the money and bought it, and then we
were told that, wait, no, you can’t do that because that’s illegal, and you better pay for a subdivision
for this, and I feel like, you know, you could easily go through those records and, you know, those
are original signatures on that letter. The issues are still the same.
MR. MAC EWAN-True, but the legality is that that letter was sent in reference to an application
that’s not in front of us tonight. It would be like, you know, we had concerns with an application
that was here a year and a half ago and pull out the letter. We still have the same concerns. There’s
still the same number of people, can we use that letter for this application tonight, and our lawyer has
advised us that it’s not appropriate.
MR. SCHACHNER-It’s strictly a process point. I’m not saying good, bad, indifferent. I’m not
disagreeing with the commentor. I have no position, obviously, on the merits of the comments. All
I’m saying is from the process standpoint, as the Chairman points out, any type of application
material, whatever it may be, a comment letter, an engineering plan, an application itself, if it was
submitted for application number one of 1985, we can’t somehow magically transpose it into
whatever an application pending before us today is, and in the case of the comment letter, I think the
authors of the comment letter have to do whatever it takes to get that comment letter back as part of
this record. The commentor can make whatever comment she wants to make, obviously. The
34
(Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 10/16/01)
comment she’s made is that she wants that included, but I don’t want to mislead the public into
thinking it will be included automatically because that comment’s been made.
MRS. MILLER-And does the public hearing stay open until we get a copy of that letter to you?
MR. MAC EWAN-No. The public hearing will be closed, come to an end, once we determine that
we don’t need to have the public hearing left open anymore, we’ve taken in all the information we
need, and that we’re ready to make a resolution on it one way or the other.
MR. SCHACHNER-Which may or may not happen tonight.
MR. MAC EWAN-Right. Okay. Anyone else? For the moment, I’ll leave the public hearing open.
Any other questions, comments from Board members?
MR. STROUGH-Just that, again, the drainage report does refer to driveway drainage into pockets,
which will be sized according to the amount of pavement on the driveway, the length and width.
Now, who’s going to make sure that the driveway drains into these pockets as they’re supposed to?
MRS. MOORE-The Code Enforcement Officer will inspect, I’m assuming with assistance from our
Building Inspector, the building plans that come in, as well as inspect the site when it’s constructed.
MR. STROUGH-And will these building plans have to include no cut zones?
MRS. MOORE-That is, I think my direction is, if you feel that should be included as condition, then
you include that as part of your resolution, if that’s a concern of the Board.
MR. STROUGH-Will there be blasting for foundations up there?
MR. BORGOS-I do not know. It would depend on the site and specific lot. I think in order to
determine that, you would have to start digging.
MR. STROUGH-If I remember right, the soil was fairly shallow up there.
MR. BORGOS-It may be.
MR. STROUGH-I don’t know. Does anybody else share those concerns on the Board?
MR. MAC EWAN-Not really for me, from my point. I mean, your test pits might show a depth to
bedrock in some areas, but that might not be all conclusive as to what the depth to bedrock is
anywhere.
MR. STROUGH-Well, I can agree with that. How about no cut zones be supplied with building
plans?
MR. MAC EWAN-What did you have in mind?
MR. STROUGH-Well, I don’t know.
MR. MAC EWAN-I’m interested in one commentor’s comments, referencing the 35 foot buffer, and
I think what’s happened, I just want to get clarification that there’s already been clearing taken place
up there, in an area that she has referenced as a 35 foot buffer?
MR. BORGOS-I believe she’s referring to the land immediately adjacent to the roadway, and this
land was initially logged, prior to any thought of subdivision. It wasn’t completely logged, and I
believe Mr. Hutchins’ map has the designation of that area that was logged already. I think she also
commented about some recent cutting, and it’s my understanding, from talking to a representative of
my client, that there have been no new trees coming down, but trees that, tops that were left behind
from the logging two years ago have been cut up for firewood. So they’re cleaning up the debris that
was left over from the logging operation.
MR. STROUGH-What we could propose is that, well, most driveways are about 12 feet, and if you
didn’t want them to cut anymore than a swath that would be in excess of 10 foot from either side of
the driveway, that would be 42 feet maximum clearing for a driveway. You’d have 12 foot for the
driveway and 10 feet on either side, that would be 32 foot. We could restrict the driveway cutting.
We could also offer the same kind of limitation that we saw with the Mitchell, that there will be no
more clearing than 1.25 acres, per residence.
MR. MAC EWAN-What’s the size again?
35
(Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 10/16/01)
MR. STROUGH-1.25 acres.
MR. MAC EWAN-One and a quarter.
MRS. LA BOMBARD-I want to just make a comment on that, Michael. I know that your, the
person that you’re representing has, likes to clear cut land, you know, and I don’t care if this goes on
the record, and it is kind of scary, now that I’m thinking about it, but I think that what Mr. Strough is
proposing right here I certainly back, because I would hate to have, we’ve got to have some kind of
conditions on it.
MR. BORGOS-Well, if I can allay your concerns a little bit, my client is not going to be building
these homes. He’s not going to be developing them himself. It’s going to be some individual.
MRS. LA BOMBARD-But he owns this property, and, I mean, until he sells it to somebody else, he
still owns it, and I know that he’s got a reputation for logging land.
MR. BORGOS-Well, were he to do that, he would be diminishing the value of those lots to potential
purchasers for residential purposes, and that’s not his intent now.
MR. MAC EWAN-But it will all change. Should this Board approve subdivision, then any further
cutting on the parcels can come to a stop. The Ordinance does clearly state that you cannot clear cut
more than 50% of the parcel. Isn’t that correct? There’s a formula in there, in the Subdivision Reg’s
about clear cutting. So it’s pretty much going to put a lock on that.
MR. BORGOS-Absolutely, it will.
MR. STROUGH-So does the applicant have a problem with limiting clear cutting to say 32 feet for
the driveway and the one and a quarter acres for the residential area?
MR. BORGOS-Well, our objection would be that we should not be held to the same standard as the
applicants before you earlier tonight.
MR. STROUGH-No. As a matter of fact I widened the standard for you.
MR. BORGOS-Right.
MR. STROUGH-They were restricted to one acre.
MR. MAC EWAN-I’m tending to agree with Mr. Strough, for the very simple reason it’s a very rural
part of Town. It’s not like we’re dealing with a 200 lot subdivision that’s going to have, you know,
wide open streets and such on it.
MR. BORGOS-Right.
MR. MAC EWAN-And you want to retain that rural character of that neighborhood up there, and if
these are some of the mechanisms that we can help put in place to assure that that’s going to happen,
and will maintain that up there, then I’m willing to do that.
MR. BORGOS-It’s an interesting concept that I have not discussed with my client. If you’ll give me
a minute, I’ll talk to the representative here about that. I don’t believe we will have an objection to it.
I think that that sounds like a perfectly legitimate concern, and a way to deal with it.
MR. MAC EWAN-What else have you got, John?
MR. STROUGH-That’s it. I don’t know what to do about the blasting. I mean, if you’ve got to
blast, you’ve got to blast.
MRS. MILLER-Our opinion is that more than 1.25 of the acreage of each of those lots has already
been clear cut. That’s a done deal.
MR. MAC EWAN-And we can’t stop that. It’s already been done.
MRS. MILLER-Well, I understand that, but it’s sort of a joke, you know, because a lot more than
1.25 of the lot has already been, of each of those lots, has already been clear cut.
MR. STROUGH-Yes, but it’ll grow back, and they’re not allowed to clear any more than one and a
quarter acres, and they have to maintain that. They’re not allowed to clear any more than that,
beyond that moment in time. So what’s been cleared will grow back.
36
(Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 10/16/01)
MR. MAC EWAN-And I think what you need to understand is what’s happened prior to this action
tonight, this application in front of us, was cutting that had taken place on a parcel of land that
wasn’t in front of this Board for subdivision. Now that it’s going to be in front of us, and if we
should approve this project tonight, we’ll have some restraints on that for what can happen to that
property in the future. Okay.
MR. BORGOS-My client agrees with Mr. Strough’s comments, and I think if you do approve this
subdivision tonight, as Mr. MacEwan has stated, it will lock us in and prevent any further cutting,
and all those restrictions will come with that approval, and that would prevent the owner of all the
parcels from making any further clear cutting or logging operations from going on.
MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. Any other questions, comments from Board members?
MR. VOLLARO-Yes, I have a couple. On the road by use, out in front, does the Town currently
maintain this road?
MR. BORGOS-They do.
MR. VOLLARO-They do. So they plow it and they’re cognizant of the road surface conditions and
so on?
MR. BORGOS-They certainly are, and I believe they’re improving that as we speak. Perhaps not at
this hour, but generally speaking.
MR. VOLLARO-There’s some work going on on the surfacing of that road?
MR. BORGOS-I believe they are.
MR. MAC EWAN-Yes, they paved a portion of it.
MR. VOLLARO-Something that struck me was, you know, the blasting effect on wells. Depending
upon the level of blasting and how much rock, how much bedrock they’ve got to get out to get a
foundation in, there could be some problems with blasting and wells, I believe, and I’m just looking
at it from a practical point of view. I have nothing to substantiate that, but it seems to me like if
you’ve got wells and you’re doing some blasting in rock, you could disrupt those well casings.
MR. BORGOS-Well, it’s my understanding, I’m not an engineer, but it’s my understanding that the
nearest residence with well casings are not in very close proximity, and also that when you are doing
blasting you use the minimum amount required, because explosives are expensive.
MR. VOLLARO-Well, every blaster does that. He tries to set the minimum amount of charges he
needs.
MR. BORGOS-I’m not aware of any indications that this would be a concern to any existing wells or
any future wells, even among the four lots that we’ve proposed here. If one were to come after the
other, I don’t believe that they’re close enough to cause any concern.
MR. VOLLARO-But we don’t know that. I mean, we’re all speculating and conjecture, and so
there’s been no calculations to tell us that the reverberations from a charge set, a charge level, and
how far that’s going to travel in that kind of bedrock. There’s a whole formula that goes along with
that. So, we’re guessing.
MR. BORGOS-Well, from past experience in the Town of Queensbury, in subdivisions of much
smaller lot sizes, where there are bedrock issues and blasting required, I’m not aware of any
problems. It doesn’t mean there aren’t any, but I just haven’t heard of them, and I don’t think
there’s any evidence tonight before us that would indicate that there is a problem, just surmise and
conjecture.
MR. VOLLARO-Any other Board members have a concern with that at all, or is everybody okay?
MR. STROUGH-Well, I just don’t have any expertise in that area, Bob.
MR. BORGOS-I believe that would be something the Building Department would be very interested
in at the time that an application is submitted, if, when the first home goes in, there’s a problem,
obviously, they would be aware of that for the second and third.
MR. VOLLARO-Okay.
MR. MAC EWAN-Any other questions, comments? I’ll close the public hearing, then.
37
(Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 10/16/01)
PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED
MR. MAC EWAN-And we need to do a SEQRA, please.
MRS. LA BOMBARD-Another Long one, right?
MR. VOLLARO-Yes.
MRS. LA BOMBARD-Okay.
RESOLUTION WHEN DETERMINATION OF NO SIGNIFICANCE IS MADE
RESOLUTION NO. 9-2001, Introduced by Catherine LaBombard who moved for its adoption,
seconded by Anthony Metivier:
WHEREAS, there is presently before the Planning Board an application for:
HUNT LAKE LAND HOLDING CO., INC., 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.
5. Having considered and thoroughly analyzed the relevant areas of environmental concern and
having considered the criteria for determining whether a project has a significant
environmental impact as the same is set forth in Section 617.11 of the Official Compilation
of Codes, Rules and Regulations for the State of New York, this Board finds that the action
about to be undertaken by this Board will have no significant environmental effect and the
Chairman of the Planning Board is hereby authorized to execute and sign and file as may be
necessary a statement of non-significance or a negative declaration that may be required by
law.
Duly adopted this 16 day of October, 2001, by the following vote:
th
AYES: Mr. Metivier, Mr. Strough, Mr. Hunsinger, Mrs. LaBombard, Mr. Vollaro, Mr. Seguljic,
Mr. MacEwan
NOES: NONE
MR. MAC EWAN-Would someone like to introduce a motion, please, for Preliminary.
MRS. LA BOMBARD-The conditions come on Final, right, or do we do the conditions now?
MR. VOLLARO-I’ll make a motion approving the Preliminary stage for Subdivision 9-2001 for
Hunt Lake Holding, in accordance with the resolution prepared by Staff. With the following
conditions. One, that the C.T. Male letter of 9/12/01 be added to the list of correspondence.
Number Two, that any clear cutting will not exceed 1.25 acres, acknowledging the fact that that
amount has probably already been cut. So, therefore, no further cutting should be allowed on the
property, if we’ve already exceeded 1.25.
MR. MAC EWAN-No, no. You can’t do that. You’ve just got to limit it to the 1.25 acres and leave
it at that, and that’s your mechanism you’re going to follow through with.
MR. VOLLARO-Well, I’m just saying that there may be more than 1.25 already cut, based on people
who have come before us and saying that.
38
(Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 10/16/01)
MR. MAC EWAN-But that’s irrelevant for what you’re trying to say, though, in your resolution,
which is the enforceable tool.
MR. VOLLARO-Okay. No more than 1.25 acres of clear cutting shall be allowed on the property.
MR. MAC EWAN-There you go.
MR. HUNSINGER-Do you want to make those a deed restriction, Bob?
MR. STROUGH-And did you include the part that the driveway path?
MR. VOLLARO-No, I didn’t. I didn’t want to do that. I purposely left that out, because I thought
the 1.25, I’d like to see that left up to the individual lot owner, as to how he handles 1.25 acres, as
opposed to dictating how he should cut for the driveway and so on.
MR. STROUGH-All right. Well, that’s a condition that varies from the agreement that we had with
the applicant.
MR. VOLLARO-The applicant has agreed to 1.25.
MR. STROUGH-Clearing for the residential area, and no more than a 32 foot wide path, for the
driveway, to accommodate the driveway will be cleared.
MR. VOLLARO-And that is part of the 1.25, however. That’s got to be calculated in the 1.25?
MR. HUNSINGER-Yes.
MR. VOLLARO-I would think so.
MR. STROUGH-Well, some of those driveways are in excess of 500 feet.
MR. VOLLARO-Well, that’s what I’m saying.
MR. STROUGH-Five hundred feet times 32 feet would be 16,000 square feet. So that maxes out.
MR. VOLLARO-That’s almost a half. It’s 43,560.
MR. STROUGH-Yes, that’s an acre.
MR. VOLLARO-Yes.
MR. STROUGH-So that’s about a third of an acre.
MR. VOLLARO-Okay.
MR. STROUGH-So essentially they would be left with clearing only one acre for the residential area,
should their driveway be that long.
MR. VOLLARO-Yes, that’s why I’m trying not to get into that, for exactly that reason, because
there’s no way to hold these calculations, other than.
MR. MAC EWAN-I think you’re better off just leaving it at the 1.25 acre, and leave it at that. When
they come in for their building permit, then they have to show that on their plot plan, where that’s all
going to sit.
MR. VOLLARO-That would be different. Then the calculations could be done.
MR. STROUGH-It’s more restrictive than what I suggested, and I’ll go along with that, and are you
going to include that that become part of the deed covenants?
MR. BORGOS-I understand what you’ve proposed, but it is different than what Mr. Strough
outlined earlier. My concern is that you have some diminishing returns there. You’re almost
encouraging people who want to have a larger footprint to be closer to the road, and that’s exactly
opposite of what everybody wants to see on this road. They want to see these houses far back away
from the road. So they actually don’t, they’re not visible from the road.
MR. MAC EWAN-Don’t get me wrong, but we’re right in the middle of a resolution. I’d rather see
us put this thing up for a vote and see where it’s going to go with the Board, rather than sit here and
39
(Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 10/16/01)
try to negotiate something at this point. I think the Board has a direction of what they want to try to
accomplish here, and we’ll see if we can get through it here. Anything else you wanted to add to
that?
MR. VOLLARO-And we want to make the 1.25 acre no cut or no greater than, as part of the deed
restriction on the deeds for the property, and that’s it.
MRS. MOORE-Could I also suggest that the clearing plan be submitted as part of their building
permit application?
MR. MAC EWAN-Good idea. Add that to it, please.
MR. VOLLARO-Yes, and that the building plan be.
MRS. LA BOMBARD-The clearing plan.
MR. VOLLARO-The clearing plan be submitted as part of the application for building permit.
MRS. MOORE-That’ll clarify the 1.25 acres on the property.
MR. VOLLARO-Okay.
MR. STROUGH-And how about the plat note shall contain all the conditions, including an area
variance? Well, the Staff’s suggestions, on Staff notes, 1, 2, 3, 4. Do you want to include those Staff
suggestions?
MR. VOLLARO-I’ve got to take a look at them. See what they say. The plot note, including the
area variance. Was there an area variance here? I didn’t see that. Did you see that, an area variance?
MR. STROUGH-Staff suggested adding those conditions. I suggested that you consider adding
those conditions, and right now we’re just awaiting a clarification on point two, right, the plat note?
MR. VOLLARO-The plat note, all the conditions including the area variance. I’m going to re-do this
whole thing because it’s all, because we’ve got to re-do this now. I can’t, you know.
MR. SCHACHNER-This is at Preliminary Stage, right?
MR. VOLLARO-Yes. Nobody will understand this motion if I don’t do it again.
MR. SCHACHNER-Well, but my question is, are you making a bunch of conditions as part of your
Preliminary approval?
MR. VOLLARO-Yes.
MR. SCHACHNER-All right. In which case, those conditions have to be fulfilled prior to going to
Final approval.
MR. VOLLARO-All right. You want to just do this and then jump into Final, is that what you’re
saying?
MR. SCHACHNER-No. I’m not saying whether you should do that or how you should do that.
I’m just making sure you understand that if these are conditions of Preliminary approval, they have
to be fulfilled prior to going to Final approval, which is fine, if that’s how you want to go. If these
are conditions of Final approval, then you don’t need to include them in Preliminary approval.
MR. VOLLARO-Okay. Fine. I understand that. I need some clarification from Staff on suggestion
number two that the plat note all the conditions included in the Area Variance. What Area Variance
was there?
MRS. MOORE-The applicant received an Area Variance, I want to say it’s back in June, in regards
to, I can’t see the lot numbers, in regards to the lots that are closest to Gurney Lane, that they had to
share a driveway, and I forgot, it’s just a reference number of an Area Variance.
MR. VOLLARO-I don’t like to put something in like that without being able to say what the Area
Variance was.
MRS. MOORE-I actually, I thought I had included the Area Variance number in there. I did.
MR. MAC EWAN-It’s Area Variance No. 16-2001.
40
(Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 10/16/01)
MRS. MOORE-Thank you.
MR. VOLLARO-Okay. I’ll start this over.
MR. MAC EWAN-Why don’t you just approve a Preliminary that’s just basic, and then Final tag on
all this stuff.
MRS. LA BOMBARD-Right. Good suggestion.
MR. VOLLARO-Okay.
MOTION TO APPROVE PRELIMINARY STAGE SUBDIVISION NO. 9-2001 HUNT
LAKE LAND HOLDING CO., INC., Introduced by Robert Vollaro who moved for its adoption,
seconded by John Strough:
WHEREAS, the Town Planning Board is in receipt of preliminary stage SB 9-2001, Hunt Lake Land
Holding Co., Inc., Applicant proposes subdivision of a 27.5 +/- acre parcel into 4 lots of 5.04 acres,
5.19 acres, 5.29 acres, and 12.11 acres, Tax Map No. 32-1-32.41, Zone: RR-5A, and;
WHEREAS, the application was received 7/01;
WHEREAS, the above is supported with the following documentation, and inclusive of all newly
received information, not included is this listing as of 10/12/01;
10/9 J.Houston, CT Male from J. Hutchins – letter w/revised drawings and
drainage reports in response to 10/9 comments
10/9 CT Male eng. comments
9/18 Staff Notes
9/13 CT Male engineering review
9/11 Notice of Public Hearing
9/6 Meeting Notice
WHEREAS, public hearing was held on 9/18/01 concerning the above project; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Board has determined that the proposal complies with the Subdivision
requirements of the Code of the Town 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 the Planning Board has adopted a SEQRA Negative Declaration; and/or if application is a
modification, the requirements of the State Environmental Quality Review Act have been
considered; and the proposed modification(s) do not result in any new or significantly different
environmental impacts, and, therefore, no further SEQRA review is necessary; and
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT
RESOLVED, that
The application for Preliminary Stage is approved in accordance with the resolution prepared by
Staff.
Duly adopted this 16th day of October 2001 by the following vote:
AYES: Mr. Strough, Mr. Hunsinger, Mrs. LaBombard, Mr. Vollaro, Mr. Seguljic, Mr. Metivier,
Mr. MacEwan
NOES: NONE
MR. MAC EWAN-All right. Final.
MRS. MOORE-Prior to making your Final, why don’t you discuss your conditions, so they’re listed.
MR. BORGOS-Mr. Chairman, if I could be recognized, I could explain the Area Variance briefly, if
it would be of help to you.
MR. VOLLARO-I’ve got it down as Area Variance 16-2001.
41
(Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 10/16/01)
MR. HUNSINGER-Yes, it’s for the shared driveway.
MR. MAC EWAN-We’re comfortable with it.
MR. BORGOS-Okay. I didn’t know if you could recall what that was for.
MR. HUNSINGER-Yes. Thanks.
MOTION TO APPROVE FINAL STAGE SUBDIVISION NO. 9-2001 HUNT LAKE
LAND HOLDING CO., INC., Introduced by Robert Vollaro who moved for its adoption,
seconded by John Strough:
WHEREAS, the Town Planning Board is in receipt of final stage SB 9-2001, Hunt Lake Land
Holding Co., Inc., Applicant proposes subdivision of a 27.5 +/- acre parcel into 4 lots of 5.04 acres,
5.19 acres, 5.29 acres, and 12.11 acres, Tax Map No. 32-1-32.41, Zone: RR-5A, and;
WHEREAS, the application was received 7/01;
WHEREAS, the above is supported with the following documentation, and inclusive of all newly
received information, not included is this listing as of 10/12/01;
10/16 Staff Notes
10/15 FOIL request from M/M Nortman
10/12 CT Male eng. comments
10/9 J.Houston, CT Male from J. Hutchins – letter w/revised drawings and
drainage reports in response to 10/9 comments
10/9 CT Male eng. comments
9/18 Staff Notes
9/13 CT Male engineering review
9/11 Notice of Public Hearing
9/6 Meeting Notice
WHEREAS, public hearing was held on 9/18/01 concerning the above project; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Board has determined that the proposal complies with the Subdivision
requirements of the Code of the Town 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 the Planning Board has adopted a SEQRA Negative Declaration; and/or if application is a
modification, the requirements of the State Environmental Quality Review Act have been
considered; and the proposed modification(s) do not result in any new or significantly different
environmental impacts, and, therefore, no further SEQRA review is necessary; and
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT
RESOLVED, that
The application for Final Stage is approved in accordance with the resolution prepared by Staff and is
subject to the following conditions:
1. The C.T. Male engineering comments of 10/12 be added to the resolution, and
2. Clearing limits not to exceed 1.25 acres on any one of the given lots, and
3. Add to the resolution the suggestions made by Staff on the Staff notes,
recommendations Two through Four only, dated October 16, 2001 (see excerpt
from Staff Notes below):
2. The plat note all the conditions including the area variance
3. The plat should include the following block:
"Approved under authority of a resolution adopted _(Date)_________
by the Planning Board of the Town of Queensbury, New
York_(Signature of Chairman)_, Chairman; Date of Plat Signature _(Date)
42
(Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 10/16/01)
4. In addition, a full set of plans would include the survey from David
Bolster and the site plan drawings 00-033A-01 through 00-033A-03
prepared by Jim Hutchins.
4. A clearing plan should be submitted with each building permit, and that these
restrictions be, the no greater than 1.25 acre clearing shall be included in the deed
restriction, and
5. All necessary outside agency approvals have been received by the applicant, with a
copy sent to and received by Planning Department Staff within 180 days and
6. The plat must be filed with the County Clerk within 60 days of receipt by Planning
Department Staff of outside agency approvals noted, and
7. All conditions are to be noted on the final mylar submitted for the Chairman’s
signature in a form to read as follows:
“Plans have been approved under authority of a resolution adopted _______ by the
Planning Board of the Town of Queensbury, New York with the following
conditions:”
1.
Duly adopted this 16th day of October 2001 by the following vote:
MR. METIVIER-I honestly have a problem with the clearing.
MR. MAC EWAN-Then why didn’t you speak up?
MR. METIVIER-Well, I wanted to, but I think Mr. Borgos has a great point, and that is, if you have
to clear a lot for a driveway, and if they can go past a certain point and not have to blast, but then
say, no, because we can’t clear more than 1.25 acres, so they’re going to move forward and start
blasting away.
MR. MAC EWAN-According to Mr. Strough’s calculation, it would give them a better than 400 foot
long driveway to begin with, and still have plenty of acreage to clear.
MR. METIVIER-All right. That’s fine. Yes. Sorry, but I did have a real concern with it.
MR. MAC EWAN-All right.
AYES: Mr. Strough, Mr. Hunsinger, Mrs. LaBombard, Mr. Vollaro, Mr. Seguljic, Mr. Metivier,
Mr. MacEwan
NOES: NONE
MR. MAC EWAN-Mr. Borgos, you’re all set.
MR. BORGOS-Thank you.
MR. MAC EWAN-Good luck.
MR. BORGOS-And that’s for the comment.
NEW BUSINESS:
SITE PLAN NO. 45-2001 TYPE: UNLISTED RUSS PITTENGER/WALLACE HIRSH
PROPERTY OWNER: SAME ZONE: WR-1A LOCATION: BIRDSALL ROAD
EXTENSION APPLICANT PROPOSES CLEARING AND GRADING TO FACILITATE
DRIVEWAY, PARKING, ACCESSORY STRUCTURES AND FUTURE SEPTIC AREA.
THE PROPOSED CUT IS 10,000 +/- CUBIC YARDS WITH FILL OF 5,000 +/- CUBIC
YARDS WITH A FINISHED ELEVATION OF 135 +/- FEET. TAX MAP NO. 40-1-29, 30
LOT SIZE: 0.9 ACRES SECTION: 179-16, 179-65
RUSS PITTENGER & WALLACE HIRSH, PRESENT
STAFF INPUT
Notes from Staff, Site Plan No. 45-2001, Russ Pittenger/Wallace Hirsh, Meeting Date: October 16,
2001 “Project Description
43
(Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 10/16/01)
The applicant’s proposes to clear and re-grade a portion of two lots for development of land. This
includes the removal of 10,000 cubic yards and the filling of 5,000 cubic yards. The owners intend to
have areas for future septic systems, garages and new gravel drive areas.
Project Analysis (Section 179-38,179-65)
Site Overview
The removal of material will be in a phased process with only a couple hundred yards at a
time. The applicant has indicated that the project will not occur during summer periods. A
portion of the fill will be used to fill in 5,000 cubic yards to the eastside of the road. A
contractor will remove the remaining material. The applicant has indicated the road is paved
and will not be tracked onto the roadway. The final elevation is to be 135+/- feet from
160+/- feet. The finished grade is still above the homes at 110+/- feet in elevation.
The submitted plans include a grading and erosion control drawing. The applicant intends
to remove trees in the area were fill is to be removed. The photos show the existing tree
line-the removal of trees does not appear to impact the view from the lakeside. The view
will be similar to the neighboring properties.
The plans were forwarded to Soil and Water Conservation Services for review and comment.
Areas of Concern or Importance
The applicant will be filling an area adjacent to a federal wetland. The ordinance only recognizes
mapped wetlands NYSDEC and APA.
Suggestions
Staff recommends approval of the project with the following notes to be added to the site plan:
1. Storage location of material on site
2. Type of seeding to be planted on disturbed areas
3. NYSDEC permit number if it is determined a NYSDEC permit is needed”
MRS. MOORE-This is a follow up with the following letter from Soil and Water. Do you want me
to read that letter into the record?
MR. MAC EWAN-Yes.
MRS. MOORE-This is dated October 10, 2001, addressed to myself, in regards to the
Hirsh/Pittenger Site Plan, it’s from Warren County Soil and Water Conservation District, “A New
York State Department of Environmental Conservation Mining Permit is required when more than
1,000 tons of material is removed. Contact the Warrensburg sub-office….Location of a storage area
on the site should be noted on a site plan.” Some items they addressed, “A 1:1 slope, even with
cobble, can be extremely unstable. The usual graded slope is at least a 1:2 or flatter (re: fill area
bordering wetlands). Silt fences should be installed properly, re: fencing should be keyed into the
ground 6” to reduce the likelihood of a blowout during and after construction. Extra stakes should
be placed at locations where there may be a potential problem – i.e. steep slopes, areas of waterways.
A seeding recommendation should be planned. When, what type and at what quantities should be
identified. If our office can be of any assistance, please contact our office and we would be able to
assist with that.” Those are the comments.
MR. MAC EWAN-When did you get that letter?
MRS. MOORE-That’s dated October 12, actually, it’s dated October 10. We received it in our
thth
office on October 12.
th
MR. MAC EWAN-Friday?
MRS. MOORE-It was in your Staff notes.
MR. VOLLARO-I didn’t see it. Did we get it?
MR. MAC EWAN-So to summarize, they’re saying that they are in need of a permit, they’re position
is.
MRS. MOORE-They’re indicating that, and I talked with the applicant, and I believe they contacted
the DEC. They may have more information about whether they need one or not.
44
(Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 10/16/01)
MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. Good evening.
MR. PITTENGER-Good evening. How are you? My name is Russ Pittenger. I’m here with
Wallace Hirsh. I’m prepared to go through some background on the project, and go through the
materials that have been presented to you, if you’d care to. I have not contacted DEC yet. I have
differing opinions as to whether we need a permit for this or not, and I would so stipulate that on
our final plat that we would have a response to that from DEC.
MR. MAC EWAN-I’ll tell you, Russ, on that note, we’re not going to go any farther until we get
clarification from DEC whether you do need a permit, because there was an issue that was brought
up by us on site visits. We were all asking the same question, and until I think we get some guidance
from DEC as to whether you do need a permit or not up there, I don’t feel comfortable pursuing
this any farther until we get some sort of determination from them. They seem to be, in the letter
that was presented to the Town, seemed to be of the opinion that you do need one, and if you can
convince them otherwise.
MR. PITTENGER-The Conservation Department seemed to be of that opinion. Correct?
MR. MAC EWAN-Right, and if you can convince them otherwise that you don’t, how much time do
you need? How about we table this until next Tuesday, which is our next Planning Board meeting
this month?
MR. PITTENGER-I shall be unavailable. I have to go to Milwaukee.
MRS. MOORE-Mr. MacEwan, we have, in the past, looked at projects that have, in addition to, I’m
sorry, that may or may not be subject to DEC, at the same time, as a congruent process.
MR. MAC EWAN-I understand that, but I just don’t want to get bogged down in a long discussion
on this, and leave everybody hanging. I’d rather know that information right up front.
MRS. MOORE-All right.
MR. MAC EWAN-I mean, that’s my opinion. I don’t know how the rest of the Board feels.
MRS. LA BOMBARD-I feel that way.
MR. MAC EWAN-That’s two. Have you had any conversations with DEC?
MR. PITTENGER-No.
MR. MAC EWAN-At all. When did you first become aware that you may need a permit to do this?
MR. PITTENGER-When I received the letter from Laura. I spoke with people in my office, and the
response I got initially was that it was not going to be required, but I didn’t talk to DEC at all.
MR. MAC EWAN-Mr. Hirsh, would you be available to be here next Tuesday night?
MR. HIRSH-I would, but most of the research and work has been done by Russ.
MR. MAC EWAN-Well, I’m really under the persuasion here just to table this thing until we get
some sort of guidance from DEC. I think that’s the appropriate action to take at this point. That’s a
lot of earth you’re moving up there, or proposing to move. I would rather, I’d feel more comfortable
having some sort of sign off or permit getting in place or an application put in place from DEC to do
this, and then just, we’ll go through our application review here.
MR. VOLLARO-In order to save him some time in my next comment, it says the applicant will be
filling an area adjacent to Federal wetlands?
MR. PITTENGER-That’s correct.
MR. VOLLARO-Have you talked to the Army Corps at all about that?
MR. PITTENGER-No, I have not.
MR. VOLLARO-Do you think you should?
MR. PITTENGER-It’s my intention to fill in an area that’s not wetlands. If I’m not effecting a
wetland, I don’t really need to talk to the Corps. I can appreciate your concern, though. It would be
45
(Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 10/16/01)
my intention to have the wetlands flagged prior to putting the silt fence in, to stay out of the
wetlands.
MR. VOLLARO-Well, normally when you do that, doesn’t the Corps flag those things for you?
MR. PITTENGER-No, my staff flags them. I have a staff at the LA Group that flags wetlands. So I
would do it that way.
MR. VOLLARO-I see. Okay. I just was wondering whether you thought you had to contact the
Corps or not. You think not?
MR. PITTENGER-Well, normally there’s a setback requirement from a DEC wetland, but from an
Army Corps wetland, there would not be. So we would just stay out of that, and I would have one of
my scientists go out and flag that, identify the edge of that. We’d stay out of there.
MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. Let’s do this. I’m inclined to table this thing tonight, and what I would
like to do is table it until next Tuesday. I know you have plans to be out of State next week, but if
they should change, and you can be here, that’ll give you at least a week to get a hold of DEC and
find out what the deal is with that. In the meantime, I’d ask you to also contact DEC and find out
what the jurisdiction is here and if he is, indeed, required to have a permit to do this. So we’d kind of
tackle this from two ways to try to be a little bit expeditious for you on this and see if we can’t move
it along, and if for some reason you can’t be here, we can certainly table it until next month, but I’d
like to hear you next Tuesday night, if we can do that.
MR. PITTENGER-Thanks.
MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. I’ll open up the public hearing and I’ll leave it open.
PUBLIC HEARING OPENED
MR. MAC EWAN-And we’ll table this application to our next Planning Board meeting, which is the
23, October 23, okay.
rdrd
MR. PITTENGER-Thank you.
MR. MAC EWAN-Pending jurisdictional review of whether DEC requires a mining permit.
MRS. MOORE-Was that a motion that you made?
MRS. LA BOMBARD-We need a motion to table it?
MRS. MOORE-My preference is yes.
MR. MAC EWAN-It’s taken care of. I think we’re all comfortable on that. Aren’t we? Yes. We’re
comfortable. Additionally, on that application, could you just maybe research Mr. Vollaro’s concerns
regarding the wetlands and filling near them? Even though he said that he wasn’t going to fill in
them, and he was going to flag them, isn’t there also setbacks that you’ve got?
MRS. MOORE-I will look into it.
MR. STROUGH-Could we request that we get the wetland jurisdiction noted on the plans?
MR. MAC EWAN-We have to do that, yes.
MR. STROUGH-I didn’t see it on these.
MRS. MOORE-There’s an edge of wetlands note on the plans.
MR. STROUGH-These aren’t the easiest plans to read.
MRS. MOORE-Okay.
MR. STROUGH-But you say there is already a note to that effect?
MRS. MOORE-There is a note on the plan.
MR. STROUGH-All right. I’ll look again.
MR. MAC EWAN-Okay.
46
(Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 10/16/01)
OLD BUSINESS:
SB 2-1998 DETERMINATION OF NON-SIGNIFICANCE MODIFICATION
CHRISTINE & PAUL KOBEL PROPERTY OWNER: WILLIAM & LISA GEREAU
ZONE: RR-5A LOCATION: TUTHILL ROAD APPLICANT PROPOSES
MODIFICATION TO AN APPROVED SUBDIVISION. THE MODIFICATION IS TO
COMBINE LOT 3 OF 5.13 ACRES AND LOT 5C OF 1.99 ACRES. ANYMODIFICATION
TO AN APPROVED SUBDIVISION REQUIRES PLANNING BOARD REVIEW AND
APPROVAL. TAX MAP NO. 123-1-21.6, 21.3 LOT SIZE: 5.13 AC., 1.99 AC., SECTION:
SUBDIV. REGS
CHRISTINE & PAUL KOBEL, PRESENT
MRS. LA BOMBARD-And there is no public hearing scheduled.
STAFF INPUT
Notes from Staff, SB 2-1998, Modification, Christine & Paul Kobel, Meeting Date: October 16,
2001 “Project Description
The applicant proposes to modify an approved subdivision. The Gereau subdivision is a 5-lot
residential subdivision. The lot noted as lot 5 owned by the Gereau is broken into 4 land hooked
sections labeled as A-C. The applicant intends to combine lot #3 5.13 acres and lot 5c 1.99 acres.
The Planning Board had seen a similar application for Monty McNeil where the intent was to
combine lot#3 and lot 5c. The proposal was never filed at Warren County; therefore, the Planning
Board’s previous approval has expired.
Study of plat (§ A183)
(1) Lot arrangement: The boundary line agreement occurs between lot #3 and Lot 5c
the remaining arrangement of the lots stays the same
(2) Topography: The applicant proposes to move the “typical lot improvement area”
and move it 100 feet towards the existing remains of a previous dwelling.
(3) Water supply Sewage Disposal: The proposed water and septic will moved
according to the house location.
(4) Drainage: The plat indicates that driveways will drain to a low point on the lot and
all run-off from the house and driveway will be contained on site. The plat also
indicates that the erosion control standards from the NYS Guidelines will be
followed.
(5) Lot sizes: Lot #3 will increase to 7.12 acres and lot 5 will be reduced to 25.45 acres.
(6) Future development: The subdivision is considered built out. The Gereau’s,
owners of lot 5, were to retain the parcel with no-further subdivision.
(7) State Environmental Quality Review Act: The board should determine if the
boundary line agreement is significant enough to require additional environmental
review.
(8) Adirondack Park Agency: The applicant is in the process of amending the original
permit.
Areas of Concern or Importance
The applicant has discussed with Staff the future site plan for horses on the property.
Suggestions
Staff would suggest approval of the modification as proposed.”
MR. MAC EWAN-Since the Gereau’s subdivided this, this is the second application we’ve had and
we’re actually putting it back together, right? I guess, in a sense.
MRS. MOORE-The same lot as well, Monty McNeil.
MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. Good evening.
MRS. KOBEL-Good evening. How are you?
MR. MAC EWAN-Tired. For the record, you are?
MRS. KOBEL-I’m Christine Kobel. This is my husband Paul Kobel.
47
(Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 10/16/01)
MR. MAC EWAN-Can you tell us a little bit about your proposed project?
MRS. KOBEL-Well, we’re interested in purchasing the 5.13 acre parcel, and also the 1.99 acre parcel
and combining the two and just actually having a lot adjustment, a lot line adjusted. So that we can
combine the two and remove the line, and I have given you a map of the proposed line removal, and
an 8 ½ by 11 of the previous map with the line still on it. There’s a full map of the proposed project,
and then an 8 ½ by 11 copy.
MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. Yes. We’re with you.
MRS. KOBEL-And I sent you the large map of the proposed.
MR. MAC EWAN-It seems pretty simplistic here. Anything else you wanted to add?
MRS. KOBEL-I don’t think so. That’s pretty much all we would like to do. Anything that’s stated
in my letter, if you have any questions about anything that I wrote, that I tried to be specific.
MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. John, we’ll start with you.
MR. STROUGH-Yes, well, any time you combine two lots in this area, it’s a good thing, Number
One, but I did have a couple of questions, nothing too serious. Now, the plat indicates that the
driveway will drain to a low point on the lot. The plat indicates. I look at the plat. I don’t see where
it indicates that the driveway is going to drain to a low point.
MRS. MOORE-There’s notes on the plat, down on the left, I think the left hand corner.
MR. VOLLARO-Number Seven, on notes.
MR. STROUGH-Okay. So it just basically states that it will do that, right? It will drain to the low
spots, instead of out to the road. That’s what we want, and it doesn’t appear you have a problem
with that.
MRS. KOBEL-No.
MR. STROUGH-Okay.
MR. STROUGH-Just out of curiosity, what are the stone remains?
MRS. KOBEL-Okay. You know, that’s what kind of was confusing a minute ago. The stone
remains is an old foundation of a home that was previously there, that is, I don’t know, it must have
belonged to a hermit or something.
MR. KOBEL-It’s like a shed, like a hermit lived there.
MRS. KOBEL-Yes, it’s in the woods.
MR. STROUGH-You don’t know the history?
MRS. KOBEL-No, I don’t.
MR. STROUGH-I’m only interested, local history is one of my hobbies.
MRS. KOBEL-Yes. No, we don’t.
MR. STROUGH-And I wasn’t familiar with that foundation.
MRS. KOBEL-He was quite a pig. There’s a lot of debris on the property.
MR. STROUGH-Okay.
MRS. KOBEL-It’s just the stone remains of foundation. I guess there’s some also partial left of
whatever was the house there, and we would prefer to push the envelope.
MR. STROUGH-Yes, I see, you would want to move closer to that. That’s fine, and those are the
only questions I had, Mr. Chairman.
MR. MAC EWAN-Tony?
48
(Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 10/16/01)
MR. METIVIER-I have nothing, I promise.
MR. MAC EWAN-Tom?
MR. SEGULJIC-I have no questions.
MR. MAC EWAN-Bob?
MR. VOLLARO-Simple lot line adjustment, no.
MR. MAC EWAN-Cathy?
MRS. LA BOMBARD-I agree.
MR. MAC EWAN-Chris?
MR. HUNSINGER-I’m all set.
MRS. LA BOMBARD-It sounds like a nice spot. I know it’s a nice spot. I used to go up there all
the time.
MR. MAC EWAN-I’ll open up the public hearing.
MRS. MOORE-There’s no public hearing.
MR. HUNSINGER-There is no.
MR. SCHACHNER-Correct.
MR. MAC EWAN-Does anyone want to comment on this application? No comments? Anything
you wanted to add? I’ll entertain a motion.
MR. STROUGH-Well, first of all, the Board should determine if the boundary line agreement is
significant enough to require an additional environmental review. We should discuss it. I say it
doesn’t.
MR. HUNSINGER-I would agree.
MR. MAC EWAN-I think it’s the consensus that we don’t have to worry about it.
MR. STROUGH-Okay. Then let’s go to a motion.
MOTION TO APPROVE MODIFICATION TO SB 2-1998 CHRISTINE & PAUL
KOBEL, Introduced by John Strough who moved for its adoption, seconded by Chris Hunsinger:
WHEREAS, the Town Planning Board is in receipt of SB 2-1998. Applicant: Christine & Paul
Kobel. Property Owner: William & Lisa Gereau.
Determination of Non-Significance.
MODIFICATION. Zone: RR-5A. Location: Tuthill Road. Applicant proposes modification to an
approved subdivision. The modification is to combine Lot 3 of 5.13 acres and Lot 5C of 1.99 acres.
Any modification to an approved subdivision requires Planning Board review and approval. Tax
Map No. 123-1-21.6, 21.3. Lot size: 5.13 ac., 1.99 ac.; Section: Subdiv. Regs, and;
WHEREAS, the application was received 9/01;
WHEREAS, the above is supported with the following documentation, and inclusive of all newly
received information, not included is this listing as of 10/12/01;
10/16 Staff notes
10/3 Meeting notice
WHEREAS, public hearing was not held concerning the above project; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Board has determined that the proposal complies with the Subdivision
requirements of the Code of the Town Queensbury (Zoning); and
WHEREAS, the Planning Board has considered the environmental factors found in the Code of the
Town of Queensbury (Zoning); and
49
(Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 10/16/01)
WHEREAS, the requirements of the State Environmental Quality Review Act have been considered
and the Planning Board has adopted a SEQRA Negative Declaration; and/or if application is a
modification, the requirements of the State Environmental Quality Review Act have been
considered; and the proposed modification(s) do not result in any new or significantly different
environmental impacts, and, therefore, no further SEQRA review is necessary; and
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT
RESOLVED, that
The application for modification is approved in accordance with the resolution prepared by
Staff and is subject to the following conditions:
1. All necessary outside agency approvals have been received by the applicant, with a
copy sent to and received by Planning Department Staff within 180 days.
2. The plat must be filed with the County Clerk within 60 days of receipt by Planning
Department Staff of outside agency approvals noted.
Duly adopted this 16th day of October 2001 by the following vote:
AYES: Mr. Hunsinger, Mrs. LaBombard, Mr. Vollaro, Mr. Seguljic, Mr. Metivier, Mr. Strough,
Mr. MacEwan
NOES: NONE
MR. MAC EWAN-You’re all set. Sorry for the long wait.
MRS. KOBEL-Thank you. That’s okay.
MR. MAC EWAN-Have a good night.
MRS. KOBEL-You, too.
SITE PLAN 23-2000 DETERMINATION OF NON-SIGNIFICANCE MODIFICATION
PATRICK CURTIN PROPERTY OWNER: SAME AGENT: JOHN MASON ZONE:
WR-1A LOCATION: 227 ASSEMBLY PT. RD. APPLICANT PROPOSES
MODIFICATION TO HIS APPROVED SITE PLAN FOR A BOATHOUSE.
MODIFICATIONS INCLUDE OMISSION OF THE DECK, REDUCTION OVERALL
SIZE OF LAND BRIDGE AND STAIRS, SMALL ADDITION ADDED UNDER BRIDGE
FOR STORAGE, STAIRS ADDED TO NORTH SIDE FOR ACCESS TO LAKE. ANY
MODIFICATION TO AN APPROVED SITE PLAN REQUIRES PLANNING BOARD
REVIEW AND APPROVAL. CROSS REFERENCE: BP 2000-231; 9/17/01 LETTER
FROM B. FRANK, CODE COMPLIANCE OFFICER TAX MAP NO. 8-5-13 LOT SIZE:
N/A SECTION 179-16
JOHN MASON, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT
MRS. LA BOMBARD-No public hearing is scheduled.
STAFF INPUT
Notes from Staff, Site Plan No. 23-2000, Modification, Patrick Curtin, Meeting Date: October 16,
2001 “Project Description
The applicant proposes to modify a Planning Board approved site plan. The code compliance office
informed the applicant the boathouse did not conform to the approved plans, see letter of 9/17/01.
The modification includes a land bridge, stairs to the boathouse with a landing and stairs to the
water.
The original access to the boathouse was about 720 +\- square feet; the proposed is 412+/- square
feet total.
The boathouse and sundeck were constructed as previously approved; the only change was the access
to the facility.
Suggestions
Staff recommends approval of the modification”
50
(Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 10/16/01)
MR. MAC EWAN-Good evening.
MR. MASON-Good evening. I’m John Mason. I’m here representing the Curtins. I’m the person
that’s responsible for building this in a way that differed with the original plans. It’s a combination
of three or four things. One is that our original plans weren’t clear. I know you guys always tell me
we do great jobs with plans, but this time we didn’t. Our overview of the plan did not match the
plan view that, the stairs as they are constructed actually were shown on the second page, but neither
the existing stairs, nor the new stairs and land bridge, were shown on the plan view. The long and
the short of this is that this is a substantial reduction in the way to get from the road to the
boathouse, but it still should have been in front of you before this was approved the last time.
MR. MAC EWAN-Is that it? Tony?
MR. METIVIER-I’ve seen the boathouse. I’ve been on it. Spectacular job.
MR. MASON-Thank you. I’m still sorry we didn’t do it, give you the plans right the first time.
MR. METIVIER-But it is nice.
MR. MAC EWAN-Is that it?
MR. METIVIER-Yes.
MR. MAC EWAN-Tom?
MR. SEGULJIC-No questions.
MR. MAC EWAN-Robert?
MR. VOLLARO-I was on the boathouse, and I have to agree with Tony that it’s a nice job. It looks
really good.
MR. MASON-Thank you.
MR. VOLLARO-I’m going to have to vote no on this, though, because I have a feeling that, you
know, make it like the picture is always what I said, and I just, I’m at the point now where I’ve seen
enough of people coming before this Board.
MR. MASON-Did you review the original approval? Because if you look at the original approval, the
stairs as they’re constructed here are shown. They’re just not shown on the overview, but they are
shown on the view from the back of the boathouse.
MR. VOLLARO-I don’t know, this is probably a little like the adage that a lot of carpenters have to
use, measure once, you know, cut once, measure twice.
MR. MASON-I appreciate your concern. I will say this to you, that we’ve been in front of this
Board, I can’t tell you how many times. I’ve never been in front of this Board with an after the fact,
it’s just never happened to our company, and I’ve probably been in front of this Board, I don’t want
to tell you how many hundreds of times. We try and do our best, we truly do, and if you look at the
original plan, versus what is constructed here, I think you will find that even the original plan shows
this same set of stairs leaving a pre-existing land bridge. Again, sorry it happened. I’m not, I’d like to
go back to the original plans and show it the proper way, but certainly, I wouldn’t have ignored this
early on for any reason. It’s much less. I mean, we’re removing a 720 square foot land bridge, stairs
and deck, and installing one that’s about half the size.
MR. VOLLARO-I agree with you. It looks good to me. I think it’s a fine job.
MR. MASON-Thank you.
MR. MAC EWAN-Cathy?
MRS. LA BOMBARD-It’s fine. I know where Bob’s coming from, but it’s fine.
MR. MAC EWAN-Chris?
MR. HUNSINGER-I guess I’m confused on the, it was the access to the boathouse that was 720
square feet, not the boathouse itself.
51
(Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 10/16/01)
MR. MASON-No. It’s just the access.
MR. HUNSINGER-Right. Okay. I just wanted to make sure I was clear on that.
MR. MAC EWAN-John?
MR. STROUGH-What was the square footage of the original deck? And I believe that this was
supposed to follow the lines of the original deck?
MR. MASON-The original sundeck, the top surface.
MR. STROUGH-The bottom part, the bottom deck.
MR. MASON-Are you going to talk the surface of the sundeck or the surface of the dock?
MR. STROUGH-The surface of the dock.
MR. MASON-The surface of the dock? The surface of the dock is very, very, in fact, the surface of
the new dock is smaller than what the surface of the original dock was.
MR. STROUGH-Well, all right. Theoretically, and I understand you might have been grandfathered.
MR. MASON-No, no, we weren’t grandfathered.
MR. STROUGH-Well, the limitation is 700 square feet?
MR. MASON-Yes.
MR. STROUGH-Okay, and I calculate your dock currently at 929.5 square feet.
MR. MASON-No, it’s 700 square feet. In fact, it’s a few feet under 700 square feet.
MR. STROUGH-Well, the two legs, which are 36 by 8.
MR. MASON-Yes.
MR. STROUGH-And actually the eight foot.
MR. MASON-288 and 288.
MR. STROUGH-Yes, but the eight foot, which is the maximum you’re allowed.
MR. MASON-Yes.
MR. STROUGH-And I believe that should count the six by six vertical posts, that’s not the decking,
that’s the total width.
MR. MASON-I don’t know what, when you refer to a six by six vertical post.
MR. STROUGH-Your post that you tie your boat to.
MR. MASON-Yes.
MR. STROUGH-I think the width has to include that.
MR. MASON-No.
MR. STROUGH-That’s your ruling.
MR. MASON-No, no. Well, excuse me, it’s the ruling of the Lake George Park Commission. The
ruling of the Army Corps of Engineers, the ruling of the Town of Lake George, Town of Bolton,
and up until right now, the Town of Queensbury.
MR. STROUGH-Well, in any event, I mean, you and I aren’t even close, on 700 square feet versus
929, and.
MR. MASON-I don’t know what you’re adding to it, though, John. You’re not, I can tell you right
now, this dock is 700 square feet. It has to be. You can’t get an approval for any more than 700
square feet.
52
(Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 10/16/01)
MR. STROUGH-Well, I used your plans to determine the square footage.
MR. MASON-Okay.
MR. STROUGH-And in addition to that, that didn’t include the stairway going, the platform of the
stairway going down off of the north side of it.
MR. MASON-Yes, historically, and again, this is a discussion I had with Chris Round after this all
occurred. Historically, stairs going into the lake are not included in the square footage. Historically,
fenders on the side of the dock, which you’re talking about, are not included. Historically, ladders
going into the dock are not included. I mean, I can only tell you the way the rule has been for the
last 30 years. I can’t tell you, if there’s a new interpretation tonight, it’s something I’m unaware of.
MR. STROUGH-Well, as far as I’m concerned, it’s a beautifully made dock, but in my opinion, I
think that you have exceeded the square footage allowed, and I think you’d have to go to the ZBA, in
my opinion, to get, I think it’s an expansion of a non-conforming use, and I think you need an Area
Variance.
MR. MAC EWAN-Hold it. Where are you going with this?
MR. STROUGH-I’m just saying, has anyone gone up there and measured this deck, dock?
MR. MAC EWAN-But that’s not your determination to make. It’s not your determination to
determine whether someone needs to go to the ZBA or not.
MR. MASON-I would urge you to measure it.
MR. STROUGH-Yes, well, it was just a question that came up to me.
MR. MAC EWAN-If that was going to be a mechanism that was going to kick it in, it would have
been kicked in before it got to this Board for site plan.
MR. STROUGH-Well, it’s a huge dock, and it’s not supposed to extend any more than 40 feet
offshore, and I suppose you’ve got permission to do that, but.
MR. MASON-It’s not over 40 feet. You just said the piers are 36 feet long.
MR. MAC EWAN-Really, there’s no need to go down that road. Let’s move along.
MR. STROUGH-Okay. Well, I’m disinclined to favor this application.
MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. Tony?
MR. METIVIER-I still like it.
MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. I couldn’t remember if I started with you or not. Okay. Anything else
you wanted to add?
MR. SCHACHNER-I just want to make sure that Mr. Strough’s not uncomfortable, and we’re not
cutting him off as to the reason why the Chairman is suggesting, John, that we not go down that
road, and I’m not putting words in Mr. MacEwan’s mouth. I think it’s important that the Planning
Board, as a group, recognize that, as the Chairman indicates, the issues of whether an application is in
compliance with zoning are issues that are determined by other entities within the Town, not by this
Board. If the application is not in compliance with zoning, it doesn’t get to this Board to begin with,
and I want to make sure you understand where we’re coming from on that.
MR. STROUGH-I understand where you’re coming from.
MR. SCHACHNER-You may not agree, and that’s fine.
MR. STROUGH-Well, where I’m coming from is I see this beyond my acceptable limits, and I give
further reasons for that, other than what’s already apparent.
MR. SCHACHNER-Well, correct me if I’m wrong, you don’t see it beyond your individual
acceptable limits. You’re seeing it as not in compliance with zoning.
MR. STROUGH-Well, that was a question I threw out there because I did wonder.
53
(Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 10/16/01)
MR. SCHACHNER-And all I’m trying to point out, for the record and for your comfort, is that, as
Mr. MacEwan indicated, whether it’s in compliance with zoning is actually not a Planning Board
determination. You don’t have the lawful authority to make that determination. I’m not saying
you’re right. I’m not saying you’re wrong. I’m saying that’s beyond your authority. I think that’s all
the Chairman was trying to point out. I want to make sure you understand, legally, where you’re at.
MR. STROUGH-I understand.
MR. SCHACHNER-Okay.
MR. STROUGH-And thank you, Counsel.
MR. MAC EWAN-Any other comments? I’ll entertain a motion, please.
MOTION TO APPROVE MODIFICATION TO SITE PLAN NO. 23-2000 PATRICK
CURTIN, Introduced by Anthony Metivier who moved for its adoption, seconded by Catherine
LaBombard:
WHEREAS, the Town Planning Board is in receipt of Site Plan No. 23-2000 for Patrick Curtin.
Applicant proposes a modification to his approved site plan for a boathouse. Modifications include
omission of the deck, reduction overall size of land bridge and stairs, small addition added under
bridge for storage, stairs added to north side for access to lake. Any modification to an approved
Site Plan requires Planning Board review and approval. Cross Reference: BP 2000-231; 9/17/01
letter from B. Frank, Code Compliance Officer. Tax Map No. 8-5-13. Lot size: N/A; Section: 179-
1, and
WHEREAS, the application was received 9/01:
WHEREAS, the above is supported with the following documentation and inclusive of all newly
received information, not included in this listing as of 10/12/01:
10/16 Staff notes
10/12 Fax to J. Mason of staff notes
10/9 Notice of Public Hearing
10/3 Meeting notice
9/17 Letter from B. Frank, Code Compliance Officer
WHEREAS, public hearing was not held 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 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 the Planning Board has adopted a SEQRA Negative Declaration; and/or if application is a
modification, the requirements of the State Environmental Quality Review Act have been
considered; and the proposed modification(s) do not result in any new or significantly different
environmental impacts, and, therefore, no further SEQRA review is necessary; and
WHEREAS, approval of the application means that the applicant can now apply for a Building
Permit unless the lands are Adirondack Park Jurisdictional or other approvals are necessary.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT
RESOLVED, that
The application for modification is approved in accordance with the resolution prepared by
Staff.
Duly adopted this 16th day of October 2001 by the following vote:
AYES: Mrs. LaBombard, Mr. Seguljic, Mr. Metivier, Mr. Hunsinger, Mr. MacEwan
NOES: Mr. Vollaro, Mr. Strough
MR. MAC EWAN-You’re all set, Mr. Mason.
54
(Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 10/16/01)
MR. MASON-Thank you.
SUBDIVISION NO. 7-2001 FINAL STAGE TYPE: UNLISTED DKC HOLDINGS,
INC. PROPERTY OWNER: SAME AGENT: J. LAPPER, VAN DUSEN & STEVES,
NACE ENG. ZONE: SFR-20 LOCATION: SOUTH SIDE SHERMAN AVENUE, EAST
OF SMOKE RIDGE APPLICANT PROPOSES SUBDIVISION OF A 23.14 +/- ACRE
PARCEL INTO 28 RESIDENTIAL LOTS. CROSS REFERENCE: PZ 2-2000 TAX MAP
NO. 93-2-20.1 LOT SIZE: 23.14 +/- ACRES SECTION: SUBDIV. REGS
JON LAPPER, TOM NACE, MATT STEVES, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT
MR. MAC EWAN-The public hearing was back on August 28,and it’s still open.
th
STAFF INPUT
Notes from Staff, Subdivision No. 7-2001, Final Stage, DKC Holdings, Inc., Meeting Date: October
16, 2001 “Project Description
The application was tabled at the August 28, 2001 Planning Board meeting to address CT Male
comments, revise plat for buffer areas, and to obtain a sign off from Kathy O’Brien in regards to the
Karner Blue Butterfly.
Areas of Concern or Importance
The applicant had proposed a 27 lot residential subdivision and a lot dedicated to Niagara Mohawk.
The applicant has revised the plans for a 28 lot residential subdivision and a lot to be dedicated to
Niagara Mohawk. The revision has been advertised and a public hearing is scheduled. The lands to
be subdivided for residential development total 17.17 acres with the remaining 5.97 acres being
Niagara Mohawk and roads. The property as zoned Single Family residential 20,000 square feet
would allow for more than 28 lots to be developed.
Staff spoke with Kathy O’Brien from NYSDEC and discussed the conditions noted in Staff
suggestions.
Suggestions
Staff would suggest tabling the application until the following conditions are addressed:
1. A six foot fence be constructed along the property lines that abut the NIMO property; the
intent is to discourage dumping material into the power line
2. Install barriers at the intersection of the NIMO property and the proposed road; the intent is
to discourage ATV and pedestrian traffic.
3. A note should be added to the plat indicating the purpose of the no-cut zones, barriers, and
signs is to protect the Karner Blue Butterfly and it’s habitat. In addition it should be noted
on the plat the Karner Blue Butterfly is the Town Butterfly….(need to obtain additional
information about status). This information should also be included in the deed; the intent
is to clearly inform potential lot purchasers of the endangered species
4. The plat should also include the habitat locations; the intent is to document habitat and
ensure the protection is continued
5. The plat should also note that the NYSDEC has the right to enter the subdivision and
NIMO land within the subdivision to inspect and monitor the Karner Blue Butterfly and it’s
habitat; the intent is to grant permission to NYSDEC for continuous monitoring.
6. The plat should include a note that invasive species should not be planted; the intent is to
protect the habitat.
7. The plat should contain a note identifying the zoning requirements; SFR-20.
8. Locate temporary turnarounds at the end of the dead streets”
MR. MAC EWAN-Good evening.
MR. LAPPER-Good evening. Jon Lapper, Tom Nace, Matt Steves and Larry Clute who is DKC
Holdings is here as well. We only have one issue, which is, Laura, you said the word “tabling”
instead of “conditions”. We agree with everything that she has except for the six foot fence, which
the Board discussed last time. We think that there would be some negative implications of a six foot
fence along the whole perimeter of the NiMo right of way. It would create an area where kids could
be partying. You already have kids driving motorcycles and ATV’s on the NiMo right of way. It just
doesn’t seem like good planning to block that off. So visually there would be a barrier. There’s also
the 70 acre parcel behind.
MR. MAC EWAN-Who says it has to be a stockade type fence? It doesn’t specify what kind of
fence, does it?
55
(Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 10/16/01)
MR. LAPPER-That’s how we read it.
MR. MAC EWAN-It could be an open fence, you know, like the ones they have along the
Northway.
MR. LAPPER-The reason for the fence is to discourage people from throwing their grass clippings
onto the right of way. It just seems like overkill, just because there were two lupine plants, no
butterflies, in the vicinity, and to address that, the subdivision plat was changed to eliminate a lot, to
create this 16,000 square foot area.
MR. STEVES-Shift the lots around to accommodate the 16,500 square foot area for two plants to be
centered into, so that the area of the actual blue lupine that was found on the subject property has
been isolated into an area that is to be conveyed to Niagara Mohawk for no development. The rest
of the site, as with Kathy O’Brien, a meeting with Staff and myself on site, and as well as discussion
with Queensbury Staff, there was no other habitat out there, except for the two plants.
MR. MAC EWAN-What’s the purpose of protecting the lupine vegetation areas?
MR. STEVES-The purpose of protecting the blue lupine is for hosting for the Karner blue.
MR. MAC EWAN-And hopefully the lupine will spread and grow more.
MR. STEVES-Correct.
MR. MAC EWAN-So if we don’t take measures to protect it, how is it going to flourish?
MR. LAPPER-We have taken measures to protect it.
MR. MAC EWAN-Well, what I’m hearing is that you guys, your argument here is that, well, gee, it’s
only two plants. What the heck does really two plants matter.
MR. LAPPER-No. We’ve gone pretty far beyond two plants.
MR. MAC EWAN-Well, that’s what I’m hearing reverberated here, though, the issue of two plants.
MR. STEVES-Right. That’s what I’m trying to get at. There’s two plants that were located in this
area right here, right here my pen is pointing to, almost exactly right there, and that we would even
help establish more plants in that area. We have no problem doing that, and the subdivision going
through, there’s a couple of other comments made, and that if you had the no cut zone, a buffer
zone along the Niagara Mohawk right of way, which is an easement by them, not an ownership,
unlike the other ends of the property, and we’re proposing to give that to Niagara Mohawk, and in
that case, they would, immediately upon approval of the roads being cut in, will put the barriers
across on their ownership, instead of their easement, to protect from traveling on it by cars,
motorcycles, bicycles, whatever else is using that at this time. So you want to talk about protection of
a plant, it’s kind of hard to have even one grow in that corridor when you’re having things run over it
every day.
MR. MAC EWAN-And you think that just having those barriers will prevent that?
MR. STEVES-I didn’t say prevent it, but it’ll help the plant grow, because I have first hand
experience of that in my subdivision.
MR. MAC EWAN-Well, I can testify that I have first hand experience in my subdivision as well. So
I would guess the question I would ask you is why wouldn’t the fence help promote that even more?
MR. STEVES-There’s a couple of different scenarios. I think the fence, if it is in the purest sense of
the word, might, if nobody went beyond it, but I think having a fence then just enables it to be a
corridor for people to play, and people having a fence to dump something over. I think if it is a no
cut zone, people aren’t going to go into their back yard and dump clippings and what not and kind of
trash it up, but if you have something that you can put back in there, and block it off, it almost
becomes like not your property, so why not dump something over there.
MR. MAC EWAN-I share just the opposite viewpoint, and I can take that just from my own
development and knowing that occasionally when I walk the power lines over there, the amount of
people who have taken grass clippings, and I watched a neighbor do it today, raking the yard, took all
the leaves and needles and dumped them over in the right of way. There is no fence that prohibits it.
They just put them in a tarp and then drag them across the yard and dump them over. They’ve been
doing that for years.
56
(Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 10/16/01)
MR. STEVES-I’m not denying that, Craig, but in your subdivision do you have the requirement that
every lot will have sign that the deed and the subdivision that is conveyed to your lot will be saying
that you have a no cut zone in the back of your property for the protection of Karner blue habitat?
Do you have that in your property now? Do I have that in my property now? This subdivision will
have that.
MR. MAC EWAN-I mean, you guys seem adamant about the fence. Is the fence just because of
financial reasons? Is that why?
MR. NACE-I think it’s also aesthetic. Would you want a fence across the back of your property line?
MR. MAC EWAN-It depends on what kind of fence it was.
MR. NACE-Any kind of fence.
MR. MAC EWAN-I don’t know. I’m just asking questions here. I’m not saying I’m going to
support it one way or the other.
MR. NACE-I think there is some value to protecting the plants in here, and allowing them to spread.
To say that that plant is going to end up populating the entire length of the right of way, may be a
little bit of a stretch, but I think, you know, my, if I were buying a lot in there, my objection would be
aesthetic, that I wouldn’t want to necessarily have a fence across the back of my property, and that I
think, from the other standpoint, I would also take more ownership of that property and want to see
it kept up better, you know, if it looked like it was just an extension of my backyard. That’s a
personal thing.
MRS. LA BOMBARD-Tom, we have a right of way behind ours, and two of, myself and another
neighbor spent, we each spent about $150 and had all the brush our brush, taken away, and we tried
to get the third neighbor, but the third neighbor just keeps piling it up and piling it up, and it’s just an
eyesore. I just feel like paying to have that mess taken away, but it’s not mine, and I know that, if I
did that, they wouldn’t be too happy with me, and we’d have friction, but it is a place to dump. Craig
is right about that, but again, I see your point. I wouldn’t want a fence, but you know what ended
end up happening? Everybody put a fence up on that, along the right of way, but yet it allows each
individual to go into their part of the right of way. So the fences are there, and they’re not helping at
all.
MR. STEVES-Would it help this Board, just like a previous application here tonight, that if it’s made
a condition, and the applicant agrees to it, that you state that, right on the map, no dumping on the
right of way or the no cut zone will be allowed of any type? That it is to be a protected area? The
sign will state that, a note on the plat will state that, and you can incorporate that into the deed in
each lot. That way the Town has an enforceable written policy.
MRS. LA BOMBARD-So in other words if the neighbors saw that, they could just call the Town on
their neighbor.
MR. STEVES-Absolutely.
MRS. LA BOMBARD-Well, I’ve had the same thing where Craig said, where they take the big blue
plastic tarp and they load their leaves, and when I was building out my house, they were dragging it
right over there, but then that makes for bad relationships with your neighbor.
MR. MAC EWAN-Mark, can we get some input on that, on the reality and the probability of being
able to do enforcement on something like that?
MR. SCHACHNER-Describe it again.
MR. MAC EWAN-If we had the plat noted that there is to be no dumping or however the language
is in that area.
MR. SCHACHNER-Right, and it’s a condition of approval.
MR. MAC EWAN-Right.
MR. SCHACHNER-I mean, it’s like any other enforcement, or many other enforcement actions. If
there’s either a complaint lodged with the Code Enforcement office or the Code Enforcement
Officer or anyone else in Community Development knows of the dumping that’s happening, there is
an opportunity to commence a Town Court enforcement action. I don’t know the area, in terms of
how publicly visible it is, in question, and obviously as you, I think, are all aware, the Enforcement
57
(Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 10/16/01)
staff is pretty bogged down with many, many enforcement cases. What level of priority would attach
to this case is, you know, hard to speculate.
MR. LAPPER-I just spoke to Larry, and it’s certainly not a cost issue, because the fence is not a big
cost item across this distance, but he points out that there is existing natural vegetation which is in
excess of six feet that would have to be removed to put up a fence, and he feels, aesthetically, what’s
there now is more attractive. Obviously, he’ll abide by the wishes of the Board.
MRS. LA BOMBARD-I’d be more inclined to put up a nice five foot fence, just a picket type fence.
MR. MAC EWAN-And what I was envisioning here, just for everyone’s, try to get a mental image, is
something similar to the fence that’s along the Northway right of way, on either side of the north or
southbound lane. It’s not chain. It’s a wire fence.
MR. STEVES-That’s an eight foot chain link fence, of commercial grade, and you’re also talking
about a fence, now, if I’m understanding you correctly, Mr. Chairman, is at the beginning of the no
cut zone, which is inside the property line, which you have to cut a path through to be able to install
a fence of that magnitude.
MR. MAC EWAN-Mr. Steves, I’m not referring to an eight foot chain link fence. There are sections
of the Northway where I’ve seen, it’s like a six by six square wire fence. It’s only about five feet tall.
It’s the cheap stuff. It’s just there to serve as a deterrent.
MR. STEVES-Now I understand what you’re talking about. You’re talking about the little areas.
MR. MAC EWAN-I’m only one guy here. I’m asking questions. I don’t know what the other six are
going to do, or think.
MR. STEVES-You’re talking more like the heavier page wire fence that is along the Northway in the
motor areas.
MR. MAC EWAN-Right. All I’m suggesting is a deterrent. That’s all. I’m not asking you to build
the Berlin Wall.
LARRY CLUTE
MR. CLUTE-The area that we’re describing, this whole length, I just happen to be the only one that
owns the pole lines, in this particular case. This side over here, that’s Niagara Mohawk. This side
over here is Niagara Mohawk owned. So, I mean, for me to put up this short section of fence is
going to kind of give it a commercial feel, just in this short section, and we have no control over this
side or this side. Whether it’s four foot, three foot, five foot, six foot, eight foot, I’m still going to
have to clear in order to accommodate whatever fencing is required, and I think I’m going to create
more of an aesthetic problem rather than leaving it what’s already there. It’s not a cost issue. The
fencing is really not a big stress, but the looks would be. I mean, I’ve literally got to go in and take
out trees that are larger than the six foot and again, it’s only this section here. This side of the
development and this side, which are still going to be in place, are not going to have that fence. So
you’re going to look like you’re creating a corridor. You’re going to drive into this subdivision and
you’re going to see this corridor. That’s all I’m saying. It really doesn’t have a cost. Aesthetically, I
believe the no cut zone serves a much better purpose than the fencing, for whatever one man’s
opinion is worth.
MR. MAC EWAN-Okay.
MR. VOLLARO-For whatever it’s worth, if the Board gets a chance to participate in this discussion.
MR. MAC EWAN-We’re going to get there. Don’t worry. I’ve been quite all night long.
MR. VOLLARO-Okay, Craig. One of the things I see in having to clear that area, how do I know
that I’m not taking out some lupine when I do that? I mean, there’s a good deal of clearing that has
to be done to put that fence in (lost words), and how do I know what I’m disturbing? What does a
lupine plant look like anyway? So, somebody tell me, what is it? Is it a plant? What is this lupine?
MR. LAPPER-It’s a weed that has blue flowers in August.
MR. VOLLARO-So it would be pretty easy to be taking it out. In this time of year, when the flower
is done, you wouldn’t even recognize what it was.
MR. LAPPER-If you know what you’re looking for.
58
(Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 10/16/01)
MR. VOLLARO-Right, if you’re a Botanist. If you’re a guy that was sent out to clear the land, you
wouldn’t know it. I would not be in favor of a fence.
MR. MAC EWAN-I give up the fight.
MRS. MOORE-I can just add an additional comment. Is that Kathy O’Brien still hasn’t presented a
letter to the applicant or to Staff in regard to these suggestions that I have.
MR. MAC EWAN-Why hasn’t she?
MRS. MOORE-It’s not clear.
MR. MAC EWAN-Well, you know, we tabled this last month for this.
MR. STEVES-I may be able to shed a little light on that. As far as, when I met with her and talked
to her and sent her these plans, she’s not going to issue me a letter until she talks to Staff, because,
you know, I’m not saying that she’s an extremist, but at the same time, she can, you know, that’s
potential habitat, she tells me. Anywhere in New York State that has sandy soils can be a potential
habitat, and I understand, but that’s why my client and ourselves as a development team, took it
upon ourselves to have it flagged before we even came to this Board, looked at it, said, let’s break off
16,000 square feet, protect it, create it as a no cut zones, create the signs, and we agree to them, and
now she’s asking for some more information on the signs, which is fine. So in other words, I think a
letter would come from her, if we’re agreeing to four out of the five line items that she wanted to put
on the map, and we would gladly do that. I think once this Board does that, then we could go back
to her and say, if the negative dec, we’ve made the mitigating factors. The one last thing that wasn’t
agreeable was the fence, and I think that she would sign off on that.
MR. MAC EWAN-Has she been in contact with your office?
MRS. MOORE-Yes.
MR. MAC EWAN-And when was the last time that you spoke with her or she corresponded with
you? I mean, we tabled this thing last month.
MRS. MOORE-My guess is the beginning, or maybe last week, or two weeks ago.
MR. MAC EWAN-And she’s asking for more information?
MRS. MOORE-These are items that we discussed. I mean, I don’t know whether it’s more
information. I don’t know what conversation she had with Matt.
MR. LAPPER-I guess we’d look at it as that she gave Laura a verbal list that she and Laura discussed.
That’s her answer. She’s not an involved agency because there’s no destruction of habitat.
MR. MAC EWAN-I know, but part of tabling was to get some sort of, I guess, formal sign off by
her or something to that effect, and, you know, if we waited a month and we haven’t heard back
from her, and now she’s asking for more information or more questions, I don’t understand the
reason behind tabling this any further at this point. All right. What else have we got?
MR. LAPPER-We’re agreeable to all the other conditions, and there’s a letter that Tom can review,
C.T. Male.
MR. NACE-Okay. Last Friday, we got comments from C.T. Male. I’ll just go through them bullet
by bullet, real quick. We still need, as they point out, we need to receive a waiver from the Planning
Board on the landscaping plan, the lack of landscaping plan. The second item, in one of my
responses to them, I informed them that we will need, for the Health Department, a letter from the
Town Water Department stating that they have adequate water supply available for the subdivision,
and C.T. Male just wants a copy of that when it comes. I will make sure they get a copy. Number
Three, this is an issue regarding the fact that the perc tests in there were less than one minute. DOH
standards call for a replacement soil type of system in those instance. They, C.T. Male, are suggesting
that, because we have public water in this area, that they don’t think it’s really necessary.
MR. MAC EWAN-Tom, didn’t we do that in portions of Hudson Pointe?
MR. NACE-Yes, we did, okay.
MR. MAC EWAN-And we still have to do that, even though we have public water over there?
59
(Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 10/16/01)
MR. NACE-Yes. In that case there was an outcry because of “potential environmental concerns”.
I’m broaching the subject with Department of Health regarding this, whether they will even permit a
waiver of that particular regulation. We’ll go either way, whatever Department of Health requires.
MR. MAC EWAN-I think C.T. Male makes a good point.
MR. NACE-It’s really their call. It’s a DOH regulation that I’ve never agreed with. There are
instances where it’s necessary and instances where it’s not.
MR. MAC EWAN-You really should probably amend it to say where there’s public water.
MR. STEVES-It’s the type of soil. If you have a stony soil where it’s not getting, your effluent’s not
getting filtered properly. In this case it’s sand.
MR. NACE-One thing to keep in mind, DOH allows systems within two, where the bottom of the
system is within, or not within, but at two feet from groundwater. That’s a lot different than if it’s 20
feet or 30 feet from groundwater, and there really ought to be some recognition of that in this one
minute per rate requirement. So, at any rate, we’ll do whatever DOH makes us do.
MR. VOLLARO-Tom, just one point on that. In the last sentence that C.T. Male makes there, is
although we don’t necessarily advocate this method, it may be worth exploring, since it can be
difficult to maintain the type of installation of an imported backfill.
MR. NACE-Okay. We’ve done it. I’ve had to do it in several instances. It can be done.
MR. VOLLARO-What is the maintenance criteria?
MR. NACE-Well, by maintain, they mean get a material in place that has a reasonable percolation
rate. It’s, if you don’t control the material well, it’s easy to get material that’s either too fast, again, or
that’s too tight and percolates too slow, selection of material and correct placement of the material.
So it can be done. It just takes some care. Item Number Four, they’re recommending that we place
a minimum finished grade on houses on Lots One and Eleven, and we will do that, and that’s it.
MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. Tom, we’ll start with you. Questions?
MR. SEGULJIC-I have nothing.
MR. MAC EWAN-Bob?
MR. VOLLARO-Well, Tom has answered my question. I just, why the waiver of landscaping? Is
there a reason for that at this stage?
MR. NACE-Well, it’s your regulations again. They require a landscaping plan if you’re over 20 lots.
I think it’s 20 lots, and the Town won’t let you do any landscaping within the right of way. So,
landscaping is on the lots and it’s normally on the lots anyway, and that’s, you can’t really do that as
an overall subdivision thing.
MR. VOLLARO-That’s the call of the owners.
MR. NACE-Individually on the lots.
MR. LAPPER-No common area landscaped.
MR. NACE-Right.
MR. VOLLARO-What’s the story with the letter from the Water Department? What are we looking
for there?
MR. NACE-Okay. When we get Department of Health approval, the Department of Health
requires a letter from the Town Water Department stating that they have sufficient water and that
they will provide water to the subdivision. It’s a standard procedure, and C.T. Male wants a copy of
that for their records.
MR. LAPPER-We’ve got so much water we could even sell it to Glens Falls.
MR. VOLLARO-I think we already have, haven’t we?
MR. MAC EWAN-Did they sign the papers yet?
60
(Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 10/16/01)
MR. VOLLARO-Who knows.
MR. MAC EWAN-Anything else?
MR. STEVES-I’ll just add one thing. There’s a neighbor by the neighbor of Green, is it, Larry? That
he had built for on this lot here, and if it’s agreeable to the Board, we’d just like to take his westerly
line and push it straight down. These two lots being 33 and 32,000, would still be about 28,000, well
within the 20,000 square foot limit, and it would just square off his lot and give him a little bit more
room on the side of his house. If it’s agreeable, we’ll just have a boundary line adjustment done
before the map is filed.
MR. MAC EWAN-That’s easy enough.
MR. VOLLARO-That sounds good.
MR. MAC EWAN-Anything else?
MR. VOLLARO-No.
MR. MAC EWAN-Cathy?
MRS. LA BOMBARD-Larry, I just want to say this. I’m not going to mention any names, but we
went into a subdivision on Saturday, when we were out doing our site visits, that we had approved
prior to tonight, and, you know, there were some houses that were built in there, and people had
moved in, and you know, it was, the landscaping wasn’t done. It looked dirty in there.
MR. LAPPER-We were just talking about that one outside tonight. We know what you’re talking
about.
MR. NACE-We’re all very discouraged about that.
MRS. LA BOMBARD-Maybe I’ve gotten spoiled with Michaels, you know how they come in and
they do their project and then all of a sudden it’s like, you close your eyes and you open them and it’s
done and the flowers are up and everything else. I know that this has the potential to be a really nice
place to live, but try to, I know you probably will, but this other place, after all the deliberation and
the years that we spent on this, and I went in there, and I thought, my God, it just looked so
substandard because it was unkempt, unfinished, people were moved in. It didn’t look like they were
doing any preparation to put in a lawn, and I think that maybe it might be nice to have some kind of
a stipulation where, if somebody moves in, they have a certain amount of time to get their lawn in, to
get their driveway in, you know, to make it look like it’s done.
MR. CLUTE-It’s affordable housing, unfortunately, and when you hit that market, you’re obviously
restricted as to what they can afford, but obviously the community pays as a whole. So that’s what
you’re describing. This here is going to be more like a Sherman Pines. The price range is going to be
up there. It’s not going to be my normal, typical market which is, I’m starter homes. That’s what I
am. This is going to be Sherman Pines. This will be $95,000 to $125,000, which can afford lots, can
afford pavement, and in the restrictions they will have lawn within one year. Pavement, I’m not
restricted. Pave driveways is a customer’s call, but lawns is definitely a necessity within a year of
taking possession of the home.
MRS. LA BOMBARD-And it makes the house cleaner. When it rains, the mud and dirt doesn’t go
back up on the house.
MR. CLUTE-Well, I know exactly the neighborhood you’re talking about.
MRS. LA BOMBARD-And like even finished stoops in the front.
MR. CLUTE-Anything whatsoever. Yes, because it’s been years since the, actually it’s an
improvement. I don’t know if you remember back to what that property was prior to those houses.
MR. NACE-I think you’re talking about different projects.
MRS. LA BOMBARD-No, we’re talking about different projects. I can tell, but, no, I appreciate
your taking the time on that, and that was just one thing that I was really taken back at what I saw on
Saturday.
MR. CLUTE-Yes, I know exactly what you mean, and what it is it’s touching on those starters that
they can just barely afford the home. So they can’t really afford any of the improvements, and
61
(Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 10/16/01)
unfortunately, like you say, the community ends up paying for that, as a neighborhood in general, but
that won’t be the case here, though. Okay. Thank you.
MR. MAC EWAN-Chris?
MR. HUNSINGER-It’s interesting, because I always save the old packages from prior months, and I
go back and look at the comments and the notes that I made then, and virtually all of them have now
been incorporated into the plat and are included in the plans. I guess I really don’t have anything to
add. I’m torn on the whole fence issue, like I think everyone else is. I see pluses and minuses either
way, but I think my tendency would be to not require one. I’m all set.
MR. MAC EWAN-John?
MR. STROUGH-All right. Well, I’ll go through my list in the order I’ve got it.
MR. MAC EWAN-It’s a short list, right?
MR. STROUGH-Two pages. It’s short for me. Yes. Looking on the C-3, we have the 50 foot
buffer zone because it’s adjacent to a Light Industrial area. I mean, it’s surrounded by Light
Industrial all on the south side of it anyway.
MR. LAPPER-Right.
MR. STROUGH-Is there any chance of getting a, well, theoretically, people in those areas, I’m
thinking, clear right up to their property lines, then we’re going to have Light Industrial move in next
to them. I was just wondering if we couldn’t have like a 20 foot no clear zone in the back of that
area.
MR. LAPPER-Well, there would be a buffer on, correspondingly, on the Light Industrial side as well.
MR. STROUGH-Right, but, you know, if it’s Light Industrial, you can get all the buffer, you should
get all the buffer you can between a Light Industrial and a Residential area.
MR. LAPPER-You’d like to see the buffer in the Light Industrial?
MR. STROUGH-I would like to see like a no cut zone on the back of the yards. I know we have a
50 foot buffer zone, where they wouldn’t be able to put any structures, but, theoretically, they could
clear all the way back to their property line. Do you see what I’m saying?
MR. MAC EWAN-I hear what you’re saying, but in this case, when you have a buffer zone, it’s the
responsibility of the industrial zone to buffer itself away from the residential zone, and I don’t think
we should be impeding people who are in a residential zone to buffer themselves for a light industrial
zone.
MR. STROUGH-I was just running it by the applicant to see if this is major problem to put a 20 foot
no cut zone or a 15 foot no cut zone.
MRS. LA BOMBARD-Why would they want to cut it?
MR. STROUGH-I don’t know, but you know people.
MR. HUNSINGER-They’ll cut it and then they’ll complain.
MR. STROUGH-Yes, they’ll cut it and then complain to us about, you know, I’ll be able to look at
that light industrial building from my back yard. I don’t want it. That’s what we’re going to hear,
and I’m trying to prevent that.
MRS. LA BOMBARD-If Larry doesn’t mind, I don’t care, but like you say, I don’t know why they
would cut it, but if you want to make sure they don’t.
MR. LAPPER-If the Board feels that they want it, Tom’s suggesting maybe 20 feet would be
sufficient.
MRS. LA BOMBARD-Twenty feet is fine.
MR. STROUGH-Fine.
MRS. LA BOMBARD-Okay. Put that in as a condition.
62
(Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 10/16/01)
MR. STROUGH-Okay. Now, you know, I go to the Zoning Board of Appeals meetings. So do
you, Jon.
MR. LAPPER-So do I.
MR. STROUGH-You know you see, and I see, these 20,000 foot lots, we see them asking for
variances for two things, relocation of infiltration beds for their septic systems, and swimming pools.
I just didn’t know, you know, the Lots 10 through 4 are all 20,000 square foot lots. The size of them,
I just would have liked to have seen them a little bit bigger. Twenty-thousand square foot lots, I
know that’s okay by zoning. It just says that I know there’s going to be problems. People wanting to
locate swimming pools, re-locating infiltration beds, creates problems, because there’s just not
enough room to do it.
MR. STEVES-Can I answer that?
MR. STROUGH-Yes.
MR. STEVES-I think in this layout that Tom has shown, with his septics and stuff, there is room,
especially if the person, and Larry with working with the buyer of that lot, asked if you ever propose
a pool, then you could incorporate this septic laterally or parallel to the longer lines, or into the back
of the property a little bit farther. I kind of totally disagree with the remark that it doesn’t fit. I have
a 17,000 square foot lot in Hidden Hills, and I have a septic and I have a pool, and I’ve never had to
come in for a variance to put in my pool or my septic.
MR. STROUGH-Well, we’ve seen them before. It’s just a concern.
MR. STEVES-And I understand that, but you can have a five acre lot and happen to put your septic
20 feet in back of your house, normally right where people want to put their pool. They don’t want
to have to go out 75, 80 feet to get to their pool. That’s the reason, is when a house is typically built,
not knowing a pool’s going to go in, they usually try to keep the septic fairly close to the home.
MR. STROUGH-Or they build their home too far back from their lot, and the pool’s got to go in the
back yard, and that’s another thing.
MR. STEVES-And the septic’s got to come out to the front sometimes.
MR. STROUGH-So I don’t know if we could urge these people to build their houses toward the
front because they won’t want to do these things in their front yard.
MR. NACE-I think, regardless of the size of the lot, the only way to circumvent those problems are
for the people to plan ahead when they’re building. Okay. If they’re going to want to put a pool, if
they want their house further back, the septic’s got to go up front.
MR. STROUGH-I know, but the ZBA’s going to see them. All the rational reasons that you give are
all, I agree with them, but it just won’t happen in some case. It’ll give Jon work anyway.
MR. STEVES-We try to educate the purchaser to know what they have with that piece of land.
MR. LAPPER-What Matt’s saying is as long as the homeowner is a surveyor, they can properly locate
it.
MR. STROUGH-Okay. The road proposed that’s perpendicular to Road B, which is the road that
the Planning Board had asked for, and you gave, unfortunately, I talked to Marilyn Ryba about this,
and I drew in the area where it’s identified as Pine Pitch Trails. Okay, and it goes right through Lot
21, and right where the road goes, and will proceed to go, as it goes into Light Industrial.
MR. STEVES-You’re talking an area on the Town map that identifies areas, just like they have
identified that entire corridor of the Niagara Mohawk as Karner blue, but when we went out there
specifically with Kathy O’Brien and flagged these areas, there was only one spot, as described in the
last Planning Board, you know, it’s a broad brush approach to areas, when they go over with aerial
photography and look at these things and say here’s an area that could potentially support this
habitat, then they have to recognize that and show that on these plans, but that’s why we brought
Kathy O’Brien in for a site specific location, and she identified two plants in that small area on the
extreme easterly portion of the property. Now Kathy O’Brien has walked this entire property, and in
discussions with Staff, has she brought up anything other than those two plants?
MR. STROUGH-Well, last time I talked to you, Mr. Steves, you said there wasn’t any Pine Bush,
other than what was located along the sides of the Niagara Mohawk Power Corporation, an I went
back to talk to Marilyn Ryba about that. She said, no, it’s identified on the map that I gave you.
63
(Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 10/16/01)
MR. STEVES-It’s also identified as the whole corridor of the Niagara Mohawk is Karner blue, until
such time as you have a site specific survey done, and that’s what we had done by Kathy O’Brien.
MR. STROUGH-All right.
MR. NACE-I think what Matt’s saying is that those maps are very broad brush, general, based on
coloration in an aerial photograph.
MR. STROUGH-Okay. That’s the area identified as Pine Pitch Trail. It’s the area that Marilyn Ryba
identified to me as you should take some concern for that, and it’s listed as a G-2, and a G-2 is,
according to this is a global ranking, imperiled throughout its range due to rarity, and it’s rated by the
State as S-1, where typically five or fewer occurrences, very few (lost words) acres and miles of
stream, especially vulnerable to expiration in New York State. Maybe Mr. Steves is right. I don’t
know, but I certainly want it, before I can consciously say, okay, go ahead with the project, I’d like to
know for sure that this is not significant. That we’re not approving a development in a significant
area.
MR. STEVES-I agree with you, John.
MR. VOLLARO-I agree with what you’re doing, John, but you won’t find that here tonight at this
table, I can tell you that. There’s a lot more research that would have to be done in the field, I
believe.
MR. STROUGH-Well, is that something Kathy O’Brien would identify, Laura?
MR. STEVES-That’s why I sent that exact map to Kathy O’Brien, and had her view the property.
MRS. MOORE-That’s fine. What I think Matt Steves, he’s had Kathy O’Brien walk these areas. I
think the Board is really concerned that we haven’t received a comment from Kathy O’Brien in
regards to this proposal. Kathy has walked the site. Has identified apparently to Matt only two
plants. I understand Marilyn’s concern, and we’ve discussed that, and there’s, if Kathy’s walked this
and she hasn’t identified any other information, I don’t know how to respond. You’ve indicated that
if Kathy hasn’t responded.
MR. STROUGH-Laura who made up this map?
MRS. MOORE-That’s part of the Karner blue butterfly habitat report that was prepared.
MR. STROUGH-By?
MRS. MOORE-Michael Batcher. I don’t remember how long ago, but that was part of his report.
MR. MAC EWAN-Probably about four years ago, maybe, three years ago.
MRS. MOORE-It’s possible.
MR. STROUGH-Well, see, you know, where do I go on this?
MR. MAC EWAN-My position is that I don’t think that what you’ve highlighted on that map is
significant enough to table this action or to deter that connector road from being put in, because I
think what the site has indicated is a minimal habitat that’s there.
MR. STROUGH-Yes, but you’re no environmentalist.
MR. MAC EWAN-But by the same token, there’s no reason why we can’t go forward on this. If we
should decide to put approval on this tonight, put a condition of approval that we need to have that
sign off letter from Kathy O’Brien.
MR. LAPPER-What if we never get it? She’s not an involved agency. What if we never get it?
MR. MAC EWAN-What would lead you to believe that you wouldn’t get one?
MR. LAPPER-Because she’s talked to Laura a whole bunch of times, and.
MR. MAC EWAN-Laura’s saying that Kathy O’Brien is claiming that she needs a little bit more
information. Is that not correct?
64
(Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 10/16/01)
MRS. MOORE-It’s possible, at this time, that we can give Staff direction to provide this information
to Kathy, and that we need a sign off letter as directed, as a resolution.
MR. MAC EWAN-I’m teetering here on both sides, because this isn’t the first time we’ve had a
situation with Kathy O’Brien asking her for input, and she seems to, I’ll reluctantly say this, drag her
feet on doing things, and it creates problems for us.
MR. STROUGH-Yes, but, also, based on the ratings, it has a Global two and a State one.
MR. LAPPER-But she actually walked it.
MR. STEVES-Can I address that real quick, John, and please understand me, okay. I go into the
Adirondack Park, and they have these maps that identify wetlands, just like Rush Pond is shown as a
large wetland. Okay, even though that’s not within the APA. You go in the APA and you have that
exact wetland, and you have this broad brush approach which gives you a generalization, if I’m
coming into an area and I look at the APA wetland map, yes, there is noted wetlands in here. That
doesn’t mean that the little blot that is shown, from an aerial photo, is the actual wetland. I had a
case, up in Bolton, on a subdivision that was just approved, with five lots on 68 acres, where the
wetland that was designated on the APA map showed 2/3’s of the property as wetland. That is to
rd
inform you that I better get a hold of the APA and have them flag the wetlands. I had Dan Spotta
come up there and flag the wetlands, and lo and behold, it’s only about five percent of the property.
It is to identify that there is a potential habitat there. It is a very broad brush approach. That map
that you’re depicting, and that you’re showing, was actually created and helped create by DEC and
the Endangered Species Unit, which Kathy had a copy of when we were walking that property.
That’s why, when looking at this for subdivision, I knew that there was a potential, called the DEC,
had them walk the entire property and tell me if there was any habitat here that I should be aware of
so that I could protect, and she did and she flagged two locations on the extreme easterly side. There
was no other habitat that was recognized by DEC Endangered Species Specialist Kathy O’Brien, and
that’s what I have to go by.
MR. STROUGH-All right. What I have to go by is this until I get a write off or signoff from Kathy
O’Brien.
MR. STEVES-But I just told you she didn’t have anymore out there. Now you’re saying APA comes
in and says there’s no wetlands on your property. They’re not going to write me a letter that says
there’s no wetlands. There isn’t any.
MR. STROUGH-Well, if I have to err, I err on the side of the environment, and I’m cautious in
these areas. Okay. Let’s move on, because we’re not going to get this solved here. Okay. You’ve
got a waiver, you’re requesting a waiver for landscaping, but do you plan on some signage in
landscaping at the entry points?
MR. NACE-Signage, landscaping at the?
MR. CLUTE-I thought it would match the other subdivision.
MR. STROUGH-Well, I think that would be part of the landscaping plan, is what signage and
landscaping you’d have at the entry points.
MR. NACE-Well, actually, John, the simple answer to that is no, because both entries are 50 foot
Town right of ways, and we’re not going to be able to put a sign or landscaping on the Town right of
way.
MR. STROUGH-Yes, you’re right about that. Okay.
MR. MAC EWAN-You were thinking along the lines of, what’s the one up on Upper Sherman
Avenue? Is that Sherman Acres in there, where they’re putting up the signs?
MR. STEVES-They have the homeowners.
MR. MAC EWAN-Yes, and they’re doing the little stone.
MR. NACE-Yes, but they have the land to do it. We don’t have any land.
MR. STROUGH-All right. So there’s no really need for a landscaping plan, then. Who’s going to
maintain these signs, warning people, you know, I have a potential warning, you know, it might say
Species Protection Area, Debris or Fill Not to be Discarded in this Location, or something to that
effect, who’s going to maintain these signs? I’m certainly not going to be the developer. I mean, is
65
(Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 10/16/01)
the Town going to take over maintenance of these signs or the State or DEC? I mean, the signs get
old, they wear out, kids use them for beebee gun bull’s eye’s and whatever.
MR. VOLLARO-You have volunteers that do that.
MR. STROUGH-We don’t have an organization to do that. I mean, who’s going to maintain these?
MRS. MOORE-That’s at the discretion of the Board. The Board can suggest the agencies, the DEC
may want to maintain the signs simply because they’re looking to do continuous monitoring.
MR. MAC EWAN-I can really see this Board telling DEC to maintain some signs.
MRS. MOORE-It’s a suggestion.
MR. MAC EWAN-It would go over like a lead balloon.
MR. NACE-I hope they do a better job than their campsites.
MRS. MOORE-Or the landowners.
MR. STROUGH-All right. That’s a question that needs to be answered. Okay. The percolation is,
you’re going to do whatever DOH tells you to do.
MR. NACE-Correct.
MR. STROUGH-C.T. Male, Number Four, explain. Okay. You did. Who developed, what is it,
Smoke Ridge, Burnt Ridge?
MR. NACE-Smoke Ridge.
MR. VOLLARO-Smoke Ridge.
MR. STROUGH-Yes, adjacent to here?
MR. MAC EWAN-Cifone.
MR. NACE-Cifone.
MR. STROUGH-Cifone. Well, that’s good to hear. Okay. Well, that’s my two pages.
MR. MAC EWAN-So the only thing you’re hung up on is the Kathy O’Brien thing.
MR. STROUGH-Right. I’m grateful to the applicant for putting the no cut zones on the, 20 foot no
cut zones in the back of the properties adjacent to, but I’d really like to get clarification on this, and
then I’d say fine.
MRS. LA BOMBARD-Well, I really believe if she thought there was a real colony of Karner blues.
MR. STROUGH-Well, Marilyn was concerned. Marilyn Ryba.
MRS. LA BOMBARD-I think Kathy O’Brien, I mean, she took Matt through. If she really felt
strongly about that, she’d, like Craig and I said, she’d be jumping up and down, and we’d be
reverberating.
MR. STROUGH-I don’t take Marilyn Ryba’s concerns lightly.
MRS. LA BOMBARD-But I think if Marilyn was really that concerned, she would have written us a
little something more.
MRS. MOORE-She did provide.
MRS. LA BOMBARD-I think Kathy O’Brien would have been jumping up and down.
MR. MAC EWAN-Laura, shed some light on this.
MRS. MOORE-I’m just saying, Marilyn did provide you with information, and John Strough has that
in his hands, in regards to DKC, when we reviewed this application under the petition for zone
change, I believe, is where that information came from.
66
(Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 10/16/01)
MR. MAC EWAN-Right.
MRS. MOORE-So it’s been an issue since the zone change.
MR. MAC EWAN-What’s Marilyn’s position on it?
MRS. MOORE-Other than identifying that there are areas in this property that have Karner blue,
again, we refer back to Kathy O’Brien to assist us in giving us direction as to what we can do to
protect that. The Board can always give her a timeframe. I think she would be able to respond.
MR. MAC EWAN-Well, we gave her 30 days to respond. That was one of the reasons why we
tabled this last month.
MRS. LA BOMBARD-Well, and you have here for the suggestion to put it in the deed that there is
an endangered species.
MR. STROUGH-Yes, well, we’re talking about a different location here, Cath. Well, this is the one
that Tony took such an interest in.
MR. MAC EWAN-John, I’m going to take the position that if Kathy O’Brien felt like she needed to
be.
MRS. LA BOMBARD-Kathy O’Brien would have been hooting and hollering long before now.
MR. VOLLARO-Well, the problem I have with that, John, is I can understand data being
accumulated on a basis where they’re taking a look at the broad brush and saying, well, this particular
area looks like it’s good habitat. It just looks good to me, but then when you go and do a field
analysis, you get empirical data that says there’s two plants, there’s great disparity there.
MR. STROUGH-Wait a minute. Let’s not get the two areas mixed up, Bob. Two plants over here.
We haven’t had any determination of significance for this area.
MR. STEVES-She walked the entire property.
MR. STROUGH-And she found two blue lupines.
MR. STEVES-That’s correct.
MR. STROUGH-I’m talking about Pine Bush.
MR. STEVES-She has to look at the entire piece of property for endangered species and habitat for
that endangered species. Pitch pine included. John, I understand your concern. That’s why we
hired, not hired, but that’s why we asked an expert, who is the Endangered Species Unit from DEC,
to investigate and walk the entire property, and we did. I don’t know where else you want me to go.
Do you want me to bring in a higher entity than the State DEC?
MR. STROUGH-I have to have it in writing from an authoritative agency that tells me so.
MR. MAC EWAN-John, look, we asked for it, we haven’t got it. That was one of the reasons why
we tabled this thing last month. We asked for that from her.
MR. STROUGH-Well, let’s give her another 30 days. I want some determination of significance for
this.
MR. MAC EWAN-How does everybody else feel about it?
MRS. LA BOMBARD-Can’t we approve it with that condition?
MR. STROUGH-Well, that would be fine with me.
MRS. LA BOMBARD-Put something in there about that?
MR. STROUGH-If the applicant, another 30 days. We’ll condition it. We’ll be reasonable. We’ll
give her 30 days to determine some kind of significance. If she determines no significance, then the
project is approved as conditioned.
MR. STEVES-One comment. She has looked at the significance. You’re asking her now to sign off
that the mitigating factors are suitable.
67
(Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 10/16/01)
MR. STROUGH-I want her to sign off, because it was addressed to me by somebody that works for,
is a member of the Planning Department.
MR. STEVES-I completely disagree because I had her on the site and she would have flagged it and
identified it at the time.
MR. STROUGH-Well, Marilyn’s going to be very careful about what she says to me in the future.
MR. STEVES-That’s fine.
MR. MAC EWAN-How does the rest of the Board feel about it?
MR. VOLLARO-Well, I think Marilyn can guide us in what she knows, but Marilyn hasn’t done field
investigations, and to me, empirical data is worth a lot more than data that was put together by
theory. What that theoretical data tells us is to go look. Once we’ve gone and looked and developed
empirical data, then that theoretical data takes a second order, position, at least in my mind.
MR. STROUGH-Yes, but the thing about it is, would you know a pine bush if you ran over it with
your car?
MR. VOLLARO-Me? I don’t even know what a lupine looks like.
MR. MAC EWAN-At this point, let’s not split hairs. I mean, I guess I’m looking at it from the
perspective that she’s already made a site visit. Had she found anything that was significant enough
to warrant her making action right away, she would have wasted no time getting information to the
Board, especially when we requested it specifically from her, and she didn’t do it.
MR. STROUGH-Okay. That’s your opinion.
MR. MAC EWAN-Right. That’s one opinion. I’ve got two basically sharing the same thing.
MRS. LA BOMBARD-She may have also said, I’m going to go back, would you hold off for a few
weeks, but she never did.
MR. MAC EWAN-Where are you on this?
MR. VOLLARO-Where are we here? You know where I am.
MR. MAC EWAN-I’m seeing that you’re hanging out there alone, Mr. Strough.
MR. STROUGH-Tony’s on my side.
MR. MAC EWAN-Tony just told me to the contrary.
MR. STROUGH-Tony the environmentalist.
MR. METIVIER-The only thing I stressed in my original, a long time ago, I think we should have
the buffer zone to prevent people from dumping, to keep people out of the middle of the part and
maybe the habitat will grow, but, let’s move forward.
MR. MAC EWAN-Okay.
MR. HUNSINGER-Can I change the subject?
MR. MAC EWAN-Sure.
MR. HUNSINGER-Going back to the Staff comments, barriers at the intersections of the NiMo
property. What would those barriers look like, though?
MR. STEVES-They’re the ones that Niagara Mohawk puts up. They put a chain across, or cable,
with typically an orange or a yellow rubberized like a giant hose over the top of it, and they usually
put two of them up.
MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. That was the other part of the question is where exactly would they be
located?
MR. HUNSINGER-They would be located on the property lines on the extreme easterly and the
extreme westerly portion of the property where the Niagara Mohawk power easement is, at the road.
68
(Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 10/16/01)
MR. MAC EWAN-You need to be clear on that. It doesn’t go across the entire easement? It only
goes across where vehicles are driving?
MR. STEVES-As in other subdivisions they have done, they have put typically either a cable here,
here, here, and here, on the property line of the highway bounds.
MR. HUNSINGER-So that’s four barriers, not two.
MR. STEVES-Or in this instance they might put it on the extreme easterly, but they’re also wanting
to try to prevent people from coming off the road and just using that, because if you put it going on
the westerly and easterly ends, then you could basically have a corridor around here, so that they
would typically block both sides of the road.
MR. MAC EWAN-How wide is that right of way?
MR. STEVES-Fifty foot wide.
MR. MAC EWAN-And you’re saying that they’ve stretched something across the entire 50 foot
width of that?
MR. STEVES-They typically will go inside the, in Hidden Hills, they went about 42 feet.
MR. MAC EWAN-Really?
MR. STEVES-Yes.
MR. MAC EWAN-Come on down to Morningside Circle. You’re lucky if they went 20. Just wide
enough to block off so a car could get through, but every ATV in Warren County goes through
there. I’m surprised at that.
MR. HUNSINGER-So that was, it would actually be four barriers?
MR. STEVES-Yes.
MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. I wanted to ask that question, because I think the Staff’s suggestions, to
me, in my mind, address the habitat issues.
MR. MAC EWAN-Note Three specifically?
MR. HUNSINGER-I’m looking at Three and Four specifically, Five, Six.
MR. MAC EWAN-Yes, that makes sense.
MR. HUNSINGER-So, I mean, that way, if Kathy comes back with more information at a future
date, to me, it’s covered by those Staff suggestions.
MR. MAC EWAN-Good observation.
MR. HUNSINGER-I mean, you know, I don’t know if it’s as detailed as what John was looking for.
MR. STROUGH-Well, I’m not sure we probably couldn’t condition that.
MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. Anything else? We’ll open up the public hearing. Does anyone want to
comment on this application?
PUBLIC HEARING OPENED
NO COMMENT
PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED
MR. MAC EWAN-Do we need to do a SEQRA?
MR. STEVES-SEQRA was granted at Preliminary.
MR. MAC EWAN-At Preliminary. All right.
MRS. LA BOMBARD-We did it.
69
(Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 10/16/01)
MR. MAC EWAN-I’m sorry. We don’t need to do it. Thank you. Does someone want to introduce
the resolution please.
MRS. MOORE--Before you address your resolution, can I go through some of the conditions or
suggestions that I have?
MRS. LA BOMBARD-Sure.
MRS. MOORE-I understand that, in regards to the six foot fence, that may still be in discussion
during your motion.
MR. MAC EWAN-The what?
MRS. MOORE-The six foot fence?
MR. MAC EWAN-Don’t bring that up again. It died. It died a very quick death.
MRS. MOORE-Okay. In regards to the installation of the barriers, just a clarification. Currently
NiMo doesn’t own that property. The owners do own that, and that’s where that barrier comes into
play, where the owner would be installing that barrier, and I would just add a note to a plan that a
detail of that type of barrier be noted on the plat.
MR. VOLLARO-Did you say the owner would be installing that barrier?
MRS. MOORE-That’s my understanding.
MR. VOLLARO-At owner’s expense?
MR. LAPPER-We’re conveying the property to NiMo.
MRS. MOORE-NiMo.
MR. LAPPER-And we can’t install it because that would interfere with the easement. They have the
right to pass. So we convey it. Then they can put up the barrier.
MR. VOLLARO-Okay.
MR. MAC EWAN-You’d want a detail of the barrier on the plat.
MRS. MOORE-Mr. Hunsinger pointed out, you actually both pointed out two things. One, you
were concerned about how wide it was, and Mr. Hunsinger brought up, what was the detail, and I
don’t know, if NiMo owns it, then I don’t know if they have a typical detail.
MR. NACE-We can’t put up the barrier until we turn the property over to NiMo, and then they’ve
got to put it up, and they’ll put it up to their standards.
MR. STROUGH-They’ve got to put it up so they can get vehicles in and out, etc.
MR. LAPPER-Right.
MR. NACE-Right.
MR. STROUGH-I mean, I would think that would be NiMo’s responsibility.
MR. NACE-It is NiMo’s responsibility. We really don’t have any control over how they construct
their barrier.
MR. HUNSINGER-But they have indicated that they would put up barriers?
MR. NACE-They always do it real classy.
MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. I mean, I’d be willing to leave that out as a condition, Mr. Chairman.
MRS. MOORE-Can I continue?
MR. HUNSINGER-Yes.
MRS. MOORE-Okay. In regards to my Item Number Three, if you’ll note, I have an added
comment in parenthesis, need additional information. I would just rather that you remove that “in
70
(Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 10/16/01)
addition”, “In addition the note on the plat should indicate that the Karner blue butterfly is the
Town butterfly”, unless the Board feels that they need to add that in there. I don’t think that’s
necessary. In regards to Item Number Four, I don’t have any comments on Number Four. I have
an additional item that may be helpful, is that a description of the flower and the butterfly should be
also added to the plat. I know that’s a lot of extra information, but the Board members obviously
had a concern about what the flower looks like, and what the butterfly was.
MR. STEVES-It won’t be in color, though.
MRS. MOORE-I understand that.
MR. VOLLARO-Why?
MRS. LA BOMBARD-Did you want the description of the plant and the butterfly, or, where?
MRS. MOORE-On the plat, and it’s up to the Board. It’s a suggestion, because Board members
indicated they didn’t know what the butterfly or the plant looked like.
MRS. LA BOMBARD-A description, or would you want a picture? A little drawing or a little
sketch?
MRS. MOORE-I have description.
MRS. LA BOMBARD-Okay. So it could be anyway.
MR. LAPPER-We could do a picture.
MRS. LA BOMBARD-That would be easier.
MR. LAPPER-Yes.
MRS. MOORE-And then the last item that I want to address is in regards to Kathy O’Brien. At last
month’s meeting, you tabled it for the applicant to refer this information to Kathy O’Brien, to follow
through and get a sign off letter from Kathy O’Brien, you can, again, ask that Staff do this instead of
the applicant.
MR. MAC EWAN-I believe I also asked Staff to do it, too, as I recall, and I know you made some
phone calls to her.
MRS. MOORE-Yes, I did.
MR. MAC EWAN-So, she didn’t act upon it. That’s the way I look at it.
MRS. MOORE-Okay.
MR. STEVES-And the applicant did send all the information immediately following the meeting. I
believe it was the next morning.
MR. MAC EWAN-Typically what I’ve been doing here in the last year or so is when we ask the
applicant to do one thing, like tonight with that DEC mining permit, I try to go both routes to make
sure we’re going to cover the basis.
MRS. MOORE-Okay.
MR. MAC EWAN-And I do recall doing it with that one. Okay. Does someone want to take a stab
at it?
MR. HUNSINGER-I’ll take a stab at it.
MR. MAC EWAN-All right.
MOTION TO APPROVE FINAL STAGE SUBDIVISION NO. 7-2001 DKC HOLDINGS,
INC, Introduced by Chris Hunsinger who moved for its adoption, seconded by Anthony Metivier:
WHEREAS, the Town Planning Board is in receipt of an application for Final Stage SB 7-2001,
DKC Holdings. Applicant proposes subdivision of a 23.14 +/- acre parcel into 28 residential lots.
Tax Map No. 93-2-20.1. Lot size: 23.14 +/- acres. Section: Subdivision Regulations. Cross
Reference: PZ 2-2000. Zoning: SFR-20, and;
71
(Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 10/16/01)
WHEREAS, the application was received 9/01;
WHEREAS, the above is supported with the following documentation, and inclusive of all newly
received information, not included is this listing as of 10/12/01;
10/16 Staff notes
10/12 Fax to T. Nace of staff notes
10/11 CT Male eng. comments
10/9 LM from R. Van Dusen
10/9 Notice of Public Hearing (sent in addition to prelim. stage requirement)
10/3 Meeting Notice
WHEREAS, public hearing was held 8/28/01 and 10/16/01 concerning the above project; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Board has determined that the proposal complies with the Subdivision
requirements of the Code of the Town 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 the Planning Board has adopted a SEQRA Negative Declaration; and/or if application is a
modification, the requirements of the State Environmental Quality Review Act have been
considered; and the proposed modification(s) do not result in any new or significantly different
environmental impacts, and, therefore, no further SEQRA review is necessary; and
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT
RESOLVED, that
The application for Final Stage is approved per the resolution prepared by Staff and is
subject to the following conditions:
1. The approval also includes the waiver for landscaping plan, and
1.
2. The Staff suggestions contained in the Staff write up dated October 16, 2001 be included
beginning with Item Three, as follows: Item Three, the middle sentence in there would be
deleted that begins with “In addition”, (excerpt from Staff Notes listed below), and
3. A note should be added to the plat indicating the purpose of the no-cut zones,
barriers, and signs is to protect the Karner Blue Butterfly and it’s habitat. This
information should also be included in the deed; the intent is to clearly inform
potential lot purchasers of the endangered species
4. The plat should also include the habitat locations; the intent is to document habitat
and ensure the protection is continued
5. The plat should also note that the NYSDEC has the right to enter the subdivision
and NIMO land within the subdivision to inspect and monitor the Karner Blue
Butterfly and it’s habitat; the intent is to grant permission to NYSDEC for
continuous monitoring.
6. The plat should include a note that invasive species should not be planted; the intent
to protect the habitat.
7. The plat should contain a note identifying the zoning requirements; SFR- 20.
Locate temporary turnarounds at the end of the dead streets
3. That an additional item be added that a description of the Karner Blue Butterfly and Karner
Blue Butterfly habitat would be noted on the plat, and
4. A 20 foot no cut zone between the subdivision and the adjacent light industrial property
along the south side of lots 17 through 26 be maintained, and
5. Installation of signs in locations shown on S-2, stating “Species Protection Area Debris or
Fill Not To Be Discarded In this Location”, and
6. All necessary outside agency approvals have been received by the applicant, with a copy sent
to and received by Planning Department Staff within 180 days.
7. The plat must be filed with the County Clerk within 60 days of receipt by Planning
Department Staff of outside agency approvals noted.
72
(Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 10/16/01)
8. All conditions are to be noted on the final mylar submitted for the Chairman’s signature in a
form to read as follows:
“Plans have been approved under authority of a resolution adopted _______ by the
Planning Board of the Town of Queensbury, New York with the following conditions:”
1.
Duly adopted this 16th day of October 2001 by the following vote:
MR. NACE-Chris, could you clarify, you said all of, you’re having all of the Staff suggestions
included.
MR. HUNSINGER-I’m sorry. I wasn’t clear on that. All of the Staff suggestions beginning with
Item Three.
MR. STROUGH-One thing, when you said description of the butterfly, wasn’t it a description of the
butterfly and plant, the blue lupine plant?
MR. HUNSINGER-Yes. A description of the Karner blue butterfly and habitat.
MR. STROUGH-And how about signage? Do we make anybody responsible for signage?
MR. MAC EWAN-NiMo’s going to be responsible.
MR. STROUGH-We decided against the fence. We all agreed on the signage, but it’s not a condition
I heard, and how’s the signage going to be worded and who’s, still, who’s going to maintain it is still a
question, but at least we can get it up there, and we’ll worry about the rest.
MR. HUNSINGER-Well, the buffer was already agreed to, install the signs. The issue, then, is
maintenance.
MR. STROUGH-What’s the signs going to say?
MR. VOLLARO-No dumping.
MR. STROUGH-I mean, Mark, do we have to state what the signs should say?
MR. SCHACHNER-There’s no requirement, but I wouldn’t discourage you from it. I think you’re
question’s an appropriate question. If you’re talking about, as I understand it, you’re talking about a
situation where there’s an agreement by the applicant to install certain signage in response to certain
concerns you’ve expressed as a Planning Board. I think clarifying what the signage is about is an
appropriate comment, or an appropriate request.
MR. HUNSINGER-Did you have suggested language, John?
MR. STROUGH-Well, the signage should say something to the effect of.
MR. MAC EWAN-Keep it smaller than a billboard.
MR. STROUGH-Well, I had it written out. I said it before. I’ve got it right here. “Species
Protection Area. Debris or Fill Not to be Discarded in this Location.”
MR. HUNSINGER-Okay.
MRS. LA BOMBARD-Okay. That sounds good.
MR. STROUGH-Now, those signs will be located where?
MR. HUNSINGER-They’re shown on the map.
MR. STROUGH-Are they?
MR. HUNSINGER-Yes.
MR. STROUGH-Okay.
MR. HUNSINGER-Shown on S-2.
MR. STROUGH-All right. That takes care of that.
73
(Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 10/16/01)
MR. HUNSINGER-That’s it.
MR. STROUGH-Nothing about last word from Kathy O’Brien?
MRS. LA BOMBARD-Well, that’s what Laura had said to sign get a signoff letter.
MR. STROUGH-I know what everybody had said, but, you know, and I appreciate everything the
applicant does to accommodate us, but that’s the one issue I have to negative vote on this, but it’s
going to pass anyway. So go ahead.
MR. HUNSINGER-Well, again, my feeling is the resolution includes that the plat identifies habitat
locations, and that’s sort of open-ended. So if Kathy comes back next week or a month from now
and identifies additional habitats, then they have to be protected.
MR. STROUGH-I don’t think that works that way.
MR. LAPPER-Habitats always have to be protected.
MR. SCHACHNER-Well, let’s be careful. I don’t think you should derive much comfort from that,
Chris, because unless there’s a specific DEC jurisdiction here, which I’m understanding there is not,
then whatever you approve tonight would be approved, and I haven’t heard a condition of approval,
unless I missed something here, I’m agreeing with Mr. Strough again, I think I’m agreeing with Mr.
Strough. I haven’t heard a condition of approval that requires any follow up from the DEC
Endangered Species Unit. I’m not suggesting.
MR. MAC EWAN-I don’t think we were going that way.
MR. SCHACHNER-No, no, no, and I’m not suggesting there should be, but I think Mr. Hunsinger
just indicated that if there was subsequent information from DEC about an area needing protection,
that it would automatically be deemed protected, and I don’t think that’s the case. So you need to
understand that. I think that’s what Mr. Strough was saying.
MR. STROUGH-That’s exactly.
MR. SCHACHNER-And I’m agreeing with you.
MR. MAC EWAN-I’m comfortable with those, what is it, three, four and five and six, as noted by
Staff comments being incorporated into this resolution, and I’ll say it again. She was given plenty of
opportunity to give her input into this thing, and she hasn’t. All right. The motion’s up. Does
someone want to second that, please?
MRS. LA BOMBARD-Well, wait a minute. After Mark just make that comment, you know, where
Chris said that he feels that the suggestions do enable somebody to come in and re-identify or look
again at the habitats, but then Mark went and said, that doesn’t necessarily mean that’s going to
happen.
MR. SCHACHNER-Well, can I clarify what I said, Cathy? You’re correct, but as I understand it,
we’re looking at Staff’s proposed Condition Number Five, which has been incorporated, or is about
to be incorporated, if I’m understanding this correctly, into a possible motion for approval. That
language says, the plat should also note, tell me if I’m in the wrong place here, but the plat should
also note that DEC has the right to enter the subdivision and NiMo land, within the subdivision, to
inspect and monitor the Karner blue butterfly and its habitat. The intent is to grant permission to
DEC for continuous monitoring. What I think Mr. Hunsinger said was something to the effect of,
I’m not putting words in Chris’ mouth, but Chris said something like if DEC comes in and finds
more habitat, it will be protected, and I’m saying, and I think John Strough is saying, that that
language does not mean that it will be protected. All that means is that DEC has the right to inspect
the property, and to monitor Karner blue activity there. But if what you approve calls for
development in a certain area. I don’t believe that language gives anybody the authority to prevent
development in that area, if it turns out it is in fact Karner blue habitat.
MR. HUNSINGER-See, I disagree with you, because I think Items Three, Four, and Six clearly
identify the intent to protect the Karner habitat.
MR. SCHACHNER-All right. Well, I’m only looking at Five. Let me look at Three, Four and Six.
MRS. LA BOMBARD-Well, I think there’s a lot in there that.
MR. STROUGH-Well, I would just like to get a signoff of non-significance from Kathy O’Brien and
I’d feel fine.
74
(Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 10/16/01)
MR. SCHACHNER-Well, Chris is right about Item Four. I mean, Item Four says “The plat should
also include the habitat locations. The intent is to document habitat and ensure the protection is
continued.” To that extent, if Condition Number Four, and you may want to clarify this, but if
Condition Number Four means that there are certain identified habitats, and those habitats are not to
be disturbed, then that’s fine. I mean, it could be strengthened. It doesn’t say theirs words, but it
cretainly would seem to indicate that that’s the intent. I obviously don’t know the facts of the matter,
as much as you all do and the applicant does, but I thought I understood Mr. Steves to indicate that
although it’s a substantially large site, that Ms. O’Brien only identified two very small areas as actual
habitat. Is that correct?
MR. STEVES-Correct. Two plants in one area.
MR. SCHACHNER-Two plants. Not even two areas.
MR. STEVES-Right. There is a large case that is south of this site.
MR. SCHACHNER-Right, not on this property.
MR. STEVES-But it is not on this site. There are two plants, and that’s the area that we have broken
off to be conveyed. There’s about 16,500 square feet of Niagara Mohawk, which looks like a lot but
it’s not, on the easterly border there.
MR. SCHACHNER-I guess I’m going to ask Staff, what’s referred to as the habitat locations in
Condition Four?
MR. LAPPER-That’s on the 16,500 square foot.
MR. SCHACHNER-Okay. So the 16,500, if that’s the number, square feet, is that a no disturbance
area?
MR. LAPPER-Yes.
MR. STEVES-Yes.
MR. LAPPER-That’s conveyed to NiMo.
MR. SCHACHNER-And no disturbance by applicant or by NiMo.
MR. STEVES-Right.
MR. SCHACHNER-Okay. So for the Board’s understanding, and again, anybody who wants, jump
in and tell me where I’m wrong here, but what I’m understanding is that, as a result of an on-site
inspection by DEC’s Endangered Species Unit, there were two lupine plants identified in one
particular area and that that area comprises approximately 16,500 square feet, and that the applicant
has identified that area as an area to be conveyed to Niagara Mohawk and as a no disturbance area,
and when Staff is proposing Condition Number Four which states, “The plat should also include the
habitat locations; the intent is to document habitat and ensure the protection is continued”, the
habitat area we’re talking about is the 16,500 square foot area. So far so good? Everybody? Okay.
So now, going back to what I think Chris was saying, if I’m understanding where Chris was coming
from, I thought Chris was saying that if, in the future, there’s further inspection by DEC’s
Endangered Species Unit, and if that inspection reveals further significant habitat, which doesn’t
sound likely to me, from what I’m hearing from the applicant, but that’s your decision, not my
decision, I think Chris was saying it will be protected, and I’m going to stay with my initial legal
opinion, and I think I’m agreeing with John Strough, that that’s not the case, in my opinion, under
this approval. Under this approval, and I’m not saying you shouldn’t be this way. That’s up to you
all, but under this approval as proposed, you will not be affording protection to any future identified
habitat. I’m not saying you should or shouldn’t. I’m just saying I don’t see that you are.
MR. HUNSINGER-Well, maybe we should then add that as an additional condition, that, in the
event that future habitat is identified, that efforts will be made to ensure its protection.
MR. SCHACHNER-Efforts will be made to ensure protection is not enforceable language. If you
want to add that as feel good language, that’s fine, but what you need to understand.
MR. HUNSINGER-The problem that we’re going to run into, that I can foresee, is.
MR. SCHACHNER-I don’t have a suggestion for enforceable language because you’re shooting at a
moving target here.
75
(Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 10/16/01)
MR. HUNSINGER-I go in and buy a lot, three years down the road, DEC says, you’ve got some
Karner blue butterfly habitat on your lot. How do you then enforce a private homeowner to?
MRS. LA BOMBARD-They move them, like they move the beavers that build the dams. They just
take the plants and move them to another area. Don’t they?
MR. STROUGH-I’ll go back to what I said originally, is we give Kathy O’Brien, we give her notice
tomorrow. She’s got 30 days to tell us if this pine bush area, as depicted on this map, is significant or
not. If she says no significance, there’s no change. We accept the plan as it is tonight, and that way I
think we protect all of our bases.
MR. LAPPER-She’s been there.
MR. STROUGH-Do you plan on putting a shovel in and starting tomorrow on this?
MRS. LA BOMBARD-Why can’t we give her two weeks? What does she need 30 days for?
MR. STEVES-That’s not the point. The point is with the two plants that she identified, it doesn’t
take up 16,000 square feet, but in order to create what we thought would be a reasonable protection
area, we gave you 16,000 square feet around two plants, John, that are about the size of that water
cup.
MR. STROUGH-I know but that’s information you’re giving me, Mr. Steves. You see, I have to
have.
MR. STEVES-That’s information, Mr. Strough, that Kathy O’Brien came to the site and flagged, and
I located it.
MR. STROUGH-Good.
MR. MAC EWAN-I really don’t want to banter around this anymore tonight. We have a motion up.
I asked for a second on it. I’m waiting for a second. As far as I’m concerned, this whole issue with
Kathy O’Brien, she’s been given opportunities to respond and she hasn’t done it.
MR. STROUGH-All right. Well, he made a motion. If he wishes to make an addition to the motion.
MR. MAC EWAN-He’s got a motion up. Do I have a second on the motion?
MR. METIVIER-I’ll second it.
AYES: Mr. Metivier, Mr. Hunsinger, Mrs. LaBombard, Mr. Seguljic, Mr. MacEwan
NOES: Mr. Strough, Mr. Vollaro
MR. MAC EWAN-You’re all set.
MR. LAPPER-Thank you.
MR. STEVES-Thank you.
MRS. MOORE-Craig, I have three additional items. I have a letter from Aviation Mall dated
October 16, 2001, I’d like to read into the record. This is in regards to who the tenant is on Seven
Steers. It says, “Dear Supervisor Brower: As required in the SEQRA Findings Statement for the
recent Mall expansion, Site Plan No. 21-2001, Pyramid Company of Glens Falls is pleased to inform
you that we have signed a lease with Play Xtreme Sports to occupy the former Seven Steers
Restaurant location.”
MR. STROUGH-Play Stream?
MRS. LA BOMBARD-Play Xtreme Sports.
MR. STROUGH-Well, what’s the addition to the Mall, then?
MR. MAC EWAN-I don’t know, but that project’s right on Target.
MRS. MOORE-The next thing is I have additional information from Decker, the Getty application.
They’re submitting their lighting plan. I didn’t want to hand it out until after the meeting so you had
it. So I have information to give to you. Then I have plats for Craig to sign.
76
(Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 10/16/01)
On motion meeting was adjourned.
RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED,
Craig MacEwan, Chairman
77